青少年早期亲社会行为倾向、内化问题和外化问题发展级联的个体内分析

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00813

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

认识亲社会行为倾向、内化问题和外化问题的发展级联对青少年心理健康促进具有重要价值。采用个体内分析方法分析了894名初中生3年的追踪数据, 并与传统的交叉滞后面板模型进行比较。结果发现：(1)在个体内水平, 亲社会行为倾向与内化问题和外化问题具有中等或较弱的协同变化关系, T1亲社会行为倾向可负向预测T2内化问题, T2亲社会行为倾向可负向预测T3外化问题, 具有较弱的预测作用; (2)在女生群体中, T2内化问题可正向预测T3外化问题, 而在男生群体中, 内化问题和外化问题没有相互预测作用; (3)亲社会行为倾向的4个因子(公开的、依从的、情绪的和利他的)可负向预测内化问题, 它们仅在T2可负向预测外化问题, 具有较弱的预测作用; (4)个体内分析方法得到的研究结果与传统交叉滞后分析方法不同, 不同的个体内分析模型得到的研究结果也不同。结论: 青少年早期亲社会行为倾向的发展可降低内化问题和外化问题, 这种作用具有性别差异; 个体内分析方法在青少年心理病理发展研究中具有重要应用价值。

关键词: 亲社会行为倾向, 内化问题和外化问题, 随机截距交叉滞后面板模型, 广义交叉滞后面板模型, 发展级联

Abstract:

Conceptually, prosocial behavior reduces externalizing problems (e.g., aggression) and internalized problems (e.g., depression) because prosocial behavior promotes positive emotions (e.g., to find delight in helping others). Therefore, understanding the development cascades of prosocial behavior tendency, internalizing and externalizing problems is of great value to the promotion of adolescent mental health.

Developmental cascades model describes the above-mentioned process, that is, the function of one domain (level or system) will affect the function of another domain (level or system); as time goes on, multiple interactions in different domains (levels or systems) will produce cumulative effects that can spill over and affect the functions of other domain (level or system). Researchers usually use longitudinal data to test a developmental cascade model. However, previous studies tend to base their conclusions on Cross-Lagged Panel Models, which cannot sufficiently answer the causally reciprocal relationship the developmental cascade model described because CLPM mixed the between- and within-person effects. The results of the within-person analysis, which takes the person himself as the control, is more likely indicating the within-person changes of studied variables and their temporal relationships, and thus are consistent with the theoretical hypothesis of the developmental cascades model. The current study attempts to test the developmental cascades of prosocial behavior tendency, internalizing and externalizing problems in a sample of Chinese adolescents, and to show how the within-person analysis and the analysis based on traditional CLPM influence the conclusions.

The demographic questionnaire together with Prosocial Behavior Tendency, Depression-Anxiety-Stress Scale and Buss Warren Aggression Questionnaire were administered in two junior schools for three years. Totally 894 students completed the three-wave investigation. Among them, the age ranged from 11 to 15 years old (12.7 ± 0.60), including 517 boys (57.8%) at the beginning of the investigation. In terms of parents' education level, 94.6% of fathers completed nine-year compulsory education, and 56.9% of them completed high school or above level education; 91.5% of mothers completed nine-year compulsory education, and 52.2% of them completed high school or above level education.

Two models of within-person analysis (RI-CLPM and GCLM) were used to analyze the data, compared with the traditional CLPM. The data fitting indexes of the three models are all acceptable, but the results are different leading to very different conclusions. Particularly, GCLM can separate within- and between-person effects; (2) GCLM do not assume continuous development in comparison with RI-CLPM. These advantages of GCLM make GCLM have accurate estimates than other two models. Based on the results of GCLM, the research showed that: (1) at the within-person level, prosocial behavior tendency has a moderate or weak co-movements with internalizing and externalizing problems. The prosocial behavior tendency measured at T1 can predict the internalizing problems measured at T2, and the prosocial behavior tendency measured at T2 can predict the externalizing problems measured at T3; (2) For the girl group, the internalizing problems measured at T2 can predict the externalizing problems measured at T3, while in the boy group, the results did not support the reciprocal relationship between internalizing and externalizing problems; (3) The public, submissive, emotional and altruistic factors of prosocial behavior tendency can negatively predict the next-year internalizing problems, and these four factors can negatively predict the externalizing problems measured at T2. These results suggest the value of prosocial behavior as the potential way to promote adolescent’s mental health, within-person analysis in the developmental cascades research, and also indicate that mental health promotion programs should take the gender difference into account.

