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. 66, No. 1, pp.127-160
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 28 Feb 2022
Received 13 Aug 2021 Accepted 14 Jan 2022 Revised 05 Feb 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2022.66.1.004

메시지 유형에 따른 진실성 및 공정성 평가 연구 : 한미 양국의 대학생과 커뮤니케이션 유형 비교를 중심으로

최예슬* ; 김유나** ; 박희선***
*고려대학교 미디어학부 석사과정 yeseul97@korea.ac.kr
**고려대학교 미디어학부 석사과정 becky7986@korea.ac.kr
***고려대학교 미디어학부 교수 heesunpark@korea.ac.kr
Evaluation of deceptive messages : Comparison of South Korean and U.S. American undergraduates in communication direction
Yeseul Choi* ; Yoona Kim** ; Hee Sun Park***
*Graduate student, School of Media and Communication, Korea University yeseul97@korea.ac.kr
**Graduate student, School of Media and Communication, Korea University becky7986@korea.ac.kr
***Professor, School of Media and Communication, Korea University, corresponding author heesunpark@korea.ac.kr

초록

본 연구는 커뮤니케이션 방향과 메시지 유형이 다양한 메시지의 진실성 및 공정성 평가에 미치는 영향에 대해 한국과 미국의 문화적 차이를 조사하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 정보조작이론(Information Manipulation Theory)에 따르면, 기만은 네 가지의 대화 격률(대화량 격률, 대화 품질 격률, 관련성 격률, 태도 격률)을 은밀하게 위반하여 메시지를 조작할 때 발생할 수 있다. 각 격률의 위반은 그 평가에 있어서 동일하지 않을 수 있기 때문에 현재 연구에서는 다양한 유형의 조작된 메시지가 개인이 각 격률을 위반한 메시지의 진실성을 평가하는 정도가 다를 수 있는지 질문했다. 진실성은 메시지가 얼마나 진실한지에 대한 인지적 차원을 다루는 반면, 공정성은 메시지가 얼마나 중립적이고 편향되지 않은지에 대한 판단과 관련된다. 한편, 문화가 개인의 가치와 인식에 영향을 미칠 수 있다는 점을 감안하여, 본 연구에서는 한국인과 미국인이 특히 직장에서 주고받는 메시지에 대한 판단이 다르다고 가정했다. 설문 실험은 한국과 미국의 학부생을 대상으로 본 연구에 참여하여 자신을 직장인이라고 상상하고 상향, 하향 또는 수평 커뮤니케이션 방향으로 전달되는 메시지를 평가하도록 요청했다. 본 연구에서는 2(국가: 한국과 미국) X3(커뮤니케이션 방향: 하향 커뮤니케이션, 상향 커뮤니케이션, 수평적 커뮤니케이션) X5(메시지 유형: 기본 메시지 1개, 격률 위반 메시지 4개)를 개체 간 요인(between-subject)으로 설계되었다. 참가자들은 15개의 시나리오 중 하나에 무작위로 할당되었다. 그 결과, 한국인들은 명료성 위반 메시지가 다른 메시지보다 더 진실되고 품질 위반 메시지가 가장 덜 진실하다고 평가했지만, 공정성 평가는 메시지 유형에 따라서 차이가 없었다. 한편, 미국인은 기준 메시지를 다른 메시지보다 진실성과 공정성에서 높게 평가하고, 대화 품질 격률 위반 메시지를 가장 덜 진실하고 가장 공정하지 않다고 평가했다. 전반적으로 커뮤니케이션 방향은 메시지의 진실성과 공정성 평가에 차등적인 영향을 미치지 않았다. 그러나, 국가별로 세부적으로 살펴보면, 한국인만 하향 커뮤니케이션 상황에서 전달된 메시지가 상향 커뮤니케이션 상황에서 전달된 메시지보다 더 진실한 것으로 평가하였다. 이러한 결과는 한국인과 미국인의 집단주의적 성향과 개인주의적 성향의 차이가 메시지의 진실성 및 공정성 평가에 영향을 미치면, 진실성 평가와 공정성 평가가 명확하게 구분되지 않음을 시사한다. 또한, 메시지가 위조된 정보(즉, 대화 품질 격률 위반 메시지)를 포함하는 경우, 이러한 메시지는 양쪽 모두에서 명백히 기만적인 것으로 간주되기 때문에 한국과 미국인은 메시지에 대한 진실성 판단에 차이가 없을 수 있다. 그러나, 메시지에 다른 격률 위반(대화량, 관련성, 태도)이 포함되어 있는 경우에는 개인이 처한 상황에 따라 문화적 차이가 나타날 수 있다. 기타 결과 및 그 해석은 본 논문에서 더 자세히 논의하였다.

Abstract

This study aims to examine cultural differences between South Koreans and U.S. Americans in terms of the effects of communication direction and message type on truthfulness and fairness evaluation of messages varying in maxim-violation. According to Information Manipulation Theory, deception can occur when messages are manipulated by covertly violating four conversational maxims: quantity, quality, relevance, and manner maxims. Because covert violation of each maxim may not be equal in its intended effects, the current research asked if the various types of manipulated messages can differ in the extent to which individuals evaluate veracity and fairness of each maxim-violated message. Veracity (i.e., truthfulness) deals with the cognitive dimension of how truthful the messages are, while fairness is associated with the judgment of how the messages are neutral and unbiased. Given that culture can affect one’s values and perceptions, the current study hypothesizes that people in Korea and the U.S. differ in their judgment of messages, which are exchanged at workplaces especially. Undergraduates in South Korea and the U.S. participated in this study and were asked to imagine themselves as employees and to evaluate messages given in upward, downward, or horizontal communication directions. This study used a 2 (nation: Korea and U.S.) X 3 (communication direction: downward, upward, and horizontal) X 5 (message: one baseline message and four messages with maxims-violated) between-subject design. Participants were randomly assigned to one of fifteen scenarios. The findings showed that Koreans evaluated the clarity-violation message as more truthful than the other messages and the quality-violation message as the least truthful, but fairness evaluation did not differ across the message types. On the other hand, U.S. Americans evaluated the baseline message as higher in truthfulness and in fairness than the other messages and quality-violated message as the least truthful and the least fair. Overall, communication direction did not differentially affect truthfulness or fairness evaluations of messages. But when examined specifically for each nation, only Koreans showed that messages given in the downward communication situation were evaluated as more truthful than those given in the upward communication situation. These findings may indicate that the collectivistic versus individualistic orientation differences between Koreans and Americans influence truthfulness and fairness evaluations of messages and that truth judgment is not clearly differentiated from fairness judgment. In addition, when a message contains falsified information (i.e., the message with quality maxim violation), Koreans and Americans may not differ in their veracity judgment of the message since such message is seen as distinctly deceptive (i.e., an outright lie) in both cultures. When a message contains other maxim violations (quantity, relevance, or manner), however, cultural differences may appear, depending on the situations individuals find themselves in. Other findings and implications thereof are discussed in more detail in the paper.

Keywords:

Information Manipulation Theory, deception, organization communication, cultural differences

키워드:

