臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究的目的在於探討台灣與大陸籃球選手在家長式領導、知覺動機氣候、團隊凝聚力與團隊滿意等變項的預測及差異情形。受試者為台灣甲組及大陸甲A男子籃球選手共227名（台灣93名及大陸134名），以家長式領導量表、知覺動機氣候量表、團隊情境量表以及滿足感量表作為測量工具。研究結果顯示：
在家長式領導對知覺動機氣候的預測方面：1.台灣選手的才德領導、仁慈領導、威權領導對工作取向氣候有顯著正向預測力；大陸選手的才德領導、仁慈領導對工作取向氣候有顯著正向預測力，2.台灣與大陸選手的威權領導對自我取向氣候有顯著正向預測力；在知覺動機氣候對團隊凝聚力的預測方面：1.台灣選手的工作取向氣候對社會凝聚力有顯著正向預測力、自我取向氣候有負向預測力，大陸選手的工作取向氣候、自我取向氣候對社會凝聚力無顯著預測力，2. 台灣選手的工作取向氣候對工作凝聚力有顯著正向預測力、自我取向氣候有顯著負向預測力，大陸選手的工作取向氣候對工作凝聚力有顯著正向預測力；在知覺動機氣候對團隊滿意的預測方面：台灣與大陸選手的工作取向氣候對團隊滿意有顯著正向預測力；在家長式領導對團隊凝聚力的預測方面：1.台灣選手的才德領導對社會凝聚力有顯著正向預測力、威權領導有顯著負向預測力，大陸選手的家長式領導對社會凝聚力無顯著預測力，2.台灣選手的才德領導對工作凝聚力有顯著正向預測力、威權領導有顯著負向預測力，大陸選手的仁慈領導對工作凝聚力有顯著正向預測力；在家長式領導對團隊滿意的預測方面：台灣與大陸選手的才德領導對團隊滿意有顯著正向預測力；在團隊凝聚力對團隊滿意的預測方面：台灣選手的工作凝聚力對團隊滿意有顯著正向預測力，大陸選手的社會凝聚力、工作凝聚力對團隊滿意無顯著預測力。
台灣與大陸籃球選手在家長式領導、知覺動機氣候、團隊凝聚力與團隊滿意上的差異比較方面：在才德領導方面，大陸選手顯著高於台灣選手；在仁慈領導、威權領導、知覺工作氣候、知覺自我氣候、社會凝聚力、工作凝聚力與團隊滿意方面台灣與大陸選手並無顯著差異。

