*..,.,. 1), 2), 3) 8:0, 7:1, 6:2, 5:3, 4:4, 3:5, 2:6, 1:7, 0:8 9. /, /, / 2 (two alternative forced choice task).,. (nonlinear data fitting), (point o

Similar documents

,,,.,,,, (, 2013).,.,, (,, 2011). (, 2007;, 2008), (, 2005;,, 2007).,, (,, 2010;, 2010), (2012),,,.. (, 2011:,, 2012). (2007) 26%., (,,, 2011;, 2006;

,......


. 45 1,258 ( 601, 657; 1,111, 147). Cronbach α=.67.95, 95.1%, Kappa.95.,,,,,,.,...,.,,,,.,,,,,.. :,, ( )

:,,.,. 456, 253 ( 89, 164 ), 203 ( 44, 159 ). Cronbach α= ,.,,..,,,.,. :,, ( )

歯14.양돈규.hwp

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp DOI: * The Mediating Eff


Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp DOI: * Strenghening the Cap

Analysis of objective and error source of ski technical championship Jin Su Seok 1, Seoung ki Kang 1 *, Jae Hyung Lee 1, & Won Il Son 2 1 yong in Univ


(5차 편집).hwp

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp DOI: 3 * The Effect of H

차 례... 박영목 **.,... * **.,., ,,,.,,

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp DOI: * The Grounds and Cons

<C7D1B1B9B1B3C0B0B0B3B9DFBFF85FC7D1B1B9B1B3C0B05F3430B1C733C8A35FC5EBC7D5BABB28C3D6C1BE292DC7A5C1F6C6F7C7D42E687770>

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp DOI: : Researc

012임수진

한국성인에서초기황반변성질환과 연관된위험요인연구


Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp DOI: IPA * Analysis of Perc


Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp DOI: 3 * Effects of 9th

노동경제논집 38권 3호 (전체).hwp

지난 2009년 11월 애플의 아이폰 출시로 대중화에 접어든 국내 스마트폰의 역사는 4년 만에 ‘1인 1스마트폰 시대’를 눈앞에 두면서 모바일 최강국의 꿈을 실현해 가고 있다


도비라

Kor. J. Aesthet. Cosmetol., 및 자아존중감과 스트레스와도 밀접한 관계가 있고, 만족 정도 에 따라 전반적인 생활에도 영향을 미치므로 신체는 갈수록 개 인적, 사회적 차원에서 중요해지고 있다(안희진, 2010). 따라서 외모만족도는 개인의 신체는 타


서론 34 2

<30392EB9DAB0A1B6F72CC1A4B3B2BFEE2E687770>



11¹ÚÇý·É

특수교육논총 * ,,,,..,..,, 76.7%.,,,.,,.. * 1. **

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp DOI: : A basic research

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp DOI: * A Analysis of

Kor. J. Aesthet. Cosmetol., 라이프스타일은 개인 생활에 있어 심리적 문화적 사회적 모든 측면의 생활방식과 차이 전체를 말한다. 이러한 라이프스 타일은 사람의 내재된 가치관이나 욕구, 행동 변화를 파악하여 소비행동과 심리를 추측할 수 있고, 개인의

<B3EDB9AEC1FD5F3235C1FD2E687770>

ÀÌÁÖÈñ.hwp

현대패션의 로맨틱 이미지에 관한 연구

가족스트레스와 가정생활만족도 간의 관계에서 자아분화의 매개효과

878 Yu Kim, Dongjae Kim 지막 용량수준까지도 멈춤 규칙이 만족되지 않아 시행이 종료되지 않는 경우에는 MTD의 추정이 불가 능하다는 단점이 있다. 최근 이 SM방법의 단점을 보완하기 위해 O Quigley 등 (1990)이 제안한 CRM(Continu

* 6 12 (agent),. 12 ( 1), 6 ( 2) ( ).,,,. ( ) ( ).,, , 1. * 2012 ( ) (NRF-2012-S1A3-A ) 2011 :,, ( ) 50 : Tel: ,


Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp DOI: * A Research Trend

<5BBEF0BEEE33332D335D20312EB1E8B4EBC0CD2E687770>

Vol.259 C O N T E N T S M O N T H L Y P U B L I C F I N A N C E F O R U M

2014 자격연수 제1기_수정.hwp

<C7F6B4EBBACFC7D1BFACB1B F3136B1C72032C8A3292E687770>

Rheu-suppl hwp

歯1.PDF

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp DOI: The Effect of Caree

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp DOI: A study on Characte


(Exposure) Exposure (Exposure Assesment) EMF Unknown to mechanism Health Effect (Effect) Unknown to mechanism Behavior pattern (Micro- Environment) Re

- 최원희ㆍ 김명희: 중년후기 여성의 집단회상 경험과 효과에 대한 연구 - 에 직면하며 심리 사회적인 역할갈등, 고립, 위축, 상실 감 등을 경험하게 된다. 이 시기동안 위기에 잘 대처하 지 못하면 자신에 대하여 실망하며 두려움과 슬픔 등 을 겪으면서 자아존중감이 낮아

:..,,. (KCYPS)., 2. 5 ( 5) 2 1., 1.,. :,, ( )

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp DOI: A Study on the Opti

., (, 2000;, 1993;,,, 1994), () 65, 4 51, (,, ). 33, 4 30, 23 3 (, ) () () 25, (),,,, (,,, 2015b). 1 5,

232 도시행정학보 제25집 제4호 I. 서 론 1. 연구의 배경 및 목적 사회가 다원화될수록 다양성과 복합성의 요소는 증가하게 된다. 도시의 발달은 사회의 다원 화와 밀접하게 관련되어 있기 때문에 현대화된 도시는 경제, 사회, 정치 등이 복합적으로 연 계되어 있어 특

Analyses the Contents of Points per a Game and the Difference among Weight Categories after the Revision of Greco-Roman Style Wrestling Rules Han-bong

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp DOI: (NCS) Method of Con

27 2, 1-16, * **,,,,. KS,,,., PC,.,,.,,. :,,, : 2009/08/12 : 2009/09/03 : 2009/09/30 * ** ( :

54 한국교육문제연구제 27 권 2 호, I. 1.,,,,,,, (, 1998). 14.2% 16.2% (, ), OECD (, ) % (, )., 2, 3. 3

<303720C7CFC1A4BCF86F6B2E687770>

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp DOI: * Relationships a

03-서연옥.hwp

<5B D B3E220C1A634B1C720C1A632C8A320B3EDB9AEC1F628C3D6C1BE292E687770>

230 한국교육학연구 제20권 제3호 I. 서 론 청소년의 언어가 거칠어지고 있다. 개ㅅㄲ, ㅆㅂ놈(년), 미친ㅆㄲ, 닥쳐, 엠창, 뒤져 등과 같은 말은 주위에서 쉽게 들을 수 있다. 말과 글이 점차 된소리나 거센소리로 바뀌고, 외 국어 남용과 사이버 문화의 익명성 등

27 2, 17-31, , * ** ***,. K 1 2 2,.,,,.,.,.,,.,. :,,, : 2009/08/19 : 2009/09/09 : 2009/09/30 * 2007 ** *** ( :

,126,865 43% (, 2015).,.....,..,.,,,,,, (AMA) Lazer(1963)..,. 1977, (1992)

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp DOI: NCS : G * The Analy

03이경미(237~248)ok

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp DOI: * A S

???? 1

歯5-2-13(전미희외).PDF

09구자용(489~500)

09È«¼®¿µ 5~152s

歯유성경97.PDF

철학탐구 1. 들어가는말,. (pathos),,..,.,.,,. (ethos), (logos) (enthymema). 1).... 1,,... (pistis). 2) 1) G. A. Kennedy, Aristotle on Rhetoric, 1356a(New York :

Àå¾Ö¿Í°í¿ë ³»Áö

44-3대지.08류주현c

- * (32 ), ,,,, * 2013 ( ) (KRF-2013S1A3A ). :,, 3 53 Tel : ,

118 김정민 송신철 심규철 을 미치기 때문이다(강석진 등, 2000; 심규철 등, 2001; 윤치원 등, 2005; 하태경 등, 2004; Schibeci, 1983). 모둠 내에서 구성원들이 공동으 로 추구하는 학습 목표의 달성을 위하여 각자 맡은 역할에 따라 함께

08김현휘_ok.hwp

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp DOI: * A Study on the Pe

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp DOI: * Experiences of Af

27 2, * ** 3, 3,. B ,.,,,. 3,.,,,,..,. :,, : 2009/09/03 : 2009/09/21 : 2009/09/30 * ICAD (Institute for Children Ability

<B7CEC4C3B8AEC6BCC0CEB9AEC7D B3E23130BFF9292E687770>

γ

00약제부봄호c03逞풚

04조남훈

590호(01-11)

<B1A4B0EDC8ABBAB8C7D0BAB8392D345F33C2F75F E687770>

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

(, 2012) 15 ~ , (38.6%)., (65.1%), (46.0%) (,,, 2002; 2005).,,,, 47.4%, 55.1%, 55.4%, 26.3% (,,, 2002)..,... (2009),.,,, 190,,,,,. (2009)

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp DOI: : A Study on the Ac

Transcription:

*..,.,. 1), 2), 3) 8:0, 7:1, 6:2, 5:3, 4:4, 3:5, 2:6, 1:7, 0:8 9. /, /, / 2 (two alternative forced choice task).,. (nonlinear data fitting), (point of subjective equality: PSE) (precision)., - 0.5,. - 0.5, - 0.5.,,.,. * 2016 ( ) [NRF-2013S1A3A2054886]. 1. :,, (46241) 63 2 ( ) Email : dhlee@pusan.ac.kr

.,. (facial expression),.. (Ekman, 1993; Ekman & Friesen, 1971; Izard, 1994) (Park & Kim, 2015).,. Uchida, Townsend, Markus Bergsieker(2009). Uchida (2009)?,,,. Uchida (2009). Uchida (2009) (Lee, Choi, & Cho, 2012; Masuda et al., 2008).,.,?? (crowd perception) (Haberman & Whitney, 2007, 2009; Yamanashi Leib et al., 2012; Yang, Yoon, Chong, & Oh, 2013). Haberman Whitney(2007, 2009),, (ensemble representation).,,,,

. (prosopagnosia) Yamanashi Leib (2012), (ensemble coding). Yang (2013). Yang (2013) Haberman Whitney(2007, 2009),. Yang (2013) Haberman Whitney(2007, 2009),,. (point of subjective equality: PSE) (precision). (social anxiety level),. Yang (2013),..,.. Barsäde Gibson(1998) (group emotion),.,,, (Parkinson et al., 2005). Barsäde Gibson (2012), (bottom-up), (emotional contagion).

, (Kelly, 2001; Magee & Tiedens, 2006).... (Niedenthal & Brauer, 2011), (Boiger & Mesquita, 2012).,.,., 45%, 55%,?? Haberman Whitney(2007, 2009). 45%?? Yang (2013) 0.54, 0.59.,,.?, (emotional valence),.,.,,.

,,. 8 1) -, 2) -, 3) - 8:0, 7:1, 6:2, 5:3, 4:4, 3:5, 2:6, 1:7, 0:8 9., /, /, /. Yang (2013) 0.1 (100ms),, 3. (ensemble representation),,.. (the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; PANAS, Watson et al., 1988),,, (, ). 153, 51-2. - 51 ( :13, :38; :20.9 ), - 49 ( :11, :38; : 20.5 ), - 51 ( :12, :39; : 20.3 ) 151.. (the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; PANAS). Watson, Clark Tellegen(1988) (the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; PANAS) (Lee, Kim, & Lee, 2003). Watson (1988) 10 10, 0~4. Lee (2003)

(alert), 9 10. Lee (2003) (Cronbach's ɑ).84.87, (Cronbach's ɑ).81.83.,. 11. Cronbach's α.93.,, r=.498, p <.001,, r = -.339, p <.001. (The Revised Oxford Happiness Scale). Hills Argyle(2002) - (The Revised Oxford Happiness Scale). 29 6..,.,.. (Kim, Choi, & Cho, 2011) FACES (Ebner et al., 2010).,.

. 24, 96,, 288. 45x50mm. 8, 4:4. 1) -, 2) -, 3) -, 8:0, 7:1, 6:2, 5:3, 4:4, 3:5, 2:6, 1:7, 0:8 9 (Figure 1 ). 16 144(9x16). 6,. (PANAS),. 60cm, 8 2 (two alternative forced choice; 2AFC). E-prime 2 professional, 19 ( : 1290x1024). (+) 500ms 8 Figure 1 14. 3,,., /, /, /.. 144 ( ) 6, 30. 1.,, -, -, -

. X, Y, (Figure 2). 2 (cumulative distribution function: CDF), (data fitting). (parameters) (μ) (σ), 50% (point of subjective equality: PSE), (precision) ( ). GraphPad Prism 7.0(Motulsky, 1999), (least squares method)..,.,.,., (R 2 < 0.5),. - 2, - 2 4 ( 5% ). 3., PANAS (Table 1).,, ( : F(2, 150) = 1.77, p =.174; : F(2, 150) = 0.19, p =.981; Conditions Positive Affect PANAS Negative Affect Oxford Happiness Scale Neutral-Happy (n=51) 15.51(5.84) 11.27(6.62) 119.17(12.89) Neutral-Sad (n=49) 16.10(5.66) 11.02(6.46) 119.53(17.27) Happy-Sad (n=51) 17.66(6.40) 11.13(6.37) 123.74(16.73)

: F(2, 150) = 1.33, p =.269).,, F(1, 148) = 60.60, p <.001, (Lee, Kim, & Lee, 2003),, F(2, 148) =.987 p =.375. Figure 2,. Figure 2a b - -, Figure 2c-1 c-2 -.,

Figure 2c-1 c-2. Figure 2, ( 0.0 -> 0.5 <- 1.0 ), F(8, 1184) = 86.39, p <.001, -,, F(2, 148) = 2.98, p =.054. Figure 2,. Figure 3 Table 2., -, ( 50% ), (PSE) 0.475(SE ±.007, 95% CI [.460,.489]), 0.5, -.526(SE ±.007, 95% CI [.513,.540]) 0.5 (Figure 3 1a, 1b)., ( ) -.472(.14), -.534(.12), -.508(.07),, F(2, 142) = 3.779, p =.025. (Tukey, HSD), - - (d =.31 p =.019),. -.502(SE ±.005, 95% CI [.493,.512]).496(SE ±.005, 95% CI [.487,.506]) 0.5. (SD) -.248(SE ±.010, 95% CI [.228,.269]), -.254(SE ±.009, 95% CI [.236,.274]). -,.215(SE ±.007, 95% CI [.201,.228]),.215(SE ±.007, 95% CI [.202,.229]), -, -. -.208(.11), -.234(.10), -.199(.09), F(2, 142) = 1.686, p =.189. Figure 3.2 3.3 - - -

conditions x(ratio) y(response) Mean(PSE) SD(precision) R 2 Neutral-Happy (n=51) Happy faces Happy.475 [.46,.49].248 [.23,.27].84 Neutral-Sad (n=49) Sad faces Sad.526 [.51,.54].255 [.24,.27].86 Sad-Happy (n=51) Happy faces Happy.502 [.49,.51].215 [.20,.23].92 Sad-Happy (n=51) Sad faces Sad.496 [.49,.51].215 [.20,.23].92. Figure 3.2a, 50% (, 8 4 ), ( )., Figure 3.3a, 50% (, 8 4 ), ( ).,. Table 3,. - PANAS, r = -.303, p =.034,, r = -.314, p =.028.,. -, 0.1, r =.240, p = PSE PANAS PA score PANAS NA score Oxford Happiness scale PSE of Neutral-Happy condition -.303(.034) * -.067(.649) -.314(028) * PSE of Neutral-Sad condition.192(.186) -.096(.510).240(.097) PSE of Sad-Happy condition -.017(.907).006(.966) -397(.004) * p <.10, * p <.05

