바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

ISSN : 1229-0653

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.32 No.2
Citation Share

Inducing Favorable Attitude Towards Affirmative Action Policy: Focusing On The Relevance Of In-Group Norm Information

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2018, v.32 no.2, pp.23-45
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2018.32.2.002


& (2018). Inducing Favorable Attitude Towards Affirmative Action Policy: Focusing On The Relevance Of In-Group Norm Information. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 32(2), 23-45, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2018.32.2.002
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

This study examined whether the persuasive effect of the in-group norm would be stronger when the persuasion topic was relevant to the in-group category than when it was not. In Study1, both male and female college students read an article about the affirmative action policy for the promotion of women, after which they received an information indicating that their in-group (i.e., Male In-group vs. Female In-group vs. College Students In-group) showed either favorable or neutral attitude toward the issue. As expected, the results demonstrated that the favorable norm information of the gender in-group was more influential than the favorable norm information of the college students in-group. However, the stronger persuasion effect of the norm information of the gender in-group was limited only to th male participants. In Study2, we attempted to replicate the stronger persuasion effect of the relevant in-group category to the persuasion topic shown in Study 1, this time using the College Student Category as the key category. More specifically, participants read an article about the affirmative action policy for the permission of the minority group members to universities, and afterwards they received an normative in-group (i.e., Male In-group, Female In-group or College Students In-group) information, showing either favorable or neutral attitudes. The results demonstrated that as hypothesized, the participants who were provided with the in-group normative information of university students changed their attitudes more than those who were presented with the in-group normative information of gender in-group. This finding replicated the results in Study1, indicating the importance of the relevance of the persuasion topic to the in-group category in using the normative information of the in-group in the persuasion context for the affirmative action policy. The theoretical and practical implication of these findings were discussed.

keywords
In-group persuasion effect, Affirmative action, Topic Relevance, 내집단 설득 효과, 적극적 조치, 주제 관련성

Reference

1.

금재호 (2012). 적극적 고용개선조치의 강화가 필요하다. 노동리뷰, 49-65.

2.

기획취재팀 (2017. 2.). 한국사회 불평등, 가장 심각한 이슈는 ‘교육격차’였다. 매일경제, http://news.mk.co.kr/newsRead.php?year=2017&no=84433

3.

김미경 (1998). 공적부문에서의 여성고용확대를 위한 적극적 조치의 필요성과 방향-여성고용할당제를 중심으로. 가정문화연구, 12(단일호).

4.

동그라미재단 (2015. 9.). 기회균등지수연구. 동그라미재단 연구 리포트 3호.

5.

문미경, 김복태, 정수연, & 류도암 (2013). 한국의 적극적 평등실현조치(Affirmative Action) 에 관한 연구. 2013 연구보고서 22.

6.

안상수, 김인순, 이정현, & 윤보라 (2015). 남성의 삶에 관한 기초연구(Ⅱ): 청년층 남성의 성평등 가치 갈등 요인을 중심으로. 2015 연구보고서 30.

7.

손철성 (2015). 적극적 우대 조치의 정당화 논변에 대한 고찰-대학 입학 할당제를 중심으로. 윤리교육연구, 36, 197-212.

8.

원미혜 (2007). 십대/여성 정책의 도전과 과제-적극적 조치, 실질적 평등의 관점을 중심으로. 여성학논집, 24, 111-145.

9.

이승협 (2016). 적극적 고용개선조치 제도효율성 개선방안 연구. 여성연구, 7-43.

10.

이주희, 한영희, 성현정, & 인정 (2007). 공직의 유리천장. 한국여성학, 23(3), 79-115.

11.

장지연 (2006). 미국의 적극적조치 논쟁과 시사점. 한국여성학, 22(2), 167-208.

12.

정재욱, & 김혜숙 (2017). 가치 및 원칙에 대한 간접적 비판이 적극적 조치에 대한 태도변화에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 31(4), 203-224.

13.

최종권, & 김민욱 (2017. 9.). “여자는 출산·휴직하니 채용 말라” 가스안전공사, 점수조작 7명 탈락. 중앙일보. http://news.joins.com/ article/21978783

14.

Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29(2), 97-119.

15.

Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 39(5), 752.

16.

Crosby, F. J., Iyer, A., & Sincharoen, S. (2006). Understanding affirmative action. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 57, 585-611.

17.

Elkins, T. J., Bozeman, D. P., & Phillips, J. S. (2003). Promotion decisions in an affirmative action environment: Can social accounts change fairness perceptions?. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(6), 1111-1139.

18.

Engerman, S. L. (1992). Review. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 11(4) (Autumn, 1992), pp. 737-742.

19.

Hornsey, M. J. (2008). Social identity theory and self categorization theory: A historical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 204-222.

20.

Leach, C. W., Van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., & Spears, R. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: a hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of personality and social psychology, 95(1), 144.

21.

Mackie, D. M., Gastardo-Conaco, M. C., & Skelly, J. J. (1992). Knowledge of the advocated position and the processing of in-group and out-group persuasive messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(2), 145-151.

22.

Mackie, D. M., Worth, L. T., & Asuncion, A. G. (1990). Processing of persuasive in-group messages. Journal of personality and social psychology, 58(5), 812.

23.

McGarty, C., Haslam, S. A., Hutchinson, K. J., & Turner, J. C. (1994). The effects of salient group memberships on persuasion. Small Group Research, 25(2), 267-293.

24.

Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(2), 103-122.

25.

Ratner, K. G., Dotsch, R., Wigboldus, D. H., van Knippenberg, A., & Amodio, D. M. (2014). Visualizing minimal ingroup and outgroup faces: implications for impressions, attitudes, and behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 106(6), 897.

26.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The social psychology of intergroup relations, 33(47), 74.

27.

Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & White, K. M. (1999). The theory of planned behaviour: self identity, social identity and group norms. British journal of social psychology, 38(3), 225-244.

28.

Trepte, S. (2006). Social identity theory. Psychology of entertainment, 255, 271.

29.

Wilder, D. A. (1990). Some determinants of the persuasive power of in-groups and out-groups: Organization of information and attribution of independence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1202.

30.

Wyer, N. A. (2010). Selective self-categorization: Meaningful categorization and the in-group persuasion effect. The Journal of social psychology, 150(5), 452-470.

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy