2000 12
....,,,.,...,..,,.,,,,,,..
,.,!,.. role m odel,.,..,,,. 2000 12
1 1 1. 1 2. 4 3. 4 4. 5 2 6 1. 6 2. 11 3 19 1. 19 2. 19 3. 22 4. 23 5. 23 4 25 - i -
5 45 6 51 1. 51 2. 53 55 64 67 - ii -
< 1> 21 < 2> 26 < 3> 27 < 4> 29 < 5> 30 < 6> 31 < 7> 32 < 8> 33 < 9> 34 < 10> 36 < 11> 38 < 12> 39 < 13> 42 < 14> 43 < 15> 44 - iii -
< 1> 38 < 2> 40 - iv -
,.,,,,,, 7,,,,,,,, 9 254 12,733 6,130. 8, 7, 10, 7 32. 2000 10 2 10 28,. W indow SP S S 10.0 Program,,,,,,, A NOVA, Duncan neth od S ch effe m eth od.. 1. 26.7%. - v -
, 13.4%. 13.7% 7.5%. 2. 31.8%, 2-3 22.3%.,,,, 12.8%, 12.9%, 4.2%, 1.9%, 2.3% 10. 1.7%. 3. 10-40 27.43 4.03 7-21 17.96 2.55. 4., (p =.000). Dun can t est 0.05,,,,,.,,,,,,. 5. - v i -
.,., 10 2 9 U shape. 6. correlation 0.155 (p =.000). (p =0.000, p =0.000),. :,,,,. - v ii -
1 1.,,.,,. (Gorden, 1979).. (, 1992;, 1993;, 1997;, 1994;, 1996).,.,,,,. (, 1996;, 1998;, 1993).,,, (, 1996).,.,, - 1 -
,,,,,,,,,,, (, 1999).. 12,733 146 (, 2000),.,. Alberti Em m on s (1982),.,, (Renni, F ritchie & M eg gie, M ellin g, 1991).,. (, 1991). - 2 -
Cooper sm ith (1976),. Rog er s (, 1987)..,,, (Huizin g a, 1993), (, 1988), (Carv ajal, 1999), (Kin sm an, 1998),,, (M oore, 1997).,. (P apenfu s s, 1983; Klos, 1986), (, 1997). (, 2000),..,. 10-3 -
,,.,. 2.? 3. 1). 2). 3). 4). 5). 6). - 4 -
4. 1 ) (, 1998),,,,,,. 2 ) (F en sterh eim, 1975), (2000) 7 3. 3 ) (Argyle, 1972), Rog enberg (1971) self- est eem scale 10 4. - 5 -
2 1. (, 1998).,,,, (At w arter, 1992).., (, 1999). 12 14, 13.5 16,, 15 (, 1993). (1992) 68.9%, (1993) 51.6%, (1994) 64.1%, (1997) 41.2%, (1996) 39.2%, (1997) 59.8% ( 61.6%, 57.7% )... 1 30.9%, 2 45.2%, 3 56.3% - 6 -
(, 1997)., ( 87.3%, 90.7% ),, 10 (, 1998). 69.1%, 68.0%, 15.2%, 2.0%. 7.5% (, 1997), 5.2% (, 1998), 15.6% (, 1996), 1995 65.2%, 28.2%, (1998) 13.7% ( 17%, 8.7% ). 1 9.9%, 2 10.4%, 3 19.8% 2, 3 2 (, 1997).. 8.7%, 15.7%, 1.2%, 3.0% 8 5. 16.3%, 25.0% (, 1998) 5-24.. (1992) 10 10 88.5%, (1997) 63.8%. - 7 -
(, 1996) 74.7%. 99.3%, 89%, 7 5 (, 1992 ;, 1995).,,.,, (W y att.& Durv asula, 1999). (, 1996; Greenberg, 1992). (, 1998; Kin sm an, 1998),... (, 1996)., (S eam ark, 1997),, (W y att & Durv asula, 1999). 15 3.5 60%. 15-19, - 8 -
20 15 2.4 (, 1996; M arian, 1999).. (Nathaniel H, 1998) 300 1/ 3, 70%,,,,,, (S eam ark, 1998).,,,. 32.9% (, 1996), (, 1998). (1998) 1,000 7.2, 4.3, 1.2. 37.2%, 14.3% (, 1995). (, 1995). 13, 14, 53.9% 2, 38.1%. (, 1998) 10 91 24.3% 93 32.4%, 96 42.5%, 97 47.9%, 80-9 -
.. 1,000 56.4-110.6, 5.9-59.5, 33-81 (Spitz, 1993), 1,000 36.6-94.8, 22.7-49.3, 12.6-63.6 (Garlick, In eich en & Hudson, 1993). 30% 50%, 8% 25%, 88.5%.,.,,.,,.,. - 10 -
2. (global self- est eem ) (Rogenberg, 1979). M aslow (1954). Gorden (1969), Elkin d W ein er (1978)., (v aluation ). (, 1990).,,. Rog enb erg (1979)., (reflect ed appraisals ),, (social comparision ),, (self attribution ),, (P sy chological centrality ). M ead.. Bem, - 11 -
. (,,, ), (Rogenberg, 1979). Reasoner (1994) 1,000,,.,,. (1990),,..,,,, (Gug gino, 1997). (M oore, 1997).,,, (, 1996).,.,,,, - 12 -
. (, 1987)., (, 1985),,,, (, 1998; Huizing a, 1993; Rosenthal, 1999; Mih am, 1990).,, (, 1997).,.,. (assert ),. F en sterh eim (1972), H er sen Bellack (1976),, (positiv e as sertiv e),,,. 4.,...., (, ). - 13 -
.,.,... (F en sterh eim & Baer, 1997).,. (, 1999).,.,... (, 1984;, 1990). Galas si Delo(1974),,, (, 1999)., - 14 -
