人格对心理健康状态影响的多因素分析、综合研究
|
摘要
一、目的和意义
几乎所有的人格理论都同意，人格是影响心理健康的重要因素，但由于研究角度的不同，每一种理论都认为自己所发现的人格因子是对心理健康状态最重要的影响因素。但人格是一个整体，各人格因子同时存在于个体当中，只有将某一人格因子置于整体当中，才能真正了解其对于心理健康状态的影响。本研究正是在各种人格理论分析、综合的基础上，筛选不同心理症状的人格影响因子，分析各种人格因子对心理健康状态影响的机制，进而研制人格诊断和干预系统，为心理治疗服务。
二、对象与方法
采取整群抽样的方法，对广东某医科大学在校学生1185人进行调查。问卷填写完整并合格有效者1177人，有效率为99.3％。有效样本的平均年龄20.44±1.66岁，其中男生542人(46.00％)，女生626人(53.20％)，性别不详者9人(0.08％)。
对心理健康状态和人格因子采用相应工具分别进行评估。采用90项症状量表评估心理健康状况及躯体化、强迫、人际敏感、抑郁、焦虑、敌对、恐怖、偏执、精神病性等心理症状；人格因子的评估依据不同的理论流派采用以下工具：1、采用修订的艾森克人格问卷评估艾森克生物类型论的神经质、内外向因子；2、采用安全感量表、情感和社交孤寂感调查表、自尊量表、自我实现量表评估马斯洛需要层次理论的安全感、爱和归属、自尊、自我实现因子；3、采用功能失调性态度量表评估贝克认知理论的认知偏差因子；4、采用自我和谐量表评估罗杰斯自我理论的自我和谐因子；5、采用特质应对方式量表评估应对理论的积极应对和消极应对因子；6、采用生活目的量表评估存在分析理论的生活意义感因子；7、采用一般自我效能感量表评估社会学习理论的自我效能感因子；8、采用内外控量表评估社会认知理论的内外控因子。用Foxpro6.0建立数据库，录入数据，采用SPSS13.0进行统计学处理。统计方法主要包括相关分析、回归分析、路径分析、方差分析等。
三、结果
(一)人格理论对心理症状影响能力的评价研究
1、艾森克生物类型论对抑郁的影响能力最强(R~2=0.430)，其次是人际敏感(R~2=0.415)和焦虑(R~2=0.370)。其神经质人格因子与心理症状存在显著正相关(0.43=r=0.62)，该因子与抑郁(r=0.64)、人际敏感(r=0.62)、焦虑(r=0.61)相关系数相对较高(P＜0.05)。
2、贝克认知理论对人际敏感的影响能力最强(R~2=0.269)，其次是强迫(R~2=0.235)和抑郁(R~2=0.234)。其认知偏差总分与心理症状存在显著正相关(0.25=r=0.51)，该人格因子与人际敏感(r=0.51)、强迫(r=0.47)、抑郁(r=0.47)相关系数相对较高(P＜0.05)。
3、马斯洛需要层次理论对抑郁的影响能力最强(R~2=0.439)，其次是人际敏感(R~2=0.388)和强迫(R~2=0.350)。其安全感人格因子与抑郁(r=—0.61)、人际敏感(r=—0.59)、强迫(r=—0.57)相关系数相对较高(P＜0.05)；自尊人格因子与抑郁(r=—0.55)、人际敏感(r=—0.45)、强迫(r=—0.45)相关系数相对较高(P＜0.05)；爱和归属人格因子与人际敏感(r=0.47)、抑郁(r=0.44)、精神病性(r=0.40)、强迫(r=0.38)相关系数相对较高(P＜0.05)；自我实现人格因子与抑郁(r=—0.39)、强迫(r=—0.38)、人际敏感(r=—0.37)相关系数相对较高(P＜0.05)。
4、罗杰斯自我理论对抑郁的影响能力最强(R~2=0.398)，其次是人际敏感(R~2=0.363)、精神病性(R~2=0.352)和强迫(R~2=0.336)。其自我和谐人格因子与心理症状呈显著正相关(0.34=r=0.59)，该人格因子与抑郁(r=0.58)、人际敏感(r=0.54)、精神病性(r=0.53)、强迫(r=0.53)相关系数相对较高(P＜0.05)。
5、应对理论对抑郁的影响能力最强(R~2=0.332)，其次是人际敏感(R~2=0.299)和强迫(R~2=0.271)。其消极应对人格因子与心理症状存在显著正相关(0.31=r=0.53)，与抑郁(r=0.53)、人际敏感(r=0.52)、强迫(r=0.50)相关系数相对较高(P＜0.05)；而积极应对人格因子则与心理症状呈显著负相关(—0.18=r=—0.42)，与抑郁(r=—0.42)、人际敏感(r=—0.39)、强迫(r=—0.37)相关系数相对较高(P＜0.05)。
6、存在分析理论对抑郁(R~2=0.319)的影响能力最强。其生活意义感人格因子与心理症状存在显著负相关(—0.30=r=—0.47)，该人格因子与抑郁(r=—0.56)、强迫(r=—0.47)、人际敏感(r=—0.46)相关系数相对较高(P＜0.05)。
7、社会学习理论对强迫的影响能力最强(R~2=0.111)。其一般自我效能感人格因子与心理症状存在显著负相关(—0.09=r=—0.33)，该人格因子与强迫(r=—0.33)、抑郁(r=—0.32)、人际敏感(r=—0.31)的相关程度相对较高(P＜0.05)。
8、社会认知理论对强迫的影响能力最强(R~2=0.101)。其内外控人格因子与心理症状存在显著负相关(—0.16=r=—0.32)，该因子与抑郁(r=—0.32)、强迫(r=—0.32)相关程度相对较高(P＜0.05)。
(二)筛选影响不同心理健康状态的人格因素
以各人格因子为自变量，分别以各种心理症状为因变量，在α=0.05水平上进行的多元逐步回归分析结果显示，影响各种心理症状的人格因子有所差异：
影响躯体化的主要人格因子依次为：神经质、自我和谐、积极应对、意义感、内外向；
影响强迫的主要人格因子依次为：神经质、安全感、自我和谐、自尊、认知偏差；
影响人际敏感的主要人格因子依次为：神经质、爱和归属、安全感、认知偏差、内外控、自尊、自我和谐；
影响抑郁的主要人格因子依次为：神经质、自尊、安全感、意义感、自我效能、自我和谐、积极应对、内外控；
影响焦虑的主要人格因子依次为：神经质、安全感、内外向、自我和谐；
影响敌意的主要人格因子依次为：神经质、消极应对、内外向、意义感、自我效能、自我和谐；
影响恐怖的主要人格因子依次为：神经质、安全感、自尊；
影响偏执的主要人格因子依次为：神经质、自我和谐、自我效能、内外向、爱和归属、安全感、认知偏差；
影响精神病性的主要人格因子依次为：神经质、自我和谐、安全感、爱和归属、内外控、意义感。
(三)人格因子影响心理症状的作用机制研究
1、路径分析
路径分析的结果显示，神经质、自我和谐、安全感、意义感、自尊、内外向6种因素可以对心理症状产生直接作用，而内外控、自我实现、一般自我效能感、爱和归属、认知偏差、积极应对和消极应对等因子则只通过间接路径对心理症状产生作用。自我和谐、意义感、自尊既可对心理症状产生直接作用，又可作为其它人格因子对心理症状作用的中间变量；神经质、内外向2个人格因子对心理症状只产生直接作用；安全感、内外控、自我实现、一般自我效能感、爱和归属、认知偏差、积极应对和消极应对8个人格因子对心理症状只产生间接作用。
2、交互作用
交互效应分析发现，人格因子之间对心理症状的影响在13种情形下存在显著的交互作用。13种交互作用的情形分别为神经质与自我实现，神经质与内外控，神经质与内外向，神经质与消极应对，神经质与认知偏差，自我和谐与内外控，自我和谐与内外向，自我和谐与认知偏差，自我实现与内外控，积极应对与自我实现，消极应对与认知偏差，认知偏差与内外向，安全感与内外控；而自尊、爱和归属、自我效能和意义感4个人格因子则与其它人格因子之间无交互作用存在。
(四)人格诊断和干预系统原型的研制
在以上研究的基础上，利用不同心理症状人格影响因子的筛选、相关分析、回归分析、路径分析和交互作用分析等成果，研制人格诊断和干预系统，进行心理健康评估、人格冲突分析、心理治疗的指导。
四、结论
(一)各人格理论及其因子对不同心理症状的影响能力各有不同，对特定的心理症状，可以找到最适宜对其进行评价的理论。艾森克生物类型理论、马斯洛需要层次理论、罗杰斯自我理论、应对理论和存在分析理论均对抑郁症状的影响能力最强，贝克认知理论则对人际敏感症状的影响能力最强，而社会学习理论和社会认知理论则对强迫症状的影响能力最强，这些结论解决了各人格流派之间长期存在的对心理健康的解释“谁是最佳”的争论。
(二)躯体化、强迫、人际敏感、抑郁、焦虑、敌对、恐怖、偏执、精神病性等不同心理症状的人格影响因子各不相同。
(三)通过路径分析发现，人格因子对心理健康状态的影响存在直接作用和间接作用，解释了同一人格因子在不同场合对心理健康状态影响的差异。
(四)根据不同人格理论建构的13种人格因子中存在着交互作用对心理健康状态产生影响。其中，神经质、自我和谐因素相对处于主导地位，高的神经质水平可干扰个体的自我实现、内外控、内外向、消极应对和认知偏差人格因子对心理健康的影响趋势，高或低自我和谐水平也可干扰内外控和内外向人格因子对心理健康的影响，使其作用不再显著。因此，当个体处于高神经质水平或过高过低的自我和谐水平时，应以其它人格因子作为调整改善目标加以处理才能更有效地促进个体的心理健康状况。
(五)自尊、爱和归属、自我效能和意义感这4个因子与其它人格因子之间无交互作用存在，说明其对心理健康状况的影响相对独立。
(六)不同人格理论在心理症状层面的分析、综合研究，对于指导人格诊断和干预有重要意义。
Aim
Almost all the theories of personality are in line that personality is one of thesignificant factors that affect mental health. While because of diverse researchaspects, scholars of each theories regard their findings as the ones that have the mostimportant influence on mental health. But personality should be considered as anintegrity and different personality factors are presented in individuals. Only when acertain personality factor is considered from the aspect of integrity, the influencebrought by it can be understood comprehensively. This thesis probes into filteringdifferent personality factors based on the integral understanding of various kinds oftheories of personality, analysing the mechanism that how personality factorsinfluence mental health, and constructing the diagnosis and intervention system ofpersonality which may contribute to psychotherapy.
Methods
The investigation was conducted with cluster sampling among 1,185 studentsaveraged 20.44±1.66 years in a certain medical university in Guangdong Province.1177 valid questionnaires were returned and completed, up to 99.3% in validity.Among the subjects, 542 were male students, taking up 46% and 626 female, takingup 53.20%, while 9 were uncertain in gender, taking up 0.08%.
During the analysis, corresponding aspects were applied to evaluate mentalhealth and personality factors. Symptom Checklist 90(SCL-90) was used to evaluatemental health and such psychological symptoms as somatization, obsessive-compulsive, interpersonal sensitivity, depression, anxiety, hostility, photic anxiety,paranoid ideation and psychoticism.
The evaluation of personality factors was conducted with different aspects basedon the following different theories:
1. Revised Eysenck personality questionaire was employed to evaluateneuroticism and extraversion in Eysenck's Biological Theory;
2. Such factors as security, love and ascription, self-esteem and self-actualizationin Hierarchical Theory of Needs were evaluated with the checklists of security,self-esteem, self-actualization and investigations on emotional and social loneliness;
3. The checklists of dysfunctional attitudes was employed to evaluate cognitionvariance in Beck's Cognition Theory;
4. Self-consistency and congruence in Rogers Self Theory was evaluatedthrough the checklist of self-consistency and congruence;
5. Factors of positive and negative coping in Coping Theory were evaluatedbased on the checklist of trait coping style;
6. The factor of life meaning in Existence Analysis Theory was evaluated by thechecklist of purpose-in-life;
7. The factor of self-efficiency in Social Learning Theory was evaluated basedon the checklist of general self-efficiency;
8. The factors of internal-external locus of control in Social Cognition Theorywas evaluated through the checklist of factors of internal-external locus of control.
Database was set up with Foxpro6.0 and data were input and then statisticsanalysis was conducted with SPSS 13.0, by way of correlation analysis, regressionanalysis, path analysis and variance analysis.
Results
An appraisal study on influence on psychological symptoms by differenttheories of personality
1. Eysenck's Biological Theory can offer the strongest influence on depression(R~2=0.430). The second to it was interpersonal sensitivity (R~2=0.415) andanxiety(R~2=0.370). There were predominant positive correlations between the factorof neuroticism and psychological symptoms (0.43=r=0.62) and there were relativelyhigh coefficient of correlations (P＜0.05) between it and depression (r=0.64),interpersonal sensitivity (r=0.62) and anxiety (r=0.61).
2. Beck's Cognition Theory can offer the strongest influence on interpersonalsensitivity (R~2=0.269) and the second to it was obsessive-compulsive (R~2=0.235)and depression (R~2=0.234). There was predominant positive correlation (P＜0.05)between the factor of cognition variance and psychological symptoms (0.25=r=0.51)and there were relatively high coefficient of correlations(P＜0.05) between the factorof cognition variance and interpersonal sensitivity (r=0.51), obsessive-compulsive(r=0.47) and depression (r=0.47).
3. Hierarchical Theory of Needs can offer the strongest influence on depression(R~3=0.439) and the second to it was interpersonal sensitivity (R~2=0.388) andobsessive-compulsive (R~2=0.350). There were relatively high coefficient ofcorrelations (P＜0.05) between the factor of security and depression (r=-0.61),interpersonal sensitivity (r=-0.59) and obsessive-compulsive (r=-0.57).Meanwhile, there were relatively high coefficient of correlations (P＜0.05) betweenthe factor of self-esteem and depression (r=-0.55), interpersonal sensitivity (r=-0.45), obsessive-compulsive (r=-0.45). Besides, there were relatively highcoefficient of correlations (P＜0.05) between the factor of lovc and ascription andinterpersonal sensitivity (r=0.47) depression (r=0.44), psychoticism (r=0.40)and obsessive-compulsive (r=0.38). In addition, there were relatively highcoefficient of correlations (P＜0.05) between the factor of self-actualization and depression (r=-0.39), obsessive-compulsive (r=-0.38) and interpersonalsensitivity (r=-0.37).
4. Rogers Self Theory can offer the strongest influence on depression (R~2=0.398) and the second to it was interpersonal sensitivity (R~2=0.363), psychoticism(R~2=0.352) and obsessive-compulsive (R~2=0.336). There was predominantpositive correlation between the factor of self-consistency and congruence andpsychological symptoms (0.34=r=0.59). There were relatively high coefficient ofcorrelations (P＜0.05) between the factor of self-consistency and congruence anddepression (r=0.58), interpersonal sensitivity (r=0.54), psychoticism (r=0.53)and obsessive-compulsive (r=0.53).
5. Coping Theory can offer the strongest influence on depression (R~2=0.332)and the second to it was interpersonal sensitivity (R~2=0.299) andobsessive-compulsive (R~2=0.271). There was predominant positive correlationbetween the negative coping factor and psychological symptoms(0.31=r=0.53).Therewere relatively high coefficient of correlations (P＜0.05) between the negativecoping factor and depression (r=0.53), interpersonal sensitivity (r=0.52) andobsessive-compulsive (r=0.50), meanwhile, there was predomint negativecorrelation between the positive coping factor and psychological symptoms (-0.18=r=-0.42) and there were relatively high coefficient of correlations (P＜0.05)between positive coping factor and depression (r=-0.42), interpersonalsensitivity (r=-0.39) and obsessive-compulsive (r=-0.37).
6. Existence Analysis Theory can offer the strongest influence on depression(R~2=0.319) . There was predomint negative correlation between the factor of lifemeaning and psychological symptoms (-0.30=r=-0.47) and there were relativelyhigh coefficient of correlations (P＜0.05) between the factor of life meaning anddepression (r=-0.56), obsessive-compulsive (r=-0.47), and interpersonalsensitivity (r=-0.46).
7. Social Learning Theory can offer the strongest influence on obsessive- compulsive (R~2=0.111) and there was predomint negative correlation between thefactor of self-efficiency and psychological symptoms (-0.09=r=-0.33). And therewere relatively high coefficient of correlations (P＜0.05) between the factor ofself-efficiency and obsessive-compulsive (r=-0.33), depression(r=-0.32) andinterpersonal sensitivity (r=-0.31).
8. Social Cognitive Theory can offer the strongest influence onobsessive-compulsive (R~2=0.101). There was predomint negative correlationbetween the factor of internal-external locus of control and psychological symptoms(-0.16=r=-0.32). There were relatively high coefficient of correlations (P＜0.05)between the factor of internal-external locus of control and depression (r=-0.32)and obsessive-compulsive (r=-0.32).
The Filtration of Personality Factors Which Influence Different Mental Health
Different personality fators were taken as independent variables while differentpsychological symptoms as dependent variables. Results from multivariant stepwiseregression analysis atα=0.05 indicated that different personality factors exerteddifferent influences on various psychological symptoms.
Factors that influenced somatization were ranked in the order of neuroticism,self-consistency, positive coping, life meaning and internal-external locus of control.
Factors that influenced obsessive-compulsive were ranked in the order ofneuroticism, security, self-consistency, the degree of self-esteem and cognitionvariance.
Factors that influenced interpersonal sensitivity were ranked in the order ofneuroticism, love and ascription, security, general cognition, internal-external locus ofcontrol, the degree of self-esteem and self-consistency.
Factors that influenced depression were ranked in the order of neuroticism, thedegree of self-esteem, security, life meaning, self-efficiency, self-consistency, positivecoping and internal-external locus of control.
Factors that influenced hostility were ranked in the order of neuroticism, negative coping, extraversion, life meaning, self-efficiency and self-consistency.
Factors that influenced photic anxiety were ranked in the order of neuroticism,security and the degree of self-esteem.
Factors that influenced paranoid ideation were ranked in the order of neuroticism,self-consistency, self-efficiency, extraversion, love and ascription, security andcognition variance.
Factors that influenced psychoticism were ranked in the order of neuroticism,self-consistency, security, love and ascription, internal-external locus of control andlife meaning.
Mechanicism Study on How Personality Factors Influence PsychologicalSymptoms
Path Analysis
The result of path analysis indicates that factors as neuroticism, self-consistency,security, life meaning, self-esteem and extraversion exerted direct influence onpsychological symptoms while such factors as internal-external locus of control,self-actualization, general self-efficiency, love and ascription, cognition variance,positive and negative coping only affect psychological symptoms indirectly. Factorsas self-consistency, life meaning and self-esteem not only had direct impact onpsychological symptoms but also acted as intervening variables when otherpersonality factors influence psychological symptoms. Extraversion and neuroticismexerted direct influence on psychological symptoms while such factors as security,internal-external locus of control, self-actualization, general self-efficiency, love andascription, cognition variance and positive and negative coping only affectedpsychological symptoms indirectly.
Interaction
Interaction analysis showed that there were significant interactions between personality factors and psychological symptoms under the following 13circumstances: neuroticism and self-actualization, neuroticism and internal-externallocus of control neuroticism and extraversion, neuroticism and negative coping,neuroticism and cognition variance, self-consistency and internal-external locus ofcontrol, self-consistency and extraversion, self-consistency and cognition variance,self-actualization and internal-external locus of control, self- actualization andpositive coping, negative coping and cognition variance, cognition variance andextraversion, security and internal-external locus of control. While there was nointeraction between such factors as the degree of self-esteem, love and ascription,self-efficiency and life meaning and other factors.
The Establishment of prototype of Personality Diagnosis and InterventionSystem
On the basis of the above-mentioned study, the results of path analysis,correlation analysis, regression analysis, interaction and the filtrations of differentpersonality factors which had different impacts on psychological symptoms,personality diagnosis and intervention system were used to establish the system ofpersonality diagnosis and intervention, guiding mental health evaluation, personalityconflict analysis and psychotherapy.
Conclusion
Different theories of personality and its factors have different influence onpsychological symptoms. For a certain symptom, we can find the most convincingtheory to assess it. The study shows that Eysenck's Biological Theory, HierarchicalTheory of Needs, Rogers Self Theory, Coping Theory and Existence Analysis Theorycan offer the strongest influence on depression, while Theory Beck's CognitionTheory can offer the strongest influence on interpersonal sensitivity, and SocialCognitive Theory and Social Learning Theory can offer the strongest influence on obsessive-compulsive. This settled the dispute that "which is the best interpretationon mental health", which exists in a long-term among different schools studyingpersonality.
There are different personality factors that influence such kinds of psychologicalsymptoms as somatization, obsessive-compulsive, interpersonal sensitivity, depression,anxiety, hostility, photic anxiety, paranoid ideation, psychoticism.
By path analysis, direct and indirect influences of personality factors on mentalhealth were revealed, interpreting the disparity of influence on mental health by thesame personality factors.
Interactions impacting on mental health between 13 pairs of personality factorswere constructed by different theories of personality. Such factors as neuroticism andself-consistency played a relatively dominant role. High level of neuroticism mayinterfere with the tendency on mental health brought by individuals' self-actualization,internal-external locus of control, extraversion, negative coping and cognitionvaviance. High or low self-consistency may also interfere with the effect on mentalhealth brought by internal-external locus of control and extraversion, even withoutsignificant influence. Consequently, when there are neuroticism at a high level orself-consistency, high or low, other personality factors can be used as the target forimprovement. Only in this way can mental health be improved more effectively.
Since there is no interaction between such factors as the degree of self-esteem,love and ascription, self-efficiency, life meaning and other factors, it can beconcluded that these factors have relatively independent impact on mental health.
There is gigantic significance on personality diagnosis and intervention by acomparative and integrative study on how different theories of personality affectvarious psychological symptoms.
几乎所有的人格理论都同意，人格是影响心理健康的重要因素，但由于研究角度的不同，每一种理论都认为自己所发现的人格因子是对心理健康状态最重要的影响因素。但人格是一个整体，各人格因子同时存在于个体当中，只有将某一人格因子置于整体当中，才能真正了解其对于心理健康状态的影响。本研究正是在各种人格理论分析、综合的基础上，筛选不同心理症状的人格影响因子，分析各种人格因子对心理健康状态影响的机制，进而研制人格诊断和干预系统，为心理治疗服务。
二、对象与方法
采取整群抽样的方法，对广东某医科大学在校学生1185人进行调查。问卷填写完整并合格有效者1177人，有效率为99.3％。有效样本的平均年龄20.44±1.66岁，其中男生542人(46.00％)，女生626人(53.20％)，性别不详者9人(0.08％)。
对心理健康状态和人格因子采用相应工具分别进行评估。采用90项症状量表评估心理健康状况及躯体化、强迫、人际敏感、抑郁、焦虑、敌对、恐怖、偏执、精神病性等心理症状；人格因子的评估依据不同的理论流派采用以下工具：1、采用修订的艾森克人格问卷评估艾森克生物类型论的神经质、内外向因子；2、采用安全感量表、情感和社交孤寂感调查表、自尊量表、自我实现量表评估马斯洛需要层次理论的安全感、爱和归属、自尊、自我实现因子；3、采用功能失调性态度量表评估贝克认知理论的认知偏差因子；4、采用自我和谐量表评估罗杰斯自我理论的自我和谐因子；5、采用特质应对方式量表评估应对理论的积极应对和消极应对因子；6、采用生活目的量表评估存在分析理论的生活意义感因子；7、采用一般自我效能感量表评估社会学习理论的自我效能感因子；8、采用内外控量表评估社会认知理论的内外控因子。用Foxpro6.0建立数据库，录入数据，采用SPSS13.0进行统计学处理。统计方法主要包括相关分析、回归分析、路径分析、方差分析等。
三、结果
(一)人格理论对心理症状影响能力的评价研究
1、艾森克生物类型论对抑郁的影响能力最强(R~2=0.430)，其次是人际敏感(R~2=0.415)和焦虑(R~2=0.370)。其神经质人格因子与心理症状存在显著正相关(0.43=r=0.62)，该因子与抑郁(r=0.64)、人际敏感(r=0.62)、焦虑(r=0.61)相关系数相对较高(P＜0.05)。
2、贝克认知理论对人际敏感的影响能力最强(R~2=0.269)，其次是强迫(R~2=0.235)和抑郁(R~2=0.234)。其认知偏差总分与心理症状存在显著正相关(0.25=r=0.51)，该人格因子与人际敏感(r=0.51)、强迫(r=0.47)、抑郁(r=0.47)相关系数相对较高(P＜0.05)。
3、马斯洛需要层次理论对抑郁的影响能力最强(R~2=0.439)，其次是人际敏感(R~2=0.388)和强迫(R~2=0.350)。其安全感人格因子与抑郁(r=—0.61)、人际敏感(r=—0.59)、强迫(r=—0.57)相关系数相对较高(P＜0.05)；自尊人格因子与抑郁(r=—0.55)、人际敏感(r=—0.45)、强迫(r=—0.45)相关系数相对较高(P＜0.05)；爱和归属人格因子与人际敏感(r=0.47)、抑郁(r=0.44)、精神病性(r=0.40)、强迫(r=0.38)相关系数相对较高(P＜0.05)；自我实现人格因子与抑郁(r=—0.39)、强迫(r=—0.38)、人际敏感(r=—0.37)相关系数相对较高(P＜0.05)。
4、罗杰斯自我理论对抑郁的影响能力最强(R~2=0.398)，其次是人际敏感(R~2=0.363)、精神病性(R~2=0.352)和强迫(R~2=0.336)。其自我和谐人格因子与心理症状呈显著正相关(0.34=r=0.59)，该人格因子与抑郁(r=0.58)、人际敏感(r=0.54)、精神病性(r=0.53)、强迫(r=0.53)相关系数相对较高(P＜0.05)。
5、应对理论对抑郁的影响能力最强(R~2=0.332)，其次是人际敏感(R~2=0.299)和强迫(R~2=0.271)。其消极应对人格因子与心理症状存在显著正相关(0.31=r=0.53)，与抑郁(r=0.53)、人际敏感(r=0.52)、强迫(r=0.50)相关系数相对较高(P＜0.05)；而积极应对人格因子则与心理症状呈显著负相关(—0.18=r=—0.42)，与抑郁(r=—0.42)、人际敏感(r=—0.39)、强迫(r=—0.37)相关系数相对较高(P＜0.05)。
6、存在分析理论对抑郁(R~2=0.319)的影响能力最强。其生活意义感人格因子与心理症状存在显著负相关(—0.30=r=—0.47)，该人格因子与抑郁(r=—0.56)、强迫(r=—0.47)、人际敏感(r=—0.46)相关系数相对较高(P＜0.05)。
7、社会学习理论对强迫的影响能力最强(R~2=0.111)。其一般自我效能感人格因子与心理症状存在显著负相关(—0.09=r=—0.33)，该人格因子与强迫(r=—0.33)、抑郁(r=—0.32)、人际敏感(r=—0.31)的相关程度相对较高(P＜0.05)。
8、社会认知理论对强迫的影响能力最强(R~2=0.101)。其内外控人格因子与心理症状存在显著负相关(—0.16=r=—0.32)，该因子与抑郁(r=—0.32)、强迫(r=—0.32)相关程度相对较高(P＜0.05)。
(二)筛选影响不同心理健康状态的人格因素
以各人格因子为自变量，分别以各种心理症状为因变量，在α=0.05水平上进行的多元逐步回归分析结果显示，影响各种心理症状的人格因子有所差异：
影响躯体化的主要人格因子依次为：神经质、自我和谐、积极应对、意义感、内外向；
影响强迫的主要人格因子依次为：神经质、安全感、自我和谐、自尊、认知偏差；
影响人际敏感的主要人格因子依次为：神经质、爱和归属、安全感、认知偏差、内外控、自尊、自我和谐；
影响抑郁的主要人格因子依次为：神经质、自尊、安全感、意义感、自我效能、自我和谐、积极应对、内外控；
影响焦虑的主要人格因子依次为：神经质、安全感、内外向、自我和谐；
影响敌意的主要人格因子依次为：神经质、消极应对、内外向、意义感、自我效能、自我和谐；
影响恐怖的主要人格因子依次为：神经质、安全感、自尊；
影响偏执的主要人格因子依次为：神经质、自我和谐、自我效能、内外向、爱和归属、安全感、认知偏差；
影响精神病性的主要人格因子依次为：神经质、自我和谐、安全感、爱和归属、内外控、意义感。
(三)人格因子影响心理症状的作用机制研究
1、路径分析
路径分析的结果显示，神经质、自我和谐、安全感、意义感、自尊、内外向6种因素可以对心理症状产生直接作用，而内外控、自我实现、一般自我效能感、爱和归属、认知偏差、积极应对和消极应对等因子则只通过间接路径对心理症状产生作用。自我和谐、意义感、自尊既可对心理症状产生直接作用，又可作为其它人格因子对心理症状作用的中间变量；神经质、内外向2个人格因子对心理症状只产生直接作用；安全感、内外控、自我实现、一般自我效能感、爱和归属、认知偏差、积极应对和消极应对8个人格因子对心理症状只产生间接作用。
2、交互作用
交互效应分析发现，人格因子之间对心理症状的影响在13种情形下存在显著的交互作用。13种交互作用的情形分别为神经质与自我实现，神经质与内外控，神经质与内外向，神经质与消极应对，神经质与认知偏差，自我和谐与内外控，自我和谐与内外向，自我和谐与认知偏差，自我实现与内外控，积极应对与自我实现，消极应对与认知偏差，认知偏差与内外向，安全感与内外控；而自尊、爱和归属、自我效能和意义感4个人格因子则与其它人格因子之间无交互作用存在。
(四)人格诊断和干预系统原型的研制
在以上研究的基础上，利用不同心理症状人格影响因子的筛选、相关分析、回归分析、路径分析和交互作用分析等成果，研制人格诊断和干预系统，进行心理健康评估、人格冲突分析、心理治疗的指导。
四、结论
(一)各人格理论及其因子对不同心理症状的影响能力各有不同，对特定的心理症状，可以找到最适宜对其进行评价的理论。艾森克生物类型理论、马斯洛需要层次理论、罗杰斯自我理论、应对理论和存在分析理论均对抑郁症状的影响能力最强，贝克认知理论则对人际敏感症状的影响能力最强，而社会学习理论和社会认知理论则对强迫症状的影响能力最强，这些结论解决了各人格流派之间长期存在的对心理健康的解释“谁是最佳”的争论。
(二)躯体化、强迫、人际敏感、抑郁、焦虑、敌对、恐怖、偏执、精神病性等不同心理症状的人格影响因子各不相同。
(三)通过路径分析发现，人格因子对心理健康状态的影响存在直接作用和间接作用，解释了同一人格因子在不同场合对心理健康状态影响的差异。
(四)根据不同人格理论建构的13种人格因子中存在着交互作用对心理健康状态产生影响。其中，神经质、自我和谐因素相对处于主导地位，高的神经质水平可干扰个体的自我实现、内外控、内外向、消极应对和认知偏差人格因子对心理健康的影响趋势，高或低自我和谐水平也可干扰内外控和内外向人格因子对心理健康的影响，使其作用不再显著。因此，当个体处于高神经质水平或过高过低的自我和谐水平时，应以其它人格因子作为调整改善目标加以处理才能更有效地促进个体的心理健康状况。
(五)自尊、爱和归属、自我效能和意义感这4个因子与其它人格因子之间无交互作用存在，说明其对心理健康状况的影响相对独立。
(六)不同人格理论在心理症状层面的分析、综合研究，对于指导人格诊断和干预有重要意义。
Aim
Almost all the theories of personality are in line that personality is one of thesignificant factors that affect mental health. While because of diverse researchaspects, scholars of each theories regard their findings as the ones that have the mostimportant influence on mental health. But personality should be considered as anintegrity and different personality factors are presented in individuals. Only when acertain personality factor is considered from the aspect of integrity, the influencebrought by it can be understood comprehensively. This thesis probes into filteringdifferent personality factors based on the integral understanding of various kinds oftheories of personality, analysing the mechanism that how personality factorsinfluence mental health, and constructing the diagnosis and intervention system ofpersonality which may contribute to psychotherapy.
Methods
The investigation was conducted with cluster sampling among 1,185 studentsaveraged 20.44±1.66 years in a certain medical university in Guangdong Province.1177 valid questionnaires were returned and completed, up to 99.3% in validity.Among the subjects, 542 were male students, taking up 46% and 626 female, takingup 53.20%, while 9 were uncertain in gender, taking up 0.08%.
During the analysis, corresponding aspects were applied to evaluate mentalhealth and personality factors. Symptom Checklist 90(SCL-90) was used to evaluatemental health and such psychological symptoms as somatization, obsessive-compulsive, interpersonal sensitivity, depression, anxiety, hostility, photic anxiety,paranoid ideation and psychoticism.
The evaluation of personality factors was conducted with different aspects basedon the following different theories:
1. Revised Eysenck personality questionaire was employed to evaluateneuroticism and extraversion in Eysenck's Biological Theory;
2. Such factors as security, love and ascription, self-esteem and self-actualizationin Hierarchical Theory of Needs were evaluated with the checklists of security,self-esteem, self-actualization and investigations on emotional and social loneliness;
3. The checklists of dysfunctional attitudes was employed to evaluate cognitionvariance in Beck's Cognition Theory;
4. Self-consistency and congruence in Rogers Self Theory was evaluatedthrough the checklist of self-consistency and congruence;
5. Factors of positive and negative coping in Coping Theory were evaluatedbased on the checklist of trait coping style;
6. The factor of life meaning in Existence Analysis Theory was evaluated by thechecklist of purpose-in-life;
7. The factor of self-efficiency in Social Learning Theory was evaluated basedon the checklist of general self-efficiency;
8. The factors of internal-external locus of control in Social Cognition Theorywas evaluated through the checklist of factors of internal-external locus of control.
Database was set up with Foxpro6.0 and data were input and then statisticsanalysis was conducted with SPSS 13.0, by way of correlation analysis, regressionanalysis, path analysis and variance analysis.
Results
An appraisal study on influence on psychological symptoms by differenttheories of personality
1. Eysenck's Biological Theory can offer the strongest influence on depression(R~2=0.430). The second to it was interpersonal sensitivity (R~2=0.415) andanxiety(R~2=0.370). There were predominant positive correlations between the factorof neuroticism and psychological symptoms (0.43=r=0.62) and there were relativelyhigh coefficient of correlations (P＜0.05) between it and depression (r=0.64),interpersonal sensitivity (r=0.62) and anxiety (r=0.61).
2. Beck's Cognition Theory can offer the strongest influence on interpersonalsensitivity (R~2=0.269) and the second to it was obsessive-compulsive (R~2=0.235)and depression (R~2=0.234). There was predominant positive correlation (P＜0.05)between the factor of cognition variance and psychological symptoms (0.25=r=0.51)and there were relatively high coefficient of correlations(P＜0.05) between the factorof cognition variance and interpersonal sensitivity (r=0.51), obsessive-compulsive(r=0.47) and depression (r=0.47).
3. Hierarchical Theory of Needs can offer the strongest influence on depression(R~3=0.439) and the second to it was interpersonal sensitivity (R~2=0.388) andobsessive-compulsive (R~2=0.350). There were relatively high coefficient ofcorrelations (P＜0.05) between the factor of security and depression (r=-0.61),interpersonal sensitivity (r=-0.59) and obsessive-compulsive (r=-0.57).Meanwhile, there were relatively high coefficient of correlations (P＜0.05) betweenthe factor of self-esteem and depression (r=-0.55), interpersonal sensitivity (r=-0.45), obsessive-compulsive (r=-0.45). Besides, there were relatively highcoefficient of correlations (P＜0.05) between the factor of lovc and ascription andinterpersonal sensitivity (r=0.47) depression (r=0.44), psychoticism (r=0.40)and obsessive-compulsive (r=0.38). In addition, there were relatively highcoefficient of correlations (P＜0.05) between the factor of self-actualization and depression (r=-0.39), obsessive-compulsive (r=-0.38) and interpersonalsensitivity (r=-0.37).
4. Rogers Self Theory can offer the strongest influence on depression (R~2=0.398) and the second to it was interpersonal sensitivity (R~2=0.363), psychoticism(R~2=0.352) and obsessive-compulsive (R~2=0.336). There was predominantpositive correlation between the factor of self-consistency and congruence andpsychological symptoms (0.34=r=0.59). There were relatively high coefficient ofcorrelations (P＜0.05) between the factor of self-consistency and congruence anddepression (r=0.58), interpersonal sensitivity (r=0.54), psychoticism (r=0.53)and obsessive-compulsive (r=0.53).
5. Coping Theory can offer the strongest influence on depression (R~2=0.332)and the second to it was interpersonal sensitivity (R~2=0.299) andobsessive-compulsive (R~2=0.271). There was predominant positive correlationbetween the negative coping factor and psychological symptoms(0.31=r=0.53).Therewere relatively high coefficient of correlations (P＜0.05) between the negativecoping factor and depression (r=0.53), interpersonal sensitivity (r=0.52) andobsessive-compulsive (r=0.50), meanwhile, there was predomint negativecorrelation between the positive coping factor and psychological symptoms (-0.18=r=-0.42) and there were relatively high coefficient of correlations (P＜0.05)between positive coping factor and depression (r=-0.42), interpersonalsensitivity (r=-0.39) and obsessive-compulsive (r=-0.37).
6. Existence Analysis Theory can offer the strongest influence on depression(R~2=0.319) . There was predomint negative correlation between the factor of lifemeaning and psychological symptoms (-0.30=r=-0.47) and there were relativelyhigh coefficient of correlations (P＜0.05) between the factor of life meaning anddepression (r=-0.56), obsessive-compulsive (r=-0.47), and interpersonalsensitivity (r=-0.46).
7. Social Learning Theory can offer the strongest influence on obsessive- compulsive (R~2=0.111) and there was predomint negative correlation between thefactor of self-efficiency and psychological symptoms (-0.09=r=-0.33). And therewere relatively high coefficient of correlations (P＜0.05) between the factor ofself-efficiency and obsessive-compulsive (r=-0.33), depression(r=-0.32) andinterpersonal sensitivity (r=-0.31).
8. Social Cognitive Theory can offer the strongest influence onobsessive-compulsive (R~2=0.101). There was predomint negative correlationbetween the factor of internal-external locus of control and psychological symptoms(-0.16=r=-0.32). There were relatively high coefficient of correlations (P＜0.05)between the factor of internal-external locus of control and depression (r=-0.32)and obsessive-compulsive (r=-0.32).
The Filtration of Personality Factors Which Influence Different Mental Health
Different personality fators were taken as independent variables while differentpsychological symptoms as dependent variables. Results from multivariant stepwiseregression analysis atα=0.05 indicated that different personality factors exerteddifferent influences on various psychological symptoms.
Factors that influenced somatization were ranked in the order of neuroticism,self-consistency, positive coping, life meaning and internal-external locus of control.
Factors that influenced obsessive-compulsive were ranked in the order ofneuroticism, security, self-consistency, the degree of self-esteem and cognitionvariance.
Factors that influenced interpersonal sensitivity were ranked in the order ofneuroticism, love and ascription, security, general cognition, internal-external locus ofcontrol, the degree of self-esteem and self-consistency.
Factors that influenced depression were ranked in the order of neuroticism, thedegree of self-esteem, security, life meaning, self-efficiency, self-consistency, positivecoping and internal-external locus of control.
Factors that influenced hostility were ranked in the order of neuroticism, negative coping, extraversion, life meaning, self-efficiency and self-consistency.
Factors that influenced photic anxiety were ranked in the order of neuroticism,security and the degree of self-esteem.
Factors that influenced paranoid ideation were ranked in the order of neuroticism,self-consistency, self-efficiency, extraversion, love and ascription, security andcognition variance.
Factors that influenced psychoticism were ranked in the order of neuroticism,self-consistency, security, love and ascription, internal-external locus of control andlife meaning.
Mechanicism Study on How Personality Factors Influence PsychologicalSymptoms
Path Analysis
The result of path analysis indicates that factors as neuroticism, self-consistency,security, life meaning, self-esteem and extraversion exerted direct influence onpsychological symptoms while such factors as internal-external locus of control,self-actualization, general self-efficiency, love and ascription, cognition variance,positive and negative coping only affect psychological symptoms indirectly. Factorsas self-consistency, life meaning and self-esteem not only had direct impact onpsychological symptoms but also acted as intervening variables when otherpersonality factors influence psychological symptoms. Extraversion and neuroticismexerted direct influence on psychological symptoms while such factors as security,internal-external locus of control, self-actualization, general self-efficiency, love andascription, cognition variance and positive and negative coping only affectedpsychological symptoms indirectly.
Interaction
Interaction analysis showed that there were significant interactions between personality factors and psychological symptoms under the following 13circumstances: neuroticism and self-actualization, neuroticism and internal-externallocus of control neuroticism and extraversion, neuroticism and negative coping,neuroticism and cognition variance, self-consistency and internal-external locus ofcontrol, self-consistency and extraversion, self-consistency and cognition variance,self-actualization and internal-external locus of control, self- actualization andpositive coping, negative coping and cognition variance, cognition variance andextraversion, security and internal-external locus of control. While there was nointeraction between such factors as the degree of self-esteem, love and ascription,self-efficiency and life meaning and other factors.
The Establishment of prototype of Personality Diagnosis and InterventionSystem
On the basis of the above-mentioned study, the results of path analysis,correlation analysis, regression analysis, interaction and the filtrations of differentpersonality factors which had different impacts on psychological symptoms,personality diagnosis and intervention system were used to establish the system ofpersonality diagnosis and intervention, guiding mental health evaluation, personalityconflict analysis and psychotherapy.
Conclusion
Different theories of personality and its factors have different influence onpsychological symptoms. For a certain symptom, we can find the most convincingtheory to assess it. The study shows that Eysenck's Biological Theory, HierarchicalTheory of Needs, Rogers Self Theory, Coping Theory and Existence Analysis Theorycan offer the strongest influence on depression, while Theory Beck's CognitionTheory can offer the strongest influence on interpersonal sensitivity, and SocialCognitive Theory and Social Learning Theory can offer the strongest influence on obsessive-compulsive. This settled the dispute that "which is the best interpretationon mental health", which exists in a long-term among different schools studyingpersonality.
There are different personality factors that influence such kinds of psychologicalsymptoms as somatization, obsessive-compulsive, interpersonal sensitivity, depression,anxiety, hostility, photic anxiety, paranoid ideation, psychoticism.
By path analysis, direct and indirect influences of personality factors on mentalhealth were revealed, interpreting the disparity of influence on mental health by thesame personality factors.
Interactions impacting on mental health between 13 pairs of personality factorswere constructed by different theories of personality. Such factors as neuroticism andself-consistency played a relatively dominant role. High level of neuroticism mayinterfere with the tendency on mental health brought by individuals' self-actualization,internal-external locus of control, extraversion, negative coping and cognitionvaviance. High or low self-consistency may also interfere with the effect on mentalhealth brought by internal-external locus of control and extraversion, even withoutsignificant influence. Consequently, when there are neuroticism at a high level orself-consistency, high or low, other personality factors can be used as the target forimprovement. Only in this way can mental health be improved more effectively.
Since there is no interaction between such factors as the degree of self-esteem,love and ascription, self-efficiency, life meaning and other factors, it can beconcluded that these factors have relatively independent impact on mental health.
There is gigantic significance on personality diagnosis and intervention by acomparative and integrative study on how different theories of personality affectvarious psychological symptoms.
引文
[1] 张小远．心理健康教程[M]．广州：广东高教出版社，2003：1-5．
[2] 郑雪．人格心理学[M]．广州：暨南大学出版社，2006：6-7．
[3] 郝伟．精神病学[M]．第4版，北京：人民卫生出版社，2001：118-22．
[4] 吴文源．症状自评量表，行为医学量表手册[M]．第1版，北京：中华医学电子音像出版社，2005：64-7．
[5] 龚耀先．艾森克量表手册[M]．湖南：湖南医学院，1986：1-41．
[6] 丛中．安全感量表，行为医学量表手册[M]．第1版，北京：中华医学电子音像出版社，2005：31-6．
[7] 丛中，安莉娟．安全感量表的编制及信度、效度检验[J]．中国心理卫生杂志，2004，18(2)：97-9．
[8] 杨宜音，张志学．性格与社会心理测量总览[M]．远洋出版事业股份有限公司．1997，361-5，442-6．
[9] 汪向东．自尊量表，心理卫生评定量表手册[M]．北京：中国心理卫生杂志社，1999：318-20．
[10] Fleming JS, Courtey BE. The dimensionality of self-esteem, hierarchical facet model for revised measurement scale[J]. Journal of personality and social psychology, 46:404-21.
[11] (美)Jerry M．Buirger著，陈会昌等译．人格心理学[M]．北京：中国轻工业出版社，2000：227，309-12，348-51，104-9．
[12] Merlin J R, Bundrick C M. Brief index of self-actualization: A measure of Maslow' model[J]. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1996, 11(6): 253-71.
[13] 李一云．功能失调性态度问卷[J]．中国行为医学科学，2001．10特刊：173-4．
[14] 王登峰．自我和谐量表，心理卫生评定量表手册[M]．北京：中国心理卫生杂志社，1999：314-7．
[15] 姜乾金．特质应对方式问卷，心理卫生评定量表手册[M]．北京：中国心理卫 生杂志社，1999：120-2．
[16] 王才康．一般自我效能感量表．中国行为医学科学．2001．10特刊：185-95．
[17] 于欣．控制圈．心理卫生评定量表手册．中国心理卫生杂志社[M]．1999，334-6．
[18] 张文彤．SPSS 11.5统计分析教程(基础篇)[M]．北京：北京希望电子出版社，2002：233-4．
[19] 吴明隆．SPSS统计应用实务[M]．北京：科学出版社，2003：152-4．
[20] 舒华．心理与教育研究中的多因素设计[M]．北京：北京师范大学出版社，1994：75-82．
[21] 谭红专主编．现代流行病学[M]．北京：人民卫生出版社，2001：24．
[22] 叶奕乾编著．现代人格心理学[M]．上海：上海教育出版社，2005：129-36，207-11，192-6．
[23] 陈少华．人格与认知[M]．北京：社会科学文献出版社，2005：34-8．
[24] Jylha P, Isometsa E. The relationship of neuroticism and extraversion to symptoms of anxiety and depression in the general population[J]. Depression and Anxiety. 2006, 23(5): 281-9.
[25] Ormel J, Rosmalen J, Farmer A. Neuroticism: a non-informative marker of vulnerability to psychopathology[J]. Social Psychiatry And Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2004, 39 (11):906-12.
[26] Ten Have M, Oldehinkel A, Vollebergh W. Does neuroticism explain variations in care service use for mental health problems in the general population? [J]. Social Psychiatry And Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2005, 40 (6):425-31.
[27] 程绍珍，杨明．河南省高校大学生人格特征与心理健康状况的调查[J]．现代预防医学2006，33(12)：2402-3．
[28] Lu L. University transition: major and minor life stressors, personality characteristics and mental health [J]. Psychol-Med, 1994, 24(1):71-81.
[29] 郭文斌．自我实现者理论与心理健康[J]．温州师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版)，2004，25(6)：82-6．
[30] 王登峰，张伯源．大学生心理卫生与心理咨询[M]．北京：北京大学出版社，2000：2-3．
[31] 阿瑟．S．雷伯．心理学词典[M]．李伯黍，译．上海：上海译文出版社，1996：765．
[32] 安莉娟，丛中．安全感研究述评[J]．中国行为医学科学，2003，12(6)：698-9．
[33] 钟杰，李波，钱铭怡．自尊在大学生人格、羞耻感与心理健康关系模型中的作用研究[J]．中国临床心理杂志，2002，10(4)：241-5．
[34] 赵冰洁，陈幼贞．大学生心理健康与自我和谐的关系研究[J]．健康心理学杂志．2003，11(6)：478-80．
[35] 包陶迅．大学新生自我和谐水平与心理健康[J]．浙江海洋学院学报(人文科学版)．2006，23(3)：125-6．
[36] 崔红，王登峰．中国人的人格与心理健康[J]．心理科学进展，2007，15(2)：234-40．
[37] 刘金凤，王蔓娜，吴志江．自我和谐与应付方式的关系探讨[J]．山东精神医学，2005，18(3)：143-4．
[38] 李志凯．大学生自我和谐及其与应对方式的关系[J]．中国学校卫生，2006，27(11)：960-1．
[39] 叶金辉，邹琴，李剑萱，等．特困大学生的特质应对方式与自我和谐及其相互关系[J]．中国临床康复，2006，10(30)：51-2．
[40] 李志凯，崔冠宇，赵俊峰，等．本科大学生自我和谐及其与应对方式的关系[J]．中国健康心理学杂志，2006，14(4)：380-82．
[41] 丛晓波，田录梅，张向葵．自尊：心理健康的核心——兼谈自尊的教育意境[J]．东北师大学报(哲学社会科学版)，2005，213(1)：144-8．
[42] Shimiu Mitsuru, Pelham Brett W. Unconscious Cost of Good Fortune: Implicit and Explicit Self-Esteem, Positive Life Events and Health[J]. Health Psychology. 2004, 1:101-5.
[43] Maclnnes DL. Self-esteem and self-acceptance: an examination into their relationship and their effect on psychological health[J]. Journal Of Psychiatric And Mental Health Nursing. 2006, 13 (5):483-9.
[44] Schroder-Abe Michela, Rudolph Almut, Schutz, etal. High implicit self-esteem is not necessarily advantageous: discrepancies between explicit and implicit self-esteem and their relationship with anger expression and psychological health. European Journal of Personality. 2007, 21 (3):319-39.
[45] Smokowski Paul R. Bacallao Martica L. Acculturation, Internalizing Mental Health Symptoms, and Self-Esteem: Cultural Experiences of Latino Adolescents in North Carolina. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 2007, 37(3): 273-92.
[46] 张向葵，田录梅．大学生自尊水平、抑郁状态与状态焦虑的关系[J]．中国健康心理学杂志，2006，14(2)：139-41．
[47] 乔纳森·布朗著，陈浩莺等译．自我[M]．第1版，北京：人民邮电出版社，2004，173-74．
[48] 顾海根．师范生自我价值感研究[J]．心理科学，2002，25(2)：217-8．
[49] 范蔚，陈红．中学生自我价值感与心理健康的相关研究[J]．心理科学，2002，25(3)：352-3．
[50] 王建平，马林芳．男女大学生自尊获得方式及其受损后应对方式的比较研究[J]．韩山师范学院学报，2002，(1)：64-71．
[51] 谭先明，王玉听．体院大学生自尊个性应对方式心理控制源与心理健康关系的研究[J]．广州体育学院学报．2003，23(3)：44-6．
[52] 龚艺华，黄希庭．大学生心理控制源与自我价值感的相关研究[J]．西南师范大学学报(人文社会科学版)．2005，31(1)：32-4．
[53] A·班杜拉著．缪小春，李凌，井世杰，等译．自我效能-控制的实施[M]．第1版，上海：华东师范大学出版社．2003：12．
[54] 贺小华，张建育．大学生自尊自我效能感与归因方式的相关研究[J]．中国学校卫生，2007，28(1)：71-2．
[55] 胡芸，张荣娟，李文虎．嫉妒与自尊、一般自我效能感的相关研究[J]．中国临床心理学杂志，2005，13(2)：165-6．
[56] Viktor E．Frankl著．何忠强，杨凤池译．追寻生命的意义[M]．第1版，北京：新华出版社，2003，100-5．
[57] Gould，W．B．著．常晓玲等译．弗兰克尔：意义与人生[M]．第1版，北京：中国轻工业出版社，2000：15-30．
[58] King LA. Positive affect and the experience of meaning in life[J]. Journal Of Personality and Social Psychology. 2006, 90 (1):179-96.
[59] Feldman David B, Snyder C. R. Hope and the meaningful life:theoretical and empirical associations between goal-directed thinking and life meaning[J]. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology. 2005, 24(3):401-21.
[60] Skrabski Arapad, Kopp Maria, Rozsa Sandor. Life Meaning: An Important Correlate of Health in the Hungarian Population[J]. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2005, 12 (2):78-85.
[61] Krause N. Thought suppression and meaning in life: a longitudinal investigation [J]. International Journal Of Aging & Human Development. 2007, 64 (1):67-82.
[62] 刘岩．学生自我效能、心理控制源与应激的关系[J]．中国心理卫生杂志，2003，12(1)：36-9．
[63] 崔红，王登峰．人格维度与自我和谐的相关研究[J]．中国心理卫生杂志，2005，19(6)：370-2．
[64] 国效峰，薛志敏，赵靖平等．重型抑郁症共病焦虑障碍的应对方式、社会支持和人格特点研究[J]．中国临床心理学杂志，2005，13(2)：221-2．
[65] B．R赫根汉．人格心理学[M]．海南人民出版社，1988：425-6．
[66] 郑雪，健康人格的理论探索[J]．华南师范大学学报(社会科学版)，2006，5：141-7．
[67] 赵冰洁，黄凌云．大学生自尊与精神症状的关系研究[J]．中国行为医学科学，2003，12(5)：580-1．
[68] 答会明．大学生自信、自尊、自我效能与心理健康的相关研究[J]．中国临床心理学杂志，2000，8(4)：227-8．
[69] 俞大森．大学生归属感初探[J]．福建师范大学福清分校学报，2006，(1)：91-5．
[70] Jess Feist，Gregory J Feist著，李茹，傅文青主译，人格理论(第5版)[M]．人民卫生出版社，2005，344-7．
[71] Rogers CR. A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationship ac developed in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology:A Study of Science. New York:McCraw-Hill, 1959:184-256.
[72] Rogers CR. Client-Centered Therapy. London: Constable & Company, 1951: 158.
[73] Rogers CR. Aprocess conception of psychotherapy. American psychologist, 1958, 13:142-9.
[74] Walker AM., Rablem RA, Rogers CR. Development of a scale to measure process changes in psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psychlolgy, 1960, 16:79-85.
[75] 王玮，安莉娟．大学生自我和谐状况及其与焦虑的相关研究[J]．中国行为医学科学，2006，15(5)：403-4．
[76] 严伟亮．抑郁症病人与正常人心理控制源的对照研究[J]．国际中华神经精神医学杂志，2002，3(4)：250-1．
[77] 赵长银，沈学武，耿德勤．躯体化障碍的防御机制与认知归因特征[J]．中国行为医学科学，2003，12(2)：159-61．
[78] 钟慧，李鸣．大学生的心理控制源、社交能力及其与情绪的关系[J]．上海 精神医学，2004，16(1)：26—8．
[79] 郑剑虹，黄希庭．西方自我实现研究现状[J]．心理科学进展，2004，12(2)：296-9．
[80] 郭文斌，姚树桥．认知偏差与抑郁症[J]．中国行为医学科学，2003，12(1)：111-3．
[81] 沈学武，耿德勤，赵长银．不安全感与神经症关系的理论探讨[J]．中国行为医学科学，2002，11(2)：235-6．
[82] 单茂洪．正确使用SCL-90、16PF量表测查心理健康水平[J]．中国心理卫生杂志．1998，12(2)：81-2．
[83] 张小远．论心理治疗的范式[J]．医学与哲学，2000，21(4)：51-2．
[84] 普汶著；洪光远，郑慧玲译．人格心理学．台北县新店市：桂冠，1995：539-40，466-8．
[85] Richard M．Ryckman著，高峰强等译．人格理论(第八版)[M]．西安：陕西师范大学出版社，2005．10：312-3，242-3，325-6，311-2．
[86] 孔克勤，叶奕乾，杨秀君．个性心理学[M]．上海：华东师范大学出版社，1993：157-60．
[87] (美)柏文著．周榕等译．人格科学[M]．上海：华东师范大学出版社，2001：390-1，408-10．
[88] Jerry M．Burger著．陈会昌等译．人格心理学(第六版)[M]．北京：中国轻工业出版社，2004．9：219．
[89] (美)马斯洛著；许金声等译．动机与人格[M]．北京：华夏出版社出版，1987：311-2．
[90] 张晓芒．解读现实生活文本，研究重大社会问题[J]．哲学研究，2000，(5)：77-8．
[2] 郑雪．人格心理学[M]．广州：暨南大学出版社，2006：6-7．
[3] 郝伟．精神病学[M]．第4版，北京：人民卫生出版社，2001：118-22．
[4] 吴文源．症状自评量表，行为医学量表手册[M]．第1版，北京：中华医学电子音像出版社，2005：64-7．
[5] 龚耀先．艾森克量表手册[M]．湖南：湖南医学院，1986：1-41．
[6] 丛中．安全感量表，行为医学量表手册[M]．第1版，北京：中华医学电子音像出版社，2005：31-6．
[7] 丛中，安莉娟．安全感量表的编制及信度、效度检验[J]．中国心理卫生杂志，2004，18(2)：97-9．
[8] 杨宜音，张志学．性格与社会心理测量总览[M]．远洋出版事业股份有限公司．1997，361-5，442-6．
[9] 汪向东．自尊量表，心理卫生评定量表手册[M]．北京：中国心理卫生杂志社，1999：318-20．
[10] Fleming JS, Courtey BE. The dimensionality of self-esteem, hierarchical facet model for revised measurement scale[J]. Journal of personality and social psychology, 46:404-21.
[11] (美)Jerry M．Buirger著，陈会昌等译．人格心理学[M]．北京：中国轻工业出版社，2000：227，309-12，348-51，104-9．
[12] Merlin J R, Bundrick C M. Brief index of self-actualization: A measure of Maslow' model[J]. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1996, 11(6): 253-71.
[13] 李一云．功能失调性态度问卷[J]．中国行为医学科学，2001．10特刊：173-4．
[14] 王登峰．自我和谐量表，心理卫生评定量表手册[M]．北京：中国心理卫生杂志社，1999：314-7．
[15] 姜乾金．特质应对方式问卷，心理卫生评定量表手册[M]．北京：中国心理卫 生杂志社，1999：120-2．
[16] 王才康．一般自我效能感量表．中国行为医学科学．2001．10特刊：185-95．
[17] 于欣．控制圈．心理卫生评定量表手册．中国心理卫生杂志社[M]．1999，334-6．
[18] 张文彤．SPSS 11.5统计分析教程(基础篇)[M]．北京：北京希望电子出版社，2002：233-4．
[19] 吴明隆．SPSS统计应用实务[M]．北京：科学出版社，2003：152-4．
[20] 舒华．心理与教育研究中的多因素设计[M]．北京：北京师范大学出版社，1994：75-82．
[21] 谭红专主编．现代流行病学[M]．北京：人民卫生出版社，2001：24．
[22] 叶奕乾编著．现代人格心理学[M]．上海：上海教育出版社，2005：129-36，207-11，192-6．
[23] 陈少华．人格与认知[M]．北京：社会科学文献出版社，2005：34-8．
[24] Jylha P, Isometsa E. The relationship of neuroticism and extraversion to symptoms of anxiety and depression in the general population[J]. Depression and Anxiety. 2006, 23(5): 281-9.
[25] Ormel J, Rosmalen J, Farmer A. Neuroticism: a non-informative marker of vulnerability to psychopathology[J]. Social Psychiatry And Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2004, 39 (11):906-12.
[26] Ten Have M, Oldehinkel A, Vollebergh W. Does neuroticism explain variations in care service use for mental health problems in the general population? [J]. Social Psychiatry And Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2005, 40 (6):425-31.
[27] 程绍珍，杨明．河南省高校大学生人格特征与心理健康状况的调查[J]．现代预防医学2006，33(12)：2402-3．
[28] Lu L. University transition: major and minor life stressors, personality characteristics and mental health [J]. Psychol-Med, 1994, 24(1):71-81.
[29] 郭文斌．自我实现者理论与心理健康[J]．温州师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版)，2004，25(6)：82-6．
[30] 王登峰，张伯源．大学生心理卫生与心理咨询[M]．北京：北京大学出版社，2000：2-3．
[31] 阿瑟．S．雷伯．心理学词典[M]．李伯黍，译．上海：上海译文出版社，1996：765．
[32] 安莉娟，丛中．安全感研究述评[J]．中国行为医学科学，2003，12(6)：698-9．
[33] 钟杰，李波，钱铭怡．自尊在大学生人格、羞耻感与心理健康关系模型中的作用研究[J]．中国临床心理杂志，2002，10(4)：241-5．
[34] 赵冰洁，陈幼贞．大学生心理健康与自我和谐的关系研究[J]．健康心理学杂志．2003，11(6)：478-80．
[35] 包陶迅．大学新生自我和谐水平与心理健康[J]．浙江海洋学院学报(人文科学版)．2006，23(3)：125-6．
[36] 崔红，王登峰．中国人的人格与心理健康[J]．心理科学进展，2007，15(2)：234-40．
[37] 刘金凤，王蔓娜，吴志江．自我和谐与应付方式的关系探讨[J]．山东精神医学，2005，18(3)：143-4．
[38] 李志凯．大学生自我和谐及其与应对方式的关系[J]．中国学校卫生，2006，27(11)：960-1．
[39] 叶金辉，邹琴，李剑萱，等．特困大学生的特质应对方式与自我和谐及其相互关系[J]．中国临床康复，2006，10(30)：51-2．
[40] 李志凯，崔冠宇，赵俊峰，等．本科大学生自我和谐及其与应对方式的关系[J]．中国健康心理学杂志，2006，14(4)：380-82．
[41] 丛晓波，田录梅，张向葵．自尊：心理健康的核心——兼谈自尊的教育意境[J]．东北师大学报(哲学社会科学版)，2005，213(1)：144-8．
[42] Shimiu Mitsuru, Pelham Brett W. Unconscious Cost of Good Fortune: Implicit and Explicit Self-Esteem, Positive Life Events and Health[J]. Health Psychology. 2004, 1:101-5.
[43] Maclnnes DL. Self-esteem and self-acceptance: an examination into their relationship and their effect on psychological health[J]. Journal Of Psychiatric And Mental Health Nursing. 2006, 13 (5):483-9.
[44] Schroder-Abe Michela, Rudolph Almut, Schutz, etal. High implicit self-esteem is not necessarily advantageous: discrepancies between explicit and implicit self-esteem and their relationship with anger expression and psychological health. European Journal of Personality. 2007, 21 (3):319-39.
[45] Smokowski Paul R. Bacallao Martica L. Acculturation, Internalizing Mental Health Symptoms, and Self-Esteem: Cultural Experiences of Latino Adolescents in North Carolina. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 2007, 37(3): 273-92.
[46] 张向葵，田录梅．大学生自尊水平、抑郁状态与状态焦虑的关系[J]．中国健康心理学杂志，2006，14(2)：139-41．
[47] 乔纳森·布朗著，陈浩莺等译．自我[M]．第1版，北京：人民邮电出版社，2004，173-74．
[48] 顾海根．师范生自我价值感研究[J]．心理科学，2002，25(2)：217-8．
[49] 范蔚，陈红．中学生自我价值感与心理健康的相关研究[J]．心理科学，2002，25(3)：352-3．
[50] 王建平，马林芳．男女大学生自尊获得方式及其受损后应对方式的比较研究[J]．韩山师范学院学报，2002，(1)：64-71．
[51] 谭先明，王玉听．体院大学生自尊个性应对方式心理控制源与心理健康关系的研究[J]．广州体育学院学报．2003，23(3)：44-6．
[52] 龚艺华，黄希庭．大学生心理控制源与自我价值感的相关研究[J]．西南师范大学学报(人文社会科学版)．2005，31(1)：32-4．
[53] A·班杜拉著．缪小春，李凌，井世杰，等译．自我效能-控制的实施[M]．第1版，上海：华东师范大学出版社．2003：12．
[54] 贺小华，张建育．大学生自尊自我效能感与归因方式的相关研究[J]．中国学校卫生，2007，28(1)：71-2．
[55] 胡芸，张荣娟，李文虎．嫉妒与自尊、一般自我效能感的相关研究[J]．中国临床心理学杂志，2005，13(2)：165-6．
[56] Viktor E．Frankl著．何忠强，杨凤池译．追寻生命的意义[M]．第1版，北京：新华出版社，2003，100-5．
[57] Gould，W．B．著．常晓玲等译．弗兰克尔：意义与人生[M]．第1版，北京：中国轻工业出版社，2000：15-30．
[58] King LA. Positive affect and the experience of meaning in life[J]. Journal Of Personality and Social Psychology. 2006, 90 (1):179-96.
[59] Feldman David B, Snyder C. R. Hope and the meaningful life:theoretical and empirical associations between goal-directed thinking and life meaning[J]. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology. 2005, 24(3):401-21.
[60] Skrabski Arapad, Kopp Maria, Rozsa Sandor. Life Meaning: An Important Correlate of Health in the Hungarian Population[J]. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2005, 12 (2):78-85.
[61] Krause N. Thought suppression and meaning in life: a longitudinal investigation [J]. International Journal Of Aging & Human Development. 2007, 64 (1):67-82.
[62] 刘岩．学生自我效能、心理控制源与应激的关系[J]．中国心理卫生杂志，2003，12(1)：36-9．
[63] 崔红，王登峰．人格维度与自我和谐的相关研究[J]．中国心理卫生杂志，2005，19(6)：370-2．
[64] 国效峰，薛志敏，赵靖平等．重型抑郁症共病焦虑障碍的应对方式、社会支持和人格特点研究[J]．中国临床心理学杂志，2005，13(2)：221-2．
[65] B．R赫根汉．人格心理学[M]．海南人民出版社，1988：425-6．
[66] 郑雪，健康人格的理论探索[J]．华南师范大学学报(社会科学版)，2006，5：141-7．
[67] 赵冰洁，黄凌云．大学生自尊与精神症状的关系研究[J]．中国行为医学科学，2003，12(5)：580-1．
[68] 答会明．大学生自信、自尊、自我效能与心理健康的相关研究[J]．中国临床心理学杂志，2000，8(4)：227-8．
[69] 俞大森．大学生归属感初探[J]．福建师范大学福清分校学报，2006，(1)：91-5．
[70] Jess Feist，Gregory J Feist著，李茹，傅文青主译，人格理论(第5版)[M]．人民卫生出版社，2005，344-7．
[71] Rogers CR. A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationship ac developed in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology:A Study of Science. New York:McCraw-Hill, 1959:184-256.
[72] Rogers CR. Client-Centered Therapy. London: Constable & Company, 1951: 158.
[73] Rogers CR. Aprocess conception of psychotherapy. American psychologist, 1958, 13:142-9.
[74] Walker AM., Rablem RA, Rogers CR. Development of a scale to measure process changes in psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psychlolgy, 1960, 16:79-85.
[75] 王玮，安莉娟．大学生自我和谐状况及其与焦虑的相关研究[J]．中国行为医学科学，2006，15(5)：403-4．
[76] 严伟亮．抑郁症病人与正常人心理控制源的对照研究[J]．国际中华神经精神医学杂志，2002，3(4)：250-1．
[77] 赵长银，沈学武，耿德勤．躯体化障碍的防御机制与认知归因特征[J]．中国行为医学科学，2003，12(2)：159-61．
[78] 钟慧，李鸣．大学生的心理控制源、社交能力及其与情绪的关系[J]．上海 精神医学，2004，16(1)：26—8．
[79] 郑剑虹，黄希庭．西方自我实现研究现状[J]．心理科学进展，2004，12(2)：296-9．
[80] 郭文斌，姚树桥．认知偏差与抑郁症[J]．中国行为医学科学，2003，12(1)：111-3．
[81] 沈学武，耿德勤，赵长银．不安全感与神经症关系的理论探讨[J]．中国行为医学科学，2002，11(2)：235-6．
[82] 单茂洪．正确使用SCL-90、16PF量表测查心理健康水平[J]．中国心理卫生杂志．1998，12(2)：81-2．
[83] 张小远．论心理治疗的范式[J]．医学与哲学，2000，21(4)：51-2．
[84] 普汶著；洪光远，郑慧玲译．人格心理学．台北县新店市：桂冠，1995：539-40，466-8．
[85] Richard M．Ryckman著，高峰强等译．人格理论(第八版)[M]．西安：陕西师范大学出版社，2005．10：312-3，242-3，325-6，311-2．
[86] 孔克勤，叶奕乾，杨秀君．个性心理学[M]．上海：华东师范大学出版社，1993：157-60．
[87] (美)柏文著．周榕等译．人格科学[M]．上海：华东师范大学出版社，2001：390-1，408-10．
[88] Jerry M．Burger著．陈会昌等译．人格心理学(第六版)[M]．北京：中国轻工业出版社，2004．9：219．
[89] (美)马斯洛著；许金声等译．动机与人格[M]．北京：华夏出版社出版，1987：311-2．
[90] 张晓芒．解读现实生活文本，研究重大社会问题[J]．哲学研究，2000，(5)：77-8．