A Test of Folk Psychological Model for ‘Jeong’(Interpersonal Affection) ‘Maum’(Mind)

김기범

doi:10.21193/kjspp.2009.23.1.009

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

Log In/Sign Up
P-ISSN1229-0653
KCI

Home

ISSN : 1229-0653

Article Contents

Prev Next

e-Submission

Vol.23 No.1

Citation Share

A Test of Folk Psychological Model for ‘Jeong’(Interpersonal Affection) ‘Maum’(Mind)

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;

2009, v.23 no.1, pp.147-163

https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2009.23.1.009

(2009). A Test of Folk Psychological Model for ‘Jeong’(Interpersonal Affection) ‘Maum’(Mind). Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 23(1), 147-163, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2009.23.1.009

copy

Abstract

This study was to test for Jeong (interpersonal affection) Maum (mind) through SEM. In view of folk psychology, everyday understanding of human action requires an understanding of other minds (Kashima, McKintyre, & Clifford, 1998). Folk psychological understanding, prediction, and explanation of human action may be based on the categorization of observed behaviors and events into the category of folk psychological mind. I hypothesized a folk model of Jeong Maum and tested it by structural equation modeling analysis. The folk model of Jeong Maum was consisted of belief, desire, and intention as a category of Maum. I also tested the relationship between the category of Jeong Maum and behavior, and the influence of emotion on the category of Maum. The results revealed that the influence of desire was stronger than belief on intention as a category of Jeong Maum. However, Jeong emotion influenced much on belief. Jeong emotion also influenced on behavior. Thus, the emotion which would feel in Jeong-deun relationship is likely to relate to belief, desire and behavior. This results implied that emotion could have constitutive function in the category of Maum.

keywords: Jeong, Maum, Cultural Psychology, Belief, Desire, 정, 마음, 문화심리학, 신념, 욕구

Reference

김의철 (2000). 토착심리학과 문화심리학의 과학적 토대. 한국심리학회지：사회문제, 6(3), 1-24.

위르겐 하버마스, 이강수 역 (1994). 커뮤니케이션 행위이론 I. 서울：나남.

이장주 (1998). 정 상호작용 행위 유형의 문화심리적 기능. 중앙대학교 석사학위논문.

최상진 (1999). 제 1장 서론. 최상진, 윤호균, 한덕웅, 조긍호, 이수원 (공저), 동양심리학：서구심리학에 대한 대안 모색(pp.9-30). 서울：지식산업사.

최상진 (2000). 한국인 심리학. 서울：중앙대학교 출판부.

최상진 (2000). 문화 문화심리학의 이론과 실제：지난 20여 년간의 심리학 연구를 통해서 얻은 문화심리학적 경험. 한국심리학회지：사회문제, 6(3), 25-40.

최상진, 김지영, 김기범 (2000). 정(미운정 고운정)의 심리적 구조, 행위 및 기능간의 구조적 관계 분석. 한국심리학회지：사회 및 성격, 14(1), 203-222.

최상진, 유승엽 (1995). 정의 심리적 구조에 대한 경험적 분석. 국제여성연구소 연구논총, 5(1), 중앙대학교, 107-132.

최상진, 이장주 (1999). 정의 심리적 구조와 사회-문화적 기능분석. 한국심리학회지：사회 및 성격, 13(1), 219-233.

10.

최상진, 최인재, 김기범 (1999). 정, 체면민감성이 스트레스와 문제대응방식에 미치는 영향. 한국사회 및 성격심리학회 동계학술발표대회, pp. 28-44.

11.

최상진, 한규석 (1998). 심리학에서의 객관성, 보편성 및 사회성의 오류：문화심리학의 도전. 한국심리학회지：일반, 17(1), 73-96.

12.

최상진, 한규석 (2000). 문화심리학적 연구방법론. 한국심리학회지：사회 및 성격, 14(2), 123-144.

13.

최상진, 한규석, 김기범 (2000). 문화, 마음, 인지 구성에서의 삼위일체적 역동. 한국사회 및 성격심리학회 동계학술발표회, pp.13-19.

14.

최상진, 한규석, 김기범 (2001). 문화사회심리학에서의 마음. 한국심리학회 연차학술대회, pp.241-249.

15.

한덕웅 (1994). 퇴계심리학：성격 및 사회심리학적 접근. 서울：성균관대학교 출판부.

16.

