基于倾向性评分匹配的中国大学生攻击性行为影响因素及网络分析

曾睿; 赵梦霄; 胡萌萌; 刘欣; 常红娟

doi:10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2025083

基于倾向性评分匹配的中国大学生攻击性行为影响因素及网络分析

doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2025083

武汉科技大学医学院，湖北 430081

基金项目:

国家自然科学基金项目 81803252

武汉科技大学教学研究项目 2023X046

详细信息

作者简介:
曾睿(2001-)，女，湖北武汉人，在读硕士，主要研究方向为儿童青少年卫生

通讯作者:
常红娟，E-mail: changhj0812@126.com

利益冲突声明 所有作者声明无利益冲突。
中图分类号: C913.5 TN711 B844.2
计量
- 文章访问数: 54
- HTML全文浏览量: 77
- PDF下载量: 15
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2024-10-22
- 修回日期: 2025-02-11
- 网络出版日期: 2025-04-03
- 刊出日期: 2025-03-25

Influencing factors and network analysis of aggressive behavior among Chinese college students based on propensity score matching

School of Medicine, Wuhan University of Science and Technology, Wuhan(430081), Hubei Province, China

摘要

摘要: 目的基于倾向性评分匹配法探讨大学生攻击性行为影响因素及其网络结构，为预防和改善大学生攻击性行为提供精准靶向干预。方法于2023年6月，采用方便抽样方法选取湖北省武汉市3所高校2 652名大学生作为研究对象，采用攻击行为量表(BWAQ)、反刍性思维量表(RRS)、中文版认知情绪调节问卷(CERQ-C)、家庭关怀度指数(APGAR)、简明负面恐惧量表(BFNES)进行问卷调查，运用倾向性评分匹配(PSM)进行1∶1匹配，对纳入的大学生进行单因素、多因素Logistic回归分析以及网络分析。结果 Logistic回归分析结果显示，反刍性思维倾向越严重、倾向于使用非适应性情绪调节和负面评价恐惧水平越高的大学生更可能出现高攻击性行为(OR值分别为1.14，1.18，1.06)，倾向于使用适应性情绪调节和家庭关怀度指数越高的大学生越不易出现高攻击性行为(OR值分别为0.88，0.82)(P值均＜0.01)。网络结构在高攻击性行为和低攻击性行为组间差异有统计学意义(M=0.27, P < 0.05)。高攻击性行为大学生核心影响因素依次为“强迫思考”“反省深思”和“症状反刍”(EI值分别为3.50，3.49，3.48)；低攻击性行为大学生核心影响因素依次为“适应性情绪调节”“成长度”和“非适应性情绪调节”(EI值分别为4.37，4.12，4.08)。结论中国大学生攻击性行为的影响因素在不同行为类型上存在不同特点，应采取针对性的靶向干预以减少大学生攻击性行为的发生。
- 攻击 /
- 行为 /
- 回归分析 /
- 倾向评分匹配 /
- 学生
Abstract: Objective To explore the influencing factors and network structure of aggressive behaviors among college students based on propensity score matching (PSM), so as to provide precise targeted interventions for the prevention and improvement of aggressive behaviors among college students. Methods A total of 2 652 college students were selected by convenient sampling method from three colleges in Wuhan, Hubei Province in June 2023. Questionnaire surveys were carried out by using the Buss-Warren Aggression Questionnaire (BWAQ), Ruminative Responses Scale (RRS), Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire-Chinese Version (CERQ-C), Family APGAR Index (APGAR), Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (BFNES).By bias score matching (PSM) for 1∶1 matching, univariate and multivariate Logistic regression analysis, and network analysis were conducted on the college students. Results College students with higher levels of ruminant thinking, non-adaptive emotional regulation and fear of negative appraisal were more likely to have highly aggressive behaviors(OR=1.14, 1.18, 1.06), and those with higher adaptive emotional regulation and family care index were more likely to have highly aggressive behaviors (OR=0.88, 0.82)(P < 0.01). Network structure was significantly different between the two groups (M=0.27, P < 0.05). The core affective factors of college students with high levels of aggressive behavior were brooding reflective pondering and symptom rumination(EI=3.50, 3.49, 3.48), low aggressive behavior college students core affective factors were adaptive emotion regulation growth and non-adaptive emotion regulation(EI=4.37, 4.12, 4.08). Conclusion Factors affecting Chinese college students' aggressive behaviors are of different characteristics on different behaviour types, and targeted interventions should be adopted to reduce aggressive behaviors of college students.
- Aggression /
- Behavior /
- Regression analysis /
- Propensity score matching /
- Students
注释:

1) 利益冲突声明 所有作者声明无利益冲突。

HTML全文

图 1 大学生高攻击性行为和低攻击性行为影响因素的网络结构

注：实线代表正相关，虚线代表负相关，线越粗，表示连接越强。节点外圈填充程度越多表示可预测性指数越大。

Figure 1. Network structure of factors influencing high and low aggressive behaviors among college students

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 高攻击性和低攻击性行为大学生影响因素的中心性指标

Figure 2. Centrality indicators of factors influencing college students with high and low aggressive behaviors

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 倾向性评分匹配前后两组大学生基线人口学特征分布比较

Table 1. Comparison of the distribution of baseline demographic characteristics between the two groups before and after PSM

组别	选项	匹配前				匹配后
组别	选项	低攻击性行为(n=1 675)	高攻击性行为(n=1 543)	χ²值	P值	低攻击性行为(n=1 326)	高攻击性行为(n=1 326)	χ²值	P值
性别	男	530(31.6)	437(28.3)	4.21	0.04	382(28.8)	393(29.6)	0.22	0.64
	女	1 145(68.4)	1106(71.7)			944(71.2)	933(70.4)
民族	汉族	1 646(98.3)	1523(98.7)	1.01	0.31	1 311(98.9)	1 307(98.6)	0.48	0.49
	少数民族	29(1.7)	20(1.3)			15(1.1)	19(1.4)
生源地	城镇	371(22.1)	329(21.3)	0.32	0.57	287(21.6)	304(22.9)	0.63	0.43
	农村	1 304(77.9)	1 214(78.7)			1 039(78.4)	1 022(77.1)
是否独生子女	是	186(11.1)	186(12.1)	0.71	0.40	142(10.7)	153(11.5)	0.46	0.50
	否	1 489(88.9)	1357(87.9)			1 184(89.3)	1 173(88.5)
父亲受教育程度	小学及以下	293(17.5)	297(19.2)	5.00	0.05	245(18.5)	237(17.9)	3.37	0.50
	初中	827(49.4)	788(51.1)			696(52.5)	663(50.0)
	高中或中专	388(23.2)	319(20.7)			275(20.7)	297(22.4)
	本科或大专	159(9.5)	131(8.5)			104(7.8)	123(9.3)
	硕士及以上	8(0.5)	8(0.5)			6(0.5)	6(0.5)
母亲受教育程度	小学及以下	469(28.0)	471(30.5)	5.17	0.06	375(28.3)	398(30.0)	5.82	0.21
	初中	749(44.7)	693(44.9)			624(47.1)	592(44.6)
	高中或中专	337(20.1)	274(17.8)			244(18.4)	243(18.3)
	本科或大专	112(6.7)	101(6.5)			76(5.7)	91(6.9)
	硕士及以上	8(0.5)	4(0.3)			7(0.5)	2(0.2)
家庭类型	核心家庭	635(37.9)	537(34.8)	13.75	0.02	497(37.5)	469(35.4)	1.35	0.81
	大家庭	78(4.7)	111(7.2)			56(4.2)	95(7.2)
	单亲家庭	13(0.8)	13(0.8)			11(0.8)	10(0.8)
	联合家庭	26(1.6)	30(1.9)			20(1.5)	27(2.0)
	重组家庭	21(1.3)	29(1.9)			15(1.1)	17(1.3)
	隔代家庭	902(53.9)	823(53.3)			727(54.8)	708(53.4)
留守经历	无	1 264(75.5)	959(62.2)	67.56	＜0.01	995(72.0)	916(69.1)	7.86	0.10
	偶尔	199(11.9)	300(19.4)			189(14.3)	241(18.2)
	一般	100(6.0)	130(8.4)			92(6.9)	89(6.7)
	经常	71(4.2)	99(6.4)			63(4.8)	54(4.1)
	一直	41(2.4)	55(3.6)			27(2.0)	26(2.0)
精神疾病遗传史	有	7(0.4)	26(1.7)	12.71	＜0.01	2(0.2)	3(0.2)	0.20	0.65
	无	1 668(99.6)	1517(98.3)			1 324(99.8)	1 323(99.8)
注：()内数字为构成比/%。

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(37)

[1]	ANDERSON C A, BUSHMAN B J. Human aggression[J]. Annu Rev Psychol, 2002, 53(1): 27-51.
[2]	ATTAWELL K. Behind the numbers: ending school violence and bullying[M]. Paris: UNESCO, 2019.
[3]	XING J, PENG M, DENG Z, et al. The prevalence of bullying victimization and perpetration among the school-aged population in Chinese communities: a systematic review and Meta-analysis[J]. Trauma Violence Abuse, 2023, 24(5): 3445-3460.
[4]	RONG F, WANG M, PENG C, et al. Aggression and patterns of co-occurrence mental health problems in Chinese adolescents: a latent class analysis[J]. BMC Public Health, 2025, 25(1): 30. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-21136-x
[5]	SHECHORY-BITTON M, LAUFER A, LIZA Z. Understanding the impact of extreme terrorist events on evacuees and non-evacuees: a study on child aggression and social problems[J]. Int J Clin Health Psychol, 2024, 24(4): 100513. doi: 10.1016/j.ijchp.2024.100513
[6]	WALTERS G D. School bullying perpetration and victimization as predictors of youth delinquency: a Meta-analysis of prospective studies and data[J]. Aggress Violent Behav, 2024, 78: 102010.
[7]	YU Q, WU S, TWAYIGIRA M, et al. Prevalence and associated factors of school bullying among Chinese college students in Changsha, China[J]. J Affect Disord, 2022, 297: 62-67.
[8]	KOYAMA E, KANT T, TAKATA A, et al. Genetics of child aggression, a systematic review[J]. Transl Psychiatry, 2024, 14(1): 252.
[9]	WANG J. To use or not to use propensity score matching?[J]. Pharm Stat, 2021, 20(1): 15-24. doi: 10.1002/pst.2051
[10]	KUZHIYENGAL MAMBRA A J, KOTIAN S. Understanding aggressive behavior: a comprehensive review of research[J]. Discov World Res, 2023, 8: 144-149.
[11]	BEARD C, MILLNER A J, FORGEARD M J, et al. Network analysis of depression and anxiety symptom relationships in a psychiatric sample[J]. Psychol Med, 2016, 46(16): 3359-3369. doi: 10.1017/S0033291716002300
[12]	张萍, 余毅震, 刘卓娅, 等. 中国城市9~18岁学生攻击问卷标准化常模研制[J]. 中国学校卫生, 2011, 32(8): 897-890. ZHANG P, YU Y Z, LIU Z Y, et al. Chinese Norm of Buss-Warren Aggression Questionnaire from a standardized school-based sample aged 9-18 in urban areas[J]. Chin J Sch Health, 2011, 32(8): 897-890. (in Chinese)
[13]	KANG C, CHANG H, ZHANG Y, et al. Specific effects of neglect and physical abuse on adolescent aggressive behaviors by gender: a multicenter study in rural China[J]. J Affect Disord, 2021, 281: 271-278. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.12.019
[14]	韩秀, 杨宏飞. Nolen-Hoeksema反刍思维量表在中国的试用[J]. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2009, 17(5): 550-551. HAN X, YANG H F. Application of Nolen-Hoeksema Ruminative Responses Scale (RRS) in China[J]. Chin J Clin Psychol, 2009, 17(5): 550-551. (in Chinese)
[15]	董光恒, 朱艳新, 杨丽珠. 认知情绪调节问卷中文版的应用[J]. 中国健康心理学杂志, 2008, 16(4): 456-458. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-1252.2008.04.047 DONG G H, ZHU Y X, YANG L Z. Practice of the Chinese version on the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ)[J]. China J Health Psychol, 2008, 16(4): 456-458. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-1252.2008.04.047
[16]	SMILKSTEIN G. The family APGAR: a proposal for a family function test and its use by physicians[J]. J Fam Pract, 1978, 6(6): 1231-1239.
[17]	PITARCH M J. Brief version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale-straightforward items (BFNES): psychometric properties in a Spanish population[J]. Span J Psychol, 2010, 13(2): 981-989. doi: 10.1017/S1138741600002626
[18]	EPSKAMP S, BORSBOOM D, FRIED E I. Estimating psychological networks and their accuracy: a tutorial paper[J]. Behav Res Methods, 2018, 50(1): 195-212. doi: 10.3758/s13428-017-0862-1
[19]	HASLBECK J, WALDORP L J. Mgm: estimating time-varying mixed graphical models in high-dimensional data[J]. J Stat Software, 2020, 93(8): 1-46.
[20]	VAN BORKULO C D, VAN BORK R, BOSCHLOO L, et al. Comparing network structures on three aspects: a permutation test[J]. Psychol Methods, 2017, 28(6): 1273-1285.
[21]	ZHANG Z, KIM H J, LONJON G, et al. Balance diagnostics after propensity score matching[J]. Ann Transl Med 2019, 7(1): 16. doi: 10.21037/atm.2018.12.10
