大学生来访者与非来访者防御方式的比较  

Comparison of Defense Mechanism between Undergraduate Clients and Non-clients

作　　者：霍丹青[1] 

机构地区：[1]华东师范大学心理学院应用心理学系,中国上海200062

出　　处：《中国健康心理学杂志》2012年第6期927-929,共3页China Journal of Health Psychology

摘　　要：目的了解中国高校大学生中心理咨询来访者和非来访者在防御方式使用上的差异。方法研究使用防御方式问卷(DSQ)的中文修订版,对178名大学生进行调查,其中正在接受心理咨询的来访者56名,非来访者122名(根据是否有咨询的意愿将非来访者分为两组)。结果①中文修订版DSQ有较好的同质性信度(α=0.872);②来访者比有咨询意愿的非来访者更多地使用非成熟型和中间型这两大类防御方式(t=2.863,P<0.01;t=1.982,P<0.05);③来访者比无咨询意愿的非来访者更多地使用非成熟型和中间型这两大类防御方式(t=3.951,3.666;P<0.01);④性别因素对3大类防御方式的主效应差异不显著(F=1.568,0.184,0.061;P>0.05)。结论参与心理咨询的大学生比未参与者更多地使用非成熟的防御方式和中间型防御方式,男性和女性在防御方式的使用上没有差异。Objective To explore undergraduate clients and non-clients’ using of defense mechanism.Methods Using the Defense Style Questionnaire（DSQ） which had been revised in Chinese to 178 university students including 56 clients and 122 non-clients（Non-clients were departed into two groups depended on if they like to join counseling）.Results ①DSQ in Chinese version had good reliability（α=0.872）;②Clients used more immature and middle defense styles than no willing non-clients（t=2.863,P〈0.01;t=1.982,P〈0.05）;③Clients used more immature and middle defense styles than willing non-clients（t=3.951,P〈0.01;t=3.666,P〈0.01）;④Gender factor had no significant effect in three kinds of defense styles（F=1.568,0.184,0.061;P〉0.05）.Conclusion Undergraduate clients use more immature and middle defense styles than non-clients;male and female students have no different in using defense mechanism.

关 键 词：心理咨询 防御方式 防御方式问卷 来访者 非来访者 

分 类 号：R395.6[哲学宗教—心理学]