跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.97.14.81) 您好!臺灣時間:2025/02/19 03:16
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:江孟霖
研究生(外文):Meng-Lin Chiang
論文名稱:和諧價值觀、群體關係對華人組織成員分配決策之影響:情境效果之探討
論文名稱(外文):The effects of the value of harmony and group relationship on distributive decision: Investigating the situational effects
指導教授:黃敏萍黃敏萍引用關係
指導教授(外文):Min-Ping Huang
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:元智大學
系所名稱:企業管理與服務科學學程
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:企業管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2010
畢業學年度:99
語文別:中文
論文頁數:60
中文關鍵詞:分配正義和諧關係表現資源
外文關鍵詞:distributive justiceharmonygroup relationshipperformanceresource
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:4
  • 點閱點閱:463
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:15
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
正義,自古以來就是人們注重的議題,它與人們所知覺到的公平感息息相關,而公平感又進一步影響了人們對於日常生活、工作甚至人際關係的態度。

過去西方對於正義的研究,先是集中於分配正義,近來又將焦點轉移至程序正義。然而,在東西方不同的文化下,華人社會隨著儒家思想的潛移默化,漸漸衍生出一種與西方迥然有異的正義觀。華人在實務上對分配正義的重視大於程序正義,不像西方較以貢獻為公平的衡量基準,而更看重視對象而變化的關係與情感,對於平均與需求法則的偏好也大於西方主流的公平分配。

然而,華人研究雖致力於文化對分配正義的影響,但過去對於其影響內涵的研究大部分仍過於簡化,文化與分配正義之間可能存在更多變的關聯。故本研究從此角度出發,除了討論華人重要文化特質”和諧”與”關係”之外,亦以”表現”及”資源”的組合建立了不同情境以探索更加深入。

本研究透過問卷調查法,內容結合情境故事與價值觀量表,收集共400份有效樣本。經統計分析後,發現和諧價值觀的高低對受試者分配正義法則的選擇有其影響,而關係的影響則不顯著。但當加入了情境調節變項後,當情境為表現不一致、關係壞的較不利狀況下,將會強化和諧價值觀的作用;相反地,當情境為表現一
致、關係好的較有利狀況下,關係對於分配正義法則的影響反而變得顯著。相較過去研究,本研究進一步確立了情境的影響效果。


Justice is always a very important issue. It’s related to the feeling of fairness, and this feeling will bring different attitudes toward people in their daily life, work and relationship with others.

In the past, the west put their focus on the distributive justice, but change to the procedural justice nowadays. While in the different culture effect between east and west, Confucius thinking made a huge effect to Chinese. Based on this, Chinese developed a different value system about justice with the west. Chinese discuss more about distributive justice but not procedural justice, and don’t use contribution to be the only standard to measure justice. Chinese use relationship and emotion to be the standard more often, and prefer to choose equality and need distribution rules.

Even there were a lot of researches about how Chinese culture effect distributive justice, but they are too simple; we believe that there exist more variables and relationships between culture and justice. So, we are not only discuss about two important characteristics including “Harmony” and “group relationship”, but also use “performance” and “resource” to make up several situations to explore more deeper on this issue.

Through the questionnaire which includes the situation story and questions to test subject’s value. And we get 400 effective samples. After our analysis, we found out that harmony does have some effect when subjects decide which distribution rules they prefer, but group relationship doesn’t. And after we add the modulating factors which will change the whole situation, when the performance is discordant and relationship is bad, the situation will strengthen the effect between harmony and justice; when the performance is the same and relationship is good, the situation will strengthen the effect between group relationship and justice. Based on this, compare to the researches in the past, we get a more clear inside about situational effect on justice.


中文摘要 …………………………………… …………… ii
英文摘要 …………………………………… ………… iv
誌謝 …………………………………………… ………… vi
目錄 ……………………………………………………… vii
表目錄 …………………………………………………… viii
圖目錄 ………………………………………………… ix
一、緒論 …………………………………………………… 1
1.1研究背景與動機 …………………………………… 1
1.2研究目的 ……………………………………………… 3
1.3研究流程 …………………………………………… 4
二、文獻探討 …………………………………………… 5
2.1 正義觀與分配正義 ……………………………… 5
2.2 華人文化與分配正義 ……………………………… 14
2.3 華人文化與分配正義之情境效果 ………………… 20
三、研究方法 …………………………………………… 25
3.1 研究架構 …………………………………………… 25
3.2 研究對象 …………………………………………… 25
3.3 研究工具 …………………………………………… 27
3.4 資料分析 …………………………………………… 33
四、研究結果 …………………………………………… 35
4.1 各變項間之相關分析 ……………………………… 35
4.2 華人文化變項與分配法則之關係 ……………… 38
4.3 成員表現對華人文化因素與分配法則之調節效果 … 39
4.4 資源對華人文化因素與分配法則之調節效果 … 41
五、討論與建議 ………………………………………… 45
5.1 研究結果 …………………………………………… 45
5.2 理論意涵 …………………………………………… 48
5.3 研究限制與未來研究方向 ………………………… 49
5.4 管理實務意涵 ……………………………………… 51
參考文獻 ……………………………………………… 52
附錄一 ……………………………………………… 58


1.黃光國 (1991) 儒家思想中的正義觀,請見〈中國人的心理與行為〉一書。
2.黃光國 (2005) 〈華人關係主義的理論建構〉。載楊國樞、黃光國、楊中芳 (主編)《華人本土心理學(上)》。台北:遠流出版公司。
3.嚴奇峰 (1993) 互動平衡理論-從儒家倫範與正義觀點探討本土之和諧人際互動關係。中原學報,22期,頁154~163。
4.張志學、楊中芳(2001)〈關於人情概念的一項研究〉。載於楊中芳 (主編)《中國人的人際關係、情感與信任》。台北:遠流出版公司。
5.張志學 (1995) 傳統文化對中國人”自我”的影響。中州學刊,六期,頁135~139。
6.張志學 (2005)〈中國人的分配正義觀〉。載楊國樞、黃光國、楊中芳 (主編)《華人本土心理學(下)》。台北:遠流出版公司。
7.趙志裕 (1991) 〈義:中國社會的公平觀〉。見《中國人,中國心》一書。
8.楊國樞 (1993) 〈中國人的社會取向:社會互動的觀點〉。見《中國人的心理與行為-理念及方法篇》一書。
9.楊國樞 (2005) 〈華人社會取向的理論分析〉。載楊國樞、黃光國、楊中芳 (主編)《華人本土心理學(上)》。台北:遠流出版公司。
10.楊中芳、許志超 (1986) 〈平均分酬與不公平感〉。《中華心理學刊》(台北),12期,頁105-179。
11.楊宜音 (1991):〈中學生友人間執行"分享分擔"規範的研究〉。《心理學報》(大陸),3期,頁325-333。
12.朱真茹,楊國樞 (1976) 〈個人現代性與相對作業量對報酬行為分配的影響〉。中央研究院民族學研究所集刊,14期,頁79-95。
13.李美枝 (1993) 從有關公平判斷的研究結果看中國人之人己關係的界限。本土心理學研究(台北),1期,頁267-300。
14.李亦園 (1992)〈和諧與均衡:民間信仰中的宇宙詮釋〉。《文化的圖像(上下)》,頁64-94。台北:允晨文化公司。
15.李豔梅 (1996)〈人際親疏度、個人主義-集體主義對公平判斷的影響〉。《社會心理研究》(大陸),3期,頁31-39。
16.黃囇莉 (1999)《人際和諧與衝突-本土化的理論與研究》。台北:桂冠圖書公司。
17.梁漱溟 (1963)《中國文化要義》。台北:正中書局。
18.鄭伯壎 (2000)〈華人人際關係研究的困境與出路〉。載於《本土心理學研究》一書。
19.劉磊 (1993)〈個體-集體取向與合作行為中分酬規範關係的研究〉。見章志光(編著):《學生品德形成新探》。北京:北京師範大學出版社。
20.余凱成、何威 (1995)〈中國大陸企業職工分配公平感研究〉。《本土心理學研究》(台北),4期,頁42-91。
21.Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange, In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in Experimental Psychology, Vol.2, 267-99.
22.Cropanzano & Folger, (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management.
23.Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which values will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137-149.
24.Deutsch, M. (1985). “Distributive justice: A social-psychological perspective.” New Haven: Yale University Press.
25.Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, Vol.7, 11-140.
26.Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
27.Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review. Vol.12, 9-22.
28.Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.75, 561-568.
29.Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.
30.Hwang, K. K., (1987). Face and Favor: the Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology, 92(4), 944-974.
31.Hui, C. H., Triandis, H. C., & Yee, C. (1991). Cultural differences in reward allocation: Is collectivism the explanation? British Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 145-157.
32.Hahm, P. C. (1967). The Korean legal tradition and law: Essays in Korean law and history. Seoul, Korean: Hollym.
33.Leventhal, G. S., (1976). The Distribution of Rewards and Resources in Groups and Organizations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 9, 1976, Pages 91-131.
34.Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preference. In G. Miikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction: 167-218. New York: Springer-Verlag.
35.Leung, K. & Bond, M. H. (1984). The impact of cultural collectivism on reward allocation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 793-804.
36.Leung, K. & Iwawaki, S. (1988). Cultural collectivism and distributive behavior. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 19, 35-49.
37.Leung, K., Brew, F. P., Zhang, Z. X., & Zhang, Y. (2008). Harmony and conflict: A cross-cultural study in China and Australia. Manuscript submitted for publication.
38.Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior: Dofairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of applied Psychology, 76(6): 845-855.
39.Mikula, G. (1980). On the role of justice in allocation decisions. In G. Mkula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction: Experimental and theoretical contributions from psychological research. New York: Springer-Verlag, 127-166.
40.Ng, S. H. (1984). Equity and social Categorization effects on intergroup allocation of rewards. Britisb Journal of Social Psychology, Vol,23. 165-172.
41.Pillutla, M. M., Farh, J. L., Lee, C., & Lin, Z., (1998). Constrained behavior: A cultural analysis of reward allocation in Chinese groups. Paper presented at the Annual National Meeting of Academy of Management, San Diego, California, August.
42.Pye, L. W. (1992). The Spirit of Chinese Politics: A Psycho Cultural Study of Authority Crisis in Political Development. 胡祖慶(譯) (1992), 《中國人的政治文化》。台北:風雲論壇出版社。
43.Pye, L. W. (1989). The Dynamic of Chinese Politics. 胡祖慶(譯) (1989):《中國政治的變與常》。台北:五南出版社。
44.Robbins, S. P. (2001). Organizational Behavior 9th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
45.Scholl, R. W., Cooper, E. A., & McKenna, J. F. (1987). Referent selection in determining equity perceptions: Differential effects on behavioral and attitudinal outcomes. Personnel Psychology, Vol.40, 113-124.
46.Sheppard, B. H., Lewicki, R. J., & Minton, J. W. (1992). Organizational justice: The search for fairness in the workplace. New York: Lexington Books.
47.Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1): 100-108
48.Stouffer, S. A., Schman, E. A., DeVinney, L. C., Star, S. A., & Williams, R. M. Jr. (1949). The American soldlier:Vol.1. Adjustment during army life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
49.Steve Kerr & Jermier, (1976). Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. Volume 22, Issue 3, December 1878, p375-403.
50.Tornblom, K. Y. (1992). The social psychology of distributive justice. In K, Scherer (Ed.), Justice: interdisciplinary perspectives. Cambridge: University Press.
51.Thibaut, J. & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A Psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Eelbaum.
52.W. Frankena, “the Concept of Social Justice,” in Social Justice, ed. R. Brant (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1962), 18-21.
53.Zhang, Z. X. (2000). Sensing contextual cues in reward allocation: The effect of situational factors. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, Louisiana, April 14-16.


QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top