中国科学院心理研究所机构知识库

目的了解成年早期(18~35岁)个体心理韧性与抑郁的关系,并探讨面子在二者间的调节作用。方法以2016年北京市某心理医院收治的142例成年早期抑郁患者为观察组,以2016年北京心理健康服务促进会356例成年早期志愿者为对照组。采用流调中心抑郁量表(CES-D)、心理韧性量表(CD-RISC10)、中国人人格量表第2版(CPAI-2)中人格特质的面子维度对两组进行评价,采用层次回归分析探讨面子得分对心理韧性、抑郁得分关系的调节作用。结果观察组心理韧性得分低于对照组,抑郁得分高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。层次回归分析结果显示:控制了性别、年龄、受教育程度、婚姻状态后,两组心理韧性得分均可以负向预测抑郁得分(b值分别为-0.317、-0.524,P0.05);将心理韧性得分×面子得分纳入回归方程,对照组心理韧性得分×面子得分的交互作用边缘性显著(b=-0.049,P<0.05);两组面子得分均对心理韧性、抑郁得分的关系起调节作用(ΔR~2值分别为0.007、0.025,P<0.05)。结论降低健康个体的爱面子程度,能够缓和其低心理韧性水平对抑郁症状的风险性,进而有效帮助其预防抑郁症状;降低抑郁患者的爱面子程度,可以提升其高心理韧性水平对抑郁症状的保护性作用,进而有效帮助其缓解和调整抑郁症状。

Objective　To explore the relationship between resilience and depression in emerging adulthood (18-35 years old), and to investigate the moderating role of face between the two. Methods　We enrolled 142 emerging adult patients with depressive disorder (clinical group) from a mental hospital in Beijing and 356 normal emerging adults (normal group) from Beijing Psychological Health Promotion Association in 2016. The Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale（CES-D）,the 10-item Connor-davidson Resilience Scale（CD-RISC10） and the face scale from Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory-2 （CPAI-2） were used to assess the mental state of the participants. Hierarchical regression was used to examine the moderating effect of face on the relationship between resilience and depression. Results　 （1） The resilience score was much lower while depression score was significantly higher in the clinical group compared with the normal group (P<0.05). No significant difference was detected in terms of the face score between the two groups （P>0.05）. （2）Hierarchical regression analysis found that, after controlling for sex, age, educational attainment and marital status, it was detected that the resilience score negatively predicted the depression score in both the normal and clinical groups （b1=-0.317, P<0.05; b2=-0.524, P<0.05）. （3）The face score showed a non-significant effect on the depression score in both the normal and clinical groups（b1=0.012, P>0.05; b2=0.043, P>0.05）. （4）For the normal group, after bringing resilience score × face score into the regression model, it was identified that the marginal effects for resilience score × face score were significant (b=-0.049, P<0.10). The moderating effect of face score on the relationship between resilience score and depression score was significant（△ R2=0.007, P<0.05）. For the clinical group, after bringing resilience score ×face score into the regression model, it was noted that the interacting effects of resilience score × face score were significant (b=0.088, P<0.05). Face significantly moderated the relationship between resilience and depression ( △ R2=0.025，P<0.05). Conclusion　For the normal individuals, reducing the face-saving level of can alleviate the risk of low resilience level on depressive symptoms, and thus help prevent depressive symptoms. For the depressive patients, reducing the face-saving level can improve the protecting effect of high resilience level on depressive symptoms, and thus help alleviate and adjust the depressive level effectively.