초록
본 연구는 간호대학생의 MBTI 선호지표에 따른 갈등관리유형의 차이를 확인하기 위한 서술적 조사연구이다 자료수집은 2023년 8월 30일부터 9월 30일까지였다. 자료분석은 independent t-test, One-way ANOVA, Scheffe's를 시행하였다. 연구결과 갈등관리유형에 유의미한 차이를 보이는 MBTI지표 중 에너지 방향에서 I는 E보다 회피가 높았다(t=-3.776, p<0.01). 의사결정기능의 경우 F가 T보다 양보(t=-3.478, p<0.01)와 회피(t=-3.389, p<0.01)가 높았고, T가 F보다 지배가 높았다(t=2.070, p<0.5). 외부생활 대처양식의 경우 J가 P보다 협력(t=2.756, p<0.01)과 타협(t=2.044, p<0.5)이 높았다. MBTI의 심리기능유형에서는 NF형이 ST형보다 양보가 높았고(F=4.174, p<0.05), SF형이 ST형보다 회피가 높았다(F=4.202, p<0.05). MBTI 의사결정기능 유형과 외부생활 대처양식을 조합해서 갈등관리유형의 차이를 분석한 결과는 FJ형이 FP형 보다 협력이(F=2.907, p<0.05), FJ형이 TP형보다 양보가(F=4.662, p<0.01), FJ형이 TJ형보다 회피가 높았다(F=3.327, p<0.05). MBTI의 태도지표는 EJ형이 EP형 보다 협력이 높았고(F=2.817, p<0.05), IP형이 EP형 보다 회피가 유의미하게 높았다(F=4.551, p<0.01). 본 연구에서는 현재까지 국내에서는 연구되지 않은 MBTI 의사결정기능 유형(F,T)과 외부생활대처양식(J,P)을 조합해서 갈등관리유형의 차이를 확인한 것에 의의가 있다. 후속연구에서는 본 연구결과를 반영하여 대상자 수를 확대한 MBTI 성격유형별 갈등관리유형에 대한 연구, MBTI 지표 및 성격유형별 갈등관리 프로그램개발과 프로그램 효과성 분석 연구를 제언한다.
This study is a descriptive research study to determine differences in conflict management types according to MBTI preference indicators among nursing students. Data collection was from August 30 to September 30, 2023. Data analysis was performed using independent t-test, one-way ANOVA, and Scheffe's. As a result of the study, among the MBTI indicators showing significant differences in conflict management types, 'i' had higher avoidance than 'E' in the energy direction (t=-3.776, <0.01). In the case of decision-making function, F had higher concession (t=-3.478, <0.01) and avoidance (t=-3.389, <0.01) than T, and T had higher dominance than F (t=2.070, <0.5). In terms of external life coping style, J had higher cooperation (t=2.756, <0.01) and compromise (t=2.044, <0.5) than P. In MBTI's psychological function types, the NF type had higher concessions than the ST type (F=4.174, <0.05), and the SF type had higher avoidance than the ST type (F=4.202, <0.05). The results of analyzing the differences in conflict management types by combining the MBTI decision-making function type and external life coping style showed that the FJ type was more cooperative than the FP type (F=2.907, <0.05), and the FJ type was more cooperative than the TP type (F =4.662, <0.01), and the FJ type had higher avoidance than the TJ type (F=3.327, <0.05). MBTI's attitude index showed that the EJ type had higher cooperation than the EP type (F=2.817, <0.05), and the IP type had significantly higher avoidance than the EP type (F=4.551, <0.01). This study is significant in confirming differences in conflict management types by combining MBTI decision-making function types (F, T) and external life coping styles (J, P), which have not been studied in Korea to date. In the follow-up study, we propose research on conflict management types by MBTI personality type by reflecting the results of this study and expanding the number of subjects, development of conflict management programs by MBTI indicators and personality types, and analysis of program effectiveness.