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
논문 투고

Vol.33 No.4

Citation Share

층소된 사회정체성 구조에서 정체성 불확실성과 내집단 동일시, 남북한 화해 태도 및 행동의도 간 관계

Relationship between Nested Social Identity Uncertainty, Group Identification, Reconciliatory Attitudes and Intentions in Korea

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격 / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2019, v.33 no.4, pp.45-59
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2019.33.4.003
최훈석 (성균관대학교)
이하연 (성균관대학교 응용심리연구소)
정지인 (Claremont Graduate University)
최훈석, 이하연, & 정지인. (2019). 층소된 사회정체성 구조에서 정체성 불확실성과 내집단 동일시, 남북한 화해 태도 및 행동의도 간 관계. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 33(4), 45-59, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2019.33.4.003

초록

본 연구는 민족정체성과 국가정체성으로 구분되는 한국인의 다층 사회정체성 불확실성 및 동일시와 남북한 화해에 대한 태도 및 행동의도 간 관계를 분석하였다. 대한민국 거주 일반인 1,000명을 대상으로 조사 연구를 실시한 결과, 한민족정체성과 남한정체성의 불확실성과 동일시, 그리고 남북한 화해에 대한 태도 및 행동의도에서 성별, 연령대, 학력, 거주지역, 소득수준에 따른 차이가 나타났다. 본 연구에서 가설화한 경로모형 검증 결과, 한민족정체성 불확실성은 남한에 대한 동일시와 상관이 없었지만, 남한정체성 불확실성은 한민족에 대한 동일시를 정적으로 예측하고 한민족 동일시가 남북한 화해 태도를 매개로 화해 행동의도를 정적으로 예측하였다. 이는 상위범주와 하위범주 정체성 불확실성과 동일시 간 비대칭적 상보성 가정(Jung, Hogg, & Choi, 2016)을 지지하는 결과이다. 끝으로 본 연구 결과가 남북한 갈등 해소 및 사회통합에서 지니는 함의를 논하였다.

keywords
social identity, nested identity, identity uncertainty, inter-Korean relations, intergroup reconciliation, 사회정체성, 다층 사회정체성, 정체성 불확실성, 남북한 관계, 집단 간 화해

Abstract

The present study examined the relationship between social identity uncertainty and levels of social identification among Koreans whose social identities are nested in a hierarchical structure involving ethnic identity (i.e., Han-ethnicity) and national identity (i.e., South Korean). The presumed link between social identity uncertainty and social identification was tested in a path model that stipulates a positive relationship between ethnic identification (but not national identification) and individuals’ attitudes and action intention toward intergroup reconciliation. Data were obtained from 1,000 adult Koreans residing in Korea using a stratified sampling method. A path analysis revealed that, as expected, subgroup (South Korea) identity uncertainty strengthened identification with the superordinate category (Han-ethnicity), which predicted positively attitudes towards intergroup reconciliation. Attitudes toward intergroup reconciliation, in turn, predicted positively individuals’ intention to engage in reconciliatory behavior. By contrast, superordinate identity (Han-ethnicity) uncertainty did not predict subgroup (South Korea) identification. We also found differences in the attitudes and action intention across several demographic variables. We discuss implications of the findings from the perspective of an asymmetric compensation between superordinate identity uncertainty and subgroup identification in Korea. We also discuss practical implications and future directions.

keywords
social identity, nested identity, identity uncertainty, inter-Korean relations, intergroup reconciliation, 사회정체성, 다층 사회정체성, 정체성 불확실성, 남북한 관계, 집단 간 화해

참고문헌

1.

김혜숙, 김도영, 신희천, 이주연 (2011). 다문화시대 한국인의 심리적 적응: 집단정체성, 문화적응 이데올로기와 접촉이 이주민에 대한 편견에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 25(2), 51-89.

2.

유연재, 김혜숙 (2000). ‘한집단’범주의 점화가 북한사람에 대한 평가에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 14(1), 91-112.

3.

Abrams, D. (2015). Social identity and intergroup relations. In M. E. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, M. Cooper, & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 2: Group Processes (pp. 203-228). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14342-008

4.

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2017). Twenty years of group processes and intergroup relations research: A review of past progress and future prospects. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20, 561-569. doi:10.1177/1368430217709536

5.

Bar-Tal, D. (2000). From intractable conflict through conflict resolution to reconciliation: Psychological analysis. Political Psychology, 21, 351-365. doi:10.1111/0162-895x.00192

6.

Bar-Tal, D. (2007). Sociopsychological foundations of intractable conflicts. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 1430-1453. doi:10.1177/0002764207302462

7.

Bar-Tal, D., & Halperin, E. (2013). The psychology of intractable conflicts: Eruption, escalation, and peacemaking. In L. Huddy, D. O. Sears, and J. S. Levy (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (pp. 923-956). New York:Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199760107.013.0028

8.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.88.3.588

9.

Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54, 106-148. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00391.x

10.

Cameron, J. E. (2004). A three-factor model of social identity. Self and Identity, 3, 239-262. doi:10.1080/13576500444000047

11.

Campbell, D. T. (1965). Ethnocentric and other altruistic motives. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 283-311). Lincoln:University of Nebraska Press.

12.

Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309

13.

Crisp, R. J., & Hewstone, M. (2007). Multiple social categorization. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Volume 39, pp. 163-254). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(06)39004-1

14.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2007). Another view of “we”: Majority and minority group perspectives on a common ingroup identity. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 296-330. doi:10.1080/10463280701726132

15.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2009). Commonality and the complexity of “we”: Social attitudes and social change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 3-20. doi:10.1177/1088868308326751

16.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Shnabel, N., Saguy, T., & Johnson, J. (2010). Recategorization and prosocial behavior: Common in-group identity and a dual identity. In S. Stürmer and M. Snyder (Eds.), Psychology of Prosocial Behavior:Group Processes, Intergroup Relations, and Helping (pp. 191-207). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444307948.ch10

17.

Ellemers, N., & Haslam, S. A. (2012). Social identity theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 379-398). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: 10.4135/9781446249222.n45

18.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The Common Ingroup Identity Model. Philadelphia, PA: The Psychology Press. doi:10.4324/9781315804576

19.

Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subject uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: A motivational theory of social identity processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11, 223-255. doi:10.1080/14792772043000040

20.

Hogg, M. A. (2007). Uncertainty-identity theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 39, pp. 69-126). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(06)39002-8

21.

Hogg, M. A. (2016). Social identity theory. In M. Shelly, H. Reeshma, & F. Neil (Eds.), Understanding Peace and Conflict Through Social Identity Theory (pp. 3-17). Switzerland: Springer International. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29869-6_1

22.

Hogg, M. A., & Hains, S. C. (1996). Intergroup relations and group solidarity: Effects of group identification and social beliefs on depersonalized attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 295-309. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.70.2.295

23.

Hogg, M. A., Meehan, C., & Farquharson, J. (2010). The solace of radicalism: Self-uncertainty and group identification in the face of threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1061-1066. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.005

24.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453. doi:10.1037//1082-989x.3.4.424

25.

Jung, J., Hogg, M. A., & Choi, H.-S. (2016). Reaching across the DMZ: Identity uncertainty and reunification on the Korean peninsula. Political Psychology, 37, 341-350. doi:10.1111/pops.12252

26.

Jung, J., Hogg, M. A., & Choi, H.-S. (2019). Recategorization and ingroup projection: Two processes of identity uncertainty reduction. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 3, 97-114. doi:10.1002/jts5.37

27.

Jung, J., Hogg, M. A., & Lewis, G. J. (2018). Identity uncertainty and UK-Scottish relations:Different dynamics depending on relative identity centrality. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21, 861-873. doi:10.1177/1368430216678329

28.

Jung, J., Hogg, M. A., Livingstone, A. G., & Choi, H.-S. (2019). From uncertain boundaries to uncertain identity: Effects of entitativity threat on identity–uncertainty and emigration. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49, 623-633. doi:10.1111/jasp.12622

29.

Kenny, D. A. (2014). Measuring model fit. http://davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm 에서 인용.

30.

Kelman, H. C. (2008). Reconciliation from a social-psychological perspective. In A. Nadler, T. Malloy, & J. D. Fisher, (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup reconciliation (pp. 15-32). New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195300314.003.0002

31.

Mullin, B.-A., & Hogg, M. A. (1998). Dimensions of subjective uncertainty in social identification and minimal intergroup discrimination. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 345-365. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1998.tb01176.x

32.

Nadler, A. (2012). Intergroup reconciliation:Definitions, processes, and future directions. In L. R. Tropp (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of intergroup conflict (pp. 291-308). New York:Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199747672.013.0017

33.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

34.

Roccas, S., Klar, Y., & Liviatan, I. (2006). The paradox of group-based guilt: Modes of national identification, conflict vehemence, and reactions to the in-group's moral violations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 698-711. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.698

35.

Sherman, D. K., Hogg, M. A., & Maitner, A. T. (2009). Perceived polarization: Reconciling ingroup and intergroup perceptions under uncertainty. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12, 95-109. doi:10.1177/1368430208098779

36.

Shnabel, N., Nadler, A., Ullrich, J., Dovidio, J. F., & Carmi, D. (2009). Promoting reconciliation through the satisfaction of the emotional needs of victimized and perpetrating group members:The needs-based model of reconciliation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1021-1030. doi:10.1177/0146167209336610

37.

Shnabel, N., Ullrich, J., Nadler, A., Dovidio, J. F., & Aydin, A. L. (2013). Warm or competent? Improving intergroup relations by addressing threatened identities of advantaged and disadvantaged groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 482-492. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1975

38.

Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13, 65-93. doi:10.1177/053901847401300204

39.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). Social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In G. A. William & W. Stephen (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 276-293). Chicago: NelsonHall. doi:10.4324/9780203505984-16

40.

Tropp, L. R. (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Intergroup Conflict. New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199747672.001. 0001

41.

Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2012). Self-categorization theory. In P. A. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 399-417). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi:10.4135/9781446249222.n46

42.

Waldzus, S., Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (2005). When “different” means “worse”: In-group prototypicality in changing intergroup contexts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 76-83. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2004.05.006

43.

Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., Weber, U., & Waldzus, S. (2003). The ingroup as pars pro toto: Projection from the ingroup onto the inclusive category as a precursor to social discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 461-473. doi:10.1177/0146167202250913

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격

논문 투고 OA 정책