정보조작이론, 거짓말, 조직 커뮤니케이션, 문화적 차이

References

  • Aune, R. K., & Waters, L. L. (1994). Cultural differences in deception: Motivations to deceive in Samoans and North Americans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(2), 159-172. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(94)90026-4]
  • Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Chovil, N., & Mullett, J. (1990). Truths, lies, and equivocations: The effects of conflicting goals on discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9(1-2), 135–161. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X9091008]
  • Bello, D., Leung, K., Radebaugh, L., Tung, R., & Witteloostujin, A. (2009). From the editors: Student samples in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(3), 361-364. [https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2008.101]
  • Beom, K. S., &　Park, H. M. (2014). A cross-cultural comparative study on equivocated messages between Korea and U.S. focused on politeness and communication competence. Journal of Public Relations, 18(1), 7-40. [https://doi.org/10.15814/jpr.2014.18.1.7]
  • Cheon, D. S., & Yoo, Y. M. (2021). A study on job satisfaction of social workers: Focusing on organizational justice and organizational communication. Journal of Public Society, 11(3), 215-240. [https://doi.org/10.21286/jps.2021.08.11.3.215]
  • Choi, Y. H. (2013). Intercultural communication. Seoul: Communication books.
  • Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of personality and social psychology, 58(6), 1015. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015]
  • Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386]
  • Drunkman, J. N., & Kam, C. D. (2011). Students as experimental participants. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, 1, 41-57. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921452.004]
  • Dynel, M. (2015). Intention to deceive, bald-faced lies, and deceptive implicature: Insights into lying at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(3), 309-332. [https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2015-0016]
  • Go, T. K., Lim, H. J., Wang, J. H., Choi, D. E., & Lee, C. S. (2021). Generational culture and organizational culture: Focusing on work satisfaction and cultural differences between generations in the Korean businesses. The Korean Journal of Cultural Sociology, 29(4), 39-96. [https://doi.org/10.17328/kjcs.2021.29.2.002]
  • Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, CA: Harvard University Press.
  • Griffith, J. A., Connelly, S., & Thiel, C. E. (2011). Leader deception influences on leader-member exchange and subordinate organizational commitment. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(4), 508-521. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051811403765]
  • Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. W. (2004). Organizational behavior(10th Eds.). Mason, Ohio: Thomson/South-Western.
  • Hong, H. S., & Ryu, E. Y. (2020). Social relationship and organizational behavior. Korean Review of Organizational Studies, 17(2), 91-117. [https://doi.org/10.21484/kros.2020.17.2.91]
  • Hubbell, A. P., Chory-Assad, R. M., & Medved, C. E. (2005). A new approach to the study of deception in organizations. North American Journal of Psychology, 7(2),171-180.
  • Huff, L. & Kelley, L. (2003). Levels of organizational trust in individualist versus collectivist societies: A seven-nation study. Organization Science, 14(1), 81–90. [https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.1.81.12807]
  • Jacobs, S., Dawson, E. J., & Brashers, D. (1996). Information manipulation theory: A replication and assessment. Communication Monographs, 63(1), 70-82. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759609376375]
  • Judge, T. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Organizational justice and stress: The mediating role of work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 395-404. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.395]
  • Kang, Y. K. (2019, April 29). Dissecting Korean office workers. MIDAS, 2019(5), 120-121.
  • Kim, E. J., & Beom, K. S. (2011). The roles of equivocation on perception of politeness and communication competence in supervisor-subordinate relationships in Korean organization. Korean Journal of Advertising, 13(3), 234-266.
  • Kim, H. J. (2021, 7, 7). Heineken, Tmon, CJ, LG, Lotte⋯“listen to MZ generation's opinions”. The Segye Times. Retrieved from https://www.segye.com/newsView/20210707509222
  • Kim, K. M., & Park, D. K. (2011). The influence of organizational justice on individuals' prosocial behaviors: The moderating effect of Individualism and Collectivism. Korean Psychological Journal of Culture and Social Issues, 17(4), 395-413.
  • Kim, K. T., Moon, S. I., & Hwang, H. J. (2020). An extension of Information Manipulation Theory to explain cultural similarities and differences in deception between South Korea and the U.S. Journal of Speech, Media & Communication Research, 19(4), 339-374.
  • Kim, M. S. (1994). Cross-cultural comparisons of the perceived importance of conversational constraints. Human Communication Research, 21(1), 128-151. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1994.tb00343.x]
  • Kwon, J. S. (2014). A Meta-analytic review of the relationship between the justice and outcome: Cultural difference between Korean and North American. Journal of The Korean Data Analysis Society, 16(3), 1445-1457.
  • Lam, S. S. K., Schaubroeck, J., & Aryee, S. (2002). Relationship between overall fairness and employee work outcomes: A cross national study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 1-18. [https://doi.org/10.1002/job.131]
