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

  • P-ISSN1229-0653
  • KCI

ISSN : 1229-0653

논문 상세

이전
논문 투고

Vol.29 No.4

Citation Share

불평등 제시 방식이 북한이탈 청소년들의 학업태도에 미치는 영향

The Effect of Inequality Frames on Academic Engagement of the Migrated North Korean Adolescents

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격 / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2015, v.29 no.4, pp.133-158
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2015.29.4.007
안경진 (월드비전)
한인숙 (아주대학교)
김혜숙 (아주대학교)
안경진, 한인숙, & 김혜숙. (2015). 불평등 제시 방식이 북한이탈 청소년들의 학업태도에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 29(4), 133-158, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2015.29.4.007

초록

본 연구에서는 북한이탈 청소년들의 학업중요도 지각 및 학업동기를 알아보고 불평등 제시 방식(프레이밍)이 이에 영향을 미치는 지를 검토하고자 하였다. 또한 이러한 불평등 프레이밍 효과가 불공정 지각 혹은 정체성 위협에 의해 매개되는지를 검토하고자 하였다. 이를 위해 연구 1에서는 남한 청소년들과 북한이탈청소년에 대한 조사를 통해 실제로 북한이탈 청소년들이 남한 청소년들보다 낮은 학업동기 및 중요도를 보고함을 확인하였다. 또한 북한이탈 청소년들은 예상대로 교육체제의 불공정성을 높게 지각할수록 낮은 학업동기를 보였으나 다른 한편 예측과는 달리 높은 학업중요도를 지각함을 확인하였다. 연구 2에서는 학업 격차의 원인에 대한 불평등 제시 방식(프레임)을 조작하여 남한유리함 프레임조건에서 북한 불리함 프레임이나 통제조건에서보다 북한이탈 청소년들의 학업중요도 지각 및 동기가 더 높은 지를 검토하였다. 그 결과, 가설과 일치하게, 현재 존재하는 학업격차가 남한 청소년들에게 유리하게 구성된 교육과정 때문으로 제시되었을 때, 북한이탈 청소년들에게 불리하게 구성된 교육과정 때문이라고 제시되었을 때 혹은 불평등이 구체적으로 제시되지 않았을 때보다(통제조건) 더 높은 학업중요도를 지각하는 것을 발견하였다. 또한 이러한 프레이밍 효과는 불공정성 지각에 의해 매개되었다는 결과가 나타났으나. 구체적 방향성은 예측과는 달리 남한유리함 조건에서 다른 조건에서보다 교육체계의 불공정성 지각이 더욱 높아졌고 그에 따라 학업중요도 지각이 더 높아졌기 때문인 것으로 나타났다. 학업동기의 경우, 가설대로 남한 유리함 조건일 때 북한이탈 불리함 조건일 때보다 더 높은 학업동기를 보고하는 경향이 있었다. 그러나 이러한 효과는 불공정성 지각이나 정체성위협에 의해 매개되지 않았다. 이러한 결과들에 대한 이론적․실제적 의미를 논의하였으며 연구의 제한점 및 후속연구에 대해 제안하였다.

keywords
migrated North Korean adolescents, psychological disengagement, inequality frames, perceived injustice, identity threat, importance of academic work, motivation for academic work, 북한이탈 청소년, 심리적 이탈, 불평등 프레임, 불공정 지각, 정체성 위협, 학업중요도, 학업동기

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to investigate the effect of inequality frames on academic engagement of the migrated North Korean adolescents. We also examined whether the perception of injustice or identity threat mediated the effect of inequality frames on attitudes toward academic work. In Study 1 we compared the perceived importance of and motivation for study of the migrated North Korean adolescent students with that of South Korean students through a questionnaire survey. The results demonstrated that the migrated North Korean adolescents indeed perceived lower level of importance of and motivation for academic work than South Korean adolescents. The results of Study 1 also showed that as expected, motivation for study of migrated North Korean students decreased as they perceived a higher level of injustice in educational systems of Korea. On the other hand, importance of study increased as they perceived a higher level of injustice.. In Study 2 we manipulated three types of inequality framing (that is, the present academic inequality between the two groups of students was framed as South Korean students’ advantage vs. as North Korean migrant students’ disadvantage vs. no frame control) and investigated whether the academic engagement of the migrated North Korean students differed in terms of the inequality frames. The results demonstrated that as expected, compared to the inequality frame in terms of North Korean students disadvantage and the control condition, the frame in terms of South Korean advantage made the North Korean students perceive higher level of importance of academic work. In addition, we found the mediation effect of the perception of injustice in educational systems for this framing effect on the perception of the importance of academic work. In the case of motivation for academic work, as expected, compared to the inequality frame in terms of North Korean students disadvantage, the frame in terms of South Korean advantage made the migrated North Korean adolescents tend to report higher academic motivation. However, we did not find the mediation effect of the perception of injustice nor the identity threats on motivation for academic work. We discussed theoretical and practical implications of these findings.

