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.31 No.4

Citation Share

심리적 거리와 의사결정: 집단규범에의 동조를 중심으로

Psychological distance, group norm and decision making

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격 / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2017, v.31 no.4, pp.103-123
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2017.31.4.005
신홍임 (영남대학교)
신홍임. (2017). 심리적 거리와 의사결정: 집단규범에의 동조를 중심으로. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 31(4), 103-123, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2017.31.4.005

초록

심리적 거리에 따라 한 개인이 의사결정과정에서 받게 되는 사회적 영향은 달라지는가? 본 연구에서는 한 개인이 특정 대상에 대해 심리적 거리감을 많이 느낄수록 의사결정에서 집단의견에 더 민감해질 수 있는지의 가능성을 탐색하였다. 연구 1(N=101)에서는 해석수준이론을 기반으로 심리적 거리를 조작한 후, 심리적 거리가 가까운 조건과 심리적 거리가 먼 조건에 따라 집단규범에 동조하는 경향이 달라지는지를 검증하였다. 그 결과 심리적 거리가 먼 조건에서 심리적 거리가 가까운 조건보다 의사결정에서 집단규범에 동조하는 경향이 더 높게 나타났다. 연구 2(N=33)에서는 심리적 거리의 개인차를 암묵적 연합검사를 통해 측정한 후, 집단규범의 유형을 찬성조건과 반대조건으로 구분하여 집단규범이 심리적 거리의 개인차에 따라 의사결정에 영향을 끼치는지를 비교하였다. 그 결과, 심리적 거리감을 멀게 느끼는 갈등상황에서 집단규범에 일치하는 방향으로 동의정도의 차이가 나타났다. 또한 집단규범의 반대조건에서 타인에 대한 심리적 거리감을 많이 느끼는 개인일수록 집단의 반대결정에 동의하는 정도가 높게 나타났다. 이 결과는 심리적 거리가 먼 상황에서, 타인에 대해 심리적 거리를 멀게 느끼는 개인일수록, 집단규범에 일치하는 결정을 더 많이 내리게 될 가능성을 시사한다. 논의에서는 심리적 거리와 의사결정의 관계를 토론하고, 연구의 한계 및 후속연구의 방향을 다루었다.

keywords
psychological distance, group norm, decision making, concrete, abstract, 심리적 거리, 집단규범, 의사결정, 구체성, 추상성

Abstract

Is there any relationship between psychological distance and susceptibility to social influence in decision making? The present research investigated whether psychological distance could have an impact on conformity to group opinion during decision making. Study 1 (N=101) examined whether increasing temporal psychological distance could be related to changes in a participant’s response, when information about majority opinion was provided. According to our results, the conformity effect in the distant future condition was stronger than in the near future condition. Study 2 (N=33) utilized the implicit association test to demonstrate implicit individual differences in psychological distance. The experiment tested whether implicit individual differences in social distance might be related to moral decisions when group majority opinions were given. The findings implicated that participants who perceived dissimilar others more psychologically distant than similar others, might show more change in their responses to moral dilemmas by majority opinions than other participants, who perceived dissimilar others less distant. Theoretical and practical Implications about psychological distance and group confirmity were discussed.

keywords
psychological distance, group norm, decision making, concrete, abstract, 심리적 거리, 집단규범, 의사결정, 구체성, 추상성

참고문헌

1.

나은영 (1995). 의식개혁에 장애가 되는 문화적 요인들: 체면과 동조. 한국심리학회지: 사회문제, 2, 33-51.

2.

이현지, 방희정 (2012). 노인에 대한 명시적 및 암묵적 태도. 한국심리학회지: 사회문제, 18, 191-213.

3.

정은경, 박상혁, 이수란, 손영우 (2016). 한국인을 대상으로 한 도덕적 기반 질문지 적용에 대한 연구. 한국심리학회지: 사회및성격, 30, 47- 61.

4.

정혜승, 정은경, 손영우 (2011). 확률에 따른 심리적 거리감이 도덕적 의사결정에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 사회및성격, 25, 27-40.

5.

조선일보 (2014, 8, 28). 경찰, ‘세월호 유족 비방’ 66명 기소의견 송치.http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2014/08/28/2014082803305 .html 에서 2017년 2월 12일 자료 얻음.

6.

한겨레신문 (2014, 5, 13). 유족이 벼슬? 세월호 관련 비하글 게재 3명 입건. http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/society_general/636723.html에서 2017년 2월 12일 자료 얻음.

7.

한겨레신문 (2017, 4, 10). [왜냐면]: 세월호와 함께 돌아오는 3주기. http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/opinion/because/790109.html에서 2017년 5월 10일 자료 얻음.

