學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 生活命運信念的本質：自覺可控性
The Essence of Fate Belief: The Perceptions of Control作者 李松晏
Yen, Lee Sung貢獻者 孫蒨如
Sun, Chien Ru
李松晏
Yen, Lee Sung關鍵詞 命運
宿命論
個人能動性
可議價命運
自覺可控性日期 2014 上傳時間 3-Feb-2015 14:51:07 (UTC+8) 摘要 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.參考文獻 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, 1-12Au, 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), 523-540Burrus, 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), 418-424Chen, 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), 126-131Lehman, 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), 702-720Oettingen, 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. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
心理學研究所
99752013
103資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0997520131 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 孫蒨如 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Sun, Chien Ru en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 李松晏 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Yen, Lee Sung en_US dc.creator (作者) 李松晏 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Yen, Lee Sung en_US dc.date (日期) 2014 en_US dc.date.accessioned 3-Feb-2015 14:51:07 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 3-Feb-2015 14:51:07 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 3-Feb-2015 14:51:07 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0997520131 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/73345 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 心理學研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 99752013 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 103 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 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。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 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. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 ............................................................................................ 1第一節 研究動機和目的 .................................................................................... 1第二章 文獻探討 .................................................................................... 2第一節 共享内隱理論 ........................................................................................ 2第二節 Fate、命運、宿命論.............................................................................. 3第三節 個人能動性（Personal agency） .......................................................... 8第四節 可議價命運信念（Negotiable Fate） ................................................. 12第五節 本研究想法 .......................................................................................... 21第三章 前置研究 .................................................................................. 26第一節 實驗目的 .............................................................................................. 26第二節 研究方法 .............................................................................................. 26第三節 結果與討論 .......................................................................................... 27第四章 實驗一 ...................................................................................... 32第一節 實驗目的 .............................................................................................. 32第二節 實驗設計與假設 .................................................................................. 32第三節 研究結果與討論 .................................................................................. 35第五章 實驗二 ...................................................................................... 39第一節 實驗目的 .............................................................................................. 39第二節 實驗想法 .............................................................................................. 41第三節 研究方法 .............................................................................................. 42第四節 結果 ...................................................................................................... 50第五節 小結討論 .............................................................................................. 59第六章 綜合討論 .................................................................................. 61第一節 主要發現與討論 .................................................................................. 61第二節 研究限制與未來研究建議 .................................................................. 65參考文獻 …………………………………………………………….... …………………………………………………………….... …………………………………………………………….... …………………………………………………………….... …………………………………………………………….... …………………………………………………………….... …………………………………………………………….... …………………………………………………………….... …………………………………………………………….... …………………………………………………………….... …………………………………………………………….... .. 68附錄 …………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………… ……… .. 73 zh_TW dc.format.extent 2635394 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0997520131 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 命運 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 宿命論 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 個人能動性 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 可議價命運 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 自覺可控性 zh_TW dc.title (題名) 生活命運信念的本質：自覺可控性 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The Essence of Fate Belief: The Perceptions of Control en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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, 1-12Au, 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), 523-540Burrus, 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), 418-424Chen, 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), 126-131Lehman, 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), 702-720Oettingen, 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. zh_TW
