跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.229.124.74) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/08/11 07:38
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:羅至良
研究生(外文):Chih-Liang Lo
論文名稱:電腦問卷、匿名效果對降低社會期望反應之探討
指導教授:林烘煜林烘煜引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立東華大學
系所名稱:教育研究所
學門:教育學門
學類:綜合教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2002
畢業學年度:90
語文別:中文
論文頁數:104
中文關鍵詞:匿名效果電腦問卷社會期望反應
外文關鍵詞:anonymitsocial desirable responsecomputer questionnaire
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:13
  • 點閱點閱:1492
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:277
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:3
本研究的主要目的在探討,透過電腦問卷的實施以及匿名的作用,是否能夠降低參與者的社會期望反應?過去有不少研究,探討在各種情境下,電腦問卷對於降低參與者社會期望反應的影響,但卻得不到一個確切的結果。經過文獻探討後,發現「研究量表的偏差」、「使用工具的熟悉度」、及「樣本代表性的偏差」,這三個因素,可能是造成電腦問卷與社會期望反應研究,產生研究的爭議主因。
本研究進行的方法,是先編定一份高敏感度問題的量表,再以大一、大二學生對高、低敏感程度不同題目的態度表達為例,使這些學生在不同的作答情境下,問卷形式(電子郵件問卷,紙筆問卷)×曝光程度(研究結果匿名,研究結果具名),檢視其態度表達的差異性。此外,除了獨立樣本的設計之外,本研究同時也以重複量數的設計進行研究。研究結果顯示,電子郵寄問卷與結果匿名的因素,會使得參與者降低其社會期望反應。透過重複量數的研究更發現,參與者只受到「問卷形式」因素的影響,只在電子郵件問卷上,會表達出更開放的性態度,顯著降低社會期望反應的影響,即使是在結果匿名的情況下。此外,結果亦顯示參與者電腦及團體問卷上「態度表達的差異」程度,會隨著「問題敏感度」的高低,呈現出顯著的正相關。這意味當問題的敏感度越高,參與者於不同情境時的態度表達,其差異性會越大。本研究說明了社會情境對心理學上高度敏感問題施測的重要影響,由於「社會期望反應」的可能影響,當從事的研究屬於高敏感性的主題或問題時,提供參與者隱密的施測情境是非常重要的,而電腦所提供的「過程匿名」可能是其中一個良好的施測途徑。
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of decreasing social desirable response biases between computer administration and face-to-face group administration of questionnaires. In the past, a lot of studies attempt to use computer to administrate questionnaire to decease the effect of social desirable response biases. However, no consistent results were showed up-to-date. The reviews of previous studies indicated that the inconsistent results might come from: (1) the insensitivities of questionnaires used in previous studies; (2) the familiarities of the use of computers; (3) the differences of sampling between computer and face-to-face administration of questionnaire. Therefore, this study first edited a high sensitive questionnaire and got a good result in a pretest. Then, the costumed use questionnaire, the Balanced Inventory Desirable Responding, Computer Anxiety Questionnaire, and the high sensitive questionnaire were used to examine university students’ attitude responses under the 4 (2 X 2 factor design) different situations. They were (1) questionnaire pattern (computer email survey vs. face-to-face group paper-pencil survey)( in order to get ride of sampling bias, part of students were repeated measured on both conditions for this factor) and anonymity (result anonymity vs. result signature.) The results showed that both of email survey and result anonymity caused participators to decrease social desirable response bias on high sensitive questionnaire, but not on any other questionnaires. However, the results from repeated measures designs indicated that only the factor of questionnaire pattern can decrease social desirable response bias on high sensitive questionnaire. That is, when participators were asked to answer high sensitive questions in the face-to-face situation, they were quit conserve. However, when those questions were asked through computer survey, those participants became quit open. Therefore, this study suggested that the use of computer can effectively decease the social desirable response biases.
摘要1
Abstract2
目錄3
第一章序論7
第一節研究動機與目的7
第二節文獻探討9
壹、社會期望反應的定義及相關的研究9
一、社會期望反應的定義9
二、辨別社會期望反應的方法11
三、降低社會期望反應的方法13
四、降低社會期望反應的方法比較15
五、社會期望反應強度的測量17
六、小結18
貳、電腦問卷的相關研究19
一、電腦問卷的定義19
二、電腦問卷的研究歷史19
三、電腦問卷的作答情境22
四、影響電腦問卷研究爭議的可能因素23
五、小結24
參、電子郵寄問卷調查使用之相關研究25
一、電子郵寄問卷調查的優缺點25
二、影響電子郵寄問卷調查的因素25
三、小結27
肆、問題焦點27
一、敏感性問題量表的編制27
二、電腦問卷對降低社會期望反應的效果28
三、研究參與者變異的控制28
四、研究假設29
第二章前導研究31
第一節研究方法與步驟31
壹、研究目的31
貳、研究參與者32
參、研究方法與步驟32
一、敏感問題的收集32
二、團體紙筆問卷施測32
肆、問卷調查內容與材料32
伍、問卷計分方式33
第二節研究結果34
壹、「敏感性問題」量表的編制34
貳、問卷內容敏感度的比較35
參、小結36
第三章正式研究39
第一節研究方法與步驟39
壹、研究參與者39
貳、實驗設計39
一、獨立樣本研究設計39
二、重複量數的研究設計39
三、整體研究設計41
參、獨立變項41
一、問卷形式41
二、曝光程度42
肆、控制變項43
伍、依變項44
一、敏感性問題量表44
二、平衡式期許作答量表(BIDR),分為SD 量表、IM 量表44
三、電腦焦慮量表44
陸、研究程序45
一、參與者取得45
二、協調問卷調查時間45
三、第一與第二組的問卷施測45
四、第三、四組的問卷施測46
五、結果匿名者的辨識46
六、實驗尾聲46
七、實驗流程46
第二節研究結果48
壹、樣本回收率48
貳、資料的先前檢查49
一、作答順序對參與者的影響49
二、參與者的電腦焦慮感之統計考驗51
三、參與者間差異的統計考驗51
參、獨立樣本的分析53
一、不同敏感程度量表之統計考驗53
二、私密行為的報告與問卷形式、曝光程度之間的關係56
肆、重複樣本的分析58
一、不同敏感程度的量表之統計考驗58
二、私密行為的報告與問卷形式、曝光程度之間的關係61
三、問題敏感度的高低與態度表達差異性的相關分析63
第四章討論與建議65
第一節研究的結果與討論65
壹、電子郵寄問卷的回收率65
貳、作答情境對態度表達差異性的影響66
參、敏感性量表對研究社會期望反應的重要性68
第二節研究的限制與檢討68
壹、獨立變項的研究限制與檢討68
貳、作答順序對問卷結果的影響69
參、重複量數的研究限制與檢討70
肆、研究結果的解釋與限制71
第三節進一步研究的方向與建議71
參考文獻73
附錄一:前導研究問卷80
附錄二:自編問卷敏感度統計表86
附錄三:正式研究之過程具名問卷87
附錄四:正式研究之過程匿名問卷92
附錄五:電子郵寄問卷之詢問信97
附錄六:電子郵寄問卷詢問之催覆信98
附錄七:電子郵寄問卷之說明信99
附錄八:電子郵寄問卷之催覆信100
附錄九:重複量數的電子郵件說明信101
附錄十:重複量數的電子郵件催覆信102
附錄十一:感謝信103
林烘煜(2000)。個人行為傾向意見調查量表。未出版。
林燕卿(2001)。大學院校學生性行為與談論性話題現況調查。樹德科技大學人類性學研究中心調查報告。
林震城(民86)。兩岸大學生電腦態度及電腦素養之比較研究。國立中央大學資訊管理學系碩士論文。
柯澍馨、李文懿(2001)。大學生親子溝通、同儕互動與性行為關係之研究。台灣性學期刊,7(1),13-32。
陳清暉(民90)。影響網路問卷表現與紙筆問卷表現差異因素之探討。輔仁大學應用心理系碩士論文。
翟本瑞(2001)。〈電子郵寄問卷調查使用之限制〉,南華大學社會學研究所電子期刊第十三期。(http://mail.nhu.edu.tw/~society/e-j/13/13-5.htm)2001/12/24。
蔡承志、林禎舜、蔡麗瓊(2000)。〈電子郵件調查穩定度的探討〉,中研院調查研究工作室《第三屆「調查研究方法與應用」學術研討會論文集》。頁49-55。
Anderson, A. A. (1996). Predictors of computer anxiety and performance in information systems. Computer in Human Behavior, 12, 61-77.
Bachmann, D., Elfrink, J. & Vazzana, G. (1999). E-mail and snail mail face off in rematch. Marketing Research, 11 (4), 11-15.
Bean, A. G.. & Roszkowski, M. J. (1995). The long and short of it. Marketing Research, 7 (1), 20-26.
Bem, D. (1972). Self-Perception Theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1-62). New York: Academic Press.
Booth-Kewley, S., Edwards, J.E. & Rosenfeld, P. (1992), Impression Management, Social Desirability and Computer Administration of Attitude Questionnaires: does the computer make a difference? Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.77, No. 4, 562-566.
Booth-Kewley, S., Rosenfeld, P., and Edwards, J. (1993). Computer-Administered Surveys in Organizational Settings, In: Rosenfeld, P., Edwards, J., and Thomas, M. (eds.), Improving Organizational Surveys, Sage: 73-101.
Brown, G., Copeland, T. & Millward, M. (1973). Monadic testing of new products - an old problem and some partial solutions, Journal of the Market Research Society Volume 15 Number 2, April pp 112-131
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987), Politeness: some universals in language usage, (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)
Claycomb, C., Porter S. S., & Martin, C. L. (2000). Riding the wave: response rates and the effects of time intervals between successive mail survey follow-up efforts. Journal of Business Research, 48 (2), 157-162.
Diane F. Witmer, Robert W. Colman, and Sandra Lee Katzman. (1999) From Paper-and Pencil to Screen-and Keyboard: Toward a Methodology for Survey Research on Internet In Steven G.Jones(ed), Doing Internet research: Critical issues and methods for examining the Net California: Sage Publications.pp.145-162.
Davies, M.F, French, C.C. & Keogh, E. (1998), Self-Deception Enhancement and Impression Management Correlates of EPQ-R Dimensions, Journal of Psychology, 132(4), 401-406.
Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd Edition). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Dillman, D.A., Singer, E., Clark, J.R. & Treat, J.B. (1996) Effects of benefits appeals and variations in statements of confidentiality on completion rates for census questionnaires. Public Opinion Quarterly Vol 60 Number 3 Fall
Fisher, R.F. (1993), Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.20, 303-313.
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.
Hays, R.D., Hayashi,T. & Stewart, A.L. (1989) A five item measure of socially desirable response set. Educational and Psychological Measurement 49 pp 629-636
Holtgraves, T, Eck, J. & Lasky, B. (1997), Face Management, Question wording and Social Desirability, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 18, 1650-1671
Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a General Theory of Self-Presentation. In J.Suls (Ed.), Psychological Perspectives on the Self (Vol. 1, pp. 231-262). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kalton, G. & Schuman, H. (1982), The Effect of the Question on Survey Responses : a review, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 145, Part 1, 42-73
Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., & Cialdini, R. B. (1999). Social Psychology: Unraveling the Mystery. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kiesler, S., Zubrow, D., Moses, A. M., & Geller,V. (1985) Affect in computer-mediated communication. Human Computer Interaction, 1, 77-104.
Kiesler, S. and Sproull, L.S. (1986). Response effects in the electronic survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50 (3): 402-413.
Kim Sheehan. (2001) E-Mail Survey Response Rates: A Review. JCMC 6(2) (http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue2/sheehan.html)
Lautenschlager, G. J., & Flaherty, V. L. (1990). Computer administration of questions: More desirable or more social desirable? Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 310-314.
Martin, C., & Nagao, D. H. (1989). Some effects of computerized interviewing on job applicant responses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 523-533.
Melanie C. Green, Jon A. Krosnick & Allyson L. Holbrook.(2001). The Survey Response Process in Telephone and Face-to-Face Surveys:Differences in Respondent Satisficing and Social Desirability Response Bias. (http://www.psy.ohio-state.edu/social/tch62a.pdf)
Mick, D. G. (1996). Are studies of Dark side variables confounded by Socially Desirable Responding? The case of Materialism, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.23 (September), pp.106-119.
Miles, E., & King, W. (1998). Gender and Administration Mode Effects When Pencil-and-Paper Personality Tests are Computerized. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(1), 68-76.
Milo, K. M. (1993). A comparison between computer and clinician administered psychological assessment interview: Effects on social desirability response bias. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O.(1991). Psychological Tesing: Principles and applications (2nd ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Prenticd-Hall.
Nancarrow, C., & Brace, I.(2000). Saying the "right thing": Coping with Social Desirability Bias in Marketing Research. Bristol Business School Teaching and Research Review Issue 3, Summer 2000, ISSN 1468-4578
Paolo, A. M., Bonaminio, G. A. , Gibson, C. , Patridge, T., & Kallail, K. (2000). Response rate comparisons of e-mail and mail distributed student evaluations. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 12 (2), 81-84.
Patterson, Brian (2001). Impressing Big Brother: The Effect of Experience and Attitude on Impression Management in Computerized Surveys. ( http://www.student.carleton.edu/P/patterbj/psych/comps/PsychComps.pdf)
Paulhus, D.L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598-609.
Paulhus, D.L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver, & L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp.17-59). New York: Academic Press.
Paulhus, D.L. (2001). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In H. Braun, D.N. Jackson, & D. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement. New York: Guilford.
Phillips, D.L. & Clancy, K.J. (1972), Some Effects of 'Social Desirability' in Survey Studies, American Journal of Sociology, Vol.77, No.5, 921-938.
Potosky, D., & Bobko, P. (1997). Computer Versus Paper-and-Pencil Administration Mode and Response Distortion in Noncognitive Selection Tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2),293-299.
Rainer, R. K., & Miller, M. D. (1996). An assessment of the psychometric properties of the computer attitude scale. Computer in Human Behavior, 12, 93-105.
Richman, W. L., Kiesler, S., Weisband, S., & Drasgow, F. (1999). A Meta-Analytic Study of Social Desirability Distortion in Computer-Administered Questionaires, Traditional Questionaires, and Interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(5), 754-775.
Roese, L. D. & Weil, M. M. (1995). Computer anxiety: across-cultural comparsion of university students in ten contries. Computers in Human Behavior, 11, 45-64.
Roese, N. J. & Jamieson, D.W. (1993), Twenty years of Bogus Pipeline Research: a critical review and metanalysis, Psychological Bulletin, Vol.114, No.2, 363-375.
Rosenfeld, P., Doherty, L. M.,Vicino, S. M.,Kantor, J., & Greaves, J. (1989). Attitude assessment in organizationa: Testing three mocro-computer-based survey system. Journal of General Psychology, 166, 145-154.
Rosenfeld, P., Booth-Kewley, S., and Edwards, J. (1996). Responses on Computer surveys: Impression management, social desirability, and the big brother syndrome. Computers in Human Behavior, 12 (2): 263-274.
Scott, C. (1982), Contribution to Discussion of the Paper by Dr Kalton & Dr Schuman, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 145, Part 1, pp. 68-69.
Sheehan, K. B., & Hoy, M. G. (1997). E-mail surveys: response patterns, process and potential. Proceedings of the 1997 Conference of the American Academy of Advertisers.
Sheehan, K. B., & Hoy, M. G. (1999). Using e-mail to survey internet users in the United States: Methodology and assessment. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 4 (3). [Online]. Available: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue3/sheehan.html.
Sheehan, K. B., & McMillan, S. J. (1999). Response variation in e-mail surveys: An exploration. Journal of Advertising Research, 39 (4), 45-54.
Short,J., Williams,E., & Christie,B. (1976) The Social Psychology and Telecommunications London:John Wiley.
Singer, E., Von Thurn, D.R. & Miller, E.R. (1995) Confidentiality assurances and response. A quantitative review of the experimental literature, Public Opinion Quarterly Vol. 59 no 1 Spring pp 67-77.
Smith, M., & Leigh, B. (1997) Virtual subjects: Using the internet as an alternative source of subjects and research environment. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computer, 29(4), 496-505.
Spears, R., & Lea, M.(1994). Panacea or Panoption? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427-459.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler S.(1986). Reducing social context cues : electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32(4), 1492-1512.
Tourangeau, R., & T. W. Smith (1996). Asking sensitive questions: The impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opinion quarterly, 60, 275-304.
Tuten, T. L. (1997). Electronic Methods of Collecting Survey Data: A Review of “E-Research” (http://www.social-science-gesis.de /Publikationen/Berichte /ZUMA_Arbeitsberichte /documents/pdfs/97_09.pdf)
Watt, J. H. (1999). Internet systems for evaluation research. In G. Gay & T. Bennington (eds), Information technologies in evaluation: social, moral, epistemological and practical implications (pp. 23-44). San Francisco: Josey-Bass, no. 84
Whitener, E. M., & Klein, H. J. (1995). Equivalence of computerized and traditional research methods: The roles of scanning, social environment, and social desirability. Computers in Human Behavior, 11, 65-75.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top