1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Science
  4. Theses
  5. Item

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

  • No doi shows Citation Infomation
題名 比較目標設定理論與期望理論對工作表現之解釋力
作者 盛揚翼
貢獻者 陳彰儀
盛揚翼
日期 1989
1988
上傳時間 3-May-2016 14:17:17 (UTC+8)
摘要 摘要
     過去許多有關探討目標設定理論(Goa1 setting theory) 與期望理論(Expectancy theory) 的研究大致上皆支持目標的難易和動機三因素乘積的大小的確會影響動機的高低。然而，二者之間究竟何者是影響動機的主要因素呢?二者影響力的強弱情形為何?當二者同時出現時，只會顯示出強者的影響力呢?還是不分強弱，二者的影響力皆會顯示出來?或甚至於有交互作用產生?本研究的目的即在了解究竟目標和動機三因素乘積何者才是影響動機的主要因素。本研究以國立政治大學學生108名為受試，操弄目標難易度(難、中、易)和動機三因素乘積的高低(高、中、低)，以受試者在手眼協調測驗上的工作表現作為動機的指標，採用完全隨機的3 x 3二因子實驗設計。以二因子共變數分析的結果顯示，在工作表現上，目標難度的影響有主要效果，VIE值則沒有主要主要效果，二者之間沒有交互作用，表示目標是影響動機的主要因素。在討論中將詳細的說明此一結果所代表的意義，並試圖解釋為何VIE值的影響力較小，另外並檢討在實驗進行中可能產生的一些偏差及本研究所能適用的範圍，以及提出一些對後續研究者的建議。
參考文獻 參考書目
     林清山(民72):教育與心理統計學，東華書局。
     錢玉芬(民76): 日本短式通用性向測驗之修訂及其應用，國立政治大學心理研究所碩士論文。
     Arvey, R.D.(1972). Task performance as a function of perceived effort-performance and performance-reward contingencies.
     Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 8 , 423-433 .
     Campbell , 0. 1., & Ilgen , D. R. (1976) . Additive effects of task difficulty and goal setting on subsequent task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology , 61 , 319-324.
     Campbell , J. C. , Dunnette , M. 0. , Lawler , E. E. , 11 1 ，& Weick, K. E. (1970). Managerial behavior, performance ,and effectiveness. New York. McGraw-Hi11.
     Campbell, J . P., & Pritchard , R. D. (1976).Motivation theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette(Ed.) ,The handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally
     Campion , M. A. , & Lord , R. G. (1982). A control systems conceptualization of the goal-setting and changing process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 30 , 265-287.
     Connolly , T. (1976).Some conceptual and methodological issues in expectancy models of work motivation. Academv of Management Review, 1, 37-47.
     Dachler, H. P. , & Mobley , W. H. (1973). Construct validation of an instrumentality-expectancy-task-goal model of work motivation: Some theoretical boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 397-418.
     Dossett, D. L., Latham, G. P., & Mitchell, T. R. (1979).
     Effects of assigned versus participatively set goals, knowledge of results, and individual differences on employee behavior when goal difficulty is held constant. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 291-298.
     Erez, M., & Arad, R. (1986). Participative goal setting: Social, motivational and cognitive factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 591-597.
     Erez, M., & Zidon, I .(1984). Effect of goal acceptance on the relationship of goal difficulty to performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 69-78.
     Galbraith, J., & Cummings, l. L. (1967). An empirical investigation of the motivational determinants of task performance: Interactive effects between instrumentality-valence and motivation-ability. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 2, 237-257.
     Garland, H. (1984). Relation of effort-performance expectancy to performance in goal-setting experiments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 79-84.
     Graen, G. (1969). Instrumentality theory of work motivation: Some experimental results and suggested modifications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 1-25.
     Hackman, J. R., &. Porter, L. W. (1968). Expectancy theory prediction of work effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 417-426.
     Heneman, H. G. ,III, & Schwab, D. P. (1972). Evaluation of research on expectancy theory predictions of employee performance. Psychological Bulletin, 78, 1-9.
     Ivancevich, J. M. (1977). Different goal setting treatments and their effects on performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 406-419.
     Ivancevich, J. M., & McMahon, J. T. (1982). The effects of goal setting, external feedback, and self-generated feedback on outcome variables: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 359-372.
     Latham, G. P., & Marshall, H. A. (1982). The effects of self-set, participatively set and assigned goals on the performance of government employees. Personnel psychology,
     399-404.
     Latham, G. P., & Saari, L. M. (19 7 9). The effects of holding goal difficulty constant on assigned and participatively set goals. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 163-168.
     Latham, G. P., & Yuki, G. A. (1975a). A review of research on the application of goal setting in organizations . Academy of Management Journal, 18, 824-845.
     Latham, G. P., & Yuki, G. A. (1975b).Assigned versus participative goal setting with educated and uneducated woods workers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 299-302.
     Latham, G. P., Erez, M., & Locke, E. A. (1988). Resolving scientific disputes by the joint design of crucial experiments by the antagonists: Application to the Erez-Latham dispute regarding participation In goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 753-772.
     Latham, G.P., Mitchell, T.R., & Dossett, D.L.(1978). Importance of participative goal setting and anticipated rewards on goal difficulty and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 163-171.
     Lawler, E. E. (1971). Pay and organizational effectiveness: A psychological view. New York: McGraw-Hill.
     Lawler, E. E. (1973). Motivation in work organizations. Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/Cole.
     Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task performance and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157-189.
     Locke, E. A. (1977). The myths of behavior mod in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 2, 543-553.
     Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Buckner, E., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of previously assigned goals on self-set goals and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 694-699.
     Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance:1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin,90,125-15l.
     Matsui, T., Okada, A. , & Mizuguchi, R. (1981). Expectancy theory prediction of the goal theory postulate, " The harder the goals, the higher the performance" Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 54-58.
     Mento, A. J., Cartledge, N. D. ,& Locke, E. A.(1980).Maryland vs. Minnesota: Another look at the relationship of expectancy and goal difficulty to task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 419-440.
     Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Expectancy models of job satisfaction, occupational preference, and effort : A theoretical, methodological, and empirical appraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1053-1077 .
     Mitchell, T. R., & Pollard, W. E. (1973). Instrumentality theory predictions of academic behavior. Journal of Social Psychology .89, 34-45.
     Motowidlo, S.L., Loehr, V., & Dunnette, M.D.(1978) . A laboratory study of the effects of goal specificity on the relationship between probability of success and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 172-179.
     Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E.,III . (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, Ill: Irwin-Dorsey.
     Schwab, D. P., Olian-Gottlieb, 1.D., & Heneman, H.G.,III.(1979).
     Between subjects expectancy theory research: A statistical review of studies predicting effort and performance. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 139-147.
     Siegel, L., & Lane, I. M. (1982). Personnel and organizational psychology. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
     Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1974). The role of task-goal attributes in employee performance. Psychological Bulletin,81, 434-452.
     Strang, H. R., Lawrence, E. C., & Fowler, P. C. (1978). Effects of assigned goal level and knowledge of results on arithmetic computation: A laboratory study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 446-450.
     Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Bros.
     Tubbs, M. E. (1986). Goal setting: A meta-analytic examination of the empirical evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 474-483.
     Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
     Wagner, J. A., & Gooding, R. Z. (1987). Shared influence and organizational behavior: A moderator meta-analysis of situational variables expected to moderate participation-outcome relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 524- 541.
     Yuki, G. A., & Latham, G. P. (1978). Interrelationships among employee participation, individual differences, goal difficulty, goal acceptance; goal instrumentality, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 31, 305-323.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
心理學系
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#B2002005532
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 陳彰儀zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 盛揚翼zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) 盛揚翼zh_TW
dc.date (日期) 1989en_US
dc.date (日期) 1988en_US
dc.date.accessioned 3-May-2016 14:17:17 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 3-May-2016 14:17:17 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 3-May-2016 14:17:17 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) B2002005532en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/90180-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 心理學系zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 摘要
     過去許多有關探討目標設定理論(Goa1 setting theory) 與期望理論(Expectancy theory) 的研究大致上皆支持目標的難易和動機三因素乘積的大小的確會影響動機的高低。然而，二者之間究竟何者是影響動機的主要因素呢?二者影響力的強弱情形為何?當二者同時出現時，只會顯示出強者的影響力呢?還是不分強弱，二者的影響力皆會顯示出來?或甚至於有交互作用產生?本研究的目的即在了解究竟目標和動機三因素乘積何者才是影響動機的主要因素。本研究以國立政治大學學生108名為受試，操弄目標難易度(難、中、易)和動機三因素乘積的高低(高、中、低)，以受試者在手眼協調測驗上的工作表現作為動機的指標，採用完全隨機的3 x 3二因子實驗設計。以二因子共變數分析的結果顯示，在工作表現上，目標難度的影響有主要效果，VIE值則沒有主要主要效果，二者之間沒有交互作用，表示目標是影響動機的主要因素。在討論中將詳細的說明此一結果所代表的意義，並試圖解釋為何VIE值的影響力較小，另外並檢討在實驗進行中可能產生的一些偏差及本研究所能適用的範圍，以及提出一些對後續研究者的建議。		zh_TW
dc.description.tableofcontents 目錄
     第一章 導論……1
     第一節 研究動機與目的……1
     第二節 文獻探討……3
     第三節 研究問題……10
     第二章 研究方法……11
     第一節 研究對象……11
     第二節 測量工具……11
     第三節 操作性定義……12
     第四節 實驗設計……15
     第五節 實驗步驟……17
     第六節 統計處理……22
     第三章 研究結果……23
     第一節 實驗操弄的檢驗……23
     第二節 研究問題的驗證……29
     第三節 後測問卷的結果分析……31
     第四章 討論與建議……49
     第一節 討論……49
     第二節 研究限制與建議……52
     參考書目……56
     附錄……62
     附錄一 手眼協調測驗答案紙……63
     附錄二 前測問卷……64
     附錄三 後測問卷……65
     圖表目錄
     圖2-1 實驗室佈置圖……18
     表3-1 不同目標難度和VIE值之受試在目標接受度上二因子變異數分析摘要表……24
     表3-2 不同目標難度和VIE值之受試在目標接受度上之平均數和標準差……24
     表3-3 不同VIE值之受試在E值上之單因子變異數分析摘要表…… 26
     表3-4 不同VIE值之受試在主觀知覺的E值上之平均數和標準差…… 26
     表3-5 不同VIE值之受試在I值上之單因子變異數分析摘要表……27
     表3-6 不同VIE值之受試在主觀知覺的I值上之平均數和標準差……28
     表3-7 不同目標難度和VIE值之男女受試人數分配表……28
     表3-8 男女在手眼協調能力及工作表現上之t檢定考驗……29
     表3-9 不同目標難度和VIE值之受試在工作表現上之二因子共變數分析摘要表……30
     表3-10 不同目標難度組工作表現之事後多重比較表……31
     表3-11 不同目標難度和VIE值之受試在手眼協調測驗乏味程度上之二因子變異數分析摘要表……32
     表3-12 不同目標難度和VIE值之受試在手眼協調測驗乏味程度上之平均數和標準差……33
     表3-13 不同目標難度和VIE值之受試在努力達到目標的意願上，受「達到目標的機率影響的程度之二因子變異數分析摘要表……34
     表3-14 不同VI E值組受E值影響程度之事後多重比較表……35
     表3-15 受試在努力達到目標的意願上，受「目標」、「達到目標的機率」、「得到酬賞的機會」以及「酬賞的錢數」影響大小之t檢定考驗……36
     表3-16 不同目標難度和VIE值之受試在「如果只知目標」的狀況下，其努力程度之二因子變異數分析摘要表……37
     表3-17 不同目標難度和VIE值之受試在「如果只知目標」的狀況下，努力的程度所受的影響之平均數和標準差……38
     表3-18 不同目標難度和VIE值之受試在「如果只知目標和達到目標的機率」的狀況下，其努力程度之二因子變異數分析摘要表……39
     表3-19 不同目標難度和VIE值之受試在「如果只知目標和達到目標的機率」的狀況下，努力的程度所受的影響之平均數和標準差……39
     表3-20 不同目標難度和VIE值之受試在「如果只知目標和酬賞的錢數」的狀況下，其努力程度之二因子變具數分析摘要表……40
     表3-21 不同目標難度和VIE值之受試在「如果只知目標和酬賞的錢數」的狀況下，努力的程度所受的影響之平均數和標準差……41
     表3-22 受試在努力的程度上，受「如果只知目標」、「如果只知目標和達到目標的機率」以及「如果只知目標和酬賞的錢數」三種狀況的影響大小之t檢定考驗……42
     表3-23 不同目標難度和VIE值之受試在持續做下去的意願上，受「達到目標的機率」影響之二因子變異數分析摘要表……44
     表3-24 不同目標難度組在持續做下去的意願上受I值影響程度上之事後多重比較表……44
     表3-25 不同VIE值組在持續做下去的意願上受I直影響程度上之事後多重比較表……45
     表3-26 不同目標難度和VIE值之受試在持續做下去的意願上，受「酬賞的錢數」影響之二因子變異數分析摘要表……46
     表3-27 不同目標難度組在持續做下去的意願上受V值影響程度上之事後多重比較表……46
     表3-28 受試在持續做下去的意願上，受「目標」「達到目標的路率」、「得到酬賞的機會」以及「酬賞的錢數影響大小之檢定考驗……47		zh_TW
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#B2002005532en_US
dc.title (題名) 比較目標設定理論與期望理論對工作表現之解釋力zh_TW
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 參考書目
     林清山(民72):教育與心理統計學，東華書局。
     錢玉芬(民76): 日本短式通用性向測驗之修訂及其應用，國立政治大學心理研究所碩士論文。
     Arvey, R.D.(1972). Task performance as a function of perceived effort-performance and performance-reward contingencies.
     Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 8 , 423-433 .
     Campbell , 0. 1., & Ilgen , D. R. (1976) . Additive effects of task difficulty and goal setting on subsequent task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology , 61 , 319-324.
     Campbell , J. C. , Dunnette , M. 0. , Lawler , E. E. , 11 1 ，& Weick, K. E. (1970). Managerial behavior, performance ,and effectiveness. New York. McGraw-Hi11.
     Campbell, J . P., & Pritchard , R. D. (1976).Motivation theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette(Ed.) ,The handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally
     Campion , M. A. , & Lord , R. G. (1982). A control systems conceptualization of the goal-setting and changing process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 30 , 265-287.
     Connolly , T. (1976).Some conceptual and methodological issues in expectancy models of work motivation. Academv of Management Review, 1, 37-47.
     Dachler, H. P. , & Mobley , W. H. (1973). Construct validation of an instrumentality-expectancy-task-goal model of work motivation: Some theoretical boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 397-418.
     Dossett, D. L., Latham, G. P., & Mitchell, T. R. (1979).
     Effects of assigned versus participatively set goals, knowledge of results, and individual differences on employee behavior when goal difficulty is held constant. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 291-298.
     Erez, M., & Arad, R. (1986). Participative goal setting: Social, motivational and cognitive factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 591-597.
     Erez, M., & Zidon, I .(1984). Effect of goal acceptance on the relationship of goal difficulty to performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 69-78.
     Galbraith, J., & Cummings, l. L. (1967). An empirical investigation of the motivational determinants of task performance: Interactive effects between instrumentality-valence and motivation-ability. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 2, 237-257.
     Garland, H. (1984). Relation of effort-performance expectancy to performance in goal-setting experiments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 79-84.
     Graen, G. (1969). Instrumentality theory of work motivation: Some experimental results and suggested modifications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 1-25.
     Hackman, J. R., &. Porter, L. W. (1968). Expectancy theory prediction of work effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 417-426.
     Heneman, H. G. ,III, & Schwab, D. P. (1972). Evaluation of research on expectancy theory predictions of employee performance. Psychological Bulletin, 78, 1-9.
     Ivancevich, J. M. (1977). Different goal setting treatments and their effects on performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 406-419.
     Ivancevich, J. M., & McMahon, J. T. (1982). The effects of goal setting, external feedback, and self-generated feedback on outcome variables: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 359-372.
     Latham, G. P., & Marshall, H. A. (1982). The effects of self-set, participatively set and assigned goals on the performance of government employees. Personnel psychology,
     399-404.
     Latham, G. P., & Saari, L. M. (19 7 9). The effects of holding goal difficulty constant on assigned and participatively set goals. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 163-168.
     Latham, G. P., & Yuki, G. A. (1975a). A review of research on the application of goal setting in organizations . Academy of Management Journal, 18, 824-845.
     Latham, G. P., & Yuki, G. A. (1975b).Assigned versus participative goal setting with educated and uneducated woods workers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 299-302.
     Latham, G. P., Erez, M., & Locke, E. A. (1988). Resolving scientific disputes by the joint design of crucial experiments by the antagonists: Application to the Erez-Latham dispute regarding participation In goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 753-772.
     Latham, G.P., Mitchell, T.R., & Dossett, D.L.(1978). Importance of participative goal setting and anticipated rewards on goal difficulty and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 163-171.
     Lawler, E. E. (1971). Pay and organizational effectiveness: A psychological view. New York: McGraw-Hill.
     Lawler, E. E. (1973). Motivation in work organizations. Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/Cole.
     Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task performance and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157-189.
     Locke, E. A. (1977). The myths of behavior mod in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 2, 543-553.
     Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Buckner, E., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of previously assigned goals on self-set goals and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 694-699.
     Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance:1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin,90,125-15l.
     Matsui, T., Okada, A. , & Mizuguchi, R. (1981). Expectancy theory prediction of the goal theory postulate, " The harder the goals, the higher the performance" Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 54-58.
     Mento, A. J., Cartledge, N. D. ,& Locke, E. A.(1980).Maryland vs. Minnesota: Another look at the relationship of expectancy and goal difficulty to task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 419-440.
     Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Expectancy models of job satisfaction, occupational preference, and effort : A theoretical, methodological, and empirical appraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1053-1077 .
     Mitchell, T. R., & Pollard, W. E. (1973). Instrumentality theory predictions of academic behavior. Journal of Social Psychology .89, 34-45.
     Motowidlo, S.L., Loehr, V., & Dunnette, M.D.(1978) . A laboratory study of the effects of goal specificity on the relationship between probability of success and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 172-179.
     Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E.,III . (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, Ill: Irwin-Dorsey.
     Schwab, D. P., Olian-Gottlieb, 1.D., & Heneman, H.G.,III.(1979).
     Between subjects expectancy theory research: A statistical review of studies predicting effort and performance. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 139-147.
     Siegel, L., & Lane, I. M. (1982). Personnel and organizational psychology. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
     Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1974). The role of task-goal attributes in employee performance. Psychological Bulletin,81, 434-452.
     Strang, H. R., Lawrence, E. C., & Fowler, P. C. (1978). Effects of assigned goal level and knowledge of results on arithmetic computation: A laboratory study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 446-450.
     Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Bros.
     Tubbs, M. E. (1986). Goal setting: A meta-analytic examination of the empirical evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 474-483.
     Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
     Wagner, J. A., & Gooding, R. Z. (1987). Shared influence and organizational behavior: A moderator meta-analysis of situational variables expected to moderate participation-outcome relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 524- 541.
     Yuki, G. A., & Latham, G. P. (1978). Interrelationships among employee participation, individual differences, goal difficulty, goal acceptance; goal instrumentality, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 31, 305-323.		zh_TW