Association of agression and angry expression category perception under social exclusion among male students in reform school
-
摘要:
目的 探讨社会排斥下工读生的攻击性与愤怒表情类别知觉的关系，为工读生心理健康工作的开展提供参考。 方法 于2023年5月，从贵州省某工读学校随机选取144名学生，使用攻击行为问卷将被试分为高、低攻击性组(77和67名)；采用Cyberball网络掷球游戏诱发社会排斥或接纳情景，将被试分为高攻击排斥组(42名)、高攻击接纳组(35名)、低攻击排斥组(37名)、低攻击接纳组(30名)。被试完成类别知觉范式的辨别任务和识别任务，运用类别转折点和识别曲线、方差分析对社会排斥下工读生的攻击性与愤怒表情类别知觉的关系进行分析。 结果 高攻击性组被试攻击行为问卷总分(97.34±8.00)及各维度得分(身体攻击：29.75±4.61，言语攻击：17.19±2.58，愤怒：22.29±3.66，敌意：28.10±3.54)均高于低攻击性组(74.10±9.02，21.09±4.98，14.30±2.66，17.16±3.83，21.55±3.88)，差异均有统计学意义(t值分别为16.38，10.85，6.62，8.20，10.59，P值均＜0.01)。在识别恐惧—愤怒连续体转折点上，社会排斥组(2.58±0.07)小于社会接纳组(2.79±0.07)(F=4.85，η2=0.07，P＜0.05)，社会排斥组具有类别界线向恐惧一侧偏移的倾向；在识别愤怒—高兴连续体类别曲线处的斜率上，高攻击组(0.63±0.03)大于低攻击组(0.53±0.03)(F=5.38，η2=0.08，P＜0.05)。在恐惧—愤怒连续体中，高攻击组反应时[(694.86±78.29)ms]大于低攻击组[(660.70±79.86)ms](F=5.08，η2=0.05，P＜0.05)；在愤怒—高兴连续体中，攻击性和排斥主效应均无统计学意义(P值均>0.05)。 结论 社会排斥会导致个体产生敌意归因偏向，而攻击性会使个体对愤怒表情更敏感；社会排斥和攻击性影响表情类别知觉的作用机制是相互独立的。社会应给予工读生包容和接纳，减少排斥和歧视，同时工读教育部门应矫治工读生的攻击行为，促进其心理健康发展。 Abstract:Objective To explore the relationship between aggression and category perception of angry expression in reform school students under social exclusion, so as to provide reference for the reform school students mental health promotion. Methods In May 2023, 144 students were randomly selected from a reform school in Guizhou Province, and were divided into high and low aggression groups(77 and 67 students) by Aggression Questionnaire. Cyberball game was used to induce social exclusion and acceptance, subjects were divided into high aggressive exclusion group (n=42), high aggressive acceptance group (n=35), low aggressive exclusion group (n=37) and low aggressive acceptance group (n=30). All the participants completed the discrimination and identification tasks of category perception paradigm, and the relationship between aggression and category perception of angry expression of reform school students under social exclusion was analyzed by using category turning point, identification curve and analysis of variance. Results The total score of aggression(97.34±8.00) and four dimensions (physical aggression: 29.75±4.61, verbal aggression: 17.19±2.58, anger: 22.29±3.66, hostility: 28.10±3.54) in the high aggression group were higher than those in the low aggression group(74.10±9.02, 21.09±4.98, 14.30±2.66, 17.16±3.83, 21.55±3.88), and the differences were statistically significant (t=16.38, 10.85, 6.62, 8.20, 10.59, P < 0.01). For identifying the turning point of the fear-anger continuum, the social exclusion group(2.58±0.07)was significantly smaller than the social acceptance group(2.79±0.07)(F=4.85, η2=0.07, P < 0.05), and the social exclusion group had a tendency to shift the category boundary to the fear side. For identifying the slope at the angry-happiness continuum category boundary curve, the high aggression group (0.63±0.03) was significantly higher than the low aggression group (0.53±0.03)(F=5.38, η2=0.08, P < 0.05). In the fear-anger continuum, the high-aggression group[(694.86±78.29)ms] reacted more quickly than the low-aggression group[(660.70±79.86)ms](F=5.08, η2=0.05, P < 0.05) In the angry-happiness continuum, there was no statistical significance of social exclusion and aggression(P>0.05). Conclusions The suggests that social exclusion can lead to hostility attribution bias in individuals, while aggression can make individuals more sensitive to angry expression. The mechanisms by which social exclusion and aggression affect expression category perception are independent rather than interactive. The society should give tolerance and acceptance to reform school students, reduce exclusion and discrimination, and the reform education department should correct the aggressive behavior of reform school students and promote their mental health. -
Key words:
- Social exclusion /
- Aggression /
- Mental health /
- Students /
- Perception /
- Male
1) 利益冲突声明 所有作者声明无利益冲突。 -
图 1 不同组别男工读生恐惧—愤怒连续体识别率
Figure 1. Identification rate of fear-angry continuum in different groups of reform school male students
图 2 不同组别男工读生愤怒—高兴连续体识别率
Figure 2. Identification rate of angry-happy continuum in different groups of reform school male students
表 1 不同组别男工读生表情识别反应时(x±s，ms)
Table 1. Identification reaction time of expression in different groups of reform school male students(x±s, ms)
组别 攻击性 恐惧—愤怒连续体 愤怒—高兴连续体 人数 面孔1 面孔2 面孔3 面孔4 面孔5 人数 面孔1 面孔2 面孔3 面孔4 面孔5 社会排斥 高攻击 29 633.41±85.24 689.98±107.85 721.92±120.62 682.43±103.42 675.93±86.97 25 663.85±79.52 716.77±112.76 729.81±97.34 695.11±111.44 663.91±95.60 低攻击 23 615.96±99.33 674.64±105.34 704.99±85.45 692.94±81.45 634.35±90.45 24 674.02±68.27 694.59±93.19 714.05±115.83 664.62±95.16 655.51±80.81 小计 52 625.69±91.22 683.20±105.98 714.43±105.88 687.07±93.60 657.54±90.09 49 668.83±73.63 705.91±103.17 722.09±105.98 680.18±103.85 659.80±87.85 社会接纳 高攻击 23 645.57±73.93 712.44±108.81 760.42±97.45 741.15±99.52 705.04±94.95 23 641.75±74.43 728.89±98.78 723.96±98.07 666.80±86.15 618.20±74.12 低攻击 23 627.98±91.54 678.04±110.10 686.52±121.99 651.77±84.85 639.85±92.60 21 636.58±74.71 721.78±92.21 728.33±93.73 651.64±83.45 656.28±81.54 小计 46 636.78±82.75 695.24±109.62 723.47±115.38 696.46±102.00 672.44±98.42 44 639.28±73.74 725.50±94.65 726.05±94.93 659.57±84.23 636.38±79.20 总体 98 630.89±87.08 688.85±107.32 718.67±109.96 691.48±97.24 664.53±93.90 93 654.85±74.76 715.18±99.18 723.96±100.38 670.43±95.13 648.72±84.24 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 不同组别男工读生表情辨别正确率(x±s)
Table 2. Discrimination accuracy of expression in different groups of reform school male students(x±s)
组别 攻击性 恐惧—愤怒连续体 愤怒—高兴连续体 人数 1和3 2和4 3和5 人数 1和3 2和4 3和5 社会排斥 高攻击 27 0.64±0.13 0.76±0.13 0.64±0.13 31 0.76±0.17 0.86±0.13 0.71±0.15 低攻击 28 0.65±0.15 0.74±0.17 0.62±0.16 28 0.76±0.14 0.83±0.13 0.73±0.18 小计 55 0.64±0.14 0.75±0.15 0.63±0.15 59 0.76±0.16 0.84±0.13 0.72±0.16 社会接纳 高攻击 28 0.67±0.17 0.72±0.15 0.67±0.13 27 0.77±0.18 0.80±0.13 0.71±0.15 低攻击 27 0.69±0.13 0.74±0.14 0.61±0.19 25 0.78±0.15 0.86±0.11 0.66±0.17 小计 55 0.68±0.15 0.73±0.14 0.64±0.16 52 0.77±0.17 0.83±0.13 0.69±0.16 总计 110 0.66±0.15 0.74±0.15 0.64±0.15 111 0.76±0.16 0.83±0.13 0.71±0.16
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 邓雪薇, 胡纪泽. 工读男生的防御机制与应付方式[J]. 中国健康心理学杂志, 2014, 22(4): 623-625. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JKXL201404057.htmDENG X W, HU J Z. The Characteristics of defense mechanisms and coping style in the male reformatory students[J]. Chin J Health Psychol, 2014, 22(4): 623-625. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JKXL201404057.htm [2] 王赟, 李青青, 罗艳艳, 等. 工读男生攻击性与情绪面孔识别的关系研究[J]. 新乡医学院学报, 2015, 32(7): 635-637. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XXYX201507015.htmWANG Y, LI Q Q, LUO Y Y, et al. Relationship between aggression and emotional face recognition of students in reform school[J]. J Xinxiang Med Univ, 2015, 32(7): 635-637. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XXYX201507015.htm [3] 李闻戈. 工读学生攻击性行为与社会问题解决特点的研究[J]. 中国特殊教育, 2006(2): 81-86. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZDTJ200602016.htmLI W G. A comparative study of social problem-solving character on aggressive behavior between students with behavior problems and normal students[J]. Chin J Spec Educ, 2006(2): 81-86. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZDTJ200602016.htm [4] POON K T, TENG F. Feeling unrestricted by rules: ostracism promotes aggressive responses[J]. Aggress Behav, 2017, 43(6): 558-567. doi: 10.1002/ab.21714 [5] 陈福侠, 张福娟. 工读学校学生同伴依恋、自我概念与孤独感的特点及其关系[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2010, 26(1): 73-80. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XLFZ201001013.htmCHEN F X, ZHANG F J. The characteristics and relationships of peer attachment, self-concept and loneliness of students in reform school[J]. Psychol Dev Educ, 2010, 26(1): 73-80. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XLFZ201001013.htm [6] 邱方晖, 罗跃嘉, 贾世伟. 个体攻击性对愤怒表情类别知觉的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(8): 946-956. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XLXB201608004.htmQIU F H, LUO Y J, JIA S W. The influence of individual aggression on categorical perception of angry expression[J]. Acta Psychol Sinica, 2016, 48(8): 946-956. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XLXB201608004.htm [7] 赵辉, 张亚冉, 肖玉琴, 等. "忽冷忽热"的杏仁核: 与攻击相关的重要核团[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(7): 1206-1227. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XLXD202307009.htmZHAO H, ZHANG Y R, XIAO Y Q, et al. The "cold and hot" amygdala: an important nucleus relative to aggression[J]. Adv Psychol Sci, 2023, 31(7): 1206-1227. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XLXD202307009.htm [8] SMEIJERS D, RINCK M, BULTEN E, et al. Generalized hostile interpretation bias regarding facial expressions: characteristic of pathological aggressive behavior[J]. Aggress Behav, 2017, 43(4): 386-379. doi: 10.1002/ab.21697 [9] WEGRZYN M, WESTPHAL S, KISSLER J. In your face: the biased judgement of fear-anger expressions in violent offenders[J]. BMC Psychol, 2017, 5(1): 16. doi: 10.1186/s40359-017-0186-z [10] SCHÖNENBERG M, JUSYTE A. Investigation of the hostile attribution bias toward ambiguous facial cues in antisocial violent offenders[J]. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci, 2014, 264(1): 61-69. doi: 10.1007/s00406-013-0440-1 [11] 孙丽君, 牛更枫, 李俊一, 等. 高低特质攻击个体对威胁面部表情识别的差异研究: 来自ERP的证据[J]. 心理科学, 2020, 43(5): 1026-1033. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XLKX202005001.htmSUN L J, NIU G F, LI J Y, et al. Study on the difference of recognizing threatening facial expressions between high and low trait aggressive individuals: evidences from erp study[J]. J Psychol Sci, 2020, 43(5): 1026-1033. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XLKX202005001.htm [12] BUSS A H, PERRY M. The aggression questionnaire[J]. J Pers Soc Psychol, 1992, 63(3): 452-459. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.452 [13] 罗贵明. 父母教养方式、自尊水平与大学生攻击行为的关系研究[J]. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2008, 16(2): 198-199. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZLCY200802030.htmLUO G M. Researches on the relationships among parental rearing style, self-esteem and aggression in college students[J]. Chin J Clin Psychol, 2008, 16(2): 198-199. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZLCY200802030.htm [14] CALVO M G, LUNDQVIST D. Facial expressions of emotion(KDEF): identification under different display-duration conditions[J]. Behav Res Methods, 2008, 40(1): 109-115. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.1.109 [15] SAID C P, MOORE C D, NORMAN K A, et al. Graded representations of emotional expressions in the left superior temporal sulcus[J]. Front Syst Neurosci, 2010, 4: 6. [16] WILLIAMS K D, CHEUNG C K, CHOI W. Cyberostracism: effects of being ignored over the Internet[J]. J Pers Soc Psychol, 2000, 79(5): 748. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.748 [17] POLLAK S D, KISTLER D J. Early experience is associated with the development of categorical representations for facial expressions of emotion[J]. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2002, 99(13): 9072-9076. doi: 10.1073/pnas.142165999 [18] LOPEZ-DURAN N L, KUHLMAN K R, GEORGE C, et al. Facial emotion expression recognition by children at familial risk for depression: high-risk boys are oversensitive to sadness[J]. J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 2013, 54(5): 565-574. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12005 [19] TSUI F C, HUANG J, LUI S S, et al. Facial emotion perception abnormality in patients with early schizophrenia[J]. Schizophr Res, 2013, 147(2-3): 230-235. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2013.04.019 [20] CALDER A J, YOUNG A W, PERRETT D I, et al. Categorical perception of morphed facial expressions[J]. Vis Cogn, 2010, 3(2): 81-118. [21] 李科生, 李璜, 葛静静, 等. 工读学生攻击性与家庭矛盾性的相关: 心理安全感的中介作用[J]. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2017, 25(2): 390-392. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZLCY201702043.htmLI K S, LI H, GE J J, et al. Aggression and familial contradiction in training students: mediating of psychological security[J]. Chin J Clin Psychol, 2017, 25(2): 390-392. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZLCY201702043.htm [22] DZAFIC I, OESTREICH L, MARTIN A K, et al. Stria terminalis, amygdala, and temporoparietal junction networks facilitate efficient emotion processing under expectations[J]. Hum Brain Map, 2019, 40(18): 5382-5396. doi: 10.1002/hbm.24779 [23] BUADES-ROTGER M, KRÄMER U M. From words to action: implicit attention to antisocial semantic cues predicts aggression and amygdala reactivity to angry faces in healthy young women[J]. Aggress Behav, 2018, 44(6): 624-637. doi: 10.1002/ab.21787 [24] ANDERSON C A, BUSHMAN B J. Human aggression[J]. Annu Rev Psychol, 2002, 53(1): 27-51. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231 [25] 邵蕾, 张登浩. 社会排斥后的行为反应: 基于一般攻击模型[J]. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2021, 29(6): 1163-1171. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZLCY202106009.htmSHAO L, ZHANG D H. Behavioral responses to ostracism: a perspective from the general aggression model[J]. Chin J Clin Psychol, 2021, 29(6): 1163-1171. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZLCY202106009.htm [26] RAN G, LI R, ZHANG Q. Emotional face prediction in rejection sensitive individuals: evidence from event-related potentials[J]. Conscious Cogn, 2020, 78: 102880. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2020.102880 [27] 袁波. 社会排斥情境下高中生对情绪面孔的注意偏向[D]. 桂林: 广西师范大学, 2021.YUAN B. High school students' attentional bias to emotional faces under the situation of social exclusion[D]. Gunlin: Guangxi Normal University, 2021. (in Chinese) -
点击查看大图
图(2) / 表(2)
计量
- 文章访问数: 72
- HTML全文浏览量: 57
- PDF下载量: 23
- 被引次数: 0
