挫折이 幼兒의 攻擊行動에 미치는 影響

Abstract

이제까지의 硏究들은 주로 挫折의 效果를 보는데 주력하였을 뿐, 挫折 자체의 類型이나, 挫折을 겪는 個人의 特性등은 다루지 못하였다. 이 硏究에서는 두 實驗을 통하여, 挫折의 效果 뿐만이 아니라 挫折의 類型, 挫折을 겪는 個人의 特性 및 性別에 따른 차이를 보고자 한다. 實驗 Ⅰ Ⅰ. 硏究의 設計 동일한 被驗者가 挫折前 15分과 挫折後 15分 동안 동료집단 속에서 나타내는 攻擊反應 및 退行反應의 先行誘發刺戟으로서의 挫折의 效果 및 被驗者의 支配的-非支配的 性格特性에 따른 挫折에 대한 反應의 差異를 보고자 한다. Ⅱ. 硏究問題 1. 挫折前에 비해 挫折後의 攻擊反應은 증가하는가? 2. 挫折前에 비해 挫折後의 退行反應은 증가하는가? 3. 性格特性에 따라 挫折에 따른 反應의 차이가 나타나는가? 4. 挫折後 시간이 지남에 따라 어떠한 攻擊反應의 變化가 나타나는가? 5. 동료집단내에서 행하여지는 攻擊反應을 유목화했을 때, 어떠한 攻擊反應이 支配的인가? Ⅲ. 硏究의 方法 1. 被驗者-교사의 評定에 의해 추출된 56名의 5~6勢 幼兒들로서 1回 관찰에 4名씩 配定되었다. 2. 節次 - 1) 挫折前 15分 동안의 자유놀이 사태에서 나타나는 攻擊 反應 및 退行反應을 5分 단위로 관찰하여 이를 反應의 基本量으로 정하였다. 2) 장남감의 제시 및 이에 대한 期待水準을 높힌 후, 이를 박탈함으로써 挫折을 조작한다. 3) 挫折後에 나타나는 攻擊反應을 15分間 관찰하였다. Ⅳ. 結果 1. 挫折前에 비해 挫折後의 攻擊反應이 有意한 증가를 나타내었다. 2. 挫折前에 비해 挫折後의 退行反應이 有意한 증가를 나타내었다. 3. 挫折前의 攻擊反應에 있어서는 性格特性에 따른 차이가 나타나지 않지만 挫折後의 攻擊反應에 있어서는 支配的인 幼兒가 非支配的인 幼兒보다 많은 攻擊反應을 나타내었다. 4. 挫折後 15分을 5分 단위로 본 결과, 시간이 지남에 따라 攻擊行動이 증가함을 볼 수 있었다. 5. 동료집단내에서 나타내는 攻擊類型을 分析한 결과, 동료나 장난감을 향한 身體的 攻擊이 가장 우세하게 나타났다. 實驗 Ⅱ Ⅰ. 硏究의 設計 2×2×2의 實驗設計로서 挫折의 原因에 따라 外的 挫折과 內的 挫折로 나누고, 유아의 性格特性에 따라 支配的-非支配的인 집단으로 나누며, 이를 다시 性別로 나눈 8集團에 10名씩 配定하였다. Ⅱ. 硏究의 問題 1. 挫折의 原因에 따라 攻擊反應의 차이가 나타나는가? 2. 被驗者의 性格特性에 따라 挫折에 대한 攻擊反應의 차이가 나타나는가? 3. 挫折에 따른 攻擊反應에 있어 性別에 따른 차이가 나타나는가? Ⅲ. 硏究의 方法 1. 被驗者 - 유치원 세곳과 어린이집 한곳에서 추출된 5~6勢 幼兒 80名으로서, 각 반의 가장 支配的인 幼兒 3~5名과 가장 非支配的인 幼兒 3~5名씩이 교사에 의해 선정되었다. 이회에도 4名의 實驗同調兒가 포함되었다. 2. 切磋 - 1) 實驗同調兒의 Bobo 人形에 대한 攻擊行動을 관찰하도록 한 후, 2) 장난감이 제시되고, 토막짜기(KWIS)를 그림카드대로 잘 맞추는 경우, 가장 갖고 싶은 장남감을 가질 수 있음을 지시한다. 3) 토막짜기를 자신의 能力의 부족으로 못짜는 경우(內的挫折)와 토막짜기를 거의 完成하였을 즈음, 實驗同調兒에 의해 망쳐지는 경우(外的 挫折)로 나누어 挫折事態를 조작하였다. 4) 挫折後 Bobo 人形에 가해지는 攻擊反應을 측정하였다. Ⅳ. 結果 1. 覺 變因의 效果 挫折의 原因에 따른 攻擊反應의 차이는 볼 수 없었다. 이는 挫折의 조작에 있어서 불명확했거나, 挫折을 변별 지각하는 능력이 5~6勢 幼兒에게 미발달되었을 가능성 때문에 나타난 것으로 볼 수 있다. 性格特性 및 性別에 따른 攻擊反應의 차이는 매우 意義있게 나타났다. 2. 各 變因間의 相互作用 각 변인들의 相互作用을 분석한 결과, 性格特性과 性別의 상호 작용만이 意義있게 나타났다. 3. 各 集團間의 差異 각 집단의 평균치에 대한 重多 區域 檢證의 결과, 1) 外的 挫折을 당한 支配的인 男兒와 外的 挫折을 당한 支配的인 女兒, 2) 外的 挫折을 당한 支配的인 男兒와 外的 挫折을 당한 非支配的인 女兒 집단들간의 有意한 差異를 볼 수 있었다.;The present experiments were designed to show the effects of several variables i.e., sex, personality traits, and sources of frustration on children's aggressive reactions. Experiment Ⅰ The purpose of Experiment I was to examine the differences in the amounts of aggression and regression as a function of prior frustration and personality traits(dominance versus submission). Method Subject : Fifty-six children of 5 to 6 years were sampled in two day care centers. Each subject was selected on the basis of teachers' rating on dominance scale ranging from -3(submissive) to +3(dominant). Procedure : Experiment I was executed in three stages. a) Measurement of the baseline aggression - A group of 4 children was brought to an experiment room, and allowed to play for a period of 15 minutes. During free play, two independent observers recorded the amounts of aggressive and regressive reactions. b) Manipulation of frustrations - In order to cause subjects to be frustrated, an experimenter displayed 8 attractive toys to the subjects. After they were deeply involved in playing with the toys, the experimenter removed the toys, placeing them at experimenter removed the toys, placeing them at near location in another part of the room. However, these toys were children's full view. c) Measurement of frustration - During frustration phase, two observers counted the frequency of aggressive and regressive reactions toward peers, toys or the experimenter. Result Mean aggressive and regressive behaviors were obtained at pre- and post-frustration phases. There was a significant increase in the amounts of