Assessing Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy in Three Countries

standards adopted by people, whether they think in an enabling or a debilitating manner, the amount of effort they invest, how much they persevere in the face of difficulties, and their vulnerability to stress and depression.

Different researchers have documented the longitudinal and positive relations between self-efficacy beliefs and later children and adolescents’ adjustment (Bandura, Caprara,

Barbaranelli, Gerbino, & Pastorelli, 2003; Bassi, Steca, Delle Fave, & Caprara, 2006; Caprara,Pastorelli, Regalia, Scabini, & Bandura, 2005; Gore, 2006; Jones & Prinz, 2005) as well as the negative relations between self-efficacy beliefs and children and adolescents’ maladjustment (Bandura et al., 2003; Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, & Regalia, 2001; Muris,2002).

Self-efficacy beliefs reflect highly contextualized knowledge structures that affect appraisal processes, which, in turn, guide actions (Bandura, 1997). This view originally led to an emphasis on task specificity in the study of its various expressions across diverse situations.However, self-efficacy beliefs do not operate in isolation from one another and may generalize,at least to some degree, across activities and situations, to specific domains of individual functioning. Along this line of reasoning, the theory has recently been extended to address different self-efficacy beliefs associated with the domain of emotional regulation (Bandura et al., 2003; Caprara, 2002).

Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy

Social cognitive theorists, in emphasizing the generative, creative, proactive, and reflective properties of mind, have focused on the role of self-efficacy beliefs in emotion-related self-regulation, a complex process of initiating, avoiding, inhibiting, maintaining, or modulating internal feelings and different emotion-related components (i.e., physiological processes,cognition, and behavior) in the service of accomplishing one’s individual adjustment

(Eisenberg & Spinrad, 2004). Following the common distinction between positive and negative affect (Russell & Carroll, 1999; Watson & Tellegen, 1985), the importance for adjustment of distinct self-efficacy beliefs in overruling or modulating the expression of negative affect and impulsivity, and to appropriately experience and express positive affect, especially in difficult situations, has been considered (Bandura et al., 2003; Caprara, 2002). In fact, in the face of provocative circumstances and stressors, people who cannot sufficiently modulate their strong negative emotions may externalize negative feelings inappropriately (Eisenberg et al., 2001),such as anger and irritation (Olson, Schilling, & Bates, 1999), or may be overwhelmed by fear,anxiety, or depression (Flett, Blankstein, & Obertinsky, 1996). In contrast, experiencing positive affect can enhance cognitive functioning, buffer the perturbing effects of aversive experiences, facilitate adaptive coping (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000), and lead to rewarding and enriching social exchanges and experiences (Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002). Despite these potential positive effects, however, expressing affection, liking, and joyfulness

indiscriminately across all of the contexts can elicit negative reactions from others (Shiota,Campos, Keltner, & Hertenstein, 2004).

Although being effectively able and feeling competent are conceptually distinct, researchers have found that self-efficacy beliefs can be proxy indicators of effective performance (Bandura,1997, for a review). Therefore, one can expect that regulatory emotional self-efficacy, through contributing to effective emotion regulation, may serve as a proxy of it. We can suppose that people differ widely in how well they manage their emotional experiences of everyday life,not only because they differ effectively in skills but also because they differ in their perceived capabilities to regulate their emotions. In fact, it is unlikely (even if possible) that people can effectively handle their affect if they do not believe themselves capable to do so, especially in taxing and perturbing situations. In addition, people’s feelings of regulatory self-efficacy are

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

of importance in their own right because they likely contribute to individuals’ psychological well-being and comfort with their emotions.

On the basis of this reasoning, we developed an instrument to assess self-efficacy in regard to emotional regulation and, in particular, perceived self-efficacy in managing negative affect in response to adversities or frustrating events and in expressing or managing positive emotions such as joy, enthusiasm, and pride (Bandura et al., 2003; Caprara & Gerbino, 2001). Self-efficacy in managing negative affect refers to beliefs regarding one’s capability to ameliorate negative emotional states once they are aroused in response to adversity or frustrating events and to avoid being overcome by emotions such as anger, irritation, despondency, and

discouragement. Self-efficacy in expressing positive emotions refer to beliefs in one’s capability to experience or to allow oneself to express positive emotions, such as joy, enthusiasm, and pride, in response to success or pleasant events. It was expected that regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs, insofar as they modulate the urgency of emotions and sustain self-regulatory mechanisms (Bandura, 1997; Bandura et al., 2003), contribute to efforts to regulate impulsive tendencies and are thus related to low levels of externalizing and psychopathic problems (Eisenberg, Fabes, Guthrie, & Reiser, 2000) as well as to low levels of internalizing problems (Eisenberg et al., 2001; Garnefski, Teerds, Kraaij, Legerstee, & van den Kommer, 2004).Some other instruments are also available for the assessment of individual differences shaping the relations between subjective experience of emotions and behavior, in particular,externalizing behavior. They assess personality traits, such as dispositional impulsivity

(Whiteside & Lynam, 2001, 2003) and distress tolerance (Simons & Gaher, 2005). In contrast with regulatory emotional self-efficacy, however, the above instruments refer to less willful and voluntary control, namely, processes related to emotional reactivity, more than to effortful self-regulation processes (Derryberry & Rothbart, 1997; Eisenberg & Spinrad, 2004).

Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy Across Cultures

Different culturally specific guidelines regulate individual behavior and emotions, and it is thus plausible that regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs may vary across societies and cultures. Indeed, in the interpersonal transactions of everyday life, socio-culturally constructed expressive rules specify the conditions under which certain types of emotional displays are normative and others are deviant (Thoits, 1989). Evidence indicates that there are both variation and similarities among cultures in the emotional significance given to situations (appraisal),the manner in which emotions are conveyed from one person to another (communication), and the manner in which people deal with situations that elicit emotion (Kitayama, Markus, &Kurokawa, 2000; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Matsumoto, 1990; Mesquita, 2001; Mesquita &Frijda, 1992; Scherer, 1997). Cultural priorities also appear to affect values with regard to specific emotions. In particular, within Western societies, it seems that Italians are more socially oriented and also express their positive emotions with greater intensity than do Canadians and the Scotts (Duncan & Grazzani-Gavazzi, 2004).

Cultural differences in emotional regulation probably influence how self-efficacy beliefs in regulating negative emotions and expressing positive emotions are developed and structured,the ways in which they are exercised, and the purpose to which they are put (Bandura, 2002).It is thus plausible to hypothesize that emotional self-efficacy beliefs may vary somewhat across societies, insofar as they require more or less emotional control and may be predicated on societal conceptions of optimal regulation (Matsumoto, 2006).

Previous Studies on Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy

After preliminary studies (Caprara et al. 1999), a first version of the Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy (RESE) scales was developed (Bandura et al., 2003; Caprara & Gerbino, 2001).

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Age and gender differences in regulatory emotional self-efficacy were found in a convenience sample of the Italian population (Caprara, Caprara, & Steca, 2003). On the one hand, men appeared to enter adulthood with a more robust sense of personal efficacy in dealing with negative affect than did women, but at older ages, they exhibited a weaker sense of personal efficacy in dealing with them. On the other hand, women’s sense of personal efficacy in dealing with negative affect improved from early adulthood to elderly age. Both men’s and women’s sense of personal efficacy in expressing positive affect declined across age groups. In other studies with adolescents and young adults, whereas self-efficacy in regulating negative emotions has been negatively related to later depression and shyness (Bandura et al., 2003;Caprara, Steca, Cervone, & Artistico, 2003), self-efficacy in expressing positive emotions has been associated with empathy and later well-being (Caprara, Steca, Gerbino, Paciello &Vecchio, 2006).

In previous psychometric studies (Caprara & Gerbino, 2001), exploratory factorial analyses (EFAs) were performed on each of the two scales (i.e., separately for self-efficacy beliefs in regard to regulating negative emotions and for self-efficacy beliefs in regard to expressing positive emotions), and a monofactorial solution was found for each scale.

What has not yet been explored is either the posited multidimensionality of the scale (in particular, whether self-efficacy for negative emotions is a monolithic construct) or the discriminant validity of self-efficacy beliefs in regulating negative affect and expressing positive affect.

Aims and Hypotheses

Building on the prior validation of the RESE scale, the present study was designed to (a)evaluate the multidimensionality of the RESE scale developed for the Italian context; (b) test the generalization of the multidimensional latent structure of the scale in another western culture (the United States) and in a country rather distant from both Italy and the United States in living conditions and traditions (Bolivia); and (c) examine the discriminant and convergent validity of the obtained subscales.

In particular, as pertains to the first aim, we explored whether separate hypothesized factors emerged for self-efficacy in expressing positive affect and in managing negative emotions and,in addition, whether more than one factor emerged for the posited dimension of self-efficacy in managing negative emotions. With respect to the second aim, we computed measurement invariance tests across gender, first separately in each country and then across cultures. With respect to gender differences, we did not have specific findings that led us to hypothesize a differential functioning of the RESE scale scores across men and women in each country.To our knowledge, the scales have not been used in countries other than Italy, nor have other studies focused on the regulatory emotional self-efficacy across different cultures.

Furthermore, no previous study on this topic has compared psychological functioning in two Western countries and one Latin American country. In particular, Bolivia is considered a developing country and has high social and ethnic complexity (more than 40 ethnic groups)that make comparison with the United States and Italy interesting. Given the relevant dearth of cross-cultural research, we cannot formulate clear hypotheses regarding differential

functioning of the RESE scale scores across Italy, the United States, and Bolivia, although we can reasonably expect strong similarities across the three samples. Finally, with respect to the third aim of the present study, we hypothesized that RESE beliefs would be associated positively with adjustment and associated negatively with maladjustment.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

The Present Study

Method

Participants

Italian sample: The Italian participants were 373 men and 395 women ranging in age from 18 to 22 years (M = 18.72 years; SD = 0.90) from Genzano, a residential community near Rome. The youth were from families involved in an ongoing longitudinal study in that

community. The occupational socioeconomic distribution of the families of origin matched the national profile (Istituto Italiano di Statistica, 2002: 16% in professional or managerial ranks,38% merchants or employees in various types of businesses, 15% skilled workers, 21% were unskilled workers, 8% were retired, and 2% were unemployed). Almost all participants lived with their parents and were of Italian extract. It is typical in Italy for college students who are 18 and 22 years old to live with their parents.

U.S. sample: The U.S. participants were college students (704 men, 697 women) ranging in age from 18 to 22 years (M = 18.86; SD = 1.00). They were predominantly non-Hispanic Caucasian (71%) and Hispanic (10%), with other groups accounting for 5% or less.Bolivian sample: The Bolivian participants were college students (122 men, 179 women)ranging in age from 18 to 22 years (M = 19.49; SD = 1.46). Their socioeconomic background varied widely, depending on their geographical position: 33.6% were residents in the urban city of La Paz, and the remaining 66.4% lived in the rural area of North Yungas. Parents of the participants in the urban area were in large part bus drivers, craftsmen, public and private clerks,and local merchants. In the rural area, the majority of the families were engaged in agriculture.Procedure—In the Italian sample, participants were invited to participate in the study by phone, and three female researchers collected all questionnaires during specially scheduled sessions in a school. In the U.S. sample, the measures were administered to students who participated in research for credit as part of a course in introductory psychology. In the Bolivian sample, scales were administered in classes in three colleges (two in the urban center and one in the rural area). An Italian researcher and at least one Bolivian researcher were available during the scale’s administration in order to assure participants’ comprehension of the response scales. Only Italian young adults received a small payment for their participation.

Measures—The RESE scale was administered to all samples. In addition, Italian participants completed measures of self-esteem, happiness/hedonic balance, irritability, shyness, problem behaviors, and prosocial behavior. The RESE scales used in the United States and Bolivia were translated and then back-translated by bilingual experts.

Regulatory emotional self-efficacy: Participants rated (ranging from 1 [not well at all ] to 5[very well ]) their capability to manage their emotional life with the RESE (Bandura et al.,2003; Caprara & Gerbino, 2001). This scale included items on perceived capability to express positive affect (5 items) and to regulate negative affect (9 items). Items and alphas for these measures are presented later in this article. The item formulation process followed Bandura’s (2006) guidelines. In particular, the items were phrased in terms of can do rather than will do and were pretested, and sufficient gradations of difficulties were built in to avoid ceiling effects.

Self-esteem: Italians rated (ranging from 1 [strongly disagree ] to 4 [strongly agree ]) their self-esteem on the 10-item Rosenberg (1965) scale (e.g., “I feel that I have a number of good qualities”; α = .86).

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Positive and negative affect: Italian participants rated (ranging from 1 [never/not at all ] to 5[always/very much ]) the intensity with which they had generally experienced positive and negative emotions on the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen,1988; 20 items, e.g., enthusiastic, afraid, hostile; αs = .81 and .82 for positive and negative intensity, respectively).

Irritability: Italian participants rated (ranging from 1 [completely true for me ] to 6 [completely false for me ]) 10 items tapping their tendency to react impulsively and rudely to the slightest provocation or disagreement (Caprara et al., 1986; e.g., “I often feel like a powder keg ready to explode”; α = .85).

Shyness: Italian participants rated (ranging from 1 [never/almost never ] to 5 [always/almost always ]) their shyness on Cheeek and Buss’s (1981) nine-item Shyness Scale (e.g., “I feel tense when I’m with people I don’t know well”; α = .86).

Aggression and anxiety/depression: The Problem scales of the Youth Self Report (YSR;Achenbach, 1991) were used to measure self-reported aggression and anxiety/depression symptoms (from 0 [not true ] to 2 [very true or often true ]). The Aggression scale consists of 18 items (e.g., “physically attacks people” and “gets into many fights”; α = .82). The Anxiety/Depression scale consists of 15 items (e.g., “feel unhappy, sad, or depressed,” α = .86).

Prosocial behavior: Italian participants rated (ranging from 1 [never/almost never true ] to 5[almost always/always true ]) their prosocial behavior on a 16-item scale (Caprara, Steca, Zelli,& Capanna, 2005) that assessed their helpfulness, sharing, consoling, supportiveness, and cooperativeness (e.g., “I try to help others”; α = .93).

Analytic Approach—An EFA was used initially to assess the psychometric properties of the scale, separately for each sample. Then, to further investigate the structure of the scale,maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were performed for each sample.Moreover, multigroup CFAs were used to test the hypotheses regarding measurement

invariance across gender and countries. A model-fitting process was adopted on the basis of the review by Vandenberg and Lance (2000), as well as the suggestions of others (e.g., Chan,2000; Little, 1997). Three models were tested: configural invariance (the same pattern of fixed and free-factor loadings was specified in each group), metric invariance (the same factor loadings for items were specified in each group), and scalar invariance (the same intercepts of like items’ regressions on the latent variables were specified in each group; this basically tests differences in mean values). The most frequent additional tests are those of partial invariance at each step, and modification indices from each step were used to refine the structure models (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). Each form of invariance is nested in the previous model and involves added constraints at each step that build on previous constraints. The logic is that invariance restrictions may hold for some but not all manifest measures across populations,and relaxing invariance constraints where they do does not hold controls for partial

measurement inequivalence (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). Chi-square difference tests were performed to compare nested models (Kline, 1998). The focus was geared toward the fit model indices that were less sensitive to sample size given that obtaining a nonsignificant chi-square becomes increasingly unlikely with large sample sizes (Kline, 1998). The comparative fit index (CFI), the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) with associated confidence interval and p value, the standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR), and the Akaike information criterion (AIC) (which is a helpful index when comparing models that are not nested; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001) are reported for each model. CFI values greater than .90were accepted (Kelloway, 1998; Kline, 1998) as well as RMSEA values lower than .07(Browne & Cudeck, 1993) and SRMR values lower than .08 (Kelloway, 1998). For the

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

RMSEA, a nonsignificant p value means the hypothesized model is a good approximation of the population. Mplus 3.0 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2007) was used for CFAs. In only the Italian sample construct validity was examined by correlating RESE beliefs with some indicators of adjustment and maladjustment.

Results

EFA/Reliability—We subjected the 14 items of the RESE scale to a preliminary principal-axis factor analysis with a Promax rotation, separately for each sample. After that, we decided to take into consideration only 12 items of the RESE scale for the following analyses. We did not consider the item “How well can you show your liking toward a person to whom you are attracted?” because in our opinion, it refers to a dating situation that might not be relevant for everyone. In addition, we dropped the item “How well can you stay calm in a stressful

situation?” because it is ambiguous in regard to what negative emotion it refers to. Preliminary analyses showed that this was the only item with highly inconsistent loadings across the three countries.

On the basis of eigenvalues greater than 1, there were three factors: the capability to express positive affect (POS), to manage despondency/distress (DES), and to manage anger/irritation affects (ANG) (eigenvalues for POS, DES, and ANG were 4.24, 2.30, 1.15 for the Italians;3.48, 2.08, 1.05 for the U.S. sample; and 3.56, 2.10, 1.12 for the Bolivians). The cumulative percentages of variance explained and alphas (in parentheses) for POS, DES, and ANG were 35.32 (.85), 54.47 (.82), 64.05 (.73) for the Italians; 29.03 (.69), 46.38 (.72), 55.14 (.70) for the U.S. sample; and 29.66 (.64), 47.17 (.81), 56.51 (.68) for the Bolivians. Almost all items loaded above .30 on their respective factors and not on other factors (see Table 1).1

CFAs—We calculated CFAs using the sample covariance matrices to examine the factor structure in the three samples. We tested three models: a one-factor model (Model 1); a two-factor oblique model (Model 2), with the capability to manage negative feelings and the capability to express positive emotions as separate factors; and a model with a second-order negative factor, in which the two dimensions of DES and ANG were modeled as the expression of a second-order latent factor of “capability to manage negative affects,” which was correlated with the POS factor (Model 3; see Table 2). In all three samples, whereas Model 1 and Model 2 provided a poor fit to the data by most standards,2 Model 3 provided an adequate fit to the data (see Figure 1). In the Italian sample, a modification index equal to 88.65 was reported for the covariation between Error Items 10 and 11 (two indicators of the ANG factor), both of which referred to situations in which a person was wronged (“Avoid getting upset when others keep giving you a hard time” and “Get over irritation quickly for wrongs you have

experienced”). The averages of the unstandardized loadings estimated for the Model 3 were 0.70 for the Italian sample, 0.62 for the U.S. sample, and 0.63 for the Bolivian sample.We also tested a three-factor oblique solution, and it was minimally different from Model 3 in terms of goodness of fit in each country. We decided to consider the model with the second-order factor as the model that better represented the structure of the RESE scale in the three countries because conceptually it makes sense to group self-efficacy for different negative emotions (which often are grouped or related in research; e.g., Russell & Carroll, 1999; Watson & Tellegen, 1985). However, one could also view the two negative factors as separate and correlated with one another.

1In the Italian sample, Item 9 loaded on two factors: 0.38 on despondency/distress factor and 0.33 on Anger/Irritation one. In further analyses, we considered Item 9 to be an anger/irritation indicator for conceptual reasons and as suggested by pattern matrices of the two other samples.

2One exception was in the United States, with the RMSEA = 0.069 for the two-oblique factor model.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Multigroup Factor Analyses

Gender invariance: Separately in the three samples, multigroup CFAs confirmed that the model with a second-order negative factor replicated across genders.3 The change in overall chi-square between the configural invariance model and the metric invariance model was not significant in the Italian sample, Δχ2(9, N = 768) = 12.97, p = .16, whereas it was significant in the U.S. and in the Bolivian sample, respectively Δχ2(9, N = 1,401) = 23.65, p = .005, and,Δχ2(9, N = 301) = 25.09, p = .003, suggesting that metric invariance held across both genders in the Italian sample but not in the other two countries. The fit indices for the metric invariance model in the Italian sample were, χ2(110, N = 768) = 231.99, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .05 (.04, .06), SRMR = .05. We investigated partial metric invariance in the other two countries. We found that if the equality constraint was lifted from Item 3 in the U.S. sample and from Item 9 in the Bolivian sample, then the mean change in overall chi-square between the configural invariance model and the metric invariance model were no longer significant, suggesting at least partial metric invariance across men and women in both U.S. and Bolivian samples,respectively, Δχ2(8, N = 1,401) = 1.24, p = .25, and, Δχ2(8, N = 301) = 13.55, p = .09. The fit indices for the partial metric invariance models were, χ2 (112, N = 1,401) = 346.48, CFI = .94,RMSEA = .06 (.05, .06), SRMR = .05 in the U.S. sample and, χ2(112, N = 301) = 159.24, CFI =. 94, RMSEA = .05 (.03, .07), SRMR = .07, in the Bolivian sample.

The change in overall chi-square between the metric invariance model and the scalar invariance model was not significant in the Italian sample, suggesting that scalar invariance held across men and women in the Italian sample, Δχ2(10, N = 768) = 17.84, p = .06. Partial scalar invariance was investigated in the other two countries. We left unconstrained across gender the intercepts of those items that were not metrically invariant across gender, whereas the intercepts of the other items were (initially) held invariant (Steenkamp & Baumgartner,1998).

We found that in the Bolivian sample, the mean change in overall chi-square between the partial metric invariance model and the partial scalar invariance model was not significant, Δχ2(9,N = 301) = 1.03, p = .35. For the U.S. sample, we repeated the procedure several times to search for items that were not invariant across both genders on the basis of the modification indices,and we found that if the equality constraint was lifted from two item intercepts in each factor (Items 2 and 3 for the POS factor; Items 6 and 7 for the DES factor; and Items 9 and 12 for the ANG factor), then the mean change in overall chi-square between the partial metric invariance model and the partial scalar invariance model was no longer significant, Δχ2(4, N = 1,401) =7.15, p = .13.

The fit indices for the scalar invariance model in the Italian sample were χ2(120, N = 768) =249.83, CFI =. 96, RMSEA = .05 (.04, .09), SRMR = .04. The fit indices for the partial scalar invariance models were χ2 (116, N = 1,401) = 353.63, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .05 (.05, .06),SRMR = .05 in the U.S. sample and, χ2 (121, N = 301) = 169.26, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .05 (.03, .07), SRMR = .07 in the Bolivian sample (see Table 3 for the unstandardized values of loadings and intercepts in the second-order negative models separately for each country).Country invariance: Multigroup CFAs indicated that the factor structure of the second-order negative factor model also replicated across countries,4 but with some limitations. The change in overall chi-square between the configural invariance model and the metric invariance model

3For the Italian sample model testing, we included the correlation between errors for Items 10 and 11 as suggested by the CFA.

4In order to test the invariance of the scale across Italian, U.S., and Bolivian samples, it was necessary to include the same constraints for all groups; thus, we included the correlation between the errors for Items 10 and 11 (which had been added to the Italian sample) to the other two countries even though this correlation was not significant in the U.S. and Bolivian sample (doing so had little effect on the model).

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

was significant, Δχ2(18, N = 2,470) = 112.474, p < .001, suggesting that full metric invariance may not hold across the three countries. The loadings for one item on the POS factor (Item 4)and one item on the ANG factor (Item 10) in the Italian sample were relaxed to be different from the U.S. and Bolivian samples. In addition, the loading for one item per each factor, Items 2, 8, and 9, in the Bolivian sample were relaxed to be different from the other two samples.The fit indices for the partial metric invariance model were χ2(166, N = 2,470) = 558.897, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .05 (.05, .06), SRMR = .05, and chi-square difference tests supported the viability of the partial metric invariance hypothesis, Δχ2(13, N = 2,470) = 21.034, p = .07.We repeated the procedure to search for items that were not invariant across the three samples,based on the modification indices, several times until we obtained a model in which the chi-square difference test between the partial metric invariance model and the partial scalar

invariance model were no longer significant, Δχ2(8, N = 2,470) = 14.229, p = .08. For the POS factor, intercepts for Items 1 and 4 in the Italian sample were relaxed to differ from the other two groups; the intercept for Item 2 in the Bolivian sample was relaxed to differ from the other two groups; and the intercept for Item 3 in the U.S. sample was relaxed to differ from the other two groups. For the DES factor, the intercepts for Items 5 and 8 were relaxed to differ across the three samples; the intercepts for Items 6 and 7 were constrained to be equal across samples.For the ANG factor, the intercepts for Items 9 and 10 were relaxed to differ across the three samples; the intercept for Item 11 was constrained to be equal across samples; the intercept for Item 12 in the U.S. sample was relaxed to differ from the other two groups. In summary, the test of scalar invariance provided evidence for partial scalar invariance only for the DES factor (see Table 4 for the unstandardized values of loadings and intercepts in the second-order negative models).

Relationships of the RESE Scale With (Mal)Adjustment Indicators in the Italian Sample—In order to examine the construct validity of the three factors of the RESE scale,we correlated each factor with self-esteem, hedonic balance (positive and negative affect),shyness, irritability, aggression and anxiety/depression problems, and prosocial behavior. All three factors were positively correlated with the indices of adjustment and negatively correlated with indices of maladjustment (see Table 5). We compared the magnitude of the correlations of the DES and ANG scores with the various indices. In comparison to ANG, DES was more negatively related to shyness and anxiety/depression and more positively related to self-esteem and positive affect. In comparison to DES, ANG was more negatively related to irritability and aggression. In comparison to DES, POS was less positively related to self-esteem and less negatively correlated with shyness. In comparison to ANG, POS was more positively related to self-esteem and positive emotionality and less negatively correlated with aggression. In comparison with both factors of self-efficacy in managing negative emotions, POS was less negatively related to negative affect, irritability, and anxiety/depression and more positively related to prosocial behavior.

Discussion and Conclusions

Building on previous studies on the psychometric properties of the RESE scale (Caprara &Gerbino, 2001), we take an additional step in the present study in understanding the internal validity of the RESE scale, demonstrating its multidimensionality and its generalization to a Western and non-Western country, the United States and Bolivia. However, the results also suggest some caution with regard to comparisons of the scales, and especially with specific items, between different countries.

Results for configural invariance confirmed the existence of two broader dimensions of self-efficacy beliefs related to positive and negative affect in the three different countries—Italy,the United States, and Bolivia. This finding is consistent with those of researchers who have

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

differentiated between positive and negative affect in the structure underlying affective

experience (Russell & Carroll, 1999; Watson & Tellegen, 1985) as well as with the finding in previous studies of two broad dimensions of negative and positive affect in the structure underlying RESE beliefs (Bandura et al., 2003; Caprara et al., 2006). Unlike previous studies (in which EFAs were used and this proposition was not tested; Caprara & Gerbino, 2001), in the present study, negative affect represented a second-order factor of perceived capability to manage two different negative affects in the three countries: despondency-distress (DES) and anger-irritation (ANG). Indeed, EFAs and CFAs supported the two subdimensions of self-efficacy beliefs in managing negative affect, separately in each sample. Overall, in interpreting the two factors (positive and negative emotions), we also took into account the different nature of the regulatory task, beyond the structure of affective experience. Indeed, whereas self-efficacy in regulating negative emotions refers to abilities in containing and suppressing

emotions, self-efficacy in expressing positive emotions refers to abilities in expressing emotions freely. These two different tasks might manifest differently in different people. For example,whereas some people might be relatively skilled at containing negative emotions but unskilled at expressing positive ones, others may feel very incapable of handling negative emotions but more capable in expressing properly the positive ones.

Results from analyses in which metric and scalar invariance across gender and countries were examined provided further useful information about the scale. With respect to cross-gender invariance, our findings suggest that, overall, the same factorial structure and pattern for the RESE scale exist across gender in each of the three examined countries. Thus, the construct and the scale would seem to be useful in diverse societies. At the intercept level, no gender differences were found in the Italian sample, and minor differences were found in the Bolivian sample. In contrast, in the U.S. sample, half of the item intercepts differed across men and women. According to Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1998), we can state that cross-gender comparison of factor means may be considered meaningful because at least one item besides the marker item had invariant intercepts in each factor of the RESE scale. Nevertheless, caution should be warranted with regard to drawing straightforward conclusions because the estimated factor mean difference may differ depending on the anchor indicators chosen for the factors (Vandenberg, 2002). Moreover, there is an unresolved question about whether a given partial invariance level is acceptable in order to make comparisons meaningful and how great a departure from full invariance is to be tolerated (Millsap & Kwok, 2004; Widaman & Reise,1997). With respect to invariance across countries, measurement invariance between Italy, the United States, and Bolivia was only partially supported at both metric and intercept levels.Because several intercept items were not invariant across the three samples, considerable caution must be exercised in comparing mean values of the scales (or of the items) among samples from Italy, the United States, and Bolivia. Overall, examination of scalar invariance suggests that the three constructs from the RESE scale do not have exactly the same meaning across the three countries we studied.

