이 논문은 정미경 소설에서 자본주의적 격률에 순응하는 윤리에 대한 죄책감이 발현되는 양상을 논구한다. ｢무화과나무 아래｣와 ｢성스러운 봄｣에서 인물은 돈의 위력에 굴복한 자신에 대한 죄책감을 자학과 가학으 로 표출한다. 이때 작가는 이들의 죄를 인간의 한계에서 어쩔 수 없이 파생된 원죄로 자리매김한다. ｢내 아들의 연인｣에서 죄책감을 억압하던 인물은 억압했던 것의 회귀를 경험하며, ｢엄마, 나는 바보예요｣에서 인물은 죄책감을 성공적으로 억압하지만 끊임없이 불안을 느낀다. 죄책감을 억압하는 인물들의 죄는 자본 주의 사회에서 그 부도덕성이 인식되지도 않을 만큼 보편화된 상식에 해당한다. 정미경은 자본주의적 윤리에 대한 투항과 그에 따른 죄책감 사이에서 끊임없이 분열하는데, 이러한 분열은 그의 소설에 그림자 또는 분신 모티프가 자주 등장하는 까닭을 설명해준다.

고백성사는 교회에 입문한 신자가, 세례성사에서 타고난 원죄와 이미 지은 죄를 통합적으로 사죄 받은 이후, 세례성사 이후로 지은 죄를 스스로 통회하고 사제에게 고백함으로써 하느님에게 용서받고 교회와 화해를 이루는 성사이다. 또한 고백성사는 성체성사와 연계된 성사로서, 성체성사는 비언어적이고 무의식적인 죄의 사죄를 포함하는 보다 종합적 성격의 성사인 반면에, 언어적 형식의 고백성사는 비언어적 성체성사를 예비하고 준비하는 기능을 하기도 한다. 이러한 고백성사의 존재의미를 본 연구에서는 한 실존적 개인의 죄의식의 문제와 해결의 관점에서 다루고 있다. 본 연구는 언어적인 담론 형식으로 이루어진 성사로서의 고백성사의 치유적 효과와 효용성에 대해서 고찰하고 있다. 심리치료와 교회의 성사는 본질적으로 다르지만, 본 연구는 정신분석의 말하기 치료와 고백성사의 죄의 고백이 유사한 치유 효과를 나타냄을 보인다. 그리하여 고백성사는 한 개인이 죄의식에서 해방되어 그의 행동의 정당성을 획득한 후 선택의 주체로서 책임지는 실존적 주체로서 살아갈 수 있게 하는 초기 단계에 개입하는 언어적 형식의 성사임을 규명한다.

The main purpose of this research is to explore the effects of usage frequency on the intention to reuse membership service while having perceived value play a role as a mediator. Usage frequency of membership services can affect consumers' fairness judgment. The more opportunities consumers have to perceive the fairness of a service, the more likely it is that they will choose to receive the identical service from the same provider in the future, since they form a positive attitude toward the service. In addition, the perceived value of the consumer can lead to the reuse of the service because it gives satisfaction to the consumer. Another objective of this research is to examine the moderating effect of regret and guilt on the relationship between perceived value and the intention to reuse membership service. Consistent with regret literature, if consumers perceive a consumption value that is smaller than the initially expected consumption value when using a membership service, they will regret the use of the service. Further, negative emotion such as regret often lead to negative attitudes and behaviors of consumers. Thus, as consumers feel regret, their willingness to use the membership service will continue to decrease. On the other hand, consumers experience guilt when they benefit from an unfair process (Krehbiel and Cropanzano, 2000). Similarly, when consumers judge that they have exceeded the usage frequency of membership service based on social norms or ethical principles of individuals, they will perceive unfairness. Consumers may try to offset their negative emotion by continuing to use identical membership services even after the end of the contract period as compensation for their guilty feelings. Thus, as consumers feel guilt, their willingness to use the membership service will continue to increase. This study proposes practical implications that a firm operating a membership service program can encourage a positive response of consumers in their service process by theoretically identifying the intrinsic process related to consumers' intention to reuse the service.

