Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Society for Journalism & Communication (KSJCS)
[ Article ]
Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 64, No. 5, pp.46-80
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Oct 2020
Received 10 Aug 2020 Revised 28 Sep 2020 Accepted 05 Oct 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2020.64.5.002

소통 전략으로서 미러링의 효과 : 관점 수용과 외집단에 대한 부정적 감정을 중심으로

안재경** ; 민영***
**미국 펜실베이니아대학교 커뮤니케이션대학원 박사과정 chloeastella@gmail.com
***고려대학교 미디어학과 교수 ymin@korea.ac.kr
Mirroring as a communicative strategy : The effects of Mirroring on perspective-taking and negative feelings toward outgroups
Jae-Kyung Ahn** ; Young Min***
**Doctoral Student, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania chloeastella@gmail.com
***Professor, School of Media and Communication, Korea University, corresponding author ymin@korea.ac.kr

초록

최근 페미니즘 담론에서 대항발화 전략으로 주목받은 미러링은 타인의 행위를 그대로 비추어 따라 하되 타인(이 속한 집단)을 비난하는 어휘를 덧붙이는 말하기 방식이다. 그러나 미러링에 대한 개념적 정의는 여전히 모호하며 미러링의 독립적인 효과에 대한 연구 역시 부족하다. 이 연구는 미러링을 심리치료극의 ‘거울기법’과 ‘무례한 말하기’가 교차하는 ‘무례한 거울기법’으로 개념화하여, 거울기법과 미러링(무례한 거울기법) 말하기가 관점 수용, 젠더 문제에 관한 관심, 여성의 집합적 효능감, 그리고 성별 외집단을 향한 부정적 감정에 미치는 효과를 알아보았다. 여성 140명과 남성 140명을 대상으로 한 실험 결과, 거울기법과 미러링은 (각각 반론하기와 무례하지 않은 거울기법에 비해) 남성의 관점 수용과 여성의 집합적 효능감에 유의미한 변화를 가져오지 못했다. 한편 거울기법 말하기는 젠더 문제에 관한 관심을 증가시켰는데, 이 효과는 남성 청자에서만 유의미하게 나타났다. 특히 남성 집단에서, 무례한 거울기법보다 무례하지 않은 거울기법이 젠더 문제에 대한 관심을 높이는 데 더 효과적이었다. 마지막으로, 미러링에 노출되었을 때 여성 전체에 대한 남성의 부정적 감정은 증가하지 않았으나, 페미니스트에 대한 부정적 감정은 증가하였다. 미러링을 통해 추구하려는 가치와 관찰된 효과 사이의 차이를 확인하며 그 함의를 논의하였다.

Abstract

‘Mirroring’ has recently drawn attention in South Korea as an uncivil feminist strategy in the form of online counterspeech. It often refers to a communicative strategy that mimics some of the behaviors or expressions of an outgroup, usually adding remarks disparaging the outgroup. Some scholars attend to how Mirroring has contributed to invigorating the online feminist movement, while other critics have focused on Mirroring’s extremity or the negative repercussions it brought in the online sphere. These conflicting views surrounding the role of Mirroring represent the amount of public attention Mirroring has generated. However, the conceptual definition of Mirroring still remains equivocal, which thereby leads to a lack of empirical research on its independent effects. To fill this gap, we conceptualized Mirroring as a communicative strategy combining mirroring techniques (often used in psychotherapy) and incivility. Here, the mirroring technique refers to one of the psychotherapeutic approaches that makes a protagonist face directly with someone else who imitates her or his role. What makes Mirroring unique is that it presents mirroring techniques in a verbal format and intentionally combines them with uncivil (often insulting) remarks. To examine the possible consequences that Mirroring speeches could have on both women and men, we explored how Mirroring messages affect the level of perspective-taking, interest in gender issues, women’s collective efficacy, and negative feelings toward gender outgroups. Our results from an online survey experiment (N = 280) showed that female and male participants (n =140, respectively) responded in significantly different ways to the administered Mirroring messages. Mirroring did not induce a significant change in men’s perspective-taking or improve women's perceived collective efficacy. Exposure to mirroring techniques led to an increase in men’s interest in various gender issues, especially when the messages were presented in a relatively polite manner. Furthermore, exposure to a Mirroring message did not increase men’s negative feelings toward women in general although it triggered their negative emotions toward feminist groups. On the other hand, female participants did not show a higher level of interest in gender issues or express more negative feelings toward men when exposed to a Mirroring speech. Based on some conceptual clarification, this study attempted to empirically shed light on how Mirroring could or could not function as a successful communicative strategy between different gender groups. Beyond questions such as whether Mirroring is good or bad for the public or whether Mirroring is a normatively desirable strategy, the implications of this study were discussed in terms of the discrepancies between the claimed value of Mirroring and the observed effects.

Keywords:

Mirroring, Mirroring technique, Incivility, Perspective-taking, Feminism

키워드:

미러링, 거울기법, 무례한 표현, 관점 수용, 페미니즘

Acknowledgments

This study is based on the master’s thesis of the first author(이 논문은 주저자의 고려대학교 일반대학원 미디어학과 석사학위논문을 토대로 재구성됐음).

References

  • Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452-471. [https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2202131]
  • Aronson, E., & Bridgeman, D. (1979). Jigsaw groups and the desegregated classroom: In pursuit of common goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5(4), 438-446. [https://doi.org/10.1177/014616727900500405]
  • Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 1-45). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527692]
  • Batson, C. D. (1994). Prosocial motivation: Why do we help others? In A. Tesser (Ed.), Advanced social psychology (pp. 333-381). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
  • Bettencourt, B. A., Dill, K. E., Greathouse, S. A., Charlton, K., & Mulholland, A. (1997). Evaluations of ingroup and outgroup members: The role of category-based expectancy violation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33(3), 244-275. [https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1996.1323]
  • Bradley, M. (2000). Emotion and motivation. In J. Cacioppo, L. Tassinary, & G. Bernston (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology (pp. 602-642). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1994). Collective self‐esteem consequences of outgroup derogation when a valued social identity is on trial. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24(6), 641-657. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420240603]
  • Brooks, D. J., & Geer, J. G. (2007). Beyond negativity: The effects of incivility on the electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 1-16. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00233.x]
  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085]
  • Carlson-Sabelli, L. (1989). Role reversal: A concept analysis and reinterpretation of the research literature. Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama and Sociometry, 42, 139-152. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232523341
  • Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658-679. [https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104]
  • Coutu, W. (1951). Role-playing vs. role-taking: An appeal for clarification. American Sociological Review, 16(2), 180-187. [https://doi.org/10.2307/2087691]
  • Cruz, A., Sales, C., Alves, P., & Moita, G. (2018). The core tchniques of Morenian psychodrama: A systematic review of literature. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1263. [https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01263]
  • Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113-126. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113]
  • Edyvane, D. (2019). Incivility as dissent. Political Studies, 68(1), 93-109. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719831983]
  • Fisher, D. R., Andrews, K. T., Caren, N., Chenoweth, E., Heaney, M. T., Leung, T., Perkins, L. N., & Pressman, J. (2019). The science of contemporary street protest: New efforts in the United States. Science Advances, 5(10), eaaw5461. [https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw5461]
  • Frantz, C. M., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (2000). Considering both sides: The limits of perspective taking. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22(1), 31-42. [https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2201_4]
  • Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 708. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.708]
  • Galinsky, A. D., Ku, G., & Wang, C. S. (2005). Perspective-taking and self-other overlap: Fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8(2), 109-124. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430205051060]
  • Garrett, R. K., Gvirsman, S. D., Johnson, B. K., Tsfati, Y., Neo, R., & Dal, A. (2014). Implications of pro-and counterattitudinal information exposure for affective polarization. Human Communication Research, 40(3), 309-332. [https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12028]
  • Gehlbach, H., Marietta, G., King, A. M., Karutz, C., Bailenson, J. N., & Dede, C. (2015). Many ways to walk a mile in another’s moccasins: Type of social perspective taking and its effect on negotiation outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 52(C), 523-532. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.035]
  • Gervais, B. T. (2017). More than mimicry? The role of anger in uncivil reactions to elite political incivility. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 29(3), 384-405. [https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edw010]
  • Gilbert, P. R. (2002). Discourses of female violence and societal gender stereotypes. Violence Against Women, 8(11), 1271-1300. [https://doi.org/10.1177/107780102762478019]
  • Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
  • Harris, S. (2001). Being politically impolite: Extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse & Society, 12(4), 451-472. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926501012004003]
  • Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J., & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Emotional contagion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2(3), 96-100. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770953]
  • Holt, R. R. (1970). On the interpersonal and intrapersonal consequences of expressing or not expressing anger. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 35(1), 8-12. [https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029609]
  • Janis, I. L., & King, B. T. (1954). The influence of role playing on opinion change. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49(2), 211-218. [https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056957]
  • Johnson, D. W. (1967). Use of role reversal in intergroup competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7(2), 135-141. [https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025001]
  • Johnson, D. W. (1971). Effectiveness of role reversal: Actor or listener. Psychological Reports, 28(1), 275-282. [https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1971.28.1.275]
  • Johnson, D. W., & Dustin, R. (1970). The initiation of cooperation through role reversal. The Journal of Social Psychology, 82(2), 193-203. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1970.9919951]
  • Kellerman, P. F. (1994). Role reversal in psychodrama. In P. Holmes, M. Karp, & M. Watson (Eds.), Psychodrama since Moreno: Innovations in theory and practice (pp. 263-279). New York, NY:Routledge.
  • Kim, B. (2018). Late modern misogyny and feminist politics: The case of IlBe, Megalia, and Womad. Journal of Korean Women’s Studies, 34(1), 1-31. [https://doi.org/10.30719/JKWS.2018.03.34.1.1]
  • Kim, S.-A. (2017). On the online community and the potentiality of conversation about feminism. Media, Gender & Culture, 32(3), 5-45. [https://doi.org/10.38196/mgc.2017.09.32.3.5]
  • Kim, S.-H. (2018). Mirroring the hate speech. Ilsan, South Korea: Yeon-am Seo-ga.
  • Kingwell, M. (1995). A civil tongue: Justice, dialogue and the politics of pluralism. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. [https://doi.org/10.5325/j.ctv14gp5wq]
  • Kipper, D. A., & Har-Even, D. (1984). Role‐playing techniques: The differential effect of behavior simulation interventions on the readiness to inflict pain. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40(4), 936-941. [https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(198407)40:4<936::AID-JCLP2270400411>3.0.CO;2-5]
  • Klandermans, P. G. (1997). The social psychology of protest. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
  • Lau, R. R. (1985). Two explanations for negativity effects in political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 29(1), 119-138. [https://doi.org/10.2307/2111215]
  • Mackie, D. M., Devos, T., & Smith, E. R. (2000). Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 602-616. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.4.602]
  • Mann, L., & Janis, I. L. (1968). A follow-up study on the long-term effects of emotional role playing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 339–342. [https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021243]
  • Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Miller, D. A., Cronin, T., Garcia, A. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (2009). The relative impact of anger and efficacy on collective action is affected by feelings of fear. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(4), 445-462. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209105046]
  • Mollica, K. A. (2003). The influence of diversity context on white men’s and racial minorities’ reactions to disproportionate group harm. The Journal of Social Psychology, 143(4), 415-431. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540309598454]
  • Moreno, J. L. (1952). Psychodramatic production techniques. Group Psychotherapy, 4, 243-273.
  • Moreno, J. L. (1978). Who shall survive? (3rd ed.). Beacon, NY: Beacon House.
  • Moreno, J. L., & Moreno, Z. T. (1975). Psychodrama (Vol. II). Beacon, NY: Beacon House.
  • Moreno, Z. T. (1946). Clinical psychodrama: Auxiliary ego double and mirror techinques. Sociometry, 9(2/3), 178-183. [https://doi.org/10.2307/2785002]
  • Mutz, D. C. (2002). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 111-126. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055402004264]
  • Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617201]
  • Mutz, D. C. (2015). In-your-face politics: The consequences of uncivil media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [https://doi.org/10.23943/princeton/9780691165110.001.0001]
  • O’Connor, M., Gutek, B. A., Stockdale, M., Geer, T. M., & Melançon, R. (2004). Explaining sexual harassment judgments: Looking beyond gender of the rater. Law and Human Behavior, 28(1), 69-95. [https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAHU.0000015004.39462.6e]
  • Park, D. (2017, November 23). ‘Sexual assault on children?’ Womad……‘Mirroring’ is gone and only ‘hate speech’ is left. Hankyoreh. Retrieved 3/2/20 from http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/society_general/820323.html#csidx369fe205f169822bc329a96a4e0aca9
  • Park, G. (2016). Mirroring the hate speech: Looking at the Age of Hate and the Megalian syndrome. Seoul: Bada Books.
  • Park, S. (2018, July 24). “Womad is an atypical cultural phenomenon.” Weekly DongA. Retrieved 3/2/20 from https://weekly.donga.com/List/3/all/11/1395016/1
  • Park, S. (2018, December 29). What did Mirroring and feminism achieve in 2018. dongA.com. Retrieved 3/2/20 from http://www.donga.com/news/article/all/20181229/93485862/1 [https://doi.org/10.22471/protective.2018.3.2.20]
  • Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741-763. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741]
  • Rhee, J. (2009). Civility, power and strategies in communication. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 53(4), 395-417.
  • Rothenberg, A. (1988). The creative process of psychotherapy. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
  • Sohn, H. (2016). Gendering media-affect theory: Focused on the Feminism Reboot in South Korea. Journal of Korean Literary History, 62, 341-365.
  • Song, H., Shin, S., & Park, S. (2006). Reading dissonant opinions on the Internet and its effects on argument repertoire and tolerance. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 50(5), 160-183.
  • Stewart, T. L., Laduke, J. R., Bracht, C., Sweet, B. A., & Gamarel, K. E. (2003). Do the “eyes” have it? A program evaluation of Jane Elliott’s “Blue-Eyes/Brown-Eyes” diversity training exercise. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(9), 1898-1921. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb02086.x]
  • Tedeschi, J. T., & Felson, R. B. (1994). Violence, aggression, and coercive actions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. [https://doi.org/10.1037/10160-000]
  • van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., Fischer, A. H., & Leach, C. W. (2004). Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 649-664. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.649]
  • Wasow, O. (2020). Agenda seeding: How 1960s black protests moved elites, public opinion and voting. American Political Science Review, 114(3), 638-659. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305542000009X]
  • Wiener, R. L., Hurt, L., Russell, B., Mannen, K., & Gasper, C. (1997). Perceptions of sexual harassment: The effects of gender, legal standard, and ambivalent sexism. Law and Human Behavior, 21(1), 71-93. [https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024818110678]
  • Yablonsky, L., & Enneis, J. M. (1956). Psychodrama theory and practice. In F. Fromm-Reichmann & J. L. Moreno (Eds.), Progress in psychotherapy (Vol. 1) (pp. 149-161). New York, NY: Grune & Stratton.
  • Yaniv, D. (2012). Dynamics of creativity and empathy in role reversal: Contributions from neuroscience. Review of General Psychology, 16(1), 70-77. [https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026580]
  • Yoo, M. (2016). The Megalian revolution. Seoul: Baumealame.
  • Yoon, J. (2015). Megalian controversy as a revolutionary mirror: Is ‘man-hating’ possible? Korean Feminist Philosophy, 24, 5-79. [https://doi.org/10.17316/kfp.24..201511.5]
  • Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1972). Directionality of transitory dominance as a communication variable affecting humor appreciation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(2), 191. [https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033384]

Appendix

부록

  • 김보명 (2018). 혐오의 정동경제학과 페미니스트 저항: <일간 베스트>, <메갈리아>, 그리고 <워마드>를 중심으로. <한국여성학>, 34권 1호, 1-31.
  • 김선희 (2018). <혐오 미러링>. 일산: 연암서가.
  • 김수아 (2017). 남성 중심 온라인 커뮤니티에서의 페미니즘 주제 토론 가능성: ‘역차별’ 담론분석을 중심으로. <미디어, 젠더 & 문화>, 32권 3호, 5-45.
  • 박가분 (2016). <혐오의 미러링: 혐오의 시대와 메갈리아 신드롬 바라보기>. 서울: 바다출판사.
  • 박다해 (2017, 11, 23). ‘아동 성폭행 파문’ 워마드…‘미러링’ 사라지고 ‘혐오’만. <한겨레>. Retrieved 3/2/20 from http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/society_general/820323.html#csidx369fe205f169822bc329a96a4e0aca9
  • 박세준 (2018, 7, 24). “워마드는 이례적인 문화 현상.” <주간동아>. Retrieved 3/2/20 from https://weekly.donga.com/List/3/all/11/1395016/1
  • 박세준 (2018, 12, 29). 2018년 미러링과 페미니즘은 무엇을 이뤘나. <동아닷컴>. Retrieved 3/2/20 from http://www.donga.com/news/article/all/20181229/93485862/1
  • 손희정 (2016). ‘느낀다’라는 전쟁 미디어-정동이론의 구축과 젠더. <민족문학사연구>, 62권, 341-365.
  • 송현주·신승민·박승관 (2006). 인터넷 게시판에서의 이견 읽기와 논변구성과 정치적 관용에 미치는 영향. <한국언론학보>, 50권 5호, 160-183.
  • 유민석 (2016). <메갈리아의 반란>. 서울: 봄알람.
  • 윤지영 (2015). 전복적 반사경으로서의 메갈리안 논쟁: 남성 혐오는 가능한가. <한국여성철학>, 24권, 5-79.
  • 이준웅 (2009). 가는 말이 험해야 오는 말이 곱다: 의사소통 예절, 권력, 그리고 전략. <한국언론학보>, 53권 4호, 395-417.