The presence of cultural differences in intercepts of items is not surprising. Cultural differences and different social norms likely influence the way one perceives and manages affect. But the existence of country and cultural differences cannot be used as a basis to interpret the source of those differences; instead, they need to be explicated by unpacking the contents of culture and the specific psychological processes that differ across cultures and that are conceptually likely to account for the hypothesized cultural differences (Matsumoto & Yoo, 2006).In order to further examine the validity of the scale, the discriminant and convergent validity of the three identified dimensions of the RESE scale was investigated only in the Italian sample.Perceived self-efficacy beliefs in managing negative emotions and perceived self-efficacy beliefs in expressing positive affect (POS) were correlated with both general indicators of emotionality and other adjustment and maladjustment indicators in the expected manner.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Moreover, in support of the discriminant validity of the three identified dimensions of the scale,comparison of the patterns of correlations supported stronger patterns of association of POS with positive affect and of DES and ANG with lower levels of negative emotions. Furthermore,the analyses indicated that POS was especially associated with high levels of prosocial

behavior; ANG was especially associated with low aggression and low irritability; and DES was especially associated with low anxiety/depression, low shyness, high positive affect, and high self-esteem. Although limited to the Italian sample, these correlations are consistent with literature on emotional regulation and adjustment (Caspi, 2000; Eisenberg et al., 2001) and further support a model with separate POS, ANG, and DES factors rather than one with factors for only positive and negative affect.

There are several limitations to the study. First, the scale does not assess all types of negative affect. Rather, it contained items pertaining to a restricted number of negative emotions (ANG and DES) and not to self-referent negative emotions (e.g., shame, guilt, and embarrassment).Positive emotions such as love, pride, amusement, awe, contentment, and surprise were also not considered. In the future, researchers could further explore the multidimensionality of the capability to manage other self-referent negative emotions and of the capability to express positive emotions. Second, the Bolivian and U.S. samples were relatively advantaged; the findings may not generalize to U.S. and Bolivian young adults from poor families or to other ethnic groups within each country (or in other countries). Third, the results require further investigation in different samples from the United States and Bolivia. There may be important variations in the meaning of the emotions examined in Italy, the United States, and in Bolivian village life. Future studies should clarify the specific differences between Italian, U.S., and Bolivian young adults in their self-perceived and actual capabilities to manage emotions.Qualitative research should also be used to explore whether some items are more emotionally charged in one culture than in another. Fourth, it is important to note that the use of self-reports in the assessment of the indicators of adjustment/maladjustment may have introduced response biases (such as social desirability) and inflated the pattern of correlations. We also did not consider potential moderators of the identified relations between RESE and indicators of adjustment and maladjustment. One cannot exclude the possibility that self-efficacy beliefs moderate or mediate the relations between temperamental or personality traits and behavior.In addition, we did not use any related measures of emotional regulation, and the incremental values of RESE above and beyond actual emotional regulation skills is open to question.Finally, it is noteworthy to investigate whether the same pattern of correlations between the three examined dimensions of the RESE scale and indicators of adjustment and maladjustment are similar in the U.S. and Bolivian samples.

Future studies should clarify these limitations. Indeed, the availability of such an instrument might enable researchers to identify individuals’ strengths and limitations in perceived

capability to manage different emotions in educational and clinical settings. Furthermore, the RESE scale may also be useful for evaluation and monitoring purposes in interventions aimed to build a resilient sense of efficacy in emotional regulation.

Acknowledgments

The research reported in this article was supported by grants from the Grant Foundation, the Spencer Foundation, the Italian Ministry University and Research (Co-funds COFIN: 1998, 2000, 2002, Progetti di Ricerca di Interesse

Nazionale-2005), “Sapienza” University of Rome (1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003), and by Italian Institute of Health awarded to Gian Vittorio Caprara and collaborators, as well as by National Institutes of Mental Health Grant 2 R01MH060838 awarded to Nancy Eisenberg.

The present study was prepared while Laura Di Giunta was a visiting scholar at Arizona State University as a part of an international exchange between the University of Rome and the Department of Psychology and the School of Family and Social Dynamic at Arizona State University. We thank Claudio Barbaranelli for his assistance with the data analyses for this article.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

References

Achenbach, TM. Manual for the Youth Self-Report and 1991 profile. Burlington: University of Vermont,Department of Psychiatry; 1991.

Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman; 1997.

Bandura A. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology 2001;52:1–26.

Bandura A. Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Journal of Applied Psychology: An International Review 2002;51:269–290.

Bandura, A. Guide to the construction of self-efficacy scales. In: Pajares, F.; Urdan, T., editors. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing; 2006. p. 1-43.Bandura A, Caprara GV, Barbaranelli C, Gerbino M, Pastorelli C. Role of affective self-regulatory efficacy on diverse spheres of psychosocial functioning. Child Development 2003;74:769–782.[PubMed: 12795389]

Bandura A, Caprara GV, Barbaranelli C, Pastorelli C, Regalia C. Sociocognitive self-regulatory mechanisms governing transgressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2001;80:125–135. [PubMed: 11195885]

Bassi M, Steca P, Delle Fave A, Caprara GV. Academic self-efficacy beliefs and quality of experience in learning. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 2006;36:301–312.

Browne, MW.; Cudeck, R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen, KA.; Long, SJ., editors.Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1993. p. 136-162.

Caprara, GV. Personality psychology: Filling the gap between basic processes and molar functioning.

In: von Hofsten, C.; Backman, L., editors. Psychology at the turn of the millennium, Vol. 2: Social,developmental and clinical Perspectives. New York: Psychology Press and Taylor & Francis; 2002.p. 201-224.

Caprara GV, Caprara M, Steca P. Personality’s correlates of adult development and aging. European

Psychologist 2003;8:131–147.

Caprara, GV.; Gerbino, M. Affective perceived self-efficacy: The capacity to regulate negative affect

and to express positive affect. In: Caprara, GV., editor. Self-efficacy assessment. Trento, Italy:Edizioni Erickson; 2001. p. 35-50.

Caprara GV, Pastorelli C, Regalia C, Scabini E, Bandura A. Impact of adolescents’ filial self-efficacy on

quality of family functioning and satisfaction. Journal of Research on Adolescence 2005;15:71–97.Caprara GV, Renzi P, D’Augello D, D’Imperio G, Rielli G, Travaglia G. Interpolating physical exercise

between instigation to aggress and aggression: The role of irritability and emotional susceptibility.Aggressive Behavior 1986;12:83–91.

Caprara GV, Scabini E, Barbaranelli C, Pastorelli C, Regalia C, Bandura A. Perceived emotional and

interpersonal self-efficacy and good social functioning. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia 1999;26:769–789.

Caprara GV, Steca P, Cervone D, Artistico D. The contribution of self-efficacy beliefs to dispositional

shyness: On social-cognitive systems and the development of personality dispositions. Journal of Personality 2003;71:943–970. [PubMed: 14633054]

Caprara GV, Steca P, Gerbino M, Paciello M, Vecchio G. Looking for adolescents’ well-being: Self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of positive thinking and happiness. Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale 2006;15:30–43. [PubMed: 16584101]

Caprara GV, Steca P, Zelli A, Capanna C. A new scale for measuring adult prosocialness. European

Journal of Psychological Assessment 2005;21:77–89.

Caspi A. The child is father of the man: Personality continuities from childhood to adulthood. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 2000;78:158–172. [PubMed: 10653512]

Chan D. Detection of differential item functioning on the Kirton adaptation-innovation inventory using

multiple-group mean and covariance structure analyses. Multivariate Behavioral Research 2000;35:169–199.

Cheek JM, Buss AH. Shyness and sociability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1981;41:330–

339.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Derryberry D, Rothbart MK. Reactive and effortful processes in the organization of temperament.

Development and Psychopathology 1997;9:633–652. [PubMed: 9448999]

Duncan E, Grazzani-Gavazzi I. Positive emotional experiences in Scottish and Italian young adults: A

diary study. Journal of Happiness Study 2004;5:359–384.

Eisenberg N, Cumberland A, Spinrad TL, Fabes RA, Shepard SA, Reiser M, et al. The relations of

regulation and emotionality to children’s externalizing and internalizing problem behavior. Child Development 2001;72:1112–1134. [PubMed: 11480937]

Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Guthrie IK, Reiser M. Dispositional emotionality and regulation: Their role in

predicting quality of social functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2000;78:136–157. [PubMed: 10653511]

Eisenberg N, Spinrad TL. Emotion-related regulation: Sharpening the definition. Child Development

2004;75:334–339. [PubMed: 15056187]

Flett GL, Blankstein KR, Obertinsky M. Affect intensity, coping style, mood regulation expectancies,

and depressive symptoms. Personality and Individual Differences 1996;20:221–228.

Folkman S, Moskowitz JT. Positive affect and the other side of coping. American Psychologist

2000;55:647–654. [PubMed: 10892207]

Fredrickson BL, Joiner T. Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-being.

Psychological Science 2002;13:172–175. [PubMed: 11934003]

Garnefski N, Teerds J, Kraaij V, Legerstee J, Van den Kommer T. Cognitive emotion regulation strategies

and depressive symptoms: Differences between males and females. Personality and Individual Differences 2004;36:267–276.

Gore PA. Academic self-efficacy as a predictor of college outcomes: Two incremental validity studies.

Journal of Career Assessment 2006;14:92–115.

Istituto Italiano di Statistica [National Institute of Statistics]. Annuario statistico italiano 2002 [Italian

yearbook of statistics 2002]. Rome: ISTAT; 2002.

Jones TL, Prinz RJ. Potential roles of parental self-efficacy in parent and child adjustment: A review.

Clinical Psychology Review 2005;25:341–363. [PubMed: 15792853]

Kelloway, EK. Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher’s guide. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage; 1998.

Kitayama S, Markus HR, Kurokawa M. Culture, emotion, and well-being: Good feelings in Japan and

the United States. Cognition & Emotion 2000;14:93–124.

Kline, RB. Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press; 1998.Little T. Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data: Practical and theoretical

issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research 1997;32:53–76.

Markus H, Kitayama S. Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.

Psychological Review 1991;98:224–253.

Matsumoto D. Cultural similarities and differences in display rules. Motivation and Emotion

1990;14:195–214.

Matsumoto D. Are cultural differences in emotion regulation mediated by personality traits? Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology 2006;37:421–437.

Matsumoto D, Yoo SH. Toward a new generation of cross-cultural research. Perspectives on

Psychological Science 2006;1:234–250.

Mesquita, B. Culture and emotion: Different approaches to the question. In: Mayne, TJ.; Bonnano, GA.,

editors. Emotions: Current issues and future directions. New York: Guilford Press; 2001. p. 214-251.Mesquita B, Frijda NH. Cultural variations in emotions: A review. Psychological Bulletin 1992;112:179–

204. [PubMed: 1454891]

Millsap RE, Kwok OM. Evaluating the impact of partial factorial invariance on selection in two

populations. Psychological Methods 2004;9:93–115. [PubMed: 15053721]

Muris P. Relationships between self-efficacy and symptoms of anxiety disorders and depression in a

normal adolescent sample. Personality and Individual Differences 2002;32:337–348.Muthén, LK.; Muthén, BO. Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles: Author; 1998–2007.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Olson SL, Schilling EM, Bates JE. Measurement of impulsivity: Construct coherence, longitudinal

stability, and relationship with externalizing problems in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 1999;27:151–165. [PubMed: 10400061]

Rosenberg, M. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1965.Russell JA, Carroll JM. On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect. Psychological Bulletin

1999;125:3–30. [PubMed: 9990843]

Scherer KR. Profiles of emotion-antecedent appraisal. Cognition & Emotion 1997;11:113–150.Shiota, MN.; Campos, B.; Keltner, D.; Hertenstein, MJ. Positive emotion and the regulation of

interpersonal relationships. In: Philippot, P.; Feldman, RS., editors. The regulation of emotion.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2004. p. 127-155.

Simons JS, Gaher RM. The Distress Tolerance Scale: Development and validation of a self-report

measure. Motivation and Emotion 2005;29:83–102.

Steenkamp JEM, Baumgartner H. Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer

research. Journal of Consumer Research 1998;25:78–90.

Tabachnick, BC.; Fidell, LS. Using multivariate statistics. Vol. 4th ed.. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &

Bacon; 2001.

Thoits PA. The sociology of emotions. Annual Review of Sociology 1989;15:317–342.

Vandenberg RJ. Toward a further understanding of and improvement in measurement invariance methods

and procedures. Organizational Research Methods 2002;5:139–158.

Vandenberg RJ, Lance CE. A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions,

practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods 2000;2:4–69.

Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative

affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1988;54:1063–1070.[PubMed: 3397865]

Watson D, Tellegen A. Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin 1985;98:219–

235. [PubMed: 3901060]

Whiteside SP, Lynam DR. The five factor model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality

to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences 2001;30:669–689.

Whiteside SP, Lynam DR. Understanding the role of impulsivity in alcohol abuse: Application of the

UPPS Impulsive Behavior Scale. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 2003;11:210–217.[PubMed: 12940500]

Widaman, KF.; Reise, SP. Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments:

Applications in the substance use domain. In: Bryant, KJ.; Windle, M.; West, SG., editors. The science of prevention: Methodological advances from alcohol and substance abuse research.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1997. p. 281-324.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Figure 1.

Path diagram of the negative Second-Order Factor with two first-order factors and a first-order positive factor in Italy, the United States, and in Bolivia. Unstandardized factor loadings are shown on the straight arrows, whereas factors and error terms intercorrelations are shown on the curved arrows. The parameter estimates refer, respectively, to Italian, U.S., and Bolivian samples. ANG = perceived self-efficacy in managing anger/irritation; NEG = perceived self-efficacy in managing negative affect; DES = perceived self-efficacy in managing despondency/distress; POS = perceived self-efficacy in expressing positive affect; e1–e12 represent error terms.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript T

’

—

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

N o t e . R E S E = R e g u l a t o r y E m o t i o n a l S e l f -E f f i c a c y ; E F A = e x p l o r a t o r y f a c t o r a n a l y s i s ; P O S = p e r c e i v e d s e l f -e f f i c a c y i n e x p r e s s i n g p o s i t i v e a f f e c t ; D E S = P e r c e i v e d S e l f -E f f i c a c y i n m a n a g i n g d e s p o n d e n c y /d i s t r e s s . A N G = P e r c e i v e d S e l f -E f f i c a c y i n m a n a g i n g a n g e r /i r r i t a t i o n .

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript T

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

;

(

)

;

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript T

–

(

)

(

)

;

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript T

;

中职生《心理健康》教案完整版

第1课心理健康促成长教育目标： 1．引起学生对心理健康课程的兴趣和重视； 2．阐述心理健康教育的意义和目的； 3．使学生理解心理健康教育的定义及内涵； 4．帮助学生初步分析自身的心理健康状况，树立积极的心理健康意识，学会求助和自助。教学重点与难点： 1．教学重点：了解心理健康的意义和作用，培养学生对心理健康兴趣。 2．教学难点：认识日常生活中的心理困扰与心理健康保健的关系；树立积极的心理健康意识。教学方法：讨论法、讲授法、案例教学法教学设计： 1．教学时间：2课时 2．教学准备：课前播放轻松，舒缓的音乐；下载的有关资料 3．教学过程：（1）课前导入，激发兴趣：讨论青少年吸烟的原因，对吸烟的原因作出总结，并引导学生进行自我探讨，用一种健康合理的方式来代替吸烟。（2）讲述心理艺术片《爱德华大夫》的故事，说明“人的心理问题与童年经历有关”。（3）引入：我们身边的“心灵故事”。得出本课的主题“心理健康促成长”。提问：你认为什么是心理健康？（4）通过教材中吕晓雯的故事，提出心理健康教育的定义以及包含的内容。（5）针对教材“思考苑”中心理辅导的三个层次，让同学讨论这三个层次的心理辅导都分别适合哪些人群。（6）布置教材中的“自我剖析”作为课后作业。

第2课心理健康哆来咪教育目标： 1．正确对待心理问题，消除对心理健康认识的误区； 2．能够区分情绪问题和心理问题；以及两个问题的关系；教学重点与难点： 1．教学重点：消除对心理健康认识的误区；了解心理健康对成长的意义。2．教学难点：懂得心理健康是一个动态变化；正确对待心理问题。教学方法：讨论法、讲授法、案例教学法、情境体验教学设计： 1．教学时间：1课时 2．教学准备：课前播放轻松，舒缓的音乐；下载的有关资料 3．教学过程：（1）创设情境，设置导疑：让学生对日常生活现象的辨识，感性的体会健康的含义。并进一步引出健康的含义。（2）板书：心理健康包括身体健康和心理健康两方面。引导学生探讨身体健康与心理健康的关系。并对心理问题进行说明。（3）讨论：和学生一起探讨中职学生常见的心理问题，并对问题进行剖析，以及一起商讨解决问题的办法；（4）对教材中王佳瑶的故事进行总结；（5）布置作业：进行自我评价。第3课心理发展你我他教育目标： 1．帮助学生了解中职学生的心理发展特点，体会并分析自己身心理发展的优势和不足； 2．根据自身的实际情况，采取相应的发展策略，逐步培养自己成熟、理智的思维和行为习惯，开发自己的心理潜能。教学重点与难点： 1．教学重点：学生体会并分析自身心理发展的优势与不足；掌握相应的发展策略。

(完整版)中职心理健康教育《心理调适方法ABC》-教案

心理健康科教案（甲）

授课时间2019.9.24 星期一第3节班级2019（1）第1页时间安排教学内容、教学过程教学方法与学习指导 3分钟 10分钟12分钟一、导入新课（一）播放学生表情图片，创设教学情境。喜怒哀惧 (二)设置问题： 1、通过表情图片的观察，推测其情绪色彩？ 2、请大家判断上述四种基本情绪哪些属于积极情绪？哪些属于消极情绪？（三）过渡：现实生活中，我们不断受到外界环境的影响，情绪也随之起伏波动，所以需要掌握心理调适的有效方法，争做积极、乐观、自信、勇于面对现实的人。（四）板书：心理调适方法ABC 二、心理测验（一）指导学生利用“计算机辅助心理测验软件”进行情绪自评量表（SAS）测试；（二）指导学生查看自己的测验结果，让学生从了解自己现阶段的情绪状态（焦虑）。三、七嘴八舌：我的心理调适小妙招（一）鼓励、引导学生分享心理调适妙招（二）教师归纳： 1、心理分析疗法 ①合理宣泄法（如哭、倾述、运动、日记等） ②自我反省法 ③心理暗示法（展开）利用学生表情图片能快速集中学生课堂注意力，并激发学生学习兴趣和热情。引导学生意识到基本情绪中消极情绪居多，此时学生肯定好奇自己的情绪状态，所以顺理成章地进行心理测验（SAS）让学生通过20道题的自评，了解自己现在（近一周）的情绪状态。并指出短时的情绪波动属正常现象，关键是要掌握心理调适方法。以学生为主体，教师只是担任组织者角色。

授课时间2019.9.24 星期一第3节班级2019（1）第4页时间安排教学内容、教学过程教学方法与学习指导海浪轻轻地拍打着海岸，有节奏地唱着自己的歌，我静静地、静静地聆听着这永恒而美妙的波涛声…… 六、课外拓展（一）请回忆最近发生的最愤怒的事件经过。要求根据ABC理论分析诱发事件A、信念B和情绪和行为的结果C。（二）课外阅读：中职生的自我心理调节 http://218.104.173.22/zjc/news /lunwen/liuye.doc 引导学生对本课教学内容进行巩固和提升。

奈达翻译理论初探

第27卷第3期唐山师范学院学报2005年5月Vol. 27 No.3 Journal of Tangshan Teachers College May 2005 奈达翻译理论初探尹训凤1，王丽君2 （1.泰山学院外语系，山东泰安 271000；2.唐山师范学院教务处，河北唐山 063000）摘要：奈达的翻译理论对于翻译实践有很强的指导作用：从语法分析角度来讲，相同的语法结构可能具有完全不同的含义；词与词之间的关系可以通过逆转换将表层形式转化为相应的核心句结构；翻译含义是翻译成败的关键所在。关键词：奈达；分析；转换；重组；核心句中图分类号：H315.9 文献标识码：A 文章编号：1009-9115（2005）03-0034-03 尤金?奈达是美国当代著名翻译理论家，也是西方语言学派翻译理论的主要代表，被誉为西方“现代翻译理论之父”。他与塔伯合著的《翻译理论与实践》对翻译界影响颇深。此书说明了中国与西方译界人士思维方式的巨大差别：前者是静的，崇尚“信、达、雅”，讲究“神似”，追求“化境”；后者是动的，将语言学、符号学、交际理论运用到翻译研究当中，提倡“动态对等”，注重读者反应。中国译论多概括，可操作性不强；西方译论较具体，往往从点出发。他在该书中提到了动态对等，详细地描述了翻译过程的三个阶段：分析、转换和重组，对于翻译实践的作用是不言而喻的。笔者拟结合具体实例，从以下角度来分析其理论独到之处。一一般来说，结构相同的词组、句子，其语法意义是相同或相近的。然而奈达提出，同样的语法结构在许多情况下可以有不同的含义。“名词+of+名词”这一语法结构可以对此作最好的阐释。如下例：（1）the plays of Shakespeare/ the city of New York/ the members of the team/ the man of ability/ the lover of music/ the order of obedience/ the arrival of the delegation 在以上各个词组中，假设字母A和B分别代表一个名词或代词，它们之间存在着不同的关系。在the plays of Shakespeare 中，Shakespeare是施事，plays是受事，用公式表示就是“B writes A”；在the city of New York中，city和New York是同位关系，用公式表示就是“A is B”；the members of the team中，members和team是所属关系，即“A is in the B”；在the man of ability中，“B is A’s characteristic”；在the lover of music中，lover表示的是活动，即动作，music是它的受事，因此可以理解为（he/she）loves the music, 用公式表示就是“X does A to B”（X施A于B）或“B is the goal of A”（B为A的受事）；在the order of obedience中，obedience表示的是活动，order是它的受事，因此用公式表示就是“X does B to A”（X施B于A）或“A is the goal of B”（A为B的受事）；在the arrival of the delegation中，arrival表示动作，而delegation是动作的发出者，所以是“B does A”。因此它们的结构关系如下所示： the plays of Shakespeare——Shakespeare wrote the plays. the city of New York——The city is New York. the members of the team——The members are in the team. the man of ability——The man is able. the lover of music——(He/She) loves the music. the order of obedience——(People) obey the order. the arrival of the delegation——The delegation arrives. ────────── 收稿日期：2004-06-10 作者简介：尹训凤（1976-），女，山东泰安人，泰山学院外语系教师，现为天津外国语学院研究生部2003级研究生，研究方向为翻译理论与实践。 - 34 -

奈达翻译理论简介

奈达翻译理论简介（一）奈达其人尤金?奈达（EugeneA.Nida）1914年出生于美国俄克勒荷马州，当代著名语言学家、翻译家和翻译理论家。也是西方语言学派翻译理论的主要代表，被誉为西方“现代翻译理论之父”。尤金是当代翻译理论的主要奠基人，其理论核心是功能对等。尤金先后访问过90个国家和地区，并著书立说，单独或合作出版了40多部书，比较著名的有《翻译科学探索》、《语言与文化———翻译中的语境》等，他还发表论文250余篇，是世界译坛的一位长青学者。他还参与过《圣经》的翻译工作。他与塔伯合著的《翻译理论与实践》对翻译界影响颇深。此书说明了中国与西方译界人士思维方式的巨大差别：前者是静的，崇尚“信、达、雅”，讲究“神似”，追求“化境”；后者是动的，将语言学、符号学、交际理论运用到翻译研究当中，提倡“动态对等”，注重读者反应。中国译论多概括，可操作性不强；西方译论较具体，往往从点出发。他在该书中提到了动态对等，详细地描述了翻译过程的三个阶段：分析、转换和重组，对于翻译实践的作用是不言而喻的。（二）奈达对翻译的定义按照奈达的定义：“所谓翻译，是指从语义到文体（风格）在译语中用最切近而又最自然的对等语再现源语的信息。”其中，“对等”是核心，“最切近”和“最自然”都是为寻找对等语服务的。奈达从社会语言学和语言交际功能的观点出发，认为必须以读者的反应作为衡量译作是否正确的重要标准。翻译要想达到预期的交际目的，必须使译文从信息内容、说话方式、文章风格、语言文化到社会因素等方面尽可能多地反映出原文的面貌。他试图运用乔姆斯基的语言学理论建立起一套新的研究方法。他根据转换生成语法，特别是其中有关核心句的原理，提出在语言的深层结构里进行传译的设想。奈达提出了词的4种语义单位的概念，即词具有表述事物、事件、抽象概念和关系等功能。这4种语义单位是“核心”，语言的表层结构就是以“核心”为基础构建的，如果能将语法结构归纳到核心层次，翻译过程就可最大限度地避免对源语的曲解。按照4种语义单位的关系，奈达将英语句子归结为7个核心句：（1）Johnranquickly.（2）JohnhitBill.（3）JohngaveBillaball.（4）Johnisinthehouse.（5）Johnissick.（6）Johnisaboy.（7）Johnismyfather. （三）奈达翻译理论的经历阶段奈达翻译理论的发展经历过三个阶段，分别是描写语言阶段、交际理论阶段和和社会符号学阶段。第一个阶段始于1943年发表《英语句法概要》，止于1959年发表《从圣经翻译看翻译原则》。这一阶段是奈达翻译思想及学术活动的初期。第二阶段始于1959年发表的《从圣经翻译看翻译原则》，止于1969年出版的《翻译理论与实践》。主要著作有《翻译科学探索》、《信息与使命》。在这10年中，奈达确立了自己在整个西方翻译理论界的权威地位。1964年出版的《翻译科学探索》标志着其翻译思想发展过程中一个最重要的里程碑。第三阶段始于70年代，奈达通过不断修正和发展自己翻译理论创建了新的理论模式———社会符号学模式。奈达在继承原有理论有用成分的基础上，将语言看成一种符号现象，并结合所在社会环境进行解释。在《从一种语言到另一种语言》一书中，奈达强调了形式的重要性，认为形式也具有意义，指出语言的修辞特征在语言交际及翻译中的重要作用，并且用“功能对等”取代了“动态对等”的提法，是含义更加明确。三、对奈达翻译理论的评价（一）贡献奈达是一位硕果累累的翻译理论家。可以说，在两千年的西方翻译思想发展史上，奈达的研究成果之丰是名列前茅的。他的研究范围从翻译史、翻译原则、翻译过程和翻译方法到翻译教学和翻译的组织工作，从口译到笔译，从人工翻译到机器翻译，从语义学到人类文化学，几乎无所不包，从而丰富并拓展了西方的翻译研究领地。奈达的理论贡献，主要在于他帮助创造了一种用新姿态对待不同语言和文化的气氛，以增进人类相互之间的语言交流和了解。他坚持认为：任何能用一种语言表达的东西都能够用另一种语言来表达；在语言之间、文化之间能通过寻找翻译对等语，以适当方式重组原文形式和语义结构来进行交际。因此也说明，某

中专中职心理第04课教案-心理调适方法ABC

第04课心理调适方法ABC 【课题】心理调适方法ABC 【课时】1课时【教学目标】 1、知识目标：让学生认识、分析造成心理困扰的原因，以及拥有积极的心理调适方法的重要价值和意义，了解几种有效的自我心理调适的途径。 2、能力目标：能自我分析心理困惑的主要成因，并掌握常用的自我心理调适方法：认知调节、放松训练、积极自我暗示等，使学生能主动进行心理调适，做积极、乐观、自信、勇于面对现实的人。 3、情感、态度与价值观目标：正确面对生活中的各种不如意，能够主动进行自我调节，拥有积极良好的情绪状态，从而培养学生健康的心理品质和自我调节情绪的能力。【重点难点】 1、重点：掌握自我心理调适方法中的认知改变法，并能够在日常生活中运用这种方法来调节自己的情绪状态。 2、难点：把认知改变法变成一种思维习惯，遇事学会换个角度思考。【教学方法】 1、教法：案例教学法、讲授法、讨论法、体验法。 2、学法：自主学习法、体验学习法。【教具】多媒体课件【教学过程】导入新课一、动画播放：《刘淇奇的故事》思考： 1、刘淇奇为了改变自己，都采用了哪些方法来调适自己的心理状态？ 2、你在日常学习与生活中，都采用过哪些调节情绪的方法？有效吗？由对故事的分析讨论，引出本课的主题，即中职生自我心理调适方法。新课教学一、心理分析疗法 1、心理分析疗法，又叫精神分析疗法、分析性心理治疗，是心理治疗中最主要的一种治疗方法。其基本理论核心是：人的精神活动可分为潜意识、前意识和意识。潜意识深藏于意识之后，是人类行为背后的内驱力。 2、通过两张冰山的图片来了解潜意识、前意识和意识，着重了解潜意识。 3、如何运用心理分析法来进行自我心理调适？（1）合理宣泄；（2）自我反省；（3）心理暗示。二、行为疗法 1、行为疗法，又称行为治疗，是基于现代行为科学的一种非常通用的心理治疗方法，是根据学习心理学的理论和心理学实验方法确立的原则，对个体进行反复训练，达到矫正适应不良行为的一类心理治疗。所谓适应不良性行为是不健康的、异常的行为，可以有各种不同的原因，有些是神经系统病理变化或生化代谢紊乱而引起的症状，有些则是由错误的学习而形成。行为主义心理学

奈达翻译理论动态功能对等的新认识

To Equivalence and Beyond: Reflections on the Significance of Eugene A. Nida for Bible Translating1 Kenneth A. Cherney, Jr. It’s been said, and it may be true, that there are two kinds of people—those who divide people into two kinds and those who don’t. Similarly, there are two approaches to Bible translation—approaches that divide translations into two kinds and those that refuse. The parade example of the former is Jerome’s claim that a translator’s options are finally only two: “word-for-word” or “sense-for-sense.”2 Regardless of whether he intended to, Jerome set the entire conversation about Bible translating on a course from which it would not deviate for more than fifteen hundred years; and some observers in the field of translation studies have come to view Jerome’s “either/or” as an unhelpful rut from which the field has begun to extricate itself only recently and with difficulty. Another familiar dichotomy is the distinction between “formal correspondence” translating on one hand and “dynamic equivalence” (more properly “functional equivalence,” on which see below) on the other. The distinction arose via the work of the most influential figure in the modern history of Bible translating: Eugene Albert Nida (1914-2011). It is impossible to imagine the current state of the field of translation studies, and especially Bible translating, without Nida. Not only is he the unquestioned pioneer of modern, so-called “meaning-based” translating;3 he may be more responsible than any other individual for putting Bibles in the hands of people around the world that they can read and understand. 1 This article includes material from the author’s doctoral thesis (still in progress), “Allusion as Translation Problem: Portuguese Versions of Second Isaiah as Test Case” (Stellenbosch University, Drs. Christo Van der Merwe and Hendrik Bosman, promoters). 2 Jerome, “Letter to Pammachius,” in Lawrence Venuti, ed., The Translation Studies Reader, 2nd ed. (NY and London: Routledge, 2004), p. 23. 3 Nigel Statham, "Nida and 'Functional Equivalence': The Evolution of a Concept, Some Problems, and Some Possible Ways Forward," Bible Translator 56, no. 1 (2005), p. 39.

(完整版)中职生《心理健康》教案完整版

备课本科目：心理健康教育姓名：罗琴

“功能对等”翻译理论奈达翻译理论体系的核心

［摘要］传统的只围绕直译与意译之争，而奈达从《圣经》翻译提出功能对等即读者同等反应。“功能对等”翻译理论是奈达翻译理论体系的核心,是从新的视角提出的新的翻译方法，它既有深厚的理论基础,也有丰富的实践基础，对翻译理论的进一步完善是一大贡献。［关键词］功能对等；奈达翻译；英语论文范文尤金·A·奈达博士是西方语言学翻译理论学派的代表人物之一。在他的学术生涯中，从事过语言学、语义学、人类学、通讯工程学等方面的研究，还从事过《圣经》的翻译工作，精通多国文字，调查过100多种语言。经过五十多年的翻译实践与理论研究，取得了丰硕的成果。至今他已发表了40多部专着、250余篇论文。“自八十年代初奈达的理论介绍入中国以来，到现在已经成为当代西方理论中被介绍的最早、最多、影响最大的理论。他把信息论与符号学引进了翻译理论，提出了‘动态对等’的翻译标准；把现代语言学的最新研究成果应用到翻译理论中来；在翻译史上第一个把社会效益（读者反应）原则纳入翻译标准之中。尤其是他的动态对等理论，一举打破中国传统译论中静态分析翻译标准的局面，提出了开放式的翻译理论原则，为我们建立新的理论模式找到了正确的方向。奈达在中国译界占据非常重要的地位。”“奈达的理论贡献，主要在于他帮助创造了一种新姿态对待不同语言和文化的气氛，以增进人类相互之间的语言交流和了解。”[1] 翻译作为一项独立的学科，首先应回答的问题就是：什么是翻译？传统翻译理论侧重语言的表现形式，人们往往醉心于处理语言的特殊现象，如诗的格律、诗韵、咬文嚼字、句子排比和特殊语法结构等等。现代翻译理论侧重读者对译文的反应以及两种反应（原文与原作读者、译文与译作读者）之间的对比。奈达指出：“所谓翻译，就是指从语义到文体在译语中用最贴切而又最自然的对等语再现原语的信息”，奈达在《翻译理论于实践》一书中解释道，所谓最切近的自然对等，是指意义和语体而言。但在《从一种语言到另一种语言》中，奈达又把对等解释为是指功能而言。语言的“功能”是指语言在使用中所能发挥的言语作用；不同语言的表达形式必然不同，不是语音语法不同就是表达习惯不同，然而他们却可以具有彼此相同或相似的功能。奈达所强调的是“对等”“、信息”“、意义”和“风格”，奈达从语义学和信息论出发，强调翻译的交际功能，正如他自己所说“：翻译就是交际”，目的是要寻求原语和接受语的“对等”。他所说的“信息”包括“意义”和“风格”，着重于交际层面。他实质上要打破的是传统的翻译标准。他把翻译看成是“语际交际”，也就是在用交际学的观点来看问题。交际至少应当是三方的事情：信息源点———信息内容———信息受者，也就是说话者———语言———听话者。奈达注重译文的接受者，即读者，而且都对读者进行了分类。奈达根据读者的阅读能力和兴趣把读者分为四类：儿童读者、初等文化水平读者、普通成人读者和专家。他曾说过，一些优秀的译者，常常设想有一位典型的译文读者代表就坐在写字台的对面听他们口述译文，或者正在阅读闪现在电脑显示屏上的译文。这样，就好像有人正在听着或读着译文，翻译也就不仅仅是寻求词汇和句法的对应过程。运用这种方法，译者就可能更自觉地意识到“翻译就是翻译意思”的道理。可译性与不可译性是翻译界长期争论的一个问题。奈达对不同的之间的交流提出了新的观点。他认为每种语言都有自己的特点，一种语言所表达的任何东西都可以用另一种语言来表达。尽管不同民族之间难以达到“绝对的”交流，但是可以进行“有效的”交流，因为人类的思维过程、生产经历、社会反应等有许多共性。他这种思想主要基于他对上帝的信仰和对《圣经》的翻译。在他看来，上帝的福音即是真理，可以译成不同的语言，也可以为不同国家的人所理解。因此，他提出“最贴近、最自然的对等”。奈达把翻译分为两种类型：形式对等翻译和动态功能对等。翻译形式对等是以原语为中心，尽量再现原文形式和内容。功能对等注重读者反映，以最贴近、最自然的对等语再现原文信息，使译文读者能够达到和原文读者一样的理解和欣赏原文的程度。奈达的形式对等要求严格地再现原语的形式，其实也就是“逐字翻译”或“死译”。奈达本人也不主张形式对等的翻译，他认为严格遵守形式无疑会破坏内容。奈达的“功能对等”理论的提出是对译学研究的一个重大贡献。首先，他提出了一个新的翻译评价标准。他指出：翻译准确与否取决于普通读者正确理解原文的程度，也就是把译文读者反应与原文读者反应进行对照，看两者是否达到最大限度的对等。其次，他提出的“最贴切、最自然的对等”标准也不同于传统的“忠实”

The-theory-and-practice-of-translation-奈达的翻译理论与实践

The theory and practice of translation Eugene A. Nida and Charles R. Taber 1974 Contents 1.A new concept of translation 2.The nature of translating 3.Grammatical analysis 4.Referential meaning 5.Connotative meaning 6.Transfer 7.Restructuring 8.\ 9.Testing the translation Chapter One The old focus and the new focus The older focus in translating was the form of the message, and the translator too particular delight in being able to reproduce stylistic specialties, ., rhythms, rhymes, plays on words, chiasmus, parallelism, and usual grammatical structures. The new focus, however, has shifted from teh form of the message to the response of the receptor. Therefore, what one must determine is the response of the receptor to te translated message, this response must be compared with the way in which the original receptors presumably reacted to the message when it was given in its original setting. Chapter Two Translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source-language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style. But this relatively simple statement requires careful evaluation of several seemingly contradictory elements. Reproducing the message Translating must aim primarily at “reproducing the message.” To do anything else is essentially false to one’s task as a translator. But to reproduce the message one must make a good many grammatical and lexical adjustments. Equivalence rather than identity 。 The translator must strive for the equivalence rather than identity. In a sense, this is just another way of emphasizing the reproduction of the message rather than the conversation of the form of the utterance, but it reinforces the need for radical alteration of a phrase, which may be quiet meaningless.

奈达和纽马克翻译理论对比初探

[摘要] 尤金·奈达和彼得·纽马克的翻译理论在我国产生很大的影响。他们在对翻译的认识及处理内容与形式关系方面有共识亦有差异。他们孜孜不倦发展自身理论的精神值得中国翻译理论界学习。 [关键词] 翻译; 动态对等; 语义翻译和交际翻译; 关联翻译法 Abstract :Both Nida and Newmark are outstanding western theorist in the field of translation. They have many differences as well as similarities in terms of the nature of translation and the relationship between the form and content. Their constant effort to develop their theories deserve our respect. Key words :translation ; dynamic equivalence ; semantic translation ; communicative translation ; a correlative approach to translation 尤金·奈达( Eugene A1Nida) 和彼得·纽马克是西方译界颇具影响的两位翻译理论家, 他们在翻译理论方面有诸多共通之处, 同时又各具特色。一、对翻译的认识对翻译性质的认识, 理论界的讨论由来已久。奈达和纽马克都对翻译是科学还是艺术的问题的认识经历了一个变化的过程。奈达对翻译的认识经历了一个从倾向于把翻译看作科学到把翻译看作艺术的转化过程。在奈达翻译理论发展的第二个阶段即交际理论阶段, 他认为, 翻译是科学, 是对翻译过程的科学的描写。同时他也承认, 对翻译的描写可在三个功能层次上进行: 科学、技巧和艺术。在奈达逐渐向第三个阶段, 即社会符号学和社会语言学阶段过渡的过程中, 他越来越倾向于把翻译看作是艺术。他认为翻译归根到底是艺术, 翻译家是天生的。同时, 他把原来提出的“翻译是科学”改为“翻译研究是科学”。到了上世纪90 年代, 奈达又提出, 翻译基本上是一种技艺。他认为: 翻译既是艺术, 也是科学, 也是技艺。纽马克对翻译的认识也经历了一定的变化。最初, 他认为, 翻译既是科学又是艺术, 也是技巧。后来他又认为翻译部分是科学, 部分是技巧, 部分是艺术, 部分是个人品位。他对翻译性质的阐释是基于对语言的二元划分。他把语言分为标准语言和非标准语言。说翻译是科学, 因为标准语言通常只有一种正确译法, 有规律可循, 体现了翻译是科学的一面。如科技术语。非标准语言往往有许多正确译法, 怎么挑选合适的译法要靠译者自身的眼光和能力, 体现了翻译是艺术和品位的性质。但译文也必须得到科学的检验, 以避免明显的内容和用词错误, 同时要行文自然, 符合语言环境要求。纽马克虽然认为翻译是科学, 但他不承认翻译作为一门科学的存在。因为他认为目前的翻译理论缺乏统一全面的体系, 根本不存在翻译的科学, 现在没有, 将来也不会有。二、理论核心奈达和纽马克都是在各自翻译实践的基础上, 为了解决自己实践中的实际问题, 提出了相应的翻译理论。实践中要解决的问题不同, 翻译理论也就各成一派。但毕竟每种实践都要有一定的规律存在, 因此两位的理论又有着不可忽视的相似。奈达提出了著名的“动态对等”。他对翻译所下的定义: 所谓翻译, 是在译语中用最切近而又最自然的对等语再现源语的信息, 首先是意义, 其次是文体。这一定义明确指出翻译的本质和任务是用译语再现源语信息, 翻译的方法用最切近而又最自然的对等语。同时这一定义也提出了翻译的四个标准: 1 (1) 传达信息; 2 (2) 传达原作的精神风貌;

奈达翻译理论

Eugene Nida的翻译理论（转）摘要：本文介绍了奈达的翻译思想，对其功能对等理论进行了分析，对奈达理论在翻译界的重要地位和重大影响进行了简单的评述。然后从五个方面探讨了当今翻译界对奈达思想的争论，介绍了争论中提出的新概念，并进行了一定的分析。最后，文章探讨了奈达思想形成的原因和在翻译实践中可以得到的启示。关键词：奈达功能对等争论启示一、奈达的翻译思想尤金·奈达（EugeneA.Nida）是公认的现代翻译理论奠基人之一。他供职于美国圣经协会，从事圣经翻译和翻译理论研究，其理论在中国甚至在全世界都有着重要的地位。奈达把翻译看作是一种艺术，力图把语言学应用于翻译研究。他认为，对翻译的研究应该看作是比较语言学的一个重要的分支；这种研究应以语义为核心包括翻译涉及的各个方面，即我们需要在动态对等的层次上进行这种比较。由于奈达把翻译和语言学密切联系，他把翻译的过程分成了四个阶段：分析（analysis），转换（transfer），重组（restructuring）和检验（test）。则翻译的具体过程就经过了下图的步骤。在这一过程中，奈达实际上是透过对原文的表层结构的分析，理解深层结构并将其转换重组到译文中。因此，在翻译中所要达到的效果是要让译文读者得到一个自然的译本。他曾说：“最好的译文读起来应不像翻译。”所以，他的翻译中另一个非常突出的特点就是“读者反应论”。他认为，翻译正确与否必须以译文的服务对象为衡量标准，并取决于一般读者能在何种程度上正确地理解译文。由此，他提出了他的“动态对等理论”。奈达在《翻译科学探素》(1964)一书中指出，“在动态对等翻译中，译者所关注的并不是源语信息和译语信息的对应关系，而是一种动态关系；即译语接受者和译语信息之间的关系应该与源语接受者和原文信息之间的关系基本相同”。他认为，所谓翻译，是指从语义到文体在译语中的最贴近而又最自然的对等语再现源语的信息（郭建中，2000）。所谓自然，是指使用译语中的表达方式，也就是说在翻译中使用归化，而不是异化。然而由于动态对等引起不少误解，认为翻译只要内容不要形式，在奈达的《从一种语言到另一种语言：论圣经翻译中的功能对等》一书中，他把“动态对等”的名称改为“功能对等”，并指出信息不仅包括思想内容，也包括语言形式。功能对等的翻译，要求“不但是信息内容的对等，而且，尽可能地要求形式对等”。二、奈达理论的评析毫无疑问，奈达是当代最著名也是最重要的翻译家之一，他的翻译理论，特别是他的功能对等理论在全世界的翻译界产生了重大的影响。约翰·比克曼（JohnBeekman）和约翰·卡洛（JohnCallow）的《翻译圣经》中说：“传译了原文意义和原文动态的翻译，称之为忠实的翻译。”而所谓“传译原文的动态”，就是指译文应使用目标语自然的语言结构，译文读者理解信息毫不费力，译文和原文一样自然、易懂。同时，他们也认为译者所要传达的是源语表达的信息，而不是源语的表达形式。在米尔德里德·L·拉森（https://www.360docs.net/doc/2710062054.html,rson）的《意义翻译法：语际对等指南》中，当谈到形式与意义时，拉森说得更为直截了当：“翻译基本上是改变形式（achangeofform）……是用接受语（目标语）的形式代替源语的形式。”她还表示，语言的深层结构与表层结构是不同的，我们所要翻译的是深层结构，即意义，而不是表层结构，即语言表达形式。然而正如郭建中(2000)所说：“内容与形式，意译与直译，以译文读者和译文为中心与以原作者和原文为中心……是翻译理论和翻译实践中一个永恒的辩论主题。”虽然奈达在全世界有着重要的影响和极高的地位，但他的理论却也一直引起各家争议。关于奈达理论的争议，主要是围绕以下五点展开的：（一）对等理论的适用范围这是长期以来对奈达翻译理论的争议得最多最激烈的问题。许多的翻译家都认为其理论是不适合文学翻译的。以诗歌翻译为例，林语堂曾经说过：“诗乃最不可译的东西。无论古今中外，最好的诗（而尤其是抒情诗）都是不可译的。”而著名诗人海岸（2005）在他的《诗人译诗，译诗为诗》中也指出：不同文化背景之间的符号系统只能在所指层面达到一定的共享，建立在绝对理解上的诗歌翻译只能是一种难以企及的梦想。特别是英语诗中的音韵节律及一些特殊的修辞手法等均不能完全传译，正如辜正坤在《中西诗比较鉴赏与翻译理论》一书中所言，

中职生心理健康期末试题

中职生心理健康期末试题一、单选题（40分） 1、下列命题中不属于心理健康的一顼是（） A智力正常 B情绪适中 C 意志健全 D体魄健壮 2、下列单位中，哪一个不属于心理健康教育的承担者（） A学校 B银行 C家庭 D社区 3、自我意识产生的时间段为（） A8个月左右 B两周岁 C4岁 D十二三岁 4、自信心是人重要的人生品质，它是建立在基础上的（） A自我意识 B自立 C责任心 D兴趣 5、心理适应能力指的是一个人在心理上进行，自我平衡，以适应社会生活和社会环境的能力。（） A自我调节 B自我认识 C自我支配 D自我适应 6、是人在受挫后，常常会引起愤怒情绪出现的一种攻击性行为。（） A固着 B攻击 C冷漠 D退化 7、羞怯的本质是一种（） A自负 B自信 C胆怯 D不自信 8、下列哪一项不属于抑郁产生的原因（） A挫折 B早期的经历 C错误的思维方式 D乐观的心境 9、一般自卑的人做不到（） A客观地评价自己 B逃避现实 C与人冲突 D情绪低落 10、关于记忆的说法不正确的是（） A感知是记忆的基础 B理解是记忆的关键 C形成知识结构是记忆的简化和升华 D理论对记忆能力的提高没有实际意义 11、同学们在人际交往中错误的做法是（） A塑造高尚品质 B丰富知识才华 C积极表现自己 D重在礼尚往来 12、同学们在交往中的心理误区是（） A要遵循黄金规则 B要对同学们讲真心话 C要注重同学的一贯表现 D要凭借第一印象 13、与他人谈话的正确技巧是（） A选择自己感兴趣的话题 B即兴谈话，任意发挥 C适时转移话题 D一定要把选定的话题讲完 14、我们不希望父母干涉我们的隐私，是由于（） A我们有了成人感 B隐私是见不得人的秘密 C我们年幼无知 D我们异想天开 15、我们同父母发生矛盾的原因是（） A由于我们的身心发展变化太大 B不明原因 C 父母故意找茬 D社会环境的影响 16、父母对我们过度忽视的原因（） A我们同父母两方面造成的 B遗传原因 C社会环境影响 D父母视我们为多余人 17、家庭贫困的孩子自立意识较强（） A是 B没有必然联系 C相反 D有可能 18、父母离异给父母造成心理压力的原因（） A 人们对离异家庭有误解 B 自己心理脆弱 C自己敏感多疑 D父母不承担抚养义务 19、洪战辉的感恩心理。（） A、是非常好的心理品质，对和谐家庭关系意义重大 B、是每个中职生都具有的 C、是一种消极的心理反应 D、对社会没有好处 20、关于中职新生现象，正确的说法是（） A只发生在困难学生身上，优秀学生不存在 B注意是中职生没有前途 C注意是学技术很吃力 D要根据产生的原因，进行积极的矫治二、判断（10分）： 1、换位思考是抑制生气的良方。（） 2、家庭生活质量的高低，与生活在期间的个体的心理健康密切相关。（） 3、父母在不了解我们的心理需求的情况下，亲子之间也能和谐。（）

Assessing Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy in Three Countries

中职生《心理健康》教案完整版

(完整版)中职心理健康教育《心理调适方法ABC》-教案

奈达翻译理论初探

奈达翻译理论简介

中专中职心理第04课教案-心理调适方法ABC

奈达翻译理论动态功能对等的新认识

(完整版)中职生《心理健康》教案完整版

“功能对等”翻译理论奈达翻译理论体系的核心

最新中职生《心理健康》教案完整版

The-theory-and-practice-of-translation-奈达的翻译理论与实践

奈达和纽马克翻译理论对比初探

奈达翻译理论

中职生心理健康期末试题