The Korean Journal of Applied Statistics (응용통계연구)

The Korean Statistical Society (한국통계학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A study of the Korea-China-Japan trilateral relationship and national identities via principal component analysis

주성분분석으로 추정한 한·중·일 3국의 정체성

  • Park, Heungsun (Department of Statistics, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies) ;
  • Han, Min (Department of Psychology, Woosong University) ;
  • Yang, Un-Chul (The Sejong Institute) ;
  • Lee, EunJi (Department of Statistics, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies)
  • 박흥선 (한국외국어대학교 통계학과) ;
  • 한민 (우송대학교 심리학과) ;
  • 양운철 (세종연구소) ;
  • 이은지 (한국외국어대학교 통계학과)
  • Received : 2019.03.04
  • Accepted : 2019.04.05
  • Published : 2019.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

There is ample research on the Korea-China-Japan trilateral relationship in various directions that includes geopolitical aspects. There still exist escalated tensions in politics and diplomacy despite the remarkable growth in the economic and cultural exchanges between these countries. This study presents a way of representing national identity based on survey results via principal component analysis, and investigates if these national identities can be related to conflict and cooperation among the three countries. The results show that the attachment to the nation does not affect the conflicts between the countries and that a more friendly awareness of other countries tends to give a positive effect to cooperation between countries.

한 중 일 3국에 대한 연구는 정치 경제 외교를 비롯한 여러 분야에서 지정학적 관점을 비롯한 여러 방법으로 분석되어 왔다. 최근에 한 중 일 3국 간 경제적 문화적 교류는 어느 때보다 활발한 상태이지만 정치 외교분야에서 피할 수 없는 갈등은 점점 심화되고 있다. 본 연구는 최근에 한 중 일 3국에서 실시한 설문조사를 토대로 국가 정체성에 대한 종합지수를 주성분분석을 통해 제시하였으며 이들이 한 중 일 3국의 협력과 갈등에 어떤 영향을 주고 있는지를 조사해 보았다. 그 결과 자국에 대한 애착도는 흔히 예상했던 것과 달리 국가 간 갈등에 유의한 영향을 끼치지 않았다. 반면에 이웃 나라에 대해 친근감이 증가할수록 국가 간 갈등에 덜 민감하게 반응하며 국가 간 협력에 대해서는 더 긍정적인 반응을 보였다.

Keywords

GCGHDE_2019_v32n3_435_f0001.png 이미지

Figure 2.1. The flowchart of national identity composite index via principal component analysis (PCA).

GCGHDE_2019_v32n3_435_f0002.png 이미지

Figure 3.1. Comparison of the national identities used in Hermann et al. (2009).

GCGHDE_2019_v32n3_435_f0003.png 이미지

Figure 3.2. Comparison of the national identity variables [V1], [V2], [V3], [V4].

GCGHDE_2019_v32n3_435_f0004.png 이미지

Figure 3.3. Comparison of national identity composite indeces.

GCGHDE_2019_v32n3_435_f0005.png 이미지

Figure 4.1. The Korea-Japan conflict and national identity composite indeces.

GCGHDE_2019_v32n3_435_f0006.png 이미지

Figure 5.1. Koran peninsula affairs as East Asia conflict and national identity composite indeces.

GCGHDE_2019_v32n3_435_f0007.png 이미지

Figure 5.2. The future of Korea-China relationship and national identity composite indeces.

Table 1.1. The national identity categories in Hermann et al. (2009) used in this article

GCGHDE_2019_v32n3_435_t0001.png 이미지

Table 2.1. The suggested national identity categories

GCGHDE_2019_v32n3_435_t0002.png 이미지

Table 2.2. the age distribution of the survey respondents

GCGHDE_2019_v32n3_435_t0003.png 이미지

Table 3.1. Multiple comparison test using Tukey statistic for 4 subcategories

GCGHDE_2019_v32n3_435_t0004.png 이미지

Table 3.2. National identity variables [V1]–[V4] and national identity composite indeces

GCGHDE_2019_v32n3_435_t0005.png 이미지

Table 4.1. the frequency table for Korea-Japan conflict over past history

GCGHDE_2019_v32n3_435_t0006.png 이미지

Table 5.1. Is Korean peninsula affairs threatening the peace of East Asia?