Key words: prosocial behavior tendency, internalizing and externalizing problems, random-intercept cross-lagged panel model, general cross-lagged panel model, developmental cascades

中图分类号:

B844

段文婷, 孙启武, 王铭, 吴才智, 陈真珍. (2022). 青少年早期亲社会行为倾向、内化问题和外化问题发展级联的个体内分析. 心理学报, 54(7), 813-827.

DUAN Wenting, SUN Qiwu, WANG Ming, WU Caizhi, CHEN Zhenzhen. (2022). The developmental cascades of prosocial behavior tendency, internalizing and externalizing problems for early adolescence in China: A within-person analysis. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(7), 813-827.

图/表 5

参考文献 55

[1]	Allison, P. D., Williams, R., & Moral-Benito, E. (2017). Maximum likelihood for cross-lagged panel models with fixed effects. Socius, 3, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023117710578
[2]	Asparouhov, T., Muthén, B., & Muthén, B. O. (2006). Robust chi square difference testing with mean and variance adjusted test statistics. Matrix, 1(5), 1-6.
[3]	Berry, D., & Willoughby, M. T. (2017). On the practical interpretability of cross-lagged panel models: Rethinking a developmental workhorse. Child Development, 88(4), 1186-1206. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12660 doi: 10.1111/cdev.12660 URL
[4]	Burke, J. D., Loeber, R., Lahey, B. B., & Rathouz, P. J. (2005). Developmental transitions among affective and behavioral disorders in adolescent boys. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(11), 1200-1210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.00422.x URL
[5]	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. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014033032440 doi: 10.1023/A:1014033032440 URL
[6]	Carlson, G. A., & Cantwell, D. P. (1980). Unmasking masked depression in children and adolescents. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 137(4), 445-449. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.137.4.445 doi: 10.1176/ajp.137.4.445 URL
[7]	Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
[8]	Chen, B.-B., Qu, Y., & Chen, X. (2021). Chinese parents’ comparisons of siblings and adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems. Development and Psychopathology, 33(3), 914-921. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095457942000022X doi: 10.1017/S095457942000022X URL
[9]	Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834 doi: 10.1080/10705510701301834 URL
[10]	Chen, J., Yu, J., Zhang, J., Li, X., & McGue, M. (2015). Investigating genetic and environmental contributions to adolescent externalizing behavior in a collectivistic culture: A multi-informant twin study. Psychological Medicine, 45(9), 1989-1997. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291714003109 doi: 10.1017/S0033291714003109 URL pmid: 25572795
[11]	Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (1998). The development of depression in children and adolescents. American Psychologist, 53(2), 221-241. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.2.221 URL pmid: 9491749
[12]	Cohen, J. R., Andrews, A. R., Davis, M. M., & Rudolph, K. D. (2018). Anxiety and depression during childhood and adolescence: Testing theoretical models of continuity and discontinuity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 46(6), 1295-1308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-017-0370-x doi: 10.1007/s10802-017-0370-x URL
[13]	Crittenden, P. M., & Landini, A. (2011). Assessing adult attachment: A dynamic-maturational approach to discourse analysis. New York: Norton & Company.
[14]	Davidov, M., Vaish, A., Knafo-Noam, A., & Hastings, P. D. (2016). The motivational foundations of prosocial behavior from a developmental perspective-evolutionary roots and key psychological mechanisms: Introduction to the special section. Child Development, 87(6), 1655-1667. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12639 doi: 10.1111/cdev.12639 URL pmid: 28262938
[15]	Flouri, E., & Sarmadi, Z. (2016). Prosocial behavior and childhood trajectories of internalizing and externalizing problems: The role of neighborhood and school contexts. Developmental Psychology, 52(2), 253-258. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000076 doi: 10.1037/dev0000076 URL
[16]	Flynn, E., Ehrenreich, S. E., Beron, K. J., & Underwood, M. K. (2015). Prosocial behavior: Long‐term trajectories and psychosocial outcomes. Social Development, 24(3), 462-482. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12100 doi: 10.1111/sode.12100 URL
[17]	Gao, X., Liang, J., Wang, S-F., Zhai, Y., Lu, Y.-B, Shi, W.-H., & Shi, X.-M. (2013). Analysis on pupils' current mental health situation and their guardians' attitude in eight provinces in China. Chinese Journal of Disease Control & Prevention, 17(7), 592-595. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:JBKZ.0.2013-07-014
	[高欣, 梁靖, 王淑芬, 翟屹, 吕跃斌, 石文惠, 施小明. (2013). 我国八省小学生心理状况及家长对其评价分析. 中华疾病控制杂志, 17(7), 592-595.]
[18]	Graber, J. A., & Sontag, L. M. (2009). Internalizing problems during adolescence. In R. M. Lerner, L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology: Individual bases of adolescent development (Vol. 1, 3rd ed. pp. 642-682). New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479193.adlpsy001020
[19]	Hamaker, E. L., Kuiper, R. M., & Grasman, R. P. P. P. (2015). A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychological Methods, 20(1), 102-116. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038889 doi: 10.1037/a0038889 URL pmid: 25822208
[20]	Hawley, P. H. (2003). Prosocial and coercive configurations of resource control in early adolescence: A case for the well-adapted machiavellian. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49(3), 279-309. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2003.0013 doi: 10.1353/mpq.2003.0013 URL
[21]	Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118 URL
[22]	Kazdin, A. E. (1993). Adolescent mental health: Prevention and treatment programs. American Psychologist, 48(2), 127-141. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.127 URL pmid: 8442568
[23]	Kenny, D. A. (1975). Cross-lagged panel correlation: A test for spuriousness. Psychological Bulletin, 82(6), 887-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.82.6.887 doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.82.6.887 URL
[24]	Kokko, K., Tremblay, R. E., Lacourse, E., Nagin, D. S., & Vitaro, F. (2006). Trajectories of prosocial behavior and physical aggression in middle childhood: Links to adolescent school dropout and physical violence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16(3), 403-428. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00500. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00500.x URL
[25]	Kou, Y., Hong, H.-F., Tan, C., & Li, L. (2007). Revisioning prosocial tendencies measure for adolescent. Psychological Development and Education, 23(1), 112-117.
	[寇彧, 洪慧芳, 谭晨, 李磊. (2007). 青少年亲社会倾向量表的修订. 心理发展与教育, 23(1), 112-117.]
[26]	Kou, Y., & Zhang, Q. P. (2006). Conceptual representation of early adolescents’ prosocial behavior. Sociological Studies, 21(5), 169-187. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:SHXJ.0.2006-05-008
	[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, 21(5), 169-187.]
[27]	Lai, F. H. Y., Siu, A. M. H., & Shek, D. T. L. (2015). Individual and social predictors of prosocial behavior among Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 3, 39. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2015.00039
[28]	Leadbeater, B. J., Kuperminc, G. P., Blatt, S. J., & Hertzog, C. (1999). A multivariate model of gender differences in adolescents' internalizing and externalizing problems. Developmental Psychology, 35(5), 1268-1282. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.5.1268 URL pmid: 10493653
