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
논문 투고

Vol.31 No.2

Citation Share

집단 실체성의 구성요인 탐색 및 척도 개발

Factor Structure Exploration and Scale Development of Group Entitativity

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격 / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2017, v.31 no.2, pp.101-126
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2017.31.2.006
이향수 (충북대학교)
박상희 (충북대학교)
이향수, & 박상희. (2017). 집단 실체성의 구성요인 탐색 및 척도 개발. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 31(2), 101-126, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2017.31.2.006

초록

집단 실체성이란 집단이 단순한 개개인의 모임이 아닌 한 덩어리의 개체처럼 지각되는 특성이다. 본 연구에서는 이전의 집단 실체성 연구들에서 사용한 실체성의 측정 문항들을 바탕으로 집단 실체성 척도를 만들고 그 하위 요인을 확인하였다. 이를 위해 참가자들은 다양한 범주의 집단(친밀한 집단, 업무 집단, 사회적 범주, 느슨한 관계)에 대하여 지각되는 특성들을 예비 척도에 답하였다. 분석 결과, 집단 실체성은 ‘주체성’과 ‘본질성’으로 구성되고 주체성은 다시 ‘공동의 목표’와 ‘공통 운명’, 본질성은 ‘친밀성’과 ‘비침습성’, ‘집단성’의 하위 요인을 갖는 두 수준 모형이 적합한 것으로 나타났다. 한편 집단 간에 실체성의 두 상위 요인 점수를 비교한 결과 친밀한 집단과 업무 집단은 주체성, 본질성 점수가 다른 집단들의 점수에 비해 높았다. 업무 집단은 사회적 범주에 비해 주체성 점수는 높았지만 본질성 점수에서는 두 집단이 다르지 않았다. 느슨한 관계는 주체성, 본질성 점수 모두에서 다른 집단들에 비해 낮았다. 본 연구는 집단 실체성의 요인 구조를 밝힘으로써 집단 실체성의 이론적인 개념을 구체화하고 측정할 수 있는 방법을 제안한다.

keywords
집단 실체성, 탐색적 요인분석, 다중집단 확인적 요인분석, 측정, group entitativity, exploratory factor analysis, multiple group confirmatory factor analysis, measurement

Abstract

Group entitativity is a group trait to be perceived as a whole, singular entity, and not as a crowd of individuals. In this study, a Group Entitativity Scale was developed based on items from previous studies and its subfactors were examined. Participants reported perceived characteristics of four different group types (an intimacy group, a task group, a social category, a loose association) on a preliminary Group Entitativity Scale. The results show that a two-level model of group entitativity has a good fit. In the model, group entitativity consists of two distinct factors: Agency and Essence. Agency factor comprises common goal and common fate; Essence factor is composed of closeness, impermeability, and groupness. Meanwhile, when the four types of groups were compared on the two factors, Agency and Essence factor scores of the intimacy group and the task group were higher than the scores of the other two groups. Agency score of the task group was higher than that of the social category; however, the difference between the two groups in Essence was not statistically significant. Both Agency and Essence scores of the loose association were lower than those of the other groups. This study reveals the factor structure of group entitativity, and thereby further reifies the concept and provides a method to measure it.

keywords
집단 실체성, 탐색적 요인분석, 다중집단 확인적 요인분석, 측정, group entitativity, exploratory factor analysis, multiple group confirmatory factor analysis, measurement

참고문헌

1.

김범준, 송관재, & 이훈구 (1997). 집단실체성에 따른 집단지각의 차이에 관한 연구. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 11(1), 57-74.

2.

Abelson, R. P., Dasgupta, N., Park, J., & Banaji, M. R. (1998). Perceptions of the collective other. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 243-250. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_2

3.

Brewer, M. B., Hong, Y. Y., & Li, Q. (2004). Dynamic entitativity: Perceiving groups as actors. The psychology of group perception, 19-29. doi: 10.4324/9780203644973

4.

Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford.

5.

Callahan, S. P., & Ledgerwood, A. (2016). On the psychological function of flags and logos: Group identity symbols increase perceived entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(4), 528-550. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000047

6.

Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3(1), 14-25. doi: 10.1002/bs.3830030103

7.

Carpenter, S., & Radhakrishnan, P. (2002). The relation between allocentrism and perceptions of ingroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(11), 1528-1537. doi: 10.1177/ 014616702237580

8.

Cartwright, D. E., & Zander, A. E. (1960). Group dynamics: Research and theory (2nd ed). Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

9.

Castano, E., Sacchi, S., & Gries, P. H. (2003). The perception of the other in international relations: Evidence for the polarizing effect of entitativity. Political Psychology, 24(3), 449-468. doi: 10.1111/0162-895X.00336

10.

Castano, E., Yzerbyt, V., & Bourguignon, D. (2003). We are one and I like it: The impact of ingroup entitativity on ingroup identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(6), 735-754. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.175

11.

Castano, E., Yzerbyt, V., Paladino, M. P., & Sacchi, S. (2002). I belong, therefore, I exist: Ingroup identification, ingroup entitativity, and ingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(2), 135-143. doi: 10.1177/ 0146167202282001

12.

