青春前期消极同伴关系与冲动性：三次重复测量的交叉滞后面板模型

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2024.03.009

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本研究采用交叉滞后面板模型，旨在探索青春前期消极同伴关系(越轨同伴交往和欺凌受害)和冲动性之间的纵向关系。使用越轨同伴交往量表、特拉华欺负受害量表和简式UPPS-P冲动行为量表对广东省和山东省1987名初中生开展3个时间点为期一年的追踪调查。研究发现，前测的消极同伴关系对后测的冲动性预测效应不具有统计学意义；相反，前测的冲动性对后测的消极同伴关系预测效应具有统计学意义。结果表明，在青春前期，冲动性对消极同伴关系的发展有一定的影响，因此需要采取相应的措施来帮助青少年控制自身的冲动倾向。

关键词: 越轨同伴交往, 欺凌受害, 冲动性, 交叉滞后面板模型

Abstract:

The present study employed a cross-lagged panel model to examine the longitudinal association between negative peer relationships, specifically deviant peer affiliation and bullying victimization, and impulsivity during preadolescence. A cohort comprising 1987 middle school students from Guangdong and Shandong provinces were evaluated during three distinct time periods: the fall and spring of seventh grade, and the fall of eighth grade. The assessment encompassed evaluations of deviant peer affiliation, experiences of bullying victimization, and levels of impulsivity. The results revealed no significant effect of negative peer relationships at one time point on subsequent impulsivity; nevertheless, impulsivity exhibited at T1/T2 positively correlated with deviant peer affiliation and bullying victimization experienced during T2/T3. These findings highlight the significant role of impulsivity in the development and progression of negative peer relationships during preadolescence, underscoring the importance of targeted interventions to regulate impulsive tendencies among adolescents.

Key words: deviant peer affiliation, bullying victimization, impulsivity, cross-lagged panel model

黄林辉, 陈圆圆, 朱键军, 张卫. 青春前期消极同伴关系与冲动性：三次重复测量的交叉滞后面板模型[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(3): 354-362.

Linhui HUANG, Yuanyuan CHEN, Jianjun ZHU, Wei ZHANG. Negative Peer Relationships and Impulsivity in Chinese Preadolescents: A Three-Wave Cross-Lagged Panel Model[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2024, 22(3): 354-362.