[29]	Lee, E. J., & Stone, S. I. (2012). Co-occurring internalizing and externalizing behavioral problems: The mediating effect of negative self-concept. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(6), 717-731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9700-4 doi: 10.1007/s10964-011-9700-4 URL
[30]	Little, R. J. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198-1202. https://doi.org/10.2307/2290157 doi: 10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722 URL
[31]	Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 151-173. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1 doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1 URL
[32]	Masten, A. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2010). Developmental cascades. Development and Psychopathology, 22(3), 491-495. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579410000222 doi: 10.1017/S0954579410000222 pmid: 20576173
[33]	Maxwell, J. P. (2008). Psychometric properties of a Chinese version of the Buss-Warren aggression questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(4), 943-953. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.037 doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.037 URL
[34]	McNeish, D., & Kelley, K. (2019). Fixed effects models versus mixed effects models for clustered data: Reviewing the approaches, disentangling the differences, and making recommendations. Psychological Methods, 24(1), 20-35. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000182 doi: 10.1037/met0000182 URL pmid: 29863377
[35]	Memmott-Elison, M. K., Holmgren, H. G., Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Hawkins, A. J. (2020). Associations between prosocial behavior, externalizing behaviors, and internalizing symptoms during adolescence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 80, 98-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.01.012 doi: S0140-1971(20)30012-9 URL pmid: 32087386
[36]	Mesurado, B., Guerra, P., Richaud, M. C., & Rodriguez, L. M. (2019). Effectiveness of prosocial behavior interventions:A meta-analysis. In P. Gargiulo, H. Mesones Arroyo (Eds.), Psychiatry and neuroscience update. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95360-1_21
[37]	Moilanen, K. L., Shaw, D. S., & Maxwell, K. L. (2010). Developmental cascades: Externalizing, internalizing, and academic competence from middle childhood to early adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 22(3), 635-653. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579410000337 doi: 10.1017/S0954579410000337 URL pmid: 20576184
[38]	Murray, A. L., Eisner, M., & Ribeaud, D. (2020). Within- person analysis of developmental cascades between externalising and internalising problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 61(6), 681-688. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13150 doi: 10.1111/jcpp.13150 URL
[39]	Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
[40]	Nantel-Vivier, A., Pihl, R. O., Côté, S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2014). Developmental association of prosocial behaviour with aggression, anxiety and depression from infancy to preadolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(10), 1135-1144. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12235 doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12235 URL
[41]	Padilla-Walker, L. M., Carlo, G., & Nielson, M. G. (2015). Does helping keep teens protected? Longitudinal bidirectional relations between prosocial behavior and problem behavior. Child Development, 86(6), 1759-1772. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12411 doi: 10.1111/cdev.12411 URL pmid: 26511897
[42]	Padilla-Walker, L. M., Memmott-Elison, M. K., & Coyne, S. M. (2017). Associations between prosocial and problem behavior from early to late adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(5), 961-975. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0736-y
[43]	Paulus, M. (2018). The multidimensional nature of early prosocial behavior: A motivational perspective. Current Opinion in Psychology, 20, 111-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.09.003 doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.09.003 URL
[44]	Pinquart, M. (2017). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with externalizing problems of children and adolescents: An updated meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 53(5), 873-932. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000295 doi: 10.1037/dev0000295 URL pmid: 28459276
[45]	Reitz, E., Dekovic, M., & Meijer, A. M. (2005). The structure and stability of externalizing and internalizing problem behavior during early adolescence. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 34(6), 577-588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-8947-z
[46]	Sharp, C. (2020). Adolescent personality pathology and the alternative model for personality disorders: Self development as nexus. Psychopathology, 53(3), 192-198. https://doi.org/10.1159/000507588
[47]	StataCorp. (2017). Stata statistical software: Release 15. StataCorp LLC.
[48]	Usami, S. (2020). On the differences between general cross- lagged panel model and random-intercept cross-lagged panel model: Interpretation of cross-lagged parameters and model choice. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 28(3), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2020.1821690 doi: 10.1080/10705511.2020.1764360 URL
[49]	van Lier, P. A. C., Vitaro, F., Barker, E. D., Brendgen, M., Tremblay, R. E., & Boivin, M. (2012). Peer victimization, poor academic achievement, and the link between childhood externalizing and internalizing problems. Child Development, 83(5), 1775-1788. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01802.x URL pmid: 22716904
[50]	Wang, K., Shi, H.-S., Geng, F.-L., Zou, L.-Q., Tan, S.-P., Wang, Y., … Chan, R. C. K. (2016). Cross-cultural validation of the depression anxiety stress scale-21 in China. Psychological Assessment, 28(5), e88-e100. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000207
[51]	Weeks, M., Ploubidis, G. B., Cairney, J., Wild, T. C., Naicker, K., & Colman, I. (2016). Developmental pathways linking childhood and adolescent internalizing, externalizing, academic competence, and adolescent depression. Journal of Adolescence, 51, 30-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.05.009 doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.05.009 URL
[52]	Xie, X., Chen, W., Lei, L., Xing, C., & Zhang, Y. (2016). The relationship between personality types and prosocial behavior and aggression in Chinese adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 56-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.002 doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.002 URL
[53]	Zhou, H., & Long, L. R. (2004). Statistical remedies for common method biases. Advances in Psychological Science, 12(6), 942-950.
	[周浩, 龙立荣. (2004). 共同方法偏差的统计检验与控制方法. 心理科学进展, 12(6), 942-950.]
[54]	Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Geiger, T. C., & Crick, N. R. (2005). Relational and physical aggression, prosocial behavior, and peer relations: Gender moderation and bidirectional associations. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(4), 421-452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431605279841 doi: 10.1177/0272431605279841 URL
[55]	Zyphur, M. J., Allison, P. D., Tay, L., Voelkle, M. C., Preacher, K. J., Zhang, Z., … Diener, E. (2020). From data to causes I: Building a general cross-lagged panel model (GCLM). Organizational Research Methods, 23(4), 651-687. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428119847278 doi: 10.1177/1094428119847278 URL

