Advances in Psychology
Vol. 14  No. 05 ( 2024 ), Article ID: 88192 , 8 pages
10.12677/ap.2024.145347

父母冲突与青少年冒险行为:应对方式的中介效应

钟秀平,陈育冬,姚旭娟,梁梓勤*,吴若琳,史春鸣

广州市轻工技师学院学生工作处,广东 广州

收稿日期:2024年4月7日;录用日期:2024年5月20日;发布日期:2024年5月31日

摘要

目的:基于家庭系统理论,本研究旨在探索父母冲突与青少年冒险行为之间的关系,并考察应对方式在其中的中介作用。方法:采用感知父母冲突量表、简易应对方式量表和青少年冒险行为问卷对586名中学生进行纵向追踪调查。结果:父母冲突与冒险行为(r = 0.26, p< 0.001)和消极应对方式(r = 0.13, p< 0.01)呈正相关,与积极应对方式呈负相关(r = −0.11, p < 0.05);冒险行为与消极应对方式呈正相关(r = 0.23, p< 0.001),与积极应对方式(r = −0.15, p< 0.01)呈负相关;积极应对方式与消极应对方式(r = 0.19, p< 0.001)呈正相关。消极应对方式部分中介父母冲突与青少年冒险行为之间的关系。结论:减少父母间的冲突,营造支持性的家庭环境,有利于减少青少年消极的应对方式,进而缓解冒险行为发生的可能性。

关键词

青少年,冒险行为,父母冲突,应对方式,中介效应

Interparental Conflict and Adolescents’ Risk-Taking Behaviors: The Mediating Role of Coping Styles

Xiuping Zhong, Yudong Chen, Xujuan Yao, Ziqin Liang*, Ruolin Wu, Chunming Shi

Department of Student Affairs, Guangzhou Light Industry Technician College, Guangzhou Guangdong

Received: Apr. 7th, 2024; accepted: May 20th, 2024; published: May 31st, 2024

ABSTRACT

Objective: Based on the family systems theory, this study aimed to explore the relation between interparental conflict and adolescents’ risk-taking behaviors, and to explore the mediation effect of coping styles. Methods: A longitudinal design was conducted on 586 middle school students using the Interparental Conflict subscale (IC), Simple Coping Style Questionnaire (SCSQ) and the Adolescent Risk-taking Questionnaire-Risk Behavior Scale (ARQ-RB). Results: Interparental conflict was positively correlated with risk-taking behaviors (r = 0.26, p < 0.001) and negative coping styles (r = 0.13, p < 0.01), while negatively correlated with positive coping styles (r = −0.11, p < 0.05). Risk-taking behaviors were positively correlated with negative coping styles (r = 0.23, p < 0.001), while negatively correlated with positive coping styles (r = −0.15, p < 0.01). Positive coping styles were positively correlated with negative coping styles (r = 0.19, p < 0.0001). Negative coping styles mediated the relation between interparental conflict and adolescents’ risk-taking behaviors. Conclusion: Reducing interparental conflicts and providing a supportive family environment for adolescents can help them reduce negative coping styles, thereby reducing the likelihood of their risk-taking behaviors.

Keywords:Adolescents, Risk-Taking Behavior, Interparental Conflict, Coping Styles, Mediation Effect

Copyright © 2024 by author(s) and Hans Publishers Inc.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0).

