사회적 거절경험이 반응적/전위적 공격성에 미치는 영향

Abstract

그 동안의 많은 선행연구에서 사회적 거절에 대한 사람들의 반응에 있어서 상이한 결과가 발견되었다. 사회적 거절을 경험한 이후에 타인에게 공격성을 표출하는 경우도 있는 반면, 오히려 타인과의 관계 회복에 도움이 되는 친 사회적 행동을 보이는 경우도 있었다. 사회적 거절 후에 증가된 친사회적 행동은 진화론적으로 생존율을 높이기 위한 적응적인 행동이지만, 오히려 증가된 공격성은 사회적 관계의 회복을 방해하는 부적응적인 행동이다. 그러므로 본 연구는 사회적 거절을 경험한 이후에 나타나는 공격성이 평소에 세상이 얼마나 공정한지 혹은 불공정한지에 대해 갖고 있는 자신의 신념에 따라 달라지는지를 검증하고자 하였다. 연구 가설은 다음과 같다. 첫 번째, 공정세상 신념 수준이 낮은 집단에 비해 높은 집단에서 사회적 거절 이후에 더 적은 공격성을 보일 것이다. 두 번째, 불공정세상 신념이 낮은 집단에 비해 불공정세상 신념이 높은 집단에서 사회적 거절 경험 이후에 더 많은 공격성을 보일 것이다. 이를 검증하기 위해 서울 시내에 재학 중인 대학생 149명을 대상으로 설문지 형태의 준 실험 연구를 시행하였으며, 수집된 자료를 바탕으로 이원공분산분석을 실시하였다. 그 결과, 사회적 거절 여부와 관계없이 공정세상 신념이 높은 집단은 공정세상 신념이 낮은 집단에 비해 유의하게 높은 공격성을 보이는 것으로 밝혀졌다. 반면, 사회적 거절경험과 공격성의 관계가 불공정세상 신념 수준에 따라 달라짐을 발견하였다. 즉, 불공정세상 신념이 낮은 집단에서는 사회적 거절과 사회적 수용 조건 간 공격성의 차이가 유의하지 않은 반면, 불공정세상 신념이 높은 집단에서는 사회적 수용에 비해 사회적 거절을 회상했을 때 공격성이 유의미하게 높아졌다. 이로써 첫 번째 가설은 기각되었고, 두 번째 가설은 지지되었다. 본 연구에서는 사회적 거절과 공격성의 관계에서 공정성 신념의 역할을 규명하였고, 더 나아가 반응적 공격성에 대한 개입에 있어서의 실질적인 통찰을 제공하였다.;Recent research has demonstrated that people’s level of just world belief moderates the relationship between ostracism and aggression (Poon & Chen, 2014). However, to the best of my knowledge, the effect of one’s unjust world beliefs has not been examined, yet. The purpose of this study was to investigate the moderating effects of both just world belief and unjust world belief on the relationship between social rejection and reactive/displaced aggression. It was hypothesized that people with strong just world beliefs would behave less aggressively after social rejection than those with weak just world beliefs. The second hypothesis was that people with strong unjust world beliefs would behave more aggressively than those with weak unjust world beliefs after social rejection. For this research, 149 college students were recruited and they received a survey packet that included the following measures. First, independent questionnaires were used to measure one’s just world belief and unjust world belief. Next, social rejection was manipulated with a writing task in which students were randomly assigned to write about their previous experience of social rejection or social acceptance. Finally, aggression was measured with a task in which participants were asked to select an appropriate temperature and duration time for others to immerse their hands in ice-cold water. A two-way ANCOVA was conducted to determine a statistically significant difference between the manipulation of social rejection and level of just world belief on aggression, controlling for the level of unjust world belief. Similarly, another two-way ANCOVA was conducted to determine a statistically significant difference between the manipulation of social rejection and level of unjust world belief on aggression, controlling for the level of just world belief. The results of the study are as follows: 1. There was no main effect of social rejection, nor an interaction effect of social rejection and just world belief, but only a significant main effect of just world belief. In other words, regardless of whether the participants were assigned to write about either social rejection or social acceptance, those who had a strong just world belief showed significantly more displaced aggression towards others. 2. There was no main effect of social rejection, nor a main effect of unjust world belief. Instead, there was a significant interaction effect of social rejection and unjust world belief. Thus, the relation between social rejection and aggression was different according to one’s level of unjust world belief. Specifically, among those with weak unjust world belief, there was no difference in aggression according to whether the participants were assigned to write about either social rejection or social acceptance. However, for those with strong unjust world belief, writing about social rejection significantly increased aggression levels compared to writing about social acceptance. In conclusion, the first study hypothesis was rejected and the second study hypothesis was accepted. Potential theoretical explanations for the unanticipated, yet significant findings are provided. Moreover, this study hopes to provide possible insights for successful intervention of reactive aggression due to social rejection.