臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

在性侵害加害人的治療計劃中，大部分都會包含對被害者同理的訓練(Hanson, 2003)。以台灣現正實行的「性侵害加害人身心治療模式—社區團體心理治療」為例，其中就有針對加害人同理心訓練的相關課程(內政部，民91)。鑑於在台灣探討類似議題的相關研究有限，加上國內外研究者、矯正機構均開始注意同理心在臨床治療上的應用，本研究即針對性侵害加害人的同理心予以探討。
本研究主要目的在：(一)探討性侵害加害人是否有同理心缺損(empathy deficit)的問題；(二)選取自尊、羞恥感、罪惡感、自我專注(self-focused attention)及社會期許等因素，探討其與性侵害加害人同理心反應的關聯；(三)分析上述因子對性侵害加害人同理心反應的影響，期能提供後續規劃加害人臨床治療時介入的參考。
本研究分二階段進行：預備研究選取202名大學生，針對研究工具予以中文化及信效度考驗；正式研究以立意取樣，選取台灣北部某監獄246名性侵害加害人為研究對象，同時選取215名其他犯罪者與79名一般人為對照組進行比較。研究程序方面，每位參與者除完成自陳量表的填寫外，研究者另經由監獄的受刑人身份簿，收集性侵害加害人靜態九九評估表(Static-99)的資料，將性侵組分為「低、中低、中高、高」四個危險等級，並比較不同危險程度的性侵害加害人在重要變項上的差異與關聯。
研究結果發現：1)不論性侵害加害人是否曾參與治療，其自陳量表的觀點取替、同理感受與罪惡感的得分均顯著高於一般人，且高危險性侵組在同理心總分、罪惡感與社會期許的得分上，亦均高於一般人。2)相關分析顯示，性侵組及一般組的羞恥感及罪惡感均分別與其個人受苦感及觀點取替達顯著正相關。3)迴歸分析指出，性侵組的自尊、罪惡感、正向自我專注與社會期許可顯著預測其觀點取替；而其自尊、羞恥感與自我專注則可顯著預測其個人受苦感。4)在中介效果的檢驗上，三組的正向自我專注在罪惡感與觀點取替間均扮演中介變項的角色；而負向自我專注則僅在性侵組與犯罪組的羞恥感與個人受苦感間扮演中介角色，一般組則無此狀況。此外，經由觀點取替與個人受苦感的模式適合度考驗可知，性侵組較適配於觀點取替修正模式。
對於性侵害加害人的臨床處遇，本文建議：未來研究宜建立屬於犯罪族群本身的本土化評估工具，並增加性侵害加害人相關的實徵研究。

Background and purpose
Most treatment programs for sexual offenders include some form of victim empathy training (Hanson, 2003). A similar program has been practiced years for sexual offenders treatment, both individual and community group therapy as well in Taiwan. There are scant studies in Taiwan concerning sexual offenders, and more researchers are interested in empathy used in the clinical field. This study therefore aims to explore the sexual offenders’ empathy.
The main objectives of this study are: (1) to explore the differences in empathy, shame and guilt response; (2) to understand the relationship between the sexual offenders’ empathy reaction and the selected factors: “self-esteem”, “shame”, “guilt”, “self-focused attention” and “social desirability”; (3) to find the fitness of therapeutic model for empathy, self-focused attention, shame, and guilt.
Material and methods
This study was conducted in two phases; (1) Pilot study: translating the instruments into traditional Chinese and to examine it for the differential reliability and validity in the sample of 202 college students. (2) Main study: Data was collected via purposely sampling from 246 sexual offenders in a northern Taiwan prison. An additional 215 other criminals and 79 general people in the community were chosen as the compared groups. Besides the self-report questionnaire, the risk ranks (low, mid-low, mid-high, and high) obtained from the Static-99 assessment of each respondent in the sexual offender’s group was also collected for further subgroups analysis.
Results
The key findings from the study were:
(1) Sexual offenders ,both none treated and treated, showed higher scores than general people on perspective taking, empathic concern and guilt, especially the high risk rank group showed the best empathic, guilt, and social desirability responses. In four elements of empathy responses, most worthy noticing results are, the high risk rank group shows the best knowledge in both perspective-taking and empathic concern, but not in personal distress and fantasy.
(2) The correlation analysis showed that shame and guilt were significantly positive correlated with personal distress and perspective taking among both sexual offenders and general people.
(3) from the regression analysis among the sample of sexual offenders showed that self-esteem, guilt, positive self-focused attention, and social desirability could significantly predict perspective taking , while self-esteem, shame and self-focused attention could significantly predict personal distress.
(4) In the test of mediation effects, the positive “self-focused attention” played the role for the mediator between “guilt” and “perspective taking” in all three groups, whereas the negative “self-focused attention” was considered between “shame” and “personal distress” among sexual offenders and other criminals , but not for the general people group. Further, from the test of model fit of “perspective taking” and “personal distress”, the sexual offenders group was found to match the adjusted model of perspective taking which was constructed in this study.
Conclusion
In terms of theory development, further researches should establish an assessment tool with sexual offenders to avoid assessment errors in different groups and increase the empirical researches in the clinical field.

