執兩用中或以中為德？中庸信念之彈性觀與德性觀檢驗

Abstract

本研究旨在重新檢視「中庸信念—價值量表」的測量方法，藉此探討德性觀與彈性觀何者較能反映中庸之本質。過去該量表主要採取成對迫選的施測方式，並將選擇非中庸陳述句後的同意程度進行反向計分。然而，此種計分方式隱含了西方「二元對立」的假設，認定中庸價值觀與非中庸價值觀無法共存，而無法進一步探討兩者之間的關聯。有鑑於此，本研究分別測量了研究參與者在中庸陳述句與非中庸陳述句上的同意程度，進一步探討究竟是高中庸—低非中庸者較具備中庸思維所代表的價值觀，抑或是同時認同這兩種價值取向的個體，更能展現中庸思維所強調的兩極整合能力。本研究共進行兩項研究，研究一與研究二之樣本數分別為 231 人與 258 人，並採用整合指標分析、調節分析及反應曲面分析等方法檢驗德性觀與彈性觀的研究假設。綜合兩項研究結果發現，中庸題分數確實能正向預測各項心理適應指標、認知再評估等適應性因應策略、整體性思考與正念、同理心與親和性等人際特質，以及敬畏感與小我感等相關效標變項；相對地，非中庸題分數則多半與上述指標呈現負向關聯。此外，整體研究結果較支持德性觀的觀點。儘管中庸題分數與非中庸題分數在部分心理適應指標上的交互作用達顯著水準，顯示中庸價值觀能夠減緩甚至抵銷非中庸價值觀對心理適應的負面影響，但兼具兩種價值觀並未產生額外的增益效果。其餘調節分析與整合指標分析的結果，亦未出現彈性觀所預期之整合效果；而反應曲面分析的結果，亦未支持一致性效果之假設。因此，本研究結果顯示，中庸信念—價值量表測量的主要仍是一套受華人文化所推崇的價值準則，而非一種後設的價值整合能力。

The present study aimed to re-examine the measurement procedure of the Zhong-Yong Belief–Value Scale and investigate whether the virtue perspective or the flexibility perspective more accurately captures the essence of Zhong-Yong. Previously, the scale employed a paired forced-choice response format, in which the agreement ratings for the selected non–Zhong-Yong statements were reverse-scored. However, this scoring method implicitly assumes the Western framework of binary opposition, regarding Zhong-Yong and non–Zhong-Yong values as mutually exclusive. As a result, it precludes further investigation of the relationship between them. To address this issue, the present study measured Zhong-Yong and non–Zhong-Yong statements independently and examined whether research participants characterized by high Zhong-Yong and low non–Zhong-Yong scores best represent Zhong-Yong values, or whether those who endorse both value orientations simultaneously better demonstrate the integrative capacity emphasized by Zhong-Yong thinking. The present research consisted of two studies, with sample sizes of 231 participants in study 1 and 258 participants in study 2. The hypotheses were tested by composite indices analyses, moderation analyses, and response surface analyses. Across two studies, the results showed that Zhong-Yong scores positively predicted a wide range of Zhong-Yong-related variables, including indicators of psychological adaptation, adaptive coping strategies such as cognitive reappraisal, holistic thinking and mindfulness, interpersonal traits such as empathy and agreeableness, as well as the sense of awe and small-self. In contrast, non–Zhong-Yong scores were generally negatively associated with these variables. Overall, the findings provided stronger support for the virtue perspective of Zhong-Yong than for the flexibility perspective. Although significant interactions between Zhong-Yong and non–Zhong-Yong scores were found for several indicators of psychological adaptation, suggesting that Zhong-Yong beliefs might buffer or even offset the negative effects of non–Zhong-Yong beliefs on psychological adaptation, simultaneously endorsing both value orientations did not produce any additional benefits. Furthermore, neither the results of the other moderation analyses nor the results of the composite indices analyses yielded the integrative effects predicted by the flexibility perspective, and the response surface analyses failed to support the congruence effect. Taken together, the findings suggest that the Zhong-Yong Belief–Value Scale primarily measures a set of value principles endorsed within Chinese culture, rather than a meta-cognitive capacity of value integration.