跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.220.44.148) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/06/21 17:11
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

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:周思妤
研究生(外文):Shih-Yu Chou
論文名稱:社福資源值得性對支持弱勢群體之影響與機制
論文名稱(外文):The Influence and Mechanism of Welfare Deservingness on Supporting Disadvantaged Groups
指導教授:李怡青李怡青引用關係
指導教授(外文):I-Ching Lee
口試委員:張仁和葉崇揚
口試委員(外文):Jen-Ho ChangChung-Yang Yeh
口試日期:2022-12-19
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:心理學系
學門:社會及行為科學學門
學類:心理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2023
畢業學年度:111
語文別:中文
論文頁數:83
中文關鍵詞:社福資源值得性同情觀點採納資源競爭
外文關鍵詞:welfare deservingnesssympathyperspective-takingresource competition
DOI:10.6342/NTU202300130
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:70
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
伴隨民主、平等的社會氛圍逐漸濃厚,現今許多弱勢群體發起權益與社福資源倡議運動,但是社會大眾對不同弱勢群體的倡議運動有迥異的態度。然而,目前尚不清楚大眾態度差異的原因與心理機制,本研究從社福資源值得性切入,探討人們知覺不同弱勢群體的社福資源值得性是否有差異,以及檢視弱勢群體的哪些性質可能影響社福資源值得性的判斷,亦進一步釐清社福資源值得性與支持意願關係之中介機制。預試(N = 106)結果顯示人們知覺五種弱勢群體(身心障礙者、老年人、街友、原住民、新住民)的社福資源值得性有所不同,亦發現被人們認為可控制性越低、服從社會標準程度越高的群體所獲得的社福資源值得性越高。研究一(N = 210)進一步探討社福資源值得性與支持意願之間的中介機制,結果顯示當人們知覺弱勢群體的社福資源值得性越高,會引起越多的同情情緒、越能觀點採納弱勢處境,以及認為弱勢群體的資源競爭性越低,進而更願意支持弱勢群體的社福政策與倡議行動。研究二(N = 353)則採用實驗法,結果顯示操弄可控制性、服從社會標準程度分別對人們知覺社福資源值得性有顯著影響,以及再次驗證社福資源值得性與支持意願的同情情緒、觀點取替與資源競爭的中介機制模型。本研究嘗試以社福資源值得性的角度來解釋台灣民眾對弱勢群體獲取社福資源的觀感差異,期望本研究能幫助台灣弱勢群體在未來權益與資源倡議的路上能獲得更正向的態度與支持。
As Taiwan grows increasingly democratic and egalitarian, more and more disadvantaged groups have initiated social movements to advocate/claim their rights to social welfare. However, the public differs in how they view various disadvantaged groups engaging in social movements, and what contributes to this difference remains unclear. In this research, we utilize the concept of welfare deservingness to examine the factors and psychological mechanisms behind people’s different attitudes toward disadvantaged groups. We tested first whether people perceive different degrees of welfare deservingness toward different disadvantaged groups. We then investigated factors that account for the different degrees of welfare deservingness among various disadvantaged groups, including four mediation processes to explain why people support some disadvantaged groups in seeking welfare but not others. In a pilot study (N = 106), we found that people have different degrees of welfare deservingness toward five target groups—disabled people, elderly people, homeless people, indigenous people, and recent immigrants. In addition, groups less controllable for their fate and more adhering to social norms would be perceived as more deserving. According to the survey data in Study 1 (N = 210), sympathy, perspective-taking, and zero-sum competition were found to account for the association between welfare deservingness and support for the welfare given to a specific group. The more people feel deserving of a target group, the more sympathy they feel toward the target group, the more people could take the perspective of the target group, and the less they feel that the target group threatens the fair allocation of resources; as a result, they support the welfare policy tailored toward the target group (Study 1). In Study 2 (N = 353), we implemented an experiment and collected causal evidence for the mediation processes (sympathy, perspective-taking, and resource competition). By revealing group characteristics that account for different degrees of deservingness (controllability and norm-adherence) and mediation processes (sympathy, perspective-taking, and resource competition) that account for the association between deservingness and support of welfare policy for various disadvantaged groups, we offer suggestions on how disadvantaged groups may engage in social movements that improve their current situations.
