HASHIMOTO Taiko
105
1 1 2
1 2 , , ,
(apology) ,
(, 2004), ( )
,
,
,( )
, ,,
, ,
188 ( 83 , 105 ,19.26 ,SD=1.22) ,
( , 2015)
3 23 ( ),
( , 2013) 23
( , 2005) 12
5
( ) ,, ,
,,
,
3, ,
1 3 ,5%
F(2,184)=3.25,p<.05 Bonferroni, (M=27.98) (M=25.30)
(2.69 ),2
,,
,F(2,169)=2.60,n.s.
,, ,
,,
,
,,
,,
Tamaoki Haruka, Sato Yuki, Imagawa Tamio
106
1 1 2
1 2
(Curtis,1991; ,2000)
(2003)
( )
(F(2,274)=6.95,p<.01: F(2,272)=7.08,p<.01)
( )
( 1)
( 2)
( ,1994)
Ikee Saya, Sato Yuki, Imagawa Tamio
107
1 2 1
1 2
2013, 2014
596 230366 2013 6
252013
=.926
=.853
=.834
=.73=.84 =.80 =.74
4
7 17 35 245
13 170 28 76 14 7
4F(6,574)=160.10, p<.001
F(6,574)=127.18, p<.001 F(6,574)=134.46, p<.001 F(6,574)=137.37, p<.001
5 24 6 1 7 3
5 26 4 1 7 3
7 5 42 1 6 3
1
7
F(6,570)=7.78, F(6,565)=36.37, F(6,565)=9.63, p<.001 1
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
1
Nakamura Shin, Matsuda Eiko, Azami Ritsuko
108
1 2
1 2
2010
2013 2013
Rapee et al 1996 Hofman 2005Neal et al 2002
246 227119 108
20.22 SD 1.04
2008
LSAS-J 2002
CES-D 1985ACQ
2013RSRI
2008
ACQ
Figure 12 8 5.72 n.s. GFI .99 CFI 1.00
RMSEA .05
Arai Hiromichi, Kazama Masae
p 10 *p 05
p .05 **p< 01 ***p< 001
ACQ
CES-D
.19**
.99
e2
e3
e1
R2=.21 R2=.34
R2=.39 R2=.31
R2=.27 R2=.27
e4
.46***
.44***
.23***
.23***
.15*
.18*
.37***
.38***
.59***
.53*** .07.06
.26** .14
.06
.08
.11
.51***
.24**
.19**
R2=.21 R2=.19
109
Oishi & Sullivan 2005
2009
2011 etc.
121 44 77 2013
. MEIS 2001
1
2001
2009
Oishi, S. & Sullivan, H.W. (2005). The mediating role of parental expectation in culture and well-being. Journal of Personality, 73, 1267-1294.
Kasuga Hideaki
110
1 4 1 2 1 3
1 2
3 4
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
*******
(Masaki Kera, Motoyuki Nakaya, Takatoyo Umemoto,
Kanako Yanagisawa, Mayu Nakanishi)
111
OATSAS
OATSATable
34
Table2 2
Sugiyama Kanako
112
Lay 1986
Chu & Choi 2005 active procrastination
(2014)
EC
4
(2014)20
(18 22 ) 2006
6
KJ
6
EC
EC
EC 2
EC
(2014).
23 139 Yoshida Eri
113
42
42.5
43
43.5
44
N
32
34
36
38
C
114
, 2005 Bowlby 1973IWM
, , 20132 IWM
4
= 21.05 SD = 4.43128 65 63
Yoshikazu Fukui, Shinichi Oura
--
-
-
-1.0
-.5
.0
.5
1.0
-1.0 -.5 .0 .5 1.02
1
115
1 2
1 2
-1.0
-.5
.0
.5
1.0
-1.0 -.5 .0 .5 1.0 1.5
Shinichi Oura, Yoshikazu Fukui
116
1
1
, , ,
(2012, 2013)
, (Haydon, Collins, Salvatore, Simpton, & Roisman, 2012) ,
GO , , SO
Haydon, et al (2012) Collins , Guichard, Ford, & Feeney (2004) , GO, SO
,
157 51 , 10620.53 SD 1.45
, , 2004
, 18
, 79 24 , 55
17.2 ( ), ,
, , , , , 14, , , , ,
84
, 2004, 18
GO, SO, GO, SO
, GOβ=.31, p<.01),
GO β=~.34, p<.005), β=.23, p<.05), SO
β=.24, p<.05), GOβ= .34, p<.005),
GOβ=.37, p<.001), SO (β=.33, p<.005), GO
(β= .24, p<.05), SO (β=.27, p<.05)
Table 1 GO, SO
GOSO
SOSO (Andersen & Chen, 2002)
Keisuke Okubo
117
Dark Triad
―Dark Triad ―
○ 1 2
1 2 Dark Triad
Dark Triad
3
Dark Triad
Dark Triad
(cheater strategy)
(Jonason & Webster, 2012)
(Cosmides &
Tooby, 1992)
Dark Triad
Dark Triad
208 ( 69 , 134 ,
5 ) 19.8 (SD = 1.13)
Dark Triad Short Dark Triad
(SD3-J: Shimotsukasa & Oshio, 2015) 24 5
Jones & Paulhus (2014)
Short Dark Triad
(2004)
21 6
α (α = .70 .87)
SD3-J
(Table 1)
Dark Triad
SD3-J
3
Dark Triad
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In J.
Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary
psychology and the generation of culture New York: Oxford University Press.,
pp. 163–228.
Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2012). A protean approach to social influence:
Dark Triad personalities and social influence tactics. Personality and
Individual Differences, 52, 521-526.
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3) A
Brief Measure of Dark Personality Traits. Assessment, 21, 28-41.
Shimotsukasa, T., & Oshio, A. (2015). Development and validation of the
Japanese version of the Short Dark Triad (SD3-J): Comparing with the
Japanese version of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen. Poster presented at the ISSID
2015. London, Canada.
(2004).
, 28, 89–95.
Shimotsukasa Tadahiro, Oshio Atsushi
118
Dark Triad
1 2
1 PD 2 Dark Triad
e.g., Goto, 2010; Lee & Hashibe, 2014
Dark Triad DTe.g., Jonason et al., 2010 DT
Jonason et al., 2010
McCarthy et al. 2001
DTDT
20 69 563287 276 M=44.47 SD=13.51
Dark Triad Dirty Dozen DTDD-JDTDD-J DT
125
1997
30 6
, 1997
, 1997 1
1350ml
DT1r= .12, p < .01 1
r= .26 p < .001r= -.09, p < .05
DT
1t 559 = 3.86, p < .001
1(t 559 = 3.80, p < .001)
Figure 1 DTDT
Masui Keita
Figure 1
B = .66, SE = .17, p < .001
B = .17, SE = .18, p = .35
119
A
1 2
1 A
A A TABPCHD
, TABPFriedman &
Rosenman, 1959; Friedman et al., 1985TABP
Hicks et al.,1987; Koulack et al.,1993; Tan & Hick,1995
TABP
Sjöstrom et al.,2007
3
CHD
12 TABP TABP
Table1
3 TABP
TABPTABP
Fig.1
ATABP
MATSUDA Eiko, OKADA Hitoshi
120
(2)
Big Five
, 2013
78 26 52 (1996) Big Five
5 25(2010)
24
5
5 10
α .843α .683 α .883
1 2
β
(2013)
(2013) 22 , 91. (2010), 118, 196-209. (1996) , 667, 61-67.
Midzuno Kunio
26
121
1
1
2 101 31 69 1 2015 1
2014 30 7 MEIS 2001 20
7
15 .450
5 1
=.761 .880r =.736
r =.671 r =.608
MEIS
Table
(2014).
, 66, 9-19. JSPS 25380865
Ida Katsunori
122
)
606258 348 19.55 SD=2.231
2013 9 2014 10
(t=3.145,df=590,p<.005) (t= 4.691,df=257,p<.001) (t=2.737,df= 257,p<.01)
(Yamaoka Shigeyuki)
123
3 Sense of coherence(SOC) 1 2
1 2 Sense of coherence(SOC)
HIRC21
social adversity)
,2014sense of coherence(SOC)
1 26 Web
12,360 , 2014, 2014
220 60 412 4,120 3 1)
181
2)
, 1999 , 2010, 2000, 2001
, 2000) , 1982
1
170.1%
SOC PTSDSOC
PTSD
PTG
2 17
PTG PTSD R2=.504
PTSDPTG R2=.376
PTSD
SOC
(2014).
HIRC21 , 11, 3-8. 25 29
Horike Hiroko, Horike Kazuya
124
○ 1
1 ,
, , Haidt
(Haidt, 2012)
, ( [ / ][ / ][
/ ][ / ][ / ] 5) ,
(Haidt, 2012) ,
, (Lewis& Bates,
2011)
, 187105 , 76 , 6 21.56(SD=1.98)
2014 10 11
HEXACO Dark Triad Dirty Dozen , (Moral Foundations
Questionnaire (MFQ)) , WEB 2
R3.1.2
HEXACO, , [
/ ] , , [ / ] , [ / ]
, 5%Dark Triad
[ / ] , [ / ], [ / ], [ /
], [ / ] 5%
Haidt (2009) 5”Individualizing”, “Binding”
”Individualizing” [ / ][ / ], ”Binding” [ / ][ / ][ / ]
2 HEXACO, Dark Triad
(CFI=.964, TLI=.949, RMSEA=.037 , SRMR=.045)“Binding” , , ,
”Individualizing”
”Individualizing”
[ /][ / ]
”Individualizing” , “Binding”
,
, ,
Kai Amano
125
1
1 HSPS, GHQ
Aron & Aron 1997
Sensory-Processing Sensitivity27 Highly Sensitive Person
Scale HSPS HSPS
Highly Sensitive Person
8 19 HSPSHSPS-J19
240 120120 19.10 SD 1.14
Highly Sensitive Person ScaleJapanese version of the 19-item Highly Sensitive
Person Scale HSPS-J19 Low Sensory Threshold : LST 7 Ease of ExcitationEOE 8 Aesthetic Sensitivity AES4 19 7 General Health Questionnaire28 GHQ28
4 7 28 4
Table1
HSPS-J19GHQ
GHQd=0.80
d=0.41
HSPS-J19 GHQ28 Table2HSPS-J19 AES
AESGHQ
r=.41 .62 HSPS-J19 GHQ
Aron, E.N. & Aron, A. 1997 Sensory-processing sensitivity and its relation to
introversion and emotionality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 773,
345-368
HSPS Highly Sensitive Person Scale
FUNAHASHI Aki
126
well-being
well-being
Well-being
30 63 93
27 4323
2 3
PANAS
2001 Well-being 2002GHQ 12
1985
pre URLpre
1
post
PANAS5
(F(1,90)=5.95,p<.05)5
well-being
5 (F(1,90)=6.68,p<.05)5
10%(F(2,90)=2.70,p<.10) 5
5(F(1,90)=3.95,p<.05)
(M=3.21) (M=2.69) 1
GHQ1
(F(1,90)=20.44,p<.01)1
(M=2.54) (M=2.80) 1(M=2.55)
(M=2.89) 1
Lyubomirsky,S (2008) The How of Happiness:A New Approach to
Getting the Life you want. Penguin Books ( ( ) (2012)
12 )
Sakai Erika, Horike Kazuya
127
��������� �������������
����� 1
�1��� �����
����������������� �����!"��#$%&'(
�� ��
� ��(2011)������ �����������
������������������� !���
��"#����$%&"#'()*+�,-./
�0123%&��4�567�8901�&:���
;<(=>?)����4�567�/�@�3ABCD(E
F)GH,&��4�CD�IJ0��KLMNO�P
Q6RSTST��� �UV(��, 2013),W�
X�YZ0�[\��]^01�&:
� *_����;<(=>?)`��abc`�� �de
`8fgb1�.hiLjk� X'lm@YZgb
1nHo���4�567�� �de@np&Bq
rpLst'uv]`w&:
� xa`�yde`���� �de`z{gb&a�
'|��}~�hi(Sternberg, 1986)�������
�4�CD��}~�CD(TLS)� X�YZ%&
a�`���4�567��L�� �de�Bq
rp�vHG@%&a�����%&:
�� ��
� ���� ����'�&���507�(��193
����314�)�������0.:
��� � 2014�7�GH11�@��0.:
� ����� (1)��4�CD(���;<, =>?����
������5������������4�������
� !��4���(2)TLS27���(�����, 2003)
�����(2006)` ¡gb1�& 15 ��(¢£��
}¤�¥¦§¨©R¨ª3��), ,W@«�1¬.:
������
�������� �������� !� ��4�
CD13��®¯������°±�0�TLS3ABC
D°±�� ���²@³´0.�aµ����/@�
�����°±�TLS3ABCD°±�ob�/�s,
¶� �f0.:
��"#�� ������� ��������
!� ��4�CD 3ABCD°±� TLS3ABCD°
±�� n·¸¹� ���²@³´0.(Table 1,
Table 2):xº»����������°±�����
/@ TLS3 ABCD°±��s,¶¹� �f0.*
_����������°±����/@�}¤°±�¥
¦§¨©R¨°±��s,¼¹� �f0.:c.�
����� !��°±����/@TLS3ABCD°±
�ob�/�s,¹� �fg,G-.:
$�%� abHº»GH���4�CD�½+�01
�TLS`¾¿gb&��À4jk�¾¿`Á1�&'�
xb��@����―����@n�1¾¿gb1n��
����― !���TLS`�ÂÃ&a�'`Á,�ÄÅ
(ÆÇÈÉ@ Ê&ÄÅ)�¾¿`Á1�&ËÌ�'fÍ
gb.:c.�TLS}¤L¥¦§¨©R¨����4
�567������ÎÏ01�&a�/ÐÃHb.:
(Yasumasa Kosaka)
Table 1� ��4�CD�TLS� X(��)� Table 2� ��4�CD�TLS� X(��)
��� ����
��
������
�������
�������
������ � !"# $%&'("#)*+ ,- .
/012345 $%&678
��� ����
��
������
�������
�������
������ � !"# $%&'("#)*+ ,- .
/012345 $%&678
128
2015
2014
2010
4a
1960 b1970 1980
c 1990 d2000
/ 1990
, 2011; , 2010
Kanzaki Mami
129
1 2
1 2
130
1 2
1 2
2002
2008
Kuroishi & Sano, 2013 2015
2014
Snyder & Fromkin, 1977
194 87
100 M =19.5 SD =1.48
50 60103 73 54 37 8 5
5
9 =.802000 =.89 =.81
=.77 31985 =.67
1
21
2
1 -.09 .17 * -.12 +
.10 + .04 .01 -.02 -.09 -.04 .19 ** -.13 + -.08
.55 *** -.44 *** .34 *** R 2 .38 *** .26 *** .13 ***
2 1 .00 .17 * -.03 2 .02 -.16 * .06
R 2 .00 .04 * .00 *** p <.001, ** p <.01, * p <.05, + p <.10
.34 |r| .550.1%
r =.19 1%
r =.17; r =-.165%
Kuroishi Norihiro, Sano Yoriko
131
Communication Competence and Interest in Learning English Exploratory survey on the aspect of personal traits
Rumiko NAKANO Graduate School of Human Sciences, Osaka University
Key words: Idioms communication competence motivation cross-cultural communication
Background In light of globalization, which affords greater opportunities to communicate in English, the study of idioms may provide insights into how L2 users of English acquire and display communicative competence given that L1 users of English routinely use idioms. Specifically, learning idioms may be an effective way to improve cross-cultural communication in that idioms can function as interactional devices to build empathy across cultural borders due to the universality of some idioms (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Further, idiom use may serve to demonstrate specific cultural differences (Kovecses, 2010). Although various studies have been conducted regarding retention of idioms (Boers, Eyckmans & Stengers, 2007; Zizyk, 2011 and Yagihashi, 2007) based on Craik and Lockhart’s theory of levels of processing model (1972), few studies seem to have been conducted on the relationship between recognition of such idioms (i.e., motivation) and personal traits such as communication competence and assertiveness. However, given that motivation is considered an important element in second language learning (Ryan & Deci, 2000), an investigation was undertaken to identify the characteristics of those who were highly motivated to learn English and English idioms. Method 35 university students participated in Study 1 in July 2014. 70 university students participated in Study 2 in November 2014. Study 1: An idiom learning session was conducted in which a test of 24 multiple-choice idiom questions was conducted and correct answers and the ways to infer the right answers were provided afterwards. Study 2: Two groups of participants, one with information on idioms as to inferring their meanings and the other without, were requested to study them for 5.5 minutes. After this time, an English test consisting of 30 multiple-choice idiom questions was conducted. The questionnaire featured 5-point and 7-point Likert scale items with questions asking the recognition regarding idiom study, interest in English study, individual personal traits such as communication competence and assertiveness.
Table 1: Correlation among the idiom-related items, motivation for Studying English and Personal Traits (N=35) (Study 1)
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1.Fostering motivation in
studying English .58** .44** .51** .54** .17
2.Positive attitude toward learning English idioms
- .28 .22 .27 .02
3.Interest in studying English - .06 .41* .34* 4. Acceptance of others - .58** .235. Decipher - .27 6. Assertiveness -
*p<.05, **p<.01
Results and Discussion Correlations between item 3 and item 6 (r=.34, p<.05), and between item 1 and item 6 (r=.54, p<.01) were identified (Table 1). In addition, the correlation between item 10 and item 15 in Study 2 (r=.41, p<.01) suggests that those who are interested in learning English and the culture of the Native Speakers of English (NSE) may have been influenced by the English speaking culture through learning English since assertiveness is considered a typical characteristics of Western culture. Further, item 11 “Positive attitude toward studying English” was correlated with items such as 5 “I want to study English more to become friends with NSE” (r=.48, p<.01) in Study 2. Correlations between communication competence shown as “Acceptance of others” and “Decipher” and item 4 “Memorizing idioms is fun” and 9 “Feeling of closeness to NES” were also of interest. It is considered that these findings suggest the importance of willingness to communicate and that of communication competence in second language learning. References
Boers, F. Eyckmans J., & Stengers, H. (2007). Presenting figurative idioms with a touch of
etymology: more than mere mnemonics? Language Teaching Research, 11(1) 43-62
Craik, F. M., & Lockhart R. S. (1972). Levels of Processing: A Framework for Memory
Research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11, 671-684
Kovecses Z. (2010) Metaphor and Culture. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae,
Philologica, 2 (2) 197-220
Lakoff, G. & Johnson M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By: Chicago: The Univ. of Chicago Press Ryan, R. & Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New
Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67 Zyzik, E. (2011) Second Language Idiom learning: The Effect of Lexical knowledge and
Pedagogical Sequencing. Language Teaching Research, 15(4), 423-433 Yagihashi, I. (2007 Cognitive Approach to Learning Idioms 2, Bulletin of Tokyo Polytechnic
University 30 (2), 71-77 (Rumiko NAKANO)
132
1
1 2
Pintrich, 1999Wigfield & Eccles,
2000engagement
Christenson et al., 2012
2
24 200
143 69 , 74 ; 19.83, 1.412014 4 2015 1
1 6
2004 6 2009
2 1 24 2012
5 Skinner et al.2009
1 360
100
ω.87 .94
Figure 1 GFI=.99AGFI=.95 CFI=.99 RMSEA=.03
Figure 1
Umemoto Takatoyo, Ito Takamichi
133
1 2
1 2
6030 30 19.22 SD=0.94
19923 2011
25 6
13 2 1
Figure1Time1
11
Time22
2Time3
3
1
1 581 1 /
6 1 / 7 2 / 9 2 / 9 3 / 14 3 / 13
Time Time1 Time2 Time3
1 1 2 3Figure2
Time 1F(4, 104) 2.79, p .05, η2p=.10
1 Time32
Time32 Time3
Time1 Time22
Miwa Shuhei, Totyama Miki
134
1, 2 3 1
1 2 3
e.g. Joormann et al., 2005 ,
e.g. Moulds & Kandris, 2004WM
Owens et al., 2013
WM
Anderson et al., 1994
WM
60 18 424 56
36 . - SDS
1973 STAI T1973 WBSI 2006
AOSPAN Unsworth et al., 20051
3 7
0-75WM
Rp- NrpNrp Rp-
Nrp Rp-t(55) = 2.34, p = .02, d = 0.38
Nrp Rp- ; ( 1)
WM(B=-0.50, p = .05)
WMWM
WM
Unsworth et al., 2012
WM
Masanori KOBAYASHI, Motoyuki SANADA, Jun
KAWAGUCHI
. WM
135
1 2
1 2
/ , 0/100
(Oshio, 2009)
(Oshio, 2012)
1,
2
(Stanovich, 2004)
2
30 ( 9 , 21
), 21.8(SD=1.8)
: (Oshio,2009)
, ,
3 6
12
(Table 1)
(r=.34, p<.10) (r=.38, p<.05)
(r=-.41, p<.05)
(r=-.36, p<.05)
(r=-.33, p<.10) (r=-.52, p<.01)
1
2
MIEDA Takahiro, OSHIO Atsushi
Table 1
.18 .34 + -.41 * .38 *
-.36 * -.33 + -.52 ** -.03†p <.10,* p <.05, ** p <.01
136
137
(Smallwood & Schooler, 2006)
(e.g., Wegner & Erber, 1992)
(Beevers et al., 1999)
77
(BDI-II) ( , 2003) 5
(1: 5: )
60
5 (1: 5: )
6
(1: 5: ) 5
BDI-II
( R 2 = 0.07, F(1, 70) = 6.01, p = .02)
(β = .28, p = .02) ( 1SD)
(β = .31, p = .04) (β =
-.23, p = .19) (Figure. 1)
Hattori Yosuke
Figure 1
138
12
1 2
( )
2
NOZAKI Yuki
139
“ ”
(e.g., Finnbogadottir & Berntsen, 2013; , 2014)
1
2
217 ( 114 103 )
19.62 (SD=1.43) 191 ( 81
110 ) 19.19 (SD=0.86)
(2011) WLEIS(Wong
and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale)16 (2013)
VOIQ(Vividness of Visual Imagery
Questionnaire) (2008)
(1= 5= )
(1= 5= ) (1= 5= ) (1=
5= ) (1= 5= ) 5
3
1
167 (76.96%) 100 (52.36%)
t (Table1)
WLEIS
VOIQ
WLEIS 72.02(SD=10.13)
70.56(SD=11.96) VOIQ
44.96(SD=9.28) 47.16(SD=9.63)
(Table2)
Table1
(n=167) (n=100) t(265)
3.84(0.94) 3.58(0.87) 2.28**
3.67(1.30) 3.50(1.38) 1.01
2.68(1.23) 3.13(1.14) 2.96***
3.13(1.29) 3.42(1.30) 1.80†
3.95(0.97) 3.93(1.01) 0.13
( ) SD, †p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.005
Table2 (r)
WLEIS VOIQ WLEIS VOIQ
.02 .15 .13 .12 .11 .06 .21* .03 .05 .10 .05 .04
.19** .07 .10 .12
.17** .25** .09 .10
*p<.05, **p<.005
26 28
(B)( 26780368)
Yamamoto Kohsuke
140
1
1 , ,
(Immanent Justice)
(Maes, 1998)
(lay people)(folk psychology)
100 ( 29 71 ) 20.50
12 3
KHcoder Ver. 2.Beta.32c ( , 2015)
1502
17 Table1
17 Figure1
Figure1
Table1 Figure1
Sato Hideaki, Kitamura Hideya
141
1
1
450) 4.07, <.001 (458)3.60 <.001 (414) 4.33
<.001 (458) 2.80 <.01
(351.53) 0.83 n.s.
(370.74) 2.60, <.05
(376.50) 1.97,n.s.(399.51) 1.76,n.s.
(502) 5.27,<.001 (502) 4.23, <.001
(2013)
22 56 /
(2003)
18(2) 106-118
2012
ARAI Toshiyuki
142
1 2 3
1 2 3
143
1
1
, 1997
(2004)
144
(Cunha & Heckman,
2007, 2009)
(for meta-analytic reviews, see Roberts, & DelVecchio,
2000; Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006)
(Alessandri et al., 2014) (Claes,
Robinson, Muehlenkamp, Vandereycken, & Bijttebier, 2010)
(Baetens, Claes, Willem, Muehlenkamp, & Bijttebier,
2011)
400
(200 female; M = 42.17, SD = 5.73, range 30–50)
2014 8 Web
(Rothbart, Ahadi, & Evans,
2000; , 2005)
( )
T (M = 50, SD = 10) = 0
= 1
Step1 (Model1) Step2
(Model2)
Model2
Model1
Model1
(inhibitory control)
(B = 0.23, B SE = 0.09, p = .01)
(B = 2.41, B SE = 1.00, p = .02)
(activation control)
(B = 0.26, B SE = 0.09, p < .01)
(B = 3.45, B SE =
1.00, p < .01)
(attentional control)
(B = 0.21, B SE = 0.09, p = .02)
(B = 0.78, B SE = 1.01, p = .44)
10 0.2SD
0.3SD
(2005).
. , 14, 30−41.
Tetsuya Kawamoto
145
CT
1 1( ) 2 3( ) 4( ) 4( )1 2 3 4
CT
497 2014 5 7
(2013) 311. 2. 3.
4. 5.5
420 35066 4 52.79 SD
10.76 3 CT 2.84SD 2.81 18
84.51
.40 25 6(Table 1) 25 .74
1 2 2 3 45 4 6
2 5 2 62
CTCT
26 28 (
(B) 26861023
,
146
1
1
BMI
1997 2
2 21
233 23121.68 5.28
2009 6 7 BMI
BMI BMIBMI
177
1997
HAD 2006
BMI
Table 1
Table 1
Suzuki Tomohiro
147
148
20
22
24
26
28
30
0
149
1 2
1 2
Rozin, 2007
89 40 481 19.3
2
2015
, 1997
77 )
7
Duncan et al., 2009
7
8 7
( .30, p<.01) x( .30, p<.01; Figure 1
(-.26, p<.10)
( .33, p<.05)x
( -.28 p<.01( .23, ns)
( -.33, p<.05)
Ishii Kunio, Tado’oka Yoshika
150
.26* -.05 .11 .45*** .12 -.15
-.05 .17 -.13 -.30* .35** .07
-.02 .37** -.04 -.15 .31* .02
.08 .14 -.02 .03 .26* -.19
Table 1
*p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001.
n =65 n =68
1
1
, 2007; Tangney, 1995
, 2006; Brown, Harris, & Hepworth, 19952013
133 58 7519.44 1.22
2013
, 2010
, 2013
1.95 vs. 3.12 2.53 vs. 2.98t(131)=10.28, 3.11, p<.01
2013 3.52 vs. 4.10 2.68 vs. 2.31t(131)=4.42, 2.31, p<.05
rs=.39 .64, p<.001
Table 1
e.g., , 2010; Tangney, Wagner, Barlow, Marschall,
Gramzow, 1996 TABATA Naoya
151
1 2
1 2
, 2003
4
1
Leary, 19902
34
88 21 6720.41 SD =1.48
, 1991
GHQ30, 1985 , 1997
10 76
2015
2012
= .251=.243
=.236 266GHQ= .224 254 GHQ
GHQ1
1SD 1SD
β = .207, n.s.
β =.277, n.s.
GHQ
1 GHQ
Kazuya MATSUO, Yoshikazu FUKUI
152