The Correction of the Investment Model Regarding the Maintenance of Violent Dating Relationships focus on Altruistic Delusion

본 연구에서는 데이트폭력 피해자가 폭력적인 데이트관계를 지속하는데 있어 투자모델에 이타적 망상이라는 변인을 추가하여 모델의 타당성을 살펴보았다. 투자모델은 개인이 파트너와의 관계에서 느끼는 만족도, 대안 여부, 투자 정도를 고려하여 자신의 헌신 정도를 조절하고 그것에 따라 관계지속여부를 결정한다는 이론이다. 이 모델은 결혼여부와 상관없이 어떤 친밀한 관계에도 적용된다는 장점이 있다. 이타적 망상 변인은 본 연구에서 새롭게 구성한 개념으로 데이트 폭력 피해자들이 파트너의 폭력적인 성향을 자신이 바꿀 수 있다고 생각하는 비현실적인 믿음을 말한다. 서울, 경기지역을 중심으로 데이트폭력을 경험한 20대 여성 227명으로부터 설문지를 수거하여 연구자가 설정한 절단점을 기준으로 110명을 데이트폭력 피해자로 상정하였다. 분석결과, 투자모델을 한국의 20대 여성의 데이트 관계에 적용하였을 때 타당한 것으로 나타났다. 또한 기존의 투자모델과 이타적망상을 추가한 새로운 투자모델을 구조방정식 모델검증을 통해 비교한 결과 새로운 투자모델의 설명력이 더 높은 것으로 나타났다. 또한 새로운 투자모델이 관계지속여부에 영향을 미치는데 있어 그 예측력이 매우 높게 나타났다. 추후 연구에서는 교제기간을 통제하고, 동성애 커플이나 기혼커플, 남자피해자, 대학생이나 직장인뿐만 아니라 사회경제적인 수준이 다른 참여자를 대상으로 투자모델을 적용하여 타당성을 알아볼 필요가 있다.

keywords: dating violence, investment model, altruistic delusion, 데이트폭력, 투자모델, 이타적 망상

Abstract

This study is to examine the validity of the investment model accompanied by the altruistic delusion variable when dating violence victims maintain their violent relationships. The investment model states that dating violence victims consider their satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment level to determine their commitment level in their relationship. And those variables contribute to the maintenance of their relationship. The altruistic variable is dating violence victims' belief that they can change their partners' violent behaviors by themselves. South Korean women who were in their 20s (N=227) provided self-reported data, and 110 people were endorsed as dating violence victims according to the researcher's standard. The investment model turned out to be effective when applied to South Korea's victims of dating violence who were maintaining their relationships. Also, the new investment model which is composed of the past investment model and altruistic delusion variable had a better prediction to explain the reasons victims' did not leave their violent relationships. In the following studies, the investment model should be applied to homosexuals, married couples, male victims, and other participants who have a different social economic status to generalize the investment model's validity.

keywords: dating violence, investment model, altruistic delusion, 데이트폭력, 투자모델, 이타적 망상

참고문헌

김용미 (1996). 미혼 대학생의 혼전 단계에서의 신체적 폭력의 경험에 관한 실태 조사 연구. 한국가정관리학회지, 14(1), 187-197.

김정란 (1999). 대학생의 이성교제 중 폭력과 대처행동. 전남대 석사학위 청구논문.

김정인, 최상진, 손영미 (2001). 성희롱문제 지각에서 성차 및 성역할태도의 영향. 한국심리학회지: 여성, 6(3), 1-22.

유선영 (2000). 여대생의 가정폭력 피해와 이성교제폭력 피해간의 매개요인에 관한 연구. 연세대학교 석사학위 청구논문.

이송월 (2006). 이성교제폭력의 가해와 피해에 영향을 미치는 요인. 한림대학교 사회복지학과 석사학위 청구논문.

장희숙, 조현각 (2001). 대학생 이성교제폭력의 실태와 위험요인들. 한국가족복지학, 8, 177-202.

전석균 (2003). 정신병리. 서울: 하나의학사.

Arias, I., & Pape K. T. (1999). Psychological abuse: Implications for adjustment and commitment to leave violence partners, Violence Victims, 14(1), 55-67.

Blackwell, L. B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of the investment model. Personal Relationships, 10, 37-57.

10.

Choice, P., & Lamke, l. (1997). A conceptual approach to understanding abused women's stay/leave decisions, Journal of Family Issues, 18, 290-314.

11.

Coker, A. L., Smith, P. H., Mckeown, R. E., & King, M. J. (2000). Frequency and correlated of intimate partner violence by type: physical, sexual, and psychological battering, American Journal of Public Health, 90, 553-559.

12.

Erickson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society, New York: Norton.

13.

Follingstad, D. R., Brennan, A. F., Hause, E. S., Polk, D., & Rutlaedge, L. (1991). Factors moderating physical and physiological symptoms of battered women. Journal of Family Violence, 6, 81-95.

14.

Gelles, R. J., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Intimate violence: the causes and consequences of abuse in the American family. New York, Simon and Schuster.

15.

Jasinski, J. L., & Williams, L. M. (1998). Partner violence: A comprehensive review of 20 years of research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

16.

Katz, J., Kuffel, S. W., & Brown, F. A. (2006). Leaving a sexually coercive dating partner: a prospective application of the investment model, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 267-275.

17.

Makepeace, J. M. (1981). Courtship violence among college students. Family Relations, 30, 97-102.

18.

Mills, R. B., & Malley-Morrison, K. (1998). Emotional commitment, normative acceptability, and attributions for abusive partner behaviors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 682-699.

19.

Rhatigan, D. L., & Street, A. E. (2005). The impact of intimate partner violence on decisions to leave dating relationships, a test of the investment model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(12), 1580-1597.

20.

Rhatigan, D. L., Moore, T. M., & Stuart, G. L. (2005). An investment model analysis of relationship stability among women court-mandated to violence interventions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 313-322.

21.

Resnick, H., Kilpatrick, D. G., Dansky, B. S., Saunders, B. E., & Best, C. L. (1993). Prevalence of civilian trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder in a representative national sample of women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 984-991.

22.

Rosen, K. H., & Bezold, A. (1996). Dating violence prevention: A didactic support group for young women. Journal of Counseling and Development Psychology, 74, 521-525.

23.

Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: the development and deterioration of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 101-117.

24.

Rusbult, C. E., & Martz, J. M. (1995). Remaining in an abusive relationship: an investment model analysis of nonvoluntary dependence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(6), 558-571.

25.

Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357-391.

26.

Shook, N. J., Gerrity, D. A., Jurich, J., & Segrist, A. E. (2000). Courtship violence among college students: a comparison of verbally and physically abusive couples. Journal of Family Violence, 15(1), 1-22.

27.

Sugarman, D. B., & Hotaling, G. T. (1989). Dating violence: Prevalence, context and risk markers. Violence in Dating Relationships, 3-33.

28.

Stets, J., & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1989). Patterns of physical and sexual abuse for men and women in dating relationships: A descriptive analysis. Journal of Family Violence, 4, 63-76.

29.

Williams, L. J., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1989). Longitudinal Field Methods for Studying Reciprocal Relationships in Organizational Behavior Research: TowardImproved Casual Analysis. Research in Organizational Behavior 11, 247-292.

바로가기메뉴

논문 상세

Vol.12 No.4

폭력적 데이트관계 지속에 관한 투자모델의 수정 - 이타적 망상을 중심으로

The Correction of the Investment Model Regarding the Maintenance of Violent Dating Relationships focus on Altruistic Delusion

초록

Abstract

참고문헌

한국심리학회지: 건강