Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology
- P-ISSN1229-0653
- KCI
ISSN : 1229-0653
Browse Articles
- 2026 (Vol.40)
- 2025 (Vol.39)
- 2024 (Vol.38)
- 2023 (Vol.37)
- 2022 (Vol.36)
- 2021 (Vol.35)
- 2020 (Vol.34)
- 2019 (Vol.33)
- 2018 (Vol.32)
- 2017 (Vol.31)
- 2016 (Vol.30)
- 2015 (Vol.29)
- 2014 (Vol.28)
- 2013 (Vol.27)
- 2012 (Vol.26)
- 2011 (Vol.25)
- 2010 (Vol.24)
- 2009 (Vol.23)
- 2008 (Vol.22)
- 2007 (Vol.21)
- 2006 (Vol.20)
- 2005 (Vol.19)
- 2004 (Vol.18)
- 2003 (Vol.17)
- 2002 (Vol.16)
- 2001 (Vol.15)
- 2000 (Vol.14)
- 1999 (Vol.13)
- 1998 (Vol.12)
- 1997 (Vol.11)
- 1996 (Vol.10)
- 1995 (Vol.9)
- 1994 (Vol.8)
- 1993 (Vol.7)
- 1992 (Vol.6)
- 1991 (Vol.6)
- 1990 (Vol.5)
- 1989 (Vol.4)
- 1988 (Vol.4)
- 1987 (Vol.3)
- 1986 (Vol.3)
- 1985 (Vol.2)
- 1984 (Vol.2)
- 1983 (Vol.1)
- 1982 (Vol.1)
Vol.40 No.2
Abstract
This study addressed the lack of a valid and comprehensive instrument in South Korea for measuring the identity of allies - non-LGBTQ+ individuals who actively support and practice solidarity with LGBTQ+ people. To fill this gap, the present study aimed to adapt the Ally Identity Measure(AIM) into Korean and examine its reliability and validity. In Study 1, the original scale was translated and back-translated, followed by a preliminary investigation to examine the cultural suitability of the adapted version. In Study 2, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted, and internal consistency, convergent validity, and discriminant validity were evaluated. The results indicated that the Korean version of the AIM(K-AIM) consists of 20 items with three factors: Knowledge-Skill, Openness-Support, and Perceived Oppression. The three-factor model showed good fit indices(CFI = .959, TLI = .952, RMSEA = .054) and internal consistency(α = .78 - .92), as well as satisfactory levels of convergent and discriminant validity. The K-AIM goes beyond assessing merely affirmative attitudes toward LGBTQ+ individuals; it can serve as a robust tool for evaluating active support, advocacy, and commitment to social justice. It has potential applications in LGBTQ+ ally education, the development of ally training programs, and the evaluation of their effectiveness.
Abstract
Social and political psychology research has demonstrated individuals’ political stances through self-reported political orientations (liberal-conservative), partisan identity, issue-focused political attitudes, and more. The current study proposes that a value-driven approach has a unique contribution to understanding individuals’ political orientation as well as complicated modern political situations, beyond a conceptual distinction between liberals and conservatives. We developed a conceptual model of political values for the Korean political context based on a theoretical background and explored the patterns of endorsement of political values among Korean voters in 2024. Latent profile analyses showed five different types of Korean voters, each representing unique patterns supporting seven political values, followed by their self-attributed political orientations, ideologies (social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism), and attitudes toward current political issues in Korea. These results suggest the need to understand Koreans’ political orientation with a more nuanced approach rather than a liberal-conservative dichotomy. We discuss the implications of our findings regarding political and affective polarization in Korea and future directions of social psychological research on political attitudes and behaviors.
Abstract
In the literature on group decision-making, there has been a paradoxical debate: some argue that groupness (e.g., conformity pressure) hampers group decision effectiveness, while others contend that commitment toward the group goal is a prerequisite of quality decision. According to the synergy model of individualism–collectivism (Choi, 2024), group effectiveness requires members to maintain self-independence against normative pressures while being strongly committed to group goals. Based on this framework, the present study proposes that a combination of personal agency belief and collectivistic value orientation enhances group decision effectiveness, because it simultaneously promotes independence in thinking and action and group goal commitment. We conducted an experiment involving fifty-four three-person discussion groups. Results showed that participants produced more effective arguments during the discussion when collectivistic value orientation was combined with personal agency belief compared to when combined with collective agency belief, suggesting a synergistic interaction between the two seemingly opposing constructs. Limitations of the study and future directions are discussed.
Abstract
System justification is a crucial social psychological construct for explaining why individuals sometimes support unjust social systems. This study validated two scales measuring justification for the procedural aspects (market system justification) and outcome-related aspects (economic system justification) of the economic system within the South Korean context, by adapting measures from Western culture. In Study 1 (n = 788) and Study 2 (n = 734), the factor structures of each scale were identified through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Study 3 (n = 400) analyzed the validity of the scales by examining their associations with each other and with theoretically relevant constructs, including right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and conservatism. In this process, factors consisting of reverse-coded items demonstrated low validity and were therefore excluded from the scales. Measurement invariance across gender, age, and subjective socioeconomic status was subsequently confirmed for the final selected factors. Consequently, this study proposes a two-factor Market System Justification Scale and a single-factor Economic System Justification Scale. By providing two measurement tools for assessing the justification of economic systems, this study lays the foundation for further empirical research into the economic values and system justification mechanisms of Koreans.
Abstract
In the past decade, democratic backsliding by democratically elected leaders has become increasingly prevalent worldwide, drawing renewed attention to right-wing authoritarianism (RWA; Altemeyer, 1996). To examine whether and how high-RWA individuals support authorities they themselves judge to be unjust, we conducted a survey experiment with 267 Korean adults. Participants first read a scenario and indicated what they believed to be an appropriate sentence for the perpetrator. They were then randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In the experimental condition, but not in the control condition, participants received additional information that the authority figure had imposed an unduly lenient sanction on the perpetrator. We predicted that high-RWA individuals would justify the authority’s unjust decision, reflected in higher victim blaming. Results showed that high-RWA individuals did not automatically accept unjust authority. Their victim blaming, however, increased after they reviewed neutral case information, indicating that they were motivated to interpret the information in ways more favorable to the authority. These results imply that high-RWAs tend to support unjust authority even when they themselves perceive it as unjust.
Abstract
This study examined how risk-taking propensity in monetary decision-making is linked to distributive preferences toward others, and how this association is moderated by social dominance orientation (SDO). Using a nationally quota-matched online panel of 1,000 adults in South Korea, participants completed a monetary gambling task and a resource-allocation task, and computational models were used to quantify individual differences in risk-taking propensity and distributive preferences. Results showed that, although substantial individual variability was observed, in general, participants tend to be risk-averse and preferred maximin allocations that prioritized the least well-off. Individuals with higher risk-taking propensity preferred utilitarian allocations that emphasized maximizing the total amount, whereas individuals with stronger risk aversion propensity preferred maximin allocations. Moreover, the association between risk-taking propensity and distributive preferences was moderated by SDO, such that the relationship became significantly stronger as SDO increased. These findings suggest that decisions for the self and for others may be linked by a shared tendency to accept risk in the pursuit of economic efficiency, and that endorsement of hierarchical social structure and acceptance of inequality-as captured by SDO-can amplify this linkage.