Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology
- Log In/Sign Up
- P-ISSN1229-0653
- KCI
ISSN : 1229-0653
Article Contents
- 2024 (Vol.38)
- 2023 (Vol.37)
- 2022 (Vol.36)
- 2021 (Vol.35)
- 2020 (Vol.34)
- 2019 (Vol.33)
- 2018 (Vol.32)
- 2017 (Vol.31)
- 2016 (Vol.30)
- 2015 (Vol.29)
- 2014 (Vol.28)
- 2013 (Vol.27)
- 2012 (Vol.26)
- 2011 (Vol.25)
- 2010 (Vol.24)
- 2009 (Vol.23)
- 2008 (Vol.22)
- 2007 (Vol.21)
- 2006 (Vol.20)
- 2005 (Vol.19)
- 2004 (Vol.18)
- 2003 (Vol.17)
- 2002 (Vol.16)
- 2001 (Vol.15)
- 2000 (Vol.14)
- 1999 (Vol.13)
- 1998 (Vol.12)
- 1997 (Vol.11)
- 1996 (Vol.10)
- 1995 (Vol.9)
- 1994 (Vol.8)
- 1993 (Vol.7)
- 1992 (Vol.6)
- 1991 (Vol.6)
- 1990 (Vol.5)
- 1989 (Vol.4)
- 1988 (Vol.4)
- 1987 (Vol.3)
- 1986 (Vol.3)
- 1985 (Vol.2)
- 1984 (Vol.2)
- 1983 (Vol.1)
- 1982 (Vol.1)
Social Psychology of Hierarchical Interactions: Politeness and Hierarchical Relational Stress
Abstract
Hierarchical relationship is a very prominent feature of Korean society. We conducted three empirical investigations on this phenomenon from a social psychological perspective. Study 1 and 2 examined the politeness behavior in writing a letter as affected by the status of interacting partner’s relative status (senior/ equal/ junior in Study 1 and senior/ junior in Study 2). In addition we examined the effect of social distance between the interacting parties and the effect of gender. The results revealed that the letters written to the superior was more polite and all adopting honorifics than those written to the junior/equal in placing a request (Study 1) and in declining a request placed on (Study 2). This hierarchy effect was equally strong both gender and hold even when the relationship is close although the extent was decreased (Study 2). This result is different from the theory of politeness behavior (Brown & Levinson, 1987). This robustness of hierarchy effect regardless of context is not accountable from a strategic use of politeness. We must attend to the normative power of hierarchy observed in Korean society. Study 3 investigated the phenomena related to relational stress of hierarchy. 200 college respondents rated their feeling of discomfort to each of the behavior violating interactional norm by the partner. The relationship with partner was close or distant and senior or junior. The findings showed that when the violations were committed by juniors or acquaintances, participants reported higher degree of hierarchy relational stress. These three studies conceptualized hierarchical relational stress as common in daily relationship. The understanding of cultural psychology should attend to the honorifics for its observation is necessary for a normal flow of communication among Koreans. Implications of the current study are discussed for the understanding of interpersonal conflict and politeness and future directions are suggested.
- keywords
- Hierarchical relational stress, Hierarchical interaction, cultural psychology, Korean culture, honorifics, politeness, 서열관계 스트레스, 서열적 사회규범, 서열적 대인교류, 공손성, 존비어, 사회심리, 사회갈등, 한국문화
Reference
고재홍, 윤경란 (2007). 청소년의 스트레스와 자살생각: 자아탄력성의 완충효과. 청소년학연구, 18(1), 185-212.
나은영, 차재호. (1999). 1970년대와 1990년대 간한국인의 가치관 변화와 세대차 증감. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 13(2), 37-60.
매일경제 (2011). “왜 반말로 혼내냐” 연하사장얼굴에 염산뿌려. 10월 14일자. http://news.mk.co.kr/newsRead.php?year=2011&no=666151.
박광배, 신민섭 (1991). 고동학생의 지각된 스트레스와 자살생각. 한국심리학회지: 임상,10(1), 298-314.