In nowadays consumption-based society, products (e.g. food and electronic products) are often thrown away before they are sufficiently used. The aversive consequence of such a lifestyle is becoming more alarming. There is an urgent need for a change in people’s consumption style. How can we make people correct their existing wasteful consumption behaviors and act responsibly? In fact, feelings very often can influence people’s behavior and judgments (Schwarz, 1990), even though the feelings are aroused by irrelevant sources - incidental emotion (Garg, Inman, & Mittal, 2005; Lerner & Keltner, 2000; Schwarz & Clore, 1983). Feelings of guilt and shame are known as moral emotions which are the guidance to ethical behaviors (Tangney, 1991, 2003). Although there is a significant overlapping between these two emotions, they also differ in several important aspects. One critical difference lies in the way the transgressor makes attributions (Niedenthal, Tangney, & Gavanski 1994). A transgressor who attributes the wrongdoing to a specific behavior (i.e. “I’ve done something bad”) is more likely to experience guilt while a transgressor who makes attribution to the global self (i.e. “I’m a terrible person”) is more likely to experience shame (Tracy & Robins, 2004). Given these fundamental differences, we speculate that a guilt-laden consumer is more likely to correct his or her wrongdoing (i.e. wastage) by taking reparative actions to minimize waste but a shame-laden consumer may possibly give up doing so. Findings from an experimental study (N=90) largely support this prediction. Undergraduate students who were made to feel shame were less likely to participate in a recycling campaign organized by the university than the students in the control condition. They reported a lower intention to use recycling facilities provided. On the other hand, participants who were made to feel guilt reported a marginally higher intention to participate in the campaign than the control participants. These preliminary findings suggest that emotional experience derived from other life domains might determine responsible consumption behaviors. Shame, which is commonly regarded as a moral emotion, may not necessarily make people more responsible consumers. The mechanism that underlies this effect may warrant further investigation.

이 연구는 데렉 마혼의 시 세계가 역사에 대한 시인의 죄의식과 시인의 책임감을 거쳐 예술의 자율성에 대한 추구로 발전되었음을 고찰한다. 첫째, 마혼은 개신교도로서 북아일랜드 사태에 대한 죄책감을 경험하는데, 이것이 그의 시의 기저를 이룬다. 둘째, 이러한 죄책감에 기인하여 마혼은 아일랜드뿐만 아니라 세계 역사에서 희생된 이들에 대한 관심을 표현하며 시인으로서의 책무를 수행한다. 마지막으로, 마혼은 엑프래시스의 독특한 시적 형식과 빛의 이미지를 사용하여 초월성 및 예술의 자율성을 추구한다.

This paper presents how guilt statements can affect luxury Fairtrade chocolate products. Specifically, the study will examine how willingness to pay more can affect Fairtrade through guilt advertising. Fairtrade is a labelling certification aimed at helping farmers in marginalised countries (Méndez et al., 2010). Huhmann and Brotherton (1997) explained that ‘informative statements’ can help evoke guilt and these statements are used on the packaging to investigate consumers’ perceptions of ad credibility, inferences of manipulative intent, guilt arousal, attitudes towards the ad, purchase intention and willingness to pay more for Fairtrade chocolate products. A combination of statements and logos were used as stimuli. The results of this study has shown that guilt statements may be too intense and may have caused inferences of manipulative intent in a Fairtrade context, resulting in lower purchase intention and willingness to pay more. This study is the first study to explore how guilt statements and logos influence consumers’ purchases for Fairtrade products. This study has managerial applications in developing marketing strategies to promote Fairtrade products and other charitable co-branding schemes.

Purpose: While many consumers claim to include ethical considerations in their consumption behavior, only a small fraction adheres to these self-made standards. For example, although two thirds of consumers polled by Nielsen in 2015 in thirteen countries stated to be willing to pay more for sustainable brands only ten percent actually purchased this type of product. Even if responsibly produced products still only account for a small share of the market they represent a pervasive marketing phenomenon that merits further scientific research. The so-called attitude-behavior-gap has received a considerable amount of attention not only in the business context, but also in scientific marketing research. Nevertheless, previous studies commonly discussed responsible consumption from an information-processing perspective concentrating on the rational and goal-directed side of responsible consumption. What is still largely missing, though, is the consideration of emotions as drivers or influencing factors for consumer responsibility, even though the few existing studies suggest a positive influence. This holds especially true for the self-conscious emotions of guilt and pride. Furthermore, the few studies at hand generally focus on non-durable goods like tea, coffee or juice and leave a research gap with regard to durable products like fashion items. Thus, the aim of this study is to further investigate the influence of self-conscious emotions on responsible consumption in the context of the fashion industry. Specifically, the influence of the two emotions guilt and pride as well as the influence of social visibility on the consumer’s decision-making and purchasing process shall be investigated. Design/methodology/approach: A mixed method approach containing qualitative and quantitative methods is applied. While in-depth interviews and focus groups with fashion consumers shed light on potential influencing factors and outcomes of self-conscious emotions, a scenario-based experiment further validates these results on influence of guilt and pride in the context of responsible consumption. The experiment follows a 2 (negative vs. positive responsibility outcome) x 2 (social vs. no social visibility) design and is conducted via online questionnaires. Findings: Experiences of self-conscious emotions provide feedback on past behavior that ultimately leads to a revised behavior linked to consumer responsibility in the future. Specifically, pride (guilt) can potentially lead to increased (diminished) word-of-mouth and purchase intentions. Research limitations/implications: Limitations lie in the type of research design as a scenario-based experiment was chosen for the quantitative study. Future research should investigate the topic at hand with a field study, ideally with a suitable partner from the industry. Another limitation lies in the examination of only one industry that strongly differs from other industries. Further investigations should compare the self-conscious emotions’ impacts on different types of industries. Practical implications: The current research provides suggestions on the adequate use of communications to promote sustainable fashion brands and to develop according campaigns that elicit emotional reactions from consumers. Furthermore, although guilt and pride refer to past behavior, they can nevertheless be used by management to influence future consumer actions, e.g. choice of responsibly produced garments as opposed to conventional ones. Incentives for successful word-of-mouth of sustainable fashion brands could strengthen this effect. Additionally, the final results deliver insights on whether social visibility should be increased (e.g. through offerings in offline channels) or rather reduced (e.g. through promotions in online channels). Originality/value: This study closes a research gap by investigating consumer responsibility not from an information-processing, but an emotion-based perspective. It furthermore complements research on emotions in the context of responsible consumption by investigating durable products, namely fashion items, that differ strongly from previously examined product groups like tea or coffee.

