:..,,. (KCYPS)., 2. 5 ( 5) 2 1., 1.,. :,, (120-749) 134 E-mail : esuh@yonsei.ac.kr
. (Diener & Suh, 1999, 2000), Diener (Diener, Suh, Kim-Prieto, Biswas-Diener & Tay, 2010).?,.. Oishi Koo(2008),.,. (Oishi, 2012; Oishi & Koo, 2008)....,, (Harker & Keltner, 2001). 10 (Danner, Snowdon, & Friesen, 2001). (,, 2012;,,, 2014), (,, 2013), (,,, 2009)... (subjective well-being).. Diener(1984).
. ( ) ( ),,, (Diener, 1984; Diener, Scollon, & Lucas, 2003).. Lyubomirsky, King, Diener(2005),,. Fredrickson (1998, 2001) - (broaden-and-build theory). (broaden),,,, (build).,.., (Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005), - (global-local visual processing task). (Danner et al., 2001), (, 2009; Waugh & Fredrickson, 2006), (Fredrickson, Tugade, Waugh, & Larkin, 2003), (, 2009),, Fredrickson.,....,.,. 2015 1 1 174 1,919
3.4%. 10 2006 (54 ) 3, 14.4% (, 2015).. 59 51 (, 2015 8 20 ). 34% 19%. (,, 2008),..,, (,, 2007;, 2010)., (,,, 2015;,,,, 2015)..,..,., (in-group) (out-group), (,, 2008). Fredrickson(1998, 2001) -,. (Urada & Miller, 2000), (Dovidio, Gaertner, Isen, & Lowrance, 1995).
( ),., (, 2009, 2010). (belief in fixed amount of happiness: BFAH). (zero-sum game) (,, 2007)., (Baron, 1990; Baron, Fortin, Frei, Hauver, & Shack, 1990).,,. (, 2009; Lyubomirsky et al., 2005; Myers & Diener, 1995; Veenhoven, 1988).... (Veenhoven, 1988, 1989). (Berry & Hansen, 1996; Judge & Higgins, 1998; Lyubomirsky & Tucker, 1998). (Waugh & Fredrickson, 2006),, (,,,, 2013; Cunningham, 1988; Manucia, Baumann, & Cialdini, 1984).,., (2010).. (2010)...
. (, 2010).. (, 2009).. (, 2009),.,,,. 263 ( 107, 156 ). 21.35 ( : 2.54), 157 (59.7%), 67 (25.5%), 38 (14.4%), 1 (.4%)., 146 (55.5%), - - 51 (19.4%), 10 (3.8%), 4 (1.5%), 1 (.4%). Diener(1984),, 5 Likert. Diener, Emmons, Laren, Griffin(1985) SWLS (Satisfaction With Life Scale). 5, (Cronbach α).814. Diener, Smith, Fujita(1995) ITAS(Intensity and Time Affect Scale) (2005). 24, 8 16 (Cronbach α).904.908.. (2009)
.,,, 5 Likert,. (,, ) 24 (,,, ) 12 α=.809 α=.809.,,, 12, α=.927. Strahan Gerbasi(1972), - 10 α=.548.., (r=.132, p<.05) (r=.139, p<.05), (r=.321, p<.001). 1.00.66** 1.00.45**.56** 1.00.15*.17**.13* 1.00.13*.14*.13*.46** 1.00 -.09 -.09.00 -.35** -.26** 1.00.16*.18**.12.81**.77** -.68** 1.00 3.28 3.46 3.37 3.13 3.14 2.52 3.75.33.49.75.76.78.69 1.72 24 12 12 5 8 16 -.809.809.927.814.904.908 -. ** p<.01, * p<.05, p<.10
.., 1,,.., (r partial =.21, p<.05), (r partial =.17, p<.05) (r partial =.27, p<.01) (r partial =.16, p<.10). (, 2010).. (Korean Children & Youth Panel Survey: KCYPS) 4., 2010, 4. 2-4 ( 5-1). 5 2 2,264, 2 2,189 ( 1,135, 1,054 ). 3 4 2,104 ( 1,098, 1,006 ) 1,996 ( 1,038, 958 )., (826, 37.7%) (749, 34.2%) (296, 13.5%), (135, 6.2%), (49, 2.2%) ( 134, 6.1%). (1,065, 48.7%), (519, 23.7%), (379, 17.3%), (66, 3.0%), (50, 2.3%) ( 110, 5.0%). 4,351 (SD=2,721). (2006) 3.
,,, 4 (1:, 4: ). Diener(1984)., 2 α=.807, 3 α =.860, 4 α=.838. 5. (2008),,,,, 4 (1:, 4: ). (2009) 3. 2 4 α=.825 α=.845,. SPSS 23 AMOS 23.,, 2..,,. (Full-Information Maximum Likelihood: FIML) (,,, 2009), χ 2, TLI, CFI, RMSEA. TLI CFI.90, RMSEA.05,.05.08. RMSEA 90%.10 (, 2009).. 2. 5 1, 5 1., 5 (F=16.20, p<.001), 6 (F=81.42, p<.001), 1 (F=103.04, p<.001). 5(F=.08, p=.774)
5 6 1 5 1 3.26 (.64) 3.31 (.63) 3.20 (.64) 3.23 (.67) 3.36 (.64) 3.10 (.67) 3.15 (.63) 3.29 (.60) 3.01 (.63) 2.90 (.64) 2.91 (.65) 2.90 (.62) 2.96 (.59) 2.97 (.60) 2.96 (.58).. 1(F=.23, p=.634). 5 (,, ) 2. 1 (β=-.014, p=.550), (β=.005, p=.874), (β=.005, p=.861), (β=-.002, p=.942). 5 1 (β=.306, p<.001). 2.., 3, 1 5 5, 6, 1. (skewness) (kurtosis) (skewness <3, kurtosis<10) (Kline, 2011). 5. 2 ( 5) χ 2 =763.555, df=5, p<.001, TLI=.680, CFI=.840, RMSEA=.263(.248.279), 4 ( 1) χ 2 = 1,396.309, df=5, p<.001, TLI=.250, CFI=.750, RMSEA=.357(.341.372),.,, 3, 4, 5. 2 χ 2 =3.512, df=2, p=.173, TLI=.998, CFI=1.000, RMSEA=.019(.000.050), 4 χ 2 = 8.662, df=2, p=.013, TLI=.991, CFI=.999, RMSEA=.039(.015.067).
1 1.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 2.71 ** 1.00 3.58 **.66 ** 1.00 4.39 **.41 **.52 ** 1.00 5.33 **.35 **.43 **.63 ** 1.00 6.21 **.22 **.21 **.14 **.16 ** 1.00 7.18 **.18 **.18 **.13 **.17 **.81 ** 1.00 8.17 **.17 **.24 **.19 **.22 **.59 **.64 ** 1.00 9.11 **.10 **.16 **.20 **.25 **.43 **.43 **.59 ** 1.00 10.13 **.12 **.15 **.20 **.26 **.36 **.36 **.50 **.73 ** 1.00 11.29 **.30 **.28 **.20 **.14 **.06 **.07 **.03.01.03 1.00 12.13 **.13 **.13 **.11 **.08 **.10 **.10 **.08 **.04.02.40 ** 1.00 13.06 **.05 *.08 **.06 **.04.16 **.17 **.15 **.10 **.10 **.31 **.44 ** 1.00 -.70 -.71 -.39 -.10.09 -.45 -.53 -.30 -.15 -.03 -.64 -.64 -.37.58.54 -.59 -.85 -.96.82.77 -.43 -.63 -.78.27.15 -.13 1: 5 1, 2: 5 2, 3: 5 3, 4: 5 4, 5: 5 5, 6: 1 1, 7: 1 2, 8: 1 3, 9: 1 4, 10: 1 5, 11: 5, 12: 6, 13: 1 ** p<.01, * p<.05 2 χ 2 =760.043, df=3, p<.001, 4 χ 2 =1387.647 df=3 p<.001.. 5 1, 1. ( 5, 6, 1),., χ 2 =86.656, df=6, p<.001, TLI=.906, CFI=.906, RMSEA=.078(.064
.093), χ 2 = 32.638, df=3, p<.001, TLI=.931, CFI=.965, RMSEA=.067(.048.089)., ( χ 2 =54.018, df=3, p<.001)... 3.265, p<.001, -.051, p<.001. 5 1 -.051. (.184, p<.001) (.020, p<.001). ( 5) ( 5 1) 2. 2.. (2009) ( 1) ( 2). 1 χ 2 =339.774, df=58, p<.001, TLI=.962, CFI=.976, RMSEA=.047(.042.052), 2 χ 2 =348.222, df=62, p<.001, TLI=.964, CFI=.976, RMSEA=.046(.041.051). χ 2 =8.448, df=4, p=.765, 2 1..
2 2. 4. 5 1 β=.318, p<.001. 5 1., 1 β=.395, p<.001 β=.094, p<.01. 5 1. 1 β =.366, p<.001., 5 1 1 5 1.318*** 5.395*** 1.094** 1.366*** *** p<.001, ** p<.01
...,.,,. 5. (2010).,. 2.... 2,.. 2, 2.,....,.. 10
(, 2015 8 20 ).. (, 2004).. OECD (,,,, 2010). (, 2009), 5 1.,,,.?,..,.... (Berry & Hansen, 1996; Lyubomirsky & Tucker, 1998), (,, 2007), (Dovidio et al., 1995; Urada & Miller, 2000),...,... Oishi(2012).
,..,... (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005),.,,, (Erwin, 2001;, 2009),...,. (Berry & Hansen, 1996; Judge & Higgins, 1998; Lyubomirsky & Tucker, 1998),.,.,.,, (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005; Veenhoven, 1988, 1989).,.,....
, (2007).. (4), 1-19. (2009).. (1), 165-179., (2012). 4. (2), 35-50., (2013).. (2), 17-36.,, (2009). :? (1), 29-47.,, (2014). :. (4), 329-346.,,,,,, (2006).. :.,, (2009).. :.,,, (2010). -., 121-154., (2007).. (4), 395-432., (2008).. (1), 1-21.,, (2015).. (4), 719-738.,,, (2015).. (1), 21-43.,,, (2013).?. (3), 1-21. (2009).. (2), 59-79. (2010). :. (1), 111-128., (2008).. :. (2015. 8. 20)., 10. (2005)... (2004).. :. (2015). 2015.. Baron, R. A. (1990). Environmentally induced positive affect: Its impact on self-efficacy, task performance, negotiation, and conflict. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 368-384.
Baron, R. A., Fortin, S. P., Frei, R. L., Hauver, L. A., & Shack, M. L. (1990). Reducing organizational conflict: The role of socially-induced positive affect. International Journal of Conflict Management, 1, 133-152. Berry, D. S., & Hansen, J. S. (1996). Positive affect, negative affect, and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 796-809. Cunningham, M. R. (1988). Does happiness mean friendliness? Induced mood and heterosexual self-disclosure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 283-297. Danner, D. D., Snowdon, D. A., & Friesen, W. V. (2001). Positive emotions in early life and longevity: Finding from the nun study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 804-813. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 193, 542-575. Diener, E., Emmons, R. S., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life-scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75. Diener, E., Scollon, C. N. & Lucas, R. E. (2003). The evolving concept of subjective well-being: The multifaceted nature of happiness. Advances in Cell Aging and Gerontology, 13, 187-219. Diener, E., Smith, H., & Fujita, F. (1995). The personality structure of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 130-141. Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (1999). National differences in subjective well-being. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 434-450). NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (2000). Culture and subjective well-being. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Kim-Prieto, C., Biswas-Diener, R., & Tay, L. S. (2010). Unhappiness in South Korea: Why it is high and what might be done about it., pp. 1-23. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Isen, A. M., & Lowrance, R. (1995). Group representations and intergroup bias: Positive affect, similarity, and group size. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 856-865. Erwin, P. (2006). [Attitude and persuasion]( ). : ( 2001 ). Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2, 300-319. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. American Psychologist, 56, 218-226. Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 313-332.. Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. R. (2003). What good are positive emotions in crises? A prospective study of resilience and emotions following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 365-376. Harker, L., & Keltner, D. (2001). Expressions of positive emotion in women's college yearbook
pictures and their relationship to personality and life outcomes across adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 112-124. Judge, T. A., & Higgins, C. A. (1998). Affective disposition and the letter of reference. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 207-221. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling(3rd ed). Guilford Press. Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803-855. Lyubomirsky, S., & Tucker, K. L. (1998). Implications of individual differences in subjective happiness for perceiving, interpreting, and thinking about life events. Motivation and Emotion, 22, 155-186. Manucia, G. K., Baumann, D. J., & Cialdini, R. B. (1984). Mood influences on helping: Direct effects or side effects? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 357-364. Myers, D. G., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6, 10-19. Oishi, S. (2012). The psychological wealth of nations: Do happy people make a happy society? Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Oishi, S., & Koo, M. (2008). Two new questions about happiness. In M. Eid & R. J. Larsen (Eds.). The Science of Subjective Well-Being (pp. 290-306). NY: The Guilford Press. Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short homogenous version of the Marlowe-Crown Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 191-193. Urada, D., & Miller, N. (2000). The impact of positive mood and category importance on crossed categorization effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 417-433. Veenhoven, R. (1988). The utility of happiness. Social Indicators Research, 20, 333-354. Veenhoven, R. (Eds.) (1989). How harmful is happiness? consequences of enjoying life or not? Rotterdam, The Netherlands: University Press Rotterdam. Waugh, C. E., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). Nice to know you: Positive emotions, self-other overlap, and complex understanding in the formation of a new relationship. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 93-106. : 2016. 01. 19 1 : 2016. 02. 03 : 2016. 04. 18
Subjective Well-being and Attitude toward Minority Group Members: A longitudinal analysis Jaisun Koo Chung-Ang University Eunkook M. Suh Yonsei University This research investigated the influence of subjective well-being on attitude towards minority group members. In a cross-sectional data, the higher subjective well-being predicted more positive cognitive beliefs, affective feelings, and behavioral intentions towards foreign laborers and children of international couples. The causal link from subjective well-being to greater tolerance for cultural diversity was found again in a large longitudinal sample. The rate of life satisfaction increase from Time 1 to Time 2 significantly predicted multicultural receptiveness at Time 2. Overall, the findings suggest that subjective well-being may contribute to the formation of favorable attitude towards minority group members. Key words : subjective well-being, attitude towards minority group, Korean Child and Youth Panel Study