:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:大學生網路霸凌倫理判斷歷程之探究
作者:舒玉 引用關係
作者(外文):Shu, Yu
校院名稱:國立彰化師範大學
系所名稱:工業教育與技術學系
指導教授:張菽萱
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2019
主題關鍵詞:網路霸凌網路倫理自我效能行為意圖調節分析大學生現象學分析cyberbullyingonline ethical self-efficacybehavioral intentionmoderator analysiscollege studentsphenomenological analysis
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(0) 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:6
網路霸凌對霸凌者、受霸凌者與未涉入人員皆有相當程度的負面影響。過去相關研究多著墨於涉入者的心理或社會因素,較少研究將網路霸凌視為網路倫理議題,探究其道德判斷歷程。據此,本研究一,以社會認知論角度著眼,融入道德哲學,探究一般大學生作為閱聽人之網路霸凌判斷歷程,以調查研究法,分層立抽樣我國北中南區大學生433位大學生,最後有效樣本408個;以此探究大學生其網路倫理自我效能、道德哲學/倫理判斷與網路霸凌行為意圖之關係,建構大學生面對網路霸凌之倫理判斷歷程。其次,為更進一步探究倫理判斷的心理背景,本研究二採質量混合研究,抽選6位大學生受試者,進行半結構性一對一訪談,並進行現象學分析。研究結果如下:
(1) 本研究以社會認知論輔助建構網路霸凌倫理判斷之歷程。
(2) 大學生道德哲學觀之倫理判斷(屬於規範倫理學之正義論、效益論)正向預測網路霸凌行為意圖。
(3) 大學生網路倫理自我效能負向預測網路霸凌行為意圖。即網路倫理自我效能越高,其越不傾向從事網路霸凌行為。
(4) 網路倫理自我效能可調節正義論與網路霸凌行為意圖之關係,屬於緩衝式交互作用,從身心健康角度而言屬於保護因素。
(5) 在性別方面,不同性別大學生僅於效益論得分有差異。男性得分較高,意味著男性大學生更傾向以效益論觀點認同網路霸凌主角之行為。其次,不同性別大學生網路倫理自我效能於道德哲學觀(效益論)與網路霸凌行為意圖之調節效果有差異;在女性樣本上,交互作用之效果達顯著水準。
(6) 在宗教信仰方面,有無宗教信仰僅於效益論觀點、網路霸凌行為意圖有差異,無宗教信仰之大學生更傾向以效益論認同故事主角網路霸凌之行為;無宗教信仰之大學生有較高之網路霸凌行為意圖。
(7) 質性研究,現象學分析結果則試圖從個體經驗出發,解構網路霸凌議題,描繪出三大共同描述,a.對網路霸凌議題之觀點、b.網路霸凌之個體經驗,與c.網路霸凌行為解構與衝動控制。其中,網路霸凌之個體經驗,涵納了第三方經驗、受害人經驗與網路霸凌者經驗。在網路霸凌經驗(網路論戰方面),以戰爭流程作為共同主題之命名,包括宣戰動機、敵方戰力評估、留言進攻、號召後援補血、懲罰不光榮戰犯。在網路霸凌受害主觀經驗方面,共同主題則包括:事件源起與經過、感受、當事人因應方式與保護機制之失調。在行為解構方面,則發現,採行網路論戰行為與不採行網路論戰行為,具有多處相似的現象結構,包括:社會影響評估等等,其差異或許在內在道德標準,與角色取替之程度。
Cyberbullying has a considerable negative impact on bully, bullied and uninvolved personnel. In the past, relevant research has focused on the psychological or social factors of the involved, and less research has regarded cyber bullying as a network ethical issue and explored its moral judgment process. Based on this, this study, in the perspective of social cognition theory, integrates moral philosophy, explores the general history of college students as an audience's cyberbullying judgment process, and uses the investigation and research method to stratify the 433 college students in north, central Taiwan. Finally, 408 valid samples are used to explore the relationship between college students' online anti-cyberbullying ethical self-efficacy, moral philosophy/ethical judgment and cyberbullying behavior intention, and construct the ethical judgment process of college students facing cyberbullying. Secondly, in order to further explore the psychological background of ethical judgment, this study used a mixed quality study, selected 6 college students, conducted semi-structured one-on-one interviews, and conducted phenomenological analysis. The research results are as follows:
(1) This study uses social cognition to assist in the construction of cyber bullying ethical judgment.
(2) The ethical judgment of college students' moral philosophy (the theory of justice and the utilitarianism) is predicting the behavior of cyberbullying behavior.
(3) College students' online anti-cyberbully ethical self-efficacy negatively predicts the behavior of cyber bullying behavior. That is, the higher the self-efficacy of online ethics, the less likely it is to engage in cyber bullying.
(4) Anti-cyberbullying self-efficacy is a moderator between theory of justice and cyberbullying behavior intention, and is a protective factor.
(5) In terms of gender, different gender college students score differently on the utilitarianism. A higher male score means that male college students are more inclined to agree with the behavior of the cyberbullying protagonist from a utilitarianism perspective. Secondly, the anti-cyberbullying ethical self-efficacy of college students of different genders has different interaction effects on moral philosophy (utilitarianism) and cyberbullying behavior intentions; in the female sample, the effect of interaction has reached a significant level.
(6) In terms of religious beliefs, whether there are religious beliefs only differs in the perspective of utilitarianism and the cyberbullying behavior intention. Students with no religious beliefs are more inclined to agree with the cyberbullying behavior with utilitarianism point of view.
(7) The results of phenomenological analysis attempt to deconstruct the cyberbullying from the individual experience, depicting three common descriptions, a. views on cyberbullying issues, b. individual experience of cyberbullying, and c. Internet bullying behavior deconstruction and impulsive control. Among them, the individual experience of cyberBullying includes the experience of third parties, the experience of victims and the experience of bullies. In the experience of cyberbullying (Flaming), the process of war is the common theme, including the motivation to declare war, the evaluation of enemy's combat power, the attack of the message, the call for help, and the punishment of dishonorable behaviors. In the subjective experience of cyberbullying, the common themes include: the origin and the passage of the event, the feelings, the way the party responds and the protection mechanism. In terms of behavioral deconstruction, it is found that wheather attending in the flaming has many similar phenomena structures, like social impact assessment, the difference may be intrinsic moral standards, and role replacement.
參考文獻
王文科、王智弘(2010)。質的研究的信度與效度。彰化師大教育學報,17,29-50。new window
王貞淑、鍾典村(2009)。由系統動態觀點建構網路犯罪預測模擬: 以網路詐欺與妨害電腦使用罪行為例。資訊管理學報,16(4),121-140。new window
汪文聖(2001)。現象學方法與理論之反思:一個質性方法之介紹。應用心理研究,12,49-76。new window
吳承樺(2014)。匿名世界,網路正義,喀報,取自https://castnet.nctu.edu.tw/castnet/article/6404?issueID=478
吳芝儀、李奉儒(譯) 1995。質的評鑑與研究(Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods) (原作者: Michael Quinn Patton)。台北: 桂冠。
呂詩涵、胡嘉文(2015)。面對網路霸凌的因應之道。台灣教育評論月刊,4(9),57-62。
李安軒(2013)。網路霸凌加害人霸凌行為的動機。諮商與輔導,334,39-41。
李維倫(譯)(2004)。現象學十四講(原作者: Sokolowski)。台北: 心靈工坊。(原著出版年: 2000)。
兒童福利聯盟(2017)。2016年台灣兒少網路霸凌經驗調查報告。摘自https://www.children.org.tw/news/advocacy_detail/1538
林火旺(2004)。倫理學。台北市:五南。
林珊如、劉應琳(2003)。從詮釋現象學的觀點看愛書人之休閒閱讀經驗,中國圖書館學會會報,71,21-36。new window
林良昇、陳建志(2015年4月23日)網路霸凌殺人,藝人楊又穎輕生。自由時報。取自http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/focus/paper/874162
邱凱楨(2014)。從學校、家庭與同儕面向探討青少年校園霸凌問題。台灣教育評論月刊,99-102。
唐淑華(2004)。情意教學-故事討論取向。臺灣:台北:心理。ISBN:957-702-741-5。
陳利銘 (2016)。教育部101至103年度校園霸凌調查分析研究期末報告。教育部委託中山大學。擷取自https://csrc.edu.tw/bully/DownloadFile.asp?File=20171231552448.pdf
陳怡靖、鄭燿男(1999)。臺灣地區民眾道德判斷因果機制之研究,教育理論與實踐學刊,7,127-150。new window
薛清江(2008)。論倫理學作爲科技大學通識課程之可能性-以「道德推理-強化道德困境敘事爲核心」爲例。通識學刊,1(3),201-232。new window
陳素貞、劉世閔(2010)。明槍易躲,暗箭難防:論校園網路霸凌。國教新知,57(4),2-3。new window
陳怡儒、鄭瑞隆、陳慈幸 (2010)。少年網路霸凌被害因素研究:以日常活動理論分析。青少年犯罪防治研究期刊,2(2),101-140。new window
張菽萱(2016)大學商管學群網路倫理教育評鑑之研究─網路倫理自我效能量表之發展、驗證與應用。科技部計畫。
馮蓉珍(1995)商專學生道德判斷之研究。國立屏東商專學報,3,81-109。
賀欣音(2012)。學生知覺學校支持與學生霸凌行為關係之研究以臺南市國中為例。教育學誌,21,81-131。new window
黃光國(編)(1987)人情與面子: 中國人之權力遊戲。中國人之權力遊戲。台北: 巨流。new window
葉學志(1997)。中學生倫理道德與法律認知態度對其道德行為的影響—從宗教信仰層面探討,教育研究資訊,5(1),87-96。new window
盧晶(2010)。略論宗教的道德與承擔,世紀橋,1,68-69。
錢柏康(2017)。心理因素與生活滿意度對大學生網路霸凌行為之影響。淡江大學心理因素與生活滿意度對大學生網路霸凌行為之影響,未初版碩士論文。
檀傳寶(1999)。宗教信仰與宗教道德—兼論學校德育的相關問題,北京師範大學學報:社會科學版,4,76-83。
羅瑞玉(1993)。青少年的人際道德判斷之分析研究。屏東師院學報,6,225-262。new window
劉秀嫚、李琪明、陳延興、方志華(2015)十二年國民基本教育品德課程組織模式建構之研究。課程與教學季刊,18(2),79-100。new window
釋隆迅(2007)。正信宗教與修持【生命教育】,2019年8月取自http://www.yct.com.tw/life/96drum/96drum08.pdf


References
Abdul Karim, N. & Hidayah Ahmad Zamzuri, N. & Muhamad Nor, Y. (2009). Exploring the relationship between Internet ethics in university students and the big five model of personality. Computers & Education, 53, 86-93.
Anti-bullying alliance (2006). What is cyberbullying? Retrieved from https://www.anti-bullyingalliance.org.uk/tools-information/all-about-bullying/cyberbullying-0/what-cyberbullying
Anfara, V. A., Jr., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L.(2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Research,31(7), 28-38.
Barbara, M., & Fiala, A. (2007). Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, Fifth Edition, Chapter 2: Ethical Relativism. Thomson Wadsworth.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action:A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991). Self-regulation of motivation through anticipatory and self-reactive mechanisms. In R. A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Perspectives on motivation: Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 69–164). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998).
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman
Bandura, A. (1999). A social cognitive theory of personality. In L. Pervin & O. John (Ed.), Handbook of personality (2nd ed., pp. 154-196). New York: Guilford Publications. (Reprinted in D. Cervone & Y. Shoda [Eds.], The coherence of personality. New York: Guilford Press.)
Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38(1), 9-44.
Bandura, A. & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586-598.
Baier, A. (1985). Trust and Antitrust. Ethics, 96 (2), 231-260.
Beauchamp, L., & N. Bowie (1983). Ethical Theory and Business Ethics, (2nd ed.) N.J.: Englewood Cliffs.
Bee, H. L., & Mitchell, S. K. (1984). The Developing Person: A Life-Span Approach (2nd ed.) New York:Harper & Row.
Gert, B., & Gert, J. (2017). The Definition of Morality. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
Busch, T. (1995). Gender differences in self-efficacy and attitudes toward computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 147-158.
Cénat, J. M. & Hébert, M. & Blais, M. & Lavoie, F. & Guerrier, M. & Derivois, D. (2014). Cyberbullying, psychological distress and self-esteem among youth in Quebec Schools. Journal of Affective Disorders, 169. 10.1016/j.jad.2014.07.019.
Chang, S. H., Shu, Y., Lin, Y. H., & Wang, C. L. (in presss) “I Believe”,“I Think”, then “I Will”? Investigating the Mediator Role of Ethical Judgment between Internet Ethical Self-efficacy and Ethical Behavioral Intention. Computers in Human Behavior.
Chatzidakis, A., & Mitussis, D. (2007). Computer Ethics and Consumer Ethics: The Internet’s Impact to the Consumer’s Ethical Decision-Making Process. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6, 305-320.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.)
Colaizzi, P. F. (1978) Psychological Research as the Phenomenologist Views It. (In Valle, R.S. and Mark, K., Eds.). Existential Phenomenological Alternatives for Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, 48-71.
Cohen, B., Simcox, A.A., Cohen, S.M. (1993). Allocation of the thoracic imaginal primordia in the Drosophila embryo. Development, 117(2), 597-608.
Cohen, Jacob & C. Cohen, P & G. West, Stephen & S. Aiken, Leona. (2003). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for The Behavioral Sciences. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 10.4324/9780203774441.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. London: Sage Publicatio
Dedeke, A. (2015). A Cognitive–Intuitionist Model of Moral Judgment. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3), 437-457.
Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Devetak, R., Burke, A., & George, J. (2007). Introduction to international relations: Australian perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shafer-Landau, R. (2012). Evolutionary Debunking, Moral Realism and Moral Knowledge. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 7(1):1-38.
Ditch the Label (2017). The annual bullying survey. Retrieve from https://www.ditchthelabel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/The-Annual-Bullying-Survey-2017-1.pdf
Donaldson, T., Werhane, P.H., & Cording, M. (1983). Ethical issues in business, New Jersey.
Dubinsky, A. J., & Loken, B. (1989). Analyzing ethical decision making in marketing. Journal of Business Research, 19(2), 83-107.
Dwyer, A. L., & Cummings, A. L. (2001). Stress, self-efficacy, social support, and coping strategies in university students. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 35(3), 208-220.
Elm, D.R. & Radin, T.J. (2012) Ethical Decision Making: Special or No Different? Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3).
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
Fluck, J. (2018). Investigating the Comparability of Two Multi-Item-Scales for Cyber Bullying Measurement. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(11), 2356.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Turiel, E. (1974). Conflict and Transition in Adolescent Moral Development. Child Development, 45(1), 14-29.
Hair, J. F., Jr, & Ringle, C. & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-sem: Indeed a silver bullet. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19, 139-151.
Hair, J. F. Jr. & Black, W. C. & Babin, B. & Anderson, R. & Tatham, R. L. (2010). SEM: An introduction. Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective. 629-686.
Henseler, J. & Ringle, C. & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance-based Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115-135.
Huang, C. (2013). Gender Differences in Academic Self-Efficacy: A Meta-Analysis. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(1), p1-35.
Huang, Y. Y., Chou, C. (2010). An analysis of multiple factors of cyberbullying among junior high school students in Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1581-1490.
Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. J. (2006). The General Theory of Marketing Ethics: A Revision and Three Questions. Journal of Macromarketing, 26 (2), 143-153.
Husen, T. & Postlethwaite, T. N. (Ed.)(1994). The international encyclopedia of Education. Englad: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Hunton, P. (2009). The growing phenomenon of crime and the internet: A cybercrime execution and analysis model. Computer Law & Security Review, 25(6), 528-535.
Jacob, E. (1987). Qualitative research traditions: A review. Review of Educational Research, 57(1), 1-50.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of Core Self-Evaluations Traits—Self-Esteem, Generalized Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and Emotional Stability—With Job Satisfaction and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80-92.
Jones and Ryan (1997). The link between ethical judgment and action in organizations: A moral approbation approach. Organizational Science, 8(6), 663-680.
Karim, R., Candell, O., & Söderholm, P. (2009). E-maintenance and information logistics: aspects of content format. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 15(3), 308-324.
Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S. P., & Agatston, P. W. (2008). Cyber Bullying. Malden: Blackwell.
Krawthwol, D.R., Bloom, B. S., Masia B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook II: Affective Domain. David McKay Company, Inc.
Kliukinskaitė Vigil, V. (2011). The effect of home and host country cultures on the manager's individual decision making related to ethical issues in a MNC. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 6, 1 - 27.
Lincolon, Y.S., Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. CA: Sage.
Luthans, F. (2002). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological strengths. Academy of Management Executive, 16, 57-75.
Margolis, H., McCabe, P. (2006). Improving Self-Efficacy and Motivation: What to Do, What to Say. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(4), 218-227.
Noddings, N. (1993). Caring: A feminist perspective, In K. A. Strike & P. L. Ternasky (Eds.), Ethics for professionals in education: Perspectives for preparation and practice, New York: Teachers College Press.
Marriott, T. C. & Buchanan, T. (2014). The true self online: Personality correlates of preference for self-expression online, and observer ratings of personality online and offline. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 171-177.
Mishna, F. & Cook, C. & Saini, M. & Wu, M.J. & Macfadden, R. (2010). Interventions to prevent and reduce cyber abuse of youth: A systematic review. Research on Social Work Practice, 20(3), 1-39.
Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at School. In: Huesmann L.R. (eds) Aggressive Behavior. The Plenum Series in Social/Clinical Psychology. Springer, Boston, MA.
Pajares, F. (2002). Gender and Perceived Self-Efficacy in Self-Regulated Learning, Theory into Practice, 41 (2), 116-125.
Payne, S.C., Yongcourt, S.S. & Beaubien, J.M. (2007) A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net. Jounal of Applied Psychology, 92, 128-150.
Prelow, H.M., Loukas, A. (2003). The role of resource, protective, and risk factors on academic achievement‐related outcomes of economically disadvantaged Latino youth. Journal of Community Psychology, 31(5), 513-529. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.10064
Prinz, J. J., & Nichols, S. B. (2010). Moral Emotions. In the Moral Psychology Handbook. Oxford University Press.
Reidenbach, R.E. & Robin, D.P. (1990). Toward the development of a multidimensional scale for improving evaluations in business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 639-653
Reidenbach, R.E. & Robin, D.P. (1998). Some initial steps toward improving the measurement of ethical evaluations of marketing activities. Journal of Business Ethics, 7, 871-879.
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issuecontingent model. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366-395.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S. & Becker, J. M. (2015) SmartPLS 3: SmartPLS GmbH, Boenningstedt. http://www.smartpls.com
Roberto, A. J., & Eden, J. (2010). Cyberbullying: Aggressive communication in the digital age. In T. A. Avtgis, & A. S. Rancer (Eds.), Arguments, aggression, and conflict: New directions in theory and research (pp. 198-216). New York, NY: Routledge.
Rossman, G.B., Rallis, S.F. (1998). Learning in the field: an introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Ruedy, N.E., Moore, C., Gino, F., Schweitzer, M.E. (2013). The cheater's high: The unexpected affective benefits of unethical behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(4), 531-548.
Savage, M.W., & Tokunaga, R.S. (2017). Moving toward a theory: Testing an integrated model of cyberbullying perpetration, aggression, social skills, and Internet self-efficacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 353-361.
Schenk, A. M., Fremouw, W. J., & Keelan, C. M. (2013). Characteristics of college cyberbullies. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2320-2327.
Schwartz, M.S. (2016). Ethical decision-making theory: An integrated approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 139, 755-776.
Shafer-Landau, R. (Ed.). (2012). Ethical theory: an anthology (Vol. 13). John Wiley & Sons.
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 376-385.
Savage, M. & Tokunaga, R. (2017). Moving Toward a Theory: Testing an Integrated Model of Cyberbullying Perpetration, Aggression, Communication Skills, and Internet Self-Efficacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 353-361.
Spinello, Richard A. & Tavani, Herman T. (2001). The Internet, ethical values, and conceptual frameworks: an introduction to Cyberethics. Acm Sigcas Computers and Society, 31(2), 5-7.
Speier, C., & Frese, M. (1997). Generalized self-efficacy as a mediator and moderator between control and complexity at work and personal initiative: A longitudinal field study in East Germany. Human Performance, 10(2), 171-192.
Tödt, H. (1978). Towards a Theory of Making Ethical Judgments. The Journal of Religious Ethics, 6(1), 108-120.
Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 277-287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014.
Wade, A., & Beran, T. (2011). Cyberbullying: The new era of bullying. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 26, 44-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0829573510396318
Wang, Yi-Shun & Lin, Hsin-Hui & Luarn, Pin. (2006). Predicting consumer intention to use mobile service. Information System Journal, 16, 157-179.
Liao, Y. W., Wang, Y. S., & Yeh, C. H. (2013). Exploring the relationship between intentional and behavioral loyalty in the context of e-tailing. Internet Research, 24(5), 668-686.
Yoon, C. (2011). Theory of planned behavior and ethics theory in digital piracy: An integrated model. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(3), 405-417.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). Development between the ages of 11 and 25. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 148-185). New York, NY, US: Macmillan Library Reference Usa; London, England: Prentice Hall International.
Willard, N. (2007) Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats: Responding to Challenge of Online Social Aggression, Threats, and Distress, Research Press, Champaign Illinois.
Willard, N. (2005). Educator’s Guide to Cyberbullying Addressing the Harm Caused by Outline Social Cruelty.
Williamson, K., Qayyum, A., Hider, P., Liu, Y-H. (2011). Young adults and everyday life information: The role of news media. Library & Information Science Research, 34(4), 258-264
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review, 14, 361-384.

 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE