바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
 

logo

대인 간 갈등해결전략에 대한 비교문화 연구: 한국, 일본, 미국 대학생을 대상으로

A Cross-Cultural Comparative Study on Interpersonal Conflict Resolution Strategies: Across Korea, Japan, and the United States

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격 / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2010, v.24 no.4, pp.1-17
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2010.24.4.001
장수지 (경성대학교)
  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수

초록

본 연구에서는 한국, 일본, 미국의 대학생을 대상으로 대인 간 갈등해결전략의 차이를 비교문화적 관점에서 살펴보았다. 특히 기존의 개인주의-집단주의 문화차원의 이분법적 논의에서 탈피하기 위해 동질 문화권 내의 국가와 성별에 따른 문화적 이질성에 대해서도 주목하였다. 설문조사 결과, 다음의 결과가 도출되었다. 첫째, Rahim(1983a)의 갈등해결전략 5차원 구조(회피/지배/양보/타협/통합)는 3개국에서 동일하게 나타났으나, 국가별로 각 갈등해결전략들에 대한 개념정의가 부분적으로 다르게 나타났다. 회피전략은 개인주의-집단주의 문화차원에 따라 서로 다른 의미로 해석될 수 있는 여지가 보였으며, 한국-일본 간에도 타협의 개념적 속성에서 차이가 있었다. 둘째, 갈등해결전략 사용정도는 국가별 차이가 있었다. 특히 한국은 지배 혹은 양보전략 사용이 높았으며, 미국은 타협, 통합전략 사용이 높게 나타났다. 셋째, 성별에 따라 전통적인 성역할기대에 부응하는 갈등해결전략을 더 많이 사용하는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 결과로부터 개인주의-집단주의 문화차원의 논의에 더하여, 비교문화연구에서 동질 문화권 내의 국가별 특수성이나, 성별을 비롯한 하위문화 카테고리에 대한 학문적 고려가 필요함이 시사되었다.

keywords
대인 간 갈등해결전략, 비교문화적 관점, 성차, interpersonal conflict resolution strategy, cross-cultural perspective, gender difference

Abstract

This study compares the structure and meaning of interpersonal conflict resolution strategies and the degree to which are used in three countries: South Korea, Japan, and the US. It also focuses on gender differences in the adopted conflict resolution strategies. The major findings of this study are as follows: First, five-dimensional structure of conflict resolution strategies (avoiding, dominating, obliging, compromising, and integrating) was confirmed across the three countries. However, the meaning of each strategy varied according to the country’s cultural context. Specifically, the meaning of “avoiding” differed between individualist and collectivist nations. Further, the meaning of “compromising” differed between Korea and Japan. Second, the degree to which the aforementioned strategies were used differed across the three countries. The Koreans generally use the “dominating” or “obliging” strategy, whereas the Americans generally use the “compromising” and “integrating” strategies. Finally, as for gender differences, men and women used different strategies in conformance to their traditional gender roles. These results indicate that it is important to focus on the subculture of each individualist and collectivist culture.

keywords
대인 간 갈등해결전략, 비교문화적 관점, 성차, interpersonal conflict resolution strategy, cross-cultural perspective, gender difference

참고문헌

1.

김정혜(1999).국제회의에서의 한국인의 문화간 커뮤니케이션에 관한 연구:‘1999서울 NGO세계대회’를 중심으로.이화여자대학교 석사학위논문.

2.

박은아(2009).문화적 자기개념(self-construal)에 따른 독특성 욕구:한미 차이를 중심으로.소비자 광고 심리학회 연차학술대회 논문집.412-413.

3.

이누미야 요시유키(2003).한일 비교 성격론.日本硏究, 11.103-125.

4.

최태진(2006).청소년의 문화성향에 따른 교우간 갈등 해결전략,한국청소년연구.17(1),5-31.

5.

한국형사정책연구원(2005).한국인의 갈등해소방식:폭력을 중심으로.경제인문사회연구회 협동연구총서, 05-18-05.

6.

한민,이누미야 요시유키,김소혜,장웨이(2009).새로운문화-자기관 이론의 국가 간 비교연구:한국,주국, 일본 대학생들의 자기관. 한국심리학회지:일반, 28(1),49-66.

7.

秋山弘子(2000).ジェンダート文化.文化心理学:理論と 実証,柏木恵子,北山忍,東洋(編).東京大学出版会.

8.

Aubrey,S.(2009).A cross-cultural discussion of Japan and South Korea and how differences are manifested in the ESL/EFL classroom. Asian Social Science,5(5),34-39.

9.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid, Gulf, Houston.

10.

Bontempo,R.,Lobel,S.,& Triandis,H.C.(1990). Compliance and value internalization in Brazil and the U.S.: Effects of allocentrism and anonymity.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21,200-213.

11.

Braithwaite,C.H.(1990).Communicative silence: A cross-cultural study of Basso'shypothesis.InD. Carbaugh(Ed.), Cultural communication and intercultural contact. Hills dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

12.

Cai, D.A.,& Fink,E.L.(2002).Conflict style differences between individualists and collectivists, Communication Monographs,69(1),67-87.

13.

Cross, S.E.,& Madson, L.(1997).Models of the self: Self-construals and gender.Psychological Bulletin,122,5-37.

14.

Eagly, A.H.(1999).The origins of sex differences in human behavior: evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist,54(6),408-423.

15.

Erez, M., & Earley, P. C. (1993). Culture, self-Identity, and work. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

16.

Gabrielidis, C.,Stepham W.G., Ybarra, O, Pearson, V.M., & Villareal, L.(1997).Preferred styles of conflict resolution: Mexico and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 661-677.

17.

Gabriel, S.,& Gardner, W.L.(1999). Are there"his" and "hers" types of interdependence? the implications of gender differences in collective versus relational inter dependence for affect, behavior,and cognition.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,77(3),642-655.

18.

Gelfamd, M.J.,Erez, M.,& Aycan, Z.(2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. The Annual Review of Psychology, 58,479-514. (http://psych.anualreviews.org)

19.

Gelfand, M.J., Nishii, L.H., Holcombe, K.M., Dyer, N., Ohbuchi, K.,& Fukuno, M.(2001). Cultural influences on cognitive representations of conflict:Interpretations of conflict episodes in the United States and Japan. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6),1059-1074.

20.

Hall, E. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.

21.

Hammock, G.S., Richardson, D.R., Pilkington, C.J., & Utley, M.(1990). Measurement of conflict in social relationships. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences,6,577-583.

22.

Kang, K.(2004).Cross-cultural comparisons of face in interpersonal interaction between Koreans and Americans. Speech & Communication, 3, 262-282.

23.

Kim, M.S.,& Leung, T.(2000).A multicultural view of conflict management styles: Review and critical synthesis. In M.E. Roloff & G.D. Paulson(Eds.), Communication year book, 23, Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.227-269.

24.

Kim, M.S.(2002). Non-western perspectives on human communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

25.

Kitayama, S., Markus, H.R., Matsumoto, H.,& Narasakkunkit, V. (1997). Individual and collective processes in th construction of the self:Self-enhancement in the United States and self-criticism in Japan.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,72,1245-1267.

26.

Lee, l., & Ward, C. (1998). Ethnicity, idiocentrism-allocentrism, and intergroup attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,28,109-123.

27.

Liu, L.A.,Friedman, R.A.,& Chi, S.(2005). "Ren quing" versus the "big five": The role of culturally sensitive measures of individual difference in distributive negotiations. Manage of Organizational Reveiw,1,225-247.

28.

Lytle, A.L., Brett, J.M., Barsness, Z.I.,Tinsley, C. J.,& Janssens, M.(1995). A paradigm for quantitative cross-cultural research in organizational behavior.In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings(Eds.), Research in organization behavior,Greenwich,CT:JAIPress.

29.

Markus, H.,& Kitayama, S.(1991), Cultureandthe self: Implications for cognition,emotion,and motivation. Psychological Review,98,224-253.

30.

Matsumoto, D. (2000). Culture and psychology: People around the world.,2nd Ed.,Wadsworth.

31.

Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (1982). Review of personality and social psychology, Sage.

32.

Na, E.,& Loftus, E.F.(1998). Attitudes toward law and prisoners, conservative authoritarianism, attribution,and internal-externalcontrol: Korean and American law students and under-graduate students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29,595-615.

33.

Newman, L.S.(1993). How individuals interpret behavior: Idiocentrism and spontaneous trait infrence. Social Cognition,11,243-269.

34.

Oetzel, J.G.(1998).The effects of ethnicity and self-construals on self-reported conflict styles, Communication Reports,11,33-144.

35.

Oetzel, J.G.,& Ting-Toomey, S.(2003). Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: A cross-cultural empirical test of the face negotiation theory. Communication Research, 30(6),599-624.

36.

Ohbuchi, K.,Fukushima, O.,& Tedeschi, J.(1999). Cultural values in conflict management: Goal orientation,goal attainment,and tactical decision. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,30,51-71.

37.

Pruitt, D.G.,& Rubin, J.Z.(1986).Social conflict, New York:McGraw-Hill.

38.

Pruitt, D.G.,& Carnevale, P.J.(1993).Negotiation in social conflict, Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.,

39.

Rahim, M.A.,& Bonoma, T.V.(1979).Managing organizational conflict: A modelfor diagnosis and intervention. Psychological Reports, 44, 1323-1344.

40.

Rahim, M.A.(1983a). Rahim organizational conflict inventory-Ⅱ: Forms A,B,& C.PaloAlto, Cal.: Consulting Psychologists Press.

41.

Rahim, M.A.(1983b). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal,26(2),368-376.

42.

Rahim, M.A.(1985). Referent role and styles of handling interpersonal conflict..The Journal of Social Psychology,126(1),79-86.

43.

Takano, Y., & Osaka, E. (1997). "Japanese collectivism" and "American individualism": Reexamining the dominant view.The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 68(4),312-327.

44.

Tannen, D. (1993). The relativity of linguistic strategies: Rethinking power and solidarity in gender and dominance,In Tannen,D.(Ed.), Gender and conversational interaction. NY: Oxford Univ.Press.

45.

Thomas, K. (1976). Conflict and conflict management,in M.D.Dunnette(Ed.).Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Chicago:Rand McNally College PublishCo.

46.

Ting-Toomey, S.,& Oetzel, J.G.(2001). Managing intercultural conflict effectively. ThousandOaks, CA:Sage.

47.

Tjosvold, D.,& Sun, H.F.(2002).Understanding conflict avoidance: Relationship, motivations, actions, and consequences. International Journal of Conflict Manage,13,143-164.

48.

Triandis, H.C. (1972).The analysis of subjective culture. New York:Wiley.

49.

Triandis, H.C., Brislin, R.,& Hui, C.H.(1988).Cross-cultural training across the individualism-collectivism divide. International Journal of Intercultural relations, 12,269-289.

50.

Triandis, H.C.(1989).The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review,96,506-520.

51.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.

52.

Triandis, H.C.(2001). Individualism and collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality, 69(6).907-924.

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격