不同学科大学生应对方式的差异性分析

Differences of coping style among college students in different majors

目的:调查分析不同学科在校大学生应对方式及其效果。方法:于2004-09/10采取整群抽样方法对武汉工业学院在校大学生450人进行问卷调查,调查专业分为工科和医科。采用应对方式量表应进行应对方式调查,问卷有62道题目,回答“是”或者“否”,当回答“是”时则要接着选择应对方式“有效”,“比较有效”或“无效”。评分方法是采用分量表统计记分的形式,分量表分为解决问题、求助、合理化3项积极应对方式和自责、退避、幻想3项消极应对方式,各分量表前没有“-”者,选“是”得1分,有“-”者,选“否”得1分。结果:共发放问卷450份,收回合格问卷423份,有效率达94.0%。①医科学生与工科学生应对方式无明显差异。②不同性别学生“解决问题”项目中,女生得分明显高于男生[(8.88±2.77),(7.79±3.24),P<0.05];在“求助”项目中女生得分高于男生[(5.78±2.43),(4.88±2.40),P<0.05];而3项消极应对方式自责、幻想、退避比较均无统计意义。③在分量表“解决问题”和“求助”中应对方式有效(36.2%,32.5%)与比较有效(52.6%,53.6%)总人数比例超过85%;“合理化”中应对方式有效(36.2%)与比较有效(44.8%)总人数比例超过80%;分量表中积极应对方式有效的人数比例明显超过消极应对方式有效的人数比例,采用消极的应对方式无效的人数比例也高于采用积极应对方式无效的人数比例。结论:不同学科在校大学生采用应对方式差别不大,男生多用的应对方式是“解决问题”,女生则采用“求助”的应对方式;运用积极应对方式有效的人数比例高于运用消极应对方式有效的人数比例。

AIM： To study and analyze the difference of coping styles and the efficiency between college students in different majors. METHODS： Between September and October 2004, 450 college students majored in polytechnic or medicine in Wuhan Polytechinc University, who were selected by means of cluster sampling, were surveyed by using coping style questionnaire. The questionnaire has 62 questions, saying“yes”or “no”. If say yes, the students must choose coping style and evaluate it with “effective”, “comparatively effective”or“noneffective”. The scoring method was by using Statistic integral of separating measuring scale. The separating measuring scale was divided into positive coping styles of solving problem, resorting to others, rationalization, and negative coping styles of self-accusation, avoiding and mirage. In each separating measuring scale, choosing “yes” will add 1 if not having “-” before the scale; choosing “no” will add 1 if having “-” before the scale. RESULTS： Totally 450 questionnaires were sent out and 423 were recollected, the effective rate was 94.0%. It was found that there were no significant differen6e in coping style between medical students and polytechnic students. But the difference was significant between males （7.79±3.24） and females （8.88±2.77）, （P 〈 0.05）, and the style of“resorting to others”in female are higher than male [（5.78±2.43）, （4.88±2.40）, P 〈 0.05]; but the comparisons between 3 negative coping methods： selfaccusation, avoiding and mirage had no significant difference. In separating measuring scale, the two methods of solving problem and resorting to others, the total of choosing “effective” （36.2%, 32.5%） and “comparative effective”（52.6%, 53.6%） were over 85%; in the coping style of rationalization, the total of choosing “effective”（36.2%） and “comparative effective”（44.8%） were over 80%. The number of students which using active coping style have efficiency was significantly more than that of the number which using passive coping style, and the number of choosing “noneffective”which using passive coping style were higher than that which using positive coping style. CONCLUSION： There are no significant differences between different majors in college students; the current coping style in male students is solving problem, and in female is resorting to others; The number of students which using active coping style have efficiency is significantly more than that of the number which using passive coping style.