图/表 4

参考文献 0

	柴晓运, 林丹华. 化危为机: 青少年学校转折期的过渡. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29 (5): 864- 874.
	陈会昌, 辛浩力, 叶子. 青少年对家庭影响和同伴群体影响的接受性. 心理科学, 1998, 21 (3): 264- 265.
	李松, 陈旭, 冉光明, 张琪. 新时代青少年羞怯对同伴侵害的影响: 依存型和独立型自我建构的作用. 心理科学, 2021, 44 (4): 822- 828.
	廖友国, 陈建文, 张妍, 彭聪. 儿童青少年同伴侵害与内化问题的双向关系: 纵向研究的元分析. 心理学报, 2022, 54 (7): 828- 849.
	林琳, 邱少劼, 刘羽, 杨洋, 杨亚楠, 贾绪计, … 白学军. 青少年早期冲动性的发展轨迹: 界定亚群组及其影响因素. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38 (3): 339- 347.
	刘源. 多变量追踪研究的模型整合与拓展: 考察往复式影响与增长趋势. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29 (10): 1755- 1772.
	乔东平, 文娜. 国内外校园欺凌研究综述: 概念、成因与干预. 社会建设, 2018, 5 (3): 5- 15, 64.
	唐文清, 方杰, 蒋香梅, 张敏强. 追踪研究方法在国内心理研究中的应用述评. 心理发展与教育, 2014, 30 (2): 216- 224.
	王金霞, 王吉春. 小学生友谊质量与情绪控制的关系. 中国健康心理学杂志, 2014, 22 (9): 1362- 1364.
	温涵, 梁韵斯. 结构方程模型常用拟合指数检验的实质. 心理科学, 2015, 38 (4): 987- 994.
	温忠麟. 实证研究中的因果推理与分析. 心理科学, 2017, 40 (1): 200- 208.
	温忠麟, 侯杰泰, 马什赫伯特. 结构方程模型检验: 拟合指数与卡方准则. 心理学报, 2004, 36 (2): 186- 194.
	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.
	吴羽. 广义刑事政策立场下未成年人犯罪的治理. 青少年犯罪问题, 2021, (6): 122- 132. DOI
	向玲, 王美霞, 刘燕婷, 胡竹菁. 冲动特质对青少年认知控制的影响——基于双重认知控制理论. 心理学探新, 2020, 40 (2): 143- 149.
	谢家树, 吕永晓, Bear, G G, Yang, C Y, Marshall, S J, Gong, R. 特拉华欺负受害量表(学生卷)中文版信、效度研究. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2015, 23 (4): 594- 596.
	熊猛, 刘若瑾, 叶一舵. 单亲家庭儿童相对剥夺感与心理适应的循环作用关系: 一项追踪研究. 心理学报, 2021, 53 (1): 67- 80.
	徐轶丽, 桑标. 青少年成长环境的新认识——哈里斯(J. R. Harris)的群体社会化理论及其评价. 当代青年研究, 2003, (3): 13- 19. DOI
	薛朝霞, 胡勇娟, 王晶, 黄雷晶, 刘威, 孙锋丹. 简式UPPS-P冲动行为量表在大学生中的信度效度检测. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2017, 25 (4): 662- 666.
	薛朝霞, 孙锋丹, 刘威, 谷茜星, 程萧, 王钰. (2018). 家庭功能对冲动特质的影响: 应对方式和愤怒情绪的中介机制及安全依恋感的调节作用. 见第二十一届全国心理学学术会议摘要集 (pp. 633–634). 北京.
	袁帅, 曹文蕊, 张曼玉, 吴诗雅, 魏馨怡. 通向更精确的因果分析: 交叉滞后模型的新进展. 中国人力资源开发, 2021, 38 (2): 23- 41.
	张文新, 陈光辉. 发展情境论——一种新的发展系统理论. 心理科学进展, 2009, 17 (4): 736- 744.
	张悦文, 王振宏. (2018). 家庭环境质量与小学儿童冲动性的关系: 认知控制的作用. 见第二十一届全国心理学学术会议摘要集 (pp. 928–929). 北京.
	张云运, 张其文, 张李斌, 任萍, 秦幸娜, 常睿生. 青少年友谊网络与受欺凌的共同变化关系: 一项纵向社会网络分析研究. 心理学报, 2022, 54 (9): 1048- 1058.
	周宗奎, 孙晓军, 赵冬梅, 田媛, 范翠英. 同伴关系的发展研究. 心理发展与教育, 2015, 31 (1): 62- 70.
	Agnew, R. Using general strain theory to explain crime in asian societies. Asian Journal of Criminology, 2015, 10 (2): 131- 147. DOI
	Agnew, R., Scheuerman, H., Grosholz, J., Isom, D., Watson, L., & Thaxton, S. Does victimization reduce self-control? A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 2011, 39 (2): 169- 174. DOI
	Baumgartner, H., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. M. Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. Journal of Marketing Research, 2001, 38 (2): 143- 156. DOI
	Bezdjian, S., Baker, L. A., & Tuvblad, C. Genetic and environmental influences on impulsivity: A meta-analysis of twin, family and adoption studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 2011, 31 (7): 1209- 1223. DOI
	Colarusso, C. A. (1992). Adolescence (Ages 12–20). In C. A. Colarusso (Ed.), Child and adult development: A psychoanalytic introduction for clinicians (pp. 91–105). New York: Springer.
	Coskunpinar, A., Dir, A. L., & Cyders, M. A. Multidimensionality in impulsivity and alcohol use: A meta-analysis using the UPPS model of impulsivity. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 2013, 37 (9): 1441- 1450. DOI
	Cyders, M. A., Littlefield, A. K., Coffey, S., & Karyadi, K. A. Examination of a short English version of the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale. Addictive Behaviors, 2014, 39 (9): 1372- 1376. DOI
	Dhanani, L. Y., Main, A. M., & Pueschel, A. Do you only have yourself to blame? A meta-analytic test of the victim precipitation model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2020, 41 (8): 706- 721. DOI
	Dishion, T. J., & Tipsord, J. M. Peer contagion in child and adolescent social and emotional development. Annual Review of Psychology, 2011, 62, 189- 214. DOI
	Draugalis, J. R., Coons, S. J., & Plaza, C. M. Best practices for survey research reports: A synopsis for authors and reviewers. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 2008, 72 (1): 11. DOI