  • Lapinski, M. K., & Levine, T. R. (2000). Culture and information manipulation theory: The effects of self-construal and locus of benefit on information manipulation. Communication Studies, 51(1), 55-73. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970009388509]
  • Lunenburg, F. C. (2010). Formal communication channels: Upward, downward, horizontal, and external. Focus on Colleges, universities & schools, 4(1), 1-7.
  • Luthans, F., & Larsen, J. K. (1986). How managers really communicate. Human relations, 39(2), 161-178. [https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678603900205]
  • Lee, E. H. (2003). Interpersonal speech ; Speech communication between a higher officer and a subordinate. Journal of Speech Communication, 6, 35-55.
  • Lee, G. H. (2017). Communication, organizational trust, and organizational involvement. Locality & Communication, 21(4), 65-88.
  • Lee, J. G., & Jo, Y. G. (2015). Effects of organization communication on job satisfaction, communication satisfaction, and turnover intention: Focusing on the moderating effect of trust. The Korean Association for Policy Studies, 2015, 716-739.
  • Lim, S. H., & Park, S. S. (2021). Impact of organizational fairness and communication on stress for football referees. The Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 21(17), 129-139. [https://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2021.21.17.129]
  • Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224]
  • Massi Lindsey, L. L., Dunbar, N. E., & Russell, J. C. (2011). Risky business or managed event? Perceptions of power and deception in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict, 15(1), 55-80.
  • McCornack, S. A. (1992). Information manipulation theory. Communication Monographs, 59(1), 1-16. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376245]
  • McCornack, S. A., Levine, T. R., Solowczuk, K. A., Torres, H. I., & Campbell. D. M. (1992). When the alteration of information is viewed as deception: An empirical test of information manipulation theory. Communication Monographs, 59(1), 17-29. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376246]
  • Miller, M. J., & Manata, B. (2020). The effects of workplace inclusion on employee assimilation outcomes. International Journal of Business Communication. 1-25. [https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488420976805]
  • Mittal, R. (2015). Testing the applicability of Information Manipulation Theory (IMT) in Indian organizational context. Research Journal of Social Science & Management, 4(11), 25-32.
  • Morden, T., & Bowles, D. (1998). Management in South Korea: A review. Management Decision, 36(5), 316-330. [https://doi.org/10.1108/00251749810220522]
  • Murai, J. (1998). Perceived deceptiveness of verbal message: An examination of Information Manipulation Theory. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 69(5), 401–407. [https://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.69.401]
  • No, H. S. (2021, 6, 13). ‘To be fair and empathize’⋯Organizational culture is innovating. The Seoul Economic Daily. Retrieved from https://www.sedaily.com/NewsVIew/22NMEEN5MM
  • Park, H. S., & Ahn, J. Y. (2007). Cultural differences in judgment of truthful and deceptive messages. Western Journal of Communication, 71(4), 294-315. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310701672877]
  • Park, K. S. (1998). Communication patterns of Koreans : Transactional analysis of Chemyun , Nunchi and Gibun. Korean Journal of Communication Studies, 6, 249-284.
  • Park, S. H., & Jeon, J. H. (2019). A study on English request emails by Korean and American office professionals. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 19(1), 142-164. [https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.19.1.201903.142]
  • Pettit, J. D., Goris, J. R., & Vaught, B. C. (1997). An examination of organizational communication as a moderator of the relationship between job performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 34(1), 81-98. [https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369703400105]
  • Santarcangelo, M., Cribbie, R. A., & Hubbard, A. S. E. (2004). Improving accuracy of veracity judgment through cue training. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 98(3), 1039–1048. [https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.98.3.1039-1048]
  • Shin, Y. G., & Baek, S. G., &　Han, I, S. (2008). Organizational behavior(3rd Eds.). Seoul: Korea National Open University Press.
  • Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Torelli, C. J., Leslie, L. M., Stoner, J. L., & Puente, R. (2014). Cultural determinants of status: Implications for workplace evaluations and behaviors. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123(1), 34–48. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.11.001]
  • Yansen, A., Supriyati, Y., & Kadir. (2020). The influence of employee promotion, upward downward communication and work environment on job satisfaction of PT. Holcim Indonesia, Tbk. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 10(1), 176-185. [https://doi.org/10.5296/ijhrs.v10i1.15797]
  • Yeung, L. N. T., Levine, T. R., & Nishiyama, K. (1999). Information manipulation theory and perceptions of deception in Hong Kong. Communication Reports, 12(1), 1-11. [https://doi.org/10.1080/08934219909367703]
  • Yoo, S. O, &　Shin, H. C. (2011). A study of internal communication climate factors and their effects on trust among employees. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 55(3), 54-81.

