Korean Journal of Culture and Social Issue (한국심리학회지 : 문화 및 사회문제)

Korean Psychological Association of Culture and Social Issues (한국문화및사회문제심리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Relation between Patriarchal Family Environment and Zero-sum Beliefs with the Moderated Mediating Effect of Gender through Sexism

가부장적 가정환경과 제로섬 신념의 관계에서 성차별적 인식을 통한 성별의 조절된 매개효과

  • Received : 2021.07.28
  • Accepted : 2021.11.02
  • Published : 2021.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The study aimed to investigate the relation between patriarchal family environment and zero-sum beliefs, and the mediating effect of sexism on the relation based on the Instrumental Model of Group Conflict (Esses et al., 1998). This study also examined the moderating effect of gender on the relation between patriarchal family environment and sexism, and the moderated mediating effect of gender through sexism. Participants were 310 first-year college students (234 males and 76 females) in the college of science and engineering, and they completed a survey consisting of patriarchal family environment, sexism, and zero-sum belief. Data were analyzed using SPSS Macro Process, and the results indicated that the relation between patriarchal family environment and zero-sum beliefs was fully mediated by sexism. In addition, the relation between patriarchal family environment and sexism was moderated by gender. Specifically, patriarchal family environment significantly predicted sexism for men, but not for women. Moreover, only for men, sexism mediated the relation between patriarchal family environment and zero-sum beliefs. Therefore, patriarchal family environment could cause sexism which could promote zero-sum beliefs for men.

본 연구는 집단 갈등에 관한 도구 모델(the Instrumental Model of Group Conflict: Esses, Jackson, & Armstrong, 1998)에 기초하여 가부장적 가정환경과 제로섬 신념 간의 관계를 살펴보고, 가부장적 가정환경과 제로섬 신념의 관계에서 성차별적 인식의 매개효과를 살펴보았다. 또한, 이러한 관계가 성별에 의해 조절되는지도 알아보고, 가부장적 가정환경이 성차별적 인식을 매개로 제로섬 신념에 미치는 영향에서 성별의 조절된 매개효과를 검증하였다. 연구대상자는 이공계 대학생 310명(남자 234명, 여자 76명)으로 이들은 가부장적 가정환경, 성차별적 인식, 제로섬 신념을 측정하는 설문조사에 참여하였다. SPSS Macro Process 프로그램을 이용하여 분석한 결과, 가부장적 가정환경과 제로섬 신념 간의 관계는 성차별적 인식에 의해 완전매개되는 것으로 나타났다. 또한, 가부장적 가정환경과 성차별적 인식의 관계는 성별에 의해 조절되는 것으로 나타났는데, 구체적으로 남성에게서는 가부장적 가정환경이 성차별적 인식에 영향을 주는 것으로 나타났으나, 여성에게서는 이러한 영향이 나타나지 않았다. 마지막으로 남성에게서만 가부장적 가정환경과 제로섬 신념의 관계에서 성차별적 인식의 매개효과가 유의한 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 연구결과는 가부장적 가정환경은 남성의 성차별적 인식을 유발하고, 이러한 성차별적 인식은 제로섬 신념으로 연결될 가능성을 높인다고 볼 수 있다. 즉, 이러한 결과를 통해 남성에게서는 가부장적 가정환경이 성차별적 인식을 통해 제로섬 신념에 영향을 미칠 가능성이 확인되었다고 여겨진다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김병영, 정소희, 김영호 (2011). 남아선호 가정에서 성장한 기혼여성의 가족 관계 경험에 관한 질적사례연구. 한국사회복지질적연구, 5(2), 95-126.
  2. 김수아, 이예슬 (2017). 온라인 커뮤니티와 남성-약자 서사 구축. 한국여성학, 33(3), 67-107.
  3. 김예은, 연규진 (2018). 20-30대 여성의 미묘한 성차별 경험과 심리적 디스트레스의 관계. 한국심리학회지: 여성, 23(3), 499-523.
  4. 김은하 (2018). 일상 속 성차별 경험 척도 개발 및 타당화. 한국심리학회지: 문화 및 사회문제, 24(4), 593-614.
  5. 박원우, 김미숙, 정상명, 허규만 (2007). 동일방법편의(Common Method Bias)의 원인과 해결방안. 인사조직연구, 15(1), 89-133.
  6. 류연규, 김영미 (2019). 한국사회 젠더갈등인식에 관한 탐색적 연구: 성별 조절효과를 중심으로. 한국사회정책, 26(4), 131-160.
  7. 성윤희 (2020). 가부장적 가정환경과 대학생의 양가적 성차별주의의 관계: 성역할 고정관념을 통한 성별의 조절된 매개효과 검증. 인간발달연구, 27(4), 1-19.
  8. 성윤희, 정주리 (2019). 가부장적 가정환경이 남성의 우울에 미치는 영향: 성차별적 인식과 남성 성역할 갈등의 매개효과. 아시아교육연구, 20(2), 547-567.
  9. 안상수, 김혜숙, 안미영 (2005). 한국형 양가적 성차별주의 척도(K-ASI) 개발 및 타당화 연구. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 19(2), 39-66.
  10. 안상수, 김인순, 김금미 (2016). 개정 한국형남녀평등의식검사 개발(I). 서울: 한국여성정책연구원.
  11. 여성가족부 (2019). 2019년 한국의 성평등보고서. 서울: 여성가족부.
  12. 유주연, 안현의 (2020). 성인초기 남녀의 성차별 메타-인식에 대한 잠재프로파일 분석과 유형별 성역할갈등, 이성과의 거리감, 성차별 논쟁에 대한 지지도 차이. 한국심리학회지: 문화 및 사회문제, 26(4), 351-378.
  13. 윤병해, 고재홍 (2006). 양가적 성차별 태도에 따른 성폭력 피해자에 대한 비난 차이. 한국심리학회지: 여성, 11(1), 1-19.
  14. 이성식 (2011). 가부장적 가정의 청소년 비행에 미치는 영향에 있어서의 성별차이. 한국청소년연구, 62(8), 97-117.
  15. 정주리 (2011). 한국판 제로섬 신념 척도 타당화 연구. 한국심리학회지: 문화 및 사회문제, 27(3), 285-303.
  16. Amato, P. R., Booth, A., Johnson, D. R., & Rogers, S. J. (2007). Alone together: How marriage in America is changing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  17. Barstad, A. (2014). Equality is bliss? Relationship quality and the gender division of household labor. Journal of Family Issues, 35(7), 972-992. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X14522246
  18. Bond, M. H., Leung, K., Au, A., Tong, K. K., & Chemonges Nielson, Z. (2004). Combining social axioms with values in predicting social behaviors. European Journal of Personality, 18(3), 177-191. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.509
  19. Borawski, D. (2018). The loneliness of the zero-sum game loser. The balance of social exchange and belief in a zero-sum game as predictors of loneliness. Personality and Individual Differences, 135, 270-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.07.037
  20. Burleigh, T. (2016). "Your gain is my loss": An examination of zero-sum thinking with love in multi-partner romantic relationships and with grades in the university classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada,
  21. Castells, M. (1997). The power of identity. The information age: Economy. Society and culture, 2(3), 72-75.
  22. Cunningham, M. (2001). The Influence of Parental Attitudes and Behaviors on Children's Attitudes Toward Gender and Household Labor in Early Adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(1), 111-122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00111.x
  23. Davidal, S., & Ongis, M. (2019). The politics of zero-sum thinking: The relationship between political ideology and the belief that life is a zero-sum game. Science Advances, 5(12), eaay3761. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay3761
  24. Epstein, M., & Ward, L. M. (2011). Exploring Parent-Adolescent Communication About Gender: Results from Adolescent and Emerging Adult Samples. Sex Roles, 65(1), 108-118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9975-7
  25. Essess, V. M., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (1998). Intergroup competition and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration: An instrumental model of group conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 54(4), 699-724. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.911998091
  26. Esses, V. M., Dovidio, J. F., Danso, H. A., Jackson, L. M., & Semenya, A. H. (2005). Historical and modern perspectives on group competition. In Social psychology of prejudice: historical and contemporary issues/edited by Christian S. Crandall, Mark Schaller. Lawrence, Kan.: Lewinian Press, c2005.. Lawrence, Kan.: Lewinian Press
  27. Ghasemi, E., & Burley, H. (2015). Gender, affect, and math: a cross-national meta-analysis of Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study 2015 outcomes. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 7(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-019-0069-2
  28. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491-512. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.70.3.491
  29. Glick, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S. t., Eckes, T., Masser, B., Volpato, C. et al. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(5), 713-728. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.713
  30. Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford.
  31. Leung, K., Ip, O.K., & Leung, K. K. (2010), Social Cynicism and Job Satisfaction: A Longitudinal Analysis. Applied Psychology, 59(2), 318-338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2009.00392.x
  32. Levant, R. F. (1996). The new psychology of men. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27(3), 259-265. https://doi.org/10.1037//0735-7028.27.3.259
  33. Perkins, K. M., Dils, A. T., & Flusberg, S. J. (2020). The perceived threat of demographic shifts depends on how you think the economy works. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220951621
  34. Piotrowski, J., Rozycka-Tran, J., Baran, T., & Zemoltel-Plotrowska, M. (2019). Zero-sum thinking as mediator of the relationship of national attitudes with (un)willingness to host refugees in own country. International Journal of Psychology, 54(6), 722-730. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12538
  35. Pleck, J. H. (1981). The myth of masculinity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  36. Read, J. H. (2012). Is power zero-sum or variable-sum? Old arguments and new beginnings. Journal of Political Power, 5(1), 5-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2012.659865
  37. Roets, A., van Hiel, A., & Dhont, K. (2012). Is sexism a gender issue? A motivated social cognition perspective on men's and women's sexist attitudes toward own and other gender. European Journal of Personality, 26(3), 350-359. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.843
  38. Rozycka-Tran, J., Boski, P., & Wojciszke, B. (2015). Belief in a zero-sum game as a social axiom: A 37-nation study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(4), 525-548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115572226
  39. Rozycka-Tran, J., Piotrowski, J. P., Zemojtel-Piotrowska, M., Jurek, P., Osin, E. N., Adams, B. G., ... & Maltby, J. (2021). Belief in a zero-sum game and subjective well-being across 35 countries. Current Psychology, 40, 3575-3584 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00291-0
  40. Ruthig, J. C., Kehn, A., Gamblin, B. W., Vanderzanden, K., & Jones, K. (2017). When women's gains equal men's losses: Predicting a zero-sum perspective of gender status. Sex Roles, 76(1-2), 17-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0651-9
  41. Schmitt, M. T., & Wirth, J. H. (2009). Evidence that gender differences in social dominance orientation result from gendered self-stereotyping and group-interested responses to patriarchy. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33(4), 429-436. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2009.01520.x
  42. Shapiro, J. R., &Williams, A. M. (2012). The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls' and women's performance and interest in STEM fields. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 66(3-4), 175-183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0051-0
  43. Sicard, A., & Martinot, D. (2018). School as a zero-sum game between boys and girls: Gender differences in perceptions. International Review of Social Psychology, 31(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.38
  44. Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Brief, D. (1995). Group dominance and the political psychology of gender: A cross-cultural comparison. Political Psychology, 16(2), 381-396. https://doi.org/10.2307/3791836
  45. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press.
  46. Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007). Antecedents of men's hostile and benevolent sexism: The dual roles of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(2), 160-172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206294745
  47. Sinclair, S., Levin, S., & Sidanius, J. (1998). The interface between ethnic and social system attachment: The differential effects of hierarchy-enhancing and hierarchy-attenuating environments. Journal of Social Issues, 54(4), 741-757. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.931998093
  48. Stefaniak, A., Mallet, R. K., & Wohl, M. J. A. (2020). Zero-sum beliefs shape advantaged allies' support for collective action. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(6), 1259-1275. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2674
  49. von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  50. Wilkins, C. L., Wellman, J. D., Babbitt, L. G., Toosi, N. R., & Schad, K. D. (2015). You can win but I can't lose: Bias against high-status groups increases their zero-sum beliefs about discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 57, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.10.008
  51. Wong, Y. J., Klann, E. M., Bijelic, N., & Aguayo, F. (2017). The link between men's zero-sum gender beliefs and mental health: Finding from Chile and Croatia. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 18(1), 12-19. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000035