상담학연구 * ,. SAS,,, Sobel test., (,, ), (, ), (, ) (,, ).,,,.,.. * (Corresponding Author): / / / Tel: / j

Similar documents
Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp DOI: * The Mediating Eff

,,,.,,,, (, 2013).,.,, (,, 2011). (, 2007;, 2008), (, 2005;,, 2007).,, (,, 2010;, 2010), (2012),,,.. (, 2011:,, 2012). (2007) 26%., (,,, 2011;, 2006;

歯14.양돈규.hwp

가족스트레스와 가정생활만족도 간의 관계에서 자아분화의 매개효과

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp DOI: 3 * Effects of 9th

,......

., (, 2000;, 1993;,,, 1994), () 65, 4 51, (,, ). 33, 4 30, 23 3 (, ) () () 25, (),,,, (,,, 2015b). 1 5,

歯김정욱.PDF

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp DOI: 3 * The Effect of H

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp DOI: * Strenghening the Cap


Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp DOI: * The Effect of Paren

27 2, 17-31, , * ** ***,. K 1 2 2,.,,,.,.,.,,.,. :,,, : 2009/08/19 : 2009/09/09 : 2009/09/30 * 2007 ** *** ( :


歯5-2-13(전미희외).PDF

<3132B1C731C8A3BABBB9AE2E687770>

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp DOI: The Effect of Caree

,, (, 2003;, 2004).,, (, 2008;, 2010;, 2003;, 2012).,, (, 2007; Hahn et al., 2011). (, 2010;, 2012; Lam et al., 2010), (, 2008;, 2006).,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

230 한국교육학연구 제20권 제3호 I. 서 론 청소년의 언어가 거칠어지고 있다. 개ㅅㄲ, ㅆㅂ놈(년), 미친ㅆㄲ, 닥쳐, 엠창, 뒤져 등과 같은 말은 주위에서 쉽게 들을 수 있다. 말과 글이 점차 된소리나 거센소리로 바뀌고, 외 국어 남용과 사이버 문화의 익명성 등

상담학연구,,.,., 117,.,,.,.,,... (Corresponding Author): /, ( ) / Tel : /

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp DOI: : * A Study on the

상담학연구,, SPSS 21.0., t,.,,,..,.,.. (Corresponding Author): / / / Tel: /

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp DOI: * A Study on Teache

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp DOI: * Relationships a

지난 2009년 11월 애플의 아이폰 출시로 대중화에 접어든 국내 스마트폰의 역사는 4년 만에 ‘1인 1스마트폰 시대’를 눈앞에 두면서 모바일 최강국의 꿈을 실현해 가고 있다

,......

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp DOI: * Relationship among

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp DOI: : A Study on the Ac

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp DOI: * Early Childhood T

특수교육논총 * ,,,,..,..,, 76.7%.,,,.,,.. * 1. **

상담학연구 : *.,,,,, (N=495)..,.,.. * (2013). (Corresponding Author): / / / Tel: /

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp DOI: * The

<30382E20B1C7BCF8C0E720C6EDC1FD5FC3D6C1BEBABB2E687770>

Kor. J. Aesthet. Cosmetol., 라이프스타일은 개인 생활에 있어 심리적 문화적 사회적 모든 측면의 생활방식과 차이 전체를 말한다. 이러한 라이프스 타일은 사람의 내재된 가치관이나 욕구, 행동 변화를 파악하여 소비행동과 심리를 추측할 수 있고, 개인의

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp DOI: * A Study on the Pe

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp DOI: A Study on the Opti

상담학연구 : * ,,,.,,,..,.,.,,,,.. *. (Corresponding Author): / / 815 Tel: /

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp DOI: * The Grounds and Cons

歯유성경97.PDF


:,,.,. 456, 253 ( 89, 164 ), 203 ( 44, 159 ). Cronbach α= ,.,,..,,,.,. :,, ( )

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp DOI: * Suggestions of Ways

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp DOI: * Meta Analysis : T

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp DOI: * Review of Research


상담학연구 , , ,, ( ),.,., 15 19,, 30, (Corresponding Author): / Tel: /


. (2013) % % 2. 1% (,, 2014).. (,,, 2007). 41.3% (, 2013). (,,,,,, 2010)... (2010),,, 4.,.. (2012), (2010),., (,, 2009).... (, 2012).

상담학연구 * Shelton(1990) Eden(2001).. D 480,, 425..,... * (Corresponding Author): / / ( ) 1370 Tel: /


Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp DOI: * A Analysis of

서론 34 2

. 45 1,258 ( 601, 657; 1,111, 147). Cronbach α=.67.95, 95.1%, Kappa.95.,,,,,,.,...,.,,,,.,,,,,.. :,, ( )

(5차 편집).hwp

석사학위 논문

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp DOI: IPA * Analysis of Perc

교육치료연구 SNS : SNS SNS SNS SNS, SNS, SNS. SPSS MACRO SNS., SNS SNS. SNS, SNS,. SNS SNS,. (2016) (Corresponding Author) : / / 608 / Tel:

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp DOI: * Relationship Betw

<C7D1B1B9B1B3C0B0B0B3B9DFBFF85FC7D1B1B9B1B3C0B05F3430B1C733C8A35FC5EBC7D5BABB28C3D6C1BE292DC7A5C1F6C6F7C7D42E687770>

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

54 한국교육문제연구제 27 권 2 호, I. 1.,,,,,,, (, 1998). 14.2% 16.2% (, ), OECD (, ) % (, )., 2, 3. 3

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp DOI: The Effects of Pare

27 2, 1-16, * **,,,,. KS,,,., PC,.,,.,,. :,,, : 2009/08/12 : 2009/09/03 : 2009/09/30 * ** ( :

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp DOI: Awareness, Supports

歯김길문.PDF

Rheu-suppl hwp

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp DOI: : Researc

상담학연구. 10,,., (CQR).,,,,,,.,,.,,,,. (Corresponding Author): / / 567 Tel: /

Child Health Nurs Res, Vol.23, No.3, July 2017: [7,8]. [9], [10,11]. [11]. [12]. [13]. Stephens[14] Gillespie, Chaboyer Wallis (2007),,,,,,,,.

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp DOI: * Experiences of Af

methods.hwp

A 617

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp DOI: * The Participant Expe

노동경제논집 38권 3호 (전체).hwp

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

.,,,,,,.,,,,.,,,,,, (, 2011)..,,, (, 2009)., (, 2000;, 1993;,,, 1994;, 1995), () 65, 4 51, (,, ). 33, 4 30, (, 201

2004 (Study Korea Project) ,526 85,923 (, 2013).,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, (,, 2010;,,,, 2010;,, 2009;,, 2011; Mori, 2000; Raffaelli, Torres Stone

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp DOI: NCS : G * The Analy

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp DOI: : A basic research

Àå¾Ö¿Í°í¿ë ³»Áö

서론

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp DOI: * The Structural Rel

<30392EB9DAB0A1B6F72CC1A4B3B2BFEE2E687770>


27 2, * ** 3, 3,. B ,.,,,. 3,.,,,,..,. :,, : 2009/09/03 : 2009/09/21 : 2009/09/30 * ICAD (Institute for Children Ability


경찰공무원의사회적지지와직무열정과의관계에서자아탄력성의매개효과 경찰공무원의사회적지지와직무열정과의관계에서자아탄력성의매개효과 * The Mediating Effect of Social Support on the Relationship between Ego-Resiliency

1..

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp DOI: (NCS) Method of Con



(Exposure) Exposure (Exposure Assesment) EMF Unknown to mechanism Health Effect (Effect) Unknown to mechanism Behavior pattern (Micro- Environment) Re

인문사회과학기술융합학회

05_최운선_53~67,68.hwp

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp DOI: Parents Perception

歯정남운(최종).PDF

<C0DBBEF7C1DF202D20C7D1B1B9BFA9BCBAC0CEB1C7C1F8C8EFBFF85FBFA9BCBAB0FA20C0CEB1C728C5EBB1C736C8A3292DB3BBC1F62E687770>

도비라

232 도시행정학보 제25집 제4호 I. 서 론 1. 연구의 배경 및 목적 사회가 다원화될수록 다양성과 복합성의 요소는 증가하게 된다. 도시의 발달은 사회의 다원 화와 밀접하게 관련되어 있기 때문에 현대화된 도시는 경제, 사회, 정치 등이 복합적으로 연 계되어 있어 특

