유아의 대인간 신뢰도, 또래 유능성 및 자기조절능력 간 관계

양미경,김경숙 한국유아교육학회 2011 유아교육연구 Vol.31 No.3

이 연구는 또래와 교사가 평가한 유아의 대인간 신뢰도, 또래 유능성 그리고 자기조절능력 간의 관계를 살펴보고자 하였다. 연구대상은 보육시설에 재원 중인 5세반 유아 180명과 그들의 어머니 180명, 그리고 유아의 담임교사 13명이었다. 유아의 대인간 신뢰도는 또래와 교사가 평가하였으며 또래 유능성은 담임교사가 평정하였고 자기조절능력은 유아의 어머니가 평정하였다. 본 연구의 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 또래-평가 유아의 대인간 신뢰도와 교사-평가 유아의 대인간 신뢰도 간에는 의미있는 관련성이 없었으며 또래보다 교사가 유아의 대인간 신뢰도를 높게 평가하였고 또래와 교사 모두 남아보다 여아의 대인간 신뢰도를 높게 평가하였다. 둘째, 또래-평가 유아의 대인간 신뢰도와 또래 유능성, 대인간 신뢰도와 자기조절능력 간에 의미있는 관계는 발견되지 않았지만 교사-평가 유아의 대인간 신뢰도와 또래 유능성의 관계성 그리고 대인간 신뢰도와 자기조절능력의 관계성은 정적인 방향으로 의미있게 나타났다. 셋째, 또래-평가 대인간 신뢰도 수준에 따른 세 집단 중 대인간 신뢰도 수준이 높은 집단과 낮은 집단이 중간 집단에 비해 또래 유능성이 높았으나 교사-평가 대인간 신뢰도 수준에 따른 세 집단의 또래 유능성의 정도는 유아의 대인간 신뢰도 수준의 크기와 비례하는 것으로 나타났다. 넷째, 또래-평가 대인간 신뢰도 수준에 따른 세 집단 간 자기조절능력에는 의미있는 차이가 나타나지 않았으나 교사-평가 대인간 신뢰도 수준이 높은 집단이 낮은 집단에 비해 자기조절능력이 더 우수한 것으로 나타났다. 하위영역 중 자기점검에서는 세 집단 간에 의미있는 차이가 발견되지 않았으나 자기통제에서는 대인간 신뢰도 수준이 높은 집단과 중간 집단이 낮은 집단보다 더 자기 통제력이 우수하였다. This study investigated relationships among young children's interpersonal trustworthiness, peer competence, and self-regulation. Participants of the study were 180 children at age 5 attending child care centers, their mothers, and their teachers. Young children's interpersonal trustworthiness was reported by their peers and teachers. The teachers rated the children's peer competence and each child's mother rated her child's self-regulation. The findings of the study are first, that peer-reported and teacher-reported interpersonal trustworthiness did not have significant relationship, and that teachers scored young children's interpersonal trustworthiness as greater than peers did. Both teachers and peers assessed higher girls' interpersonal trustworthiness than they did boys' trustworthiness. Second, there were no significant relationships among peer-reported trustworthiness, peer competence and self-regulation. However, teacher-reported trustworthiness showed significant relationships with peer competence and self-regulation. Third, based on peer-reported trustworthiness, the highest group and lowest group showed higher peer competence than did the medium group, whereas, based on teacher reports, the magnitudes of peer competence showed in sequences with levels of interpersonal trustworthiness. Fourth, there were no significant differences in self-regulation among the three groups based on peer-reported trustworthiness whereas the highest teacher-reported trustworthiness group showed significantly higher self -regulation than did the lowest teacher-reported trustworthiness group.

ALWAYS TRUST IN YOUR FRIENDS? CROSS-CULTURAL EFFECTS OF REVIEW SOURCE AND INCENTIVES ON TRUSTWORTHINESS AND PURCHASE INTENTION

Dionysius Ang 글로벌지식마케팅경영학회 2018 Global Marketing Conference Vol.2018 No.07

Introduction User-generated online reviews have become an essential part of consumer decisionmaking process (Mayzlin, Dover, & Chevalier, 2014) affecting product attitudes (Schlosser, 2005), purchase intentions (Ba & Pavlou, 2002), sales (Babi? Rosario, Sotgiu, De Vlack, & Bijmolt, 2016), as well as price and quantity of transactions (Berger, Sorensen, & Rasmussen, 2010). For instance, 58% of consumers prefer sites with peer reviews, and nearly all consumers (98%) reported reading peer review before making purchases online (eMarketer, 2010). Given the reach and influence of user-generated content (UGC), it is unsurprising that companies offer numerous incentives such as coupons, rebates, free samples, and monetary payments to encourage user-generated online reviews. In 2012, Tesco, a British multinational grocery and general merchandise retailer, ran a “Share & Earn” scheme where the retailer gave loyalty points to Facebook fans sharing products. Since such reviewers are more like friends than random strangers, how does the review source and incentives affect reviewer trustworthiness and purchase intentions? Would these effects differ across individualistic and collectivistic cultures? Our research examines the cross-cultural differences in the effects of review source and incentives on reviewer trustworthiness and purchase intentions between Americans and Taiwanese. Review Source and Trustworthiness Extant research has shown that reviews from friends are usually more persuasive than reviews from strangers (Huang, Zhang, Liu, & Liang, 2014). Dubois et al. (2016) revealed that high levels of interpersonal closeness increased the negativity of reviews shared, whereas low levels of interpersonal closeness increased the positivity of reviews shared. Correspondingly, individuals tend to perceive friendly review sources as being more trustworthy and honest (Ben-Ner & Halldorsson, 2010). The circulation for UGC online reviews on social media platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram could also make the review source appear like a friend. Since user-generated online reviews appear on the user’s own profile page as well as newsfeeds of each friend connected to that user (Chatterjee, 2011), individuals could easily perceive review sources as friendly and trustworthy. Given that online trust often increases purchase intention (Bart, Shankar, Urban, & Sultan, 2005), we posit that reviews from friends increase reviewer trustworthiness, which, in turn, increase purchase intentions. Incentives While online reviews from friends could be deemed as more trustworthy, incentives could muddy the waters. Sterling (2013) showed that over 40% of consumers in a survey reported some level of doubt in the credibility of UGC, fueled by reports of firms posting “fake” positive reviews, deleting negative reviews, or manipulating consumers into making positive statements that might not be a true representation of their options (Mayzlin et al., 2014). Given the level of distrust, the Federal Trade Commission sent out more than 90 letters reminding influencers and marketers that they required to clearly and conspicuously disclose their relationships with brands when promoting or endorsing products on social media (FTC, 2017). Relatedly, in 2012, the UK Advertising Standards Authority ruled that travel website TripAdvisor must cease claiming that it offers “honest, real, or trusted” reviews from “real travelers” since they are unable to assure consumers that all review content was genuine. Even when incentives are disclosed, incentivized reviews are often viewed with suspicion and are discounted as a means of correcting for presumed reviewer bias, even if the reviewer was not biased by the incentive (Du Plessis, Stephen, Bart, & Gonclaves, 2016). Taken together, we argue that incentivized reviews will decrease reviewer trustworthiness, and consequently, purchase intentions. Cultural Differences Existing work on the effects of review source and incentives have, at least implicitly, assumed that its effects hold globally and failed to consider individual or cultural moderating factors. In particular, individualistic and collectivistic cultures differ in their perceptions of trust violations: collectivists tend to become less trusting after experiencing a violation from in-group rather than out-group members; individualists’ trust levels are less affected by violations from in-group members (Fulmer, Gelfand, 2010; van Hoorn, 2015). In the context of our research, incentivized reviews could be regarded as trust violation, where reviewers no longer act altruistically to provide honest reviews. Thus, we posit that incentives could moderate the effects that reviews from friends have on perceived trustworthiness, and consequently, purchase intention in collective cultures (i.e. Taiwanese participants). In contrast, we expect to replicate the results of previous research where reviews from friends increases reviewer trustworthiness and purchase intentions; while incentivized reviews decreases reviewer trustworthiness and purchase intentions. Formally, we hypothesize that: Hypothesis 1a (H1a): Reviews from friends will be considered as more trustworthy than review from strangers amongst American participants. Hypothesis 1b (H1b): American participants will be more likely to purchase products reviewed by friends than strangers. Hypothesis 2a (H2a): Amongst American participants, reviewers providing incentivized reviews will be perceived as less trustworthy than reviewers providing non-incentivized reviews. Hypothesis 2b (H2b): American participants will be less likely to purchase products from incentivized reviews than non-incentivized reviews. Hypothesis 3a (H3a): Amongst Taiwanese participants, when reviews are not incentivized, reviews from friends will be considered more trustworthy than reviews from strangers. The effect will be attenuated when reviews are incentivized. Hypothesis 3b (H3b): Taiwanese participants will be more willing to purchase products reviewed by friends than strangers when the reviews are not incentivized. The effect will be attenuated when reviews are incentivized. Method Participants and Design Three hundred and sixteen participants (50% female, 18-85 years old) were recruited on Qualtrics for nominal payment. Half of the participants were American and completed the survey in English while the rest were Taiwanese and completed the survey in Mandarin. A 2 (review source: stranger vs. friend) x 2 (incentive: no incentive vs. incentivized review) x 2 (nationality: USA vs. Taiwan) mixed design was adopted with source and incentive manipulated within-subject and nationality manipulated between-subjects. Procedure All participants were instructed to assume that they were travelling to London, and was searching for a hotel to stay for a couple of days. They were then presented with four hotel reviews. Both source and incentive were manipulated within-subjects. Source of the reviews was either a friend or a stranger. Reviews were either not incentivized or incentivized where the reviewer was given discount on their stay for leaving a review. To prevent order effects, the reviews were presented in random order. All reviews were 4 out 5 stars reviews, were generally positive, and were dated at a similar time. Measures After every review, participants indicated purchase intention on two items (e.g. “After reading this review, I feel like booking this hotel.”; “If there is a chance, I will book this hotel.”) on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)(Kim, Park, & Lee, 2013). Participants also rated how much they trusted the reviewer on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) on three items (e.g. “I trust this reviewer to choose a hotel for me.”; “I have confidence in this reviewer.”; “I believe this reviewer is being honest.”) (Smith, Menon, & Sivakumar, 2005). Individualism/collectivism as well as uncertainty avoidance was assessed using a 3-item measure (e.g. “Individuals should stick with the group even through difficulties.”; “It’s important to closely follow instruction and procedures.”) (Yoo, Donthu, & Lenartowicz, 2011) with a 7-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) Results Outliers were removed using Stem and Leaf plots, leaving 295 participants, 148 Taiwanese participants and 149 American participants (50% female, 18 to 85 years old). Contrary to previous research (Hofstede Insights, 2018), American participants (M = 6.07, SD = 0.96) scored significantly higher on the uncertainty avoidance scale than their Taiwanese counterparts (M = 5.56, SD = 1.01). In addition, American participants (M = 5.00, SD = 1.35) did not score significantly higher on the individualism/collectivism scale than their Taiwanese counterparts (M = 5.08, SD = 1.23). As predicted in Hypothesis 1a, a 2 (review source: stranger vs. friend) x 2 (incentive: no incentive vs. incentivized review) on reviewer trustworthiness revealed a significant main effect of review source, F(1, 146) = 25.34, p =.00, where friends (M = 5.34, SD = 1.19) were significantly more trustworthy than strangers (M = 4.97, SD =1.24) amongst USA participants. In line with H2a, there was also a significant main effect of incentive, where non-incentivized reviews (M = 5.24, SD = 1.21) were considered more trustworthy than incentivized reviews (M = 5.07, SD = 1.22), F(1,146)=6.43, p =.01. There was no significant interaction effect, F <1. Amongst the Taiwanese participants, a 2 (review source: stranger vs. friend) x 2 (incentive: no incentive vs. incentivized review) on reviewer trustworthiness revealed a significant main effect of review source, F(1, 147) = 13.02, p =.00, and incentive, F(1,147)=6.43, p =.01, qualified by the predicted interaction, F(1,147)=3.77, p =.05. Consistent with our predictions (H3a), when reviews were not incentivized, friends (M = 5.41, SD = 1.08) were significantly more trustworthy than strangers (M = 5.15, SD = 1.10), F(1,147)=15.63, p=.00. However, when reviewers were incentivized, friends (M = 5.20, SD = 1.05) were just as trustworthy as strangers (M = 5.09, SD = 1.15, F(1,147) = 1.85, p =.18. As predicted (H1b), amongst USA participants, a 2 (review source: stranger vs. friend) x 2 (incentive: no incentive vs. incentivized review) on purchase intention revealed a significant main effect of review source, F(1, 146) = 4.46, p =.04, where reviews from friends (M = 5.40, SD = 1.20) elicited higher purchase intentions than reviews from strangers (M = 5.27, SD =1.20). Contrary to Hypothesis 2b, there was no main effect of incentive, F(1,146) = 1.34, p =.25, nor interaction, F<1. Amongst Taiwanese participants, a 2 (review source: stranger vs. friend) x 2 (incentive: no incentive vs. incentivized review) on purchase intention revealed a significant main effect of incentive where non-incentivized reviews (M = 5.49, SD = 0.94) elicited greater purchase intentions than incentivized reviews (M = 5.39, SD = 0.98), F(1,147) =3.74, p=.06. There was no main effect of source, F(1,147)= 2.31, p = .13 nor an interaction effect, F(1,147) = 1.81, p =.18. In line with our hypothesis (H3b), planned contrasts revealed that when reviews are not incentivized, friends (M = 5.55, SD = 0.96) elicited significantly higher purchase intention than strangers (M = 5.42, SD = 0.95), F(1,147) = 5.73, p =.01. In contrast, when reviews were incentivized, friends (M = 5.40, SD = 0.94) elicited as much purchase intention as strangers (M = 5.38, SD = 1.02), F<1. Discussion Given the ever-important role of user-generated online reviews in consumer decisionmaking, it is necessary to understand how review sources and incentives affects perceptions of trust and purchase intentions, especially across cultures. Our study demonstrates how review sources and incentives affect reviewer trustworthiness and purchase intentions differently across individualistic versus collectivistic cultures. Specifically, review source and incentives affect reviewer trustworthiness independently in Americans. Friends are considered more trustworthy than strangers, and non-incentivized reviews are considered more trustworthy than incentivized reviews. In contrast, the effect of review source on reviewer trustworthiness is moderated by incentive in Taiwanese participants. In particular, friends are considered more trustworthy than stranger only when reviews are not incentivized. When reviews are incentivized, trust seems to be violated, and friends are regarded as just as trustworthy as random strangers. Our contributions to the UGC literature are twofold. To date, research on UGC have largely ignored the role of culture and nationality (as well as individual differences, more broadly) can play. This potentially concerning since the proliferation of UGC are not limited to a Western sample. Our work highlights how culture can complicate findings in the UGC literature, and suggests a need to better consider the role culture plays. In addition, our research specifies the specific mechanism through which culture might influence the effect of review source and incentives affect purchase intention, trustworthiness. Additional studies will be conducted to examine how and why incentives are deemed as trust violations and reduce purchase intentions when accepted by friendly reviewers in collectivist cultures. Moreover, we will attempt to detangle trust in the reviewer versus review.

