家庭社会经济地位与青少年物质主义价值观的关系：公正世界信念的班级背景调节效应*

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240512

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 根据生态系统理论,探究公正世界信念在家庭社会经济地位与物质主义价值观之间关系的作用时应纳入学校班级背景特征。基于对103个班级共3763名青少年的调查数据,多水平线性模型分析结果表明,学生水平公正世界信念与物质主义价值观具有负向关系;班级水平公正世界信念对物质主义价值观产生额外的负向预测作用,表现为背景效应;班级水平公正世界信念在家庭社会经济地位和物质主义价值观之间发挥着背景调节效应,即仅当班级水平和学生水平公正世界信念均维持在较低水平时,家庭社会经济地位和物质主义价值观呈正向关系。研究结果拓展了双路径模型,强调个体发展背景在物质主义价值观形成中的作用。

关键词: 公正世界信念, 物质主义价值观, 家庭社会经济地位, 青少年, 背景效应

Abstract: Materialistic values have negative effects on the development of psychosocial functioning in adolescents. According to the dual path model, the relationship between family socioeconomic status and materialistic values is ambiguous. On the one hand, socialization agents may transmit the values and norms to adolescents from higher family socioeconomic status, which then increase their tendency toward materialism. On the other hand, resources and privileges shared by higher family socioeconomic status serve as psychological capacity to defend the young family members against the materialism. The dual path model derives two contradictory hypotheses, and the empirical evidence on this topic also shows mixed results. These theoretical hypotheses and empirical findings suggest that there are other mechanisms underlying the relation between family socioeconomic status and materialistic values.
Belief in a just world is a personal psychosocial resource that can serve as a coping function and provide a framework of meaning for individuals. Therefore, it is possible that beliefs in a just world may moderate the relation between socioeconomic status and materialistic values. More importantly, adolescents live in a class group. The average classroom beliefs in a just world may have a positive contextual effect to help adolescent students deal with threats and uncertainty, then reduce materialistic value orientation, especially for the students from higher family socioeconomic status. This is because these students have more opportunities to be exposed to the materialistic environments.
To investigate the class-level contextual effect of belief in a just world on materialistic values, cross-sectional data were collected via paper-and-pencil questionnaires, with 3763 adolescents (Mage = 13.95, SD = 1.49, 52.22% girls) nested within 103 class from eight junior and senior middle schools. Participants completed a battery of questionnaires. The questionnaires consisted of three parts, including family socioeconomic status, material values scale, general belief in a just world. Data was cleansed and analyzed with SPSS 26.0, and the main model estimations were based on R software. The multilevel confirmatory factor analysis was based on lavaan package, and the multilevel linear mixed model analysis was based on lme4 package.
The results suggested that student-level belief in a just world had a negative relationship with materialistic values; class-level beliefs in a just world further showed extra negative relationship with materialistic values beyond the effect of individual beliefs in a just world and exhibited an incremental predictive validity, which is known as contextual effects. The results also demonstrated that there was a heterogeneous relation between family socioeconomic status and materialistic values. Class-level belief in a just world could serve as a contextual moderator. Specifically, there was no significant association between individual-level beliefs in a just world, socioeconomic status and materialistic values among individuals who were exposed to higher levels of class aggregate belief in a just world. However, among individuals who were exposed to lower levels of class aggregate belief in a just world, those who held lower belief in a just world orientated more materialistic values with the increase of family socioeconomic status. On the other hand, the individuals with higher beliefs in a just world showed no significant relationship between their materialism and family socioeconomic status.
To conclude, belief in a just world both at the student and class levels have beneficial effects on adolescents' developmental outcomes. The aggregate level of belief in a just world can uniquely decrease the level of students' materialistic values and can buffer the negative impacts of higher family socioeconomic status and lower individual level belief in a just world. The current study extends the dual path model of materialism development. Socialization agents and psychosocial resources may interact with each other to influence the development and maintenance of materialism. The findings also emphasize the role of the niche context in which the climate of the group's belief system influences the development of its members.

Key words: belief in a just world, materialistic value, family socioeconomic status, adolescence, contextual effect

张耀华, 黄云云, 常松, 徐敏, 辛素飞. 家庭社会经济地位与青少年物质主义价值观的关系：公正世界信念的班级背景调节效应^*[J]. 心理科学, 2024, 47(5): 1136-1144.

Zhang Yaohua, Huang Yunyun, Chang Song, Xu Min, Xin Sufei. Family Socioeconomic Status and Materialistic Values in Adolescence: The Moderation of The Classroom Context of Belief in a Just World[J]. Journal of Psychological Science, 2024, 47(5): 1136-1144.

