A comparison of aggressive behavior and influencing factors of family environment between firstborn and only children in primary school
-
摘要:
目的 了解大孩与独生子女小学生的攻击行为现状,分析其家庭环境影响因素并提出建议,为预防和控制儿童攻击行为的产生提供依据。 方法 采取分层整群抽样方法,选取蚌埠市3所小学,以二至六年级共计922名小学生作为研究对象进行问卷调查。调查问卷分为学生基本情况、家庭状况、学生攻击行为评估三部分。 结果 男生中,7岁独生子女的总体攻击得分[26.0(22.0,34.5)]高于大孩20.0[(17.5,26.5)],9岁大孩的总体攻击得分[27.5(23.0,34.3)]高于独生子女[23.0(18.5,28.5)],8岁大孩的躯体攻击维度得分[7.0(4.0,11.0)]高于独生子女[5.0(3.0,8.0)](Z值分别为1.97,2.39,2.11,P值均<0.05)。女生中,8岁独生子女的躯体攻击维度得分[5.0(3.0,7.0)]高于大孩[3.0(3.0,4.0)],12岁大孩的敌意维度得分[7.0(6.0,8.0)]高于独生子女[4.5(3.3,9.0)](Z值分别为2.48,1.98,P值均<0.05)。多元线性回归分析发现,大孩中男生除敌意外的其他攻击行为得分均高于女生,父亲文化程度越高者躯体攻击和敌意得分越低(P值均<0.05);独生子女中,年龄越大者言语攻击得分越高,家庭经济条件一般及较好者躯体攻击得分低于较差者,其他陪伴情况者的愤怒和敌意得分高于父母双方陪伴者,父亲文化程度越高者敌意得分越低(P值均<0.05)。 结论 良好的家庭经济条件、较高的父母陪伴质量和合理的教养方式,可减少儿童攻击行为的产生,促进儿童身心健康发展 Abstract:Objective To understand aggressive behavior and associated family determinants of firstborn and only children in primary school, so as to provide the basis for child aggressive behavior prevention. Methods Using stratified cluster sampling method, 922 pupils from grade 2 to grade 6 were selected from three primary schools in Bengbu. The questionnaire survey included general information, family background and child aggressive behaviors. Results Among boys, the 7-year-old only child scored [26.0(22.0, 34.5)] higher than firstborn children [20.0(17.5, 26.5)] in overall aggression, and the 9-year-old firstborn child [27.5(23.0, 34.3)] scored higher than the only child [23.0(18.5, 28.5)]. The scores of 8-year-old firstborn child in the dimension of physical aggression [7.0(4.0, 11.0)] were higher than that of only child [5.0(3.0, 8.0)] (Z=1.97, 2.39, 2.11, P < 0.05). Among girls, 8-year-old only child scored higher [5.0(3.0, 7.0)] in the dimension of physical aggression than that of the firstborn child [3.0(3.0, 4.0)], and the 12-year-old firstborn child scored [7.0(6.0, 8.0)] higher in the dimension of hostility than that of the only child [4.5(3.3, 9.0)] (Z=2.48, 1.98, P < 0.05). Multiple linear regression analysis found that boys of firstborn children scored higher in all dimensions of aggressive behavior than those of girls except hostility, and paternal education was negatively associated with physical aggression and hostility (P < 0.05). Age was positively associated with verbal aggression among the only children (P < 0.05). Family economic status was negatively associated with physical aggression (P < 0.05). Paternal education was negatively associated with hostility among students with anger and hostility of family members higher than that of parents (P < 0.05). Conclusion Higher family economic status, high quality of parent company and appropriate parenting style can reduce the occurrence of children's aggressive behavior and promote healthy physical and psychological development. -
Key words:
- Only child /
- Aggression /
- Family /
- Regression analysis /
- Mental health /
- Students
-
表 1 各年龄段大孩与独生子女男生攻击行为比较[M(P25,P75)]
Table 1. Comparison of aggression behavior between boys of firstborn and only children in different ages [M(P25, P75)]
年龄/岁 分组 人数 统计值 攻击 躯体攻击 言语攻击 愤怒 敌意 7 大孩 9 20.0(17.5,26.5) 4.0(3.0,5.0) 7.0(6.0,7.5) 4.0(3.0,8.5) 5.0(4.0,7.0) 独生子女 21 26.0(22.0,34.5) 5.0(3.0,9.0) 7.0(5.5,8.0) 7.0(5.0,9.0) 8.0(4.5,8.5) Z值 -1.97 -1.16 -0.46 -1.87 -1.75 P值 0.05 0.25 0.64 0.06 0.08 8 大孩 30 29.5(20.8,37.0) 7.0(4.0,11.0) 7.0(5.0,8.0) 8.0(5.0,11.0) 7.0(4.0,9.0) 独生子女 45 26.0(20.0,32.0) 5.0(3.0,8.0) 7.0(4.5,8.0) 7.0(5.0,10.0) 7.0(4.0,8.0) Z值 -1.38 -2.11 -0.65 -0.32 -0.53 P值 0.17 0.04 0.51 0.75 0.60 9 大孩 30 27.5(23.0,34.3) 6.0(3.0,7.3) 7.0(5.8,9.0) 7.0(4.0,11.0) 7.0(5.0,9.0) 独生子女 57 23.0(18.5,28.5) 4.0(3.0,7.0) 7.0(5.5,8.0) 7.0(4.0,8.5) 5.0(4.0,8.0) Z值 -2.39 -1.72 -0.50 -1.60 -1.63 P值 0.02 0.09 0.62 0.11 0.10 10 大孩 47 27.0(20.0,35.0) 5.0(3.0,8.0) 7.0(5.0,9.0) 8.0(5.0,11.0) 6.0(4.0,9.0) 独生子女 86 24.0(19.0,28.3) 4.0(3.0,7.0) 7.0(6.0,8.0) 7.0(5.0,9.3) 5.0(3.0,7.0) Z值 -1.76 -0.55 -0.56 -1.56 -1.95 P值 0.08 0.58 0.58 0.12 0.05 11 大孩 43 25.0(20.0,29.0) 5.0(3.0,7.0) 7.0(6.0,8.0) 7.0(5.0,10.0) 5.0(4.0,7.0) 独生子女 69 24.0(19.0,29.0) 4.0(3.0,6.0) 7.0(5.5,9.0) 7.0(4.0,9.0) 6.0(4.0,7.0) Z值 -0.49 -1.56 -0.18 -0.53 -0.03 P值 0.62 0.12 0.86 0.60 0.97 12 大孩 19 27.0(21.0,30.0) 5.0(4.0,7.0) 5.0(5.0,7.0) 7.0(4.0,9.0) 6.0(5.0,9.0) 独生子女 38 24.5(20.0,31.3) 4.0(3.0,6.3) 7.0(5.0,8.0) 7.0(4.8,9.0) 6.5(4.0,9.0) Z值 -0.37 -1.04 -1.42 -0.23 -0.37 P值 0.71 0.30 0.16 0.82 0.71 表 2 各年龄段大孩与独生子女女生攻击行为比较[M(P25,P75)]
Table 2. Comparison of aggression behavior between girls of firstborn and only children in different ages [M(P25, P75)]
年龄/岁 分组 人数 统计值 攻击 躯体攻击 言语攻击 愤怒 敌意 7 大孩 17 22.0(17.5,29.5) 3.0(3.0,7.0) 7.0(5.0,8.0) 6.0(4.0,9.0) 5.0(4.0,8.5) 独生子女 17 22.0(20.0,28.0) 3.0(3.0,6.0) 6.0(4.5,7.0) 6.0(4.5,10.0) 6.0(4.0,9.0) Z值 -0.33 -0.09 -0.67 -0.31 -0.56 P值 0.74 0.93 0.51 0.75 0.58 8 大孩 32 21.0(18.0,29.3) 3.0(3.0,4.0) 7.0(4.0,7.0) 7.0(4.0,11.0) 5.0(4.0,7.0) 独生子女 37 27.0(18.0,32.0) 5.0(3.0,7.0) 7.0(5.0,8.0) 7.0(4.0,10.0) 6.0(4.0,8.0) Z值 -1.12 -2.48 -0.96 -0.05 -1.55 P值 0.26 0.01 0.34 0.96 0.12 9 大孩 44 26.5(20.0,30.0) 6.0(3.0,8.0) 7.0(4.3,8.0) 7.0(5.0,8.8) 6.0(4.0,8.0) 独生子女 49 22.0(18.0,33.0) 4.0(3.0,7.5) 6.0(4.0,7.0) 7.0(5.0,8.8) 6.0(4.0,8.0) Z值 -0.86 -1.73 -1.26 -0.25 -0.20 P值 0.39 0.08 0.21 0.80 0.84 10 大孩 55 21.0(21.0,29.0) 5.0(3.0,7.0) 6.0(4.0,7.0) 7.0(5.0,9.0) 6.0(4.0,7.0) 独生子女 67 23.0(20.0,28.0) 4.0(3.0,7.0) 7.0(5.0,8.0) 7.0(5.0,9.0) 5.0(4.0,8.0) Z值 -0.89 -1.39 -1.96 -0.83 -1.04 P值 0.37 0.16 0.05 0.41 0.30 11 大孩 41 22.0(18.5,25.5) 4.0(3.0,5.5) 6.0(5.0,8.0) 6.0(4.0,8.0) 5.0(4.0,7.0) 独生子女 30 24.0(19.8,29.3) 4.0(3.0,5.3) 7.0(5.0,8.3) 6.0(3.0,8.3) 5.5(4.0,7.3) Z值 -1.13 -0.67 -1.12 -0.01 -0.73 P值 0.26 0.50 0.26 0.99 0.47 12 大孩 27 26.0(20.0,31.0) 6.0(4.0,8.0) 7.0(5.0,8.0) 6.0(3.0,8.0) 7.0(6.0,8.0) 独生子女 12 25.0(15.3,32.5) 4.5(3.0,6.0) 8.0(5.5,10.5) 6.5(4.0,9.5) 4.5(3.3,9.0) Z值 -0.32 -1.17 -1.56 -0.72 -1.98 P值 0.75 0.24 0.12 0.47 0.05 表 3 大孩攻击行为家庭环境影响因素单因素分析[M(P25,P75)]
Table 3. Univariate analysis of the family environment influencing factors of firstborn's aggressive behavior [M(P25, P75)]
家庭环境 选项 人数 统计值 攻击 躯体攻击 言语攻击 愤怒 敌意 家庭经济条件 较差 17 28.0(21.5,34.5) 7.0(4.0,7.5) 8.0(5.5,8.5) 8.0(5.5,10.0) 7.0(5.0,9.0) 一般 218 25.0(20.0,30.0) 5.0(3.0,7.0) 7.0(5.0,8.0) 7.0(5.0,9.0) 6.0(4.0,8.0) 较好 159 25.0(19.0,30.0) 4.0(3.0,8.0) 7.0(5.0,8.0) 7.0(4.0,10.0) 5.0(4.0,8.0) H值 2.70 4.24 1.38 1.10 5.10 P值 0.26 0.12 0.50 0.58 0.08 家庭主要陪伴者 父母双方陪伴 83 23.0(18.0,29.0) 5.0(3.0,7.0) 7.0(4.0,8.0) 6.0(4.0,9.0) 6.0(4.0,8.0) 父母单方陪伴 97 25.0(20.5,30.0) 5.0(3.0,7.0) 7.0(5.0,8.0) 7.0(4.0,9.5) 6.0(4.0,8.0) 父母及祖辈陪伴 54 23.5(20.0,30.0) 4.5(3.0,7.0) 7.0(5.0,8.0) 7.0(4.0,9.0) 5.0(4.0,8.0) 其他 160 26.0(21.0,30.0) 4.5(3.0,8.0) 7.0(5.0,8.0) 7.0(5.0,10.0) 6.0(5.0,8.0) H值 5.14 1.29 1.49 7.89 6.58 P值 0.16 0.73 0.69 0.05 0.09 父亲文化程度 未上学或小学未毕业 15 28.0(23.0,36.0) 7.0(4.0,9.0) 6.0(5.0,10.0) 8.0(6.0,13.0) 7.0(5.0,10.0) 小学 46 27.0(24.8,30.3) 6.0(4.0,8.0) 7.0(5.0,8.0) 7.0(5.8,9.0) 7.0(6.0,9.0) 初中 70 23.5(20.0,29.0) 5.0(3.0,7.0) 7.0(5.0,8.0) 6.0(4.0,8.0) 6.0(4.0,7.3) 高中或中专 72 23.5(18.0,30.0) 4.0(3.0,7.0) 7.0(5.0,8.0) 7.0(4.0,9.8) 5.0(4.0,8.0) 大专及以上 70 23.0(19.0,29.0) 4.0(3.0,6.0) 7.0(5.0,8.0) 7.0(4.0,10.0) 5.0(4.0,7.0) H值 12.02 13.28 1.27 6.55 20.84 P值 0.04 0.02 0.94 0.26 <0.01 母亲文化程度 未上学或小学未毕业 16 27.0(23.3,34.0) 5.0(3.0,7.8) 7.0(5.3,9.0) 7.0(6.0,11.8) 7.0(5.0,8.0) 小学 46 27.0(22.0,31.0) 6.0(4.0,8.0) 7.0(5.0,8.3) 8.0(6.0,10.0) 6.0(4.8,7.3) 初中 69 25.0(20.0,30.5) 5.0(3.0,7.0) 7.0(5.0,8.0) 6.0(4.0,8.0) 6.0(5.0,9.0) 高中或中专 73 25.0(20.0,29.0) 5.0(3.0,7.0) 7.0(4.5,8.0) 7.0(4.0,8.0) 6.0(4.0,8.0) 大专及以上 73 23.0(19.0,29.5) 4.0(3.0,6.5) 7.0(5.0,8.0) 7.0(4.0,10.0) 5.0(4.0,8.0) H值 7.63 7.62 4.40 10.37 4.84 P值 0.18 0.18 0.49 0.07 0.44 注:部分项目存在缺失人数。 表 4 独生子女攻击行为家庭环境影响因素单因素分析[M(P25,P75)]
Table 4. Univariate analysis of the family environment influencing factors of only children's aggressive behavior [M(P25, P75)]
家庭环境 选项 人数 统计值 攻击 躯体攻击 言语攻击 愤怒 敌意 家庭经济条件 较差 29 27.0(22.0,32.0) 7.0(4.0,9.0) 7.0(5.5,8.5) 7.0(5.0,10.0) 6.0(5.0,9.5) 一般 322 24.0(20.0,30.0) 4.0(3.0,6.0) 7.0(5.0,8.0) 7.0(4.8,9.0) 6.0(4.0,7.3) 较好 177 24.0(19.0,29.0) 4.0(3.0,7.0) 7.0(5.0,8.0) 7.0(4.5,8.5) 6.0(4.0,8.0) H值 4.67 11.49 2.53 0.73 3.11 P值 0.10 <0.01 0.28 0.70 0.21 家庭主要陪伴者 父母双方陪伴 119 23.0(18.0,28.0) 4.0(3.0,7.0) 7.0(4.0,8.0) 6.0(4.0,8.0) 5.0(3.0,7.0) 父母单方陪伴 133 25.0(20.5,32.0) 4.0(3.0,8.0) 7.0(5.0,8.0) 7.0(5.0,10.0) 6.0(4.0,8.0) 父母及祖辈陪伴 105 21.0(17.5,28.0) 4.0(3.0,5.0) 7.0(5.0,8.0) 6.0(4.0,8.0) 5.0(3.0,7.0) 其他 171 25.0(20.0,31.0) 4.0(3.0,7.0) 7.0(6.0,8.0) 7.0(5.0,10.0) 6.0(4.0,8.0) H值 19.97 4.87 5.80 15.08 15.86 P值 <0.01 0.18 0.12 <0.01 <0.01 父亲文化程度 未上学或小学未毕业 20 30.0(22.5,39.8) 6.0(4.0,7.8) 7.0(6.3,8.0) 7.0(5.3,10.8) 9.0(4.3,11.0) 小学 34 27.5(20.0,32.3) 5.0(3.0,7.3) 7.0(4.8,8.0) 8.0(4.8,10.3) 7.0(5.0,8.3) 初中 95 25.0(21.0,29.0) 4.0(3.0,7.0) 7.0(6.0,9.0) 7.0(5.0,9.0) 6.0(4.0,7.0) 高中或中专 114 23.0(19.0,30.0) 4.0(3.0,5.3) 7.0(5.0,8.0) 7.0(4.0,9.0) 6.0(4.0,8.0) 大专及以上 100 21.0(17.0,26.8) 4.0(3.0,6.0) 6.5(4.0,7.0) 6.0(4.0,8.0) 5.0(3.0,7.0) H值 23.13 14.32 12.24 12.58 18.70 P值 <0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 <0.01 母亲文化程度 未上学或小学未毕业 31 29.0(23.0,40.0) 7.0(3.0,9.0) 7.0(5.0,10.0) 9.0(5.0,12.0) 7.0(4.0,10.0) 小学 35 25.0(18.0,32.0) 4.0(3.0,7.0) 7.0(5.0,8.0) 7.0(4.0,11.0) 7.0(4.0,10.0) 初中 104 25.0(20.0,31.0) 4.0(3.0,7.0) 7.0(6.0,9.0) 7.0(5.0,9.0) 6.0(4.0,8.0) 高中或中专 130 23.0(18.0,28.0) 4.0(3.0,6.0) 6.0(5.0,8.0) 7.0(4.0,8.0) 5.0(3.0,7.0) 大专及以上 94 23.5(19.0,28.0) 4.0(3.0,6.3) 7.0(5.0,8.0) 6.0(4.0,8.0) 6.0(3.0,8.0) H值 17.87 10.62 12.04 12.42 15.90 P值 <0.01 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.01 注:部分项目存在缺失人数。 表 5 大孩攻击行为家庭环境影响因素的多元线性回归分析(n=394)
Table 5. Multivariate linear regression analysis of family environment influencing factors of firstborn children's aggressive behavior(n=394)
自变量 攻击 躯体攻击 言语攻击 B值 标准误 β值 t值 P值 B值 标准误 β值 t值 P值 B值 标准误 β值 t值 P值 性别 男 2.83 0.87 0.19 3.25 <0.01 0.71 0.34 0.13 2.10 0.04 0.91 0.27 0.21 3.42 <0.01 年龄 -0.11 0.33 -0.02 -0.32 0.75 -0.03 0.13 -0.01 -0.20 0.84 0.08 0.10 0.05 0.80 0.43 家庭主要陪伴者 父母单方陪伴 1.63 1.30 0.09 1.26 0.21 0.04 0.51 0.01 0.07 0.94 0.48 0.40 0.09 1.20 0.23 父母及祖辈陪伴 -0.02 1.47 -0.00 -0.01 0.99 -0.58 0.57 -0.08 -1.01 0.31 0.41 0.45 0.07 0.91 0.37 其他 1.48 1.19 0.10 1.24 0.22 -0.38 0.47 -0.07 -0.81 0.42 0.26 0.36 0.06 0.70 0.49 父亲文化程度 -1.02 0.37 -0.17 -2.78 0.01 -0.39 0.14 -0.17 -2.72 0.01 -0.07 0.11 -0.04 -0.62 0.54 自变量 愤怒 敌意 B值 标准误 β值 t值 P值 B值 标准误 β值 t值 P值 性别 男 1.05 0.38 0.17 2.76 0.01 0.15 0.33 0.03 0.47 0.64 年龄 -0.17 0.14 -0.07 -1.18 0.24 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.08 0.94 家庭主要陪伴者 父母单方陪伴 0.42 0.57 0.06 0.74 0.46 0.70 0.49 0.11 1.43 0.15 父母及祖辈陪伴 0.24 0.64 0.03 0.37 0.71 -0.08 0.55 -0.01 -0.14 0.89 其他 0.82 0.52 0.13 1.58 0.11 0.78 0.45 0.14 1.73 0.09 父亲文化程度 -0.13 0.16 -0.05 -0.81 0.42 -0.43 0.14 -0.19 -3.11 0.00 注:性别以女为参照,年龄为连续变量,家庭主要陪伴者以父母双方陪伴为参照,父亲文化程度按从低到高进行连续变量赋值。 表 6 独生子女攻击行为家庭环境影响因素的多元线性回归分析(n=528)
Table 6. Multivariate linear regression analysis of family environment influencing factors of only children's aggressive behavior(n=528)
自变量 攻击 躯体攻击 言语攻击 B值 标准误 β值 t值 P值 B值 标准误 β值 t值 P值 B值 标准误 β值 t值 P值 性别 男 0.27 0.83 0.02 0.33 0.75 0.24 0.30 0.04 0.81 0.42 0.02 0.26 <0.01 0.08 0.94 年龄 -0.02 0.31 -0.00 -0.08 0.94 -0.13 0.11 -0.07 -1.20 0.23 0.20 0.10 0.12 2.11 0.04 家庭经济条件 一般 -1.77 1.79 -0.11 -0.99 0.33 -1.49 0.65 -0.27 -2.30 0.02 -0.12 0.57 -0.02 -0.20 0.84 较好 -2.01 1.86 -0.12 -1.08 0.28 -1.47 0.67 -0.26 -2.19 0.03 -0.17 0.59 -0.04 -0.29 0.77 家庭主要陪伴者 父母单方陪伴 2.49 1.16 0.14 2.14 0.03 0.47 0.42 0.08 1.13 0.26 0.51 0.37 0.10 1.39 0.17 父母及祖辈陪伴 -0.95 1.21 -0.05 -0.78 0.43 -0.55 0.44 -0.08 -1.26 0.21 0.37 0.38 0.07 0.97 0.33 其他 2.78 1.09 0.17 2.54 0.01 -0.29 0.39 -0.05 -0.74 0.46 0.46 0.35 0.09 1.34 0.18 父亲文化程度 -1.16 0.43 -0.17 -2.68 0.01 -0.15 0.16 -0.06 -0.95 0.34 -0.25 0.14 -0.12 -1.84 0.07 母亲文化程度 -0.64 0.42 -0.10 -1.52 0.13 -0.21 0.15 -0.09 -1.36 0.18 -0.09 0.13 -0.05 -0.68 0.50 自变量 愤怒 敌意 B值 标准误 β值 t值 P值 B值 标准误 β值 t值 P值 性别 男 0.12 0.34 0.02 0.36 0.72 -0.12 0.30 -0.02 -0.39 0.69 年龄 -0.02 0.13 -0.01 -0.19 0.85 -0.07 0.11 -0.04 -0.64 0.52 家庭经济条件 一般 0.31 0.74 0.05 0.42 0.67 -0.48 0.65 -0.08 -0.73 0.46 较好 0.09 0.77 0.01 0.12 0.91 -0.46 0.68 -0.08 -0.68 0.50 家庭主要陪伴者 父母单方陪伴 0.78 0.48 0.11 1.62 0.11 0.73 0.42 0.11 1.73 0.09 父母及祖辈陪伴 -0.33 0.50 -0.04 -0.67 0.51 -0.44 0.44 -0.06 -1.00 0.32 其他 1.39 0.45 0.21 3.09 <0.01 1.22 0.40 0.20 3.07 <0.01 父亲文化程度 -0.29 0.18 -0.11 -1.64 0.10 -0.47 0.16 -0.19 -2.97 <0.01 母亲文化程度 -0.25 0.17 -0.09 -1.42 0.16 -0.10 0.15 -0.04 -0.63 0.53 注:性别以女为参照,年龄为连续变量,家庭经济条件以较差为参照,家庭主要陪伴者以父母双方陪伴为参照,父母文化程度按从低到高进行连续变量赋值。 -
[1] AUSTERMAN J. Violence and aggressive behavior[J]. Pediatr Rev, 2017, 38(2): 69-80. doi: 10.1542/pir.2016-0062 [2] HUESMANN L R, DUBOW E F, BOXER P. Continuity of aggression from childhood to early adulthood as a predictor of life outcomes: implications for the adolescent-limited and life-course-persistent models[J]. Aggress Behav, 2009, 35(2): 136-149. doi: 10.1002/ab.20300 [3] SCOTT J G, TUNBRIDGE M, STATHIS S. The aggressive child[J]. J Paediatr Child Health, 2018, 54(10): 1165-1169. doi: 10.1111/jpc.14182 [4] 张莉. 二孩家庭中大孩的心理与行为变化及其疏导[J]. 学前教育研究, 2019(7): 85-88. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XQJY201907010.htmZHANG L. The psychological and behavioral counseling of first child in two-child family[J]. J Stud Early Childhood Educ, 2019(7): 85-88. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XQJY201907010.htm [5] 张晓丽, 植雪仪, 钟霖, 等. 学龄前儿童攻击行为特点及其与同胞关系的关联[J]. 中国心理卫生杂志, 2021, 35(1): 40-45. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6729.2021.01.008ZHANG X L, ZHI X Y, ZHONG L, et al. Characteristics of aggression in preschoolers and their correlation with sibling relationship[J]. Chin Ment Health J, 2021, 35(1): 40-45. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6729.2021.01.008 [6] 朱平, 胡传双. 家园共育视角下幼儿攻击行为的应对策略研究[J]. 黑龙江教育学院学报, 2019, 38(11): 92-94. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7836.2019.11.029ZHU P, HU C S. A study on the coping strategies of children's aggressive behavior from the perspective of cooperative education of kindergarten and family[J]. J Heilongjiang Coll Educ, 2019, 38(11): 92-94. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7836.2019.11.029 [7] 王旭, 刘衍玲, 林杰, 等. 