Japanese Journal of Applied Psychology 2017, Vol. 42, No. 3, 234 246 1 * Establishment of a Structural Framework for Problematic Situations in Romantic Relationships of University Students Miyuki AIBA This study identified problematic situations in romantic love by both experience and degree to be troubled or worried, and constructed a structural framework for problematic situations in romantic relationships of Japanese adolescents. Five-hundred-two undergraduates responded to a questionnaire about problematic situations, dating experiences, and the number of boyfriends/girlfriends in the past. The results showed that three situations at development stage; presence of a romantic rival, approach from a person you dont like, and approach from oneself, four situations at maintenance stage; anxiety for future relationship, excessive control by your lover, difference in value, and inability to support your lover, and three situations at breakup stage; regret behavior of ex-lover, broach the subject of breakup, and broken heartwere identified. In all situations, degrees to be troubled or worried were significantly higher than slightly troubled or worried, or experience rates were more than 50. Principal component analysis revealed that problematic situations in romantic love were classified three groups (active approach, maintenance of relationship, negative behavior by other). key words: romantic relationships, problematic situations, romantic love DV (Dating Violence) 2008 1998 2001, 2003 1994Erikson (1950) 1 2010 2007 71 * Toyo Gakuen University, Faculty of Human Sciences, 1 26 3 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113 0033, Japan
235 DV 1998 (2009) (2009) 2005 (2005) 1998; 2005; 2008 Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992; Pines & Friedman, 1998; 1998 (2011) 2 4 2 (2011) 2 (2011) (2009)
236 Vol. 42, No. 3 1 1998 1990; 2004 DV 80 2008 19942012 2009; 2005 (Smith & Cohen, 1993) (1994) 2 15 502 14 488 206 263 19 2 19.76 (SD1.44) 1 (2011) 8 (2009) 4 3 6 3 56 15 30 16 61 2
237 (a) 2 (a) (b) (a) (b) (b) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 5 50 3. 2 2 1 23 45 6 3 1 40.40.40 2 3 3 5 3 (Tables 13) (GFI.92, AGFI.89, CFI.92, RMSEA.06) (GFI.89, AGFI.86, CFI.92, RMSEA.05) (GFI.94, AGFI.91, CFI.96, RMSEA.05) α α.73.86 (Table 4) 356 3. 3 (Table 4) 3 5 3 3 3 3 1 5 3 50 3 50 3 50 4.
238 Vol. 42, No. 3 Table 1 F1 F2 F3 () F1 (α.82) 8.93.13.14 3.56 49.69 11.81.13.21 3.35 23.85 2.63.19.20 3.81 77.96 5.47.21.08 3.62 39.17 12.47.23.04 3.22 54.17 F2 (α.73) 9.26.62.24 3.36 41.67 13.03.61.17 3.53 49.69 6.17.61.05 2.83 68.40 14.01.54.01 3.81 26.61 15 -.04.47.16 3.13 49.58 F3 (α.75) 1.20.03.61 2.88 84.91 7.33.11.59 3.76 63.96 4.17.08.58 3.89 69.44 3.12.15.51 2.48 65.42 10.26.11.47 3.76 69.44 F2.66 F3.60.52 n322 (86.44) 8. 3 (81.30) 2. 2 2 (t (357)22.57, p.01) 3 50 3 4 3 3 1 4.872 1.143 0.85 3 68.6 1 2 3 2 (Figure 1)
239 Table 2 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 () F1 (α.86) 26.77.05.05.01.05 3.55 72.60 18.75.11.10.06.10 3.55 74.01 16.73.06.04.01.03 3.52 62.43 7.65.06.03.06.05 3.61 78.25 21.60.01.05.04.06 3.29 65.82 F2 (α.79) 30.05.82.05.03.04 3.48 18.08 28.08.72.04.08.07 3.43 37.85 2.02.62.07.09.04 3.10 32.20 23.07.57.10.08.00 2.78 22.95 14.15.44.11.29.05 3.23 23.01 F3 (α.79) 22.03.00.76.01.12 2.91 43.63 27.06.02.76.05.01 2.94 22.79 17.14.10.60.02.09 3.08 20.17 10.16.19.48.00.08 3.11 56.09 6.09.10.46.10.15 3.02 41.76 F4 (α.81) 25.11.05.01.76.08 3.34 52.82 4.09.04.13.72.07 3.00 86.44 8.28.01.02.68.15 3.03 81.30 20.14.09.25.56.11 2.93 48.59 12.17.03.25.41.25 2.92 58.24 F5 (α.82) 15.01.01.03.02.88 3.57 67.51 11.15.08.15.01.66 3.58 70.90 29.20.06.08.04.61 3.60 56.09 F2.21 F3.56.44 F4.55.45.58 F5.55.36.52.43 n323 3 4 3
240 Vol. 42, No. 3 Table 3 F1 F2 F3 () F1 (α.82) 7.81.06.14 3.56 30.23 8.75.02.07 3.78 14.69 2.71.10.05 3.17 35.59 10.71.03.11 3.33 24.36 12.43.10.11 3.37 39.20 F2 (α.85) 6.06.92.06 3.26 41.53 9.02.85.00 3.63 58.19 13.13.65.03 3.40 48.59 1.04.56.08 3.11 66.10 4.17.47.16 3.06 24.93 F3 (α.83) 15.00.10.92 3.56 41.81 14.03 -.03.78 3.66 46.33 16.09.17.64 3.47 41.53 3.03.15.51 3.73 21.19 F2.60 F3.41.61 n332 Table 4 () (SD) t (df) 3.53 (0.95) 10.40** 347 48.97 3.32 (0.84) 7.22** 356 47.19 3.36 (0.78) 9.00** 385 70.63 3.51 (0.91) 10.84** 374 70.62 3.21 (0.98) 4.10** 346 26.82 3.02 (0.82) 0.45 340 36.89 3.07 (0.90) 1.50 357 65.48 3.61 (0.89) 13.41** 382 64.84 3.43 (0.93) 8.65** 344 28.82 3.27 (0.91) 5.65** 350 47.87 3.57 (1.02) 10.38** 344 37.71 **p.01
241 3 Figure 1 (Table 5) (F(10, 275)5.13, p.01) (F(3, 447)12.68, p.01) (F(7, 321) 2.45, p.05) Table 5 n (SD) F (df) n (SD) F (df) 127 3.31 (1.03) 11.80** 197 2.50 (1.54) 0.34 159 3.69 (0.84) (1, 284) 254 2.41 (1.52) (1, 449) 127 3.02 (0.89) 32.30** 197 1.91 (1.57) 28.79** 159 3.56 (0.70) (1, 284) 254 2.73 (1.64) (1, 449) 127 3.27 (0.95) 3.69 197 3.56 (1.56) 0.38 159 3.45 (0.64) (1, 284) 254 3.47 (1.55) (1, 449) 127 3.35 (0.96) 5.94* 139 3.26 (1.64) 7.31** 159 3.62 (0.85) (1, 284) 190 3.75 (1.60) (1, 327) 127 3.05 (0.98) 7.34** 139 1.26 (1.47) 0.48 159 3.36 (0.97) (1, 284) 190 1.38 (1.60) (1, 327) 127 2.90 (0.90) 8.24** 139 3.08 (1.57) 3.10 159 3.20 (0.88) (1, 284) 190 3.38 (1.54) (1, 327) 127 3.57 (0.97) 0.45 139 1.82 (1.17) 2.83 159 3.64 (0.84) (1, 284) 190 2.03 (1.09) (1, 327) 127 3.23 (0.91) 19.60** 139 1.34 (1.59) 1.01 159 3.69 (0.84) (1, 284) 190 1.52 (1.66) (1, 327) 127 3.24 (0.99) 2.38 139 2.17 (1.70) 3.67 159 3.40 (0.81) (1, 284) 190 2.54 (1.75) (1, 327) 127 3.45 (1.03) 5.52* 139 1.58 (1.40) 1.27 159 3.72 (0.95) (1, 284) 190 1.41 (1.35) (1, 327) **p.01, *p.05
242 Vol. 42, No. 3 Table 6 4 (Table 6) 2 3 4 3 4 (SD) 0 (17.9) 1 (16.5) 23 (38.4) 45 (16.5) 6 (10.8) (SD)1.86(1.21).01.03.01.07.16.19**.01.22**.01.19*.02.02.10.06.17.20**.21*.13.08.10 **p.01, *p.05 50 α.73.86 (2011) (2011) 50 65 2 1 1 2 12 20
243 Figure 2 2010; 2012 (2009) 65 70 13.3 37 3 Figure 2 3 2009 1998 2 2003 (Smith & Cohen, 1993) 1996; 2008
244 Vol. 42, No. 3 20092005 (2005) 40 1 70 2009; 2005; 2011 (2009) Hill, Rubin, & Peplau, 1976; 2006 2 DV 2008 DV (Caldwell & Peplau, 1982) 3 DV
245 2 2009 52, 38 48. 2011 23, 19 35. Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J.1992Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251 255. Caldwell, A., & Peplau, A.1982Sex differences in same-sex friendship. Sex Roles, 8, 721 732. 1990 33, 322 352. Erikson, E. H.1950Childhood and Society. New York: W. W. Norton. 1998 pp. 122 130. Hill, C. T., Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A.1976Breakups before marriage: The end of 103 affairs. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 147 168. 1994 34, 116 128. 2006 5, 157 162. 1994 98, 53 79. 2001 1, 119 132. 2003 3, 39 45. 1998 pp. 215 224. 2005 20, 171 180. 2012 22 14 II 2009 17, 144 156. 2012 (3) 19, 19 36. 2004 (1) 41, 87 105. 2008 2008
246 Vol. 42, No. 3 39, 65 71. 1996 44, 55 65. Pines, A. M., & Friedman, A.1998Gender differences in romantic jealousy. Journal of Social Psychology, 138, 54 71. Smith, H. S., & Cohen, L. H.1993Self-complexity and reactions to a relationship breakup. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 12, 367 384. 1998 14, 12 24. 1998 49, 286 301. 2005 21, 21 31. 2005 29, 71 87. 2010 52 306. 1998 pp. 131 140. 2008 56, 57 71. 2003 (2) 1970 1990 54, 117 123. 2015.8.18; 2016.4.11