臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

中庸為華人重要的正向心理構念，相關研究也顯示中庸能促進個體心理適應，但較少從內部機制的角度切入。此外，過去研究也發現，中庸與人際互動的情境有密切的關聯，但尚未有研究探討中庸在人際層次中的影響。因此，本研究以對偶設計切入友誼關係中，提出認知再評估與回應性，分別以個人層次和人際層次，探討中庸與心理適應之機制和歷程。在個人層次方面，假設個體的中庸思維會透過其使用認知再評估，進而促進其心理適應；在人際層次方面分為兩部分，首先，假設個體的中庸思維會透過其自身使用認知再評估，再透過其自身的提供回應性，進而提升其自身的知覺回應性，最後促進自身的友誼滿意度；第二部分，則假設個體的中庸思維會透過其使用認知再評估，再透過自身的提供回應性，進而提升朋友的知覺回應性，最後促進朋友的心理適應。本研究共招募100對相同性別之朋友（共200位研究參與者），結果發現在個人層次上，認知再評估為中庸思維與正向情緒、負向情緒、和安適幸福感之中介變項。在人際層次的第一部分，認知再評估與回應性可作為個體中庸思維與其自身友誼滿意度的中介變項；在人際層次的第二部分，認知再評估與回應性為個體中庸思維與朋友正向情緒、安適幸福感與友誼滿意度的中介變項，上述中介路徑效果在控制和善性、外向性、相依我與壓抑之後依舊穩定。結論針對中庸理論進行延伸，以及探討未來可能研究方向。

Zhong-Yong is an important positive psychological construct in Chinese culture, and the relationship between Zhong-Yong and well-being has been demonstrated to a great extent in prior studies. However, the underlying psychological mechanism relating Zhong-Yong to well-being is not fully understood. Moreover, the core element of Zhong-Yong is highly refer to interpersonal contexts, but few study investigate the impact of Zhong-Yong on interpersonal adjustments. Therefore, the present study proposes cognitive reappraisal and responsiveness, as the key mechanisms that account for the relationship between Zhong-Yong and psychological adjustments in both intrapersonal and interpersonal levels. Regarding intrapersonal processes, the relationship between Zhong-Yong and cognitive reappraisal. Regarding interpersonal processes in dyadic design, the relationship between actor’s Zhong-Yong and actor’s friendship satisfaction would be mediated by actor’s cognitive reappraisal, actor’s responsiveness to partner, and actor’s perceived responsiveness. On the other hand, the relationship between actor’s Zhong-Yong on partner’s well-being and partner’s friendship satisfaction would be mediated by actor’s cognitive reappraisal, actor’s responsiveness to partner, and partner’s perceived responsiveness. 100 same-sex friend dyads were recruited. The results revealed that Zhong-Yong positively related with individual’s positive emotion and peace of mind, and negatively related with negative emotion, and then mediated by cognitive reappraisal. In addition, actor’s Zhong-Yong positively related with actor’s friendship satisfaction through actor’s cognitive reappraisal, actor’s responsiveness to partner, and actor’s perception of responsiveness. Finally, actor’s Zhong-Yong positively related partner’s positive emotion, peace of mind, and friendship satisfaction, through actor’s cognitive reappraisal, actor’s responsiveness to partner, and partner’s perceived responsiveness. The results remained after controlling individual’s agreeableness, extraversion, interdependent self, and suppression. Implications and limitations are discussed.

口試委員會審定書.........................................i
中文摘要................................................ii
英文摘要...............................................iii
第一章 緒論..............................................1
1.1 中庸與人際適應之關聯..................................2
1.2 認知再評估與人際適應之關聯............................5
1.3 人際層次：提供與知覺回應性作為中介變項.................7
1.4 對偶設計研究典範.....................................9
1.5 研究目的............................................10
第二章 研究方法.........................................12
2.1 研究參與者..........................................12
2.2 研究程序............................................12
2.3 測量工具............................................12
第三章 研究結果.........................................16
3.1 變項描述統計與關聯..................................16
3.2 認知再評估在個體中庸思維對心理適應之中介分析...........18
3.3 認知再評估與回應性在中庸對友誼滿意度的中介歷程.........21
3.4 認知再評估與回應性在中庸對朋友心理適應和友誼滿意度之中介歷程.....................................................22
3.5 討論...............................................24
第四章 綜合討論.........................................26
4.1 個人層次：認知再評估作為中介變項......................26
4.2 人際層次：回應性作為中介變項.........................27
4.3 研究限制...........................................28
4.4 未來研究方向........................................29
參考文獻................................................31
附錄...................................................36

吳佳煇、林以正（2005）。中庸思維量表的編製。本土心理學研究，24，247-300。
林瑋芳、黃金蘭、林以正（2015）。中庸與轉念：以字詞分析體現中庸思維之情緒調節動態歷程。本土心理學研究，44，119-150。
林瑋芳、鄧傳忠、林以正、黃金蘭（2013）。進退有據：中庸對拿捏行為與心理適應之關係的調節效果。本土心理學研究，40，45-84。
金樹人（2010）。心理位移之結構特性及其辯證現象之分析: 自我多重面向的敘寫與敘說。中華輔導與諮商學報，28，187-229。
張仁和（2010）。聚焦中庸實踐思維體系於心理空間與大我系統。本土心理學研究，34，145-157。
張仁和、黃金蘭、林以正（2010）。心理位移書寫法之位格特性驗證與療癒效果分析。中華輔導與諮商學報，28，29-60。
黃金蘭、林以正、楊中芳（2012）。中庸信念-價值量表之修訂。本土心理學研究，38，3-41。
楊中芳（2010）。中庸實踐思維體系探研的初步進展。本土心理學研究，34，3-96。
楊中芳、趙志裕（1997）。中庸實踐思維初探。在第四屆華人心理與行為科際學術研討會上發表，臺北市，5，29-31。
趙志裕（2010）。中庸實踐思維的道德性，實用性，文化特定性及社會適應性。本土心理學研究，34，137-144。
簡晉龍、李美枝、黃囇莉（2009）。幸福之路：雙重自我建構的分流與匯合。中華心理學刊，51，453-470。
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Benet‐Martínez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII):Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of personality, 73, 1015-1050.
Blechert, J., Sheppes, G., Di Tella, C., Williams, H., & Gross, J. J. (2012). See what you think: Reappraisal modulates behavioral and neural responses to social stimuli. Psychological Science, 23, 346-353.
Canevello, A., & Crocker, J. (2010). Creating good relationships: responsiveness, relationship quality, and interpersonal goals. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 99(1), 78-106.
Chang, J. H., Huang, C. L., & Lin, Y. C. (2013). The psychological displacement paradigm in diary-writing (PDPD) and its psychological benefits. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 14, 155-167.
Chang, T. Y., & Yang, C. T. (2014). Individual differences in Zhong-Yong tendency and processing capacity. Frontiers in psychology, 5.
Chang, J. H., Huang, C. L., & Lin, Y. C. (2015). Mindfulness, basic psychological needs fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 1149-1162.
Chou, L. F., Chu, C. C., Yeh, H. C., & Chen, J. (2014). Work stress and employee wellbeing:
The critical role of Zhong‐Yong. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 17(2), 115-127.
Crocker, J., Canevello, A., & Lewis, K. A. (2017). Romantic relationships in the ecosystem: Compassionate goals, nonzero-sum beliefs, and change in relationship quality. Journal of personality and social psychology, 112(1), 58-75.
Finkel, E. J., Slotter, E. B., Luchies, L. B., Walton, G. M., & Gross, J. J. (2013). A brief intervention to promote conflict reappraisal preserves marital quality over time. Psychological Science, 24, 1595-1601.
Gable, S. L., & Reis, H. T. (2006). Intimacy and the Self: An Iterative Model of the Self and Close Relationships.
Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent-and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 224-237.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348-362.
Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology, 39, 281-291.
Halperin, E., Porat, R., Tamir, M., & Gross, J. J.(2013). Can emotion regulation change political attitudes in intractable conflicts? From the laboratory to the field.
Psychological Science, 24, 106-111.
Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50(1), 93-98.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2 ed., pp. 102-138). New York: Guilford.
John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2004). Healthy and unhealthy emotion regulation: Personality processes, individual differences, and life span development. Journal
of Personality, 72, 1301-1334.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kross, E., & Ayduk, O. (2017). Self-distancing: Theory, research, and current directions. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 81-136.
Lee, Y. C., Lin, Y. C., Huang, C. L., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). The construct and measurement of peace of mind. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 571-590.
Lemay, E. P., Jr., Clark, M. S., & Feeney, B. C. (2007). Projection of responsiveness to needs and the construction of satisfying communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 834-853.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 420-430.
Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401-421.
Preacher, K. J. (2015). Advances in mediation analysis: A survey and synthesis of new developments. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 825-852.
Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201-225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2015). Responsiveness. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 67-71.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,
1069-1081.
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies,
9(1), 13-39.
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580-591.
Tsai, J. L. (2007). Ideal affect: Cultural causes and behavioral consequences. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 242-259.
Tsai, J. L., Knutson, B., & Fung, H. H. (2006). Cultural variation in affect valuation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 288-307.
Wei, M., Su, J. C., Carrera, S., Lin, S. P., & Yi, F. (2013). Suppression and interpersonal harmony: A cross-cultural comparison between Chinese and European Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 625-633.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Yang, X., Zhang, P., Zhao, J., Zhao, J., Wang, J., Chen, Y., ... & Zhang, X. (2016). Confucian culture still matters: The benefits of Zhongyong thinking (doctrine of
the mean) for mental health. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47, 1097-1113.