.097.. - ( ),,, r =.397, p =.004( )..,.., (, ),.,,, ( ). (4:4,, 0.5),.,.,. Yang (2013) /. -,,.,. - -,., - -,

.., (, Haberman & Whitney, 2007, 2009; Yamanashi Leib et al., 2012).,.,,.,.,,.,,.,. (anger superiority effect) (Bar-Haim et al., 2007; Hansen & Hansen, 1988; Yang, Kim, & Oh, 2006),.. (mood congruency effect) (Bouhuys, Bloem, & Groothuis, 1995; Bower, 1981; Niedenthal, Halberstadt, Margolin, & Innes-Ker, 2000)., Bouhuys, Bloem Groothuis(1995), ( vs ),,

.,,..,..,..,, (Becker et al., 2007).,.,.,,.,.,.,, ( ).,. Abele, A., & Petzold, P. (1994). How does mood operate in an impression formation task? An information integration approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24(1), 173-187.

Bar-Haim, Y., Lamy, D., Pergamin, L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2007). Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and nonanxious individuals: a meta-analytic study. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 1-24. Barsäde, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (1998). Group emotion: A view from top and bottom. Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 1(82), 81-102. Barsäde, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2012). Group affect its influence on individual and group outcomes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(2), 119-123. Becker, D. V., Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., Blackwell, K. C., & Smith, D. M. (2007). The confounded nature of angry men and happy women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 179-190. Boiger, M., & Mesquita, B. (2012). The construction of emotion in interactions, relationships, and cultures. Emotion Review, 4(3), 221-229. Bouhuys, A. L., Bloem, G. M., & Groothuis, T. G. (1995). Induction of depressed and elated mood by music influences the perception of facial emotional expressions in healthy subjects. Journal of Affective Disorders, 33(4), 215-226. Bower, G. H. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36(2), 129-148. Ebner, N. C., Riediger, M., & Lindenberger, U. (2010). FACES-A database of facial expressions in young, middle-aged, and older women and men: Development and Validation. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 351-362. Ekman, P. (1993). Facial expression and emotion. American Psychologist, 48(4), 384-392. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1971). Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17(2), 124-129. Forgas, J. P., & Bower, G. H. (1987). Mood effects on person-perception judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 53-60. Haberman, J., & Whitney, D. (2007). Rapid extraction of mean emotion and gender from sets of faces. Current Biology, 17(17), 751-753. Haberman, J., & Whitney, D. (2009). Seeing the mean: ensemble coding for sets of faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(3), 718-734 Hansen, C. H., & Hansen, R. D. (1988). Finding the face in the crowd: an anger superiority effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 917-924. Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2002). The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire: A compact scale for the measurement of psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(7), 1073-1082. Innes-Ker, Å., & Niedenthal, P. M. (2002). Emotion concepts and emotional states in social judgment and categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 804-816. Izard, C. E. (1994). Innate and Universal Facial

