青少年同儕關係的評估及其特性之探討--以憂鬱傾向與壓力歷程特性為指標

• Main Authors: Wu, Chih-Hsun, 吳治勳
• Other Authors: Wu, Yin-Chang
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2003
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/80778607289933401726

碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 心理學研究所 === 91 === Abstract Peer relation has great impact upon every person’s psychological development. Former studies had noted that poor peer relation was correlated significantly with both externalizing difficulties (ex: aggression), and internalizing difficulties (ex: anxiety, depression). Many studies had used “peer nomination” method to evaluate “how many people in the group like or dislike a particular person”, so called “objective evaluation of peer status”. Based on “objective evaluation of peer status”, peer status could be discriminated into different groups, in order to understand the differences between different peer status groups. However, there are two major problems in this trend of peer relation studies: (1) Overlooked the importance of people’s subjective feelings in the group, and (2) Peer status groups possessed more statistical meanings than psychological meanings. Hence, peer relation studies should consider both (1) How to evaluate peer status, and (2) What is the meaning of the results. Following this trend, Part I of this study had designed two evaluation methods, in addition to “objective evaluation of peer status”, to evaluate peer status. Part II of this study had taken “stress model” as a way to understand the differences between different peer status groups, while facing stressful events. “Subjective evaluation of peer status”, “consensus evaluation of peer status”, and “objective evaluation of peer status” were used, with two grouping methods designed by: (1) Coie，Dodge & Copottelli(1982), and (2)Newcomb & Bukowski (1983), in Part I. “Depressive tendency” was used as an indicator to evaluate the effect of each evaluation methods listed above. The results showed that “subjective evaluation of peer status” and “consensus evaluation of peer status” matched proposed inferences better than “objective evaluation of peer status”. As a result, this study would recommend using “subjective evaluation” and “consensus evaluation” to evaluate peer status. Part II of this study had taken “stress model” as the basic rationale to understand the differences between different peer status groups, while facing stressful events. The “stress manage profiles” of 4 peer status groups: (1)Popular, (2)Rejected, (3)Neglected, and (4)Controversial, was established by: “primary appraisal”, “secondary appraisal”, “emotional reactions”, and “coping”. The results showed that there were differences among the 4 groups, and most of these differences could be inferred from stress model. Therefore, it is appropriate and important in using stress model to understand the “characteristic profile” of peer status groups.