青少年早期亲社会行为倾向、内化问题和外化问题发展级联的个体内分析

认识亲社会行为倾向、内化问题和外化问题的发展级联对青少年心理健康促进具有重要价值。采用个体内分析方法分析了894名初中生3年的追踪数据, 并与传统的交叉滞后面板模型进行比较。结果发现：(1)在个体内水平, 亲社会行为倾向与内化问题和外化问题具有中等或较弱的协同变化关系, T1亲社会行为倾向可负向预测T2内化问题, T2亲社会行为倾向可负向预测T3外化问题, 具有较弱的预测作用; (2)在女生群体中, T2内化问题可正向预测T3外化问题, 而在男生群体中, 内化问题和外化问题没有相互预测作用; (3)亲社会行为倾向的4个因子(公开的、依从的、情绪的和利他的)可负向预测内化问题, 它们仅在T2可负向预测外化问题, 具有较弱的预测作用; (4)个体内分析方法得到的研究结果与传统交叉滞后分析方法不同, 不同的个体内分析模型得到的研究结果也不同。结论: 青少年早期亲社会行为倾向的发展可降低内化问题和外化问题, 这种作用具有性别差异; 个体内分析方法在青少年心理病理发展研究中具有重要应用价值。     

亲社会行为的认知过程及脑神经基础

亲社会行为是指有利于他人和社会的行为,包括合作、分享、助人、安慰等。亲社会行为产生主要涉及几种认知过程:对他人行为和情绪的注意、社会信息加工、对结果的奖赏预期、社会规范表征、自我控制、以及社会信息整合与价值计算等。基于这些认知过程,研究发现,亲社会行为主要与前脑岛和前扣带回、默认网络背内侧子系统、奖赏系统以及前额叶皮层等神经区域有关,因此提出亲社会行为共同的认知-脑神经回路。未来可以对亲社会行为脑神经基础的共性、功能连接以及跨文化研究等方面做进一步探讨。     

共情对亲社会行为的影响及神经基础

亲社会行为是指那些使他人获益的行为,这类行为具有重要的进化意义和现实意义。作为影响亲社会行为的重要因素,共情在认知神经科学领域得到了广泛研究。脑岛等脑区的激活与消极情绪体验有关,是情绪共情的神经基础,利于产生亲社会行为动机;颞顶联合区等脑区参与对他人意图的理解,是认知共情的神经基础,利于个体选择有效方式帮助别人。女性在共情时激活额下回等与情绪有关的脑区,而男性在共情时激活颞顶联合区等与认知有关的脑区,这为男女个体在亲社会行为表现上的差异提供了新证据。未来研究应完善与亲社会行为有关的脑区功能的解释,综合多种影响因素,结合病理学研究考察共情对亲社会行为的影响及神经基础。     

Parents’ observed responses to children’s emotional distress: Relations with social competence in preschool

Although affective interactions in the family are important for development, home observational data are sparse. We replicated and extended one such study, Roberts & Strayer (1987, Developmental Psychology, 23, 415). Interactions in 33 two-parent families (mean child age = 4.8 years; 48% girls) were observed for four evenings, from suppertime until the child settled for the night. Parents completed the Child Rearing Practices Q-sort. Peer interactions and friendship networks in preschool were observed over four days. Teachers and observers completed the Preschool Behavior Q-Sort. Based on Q-rated peer competence and aggression, three expected groups of children were identified, one of them high on both aggression and peer competence. Although socially active and accepted by peers, they were, compared with other children, less cooperative with adults, less prosocial with peers, more impulsive, less achievement oriented, less purposive, and less happy (mean η² = .52). Parenting, especially observed impatience, threats, and use of force when children were emotionally distressed, showed important differences across groups.     

The effects of a ‘pretend play-based training’ designed to promote the development of emotion comprehension,emotion regulation,and prosocial behaviour in 5- to 6-year-old Swiss children

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of a pretend play-based training designed to promote the development of socio-emotional competences. 79 children aged 5 to 6 years were evaluated before and after a pretend play-based training. The experimental group (39 children) received this programme on emotion comprehension, negative emotion regulation, and prosocial behaviour one hour a week for eleven weeks during class hours, while the control group (40 children) received no specific intervention. The programme was implemented by 5 teachers. The results show improvements in the ability to understand emotions in children who benefited from the training. These findings are discussed in the broader context of using this form of play as a privileged pedagogical tool to allow children to develop these competences.     

Affective motivations to help others: A two‐stage model of donation decisions

Emotional reactions are an important element in the motivation to help others. Our research examined the role of affective vs. deliberative information processing in the genesis and use of emotional reactions in decisions to provide financial aid to people in distress. In two studies, we investigated whether information processing mode influenced participants' donations, affective reactions, and the relationship between the two. Information processing was manipulated by a priming procedure and a cognitive load paradigm. Participants' empathic emotions were assessed by self‐reported sympathy, compassion, and distress. Additionally, we measured how much better a donation would make participants feel and their anticipated regret for not donating, which were taken as indicators of their motivation to donate as a form of mood management. Results suggest that different mechanisms govern the initial decision to donate money (Stage 1) compared to later decisions on how much money to donate (Stage 2). Motivations for mood management were primarily predictive of donation decisions, whereas empathic feelings were predictive of the donation amount. The potentially disruptive effects of deliberative processing on prosocial behavior are discussed in light of a two‐stage processing model of donations. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Outcome of aggression affects processing and can legitimise subsequent aggression: Influence of trait aggressiveness

The present study investigated differences in processing times between positive and negative outcomes to an aggressive reaction to provocation. The effects of outcome, sex, trait aggressiveness and current mood on subsequent subject‐generated material were also examined. Fifty subjects read stories line by line on a computer screen. Reading time for the key sentence describing a positive or negative outcome to an aggressive reaction to provocation was recorded and subjects wrote a continuing sentence to half the stories. Subjects took less time to process the negative outcome. The positive outcome resulted in more subject‐generated aggression than the negative outcome. There were few sex differences but men wrote more aggressive endings than women for the stories containing physical aggression. Trait aggressiveness was correlated with producing more aggressive content in the continuing sentence for both outcomes. Feeling peaceful was correlated with producing prosocial material to neutral stories. Subjects therefore expect a negative outcome to aggressive behaviour. Reading stories which present a positive outcome to aggression increases the accessibility of aggressive cognitions. Subjects high in trait aggressiveness are not inhibited by a negative outcome. Aggr. Behav. 30:284–297, 2004. © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.