论文部分内容阅读
目的:调查某部直招士官应对方式与人格特征,并探讨两者之间的关系。方法:采用卡特尔16项个性因素量表(16PF)和应对方式问卷,对2012年某部414名直招士官进行团体测试。对直招士官人格特征和应对方式与军人常模进行比较;按照人格维度的分数将被试者分为低分组和高分组,检验两组应对方式的差异,并对人格特征和应对方式进行相关分析。结果:(1)人格特质中,乐群性、聪慧性、稳定性、恃强性、兴奋性、有恒性、幻想性、世故性、自律性因素得分显著高于军人常模(P<0.05),而怀疑性、忧虑性、独立性及紧张性得分均非常显著低于军人常模(P<0.01)。(2)应对方式各因子中,解决问题和求助因子得分非常显著高于军人常模(P<0.01),而自责、退避和合理化因子得分非常显著低于军人常模(P<0.01)。(3)直招士官高、低分组在稳定性、恃强性、兴奋性、有恒性、敢为性、忧虑性、自律性、紧张性8个一级人格因子和适应与焦虑型、内向与外向型、感情用事与安详机警型和专业成就4个次级人格因子均在不同的应对方式上差异显著;相关分析提示除聪慧性、幻想性和世故性3个因子外,直招士官个性特征各因子均与其应对方式存在不同程度的相关性。结论:具有良好性格的直招士官,在面对压力和挫折时多采用解决问题、求助等积极的、成熟的应对方式,相反,具有不良人格的直招士官在面对压力和困难时主要采取消极的应对方式。
Objective: To investigate the way and personality traits of a certain direct deputies, and to explore the relationship between the two. Methods: A total of 414 direct-seekers in a certain department were tested in 2012 by using 16 Cartesian Personality Factors Scale (16PF) and Coping Style Questionnaire. The comparison of personality characteristics and coping style of direct official officers and soldiers and norm of serviceman was conducted. According to the scores of personality dimension, subjects were divided into low-grade group and high-grade group to test the difference of coping style between the two groups and to correlate personality characteristics and coping style analysis. Results: (1) The scores of personality, intelligence, stability, bullying, excitability, perseverance, fantasy, precociousness and self-discipline were significantly higher than those of the military norm (P <0.05) , While the scores of suspicion, anxiety, independence and stress were significantly lower than that of the military norm (P <0.01). (2) Among all factors of coping style, the scores of solving problems and asking for help factors were significantly higher than those of soldiers (P <0.01), while those of self-blame, retreat and rationalization factors were significantly lower than that of military norm (P <0.01). (3) There were 8 first-level personality factors and adaptive and anxiety-type, introversion-related and anxiety- Extroverted, emotional and sedate alertness and professional achievement of the four sub-personality factors in different coping styles were significantly different; correlation analysis suggests that in addition to intelligence, fantasy and sophisticated three factors, Factors and their coping styles exist in varying degrees of relevance. Conclusion: In the face of pressure and frustration, the direct official who has good personality often adopts positive and mature coping styles such as solving problems and asking for help. On the contrary, the direct official who has bad personality mainly takes the pressure and difficulty Negative coping style.