BACKGROUND: Recently, psychological problems of only child are increasing rapidly. Therefore, the education and the development of personality of the only-children become a social topic which has attracted a lot of attention.OBJECTIVE: To probe into the influence of parents' educational psychology control and development pattern on children's personality. DESIGN: Simple questionnaire survey and random comparison observation.SETTING: Department of Psychiatry, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University.PARTICIPANTS: The experiment was carried out in the Psychological Room of Mind Department, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University from March 2000 to April 2004. Sixty patients with psychopathic personality were selected in this study. Inclusion criteria: All the patients met the demands of CCMD-Ⅱ-R. Exclusion criteria: Patients who had stunted growth, after-injury brain contraction and psychological retardation were excluded. There were 24 males and 36 females aged 6-21 years with the mean age of (14±5)years. Another 60 healthy subjects served as control group were randomly selected from a nearby high school and a primary school. They were 6-21 years old and with the mean age of (14±5) years. In addition, all of them were only-child and consent.METHODS: According to the EMBU revised by Yue Dong-mei and PLOC compiled by Yu Xin and other editors, in the form of doing a questionnaire by patents, the testing was divided into 3 parts: to test the parents of onlychild using the 2 scaling; to analyze the relativity between the psychological control over children and nurturing patter; to analyze the relativity between the nurturing patterns and children's personality. According to the EMBU, the nurturing pattern could be analyzed in three dimensions: accepting to declining, psychologically independent to psychologically controlled and rigorous to indulging. Result in psychology, which was also called parents' psychological control over children falls into 5 categories:① teaching resu ② responsibility of children; ③ how parents treat and control children; ④ whether the parents are superstitious; ⑤ children's control over parents. A total of 120 questionnaires were sent to the two groups, each of them 60 questionnaires. If all the questions were finished,it could be considered a valid questionnaire.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: the EMBU and PLOC of the two groups.RESULTS: Among 120 questionnaires, 59 from the analysis group were reclaimed, while 60 from control group were valid. ① Eight items (education result to indulging, responsibility of parents to rigorous pattern, children's control to control over children, children's control to indulging,parents' control over children to declining, superstition and belief in fate to declining, superstition and belief in fate to being controlled, superstition and belief in fate to indulging) were all significant differences in analysis group from those in control group (P ＜ 0.05-0.01). ② Among nurturing patterns, spoiling accounted for 47.5% (28/59), then, indulging for 32.2%(19/59), rigorous for 13.6% (8/59), democratic for 5.1% (3/59) and imperious for 1.6% (1/59) in analysis group; whereas democratic accounted for 85.0% (51/60), then, spoiling for 6.7% (4/60), rigorous and indulging for 3.3% (2/60) and imperious for 1.7% (1/60) in control group.CONCLUSION: Different development pattern is derived from different educational psychology controls. The raising pattern is much relevant to the development of only child's personality.%背景:目前独生子女存在的心理问题越来越多,对独生子女的教育及独生子女的性格培养就成为了社会关注的话题.目的:分析父母的教育心理控制与养育方式对子女性格形成的影响.设计:简单问卷调查及病例对照观察.单位:武汉大学人民医院精神科心理病房.对象:选择2000-03/2004-04在武汉大学人民医院精神科心理病房收治的60例具有病态人格患者为分析组,诊断标准:符合CCMD-Ⅱ-R标准.排除标准:先天发育不良、外伤后脑组织萎缩及精神发育迟滞等病例.男24例,女36例,年龄6～21岁,平均(14±5)岁.随机抽签法选择附近1所中学、1所小学的60名健康者为对照组,年龄6～21岁,平均(14±5)岁,两组受试对象均对检测项目知情同意.方法:采用岳冬梅等修订的父母养育方式评价量表和于欣等编制的子女教育心理控制源量表及填划"父母调查表",调查内容依两量表标目分3步进行:①运用两量表分别调查独生子女的父母;②统计分析子女教育心理控制与养育方式的相关性;③统计分析养育方式与子女性格形成的相关性.利用父母养育方式评价量表将养育方式分为3个维度:接纳-拒绝、心理自主-心理受控、严厉-放纵.测量时以5种方式编出:①民主方式;②溺爱方式③放纵方式;④苛刻方式;⑤专横方式.运用子女教育心理控制源量表将父母对子女教育心理控制即心理学显效分为5种:①教育成效;②父母的责任;③父母对子女行为和控制;④父母对命运/机遇的迷信;⑤子女对父母生活的控制.对两组受试对象发放问卷120份,每组60份,有效答卷以三联完整且答或划完整为准.主要观察指标:两组受试对象父母养育方式评价量表和子女教育心理控制源量表分析结果.结果:分析组收到有效答卷59份,对照组60份均有效,纳入59例患者和60名健康对照者进入结果分析.①分析组父母以下8组对子女教育心理控制和养育方式的组合(教育成效-放纵、父母责任-严厉、子女控制-受控、子女控制-放纵、父母控制-拒绝、迷信神命-拒绝、迷信神命-受控、迷信神命-放纵)与对照组比较,差异有显著性(P＜0.05～0.01).②分析组中父母养育方式:溺爱方式最多,占47.5%(28/59),其次是放纵(32.2%,19/59),被苛求(13.6%,8/59),民主(5.1,3/59),专横(1.6%,1/59).对照组父母养育方式中,民主方式最多,占85.0%(51/60),其次为溺爱6.7%(4/60),苛求和放纵均占3.3%(2/60),专横方式最少,占1.7%(1/60).结论:父母不同的教育心理控制滋生出不同的养育方式,养育方式的差异对子女病态人格的形成影响很大.溺爱和放纵的教育方式易造成子女的病态人格.
展开▼
