本文選題：性取向 + 性別注意偏向��； 參考：《山東師范大學》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：性取向的不同究竟是受先天因素影響還是后天因素影響一直飽受爭議,神經激素理論的支持者認為性取向受先天因素影響更大,與個體的雄激素水平和腦部結構差異關聯(lián)密切,另一部分研究者則認為后天因素影響更大,性別角色,社會期待等方面對人的性取向有重大影響。即支持性取向受先天因素影響的研究者認為同性戀的腦部結構與性別注意偏向與異性戀是不同的,而支持性取向受后天因素影響更大的研究者認為同性戀與異性戀并不存在腦部結構差異。本研究實驗一采用判斷任務范式,以性別注意偏向指標來探究性別注意偏向是否與性取向相關,若不同性取向被試的性別注意偏向存在差異,則認為性取向會影響性別注意偏向的研究結果。那么應該考慮以往研究中結果不一致的地方可能是因為被試中混雜了同性戀者的原因。實驗二采用嵌合面孔實驗(嵌合面孔為同一個人的半邊中性情緒面孔和半邊其他情緒面孔拼成的)所得的側化商數,以腦單側化優(yōu)勢指標來探究同性戀與異性戀的腦單側化優(yōu)勢是否存在差異,借此推斷同性戀與異性戀的腦部結構是否存在差異,若存在差異則傾向于支持性取向是受先天因素影響更大,若不存在差異則支持性取向受后天因素影響更大的理論。并通過對眼動數據的分析來對比異性戀被試與同性戀被試識別面孔時的視覺加工策略是否存在差異。另外實驗一和實驗二中都加入了高興,生氣,恐懼這三種以往研究結果中表明可能會影響被試性別注意偏向的情緒面孔,且Rahman和Anchassi(2012)的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)被試在識別這三種面孔時的腦單側化優(yōu)勢最為顯著。若結果顯示情緒性確實會影響被試的性別注意偏向和腦單側化優(yōu)勢,則后續(xù)研究應該進一步討論被試在識別這些情緒時候的內部加工策略是否存在差異。結果顯示:(1)從反應時指標來看異性戀女性,異性戀男性,同性戀女性識別女性面孔的速度都快于識別男性面孔。異性戀女性和同性戀女性識別女性面孔的正確率高于識別男性面孔的正確率,但是異性戀男性識別男性面孔和女性面孔的正確率沒有差異。面孔的情緒性并不影響被試的性別注意偏向,無論是哪一種情緒,三種被試都是識別女性面孔的表現(xiàn)好于識別男性面孔。女性識別男性中性面孔的速度快于男性。(2)從側化商數指標來看,異性戀男性,異性戀女性,同性戀女性三者的側化商數都大于零即偏向于選擇左側,在識別面孔時總體來講均為右腦單側化優(yōu)勢,且不存在顯著差異。被試對不同情緒性嵌合面孔的腦單側化優(yōu)勢不存在差異。(3)從眼動數據來看,同性戀女性識別面孔的方式與異性戀男性更相似。綜上所述,不同性取向的女性被試性別注意偏向和腦單側化優(yōu)勢不存在差異,因此我們更支持社會文化的性別和性取向差異理論。
[Abstract]:Whether sexual orientation is influenced by congenital factors or acquired factors has been controversial. Proponents of neurohormone theory believe that sexual orientation is more influenced by congenital factors, and is closely related to individual levels of androgen and brain structure. Other researchers believe that acquired factors have a greater impact on sexual orientation, gender roles, social expectations and other aspects have a significant impact on people's sexual orientation. That is, researchers who support sexual orientation as a result of innate factors argue that the brain structure of homosexuals is different from gender bias to heterosexuality. Researchers who support the fact that sexual orientation is more affected by acquired factors argue that there is no difference in brain structure between homosexuality and heterosexuality. In the first experiment, we use the judgment task paradigm to explore whether the gender attention bias is related to sexual orientation, if there are differences in gender attention bias among the subjects with different sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is thought to affect gender bias. It should be considered that inconsistencies in previous studies may be due to a mix of homosexuals. In experiment 2, the lateralization quotient of chimeric faces (half neutral emotional faces of the same person and half other emotional faces) was used. Using the index of unilateral advantage of brain to explore whether there are differences in the advantages of homophobia and heterosexuality, and to infer whether there are differences in brain structure between homosexuals and heterosexuals. If there are differences, they tend to support the theory that sexual orientation is more influenced by innate factors, and that sexual orientation is more influenced by acquired factors if there is no difference. The visual processing strategies of heterosexual subjects and gay subjects were compared by the analysis of eye movement data. In addition, in both experiment 1 and experiment 2, three previous studies, happiness, anger and fear, showed that they might affect the emotional faces of the participants' attention bias. Rahman and Anchassi (2012) showed the most significant advantage in the recognition of these three faces. If the results show that emotion does affect the gender bias and the advantage of unilateral brain, the further study should discuss whether there are differences in internal processing strategies in identifying these emotions. The results showed that: (1) heterosexual, heterosexual and gay women recognize female faces faster than male faces. Heterosexual women and gay women recognize female faces more accurately than male faces, but heterosexual men recognize male faces and female faces correctly, but there is no difference between heterosexual and gay women. The emotional nature of the faces did not affect the gender bias of the subjects. No matter which emotion they were, the three subjects were better at recognizing female faces than on male faces. Women recognize male neutral faces faster than men. (2) according to the index of lateralization quotient, heterosexual men, heterosexual women and gay women all have greater lateralization quotient than zero, that is, they tend to choose the left side. In recognition of faces, all of them showed the advantage of unilateral right brain, and there was no significant difference. There was no difference in the advantages of unilateral brain in different emotional chimeric faces. (3) from the eye movement data, gay women recognized faces in a more similar way than heterosexual men. In conclusion, there is no difference in gender attention bias and brain unilateral advantage among women with different sexual orientation, so we support the theory of gender and sexual orientation difference of social culture.
【學位授予單位】：山東師范大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：B842.6

