中文摘要
目的：本論文的主旨是以習慣觀點探討字詞自由聯想與SASB人際模式、人格違常傾向與心理健康的關係。
自由聯想與古典精神分析理論的關係密不可分，是一向受臨床心理學界人士常使用的診斷工具之一；後來，因缺乏適當研究，被認為診斷工作上實用價值不高，使用頻率漸式微。迄今，台灣臨床心理學界幾乎無人使用它。「社會行為結構分析」理論乃由Benjemin所創；它重視親子間互動關係與個體長大成人後的各項客觀人際行為，主觀自我概念的因果關係，並且是發展心理學與精神分析學兩理論交互而生的新理論；據它可預測某個人小時若與父母有何種互動關係，長大後則和別人的適應是健康或不健康的。雖此理論在臨床心理工作頗好用，但台灣心理學界鮮有人知之，用者更是鳳毛麟角。
「習慣」在今日社會已成各階層人士間的語言互動用語，但在學術書籍中卻少被使用，也很少成為研究議題，近幾年，柯氏給此詞嚴謹的學術性定義，欲將它送進「學術殿堂」，也讓學術界人士多用之。柯氏所下的習慣定義是「刺激與反應之間的穩定關係。」因為此定義很清楚，具體可使用範圍可狹可廣，用起來很方便。職之故，本論文企圖以習慣的核心概念，討論並指出「精神分析」、「社會行為結構分析」與習慣三理論及出自該三理論的測量工具之間應有密切關係，也指出，由這三理論發展出來的工具皆有臨床應用價值。

研究工具方法：研究工具含有1. 「SASB人際量表」，2. HPH(健康、性格、習慣)量表中的「人格違常量尺」、「健康量尺」，3. 和以｢父」、「母」、「我」三個字為刺激字的「字詞自由聯想測驗」。
研究方法有四階段：階段一，根據「習慣」定義編製SASB人際模式量表；尋找可搭配的人格違常與健康量表、及刺激字「父」、「母」、「我」的「字詞自由聯想測驗」，編製整合成為「人際與個人習慣量表」。給予329名輔仁大學學生，施測字詞自由聯想測驗與「人際與個人習慣量表」。階段二：算出SASB量表內部一致性、聚合與區辨效度；檢驗人際量表與人格違常、健康量尺之間的相關性；依研究假設做分析，撰寫分析結果。依人際量表測得結果分受試者為「健康」與「不健康」適應兩組；以及「男生」、「女生」兩組；以這些組別受試者進行「人際模式」、「人際行為層面」、「人格違常傾向」的組別差異檢定，撰寫結果。
階段三：設計以「印象分數、正向反應數、負向反應數、中性反應數、總反應數」等字詞自由聯想反應結果的方式。依SASB模式分數選出來的「健康」與「不健康」人際組的字詞測驗結果整理成「字詞自由聯想測驗」評估量表，將五位評估者的評估結果整理後進行評估者間信度分析。階段四：以每個刺激字聯想反應的「印象、正向、負向、中性、總數」五個項目進行與「SASB人際量表」與「人格違常量表」做相關分析。接著做不同人際組別、不同性別間的二因子變異數分析，瞭解組間、組內因子的差異比較。
結果：分析結果如下：1. 以習慣定義編製的SASB人際量表有良好的內部一致性信度。2. 其層面的各人際行為也有良好的內部一致性信度；3. 此量表也有良好的聚合與區辨兩項效度；4. 每個人際模式內的分量尺間均有顯著正相關；5. 健康與不健康人際模式的分量尺之間有應有的顯著高負相關；6. 每個人際模式內容皆有測到所屬象限所欲測量的核心構念；7. 「友善_自主」「人際模式」與「人際行為層面」，與代表健康的HPH分量尺有正相關，與不健康的分量尺，以及「人格違常量表」則有顯著的負相關；「敵意_排擠」與「敵意_攻擊」人際模式及其「人際行為層面」，與代表不健康的HPH分量尺，以及各「人格違常量表」之間，則皆有應有的顯著正相關。上述結果，皆表示SASB人際量表與健康、不健康適應概念上互有密切關連。
男生組在「敵意_排擠」與「敵意_攻擊」模式的得分，高於女生組，在「分裂型、妄想型、自戀型、反社會型」人格違常傾向，也高於女生。
對以「父、母、我」三個刺激字所做的「字詞自由聯想反應」結果的，評估結果具有顯著的評分者間信度。「健康」與「不健康」兩人際適應組對自由聯想測驗的「父、母、我」字的正向反應，與SASB健康人際模式、「友善_自主」人際行為層面形成所預測的顯著正相關，而與不健康人際適應模式、「敵意_排擠、敵意_攻擊」人際行為層面則有顯著負相關，與每種人格違常傾向亦都呈負相關，其中與妄想型、邊緣型、反社會型的負相關最顯著。
兩組受試者對「父、母、我」字詞自由聯想的負向反應數與整體印象（越高分越負面），也皆與不健康人際適應模式、「敵意_排擠、敵意_攻擊」的人際行為層面有顯著正相關，與每一種人格違常傾向也均成正相關。字詞自由聯想的組別比較發現在「健康」因子上有主要效果，在「父、母、我」刺激字因子上也有主要效果，「組別」與「刺激字」兩因子也有交互作用；其中「不健康」組對「我」字的印象分數（越高分越負面），顯著高於他們對「父」字與「母」字的印象分數，而對「母」字的正向反應數，也顯著高於對「父」字與「我」字的正向反應數。而組內三個刺激字的反應差異，僅發生在「不健康」人際組裡。
女生組在正向反應數比男生組高，總反應數也比男生組高，組內「父、母、我」三個刺激字的聯想反應差異僅發生在女生組，差異是，女生組對「我」字的負向反應數與負面印象分數顯著高於對「母」字的，而女生組對「母」字的正向反應數則顯著高於對「父」跟「我」字。在進一步做性別與組別交互作用的分析後發現，主要差異出現在「不健康人際的女生組」裡。「不健康人際的女生組」對「父、母、我」刺激字的負向反應數均顯著高於「不健康人際的男生組」，也顯著高於「健康人際」的男生組與女生組。其中，「不健康人際」的女生組，以「我」字的負向反應最高。

