바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

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

logo

ISSN : 1229-0653

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.25 No.3

Citation Share

'누구’의 생각이니까: 거점효과에서 제공자 신빙성의 역할

If 'Who' Thinks So: The Impacts of Source Credibility on Anchoring Effects

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격 / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2011, v.25 no.3, pp.47-60
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2011.25.3.004
박희정 (고려대학교)
최승혁 (고려대학교)
김현정 (고려대학교)
허태균 (고려대학교)
박희정, 최승혁, 김현정, & 허태균. (2011). '누구’의 생각이니까: 거점효과에서 제공자 신빙성의 역할. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 25(3), 47-60, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2011.25.3.004

초록

사람들은 불확실한 상황에서 판단을 내릴 때 판단 직전에 외부로부터 주어지거나 머릿속에 떠오른 숫자정보에 영향을 받아서 그 정보에 근사치로서 판단을 내리는 경향이 있는데, 이러한 현상을 거점효과라고 한다. 거점효과가 일어나는 상황에는 정보 제공자와 수신자라는 둘 이상의 사람의 상호작용이 항상 존재함에도 불구하고, 기존 연구들은 거점효과에 영향을 미치는 대인적이고 사회적인 요인들을 간과해왔다. 본 연구에서는 거점을 제공하는 사람의 신빙성을 조작하여, 그에 따른 거점효과의 차이를 확인하였다. 우선 예비연구를 통해 본 연구들에서 사용될 6개의 문항과 고/저 거점 값을 선별하였다. 연구 1에서는 선별된 질문의 각각에 대해 우선 피험자는 거점제공자의 신빙성을 평가하고, 후에 신빙성이 높은 또는 낮은 제공자로부터 거점정보를 제공 받고나서 실제 관련 주제에 대한 자신의 추정치를 보고하였다. 예상대로, 개인이 지각한 거점 제공자의 신빙성이 거점효과의 크기에 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 즉, 같은 거점 정보라도 신빙성이 높은 사람이 제시하였을 때, 신빙성이 낮은 사람이 제시하였을 때보다 더 큰 거점효과를 발생시켰다. 연구 1이 피험자 내 설계로 구성되어 요구특성이 일어났을 우려가 있기에, 연구 2에서는 거점제공자의 신빙성을 피험자 간 변인으로 처치하여 반복검증하였다. 연구 2에서도 연구 1과 일관되게 거점제공자의 신빙성 효과를 확인하였다. 거점효과의 발생에서 거점 제공자의 신빙성과 같은 대인적이고 사회적인 심리기제의 역할의 관점에서, 이러한 결과의 학문적⋅실용적 의미 및 추후 연구에 대한 제언을 논의하였다.

keywords
anchoring effect, source credibility, uncertainty, judgmental bias, interpersonal factors, 거점효과, 출처 신빙성, 불확실성, 판단오류, 대인적 요인

Abstract

Anchoring effect refers to the phenomenon that judgments under uncertainty are likely to be influenced too much by numerical information given in advance. The previous efforts that investigated underlying mechanisms of the anchoring effects were relatively cognitive-oriented and have mostly ignored the interpersonal and social factors. But the contexts in which the anchoring effects occur involve always at least two real or hypothetical persons, information giver and receiver. The present study examined the role of source credibility (how credible the person who provides the anchoring information is) in anchoring effects. A pretest adapted from Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995) was conducted to selected the issue items that showed the biggest anchoring effects in Korea. In Study 1 of computer-administrated experiment, participants first made their own ranks potential source persons with various jobs on expertise for each issue and then made their own judgments on the issues when given anchoring information either from highly credible sources or low credible sources. As expected, the information given by high credible sources caused larger anchoring effects than that by low credible sources. In order to ruling out the possibility of demand characteristics, Study 2 replicated the finding by employing a between-subject design. Those findings were discussed suggesting the social and interpersonal perspective for understanding the anchoring effect.

keywords
anchoring effect, source credibility, uncertainty, judgmental bias, interpersonal factors, 거점효과, 출처 신빙성, 불확실성, 판단오류, 대인적 요인

참고문헌

1.

이종성, 강계남, 김양분, 강상진 (2007). 사회과학 연구를 위한 통계방법, 제4판. 서울: 박영사.

2.

Anderson, K. E., & Clevenger, T. (1963). Asummary of experimental research in ethos.Speech Monographs, 30, 59-78.

3.

Benoit, W. L. (1991) A cognitive response analysisof source credibility. Progress in CommunicationSciences, 10, 1-19.

4.

Berscheid, E. (1985). Interpersonal attraction.Handbook of Social Psychology, 2, 413-484.

5.

Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). Physicalattractiveness. Advances in Experimental SocialPsychology, 7, 157-215.