变量	Model	χ²	df	CFI	SRMR	RMSEA	模型比较	Δχ²	Δdf	p	ΔCFI	ΔRMSEA
亲社会行为倾向
	M1: 形态等值	478.02	114	0.964	0.032	0.060
	M2: 弱等值性	490.82	124	0.963	0.036	0.058	M2-M1	12.80	10	>0.05	-0.001	-0.002
	M3: 强等值性	562.06	134	0.957	0.035	0.060	M3-M2	71.24	10	<0.05	-0.006	0.002
	M4: 严格等值	618.75	146	0.953	0.045	0.060	M4-M3	56.69	12	<0.05	-0.004	0.000
内化问题	M1: 形态等值	29.72	15	0.998	0.014	0.028
	M2: 弱等值性	34.60	19	0.998	0.016	0.026	M2-M1	4.88	4	>0.05	0.000	-0.002
	M3: 强等值性	65.90	23	0.994	0.019	0.039	M3-M2	31.3	4	<0.05	-0.004	0.013
	M3.1: 强等值性^a	36.59	21	0.998	0.017	0.024	M3.1-M2	1.99	2	>0.05	0.000	-0.002
外化问题	M1: 形态等值	224.09	72	0.985	0.022	0.041
	M2: 弱等值性	240.39	80	0.984	0.027	0.040	M2-M1	16.3	8	<0.05	-0.001	-0.001
	M3: 强等值性	313.15	88	0.978	0.032	0.045	M3-M2	72.76	8	<0.05	-0.006	0.005
	M4: 严格等值	348.34	98	0.975	0.031	0.045	M4-M3	35.19	10	<0.05	-0.003	0.000