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

1. 引言

青春期是个人发展最重要的阶段之一,同时被认为是一个充满动荡的时期(Casey et al., 2010),在这个阶段,压力和情绪波动加剧,最频繁和普遍出现的行为是冒险行为(van Duijvenvoorde et al., 2016)。其中,个人在明知潜在风险及其相关负面后果的同时,仍然期待获得回报的而实施的行为,称为消极冒险行为(Dou et al., 2020; Liang et al., 2022),如吸烟、饮酒、危险驾驶等行为。与积极冒险行为(如极限运动)相比,消极冒险行为容易带来受伤、威胁身心健康、甚至死亡的风险,不利于青少年的健康发展(Crone et al., 2016),因此,本研究将以青少年消极冒险行为(下面统称为“冒险行为”)为研究焦点,探索青少年冒险行为的风险因素及其潜在机制,有效地预防和干预青少年的健康发展。

家庭系统理论指出家庭子系统之间相互依赖和影响(Minuchin, 1974),强调了父母是孩子心理健康和问题行为的关键因素(Minuchin, 1974; Rothenberg et al., 2017),消极的家庭环境(如父母冲突)可能会导致孩子适应不良(Lucas-Thompson et al., 2022; Merino et al., 2022)。实证研究表明,父母间的冲突是孩子问题行为的风险因素(van Eldik et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2023),父母间的冲突越大,孩子从事冒险行为的可能性越大(Dou et al., 2020; Martin et al., 2019; Simpson, 2020; Ye et al., 2023)。尽管如此,对于这个关系中的潜在机制知之甚少。基于家庭系统理论,青少年的应对方式(积极和消极应对方式)可能是其中的潜在因素(Camisasca et al., 2017; Shelton & Harold, 2008),本研究将探索应对方式在父母冲突与青少年冒险行为之间的关系。

父母冲突是指父母之间因意见分歧或其他原因而发生的身体攻击或言语冲突(López-Larrosa et al., 2019; Ye et al., 2023)。破坏性的父母冲突会引起青少年情感、认知和行为反应(Cummings & Davies, 2010; Grych & Fincham, 1990; Lucas-Thompson et al., 2022)。如果父母之间的争吵或冲突被青少年目睹,他们的安全感可能会受到威胁(Cummings & Davies, 2010)并质疑家庭保护的可靠性(López-Larrosa et al., 2019)。如果长期接触这种负面的环境,还可能会导致孩子解决问题的能力变差(Fosco & Bray, 2016),增加青少年的适应不良的应对行为(Silva et al., 2016)。实证研究结果也表明,父母之间的冲突与青少年冒险行为有直接联系(Shelton & Harold, 2008; van Eldik et al., 2020; Ye et al., 2023)。例如,父母冲突会预测青少年攻击性的增加(Lemola et al., 2012)、出现过早性行为(Musick & Meier, 2010)等。青少年也可能会通过物质使用(包括吸烟、酗酒等)来缓解父母冲突带来的压力(Musick & Meier, 2010; van Eldik et al., 2020)。据此推测,父母冲突会正向预测青少年的冒险行为。

应对方式被认为是夫妻冲突和影响儿童青少年适应之间的内在机制之一(Camisasca et al., 2017; Shelton & Harold, 2008)。应对方式指面对压力事件,个体有意识地通过自愿努力对自身情绪、行为、认知和环境进行调节(Compas et al., 1999)。积极的和消极的应对方式相互依存,但可能会存在不同的倾向性(Lazarus, 2000; Lorente et al., 2021)。父母是孩子了解和学习情绪和行为方式的重要参照,青少年可能会从父母之间在冲突时的特定表达或行为模式中观察和学习(Jouriles et al., 2016; Ye et al., 2023),从而产生积极或消极的应对方式。根据认知情境假设,孩子在评估父母冲突时,常常会做出自责的归因,陷入困境的孩子采取的应对行为可能会或可能不会减少困扰(Camisasca et al., 2017; Grych & Fincham, 1990)。

