- :, ( vs. ), ( vs. )..,., -.,,,. -. :,, ( ) 63 2( ) Tel : ,

Similar documents
歯14.양돈규.hwp

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

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

차 례... 박영목 **.,... * **.,., ,,,.,,

,......

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



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

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

untitled


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

,......

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

<30392EB9DAB0A1B6F72CC1A4B3B2BFEE2E687770>

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

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

, : *,,. 248 ( ), ( ), ( ),,,. < <, (4 ).,.,,.,,,.,. * :,, 201 Tel : ,


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

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

도비라

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

<C7D1B1B9B1B3C0B0B0B3B9DFBFF85FC7D1B1B9B1B3C0B05F3430B1C733C8A35FC5EBC7D5BABB28C3D6C1BE292DC7A5C1F6C6F7C7D42E687770>

118 김정민 송신철 심규철 을 미치기 때문이다(강석진 등, 2000; 심규철 등, 2001; 윤치원 등, 2005; 하태경 등, 2004; Schibeci, 1983). 모둠 내에서 구성원들이 공동으 로 추구하는 학습 목표의 달성을 위하여 각자 맡은 역할에 따라 함께

(5차 편집).hwp

<30382E20B1C7BCF8C0E720C6EDC1FD5FC3D6C1BEBABB2E687770>

02Á¶ÇýÁø


歯이희경13-1.PDF

한국성인에서초기황반변성질환과 연관된위험요인연구


大学4年生の正社員内定要因に関する実証分析

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

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



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

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

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

ʻ ʼ

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

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

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

歯5-2-13(전미희외).PDF

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

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

04_이근원_21~27.hwp

서론

<5BBEF0BEEE33332D335D20312EB1E8B4EBC0CD2E687770>

<31372DB9DABAB4C8A32E687770>

012임수진

(,, 2010;,, 2005;,, 2013;, 2006).,,,,,, (, 2003;, 2011;, 2006) ,.,.,., ,418 (, 2013) , ,310 (, 2013).,

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

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

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


44-4대지.07이영희532~

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp DOI: A study on Characte

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

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

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp DOI: An Exploratory Stud

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

272 石 堂 論 叢 49집 기꾼이 많이 확인된 결과라 할 수 있다. 그리고 이야기의 유형이 가족 담, 도깨비담, 동물담, 지명유래담 등으로 한정되어 있음도 확인하였 다. 전국적인 광포성을 보이는 이인담이나 저승담, 지혜담 등이 많이 조사되지 않은 점도 특징이다. 아울

歯1.PDF

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA


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

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

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

1..

Àå¾Ö¿Í°í¿ë ³»Áö

歯유성경97.PDF

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

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

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

노동경제논집 38권 3호 (전체).hwp

<C7D1B1B9B1A4B0EDC8ABBAB8C7D0BAB85F31302D31C8A35F32C2F75F E687770>


歯김길문.PDF

Output file

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

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

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

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

#Ȳ¿ë¼®

<303720C7CFC1A4BCF86F6B2E687770>

歯4차학술대회원고(장지연).PDF

0212-책표지-앞.ps, page Preflight ( 책표지-앞 )

0511버스교통(표1_4)

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

대한한의학원전학회지24권6호-전체최종.hwp

歯4차학술대회원고(황수경이상호).PDF

,126,865 43% (, 2015).,.....,..,.,,,,,, (AMA) Lazer(1963)..,. 1977, (1992)

보험판매와 고객보호의 원칙

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

으로 가하는 적대적이고 비윤리적인 커뮤니케이션 으로 정의하였고, 이러한 행동은 장기간 에 걸쳐(6개월 이상) 빈번하게(거의 매일) 발생하며, 이러한 빈도와 기간으로 인해 상당한 정신 적, 심신적, 사회적 불행을 초래한다 고 하였다. 이렇게 장기간에 걸쳐 빈번하게 반복되

(JH)

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp DOI: * (,, )..,., ( ),.

Transcription:

- :, ( vs. ), ( vs. )..,., -.,,,. -. :,, (609-735) 63 2( ) Tel : 051-510-2131, E-mail : jslee100@pusan.ac.kr

(Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Underwood, Chapman, Wright, & Crundall, 1999). (e. g., Parker, Lajunen, & Stradling, 1998) (e. g., Deffenbacher, Oetting, & Lynch, 1994; Hole 2007),. (Arnett, Offer, & Fine, 1997; Deffenbacher, Filetti, Richards, Lynch, & Oetting, 2003), (DePasquale, Geller, Clarke, & Littleton, 2001), (Vallieres, Bergeron, & Vallerand, 2005). ( ), ( ). (, ).,,. (, ). (e. g., Baxter, Macrae, Manstead, Stradling, & Parker, 1990).,, - (actorobserver)..

, (Dula & Ballard, 2003; King & Parker, 2008; Wells-Parker et al., 2002)... (Blanchard, Barton, & Malta, 2000)., Deffenbacher, Huff, Lynch, Oetting Salvatore (2000) (, ). DePasquale (2001),.. (, ),.. (Deffenbacher et al., 1994)., (trait driving anger), (state driving anger) (Deffenbacher, Lynch, Oetting, & Yingling, 2001). (Deffenbacher et al., 1994), (,,, 2004; Deffenbacher et al., 1994; 2003).

... Lajunen Parker(2001), Arnett (1997), Lawton Nutter(2002). Brewer(2000).., Deffenbacher (1994). Wells-Parker (2002).... (e. g., Lonczak, Neighbors, & Donovan, 2007).. Maxwell, Grant, Lipkin(2005). Lajunen Parker(2001) 270,, (, )., ( ). ( ).

,.,,,.,. (,, 2011;, 2012; Lajunen & Parker, 2001)..., (Vallieres et al., 2005)., (attribution) (e. g., Feather & Deverson, 2000). (attribution theory) (e.g., Wickens, Wiesenthal, Flora, & Flett, 2011),.,,,, (fundamental attribution error; Ross, 1977) (Britt & Garrity, 2006),

( ) (, ) (self-serving bias, Heider, 1976) (Lennon, Watson, Arlidge, & Fraine, 2011)., - (actor- observer effect) (Jones & Nisbett, 1972). - ( - ), (perceptual salience),.,.. Jones Nisbett(1972),. (Malle & Knobe, 1997)., ( ), (Jones & Nisbett, 1972). (social undesirability) - (Green, Lightfoot, Bandy, & Buchanan, 1985).,,. -, -., ( ), (, ).,.

,. ( )., Baxter (1990),, -. Herzog(1994). Vallieres (2005) - -. ( ) ( - )., ( )..., ( ),. - (Harre, Randta, & Houkmaua, 2004)., -...,

, (Deffenbacher et al., 1994; Hole, 2007; Parker et al., 1998; Lawton, Parker, Stradling, & Manstead, 1997; Wells-Parker et al., 2002),.,,,. -. (1) - (e. g., Baxter et al., 1990; Herzog, 1994), (2) (e. g., Feather & Deverson, 2000), (3) (e. g., Blanchard-Fields, 1994; Blanchard-Fields, Chen, Schocke, & Hertzog, 1998), (4) (e. g., Deffenbacher et al., 1994; Wells-Parker et al., 2002) -.,, (e. g., Britt & Garrity, 2006; Wickens et al., 2011).., (Britt & Garrity, 2006).. -,,..,.,

., -,.,,. OO P.,. 86 44 (51.2%), 42 (48.8%). : 36 (3 ) = ; 60 (5 ) =. 45 (52.3%), 41 (47.7%). 3 (e. g., Blaauw, 1982). 1. (r =.90, p <.001).., ( = 68.5, = 73.2, t(84) = -.29, ns).,. = (N = 22) = (N = 22) = (N = 23) = (N = 19) ( ) 23.23(2.02) 32.77(6.43) 21.87(3.18) 37.37(9.52) ( ) 15.36(10.76) 121.55(49.99) 10.96(10.06) 148.47(72.90)

