家人就是不一樣：親屬關係想像增進幫助精神病患之意願

Abstract

精神醫療資源的缺乏是各國普遍且嚴峻面對的議題，其中一個關鍵的原因在於人們對於將資源分配給精神病患的反對態度，瞭解人們挹注資源之意願背後的潛在機制將可能為我們帶來解方。過去的研究發現，保守派的個人主義信念會調節同理能力與社福政策支持意願的關係，相比於低同理能力的保守派，同理能力較高的保守派反而更反對挹注社福資源予有困難的人，對於這些人的處境也更加漠不關心；然而，當資源的來源是慈善團體而非政府之社福政策時，則沒有這個現象（Feldman, Huddy, Wronski, & Lown, 2020），這樣特殊的同理能力、保守意識形態、與資源來源的交互關係是否亦存在於華人社會之中仍有待探討。此外，除了同理、意識形態、與資源來源，內外群體之別也可能是重要的影響因子，華人的家族主義文化可能使得人們特別優待以親緣為基礎所形成的內團體。我們透過三個研究來探討以上這些因素如何影響台灣人對於精神疾病患者的幫助意願。研究一的參與者（有效樣本271人）被隨機分派至四種補助精神病患之情境，以評估他們支持幫助與同情關懷的程度，在其中三個情境中的病患分別是陌生人、與參與者沒有太多互動的親人（親緣為基礎之內群體成員）及同所大學的人（類別為基礎之內群體成員），補助的資金則來自於政府的社會福利政策，第四個情境中的補助資金源於慈善團體捐助，受助病患則是陌生人。研究二則隨機指派參與者（有效樣本311人）至八組情境，探討血緣（親人或非親人）、關係品質（普通或交惡）、與資金來源（政府或慈善）的影響。研究三（有效樣本373人）將研究二的關係品質操弄修改為關係品質良好與交惡的情境。研究結果未能重複驗證Feldman等人所發現的同理、意識形態、與資金來源的交互效果，即便是那些自陳具有個人主義傾向的參與者也沒有此趨勢。然而，我們發現，當人們想像自己有親人是精神病患時，會更視受助對象為內群體成員，而有較高的資源分配意願與同情關懷的程度。且這個效果不受到關係品質的影響，即便是關係交惡的親人，人們仍然有較高的幫助意願。我們進一步討論了研究結果的意義與貢獻。

Under-resourced mental healthcare is severe and prevalent worldwide. One critical cause is the reluctance to allocate resources to mental patients. Understanding the underlying mechanism behind people's (un)willingness to help mental patients can shed light on the potential solutions. Past research has found that individualistic conservative ideology moderates the relationship between empathy and welfare support toward people in need, in which the higher empathic ability the conservatives have, the lower welfare support they showed for those in need (but no such moderation when the resources were from charity donations, Feldman, Huddy, Wronski, & Lown, 2020). Whether this empathy, funding sources, and conservative ideology interaction exists in Chinese societies has not been investigated. In addition to empathy, funding sources, and conservative ideology, people may respond to kinship-based ingroup differently in Chinese societies. Through three survey experiments, we investigated how these factors affect Taiwanese people's prosociality toward mental patients. In Study 1, participants (N = 279) were randomly assigned to four conditions by reading a scenario of an imaginary mental patient who needed resources from either government or charity funds. In the government funds conditions, the patient was either a relative of the participants (kinship-based ingroup without much interaction), a student from the same college as the participant (category-based ingroup without much interaction), or a stranger. In the charity funds condition, the patient was a stranger. In Study 2, participants (N = 311) were randomly assigned to eight conditions: 2 (kinship vs. non-kinship) x 2 (government vs. charity funds) x 2 (without much interaction vs. bad relationships). In Study 3 (N = 373), the relationship manipulation was modified (bad relationships vs. good relationships) to replace the relationship manipulation in Study 2. After reading the assigned scenario, participants were asked about their support for assistance on mental patients and their compassion for mental patients. Our results did not replicate Feldman and his colleagues’ findings, not even among those who self-evaluated themselves to be individualistic. However, we found that participants were more likely to support mental patients when the target was kin, regardless of the relationship quality between the target and the participants. Implications regarding the underlying mechanism behind people's (un)willingness to help mental patients through resource allocations were further discussed.