首次同伴交往中出現(xiàn)的與依戀風(fēng)格相關(guān)的跨時(shí)間段上的認(rèn)知差異性來自青少年記憶過程重建的證據(jù)PPT課件

1、ABSTRACT This study examined whether attachment, assessed using the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI; George, Kaplan , & Main, 1996) was linked to how adolescents reconstructed their memory for an initial interaction with an unfamiliar peer. Adolescents (N=189, 62% female) completed a 10-min labo

2、ratory task with a student whom they did not know. Immediately following this task, adolescents rated their perceptions of the interaction. Adolescents completed the same perception measure 2 weeks later. Although adolescents classified as secure and insecure on the AAI did not differ in how they pe

3、rceived unfamiliar peers initially, attachment-related differences emerged over time. Insecure adolescents remembered the interactions as less positive and more negative and also reported being treated with greater hostility than they had initially reported 2 weeks earlier. In contrast, secure adole

4、scents memories for the negative aspects of the interaction and for hostile treatment remained stable, although, like insecure adolescents, they remembered the conflicts as being less positive than initially reported.第1頁/共23頁ABSTRACT 這項(xiàng)研究檢驗(yàn)了依戀風(fēng)格是否與青少年重構(gòu)與陌生同伴最初交流的記憶有關(guān)。青少年與一個(gè)陌生同學(xué)完成一個(gè)10分鐘左右的實(shí)驗(yàn)室任務(wù)。任務(wù)結(jié)束后

5、，青少年立即評估他們對這次交流接觸的情緒感知。在兩周后，青少年完成同樣的情緒感知體驗(yàn)測量。安全型和不安全型依戀的被試在第一次的測試中對陌生同伴的感知體驗(yàn)沒有顯著差異； 然而在兩周后的測試中出現(xiàn)了與依戀風(fēng)格相關(guān)的差異性。不安全型依戀風(fēng)格組的被試比在第一次測試時(shí)報(bào)告了更多對交流的負(fù)性體驗(yàn)和更少的積極情緒，并報(bào)告交流中受到更多的敵意性的對待。安全型依戀的人對陌生人的第一印象保持得更加穩(wěn)定、一致，而隨著時(shí)間的增加，不安全型依戀者從與自己意見不一的人身上感受到了更多的惡意，安全型依戀風(fēng)格組對事件的體驗(yàn)雖然也變得沒那么積極，但情緒沒有顯著變化。第2頁/共23頁Keywordsattachment, pee

6、r relations, memory, social cognition, Adult Attachment Interview依戀、同伴關(guān)系、記憶、社會認(rèn)知、成人依戀訪談第3頁/共23頁目錄11.Introduction22.Method33.Results44Discussion第4頁/共23頁1.1Importance of the study1.IntroductionInteractions with peers have considerable developmental significance,every peer relationship begins as an ini

7、tial interaction with an unfamiliar person, and such aftereffects could influence how an individual subsequently perceives and behaves toward the onceunfamiliar peer, thereby contributing to future relationship quality.同伴交往在人發(fā)展中有相當(dāng)大的發(fā)展意義，每一段同伴依戀關(guān)系都是從與一位陌生的同伴交流開始，因此與陌生同伴的第一次交流以后的認(rèn)知后效將會影響個(gè)體隨后從感知和行為上如何

8、對待這個(gè)同伴，從而影響與這位同伴之間未來的關(guān)系質(zhì)量。所以，研究這些認(rèn)知后效就非常重要。第5頁/共23頁1.Introduction1.2The theoretical supportFrom an information processing perspective:從信息加工處理的角度來看，在與一個(gè)陌生的伙伴初次交流之后，個(gè)體或?qū)⑦@個(gè)交流過程的信息儲存在記憶中（Crick & Dodge, 1994）。在第二次交流發(fā)生之前這些記憶在一段時(shí)間內(nèi)流逝了，就好像與同伴相關(guān)的初始認(rèn)知慢慢消退，并將實(shí)際發(fā)生的事件進(jìn)行扭曲。所以 ，隨著這些認(rèn)知的消退，個(gè)體需要彌補(bǔ)和重構(gòu)它們。此外，由于社會信息的