Forum8 UC-win/Road(ver. 6.1.2). 1m 3 50 (PN50C431) TV, 120. 5.1 Britz BR5100T. Logitech Driving Force GT,. IV (2.03GHz), NVIDIA Geforce GTX640. (Britt & Garrity, 2006). (e. g., Underwood et al., 1999), ( : )., ( ) ( ). ( ), ( ).. (2009). Britt Garrity(2006). (,, 2009),

(Wickens et al., 2011).. 1. ( 1a ) 2, (A) (B).... 2, ( 1b ). (A) (B),. ( ) (C) (a) (b)..., 3.. ( ) ( )

.,?,?. Likert 7 (1 =, 7 = ).., 3.. 80km/h.. 3. 15..., (2: vs. ), (2: vs. ), (2: vs. ) 3.,.. 3 2.. t- t-. 2,. IBM SPSS Statistics 20.

3 ( : Box M = 16.20, p =.079, : Box M = 14.87, p =.115). 2 Levene, ( :, F(3, 82) =.71, ns; :, F(3, 82) =.41, ns; :, F(3, 82) = 1.66, ns; :, F(3, 82) =1.65, ns)., 2 2. 2 3. 3,, 2. [F(1, 81) = 30.36, MSe =.62, p <.001], 2 [F(1, 81) = 17.62, MSe =.62, p <.001]. ( ) (5.76 vs, 5.10), 2., (6.03 vs. 4.84, t(41) = 5.95, p <.001). = = = = : 5.25(0.28) 5.73(0.22) 6.24(0.24) 5.82(0.28) : 5.31(0.20) 5.38(0.20) 4.40(0.21) 5.53(0.24) : 4.87(0.28) 5.53(0.27) 5.85(0.29) 5.23(0.34) : 5.46(0.32) 4.99(0.31) 5.77(0.33) 5.22(0.38)

., 3 [F(1, 81) = 12.64, MSe =.62, p <.01], 2 ( 3).,. - [F(1, 81) = 6.50, MSe =.94, p <.05] 2 [F(1, 81) = 4.35, MSe =.94, p <.05]. (5.25 vs.

SS df MS F p : ( ) 1.33 1 1.33 1.22.265.01 (A) 6.08 1 6.08 6.50.013.07 (B) 0.01 1 0.01 0.01.935.00 A x B 4.07 1 4.07 4.35.040.05 75.78 81 0.94 : ( ) 1.06 1 1.06 1.46.230.02 (A) 4.85 1 4.85 6.68.012.08 (B) 2.48 1 2.48 3.42.068.04 A x B 3.75 1 3.75 5.17.026.06 58.85 81 0.73 : ( ) 1.57 1 1.57 1.12.294.01 (A) 2.43 1 2.43 1.73.192.02 (B) 0.01 1 0.01 0.00.952.00 A x B 8.15 1 8.15 5.80.018.07 113.71 81 1.40 : ( ) 2.22 1 2.22 1.22.273.02 (A) 1.52 1 1.52 0.83.364.01 (B) 2.54 1 2.54 1.40.241.02 A x B 0.03 1 0.03 0.02.900.00 147.58 81 1.82 6.24, t(43) = -3.89, p <.001). - [F(1, 81) = 6.68, MSe =.73, p <.01] 2 [F(1, 81) = 5.17, MSe =.73, p <.05]. -., -

-, (5.31 vs. 4.40, t(43) = 3.80, p <.01)., ( ) ( ),,,. 3,,. 3 [F(1, 81) = 4.42, MSe =.86, p <.05], 2., -, 2 [F(1, 81) = 5.80, MSe = 1.40, p <.05] ( 2 ). t-. - (4.87 vs. 5.85, t(43) = -2.81, p <.01). -.,..,.

..., ( )., (, ).,.,.,. (36 ) (60 ), ( ),..,. Lajunen Parker (2001), Brewer(2000), Arnett (1997), Lawton Nutter(2002)..

(Arnett et al., 1997; Brewer, 2000; Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Lawton & Nutter, 2002),.,,,.., -.,. -.,,., -.,.,.., (e. g., Vallieres et al., 2005).,,

. ( ) -. -, - (e. g., Lewis, 1995; Monson, Tanke, & Lund, 1980)., -,. Jones Nisbett(1972) -. -.. -.,.., -., ( ), ( ).. -

( 2 ). - ( ), ( ).., Hennessy Wiesenthal(2001),,. (Deffenbacher et al., 2001). (e. g., Lonczak et al., 2007). - -.,,., ( ). -,.,..,

-., -. (Deffenbacher et al., 2001; Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001).. -,.,.,., (2009).,. (2), 403-418.,, (2004). -. (3), 713-728., (2011).. (3), 321-341. (2012). -. (3), 389-413. Arnett, J. J., Offer, D., & Fine, M. A. (1997). Reckless driving in adolescence: state and trait factors. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29, 57-63.

Baxter, J. S., Macrae, C. N., Manstead, A. S. R., Stradling, G. G., & Parker, D. (1990). Attributional biases and driver behaviour. Social Behaviour, 5, 185-192. Blaauw, G. (1982). Driving experience and task demands in simulator and instrumented car: a validation study. Human Factors, 24, 473-486. Blanchard, E. B., Barton, K. A., & Malta, L. (2000). Psychometric properties of a measure of aggressive driving: The Larson Driver s Stress Profile. Psychological Reports, 87, 881-892. Blanchard-Fields, F. (1994). Age differences in causal attributions from an adult developmental perspective. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 49, 43-51. Blanchard-Fields, F., Chen, Y., Schocke, M., & Hertzog, C. (1998). Evidence for contentspecificity of causal attributions across the adult life span. Aging, Neuropsychology & Cognition, 5, 241-263. Brewer, A. (2000). Road rage: what, who, when, where and how? Transport Reviews, 20, 49-64. Britt, T. W. & Garrity, M. J. (2006). Attributions and personality as predictors of the road rage response. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 127-147. Deffenbacher, J. L., Filetti, L. B., Richards, T. L., Lynch, R. S., & Oetting, E. R. (2003). Characteristics of two groups of angry drivers. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 123-132. Deffenbacher, J. L., Huff, M. E., Lynch, R. S., Oetting, E. R., & Salvatore, N. F. (2000). Characteristics and treatment of high-anger drivers. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 47, 5-17. Deffenbacher, J. L., Lynch, R. S., Oetting, E. R., & Yingling, D. A. (2001). Driving anger: correlates and a test of state-trait theory. Personality and Individual Difference. 31, 1321-1331. Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R., & Lynch, R. S. (1994). Development of a driving anger scale. Psychological Reports, 74, 83-91. DePasquale, J. P., Geller, E. S., Clarke, S. W., & Littleton, L. C. (2001). Measuring road rage: development of the propensity for angry driving scale. Journal of Safety Research, 32, 1-16. Dula, C. S., & Ballard, M. E. (2003). Development and evaluation of a measure of dangerous, aggressive, negative emotional, and risky driving. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 263-282. Feather, N. T., & Deverson, N. H. (2000). Reactions to a motor-vehicle accident in relation to mitigating circumstances and the gender and moral worth of the driver. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 77-95. Green, S. K., Lightfoot, M. A,, Bandy, C., & Buchanan, D. R. (1985). A general model of the attribution process. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 6, 159-179. Harre, N., Randta, T., & Houkmaua, C. (2004). Examination of the actor-observer effect in young drivers attributions for their own and their friends risky driving. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 806-824. Heider, F. (1976). A conversation with Fritz Heider. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd(Eds.), New Directions in Attribution

Research(Vol 1, pp. 47-61). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hennessy, D. A., & Wiesenthal, D. L. (2001). Gender, driver aggression, and driver violence: an applied evaluation. Sex Roles, 44, 661-676. Herzog, T. A. (1994). Automobile driving as seen by the actor, the active observer, and the passive observer. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 2057-2074. Hole, G. J. (2007). The psychology of driving. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum. Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1972). The actor and the observer: divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelly, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior(pp. 79-94). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. King, Y., & Parker, D. (2008). Driving violations, aggression and perceived consensus. European Review of Applied Psychology, 58, 43-49. Lajunen, T., & Parker, D. (2001). Are aggressive people aggressive drivers? A study of the relationship between self-reported general aggressiveness, driver anger and aggressive driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, 243-255. Lawton, R., & Nutter, A. (2002). A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving situations. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 407-423. Lawton, R., Parker, D., Stradling, S. G., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1997). Predicting road traffic accidents: The role of social deviance and violations. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 249-263. Lennon, A., Watson, B., Arlidge, C., & Fraine, G. (2011). You re a bad driver but I just made a mistake : Attribution differences between the victims and perpetrators of scenario-based aggressive driving incidents. Transportation Research Part F, 14, 209-221. Lewis, P. T. (1995). A naturalistic test of two fundamental propositions: Correspondence bias and the actor-observer hypothesis. Journal of Personality, 63, 87-111. Lonczak, H., Neighbors, C., & Donovan, D. (2007). Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39, 536-545. Malle, B. F., & Knobe, J. (1997). Which behaviors do people explain? A basic actor-observer asymmetry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 288-304. Maxwell, J. P., Grant, S., & Lipkin, S. (2005). Further validation of the propensity for angry driving scale in British drivers. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 213-224. Monson, T. C., Tanke, E. D., & Lund, J. (1980). Determinants of social perception in a naturalistic setting. Journal of Research in Personality, 14, 104-120. Parker, D., Lajunen, T., & Stradling, S. G. (1998). Attitudinal predictors of aggressive driving violations. Transportation Research Part F, 1, 11-24. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz(Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology(Vol. 10). New

York: Academic Press. Underwood, G., Chapman, P., Wright, S., & Crundall, D. (1999). Anger while driving. Transportation Research, Part F 2, 55-68. Vallieres, E. F., Bergeron, J., & Vallerand, R. J. (2005). The role of attributions and anger in aggressive driving behaviours. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application(pp. 181-190). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Wells-Parker, E., Ceminsky, J., Hallberg, V., Snow, R. W., Dunaway, G., Guiling, S., & Anderson, B. (2002). An exploratory study of the relationship between road rage and crash experience in a representative sample of US drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34, 271-278. Wickens, C. M., Wiesenthal, D. L., Flora, D. B., & Flett, G. L (2011). Understanding driver anger and aggression: attributional theory in the driving environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 354-370. : 2014. 03. 20 1 : 2014. 05. 16 : 2014. 05. 27

Differences in Driver Anger as a Function of Gender, Driving Experience, and Actor-Observer Perspective: A Driving Simulation Study Jaesik Lee Department of Psychology, Pusan National University This driving simulation study examined relative differences in driving anger as the functions of drivers gender and driving experiences, and actor-observer perspectives when they were exposed in two anger-provoking driving scenarios(cutting-in and sudden stop). The results showed the followings. First, neither drivers gender nor driving experience, when they were considered independently of the driving situation types and actor-observer perspectives, yielded significant difference in driving anger. Second, actor-observer effect on driving anger was observed only in the cutting-in condition where other driver s intension was emphasized. Third, the female drivers of low driving experience tended to show the strongest tendency of actor-observer bias in the cutting-in condition. These results suggested that the levels of driving anger as the functions of drivers gender and driving experience can be differed by types of driving situation as well as perspectives of drivers interpreting the situations. Key words : driving anger, actor-observer effect, driving simulation, gender and driving experience