責任知覺과 神經症的 傾向性이 디스트레스와 確認行動에 미치는 影響

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구는 責任知覺과 神經症的 傾向性이 과제수행에 미치는 효과를 알아봄으로서 강박사고와 행동의 기제를 밝혀보고자 했다. 이는 높은 책임지각이 강박사고 및 행동을 촉진시키고 강박증의 발병에 기여하는 주요한 인지과정으로 알려져 있기 때문이다. 또한 성격 역시 주관적 디스트레스에 기여하는 주요 기여 변인으로 알려졌고, 그중에 신경증적 경향성은 불안 관련 정신장애를 예측하는 변인이다. 이러한 선행연구는 신경증적 경향성과 같은 성격변인과 높은 책임지각과 같은 인지변인이 강박사고 및 강박행동의 주요 유발요인이라는 것을 밝혔다. 본 연구에서는 이런 가능성을 검증하고자 높거나 낮은 책임지각과 신경증적 경향성이 높고 낮음에 따라서 과제수행동안에 디스트레스와 强迫的 行動特性이 어떻게 나타나는지를 알아보았다.
본 연구결과를 종합하여 결론을 내리자면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 책임지각 수준은 지체행동과 같은 강박적 과제수행에만 부분적으로 영향을 줄뿐 주관적 디스트레스 유발에는 효과가 없었다. 둘째, 신경증적 경향성은 강박적 과제수행에는 전혀 영향력이 없었으나 주관적 디스트레스를 유발하는데 큰 효과를 발휘하였다. 셋째, 신경증적 경향성은 높은 책임지각 조건하에서만 주관적 디스트레스에 부분적으로 영향을 미쳤다. 즉 신경증적 경향성이 높은 사람은 책임지각이 높을 때 의심, 행동지연과 같은 강박증후의 특성과 일치하는 반응을 유발하였다.
이러한 본 연구결과의 意義는 강박사고 및 행동이 강박장애의 일차적 평가과정에 영향을 미치는 非合理的인 信念인 “사람은 完璧해야 한다”와 같은 인지도식에 의해서 스스로의 수행에 대한 의심을 유발하고 이것이 확인행동, 수행지체와 같은 강박행동의 유발에 기여한다는 것을 밝혔다는 것이다. 그리고 이러한 도식이 신경증적 경향성과 같은 불안 취약성격변인과 과도한 책임의 지각으로 활성화될 수 있는다는 것을 확인했다는데 의의가 있다. 더 나아가 강박장애환자의 치료에서 과도한 책임지각을 통제하는 처치를 통해서 긍정적인 효과를 가질 수 있음을 시사한다고 볼 수 있다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The core variable of obsessive compulsive disorder(OCD) was found, by
Salkovskis (1985, 1989), to be the cognitive variable of perceived responsibility. In
many research, the personality variable of neuroticism was related to OCD
consistently. The purpose of this research is to investigate the effects of perceived
responsibility and neuroticism upon distress and checking behavior and determine the
inter-relationship between these variables.
Methodologically, there were two stages to this study: Subject selection
(manipulation) and Experimental phase. For the subject selection (manipulation) phase
341 subjects were administered a questionnaire to assess their level of neuroticism.
Half were told that the completion of the questionnaire was extremely important,
which was thought to influence (increase) their level of responsibility. From this
group 31 subjects were select (about half the subjects scoring high on neuroticism and half scoring low on neuroticism) and comprised the High Perceived Responsibility
Condition - (HPRC). The other half of the 341 subjects were the control group and
not told about the importance of the questionnaire. From this second group 29
subjects were selected for the experimental phase, with about half the subjects
scoring high on neuroticism and half scoring low on neuroticism. Therefore, the
experimental design was a 2 (hi & low perceived responsibility) X 2 (hi & low
neuroticism) matrix.
The dependent variables were Distress and Checking Behavior. Distress was
measured by, 1. conviction, 2. Doubt, 3. urge to check, 4. Feeling of being discomfort,
and 5. Subjective number of errors made during the classification. Checking behavior
was measured by, 1. Hesitation, 2. Checking, 3. Modifications, 4. Number of errors
made, and 5. Time to complete the task.
The following were the hypotheses for this study:
1. There will be high levels of distress for the high perceived responsibility
condition, versus the low perceived responsibility condition.
2. There will be greater frequencies of hesitation, actual confirming behavior, and
corrections for the high perceived responsibility condition, versus the low perceived
responsibility condition.
3. For the high perceived responsibility condition, higher distress will be seen for
the high neuroticism group, versus the low neuroticism group. For the low perceived
responsibility condition, no difference is expected.
4. For the high perceived responsibility condition, the high neuroticism group is
expected to have high frequencies of hesitations, checking and modification than the
low neuroticism group. No differences is expected for the low perceived responsibility
group. The results show that:
1. The manipulation of perceived responsibility was effective. The difference
between the two experimental conditions in terms of perceived responsibility showed
that there were significant difference in the probability and severity of negative
consequences, and perceived responsibility.
2. All the hypotheses set forth before the study were rejected except Hypothesis
2, 4, however, only partially other than hastation, all other measures of checking
behavior showed non-signification correlation with perceived responsibility. And other
than doubt, all other measures of distress showed non-significant correlation with
perceived responsibility and neuroticism. Therefore, for the high perceived
responsibility condition, high levels of subjective distress was seen for subjects with
high neuroticism, versus those with low neuroticism.
The results of this study suggest that increase in neuroticism and perceived
responsibility could lead to increased subjective distress and checking behavior.
Further, treatment for OCD may be effective if perceived responsibility and affective
distress were decreased.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 諸論 1
• 1. 威脅評價모델 4
• 2. 責任評價모델 6
• 3. 强迫症候와 神經症的 傾向性간의 關係 14
• 4. 問題提起 및 假說 17
• Ⅱ. 方法 및 節次 20
• 1. 被驗者 20
• 2. 測定道具 20
• 1) 아이젱크 성격검사 20
• 2) 캡슐분류과제 21
• 3) 과제수행 측정도구 21
• 4) 주관적 반응측정척도 21
• 3. 節次 22
• 4. 實驗操作 22
• 5. 操作確認 24
• 6. 資料分析 24
• Ⅲ. 結果 25
• 1. 獨立變因 및 從屬變因간의 相關分析 25
• 2. 操作確認 27
• 3. 主觀的 디스트레스 水準에 대한 檢證 28
• 4. 遲滯, 確認, 修正行動 頻度에 대한 檢證 32
• IV. 論議 및 結論 36
• 參考文獻 43
• 英文抄錄 49
• 附錄 52