Appendix

부록 I. 국내 참고문헌

  • 강윤경 (2019). [Click] 대한민국 직장인 해부 – 직장인이 많이 하는 거짓말 외. <마이더스>, 2019권 5호, 120-121.
  • 고태경·임현지·왕정하·최다은·이철승 (2021). 세대 문화와 기업 문화: 기업 내 세대 간 문화적 차이에 따른 일 만족도를 중심으로. <문화와 사회>, 29권 4호, 39-96.
  • 권정숙 (2014). 조직공정성 통합연구: 메타분석을 통한 한국과 북미 비교연구. <Journal of The Korean Data Analysis Society>, 16권 3호, 1445-1457.
  • 김기태·문신일·황현정 (2020). 거짓말의 문화 간 유사성과 차이점을 설명하기 위한 정보조작이론(Information Manipulation Theory)의 확장. <한국소통학보>, 19권 4호, 339-374.
  • 김경민·박동건 (2011). 개인주의·집단주의와 조직 공정성(Organizational Justice)에 대한 인식이 조직 내 구성원의 친사회적 행동에 미치는 영향. <한국심리학회지: 문화 및 사회문제>, 17권 4호, 395-413.
  • 김은정·범기수 (2011). 공손성과 커뮤니케이션 능력의 관점에서 본 애매한 언술전략에 관한 연구: 공공기관 내 상사-부하 간 커뮤니케이션을 중심으로. <한국광고홍보학보>, 13권 3호, 234-266.
  • 김현주 (2021, 07, 07). 하이네켄, 티몬, CJ, LG, 롯데그룹⋯“MZ세대 의견에 귀 기울인다”. <세계일보>. Retrieved 7/30/21 from https://www.segye.com/newsView/20210707509222
  • 노현섭 (2021, 06, 13). ‘공정하게 공감되게’⋯조직문화도 혁신중. <서울경제>. Retrieved 7/31/21 from https://www.sedaily.com/NewsVIew/22NMEEN5MM
  • 박기순 (1998). 문화간 커뮤니케이션의 실증적 연구: 한국인의 커뮤니케이션: 체면-눈치-기분의 상호거래적 분석에 대한 시론. <커뮤니케이션학 연구>, 6권, 249-284.
  • 박상희·전지현 (2019). 한국과 미국 직장인의 영어 요청 이메일 비교 연구. <영어학>, 19권 1호, 142-164.
  • 범기수·박하민 (2014). 상사 – 부하 간 애매한 표현과 직설적 비판이 공손성과 커뮤니케이션능력에 대한 인식에 미치는 영향: 한-미 간 비교문화연구. <홍보학연구>, 18권1호, 7-40.
  • 신유근·백삼균·한인수 (편) (2008). <조직행위론> (제3판). 서울: 한국방송통신대학교출판부.
  • 유선욱·신호창 (2011). 사내 커뮤니케이션 기풍적 요인과 조직 구성원간 신뢰와의 관계에 대한 연구. <한국언론학보>, 55권 3호, 54-81.
  • 이건혁 (2017). 커뮤니케이션과 조직 신뢰, 그리고 조직 몰입: 지식창출의 효과를 중심으로. <지역과 커뮤니케이션>, 21권 4호, 65-88.
  • 이은희 (2003). 대인 화법; 상사와 부하간의 대화법. <화법연구>, 6권, 35-55.
  • 이중길·조윤직 (2015, 12월). <조직커뮤니케이션이 직무만족, 커뮤니케이션만족, 이직의도에 미치는 영향: 신뢰의 조절효과를 중심으로>. 한국정책학회 동계학술발표논문집.
  • 임승현·박상섭 (2021). 축구심판들의 조직공정성과 조직커뮤니케이션이 스트레스에 미치는 영향. <학습자중심교과교육연구>, 21권 17호, 129-139.
  • 천다솜·유영미 (2021). 사회복지사의 직무만족에 관한 연구 : 조직공정성, 조직커뮤니케이션을 중심으로. <공공사회연구>, 11권 3호, 215-240.
  • 최윤희 (2013). <문화 간 커뮤니케이션>. 서울: 커뮤니케이션북스.
  • 홍혜승·류은영 (2020). 직장 내 사회적 관계와 조직행태. <한국조직학회보>, 17권 2호, 91-117.