Korean Journal of Psychology : General

끉臾 寃깋

Korean Journal of Psychology : General - Vol. 40 , No. 3

[ Article ]
The Korean Journal of Psychology: General - Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 269-299
ISSN: 1229-067X (Print)
Print publication date 25 Sep 2021
Received 05 Jul 2021 Accepted 11 Aug 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22257/kjp.2021.

한국인의 세대별 한(恨) 표상의 차이

The Generational Difference of HAN Representations for Korean
Jae-Ho Lee
Department of Psychology, Keimyung University
Correspondence to : 이재호, 계명대학교 심리학과, (42601) 대구광역시 달서구 달구벌대로 1095번지 E-mail: leejaeho@kmu.ac.kr

Funding Information ▼


한(恨)은 한국인의 마음을 담고 있는 문화적 어휘로 알려졌고, Lee & Choi(2003)는 한(恨)의 문화적 표상을 규명하고자 1994년도 대학생을 대상으로 다중과제 방법을 적용하였다. 그 결과는 한(恨)이 정서를 넘어 한국인의 문화적 경험을 담화적으로 표상할 가능성을 확인하였다. 이 연구는 한(恨)의 문화적 의미가 시대에 따라 변화하는 과정도 검증되어야 할 필요성을 제기하였고, 선행연구의 방법을 연장하여 한(恨) 표상의 세대 차이를 비교하고자 하였다. 실험 1은 자유생성과제와 평정과제로 한(恨) 표상의 세대 차이를 검증하였다. 주요 결과는 1994년도 세대보다 2019년도 세대는 정서 단어의 생성빈도와 평정강도는 증가하였지만 생성단어의 유형과 평정치의 편차가 심했다. 실험 2는 1994년도 세대 우세단어가 2019년도 세대 우세단어보다 명명시간이 빠르며, 문화자극과 세대변인 모두 과제유형과 상호작용하고, 두 세대의 빈도와 평정치가 일치하는 조건에서 문화변인의 점화가 촉진되는 결과를 점화명명과제에서 관찰하였다. 두 실험은 세대가 문화자극의 표상 차이를 야기하며, 한(恨) 표상이 세대에 따라 변화하고 있음을 보였다. 2019년도 세대는 1994년도 세대보다 외현적 수준에서는 한(恨)을 보다 정서적 의미로 표상하지만 암묵적 수준에선 참조 대상과 사건 원인의 의미가 여전히 지속되는 표상을 유지하였다. 이 연구는 문화적 한(恨) 어휘의 표상이 시대에 점진적이며 역동적으로 변화할 가능성을 실험적 방법으로 확인하였다는 의의가 있음을 시사한다.


Han (恨) is known as a cultural concept that contains the minds of Korean. Lee & Choi (2003) applied a multi-task method to college students of 1994 to identify the cultural representation of Han (恨). The result confirmed the possibility that Han (恨) could represent the cultural experience of Korean discourse beyond emotion. This study raised the need to verify the process of changing the cultural meaning of Han (恨) according to the times, and tried to compare the generational difference of Han (恨) representation by elaborating the method of previous studies. Experiment 1 observed the generational difference in the representation of Han (恨) with the free generation task and the rating task. The main result is that the generation frequency and rating strength of emotion words increased in the 2019 generation than in the 1994 generation, but the type of generated words and the rating scores were significantly different. Experiment 2 showed that the naming time of the 1994 generation word was faster than the 2019 generation word, the cultural stimulus and the generational variable interacted with the task type, and the priming of the cultural variable was facilitated under the condition that the frequency and rating of the two generations coincide. The results were observed in the primed naming task. The two experiments showed that generations cause differences in the representation of cultural stimuli, and that the representation of Han (恨) was changed according to the generation. The 2019 generation represented Han (恨) more emotionally at the explicit level than the 1994 generation, but maintained the representation in which the meaning of the reference object and the cause of the event still persists at the implicit level. This study suggests that it is meaningful in that it confirmed the possibility of incremental and dynamic changes in the representation of the cultural Han (恨) concept using an elaborated experimental method.

Keywords: HAN, culture, generation, naming task, discourse
키워드: 한(恨), 문화, 세대, 명명과제, 담화


이 논문은 2019년 정부(교육부)의 재원으로 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구이며(NRF-2019S1A5A2A01043560), 계명대학교 생명윤리위원회의 승인도 받았다(IRB no. 40525-201909-HR-050-03).

1. Atran, S., & Medin, D. L. (2008). The native mind and the cultural construction of nature. MIT Press.
2. Aydinli, A., & Bender, M. (2015). Cultural priming as a tool to understand multiculturalism and culture. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1).
3. Balota, D. A., & Lorch, R. F., Jr. (1986). Depth of automatic spreading activation: Mediated priming effects in pronunciation but not in lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 12(3), 336-345.
4. Bang, Y. S., & Lee, J. H. (2007). Aspects of the conceptualization of HAN. Korean Semantics, 22, 95-121. UCI:G704-001001.2007.22..002
5. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral Brain Science. 22(4), 577-660.
6. Benigni, R. (Director).(1997). Life is beautiful [Film]. Cecchi Gori Group.
7. Chafe, W. (1990). Some things that narratives tell us about the mind. In B. K. Britten & A. D. Pellegrini (Eds.), Narrative thought and narrative language. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
8. Chiu, C. Y., & Cheng, S. Y. Y. (2007). Toward a social psychology of culture and globalization: Some social cognitive consequences of activating two cultures simultaneously. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 84-100.
9. Choi, S. C. (1994). Sim-Cheong Psychology: The phenomenological comprehension for Cheong and HAN. Proceedings for Annual Meeting of Korean Psychological Association, 5-21.
10. Choi, S. C. (2011). Korean Psychology. Hakjisa. ISBN: 978-89-6330-612-4
11. Choi, S. C., & Han, G. S. (2000). Methodology in cultural psychology. The Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 14(2), 123-144.
12. Clobert, M., Sims, T. L., Yoo, J., Miyamoto, Y., Markus, H. R., Karasawa, M., & Levine, C. S. (2019). Feeling excited or taking a bath: Do distinct pathways underlie the positive affect–health link in the U.S. and Japan? Emotion. Advance online publication.
13. Conway, M. A. (2005). Memory and the self. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(4), 594-628.
14. Conway, M., & Jobson, L. (2012). On the nature of autobiographical memory. In D. Berntsen & D. Rubin (Eds.), Understanding autobiographical memory: Theories and approaches (pp. 54-69). Cambridge University Press.
15. Corsten, M. (1999). The time of generation. Time & Society, 8, 249-272.
16. Cousins, S. D. (1989). Culture and self-perception in Japan and the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 124-131.
17. D'Andrade R. G. (1981). The cultural part of cognition. Cognitive Science, 5(3), 179-195.
18. D'Andrade, R. (1990). Some propositions about the relations between culture and human cognition. In J. W. Stigler, R. A. Shweder, & G. Herdt, (Eds.), Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development (pp. 65-129). Cambridge University Press.
19. D'Andrade R. (2002). Cultural darwinism and language. American Anthropologist, 104(1), 223-232. http://www.jstor.org/stable/683772
20. De Houwer, J., Hermans, D., & Spruyt, A. (2001). Affective priming of pronunciation responses: Effects of target degradation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(1), 85-91.
21. DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology. 23, 263-287. http://doi:10.1146/Annurev.Soc.23.1.263
22. DiMaggio, P., & Markus, H. R. (2010). Culture and social psychology: Converging perspectives. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(4), 347-352.
23. Glaser, J., & Banaji, M. R. (1999). When fair is foul and foul is fair: Reverse priming in automatic evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 669-687.
24. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371-395.
25. Greenfield, P. M. (2000). Three approaches to the psychology of culture: Where do they come from? Where can they go? Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 223-240.
26. Greenfield, P. M. (2017). Cultural change over time: Why replicability should not be the gold standard in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(5), 762-771.
27. Heger, I. (2015). The meaning and functions of the concept of yuanfen 缘分 in contemporary China: A qualitative study with students from East China normal university. Vienna Journal of East Asian Studies, 7, 129-163.
28. Herring, D. R., White, K. R., Jabeen, L. N., Hinojos, M., Terrazas, G., Reyes, S. M., Taylor, J. H., & Crites, S. L., Jr. (2013). On the automatic activation of attitudes: A quarter century of evaluative priming research. Psychological Bulletin, 139(5), 1062-1089.
29. Hong, Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55(7), 709-720.
30. Im, K. T. (Director).(1993). Seopyeonje [Film]. Taehung Pictures.
31. Kim, H. S. (2005). Modern Korean language frequency survey 2. National Institute of the Korean Language.
32. Lee, J. B. (2020). The traditional aesthetics of Lee Dong-Ju's poetry: Focused on the world of bitter feeling, exhilaration, and shade. Journal of Korean Literary Criticism, 67, 5-35.
33. Lee, J. H. (2012a). The difference of social cognitive representation for personal pronouns ‘I’ and ‘You’. Korean Journal of Psychology: General, 12(2), 31, 261-278.