目 錄
目錄…………………………………………………………… I
圖目錄………………………………………………………… III
表目錄………………………………………………………… IV

第一章 緒論……………………………………………… 1
第一節 問題背景………………………………………………… 1
第二節 研究動機與目的………………………………………… 4
第三節 名詞解釋………………………………………………… 7

第二章 文獻探討……………………………………………10
第一節 性侵害犯罪……………………………………………… 10
第二節 同理心…………………………………………………… 14
第三節 羞恥感與罪惡感………………………………………… 25
第四節 自我專注………………………………………………… 32
第五節 自尊……………………………………………………… 38
第六節 綜合整理………………………………………………… 39

第三章 研究方法………………………………………… 40
第一節 研究架構………………………………………………… 40
第二節 研究目的………………………………………………… 43
第三節 研究問題………………………………………………… 44
第四節 研究假設………………………………………………… 46
第五節 研究流程………………………………………………… 48
第六節 研究工具………………………………………………… 50
第七節 研究參與者……………………………………………… 50

第四章 預備研究………………………………………… 51
第一節 研究對象………………………………………………… 51
第二節 研究程序………………………………………………… 52
第三節 研究工具………………………………………………… 53

第五章 正式研究………………………………………… 75
第一節 研究參與者與量表的信效度資料……………………… 76
第二節 研究變項間之差異分析………………………………… 89
第三節 研究變項間之相關分析…………………………………104
第四節 同理心之迴歸分析………………………………………119
第五節 不同危險程度性侵組間各變項之差異檢定……………129
第六節 研究架構模式之檢定……………………………………137

第六章 綜合討論……………………………………… 151
第一節 研究假設之驗證…………………………………………151
第二節 研究發現與討論…………………………………………161
第三節 研究限制…………………………………………………167
第四節 未來研究方向……………………………………………171

參考文獻…………………………………………………… 176
附錄一：研究參與同意書…………………………………………… 186
附錄二：Dr.Davis的同意授權電子郵件 …………………………… 187
附錄三：正式研究量表(部分) …………………………………………188

圖目錄

圖2-1：同理心構念示意圖………………………………………………18
圖2-2：同理心組成模式…………………………………………………21
圖2-3：個體對刺激及後續反應關係圖…………………………………26
圖2-4：個體的羞恥、罪惡感、自我評估與行為反應關係圖…………27
圖2-5：自我覺察、自我意識與自我監控之間的關係…………………33
圖2-6：羞恥與罪惡感與歸因、自我之間的關係………………………37圖2-7：自我意識情緒與行為發生歷程中變項的關係圖………………39
圖3-1：研究架構…………………………………………………………41
圖5-1：正式性侵組人際反應量表再次檢驗之驗證性因素分析………86
圖5-2：正式性侵組羞恥感、罪惡感量表再次檢驗之驗證性因素分析87
圖5-3：正式性侵組反思、反芻量表再次檢驗之驗證性因素分析……88
圖5-4：不同危險程度性侵組在治療與否的觀點取替平均數……… 135
圖5-5：不同危險程度性侵組在治療與否的角色置入平均數……… 135
圖5-6：不同危險程度性侵組在治療與否的個人受苦感平均數…… 136
圖5-7：不同危險程度性侵組在治療與否的同理感受平均數……… 136
圖5-8：一般組的罪惡感、正向自我專注及觀點取替反應關係圖… 139
圖5-9：性侵組觀點取替模式之路徑分析結果……………………… 148
圖5-10：一般組觀點取替模式之路徑分析結果…………………… 148
圖5-11：性侵組個人受苦感模式之路徑分析結果……………………149
圖5-12：一般組個人受苦感模式之路徑分析結果……………………149
圖5-13：性侵組觀點取替修正模式之路徑分析結果…………………150
圖5-14：一般組觀點取替修正模式之路徑分析結果…………………150


表目錄

表1-1：各級法院檢察署執行判決確定有罪人數統計表……………… 3
表2-1：同理心概念整理…………………………………………………15
表2-2：四種情緒取向下的同理心定義…………………………………16
表2-3：當代測量成人同理心的量表……………………………………19
表2-4：羞恥感與罪惡感之異同…………………………………………29
表4-1：量表中文化樣本基本人口變項特性……………………………52
表4-2：中文化人際反應指標量表之轉軸後因素負荷量矩陣…………55
表4-3：中文化人際反應指標量表之因素分析解釋變異量……………56
表4-4：刪題後人際反應量表各分量表題目與內部一致性信度………59
表4-5：羞恥感、罪惡感量表範例一……………………………………61
表4-6：羞恥感、罪惡感量表範例二……………………………………61
表4-7：羞恥感、罪惡感分量表之因素分析解釋變異量………………63
表4-8：羞恥感、罪惡感分量表之轉軸後因素負荷量矩陣……………65
表4-9：刪題後羞恥、罪惡感分量表題目與內部一致性信度…………66
表4-10：反思反芻問卷之因素分析解釋變異量……………………… 70
表4-11：反思反芻問卷之轉軸後因素負荷量矩陣 ……………………71
表4-12：刪題後反思反芻問卷之題目與內部一致性信度…………… 72
表4-13：刪題後各研究工具之信效度比較 ……………………………74
表5-1：性侵組樣本基本人口變項特性 ……………………………… 81
表5-2：犯罪組樣本基本人口變項特性 ……………………………… 82
表5-3：一般組樣本基本人口變項特性…………………………………83
表5-4：預備研究與正式研究各組各量表之內部一致信係數(α)比較…84
表5-5：正式研究性侵組人際反應指標量表的適合度指標……………84
表5-6：正式研究性侵組羞恥感、罪惡感量表的適合度指標…………85
表5-7：正式研究性侵組反思反芻量表的適合度指標…………………85
表5-8：性侵組各變項之基本描述統計值………………………………97
表5-9：性侵組、犯罪組與一般組在各主要變項上的F檢定…………98
表5-10：性侵組與一般組在社會期許各題出現的百分比卡方同質性檢定 99
表5-11：性侵組與犯罪組在社會期許各題出現的百分比卡方同質性檢定100
表5-12：性侵組、犯罪組與一般組在年齡層之分布情形……………101
表5-13：性侵組、犯罪組與一般組在教育程度之分布情形…………101
表5-14：性侵組、犯罪組與一般組在各人口特性變項上的F檢定…101
表5-15：性侵組、犯罪組與一般組在人口特性變項上的卡方檢定…102表5-16：性侵組、犯罪組與一般組在其他重要相關史的卡方檢定…103
表5-17：性侵組主要預測變項與同理心反應的相關分析……………112
表5-18：犯罪組主要預測變項與同理心反應的相關分析……………112
表5-19：一般組主要預測變項與同理心反應的相關分析……………112
表5-20：性侵組主要預測變項間的相關分析…………………………113
表5-21：犯罪組主要預測變項間的相關分析…………………………113
表5-22：一般組主要預測變項間的相關分析…………………………113
表5-23：性侵組基本人口變項與同理心反應的相關分析……………114
表5-24：犯罪組基本人口變項與同理心反應的相關分析……………114
表5-25：一般組基本人口變項與同理心反應的相關分析……………115
表5-26：性侵組基本人口變項與同理心反應的相關分析……………116
表5-27：犯罪組基本人口變項與同理心反應的相關分析……………117
表5-28：一般組基本人口變項與同理心反應的相關分析……………118
表5-29：性侵組主要預測變項對同理心變項之階層迴歸分析………127
表5-30：一般組主要預測變項對同理心變項之階層迴歸分析………128
表5-31：不同危險程度性侵組與一般組在各主要變項上的F檢定…133
表5-32：性侵治療組、未治療組與一般組在各主要變項上F檢定…134
表5-33：性侵組驗證正向自我專注為罪惡感與觀點取替中介變項之結果145
表5-34：犯罪組驗證正向自我專注為罪惡感與觀點取替中介變項之結果145
表5-35：一般組驗證正向自我專注為罪惡感與觀點取替中介變項之結果145
表5-36：性侵組驗證負向自我專注為羞恥感與個人受苦感的中介變項之結果
………………………………………………………………………… 146
表5-37：犯罪組驗證負向自我專注為羞恥感與個人受苦感的中介變項之結果
………………………………………………………………………… 146
表5-28：一般組驗證負向自我專注為羞恥感與個人受苦感的中介變項之結果
………………………………………………………………………… 146
表5-39：研究架構中各模式的適合度指標比較………………………147
表6-1：假設驗證程度表……………………………………………… 160

參考文獻
中文部分：
內政部(民91)。家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會—性侵害加害人身心治療模式之再探研究。141頁。檢索日期：96.05.14。取自World Wide Web:http://dspc.moi.gov.tw/public/Attachment/72131212971.doc
吳英璋(民90)。情緒教育的理論與內涵，學生輔導，75，66-78。
沈勝昂(民92)。犯罪行為與羞恥感、罪惡感之關係。桃園：中央警察大學出版社。
沈勝昂(民95)。性侵害犯罪加害人再犯危險評估量表之建立—動態危險因素之探測(三)。內政部家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會委託研究。
邱皓政(民95)。量化硏究法(二)--統計原理與分析技術：SPSS中文視窗版操作實務詳析。臺北市：雙葉書廊。
法務部保護司編輯(民94)。犯罪狀況及其分析—中華民國93年。台北：作者。
法務部(民96)。法務統計專題分析專案報告—95年法務統計重要指標分析。檢索日期：96.10.10。取自World Wide Web: http://www.moj.gov.tw/
林山田(民88)。評一九九九的刑法修正。月旦法學雜誌，51期，16-34。
林明傑(民89)。性罪犯之心理評估暨危險評估。社區發展季刊，88期，316-340。台北：內政部。
洪千惠(民95)。性侵害犯罪之社會成本分析[摘要]。全國博碩士論文資訊網。檢索日期：96.11.12。取自World Wide Web: http://etds.ncl.edu.tw/theabs/site/sh/detail_result.jsp
李維娜(民89)。性侵害加害人之認知扭曲研究。國立中正大學犯罪防治研究所碩士論文。
涂珮瓊(民92)。反芻的多向度對大學生情緒變化的影響[摘要]。全國博碩士論文資訊網。檢索日期：96.3.16。取自World Wide Web: http://etds.ncl.edu.tw/theabs/site/sh/detail_result.jsp
陳百越(民92)。治療者的自我涉入、同理心與初期治療關係的探討。中原大學心理研究所碩士論文。
陳若璋、劉志如(民90)。性侵害加害人身心治療模式之研究。內政部委託研究報告。台北：家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會。
陳英明(民92)。性侵害加害人接受身心治療及輔導教育經驗之研究。國立中正大學犯罪防治研究所碩士論文。
陳郁岑(民93)。再探K式兩性關係評估量表之臨床信效度。國立成功大學行為醫學研究所碩士論文。
張春興(民78)。張氏心理學辭典。台北：東華書局。
黃美月(民93)。終生持續型犯罪者、青少年限期型犯罪者、和一般青少年在同理心上的差異。國立台灣大學心理學研究所碩士論文。
黃軍義(1999)。強姦行為之心理動態分析。國立台灣大學心理學研究所博士論文。
劉瑞楨(民87)。憂鬱者與社會焦慮的自我關注特性—偏好性、持續性與彈性的探討。國立台灣大學心理學研究所碩士論文。

英文部分：
亞瑟．喬拉米卡利 & 凱薩琳．柯茜(P. Ciaramicoli & Katherine Ketcham；2005)。同理心的力量(The Power of Empathy，陳豐偉與張家銘譯)。台北，麥田出版。
Astington, J., Harris, P., & Olson, D. (1988). Developing theories of mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and
theory of mind. Boston: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The Empathy Quotient: An Investigation of Adults with Asperger Syndrome or High Functioning Autism, and Normal Sex Differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(2), 163-175.
Batson, C. D., Dyck, J. L., Brandt, J. R., Batson, J. G., Powell, A. L. McMaster, M. R. & Griffitt, C. (1988). Five studies testing two new egoistic alternatives to the empathy-altruism hopothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 52-57
Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt: an interpersonal approach. Psychol Bull, 115(2), 243-267.
Beven, J. P., O’Brien-Malone, A., & Hall, G. (2004). Using the Interpersonal Reactivity Index to Assess Empathy in Violent Offenders. International Journal of Forensic Psychology, 1(2), 33–41.
Blum LA. 1980. Friendship, Altruism, and Morality. London: Routledge & Keganaul. 234 pp.
Bumby, K. M., Marshall, W. L., & Langton, C. (1999). A theoretical model of the influences of shame and guilt on sexual offending. The sex offender: Theoretical advances, treating special populations and legal developments, 3, 5.1-5.12.
Buss, A. H.(1980). Self-consciousness and social anxiety. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
Chapin, F. S. (1942). Preliminary standardization of a social insight
scale. American Sociological Review, 7, 214–225.
Corey, G. (1991). Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy. Pacific Grove: Cole Publishing Company.
Cronbach, L. J. (1955). Processes affecting scores on understanding of others and assuming “similarity.” Psychological Bulletin, 52,177–193.
Crighton, D., & Towl, G. (2007). Experimental interventions with sex offenders: a brief review of their efficacy. British Medical Journal, 10(2), 35-37.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113-126.
Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach. CO:
Westview Press.
Dennett, D. (1987). The intentional stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press/Bradford Books.
Dymond, R. F. (1949). A scale for the measurement of empathic ability.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 13, 127–133.
Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. A. (1972). A theory of objective self awareness. Academic Press: New York.
Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, Regulation, and Moral Development. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 665-697.
Ellingson, J. E., Smith, D. B., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). Investigating the influence of social desirability on personality factor structure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 122-133.
Farber, B. A. (1989). psychological-mindness: Can there be too much of a good thing ? Psychotherapy, 26, 210-216.
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M.F., & Buss, A. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522-527.
Fenigstein, A. (1987).On the nature of public and private self-consciousness. Journal of Personality, 55, 543-553.
Ferguson, T. J., & Crowley, S. L. (1997). Measure for measure: A multitrait-multimethod analysis of guilt and shame. Journal of personality assessment, 69(2), 425-441.
Feshbach, S., Feshbach, N. D., Zahn-Waxler, C., Cummings, E. M., & Iannotti, R. (1986). Altruism and Aggression: Biological and Social Origins.
Fischer, K. W., & Tangney, J. P. (1995). Self-conscious emotions and the affect revolution: Framework and overview. Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride, 3–22.
Groth, A. Nicholas. (1979). Men who rape. Plenum Press, New York.
Hanson, R. K. (1997). Invoking sympathy: Assessment and treatment of empathy deficits among sexual offenders. In B. K. Schwartz & H. R. Cellini (Eds.), The sex offender: New insights, treatment innovations, and legal developments (pp. 1-11). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.
Hanson, R. K. (2003). Empathy deficits of sexual offenders: A conceptual model. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 9(1), 13-23.
Hanson, R. K., & Bussiere, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 348-362.
Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2005). The Characteristics of Persistent Sexual Offenders: A Meta-Analysis of Recidivism Studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(6), 1154-116310.
Hanson, R. K. & Thornton, D. (1999). Static 99: Improving actuarial risk assessments for sex offenders. Ottawa, Canada: Department of the Solicitor General Canada. Retieved , January 20, 2007 from http://www.ps-sp.gc.ca/serv/srch/search-eng.aspx
Hoffman, M. L. (1982). Development of prosocial motivation: Empathy and guilt. The development of prosocial behavior, 281-313.
Hoffman, M. L. (1998). Varieties of empathy-based guilt. Guilt and Children, 4, 91-112.
Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 307–316.
Izard, C. E. (1977). Human Emotions: Springer.
Ingram, R. E. (1989). Affective confounds in social-cognitive research. Jounral of Personality and Social psychology, 57, 715-722.
Ingram, R. E. (1990). Self focused attention in clinical disorder: Review and a conceptual model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 156-176.
Joireman, J. (2004). Empathy and the Self-Absorption Paradox II: Self-Rumination and Self-Reflection as Mediators Between Shame, Guilt, and Empathy. Self and Identity, 3(3), 225-238.
Joireman, J. A., Parrott, L., & Hammersla, J. (2002). Empathy and the Self-Absorption Paradox: Support for the Distinction Between Self-Rumination and Self-Reflection. Self and Identity, 1(1), 53-65.
Knopp, F. H., Freeman-Longo, R., & Stevenson, W. F. (1992). Nationwide survey of juvenile and adult sex offender treatment programs and models. Brandon, VT: Safer Society.
Kohler, W. (1929). Gestalt psychology. New York: Liveright.
Lauterbach, O., & Hosser, D. (2007). Assessing empathy in prisoners-: A shortened version of the interpersonal reactivity index. Swiss journal of psychology, 66(2), 91-101.
Leith, K. P., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Empathy, shame, guilt, and narratives of interpersonal conflicts: Guilt-prone people are better at perspective taking. Journal of Personality, 66(1), 1-37.
Lewis, H. B. (1971). Shame and Guilt in Neurosis. New York: Int: Univ. Press.
Li, J., Wang, L., & Fischer, K. W. (2004). The organisation of Chinese shame concepts? Cognition & Emotion, 18(6), 767-797.
Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional
empathy. Journal of Personality, 40, 525–543.
Marshall, W. L., Hudson, S. M., & Fernandez, Y. M. (1995). Cognitive behavioural treatment of sexual offenders. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Marshall, W. L. (1997). The Relationship Between Self-Esteem and Deviant Sexual Arousal in Nonfamilial Child Molesters. Behavior Modification, 21(1), 86.
Marshall, W. L., Cripps, E., Anderson, D., & Cortoni, F. A. (1999). Self-Esteem and Coping Strategies in Child Molesters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(9), 955.
Marshall, W. L., & Eccles, A. (1996). Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment of Sex Offenders. Sourcebook of Psychological Treatment Manuals for Adult Disorders.
McCrae, R. R. (1993). Moderated analyses of longitudinal personality stability. Jounral of Personality and Social psychology, 65, 577-585.
Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner.
Pithers, W. D. (1999). Empathy: Definition, Enhancement, and Relevance to the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(3), 257.
Proeve, M., & Howells, K. (2002). Shame and Guilt in Child Sexual Offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46(6), 657.
Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S.(1997). 「性格與社會心理測量總覽」(Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes, 楊宜音、彭泗清譯)。台北：桂冠。
Rogers, C. R. (1957) The necessary and sufficient conditions of therepaeutic personality change. Journal of consulting psychology, 21(2), 95-103.
Smith, A. (1759). The theory of moral sentiments (Republished
1976 ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Stotland, E., Sherman, S., & Shaver, K. (1971). Empathy and birth order:Some experimental explorations. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Stotland, E., Mathews Jr. K. E., Sherman, S. E., Hansson, R. O., & Richardson, B. Z. (1978) Empathy, fantasy and helping. London: Sage publications, Inc.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D.,(1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.
Tangney, J. P. (1991). Moral affect: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of personality and social psychology, 61(4), 598-607.
Tangney, J. P. (1994). The mixed legacy of the superego: Adaptive and maladaptive aspects of shame and guilt. Empirical perspectives on object relations theory, 1–28.
Tangney, J. P. (1995). Recent empirical advances in the study of shame and guilt. American Behavioral Scientist, 38(1), 132-131.
Tangney, J. P. (1996). Conceptual and methodological issues in the assessment of shame and guilt. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34(9), 741-754.
Tangney, J. P. (1999). The self-conscious emotions: Shame, guilt, embarrassment and pride. Handbook of cognition and emotion, 26, 541-568.
Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and Guilt: The Guilford Press.
Taylor, G. (1985). Pride, Shame, and Guilt: Emotions of Self-Assessment: Oxford University Press.
Titchener, E. (1909). Elementary psychology of the thought processes, New York: Macmillan.
Tomkins, S. (1963). Affect, imagery, consciousness：The negative affect. New York: Springer.
Tomkins, S. (1987). Shame. The Many Faces of Shame, 133-161.
Trapnell, P. D., & Campbell, J. D. (1999). Private self-consciousness and the five-factor model of personality: Distinguishing rumination from reflection. Journal of personality and social psychology, 76(2), 284-304.
Walker, L.J., & Pitts, R. C. (1998). Naturalistic conceptions of moral maturity. Dev. Psychol.34,403–419.
Wicklund, R. A., & Gollwitzer, P.M.(1987). The fallacy of the private-public self-focus distinction. Journal of Personality, 55, 491-523.