바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
 

logo

  • P-ISSN1229-0653
  • KCI

제 3자의 이타적 처벌과 자아고갈

Altruistic punishment of third party and Ego-depletion

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격 / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2019, v.33 no.4, pp.21-43
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2019.33.4.002
박덕준 (대구가톨릭대학교)
성한기 (대구가톨릭대학교)

초록

불공정한 상황을 목격한 후 이 상황과 무관한 사람이 불공정 행위자에게 가하는 행위인 제 3자의 이타적 처벌에 관하여 불형평 혐오 모델은 불공정한 상황을 목격했을 때 경험한 도덕적 격분이 제 3자 이타적 처벌의 결정요인으로 설명하고 있으나, 도덕적 격분이 어떠한 인지적 처리과정을 통해 제 3자 처벌에 이르는지는 다루지 못한다. 본 연구는 도덕적 격분이 제 3자의 이타적 처벌 결정에 이르는 인지적 처리과정을 이중체계이론을 통해 접근하고 자아고갈이 더 강한 처벌을 초래하는 이유를 규명하고자 하였다. 이를 위해 실험 참가자들을 높은 자아고갈 조건과 낮은 자아고갈 조건에 무선적으로 할당하고 자아고갈을 조작한 후 자원 분배장면에서 불공정한 상황을 목격했을 때 처벌을 가할 수 있는 제 3자 처벌 게임을 실시하였고, 각 상황에서 경험한 도덕적 격분을 측정하였다. 연구 결과 실험 참가자들은 목격한 상황이 불공정할수록 도덕적 격분을 더 강하게 경험하였지만, 자아고갈 수준에 따른 차이 및 자아 고갈과 불공정성의 상호작용은 유의하지 않았다. 그러나 참가자들은 목격한 상황이 불공정할수록 더 강한 처벌을 가했을 뿐만 아니라 목격한 상황의 불공정성이 상대적으로 높을 때 높은 자아고갈 조건이 낮은 자아고갈 조건보다 더 강한 처벌을 가했다. 처벌 강도의 차이는 해당 상황에서 경험한 도덕적 격분의 영향을 통제했음에도 유의하였다. 이러한 결과는 제 3자의 이타적 처벌에 대해 충동적이고 감정에 기반한 체계 1과 자기통제기능과 강도에 대한 조정이 가능한 체계 2의 역할을 밝힘과 동시에 선행 연구에서 검증되지 않았던 자아고갈이 제 3자의 이타적 처벌에 영향을 미치는 이유가 자아고갈로 인한 체계 2의 활성화 실패에 기인함을 시사한다.

keywords
이타적 처벌, 불공정성, 자아고갈, 도덕적 격분, 이중처리이론, altruistic punishment, unfairness, Ego depletion, moral outrage, dual process theory

Abstract

Regarding the altruistic punishment of a third party, an act committed by a person unrelated to the situation after witnessing an unfair situation. the inequity aversion model describes the experienced moral outrage when witnessing an unfair situation as a determinant of a third party's altruistic punishment, but does not address what cognitive processes lead to third-party punishment. Present study was intended to find out why moral outrage led to the decision of the altruistic punishment of a third party to approach the cognitive processing process through the theory of dual system and the ego-depletion incurred stronger punishment. For these purposes, 40 participants were randomly assigned to high and low ego-depletion conditions, manipulated ego-depletion, and then played third party punishment game, and measured the moral outrage experienced in each situation. Results of this study found that the more unfair situation participants witnessed, the more strongly they experienced moral outrage, but there was no difference between conditions. However, participants not only imposed stronger punishment on the more unfair the situation they witnessed, but also stronger punishments than high ego-depletion conditions were lower when the unfairness of the situation they witnessed was relatively high. These difference between conditions was significant even though controlling the effects of the moral outrage. These results indicate that the role of system 1 that is impulsive and emotion-based and system 2. which has adjust and self-control function on the altruistic punishment of third parties, and the reason why ego-depletion increases the third-party’s punishment is no because of the experience of increased moral outrage but because of the impaired function of system 2.

keywords
이타적 처벌, 불공정성, 자아고갈, 도덕적 격분, 이중처리이론, altruistic punishment, unfairness, Ego depletion, moral outrage, dual process theory

참고문헌

1.

강내리 (2018. 11. 19). 마이크로닷, 부모 사기설파장…추가 입장 내놓을까. YTN. Retrieved from https://www.ytn.co.kr/_sn/0117_201811192004252775#share_btns

2.