Crawford, M. T., Sherman, S. J., & Hamilton, D. L. (2002). Perceived entitativity, stereotype formation, and the interchangeability of group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1076-1094. doi: 10.1037/ 0022-3514.83.5.1076

13.

Demoulin, S., Leyens, J. P., & Yzerbyt, V. (2006). Lay theories of essentialism. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9(1), 25-42. doi: 10.1177/ 1368430206059856

14.

Denson, T. F., Lickel, B., Curtis, M., Stenstrom, D. M., & Ames, D. R. (2006). The roles of entitativity and essentiality in judgments of collective responsibility. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9(1), 43-61. doi: 10.1177/ 1368430206059857

15.

Effron, D. A., & Knowles, E. D. (2015). Entitativity and intergroup bias: How belonging to a cohesive group allows people to express their prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(2), 234-253. doi: 10.1037/ pspa0000020

16.

Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286-299. doi: 10.1037/ 1040-3590.7.3.286

17.

Freeman, L. C., & Webster, C. M. (1994). Interpersonal proximity in social and cognitive space. Social Cognition, 12(3), 223-245. doi: 10.1521/soco.1994.12.3.223

18.

Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103(2), 336-355. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.336

19.

Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(1), 113-127. doi: 10.1348/014466600164363

20.

Hogg, M. A., Sherman, D. K., Dierselhuis, J., Maitner, A. T., & Moffitt, G. (2007). Uncertainty, entitativity, and group identification. Journal of experimental social psychology, 43(1), 135-142. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp. 2005.12.008

21.

Hutcheson, G. D., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist: Introductory statistics using generalized linear models. London: Sage Publications.

22.

Kurebayashi, K., Hoffman, L., Ryan, C. S., & Murayama, A. (2012). Japanese and American Perceptions of Group Entitativity and Autonomy A Multilevel Analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(2), 349-364. doi: 10.1177/ 0022022110388566

23.

Lakens, D., & Stel, M. (2011). If they move in sync, they must feel in sync: Movement synchrony leads to attributions of rapport and entitativity. Social Cognition, 29(1), 1-14. doi: 10.1521/soco.2011.29.1.1

24.

Lickel, B., Hamilton, D., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A., Sherman, S., & Uhles, A. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(2), 223-246. doi: 10.1037/ 0022-3514.78.2.223

25.

Lickel, B., Schmader, T., & Hamilton, D. L. (2003). A case of collective responsibility: Who else was to blame for the Columbine High School shootings? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 194-204. doi: 10.1177/ 0146167202239045

26.

McConnell, A. R., Sherman, S. J., & Hamilton, D. L. (1997). Target entitativity: Implications for information processing about individual and group targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 750-762.

27.

McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance (Vol. 14). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

28.

Medin, D. L., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. Similarity and analogical reasoning, 179-196.

29.

Morewedge, C. K., Chandler, J. J., Smith, R., Schwarz, N., & Schooler, J. (2013). Lost in the crowd: Entitative group membership reduces mind attribution. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(4), 1195-1205. doi: 10.1016/j.concog. 2013.08.002

30.

Newheiser, A. K., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J. F., & Hewstone, M. (2009). Entitativity and prejudice: Examining their relationship and the moderating effect of attitude certainty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 920-926. doi: 10.1016/ j.jesp.2009.04.024

31.

Newheiser, A., Sawaoka, T., & Dovidio, J. F. (2012). Why do we punish groups? High entitativity promotes moral suspicion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 931-936. doi: 10.1016/ j.jesp.2012.02.013

32.

Norris, M., & Lecavalier, L. (2010). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in developmental disability psychological research. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(1), 8-20. doi: 10.1007/s10803-009-0816-2

33.

Pilialoha, B. R., & Brewer, M. B. (2006). Motivated entitativity: Applying balance theory to group perception. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9(2), 235-247. doi: 10.1177/1368430206062079

34.

Plitt, M., Savjani, R. R., & Eagleman, D. M. (2015). Are corporations people too? The neural correlates of moral judgments about companies and individuals. Social Neuroscience, 10(2), 113- 125. doi: 10.1080/17470919.2014.978026

35.

Postmes, T., Haslam, S. A., & Jans, L. (2013). A single‐item measure of social identification: Reliability, validity, and utility. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(4), 597-617. doi: 10.1111/ bjso.12006

36.

Rydell, R. J., & McConnell, A. R. (2005). Perceptions of entitativity and attitude change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(1), 99-110. doi: 10.1177/0146167204271316

37.

Smith, R. W., Faro, D., & Burson, K. A. (2013). More for the many: The influence of entitativity on charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(5), 961-976. doi: 10.1086/666470

38.

Spencer-Rodgers, J., Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (2007). The central role of entitativity in stereotypes of social categories and task groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 369-388. doi: 10.1037/0022- 3514.92.3.369

39.

Spencer-Rodgers, J., Williams, M. J., Hamilton, D. L., Peng, K., & Wang, L. (2007). Culture and group perception: dispositional and stereotypic inferences about novel and national groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 525-543. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.4. 525

40.

Stenstrom, D. M., Lickel, B., Denson, T. F., & Miller, N. (2008). The roles of ingroup identification and outgroup entitativity in intergroup retribution. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(11), 1570-1582. doi: 10.1177/0146167208322999

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격

논문 투고 OA 정책