GCGHDE_2019_v32n3_435_t0007.png 이미지

References

  1. Akerlof, G. and Kranton, R. (2008). Identity, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK.
  2. Benabou, R. and Tirole, J. (2006). Incentives and Prosocial Behavior, American Economic Review, 96, 1652-1678. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.96.5.1652
  3. Bowles, S. (1998). Endogenous Preferences: the Cultural Consequences of Markets and Other Economic Institutions, Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 75-111.
  4. Chi, S. H. (2016). Geopolitics of conflicts and cooperations in Northeast Asia -trends and challenges-, The Geographical Journal of Korea, 50, 295-314.
  5. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and application, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98
  6. Crocker, J. and Luhtanen, R. (1990). Collective self-esteem and ingroup bias, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 60-67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.1.60
  7. Dufwenberg, M. and Guth, W. (2007). Why do you hate me? On the survival of spite, Economic Letters, 67, 147-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(99)00261-X
  8. Federal Reserve Board (2013). Insights into the financial experiences of older adults: a forum briefing paper, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
  9. Hermann, R., Isernia, P., and Segatti, P. (2009). Attachment to the nation and international relations: dimensions of identity and their relationship to war and peace, Political Psychology, 30, 721-754. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00723.x
  10. Huddy, L. and Khatib, N. (2007). American patriotism, national identity, and political involvement, American Journal of Political Science, 51, 63-77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00237.x
  11. Jung, S. C. (2014). Asia's paradox? - economic cooperation and security conflict in East Asia, World Politics, Institute of International Studies, Seoul National University, 21, 19-52.
  12. Kim, B. S. K. and Omizo, M. M. (2005). Asian and European American cultural values, collective selfesteem, acculturative stress, cognitive flexibility, and general self-efficacy among Asian American college students, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 412-419. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.3.412
  13. Kim, T. (2018). The rise of value diplomacy and bloc-ization of values: comparing great and middle powers, IFANS Focus, Korea National Diplomatic Academy, 2018-31E, 3-4.
  14. Macrae, C. N. and Bodenhausen, G. V. (2001). Social cognition: categorical person perception, British Journal of Psychology, 92, 239-255. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712601162059
  15. Meltzoff, A. and Moore, M. (1985). Cognitive foundations and social functions of imitation and intermodal representation in infancy. In J. Mehler and R. Fox (Eds.), Neonate Cognition: Beyond the Blooming, Buzzing Confusion (pp. 139-156), Hillsdale, Erlbaum, NJ.
  16. Park, J. (2017). The effects of collective self-esteem, working hours on job satisfaction : moderating effect of social support and working environment, Journal of Early Childhood Education, 37, 435-452.
  17. Rosenberg, S. (1997). Multiplicity of selves. In R.D. Ashmore and L. Jussim (Eds.), Self and Identity (pp. 23-46), Oxford University Press, NY.
  18. Sedikides, C. and Brewer, M. (2001). Individual Self, Relational Self, Collective Self, Psychological Press, Philadelphia.
  19. Shayo, M. (2009). A model of social identity with an application to political economy: nation, class, and redistribution, American Political Science Review, 103, 147-174. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055409090194
  20. Sniderman, P. M., Hagendoorn, L., and Prior, M. (2004). Prediposing factors and situational triggers: Exclusionary reactions to immigrant minorities, American Political Science Review, 98, 35-49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305540400098X
  21. Tajfel, H. (1978). The achievement of group differentiation. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation Between Social Groups, Academic Press, London.
  22. Turner, J. C. and Oakes, P. J. (1989). Self-categorization theory and social influence. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence, Hillsdale, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., NJ
  23. Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge University Press, 18-22.