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp DOI: A Study on Organizi

Transcription:

*. 4 312,. SAS,,, Sobel test., (,, ), (, ), (, ) (,, ).,,,.,.. * 2015. (Corresponding Author): / / 516 2870 2307 / Tel: 064-754-0350 / E-mail: jmb0024@hanmail.net

(, 2011).,., (, 1997).,,, (, 1997) (, 2010). (, 1997;, 1997;,, 1999) (, 2010;, 2014;, 2013). (Ryff, 1989), (, 2013; Chang, 2006; Ryff, 1989; Ryff & Keyes, 1995),, (,, 2008). (Havighurst, 1980).,,,.,, (, 2014). (, 2010;,, 2013; Lam et al., 2010),, (Loeber, 1990).,.,,, (, 2011).,, (, 2006).,,,,. (Compas, Malcame, & Fondacaro, 1988). (,,, 2008)., (2008), Perry Cooper(1985)

., (2012), (1995),,,, (2009),., (Cramer, 1998), (Segal, Coolidge, & Misuno, 2007)., (Bond et al., 1983; Cramer, 1998)., (Clark, 2005).., S. Freud,.,,,,,, 8,. A. Freud(2015), S. Freud,,,,,. (, 2004).. Vaillant(1971) 30,.,,,,,,, -,,,,,,,,,,,. Vaillant(1975, 1976),. (1999)

, 16,,.,,,,,,, -.,,,,,.,,,.,,,,,., (Vaillant, 1976).,., (, 2015)., (drive) (self) (Cooper, 1998;, 2009 ).,, (Bond et al., 1983). (,, 2004).,,., (Inlievich & Gleser, 1986).,,... (,, 2009;, 2012;, 1995),,..,

.. 1.,? 2.? 312. 350 328 312. n % 132 42.31 180 57.69 19-20 113 35.53 21-22 155 48.74 23 50 15.72 1 133 42.36 2 112 35.67 3 69 21.98 183 59.80 31 10.13 59 19.28 33 10.78 1., (2000). 23,,,. 4 Likert.. Ryff(1989), (2001). 46 5 Likert.. Bond (1983) (Defense Style Questionnaire: DSQ) (1999) (Korea-Defense Style Questionnare: K-DSQ). 25,,,,,,,, 9 10

16 (,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ) 65. 16 2 (,,,,, ), (,,, ), (, ), (,,, ) 4. 12 51., ( ), (, ), ( ), -( ),, (, ), (, ), (, ),, ( ), (,, ), ( ),, ( ), ( ). 7 Likert.., 2. 2015 11., 1.,, 1, 30., 30.,, 3.,

0-3 4 Likert 1-5 5 Likert 1-7 7 Likert 6 5.90 6.91 6.91-46 5 8 3 5 5 5 3 2 6 2 3 4,.85.86.78.79.67.65.62.63.65.61.79.63.80.75

