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

  • P-ISSN1229-0653
  • KCI

ISSN : 1229-0653

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.26 No.2

Citation Share

문화성향 점화와 기억의도가 장면 지각에 미치는 효과

Effects of Priming of Cultural Dispositions and Intention of Memory on the Scene Perception

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격 / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2012, v.26 no.2, pp.15-34
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2012.26.2.002
김비아 (부산대학교)
이윤경 (부산대학교)
이재식 (부산대학교)
신현정 (부산대학교)
김비아, 이윤경, 이재식, & 신현정. (2012). 문화성향 점화와 기억의도가 장면 지각에 미치는 효과. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 26(2), 15-34, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2012.26.2.002

초록

문화점화 글쓰기 과제를 통해 개인주의와 집단주의 문화성향을 점화시킨 후, 두 조건 간에 장면을 지각하는 방식의 차이를 정보처리적 관점에서 검증하는 두 실험을 실시하였다. 개인주의 성향을 점화시킨 참가자들에 비해 집단주의 성향을 점화시킨 참가자들은 전경은 물론 전경과 배경 간의 관계에도 주의를 기울일 것이라고 가정하였다. 이를 검증하기 위하여 점화조건(개인주의 점화, 집단주의 점화), 전경-배경 관련성 정도(자연스러움, 부자연스러움), 그리고 장면 변화(전경변화, 배경변화)에 처치를 가한 2×2×2 혼합 요인설계를 사용하였다. 또한 선행 연구들에서 참가자에게 제시한 지시문이 상대적으로 주의를 많이 요구하지 않는 과제(선호도 평정)와 많이 요구하는 과제(재인과제)로 나뉘어 일관되지 않은 결과를 보였으므로, 본 연구에서는 실험 1(선호도 평정 지시)과 실험 2(재인검사 지시)에서 서로 다른 지시문을 제시하여 장면을 지각할 때 갖는 기억의도가 미치는 영향도 검증하였다. 분석 결과, 실험 1에서 개인주의 성향을 점화시킨 참가자들에 비해 집단주의 성향을 점화시킨 참가자들이 전경-배경 조합이 부자연스러운 장면에 대한 정확 반응율이 높았다. 이는 후자가 전자에 비해 상대적으로 전체를 보는 조망을 가짐으로써 전경-배경 간의 관련성 파악에 더 많은 인지적 노력을 기울인 것으로 해석 가능하다. 그러나 기억검사를 미리 지시한 실험 2에서는 실험 1에서 나타났던 점화조건 간 차이가 사라졌다. 이러한 결과는 문화성향 점화효과가 동일 문화권의 동일 민족에서도 나타날 수 있다는 사실을 시사한다. 특히 문화성향의 점화에 관계없이 장면을 지각할 때 갖는 의도에 따라 전경과 배경에 할당하는 주의가 영향을 받을 수 있음을 시사한다. 마지막으로 본 연구의 함의와 제한점을 논의하였다.

keywords
문화성향 점화, 점화효과, 장면 지각, 개인주의, 집단주의, 문화점화 글쓰기 과제, cultural priming, priming effect, scene perception, individualism, collectivism, cultural priming story writing task

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to investigate whether priming of either individualistic or collectivistic disposition in the same culture and race can affect perception of the natural scenes in the viewpoint of information processing approach. It was hypothesized that individualistically primed participants pay more attention to the foreground than the background, whereas collectivistically primed participants pay attention to the relation between the foreground and the background as well as the foreground during scene perception. In both experiments, a newly constructed ‘cultural priming story writing task’ was used to prime the participants to either individualism or collectivism. Also, a 2×2×2 mixed factorial design with cultural disposition(individualism vs. collectivism) as a between-subjects factor and figure-ground relevance(naturalness vs. unnaturalness) and change of scene(figure vs. ground change) as within-subject factors was used. In addition, focusing on the contradictory results of previous studies, we used different instructions in the two experiments. In Experiment 1,participants were instructed to rate the preference of the scenes in the learning phase as in Chua et al.(2005),whereas they were informed the recognition test beforehand as in Rayner et al.(2007) in Experiment 2. The results of Experiment 1 showed that the correct recognition rates of the collectivistically primed participants were better than those of the individualistically primed participants when the scenes were unnatural and when the background were changed in the recognition phase. These results were interpreted that the former having relatively holistic viewpoints pay more attention to the relation between the foreground and the background. In contrast, the differences disappeared in Experiment 2 where the recognition test was informed beforehand. These results suggest that the cultural priming effects can be elicited in the same culture and the race. Furthermore, it was suggested that intention to memorize the scenes can affect the attentional allocation to the foreground and the background regardless of the cultural dispositions. Implications and the limitations of this study were discussed in the final discussion section.

keywords
문화성향 점화, 점화효과, 장면 지각, 개인주의, 집단주의, 문화점화 글쓰기 과제, cultural priming, priming effect, scene perception, individualism, collectivism, cultural priming story writing task

참고문헌

1.

김정식, 송유진, 이성수 (2008). 문화점화가 자기평가에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 22, 177-194.

2.

Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “We?” Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83-93.

3.

Cha, J. H., & Nam, K. D. (1985). A test of Kelley’s cube theory of attribution: A cross-cultural replication of McArthur’s study. Korean Social Science Journal, 12, 151-180.

4.

Choi, I., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). Situational salience and cultural differences in the correspondence bias and in the actor-observer bias. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 949-960.

5.

Chua, H. F., Boland, J. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (2005). Cultural variation in eye movements during scene perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 12629-12633.

6.

Davenport, J. L., & Potter, M. C. (2004). Scene consistency in object and background perception. Psychological Science, 15, 1211-1222.

7.

Evans, K., Rotello, C. M., Li, X., & Rayner, K. (2009). Scene perception and memory revealed by eye movements and receiver-operating characteristic analyses: Dose a cultural difference truly exist? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 276-285.

8.

Hong, Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55, 709-720.

9.

Kühnen, U., & Hannover, B. (2000). Assimilation and contrast in social comparisons as a consequence of self-construal activation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 799-811.

10.

Markus, H, R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

11.

Masuda, T., & Nisbett, R. E. (2001). Attending holistically vs. analytically: Comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 922–934.

12.

Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 949-971.

13.

Oyserman, D., & Lee, S. W. S. (2008). Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 311-342.

14.

Peng, K., & Knowles, E. D. (2003). Culture, Education, and the Attribution of Physical Causality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1272-1284.

15.

Rayner, K., Li, X., Williams, C. C., Cave, K. R., & Well, A. D. (2007). Eye movements during information processing tasks: Individual differences and cultural effects. Vision Research, 47, 2714-2726.

16.

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19-45.

17.

Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550-562.

18.

Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 240-275.

19.

van Baaren, R. B., Maddux, W. W., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). It takes two to mimic: Behavioral consequences of self-construals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1093-1102.

20.

Utz, S. (2004). Self-construal and cooperation: Is the interdependent self more cooperative than the independent self? Self and Identity, 3, 177-190.

21.

Wong, R. Y-M., & Hong, Y. (2005). Dynamic Influences of culture on cooperation in the prisoner’s dilemma. Psychological Science, 16, 429-434.

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격

논문 투고 OA 정책