.. (, 2000)., (sex ) (gen der ).,,,,,,,,,,,., (second people) (disadv ant ag e people) (, 1995).. (1993). (1998 ), (74.6% ) (39.8% ), (30.4% ),,. - 15 -
(1998) (75.7% ), (84.3% ), (62.7% ), (58.5% ), (42.2% )., (62% ) (, 1998). P aplau (1977) 231 41% 1. 24% - 48%, 25% 70% 0.2% (F ischer, 1996).. (, 1998). W ood (1998),,.. A bm a (1998) 13 2%, 19-25 10%, 1/ 4. 7-16 -
.. Nancy (1999),,. Brindis (1999),,,,.., (, 1991).,, (, 1996).,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,.,,, - 17 -
,,,,,...,., (, 1996).,,, (, 1995). (31.6% ) (, 1998;, 1993:, 1995).,.. - 18 -
3 1.,,,. 2. 4,684 13-19 1,988,902, 2,741 (, ) 1,943 (, ) 63 191. 2,741 63 3 6,300 1,943 191 1,2 12,700 6,130. 3, 1, 2, (,,,,,, ) 9 (,,,,,,,, ),,. 100, 50. - 19 -
,, 7,. 63 ( 31, 32 ) 100 3 6,300, 191 95, 96, 63, 128., 100 50 2.. 254 6,300, 1 6,400, 2 6,300 19,000 6,130. - 20 -
< 1> 1 x 100 1 x 100 5 ( ; ) 3 ( 1, 2) ( 1, 2) 5 4 9 14 4 4 5 9 13 1 4 5 4 9 13 x 100 5 4 5 9 14 5 5 4 9 14 5 4 5 9 14 4 5 4 9 13 32 32 31 63 95 3 1 3 1 3 4 3 4 14 17 4 x 4 3 4 3 14 18 3 50 3 4 3 4 14 17 2 3 3 4 3 4 14 17 4 4 3 4 3 14 18 4 4 4 4 4 16 20 4 4 3 4 3 14 18 3 3 4 3 4 14 17 3 4 3 3 4 14 17 31 32 32 31 33 128 159 63 96 95 254-21 -
3. 8, 10, 7, 7 32. 2000 9 5 9 15 50. 1 ) Rogenberg (1965) self- est eem scale (1972) 10 4 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 10 40,. Cronbach ' s = 0.78,.8081. 2 ) (2000) 7 3, 1,2,3, 7 21,. Cronbach ' s = 0.524,.6062. - 22 -
3 ),,,,.,, 7 7,. 4. 2000 10 2 10 28.,,.,.. 10-15, 19,000 12,733 67.0%. 84, 6,130. 5. P C W indow SP S S program (v.10.0). - 23 -
1.,,,,,,. 2., A NOVA Dun can m ethod S cheffe m ethod. 3. Chronbach ' s. 4. P ear son correlation. - 24 -
4 1. 6,130 3 1,579 (25.8% ), 1 1,782 (29.1% ), 2 2,706 (44.1% ), 2826 (46.1% ), 3,304 (53.9% )., 2,437 (39.8% ),, 2,014 (32.8% ). 4,375 (71.4% ) 76 (1.2% ). 2,915 (47.6% ), 3,165 (51.6% ). 5,704 (93.1% ), 7, 490 (8% ), 412 (6.7% ). - 25 -
< 2 > n =6 130 ( ) (%) (1) (2) (485.1%) (44.3 %) 2915 47.6 3165 51.6 50 0.8 2382 38.9 55 0.9 1993 32.5 21 0.3 1579 25.8 100 1.6 3 1579 25.8 1 1782 29.1 2 2706 44.1 63 1.0 5704 93.1 / 115 1.9 166 2.7 25 0.4 66 1.1 54 0.8 344 5.6 640 5.5 490 8.0 465 7.6 377 6.2 358 5.8 348 5.7 317 5.2 403 6.6 321 5.2 237 3.9 412 6.7 323 5.3 269 4.4 369 6.0 290 4.7 467 7.6-26 -
2. 1 ) 1634 (26.7% ). 842 (13.7% ). 625 (10.2% ), 1269 (20.7% ), 691 (11.3% ), 359 (5.9% ) 458 (7.5% ).. < 3 > n =6 130 ( ) (%) 842 13.7 625 10.2 1269 20.7 691 11.3 1634 26.7 359 5.9 0 0 458 7.5 252 4.1 T otal 6130 100.0-27 -
2 ) 1,950 (31.8% ), 2-3 1,367 (22.3% ),,, 10 788 (12.9% ), 256 (4.2% ), 117 (1.9% ), 139 (2.3% ).. 104 (1.7% ) 102 (1.7% ).., 2-3, 10,,,,, (26.7% ). - 28 -
< 4 > 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10 1950 (31.8%) 1101 (18.0%) 1640 (26.8%) 1367 (22.3%) 508 (8.3%) 707 (11.5%) 217 (3.5%) 323 (5.3%) 65 (1.1%) 142 (2.3%) 549 (9.0%) 548 (8.9%) n =6130, : (%). 904 (14.7%) 1578 (27.4%) 297 (4.8%) 364 (5.9%) 456 (7.4%) 688 (11.2%) 470 (7.7%) 340 (5.5%) 184 (3.0%) 783 (12.8%) 2689 (47.9%) 522 (8.5%) 327 (5.3%) 435 (7.1%) 335 (5.5%) 269 (4.4%) 153 (2.5%) 788 (12.9%) 3212 (52.4%) 611 (10.0%) 125 (2.0%) 119 (1.9%) 105 (1.7%) 77 (1.3%) 47 (0.8%) 256 (4.2%) 4758 (77.6%) 643 (10.5%) 104 (1.7%) 43 (0.7%) 22 (0.4%) 33 (0.5%) 14 (0.2%) 117 (1.9%) 5134 (83.8%) 663 (10.8%) 102 (1.7%) 42 (0.7%) 26 (0.4%) 22 (0.4%) 12 (0.2%) 139 (2.3%) 5117 (83.5%) 670 (10.9%) - 29 -
