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

  • P-ISSN1229-0653
  • KCI

ISSN : 1229-0653

논문 상세

이전
논문 투고

Vol.33 No.1

Citation Share

도덕 판단에서 나타나는 내-외집단 차이: 위반 주체 소속집단과 위반 장소의 효과

Ingroup-outgroup difference in moral judgment: The effect of group membership of the transgressor and the location of transgression

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격 / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2019, v.33 no.1, pp.19-52
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2019.33.1.002
이승민 (부산대학교)
설선혜 (부산대학교)
이승민, & 설선혜. (2019). 도덕 판단에서 나타나는 내-외집단 차이: 위반 주체 소속집단과 위반 장소의 효과. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 33(1), 19-52, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2019.33.1.002

초록

사회 규범은 집단을 유지하고 집단 구성원을 보호하는 역할을 한다. 따라서 규범의 준수와 위반에 대한 판단은 집단 정보와 맥락에 따라서 달라질 수 있다. 본 연구에서는 비경쟁 맥락(연구 1)과 경쟁 맥락(연구 2)에서 집단 정보가 도덕 판단에 미치는 영향을 확인하였다. 구체적으로, 위반 주체의 소속집단(내집단 vs. 외집단)과 위반 장소(내집단 vs. 외집단)에 따라서 도덕 판단이 어떻게 달라지는지 알아보았다. 도덕 판단은 위반 규범의 분류와 위반 행위에 대한 평가로 구분하여 측정하였다. 연구 1에서는 참가자의 소속 대학교와 타 대학교를 사용하여 집단 정보를 제시하고 대학 생활에서 일어날 법한 규범 위반 사례들을 평가하도록 하였다. 그 결과, 외집단원이 내집단 장소에서 위반한 규범을 외집단 장소에서 위반한 규범에 비해서 도덕보다는 사회 인습으로 분류하는 반면, 내집단원이 위반한 규범에 대해서는 위반 장소와 무관하게 판단하였다. 위반 행위의 평가에서는 내집단원이 내집단 장소보다는 외집단 장소에서 규범을 위반할 때, 사회 인습보다 도덕 원칙 위반을 더 부정적으로 평가하는 것으로 나타났다. 연구 2에서는 경쟁 관계에 있는 야구팀을 사용하여 집단 정보를 제시하고 야구 경기 관람 중 일어날 법한 규범 위반 사례들을 제시하였다. 연구 1과는 반대로 연구 2에서는 내집단 장소에서 외집단원이 위반한 규범을 내집단원이 위반한 규범에 비해 도덕 원칙으로 판단하는 경향성이 나타났다. 본 연구의 결과는 위반 주체의 소속집단과 위반 장소가 도덕 판단에 서로 다른 방식으로

keywords
도덕 판단, 내집단-외집단 차이, 검은 양 효과, 도덕적 지역주의, 도덕-인습 구분, moral judgment, ingroup-outgroup difference, black sheep effect, moral parochialism, moral-conventional distinction

Abstract

Social norms play a fundamental role in the survival of a group and the well-being of the group members. Therefore, people consider group information important when they make judgment on norm violation. The current study aims to investigate the effect of group information in the moral judgment under non-competitive(Study 1) and competitive(Study 2) contexts. Specifically, we investigated the effects of the transgressor’s group membership(ingroup vs. outgroup) and the physical location where the transgression has occurred(ingroup vs. outgroup). Moral judgment was measured using a moral-conventional task and moral evaluation task. In Study 1, we used participants’ affiliated university and a nearby university to manipulate the group information and asked participants to evaluate hypothetical norm violations that were assumed to happen in college life. We found that outgroup member’s transgression occurred in the ingroup territory than in the outgroup territory was regarded as conventional than moral, whereas the moral-conventional judgment of ingroup member’s transgression was not affected by the physical location. Participants evaluated ingroup member’s moral violation occurred in the outgroup territory more negatively than that occurred in the ingroup territory. In Study 2, we invited a group of baseball fans and manipulated the group information using the context of a game against a rival team, in order create a competitive context. Contrast to Study 1, Study 2 showed that outgroup member’s transgression in the ingroup’s territory was judged as moral than conventional, compared to ingroup member’s transgression. Our findings suggest that the transgressor’s group membership and the physical location of the transgression can have different effects on moral judgment under non-competitive and competitive contexts.