정서는 도덕적 판단, 의도, 행동으로 구성된 도덕적 의사결정에 관여한다. 본 연구는 온라인 실험 방법을 통하여 도덕적 정서인 죄책감과 수치심이 억제되었을 경우에 도덕적인 판단, 의도, 행동에 영향을 미친다는 것을 밝혔다. 도덕과 관련된 정서가 도덕적 의사결정 과정에 미치는 인과적 관계를 도출하기 위하여, 도덕과 관련된 정서(죄책감, 수치심)와 정서의 억제(억제, 대조집단)를 실험적으로 조작하였다. 실험 결과, 죄책감을 억제하는 것은 도덕적 판단과 의도에 관여되어있지만, 도덕적 행동은 관여하지 않는다는 것을 밝혔다. 다시 말해, 죄책감을 유지했던 피험자들은 억제했던 피험자들보다 지문에 묘사된 도덕적인 상황을 더 도덕적이라고 판단하였으며 도덕적 행동에 대한 의도가 높았다. 반면 수치심을 억제하는 것은 도덕적 판단과 의도에 관여하지 않았지만, 도덕적인 행동에 직접적으로 관여하였 다. 수치심을 유지했던 피험자들은 억제했던 피험자들보다 실제 도덕적인 행동을 더 많이 하였다. 본 연구는 비연속적 정서이론을 적용하여 죄책감과 수치심이 억제되었을 경우, 도덕적 의사결정 단계에 미치는 메커니즘을 설명하였다.

The objective of the study is to assess the effectiveness of guilt-decreasing appeals in reducing anticipated guilt toward a luxury vacation and not comprising happiness across two cultures with different values. The results have practical implications for designing global advertising strategies and execution using this emotional appeal.

기존의 많은 흡연 연구는 담배 소비 경험을 흡연자의 인지적 측면을 중심으로 이해하고자 하였다. 그러나 흡연자는 담배 소비를 통해서 쾌락적 동기나 사회적 동기를 충족하는 과정에서 자신과 타인에 대한 죄책감이라는 부정적인 정서를 경험할 수 있다. 구체적으로, 흡연자의 담배소비 행동이 흡연자의 이상적 자기개념이나 사회적 자기개념이라 는 기준에 부합하지 않을 때 죄책감이 발생할 수 있다. 이와 관련해서 본 연구는 담배를 소비하는 과정에서 발생하는 죄책감이라는 부정적 정서 경험을 중심으로 흡연자의 심리적 기제를 이해하고자 하였다. 연구 결과, 흡연자는 담배 소비가 제공하는 쾌락적 혜택보다 신체적 피해를 더 크게 지각할수록 자신에 대한 죄책감과 타인에 대한 죄책감을 더 강하게 경험하는 것으로 나타났다. 한편, 흡연자에 대한 사회적 이미지를 부정적으로 지각할수록 타인에 대한 죄책감을 더 강하게 경험하였다. 또한 자신에 대한 죄책감과 타인에 대한 죄책감은 금연 의향을 높이는 것으로 밝혀 졌다. 이와 같은 연구 결과는 흡연자 자신에 대한 죄책감(예. 담배가격 인상)과 타인에 대한 죄책감(예. 간접흡연이 가족의 건강에 미치는 피해를 보여주는 금연 광고)을 유발하는 금연 캠페인이 흡연자의 금연 의향을 높일 수 있다는 점을 제안한다.

