|
高校研考生心理状态及其回归预测因素探析——以曲阜师范大学为例
|
Abstract:
为了更好地了解高校考研学生群体的心理状态,有针对性地做好研考生的心理健康教育和引导工作,本文采用正性情绪分量表、抑郁–焦虑–压力量表、一般自我效能感量表、认知灵活性量表对曲阜师范大学的409名研考生进行了抽样问卷调查,分析研考生的心理状态及影响因素。结果表明,82.2%研考生的正性情绪的得分处于较好水平,7.1%的学生有压力体验,22.7%的学生有焦虑体验,16.6%的学生有抑郁体验。心理健康指标与自我效能感和认知灵活性各变量之间均显著相关,男性压力、自我效能感和认知可选择性得分均显著高于女性。以性别、学科门类、自我效能感、认知灵活性四个变量构建的回归方程,可以显著解释正性情绪32.5%的变异,可以显著解释压力18.5%的变异,可以显著解释焦虑24.7%的变异,可以显著解释抑郁24.1%的变异。自我效能感和认知灵活性显著正向预测正性情绪,显著负向预测压力、焦虑和抑郁。由此可见,高校研考生的心理健康水平处于相对稳定状态,但仍显现出压力、焦虑和抑郁情绪,心理状态存在性别、学科门类的群体特异性,自我效能感和认知灵活性是影响研考生心理状态的主要因素。正基于此,为从营造积极的舆论环境、消解不良情绪,注重精准施策、培养心理承受力,提高自我效能感、加强行动掌控力,强化认知灵活性、提升心理调适力四个方面做好研考生心理健康教育工作提供了较为充分的依据。
For better understanding the psychological state of postgraduate candidates in college to provide targeted psychological education and guidance, this article conducted a sampling questionnaire survey of 409 postgraduate candidates at Qufu Normal University using the Positive Emotion Scale, Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS), General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), and Cognitive Flexibility Inventory (CFI) to analyze their psychological state and prediction of regression factors. The results showed following conclusions. 82.2% of graduate students scored well in positive emotions, 7.1% of students have experienced stress, 22.7% have experienced anxiety, and 16.6% have experienced depression. Psychological health indicators are significantly correlated with variables such as self-efficacy and cognitive flexibility. Male stress, self-efficacy, and cognitive selectivity scores are significantly higher than those of females. The regression equation constructed with four variables: gender, subject category, self-efficacy, and cognitive flexibility can significantly explain 32.5% of the variation in positive emotions, 18.5% of the variation in stress, 24.7% of the variation in anxiety, and 24.1% of the variation in depression. Self efficacy and cognitive flexibility significantly positively predict positive emotions, and significantly negatively predict stress, anxiety, and depression. It can be seen that the mental health level of college graduate students is relatively stable. It can be seen that the mental health level of postgraduate candidates in college is relatively stable, but they still show symptoms of stress, anxiety, and depression. Psychological states exhibit group specificity based on gender and disciplinary categories. Self-efficacy and cognitive flexibility are the main factors affecting the psychological state of
[1] | 戴冰, 徐小林(2010). 大学生一般自我效能感及其与创造性人格的关系. 中国健康心理学杂志, 18(7), 881-883. |
[2] | 郭晓栋, 郑泓, 阮盾, 胡丁鼎, 王毅, 王艳郁, 陈楚侨(2023). 认知和情感共情与负性情绪: 情绪调节的作用机制. 心理学报, 55(6), 892-904. |
[3] | 黄丽, 杨廷忠, 季忠民(2003). 正性负性情绪量表的中国人群适用性研究. 中国心理卫生杂志, 17(1), 54-56. |
[4] | 吉祥佩, 李宜江(2021). 近年来考研热现象的成因分析及其引导策略——基于布迪厄场域和文化资本理论的视角. 扬州大学学报(高教研究版), 25(3), 83-89. |
[5] | 金爽(2016). 考研学生心理健康状况调查研究. 潍坊工程职业学院学报, 29(3), 8-11. |
[6] | 李小玲, 唐海波, 郭锋, 何浩宇(2012). 抑郁-焦虑-压力量表信效度研究述评. 中国临床心理学杂志, 20(3), 350-352. |
[7] | 刘儒德(1999). 论认知灵活性理论. 北京师范大学学报(人文社会科学版), (5), 61-66. |
[8] | 王俊, 刘若泳(2011). 研究生报考动机的调查与分析——以武汉7所“211”高校为例. 煤炭高等教育, 29(4), 89-93. |
[9] | 王阳, 杨燕, 肖婉婷, 苏勤(2016). 认知灵活性问卷中文版测评大学生样本的效度和信度. 中国心理卫生杂志, 30(1), 58-63. |
[10] | 王颖(2021). 考研生社会支持与情绪调节自我效能感的关系. 教育观察, (13), 78-80. |
[11] | 熊倪娟, 赵东辉, 施祖麟(2005). 经济人的理性选择与社会人的流动渠道——对“考研热”的经济学与社会学分析. 清华大学教育研究, 26(2), 47-54. |
[12] | 张妍(2015). 山东某医学院校大学生毕业选择方向及其对心理健康的影响. 中国健康心理学杂志, (2), 288-291. |
[13] | 张玉, 任威威(2023). 医学生考研焦虑状况及其影响因素. 黑龙江科学, 14(23), 111-113. |
[14] | 周浩, 龙立荣(2004). 共同方法偏差的统计检验与控制方法. 心理科学进展, 12(6), 942-942. |
[15] | 周宓, 于坤, 王芙蓉(2021). 认知灵活性与个体适应能力: 一个交叉滞后的双向中介模型. 中国临床心理学杂, 29(1), 182-186, 190. |
[16] | Dennis, J. P., & Vander Wal, J. S. (2009). The Cognitive Flexibility Inventory: Instrument Development and Estimates of Reliability and Validity. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34, 241-253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-009-9276-4 |
[17] | Kestler-Peleg, M., Lavenda, O., Stenger, V., Bendett, H., Alhalel-Lederman, S., Maayan-Metzger, A. et al. (2020). Maternal Self-Efficacy Mediates the Association between Spousal Support and Stress among Mothers of NICU Hospitalized Preterm Babies. Early Human Development, 146, Article ID: 105077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105077 |
[18] | Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 |