3. 10 40 28 653 (11.1% ). 40 5 (0.1% ), 10 1. 27.43 4.03. < 5 > n =6130, : (%) ( ) 10.00-13.00 6.0.1 14.00 4.1.2 15.00 5.1.3 16.00 12.2.5 17.00 23.4.9 18.00 33.6 1.4 19.00 46.8 2.2 20.00 104 1.8 4.0 21.00 165 2.8 6.8 22.00 228 3.9 10.7 23.00 305 5.2 15.9 24.00 381 6.5 22.3 25.00 518 8.8 31.2 26.00 534 9.1 40.3 27.00 606 10.3 50.6 28.00 653 11.1 61.7 29.00 588 10.0 71.7 30.00 421 7.2 78.9 31.00 337 5.7 84.6 32.00 266 4.5 89.2 33.00 220 3.7 92.9 34.00 135 2.3 95.2 35.00 114 1.9 97.2 36.00 77 1.3 98.5 37.00 58 1.0 99.5 38.00 22.4 99.8 39.00 5.1 99.9 40.00 5.1 100.0 T otal 5871 100.0 missing 259 T otal 6130 27.43( 4.03) - 30 -
4. 7 21 19 799 (17.5% ). 21 773 (17.0% ), 7 1. 17.96( 2.55). < 6 > n =6130, : (%) ( ) 7.00 1.0.0 8.00 1.0.0 9.00 11.2.3 10.00 21.5.7 11.00 51 1.1 1.9 12.00 77 1.7 3.6 13.00 140 3.1 6.6 14.00 182 4.0 10.6 15.00 329 7.2 17.8 17.96( 2.55) 16.00 347 7.6 25.5 17.00 512 11.2 36.7 18.00 597 13.1 49.8 19.00 799 17.5 67.3 20.00 716 15.7 83.0 21.00 773 17.0 100.0 T otal 4557 100.0 missing 1573 T otal 6130-31 -
5. 1 ),, 26.56. 18.51.,,, 16.67. A NOVA.000. < 7 > (n =802) (n =598 ) (n =1221) (n =659 ) (n =1574 ) (n =350 ) (m ean SD ) 27.83 4.05 27.80 3.99 27.77 4.02 27.57 4.05 27.09 3.96 27.12 4.12 (n =0 ) - (n =433 ) 26.56 4.10 n =6 130, : F s ig. 9.351.000 * - 32 -
< 8 > (m ean SD ) (n =802) 18.32 2.53 (n =598 ) 18.51 2.52 (n =1221) 18.45 2.32 (n =659 ) 18.28 2.33 (n =1574) 17.98 2.41 (n =350 ) 17.02 2.64 (n =0) - (n =433 ) 16.67 2.90 n =6 130, : F s ig. 39.280.000 * - 33 -
2 ) Dun can test 0.05,,,,,,. 1, 2, 3. S cheffe m ethod, 1 2.6534 1 (p =.000). 1 3 1.1956 1 (p =.000). 2 3.5422 2 3 (p =.040). < 9 > Sig. Group3 Group 1 1.1956(*).2057.000,, Group 2.6534(*),.1155.000 Group 1,, -.6534(*).1155.000 Group 2,, Group3.5422(*).2140.040 Group3 Group 2 -.5422(*).2140.040, Group 1,, - 1.1956(*).2057.000-34 -
3 ) Dun can t est 0.05,,,,,,. 1, 2, 3, 4. S cheffe m eth od, 1 2.3784 1 (p =.000). 1 3 0.5422 1 (p =.000). 1 4 1.7692 1 4 (p =.000). 2 3 1.0449 (p =.000). 2 4 1.3908 (p =.000). 3 4.3459 0.05 (p =.301). - 35 -
< 10> S ig. Group 1,, Group2, Group4 Group3 Group2, Group4 Group3 Group 1,, 1.7692(*).1345.000 1.4232(*).1491.000.3784(*) 8.278E- 02.000 1.3908(*).1316.000 1.0449(*).1465.000 -.3784(*) 8.278E- 02.000 Group3 Group4 Group2, Group 1,,.3459.1808.301-1.0449(*).1465.000-1.4232(*).1491.000 Group4 Group3 Group2, Group 1,, -.3459.1808.301-1.3908(*).1316.000-1.7692(*).1345.000-36 -
6. 1 ),,..,,, 10, 2-9 10 U Sh ape. 10 4-5, 6-7, 8-9. - 37 -
< 11> m ean ( SD) 27.78 ( 4.07) 27.69 ( 4.03) 27.76 ( 4.02) 27.75 ( 4.02) 27.53 ( 4.01) 27.50 ( 4.05) 27.52 ( 4.02) m ean ( SD) 27.21 ( 4.08) 27.14 ( 4.18) 26.78 ( 4.24) 26.71 ( 4.31) 27.15 ( 4.25) 26.69 ( 4.02 26.67 ( 4.03) n =6 130 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10 m ean m ean m ean m ean m ean ( SD) ( SD) ( SD) ( SD) ( SD) 27.38 ( 3.92) 27.16 ( 3.97) 26.09 ( 3.95) 26.74 ( 3.99) 26.16 ( 4.15) 26.59 ( 5.51) 26.12 ( 4.84) 27.24 ( 4.20) 27.47 ( 3.92) 26.94 ( 3.95) 26.83 ( 3.75) 26.32 ( 3.88) 25.65 ( 3.70) 25.12 ( 3.73) 27.87 ( 3.67) 27.00 ( 4.06) 27.41 ( 4.02) 26.72 ( 3.98) 26.64 ( 3.83) 26.82 ( 3.24) 25.59 ( 2.70) 26.86 ( 4.11) 27.54 ( 3.74) 27.10 ( 3.95) 27.02 ( 4.01) 25.39 ( 4.32) 26.41 ( 4.52) 25.08 ( 4.27) 27.80 ( 4.05) 28.00 ( 4.09) 27.51 ( 4.08) 27.40 ( 4.06) 27.67 ( 4.11) 27.47 ( 4.00) 26.94 ( 4.23) < 1> - 38 -