곽호완 (2011). 혼합 설계에서 공분산분석의 주의점: KwakStat과 SPSS를 사용하여. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 23(2), 229-238. doi:10.22172/cogbio.2011.23.2.003

3.

김건휘 (2018. 11. 23). 마이크로닷 母 ”잠적․도피 아니다, 조사 받을 것“. 머니투데이. Retrieved from http://news.mt.co.kr/mtview.php?no=2018112312293082694

4.

김민지, 김범준 (2018). 자아고갈이 처벌판단에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 법, 9(2), 57-74.

5.

박은아, 박민지 (2018). 누가 불매운동에 참여하는가?. 한국심리학회지: 소비자․광고, 19(1), 121-138. doi:10.21074/kjlcap.2018.19.1.121

6.

이보영 (2014. 12. 08). “감히 땅콩을 봉지째로? 비행기 돌려” KAL 조현아 부사장 갑질논란. 뉴데일리. Retrieved from http://biz.newdaily.co.kr/site/data/html/2014/12/08/2014120810007.html

7.

이윤재, 강명수, 이한석 (2013). 온라인 소비자 불매운동의도의 영향요인에 관한 연구: 온라인 익명성을 중심으로. 소비자문제연구, 44(2), 27-44. doi:10.15723/jcps.44.2.201308.27

8.

장정헌, 김선호 (2014). 공감, 책임귀인, 그리고 분노가 이타적 처벌 의사에 미치는 영향:2013년 남양유업 사건을 중심으로. 한국언론학보, 58(5), 97-122.

9.

최승혁, 허태균 (2011). 공정한 사회를 위한 형사처벌: 공정세상 믿음 및 기대의 상호작용. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 25(2), 113-125. doi:10.21193/kjspp.2011.25.2.006

10.

최승혁, 허태균 (2012). 잘난 사람의 범죄는?: 처벌판단에서 사회경제적 지위의 역할과 그 심리기제. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 26(4), 127-140. doi:10.21193/kjspp.2012.26.4.008

11.

홍세은, 이현정, 허태균 (2018). 처벌판단에서 행위자의 사회경제적 지위와 의도 불확실성의 역할. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 32 (3), 101-118. doi:10.21193/kjspp.2018.32.3.006 https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208323981

12.

Ainsworth, S. E., Baumeister, R. F., Ariely, D., & Vohs, K. D. (2014). Ego depletion decreases trust in economic decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 40-49. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.04.004

13.

Barclay, P. (2006). Reputational benefits for altruistic punishment. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(5), 325-344. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.01.003

14.

Baumeister, R. F. (2014). Self-regulation, ego depletion, and inhibition. Neuropsychologia, 65, 313-319.

15.

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2018). Strength model of self-regulation as limited resource:Assessment, controversies, update. In Baumeister, R. F (Ed.), Self-Regulation and Self-Control (pp. 78-128). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315175775-3

16.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: is the active self a limited resource?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252-1265. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.74.5.1252

17.

Baumeister, R. F., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (2000). Ego depletion: A resource model of volition, self-regulation, and controlled processing. Social cognition, 18(2), 130-150. doi:10.1521/soco.2000.18.2.130

18.

Bendor, J., & Swistak, P. (2001). The evolution of norms. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1493-1545. doi:10.1086/321298

19.

Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1992). Punishment allows the evolution of cooperation (or anything else) in sizable groups. Ethology and Sociobiology, 13(3), 171-195. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(92)90032-y

20.

Buckholtz, J. W. (2015). Social norms, self-control, and the value of antisocial behavior. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 3, 122-129.

21.

Caldwell, M. D. (1976). Communication and sex effects in a five-person Prisoner's Dilemma Game. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(3), 273-280. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.33.3.273

22.

Crockett, M. J., Clark, L., Lieberman, M. D., Tabibnia, G., & Robbins, T. W. (2010). Impulsive choice and altruistic punishment are correlated and increase in tandem with serotonin depletion. Emotion, 10(6), 855-862. doi:10.1037/a0019861

23.

De Kwaadsteniet, E. W., Rijkhoff, S. A. M., & van Dijk, E. (2013). Equality as a benchmark for third-party punishment and reward: The moderating role of uncertainty in social dilemmas. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(2), 251-259. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.06.007

24.

De Neys, W., & Glumicic, T. (2008). Conflict monitoring in dual process theories of thinking. Cognition, 106(3), 1248-1299. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.06.002

25.