[22]	SHI X, QIAO X, ZHU Y. Emotional dysregulation as a mediator linking sleep disturbance with aggressive behaviors: disentangling between-and within-person associations[J]. Sleep Med, 2023, 108: 90-97. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2023.06.003
[23]	NIELS-KESSELS H, STIKKELBROEK Y, VERMULST A, et al. Perfectionism and suicidal ideation in outpatient depressed adults: the moderating role of self-esteem, loneliness and rumination[J]. J Ration Emot Cogn Behav Ther, 2025, 43(1): 1-20. doi: 10.1007/s10942-024-00564-z
[24]	LE G H, WONG S, AU H, et al. Association between rumination, suicidal ideation and suicide attempts in persons with depressive and other mood disorders and healthy controls: a systematic review and Meta-analysis[J]. J Affect Disord, 2025, 368: 513-527. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2024.09.118
[25]	CEN Y S, XIA L X. Serial cascade effects of relative deprivation and anger rumination on the development of social aggression over 2.5 years in emerging adults[J]. J Youth Adolesc, 2024, 53(12): 2762-2775. doi: 10.1007/s10964-024-02029-z
[26]	LI Y, SCHWEIZER T H, YOUNG J F, et al. The interplay of chronic interpersonal stress and rumination on nonsuicidal self-injury in youth[J]. Res Child Adolesc Psychopathol, 2021, 49(10): 1373-1385. doi: 10.1007/s10802-021-00820-1
[27]	BORG D, HALL K, YOUSSEF G J, et al. Examining the role of brooding, distress, and negative urgency in dysregulated behaviors: a cross-sectional study in treatment-seeking young people[J]. J Clin Psychol, 2022, 78(12): 2538-2563. doi: 10.1002/jclp.23366
[28]	MASON C K, KELLEY K, DESHONG H L. Repetitive negative thoughts and thought control strategies within borderline personality disorder: a systematic review[J]. J Affect Disord Rep, 2024, 15: 100693. doi: 10.1016/j.jadr.2023.100693
[29]	NAVAS-CASADO M L, ESPERANZA G S, JOSÉ M. Associations between maladaptive and adaptive emotion regulation strategies and aggressive behavior: a systematic review[J]. Aggress Violent Behav, 2023, 71: 101845. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2023.101845
[30]	黄大庆. 大学生认知情绪调节策略特征及其教育启示[J]. 中华流行病学杂志, 2020, 41(7): 1151-1154. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112338-20200327-00450 HUANG D Q. Characteristics of college students' cognitive emotion regulation strategies and its pedagogical implications[J]. Chin J Epidemiol, 2020, 41(7): 1151-1154. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112338-20200327-00450
[31]	NOOK E C, VIDAL BUSTAMANTE C M, CHO H Y, et al. Use of linguistic distancing and cognitive reappraisal strategies during emotion regulation in children, adolescents, and young adults[J]. Emotion, 2020, 20(4): 525-540. doi: 10.1037/emo0000570
[32]	NIE W, GAO L. Exposure to family violence and school bullying perpetration among children and adolescents: serial mediating roles of parental support and depression[J]. Appl Res Qual Life, 2024, 19(4): 1501-1524. doi: 10.1007/s11482-024-10293-1
[33]	LEI H, CHIU M M, CUI Y, et al. Parenting style and aggression: a Meta-analysis of mainland Chinese children and youth[J]. Children Youth Serv Rev, 2018, 94: 446-455. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.07.033
[34]	尹明, 王建美, 张露露, 等. 青年家庭主义价值观对攻击性行为的影响: 移情的中介作用[J]. 心理学进展, 2019, 9(2): 9. YIN M, WANG J M, ZHANG L L, et al. The influence of youth's familyism values on aggressive behavior: the mediating role of empathy[J]. Adv Psychol, 2019, 9(2): 9. (in Chinese)
[35]	ANNETTE H, DEBRA K, ANNELI H. Social support, violence exposure and mental health among young South African adolescents[J]. J Child Adolesc Ment Health, 2018, 30(1): 41-50.
[36]	AN J, ZHU X, SHI Z, et al. A serial mediating effect of perceived family support on psychological well-being[J]. BMC Public Health, 2024, 24(1): 940.
[37]	JAMEEL A, MA Z, LI M, et al. The effects of social support and parental autonomy support on the mental well-being of university students: the mediating role of a parent-child relationship[J]. Hum Soc Sci Commun, 2024, 11(1): 1-8. doi: 10.1057/s41599-023-02237-1