This study was conducted (1) to replicate Kobayashi & Kato (2021) Study on our Amae‒Type Scale (ATS, 2015), using Amae Process Model (Kato, 2008), particularly focusing theoretically on Pre‒Amae action Stage, and (2) re‒examine its several aspects of amae processes (mostly were in expected direction but statistically weak), so as to statistically demonstrate more pronouncedly the 3 Type‒differences of “Un‒Able” Amae‒engagers (Type B : Suppressed ; C : Hesitant ; D : Confused), compared with “Able” Type (A : Adaptive), which was the very purpose of this study. To those ends, we (a) created new items that would elucidate the Type‒differences more clearly, and (b) set‒up a situation newly (“finally not engaged in amae”), so as to compare with the 2021 study’s “finally engaged in amae”. We administered a questionnaire to 292 college students. Findings showed (1) 2021 Study was mostly well‒replicated, (2) due to theoretically focusing on Pre‒Amae Stage, 3 “Un‒Able” Amae‒Type differences were more clearly demonstrated statistically. Based upon those findings, we conclude that ATS has reasonably well validities/reliabilities and promising theoretical/practical utilities. The data used in these studies were all obtained from surveys of college students about 20 years ago (1999, 2001, 2011). In the future, therefore, it is necessary to enhance the usefulness of the ATS in understanding contemporary “amae” by examining the data from today’s college students.

This study proposes and empirically validates a psychological model explaining the initiation and escalation processes of aggressive behavior toward individuals perceived as unable to “read the air” within friend groups. A total of 464 adults aged 18-29 (mean age = 23.97, SD = 3.52), who experienced interactions with such individuals during adolescence or college, recalled specific episodes. Structural equation modeling confirmed acceptable model fit. Aggressive behaviors were categorized into two types: “constraint‒oriented” aggression involving Jeer/Tease, Criticize, and Follow Along; and “exclusion‒oriented aggression” involving Ignore, Avoid, and Gossip. Results indicated that these behaviors did not converge as individual‒level aggression. Instead, “exclusion‒oriented aggression” was linked to relational aggression by the group, and “constraint‒oriented aggression” correlated with direct group aggression and bullying involving violence. Additionally, group‒based aggression was indirectly influenced by higher group exclusivity through both “constraint‒” and “exclusion‒oriented” aggression. These findings contribute to understanding bullying mechanisms in contemporary school settings, which provides novel insights that address the previously overlooked interpersonal dynamics within private friend groups in bullying psychology research. Furthermore, our study extends traditional scenario‒based research on social cue interpretation.

This study aimed to elucidate the process of expressing one’s “true self” in job hunting and explore the associated psychological distress encountered by students in this context. Semi‒structured interviews were conducted with individuals in their early twenties who had engaged in self‒analysis during their job hunting. Data from these interviews were analyzed using the Modified Grounded Theory Approach (M-GTA). The process of expressing one’s “true self” was characterized by encouraging students to reveal their “true self” and prompting introspection, leading them to strive to meet the expectations of the interviewers and mentors. It also marked a transition from the struggle to seek the “true self” to recognize the distinction between the “true self” demanded in job‒hunting self‒analysis and one’s genuine authenticity. The findings also indicate that students may experience psychological distress while wrestling with the concept of their “true self.” Therefore, this study suggests that understanding adherence to the “true self” in this context is not obligatory, and considering the option to step back from the self‒analysis process may provide relief to individuals engaged in job hunting.

This study objectively and comprehensively clarified the contexts and behaviors in which individuals are perceived as “failing to read the air” within adolescent friendships. We recruited 981 young adults (mean age = 24.01, SD = 3.49) who were asked to recall and describe such perceived episodes from their adolescence. Text mining analysis identified five representative categories: (a) stubborn attitudes during decision‒making situations, (b) non‒conforming behaviors in group settings, (c) behaviors that disrupt lively conversations, (d) frivolous attitudes in situations requiring empathy, and (e) noisy behaviors in quiet environments. Further analysis revealed that (c) was most frequently experienced, and (d) was more commonly reported in female groups. These findings provide a foundation for understanding the characteristics of contemporary adolescent friendships.