keywords
migrated North Korean adolescents, psychological disengagement, inequality frames, perceived injustice, identity threat, importance of academic work, motivation for academic work, 북한이탈 청소년, 심리적 이탈, 불평등 프레임, 불공정 지각, 정체성 위협, 학업중요도, 학업동기

참고문헌

1.

교육과학기술부 (2009). 탈북청소년 교육지원 정책에 관한 보도자료.

2.

교육인적자원부 (2004). 북한이탈주민 현황 자료.

3.

길은배, 문성호 (2003). 북한이탈 청소년의 남한사회 적응 문제와 정책적 함의. 청소년학연구, 10(4), 163-186

4.

김선화 (2009). 북한이탈 청소년 지원정책 분석 -다문화주의와 동화주의 관점에서. 사회복지실천, 제8호, 31-56.

5.

김혜숙 (2000). 북한 사람에 대한 고정관념， 감정과 태도. 한국심리학회지; 사회문제, 6(2), 115-134.

6.

김혜숙 (2001) 집단 범주에 대한 신념과 호감도가 편견적 판단에 미치는 영향: 미국의 성편견，인종편견과 한국의 성편견, 지역편견의 비교. 한국심리학회지; 사회, 15(1), 1-16.

7.

김혜숙 (2004). 우리나라 사람들이 가지는 가치가 소수 집단에 대한 편견적 태도에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지; 사회 및 성격, 21(4), 91-104.

8.

김혜숙 (2014). 다수 집단과 소수 집단의 심리. 서울: 집문당.

9.

김혜숙，오승섭 (1999). 북한사람에 대한 대학생과 일반인의 고정관념，감정과 태도: 외국인에 대한 태도와의 비교. 심리과학, 8(1), 1-22

10.

박윤숙 (2007). 북한이탈주민의 현황과 과제. 통일로, 222, 26-39.

11.

박윤숙, 윤인진 (2007). 탈북 청소년의 사회적 지지 특성과 남한사회 적응과의 관계. 한국사회학, 41(1), 124-155.

12.

한국교육개발원 (1999). 북한 이탈 주민의 남한 교육 적응 연구.

13.

한국교육개발원 (2009). 탈북학생의 교육실태 분석 및 지원방안 연구.

14.

한국교육개발원 (2010). 학교 밖 탈북청소년 심층 연구.

15.

한국교육개발원 (2012). 탈북청소년 교육 종단연구.

16.

Baron, R. M., & Keney, D. A. (1986). The moderator –mediator variable distinction in Social Psychological research, Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Consideration, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

17.

Branscombe, N. R., Slugoski, B., & Kappen, D. M. (2004). Collective guilt: what it is and what it is not. In N. R. Branscombe, & B. Doosje, (Eds.), Collective Guilt: International Perspectives (pp. 16-34). New York: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., Ellemers, N., & Doosje, B. (2002). Intragroup and intergroup evaluation effects on intergroup behaviour. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 744-753.

19.

Chow, Lowery, & Knowles, (2008). The two faces of dominance: The differential effect of ingroup superiority and outgroup inferiority on dominant-group identity and group esteem. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1073-1081.

20.

Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R., Broadnax, S., & Blaine, B. (1999). Belief in U.S. government conspiracies against Blacks: Powerlessness or system blame?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 941-953.

21.

Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608-630.

22.

Crocker, J., & Major, B. (2003). The self-protective properties of stigma: Evolution of a modern classic. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 232-237.

23.

Crocker, J., Cornwell, B., & Major, B. (1993). The stigma of overweight: The affective consequences of attributional ambiguity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 60-70.

24.

Crocker, J., Voelkl, K., Testa, M., & Major, B. (1991). Social stigma: The affective consequences of attributional ambiguity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 218-228.

25.

Gillock, K. L., & Reyes, O. (1999). Stress, Support, and Academic Performance of Urban, Low - Income, Mexican - American Adolescents. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 28, p259-282.

26.

Guimond, S., & Dambrun, M. (2002). When prosperity breeds intergroup hostility: The effects of relative deprivation and relative gratification on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 900-912.

27.

Iyer, A., Leach, C. W., & Crosby, F. J. (2003). White guilt and racial compensation: The benefits and limits of self-focus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 117-129.

28.

Jones, J. M. (1997). Prejudice and racism. NewYork: McGraw-Hill Humanities, Social Sciences & World Languages.

29.

Lesko, A. C., & Corpus, J. H. (2006). Discounting the difficult: How high math-identified women respond to stereotype threat. Sex Roles, 54, 113-125.

30.

Lowery, B. S., Chow, R. M., & Randall-Crosby, J. (2009). Taking from those that have more and giving to those that have less: How inequity frames affect corrections for inequity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 375-378.

31.

Lowery, B. S., Chow, R. M., Knowles, E. D., & Unzueta, M. M. (2009). How perceptions of inequity affect responses to ingroup harm: An inequality-framing model perspective. Unpublished manuscript, University of Stanford.

32.

Lowery, B. S., Chow, R. M., Knowles, E. D., & Unzueta, M. M. (2012). Paying for positive group esteem: How inequity frames affect whites' responses to redistributive policies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 323-336.

33.

Lowery, B. S., Knowles, E. D., & Unzueta, M. M. (2007). Framing inequity safely: The motivated denial of White privilege. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1237-1250.

34.

Lowery, B. S., Unzueta, M. M., Knowles, E. D., & Goff, P. A. (2006). Concern for the ingroup and opposition to affirmative action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 961-974.

35.

Lowery, B. S., & Wout, D. (2010). When inequality matters: The effect of inequality frames on academic engagement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 956-966.

36.

Major, B., Kaiser, C. R., & McCoy, S. K. (2003). It's not my fault: When and why attributions to prejudice protect self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 772-781.

37.

Major, B. N., Quinton, W. J., & Schmader, C. (2003). Attributions to discrimination and self-esteem: Impact of group identification and situational ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 220-231.

38.

Major, B., & Schmader, T. (1998). Coping with stigma through psychological disengagement. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 219-241). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

39.

Major, B., Spencer, S., Schmader, T., Wolfe, C., & Crocker, J. (1998). Coping with negative stereotypes about intellectual performance: The role of psychological disengagement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 34-50.

40.

Osborne, J. W. (1995). Academics, self-esteem, and race: A look at the underlying assumptions of the disidentification hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 449-455.

41.

Oyserman, D., & Harrison, K. (1998). Implications of cultural context: African American identity and possible selves. In J. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 219-241). New York: Academic.

42.

Oyserman, D., & Sakamoto, I. (1997). Being Asian American: Identity, cultural constructs, and stereotype perception. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33, 435-453.

43.

Penley, L. E., Gould, S., Vina, L. de la, Murphy, K. (1989). An early career focused study of Hispanic American college graduates in business. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 11, 366- 380.

44.

Powell, A. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Schmitt, M. T. (2005). Inequality as ingroup privilege or outgroup disadvantage: The impact of group focus on collective guilt and interracial attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 508- 521.

45.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple Mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717-731.

46.

Schmader, T., & Major B. (1999). The Impact of Ingroup vs Outgroup Performance on Personal Values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 47-67.

47.

Schmader, T., Major, B., & Gramzow, R. (2001). Coping with ethnic stereotypes in the academic domain: Perceived injustice and psychological disengagement. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 93- 111.

48.

Sherif, M. (1966). Group-Conflict and Co-operation: their Social Psychology. London: Routledge.

49.

Shrout, P. E., Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422-445.

50.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social Dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.

51.

Steele, C. M. (1992, April). Race and the schooling of Black Americans. The Atlantic Monthly, 269, 68-78.

52.

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613-629.

53.

Swim. J. K., & Miller, D. L. (1999). White Guilt: Its Antecedents and Consequences for Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 500-514.

54.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worschel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (Vol. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

55.

Turner, B. F., & Turner, C. B. (1975). Race, sex, and perception of the occupational opportunity structure among college students. Sociological Quarterly, 16, 345-360.

56.

Turner, J. C. (1996, September). Social identity theory and the concept of prejudice. Paper presented at the 40th Congress of the German Psychological Society, Munich, Germany.

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격

논문 투고 OA 정책