Korean Journal of Culture and Social Issue (한국심리학회지 : 문화 및 사회문제)

Korean Psychological Association of Culture and Social Issues (한국문화및사회문제심리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effect of Analytic-holistic Thinking Style on Intentionality Judgment: The role of crime typicality

분석적-종합적 사고 양식이 고의성 판단에 미치는 영향: 범죄 전형성의 역할

  • Received : 2023.05.02
  • Accepted : 2023.05.18
  • Published : 2023.05.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine how analytic-holistic thinking style, one of the cultural characteristics, affects intentionality judgment and what role the crime typicality plays in the process. To this end, the psychological mechanism of intentionality judgment was confirmed in cases where the criminal typicality was manipulated by the moral characteristics of the crime perpetrator and victim. As a result, higher the criminal typicality lead to higher intentionality judgement. In addition, it was found that people with relatively holistic thinking style (with high causality and perception of change) judge less of the perpetrator intentionality. In particular, it was confirmed that the analytic-holistic thinking style interacts with criminal typicality and affects the intentionality judgment. Specifically, people with a holistic thinking style (high causality) judged the perpetrator to have high intentionality in typical cases, but judged in a reverse way in atypical cases. It means that, holistic thinkers, compared to analytic thinkers, strongly judge intentionality based on criminal typicality considering the moral characteristics of not only the perpetrators but also the victims. Along with the significance of this study, the relationships among analytic-holistic thinking style, criminal typicality and intentionality judgment were discussed.

본 연구는 문화적 특성 중 하나인 분석적-종합적 사고 양식이 고의성 판단에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지, 그 과정에서 범죄 사건의 전형성이 어떠한 역할을 하는지 확인하기 위해 수행되었다. 이를 위해, 사건 가해자 및 피해자의 도덕적 특성을 바탕으로 범죄의 전형성을 다르게 조작한 사건에서 고의성 판단의 심리적 기제를 확인하였다. 연구 결과, 사람들은 범죄 사건의 전형성이 높을수록 고의성을 높게 판단하였다. 또한, 상대적으로 종합적 사고 양식을 보이는(그리고 인과성과 변화 인식이 높은) 사람들은 사건 가해자의 고의성을 낮게 판단하는 것으로 나타났다. 특히, 분석적-종합적 사고 양식은 범죄의 전형성과 상호작용하여 고의성 판단에 영향을 미친다는 것을 확인하였다. 구체적으로 종합적 사고를 하는(그리고 인과성이 높은) 사람들은 전형적인 사건에서는 가해자의 고의성을 높게 판단한 반면, 비전형적인 사건에서는 고의성을 낮게 판단하였다. 이 결과는 분석적 사고에 비해 종합적 사고를 하는 사람들이 가해자뿐만 아니라 피해자의 도덕적 특성을 고려한 범죄 전형성에 근거한 고의성 판단을 더 강하게 한다는 것을 의미한다. 본 연구의 의의와 함께 분석적-종합적 사고 양식과 범죄 전형성 및 고의성 판단과의 관계에 대해 논의하였다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2019년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임 (NRF-2019S1A5B5A07112295).

References

  1. 김범준 (2016). 사회계층의 심리: 문화적 사고성향(분석적-종합적 사고)과 사회비교성향. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 30(4), 19-36. https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2016.30.4.002
  2. 봉세인, 박혜경 (2016). 인상형성에서 인지양식에 따른 희석효과의 개인차: 도덕성과 유능성을 중심으로. 지역과 세계 (구 사회과학연구), 40(3), 195-216.
  3. 설선혜, 최인철 (2009). 분석적-종합적 인지양식과 파급효과의 예측. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 23(3), 19-38. https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2009.23.3.002
  4. 안도연, 이훈진 (2016). 유학적 개념과 일상에서의 경험 조사를 통한 중용(中庸)의 심리학적 정의 도출 : 예비연구. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 35(2), 309-326. https://doi.org/10.22257/KJP.2016.06.35.2.309
  5. 안도연, 이훈진 (2017). 한국판 중용(中庸) 척도의 개발 및 타당화. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 36(4), 421-440. https://doi.org/10.22257/KJP.2017.09.36.3.421
  6. 최승혁 (2020). 고의성 판단에 확증편향이 미치는 영향: 범죄의 전형성 및 심각성의 역할. 한국심리학회지: 문화 및 사회문제, 26(3), 329-349. https://doi.org/10.20406/KJCS.2020.8.26.3.329
  7. 최승혁, 허태균 (2020a). 형사사건에서의 고의성 판단: 도덕적 특성의 역할. 한국심리학회지: 문화 및 사회문제, 26(1), 25-45. https://doi.org/10.20406/KJCS.2020.2.26.1.25
  8. 최승혁, 허태균 (2020b). 그들이라면... 그럴만하지: 범죄 고의성 판단에서 도덕적 특성과 범죄 전형성의 역할. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 34(2), 55-74.
  9. 허태균, 서신화, 김혜진, 양석주, 이종원 (2012). 한국인의 특성 연구보고서. 한국형경영연구원.
  10. Chiu, L. H. (1972). A cross-cultural comparison of cognitive styles in Chinese and American children. International Journal of Psychology, 7(4), 235-242. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207597208246604
  11. Choi, I., Dalal, R., Kim-Prieto, C., & Park, H. (2003). Culture and judgement of causal relevance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 46-59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.46
  12. Choi, I., Koo, M., & Choi, J. A. (2007). Individual differences in analytic versus holistic thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(5), 691-705. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206298568
  13. Choi, I., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). Situational salience and cultural differences in the correspondence bias and actor-observer bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(9), 949-960. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167298249003
  14. Choi, I., & Nisbett, R. E. (2000). Cultural psychology of surprise: Holistic theories and recognition of contradiction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 890-905. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.890
  15. Choi, I., Nisbett, R. E., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). Causal attribution across cultures: Variation and universality. Psychological Bulletin, 125(1), 47-63. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.1.47
  16. Genschow, O., & Lange, J. (2022). Belief in free will is related to internal attribution in self-perception. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(8), 1259-1268. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211057711
  17. Genschow, O., Rigoni, D., & Brass, M. (2017). Belief in free will affects causal attributions when judging others' behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114, 10071-10076. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1701916114
  18. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  19. Grossmann, I., & Varnum, M. E. (2011). Social class, culture, and cognition. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(1), 81-89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610377119
  20. Hughes, J. S. & Trafimow, D. (2012). Inferences about character and motive influence intentionality attributions about side effects. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 661-673. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02031.x
  21. Ji, L. J., Nisbett, R. E., & Su, Y. (2001). Culture, change, and prediction. Psychological Science, 12(6), 450-456. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00384
  22. Ji, L. J., Zhang, Z., & Nisbett, R. E. (2004). Is it culture or is it language? Examination of language effects in cross-cultural research on categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(1), 57-65. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.1.57
  23. Kraus, M. W., Chen, S., & Keltner, D. (2011). The power to be me: Power elevates self-concept consistency and authenticity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5), 974-980.
  24. Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., & Keltner, D. (2009). Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 992-1004. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016357
  25. Kuhnen, U., & Oyserman, D. (2002). Thinking about the self influences thinking in general: Cognitive consequences of salient self-concept. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(5), 492-499. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00011-2
  26. Lee, F., Hallahan, M., & Herzog, T. (1996). Explaining real-life events: How culture and domain shape attributions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(7), 732-741. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296227007
  27. Masuda, T., & Nisbett, R. E. (2001). Attending holistically versus analytically: Comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5), 922-934. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.5.922
  28. Masuda, T., & Nisbett, R. E. (2006). Culture and change blindness. Cognitive Science, 30(2), 381-399. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_63
  29. Miyamoto, Y., & Ji, L. J. (2011). Power fosters context-independent, analytic cognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(11), 1449-1458. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211411485
  30. Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 67(6), 949-971. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.949
  31. Na, J., Grossmann, I., Varnum, M. E., Kitayama, S., Gonzalez, R., & Nisbett, R. E. (2010). Cultural differences are not always reducible to individual differences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(14), 6192-6197. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1001911107
  32. Nadelhoffer, T. (2006). Bad acts, blameworthy agents, and intentional actions: Some problems for juror impartiality. Philosophical Explorations, 9(2), 203-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/13869790600641905
  33. Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Cultural and Systems of Thought: Holistic Versus Analytic Cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291-310.
  34. Nisbett, R. E., Zukier, H., & Lemley, R. E. (1981). The Dilution effect: Nondiagnostic information weakens the implications of diagnostic information. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 248-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(81)90010-4
  35. Norenzayan, A., Smith, E. E., Kim, B. J., & Nisbett, R. E. (2002). Cultural preferences for formal versus intuitive reasoning. Cognitive Science, 26(5), 653-684.
  36. Oyserman, D., & Lee, S. W. S. (2008). Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 311-342. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.311
  37. Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54(9), 741-754. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.9.741
  38. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2), 242-258. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.242
  39. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993). The story model for juror decision making (pp. 192-221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  40. Talhelm, T., Haidt, J., Oishi, S., Zhang, X., Miao, F. F., & Chen, S. (2015). Liberals think more analytically (more "WEIRD") than conservatives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(2), 250-267.
  41. Watkins, D., Regmi, M., & Alfon, M. (1990). Antecedents of self-esteem of Nepalese and Filipino college students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 151(3), 341-347.
  42. Wong-On-Wing, B., & Lui, G. (2007). Culture, implicit theories, and the attribution of morality. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 19(1), 231-246. https://doi.org/10.2308/bria.2007.19.1.231
  43. Zhou, X., He, L., Yang, Q., Lao, J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Control deprivation and styles of thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 460-478. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026316