如果孩子能够采取寻求支持等积极的应对方式,将有利于减轻由于父母冲突给他们带来的消极影响(Li et al., 2020),减缓或预防产生问题行为的风险(Sun et al., 2019),对孩子起到一定的保护作用。实证研究表明,在父母冲突的情况下,更积极的应对与青少年更少的外化行为有关(Tu et al., 2016)。相反,采取消极的应对方式(如否认、回避、发泄等)可能在短期内有帮助,例如:孩子通过发泄使自己免受父母冲突带来的直接威胁,但是长期而言,这不仅会阻碍建设性应对策略的制定,甚至可能会导致冒险行为及问题行为的发生(Ganz & Sher, 2010)。父母冲突是青少年面临的主要压力事件之一(Lin et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2017),父母冲突带来的敌对、未解决的或频繁发生的冲突,可能会更多地强化适应不良的应对方式(Ahmed et al., 2015)。据此推测,应对方式可能是父母冲突影响青少年冒险行为的潜在中介因素,面对父母冲突,如果青少年能采用积极的应对方式,可能会减少冒险行为产生的倾向,相反,采用消极的应对方式可能会增加冒险行为。

综上,本研究基于家庭系统理论构建了纵向中介模型,考察积极和消极应对方式在父母婚姻冲突与青少年冒险行为间的中介效应。

2. 研究方法

2.1. 研究对象

采用方便取样法对广州市3所完全中学共586人进行为期6个月的追踪调查(每个时间点间隔3个月;第1次施测时间为2019年6月)。在教室环境下进行班级团队施测,由受过训练的研究助理担任主试,所有参与者均在知情条件下自愿参与调查,并签署知情同意书。剔除缺失值、规律作答等无效问卷后,最终保留有效样本577人。其中,男生310人,女生267人;年龄介于12~18岁(Mage = 15.34 ± 1.36);初一113人,初二115人,高一206人,高二143人。由于缺勤或转学等因素,共有551人参加第二次调查(流失率为4.5%);542人参加第三次调查(流失率为6.15%)。

2.2. 研究工具

2.2.1. 父母间冲突量表

采用感知父母间冲突量表中的父母间冲突分量表在时间点1(T1)对父母婚姻冲突水平进行测评(Buehler et al., 1998; Ye et al., 2023)。该量表由7个条目组成,采用4点计分(从“1 = 从来没有”,到“4 = 经常”),得分越高表示感知到越频繁的父母间冲突。该量表在本研究中的Cronbach’s alpha为0.83。

2.2.2. 简易应对方式量表

采用简易应对方式量表在时间点2(T2)对青少年的应对方式进行测评(Li et al.,2016;解亚宁,1998)。该量表由20个条目组成,包括积极应对方式(12题)和消极应对方式(8题),采用4点计分(从“0 = 从不使用”,到“3 = 经常使用”),分数越高表明更常采用积极或消极的应对方式。本研究中,积极应对的为Cronbach’s alpha为0.76,消极应对的Cronbach’s alpha为0.67。

2.2.3. 青少年消极冒险行为量表

采用青少年冒险行为量表中消极冒险行为分量表在时间点3 (T3)评估青少年的冲动冒险水平(Gullone et al.,2000;张晨等,2011),即叛逆行为(5题)、不计后果行为(3题)和反社会行为(3题)。采用5点计分(从“0 = 从不”,到“4 = 经常”),得分越高表明参与冒险行为的频率越高。该量表在本研究中的Cronbach’s alpha为0.81。

2.3. 数据处理与分析

数据分析在SPSS (27.0版本)里进行,分析包含共同方法偏差检验,关键变量的描述性统计和Pearson相关分析,并采用PROCESS宏中的模型4检验中介作用。中介效应的显著性由Bootstrap抽样5000次和95%置信区间(CI)排除0来判断(Hayes, 2009)。

3. 研究结果

3.1. 共同方法偏差检验

为降低共同方法偏差的干扰,一方面采用3个时间点的追踪调查,另一方面通过阐明实验目的、宣读指导语、自愿作答和退出自由等方式做好程序控制(Podsakoff et al., 2003)。但被试均通过自我报告完成调查,故进一步采用Harman单因子检验法进行共同方法偏差检验(Podsakoff et al., 2003),结果显示有11个特征根大于1的因子,且第一个公因子解释的变异量为13.23%,小于临界值40%,由此推测本研究可排除共同方法变异的影响。

3.2. 描述性统计与相关分析

表1为关键变量的描述统计和双变量的相关分析结果。具体而言,T1父母冲突与T3冒险行为和T2消极应对方式呈正相关,但与T2积极应对方式呈负相关;T3冒险行为与T2消极应对方式呈正相关,但与T2积极应对方式呈负相关;T2积极应对方式与T2消极应对方式呈负相关。

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations

表1. 描述性统计与相关分析

注:T1 = Time1,T2 = Time2;性别编码为1 = 男生,2 = 女生;* p < 0. 05,**p < 0.01,*** p < 0.001,下同。

3.3. 中介模型检验

为了检验T1父母冲突与T3冒险行为的之间的关联,以及T2积极应对方式和T2消极应对方式的中介效应,通过PROCESS宏(模型4)进行中介分析。结果如图1所示,控制性别后,T1父母冲突显著正向预测T3冒险行为(β = 0.15, p < 0.001)和T2消极应对方式(β = 0.14, p < 0.001),T2积极应对方式显著负向预测T3冒险行为(β = −0.15, p< 0.001),而T2消极应对方式显著正向预测T3冒险行为(β = 0.17, p < 0.001),但T1父母冲突与T2积极应对方式没有显著相关(β = −0.08, p = 0.06)。

Figure 1. The mediating effects of coping styles in the association between interparental conflict and risk-taking behavior

图1. 应对方式的中介作用图

中介效应通过Bootstraps法检验,结果如表2显示:T2消极应对方式的中介效应显著(β = 0.02, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.05]),但T2积极应对方式的中介效应不显著(β = 0.01, 95% CI = [−0.001, 0.03])。

Table 2. Direct and indirect effects

表2. 直接和间接效应汇总

4. 讨论

青春期是冒险行为发生最频繁和普遍的时期(van Duijvenvoorde et al., 2016),了解青少年冒险行为的影响因素对于提前预防和保护青少年的健康发展、顺利过渡到成年期具有重要意义。本研究基于家庭系统理论,采用连续三个时间段的纵向设计,探讨了父母冲突对青少年冒险行为的冲突作用,以及应对方式在其中的中介效应。

4.1. 父母冲突加剧青少年冒险行为

本研究结果表明,父母冲突会加剧青少年的冒险行为,验证了以往的研究结果(Dou et al., 2020; Martin et al., 2019; Simpson, 2020; Ye et al., 2023)。父母在青少年的发展中发挥的作用不可忽视,然而,父母间发生冲突较为频繁的家庭环境却给孩子带来了更大的危害(Fosco & Bray, 2016; Merino et al., 2022)。正如家庭系统理论的观点,父母、夫妻、孩子等子系统都会相互影响(Sherrill et al., 2017; Zemp et al., 2018),本研究也证实父母间的冲突不仅会对婚姻关系造成影响,而且威胁到孩子的情绪和行为的正常健康发展,增加了冒险行为的产生风险。青少年经历父母冲突后,带来的不安全感可能会使他们感到家庭资源不足,只能通过冒险行为(例如:物质使用)来表达自我或缓解压力(van Eldik et al., 2020; Ye et al., 2023),这也就加剧了青少年的冒险行为的增多。

4.2. 应对方式的纵向中介作用

此外,本研究结果表明消极应对方式在父母冲突和青少年冒险行为中发挥着显著的中介作用,而不是积极应对方式,这与认知情境假设的观点(Camisasca et al., 2017; Grych & Fincham, 1990)以及以往的研究结果保持一致(Ganz & Sher, 2010; Shelton & Harold, 2008; Sun et al., 2019; Tu et al., 2016),频繁的父母冲突会带来消极的家庭环境,长期处于这种环境中的孩子可能会采取消极的应对方式来应对此环境下父母的情绪(例如:愤怒、生气)和行为(例如:摔东西、指责),可能会使其更倾向于从事冒险行为。青少年为了应对父母冲突带来的压力,可能会采用回避(Shelton & Harold, 2008)、其他行为掩盖痛苦(如:吸烟、喝酒;(Musick & Meier, 2010; van Eldik et al., 2020))等应对方式,甚至是盲目地采用应对策略(Shelton & Harold, 2008),然而,当这些消极的应对方式失败后,失败引发的焦虑又反过来使其陷入更深的消极状态,这种恶性循环会导致后续冒险行为或其他问题行为的增加。冒险行为最终会带来消极的结果,但是却能给青少年带来即刻的刺激和快乐等快感的体验(Crone et al., 2016),为了缓解父母方面带来的压力,冒险行为成为了青少年的选择。

5. 结论

本研究通过“父母–青少年”的路径来探索青少年冒险行为的影响因素,表明父母冲突可能会通过青少年消极的应对方式来预测他们的冒险行为,这为青少年健康发展和干预及预防其问题行为提供了理论基础,建议父母为孩子提供安全的、支持性的家庭环境,减少冲突,同时,应当培养和提高孩子的积极态度,减少使用消极的应对方式,当面对压力事件时,采用积极策略来替代消极策略来解决问题,减少冒险行为的可能性。

文章引用

钟秀平,陈育冬,姚旭娟,梁梓勤,吴若琳,史春鸣. 父母冲突与青少年冒险行为:应对方式的中介效应
Interparental Conflict and Adolescents’ Risk-Taking Behaviors: The Mediating Role of Coping Styles[J]. 心理学进展, 2024, 14(05): 549-556. https://doi.org/10.12677/ap.2024.145347

参考文献

  1. 1. 解亚宁(1998). 简易应对方式量表信度和效度的初步研究. 中国临床心理学杂志, 6(2), 114-115. https://doi.org/10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.1998.02.018

  2. 2. 张晨, 张丽锦, 尚丽(2011). 青少年冒险问卷-冒险行为量表在中学生中的信效度. 中国心理卫生杂志, 25(8), 636-640. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-6729.2011.08.018

  3. 3. Ahmed, S. P., Bittencourt-Hewitt, A., & Sebastian, C. L. (2015). Neurocognitive Bases of Emotion Regulation Development in Adolescence. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 11-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2015.07.006

  4. 4. Buehler, C., Krishnakumar, A., Stone, G., Anthony, C., Pemberton, S., Gerard, J., & Barber, B. K. (1998). Interparental Conflict Styles and Youth Problem Behaviors: A Two-Sample Replication Study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 119-132. https://doi.org/10.2307/353446

  5. 5. Camisasca, E., Miragoli, S., Di Blasio, P., & Grych, J. (2017). Children’s Coping Strategies to Inter-Parental Conflict: The Moderating Role of Attachment. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26, 1099-1111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0645-9

  6. 6. Casey, B. J., Jones, R. M., Levita, L., Libby, V., Pattwell, S. S., Ruberry, E. J., & Somerville, L. H. (2010). The Storm and Stress of Adolescence: Insights from Human Imaging and Mouse Genetics. Developmental Psychobiology, 52, 225-235. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.20447

  7. 7. Compas, B. E., Connor, J. K., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A. H., & Wadsworth, M. (1999). Getting Specific about Coping: Effortful and Involuntary Responses to Stress in Development. In M. Lewis, & D. S. Ramsay (Eds.), Soothing and Stress (pp. 229-256). Psychology Press.

  8. 8. Crone, E. A., van Duijvenvoorde, A. C. K., & Peper, J. S. (2016). Annual Research Review: Neural Contributions to Risk-Taking in Adolescence—Developmental Changes and Individual Differences. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57, 353-368. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12502

  9. 9. Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (2010). Marital Conflict and Children: An Emotional Security Perspective. Guilford Press.