본 연구는 국제기아 돕기를 촉구하는 설득 메시지의 효과에 영향을 미치는 죄책감 소구 수준과 공감적 개인성 향의 상호작용을 살펴보았다. 죄책감 소구 수준은 메시지가 수용자의 죄책감을 이끌어 내는 정도의 높고 낮음을 의미한다. 공감적 성향이란 타인의 경험에 동조하거나 관심을 갖는 개인의 경향을 지칭하며 본 연구에서는 개인 적 고통과 공감적 관심이라는 하위 차원을 이용하였다. 메시지의 실험은 2단계로 구성하였다. 1단계에서는 개인 성향을 측정하고 2단계에서는 죄책감 소구의 수준을 차별화한 메시지를 전달하였다. 전체 실험은 죄책감 소구 수준(2) ✕ 공감성향(2)으로 설계되었다. 그 결과, 죄책감 소구 수준은 개인적 고통과 상호작용하는 것으로 나타 났다. 그 상호작용은 주로 죄책감 수준이 높은 조건에서 개인적 고통이 높은 개인과 낮은 개인들의 차이에 의해 발현되었다. 공감적 관심이 높은 개인들은 낮은 개인들에 비해 죄책감 수준과 상관없이 돕기 메시지에 더 우호적인 것으로 나타났다.

Reflecting the phenomenon of the growing importance of sustainable consumption in achieving sustainable development, this study argues that luxury fashion brands can promote consumers to make sustainable consumption, by encouraging consumers to choose timeless style over seasonable fashion and long-lasting quality over excessive quantity, and thereby buy less and wear the product for long, having a socially and environmentally friendly influence to the planet. In addition to the leading role that luxury fashion brands play in consumers’ sustainable consumption, this study draws on the Coping Theory to explain how consumer guilt plays an important role in promoting consumers’ sustainable behavior (i.e., sustainable divestment intention). To achieve the aim of this study, we will collect 400 valid responses from consumer panelists of a commercial online survey company. Further, this study will analyze the data by adopting structural equation modeling (SEM) via AMOS 22.

Scholars have classified guilt as, anticipatory, reactive, and existential guilt. Past studies show that specific types of guilt appeals are more effective in advertising (e.g. Lindsey, 2005). However, researchers have mostly relied on the use of unified guilt to investigate advertising effectiveness. Thus the paper highlights the inherent need to investigate a specific type of guilt, namely anticipatory guilt in a luxury branding context. The paper will fill this gap by measuring consumer’s reactions to anticipatory guilt within two luxury product categories (non-durable and durable). The research is one of the first to explore anticipatory guilt in a luxury advertising context. Considering the importance of the guilt appeals in advertising, the paper provides a comparison of anticipatory guilt under three different conditions. Thus, it provides a greater understanding of an advertising tool for practitioners and scholars.

The defendant consulted an attorney-at-law regarding legal issues which might constitute crimes before commencement of an investigation. The defendant received legal opinion from the counsel by e-mail, which was later seized and presented as evidence of guilt by investigative authority.The court of original instance rejected to accept written legal opinion from the counsel as evidence on the ground of Attorney-Client Privilege. The Supreme Court, however, deemed Attorney-Client Privilege is not rooted in our legal system.I concur with the opinion of the Supreme Court in that we have yet to find traditional or provisional basis for Attorney-Client Privilege. It is premature to acknowledge the concept of Attorney-Client Privilege without in-depth probe. Instead, the majority opinion of the Supreme Court looked to Articles 314 and 149 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Article 314 provides one of the exceptions to hearsay rule, which allows the written statement to be admitted as evidence of guilt without cross-examination against the person who wrote the statement, in case that the person is not available due to illness, unknown whereabouts, etc. as well as that the statement is proved to have been written under especially reliable circumstances. Article 149 confers the right to refuse to testify on the legal counsel regarding professional secrets he obtained in the course of business. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court ruled that Article 314 shall not apply in case that the legal counsel exercises his right to refuse to testify under Article 149. The majority opinion based its rationale on the fact that Article 314 had been revised with a tendency to reinforce oral hearing and direct examination by narrowing the scope of the exceptions to hearsay rule, as well as on the purpose Article 149 seeks to achieve. On the contrary, the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court deemed that Article 314 shall apply in case of exercise of right for refusal of witness under Article 149. The dissenting opinion pointed out that Article 314 serves to discover the truth by allowing hearsay evidence under exceptional circumstances. According to the dissenting opinion, there is no difference between situation where the witness is unable to appear because of illness, etc. and situation where the witness exercises his right to refuse to testify when it comes to applying Article 314.I concur with the majority opinion of the Supreme Court. The witness who refuses to testify may or may not have lawful grounds to refuse. If he has sufficient lawful grounds, we should pay attention to the purpose of the Article which confers the right to refuse to testify. In this context, it stands to reason to declare that Article 314 shall not apply in case that the legal counsel exercises his right to refuse to testify under Article 149. By denying the admissibility of legal opinion as evidence of guilt, written by the legal counsel who lawfully exercises the right to refuse to testify, we can further the right to refuse to testify as well as the principle of oral hearing and direct examination.