KISEP Original Articles 10 2 1999 Korean J Child & Adol Psychiatr 10158~168 학교폭력피해청소년의방어기제에관한연구 * A STUDY ON THE DEFENSE MECHANISMS IN ADOLESCENT VICTIMS OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE 진혜경 ** 박영숙 *** 신지용 **** Hea-Kyung Jhin, M.D.,** Young-Sook Park, Ph.D.,*** Jee-Yong Shin, M.D.**** 요약 중심단어 서 론 Department of Adolescent Psychiatry, Seoul National Mental Hospital, Seoul Department of Neuropsychiatry, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University, Seoul Department of Neuropsychiatry, College of Medicine, Hallym University, Seoul Corresponding author 158
159
1. 연구대상 연구대상및방법 2. 연구방법 1) 이화방어기제검사 160
2) 분노척도 3. 연구절차및자료분석 Table 1. Distribution of the sample Group Male Female Total Clinical group Inpatient 1 5 6 Day hospital 3 2 5 Outpatient 6 2 8 School 7 15 22 17 24 21 Control group 16 24 40 Total 33 48 81 Table 2. Mean age of the sample Group Mean S.D. Admission 15.17 0.44 Day hospital 16.20 0.44 Outpatient 15.75 0.49 School 14.14 0.25 Control 16.15 1.39 연구결과 1. 임상군과정상군간의차이 1) 이화방어기제의하위척도, 요인, 성숙단계에서의 차이 161
2. 입원환자, 낮병동환자, 외래환자, 학교군, 정상군의차이 1) 이화방어기제의하위척도, 요인, 성숙단계에서의차이 Table 3. T-test according to subscales of EDMT between clinical and normal group Clinical group Normal group t-value df p Mean SD Mean SD 29.6341 5.300 28.1500 5.864 1.20 79 NS 28.0000 5.608 33.1500 3.690 4.89 69.37 p.01 31.0976 4.929 31.4000 4.349.29 79 NS 28.9268 5.729 28.0513 5.894.67 78 NS 30.0976 5.535 29.5750 4.825.45 79 NS 27.7317 5.496 28.5526 5.023.69 77 NS 26.0244 4.204 25.9000 4.673.13 79 NS 27.9024 5.166 31.8750 4.292 3.76 79 p.01 30.1707 5.371 31.9250 5.474 1.46 79 NS 25.9268 6.064 28.9250 4.758 2.47 79 p.05 26.9512 6.004 29.3000 4.952 1.92 79 NS 29.5122 5.001 30.1250 3.639.63 73.11 NS 30.5854 6.066 33.7000 4.670 2.58 79 p.05 29.4878 5.895 29.0250 5.313.37 79 NS 26.6585 5.816 27.5250 5.084.71 79 NS 27.0244 7.202 28.5641 6.797.98 78 NS 28.6098 6.172 30.6500 4.400 1.72 72.38 NS 30.9756 5.619 32.5250 4.188 1.40 79 NS 28.8780 6.493 32.2500 4.595 2.70 72.12 p.01 30.8537 5.008 29.7750 4.954.97 79 NS Table 4. T-test according to factors of EDMT between clinical and normal group Factors Clinical group Normal group t-value df p Mean SD Mean SD 1 173.8537 29.010 175.055 22.693.20 75 NS 2 137.9756 24.113 151.225 15.296 2.96 67.95 p.01 3 119.7073 13.766 125.2250 13.248 1.84 79 NS 4 143.5122 17.401 147.0250 14.519.99 79 NS Table 5. T-test according to maturation levels of EDMT between clinical group and normal group Maturation Clinical group Normal group level Mean SD Mean SD t-value df p 82.0488 10.943 84.4000 7.692 1.12 71.87 NS 147.5122 22.050 148.8421 18.736.29 77 NS 173.3659 21.248 184.9737 14.784 2.84 71.59 p.01 167.1951 27.124 180.5750 18.727 2.59 71.20 p.05 162
Table 6. ANOVA according to factors among clinical subgroups and normal group Factors Measures df F p 1 Intragroup 72 0.3497 NS Total 76 2 Intragroup 76 4.3866 p.01 Total 80 3 Intragroup 76 1.9229 NS Total 80 4 Intragroup 76 1.9361 NS Total 80 Table 7. ANOVA according to maturation levels among clinical subgroups and normal group Maturation Measures df F p level Intragroup 76 1.6041 NS Total 80 Intragroup 74 0.5082 NS Total 78 Intragroup 74 2.9903 p.05 Total 78 Intragroup 76 3.9675 p.01 Total 80 3. 정상군의성별차이 4. 임상군의이화방어기제와분노간의상관관계 1) 이화방어기제하위척도와분노척도와의상관관계 163
2) 이화방어기제요인, 성숙단계와분노척도와의상관관계 Table 8. Correlation between subscales and anger scale 5. 임상군의성별차이.0999.0192.3754.4284.3502.4822*.1445.0463.1559.0097.2160.1090.1630.2259.2396.4544*.0582.0670.2491.167.0443.2482.3751.5140*.0567.4303*.0641.3272.1496.0724.0667.1935.4716*.3277.0541.4534*.0855.4579*.2325.0734 *p.01 Table 9. Correlation between factors and anger scale 1 2 3 4.1754.0062.7199*.2669.4719.2811.7928*.4053 *p.01 Table 10. Correlation between maturation levels and anger scale.0208.0263.5453.0627.1525.3796.6130.3639 Table 11. T-test according to subscales between patient group and school group in clinical group Patient group School group t-value df p Mean SD Mean SD 27.5263 4.926 31.4545 5.021 2.52 39 p.05 27.5789 4.706 28.3636 6.374.44 39 NS 30.3158 4.164 31.7727 5.511.94 39 NS 27.2105 4.779 30.4091 6.162 1.83 39 NS 29.4737 4.351 30.6364 6.441.67 39 NS 27.5263 4.623 27.9091 6.256.22 39 NS 25.6316 4.387 26.3636 4.112.55 39 NS 27.2632 5.363 28.4545 5.050.73 39 NS 31.1579 5.909 29.3182 4.834 1.10 39 NS 25.5789 6.167 26.2273 6.102.34 39 NS 28.7895 5.978 25.3636 5.687 1.18 39 NS 29.2105 4.984 29.7727 5.117.36 39 NS 31.3158 5.488 29.9545 6.586.71 39 NS 29.6316 5.823 29.3636 6.091.14 39 NS 26.6842 5.677 26.6364 6.067.03 39 NS 27.7895 5.453 26.3636 8.505.63 39 NS 28.5263 7.961 28.6818 4.269.08 26.64 NS 30.2632 5.943 31.5909 5.387.75 39 NS 27.7368 8.082 29.8636 4.704 1.01 28.02 p.01 30.6316 4.166 31.0455 5.728.26 39 NS 164
