Korean Journal of Cognitive Science (인지과학)

The Korean Society for Cognitive Science (한국인지과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of Interaction between Category Coherence and Base Rate on Presumption of Reasons for Preference

범주 응집성과 기저율의 상호작용이 선호의 이유 추정에 미치는 효과

  • Doh, Eun Yeong (Department of Industrial Psychology, Kwangwoon University) ;
  • Lee, Guk-Hee (Division of General Studies, Kyonggi University)
  • 도은영 (광운대학교 산업심리학과) ;
  • 이국희 (경기대학교 교양학부)
  • Received : 2020.09.21
  • Accepted : 2020.09.22
  • Published : 2020.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Some progress has been made in the study of the category coherence effect, which states that the attributes of soldiers or nuns with similarities in dress and behavior, and easily distinguished from other categories, are likely to be generalized. However, few studies have examined the fundamental psychological mechanisms that underlie this category coherence effect, and this study aims to fill this gap. For this purpose, two experiments were conducted after selecting categories with high coherence (nuns, soldiers, and flight attendants) and those with low coherence (interpreters, wedding planners, and florists). In experiment 1, we observed that the members of a category were presumed to have certain reasons to prefer [property X] (presumption of reasons for preference), with this presumption becoming stronger when [property X] was observed repeatedly in high-coherence categories than in the case of low-coherence categories. Experiment 2 showed that for the high-coherence categories, the presumption of reasons for preference was stronger when [property X], rarely seen in everyday life (base rate of 30%), was observed, while the presumption of reasons for preference was weaker when [property Y] (base rate 70%), frequently seen in everyday life, was observed. In the low-coherence categories, the presumption of reasons for preference tended to be weak for both rare and frequent attributes. That is, there were significant effects of the two-way interaction between category coherence and base rate on the presumption of reasons for preference. This study has implications for psychological essentialism and stereotyping.