The purpose of this research was to confer the forecast and differences of the Paternalistic, Perceived Motivation Climate, Group Cohesion and Satisfaction on the basketball players between Taiwan and China. There were 227 basketball players recruited to participate in this study (including 93 Taiwan players who participated in Taiwan Basketball Game and 134 CBA League players in China, the average age: 23.9 years old). The tools for survey included Paternalistic, Perceived Motivation Climate, Group Cohesion and Satisfaction. The results were as follows:
As to the forecast of Perceived Motivation Climate occurred by Paternalistic: a. Taiwanese players’ Moral Leadership, Benevolence Leadership and Authoritarianism Leadership were predicted by task-involving. The forecast was obviously positive； Chinese players’ Moral Leadership and Benevolence Leadership were predicted by task-involving. Obviously, it was also a positive forecast. b. Taiwanese and Chinese players’ Authoritarianism Leadership was predicted by ego-involving. The forecast was obviously positive. The forecast of Group Satisfaction occurred by Perceived Motivation Climate: Taiwanese and Chinese players’ task-involving was predicted by Satisfaction. The forecast was obviously positive. The forecast of Group Satisfaction occurred by Paternalistic: Taiwanese and Chinese players’ Moral Leadership was predicted by Satisfaction. The forecast was obviously positive. The forecast of Group Cohesion occurred by Perceived Motivation Climate: a. Taiwanese players’ task-involving were predicted by social-cohesion. The forecast was obviously positive, but the forecast on their ego-involving was opposite；Chinese players’ task-involving and ego-involving were predicted by social-cohesion. There was no obvious forecast. b. Taiwanese players’ task-involving was predicted by task-cohesion. The forecast was obviously positive, but the forecast on their ego-involving was opposite； Chinese players’ task-involving were predicted by task-cohesion. The forecast was obviously positive. The forecast of Group Satisfaction occurred by Group Cohesion: Taiwanese players’ task-cohesion was predicted by Satisfaction. The forecast was obviously positive; Chinese players’ social-cohesion and task-cohesion were predicted by Satisfaction. There was no obvious forecast. The forecast of Group Cohesion occurred by Paternalistic: a. Taiwanese players’ Moral Leadership was predicted by social-cohesion. The forecast was obviously positive, but the forecast on their Authoritarianism Leadership was opposite; Chinese players’ Paternalistic was predicted by social-cohesion. There was no obvious forecast. b. Taiwanese players’ Moral Leadership was predicted by task-cohesion. The forecast was obviously positive, but the forecast on their Authoritarianism Leadership was opposite; Chinese players’ Benevolence Leadership was predicted by task-cohesion. The forecast was obviously positive.
According to the statistics by the independent-samples t-test analysis, it can be discovered as follows: Chinese players’ Moral Leadership was obviously higher than Taiwanese players’. But, there was no difference on the Benevolence Leadership, Authoritarianism Leadership, Task-Involving, Ego-Involving, Social-Cohesion, Task-Cohesion and Satisfaction existed between Taiwan and China.

第壹章 緒論--------------------------------------------------------------1

第一節研究背景--------------------------------------------------------1
第二節研究目的--------------------------------------------------------6
第三節名詞解釋--------------------------------------------------------6

第貳章 文獻探討----------------------------------------------------------9
第一節家長式領導理論與相關研究----------------------------------------9
第二節知覺家長式領導與動機氣候相關研究--------------------------------13
第三節知覺動機氣候與團隊凝聚力、團隊滿意之相關研究--------------------15
第四節團隊凝聚力與團隊滿意之相關研究----------------------------------20
第五節台灣與中國大陸籃球選手之異同------------------------------------21
第六節研究假設--------------------------------------------------------23

第參章 研究方法----------------------------------------------------------25
第一節研究架構--------------------------------------------------------25
第二節研究對象--------------------------------------------------------26
第三節研究工具--------------------------------------------------------28
第四節研究程序--------------------------------------------------------33
第五節資料處理--------------------------------------------------------34
第肆章 研究結果----------------------------------------------------------35
第一節家長式領導對知覺動機氣候、團隊凝聚力、與團隊滿意的預測----------35
第二節家長式領導、知覺動機氣候、團隊凝聚力、與團隊滿意之差異----------49
第伍章 討論--------------------------------------------------------------54
第一節家長式領導對知覺動機氣候、團隊凝聚力、與團隊滿意的預測----------54
第二節家長式領導、知覺動機氣候、團隊凝聚力、與團隊滿意之差異----------64
第陸章 結論與建議--------------------------------------------------------67
第一節結 論-----------------------------------------------------------67
第二節建 議-----------------------------------------------------------71

參考文獻-----------------------------------------------------------------74

台灣中文版量表-----------------------------------------------------------81
附錄一 家長式領導量表---------------------------------------------------82
附錄二 家長式領導量表（修正版）-----------------------------------------84
附錄三 團隊情境量表-----------------------------------------------------85
附錄四 知覺運動動機氣候量表---------------------------------------------86
附錄五 滿意度量表-------------------------------------------------------88

大陸簡体版中文量表-------------------------------------------------------89
附錄一 家長式領導量表---------------------------------------------------90
附錄二 家長式領導量表（修正版）-----------------------------------------92
附錄三 團隊情境量表-----------------------------------------------------93
附錄四 知覺動机气候量表-------------------------------------------------94
附錄五 滿意度量表-------------------------------------------------------96

中文部分
季力康 （民83）：運動目標取向量表的建構效度－驗證性因素分析的應用。體育學報，18輯，299-310頁。
季力康 （民85）：如何增加球隊凝聚力。中華棒球，51期，76－78頁。
王錫堂 （民91）：人際和諧、領導行為與效能之探討。國立高雄醫學大學行為科學研究所碩士論文。
東方介德 （民90）：台灣與大陸籃球選手目標取向、知覺動機氣候、自決能力、運動動機與滿足感之比較研究。國立體育學院教練研究所碩士論文。
李安民、張力維、姒剛彥（1999）中美大學生體育成就動機結構模型的比較研究。體育科學，第19卷第5期。
姒剛彥 （2000）體育運動心理學的本土化研究與跨文化研究。體育科學，第20卷第3期。
莊艷惠 （民86）：教練領導行為對團隊凝聚力及內在動機的影響。國立體育學院體育研究所碩士論文。
陳其昌（82）：排球教練領導行為對團隊凝聚力的影響暨驗證運動情境領導理論之研究。國立體育學院碩士論文。
高三福 （2001）：團隊文化與教練領導：質化與量化兩種研究途徑。國立台灣師範大學體育研究所博士論文。
馬君萍 （民88）：女子排球運動員知覺教練領導行為知覺運動動機滿意度和內在動機之相關研究。國立體育學院教練研究所碩士論文。
凌孝綦 （民90）：國防雜誌。第16卷第11期，99-108頁。
黃英哲、季力康 （民83）:運動動機與自覺能力對賽前狀態性焦慮和滿足感的相關研究。體育學報，18輯，321-332頁。
黃英哲 （民83）:運動動機、自覺能力、賽前狀態性焦慮和滿足感的相關研究。國立台灣師範大學體育研究所碩士論文。
楊純碧 （民87）：教練領導行為對團隊氣氛與教練選手關係滿意度之影響。國立體育學院碩士論文。
張偉德 （民90）：家長式與轉型式領導風格在軍事單位的比較研究。國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
蔣憶德 （民86）：女子籃球選手目標取向知覺動機氣候喜愛動機氣候及自覺能力與內在動機及滿足感之相關研究。國立體育學院教練研究所碩士論文。
樊景立、鄭伯壎（2000）：家長式領導：一項文化觀點的分析。本土心理學研究，13期，127-180頁。
盧素娥 （民86）：大專籃球選手的知覺動機氣候與團隊凝聚力之相關研究。國立體育學院體育研究所碩士論文。
鄭伯壎（1995a）：不同家長權威價值與領導作風的關係：台灣民營企業的實證研究。國科會研究報告。
鄭伯壎（1995b）：差序格局與華人組織文化。本土心理學研究，3期，142-219頁。
鄭伯壎（1995c）：家長權威與領導行為的關係：一個台灣民營企業主持人的個案研究。中央研究院民族學研究所期刊，79期，119-173頁。
鄭伯壎、周麗芳、樊景立（2000）：家長式領導三元模式的建構與測量。第五屆華人心理與行為科際學術研討會。
鄭敏雄、劉一民（民80）：教練領導行為與團隊凝聚力之關係研究-以參加79學年度大專男子排球國手選拔賽之球隊為例。中華民國八十學年度體育學術研討會，235-252頁。
盧俊宏（民87）：運動心理學。台北：師苑出版。
英文部分
Ames, C., ＆ Archer, J.（1988）. Achievement goals in the classroom: Student learning strategies and motivation process. Journal of Educational Psychology,80, 260-267.
Bird, A. M. (1977). Development of a moder for predicting team performance. Resarch Quarterly,48,24-32.
Bryman,A.（1992）. Charistma and leadership of organizations.London:Sage.
Bryman,A.（1996）. Leadershipin organizations.In S.Clegg, C Hardy and W. Nord（Eds.）Handbook of organization studies. London:Sage.pp.276-292.
Carron, A. V., ＆ Chelladurai,P.（1981）: The dynamics of group cohesion in sport. Journal of Sport Psychology,3, 123-139.
Carron, A. V., Widneyer, W.N., ＆ Brawley, L.R.（1985）. The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The group environment questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology,7,244-266.
Carron, A. V.（1982）. Cohesiveness in sport group: interpretions and considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology,4,123-138.
Celladurai, P. (1993). Ledership. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey,＆ L. K. ennant (Eds.) , Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp.647-671). New York：Macmillan.
Celladurai, P. (1994). Ledership. in sport. In J. M. Silva, ＆ R. S. Weinberg(Eds.),Psychology foundations of sport (p.329-339).Champaign, IL,:Human Kinetics Publishers.
Duda, J.L. (1986). Perception of sport success and failure among Whit, Black, and Hispanic adolescents. Sport Science, 214-222.
Duda, J.L.,＆Allison, M.（1990） Cross-cultural analysis in exercise and Sport Psychology :A void in the field, Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 318-335.
Farh,K.L.,＆ Cheng,B.S（2000）. A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadship in Chinese.Oranizations. In J.T.Li.,Tsui,A.S.,＆ E. Weldon（Eds.）,Management and Oranizations in the Chinese context. London:Aacmillan.
Hall, H. （1990）. A social-cognitive approach to goal setting: The mediating effect of achievement goals and perceived ability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, IL.
Horne, ＆ Carron. A. V.(1985). Compatibility in coach-athlete relationship. Journal of Sport Psy-chology,7,137-149.
Lochbaum, M. R., ＆ Roberts, G. C. (1993). Goal orientations and perceptions of the sport experience. Jornal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,15, 160-171.
Maehr,M.L.,＆ Nicholls,J.G（1980）. Cultural and Achievement motivation:A second look.In Warrens（Ed.）Studies of cross-cultural Psychology,221-267.
Martens, R., ＆ Peterson, J.A. （1971）. Group chesiveness as a determinant of success and member satisfaction in team performance. International Review of Sport Sociology,6,;49-61.
Mikalachki. A （1969）. Group cohesion reconsidered. London, Ontrio :School of administration. University of western Ontario.
Nicholls, J.G.（1984）. Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91,328-346.
Seifriz, J.J., Duda, J. L. ＆ Chi, L.（1992）. The relationship of perceived motivational climate to intrinsic motivational and beliefs about success in basketball. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14, 375-391.
Treasure,D,C. ＆ Roberts,G.C.（1998）. Relationship between female adolescents’ achievement goal orientations, perceptions of the motivational climate, belief about success and sources of satisfaction in basketball. International Journal of Sport and Psychology,293, 211-230.
Walling,J.M. ＆ Hacker,C.(1982). Causal relation-Ship among cohesion, Stisfaction, and peformance in women’s inter collegiate field hockey teams.
Walling, N. D., Duda, J. L. ＆ Chi, L.（1993）. The perceived motivational climate in sport questionnaire: Construct and predictive validity. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,15,172-183.
Westre, K.R., ＆ Weiss, M.R.（1991）. The relationship between perceived coaching behaviors and group cohesion in high school football teams.The Sport Psychology,5,41-54.
Westwood, R.I.（1997）. Harmony and patriarchy:The cultural basis for’’paternalistic leadship’’among overseas Chinese.Oranization Studies,18,445-480.
Weastwood, R.I., ＆ Chan,A.(1982). Headship and leadership. In R.I. Weastwood (Ed.),Organizational Behavior: Asoutheast Asian perspective. Hong Kong:Longman Group.
Westwood, R.I., ＆ Chan,A.（1992）. headship and leadership. In R. I. Westwood (Ed.), Organizational Behavior: A Southeast Asian perspective. Hong Kong: Longman Group.
White, S.A.（1996）. Goal orientation and perceptions of the motivational climate initiated by parents.Pediatric exercise science 8（2）, 122-129.