1) 적응유연성(resilience)의 개념 및 기존 모델을 심리학적인 관점에서 재조망하여 적응유연성, 위험요소, 보호요소의 개념을 상담적 맥락에서 재정의한다. 2) 다양한 위험요소에 노출되어 있는 위험군(at-risk) 청소년들을 연령대를 달리하여 표집하고, 이들을 대상으 ...

1) 적응유연성(resilience)의 개념 및 기존 모델을 심리학적인 관점에서 재조망하여 적응유연성, 위험요소, 보호요소의 개념을 상담적 맥락에서 재정의한다. 2) 다양한 위험요소에 노출되어 있는 위험군(at-risk) 청소년들을 연령대를 달리하여 표집하고, 이들을 대상으로 심층면접, 관찰, 설문조사하여 위험요소에도 불구하고 적응유연한 발달을 보이는 청소년들의 심리내적, 관계적, 환경적 특성들을 구체적으로 밝혀낸다. 3) 연구결과를 토대로 청소년들의 적응유연성 발달을 촉진할 수 있는 상담모델을 개발한다.

본 연구는 344명의 초, 중, 고등 학생들을 대상으로 적응 유연한 청소년들이 어떠한 심리적 보호요소를 지니고 있는지를 탐색하였다. 가정 환경적 위험요소로 부모의 교육수준, 가족의 구조적 결손여부, 사회경제적 지위가 측정되었고, 적응수준은 또래, 교사, 자기 평정 ...

본 연구는 344명의 초, 중, 고등 학생들을 대상으로 적응 유연한 청소년들이 어떠한 심리적 보호요소를 지니고 있는지를 탐색하였다. 가정 환경적 위험요소로 부모의 교육수준, 가족의 구조적 결손여부, 사회경제적 지위가 측정되었고, 적응수준은 또래, 교사, 자기 평정점수를 사용하였다. 가정의 위험요소 가운데 한 가지 이상 노출되고 적응수준에서 상위 50% 이상의 적응을 보이는 집단을 적응 유연한 집단으로, 위험요소에 노출되고 적응 하위 50%에 해당하는 집단을 고위험집단, 그리고 위험요소에 전혀 노출되지 않고, 상위 50% 이상의 적응 수준을 보이는 집단을 유능집단으로 분류하여 세 집단간에 심리적 보호요소를 변량분석을 사용하여 분석하였다. 분석결과 유은한 집단은 자아탄력성과 또래애착에서 다른 두 집단에 비해 놓은 점수를 보였으며 적응유연한 집단은 고위험집단에 비해 실존적 영성에서 높은 점수를 보였다. 상담실제와 추후 연구에 대한 시사점이 논의 되었다.

In the present study, we investigated how do resilient adolescents (high risk, high competence) differ from maladaptive peers (high risk, low competence) who have not succeeded in the context of adversity and from competent peers (low risk, high compe ...

In the present study, we investigated how do resilient adolescents (high risk, high competence) differ from maladaptive peers (high risk, low competence) who have not succeeded in the context of adversity and from competent peers (low risk, high competence) who are also successful but have not experienced adversity. We assumed that the psychological variables that differentiate resilient adolescents from maladaptive and competent adolescents count as protective factors. To investigate resilience, we specified the risk factors, the criteria by which adaptation is judged to be successful, and the features of the individual that may help to explain resilient outcomes. To measure adversity, we asked the students whether they were exposed to the following family risk factors; the parents low level of schooling, the parents insecure job status, broken family structure, receiving social welfare, and their perception of low SES. If the students were exposed to at least one of the family risk factors described above, we classified them as a high risk group. To measure competence, we used the ratings on adolescents adjustment and competence by self, peers, and teacher. The rating items were modified from the Adaptation Scale interview items developed by Kilmer, Cowen, & Wyman (2001). If the students were rated above the high 50% of all the three ratings, we classified them as a high competence group. On the contrary, if the students were rated below the low 50% of all the three ratings, we classified them as a low competence group. In terms of psychological resources, we measured the five different psychological characteristics, which were identified as protective factors from the previous studies with Western samples. The five psychological resource included in the present study were ego-resilience measured by the Ego-Resiliency Scale (Block & Kremen, 1996), the spirituality by the Spiritual Well-Being Scale (Paloutzion & Ellison, 1982), the problem solving skills by the Problem Solving Inventory (Heppner & Petersen, 198
A total of 344 students (male; 162, female, 182) from elementary schools (N=64, 18.6%), junior high schools (N=62, 18%), and high schools (N=218, N=63.4%) responded to a set of questionnaires measuring adversity, competence, and psychological resources. Using the two criteria of adversity and competence, we finally selected the resilient group of 26 students (11 male and 15 female), the maladaptive group of 35 students (20 male and 15 female), and the competent group of 42 students (19 male and 23 female). To see the differences in the five psychological variables among the three groups, we conducted the Analysis of Variance on each psychological variable and used Tukey as a post-hoc analysis. Results showed that ego-resilience, existential spiritual well-being, and peer attachment are the significant variables to differentiate the three groups. Specifically, there were significant differences in ego-resilience and existential spiritual well-being between the resilient and the maladaptive groups. Also, the resilient group showed the higher score of existential spirituality than the competent group, although the difference is not statistically significant. This result implies that ego-resilience and existential spirituality may buffer the negative effects from the risk factors on the adaptive development. We also found that there was significant difference in ego-resilience and peer attachment between the competent and the maladaptive groups. However, there was no significant difference in any variables between the competent and the resilient groups. This result implies that the risk factors may negatively affect the adaptive mechanisms, such as ego-resilience and peer relationship, but the resilient adolescents are shown to be protected to maintain the level of adaptation as the competent adolescents.
Based on the findings of the present study, we made some suggestions for the future study to further analyze the mediating effects of ego resilience and existential spirituality in the relationship of adversity and social competence as protective factors. Also, it was suggested that a person-focused approach should be conducted in resilience study in Korea to add in-depth information of protective factors.