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