	Fanti, K. A., & Kimonis, E. R. Bullying and victimization: The role of conduct problems and psychopathic traits. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 2012, 22 (4): 617- 631. DOI
	Gomes, L., & Livesey, D. (2008). Exploring the link between impulsivity and peer relations in 5- and 6-year-old children. Child: Care, Health and Development, 34(6), 763–770.
	Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
	Harris, J. R. Where is the child’s environment - A group socialization theory of development. Psychological Review, 1995, 102 (3): 458- 489. DOI
	Kelly, E. V., Newton, N. C., Stapinski, L. A., & Teesson, M. Prospective associations between personality and bullying among Australian adolescents. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 2018, 52 (2): 173- 180.
	Kock, F., Berbekova, A., & Assaf, A. G. Understanding and managing the threat of common method bias: Detection, prevention and control. Tourism Management, 2021, 86, 104330. DOI
	Noble, K. G., Houston, S. M., Brito, N. H., Bartsch, H., Kan, E., Kuperman, J. M., ... Sowell, E. R. Family income, parental education and brain structure in children and adolescents. Nature Neuroscience, 2015, 18 (5): 773- 778. DOI
	Olweus, D. School bullying: Development and some important challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 2013, 9, 751- 780. DOI
	Restrepo-Lozano, J. M., Pokhvisneva, I., Wang, Z. H., Patel, S., Meaney, M. J., Silveira, P. P., & Flores, C. Corticolimbic DCC gene co-expression networks as predictors of impulsivity in children. Molecular Psychiatry, 2022, 27 (6): 2742- 2750. DOI
	Ronfeldt, M., Farmer, S. O., McQueen, K., & Grissom, J. A. Teacher collaboration in instructional teams and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 2015, 52 (3): 475- 514. DOI
	Rudolph, K. D., Lansford, J. E., Agoston, A. M., Sugimura, N., Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., .. Bates, J. E. Peer victimization and social alienation: Predicting deviant peer affiliation in middle school. Child Development, 2014, 85 (1): 124- 139. DOI
	Sanchez-Roige, S., Jennings, M. V., Thorpe, H. H. A., Mallari, J. E., van der Werf, L. C., Bianchi, S. B., ... Palmer, A. A. CADM2 is implicated in impulsive personality and numerous other traits by genome- and phenome-wide association studies in humans and mice. Translational Psychiatry, 2023, 13 (1): 167. DOI
	Schmits, E., & Glowacz, F. Delinquency and drug use among adolescents and emerging adults: The role of aggression, impulsivity, empathy, and cognitive distortions. Journal of Substance Use, 2019, 24 (2): 162- 169. DOI
	Sussman, S., Pokhrel, P., Ashmore, R. D., & Brown, B. B. Adolescent peer group identification and characteristics: A review of the literature. Addictive Behaviors, 2007, 32 (8): 1602- 1627. DOI
	Tao, Y., Meng, Y., Gao, Z. Y., & Yang, X. D. Perceived teacher support, student engagement, and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology, 2022, 42 (4): 401- 420. DOI
	Thompson, R. W., Teare, J. F., & Elliott, S. N. Impulsivity: From theoretical constructs to applied interventions. The Journal of Special Education, 1983, 17 (2): 157- 169. DOI
	Wang, M. Z., Wang, J., Deng, X. L., & Chen, W. Why are empathic children more liked by peers? The mediating roles of prosocial and aggressive behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 2019, 144, 19- 23. DOI
	Wentzel, K. R., Jablansky, S., & Scalise, N. R. Peer social acceptance and academic achievement: A meta-analytic study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2021, 113 (1): 157- 180. DOI
	Zhu, J. J., Yu, C. F., Zhang, W., Bao, Z. Z., Jiang, Y. P., Chen, Y. Y., & Zhen, S. J. Peer victimization, deviant peer affiliation and impulsivity: Predicting adolescent problem behaviors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 2016, 58, 39- 50.
	Zhu, J. J., Zhang, W., Yu, C. F., & Bao, Z. Z. Early adolescent Internet game addiction in context: How parents, school, and peers impact youth. Computers in Human Behavior, 2015, 50, 159- 168. DOI

核心变量	信度		结构效度
核心变量	Cronbach’s α系数	合成信度	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
1. T1越轨同伴交往	0.89	0.92, 95% CI [0.91, 0.92]	0.93	0.91	0.04	0.05
2. T2越轨同伴交往	0.88	0.92, 95% CI [0.90, 0.93]	0.93	0.91	0.04	0.06
3. T3越轨同伴交往	0.90	0.93, 95% CI [0.91, 0.94]	0.93	0.91	0.05	0.05
4. T1冲动性	0.83	0.95, 95% CI [0.94, 0.95]	0.92	0.90	0.06	0.06
5. T2冲动性	0.84	0.95, 95% CI [0.95, 0.95]	0.90	0.88	0.06	0.06
6. T3冲动性	0.86	0.96, 95% CI [0.96, 0.96]	0.93	0.92	0.06	0.06
7. T1欺凌受害	0.93	0.94, 95% CI [0.93, 0.95]	0.94	0.92	0.04	0.04
8. T2欺凌受害	0.94	0.95, 95% CI [0.94, 0.96]	0.93	0.91	0.05	0.04
9. T3欺凌受害	0.94	0.96, 95% CI [0.95, 0.97]	0.94	0.93	0.04	0.04

核心变量	信度		结构效度
核心变量	Cronbach’s α系数	合成信度	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
1. T1越轨同伴交往	0.89	0.92, 95% CI [0.91, 0.92]	0.93	0.91	0.04	0.05
2. T2越轨同伴交往	0.88	0.92, 95% CI [0.90, 0.93]	0.93	0.91	0.04	0.06
3. T3越轨同伴交往	0.90	0.93, 95% CI [0.91, 0.94]	0.93	0.91	0.05	0.05
4. T1冲动性	0.83	0.95, 95% CI [0.94, 0.95]	0.92	0.90	0.06	0.06
5. T2冲动性	0.84	0.95, 95% CI [0.95, 0.95]	0.90	0.88	0.06	0.06
6. T3冲动性	0.86	0.96, 95% CI [0.96, 0.96]	0.93	0.92	0.06	0.06
7. T1欺凌受害	0.93	0.94, 95% CI [0.93, 0.95]	0.94	0.92	0.04	0.04
8. T2欺凌受害	0.94	0.95, 95% CI [0.94, 0.96]	0.93	0.91	0.05	0.04
9. T3欺凌受害	0.94	0.96, 95% CI [0.95, 0.97]	0.94	0.93	0.04	0.04

核心变量	Mdn (IQR)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. T1越轨同伴交往	1.00 (0.25)
2. T2越轨同伴交往	1.00 (0.25)	0.29***
3. T3越轨同伴交往	1.00 (0.33)	0.28***	0.43***
4. T1冲动性	2.00 (0.60)	0.19***	0.21***	0.17***
5. T2冲动性	2.10 (0.60)	0.17***	0.29***	0.27***	0.63***
6. T3冲动性	2.15 (0.60)	0.16***	0.23***	0.28***	0.56***	0.68***
7. T1欺凌受害	1.08 (0.42)	0.23***	0.21***	0.19***	0.33***	0.26***	0.22***
8. T2欺凌受害	1.08 (0.33)	0.19***	0.29***	0.17***	0.26***	0.29***	0.21***	0.48***
9. T3欺凌受害	1.00 (0.25)	0.16***	0.25***	0.27***	0.21***	0.25***	0.26***	0.40***	0.58***

核心变量	Mdn (IQR)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. T1越轨同伴交往	1.00 (0.25)
2. T2越轨同伴交往	1.00 (0.25)	0.29***
3. T3越轨同伴交往	1.00 (0.33)	0.28***	0.43***
4. T1冲动性	2.00 (0.60)	0.19***	0.21***	0.17***
5. T2冲动性	2.10 (0.60)	0.17***	0.29***	0.27***	0.63***
6. T3冲动性	2.15 (0.60)	0.16***	0.23***	0.28***	0.56***	0.68***
7. T1欺凌受害	1.08 (0.42)	0.23***	0.21***	0.19***	0.33***	0.26***	0.22***
8. T2欺凌受害	1.08 (0.33)	0.19***	0.29***	0.17***	0.26***	0.29***	0.21***	0.48***
9. T3欺凌受害	1.00 (0.25)	0.16***	0.25***	0.27***	0.21***	0.25***	0.26***	0.40***	0.58***

效应类型	模型路径	标准化路径系数	标准误差	95%置信区间
越轨同伴交往
同时性效应	T1越轨同伴交往 ↔ T1冲动性	0.18	0.03	[0.13, 0.23]
	T2越轨同伴交往 ↔ T2冲动性	0.19	0.03	[0.14, 0.25]
	T3越轨同伴交往 ↔ T3冲动性	0.17	0.03	[0.12, 0.22]
自回归效应	T1越轨同伴交往 → T2越轨同伴交往	0.24	0.04	[0.17, 0.31]
	T1越轨同伴交往 → T3越轨同伴交往	0.10	0.03	[0.04, 0.17]
	T2越轨同伴交往 → T3越轨同伴交往	0.39	0.06	[0.28, 0.50]
冲动性
同时性效应	T1冲动性 ↔ T1欺凌受害	0.32	0.02	[0.27, 0.37]
	T2冲动性 ↔ T2欺凌受害	0.15	0.03	[0.09, 0.20]
	T3冲动性 ↔ T3欺凌受害	0.12	0.03	[0.06, 0.18]
自回归效应	T1冲动性 → T2冲动性	0.61	0.02	[0.57, 0.65]
	T1冲动性 → T3冲动性	0.22	0.03	[0.17, 0.27]
	T2冲动性 → T3冲动性	0.55	0.03	[0.49, 0.60]
交叉滞后效应	T1冲动性 → T2越轨同伴交往	0.13	0.03	[0.08, 0.18]
	T2冲动性 → T3越轨同伴交往	0.15	0.03	[0.09, 0.20]
	T1冲动性 → T2欺凌受害	0.09	0.03	[0.05, 0.14]
	T2冲动性 → T3欺凌受害	0.07	0.02	[0.02, 0.12]
欺凌受害
同时性效应	T1欺凌受害 ↔ T1越轨同伴交往	0.22	0.03	[0.16, 0.28]
	T2欺凌受害 ↔ T2越轨同伴交往	0.18	0.04	[0.10, 0.27]
	T3欺凌受害 ↔ T3越轨同伴交往	0.14	0.03	[0.08, 0.21]
自回归效应	T1欺凌受害 → T2欺凌受害	0.47	0.05	[0.37, 0.55]
	T1欺凌受害 → T3欺凌受害	0.16	0.05	[0.07, 0.25]
	T2欺凌受害 → T3欺凌受害	0.48	0.05	[0.37, 0.58]
交叉滞后效应	T1欺凌受害 → T2越轨同伴交往	0.13	0.04	[0.06, 0.22]