1인 미디어의 공신력 판단기준에 대한 세부요소 분석: 뷰티유튜버를 중심으로

이혜린 ( Lee Haeryn ),양미현 ( Yang Mi Hyun ),최지희 ( Choi Jihee ),김다은 ( Kim Daeun ),장수연 ( Jang Su Yeon ) 한국소비자학회 2019 소비자학연구 Vol.30 No.6

본 연구는 유튜브 온라인 구전 상황에서 소비자들이 정보원천인 유튜버의 공신력을 어떠한 기준으로 평가하고 이러한 기준이 구전효과에 어떠한 영향을 미치는 지에 대해 뷰티유튜버의 영상을 중심으로 고찰하였다. 유튜브는 소비자들이 온라인 정보검색 서비스 1위인 구글 다음으로 많이 찾는 매체이고 기존 온라인 구전의 특징과는 다른 특성인 구전 발신자 신원의 확실함을 지니고 있다는 특이점이 있다. 뷰티유튜버의 경우, 여성 소비자의 외모 관리 및 구매행동에 막강한 영향력을 행사하는 것으로 알려져 있다. 이로 인해 많은 화장품 회사들이 뷰티유튜버를 통해 자사 제품을 홍보하고 있으며 더 나아가 이들과의 협업을 통해 새로운 제품을 개발하고 또 이를 뷰티유튜버를 통해 홍보, 판매하고 있다. 따라서 유튜브 온라인 구전 상황에서 소비자들이 정보원천의 공신력을 어떻게 판단하고 이것이 구전효과에 어떠한 영향을 미치는 지를 알아보는 것은 필요하다. 이를 위해 심층면접 방법을 통해 정보원천의 공신력 판단 기준과 이에 따른 구전효과에 대해 구체적으로 살펴보고자 한다. 심층면접 결과, 소비자들은 뷰티유튜버 영상을 시청하는 상황에서 정보원천의 공신력을 판단하는 자신만의 기준을 가지고 있었다. 정보원천의 공신력은 크게 전문성, 신뢰성, 매력성으로 구분될 수 있다. 먼저 전문성에 영향을 미치는 요소는 언어적 표현, 화장기술, 유명도, 협찬으로 나타났다. 다음으로, 신뢰성에 영향을 미치는 요소는 유명도, 제품에 대한 태도, 콘텐츠의 일관성, 다른 시청자들의 동조, 협찬으로 나타났다. 마지막으로 매력성에 영향을 미치는 요소는 개성, 친근감, 유사성, 애호성으로 나타났다. 또한 자신이 판단한 정보원천의 공신력에 따라 다른 구전효과가 존재하는 것으로 확인되었다. 특히 유사성이 높을수록 높은 구전효과를 가지고 있었다. 본 연구는 정성적 연구를 통하여 유튜브라는 특수한 구전상황에서 소비자들이 판단하는 정보원천의 공신력 기준에 대해 알아보고 이를 유형화하였다는데 의의가 있다. 또한 이를 통해 유튜브 온라인 구전 상황에서 소비자에 대한 이해를 높이고 더 바람직한 소비환경 마련을 위해 기여할 수 있다. 이러한 연구결과는 실무적 측면에서 시사점을 제공하고 이에 대한 이해의 폭을 넓혀주는 계기가 될 것이다. YouTube is the second most popular online information search service for consumers, after Google. In addition, YouTube has the characteristics of both traditional e-WOM and offline WOM, but also has its own unique characteristics. In addition, beauty YouTubers are known to have a strong influence on the appearance management and purchasing behavior of female consumers, and therefore, many cosmetics companies promote their products through these YouTubers, develop new products through collaboration with them, and promote and sell these new products through those Beauty YouTubers. Accordingly, this study aims to suggest consumer criteria of source credibility, and influences of source credibility, to their word-of-mouth effect, within the context of YouTube e-WOM. The major research findings are as follows: First, consumers had their own criteria for determining source credibility in the context of watching Beauty YouTubers: expertise, trustworthiness and attractiveness. Source credibility can be largely divided into expertise, trustworthiness and attractiveness. Viewers consider both their own and another viewers' evaluations to determine expertise; they assess a YouTuber's linguistic expressions and makeup techniques in judging that expertise, and comprehensively consider famousness and their sponsorships. Linguistic expressions refer to the terms or words that Beauty YouTubers use to describe products; all interviewees rated YouTubers highly professional when they mentioned chemical ingredients and professional or unique terms. Interviewees also felt that Beauty YouTubers have more expertise if the latter have excellent makeup techniques, with judgements based on analyses of their and other people’s appearance. The majority of the interviewers recognized the number of subscribers and views of the content as their level of famousness and judges their expertise by these. Interviewers use sponsorships as another criterion to judge Beauty YouTubers' expertise. Sponsorships serve as an element to enhance perceived expertise, but if viewers think YouTubers only advertise sponsored products, they tend to feel their expertise is low. Viewers personally evaluate a Beauty YouTuber's attitude toward products and the consistency of content uploaded. Beauty YouTubers are thought to demonstrate high trustworthiness when they show a sincere attitude toward the products they review. The reliability of Beauty YouTubers who focus solely on beauty content is, notably, higher than those who upload both beauty and other content. An appropriate numbers of subscribers (a subjective criterion) and views were also found by the majority to have a positive impact on trustworthiness, with trust increasing if the number of subscribers is reasonable according to the interviewee's judgment; otherwise, trust declined. Viewers judge Beauty YouTubers' trustworthiness by referring to comments on videos, as well as just viewing the videos themselves. When a Beauty YouTuber's assessment of products has won acclaim from those who post comments, their credibility increased, but if the video and comments are conflicting, the YouTubers are found less reliable. The sponsorships also affect viewers' trustworthiness for beauty YouTubers. Most of them answer that receiving sponsorship undermines their trust of beauty YouTubers but when beauty YouTubers mentioned both positive and negative information about sponsorship products, trustworthiness turned out to be higher. Factors affecting attractiveness were individuality, interactivity, similarity and liking. The individuality of Beauty YouTubers is sensed in a variety of ways, including appearance, voice, and personality; viewers judge Beauty YouTubers' attractiveness based on their own tastes, and become fans. For this reason, the individuality of the YouTuber serves as an important criterion for viewers selecting sources of information. Interactivity is felt through a YouTuber's attitude, voice, speech, and communication skills; the more friendly one feels, the more attractive one is judged. High attractiveness can also be judged by viewers' perception of their own similarities with Beauty YouTubers. Liking is a natural creative act, based on interactivity and similarity, as well as affection; it creates viewers' own favorite YouTubers, and thus their source of information. There is a difference in strength or function between the three important factors in assessing source credibility, leading to oral effects. Interviewees viewed trustworthiness as more important than expertise, and attractiveness has been shown to be the first factor influencing interviewees' continuous consumption of content; no matter how useful that content, it is not consumed in the first place if the viewer is not attracted to the YouTuber. Degrees of importance vary between these criteria, but in the end all three factors are added to create oral effects on the use and recommendation of Beauty YouTubers. However, purchase intention is not only influenced by the positive attitude about the product, but also by external factors - including possible access to the product - and internal factors - including similarities in consumers' economic conditions, and makeup skills. Therefore, even if oral effects exist according to the source credibility of a Beauty YouTuber, other internal and external elements are involved in the process of connecting their intention to purchase them. The results of this study suggest a few implications, the first being that Beauty YouTubers must recognize that viewers watch them due to their attractiveness, and should strive to maintain it. In addition, because they think they are getting vivid reviews and know-how from ordinary people, viewers believe in and trust the information obtained from Beauty YouTubers, and the latter should only feature sponsored products that fit their image. Channels should not become too commercialized, and if sponsored, YouTubers should address both advantages and disadvantages of products. It is also important to interact with viewers through comments on the video, as viewers communicate with each other in and judge the trustworthiness of these videos by the comments. Second, the beauty industry needs to develop effective marketing strategies. Consumers are not only responding to Beauty YouTubers' attractiveness, but also their expertise and trustworthiness. The industry can promote products through YouTubers who are similar to their target markets, since similarity plays a role in purchase intention. In addition, as consumers generally have a negative perception of sponsorships, it is necessary to change the way they sponsor YouTubers, in order to more easily reach consumers. Consumer education, with practical standards for expertise and trustworthiness, can teach viewers how to evaluate the information currently available on YouTube, and understand how this can lead to purchases. Even though they likely know there is commercial deception, consumers should still be told that they may purchase goods due to their perceptions of YouTubers. Practical standards for expertise and trustworthiness should also be provided, and reduction of excessive sponsorship or products in placement (PPL) currently within TV programs is necessary to reduce consumer damage.

The Software Trustworthiness Evaluation Model Based on Subjective Logic

Jiao Hongqiang,Tian Junfeng 보안공학연구지원센터 2015 International Journal of Hybrid Information Techno Vol.8 No.1

In recent years, the trustworthiness of the software has become the focus of software quality. The software trustworthiness analysis and measurement has become a hot issue. Because of the great influence of software environment dynamic openness and uncertainty to the trustworthiness of the software, this paper attempts to examine the changes of software running environment, consider the impact on the software trustworthiness, and build the software trustworthiness evaluation (STE) model with subjective logic. The model can be real-time control the software running state and evaluate the software trustworthiness dynamically. In addition, on the setting of weight aspect, a subjective group preference weight setting algorithm is designed. Simulation results show that the model is reasonable and effective can be more accurate to evaluate the software trustworthiness.

전문법칙 적용범위 논의를 위한 몇 가지 고찰

차정인(Jeong In Cha) 중앙법학회 2014 中央法學 Vol.16 No.2

Fundamental concepts, terms and theoretical basis should be reexamined and be classified to avoid unnecessary complexity of a range of application of hearsay exclusionary rule. Admissibility under Anglo-American law, which is able to be translated permissiveness, connotes element of the Weight of Evidence. This term "Admissibility" is different with "Probative Value" under Criminal Procedure Act of Korea. Therefore, translation of "Admissibility" into "Probative Value" is inappropriate. Trustworthiness which means whether statements evidence is objectively true is a factor of the Weight of Evidence. The concept of this term "Trustworthiness" is same with that of "Trustworthiness" in the term "Circumstantial Guarantee of Trustworthiness". Several terms referring to Trustworthiness should be standardized. Trustworthiness in ``Lack of Trustworthiness``, which is the majority theory as theoretical basis of hearsay evidence, needs to be disentangled with trustworthiness as a factor of the Weight of Evidence. Two conceptual elements of the Weight of Evidence are Trustworthiness and "Weight of Evidence in a narrow sense" which is the power confirmed by trustworthy evidences. Those are cleary disentangled and the one is decided after the other. The essential theoretical basis of hearsay evidence is the Danger of Error in Transmitting. The more important thing is that the danger of error in transmitting exists in not only hearsay evidence but also various documents, but rather more danger in documents. In comparison with original evidence which the judge listens directly from stater, inaccuracy of documenets could be occurred in several steps such as for investigator to understand after listening stater, to select the statement, and to compose statements on documents. The danger of error in transmitting of hearsay evidence is followed by two cases, one is nonexperienced person`s statements and the other is recorded statements not statements in trial. Making a table with x-axis(record or not) and y-axis(experience or not) makes classification easy between hearsay evidence and re-hearsay evidence.

특신상태에 대한 비판적 고찰

최병천 경북대학교 법학연구원 2019 법학논고 Vol.0 No.66

Theories and precedents that support the credibility granted by circumstances theory are flawed in many aspects. The most fundamental reason is that the Federal Rules of Evidence(FRE) considers both the circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness and necesssity of the use of such evidence as non-hearsay or exceptions of hearsay rule. Therefore, if statements are non-hearsay or exception of hearsay rule, then it gains admissibility. Each individual statement’s probative power can be judged by the juror or judge. However, Korean law grants admissibility to certain types of statements when it was produced under especially trustworthy situation, thus making the distinction between admissibility and probative power confusing as the trustworthiness of statements is contemplated during the judgement on especially trustworthy situations. Furthermore, hearsay before investigating agents are usually stated under investigating agents’ regular and typical investigative procedures. Thus statements from these occasions cannot be considered to have been conducted under especially trustworthy situations. The trustworthiness of hearsay obtained from non-investigative agencies may or may not be assured by the situation in which the hearsay was obtained. However, some theories and precedents do not seem to care much about circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness. If hearsay by non-investigative agencies can be granted admissibility only when circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness exists as written in the Federal Rules of Evidence, then the unfair conclusion that most hearsay cannot be used as evidence is reached. The supreme court judges what can be passed as especially trustworthy situations by considering 1) the process of the obtaining the statements and documentation, 2) the relationship between the declarant and the accused 3) whether the content of statements is detailed and not contradictory 4) the situation during the statement or after the document has been made 5) the adequacy and lawfulness of investigation methods by the investigative agency 6) whether the district attorney has pleading or proof of especially trustworthy situation. Precedents judge what is an especially trustworthy situation by considering not only the external collateral situations, which is material to especially trustworthy situation, when the statement was made but also other factors. To develop reasonable logics on especially trustworthy situation theory and resolve the confusions on it, reestablishment of understanding on hearsay rule, court-oriented trial and unmittelbarkeit principle is required. 특신상태를 신용성의 정황적 보장으로 보는 견해는 여러 측면에서 논리적인 결함을 나타낸다. 그러한 결함의 근본적인 원인은, FRE는 신용성의 정황적 보장과 필요성이 인정되는 일정한 유형의 진술들을 비전문증거 내지 전문법칙의 예외로 보고 있으므로 비전문증거 내지 전문법칙의 예외에 해당하면 증거능력은 구비되고, 따라서 개별 진술의 증명력은 배심원이나 판사가 판단하면 되지만, 우리 법은 특정한 유형에 속하는 진술이 특신상태를 구비하여야 비로소 증거능력을 갖추게 되므로 진술의 신빙성이 특신상태의 판단에 고려될 수 밖에 없어서 증거능력과 증명력이 혼동되는 것이다. 또한, 수사기관에 대해 행해지는 전문진술은 보통 규칙적, 정형적으로 이루어지므로, 그러한 진술이 통상의 경우와 달리 특별히 신용성이 정황적으로 보장되는 상황 하에서 이루어졌음을 상정해볼 수 없다. 수사기관 아닌 자에 대해 행해지는 전문진술에 있어서는, 그 진술이 이루어지는 상황이 진술의 신용성을 정황적으로 보장하기도 하고 그렇지 않기도 하지만, 학설과 판례는 이러한 신용성의 정황적 보장에 대해 별다른 의미를 두고 있지 않다. 수사기관 아닌 자에 대해 행해지는 전문진술에 관하여 FRE에서처럼 신용성이 정황적으로 보장되는 경우에만 증거능력을 부여할 수 있다고 한다면 그러한 전문진술은 대부분 증거로 사용될 수 없게 되는 불합리한 결과에 이르게 된다. 판례가 특신상태를 판단함에 있어 주로 참작한 사유는, 1) 진술이 행해지거나 서류의 작성에 이르기까지의 과정, 2) 진술인과 피고인의 관계, 3) 진술 내용 자체가 구체적이며 모순이 없는지 여부, 4) 진술이 행해지거나 서류가 작성된 이후의 정황, 5) 수사기관의 수사방법이 적정한지 여부, 6) 특신상태에 관하여 검사의 주장, 입증이 있는지 여부 등이다. 판례는 특신상태의 판단 자료인 진술 당시의 외부적 부수사정 외에도 다양한 사유를 참작하여 특신상태를 판단하고 있는 것이다. 특신상태에 관한 합리적인 논리전개와 해석상의 혼란을 해결하기 위해서는 전문법칙, 직접주의 그리고 공판중심주의 등에 대한 이해의 재정립이 필요하다고 생각된다.

