中学生急性应激反应与同伴欺凌行为的关联

张婷婷; 李泳汉; 袁梦园; 常俊杰; 李缘; 曹磊磊; 王少杰; 汪耿夫; 苏普玉

doi:10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2022.10.005

中学生急性应激反应与同伴欺凌行为的关联

doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2022.10.005

1.
安徽医科大学公共卫生学院儿少卫生与妇幼保健学系/出生人口健康教育部重点实验室/人口健康与优生安徽省重点实验室, 合肥 230032
2.
中国人民解放军联勤保障部队第九〇一医院临床学院

基金项目:

国家自然科学基金面上项目 82173539

国家自然科学基金面上项目 81874268

详细信息

作者简介:
张婷婷(1988-), 女, 安徽肥东人, 在读硕士, 主管技师, 主要研究方向为儿童青少年发育与行为医学

通讯作者:
苏普玉, E-mail: supuyu@ahmu.edu.cn

利益冲突声明 所有作者声明无利益冲突。
中图分类号: G627.8 B844.2 G444
计量
- 文章访问数: 424
- HTML全文浏览量: 201
- PDF下载量: 49
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2022-03-30
- 修回日期: 2022-05-07
- 网络出版日期: 2022-10-28
- 刊出日期: 2022-10-25

Association between acute stress response and peer bullying behaviors among middle school students

1.
Department of Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health, School of Public Health, Anhui Medical University/Key Laboratory of Population Health Across Life Cycle, Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China/Anhui Provincial Key Laboratory of Population Health and Aristogenics, Hefei (230032), China

摘要

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。
- 应激, 心理学 /
- 暴力 /
- 行为 /
- 精神卫生 /
- 回归分析 /
- 学生
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.
- Stress, psychological /
- Violence /
- Behavior /
- Mental health /
- Regression analysis /
- Students
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
人口统计学指标	选项	人数	统计值	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
应激反应	人数	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

参考文献(27)

[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.1000-6729.2014.06.010 KONG 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.htm CHI 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.htm ZHAO 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.1004-9142.2018.06.020 LI 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.htm FU 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.