9、處理過程帶有典型的主觀性并且基于穩(wěn)定的認(rèn)知結(jié)構(gòu)，所以這些 記憶重構(gòu)的過程也很有可能帶有偏見。 From individuals underlying cognitive structures :由于個(gè)體擁有不同的潛在認(rèn)知結(jié)構(gòu)，即依戀的內(nèi)部工作模型是有差異的，所以這些記憶重構(gòu)過程對于個(gè)體而言是不同的。依戀的內(nèi)部工作模型會的功用能夠幫助個(gè)體對社會經(jīng)驗(yàn)進(jìn)行信息加工，并提高個(gè)體預(yù)測行為和結(jié)果之間聯(lián)系的能力。第6頁/共23頁1.IntroductionThe principal aim of this investigation was to examine whether and how indivi

10、duals reconstructed their memories for an initial interaction with an unfamiliar peer as a function of attachment. We focused on adolescents interactions with unfamiliar peers, given the considerable importance of peer relationships during this period of life-span development .當(dāng)前研究的目的是探究依戀的功能個(gè)體如何重建與

11、自己初次交往的陌生伙伴的記憶的。由于在人生歷程中青少年期的同伴關(guān)系相當(dāng)重要，所以我們關(guān)注青少年與陌生同伴之間的交往。1.3The aim of this study 第7頁/共23頁1.Introduction1.4 HypothesesIn relation to reconstructed memory for the initial interaction assessed at Time 2 (T2), we did formulate a theoretically and empirically based hypothesis: Adolescents perceptions o

12、f this interaction changes over an extended period of time as a function of attachment, such that secure adolescents reconstruct their memory for this type of interaction more favorably over time than do insecure adolescents.在初始交往后的第二次記憶重建的認(rèn)知評估中，我們有這樣的理論以及實(shí)證假設(shè)：由于依戀功能的影響，在一段時(shí)間后，青少年對這次交流的認(rèn)知發(fā)生了改變，即相較于不

13、安全型依戀風(fēng)格的青少年，安全型依戀風(fēng)格的青少年對本次交流記憶重建的類型更為積極（在親密關(guān)系的依戀中這些都已經(jīng)證明，且沒有針對初始交流后的假設(shè)，因?yàn)門1的反應(yīng)很可能會受到實(shí)驗(yàn)即時(shí)環(huán)境較大的影響）。第8頁/共23頁2.Method2.1 ParticipantsParticipants were 189 adolescents (mean age 16.5 years， living in two-parent, English-speaking families， Participants were paid $125 for their participation in the laborat

14、ory sessions.189名青少年（平均年齡16.5歲），生活在父母健全，英語交流的家庭。實(shí)驗(yàn)任務(wù)結(jié)束后會給被試125美元的報(bào)酬。第9頁/共23頁2.Method成人依戀訪談：半結(jié)構(gòu)式工具，問題主要集中于與依戀相關(guān)的童年經(jīng)歷.研究人員對這個(gè)工具做了少量修改，從而讓一些問題更適合與青少年人群。訪談持續(xù)了大約1小時(shí),隨后我們將錄音轉(zhuǎn)成了逐字稿。四個(gè)程序員運(yùn)用了Main and Goldwyns的分類系統(tǒng)，將青少年分為安全/自主型、不安全/拒絕型、或者不安全/先占型，以及不安全/懸而未決型。如果結(jié)果無法放入任何類別，就會被分成不安全/不能分類型。2.1 MeasuresAdult Attach

15、ment Interview (AAI; George, Kaplan, &Main, 1996).第10頁/共23頁2.Method情緒反應(yīng)沖突量表(ERCS; Cassidy,1998).在一個(gè)10分鐘的有沖突的實(shí)驗(yàn)室討論任務(wù)后，我們運(yùn)用這個(gè)有31個(gè)項(xiàng)目工具（16個(gè)項(xiàng)目測積極情緒、11個(gè)測消極情緒、4個(gè)測感受到的敵意）來評估被試即時(shí)的（第一次）和隨后的認(rèn)知和情緒體驗(yàn)。即積極和消極情緒，以及是否感受到不友善的對待。量表的效度良好。2.1 MeasuresEmotional Response to Conflict Scale (ERCS; Cassidy,1998).第11頁/共23

16、頁2.12.1 Procedure2.MethodFirst, they completed the AAI. Next, participants were paired with a same-sex, same-race, unfamiliar peer who attended a different school.No adolescent participated more than once.At the beginning of this visit, the adolescent and unfamiliar peer independently completed a su

17、rvey in which they rated how much they agreed with statements about controversial topics (e.g., illicit drug use, gun control).An experimenter later compared their responses and identified three topics of disagreement. The adolescent and unfamiliar peer were then introduced and instructed to “presen

18、t your positions on the issue and then discuss your differences” for 10 min. After completing this task, participants completed the ERCS (T1 ERCS). Two weeks later, participants received a follow-up ERCS in the mail and mailed it back to our laboratory (T2 ERCS). 第12頁/共23頁2.Method2.12.1 Procedure進(jìn)行成

19、人依戀訪談（adult attachment interview；AAI）后被研究者按結(jié)果分入安全型依戀風(fēng)格組（126人）和不安全型依戀風(fēng)格組（63人）。研究者請參與者評論一些有爭議的社會話題，例如說應(yīng)不應(yīng)該廢除死刑，大麻是否可以合法化之類的。最后，研究人員為參與者匹配一個(gè)同性別、同種族、同年齡，但與之持相反觀點(diǎn)的同伴。參與者需要單獨(dú)和這個(gè)陌生人在實(shí)驗(yàn)室里對三個(gè)有爭議的話題表明各自的立場，并且討論10分鐘。討論結(jié)束后，被試需要完成針對這場沖突的情緒反應(yīng)量表（emotional response conflict scale；ERCS），報(bào)告討論過程中自己體驗(yàn)到到積極和消極情緒，以及是否感受到不

20、友善的對待（即事件體驗(yàn)）。兩周后，被試再次進(jìn)行測量。第13頁/共23頁2.Results進(jìn)行了重復(fù)測量的方差分析來驗(yàn)證依戀風(fēng)格的差異性是否與兩次情緒反應(yīng)量表中的總成績有關(guān)，兩次測量的（T1和T2）分?jǐn)?shù)為重復(fù)測量因素，固定因素是測量的時(shí)間。2（情緒反應(yīng)測量時(shí)間：T1 vs T2）2（安全型 vs 不安全型）第14頁/共23頁2.Results第15頁/共23頁2.ResultsWith regard to the examination of attachment-related differences in adolescents T1 ERCS summary scores, secure

21、and insecure adolescents did not differ for their perceptions of positive interaction,; negative interaction; or hostile treatment。 關(guān)于T1時(shí)情緒反應(yīng)的總成績，兩種依戀風(fēng)格的青少年在積極的、消極的以及感受到敵意的認(rèn)知上都沒有沒有交互作用。However, with regard to change in adolescents ERCS summary scores, the expected significant ERCS Time Adolescent At

22、tachment interaction effects emerged for adolescents positive interaction ERCS summary scores, F(1, 151) =5.40, p=.02; negative interaction ERCS summary scores, F(1, 151)=2.60, p=.10; and hostile treatment ERCS summary scores, F(1, 148) =4.51, p=.03.而在青少年情緒反應(yīng)總成績（積極的認(rèn)知情緒、消極的認(rèn)知情緒以及感受到的敵意對待總成績）的（跨時(shí)間）變化

23、上，情緒反應(yīng)時(shí)間與依戀風(fēng)格出現(xiàn)了交互作用 )。第16頁/共23頁2.Resultsboth secure, and insecure adolescents remembered the conflict as less positive during the 2-week period, although the effect was larger for insecure individuals (see Figure 1). As a result, insecure adolescents T2 ERCS positive interaction summary scores, , w

24、ere significantly lower than secure adolescents summary scores, 安全型依戀風(fēng)格和不安全依戀風(fēng)格的青少年在兩周后顯示出了對前面沖突中積極性記憶的降低，不安全依戀的青少年降低的更為明顯。在T2上，不安全型依戀風(fēng)格的親少年積極性情緒反應(yīng)的總成績顯著低于安全型的。第17頁/共23頁2.Results Moreover, insecure adolescents showed an increase in their propensity to remember the conflict as negative, whereas secure adolescents memory for the negative features of the conflict remained stable du