初中生受侵害与攻击类型的转变模式：近墨者黑？

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2024.03.005

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

以1135名初中学生为被试进行为期一年半的追踪研究，采用潜在剖面分析与潜在转变分析方法考察了受侵害与攻击的类型与转变情况，以及朋友的受侵害与攻击、友谊质量对其的影响。结果发现：(1)受侵害与攻击在两个时间点上均分为4种类型(即“未卷入组”、“高受侵害低攻击组”、“中受侵害高攻击组”和“中受侵害低攻击组”(第一个时间点)/“高受侵害高攻击组”(第二个时间点)。受侵害与攻击类型随着时间推移兼具稳定性与转变性。(2)朋友的高受侵害水平会促进初中生由“未卷入组”向“高受侵害低攻击组”转化；朋友的高攻击水平会促使初中生由“未卷入组”向“中受侵害高攻击组”和“高受侵害高攻击组”转化。(3)高友谊质量会加强朋友的受侵害水平所带来的影响，而低友谊质量会加剧朋友的攻击水平所带来的影响。研究结果有助于深化对初中生受侵害与攻击变化模式多样性的理解，有利于制定有针对性的预防干预方案。

关键词: 受侵害, 攻击, 初中生, 友谊, 转变模式

Abstract:

A 1.5-year follow-up longitudinal design was used to explore the patterns change of victimization and aggression from the perspective of individual attributes among 1135 Chinese middle school students. The results showed that: 1) Four distinct patterns of victimization and aggression, that is, uninvolved group, high victimization - low aggression, medium victimization - high aggression, and medium victimization - low aggression (wave 1)/ high victimization - high aggression (wave 2), were identified. There were stability and transitions among patterns of victimization and aggression. 2) Friends’ victimization and aggression had significant impacts on the changing patterns of adolescents’ victimization and aggression. Specifically, if adolescents’ friends experienced more victimization at wave 1, the probability of these adolescents transforming from the uninvolved group to the high victimization - low aggression group was higher. If Adolescents’ friends experienced more aggression at wave 1, the probability of these adolescents transforming from the uninvolved group to the medium victimization - high aggression group and high victimization - high aggression group was higher. 3) Friendship quality played different roles in the above relationships. High friendship quality strengthened the impact of friends’ victimization, while low friendship quality intensified the impact of friends’ aggression. The findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the diversity of patterns of change in victimization and aggression among middle school students and facilitate the development of targeted preventive intervention programs.

Key words: victimization, aggression, middle school students, friendship, transition patterns

林丹华, 曹娟, 申子姣, 张月. 初中生受侵害与攻击类型的转变模式：近墨者黑？[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(3): 320-328.

Danhua LIN, Juan CAO, Zijiao SHEN, Yue ZHANG. Effects of Friends’ Victimization and Aggression on Victimization and Aggression Dynamic Change Among Middle School Students[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2024, 22(3): 320-328.

图/表 7

参考文献 0

	白丽. (2019). 亲子依恋和同伴依恋对儿童攻击性行为发展的影响——一项流动儿童与城市儿童的比较研究(硕士学位论文). 南京师范大学.
	纪林芹, 张蒙, 董美慧, 潘斌, 张文新. 童年晚期至青少年早期攻击和同伴侵害的关系: 交叉滞后研究. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37 (5): 701- 709.
	张文新, 陈亮, 纪林芹, 张玲玲, 陈光辉, 王姝琼. 童年中期身体侵害、关系侵害与儿童的情绪适应. 心理学报, 2009, 41 (5): 433- 443.
	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
	Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1987, 16 (5): 427- 454. DOI
	Balogh, I., Ørbaek, P., Winkel, J., Nordander, C., Ohlsson, K., Ektor-Andersen, J., & Malmo Shoulder-Neck Study Group. (2001). Questionnaire-based mechanical exposure indices for large population studies—Reliability, internal consistency and predictive validity. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 27(1), 41–48.
	Bandura, A. The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1986, 4 (3): 359- 373. DOI
	Bettencourt, A. F., & Farrell, A. D. Individual and contextual factors associated with patterns of aggression and peer victimization during middle school. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2013, 42 (2): 285- 302. DOI
	Brown, B. B., Bakken, J. P., Ameringer, S. W., & Mahon, S. D. (2008). A comprehensive conceptualization of the peer influence process in adolescence. In M. J. Prinstein & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents (pp. 17–44). New York: Guilford Press.
	Cantin, S., Brendgen, M., Dussault, F., & Vitaro, F. Transactional links between adolescents’ and friends’ victimization during the first two years of secondary school: The mediating role of likeability and friendship involvement. Social Development, 2019, 28 (3): 743- 757. DOI
	Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. On estimating the social costs of national economic policy: A critical examination of the Brenner study. Social Indicators Research, 1979, 6 (2): 251- 259. DOI
	Cohen, L. E., Kluegel, J. R., & Land, K. C. Social inequality and predatory criminal victimization: An exposition and test of a formal theory. American Sociological Review, 1981, 46 (5): 505- 524. DOI
	Cross, D., Barnes, A., Papageorgiou, A., Hadwen, K., Hearn, L., & Lester, L. A social-ecological framework for understanding and reducing cyberbullying behaviours. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2015, 23, 109- 117. DOI
	de Vries, E., Kaufman, T. M. L., Veenstra, R., Laninga-Wijnen, L., & Huitsing, G. Bullying and victimization trajectories in the first years of secondary education: Implications for status and affection. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2021, 50 (10): 1995- 2006. DOI
	Dishion, T. J., Nelson, S. E., Winter, C. E., & Bullock, B. M. Adolescent friendship as a dynamic system: Entropy and deviance in the etiology and course of male antisocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 2004, 32 (6): 651- 663. DOI
	Gilbert, M. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2020). Frustration-aggression hypothesis. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 1683–1685). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
	Goldbach, J. T., Sterzing, P. R., & Stuart, M. J. Challenging conventions of bullying thresholds: Exploring differences between low and high levels of bullyonly, victim-only, and bully-victim roles. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2018, 47 (3): 586- 600. DOI
	Guy, A., Lee, K., & Wolke, D. Comparisons between adolescent bullies, victims, and bully-victims on perceived popularity, social impact, and social preference. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 2019, 10, 868. DOI
	Haltigan, J. D., & Vaillancourt, T. The influence of static and dynamic intrapersonal factors on longitudinal patterns of peer victimization through mid-adolescence: A latent transition analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 2018, 46 (1): 11- 26. DOI
	Hogg, M. A., Abrams, D., Otten, S., & Hinkle, S. The social identity perspective: Intergroup relations, self-conception, and small groups. Small Group Research, 2004, 35 (3): 246- 276. DOI
	Leff, S. S. Bullying and peer victimization at school: Considerations and future directions. School Psychology Review, 2007, 36 (3): 406- 412. DOI
	Marks, P. E. L., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Crick, N. R. Popularity contagion among adolescents. Social Development, 2012, 21 (3): 501- 521. DOI
	Merrin, G. J., de la Haye, K., Espelage, D. L., Ewing, B., Tucker, J. S., Hoover, M., & Green, H. D. The co-evolution of bullying perpetration, homophobic teasing, and a school friendship network. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2018, 47 (3): 601- 618. DOI
	Meter, D. J., Casper, D. M., & Card, N. A. Perceptions of intimacy and friendship reciprocity moderate peer influence on aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 2015, 41 (5): 432- 442. DOI
	Modecki, K. L., Minchin, J., Harbaugh, A. G., Guerra, N. G., & Runions, K. C. Bullying prevalence across contexts: A meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2014, 55 (5): 602- 611. DOI
	Mulford, C. F., Blachman-Demner, D. R., Pitzer, L., Schubert, C. A., Piquero, A. R., & Mulvey, E. P. Victim offender overlap: Dual trajectory examination of victimization and offending among young felony offenders over seven years. Victims & Offenders, 2018, 13 (1): 1- 27.
	Mynard, H., & Joseph, S. Development of the multidimensional peer-victimization scale. Aggressive Behavior, 2000, 26 (2): 169- 178. DOI
	Pozzoli, T., & Gini, G. Active defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying: The role of personal characteristics and perceived peer pressure. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 2010, 38 (6): 815- 827. DOI
	Rambaran, J. A., Dijkstra, J. K., & Veenstra, R. Bullying as a group process in childhood: A longitudinal social network analysis. Child Development, 2020, 91 (4): 1336- 1352. DOI
	Reijntjes, A., Kamphuis, J. H., Prinzie, P., & Telch, M. J. Peer victimization and internalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 2010, 34 (4): 244- 252.
	Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 1996, 22 (1): 1- 15.
	Sijtsema, J. J., Rambaran, J. A., Caravita, S. C. S., & Gini, G. Friendship selection and influence in bullying and defending: Effects of moral disengagement. Developmental Psychology, 2014, 50 (8): 2093- 2104. DOI
	Steinberg, L., & Monahan, K. C. Age differences in resistance to peer influence. Developmental Psychology, 2007, 43 (6): 1531- 1543. DOI
	Underwood, M. K., & Buhrmester, D. Friendship features and social exclusion: An observational study examining gender social context. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 2007, 53 (3): 412- 438. DOI
	Ye, Z., Harrison, S. E., & Lin, D. H. A latent transition analysis of longitudinal stability of peer victimization experiences among Chinese adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 2022, 126, 105522.
	Zhu, X. W., Liu, J. T., & Liang, Z. Are left-behind children more likely to be bullied? Empirical evidence from rural schools in Shaanxi province. Chinese Sociological Review, 2020, 52 (4): 411- 437. DOI
	Zych, I., Ttofi, M. M., Llorent, V. J., Farrington, D. P., Ribeaud, D., & Eisner, M. P. A longitudinal study on stability and transitions among bullying roles. Child Development, 2020, 91 (2): 527- 545. DOI

	AIC	BIC	aBIC	Entropy	LMR(p)	BLRT(p)	最少类别人数 n (%)
				T1 (2019)
C1	13421.09	13481.50	13443.38
C2	12143.47	12239.12	12178.77	0.84	<0.001	<0.001	368 (32.42)
C3	11751.18	11882.07	11799.49	0.85	0.03	<0.001	93 (8.19)
C4	11433.51	11599.65	11494.83	0.89	0.04	<0.001	59 (5.19)
C5	11294.41	11495.78	11368.73	0.84	0.81	<0.001	59 (5.19)
				T2 (2021)
C1	12776.12	12836.53	12798.42
C2	11243.36	11339.10	11278.66	0.85	<0.001	<0.001	321 (28.28)
C3	10352.83	10483.72	10401.14	0.90	<0.001	<0.001	212 (18.68)
C4	10081.60	10247.73	10142.92	0.89	0.37	<0.001	113 (9.96)
C5	7711.73	7913.10	7786.05	0.92	0.02	<0.001	28 (2.47)

	AIC	BIC	aBIC	Entropy	LMR(p)	BLRT(p)	最少类别人数 n (%)
				T1 (2019)
C1	13421.09	13481.50	13443.38
C2	12143.47	12239.12	12178.77	0.84	<0.001	<0.001	368 (32.42)
C3	11751.18	11882.07	11799.49	0.85	0.03	<0.001	93 (8.19)
C4	11433.51	11599.65	11494.83	0.89	0.04	<0.001	59 (5.19)
C5	11294.41	11495.78	11368.73	0.84	0.81	<0.001	59 (5.19)
				T2 (2021)
C1	12776.12	12836.53	12798.42
C2	11243.36	11339.10	11278.66	0.85	<0.001	<0.001	321 (28.28)
C3	10352.83	10483.72	10401.14	0.90	<0.001	<0.001	212 (18.68)
C4	10081.60	10247.73	10142.92	0.89	0.37	<0.001	113 (9.96)
C5	7711.73	7913.10	7786.05	0.92	0.02	<0.001	28 (2.47)

影响因素	T1的潜在状态	T2的潜在状态
影响因素	T1的潜在状态	未卷入组	高受侵害低攻击组	中受侵害高攻击组	高受侵害高攻击组
T1朋友受侵害水平	未卷入组	Ref	1.62 [1.16, 2.28]**	1.11 [0.86, 1.44]	1.26 [0.95, 1.67]
	中受侵害低攻击组	Ref	0.84 [0.59, 1.21]	0.98 [0.73, 1.30]	0.78 [0.54, 1.13]
	高受侵害低攻击组	Ref	1.41 [0.72, 2.74]	1.25 [0.64, 2.45]	0.90 [0.35, 2.36]
	中受侵害高攻击组	Ref	1.63 [0.77, 3.47]	1.04 [0.61, 1.78]	1.26 [0.65, 2.43]
T1朋友攻击水平	未卷入组	Ref	0.78 [0.51, 1.18]	1.26 [0.97, 1.63]†	1.29 [0.98, 1.71]†
	中受侵害低攻击组	Ref	1.70 [0.47, 1.05]†	0.80 [0.58, 1.09]	1.62 [0.41, 0.93]*
	高受侵害低攻击组	Ref	0.74 [0.37, 1.48]	0.83 [0.41, 1.70]	0.38 [0.11, 1.30]
	中受侵害高攻击组	Ref	2.23 [0.65, 7.63]	2.19 [0.94, 5.07]	2.16 [0.71, 6.55]
T1友谊质量	未卷入组	Ref	1.17 [0.83, 1.64]	0.99 [0.78, 1.23]	1.03 [0.79, 1.35]
	中受侵害低攻击组	Ref	0.97 [0.69, 1.37]	0.82 [0.61, 1.09]	1.10 [0.77, 2.58]
	高受侵害低攻击组	Ref	0.74 [0.41, 1.31]	0.67 [0.37, 1.22]	0.78 [0.32, 1.86]
	中受侵害高攻击组	Ref	0.55 [0.26, 2.21]	0.89 [0.45, 1.79]	0.95 [0.39, 2.31]
T1朋友受侵害水平×T1友谊质量	未卷入组	Ref	1.03 [0.72, 1.48]	1.02 [0.78, 1.33]	1.29 [0.95, 1.73]†
	中受侵害低攻击组	Ref	1.11 [0.57, 2.20]	1.25 [0.71, 2.20]	1.68 [0.80, 3.52]
	高受侵害低攻击组	Ref	0.96 [0.32, 2.86]	0.83 [0.41, 1.68]	1.09 [0.45, 2.65]
	中受侵害高攻击组	Ref	1.26 [0.87, 1.82]	1.00 [0.78, 1.29]	1.15 [0.84, 1.58]
T1朋友攻击水平×T1友谊质量	未卷入组	Ref	1.14 [0.76, 1.69]	0.93 [0.72, 1.20]	1.19 [0.90, 1.57]
	中受侵害低攻击组	Ref	0.98 [0.68, 1.43]	1.01 [0.75, 1.37]	1.25 [0.86, 1.83]
	高受侵害低攻击组	Ref	1.20 [0.65, 2.22]	0.82 [0.42, 1.60]	0.57 [0.19, 1.67]
	中受侵害高攻击组	Ref	0.99 [0.35, 2.79]	0.41 [0.20, 0.83]*	0.92 [0.34, 2.51]

影响因素	T1的潜在状态	T2的潜在状态
影响因素	T1的潜在状态	未卷入组	高受侵害低攻击组	中受侵害高攻击组	高受侵害高攻击组
T1朋友受侵害水平	未卷入组	Ref	1.62 [1.16, 2.28]**	1.11 [0.86, 1.44]	1.26 [0.95, 1.67]
	中受侵害低攻击组	Ref	0.84 [0.59, 1.21]	0.98 [0.73, 1.30]	0.78 [0.54, 1.13]
	高受侵害低攻击组	Ref	1.41 [0.72, 2.74]	1.25 [0.64, 2.45]	0.90 [0.35, 2.36]
	中受侵害高攻击组	Ref	1.63 [0.77, 3.47]	1.04 [0.61, 1.78]	1.26 [0.65, 2.43]
T1朋友攻击水平	未卷入组	Ref	0.78 [0.51, 1.18]	1.26 [0.97, 1.63]†	1.29 [0.98, 1.71]†
	中受侵害低攻击组	Ref	1.70 [0.47, 1.05]†	0.80 [0.58, 1.09]	1.62 [0.41, 0.93]*
	高受侵害低攻击组	Ref	0.74 [0.37, 1.48]	0.83 [0.41, 1.70]	0.38 [0.11, 1.30]
	中受侵害高攻击组	Ref	2.23 [0.65, 7.63]	2.19 [0.94, 5.07]	2.16 [0.71, 6.55]
T1友谊质量	未卷入组	Ref	1.17 [0.83, 1.64]	0.99 [0.78, 1.23]	1.03 [0.79, 1.35]
	中受侵害低攻击组	Ref	0.97 [0.69, 1.37]	0.82 [0.61, 1.09]	1.10 [0.77, 2.58]
	高受侵害低攻击组	Ref	0.74 [0.41, 1.31]	0.67 [0.37, 1.22]	0.78 [0.32, 1.86]
	中受侵害高攻击组	Ref	0.55 [0.26, 2.21]	0.89 [0.45, 1.79]	0.95 [0.39, 2.31]
T1朋友受侵害水平×T1友谊质量	未卷入组	Ref	1.03 [0.72, 1.48]	1.02 [0.78, 1.33]	1.29 [0.95, 1.73]†
	中受侵害低攻击组	Ref	1.11 [0.57, 2.20]	1.25 [0.71, 2.20]	1.68 [0.80, 3.52]
	高受侵害低攻击组	Ref	0.96 [0.32, 2.86]	0.83 [0.41, 1.68]	1.09 [0.45, 2.65]
	中受侵害高攻击组	Ref	1.26 [0.87, 1.82]	1.00 [0.78, 1.29]	1.15 [0.84, 1.58]
T1朋友攻击水平×T1友谊质量	未卷入组	Ref	1.14 [0.76, 1.69]	0.93 [0.72, 1.20]	1.19 [0.90, 1.57]
	中受侵害低攻击组	Ref	0.98 [0.68, 1.43]	1.01 [0.75, 1.37]	1.25 [0.86, 1.83]
	高受侵害低攻击组	Ref	1.20 [0.65, 2.22]	0.82 [0.42, 1.60]	0.57 [0.19, 1.67]
	中受侵害高攻击组	Ref	0.99 [0.35, 2.79]	0.41 [0.20, 0.83]*	0.92 [0.34, 2.51]

[1]	朱文凤, 刘宋昱, 田雪. 受欺负纵向预测社会攻击：冷酷无情的中介作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(2): 274-281.
[2]	邹孟芮, 刘舒野, 程诚, 王友碧. 心理虐待与青少年攻击行为的关系：有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(2): 282-288.
[3]	吕沐华, 熊昱可, 杨柳, 陈嘉慧, 王泉泉, 任萍. 受欺负对青少年主动性攻击及反应性攻击的影响：愤怒反刍和悲伤反刍的中介作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(6): 799-806.
[4]	易芳, 熊小娇, 滕召军, 叶宝娟, 廖丽萍, 颜茹娜, 李玉华. 积极同伴压力与初中生病理性互联网使用的关系：希望和意向性自我调节的中介作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(5): 637-643.
[5]	高阳, 倪士光, 夏志远, 田午林. 群体夸耀方式对旁观者网络攻击行为的影响：旁观者的被挑衅感和群体认同的作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(4): 471-478.
[6]	王钟潍, 任沿静, 陈晓晨. 不同类型亲子间教育期望差异对初中生学业成绩的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(4): 496-502.
[7]	谢云天, 孟凡斐. 初中生数学元认知的发展轨迹：两年半追踪研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(1): 58-64.
[8]	谭丽苹, 李晴, 郭成. 师生关系对留守儿童学习投入的影响：有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(6): 782-789.
[9]	邢晓沛, 焦梦涵, 肖宇苑, 胡夏. 父母心理攻击与小学中高年级儿童问题行为的关系：儿童愤怒和悲伤管理的中介作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(4): 479-486.
[10]	李娇娇, 刘晓冰, 裴丹丹, 徐碧波, 尹锡杨. 情绪智力对大学生恶意创造力的影响：一个有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(4): 563-569.
[11]	丁倩, 罗星雨. 歧视知觉对留守青少年攻击行为的影响：多重中介效应分析[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(3): 346-352.
[12]	李晓玫, 姜英杰, 于明阳, 袁媛, 刘芳芳. 留守儿童心理虐待与攻击行为：心理弹性和人际敏感的链式中介作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(3): 353-360.
[13]	盖笑松, 吴晓靓, 顾婷玉, 张婵, 马媛春. 初中生家庭社会经济地位、积极品质对中考成绩的预测作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(3): 368-374.
[14]	周广东, 周广敏. 同伴关系与儿童的反应性和主动性攻击：交叉滞后分析[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(5): 620-627.
[15]	史滋福, 唐婉秋, 谢云天. 初中生认知需求与数学学业成绩的关系：基于潜在剖面分析[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(4): 480-485.