바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

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

logo

ISSN : 1229-0653

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.28 No.3

Citation Share

집단 내 공감 구조의 효과

Impact of Empathy Structure in Groups

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격 / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2014, v.28 no.3, pp.93-109
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2014.28.3.006
이하연 (성균관대학교)
최훈석 (성균관대학교)
이하연, & 최훈석. (2014). 집단 내 공감 구조의 효과. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 28(3), 93-109, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2014.28.3.006

초록

두 편의 연구를 통해서 집단에서 구성원들 간의 공감 구조(공감균형/공감불균형/비공감균형)에 따른 집단과제 몰입, 집단 실체성 지각 및 응집성을 알아보았다. 연구 1에서는 시나리오를 통해 세 명의 집단 구성원들 간에 공감균형, 공감불균형, 비공감균형이 존재하는 상황을 제시하여 집단 내 공감 구조를 조작했다. 연구 결과, 집단 실체성 지각과 응집성은 공감균형 조건에서 가장 높고 공감불균형 조건과 비공감균형 조건 순으로 낮았다. 구성원들의 집단과제 몰입 수준에서는 연구 가설과 일관된 결과가 발견되지 않았다. 연구 2에서는 대학생들로 구성된 현장집단을 대상으로 다양한 집단 상호공감 구조를 확인했으며, 집단 실체성 지각과 응집성 경험에서 연구 1의 결과가 반복검증 되었다. 또한 집단과제 몰입은 비공감균형 조건이 가장 높고 공감불균형과 공감균형 조건 순으로 낮게 나타났다. 집단의 핵심 기능에 대해 집단 상호공감 구조가 미치는 영향과 공감의 사회적 역동을 중심으로 본 연구의 시사점과 장래 연구 방향을 논의했다.

keywords
공감, 집단 내 공감 구조, 집단과제 몰입, 집단 실체성 지각, 응집성, empathy, empathy structure in group, task-focus, group entitativity, cohesion

Abstract

The present research investigated how empathy structures in task groups affect group members' task-focus, perceived entitativity and cohesion. Empathy structures in task groups were defined at the dyadic level, and three forms of empathy structures were investigated: empathy-balanced, empathy-imbalanced, non-empathy-balanced. It was hypothesized that in the two balanced structures, groups would experience higher levels of task-focus than in the imbalanced structure. In addition, empathy-balanced groups were expected to perceive higher levels of group entitativity and experience higher cohesion than other groups. In Study 1, we used a scenario method and manipulated three types of empathy structure. Results showed that the perceived entitativity was high in the empathy-balance condition, empathy-imbalance condition, and non-empathy-balance condition, in order. We found the same pattern of result on cohesion. We conducted Study 2 using bona-fide groups consists of Korean college students and replicated the findings of Study 2. In addition, groups with a structure of non-empathy-balance reported higher levels of task-focus than did groups with other types of empathy structures. Limitations and implications of these findings and directions for future research are discussed.

keywords
공감, 집단 내 공감 구조, 집단과제 몰입, 집단 실체성 지각, 응집성, empathy, empathy structure in group, task-focus, group entitativity, cohesion

참고문헌

1.

Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis; a method for the study of small groups. Oxford England: Addison-Wesley.

2.

Batson, C. D., Chang, J., Orr, R., & Rowland, J. (2002). Empathy, attitudes and action: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group motivate one to help the group. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1656-1666.

3.

Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels versus imagining how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 751-758.

4.

Batson, C. D., Eklund, J., Chermok, V. L., Hoyt, J. L., & Ortiz, B. G. (2007). An additional antecedent of empathic concern: Valuing the welfare of the person in need. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 93, 65-74.

5.

Batson, C. D., Fultz, J., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1987). Distress and empathy: Two qualitatively distinct vicarious emotions with different motivational consequences. Journal Of Personality, 55, 19-39.

6.

Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., & Highberger, L. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group?. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 72, 105-118.

7.

Batson, C. D., Turk, C. L., Shaw, L. L., & Klein, T. R. (1995). Information function of empathic emotion: Learning that we value the other's welfere. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 68, 300-313.

8.

Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14-25.

9.

Carless, S. A., & De Paola, C. (2000). The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small Group Research, 31, 71-88.

10.

Davis, M. H. (1996). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Boulder, CO, US: Westview Press.

11.

Davis, M. H., Conklin, L., Smith, A., & Luce, C. (1996). Effect of perspective taking on the cognitive representation of persons: A merging of self and other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 713-726.

12.

Davis, M. H., & Oathout, H. (1987). Maintenance of satisfaction in romantic relationships: Empathy and relational competence. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 53, 397-410.

13.

Davis, M. H., Soderlund, T., Cole, J., Gadol. E., Kute, M., Myers, M., & Weihing, J. (2004). Cognitions associated with attempts to empathize: How do we imagine the perspective of another? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 1625-1635.

14.

Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271-282.

15.

Forsyth, D. R. (2009). Group Dynamics (5th ed). Belmont, CA, US: Cengage Learning.

16.

Galinsky, A. D., Ku, G., & Wang, C. S. (2005). Perspective taking and self-other overlap: Fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordination. Group Process and Intergroup Relations, 8, 109-124.

17.

Hackman, J. R. (Ed.). (1990) Groups that work (and those that don't). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

18.

Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 336-355.

19.

Håkansson, J., & Montgomery, H. (2002). The role of action in empathy from the perspectives of the empathizer and the target. Current Research in Social Psychology, 8, 50-62.

20.

Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 21, 107-112

21.

Katz, N., Lazer, D., Arrow, H., & Contractor, N. (2004). Network theory and small groups. Small Group Research, 35, 307-332.

22.

Laurent, S. M., & Myers, M. W. (2011). I know you're me, but who am I? Perspective taking and seeing the other in the self. Journal Of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1316-1319.

23.

Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A., Sherman, S. J., & Uhles, A. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 78, 223-246.

24.

Long, E. C., & Andrews, D. W. (1990). Perspective taking as a predictor of marital adjustment. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 59, 126-131.

25.

Meneses, R., Ortega, R., Navarro, J., & de Quijano, S. D. (2008). Criteria for assessing the level of group development (LGD) of work groups: Groupness, entitativity, and groupality as theoretical perspectives. Small Group Research, 39, 492-514.

26.

Spoor, J. R., & Kelly, J. R. (2004). The Evolutionary Significance of Affect in Groups: Communication and Group Bonding. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7, 398-412.7

27.

Stürmer, S., Snyder, M., Kropp, A., & Siem, B. (2006). Empathy-Motivated Helping: The Moderating Role of Group Membership. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 943-956.

28.

Stürmer, S., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (2005). Prosocial Emotions and Helping: The Moderating Role of Group Membership. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 88, 532-546.

29.

Zaki, J., Bolger, N., & Ochsner, K. (2008). It takes two: The interpersonal nature of empathic accuracy. Psychological Science, 19, 399-404.

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격

논문 투고 OA 정책