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

다음
논문 투고

Vol.32 No.4
Citation Share

대학생의 물질주의와 이상적 배우자상의 관계

Korean College Students’ Materialism and Ideal Mating Partner Standards

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격 / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2018, v.32 no.4, pp.1-23
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2018.32.4.001
김지선 (이화여자대학교)
설경옥 (이화여자대학교)
김지선, & 설경옥. (2018). 대학생의 물질주의와 이상적 배우자상의 관계. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 32(4), 1-23, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2018.32.4.001
  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수
PDF 다운로드

초록

이 연구에서는 대학생의 물질주의와 이상적 배우자상의 관계를 밝히고자 했다. 외재적 가치인 물질주의를 추구할 때 이상적 배우자 기준으로 ‘능력/자원’, ‘외모/매력’과 같은 외재적 기준을 많이 언급하고 중요하게 생각하고, ‘따뜻함/신뢰’와 같은 내재적 기준을 적게 언급하고 중요도를 낮게 평가할 것이라는 가설을 세웠다. 또한, 이상적 배우자 기준에서 성차가 나타나고 물질주의와 성별의 상호작용이 있는지 검증했다. 연구 1에서는 남녀 대학생 123명을 대상으로 이상적인 배우자상을 묻는 자유응답 설문을 실시했고 ‘따뜻함/신뢰’, ‘외모/매력’, ‘능력/자원’의 언급 비율과 물질주의 및 성별의 관계를 검증했다. 가설대로 물질주의가 높을수록 ‘능력/자원’을 높은 빈도로, ‘따뜻함/신뢰’는 낮은 빈도로 언급했다. 또한, 가설대로 여성이 남성보다 ‘능력/자원’을, 남성이 여성보다 ‘외모/매력’을 많이 언급했으며 ‘능력/자원’ 에서는 물질주의와 성별의 유의한 상호작용이 있었다. 연구 2에서는 이상적 배우자 기준의 요인 구조를 확인하고 각 기준의 중요도와 물질주의 및 성별의 관계를 검증하고자 남녀 대학생 370명에게 이상적 배우자 특징의 중요도를 평가하도록 했다. 가설대로 물질주의가 높을수록 외재적 기준을 중요하게 생각했으나 가설과 달리 ‘따뜻함/신뢰’에서는 물질주의와 상관이 없었다. 성차는 가설대로 여성이 남성보다 ‘능력/자원’을, 남성이 여성보다 ‘외모/매력’을 더 중요하게 생각하는 것으로 나타났으나 물질주의와 성별의 유의한 상호작용은 없었다.

keywords
물질주의, 이상적 배우자상, 한국 대학생, 가치, 성차, materialism, Ideal Standard Model(ISM), Korean college students, values, sex differences

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate how materialism would predict Korean college students’ ideal mating partner standards. We hypothesized that the ratio and importance of Warmth/Trustworthiness, Ability/Resources, and Appearance/Attractiveness would be different according to materialism and gender. We also hypothesized that the interaction between materialism and gender is significant. In study 1, we asked 123 college students to freely describe their ideal mating partner standards, and we examined how materialism and gender would predict the ratio of Warmth/Trustworthiness, Ability/Resources, and Appearance/Attractiveness. As a result, we found that students who scored higher on materialism listed more Ability/Resource words as their ideal mating partner standards. We also found the gender difference; women listed more of Ability/Resources related standards while men listed more of Appearance/Attractiveness related standards. The interaction between materialism and gender also predicted significantly the Ability/Resource standard. In study 2, we asked 370 college students to rate the importance of ideal mating partner standard list from study 1 and examined the factor structure. Furthermore, we investigated how the importance of ideal mating partner standards would differ by one’s materialism and gender. As predicted, we found that college student who score higher materialism considered that both Ability/Resources and Appearance/Attractiveness standards were more important. However, materialism did not predict the importance of Warmth/Trustworthiness. Gender and the interaction between materialism and gender were not significantly predicted the importance of any of the standards.

keywords
물질주의, 이상적 배우자상, 한국 대학생, 가치, 성차, materialism, Ideal Standard Model(ISM), Korean college students, values, sex differences

참고문헌

1.

박성현 (2015). 잡지광고에 나타난 여성의 신체 이미지 변화-1971년부터 2012년까지 의류, 장신구광고를 중심으로-. 커뮤니케이션 디자인학 연구, 51, 32-42.

2.

백지숙, 박성연 (2004). 어머니의 물질주의 가치양육태도가 청소년의 물질주의 가치에 미치는 영향. 대한가정학회지, 42(7), 119-129.

3.

서병숙, 정해은 (1994). 배우자 선택과 결혼연구에 대한 고찰. 한국생활과학연구, 12, 209-227.

4.

유지혜, 설경옥 (2018). 한국판 물질주의 척도 타당화. 한국심리학회지: 문화 및 사회문제, 24(3), 385-410.

5.

이순묵 (1995). 요인분석 I. 서울: 학지사.

6.

Barnea, M. F., & Schwartz, S. H. (1998). Values and voting. Political Psychology, 19(1), 17-40.

7.

Brunell, A. B., & Webster, G. D. (2013). Self-determination and sexual experience in dating relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 970-987.

8.

Burroughs, J., & Rindfleisch, A. (2002). Materialism and Well‐Being: A Conflicting Values Perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), 348-370.

9.

Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37cultures. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.

10.

Buss, D. M. (1995). Psychological sex differences:Origins through sexual selection. American Psychologist, 50(3), 164-168.

11.

Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 559-570.

12.

Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204-232.

13.

Buss, D. M., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., Asherian, A., Biaggio, A., Blanco-Villasenor, A., . . . Tang, K. S. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 5-47.

14.

Buunk, B. P., Dijkstra, P., Fetchenhauer, D., & Kenrick, D. T. (2002). Age and gender differences in mate selection criteria for various involvement levels. Personal Relationships, 9(3), 271-278.

15.

Chang, L., Wang, Y., Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (2011). Chinese mate preferences:Cultural evolution and continuity across a quarter of a century. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(5), 678-683.

16.

Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Kim-Prieto, C., Biswas-Diener, R., & Tay, L. S. (2010). Unhappiness in South Korea: Why it is high and what might be done about it. Seoul: Korean Psychological Association.

17.

Dittmar, H. (2007). The costs of consumer culture and the “cage within”: the impact of the material “good life” and “body perfect” ideals on individuals” identity and well-being. Psychological Inquiry, 18(1), 23-31.

18.

Dittmar, H., Bond, R., Hurst, M., & Kasser, T. (2014). The relationship between materialism and personal well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(5), 879-924.

19.

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

20.

Eastwick, P. W., Eagly, A. H., Glick, P., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., Fiske, S. T., Blum, A. M., ..., & Manganelli, A. M. (2006). Is traditional gender ideology associated with sex-typed mate preferences? A test in nine nations. Sex Roles, 54(9-10), 603-614.

21.

Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 125-139.

22.

Fletcher, G. J. O., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). Ideal standards in close relationships: Their structure and functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 102-105.

23.

Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). Ideals, perceptions, and evaluations in early relationship development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 933-940.

24.

Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, I. (1999). Ideals in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72-89.

25.

Fletcher, G. J. O, Tither, J. M., O’Loughlin, C., Friesen, M., & Overall, N. (2004). Warm and homely or cold and beautiful? Sex differences in trading off traits in mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(6), 659-672.

26.

Goodwin, R., & Tinker, M. (2002). Value priorities and preferences for a relationship partner. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(8), 1339-1349.

27.

Harper, B., & Tiggemann, M. (2008). The effect of thin ideal media images on women’s self-objectification, mood, and body image. Sex Roles, 58(9-10), 649-657.

28.

Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1995). Men's and women's preferences in marital partners in the United States, Russia, and Japan. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(6), 728-750.

29.

Hiew, D. N., Halford, W. K., Van de Vijver, F. J., & Liu, S. (2015). Relationship standards and satisfaction in Chinese, Western, and intercultural Chinese–Western couples in Australia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(5), 684-701.

30.

Jaspers, E. D., & Pieters, R. G. (2016). Materialism across the life span: An age-period-cohort analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(3), 451-473.

31.

Jonason, P. K. (2013). Four functions for four relationships: Consensus definitions of university students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(8), 1407-1414.

32.

Kasser, T. (2016). Materialistic values and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 489-514.

33.

Lam, B. C., Cross, S. E., Wu, T. F., Yeh, K. H., Wang, Y. C., & Su, J. C. (2016). What do you want in a marriage? Examining marriage ideals in Taiwan and the United States. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(6), 703-722.

34.

Li, N. P., Patel, L., Balliet, D., Tov, W., & Scollon, C. N. (2011). The incompatibility of materialism and the desire for children: Psychological insights into the fertility discrepancy among modern countries. Social Indicators Research, 101(3), 391-404.

35.

Moore, F. R., Cassidy, C., Smith, M. J. L., & Perrett, D. I. (2006). The effects of female control of resources on sex-differentiated mate preferences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(3), 193-205.

36.

Richins, M. L. (2004). The material values scale:Measurement properties and development of a short form. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 209-219.

37.

Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 303-316.

38.

Rodriguez, L. M., Hadden, B. W., & Knee, C. R. (2015). Not all ideals are equal: Intrinsic and extrinsic ideals in relationships. Personal Relationships, 22(1), 138-152.

39.

Schmitt, T. A., & Sass, D. A. (2011). Rotation criteria and hypothesis testing for exploratory factor analysis: Implications for factor pattern loadings and interfactor correlations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(1), 95-113.

40.

Schmitt, D. P. (2012). When the difference is in the details: A critique of Zentner and Mitura (2012)“Stepping out of the Caveman's Shadow:Nations' Gender Gap Predicts Degree of Sex Differentiation in Mate Preferences”. Evolutionary Psychology, 10(4), 720-726.

41.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65.

42.

Wang, P. Z., & Waller, D. S. (2006). Measuring consumer vanity: A cross‐cultural validation. Psychology & Marketing, 23(8), 665-687.

43.

Zentner, M., & Mitura, K. (2012). Stepping out of the caveman’s shadow: Nations’ gender gap predicts degree of sex differentiation in mate preferences. Psychological Science, 23(10), 1176-1185.

44.

Zhang, S., & Kline, S. L. (2009). Can I make my own decision? A cross-cultural study of perceived social network influence in mate selection. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40(1), 3-23.

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격

논문 투고 OA 정책