:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:華人社會的潛規則:表裡不一與陽奉陰違
作者:徐寒羽
作者(外文):Han-yu Hsu
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:心理學研究所
指導教授:黃囇莉
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2019
主題關鍵詞:潛規則潛規則偏好保守主義道德判斷hidden rulehidden rule preferenceconservatismmoral judgement
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(1) 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:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:64
華人社會中,除了可在檯面上公開言說的法律、規範等之外,另有一套不可公開言說、只能在檯面下討論的人際互動法則,稱之為「潛規則」,與檯面上秩序共同構成了互為表裡的社會規則結構。個體對於這種潛規則的偏好,在功能上具有「陽儒/陽禮」與「陰法/陰謀」的雙重功能,前者維持了檯面上的社會秩序,後者利用檯面下手段進行謀利;這兩層功能在公共政治場域,恰與「保守主義」中由右翼權威性格與社會支配性所表徵的兩個功能層次有對應之處。同時,潛規則偏好基於其所具備之表裡不一特性,又對個體在公共生活中的道德判斷具有干擾作用,促進個體表裡不一的行為傾向;而這是保守主義本身所不具備的功能。本論文從現實生活中的潛規則出發,回溯潛規則在華人傳統文化、社會、政治發展中的歷史根源,並以「規則偏好」的角度切入建構量表,探討個體對潛規則偏好上的個別差異,並利用與情境式問題與對社會議題態度問題,探討潛規則偏好在公共政治參與中所具有的心理功能。研究結果發現:(1)新編製之潛規則偏好量表具有良好的信效度指標;(2)個體的潛規則偏好具有類似於保守主義指標的功能,對偏向保守的社會態度具有正向預測力;(3)潛規則偏好能夠干擾個體的道德判斷,包括提升對送禮行為的負面評價、降低對未送禮行為的正面評價、以及促進個體更多地表現出在對立雙方論述中均有正向分數的「和稀泥」傾向;(4)潛規則偏好在不同的情境條件下,均能提升「陽奉陰違」行為的出現概率。
Besides the ‘on the table’ rules which could be openly discussed such as laws and other social norms, there are also another series of rules which is called Hidden Rule (潛規則 in Chinese), that only could be discussed ‘under the table’ about how to interact with others in Chinese society, that constituting dual rule structure along with the ‘on the table’ social order. In the view of functioning, individuals’ preference towards Hidden Rule could maintain the social order on the surface while benefit individuals’ self-interest with the methods under-table, which has the functional correspondence with the two level of conservatism presented by Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation. Meanwhile, Hidden Rule Preference also has functions of interferencing moral judgement and promoting the inconsistent behaviors, which conservatism do not have. This research begins with the phenomena of hidden rule in daily life, then backtrack the traditional Chinese philosophical and historical origin. During the empirical study, we use the concept of ‘rule preference’ to construct the measurement of hidden rule preference, and design scenario questionnaire and attitude questionnaire to investigate the funtions of hidden rule. The results show that the hidden rule preference 1) questionnaire has good reliability and validity, 2) has similar function with conservatism index, which has positive predictive power towards conservative social attitudes, 3) has interference towards moral judgement, and 4) raise the possibility to present inconsistency behaviors on and under table.
