青少年攻击行为和社会支持的相关性研究

马颖; 焦婷; 郭霜霜; 唐杰

doi:10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2022.05.008

青少年攻击行为和社会支持的相关性研究

doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2022.05.008

马颖¹,
焦婷²,
郭霜霜²,
唐杰^2, ,

1.
广州医科大学附属广州市妇女儿童医疗中心儿童保健部，广东 510623
2.
广州医科大学公共卫生学院

基金项目:

国家自然科学基金项目 81773457

广州市卫生健康委西医类—一般引导项目 20191A011029

详细信息

作者简介:
马颖(1985-)，女，甘肃陇南人，硕士，副主任医师，主要从事儿童保健相关工作

通讯作者:
唐杰，E-mail：gytanjie@163.com

利益冲突声明 所有作者声明无利益冲突。
中图分类号: R179 B844.2 G478
计量
- 文章访问数: 1026
- HTML全文浏览量: 404
- PDF下载量: 74
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2021-11-20
- 修回日期: 2022-01-19
- 网络出版日期: 2022-05-20
- 刊出日期: 2022-05-25

Association of aggression and social support among adolescents

1.
Department of Children Healthcare, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou (510623), China

摘要

摘要: 目的探讨青少年攻击行为与社会支持的相关性及其性别差异，为预防和改善青少年攻击行为提供科学依据。方法采用分层随机整群抽样方法，抽取黑龙江、湖北、安徽、广东、云南5省15 623名初中生和高中生为研究对象，采用《青少年心理行为健康状况调查问卷》调查攻击行为、社会支持、生活事件、心理特征、家庭情况以及一般人口学特征等。结果青少年高水平攻击行为的检出率为23.5%(3 670/15 623)，男生(24.4%)高于女生(22.5%)，差异有统计学意义(χ²=19.30，P < 0.01)。单因素分析显示，社会支持与青少年攻击行为的相关有统计学意义(χ²=620.68，P < 0.01)；在控制省份、年级、性别、民族、家庭收入、家庭结构、父母教育程度、教育方法、独生子女、生活事件、情绪管理、心理韧性等因素后，青少年攻击行为与社会支持水平的相关有统计学意义(OR=1.27~1.84)，且关联强度存在剂量反应关系(P值均 < 0.05)。攻击行为与社会支持水平的性别差异无统计学意义(ROR=1.02~1.10，P>0.05)。结论青少年攻击行为与社会支持显著相关，增加青少年的社会支持水平可能可以减少攻击行为的发生。
- 攻击 /
- 行为 /
- 社会支持 /
- 回归分析 /
- 青少年
Abstract: Objective To explore the association between aggression and social support and their gender differences among Chinese adolescence, and to provide a scientific reference for preventing and reducing aggressive behaviors of adolescents. Methods Conducted a cross-sectional survey of 15 623 adolescents in 5 provinces in China, namely, HeiLongjiang, Hubei, Anhui, Guangdong and Yunnan Province. And the Chinese version of the Adolescent Social Support Scale was employed to assess the aggression and social support, life events, psychological characteristics, family condition and demographic characteristics among adolescents. Results The prevalence of self-reported high level of aggression was 23.5%(3 670/15 623). Males reported higher rate of high level aggression than females (24.4% vs 22.5%, χ²=19.30, P < 0.01). Significant association between aggression and social support was identified in univariate analysis (χ²=620.68, P < 0.01). After controlling for potential confounders, aggression was also significantly negatively associated with social support (OR=1.27-1.84), and there was dose-response relationship between them(P < 0.05). Furthermore, the association between aggression and social support was similar among male participants and female participants (ROR=1.02-1.10, P>0.05). Conclusion The findings indicate that aggression is associated with social support both in male and female adolescents. Improving the social support for adolescents can reduce their aggressive behaviors.
- Aggression /
- Behavior /
- Social support /
- Regression analysis /
- Adolescent
注释:

1) 利益冲突声明 所有作者声明无利益冲突。

HTML全文

表 1 不同组别青少年各攻击行为水平分布比较

Table 1. The characteristics of adolescent according to the level of aggression behavior

组别	选项	人数	低水平	中等水平	高水平	χ²值	P值
省份	安徽	3 302	1 016(30.8)	1 415(42.9)	871(26.4)	159.99	< 0.01
	广东	3 074	965(31.4)	1 461(47.5)	648(21.1)
	黑龙江	2 889	1 079(37.3)	1 194(41.3)	616(21.3)
	湖北	3 012	939(31.2)	1 495(49.6)	578(19.2)
	云南	3 346	1 033(30.9)	1 356(40.5)	957(28.6)
性别	男	8 043	2 467(30.7)	3 615(44.9)	1 961(24.4)	19.30	< 0.01
	女	7 580	2 565(33.8)	3 306(43.6)	1 709(22.5)
年龄/岁	9~11	103	34(33.0)	45(43.7)	24(23.3)	7.30	0.29
	12~15	8 785	2 831(32.2)	3 949(45.0)	2 005(22.8)
	16~18	6 404	2 069(32.3)	2 773(43.3)	1 562(24.4)
	19~20	331	98(29.6)	154(46.5)	79(23.9)
学段	高中	7 287	2 236(30.7)	3 256(44.7)	1 795(24.6)	17.88	< 0.01
	初中	8 336	2 796(33.5)	3 665(44.0)	1 875(22.5)
民族	汉族	14 163	4 610(32.5)	6 294(44.4)	3 259(23.0)	21.01	< 0.01
	少数民族	1 460	422(28.9)	627(42.9)	411(28.2)
家庭月收入/元	< 1 000	2 708	940(34.7)	1 174(43.4)	594(21.9)	34.36	< 0.01
	1 000~5 999	10 842	3 456(31.9)	4 889(45.1)	2 497(23.0)
	≥6 000	2 073	636(30.7)	6 921(41.4)	579(27.9)
家庭结构	单亲/重组家庭	1 072	301(28.1)	493(46.0)	278(25.9)	18.75	0.01
	隔代家庭	478	146(30.5)	196(41.0)	136(28.5)
	联合家庭	457	141(30.9)	199(43.5)	117(25.6)
	核心家庭/大家庭	13 616	4 444(32.6)	6 033(44.3)	3 139(23.1)
独生子女	是	5 411	1 786(33.0)	2 326(43.0)	1 299(24.0)	5.80	0.06
	否	10 212	3 246(31.8)	4 595(45.0)	2 371(23.2)
父亲教育程度	大学及以上	1 317	413(31.4)	560(42.5)	344(26.1)	9.08	0.06
	高中或中专	2 881	961(33.4)	1 237(42.9)	683(23.7)
	初中及以下	11 425	3 658(32.0)	5 124(44.8)	2 643(23.1)
母亲教育程度	大学及以上	917	303(33.0)	360(39.3)	254(27.7)	13.26	0.01
	高中或中专	2 157	687(31.8)	968(44.9)	502(23.3)
	初中及以下	12 549	4 042(32.2)	5 593(44.6)	2 914(23.2)
教养方式	严格	4 720	1 568(33.2)	2 055(43.5)	1 097(23.2)	250.62	< 0.01
	溺爱	559	147(26.3)	226(40.4)	186(33.3)
	忽视/粗暴/多变	1 682	349(20.7)	728(43.3)	605(36.0)
	民主	8 015	2 748(34.3)	3 609(45.0)	1 658(20.7)
社会支持	低水平	4 065	901(22.2)	1 813(44.6)	1 351(33.2)	620.68	< 0.01
	中水平	7 719	2 410(31.2)	3 580(46.4)	1 729(22.4)
	高水平	3 839	1 721(44.8)	1 528(39.8)	590(15.4)
注：( )内数字为构成比/%。

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 社会支持与青少年攻击行为关系的多因素Logistic回归分析[OR值(OR值95%CI)，n=15 623]

Table 2. Association between adolescent aggression behavior and social support [OR(OR 95%CI), n=15 623]

攻击行为	社会支持	未调整	模型1	模型2	模型3
中等水平	高	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
	中	1.67(1.54~1.82)	1.66(1.52~1.81)	1.65(1.51~1.80)	1.27(1.16~1.40)
	低	2.27(2.04~2.52)	2.24(2.01~2.49)	2.22(1.99~2.47)	1.42(1.26~1.61)
高水平	高	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
	中	2.09(1.87~2.34)	2.09(1.87~2.34)	2.14(1.91~2.40)	1.34(1.18~1.53)
	低	4.37(3.86~4.96)	4.37(3.84~4.96)	4.42(3.88~5.03)	1.84(1.57~2.15)
注： P值均 < 0.05。

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 社会支持与男女青少年攻击行为关系多因素Logistic回归分析[OR值(OR值95%CI)]

Table 3. Gender differences of the association between adolescent aggression behavior and social support[OR值(OR值95%CI)]

性别	社会支持	人数	中等水平攻击行为				高水平攻击行为
性别	社会支持	人数	检出人数	检出率/%	OR值 (OR值95%CI)^a	OR值 (OR值95%CI)^b	检出人数	检出率/%	OR值 (OR值95%CI)^a	OR值 (OR值95%CI)^b
男	高	1 665	660	39.6	1.00	1.00	868	39.9	1.00	1.00
	中	3 915	1 831	46.8	1.73(1.52~1.97)^*	1.32(1.14~1.51)^*	1 749	46.0	1.61(1.44~1.81)^*	1.20(1.06~1.37)^*
	低	2 463	1 124	45.6	2.25(1.94~2.60)^*	1.45(1.23~1.73)^*	689	43.0	2.27(1.94~2.66)^*	1.34(1.11~1.61)^*
女	高	2 174	271	16.3	1.00	1.00	319	14.7	1.00	1.00
	中	3 804	907	23.2	2.01(1.77~2.46)^*	1.37(1.14~1.65)^*	822	21.6	2.06(1.77~2.41)^*	1.24(1.03~1.48)^*
	低	1 602	783	31.8	3.81(3.20~4.55)^*	1.78(1.43~2.20)^*	568	35.5	5.09(4.24~6.12)^*	1.74(1.39~2.19)^*
注：a为未调整混杂因素；b为调整了省份、年级、民族、家庭收入、家庭结构、父母教育程度、教育方法、独生子女、生活事件、情绪管理、心理韧性。

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(25)

[1]	ANDERSON C A, BUSHMAN B J. Human aggression[J]. Annu Rev Psychol, 2002, 53: 27-51. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231
[2]	AZIMI A L, VAZIRI S, KASHANI F L. Relationship between maternal parenting style and child's aggressive behavior[J]. Proced-Soc Behav Sci, 2012, 69: 1276-1281. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.062
[3]	倪林英. 大学生攻击行为及其影响因素的研究[D]. 南昌: 江西师范大学, 2005. NI L Y. Study on aggressive behavior of college students and its influencing factors[D]. Nanchang: Jiangxi Normal University, 2005.
[4]	SCHLOMER G L, CLEVELAND H H, VANDENBERGH D J, et al. Developmental differences in early adolescent aggression: a gene x environment x intervention analysis[J]. J Youth Adolesc, 2015, 44(3): 581-597. doi: 10.1007/s10964-014-0198-4
[5]	SMOKOWSKI P R, COTTER K L, ROBERTSON C I B, et al. Anxiety and aggression in rural youth: baseline results from the rural adaptation project[J]. Child Psychiatry Hum, 2013, 44(4): 479-492. doi: 10.1007/s10578-012-0342-x
[6]	TANG J, MA Y, GUO Y, et al. Association of aggression and non-suicidal self injury: a school-based sample of adolescents[J]. PLoS One, 2013, 8(10): e78149. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078149
[7]	ZHANG Y, WU C, YUAN S, et al. Association of aggression and suicide behaviors: a school-based sample of rural Chinese adolescents[J]. J Affect Disord, 2018, 239: 295-302. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2018.07.029
[8]	HARANDI T F, TAGHINASAB M M, NAYERI T D. The correlation of social support with mental health: a Meta-analysis[J]. Elect Phys, 2017, 9(9): 5212-5222. doi: 10.19082/5212
[9]	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): 897-900. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XIWS201108003.htm ZHANG P, YU Y Z, LIU Z Y, et al. Development of a standardized aggression questionnaire for urban students aged 9 to 18 in China[J]. Chin J Sch Health, 2011, 32(8): 897-900. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XIWS201108003.htm
[10]	叶悦妹, 戴晓阳. 大学生社会支持评定量表的编制[J]. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2008, 16(5): 456-458. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZLCY200805005.htm YE Y M, DAI X Y. Development of social support scale for university students[J]. Chin J Clin Psychol, 2008, 16(5): 456-458. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZLCY200805005.htm
[11]	WAN Y, CHEN R, MA S, et al. Associations of adverse childhood experiences and social support with self-injurious behaviour and suicidality in adolescents[J]. Br J Psychiatry, 2019, 214(3): 146-152. doi: 10.1192/bjp.2018.263
[12]	刘贤臣, 刘连启, 杨杰, 等. 青少年生活事件量表的信度效度检验[J]. 中国临床心理学杂志, 1997, 5(1): 34-36. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZLCY701.010.htm LIU X C, LIU L Q, YANG J, et al. Development and psychometric reliability and validity of adolescent self-rating life events checklist[J]. Chin J Clin Psychol, 1997, 5(1): 34-36. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZLCY701.010.htm
[13]	汪向东, 王希林, 马弘. 心理卫生评定量表手册[M]. 中国心理卫生杂志(增刊), 1999: 194-197, 200-202, 235-238. WANG X D, WANG X L, MA H. Manual of mental health rating scales[M]. Chinese Mental Health Journal(Supplements), 1999: 194-197, 200-202, 235-238.
[14]	胡月琴, 甘怡群. 青少年心理韧性量表的编制和效度验证[J]. 心理学报, 2008, 40(8): 902-912. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XLXB200808005.htm HU Y Q, GAN Y Q. Development and psychometric validity of the resilience scale for Chinese adolescents[J]. Acta Psychol Sinica, 2008, 40(8): 902-912. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XLXB200808005.htm
[15]	AVCI D, KILIC M, TARI SELCUK K, et al. Levels of aggression among turkish adolescents and factors leading to aggression[J]. Issues Ment Health Nurs, 2016, 37(7): 476-484. doi: 10.3109/01612840.2016.1155680
[16]	BENAROUS X, HASSLER C, FALISSARD B, et al. Do girls with depressive symptoms exhibit more physical aggression than boys? A cross sectional study in a national adolescent sample[J]. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health, 2015, 22(9): 41.
[17]	ZHOU J, YANG J, YU Y, et al. Influence of school-level and family-level variables on Chinese college students' aggression[J]. Psychol Health Med, 2017, 22(7): 823-833. doi: 10.1080/13548506.2016.1237667
[18]	WRIGHT M F, WACHS S. Does social support moderate the relationship between racial discrimination and aggression among Latinx adolescents? A longitudinal study[J]. J Adolesc, 2019, 73: 85-94. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.04.001
[19]	REIFE I, DUFFY S, GRANT K E. The impact of social support on adolescent coping in the context of urban poverty[J]. Cult Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol, 2020, 26(2): 200-214. doi: 10.1037/cdp0000296
[20]	BENSON M J, BUEHLER C. Family process and peer deviance influences on adolescent aggression: longitudinal effects across early and middle adolescence[J]. Child Dev, 2012, 83(4): 1213-1228. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01763.x
[21]	ROTHON C, HEAD J, KLINEBERG E, et al. Can social support protect bullied adolescents from adverse outcomes? A prospective study on the effects of bullying on the educational achievement and mental health of adolescents at secondary schools in East London[J]. J Adolesc, 2011, 34(3): 579-88. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.02.007
[22]	张艳梅. 青少年攻击行为的遗传易感性、环境影响因素及其交互作用研究[D]. 武汉: 华中科技大学, 2018. ZHANG Y M. Study on genetic susceptibility, enviromental factors and the interactions of adolescent aggression[D]. Wuhan: Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 2018.
[23]	COTTER K L, SMOKOWSKI P R. An investigation of relational risk and promotive factors associated with adolescent female aggression[J]. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev, 2017, 48(5): 754-767. doi: 10.1007/s10578-016-0700-1
[24]	BENAROUS X, HASSLER C, FALISSARD B, et al. Do girls with depressive symptoms exhibit more physical aggression than boys? A cross sectional study in a national adolescent sample[J]. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health, 2015, 9: 41. doi: 10.1186/s13034-015-0064-5
[25]	胡智华, 陈国庆. 中职生攻击性行为调查及对策: 以福州市中职校为例[J]. 现代职业教育, 2019(32): 10-11. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XDZJ201932005.htm HU Z H, CHEN G Q. Investigation and countermeasure of aggressive behavior of secondary vocational students: take Fuzhou vocational school as an example[J]. Mod Vocat Educ, 2019(32): 10-11. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XDZJ201932005.htm