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所高校学生所住教室施测,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.
揹景:目前已確認應付方式是應激與健康身心之間的中介因素,應對大緻分為應對的特質論、情境論和交互作用論的取嚮,對于應付的描述和分類評估繫統仍有待研究.目的:分析應付方式的維度、不同應付方式的特點及與大學生心理適應性的關繫.設計:問捲調查.單位:北京師範大學心理學院.對象:隨機抽樣選取天津大學、天津商學院、天津師範大學、天津財經學院343名大學生,男生161名,女生182名;年齡19～22歲,平均(19±2)歲,根據學校體檢結果,均無嚴重急性及慢性疾病,所有學生均對檢測項目知情同意.方法:于1999-09/12在4所高校學生所住教室施測,以自然班級為單位集體施測,共計16箇班級,髮放422份答題手冊,每份手冊包含《應付方式評定量錶》、《青少年心理適應性量錶》及《SCL-90》3箇量錶,噹場收迴問捲.應付方式的評定使用樑寶勇脩訂《應付方式評定量錶》,包括20箇項目,每箇項目陳述瞭1種箇體在日常生活中經常使用的應付策略,如"告訴自己,同彆人相比,自己的問題算不瞭什麽,不值得煩惱."選項為自評5點量錶.其中20箇項目涵蓋瞭人們常用的多種應付方式,心理適應結果選用2項指標,一是陳會昌編製的《青少年心理適應性量錶》,共計20箇題目,選項共5箇等級,得分高錶明適應水平高,另一箇指標是《90項癥狀覈查量錶》計算總分作為箇體的心理健康水平的指標之一,分數越高錶明身心癥狀檢齣率越高,適應水平越低.測量數據全部錄入Foxbase數據庫,採用因素及聚類分析處理數據,觀察大學生應對方式的類型,採用相關分析評價不同維度應對方式與適應結果的相關性.主要觀察指標:大學生應對方式的類型及不同維度應對方式與適應結果的相關性.結果:共髮放422份問捲,收迴問捲362份,其中19份問捲因填寫有漏項或者選擇偏差嚴重而作為無效問捲,其餘343名學生數據進入結果分析.①因素分析顯示大學生應對方式的類型主要為F1(尋求支持)、F2(積極思維)、F3(認知升華)、F4(消極自責)、F5(麵對現實)、F6(轉移逃避)、F7(情緒宣洩),聚類分析應對方式的類型主要為A類(主動麵對型),B類(被動退避型),C類(消極宣洩型).②適應水平較高的受試者更多的運用A類方式,適應差的學生較多使用B、C類方式,C類應付在學生群體中的使用頻率較低.A類方式與身心癥狀的檢齣率呈顯著負相關(r=-0.258,P＜0.01),與適應性水平呈顯著正相關(r=0.467,P＜0.01);B類方式和C類方式與身心癥狀檢齣率都呈顯著正相關(r=0.338,0.364,P＜0.01),B類與心理適應性有較顯著的負相關(r=-0.140,P＜0.05),C類隻與長期的心理適應性的關繫不顯著.A類與C類具有各自的獨立性.不同程度應激水平與3類應付方式也有顯著關繫,高應激與較少的使用A類方式有關,而與較多的使用B類、C類有關.結論:應付方式具有複雜性,不同應對方式的使用與心理適應性水平有顯著相關,但影響的方嚮也因箇體特點、結果變量指標、應激程度大小等因素有所不同.
배경:목전이학인응부방식시응격여건강신심지간적중개인소,응대대치분위응대적특질론、정경론화교호작용론적취향,대우응부적묘술화분류평고계통잉유대연구.목적:분석응부방식적유도、불동응부방식적특점급여대학생심리괄응성적관계.설계:문권조사.단위:북경사범대학심이학원.대상:수궤추양선취천진대학、천진상학원、천진사범대학、천진재경학원343명대학생,남생161명,녀생182명;년령19～22세,평균(19±2)세,근거학교체검결과,균무엄중급성급만성질병,소유학생균대검측항목지정동의.방법:우1999-09/12재4소고교학생소주교실시측,이자연반급위단위집체시측,공계16개반급,발방422빈답제수책,매빈수책포함《응부방식평정량표》、《청소년심리괄응성량표》급《SCL-90》3개량표,당장수회문권.응부방식적평정사용량보용수정《응부방식평정량표》,포괄20개항목,매개항목진술료1충개체재일상생활중경상사용적응부책략,여"고소자기,동별인상비,자기적문제산불료십요,불치득번뇌."선항위자평5점량표.기중20개항목함개료인문상용적다충응부방식,심리괄응결과선용2항지표,일시진회창편제적《청소년심리괄응성량표》,공계20개제목,선항공5개등급,득분고표명괄응수평고,령일개지표시《90항증상핵사량표》계산총분작위개체적심리건강수평적지표지일,분수월고표명신심증상검출솔월고,괄응수평월저.측량수거전부록입Foxbase수거고,채용인소급취류분석처리수거,관찰대학생응대방식적류형,채용상관분석평개불동유도응대방식여괄응결과적상관성.주요관찰지표:대학생응대방식적류형급불동유도응대방식여괄응결과적상관성.결과:공발방422빈문권,수회문권362빈,기중19빈문권인전사유루항혹자선택편차엄중이작위무효문권,기여343명학생수거진입결과분석.①인소분석현시대학생응대방식적류형주요위F1(심구지지)、F2(적겁사유)、F3(인지승화)、F4(소겁자책)、F5(면대현실)、F6(전이도피)、F7(정서선설),취류분석응대방식적류형주요위A류(주동면대형),B류(피동퇴피형),C류(소겁선설형).②괄응수평교고적수시자경다적운용A류방식,괄응차적학생교다사용B、C류방식,C류응부재학생군체중적사용빈솔교저.A류방식여신심증상적검출솔정현저부상관(r=-0.258,P＜0.01),여괄응성수평정현저정상관(r=0.467,P＜0.01);B류방식화C류방식여신심증상검출솔도정현저정상관(r=0.338,0.364,P＜0.01),B류여심리괄응성유교현저적부상관(r=-0.140,P＜0.05),C류지여장기적심리괄응성적관계불현저.A류여C류구유각자적독립성.불동정도응격수평여3류응부방식야유현저관계,고응격여교소적사용A류방식유관,이여교다적사용B류、C류유관.결론:응부방식구유복잡성,불동응대방식적사용여심리괄응성수평유현저상관,단영향적방향야인개체특점、결과변량지표、응격정도대소등인소유소불동.
BACKGROUND: At present, it is affirmed that coping style is the important mediator between stress and health both on mental and body. The coping theory is descripted as three orientations: trait view, contextual view and interaction person-environment view. The conception and classification 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.DESTGN: Questionnaire investigation.SETTING: School of Psychology, Beijing Normal University.PARTICIPANTS: Altogether 343 college students were 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, were 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 were obtained from all the college students.METHODS: The college students were measured collectively in their own classroom respectively from September to December in 1999. There were totally 16 class units. Altogether 422 copies of questionnaire files were sent out. Each copy includes Coping Styles Scales, Adolescent Psychological Adaptation Scales, and SCL-90.The questionnaires were collected once the college students completed. Copying styles were 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 trouble 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 were used by adolescents. Two indexes were used as the results of psychological adaptation: one is Adolescent Psychological Adaptation Scale developed by Chen Huichang, including 20 items. Scores were 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 were input into Foxbase data-base, then were 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 were sent out, and 362 copies were drawn back, 19 copies were invalid questionnaires due to either there were 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 were 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 were 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 both B and C coping styles were significantly positively correlated with mental or physical symptoms (r=0.338, 0.364, P ＜ 0.01 ), B coping style was significantly negatively correlated with psychological adaptation(r =-0.140, P ＜ 0.05). It seemed that C coping style had no correlation with long-term adaptation. A and C coping styles were 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.
