대리외상 개념에 대한 비판적 고찰

초록

This study examined how the concept of vicarious traumatization has been used in the Korean counseling field and critically reviewed how conceptual confusion has contributed to inconsistencies in research results. To this end, twenty-five empirical studies on counselors’ vicarious traumatization published between 2006 and 2024 were analyzed according to McCann and Pearlman(1990) and Branson(2019)’s framework. The analysis showed that vicarious traumatization was used in ways that differed from its original definition or was conflated with constructs such as secondary traumatic stress and compassion fatigue. Measurement-related issues were also identified, including the assessment of vicarious traumatization without confirming trauma exposure or empathic exposure, and the use of instruments that were not aligned with the core components of the concept. These patterns functioned as one of the major factors contributing to inconsistent research findings. Therefore, the concept of vicarious traumatization needs to be used more rigorously. Future research should ensure verification of trauma exposure, separate the assessment of cognitive changes from symptomatic reactions, and secure consistency in conceptual definitions.

키워드