(3.235.191.87) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/13 05:11
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:黃慧珊
研究生(外文):Hui-Shan Huang
論文名稱:高度羞恥感讓人們沒有藉口不用環保筷-道德情緒類型與強度之探討
論文名稱(外文):Higher Shame Makes People Have No Justifications Not to Use Reusable Chopsticks-Investigation on Moral Emotion Types and Levels
指導教授:蔡佳靜蔡佳靜引用關係
指導教授(外文):Chia-Ching Tsai
口試委員:龔昶元趙琪蔡佳靜
口試委員(外文):Chaang-Yung KungChyi JawChia-Ching Tsai
口試日期:2014-05-21
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立雲林科技大學
系所名稱:企業管理系
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:2014
畢業學年度:102
語文別:中文
論文頁數:98
中文關鍵詞:藉口、理由中立化技術罪惡感羞恥感道德情緒強度
外文關鍵詞:JustificationTechnique of NeutralizationGuiltShameLevels of Moral Emotions
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:2
  • 點閱點閱:387
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:12
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
  本論文共進行兩個研究,研究一是透過問卷調查法,探討人們不使用環保筷之藉口與理由,研究二則使用實驗法探討道德情緒類型(罪惡感/羞恥感)與強度(高/低)對人們不使用環保筷之藉口與理由的影響,為一2X2的因子設計。
  研究一主要研究結果如下:(1)人們不使用環保筷最會使用的藉口與理由依序為標榜高度忠誠、必要性的辯解、反擊譴責者、責任的否定、標榜敘述性的規範、被害者的否定、傷害的否定、經濟合理化、對政府的依賴性、整體利弊的暗喻以及經濟發展現實。(2)性別與每月所得對「標榜高度忠誠」均無顯著差異,婚姻狀態、年齡、職業以及教育程度對「標榜高度忠誠」均則有顯著差異。(3)性別、婚姻狀態、年齡、職業、教育程度與每月所得的不同,對「必要性的辯解」均無顯著差異。(4)性別、婚姻狀態、年齡、職業、教育程度與每月所得對「反擊譴責者」均有顯著差異。(5)性別、年齡、職業以及每月所得對「責任的否定」均無顯著差異,而不同的婚姻狀態與教育程度對「責任的否定」則有顯著差異。(6)性別對「標榜敘述性的規範」無顯著差異,而婚姻狀態、年齡、職業、教育程度以及每月所得對「標榜敘述性的規範」則有顯著差異。(7)性別、婚姻狀態、年齡、職業以及每月所得對「被害者的否定」無顯著差異,而教育程度的不同對「被害者的否定」則有顯著差異。(8)性別對「傷害的否定」無顯著差異,而婚姻狀態、年齡、職業、教育程度以及每月所得對「傷害的否定」則有顯著差異。(9)性別、婚姻狀態、年齡、職業、教育程度以及每月所得對「經濟合理化」均有顯著差異。(10)性別與每月所得對於「對政府的依賴性」無顯著差異,而婚姻狀態、年齡、職業以及教育程度「對政府的依賴性」則有顯著差異。(11)年齡、職業、教育程度以及每月所得對「整體利弊的暗喻」無顯著差異,而性別與婚姻狀態對「整體利弊的暗喻」則有顯著差異。(12)性別、年齡、職業、教育程度以及每月所得對「經濟發展現實」無顯著差異,而婚姻狀態對「經濟發展現實」則有顯著差異。
  此外,研究二主要研究結果如下:(1)高度道德情緒的標榜高度忠誠顯著低於低度道德情緒。(2)高罪惡感的標榜高度忠誠顯著低於低罪惡感。(3)高羞恥感的標榜高度忠誠顯著低於低羞恥感。(4)高度道德情緒的對必要性的辯解顯著低於低度道德情緒。(5)高罪惡感的對必要性的辯解顯著低於低罪惡感。(6)高羞恥感的對必要性的辯解顯著低於低羞恥感。(7)高度道德情緒的反擊譴責者顯著低於低度道德情緒。(8)高罪惡感的反擊譴責者顯著低於低罪惡感。(9)高羞恥感的反擊譴責者顯著低於低羞恥感。

  The present study conducted two researches: the first one adopted a questionnaire survey to explore the justifications why people do not use reusable chopsticks, and the second one used an experimental method, which is a 2X2 factorial experiment, to investigate the effects of moral emotion types (guilt/shame) and level (high/low) on the justifications of not using reusable chopsticks.
