健康中国战略背景下，青年群体的心理健康对个人成长和社会发展至关重要，其形成机理、塑造机制更需要在多重社会要素的交织框架中进行系统性阐释。本研究基于交织性理论，利用2022年全国青年发展状况综合调查数据，运用Logistic-MAIHDA模型探讨性别、居住地、户口性质等 7 类变量的交织互构对青年心理健康的影响，重点分析同时性、可乘性和多重劣势视角下的心理健康分化模式。研究结果表明：第一，青年心理健康状况总体向好，但群体差异显著：在传统视角下，女性、城市居民、非农业户口、高收入及高学历群体的心理健康不满意率更高，而家庭资本优越、婚姻稳定者满意度更高，同时性视角的引入则能够将这一差别以整体的方式具象化。第二，各因素的交织、累积共同塑造了青年群体的心理健康状况，在加性主效应以外，但仍有部分方差归因于变量间的乘性交互作用，表明交织效应不可忽视。第三，优/劣势特征的收敛会造成个体健康/不健康心理状况的倍增化体验，进而加强心理健康的分化。多重劣势视角下，低预测概率群体与高预测概率群体处交织效应最为显著，印证了优势与劣势的倍增效应，具象化了其所处情境与心理健康状况的联系，也为制定差异化心理健康干预政策提供了理论依据。

Under the background of the Healthy China strategy, the psychological health of youth groups is crucial to personal growth and social development, and its formation mechanism and shaping mechanism need to be systematically interpreted in the framework of intertwining multiple social elements. Based on the intersectionality theory, this study utilizes data from the 2022 National Comprehensive Survey on Youth Development and applies the Logistic-MAIHDA model to explore the impact of intertwining variables such as gender, place of residence, and hukou nature on youth mental health, with an emphasis on analyzing the differentiation patterns of mental health under the perspectives of simultaneity, multiplicity, and multiple jeopardy. The results of the study show that: first, the mental health status of youth is generally good, but there are significant group differences: under the traditional perspective, the dissatisfaction rate of mental health is higher among females, urban residents, non-agricultural hukou, high-income and high-education groups, and the satisfaction rate is higher among those who have superior family capital and stable marriages, while the introduction of the simultaneity perspective is able to visualize this difference in a holistic way. Second, the intertwining and accumulation of factors jointly shaped the mental health status of the youth group, outside of the additive main effect, but still with some variance attributed to the multiplicative interaction between variables, indicating that the intertwining effect cannot be ignored. Third, the convergence of superior/inferiority characteristics creates a multiplicative experience of individual healthy/unhealthy mental status, which in turn reinforces mental health differentiation. Under the multiple jeopardy perspective, the most significant intertwining effects were found at the low and high predictive probability groups, confirming the multiplicative effects of strengths and weaknesses, visualizing the link between their context and mental health status, and providing a theoretical basis for the development of differentiated mental health intervention policies.

[1] 熊雅婕,齐亚强.生命历程中的性别化社会角色与心理健康[J].中国人口科学,2023,37(05):35-50.

[2] 王卓,苏贝贝.中国青年就业状况及其影响因素研究——基于CGSS2017数据的实证分析[J].西北人口,2022,43(04):42-53.

[3] 曾燕波.“佛系”抑或奋进:青年职业价值观调查[J].当代青年研究,2018,(06):5-11.

[4] 陆杰华,郭冉.基于地区和社区视角下老年健康与不平等的实证分析[J].人口学刊,2017,39(02):57-67.

[5] 傅小兰,张侃,陈雪峰等,中国国民心理健康发展报告（2021—2022）[M]，北京：社会科学文献出版社2023版.

[6] 江光荣,李丹阳,任志洪,等.中国国民心理健康素养的现状与特点[J].心理学报,2021,53(02):182-201.

[7] 马川.“00后”大学生心理健康水平的实证研究——基于近两万名2018级大一学生的数据分析[J].思想理论教育,2019,(03):95-99.

[8] 杜本峰,愈巧妮.青年流动人口健康影响因素:心理、生活方式分析[J].中国公共卫生管理,2013,29(02):148-154.

[9] 廖传景.青年农民工心理健康及其社会性影响与保护因素[J].中国青年研究,2010,(01):109-113.

[10] 程菲,李树茁,悦中山.中国城市劳动者的社会经济地位与心理健康——户籍人口与流动人口的比较研究[J].人口与经济,2018,(06):42-52.

[11] 石智雷,杨宇泽.高学历的人更容易抑郁吗?——教育对成年人抑郁情绪的影响[J].北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),2020,(02):148-160.

[12] 杨磊,戴优升.家庭社会资本、学校环境会影响青少年心理健康吗?——基于CEPS数据的实证分析[J].中国青年研究,2019,(01):47-56.

[13] 郭小弦,张岍.互联网使用与青年群体的身心健康：人际交往与网络依赖的中介效应分析[J].当代青年研究,2023,(01):87-97.

[14] 宋健,唐田荣.婚姻对个体心理健康的影响——关于抑郁水平变化与分化的实证研究[J].人口学刊,2025,47(01):65-77.

[15] 张也.女性主义交叉性理论及其在中国的适用性[J].国外理论动态,2018,(07):83-95

[16] 苏熠慧.“交叉性”流派的观点、方法及其对中国性别社会学的启发[J].社会学研究,2016,31(04):218-241+246.

[17] 齐亚强.自评一般健康的信度和效度分析[J].社会,2014,34(06):196-215.

[18] 宋月萍,刘志强,王记文.子女离婚对老年人健康的影响研究——基于CLASS数据的实证分析[J].人口学刊,2022,44(01):76-86

[19] 穆光宗,侯梦舜,尹书山,等.青年强则国强：青年人口学前瞻与优化青年人口发展[J].中国农业大学学报(社会科学版),2024,41(02):5-28.

[20] Gkiouleka, A., Huijts, T., Beckfield, J., & Bambra, C. Understanding the micro and macro politics of health: Inequalities, intersectionality & institutions—A research agenda[J]. Social Science & Medicine,2018, 200, 92–98.

[21] Gray, A. M. Inequalities in health. The Black Report: a summary and comment[J]. International Journal of Health Services, 1982, 12(3): 349-380

[22] Crenshaw, K. Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color[J]. Stanford Law Review, 1991, pp. 1241-1299.

[23] Hancock. Intersectionality[M]. Oxford, 2016: 63-108.

[24] Collins, P. H. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment[M]. Unwin Hyman, 1990: 225-230.

[25] Collins, P. H, Bilge, S. Intersectionality[M]. Polity, 2016:133-136.

[26] Abichahine H, Veenstra G. Inter-categorical intersectionality and leisure-based physical activity in Canada[J]. Health Promot Int, 2017, 32(4):691-701.

[27] McCall, L. The complexity of intersectionality[J]. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 2005, 30(3): 1771-1800.

[28] Bambra, C. Placing intersectional inequalities in health[J]. Health & Place, 2022, 75: 102761.

[29] Raphael, D., Bryant, T. The limitations of population health as a model for a new public health[M]. John Wiley & Sons, 2003: 410-427.

[30] Bauer, G. R. Incorporating intersectionality theory into population health research methodology: challenges and the potential to advance health equity[J]. Social Science & Medicine, 2014, 110: 10-17.

[31] Bowleg, L. The problem with the phrase women and minorities: intersectionality—an important theoretical framework for public health[J]. American Journal of Public Health, 2012, 102(7): 1267-1273.

[32] Krieger, N. Theories for social epidemiology in the twenty-first century: an eco-social perspective[M]. Jossey-Bass, 2003: 428-450.

[33] Bredström, A. Intersectionality?: A challenge for feminist HIV/AIDS research[J]. European Journal of Women's Studies,2006,13(3), 229-243.

[34] Bauer G. R, Scheim AI. Methods for analytic intercategorical intersectionality in quantitative research: Discrimination as a mediator of health inequalities[J]. Social Science and Medicine, 2019, 226: 236-245.

[35] Guan, A., Thomas, M., Vittinghoff, E., et al. An investigation of quantitative methods for assessing intersectionality in health research: A systematic review[J]. SSM - Population Health, 2021, 16: 100977.

[36] Evans, C. R. Reintegrating contexts into quantitative intersectional analyses of health inequalities[J]. Health & Place, 2019, 60: 102214.

[37] Evans CR, Leckie G, Subramanian SV, Bell A, Merlo J. A tutorial for conducting intersectional multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy (MAIHDA)[J]. SSM - Population Health 2024, 26:101664.

[38] Goldstein, H., Browne, W., & Rasbash, J. Partitioning variation in multilevel models[J]. Understanding Statistics.2002, 1(4), 223–231.