变量	Model	χ²	df	CFI	SRMR	RMSEA	模型比较	Δχ²	Δdf	p	ΔCFI	ΔRMSEA
亲社会行为倾向
	M1: 形态等值	478.02	114	0.964	0.032	0.060
	M2: 弱等值性	490.82	124	0.963	0.036	0.058	M2-M1	12.80	10	>0.05	-0.001	-0.002
	M3: 强等值性	562.06	134	0.957	0.035	0.060	M3-M2	71.24	10	<0.05	-0.006	0.002
	M4: 严格等值	618.75	146	0.953	0.045	0.060	M4-M3	56.69	12	<0.05	-0.004	0.000
内化问题	M1: 形态等值	29.72	15	0.998	0.014	0.028
	M2: 弱等值性	34.60	19	0.998	0.016	0.026	M2-M1	4.88	4	>0.05	0.000	-0.002
	M3: 强等值性	65.90	23	0.994	0.019	0.039	M3-M2	31.3	4	<0.05	-0.004	0.013
	M3.1: 强等值性^a	36.59	21	0.998	0.017	0.024	M3.1-M2	1.99	2	>0.05	0.000	-0.002
外化问题	M1: 形态等值	224.09	72	0.985	0.022	0.041
	M2: 弱等值性	240.39	80	0.984	0.027	0.040	M2-M1	16.3	8	<0.05	-0.001	-0.001
	M3: 强等值性	313.15	88	0.978	0.032	0.045	M3-M2	72.76	8	<0.05	-0.006	0.005
	M4: 严格等值	348.34	98	0.975	0.031	0.045	M4-M3	35.19	10	<0.05	-0.003	0.000

变量	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	M	SD
1 内化问题T1	—								0.77	0.56
2 内化问题T2	0.45^a	—							0.78	0.60
3 内化问题T3	0.38	0.59	—						0.76	0.61
4 外化问题T1	0.66	0.40	0.30	—					2.26	0.66
5 外化问题T2	0.33	0.68	0.41	0.47	—				2.36	0.69
6 外化问题T3	0.36	0.48	0.67	0.44	0.56	—			2.30	0.65
7 亲社会行为倾向T1	-0.11	-0.07	-0.05	-0.09	-0.02	-0.04	—		3.62	0.67
8 亲社会行为倾向T2	-0.09	-0.15	-0.12	-0.11	-0.14	-0.11	0.41	—	3.68	0.68
9 亲社会行为倾向T3	-0.08	-0.10	-0.22	-0.06	-0.08	-0.11	0.29	0.43	3.65	0.68

变量	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	M	SD
1 内化问题T1	—								0.77	0.56
2 内化问题T2	0.45^a	—							0.78	0.60
3 内化问题T3	0.38	0.59	—						0.76	0.61
4 外化问题T1	0.66	0.40	0.30	—					2.26	0.66
5 外化问题T2	0.33	0.68	0.41	0.47	—				2.36	0.69
6 外化问题T3	0.36	0.48	0.67	0.44	0.56	—			2.30	0.65
7 亲社会行为倾向T1	-0.11	-0.07	-0.05	-0.09	-0.02	-0.04	—		3.62	0.67
8 亲社会行为倾向T2	-0.09	-0.15	-0.12	-0.11	-0.14	-0.11	0.41	—	3.68	0.68
9 亲社会行为倾向T3	-0.08	-0.10	-0.22	-0.06	-0.08	-0.11	0.29	0.43	3.65	0.68

效用	CLPM			RI-CLPM			GCLM
效用	β	SE	p	β	SE	p	β	SE	p
自回归效用				个体内水平
PSO1→PSO2	0.41	0.03	<0.001	0.21	0.07	0.002	0.11	0.03	<0.001
PSO2→PSO3	0.42	0.04	<0.001	0.23	0.07	0.002	0.07	0.03	0.008
EXT1→EXT2	0.45	0.04	<0.001	0.13	0.08	0.09	0.12	0.05	0.007
EXT2→EXT3	0.44	0.04	<0.001	0.14	0.07	0.036	0.08	0.05	0.089
INT1→INT2	0.33	0.05	<0.001	0.04	0.10	0.669	0.11	0.06	0.074
INT2→INT3	0.56	0.04	<0.001	0.38	0.07	<0.001	0.31	0.07	<0.001
交叉滞后效用
INT1→EXT2	0.04	0.04	0.392	-0.07	0.08	0.404	-0.02	0.05	0.651
PSO1→EXT2	0.01	0.03	0.660	0.002	0.06	0.974	-0.05	0.02	0.057
INT2→EXT3	0.18	0.04	<0.001	0.16	0.07	0.017	0.09	0.05	0.079
PSO2→EXT3	-0.02	0.03	0.651	-0.06	0.05	0.302	-0.06	0.03	0.015
EXT1→INT2	0.18	0.05	<0.001	0.12	0.08	0.117	0.06	0.05	0.214
PSO1→INT2	-0.03	0.04	0.497	-0.02	0.07	0.726	-0.07	0.02	0.004
EXT2→INT3	0.03	0.04	0.458	-0.03	0.05	0.554	-0.07	0.05	0.158
PSO2→INT3	-0.03	0.03	0.363	-0.05	0.05	0.318	-0.03	0.02	0.143
EXT1→PSO2	-0.07	0.05	0.119	-0.12	0.07	0.092	-0.15	0.05	0.008
EXT2→PSO3	0.002	0.04	0.957	-0.03	0.06	0.639	-0.09	0.05	0.081
INT1→PSO2	0.007	0.04	0.880	0.04	0.07	0.569	0.04	0.05	0.499
INT2→PSO3	-0.04	0.05	0.441	-0.009	0.08	0.899	-0.001	0.05	0.979
共变相关效用
INT1↔EXT1	0.66	0.03	<0.001	0.55	0.06	<0.001	0.58	0.05	<0.001
INT1↔PSO1	-0.11	0.04	0.003	-0.09	0.07	0.194	-0.13	0.05	0.014
EXT1↔PSO1	-0.09	0.04	0.021	-0.08	0.06	0.177	-0.14	0.05	0.005
INT2↔EXT2	0.61	0.03	<0.001	0.58	0.05	<0.001	0.56	0.05	<0.001
INT2↔PSO2	-0.12	0.04	0.007	-0.12	0.06	0.050	-0.13	0.06	0.04
EXT2↔PSO2	-0.12	0.04	0.002	-0.14	0.06	0.025	-0.18	0.06	0.002
INT3↔EXT3	0.58	0.03	<0.001	0.57	0.04	<0.001	0.53	0.04	<0.001
INT3↔PSO3	-0.19	0.04	<0.001	-0.22	0.05	<0.001	-0.22	0.06	<0.001
EXT3↔PSO3	-0.07	0.04	0.095	-0.09	0.05	0.074	-0.07	0.05	0.147
				个体间水平
INT↔EXT				0.80	0.04	<0.001	0.80	0.05	<0.001
INT↔PSO				-0.18	0.13	0.146	-0.06	0.09	0.559
EXT↔PSO				-0.11	0.11	0.314	0.05	0.09	0.595