社会支持作为一种来自外部的支持和帮助，对个体的主观幸福感有着怎样的影响呢？鉴于以往研究的不一致性以及在这方面对特教专业本科生的研究较少，本文以特教专业公费师范生为研究对象，以了解当前特教专业公费师范生社会支持和主观幸福感的现状，以及社会支持对主观幸福感的影响为研究目的，意在探讨如何提高特教专业公费师范生的主观幸福感，从而为他们的心理健康提供一定的指导。 首先对国内外相关社会支持、主观幸福感以及社会支持对主观幸福感的影响的研究做了综述；然后在此基础上，采用问卷对北京师范大学和华东师范大学的125名特教专业公费师范生的社会支持和主观幸福感进行了调查；继而采用个案访谈法，对北师大4名特教专业公费师范生进行访谈；最后再对研究结论进行了分析讨论，并对如何提高特教专业公费师范生的主观幸福感以及学校教育提出了一些建议。 在调查研究中，应本领域研究发展的需要以及本研究的需要，修订了《特教专业公费师范生社会支持问卷》和《特教专业公费师范生主观幸福感问卷》。经检测，这2个问卷都具有较好的信度和效度。本研究得出以下结论：本研究得出如下结论: 1. 特教专业公费师范生社会支持水平处于中等偏上的水平。其中朋友支持和家庭支持得分较高；教师支持得分较低；政策支持得分中等。2. 女生在朋友支持维度上的得分显著高于男生，在总体社会支持及其他维度上不存在显著的性别差异；特教专业公费师范生在总体社会支持及各维度上不存在显著的学校差异；四个年级的特教专业公费师范生无论在家庭支持、朋友支持、政策支持以及总体社会支持上没有显著差异，但是教师支持方面，大四显著高于大一，大二。不同生源地的特教专业公费师范生在政策支持维度上呈现出显著差异。3. 特教专业公费师范生的主观幸福感水平中等程度以上。其中家庭的满意度最高，学习体验及学校满意度较低。4. 特教专业公费师范生主观幸福感只有对自我满意维度具有显著性的性别差异；学校满意维度存在及其显著性学校差异外，在其他维度均不存在显著差异。在学校满意及学习体验维度上均存在显著的年级差异，大一得分显著高于其他3个年级组；而在学习体验维度上，大一得分显著低于其他3个年级组。主观幸福感在生源地维度上不存在显著差异。5. 特教专业公费师范生社会支持及其各维度对主观幸福感有显著的正相关。以主观幸福感为因变量，社会支持为自变量进行回归分析，发现社会支持对主观幸福感有一定的预测作用，但预测力是有限的。关键词：特教专业公费师范生，社会支持，主观幸福感

How about the influence of social support as a kind of external help to subjective well-being? In consideration of that the outcome of former studies is not uniform,and the studies on Special Normal Education Students are less, this study takes this Special Normal Education Students as subjects, aims to have a good grip of the actual state of their social support, subjective well-being and the relationship between them, to explore how to raise their subjective well-being, and provide some guidance to the school. First, this article gives an overview of the former studies related, then studies on 125 Normal Education Students from ECNU and BNU by the means of both questionnaire and private interview, gives an analysis on the study outcome, and gives some advice on how to raise their subjective well-being and school education. To supply the need of the study and the development of this area, the "questionnaire of social support of Special Normal Education Students" and the "questionnaire of subjective well-being of Special Normal Education Students" are formulated during the study. The results of the study conclude that: 1. Most students' social support scores is relatively high. Friend support and family support are higher than others, teacher support is the lowest, policy support is medium scored.2. The scores of girls on friend support is significantly higher than boys. There's no significant difference between school on total social support and it's dimensions. On grade level , the scores of seniors on teacher support is significantly higher than the freshman and sophomore.Different Sources of Special Normal Education Students in the dimensions of policy support show a significant difference.3. The subjective well-being scores is high as a whole, in which family satisfaction is relatively high, while learning experiences and school satisfaction is relatively low.4. Only self-satisfaction exists significant gender difference. The scores of girls are higher than boys. The school satisfaction dimensions exist significant differences between school, other dimensions are no significant differences. In the school satisfaction and learning experience dimensions have significant grade difference, the fresh score significantly higher than the other 3 grade groups; in the learning experience dimensions, the fresh score significantly lower than the other 3 grade groups.Subjective well-being in the source variables have no significant difference.5. The social support influence their subjective well-being evidently.Special Normal Education Students' social support and all factors of subjective well-being have significant positive correlation.Family support, friend support, teacher support, policy support and total social support and overall subjective well-being and subjective well-being of each dimension were significantly positively correlated.In order to subjective well-being as dependent variables, social support as independent variables in regression analysis, found that social support on subjective well-being of certain forecast, but the predictive power is limited. KEY WORDS：Special Normal Education Students, Social support, Subjective Well-Being