Psychological Construct of Zhongyong(Doctrine of the Mean): A Preliminary Study

& (2016). Psychological Construct of Zhongyong(Doctrine of the Mean): A Preliminary Study. Korean Journal of Psychology: General, 35(2), 309-326, https://doi.org/10.22257/kjp.2016.06.35.2.309

copy

Abstract

This study attempted to analyse the confucian value, ‘Zhongyong(Doctrine of the Mean)’ which pervade every aspect of Koreans. There are two approaches to study of confucian concept by using psychological methodology: the ‘top-down’ as theoretical approach and the ‘bottom-up’ as empirical approach. These two approaches are complementary to each other. In order to clarify psychological construct of Zhongyong, we studied the documents about Confucianism and Zhongyong and classified Zhongyong into four dimensions(top-down); cognition, emotion, motive, and the self. Then we conducted a survey with 101 individuals who have academic experiences about Zhongyong(bottom-up). The two questionnaires about concept and experience of Zhongyong were collected and analysed 94 valid responses(48 male and 46 female, mean age = 31.6, standard deviation = 7.19). 94’s response-sets were categorized according by the four dimension criteria. Zhongyong which lay people have recognized was also classified into four dimensions such as cognition, emotion, motive, and the self but few responses were classified as the self. The four dimensions of Zhongyong are considered as follows: The cognitive factor is dialectic thinking/cognitive flexibility. The emotional factor is emotion regulation/affect balance. Zhongyong is internal motive related to autonomy and competence of Self Determination Theory. Lastly, Zhongyong is understood by the self-actualization/self-realization.

keywords: 중용, 유학적 중용 개념, 심리학적 중용 개념, Zhongyong, Confucianism, psychological construct of Zhongyong

Reference

권석만 (1997). 임상심리학에서의 비교문화적연구 : 정신병리에 나타난 한국문화와 한국인의 특성. 한국심리학회 창립50주년 동계 연구세미나, 105-132

금장태 (2003a). 유교의 실천론적 체계 - ‘中庸․誠․均平’ 개념을 중심으로-. 종교학 연구, 22, 1-23

금장태 (2003b). 中庸의 원리와 誠의 실현:茶山과 荻生徂徠의『중용』해석. 인문논총, 제49집, 43-83

김문준, 하창순 (2013). 동양철학과 심리학 융합 연구의 동향과 과제. 韓國思想과 文化,第67輯, 157-188

김용옥 (2011a). 중용, 인간의 맛. 서울: 통나무

김용옥 (2011b). 중용한글역주. 서울: 통나무

김종호, 이죽내 (1988). 「中庸」에 나타난 心性論의 分析心理學的硏究. 心性硏究, 3, 1-30

김진영, 고영건 (2008). 중용과 심리학적 적응기제의 비교. 동아연구, 제 55권, 71-96

민경환 (2002). 성격심리학. 서울: 법문사

10.

성백효 (2013). 懸吐完譯大學․中庸集註개정증보판. 서울: 전통문화연구회

11.

심경섭, 이누미야 요시유키, 윤상연, 서신화,장양, 한성열 (2012) 유교가치관 척도 개발 연구. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 31(2), 465-491

12.

왕부지 (2014). 왕부지 중용을 논하다(왕부지사상연구회 역). 경기: 소나무, (원전은 1973년에 출판)

13.

이기동 (2010). 대학·중용강설. 서울: 성균관대학교 출판부

14.

이부영 (1998). 분석심리학-C.G. Jung의 인간심성론. 서울: 일조각

15.

이부영 (2002a). 분석심리학의 탐구3, 자기와 자기실현. 서울: 한길사

16.

이부영 (2002b). 儒敎의 分析心理學的理解. 儒敎文化硏究, 제 1호, 147-154

17.

이수원 (1997). 중용의 심리학적 탐구. 한국심리학회 추계심포지엄 학술발표자료

18.

이장호, 정남운, 조성호 (1999). 상담심리학의기초. 서울: 학문사

19.

이죽내 (2005). 융심리학과 동양사상. 서울: 하나의학사

20.

장승구 (2004). 중용의 덕과 합리성. 서울: 청계

21.

장현갑 (2011). 마음챙김 명상에 바탕둔 스트레스 완화(Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction;MBSR)란 무엇이며, 어떻게 수행해야 하는가?. 한국명상치유학회지, 2(1), 71-81

22.

조긍호 (2007). 동아시아 집단주의의 유학사상적배경:심리학적 접근, 서울: 지식산업사

23.

조현주 (2014). 자비 및 자애명상의 심리치료적 함의. 인지행동치료, 14(1), 123-143

24.

최상진, 윤호균, 한덕웅, 조긍호, 이수원 (1999).동양심리학. 서울: 지식산업사

25.

한덕웅 (2003). 한국유학심리학. 서울: 시그마프레스(주)

26.

한소영 (2010). 내담자의 기본 심리적 욕구 만족과 상담성과: 자기결정이론의 치료적 적용.아주대학교 박사학위 청구논문

27.

홍숙지 (2005). 개인 유연성 척도 개발 및 타당화 연구. 성균관대학교 석사학위 청구논문

28.

황성훈 (2007). 정신병리에서의 이분법적 사고의 역할. 서울대학교 박사학위 청구논문

29.

吳佳煇, 林以正(2005). 中庸思維量表的編製. 本土心理學硏究. 24, 247-300

30.

Beck, A., Rush, A., Shaw, B., & Emery, G. (1997). 우울증의 인지치료(원호택 외 공역). 서울: 학지사. (원전은 1979에 출판).

31.

Cole, P. M., Michel, M. K., & Teti, L.O. (1994). The development of emotion regulation and dysregulation: A clinical perspective. In N. A. Fox(Ed.), The development of emotion regulation. Biological and behavioral considerations (pp. 73-100). Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59 (2-3, Serial No. 240)

32.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M., (2000). The “what” and “why”of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.

33.

Deci, E. L., & Vansteenkiste, M., (2004). Self-determination theory and basic need satisfaction: Understanding human development in positive psychology. Ricerche di Psichologia, 27, 17-34.

34.

Dennis, J. P., & Vander Wal, J. S, (2010). The cognitive flexibility inventory: Instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34, 241-253

35.

Gross, J. J. (1998) Antecedent- and responsefocused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 224-237

36.

Gross, J. J. (1999). Emotion regulation: past, present, future. Cognition and Emotion, 13(5), 551-573

37.

Hui, C. M., Fok, H. K., Bond, M. H. (2009). Who feels more ambivalence? Linking dialectical thinking to mixed emotions. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 493– 498.

38.

Martin, M. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1994). Development of a communication flexibility scale. Southern Communication Journal, 59, 171-178.

39.

Myers, D. G. (2005) Social Psychology, 8th edition, NY: McGraw-Hill

40.

Olson, J. M., & Zanna, M. P. (1993). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 117-154.

41.

Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54, 741–754.

42.

Spencer-Rodgers, J., Boucher, H. C., Mori, S. C., Wang, L., & Peng, K. (2009). The dialectical self-concept: Contradiction, change, and holism in East Asian cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 29-44.

43.

Spencer-Rodgers, J., Peng, K.., Wang L., & Hou, Y. (2004). Dialectical self-esteem and East-West differences in Psychological well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1416-1432.

44.

Rogers, C. (1998). 칼 로저스의 카운슬링의 이론과 실제(한승호, 한성열 역). 서울: 학지사.(원전은 1942에 출판).

45.

Ryan, R. M. (2005). The developmental line of autonomy in the etiology, dynamics, and treatment of borderline personality disorders. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 987-1006.

46.

Ryan, R. M. (2009). Self-determination theory and wellbeing, Wellbeing in Developing Countries Research Review 1, Centre for Development Studies, University of Bath, UK

47.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.

48.

Ryan, R. M., Williams, G.C., Patric, H., & Deci, E. L. (2009). Self-determination theory and physical activity: The dynamics of motivation in development and wellness, Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 6, 107-124

49.

Yao, X., Yang, Q., Dong, N., & Wang, L. (2010). Moderating effect of Zhong Yong on the relationship between creativity and innovation behavior, Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 53-57

바로가기메뉴

Article Contents

Vol.35 No.2

Psychological Construct of Zhongyong(Doctrine of the Mean): A Preliminary Study

Abstract

Reference

Korean Journal of Psychology: General