請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/57171完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 鄭伯壎 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ching-Fuh Lin | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 林清富 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T06:36:50Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2014-09-30 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2014-08-12 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2014 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2014-07-31 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 中文文獻
危芷芬、黃光國（1998）。積極義務與消極義務：台美大學生道德判斷的文化比較研究。「中華心理學刊」，40，137-153。 李沛良（1993）。「現代化與中國文化的能動宿命觀」第四屆現代化與中國文化研討會（香港及蘇州：香港中文大學與北京大學聯合主辦）之論文，香港及蘇州。 李美枝（1993）。從有關公平判斷的研究結果看中國人之人己關係的界限。「本土心理學研究」，1，267-300。 李建中、虞孝成（2012） 。「孫子兵法與周易：決策理論與決策管理」。台北：黎明文化。 何世明（2003）。「基督教與中國倫理」。香港：基督教文藝出版社。 林清富、鄭伯壎（2011）。企業的創新與量產:儒教五倫與基督教五倫的影響。「本土心理學研究」（台北），35，103-144。 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：心理出版社。 黃光國（2012）。「批判實在論與多重哲學典範：建構含攝文化的心理學理論」。第四屆國際漢學會議（中央研究院主辦）之論文。 許烺光（1988）。「中國人與美國人」（徐隆德譯）。台北：巨流圖書公司。 曹長青（2009）： http://www.hi-on.org.tw/bulletins.jsp?b_ID=91453。 楊國樞（1992a）。「父子軸家庭與夫妻軸家庭: 運作特徵、變遷方向及適應問題」1992年家庭與心理衛生國際研討會（台北）的主題演講文。 楊國樞（1992b）。傳統價值觀與現代價值觀能否並存？。「中國人的價值關國際研討會論文集」。台北: 漢學研究中心。 楊國樞（2005）。華人社會取向的理論分析。「華人本土心理學」（上册），頁173-213。台北：遠流出版公司。 費孝通（1948）。「鄉土中國」。上海：觀察社。 鄭伯壎（1995）。差序格局與華人組織行為。「本土心理學研究」，3，142-219。 鄭伯壎、周麗芳、樊景立（2000）。家長式領導量表：三元模式的建構與測量。 「本土心理學研究」，14，3-64。 蔡仁厚（1978）。「墨家哲學」。台北：東大圖書公司。 蒲堅（2006）。「中國法制史」。北京：中央廣播電視大學出版社。 樊景立、鄭伯壎（2000）。華人組織的家長式領導: 一項文化觀點的分析。「本土心理學研究」，13，127-180。 英文文獻 Amabile, T. M. (1988）. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behaviors, 10, 123-167. Anbari, F. T. (2005). Innovation, project management, and six sigma method. In M. A. Rahim & R. T. Golemniewski (Eds), Current topics in management (pp. 101-116). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Aviv, Y. & Federgruen, A. (2001). Design for postponement: A comprehensive characterization of its benefits under unknown demand distributions. Operations Research, 49 (4), 578-598. Bellah, R. N. (1970). Father and son in Christianity and Confucianism. In R. N. Bellah (Ed.), Beyond Belief: Essays on religion in a post-traditional world (pp.76-99). New York: Harper & Row. Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dason, P. R. (1992). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boland, R. J. & Hoffman, R. (1983). Humor in a machine shop: An interpretation of symbolic action. In L. R. Pondy, P. J. Frost, G. Morgan, & T. C. Dandridge (Eds.), Organizational symbolism (pp. 187-198), Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bolender, J. (2010). The self-organizing social mind. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Chiu, C. Y., Kim, Y. H., & Wan, W. W. N. (2008). Personality: cross-cultural perspectives, personality theory and assessment. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The Sage handbook of personality theory and assessment (pp.124-144). London: Sage. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383. Farmer, R. N., & Richman, B. N. (1965). Comparative management and economic progress. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Eisenstein, P. (2002). Driven by demand. Professional Engineering, 15(9), 32. Fiske, A. P. (1991). Structures of social life: The four elementary forms of human relations. NY: The Free Press. Fiske, A. P. (2002). Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures: A critique of the validity and measurement of the construct; Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128, 78-88. George, J. M. (2007). Creativity in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 1, 439-477. George, J. M. & Jones, G. R. (2008). Understanding and Managing Organizational Behaviors. NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Gunasekaran, A., & Ngai, E. W. T. (2005). Build-to-order supply chain management: A literature review and framework for development. Journal of Operations Management, 23(5), 423-451. Haire, M., Ghiselli, E. E., & Porter, L. W. (1966). Cultural patterns in the role of the manager. Industrial Relations, 2, 95-117. Hamilton, G. G. (1996). The theoretical significance of Asian business networks. In G. G. Hamilton (Ed.), Asian business networks (pp. 283-298). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Hargadon, A. B. (2002). Brokering knowledge: Linking learning and innovation. Research in Organizational Behaviors, 24, 41-85. Harre, R. (1984). Personal being: A theory for individual psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Harvey, S., Kelloway, E. K., & Duncan-Leiper, L. (2003). Trust in management as a buffer of the relationships between overload and strain. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 306-315. Henry, P. (1986). Indigenous religion and the transformation of peripheral society. In J. K. Hadden & A. Shupe (Eds.), Prophetic religion and politics (pp. 123-150). New York: Paragon House. Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill. Holweg, M., & Pil, F. K. (2004). The second century: Reconnecting customer and value chain through build-to-order: Moving beyond mass and lean production in the auto industry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Homans, G. (1961). Social behavior: its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Hoppe, M. H., & Bhagat, R. S. (2007). Leadership in the United States of America: The leader a cultural hero. In J. S. Chhokar, F. C. Brodbek, & R. J. House (Eds.), Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies (pp. 475-511). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hsu, F. L. K.(1965). The effect of dominant kinship relationships on kin and non-kin behavior: A hypothesis. American Anthropologist, 67, 638-661. Hsu, F. L. K.(1971). A hypothesis on kinship and culture. In F. L. K. Hsu (Ed.), Kinship and culture (pp. 3-29). Chicago: Aldine. Huntington, S. P. (1993). The clash of civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 22-49. Hwang, K. K. (1999). Two moralities: Reinterpreting the finding of empirical research on moral reasoning in Taiwan. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 1(3), 211-238. Hwang, K. K. (1999). Filial piety and loyalty: Two types of social idneitification in Confucianism. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2(1), 163-183. Hwang, K. K. (2012). Foundations of Chinese psychology: Confucian social relations. New York, NY: Springer. Hwang, K. K. (2014). Cultural systems vs. Pan-cultural dimensions: Philosophical reflection on approaches for indigenous psychology. Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior. doi: 10.1111/jtsb.12051. Kitayama, S. (2002). Culture and basic psychological processes: Toward a system view of culture. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 89-96. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-development approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347-380). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Kouvelis, P., Chambers, C., & Wang, H. (2006). Supply chain management research and production and operations management: Review, trends, and opportunities. Production and Operations Management, 15(3), 449-469. Mainemelis, C., & Ronson, S. (2006). Ideas are born in fields of play: Towards a theory of play and creativity in organizational settings. Research in Organizational Behaviors, 27, 81-131. Matthews, P., & Syed, N. (2004). The power of postponement. Supply Chain Management Review, 8(3), 28-34. Miller, J. G. (2002). Bringing culture to basic psychological theory: Beyond individualism and collectivism. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 97-109. Moozakis, C. (2002). Nissan wants to be like Dell. Internet Week, January 17, p. 11. Negandhi, A. R. (1979). Convergence in organizational practices: An empirical study of industrial enterprize in developing countries. In C. J. Lamers & D. J. Hickson (Eds.), Organizations alike and unlike (pp. 323-345). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individulaism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72. Redding, S. G. (1990). The spirit of Chinese capitalism. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Rogers, C. (1954). Towards a theory of creativity. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theory of creativity (pp. 234-249), Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657-687. Salvador, F., Rungtusanatham, M., Forza, C., & Trentin, A. (2007). Mix flexibility and volume flexibility in a build-to-order environment: Synergies and trade-offs. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27(11), 1173- 1191. Sandelands, L. E. (2003). Thinking about social life. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Schwartz, S. H. (1990). Individualism-collectivism: Critique and proposed refine- ments. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 139-157. Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933-958. Shweder, R. A., Goodnow, J., Hatano, G., LeVine, R., Markus, H., & Miller, P. (1998). The cultural psychology of development: One mind, many mentalities. In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (pp. 865-937). New York, NY: Wiley. Sundararajan, L. (2013). The Chinese notions of harmony, with special focus on implications for cross cultural and global psychology. The Humanistic Psychologist, 41, 1-10. Sundararajan, L. (2014). Indigenous psychology: Grounding science in culture, why and how? Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior. doi: 10.1111/jtsb.12054 Swaminathan, J. M., & Lee, H. L. (2003). Design for postponement. In S. C. Graves, & A. G. de Kok, (Eds.), OR/MS handbook on supply chain management: Design, coordination and operation (pp. 199-228). Elsevier, Amsterdam: Elvesier Publishers. The Economist. (2001). A long march. The Economist, 360 (8230), 63. Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2001). Managing intercultural conflict effectively. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Trentin, A., & Forza, C. (2010). Design for form postponement: Do not overlook organization design. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 30(4), 338-364. Triandis, H. C. (1988). Collectivism vs. individualism: A reconceptualization of a basic concept in cross-cultural psychology. In G. K. Verma & C. Bagley (Eds.), Cross-cultural studies of personality, attitudes and cognition (pp. 60–95). London: Macmillan. Triandis, H. C. (2006). Cultural intelligence in organizations. Group Organization Management, 31, 20-26. Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Collectivism vs. individualism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323-338. Waller, M. A., Dabholkar, P. A., & Gentry, J. J. (2000). Postponement, product customization, and market-oriented supply chain management. Journal of Business Logistics, 21(2), 133-159. Weber, M. (1920/1951). The religion of China: Confucianism and Taoism. (H. H. Gerth, Trans.). NY: The Free Press. Westwood, R. I. (1997). Harmony and patriarchy: The cultural basis for “Paternalistic Headship” among the overseas Chinese. Organization Studies, 18(3), 445-480. Westwood, R. I. & Chan, A. (1992). Headship and leadership. In R. I. Westwood (Ed.), Organizational behavior: A Southeast Asian perspective (pp.118-143). Hong Kong: Longman Group. Yang, B., Burns, N. D., & Backhouse, C. J. (2005). An empirical investigation into the barriers to postponement. International Journal of Production Research, 43 (5), 991-1005. Yang, C. F. (1988). Familism and development: an examination of the role of family in contemporary Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. In D. Sinha & S. R. Kao (Eds.), Social values and development: Asian perspectives (pp. 93-123). New Delhi: Sage. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/57171 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 越來越多的研究顯示，西方心理學的理論不能解釋東方人的心理與行為模式，因為文化是重要的影響因素。最近數十年來華人經濟圈的崛起受到不少關注，認為儒家文化是其深層原因。因此，有學者依據儒家文化提出家長式領導理論，以解釋華人企業成功的文化因素，但此論點卻少與西方心理學直接對話，這形成東西方各自有其理論，但只探討各自社會的心理與行為模式，無法直接比較，因此本論文嘗試將華人的儒家與美國的基督教做平行對照，將兩者放在相同位階進行比較，期望能看出雙方在深層文化結構的異同將可能產生的影響。華人儒家五倫特別重視上下從屬關係，此對偶角色定位固定明確。相較之下，美國基督教的五倫對於人際關係上較有彈性。因此，我們提出固定對偶角色定位與彈性對偶角色定位的觀點來對照比較雙方差異。我們據此理論設計問卷，進行實徵資料之調查，驗證了美國的對偶角色定位較具彈性。並進一步發現，在家庭中，童年角色認同和成年角色認同有大的關聯。而美國之童年角色認同和職場對偶角色認同也有高的關聯，但台灣卻沒有顯著關聯。因此台灣的家庭和職場間的角色認同似乎斷裂，而美國的彈性對偶角色反而讓家庭與職場的角色扮演成為連續性經驗，此差異也可由文化結構解釋。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Increasing studies show that western psychological theories cannot well explain the psychology and behaviors of oriental people because culture is a strong influential factor. In recent years, the economic prosperity of Chinese societies has attracted the attention of many scholars. Many attribute their economic success to Confucianism. As a result, based on Confucian cardinal relations, some scholars propose paternalistic leadership that can well explain the success of Chinese entrepreneurs. However, such theory is purely based on Chinese culture, making almost no dialogue with western theories. It turns out that the western and oriental sides both have its own theories to separately explain the psychology and behaviors of each society, but they cannot be compared closely. Therefore, in this thesis, the Confucian cardinal relation and the Christian cardinal relation are placed in equal and parallel positions for close comparisons of their similarities and differences in order to reveal their possible impacts on the dyadic role identification of people in organizations.
In Confucian cardinal relations, leader-subordinate relations are particularly emphasized, so the dyadic role identification is fixed. In contrast, in Christian cardinal relations, people are more likely to adapt dual or multiple roles toward the same person and so have flexible dyadic role identification. Therefore, we propose that Christian cardinal relations give rise to more flexible dyadic role identification than the Confucian cardinal relations. Based on this theory, we design questionnaires to investigate the differences of dyadic role identification between the US and Taiwan. Here the US is used to represent Christianity, while Taiwan represents Confucianism. The comparison between 204 US respondents and 189 Taiwan respondents shows that the US indeed has more flexible dyadic role identification than Taiwan. The further analysis of correlation shows that the childhood dyadic role identification is positively and significantly related to the adult dyadic role identification for both societies. Also, in the US part, the childhood dyadic role identification is positively and significantly related to the dyadic role identification in the workplace. In comparison, the Taiwan part shows that the childhood dyadic role identification is not well related to the dyadic role identification in the workplace. Thus this study reveals that the role experiences of Taiwan people between the family and the workplace are disconnected, while the flexible dyadic role identification gives US people continuous role experiences from the family to the workplace. This discrepancy can also be explained by the cultural cardinal relations in the two societies. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T06:36:50Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-103-R97227125-1.pdf: 1587591 bytes, checksum: 90ec590753f3462e3e86e0ad36cb92a6 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 1
第二章 儒家五倫和基督教五倫內涵之比較與對偶角色定位之理論模型 11 第一節 儒家五倫 11 第二節 基督教五倫 18 第三節 儒家固定對偶角色與基督教彈性對偶角色初探 20 第四節 對偶角色定位理論推論之假設 25 第三章 台美在對偶角色認同上之差異比較—實徵資料 27 第一節 問卷設計和收集 27 第二節 假設之實徵驗證 30 第三節 此研究發現與過去觀點之比較 47 第四章 孩童時期對偶角色認同和職場對偶角色認同之關聯性探討 53 第一節 孩童時期家庭對偶角色定位和成年時家庭對偶角色定位之關聯性 54 第二節 孩童時期家庭對偶角色定位和職場對偶角色定位之關聯性 57 第五章 實徵資料之實質性問題討論 65 第一節 收集資料之一般性討論 65 第二節 混淆變項與其他因素之影響探討 66 第三節 問卷之可能問題和檢討 74 第六章 對偶角色認同對組織運作中之創造力和工業量產的可能影響 79 第一節 對偶角色認同對組織運作中之創造力的影響 79 第二節 對偶角色認同對工業量產的影響 86 第七章 結論與展望 91 第一節 此論文在研究理論與實務之貢獻 91 第二節 未來展望 96 參考文獻 99 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 固定對偶角色定位 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 儒家五倫 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 基督教五倫 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 彈性對偶角色定位 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Confucian cardinal relation | en |
| dc.subject | Christian cardinal relation | en |
| dc.subject | fixed dyadic role identification | en |
| dc.subject | flexible dyadic role identificationore | en |
| dc.title | 文化對組織對偶角色認同之影響探討 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The Study of Cultural Influences on Dyadic Role Identification in Organizations | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 102-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 黃光國,姜定宇 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 儒家五倫,基督教五倫,固定對偶角色定位,彈性對偶角色定位, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Christian cardinal relation,Confucian cardinal relation,fixed dyadic role identification,flexible dyadic role identificationore, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 107 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2014-08-01 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 理學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 心理學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 心理學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-103-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 1.55 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。