討論：本研究結果認為，以SASB人際模式分數從一般普通受試樣本中區分出來代表健康與不健康人際適應的兩組受試者群，除了在他們的人際模式、人際行為層面上出現顯著差異外，在人格違常傾向與字詞自由聯想測驗的反應性質裡，也出現顯著差異。此處將本次研究的發現分別簡述如下：
1.「敵意_排擠」人際模式與人格違常傾向的相關最高，也與「心理功能受損」相關最高；它意示「敵意_排擠」人際模式對人格違常傾向的造成與心理功能受損的解釋力最高。
2.「敵意_排擠」的「像父母」人際行為，與「反社會」人格違常傾向B群之一的相關最高，而「反社會」人格違常傾向，也與所有象限裡的「像父母」人際行為層面的相關最高。表示「像父母」人際行為層面對「反社會」人格違常傾向而言，是解釋力最高的人際行為層面。
3.「敵意_排擠」的「自我概念」人際行為層面與「D2心理功能輕微受損」、「D3心理功能中度受損」形成高正相關；但「D4心理功能重度受損」則與「敵意_排擠」的「像父母」人際行為層面的顯著正相關最高。
4.「自我概念」人際行為層面與人格違常傾向的相關最高。
5.SASB的不健康人際模式與「邊緣型、妄想型、分裂型」，人格違常傾向亦即A群的相關最高。
6.「妄想型、邊緣型、分裂型」，亦既A型人格違常，是「健康」與「不健康」人際組分數差異最大的人格違常類型。
7.「字詞自由聯想」的反應結果表示，不論在正向反應或負面印象的，均發現「父」字與「邊緣型」、「妄想型」人格違常的顯著性相關最高，「母」字則與「反社會型」人格違常的顯著性相關最高，「我」字則與「邊緣型」人格違常的顯著相關最高。
8.字詞聯想的「中性反應」與「反應總數」，均與「友善_自主」人際模式、「人際行為層面」呈現正相關，與「敵意_排擠、敵意_攻擊」的人際模式、「人際行為層面」呈現負相關，其中也有些相關已達顯著性。
9.本研究也發現健康與不健康組最大顯著差異是發生在正向反應上，而非負向反應上，這似乎在意指，不健康人際組的聯想反應重點可能是在於「正向反應」太少，而非我們刻板印象所認為的負向反應太多。
10.此次研究建議以後的研究者於收集樣本時，可以收集不同系所學校的樣本，以增加樣本的代表性；在SASB量表的使用上，建議以後的研究者在應用此份人際量表可以進一步做再測信度，以及建構效度方面的統計檢驗。另外各象限的人際模式、人際行為層面，與人格違常，或與其他臨床疾患、家庭親子問題、兩性關係的相關研究，也可以做為日後研究者探討的方向。
11.本研究諸多假設似乎都獲得本研究資料之支持，呼應本研究之主要目的。

關鍵字：字詞自由聯想、SASB人際模式、人格違常傾向、心理健康。

Abstract
Objective:
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationships among word association processes, SASB interpersonal patterns, personality disorders, and mental health from the view point of the Habit theory.
Relationship between free association processes with the classical psychoanalytic theory is inseparable, and was a diagnostic tool frequently used by clinical psychologists in the past. However, due to the lack of accumulation of valid clinical data, the “practical value” of the word association test has been misinterpreted as low, and therefore, this test has gradually become out of use. "Structural analysis of social behavior (SASB)" theory was developed by Benjamin; it emphasizes the relationship between one’s nature of parent-child interaction in the childhood, and one’s relationships with significant others in the adulthood. Although quite useful in clinical practices, but few clinical psychologists in Taiwan utilize the theory.
"Habit" is though a very common terminology, but has rarely been used in academic researches. In recent years, Dr. Ko has given "habit" a rigorous operational definition, trying to make the concept more amiable for researchers.
This paper attempts to discuss that the three theories mentioned above are in fact tightly tied together by three basic elements, that is, Stimulus, Response, and the Stable relation between them. And also attempts to point out the psychological tests developed out of these three theories, have clinical values.

Subjects and methods:
Research tool contain a. "SASB interpersonal Model Scale"; 2. "Personality disorder Scales", and "Health scales" of the HPH (Health, Personalty, Habits) Scale; 3. And the stimulus words "Father", "Mother", and "I" of "Word association Test."
The study involve four stages: Stage One, according to the definition of "Habit", each item in the "SASB interpersonal model scale" was written; “personality disorder scales”, “health scales”, and “word association test” stimulus words ”father”, ”mother”, and ”I”; all of them appropriate for the present study were chosen. the aforementioned three scales were then combined and printed together and renamed as “The interpersonal and Personal Habit Scale”; with the ”Habit scale”, 329 students of Fu Jen Catholic University were then tested as subjects. Stage Two: analise of the internal consistency reliability, and the convergent validity, discriminant validity of the ”SASB Interpersonal Model Scale” were analized; and the correlation among the ”SASB Interpersonal Scale”, “Personality Disorder Scales”, and ”Health Scale”were examined; according to research hypotheses, and writing the result of analyses; then, subjects were divided into two groups of ”Healthy adaptation” and”Unhealthy adaptation” based a SASB scores; another grouping also being made according to gender variable. the differences between groups in ”SASB interpersonal Model”, ”Interpersonal behavior face”, and ”Personality Disorder tendency” were analyzed by t-test.
Stage Three: In order to score the results of ”Word association test”, and five ways of analyzing the result of the test was considered, namely ”Impression Score”, ”Positive response numbers”, ”Negative response numbers”, ” Neutral response numbers”, and ”Total response numbers”. The utility of these five scores from ”Word Association Test” result was tested by comparing the means of the ”healthy” and ”unhealthy” adaptation groups. The Kappa consistency coefficient, which was used to check five rater’s interrater reliability was conducted before the mean differences were calculated. Phase Four: Doing correlation analyses with each of the five ”Word Association” test scores with ”SASB Interpersonal Scale” scores, and ”Personality Disorder Scale”scores; then checking the differences between ”Healty and Unhealty” adaptation Groups; and between ”Male and Female” Groups; in the above analyses, the two way Anova mixed design was adopted.

Results:
The results are as follows: (1) ”SASB Interpersonal Model Scale” has high Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient. (2) each of SASB “interpersonal behavior” subscales also has good internal consistency reliability Cronbach’s Alpha; (3) SASB scales also have good Convergent validity and Discriminant validity; (4) every subscale of the ”interpersonal behavior” has significant positive correlations with own SASB interpersonal Model. (5) The correlation between the healthy and unhealthy interpersonal model is significantly negative.(6) each interpersonal modal is able to measure the core concept of the quadrant which it belongs to. (7) "Friendly _ autonomy" interpersonal modal and interpersonal behavior, is singnificantly and posivively correlated with the HPH’s healthy subscale; and significantly but negatively with HPH’s unhealthy subscales and with HPH "personality disorder scales", On the other hand, "hostility _ exclusion" and "hostility _ attack" interpersonal modal and interpersonal behavior have significant and posivive correlation with HPH’s unhealthy subscales and with "personality disorder scales".
All of these results suggest that SASB interpersonal scale has a close correlation with the concept of healthy and unhealthy adaption.
The Male group’s "hostility _ exclusion" and "hostility _ attack" interpersonal modal scores are significantly higher than the female group; On "schizotypal, paranoid, narcissistic, antisocial" personality disorder scores, the male group also obtained significantly higher scores than the female group.
The assessment results of "Word Association Test" have significant Interrater reliability as shown in good consistency coefficient. The positive responses on the "Word Association Test" to stimulus words "father", "mother", and "I", have a significant positive correlation with SASB’s "friendly _ autonomy” interpersonal modal and interpersonal behavior ; but with "hostility _ exclusion, hostility _ attack" model and its interpersonal behavioral, and with each personality disorder, correlations were significantly negative such results were consistent with the hypotheses tested; With personality disorders, the most significant negative correlations were found to be with “paranoid, borderline, antisocial“ scale scores. As to the negative response and impression response score (the higher the score, the more negative) to the stimulus words "Father, Mother, I" on the free association test, have a significant positive correlation with "hostility_exclusion” and”hostility_attack” interpersonal modal and behavior; and also have positive correlations with each personality disorder.
In the ”Two-Way Anova mix design” test, Group factor( Healthy and Unhealthy ) and word factor ( Father, Mother, I ), have major effect, and interaction effect between these two factors ; the main difference is, "unhealthy" group to the "I" word association are most negative; and to the "Mather" word the content of associations are most positive; the difference between them is significant. With ”Within the group”, the differences in responses to the three stimulus words, occured only in the "unhealthy" group. The female group is significant higher than the male group in ”positive reaction” and in ” total response numbers” of ”Word association test”; With ”Within the group difference”, The differences in response to the three stimulus words, occurred only in the female group. The main difference is , to the "I" word, the content of associations is most negative; and to the "mather" word association content of associations is most positive; and these differences in content are significant.
In doing further analysis of gender and group interaction effects, it was found that the main differences appear in the "unhealthy female group". This group’s negative response to "Father, mother, I" word association, in content were significantly higher than the "unhealthy male group", and also significantly higher than the healthy male group and female groups. The responses of the unhealthy female group to "I" word are mostly high in negative content.

Conclusion:
The results of this study suggest that, with "Healthy and Unhealthy” groups, and ”Male and Female” groups, significant differences appeared in their interpersonal patterns, interpersonal behavioral, and ”personality disorder tendencies”, and ”Word association Test” respones, In the followings the findings of the present study are summarized:
1. The SASB interpersonal pattern which has the highest correlation with "personality disorder tendencies", and "mental function impairment" is "hostility _ exclusion " Modal; such findings seem to mean that "hostility _ exclusion " Modal has the highest explanatory power for ”personality disorder” and "mental function impairment".
2. Correlations between the "parentlike_2 (Hostility _ exclusion)" behavior and "antisocial" personality disorder, and between "antisocial" personality disorder, with all quadrant’s "parentlike" interpersonal behavior are very high. Such findings seem to mean that the "Parentlike" interpersonal behaviors have the highest explanatory power to the "antisocial" personality disorder.
3. "Introject_2(hostility _ exclusion)"interpersonal behavior has the highest positive correlation with "D2, slightly mental function impairment" and "D3, medium mental function impairment"; But "D4, the severe mental function impairment" is most highly and positively correlated with the "Parentlike_2(Hostility _ exclusion)" interpersonal behavior.
4. "Introject" scores have highest positive correlations with the personality disorder score.
5. The SASB unhealthy interpersonal modal scores have highest positive correlation with "Borderline, Paranoid, and Schizotypal" personality disorders.
6. "paranoid, borderline, schizotypal" personality disorders are the three scores, on which the "healthy" and "unhealthy" interpersonal groups have highest score difference.
7. The present research found that the positive as well as negative contents of responses to the "father" stimulus word are mostly highly and significantly correlated with "borderline" and "paranoid" personality disorder scores; and those to the "mather" stimulus word are mostly highly and significantly correlated with the "Antisocial" personality disorder score; and as with the "I" stimulus word, the highest correlation was found to be with the "Borderline" personality disorder score.
8. "Neutral response" and "total response numbers" of the "word association test" are found to have positive correlations with "friendly _ autonomy" interpersonal modal and interpersonal behavior; but with the "hostility _ exclusion & hostility _ attack" interpersonal modal and interpersonal behavior scores, some of correlations were significantly negative.
9. This study also found that the most significant difference between healthy and unhealthy groups occurred in the positive content of responses freely associated with stimulus words, rather than in the negative contents of words associated with, which seems to mean that subjects in the unhealthy interpersonal group are lacking in enough positive associate responses, rather than having too much negative associative responses.
10. This study suggests that researchers in the future, may collect samples from different universities to increase the representativeness of the sample; when the SASB scales are to be used, the present researcher recommends that future researchers have better make a ”test-retest reliability” and ”construct validity” studies, which were not made in the present study due to the shortage of available time. In addition, every interpersonal modal and interpersonal behavior for each quadrant, and personality disorders, or with other clinical issues, such as family parenting issues.
11. In this study, most the assumptions made seemed to have fortunately gained supports by objective materials gathered, echoing the main purpose claimed at the beginning of this study.

Key words: Word association, SASB Interpersonal patterns, Personality disorder,
Mental health.

目 次

中文摘要........……………………………………………………………………………. I
英文摘要........……………………………………………………………………….…… VI
目次…………………………………………………………………………….……….... XIII
圖表目次……………………………………………………………………….………… XV
第一章 研究動機與目的……………………………………………….………………. 1
第一節 研究動機與目的…………………..……….………………………..…… 1
第二節 研究問題………………………….………………………………….…... 4
第二章 文獻回顧………………………………………………………………….….. 6
第一節 習慣心理學的概念…………………..……….……………………….…. 6
第二節 字詞自由聯想…………….……….……………………………………... 11
第三節 SASB人際模式…………….……………….……………………….…… 20
第四節 人格違常傾向…..…………………….…………………………..……… 42
第三章 研究方法………………………….…………………………………………… 60
第一節 研究對象………….………..……………………………………..……… 60
第二節 研究工具…………………………..………………………………..….… 62
第三節 研究流程……………………………………………………………….… 72
第四章 研究結果…………………………………………………..……………..….… 78
第一節 SASB人際模式、人際行為層面的關係……..………………………..… 78
第二節 SASB人際模式與人格違常傾向、心理健康的關係……………………. 85
第三節 SASB人際模式、人際行為層面、人格違常傾向的組間與性別比較… 93
第四節 字詞自由聯想結果的信度與相關分析……………………………….… 100
第五節 組別與性別的字詞自由聯想比較……….……………………………… 114
第五章 討論與建議………….……………………………………..…..……………… 133
第一節 結果討論…………………………………………………….…………… 133
第二節 檢討與研究建議…………………….…………………………………… 149
參考文獻……………………………….………………………………………………… 157
附錄一 研究參與同意書…………………………….…..…………………………… 165
附錄二 人際與個人習慣量表……………………….…..…………………………… 166
附錄三 基本資料………………………………………..……………………….…… 176
附錄四 字詞評估研究參與同意書………………………..…………………….…… 177
附錄五 SASB人際模式量表_內部一致性信度分析表…….…………….………… 178
附錄六 字詞自由聯想測驗_「父、母、我」評估表……………………………..… 187
附錄七 字詞自由聯想測驗_評分者間信度統計資料………....……………….…… 205



圖 表 目 次

圖 2-3-1 模式內容---父母、子女、自我概念…………………………………….…. 23
圖 2-3-2 SASB架構…………………………………………………………………... 25
圖 2-3-3 SASB架構原圖…………………...………………………………………… 26
圖 2-3-4 「像父母」刺激與「像子女」反應的互補關係……………………………… 28
圖 2-3-5 座標 118~145……………..………………………………………………… 35
圖 2-3-6 病童與對照組受試者分數落點………………………..…………………… 37
圖 3-3-1 研究流程…………………………….….…………………………………… 72
圖 3-3-2 SASB 社會行為結構分析量表編製………..…..………………..………… 73
圖 3-3-3 字詞自由聯想測驗…………..…………………..…………………..……… 74
圖 4-5-1 組x字的「整體印象」分數剖面圖….…...................................................... 117
圖 4-5-2 性別x字的「整體印象」分數剖面圖…........................................................ 123
圖 4-5-3 「性別x組別」的「負向反應數」剖面圖................................................... 131
圖 4-5-4 「性別x組別」x字的「負向反應數」剖面圖............................................ 132

表 2-3-1 「父母樣刺激」與「子女樣反應」對照範例（第一象限）…………………… 29
表 2-3-2 「父母樣刺激」與「子女樣反應」對照範例（第三象限）…………………… 29
表 2-3-3 「像父母_1」刺激對應「像子女_1」反應（第一象限）…………………..…. 30
表 2-3-4 「像父母_2」刺激對應「像子女_2」反應（第二象限）……………………… 31
表 2-3-5 「像父母_3」刺激對應「像子女_3」反應（第三象限）……………………… 31
表 2-3-6 「像父母_4」刺激對應「像子女_4」反應（第四象限）……………………… 32
表 2-3-7 「像子女_1」刺激對應「自我概念_1」反應（第一象限）…………………… 32
表 2-3-8 「像子女_2」刺激對應「自我概念_2」反應（第二象限）………………… 32
表 2-3-9 「像子女_3」刺激對應「自我概念_3」反應（第三象限）…………………… 33
表 2-3-10 「像子女_4」刺激對應「自我概念_4」反應（第四象限）……..…………… 33
表 2-4-1 「HPH健康性格習慣量表」C量尺 性格違常傾向……………..………… 53
表 2-4-2 「HPH健康性格習慣量表」D量尺 D1~D4 整體心理功能……….…… 55
表 3-2-1 SASB人際模式量表刪除與新增題目…………………………..…..……... 67
表 3-2-2 SASB各人際模式內部一致性α值信度分析…………………………….... 69
表 3-2-3 SASB「友善_自主」模式 內部一致性分析摘要表………………….…… 70
表 3-2-4 SASB三種人際行為層面的Cronbach’s Alpha信度……………….……… 71
表 4-1-1 SASB人際量表描述統計………………………………………………… 78
表 4-1-2 SASB人際模式內部相關分析……………………………………………... 79
表 4-1-3 四個人際模式的相關方向…………………………..……………………… 81
表 4-1-4 「人際行為層面」與「人際模式」的相關……………………………..…… 82
表 4-2-1 「人際模式」與「人格違常」的相關………………………………………. 85
表 4-2-2 「像父母、像子女、自我」與「人格違常」的相關………………….…… 88
表 4-2-3 「人際模式」與HPH「健康量表」的相關…………………………….…… 90
表 4-2-4 「像父母、像子女、自我」與「健康量表」的相關………………….…… 91
表 4-3-1 不同人際適應組的SASB人際模式比較…………..……………………… 93
表 4-3-2 不同人際適應組的「像父母、像子女、自我概念」人際行為比較……..…… 94
表 4-3-3 不同人際適應組的「人格違常傾向」比較………………….………………. 95
表 4-3-4 不同性別組的SASB人際模式比較………………………………...……… 97
表 4-3-5 不同性別組的「像父母、像子女、自我概念」人際行為比較…………… 98
表 4-3-6 不同性別組的「人格違常傾向」比較…………………………………….… 99
表 4-4-1 父_Kappa一致性分析摘要表…………………………………………….… 101
表 4-4-2 母_Kappa一致性分析摘要表…………………………………………….… 102
表 4-4-3 我_Kappa一致性分析摘要表………………………………………….…… 104
表 4-4-4 正向字詞數與「友善_自主」模式相關………………………..…………… 105
表 4-4-5 正向字詞數與SASB不健康象限相關………………………………..…… 106
表 4-4-6 正向字詞數與人格違常傾向相關………………………………..………… 107
表 4-4-7 負向反應、印象評估與人際模式的相關…………………………………… 107
表 4-4-8-1 負向字詞數、評估與SASB不健康象限相關……………………………… 108
表 4-4-8-2 負向字詞數、評估與SASB不健康象限相關……………………………… 109
表 4-4-9 負向字詞、評估與人格違常傾向相關…………………………………..… 109
表 4-4-10 中性字詞數與「友善_自主」模式相關…………………………………… 110
表 4-4-11 中性字詞數與SASB不健康象限相關……………………..……………… 111
表 4-4-12 中性字詞數與人格違常傾向相關……………………………………..…… 111
表 4-4-13 反應字詞數與「友善_自主」模式相關分析……………………………… 112
表 4-4-14 反應字詞數與SASB不健康象限相關…………………………………..… 113
表 4-4-15 反應字詞數與人格違常傾向相關………………………………………….. 113
表 4-5-1 組別_二因子變異數分析_描述統計表……………………………………...… 115
表 4-5-2 組別與刺激字_二因子混合設計變異數分析摘要表……………………… 116
表 4-5-3 組別與刺激字_單純主要效果描述統計…………………………..……….. 118
表 4-5-4 組別與刺激字_單純主要效果檢定……………………………………....… 119
表 4-5-5 性別_二因子變異數分析_描述統計表…………………………………..… 120
表 4-5-6 性別與刺激字_二因子混合設計變異數分析摘要表……………………… 122
表 4-5-7 性別與刺激字_單純主要效果_描述統計……………………………..…… 124
表 4-5-8 性別與刺激字_單純主要效果檢定………………………………………… 125
表 4-5-9 三因子混合設計變異數分析摘要表……………………………………….. 127
表 4-5-10 性別x組別_描述統計………………………………………………………. 129
表 4-5-11 「性別x組別」的字詞「負向反應數」t 檢定………………….……….. 130
表 5-1 SASB「敵意_排擠」模式_內部一致性分析摘要表…………………….… 178
表 5-2 SASB「敵意_攻擊」模式_內部一致性分析摘要表……………………….. 179
表 5-3 SASB「不健康模式」_內部一致性分析摘要表…………………………….. 181
表 5-4 SASB三種人際行為層面的Cronbach’s Alpha信度……………….……… 183
表 5-5 「像父母」人際行為層面_內部一致性分析摘要表…………………..…… 184
表 5-6 「像子女」人際行為層面_內部一致性分析摘要表……………..………… 185
表 5-7 「自我概念」人際行為層面_內部一致性分析摘要表…………………….. 186
表 6-1 刺激字「父」的正向、負向、中性詞反應統計……………………………… 187
表 6-2 刺激字「母」的正向、負向、中性詞反應統計…………………………… 193
表 6-3 刺激字「我」的正向、負向、中性詞反應統計…………………………… 199
表 7-1 「父」字＿原始資料統計表……………………………..………………… 205
表 7-2 「母」字＿原始資料統計表…………………………………………..…… 205
表 7-3 「我」字＿原始資料統計表………………………………………………… 205
表 7-4 「父」字＿交叉表…………………………………………………………… 206
表 7-5 父_Pearson卡方檢定摘要表…………………………….………………….. 207
表 7-6 父_Kappa一致性分析摘要表………………………………………………. 207
表 7-7 「母」字＿交叉表……………………………………………………..……. 207
表 7-8 母_Pearson卡方檢定摘要表……………………………………………..…. 208
表 7-9 母_Kappa一致性分析摘要表………………………………………………. 208
表 7-10 「我」字＿交叉表……………………………………………………….…. 209
表 7-11 我_Pearson卡方檢定摘要表……………………………………………..…. 210
表 7-12 我_Kappa一致性分析摘要表………………………………………………. 210

參考文獻
中文文獻
丁興祥校閱，陳正文等譯（1997）。人格理論。台北：揚智文化。
王郁文（2010）。負向母親情節之探討---內引聯想測驗之信效度分析。政治大學心理學研究所博士論文。台北市。
王慶福（1995）。大學生愛情關係徑路模式之分析研究。國立彰化師範大學輔導研究所博士論文。
孔繁鐘、孔繁錦編譯（2007）。DSM-IV-TR精神疾病的診斷與統計。台北市：合記圖書出版社。
台灣精神醫學會（2012）。DSM-V診斷標準的改變 Part V。精神疾病診斷與統計
手冊第五版通訊 vol.02, No.03.
朱錦鳳（2010）。心理測驗：理論與應用=Psychological testing。台北市：雙葉書廊。
李咏庭（2011）。情緒調節策略與低落情緒對認知抑制作業之影響。國立台灣大學心理學研究所碩士論文。台北市。
吳明隆、涂金堂(2008)。SPSS與統計應用分析 (第二版)。臺北：五南。
吳麗雲（1998）。人際歷程團體諮商對不安全依附類型大學生之諮商效果研究。國立高雄師範大學輔導研究所碩士論文。
邱彥翔 （2013）。思考壓抑與強迫傾向於認知彈性之效果。國立台灣大學心理學研究所碩士論文。台北市。
柯永河（1994）。習慣心理學：寫在晤談椅上四十年之後（理論篇）。台北市：張老師文化。
柯永河（1995）。健康性格習慣量表指導手冊（HPH）。台北：測驗出版社。
柯永河、張小鳳（1998）。健康性格習慣量表指導手冊（修訂版 HPH 1999）。台北：測驗出版社。
柯永河（2004）。習慣心理學（應用篇）—習慣改變。新的心理治療理論與方法。台北市：張老師文化。
柯永河、卓淑玲（2013）。邊緣性格傾向與自殺意念之關聯性研究—從心理功能與情緒語詞的自由聯想分析。輔仁醫學期刊，11（2），59-72。
施嫈瑜、李明濱、李世代、郭世達（2004）。壓力與健康：生理病理反應。北市醫學雜誌，1（1），17－24。
范端芳（2008）。決策邏輯型機制及其在知識表徵中之應用。國立交通大學資訊管理研究所博士論文。新竹市。
韋氏國際字典(Webster’Third New International Dictionary 1961)。
陳大中譯（1990）。榮格心理學（Jung on elementary psychology: a discussion between C. G. Jung and Richard I.）I. R. Evan原著。台北市：結構群。
陳登義譯（2001）。人際互動團體心理治療_住院病人模式（Inpatient Group Psychotherapy）Irvin D.Yalom原著。台北市：桂冠。
郭生玉（1997）。心理與教育測驗。台北市：精華書局。
陳仲庚、張雨新（1998）。人格心理學。台北：五南。
張玉潔、胡志偉（1991）。中國大學生的自發性自我概念: 內容向度及向度重要性研究。中華心理學刊，33，11-21
張肖松編著（1987）。心理學史。台北市：巨流圖書公司。
張春興（1989）。張氏心理學辭典。台北市台灣東華。
許素禎（2011）。再探自動化對比效應：情境脈絡極端性與認知效率的影響。國立中正大學心理學研究所，嘉義縣。
許皓瑋（2009）。以習慣觀點研究社會焦慮者的聯想內容。輔仁大學臨床心理系碩士班碩士論文。台北縣。
陳學志（1999）。認知及認知的自我監控-中文詞聯想常模的建立。國科會專題研究計畫成果報告。
陳學志主譯（2004）。認知心理學。Ashcraft, M. H.原著。台北市:學富文化出版社。
游恆山譯（2000）。變態心理學。Robert C. Carson & James N. Butcher著。台北市：五南出版社。
游麗嘉（2004）。適應。中華百科全書_典藏版。台北市：中國文化大學。取自http://ap6.pccu.edu.tw/Encyclopedia/data.asp?id=7442&htm=08-401-4827-%BEA%C0%B3.htm
楊士毅（2008）。從習慣觀點論自由聯想過程：以正常人組與精神分裂症組為例。輔仁大學臨床心理系碩士班碩士論文。台北縣。
廖宏啟（1999）。大學生人際行為之測量及其相關變項之研究。國立高雄師範大學輔導研究所碩士論文。高雄市。
維基百科（2014）。2014年臺北捷運隨機殺人事件。維基百科。取自
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014%E5%B9%B4%E5%8F%B0%E5%8C%97%E6%8D%B7%E9%81%8B%E9%9A%A8%E6%A9%9F%E6%AE%BA%E4%BA%BA%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6#cite_note-.E5.8C.97.E6.8D.B7.E6.B1.9F.E5.AD.90.E7.BF.A0.E7.AB.99_.E9.A9.9A.E5.82.B3.E9.9A.A8.E6.A9.9F.E7.A0.8D.E4.BA.BA.E6.A1.88.E6.96.B0.E8.81.9E.E5.A0.B1.E5.B0.8E-6
劉建新（2006）。強迫情結與分析心理學。華南師範大學博士論文。未出版，廣東省。
蔡佩舒（2013）。以行為及神經物理訊號探討漢語多義詞之心理表徵。國立陽明大學神經科學研究所博士論文。台北市。
黎惟東譯（1983）。人類及其象徵（Man and his symbols）。C. G. Carl；M. L. von Franz；J. J. Henderson & J. Aniela著。台北市：好時年。
顏妙倪（2011）。憂鬱程度，反芻形式對知覺後反映性歷程的認知控制及記憶效能之影響。國立台灣大學心理學研究所碩士論文。台北市。


英文文獻
Abrams, R. C., & Horowitz, S. V. (1996). Personality Disorders After Age 50: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Personality Disorders., 10(3), 271-281.
Adams, D. (1954). The anatomy of personality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
American Psychiatric Association (1987) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed, rev). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association (2013) The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association (2013). Personality Disorders. DSM-5 Development. Retrieved from http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Personality%20Disorders%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43-88
Bell, R. Q. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies of socialization. Psychological Review, 75, 81-95.
Bell, R. Q. (1971). Stimulus control of parent or caretaker behavior by offspring.
Developmenta Psychology, 4, 63-72.
Benjamin, L. S. (1973). A biological model for understanding the behavior of individuals. In Jack Westman (Ed.), Individual differences in children. New York: Wiley.
Benjamin, L. S. (1974). Structural Analysis of Social Behavior. Psychological Review, 81(5), 392-425.
Benjamin, L. S. (1996). Interpersonal Diagnosis and Treatment of Personality Disorders. (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
Bierman, R. (1969). Dimensions of interpersonal facilitation on psychotherapy and child development. Psychological Bulletin, 72, 338-352.
Borke, M. (1971). Interpersonal perception of young children: Egocentrism or empathy ? Developmental Psychology, 5, 263-269.
Carson, R. C. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago: Adline.
Carson, Robert C.(1991). Dilemmas in the pathway of the DSM-IV. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol 100(3), 302-307.
Chance, E. (1966). Content analysis of verbalizations about interpersonal experience. In L. Gottschalk & A. Auerbach (Eds.), Methods of research in psychotherapy. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Chance, E. (1966). Content analysis of verbalizations about interpersonal experience. In L. Gottschalk & A. Auerbach (Eds.), Methods of research in psychotherapy. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Cole, C. W., Getting, E. R., & Miskimins, R. W. (1969). Self concept therapy for adolescent females. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 74, 642-645.
Coopersmith, S. (1967) The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Cramer,P. (1968). Word association. New York: Academic press.
Felker, D. W., & Thomas, S. B. (1971). Self-initiated verbal reinforcement and positive self-concept. Child Development, 42, 2185-2187.
Foa, U. G., & Turner, J. L. (1970). Psychology in the year 2000: Going structural ? American Psychologist, 25, 244-247.
Freedman, M. B., Leary, T. F., Ossorio, A. G., & Coffey, H. S. (1951). The interpersonal dimension of personality. Journal of Personality, 20, 143-161.
Goldberg, L. R., & Hase, H. D.(1967). Strategies and tactics of personality inventory construction: An empirical investigation. ORI Research Monograph, Vol. 7, No. 1) Eugene: Oregon Research Institute.
Griffith, J. J., Mednick, S. A., Schulsinger, F. & Diderichsen, B. (1980). Verbal associative disturbances in children at high risk for schizophrenia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 189(2),125-131.
Harper, L. V. (1971). The young as a source stimuli controlling caretaker behavior. Developmental Psychology, 4, 73-88.
Heilbrun, A. B., (1964). Jr. Social learning theory, social desirability, and the MMPI. Psychological Bulletin, 61, 377-387.
Herbert, E. W., Gelfand, D. M., & Hartman, D. P. (1969). Imitation and self-esteem as determinants of selfcritical behavior. Child Development, 40, 421-430.
Horowitz, L. M. (1979). On the Cognitive Structure of Interpersonal Problems Treated in Psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 5-15
Horowitz, L. M. (1986). The interpersonal basis of psychiatric symptoms. Clinical Psychology Review, 6, 443-469
Horowitz, L. M., Rosenberg, S. E, & Bartholomew, Kim (1993). Bwnchmarks: integrating Affective and Interpersonal Circles with the Big-Five Personality Factors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 549-560
Horst, P. (1968). Personality: Measurement 0f dimensions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
James, W.(1890). The Principles of Psychology: The Consciousness of Self. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press.
Lesage, A. D., Boyer, R., Grunberg, F., Vanier, C., Morissette, R., Ménard-Buteau, C., Loyer, M.(1994). Suicide and mental disorders: A case-control study of young men. The American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol 151(7), Jul 1994, 1063-1068.
Messick, S., & Jackson, D. N. (1972). Judgmental dimensions of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 38, 418-427.
Mischel, W.(1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, Vol 80(4), Jul 1973, 252-283.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Osipow, S. H., & Grooms, R. R. (1965). Norms for Chains of Word Associations. Psychological Reports., 16, 796-796.
Ranson, G. J., Schaefer, E. S., & Levy, B. (1968). Crossnational validity of a spherical
conceptual model for parent behavior. Child Development, 39, 1227-1235.
Rundquist, E. A. (1967). Item response characteristics in attitude and personality
Measurement : A reaction to L. G. Rorer's 'The great response—stylemyth'. (Tech.Bull. STB G7-16). San Diego: U. S. Naval Personnel Research Activity.
Schaefer, E. S., & Bayley, N. (1963). Maternal behavior, child behavior, and their
intercorrelations from infancy through adolescence. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 28 (3, Whole No. 87).
Schaefer, E. S. (1965).A configurational analysis of children's reports of parent behavior. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29, 552-557.
Schaefer, E. S. (1971). From circular to spherical conceptual models for parent behavior and child behavior. In J. P. Hill (Ed.), Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology. (Vol. 4). Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press.
Silverstein,M.L.,Arzt,A. (1985). Neuropsychological dysfunction in schizophrenia relation to associative thought disorder. The Journal of Nervous and Mental disease. 173, 341-346.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: W. Norton.
Toman, W. (1971). The duplication theorem of social relationships as tested in the general population. Psychological Review, 78, 380-390.
Watson, J. B.(1919). Psychology: From the Standpoint of a Behaviorist. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.
Watson, J.B. (1924). Behaviorism. New York: People's Institute Publishing Company.
Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J., (1997). Assessment of the Five-Factor Model of Personality. The Journal of Personality Assessment, 68(2), 228-250
Wiggins, J. S. (1992). Have Model, Will Travel. The Journal of Personality, 60, 527-532.
Wiggins, J. S, & Trobst, K K (1997) Prospects for the assessment of Normal and Abnormal Interpersonal Behavior. The Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 110-126.
World Health Organization.(2006). Constitution of the World Health Organization - Basic Documents, Forty-fifth edition, Supplement, .
Zimmerman, M., Coryell, W., MD (1989). DSM-III Personality Disorder Diagnoses in a Nonpatient Sample Demographic Correlates and Comorbidity. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 46(8), 682-689.