Expressions: Evidence from Developmental and Cross-Cultural Research. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 288-299. Kelly, J. R. (2001). Mood and Emotion in Groups, in M. A. Hogg and R. S. Tindale(Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes (pp. 164-181). UK, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Kim, M. W., Choi, J. S., & Cho, Y. S. (2011). The Korea University Facial Expression Collection(KUFEC) and Semantic Differential Ratings of Emotion. The Korean Journal of Psychology: General, 30(4), 1189-1211. Lee, H., Kim, E., & Lee, M. (2003). A validation study of Korea Positive and Negative Affect Schedule: The PANAS Scales. The Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology 22(4), 935-946. Lee, T. H., Choi, J. S., & Cho, Y. S. (2012). Context modulation of facial emotion perception differed by individual difference. PLoS One, 7(3), e32987. Magee, J. C., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2006). Emotional ties that bind: The roles of valence and consistency of group emotion in inferences of cohesiveness and common fate. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(12), 1703-1715. Masuda, T., Ellsworth, P. C., Mesquita, B., Leu, J., Tanida, S., & Van de Veerdonk, E. (2008). Placing the face in context: cultural differences in the perception of facial emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(3), 365-381. Motulsky, H. (1999). Analyzing data with GraphPad prism. GraphPad Software Incorporated. Niedenthal, P. M., & Brauer, M. (2012). Social functionality of human emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 259-285. Niedenthal, P. M., Halberstadt, J. B., Margolin, J., & Innes Ker, Å. H. (2000). Emotional state and the detection of change in facial expression of emotion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(2), 211-222. Park, T. J. & Kim, J. H. (2015). Working Memory Load Effect on Negative Emotional Face Processing Depends on Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 27(1), 41-58. Parkinson, B., Fischer, A. H., & Manstead, A. S. (2005). Emotion in social relations: Cultural, Group, and Interpersonal Processes. New York: Psychology Press. Uchida, Y., Townsend, S. S., Markus, H. R., & Bergsieker, H. B. (2009). Emotions as within or between people? Cultural variation in lay theories of emotion expression and inference. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(11), 1427-1439. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070. Yamanashi Leib, A., Puri, A. M., Fischer, J., Bentin, S., Whitney, D., & Robertson, L.

(2012). Crowd perception in prosopagnosia. Neuropsychologia, 50(7), 1698-1707. Yang, J. W., Kim, J. H., & Oh, K. J. (2006). Selective Attentional Bias for Negative Emotional Faces in Social Anxiety: Comparison of Three Age Groups. The Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 25(1), 237-255. Yang, J. W., Yoon, K. L., Chong, S. C., & Oh, K. J. (2013). Accurate but pathological: Social anxiety and ensemble coding of emotion. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 37(3), 572-578. 1 : 2016. 01. 09 : 2016. 05. 01 : 2016. 05. 02

Analysis of Response Characteristics in the Judgment of Emotion for a Group of Emotional Faces Sewon Kim Hyun Jung Shin Bia Kim Donghoon Lee Department of Psychology, Pusan National University Facial emotion is an important social cue for inferring emotional states of other people. Psychological research using facial emotions has focused on the perception of individual emotional faces. However, in the ordinary life we may infer a group level emotion from multiple faces in a group, but little has been known about what kinds of factors influence this process. In the current study, we investigate the response characteristics of the group emotion judgment for a group of emotional faces which are composed of individual faces in different emotional categories with different ratios. The group facial emotion stimuli are composed of 1) neutral and happy faces, 2) neutral and sad faces, and 3) sad and happy faces in the 8:0, 7:1, 6:2, 5:3, 4:4, 3:5, 2:6, 1:7, 0:8 ratios. By this way, the level of emotional intensity of the group is manipulated into 9 steps. Participants in each condition performed a two alternative forced choice task by judging the overall emotion of a group facial stimulus into one of two response categories (e.g., Neutral-Happy). Analysis of response times for the judgment of the group emotion showed that the response time for judging the overall emotion was slow down as faces in the two different emotion categories mixed together with a similar ratio. The response ratio data were analyzed by a nonlinear data fitting procedure using a psychometric function, and the point of subjective equality (PSE) and the precision of each participant in each condition were estimated. In results, the mean PSE in the Sad-Happy condition was almost same as a hypothetical mean (0.5) and the precision was high. On the contrary, the mean PSE of the happy response in the Neutral-Happy condition was lower than 0.5 but the mean PSE of the sad response in the Neutral-Sad condition was higher than 0.5. Moreover, participants PSE of the happy response was negatively correlated with participants positive emotion levels as well as happiness scores, whereas participants PSEs of the sad response were positively correlated with participants happiness scores. These results imply that the judgment of emotion for a group of faces is influenced by bottom-up factors such as how the group is comprised of what kinds of emotional faces, and by top-down factors such as observers emotional states and traits. Key words : Group emotion, Facial expression, Crowd preception, Psychometric Function, Point of Subjective Equality (PSE)