摘要
目的:了解大学生的诚信水平和诚信观现状。方法:2004-11整群抽取台州学院大学生488人作为调查对象(男生130人,女生338人;来自城镇大学生161人,乡村307人;干部学生153人,非干部学生315人;独生子女144人,非独生子女323人),应用基本人格诚实量表(有60个测题,分自我效能、条理性、责任感、成就驱力、自我约束与谨慎共6个维度,每一维度各有10个测题)和中国人诚实问卷(共20个测题,分别了解受测人身边人群的诚信状况、受测人对社会奖惩机制的看法、受测人对主流行为是否诚信的看法、受测人的人性观、受测人的面子观和受测人的胆量),对中国与美国大学生、不同性别、城镇与乡村、干部与非干部、独生子女与非独生子女大学生的的诚信水平差异进行比较。结果:获有效答卷468份,有效率96%,均纳入分析。①中国与美国大学生的诚信水平比较:大学生的诚信水平(210.45±22.16)总体上与美国常模(第50个百分数得分值为205)相当。②不同性别大学生诚实与诚信观的比较:男生责任感维度的得分低于女生(39.03±6.01和42.29±4.54;t=6.338,P<0.05);男生对身边人群的诚信状况和面子观的评估上高于女生(分别为10.05±2.14和9.59±2.22,8.79±2.29和8.21±2.26;t=2.022,2.500,P=0.044,0.013);女生对主流行为是否诚信的评估高于男生(17.30±3.01和16.22±3.36,t=3.353,P=0.011)。③城镇与乡村大学生诚实与诚信观的比较:家住乡村的大学生在责任感维度、自我约束维度、人性观和面子观上的评估高于家住城镇的大学生(分别为41.76±5.32和40.68±4.89,32.10±5.05和30.98±2.66,6.77±2.25和6.19±2.18,8.52±2.29和8.08±2.26;t=-2.646～-1.968,P<0.05)。④干部与非干部大学生诚实与诚信观的比较:干部学生的责任感维度得分低于非干部学生(33.84±5.03和35.26±4.88;t=-2.878,P<0.05),干部学生的人性观自评得分高于非干部学生(6.86±2.16和6.42±2.26;t=-1.988,P<0.05)。⑤独生子女与非独生子女大学生诚实与诚信观的比较:非独生子女学生的责任感维度得分高于独生子女学生(41.72±5.28和40.67±4.95),独生子女学生的社会奖惩机制的看法与人性观方面的自评得分高于非独生子女学生(分别为6.31±2.42和6.84±2.22,6.03±2.42和6.81±2.24,t=2.018,2.315,3.499;P<0.05～0.01)。结论:当代大学生诚信水平与美国常模比较,水平相当。在诚信心理结构中,女生、家住乡村、非干部和非独生子女大学生的责任感高于男生、家住城镇、干部和独生子女学生;家住乡村的大学生的自我约束好于家住城镇的大学生。在诚信观的方面,男生对身边人群的诚信和自我面子观的评估高于女生,在对主流行为是否诚信的评估低于女生;家住乡村和干部学生在人性观的自我评估高于家住城镇和非干部学生;独生子女学生的社会奖惩机制的看法与人性观自评得分高于非独生子女学生。
AIM： To investigate the current status of the level and viewpoint of intetrity among college students. METHODS： In November 2004, a cluster sampling of 488 students （130 males and 338 females） were selected from Taizhou University. Of the subjects, 161 from urban areas and 307 from rural areas; 153 were cadre students and 315 were not; 144 were singleton and 323 were not. All the subjects were tested with general personality integrity scale （consisted of 60 questions, including 6 dimensions of self-efficiency, consecution, feeling of responsibility, achievement drive, self-discipline and precaution, each dimension consisted of 10 questions） and Chinese honesty questionnaire （consisting of 20 questions, used to investigate the integrity status to the crowd, the opinion on the social mechanism of award and punishment, opinion on the integrity of mainstream behavior, viewpoint of human nature, viewpoint of face and the courage of the subject）. The differences of integrity levels were compared between Chinese and American college students, between male and female ones, between urban and rural ones, between cadre students and non-cadre ones, also between singleton and non-singleton. RESULTS： Totally 468 valid questionnaires were involved in the analysis, and the valid rate was 96%. ① Level of integrity between Chinese and American college students： The level of integrity in Chinese college students （210.45±22.16） was generally comparative to the American norms （the score of the 50^th percentage was 205）. ② Comparison of the level and viewpoint of integrity between male and female college university students： The score of feeling of responsibility was lower in males than in females （39.03±6.01, 42.29±4.54; t=6.338, P 〈 0.05）, the scores of integrity status to the crowd and viewpoint of face were higher in males than in females （10.05±2.14, 9.59±2.22; 8.79±2.29, 8.21±2.26; t=2.022, 2.500, P=0.044, 0.013）, and the score of opinion on the integrity of mainstream behavior was higher in females than in males （17.30±3.01, 16.22±3.36, t=3.353, P=0.011）. ③ Comparison of viewpoints of honest and integrity between college students from urban and rural areas： The scores of feeling of responsibility, self-discipline, viewpoint of human nature and viewpoint of face were all higher in the college students from rural areas than in those from urban areas （41.76±5.32, 40.68±4.89; 32.10±5.05, 30.98±2.66; 6.77±2.25, 6.19±2.18; 8.52±2.29, 8.08±2.26; t=-2.646 to -1.968, P 〈 0.05）. ④ Comparison of viewpoints of honest and integrity between cadre students and common ones： The score of feeling of responsibility was lower in cadre students than in common ones （33.84±5.03, 35.26±4.88; t=-2.878, P 〈 0.05）, and the score of viewpoint of human nature was higher in cadre students than in common ones （6.86±2.16, 6.42±2.26; t=-1.988, P 〈 0.05）. ⑤ Comparison of viewpoints of honest and integrity between singletons and non-singletons： The score of feeling of responsibility was higher in non-singletons than in singletons （41.72±5.28, 40.67±4.95）, but the scores of opinion on the social mechanism of award and punishment and viewpoint of human nature were higher in singletons than in non-singletons （6.31±2.42, 6.84±2.22; 6.03±2.42, 6.81±2.24; t=2.018, 2.315, 3.499; P〈 0.05 to 0.01）. CONCLUSION： The general level of integrity in contemporary Chinese college students is comparative to the American norms. In the psychological structure of integrity, the feeling of responsibility is higher in female students, those from rural areas, common ones and non-singletons than in male students, those from urban areas, cadre students and singletons. In the aspects of integrity viewpoint, the evaluations of integrity status to the crowd and viewpoint of face are higher in males than in females, and the evaluation of the opinion on the integrity of mainstream behavior is higher in females than in males. The self-evaluation of the viewpoint of human nature are higher in the college students from rural areas and common students than in those from urban areas and cadre students. The opinion on the social mechanism of award and punishment and viewpoint of human nature are higher in singletons than in non- singletons.
出处
《中国临床康复》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2005年第24期85-87,共3页
Chinese Journal of Clinical Rehabilitation