2 ) 10.,,,,,,, 10 2 9 U shape. < 12> m ean ( SD) 18.22 ( 25.2) 18.33 ( 2.57) 18.39 ( 2.46) 18.43 ( 2.40) 18.25 ( 2.42) 18.14 ( 2.46) 18.14 ( 2.46) n = 6 1 3 0 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10 m ean ( SD) 17.64 ( 2.62) 17.46 ( 2.69) 17.06 ( 2.73) 16.86 ( 2.78) 16.92 ( 2.82) 16.95 ( 2.92) 17.10 ( 2.84) m ean ( SD) 17.98 ( 2.50) 17.82 ( 2.54) 17.33 ( 2.63) 17.18 ( 2.72) 16.04 ( 2.80) 15.36 ( 2.84) 15.95 ( 2.78) m ean ( SD) 18.29 ( 2.39) 18.00 ( 2.41) 17.67 ( 2.59) 17.24 ( 2.70) 16.16 ( 2.76) 15.14 ( 2.65) 14.80 ( 3.09) m ean ( SD) 18.19 ( 2.53) 18.30 ( 2.22) 17.91 ( 2.27) 17.49 ( 2.53) 16.65 ( 2.63) 15.32 ( 3.22) 15.38 ( 2.87) m ean ( SD) 17.98 ( 2.20) 18.30 ( 2.39) 18.18 ( 2.30) 17.88 ( 2.32) 16.58 ( 2.93) 15.69 ( 3.90) 17.50 ( 2.61) m ean ( SD) 18.52 ( 2.43) 18.38 ( 2.39) 18.16 ( 2.47) 17.96 ( 2.46) 17.13 ( 2.69) 16.96 ( 2.60) 16.59 ( 2.84) - 39 -
< 2 > - 40 -
3 ) ANOVA,.000.002. - 41 -
< 13> s um of s quares df m ean s quare F s ig. Betw een Group 345.54 6 57.590 3.541.002 * Within Group 90844.58 5586 16.263 T otal 91190.12 5592 Between Group 458.05 6 76.341 4.698.000 * Within Group 89731.21 5522 16.250 T otal 90189.26 5528 Between Group 781.99 6 130.331 8.021.000 * Within Group 87303.29 5373 16.249 T otal 88085.28 5379 Betw een Group 960.08 6 160.013 9.882.000 * * p 0.05 Within Group 85625.39 5288 16.192 T otal 86585.47 5294 Between Group 599.33 6 99.889 6.158.000 * Within Group 85339.42 5261 16.221 T otal 85938.75 5267 Betw een Group 187.32 6 31.220 1.918.074 Within Group 85259.78 5239 16.274 T otal 85447.09 5245 Between Group 464.87 6 77.479 4.767.000 * Within Group 85060.77 5233 16.255 T otal 85525.64 5239-42 -
4 ) A NOVA.000. < 14 > * p 0.05 s um of s quares df m ean s quare n =6,130 F s ig. Betw een Group 370.71 6 61.79 9.64.000 * Within Group 280008.97 4370 6.409 T otal 91190.12 5592 Betw een Group 490.28 6 81.714 12.797.000 * Within Group 27571.20 4318 6.385 T otal 28061.47 4321 Betw een Group 939.22 6 156.54 24.89.000 * Within Group 26242.82 4173 6.289 T otal 27182.04 4179 Betw een Group 1251.38 6 208.56 33.367.000 * Within Group 25609.06 4097 6.251 T otal 26860.45 4103 Betw een Group 1515.30 6 252.55 41.21.000 * Within Group 24891.69 4062 6.128 T otal 26406.9 4068 Betw een Group 1058.66 6 176.44 1.918.000 * Within Group 25008.90 4037 6.195 T otal 26067.56 4043 Betw een Group 988.50 6 164.75 26.60.000 * Within Group 25002.97 4037 6.193 26.601 T otal 25991.48 4043-43 -
7. pearson correlation 0.155 (p =0.000). < 15 > Pearson Correlation 1.000 Sig. (2- tailed). 5871 Pearson Correlation.155(**) 1.000 Sig. (2- tailed).000. 4387 4557 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). - 44 -
5, (1,634, 26.7% ). 842 (13.7% ). 7.5% (2000) 4.9% 5-24 (1998), 1.5.,,,.,,.,. 27.43 ( 4.03) (2000) 27.56-45 -
( 4.10), 27.67( 4.13)..,. 27.43,,,,,,.. 27.43 (26.7%, 1,634 ).,. (2000),. (27.83 4.05) 27.56( 4.10)., - 46 -
., (1.7% ). Miller (1975) (closenes s ) (, 1995, )..,. 2-9..,,.,., (Cooper smith, 1981).,,,.,, - 47 -
,.,.,. (1996),,,,,.,,,,.. (Huizing a, 1993; Mih am, 1990; Rone, 1998; S eam ark, 1998;, 1997;, 1985).. Kaplan (1975) 7 3 3,,, (,, ),, - 48 -
(self est eem m otiv e).,,,, (Rogenberg & Kaplan, 1982).,.,,,..,,,...000, F en sterh eim & Baer (1997), (1997), Galas si & Delo (1974), (2000) - 49 -
7.,,,,. (, 1999).,,.,.,.,. - 50 -