keywords
도덕 판단, 내집단-외집단 차이, 검은 양 효과, 도덕적 지역주의, 도덕-인습 구분, moral judgment, ingroup-outgroup difference, black sheep effect, moral parochialism, moral-conventional distinction

참고문헌

1.

박영신 (2001). 한국 아동들의 도덕적 규칙과 사회관습적 규칙에 대한 이해의 발달과 그 특징. 한국심리학회지: 발달, 14(2), 83-104.

2.

설선혜, 이민우, 김학진 (2014). 이타적 강화학습과제를 이용한 이타성의 측정. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 33(2), 467-492.

3.

설선혜, 이승민 (2018). 도덕 판단에서 나타나는도덕-인습 구분에 대한 논쟁과 함의. 인지과학, 29(2), 137-160. doi: 10.19066/cogsci.2018. 29.2.004

4.

Abrams, D., Rutland, A., & Cameron, L. (2003). The development of subjective group dynamics:Children's judgments of normative and deviant in group and out‐group individuals. Child Development, 74(6), 1840-1856. doi: 10.1046/j.1467-8624.2003.00641.x

5.

Balliet, D., Wu, J., & De Dreu, C. K. (2014). Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1556-1581. doi: 10.1037/a0037737

6.

Brambilla, M., Sacchi, S., Pagliaro, S., & Ellemers, N. (2013). Morality and intergroup relations:Threats to safety and group image predict the desire to interact with outgroup and ingroup members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(5), 811-821. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.04.005

7.

Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice:Ingroup love and outgroup hate?. Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429-444. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00126

8.

Choi, J. K., & Bowles, S. (2007). The coevolution of parochial altruism and war. Science, 318(5850), 636-640. doi: 10.1126/science.1144237

9.

Cushman, F., Sheketoff, R., Wharton, S., & Carey, S. (2013). The development of intent-based moral judgment. Cognition, 127(1), 6-21. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.11.008

10.

De Dreu, C. K., Greer, L. L., Handgraaf, M. J., Shalvi, S., Van Kleef, G. A., Baas, M., ..., & Feith, S. W. (2010). The neuropeptide oxytocin regulates parochial altruism in intergroup conflict among humans. Science, 328(5984), 1408-1411. doi: 10.1126/science.1189047

11.

Duckitt, J., & Mphuthing, T. (1998). Group identification and intergroup attitudes: a longitudinal analysis in South Africa. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 80-85. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.80

12.

Elster, J. (2009). Norms. In P, Hedström & P, Bearman. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology (pp. 195-217). Oxford:Oxford University Press.

13.

Fessler, D. M., Barrett, H. C., Kanovsky, M., Stich, S., Holbrook, C., Henrich, J., ..., & Pisor, A. C. (2015). Moral parochialism and contextual contingency across seven societies. Proc. R. Soc. B, 282(1813), 20150907. doi: 10.1098/ rspb. 2015.0907

14.

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814-834. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814

15.

Kelly, D., Stich, S., Haley, K. J., Eng, S. J., & Fessler, D. M. (2007). Harm, affect, and the moral/conventional distinction. Mind & Language, 22(2), 117-131. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2007. 00302.x

16.

Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347-480). Chicago: Rand McNally.

17.

Leach, C. W., Bilali, R., & Pagliaro, S. (2015). Groups and morality. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. F. Dovidio, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology. APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Vol. 2. Group processes (pp. 123-149). Washington, DC, US:American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14342-005

18.

Leach, C. W., Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2007). Group virtue: the importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(2), 234-249. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.234

19.

Leenders, I., & Brugman, D. (2005). Moral/non moral domain shift in young adolescents in relation to delinquent behaviour. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23(1), 65-79. doi: 10.1348/026151004X20676

20.

Lewis, G. J., Kandler, C., & Riemann, R. (2014). Distinct heritable influences underpin in-group love and out-group derogation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(4), 407-413. doi: 10.1177/1948550613504967

21.

Liberman, Z., Howard, L. H., Vasquez, N. M., & Woodward, A. L. (2018). Children’s expectations about conventional and moral behaviors of ingroup and outgroup members. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 165, 7-18. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2017.03.003

22.

Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J. P. (1988). The “black sheep effect”: Extremity of judgments towards ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(1), 1-16. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420180102

23.

Marques, J. M., Paez, D., & Abrams, D. (1998a). Social identity and intragroup differentiation as subjective social control. In S. Worchel, J. F. Morales, D. Páez, & J.-C. Deschamps (Eds.), Social identity: International perspectives (pp. 124-141). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781446279205. n9

24.

Marques, J. M., Abrams, D., Paez, D., & Martinez-Taboada, C. (1998b). The role of categorization and in-group norms in judgments of groups and their members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(4), 976-988. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.976

25.

Mulvey, K. L., Hitti, A., Rutland, A., Abrams, D., & Killen, M. (2014). When do children dislike ingroup members? Resource allocation from individual and group perspectives. Journal of Social Issues, 70(1), 29-46. doi: 10.1111/josi. 12045

26.

Parker, M. T., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (2013). Lessons from morality-based social identity: The power of outgroup “hate,” not just ingroup “love”. Social Justice Research, 26(1), 81-96. doi: 10.1007/s11211-012-0175-6

27.

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), 897-911. doi: 10.1037/a0036498

28.

Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 336-353. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4

29.

Rutland, A., Killen, M., & Abrams, D. (2010). A new social-cognitive developmental perspective on prejudice: The interplay between morality and group identity. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 279-291. doi: 10.1177/1745691610369468

30.

Schmidt, M. F., & Tomasello, M. (2012a). Young children enforce social norms. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(4), 232-236. doi:10.1177/0963721412448659

31.

Schmidt, M. F., Rakoczy, H., & Tomasello, M. (2012b). Young children enforce social norms selectively depending on the violator’s group affiliation. Cognition, 124(3), 325-333. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.004

32.

Shaughnessy, J. J., Zechmeister, E. B., & Zechmeister, J. S. (2016). 사회과학에서의 연구방법론 [Research methods in psychology 10th Edition]. (조영일 역). 서울: 시그마프레스. (원전은 2014년에 출판)

33.

Shultz, T. R., Wright, K., & Schleifer, M. (1986). Assignment of moral responsibility and punishment. Child Development, 57(1), 177-184. doi: 10.2307/1130649

34.

Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge:Morality and convention. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.2307/3121515

35.

Turiel, E. (2008). Thought about actions in social domains: Morality, social conventions, and social interactions. Cognitive Development, 23(1), 136-154. doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.04.001

36.

Van Vugt, M., De Cremer, D., & Janssen, D. P. (2007). Gender Differences in Cooperation and Competition: The Male-Warrior Hypothesis. Psychological Science, 18(1), 19-23. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01842.x

37.

Wojciszke, B., Bazinska, R., & Jaworski, M. (1998). On the dominance of moral categories in impression formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(12), 1251-1263. doi:10.1177/01461672982412001

38.

Wright, J. C., Cullum, J., & Schwab, N. (2008). The cognitive and affective dimensions of moral conviction: Implications for attitudinal and behavioral measures of interpersonal tolerance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(11), 1461-1476. doi: 10.1177/ 0146167208322557

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격

논문 투고 OA 정책