신수진, 최준식 (2002). 현대 한국사회의 이중 가치체계, 집문당.
양미라 (2012). 무시 행위의 의사소통적 기능 분석,전남대학교 대학원 석사학위 청구논문.
우실하 (2008). 사회적 과시의 한국적 특수성과광고 -한, 독, 일의 사회의식 비교조사를 바탕으로. 담론201, 11(2), 171-209.
이수원, 김태준 (1990). 사회적 역할이 사회적 사건 지각에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 사회및 성격, 5(1), 10-23.
이홍균 (2006). 한국인의 사회적 과시와 인정의사회적 형식. 담론201, 9(2), 207-243.
최봉영 (2005). 한국사회의 차별과 억압. 서울: 지식산업사.
최상진 (2000). 한국인 심리학. 서울: 중앙대학교출판부.
최상진, 김기범 (2011). 문화심리학: 현대 한국인의심리분석. 서울: 지식산업사.
최상진, 유승엽 (1992). 한국인의 체면에 대한 사회심리학적 한 분석. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및성격, 6(2), 137-157.
최상진, 최인재 (1999). 정 (情), 체면 (體面) 이스트레스에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 건강, 4(1), 41-56.
최송현 (2006). 서열적 교류에서 나타나는 대인평가의준거차이, 전남대학교 대학원 석사학위 청구논문.
한국일보 (2010). 69세 원고에 ‘버릇없다’고 질책한 40대 판사 인권침해. 2월 24일자. http://news.hankooki.com/lpage/society/201002/h2010020417493222000.htm
한규석, 신수진 (1999). 한국인의 선호가치 변화-수직적 집단주의에서 수평적 개인주의로,한국심리학회: 사회 및 성격, 13(2), 293-310.
한규석, 최송현, 심선화 (2004). 서열적 대인관계의 암묵적 교류관. 동계학술대회 사회 및 성격심리학회 논문집. 89-96.
한규석 (2009). 사회심리학의 이해 (3판). 서울: 학지사.
한덕웅, 이경성 (2003). 한국인의 인생관으로 본가치관 변화: 30년간 비교. 한국심리학회지:사회 및 성격, 17(1), 49-67.
Agha, A. (1994). Honorification Annual Review of Anthropology, 23, 277-302.
Ambady, N., Koo, J., Lee, F., & Rosenthal, R. (1996). More than words: Linguistic and nonlinguistic politeness in two cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 996-1011.
Bancila, D., & Mittelmark, M. B. (2009). Measuring interpersonal stress with the Bergen Social Relationships Scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 260-265.
Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 1-22.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Buss, D., & Schmitt, D. (2011). Evolutionary psychology and feminism. Sex Roles, 64(9-10), 768-787.
Dragon, W., & Duck, S. (2005). Understanding research in personal relationships: A text with readings. London: Sage.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fiske, A. P. (1990). Relativity with Moose (“Mossi”) culture: Four incommensurable models for social relationships. Ethos, 18, 180-203.
Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 689-723.
Flack, T., Salmivalli, C., & Idsoe, T. (2011). Peer relations as a source of stress? Assessing affiliation-and status-related stress among adolescents. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8(4), 473-489.
Fournier, M. A., D. S. Moskowitz and D. C. Zuroff (2002). Social rank strategies in hierarchical relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83(2): 425-433.
Gilbert, P. (2000a). The relationship of shame, social anxiety and depression: The role of the evaluation of social rank. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 7(3), 174-189.
Gilbert, P. (2000b). Varieties of submissive behavior as forms of social defense: Their evolution and role in depression. In Sloman, L., & Gilbert, P. (Eds.). (2000). Subordination and defeat: An evolutionary approach to mood disorders and their therapy. Psychology Press. pp. 3-45.
Giles, H., & Powesland, P. (1975). Speech style and social evaluation. London: Academic Press.
Gonzales, M. H., Pederson, J. H., Manning, D. J., & Wetter, D. W. (1990). Pardon my gaffe: Effects of sex, status, and consequence severity on accounts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(4), 610-621.
Grice, H, P. (1969). Utterer's meaning an intentions. Philosophical Review, 78, 147-177.
Han, G., Moon, C, K., & Bae, J, C. (2011). Hierarchy dimension of relational stress for the understanding of interaction: Extrapolations from a culture of vertical collectivism in modern Days, 9th International Conference of Asian Association of Social Psychology, 27-31 July, Kunming, China.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill. 나은 영, 차재호 공역(1995). 세계의 문화와 조직. 서울: 학지사.
Hogan, B. T., Elmer & N. P. (1978). The biases of contemporary social psychology. Social Research, 45, 478-534.
Holtgraves, T. M., & Kashima, Y. (2008). Language, meaning, and social cognition. Personality and Social Psychologial Review, 12(1), 73-94
Holtgraves, T. & Yang, J. N. (1990). Politeness as universal: Cross cultural perceptions of request strategies and inferences based on their use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 719-729.
Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J. (1992). Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies: General principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 246-256.
Ide, S. (1993). The search for integrated universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua, 12, 7-11.
Ide, S. (2005). How and why honorifics can signify dignity and elegance: the indexicality and reflexivity of linguistics rituals. In: Lakoff, R. T. & Ide, S. (Eds.), Broadening the horizon of linguistic politeness. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, (pp.45-64).
Intachakra, S. (2012). Politeness motivated by the ‘heart’ and ‘binary rationality’ in Thai culture. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(5), 619-635.
Jones, W. H., Cavert, C. W., Snider, R. L., & Bruce, T. (1985). Relational stress: An analysis of situations and events associated with loneliness. In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.), Understanding personal relationships (pp. 221-242). London: Sage.
Kashima, E. S., & Kashima, Y. (1998). Culture and Language: The Case of Cultural Dimensionsand Personal Pronoun Use. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(3), 461-486.
Kashima, Y., & Kashima, E. (2003). Individualism, GNP, climate, and pronoun drop: Is individualism determined by affluence and climate, or does language use play a role? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 125-134.
Kashima, Y., Kashima, E., Kim, U., & Gelfand, G. (2006). Describing the social world: How is a person, a group, and a relationship described in the East and the West. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 388-396.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological review, 110(2), 265.
Lakoff, R., 1973. ‘The logic of politeness: Or, minding you p's and q's’. In: C. Corum, T. Cedric Smith-Stark and A. Weiser, (eds.), Papers from the ninth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Lakoff, R &. Ide, S, (2005). Introduction: Broadening the horizon of linguistic politeness. In: Lakoff, R.T., Ide, S. (Eds.), Broadening the horizon of linguistic politeness. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 1-20.
Lee, H. E., & Park, H. S. (2011). Why Koreans are more likely to favor “Apology,” while Americans are more likely to favor “Thank You”. Human Communication Research, 37(1), 125-146.
Mao, L. M. R. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: ‘face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 451-486.
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 4i3-426
Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American Psychologist, 45, 513-520.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Miller, W. B. (1955). Two concepts of authority. American Anthropologist 57(2), 271-289.
Moon, C, K., & Han, G. (2012). Relational stress in a hierarchical society: The case of Korea. Presented at the 13th International Conference on Language and Social Psychology, 20-24 June, WTC, Leeuwarden, Netherlands.
Moskowitz, D. S., Suh, E. J., & Desaulniers, J. (1994). Situational influences on gender differences in agency and communion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(4), 753.
Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 98-131.
Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279-301.
Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1991). The linguistic category model, its bases, applications and range. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1-30). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson., D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: a study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: Norton
Wiemann, J. (1985). Interpersonal control and regulations in conversation. In r. Street and J. Cappella (Eds.), Sequence and pattern incommunicative behavior. London: Edward Arnold.
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality. (J. B. Carroll, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wojciszke, B. (1994). Multiple meanings of behavior: Construing actions in terms of competence and morality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 222-232.
- Downloaded
- Viewed
- 0KCI Citations
- 0WOS Citations