한덕웅 (1999). 한국 유학의 심리학. 최상진, 윤호균, 한덕웅, 조긍호, 이수원(공저), 동양심리학：서구심리학에 대한 대안 모색(pp.163-285). 서울：지식산업사.

17.

한덕웅 (2000). 대인관계에서 4단 7정 정서의 경험. 한국심리학회지：사회 및 성격, 14(2), 145-166.

18.

Bartsch, K., & Wellman, H. M. (1995). Children talk about the mind. New York：Oxford University Press.

19.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246.

20.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606.

21.

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA：Harvard University Press.

22.

Choi, S. C. (1998). The third-person-psychology and the first-person psychology：Two perspectives on human relations. Korean Social Science Journal, 25, 239- 264.

23.

Choi, S. C., & Choi, S. H. (2001). Cheong：The socio- emotional grammar of Koreans. International Journal of Group Tensions, 30(1), 69-80.

24.

Choi, S. C., Kim, J-Y, & Kim, K. (1999). Sweet Cheong and hateful Cheong. Paper presented at the 3rd Conference of the Asian Association of Social Psy- chology, August 4-8, Taipei, Taiwan.

25.

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology：A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA：Harvard Univer- sity Press.

26.

D'Andrade, R. (1987). A folk model of the mind. In D. Holland & N. Quinn(Eds.), Cultural models in lan- guage and thought(pp.112-148). Cambridge, Eng- land：Cambridge University Press.

27.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, inten- tion, and behavior：An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA：Addison-Wesley.

28.

Goldman, A. I. (1993). The psychology of folk psy- chology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 15-28.

29.

Greenwood, J. D. (1991). Introduction：Folk psychology and scientific psychology. In J. D. Greenwood (Ed.), The future of folk psychology：Intentionality and cognitive science(pp.1-21). Cambridge, NY：Cambridge University Press.

30.

Greenwood, J. D. (1999). From Völkerpsychogie to cultural psychology：The once and future dis- cipline? Philosophical Psychology, 12(4), 503-514.

31.

Haselager, W. F. G. (1997). Cognitive science and folk psychology：The right frame of mind. London：Sage.

32.

Kaplan, D. (1995). Structural equation modeling. Thou- sand Oaks：Sage.

33.

Kashima, Y., McKintyre, A., & Clifford, P. (1998). The category of the mind：Folk psychology of belief, desire, and intention. Asian Journal of Social Psy- chology, 1, 289-313.

34.

Lillard, A. (1998). Ethnopsychologies：Cultural variations in theories of mind. Psychological Bulletin, 123(1), 3-32.

35.

Malle, B., & Knobe, J. (1997). The folk concept of intentionality. Journal of Experimental Social Psy- chology, 33, 101-121.

36.

Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit in confirmatory factor analysis：The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 391-410.

37.

Moscovici, S. (1984). The phenomenon of social represen- tations. In R. M., Farr, & S. Moscovici(Eds.), Social representations(pp.3-69). Cambridge, Lon- don：Cambridge University Press.

38.

Shapiro, L. A. (1997). The nature of nature：Rethinking of naturalistic theories of intentionality. Philosophical Psychology, 10(3), 309-322.

39.

Shore, B. (1996). Culture in mind：Cognition, culture, and the problem of meaning. New York：Oxford University Press.

40.

Shweder, R. A. (1990). Cultural psychology：What is it? In J. W. Stigler, R. A. Shweder, & G. Herdt(Eds.), Cultural psychology：Essays on comparative human development(pp.1-43). Cambridge：Cambridge Uni- versity Press.

41.

Shweder, R. A. (1991). Thinking through cultures. MA：Harvard University Press.

42.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society：The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge：Harvard University Press.

43.

Wellman, H. M. (1990). The child's theory of mind. Cambridge, MA：The MIT Press.

44.

Wertsch, J. V., Rio, P. D., & Alvarez, A. (1995). Socio- cultural studies of mind. Cambridge University Press.

45.

Yu, S. Y., Kim, K., & Lee, K. U. (2001). Folk model of the Maum(mind)：Based on Cheong interaction. Paper presented at the Asian Association of Social Psychology, Melbourne, July 10-13, Australia.

바로가기메뉴

Article Contents

Vol.23 No.1

A Test of Folk Psychological Model for ‘Jeong’(Interpersonal Affection) ‘Maum’(Mind)

Abstract

Reference

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology