【摘要】 目的 探讨青少年家长共情能力、心理弹性的关系以及心智化水平在其中的作用。方法 于2020年6月采用共情能力量表、心理弹性量表、反思功能量表对北京市某中学的600名家长进行调查，收回有效问卷588份，采用SPSS 20.0 Process V3.4插件中的模型4进行中介效应分析。结果 不同性别的青少年家长的共情总分[男（91.04±10.58）分比女（94.53±9.95）分]、心理弹性总分[男（91.61±15.43）分比女（87.87±13.45）分]和过度心智化[男1.00(0.33,1.67)分比女0.67(0.33,1.33)分]比较，差异有统计学意义（t=-3.502,P<0.01;t=2.523,P<0.05;Z=1.962,P=0.05）；城镇和农村居住的家长在心智化缺陷[城镇0.33(0,0.50)分比农村0.33(0.17,0.67)分]和过度心智化[城镇0.83(0.33,1.50)分比农村0.67(0.17,1.17)分]方面差异有统计学意义（Z=-2.735,P<0.05;Z=3.156,P<0.05）。教育水平越高，心理弹性总分[高中及以下（83.58±14.99）分比专/本科（88.99±14.23）分比硕士及以上（92.34±10.84）分]、过度心智化[高中及以下0.50(0.08,1.25)分比专/本科0.67(0.08±1.20)分比硕士及以上1.00(0.50,1.67)分]得分越高，心智化缺陷[高中及以下0.18(0.17,0.83)分比专/本科0.33(0.17,0.83)分比硕士及以上0.17(0,0.50)分]得分越低（F=11.592,P<0.01;Z=21.355,P<0.01;Z=7.645,P<0.05）。在心理弹性方面，力量性、乐观性与换位思考存在正相关（β=0.30,P<0.01;β=0.16,P<0.05），个人痛苦与力量性存在负相关（β=-0.24,P<0.01）。在心智化方面，心智化缺陷与共情总分存在正相关（β=-0.28,P<0.01）。过度心智化与换位思考、共情关怀存在正相关（β=0.25,P<0.01;β=0.15,P<0.01）。心理弹性总分与心智化缺陷存在负相关（β=-0.14,P=0.001），与过度心智化存在正相关（β=0.32,P<0.001）。此外，心理弹性总分与换位思考、共情关怀存在正相关（β=0.37,P<0.001;β=0.14,P=0.001），与个人痛苦存在负相关（β=-0.41,P<0.001）。心智化水平在青少年家长心理弹性与共情能力之间起部分中介作用。结论 青少年家长的心智化水平作为中介变量在调节心理弹性与共情能力方面起一定作用。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective To explore the relationship between empathy and psychological resilience of adolescent parents and the role of mentality in it. Methods In June 2020, a total of 600 parents of a middle school in Beijing were investigated by using empathy scale, psychological resilience scale and reflection function scale. 588 valid questionnaires were collected. The mediating effect was analyzed by using model 4 in SPSS 20.0 Process v3.4 plug-in. Results The differences in total empathy [male(91.04±10.58), female(94.53±9.95)], total psychological resilience [male(91.61±15.43), female(87.87±13.45)] and over-mentalization of parents of adolescents of different genders [male 1.00(0.33, 1.67), female 0.67(0.33, 1.33)] were statistically significant(t=-3.502, P < 0.01; t=2.523, P < 0.05; Z=1.962, P=0.05). There are statistically significant differences in mentalization deficits [urban 0.33(0, 0.50) vs rural areas 0.33(0.17, 0.67)] and over-mentalization [urban 0.83(0.33, 1.50) vs rural areas 0.67(0.17, 1.17)] among parents living in urban and rural areas(Z=-2.735, P < 0.05; Z=3.156, P < 0.05). The higher the level of education, the higher the total psychological resilience [High school and below(83.58±14.99) vs College/undergraduate(88.99±14.23) vs Master and above(92.34±10.84)] and excessive mentalization score [High school and below 0.50(0.08, 1.25) vs College/undergraduate 0.67(0.08, 1.20) vs Master and above 1.00(0.50, 1.67)], and the lower the mentalization deficit score [High school and below 0.18(0.17, 0.83) vs College/undergraduate 0.33(0.17, 0.83) vs Master and above 0.17(0.00, 0.50)](F=11.592, P < 0.01; Z=21.355, P < 0.01; Z=7.645, P < 0.05). In terms of mental resilience, strength, optimism and empathy are positively correlated(β=0.30, P < 0.01; β=0.16, P < 0.05), and personal pain is negatively correlated with strength(β=-0.24, P < 0.01).In terms of mentalization, there is a positive correlation between mentalization deficits and total empathy scores(β=-0.28, P < 0.01). In addition, over-mentalization is positively related to transpositional consideration and empathy(β=0.25, P < 0.01; β=0.15, P < 0.01). The total score of mental resilience is negatively correlated with mentalization deficits(β=-0.14, P=0.001), and positively correlated with excessive mentalization(β=0.32, P < 0.001). In addition, the total psychological resilience score is positively correlated with transpositional consideration and empathy(β=0.37, P < 0.001; β=0.14, P=0.001), and negatively correlated with personal pain(β=-0.41, P < 0.001). The level of mentalization plays a part of the mediating role between the mental flexibility and empathy of adolescents’ parents. Conclusions The mentality level of adolescents’ parents as an intermediary variable plays a certain role in regulating psychological resilience and empathy.更多还原