Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/36410
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisor陳彰儀zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisorChen, Chang-Ien_US
dc.contributor.author徐瑋伶zh_TW
dc.contributor.authorHsu, Wei-Lingen_US
dc.creator徐瑋伶zh_TW
dc.creatorHsu, Wei-Lingen_US
dc.date1998en_US
dc.date.accessioned2009-09-18T10:30:30Z-
dc.date.available2009-09-18T10:30:30Z-
dc.date.issued2009-09-18T10:30:30Z-
dc.identifierB2002001297en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/36410-
dc.description碩士zh_TW
dc.description國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description心理學研究所zh_TW
dc.description86752010zh_TW
dc.description87zh_TW
dc.description.abstract本研究之目的在了解使用同儕評量為考核方式時,可能影響團體成員公平知覺等心理反應的因素。研究中以96名大學女生為實驗對象,採2x2x2實驗設計,探討“同儕評量與自評之差異”、“團體成員相對親疏關係”及“決策控制力(自評對獎金分配之影響力)”等三個因素對團體成員公平知覺之影響,並了解內外控傾向在此影響機制中扮演的角色。研究結果顯示,當團體使用同儕評量之考核方法時,“同儕評量與自評之差異”對個體的公平知覺、結果滿意、團體吸引力、再次合作意願均有非常顯著的影響。顯示個體相當關心自我評量與同儕評量之差異,當同儕評量比自評低時,個人在以上幾種心理反應都顯著的較弱。在“相對親疏關係”上,結果顯示個體進入團體中時,若感覺其他兩位成員間之親疏關係,比個體自己與其他任一人間為親密時,其公平知覺會較低。在“決策控制力”上,則發現其對公平知覺與再次合作意願有顯著影響,當自評對酬賞結果具有影響力(決策控制力高)時,個體的公平知覺會較高,也較願意再次與其他兩位成員合作。在“同儕評量與自評之差異”、“相對親疏關係”、“決策控制力”三者之交互作用方面,分析結果顯示均未達顯著。在內外控此變項上,除發現其對公平知覺有顯著影響,即愈外控者之公平知覺愈低外,另亦顯示內外控與“相對親疏關係”具有交互作用,但與“決策控制力”、“同儕評量與自評之差異”之交互作用並不顯著,表示內外控只在“相對親疏關係”對公平知覺之影響上有調節效果。本研究最後對未獲驗證之部份加以討論,並依實驗所得結果,提出可能之貢獻、限制、對未來研究的建議及工商實務上之應用。zh_TW
dc.description.abstractThis study, employing 96 undergraduates and 2×2×2 experimental design, examined the effects of “discrepancies between peer rating and self rating”, “ relative relationship” and “decision control (the influence of self rating on reward) ” to group members’ perception of fairness. The role of locus of control was also explored. When using the peer rating, subjects who received relative lower peer rating showed weaker perception of fairness, less satisfied with outcome, less attracted to other two coworkers and lower recooperative willing. Subjects perceived fairer when the relative relationship is equal (the familiarity within group members is the same). With the high decision control, subjects’ perception of fairness and recooperative willing were higher. No interaction effect of these three independent variables was found. Locus of control had moderating effect on the relation between relative relationship and perception of fairness. Implications for management and future research are discussed.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents第一章 緒論 1\r\n第一節 研究動機與目的 1\r\n第二節 文獻探討 5\r\n第三節 研究問題與假設 19\r\n第二章 研究方法 23\r\n第一節 研究對象 23\r\n第二節 實驗設計 23\r\n第三節 實驗工具 27\r\n第四節 實驗程序 28\r\n第三章 研究結果 36\r\n第一節 變項之檢定 36\r\n第二節 研究假設之驗證 41\r\n第三節 其他結果分析 46\r\n第四章 討論與建議 51\r\n第一節 討論 51\r\n第二節 研究檢討與後續研究建議 55\r\n第三節 研究貢獻與工商實務之應用 60\r\n參考文獻 64\r\n附錄:實驗所用之各種題本 71\r\n壹、 實驗同意書 71\r\n貳、 實驗程序一至三步驟之指導語及答本 72\r\n參、 評量本 76\r\n肆、 呈現給受試者之評量結果 78\r\n伍、 後測問卷 79zh_TW
dc.language.isoen_US-
dc.source.urihttp://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#B2002001297en_US
dc.subject同儕評量與自評之差異zh_TW
dc.subject相對親疏關係zh_TW
dc.subject決策控制力zh_TW
dc.subject內外控zh_TW
dc.subject公平知覺zh_TW
dc.subjectDiscrepancies between peer rating and self ratingen_US
dc.subjectRelative relationshipen_US
dc.subjectDecision controlen_US
dc.subjectLocus of controlen_US
dc.subjectPerception of fairnessen_US
dc.title同儕評量與自評之差異、相對親疏關係決策控制力及內外控對團體成員公平知覺的影響zh_TW
dc.typethesisen
dc.relation.reference李美枝(民82)。從有關公平判斷的研究結果看中國人人己關係的界限。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference本土心理學研究,第1期,頁267﹣300。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference李俊明(民87)。以同儕提名法在團體活動中評鑑初、中階主管人員之zh_TW
dc.relation.reference應用分析研究。國立政治大學心理研究所碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference吳子輝(民64)。內外控取向與自由選擇對閱讀測驗成績之影響。國立zh_TW
dc.relation.reference政治大學教育所碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference邱月淑(民81)。領導權的獲得程序及個人利得立場對程序公正知覺和zh_TW
dc.relation.reference權威信服度的影響。國立政治大學心理研究所碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference黃光國(民77)。人情與面子:中國人的權力遊戲。見楊國樞主編:中zh_TW
dc.relation.reference國人的心理,頁289﹣318。台北:桂冠圖書公司。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference曾光佩(民82)。大學生的憂鬱與歸因:憂鬱性歸因理論之驗證。國立zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceIn R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the Workplace, (pp.107-zh_TW
dc.relation.reference131). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKorsgaard, M.A., & Roberson, L. (1995). Procedural justice inzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceperformance evaluation: The role of instrumental and non-zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceinstrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceJournal of Management, Vol 21(4), 657-669.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLerner, M.J.(1981). The justice motive in human relations:zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSome thoughts on what we know and need to know aboutzh_TW
dc.relation.referencejustice. In M.J. Lerner (Eds), The Justice Motive inzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSocial Behavior (pp.23-51). New York: Academic Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference台灣大學心理研究所碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLeung, K., & Bond, M.H.(1984). The impact of culturalzh_TW
dc.relation.referencecollectivism on reward allocation. Journal of Personalityzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceand Social psychology, 47, 793-804.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLind, E.A. (1982). The Psychology of the courtroom procedure.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceIn N.L. Kerr & R.M. Bary (Eds), The psychology ofzh_TW
dc.relation.referencecourtroom (pp.13-37) New York : Academic Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLind, E.A., & Tyler, T.R. (1988). The Social Psychology ofzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceProcedural Justice. New York: Plenum.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLind, E.A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, P.C.(1993). Voice, control,zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceand Procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumentalzh_TW
dc.relation.reference楊幼蘭 譯(民85)。改造企業。Michale Hammer & James Campy 原著。zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceconcerns in fairness judgement. Journal of Personalityzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceand Social Psychology, 59, 952-959.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLind, E.A., Kray, L. & Thompson, L.(1998). The socialzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceconstruction of injustice :Judgement in response to ownzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceand other`s unfair treatment by authorities.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 75, 1zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-22.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMahler, I., Greenberg, L., & Hayashi, H.(1981). A comparativezh_TW
dc.relation.referencestudy of rules of justice: Japanese versus American.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePsychological: An International Journal of Psychology inzh_TW
dc.relation.reference台北:牛頓出版股份有限公司。zh_TW
dc.relation.referencethe Orient, 24(1), 1-8.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMotta, R.W., & Tiegerman, S.(1979). Perception of justice: Anzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceadolescent view. Journal of Community Psychology, 7(2),zh_TW
dc.relation.reference151-157.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMurphy, K.R., & Cleveland, J.N.(1995). Understandingzh_TW
dc.relation.referencePerformance Appraisal: Social, Organizational, and Goal-zh_TW
dc.relation.referencebased Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMurphy, K.R., & Myors, B. (1998). Statistical Power Analysis: Azh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSimple and General Model for Traditional and Modernzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHypothesis Tests. New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associts.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference齊若蘭 譯(民84)。第五項修煉﹣實踐篇(I)(II)。Peter M.Senge等zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceParker, G.M. (1990). Team Player and Teamwork: The Newzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCompetitive Business Strategy. San Franciso, CA: Jossey-zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBass Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePloyhart, r.e., & Marie Ryan, A. (1998). Applicants’ reactionszh_TW
dc.relation.referenceto the fairness of selection procedures: The effect ofzh_TW
dc.relation.referencepositive rule violations and time of measurement. Journalzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceof Applied Psychology, 83(1), 3-16.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceReberon, L., Torkel, S., Korsgarrd, A., Klein, D., Diddams, M.,zh_TW
dc.relation.reference& Cayer, M. (1993). Self appraisal and perception of thezh_TW
dc.relation.referenceappraisal discussion: A field experiment. Journal ofzh_TW
dc.relation.reference著。台北:牛頓出版股份有限公司。zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceOrganizational Behavior, 14, 129-142.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRoberson, L. (1995). Procedural justice in Performancezh_TW
dc.relation.referenceevaluation : The role of instrumental and noninstrumentalzh_TW
dc.relation.referencevoice in performance appraisal discussion. Journal ofzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceManagement, 21, 657-699.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internalzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceversus external control of reinforcement. Psychologicalzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMonographs, 80 (1,Whole no.609).zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSchmitt, N., Goging, R.Z., Noe, R.A. & Kirsch, M.(1984). Meta-zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceanalysis of validity studies published between 1964 andzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAlexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedure andzh_TW
dc.relation.reference1982 and the investigation of study characteristic.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePersonnel Psychology, 37, 407-422.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceShore, L.M., & Thornton, G.C.III(1986). Effect of gender onzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceself and supervisory rating. Academy of Managementzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceJournal, 29, 111-129.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSweeney, P.D., McFarlin, D.B., & Cotton, J.L.(1991). Locus ofzh_TW
dc.relation.referencecontrol as a moderator of the relationship betweenzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceperceived influence and procedural justice. Humanzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRelations, 44(4), 333-342.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceTajifel, H. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories. Newzh_TW
dc.relation.referencedistributive justice in organizational behavior. Socialzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceYork: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceThibaut, J., & Walker, L.(1975). Procedural Justice : Azh_TW
dc.relation.referencePsychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceTyler, T.R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive:zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAntecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journalzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceOf Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5), 850-863.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceTyler, T.R. (1984). The role of perceived injustice inzh_TW
dc.relation.referencedefendant’s evaluations of their courtroom experience. Lawzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceand Society Review, 19,51-74.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWalster, E., Walster, G.W., & Berscheid, E.(1978). Equity:zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceJustice Research, 1, 177-198.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceTheory and Research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWellims, R.S., Byham, W.C., & Williams, G.R. (1994). Insidezh_TW
dc.relation.referenceTeams: How 20 World-class Organizations are Winning throughzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceTeamwork. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAustin, W. (1980). Friendship and fairness: Effect of type ofzh_TW
dc.relation.referencerelationship and task performance on choice ofzh_TW
dc.relation.referencedistribution rules. Personality and Social Psychologyzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBulletin, 6(3), 402-408.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBarclay, J.H., & Harland, L.k. (1995). Peer performancezh_TW
dc.relation.referenceappraisal: The impact of rater competence, rater location,zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceand rating correctability on fairness perception. Group andzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceOrganizational Management, 20(1), 39-60.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBasset, G.A., & Meyer, H.H.(1968). Performance appraisal basedzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceon self review. Personnel Psychology, 21, 421-430.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBernardin, W.C., & Beatty, R.W.(1984). Performance Appraisal:zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAssessing Human Behavior at Work. Boston: Kent.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBlakely, G.L. (1993). The effect of performance ratingzh_TW
dc.relation.referencediscrepancies on supervisors and subordinates.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 54,57-zh_TW
dc.relation.reference80.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBorman, W.C. (1974). The rating of individuals in organizations:zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAn alternate approach. Organizational Behavior and Humanzh_TW
dc.relation.referencePerformance, 12, 105-124.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBrewer, M.B. & Kramer, R.M. (1986). Choice behavior in socialzh_TW
dc.relation.referencedilemmas: Effect of social identity, group size, andzh_TW
dc.relation.referencedecision framing. Journal of Personality and Socialzh_TW
dc.relation.referencePsychology, 50, 543-549.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCardy, R.J., & Dobbins, G.H.(1994). Performance Appraisal:zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAlternative Perspectives. Cincinnati, OH: South-Westernzh_TW
dc.relation.referencePublishing.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCampell, D.J., & Lee, C.(1988). Self-appraisal in performancezh_TW
dc.relation.referenceevaluation: Development versus evaluation. Academy ofzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceManagement Review, 13, 302-314.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCascio, W.F. (1997). Applied Psychology in Human Resourcezh_TW
dc.relation.referenceManagement (5th). Upper Saddle River,NJ: Prentice-Hall,zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceInc.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCasper, J., & Tyler, T.R.(1986). Procedural justice among felonyzh_TW
dc.relation.referencedefendants. Paper presented at the meeting of the Law andzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSociety Association, Chicago.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCawley, B.D., Keeping, L.M., & Levy, P.E.(1998).zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceParticipation in the performance appraisal process andzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceemployee reaction: A meta-analysis review of fieldzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceinvestigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 615-zh_TW
dc.relation.reference633.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceConlon, D.E. (1993). Some test of the self-interest and group-zh_TW
dc.relation.referencevalue models of procedural justice: Evidence from anzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceorganizational appeal procedure. Academy of Managementzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceJournal, 36, 1109-1124.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDulebohn, J.H.(1997). Social influence in justice evaluationszh_TW
dc.relation.referenceof human resource system. Personnel and Human Resourceszh_TW
dc.relation.referenceManagement, 5, 241-291.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceEdward, M.R., & Ewen, A.J. (1996). 360-degree Feedback: Thezh_TW
dc.relation.referencePowerful New Model for Employee Assessment & Performancezh_TW
dc.relation.referenceImprovement. CA: American Management Association.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFolger, R. (1987). Reformulating the Preconditions ofzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceresentment: A referent cognition model .In J.C. Master &zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceW.P. Smith (Eds),Social Comparison, Relative Deprivation,zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceand Social Justice. New York: Pleum Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFolger, R., Konovsky, M., & Cropanzano, R. (1992). A due processzh_TW
dc.relation.referencemetaphor for performance appraisal. In B. Staw & L. Cummingzh_TW
dc.relation.reference(Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, (14,127-148).zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGreenwich, CT: JAI Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFolger, R., & Lewis, D. (1993). Self appraisal and fairness inzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceevaluation. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in thezh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWorkplace, (pp.107-131). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrencezh_TW
dc.relation.referenceErlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGreenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness ofzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceperformance evaluation. Journal of Applied psychology,zh_TW
dc.relation.reference71, 310-342.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHarris, M.M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A Meta-analysis of self-zh_TW
dc.relation.referencesupervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor rating.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePersonnel Psychology, 41, 43-46.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKane, J.S., & Lawler, E.E. (1978). Methods of peer assessment.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePsychological Bulletin, 85, 555-586.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKanter, R.M. (1989). When Giants Learn to Dance : Mastering thezh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChallenge of Strategy,Management, and Careers in thezh_TW
dc.relation.reference1990s. New York:Simon and Schuster.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKirkman, B.L. Shapiro, D.L., Novelli, L. & BeReet, J.M. (1996).zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceEmployee concerns regarding self-managing work teams: Azh_TW
dc.relation.referencemultidimensional justice perspective. Social Justicezh_TW
dc.relation.referenceResearch, 9(1), 47-67.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKleiman, L.S. (1997). Human Resource Management: A Tool forzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCompetitive Advantage. St.Paul,Minn:West Pub. Co..zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKonovsky, M.A., & Brockner, J. (1993). Managing victim andzh_TW
dc.relation.referencesurvivorlayoff reactions: A procedural justice perspective.zh_TW
item.languageiso639-1en_US-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_46ec-
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.openairetypethesis-
Appears in Collections:學位論文
Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat
index.html115 BHTML2View/Open
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.