客体依恋的研究进展及趋势
A Review of the Research Status and Trends of Object Attachment
DOI: 10.12677/AP.2022.123074, PDF, HTML, XML, 下载: 336  浏览: 536 
作者: 杜雅琴:内蒙古师范大学心理学院,内蒙古 呼和浩特
关键词: 客体依恋动机测量工具Object Attachment Motivation Measuring Method
摘要: 客体依恋是一种始于童年早期的现象,是个体对物品产生的强烈依恋体验。这种对物品产生的客体依恋可能会持续到成年,并对个体的认知、情绪和行为都产生影响。通过对相关研究的分析和整理,本文对客体依恋产生的四种动机(安全感、社会功能、身份延展和愉悦体验)、客体依恋的测量工具以及客体依恋的最新研究进展进行了综合评述,并探讨了客体依恋的未来研究趋势。
Abstract: Object attachment is a phenomenon that began in early childhood. It is an individual’s strong at-tachment experience to objects. This object attachment to objects may last until adulthood and affect individual cognition, emotion and behavior. Through the analysis and collation of relevant studies, this paper made a comprehensive comment on the four motives of object attachment (sense of security, social function, identity extension and pleasant experience), the measurement tools of object attachment and the latest research progress of object attachment, and discussed the future research trend of object attachment.
文章引用:杜雅琴 (2022). 客体依恋的研究进展及趋势. 心理学进展, 12(3), 637-642. https://doi.org/10.12677/AP.2022.123074

1. 引言

客体依恋(object attachment)是指个体对某种物品产生了重要的情感依恋,如果失去了这个物品,个体会体验到强烈的失落感(Kleine & Baker, 2004)。对客体依恋的研究始于唐纳德·温尼科特的一篇开创性文章(Winnicott, 1953),其中首次引入了过渡客体物品的概念。在最初的观点中,过渡客体物品通常是婴儿和幼儿在发育阶段过渡时使用的柔软物品(毯子、可爱的毛绒玩具等)。该领域的许多早期理论和研究都集中在过渡客体物品在为幼儿提供安全感方面的作用,即婴幼儿对客体物品的依恋是为了努力建立自主和自我调节(Gulerce, 1991)。最近的研究扩大了对客体依恋的研究范围,包括个体依恋的任何物体,无论该物体是否在个体发展中起到了过渡作用。在进一步的探索中,研究还表明,客体依恋并不限于生命的最初几年,而是存在于所有年龄(Dyl & Wapner, 1996)。随着对客体依恋的研究不断深入和相关研究领域的持续拓展,本文旨在对客体依恋的产生动机、测量工具和研究趋势等各方面做综合分析论述,以供相关学者以更加全面的视角,更好地解释和发展对客体依恋的研究工作。

2. 客体依恋的产生动机

2.1. 安全感

客体依恋理论最初描述了婴儿如何依赖物品来获得安全感。有充分的证据表明,当婴幼儿遇到新情况时,客体依恋能起到为他们提供情感安全的作用(Ybarra et al., 2000)。然而,随着儿童从婴儿期成长到童年期,他们的不安全感的范围扩大到了应对陌生人和新情况之外的其它场景,不安全感表现在他们生活的多个方面,包括身份发展、同伴接纳、学术或体育等其它领域。在最近的研究中,无论依恋对象是手机、电子游戏角色、玩偶还是其他物品,个体依恋的对象都为其提供了安全感或心理补偿(Giles & Maltby, 2004; Igarashi et al., 2008)。

2.2. 社会功能

当今社会,许多人都喜欢的两个东西是手机和电子游戏。虽然这些物品的用途不止一个,但个体对它们产生依恋的一个主要原因是它们能用于建立和维持社会联系(Igarashi et al., 2008)。在视频游戏客体依恋方面正在进行的大量研究工作表明,人们利用手机与朋友一起进行多种社交活动,这正是个体对手机产生客体依恋的原因(Lewis et al., 2008)。因此,一些物品受到人们依恋的原因,很可能是因为它们是建立社会关系的大门。

2.3. 身份延展

个体对物品产生的客体依恋,也可能是因为这些物品使他们能够向自己和重要的他人传达他们身份的基本信息。随着个体对自己世界的象征性理解的发展,他们通过对特定产品和体验的依恋,可以使用非语言方式表达自己(Mugge et al., 2006)。他们还能够使用他们喜爱的一些虚拟物品来设计出不同版本的自我,以呈现给不同的观众(Odom et al., 2010),例如,使用电子游戏来体验不同的角色和身份(Olson, 2010)。他们甚至可能会把自己的游戏化身作为一个整体来高度依恋,以此来作为他们身份的表达和展示(Li et al., 2012; Nagy & Koles, 2014)。人们过去的经历也是他们身份的一部分,一些个体曾经使用过的物品也被个体视为他们个人历史的一部分(Mugge et al., 2006; Odom et al., 2010)。

2.4. 愉悦体验

客体依恋也源于物品给个体带来的快乐、放松或提供的舒适体验。年轻人喜欢电子游戏,部分是因为它们玩起来很有趣,但也因为它们能缓解愤怒、孤独或压力等负面情绪(Olson, 2010)。同样,也有研究表明个体所珍视的物品在生活中起到了部分缓解压力和心理安慰的作用(Melumad & Pham, 2020)。还有研究表明,经历慢性悲伤的个体更有可能在睡觉或旅行时随身携带一件珍爱的物品,这些都表明了对物品产生的客体依恋能为个体提供舒适感等愉悦体验(Erkolahti, 2009)。

3. 客体依恋的测量工具

随着对客体依恋研究的不断深入,研究者从不同的维度提出了几种客体依恋的测量方法。现有的几种测量工具评估了个体感知到的自我与客体之间的关系。早期的典型代表是Steketee等人在2003年编制的囤积量表中的情感依恋分量表(SCI-EA),其测量了个体对物品的情感依恋的认知和信念,这个分量表的十个项目与个体囤积物品的严重程度以及个体体验到的焦虑和抑郁的严重程度均呈正相关(Steketee et al., 2003)。然而,该测验量表评估的自我和物品关系方面的指标主要侧重于客体依恋的情感方面,而不是综合的指标测量个体和他们的物品之间的心理距离和情感态度。因此,Grisham等人在2009年编制了客体依恋问卷(Object Attachment Questionnaire, OAQ) (Grisham et al., 2009),并在后来对客体依恋的研究中被广泛使用。该问卷测量了个体对物品的情感和态度,一共有13个项目,包括了能反映客体依恋各个方面的项目,例如,拟人化、身份和责任等。OAQ的13项相加,可以得到一个全面的客体依恋指数。OAQ与修订后的囤积量表SI的不同分量表(杂乱、丢弃和获取)呈正相关(Frost et al., 2004; Yorulmaz & Dermihan, 2015),且与SCI的所有分量表(情感依恋、记忆、控制和责任)均呈正相关(Grisham et al., 2009)。此外,在非临床样本中,OAQ被证明可以预测个人丢弃物品的能力(Norberg et al., 2015)。

4. 客体依恋的研究趋势

4.1. 客体依恋与囤积障碍

客体依恋的早期研究方向主要集中在客体依恋与囤积障碍的关系领域。美国精神病学会在2013年将囤积障碍Hoarding Disorder (HD)的特征定义为个体对物品渴望保存、难以丢弃和因此导致的过度的家庭杂乱。关于强迫性囤积的早期研究表明,囤积行为与客体依恋(Frost & Hartl, 1996)和对物品的拟人化(Frost et al., 1996)之间存在相关。最近的研究表明,囤积症状可以预测对物品的客体依恋程度(Grisham et al., 2009),对非临床样本的研究发现,即使在控制社交焦虑症状的情况下(Timpano & Shaw, 2013),对物品的拟人化产生的客体依恋也与囤积严重程度具有相关关系(Neave et al., 2015)。HD的一个核心特征是对物品的过度依恋(Frost & Hartl, 1996)。因此,HD从根本上说是一种关系障碍,在这种障碍中,个体的自我和他们的物品之间的联系变成病理性的,也就是说,它以导致明显的功能性干扰或痛苦的方式影响个体的行为(Furby, 1978; Pierce et al., 2003)。虽然自我和个人物品之间的关系并非HD本身所独有,但这种关系在有囤积相关症状的个体中的表现显著增强(Yap & Grisham, 2020)。

4.2. 客体依恋与消费决策

客体依恋是个体与特定目标对象之间的情感纽带(Bowlby, 1973),虽然依恋理论最初是在人际关系领域发展起来的(Fedorikhin et al., 2008),但该理论后来被扩展到了无生命的目标对象,如品牌、产品和场所(He & Anderson, 2020)。客体依恋增加了个体向目标对象分配资源的意愿,例如情感、认知和行为(Holmes, 2000)。因此,个体对物品产生了客体依恋的一个结果是其改变了客体在个体心中的价值(Muller et al., 2020)。现有研究主要考察了个体对目标物体的依恋差异如何影响该物体的购买决策。这种依恋差异可能是慢性的,也可能是情境性的(Thomson et al., 2005)。总体而言,实证研究发现客体依恋与消费决策之间存在正相关关系(Shu & Peck, 2011)。例如,之前的研究发现,对一个品牌的依恋会增加对该品牌的购买意愿(Thomas et al., 2015)。此外,品牌依恋可以增加品牌延伸产品即同一品牌生产的新产品的购买意愿,而对一个地方例如公园的依恋可以增加环境保护的相关行为意愿(Preston & MacMillan-Ladd, 2020)。最后,消费者对他们非常了解的物品表现出更高的购买意愿,这种情况也被认为会是由于客体依恋的表现(He & Anderson, 2020)。总之,与低强度客体依恋的个体相比,对目标对象产生更高客体依恋的个体对该对象的货币价值估值更高(Norberg et al., 2020)。

4.3. 数字化客体依恋

随着电子游戏、社交网站和虚拟世界的出现,人们不仅获得了娱乐和社交的新机会,还获得了创建、拥有和销售数字化物品的新机会。数字化客体依恋是指个体对数字化物品产生的情感依恋(Koles & Nagy, 2020)。一些学者认为以虚拟财产为目标的数字消费不同于纯粹有形商品的离线语境(Belk, 2013),并且鉴于它们在离线物质现实中缺乏物理实体和有用性,将虚拟商品概念化为物质与虚构世界之间的阈限类别(Watkins et al., 2016)。其他人则认为,数字物品可以和有形物品一样真实和有用,并否认完全非物质消费的存在,模糊了虚拟消费和线下消费之间的任何明显界限(Arbeau et al., 2020)。解决这一争论的一个富有成效的方法是通过某些关键属性来区分真实物品数字对象,这反过来又使得探索数字对象的客体依恋形成的过程成为可能。广义地说,数字对象可以定义为通过数字设备访问的实体,这些实体不具有物理属性,只存在于在线空间中(Simpson et al., 2018)。这两种形式都依赖于用户、对象和数字空间之间的循环关系,这就要求用户为数字化客体依恋的对象付出更多的努力和更高的心理归属感(Shi et al., 2019)。物体附着形成的直接和间接类型的区别在于后者可能出现过渡性质,模糊了离线空间和数字空间之间的界限,这种环境在内部化后,可以脱离虚拟环境,并将某些身份属性转移到用户的离线生活中(Koles & Nagy, 2020)。

5. 小结与展望

综上所述,对客体依恋的研究起源是从婴幼儿对过渡物品的情感依恋开始,后来发展到对各个年龄段的个体对物品产生的客体依恋的原因和影响探究,其中最主要的是客体依恋对囤积障碍的影响,以及客体依恋与消费者购买决策的相关关系,最近的研究扩展到了现代的虚拟数字化领域,即数字化客体依恋。

纵观前人的研究可以发现,目前对客体依恋的研究大多来自国外的学者,国内对客体依恋的研究较少,基于此现象以及前人的研究进展,本文对未来的客体依恋研究提出几点展望:首先,客体依恋测量工具目前在国外被证明信效度较高且被广泛使用,国内也可以根据本土特点,编制或修订相应的客体依恋量表。其次,客体依恋对囤积障碍、购买者决策的影响之间是否还存在其它因素也值得探索。最后,随着科技不断进步,网络活动不断发展,数字化客体依恋会对个体造成哪些影响也可作为新的研究方向。

参考文献

[1] Arbeau, K., Thorpe, C., Stinson, M., Budlong, B., & Wolff, J. (2020). The Meaning of the Experience of Being an Online Video Game Player. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 2, Article ID: 100013.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100013
[2] Belk, R. W. (2013). Extended Self in a Digital World. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 477-500.
https://doi.org/10.1086/671052
[3] Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss. Vol. Separation: Anxiety and Anger (pp. 25-225). Basic Books.
[4] Dyl, J., & Wapner, S. (1996). Age and Gender Differences in the Nature, Meaning, and Function of Cherished Possessions for Children and Adolescents. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 62, 340-377.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1996.0034
[5] Erkolahti, R. (2009). The Prevalence of Transitional Object Use in Adolescence: Is There a Connection between the Existence of a Transitional Object and Depressive Symptoms? European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 18, 400-406.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-009-0747-7
[6] Fedorikhin, A., Park, C. W., & Thomson, M. (2008). Beyond Fit and Attitude: The Effect of Emotional Attachment on Consumer Responses to Brand Extensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18, 281-291.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2008.09.006
[7] Frost, R. O., & Hartl, T. L. (1996). A Cognitive-Behavioral Model of Compulsive Hoarding. Behavior Research & Therapy, 34, 341-350.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(95)00071-2
[8] Frost, R. O., Krause, M. S., & Steketee, G. (1996). Hoarding and Obsessive-Compulsive Symptoms. Behavior Modification, 20, 116-132.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455960201006
[9] Frost, R. O., Steketee, G., & Grisham, J. (2004). Measurement of Compulsive Hoarding: Saving Inventory-Revised. Behavior Research & Therapy, 42, 1163-1182.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2003.07.006
[10] Furby, L. (1978). Possessions: Toward a Theory of Their Meaning and Function throughout the Life Cycle. In P. B. Baltes (Ed.), Life Span Development and Behavior (pp. 297-336). Academic Press.
[11] Giles, D. C., & Maltby, J. (2004). The Role of Media Figures in Adolescent Development: Relations between Autonomy, Attachment, and Interest in Celebrities. Personality & Individual Differences, 36, 813-822.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00154-5
[12] Grisham, J., Frost, R., Steketee, G., Kim, H., Tarkoff, A., & Hood, S. (2009). Formation of Attachment to Possessions in Compulsive Hoarding. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 23, 357-361.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2008.12.006
[13] Gulerce, A. (1991). Transitional Objects: A Reconsideration of the Phenomenon. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 6, 187-208.
[14] He, S., & Anderson, E. (2020). Conceptualizing and Measuring Pathways for How Object Attachment Affects Willingness to Pay (WTP). Current Opinion in Psychology, 39, 121-124.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.09.008
[15] Holmes, J. G. (2000). Social Relationships: The Nature and Function of Relational Schemas. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 477-495.
https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0992(200007/08)30:4<447::AID-EJSP10>3.0.CO;2-Q
[16] Igarashi, T., Motoyoshi, T., Takai, J., & Yoshida, T. (2008). No Mobile, No Life: Self-Perception and Text-Message Dependency among Japanese High School Students. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2311-2324.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.12.001
[17] Kleine, S. S., & Baker, S. M. (2004). An Integrative Review of Material Possession Attachment. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1, 4-41.
[18] Koles, B., & Nagy, P. (2020). Digital Object Attachment. Current Opinion in Psychology, 39, 60-65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.07.017
[19] Lewis, M. L., Weber, R., & Bowman, N. D. (2008). “They May Be Pixels, But They’re MY Pixels”: Developing a Metric of Character Attachment in Role-Playing Video Games. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 515-518.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0137
[20] Li, D., Liau, A. K., & Khoo, A. (2012). Player-Avatar Identification in Video Gaming: Concept and Measurement. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 257-263.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.09.002
[21] Melumad, S., & Pham, M. T. (2020). The Smartphone as a Pacifying Technology. Journal of Consumer Research, 47, 1-19.
[22] Mugge, R., Schifferstein, H., & Schoormans, J. (2006). A Longitudinal Study of Product Attachment and Its Determinants. European Advances in Consumer Research, 7, 641-647.
[23] Muller, A., Claes, L., & Kyrios, M. (2020). Object Attachment in Buying-Shopping Disorder. Current Opinion in Psychology, 39, 115-120.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.08.019
[24] Nagy, P., & Koles, B. (2014). “My Avatar and Her Beloved Possession”: Characteristics of Attachment to Virtual Objects. Psychology & Marketing, 31, 1122-1135.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20759
[25] Neave, N., Jackson, R., Saxton, T., & Hönekopp, J. (2015). The Influence of Anthropomorphic Tendencies on Human Hoarding Behaviours. Personality & Individual Differences, 72, 214-219.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.041
[26] Norberg, M. M., Keyan, D., & Grisham, J. R. (2015). Mood Influences the Relationship between Distress Intolerance and Discarding. Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders, 6, 77-82.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocrd.2015.06.005
[27] Norberg, M., David, J., Crone, C., Kakar, V., Kwok, C., Olivier, J., & Grisham, J. (2020). Determinants of Object Choice and Object Attachment: Compensatory Consumption in Compulsive Buying-Shopping Disorder and Hoarding Disorder. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 9, 153-162.
https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.8.2019.68
[28] Odom, W., Zimmerman, J., & Forlizzi, J. (2010). Virtual Possessions. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 368-371). ACM.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1858171.1858240
[29] Olson, C. K. (2010). Children’s Motivations for Video Game Play in the Context of Normal Development. Review of General Psychology, 14, 180-187.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018984
[30] Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The State of Psychological Ownership: Integrating and Extending a Century of Research. Review of General Psychology, 7, 84-107.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.1.84
[31] Preston, S., & MacMillan-Ladd, A. (2020). Object Attachment and Decision-Making. Current Opinion in Psychology, 39, 31-37.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.07.019
[32] Shi, J., Renwick, R., Turner, N. E., & Kirsh, B. (2019). Understanding the Lives of Problem Gamers: The Meaning, Purpose, and Influences of Video Gaming. Computers in Human Behavior, 97, 291-303.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.023
[33] Shu, S. B., & Peck, J. (2011). Psychological Ownership and Affective Reaction: Emotional Attachment Process Variables and the Endowment Effect. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21, 439-452.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.01.002
[34] Simpson, J. M., David, K. J., & Stern, M. J. (2018). Virtual Rituals: Community, Emotion, and Ritual in Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games—A Quantitative Test and Extension of Structural Ritualization Theory. Socius Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 4.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023118779839
[35] Steketee, G., Frost, R. O., & Kyrios, M. (2003). Cognitive Aspects of Compulsive Hoarding. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 27, 463-479.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025428631552
[36] Thomas, V. L., Yeh, M., & Jewell, R. D. (2015). Enhancing Valuation: The Impact of Self-Congruence with a Brand on the Endowment Effect. Journal of Behavioral & Experimental Economics, 58, 178-185.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2015.05.009
[37] Thomson, M., Macinnis, D. J., & Park, C. W. (2005). The Ties That Bind: Measuring the Strength of Consumers’ Emotional Attachments to Brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 77-91.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1501_10
[38] Timpano, K. R., & Shaw, A. M. (2013). Conferring Humanness: The Role of Anthropomorphism in Hoarding. Personality & Individual Differences, 54, 383-388.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.007
[39] Watkins, R. D., Denegri-Knott, J., & Molesworth, M. (2016). The Relationship between Ownership and Possession: Observations from the Context of Digital Virtual Goods. Journal of Marketing Management, 32, 44-70.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2015.1089308
[40] Winnicott, D. W. (1953). Transitional Objects and Transitional Phenomena: A Study of the First Not-Me Possession. The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 34, 89-97.
[41] Yap, K., & Grisham, J. (2020). Object Attachment in Hoarding Disorder and Its Role in a Compensatory Process. Current Opinion in Psychology, 39, 76-81.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.07.022
[42] Ybarra, G. J., Passman, R. H., & Eisenberg, C. S. (2000). The Presence of Security Blankets or Mothers (or Both) Affects Distress during Pediatric Examinations. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 68, 322-330.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.68.2.322
[43] Yorulmaz, O., & Dermihan, N. (2015). Cognitive Correlates of Hoarding Symptoms: An Exploratory Study with a Non-Western Community Sample. Journal of Obsessive Compulsive & Related Disorders, 7, 16-23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocrd.2015.08.003