Delton, A. W., & Krasnow, M. M. (2017). The psychology of deterrence explains why group membership matters for third-party punishment. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(6), 734-743. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.07.003

26.

DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Gailliot, M. T., & Maner, J. K. (2008). Depletion Makes the Heart Grow Less Helpful: Helping as a Function of Self-Regulatory Energy and Genetic Relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 165301662.

27.

Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2001). Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic:Differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psychological Science, 12(5), 391-396. doi:10.1111/1467-9280. 00372

28.

Epstein, S., & Pacini, R. (1999). Some basic issues regarding dual-process theories from the perspective of cognitive-experiential self-theory. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 462-482). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

29.

Evans, J. St. B. T. (2003). In two minds:dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in cognitive sciences, 7(10), 454-459. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.012

30.

Evans, J. St. B. T. (2006). The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 378-395. doi:10.3758/bf03193858

31.

Evans, J. St. B. T. (2007). On the resolution of conflict in dual process theories of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 13(4), 321-339. doi:10.1080/13546780601008825

32.

Evans, J. St. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 255-278. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629

33.

Evans, J. St. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition:Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223-241. doi:10.1177/1745691612460685

34.

Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2004). Third-party punishment and social norms. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(2), 63-87. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(04)00005-4

35.

Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000). Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. American Economic Review, 90(4), 980-994. doi:10.1257/aer.90.4.980

36.

Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415(6868), 137-140. doi:10.1038/415137a

37.

Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The quarterly journal of economics, 114(3), 817-868. doi:10.1162/003355399556151

38.

Fowler, J. H., Johnson, T., & Smirnov, O. (2005). Human behaviour: Egalitarian motive and altruistic punishment. Nature, 433(7021), E1-E2. doi:10.1038/nature03256

39.

Galak, J., & Chow, R. M. (2019). Compensate a little, but punish a lot: Asymmetric routes to restoring justice. PLOS ONE, 14(1), e0210676. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0210676

40.

Gintis, H. (2000). Strong reciprocity and human sociality. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 206(2), 169-179. doi:10.1006/jtbi.2000.2111

41.

Gronchi, G., & Giovannelli, F. (2018). Dual Process Theory of Thought and Default Mode Network:A Possible Neural Foundation of Fast Thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1237. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01237

42.

Gummerum, M., Van Dillen, L. F., Van Dijk, E., & López-Pérez, B. (2016). Costly third-party interventions: The role of incidental anger and attention focus in punishment of the perpetrator and compensation of the victim. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 94-104. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2016.04.004

43.

Hamlin, J. K., Wynn, K., Bloom, P., & Mahajan, N. (2011). How infants and toddlers react to antisocial others. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(50), 19931-19936. doi:10.1073/pnas.1110306108

44.

Henrich, J., McElreath, R., Barr, A., Ensminger, J., Barrett, C., Bolyanatz, A., et al. (2006). Costly punishment across human societies. Science, 312(5781), 1767-1770. doi:10.1126/science. 1127333

45.

Herrmann-Pillath, C. (2019). From dual systems to dual function: rethinking methodological foundations of behavioural economics. Economics & Philosophy, 1-20. doi:10.1017/s0266267118000378

46.

Jensen, K. (2010). Punishment and spite, the dark side of cooperation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1553), 2635-2650. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0146

47.

Jordan, J., McAuliffe, K., & Rand, D. (2016). The effects of endowment size and strategy method on third party punishment. Experimental Economics, 19(4), 741-763. doi:10.1007/s10683-015-9466-8

48.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

49.

Knoch, D., & Fehr, E. (2007). Resisting the power of temptations: The right prefrontal cortex and self‐control. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1104(1), 123-134.

50.

Koenigs, M., & Tranel, D. (2007). Irrational economic decision-making after ventromedial prefrontal damage: evidence from the Ultimatum Game. Journal of Neuroscience, 27(4), 951-956. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.4606-06.2007

51.

Kurzban, R., DeScioli, P., & O'Brien, E. (2007). Audience effects on moralistic punishment. Evolution and Human behavior, 28(2), 75-84. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.06.001

52.

Lieberman, D., & Linke, L. (2007). The effect of social category on third party punishment. Evolutionary Psychology, 5(2), 289-305. doi:10. 1177/147470490700500203

53.

Liu, Y., He, N., & Dou, K. (2015). Ego-depletion promotes altruistic punishment. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 3(11), 62-69. doi:10.4236/jss.2015. 311009

54.

Lotz, S., Baumert, A., Schlösser, T., Gresser, F., & Fetchenhauer, D. (2011). Individual differences in third‐party interventions: How justice sensitivity shapes altruistic punishment. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 4(4), 297-313. doi:10.1111/j.1750-4716.2011.00084.x

55.

McAuliffe, K., Jordan, J. J., & Warneken, F. (2015). Costly third-party punishment in young children. Cognition, 134, 1-10. doi:10.1016/j.cognition. 2014.08.013

56.

McCall, C., Steinbeis, N., Ricard, M., & Singer, T. (2014). Compassion meditators show less anger, less punishment, and more compensation of victims in response to fairness violations. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 8, 424. doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00424

57.

Mussweiler, T., & Ockenfels, A. (2013). Similarity increases altruistic punishment in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(48), 19318-19323. doi:10.1073/pnas. 1215443110

58.

Nelissen, R. M. A., & Zeelenberg, M. (2009). Moral emotions as determinants of third-party punishment: Anger, guilt and the functions of altruistic sanctions. Judgment and Decision making, 4(7), 543-553.

59.

Newell, B. R., Lagnado, D. A., & Shanks, D. R. (2015). Straight choices: The psychology of decision making(2nd ed.). London: Psychology Press. doi:10.4324/9781315727080

60.

Ohtsubo, Y., Sasaki, S., Nakanishi, D., & Igawa, J. (2018). Within-individual associations among third-party intervention strategies: Third-party helpers, but not punishers, reward generosity. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 12(2), 113-125. doi:10.1037/ebs0000107

61.

Ostrom, E., Walker, J., & Gardner, R. (1992). Covenants with and without a sword:Self-governance is possible. American Political Science Review, 86(2), 404-417. doi:10.2307/1964229

62.

Pedersen, E. J., McAuliffe, W. H. B., & McCullough, M. E. (2018). The unresponsive avenger: More evidence that disinterested third parties do not punish altruistically. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(4), 514-544. doi:10.1037/xge0000410

63.

Rabellino, D., Morese, R., Ciaramidaro, A., Bara, B. G., & Bosco, F. M. (2016). Third-party punishment: altruistic and anti-social behaviours in in-group and out-group settings. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28(4), 486-495. doi:10.1080/20445911.2016.1138961

64.

Raihani, N. J., & McAuliffe, K. (2012). Human punishment is motivated by inequity aversion, not a desire for reciprocity. Biology letters, 8(5), 802-804. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2012.0470

65.

Rand, D. G., Greene, J. D., & Nowak, M. A. (2012). Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature, 489(7416), 427-430. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11467

66.

Roberts, S. C., Vakirtzis, A., Kristjánsdóttir, L., & Havlíček, J. (2013). Who punishes? Personality traits predict individual variation in punitive sentiment. Evolutionary Psychology, 11(1), 186-200. doi:10.1177/147470491301100117

67.

Sanfey, A. G., Rilling, J. K., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2003). The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science, 300(5626), 1755-1758. doi:10.1126/science.1082976

68.

Schlosser, M. E. (in press). Dual-system theory and the role of consciousness in intentional action. In B. Feltz, M. Missal, & A. Sims (Eds.), Free Will, Causality and Neuroscience.

69.

Schmeichel, B. J., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Intellectual performance and ego depletion: Role of the self in logical reasoning and other information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(1), 33-46. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.33

70.

Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3-22. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.119.1.3

71.

Sloman, S. A. (2014). Two systems of reasoning: An update. In J. W. Sherman, B. Gawronski, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories of the social mind (pp. 69-79). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

72.

Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto Others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

73.

Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational?: Studies of individual differences in reasoning. New York:Psychology Press. doi:10.4324/9781410603432

74.

Stanovich, K. E. (2004). The robot's rebellion: Finding meaning in the age of Darwin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226771199.001.0001

75.

Steinbeis, N., & Over, H. (2017). Enhancing behavioral control increases sharing in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 159, 310-318.

76.

Wagner, D. D., Altman, M., Boswell, R. G., Kelley, W. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (2013). Self-regulatory depletion enhances neural responses to rewards and impairs top-down control. Psychological Science, 24(11), 2262-2271. doi:10.1177/0956797613492985

77.

Yudkin, D. A., Rothmund, T., Twardawski, M., Thalla, N., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2016). Reflexive intergroup bias in third-party punishment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(11), 1448-1459. doi:10.1037/xge0000190

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격