数字反哺和代际沟通下互惠性孝道对代际团结的影响
The Impact of Digital Reverse Socialization and Inter-Generational Communication on Inter-Generational Solidarity: The Role of Reciprocal Filial Piety
摘要: 随着数字化发展与人口老龄化进程不断推进,家庭代际互动的内容与形式正在发生变化。年轻一代凭借数字技术和信息获取方面的优势,为父母提供数字技术指导、信息支持与数字生活协助,形成了具有时代特征的数字反哺行为。与此同时,孝道也并非单一的传统规范,而是包含权威性孝道与互惠性孝道等不同心理取向。其中,互惠性孝道强调亲子之间的情感联结、相互支持与关系维护,可能成为子代主动参与家庭支持行为的重要心理基础。基于双元孝道理论与代际团结理论,本文以互惠性孝道为基点,将数字反哺行为作为行为机制,家庭代际团结作为关系结果,并进一步从家庭沟通模式视角考察代际沟通的情境作用。通过梳理相关理论与实证研究,本文认为,互惠性孝道可能通过增强个体的关系维护与回馈动机,促使年轻一代更多参与数字反哺,从而促进家庭成员之间的情感联结、互动支持与价值认同;与此同时,开放、平等的对话取向可能为上述价值取向向实际支持行为的转化提供更加有利的家庭互动环境。
Abstract: With the continuous advancement of digitalization and population aging, the content and forms of family intergenerational interaction are undergoing significant changes. Leveraging their advantages in digital technology and information access, the younger generation provides their parents with digital technology guidance, information support, and assistance in digital life, thereby forming a digital reverse mentoring behavior (digital feedback) characterized by the zeitgeist. Meanwhile, filial piety is not a singular traditional norm; rather, it encompasses diverse psychological orientations, including authoritarian filial piety and reciprocal filial piety. Among these, reciprocal filial piety emphasizes emotional bonding, mutual support, and relationship maintenance between parents and children, and may serve as a crucial psychological foundation for the younger generation’s proactive engagement in family support behaviors. Grounded in the Dual Filial Piety Theory and the Intergenerational Solidarity Theory, this study takes reciprocal filial piety as the focal point, positions digital reverse mentoring as the behavioral mechanism, and regards family intergenerational solidarity as the relational outcome. Furthermore, it examines the contextual role of intergenerational communication from the perspective of family communication patterns. By synthesizing relevant theoretical and empirical research, this paper posits that reciprocal filial piety may enhance individuals’ motivations for relationship maintenance and reciprocation, thereby encouraging the younger generation to participate more actively in digital reverse mentoring, which in turn promotes emotional bonding, interactive support, and value consensus among family members. Concurrently, an open and egalitarian conversation orientation may provide a more conducive family interaction environment for translating these value orientations into actual support behaviors.
文章引用:王俊杰 (2026). 数字反哺和代际沟通下互惠性孝道对代际团结的影响. 心理学进展, 16(10), 365-373. https://doi.org/10.12677/ap.2026.1610501

参考文献

[1] 曹惟纯, 叶光辉(2014). 高龄化下的代间关系. 社会学研究, (2), 116-144.
[2] 傅绪荣, 汪凤炎, 陈翔, 魏新东(2016). 孝道: 理论、测量、变迁及与相关变量的关系. 心理科学进展, 24(2), 293-304.
[3] 高芳芳(2025). 当亲近遇到疏离: 数字环境下“Z世代”的代际沟通回避及其影响因素研究. 湖南大学学报(社会科学版), 39(6), 143-152.
[4] 胡安宁(2017). 老龄化背景下子女对父母的多样化支持: 观念与行为. 中国社会科学, (3), 77-95, 205-206.
[5] 黄超(2018). 家长教养方式的阶层差异及其对子女非认知能力的影响. 社会, 38(6), 216-240.
[6] 李启明(2014). 孝道的代际传递及其对老人的积极效应. 博士学位论文, 武汉: 华中科技大学.
[7] 刘汶蓉(2016). 转型期的家庭代际情感与团结——基于上海两类“啃老”家庭的比较. 社会学研究, 31(4), 123-140, 245.
[8] 孙鹃娟, 李豪豪, 袁喆(2025). 数字时代的孝道分化: 互联网使用如何形塑双元孝道观念. 青年研究, (6), 169-187, 193.
[9] 汤一介(2009). “孝”作为家庭伦理的意义. 北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 46(4), 11-13.
[10] 王更, 徐剑(2024). 代际团结视角下家庭阅读对家庭生活满意度的影响. 图书馆论坛, 44(12), 64-74.
[11] 夏当英, 张雨豪(2024). “快速社会化”: 数字时代青少年社会化趋向、困境与纾解. 重庆邮电大学学报(社会科学版), 36(4), 110-120.
[12] 阎云翔, 杨雯琦(2017). 社会自我主义: 中国式亲密关系——中国北方农村的代际亲密关系与下行式家庭主义. 探索与争鸣, (7), 4-15.
[13] 杨立华(2017). 敬、慕之间: 儒家论“孝”的心性基础. 江苏社会科学, (5), 131-135.
[14] 姚晓鸥, 申焙丰(2024). 家庭沟通媒介化中的脱嵌与游离: 基于家庭代际间某疫苗信息微信平台沟通的考察. 新闻春秋, (1), 76-85.
[15] 叶光辉(2009). 华人孝道双元模型研究的回顾与前瞻. 本土心理学研究, 32(12), 101-148.
[16] 张艳丰, 刘敏, 洪闯(2025). 数字反哺视角下子代健康信息替代搜寻行为影响因素与拓扑路径研究. 图书馆学研究, (4), 125-137.
[17] 周裕琼, 丁海琼(2020). 中国家庭三代数字反哺现状及影响因素研究. 国际新闻界, 42(3), 6-31.
[18] 朱丽丽, 李灵琳(2017). 基于能动性的数字亲密关系: 社交网络空间的亲子互动. 中国地质大学学报(社会科学版), 17(5), 95-104.
[19] 朱秀凌(2018). 手机技术反哺、亲子沟通与父母教养方式——基于技术接受与使用整合模型的分析. 新闻大学, (4), 108-119+155.
[20] Afifi, T. D., Joseph, A., & Aldeis, D. (2008). Why Can’t We Just Talk about It? An Observational Study of Parents’ and Adolescents’ Conversations about Sex. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23, 689-721.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558408323841
[21] Aloia, L., & Warren, R. (2021). Cognitive Beliefs About, Affective Reactions To, and Behavioral Preferences for Parent-Adolescent Conflict. Communication Quarterly, 69, 113-132.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2021.1881576
[22] Bengtson, V. L., & Roberts, R. E. L. (1991). Intergenerational Solidarity in Aging Families: An Example of Formal Theory Construction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 856-870.
https://doi.org/10.2307/352993
[23] Cáceres, R. B., & Chaparro, A. C. (2019). Age for Learning, Age for Teaching: The Role of Inter-Generational, Intra-Household Learning in Internet Use by Older Adults in Latin America. Information, Communication & Society, 22, 250-266.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2017.1371785
[24] Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1987). Appropriateness and Effectiveness Perceptions of Conflict Strategies. Human Communication Research, 14, 93-120.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1987.tb00123.x
[25] Connidis, I. A., & McMullin, J. A. (2010). Sociological Ambivalence and Family Ties: A Critical Perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 558-567.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00558.x
[26] Correa, T. (2014). Bottom-Up Technology Transmission within Families: Exploring How Youths Influence Their Parents’ Digital Media Use with Dyadic Data. Journal of Communication, 64, 103-124.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12067
[27] Holman, A., & Kellas, J. K. (2015). High School Adolescents’ Perceptions of the Parent-Child Sex Talk: How Communication, Relational, and Family Factors Relate to Sexual Health. Southern Communication Journal, 80, 388-403.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794x.2015.1081976
[28] Hummert, M. L. (2015). Intergenerational Communication. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The Concise Encyclopedia of Communication (pp. 273-275). Blackwell Publishing.
[29] Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002). Understanding Family Communication Patterns and Family Functioning: The Roles of Conversation Orientation and Conformity Orientation. Annals of the International Communication Association, 26, 36-65.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2002.11679010
[30] Law, J., Young, T. J., Almeida, J., & Ginja, S. (2019). Intergenerational Communication—An Interdisciplinary Mapping Review of Research between 1996 and 2017. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 17, 287-310.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2018.1535349
[31] Leung, A. N. M., Wong, S. S. F., Wong, I. W. Y., & McBride-Chang, C. (2010). Filial Piety and Psychosocial Adjustment in Hong Kong Early Adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 30, 651-667.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431609341046
[32] Loges, W. E., & Jung, J. (2001). Exploring the Digital Divide: Internet Connectedness and Age. Communication Research, 28, 536-562.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009365001028004007
[33] Lüscher, K., & Pillemer, K. (1998). Intergenerational Ambivalence: A New Approach to the Study of Parent-Child Relations in Later Life. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 413-425.
https://doi.org/10.2307/353858
[34] Scruggs, X., & Schrodt, P. (2021). The Frequency and Comfort of Political Conversations with Parents as Mediators of Family Communication Patterns and Relational Quality in Parent-Child Relationships. Journal of Family Communication, 21, 17-33.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2020.1860053
[35] Yeh, K. H., & Bedford, O. (2003). A Test of the Dual Filial Piety Model. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 215-228.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-839x.2003.00122.x
[36] Zhang, Q. (2007). Family Communication Patterns and Conflict Styles in Chinese Parent-Child Relationships. Communication Quarterly, 55, 113-128.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370600998681
[37] Zhou, B. H., & Gui, S. H. (2017). WeChat and Distant Family Intergenerational Communication in China: A Study of Online Content Sharing on WeChat. In K. Xue, & M. Yu (Eds.), Communication, Culture and Change in Asia (pp. 185-206). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6710-5_11