新冠肺炎疫情期间中小学生攻击性现状分析及影响因素[J]. 西南大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 43(1): 12-21. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XNND202101002.htmWANG X, LIU Y L, LIN J, et al. Analysis of aggression in primary and middles school students during COVID-19 pandemic and its influencing factors[J]. J South West Univ(Natural Sci), 2021, 43(1): 12-21. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XNND202101002.htm [8] BRYANT F B, SMITH B D. Refining the architecture of aggression: a measurement model for the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire[J]. J Res Pers, 2001, 35(2): 138-167. doi: 10.1006/jrpe.2000.2302 [9] 张文武, 吕梅, 杜琳, 等. 12-条目攻击问卷(AQ)在儿童青少年中的应用研究[J]. 上海精神医学, 2009, 21(3): 136-139. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JSYI200903005.htmZHANG W W, LYU M, DU L, et al. An application study of 12-Item Aggression Questionnaire on child and adolescent[J]. Shanghai Arch Psychiatry, 2009, 21(3): 136-139. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JSYI200903005.htm [10] 任云兰, 梁芝栋, 陈荟宇, 等. 儿童唾液睾酮与力量和攻击行为的关系[J]. 中国心理卫生杂志, 2020, 34(10): 852-854. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6729.2020.10.009REN Y L, LIANG Z D, CHEN H Y, et al. Relation of saliva testosterone with strength and aggressive behavior in children[J]. Chin Ment Health J, 2020, 34(10): 852-854. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6729.2020.10.009 [11] BORROW A P, HANDA R J. Estrogen receptors modulation of anxiety-like behavior[J]. Vitam Horm, 2017, 103(37): 27-52. http://www.onacademic.com/detail/journal_1000039805874910_f80b.html [12] WOLKE D, TIPPETT N, DANTCHEV S. Bullying in the family: sibling bullying[J]. Lancet Psychiatry, 2015, 2(10): 917-929. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00262-X [13] COTE S M, VAILLANCOURT T, BARKER E D, et al. The joint development of physical and indirect aggression: predictors of continuity and change during childhood[J]. Dev Psychopathol, 2007, 19(1): 37-55. http://www.onacademic.com/detail/journal_1000037483515810_ebf9.html [14] 李琛. 3~6年级小学生心理虐待与攻击行为: 心理素质的中介作用[D]. 扬州: 扬州大学, 2018.LI C. Psychological abuse and aggression among students in grades 3-6: the mediating role of psychological quality[D]. Yangzhou: Yangzhou University, 2018. [15] NIU L, LIN S H, LI L, et al. Popularity and social preference in chinese adolescents: associations with social and behavioral adjustment[J]. Soc Dev, 2016, 25(4): 828-845. http://www.onacademic.com/detail/journal_1000039141483010_d242.html [16] 李文轩. 同胞关系下小学头胎儿童的嫉妒与情绪调节能力: 父亲教养方式的调节作用[D]. 南充: 西华师范大学, 2019.LI W X. Firstborn children's jealousy and capabilitiy of emotion regulation in sibling relationships: the regulating effect of fathering pattern[D]. Nanchong: China West Normal University, 2019. [17] ZIV Y, ARBEL R. Parenting practices, aggressive response evaluation and decision, and social difficulties in kindergarten children: the role of fathers[J]. Aggress Behav, 2021, 47(2): 148-160. doi: 10.1002/ab.21932 [18] BRAZA P, CARRERAS R, MUNOZ J M, et al. Negative maternal and paternal parenting styles as predictors of children's behavioral problems: moderating effects of the child's sex[J]. J Child Fam Stud, 2015, 24: 847-856. http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-44043-001 [19] CHAN S M. Aggressive behaviour in early elementary school children: Relations to authoritarian parenting, children's negative emotionality and coping strategies[J]. Early Child Dev Care, 2010, 180(9): 1253-1269. doi: 10.1080/03004430902981447 [20] VUKOJEVIĈ M, ZOVKO A, TALIĈ I, et al. Parental socioeconomic status as a predictor of physical and mental health outcomes in children-literature review[J]. Acta Clin Croat, 2017, 56(4): 742-748. http://www.onacademic.com/detail/journal_1000040512830410_bb11.html [21] 白璐. 农村家庭环境对儿童问题行为影响的调查分析[D]. 沈阳: 沈阳农业大学, 2016.BAI L. The behavior of the rural family environment on children Investigation and analysis of the influence[D]. Shenyang: Shenyang Agricultural University, 2016. [22] LATHAM R M, MARK K M, OLIVER B R. Coparenting and children's disruptive behavior interacting processes for parenting sense of competence[J]. J Fam Psychol, 2018, 32(1): 151-156. http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-10079-009 [23] HENDRIKS A M, BARTELS M, COLINS O F, et al. Childhood aggression: a synthesis of reviews and meta-analyses to reveal patterns and opportunities for prevention and intervention strategies[J]. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 2018, 91(6): 278-291. http://www.onacademic.com/detail/journal_1000040257824410_f5a7.html -

计量
- 文章访问数: 875
- HTML全文浏览量: 400
- PDF下载量: 54
- 被引次数: 0