誌謝 i
摘要 ii
Abstract iii
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 社會福利態度之影響因素 3
第二節 社福資源值得性 4
第三節 可控制性 6
第四節 服從社會標準程度 7
第五節 中介歷程:同情與憤怒 8
第六節 中介歷程:觀點採納與資源競爭 9
第七節 研究目的與假設 10
第二章 預試 12
第一節 研究設計 12
第二節 研究參與者 12
第三節 研究材料 13
第三章 預試之研究結果 13
第一節 社福資源值得性 13
第二節 所處困境可控制性 14
第三節 服從社會標準程度 15
第四節 可控制性與服從社會標準程度對社福資源值得性之預測 15
第五節 討論 18
第四章 研究一 20
第一節 研究設計 20
第二節 研究參與者 21
第三節 研究材料 21
第五章 研究一之結果 25
第一節 社福資源值得性之檢核 25
第二節 同情情緒與憤怒情緒之差異 26
第三節 觀點採納與資源競爭之差異 27
第四節 支持意願之差異 28
第五節 社福資源值得性與支持意願之中介機制 29
第六節 可控制性與服從社會標準程度對社福資源值得性之預測 37
第七節 額外分析 40
第八節 研究一討論 41
第六章 研究二 44
第一節 研究設計 44
第二節 研究參與者 45
第三節 研究材料 46
第七章 研究二之結果 50
第一節 情境真實性之檢核 51
第二節 可控制性、服從社會標準程度之檢核 51
第三節 社福資源值得性之差異 51
第四節 同情情緒與憤怒情緒之差異 52
第五節 觀點採納與資源競爭之差異 54
第六節 支持意願之差異 55
第七節 社福資源值得性與支持意願之中介機制 56
第八節 研究二討論 61
第八章 綜合討論 64
第一節 社福資源值得性對支持意願之影響 64
第二節 可控制性、服從社會標準影響社福資源值得性 64
第三節 同情、觀點採納、資源競爭之中介機制 65
第九章 研究貢獻、限制及未來研究建議 67
第一節 研究貢獻 67
第二節 研究限制與未來研究方向 68
參考文獻 69
附錄 75
附錄一 預試問卷 75
附錄二 可控制性量表 77
附錄三 服從社會標準程度量表 78
附錄四 觀點採納量表 79
附錄五 資源競爭量表 80
附錄六 支持意願量表 81
附錄七 研究一額外分析(組別1:肢體障礙者與街友) 82
附錄八 研究一額外分析(組別2:老人與原住民) 83
王方(2001):〈台灣民眾社會福利態度之決定因素初探〉。《東吳社會學報》,11,137-162。
王方(2006):〈支持家庭福利政策之影響與因素:研究回顧與展望〉。《社區發展季刊》,114,18-29。
台灣原住民權利促進會編(1987):《原住民:被壓迫者的吶喊》。台北市:台灣原住民權利促進會。
江文慈(2012):〈大學生人際互動情緒表達壓抑的探究〉。《教育心理學報》,43(3),657-679。https://doi.org/10.6251/BEP.20110107
邱大昕(2018):〈「慈善」與「權利」之間-身心障礙者車船半價優待的爭取過程(1950-1980)〉。《台灣社會學》,36,167-188。
李台京、吳秀月(2005):〈新竹市政府與老人福利團體2001-2004互動關係之研究〉。《中華行政學報》,2,75-93。https://doi.org/10.6712/JCPA.200506_(2).0005
呂寶靜(1993):〈民眾對社會福利政策公平性評價之研究〉。《臺灣地區社會意向調查資料運用學術研討會》。台北市:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所。
林萬億(1995):《台灣的社會福利:民間觀點》。台北市:五南。
林萬億(1997):〈影響台灣民眾社會福利態度的因素〉。《臺大社會學刊》,25,1-46。
陳怡如(2018):〈影響台灣民眾支持社會福利的因素-明確二分集合的分析〉。《臺灣民主季刊》,15(2),101-145。
張恒豪(2015):〈障礙者的公民運動:權利論述和社會模式的在地實踐〉。《思與言:人文與社會科學雜誌》,53(2),89-136。
陳姿伶(2008)。《誰不值得救助?福利依賴本土概念之呈現》。碩士論文。國立暨南國際大學,南投縣。
許哲韡(2019):《邁向無家者支援網絡 ─ 以台北市為例》。碩士論文。國立臺灣大學,台北市。
許詩愷(2019年10月23日):〈北市員警歧視原住民族 凱道部落要政府檢討原民轉型正義〉。公民行動影音紀錄資料庫。取自https://www.civilmedia.tw/archives/89270。
傅仰止(1994):〈台灣原住民困境的歸因解釋:比較漢人觀點與原住民觀點〉。《中央研究院民族學研究所集刊》,77,35-87。
葉崇揚、蔡明璋、呂建德(2017):〈台灣民眾對社會福利的態度-體制評價、道德經濟、階級與世代的影響〉。《臺灣民主季刊》,14(2),1-48。
蕭新煌(1994):〈臺灣民眾對社會運動的了解與支持:變與不變〉。伊慶春主編:《台灣民眾的社會意向:社會科學的分析》,頁41-64。台北市:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所。
Aarøe, L., & Petersen, M. B. (2014). Crowding out culture: Scandinavians and Americans agree on social welfare in the face of deservingness cues. The Journal of Politics, 76(3), 684-697.
Adida, C. L., Lo, A., & Platas, M. R. (2018). Perspective taking can promote short-term inclusionary behavior toward Syrian refugees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(38), 9521-9526.
Applebaum, L. D. (2001). The influence of perceived deservingness on policy decisions regarding aid to the poor. Political Psychology, 22(3), 419-442.
Appelbaum, L. D. (2002). Who deserves help? Students' opinions about the deservingness of different groups living in Germany to receive aid. Social Justice Research, 15(3), 201-225.
Appelbaum, L. D., Lennon, M. C., & Lawrence Aber, J. (2006). When effort is threatening: The influence of the belief in a just world on Americans' attitudes toward antipoverty policy. Political Psychology, 27(3), 387-402.
Brandt, M. J. (2013). Onset and offset deservingness: The case of home foreclosures. Political Psychology, 34(2), 221-238.
Choma, B. L., Barnes, A. J., Braun, R. T., & Hanoch, Y. (2018). Dissecting the politics of “Obamacare”: The role of distributive justice, deservingness, and affect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(11), 634-642.
Cook, F. L. (1979). Who should be helped: Public support for social services, Beverly Hills. CA: Sage Publications.
Crocker, J., & Canevello, A. (2008). Creating and undermining social support in communal relationships: the role of compassionate and self-image goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(3), 555.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113.
Delton, A. W., & Robertson, T. E. (2016). How the mind makes welfare tradeoffs: Evolution, computation, and emotion. Current Opinion in Psychology, 7, 12-16.
De Coninck, D., & Matthijs, K. (2020). Who is allowed to stay? Settlement deservingness preferences towards migrants in four European countries. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 77, 25-37.
De Swaan, A. (1988). In care of the state: Health care, education and welfare in Europe and the USA in the modern era. New York: Oxford University Press.
Facchini, G., Margalit, Y., & Nakata, H. (2022). Countering public opposition to immigration: The impact of information campaigns. European Economic Review, 141, 103959.
Feather, N. T. (1999). Values, achievement, and justice: Studies in the psychology of deservingness. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gill, M. J., Andreychik, M. R., & Getty, P. D. (2013). More than a lack of control: External explanations can evoke compassion for outgroups by increasing perceptions of suffering (independent of perceived control). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(1), 73-87.
Golding, P., & Middleton, S. (1982). Images of welfare: Press and public attitudes to poverty. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
Hansen, K. J. (2019). Who cares if they need help? The deservingness heuristic, humanitarianism, and welfare opinions. Political Psychology, 40(2), 413-430.
Harell, A., Banting, K., Kymlicka, W., & Wallace, R. (2021). Shared membership beyond national identity: Deservingness and solidarity in diverse societies. Political Studies, 70(4), 983-1005.
Hayes, A. F., & Rockwood, N. J. (2017). Regression based statistical mediation and moderation analysis in clinical research: Observations, recommendations, and implementation. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 98 , 39 57.
Henry, P. J., Reyna, C., & Weiner, B. (2004). Hate welfare but help the poor: how the attributional content of stereotypes explains the paradox of reactions to the destitute in America 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(1), 34-58.
Jeene, M., Van Oorschot, W., & Uunk, W. (2013). Popular criteria for the welfare deservingness of disability pensioners: The influence of structural and cultural factors. Social Indicators Research, 110(3), 1103-1117.
Jeene, M., Van Oorschot, W., & Uunk, W. (2014). The dynamics of welfare opinions in changing economic, institutional and political contexts: an empirical analysis of Dutch deservingness opinions, 1975–2006. Social Indicators Research, 115(2), 731-749.
Jencks, C. (1991). Is the American underclass growing? In C. Jencks & P. E. Peterson (Eds.), The urban underclass (pp. 28–100). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Katz, M.B. (1989). The undeserving poor: from the war on poverty to the war on welfare. New York: Pantheon Press.
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
Knotz, C., Gandenberger, M., Bonoli, G., & Fossati, F. (2020). RICE-An Integrated Model of Welfare Deservingness Perceptions. NCCR-on the Move Working Paper Series 26, April. Neuchâtel: National Centres of Competence in Research.
Kootstra, A. (2017). Us versus them: Examining the perceived deservingness of minority groups in the British welfare state using a survey experiment. In W. Van Oorschot, F. Roosma, B. Meuleman, & T. Reeskens (Eds.), The social legitimacy of targeted welfare: Attitudes on welfare deservingness (pp. 263–280). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Larsen, C. A. (2008). The political logic of labour market reforms and popular images of target groups. Journal of European Social Policy, 18(1), 50-63.
Maassen, G., & de Goede, M. (1991). Changes in public opinion on the unemployed : The Case of The Netherlands. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 3(2), 182-194.
Meleady, R., & Vermue, M. (2019). The effect of intergroup contact on solidarity‐based collective action is mediated by reductions in SDO. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49(5), 307-318.
Pagano, S. J., & Huo, Y. J. (2007). The role of moral emotions in predicting support for political actions in post‐war Iraq. Political Psychology, 28(2), 227-255.
Petersen, M. B. (2012). Social welfare as small‐scale help: evolutionary psychology and the deservingness heuristic. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 1-16.
Petersen, M. B., Sell, A., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2010). Evolutionary psychology and criminal justice: A recalibrational theory of punishment and reconciliation. In Henrik Høgh-Olesen (Ed.), Human morality and sociality: Evolutionary and comparative perspectives (pp. 72–131). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Petersen, M. B., Sznycer, D., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2012). Who deserves help? Evolutionary psychology, social emotions, and public opinion about welfare. Political Psychology, 33(3), 395-418.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
Reich, B., & Wang, X. (2015). And justice for all: Revisiting the global belief in a just world scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 78, 68-76.
Rudolph, U., Roesch, S., Greitemeyer, T., & Weiner, B. (2004). A meta‐analytic review of help giving and aggression from an attributional perspective: Contributions to a general theory of motivation. Cognition and Emotion, 18(6), 815-848.
Slothuus, R. (2007). Framing deservingness to win support for welfare state retrenchment. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(3), 323-344.
Taylor‐Gooby, P. (2013). Why do people stigmatise the poor at a time of rapidly increasing inequality, and what can be done about it? The Political Quarterly, 84(1), 31-42.
van Oorschot, W. V. (2000). Who should get what, and why? On deservingness criteria and the conditionality of solidarity among the public. Policy & Politics, 28(1), 33-48.
van Oorschot, W. (2006). Making the difference in social Europe: Deservingness perceptions among citizens of European welfare states. Journal of European Social Policy, 16, 23–42.
Verkuyten, M. (2004). Emotional reactions to and support for immigrant policies: Attributed responsibilities to categories of asylum seekers. Social Justice Research, 17(3), 293-314.
Verkuyten, M., Mepham, K., & Kros, M. (2018). Public attitudes towards support for migrants: The importance of perceived voluntary and involuntary migration. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 41(5), 901-918.
Weiner, B., Osborne, D., & Rudolph, U. (2011). An attributional analysis of reactions to poverty: The political ideology of the giver and the perceived morality of the receiver. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(2), 199-213.
電子全文 電子全文(網際網路公開日期:20271219)
連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top