지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The purpose of this study was to synthesize and compare the relationship between prosocial behavior and related factors(empathy, self-characteristics, support, and participation activities) both in Korea and China. We collected articles and thesis paper published from 2000 to 2017 both in Korea and China. We used databases RISS(Research Information Sharing Service) for Korean and CNKI(China National Knowledge Infrastructure) for Chinese articles. We also gathered from the Web of Science and Scopus for the China data. We used meta-analysis for synthesizing and compare both in Korea and China. From the data, we could code 130 effect sizes from the researches of Korea and China, and analyzed each related factors.
Followings are the results of this study: (a) All effect sizes of the relationship between prosocial behavior and related factors were significant both Korea and China. The orders of effect sizes in Korea are empathy, support, participation activities, and self-characteristics. Those in China are empathy, support, self-characteristics, and participation activities. (b) Both in Korea and China, the mean effect size of the relationship between prosocial behavior and empathy are commonly very high significantly. In the criteria of Hedges’s g, the effect size is .906 in Korea and .985 in China, but there is no significant difference between Korea and China. (c) There is a significant difference in the mean effect size of the relation prosocial behavior with support factors between Korea and China. There is bigger effect size of Korea(.823) than that of China(.552). The subcategory of support, there is the significant difference in attachment and social support.
These findings can be applied to develop the prosocial behavior educational program and to implement comparative studies to more countries including Northeast Asia.
Followings are the results of this study: (a) All effect sizes of the relationship between prosocial behavior and related factors were significant both Korea and China. The orders of effect sizes in Korea are empathy, support, participation activities, and self-characteristics. Those in China are empathy, support, self-characteristics, and participation activities. (b) Both in Korea and China, the mean effect size of the relationship between prosocial behavior and empathy are commonly very high significantly. In the criteria of Hedges’s g, the effect size is .906 in Korea and .985 in China, but there is no significant difference between Korea and China. (c) There is a significant difference in the mean effect size of the relation prosocial behavior with support factors between Korea and China. There is bigger effect size of Korea(.823) than that of China(.552). The subcategory of support, there is the significant difference in attachment and social support.
These findings can be applied to develop the prosocial behavior educational program and to implement comparative studies to more countries including Northeast Asia.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 연구방법
Ⅲ. 연구결과
Ⅳ. 결론
참고문헌
【논문초록】
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
중국의 한중교류사 연구 현황과 특징
동북아 문화연구
2016 .12
-
Was Korea Ever a Part of China?: A Historical Review
IFANS PERSPECTIVES
2021 .02
-
한중수교 30주년: 한중관계 회고와 그 미래
아시아연구
2022 .02
-
한중 경제교류 30년의 동향과 경기도 정책 방향
정책연구
2022 .10
-
Restructuring the World Order: China's Perspective
The Korean Journal of Security Affairs
2022 .06
-
냉전시기 한중관계의 발전요인과 특수성 : 1972년-1992년을 중심으로
한국군사학논집
2018 .06
-
China's New Trade Strategy amid US-China Confrontation and Implications
[KIEP] World Economy Brief
2022 .03
-
미-중 무역 분쟁의 원인과 주요 변수에 관한 연구
한중사회과학연구
2018 .01
-
An Overview of China’s “Two Koreas Policy”: China’s Korean Peninsula Policy in the Era of U.S.-China Rivalry and Korea-China Cooperation
IFANS FOCUS
2022 .12
-
Introduction : End of Life Issues in China and Korea
Journal of Asian Sociology
2016 .09
-
Study on the Changes in China's Industrial Policies and Industrial Structures in Manufacturing Sector after China's Reform and Opening
[KIEP] World Economy Brief
2021 .04
-
The US-China Trade Dispute and China’s Responses
IFANS FOCUS
2018 .12
-
중국 국가이미지에 대한 인식 연구 -한국 사이버대학교 중국 학습자를 대상으로-
한중사회과학연구
2022 .07
-
중국의 대한반도 정책과 한국의 대응전략 : 미중·한미관계 및 한중·북중관계를 중심으로
한국동북아논총
2018 .06
-
사건계수자료(GDELT)를 활용한 한 · 중 양자관계 역학 분석
경기연구원 기본연구
2022 .10
-
중국이 이긴다: Age of China
[KIIP] 한국지식재산연구원 도서DB
2018 .12
-
China’s 2018 Two Sessions and Korea-China Relations
IFANS FOCUS
2017 .05
-
미중패권과 한중관계의 변화와 도전: 구동존이에서 화이부동으로 -미중관계·한중관계·양안관계를 중심으로-
평화학연구
2024 .06
-
Why China Has Supported North Korea: An Asymmetrical Dependent Relationship between China and North Korea from 1995 to 2016
The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis
2021 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0