  The results of the first research were as follows: (1) The justifications, based on their frequency, used by people who do not use reusable chopsticks are appeal to higher loyalties, defense of necessity, condemn the condemners, denial of responsibility, appeal to a descriptive norm, denial of victim, denial of injury, economic rationalization, government dependency, the metaphor of the ledger, and economic development reality. (2) Gender and monthly income have no significant influences on “appeal to higher loyalties” while marital status, age, occupation, and education level have significant impacts on “appeal to higher loyalties”. (3) The differences of gender, marital status, age, occupation, education level and monthly income have no significant impacts on “defense of necessity”. (4) Gender, marital status, age, occupation, education level and monthly income all significantly influence “condemn the condemners”. (5) Gender, age, occupation and monthly income have no significant impacts on “denial of responsibility” whereas the variances of marital status and education level significantly influence “denial of responsibility”. (6) Gender has no significant impacts on “appeal to a descriptive norm”, but marital status, age, occupation, education level, and monthly income significantly influence “appeal to a descriptive norm”. (7) Gender, marital status, age, occupation, and monthly income have no significant impacts on “denial of victim” while the differences of education level significantly influence “denial of victim”. (8) Gender has no significant impacts on “denial of injury”, but marital status, age, occupation, education level and monthly income have significant influences on “denial of injury”. (9) Gender, marital status, age, occupation, education level, and monthly income significantly influence “economic rationalisation”. (10) Gender and monthly income have no significant impacts on “government dependency” while marital status, age, occupation, and education level significantly influence “government dependency”. (11) Age, occupation, education level and monthly income have no significant impacts on “the metaphor of the ledger”, but gender and marital status significantly impact “the metaphor of the ledger”. (12) Gender, age, occupation, education level, and monthly income have no significant influences on “economic development reality” whereas marital status significantly impacts “economic development reality”.
  Moreover, the results of the second research revealed the facts that: (1) The factor “appeal to higher loyalties” of people with high moral emotions is significantly lower than those with low moral emotions. (2) The factor “appeal to higher loyalties” of people with high guilt is significantly lower than those with low guilt. (3) The factor “appeal to higher loyalties” of people with high shame is significantly lower than those with low shame. (4) The factor “defense of necessity” of people with high moral emotions is significantly lower than those with low moral emotions. (5) The factor “defense of necessity” of people with high guilt is significantly lower than those with low guilt. (6) The factor “defense of necessity” of people with high shame is significantly lower than those with low shame. (7) The factor “condemn the condemners” of people with high moral emotions is significantly lower than those with low moral emotions. (8) The factor “condemn the condemners” of people with high guilt is significantly lower than those with low guilt. (9) The factor “condemn the condemners” of people with high shame is significantly lower than those with low shame.

