欺负卷入儿童的自我概念及人际冲突解决策略研究
|
摘要
欺负行为是普遍存在于中小学中的一种侵犯行为。我国此项研究开展的较晚，现有的研究主要停留于调查分析欺负行为现状的层面，尚未针对欺负卷入儿童自身特点进行探讨。儿童之所以欺负他人和受人欺负，与其在人际冲突情境下解决问题的方式有关，而自我概念是人格的核心部分，制约着行为的反应方式，必将影响儿童欺负行为及人际冲突解决策略。因此，本研究就欺负卷入儿童的自我概念和人际冲突解决策略特点进行了考察。
根据问卷调查和访谈的结果，本研究得出如下结论：
1．小学校园里欺负问题比较严重，卷入到欺负行为中的小学生比率较高。
2．小学3—6年级儿童的自我概念存在差异，3、4年级学生的自我概念水平高于5、6年级，5年级学生的自我概念水平最低。
3．不同欺负类型儿童的自我概念不同，其自我概念存在年级、性别差异。5、6年级欺负儿童的自我概念高于其他各类儿童。受欺负儿童的运动能力自我最低，且在自我概念其他维度上低于一般儿童；3、4年级各类型儿童的自我概念除运动能力外，在其他维度上不存在显著差异；欺负男生在运动能力、生理外貌、一般自我、自我总分上与其他欺负类型男生差异显著。受欺负男生的运动自我、生理自我评价最低，欺负／受欺负男生总体自我概念最低；除生理外貌外，女生不同类型儿童的自我概念差异不显著。
4．欺负卷入儿童对模糊情境的归因认知上与一般儿童相比存在显著差异。总体来说，欺负卷入儿童在意图识别方面存在着困难。对情境线索的认知方面，小学3-6年级儿童不存在年级差异。
5．不同类型儿童的人际冲突解决策略不同，冲突情境影响儿童的人际冲突解决策略。轻微冲突情境下，各种类型的儿童采用的策略没有显著差异。模糊伤害、故意伤害情境中，不同欺负类型儿童采取的解决策略有显著的不同。在求助策略的运用上，受欺负儿童明显少于其他类型儿童，其不良情绪较多。不同类型儿童对策略的原因解释也不相同。
6．模糊和故意伤害情境中自我概念对人际冲突解决策略有影响作用。高自我概念者多采用攻击、求助策略，低自我概念儿童的退缩、不良情绪较多；自我概念高低不同水平儿童对冲突策略作的解释也不相同；轻微冲突情境下儿童的人际冲突解决策略不存在自我概念水平的差异。
The bullying exists commonly in the primary and middle schools as a type of aggression which caused extensive concern in the world. In China, the study on bullying has been carried out later and it stays the descriptive level by investigating and analyzing the current situation of the bullying, without exploring the characteristics of the children involved in bullying. The bully and bullied are connected with children's personal conflict problem-solving style. As the core of personality, self-concept restricts the response style, which is sure to influence the bullying behavior and personal conflict problem-solving style.
By applying questionnaire investigation and investigation, the study gets the results as follows:
1. The bullying problem is very serious in primary school and lots of students involved in the bullying.
2 There is a significant difference in self-concept of different graders. The level of 3^ graders' self-concept is higher than 5-6 graders. The 5-gaders have the lowest level of self-concept.
3. The self-concepts of the bully, victim and bully/victim are different which also differ from grade and gender. To the 5-6 graders, the bully's self-concept is the highest, there are significant difference between the bully's physical ability, appearance, school-self, general-self and the total score from the normal child. The victim's physical ability is the lowest and the score of the other aspects of self are all lower than the normal. To the 3-4 graders, there is no significant difference in all aspects of self but physical ability; To boys, there are significant difference between the bully's physical ability, appearance, general-self and the total score and the other child involved bullying; the victim have the lowest physical ability and appearance; Generally speaking, the self-concept of the bully/victim is the lowest, To girls, there is no significant difference in their self-concept between the four types of child but in the appearance.
4. There is a significant difference in intent cognition between child involved in bullying and the normal child. In fuzzy conflict, the child involved in bullying can't discern the other's intent while the normal can do In this aspect, the difference between 3-6 graders' is not significant.
5. The personal conflict problem-solving strategy differs from the types of child and the conflict situation. There is no significant difference in slight conflict situation. In fuzzy and intent injury, the bully use more aggression, the victim attend to withdraw and the bully/victim use more aggression and more withdrawal, while the normal child applies the communication and consultation to solve the conflict. The victim's help-seeking strategy is significantly fewer than the others' Their Explanation of strategy-using are also different.
6. Self-concept affects the personal conflict problem-solving strategy in fuzzy and intent situations in which child of high level self-concept use more aggression and help-seeking, while the child who has lower self-concept use more withdraw and bad mood. In slight conflict situation, child's problem-solving strategy doesn't significantly differ from the level of self-concept.
根据问卷调查和访谈的结果，本研究得出如下结论：
1．小学校园里欺负问题比较严重，卷入到欺负行为中的小学生比率较高。
2．小学3—6年级儿童的自我概念存在差异，3、4年级学生的自我概念水平高于5、6年级，5年级学生的自我概念水平最低。
3．不同欺负类型儿童的自我概念不同，其自我概念存在年级、性别差异。5、6年级欺负儿童的自我概念高于其他各类儿童。受欺负儿童的运动能力自我最低，且在自我概念其他维度上低于一般儿童；3、4年级各类型儿童的自我概念除运动能力外，在其他维度上不存在显著差异；欺负男生在运动能力、生理外貌、一般自我、自我总分上与其他欺负类型男生差异显著。受欺负男生的运动自我、生理自我评价最低，欺负／受欺负男生总体自我概念最低；除生理外貌外，女生不同类型儿童的自我概念差异不显著。
4．欺负卷入儿童对模糊情境的归因认知上与一般儿童相比存在显著差异。总体来说，欺负卷入儿童在意图识别方面存在着困难。对情境线索的认知方面，小学3-6年级儿童不存在年级差异。
5．不同类型儿童的人际冲突解决策略不同，冲突情境影响儿童的人际冲突解决策略。轻微冲突情境下，各种类型的儿童采用的策略没有显著差异。模糊伤害、故意伤害情境中，不同欺负类型儿童采取的解决策略有显著的不同。在求助策略的运用上，受欺负儿童明显少于其他类型儿童，其不良情绪较多。不同类型儿童对策略的原因解释也不相同。
6．模糊和故意伤害情境中自我概念对人际冲突解决策略有影响作用。高自我概念者多采用攻击、求助策略，低自我概念儿童的退缩、不良情绪较多；自我概念高低不同水平儿童对冲突策略作的解释也不相同；轻微冲突情境下儿童的人际冲突解决策略不存在自我概念水平的差异。
The bullying exists commonly in the primary and middle schools as a type of aggression which caused extensive concern in the world. In China, the study on bullying has been carried out later and it stays the descriptive level by investigating and analyzing the current situation of the bullying, without exploring the characteristics of the children involved in bullying. The bully and bullied are connected with children's personal conflict problem-solving style. As the core of personality, self-concept restricts the response style, which is sure to influence the bullying behavior and personal conflict problem-solving style.
By applying questionnaire investigation and investigation, the study gets the results as follows:
1. The bullying problem is very serious in primary school and lots of students involved in the bullying.
2 There is a significant difference in self-concept of different graders. The level of 3^ graders' self-concept is higher than 5-6 graders. The 5-gaders have the lowest level of self-concept.
3. The self-concepts of the bully, victim and bully/victim are different which also differ from grade and gender. To the 5-6 graders, the bully's self-concept is the highest, there are significant difference between the bully's physical ability, appearance, school-self, general-self and the total score from the normal child. The victim's physical ability is the lowest and the score of the other aspects of self are all lower than the normal. To the 3-4 graders, there is no significant difference in all aspects of self but physical ability; To boys, there are significant difference between the bully's physical ability, appearance, general-self and the total score and the other child involved bullying; the victim have the lowest physical ability and appearance; Generally speaking, the self-concept of the bully/victim is the lowest, To girls, there is no significant difference in their self-concept between the four types of child but in the appearance.
4. There is a significant difference in intent cognition between child involved in bullying and the normal child. In fuzzy conflict, the child involved in bullying can't discern the other's intent while the normal can do In this aspect, the difference between 3-6 graders' is not significant.
5. The personal conflict problem-solving strategy differs from the types of child and the conflict situation. There is no significant difference in slight conflict situation. In fuzzy and intent injury, the bully use more aggression, the victim attend to withdraw and the bully/victim use more aggression and more withdrawal, while the normal child applies the communication and consultation to solve the conflict. The victim's help-seeking strategy is significantly fewer than the others' Their Explanation of strategy-using are also different.
6. Self-concept affects the personal conflict problem-solving strategy in fuzzy and intent situations in which child of high level self-concept use more aggression and help-seeking, while the child who has lower self-concept use more withdraw and bad mood. In slight conflict situation, child's problem-solving strategy doesn't significantly differ from the level of self-concept.
引文
1．岑国帧，顾海根，李伯黍．品德心理研究新进展．学林出版社，1999．
2．岑延远．自我概念的研究进展及展望．社会心理科学，2001(3)．
3．陈国鹏等．中国和荷兰高智商与一般智商儿童自我概念比较研究．心理科学，1997(1)．
4．陈旭，曾欣然．现代品质情境测评与德育实验研究．西南师范大学出版社，2000．
5．陈益．解决人际问题的认知技能对4-5岁儿童同伴交往的影响的实验研究．心理科学，1996(5)
6．贺岭峰．自我概念研究的概述．心理学动态，1996(3)．
7．金盛华，张杰．社会心理学导论．北京师范大学出版社，1995．
8．林崇德．发展心理学．人民教育出版社，1995．
9．林崇德等．师生关系与小学生自我概念的关系研究．心理发展与教育，2001(4)．
10．刘电芝．教育与心理研究方法．西南师范大学出版社，1997．
11．刘守旗．当代青少年心理行为透视．安徽人民出版社，1997．
12．吕静．儿童行为矫正．浙江教育出版社，1992．
13．宋剑辉，郭德俊等．青少年自我概念的特点及培养．心理科学，1998(3)．
14．王孝玲．教育统计学．华东师范大学出版社，1986．
15．王耘，叶忠根，林崇德．小学生心理学．浙江教育出版社，1993．
16．王振宇等．儿童社会化与教育．人民教育出版社，2000．
17．韦有华．人格心理辅导．上海教育出版社，2000．
18．徐丽敏．儿童自我概念的发展与社会互动的作用．辽宁师大学报(社科版)，2002(1)．
19．杨中芳．心理学本土化论文集．桂冠图书公司，1997．
20．俞国良，曾盼盼等．高年级小学生社会信息加工特点研究．北京师大学报(社科版)，2002(1)．
21．俞文钊．管理心理学．甘肃人民出版社，1989．
22．张文新，王益文等．儿童欺负行为的类型及其相关因素．心理发展与教育，2001(1)．
23．张文新，武建芬等．Olweus儿童欺负问卷中文版的修订．心理发展与教育，1999(2)．
24．张文新．儿童对待欺负问题态度的研究．心理科学，2002(2)．
25．张文新．儿童社会性发展．北京师范大学出版社，1999．
26．张文新．中小学生欺负／受欺负的普遍性与基本特点．心理学报，2002(4)．
27．章志光，金盛华．社会心理学．人民教育出版社，1998．
28．周晓虹．现代社会心理学．上海人民出版社，1997．
29．周燕，翁亚君．8-15岁儿童冲突解决策略的发展．心理发展与教育，1997(1)．
30．周宗奎．关于人际认知问题解决的研究．心理科学，1992(2)．
31．周宗奎．现代儿童发展心理学．安徽人民出版社，1999．
32．周宗奎．小学儿童社交问题解决策略的发展研究．心理学报，1998(3)
33．「英」朱莉娅．贝里曼等著，陈萍等译．发展心理学与你．北京大学出版社，2000．
34. Baverly A. Richard& Kenneth A. Dodge(1982). Social maladjustment and problem solving in school-aged children, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50,226-233
35. Berk,L.E(1994). Infants and children, Illinois state university
36. Boulton. M. J&Smith. P.K(1994).Bully/victim problems in middle-school children: stability, self-perceived competence, peer perceptions and peer acceptance, Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12,315-329
37. Boulton. M.J&Underwood. K(1992). Bully/victim problems among middle school children, British Journal of
Educational Psychology.62.73-87
38. Bjorkqvist,K. Ekman,K.& Lagerspetz, K.M.J(1982). Bullyies and victms: their ego picture, ideal ego picture and normative ego picture. Scandinavian Journal of Psycholog.23.307-313
39. Crick. N.R. & Bigbee. M.A(1998). Relational and overt forms of peer victimization: A multi-informant approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology60,426-432
40. David L. Rabiner & Lisa Lenhart(1990). Automatic versus reflective social solving in relation to chidren's sociometric status, Developmental Psychology,26,1010-1016
41. Egan. S.K, Mouson,T.C&Perry D.G(1998). Social-coognitive influnence on changes in aggression over time, Developmental Psychology,34,996-1006
42. Hodges. E.V, Malone. M.J&Perry.D.G(1997). Individual risk and social risk as interacting determinants of victimization in the peer group, Developmental Psychology,33,1032-1039
43. Kochenderfer, B.J&Ladd.Gow(1996). Peer victimization: cause or consequence of school malajustment? Child Development,67,1305-1317
44. Lochman, J. E(1992). Cognitive-behavioral intervention with aggressive boys: Three-year follow-up and preventive effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 426-432.
45. Miller,.P.M, Danaher. D.L&Forbes.D(1986). Sex-related strategies for coping with interpersonal conflict in children aged five and steven, Developmental Psychology,22,543-548
46. Pellegrini. A.D, Bartini. M& Brooks. F(1999).School bullies, victims, and aggressive victims: factors relating to group affiliation and victimization in early adolescence, Journal of Educational Psychology, 1999,216-224
47. Perry.D.G, Kusel. S.J&Perry.L.C(1988).Victims of peer aggression, Developmental Psychology,24,809-814
48. Rapson Gemoz& Andre Gomez(2000). Perceived maternal control and support as predictors of hostile-biased attribution of intent and response selection in aggressive boys, Aggressive Behavior,26,155-168