【相似文獻】

相關期刊論文 前9條

1 姜媛;林崇德;;情緒的腦單側化研究進展[J];心理與行為研究;2010年04期

2 程婷;李雪冰;;情感韻律加工的單側化[J];中國臨床心理學雜志;2007年01期

3 E.K.Silberman;H.Weingartier;王益明;;情緒的大腦半球功能的單側化[J];心理學動態(tài);1992年01期

4 邊玉芳;;左腦和右腦在心理發(fā)展中的不同作用——兒童大腦單側化實驗[J];中小學心理健康教育;2013年23期

5 陳立翰;;單側化準備電位的含義和應用[J];心理科學進展;2008年05期

6 鐘毅平;范偉;趙科;周海波;;情感韻律在真假句子加工上的差異:來自ERPs的證據[J];心理科學;2011年02期

7 王力;張櫟文;張明亮;陳安濤;;視覺運動Simon效應和認知Simon效應的影響因素及機制[J];心理科學進展;2012年05期

8 劉錦明;少兒外語教育起始年齡:理論、實踐及對策[J];溫州師范學院學報(哲學社會科學版);1997年02期

9 王艷梅;張宇君;;分視野范式呈現(xiàn)的情緒性面孔的加工[J];心理科學;2010年03期

相關會議論文 前3條

1 劉玉麗;張智君;;前置線索對動作準備不同階段的影響[A];第十一屆全國心理學學術會議論文摘要集[C];2007年

2 胡偉;呂勇;;序列反應時任務中反應準備階段的知識表征方式:來自單側化動作準備電位的證據[A];第十二屆全國心理學學術大會論文摘要集[C];2009年

3 平心;;大腦半球的優(yōu)勢化現(xiàn)象及其測驗方法——一項在諾貝爾獎基礎上新發(fā)現(xiàn)[A];2005年中國神經心理學學術會議論文集[C];2005年

相關碩士學位論文 前5條

1 羅寒冰;大腦單側化與框架對公平判斷的影響研究[D];華中師范大學;2015年

2 岳勝男;具身認知下情緒面孔的大腦單側化加工[D];蘇州大學;2015年

3 孫麗霞;內隱序列學習不同階段大腦功能單側化效應差異[D];蘇州大學;2016年

4 劉麗娟;性取向對面孔情緒識別的性別注意偏向及腦單側化優(yōu)勢的影響[D];山東師范大學;2017年

5 姚娜;體育與非體育專業(yè)大學生單側化準備電位的研究[D];首都體育學院;2012年

，

本文編號：2077143