参考文献

[1] 蒋奖, 曾陶然, 杨淇越, 于方静. (2016). 青少年物质主义的成因、测量与干预. 心理科学进展, 24(8), 1266-1278.
[2] 李静, 郭永玉. (2009). 物质主义价值观量表在大学生群体中的修订. 心理与行为研究, 7(4), 280-283.
[3] 陆学艺. (2002). 当代中国社会阶层研究报告. 社会科学文献出版社..
[4] 苏志强, 张大均, 王鑫强. (2012). 公正世界信念量表的修订及在大学生应用的信效度研究. 中华行为医学与脑科学杂志, 21(6), 561-563.
[5] 汤丹丹, 温忠麟. (2020). 共同方法偏差检验: 问题与建议. 心理科学, 43(1), 215-223.
[6] Antonoplis, S. (2023). Studying socioeconomic status: Conceptual problems and an alternative path forward. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(2), 275-292.
[7] Avant T. S., Gazelle H., & Faldowski R. (2011). Classroom emotional climate as a moderator of anxious solitary children' s longitudinal risk for peer exclusion: A child × environment model. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), 1711-1727.
[8] Baker A. M., Moschis G. P., Benmoyal-Bouzaglo S., & Dos Santos, C. P. (2013). How family resources affect materialism and compulsive buying: A cross-country life course perspective. Cross-Cultural Research, 47(4), 335-362.
[9] Bal, M., & van Den Bos, K. (2017). Effects of lay beliefs on the justice motive. In C. M. Zedelius, B. C. N. Müller, & J. W. Schooler (Eds.), The science of lay theories: How beliefs shape our cognition, behavior, and health (pp. 157-177). Springer.
[10] Bates D., Mächler M., Bolker B., & Walker S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48.
[11] Blalock, H. M. (1984). Contextual-effects models: Theoretical and methodological issues. Annual Review of Sociology, 10(1), 353-372.
[12] Branje S., De Moor E. L., Spitzer J., & Becht A. I. (2021). Dynamics of identity development in adolescence: A decade in review. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(4), 908-927.
[13] Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2007). The bioecological model of human development. In R. M. Lerner, & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (pp. 793-828). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[14] Chang, L. (2004). The role of classroom norms in contextualizing the relations of children' s social behaviors to peer acceptance. Developmental Psychology, 40(5), 691-702.
[15] Chaplin L. N., Hill R. P., & John D. R. (2014). Poverty and materialism: A look at impoverished versus affluent children. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 33(1), 78-92.
[16] Conger, R. D., & Donnellan, M. B. (2007). An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic context of human development. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 175-199.
[17] Dalbert, C. (1999). The world is more just for me than generally: About the personal belief in a just world scale' s validity. Social Justice Research, 12(2), 79-98.
[18] Destin M., Rheinschmidt-Same M., & Richeson J. A. (2017). Status-based identity: A conceptual approach integrating the social psychological study of socioeconomic status and identity. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2), 270-289.
[19] Gallo L. C., Bogart L. M., Vranceanu A. M., & Matthews K. A. (2005). Socioeconomic status, resources, psychological experiences, and emotional responses: A test of the reserve capacity model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 386-399.
[20] Grund S., Lüdtke O., & Robitzsch A. (2021). Multiple imputation of missing data in multilevel models with the R package mdmb: A flexible sequential modeling approach. Behavior Research Methods, 53(6), 2631-2649.
[21] Jeong, T. (2022). Contextual fallacy in MLMs with cross-level interaction: A critical review of neighborhood effects on psychiatric resilience. Social Science and Medicine, 310, Article 115279.
[22] Kasser, T. (2016). Materialistic values and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 67(1), 489-514.
[23] Kraus M. W., Piff P. K., Mendoza-Denton R., Rheinschmidt M. L., & Keltner D. (2012). Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor. Psychological Review, 119(3), 546-572.
[24] Kuczynski L., Marshall S., & Schell K. (1997). Value socialization in a bidirectional context. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children's internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 23-50). John Wiley & Sons Inc.
[25] Landau M. J., Kay A. C., & Whitson J. A. (2015). Compensatory control and the appeal of a structured world. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 694-722.
[26] Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. Springer.
[27] Liu H. Y., Liu Q. M., Du X. F., Liu J., Hoi C. K. W., & Schumacker R. E. (2023). Teacher-student relationship as a protective factor for socioeconomic status, students' self-efficacy and achievement: A multilevel moderated mediation analysis. Current Psychology, 42(4), 3268-3283.
[28] Lüdecke, D. (2018). ggeffects: Tidy data frames of marginal effects from regression models. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(26), Article 772.
[29] Luyckx K., Vansteenkiste M., Goossens L., & Duriez B. (2009). Basic need satisfaction and identity formation: Bridging self-determination theory and process-oriented identity research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(2), 276-288.
[30] Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227-238.
[31] Neal, J. W., & Neal, Z. P. (2013). Nested or networked? Future directions for ecological systems theory. Social Development, 22(4), 722-737.
[32] Peugh, J. L. (2010). A practical guide to multilevel modeling. Journal of School Psychology, 48(1), 85-112.
[33] Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Sage Publications.
[34] Richins, M. L. (2004). The material values scale: Measurement properties and development of a short form. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 209-219.
[35] Richins, M. L. (2017). Materialism pathways: The processes that create and perpetuate materialism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(4), 480-499.
[36] Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36.
[37] Roubinov, D. S., & Boyce, W. T. (2017). Parenting and SES: Relative values or enduring principles? Current Opinion in Psychology, 15, 162-167.
[38] Säfken B., Rügamer D., Kneib T., & Greven S. (2021). Conditional model selection in mixed-effects models with cAIC4. Journal of Statistical Software, 99(8), 1-30.
[39] Shrum L. J., Chaplin L. N., & Lowrey T. M. (2022). Psychological causes, correlates, and consequences of materialism. Consumer Psychology Review, 5(1), 69-86.
[40] Stapleton, L. M., & Johnson, T. L. (2019). Models to examine the validity of cluster-level factor structure using individual-level data. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(3), 312-329.
[41] Wang M. T.,L. Degol,J. L. Amemiya,J. Parr,A. & Guo,J. S. (2020). Classroom climate and children' s academic and psychological wellbeing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Developmental Review, 57, Article 100912.
[42] Wang R., Liu H. Y., & Jiang J. (2022). Does socioeconomic status matter? Materialism and self-esteem: Longitudinal evidence from China. Current Psychology, 41(3), 1559-1568.
[43] Zhang H., Tian Y., Lei B. R., Yu S., & Liu M. (2015). Personal relative deprivation boosts materialism. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37(5), 247-259.

家庭社会经济地位与青少年物质主义价值观的关系：公正世界信念的班级背景调节效应^*

Family Socioeconomic Status and Materialistic Values in Adolescence: The Moderation of The Classroom Context of Belief in a Just World

PDF

评审附件

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	袁博, 刘怡畅, 库婷婷. 感知社会善念对青少年亲社会行为的影响^*[J]. 心理科学, 2024, 47(5): 1153-1162.
[2]	沈蕾, 张芸瑞, 陈宁, 刘伟. 积极青少年发展理论的演进与意涵^*[J]. 心理科学, 2024, 47(4): 1016-1023.
[3]	刘勤学, 田仲禾, 祁迪, 吴佳荫, 周宗奎. 青少年智能手机成瘾对无意识拖延的影响:注意控制的中介作用和手机自我扩展的调节作用^*[J]. 心理科学, 2024, 47(3): 726-733.
[4]	周楠, 臧宁, 王少凡, 李梓璇, 陈玲, 李蓓蕾, 曹洪健. 童年早期情感受虐与青少年早期手机成瘾水平：一般与社交焦虑及家庭社会经济地位的作用^*[J]. 心理科学, 2024, 47(2): 325-333.
[5]	王悦, 李政青, 王堃, 李莹. 心智感知与公正世界信念对责备无辜受害者行为的影响 ^*[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(6): 1375-1382.
[6]	于腾旭, 胡金生. 青少年适应与不适应冒险理论述评^*[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(6): 1440-1446.
[7]	窦凯, 黎彦余, 王林欣, 聂衍刚. 错失恐惧还是社交回避?同伴排斥对粤澳青少年问题性社交媒体使用的影响 ^*[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(5): 1081-1089.
[8]	刘思含, 伍新春, 王歆逸, 应洁峰. 父母教养压力对教养投入的影响：配偶协同教养行为的调节效应^*[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(4): 857-864.
[9]	陈福美, 赵云燕, 罗芮, 何然, 罗玉晗. 父母-青少年对家庭亲密性的感知差异及其对青少年孤独感与攻击行为的影响：基于RSA模型的分析^*[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(4): 873-880.
[10]	郑柯君, 李妍, 梁丽婵, 陈欣银, 边玉芳. 我国青少年集体主义价值观的发展轨迹：社交淡漠和羞怯的作用^*[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(4): 952-959.
[11]	张文娟商士杰. 父母回应消极情绪的方式与青少年病理性人格特质的关系[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(3): 586-593.
[12]	杨濛张林邓欣媚曾淑玲 . 青少年和成人情绪冲突控制的年龄差异：一项行为和ERP研究[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(2): 307-319.
[13]	丁子恩刘勤学. 科技干扰与青少年网络游戏成瘾：归属需求的中介作用与友谊质量的调节作用[J]. 心理科学, 2022, 45(6): 1383-1389.
[14]	黄顺森罗玉晗来枭雄简可雯徐梓婧王耘. 中国青少年抑郁的核心症状及性别、抑郁程度间的比较：基于网络分析方法[J]. 心理科学, 2022, 45(5): 1115-1122.
[15]	刘本扬盖笑松王国霞. 青少年未来取向三种测试途径的比较[J]. 心理科学, 2022, 45(5): 1152-1158.