., Cronbach's α,, t., ( 1), Baron Kenny(1986) ( 2). SAS., Sobel test. (n=132) M(SD) (n=180) 1.31(.75) 1.36(.65) -1.09 3.76(.71) 3.86(.82) -1.23 2.78(.45) 2.76(.45).35.82)., (M=1.31, SD=.75) (M=1.36, SD=.65). t,,.. t. 3.,. 3, (M=1.31, SD=.75) (M=1.36, SD=.65), (M=3.76, SD=.71) (M=3.86, SD=,,. 4. 4, (r=-.39, p<.001), (r=-.39, p<.001), (r=-.39, p<.001) (r=-.39, p<.001). (r=-.44, p<.001), (r=-.49, p<.001), (r=-.43, p<.001), (r=-.42, p<.001), (r=-.28, p<.001), (r=-.21, p<.001), (r=-.45, p<.001), (r=-.42, p<.001)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 M(SD) 1. - 1.09(0.73) 2..76 *** - 0.91(0.82) 3..73 ***.82 *** - 1.02(0.80) 4..71 ***.71 ***.66 *** - 1.11(0.83) 5. -.39 *** -.37 *** -.46 *** -.33 *** - 2.71(0.40) 6..33 ***.36 ***.40 ***.40 *** -.44 *** - 3.68(1.07) 7..53 ***.57 ***.61 ***.51 *** -.49 ***.61 *** - 3.44(0.95) 8..34 ***.38 ***.40 ***.33 *** -.43 ***.68 ***.60 *** - 3.69(1.24) 9..37 ***.40 ***.40 ***.41 *** -.42 ***.66 ***.66 ***.60 *** - 3.68(0.96) 10..19 ***.20 ***.25 ***.15 ** -.28 ***.33 ***.47 ***.38 ***.41 *** - 3.99(0.84) 11..23 ***.30 ***.30 ***.23 *** -.21 ***.35 ***.52 ***.37 ***.34 ***.48 *** - 3.67(0.91) 12..11.17 ***.19 ***.06 -.06.28 ***.36 ***.28 ***.31 ***.53 ***.31 *** - 4.08(1.11) 13. -.12 * -.10 -.15 ** -.01.37 ***.00 -.04 -.07.03.03.23 ***.03-4.10(1.17) 14..20 ***.30 ***.25 ***.29 ***.04.37 ***.40 ***.39 ***.36 ***.14 **.41 ***.68.23 *** - 3.65(0.96) 15..23 ***.35 ***.33 ***.21 *** -.03.34 ***.43 ***.38 ***.27 ***.24 ***.32 ***.16 **.13 *.36 *** - 3.51(1.32) 16..41 ***.40 ***.45 ***.30 *** -.45 ***.47 ***.71 ***.56 ***.52 ***.38 ***.45 ***.33 *** -.13 *.34 ***.33 *** - 3.42(1.28) 17..30 ***.33 ***.36 ***.25 *** -.42 ***.45 ***.61 ***.52 ***.54 ***.36 ***.45 ***.36 *** -.02.34 ***.29 ***.81 *** 3.61(1.17) * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001., (r=.37, p<.001). (,,, ) (,,,,,,,,,,, ) Baron Kenny(1986). Baron Kenny,,,. (,,, ), (,,,,,,,,,,, ) 4. 4,,,,., (Variance Inflation Factor: VIF) 1.00 1.40. Baron Kenny, (1)

. (2). (3)., 1, 2. 2, 1. 2. 1, 2,. (1), (2), (3) 5, 6, 7, 8., 5. 5, 1 (β=.34, p<.001), (β=.52, p<.001), (β=.34, p<.001), (β=.37, p<.001), (β=.19, p<.001), (β=.23, p<.001), (β=.41, p<.001), (β=.30, p<.001), (β=-.12, p<.05), 2 (β=-.39, p<.001). 3, (β=-.35, p<.001), (β=-.39, p<.001), (β=-.34, p<.001), (β=-.32, p<.001), (β=-.21, p<.001), (β=-.12, p<.01), (β=.33, p<.001), (β=-.35, p<.001), (β=-.33, p<.001).,., (β=-.27, p<.001, β=-.39β =-.27, Sobel Z=-4.51, p<.001), (β=-.19, p<.01, β=-.39β=-.19, Sobel Z=-6.80, p<.001), (β=-.28, p<.001, β=-.39β=-.28, Sobel Z= -4.15, p<.001), (β=-.27, p<.001, β=-.39 β=-.27, Sobel Z=-4.89, p<.001), (β=-.35, p<.001, β=-.39β=-.35, Sobel Z=-2.95, p<.01), (β=-.36, p<.001, β=-.39β=-.36, Sobel Z=-2.14, p<.05), (β=-.35, p<.001, β=-.39 β=-.35, Sobel Z=-1.87, p<.05), (β=-.25, p<.001, β=-.39β=-.25, Sobel Z=-4.51, p<.001), (β=-.29, p<.001, β=-.39β=-.29, Sobel Z= -3.82, p<.001).,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.