49. Rivers. L&Smith. P. K(1994). Types of bullying behavior and their correlates, Aggressive Behavior,.20,359-368
50. Ronald S. Illingworth. The Normal Child, Churchill Livingstone, Ninth edition.
51. Rose. A.J & Asher. S.R(1999). Children's goals and strategies in response to conflicts within a friendship. Development sychology.35 69-79
52. Salmivalli, Christan(1996).How do the victim respond to bullying, Aggressive behavior,22,99-109
53. Shannon G. Sumrall. Glen E.Ray& Pamela S. Tidwell(2000)Evaluations of relational aggression as a function of relationship type and conflict setting, Aggressive Behavior,26,179-191
54. Schwartz.D, Dodge. K.A, et al(1997). The early socialization of aggressive victims of bullying,Child Development,68,665-675
55. Schwartz.D& Lei Chang(2001). Correlates of victimization in Chinese children's peer groups, Developmental Psychology, 37, 520-532
56. Sharon Austin& Stephen Joseph(1996). Assessment of bully/victim problems in 8 to 11 year-olds, British Journal of Educational Psychology,66,447-456
57. Smith. P. K (1991). The silent nightmare: bullying and victimization in school peer groups, The Psychologist,4,243-248
58. Turner. J.S&Helems. D. B(1991).Life span development Harcoaut Brace Jovanovich college publishers
59. Watkins. D& Qi Dong(1994). Assessing the self-esteem of Chinese school children, Educational Psychology, 14.129-137
60. Whitney. I&Smith. P.K(1993). A survey of the nature and extend of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools.Educational Research.35.3-25
61. http://www. prevention.gc.ca/en/library/publications/children/violence/
2．岑延远．自我概念的研究进展及展望．社会心理科学，2001(3)．
3．陈国鹏等．中国和荷兰高智商与一般智商儿童自我概念比较研究．心理科学，1997(1)．
4．陈旭，曾欣然．现代品质情境测评与德育实验研究．西南师范大学出版社，2000．
5．陈益．解决人际问题的认知技能对4-5岁儿童同伴交往的影响的实验研究．心理科学，1996(5)
6．贺岭峰．自我概念研究的概述．心理学动态，1996(3)．
7．金盛华，张杰．社会心理学导论．北京师范大学出版社，1995．
8．林崇德．发展心理学．人民教育出版社，1995．
9．林崇德等．师生关系与小学生自我概念的关系研究．心理发展与教育，2001(4)．
10．刘电芝．教育与心理研究方法．西南师范大学出版社，1997．
11．刘守旗．当代青少年心理行为透视．安徽人民出版社，1997．
12．吕静．儿童行为矫正．浙江教育出版社，1992．
13．宋剑辉，郭德俊等．青少年自我概念的特点及培养．心理科学，1998(3)．
14．王孝玲．教育统计学．华东师范大学出版社，1986．
15．王耘，叶忠根，林崇德．小学生心理学．浙江教育出版社，1993．
16．王振宇等．儿童社会化与教育．人民教育出版社，2000．
17．韦有华．人格心理辅导．上海教育出版社，2000．
18．徐丽敏．儿童自我概念的发展与社会互动的作用．辽宁师大学报(社科版)，2002(1)．
19．杨中芳．心理学本土化论文集．桂冠图书公司，1997．
20．俞国良，曾盼盼等．高年级小学生社会信息加工特点研究．北京师大学报(社科版)，2002(1)．
21．俞文钊．管理心理学．甘肃人民出版社，1989．
22．张文新，王益文等．儿童欺负行为的类型及其相关因素．心理发展与教育，2001(1)．
23．张文新，武建芬等．Olweus儿童欺负问卷中文版的修订．心理发展与教育，1999(2)．
24．张文新．儿童对待欺负问题态度的研究．心理科学，2002(2)．
25．张文新．儿童社会性发展．北京师范大学出版社，1999．
26．张文新．中小学生欺负／受欺负的普遍性与基本特点．心理学报，2002(4)．
27．章志光，金盛华．社会心理学．人民教育出版社，1998．
28．周晓虹．现代社会心理学．上海人民出版社，1997．
29．周燕，翁亚君．8-15岁儿童冲突解决策略的发展．心理发展与教育，1997(1)．
30．周宗奎．关于人际认知问题解决的研究．心理科学，1992(2)．
31．周宗奎．现代儿童发展心理学．安徽人民出版社，1999．
32．周宗奎．小学儿童社交问题解决策略的发展研究．心理学报，1998(3)
33．「英」朱莉娅．贝里曼等著，陈萍等译．发展心理学与你．北京大学出版社，2000．
34. Baverly A. Richard& Kenneth A. Dodge(1982). Social maladjustment and problem solving in school-aged children, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50,226-233
35. Berk,L.E(1994). Infants and children, Illinois state university
36. Boulton. M. J&Smith. P.K(1994).Bully/victim problems in middle-school children: stability, self-perceived competence, peer perceptions and peer acceptance, Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12,315-329
37. Boulton. M.J&Underwood. K(1992). Bully/victim problems among middle school children, British Journal of
Educational Psychology.62.73-87
38. Bjorkqvist,K. Ekman,K.& Lagerspetz, K.M.J(1982). Bullyies and victms: their ego picture, ideal ego picture and normative ego picture. Scandinavian Journal of Psycholog.23.307-313
39. Crick. N.R. & Bigbee. M.A(1998). Relational and overt forms of peer victimization: A multi-informant approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology60,426-432
40. David L. Rabiner & Lisa Lenhart(1990). Automatic versus reflective social solving in relation to chidren's sociometric status, Developmental Psychology,26,1010-1016
41. Egan. S.K, Mouson,T.C&Perry D.G(1998). Social-coognitive influnence on changes in aggression over time, Developmental Psychology,34,996-1006
42. Hodges. E.V, Malone. M.J&Perry.D.G(1997). Individual risk and social risk as interacting determinants of victimization in the peer group, Developmental Psychology,33,1032-1039
43. Kochenderfer, B.J&Ladd.Gow(1996). Peer victimization: cause or consequence of school malajustment? Child Development,67,1305-1317
44. Lochman, J. E(1992). Cognitive-behavioral intervention with aggressive boys: Three-year follow-up and preventive effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 426-432.
45. Miller,.P.M, Danaher. D.L&Forbes.D(1986). Sex-related strategies for coping with interpersonal conflict in children aged five and steven, Developmental Psychology,22,543-548
46. Pellegrini. A.D, Bartini. M& Brooks. F(1999).School bullies, victims, and aggressive victims: factors relating to group affiliation and victimization in early adolescence, Journal of Educational Psychology, 1999,216-224
47. Perry.D.G, Kusel. S.J&Perry.L.C(1988).Victims of peer aggression, Developmental Psychology,24,809-814
48. Rapson Gemoz& Andre Gomez(2000). Perceived maternal control and support as predictors of hostile-biased attribution of intent and response selection in aggressive boys, Aggressive Behavior,26,155-168
49. Rivers. L&Smith. P. K(1994). Types of bullying behavior and their correlates, Aggressive Behavior,.20,359-368
50. Ronald S. Illingworth. The Normal Child, Churchill Livingstone, Ninth edition.
51. Rose. A.J & Asher. S.R(1999). Children's goals and strategies in response to conflicts within a friendship. Development sychology.35 69-79
52. Salmivalli, Christan(1996).How do the victim respond to bullying, Aggressive behavior,22,99-109
53. Shannon G. Sumrall. Glen E.Ray& Pamela S. Tidwell(2000)Evaluations of relational aggression as a function of relationship type and conflict setting, Aggressive Behavior,26,179-191
54. Schwartz.D, Dodge. K.A, et al(1997). The early socialization of aggressive victims of bullying,Child Development,68,665-675
55. Schwartz.D& Lei Chang(2001). Correlates of victimization in Chinese children's peer groups, Developmental Psychology, 37, 520-532
56. Sharon Austin& Stephen Joseph(1996). Assessment of bully/victim problems in 8 to 11 year-olds, British Journal of Educational Psychology,66,447-456
57. Smith. P. K (1991). The silent nightmare: bullying and victimization in school peer groups, The Psychologist,4,243-248
58. Turner. J.S&Helems. D. B(1991).Life span development Harcoaut Brace Jovanovich college publishers
59. Watkins. D& Qi Dong(1994). Assessing the self-esteem of Chinese school children, Educational Psychology, 14.129-137
60. Whitney. I&Smith. P.K(1993). A survey of the nature and extend of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools.Educational Research.35.3-25
61. http://www. prevention.gc.ca/en/library/publications/children/violence/