贫困与非贫困大学生防御方式和心理健康状况的比较

背景对防御机制的研究在国内目前主要是从两个方向来进行的一个是对具体生活事件的应付方式,另一个是防御机制与心理健康、人格障碍的相关研究.研究对象群体也比较广泛,对大学中贫困大学生这一特殊群体的防御方式与心理健康相关研究是十分必要的.目的了解贫困与非贫困大学生防御方式与心理健康状况的关系.设计整群分层抽样调查.单位西南科技大学法学院应用心理学教研室.对象调查对象来源于以整群分层方法抽取的2003级在西南科技大学就读的一年级学生528名,年龄17～20岁.按照学生所在地区居民的平均最低生活水准线为标准(每月低于200元人民币),将大学生分为贫困大学生组(n=153)和非贫困大学生组(n=353).方法调查于2004-01进行.测评工具包括①防御方式问卷由88个项目组成,采取1～9级评定方式,得分越靠近9则应用此种防御方式的频度越大.结果可归为三大因子,共计24种防御策略.②社会支持量表共10个项目,包括客观支持(3条)、主观支持(4条)和对社会支持的利用度(3条)3个维度.③症状自评量表共计90个项目,采用5级(0～4级)计分,评定方法0=从无,1=轻度,2=中度,3=相当重,4=严重,主要统计指标为该量表的9个因子得分.测评方法由从事心理学教学与咨询的大学教师为主试,采用团体测验的方式,由学生独立完成各量表项目的判定.施测完毕,由调查者剔除无效问卷,再统一对有效问卷进行编码处理,并进行样本差异的显著性检验.主要观察指标①贫困与非贫困大学生防御方式问卷、社会支持量表和症状自评量表评定结果比较.②贫困大学生防御方式问卷与症状自评量表各因子的相关性分析.结果测评发放问卷528份,收回516份,其中有效问卷506份,纳入结果分析.①贫困与非贫困大学生防御方式评定结果比较贫困大学生在不成熟防御方式中,除分裂因子外,其他因子分均高于非贫困大学生,差异有显著性(P＜0.05～0.01);在成熟防御方式中,压抑因子分低于非贫困大学生,差异有显著性(P＜0.05);在中间型防御方式中,理想化因子分低于非贫困大学生,解除和同一化因子分高于非贫困大学生,差异有显著性(P＜0.05～0.01).②贫困与非贫困大学生社会支持量表评定结果比较贫困大学生的主观支持评分低于非贫困大学生,对支持的利用度评分高于非贫困大学生,差异有显著性(P均＜0.05).③贫困与非贫困大学生症状自评量表评定结果比较贫困大学生的躯体化、人际关系敏感、抑郁、敌对、精神病性因子分高于非贫困大学生,差异有显著性(P＜0.05～0.01).④贫困大学生防御方式问卷与症状自评量表各因子的相关性分析贫困大学生的不成熟防御、成熟防御和中间型防御与症状自评量表中的抑郁和焦虑因子相关性最显著(r=-0.366～0.352).结论①与非贫困大学生比较,贫困大学生更倾向使用不成熟防御方式,提示贫困与非贫困大学生对防御方式的选择存在复杂的相互关系.②贫困大学生更少主动利用社会支持来解决问题,提示与非贫困大学生相比,贫困大学生更缺乏利用社会支持的意识和习惯.③贫困大学生更易产生焦虑、抑郁、敏感的不良情绪,提示贫困大学生心理症状水平较高.④贫困大学生的心理健康状况越低,其防御机制的成熟程度也越低,提示较多采用不成熟和中间型防御机制有损学生的心身健康.

Comparison of defending way and status of mental health between impoverished and non-impoverished university students

BACKGROUND:Domestic studies on defence mechanism are conducted mainly from two directions at present: ways to deal with concrete life events and the correlation of defence mechanism with mental health and personality disorder. The subject groups observed are widespread; it is necessary to carry out research on the defending way and mental health of the special cohort of impoverished university students.OBJETCIVE: To understand the differences in defence mechanism and status of mental health between impoverished and non-impoverished university students.DESIGN: Stratified sampling investigation.SETTING: Teaching and Research Section of Applied Psychology, College of Law of Southwest University of Science and Technology.PARTICIPANTS: Totally 528 students, aged 17 to 20 years old, were recruited from grade one of year 2003 in Southwest University of Science and Technology with stratified sampling method. According to the average minimum living standard of their residing region (lower than 200 yuan per month), university students were divided into the group of impoverished university students (n=153) and group of non-impoverished university students (n=353).METHODS: The investigation was conducted in January 2004. The asof 88 items graded into 9 scales; Scores closer to 9 suggested a higher frequency of adopting such defending way. Results were categorized into three port inventory: There were 10 items of 3 dimensions, i.e., objective support (3 items), subjective support (4 items) and the rate of social support utilizainto five scales (0-4); the evaluation method: 0 = never, 1 = mild, 2 =moderate, 3 = quite serious, and 4= very serious. The main statistical index was the scores for 9 factors. Testing method: university teachers engaged in psychology teaching and consultation were the main judges; the collective test was used and students were asked to complete the questionnaire independently. After the test, invalid questionnaires were removed by investigators, and valid questionnaires were encoded altogether for significance examination of the differences between samples.naire, social support inventory and symptom self-rating scale were comCorrelation analysis of the factors in defending way questionnaire and symptom self-rating scale in impoverished university students.RESULTS: Of totally 528 copies of testing questionnaires sent out, 516Comparison of defending manner between impoverished and non-impoverished university students: Compared with non-impoverished students, impoverished university students scored higher in immature defence except for splitting factor, with significant difference (P ＜ 0.05-0.01), impoverished students scored significantly lower for depression factor (P ＜ 0.05).As for intermediate defending manner, impoverished students scored lower for idealization factor than non-impoverished students, but higher for dismissal and homogeneity factors than non-impoverished students, with sigtory: impoverished students scored lower for subjective supports than nonimpoverished university students, but higher for the rate of social support tom self-rating scale: impoverished university students scored significantly higher for somatization, interpersonal relationship sensitivity, depression,hostility and neurosis factors than the non-impoverished university students questionnaire and symptom self-rating scale in impoverished university students: the immature, mature and intermediate defending manners were found significantly correlated with depression and anxiety factor in symptom self-rating scale in impoverished university students (r=-0.366-0.352).impoverished students are more inclined to adopt immature defence, suggesting complicated interaction in adopting defending manner by impoverty students seldom take the initiative to solve problems, which suggests that Impoverished university students are more liable to have bad mood such as anxiety, depression and sensitivity, indicating that they have higher level of ished students suggests poorer maturity of defence, indicating that more frequently adopting immature and intermediate type defence would impair students'physical and mental health.