8.

Antil. J. H. (1984). Conceptualization & Operationalization of Involvement. Advances in Consumer Research. 11, 203-209.

9.

Ayduk, O., & Kross, E. (2010). From a distance: Implications of spontaneous self-distancing for adaptive self-reflection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 809-829.

10.

Amit, E., & Greene, J. D. (2012). You see, the ends don’t justify the means: Visual imagery and moral judgment. Psychological Science, 23, 861- 868.

11.

Bar-Anan, Y., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2006). The association between psychological distance and construal level: Evidence from an implicit association test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 609-622.

12.

Bartels, D. M. (2008). Principled moral sentiment and the flexibility of moral judgment and decision making. Cognition, 108, 381-417.

13.

Bonnefon, J., Shariff, A., & Rahwan, I. (2016). The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science, 352, 1573-1576.

14.

Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclination in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 216-235.

15.

Eyal, T., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). Judging near and distant virtue and vice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1204-1209.

16.

Eyal, T., Sagristano, M. D., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Chaiken, S. (2009). When values matter: Expressing values in behavioral intentions for the near vs. distant future. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 35-43.

17.

Fazio, R. H. (2007). Attitudes as object-evaluation association of varying strength. Social Cognition, 25, 603-637.

18.

Fujita, K., Eyal, T., Chaiken, S., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2008). Influencing attitudes toward near and distant objects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 562-572.

19.

Fiedler, K., Semin, G. R., Finkenhauer, C., & Berkel, I. (1995). Actor-observer bias in close relationships: The role of self-knowledge and self-related language. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 525-538.

20.

Freitas, A. L., Gollwitzer, P., & Trope, Y. (2004). The influence of abstract and concrete mindsets on anticipating and guiding others’ self- regulatory efforts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 739-752.

21.

Gong, H., Iliev. R., & Sachdeva, S. (2012). Consequences are far away: Psychological distance affects modes of moral decision making. Cognition, in press.

22.

Greene, J. D., Sommervile, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293, 2105-2108.

23.

Greene, J. D., Morelli, S. A., Lowenberg, K., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2008). Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition, 107, 1144-1154.

24.

Greene, J. D. (2009). Dual-Process morality and the personal/impersonal distinction: A reply to McGuire, Langdon, Coltheart, and Mackenzie. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 581-584.

25.

Greene, J. D. (2016). Our driveless dilemma. Science, 352, 1514-1515.

26.

Greenwald, A. G., Mcghee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480.

27.

Greenwald, A. C., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197-216.

28.

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814-834.

29.

Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316, 998-1002.

30.

Ledgerwood, A. (2014). Evaluations in their social context: Distance regulates consistency and context dependence. Social and Personality Compass, 8, 436-447.

31.

Ledgerwood, A., Trope, Y., & Chaiken, S. (2010). Flexibility now, consistency later: Psychological distance and construal shape evaluative responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 32-51.

32.

Ledgerwood, A., & Chaiken, S. (2007). Priming us and them: Automatic assimilation and contrast in group attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 940-956.

33.

Ledgerwood, A., & Callahan, S. P. (2012). The social side of abstraction: Psychological distance enhances conformity to group norms. Psychological Science, 23, 907-913.

34.

Ledgerwood, A., & Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Flexibility and consistency in evaluative responding: The function of construal level. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 43 (pp. 257-295). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

35.

Ledgerwood, A., Wakslak, C. J., & Wang, M. A. (2010). Differential information use for near and distant decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 638-642.

36.

Liberman, N., & Förster, J. (2009). The effect of psychological distance on perceptual level of construal. Cognitive Science, 33, 1330-1341.

37.

Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Stephan, E. (2007). Psychological distance. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles. New York: Guilford Press.

38.

Lowery, B. S., Hardin, C. D., & Sinclair, S. (2001). Social influence effects of automatic racial prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 842-855.

39.

Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353-383.

40.

Packer, D. J. (2008). On being both with us and against us: A normative conflict model of dissent in social groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 50-72.

41.

Packer, D. J. (2009). Avoiding Group think: Whereas weakly identified members remain silent, strongly identified members dissent about collective problems. Psychological Science, 20, 546-548.

42.

Solnit, R. (2013). 멀고도 가까운[The faraway nearby]. (김현우 역). 서울: 민음사.

43.

Schneider, W., Eschmann, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime reference guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.

44.

Wakslak, C. J., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Alony, R. (2006). Seeing the forest when entry is unlikely: Probability and the mental representation of events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 641-653.

45.

West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격

논문 투고 OA 정책