青少年亲社会行为的网络分析及核心维度

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.01252

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 早期研究发现青少年的亲社会行为概念包括遵规-公益、关系、利他、特质四个维度。本研究探索了中国青少年(小学高年级到高中, N = 9160)亲社会行为四维度和15题项的网络结构, 发现无论是整体网络, 还是性别及学段网络, 遵规-公益维度的预期影响指数都最高, 之后依次是利他、关系及特质维度。网络比较结果显示, 亲社会行为的维度网络结构和题项网络结构均不存在明显性别差异, 但存在学段间的差异, 高中生的网络整体强度显著弱于初中生和小学生。这项研究为理解青少年的亲社会行为提供了新视角, 拓宽了亲社会行为的研究领域, 提示未来研究可通过干预遵规-公益维度和利他维度来促进青少年整体亲社会行为发展。

关键词: 亲社会行为, 青少年, 网络分析, 网络比较, 核心维度

Abstract: Previous studies have discovered that the concept of prosocial behavior among adolescents is composed of four dimensions: commonweal-social rule, altruism, relationship, and personal trait. Utilizing this four- dimensional structure, the Prosocial Behavior Scale for Adolescents (PBSA) measurements revealed gender and grade-level differences in the importance attributed to each dimension. Furthermore, numerous prior studies on the development of adolescent prosocial behavior have yielded inconsistent results. In this study, we employed a network analysis approach to explore the network of adolescent prosocial behavior, uncovering the relationships among different dimensions and individual questionnaire items, revealing its core dimensions, and shedding light on differences across gender and grade.
Conducted in 2017, this study included 9160 students from 15 schools spanning eight provinces or municipalities, namely Beijing, Fujian, Henan, Jiangsu, Shandong, Shaanxi, Sichuan, and Chongqing, with ages ranging from 10 to 17 and covering elementary, middle, and high school students. We utilized the PBSA, consisting of 15 items based on the four-dimensional concept, to assess and analyze the network of adolescent prosocial behavior. The network analysis process followed the standardization guidelines published by Epskamp et al, utilizing qgraph in the R programming for network estimation and computation of centrality indices. Finally, we performed comparisons of dimension networks and item networks across different genders and grades.
In the overall network of adolescent prosocial behavior, as well as in the grade- and gender-based networks, the commonweal-social rule dimension consistently exhibited the highest centrality, followed by altruism, relationship, and traits dimensions. Compared to the prosocial behavior network in females, the male prosocial behavior network showed higher centrality in the commonweal-social rule and relationship dimensions, occupying more central positions within the network. When comparing prosocial behavior networks across different grades, the commonweal-social rule dimension occupied the most central position in all grades. Moreover, its centrality was highest in the middle school group. The centrality of the altruism dimension was highest in the high school group, while the relationship and personal trait dimensions held the highest centrality in the elementary school group. As for the network structure, no differences were found in the gender-based dimension networks. However, differences were identified in the grade-based dimension networks, with high school students exhibiting significantly weaker network strength than middle and elementary school students. Similarly, no notable differences were observed in the item networks based on gender, but differences were found in the item networks based on grade.
Taken together, the current study has found that, in the overall sample as well as among different genders and grades, the commonweal-social rule consistently serves as a core dimension within the network structure of prosocial behavior. There were significant grade differences in both dimension networks and item prosocial behavior networks, along with subtle gender differences in item networks. These results provide a new perspective for deepening our understanding of adolescent prosocial behavior and expanding the research domain of prosocial behavior. These findings suggest that future interventions targeting the commonweal-social rule and altruism dimensions could potentially boost overall prosocial behavior in adolescents. The middle school stage may be a critical period for promoting commonweal-social rule prosocial behavior.

Key words: prosocial behavior, adolescent, network analysis, network comparison, core dimension

中图分类号:

B844

林靓, 徐博雅, 杨莹, 张庆鹏, 寇彧. (2024). 青少年亲社会行为的网络分析及核心维度. 心理学报, 56(9), 1252-1265.

LIN Jing, XU Boya, YANG Ying, ZHANG Qing-peng, KOU Yu. (2024). Network analysis and core dimensions of adolescent prosocial behavior. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(9), 1252-1265.

参考文献

[1] Baber, M. A. (2016). Appropriate school starting age: A focus on the cognitive and social development of a child. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 3(2), 277-287.
[2] Batson C. D., van Lange, P. A. M., Ahmad N., & Lishner D. A. (2003). Altruism and helping behavior. In M. A. Hogg, & J. Cooper (Eds.), Sage handbook of social psychology (pp. 279-295). Sage.
[3] Blakemore, S.-J., & Mills, K. L. (2014). Is adolescence a sensitive period for sociocultural processing? Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 187-207.
[4] Blanchard, M. A., & Heeren, A. (2020). Why we should move from reductionism and embrace a network approach to parental burnout. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 2020(174), 159-168.
[5] Boccaletti S., Latora V., Moreno Y., Chavez M., & Hwang D.-U. (2006). Complex networks: Structure and dynamics. Physics Reports, 424(4-5), 175-308.
[6] Borsboom, D., & Cramer, A. O. J. (2013). Network analysis: An integrative approach to the structure of psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 91-121.
[7] Briganti G., Kempenaers C., Braun S., Fried E. I., & Linkowski P. (2018). Network analysis of empathy items from the interpersonal reactivity index in 1973 young adults. Psychiatry Research, 265, 87-92.
[8] Caprara G. V., Kanacri B. P. L., Gerbino M., Zuffianò A., Alessandri G., Vecchio G., Caprara E., Pastorelli C., & Bridglall B. (2014). Positive effects of promoting prosocial behavior in early adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 38(4), 386-396.
[9] Carlo, G. (2013). The development and correlates of prosocial moral behaviors. Handbook of moral development (2nd Ed.). Psychology Press.
[10] Carlo G., Mestre M. V., McGinley M. M., Tur‐Porcar A., Samper P., & Opal D. (2014). The protective role of prosocial behaviors on antisocial behaviors: The mediating effects of deviant peer affiliation. Journal of Adolescence, 37(4), 359-366.
[11] Carlo, G., & Padilla‐Walker, L. (2020). Adolescents' prosocial behaviors through a multidimensional and multicultural lens. Child Development Perspectives, 14(4), 265-272.
[12] Carlo G., Padilla-Walker L. M., & Nielson M. G. (2015). Longitudinal bidirectional relations between adolescents' sympathy and prosocial behavior. Developmental Psychology, 51(12), 1771-1777.
[13] Carlo G.,& Pierotti, S. L. (2020). The development of prosocial motives. In L. A. Jensen (Ed.), Oxford handbook of moral development: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 27-51). Oxford University Press.
[14] Carlo, G., & Randall, B. A. (2002). The development of a measure of prosocial behaviors for late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(1), 31-44.
[15] Chen X., Liu M., Rubin K. H., Cen G., Gao X., & Li D. (2002). Sociability and prosocial orientation as predictors of youth adjustment: A seven-year longitudinal study in a Chinese sample. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26(2), 128-136.
[16] Costantini G., Epskamp S., Borsboom D., Perugini M., Mõttus R., Waldorp L. J., & Cramer, A. O. J. (2015). State of the aRt personality research: A tutorial on network analysis of personality data in R. Journal of Research in Personality, 54, 13-29.
[17] Costantini G., Richetin J., Borsboom D., Fried E. I., Rhemtulla M., & Perugini M. (2015). Development of indirect measures of conscientiousness: Combining a facets approach and network analysis. European Journal of Personality, 29(5), 548-567.
[18] Cramer A. O. J., Van Der Sluis S., Noordhof A., Wichers M., Geschwind N., Aggen S. H., Kendler K. S., & Borsboom D. (2012). Dimensions of normal personality as networks in search of equilibrium: You can't like parties if you don't like people. European Journal of Personality, 26(4), 414-431.
[19] Dalege J., Borsboom D., van Harreveld F., van den Berg H., Conner M., & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2016). Toward a formalized account of attitudes: The Causal Attitude Network (CAN) model. Psychological Review, 123(1), 2-22.
[20] Eagly, A. H. (2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 64(8), 644-658.
[21] Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 665-697.
[22] Eisenberg N., Cumberland A., Guthrie I. K., Murphy B. C., & Shepard S. A. (2005). Age changes in prosocial responding and moral reasoning in adolescence and early adulthood. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15(3), 235-260.
[23] Eisenberg N., Fabes R. A., & Spinrad T. L. (2006). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (Vol. 3, 6th ed. pp. 646-718). John Wiley & Sons Inc.
[24] Epskamp S., Borsboom D., & Fried E. I. (2018). Estimating psychological networks and their accuracy: A tutorial paper. Behavior Research Methods, 50(1), 195-212.
[25] Epskamp, S., & Fried, E. I. (2018). A tutorial on regularized partial correlation networks. Psychological Methods, 23(4), 617-634.
[26] Fabes R. A., Carlo G., Kupanoff K., & Laible D. (1999). Early adolescence and prosocial/moral behavior I: The role of individual processes. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 19(1), 5-16.
[27] Fagot B. I., Rodgers C. S., & Leinbach M. D. (2000). Theories of gender socialization. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 65-89). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
[28] Fried E. I., van Borkulo C. D., Cramer A. O. J., Boschloo L., Schoevers R. A., & Borsboom D. (2017). Mental disorders as networks of problems: A review of recent insights. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology: The International Journal for Research in Social and Genetic Epidemiology and Mental Health Services, 52(1), 1-10.
[29] Funkhouser C. J., Chacko A. A., Correa K. A., Kaiser A. J. E., & Shankman S. A. (2021). Unique longitudinal relationships between symptoms of psychopathology in youth: A cross‐lagged panel network analysis in the ABCD study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 62(2), 184-194.
[30] Goldstein S. E., Boxer P., & Rudolph E. (2015). Middle school transition stress: Links with academic performance, motivation, and school experiences. Contemporary School Psychology, 19(1), 21-29.
[31] Hart, D., & Carlo, G. (2005). Moral development in adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15(3), 223-233.
[32] Hevey, D. (2018). Network analysis: A brief overview and tutorial. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, 6(1), 301-328.
[33] Kou, Y., & Lei, Wang. (2003). Review of research on children's prosocial behavior and its interventions. Psychological Development and Education, (4), 86-91.
[寇彧, 王磊. (2003). 儿童亲社会行为及其干预研究述评. 心理发展与教育, (4), 86-91.]
[34] Kou, Y., & Zhang, Q. (2006). Conceptual representation of early adolescents' prosocial behavior. Sociological Studies, (5), 169-187.
[寇彧, 张庆鹏. (2006). 青少年亲社会行为的概念表征研究. 社会学研究, (5), 169-187.]
[35] Liang Y., Zheng H., & Liu Z. (2020). Changes in the network of posttraumatic stress disorder among children after the Wenchuan earthquake: A four-year longitudinal study. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(11), 1301-1312.
[梁一鸣, 郑昊, 刘正奎. (2020). 震后儿童创伤后应激障碍的症状网络演化. 心理学报, 52(11), 1301-1312.]
[36] Liu S., Zhang D., Tian Y., Xu B., & Wu X. (2023). Gender differences in symptom structure of adolescent problematic internet use: A network analysis. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 17(1), 49.
[37] Luengo Kanacri B. P., Pastorelli C., Eisenberg N., Zuffianò A., & Caprara G. V. (2013). The development of prosociality from adolescence to early adulthood: The role of effortful control. Journal of Personality, 81(3), 302-312.
[38] Marchetti, I. (2019). Hopelessness: A network analysis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 43(3), 611-619.
[39] Marcus D. K., Preszler J., & Zeigler-Hill V. (2018). A network of dark personality traits: What lies at the heart of darkness? Journal of Research in Personality, 73, 56-62.
[40] McNally, R. J. (2016). Can network analysis transform psychopathology? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 86, 95-104.
[41] Mesurado B., Guerra P., Richaud M. C., & Rodriguez, L. M. (2019). Effectiveness of prosocial behavior interventions: A meta-analysis. In P. Á. Gargiulo & H. L. Mesones Arroyo (Eds.), Psychiatry and neuroscience update: From translational research to a humanistic approach (Vol. 3, pp. 259-271). Springer International Publishing.
[42] Opic, S. (2016). Interpersonal relations in school. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 4(2), 9-21.
[43] Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Carlo, G. (Eds.). (2014). Prosocial development: A multidimensional approach Oxford University Press A multidimensional approach. Oxford University Press.
[44] Robinaugh D. J., Millner A. J., & McNally R. J. (2016). Identifying highly influential nodes in the complicated grief network. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(6), 747-757.
[45] Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 98-131.
[46] Steinberg, L. (2005). Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 69-74.
[47] van Borkulo C. D., Borsboom D., Epskamp S., Blanken T. F., Boschloo L., Schoevers R. A., & Waldorp L. J. (2014). A new method for constructing networks from binary data. Scientific Reports, 4(1), 5918.
[48] van Borkulo C. D., Boschloo L., Borsboom D., Penninx B. W. J. H., Waldorp L. J., & Schoevers R. A. (2015). Association of symptom network structure with the course of depression. JAMA Psychiatry, 72(12), 1219.
[49] van Borkulo C. D., van Bork R., Boschloo L., Kossakowski J. J., Tio P., Schoevers R. A., Borsboom D., & Waldorp L. J. (2022). Comparing network structures on three aspects: A permutation test. Psychological Methods, 28(6), 1273-1285.
[50] van Buuren, S., & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K. (2011). mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(3), 1-67.
[51] Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Does being good make the grade? Social behavior and academic competence in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 357-364.
[52] Wentzel K. R., Filisetti L., & Looney L. (2007). Adolescent prosocial behavior: The role of self-processes and contextual cues. Child Development, 78(3), 895-910.
[53] Yang Y., Kong X., Guo Z., & Kou Y. (2021). Can self-compassion promote gratitude and prosocial behavior in adolescents? A 3-year longitudinal study from China. Mindfulness, 12(6), 1377-1386.
[54] Yang Y., Zhang M., & Kou Y. (2016). The revalidation and development of the prosocial behavior scale for adolescent. Chinese Social Psychological Review, 10, 135-150.
[杨莹, 张梦圆, 寇彧. (2016). 青少年亲社会行为量表的编制与维度的再验证. 中国社会心理学评论, 10, 135-150.]
[55] Zhang M., Yang Y., & Kou Y. (2015). The adolescents' prosocial behavior and its development. Youth Studies, (4), 10-18.
[张梦圆, 杨莹, 寇彧. (2015). 青少年的亲社会行为及其发展. 青年研究, (4), 10-18.]
[56] Zhang, Q. (2012). The dimensions of measurement and mechanism of prosocial behavior from a perspective of conceptual representation (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). Beijing Normal University.
[张庆鹏. (2012). 概念表征视角下亲社会行为的测评维度和机制研究 (博士学位论文). 北京师范大学.]
[57] Zhang, Q., & Kou, Y. (2011). The dimension of measurement on prosocial behavior: exploration and confirmation. Sociological Studies, 11, 105-121.
[张庆鹏, 寇彧. (2011). 青少年亲社会行为测评维度的建立与验证. 社会学研究, 11, 105-121.]