柔能克剛？中高年級學童傷害訊息分析暨其幽默風格、學校適應及幽默回應技巧關係之研究

Abstract

過去研究發現傷害訊息的普遍性，並已初步探討大學生的傷害訊息類型及其回應方式，但國小學童如何覺察與應對傷害訊息仍不明確，有待進一步釐清。有鑑於前述問題，本研究將進行三項系列研究，茲以探討國小學童覺察及應對傷害訊息的議題。首先，研究一（N = 223）採取歸納研究取徑，經內容分析程序，從而歸納國小學童覺察到的七種傷害訊息類型：「批評」、「越界」、「逗弄」、「誤會」、「疏離」、「介入」及「非語言貶抑」。 其次，研究二（N = 236）發展國小學童適用的簡版幽默風格衡量工具，並針對簡版幽默風格量表進行驗證性因素分析，爾後再應用具有信、效度的簡版幽默風格量表，探究國小學童的幽默風格組型。結果發現，分量表Cronbach’s α係數為 .69至 .81，重測信度介於 .67至 .73，表示HSQ-TC具有可接受的信度；四個一階因素之組合信度與平均變異萃取量皆為良好，且研究模式具有理想的整體適配度，顯示HSQ-TC-S具有良好效度。於是，據以應用簡版幽默風格量表，並得知中、高年級學童之幽默風格組型：「幽默自謙者」、「粗暴逗弄者」及「幽默隱匿者」。 最後，研究三（N = 262）探究幽默風格與學校適應之相關程度、幽默風格組型與學校適應之差異情形，以及檢視各組型對其回應策略之關聯情形。研究結果顯示，適應型幽默風格與學校適應呈正相關，攻擊型幽默與學校適應為負相關，而自我貶抑型幽默與同儕適應存有正相關；集群分析揭示幽默自謙者在學校適應四向度之表現，皆顯著優於幽默隱匿者，而幽默自謙者在學習動機、常規適應二向度，顯著優於粗暴逗弄者。此外，國小學童應對傷害訊息之回應策略雙向度模式，以「積極／消極」與「關心他人需求／關心自我需求」向度進行劃分，發現四大回應策略：「積極層面人我取向」、「積極層面他人取向」、「積極層面自我取向」及「消極層面人我取向」，及其九種次級類型：「兼容」、「順應」、「致意」、「詢問」、「約束」、「反擊」、「轉移」、「支援」及「逃避」；幽默自謙者，傾向使用「積極層面自我取向」之「詢問」與「約束」回應策略；粗暴逗弄者，則傾向使用「積極層面自我取向」之「反擊」回應策略；國小學童產出之幽默回應技巧類型：「雙關」、「譬喻」、「仿擬」、「誇飾」、「倒反」、「同異」、「轉化」、「析字」及「飛白」九種，而國小學童在幽默回應（28.6%）使用幽默回應技巧百分比，高於一般回應（6.7%）。綜觀而言，本研究釐清了中、高年級學童在校園脈絡中，覺察到的傷害訊息類型、傷害訊息回應類型，及集群組型與回應類型的關聯，有關研究結果之理論層面、實務應用與未來研究方向，亦於文末提出討論。

Previous studies have found hurtful messages are a common experience, discussed the typology of hurtful messages and addressed the reactions undergraduate students have to hurtful messages. However, how elementary school students can be aware about these hurtful messages and how they cope with them is still unclear and requires further clarification. Thus, we conducted three studies to clarify these issues.Study 1 (N = 223) adopted an inductive approach through content analysis process to explore the categories of hurtful messages. Our study classified respondent’s hurtful messages into seven categories, including “criticism,” “transgression,” “teasing,” “misunderstanding,” “alienating,” “intervening” and “nonverbal derogation.”Study 2 (N = 236) developed a short-form assessment, the traditional Chinese version of the Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ-TC), to facilitate the respondent’s willingness to complete the test. Confirmatory factor analyses were used to build an assessment with validity and reliability which would be applied to identifying humor types at a younger age. Reliability results showed that the short-form of the HSQ-TC (HSQ-TC-S) subscales were acceptable, with the Cronbach’s α coefficients ranging from .69 to .81, and the test-retest reliability from .67 to .73. The four factors showed good composite reliability and average variance extracted. Goodness-of-fit indices and confirmatory factor analysis provided evidence for the construct validity of the scale. Via a cluster analysis, they were classified into 3 humor types: “modest humorists,” “cruel teasers” and “humor deniers.”Study 3 (N = 262) attempted to understand how humor styles relate to school adjustment and whether these types can be distinguished in terms of school adjustment. This study also examined how each humor style related to its response strategies. The results revealed that the adaptive styles of humor are positively correlated with all the subscales of school adjustment, whereas aggressive humor was negatively correlated with all the subscales of school adjustment. Self-defeating humor was positively correlated with the peer adjustment subscales. A cluster analysis was revealed that modest humorists scored higher in terms of school adjustment than humor deniers and higher in learning motivation and regular adaptation than cruel teasers.Based on the research findings, we proposed a two-dimensional model (active/negative, concern for other/concern for self) to explain the mechanisms underlying elementary school students’ response to hurtful messages, including active aspect of concern for other and self, active aspect of concern for other, active aspect of concern for self, and negative aspect of concern for other and self. Our study classified respondent’s response strategies into nine secondary categories, including “intergrating,” “obligating,” “apology,” “inquiry,” “restricting,” “rebuttal,” “diverting,” “support” and “avoiding.” Moreover, modest humorists preferred to use “inquiry” or “restricting” and cruel teasers preferred to use “rebuttal” as main strategies.The analysis of humor response techniques has revealed that pun, metaphor/simile, parody/imitation, exaggeration, irony, Tongyi, transformation, Xizi, and Feibai were used to respond to hurtful messages and elementary school students taking the humorous answering perspective (28.6%) tended to use humor response techniques compared to the general answering perspective (6.7%).Overall, our study classified not only the typology of hurtful messages and response strategies but also explored the relationships between types and response strategies. We discuss the research findings, theoretical and pedagogical implications, and recommendations for future research in the last section of this paper.