복장이나 언행에서 유사성이 높고, 다른 범주와 구분이 용이한 군인이나 수녀들이 가진 속성은 일반화되기 쉽다는 범주 응집성 효과 연구에는 어느 정도 진전이 있었다. 그러나 이러한 범주 응집성 효과의 근본에 어떤 심리적 기제가 있는지에 대한 직접적인 연구가 드물었기에 본 연구에서 다루어보고자 한다. 이를 위해 본 연구는 응집성이 높은 범주(수녀, 군인, 비행기승무원)와 낮은 범주(통역사, 웨딩플래너, 플로리스트)를 선정한 후, 두 가지 실험을 진행하였다. 실험 1은 응집성이 높은 범주에서 [속성X]가 반복 관찰될 때가 응집성 낮은 범주에서 [속성X]가 반복 관찰될 때보다 해당 범주 구성원이 [속성X]를 선호할 만한 이유가 있을 것으로 추정하는 정도(선호의 이유 추정 정도)가 높아지는 현상을 관찰하였다. 실험 2는 응집성이 높은 범주의 경우, 일상적으로 드물게 나타나는 [속성X](기저율 30%)이 관찰될 때는 선호의 이유 추정 정도가 높아지지만, 일상에서 자주 나타나는 [속성Y](기저율 70%)가 관찰될 때는 선호의 이유 추정 정도가 낮아지는 현상을 관찰하였고, 응집성이 낮은 범주의 경우, 일상에서 드물게 나타나는 속성과 자주 나타나는 속성 모두 선호의 이유 추정 정도가 낮은 경향을 확인하였다. 즉 범주 응집성과 기저율의 이원 상호작용이 선호의 이유 추정 정도에 미치는 효과가 유의하였다. 본 연구가 심리학적 본질주의, 고정관념 형성에 시사점을 가진다는 것에 대해 논의하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 이국희, 이형철, 김신우 (2020). 범주 응집성과 기저율의 상호작용이 속성 일반화에 미치는 효과. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 32(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.21193/KJSPP.2018.32.1.001
  2. Balkcom, E. R., Alogna, V. K., Curtin, E. R., Halberstadt, J. B., & Bering, J. M. (2019). Aversion to organs donated by suicide victims: The role of psychological essentialism. Cognition, 192, 104037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104037
  3. Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2006). Psychological essentialism and stereotype endorsement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 228-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.03.003
  4. Black, J. B., & Bern, H. (1981). Causal coherence and memory for events in narratives. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(3), 267-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90417-5
  5. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 433-436. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856897X00357
  6. Butchart, G. C. (2010). The exceptional community: On strangers, foreigners, and communication. Communication, Culture & Critique, 3(1), 21-25.
  7. Caprariello, P. A., Cuddy, A. J., & Fiske, S. T. (2009). Social structure shapes cultural stereotypes and emotions: A causal test of the stereotype content model. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(2), 147-155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430208101053
  8. Cimpian, A., & Salomon, E. (2014). The inherence heuristic: An intuitive means of making sense of the world, and a potential precursor to psychological essentialism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(5), 461-480. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X13002197
  9. Colombo, M., Cherubini, P., Montali, L., Marando, L., & Nuovo, P. A. (2012). There’s foreigner and foreigner: Xenophobic reasoning and anti--immigrant discourse. Journal of Community Psychology, 3(4), 135-143.
  10. Dantlgraber, M., Kuhlmann, T., & Reips, U. D. (2019). Conceptual fluency in inductive reasoning. PloS one, 14(11), e0225050. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225050
  11. Dhamoon, R., & Abu-Laban, Y. (2009). Dangerous (internal) foreigners and nation-building: The case of Canada. International Political Science Review, 30(2), 163-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512109102435
  12. Edeling, A., & Himme, A. (2018). When does market share matter? New empirical generalizations from a meta-analysis of the market share-performance relationship. Journal of Marketing, 82(3), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.16.0250
  13. Gawronski, B., Ehrenberg, K., Banse, R., Zukova, J., & Klauer, K. C. (2003). It’s in the mind of the beholder: The impact of stereotypic associations on category-based and individuating impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(1), 16-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00517-6
  14. Gelman, S. A. (2004). Psychological essentialism in children. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(9), 404-409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.07.001
  15. Haslam, N., Bastian, B., Bain, P., & Kashima, Y. (2006). Psychological essentialism, implicit theories, and intergroup relations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9(1), 63-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430206059861
  16. Hayes, B. K., & Heit, E. (2018). Inductive reasoning 2.0. Cognitive Science, 9(3), e1459.
  17. Heit, E., & Feeney, A. (2005). Relations between premise similarity and inductive strength. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(2), 340-344. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196382
  18. Holyoak, K. J., Lee, H. S., & Lu, H. (2010). Analogical and category-based inference: A theoretical integration with Bayesian causal models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(4), 702-727. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020488
  19. Irawan, M. Z., Belgiawan, P. F., Widyaparaga, A., Budiman, A., Muthohar, I., & Sopha, B. M. (2018). A market share analysis for hybrid cars in Indonesia. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 6(3), 336-341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2017.09.003
  20. Karasawa, M., Asai, N., & Hioki, K. (2019). Psychological essentialism at the explicit and implicit levels: The unique status of social categories. Japanese Psychological Research, 61(2), 107-122. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12246
  21. Karpinski, A., & Steinman, R. B. (2006). The Single Category Implicit Association Test as a measure of implicit social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 16-32. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.16
  22. Keven, N. (2016). Events, narratives and memory. Synthese, 193(8), 2497-2517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0862-6
  23. Kim, S., & Lee, G. H. (2017). Influence of category coherence and type of base-rate acquisition on property generalization. Acta Psychologica, 172, 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.11.013
  24. Kim, Y. L., & Jang, A. (2017). Cultural diversity and cultural co-existence between asian immigrants and the natives in Korea. OMNES: The Journal of Multicultural Society, 7(2), 60-98. https://doi.org/10.15685/omnes.2017.01.7.2.60
  25. Kutzner, F., & Fiedler, K. (2017). Stereotypes as pseudocontingencies. European Review of Social Psychology, 28(1), 1-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2016.1260238
  26. Lee, J. C., Lovibond, P. F., Hayes, B. K., & Navarro, D. J. (2019). Negative evidence and inductive reasoning in generalization of associative learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(2), 289-303. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000496
  27. Liu, F., Han, J., Zhang, L., & Li, F. (2019). Inductive reasoning differs between taxonomic and thematic contexts: Electrophysiological evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1702. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01702
  28. Liu, Y., Lin, W., Xu, P., Zhang, D., & Luo, Y. (2015). Neural basis of disgust perception in racial prejudice. Human brain mapping, 36(12), 5275-5286. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23010
  29. Macrae, C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). Social cognition: Thinking categorically about others. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 93-120. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.93
  30. Medin, D. L., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (p. 179-195). Cambridge University Press.
  31. Newman, G. E., & Knobe, J. (2019). The essence of essentialism. Mind & Language, 34(5), 585-605. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12226
  32. Osherson, D. N., Smith, E. E., Wilkie, O., Lopez, A., & Shafir, E. (1990). Category-based induction. Psychological Review, 97(2), 185-200. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.185
  33. Patalano, A. L., Chin-Parker, S., & Ross, B. H. (2006). The importance of being coherent: Category coherence, cross-classification, and reasoning. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(3), 407-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.10.005
  34. Patalano, A. L., & Ross, B. H. (2007). The role of category coherence in experience-based prediction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(4), 629-634. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196812
  35. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 437-442. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856897X00366
  36. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (2007). Psychological essentialism of human categories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(4), 202-206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00504.x
  37. Rangel, U., & Keller, J. (2011). Essentialism goes social: Belief in social determinism as a component of psychological essentialism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(6), 1056-1078. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022401
  38. Rotello, C. M., Heit, E., & Kelly, L. J. (2019). Do modals identify better models? A comparison of signal detection and probabilistic models of inductive reasoning. Cognitive psychology, 112, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2019.03.004
  39. Rydgren, J. (2004). The logic of xenophobia. Rationality and society, 16(2), 123-148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463104043712
  40. Sanjana, N. E., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2003). Bayesian models of inductive generalization. In Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 59-66).
  41. Sutherland, S. L., & Cimpian, A. (2019). Developmental evidence for a link between the inherence bias in explanation and psychological essentialism. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 177, 265-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.06.002
  42. Suzuki, B. H. (2002). Revisiting the model minority stereotype: Implications for student affairs practice and higher education. New directions for student services, 2002(97), 21-32. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.36
  43. Thurman, N. (2018). Newspaper consumption in the mobile age: Re-assessing multi-platform performance and market share using “time-spent”. Journalism Studies, 19(10), 1409-1429. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2017.1279028
  44. Wagner, W., Kronberger, N., Nagata, M., Sen, R., Holtz, P., & Palacios, F. F. (2010). Essentialist theory of ‘hybrids’: From animal kinds to ethnic categories and race. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 13(4), 232-246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2010.01315.x
  45. Winiewski, M., & Bulska, D. (2019). Stereotype content as a collective memory of place and its past intergroup relations. Social Psychological Bulletin, 14(2), 1-27.
  46. Wu, Y. (2014). Race/ethnicity and perceptions of the police: A comparison of White, Black, Asian and Hispanic Americans. Policing and Society, 24(2), 135-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2013.784288