6 1..,,,,,, 7,,,,,,,, 9 254 12,733 6,130. 7, 10, 7 32. 2000 10 2 10 28,. P C SP S S 10.0 P rogram,,,,,,, AN OVA, Duncan m eth od.. 1. (1,634, 26.7% )., 817 (13.4% ). 842 (13.7% ), 458 (7.5% ). - 51 -
2. 1,950 (31.8% ), 2-3 1,367 (22.3% ).,,,, 10 12.8%, 12.9%, 4.2%, 1.9%, 2.3% 10. (1.7% ). 3. 27.43 4.03 17.96 2.55. 4. (p =.000). 6.,,., 10 2 9 U shape. (p =0.000, p =0.000),. - 52 -
. 1.. 2.. 3.,,,,,,,. 2.. 1. 10. 2.. 3. 1.2%. 4.. 5. - 53 -
,.. 1.. 2.. 3. 102 (1.7% ). 4.. 5.. 6.. - 54 -
(1993).,..,,,,,, (1996).., 39 (6), 1007-1016. (1995). (1996, 7, 17) (1995.).. (1996).. :. (1984).., 17(1).. (1996).,.. (1992).,,.. (1992)... (1993).,.. (1991)... (1995).., 29 (1), 223-228. (1996).. - 55 -
(1997)., - -.. (1995).. :. (1994).,.. (1998).. 3. :. (1998).,,, 28 (3). 573-582. (1999).. :. (1996). - -.. (1990).. (1983)... (1994)... (1993)..., (1991).. :. (1987)... (1998).. :. (1995).., 1(2), 222-233. - 56 -
(1999).. 29.. (1993)... (1999)... (1997).. :,,,, (1998).. -, -. :., (1998).. ;. (1995)... (1987)... (1994).,,.. (1990).,.. (1992).. :. (1996)... (1999). - -.. - 57 -
(1987)...,,, (2000).. :.,,,,,, (1998),.. (1972)..,, 107-108. (1991).,, 32(2), (1997). -.., (1991). :., 8, 108-139. (1996)... :. (1996)... 8 (1999).. ;. (1992)... (1996).. :. (1998).. :. (1999).. - 58 -
(1998)., 3. (1985)... (1996)... 22-23. (1995)... Alberti, R. E., & Em m on s, M. L.(1982). Your perfect right (4th ). S an Luis Obispo, CA : Im pact. Argyle, M.(1972). S elf- im age an d S elf - est eem. T he P sy ch ology of Intern ational Behavior. Englan d: Harm ond S w orth. 42-53. At w art er, E.(1992). A dolescence. Englew ood Cliff, New Jer sey : Prentice Hall Cav ajal, S. C., P arcel, G. S., Ban spach, S. W., & Coyle, K. K.(1999). P sy chosocial predict or s of delay of fir st sex ual intercour se by adolescent s. H ealth P sy ch ology, 18 (5), 443-452. Claire Brin dis (1999). Buildin g for the future: A dolescent pregnan cy prev ention. Journal of Am erical M edical W om en s A ssociation, 54 (3), 129-132. Coopersm ith, S.(1959). A m ethod for determ ining types of self- est eem. Journal of Abn orm al and S ocial P sy chology, 59, 87-94. Davis, R. L., T ollestrup, K. & Miham s, S.(1990). T ren ds in t een ag e sm okin g during pregnan cy. W a shington Stat e: 1984 through 1988. Am erical Journal of Disease Child, 144, 1297-1301. Dick son, N., P aul, C., H erbison, P. & Silv a, P.(1998). F irst sexu al int ercour se: ag e, coercion, an d lat er regret s reported by a birth cohort : BMJ, 316(7124), 29-33. - 59 -
Elkind, D., & W ein er, I. B.(1978). Dev elopm ent of the child. N ew York :John w ily & son s Inc. F en sterh eim, H., & Baer, J.(1975). Don 't say y es w h en y ou w ant t o say n o. New York : Dell P ublishin g Co. F ischer (1996). Deceptiv e, v erbally coerciv e colleg e m ales. Attitudinal predicters and lies t old. A SB, 25, 527-533. Galassi, M. D., & Galas si, J. P.(1977). A s sert Your self! : H ow t o be y our ow n per son, N ew York : Hum an S ciences Press. Garlick, R., Ineichen B., & Hudson, F.(1993). T h e UPA score an d teenag e pregnancy. Public H ealth, 107, 135-139. Gorden, D.(1969). S elf- con ception s m eth odologie, Journal of Nerv ou s & M ental Disorder s, 148, 328-364 Gorden, S., Scales, P., & Every, K.(1979). T he sexual adolescent ; Communicating w ith t een ag er s about sex. North S cituat e M ass : Duxbury. Greenberg J., M agder, L., A ral, S.