校园冲突视角下青少年生活状态的统计建模分析
Statistical Modeling Analysis of Adolescent Life Status from the Perspective of Campus Conflict
DOI: 10.12677/sa.2026.153054, PDF,    科研立项经费支持
作者: 林博雅, 杨传影*, 阚雨彤, 邢梦影, 马二康:蚌埠学院数理学院,安徽 蚌埠;张智铭, 李宇奇:蚌埠学院计算机与信息工程学院,安徽 蚌埠
关键词: 校园冲突生活正向状态认知决策特质统计建模Logistic回归Campus Conflict Positive Life Status Cognitive-Decision-Making Traits Statistical Modeling Logistic Regression
摘要: 为探索校园冲突的预防路径,本研究以青少年“生活状态”为切入点,聚焦个体稳定的认知决策特质(风险偏好、认知需要、决策风格),选取其积极维度“生活正向状态”为例,检验上述特质对“生活正向状态”的预测作用。研究基于问卷调查数据,采用量化分析方法,通过数据预处理、差异性检验、Logistic回归与随机森林模型进行实证分析。结果显示:(1) 风险偏好存在显著的性别差异,认知需要则呈现特定的年龄段差异;(2) 在预测模型中,Logistic回归结果得到风险偏好是预测个体生活正向状态的稳健预测因子(OR = 2.426),即风险偏好每增加一个单位,个体处于生活正向状态的发生比将提升至原来的2.426倍;随机森林模型结果则是认知需要的重要性占比49.80%,决策风格占比16.20%也显示出一定的预测价值,为校园心理工作提供了可测量、可干预的实证依据,致力于化解冲突风险。
Abstract: In exploring pathways to prevent campus conflicts, this study takes adolescents’ “life status” as the entry point, focusing on stable individual cognitive-decision-making traits (risk preference, need for cognition, decision-making style). Using the positive dimension of “life positive status” as an example, it examines the predictive effects of these traits on “life positive status”. Based on questionnaire survey data and employing quantitative analysis methods, the study conducts empirical analysis through data preprocessing, difference testing, logistic regression, and random forest models. The results show that: (1) There are significant gender differences in risk preference, while need for cognition exhibits specific age-related differences; (2) In the predictive models, the logistic regression results identify risk preference as a robust predictor of an individual’s life positive status (OR = 2.426), meaning that for each unit increase in risk preference, the odds of an individual being in a life positive status increase to 2.426 times the original; the random forest model results indicate that need for cognition accounts for 49.80% of importance, and decision-making style also demonstrates certain predictive value at 16.20%. These findings provide measurable and intervenable empirical evidence for campus psychological work, contributing to the mitigation of conflict risks.
文章引用:林博雅, 杨传影, 阚雨彤, 邢梦影, 马二康, 张智铭, 李宇奇. 校园冲突视角下青少年生活状态的统计建模分析[J]. 统计学与应用, 2026, 15(3): 43-54. https://doi.org/10.12677/sa.2026.153054

参考文献

[1] 邓凡. “校园欺凌”治理的法律困境与出路——基于法社会学的视角[J]. 教育学术月刊, 2019(10): 71-77.
[2] 卜塔娜. 我国校园欺凌问题的研究现状[J]. 社会科学前沿, 2022, 11(4): 1252-1256.
[3] 林菲. 4-6年级小学生受欺凌与自尊、焦虑的关系及干预研究[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 南京: 南京师范大学, 2017.
[4] Bronfenbrenner, U. (1981) The Ecology of Human Development. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[5] 刘洁, 崔维维, 王澍. 人格和攻击行为: 对近20年学生群体的元分析[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2025, 23(2): 168-176.
[6] Kowalski, R.M., Limber, S.P. and McCord, A. (2019) A Developmental Approach to Cyberbullying: Prevalence and Protective Factors. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45, 20-32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[7] 黄嘉鑫. 青少年校园欺凌风险与身心症状: 一项条件过程分析[J]. 中小学心理健康教育, 2025(6): 16-21.
[8] 张紫凌. 基于社会心理学的校园霸凌成因及干预对策[J]. 心理学进展, 13(9): 3623-3628.
[9] Poon, K. (2016) Understanding Risk-Taking Behavior in Bullies, Victims, and Bully Victims Using Cognitive-and Emotion-Focused Approaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article No. 1838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]