  10. 10. Dou, K., Lin, X.-Q., & Wang, Y.-J. (2020). Negative Parenting and Risk-Taking Behaviors in Chinese Adolescents: Testing a Sequential Mediation Model in a Three-Wave Longitudinal Study. Children and Youth Services Review, 119, Article ID: 105631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105631

  11. 11. Fosco, G. M., & Bray, B. C. (2016). Profiles of Cognitive Appraisals and Triangulation into Interparental Conflict: Implications for Adolescent Adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 30, 533-542. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000192

  12. 12. Ganz, D., & Sher, L. (2010). Suicidal Behavior in Adolescents with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Minerva Pediatrica, 62, 363-370. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/20940670

  13. 13. Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital Conflict and Children’s Adjustment: A Cognitive-Contextual Framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 267-290. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.267

  14. 14. Gullone, E., Moore, S., Moss, S., & Boyd, C. (2000). The Adolescent Risk-Taking Questionnaire: Development and Psychometric Evaluation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 231-250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558400152003

  15. 15. Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New Millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408-420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360

  16. 16. Jouriles, E. N., McDonald, R., & Kouros, C. D. (2016). Interparental Conflict and Child Adjustment. In Developmental Psychopathology (pp. 608-659). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119125556.devpsy412

  17. 17. Lazarus, R. S. (2000). Toward Better Research on Stress and Coping. American Psychologist, 55, 665-673. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.665

  18. 18. Lemola, S., Schwarz, B., & Siffert, A. (2012). Interparental Conflict and Early Adolescents’ Aggression: Is Irregular Sleep a Vulnerability Factor? Journal of Adolescence, 35, 97-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.06.001

  19. 19. Li, J., Chen, Y.-P., Zhang, J., Lv, M.-M., Välimäki, M., Li, Y.-F., & Zhang, J.-P. (2020). The Mediating Role of Resilience and Self-Esteem between Life Events and Coping Styles among Rural Left-Behind Adolescents in China: A Cross-Sectional Study [Original Research]. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, Article ID: 560556. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.560556

  20. 20. Li, J.-B., Delvecchio, E., Lis, A., Nie, Y.-G., & Di Riso, D. (2016). Positive Coping as Mediator between Self-Control and Life Satisfaction: Evidence from Two Chinese Samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 130-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.042

  21. 21. Liang, Z.-Q., Dou, K., Li, J.-B., Wang, Y.-J., & Nie, Y.-G. (2022). Linking Self-Control to Negative Risk-Taking Behavior among Chinese Late Adolescents: A Moderated Mediation Model. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, Article No. 7646. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19137646

  22. 22. Lin, F.-G., Lin, J.-D., Hsieh, Y.-H., & Chang, C.-Y. (2014). Quarrelsome Family Environment as an Enhanced Factor on Child Suicidal Ideation. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35, 3245-3253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.08.007

  23. 23. López-Larrosa, S., Mendiri, P., & Sánchez-Souto, V. (2019). Exploring the Relationship between Interparental Conflict and Emotional Security: What Happens with Adolescents in Residential Care Compared to Those Living with Their Families? Children and Youth Services Review, 101, 123-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.03.054

  24. 24. Lorente, L., Vera, M., & Peiró, T. (2021). Nurses’ Stressors and Psychological Distress during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Mediating Role of Coping and Resilience. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 77, 1335-1344. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14695

  25. 25. Lucas-Thompson, R. G., Seiter, N. S., Miller, R. L., Rigsby, B. A., & Crain, T. L. (2022). Inadequate Sleep Moderates Effects of Interparental Conflict Appraisals on Adolescent Adjustment. Sleep Health, 8, 82-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleh.2021.10.012

  26. 26. Martin, M. J., Conger, R. D., & Robins, R. W. (2019). Family Stress Processes and Drug and Alcohol Use by Mexican American Adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 55, 170-183. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000629

  27. 27. Merino, L., Herrero, M., & Martínez-Pampliega, A. (2022). Interparental Conflict Appraisals and Adolescents’ Maladaptation in Siblings: An Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 31, 1968-1981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-022-02271-8

  28. 28. Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and Family Therapy. Harvard U. Press.

  29. 29. Musick, K., & Meier, A. (2010). Are both Parents Always Better than One? Parental Conflict and Young Adult Well-Being. Social Science Research, 39, 814-830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.03.002

  30. 30. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

  31. 31. Rothenberg, W. A., Hussong, A. M., & Chassin, L. (2017). Modeling Trajectories Of Adolescent-Perceived Family Conflict: Effects of Marital Dissatisfaction and Parental Alcoholism. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 27, 105-121. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12259

  32. 32. Shelton, K. H., & Harold, G. T. (2008). Pathways between Interparental Conflict and Adolescent Psychological Adjustment: Bridging Links through Children’s Cognitive Appraisals and Coping Strategies. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 28, 555-582. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431608317610

  33. 33. Sherrill, R. B., Lochman, J. E., DeCoster, J., & Stromeyer, S. L. (2017). Spillover between Interparental Conflict and Parent-Child Conflict within and across Days. Journal of Family Psychology, 31, 900-909. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000332

  34. 34. Silva, C. S., Calheiros, M. M., & Carvalho, H. (2016). Interparental Conflict and Adolescents’ Self-Representations: The Role of Emotional Insecurity. Journal of Adolescence, 52, 76-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.07.007

  35. 35. Simpson, E. G. (2020). Interparental Conflict and Adolescent Adjustment: A Narrative Review of Bidirectional Pathways. Adolescent Research Review, 5, 307-316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-019-00112-2

  36. 36. Sun, P., Sun, Y., Jiang, H., Jia, R., & Li, Z. (2019). Gratitude and Problem Behaviors in Adolescents: The Mediating Roles of Positive and Negative Coping Styles [Original Research]. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article No. 01547. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01547

  37. 37. Tu, K. M., Erath, S. A., & El-Sheikh, M. (2016). Coping Responses Moderate Prospective Associations between Marital Conflict and Youth Adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 30, 523-532. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000169

  38. 38. van Duijvenvoorde, A. C. K., Peters, S., Braams, B. R., & Crone, E. A. (2016). What Motivates Adolescents? Neural Responses to Rewards and Their Influence on Adolescents’ Risk Taking, Learning, and Cognitive Control. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 70, 135-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.06.037

  39. 39. van Eldik, W. M., de Haan, A. D., Parry, L. Q., Davies, P. T., Luijk, M. P. C. M., Arends, L. R., & Prinzie, P. (2020). The Interparental Relationship: Meta-Analytic Associations with Children’s Maladjustment and Responses to Interparental Conflict. Psychological Bulletin, 146, 553-594. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000233

  40. 40. Wang, D., Xie, R., Ding, W., Li, X., & Li, W. (2023). The Reciprocal Relationship between Perceived Interparental Conflict and Internalizing and Externalizing Problem Behaviors among Left-Behind Children in China. Current Psychology, 42, 15112-15121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02761-4

  41. 41. Ye, W.-Y., Dou, K., Wang, L.-X., Lin, X.-Q., & Zhang, M.-C. (2023). Longitudinal Association between Interparental Conflict and Risk-Taking Behavior among Chinese Adolescents: Testing a Moderated Mediation Model. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 17, Article No. 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-023-00556-4

  42. 42. Zemp, M., Johnson, M. D., & Bodenmann, G. (2018). Within-Family Processes: Interparental and Coparenting Conflict and Child Adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 32, 299-309. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000368

  43. 43. Zhang, R., Li, D., Chen, F., Ewalds-Kvist, B. M., & Liu, S. (2017). Interparental Conflict Relative to Suicidal Ideation in Chinese Adolescents: The Roles of Coping Strategies and Meaning in Life [Original Research]. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article No. 1010. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01010

  44. NOTES

    *通讯作者。

期刊菜单