SE β t ² F ΔR 2.50.08.34 6.52 ***.12 42.56 ***.68.06.52 10.99 ***.28 120.72 ***.57.09.34 6.39 ***.11 40.77 ***.48.07.37 7.11 ***.14 50.62 *** 1.22.06.19 3.42 ***.04 11.69 ***.29.07.23 4.26 ***.05 18.19 *** -.18.09 -.12-2.06 *.01 4.24 *.71.09.41 7.91 ***.17 62.49 ***.48.09.30 5.65 ***.09 32.92 *** 2 -.21.03 -.39-7.56 ***.15 57.14 *** - -.15.03 -.27-5.26 ***.26 55.03 ***.11 -.13.02 -.35-6.71 *** -.10.03 -.19-3.28 **.26 56.08 ***.11 -.17.02 -.39-6.84 *** -.15.03 -.28-5.36 ***.25 53.85 ***.10 -.11.02 -.34-6.56 *** -.15.03 -.27-5.15 ***.24 50.23 ***.09 -.14.02 -.32-6.07 *** 3 -.19.03 -.35-6.83 ***.20 38.60 ***.05 -.10.02 -.21-4.14 *** -.19.03 -.36-6.86 ***.17 31.69 ***.02 -.05.02 -.12-2.33 ** -.19.03 -.35-7.24 ***.26 55.17 ***.11.11.02.33 6.72 *** -.14.03 -.25-4.67 ***.26 54.39 ***.11 -.11.02 -.35-6.62 *** -.16.03 -.29-5.71 ***.25 52.76 ***.10 -.11.02 -.33-6.41 *** * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001., 6. 6, 1

SE β t ² F ΔR 2.47.07.36 6.88 ***.13 47.36 ***.65.05.57 12.33 ***.32 152.08 ***.57.08.38 7.24 ***.14 52.40 *** 1.46.06.40 7.73 ***.16 59.82 ***.20.06.20 3.57 ***.04 12.75 ***.33.06.30 5.61 ***.09 31.46 ***.62.08.40 7.78 ***.16 60.56 ***.47.08.33 6.19 ***.11 38.34 *** 2 -.18.03 -.37-6.98 ***.35 48.77 *** - -.12.03 -.24-4.52 ***.24 50.53 ***.11 -.13.02 -.35-6.74 *** -.06.03 -.13-2.19 **.25 52.16 ***.12 -.18.02 -.41-6.95 *** -.12.03 -.24-4.44 ***.24 48.33 ***.11 -.11.02 -.34-6.45 3 -.11.03 -.23-4.34 ***.22 45.54 ***.09 -.14.02 -.33-6.06 *** -.16.03 -.32-6.20 ***.18 34.19 ***.05 -.10.02 -.22-4.14 *** -.16.03 -.33 6.10 ***.14 26.55 ***.01 -.05.02 -.11 1.97 *** -.14.03 -.25 4.67 ***.26 54.39 ***.11 -.11.02 -.35-6.62 *** -.16.03 -.29 5.71 ***.25 52.76 ***.10 -.11.02 -.33-6.41 *** * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001. (β=.36, p<.001), (β=.57 p<.001), (β=.38, p<.001), (β=.40, p<.001), (β=.20, p<.001), (β=.30, p<.001), (β=.40, p<.001), (β=.33, p<.001), 2 (β=-.37, p<.001). 3, (β=-.35, p<.001), (β=-.41, p<.001), (β=-.33, p<.001),

(β=-.22, p<.001), (β=-.11, p<.01), (β=-.35, p<.001), (β=-.33, p<.001).,.,., (β=-.24, p<.001, β =-.37β=-.24, Sobel Z=-4.67, p<.001), (β =-.13, p<.01, β=-.37β=-.13, Sobel Z=-7.39, p<.001), (β=-.24, p<.001, β=-.37β=-.24, Sobel Z=-4.35, p<.001), (β=-.32, p<.001, β =-.37β=-.32, Sobel Z=-5.16, p<.001), (β=-.33, p<.001, β=-.37β=-.33, Sobel Z=-2.77, p<.01), (β=-.25, p<.001, β=-.37β=-.25, Sobel Z=-4.48, p<.001), (β=-.29, p<.001, β =-.37β=-.29, Sobel Z=-4.01, p<.001).,,,,,,,,,,,,,,., 7. 7, 1 (β=.40, p<.001), (β=.61 p<.001), (β=.40, p<.001), (β=.40, p<.001), (β=.25, p<.001), (β=.30, p<.001), (β=.45, p<.001), (β=.36, p<.001), (β=-.15, p<.01), 2 (β=-.45, p<.001). 3, (β=-.31, p<.001), (β=-.34, p<.001), (β=-.30, p<.001), (β=-.29, p<.001), (β=-.18, p<.001), (β=-.32, p<.001), (β=-.29, p<.001).,,.,., (β=-.32, p<.001, β=-.45β=-.32, Sobel Z=-4.73, p<.001), (β=-.24, p<.001, β=-.45β=-.24, Sobel Z=-4.72, p<.001), (β=-.33, p<.001, β=-.45 β=-.33, Sobel Z=-4.20, p<.001), (β =-.33, p<.001, β=-.45β=-.33, Sobel Z=-4.80, p<.001), (β=-.40, p<.001, β=-.45β=-.40, Sobel Z=-2.98, p<.01), (β=-.30, p<.001, β =-.45β=-.30, Sobel Z=-4.37, p<.001), (β =-.34, p<.001, β=-.45β=-.34, Sobel Z=-3.99, p<.001).,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.

SE β t ² F ΔR 2.54.07.40 7.87 ***.17 61.90 ***.72.05.61 13.67 ***.37 186.91 ***.62.08.40 7.76 ***.16 60.15 ***.48.06.40 7.83 ***.16 61.25 *** 1.27.06.25 4.68 ***.06 21.95 ***.34.06.30 5.60 ***.09 31.36 *** -.22.08 -.15-2.68 **.02 7.18 ***.72.08.45 8.99 ***.20 80.83 ***.53.08.36 6.94 ***.13 48.15 *** 2 -.23.03 -.45-8.89 ***.20 78.94 *** - -.16.03 -.32-6.15 ***.28 61.33 ***.08 -.12.02 -.31-5.93 *** -.12.03 -.24-3.94 ***.27 59.20 ***.07 -.15.03 -.34-5.64 *** -.16.03 -.33-6.24 ***.28 60.17 ***.08 -.10.02 -.30-5.77 *** -.17.03 -.33-6.29 ***.27 58.15 ***.07 -.12.02 -.29-5.48 *** 3 -.20.03 -.40-7.86 ***.23 46.81 ***.03 -.08.02.18-3.46 *** -.21.03 -.42-8.03 ***.21 40.82 ***.01 -.04.02 -.08-1.54 -.20.02 -.40-8.37 ***.29 56.37 ***.09.11.02.31 6.45 -.15.03 -.30-5.68 ***.28 61.00 ***.08 -.10.02 -.32-5.89 *** -.17.03 -.34-6.61 ***.27 59.51 ***.07 -.10.02 -.29-5.68 *** * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001., 8. 8, 1

SE β t ² F ΔR 2 1.52.07.40 7.73 ***.16 59.80 ***.58.06.51 10.53 ***.26 110.79 ***.49.08.33 6.21 ***.11 38.62 ***.47.06.41 7.94 ***.17 62.97 ***.15.06.15 2.61 ***.02 6.81 ***.25.06.23 4.18 ***.05 17.50 ***.46.08.30 5.58 ***.09 31.08 ***.35.08.25 4.54 ***.06 20.64 *** 2 -.16.03 -.33-6.12 ***.11 37.40 *** -.09.03 -.18-3.28 ***.22 44.53 ***.11 -.14.02 -.37-6.80 *** -.05.02 -.10-1.83 -.19.02 -.43-7.63 ***.25 51.21 ***.14 -.10.03 -.20-3.90 ***.22 45.56 ***.11 -.12.02 -.36-6.94 *** - 3 -.09.03 -.18-3.35 ***.21 40.91 ***.10 -.15.02 -.35-6.31 *** -.19.03 -.25-6.83 ***.20 38.60 ***.09 -.10.02 -.21-4.14 *** -.14.03 -.29-5.41 ***.12 22.42 ***.01 -.06.02 -.14-2.60 ** -.10.03 -.21-4.06 ***.24 51.06 ***.13 -.12.02 -.39-7.61 *** -.12.03 -.24-4.63 ***.23 46.02 ***.12 -.12.02 -.36-7.00 *** * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001. (β=.40, p<.001), (β=.51 p<.001), (β=.33, p<.001), (β=.41, p<.001), (β=.15, p<.001), (β=.23, p<.001), (β=.30, p<.001), (β=.25, p<.001), 2 (β=-.37, p<.001)

. 3, (β=-.37, p<.001), (β=-.43, p<.001), (β=-.36, p<.001), (β=-.35, p<.001), (β=-.21, p<.001), (β=-.14, p<.01), (β=-.39 p<.001), (β=-.36, p<.001).,., (β=-.18, p<.001, β=-.33β=-.18, Sobel Z=-5.09, p<.01), (β=-.20, p<.001, β=-.33 β=-.20, Sobel Z=-4.28, p<.001), (β=-.18, p<.001, β=-.33β=-.18, Sobel Z=-5.41, p<.001), (β=-.25, p<.001, β=-.33β=-.25, Sobel Z=-2.23, p<.05), (β=-.29, p<.001, β =-.33β=-.29, Sobel Z=-2.43, p<.05), (β =-.21, p<.001, β=-.33β=-.21, Sobel Z=-4.15, p<.001), (β=-.24, p<.001, β=-.33β=-.24, Sobel Z=-3.53, p<.001)., (β=-.10, p=.07), (β=-.33β=-.10). (Sobel Z=-6.77, p<.001).,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...,, (,, ).,. (2011)., (,, 2006;, 2010;, 2004;, 2004;,, 2000; Lam et al., 2010).,,,,,,,,,.,,,,. (,,,,, ) (, 2011;,, 1994).,,,, ),

,,,,.,,,,. (,,,,, ) (, 2011)., Baron Kenny(1986),,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,. (,, ) (, 2006).,, (, 2012).,,.,,.,.,.,. (Vaillant, 2008).. (Clark, 2005).,. A. Freud(1936: Clark, 2005 ).,

.,.,.,,. S. Freud,,.. (Vaillant, 2008). S. Freud(1905: Vaillant, 2008 ).,.. (Vaillant, 2008). Vaillant (2008). (,,, 2008), (, 2012), (Perry, 1990) (Perry & Hoglend, 1998).,,. (, 2004;,, 2013;, 2008;, 2006;, 2012).,,,,,,.,,,,?,? A. Freud Vaillant., A. Freud,,, (Clark, 2005)., Vaillant(2008).,

,,.,., Vaillant(2008),.,.,,., (, 2012), (, 2006), (, 2012).. Vaillant(2008). (,,, ), (, ), (, ), A. Freud,,, Vaillant. A. Freud Vaillant. A. Freud Vaillant.,. (2013),,,., Foreman Marmar(1985).,,,. Vaillant(2008)., Vaillant(2008).,.,,.,

,.,.,,., Vaillant,,.,,,, (, 2015).. (Vaillant, 2008)., (, ), (,,, ).,,,..,..,.,.,,,,..,,..,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

., (2009). :. (4), 161-183., (2006).. (1), 21-40. (1997). :. (2010).,. (2014).,., (2013). :. (2), 1125-1144.,, (2001). :. (2), 19-39. (2004).,. (2012).,., (2013).. (3), 1939-1959. (2008)..,. (2006).,. (2008). :. (2004).. (3), 581-593., (2004).. (4), 9-19. (1997). :. (1997).. :. (2013)..,., (1999).. :. (1995).,.,, (2008).. (2), 961-975. (2011).,. (2013).. (1), 17-35. (2012).

,. (2010).,. (2004). :. (1), 25-52.,,, (2006).,. (3), 701-713., (1994). :. (1), 136-158.,, (2000).. (2), 316-335., (2008). : -. (2), 373-387. (2012).,. (1999).. (2), 115-137.,,,, (2015).. :. (2009)..,. (2006).,. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction on social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Bond, M., Gardner, S. T., Chrustian, J., & Sigal, J. (1983). Empirical study self-rated defense style. Archives of General Psychiatry, 40, 333-338. Chang, E. C. (2006). Perfectionism and dimensions of psychological well-being in a college student sample: A test of a stress-mediation model. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(9), 1001-1022. Clark, A. J. (2005). [Defense Mechanisms in the Counseling Process]. ( ). : ( 1998 ). Compas, B. E., Malcame, V. L., & Fondacaro, K. M. (1988). Coping with stressful events in order children and young adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 405-411. Cramer, P. (1998). Coping and defense mechanisms: What's the difference? Journal of Personality, 66(6), 919-946. Foreman, S. A., & Marmar, C. R. (1985). Therapist actions that address initially poor therapeutic alliances in psychotherapy. American Journal of Psychiatry, 142(8), 922-926. Freud, A. (2015). [The Ego and The Mechanisms of Defence]. ( ). : ( 1936 ). Havighurst, R. J. (1980). Life-Span developmental psychology and education. Educational Researcher, 9, 3-8. Ihilevich, D., & Gleser, G. C. (1986). Defense

mechanism: Their classification corelate and measurement with the defense mechanism inventory. Owosso, M.I.: DMI Assoc. Lam, J. G., Wong, W. S., Mary, S. M., Lam, K. F., & Pang, S. L. (2010). Psychological well-being of interns in Hong Kong: What causes them stress and what helps them. Medical Teacher, 32(3), 120-126. Loeber, R. (1990). Development and risk factors of juvenil antisocial behavior and delinquency. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 1-41. Perry, J. C. (1990). The defense mechanism rating scales(5th ed). Cambridge, M. A.: Author. Perry, J. C., & Cooper, S. H. (1985). An empirical study of defense mechanism: Clinical interview and life vignette ratings. Archives of General Psychiatry, 46(5), 444-452. Perry, J. C., & Hoglend, P. (1998). Convergent and discriminant validity of overall defensive functioning. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 186(9), 529-535. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 57, 1069-1081. Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719-727. Segal, D. L., Coolidge, F. L., & Mizuno, H. (2007). Defense mechanism differences between younger and older adults: A cross-sectional investigation. Aging & Mental Health, 11(4), 415-422. Vaillant, G. E. (1971). Theoretical hierarchy of adaptive ego mechanisms. Archive of General psychiatry, 24, 107-118. Vaillant, G. E. (1975). Natural history of male psychological health : Empirical dimensions of mental health. Archive of General Psychiatry, 32, 420-426. Vaillant, G. E. (1976). Natural history of male psychological health : The relation of choice of ego mechanisms of defense to adult adjustment. Archive General Psychiatry, 33, 535-545. Vaillant, G. E. (2008). [Adaptation to Life]. ( ). : ( 1977 ). : 2016. 04. 15. : 2016. 06. 10. : 2016. 06. 17.

The mediating effect of defense mechanism in relationship between college students stress from interpersonal relationship and psychological well-being Jeju International University The purpose of this study was to verify the mediating effect of defense mechanism in relationship between college students stress from interpersonal relationship and psychological well-being. To this end, this study conducted a survey on 312 college students from four universities located in Jeju-do in order to measure their stress from interpersonal relationship, psychological well-being, and defense mechanism. Using an SAS program, descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, regression analysis were conducted and Sobel Test was performed in order to verify the mediating effect. The main results of this study are as follows. First, immature defense mechanism (acting out, fantasy, and passive aggression), self-regulation defense mechanism(inhibition, reaction formation), conflict avoidance defense mechanism(resignation, isolation) had partial mediating effect in relationship between stress from interpersonal relationship(with the opposite sex, friends, family, and professors) and psychological well-being. Second, projection, which is an immature defense mechanism, had partial mediating effect in relationship between stress from relationship with the opposite sex, friends, and family and psychological well-being and had complete mediating effect in relationship between stress from relationship with professors and psychological well-being. Third, only humors among adaptive defense mechanism had partial mediating effect in relationship between stress from relationship with the opposite sex and family and psychological well-being. Lastly, the researcher discussed the suggestive points and limitations of this study and follow-up research. Key words : defense mechanism, stress from interpersonal relationship, psychological well-being