臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：商務仲裁的公正性 -探討仲裁參與者之正義知覺及其文化價值觀的干擾效果
作者：黃才容
作者(外文)：Tsai-Jung Huang
校院名稱：臺灣大學
系所名稱：商學研究所
指導教授：戚樹誠
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2005
主題關鍵詞：仲裁；分配正義；程序正義；互動正義；集體主義；權力距離；Arbitration；Distributive justice；Procedural justice；Interactional justice；Collectivism；Power distance
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:140
人們使用仲裁來處理紛爭，他們最基本且最重要的期待，就是預期仲裁能令他們知覺到公正性。本研究將問題焦點置於商務仲裁中爭議雙方的仲裁參與者所知覺到之公正性，並探討其前因及影響，以及爭議雙方的仲裁參與者之個人因素的干擾效果。分析160位仲裁參與者的問卷後，獲得以下研究結果：（1）在分配正義方面，仲裁結果越利於爭議者，越會使得爭議各方的仲裁參與者有較高的分配正義知覺。而當仲裁參與者在仲裁中有較高的分配正義知覺時，則仲裁參與者會對於仲裁有較高的接受度、信任度以及未來使用傾向。（2）在程序正義方面，當仲裁參與者對仲裁人專業性的主觀評價越高時，則他會有越高的程序正義知覺。而仲裁參與者在仲裁中的程序正義知覺較高時，則仲裁參與者會對於仲裁有較高的接受度、信任度以及未來使用傾向。（3）在互動正義方面，仲裁參與者越知覺仲裁人在仲裁詢問所扮演的角色傾向調解者角色，則仲裁參與者會有越高的互動正義知覺。而當仲裁參與者在仲裁中有較高的互動正義知覺時，則仲裁參與者會對於仲裁有較高的接受度、信任度以及未來使用傾向。此外，爭議雙方仲裁參與者所具有的仲裁經驗，在仲裁參與者所知覺到之正義知覺與其前因的關係上扮演干擾的角色。而爭議雙方仲裁參與者所抱持的集體主義以及權力距離文化價值觀，在仲裁參與者所知覺到之正義知覺與其結果變項間的關係上被證實具有干擾效果。
A key driver of the acceptability and the greater use of commercial arbitration is justice. This study examines the antecedents and consequences of participants’ perception of justice in commercial arbitration, and the moderating roles played by participants’ arbitration experiences, power distance, and collectivism. This study tested the justice model using data from 160 persons who participated in arbitrations. The empirical results supported the model. Some highlights are that: (1) the more favorable the arbitration outcome, the greater distributive justice perceived by participants. And such distributive justice in turn affected the acceptability, trust, and usage intention of arbitration. (2) The greater the arbitrators’ professionalism judged by participants, the greater procedural justice perceived by participants. And the procedural justice predicted the acceptability, trust, and usage intention of arbitration. (3) When arbitrators played as mediational roles, participants perceived a higher level of interactional justice that in turn affected the acceptability, trust, and usage intention of arbitration. Besides, the participants’ arbitration experiences moderated the relationship between the antecedents and the justice. Also, power distance and collectivism moderated the relationship between the justice and the consequences.
1. 小山升，（1983），仲裁法（新版），東京：有斐閣。
2. 小島武司、高桑昭，（1988），注解仲裁法，東京：青林書院。
3. 中華民國仲裁協會，（民91），仲裁法規彙編，台北：中華民國仲裁協會。
4. 王令麟，（民84），飛躍中的我國仲裁制度，台北：力霸文化傳播事業。
5. 台灣中華書局辭海編輯委員會，（民70），辭海，台北：台灣中華書局。
6. 台灣司法院第一廳，（民71），商務仲裁條例修正條文暨說明，頁28。
7. 朱堅章，（民80），泛談正義—生活中的公道，戴華、鄭曉時主編，正義及其相關問題，台北：中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所專書。new window
8. 李漢生等編，（1995），仲裁法釋論，北京：中國法制出版社。
9. 林俊益，（民81），商務仲裁判斷之效力，法律與你，第62期，頁54。
10. 林俊益，（民82），國際商務仲裁淺釋，台北：永然文化。
11. 林俊益，（民83），我國商務仲裁制度之檢討，法務部商務仲裁制度研討會實錄。
12. 周煙平，（民92），大陸地區仲裁現階段實效性之研究，中國文化大學法律研究所碩士論文。
13. 陳煥文，（民82），我國商務仲裁之沿革與實務變遷，法令月刊，第150期，頁55。new window
14. 陳煥文，（民83），國際仲裁法專論，台北：五南。
15. 陳煥文，（民88），仲裁法逐條釋義，台北：陳煥文。
16. 黃正宗，（民84），台灣法務部研商商務仲裁條例修正草案，第一次會議會議記錄。
17. 程德鈞，（1992），涉外仲裁理論與法律，中國人民大學出版社。
18. 張錦源，（民80），國際貿易法，三民。
19. 謝石松，（1996），國際民商事糾紛的法律解決程序，北京：廣東人民出版社。
20. 藍瀛芳，（民66），仲裁條款與涉外法律適用法，商務仲裁，第三期。
21. Adler, N. J. (1991). International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: PWS Kent.
22. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press.