가격을 분할할 것인가? 통합할 것인가? : 부가가격의 수, 판매자 신뢰성, 인지욕구가 소비자 구매의도에 미치는 영향

박소진,김은정 한국전략마케팅학회 2013 마케팅논집 Vol.21 No.1

본 연구는 분할가격전략에서 부가가격의 수, 판매자의 신뢰성, 소비자 인지욕구가 구매의도에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지에 대해 실증하였다. 본 연구는 자동차수리 서비스업체의 서비스 가격을 세 가지 유형(통합가격, 기본가격과 부가가격 1개, 그리고 기본가격과 부가가격 3개)으로 제시하고, 부가가격의 수에 따라 소비자의 구매의도가 달라지는지를 살펴보았다. 판매자의 신뢰성은 고/저로 시나리오를 조작하였고, 소비자의 인지욕구 수준에 따라 고/저로 집단을 구분하였다. 본 연구는 이 세 가지 요인들이 소비자의 구매의도에 미치는 상호작용효과를 중심으로 탐구하였다. 본 연구결과, 판매자의 신뢰성이 낮거나 소비자의 인지욕구가 낮을 때 부가가격의 수가 너무 많으면, 오히려 통합가격을 제시했을 때보다 구매의도가 크게 낮아졌다. 또한 부가가격의 수, 소비자의 인지욕구, 판매자의 신뢰성의 3원 상호작용 효과를 발견하였다. 인지욕구가 낮은 집단은 판매자의 신뢰성 수준과 관계없이 부가가격의 수가 1개일 때 구매의도가 제일 높게 나타났고, 그 다음 통합, 부가가격 3개 순으로 나타났다. 즉, 부가가격의 수가 3개일 때는 오히려 통합가격보다 구매의도가 크게 낮아졌다. 그러나 인지욕구가 높은 집단은 판매자의 신뢰성 수준에 따라 다른 반응을 보였는데, 판매자의 신뢰성 수준이 높으면 부가가격의 수가 많을수록 구매의도가 증가하였으나, 판매자의 신뢰성 수준이 낮으면 부가가격의 수가 많을수록 구매의도가 감소였다. 이러한 연구결과는 분할가격제시가 항상 통합가격제시보다 긍정적인 효과가 있는 것은 아니며, 판매자의 신뢰성과 소비자의 인지욕구 수준을 고려하여 분할가격정책을 사용해야함을 시사한다. This study investigated effects of the number of surcharges, the seller’s trustworthiness and consumers' need for cognition on consumers’ purchase intention in partitioned pricing strategy. This study presented three types of price presentation (integrated price, base price and one surcharge, base price and three surcharges) and observed how consumers’ purchase intention varied according to the level of seller’s trustworthiness and consumers' need for cognition in case of automobile repair service. This research found two significant 2-way interaction effects. When the level of seller’s trustworthiness was low, presenting too much number of surcharges reduced consumers’ purchase intention significantly, and so consumers’ purchase intention in the three surcharge condition was even lower than in the integrated price condition. In addition, when the level of consumers' need for cognition was low, the result showed similar pattern to the seller’s trustworthiness case. This research also found a significant 3-way interaction effect of the number of surcharges, the seller’s trustworthiness and consumers' need for cognition on consumers’ purchase intention. Consumers’ purchase intention of low cognition group was the highest in one surcharge condition, followed by integrated price and three surcharge condition regardless of the level of seller’s trustworthiness. High cognition group showed different responses depending on the level of the seller's trustworthiness. When the seller's trustworthiness was high, consumers’ purchase intention of high cognition group increased linearly with the number of surcharges. However, when the seller's trustworthiness was low, consumers’ purchase intention of high cognition group decreased with the number of surcharges

