“选择盲”现象在改变大学生自杀态度中的作用——基于情绪Stroop效应的研究
The Effect of “Choice Blindness” on Changing the Suicide Attitude of College Students—A Study Based on the Emotional Stroop Effect
DOI: 10.12677/AP.2019.98178, PDF,   
作者: 梁雅婷:华南师范大学心理学院,广东 广州
关键词: 选择盲自杀态度情绪Stroop效应Choice Blindness Suicide Attitude Emotional Stroop Effect
摘要: 本实验旨在探究选择盲现象在改变大学生自杀态度中的作用。先用自杀态度问卷(QSA)收集信息,前测探究不同自杀态度的被试中性词、自杀词、其他消极词Stroop效应的差异,发现只有自杀词在不同自杀态度下差异显著,接受组明显慢于排斥组,为后测观察自杀态度改变提供前提条件。后测利用选择盲现象制作反转答卷并提问诱导被试自杀态度的改变,再观察Stroop效应的变化探究改变效果,发现被试在提问时无法发现这不是自己的真实态度,但改变操作前后Stroop效应差异不显著。研究表明:总体而言,自杀态度越偏向于接受,对自杀词的Stroop反应时越慢;虽然人们没有意识到自己的自杀态度选择被改变,但内隐认知变化不显著,需进一步完善方法以投入实践。
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of choice blindness in changing suicide atti-tudes of college students. First, the information was collected with the questionnaire of suicide attitude (QSA), and the differences in the Stroop effect towards neutral words, suicide words and other negative words of the subjects with different attitudes towards suicide were explored in the pretest. It was found that only suicide words showed significant differences under different attitudes to suicide, and the accepting group was significantly slower than the rejecting group, providing the premise for the observation of the change of suicide attitude in the posttest. The posttest used the phenomenon of choice blindness to produce the reversed answers and questions to induce the change of the participants’ attitude towards suicide. After observing the change of Stroop effect to explore the result, it was found that the subjects could not find that this was not their true attitude when asked questions, but the difference of Stroop effect between before and after the change was not significant. Studies have shown that: in general, the more acceptive the suicide attitudes are, the slower the response to the word Stroop is. Although people are not aware that their suicide attitude choice has been changed, the change of implicit cognition is not significant, and the method needs to be further improved to be put into practice.
文章引用:梁雅婷 (2019). “选择盲”现象在改变大学生自杀态度中的作用——基于情绪Stroop效应的研究. 心理学进展, 9(8), 1454-1468. https://doi.org/10.12677/AP.2019.98178

参考文献

[1] 陈俊, 刘海燕, 张积家(2007). Stroop效应研究的新进展——理论、范式及影响因素. 心理科学, 30(2), 415-418.
[2] 何兆雄(1997). 自杀病学. 北京: 中国中医药出版社, 1997.
[3] 胡月, 樊富珉, 戴艳军, 崔宁, 赵晓威(2016). 大学生生活事件与自杀意念: 生命价值观的中介与调节作用. 中国临床心理学杂志, 24(1), 149-151.
[4] 黄雄英, 邓希泉(2011). 我国青少年自杀问题研究——中国青少年自杀现象的宏观态势与辩证分析——基于2002-2009年中国青少年自杀统计数据的研究. 中国青年研究, (11), 4-10.
[5] 黎亚军(2016). 青少年受欺负与自杀: 抑郁的中介作用及性别差异. 中国临床心理学杂志, 24(2), 282-286.
[6] 柳宝祥, 刑淑芳, 李国华, 郭晓光(2008). 体育专业大学生对自杀态度的调查研究. 现代预防医学, 35(6), 1115-1117.
[7] 唐永卿, 杨宏飞(2003). 大学生对自杀态度的调查. 中国心理卫生杂志, 17(4), 282-283.
[8] 汪向东, 王希林, 马弘(1999). 心理卫生评定量表手册(增订版). 北京: 中国心理卫生杂志社, 318-320.
[9] 王琳, 王卫红(2008). 大学生自杀态度及心理健康状况的调查研究. 保健医学研究与实践, 5(3), 32-34.
[10] 王玲, 路仕容(2001). 大学生自杀态度、抑郁水平和自杀意念的研究. 中国健康心理学杂志, 9(6), 422-424.
[11] 王小桃, 罗贵明(2011). 大学生就业压力对自杀态度及意念影响. 中国公共卫生, 27(11), 1418-1419.
[12] 夏莹, 杨子云, 戢汉斌(2017). 影响中国中学生自杀意念危险因素meta分析. 中国健康心理学杂志, 25(2), 178-181.
[13] 肖水源, 杨洪(1999). 自杀态度问卷的编制及信度与效度研究: 自杀系列研究之一. 中国心理卫生杂志, (4), 250-251.
[14] 徐舒靖(2009). 抑郁症阈下情绪Stroop效应及ERP研究. 硕士学位论文. 长沙: 中南大学.
[15] 杨丽, 李敬敏, 刘海玲, 程诚(2017). 自杀人际理论框架下大学生精神病态与自杀意念的关系研究. 中国临床心理学杂志, 25(1), 54-58.
[16] 杨丽珠, 蒋重清, 刘颖(2005). 阈下情绪启动效应和stroop效应之对比实验研究. 心理科学, 28(4), 784-787.
[17] 翟书涛(1997). 危机干预与自杀预防. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 1997: 194.
[18] 张慧, 徐富明, 李彬, 罗寒冰, 刘程浩(2014). 选择盲: 你不一定知道自己在选择什么. 心理科学进展, 22(8), 1312-1318.
[19] 周达生(1986). 社会不同人群自杀意念的初步探索. 医学与哲学, (8), 47-48.
[20] Hall, L., Johansson, P., & Strandberg, T. (2012). Lifting the Veil of Morality: Choice Blindness and Attitude Reversals on a Self-Transforming Survey. PLoS ONE, 7, e45457.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[21] Hall, L., Johansson, P., Tärning, B., Sikström, S., & Deutgen, T. (2010). Magic at the Marketplace: Choice Blindness for the Taste of Jam and the Smell of Tea. Cognition, 117, 54-61.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[22] Hall, L., Thomas, S., Philip, P., Andreas, L., Betty, T., Petter, J. et al. (2013). How the Polls Can Be both Spot on and Dead Wrong: Using Choice Blindness to Shift Political Attitudes and Voter Intentions. PLoS ONE, 8, e60554.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[23] Johansson, P. et al. (2005). Failure to Detect Mismatches between Intention and Outcome in a Simple Decision Task. Science, 310, 116-119.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[24] Mathews, A., & Macleod, C. (1985). Selective Processing of Threat Cues in Anxiety States. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 23, 563-569.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[25] Mogg, K., Mathews, A., & Weinman, J. (1989). Selective Processing of Threat Cues in Anxiety States: A Replication. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 27, 317-323.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[26] Tsukahara, T., Arai, H., Kamijo, T., Kobayashi, Y., Washizuka, S., Arito, H. et al. (2016). The Relationship between Attitudes toward Suicide and Family History of Suicide in Nagano Prefecture, Japan. International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health, 13, 623.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[27] Williams, J. M., Mathews, A., & Macleod, C. (1996). The Emotional Stroop Task and Psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 3-24.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[28] Wolach, A. H., Mchale, M. A., & Tarlea, A. (2004). Numerical Stroop Effect. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 98, 67-77.[CrossRef] [PubMed]