23. Ambrose, M. L., Schminke, M. (2003). Organizational structure as a moderator of the relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational support, and supervisory trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 295-305.
24. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
25. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
26. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
27. Barrett-Howard, E., & Tyler, T .R. (1986). Procedural Justice as a Criterion in Allocation Decision. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2), 296-304.
28. Bazerman, M. H. (1985). Norms of distributive justice in interest arbitration. Induetrial and Labor Relations Review, 38(4), 558-570.
29. Berger, J. M., Zelditch, M. Jr., Anderson, B., & Cohen, B. P. (1972). Structural aspects of distributive justice: A status value formulation. In J. Berger, M. Zeldtich, Jr., & B. Anderson (Eds.), Sociological theories in progress (vol. 2, pp. 119-146). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
30. Bies, R. J. (1986). Individual reactions to corporate recruiting: The importance of fairness. Unpublished manuscript.
31. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communications criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on Negotiation in Organizations (vol. 1, pp. 43-56). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
32. Bloom, D. E. & Cavanaugh, C. L. (1986). An analysis of the selection of arbitrators. American Economic Review, 76(3), 408-422.
33. Bresnen, M. & Fowler, C. (1996). Professionalization and British management practice: Case evidence from medium-sized firms in two industrial sectors. Journal of Management Studies, 33(2), 159-182.
34. Britton, R. L. (1982). The arbitration guide: a case-handling manual of procedures and practices in dispute resolutions. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
35. Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X., Leung, K., Bierbrauer, G., Gomez, C., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. (2001). Culture and procedural justice: the influence of power distance on reactions to voice. Journal of experimental social psychology, 37, 300-315.
36. Brockner, J., Chen, Y., Mannix, E. A., Leung, K., & Skarlick, D. P. (2000). Culture and procedural fairness: When the effects of what you do depend on how you do it. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 138-159.
37. Brockner, J. & Siegel, P. (1995). Understanding the interaction between procedural and distributive justice: the role of trust. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp.391-413). Thousands Oak, CA: Sage.
38. Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: The interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189–208.
39. Carnevale, P. (1986a). Mediating disputes and decisions in organizations. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. A. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on Negotiation in Organiztaions (vol. 1, pp. 251-270). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
40. Carnevale, P. (1986b). Strategic choice in mediation. Negotiation Journal, 2(1), 41-56.
41. Chi, S., Tsai, H., & Tsai, M. (2004). The effects of perceived identity and justice experiences with an ADR institution on managers’ decision preferences. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15(1), 57-76.
42. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimentionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400.
43. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445.
44. Conlon, D. E., & Ross, W. H. (1993). The effects of partisan third parties on negotiator behavior and outcome perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 280-290.
45. Cowherd, D. M., & Levine, D. I. (1992). Product Quality and Pay Equity Between Lower Level Employees and Top Management: An Investigation of Distributive Justice Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 302-320.
46. Cropanzano, R. & Folger, R. (1989). Referent cognitions and task decision autonomy: Beyond equity theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 293-299.
47. Cropanzano, R. S., & Randall, M. L. (1993). Injustice and work behavior: A historical review. In R. S. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 3-20). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
48. Dailey, R. C., & Kirk, D. J (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as antecedents of job dissatisfaction and intent to turnover. Human Relations, 45, 305-317.
49. Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137-149.
50. Dittrich, J. E., & Carrell, M. R. (1979). Organizational equity perceptions, employee job satisfaction and departmental absence and turnover rates. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 24, 29-40.
51. Elkouri, F., & Elkouri, E. (1985). How arbitration works (3rd ed.). Washington: Bureau of National Affairs.
52. Erez, M., & Early, P. C. (1993). Culture, Self-identity, and Work. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
53. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 11-140.
54. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Standford University Press.
55. Feuille, P. (1979). Selected benefits and costs of compulsory arbitration. Industrial and Labor relations Review, 33(1), 64-76.
56. Foldberg, J., & Taylor, A. (1984). Mediation: A comprehensive guide to resolving conflicts without litigation. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
57. Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of “voice” and improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 108-119.
58. Folger, R. (1987). Reformulating the preconditions of resentment: A referent cognitions model. In J. C. Masters & W. P. Smith (Eds.), Social comparison, social justice, and relative deprivation: Theoretical, empirical, and policy perspectives (pp. 183-215). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
59. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 1–55). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
60. Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 270-272.
61. Folger, R., Rosenfield, D., & Robinson, T. (1983). Relative deprivation and procedural justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 268–273.
62. Gill. (1975). The Law of Arbitration. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
63. Graham, J., Mintu, A. T. & Rodgers, W. (1994). Explorations of Negotiation Behaviors in Ten Foreign Cultures Using a Model Developed in the United States. Management Science, 40(1), 72-95.
64. Greenberg, J. (1982). Approaching equity and avoiding inequity in groups and organizations. In J. Greenberg and R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and Justice in Social Behavior. New York: Academic Press.
65. Greenberg, J. (1986a). Organizational performance appraisal procedures: What makes them fair? In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on Negotiation in Organizations (vol. 1, pp. 25-41). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
66. Greenberg, J. (1986b). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 340-342.
67. Greenberg, J. (1990). Organization justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 6, 399-432.
68. Greenberg, J. (1996). The Quest for Justice on the Job. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
69. Greenberg, J. & Folger, R. (1983). Procedural justice, participation, and the fair process effect in groups and organizations. In P. Paulus (Ed.), Basic Group Processes. New York: Springer-Verlag.
70. Hall, R. H. (1968). Professionalization and bureaucratization. American Sociological Review, 33(1), 92-104.
71. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
72. Hofstede, G. (1994). Management Scientists are Human. Management Science, 40(1), 4-13.
73. Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill press.
74. Hom, P. W., Griffeth, R. W., & Sellaro, C. L. (1984). The validity of Mobley’s (1977) model of employee turnover. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 34, 141-174.
75. Homans, G. C. (1961). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.
76. Kay, F. M., & Hagan, J. (2003). Building trust: social capital, distributive justice, and loyalty to the firm. Law and Social Inquiry, 28(2), 483.
77. Karambayya, R. & Brett, J. M. (1989). Managers handling disputes: Third-party roles and perceptions of fairness, Academy of Management Journal, 32(4), 687-704.
78. Karambayya, R., Brett, J. M., Lytle, A. (1992). Effects of formal authority and experience on third-party roles, outcomes, and perceptions of fairness. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 426-438.
79. Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2001). The impact of cultural values on job satisfaction and organizational commitment in self-managing work teams: the mediating role of employee resistance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(3), 557-569.
80. Kluckhohn, F. R. & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson & Company.
81. Kochan, T. (1980). Collective bargaining and organizational behavior research. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (vol. 2, pp. 129-176). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

82. Kolb. D. (1983). The Mediators. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
83. Konovsky, M. A. & Cropanzano, R. S. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 698-707.
84. Konovsky, M. A., Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1987). Relative Effects of Procedural and Distributive Justice on Employee Attitudes. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 17, 15-24.
85. Kwong, J. Y. Y. & Leung, K. (2002). A moderator of the interaction effect of procedural justice and outcome favorability: importance of the relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87(2), 278-299.
86. Lawler, E. E., Ⅲ. (1968). Equity theory as a predictor of productivity and work quality. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 596-610.
87. Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1995). Trust in relationships: a model of trust development and decline. In Barbara B. Bunker and Jeffery Z. Rubin, (Eds.), Conflict, Cooperation, and Justice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
88. Lewicki, R. J., Weiss, S. E., & Lewin, D. (1992). Models of Conflict, Negotiation and Third Party Intervention: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3), 209-252.
89. Lerner, M. J. (1977). The justice motive: some hypotheses as to its origins and forms. Journal of Personality, 45, 1-52.
90. Leung, K. (1997). Negotiation and reward allocations across cultures. In P. C. Earley & M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives on I/O psychology (pp. 640-675). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
91. Leventhal, G. A. (1976). Fairness in social relationships. In J. W. Thibaut, J. T. Spencer, ＆ R. C. Carson (Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology (pp. 211-239). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
92. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, ＆ R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum.
93. Leventhal, G. A., Karuza, J., ＆ Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 167-218). New York: Springer-Verlag.
94. Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. C. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness jusgements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 952-959.
95. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum.
96. Lind, E. A., Kulik, C. T., Ambrose, M., & de vera Park, M. V. (1993). Individual and corporate dispute resolution: Using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 224-251.
97. Macenil, I. R. (1992). American Arbitration Law. Oxford University Press.
98. Magner, N., Welker, R. B., & Johnson, G. G. (1996). The interactive effects of participation and outcome favourability on turnover intentions and evaluations of supervisors. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 69(2), 135-143.
99. Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, S. M. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 738-748.
100. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
101. McFarkin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive justice and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 626-637.
102. Mikula, G. (1980). On the role of justice in allocation decisions. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction: Experimental and theoretical contributions from psychological research (pp. 127-166). New York: Springer-Verlag.
103. Moore, C. W. (1986). The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
104. Pfeffer, J. & Langton, N. (1993). The Effects of Wage Dispersion on Satisfaction, Productivity, and Working Collaboratively: Evidence From College and University Faculty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 382-407.
105. Pillai, R., Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. S. (1999). Leadership and organizational justice: Similarities and differences across cultures. Journal of International Business Studies, 30, 763-779.
106. Pillai, R., Williams, E. S., & Tan, J. J. (2001). Are the scales tipped in favor of procedural or distributive justice? An investigation of the U.S., India, Germany, and Hong Kong (China). International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(4), 312-332.
107. Pondy, L. R. (1967). Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 296-320.
108. Posthuma, R. A., Dworkin, J. B., & Swift, M. S. (2000). Arbitrator acceptability: does justice matter? Industrial Relations, 39(2), 313-335.
109. Pruitt, D. G. (1981). Negotiation Behavior. New York: Academic Press.
110. Raiffa, H. (1982). The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
111. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
112. Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
113. Redfern, A. & Hunter, M. (1991). Law and practice of international commercial arbitration. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
114. Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95-112.
115. Rene, D. (1985). Arbitration in international trade. Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.
116. Robbins, S. P. (1998). Organizational behavior (8th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N. J. : Prentice-Hall.
117. Ronen, S. (1986). Equity Perception in Multiple Comparisons: A Field Study. Human Relations, 39, 333-346.
118. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.
119. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Cultural dimensions of values: toward an understanding of national differences. In Kam, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S. C. and Yoon, G. (Eds), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Application. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
120. Scott, J. T., Matland, R. E., Michelbach, P. A., & Bornstein, B. H. (2001). Just deserts: an experimental study of distributive justice norms. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 749-767.
121. Shapiro, D. L. & Brett, J. M. (1993). Comparing three processes underlying judgments of procedural justice: A field study of mediation and arbitration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(6), 1167-1177.
122. Sheppard, B. H. (1984). Third party conflict intervention: A procedural framework. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 141-190.
123. Sheppard, B. H, Lewicki, R. J., & Minton, J. W. (1992). Organizational justice: The search for fairness in the workplace. New York: Lexington Books.
124. Starke, F. A., & Notz, W. W. (1981). Pre- and Post-intervention effects of conventional vs. final offer arbitration. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 832-850.
125. Stouffer, S. A., Suchman, E. A., DeVinney, L. C., Star, S. A., & Williams, R. M. Jr. (1949). The American Soldier: Vol. 1. Adjustment during Army Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
126. Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1993). Workers’ evaluations of the “ends” and the “means”: An examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 23-40.
127. Tam, W. W. (1998). An assessment of the relationships among organizational trust, organizational politics, and organizational justice, and their effects on merit pay outcomes in the Malaysian public sector. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.
128. Tata, J. (2000). Implicit theories of account-giving: Influence of culture and gender. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 437-454.
129. Tata, J., Fu, P. P., & Wu, R. (2003). An examination of procedural justice principles in China and the U. S. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 20, 205-216.
130. Thomas, K. W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 889-935). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
131. Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and negotiation process in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp, 651-717). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
132. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.
133. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure. California Law Review, 66, 541-566.
134. Triandis, H. C. (1994). INDCOL. Unpublished research scale on Individualism and Collectivism, University of Illinois Champaign.
135. Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test the group value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 830-838.new window
136. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
137. Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 850-863.
138. Tyler, T. R. & Degoey, P. (1996) Trust in organizational authorities: The influence of motive attributions on willingness to accept decisions. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organiztions: Frontiers of theory and research (pp.331-356). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.
139. Tyler, T. R., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Jornal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 913-930.new window
140. Tyler, T. R., Lind, E. A., & Huo, Y. J. (2000). Cultural values and authority relations: The psychology of conflict resolution across cultures. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 6(4), 1138-1163.
141. Tyler, T. R., Rasinki, K. A., & Spodick, N. (1985). Influence of voice on satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 72-81.
142. Wall, J. A. Jr. and Callister. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management, 21, 515-558.
143. Weary Bradley, G.. (1978). Self-serving biases in the attribution process: A reexamination of the fact or fiction question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 56-71.
144. Zohar, D. (1995). The Justice Perspective of Job Stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 487-495.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：811（臺灣：793，外國：18） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1753550 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67556111
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上