Skip navigation

DSpace JSPUI

DSpace preserves and enables easy and open access to all types of digital content including text, images, moving images, mpegs and data sets

Learn More
DSpace logo
English
中文
  • Browse
    • Communities
      & Collections
    • Publication Year
    • Author
    • Title
    • Subject
    • Advisor
  • Search TDR
  • Rights Q&A
    • My Page
    • Receive email
      updates
    • Edit Profile
  1. NTU Theses and Dissertations Repository
  2. 理學院
  3. 心理學系
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/68102
Full metadata record
???org.dspace.app.webui.jsptag.ItemTag.dcfield???ValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisor吳宗祐,鄭伯壎
dc.contributor.authorChong-Yu Huaen
dc.contributor.author花崇育zh_TW
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-17T02:12:40Z-
dc.date.available2021-01-04
dc.date.copyright2018-01-04
dc.date.issued2017
dc.date.submitted2017-12-21
dc.identifier.citationAdams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 177-198.
Arkin, R. M. (1981). Self-presentation styles. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological research (pp. 311-333). New York: Academic Press.
Barclay, L. J., Skarlicki, D. P., & Pugh, S. D. (2005). Exploring the role of emotions in injustice perceptions and retaliation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 629-643.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370.
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). What constitutes fairness in work settings? A four-component model of procedural justice. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 107-126.
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 445-464.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 59, 20-28.
Bradley, G. W. (1978). Self-serving biases in the attribution process: A reexamination of the fact or fiction question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 56-71.
Brockner, J. (2002). Making sense of procedural fairness: How high procedural fairness can reduce or heighten the influence of outcome favorability. Academy of Management Review, 27, 58-76.
Brockner, J., Fishman, A. Y., Reb, J., Goldman, B., Spiegel, S., & Garden, C. (2007). Procedural fairness, outcome favorability, and judgments of an authority's responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1657-1671.
Brockner, J., Siegel, P. A., Daly, J. P., Tyler, T., & Martin, C. (1997). When trust matters: The moderating effect of outcome favorability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 558-583.
Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189-208.
Brockner, J., Wiesenfeld, B. M., & Diekmann, K. A. (2009). Towards a “fairer” conception of process fairness: Why, when and how more may not always be better than less. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 183-216.
Burnett, M. F., Williamson, I. O., & Bartol, K. M. (2009). The moderating effect of personality on employees’ reactions to procedural fairness and outcome favorability. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 469-484.
Campbell, W. K., & Sedikides, C. (1999). Self-threat magnifies the self-serving bias: A meta-analytic integration. Review of General Psychology, 3, 23-43.
Carleton, R. N., Norton, M. P. J., & Asmundson, G. J. (2007). Fearing the unknown: A short version of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21, 105-117.
Cheng, B. S., Jiang, D. Y., & Riley, J. H. (2003). Organizational commitment, supervisory commitment, and employee outcomes in the Chinese context: Proximal hypothesis or global hypothesis? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 313-334.
Choi, J. (2003). Outcome favorability, procedures, and individualism-collectivism in procedural justice perceptions. Seoul Journal of Business, 9, 1-26.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.
Colquitt, J. A., & Chertkoff, J. M. (2002). Explaining injustice: The interactive effect of explanation and outcome on fairness perceptions and task motivation. Journal of Management, 28, 591-610.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.
Colquitt, J. A., & Rodell, J. B. (2015). Measuring justice and fairness. In R. Cropanzano & M. L. Ambrose (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace (pp. 187-202). New York: Oxford University Press.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 199-236.
Crocker, P. R., Eklund, R. C., & Graham, T. R. (2002). Evaluating the factorial structure of the revised causal dimension scale in adolescents. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73, 211-218.
De Cremer, D., Brockner, J., Fishman, A., Van Dijke, M., Van Olffen, W., & Mayer, D. M. (2010). When do procedural fairness and outcome fairness interact to influence employees’ work attitudes and behaviors? The moderating effect of uncertainty. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 291-304.
De Cremer, D., & Sedikides, C. (2005). Self-uncertainty and responsiveness to procedural justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 157-173.
De Cremer, D., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2003). Cooperation with leaders in social dilemmas: On the effects of procedural fairness and outcome favorability in structural cooperation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 1-11.
Degoey, P. (2000). Contagious justice: Exploring the social construction of justice in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 51-102.
Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137-150.
Diekmann, K. A., Barsness, Z. I., & Sondak, H. (2004). Uncertainty, fairness perceptions, and job satisfaction: A field study. Social Justice Research, 17, 237-255.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1-22.
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 1-55). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Francis-Gladney, L., Magner, N. R., & Welker, R. B. (2010). Does outcome favorability affect procedural fairness as a result of self-serving attributions? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 182-194.
Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21-38.
Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 340-342.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561-568.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Heatherton, T. F., & Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 895-910.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Horvath, M., & Andrews, S. B. (2007). The role of fairness perceptions and accountability attributions in predicting reactions to organizational events. The Journal of Psychology, 141, 203-222.
Hui, C. H., Triandis, H. C., & Yee, C. (1991). Cultural differences in reward allocation: Is collectivism the explanation? British Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 145-157.
Jones, E. E., & Berglas, S. (1978). Control of attributions about the self through self-handicapping strategies: The appeal of alcohol and the role of underachievement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 200-206.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.
Kruger, J. (1999). Lake Wobegon be gone! The 'below-average effect' and the egocentric nature of comparative ability judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 221-232.
Lehman, D. R., Chiu, C.-y., & Schaller, M. (2004). Psychology and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 689-714.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum Press.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.
Lind, E. A., & Van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 181-223.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
McAuley, E., Duncan, T. E., & Russell, D. W. (1992). Measuring causal attributions: The Revised Causal Dimension Scale (CDSII). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 566-573.
McCrea, S. M., & Hirt, E. R. (2001). The role of ability judgments in self-handicapping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1378-1389.
McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 626-637.
Messick, D. M., Bloom, S., Boldizar, J. P., & Samuelson, C. D. (1985). Why we are fairer than others. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 480-500.
Messick, D. M., & Sentis, K. P. (1979). Fairness and preference. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 418-434.
Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213-225.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845-855.
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527-556.
Olkkonen, M.-E., & Lipponen, J. (2006). Relationships between organizational justice, identification with organization and work unit, and group-related outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 202-215.
Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. (2004). Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: A review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Management, 30, 591-622.
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 622-648.
Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., & Holt, K. (1985). Maintaining consistency between self-serving beliefs and available data: A bias in information evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 179-190.
Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., & LaPrelle, J. (1985). Social comparison after success and failure: Biased search for information consistent with a self-serving conclusion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 195-211.
Roese, N. J., & Olson, J. M. (2007). Better, stronger, faster: Self-serving judgment, affect regulation, and the optimal vigilance hypothesis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 124-141.
Schroth, H. A., & Shah, P. P. (2000). Procedures: Do we really want to know them? An examination of the effects of procedural justice on self-esteem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 462-471.
Sedikides, C., & Gregg, A. P. (2008). Self-enhancement: Food for thought. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 102-116.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434.
Skitka, L. J., Winquist, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2003). Are outcome fairness and outcome favorability distinguishable psychological constructs? A meta-analytic review. Social Justice Research, 16, 309-341.
Smith, H. J., Thomas, T. R., & Tyler, T. R. (2006). Concrete construction employees: When does procedural fairness shape self-evaluations? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 644-663.
Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., Huo, Y. J., Ortiz, D. J., & Lind, E. A. (1998). The Self-relevant implications of the group-value model: Group membership, self-worth, and treatment quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 470-493.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465.
Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1997). Process and outcome: Gender differences in the assessment of justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 83-98.
Takeuchi, R., Chen, Z., & Cheung, S. Y. (2012). Applying uncertainty management theory to employee voice behavior: An integrative investigation. Personnel Psychology, 65, 283-323.
Taylor, S. E., Lerner, J. S., Sherman, D. K., Sage, R. M., & McDowell, N. K. (2003). Are self-enhancing cognitions associated with healthy or unhealthy biological profiles? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 605-615.
Tepper, B. J., & Taylor, E. C. (2003). Relationships among supervisors' and subordinates' procedural justice perceptions and organizational citizenship behaviors. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 97-105.
Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 181-227.
Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. (2009). How management style moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: An uncertainty management theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 79-92.
Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Trope, Y. (1975). Seeking information about one's ability as a determinant of choice among tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 1004-1013.
Trope, Y. (1986). Self-enhancement and self-assessment in achievement behavior. In Y. Trope (Ed.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior. (pp. 350-378). New York: Guilford Press.
Trope, Y., & Brickman, P. (1975). Difficulty and diagnosticity as determinants of choice among tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 918-925.
Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 830-838.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349-361.
Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K. A., & Spodick, N. (1985). Influence of voice on satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 72.
van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1034-1046.
van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A. M., & Lind, E. A. (1998). When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1449-1458.
Wagner, D. G., & Berger, J. (1985). Do sociological theories grow? American Journal of Sociology, 90, 697-728.
Walker, L., Latour, S., Lind, E. A., & Thibaut, J. (1974). Reactions of participants and observers to modes of adjudication1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 295-310.
Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 806-820
Wong, P. T., & Weiner, B. (1981). When people ask' why' questions, and the heuristics of attributional search. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 650-663.
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Attribution of success and failure revisited, or: The motivational bias is alive and well in attribution theory. Journal of Personality, 47, 245-287
dc.identifier.urihttp://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/68102-
dc.description.abstract過去研究已經顯示程序公平與結果利害會產生交互作用以影響員工的自我評價,但是對於程序公平與結果利害「如何」與「何時」影響自我評價仍然是不清楚的。針對「如何」的問題,本研究提出歸因理論,說明程序公平與結果利害會透過歸因自我責任影響到自我評價。針對「何時」的問題,本研究藉由將結果利害細分為「實際」結果利害與「預期」結果利害,提出二個競爭理論:自利性偏誤與不確定管理理論。依據自利性偏誤觀點,當個體面對負向的實際結果利害時,會想要向外搜尋程序公平的訊息;依據不確定管理理論觀點,當個體面對實際結果利害與預期結果利害為不一致時,會想要向外搜尋程序公平的訊息。本研究透過二次的實驗,其結果皆顯示人們在面對結果利害時,會利用程序公平訊息來歸因自我責任,並且支持不確定管理理論觀點,說明當個體面對到「不一致的結果利害」時會更需要搜尋程序公平的訊息。最後,本研究進一步提出綜合討論、研究貢獻、研究限制與未來研究發展。zh_TW
dc.description.abstractPrevious research has shown that procedural fairness and outcome favorability often interact to influence employees’ self-evaluation, but has not clarified “how” and “when” this interaction affects self-evaluation. To address the “how” issue, the author proposes that, based on attribution theory, procedural fairness and outcome favorability interact to influence self-evaluation via attributions of self-responsibility. To address the “when” issue, the present research divides outcome favorability into “actual” outcome favorability and “expected” outcome favorability, providing two competing theories: self-serving bias and uncertainty management theory. According to self-serving bias, when people receive a negative actual outcome, they may be more eager to seek information about procedural fairness. In contrast, according to uncertainty management theory, when the actual outcome is inconsistent with the expected outcome, people are more eager to seek information about procedural fairness. The results of 2 experiments show that people use procedural fairness information to make attributions of self-responsibility according to different outcome favorability (actual/expected, positive/negative). In addition, the results support uncertainty management theory, demonstrating that people tend to search procedural fairness information when actual outcomes are inconsistent with expected outcomes. The research findings, implications, limitations, and future research directions are discussed.en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T02:12:40Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
ntu-106-R03227125-1.pdf: 3937145 bytes, checksum: 3d9715aff159213062af51796225c518 (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2017
en
dc.description.tableofcontents第一章 緒論 1
第二章 文獻回顧與假設
第一節 何謂程序公平? 5
第二節 程序公平:從他人焦點到自我焦點 8
第三節 結果利害的影響 10
第四節 歸因理論 13
第五節 自利性偏誤 vs. 不確定性管理理論 14
第三章 研究一:員工內部甄選情境
第一節 研究樣本 27
第二節 研究操弄 28
第三節 研究工具 31
第四節 資料分析方法 35
第五節 研究結果 37
第六節 討論 47
第四章 研究二:員工績效評估情境
第一節 研究樣本 49
第二節 研究操弄 49
第三節 測量工具 53
第四節 資料分析 56
第五節 研究結果 58
第六節 討論 69
第五章 綜合討論與建議
第一節 結果討論 71
第二節 研究貢獻 73
第三節 研究限制與未來研究方向 76
第四節 結論 78
參考文獻 81
附錄一 研究一問卷 91
附錄二 研究一 內部甄選情境 95
附錄三 研究二問卷 103
附錄四 研究二 薪資調整情境 109
dc.language.isozh-TW
dc.subject程序公平zh_TW
dc.subject結果利害zh_TW
dc.subject自我評價zh_TW
dc.subject歸因理論zh_TW
dc.subject自利性偏誤zh_TW
dc.subject不確定管理理論zh_TW
dc.subjectoutcome favorabilityen
dc.subjectprocedural fairnessen
dc.subjectuncertainty management theoryen
dc.subjectself-serving biasen
dc.subjectattribution theoryen
dc.subjectself-evaluationen
dc.title程序公平如何與何時影響自我評價 自利性偏誤或不確定管理理論zh_TW
dc.titleHow and When Does Procedural Fairness Affect Self-evaluation? Self-serving Bias or Uncertainty Management Theoryen
dc.typeThesis
dc.date.schoolyear106-1
dc.description.degree碩士
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee許金田,林姿葶
dc.subject.keyword程序公平,結果利害,自我評價,歸因理論,自利性偏誤,不確定管理理論,zh_TW
dc.subject.keywordprocedural fairness,outcome favorability,self-evaluation,attribution theory,self-serving bias,uncertainty management theory,en
dc.relation.page116
dc.identifier.doi10.6342/NTU201704481
dc.rights.note有償授權
dc.date.accepted2017-12-21
dc.contributor.author-college理學院zh_TW
dc.contributor.author-dept心理學研究所zh_TW
Appears in Collections:心理學系

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat 
ntu-106-1.pdf
  Restricted Access
3.84 MBAdobe PDF
Show simple item record


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

社群連結
聯絡資訊
10617臺北市大安區羅斯福路四段1號
No.1 Sec.4, Roosevelt Rd., Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. 106
Tel: (02)33662353
Email: ntuetds@ntu.edu.tw
意見箱
相關連結
館藏目錄
國內圖書館整合查詢 MetaCat
臺大學術典藏 NTU Scholars
臺大圖書館數位典藏館
本站聲明
© NTU Library All Rights Reserved