Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology
- Apply for Authority
- P-ISSN1229-0653
- KCI
ISSN : 1229-0653
Browse Articles
- 2024 (Vol.38)
- 2023 (Vol.37)
- 2022 (Vol.36)
- 2021 (Vol.35)
- 2020 (Vol.34)
- 2019 (Vol.33)
- 2018 (Vol.32)
- 2017 (Vol.31)
- 2016 (Vol.30)
- 2015 (Vol.29)
- 2014 (Vol.28)
- 2013 (Vol.27)
- 2012 (Vol.26)
- 2011 (Vol.25)
- 2010 (Vol.24)
- 2009 (Vol.23)
- 2008 (Vol.22)
- 2007 (Vol.21)
- 2006 (Vol.20)
- 2005 (Vol.19)
- 2004 (Vol.18)
- 2003 (Vol.17)
- 2002 (Vol.16)
- 2001 (Vol.15)
- 2000 (Vol.14)
- 1999 (Vol.13)
- 1998 (Vol.12)
- 1997 (Vol.11)
- 1996 (Vol.10)
- 1995 (Vol.9)
- 1994 (Vol.8)
- 1993 (Vol.7)
- 1992 (Vol.6)
- 1991 (Vol.6)
- 1990 (Vol.5)
- 1989 (Vol.4)
- 1988 (Vol.4)
- 1987 (Vol.3)
- 1986 (Vol.3)
- 1985 (Vol.2)
- 1984 (Vol.2)
- 1983 (Vol.1)
- 1982 (Vol.1)
Vol.9 No.2
Abstract
An attempt is made to critically review the major middle range theories in intragroup processes and intergroup relations from 1980's. The intragroup theories included in this article are drive theory, social comparison theory, self-presentation theory and self-attention theory, as applied to group processes. Theoretical approaches to intergroup relations included are relative deprivation theories, social identity theory, self-categorization theory and attribution approaches to intergroup relations. In addition, equity theory, social impact theory, interdependence theory of social influence, minority influence theory and procedural justice theory among others are partly discussed in relation to the relevant theories. In order to obtain a comprehensive framework that systematize the intragroup and intergroup theories, a two-dimensional classification scheme is presented according to the nature of group relationships(intragroup, intergroup) and levels of analysis(individual, interpersonal and intergroup). It is emphasized that group researchers in Korea ought to take the relationship orientations of the Korean people into account in studying group behaviors and intergroup relations.
Abstract
The present study is concerned with identifying the information variables affecting punishment judgment. Punishment judgment, in the present study, was conceived as consisting of judgment of guiltiness and judgment of penalty. Three studies dealt with information variables affecting penalty judgment and the manner in which these information variables interact with each other in determining the judgment. An equation for penalty judgment was derived from the information integration theory of impression formation(Anderson, 1974) and equity theory(Adams, 1965): Penalty=(defendant's responsibility x severity of victim's outcome)+(recidivism risk). Study 1 and Study 2 verified the notion that defendant's responsibility and severity of outcome combine multiplicatively rather than additively in predicting penalty judgment. Study 3 showed that culpability(responsibility x outcome severity) and recidivism risk combine additively as the above model predicts. Implications and limitations of the present studies were discussed.
Abstract
The present study examined the effect of self-serving and group-serving attribution on the impression judgments. More specifically, Study1 and Study2 examined the hypotheses that self-serving attribution would elicit negative evaluations while group-serving(or teammate-serving, in Study2) attribution in comparison with self-serving attribution would elicit less negative evaluations. The results of Study1 and Study2 demonstrated that as expected, those who attributed the individual's or group's success to his own ability was judged as less warm and humble, and consequently as less likable, than those who attributed to other factors. However, as expected, those who attributed success to own effort were evaluated positively in terms of social(Study1) as well as ability(Study2) attributes. In the case of the attributions regarding group task performance, unlike the hypothesis, the evaluations toward those who attributed group success to group ability were as negative as those who showed self-serving ability attribution. However, those who attributed group failure to lack of group ability were evaluated more negatively than those who attributed personal failure of themselves to lack of own ability, thus partially supporting the hypothesis.
Abstract
Two experiments were conducted to test three related hypotheses: (1) that simple information on public opinion will change people's attitudes, (2) that information on college student ingroup's social support will have greater effects on the students' attitude change than information on general public's support, and (3) that perceived ingroup norm will be more polarized than actual ingroup norm because of the expected comparison of the students with the general public. The independent variable was the kinds of information on public opinion: (1) ingroup minority/general minority support, (2) ingroup majority/general minority support, (3) ingroup minority/general majority support, or (4) ingroup majority/general majority support conditions. The primary dependent variable was attitude change scores; furthermore, the difference between perceived and actual ingroup norms was additionally analyzed in terms of the degree of polarization. As a result, the first two of the above three hypotheses were supported by data; but the third hypothesis based on self-categorization theory(Turner et al., 1987) was rejected. Thus, it can be said that although perceived ingroup norm was not polarized, external information on public opinion (expecially on ingroup's dominant opinion) in fact changed students' attitudes in the direction of expressed ingroup opinion.
Abstract
A resource dilemma, a special case of a social dilemma, simulates a situatiuon in which a group of individuals can "harvest" resources from a common resource pool. But if they overharvest from the common pool, the pool can become "extinct." Thus, each member's decision must consider the future level of the pool as well as the current level. The effects of uncertainty about resource pool size and information about members' harvest decisions were investigated. Groups of four subjects(undergraduate students) were asked to harvest points from a replenishable resource pool. Three factors were crossed in a factoral design : uncertainty(high vs low), penalty for overharvest(high vs low) and feedback information(individual vs aggregated group level). The primary dependent measure was mean group harvest. Results showed that subjects harvested less when uncertainty was high, a finding opposite to the results of previous studies. An uncertainty by penalty interaction showed that members' harvests tended to increase with high uncertainty, and the reverse with low uncertainty.