Objective: To examine the status of bullying behaviors and psychological resilience of primary school students and the relationship between the two, and to provide references for related interventions. Methods: Olweus bullying questionnaire and adolescent psychological resilience scale were used to select students in grades 4-6 for questionnaire survey. Results: Primary school students who were bullied, bullied others, double-involved and uninvolved accounted 33.3%, 48.7%, 15.3%, and 2.7%. There were statistically significant differences in bullying in different dimensions of different genders, grades, and previous suicidal thoughts (P<0.05); there were statistically significant differences in the bullied status of only children, divorced parents, and different caregivers (t/F=3.64，2.65，6.62，P<0.05); The status of bullying behavior of students in the class was better than that of ordinary students (t=-2.18, P<0.05); senior students have a higher level of positive cognition (F=8.71, P<0.05); mental toughness of urban students better than rural areas (t=-2.20, P<0.05); students with divorced parents had poor levels of emotional control, family support, and psychological toughness (t=-4.60，-3.92，-3.44，P<0.05); class cadres focused on focus, positive cognition, family support, interpersonal assistance, and psychological resilience were better than ordinary students (t=5.19，6.43,5.64,4.13，6.58，P<0.05); students with parental care had better levels of target concentration, emotional control, family support, interpersonal assistance, and psychological resilience (t=4.59，8.68，8.76，12.35，13.45，P<0.05); the level of psychological resilience of students was low (t=15.90，P<0.05). Correlation analysis shows that there was a negative correlation between bullying behavior and psychological resilience of all pupils (P<0.01), regression analysis showed that bullying behavior may had a negative prediction of mental resilience (F=128.37, R2=0.12, P<0.01). Conclusion The current situation of bullying behavior and mental resilience of grade 4-6 students is worrisome, and it is urgent to improve the current situation of bullying and psychological resilience of primary school students.

Objective:To investigate the characteristics of executive function of preschool children with high functioning autism spectrum disorder (HFA) and with global developmental delay (GDD), and the differences among HFA, GDD and typically developmental (TD) children.Methods:From January 2020 to January 2021, 20 male HFA, 20 male GDD and 20 male TD children aged 4-6 years who visited the Psychological Behavior Clinic of the Child Health Department of Guiyang Maternal and Child Health Hospital and the Developmental Behavior Clinic of the Children Health Department of the Ninth People's Hospital in Chongqing were selected for comparative study.The executive function of HFA, GDD and TD children was assessed with the behavior rating scale of executive function-preschool version(BRIEF-P) and the executive function task program (EF-TOUCH). SPSS 26.0 software was used for statistical analysis, including variance test, independent sample t-test, χ2 test, Kruskal Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test. Results:In the EF-TOUCH program task, the accuracy of the three groups of children's performance in the pig task (Pig), the silly sounds game (SSG), the working memory task (pick the picture, PTP) and the task of cognitive flexibility (something's the same, STS) were statistically different(Pig: HFA group: 0.87(0.76, 0.99), GDD group: 0.97(0.85, 0.99), TD group: 1.00(0.98, 1.00), χ2=15.646, P<0.001; SSG: HFA group: 0.76(0.53, 0.91), GDD group: 0.76(0.65, 0.99), TD group: 0.94(0.76, 1.00), χ2=6.448, P=0.040; PTP: HFA group: 0.66±0.18, GDD group: 0.66±0.19, TD group: 0.78±0.11; F=3.221, P=0.048; STS: HFA group: 0.67(0.63, 0.70), GDD group: 0.72(0.46, 0.78), TD group: 0.87(0.83, 0.90), χ2=26.898, P<0.001). The accuracies of Pig, SSG, PTP and STS in HFA group were significantly lower than those in TD group(all P<0.05), and the accuracies of Pig and STS in GDD group were significantly lower than those in TD group(both P<0.05). In inhibition control, there were statistically differences in response time of Pig and SSG among the three groups (Pig: HFA group: (1 694.36±222.83)ms, GDD group: (1 513.46±244.91)ms, TD group: (1 444.84±197.95)ms, F=5.810, P=0.005; SSG: HFA group: (2 202.42±195.58)ms, GDD group: (2 116.52±323.27)ms, TD group: (1 937.17±252.74)ms, Z=4.610, P=0.014). There were no significant differences in the reaction time of Arrows task ( P>0.05). There were significant differences in BRIEF-P inhibition control, organizational planning, inhibition self-regulation, cognitive flexibility and total scores among the three groups ( P<0.05), while there were no significant differences in the scores of other factors and dimensions ( P>0.05). Conclusion:The executive function of pre-school children with high functioning autism spectrum disorder and children with global developmental delay is impaired.The executive function of children with high functioning autism spectrum disorder and children with global developmental delay is significantly different from that of typically developmental children of the same age.Moreover, the executive function of children with HFA is more severely damaged from all components than that of children with GDD.