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.26 No.2

Citation Share

개인적 특성이 위험감수 의사결정에 미치는 영향: 지각된 이득과 지각된 손실의 매개효과를 중심으로

The Effect of Individual Traits on Risk-taking Decision-making: The Mediating Role of Perceived Benefits and Perceived Costs

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격 / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2012, v.26 no.2, pp.51-67
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2012.26.2.004
박소영 (연세대학교)
정은경 (백석대학교)
손영우 (연세대학교)
박소영, 정은경, & 손영우. (2012). 개인적 특성이 위험감수 의사결정에 미치는 영향: 지각된 이득과 지각된 손실의 매개효과를 중심으로. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 26(2), 51-67, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2012.26.2.004

초록

본 연구에서는 개인적 특성(구조화욕구, 인지욕구)이 위험감수 의사결정에 미치는 영향과 더불어 지각된 이득과 지각된 손실의 매개효과를 살펴보았다. 연구 1에서는 일상생활에서 접할 수 있는 위험감수 상황을 영역 별로 제시하였다. 연구 1의 결과에 의하면 구조화욕구가 인지욕구보다 위험감수 의사결정과 더 높은 상관관계를 가지는 것으로 나타났으며, 지각된 이득의 매개효과가 지각된 손실의 매개효과보다 더 일관되게 나타났다. 연구 2에서는 틀 조건에서도 지각된 이득의 매개효과가 지각된 손실의 매개효과보다 더 일관되게 나타나는지 알아보기 위해, 정책결정 상황을 긍정 틀(이득 강조)과 부정 틀(손실 강조)로 나누어 제시하였다. 그 결과, 부정 틀에서만 구조화욕구가 지각된 이득을 통해 정책결정에 영향을 미쳤으며, 구조화욕구가 정책결정에 미치는 영향이 틀에 의해 유의미하게 달라지는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구는 의사결정에서 지각된 이득이 지각된 손실보다 더 중요한 역할을 한다는 것과 더불어, 영역과 과제 제시 방법이 의사결정에 영향을 미칠 수 있음을 보여주었다.

keywords
위험감수 의사결정, 구조화욕구, 인지욕구, 지각된 이득, 지각된 손실, 틀 효과, risk-taking decision-making, need for structure, need for cognition, perceived benefits, perceived costs, framing effect

Abstract

This paper proposes the relationship between individual trait and risk-taking decision-making and how perceived benefits and perceived costs would mediate the relationship. Risk-taking tasks were presented in domain-specific daily life situations in study 1. As the results of study 1, need for structure had a higher correlation with risk-taking decision-making in general and domain-specific than need for cognition did. Moreover, the mediation effect of perceived benefits was more consistent than that of perceived costs. To investigate if perceived benefits work more strongly than perceived costs even in framing condition, decision-making scenarios about policy issues were presented in positive(benefits focused) or negative framing(costs focused) in study 2. Need for structure influenced a decision on policy through perceived benefits in negative framing at the .07 level, and the interaction effect of need for structure and framing was significant. This paper implies that perceiving benefits would be more crucial than perceiving costs in risk-taking decision-making, and furthermore, decision could be made differently according to decision-making tasks and how they are presented.

keywords
위험감수 의사결정, 구조화욕구, 인지욕구, 지각된 이득, 지각된 손실, 틀 효과, risk-taking decision-making, need for structure, need for cognition, perceived benefits, perceived costs, framing effect

참고문헌

1.

김완석 (2007). 효율적인 인지욕구 측정: 단축형 척도 개발. 한국심리학회지: 소비자·광고, 8, 127-133.

2.

정은경, 김봄메, 손영우 (2011). 조절초점이 위험감수에 미치는 영향: 지각된 이득의 매개효과를 중심으로. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 25, 209-221.

3.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator - mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

4.

Blais, A. R., & Weber, E. U. (2006). A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking(DOSPERT) scale for adult populations. Judgment and Decision Making, 1, 33-47.

5.

Cloninger, C. R. (1987). A systematic model for clinical description and classification of personality variants. Archives of General Psychiatry, 44, 573-588.

6.

Cohen, A. R., Stotland, E., & Wolfe, D. M. (1955). An experimental investigation of need for cognition. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 291-294.

7.

Cohen, E. S., & Fromme, K. (2002). Differential determinants of young adult substance use and high-risk sexual behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1124-1150.

8.

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. J. Deary, F. De Fruyt, and F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7-28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

9.

Graziano, W. G., & Tobin, R. M. (2002). Agreeableness: Dimension of personality or social desirability artifact? Journal of Personality, 70, 695-727.

10.

Harman, J. L. (2011). Individual differences in need for cognition and decision making in the Iowa Gambling Task. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 112-116.

11.

Highhouse, S., & Yuce, P. (1996). Perspectives, perceptions and risk-taking behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 159-167.

12.

Hogan, J. and Ones, D. S. (1997). Conscientiousness and integrity at work, in J, Johnson Hogan and S, Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 849-870). London: Academic Press.

13.

Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Pscyhological Review, 93, 136-153.

14.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.

15.

Katz, E. C., Fromme, K., & D’Amico, E. J. (2000). Effects of outcome expectancies and personality on young adults’ illicit drug use, heavy drinking, and risky sexual behavior. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 1-22.

16.

Kuhberger, A. (1997). Theoretical conceptions of framing effects in risky decisions. In W. R. Crozier & O. Svenson (Eds.), Decision making: Cognitive models and explanations. London: Routledge.

17.

Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 149-188.

18.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997b). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience, in J. Johnson Hogan and S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 825-847). London: Academic Press.

19.

Meertens, R. M., & Lion, R. (2008). Measuring an individual’s tendency to take risks: the risk propensity scale. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1506-1520.

20.

Neuberg, S. L., & Newsom, J. T. (1993). Personal need for structure: Individual differences in the desire for simple structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 113-131.

21.

Nicholson, N., Soane, E., Fenton-O’Creevy, M., & Willman, P. (2005). Personality and domain-specific risk taking. Journal of Risk Research, 9, 157-176.

22.

Parks, L., & Guay, R. P. (2009). Personality, values, and motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 675-684.

23.

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

24.

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

25.

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

26.

Segal, B. (1973). Sensation-seeking and anxiety: assessment of response to specific stimulus situations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 135-138,

27.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. (pp. 290-312). In Sociological Methodology by S. Leinhart (Eds.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

28.

Soane, E., Dewberry, C., & Narendran, S. (2010). The role of perceived costs and perceived benefits in the relationship between personality and risk-related choices. Journal of Risk Research, 13, 303-318.

29.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. In R. M. Hogarth & M. W. Reder (Eds.), Rational choice: The contrast between economics and psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

30.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297-323.

31.

Vanish, A., Grossmann, T., & Woodward, A. (2008). Not all emotions are created equal: The negativity bias in social-emotional development. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 383-403.

32.

Weber, E. U., Blais, A. R., & Betz, N. E. (2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 1-28.

33.

West, R. and Hall, J. (1997). The role of personality and attitudes in traffic accident risk. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 253-264.

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격

논문 투고 OA 정책