健康与遗传心理学研究室知识库

本研究尝试探索成年早期群体心理韧性、面子和抑郁之间的关系，着重探讨下列问题:(1)比较不同抑郁水平群体的面子、心理韧性的得分差异;(2)揭示面子、心理韧性与抑郁在不同群体中的不同的相关模式;(3)探讨面子是否调节心理韧性与抑郁之间关系，以及在不同亚群体中的调节作用机制是否一致。

本研究以由133例成年早期抑郁障碍访者组成的临床组、212名亚临床组成年早期群体和144名正常组成年早期群体为研究对象，以流调中心抑郁量表(CES-D )、心理韧性量表(CD-RISC 10 )以及中国人人格量表第二版(CPAI-2 )面子维度为测量工具，采用SPSS 19.0对数据进行描述性统计、T检验、F检验、相关分析和分层回归统计等统计分析。

研究结果发现:(1) 临床组、亚临床和正常组之间在抑郁维度得分(F(2, 486)=1151.32 9 p<0.019 n²=0.826)和心理韧性(F(2,486)=237.519 p<0.01 n²=0.494 )的得分上具有显著的差异;而在面子维度上没有显著的差异(FC 2,486 ) =1.27, p>0.05, n²=0.005 )。也就是说，临床组比亚临床组和正常组体验到的抑郁水平更重，而亚临床组比正常组体验到的抑郁水平更重;而在心理韧性上的得分上正好相反，即临床组要显著的低于亚临床组，而亚临床组要显著的低于正常组。(2)心理韧性与临床组(γ=-0.734, p<0.01)、亚临床组(γ=-0.358, p<0.01), 正常组(γ=-0.337， p<0.01)成年早期群体抑郁均具有显著的负性相关关系，并且均可以显著的预测其各组的抑郁水平(β1=-0.729 9 P<0.001，β2=-0.349，P<0.0019；β3=-0.327 9 P<0.001) ; ( 3)各组的面子和心理韧性以及面子和抑郁之间并没有显著的相关性;三组当中，面子只对临床组成年早期群体抑郁水平具有显著的预测作用(β=-0.337，P<0.001); 对亚临床组(β=-0.099 P>0.1)以及正常组(β=0.343，P>0.1)的抑郁水平并均不具备预测作用;(4)面子在不同群体的心理韧性和抑郁之间调节作用不一致，其调节作用在正常组不显著(β=-0.182，P>0.1)，在亚临床组边缘显著(β=-0.116，P<0.1)，而临床组的显著(β=0.346，P<0.001)；（5)面子在不同组别的调节模式不一致。对于临床组来说，好面子对于高韧性组的损害更大，而对于亚临床组来说，好面子会增加低心理韧性对于抑郁的风险性，而适度的激发维护面子愿望，却可以促进心理韧性更强的保护作用。

基于以上的结果得到的结论如下:对于正常组、亚临床组和临床组群体而言，心理韧性都是抑郁的重要保护因素，并且可以预测抑郁，心理韧性得分越高，抑郁得分越低;面子对临床组群体的抑郁水平具有的显著的预测，即临床组群体的面子得分越高，其抑郁水平越高;面子在心理韧性和抑郁关系中存在调节作用，但是对于不同群体的调节模式是不一致的。对于正常组来说，面子的调节作用不显著;而对于临床组来说，好面子对于高韧性组的损害更大，而对于亚临床组而言，好面子会增加低心理韧性对于抑郁的风险性，而激发维护面子的强烈愿望，却可以促进心理韧性对抑郁更强的保护作用。

而本研究的意义与价值正是在于，解释了正常群体、亚临床群体和临床群体各变量之间的关系模式可能是不一样的。目前，大多数关于心理健康的研究都是基于正常样本得出来的，我们的研究结果显示，基于正常样本得出的结论推广到临床群体的时候，应该更加谨慎。并且，有必要开展更多的临床样本的对照研究，以确认各因素对心理健康影响的模式和范畴。

This present study aims to explore the relationship between resilience, face and depression in young adulthood. We focuses on the following issues: (1) To compare the differences in scores on face and resilience among groups on different depression level. (2) To reveal the different correlation patterns of face, resilience and depression in different groups. (3) To investigate the moderating role of face in the relationship between resilience and depression, and further reveal the con0espondence of the moderating modes in different groups (clinical group, subclinical group and normal group).

In this study, 133 cases of young adult depressive disorder make up the clinical group, subclinical group consists of 212 young adulthood individuals and 144 normal young adults make up the normal group. The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), the 10-Items Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CIA-RISC10), and the Cultural (Chinese) Personality Assessment Inventory-2（CPAI-2) were used as the measuring tools. Furthermore, the collected data were analyzed with descriptive analyze, T test, F test, correlation analysis and hierarchical regressions with SPSS19.0.

The results showed that: (1) The scores on depression (F(2,486) -1151.32，p<0.01, n²=0.826) and resilience (F(2,486)=237.51, p<0.01, n²=0.494) are significantly different among clinical group, subclinical group and normal group；but the difference of scores on face (F(2,486)=1.27, p>0.05, n²=0.005) was not significant. Indicating that the clinical group individuals experience higher level of depression than subclinical and normal group individuals. While the scores on resilience are on the contrary, the clinical group gets lower scores than subclinical group, and the scores on resilience of subclinical group are significantly lower than normal groups'. (2) There was a significant negative correlation between resilience and depression in the young adulthood of the clinical group(γ=-0.734, p<0.01), subclinical group(γ=-0.358, p<0.01), and normal group(γ=-0.337, p<0.01) and resilience can significantly predict depression (β1=-0.729，P<0.001;β2=-0.349，P<0.001;β3=-0.327, P<0.001)； (4) The results showed no significantly correlation between face and resilience， face and depression. Face had a significant pt0cdictive effect on depression in young adulthood of the clinical group（β=0.337, P<0.001), but had no significant predictive effect on depression in young adulthood of the subclinical group (β=-0.009, P>0.1), or normal group (β=0.343, P>0.1); (4) The moderating roles of face on the relationships between resilience and depression in different groups are different the moderating effect was not significant in the normal group (β=-0.182, P>0.1), in subclinical group it teas marginal significant (β=-0.116，P<0.1), and in the clinical group the moderating effect was significant (β=0.346, P<0.001). (5) The moderating modes were different in different group. In the clinical group, high score on face did more impair to individuals of high resilience, but for the subclinical group, high score on face increased the risk of depression for low resilience, and a moderate stimulate of the desire to maintain face could enhance the protective effect of resilience.

Based on the results above, the conclusions are as follows: For the normal group subclinical group and clinical group9 resilience is an important protective factor for depression，and can predict depression. Facc can significantly predict the depression level of subclinical group. Face plays a moderating role in the relationship between resilience and depression but he moderating modes are different in different groups.

The significance of this study lies in explaining the relation modes of variables in normal group, subclinical group and clinical group might be different. At present, most of the researches on mental health are based on the normal group sample.

Therefore, our results indicate that it should be more cautiously applying the conclusions drawn from the normal sample to clinical groups. Meanwhile, it is necessary to carry out a comparative study of larger clinical samples to confirm the factors affecting the mental health.