王叢桂(2015):〈社會服務工作者的情緒勞動與個人工作適應:人情世故的調節功能〉。《科技部補助專題研究計畫成果報告》(編號MOST 102-2410-H-031-013-SS2),未出版。
文獻通考/卷三十一(2016年09月26日):維基文庫。於2019年08月04日03:22,取自 https://zh.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=%E6%96%87%E7%8D%BB%E9%80%9A%E8%80%83/%E5%8D%B7%E4%B8%89%E5%8D%81%E4%B8%80&oldid=518733
白目(2019年08月30日):維基詞典。於2019年11月21日03:56,取自https://zh.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%E7%99%BD%E7%9B%AE&oldid=5582613
自由時報電子報(2019):〈展現出強烈求生欲? 廣州一芳高掛五星旗〉,取自https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/breakingnews/2880654
李宗吾(1994):《厚黑學》。台北:傳文文化出版社。(原著出版年:1936)
李佩珊(2006):〈全球轉化脈絡下的憲政改造〉。《國家發展研究》,5(2),1-19。
呂路、高見和至、董冬、WONG Lawrence、王翕(2013):〈中文大學生版 Buss- Perry 攻擊性量表的修訂與信效度分析〉。《心理衛生評估》,27(5),378-383。
何明修(2007):〈公民社會的限制—台灣環境政治中的結社藝術〉。《臺灣民主季刊》,4(2),33-65。
社會主義核心價值觀(2017年3月8日):維基百科,自由的百科全書,取自https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E7%A4%BE%E4%BC%9A%E4%B8%BB%E4%B9%89%E6%A0%B8%E5%BF%83%E4%BB%B7%E5%80%BC%E8%A7%82&oldid=43527869
吳宗祐、鄭伯壎(2006):〈難應付客戶頻次、知覺服務訓練效用兩者及情緒勞動與情緒耗竭之關係—「資源保存理論」 的觀點〉。《管理學報》,23(5),581-599。
吳思(2001):《潛規則:中國歷史中的真實遊戲》。昆明:雲南人民出版社。
辛素飛、辛自強、林崇德(2017):〈潛規則認同及其與信任的關係〉。《中國社會心理學評論》,13,31-43。
汪新建、呂小康(2010):〈名實分離的傳統秩序觀:潛規則盛行的文化心理學基質〉。《社會科學戰線》,2010(1),29-33。
林煒雙、高騰、孫李銀、景懐斌(2010):〈作為組織政治行為的潛規則:影響因素與作用機制〉。《公共行政評論》,2010(4),85-110。
官有垣(2001):〈第三部門與公民社會的建構: 部門互動的理論探討〉。《臺大社會工作學刊》,4,163-165。
韋政通(1986):《董仲舒》。台北:東大出版社。
徐瑞婕、許燕、馮秋迪、楊浩鏗(2015):〈對腐敗的「心理綁架」效應的驗證性內容分析〉。《心理學探新》,35(1),35-40。
張妙清、張樹輝、張建新(2004):〈什麼是「中國人」的個性?——「中國人個性測量表 CPAI-2」的分組差異〉。《心理學報》,36(4),491-499。
哈維爾(2003):《無權力者的權力》(崔衛平等譯)。台北:左岸。(原著出版年:1985)
郭劍鳴(2008):〈地方行政行為中的潛規則:形態、風險及其整治〉。《中共浙江省委黨校學報》,2008(2),36-42。
黃光國(2009):《儒家關係主義——哲學反思、理論建構與實徵研究》。台北:心理出版社。
黃光國(2014):《倫理療癒與德性領導的後現代智慧》。台北:心理出版社。
黃囇莉(1996):〈中國人的和諧觀/衝突觀:和諧化辯證觀之研究取徑〉。《本土心理學研究》,5,47-71。
黃囇莉(2006):《人際和諧與衝突——本土化的理論與研究》。台北:揚智。
黃囇莉(2007):〈M 型政黨 vs. 鐘型意識——台灣國族認同之意識型態及其心理基礎〉。《中華心理學刊》,49, 451-470。
黃囇莉、朱瑞玲(2012):〈是亂流?還是潮起、潮落?─尋找臺灣的「核心價值」及其變遷〉。《高雄行為科學學刊》,3,61-94。
湯舒俊、郭永玉(2010):〈西方厚黑學——基於馬基雅弗利主義及其相關的心理學研究〉。《南京師大學報(社會科學版)》,2010(4),105-111。
葉浩(2008):〈價值多元式轉型正義理論: 一個政治哲學進路的嘗試〉。《台灣政治學刊》,12(1),11-51。
鄒川雄(1999):《中國社會學理論:尺寸拿捏與陽奉陰違》。台北:洪葉文化出版社。
鄒川雄(2000):《中國社會學實踐:陽奉陰違的中國人》。台北:洪葉文化出版社。
楊國樞(1993):〈我們為什么要建立中國人的本土心理學?〉。《本土心理學研究》,1,6-88。
漢書/卷六/武帝紀(2019年08月11日):維基文庫。於2019年09月13日00:58,取自https://zh.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=%E6%BC%A2%E6%9B%B8/%E5%8D%B7006&oldid=1729636。
漢書/卷五十六/董仲舒傳(2018年05月22日):維基文庫。於2019年09月13日01:06,取自https://zh.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=%E6%BC%A2%E6%9B%B8/%E5%8D%B7056&oldid=1458397。
劉靜怡(2017):〈同性婚姻登記之法律意見書:為何法院不該再等? 〉。《萬國法律》,213,7-14。
蕭功秦(2004):〈中國大陸的發展型權威政治演變的過程及其對經濟與社會的影響〉。《中國大陸研究》,47(4),107-118。
錢理群(2019):查閱自维基百科,自由的百科全书,取自https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E9%8C%A2%E7%90%86%E7%BE%A4&oldid=52925523。
顧忠華(1999):〈公民結社的結構變遷一以台灣非營利組織的發展為例〉。《台灣社會研究季刊》,36,123-145。
Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brenswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1982). The authoritarian personality. Markham: Penguin Books Canada. (Original work published 1950)
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality”. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 47-92.
Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Song, W. Z., Zhang, J. X. (2001). The Cross-Cultural (Chinese) Personality Assessment Inventory-2 (CPAI- 2). (Available from F. M. Cheung, Department of Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR.)
Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Zhang, J. X., Sun, H. F., Gan, Y. Q., Song, W. Z., & Xie, D. (2001). Indigenous Chinese personality constructs: Is the five-factor model complete?. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 407-433.
“Conservatism”. (2015). Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved February 17, 2015, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservatism
Dekker, H., Malova, D., & Hoogendoorn, S. (2003). Nationalism and its explanations. Political Psychology, 24, 345-376. doi: 10.1111/0162-895X.00331
Duckitt, J., & Bizumic, B. (2013). Multidimensionality of right‐wing authoritarian attitudes: Authoritarianism‐conservatism‐traditionalism. Political Psychology, 34, 841-862.
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2017). The dual process motivational model of ideology and prejudice. In Sibley, C. G., & Barlow, F. K. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook on the psychology of prejudice (pp. 188-221). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1080/10478400903028540.
Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029-1046. doi: 10.1037/a0015141
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366-385. doi: 10.1037/a0021847
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Pantheon Books.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104-121. doi: 10.1177/109442819800100106
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations, second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hsu, H. Y., Huang, L. L., & Hwang, K. K. (2019). Liberal–conservative dimension of moral concerns underlying political faction formation in Taiwan. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 301-315. doi: 10.1111/ajsp.12367
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Huang, L. L. (2016). Interpersonal harmony and conflict for Chinese people: A Yin-Yang perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 847.
Hwang, K. K. (1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 944-974.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339.
Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283-357.
King, G., Pan, J., & Roberts, M. E. (2013). How censorship in China allows government criticism but silences collective expression. American Political Science Review, 107, 326-343. doi: 10.1017/S0003055413000014
Koleva, S. P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P. H., & Haidt, J. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially Purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 184-194. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2012.01.006
Kosterman, R., & Feshbach, S. (1989). Toward a measure of patriotic and nationalistic attitudes. Political Psychology, 10, 257-274. doi: 10.2307/3791647
Lennox, R. D., & Wolfe, R. N. (1984). Revision of the Self-Monitoring Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1349-1364. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.6.1349
Li, P. P. (1998). Towards a geocentric framework of organizational form: A holistic, dynamic and paradoxical approach. Organization Studies, 19, 829-861. doi: 10.1177/017084069801900506
Mazar, N., & Aggarwal, P. (2011). Can collectivism promote bribery?. ACR North American Advances, 22, 843-848.
Misyak, J. B., Melkonyan, T., Zeitoun, H., & Chater, N. (2014). Unwritten rules: virtual bargaining underpins social interaction, culture, and society. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 512-519. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.05.010
Piekalkiewicz, J., & Penn, A. W. (1995). Politics of ideocracy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741-763. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
Sanchez, J. I., Gomez, C., & Wated, G. (2008). A value-based framework for understanding managerial tolerance of bribery in Latin America. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 341-352.
Scott-Morgan, P. (1994). The unwritten rules of the game. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Tan, X., Liu, L., Huang, Z., Zhao, X., & Zheng, W. (2016). The dampening effect of social dominance orientation on awareness of corruption: Moral outrage as a mediator. Social Indicators Research, 125, 89-102.
Thompson, M. R. (2001). To shoot or not to shoot: Posttotalitarianism in China and Eastern Europe. Comparative Politics, 34, 63-83.
Wilson, M. S., & Sibley, C. G. (2013). Social dominance orientation and right‐wing authoritarianism: Additive and interactive effects on political conservatism. Political Psychology, 34, 277-284.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lenartowicz, T. (2011). Measuring Hofstede''s five dimensions of cultural values at the individual level: Development and validation of CVSCALE. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23, 193-210. doi: 10.1080/08961530.2011.578059
Zhao, D. (2015). The Confucian-Legalist State: A new theory of Chinese history. New York: Oxford University Press.
 
 
 
 
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