ISSN 0439-755X
CN 11-1911/B

心理学报 ›› 2017, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (7): 928-940.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00928

• • 上一篇    下一篇

 不同心理弹性者的日常情绪特征: 结合体验采样研究的证据

吕梦思; 席居哲; 罗一睿   

  1.  (华东师范大学心理与认知科学学院应用心理学系, 上海 200062)
  • 收稿日期:2016-09-30 出版日期:2017-07-25 发布日期:2017-05-26
  • 通讯作者: 席居哲, E-mail: E-mail: E-mail:
  • 基金资助:

 Daily emotional characteristics in individuals with different resilience levels: Supplementary evidence from experience-sampling method (ESM)

 LYU Mengsi; XI Juzhe; LUO Yirui   

  1.  (Department of Applied Psychology, School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China)
  • Received:2016-09-30 Online:2017-07-25 Published:2017-05-26
  • Contact: XI Juzhe, E-mail: E-mail: E-mail:
  • Supported by:

摘要:  结合体验采样法和问卷法, 分别考察了从252名上海高校大学生中甄别出的100名高、中、低心理弹性者在日常情绪状态和情绪复杂性、情绪调节方式上的差异态势。结果发现, 不同心理弹性大学生:(1)在日常情绪状态上存在差异。高心理弹性组积极情绪的总分、强度和频率都显著高于低弹性组; 高心理弹性组的积极情绪在日常情绪构成中所占的比重显著大于中、低弹性组。(2)在情绪复杂性的4个维度有不一致的表现。高心理弹性组拥有更高的积极情绪细腻度, 3组在其他维度上没有发现差异。(3)积极情绪调节中, 高心理弹性组多采用宣泄而少用抑制策略; 消极情绪调节中, 低心理弹性组多采用认知重视调节。这提示, 积极情绪是与个体适应发展密切相关的内部因素, 也是促进心理弹性发展的重要资源, 个体对积极情绪的体验和觉察对心理弹性有重要影响。针对情绪觉察与调节的指导训练有望提升个体心理弹性。

关键词:  心理弹性, 体验采样法, 日常情绪状态, 情绪复杂性, 情绪调节方式

Abstract:  The investigation of the cognitive and emotional characteristic of resilient individuals has significant implications for understanding the development and mechanisms of resilience. As a new perspective on emotion functioning, emotional complexity has important implications for physical and psychological health. Nevertheless, the relationship between emotional complexity and resilience has been rarely investigated especially in Chinese cultural settings. In this study, we aimed to explore the differences in daily positive and negative emotion states, emotional complexity, and emotion regulation strategies between three groups of college students with high-, intermediate-, and low-resilience levels. With a sample of 252 participants from six universities in Shanghai, we firstly conducted screening and grouping processes according to two vital standards of resilience, i.e., severity of stress/adversity that they faced and positive outcome of psychosocial adaptation that they developed. Thereafter, we carried out a 15-day follow-up study using the Experience-Sampling Method (ESM) to investigate grouped participants’ daily emotional states and their emotional complexity. Furthermore, we administered a questionnaire to investigate the participants’ emotion regulation strategies. The statistical software SPSS 19.0 was adopted to conduct the paired sample t-test and the analysis of variance (ANOVA) to analyze the data. Results indicated that the most frequently experienced daily emotions in the participants were active, energetic, nervous, and trembling with fear. Additionally, antecedent-focused regulation was used more frequently to regulate negative emotions (t (99) = 18.06, p < 0.001), and mainly for down-regulation (t (99) = 9.55, p < 0.001). Up-regulation strategies were used more frequently in positive emotion regulation (t (99) = 3.96, p < 0.001). There were significant differences in daily emotional states between high-, intermediate-, and low-resilient participants Specifically, the high-resilient group experienced positive emotions more frequently and more intensively (F (2,97) = 7.50, p < 0.01; F (2,97) = 6.22, p < 0.01). An index of positive emotional experience was computed by subtracting negative emotions from positive ones, showing that high-resilient participants had more positive emotional experiences than those with low resilience. Participants with high resilience reported the highest positive emotional granularity scores among the three groups (F (2, 97) = 4.26, p < 0.05). A similar discrepancy was not found in negative emotional granularity, emotional range and mixed emotions. There were also differences in emotion regulation strategies between different resilient groups. High-resilient individuals released and expressed positive emotions more frequently (F (2, 97) = 3.55, p < 0.05), and rarely use suppression strategies (F (2, 97) = 3.69, p < 0.05). In contrast, the low-resilient individuals was more likely to use cognitive up-regulation strategies to regulate negative emotions (F (2, 97) = 6.41, p < 0.01). In conclusion, positive emotion is the building block of resilience, and the awareness, differentiation and regulation of positive emotion has significant implications for adaptation, growth and thriving. Different types of emotion regulation strategies have differential impacts on physical and mental health. It is implied that a guided exercise on emotion regulation and emotion awareness will promote individual resilience.

Key words:  resilience, experience-sampling method, daily emotional state, emotional complexity, emotion regulation strategy