Savvy or Slimy Upward Influence: The Unintended Effects of Perceived Political Culture and Tactics on Employee Perceptions of Leader Trustworthiness

박상희 한국인사조직학회 2023 인사조직연구 Vol.31 No.4

This study integrates attribution theory and target-observer differences with a social information processing perspective to investigate how political perceptions that are organizational culture-related versus supervisor-specific (in the form of upward and supervisor-focused ingratiation tactics) interact to influence subordinates’ perceptions of their leader’s trustworthiness. Using a latent moderated structural (LMS) approach with a two-wave panel of 607 individuals, this study found that subordinates’ perceptions of leaders’ upward ingratiation tactics (Time 1) attenuated positive changes in their perceptions of the three attributes of leader trustworthiness (ability, benevolence, and integrity) from Time 1 to Time 2. However, when perceptions of leaders’ upward ingratiation tactics were high and present within an organizational culture perceived as highly political, the opposite was true; there was a strong positive relationship between perceived leader trustworthiness (integrity) at Time 1 and positive changes in perceived leader trustworthiness. Conversely, when perceptions of leaders’ upward ingratiation tactics were low in highly political contexts, there was a strong negative relationship between perceived leader trustworthiness (integrity) at Time 1 and positive changes in perceived leader trustworthiness. These findings reveal unintended effects of the fit between two observed political contextual factors (leader ingratiation behavior and organizational politics) on employees’ changing perceptions of leader trustworthiness.

특신상태의 의의와 판단기준

한제희 한국형사판례연구회 2013 刑事判例硏究 Vol.21 No.-

In the domain of hearsay evidence, “special guarantees of trustworthiness” now occupy a position as a weight requirement by the revision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 2007, and the Supreme Court through the judgment of the recent in order to recognize the admissibility of evidence was required to determine the more stringent requirements of special guarantees of trustworthiness. Despite a major certification requirements for admissibility of hearsay evidence, special guarantees of trustworthiness have not been discussed much in the field of the law of evidence so far, but it was going to appear as important themes because of the Supreme Court and the Code of Criminal Procedure of these amendments, and you should have a lively discussion of this special guarantees of trustworthiness. The court has taken the position that should be judged individually according to case specific about the presence or absence of special guarantees of trustworthiness, but it has applied inconsistent criteria or misunderstand the meaning of special guarantees of trustworthiness case-by-case so far.I think that the presence or absence of special guarantees of trustworthiness is necessary to be distinguished clearly with a matter of probative value, and that it is necessary to be judged by the course of statement or the external situation of statement than the credibility of the statement or circle the contents of the original statement as much as possible for avoiding confusion with the problem of determining probative value. And special guarantees of trustworthiness should be distinguished also voluntariness of the statements, and it must be considerated whether the statement was originally carried out in the presence of law enforcement agencies or not, in addition to whether the statement was done to attend the court or not.

An Economic Analysis on the Impacts of Inequality on Trustand Trustworthiness: A Laboratory Experiment

Joel Cedric I. Abante,Jefferson A. Arapoc 한국무역연구원 2016 아시아무역연구 Vol.3 No.1

The study investigated the impacts of inequality on an individual’s trust and trustworthiness through a laboratory experiment. The study examined the impacts of wealth information disclosure on the send and return rates of the players. A modified version of Greiner et al.’s trust game (2011) was used in the study. There were two treatment groups in the experiment. Wealth information was disclosed to the matched subjects in the first treatment while there is no disclosure of any information in the second treatment. A two sample t-test with equal variances was used in order to identify significant mean differences between the two treatment groups. Other factors influencing trust and trustworthiness were also identified through the use of Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression. Based on the results, there were significant mean differences between the treatment groups which mean that disclosure of wealth information affects and individual’s trust and trustworthiness. Results also suggest that, on the average, men are more trusting than women—for those who played trustors. Meanwhile, trustees with higher wealth standing tend to return more than their counterparts with lower wealth standing. Ultimately, it was also observed that receiving a higher amount of money and a higher wealth-difference between players are significant factors that can decrease the trustworthiness of a player.