主观社会经济地位与心理幸福感的关系：创造力的中介和安全感的调节作用

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2023.01.020

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为探讨主观社会经济地位对心理幸福感的影响，以及创造力的中介作用和安全感的调节作用，采用问卷法调查了556名18～60岁城市成年人的主观社会经济地位、安全感、创造力和心理幸福感。结果发现：(1)主观社会经济地位正向预测心理幸福感；(2)性格优势之创造力是主观社会经济地位与心理幸福感的中介变量；(3)安全感调节了中介过程的前半路径。只有当个体的安全感较高时，主观社会经济地位对创造力才存在显著的正向预测作用。结果表明，提升社会经济地位的同时，还需要提升个体的安全感，这样才能更好地促进创造力的发展，并进一步增加个体的心理幸福感。

关键词: 主观社会经济地位, 心理幸福感, 安全感, 创造力

Abstract:

This study sought to examine the roles of creativity and security in the relationship between adults’ subjective socioeconomic status and psychological well-being. A total of 556 urban adults aged between 18 and 60 participated in this study. They anonymously completed questionnaires assessing subjective socioeconomic status, psychological well-being, creativity, and security. The results showed that: 1) After controlling for age and objective socioeconomic status, subjective socioeconomic status predicted psychological well-being. 2) Creativity mediated the relationships between socioeconomic status and psychological well-being. 3) Security moderated this mediating path through creativity. Specifically, the association between subjective socioeconomic status and creativity was stronger for adults with higher security. Thus, there are both mediating and moderating factors influencing the relationship between adults’ subjective socioeconomic status and psychological well-being.

Key words: subjective socioeconomic status, psychological well-being, security, creativity

中图分类号:

B849

刘啸莳, 李静雯, 张蕾, 项珵, 吴芸. 主观社会经济地位与心理幸福感的关系：创造力的中介和安全感的调节作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(1): 138-144.

Xiaoshi LIU, Jingwen LI, Lei ZHANG, Cheng XIANG, Yun WU. Relationships Between Subjective Socioeconomic Status and Psychological Well-Being: The Mediating Effect of Creativity and the Moderating Effect of Security[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2023, 21(1): 138-144.

图/表 5

参考文献

	鲍振宙, 张卫, 李董平, 李丹黎, 王艳辉校园氛围与青少年学业成就的关系: 一个有调节的中介模型. 心理发展与教育, 2013, 29 (1): 61- 70.
	陈小萍, 安龙父亲协同教养对儿童亲社会行为的影响: 安全感和人际信任的链式中介作用. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2019, 27 (4): 803- 807.
	丛中, 安莉娟安全感量表的初步编制及信度、效度检验. 中国心理卫生杂志, 2004, 18 (2): 97- 99.
	李懿, 李新建, 刘翔宇. (2018). 技能延展力与员工创新行为的关系研究—工作复杂性与心理安全感的调节作用.研究与发展管理, 30(5), 104–114.
	苗元江, 李明景, 朱晓红 “心盛” 研究述评——基于积极心理学的心理健康模型. 上海教育科研, 2013, (1): 26- 29.
	任晓晖, 文偲廙, 薛利老年人社会经济地位与认知功能的关系. 中国心理卫生杂志, 2019, 33 (10): 762- 768.
	师保国, 申继亮家庭社会经济地位、智力和内部动机与创造性的关系. 心理发展与教育, 2007, 23 (1): 30- 34.
	温忠麟, 叶宝娟中介效应分析: 方法和模型发展. 心理科学进展, 2014, 22 (5): 731- 745.
	吴茜玲, 罗娇, 白纪云, 侯木兰, 李霞大学生安全感对手机成瘾的影响: 回避现实社交的中介作用. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35 (5): 589- 596.
	尤瑾, 杨蕾, 商士杰, 余诗景健康的贫富差距及其内在机制. 心理科学进展, 2016, 24 (7): 1118- 1129.
	张陆, 佐斌自我实现的幸福——心理幸福感研究述评. 心理科学进展, 2007, 15 (1): 134- 139.
	张茜洋, 冷露, 陈红君, 方晓义, 舒曾, 蔺秀云家庭社会经济地位对流动儿童认知能力的影响: 父母教养方式的中介作用. 心理发展与教育, 2017, 33 (2): 153- 162.
	张亚坤, 陈宁, 陈龙安, 施建农让智慧插上创造的翅膀: 创造动力系统的激活及其条件. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29 (4): 707- 722.
	张毅, 游达明团队反思、团队心理安全感对团队创新的影响——一个被中介的调节效应模型检验. 商业经济与管理, 2014, (8): 26- 36.
	周玮, 洪紫静, 胡蓉蓉, 朱婷婷, 刘燊, 张林亲子支持与老年人抑郁情绪的关系: 安全感和情绪表达的作用. 心理发展与教育, 2020, 36 (2): 249- 256.
	Acar, S., Tadik, H., Myers, D., van der Sman, C., & Uysal, R. Creativity and well-being: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 2021, 55 (3): 738- 751. DOI
	Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, white women. Health Psychology, 2000, 19 (6): 586- 592. DOI
	Ayoub, M., Gosling, S. D., Potter, J., Shanahan, M., & Roberts, B. W. The relations between parental socioeconomic status, personality, and life outcomes. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2018, 9 (3): 338- 352. DOI
	Castillo-Vergara, M., Galleguillos, N. B., Cuello, L. J., Alvarez-Marin, A., & Acuña-Opazo, C. Does socioeconomic status influence student creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2018, 29 (3): 142- 152.
	Castro, D. R., Anseel, F., Kluger, A. N., Lloyd, K. J., & Turjeman-Levi, Y. (2018). Mere listening effect on creativity and the mediating role of psychological safety. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(4), 489–502.
	Chen, E., & Miller, G. E. Socioeconomic status and health: Mediating and moderating factors. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 2013, 9 (1): 723- 749. DOI
	Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
	Conger, R. D., & Donnellan, M. B. An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic context of human development. Annual Review of Psychology, 2007, 58 (1): 175- 199. DOI
	Conner, T. S., DeYoung, C. G., & Silvia, P. J. Everyday creative activity as a path to flourishing. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2018, 13 (2): 181- 189. DOI
	Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2013). Creativity: The psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Perennial.
	Curhan, K. B., Levine, C. S., Markus, H. R., Kitayama, S., Park, J., Karasawa, M., … Ryff, C. D. Subjective and objective hierarchies and their relations to psychological well-being: A U.S./Japan comparison. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2014, 5 (8): 855- 864. DOI
	Dai, D. Y., Tan, X. Y., Marathe, D., Valtcheva, A., Pruzek, R. M., & Shen, J. L. (2012). Influences of social and educational environments on creativity during adolescence: Does SES matter? Creativity Research Journal, 24(2–3), 191–199.
	Diener, E., & Chan, M. Y. Happy people live longer: Subjective well-being contributes to health and longevity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 2011, 3 (1): 1- 43. DOI
	Diener, E., & Ryan, K. Subjective well-being: A general overview. South African Journal of Psychology, 2009, 39 (4): 391- 406. DOI
	Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 2010, 97 (2): 143- 156. DOI
	Dowd, J. J. (1990). Ever since Durkheim: The socialization of human development. Human Development, 33(2–3), 138–159.
	Forgeard, M. J. C., & Eichner, K. V. (2014). Creativity as a target and tool for positive interventions. In A. C. Parks & S. M. Schueller (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of positive psychological interventions (pp. 137–154). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
	Gallo, L. C., & Matthews, K. A. (2003). Understanding the association between socioeconomic status and physical health: Do negative emotions play a role? Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 10–51.
	Grossmann, I., & Varnum, M. E. W. Social class, culture, and cognition. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2011, 2 (1): 81- 89. DOI
	Howell, R. T., & Howell, C. J. The relation of economic status to subjective well-being in developing countries: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 2008, 134 (4): 536- 560. DOI
	Hu, J., Erdogan, B., Jiang, K. F., Bauer, T. N., & Liu, S. B. Leader humility and team creativity: The role of team information sharing, psychological safety, and power distance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2018, 103 (3): 313- 323. DOI
	Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2002, 82 (6): 1007- 1022. DOI
	Koydemir, S., Sökmez, A. B., & Schütz, A. A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of randomized controlled positive psychological interventions on subjective and psychological well-being. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 2021, 16 (3): 1145- 1185. DOI
	Kraus, M. W., Côté, S., & Keltner, D. Social class, contextualism, and empathic accuracy. Psychological Science, 2010, 21 (11): 1716- 1723. DOI
	Lebuda, I., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. All you need is love: The importance of partner and family relations to highly creative individuals’ well-being and success. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 2020, 54 (1): 100- 114. DOI
	Lin, C. C. Gratitude and depression in young adults: The mediating role of self-esteem and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 2015, 87, 30- 34. DOI
	Matthews, K. A., & Gallo, L. C. Psychological perspectives on pathways linking socioeconomic status and physical health. Annual Review of Psychology, 2011, 62, 501- 530. DOI
	Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. Character strengths in fifty-four nations and the fifty US states. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2006, 1 (3): 118- 129. DOI
	Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
	Pinquart, M., & Sörensen, S. Influences of socioeconomic status, social network, and competence on subjective well-being in later life: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 2000, 15 (2): 187- 224. DOI
	Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 2001, 52 (1): 141- 166. DOI
	Ryff, C. D. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1989, 57 (6): 1069- 1081. DOI
	Schotanus-Dijkstra, M., Pieterse, M. E., Drossaert, C. H. C., Westerhof, G. J., De Graaf, R., Ten Have, M., … Bohlmeijer, E. T. What factors are associated with flourishing? Results from a large representative national sample. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2016, 17 (4): 1351- 1370. DOI
	Seligman, M. E. P. (2012). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. New York: Simon and Schuster.
	Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 2005, 60 (5): 410- 421. DOI
	Tan, J. J. X., Kraus, M. W., Carpenter, N. C., & Adler, N. E. The association between objective and subjective socioeconomic status and subjective well-being: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 2020, 146 (11): 970- 1020. DOI
	Yang, Y. Z., Xu, X. B., Liu, W. L., & Pang, W. G. Hope and creative self-efficacy as sequential mediators in the relationship between family socioeconomic status and creativity. Frontiers in Psychology, 2020, 11, 438. DOI
	Zhou, W. Y., & McLellan, R. Examining social status profiles with gender, school attended, SES, academic achievement and wellbeing in urban China. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2021, 50 (7): 1464- 1477. DOI

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1.年龄	1.96	0.92
2.性别			−0.10*
3.OSS	4.09	0.90	−0.17***	0.06
4.SSS	6.05	1.49	0.33***	−0.06	0.14***
5.安全感	3.45	0.76	0.22***	−0.06	0.10*	0.33***
6.创造力	3.65	0.76	0.08	0.02	0.01	0.16***	0.24***
7.心理幸福感	5.43	1.00	0.17***	−0.04	0.11**	0.38***	0.51***	0.49***

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1.年龄	1.96	0.92
2.性别			−0.10*
3.OSS	4.09	0.90	−0.17***	0.06
4.SSS	6.05	1.49	0.33***	−0.06	0.14***
5.安全感	3.45	0.76	0.22***	−0.06	0.10*	0.33***
6.创造力	3.65	0.76	0.08	0.02	0.01	0.16***	0.24***
7.心理幸福感	5.43	1.00	0.17***	−0.04	0.11**	0.38***	0.51***	0.49***

预测变量	方程1(因变量：心理幸福感)			方程2(因变量：创造力)			方程3(因变量：心理幸福感)
预测变量	β	t	p	β	t	p	β	t	p
年龄	0.07	1.67	0.095	−0.01	−0.26	0.796	0.01	0.37	0.712
OSS	0.07	1.75	0.082	−0.02	−0.36	0.719	0.04	1.26	0.208
SSS	0.35	8.08	<0.001	0.11	2.30	0.022	0.19	5.37	<0.001
安全感				0.22	4.93	<0.001	0.34	9.71	<0.001
安全感×SSS				0.08	2.20	0.028	−0.00	−0.04	0.972
创造力							0.38	11.49	<0.001
R²	0.15			0.08			0.44
F	32.52***			8.99***			72.07***

预测变量	方程1(因变量：心理幸福感)			方程2(因变量：创造力)			方程3(因变量：心理幸福感)
预测变量	β	t	p	β	t	p	β	t	p
年龄	0.07	1.67	0.095	−0.01	−0.26	0.796	0.01	0.37	0.712
OSS	0.07	1.75	0.082	−0.02	−0.36	0.719	0.04	1.26	0.208
SSS	0.35	8.08	<0.001	0.11	2.30	0.022	0.19	5.37	<0.001
安全感				0.22	4.93	<0.001	0.34	9.71	<0.001
安全感×SSS				0.08	2.20	0.028	−0.00	−0.04	0.972
创造力							0.38	11.49	<0.001
R²	0.15			0.08			0.44
F	32.52***			8.99***			72.07***

安全感水平	中介效应值	标准误	Bootstrap下限	Bootstrap上限
M−SD	0.009	0.025	−0.038	0.059
M	0.040	0.021	0.001	0.084
M+SD	0.074	0.032	0.018	0.144