摘要
背景:目前已确认应付方式是应激与健康身心之间的中介因素,应对大致分为应对的特质论、情境论和交互作用论的取向,对于应付的描述和分类评估系统仍有待研究。目的:分析应付方式的维度、不同应付方式的特点及与大学生心理适应性的关系。设计:问卷调查。单位:北京师范大学心理学院。对象:随机抽样选取天津大学、天津商学院、天津师范大学、天津财经学院343名大学生,男生161名,女生182名;年龄19～22岁,平均(19±2)岁,根据学校体检结果,均无严重急性及慢性疾病,所有学生均对检测项目知情同意。方法:于1999-09/12在4所高校学生所在教室施测,以自然班级为单位集体施测,共计16个班级,发放422份答题手册,每份手册包含《应付方式评定量表》、《青少年心理适应性量表》及《SCL-90》3个量表,当场收回问卷。应付方式的评定使用梁宝勇修订《应付方式评定量表》,包括20个项目,每个项目陈述了1种个体在日常生活中经常使用的应付策略,如“告诉自己,同别人相比,自己的问题算不了什么,不值得烦恼。”选项为自评5点量表。其中20个项目涵盖了人们常用的多种应付方式,心理适应结果选用2项指标,一是陈会昌编制的《青少年心理适应性量表》,共计20个题目,选项共5个等级,得分高表明适应水平高,另一个指标是《90项症状核查量表》计算总分作为个体的心理健康水平的指标之一,分数越高表明身心症状检出率越高,适应水平越低。测量数据全部录入Foxbase数据库,采用因素及聚类分析处理数据,观察大学生应对方式的类型,采用相关分析评价不同维度应对方式与适应结果的相关性。主要观察指标:大学生应对方式的类型及不同维度应对方式与适应结果的相关性。结果:共发放422份问卷,收回问卷362份,其中19份问卷因填写有漏项或者选择偏差严重而作为无效问卷,其余343名学生数据进入结果分析。①因素分析显示大学生应对方式的类型主要为F1(寻求支持)、F2(积极思维)、F3(认知升华)、F4(消极自责)、F5(面对现实)、F6(转移逃避)、F7(情绪宣泄),聚类分析应对方式的类型主要为A类(主动面对型),B类(被动退避型),C类(消极宣泄型)。②适应水平较高的受试者更多的运用A类方式,适应差的学生较多使用B、C类方式,C类应付在学生群体中的使用频率较低。A类方式与身心症状的检出率呈显著负相关(r=-0.258,P<0.01),与适应性水平呈显著正相关(r=0.467,P<0.01);B类方式和C类方式与身心症状检出率都呈显著正相关(r=0.338,0.364,P<0.01),B类与心理适应性有较显著的负相关(r=-0.140,P<0.05),C类只与长期的心理适应性的关系不显著。A类与C类具有各自的独立性。不同程度应激水平与3类应付方式也有显著关系,高应激与较少的使用A类方式有关,而与较多的使用B类、C类有关。结论:应付方式具有复杂性,不同应对方式的使用与心理适应性水平有显著相关,但影响的方向也因个体特点、结果变量指标、应激程度大小等因素有所不同。
BACKGROUND： At present, it is affirmed that coping style is the important mediator between stress and health beth on mental and body. The coping theory is descripted as three orientations： trait view, contextual view and interaction person-environment view. The conception and classiication of the coping styles still remains to be explored. OBJECTIVE ： To probe into the dimensions of coping styles, the characteristics of different coping styles and the correlation between coping styles and psychological adaptation among college students. DESIGN ： Questionnaire investigation SETTING ： School of Psychology, Beijing Normal University PARTICIPANTS： Altogether 343 college students ware randomly chosen from Tianjin University, Tianjin University of Commerce, Tianjin Normal University and Tianjin University of Finance and Economics. The college students, including 161 males and 182 females, ware aged （19±2） years, ranging from 19 to 22 years. According to body health examniation records of them, all the college students had no serious chronic or acute illness. Written informed consents ware obtained from all the college students. METHODS ： The college students ware measured collectively in their own classroom respectively from September to December in 1999. There ware totally 16 class units. Altogether 422 copies of questionnaire files ware sent out Each copy includes Coping Styles ＇Scales, Adolescent Psychological Adaptation Scales, and SCL-90.The questionnaires ware collected once the college students completed. Copying styles ware assessed with Coping Style Scale revised by Liang Baoyong, which includes 20 items. Each item gives one kind of coping strategies in daily life. For example, ＂To tell myself, my troub, le is nothing matter when comparing with others, it is no worthy to be annoyant＂. The college students should be asked to answer on the 5-point Likert scale. These 20 items covered majority of coping styles which wareused by adoles- cents. Two indexes ware used as the results of psychological adaptation： one is Adolescent Psychological Adaptation Scale developed by Chen Huichang, including 20 items. Scores ware collected on the 5-point Likert scale in which high scores mean better adaptation. Another result variable is the amount of SCL-90. High scores mean more symptoms with mental or physical state which stands for lower adaptation level. All the assessment data ware input into Foxbase data-base, then ware analyzed using factor analysis and cluster analysis in order to attain different kinds of college students coping styles. Correlation analysis was used to examine the correlation between coping style and adaptation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES ： Coping styles of college students and correlation between different coping styles and adaptation results. RESULTS： A total of 422 copies of questionnaires ware sent out, and 362 copies ware drawn back, 19 copies were invalid questionnaires due to either there ware missing answers or the answer had reflective tendency. At last, 343 sets of data entered the analysis procedure. ① According to factor analysis results, the main coping styles used by college students ware F1 （seeking support）, F2 （positive thinking ）, F3 （cognitive adjustment）, F4 （passive blame oneself）, F5 （facing reality）, F6（avoidance）, F7（emotional catharsis）.There were three main coping styles from cluster analysis, that was, A （positive confrontation） ,B（passive avoidance） and C（passive catharsis）.② Those who ware more adaptive used A coping style more frequently, and those who had lower adaptation level used B or C coping style more frequently. But few students used C coping style. A coping style was significantly negatively correlated with mental or physical symptoms （r= -0.258,P〈 0.01 ）,but significantly positively correlated with adaptation level （r =0.467, P 〈 0.01 ）;But beth B and C coping styles were signifcantly positively correlated with mental or physical symptoms （/=0.338, 0.364, P 〈 0.01 ）,B coping style was sigrifcantly negatively correlated with psychological adaptation （r =-0.140, P 〈 0.05）. It seamed that C coping style had no correlation with long-term adaptation. A and C coping styles ware two dependent styles respectively. In addition, different levels of stress were significantly correlated with three styles. Few A coping styles were used under high level of stress, but more B and C coping styles did. CONCLUSION： Coping style is complex. Use of different copying styles is significantly correlated with psychological adaptation levels. But the direction of correlation is effected by the factors, such as individuals, index of results and degree of stress.
出处
《中国组织工程研究与临床康复》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2007年第17期3443-3446,3450,共5页
Journal of Clinical Rehabilitative Tissue Engineering Research
