English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 88987/118697 (75%)
Visitors : 23578471      Online Users : 204
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 理學院 > 心理學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/59429
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/59429


    Title: 華人權威取向之概念建構與實徵研究:本土心理學研究取徑
    Conceptualization and Empirical Studies on Chinese Authoritarian Orientation: An Indigenous Approach
    Authors: 簡晉龍
    Chien, Chin Lung
    Contributors: 黃囇莉
    Huang, Li Li
    簡晉龍
    Chien, Chin Lung
    Keywords: 本土心理學
    社會取向
    關係主義
    權威性人格
    權威取向
    authoritarian orientation
    authoritarian personality
    Chinese relationalism
    indigenous psychology
    social orientation
    Date: 2012
    Issue Date: 2013-09-02 16:44:24 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本研究採取本土心理學研究取徑,在關係主義(Hwang, 2000)的預設下,以楊國樞(1993a, 2004)權威取向為基礎,探究華人權威取向的形成及內涵,並進行實徵研究證成之。研究一為質性研究。根據18位受訪者的敘說資料(10位男性和8位女性),獲得權威取向形成的歷程及歷程中各階段的權威取向內涵(成分)。「前權威取向階段」是權威取向尚未形成的階段;「工具性階段」會形成「權威畏懼」與「權威依賴」(合稱「工具性權威取向);「義務性階段」會形成「權威敬重」與「權威服從」(合稱「義務性權威取向);到了「習慣性階段」,先前階段習得的心理與行為模式都會變成習慣反應,也會衍生出「權威敏感」。基本上,後面階段產生的心理成分並不是取代前面階段,而是在新增到權威取向內涵之中,因此,權威取向的形成是由簡單而趨向複雜的過程。研究二以師生關係(指導教授和研究生)為脈絡,探究義務性權威取向在上下關係中的功能。研究二A為調查研究,有效樣本227;研究二B採準實驗法,有效樣本177。結果發現:權威敬重可預測畢業前對指導教授(上位者/權威)的恭敬行為和順從反應,也可預測畢業後的恭敬行為和關係維繫意願;權威服從可預測畢業前和畢業後的順從反應和幫忙協助指導教授之意願。此外,不論義務性權威取向是高或低,只要上位者違反強制義務,都會大幅減少畢業前和畢業後的恭敬行為、順從反應、幫忙協助及關係維繫意願;對於權威敬重較強的人,在上位者執行強制義務後,則更願意提供幫忙協助(畢業前和畢業後皆然)。以上結果顯示,在上下關係脈絡中,義務性權威取向確實有其功能,且即便脫離正式權力關係依然發揮著作用,展現其係以角色義務為基礎的構念。研究三藉由權威敏感來展現權威取向的習慣性面向。研究三A採調查研究,有效樣本212;研究三B採實驗法,有效樣本60。結果顯示:在人際場合中,權威覺察是普遍存在的,背後的基礎主要是一種習慣;此外,權威覺察後,若有權威在場,人們會立即展現恭敬的行為反應(如:起立),這是一種自動化的習慣反應。以上結果顯示,華人權威取向具有習慣性的一面。最後,將本研究的構念體系,分別與楊國樞的權威取向、西方的權威性人格做一比較,並提出本研究之理論貢獻,緊接著對權威取向的變與不變(社會層次與個人層次)、權威取向的範疇特定性等議題進行討論,並引出未來研究方向。
    Based on Chinese relationalism (Hwang, 2000) and the conceptualization of authoritarian orientation by Yang (1993a, 2004), an indigenous approach was used to investigate the formation process and components of Chinese “authoritarian orientation” (AO). A series of studies was conducted, the first of which was a qualitative study, followed by a survey, and quasi-experimental and experimental studies. Study 1 was a qualitative study in which 18 participants (10 men and 8 women) were interviewed