請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/97445完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 郭銘峰 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Ming-Feng Kuo | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 陳穎慧 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Ying-Hui Chen | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-06-18T16:10:15Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2025-06-19 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2025-06-18 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2025 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2025-06-05 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | 壹、中文部分
方妙玲（2003）。員工倫理決策意向模式之研究：以新世代工作者為研究對象〔未出版之博士論文〕。國立臺北大學。[Fang, M.-L. (2003). Evaluating Ethical Intentions of Individual Employees in Organizations--Evidence from the New Generation [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. National Taipei University.] 陳寬裕、王正華（2021）。論文統計分析實務：SPSS與AMOS的運用。五南。[Chen, K.-Y., & Wang, C.-H. (2021). Advanced statistical analysis using SPSS and AMOS. Wu-Nan Book Inc.] 余一鳴（2012）。從個人貪腐到組織腐化的歷程探索：以Bandura的道德疏離理論為分析架構。臺灣民主季，9（2），1-38。[Yu, Y.-M. (2012). The Process from Person's Corruption to Corruption of Organization: An Analysis Model of Moral Disengagement. Taiwan Democracy Quarterly, 9(2), 1-38.] 余致力、方凱弘、蘇毓昌（2018）。貪腐為何難以界定？Q方法論在廉政研究之應用。行政暨政策學報，67，39-78。[Yu, C.-L., Fang, K.-H., & Su, Y.-C. (2018). Why Is It Difficult to Define Corruption? The Use of Q Methodology in Integrity Research. Public Administration & Policy, 67, 39–78.] 莊文忠、余致力（2017）。貪腐容忍度的類型化建構：內在與外在效度的評估。行政暨政策學報，64，37-67。[Juang, W.-J., & Yu, C.-L. (2017). Typologization of corruption tolerance: Internal and external validity assessment. Public Administration & Policy, 64, 37–67.] 吳明隆、涂金堂（2010）。SPSS與統計應用分析（修訂版）。五南。[Wu, M.-L., & Tu, C.-T. (2010). SPSS & the application and analysis of statistics (Revised ed.). Wu-Nan Book Inc.] 吳熙中（2012）。我國軍事貪腐弊案與防制對策之研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。淡江大學。[Wu, S.-C. (2012). The research on the prevention policy of military corruption in R.O.C [Unpublished master's thesis]. Tamkang University.] 宋明哲（2001）。現代風險管理。五南。[Song, M.-C. (2001). Management series. Wu-Nan Book Inc.] 沈伯洋、李茂生、周愫嫻（2021）。警察人員涉貪風險成因分析。犯罪與刑事司法研究，34，35-68。[Shen, P.-M., Lee, M.-S., & Jou, S.-Y. (2021). The Structural Factors of Police Corruption. Crime and Criminal Justice International, 34, 35–68.] 周思廷、郭銘峰、林水波（2021）。貪腐關乎性別？性別刻板印象影響廉能治理之初探。東吳政治學報，39，41-99。[Jhou, S.-T., Kuo, M.-F., & Lin, S.-P. (2021). Gender and Corruption: An Exploratory Study on the Effect of Gender Stereotypes on Public Integrity and Governance. Soochow Journal of Political Science, 39, 41–99.] 林晏瑜（2021）。以風險觀點驗證不同性別餐旅產業員工倫理行為決策之差異〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立高雄餐旅大學。[Lin, Y.-H. (2021). Verifying the Gender Differences in Ethical Behavior Decision-making of Employees in the Hospitality Industry from Risk Perspective [Unpublished master's thesis]. National Kaohsiung University of Hospitality and Tourism.] 邱華君（2001）。行政倫理理論與實踐。政策研究學報，1，85-105。[Chiu, H.-J. (2001). The Theory and practice of public Administrative Ethics. Policy Research, 1, 85–105.] 陶宏麟、邱于恆（2019）。貪腐容忍度的性別差異。調查研究－方法與應用，42，83-123。[Tao, H.-L., & Chiou, Y.-H. (2019). Sexual Difference on Corruption Tolerance. Survey Research – Method and Application, 42, 83–123.] 榮泰生（2013）。企業研究方法。五南。[Jung, T.-S. (2013). Business research methods. Wu-Nan Book Inc.] 蘇毓昌、胡龍騰（2013）。誰能容忍貪腐？臺灣民主季刊，10（2），1-38。[Su, Y.-C., & Hu, L.-T. (2013). Who Can Afford to Tolerate Corruption? Taiwan Democracy Quarterly, 10(2), 1–38.] 海洋委員會海巡署政風室（編）（2024）。113年防範洩密廉政防貪指引。海洋委員會海巡署政風室。[Government Ethics Office, Coast Guard Administration,Ocean Affair Council (Ed.) (2024). 2024 guidelines for leak prevention and anti-corruption. Government Ethics Office, Coast Guard Administration,Ocean Affair Council.] 庫柏（Cooper, T. L.）（2001）。行政倫理學：實現行政責任的途徑（第四版）（張秀琴譯）。中國人民大學出版社。（原著出版於 1998）[Cooper, T. L. (2001). The Responsible Administrator: An Approach to Ethics for the Administrative Role (X.-Q. Zhang, Trans.; 4th ed.). China Renmin University Press. (Original work published 1998)] 張羽菲（2024）。由行政程序法的相關規定論海巡署執法機關之定位及執法權限範圍〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺灣海洋大學。[Chang, Y.-F. (2024). A Study on the Positioning in Law Enforcement Agencies and the Scope of Enforcement Authority of Coast Guard Administration from Administrative Procedure Act and Relevant Provisions [Unpublished master's thesis]. National Taiwan Ocean University.] 黃政勛、陳俊明（2020）。國軍的貪腐容忍、貪腐認知，與檢舉意願：民主的軍文關係視角。政策與人力管理，11（2），17-46。[Huang, C.-H., & Chen, C.-M. (2020). Level of Tolerance, Perception of Corruption and Willingness to Blow the Whistle in Defense -The Case of Taiwan. Policy and Personnel Management, 11(2), 17–46.] 彭立忠、張裕衢（2007）。華人四地貪腐程度之比較：以「貪腐成因」為分析途徑。公共行政學報，24，103-135。[Peng, L.-C., & Chanh, Y.-C. (2007). A Comparison of Corruption in 4 Chinese-speaking Nations-Using "Causes of Corruption" as an Analysis Approach. Journal of Public Administration, 24, 103–135.] 郭銘峰、蔣林秀、黃心怡（2023）。妥協的集體與貪婪的個人：透明、課責與反貪的交織效果。人文及社會科學集刊，35（2），209-261。[Kuo, M.-F., Jiang, L.-X., & Huang, H.-N. (2023). Compromised Collectives vs. Greedy Individuals: The Interplay between Transparency, Accountability, and Corruption. Journal of Social Sciences and Philosophy, 35(2), 209–261.] 郭銘峰（2025）。性別與貪腐研究之再檢視：主客觀途徑的整合與對話。公共行政學報，68，149-165。[Kuo, M.-F. (2025). A Re-examination of Gender and Corruption Research: Integrating and Bridging Subjective and Objective Approaches. Journal of Public Administration, 68, 149–165.] 涂金堂（2012）。量表編製與SPSS。五南。[Tu, C.-T. (2012). Scale development with SPSS. Wu-Nan Book Inc.] 涂金堂（2023）。SPSS與量化研究。五南。[Tu, C.-T. (2023). Quantitative research with SPSS. Wu-Nan Book Inc.] 楊明玉（2017）。海巡人員職務犯罪之研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺北大學。[Yang, M.-Y. (2017). A Study On the Occupational Crime of Coast Guard Officers [Unpublished master's thesis]. National Taipei University.] 潘慧玲（2003）。性別議題導論。高等教育。[Pan, H.-L. (2003). Introduction of Gender Issues. Higher Education Publishing Co.] 蔡文輝（2007）。婚姻與家庭：家庭社會學。五南。[Cai, W.-H. (2007). Marriage and family: Family sociology. Wu-Nan Book Inc.] 蕭武桐（2002）。公務倫理。智勝文化。[Xiao, W.-T. (2002). Public administrative ethics. Best Wise Publishing Co.] 貳、西文部分 Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. Alatas, V., Cameron, L., Chaudhuri, A., Erkal, N., & Gangadharan, L. (2009). Gender, culture, and corruption: Insights from an experimental analysis. Southern Economic Journal, 75(3), 663–680. Alhassan‐Alolo, N. (2007). Gender and corruption: Testing the new consensus. Public Administration and Development, 27(3), 227–237. Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003). The normalization of corruption in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 1–52. Armantier, O., & Boly, A. (2008). Can corruption be studied in the lab? Comparing a field and a lab experiment (Report No. 2008s-26). CIRANO Scientific Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1324120 Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169–217. Beekun, R. I., Stedham, Y., Westerman, J. W., & Yamamura, J. H. (2010). Effects of justice and utilitarianism on ethical decision making: A cross‐cultural examination of gender similarities and differences. Business Ethics: A European Review, 19(4), 309–325. Betz, M., O'Connell, L., & Shepard, J. M. (1989). Gender differences in proclivity for unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 8, 321–324. Carson, L. D. (2014). Deterring corruption: Beyond rational choice theory. SSRN, November 6. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2520280 Chen, Y.-J., & Tang, T. L.-P. (2006). Attitude toward and propensity to engage in unethical behavior: Measurement invariance across major among university students. Journal of Business Ethics, 69, 77–93. Cherry, J., & Fraedrich, J. (2002). Perceived risk, moral philosophy, and marketing ethics: Mediating influences on sales managers’ ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Research, 55(12), 951–962. Cisternas, P. C., Cifuentes, L. A., Bronfman, N. C., & Repetto, P. B. (2024). The influence of risk awareness and government trust on risk perception and preparedness for natural hazards. Risk Analysis, 44(2), 333–348. Çiçek, C. (2018). Demographic factors affecting perception of corruption [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Tallinn University of Technology. Craft, J. L. (2013). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 2004–2011. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), 221–259. D'Arcy, J., & Herath, T. (2011). A review and analysis of deterrence theory in the IS security literature: Making sense of the disparate findings. European Journal of Information Systems, 20(6), 643–658. Dollar, D., Fisman, R., & Gatti, R. (2001). Are women really the ‘fairer’ sex? Corruption and women in government. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 46(4), 423–429. Douglas, P. C., Davidson, R. A., & Schwartz, B. N. (2001). The effect of organizational culture and ethical orientation on accountants’ ethical judgments. Journal of Business Ethics, 34, 101–121. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1991). Explaining sex differences in social behavior: A meta-analytic perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(3), 306–315. Eagly, A. H. (2013). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Psychology Press. Esarey, J., & Chirillo, G. (2013). Fairer sex or purity myth? Corruption, gender, and institutional context. Politics & Gender, 9(4), 361–389. Ferrell, O. C., & Gresham, L. G. (1985). A contingency framework for understanding ethical decision making in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49(3), 87–96. Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 303–315. Fraedrich, J. P., & Ferrell, O. C. (1992). The impact of perceived risk and moral philosophy type on ethical decision making in business organizations. Journal of Business Research, 24(4), 283–295. Frank, B., Lambsdorff, J. G., & Boehm, F. (2011). Gender and corruption: Lessons from laboratory corruption experiments. The European Journal of Development Research, 23(1), 59–71. Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press. Grasmick, H. G., & Bryjak, G. J. (1980). The deterrent effect of perceived severity of punishment. Social Forces, 59(2), 471–491. Hansson, S. O. (2005). Seven myths of risk. Risk Management, 7, 7–17. Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1983). Deterrence in the workplace: Perceived certainty, perceived severity, and employee theft. Social Forces, 62(2), 398–418. Johnston, M. (1997). Public officials, private interests, and sustainable democracy: When politics and corruption meet. Corruption and the Global Economy, 83, 61–82. Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. The Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366–395. Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. (2007). Culture and identity‐protective cognition: Explaining the white‐male effect in risk perception. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(3), 465–505. Kidwell, J. M., Stevens, R. E., & Bethke, A. L. (1987). Differences in ethical perceptions between male and female managers: Myth or reality? Journal of Business Ethics, 6, 489–493. Kimmel, A. J. (1988). Ethics and values in applied social research. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984096 Kohlberg, L. (1963). The development of children’s orientations toward a moral order I: Sequence in the development of moral thought. Vita Humana, 6(1-2), 11–33. Krambia-Kapardis, M., & Zopiatis, A. (2008). Uncharted territory: Investigating individual business ethics in Cyprus. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(2), 138–148. Kuo, M.-F., Zhang, Y., Guo, J., & Ding, T. (2025). Behavioral motives on bureaucratic corruptibility: Extrinsic, intrinsic, and beyond. Journal of Public Administration, 68, 49–91. Lehnert, K., Park, Y.-H., & Singh, N. (2015). Research note and review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: Boundary conditions and extensions. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(1), 195–219. Loo, R. (2003). Are women more ethical than men? Findings from three independent studies. Women in Management Review, 18(4), 169–181. Lund, D. B. (2008). Gender differences in ethics judgment of marketing professionals in the United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 77, 501–515. Mauro, P., & Driscoll, D. D. (1997). Why worry about corruption? (Vol. 6). International Monetary Fund. Michalsen, A. (2003). Risk assessment and perception. Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 10(4), 201–204. Möller, N. (2012). The concepts of risk and safety. In S. Roeser, R. Hillerbrand, P. Sandin, & M. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of risk theory (pp. 55–86). Springer. Mungan, M. C. (2019). Salience and the severity versus the certainty of punishment. International Review of Law and Economics, 57, 95–100. Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15(3), 263–280. Nguyen, N. T., Basuray, M. T., Smith, W. P., Kopka, D., & McCulloh, D. (2008). Moral issues and gender differences in ethical judgment using Reidenbach and Robin’s (1990) multidimensional ethics scale: Implications in teaching of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 77, 417–430. O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(4), 375–413. Paternoster, R., Saltzman, L. E., Waldo, G. P., & Chiricos, T. G. (1983). Perceived risk and social control: Do sanctions really deter? Law and Society Review, 17, 457–479. Paternoster, R. (2010). How much do we really know about criminal deterrence? The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 100(3), 765–824. Pogarsky, G., & Piquero, A. R. (2004). Studying the reach of deterrence: Can deterrence theory help explain police misconduct? Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(4), 371–386. Piquero, A. R., Paternoster, R., Pogarsky, G., & Loughran, T. A. (2011). Elaborating the individual difference component in deterrence theory. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 7(1), 335–360. Pozsgai-Alvarez, J. (2022). Corruption tolerance as a process of moral, social, and political cognition: Evidence from Latin America. Crime, Law and Social Change, 77(4), 381–404. Quah, J. S. (1999). Comparing anti-corruption measures in Asian countries: Lessons to be learnt. Pagesetters Services PTE Limited. Rabl, T., & Kühlmann, T. M. (2008). Understanding corruption in organizations–development and empirical assessment of an action model. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 477–495. Rahman, K. (2021). Gender mainstreaming in the UNCAC. U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, Chr. Michelsen Institute. (U4 Helpdesk Answer 2021:14). https://www.u4.no/publications/gender-mainstreaming-in-the-uncac.pdf Rest, J. R., Narvaez, D., Thoma, S. J., & Bebeau, M. J. (1999). DIT2: Devising and testing a revised instrument of moral judgment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 644–659. Rettig, S., & Rawson, H. E. (1963). The risk hypothesis in predictive judgments of unethical behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 243–248. Robin, D., & Babin, L. (1997). Making sense of the research on gender and ethics in business: A critical analysis and extension. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(4), 61–90. Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2018). Management (14th ed.). Pearson. Ross, W. T., & Robertson, D. C. (2003). A typology of situational factors: Impact on salesperson decision-making about ethical issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 213–234. Samnani, A.-K., Salamon, S. D., & Singh, P. (2014). Negative affect and counterproductive workplace behavior: The moderating role of moral disengagement and gender. Journal of Business Ethics, 119, 235–244. Schulze, G. G., & Frank, B. (2003). Deterrence versus intrinsic motivation: Experimental evidence on the determinants of corruptibility. Economics of Governance, 4, 143–160. Serwinek, P. J. (1992). Demographic & related differences in ethical views among small businesses. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 555–566. Sjöberg, L., Moen, B., & Rundmo, T. (2004). Explaining risk perception: An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, C Rotunde Publikasjoner. Swamy, A., Knack, S., Lee, Y., & Azfar, O. (2001). Gender and corruption. Journal of Development Economics, 64(1), 25–55. Tang, T. L.-P., & Sutarso, T. (2013). Falling or not falling into temptation? Multiple faces of temptation, monetary intelligence, and unethical intentions across gender. Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 529–552. Torgler, B., & Valev, N. T. (2006). Corruption and age. Journal of Bioeconomics, 8, 133–145. Treviño, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601–617. Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951–990. United Nations Development Grop Europe and Central Asia. (2018). Gender Equality: A Key SDG Accelerator. A Case Study From the Republic of Moldova.UN Sustainable Development Group. Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://unsdg.un.org/resources/gender-equality-key-sdg-accelerator United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (n.d.). Module 1: What is corruption and why should we care? UNODC. Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/anti-corruption/module-1/key-issues/effects-of-corruption.html Valentine, S. R., & Rittenburg, T. L. (2007). The ethical decision making of men and women executives in international business situations. Journal of Business Ethics, 71, 125–134. Vasvári, T. (2015). Risk, risk perception, risk management–A review of the literature. Public Finance Quarterly (Pénzügyi Szemle), 60(1), 29–48. Watson, G. W., Berkley, R. A., & Papamarcos, S. D. (2009). Ambiguous allure: The value–pragmatics model of ethical decision making. Business and Society Review, 114(1), 1–29. Wester, M. (2012). Risk and gender: Daredevils and eco-angels. In S. Roeser, R. Hillerbrand, P. Sandin, & M. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of risk theory (pp. 1029–1047). Springer. Yeltsinta, R., & Fuad, F. (2013). Love of money, ethical reasoning, Machiavellian, questionable actions: The impact on accounting students’ ethical decision making by gender moderation. Diponegoro Journal of Accounting, 2(3), 1–11. Zhang, Y., Kuo, M. F., Guo, J., & Wang, C. Y. (2019). How do intrinsic motivations, work‐related opportunities, and well‐being shape bureaucratic corruptibility? Public Administration Review, 79(4), 552–564. | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/97445 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 在聯合國永續發展目標（Sustainable Development Goals, SDGs）中，第16項「和平、正義與健全的司法」（Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions）與第5項「性別平等」（Gender Equality）明確揭示性別與貪腐之間的潛在關聯性，此一議題在這幾年更受到國際社會的高度關注。然而，關於性別如何影響貪腐行為與態度，現有學術上的見解莫衷一是，國內亦缺乏較系統性的實證研究。鑑此，本研究旨在探討性別因素對風險感知、貪腐容忍度及廉政倫理決策之影響，以補足相關理論與實務間的研究空缺。
奠基於倫理決策模型下，本研究依據「倫理清晰度」變數設計三個情境，據以檢視性別因素在倫理決策下的異質性。透過全國415份有效樣本分析，結果顯示：個人特徵背景與組織位置在倫理決策下有不同的表現。女性因角色特質與社會期待，對貪腐容忍度較低，並在涉及文化風俗的灰色情境中，更能感受到風險，也較不容易做出違規行為；年齡較長、年資較深、學歷較高或曾擔任主管職者，也展現較高的倫理敏感度與較低的違規傾向。 其次，風險感知越強，違規意圖越低。其中對懲罰「嚴重性」的感受，比對懲罰「確定性」的感受，更能有效抑制違規行為。再者，越能接受貪腐行為者，越可能產生違規意圖，尤其在涉及文化風俗的灰色情境中最為明顯。最後，在涉及文化風俗的灰色情境中，風險感知與違規意圖的關係會因性別的不同而有所差異，女性表現出更高風險敏感度，而男性則較容易接受小額禮品。 基於前述發現，本研究建議應推動差異化的廉政教育，強化分層倫理意識，同時釐清規範灰色地帶，提升個人倫理判斷力。另外，可透過客觀資料掌握風險感知落差，調整廉政預警措施，並提升薪資與舉報誘因，降低集體貪腐容忍度。此外，更應強化女性領導角色，促進組織決策文化的性別平衡。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | The United Nations SDGs—specifically Goal 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) and Goal 5 (Gender Equality)—highlight the potential link between gender and corruption, a critical issue that has drawn heightened international attention in recent years. However, the academic community has yet to reach a consensus on how gender influences corrupt behavior and attitudes, and there remains a lack of systematic empirical research in Taiwan. Therefore, this study aims to explore how gender influences risk perception, tolerance of corruption, and ethical decision-making in public integrity, thereby bridging the gap between theory and practice.
Grounded in ethical decision-making models, this study designed three scenarios based on varying levels of ethical clarity, in order to examine gender-based heterogeneity in ethical decision-making. By analyzing 415 valid nationwide samples, the results show that individual demographic background and organizational positions are associated with distinct ethical behavior patterns. Due to gender roles and societal expectations, women tend to exhibit lower tolerance of corruption and are more sensitive to risks, particularly in ambiguous scenarios involving cultural customs, making them less likely to engage in unethical behavior. Individuals who are older, have more seniority, possess higher educational attainment, or have held managerial positions also display greater ethical sensitivity and a lower propensity for misconduct. Furthermore, stronger risk perception is associated with a lower intention to engage in misconduct. Among the dimensions of risk, “ the perceived severity of punishment ” proves more effective than “ the perceived certainty of punishment ” in deterring unethical behavior. Moreover, individuals with higher acceptance of corrupt practices are more likely to develop intentions to violate rules, especially in ambiguous scenarios involving cultural customs. Lastly, gender moderates the relationship between risk perception and misconduct intention in culturally ambiguous scenarios: women exhibit higher sensitivity to risk, whereas men are more inclined to accept minor gifts. Based on these findings, this study recommends promoting differentiated integrity training to strengthen ethical awareness at various organizational levels and to clarify ambiguous norms in gray areas related to corruption, thereby enhancing individual ethical judgment. It also advocates using objective data to monitor disparities in risk perception, adjusting anti-corruption early-warning mechanisms accordingly, and improving compensation and whistleblower incentives to reduce collective tolerance of corruption. Furthermore, the study emphasizes the need to strengthen female leadership roles to foster gender-balanced organizational decision-making cultures. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2025-06-18T16:10:15Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2025-06-18T16:10:15Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 I
謝辭 II 中文摘要 III 英文摘要 IV 目次 VII 圖次 IX 表次 IX 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景與動機 1 第二節 研究目的與問題 3 第二章 理論回顧與文獻檢閱 5 第一節 倫理決策 5 第二節 風險感知 10 第三節 貪腐容忍度 15 第四節 性別差異 18 第五節 海巡機關特性與廉政現況 23 第三章 研究設計 27 第一節 研究架構與待驗假設 27 第二節 研究流程與研究方法 33 第三節 資料蒐集與執行步驟 34 第四節 操作性定義及量表設計 35 第五節 問卷信度與效度分析 40 第四章 研究發現與討論 49 第一節 樣本背景分析 49 第二節 描述性統計分析 52 第三節 差異性分析 58 第四節 相關分析 72 第五節 複迴歸分析 74 第六節 假設驗證結果彙整 91 第五章 結論與建議 93 第一節 研究結論 93 第二節 理論貢獻及實務建議 95 第三節 研究限制 99 參考文獻 101 附錄、本研究各變數問卷測量題目彙整 113 | - |
| dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
| dc.subject | 倫理決策 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 貪腐容忍度 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 違規意圖 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 風險感知 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 公務員廉政倫理規範 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 性別差異 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Ethics Guidelines for Civil Servants | en |
| dc.subject | Ethical decision-making | en |
| dc.subject | Gender differences | en |
| dc.subject | Risk perception | en |
| dc.subject | Corruption tolerance | en |
| dc.subject | Intention to violate rules | en |
| dc.title | 誰更容易踩線？風險感知與貪腐容忍下的性別倫理決策 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Who is more likely to break the rules? Risk Perception, Corruption Tolerance, and Gender in Ethical Decision-Making. | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 113-2 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 葉一璋;洪美仁 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | I-JAN YEH;Mei-Jen Hung | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 倫理決策,性別差異,風險感知,貪腐容忍度,違規意圖,公務員廉政倫理規範, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Ethical decision-making,Gender differences,Risk perception,Corruption tolerance,Intention to violate rules,Ethics Guidelines for Civil Servants, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 114 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202501022 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 未授權 | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2025-06-05 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 政治學系 | - |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | N/A | - |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 政治學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-113-2.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 3.36 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。