团伙犯罪青少年人格、人际信任与应对方式的对照研究

Control study of personality,interpersonal trust and coping style of juveniles in criminal gangs

目的探究团伙犯罪青少年的人格、人际信任、应对方式的特点以及人际信任、应对方式与人格的关系，以了解青少年团伙犯罪的心理影响因素。方法采用艾森克人格问卷、信任量表、应对方式问卷对某看守所男性非团伙犯罪青少年15名（组1）、男性团伙犯罪青少年52名（组2）和某高校守法男生40名（组3）进行测试，采用协方差分析和Pearson相关分析对数据进行统计分析。结果去除协变量受教育年限的作用后，非团伙犯罪和团伙犯罪青少年人格问卷精神质（P）和神经质（N）维度[非团伙犯罪组分别为（57．49±2．62）分，（59．35±3．55）分，团伙犯罪组分别为（57．83±1．24）分，（59．60±1．68）分]高于对照组[分别为（43．88±4．72）分，（39．07±6．40）分]（P〈0．05），非团伙犯罪青少年外倾性（E）维度[（63．41±3．86）分]高于团伙犯罪青少年[（53．01±1．83）分]（P〈0．05）；非团伙犯罪和团伙犯罪青少年信任量表的可预测性（P）、可依赖性（D）和信赖（F）维度[（非团伙犯罪组分别为（24．68±1．51）分，（14．36±2．19）分和（15．49±2．21）分，团伙犯罪组分别为（22．95±0．71）分，（22．48±1．04）分和（23．09±1．05）分）低于对照组[分别为（33．14±2．72）分，（40．22±3．95）分和（38．44±3．99）分]（P〈0．01）；非团伙犯罪和团伙犯罪青少年应对方式的自责和幻想维度[非团伙犯罪组分别为（0．80±0．08）分和（0．83±0．06）分，团伙犯罪组分别为（0．59±0．04）分和（0．68±0．03）分]高于对照组[分别为（0．39±0．14）分和（0．44±0．11）分]（P〈0．05或0．01）；非团伙犯罪和团伙犯罪青少年应对方式的解决问题维度[分别为（0．76±0．06）分，（0．70±0．03）分]低于对照组[（0．95±0．11）分]（P〈0．05）；团伙犯罪青少年人格的P维度与其应对方式的解决问题和自责维度具有相关性（r=-0．389，-0．395，P〈0．05）；团伙犯罪青少年人格的N维度与其人际信任的F维度和应对方式的自责维度具有相关性（r=-0．473，0．454，P〈0．05）；团伙犯罪青少年人格的E维度与其应对方式的求助维度具有相关性（r=0．400，P〈0．05）。结论非团伙犯罪、团伙犯罪和守法青少年的人格特征、人际信任以及应对方式存在差异，这些心理因素可能对青少年团伙犯罪行为产生一定的影响。

Objective To study the personality traits, interpersonal trust and coping style of juveniles in criminal gangs and their relationship. Methods 15 male juveniles who committed crimes without gangs （ groupl ）, 52 male juveniles who committed crimes by gangs（group2） and 40 male lawful freshmen（ group3 ） were tested with Eysenek Personality Questionnaire （ EPQ）, Trust Scale and Coping Style Questionnaire. The data were statistically analyzed by covariance analysis or Pearson relation analysis. Results After the covariant effect of ed- ucation levels was removed, the levels of P and N in EPQ of groupl （ P ： 57.49 ± 2.62, N ： 59.35 ± 3.55 ） and group2 （P：57.83 ±1.24,N：59.60 ± 1.68） were higher than those of group3 （P：43.88 ±4.72,N：39.07 ± 6.40） with statistical difference （P〈0.05）. The level of E of groupl （63.41 ±3.86） was higher than that of group2 （53.01 ± 1.83 ） with statistical difference （P 〈 0.05 ）. The levels of P, D and F in Trust Scale of groupl （P：24.68 ± 1.51,D：14.36 ±2.19,F：15.49 ±2.21） and group2（P：22.95 ±0.71,D：22.48 ± 1.04,F：23.09 ± 1.05 ） were lower than those of group3 （P： 33. 14 ± 2.72, D：40.22 ± 3.95, F： 38.44 ± 3.99 ） with statistical difference （P 〈 0.01 ）. The levels of self-accusation and fantasy in Coping Style Questionnaire of groupl （0.80 ± 0.08,0.83 ± 0.06 respectively） and group2 （ group2：0.59 ± 0.04,0.68 ± 0.03, respectively） were higher than those of group3 （0.39 ± 0.14,0.44 ± 0.11 ,respectively） with statistical difference （P〈 0.05 or 0. 01 ）, while the levels of problem-solving of groupl （ 0. 76 ± 0.06 ） and group2 （ 0. 70 ± 0.03 ） were lower than that of group3 （ 0.95 ± 0.11 ） with statistical difference （P 〈 0.05 ）. For the male juveniles who committed crimes by gangs, the P of personality traits had a statistical linkage with the problem-resolving and self-accusation of coping style （ r = -0. 389, -0. 395, P 〈 0.05 ）, the N of personality traits had a statiseical linkage with the F of interpersonal trust and the self-accusation of coping style （ r=-0. 473,0454, P 〈 0.05 ）, and the E of personality traits had a statistical linkage with the help-seeking of coping style （ r= 0. 400, P 〈 0.05 ）. Conclusion The personality traits, interpemonal trust and coping styles of male juveniles who committed crimes with or without gangs and the lawful men are different. These psychological factors may have certain effect on juvenile gang crimes.