Association between acute stress response and peer bullying behaviors among middle school students
-
摘要:
目的 探讨新冠肺炎疫情暴发期间急性应激反应与疫情常态化管理时期中学生同伴欺凌行为的关系, 为制定减少同伴欺凌行为的相关措施提供依据。 方法 2020年12月采用整群抽样方法选取安徽省皖南(宣城市)和皖北(淮北市)2所普通初级中学2 219名学生, 调查遭受欺凌和欺凌他人中言语欺凌、关系欺凌、躯体欺凌和网络欺凌行为发生情况, 并自我回顾性评价新冠肺炎疫情暴发(社交隔离)期间急性应激反应状况。采用多因素Logistic回归模型, 探讨中学生新冠肺炎疫情暴发期间不同水平急性应激反应与同伴欺凌行为的关联。 结果 新冠肺炎疫情常态化管理时期中学生同伴欺凌行为报告率为65.8%, 遭受他人欺凌和欺凌他人的报告率分别为63.8%和27.1%;遭受他人言语欺凌报告率最高(54.8%), 对他人网络欺凌报告率最低(4.6%)。疫情期间中学生急性应激反应得分为(6.50±1.67)分。除躯体欺凌他人外, 其他类型欺凌他人与遭受他人欺凌行为报告率在高水平应激反应组均最高, 差异均有统计学意义(P值均 < 0.05)。多因素Logistic回归模型显示, 调整相关混杂因素后, 高水平急性应激反应与中学生遭受言语欺凌(OR=1.38)、关系欺凌(OR=2.28)、躯体欺凌(OR=1.87)和网络欺凌(OR=2.30)风险增加相关, 高水平急性应激反应组中学生言语(OR=1.80)、关系(OR=1.99)、躯体(OR=1.76)和网络(OR=2.32)欺凌他人的风险均高于低水平急性应激反应组(P值均 < 0.05)。 结论 中学生高水平急性应激反应与不同类型同伴欺凌行为之间均存在关联, 且与网络欺凌的关联性较强。 Abstract:Objective To explore the association between acute stress response during the outbreak of COVID-19 and peer bullying behaviors during the normalized management of COVID-19 among middle school students, and to provide a basis for developing relevant measures for peer bullying prevention. Methods In December 2020, a total of 2 219 students from two junior middle schools in South Anhui(Xuancheng City) and North Anhui(Huaibei City), were selected to participate in this study by using the cluster sampling method. The occurrence of verbal bullying, relational bullying, physical bullying and cyberbullying behaviors among victims and perpetrators of bullying, and self-rated acute stress response during the outbreak of COVID-19 (social isolation) were investigated. Multiple Logistic regression models were conducted to explore the relationship between different levels of acute stress response during the COVID-19 outbreak and peer bullying behaviors among middle school students. Results The reported rate of peer bullying, being bullied by others and bullying others during the COVID-19 normalized management were 65.8%, 63.8% and 27.1%, respectively. The reporting rate of verbal bullying victimization was the highest (54.8%) and cyberbullying others was the lowest (4.6%). The mean score of acute stress response among middle school students during the COVID-19 outbreak was (6.50±1.67). Except for physically bullying others, the reported rate of other bullying behaviors was the highest in the high-level acute stress response group (P < 0.05). Multiple Logistic regression models showed that high levels of acute stress response were associated with high risk of verbal bullying victimization (OR=1.38), relational bullying victimization (OR=2.28), physical bullying victimization (OR=1.87) and cyberbullying victimization (OR=2.30) after adjusting for related confounders. In the high-level acute stress response group, verbal bullying (OR=1.80), relational bullying (OR=1.99), physical bullying (OR=1.76) and cyberbullying (OR=2.32) had higher risks of bullying others than in the low-level acute stress response group (P < 0.05). Conclusion High levels of acute stress response are associated with different peer bullying behaviors, with stronger associations with cyberbullying. -
Key words:
- Stress, psychological /
- Violence /
- Behavior /
- Mental health /
- Regression analysis /
- Students
1) 利益冲突声明 所有作者声明无利益冲突。 -
表 1 不同人口统计学特征中学生新冠肺炎疫情常态化管理时期同伴欺凌行为报告率比较
Table 1. Comparison of the reporting rate of peer bullying behaviors among middle school students with different demographic characteristics during the COVID-19 normalized management
人口统计学指标 选项 人数 统计值 遭受欺凌 欺凌他人 言语欺凌 关系欺凌 躯体欺凌 网络欺凌 言语欺凌 关系欺凌 躯体欺凌 网络欺凌 性别 男 1 216 699(57.5) 442(36.3) 283(23.3) 148(12.2) 347(28.5) 114(9.4) 97(8.0) 62(5.1) 女 1 003 516(51.4) 381(38.0) 106(10.6) 151(15.1) 138(13.8) 77(7.7) 40(4.0) 39(3.9) χ2值 8.09 0.63 61.37 3.92 70.28 2.02 15.10 1.85 P值 ＜0.01 0.43 ＜0.01 0.04 ＜0.01 0.16 ＜0.01 0.17 年级 初一 741 429(57.9) 279(37.7) 134(18.1) 91(12.3) 157(21.2) 58(7.8) 49(6.6) 35(4.7) 初二 718 392(54.6) 291(40.5) 121(16.9) 104(14.5) 151(21.0) 54(7.5) 44(6.1) 35(4.9) 初三 760 394(51.8) 253(33.3) 134(17.6) 104(13.7) 177(23.3) 79(10.4) 44(5.8) 31(4.1) χ2值 5.56 8.45 0.39 1.56 1.40 4.74 0.44 0.61 P值 0.06 0.02 0.82 0.46 0.50 0.09 0.80 0.74 独生子女 是 560 309(55.2) 217(38.8) 119(21.3) 85(15.2) 134(23.9) 51(9.1) 36(6.4) 32(5.7) 否 1 659 906(54.6) 606(36.5) 270(16.3) 214(12.9) 351(21.2) 140(8.4) 101(6.1) 69(4.2) χ2值 0.05 0.89 7.17 1.87 1.88 0.24 0.07 2.33 P值 0.82 0.35 0.01 0.17 0.17 0.63 0.77 0.13 籍贯 城市 1 185 608(51.3) 401(33.8) 195(16.5) 139(11.7) 225(19.0) 95(8.0) 65(5.5) 42(3.5) 农村 1 034 607(58.7) 422(40.8) 194(18.8) 160(15.5) 260(25.1) 96(9.3) 72(7.8) 59(5.7) χ2值 12.19 11.51 2.03 6.64 12.26 1.13 2.08 5.94 P值 ＜0.01 ＜0.01 0.15 0.01 ＜0.01 0.29 0.15 0.02 家庭类型 核心家庭 1 324 718(54.2) 509(38.4) 238(18.0) 187(14.1) 307(23.2) 110(8.3) 84(6.3) 59(4.5) 大家庭 537 296(55.1) 191(35.6) 90(16.8) 64(11.9) 98(18.2) 40(7.4) 31(5.8) 16(3.0) 单亲家庭 358 201(56.1) 123(34.4) 61(17.0) 48(13.4) 80(22.3) 41(11.5) 22(6.1) 26(7.3) χ2值 0.46 2.72 0.46 1.60 5.51 4.75 0.22 9.14 P值 0.80 0.26 0.79 0.45 0.06 0.09 0.90 0.01 与母亲关系 较差 95 61(64.2) 50(52.6) 21(22.1) 23(24.2) 22(23.2) 9(9.5) 11(11.6) 9(9.5) 一般 743 429(57.7) 327(44.1) 167(22.5) 117(15.7) 191(25.7) 79(10.6) 49(6.6) 36(4.8) 较好 1 381 725(52.5) 446(32.3) 201(14.6) 159(11.5) 272(19.7) 103(7.5) 77(5.6) 56(4.0) χ2值 8.94 38.69 22.41 17.24 10.32 6.28 5.87 6.23 P值 0.01 ＜0.01 ＜0.01 ＜0.01 ＜0.01 0.04 0.05 0.04 与父亲关系 较差 173 103(59.5) 92(53.2) 53(30.6) 47(27.2) 50(28.9) 27(15.6) 17(9.8) 19(11.0) 一般 942 539(57.2) 396(42.0) 177(18.8) 128(13.6) 221(23.5) 83(8.8) 58(6.2) 42(4.5) 较好 1 104 573(51.9) 335(30.3) 159(14.4) 124(11.2) 214(19.4) 81(7.3) 62(5.6) 40(3.6) χ2值 7.53 50.61 29.06 32.60 10.40 13.09 4.58 18.68 P值 0.02 ＜0.01 ＜0.01 ＜0.01 ＜0.01 ＜0.01 0.11 ＜0.01 与老师关系 较差 1 372 791(57.7) 562(41.0) 277(20.2) 215(15.7) 322(23.5) 125(9.1) 77(5.6) 67(4.9) 一般 735 369(50.2) 225(30.6) 94(12.8) 74(10.1) 143(19.5) 57(7.8) 54(7.3) 28(3.8) 较好 112 55(49.1) 36(32.1) 18(16.1) 10(8.9) 20(17.9) 9(8.0) 6(5.4) 6(5.4) χ2值 12.24 23.21 18.30 14.98 5.62 1.17 2.62 1.45 P值 ＜0.01 ＜0.01 ＜0.01 ＜0.01 0.06 0.56 0.27 0.49 注：()内数字为报告率/%。 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 不同人口统计学特征中学生新冠肺炎疫情暴发期间急性应激反应分布比较
Table 2. Comparison of the composition of acute stress response among middle school students with different demographic characteristics during the COVID-19 outbreak
人口统计学指标 人数 低水平 中水平 高水平 χ2值 P值 性别 男 1 216 453(37.3) 493(40.5) 270(22.2) 3.52 0.17 女 1 003 340(33.9) 413(41.2) 250(24.9) 年级 初一 741 199(26.9) 326(44.0) 216(29.1) 50.79 ＜0.01 初二 718 263(36.6) 302(42.1) 153(21.3) 初三 760 331(43.6) 278(36.6) 151(19.9) 独生子女 是 560 219(39.1) 216(38.6) 125(22.3) 3.71 0.16 否 1 659 574(34.6) 690(41.6) 395(23.8) 籍贯 城市 1 185 440(37.1) 457(38.6) 288(24.3) 5.40 0.07 农村 1 034 353(34.1) 449(43.4) 232(22.4) 家庭类型 核心家庭 1 324 478(36.1) 540(40.8) 306(23.1) 7.83 0.10 大家庭 537 203(37.8) 200(37.2) 134(25.0) 单亲家庭 358 112(31.3) 166(46.4) 80(22.3) 与母亲关系 较差 95 31(32.6) 38(40.0) 26(27.4) 4.50 0.34 一般 743 250(33.6) 323(43.5) 170(22.9) 较好 1 381 512(37.1) 545(39.5) 324(23.5) 与父亲关系 较差 173 58(33.5) 58(33.5) 57(32.9) 14.44 ＜0.01 一般 942 322(34.2) 388(41.2) 232(24.6) 较好 1 104 413(37.4) 460(41.7) 231(20.9) 与老师关系 较差 1 372 463(33.7) 576(42.0) 333(24.3) 10.19 0.04 一般 735 277(37.7) 293(39.9) 165(22.4) 较好 112 53(47.3) 37(33.0) 22(19.6) 注：()内数字为构成比/%。
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 不同水平急性应激反应组中学生同伴欺凌行为报告率比较
Table 3. Comparison of the reporting rate of peer bullying behaviors in different levels of acute stress response groups
应激反应 人数 遭受欺凌 欺凌他人 言语欺凌 关系欺凌 躯体欺凌 网络欺凌 言语欺凌 关系欺凌 躯体欺凌 网络欺凌 低水平 793 163(20.6) 129(16.3) 60(7.6) 31(3.9) 148(18.7) 55(6.9) 39(4.9) 28(3.5) 中水平 906 181(20.0) 163(18.0) 60(6.6) 38(4.2) 191(21.1) 68(7.5) 56(6.2) 32(3.5) 高水平 520 136(26.2) 161(31.0) 67(12.9) 57(11.0) 146(28.1) 68(13.1) 42(8.1) 41(7.9) χ2值 8.28 47.27 17.97 35.46 16.83 17.42 5.41 17.37 P值 0.02 ＜0.01 ＜0.01 ＜0.01 ＜0.01 ＜0.01 0.07 ＜0.01 注：()内数字为报告率/%。
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 中学生急性应激反应与同伴欺凌行为关联的多因素Logistic回归分析(n=2 219)
Table 4. Multiple Logistic regression of the relationship between acute stress response and peer bullying behaviors among middle school students(n=2 219)
因变量 急性应激反应 β值 Wald χ2值 P值 OR值(OR值95%CI) 遭受言语欺凌 中水平 -0.04 0.09 0.76 0.96(0.76~1.23) 高水平 0.32 5.54 0.02 1.38(1.06~1.79) 遭受关系欺凌 中水平 0.14 1.04 0.31 1.14(0.88~1.48) 高水平 0.82 35.22 ＜0.01 2.28(1.74~2.99) 遭受躯体欺凌 中水平 -0.12 0.36 0.55 0.89(0.61~1.30) 高水平 0.63 10.68 ＜0.01 1.87(1.29~2.73) 遭受网络欺凌 中水平 0.05 0.04 0.84 1.05(0.65~1.71) 高水平 1.10 21.95 ＜0.01 2.30(1.89~4.74) 言语欺凌他人 中水平 0.18 2.10 0.15 1.20(0.94~1.53) 高水平 0.59 18.39 ＜0.01 1.80(1.38~2.36) 关系欺凌他人 中水平 0.08 0.17 0.68 1.08(0.75~1.57) 高水平 0.69 12.72 ＜0.01 1.99(1.36~2.90) 躯体欺凌他人 中水平 0.26 1.40 0.24 1.29(0.85~1.97) 高水平 0.57 5.92 0.02 1.76(1.12~2.78) 网络欺凌他人 中水平 0.02 0.00 0.95 1.01(0.60~1.71) 高水平 0.84 10.91 ＜0.01 2.32(1.41~3.82)
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] OLWEUS D. School bullying: development and some important challenges[J]. Ann Rev Clin Psychol, 2013, 9: 751-780. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185516 [2] SALIMA M, NEELAM P, SAMANTHA L P, et al. Mental health of children and adolescents amidst COVID-19 and past pandemics: a rapid systematic review[J]. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2021, 18(7): 3432. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18073432 [3] WANG X, HEGDE S, SON C, et al. Investigating mental health of US college students during the COVID-19 pandemic: cross-sectional survey study[J]. J Med Inter Res, 2020, 22(9): e22817. [4] BRYANT R A. The current evidence for acute stress disorder[J]. Curr Psychiatry Rep, 2018, 20(12): 111. doi: 10.1007/s11920-018-0976-x [5] XU H, ZHANG H, HUANG L, et al. Increased symptoms of post-traumatic stress in school students soon after the start of the COVID-19 outbreak in China[J]. BMC Psychiatry, 2021, 21(1): 330. doi: 10.1186/s12888-021-03339-3 [6] SAXE G, CHAWLA N, STODDARD F, et al. Child stress disorders checklist: a measure of ASD and PTSD in children[J]. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 2003, 42(8): 972-978. doi: 10.1097/01.CHI.0000046887.27264.F3 [7] 孔艳婷, 张劲松, 帅澜, 等. 儿童应激障碍检查表中文版的效度、信度[J]. 中国心理卫生杂志, 2014, 28(6): 452-457. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6729.2014.06.010KONG Y T, ZHANG J S, SHUAI L, et al. Validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the Child Stress Disorders Checklist[J]. Chin J Ment Health, 2014, 28(6): 452-457. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6729.2014.06.010 [8] SOLBERG M E, OLWEUS D. Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire[J]. Aggress Behav, 2003, 29(3): 239-268. doi: 10.1002/ab.10047 [9] 汪耿夫, 王秀秀, 方玉, 等. 青少年传统欺凌、网络欺凌与抑郁症状的相关性研究[J]. 中华预防医学杂志, 2015, 49(8): 722-727.WANG G F, WANG X X, FANG Y, et al. Study on the relationship between traditional bullying, cyberbullying and depression in adolescents[J]. Chin J Prev Med, 2015, 49(8): 722-727. (in Chinese) [10] WANG G F, JINAG L, WANG L H, et al. Examining childhood maltreatment and school bullying among adolescents: a cross-sectional study from Anhui Province in China[J]. J Inter Viol, 2016, 34(5): 980-999. [11] VAILLANCOURT T, BRITTAIN H, KRYGSMAN A, et al. School bullying before and during COVID-19: results from a population-based randomized design[J]. Aggress Behav, 2021, 47(5): 557-569. doi: 10.1002/ab.21986 [12] HAWKER D S, BOULTON M J. Twenty years' research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: a Meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies[J]. J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 2000, 41(4): 441-455. doi: 10.1111/1469-7610.00629 [13] BALL H A, ARSENEAULT L, TAYLOR A, et al. Genetic and environmental influences on victims, bullies and bully-victims in childhood[J]. J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 2008, 49(1): 104-112. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01821.x [14] COOK C R, WILLIAMS K R, GUERRA N G, et al. Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: a Meta-analytic investigation[J]. Sch Psychol Q, 2010, 25(2): 65-83. doi: 10.1037/a0020149 [15] 池上新, 范婷, 曾文茜. 双重防护: 初中生的社会资本对校园欺凌的影响: 以深圳市S中学为例[J]. 中国青年社会科学, 2022, 41(1): 98-106. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZQNZ202201015.htmCHI S X, FAN T, ZENG W Q. Double protection: the influence of social capital of junior high school students on school bullying: takes Shenzhen S middle school as an example[J]. Chin J Youth Soc Sci, 2022, 41 (1): 98-106. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZQNZ202201015.htm [16] 赵福江, 周镭. 家庭因素对我国中小学生欺凌行为的影响研究: 基于十五省市的调查数据[J]. 教育学术月刊, 2021(11): 39-45. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YANG202111007.htmZHAO F J, ZHOU L. Study on the influence of family factors on bullying behavior among primary and middle school students in China: is based on survey data from 15 provinces and cities[J]. Educ Res Mon, 2021(11): 39-45. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YANG202111007.htm [17] 李佳哲, 胡咏梅. 谁在受欺凌? 中学生校园欺凌影响因素研究[J]. 首都师范大学学报(社会科学版), 2018(6): 171-185. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-9142.2018.06.020LI J Z, HU Y M. Who is being bullied? Study on the influencing factors of school bullying in middle school students[J]. J Capit Normal Univ(Soc Sci Ed), 2018(6): 171-185. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-9142.2018.06.020 [18] TAN L, XIA T, REECE C. Social and individual risk factors for suicide ideation among Chinese children and adolescents: a multilevel analysis[J]. Int J Psychol, 2018, 53(2): 117-125. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12273 [19] DANIELS J K, HEGADOREN K M, COUPLAND N J, et al. Neural correlates and predictive power of trait resilience in an acutely traumatized sample[J]. J Clin Psychiatry, 2012, 73(3): 327-332. doi: 10.4088/JCP.10m06293 [20] 符争辉, 郑宏. 疫情常态化期间儿童青少年心理健康变化的风险及保护因素研究[J]. 医药论坛杂志, 2022, 43(3): 73-76. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HYYX202203018.htmFU Z H, ZHENG H. Risk and protective factors of mental health changes of children and adolescents during eipdemic normalization[J]. J Med Forum, 2022, 43(3): 73-76. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HYYX202203018.htm [21] MA Z, ZHAO J, LI Y, et al. Mental health problems and correlates among 746217 college students during the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak in China[J]. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci, 2020, 29: e181. doi: 10.1017/S2045796020000931 [22] LOADES M E, CHATBURN E, SWEENEY N H, et al. Rapid systematic review: the impact of social isolation and loneliness on the mental health of children and adolescents in the context of COVID-19[J]. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 2020, 59(11): 1218-1239. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2020.05.009 [23] SCHOELER T, DUNCAN L, CECIL C M, et al. Quasi-experimental evidence on short and long-term consequences of bullying victimization: a Meta-analysis[J]. Psychol Bull, 2018, 144(12): 1229-1246. doi: 10.1037/bul0000171 [24] DUAN L, SHAO X, WANG Y, et al. An investigation of mental health status of children and adolescents in China during the outbreak of COVID-19[J]. J Affect Disord, 2020, 275: 112-118. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.06.029 [25] KOWALSKI R M, GIUMETTI G W, SCHROEDER A N, et al. Bullying in the digital age: a critical review and Meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth[J]. Psychol Bull, 2014, 140(4): 1073-1137. [26] CONNOR K M, DAVIDSON J R. Development of a new resilience scale: the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale(CD-RISC)[J]. Depress Anx, 2003, 18(2): 76-82. [27] KUN P, HAN S, CHEN X, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for post-traumatic stress disorder: a cross-sectional study among survivors of the Wenchuan 2008 earthquake in China[J]. Depress Anx, 2009, 26(12): 1134-1140. -
点击查看大图
表(4)
计量
- 文章访问数: 326
- HTML全文浏览量: 151
- PDF下载量: 44
- 被引次数: 0