6.

Cervone, D. & Peake, P. K. (1986). Anchoring,efficacy, and action: The influence of judgmentalheuristics on self-efficacy judgments andbehavior. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 50, 492-501.

7.

Chaiken, S. (1979). Communicator physicalattractiveness and persuasion. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 37, 1387-1397.

8.

Chapman, G. B. & Johnson, E. J. (1994). The limitsof anchoring. Journal of Behavioral DecisionMaking, 7, 223-242.

9.

Chertkoff, J. M., & Conley, M. (1967). Opening offerand frequency of concession as bargainingstrategies. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 7, 181-185.

10.

Englich, B., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). Sentencingunder uncertainty: Anchoring effects in thecourtroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,31, 1535-1551.

11.

Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2005). When effortfulthinking influences judgmental anchoring:Differential effects of forewarning and incentiveson self-generated and externally providedanchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,18, 199-212.

12.

Epley. N. (2004). A tale of tuned decks? Anchoringas accessibility and anchoring as adjustment,Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and DecisionMaking, Chapter 12, 241-257.

13.

Hass, R. G. (1981). Effects of source characteristicson cognitive responses and persuasion. In R. E.Petty, T. M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock (Eds.),Cognitive responses in persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

14.

Jacowitz, K. E., & Kahneman, D. (1995). Measuresof anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1161-1166.

15.

Janiszewski, C., & Uy, D. (2008). Precision of theanchor influences the amount of adjustment.Psychological Sciences, 19, 121-127.

16.

Kahle, L. R., & Homer, P. M. (1985). Physicalattractiveness of the celebrity endorser: A socialadaptation perspective. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 11, 954-961.

17.

LeBoeuf, R. A., & Shafir, E. (2009). Anchoring onthe “Here” and “Now” in time and distance judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology,35, 81-93.

18.

Liebert, R. M., Smith, W. P., Hill, J. H., & Keiffer,M. (1968). The effects of information andmagnitude of initial offer on interpersonalnegotiation. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 4, 431-441.

19.

McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes andattitude change. Handbook of Social Psychology,3, 136-314.

20.

Mussweiler, T. & Strack, F. (2000) Numericjudgment under uncertainty: The role ofknowledge in anchoring. Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 36, 495-518.

21.

Mussweiler, T. & Strack, F. (2001). “Considering theimpossible”: Explaining the effects of implausibleanchors. Social Cognition, 19, 145-160.

22.

Northcraft, G. B. & Neale, M. A. (1987). Experts,amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-andadjustmentperspective on property pricingdecisions. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 39, 84-97.

23.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Issueinvolvement as a moderator of the effects onattitude of advertising content and context.Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 20-24.

24.

Qu, C., Wang, J., & Luo, Y. (2008). Inconspicuousanchoring effects generated by false information.Progress in Natural Science, 18(11), 1375-1382.

25.

Quattrone, G. A., Lawrence, C. P., Finkel, S. E., &Andrus, D. C. (1981). Explorations in anchoring:The effects of prior range, anchor extremity, andsuggestive hints. Unpublished manuscript,Stanford University.

26.

Quattrone, G. A. (1982). Overattribution and unitformation: When behavior engulfs the person.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,42, 593-607.

27.

Strack, F. & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining theenigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms ofselective accessibility. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 73, 437-446.

28.

Sternthal, B., Dholakia, R., & Leavitt, C. (1978). Thepersuasive effect of source credibility: Asituational analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly,42, 285-314.

29.

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgmentunder uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science,185, 1124-30.

30.

Walster, E., Aronson, E., & Abrahams, D. (1966). Onincreasing the persuasiveness of a low prestigecommunicator. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 2, 325-342.

31.

Wansink, B., Kent, R. J., & Hoch, S. J. (1998). Ananchoring and adjustment model of purchasequantity decisions. Journal of MarketingResearch, 35, 71-81.

32.

Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Detweiler-Bedell, B.T., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (2001). Implications ofattitude change theories for numerical anchoring:Anchor plausibility and the limits of anchoreffectiveness. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 37, 62-69.

33.

Wegener. D. T., Petty, R. E., Blankenship, K. L., &Detweiler-Bedell, B. (2010). Elaboration andnumerical anchoring: Implications of attitudetheories for consumer judgment and decisionmaking. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20,5-6.

34.

Wilson, E. J., & Sherrell, D. L. (1993). Source effectsin communication and persuasion research: Ameta-analysis of effect size. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 21, 101-112.

35.

Wong, K. F. E., & Kwong, J. Y. Y. (2000). Is 7300mequal to 7.3km? Same semantics but differentanchoring effects. Organizational Behavior &Human Decision Processes, 82, 314-333.

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격

논문 투고 OA 정책