健康与遗传心理学研究室知识库

如今，手机、平板、电脑等电子设备已经成为我们生活中必不可少的一部分，小到日常生活，大到科学研究，不使用电子设备已经让人寸步难行。我们在享受科技产品带来生活便利的同时，也产生了与之相关的各种问题。低头一族、网瘾少年、用眼过度等问题无时无刻不困扰着现代人类。在这种环境下出生的孩子们，既需要通过网络认识世界，又不得不承担网络带来的各种风险，例如，接触不良内容、隐私暴露、网络霸凌、手机成瘾等问题。父母对此的态度也很矛盾，一方面，他们希望通过网络帮助孩子学习知识，但同时又担忧网络带来的负面影响。因此，采取适当的方式干预孩子使用手机就显得尤为重要。

研究一目的:探讨手机限制干预对亲子冲突的作用机制，考察父母自主支持在其中的中介作用和父母低头行为的调节作用。方法:采用限制干预量表、父母自主支持量表、亲子冲突量表和父母低头行为量表对1022名青少年进行问卷调查，采用中介和调节效应分析进行假设检验。结果:(1)手机限制干预与亲子冲突显著正相关、与父母自主支持显著负相关，父母自主支持和亲子冲突显著负相关;(2)父母自主支持起中介作用，中介效应值为0.11，中介效应占比为28.21%; (3)父母低头行为起调节作用，父母低头行为多的青少年，手机限制干预对亲子冲突有更强的正向作用，父母自主支持对亲子冲突有更强的负向作用。

研究二目的:探讨手机限制干预不同沟通方式对亲子冲突的影响及情绪反应和接受程度的中介作用，进一步揭示手机限制干预不同沟通方式对亲子冲突的影响。方法:选取272名青少年被试，通过实验研究的方法采用2(针对对象:就事论事vs贴标签)x 2(是否批判性比较:有VS.无)被试间设计。采用方差分析、中介效应分析进行假设检验。结果:(1}与“就事论事”相比，“贴标签”的手机限制干预沟通方式更容易引起亲子冲突;(2)有“批判性比较”的手机限制干预沟通方式比无“批判性比较”更容易引发亲子冲突;(3)情绪反应和接受程度在其中起中介作用。

手机限制干预不仅直接作用于亲子冲突，还通过父母自主支持对亲子冲突起部分中介作用;其直接路径和中介作用的后半路径均受到父母低头行为的调节。对于手机限制干预的沟通方式，“贴标签”和“批判性比较”都更容易导致亲子冲突。因此，父母在实行限制干预时，除了多给予孩子自主权并以身作则，做好言传身教，还应该以“就事论事”的方式和孩子沟通，避免“贴标签”和“批判性比较”，才能减少负面情绪反应，达到良好的接受程度并尽量避免亲子冲突。

Mobile phones, tablets, and computers bring convenience to people's life while also cause risks and problems, especially for adolescents. Privacy exposure, Internet addiction cyberbullying, phubbing, excessive use of eyes and so on plague people all the time. Parents are ambivalent; on the one hand, they hope to help their children acquire knowledge through the Internet, but they are also worried about the negative effects. Therefore, it is particularly important to take appropriate parental mediation.

Study 1 Objective: To explore the mechanisms of mobile phone restriction mediation on parent-child conflict, the mediating effect of parental autonomy support and the moderating effect of parents' phubbing. Methods: A questionnaire survey was conducted among 1022 adolescents by using the Restrictive Mediation Scale, Parental Autonomy Support Scale, Parent-Child Conflict Scale and Parents' Phubbing Scale, and hypotheses were tested by mediating and moderating analysis. Results: (1) Restrictive mediation was positively related to parent-child conflict and negatively related to parental autonomy support. Parental autonomy support was negatively related to parent-child conflict. (2) Parental autonomy support mediated the relationship between restrictive mediation and parent-child conflict, with an effect value of 0.11， and the proportion of the mediating effect was 28.21%.(3) Parent phubbing moderated the relationship between restrictive mediation and parent-child conflict. Adolescents with more parent's phubbing and restrictive mediation were more strongly positively related to parent-child conflict, and parental autonomy support was more strongly negatively related to parent-child conflict.

Study2 Objective: To explore the effects of different communication methods of mobile phone restriction mediation on parent-child conflict and the mediating role of acceptability and emotional reactions. Methods: A total of 272 adolescents were invited and 2 (object: "matter-of-fact" vs. "labelling") X 2 (critical comparison: "with" vs. "without") between-subjects design. Results: (1) Compared with "matter-of-fact", "labelling" is more likely to cause parent-child conflict; (2) Compared with no"critical comparison", "critical comparison" is more likely to cause parent-child conflict; (3) The acceptability and emotional reactions playa mediating role.

Parental autonomy support mediated the relationship between restrictive mediation and parent-child conflict while parents' phubbing moderated the path. For the communication methods of restriction mediation, "labelling" and "critical comparison" are likely to cause parent-child conflict. Therefore, parents should not only give their children more autonomy and set an example but also communicate with their children in a "matter-of-fact" way to achieve good acceptability and avoid negative emotions, which would lead to less parent-child conflict.