regarding their experiences of interacting with authority figures (e.g., parents and teachers) since childhood. According to the participants, 4 stages of the Chinese AO formation process exist: the “pre-AO,” “instrumental,” “obligational,” and “habitual” stages. In addition, Chinese AO has been identified as comprising 2 sub-orientations (instrumental orientation and obligational orientation) and 5 psychological components (authority-dread, authority-dependence, authority-reverence, authority-obedience, and authority-sensitivity). In Study 2 we investigated the obligational orientation function of AO in the context of teacher-student (advisor-advisee) relationships, which have been and remain a vital vertical relationship in Chinese societies (e.g., Taiwan). A survey method was adopted in Study 2A, using 227 valid samples, and Study 2B was a quasi-experimental study in which 177 valid participants were recruited. The results indicated that an advisee’s obligational orientation exerts a positive effect on “respectful behaviors,” “submissive reactions,” and “helping behaviors” in school and after graduation, as well as on relationship maintenance. Advisees who have high authority-reverence will be likely to provide their advisors with assistance before and after graduation if advisors fulfill their compulsory obligations. In addition, regardless of whether an advisee’s obligational orientation is strong or weak, if advisors violate their compulsory obligations, an advisee’s respectful behavior, submissive reactions, helping behaviors, and relationship maintenance intentions would be reduced. Authority-sensitivity, one of the AO components, is defined as a habit. A person sensitive to authority is accustomed to verifying whether an authority figure is nearby during interpersonal contact (termed “authority-awareness”) and subsequently performs respectful behaviors automatically and habitually if an authority figure is present (termed “corresponding behaviors”). A survey method was adopted in Study 3A, using 212 valid samples and Study 3B was experimental and included 60 valid participants. The results indicated that most people habitually notice if an authority figure is present during interpersonal contact; in addition, respectful behaviors (e.g., standing and bowing) are automatically prompted when primed by a demonstration of authority cues. Authority-sensitivity as a habit-based construct was supported. Finally, Chinese AO as constructed in this study was compared with Yang’s AO and the authoritarian personality as defined in the Western literature. Theoretical implications were proposed and future research directions were also discussed.
    Reference: 文崇一(1972):〈從價值取向談中國國民性〉。見李亦園、楊國樞(編):《中國人的性格》,頁47-78。臺北:中央研究院民族學研究所。
    王淑俐(2008):〈陪我看日出,牽手師生情〉。《台灣教育》,651,16-18。
    石之瑜(1998):〈「權威人格」研究的今昔〉。《問題與研究》,37,67-91。
    朱瑞玲(1994):〈中國人的慈善觀念〉。見楊國樞、余安邦(編):《中國人的心理與行為——文化、教化及病理篇(一九九二)》,頁1-38。臺北:桂冠。
    余安邦(1996):〈文化心理學的歷史發展與研究徑路:兼論其與心態史的關係〉。《本土心理學研究》,6,2-60。
    李亦園、楊國樞(編)(1972):《中國人的性格》。臺北:中央研究院民族學研究所。
    李美枝(1998):〈中國人親子關係的內涵與功能:以大學生為例〉。《本土心理學研究》,9,3-52。
    李美枝(2002):〈中國人社會取向的本土契合度〉。見葉啟政(編):《現代化到本土化》,頁83-104。臺北:遠流。
    李偉斌、簡晉龍(2012):〈雙元孝道的心理運作功能:對親子關係之影響暨教養行為之中介〉。《教育與心理研究》,35,55-84。
    李 瑾(2012):〈學習的文化傳人:美國與台灣學童家長之比較〉。9月6日於國立政治大學心理學系之學術演講。
    金耀基(1979/1986):〈中國的傳統社會〉。《從傳統到現代》,頁43-95。臺北:時報文化。
    林文瑛、王震武(1995):〈中國父母的教養觀:嚴教觀或打罵觀?〉。《本土心理學研究》,3,2-92。
    林盈君(2007):《中文詞彙辨識的鄰項個數效應:詞彙辨識作業與文句閱讀的眼動研究》。國立陽明大學神經科學研究所,未出版之碩士論文。
    林維駿(2007):《音韻訊息在中文雙字詞辨識歷程中的角色》。國立台灣大學心理學研究所,未出版之碩士論文。
    林姿葶、鄭伯壎(2012):〈華人領導者的噓寒問暖與提攜教育:仁慈領導之雙構面模式〉。《本土心理學研究》,37,253-302。
    吳宗祐、周麗芳、鄭伯壎(2008):〈主管的權威取向及其對部屬順從與畏懼的知覺對威權領導的預測效果〉。《本土心理學研究》,30,65-115。
    柯永河(2010):〈走在學術與服務不斷交織的生涯路上五十年〉。《中華心理學刊》,52,345-365。
    韋政通(1972):〈傳統中國理想人格之分析〉。見李亦園、楊國樞(編):《中國人的性格》,頁1-36。臺北:中央研究院民族學研究所。
    韋政通(1974):《中國文化與現代生活》。臺北:水牛。
    陳向明(2002):《社會科學質的研究》。臺北:五南。
    陳舜文、魏嘉瑩(2013):〈大學生學習動機之「雙因素模式」:學業認同與角色認同之功能〉。《中華心理學刊》,55,41-55。
    陸 洛、翁克成(2007):〈師生的心理傳統性與現代性、關係契合性對師生互動品質及學生心理福祉的影響〉。《本土心理學研究》,27,81-118。
    徐 梓(2008):〈天地君親師源流考〉。《歷史月刊》,243,108-116。
    徐 靜(1972):〈從兒童故事看中國人的親子關係〉。見李亦園、楊國樞(編):《中國人的性格》,頁201-218。臺北:中央研究院民族學研究所。
    莊慧秋(1987):〈戰勝自己內心的敵人——剖析害怕權威的心理因素〉。見張老師月刊編輯部:《中國人的面具性格》,頁109-119。臺北:張老師出版社。
    莊耀嘉、楊國樞(1997):〈角色規範的認知結構〉。《本土心理學研究》,7,282-338。
    鄒川雄(1998):《中國社會學理論:尺寸拿捏與陽奉陰違》。臺北:紅葉文化。
    鄒川雄(2000):《中國社會學實踐:陽奉陰違的中國人》。臺北:紅葉文化。
    曾炆煋(1972):〈從人格發展看中國人性格〉。見李亦園、楊國樞(編):《中國人的性格》,頁227-250。臺北:中央研究院民族學研究所。
    梁漱溟(1963/1989):《中國文化要義》(重排本)。臺北:正中書局。
    黃光國(1988)。〈人情與面子:中國人的權力遊戲〉。《中國人的權力遊戲》。台北:巨流。
    黃光國(1995):《知識與行動:中華文化傳統的社會心理詮釋》。臺北:心理出版社。
    黃光國(1998):〈兩種道德:臺灣社會中道德思維研究的再詮釋〉。《本土心理學研究》,9,121-75。
    黃光國(1999a)。〈多元典範的研究取向:論社會心理學的本土化〉。《社會理論學報》,2(1),1-51。
    黃光國(1999b):〈建立「學術實踐的主體性」〉。《大葉學報》,8(2),1-10。
    黃光國(2004):〈儒家社會中的生活目標與角色義務〉。《本土心理學研究》,22,121-193。
    黃光國(2005):〈心理學本土化的方法論基礎〉。見楊國樞、黃光國、楊中芳(主編):《華人本土心理學》,頁57-79,臺北:遠流。
    黃光國(2009):《儒家關係主義:哲學反思、理論建構和實徵研究》。臺北:心理出版社。
    黃囇莉(1999/2006):《人際和諧與衝突:本土化的理論與研究》(二版),臺北:揚智文化出版。
    黃囇莉(2003):〈遊移於生物決定論與社會建構論之間:心理學中的性別意識〉。《女學學誌:婦女與性別研究》,16,85-120。
    黃囇莉(2008):〈科學渴望創意、創意需要科學:紮根理論在本土心理學中的運用與轉化〉。見楊中芳(主編):《本土心理學研究取徑論叢》,頁233- 270,臺北:遠流。
    黃囇莉(2011年9月):〈君不君,臣不臣?!——上司的角色義務及其對上司/下屬關係之影響〉,《第七屆華人心理學家國際學術研討會》,台北:中央研究院民族所。
    黃囇莉、朱瑞玲(2012):〈是亂流? 還是潮起、潮落? ——尋找台灣的「核心價值」及其變遷〉。《高雄行為科學學刊》,3,119-145。
    黃囇莉、許詩淇(2006):〈虛虛實實之間:婆媳關係的和諧化歷程與轉化機制〉。《本土心理學刊》,25,3-45。
    許詩淇、黃囇莉(2009):〈天下無不是的父母?—華人父母角色義務對親子衝突與親子關係的影響〉。《中華心理學刊》,51,295-317。
    楊中芳(1993):〈試論如何深化本土心理學研究:兼評現階段研究成果〉。《本土心理學研究》,1,122-138。
    楊中芳(1999):〈人際關係與人際互動〉。《本土心理學研究》,12,105-179。
    楊中芳(2001):〈「順從」與「背叛」:中國人真是具有「權威性格」的嗎?〉。見楊中芳(著):《如何理解中國人》,頁407-436。臺北:遠流。
    楊中芳(編)(2008):《本土心理研究取徑論叢》。台北:遠流出版社。
    楊國樞(1965):〈現代心理學中有關中國國民性的研究〉。《思與言》,2,3-19。
    楊國樞(1981):〈中國人的性格與行為:形成與蛻變〉。《中華心理學刊》,23, 39-55。
    楊國樞(1992)。〈父子軸家庭與夫妻軸家庭:運作特徵、變遷方向及適應問題〉。中國心理衛生協會主辦「家庭與心理衛生國際研討會」主題演講論文。
    楊國樞(1993a):〈中國人的社會取向:社會互動的觀點〉。見楊國樞、余安邦(主編):《中國人的心理與行為——理念及方法篇(一九九二)》,頁87-142。臺北:桂冠。
    楊國樞(1993b):〈我們為什麼要建立中國人的本土心理學〉。《本土心理學研究》,1,6-88。
    楊國樞(1997):〈心理學研究的本土契合性及其相關問題〉。《本土心理學研究》,8,75-120。
    楊國樞(2004):〈華人自我的理論分析與實徵研究:社會取向與個人取向的觀點〉。《本土心理學研究》,22,11-80。
    楊國樞(2005):〈本土心理學的意義與發展〉。見楊國樞、黃光國、楊中芳(主編):《華人本土心理學》,頁3-54,臺北:遠流。
    楊國樞、余安邦、葉明華(1991):〈中國人的個人傳統性與現代性:概念與測量〉。見楊國樞、黃光國(主編):《中國人的心理與行為(一九八九)》,頁241-306,臺北:桂冠。
    楊國樞、葉明華(2005):〈家族主義與泛家族主義〉。見楊國樞、黃光國、楊中芳(主編):《華人本土心理學》,頁250-292,臺北:遠流。
    楊國樞、劉奕蘭、張淑慧、王琳(2010):〈華人雙文化自我的個體發展階段:理論建構的嘗試〉。《中華心理學刊》,52,113-132。
    葉光輝(1997):〈臺灣民眾之孝道觀念的變遷情形〉。載於瞿海源、張苙雲等(主編):《九○年代的臺灣社會:社會變遷基本調查研究系列二(下)》,頁171-214。臺北南港:中央研究院社會學研究所籌備處。
    葉啟政(1984):〈「傳統」概念的社會學分析〉。見葉啟政(編):《社會、文化和知識份子》,頁57-88。台北:東大。
    鄭伯壎(1991):〈家族主義與領導行為〉。見楊中芳、高尚仁(主編):《中國人‧中國心——人格與社會篇》,頁365-407,臺北:遠流。
    鄭伯壎(1995):〈家長權威與領導行為之關係:一個臺灣民營企業主持人的個案研究〉。《中央研究院民族學研究所集刊》,79,119-173。
    韓格理(Hamilton, G. G.)(1990):《中國社會與經濟》。臺北:聯經。
    顏綵思、黃光國(2011):〈儒家社會中學生的角色義務及其對獎懲正當性的知覺〉。《中華心理學刊》,53,79-95。
    簡茂發(2008):〈亦師亦父和藹長者〉。《師大校友》,326,5。
    羅寶鳳(2005):〈從自體心理學的理論分析師生關係及其對人格建構的影響〉。《教育與心理研究》,28,325-352。
    Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper.
    Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 47-92.
    Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2010). Social psychology (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    Baars, J., & Scheepers, P. (1993). Theoretical and methodological foundations of the authoritarian personality. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 29, 345-353.
    Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230-240.
    Bernieri, F. J. (2001). Toward a taxonomy of interpersonal sensitivity. In J. A. Hall & F. J. Bernieri (Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement (pp. 3-19). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    Blass, T. (1999). The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now know about obedience to authority. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 955-978.
    Blass, T. (2004/2006):《電醒世界的人》(The man who shocked the world,黃譯洋譯)。臺北:遠流。
    Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998):《質性教育研究:理論與方法》(Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods,李奉儒等譯)。嘉義市:濤石文化。
    Brown, R. (1965). The authoritarian personality and the organization of attitudes. In R. Brown (Ed.), Social psychology (pp.477-546). New York: Free Press.
    Butler, J. C. (2000). Personality and emotional correlates of right-wing authoritarianism. Social Behavior and Personality, 28, 1-14.
    Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65, 1111-1119.
    Chao, R. K. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chinese Americans and European Americans. Child Development, 72, 1832-1843.
    Chao, R. & Tseng, V. (2002). Parenting of Asians. In M. H. Bornstein (Series Ed.), Handbook of parenting, Vol. 4: Social conditions and applied parenting (2nd ed., pp.59-93). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    Chen, S.-W., & Huang, L.-L. (2010, July). The social representations of teachers’ rights and obligations in Taiwan. Paper presented at 10 International Conference on Social Representations, Tunis (Gammarth), Tunisia.
    Chien, C.-L., & Huang, L.-L. (2010, July). The social representations of students’ rights and obligations in Taiwan. Paper presented at 10 International Conference on Social Representations, Tunis (Gammarth), Tunisia.
    Chiu, C., Morris, M. W., Hong, Y., & Menon, T. (2000). Motivated cultural cognition: The impact of implicit cultural theories on dispositional attribution varies as a function of need for closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 247-259.
    Christie, R. (1990). Authoritarianism and related constructs. In J. Robinson, P. Shaver, & L. Wrightman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 501-571). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
    Cousineau, D., & Chartier, S. (2010). Outliers detection and treatment: A review. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 58-67.
    Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of student teacher relationships on children’s social and cognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 207-234.
    Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709-724.
    Farh, J.-L., & Cheng, B.-S. (2000). A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In J. T. Li, A. S. Tsui, & E. Weldon (Eds.), Management and organizations in the Chinese context (pp.84-127). London: Macmillan.
    Farh, J.-L., Early, C. P., & Lin, S.-C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 421-444.
    Fazio, R. H., Jackson, J. R., Dunton, B. C., & Williams, C. J. (1995). Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: A bona fide pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1013-1027.
    Feldman, S. (2003). Enforcing social conformity: A theory of authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 24, 41-74.
    Fiske, A. P. (2002). Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures—A critique of the validity and measurement of the constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128, 78-88.
    Fiske, S. T., & Berdahl, J. (2007). Social power. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp.678-692). New York: Guilford Press.
    Funke, F. (2005). The dimensionality of right-wing authoritarianism: Lessons from the dilemma between theory and measurement. Political Psychology, 26, 195-218.
    Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and Stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4-27.
    Grolnick, W. S., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2009). Issues and challenges in studying parental control: Toward a new conceptualization. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 165-170.
    Grusec, J. E. (1997). A history of research on parenting strategies and children’s internalization of values. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kiczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children’s internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp.3-22). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
    Grusec, J. E., Rudy, D., & Martini, T. (1997). Parenting cognition and child outcomes: An overview and implications for children’s internalization of values. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kiczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children’s internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp.259-282). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
    Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    Hall, J. A., Andrzejewski, S. A., & Yopchick, J. E. (2009). Psychosocial correlates of interpersonal sensitivity: A meta-analysis. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 33, 149-180.
    Hall, J. A., Bernieri, F. J., & Carney, D. R. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and interpersonal sensitivity. In J. A. Harrigan, R. Rosenthal, & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), The new handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research (pp. 237–281). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Han, S. P., & Shavitt, S. (1994). Persuasion and culture: advertising appeals in individualistic and collectivistic societies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 326-350.
    Han, K.-H. (2011). The self-enhancing function of Chinese modesty: From a perspective of social script. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 258-268.
    Han, K.-H., Li, M.-C., Hwang, K.-K. (2005). Cognitive responses to favor requests from different social targets in a Confucian society. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 283-294.
    Ho, D. Y. F. (1981). Traditional patterns of socialization in Chinese society. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 23(2), 81-95.
    Ho, D. Y. F. (1986). Chinese patterns of socialization: A critical review. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp.1-37). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
    Ho, D. Y. F. (1998). Interpersonal relationships and relationship dominance: An analysis based on methodological relationalism. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 1-16.
    Hsu, F. L. K. (1965). The effect of dominant kinship relationships on kin and non-kin behavior: A hypothesis. American Anthropologist, 67, 638-661.
    Hwang, K.-K. (2000). Chinese relationalism: Theoretical construction and methodological considerations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 30, 155-178.
    Jen, T.-H., Lee, C.-D., Chien, C.-L., Hsu, Y.-S., & Chen, K.-M. (2013). Perceived social relationships and science learning outcomes for Taiwanese eighth graders: Structural equation modeling with a complex sampling consideration. International Journal of Science and Mathematics, 11, 575-600.
    Kawakami, K., Young, H., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). Automatic stereotyping: Category, trait, and behavioral activations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 3-15.
    Kitayama, S. (2002). Culture and basic psychological processes—Toward a system view of culture: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128, 89-96.
    Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., Matsumoto, H., & Norasakkunkit, V. (1997). Individual and collective processes in the construction of the self: Self-enhancement in the United States and self-criticism in Japan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1245-1267.
    Knowles, E. D., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (2001). Culture and the process of person perception: Evidence for automaticity among East Asians in correcting for situational influences on behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1344-1356.
    Konty, M. (2007). Authority and conformity. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology (pp.225-229). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
    Kornyeyeva, L., & Boehnke, K. (2013). The role of self-acceptance in authoritarian personality formation: Reintroducing a psychodynamic perspective into authoritarianism research. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 30, 232-246.
    Lachaud, C. M., & Renaud, O. (2011). A tutorial for analyzing human reaction times: How to filter data, manage missing values, and choose a statistical model. Applied Psycholiguistics, 32, 389-416.
    Lew, W. J. F. (1998).《華人性格研究》(Understanding the Chinese personality: Parenting, schooling, values, morality, relations, and personality,洪蘭、梁若瑜譯)。台北:遠流。
    Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1006-1017.
    Maccoby, E. E. (2007). Historical overview of socialization research and theory. In J. E. Grusec & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp.13-41). New York: Guilford.
    Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1994). A collective fear of the collective: Implications for selves and theories of selves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 568-579.
    McAdams, D. P. (1997). A conceptual history of personality psychology. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp.3-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
    Meade, R. D., & Whittaker, J. O. (1967). A cross-cultural study of authoritarianism. The Journal of Social Psychology, 72, 3-7.
    Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental review. New York: Harper & Row.
    Miller, J. G. (2002). Bringing culture to basic psychological theory—Beyond individualism and collectivism: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128, 97-109.
    Nucci, L., & Weber, E. K. (1995). Social interactions in the home and the development of young children’s conceptions of the personal. Child Development, 66, 1438-1452.
    Oesterreich, D. (2005). Flight into security: A new approach and measure of the authoritarian personality. Political Psychology, 26, 275-297.
    Orbell, S., & Verplaken, B. (2010). The automatic component of habit in health behavior: Habit as cue-contingent automaticity. Health Psychology, 29, 374-383.
    Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 54-74.
    Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72.
    Pervin, L. A., & Cervone, D. (2010). Personality: Theory and research (11th ed.). NY: Wiley and Sons.
    Pettigrew, T. F. (2007). Authoritarian personality. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology (pp.220-222). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
    Pomerantz, E. M., & Wang, Q. (2009). The role of parental control in children’s development in Western and East Asian countries. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 285-289.
    Rubinstein, G. (2003). Authoritarianism and its relation to creativity: A comparative study among students of design, behavioral sciences and law. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 695-705.
    Rudy, D., & Grusec, J. E. (2001). Correlates of authoritarian parenting in individualist and collectivist cultures and implications for understanding the transmission of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 202-212.
    Sanford, N. (1973). Authoritarian personality in contemporary perspective. In J. N. Knutson (Ed.), Handbook of political psychology (pp. 139-170). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147-177.
    Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., & Toguchi, Y. (2003). Pancultural self-enhancement. Journal Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 60-79.
    Singh, P. N., Huang, S. C., & Thompson, G. (1962). A comparative study of selected attitudes, values, and personality characteristics of American, Chinese, and Indian students. Journal of Social Psychology, 57, 123-132.
    Singelis, T. M., Bond, M. H., & Sharkey, W. F., & Lai, C. S. Y. (1999). Unpackaging cultural influence on self-esteem and embarrassability: The role of self-construals. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 315-341.
    Smetana, J. G., Crean, H. F., & Campione-Barr, N. (2005). Adolescents’ and parents’ changing conceptions of parental authority. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 108, 31-46.
    Smith, E. E., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Bem, D. J., Fredrickson, B. L., Loftus, G. R., & Maren S. (2003). Atkinson and Hilgard's Introduction to Psychology (14th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
    Spiering, M., & Everaerd, W. (2003). Priming the sexual system: Implicit versus explicit activation. The Journal of Sex Research, 40, 134-145.
    Stone, W. F., Lederer, G., & Christie, R. (1993). Introduction: Strength and weakness. In W. F. Stone, G. Lederer, & R. Christie (Eds.), Strength and weakness: The authoritarian personality today. New York: Springer-Verlag.
    Turner, S. (2007). Authority and legitimacy. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology (pp.229-230). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
    Tyler, T. R. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 323-345.
    Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375-400.
    Wheeler, S. C., & DeMarree, K. G. (2009). Multiple mechanisms of prime-to-behavior effects. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 566-581.
    Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 126-134.
    Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. Y. (2000). A model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review, 107, 101-126.
    Wood, W., Quinn, J. M., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). Habits in everyday life: Thought, emotion, and action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1281-1297.
    Wu, D. Y. H. (1996). Chinese childhood socialization. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp.143-154). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
    Yang, K.-S. (1995). Chinese social orientation: An integrative analysis. In T. Y. Lin, W. S. Tseng & Y. K. Yeh (Eds.), Chinese societies and mental health (pp.19-39). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
    Yang, K.-S. (2000). Monocultural and cross-cultural indigenous approaches: The royal road to the development of a balanced global psychology. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 241-263.
    Yau, J., & Smetana, J. G. (2003). Conceptions of moral, social-conventional, and personal events among Chinese preschoolers in Hong Kong. Child Development, 74, 647-658.
    Yau, J., Smetana, J. G., & Metzger, A. (2008). Youth Chinese children’s authority concepts. Social Development, 18, 210-229.
    Description: 博士
    國立政治大學
    心理學研究所
    95752501
    101
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095752501
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[心理學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    250101.pdf3828KbAdobe PDF735View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback