中华行为医学与脑科学杂志
中華行為醫學與腦科學雜誌
중화행위의학여뇌과학잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE AND BRAIN SCIENCE
2012年
5期
443-446
,共4页
青少年犯%犯罪团伙%人格%人际信任%应付方式
青少年犯%犯罪糰夥%人格%人際信任%應付方式
청소년범%범죄단화%인격%인제신임%응부방식
Juvenile criminal%Criminal gang%Personality%Interpersonal trust%Coping style
目的 探究团伙犯罪青少年的人格、人际信任、应对方式的特点以及人际信任、应对方式与人格的关系,以了解青少年团伙犯罪的心理影响因素.方法 采用艾森克人格问卷、信任量表、应对方式问卷对某看守所男性非团伙犯罪青少年15名(组1)、男性团伙犯罪青少年52名(组2)和某高校守法男生40名(组3)进行测试,采用协方差分析和Pearson相关分析对数据进行统计分析.结果 去除协变量受教育年限的作用后,非团伙犯罪和团伙犯罪青少年人格问卷精神质(P)和神经质(N)维度[非团伙犯罪组分别为(57.49±2.62)分,(59.35±3.55)分,团伙犯罪组分别为(57.83±1.24)分,(59.60±1.68)分]高于对照组[分别为(43.88±4.72)分,(39.07±6.40)分](P＜0.05),非团伙犯罪青少年外倾性(E)维度[(63.41±3.86)分]高于团伙犯罪青少年[(53.01±1.83)分](P＜0.05)；非团伙犯罪和团伙犯罪青少年信任量表的可预测性(P)、可依赖性(D)和信赖(F)维度[(非团伙犯罪组分别为(24.68±1.51)分,(14.36 ±2.19)分和(15.49±2.21)分,团伙犯罪组分别为(22.95±0.71)分,(22.48±1.04)分和(23.09±1.05)分)低于对照组[分别为(33.14±2.72)分,(40.22±3.95)分和(38.44±3.99)分](P＜0.01)；非团伙犯罪和团伙犯罪青少年应对方式的自责和幻想维度[非团伙犯罪组分别为(0.80±0.08)分和(0.83±0.06)分,团伙犯罪组分别为(0.59±0.04)分和(0.68±0.03)分]高于对照组[分别为(0.39±0.14)分和(0.44±0.11)分](P＜0.05或0.01)；非团伙犯罪和团伙犯罪青少年应对方式的解决问题维度[分别为(0.76±0.06)分,(0.70±0.03)分]低于对照组[(0.95±0.11)分](P＜0.05)；团伙犯罪青少年人格的P维度与其应对方式的解决问题和自责维度具有相关性(r=-0.389,-0.395,P＜0.05)；团伙犯罪青少年人格的N维度与其人际信任的F维度和应对方式的自责维度具有相关性(r=-0.473,0.454,P＜0.05)；团伙犯罪青少年人格的E维度与其应对方式的求助维度具有相关性( r=0.400,P＜0.05).结论 非团伙犯罪、团伙犯罪和守法青少年的人格特征、人际信任以及应对方式存在差异,这些心理因素可能对青少年团伙犯罪行为产生一定的影响.
目的 探究糰夥犯罪青少年的人格、人際信任、應對方式的特點以及人際信任、應對方式與人格的關繫,以瞭解青少年糰夥犯罪的心理影響因素.方法 採用艾森剋人格問捲、信任量錶、應對方式問捲對某看守所男性非糰夥犯罪青少年15名(組1)、男性糰夥犯罪青少年52名(組2)和某高校守法男生40名(組3)進行測試,採用協方差分析和Pearson相關分析對數據進行統計分析.結果 去除協變量受教育年限的作用後,非糰夥犯罪和糰夥犯罪青少年人格問捲精神質(P)和神經質(N)維度[非糰夥犯罪組分彆為(57.49±2.62)分,(59.35±3.55)分,糰夥犯罪組分彆為(57.83±1.24)分,(59.60±1.68)分]高于對照組[分彆為(43.88±4.72)分,(39.07±6.40)分](P＜0.05),非糰夥犯罪青少年外傾性(E)維度[(63.41±3.86)分]高于糰夥犯罪青少年[(53.01±1.83)分](P＜0.05)；非糰夥犯罪和糰夥犯罪青少年信任量錶的可預測性(P)、可依賴性(D)和信賴(F)維度[(非糰夥犯罪組分彆為(24.68±1.51)分,(14.36 ±2.19)分和(15.49±2.21)分,糰夥犯罪組分彆為(22.95±0.71)分,(22.48±1.04)分和(23.09±1.05)分)低于對照組[分彆為(33.14±2.72)分,(40.22±3.95)分和(38.44±3.99)分](P＜0.01)；非糰夥犯罪和糰夥犯罪青少年應對方式的自責和幻想維度[非糰夥犯罪組分彆為(0.80±0.08)分和(0.83±0.06)分,糰夥犯罪組分彆為(0.59±0.04)分和(0.68±0.03)分]高于對照組[分彆為(0.39±0.14)分和(0.44±0.11)分](P＜0.05或0.01)；非糰夥犯罪和糰夥犯罪青少年應對方式的解決問題維度[分彆為(0.76±0.06)分,(0.70±0.03)分]低于對照組[(0.95±0.11)分](P＜0.05)；糰夥犯罪青少年人格的P維度與其應對方式的解決問題和自責維度具有相關性(r=-0.389,-0.395,P＜0.05)；糰夥犯罪青少年人格的N維度與其人際信任的F維度和應對方式的自責維度具有相關性(r=-0.473,0.454,P＜0.05)；糰夥犯罪青少年人格的E維度與其應對方式的求助維度具有相關性( r=0.400,P＜0.05).結論 非糰夥犯罪、糰夥犯罪和守法青少年的人格特徵、人際信任以及應對方式存在差異,這些心理因素可能對青少年糰夥犯罪行為產生一定的影響.
목적 탐구단화범죄청소년적인격、인제신임、응대방식적특점이급인제신임、응대방식여인격적관계,이료해청소년단화범죄적심리영향인소.방법 채용애삼극인격문권、신임량표、응대방식문권대모간수소남성비단화범죄청소년15명(조1)、남성단화범죄청소년52명(조2)화모고교수법남생40명(조3)진행측시,채용협방차분석화Pearson상관분석대수거진행통계분석.결과 거제협변량수교육년한적작용후,비단화범죄화단화범죄청소년인격문권정신질(P)화신경질(N)유도[비단화범죄조분별위(57.49±2.62)분,(59.35±3.55)분,단화범죄조분별위(57.83±1.24)분,(59.60±1.68)분]고우대조조[분별위(43.88±4.72)분,(39.07±6.40)분](P＜0.05),비단화범죄청소년외경성(E)유도[(63.41±3.86)분]고우단화범죄청소년[(53.01±1.83)분](P＜0.05)；비단화범죄화단화범죄청소년신임량표적가예측성(P)、가의뢰성(D)화신뢰(F)유도[(비단화범죄조분별위(24.68±1.51)분,(14.36 ±2.19)분화(15.49±2.21)분,단화범죄조분별위(22.95±0.71)분,(22.48±1.04)분화(23.09±1.05)분)저우대조조[분별위(33.14±2.72)분,(40.22±3.95)분화(38.44±3.99)분](P＜0.01)；비단화범죄화단화범죄청소년응대방식적자책화환상유도[비단화범죄조분별위(0.80±0.08)분화(0.83±0.06)분,단화범죄조분별위(0.59±0.04)분화(0.68±0.03)분]고우대조조[분별위(0.39±0.14)분화(0.44±0.11)분](P＜0.05혹0.01)；비단화범죄화단화범죄청소년응대방식적해결문제유도[분별위(0.76±0.06)분,(0.70±0.03)분]저우대조조[(0.95±0.11)분](P＜0.05)；단화범죄청소년인격적P유도여기응대방식적해결문제화자책유도구유상관성(r=-0.389,-0.395,P＜0.05)；단화범죄청소년인격적N유도여기인제신임적F유도화응대방식적자책유도구유상관성(r=-0.473,0.454,P＜0.05)；단화범죄청소년인격적E유도여기응대방식적구조유도구유상관성( r=0.400,P＜0.05).결론 비단화범죄、단화범죄화수법청소년적인격특정、인제신임이급응대방식존재차이,저사심리인소가능대청소년단화범죄행위산생일정적영향.
Objective To study the personality traits,interpersonal trust and coping style of juveniles in criminal gangs and their relationship. Methods 15 male juveniles who committed crimes without gangs ( group1 ),52 male juveniles who committed crimes by gangs( group2 ) and 40 male lawful freshmen( group3 ) were tested with Eysenck Personality Questionnaire ( EPQ),Trust Scale and Coping Style Questionnaire.The data were statistically analyzed by covariance analysis or Pearson relation analysis.Results After the covariant effect of education levels was removed,the levels of P and N in EPQ of group1 ( P:57.49 ± 2.62,N:59.35 ± 3.55 ) and group2 ( P:57.83 ± 1.24,N:59.60 ± 1.68 ) were higher than those of group3 ( P:43.88 ± 4.72,N:39.07 ±6.40) with statistical difference (P＜0.05).The level of E of group1 (63.41 ±3.86) was higher than that of group2 (53.01 ± 1.83 ) with statistical difference (P ＜ 0.05 ).The levels of P,D and F in Trust Scale of greup1 (P:24.68 ± 1.51,D:14.36 ±2.19,F:15.49 ±2.21) and group2(P:22.95 ±0.71,D:22.48 ± 1.04,F:23.09 ±1.05 ) were lower than those of group3 ( P:33.14 ± 2.72,D:40.22 ± 3.95,F:38.44 ± 3.99) with statistical difference (P ＜ 0.01 ).The levels of self-accusation and fantasy in Coping Style Questionnaire of group1 ( 0.80 ±0.08,0.83 ± 0.06 respectively) and group2 (group2:0.59 ± 0.04,0.68 ± 0.03,respectively) were higher than those of group3 (0.39 ± 0.14,0.44 ± 0.11,respectively) with statistical difference (P＜ 0.05 or 0.01 ),while the levels of problem-solving of group1 ( 0.76 ± 0.06 ) and group2 ( 0.70 ± 0.03 ) were lower than that of group3 ( 0.95 ± 0.11 ) with statistical difference (P ＜ 0.05 ).For the male juveniles who committed crimes by gangs,the P of personality traits had a statistical linkage with the problem-resolving and self-accusation of coping style ( r =- 0.389,- 0.395,P ＜ 0.05 ),the N of personality traits had a statiseical linkage with the F of interpersonal trust and the self-accusation of coping style ( r=-0.473,0454,P ＜ 0.05 ),and the E of personality traits had a statistical linkage with the help-seeking of coping style ( r=0.400,P＜ 0.05 ).Conclusion The personality traits,interpersonal trust and coping styles of male juveniles who committed crimes with or without gangs and the lawful men are different.These psychological factors may have certain effect on juvenile gang crimes.
