Korean Journal of Cognitive Science (인지과학)

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

DOI QR Code

On the Effect of Extended Human Group Scale in Perception of Group Ratio and Size at Majority-biased Social Learning

인구 집단의 스케일의 확장이 집단 비율 및 집단 크기 지각에 미치는 영향: 다수편향적 사회적 정보 활용을 중심으로

  • Jaekyung Jang (Interdisciplinary Program in Cognitive Science, Seoul National University) ;
  • Dayk Jang (Startup College, Gachon University)
  • 장재경 (서울대학교 협동과정 인지과학전공) ;
  • 장대익 (가천대학교 창업대학)
  • Received : 2023.01.13
  • Accepted : 2023.03.04
  • Published : 2023.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

New media moved the place of social exchange to the Internet, allowing large groups to communicate in one place beyond the limits of time and space. Recent studies have also reported cases in which human social abilities do not keep up with the expansion of group scale through social media. In this context, current study investigated how human perception of social information is affected by the expansion of the group scale in the context of majority bias. Using Internet-based task, the psychological processes that group ratio and group size are perceived and affect majority-biased social information use were investigated, and whether group scale moderates those processes was examined. The group ratio has a positive effect on the majority bias, and the relationship was partially mediated by ratio perception. Group scale did not moderate the relationship between group ratio and ratio perception. On the other hand, the correlation between group size and majority-biased social information use was not significant. Group scale moderates group size perception. The group size and size perception showed positive correlation under the smaller group scale condition. However under the extended group scale condition, the perceived group size became significantly lower and lost its correlation with group size. These results provide evidence that the psychological mechanism related to group size perception was not properly responding to the expansion of the group scale. Furthermore, the possibility of a specific psychological mechanism for processing group size information and the form of information input specifically accepted by majority bias were discussed from perspective of evolutionary psychology.

뉴미디어는 사회적 교류의 장을 인터넷으로 옮겨와 대규모 집단이 시공간의 한계를 뛰어넘어 한 곳에서 소통할 수 있게 만들었다. 최근 연구는 인간의 사회적 능력이 소셜 미디어를 통해 경험하는 확장된 집단 스케일을 따라가지 못하는 사례를 보고하기도 한다. 이러한 맥락에서, 본 연구는 인간의 사회적 정보 지각이 인구 집단 스케일의 확장에 영향을 받는지 다수편향 맥락에서 확인하였다. 인터넷 기반 과제를 통해 구성원의 수로 나타낸 집단 크기와 전체에서 특정 집단이 차지하는 집단 비율이 개인에게 지각되고 다수편향적 사회적 정보 활용에 영향을 주는 심리적 과정을 조사하였으며, 전체 집단 스케일의 확장에 각 과정이 영향을 받는지 살펴보았다. 집단 비율은 다수편향에 정적 영향을 주고 있으며, 그 관계는 비율 지각에 의해 부분매개 되었다. 전체 집단 스케일은 집단 비율과 비율 지각의 관계를 조절하지 않았다. 반면, 집단 크기와 다수편향의 상관은 유의하지 않았다. 전체 집단 스케일은 집단 크기 지각을 조절하였다. 전체 집단 스케일이 작은 조건에서 집단 크기와 크기 지각은 양적 상관을 나타냈지만, 전체 집단의 스케일이 확장된 조건에서 지각된 집단 크기는 유의미하게 작아졌고, 두 변수는 상관을 잃었다. 이러한 결과를 통해 집단 크기 지각과 관련된 심리 기제가 전체 집단 스케일의 확장에 제대로 반응하지 못하고 있음을 확인하였다. 나아가 집단 크기 정보를 처리하는 전문화된 심리 기제가 존재할 가능성과 다수편향이 특이적으로 받아들이는 자극의 형태를 진화심리적 관점에서 논하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김수정, 오상희 (2012). 대학생들의 소셜 미디어를 이용한 건강정보 추구행태에 관한 연구. 정보관리학회지, 29(4), 1013-0799.
  2. 이민지, 안순태 (2016). 중장년층의 SNS 공공건강정보 이용의도. 광고연구(108), 87-122.
  3. Alessandretti, L., Sapiezynski, P., Sekara, V., Lehmann, S., & Baronchelli, A. (2018). Evidence for a conserved quantity in human mobility. Nature human behaviour, 2(7), 485-491. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0364-x
  4. Alonso-Diaz, S., Piantadosi, S. T., Hayden, B. Y., & Cantlon, J. F. (2018). Intrinsic whole number bias in humans. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(9), 1472.
  5. Blease, C. R. (2015). Too Many 'Friends,' Too Few 'Likes'? Evolutionary Psychology and 'Facebook Depression'. Review of General Psychology, 19(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000030
  6. Bonaccio, S., & Dalal, R. S. (2006). Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(2), 127-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.07.001
  7. Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  8. Boyd, R., Richerson, P. J., & Henrich, J. (2011). The cultural niche: Why social learning is essential for human adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(Supplement 2), 10918-10925. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1100290108
  9. Boyer, P., & Barrett, H. C. (2015). Intuitive Ontologies and Domain Specificity. In D. M. Buss, The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, Volume 1: Foundation (pp. 161-179). John Wiley & Sons.
  10. Bozdag, E. (2013). Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization. Ethics and information technology, 15(3), 209-227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-013-9321-6
  11. Budescu, D. V., & Rantilla, A. K. (2000). Confidence in aggregation of expert opinions. Acta psychologica, 104(3), 371-398. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(00)00037-8
  12. Cicchini, G. M., Anobile, G., & Burr, D. C. (2016). Spontaneous perception of numerosity in humans. Nature communications, 7(1), 1-7.
  13. DeScioli, P., & Kurzban, R. (2013). A solution to the mysteries of morality. Psychological bulletin, 139(2), 477.
  14. Domjan, M., & Wilson, N. E. (1972). Specificity of cue to consequence in aversion learning in the rat. Psychonomic Science, 26(3), 143-145. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03335461
  15. Dunbar, R. I. (1998). The social brain hypothesis. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews: Issues, News, and Reviews, 6(5), 178-190. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6505(1998)6:5<178::AID-EVAN5>3.0.CO;2-8
  16. Dunbar, R. I. (2009). The social brain hypothesis and its implications for social evolution. Annals of human biology, 36(5), 562-572. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014460902960289
  17. Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: a general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological methods, 12(1), 1.
  18. Efferson, C., Lalive, R., Richerson, P. J., McElreath, R., & Lubell, M. (2008). Conformists and mavericks: the empirics of frequency-dependent cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(1), 56-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.08.003
  19. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149-1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
  20. Feldman, M. W., Aoki, K., & Kumm, J. (1996). Individual versus social learning: evolutionary analysis in a fluctuating environment. Anthropological Science, 104(3), 209-231. https://doi.org/10.1537/ase.104.209
  21. Fox, S. (2011). The Social Life of Health Information, 2011. PEW RESEARCH CENTER.
  22. Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102(4), 684-704. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.4.684
  23. Gino, F., & Moore, D. A. (2007). Effects of Task Difficulty on Use of Advice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20(1), 21-35. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.539
  24. Goetz, C. D., Pillsworth, E. G., Buss, D. M., & Conroy-Beam, D. (2019). Evolutionary Mismatch in Mating. frontiers in Psychology, 10:2709.
  25. Goncalves, B., Perra, N., & Vespignani, A. (2011). Modeling Users' Activity on Twitter Networks: Validation of Dunbar's Number. PloS ONE, 6(8), e22656.
  26. Hamilton, M. J., Milne, B. T., Walker, R. S., Burger, O., & Brown, J. H. (2007). The complex structure of hunter-gatherer social networks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274, 2195-2203. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.0564
  27. Haun, D. B., Rekers, Y., & Tomasello, M. (2012). Majority-biased transmission in chimpanzees and human children, but not orangutans. Current Biology, 22(8), 727-731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.03.006
  28. Hayes, A. F. (2021). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis (3 ed.). Guilford Press.
  29. Hill, R. A., & Dunbar, R. I. (2003). Social network size in humans. Human nature, 14(1), 53-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-003-1016-y
  30. Horner, V., & Whiten, A. (2005). Causal knowledge and imitation/emulation switching in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children (Homo sapiens). Animal Cognition, 8, 164-181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-004-0239-6
  31. Kendal, R. L., Boogert, N. J., Rendell, L., Laland, K. N., Webster, M., & Jones, P. L. (2018). Social learning strategies: Bridge-building between fields. Trends in cognitive sciences, 22(7), 651-665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.04.003
  32. Kim, K.-S., Sin, S.-C. J., & Yoo-Lee, E. Y. (2014). Undergraduates' Use of Social Media as Information Sources. College & Research Libraries, 75(4), 442-457. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.75.4.442
  33. Landry, A., Ihm, E., & Schooler, J. (2021). ilthy Animals: Integrating the Behavioral Immune System and Disgust into a Model of Prophylactic Dehumanization. Evolutionary Psychological Science.
  34. Larson Jr., J. R., Tindale, R. S., & Yoon, Y.-J. (2020). Advice taking by groups: The effects of consensus seeking and member opinion differences. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 23(7), 921-942. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219871349
  35. Lindenfors, P., Wartel, A., & Lind, J. (2021). 'Dunbar's number' deconstructed. Biology Letters, 17(20210158), 20210158.
  36. Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and brain sciences, 34(2), 57-74. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000968
  37. Minson, J. A., & Mueller, J. S. (2012). The cost of collaboration: Why joint decision making exacerbates rejection of outside information. Psychological Science, 23(3), 219-224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611429132
  38. Morgan, T. J., Rendell, L. E., Ehn, M., Hoppitt, W., & Laland, K. N. (2012). The evolutionary basis of human social learning. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279(1729), 653-662. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.1172
  39. Perreault, C., Moya, C., & Boyd, R. (2012). A Bayesian approach to the evolution of social learning. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(5), 449-459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2011.12.007
  40. Rader, C. A., Larrick, R. P., & Soll, J. B. (2017). Advice as a form of social influence: Informational motives and the consequences for accuracy. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(8), e12329.
  41. Ritzer, G., Dean, P., & Jurgenson, N. (2012). The coming of age of the prosumer. American behavioral scientist, 56(4), 379-398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211429368
  42. Sbarra, D. A., Briskin, J. L., & Slatcher, R. B. (2019). Smartphones and Close Relationships: The Case for an Evolutionary Mismatch. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(4), 596-618. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619826535
  43. Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology (Columbia University), 187, 60.
  44. Soll, J. B., & Larrick, R. P. (2009). Strategies for revising judgment: How (and how well) people use others' opinions. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition, 35(3), 780.
  45. Stubbersfield, J. M., Tehrani, J. J., & Flynn, E. G. (2015). Serial killers, spiders and cybersex: Social and survival information bias in the transmission of urban legends. British journal of psychology, 106(2), 288-307. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12073
  46. Van Schaik, C. P., & Burkart, J. M. (2011). Social learning and evolution: the cultural intelligence hypothesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1567), 1008-1016. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0304
  47. Wang, X., & Du, X. (2018). Why does advice discounting occur? The combined roles of confidence and trust. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 2381.
  48. Whalen, A., Griffiths, T. L., & Buchsbaum, D. (2018). Sensitivity to shared information in social learning. Cognitive science, 42(1), 168-187. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12485
  49. Yaniv, I., & Milyavsky, M. (2007). Using advice from multiple sources to revise and improve judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 104-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.05.006