本文選題：形式運算思維　切入點：后形式思維　出處：《華東師范大學(xué)》2017年博士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：畢生發(fā)展觀認為,認知的發(fā)展是貫穿個體一生的過程。進入到成人期以后,個體的認知思維發(fā)展并沒有出現(xiàn)停滯或衰退,而是產(chǎn)生了一種超越于形式運算思維之上的新質(zhì)思維,即后形式思維。后形式思維個體能夠意識到知識具有相對性,而非絕對性;能夠接受矛盾的普遍性;能夠用辯證的思想整合矛盾的想法、情感和自我經(jīng)驗;善于發(fā)現(xiàn)問題,能夠具體問題具體分析,并能夠根據(jù)變化的情境產(chǎn)生新的解決問題的原則。在成年期,個體面臨的問題多為條件和答案均不明確的模糊問題或結(jié)構(gòu)不良問題,特別是情緒和人際沖突問題,這時用遵循邏輯規(guī)則的形式運算來解釋成人個體的思維活動便表現(xiàn)出了較大的局限性,而后形式思維能夠恰當(dāng)描述和解釋成人時期的復(fù)雜思維發(fā)展狀況。但是,后形式思維與青少年時期的形式運算思維是否有質(zhì)的差別,后形式思維是否位于形式運算思維之上,這些問題仍存在爭議。其次,一些成人認知發(fā)展理論認為,后形式思維是成年個體通過解決日常復(fù)雜的情緒、人際沖突等問題,逐漸實現(xiàn)認知、情緒和自我的整合而發(fā)展起來的,但認知、情緒和自我如何在人際沖突等問題中相互作用實現(xiàn)整合,這尚缺乏實驗研究。鑒于以上這些問題,本研究采用測驗法、實驗法和認知神經(jīng)科學(xué)技術(shù)fMRI對后形式思維的發(fā)展及其機制進行了系統(tǒng)研究,共包括三個研究六個實驗。研究—采用社會典型信念量表(SPBI)量表考察了后形式思維的年齡趨勢和在性別等變量上的差異。結(jié)果顯示:(])后形式思維在青少年后期開始發(fā)展,并在成年早、中期持續(xù)發(fā)展,但在成年后期(60歲以后)開始下降;不同年齡人群隸屬于形式運算思維和后形式思維的人數(shù)存在顯著差異。(2)形式運算思維和后形式思維得分沒有顯著的性別差異;隸屬于兩種思維的男、女人數(shù)也沒有顯著差異。(3)形式運算思維和后形式思維得分在教育水平上沒有顯著差異;不同教育水平的被試隸屬于兩種思維的人數(shù)也沒有顯著差異。(4)工作年限對后形式思維有影響。工作年限為20～29年的被試后形式思維得分最高。不同工作年限的被試隸屬于形式運算思維和后形式思維的人數(shù)有顯著差異。研究二分別采用人際沖突問題情境考察了認知、情緒因素的交互作用(實驗2)、認知、自我因素的交互作用(實驗3)和認知、情緒、自我三個因素的交互作用(實驗4)。結(jié)果顯示:(1)情緒主導(dǎo)、思維階段兩個變量交互作用影響個體的問題解決得分。在弱情緒主導(dǎo)情境下,形式運算思維和后形式思維個體的問題解決得分沒有顯著差異;在強情緒主導(dǎo)情境下,后形式思維個體問題解決得分顯著高于形式運算思維個體。后形式思維個體在強、弱情緒主導(dǎo)情境下問題解決的得分沒有顯著差異。(2)自我卷入、思維階段兩個變量的交互作用對個體的問題解決得分不存在顯著影響。(3)思維階段、自我卷入和情緒誘導(dǎo)三個變量交互作用共同影響個體的問題解決。在消極圖片誘導(dǎo)條件下,高自我卷入的后形式思維個體得分顯著高于形式運算思維個體,而低自我卷入的兩種思維個體的問題解決得分沒有顯著差異。研究三比較了形式運算思維和后形式思維在人物框架和事物框架兩種條件推理材料下的行為差異(實驗5)和腦激活區(qū)域差異(實驗6)。結(jié)果顯示:(1)不同思維階段個體在人物題和事物題上的正確率有顯著差異。形式運算思維個體人物題的正確率顯著低于后形式思維個體,而事物題的正確率顯著高于后形式思維個體。(2)在兩種條件推理題目上,后形式思維個體都表現(xiàn)出比形式運算思維個體更強的激活,而形式運算思維個體不存在比后形式思維個體更強的激活腦區(qū)。相對于形式運算思維個體,在進行事物題推理時,后形式思維個體更多的激活了體現(xiàn)"反省心智"的內(nèi)側(cè)前額葉部分區(qū)域,并表現(xiàn)出明顯的左半球優(yōu)勢。在進行人物題推理時,后形式思維個體也更多激活了體現(xiàn)"反省心智"的眶部額回和體現(xiàn)"自主心智"的后扣帶回。研究結(jié)果驗證了三重加工模型。綜合三個研究的結(jié)果,我們得出結(jié)論,后形式思維是在形式運算思維之后發(fā)展起來的思維方式,它高于形式運算思維,二者之間有著質(zhì)的差別。
[Abstract]:According to the view of lifelong development, cognitive development is through the process of individual life. After entering adulthood, individual cognitive development and not stagnation or recession, but a new thinking on the matter beyond the formal operation thinking, namely after the form of thinking. After thinking individuals can realize knowledge relative, rather than absolute universality; accept contradiction; to integrate conflicting thoughts with dialectical thoughts, feelings and self experience; good at finding problems, to analyze specific issues, and to solve the problem according to the change of the new situation. In adulthood, individual problems for conditions and answers are not clear or fuzzy problems of ill structured problems, especially the emotional and interpersonal conflicts, then follow the logical rules of formal operation to explain adult thinking activities Show the limitations, and then thinking can properly describe and explain the form of complex thinking development in adult period. However, after the formal thinking and adolescent formal operation thinking whether there is a qualitative difference, whether in the form of thinking after the formal operation thinking on these issues is still controversial. Secondly, some adults think the theory of cognitive development, after the form of thinking is the adult individual by solving complex problems of daily mood, interpersonal conflict, gradually realize the integration of emotional and cognitive, but cognitive self developed, emotional and self, how the interpersonal conflict in the interaction to achieve integration, this is still a lack of experimental research. In view of these in this study, the method of test, experimental method and cognitive neuroscience technology fMRI on the form of thinking development and its mechanism were studied, including a total of three. The six experimental research. Using the typical social belief scale (SPBI) scale differences in age trends were investigated and the form of thinking in gender and other variables. The results showed that: (]) after the form of thinking in the late teens began to develop, and in the early mid adult, sustainable development, but in late adulthood (after the age of 60) began to decline; different age groups belong to formal operation thinking after the number and form of thinking there are significant differences. (2) after the formal operation thinking and thinking score no significant gender differences; belonging to two kinds of thinking men, there are no significant differences. The number of female (3) and formal operation thinking after scoring form of thinking in the education level had no significant difference; different education levels were also no significant difference in the number of belonging to two kinds of thinking. (4) affect the working life of the form of thinking. After 20~29 years of work experience of the subjects after Thinking the highest score. Different working years number of subjects belonging to the form of thinking and thinking after the formal operation has significant difference. Two respectively by using the situation of interpersonal problem investigated cognitive interaction, emotional factors (Experiment 2), cognitive interaction, self factors (Experiment 3) and cognitive, emotional. The self interaction of three factors (Experiment 4). The results showed: (1) the dominant mood, individual influence thinking stage of two variables to solve the score. In the weak dominant emotional situation, there is no significant difference between the scores of problem solving thinking of individual thinking and operation form; leading situation in strong emotion after the problem, individual form thinking to solve the score is significantly higher than that of formal operation thinking individuals. After thinking individuals in strong, weak emotional situations lead to solve problems were no significant differences. (2) self involvement, thinking The problem of interaction of the two variables on the individual stage of settling the score was not significantly affected. (3) the stage of thinking, self involvement and emotional interaction induced by the three variables influencing the individual problem solving. Inducing conditions in the negative pictures, after the form of high personal involvement thinking individuals scored significantly higher than the individual formal operation thinking there was no significant difference between the scores, and two individual self thinking involved problem. Study three compares the behavior in the form of thinking in the characters and things framework framework of the two kinds of conditional reasoning materials under the formal operation thinking and difference (Experiment 5) and regional brain activation differences (Experiment 6). The results showed: (1) there are significant differences between different stages of individual characters in thinking the correct rate of questions and things on the issue. The correct rate of formal operation thinking individual character problem was significantly lower than that after individual form of thinking, and the rate of correct things explicit questions After the above form of thinking individual. (2) in the two kinds of conditional reasoning problem, after thinking individual performance than the formal operation thinking individual stronger activation, and formal operation thinking there is no individual brain activation patterns of thinking more than individual. Compared with the formal operation thinking individuals, inferences in things when, after thinking of individual more activation in the medial prefrontal region reflects the "reflective mind", and shows obvious advantage in the left hemisphere. In the figure reasoning problem, after thinking of "more active individual orbital frontal reflective mind" back and reflect the "autonomous mental". Back. Results of three comprehensive processing model. The results of three studies, we conclude that after the form of thinking is developed after the formal operation thinking, it is higher than the formal operation thinking, two There is a qualitative difference between them.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：B842.5

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李炳全;;論情緒與認知的整合[J];徐州師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2011年03期

2 張梅;辛自強;林崇德;;青少年社會認知復(fù)雜性與同伴交往的相關(guān)分析[J];心理科學(xué);2011年02期

3 張鳳華;曾建敏;張慶林;;框架效應(yīng):情感的啟發(fā)式[J];心理科學(xué);2010年06期

4 王擁軍;俞國良;劉聰慧;;社會認知神經(jīng)科學(xué)研究范式述評[J];心理科學(xué);2010年05期

5 楊群;邱江;張慶林;;演繹推理的認知和腦機制研究述評[J];心理科學(xué);2009年03期

6 肖前國;;不同情緒與不同道德自我喚醒對高中生道德判斷影響的調(diào)查研究[J];廣西教育學(xué)院學(xué)報;2008年05期

7 羅躍嘉;古若雷;陳華;黃淼;;社會認知神經(jīng)科學(xué)研究的最新進展[J];心理科學(xué)進展;2008年03期

8 陳勃;申繼亮;;基于表征水平評估辨析的后形式運算階段觀[J];心理科學(xué);2006年06期

9 魯志鯤;;結(jié)構(gòu)不良問題解決研究述評[J];首都師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2006年04期

10 陳勃;張瑞;;成人期智力發(fā)展研究的主要取向[J];成人教育;2006年07期

，

本文編號：1607519