孤儿健康妥协行为与情绪、认知情绪调节的关系研究
Relationship between Health-Compromising Behavior, Emotion and Cognitive Emotional Regulation of Orphans
DOI: 10.12677/ASS.2018.76116, PDF,    科研立项经费支持
作者: 汪 洋：衡阳师范学院教育科学学院，湖南 衡阳；湘潭云龙小学，湖南 湘潭；凌 子：衡阳师范学院教育科学学院，湖南 衡阳；湖南科技大学教育学院，湖南 湘潭；郭小琴, 邹雨点, 刘衔华*：衡阳师范学院教育科学学院，湖南 衡阳；仇召武：辽宁省孤儿学校(光明学校)，辽宁 沈阳
关键词: 孤儿；健康妥协行为；情绪；认知情绪调节；Orphans； Health-Compromising Behavior； Emotions； Cognitive Emotional Regulation
摘要: 目的：探讨孤儿的健康妥协行为、情绪、认知情绪调节的状况及其关系，为预防和干预孤儿的健康妥协行为提供科学依据。方法：采用青少年健康相关危险行为问卷、正负性情绪量表和认知情绪调节问卷对346名孤儿和271名非孤儿进行了问卷调查。结果：1) 孤儿与非孤儿在健康妥协行为上的差异显著的(P < 0.001)。2) 孤儿的正性情绪和积极认知情绪调节策略对健康妥协行为有显著负向预测作用(P < 0.05)，负性情绪和消极认知情绪调节策略对健康妥协行为有显著正向预测作用(P < 0.05)。结论：孤儿是健康妥协行为的易感群体；正性情绪和积极认知情绪调节策略是孤儿健康妥协行为的保护性因素，而负性情绪和消极认知情绪调节策略是孤儿健康妥协行为的危险性因素。
Abstract: Objective: To explore the status of health-compromising behavior of orphans and its relationship with emotions and cognitive emotional regulation in order to provide scientific basis for preventing and intervening orphans’ health-compromising behaviors. Methods: 346 orphans and 271 non-orphans were surveyed with the Adolescent Health Related Risky Behavior Inventory (AHRBI), the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) and the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ). Results: 1) Orphans obtained significant higher scores of health-compromising behaviors than non-orphans (P < 0.001). 2) Positive affect and positive strategies of cognitive emotional regulations could significantly negatively predict Orphans’ health-compromising behaviors could be significantly negatively predicted by positive affect and positive strategies of cognitive emotional regulations (P < 0.05), and significantly negatively predicted by negative affect and negative strategies of cognitive emotional regulations (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Orphans are the vulnerable population. Positive effect and positive strategies of cognitive emotional regulations are the protective factors of orphans’ health-compromising behaviors, and negative effect and negative strategies of cognitive emotional regulations are the risky factors.
文章引用：汪洋, 凌子, 郭小琴, 邹雨点, 仇召武, 刘衔华. 孤儿健康妥协行为与情绪、认知情绪调节的关系研究[J]. 社会科学前沿, 2018, 7(6): 756-762. https://doi.org/10.12677/ASS.2018.76116

参考文献

[1] 林静. 大学生危险行为及影响因素研究[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 长沙: 中南大学, 2008.
[2] 庞军, 潘爱英, 李宇宁, 等. 玉树地震后孤儿学校藏族学生的行为问题[J]. 中国心理卫生杂志, 2011, 25(12): 947-948.
[3] 王丽萍, 张本, 姜涛, 等. 唐山地震孤儿30年后心理健康状况调查[J]. 中国心理卫生杂志, 2009, 23(12): 558-563.
[4] 罗伏生, 王小凤, 张珊明, 等. 青少年情绪调节认知策略的特征研究[J]. 中国临床心理学, 2010, 18(1): 93-96.
[5] Patel, K.A. and Schlundt, D.G. (2001) Impact of Moods and Social Context on Eating Behavior. Appetite, 36, 111-118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[6] Biddle, S. (2000) Emotion, Mood and Physical Activity. In: Biddle, S., Fox, K.R. and Boutcher, S.H., Eds., Physical Activity and Psychological Well-Being, Routledge, London, 63-87.
[7] Houck, C.D., Hadley, W., Barker, D., et al. (2016) An Emotion Regulation Intervention to Reduce Risk Behaviors among At-Risk Early Adolescents. Prevention Science, 17, 71-82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[8] 王孟成, 蚁金瑶, 蔡琳, 等. 青少年健康相关危险行为问卷的编制及信效度检验[J]. 中国心理卫生杂志, 2012(4): 287-292.
[9] 黄丽, 杨廷忠, 季忠民. 正性负性情绪量表的中国人群适用性研究[J]. 中国心理卫生杂志, 2003, 17(1): 54-56.
[10] 朱熊兆, 罗伏生, 姚树桥, 等. 认知情绪调节问卷中文版(CERQ-C)的信效度研究[J]. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2007(2): 121-124.
[11] Garnefski, N. and Kraaij, V. (2006) Relationships between Cognitive Emotion Regulation Strategies and Depressive Symptoms: A Comparative Study of Five Specific Samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1659-1669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[12] 彭宁宁, 罗春燕, 朱蔚, 等. 上海市青少年健康危险行为现状浅析[J]. 上海预防医学, 2003, 15(4): 163-167.
[13] Macht, M. (1999) Characteristics of Eating in Anger, Fear, Sadness and Joy. Appetite, 33, 129-139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[14] Gross, J.J. (2002) Emotion Regulation: Affective, Cognitive, and Social Consequences. Psychophysiology, 39, 281-291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[15] 华华. 肥胖儿童应遵循的饮食法则[J]. 中国保健营养, 2012(3): 61.
[16] 王文祥, 叶惠平, 费斌, 等. 营养干预对单纯性肥胖患者减肥作用研究[J]. 中国预防医学杂, 2012, 1(3): 205-208.
[17] 王超, 马迎华. 青少年健康危险行为研究与干预现状[J]. 中国健康教育, 2005, 21(11): 867-869.

为你推荐