請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/56461
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 鄭雅文(Yawen Cheng) | |
dc.contributor.author | Chieh-Wei Niu | en |
dc.contributor.author | 牛傑薇 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T05:29:44Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-07-28 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2020-09-01 | |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2020-07-28 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 中文文獻 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),頁 137-162。 王方 (2003)。 民意與福利初探:對女性照顧者津貼研究之建議。社區發展季刊(101),頁 239-248。 王叢桂 (1993)。 三個世代大學畢業工作者的價值觀。本土心理學研究(2),頁 206-250。 王叢桂 (1999)。 工作者性別角色信念、家庭及工作承諾與工作價值的關係。本土心理學研究, 11,頁 59-89。 王叢桂(2000)。 性別角色、家庭價值、工作價值與兩性收入差異的關係。載於陳烜之、梁覺(主編), 邁進中的華人心理學。(頁 209-228)。 香港: 中文大學出版社。 王叢桂、羅國英 (2008)。 華人對情緒智能與人情世故的認知: 性別與世代的差異。應用心理研究, 39,頁 215-251。 王叢桂、羅國英 (2011)。 工作目的價值觀的變與不變:十年之後。中華輔導與諮商學報, 31,頁 101-126。 余朝權 (1995)。 管理人員工作價值與其前項變因之研究--採生涯觀點。東吳經濟商學學報(16),頁 1-30。 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),頁 1-46。 洪瑞斌、劉兆明 (2003)。 工作價值觀研究之回顧與前瞻。應用心理研究(19),頁 211-250。 張晉芬(2011)。勞動社會學。台北:政大出版社。 費孝通(1948)。鄉土中國。上海:上海觀察社。 黃光國(2009)。儒家關係主義:哲學反思、理論建構與實徵研究。台北:心理。 黃同圳 (1993)。 青年勞工工作價值觀與組織向心力之研究,青年輔導研究報告之93。 台北: 行政院青年輔導委員會。 葉志祥(2003)。台商大陸本土員工工作價值觀與離職傾向關係之研究。中山大學人力資源管理研究所,高雄。 葉崇揚 (2018)。 東亞資本主義與福利國家:日本、韓國與臺灣年金制度的比較歷史制度分析。亞太研究論壇, 65,頁 1–36。 葉崇揚、古允文 (2017)。 從生產性福利體制到社會投資福利國家—臺灣與韓國的比較。社會政策與社會工作期刊, 21(1),頁 97-147。 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),頁 1-48。 詹棟樑(2000)。 國家教育研究院-雙語詞彙、學術名詞暨辭書資訊網-文化整合。取自 http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1303236/ 英文文獻 Agassi, J. B. (1982). Comparing the work attitudes of women and men. Lexington, MA: Heath and Company. Andersen, R., Curtis, J. (2015). Social Class, Economic Inequality, and the Convergence of Policy Preferences: Evidence from 24 Modern Democracies. Canadian Review of Sociology / Revue canadienne de sociologie, 52(3), 266-288. Andrebeta, H. J., Heien, T. (2001). Four worlds of welfare state attitudes? A comparison of Germany, Norway, and the United States. European Sociological Review, 17(4), 337-356. doi:10.1093/esr/17.4.337 Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the Individual and the Organisation. New York: Wiley. Arts, W., Gelissen, J. (2001). Welfare states, solidarity and justice principles: Does the type really matter? Acta Sociologica, 44(4), 283-299. doi:10.1177/000169930104400401 Arts, W., Gelissen, J. (2002). Three worlds of welfare capitalism or more? A state-of-the-art report. Journal of European Social Policy, 12(2), 137-158. doi:10.1177/0952872002012002114 Aspalter, C. (2006). The East Asian welfare model. International Journal of Social Welfare, 15(4), 290-301. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2397.2006.00413.x Baldwin, P. (1990). The politics of social solidarity: class bases of the European welfare state, 1875–1975. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bambra, C. (2007). Going beyond The three worlds of welfare capitalism: regime theory and public health research. J Epidemiol Community Health, 61(12), 1098-1102. doi:10.1136/jech.2007.064295 Barber, B., Beramendi, P., Wibbels, E. (2013). The Behavioral Foundations of Social Politics: Evidence from Surveys and a Laboratory Democracy. Comparative Political Studies, 46(10), 1155-1189. doi:10.1177/0010414012472467 Berkman, L. F., Kawachi, I., Glymour, M. M. (2014). Social epidemiology. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beteille, A. (1969). The Decline of Social Inequality? In A. Beille (Ed.), Social Inequality: Selected Readings. Baltimore: Penguin. Betz, M., Oconnell, L. (1989). WORK ORIENTATIONS OF MALES AND FEMALES - EXPLORING THE GENDER SOCIALIZATION APPROACH. Sociological Inquiry, 59(3), 318-330. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.1989.tb00109.x Blekesaune, M., Quadagno, J. (2003). Public attitudes toward welfare state policies: A comparative analysis of 24 nations. European Sociological Review, 19(5), 415-427. doi:10.1093/esr/19.5.415 Busemeyer, M. R., Goerres, A., Weschle, S. (2009). Attitudes towards redistributive spending in an era of demographic ageing: the rival pressures from age and income in 14 OECD countries. Journal of European Social Policy, 19(3), 195-212. doi:10.1177/0958928709104736 Caldwell, D. F., Oreilly, C. A., Morris, J. H. (1983). RESPONSES TO AN ORGANIZATIONAL REWARD - A FIELD-TEST OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF JUSTIFICATION HYPOTHESIS. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(3), 506-514. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.3.506 Carstensen, L. L. (1991). Selectivity theory: Social activity in life-span context. Annual Review ofGerontology and Geriatrics, 11, 195–217. Castles, F. G. (1985). The working class and welfare: reflections on the political development of the welfare state in Australia and New Zealand, 1890–1980. London: Allen and Unwin. Cennamo, L., Gardner, D. (2008). Generational differences in work values, outcomes and person-organisation values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 891-906. doi:10.1108/02683940810904385 Cook, F. L., Barrett, E. J. (1992). Support for the American Welfare State: The views of congress and the public. New York: Columbia University Press. Croissant, A. (2004). Changing welfare regimes in East and Southeast Asia: Crisis, change and challenge. Social Policy Administration, 38(5), 504-524. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9515.2004.00404.x de Witte, H., Halman, L., Gelissen, J. (2004). European work orientations at the end of the twentieth century. In W. Arts L. Halman (Eds.), European Values at the Turn of the Millennium. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. Deeming, C. (2015a). Foundations of the Workfare State – Reflections on the Political Transformation of the Welfare State in Britain. Social Policy Administration, 49, 862–886. Deeming, C. (2015b). Rethinking Social Policy and Society. Social Policy and Society FirstView. doi:10.1017/S1474746415000147 Deeming, C. (2017). Classed attitudes and social reform in cross-national perspective: a quantitative analysis using four waves from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP). Journal of Sociology, 53(1), 162-181. doi:10.1177/1440783316632605 Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Fried, Y. (2012). Work orientations in the job demands-resources model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(5-6), 557-575. doi:10.1108/02683941211252428 Devaus, D., McAllister, I. (1991). GENDER AND WORK ORIENTATION - VALUES AND SATISFACTION IN WESTERN-EUROPE. Work and Occupations, 18(1), 72-93. doi:10.1177/0730888491018001004 Dex, S. (1988). Women’s attitudes towards work. London: Macmillan. Deyo, F. C. (1989). Beneath the miracle: Labor subordination in the new Asian industrialism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Deyo, F. C. (1992). The political economy of social policy formation: East Asia’s newly industrialized countries. In R. P. Appelbaum, Henderson, J. (Ed.), States and development in the Asia Pacific region. London: Sage. Dubin, R. (1956). INDUSTRIAL-WORKERS WORLDS - A STUDY OF THE CENTRAL LIFE INTERESTS OF INDUSTRIAL-WORKERS. Social Problems, 3(3), 131-142. doi:10.1525/sp.1956.3.3.03a00010 Eikemo, T. A., Bambra, C. (2008). The welfare state: a glossary for public health. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62(1), 3-6. doi:10.1136/jech.2007.066787 Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. London: Polity. Esping-Andersen, G. (1997). Hybrid or unique? The Japanese welfare state between Europe and America. Journal of European Social Policy, 7(3), 179-189. Esser, I., Lindh, A. (2018). Job Preferences in Comparative Perspective 1989-2015: A Multidimensional Evaluation of Individual and Contextual Influences. International Journal of Sociology, 48(2), 142-169. doi:10.1080/00207659.2018.1446118 Feldman, S., Steenbergen, M. (2001). The Humanitarian Foundation of Public Support for Social Welfare. American Journal of Political Science, 45(3), 658-677. doi:10.2307/2669244 Fitzpatrick, T. (2003). Cash transfers. In J. Baldock, Manning, N., Vickerstaff, S. (Ed.), Social policy (pp. 329–361). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fromm, E. (1976). To Have or to Be? US: Harper Row. Fuentes, A. (1997). Giuliani's Workfare: Slaves of New York. The Baltimore Chronicle and The Sentinel. Retrieved from http://baltimorechronicle.com/workfare.html Fukushige, A., Spicer, D. P. (2011). Leadership and followers' work goals: a comparison between Japan and the UK. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(10), 2110-2134. doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.580179 Gallie, D. (2007). Welfare regimes, employment systems and job preference orientations. European Sociological Review, 23(3), 279-293. doi:10.1093/esr/jcm001 Gallie, D. (2019). Research on Work Values in a Changing Economic and Social Context. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 682(1), 26-42. doi:10.1177/0002716219826038 Gallie, D., Felstead, A., Green, F. (2012). Job preferences and the intrinsic quality of work: the changing attitudes of British employees 1992-2006. Work Employment and Society, 26(5), 806-821. doi:10.1177/0950017012451633 Gallie, D., White, M., Cheng, Y. and Tomlinson, M. (1998). Restructuring the Employment Relationship. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Ganti, A. (2019). Investopedia-Rational Choice Theory. Retrieved from https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rational-choice-theory.asp Gelissen, J. (2000). Popular support for institutionalised solidarity: a comparison between European welfare states. International Journal of Social Welfare, 9(4), 285-300. doi:10.1111/1468-2397.00140 Gerxhani, K., Koster, F. (2012). 'I am not alone': Understanding public support for the welfare state. International Sociology, 27(6), 768-787. doi:10.1177/0268580911423060 GESIS ed. (2017). ISSP 2015 - Work Orientations IV, Variable Report: Documentation release 2017/08/30, related to the international dataset Archive-Study-No. ZA6770 Version 2.1.0. Retrieved from Cologne: GESIS ed. (2018). ISSP 2016 Role of Government V, Variable Report: Documentation release 2018/09/19, related to the international dataset Archive-Study-No. ZA6900 Version 2.0.0. Retrieved from Cologne: Ginsburg, N. (1979). Class, capital and social policy. London: Macmillan. Glynn, M. A. (1998). Situational and dispositional determinants of managers' satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 13(2), 193-209. doi:10.1023/a:1022954906207 Gough, I. (2002). Globalization and national welfare regimes: The East Asian case. In R. Sigg, Behrendt, C. (Ed.), Social Security in the Global Village. London: Transaction. Goul Andersen, J. (2002). Public Support for the Danish Welfare State: Interests and Values, Institutions and Performance. In E. Albæk, V. Eliason, S. N. Nørgaard, H. Schwartz (Eds.), Crisis, Miracles and Beyond: Negotiated Adaptation of the Danish Welfare State. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Grafstein, R. (2015). Public Pensions and the Intergenerational Politics of Aging Societies. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 27(3), 457-484. Hackman, J. R., Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation Through the Design of Work : Test of a Theory. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 16, 250-279. Hackman, J. R., Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work Redesign. Reading, Massachussets: Addison-Wesley. Halla, M., Lackner, M., Schneider, F. G. (2010). An Empirical Analysis of the Dynamics of the Welfare State: The Case of Benefit Morale. Kyklos, 63(1), 55-74. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6435.2010.00460.x Haller, M., Mach, B., Zwicky, H. (1995). Egalitarismus und Antiegalitarismus zwischen gesellschaftlichen Interessen und kulturellen Leitbildern: Ergebnisse eines internationalen Vergleichs. In H.-P. Müller B. Wegener (Eds.), Soziale Ungleichheit und soziale Gerechtigkeit. Opladen: Leske und Budrich. Halman, L., Mu¨ ller, H. (2006). Contemporary work values in Africa and Europe: comparing orientations to work in African and European societies. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 47(2), 117-143. Harpaz, I., Honig, B., Coetsier, P. (2002). A cross-cultural longitudinal analysis of the meaning of work and the socialization process of career starters. Journal of World Business, 37(4), 230-244. doi:10.1016/s1090-9516(02)00090-1 Hasenfeld, Y., Rafferty, J. A. (1989). THE DETERMINANTS OF PUBLIC-ATTITUDES TOWARD THE WELFARE-STATE. Social Forces, 67(4), 1027-1048. doi:10.2307/2579713 Heinemann, F. (2008). Is the welfare state self-destructive? A study of government benefit morale. Kyklos, 61(2), 237-257. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6435.2008.00400.x Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Holliday, I. (2000). Productivist welfare capitalism: Social policy in East Asia. Political Studies, 48(4), 706-723. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.00279 Häusermann, S. (2006). Changing Coalitions in Social Policy Reforms: The Politics of New Social Needs and Demands. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(1), 5-21. Häusermann, S., Kriesi, H. (2015). What Do Voters Want? Dimensions and Configurations in Individual-Level Preferences and Party Choice. In P. Beramendi, S. Häusermann, H. Kitschelt, H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Politics of Advanced Capitalism (pp. 202-230). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hult, C., Svallfors, S. (2002). Production regimes and work orientations: A comparison of six western countries. European Sociological Review, 18(3), 315-331. doi:10.1093/esr/18.3.315 Inglehart, R. (1977). The Silent Revolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISSP Research Group. (2017). International Social Survey Programme: Work Orientations IV - ISSP 2015. ISSP Research Group. (2018). International Social Survey Programme: Role of Government V - ISSP 2016. Iversen, T. (2005). Capitalism, Democracy, and Welfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Iversen, T., Soskice, D. (2001). An asset theory of social policy preferences. American Political Science Review, 95(4), 875-893. doi:10.1017/s0003055400400079 Jæger, M. M. (2007). Are the “Deserving Needy” Really Deserving Everywhere? Cross-cultural Heterogeneity and Popular Support for the Old and the Sick in Eight Western Countries. In S. Mau B. Veghte (Eds.), Social Justice, Legitimacy and the Welfare State (pp. 73–94). Aldershot: Ashgate. Jæger, M. M. (2011). Do We All (Dis)Like the Same Welfare State? Configurations of Public Support for the Welfare State in Comparative Perspective. In J. Kvist, J. Fritzell, B. Hvinden, O. Kangas (Eds.), Changing Social Equality: The Nordic Welfare Model in the 21st Century (pp. 45–68). Bristol: Policy Press. Jones, C. (1990). HONG-KONG, SINGAPORE, SOUTH-KOREA AND TAIWAN - OIKONOMIC WELFARE STATES. Government and Opposition, 25(4), 446-462. doi:10.1111/j.1477-7053.1990.tb00396.x Jones, C. (1993). The Pacific challenge. In C. Jones (Ed.), New perspectives on the welfare state in Europe. London: Routledge. Jurkiewicz, C., Brown, R. (1998). GenXers vs. Boomers vs. Matures: generational comparisons of public employees’ motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, Fall, 18–37. Kalleberg, A. L., Griffin, L. J. (1978). Position Source of Inequity in Job Satisfaction. Work and Occupations, 5, 371-400. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books. Kasser, T., Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3), 280-287. doi:10.1177/0146167296223006 Kaufmann, F. (2000). Towards a theory of the welfare state. European Review, 8(3), 291-312. doi:doi:10.1017/S1062798700004920 Kim, P. H. (2010). The East Asian welfare state debate and surrogate social policy: an exploratory study on Japan and South Korea. Socio-Economic Review, 8(3), 411-435. doi:10.1093/ser/mwq003 Kluegel, J. R., Mateju, P. (1995). Egalitarian vs. Inegalitarian Principles of Distributive Justice. In J. R. Kluegel, D. S. Mason, B. Wegener (Eds.), Social Justice and Political Change: Public Opinion in Capitalist and Post-communist States. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Konrad, A. M., Ritchie, J. E., Lieb, P., Corrigall, E. (2000). Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 593-641. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.593 Korpi, W., Palme, J. (2003). New politics and class politics in the context of austerity and globalization: welfare state regress in 18 countries, 1975–95. American Political Science Review, 97, 425–446. Krosnick, J. A. (1991). RESPONSE STRATEGIES FOR COPING WITH THE COGNITIVE DEMANDS OF ATTITUDE MEASURES IN SURVEYS. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 213-236. doi:10.1002/acp.2350050305 Kulin, J., Svallfors, S. (2013). Class, Values, and Attitudes Towards Redistribution: A European Comparison. European Sociological Review, 29(2), 155-167. doi:10.1093/esr/jcr046 Lee, S. M., Terada, M., Shimizu, K., Lee, M. H., Lee, D. H. (2017). Comparative Analysis of Work Values Across Four Nations. Journal of Employment Counseling, 54(3), 132-144. doi:10.1002/joec.12061 Lewis, J. (1992). Gender and the Development of Welfare Regimes. Journal of European Social Policy, 2, 159–173. Loscocco, K. (1989). The instrumentally oriented factory worker: Myth or reality? Work and Occupations, 16, 3-25. Lue, J.-D., Hsiao, H.-H., Lee, C.-H. (2015). Assessing Reform of the Policies on Nonstandard Workers in Taiwan. In H.-h. M. Hsiao, A. L. Kalleberg, K. Hewison (Eds.), Policy Responses to Precarious Work in Asia (pp. 105-134). Taipei: Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica. Lui, T. L. (2005). The psychology of the middle class. In S. K. Lau, M. K. Lee, P. S. Wan, S. L. Wong (Eds.), Indicators of social development: Hong Kong 2004 (pp. 179–199). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Lynch, J. (2006). Age in the Welfare State: The Origins of Social Spending on Pensioners, Workers, and Children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyness, K. S., Thompson, D. E. (1997). Above the glass ceiling? A comparison of matched samples of female and male executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 359-375. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.359 Macik-Frey, M., Quick, J. C., Nelson, D. L. (2007). Advances in occupational health: From a stressful beginning to a positive future. Journal of Management, 33(6), 809-840. doi:10.1177/0149206307307634 Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper. Mau, S. (2003). The Moral Economy of Welfare States: Britain and Germany Compared. London: Routledge. Mercure, D., Vultur, M. (2010). La signification du travail: Nouveau modèle productif et ethos du travail Au Québec. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval. Midgley, J. (1986). Industrialization and welfare: The case of the four Little Tigers. Social Policy and Administration, 20(3), 225–238. Moene, K., Wallerstein, M. (2001). Inequality, Social Insurance, and Redistribution. American Political Science Review, 95(4), 859-874. doi:10.1017/S0003055400400067 Moore, M. L., Miller, E., Fossum, J. (1974). PREDICTORS OF MANAGERIAL CAREER EXPECTATIONS. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(1), 90-92. doi:10.1037/h0035833 Muntaner, C., Chung, H., Solar, O., Santana, V., Castedo, A., Benach, J., Network, E. (2010). A MACRO-LEVEL MODEL OF EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AND HEALTH INEQUALITIES. International Journal of Health Services, 40(2), 215-221. doi:10.2190/HS.40.2.c Nagayoshi, K., Sato, Y. (2014). Who supports redistributive policies in contemporary Japan? An integrative approach to self-interest and trust models. International Sociology, 29(4), 302-323. doi:10.1177/0268580914537657 Ng, T. W. H., Feldman, D. C. (2010). THE RELATIONSHIPS OF AGE WITH JOB ATTITUDES: A META-ANALYSIS. Personnel Psychology, 63(3), 677-718. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01184.x Parry, E., Urwin, P. (2011). Generational Differences in Work Values: A Review of Theory and Evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 79-96. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00285.x Peck, J. (2001). Workfare States. London: Guilford Press. Pettersen, P. A. (2001). Welfare State Legitimacy: Ranking, Rating, Paying. The Popularity and Support for Norwegian Welfare Programmes in the Mid 1990s. Scandinavian Political Studies, 24, 27-49. Polanyi, K. (1944). The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. US: Farrar Rinehart. Ponza, M., Duncan, G. J., Corcoran, M., Groskind, F. (1988). The Guns of Autumn? Age DiVerences in Support for Income Transfers to the Young and Old. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 441–466. Powell, G. N., Butterfield, D. A., Parent, J. D. (2002). Gender and managerial stereotypes: Have the times changed? Journal of Management, 28(2), 177-193. doi:10.1016/s0149-2063(01)00136-2 Robinson, R. V., Bell, W. (1978). EQUALITY, SUCCESS, AND SOCIAL-JUSTICE IN ENGLAND AND UNITED-STATES. American Sociological Review, 43(2), 125-143. doi:10.2307/2094695 Rueda, D. (2018). Food comes first, then morals: Redistribution preferences, parochial altruism, and immigration in Western Europe. The Journal of Politics, 80(1), 225-239. Ryan, R. M., Chirkov, V. I., Little, T. D., Sheldon, K. M., Timoshina, E., Deci, E. L. (1999). The American dream in Russia: Extrinsic aspirations and well-being in two cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(12), 1509-1524. doi:10.1177/01461672992510007 Schieman, S. (2002). Socioeconomic status, job conditions, and well-being: Self-concept explanations for gender-contingent effects. Sociological Quarterly, 43(4), 627-646. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2002.tb00069.x Schwinger, T. (1986). The Need Principle of Distributive Justice. In H. W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen, J. Greenberg (Eds.), Critical Issues in Social Justice. Boston, MA: Springer. Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high effort–low reward conditions at work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 27–43. Smola, K. W., Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 363-382. doi:10.1002/job.147 Solar, O., Irwin, A. (2010). A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health. Social Determinants of Health Discussion Paper 2 (Policy and Practice ). Geneva: World Health Organization. Sun, L. Y., Lee, E. W., Zahra, A., Park, J. H. (2015). Should non-citizens have access to publicly funded health care? A study of public attitudes and their affecting factors. Public Health, 129(9), 1157-1165. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2015.07.033 Svallfors, S. (1997). Worlds of welfare and attitudes to redistribution: A comparison of eight western nations. European Sociological Review, 13(3), 283-304. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.esr.a018219 Svallfors, S. (2004). Class, attitudes and the welfare state: Sweden in comparative perspective. Social Policy Administration, 38(2), 119-138. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9515.2004.00381.x Svallfors, S. (2006). The Moral Economy of Class: Class and Attitudes in Comparative Perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Svallfors, S. (2007). Class and Attitudes to Market Inequality: A Comparison of Sweden, Britain, Germany, and the United States. In S. Svallfors (Ed.), The Political Sociology of the Welfare State: Institutions, Social Cleavages, and Orientations (pp. 189-222). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Svallfors, S. (2008). The Generational Contract in Sweden: Age-specific Attitudes to Age-related Policies. Policy Politics, 36(3), 381-396. Svallfors, S. (2012). Welfare States and Welfare Attitudes. In S. Svallfors (Ed.), Contested Welfare States: Welfare Attitudes in Europe and Beyond (pp. 1-24). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Svallfors, S., Kulin, J., Schnabel, A. (2012). Age, Class, and Attitudes Toward Government Responsibilities. In S. Svallfors (Ed.), Contested Welfare States: Welfare Attitudes in Europe and Beyond. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Tang, K. L. (2000). Social development in East Asia. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Turunen, T. (2011). WORK ORIENTATIONS IN FLUX? Comparing trends in and determinants of subjective work goals in five European countries. European Societies, 13(5), 641-662. doi:10.1080/14616696.2011.624187 Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M. (2008). Generational differences in psychological traits and their impact on the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 862-877. doi:10.1108/02683940810904367 Vansteenkiste, M., Neyrinck, B., Niemiec, C. P., Soenens, B., De Witte, H., Van den Broeck, A. (2007). On the relations among work value orientations, psychological need satisfaction and job outcomes: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 251-277. doi:10.1348/096317906x111024 Waerness, K. (1987). On the rationality of caring. In A. Showstack Sassoon (Ed.), Women and the State. London: Hutchinson. Walker, A., Wong, C. (2005). East Asian welfare regimes in transition: from confucianism to globalisation. Bristol: Policy Press. Wegener, B., Liebig, S. (1995). Dominant Ideologies and the Variation of Distributive Justice Norms: A Comparison of East and West Germany, and the United States. In J. R. Kluegel, D. S. Mason, B. Wegener (Eds.), Social Justice and Political Change: Public Opinion in Capitalist and Post-communist States. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Wong, T. K. Y., Wan, S. P. S., Law, K. W. K. (2009). Welfare attitudes and social class: the case of Hong Kong in comparative perspective. International Journal of Social Welfare, 18(2), 142-152. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2397.2008.00576.x | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/56461 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 背景與目的:探討不同群體民眾對勞動保護政策的支持程度(簡稱「勞動保護態度」)和重視的工作價值(簡稱「工作價值取向」)對勞動保護政策的制訂極為重要。過往研究顯示,勞動保護態度與工作價值取向在不同性別、年齡、社經地位族群之間有所差異,且深受國情和體制影響。然而過往研究多為歐美國家比較,較少納入台灣進行跨國比較。本研究以台灣為主,探討不同性別、年齡、教育程度、家戶收入和職業類別族群是否有相異的勞動保護態度和工作價值取向,並進行八國比較分析。 方法:本研究使用國際社會調查計畫(International Social Survey Program, ISSP)的2016年「政府角色」(Role of Government)和2015年「工作價值取向」(Work Orientations)問卷,分別調查18歲以上民眾的勞動保護態度和工作價值取向,並比較台灣、日本、美國、英國、德國、法國、芬蘭、瑞典等八國的態度/取向差異。兩項調查的最終樣本數分別為8,075人和9,176人。首先,分別對兩份問卷中自選與研究相關題目進行探索性因素分析,結果顯示勞動保護態度有二個構面,工作價值取向有三個構面。接著,將五個構面分別進行信度分析,結果顯示勞動保護態度的其中ㄧ構面題項太少,且Cronbach’s 過低,因此不納入後續分析;而另一構面中有一題與其他題關聯性較弱且其概念較不符合勞動保護(老人年金)因此刪除,命名為「勞動保護態度」(3題),其Cronbach’s 為0.64;工作價值取向的3個構面Cronbach’s 分別約為0.72、0.57、0.53,分別命名為「社會互動性」(3題)、「社會地位保障」(3題)和「獨立與創造性」(3題)。最後,利用多元線性迴歸分析,以性別、年齡、教育程度、家戶收入、職業類別為自變項,以上述四個分量表分數為依變項,分別探討八國民眾的勞動保護態度和工作價值取向之個人層次影響因素;另進行簡單線性迴歸分析,以國家為自變項,了解八國民眾上述兩方面態度/取向差異。 結果:「勞動保護態度」分量表方面,迴歸分析結果顯示台灣民眾的勞動保護態度和性別、年齡、職業類別無顯著相關,但發現低教育程度或低家戶收入者較支持勞動保護。其他七國大致顯示女性、低社經地位民眾較支持勞動保護。三種工作價值取向方面,首先,「社會互動性」分量表分析結果顯示台灣的專業及管理階級比藍領階級工作者更重視社會互動,而其他七國皆顯示女性比男性更重視此一工作價值;其次,「社會地位保障」分量表分析結果顯示台灣男性、青壯年人口較重視收入、升遷和工作保障,而除了日本,各國皆顯示青年比老年人更重視這些工作價值;最後,「獨立與創造性」分量表分析結果顯示台灣女性、中年人較重視工作獨立性與創造性,國中(含)以下學歷者比大學(含)以上學歷者不重視此一工作價值,而部分國家的女性和高教育程度者較重視此工作價值。國際比較方面,「獨立與創造性」分量表分數的比較顯示,瑞典、芬蘭等社會民主國家最重視此一價值,其次是德國、法國等統合主義國家,最後是自由主義的美國、英國,但未見台灣和日本有一致的價值取向。然而,其他三個分量表則無相似福利國家體制人民有相似的勞動保護態度或工作價值取向之現象。 結論:本研究發現低社經地位民眾與女性較支持勞動保護,推論上述族群屬勞動市場弱勢族群,對勞動保護的需求較高。此外,本研究也發現不同族群重視的工作價值有差異,因此可推測工作特質對工作者健康的影響,可能因族群不同而有所差異,未來的勞動與健康相關研究設計上應納入此點考量。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Objective: Public opinions towards labor protection policies and work values are important to the forming of labor protection policies. While several studies have compared such opinions and examined their distributions across groups in European countries, few studies have included Taiwan in the comparison. The research aimed to explore public attitudes towards labor protection policies (referred to as “employment-related welfare attitudes”) and work values (referred to as “work orientations”), and to examine the associations of these attitudes with gender, age, socioeconomic status in 8 selected countries. Methods: Two surveys “Role of Government 2016” and “Work Orientations 2015”in The International Social Survey Program (ISSP) Modules were utilized respectively to analyze employment-related welfare attitudes and work orientations among citizens of 18 and above in 8 countries: Taiwan, Japan, United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Finland, and Sweden. A total of 8,075 and 9,176 people were available for analysis. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the selected items in the two ISSP surveys, and factor analysis revealed 2 dimensions of employment-related welfare attitudes and 3 dimensions of work orientations. Internal consistency was examined and the results showed that one dimension of employment-related welfare attitudes had a low Cronbach’s value, and the other dimension consisted of 1 item which was not correlated with 3 other items therefore was removed, resulting an one-dimension scale of “employment-related welfare attitudes” (Cronbach’s value 0.64). The Cronbach’s values of the 3 dimensions of “work orientations” were 0.72, 0.57, 0.53, which resulted in 3 subscales “social interaction”, “status control” and “creativity and autonomy”, respectively. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to examine the associations of employment-related welfare attitudes or work orientations in each of the 8 countries with 5 independent variables: gender, age, educational level, household income, and occupational class. Furthermore, simple linear regression analysis was used to examine both attitudes/orientations with the independent variable of country. Results: Results of the subscale “employment-related welfare attitudes” showed that female, people with lower educational levels or household income were more supportive of labor protection policies in most countries. Results of the subscale “social interaction” showed that people in the highest occupational class in Taiwan were more concerned with social interaction in the workplace than those in the lowest, and female placed more importance on this work value than male in other 7 countries. Results of the subscale “status control” showed that younger people were more concerned with income, job security, or employment perspective than older people in all countries except for Japan, and male valued the aforementioned items in work than female in Taiwan. Results of the subscale “creativity and autonomy” showed that female and people with higher educational levels in some countries placed more importance on independence or creativity in the workplace than their counterparts. Results of simple linear regression analysis showed that people in Finland and Sweden valued creativity and autonomy the most among all countries, while people in the US and the UK valued those items the least. Conclusions: In this research, female and people with lower educational levels and lower income were found to be more supportive of labor protection policies, suggesting a greater demand for labor protection from these disadvantaged groups. This study also found that people in different socio-demographic categories held different work values. This finding suggested that work characteristics may influence workers’ health differentially according to socio-demographic factors. Future research about labor or health should take into account the differences of work orientations among different groups of people. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T05:29:44Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-2607202021055200.pdf: 1722250 bytes, checksum: a8f989b91f7ce2105984fb93302de0d3 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2020 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 I 誌謝 II 中文摘要 III Abstract V 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機 1 第二節 研究問題與重要性 4 第二章 文獻探討 6 第一節 性別、年齡、社經地位和勞動與健康政策 6 第二節 福利態度的可能影響因素 8 一、 個人層次變項──性別 11 二、 個人層次變項──年齡 12 三、 個人層次變項──社經地位 13 四、 群體層次變項──福利國家體制 16 第三節 工作價值取向的可能影響因素 19 一、 個人層次變項──性別 21 二、 個人層次變項──年齡 22 三、 個人層次變項──社經地位 23 四、 群體層次變項──福利國家體制、就業體系 25 第四節 福利國家體制 26 第三章 研究方法 29 第一節 研究架構 29 第二節 資料來源 30 一、 勞動保護態度調查的分析人口 30 二、 工作價值取向調查的分析人口 31 第三節 測量 35 一、 依變項的測量──勞動保護態度 35 二、 依變項的測量──工作價值取向 36 三、 自變項的測量──性別、年齡、社經地位 37 第四節 統計分析 40 第四章 研究結果 41 第一節 量表的信效度分析 41 一、 勞動保護態度調查的效度分析 41 二、 勞動保護態度調查的信度分析 43 三、 工作價值取向調查的效度分析 44 四、 工作價值取向調查的信度分析 46 第二節 描述性統計分析──基本人口學資料 47 第三節 描述性統計分析──量表平均數、標準差 51 一、 勞動保護態度調查 51 二、 工作價值取向調查 51 第四節 多元線性迴歸分析──個人層次因素探討 59 一、 勞動保護態度調查 59 二、 工作價值取向調查 60 第五節 簡單線性迴歸分析──體制層次因素探討 69 第五章 討論與建議 71 第一節 勞動保護態度 71 第二節 工作價值取向 74 第三節 兩項調查的政策與學術意涵 77 第四節 研究限制與未來展望 79 參考文獻 81 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 以性別、年齡、社經地位探討勞動保護態度和工作價值取向:國際比較分析 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Attitudes towards Employment-related Welfare and Work Orientations by Gender, Age, and Socioeconomic Status: An International Comparison Study | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 108-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 柯志哲(Jyh-Jer Ko),葉崇揚(Chung-Yang Yeh) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 勞動保護,福利態度,工作價值,工作價值取向,性別,年齡,社經地位,福利國家體制, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | labor protection,welfare attitudes,work values,work orientations,gender,age,socioeconomic status,welfare state regime, | en |
dc.relation.page | 97 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202001874 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2020-07-29 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 公共衛生學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 健康政策與管理研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 健康政策與管理研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
U0001-2607202021055200.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 1.68 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。