| 摘要 | 警惕是指对可能发生的危险情况或错误倾向保持敏锐的感觉。传统的集体主义文化中的人们，通常被认为是更重视群体和谐，更在意群体内部人员的关系和互助的。而对于群体内部出现的警惕性的行为，则是经常被忽略的问题。随着研究者们对集体主义相关研究的深入和丰富，越来越多的研究者对于传统的集体主义文化有了不同的认知。关于群内警惕性的研究就是其中之一。
研究一:目的:编制群内警惕性情景判断测验，检验其信效度。方法:基于文献查阅、访谈、问卷调查等研究方法的基础上，形成初始测验。用方便取样的方式，选取社会各行业工作人员施测(样本1=272人，样本2=310人)，样本1进行项目分析，探索性因素分析;样本2进行验证性因素分析和效标效度分析。使用感知竞争量表和关系流动性量表作为效标工具。结果:样本1探索性因素分析，累计方差解释率为51.903 %。样本2验证性因素分析结果显示模型拟合度良好(x²/df--0.148, NFI=0.973, RFI=0.919, GFI=0.997, CFI=0.999, TLI=0.998,RMSEA=0.009 )。与感知竞争量表呈显著正相关(r=0.236, P<0.01)，与关系流动性量表呈显著负相关(r=-0.190, P<0.01)。
研究二:目的:是对该群内警惕性情景判断测验进行再检验。方法:在之前问卷和测量方法的基础上加入《合作与竞争人格倾向量表》，并运用“自愿移居假说”理论，通过三座城市的群内警惕性对比，再次检验《群内警惕性情景判断测验》。用方便取样的方式，选取社会各行业工作人员施测(样本3=600人)，包含深圳人样本200人，广州人样本200人，佛山人样本200人。结果:样本3}与关系流动性量表呈显著负相关(r=-0.369 } P<0.01)，与感知竞争量表呈显著正相关(r=0.420，P<0.01);与合作型人格呈显著负相关(r=-0.236 P<0.01)，竞争型人格呈显著正相关(r=0.117，P<0.01); 深圳、广州、佛山三座城市的群内警惕性差异显著，且深圳的群内警惕性程度分数最低(0.45士0.17)，佛山的群内警惕性程度分数最高(0.6士0.17)，广州居中(0.52士0.18)，F = 40.577尸< 0.001;回归分析发现，在控制了人口变量之后，地域依然对群内警惕性影响显著。
结论:群内警惕性情景判断测验具有良好的信效度，符合心理测量学要求可作为群内警惕性研究的有效测量工具。 |
| 其他摘要 | "Vigilance" means a keen sense of possible dangerous situations or wrong tendencies. Generally, people in collectivist cultures are considered to be more concerned to group harmony and pay more attention on the relationship and mutual assistance among people within their own group. However, ingroup vigilance behavior is often overlooked. But with the deepening and enrichment of researches, more and more researchers have made different findings on the cognition of traditional collectivism culture. Ingroup vigilance was one of them.
Study 1:Objective: The aim of the study is to establish an ingroup vigilance situational judgement test and examine its reliability and validity. Methods: Based on the related literature analysis, interview results as well as online survey, the initial questionnaire was formed. Testing working people from various trades (sample 1=272, sample 2=310). Samples 1 for items analysis and exploratory factor analysis, samples 2 for confirmatory factor analysis and criterion validity analysis. Perceived competition scale and relational mobility scale were used as the calibration scale to test the criterion validity. Results: Sample 1，the exploratory factor analysis showed that, it accounted for 51.903% of the total variance. Sample 2, the confirmatory factor analysis showed that the ingroup vigilance situational judgment test had good construct validity(了/df=0.148, NFI=0.973, RFI=0.919, GFI=0.997, CFI=0.999, TLI=0.998, RMSEA=0.009).The criterion validity results showed positive correlation with perceived competition scale(r=0.236, P<0.01),and negative correlation with relational mobility scale(r=-0.190, P<0.01).
Study 2: Objective: Further test the ingroup vigilance situational judgement test. Methods: Base on the previous questionnaire and measurement methods, cooperative and competitive personality tendency scale was added. And use the theory of "voluntary frontier settlement", through the comparison of the three cities, tested the ingroup vigilance situational judgment test again. Testing working people from various trades (sample 3=600), including 200 Shenzhen people, 200 Guangzhou people and 200 Foshan people. Results: Sample 3, showed positive correlation with perceived competition scale(r=0.420, P<0.01)，and negative correlation with relational mobility scale(r=-0.369, P<0.01);Showed negative correlation with cooperative personality(r=-0.236, P<0.01)and positive correlation with competitive personality(r=0.117, P<0.01);For the comparison of ingroup vigilance of Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Foshan, Shenzhen(0.45士0.17), Guangzhou(0.52士0.18) Foshan(0.610.17), F=40.577, P< 0.001.And the regression analysis showed that, after control the demographic variables, territory still had significant impact on ingroup vigilance.
Conclusion: This ingroup vigilance situational judgment test had good reliability and validity, all of which met the psychometric requirements, it can be used as an effective tool to measure ingroup vigilance. |
修改评论