遲延補償과 卽時補償의 差異가 遲延時間에 미치는 影響

Abstract

本 硏究는 遲延補償에 關聯된 硏究 中에서 Mischel과 Ebbesen의 硏究에서 提起된 의문점을 解決하기 위하여 시도되었다. 즉, 遲延補償과 卽時補償의 크기가 遲延時間에 어떠한 영향을 미치는가에 대해 알아보려 한 것이다. Mischel과 Ebbesen은 피험자의 補償에 대한 期待나 遲延滿足이 遲延時間을 助張할 것이라고 예상하였으나 結果는 그와 반대로 나왔다. 그러한 結果는 Amsel의 挫折的 無補償 理論에 의해 補償의 기대가 증가될 때 嫌惡的 挫折 效果 역시 커졌기 때문이라고 하였다. 그러나 그들의 實驗過程에서 피험자에게 주어진 遲延補償과 卽時補償의 차이는 사소하였던 關係로 피험자의 생각에 따라 쉽게 그 차이가 消滅되었기 때문이라고 推理된다. 그러므로 두가지 補償의 차이를 더욱 分明하게 할때 遲延時間에 어떠한 영향을 주는가를 규명하기 위하여 다음과 같은 問題가 提起되었다. (1) 卽時補償에만 注意集中할 경우 遲延時間에 어떠한 영향을 미칠 것인가? (2) 遲延補償에만 注意集中할 경우 遲延時間에 어떠한 영향을 미칠 것인가? (3) 遲延補償과 卽時補償 두가지에 注意集中할 경우 遲延時間에 어떠한 영향을 미칠 것인가? 이러한 問題提起에 따라 예상된 가설은 다음과 같다. (1) 遲延時間은 遲延補償에 注意集中할 경우가 卽時補償에 注意集中하는 경우보다 길어질 것이다. (2) 卽時補償과 遲延補償에 동시에 注意集中하는 경우 遲延時間은 가장 길어지게 될 것이다. 위의 가설을 檢證하기 위하여 4-5세의 유치원생 62명(남 32명, 여 30명)을 對象으로 實驗을 實施하였다. 實驗集團은 類似補償集團(SRG)과 對照補償集團(CRG)으로 나누이며 각각 세개의 小集團(SDR, SIR, SBR : CDR CIR CBR)으로 構成되어 있다. 類似補償集團은 Mischel과 Ebbesen의 實驗에서 다루어진 條件을 그대로 使用하여 遲延補償과 卽時補償이 차이가 類似하게 하였고, 對照補償集團은 本 硏究의 가설 檢證을 위하여 遲延補償과 卽時補償의 차이가 뚜렷하도록 하였다. 統制集團은 어떠한 補償도 주어지지 않았다. 實驗集團의 小集團은 다음 表와 같이 構成되어 있다. ◁표 삽입▷(원문을 참조하세요) 實驗의 結果, 類似補償集團의 變量分析은 有意味한 結果를 얻지 못하였으나 對照補償集團은 有意味한 結果가 나왔다. 對照補償集團間의 變量分析에서 C₃(CDR : CIR)의 結果가 有意味하지 못하였으므로, 가설Ⅰ은 否定되었다. 그러나 SBR과 CBR의 遲延時間 平均差異에 대한 t검증 結果 P＜.05 수준으로 유의미하였고, 對照補償集團에서 C₂(CBR : CBR ClR)의 結果, P＜.10 水準으로 유의미한 結果를 얻었으므로 가설Ⅱ는 肯定되었다. 따라서 本 硏究 結果 얻어진 結論은 다음과 같다. 첫째, Mischel과 Ebbesen의 硏究에서 遲延-卽時補償의 遲延時間이 짧은 것은 遲延補償과 卽時補償의 차이가 類似하였기 때문에 얻어진 結果라고 볼 수 있다. 둘째, 補償의 期待가 증가될 때 嫌惡的 挫折도 증가되어 遲延時間이 단축된다고 해석한 그들의 推理는 수정되어야 할 것이다. 셋째, 本 硏究의 가설Ⅰ의 否定으로 좀 더 세련된 實驗方法이 要求되며, 遲延時間 동안의 心理的 機制에 관하여 自己統制, 養育方法, 性格 등과 關聯된 硏究가 要求된다.;This study attempted to solve the problem left unanswered in the study of Mischel and Ebbesen in regard to delayed reward. They hypothesized that the anticipation of a reward would lengthen the waiting time. However, they obtained opposite results. Their results were explained in terms of Amsel's frustrative nonreward theory; i. e., when the anticipation of reward increases, aversive frustrative effects become greater, hence waiting time are feduced. The results they obtained seem to be due to the fact that delayed and immediate rewards given to the Ss during their experiment were not substantial, so that Ss would have changed their minds while waiting. If the differences between the rewards had been made greater, the effects on waiting time would have been different. The present study specifically addressed to this problem, namely : 1. What are the effects of immediate reward on waiting time, when Ss attend to the immediate reward only? 2. What are the effects of delayed reward on waiting time, when the Ss attend to the delayed reward only? 3. What are the effects on waiting time when the Ss attend to the both immediate and delayed rewards simultaneously? It was hypothesized that : 1. When the Ss attend to the delayed reward more than the immediate reward, the waiting time will be longer; and 2. When the Ss attend to the both reward, the waiting time will be longest. Thirty two boys and thirty girls attending the kindergarten participated in the experiment. The children ranged in age from 4.0 years to 6.0 years, with a median age of 5.4 years. The experimental groups were divided into Similiar Reward Group and Contrast Reward Group, each consisting of three subgroups. The experiment was conducted under 7 conditions, 6 experimental and 1 control, as shown below. ◁표 삽입▷(원문을 참조하세요) The paradigm of Mischel and Ebbesen was applied to the SRG, where the values of both rewards were similar. In CRG, the values of both rewards were substantially different. Each subgroup was given delayed reward only, immediate reward only, or both rewards, Control group did not receive any rewards. The results of the experiment showed that the difference in the waiting time among three SRG(SDR, SIR, SBR) did not significantly differ, but the three CRG subgroups(CDR, CIR, CBR) were significantly different in waiting time. However, the orthogonal contrast between CDR and CIR under the contrast reward condition was not significant, hence the hypotheses I was rejected. The t-test of the differences between SBR and CBR in mean waiting time was significant (p＜.05), and the waiting time under CBR was significantly longer than that under either. CDR or CIR (p＜.10). Therefore, the hypothesis Ⅱ was accepted. The results are summarized below : 1. In Mischel and Ebbesen's study, the short waiting time under the both reward condition, would have been due to the fact that the differences between the delayed and immediate rewards were not substantial enough to result in significant waiting time difference. 2. The interpretation of Mischel and Ebbesen that, when the anticipation of reward increases, it induces the aversive frustration and therefore reduce waiting times, should be modified. 3. In the light of the results concering the hypothesis I which was rejected in this study, more refined experiment should be carried out to study the psychological mechanism of self-control, child rearing, and personality which make frequent reference to delay of reinforcement.