论文部分内容阅读
目的:探讨不同干预方法对应激的干预效果。方法:选取72名被试,随机分配到对照组、腹式呼吸组和忽视调节组中。采用重复一个因素的3因素组间组内混合多因素实验设计。测量被试基线期、干预期、应激期、恢复期的心率和应激前后的主观体验。结果:对男生而言,腹式呼吸组心率干预期与基线期比较达到显著差异(P<0.05)。应激期,对照组、忽视调节组心率有所升高(P>0.05)。恢复期,腹式呼吸组心率显著下降(P<0.05)。对女生而言,应激期,3组心率均有所上升(P>0.05)。恢复期,腹式呼吸组心率达到显著差异(P<0.01)。恢复期与应激期相比较,忽视调节组心率下降差异显著(P<0.05)。忽视调节能有效对抗女生应激中压抑(P<0.05)、紧张(P<0.01)的升高。结论:生理反应升高并不必然伴随主观体验升高。
Objective: To investigate the intervention effect of different intervention methods on stress. Methods: 72 subjects were selected and randomly assigned to control group, abdominal breathing group and neglected regulation group. A three-factor, repeated-group, mixed-multivariate experimental design with one factor repeated was used. The subjects’ baseline, intervention, stress, convalescent heart rate and subjective experience before and after stress were measured. Results: For boys, there was a significant difference in heart rate intervention between abdominal breathing group and baseline (P <0.05). Stress period, the control group, ignore the regulation group heart rate increased (P> 0.05). During convalescence, the heart rate of abdominal breathing group decreased significantly (P <0.05). For girls, the stress period, three groups of heart rate increased (P> 0.05). During convalescence, the heart rate of abdominal breathing group reached significant difference (P <0.01). The convalescent period compared with the stress period, neglected the regulation group heart rate drop difference was significant (P <0.05). Ignoring the regulation can effectively counter female stress suppression (P <0.05), tension (P <0.01) increase. Conclusion: Increased physiological responses do not necessarily accompany the subjective experience.