ISSN 1229-0718 한국심리학회지발달 28 권 2 호 (2015 년 6 월 ) THE KOREAN JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 목차 중년자녀가지각한노부모와의갈등에관한탐색적연구 서수균 신현희 안정신 정영숙아동의부정적정서성과어머니의우울간의종단적상호관계 : 교류모형적접근 장혜인중학생의아버지애착과역기능적분노표현간의관계 : 정서인식명확성과자기효능감의매개효과 심다혜 이승연남녀청소년의수치심 / 죄책감경향성, 반응양식과학교생활적응간의관계 신다원 방희정 옥정형태소인식의한국어와영어간전이와읽기쓰기와의관계 김상미 김지연 조증열노인과대학생이정치적선택상황에서고려하는정보의차이 김태화 김혜리초기한글읽기발달에서실행기능의역할 : 억제능력및인지적유연성을중심으로 주나래 최영은 조증열만 10개월영아들의언어적단서를활용한타인의목표행동이해 김민주 송현주어머니의정서표현양가성이양육태도와자녀의문제행동에미치는영향 배민정 정윤경형태론적언어정보활용을통한타인행동목표추론능력의영아기발달 김은영 송현주 한국발달심리학회
한국심리학회지 : 발달
*. 1 (., ) (., ) 19.,,. ( / ) ( / )., / /,. 2,. ( ), / /. 1 2 19. 3 15 1., 15, 15 19.. *,,. 2015 2012( ) (NRF-2012-S1A3-A2033375). :,, (120-749) 50, E-mail: hsong@yonsei.ac.kr
. (, Behne, Carpenter, Call, & Tomasello, 2005; Biro & Leslie, 2007; Carpenter, Akhtar, & Tomasello, 1998; Carpenter, Call, & Tomasello, 2005; Gergely, Bekkering, & Király, 2002; Gergely, Nádasdy, Csibra, & Bíró, 1995; Meltzoff, 1995; Sommerville, Woodward, & Needham, 2005; Woodward, 1998; Woodward & Guajardo, 2002). (Tomasello, 2006)., (Martin, Onishi, & Vouloumanos, 2012; Song, Baillargeon, & Fisher, 2014; Tomasello & Akhar, 1995; Vouloumanos, Martin, & Onishi, 2014).,. 6 (Woodward, 1998). (, ) ( ) 5-6 ( ) ( )... (Song & Baillargeon, 2007; Song, Baillargeon, & Fisher, 2005). Song,,.,,. ( ) ( ). (1), (2), (3).. (,
, 2011a; Gergelry et al., 2002). Gergelry. 14 ( -) ( - ). -,., -. -.. Gergelry (2002)., Look, I 'm going to blick the light! Watch me blick the light. (Chen & Waxman, 2013)... (Martin et al., 2012; Vouloumanos et al., 2014). Martin 1( ) A, B A 1 A. 2( ) 2. 1 2 1 koba 2 A ( ) B ( ). 6, 12. koba ( A) koba. (Jin, 2009; Song et al., 2014). Song A, B A 12.
A, B.. (,, 2011b). 3. (). (). ( ) ( ).. 2.,..? Chen Waxman(2013)., Look, I 'm going to blick the light! Watch me blick the light. blick, blick. Chen Waxman. Chen Waxman blick blick., blick blick... (, Song & Baillargeon, 2007; Song et al., 2005; Woodward, 1998).. (Hohle, Wissenborn, Keifer, Schulz, & Schmitz, 2004; Mintz, 2006).
, deeg (, She wants to deeg it.) 12 (, I deeg you now!) (, Here s a deeg of a dog.) (Mintz, 2006),. (Namy & Waxman, 2000). (, Look, blicket!) 17 (, ), (, Look at this blicket!),. 2 (Waxman, Lidz, Braun, & Lavin, 2009). (The man is larping a ballon!), (The man is waving a larp!)...,. (,, 2011b). (Namy & Waxman, 2000; Waxman et al., 2009) (, Song & Baillargeon, 2007; Song et al., 2005; Woodward, 1998)... Woodward (1998) Song (2007). A, B A (, ) (, )., (A) (B)
. (A) (B)..,.,. (, Waxman et al., 2009).,,..,. 1 19. 1 19 2. 3 15 1. 1 19. 19. 19 24 ( : 19 11, : 17-21 23, 12 ). 12, 12. 14 (5 ), (5 ), (1 ),
(1 ), (2 ).,.,. 95cm, 200cm, 64cm 75cm. 88cm, 57cm.,,. 46cm, 50cm 6cm. 20-W 3. 14cm 17cm. 28.5cm. 5cm, 7cm, 15cm. (A), (B).. 1cm, 10cm, 2.5cm, 20cm, 31.5cm. 14cm
2.5cm. 47.5cm 14cm. 70cm, 180cm. 90cm, 23cm 2.5cm. 3, 1, 1... 18 (pre-trial) (main-trial). 4.5cm 4. (A) (1 ) 2 : 40cm. (2 ), (1 ), (2 ), (1 ). (1 )..., (A), (B).... 5. 4.5cm. 4 (A) (B) (1 )....... 45cm..
. 1, 2.. 17.3/18, 16.2/18, 16.3/18. 2 2, 2 60.. 2 2, 2 60.. 3.9/5. 2 2, 2 30.,, 1/10. 89%., Fs < 1,. 1: 19 2: 19 3: 15 / 16.18 (6.53) 19.27 (20.60) 19.62 (5.73) / 15.52 (8.60) 16.60 (13.82) 10.45 (2.44) / 21.18 (8.86) 19.20 (10.69) 18.07 (9.84) / 22.65 (5.47) 23.28 (12.41) 21.50 (6.93) / 16.35 (12.72) 10.92 (5.57) 15.95 (8.58) / 19.35 (11.19) 21.65 (18.99) 14.23 (6.55) / 13.12 (6.32) 16.4 (20.71) 14.50 (7.19) / 16.57 (6.76) 17.60 (8.81) 16.15 (4.46) / 24.80 (18.52) 18.25 (11.07) 12.85 (8.87) / 20.57 (8.80) 22.15 (20.17) 15.72 (9.14)
(, ), ( /, / ) 2X2., Fs < 1.,, F(1, 20) = 3.924, p =.062, ( 1). (, ), ( /, / ) 2X2,,, Fs < 1, ( 1). (, ), ( /, / ) 2X2.,, Fs < 2.91, ps >.10., F(1, 20) = 5.19, p <.05 ( 2)., / (M = 10.45, SD = 2.44) / (M = 19.62, SD = 5.73), F(1, 20) = 5.50, p <.05.., / (M = 18.07, SD = 9.84) / (M = 21.50, SD = 6.93), F < 1. Wilcoxon, / /, Ws = 21, p <.005,, Ws = 34, p =.49..
(ANCOVA)., F(1, 18) = 4.44, p <.05.., (1) (2), (3).,. 1., 19.,,. 2...,.. 2 / / /, 1., 2 / /, 1. 19 12 ( : 19 2, : 17 15-21 1, 6 ). 6 / 6 /. 10 (6 ), (2 ), (1 ), (1 ).,.,.
1 :,.. 1.. 17.3/18, 16.5/18, 16.7/18. 3.9/5.,, 90%., Fs < 1.61, ps >.23,. ( /, / )., F(1, 10) < 1, ( 1)., F(1, 10) = 1.77, p =.21. ( 1)., F(1, 10) < 1 ( 2), / (M = 15.95, SD = 8.58) / (M = 14.23, SD = 6.55)., F < 1.. 1,. 19,,,.,. 1 2
.,? 3 15. 15 24 ( : 15 2, : 13 28-16 22, 13 ). 12, 12. 9 (5 ), (1 ), (2 ), (1 ).,.,. 1 1.. 16.9/18, 16.6/18, 16.5/18. 3.3/5.,, 90%., Fs < 2.15, ps >.16,. (, ), ( /, / )., F(1, 20) < 2.92, ps >.10. ( 1).
,,, Fs < 1, ( 1). (, ), ( /, / ).,, Fs < 1 ( 3), ( - / : M = 14.50, SD = 7.19; - / : M = 16.15, SD = 4.46; - / : M = 12.85, SD = 8.87; - / : M = 15.72, SD = 9.14). (ANCOVA),, Fs(1,20) < 1.45, ps >.24. 3 15 19. 15-19. 1 19.,. 2. 3 15. 15 19.. Chen Waxman(2013) Look, I 'm going to blick the light! Watch me blick the light., blick
.,,. Chen Waxman(2013) 14 15.., Chen Waxman,. 14-15., Chen Waxman,.., 14-15. (,, 2011b) 3 (, ). 3,. 3, 19., 19... 19. 19,.,. 19.,. Mintz(2006)
,. Mintz.,. Mintz. -. -...,. (Spaepen & Spelke, 2007). 12., A B A A B.. 1 (Dewar & Xu, 2007).,.,.,.,.,... (, Song et al., 2014),
(, Akhtar & Tomasello, 2000)..,. Tomasello Akhtar (1995) 27. modi, modi, modi.,... 7 (,, 2008), 7 (,,, 2012)., 7., 7.,...,..., (2008). : 7,9. (3), 41-61., (2011a). 14
. (2), 123-136., (2011b). 3. (4), 83-97.,, (2012). 7. (1), 63-75. Akhtar, N., & Tomasello, M. (2000). The social nature of words and word learning. In R. M. Golinkoff & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Becoming a word learner: A debate on lexical acquisition (pp. 115-135). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Behne, T., Carpenter, M., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2005). Unwilling versus unable: Infants understanding of intentional action. Developmental Psychology, 41, 328-337. Biro, S., & Leslie, A. M. (2007). Infants perception of goal-directed actions: Development through cue-based bootstrapping. Developmental Science, 10, 379-398. Carpenter, M., Akhtar, N. & Tomasello, M. (1998). Fourteen-through 18 month-old infants differentially imitate intentional and accidental actions. Infant Behavior and Development, 21, 315-330. Carpenter, M., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2005). Twelve- and 18-month-olds imitate actions in terms of goals. Developmental Science, 8, F13-F20. Chen, M. L., & Waxman, S. R., (2013). Shall we blick? : Novel words highlight actors underlying intentions for 14-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 49, 426-431. Dewar, K. M., & Xu, F. (2007). Do 9-month-old infants expect distinct words to refer to kinds? Developmental Psychology, 43, 1227-1238. Gergely, G., Bekkering, H., & Király, I. (2002). Rational imitation in preverbal infants. Nature, 415, 755. Gergely, G., Nádasdy, Z., Csibra, G., & Bíró, S. (1995). Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age. Cognition, 56, 165-193. Hohle, B., Weissenborn, J., Kiefer, D., Schulz, A., & Schmitz, M. (2004). Functional elements in infants speech processing: The role of determiners in segmentation and categorization of lexical elements. Infancy, 5, 341-53. Jin, K. (2009). The role of verbal information in reasoning about others actions in infancy. Unpublished master dissertation. Yonsei University, Seoul. Martin, A., Onishi, K. H., & Vouloumanos, A. (2012). Understanding the abstract role of speech in communication at 12 months. Cognition, 123, 50-60. Meltzoff, A. N. (1995). Understanding the intentions of others: Re-enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old children. Developmental Psychology, 31, 838-850. Mintz, T. H. (2006). Finding the verbs: Distributional cues to categories available to young learners. In K. Hirsh-Pasek & R. M. Golinkoff (eds), Action meets word, 31-63. New York: Oxford University Press. Namy, L. L., & Waxman, S. R. (2000). Naming and exclaiming: Infants sensitivity to naming contexts. Journal of Cognition and Development,
1, 405-428. Sommerville, J. A., Woodward, A. L., & Needham, A. (2005). Action experience alters 3-monthold infants perception of others actions. Cognition, 96, B1-B11. Song, H., & Baillargeon, R. (2007). Can 9.5- month-old infants attribute to an agent a disposition to perform an action on objects? Acta Psychologica, 124, 79-105. Song, H., Baillargeon, R., & Fisher, C. (2005). Can infants attribute to an agent a disposition to perform a particular action? Cognition, 98, B45-B55. Song, H., Baillargeon, R., & Fisher, C. (2014). The development of infants use of novel verbal information when reasoning about others actions. PLoS ONE, 9, e92387. Spaepen, E., & Spelke, E. (2007). Will any doll do? 12-month-olds reasoning about goal objects. Cognitive Psychology, 54, 133-154. Tomasello, M. (2006). Acquiring linguistic constructions. In D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology. New York: Wiley. Tomasello, M., & Akhtar, N. (1995). Two-yearolds use pragmatic cues to differentiate reference to objects and actions. Cognitive Development, 10, 201-224. Vouloumanos, A., Martin, A., & Onishi, K. H. (2014). Do 6-month-olds understand that speech can communicate? Developmental Science, 17, 872-879. Waxman, S. R., Lidz, J., Braun, I. E., & Lavin, T. (2009). Twenty-four-month-old infants interpretations of novel verbs and nouns in dynamic scenes. Cognitive Psychology, 59, 67-95. Woodward, A. L. (1998). Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor s reach. Cognition, 69, 1-34. Woodward, A. L., & Guajardo, J. J. (2002). Infants understanding of the point gesture as an object-directed action. Cognitive Development, 17, 1061-1084. 1 : 2015. 04. 15 : 2015. 06. 07 : 2015. 06. 09
Infants ability to understand others action goals by using morphological information Eun Young Kim Hyun-joo Song Department of Psychology, Yonsei University The current study investigated whether infants could infer others goals by using morphological information. In Experiment 1, 19-month-olds were familiarized with scenes in which an actor slid one of two objects forward and backward, uttering a novel word as either a verb (verb condition) or a noun (noun condition). During the pre-test display, the positions of the two objects were switched; the prior goal object was placed within a short frame and the other object was placed within a long frame. In the test trial, the actor grasped the non-slidable prior goal object (short frame/prior goal event) or the slidable non-prior goal object (long frame/non-prior goal event). Infants in the verb condition looked longer at the short frame/prior goal event than at the long frame/non-prior goal event. Infants in the noun condition looked about equally at the two events. In Experiment 2, in which no novel word was uttered during familiarization trials, we found the same pattern as in the noun condition of Experiment 1. Thus, verbs, but not nouns, led infants to interpret the actor s goal as an action style. Experiment 3, in which 15-month-olds participated in the task used in Experiment 1, demonstrated that infants ability to use morphological information when understanding others goals develops between 15 and 19 months. Key words : goal understanding, psychological reasoning, morphology, grammatical form, infancy