學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 是誰的錯？職場背鍋者的應對研究
Whose Fault is It? A Study of How the Blamed Cope with Blaming Shift作者 林郁潔
Lin, Yu-Chieh貢獻者 許書瑋
Hsu, Ryan-Shuwei
林郁潔
Lin, Yu-Chieh關鍵詞 甩鍋
主管定調
blame shifting
sensegiving日期 2023 上傳時間 1-九月-2023 14:59:46 (UTC+8) 摘要 在職場上，工作者在犯錯後偶會為了避免責罵而將自身應擔負的責任「甩鍋」給別人，導致與之無關的同仁被迫承擔造成錯誤的責任。在此情況下，被迫成為「代罪羔羊」的部屬與其主管如何解決甩鍋便成為重要的管理問題。本研究透過半結構式訪談法，深入訪問了二十位在職場中曾被他人點名承擔與自己無關錯誤的員工。研究結果顯示被甩鍋的部屬面臨甩鍋後，會因其主管定調不同，而採取相異的應對方式。我的論文歸納出主管的三種定調方式，包含將錯誤歸咎於甩鍋者本人外，認定是被甩鍋者的錯，以及對事不對人。當主管定調錯誤是肇因於甩鍋者，即提供被甩鍋者平反的機會，被甩鍋者因此會對主管產生正面的印象，認為其在處理甩鍋的爭議事項上較為積極正面；若是主管定調為被甩鍋者的錯，被甩鍋者認為其承擔無妄之災，則會認為主管在處理甩鍋的爭議事項上未盡其職；最後，當主管定調目前目標為對事不對人，被甩鍋者則因主管跳過了強行歸因錯誤的情況，且有收到主管於後續事件處理所的支援，會偏向認為主管心中未有偏頗，進而強化對於主管本人和公司的正面印象。根據以上結果，本研究提出相關的實務意涵與未來研究方向。
In the workplace, people often tend to shift blame onto others after making mistakes to avoid being blamed. In this situation, it has become a significant management issue for the subordinate who is forced to be the "scapegoat" and their supervisor to find ways to resolve the problem of blame-shifting. This study used semi-structured interview approach to interview twenty employees who experienced wrongly assigned blame for mistakes unrelated to themselves. According to the result, employees who became scapegoats responded and feel differently due to the judgement of the related supervisor. My thesis summarizes three types of approaches taken by supervisors when scapegoating occurs, including attributing the blame to the subordinate who try to scapegoat, blaming the scapegoated subordinate for the mistake, and focusing on the issue rather than the person. When the supervisor chooses to attribute the blame to the subordinate who try to scapegoat, that means they give the scapegoated subordinate chances to vindication. Thus, the scapegoated subordinate would tend to develop a positive impression of the supervisor, also perceiving them as more proactive and positive in handling the controversy blame-shifting issue. What if the supervisor blaming the scapegoated subordinate for the mistake, the scapegoated subordinate would perceive they experience undeserve blame while consider the supervisor as not fulfilling their responsibilities of dealing the controversy blame-shifting issue. Finally, when supervisor chooses to focus on the issue rather than the person, due to the supervisor avoiding the error of forced attribution and receiving support from the supervisor in handling subsequent events, the scapegoated subordinate would tend to believe that the supervisor is unbiased, thus reinforces a positive impression of both the supervisor and the company.Based on the study result, the final article presents the practical implications and research limitations. And the potential future research direction recommendations also included.參考文獻 中文參考資料王滢(2021)，基層領導應對上下級“責任甩鍋”的基本策略，領導科學，第7 期，頁86-88。李雪、楊棟(2019)，領導者對犯錯下屬的挽救之方及服眾之道，領導科學，第7期，頁52-55。吳宗祐、周麗芳、鄭伯壎（2008），主管的權威取向及其對部屬順從與畏懼的知覺對威權領導的預測效果，本土心理學研究，第30期，頁65-115。林家五、胡宛先、施建彬(2017)，仁慈領導一定能讓部屬產生組織公民行為嗎？領導者操弄意圖知覺與部屬信任的中介式調節作用，台大管理論叢，第27卷第3期，頁33-64。林姿葶、鄭伯壎、周麗芳(2014)，家長式領導：回顧與前瞻，本土心理學研究，第42期，頁3-82。周明潔、張建新（2008），心理學研究方法中“質”與“量”的整合，心理科學進展，第16卷第1期，頁163-168。陳向明（2000），《質的研究方法與社會科學研究》，教育科學出版社，中國北京。許金田、胡秀華、凌孝綦、鄭伯壎、周麗芳（2004），家長式領導與組織公民行為的關係：上下關係品質之中介效果，交大管理學報，第24卷第2期，頁119-149。黃光國（1995），《知識與行動：中華文化傳統的社會心理詮釋》，心理出版社，台灣台北。黃囇莉（1999、2006），《人際和諧與衝突：本土化的理論與研究》（二版），揚智文化出版公司，台灣台北。曾天山（2009），《教育科研的視野與方向》，教育科學出版社，中國北京。楊國樞（1998），《家族化歷程、泛家族主義及組織管理》，遠流出版公司，台灣台北。鄭伯壎(1995a)，不同家長權威價值與領導作風的關係：台灣民營企業的實徵研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告，計畫編號：NSC83-0301-H002-056。鄭伯壎(1995b)，差序格局與華人組織行為，本土心理學研究，第3期，頁142-219。鄭伯壎、黃敏萍(2000)，華人企業組織中的領導：一項文化價值的分析，中山管理評論，第8卷第4期，頁583-617頁鄭伯壎、周麗芳、樊景立（2000），家長式領導量表：三元模式的建構與測量，本土心理學研究，第14期，頁3-64。鄭伯壎、謝佩鴛、周麗芳（2002），校長領導作風、上下關係品質及教師角色外行為：轉型式與家長式領導的效果，本土心理學研究，第17期，頁105-161。鄭伯壎、周麗芳(2005），家長式領導三元模式：現代轉化及其影響機制──威權領導：法家概念的現代轉化。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告，報告編號 NSC94-2413-H-002-003-PAE。樊景立、鄭伯壎（2000），華人組織的家長式領導：一項文化觀點的分析，本土心理學研究，第13期，頁126-180。簡晉龍、黃囇莉(2015)，華人權威取向之內涵與形成歷程，本土心理學研究，第43期，頁55-123。 英文參考資料Alicke, M. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126, pp.556–574. doi:10.1037// 0033-2909.126.4.556Bellah, R. N. (1970),"Father and son in Christianity and Confucianism", Beyond belief: Essays on religion in a post-traditional world, pp.76-99. New York: Harper.Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration strategies. Albany, New York: SUNY Press.Beardsley, E. L. (1970). Moral disapproval and moral indignation. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 31, pp.161–176. doi:10.2307/2105737Chu, T. S. (1961). Law and society in traditional China. Paris: Mouton.Cushman, F. (2008). Crime and punishment: Distinguishing the roles of causal and intentional analyses in moral judgment. Cognition, 108, pp.353–380. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.03.006Darley, J. M., & Shultz, T. R. (1990). Moral rules: Their content and acquisition. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, pp.525–556. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002521De Brigard, F., Mandelbaum, E., & Ripley, D. (2008). Responsibility and the brain sciences. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 12, pp.511–524. doi:10.1007/s10677-008-9143-5De Dreu, C. K. W. & Van kleef, G. A. (2004). The influence of power on the information search, impression formation, and demands in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 4. No. 3, pp.303-319.Farhad, Mahbobkhah.(2019).The effect of managers’power on employees’ entrepreneurship: an empirical study in the public offices of Iran. Brazilian journal of operations & production management, Vol.16 (4), pp.617-626.French, J.R.P. and Raven, B.H. (1959). “The basis of social power”, In Cartwright, D. (Ed), Studies in social power, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. pp.150-167.Gollan, T., & Witte, E. H. (2008). “It was right to do it, because ...”. Social Psychology, 39, pp.189–196. doi:10.1027/1864- 9335.39.3.189Guglielmo, S., Monroe, A. E., & Malle, B. F. (2009). At the heart of morality lies folk psychology. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 52, pp.449–466. doi:10.1080/ 00201740903302600Redding, S. G. (1990). The spirit of Chinese capitalism. New York: Walter de Gruyter.Reeder, G. D., Monroe, A. E., & Pryor, J. B. (2008). Impressions of Milgram’s obedient teachers: Situational cues inform inferences about motives and traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, pp.1–17. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.1Weiner, B., Figueroa-Munioz, A., & Kakihara, C. (1991). The goals of excuses and communication strategies related to causal perceptions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, pp.4–13. doi:10.1177/0146167291171002Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Hamilton, G. G. (1990). Patriarchy, patrimonialism, and filial piety: A comparison of China and Western Europe, British Journal of Sociology,41(1), pp.77-104. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Hwang, K. K. (1987),"Face and favor:The Chinese power game”,American Journal of Sociology, 92, pp.944-974.Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., de Luque, M. S., & House, R. J. (2006). In the eye of the beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), pp.67-90.Lagnado, D. A., & Channon, S. (2008). Judgments of cause and blame: The effects of intentionality and foreseeability. Cognition, 108, pp.754–770. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.06.009Lewin, K. (1941). Regression, retrogression and development. University of Iowa Studies of Child Welfare, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 1-43.Markman, K. D., & Tetlock, P. E. (2000). “I couldn’t have known”: Accountability, foreseeability and counterfactual denials of responsibility. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, pp.313–325.Malle, B. F. (1999). How people explain behavior: A new theoretical framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, pp.23–48. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0301_2Malle, B. F. (2004). How the mind explains behavior: Folk explanations, meaning, and social interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.McKenna, M. (2012). Directed blame and conversation. In Blame: Its nature and norms. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. pp. 119–140.Ohtsubo, Y. (2007). Perceived intentionality intensifies blameworthiness of negative behaviors: Blame-praise asymmetry in intensification effect. Japanese Psychological Research, 49, pp.100-110. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5884.2007.00337.xShaver, K. G. (1985). The attribution of blame: Causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness. New York, NY: Springer Verlag.Yang, L. S. (1957). The concept of pao as a basis for social relations in China. In J. K. Fairbank (Ed.), Chinese thought and institutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Young, L., & Saxe, R. (2009). Innocent intentions: A correlation between forgiveness for accidental harm and neural activity. Neuropsychologia, 47, pp.2065–2072. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia .2009.03.020Zaibert, L. (2005). Five ways Patricia can kill her husband: A theory of intentionality and blame. Chicago, IL: Open Court. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
企業管理研究所(MBA學位學程)
110363019資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110363019 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 許書瑋 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Hsu, Ryan-Shuwei en_US dc.contributor.author (作者) 林郁潔 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) Lin, Yu-Chieh en_US dc.creator (作者) 林郁潔 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Lin, Yu-Chieh en_US dc.date (日期) 2023 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-九月-2023 14:59:46 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-九月-2023 14:59:46 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-九月-2023 14:59:46 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0110363019 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/146915 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 企業管理研究所(MBA學位學程) zh_TW dc.description (描述) 110363019 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 在職場上，工作者在犯錯後偶會為了避免責罵而將自身應擔負的責任「甩鍋」給別人，導致與之無關的同仁被迫承擔造成錯誤的責任。在此情況下，被迫成為「代罪羔羊」的部屬與其主管如何解決甩鍋便成為重要的管理問題。本研究透過半結構式訪談法，深入訪問了二十位在職場中曾被他人點名承擔與自己無關錯誤的員工。研究結果顯示被甩鍋的部屬面臨甩鍋後，會因其主管定調不同，而採取相異的應對方式。我的論文歸納出主管的三種定調方式，包含將錯誤歸咎於甩鍋者本人外，認定是被甩鍋者的錯，以及對事不對人。當主管定調錯誤是肇因於甩鍋者，即提供被甩鍋者平反的機會，被甩鍋者因此會對主管產生正面的印象，認為其在處理甩鍋的爭議事項上較為積極正面；若是主管定調為被甩鍋者的錯，被甩鍋者認為其承擔無妄之災，則會認為主管在處理甩鍋的爭議事項上未盡其職；最後，當主管定調目前目標為對事不對人，被甩鍋者則因主管跳過了強行歸因錯誤的情況，且有收到主管於後續事件處理所的支援，會偏向認為主管心中未有偏頗，進而強化對於主管本人和公司的正面印象。根據以上結果，本研究提出相關的實務意涵與未來研究方向。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) In the workplace, people often tend to shift blame onto others after making mistakes to avoid being blamed. In this situation, it has become a significant management issue for the subordinate who is forced to be the "scapegoat" and their supervisor to find ways to resolve the problem of blame-shifting. This study used semi-structured interview approach to interview twenty employees who experienced wrongly assigned blame for mistakes unrelated to themselves. According to the result, employees who became scapegoats responded and feel differently due to the judgement of the related supervisor. My thesis summarizes three types of approaches taken by supervisors when scapegoating occurs, including attributing the blame to the subordinate who try to scapegoat, blaming the scapegoated subordinate for the mistake, and focusing on the issue rather than the person. When the supervisor chooses to attribute the blame to the subordinate who try to scapegoat, that means they give the scapegoated subordinate chances to vindication. Thus, the scapegoated subordinate would tend to develop a positive impression of the supervisor, also perceiving them as more proactive and positive in handling the controversy blame-shifting issue. What if the supervisor blaming the scapegoated subordinate for the mistake, the scapegoated subordinate would perceive they experience undeserve blame while consider the supervisor as not fulfilling their responsibilities of dealing the controversy blame-shifting issue. Finally, when supervisor chooses to focus on the issue rather than the person, due to the supervisor avoiding the error of forced attribution and receiving support from the supervisor in handling subsequent events, the scapegoated subordinate would tend to believe that the supervisor is unbiased, thus reinforces a positive impression of both the supervisor and the company.Based on the study result, the final article presents the practical implications and research limitations. And the potential future research direction recommendations also included. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論-------------------------------------1第一節、研究背景與動機----------------------------1第二節、研究目的---------------------------------3第二章 文獻回顧----------------------------------4第一節、甩鍋---------------------------------4第二節、家長式領導----------------------------8第三章 研究方法-------------------------------------------12第一節 研究方法---------------------------------------12第二節 研究對象---------------------------------------13第三節 研究步驟---------------------------------------14第四章、研究結果------------------------------------------16第一節、加害者的錯--------------------------------------16第二節、被害者的錯--------------------------------------23第三節、問題導向，對事不對人-----------------------------29第五章、研究結論與建議-------------------------------------35第一節、研究結果與討論----------------------------------35第二節、實務意涵---------------------------------------38第三節、研究限制與建議----------------------------------39參考資料----------------------------------------------40附錄一、訪綱-------------------------------------------46 zh_TW dc.format.extent 956154 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110363019 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 甩鍋 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 主管定調 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) blame shifting en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) sensegiving en_US dc.title (題名) 是誰的錯？職場背鍋者的應對研究 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Whose Fault is It? A Study of How the Blamed Cope with Blaming Shift en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文參考資料王滢(2021)，基層領導應對上下級“責任甩鍋”的基本策略，領導科學，第7 期，頁86-88。李雪、楊棟(2019)，領導者對犯錯下屬的挽救之方及服眾之道，領導科學，第7期，頁52-55。吳宗祐、周麗芳、鄭伯壎（2008），主管的權威取向及其對部屬順從與畏懼的知覺對威權領導的預測效果，本土心理學研究，第30期，頁65-115。林家五、胡宛先、施建彬(2017)，仁慈領導一定能讓部屬產生組織公民行為嗎？領導者操弄意圖知覺與部屬信任的中介式調節作用，台大管理論叢，第27卷第3期，頁33-64。林姿葶、鄭伯壎、周麗芳(2014)，家長式領導：回顧與前瞻，本土心理學研究，第42期，頁3-82。周明潔、張建新（2008），心理學研究方法中“質”與“量”的整合，心理科學進展，第16卷第1期，頁163-168。陳向明（2000），《質的研究方法與社會科學研究》，教育科學出版社，中國北京。許金田、胡秀華、凌孝綦、鄭伯壎、周麗芳（2004），家長式領導與組織公民行為的關係：上下關係品質之中介效果，交大管理學報，第24卷第2期，頁119-149。黃光國（1995），《知識與行動：中華文化傳統的社會心理詮釋》，心理出版社，台灣台北。黃囇莉（1999、2006），《人際和諧與衝突：本土化的理論與研究》（二版），揚智文化出版公司，台灣台北。曾天山（2009），《教育科研的視野與方向》，教育科學出版社，中國北京。楊國樞（1998），《家族化歷程、泛家族主義及組織管理》，遠流出版公司，台灣台北。鄭伯壎(1995a)，不同家長權威價值與領導作風的關係：台灣民營企業的實徵研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告，計畫編號：NSC83-0301-H002-056。鄭伯壎(1995b)，差序格局與華人組織行為，本土心理學研究，第3期，頁142-219。鄭伯壎、黃敏萍(2000)，華人企業組織中的領導：一項文化價值的分析，中山管理評論，第8卷第4期，頁583-617頁鄭伯壎、周麗芳、樊景立（2000），家長式領導量表：三元模式的建構與測量，本土心理學研究，第14期，頁3-64。鄭伯壎、謝佩鴛、周麗芳（2002），校長領導作風、上下關係品質及教師角色外行為：轉型式與家長式領導的效果，本土心理學研究，第17期，頁105-161。鄭伯壎、周麗芳(2005），家長式領導三元模式：現代轉化及其影響機制──威權領導：法家概念的現代轉化。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告，報告編號 NSC94-2413-H-002-003-PAE。樊景立、鄭伯壎（2000），華人組織的家長式領導：一項文化觀點的分析，本土心理學研究，第13期，頁126-180。簡晉龍、黃囇莉(2015)，華人權威取向之內涵與形成歷程，本土心理學研究，第43期，頁55-123。 英文參考資料Alicke, M. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126, pp.556–574. doi:10.1037// 0033-2909.126.4.556Bellah, R. N. (1970),"Father and son in Christianity and Confucianism", Beyond belief: Essays on religion in a post-traditional world, pp.76-99. New York: Harper.Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration strategies. Albany, New York: SUNY Press.Beardsley, E. L. (1970). Moral disapproval and moral indignation. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 31, pp.161–176. doi:10.2307/2105737Chu, T. S. (1961). Law and society in traditional China. Paris: Mouton.Cushman, F. (2008). Crime and punishment: Distinguishing the roles of causal and intentional analyses in moral judgment. Cognition, 108, pp.353–380. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.03.006Darley, J. M., & Shultz, T. R. (1990). Moral rules: Their content and acquisition. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, pp.525–556. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002521De Brigard, F., Mandelbaum, E., & Ripley, D. (2008). Responsibility and the brain sciences. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 12, pp.511–524. doi:10.1007/s10677-008-9143-5De Dreu, C. K. W. & Van kleef, G. A. (2004). The influence of power on the information search, impression formation, and demands in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 4. No. 3, pp.303-319.Farhad, Mahbobkhah.(2019).The effect of managers’power on employees’ entrepreneurship: an empirical study in the public offices of Iran. Brazilian journal of operations & production management, Vol.16 (4), pp.617-626.French, J.R.P. and Raven, B.H. (1959). “The basis of social power”, In Cartwright, D. (Ed), Studies in social power, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. pp.150-167.Gollan, T., & Witte, E. H. (2008). “It was right to do it, because ...”. Social Psychology, 39, pp.189–196. doi:10.1027/1864- 9335.39.3.189Guglielmo, S., Monroe, A. E., & Malle, B. F. (2009). At the heart of morality lies folk psychology. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 52, pp.449–466. doi:10.1080/ 00201740903302600Redding, S. G. (1990). The spirit of Chinese capitalism. New York: Walter de Gruyter.Reeder, G. D., Monroe, A. E., & Pryor, J. B. (2008). Impressions of Milgram’s obedient teachers: Situational cues inform inferences about motives and traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, pp.1–17. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.1Weiner, B., Figueroa-Munioz, A., & Kakihara, C. (1991). The goals of excuses and communication strategies related to causal perceptions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, pp.4–13. doi:10.1177/0146167291171002Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Hamilton, G. G. (1990). Patriarchy, patrimonialism, and filial piety: A comparison of China and Western Europe, British Journal of Sociology,41(1), pp.77-104. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Hwang, K. K. (1987),"Face and favor:The Chinese power game”,American Journal of Sociology, 92, pp.944-974.Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., de Luque, M. S., & House, R. J. (2006). In the eye of the beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), pp.67-90.Lagnado, D. A., & Channon, S. (2008). Judgments of cause and blame: The effects of intentionality and foreseeability. Cognition, 108, pp.754–770. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.06.009Lewin, K. (1941). Regression, retrogression and development. University of Iowa Studies of Child Welfare, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 1-43.Markman, K. D., & Tetlock, P. E. (2000). “I couldn’t have known”: Accountability, foreseeability and counterfactual denials of responsibility. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, pp.313–325.Malle, B. F. (1999). How people explain behavior: A new theoretical framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, pp.23–48. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0301_2Malle, B. F. (2004). How the mind explains behavior: Folk explanations, meaning, and social interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.McKenna, M. (2012). Directed blame and conversation. In Blame: Its nature and norms. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. pp. 119–140.Ohtsubo, Y. (2007). Perceived intentionality intensifies blameworthiness of negative behaviors: Blame-praise asymmetry in intensification effect. Japanese Psychological Research, 49, pp.100-110. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5884.2007.00337.xShaver, K. G. (1985). The attribution of blame: Causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness. New York, NY: Springer Verlag.Yang, L. S. (1957). The concept of pao as a basis for social relations in China. In J. K. Fairbank (Ed.), Chinese thought and institutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Young, L., & Saxe, R. (2009). Innocent intentions: A correlation between forgiveness for accidental harm and neural activity. Neuropsychologia, 47, pp.2065–2072. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia .2009.03.020Zaibert, L. (2005). Five ways Patricia can kill her husband: A theory of intentionality and blame. Chicago, IL: Open Court. zh_TW
