Korean Journal of Psychology : General

理쒓렐샇 寃깋

Korean Journal of Psychology : General - Vol. 41 , No. 2

[ Article ]
The Korean Journal of Psychology: General - Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 635-666
ISSN: 1229-067X (Print)
Print publication date 25 Dec 2021
Received 14 Dec 2021 Accepted 20 Dec 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22257/kjp.2021.

연속적 간격법의 소개와 활용법: 행동의 비난가능성 측정을 중심으로
한유화 ; 이우열
충북대학교 심리학과

Introduction and an application of the method of successive intervals: Focusing on scaling blameworthiness of behaviors
Yuhwa Han ; Wooyeol Lee
Department of Psychology, Chungbuk National University
Correspondence to : 한유화, 충북대학교 심리학과 강사, E-mail: yuhwahan82@gmail.com
Contributed by footnote: 이우열, 충북대학교 심리학과 조교수, (28644) 충북 청주시 서원구 충대로 1 충북대학교 사회과학대학 심리학과, E-mail: wooyeollee@chungbuk.ac.kr

Funding Information ▼


본 연구는 심리학 영역에서 주목받지 않았던 자극측정 방법인 연속적 간격법을 소개하고, 이 방법을 적용하여 행동의 비난가능성을 측정하며, 측정된 행동의 척도치를 심리적 변인을 측정하는 데 활용할 수 있다는 것을 보여주기 위해 수행되었다. 먼저, 심리측정방법을 분류하고, 구체적인 측정방법들을 소개한 후, 다른 자극측정 방법들과 연속적 간격법을 비교함으로써 이 방법의 유용성을 논의하였다. 연속적 간격법은 자극의 척도치와 반응범주 경계선을 찾는 방법으로 개별 자극에 대해 각 반응범주에 응답한 판단자 비율에 기초하여 모든 자극과 반응범주의 상대적인 위치를 결정한다. 연구 1에서 연구자들은 33개 행동의 비난가능성을 평정한 500명의 자료를 분석에 사용하였으며, 연속적 간격법을 이용하여 각 행동의 비난가능성 측정치를 산출하였다. 행동의 비난가능성 측정 결과, 법률로 금지하고 있는 행동들의 비난가능성은 약 3점으로 높게 산출되었으며, 처벌할 수는 없지만 부정적으로 인식될 수 있는 행동들의 측정치는 약 1점~2점으로 낮게 산출되었다. 연구 2에서는 108명의 자료를 분석하였으며, 행동의 비난가능성 측정치를 활용하여 일상생활에서 사람들이 사용하는 ‘무죄’의 의미를 나타내는 무죄표상을 측정하였다. 기존의 확률추정 방법으로 측정된 무죄표상과 관련변인은 관계가 없는 것으로 나타난 반면, 비난가능성 측정치가 확인된 행동목록으로 측정된 무죄표상과 관련변인들의 관계는 이론적으로 타당한 방향성을 보여주었다. 이와 같은 결과는 연속적 간격법으로 측정된 자극의 척도치를 활용하여 자극과 의미적으로 관련된 다른 개념을 타당하게 측정할 수 있음을 보여준다. 본 연구는 심리학 영역에서 활발하게 사용되지 않았던 자극측정 방법의 활용가능성을 제시함으로써 연구자들에게 심리적 변인의 측정방법에 대한 다양한 통찰의 기회를 제공할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.


The current study was conducted to i) introduce the method of successive intervals, a stimulus-centered scaling that has not received much attention in psychology, ii) show that it can be applied to measure the blameworthiness of behavior, and iii) demonstrate the scaled behaviors could be applied to measure an individual’s psychological property. The authors classified psychometric methods and introduced several stimulus-centered scaling methods. The usefulness of the method of successive intervals was discussed by comparing those stimulus-centered scaling methods. In order to find the scale value of the stimulus and the boundary of the response category, the method of successive intervals determines the relative positions of all stimuli and response categories based on the proportion of raters who responded to each response category to individual stimuli. In Study 1, a list of 33 morally justifiable behaviors was constructed from existing studies. Then, scale values of the blameworthiness of the behaviors were calculated (N=500). As a result, the scale values of behaviors prohibited by law were higher than others. On the other hand, the scale values of behaviors that could not be punished but could be perceived as bad were relatively low. In Study 2, the representation of innocence (representation of ‘innocent’), meaning people’s psychological representation of ‘not blameworthy’ was measured (N=108) based on the scale values obtained in Study 1. The relationship between the representation of ‘innocent’ measured by the list of behaviors and related variables had a theoretically predictive direction. These results show that the scale values of stimulus based on the method of successive intervals can be applied to measure individual’s psychological attribute related to the stimulus. This study is expected to allow researchers to consider various scaling methods by showing the applicability of the method of successive intervals that have not been used frequently by researchers in psychology.

Keywords: psychometrics, stimulus-centered scaling, the method of successive intervals, blameworthiness, representation of ‘innocent’
키워드: 심리측정, 자극중심 측정법, 연속적 간격법, 비난가능성, 무죄표상


이 논문은 2018년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(NRF-2018S1A5B5A02030844).

1. American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Weber’s law. In APA Dictionary of Psychology. Retrieved November 10. 2021, from https://dictionary.apa.org/webers-law
2. American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Fechner’s law. In APA Dictionary of Psychology. Retrieved November 10. 2021, from https://dictionary.apa.org/fechners-law
3. Birnbaum, A. (1958a). On the estimation of mental ability for various decision making problems (Series Report No. 15, Project No. 7755-23). USAF School of Aviation Medicine.
4. Birnbaum, A. (1958b). Further considerations efficiency in tests of mental ability (Technical Report No. 17, Project No. 7755-23). USAF School of Aviation Medicine.
5. Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models. In F. M. Lord & M. R. Novick (Eds.), Statistical theories of mental test scores (pp. 397-479). Addison-Wesley.
6. Birnbaum, M. H. (Ed.). (1998). Measurement, judgment, and decision making (2nd ed.). Academic Press.
7. Burros, R. H. (1955). The estimation of the discriminal dispersion in the method of successive intervals. Psychometrika, 20(4), 299-305.
8. Choi, S. & Hur, T. (2020). Intentionality judgment in the criminal case: The role of moral character. Korean Journal of Culture and Social Issues, 26(1), 25-45.
9. Coombs, C. (1964). A theory of data. Wiley.
10. Costa, M. F., Gaddi, C. M., & de Paula, F. V. (2020). A novel method for quantifying color concept saliency. Cognition, Brain, Behavior, 24(3), 213-234.
11. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
12. Dai, S., Vo, T. T., Kehinde, O. J., He, H., Xue, Y., Demir, C., & Wang, X. (2021). Performance of polytomous IRT models with rating scale data: An investigation over sample size, instrument length, and missing data. Frontiers in Education, 6, 372.
13. Dane, F. C. (1985). In search of reasonable doubt. Law and Human Behavior, 9(2), 141-158.
14. Davison, M. L., Ding, C. S., & S. K., Kim (2010). Multidimensional scaling. In G. R., Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences (pp. 265-279). Routledge.
15. Dhami, M. K. (2008). On measuring quantitative interpretations of reasonable doubt. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 14(4), 353-363.
16. Drasgow, F., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Stark, S. (2010). 75 years after Likert: Thurstone was right!. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3(4), 465-476.
17. Edwards, A. L. (1953). The relationship between the judged desirability of a trait and the probability that the trait will be endorsed. Journal of applied Psychology, 37(2), 90-93.
18. Edwards, A. L., & Gonzalez, R. (1993). Simplified successive intervals scaling. Applied psychological measurement, 17(1), 21-27.
19. Edwards, A. L., & Thurstone, L. L. (1952). An interval consistency check for scale values determined by the method of successive intervals. Psychometrika, 17(2), 169-180.
20. Embretson, S. E. & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory. Psychology Press.
21. Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029-1046.
22. Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Lyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366-385.
23. Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
24. Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and practice. Kluwer.
25. Han, Y. (2021). Quantifying an implicit legal threshold and mental representations of ‘Innocent:’ A comparison of implicit and theoretical thresholds for a legal decision, The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 32(6), 836-860.
26. Han, Y. & Park, K. (2017). Sole evidence and legal judgement of lay people: Circular logic and causal inference. The Korean Journal of Forensic Psychology, 8(2), 133-151.
27. Han, Y. & Park, K (2018). Sole evidence and legal judgment of lay people: Overestimated posterior probability and threshold for conviction. Korean Journal of Forensic Psychology. 9(1), 1-19.
28. Harding, S. & Phillips, D. (1986). Contrasting values in western Europe. Unity, diversity, and change. Macmillan.
29. Hevner, K. (1930). An empirical study of three psychophysical methods. Journal of General Psychology, 4, 191-212.
30. Katz, R. C., Santman, J., & Lonero, P. (1994). Findings on the revised morally debatable behaviors scale. The Journal of Psychology, 128(1), 15-21.
31. Lee, D. & Park, K. (2017). The effect of sentencing factor and juror’s gender on verdict. Korean Journal of Forensic Psychology, 8(3), 213-228.
32. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22(140), 1-55. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1933-01885-001
33. Lord, F. (1952). A Theory of Test Scores (Psychometric Monograph No. 7). Richmond, VA: Psychometric Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.psychometrika.org/journal/online/MN07.pdf
34. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Erlbaum.
35. Mosier, C. I. (1940). A modification of the method of successive intervals. Psychometrika, 5, 101-107.
36. Park, D. (2006). Scaling Method. Kyoyookguahaksa.
37. Park, K., Seong, Y., Kim, M., & Kim, J. (2016). Juror adjustments to the reasonable doubt standard of proof. Psychology, Crime & Law, 22(6), 599-618.
38. Price, L. R. (2016). Psychometric methods: Theory into practice. Guilford Publications.
39. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Danish Institute of Educational Research.
40. Reise, S. P., & Yu, J. (1990). Parameter recovery in the graded response model using MULTILOG. Journal of educational Measurement, 27(2), 133-144.
41. Roslow, S. (1938). Apparatus to facilitate the scoring of the Thurstone Attitude Scales. The Journal of Social Psychology, 9(1), 103-105.
42. Royeen, C. B. (1985) Adaption of Likert scaling for use with children. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 5(1), 59-69.
43. Rozeboom, W. W., & Jones, L. V. (1956). The validity of the successive intervals method of psychometric scaling. Psychometrika, 21(2), 165-183.
44. Russo, J. (1994). Thurstone’s scaling model applied to the assessment of self-reported depressive severity. Psychological Assessment, 6(2), 159-171.
45. Saffir, M. A. (1937). A comparative study of scales constructed by three psychophysical methods. Psychometrika, 2(3), 179-198.
46. Schönemann, P. H., & Tucker, L. R. (1967). A maximum likelihood solution for the method of successive intervals allowing for unequal stimulus dispersions. Psychometrika, 32(4), 403-417.
47. Smith, S. M., & Albaum, G. S. (2004). Fundamentals of marketing research, SAGE Publications.
48. Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., Drasgow, F., & Williams, B. A. (2006). Examining assumptions about item responding in personality assessment: Should ideal point methods be considered for scale development and scoring? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 25-39.
49. Stevens, S. S. (Ed.). (1951). Handbook of experimental psychology. Wiley.
50. Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Thinking about the unthinkable: Coping with secular encroachments on sacred values. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 320-324.
51. Thurstone, L. L. (1927a). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 273-286.
52. Thurstone, L. L. (1927b). The method of paired comparisons for social values. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 21(4), 384-400.
53. Thurstone, L. L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. American journal of Sociology, 33(4), 529-554.
54. Torgerson, W. (1958). Theory and methods of scaling. Wiley.