社会排斥对高低攻击特质青少年情绪表情知觉敏感性的影响

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2026.03.004

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为了解高低攻击特质青少年在情绪表情知觉敏感性上的差异以及社会排斥对其的影响，使用中性与情绪表情的渐变视频作为实验材料，通过情绪表情识别任务实验，研究高低攻击特质两组被试的识别反应时差异，以及社会排斥之后两组被试的识别反应时变化状况。结果发现，与低攻击组相比，高攻击组对愤怒表情识别更快，但对悲伤表情识别较慢；经历社会排斥后，低攻击组对愤怒和惊讶表情的识别速度显著提升，而高攻击组在保持对愤怒表情高敏感的同时，对悲伤和惊讶表情的识别也明显加快。通过探讨高低攻击青少年在情绪表情知觉敏感性上的差异，深入揭示青少年攻击性与情绪知觉的关系。研究结果不仅丰富了青少年心理健康领域关于情绪加工的研究内容，还为攻击性个体的情绪反应模式提供科学依据。

关键词: 攻击特质, 情绪表情知觉敏感性, 社会排斥, 青少年

Abstract:

To investigate the differences in emotional facial expression perception sensitivity between adolescents with high and low aggressive traits, as well as the impact of social exclusion, this study employed gradient videos of neutral and emotional facial expressions as experimental materials. An emotion recognition task was conducted to examine differences in reaction times between the two groups and changes following social exclusion. The results revealed that, compared to the low-aggression group, the high-aggression group recognized angry expressions more quickly but showed slower recognition of sad expressions. After experiencing social exclusion, the low-aggression group exhibited significantly faster recognition of angry and surprised expressions. In contrast, the high-aggression group maintained heightened sensitivity to angry expressions while also demonstrating accelerated recognition of sad and surprised expressions. By exploring the differences in emotional facial expression perception sensitivity among adolescents with varying levels of aggression, this study provides deeper insights into the relationship between adolescent aggression and emotion perception.

Key words: aggression trait, emotional facial expression perception sensitivity, social exclusion, adolescents

中图分类号:

B842

罗品超, 罗佳娴, 陆子秀, 李显哲. 社会排斥对高低攻击特质青少年情绪表情知觉敏感性的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2026, 24(3): 312-319.

Pinchao LUO, Jiaxian LUO, Zixiu LU, Xianzhe LI. The Effect of Social Exclusion on Perceptual Sensitivity to Emotional Expressions in High and Low Aggression Adolescents[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2026, 24(3): 312-319.

图/表 7

参考文献 0

	程苏, 刘璐, 郑涌. 社会排斥的研究范式与理论模型. 心理科学进展, 2011, 19 (6): 905- 915.
	高鑫艳. 社会排斥后的行为反应研究综述. 心理学进展, 2022, 12 (4): 997- 1004. DOI
	加尼亚·赛力克. (2020). 网络排斥引发大学生更多攻击行为: 安全依恋的中介作用(硕士学位论文). 华东师范大学, 上海.
	李献云, 费立鹏, 张亚利, 牛雅娟, 童永胜, 杨少杰. Buss和Perry攻击问卷中文版的修订和信效度. 中国神经精神疾病杂志, 2011, 37 (10): 607- 613. DOI
	彭艳燕, 胡喆, 陆艳平, 朱冬梅, 魏强. 我国攻击性个体情绪识别的研究变迁: 基于CiteSpace的可视化分析. 心理学进展, 2023, 13 (9): 4043- 4054.
	邱方晖, 罗跃嘉, 贾世伟. 个体攻击性对愤怒表情类别知觉的影响. 心理学报, 2016, 48 (8): 946- 956. DOI
	孙丽君, 牛更枫, 李俊一, 杜红芹, 衡书鹏, 胡祥恩, 罗艳艳. 高低特质攻击个体对威胁面部表情识别的差异研究——来自ERP的证据. 心理科学, 2020, 43 (5): 1026- 1033. DOI
	陶明, 高静芳. 修订焦虑自评量表(SAS-CR)的信度及效度. 中国神经精神疾病杂志, 1994, 20 (5): 301- 303.
	王斯文. (2020). 小学高年级面部表情知觉与攻击行为的关系及其干预研究(硕士学位论文). 吉林师范大学, 四平.
	杨静, 陶嵘, 陈锐娟. 不同情绪状态下自动表达抑制对情绪及表情知觉敏感性的影响. 心理科学, 2013, 36 (5): 1085- 1092.
	杨晓莉, 信同童, 毛玉翠. 社会排斥的研究范式述评及其对结果的影响. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2019, 27 (2): 237- 241. DOI
	Adesanya, D. O., Johnson, J., & Galanter, C. A. Assessing and treating aggression in children and adolescents. Pediatric Medicine, 2022, 5, 18. DOI
	Blakemore, S. J. The social brain in adolescence. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2008, 9 (4): 267- 277. DOI
	Buckley, K. E., Winkel, R. E., & Leary, M. R. Reactions to acceptance and rejection: Effects of level and sequence of relational evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2004, 40 (1): 14- 28. DOI
	Cannavò, M., Zomparelli, W., Carta, M. G., Romano, F., & La Torre, G. Effectiveness of a training on the recognition of subtle facial emotions in health and social workers. Rivista Di Psichiatria, 2021, 56 (6): 334- 339. DOI
	Carr, M. B., & Lutjemeier, J. A. The relation of facial affect recognition and empathy to delinquency in youth offenders. Adolescence, 2005, 40 (159): 601- 619.
	Chen, Z. S., Dewall, C. N., Poon, K. T., & Chen, E. W. When destiny hurts: Implicit theories of relationships moderate aggressive responses to ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2012, 48 (5): 1029- 1036. DOI
	Daudelin-Peltier, C., Forget, H., Blais, C., Deschênes, A., & Fiset, D. The effect of acute social stress on the recognition of facial expression of emotions. Scientific Reports, 2017, 7 (1): 1036. DOI
	Dou, H., Lei, Y., Cheng, X., Wang, J., & Leppänen, P. Social exclusion influences conditioned fear acquisition and generalization: A mediating effect from the medial prefrontal cortex. NeuroImage, 2020, 218, 116735. DOI
	Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 17 (2): 124- 129. DOI
	Engelskirchen, L., Asbrand, J., & Tuschen-Caffier, B. Investigating social exclusion, affect and emotion regulation in young people using the ostracism online paradigm. Scientific Reports, 2025, 15 (1): 24110. DOI
	Fontaine, J. R. J., Scherer, K. R., Roesch, E. B., & Ellsworth, P. C. The world of emotions is not two-dimensional. Psychological Science, 2007, 18 (12): 1050- 1057. DOI
	Hartgerink, C. H. J., van Beest, I., Wicherts, J. M., & Williams, K. D. The ordinal effects of ostracism: A meta-analysis of 120 Cyberball studies. PLoS One, 2015, 10 (5): e0127002. DOI
	Lawrence, K., Campbell, R., & Skuse, D. Age, gender, and puberty influence the development of facial emotion recognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 2015, 6, 761. DOI
	Leary, M. R., Kowalski, R. M., Smith, L., & Phillips, S. Teasing, rejection, and violence: Case studies of the school shootings. Aggressive Behavior, 2003, 29 (3): 202- 214. DOI
	Leary, M. R., Twenge, J. M., & Quinlivan, E. Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2006, 10 (2): 111- 132. DOI
	Malone, A., Carroll, A., & Murphy, B. P. Facial affect recognition deficits: A potential contributor to aggression in psychotic illness. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2012, 17 (1): 27- 35. DOI
	Marsh, A. A., & Blair, R. J. R. Deficits in facial affect recognition among antisocial populations: A meta-analysis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 2008, 32 (3): 454- 465. DOI
	Molden, D. C., Lucas, G. M., Gardner, W. L., Dean, K., & Knowles, M. L. Motivations for prevention or promotion following social exclusion: Being rejected versus being ignored. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2009, 96 (2): 415- 431. DOI
	Neath, K., Nilsen, E. S., Gittsovich, K., & Itier, R. J. Attention orienting by gaze and facial expressions across development. Emotion, 2013, 13 (3): 397- 408. DOI
	Niu, G. F., Shi, X. H., Yao, L. S., Yang, W. C., Jin, S. Y., & Xu, L. Social exclusion and depression among undergraduate students: The mediating roles of rejection sensitivity and social self-efficacy. Current Psychology, 2023, 42 (28): 24198- 24207. DOI
	Nyline, B., Softas-Nall, L., Peterson, E., Peake, M., & Woods, C. J. Inaccuracies in facial recognition of fear and sadness for male domestic violence offenders. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 2018, 6 (2): 37- 51. DOI
	Pickett, C. L., Gardner, W. L., & Knowles, M. Getting a cue: The need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to social cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2004, 30 (9): 1095- 1107. DOI
	Pozzi, E., Vijayakumar, N., Rakesh, D., & Whittle, S. Neural correlates of emotion regulation in adolescents and emerging adults: A meta-analytic study. Biological Psychiatry, 2021, 89 (2): 194- 204. DOI
	Rajchert, J., Konopka, K., & Huesmann, L. R. It is more than thought that counts: The role of readiness for aggression in the relationship between ostracism and displaced aggression. Current Psychology, 2017, 36 (3): 417- 427. DOI
	Said, C. P., Dotsch, R., & Todorov, A. The amygdala and FFA track both social and non-social face dimensions. Neuropsychologia, 2010, 48 (12): 3596- 3605. DOI
	Schönenberg, M., & Jusyte, A. Investigation of the hostile attribution bias toward ambiguous facial cues in antisocial violent offenders. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 2014, 264 (1): 61- 69. DOI
	Silvers, J. A., McRae, K., Gabrieli, J. D. E., Gross, J. J., Remy, K. A., & Ochsner, K. N. Age-related differences in emotional reactivity, regulation, and rejection sensitivity in adolescence. Emotion, 2012, 12 (6): 1235- 1247. DOI
	Sun, L. J., Li, J. Y., Niu, G. F., Zhang, L., & Chang, H. J. Reactive aggression affects response inhibition to angry expressions in adolescents: An event-related potential study using the emotional Go/No-Go paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 2020, 11, 558461. DOI
	Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. If you can’t join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2001, 81 (6): 1058- 1069. DOI
	Vetter, N. C., Drauschke, M., Thieme, J., & Altgassen, M. Adolescent basic facial emotion recognition is not influenced by puberty or own-age bias. Frontiers in Psychology, 2018, 9, 956. DOI
	Wilkowski, B. M., & Robinson, M. D. When aggressive individuals see the world more accurately: The case of perceptual sensitivity to subtle facial expressions of anger. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2012, 38 (4): 540- 553. DOI
	Williams, K. D. (2001). Ostracism: The power of silence. New York: Guilford Press.

组别	性别	愤怒	悲伤	惊讶	厌恶	恐惧	快乐	总体
低攻击	男	3402±1387	5613±1666	4353±2102	3980±1136	4543±1830	4363±1698	4376±1186
	女	3844±2467	4530±2184	4971±2610	3893±2132	3766±2339	3394±2348	4066±1892
高攻击	男	3071±1820	6872±2147	5003±2300	3869±1540	4938±2408	4631±2600	4731±1731
	女	2027±1084	6158±2181	3337±1062	4183±2388	4159±2594	3358±2705	3870±1688

组别	性别	愤怒	悲伤	惊讶	厌恶	恐惧	快乐	总体
低攻击	男	3402±1387	5613±1666	4353±2102	3980±1136	4543±1830	4363±1698	4376±1186
	女	3844±2467	4530±2184	4971±2610	3893±2132	3766±2339	3394±2348	4066±1892
高攻击	男	3071±1820	6872±2147	5003±2300	3869±1540	4938±2408	4631±2600	4731±1731
	女	2027±1084	6158±2181	3337±1062	4183±2388	4159±2594	3358±2705	3870±1688

情绪类型	低攻击		高攻击
情绪类型	M	SD	M	SD
中性→愤怒	3587	1890	2603	1599
中性→悲伤	5159	1943	6552	2154
中性→惊讶	4612	2308	4256	2007
中性→厌恶	3944	1597	4010	1934
中性→恐惧	4217	2059	4589	2479
中性→快乐	3957	2018	4060	2678

情绪类型	低攻击		高攻击
情绪类型	M	SD	M	SD
中性→愤怒	3587	1890	2603	1599
中性→悲伤	5159	1943	6552	2154
中性→惊讶	4612	2308	4256	2007
中性→厌恶	3944	1597	4010	1934
中性→恐惧	4217	2059	4589	2479
中性→快乐	3957	2018	4060	2678

条件	M±SD	df	t	p
中性→愤怒前	3587±1890	30	2.31	0.028
中性→愤怒后	2868±1262
中性→悲伤前	5159±1943	30	1.92	0.065
中性→悲伤后	4505±1834
中性→惊讶前	4612±2308	30	3.02	0.005
中性→惊讶后	3391±1388
中性→厌恶前	3944±1597	30	1.23	0.229
中性→厌恶后	3507±1110
中性→恐惧前	4217±2059	30	1.11	0.276
中性→恐惧后	3793±1420
中性→快乐前	3957±2018	30	1.97	0.059
中性→快乐后	3241±1569