(1992). A ge at first coitu s. S ex u ally tran smitted Diseases, 19(6), 331-334. Gu ggin o, J. M., P onzetti, J. J. Jr.(1997). Gen der difference in affectiv e reaction t o fir st coitu s. Journ al of A dolescence, 20(2), 189-200. H er son, M. & Bellack, A. S.(1976). ' S ocial skills trainin g for chronic psy chiatric patient s : rationale, research finding and future direction s" Com prehen siv e P sy chiatry, 17(4), 559-580. http :/ /m yh om e.shinbiro.com/ - grisim/hom e/ sung 4.htm l Huizin ga, D., Loeber, R., & T h ornb erry, T. P.(1993). Lon gitu dinal stu dy of delinqu ancy, drug u se, sex ual activity an d pregn ancy am ong children an d y outh in three cities. Public H ealth Report s, 108 (1), 90-96. - 60 -
Joy ce, Abm a., A nn e, Driscoll., & Kristin, M oore.(1998). Young W om en ' s Degree of Control. Kaplan, & H ow ard, B.(1975). S equelae of self- derog ation : predicting from a g eneral th eory of deviant behavior : Youth S ociety, 7 (2), 171-197. Kin sey, A., P om eroy, W., & M artin, C.(1948). S ex ual behav ior in the bum an m ale. Philadelphia : S aun der s. Kin sm an S. B.(1998). Early sex ual initiation : the role of peer n orm s. P ediatrics, 102(5), 1185-1192. M arian, F., M acdorm an, Ph D., Jonnae, O. & Atkin son, M. S.(1999). Infant M ort ality st atistics from th e 1997 period linked birth/ infant death data set. National viatal st atistics report, 47 (23), 1-9. M aslow, A. h.(1954). M otiv ation and P er sonality. New York : H arper. Miham, S. Davis, R. L., T ollestrup K.(1990). T rends in t een ag e sm okin g during pregnancy, W ashin gt on stat e: 1984 throuh 1988, Am erican Journal of Disease Child, 144, 1297-1301. M oore N. B., & Davidson, J. K. Sr. (1997). Guilt about fir st int ercour se an antecedent of S exu al dissatisfaction am ong college w om an. Journal of S ex & M arital th erapy, 23 (1), 29-46. N ancy, D. Kellogg, T hom as, J. H offm an, Elizab ath, R. T aylor.(1999). Early sexu al ex periences aim in g pregnant an d parentin g adolescent s. A dolescence, 34 (134), 293-303. N ath aniel, H. Murdock.(1998). T eenag e Pregnan cy. Journal of n ation al m edical as sociation, 90(3), 135-136. P apenfu ss, R. L., Curtis, J. D., Beier, B. J. & M en ze, J. D.(1983). T eaching positiv e self con cept s in the classroom. Journal of S chool H ealth, 53, 618-620. - 61 -
P aplau, L., Rubin, Z., & Hill, C.(1977). S ex ual intim acy in dating relation ships. Journal of S ocial Is su e, 33, 86-109. Rakos, R. F., & S chroeder, H. E.(1979). Dev elopm ent an d em pirical ev aluation of a self- adm inist ered a ssertiv enes s trainin g program. Journal of Coun sellin g an d Clinical P sy chology, 47 (5), 991-993. Reasoner, Robert. W.(1994). S elf- esteem a s an Antidote t o Crim e and Violence. ERIC Document Reproduuction Service No. ED, 373-281. Rennie, F rit chie., & M ag gie, M ellin g.(1991). T he Bu sin ess of assertiv en ess,. :. Rog enberg, M., & Simm on s, R. G.(1971). Black and W hite self- est eem, T he urb an school child, W ashin gt on, Ros M on ograph series, Am erican S ociological association, 1-10. Rog enberg, M., & Kaplan, H. B.(1982). self - attitu de an d deviant respon ses, in S ocial P sy ch ology of th e self oncept, Arlin gt on Heightes, H arlan Davison Inc, 452-462. Rog enberg, M orris.(1979). S ociety and the A dolescent S elf- Im ag e: Conceiving the self. New York : Basic B ook, In c. Ron e E. S., Rybicki, L. A., & Durant R. H.(1998). Pregnan cy an d other Risk Behavior s Am ong A dolescent Girls in ohio. Journal of A dolescent Health, 22, 50-55. Rosenthal, D. A., Smith, A. M., & de Visser, R.(1999). P er son al and S ocial fact or s influ en cin g ag e at first sexu al int ercour se. A chiv es of S ex ual Beh avior, 28 (4), 319-333. S eam ark, C. J., Denis, J. P. Gray (1997). Like m other, like dau ghter : a g en eral practice study of m at ernal influen ces on t een age pragn ancy. British j ourn al of General Practice, 47. 175-176. - 62 -
S eam ark. C. J., & Gray D. J.(1998). T een ager and risk - t aking : pregn ancy and sm okin g. British Journ al of General Practice, 48 (427), 958-986. Spit z A. M., Ventura, S. J., Koonin, L. M., Strau ss, L.T., F ry e, A., H eu ser, R., Sm ith J. C., M orris, L., Smith, S., W in go, P., & M ark s, J. S.(1993). Surv eillance for Pregn an cy and Birth rates, am ong t een ager, by St ate United, 1980-1990. MMW R, 42(556), 1-27. W akin, D.(1978). T he dev elopm ent an d ev alu ation of self esteem m ea suring in strum ent s. Journal of per sonality A ssessm ent, 42, 171-182. W ood K., M aforth, F., Jew kes, R.(1998). "He forced m e t o lov e him ": Puttin g violence on adolescent sex ual h ealth agenda. S oc. science. M ed, 47 (2), 233-242 W y att, G., Durv a sula, R. S., Guthrie, D., LeF ran c, E., & F org e, N.(1999). Correlated of S ex u al Behavior. 28 (2), 139-57. - 63 -
< > < >.. 1.? 3 1 2 2.? 3.? 4.... 5....,...... 6. /... 7.?...( ) 8. ( )? - 64 -
.. *. * ( ). *. *. *. *. *. *. * *.. ( )? * * * * * * * - 65 -
.? 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-66 -
A b s tract Relation ship betw een the level of Sexual Cont act s and Self- Esteem, Self- A ssertiveness of T eenage Girls Who Have or Had Boyfriends. Lee Sun Ky oun g Dept. of Nur sin g T he Graduate school Yon sei Univ er sity T his is a cross - sectional descriptiv e correlation stu dy th at aim ed t o un der st and the relation ship b etw een the lev el of sexu al contact s durin g the dates an d psy cho- social fact or s in t eenage girls w ho hav e or had boyfriends. T h e purpose of this stu dy w as t o describe the relation ship bet w een sexu al cont act s an d self- est eem and self- a ssertiv enes s. T he subject s of the stu dy w ere 6,130 t eenage girls w ho hav e or had boyfriends. T hey w ere select ed convienently 12,733 teenag e girls from 254 secon dary schools locat ed in 7 larg e cities and 9 provinces in Korea. A structured qu estion aire w as u sed it in clu ded it em s on e g en eral characteristics, th e lev els of sexu al contact s, self- est eem an d self- assertiv eness. - 67 -
S ev en lev els of sex u al cont act s w ere rated they w er e h olding a hand, puttin g arm s aroun d each oth er ' s sh oulder s, kiss, french kiss, t ou ching breast, pettin g genitalia, an d sexu al int ercour se durin g the dates. S elf- est eem an d self- a ssertiv enes s w ere m easured by the S elf- est eem scale of Rog enberg (1971) an d the qu estionaires dev eloped by S. B. Chan g et al(2000), respectiv ely. T he self- reported qu estionaires w ere collect ed from Oct ober 2, to Oct ober 28, 2000 and an aly zed by u sing SP S S 10.0 P rogram. T he dat a w ere an aly zed by descriptiv e statistics, reliability, One- w ay AN OVA w ith Dun can m ethod & S ch effe m eth od. T he result s of the an aly sis w ere as follow s. 1. An av erag e P ercent ag e of the respondent s w h o hav e (46.1% ) or h ad (53.9% ) boyfriends w a s 48.1% (n =6,130) an d th e m ost com m on sex u al contact during the dat es w as french kiss (26.7%, n =1,634). W hile 7.5% (458) of respon dent s h ad a sex ual int ercour se, 13.7% (842) of respon dent s didn 't hav e any sex ual cont act durin g the dates. 2. Distribution of st arting point of the fir st sex u al cont act dem on strat es th at 1,950 respondent s (31.8% ) h eld partn er ' s han d at th e fir st dat e and 1,367 respondent s (22.3% ) put arm s aroun d each other ' s shoulder s at th e 2n d or 3rd date. S ex u al cont act s su ch as kiss, fren ch kiss, t ou ching brea st, pettin g genit alia, or sex u al int ercour se w ere ex perienced m ostly at th e later than the 10th dat e. H ow ev er, surprisingly large num ber (1.7% ) of respon dent s had genit al contact an d sex ual intercour ses at th e fir st dat e. 3. T he m ean s of self- est eem an d self- assertiv en ess scores of the respondent s w h o hav e or had b oyfrien ds are 27.43( 4.03) and 17.96 ( 2.55), - 68 -
respectiv ely. T he rang e of scores for self est eem w a s 10-40, 40 w ith m ost self est eem. T he ran ge of scores for self a ssertiv enes s w as 7-21, 21 w ith m ost self a ssertiv enes s. 4. A s sex ual cont act s proceeded, the m ean s of self- esteem an d self- as sertiv enes s v alu es decreased. In detail, th e respondent s hav in g no or light sexu al contacts (kiss, puttin g arm s aroun d each oth er ' s shoulder, holdin g a han d) had sim ilar self- est eem v alu es (p 0.05). H ow ev er, on es having relativ ely int en siv e sexu al cont act s (fren ch kis s, touchin g breast ) show ed significantly low er self- esteem v alu es (p 0.05). S am e trend has been obt ained for self- as sertiv enes s v alue. 5. T h e higher v alues of self- est eem and self- as sertiv en ess v alu es the respondent s h ad, th e lat er they st art ed the m oderate sexu al cont act (kis s, fren ch kiss ) during the dat es. Interestin gly, am on g the respondent s havin g inten siv e sex ual contacts (pettin g genit alia, sex ual int ercour se ) durin g th e dates, th ose w ho ex perienced the su ch cont act s at th e fir st dat e or lat er than 10th dat e h av e higher self- est eem an d self- as sertiv enes s v alues than on es ex perienced the such contacts durin g the 2n d 9th dates, givin g U - shape curv e. 6. T here w a s a significant relation ship bet w een self- est eem an d self- as sertiv enes s in girls w ho hav e or had boyfrien ds (P <.001). In con clu sion, th e research show s that self- est eem an d self- assertiv en ess v alu es are significantly relat ed w ith the sex ual cont act s of the t een age girls w h o hav e or h ad boyfriends. T hese result s stron gly sug gest th at proper sex edu cation program for t een age girls should cont ain the program on - 69 -
im prov in g the self- est eem and self- as sertiv enes s. W e believ e th at sex edu cation program is th e on e of th e best w ay s t o prev ent the un w ant ed sex ual contact s and pregnan cy of teenag e girls. Key w ord : teenag e girls, dat es, the lev el of sexu al contact s, self- est eem, self- assertiv eness - 70 -