바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

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

logo

성인진입기 심리적 데이트 폭력 피해와 관계 투자의 관계: 성별, 관계에 대한 암묵적 이론, 관계 지속 기간의 조절효과

The Relationship between Psychological Dating Violence Victimization and Relationship Investment in Emerging Adulthood:

초록

본 연구는 심리적 데이트 폭력 피해와 관계 투자의 관계에서 성별, 관계에 대한 암묵적 이론, 관계 지속 기간의 조절효과를 살펴보기 위한 것이다. 이를 위해 현재 연애 중인 성인진입기 334명(남: 139명, 여: 195명)의 설문자료를 분석하였다. PROCESS macro의 모델 3을 활용하여 심리적 데이트 폭력 피해와 관계 투자의 관계에서 성별과 관계에 대한 암묵적 이론(운명 신념, 성장 신념)의 조절된 조절효과를 분석한 결과, 성별과 운명 신념의 조절된 조절효과가 나타났다. 즉 남성의 경우 운명 신념이 약할 때만 심리적 데이트 폭력 피해가 관계 투자를 정적으로 예측하였으나, 여성의 경우 운명 신념이 평균 이상일 때만 이러한 정적 관계가 나타났다. 추가적으로, 남녀 각각의 운명 신념 수준에 따라 집단을 구분한 후, 심리적 데이트 폭력 피해와 관계 투자의 관계에서 관계 지속 기간의 조절효과를 PROCESS macro의 모델 1을 활용하여 분석한 결과, 운명 신념의 수준이 평균 이상인 여성의 경우에만 관계 지속 기간이 길 때 심리적 데이트 폭력 피해가 관계 투자를 정적으로 예측하였다. 이러한 결과를 바탕으로 본 연구의 시사점과 심리적 데이트 폭력 피해자에 대한 개입전략을 논하였다.

keywords
심리적 데이트 폭력 피해, 관계 투자, 관계에 대한 암묵적 이론, Psychological dating violence victimization, relationship investment, Implicit theories of relationships

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the moderation effects of gender, implicit theories of relationships, relationship length in the relations between psychological dating violence victimization and relationship investment. For this purpose, the survey data of 334 emerging adulthoods(male: 139, female: 195) who are currently in relationship were analyzed. The results of the PROCESS macro model 3 analysis showed that the moderated moderation effects of gender and destiny belief was significant. In brief, psychological dating victimization positively predicted relationship investment when men has low destiny belief. However, this relationship was significant when women has moderate or high destiny belief. In addition, dividing male and female in to each group according to the level of destiny belief, the moderation effect of the relationship length in the relationship between psychological dating violence victimization and relationship investment was analyzed. The results of PROCESS macro model 1 analysis indicated that the moderation effect of relationship length is significant only for women who were in longer relationship. Based on these results, implication of this study and intervention strategies for victims of psychological dating violence were discussed.

keywords
심리적 데이트 폭력 피해, 관계 투자, 관계에 대한 암묵적 이론, Psychological dating violence victimization, relationship investment, Implicit theories of relationships

참고문헌

1.

경찰청 (2018. 08. 14) 데이트폭력, 방치하면 살인으로까지 이어질 수 있습니다. https://www.police.go.kr/portal/bbs/view.do?bbsId=B0000021&nttId=138839&menuNo=200494

2.

김정란, 김경신 (1999). 대학생의 이성교제 중폭력과 대처행동. 대한가정학회지. 37(8), 73-90.

3.

박경은 (2017). 결혼적령기 남성의 심리적 데이트폭력 경험. 상담학연구, 18(4), 409-430.

4.

박경은, 유영권 (2017). 데이트폭력 피해여성의 심리내면에 관한 질적연구. 한국심리학회지: 상담 및 심리치료, 29(3), 711-742.

5.

박정은 (2018). 가정폭력경험이 데이트 폭력에 미치는 영향: 대학생의 갈등해결전략의 조절효과. 석사학위논문, 숙명여자대학교

6.

백주희 (2009). 가족가치관과 성역할태도에 영향을 미치는 인구학적 변인. 한국가정관리학회지, 27(3), 239-251.

7.

이정은, 현명호, 유제민 (2007). 폭력적 데이트관계 지속에 관한 투자모델의 수정. 한국심리학회지: 건강, 12(4), 983-995.

8.

이지연, 정태연 (2007). 대학생 데이트 커플의 애정표현행동. 한국심리학회지: 여성, 12(3), 315-330.

9.

한국여성의전화 (2016. 10. 24). 2016년 데이트폭력 피해 실태조사 결과와 과제. http://hotline.or.kr/board_statistics/28328

10.

Acitelli, L. K., Rogers, S., & Knee, C. R. (1999). The role of identity in the link between relationship thinking and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16(5), 591-618.

11.

Arias, I., & Pape, K. T. (1999). Psychological abuse: Implications for adjustment and commitment to leave violent partners. Violence and Victims, 14(1), 55-67.

12.

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469-480.

13.

Beyers, J. M., Leonard, J. M., Mays, V. K., & Rosen, L. A. (2000). Gender differences in the perception of courtship abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(5), 451-466.

14.

Burnette, J. L., & Franiuk, R. (2010). Individual differences in implicit theories of relationships and partner fit: Predicting forgiveness in developing relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(2), 144-148.

15.

Cheng, C. C. (2010). A study of inter-cultural marital conflict and satisfaction in Taiwan. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(4), 354-362.

16.

Chiodo, D., Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C., Hughes, R., & Jaffe, P. (2009). Impact of sexual harassment victimization by peers on subsequent adolescent victimization and adjustment: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(3), 246-252.

17.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.

18.

Cornelius, T. L., & Resseguie, N. (2007). Primary and secondary prevention programs for dating violence: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(3), 364-375.

19.

Cotter, D., Hermsen, J. M., & Vanneman, R. (2011). The end of the gender revolution? Gender role attitudes from 1977 to 2008. American Journal of Sociology, 117(1), 259-289.

20.

Edwards, K. M., Gidycz, C. A., & Murphy, M. J. (2010). College women’s stay/leave decisions in abusive dating relationships: A prospective analysis of an expanded investment model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(7), 1446-1462.

21.

Edwards, K. M., Gidycz, C. A., & Murphy, M. J. (2014). Leaving an abusive dating relationship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(16), 2908-2927.

22.

Exner-Cortens, D., Eckenrode, J., & Rothman, E. (2012). Longitudinal associations between teen dating violence victimization and adverse health outcomes. Pediatrics, 131(1), 71-78.

23.

Follingstad, D. R., Rutledge, L. L., Berg, B. J., Hause, E. S., & Polek, D. S. (1990). The role of emotional abuse in physically abusive relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 5(2), 107-120.

24.

Franiuk, R., Cohen, D., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2002). Implicit theories of relationships:Implications for relationship satisfaction and longevity. Personal Relationships, 9(4), 345-367.

25.

Franiuk, R., Pomerantz, E. M., & Cohen, D. (2004). The causal role of theories of relationships: Consequences for satisfaction and cognitive Strategies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(11), 1494-1507.

26.

Franiuk, R., Shain, E. A., Bieritz, L., & Murray, C. (2012). Relationship theories and relationship violence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(6), 820-838.

27.

Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

28.

Griffin, B. J., Garthe, R. C., Worthington, E. L., Sullivan, T. N., Larsen, R., Lavelock, C. R., & Davis, D. E. (2015). How positive processes function in negative relationships:Dispositional gratitude moderates the association between affective need and frequency of dating violence victimization. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(4), 388-398.

29.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

30.

Hines, D. A., & Saudino, K. J. (2003). Gender differences in psychological, physical, and sexual aggression among college students using the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales. Violence and victims, 18(2), 197-218.

31.

Katz, J., Tirone, V., & Schukrafft, M. (2012). Breaking up is hard to do: Psychological entrapment and women’s commitment to violent dating relationships. Violence and Victims, 27(4), 455-469.

32.

Knee, C. R. (1998). Implicit theories of relationships: Assessment and prediction of romantic relationship initiation, coping, and longevity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 360-370.

33.

Knee, C. R., Nanayakkara, A., Vietor, N. A., Neighbors, C., & Patrick, H. (2001). Implicit theories of relationships: Who cares if romantic partners are less than ideal? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(7), 808-819.

34.

Lloyd, S. A., & Cate, R. M. (1985). Attributions associated with significant turning points in premarital relationship development and dissolution. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2(4), 419-436.

35.

Lou, N. M., & Li, L. M. W. (2017). Interpersonal relationship mindsets and rejection sensitivity across cultures: The role of relational mobility. Personality and Individual Differences, 108, 200-206.

36.

Martin, A. J., Berenson, K. R., Griffing, S., Sage, R. E., Madry, L., Bingham, L. E., & Primm, B. J. (2000). The process of leaving an abusive relationship: The role of risk assessments and decision-certainty. Journal of Family Violence, 15(2), 109-122.

37.

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Collins, N. L. (2006). Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 641-666.

38.

Pleck, J. H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men. (pp. 11-32). Basic Books.

39.

Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 269-281.

40.

Rhatigan, D. L., & Axsom, D. K. (2006). Using the investment model to understand battered women’s commitment to abusive relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 21(2), 153-162.

41.

Rhatigan, D. L., & Street, A. E. (2005). The impact of intimate partner violence on decisions to leave dating relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(12), 1580-1597.

42.

Ronfeldt, H. M., Kimerling, R., & Arias, I. (1998). Satisfaction with relationship power and the perpetration of dating violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(1), 70-78.

43.

Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 101-117.

44.

Rusbult, C. E., & Martz, J. M. (1995). Remaining in an abusive relationship: An investment model analysis of nonvoluntary dependence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(6), 558-571.

45.

Shi, L. (2003). The association between adult attachment styles and conflict resolution in romantic relationships. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 31(3), 143-157.

46.

Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2) development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283-316.

47.

Tamres, L. K., Janicki, D., & Helgeson, V. S. (2002). Sex differences in coping behavior: A meta-analytic review and an examination of relative coping. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(1), 2-30.

48.

Van Ouytsel, J., Ponnet, K., & Walrave, M. (2017). The associations of adolescents’ dating violence victimization, well-being and engagement in risk behaviors. Journal of Adolescence, 55, 66-71.

49.

White, J. W., Merrill, L. L., & Koss, M. P. (2001). Predictors of premilitary courtship violence in a navy recruit sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(9), 910-927.

50.

Weigel, D. J., Lalasz, C. B., & Weiser, D. A. (2015). Maintaining relationships: The role of implicit relationship theories and partner Fit. Communication Reports, 29(1), 23-34.

51.

Wood, J. T. (2001). The normalization of violence in heterosexual romantic relationships:Women’s narratives of love and violence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(2), 239-261.

logo