青少年非自杀性自伤患者父母人格特征及认知调节情绪策略

张桂梅; 向婷; 蔡艺娴; 潘集阳

doi:10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2022.10.020

青少年非自杀性自伤患者父母人格特征及认知调节情绪策略

doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2022.10.020

暨南大学附属第一医院精神医学科，广东广州 510632

详细信息

作者简介:
张桂梅(1995-)，女，内蒙古赤峰人，在读博士，主要研究方向为青少年心理健康

通讯作者:
潘集阳，E-mail：jiypan@vip.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 G78
计量
- 文章访问数: 338
- HTML全文浏览量: 139
- PDF下载量: 27
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2022-06-02
- 修回日期: 2022-08-15
- 网络出版日期: 2022-10-28
- 刊出日期: 2022-10-25

Personality and cognitive reguation emotion strategies among parents of adolescents with non-suicidal self-injury

Department of Psychiatry, the First Affiliated Hospital, Jinan University, Guangzhou(510632), China

摘要

摘要: 目的分析青少年非自杀性自伤(non-suicidal self-injury，NSSI)患者父母人格特征、认知调节情绪策略对青少年NSSI行为的影响。方法选取2020年1月至2021年1月到山东第一医科大学第二附属医院、泰安市中心医院、泰安市精神病医院就诊的青少年NSSI患者为病例组(60人)，在学校、社区及医院选取健康青少年为对照组(60人)，采用中国大五人格问卷简式版、认知情绪调节问卷中文版(CERQ-C)对其父母进行问卷调查，利用Logistic回归评价青少年NSSI的影响因素。结果对照组父母开放性、严谨性人格得分[(40.90±6.19)(48.18±6.12)]高于病例组父母[(36.88±5.02)(44.12±6.58)](t值分别为3.90，3.50，P值均＜0.05)。对照组父母面对负性事件时在接受、积极再评价、再关注计划、积极再关注、合理分析的策略得分高于病例组父母(t值分别为3.43，3.58，2.36，5.44，3.53，P值均＜0.05)。病例组父母的神经质与合理分析(r=0.31)、灾难性(r=0.37)呈正相关；开放性与积极再关注(r=0.30)、积极再评价(r=0.27)呈正相关；接受与外向性、开放性、严谨性呈负相关(r值分别为-0.29，-0.40，-0.26)；责备他人与外向性(r=-0.35)、宜人性呈负相关(r=-0.36)；外向性与积极再关注呈负相关(r=-0.32)(P值均 < 0.05)。二元Logistic回归分析结果显示，病例组父母的经济水平、受教育年限、接受、积极再评价、合理分析、神经质、开放性、严谨性与NSSI行为呈负相关(OR值分别为0.49，0.60，0.59，0.45，0.53，0.81，0.76，0.74)，自我责难、再关注计划与青少年NSSI行为呈正相关(OR值分别为1.55，2.09)(P值均＜0.05)。结论青少年NSSI患者父母的人格特征、面对负性事件时的情绪调节策略影响青少年NSSI行为的发生。
- 自我伤害行为 /
- 父亲 /
- 母亲 /
- 人格 /
- 情绪 /
- 回归分析 /
- 青少年
Abstract: Objective To analyze the association of personality characteristics and cognitive adjustment strategies among parents of adolescents with non-suicidal self-injury(NSSI) with adolescent NSSI. Methods Adolescents with NSSI who visited the hospital from January 2020 to January 2021 were recruited as the case group(n=60), and healthy adolescents recruited in the school, community and hospital were selected as the control group(n=60). The participants' parents completed the Chinese Big Five Personality Inventory and the Chinese version of the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ-C), Logistic regression was used to explore the associations. Results Parents of the control group had higher scores of openness (40.90±6.19) and conscientiousness (48.18±6.12) than parents of the case group (36.88±5.02)(44.12±6.58) (t=3.90, 3.50, P < 0.05). In terms of negative events, scores of acceptance, positive reappraisal, refocusing on planning, positive refocusing and putting into perspective were higher among parents of the control group than among parents of the case group (t=3.43, 3.58, 2.36, 5.44, 3.53, P < 0.05). Among parents of the case group, neuroticism was positively correlated with putting into perspective (r=0.31) and catastrophizing (r=0.37). Openness was positively correlated with positive refocusing (r=0.30) and positive reappraisal (r=0.27). Acceptance was negatively correlated with extroversion (r=-0.29), openness (r=-0.40), conscientiousness (r=-0.26), while other-blame was negatively correlated with extroversion (r=-0.35), agreeableness (r=-0.36). Extraversion was negatively associated with positive refocusing (r=-0.32)(P < 0.05). According to binary regression analysis, the income of parents in the case group (OR=0.49), education (OR=0.60), acceptance (OR=0.59), positive reappraisal (OR=0.45), putting into perspective (OR=0.53), neuroticisms (OR=0.81), openness (OR=0.76) and conscientiousness (OR=0.74) were risk factors, whereas refocusing on planning (OR=2.09) and self-blame (OR=1.55) were protective factors of NSSI in the case group(P < 0.05). Conclusion When confronted with adverse events, the personality characteristics of parents of children with NSSI, and the emotional regulation strategies adopted by these parents, have influence on the prevalence of NSSI in this population.
- Self-injurious behavior /
- Fathers /
- Mothers /
- Personality /
- Emotions /
- Regression analysis /
- Adolescents
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 两组青少年父母人格特征各维度得分比较(x±s)

Table 1. Comparison of personality characteristics between parents of the case group and the control group(x±s)

组别	人数	神经质	外向性	开放性	宜人性	严谨性
病例组	60	28.07±5.25	40.83±4.98	36.88±5.02	42.68±5.38	44.12±6.58
对照组	60	29.53±6.23	41.72±6.96	40.90±6.19	44.20±5.06	48.18±6.12
t值		-1.39	-0.80	-3.90	-1.59	-3.50
P值		1.66	0.43	< 0.01	0.11	< 0.01

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 两组青少年父母认知情绪调节策略得分比较(x±s)

Table 2. Comparison of cognitive emotional regulation strategies between parents of the case group and the control group(x±s)

组别	人数	自我责备	接受	沉思	积极再关注	再关注计划	积极再评价	合理分析	灾难性	责备他人
对照组	60	11.03±2.13	15.28±2.50	10.88±2.91	13.58±2.81	16.33±2.46	16.90±2.64	10.38±2.81	7.08±3.57	7.88±2.99
病例组	60	13.57±2.96	9.83±3.42	11.57±3.33	15.15±3.00	13.93±3.29	8.58±2.77	8.58±2.77	7.83±2.73	8.70±3.18
t值		-0.11	3.43	-1.81	-3.58	2.36	5.44	3.53	-1.29	-1.45
P值		0.91	< 0.01	0.07	< 0.01	0.02	< 0.01	< 0.01	0.20	0.15

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 病例组父母人格特征与认知情绪策略的相关性分析(r值，n=60)

Table 3. Correlation analysis between personality characteristic and cognitive emotional strategies of parents of the case group(r, n=60)

变量	神经质	外向性	开放性	宜人性	严谨性
自我责备	0.04	-0.17	-0.25	0.03	0.06
接受	0.24	-0.29^*	-0.40^**	0.05	-0.26^*
沉思	0.21	-0.04	-0.09	0.12	0.01
积极再关注	0.04	-0.32^*	0.30^*	0.22	-0.07
再关注计划	0.09	0.04	0.15	0.14	-0.09
积极再评价	0.10	0.19	0.27^*	0.05	-0.16
合理分析	0.31^*	-0.06	-0.15	-0.23	-0.18
灾难性	0.37^**	-0.11	-0.17	-0.19	-0.07
责备他人	-0.05	-0.35^**	-0.11	-0.36^**	0.06
注：P＜0.05，*P＜0.01。

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 父母人格特征及认知情绪策略对青少年NSSI行为的影响(n=120)

Table 4. The effects of parental personality characteristics and cognitive emotional strategies on NSSI behavior of adolescence(n=120)

自变量	β值	Wald χ²值	P值	OR值(OR值95%CI)
年龄	0.03	0.13	0.72	1.03(0.89~1.19)
受教育年限	-0.51	18.59	＜0.01	0.60(0.48~0.76)
收入水平	-0.72	4.88	0.03	0.49(0.26~0.92)
自我责难	0.44	6.29	0.01	1.55(1.10~2.17)
接受	-0.53	9.43	＜0.01	0.59(0.42~0.83)
沉思	0.12	0.58	0.45	1.12(0.83~1.52)
积极再关注	-0.20	1.85	0.17	0.82(0.62~1.09)
再关注计划	0.74	9.94	＜0.01	2.09(1.32~3.30)
积极再评价	-0.79	15.16	＜0.01	0.45(0.31~0.68)
合理分析	-0.64	6.09	0.01	0.53(0.32~0.88)
灾难化	0.23	1.84	0.18	1.25(0.91~1.73)
责难他人	-0.20	1.43	0.23	0.82(0.59~1.14)
神经质	-0.21	6.26	0.01	0.81(0.69~1.00)
外向性	-0.02	0.06	0.80	0.98(0.84~1.15)
开放性	-0.28	12.11	＜0.01	0.76(0.65~0.89)
宜人性	-0.09	2.19	0.14	0.91(0.81~1.03)
严谨性	-0.30	12.49	＜0.01	0.74(0.62~0.88)

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(21)

[1]	LLOYD-RICHARDSON E E, PERRINE N, DIERKER L, et al. Characteristics and functions of non-suicidal self-injury in a community sample of adolescents[J]. Psychol Med, 2007, 37(8): 1183-1192. doi: 10.1017/S003329170700027X
[2]	BROWN S A. Personality and non-suicidal deliberate self-harm: trait differences among a non-clinical population[J]. Psychiatry Res, 2009, 169(1): 28-32. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2008.06.005
[3]	GROMATSKY M A, WASZCZUK M A, PERLMAN G, et al. The role of parental psychopathology and personality in adolescent non-suicidal self-injury[J]. J Psychiatr Res, 2017, 85: 15-23. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2016.10.013
[4]	梁素改, 闫敬, 朱翠珍, 等. 非自杀性自伤与自杀未遂的中学生人格特征分析[J]. 四川大学学报(医学版), 2014, 45(6): 970-973. doi: 10.13464/j.scuxbyxb.2014.06.019 LIANG S G, YAN J, ZHU C Z, et al. Analysis of personality characteristics of middle school students with non-suicide self-injury and suicide attempt[J]. J Sichuan Univ(Med Sci), 2014, 45(6): 970-973. (in Chinese) doi: 10.13464/j.scuxbyxb.2014.06.019
[5]	易陈彬. 农村初中生父母教养方式、大五人格与非自杀性自伤行为的关系研究[J]. 心理月刊, 2019(8): 2. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XLYK201908001.htm YI C B. Study on the relationship between parenting style, big five personality and non-suicide self-injury behavior of junior high school students in the rural area[J]. Psychologies, 2019(8): 2. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XLYK201908001.htm
[6]	KIEKENS G, HASKING P, BRUFFAERTS R, et al. What predicts ongoing nonsuicidal self-injury? a comparison between persistent and ceased self-injury in emerging adults[J]. J Nerv Ment Dis, 2017, 205(10): 762-770. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0000000000000726
[7]	MADJAR N, SEGAL N, EGER G, et al. Exploring particular facets of cognitive emotion regulation and their relationships with nonsuicidal self-injury among adolescents[J]. Crisis, 2019, 40(4): 280-286. doi: 10.1027/0227-5910/a000566
[8]	TALIAFERRO L A, MUEHLENKAMP J J, BOROWSKY I W, et al. Factors distinguishing youth who report self-injurious behavior: a population-based sample[J]. Acad Pediatr, 2012, 12(3): 205-213. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2012.01.008
[9]	LAW C K, YIP P S, CHAN W S, et al. Evaluating the effectiveness of barrier installation for preventing railway suicides in Hong Kong[J]. J Affect Disord, 2009, 114(1/3): 254-262.
[10]	WHITE H V, SILAMONGKOL T, WIGLESWORTH A, et al. Maternal emotion socialization of adolescent girls engaging in non-suicidal self-injury[J]. Res Child Adolesc Psychopathol, 2021, 49(5): 683-695. doi: 10.1007/s10802-020-00758-w
[11]	American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders[M]. 5th ed. Arlington: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2013.
[12]	LIU W, CHEN L, BLUE P R. Chinese adaptation and psychometric properties of the Child Version of the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire[J]. PLoS One, 2016, 11(2): e0150206. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150206
[13]	朱熊兆, 罗伏生, 姚树桥, 等. 认知情绪调节问卷中文版(CERQ-C)的信效度研究[J]. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2007, 15(2): 5. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZLCY200702006.htm ZHU X Z, LUO F S, YAO S Q, et al. Reliability and validity of the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire-Chinese Version[J]. Chin J Clin Psychol, 2007, 15(2): 5. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZLCY200702006.htm
[14]	王孟成, 戴晓阳, 姚树桥. 中国大五人格问卷的初步编制Ⅲ: 简式版的制定及信效度检验[J]. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2011, 19(4): 454-457. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZLCY201104009.htm WANG M C, DAI X Y, YAO S Q, et al. Development of the Chinese Big Five Personality Inventory (CBF-PI) Ⅲ: psychometric properties of CBF-PI brief version[J]. Chin J Clin Psychol, 2011, 19(4): 454-457. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZLCY201104009.htm
[15]	COPLAN R J, REICHEL M, ROWAN K. Exploring the associations between maternal personality, child temperament, and parenting: a focus on emotions[J]. Person Individ Differ, 2009, 46(2): 241-246. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.10.011
[16]	高昂, 余洁静, 耿耀国, 等. 青少年负性生活事件与非自杀性自伤行为: 有调节的中介模型[J]. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2020, 28(5): 897-901. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZLCY202005007.htm GAO A, YU J J, GENG Y G, et al. Negative life events and non-suicidal self-injury in adolescents: a moderated mediating model[J]. Chin J Clin Psychol, 2020, 28(5): 897-901. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZLCY202005007.htm
[17]	SARNO I, MADEDDU F, GRATZ K L. Self-injury, psychiatric symptoms, and defense mechanisms: findings in an Italian nonclinical sample[J]. Eur Psychiatry, 2010, 25(3): 136-145. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2009.05.007
[18]	RESCH F, PARZER P, BRUNNER R, et al. Self-mutilation and suicidal behaviour in children and adolescents: prevalence and psychosocial correlates: results of the BELLA study[J]. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 2008, 17(Suppl 1): 92-98.
[19]	杨尚儒. 家庭教养方式与青少年社会适应能力的关系: 心理弹性的中介作用[D]. 兰州: 西北师范大学, 2017. YANG S R. Relationship between family education and social adaptability of adolescents: the intermediary role of psychological elasticity[D]. Lanzhou: Northwest Normal University, 2017. (in Chinese)
[20]	BAETENS I, CLAES L, ONGHENA P, et al. Non-suicidal self-injury in adolescence: a longitudinal study of the relationship between NSSI, psychological distress and perceived parenting[J]. J Adolesc, 2014, 37(6): 817-826.
[21]	TSCHAN T, SCHMID M, IN-ALBON T. Parenting behavior in families of female adolescents with non-suicidal self-injury in comparison to a clinical and a nonclinical control group[J]. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health, 2015, 9: 17.