바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
 

logo

조절초점이 위험감수에 미치는 영향: 지각된 이득의 매개효과를 중심으로

The Effect of Regulatory Focus on Risk Taking: The Mediating Role of Perceived Gains

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격 / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2011, v.25 no.2, pp.209-221
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2011.25.2.011
정은경 (연세대학교)
김봄메 (연세대학교)
손영우 (연세대학교)

초록

본 연구에서는 위험관련 의사결정의 개인차를 설명하는 요인으로 기존의 성격적 특성이 아닌 동기시스템인 조절초점을 상정하고, 조절초점이 일상생활에서 위험관련 선택을 할 때 어떤 영향을 미치는지를 일상생활 시나리오(연구 1, 2)와 정책결정 시나리오(연구 3)를 사용하여 알아보았다. 아울러 지각된 위험과 지각된 이득이 조절초점과 위험선택을 매개하는지 또한 검증하였다(연구 2, 연구 3). 연구 1에서는 위험 및 이득 확률이 포함되지 않은 자연스러운 상황의 시나리오를 사용하였으며 연구 2에서는 위험확률과 이득확률을 제시한 시나리오를 사용하였다. 연구 1과 연구 2의 결과, 향상초점의 사람들이 예방초점의 사람들에 비해 더 위험감수적인 선택을 하는 것으로 나타났으며 지각된 이득이 조절초점과 위험관련 의사결정의 관계를 매개하는 것으로 나타났다. 지각된 위험의 매개효과는 관찰되지 않았다. 연구 3에서는 긍정틀과 부정틀로 나뉘어 연구가 실시되었는데, 부정틀에서만 조절초점의 효과가 나타났으며, 지각된 이득의 매개효과도 부정틀에서만 나타났다. 연구 결과는 조절초점이 위험감수선택에 영향을 미치나 이것은 틀효과라는 상황적 특성에 의해 상쇄될 수 있음을 보여주었으며, 지각된 위험보다는 지각된 이득이 위험감수 선택에 더 중요할 가능성을 제시하였다.

keywords
regulatory focus, risk taking, perceived risk, perceived gains, framing effect, 조절초점, 위험감수, 지각된 위험, 지각된 이득, 틀효과

Abstract

The present study aimed to explore individual differences in risk taking and provide empirical testing of the role of regulatory focus on risk taking. Everyday risk taking task included both (a) natural scenarios without explicit probabilities of risk and gains (Study 1) and (b) scenarios with them (Study 2). The findings of Studies 1 and 2 showed that chronic regulatory focus has influence on everyday risk taking. Specifically, risk taking occurred under promotion focus, whereas risk aversion occurred under prevention focus. In addition, the perceived gains were found to mediate the relationship between regulatory focus and risk taking related decision. However, the perceived risk was found to have no mediating effect on regulatory focus and risk taking related decision. Study 3 using policy scenarios supported the findings of Studies 1 and 2 except that the effect of regulatory focus occurred only in the negative frame. Our results indicate that individual differences in risk taking can be explained by the regulatory focus theory and risk taking can be influenced by different gain perception, but not risk perception. However, the effect of regulatory focus can be moderated by framing effect.

keywords
regulatory focus, risk taking, perceived risk, perceived gains, framing effect, 조절초점, 위험감수, 지각된 위험, 지각된 이득, 틀효과

참고문헌

1.

Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006) Power,optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal ofSocial Psychology, 36, 511-536.

2.

Connolly, T., & Reb, J. (2003). Omission bias invaccination decisions: Where's the "omission"?Where's the "bias"? Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 91, 186-202.

3.

Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focusand strategic inclinations: Promotion andprevention in decision making. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 69,117-132.

4.

Gambetti, E., & Giusberti, F. (2009) Dispositionalanger and risk decision-making. Mind andSociety, 8, 7-20.

5.

Grant, H., & Higgins, E.T. (2003) Optimism,Promotion Pride, and Prevention Pride asPredictors of Quality of Life. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1521-1532.

6.

Hamstra, M. R. W., Bolderdijk, J. W., & Veldstra, J.L. (in press) Everyday risk taking as a functionof regulatory focus. Journal of Research inPersonality.

7.

Higgins, E. T. (1997) Beyond pleasure and pain.American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300.

8.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) "Prospecttheory: An analysis of decisions under risk".Econometrica, 47, 263-291.

9.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984) "Choices,values and frames". American Psychologist, 39,341-350.

10.

Katz, E., Fromme, K., & D'Amico, E. (2000) Effectsof outcome expectancies and personality onyoung adults' illicit drug use, heavy drinking,and risky sexual behavior. Cognitive Therapyand Research, 24, 1-22.

11.

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H. & Anderson, C. (2003) Power, Approach, and Inhibition, PsychologicalReview, 110, 265-284.

12.

Kluger, A. N., Stephan, E., Ganzach, Y., &Hershkovitz, M. (2004) "The Effect of RegulatoryFocus on the Shape of Probability-weightingFunction: Evidence from a Cross-ModalityMatching Method", Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 95, 20-39.

13.

Nicholson, N., Soane, E., Fenton-O'Creevy, M., &Willman, P. (2005). Personality anddomain-specific risk taking. Journal of RiskResearch 8, 157-176.

14.

Olson, B. D., & Suls, J. (2000). Self-, other-, andideal-judgments of risk and caution as afunction of the five-factor model of personality.Personality And Individual Differences, 28,425-436.

15.

Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001) Negativity bias,negativity dominance, and contagion. Personalityand Social Psychology Review, 5, 296-320.

16.

Scholer, A. A., Zou, X., Fujita, K., Stroessner, S. J.,Higgins, E. T. (2010) When risk-seekingbecomes a motivational necessity. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 99, 215-231.

17.

Sechrist, G. B. (2010) Making Attributions to andPlans to Confront Gender Discrimination: TheRole of Optimism. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 40, 1678-1707.

18.

Slattery, J. P., & Ganster, D. C. (2002) Determinantsof risk taking in a dynamic uncertain contextJournal of Management, 28, 89-106.

19.

Tom, S. M., Fox, C. R., Trepel, C., & Poldrack, R.A. (2007) The Neural Basis of Loss Aversion inDecision-Making Under Risk. Science, 315,515-518.

20.

Vaish, A., Grossmann, T., & Woodward, A. (2008).Not All Emotions Are Created Equal: TheNegativity Bias in Social-EmotionalDevelopment. Psychological Bulletin 134,383-403.

21.

Weber, E. U., Blais, A.-R., & Betz, N. (2002) Adomain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuringrisk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal ofBehavioral Decision Making, 15, 263-290.

22.

Wroe, A. L., Bhan, A., Salkovskis, P, & Bedford, H.(2005). Feeling bad about immunising ourchildren. Vaccine, 23, 1428-1433.

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격