- * (32 ), ,,,, * 2013 ( ) (KRF-2013S1A3A ). :,, 3 53 Tel : ,

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

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

380 Hyun Seok Choi Yunji Kwon Jeongcheol Ha 기존 선행연구에서는 이론연구 (Ki, 2010; Lee, 2012), 단순통계분석 (Lee, 2008), 회귀분석 (Kim, 2012)과 요인분석 (Chung, 2012), 경로분석 (Ku,

,......

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

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

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

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


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

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp DOI: - K * The Analysis

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

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


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

<303720C7CFC1A4BCF86F6B2E687770>

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

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: * The Structural Rel

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

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

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

歯14.양돈규.hwp

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

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA


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

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

<C1A63238B1C731C8A328C6EDC1FDC1DF292E687770>

(5차 편집).hwp

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

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


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

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


歯유성경97.PDF

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

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

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA


가족스트레스와 가정생활만족도 간의 관계에서 자아분화의 매개효과

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

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

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

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

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

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

<30392EB9DAB0A1B6F72CC1A4B3B2BFEE2E687770>

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


<C7D1B1B9B1B3C0B0B0B3B9DFBFF85FC7D1B1B9B1B3C0B05F3430B1C733C8A35FC5EBC7D5BABB28C3D6C1BE292DC7A5C1F6C6F7C7D42E687770>

<30382E20B1C7BCF8C0E720C6EDC1FD5FC3D6C1BEBABB2E687770>

,, (, 2010). (, 2007).,,, DMB, ,, (, 2010)., LG., (, 2010) (, ,, ) 3, 10, (, 2009).,,. (, 2010)., (, 2010). 11

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

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

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

<3037C0CCC8AFB9FC5FC0CCBCF6C3A22E687770>

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

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

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp DOI: * A Study on the Resea

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

歯정남운(최종).PDF

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

278 경찰학연구제 12 권제 3 호 ( 통권제 31 호 )

,......

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

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp.1-16 DOI: * A Study on Good School

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

2014 자격연수 제1기_수정.hwp

44-6대지.08김정희-5

노동경제논집 38권 3호 (전체).hwp

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

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

정보화정책 제14권 제2호 Ⅰ. 서론 급변하는 정보기술 환경 속에서 공공기관과 기업 들은 경쟁력을 확보하기 위해 정보시스템 구축사업 을 활발히 전개하고 있다. 정보시스템 구축사업의 성 패는 기관과 기업, 나아가 고객에게 중대한 영향을 미칠 수 있으므로, 이에 대한 통제

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

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp DOI: ICT * Exploring the Re



Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck(1961), Douglas (1970) Hofstede(1980, 1991, 2001), Schwartz(1992, 1994), Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner(1997), House et

<31372DB9CCB7A1C1F6C7E22E687770>

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

202 김 수 현 원 영 신 있으므로, 이러한 선수들의 긍정적인 태도를 높여 구 단의 성과를 향상시킬 수 있는 조직적 차원의 연구가 요구된다 하겠다. 따라서 선수들을 대상으로 한 프로 구단의 조직성과 제고에 관한 학문적 작업은 중요한 연구과제인 것이다. 최근 조직 커뮤

인문사회과학기술융합학회


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

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

.. IMF.. IMF % (79,895 ). IMF , , % (, 2012;, 2013) %, %, %

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

.. (Figley, 2002).,,,,,,, (,, 2015; Stamm, 2010). (,, ; )..,.,. DSM-5(American Psychiatry Association, 2013) ( A4) , (secondary traumatic stress

<3131BAB8B0C7BBE7C8B8BFACB1B85FC3D6BCD2BFAC2E687770>


연구방법

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

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


<C1F6BDC4B0E6BFB5BFACB1B83136B1C734C8A33132BFF92E706466>

歯5-2-13(전미희외).PDF

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp DOI: * The Effect of Boa

Àå¾Ö¿Í°í¿ë ³»Áö

Transcription:

- *. 1 21 45. - 5 40. 6 (32 ), 20. 2 1 20,,,, 4. 3 17.. 4. * 2013 ( ) (KRF-2013S1A3A2055042). :,, 3 53 Tel : 02-760-0372, E-mail : hisim@skku.edu

. 1,333 41% (sbscnbc 2013. 1. 7), 2,178 72.9% ( 2007. 3. 9).. 300 109, 300 80 (2008) 44.3%, 42.6%,.., (,, 2008;, 2010).,.,.,.,.,. (, 2007), (Wheeler, Reis, & Bond, 1989), (, 1991).,., (communal relationship) (Matsumoto, Yoo, & Fontaine, 2008).,. (Hofstede, 1980; 1985)., ( ).

(, 1983;,,, 2000;, 2004a) (, 2006).,, (,, 1993).,,.,.,.,,, (,, 2004).,, 1980, 2000. (Clark, Ouellette, Powell, Milberg, 1987), (Berscheid, Snyder, Omoto, 1989), (Locke, 2002). Clark et al.(1987) (welfare),. Berscheid et al.(1989),,,, (Relationship Closeness Inventory: RCI). Locke(2002) (agentic),,, (Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Values: CSIV)..,, (,, 2008)

., (,,,,,,, 2004),., (, 2001), (,, 2007), (,,,,,, 2007), 1) (,, 2008).. (,, 2008;, 2010) 1),,, -,,,..., (Marshall, 2008)., (, 2004).,,.,.,...

(,, 2008), (, 1994;, 2006), (,, 1993;, 2003), (, 2009), (,, 1993).,,,,. (, 2003), (, 2010), (,, 2008).,, (,, 2013).,,..,.,,. (Leung, 2010; Lu, Gilmour & Kao 2001; Ward, Pearson & Entrekin, 2002), (, 1982), (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002, Shulruf, Hattie, & Dixon, 2007), (,, 2013). (Chinese Cultural Value, CVS),, (, human-heartedness) 2).,, 3) 2) (Leung, 2010). 3),.,.

. (, 1982). (interpersonal liking) (Ibid),,,,, (, 1975). (, 1982),., (, 2006). 4),,. 4).., (,,, 2012).. (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002) 5), (Shulruf, Hattie, & Dixon, 2007).. 6),. 5) Oyserman, Coon Kemmelmeier(2002) 8, Shulruf, Hattie Dixon(2007) 6. 6) (, 2006), (, 2002).,.

(2013), 7).,,, (),,,, (Ibid). 8),, (Ibid),,,. (2013) 7) (2013),,,, 5. 8) (, 1986),., (, 2004).,.,..,., (, ),.,, (, 1994;, 2006), (,, 1993;, 2003),,,.,.

1 2011 6 8, 7 21. (, 2000; 2011;, 2011), (, 2002; 2003), (, 2006), (, 2002). 1990 5 2000 16, 17 4 ( 3, 1). 2,610, 7. 1 2,610 21, 1990 2,, 680. 680 (2013),,,, 5. 5,,,, (),,, (,, 2008), (, 2011), (, 2010), (Clark & Mills, 2011), (, 2001) 45.,., 45, -.,,.,

. 2012 11 19 26 215, 215 6 2 207. 117 (56.5%), 90 (43.5%), Likert 6., SPSS 18.0. (Exploratory Factor Analysis) - (correlated item-to-total correlation). (Principle component method) (Varimax rotation method). 45 ( 1), -. A3(.098), A16(.022), A22(.052), A34(.108), A44(.073) 5, 40. 3 9), 32 6..504 9) 1 40 1.0 8, A5(.439), A23(.479), A25(.372), A35(.358), A37(.384) 5. 5 A15(.678). 2 1 6 34 7 KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin).904,.487.786., 7 2 A14(.777), A36(.679) 2 3 32.

A1,, 4.63 1.098.419 A2 4.98.870.498 A3 (R) 3.69 1.179.098 A4 3.95 1.099.487 A5, 4.06 1.346.438 A6 4.01 1.229.448 A7 4.82 1.091.591 A8 3.86 1.036.561 A9 4.61 1.057.593 A10 4.00 1.174.514 A11 3.63 1.158.411 A12 3.79 1.021.549 A13 4.53 1.056.554 A14 3.81 1.105.361 A15 3.97 1.116.477 A16 3.19 1.558.022 A17 4.18.946.601 A18 4.29 1.262.397 A19 4.05 1.042.593 A20 4.48 1.288.550 A21 3.74 1.455.427 A22 (R) 3.69 1.308.052 A23 4.87.947.530 A24 4.79 1.072.547 A25 4.05 1.103.496 A26 4.06 1.166.470 A27 4.53 1.028.615 A28 4.94.940.481 A29 4.80.884.671

A30 4.59 1.137.602 A31 4.79.985.650 A32 4.20 1.134.405 A33 4.77 1.084.576 A34 2.69 1.191.108 A35 4.63.990.592 A36 4.11 1.137.481 A37 4.28 1.027.618 A38 4.62.938.610 A39 3.81 1.171.587 A40 4.73.981.607 A41 4.57 1.138.394 A42 3.97 1.226.440 A43 4.45.988.647 A44 3.04 1.157.073 A45 4.70 1.027.605.788 ( 2). 6,,. 1 A8, A12, A17, A19 A10, A11, A13, A26, A42, A43. 2 A29, A31, A2, A28, A30, A32,. 3 6,

1 2 3 4 5 6 A12.777 A19.727 A11.708 A8.655 1 A26.654 A17.605 A10.519 A43.518 A42.508 A13.504 A29.736 A28.695 2 A31.672 A32.577 A30.570 A2.537 A9.753 A24.745 3 A7.695 A27.635 A33.624 A6.788 4 A4.782 A21.569 A18.517 A20.638 5 A39.618 A1.561 A41.546 A38.673 6 A45.627 A40.569 4.954 3.780 3.436 2.638 2.515 2.149 15.481% 11.814% 10.738% 8.243% 7.859% 6.717% 15.481% 27.295% 38.032% 46.275% 54.134% 60.851%

. 3 A7, A9, A27, A33. 6 A38 A45 A40. 4 A4, A6, A21. A18, 5 4 (.304) A41. 5 A20, A39 A1 A20, A39 A1, 20. 2 2013 1 91 21. 312 165 (52.9%), 147 (47.1%), 20 61 (19.6%), 30 85 (27.2%), 40 92 (29.5%), 50 74 (23.7%), 170 (54.5%), 46 (14.7%), 44 (14.1%), 11 (3.6%), 3 (0.9%), 31 (10.0%), 7 (2.2%). 209 104 (49.8%), 105 (50.2%), 20 53 (25.3%), 30 48 (23.0%), 40 56 (26.8%), 50 52 (24.9%), 99 (47.4%), 41 (19.6%), 25 (11.9%), 7 (3.4%), 3 (1.4%), 26 (12.5%), 8 (3.8%). SPSS 18.0. AMOS 18.0.

1 20 2 17.,,. (2013) 5 6 (1: ~6: ). (, 2004a),,,, 1. (2003), (2004b),, (2012) 8, 5 6 (1: ~6: ). Clark Mills(2011) exchange orientation A3, A13 5 6 (1: ~6: ). 312

Q3.872 Q2.870 Q1.835 Q5.812 Q4.802 Q15 Q14 Q12.715 Q11.690 Q13 Q8 1 2 3 4 Q7.747 Q9.710 Q10 Q6 Q17.778 Q20 Q18 Q16.678 Q19.780.726.665.772.639.619.741.727.553 3.840 3.040 2.855 2.844 (%) 19.200 15.198 14.273 14.218 (%) 19.200 34.399 48.672 62.890 (Cronbach's ).906.833.823.779

KMO=.885, Bartlett s test of sphericity =2994.326(p<.001)., 20 4 5 62.890% ( 3). 1. 5, 19.201%, Cronbach's.906. 2 15.198%, Cronbach's.833,.,. 3 14.273%, Cronbach's.823,.,. 4, 14.218%, Cronbach's.779. 4 4 ( 1) 4 ( 2), 1 2 ( 4).,,,, 4,.,,,, 4,, 4 1 2 2

X 2 (CMIN) X 2 (CMIN/DF) RMSEA TLI CFI 1 321.20 1.983.069.894.910 2 325.76 1.986.069.894.908 220.95 1.955.068.920.933 3 <.08 >.9 >.9 1 2(). 2 Q6 (.459) Q19 (.395), Q20 (.462) (construct validity), 17. X 2 (CMIN)=220.950, X 2 (CMIN/DF)=1.955, RMSEA=.068, TLI=.920, CFI=.933,.547.934.,,, 4,, ( 5)..,.

1.221 ** 1.332 **.588 ** 1.282 **.355 **.377 ** 1 -.174 *.069 -.014.099 1 -.013.373 **.388 **.360 **.324 ** 1.186 **.352 **.417 **.469 **.230 **.524 ** 1 * p<.05, ** p<.01,, 10) ( 6).,,,.,, 10) (self-reward) (self-benefit) (Clark & Mills, 1979; Batson, 1993),, (Clark, Mills, & Powell, 1986).,, (Clark & Mills, 1979).,.,,.,..

(SD) 1 4.18(.564) -.019 1 4.17(.739) ** p<.01.430 **.276 ** 1 4.67(.660).318 **.133 **.320 ** 1 4.64(1.10),. 1 45 20. 2,,,,,, 4 17.,.,,, 4,,,,. 11), (, 1994;, 2006).,.. 11) House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman Gupta(2004) 5,.

,,.,,,. (, 2006). 12),, (, 2009), (, 1975, 1982;, 2004a)., 12).., (,,, 2012).,,, (, 2012).., (, 2004),. (, 2006), (, 2002).,.,.,,,.,

. Q18( ) (,, 2007). (2007) 13),,..,,,, 4.,,,, 13) (2007),,,..,,., 21. 3 7., 2,. 1, 2. 2 (, ),,,,.,,,,,

. 2 4,. 4.,,,,,,.,,.,,.., (, 1994).,.,,.,,..,..,,

..., 1.,,. (2006). :. (1994). ( ). :. (2001). :. (2009). ( ). (1), 147-163. (2007).., 247-267., (2008).. (2), 375-389.,,,,,, (2004). :., (2004). :. (2010). :. (2010). :. (1979). :., (2008).. (4), 801-836., (2008).. (2004a)., :. (6), 23-45. (2004b).. (2), 93-125.,,,,, (2007).. (3), 23-63. (2011). :. (1975).. 71-102. (1982). :. (2003).

:. (1986). :. (2010)..,, (2012). :. (2), 375-402., (2012). :. (3), 457-485. (1983). :., (1993). : -. (1994).. (1), 83-94. (2002). :. (2006). :. (2001).. (1), 117-132. (2007). :. (2003).. 361-394. (2003). :. (2007). :. (4), 21-53. (2011).. (2000). :.,,, (2012).. (1), 27-51., (1993).. (1), 150-163. (2000).. (2011). :.,, (2000). ( ),. (1), 203-222., (2007).. (3), 251-269. (1994). :. (2002). :. (2003). :. (1991). :

. (1), 132-155. (2011). :. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423. Batson, C. D. (1993). Communal and exchange relationships: What is the difference? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 677-683. Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., Omoto, A. M. (1989). The relationship closeness inventory: Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 792-807. Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12-24.. (2011). A theory of communal (and exchange) relationships. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, E. T. Higgins(Eds.), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology(pp.232-251). Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage. Clark, M. S., Mills, J., & Powell, M. C. (1986). Keeping track of needs in communal and exchange relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 333-338. Clark, M. S., & Ouellette, R., Powell, M. C., Milberg, S. (1987), Recipient's mood, relationship type, and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 94-103. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. Hair, J. F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis(6th ed.). Prentice Hall International. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1985). The interaction between national and organizational value system. Journal of management studies, 22(4), 347-357. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA. Leung, M. T. (2010). The effects of Chinese values(confucian work dynamism and human-heartedness) on students achievement goals and learning strategies. Australian Association for Research in Education, AARE 2010 International education research conference. Locke, K. (2002). Circumplex scales of interpersonal values: reliability, validity, and applicability to interpersonal problems and personality disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 75, 249-267. Lu, L., Gilmour, R., & Kao, S. F. (2001). Cultural values and happiness: An east-west dialogue. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

141(4), 477-493. Marshall. T. C. (2008). Cultural differences in intimacy: The influence of gender-role ideology and individualism-collectivism. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 143-168. Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., & Fontaine, J. (2008). Mapping expressive differences around the world: The relationship between emotional display rules and individualism versus collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(1), 55-74. Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 128(1), 3-72. Shulruf, B., Hattie, J., & Dixon, R. (2007). Development of a new measurement tool for individualism and collectivism. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25(4), 385-401. Ward, S., Pearson, C., & Entrekin, L. 2002. Chinese cultural values and the Asian meltdown. International Journal of Social Economics, 29(3), 205-217. Wheeler, L., Reis, H. T., & Bond, M. H. (1989). Collectivism-individualism in everyday social life: The middle kingdom and the melting pot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 79-86. : 2014. 07. 08 1 : 2014. 07. 31 : 2014. 11. 26

Cultural characteristics of Korean interpersonal relationships and scale development - affective relationships Yoon Park Hyungin Shim Sook Jong Lee Sungkyunkwan University The purpose of this study was to examine the cultural characteristics of Korean interpersonal relationships. A total of 45 preliminary items were selected through book and literature review about the characteristics of the Korean or Korean society in study 1. The first survey data were collected from the Korean university students. Through the item analysis and Exploratory Factor Analysis(EFA), 4 factors composed of 32 items were extracted. Four factors were found: friendly attitude, harmony, jeong(interpersonal affection), keeping relationship, and using content analysis, 20 items were refined. Study 2 was conducted with the data collected from the Korea adults. As the result of carrying out EFA and Confirmatory Factor Analysis(CFA), the final 17 items were fixed as an affective relationships scale of the Korean. And CFA were implemented to evaluate discriminative validity. Finally, the implications and limitations of this study were discussed. Key words : Korean culture, affective relationships, scale development