摘要 i
Abstract ii
誌謝 iv
目錄 v
表目錄 ix
圖目錄 xi
第一章 緒論1
1.1 研究背景與動機1
1.2 研究目的2
1.3 研究流程2
第二章 文獻探討4
2.1 社會責任消費4
2.1.1 社會責任消費的起源4
2.1.2 社會責任消費定義4
2.1.3 社會責任消費構面4
2.2 綠色消費6
2.2.1 綠色消費的定義6
2.2.2 食品綠色消費6
2.3 不道德消費者行為8
2.3.1 起源與定義8
2.3.2 為何會有不道德消費者行為?8
2.4 中立化理論10
2.4.1 何謂中立化理論10
2.4.2 中立化技術10
2.4.3 延伸中立化理論10
2.4.4 中立化理論的相關研究11
2.5 情境犯罪預防理論12
2.5.1 何謂情境犯罪預防理論12
2.5.2 情境犯罪預防的策略與技術12
2.6 道德情緒14
2.6.1 道德情緒的定義與表現14
2.6.2 道德情緒的影響16
2.6.3 道德情緒的強度與相關研究16
第三章 研究方法18
3.1 研究一18
3.1.1 問卷設計18
3.1.2 抽樣方式與問卷回收20
3.1.3 統計分析方法21
3.2 研究二22
3.2.1 研究架構22
3.2.2 實驗設計22
3.2.2.1 實驗法22
3.2.2.2 實驗設計22
3.2.2.3 研究對象22
3.2.3 變數操弄與實驗題材設計23
3.2.3.1 變數操弄23
3.2.3.2 實驗題材設計24
3.2.4 前測25
3.2.4.1 前測過程25
3.2.4.2 罪惡感與羞恥感之衡量25
3.2.4.3 前測結果26
3.2.5 實驗27
3.2.5.1 實驗過程27
3.2.5.2 量表設計27
3.5.2.3 問卷回收28
第四章 研究一之實驗結果29
4.1 樣本結構分析29
4.2 信度分析31
4.3 效度分析32
4.4 藉口與理由34
4.5 人口統計變數對藉口與理由的影響35
4.5.1 性別對藉口與理由是否有顯著差異35
4.5.2 婚姻狀況對藉口與理由是否有顯著差異36
4.5.3 年齡對藉口與理由是否有顯著差異37
4.5.3.1 不同年齡所採取的藉口與理由之平均數37
4.5.3.2 年齡對藉口與理由之變異數分析38
4.5.4 職業對藉口與理由是否有顯著差異39
4.5.4.1 不同職業所採取的藉口與理由之平均數39
4.5.4.2 職業對藉口與理由之變異數分析39
4.5.5 教育程度對藉口與理由是否有顯著差異40
4.5.5.1 不同教育程度所採取的藉口與理由之平均數40
4.5.5.2 教育程度對藉口與理由之變異數分析41
4.5.6 每月所得對藉口與理由是否有顯著差異41
4.5.6.1 不同每月所得所採取的藉口與理由之平均數41
4.5.6.2 每月所得對藉口與理由之變異數分析42
第五章 研究二之實驗結果44
5.1 信度44
5.2 操弄測試45
5.2.1  道德情緒類型之操弄測試45
5.2.2   罪惡感強度之操弄測試45
5.2.3  羞恥感強度之操弄測試45
5.3 道德情緒類型及道德強度對不使用環保筷的藉口與理由之影響47
5.3.1 道德情緒類型及道德強度對標榜高度忠誠之影響47
5.3.1.1 各組之標榜高度忠誠平均數47
5.3.1.2 道德情緒類型及道德情緒強度對標榜高度忠誠之影響47
5.3.1.3 道德情緒類型之強度對標榜高度忠誠之影響48
5.3.2 道德情緒及道德強度對必要性的辯解之影響49
5.3.2.1 各組之必要性的辯解平均數49
5.3.2.2 道德情緒及道德情緒強度對必要性的辯解之影響49
5.3.2.3 道德情緒類型之強度對必要性的辯解之影響50
5.3.3 道德情緒及道德強度對反擊譴責者之影響51
5.3.3.1 各組之反擊譴責者平均數51
5.3.3.2 道德情緒及道德情緒強度對反擊譴責者之影響51
5.3.3.3 道德情緒類型之強度對反擊譴責者之影響52
5.4 研究二之研究假設驗證結果53
第六章 結論與建議54
6.1 結論54
6.1.1 研究一54
6.1.2 研究二56
6.2 研究限制57
6.3 建議57
6.3.1 實務建議57
6.3.2 後續研究建議58
參考文獻59
附錄64
附錄A-1 研究一問卷64
附錄B-1 研究二高度罪惡感前測問卷67
附錄B-2 研究二低度罪惡感前測問卷69
附錄B-3 研究二高度羞恥感前測問卷71
附錄B-4 研究二低度羞恥感前測問卷73
附錄C-1 研究二高度罪惡感正式問卷75
附錄C-2 研究二低度罪惡感正式問卷78
附錄C-3 研究二高度羞恥感正式問卷81
附錄C-4 研究二低度羞恥感正式問卷84

中文部分:
1.周月英(1992),權利與義務齊飛,廣告雜誌,13,第67-74頁。
2.方能御譯(1993),M. Brabeck & M. Gorman著,情緒與道德,載於G. F. McLean & R. T. Knowles 主編,道德發展心理學(頁110-168) ,台北市,台灣商務。
3.袁中新(1995),綠色消費與環境保護,環保人雜誌,5,第46-47頁。
4.張隆盛(1996),開創二十一世紀新動脈-鼓勵綠色消費,環境教育季刊,33,第2-6頁。
5.柴松林(1996),從環保主義到綠色消費,消費者保護研究,中華民國消費者月特刊,第一屆第二輯,第87-96頁。
6.方金祥(1998),綠色飲食與廚餘處理,環境科學技術教育專刊,13,第52-59頁。
7.董德波(1999),環保標章與綠色消費,生物資源,第一卷第二期,第109- 111頁。
8.于寧、賴明仲(2000),綠色消費運動之緣起、現況與未來,環境工程會刊,11,3,第6-15頁。
9.謝珮珊(2003),食品綠色消費行為意圖及其相關因素研究-以台北縣某高中學生為例,臺灣師範大學衛生教育學系所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
10.黃俊英. (2008),行銷研究: 管理與技術,八版,台北,華泰。
11.王毓菁(2012),探討員工非授權電腦存取行為意圖─整合中立化理論、差別接觸理論和遏制理論。國立中山大學資訊管理學系碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
12.劉志宏(2012),施用毒品少年之中立化技巧。國立台北大學犯罪學研究所碩士論文,未出版,新北市。


英文部分:
1.Antil, J. H., & Bennett, P. D. (1979). Construction and validation of a scale to measure socially responsible consumption behavior. The conserver society, 51-68.
2.Agnew, R. (1994). The techniques of neutralization and violence. Criminology, 32(4), 555-580.
3.d’Astous, A., & Legendre, A. (2009). Understanding consumers’ ethical justifications: A scale for appraising consumers’ reasons for not behaving ethically. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(2), 255-268.
4.Brennan, W. C. (1974). Abortion and the techniques of neutralization. Journal of Health and Social Behavior.
5.Belk, R. W., Østergaard, P., & Groves, R. (1998). Sexual consumption in the time of AIDS: A study of prostitute patronage in Thailand. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 197-214.
6.Batson, C. D. (2003). Altruism. Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology.
7.Calder, B. J., Phillips, L. W., & Tybout, A. M. (1981). Designing research for application. Journal of Consumer Research, 197-207.
8.Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of personality and social psychology, 58(6), 1015.
9.Clarke, R. V. G., & Felson, M. (Eds.). (1993). Routine activity and rational choice (Vol. 5). Transaction Publishers.
10.Clarke, R.V. (1997). Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies. Albany, New York: Harrow and Heston.
11.Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer–do ethics matter in purchase behaviour? Journal of consumer marketing, 18(7), 560-578.
12.Coleman, J. W. (2002). The Criminal Elite: The Sociology of White-Collar, 5th ed, New York: St. Martin's.
13.Charter,M.,Peattie,K.,Ottman,J.,&Polonsky,M.J. (2002), What is green consumerism or socially conscious consumerism. Marketing and sustainability, 10.
14.Clarke, R. V. John Eck. (2003). Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers. U.S. Dept. of Justice.
15.Croutte P., Delpal F. and Hatchuel G. (2006), Représentations et pratiques de la consummation socialement engagée – évolution 2002-2006, working paper, N° 211, CRÉDOC, December.
16.Cialdini, R. B., Demaine, L. J., Sagarin, B. J., Barrett, D. W., Rhoads, K., & Winter, P. L. (2006). Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social influence, 1(1), 3-15.
17.Chatzidakis, A., Hibbert, S., & Smith, A. P. (2007). Why people don’t take their concerns about fair trade to the supermarket: The role of neutralisation. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(1), 89-100.
18.Chang, L., & Chen, C. (2008). Relationships between moral emotions and vandalism of visitors in the Kenting National Forest Recreation Area. Quarterly Journal of Forest Research, 30(1), 57-68.
19.Dan and Zhang. (2006). The Chopsticks That Ate China. Fortune International (Europe), 153(11), 13-13.
20.Elkington, J., & Hailes. (1993). The green consumer. Viking Penguin, USA. Inc.
21.Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual review of psychology, 51(1), 665-697.
22.Eliason, S. (2003). Illegal hunting and angling: The neutralization of wildlife law violations. Society and Animals, 11(3), 225-244.
23.Eckhardt, G., Devinney, T. M., Birtchnell, T., Auger, P. (2006). The other CSR: Consumer social responsibility. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 30–37.
24.Eckhardt, G. M., Belk, R., & Devinney, T. M. (2010). Why don't consumers consume ethically? Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(6), 426-436.
25.Dunford, F. W., & Kunz, P. R. (1973). The neitraolzation of religious dissonance. Review of Religious Research, 15(1).
26.Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of marketing research, 382-388.
27.Follows, S. B., & Jobber, D. (2000). Environmentally responsible purchase behaviour: a test of a consumer model. European Journal of Marketing, 34(5/6), 723-746.
28.François-Lecompte, A. (2005). La consommation socialement responsable: proposition et validation d’un cadre conceptuel intégrateur (Doctoral dissertation, Thèse de doctorat sciences de gestion, Université de Grenoble 2, Pierre Mendés-France).
29.Fehrenbach and Pete, (2008). Inbox. Waste News, 14(5), 22.
30.Gehm, T., & Scherer K. R., 1988, Factors Determining the Dimensions of Subjective Emotional Space, Facets of emotion: Recent research, pp.99-114.
31.Grasmick, H. G., Bursik, R. J., & Kinsey, K. A. (1991). Shame and embarrassment as deterrents to noncompliance with the law the case of an antilittering campaign. Environment and Behavior, 23(2), 233-251.
32.Harris, P. L. (1989). Children and emotion: The development of psychological understanding. Basil Blackwell.
33.Heywood, J. L., & Murdock, W. E. (2002). Social norms in outdoor recreation: Searching for the behavior-condition link. Leisure Sciences, 24(3-4), 283-295.
34.Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. Handbook of affective sciences, 852-870.
35.Heath, J. (2008). Business ethics and moral motivation: a criminological perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 595-614.
36.Jiménez, M., & Yang, K. C. (2008). How guilt level affects green advertising effectiveness? Journal of creative communications, 3(3), 231-254.
37.Liu, Z., Zeng, F., & Su, C. (2009). Does relationship quality matter in consumer ethical decision making? Evidence from China. Journal of business ethics, 88(3), 483-496.
38.Chang, L. C. (2010). The effects of moral emotions and justifications on visitors' intention to pick flowers in a forest recreation area in Taiwan. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(1), 137-150.
39.Minor, W. W. (1981). Techniques of neutralization: A reconceptualization and empirical examination. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 18(2), 295-318.
40.Mitchell, J., & Dodder, R. A. (1983). Types of neutralization and types of delinquency. Journal of Youth and adolescence, 12(4), 307-318.
41.Miles, M. P., & Munilla, L. S. (1993). The eco-orientation: an emerging business philosophy? Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 43-51.
42.Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45-72.
43.McGregor, S. (2003). Consumer Entitlement, Narcissism and Immoral Consumption. Kappa Omicron Nu Human Sciences Working Paper Series.[WWW document]. URL http://www. kon. org/hswp/archive/mcgregor_1. htm (retrieved 1 February 2005).
44.Peattie, K. (1992). Green Marketing. London.
45.Peattie, K., & Charter, M. (1994). Green marketing. The marketing book, 5, 726-755.
46.Page, G., & Fearn, H. (2005). Corporate reputation: what do consumers really care about? Journal of advertising research-New York, 45(3), 305.
47.Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs, 631-660.
48.Roberts, J. A. (1995). Profiling levels of socially responsible consumer behavior: a cluster analytic approach and its implications for marketing. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 97-117.
49.Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American sociological review, 664-670.
50.Spiecker, B. (1988). Education and the moral emotions. In B. Spiecker, & R. Straughan (Eds.), Philosophical issues in moral education and development (pp. 43-63). Philadephia: Open University Press.
51.Strutton, D., Vitell, S. J., & Pelton, L. E. (1994). How consumers may justify inappropriate behavior in market settings: an application on the techniques of neutralization. Journal of Business Research, 30(3), 253-260.
52.Siponen, M., & Vance, A. (2010). Neutralization: new insights into the problem of employee information systems security policy violations. MIS quarterly, 34(3).
53.Semaan, R. and S. Gould. (2010). I Shouldn't, or Should I? Distinguishing Shame and Guilt in Goal Pursuit. Advances in Consumer Research, 37, 903-904.
54.Tangney, J.P., Marschall, D.and Sanftner, J. (1994). The State Shame and Guilt Scale. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
55.Tangney, J. P., Miller, R. S., Flicker, L., & Barlow, D. H. (1996). Are shame, guilt, and embarrassment distinct emotions? Journal of personality and social psychology, 70(6), 1256.
56.Webster Jr, F. E. (1975). Determining the characteristics of the socially conscious consumer. Journal of consumer research, 188-196.
57.Wilkes, R. E. (1978). Fraudulent behavior by consumers. Journal of Marketing.
58.Wortley, R. (2001). A classification of techniques for controlling situational precipitators of crime. Security Journal, 14(4), 63-82.
59.Webb, D.J., Mohr, L.A., and Harris, K.E., 2008, A Re-examination of Socially Responsible Consumption and its Measurement, Journal of Business Research, 61,91-98.
60.Yi, S., & Baumgartner, H. (2011). Coping with guilt and shame in the impulse buying context. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(3), 458-467.
61.Yi, S., & Kanetkar, V. (2011). Coping with guilt and shame after gambling loss. Journal of Gambling Studies, 27(3), 371-387.
62.Zeng, F., & Gan, B. (2007). The Effects of Consumer Ethical Beliefs and Relationship Quality on Consumers’ Unethical Behavior. Economic Management, 29(18), 33–39.


QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