34. Lee, J. H. (2012b). The difference of emotional evaluation for personal pronoun ‘I’ and ‘You’. Korean Journal of Cognitive Science, 23(3), 323-348.
35. Lee, J. H. (2017). The difference of social and cognitive representation between ‘I’ and ‘We’. The Korean Journal of Psychology: General, 36(1), 137-160.
36. Lee, J. H., & Kim, S. I. (1998). The research methods for language comprehension. In J. M. Lee & J. H. Lee (Eds.), Issues in Cognitive Psychology II: Language and Cognition (pp. 155-182). Hakjisa.
37. Lee, J. H., & Choi, S. C. (2003). Cognitive representation and processing of cultural concept: Discourse analysis and on-line priming effects on “HAN”. The Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 17(1), 1-16.
38. Lee, J. H., Choi, Y. K., & Lee, H. S. (2018). The failure of automatic emotion regulation of PTSD in priming paradigm. Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37, 360-381.
39. Lee, J. H., & Lee, J. M. (1999). On-line generation of elaborative inference: Pedictive inference. Korean Journal of Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, 11(2), 261–276.
40. Lee, J. M., & Lee, J. H. (1998). The psychological processing of text comprehension. In J. M. Lee & J. H. Lee (Eds.), Issues in Cognitive Psychology II: Language and Cognition (pp. 179-118). Hakjisa.
41. Lee, J. M., & Lee, J. H. (2005). Contrastive information processing in discourse comprehension. Korean Journal of Cognitive Science, 16(2), 69-92.
42. Lizardo, O. (2017). Improving cultural analysis: Considering personal culture in its declarative and nondeclarative modes. American Sociological Review, 82(1), 88-115. https://doi:10.1177/0003122416675175
43. Magliano, J. P., & Graesser, A. C. (1991). A three-pronged method for studying inference generation in literary text. Poetics, 20(3), 193-232.
44. Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generation, in K. Mannheim, Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge (pp. 276-320). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. [first published in German 1928 in Kölne Vierjahreshuafte für Soziologie, 157-85, 309-30]. https://springer.com/10.1057/9781137011565_3
45. McCabe, D. P., Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2011). Automatic processing influences free recall: converging evidence from the process dissociation procedure and remember-know judgments. Memory and Cognition, 39(3), 389-402.
46. Niiya, Y., Ellsworth, P. C., & Yamaguchi, S. (2006). Amae in Japan and the United States: An exploration of a ‘culturally unique’ emotion. Emotion, 6(2), 279-295.
47. Nilsen, A., & Brannen, J. (2014). An intergenerational approach to transitions to adulthood: The importance of history and biography, Sociological Research Online, 19(2), 9.
48. Oyserman, D. (2011). Culture as situated cognition: Cultural mindsets, cultural fluency, and meaning making. European Review of Social Psychology, 22(1), 164-214.
49. Oyserman, D., & Yan. V. X. (2019). Making meaning: A culture-assituated cognition approach to the consequences of cultural fluency and disfluency. In D. Cohen & S. Kitayama (Eds.), Handbook of Cultural Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 536-565). The Guilford Press.
50. Pilcher, J. (1994). Mannheim’s sociology of generations: An undervalued legacy, The British Journal of Sociology, 45(3), 481-495.
51. Plotkin, H. (1996). Some psychological mechanisms of culture. Philosophica, 57(1), 91-106.
52. Rathbone, C. J., Moulin, C. J. A., & Conway, M. A. (2008). Self-centered memories: The reminiscence bump and the self. Memory & Cognition, 36(8), 1403-1414.
53. Roo, Y. S. (2020). A critical review on the Han (恨)’s contents in Korean literature education. Journal of Korean Classical Literature and Education, 45, 117-148.
54. Ryder, N. (1965). The cohort as a concept in the study of social change, American Sociological Review, 30(6), 843-61.
55. Santos, H., Varnum, M. E. W., & Grossmann, I. (2017). Global increases individualism, Psychological Science, 28(9), 1228-1239.
56. Schank, R. C. (1986). Explanation patterns: Understanding mechanically and creatively. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
57. Triandis, H., & Suh, E. (2002). Cultural influences on personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 133-160.
58. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Academic Press.
59. Yampolsky, M. A., Amiot, C. E., & de la Sablonnière, R. (2013). Multicultural identity integration and well-being: A qualitative exploration of variations in narrative coherence and multicultural identification. Frontiers in Cultural Psychology, 4, Article 126.
60. Yang, K. S., & Ho, D. Y. F. (1988). The role of the yuan in Chinese social life: A conceptual and empirical analysis. In A. C. Paranjpe, D. Y. F. Ho, & R. W. Rieber (Eds.), Asian contributions to psychology (pp. 263-281). Praeger Publishers.
61. Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 162-185.