Table 12. T-test according to anger scale between patient group and school group in clinical group Patient group School group t-value df p Mean SD Mean SD 33.2500 8.976 31.4000 8.768.57 30 NS 28.1667 12.416 23.6316 11.181 1.05 29 NS 6. 임상군내의환자군과학교군간의차이 1) 이화방어기제하위척도, 요인, 성숙단계별차이 2) 분노척도 고 찰 165
166
References 1) 경향신문 (1995): 고1생투신자살. 8월 8일 2) 조선일보 (1995): 고2생교실내물고문후실신사건. 12월 8일 3) 중앙일보 (1995): 고1생심장병급우집단폭행. 2월 18일 4) 경향신문 (1996): 고3생교실내급우살인. 3월 20일 5) 유용식 (1997): 학교주변의청소년폭력실태와해결방안 6) 동아일보 (1998): 초등학생집단따돌림후자살. 10 월 15일 7) 김은경 (1996): 때리는아이, 맞는아이어떻게볼것인가? 8) 청소년대화의광장 (1994): 때리는아이, 맞는아이 9) 청소년폭력예방재단 (1996): 청소년폭력실태와예방대책 10) 형사정책연구원 (1997): 형사정책연구 97년 12 월호 11) Hodges E, Perry D(1996):Victims of peer abuse: An overview. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems 5:23-28 12) Hoover JH, Oliver R, Hazler RJ(1992):Bullying: Perceptions of adolescent victims in midwestern USA. School Psychology International 13:5-16 13) Schwartz D, Dodge KA, Coie JD(1993):The emergence of chronic peer victimization in boy s play groups. Child Development 64:1755-1772 14) Olweus D(1993):Victimization by peers:antecedents and long-term outcomes. Social Withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood, pp315-341 15) Rigby K(1992):School children s perceptions of their families and parents as a function of peer relations. J Gen Psychol 154:501-513 16) Olweus D(1994):Bullying at school:basic facts and effects of a school-based intervention program. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 35:1171-1190 17) Patterson CJ, Kupersmidt JB, Vaden NA(1990): Income level, gender, ethnicity, and household composition as predictors of children s school-based competencies. Child Development 61:485-494 18) 강신덕 (1997): 비행청소년분노조절교육프로램개발및효과성검증. 서울대학교 19) Perry DG, Kusel S, Perry LC(1988):Victims of peer aggression. Dev Psychol 24:807-814 20) Campbell C, Schwartz DS(1996):Prevalence and Impact of Exposure to Interpersonal Violence and Among Suburban and Urban Middle School Students. Pediatrics. September, pp396-402 21) Schwartz D, Dodge K, Coie J(1993):The emergence of chronic peer victimization in boy s play groups. Child Development 64:1755-1772 22) Helen, Nadel(1996):The Cycle of Violence and Victimization:A Study of the School-based Intervention of a Multidisciplinary Youth. Violence-Prevention Program. Am J Prevent Med 2:109-119 23) 송동호, 육기환, 이호분, 노경선 (1997): 학교폭력피해청소년의정신의학적후유증에관한사례연구. 소아청소년정신의학 8(2):232-242 24) 이근후, 박영숙 (1991): 이화방어기제검사요강. 하나의학사 25) 박영숙 (1993): 연령에따른자아방어기제의차이에관한연구. 이화의대지 16(2):133-143 26) Gabbard GO(1994):Psychodynamic Psychiatry. American Psychiatric Press 167
ABSTRACT Korean J Child & Adol Psychiatr 10158~168, 1999 A STUDY ON THE DEFENSE MECHANISMS IN ADOLESCENT VICTIMS OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE Hye-Kyung Jhin, M.D., Young-Sook Park, Ph.D., Jee-Yong Shin, M.D. Department of Adolescent Psychiatry, Seoul National Mental Hospital, Seoul This study was carried out to know the main defense mechanisms used by adolescent victims of school violence. Subjects of this study are composed of 41 adolescent victimsclinical group and 40 normal adolescentscontrol group. Clinical group is divided into four subgroups of inpatient, outpatient, day hospital, and school groups. Used scales are Ewha Defense Mechanisms TestEDMT and Staittrait anger scale. Several important results are found. Adoescent victims use neurotic defense mechanisms of neurotic and mature level less frequently than normal adolescents. In clinical group day hospital adolescents use more mature defense mechanisms than outpatient adolescents. Displacement and acting out are correlated with trait and sate anger. Somatization is correlated with trait anger, and regression is correlated with state anger significantly. KEY WORDSSchool violence Defense mechanism Adolescent victims. 168