| Literature DB >> 36148116 |
Caizhen Yue1, Yihong Long1, Kaihua Ou1, Xiaofang Dong1, Fasheng Cao1.
Abstract
Adolescence is a vital period of developing a moral self. As individuals enter adolescence, peers become increasingly important to them. This study aimed to explore the influence of peers' actual appraisals on moral self-representations. Based on Looking Glass Self Hypothesis, peers' reflected appraisals usually have a mediating effect on peers' actual appraisals and self-appraisals. This study used the Chinese Moral Trait Words Rating Scale to investigate 160 dyads of Chinese adolescents (12-14 years old). The participants filled in the Self-Appraisals Questionnaire, Peers' Reflected Appraisals Questionnaire, and Peers' Actual Appraisals Questionnaire, respectively. The results showed that: (a) peers' actual appraisals indirectly affected self-appraisals through peers' reflected appraisals in the process of forming the moral self of early Chinese adolescents; (b) Chinese adolescents had a certain accuracy in peers' actual appraisals, but often underestimated their peers' actual appraisals of them. This study was conducive to understanding the influence of peers on forming adolescents' moral self in the context of collectivistic culture.Entities:
Keywords: adolescents; moral self; peers' actual appraisals; reflected appraisals; self-representation
Year: 2022 PMID: 36148116 PMCID: PMC9485883 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.995206
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Descriptive statistics among the three types of appraisals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Sympathy | 5.28 (0.93) | 5.23 (1.10) | 5.37 (1.08) | −0.05 (0.69) | −1.18 | 0.09 (1.25) | 1.25 | 0.13 (1.32) | 1.81 |
| Ambition | 4.01 (1.17) | 3.61 (1.28) | 3.72 (1.28) | −0.40 (1.09) | −6.58 | −0.30 (1.61) | −3.30 | 0.10 (1.68) | 1.11 |
| Independence | 4.76 (0.99) | 4.83 (1.10) | 5.08 (1.07) | 0.08 (0.85) | 1.60 | 0.32 (1.28) | 4.50 | 0.25 (1.37) | 3.21 |
| Extraversion | 5.19 (0.96) | 5.18 (0.96) | 5.40 (1.00) | −0.01 (0.76) | −0.18 | 0.20 (1.21) | 3.04 | 0.21 (1.16) | 3.29 |
| Conscientiousness | 5.15 (1.03) | 5.19 (1.16) | 5.35 (1.20) | 0.04 (0.82) | 0.80 | 0.20 (1.41) | 2.57 | 0.17 (1.48) | 2.00 |
| Agreeableness | 5.00 (0.88) | 5.00 (1.02) | 5.12 (1.08) | −0.00 (0.71) | −0.04 | 0.12 (1.20) | 1.83 | 0.12 (1.26) | 1.77 |
| Sophistication | 2.95 (0.95) | 2.95 (1.11) | 3.04 (1.17) | 0.00 (0.97) | 0.03 | 0.09 (1.44) | 1.11 | 0.09 (1.50) | 1.05 |
| Total score | 4.62 (0.70) | 4.57 (0.79) | 4.73 (0.73) | −0.05 (0.55) | −1.58 | 0.10 (0.88) | 2.12 | 0.15 (0.93) | 2.96 |
SA, self-appraisals; AA, peers' actual appraisals; RA, peers' reflected appraisals; RA-SA, reflected-minus-self; AA-SA, actual-minus-self; AA-RA, actual-minus-reflected;
p < 0.1,
p < 0.05,
p < 0.001.
Correlations among the three types of appraisals.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sympathy | 0.24** | 0.27** | 0.78** |
| Ambition | 0.14* | 0.14* | 0.61** |
| Independence | 0.23** | 0.21** | 0.67** |
| Extraversion | 0.25** | 0.31** | 0.68** |
| Conscientiousness | 0.21** | 0.21** | 0.72** |
| Agreeableness | 0.26** | 0.28** | 0.73** |
| Sophistication | 0.09 | 0.14* | 0.57** |
| Total score | 0.24** | 0.26** | 0.73** |
SA-AA, the relationship between SA and AA; AA-RA, the relationship between AA and RA; SA-RA, the relationship between SA and RA.
Mediating effect, direct effect, and total effect among the variables.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| ||||
| Mediating effect | 0.21 | 0.05 | 0.12 | 0.30 |
| Direct effect | 0.02 | 0.03 | −0.04 | 0.09 |
| Total effect | 0.21 | 0.05 | 0.11 | 0.30 |
|
| ||||
| Mediating effect | 0.08 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.15 |
| Direct effect | 0.05 | 0.04 | −0.03 | 0.14 |
| Total effect | 0.13 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.24 |
|
| ||||
| Mediating effect | 0.14 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.21 |
| Direct effect | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.17 |
| Total effect | 0.21 | 0.05 | 0.11 | 0.32 |
|
| ||||
| Mediating effect | 0.21 | 0.04 | 0.13 | 0.28 |
| Direct effect | 0.04 | 0.04 | −0.04 | 0.12 |
| Total effect | 0.24 | 0.05 | 0.14 | 0.34 |
|
| ||||
| Mediating effect | 0.15 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.24 |
| Direct effect | 0.05 | 0.04 | −0.02 | 0.12 |
| Total effect | 0.18 | 0.05 | 0.09 | 0.27 |
|
| ||||
| Mediating effect | 0.20 | 0.04 | 0.12 | 0.28 |
| Direct effect | 0.05 | 0.04 | −0.02 | 0.13 |
| Total effect | 0.22 | 0.05 | 0.13 | 0.31 |
|
| ||||
| Mediating effect | 0.08 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.14 |
| Direct effect | 0.01 | 0.04 | −0.07 | 0.08 |
| Total effect | 0.07 | 0.05 | −0.02 | 0.16 |
|
| ||||
| Mediating effect | 0.20 | 0.04 | 0.12 | 0.29 |
| Direct effect | 0.03 | 0.03 | −0.03 | 0.10 |
| Total effect | 0.19 | 0.04 | 0.10 | 0.28 |
Bootstrap sample size = 5,000; SE, standard error; LL, low limit; UL, upper limit; CI, confidence interval.
Figure 1Mediation models of the effect of peers' actual appraisals and self-appraisals via peers' reflected appraisals.