aggression from the pre-frustration to post-frustration phase(t=2.36, d.f=12, p＜.05). This difference was apparently attributed to frustration, which was apparently caused by the removal of attractive toys. The difference in regressive behavior between the pre- and post-frustration phases was significant beyond .5% level. While the difference in aggressive behaviors between dominant and submissive groups was not significant at the per-frustration period(t=1.35, df=12, p＜.05), there was a significant difference between them at the post-frustration period(t=4.48, d.f=12, p＜.025). This result indicates that the base-line level of aggressive behaviors was the same in these two groups. One of the most dominant(physical aggression, verbal aggression, non-verbal teasing, and injury to object) aggressive reactions was physical aggression, which was revealed in both groups. Experiment Ⅱ A 2×2×2 factorial design was employed: to evaluate the contributions of the following variables to aggressive behaviors (a) 2 sources of frustration(external versus internal), (b) 2 levels of personality trait(dominant versus submissive children), and (c) sex (female versus male). Ten subjects were randomly assigned to each of the above 8 conditions. Method Subject : Eighty children in three kindergartens and one day-care center served Experiment Ⅱ. Most of dominant and submissive children were selected as subjects on the basis of the teacher's appraisal. Four stooges took part in this experiment to frustrate children. Procedure : Experiment Ⅱ was conducted in the following steps. a) Modeling manipulation - All of the subjects observed scenes in which a stooge performed aggressive behavior toward a Bobo doll. It was expected that such modeling manipulation should facilitate subjects' aggressive behavior. b) Manipulation of expectation - The experimenter showed the subjects 8 attractive toys. They were informed that it would be possible for them to receive the toys as a prize if they performed well in a block task. c) Manipulation of frustration - The block task which is a part of KWIS was somewhat difficult for subjects to perform. If they couldn't arrange the blocks, the experimenter remarked: "Because you performed the task so poorly, I won't be able to give you either of toys as a prize(Internal frustration)" In order to induce external frustration a stooge interfered with a subject's performance with arranging the block. Results An analysis of variance was performed on subjects' aggression scores. There were significant main effects for personality trait(F=14.53, df=1/72, p＜.01) and for sex(F=13.17, df=1/72, p＜0.01), but not for frustration sources(F=.93, df=1/72, p＞.05). This result appears to be due to an uncertain manipulation of the frustration sources or to subjects' underdevelopment in differentiating the locus of frustration. The analysis of variance on aggression scores revealed a significant Personality trait x Sex interaction(F=8.11, df=1/72, p＜.01). Duncan's Multiple Range Test of Means for eight conditions revealed the following significant differences between conditions at the 5% level: (1) External-Dominant-Male vs. External-Dominant-Female (2) External-Dominant-Male vs. External-Submissive-Male (3) Internal-Dominant-Male vs. Internal-Submissive-Male (4) Internal-Dominant-Male vs. Internal-Dominant-Female. Despite some limitations of the present study, experiment Ⅰ and Ⅱ show importance of sex and personality traits in affecting children's aggressive behaviors: e.g., whether a child becomes openly aggressive after being frustrated depends upon such things as his personality trait and sex.