大学生压力应对方式与其依恋内部工作模式的关系研究

发布时间：2018-07-14 16:47

【摘要】：已有大量研究探索了大学生压力应对方式与依恋类型之间的关系。不同依恋类型的个体具有不同的依恋内部工作模式,文中从依恋内部工作模式的视角考察了不同内部工作模式对个体压力应对方式的影响。在对压力应对及依恋内部工作模式做了深入的理论探讨的基础上,运用应对方式量表和成人亲密关系经历量表(ECR)对吉林大学321名大学生进行了问卷调查,获得了关于大学生压力应对方式和依恋焦虑、回避维度的相关数据。运用SPSS12.0对大学生压力应对方式总体状况、依恋总体状况、大学生压力应对方式与依恋焦虑回避两个维度之间的关系以及大学生压力应对方式与四种依恋类型之间的关系进行了统计分析之后,结果如下: 1、大学生压力应对方式总体状况:在求助因子上,城镇大学生得分显著高于农村大学生(p=.042);在幻想因子上女性大学生得分显著高于男性大学生(p=.045);其余方式不存在显著差异。 2、依恋总体状况:在依恋的焦虑和回避维度上:女大学生得分均高于男大学生,且在回避维度上差异显著(p=.050);有恋爱经历大学生与没有恋爱经历的大学生在依恋的回避维度上差异显著(p=.000),在依恋焦虑维度上没有显著差异(p=.093);在城乡、年级和专业上,不存在显著差异。 3、在解决问题、自责、求助三种应对方式得分上,依恋回避高分组和低分组都有显著差异。在幻想、退避及合理化三种应对方式上,回避高分组和低分组不存在显著差异。焦虑低分组和高分组在六种压力应对方式上均存在显著差异。在自责、求助、幻想、退避这四种应对方式上,四种依恋类型的组间差异显著,在解决问题和合理化两种方式上差异不显著。本研究的研究结论为: 1、具有相似依恋风格的个体在压力应对方式上存在一定的相似性; 2、依恋焦虑和依恋回避两个维度都影响着个体的压力应对方式; 3、安全型个体倾向于采用积极的、问题取向的应对方式,社会支持是其压力应对的重要资源,如问题解决和求助;专注型个体倾向于采用情绪取向的应对方式;忽视型个体倾向于采用消极回避的应对方式,较少求助社会支持;恐惧型个体倾向于采用情绪取向和消极的应对方式,因其高回避性而较少求助社会支持。
[Abstract]:A large number of studies have explored the relationship between stress coping styles and attachment types. Individuals with different attachment types have different internal attachment working patterns. This paper examines the influence of different internal working modes on individual stress coping styles from the perspective of attachment internal work patterns. On the basis of deep theoretical study on internal work model of stress coping and attachment, 321 college students in Jilin University were investigated by coping style scale and adult intimate relationship experience scale (ECR). Relevant data on stress coping style, attachment anxiety and avoidance dimension of college students were obtained. Applying SPSS 12.0 to the general situation of stress coping style and attachment of college students, The relationship between the two dimensions of stress coping style and attachment anxiety avoidance and the relationship between stress coping style and four attachment types of college students were analyzed statistically. The results are as follows: 1, the overall stress coping style of college students: in the help factor, The scores of urban college students were significantly higher than those of rural students (p0. 042), the scores of female students in fantasy factors were significantly higher than those of male students (p0. 045), there was no significant difference in other ways. The scores of female students were higher than that of male students. There were significant differences in avoidance dimension (p0. 050), attachment avoidance dimension (p. 000) and attachment anxiety dimension (p. 093) between college students with love experience and those without love experience (p. 093). There was no significant difference. 3. There were significant differences in the scores of three coping styles: problem solving, self-reproach, help-seeking, attachment avoidance high score and low score. There was no significant difference between the high score group and the low group in three coping styles: fantasy, retreat and rationalization. There were significant differences in six stress coping styles between low anxiety group and high score group. There are significant differences among the four coping styles of self-accusation, help-seeking, fantasy and avoidance, but there are no significant differences between the two ways of solving problems and rationalizing. The conclusions of this study are as follows: 1. There are certain similarities in stress coping styles among individuals with similar attachment styles. The stress coping style of the body; 3, the safe individual is inclined to adopt the positive, Social support is an important resource for coping with stress, such as problem-solving and help-seeking; focused individuals tend to adopt mood-oriented coping styles; neglected individuals tend to adopt negative avoidance coping styles. Fear type individuals tend to adopt emotional orientation and negative coping style, and less social support because of their high avoidance.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：B844.2

【相似文献】