English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 91280/121421 (75%)
Visitors : 25425618      Online Users : 224
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 理學院 > 心理學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/73345
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/73345


    Title: 生活命運信念的本質:自覺可控性
    The Essence of Fate Belief: The Perceptions of Control
    Authors: 李松晏
    Yen, Lee Sung
    Contributors: 孫蒨如
    Sun, Chien Ru
    李松晏
    Yen, Lee Sung
    Keywords: 命運
    宿命論
    個人能動性
    可議價命運
    自覺可控性
    Date: 2014
    Issue Date: 2015-02-03 14:51:07 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本研究欲了解人們所遭遇到情境極端性高低和個人所擁有的資源多寡如何影響人們對於整體情況的自覺可控性,及自覺可控性又如何引發不同共享內隱信念,隨又如何出現不同的因應方式與行為。我們首先藉由前置研究中的開放式問卷來了解參與者在遭遇哪些事件時會出現不同共享內隱信念的想法。隨後在實驗一中,我們使用故事腳本進行事件的極端性和所擁有資源的多寡之操弄。結果除了具有極端性和資源多寡的主要效果外,在傷勢好轉可能性的事前比較分析上也出現了預期的結果,在半身不遂(極端)的情況下,人脈頗佳(M資源多= 63.00)情境中的受試者認為傷者傷勢好轉的可能性顯著高於人脈不佳者(M資源少= 45.83),而在手骨骨折(非極端)的情況下,人脈好壞則並無顯著效果。實驗二則以實驗法進行,並以較貼近生活中可能遭遇到之事件進行極端性、資源多寡和運氣的操弄。另外,在實驗二中也直接測量了參與者在不同極端性和資源多寡操弄的情境中個體的整體自覺可控性和所引發的共享內隱信念。結果顯示,在掌握程度上,出現了極端性和資源多寡的主要效果。在非極端的情境(M = 3.45)中參與者的掌握程度顯著高於極端的情境(M = 2.90),而在資源較多的情境(M = 3.30)中參與者自覺的掌握程度也邊緣顯著高於資源較少的情境(M = 3.03),但在交互作用則未達顯著。我們也將三種共享內隱信念,各自進行不同操弄情境的事前比較分析,結果並未發現有任何顯著差異存在。最後我們以不冒險意願、冒險意願及冒險與否的選擇,分別進行極端性、資源多寡及運氣的三因子變異數分析,結果皆無出現顯著的三階交互作用效果,但在不冒險意願上,則出現了與自覺可控性相似的二因子交互作用。未來研究可試著直接操弄自覺可控性,藉此驗證個體之「自覺可控性」是否可做為影響共享內隱信念、認知和行為上的重要因子。
    Chiu et al. (2011) analyzed both Chinese and English proverbs, and revealed that there are three different fate belief orientations: personal agency, fatalism and negotiable fate. In the present study we proposed that the extremity of the encountered events and the resources one possesses together can lead to different degrees of perceived control, which could activate different fate beliefs. We used open-ended questionnaires to explore how participants perceived the relationships between encountered events and fate beliefs in the pilot study. In experiment1 we employed scenario story to manipulate events extremity (high vs. low) and the resources one possesses (abundant vs. little). The main dependent measure was the possibility of recovery of the main character in the scenario. As predicted, besides two main effects, the results also showed that in the high extremity situation, participants believed those who had abundant resource (M = 63.00) had higher possibility of recovery than those had only little resource (M = 45.83). In the low extremity situation, the impact of available resource was not significant. That is, no matter the main character had resource or not, participants believed that he stood a good chance of recovery. In experiment 2, a total of 137 participants were randomly assigned to a (event extremity: high vs. low) x 2 (available resource: sufficient vs. insufficient) x 3 (luck: good vs. bad vs. control) between-subjects experimental design. Besides participants’ perceived control of the situation, situated fate belief orientations and intention to take or avoid a risk were also measured. The results showed neither three-way nor two-way interaction. We only found two main effects for event extremity and available resource on perceived control and wiliness to avoid risk. That is, compared with those who in the low extremity situation, participants who encountered high extreme event would had less perceived control and were also less willing to take a risk. Also, participants who had little resource, compared with those who had sufficient resource, tended to report less perceived control and stronger intention of avoiding risk. The results from two experiments gave some support to the hypothesis that the extremity of the encountered events and the resources we possess did affect our perceived control of the situation and therefore affect how we interpret and react to the situation. These findings and other implications were also discussed.
    Reference: 參考文獻
    中文部分
    大紀元文化網(民96):文化課教材(初級):愚公移山(成語故事)。取自
    http://www.epochtimes.com/b5/7/1/24/n1600342.htm。
    李沛良(民84)。中國文化的宿命主義與能動取向。載於喬健、潘乃谷(主編),
    中國人的觀念與行為。天津:人民出版社。
    呂鎔任(民96)。台灣閩南諺語所反映的運命觀-以《福全台諺語典》為研究(未
    出版之碩士論文)。國立花蓮教育大學,花蓮。
    明慧學校(民97):成語故事:人定勝天。取自
    http://www.minghui-school.org/school/article/2008/8/21/72456.html。
    余德慧(民76)。中國人的幸福觀。命運與幸福。台北:張老師出版社。
    唐君毅(民55)。中國哲學原論‧導論篇。香港:人生出版社。
    陳佐舜(民90)。中國傳統倫理思想。神思,48,47-65。
    陸洛(民96)。個人取向與社會取向的自我觀:概念分析與實徵測量。美中教育
    評論,4,2,1-23。
    陳民德(民97)。台灣黑水溝險象傳說及其他別名。湖南文獻,37,4,330-335。
    陳紹馨(民39)。從諺語看中國人的天命思想。台灣文化,6,2,21-46。
    曾瓊儀(民98)。龍潭鄉客家民間故事所反應的命運觀。南亞學報,29,
    459-468。
    漢川草廬(民102):古文觀止卷六‧臨淄勞耿弇。取自
    http://www.sidneyluo.net/f/f06/13.htm。

    英文部分
    Aaker, J. L. & Lee, A. Y. (2001). “I” seek pleasures and “we” avoid pains: The role of
    self-regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 33–49.
    Ames, D. R., Knowles, E. D., Rosati, A. D., Morris, M. W., Kalish, C. W., & Gopnik, A. (2001). The social folk theorist: Insights from social and cultural psychology on the contents and contexts of folk theorizing. In B. F. Malle, L. J. Moses, & D. A. Baldwin (Eds.), Intentions and Intentionality: Foundations of Social Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Au, E. W. M., Chiu, C. Y.., Zhang, Z., Mallorie, L., Chaturvedi, A., Viswanathan, M.,
    & Savani, K. (2011-a). Maintaining faith in agency under immutable constraints: Cognitive consequences of believing in negotiable fate. International Journal of Psychology, 1-12
    Au, E. W. M., Chiu, C. Y.., Zhang, Z.-X., Mallorie, L., Chaturvedi, A., Viswanathan,
    M., & Savani, K. (2011-b). Negotiable fate: Social ecological foundation and psychological functions. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 43(6), 931-942.
    Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
    Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
    Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review
    of Psychology, 52, 1–26.
    Bandura, A., & Adams, N. E. (1977). Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioral
    change. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 287-308.
    Bandura, A., & Wood, R. E. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and
    performance standards on self-regulation of complex decisionmaking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 805-814.
    Bolstad, B. R., Zinbarg, R. E. (1997). Sexual Victimization, Generalized Perception of
    Control, and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptom Severity. The Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 11(5), 523-540
    Burrus, J., & Roese, N.J. (2006). Long ago it was meant to be: The interplay between
    time, construal and fate beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 32, 1050–1058.
    Chaturvedi, A., Chiu, C. Y.., & Viswanathan, M. (2009). Literacy, negotiable fate,
    and thinking style among low income women in India. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 880–893.
    Chavez, L. R., Hubbell, F. A., & Valdez, R. B. (1997). The influence of fatalism on
    self-reported use of Papanicolaou smears. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 13(6), 418-424
    Chen, H., Ng, S., & Rao, A. (2005). Cultural differences in consumer impatience.
    Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 291–301.
    Chiu, C. Y., Evelyn W. M. Au & Zhi-Xue Zhang (2012, June). Negotiable fate as
    bounded agency: Exercising agency under immutable societal constraints. New Perspectives in East Asian Studies (pp. 107-139). Taipei, ROC。
    Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C. Y.., & Hong, Y. - y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in
    judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267-285.
    Goodwin, R., Allen, P., Nizharadze, G., Emelyanova, T., Dedkova, N., & Saenko, Y.
    (2002). Fatalism, social support and mental health in four former Soviet cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1166–1171.
    Henson, J. M., Carey, M. P., Carey, K. B., & Maisto, S. A. (2006). Associations
    among health behaviors and time perspective in young adults: Model testing with boot-strapping replication. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 29, 127–137.
    Hong, Y.-y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C.-y., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000).Multicultural
    minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55, 709-720.
    Kalichman, S. C., Kelly, J. A., Morgan, M., & Rompa, D. (1997). Fatalism, current
    life satisfaction, and risk for HIV infection among gay and bisexual men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 542–546.
    Kellerman, J., Zeltzer, L., Ellenberg, L., Dash, J., & Rigler, D. (1980). Psychological
    effects of illness in adolescence. I. Anxiety, self-esteem, and perception of control. The Journal of Pediatrics, 97(1), 126-131
    Lehman, D. R., & Taylor, S. E. (1988). Date with an earthquake: Coping with a
    probable, unpredictable disaster. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 546–555.
    Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (2004). Social axioms: A model for social beliefs in
    multi-cultural perspective. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 119–197.
    Levy, S.R., Chiu, C. Y.., & Hong, Y. - y. (2006). Lay theories and intergroup
    relations. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9, 5–24. Lindell, M., & Perry, R. (1992). Behavioral foundations of community emergency planning. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
    McClure, J., Allen, M. W., & Walkey, F. (2001). Countering fatalism: Causal
    information in news reports affects judgments about earthquake damage. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 109–121.
    Neff, J. A., & Hoppe, S. K. (1993). Race/ethnicity, acculturation, and psychological
    distress: fatalism and religiosity as cultural resources. Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 3–20.
    Norenzayen, A., & Lee, A. (2010). It was meant to happen: Explaining cultural
    variations in fate attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(5), 702-720
    Oettingen, G., Little, T. D., Lindenberger, U., & Baltes, P. B. (1994). School
    performance-related causality, agency, and control beliefs in East and West Berlin children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 579-595.
    Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
    reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General & Applied, 80(1), 1–28.
    Snyder, C.R., Rand, K., & Sigman, D.R. (2005). Hope theory: A member of the
    positive psychology family. In Handbook of Positive Psychology, ed. C.R. Snyder and S.L. Lopez, 257-276. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Tang, C. S., & Wu, A. M. (2010). Direct and Indirect Influences of Fate Control
    Belief, Gambling Expectancy Bias, and Self-Efficacy on Problem Gambling
    and Negative Mood Among Chinese College Students: A Multiple Mediation Analysis. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26, 533–543.
    Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1989). Level of personal agency: Individual
    Variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 287-308.
    Webster’s Dictionary and Thesaurus. (1999). New York: Nichols.
    Young, M. J., & Morris, M. W. (2004). Existential meanings and cultural models: The
    interplay of personal and supernatural agency in American and Hindu ways of responding to uncertainty. In J. Greenberg, S. L. Koole, & T. Pyszczynski (Eds.), Handbook of Experimental Existential Psychology (pp. 215-230). New York: Guilford.
    Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1989). Level of personal agency: Individual
    Variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 287-308.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    心理學研究所
    99752013
    103
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0997520131
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[心理學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    013101.pdf2573KbAdobe PDF200View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback