바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

ISSN : 1229-0653

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.31 No.4

Citation Share

The effects of indirect attack on the value underlying attitudes towards the affirmative action policy: Intervention effect of value attack

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2017, v.31 no.4, pp.204-224
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2017.31.4.010


& (2017). The effects of indirect attack on the value underlying attitudes towards the affirmative action policy: Intervention effect of value attack. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 31(4), 204-224, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2017.31.4.010

Abstract

The present study examined how to persuade college students to support for the affirmative action policy for women. We hypothesized that since the persuasion attempts directly arguing against the recipients’ existing attitudes often had been confronted with resistance, indirect methods to attack the values or principles on which attitudes were based might be more effective. In Study 1, we presented the participants with either a message criticizing the meritocracy value(or principle) or insisting directly for the affirmative action policy. The participants indicated their attitudes towards AA both before and after reading the message. The results showed that the participants’ attitudes toward the AA policy tended to change more positively after reading the message criticizing the meritocracy value, in comparison with the participants who read the message arguing for the AA policy directly. The results also demonstrated that the positive effect of the attack on the value of meritocracy on attitude change was mediated by the increased favorability of the meritocracy value. In Study 2, we directly manipulated the favorability of the meritocracy value by providing positive or neutral evaluative information of the ingroup (i.e., the opinion of the same University students’ as the participant’s) regarding the meritocracy value or principle. The results demonstrated that as expected, positive ingroup norm compared to the neutral one changed the participant’s attitudes towards the AA policy more positively. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings were discussed.

keywords
가치, 태도변화, 설득, 적극적 조치, 능력주의, value, attitude change, persuasion, affirmative action, meritocracy

Reference

1.

강정인 (1991). 계급과 평등: 기회균등과 능력주의의 문제점 및 그 한계. 한국과 국제정치, 7(1), 1-35.

2.

김혜숙 (2002). 대학생들이 중요시하는 가치와 북한 사람 및 대북 정책에 대한 태도와의 관계에 관한 조사 연구. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 16(1), 35-50.

3.

김혜숙 (2007). 우리나라 사람들이 가지는 가치가 소수 집단에 대한 편견적 태도에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 21(4), 91-104.

4.

김혜숙 (2014). 다수 집단과 소수 집단의 심리. 서울: 집문당.

5.

나은영 (1995). 여론정보에 의한 태도변화: 대학생 내집단과 일반인 집단의 사회적 지지효과 비교. 한국심리학회지: 사회, 9(2), 69-83.

6.

문미경, 김복태, 정수연, 류도암 (2013). 한국의 적극적 평등실현조치에 관한 연구. 한국여성정책연구원 연구보고서, 22.

7.

안상수, 김혜숙 (2003). 내/외집단 규범정보가 양성평등정책 및 내현적 성편견 태도에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 사회, 17(3), 51-75.

8.

오찬오 (2016). 가난은 무능한 네 탓? 능력주의를 신뢰할수록 가난의 사회적 책임은 사라진다. 가톨릭 평론, 1, 30-42.

9.

윤인진, 김상학 (2003). 적극적 조치에 대한 인식과 태도-장애인, 북한이탈주민에 대한 대학생 의식 조사. 경제와 사회, 58, 222-248.

10.

Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York, NY: Holt Rinehart, & Winston.

11.

Blankenship, Wegener, & Murray. (2012). Circumventing Resistence: Using Values to Indirectly Change Attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 606-621.

12.

Davey, Bobocel, Son Hing, & Zanna. (1999). Preference fot the Merit Principle Scale: An Individual Difference Measure of Distributive Justice Preferences. Socail Justice Research, 12(3), 223-240.

13.

Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137-149.

14.

Foster, M. D., Sloto, L., & Ruby R. (2006). Responding to discrimination as a function of meritocracy beliefs and personal experiences: Testing the model of shattered assumptions, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 401-411.

15.

Hayes, A. D. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford

16.

Jost, J. T., Pelham, B. W., Sheldon, O., & Sullivan B. N. (2003). Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: evidence of enhanced system justification among the disadvantaged. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 13-36.

17.

Katz, I., & Hass, R. G. (1988). Racial amvibalence and american value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(6), 893-903.

18.

Knowles, E. S., & Linn, J. A. (2004). Resistance and persuation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

19.

Lalonde, R. N., Doan, L., & Patterson, L. A. (2000). Political correctness beliefs, threatened identities, and social attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3, 317-336.

20.

Maio, G. R., & Olson, J. M. (1998). Values as truisms: Evidence and implications. Journal ouf Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 294-311.

21.

McGuire, W. J. (1960a). Cognitive consistency and attitude change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 345-353.

22.

McGuire, W. J. (1960b). A syllogistic analysis of cognitive relationships. In C. I. Hovland & M. J. Rosenberg (Eds.), Attitude organization and change: An analysis of consistency among attitude components (pp.65-111). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

23.

McGuire, W. J., & Papageorgis, D. (1961). The relative efficacy of various types of prior belief-defense in producing immunity against persuasion. Journal of Abnormainal Social Psychology, 62, 327-337.

24.

McGuire, W. J. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuation: Some contemporary approaches. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimenal social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 191-229). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, doi:10.1016/ S0065 -2601(08)60052-0

25.

Schwartz, S. H., & Blisky, W. (1987). Toward a psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550-562. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.550

26.

Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1953). Group in harmony and tension. New York: Harper.

27.

Son Hing, L. S, Bobocel, D. R., & Zanna, M. P. (2002). Meritocracy and Opposition to Affirmative Action: Making Concessions in the Face of Discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 493-509.

28.

Son Hing, L. S, Bobocel, D. R., Zanna, M. P., Garcia, D. M., Gee, S. S., & Orazietti, K. (2011). The merit of meritocracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 433-450.

29.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy