Korean Journal of Psychology : General

끉臾 寃깋

Korean Journal of Psychology : General - Vol. 38 , No. 3

[ Article ]
The Korean Journal of Psychology: General - Vol. 38, No. 3, pp.443-459
ISSN: 1229-067X (Print)
Print publication date 25 Sep 2019
Received 20 Sep 2019 Accepted 25 Sep 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22257/kjp.2019.

권력 관계에서의 사회적 의사결정
지은희 ; 홍인재 ; 김민식
연세대학교 심리학과

Social decision-making in power relationships
Eunhee Ji ; Injae Hong ; Min-Shik Kim
Department of Psychology, Yonsei University
Correspondence to : 김민식, 연세대학교, 심리학과 Tel: 02-2123-2443, E-mail: kimm@yonsei.ac.kr

Funding Information ▼


본 연구는 상대방의 의도를 파악하는 것이 중요한 의사결정 상황에서 권력관계에 따라 상대의 의도를 추론하여 내려지는 의사결정이 달라질 수 있는가를 알아보았다. 추가 보상에 대한 배분 결정권을 조작함으로써 권력관계를 조작하였고, 통제 조건의 참가자들은 배분 결정권의 차이가 없었다. 참가자들은 상대방과 60회의 죄수의 딜레마 게임을 실시하였고, 매 시행마다 이모티콘을 상대방과 교환하였다. 참가자들은 실제로는 세 번 중에 두 번 배신하도록 설정된 컴퓨터와 게임을 하였으며, 컴퓨터는 배신 의도를 그대로 드러내거나 감추는 방식으로 정서 표현 방식이 조작되었다. 죄수의 딜레마 게임 중에 통제 조건의 참가자들은 배신 의도를 표출하는 상대에 비해 배신 의도를 감추는 상대에게 더 협력해주는 것으로 나타난 반면, 권력 조건의 참가자들은 상대방의 정서 표현 방식에 따른 협력 비율의 차이가 관찰되지 않았다. 상대방의 정서 표현 방식과 관계없이 낮은 권력 조건의 참가자들이 권력을 가진 참가자들에 비해 더 많이 협력해주는 결과가 관찰되었다. 죄수의 딜레마 게임이 끝난 후에 추가 보상을 배분할 때, 통제 조건의 참가자들은 배신 의도를 표출하는 상대에게 자원을 덜 배분하는 반면, 권력관계에 조작된 참가자들은 배신 의도 표출여부에 따른 차이가 관찰되지 않았다. 높은 권력 조건의 참가자들은 상대방의 정서 표현 방식과 관계없이 낮은 권력 조건의 참가자들보다 상대에게 더 적은 자원을 배분하는 경향을 나타냈다. 권력관계에 놓인 참가자들은 상대방의 정서 표현 방식에는 거의 영향을 받지 않고, 자신이 처한 권력관계에 따라 의사결정이 이루어진다는 것을 확인할 수 있었다.


The current study investigated whether the difference in power can influence people’s social decision-making, specifically when trying to consider the other’s intentions. Participants in power were told that they could decide the distribution ratio of additional reward at the end of the experiment, whereas other participants were told that they just had to accept the opponent’s decision. Participants in the control condition were informed that they would receive an equal additional reward to the opponent. Participants played a prisoner’s dilemma game with a computer that was pre-programmed to betray the participants, which participants believed to be another participant’s doing. Emojis (joyful, neutral, or regretful) as emotional expressions were exchanged at the end of every round. The computer showed frank facial expressions with their action (e.g., a joyful face after winning more points) or camouflaged facial expressions (e.g., a regretful face after winning more points). We found that participants in the control condition were less cooperative in the frank expression conditions than in the camouflaged expression conditions. However, participants did not show any difference between both conditions, regardless of the power condition. After the dilemma game, participants in the control condition gave less reward to the opponent expressed betrayal intention, whereas participants in power or not did not give different reward to the opponent. Rather, participants who were in power gave less reward compared to those not in power. These results suggested that people tend to be insensitive to the other’s emotional expression when they were situated in a power relationship, but rather acted according to their own status of power.

Keywords: power relationship, emotional expression, reading mind, decision making
키워드: 권력관계, 갑을관계, 정서 표현, 의도추론, 의사결정


이 논문은 2018년도 정부(교육부)의 재원으로 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 기초연구사업임(No.2018R1A6A3A01012610).

이 논문은 2019년도 연세대학교 연구비의 지원을 받아 수행된 것임(2019-22-0050).

1. 강준만 (2017). 갑과 을의 나라: 갑을관계는 대한민국을 어떻게 지배해왔는가. 인물과 사상사.
2. 매일경제용어. 갑질에 대한 용어 정의. http://dic.mk.co.kr/cp/pop/desc.php
3. 박준혁 & 김윤식. (2017). 호텔 레스토랑 이용 고객의 우월적 지위의 남용과 직원의 이직의도의 관계에 대한 LMX의 조절효과. 관광연구저널, 31(6), 155-168.
4. Anderson, C., Keltner, D., & John, O. P. (2003). Emotional convergence between people over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1054–1068.
5. Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 511-536.
6. Berdahl, J. L., & Martorana, P. (2006). Effects of power on emotion and expression during a controversial group discussion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 497–509.
7. Cosmides, L. (1989). The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition, 31(3), 187-276.
8. Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture, 163, 163-228.
9. Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2(3), 201-215.
10. Dahrendorf, R. (1968). On the origin of inequality among men. In R. Dahrendorf (Ed.), Essays in the Theory of Society (pp. 151-178). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
11. Dehghani, M., Carnevale, P. J., & Gratch, J. (2014). Interpersonal effects of expressed anger and sorrow in morally charged negotiation. Judgment and Decision Making, 9(2),
12. de Melo, C. M., Carnevale, P. J., Read, S. J., & Gratch, J. (2014). Reading people's minds from emotion expressions in interdependent decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(1), 73-88.104-113.
13. de Melo, C. M., Gratch, J., & Carnevale, P. J. (2014). Humans versus computers: Impact of emotion expressions on people's decision making. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 6(2), 127-136.
14. de Melo, C. M., Gratch, J., Carnevale, P., & Read, S. (2012). Reverse appraisal: The importance of appraisals for the effect of emotion displays on people’s decision making in a social dilemma. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 34.
15. Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1), 31-41.
16. Fast, N. J., Gruenfeld, D. H., Sivanathan, N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Illusory control: A generative force behind power’s far-reaching effects. Psychological Science, 20(4), 502-508.
17. Fiske, S. T., & Dépret, E. (1996). Control, interdependence and power: Understanding social cognition in its social context. European Review of Social Psychology, 7(1), 31-61.
18. Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1068-1074.
19. Goodwin, S. A., & Fiske, S. T. (1995). Power and motivated impression formation: How powerholders stereotype by default and by design. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
20. Goodwin, S. A,, Fiske, S. T., & Yzerbyt, V. (1995, August). Social judgment in power relationships: A judgment-monitoring perspective. Poster presented at the Meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York.
21. Gruenfeld, D. H., Inesi, M. E., Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Power and the objectification of social targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 111-127.
22. Guinote, A. (2007a). Behaviour variability and the situated focus theory of power. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 256–295.
23. Guinote, A. (2007b). Power affects basic cognition: Increased attentional inhibition and flexibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(5), 685–697.
24. Guinote, A. (2007c). Power and goal pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(8), 1076–1087.
25. Guinote, A. (2017). How power affects people: Activating, wanting, and goal seeking. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 353-381.
26. Harada, T., Bridge, D., & Chiao, J. Y. (2013). Dynamic social power modulates neural basis of math calculation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 350.
27. Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265-284.
28. Kollock, P. (1998). Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology, 183-214.
29. Kuppens, P., van Mechelen, I., & Meulders, M. (2004). Every cloud has a silver lining: Interpersonal and individual differences determinants of anger-related behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(12), 1550–1564.
30. Nissan, T., Shapira, O., & Liberman, N. (2015). Effects of power on mental rotation and emotion recognition in women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(10), 1425-1437.
31. Petkanopoulou, K., Rodríguez-Bailón, R., Willis, G. B., & van Kleef, G. A. (2019). Powerless people don’t yell but tell: The effects of social power on indirect and indirect expression of anger. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(3), 533-547.
32. Pruitt, D. G., & Kimmel, M. J. (1977). Twenty years of experimental gaming: Critique, synthesis, and suggestions for the future. Annual Review of Psychology, 28(1), 363-392.
33. Rapoport, A., Chammah, A. M., & Orwant, C. J. (1965). Prisoner's dilemma: A study in conflict and cooperation (Vol. 165). University of Michigan press.
34. Schaerer, M., du Plessis, C., Yap, A. J., & Thau, S. (2018). Low power individuals in social power research: A quantitative review, theoretical framework, and empirical test. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 149, 73-96.
35. Smith, P. K., & Trope, Y. (2006). You focus on the forest when you’re in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 578–596.
36. Sparks, A., Burleigh, T., & Barclay, P. (2016). We can see inside: Accurate prediction of Prisoner's Dilemma decisions in announced games following a face-to-face interaction. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37(3), 210-216.
37. Sylwester, K., Lyons, M., Buchanan, C., Nettle, D., & Roberts, G. (2012). The role of Theory of Mind in assessing cooperative intentions. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(2), 113-117.
38. Tiedens, L. Z., Ellsworth, P. C., & Mesquita, B. (2000). Sentimental stereotypes: Emotional expectations for high-and low-Status group members. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(5), 560–575.
39. van Kleef, G. A., Oveis, C., van der Löwe, I., LuoKogan, A., Goetz, J., & Keltner, D. (2008). Power, distress, and compassion: Turning a blind eye to the suffering of others. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1315-1322.
40. van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Finkenauer, C., Gündemir, S., & Stamkou, E. (2011). Breaking the rules to rise to power: How norm violators gain power in the eyes of others. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(5), 500-507.
41. Verplaetse, J., Vanneste, S., & Braeckman, J. (2007). You can judge a book by its cover: the sequel.: A kernel of truth in predictive cheating detection. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(4), 260-271.
42. Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 1-59.