「強調和協」以及「以他人為中心」是東方文化的基本特徵。在中國的傳統社會，人們生活圈內的人際交往主要是一種關係取向、情境中心取向的運作型態，亦即以自我為中心，透過彼此關係親疏遠近之判斷，而將交往對象在社會網絡中定位，進而決定合宜的交往行為。基此，在考慮人際衝突之人際行為時，我們不得不考慮此一因素的影響。如若假設人們真會以親疏、尊卑的角度對不同關係對象進行判斷，那麼在面對不同情境或不同互動要求時，某些關係性質將會顯得特別突顯與重要，進而關聯到實際的互動行為。
本研究係以大學校園衝突為研究範圍，試圖瞭解關係取向之行為特質在e世代大學生的人際衝突上是否依然有其主宰性，人際關係的性質又與解決爭議方式有著何種關聯？另外，何友暉等人（1991）在提出「關係取向」的觀點時強調：社會行為最有力的決定因素並不在個體本身，而在個體以外的關係背景。何氏的論點，固然相當程度解釋了中國一般社會行為的特點，但在衝突情境中是否依然適用？因此，本研究試將與衝突處理可能有關的溝通恐懼、權威主義、集體主義等人格特質變項，一併納入探討，以驗證該等人格特質能否預測衝突情境中的社會行為。
本研究採問卷調查方式，共發放問卷720份（中山管理學院、中山理工學院、高師理學院、高醫醫學院各發問卷180份 ），取得有效問卷477份，經由信度分析、描述性統計、單因子變異數分析、獨立樣本t檢定、交叉表等統計分析後，得到重要發現如下：
（一）以「親疏遠近」、「長幼尊卑」界分的平輩親密、平輩疏遠、尊長親密、尊長
疏遠等四種人際關係，對應的主要衝突處理方式確實有顯著差異性。
（二）四種人際構面之衝突處理各有其特性：
1、在平親關係中無論在觀念的衝突或實質的衝突都是高度採取合作的處理
模式。
2、平疏關係仍以合作、妥協為主，但合作的比例較平親關係明顯降低，而妥
協方式則較平親關係為高。
3、在尊親關係中觀念性衝突除採合作方式外，較高比例者願意對師長讓步
，在實質利害衝突上則除合作外，較高比例者願與師長妥協。
4、在尊疏衝突上甚至比尊親衝突更願意以合作方式處理衝突，其中觀念衝突
合作比例尤高於實質衝突。
（三）四種人際關係對應的衝突處理方式有顯著性差異，足以驗證在衝突情境之人
際關係判斷，人們的思考應該不僅只是宏觀的關係分類，而是把自己與對方
所累積的各種既定聯繫加以通盤考量。
（四）過去傳統中國社會以統合取向來化解衝突，往往局限於「群我團體」內，但
由本研究發現，在四種人際關係上均有相當比例（至少三成以上）傾向採合
作方式處理，顯示今日大學生似已較願意與任何他人以顧及彼此關係又保全

自身權益的合作方式解決衝突問題。
（五）許烺光（1971）認為中國人之人際關係重視人倫的義務情感，多於重視親密
自發的情感，此論點在本研究之衝突情境已無法得到驗證。
（六）與關係疏遠者發生衝突時比親密關係間有較高比例採逃避方式因應。此研究
結果與周丁浦生（1984）的觀點頗為一致。
（七）在衝突情境下，即使是在非親密關係的人際間，學生仍願以合作方式處理
，或為避免正面衝突而以逃避方式因應，而非採取抗爭方式爭取個人最大利
益。似乎黃光國（1988）的人情與面子理論模式在衝突情境上有其限制。
（八）本研究透過描述性統計分析及交叉表卡方檢定發現，無論是溝通恐懼、集體
主義或權威主義在人際關係與衝突處理方式上均不具調節效果。此研究結果
似乎支持了何友暉等人（1991）的論點，面對衝突處理的社會行為，彼此關
係背景的影響大於個人的性格反應。
（九）不同學校、院系之間，對衝突的處理方式之比較。
1、中山管理學院之學生溝通恐懼與權威主義均明顯低於中山理工學院，且在
四種人際關係衝突上均明顯較中山理工學院合作，而中山理工則表現出較
高的忍讓與抗爭反應。
2、中山理工學院與高師理學院學生，不但在溝通恐懼、集體主義、權威主義
等特質上無差異性，且在面對衝突採取因應方式上亦無明顯差異。
3、中山理工與高醫醫學院學生，在溝通恐懼、集體主義、權威主義等特質雖
無明顯差異性，但在衝突處理方式上高醫醫學院學生的合作傾向則明顯
高於中山理工。
4、高師理學院與高醫醫學院學生，在溝通恐懼、集體主義、權威主義等特質
上亦無明顯差異性，而在衝突處理方式上高醫醫學院學生的合作傾向同
樣明顯高於高師理工。

（十）個人屬性與衝突處理方式之比較
1、在性別特質，男性之權威主義明顯高於女性。在衝突處理方式上則女性於
平親關係實質性衝突的合作顯著高於男性，而男性在平親關係上則有普遍
較高的忍讓、逃避或抗爭反應。
2、高低年級學生，在溝通恐懼、集體主義、權威主義等特質上無明顯差異
，且在衝突處理方式上亦無系統性的區別。

The basic characteristics of eastern culture are harmony-emphasized and other-people-centered. In Chinese traditional society, the social contact within life circles is mainly in an operating mode orienting towards relationship and situations; in other words, people are self-centered, making a judgment based on their familiarity with associating subjects, and then orientate them in the society network to further decide a proper associating behavior. On the basis of the reason, we have to take account of this effect when thinking over the social behaviors of social conflicts. Supposed that people do judge their subjects based on familiarity and seniority, the properties of certain relationship will appear to be specially outstanding and important and further relate to the actual interaction when facing different situations and diverse interacting demands.
This range of study is the conflicts on campus, and we seek to understand whether the characteristics of relationship orientation still dominate social conflicts of undergraduates of E-generation, and what kinds of connection are between the properties of relationship and the manners of conflict solution. Besides, HO, Yu-hui and his fellows (1991) put forth the viewpoint of “Relationship Orientation, ” and he emphasized: The most powerful determinant does not lie in individuals themselves, but in the relative background outside the individuals. To some extent, HO’s argument explains the particulars of general Chinese social behaviors, but does it remain applicable in conflict situations? Therefore, this research tries to bring into study the variables of personality characteristics, such as fear of communication, authoritarianism, collectivism, etc., which may relate to conflict handling, and to verify if these characteristics are able to forecast the social behaviors in conflict situations.
The survey is proceeded with questionnaires. The total questionnaires sent out are 720 copies, and effective questionnaires are 477 copies.（Sent out 180 copies respectively to College of Administration, and College of Science & Engineering, Sun Yat-Sen University, Science College in Kaohsiung Teacher’s University, and Medical College, Kaohsiung Medical University.） After reliability analysis, descriptive statistics, uni-factor variance analysis, sample test for independence, and cross hatched map are completed, the important discoveries are as follows：
1. Four kinds of relationship—contemporary familiarity, contemporary unfamiliarity, senior familiarity, and senior unfamiliarity—are defined according to familiarity and seniority. And there are strikingly differences in their corresponding manners of conflict solution.
2. The four kinds of conflict handling have their characteristics respectively:
1) In the relationship of contemporary familiarity, highly cooperative modes are adopted to handle both conceptual and actual conflicts.
2) The relationship of contemporary unfamiliarity still gives the first place to cooperation and compromise; however, its cooperative percentage is much lower than contemporary familiarity, and its compromising manners are higher than contemporary familiarity.
3) In the relationship of senior familiarity, higher percentage of people are willing to make a concession to their seniors in the respects of conceptual conflicts, besides adopting the cooperative manner, and higher percentage of people are willing to compromise with their seniors in the respects of actual conflicts of interests, besides cooperation.
4) People have higher volition to handle their conflicts in a cooperative manner with unfamiliar seniors than with familiar seniors, and the cooperative percentage in conceptual conflicts is especially higher than that in actual conflicts.
3. The corresponding conflict handling manners of the four kinds of relationship are remarkably different, and this is sufficient to verify the judgment of relationship in conflict situations, and that people’s thinking is not only a macroscopic classification of relationship, but also comprehensive consideration of established relationship both parties have accumulated.
4. In the past, Chinese society tended to reconcile conflicts with integration orientation and always confined to “Group-I groups.” But this research indicates that the four kinds of relationship, to some extent, have a percentage of people (30% at lowest) inclined to handle conflicts in a cooperative manner. And this tells us that today undergraduates seem more willing to solve conflicts with other people in a cooperative way, which gives consideration to mutual relationship and saves their own rights and interests form damage.
5. HSU, Lang-kuang (1971) thought that Chinese relationship put more emphasis on obligatory emotions of human relations than on familiar and spontaneous emotions. This contention cannot be tested and verified in the conflict situations of this research.
6. When conflicts come up, the percentage of escaping from conflicts is higher in people who are not mutually familiar than in those who are familiar with each other. This research result fairly agrees with the viewpoint of CHOU TING, Pu-sheng (1984).
7. In conflict situations, students are still willing to handle it in a cooperative way, or to escape to avoid frontal conflict, even though they are not unfamiliar, instead of resisting to strive for personal interests. It seems that HUANG, Kuang-kuo’s theoretical mode of human sympathy and face has its limit in conflict situations.
8. This research discovers, by descriptive statistic analysis and examination of cross cards, that fear of communication, collectivism or authoritarianism do not have effect of adjustment in human relationship and the way of conflict handling. This result of research seems to support the contention of HO, Yu-hui, etc. (1991) that the effect of background of mutual relationship is greater than the response of personal character in the social behavior of facing conflict handling.
9. Comparison of the ways of conflict handling among different schools, colleges and departments
(1) Fear of communication and authoritarianism of students in the College of Administration, National Sun Yat-Sen University are obviously lower than the College of Science & Engineering of the same university, and more cooperative in the conflict of four relationships than the College of Science & Engineering. However, the College of Science & Engineering shows higher responses of forbearance, conciliation and resistance.
(2) Students in the College of Science & Engineering, National Sun Yat-Sen University and the College of Science, Kaohsiung Teacher’s University not only have no differences in the characteristics of fear of communication, collectivism and authoritarianism, but also have no obvious differences in the way to face conflict.
(3) Students in the College of Science & Engineering, National Sun Yat-Sen University and the Medical College, Kaohsiung Medical University also have no obvious differences in the characteristics of fear of communication, collectivism and authoritarianism. However, the tendency of cooperation of students in the Medical College, Kaohsiung Medical University in the way of conflict handling is obviously higher than the College of Science & Engineering, National Sun Yat-Sen University.
(4) Students in the College of Science, Kaohsiung Teacher’s University and the Medical College, Kaohsiung Medical University also have no obvious differences in the characteristics of fear of communication, collectivism and authoritarianism. However, the tendency of cooperation of students in the Medical College, Kaohsiung Medical University in the way of conflict handling is obviously higher than College of Science, Kaohsiung Teacher’s University as well.
10. Comparison between personal attributes and the ways of conflict handling
(1) In the gender, the authoritarianism of males is obviously higher than that of females. In the ways of conflict handling, the cooperation of females in actual conflicts with familiar contemporaries is obviously higher than that of males, and males have generally higher responses of forbearance, escape and resistance toward their familiar contemporaries.
(2) Students of high and low grades have no obvious difference in the characteristics of fear of communication, collectivism and authoritarianism and also have no systematic difference in the ways of conflict handling.

目 錄

第一章 緒論 …………………………………………………………1
第一節 研究動機 ……………………………………………………1
第二節 研究目的 ……………………………………………………4
第三節 研究流程 ……………………………………………………5
第二章 文獻探討 ……………………………………………………6
第一節 華人社會人際關係的基模 …………………………………6
第二節 集體主義與衝突因應的關連……………………………… 14
第三節 威權主義的檢討…………………………………………… 17
第四節 溝通恐懼之意義及相關研究的探討 ………………………20
第五節 衝突處理方式之研究 …………………………………… 26
第三章 研究方法 ……………………………………………………45
第一節 研究架構與研究假設 …………………………………… 45
第二節 研究變項的操作性定義與衡量 ………………………… 48
第三節 資料蒐集方法與樣本特性分析 ………………………… 57
第四節 資料處理與分析方法 ……………………………………59
第五節 研究限制 ……………………………………………………60
第四章 資料分析與討論 ……………………………………………61
第一節 資料描述分析 ……………………………………………61
第二節 溝通恐懼、集體主義、權威主義與衝突處理方式之關係 65
第三節 四種人際構面及高低溝通恐懼、集體主義、權威主義與
高低年級、不同性別、學校院系之衝突反應差異比較 …69
第五章 討論與建議 ……………………………………………………85
第一節 結論 …………………………………………………………85
第二節 建議 …………………………………………………………90
參考文獻 …………………………………………………………………93
附錄問卷 ………………………………………………………………100

一、 中文部分：
王政彥（1991）:溝通恐懼，台北:遠流出版公司，頁42-44。
王政彥（1988）:「溝通恐懼之分析」，測驗與輔導雜誌，第89期
，頁1737。
王政彥（1989）:「溝通恐懼與學業成就、自我概念、自我坦露之研究」
，政治大學教育研究所已出版碩士論文。
王振鴻 (1989) :「校長領導行為正教師衝突反應方式量表」政大教育
研究所碩士論文。
文崇一 (1988) : 「從價值取向談中國國民性」。見李亦園、楊國樞(編)
:《中國人的性格》。台北:桂冠圖書公司。
古文輝 (1989) :「企業員工之溝通恐懼與其相關因素之研究」，輔仁
大學管理研究所碩士論文。
朱瑞玲 (1993) :「中國人的慈善觀念」。見楊國樞、余安邦(主編):
《中國人的心理與行為--文化、教化及病理篇
(1992)》。台北:桂冠圖書公司。
何友暉、陳淑娟、趙志裕 (1991) ：「關係取向:為中國社會心理學方法
論求答案」。見楊國樞、黃光國主編:〈中國人的心理
與行為(1989)〉。台北:桂冠圖書公司。
李錫永 (1987) : 權力基礎與衝突解決取向的關係。國立政治大學企管
研究所碩士論文。
金耀基 (1992) :「中國社會與文化」。香港:牛津大學出版社。
周丁浦生(1984)〉：「衝突管理:傳統與創新」。見楊國樞、曾仕強主編: 《中
國人的管理觀》。台北:桂冠圖書公司。
林 端 (1992) :「儒家倫理與行動理論 – 與黃光國教授對話」。《當
代》，72期，82-103。
林清茂（1990）：「權威性格與集體主義對談判傾向與談判績效影響之研
究」，中原大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
許烺光，徐隆德(譯)(1981/1988):「中國人與美國人」。台北:巨流圖書
公司。
許玉英（1993）: 基層員工衝突處理行為之研究 – 以高雄煉油廠為例。
國立成功大學企業管理研所，碩士論文。
莊耀嘉、楊國樞 (1997) :「角色規範的認知結構」。《本土心理學研究》
(台北)，7期，282-338。
黃安邦譯，D.O.Sears等人原著（1986）：社會心理學，台北:五南圖書
出版公司，頁398。
黃光國 (1988a)：「中國人的權力遊戲」。台北:巨流圖書公司。
黃光國 (1988b)：「儒家思想與東亞現代化」。台北:巨流圖書公司。
黃光國 (1992) ：「自我實現與華人社會中的價值變遷」。見《中國人的
價值觀國際研究討會論文集》(上冊)。台北:漢學研究
中心出版。
黃光國 (1993) ：「互動論與社會交易:社會心理學本土化的方法論問
題 」。《本土心理學研究》(台北)，第二期，94-142。
黃光國 (1995) ：「知識與行動:中華文化傳統的社會心理詮釋」。台北:
心理出版社。
黃光國（2000）：華人的關係主義─理論的建構與方法論的考量。
黃麗莉 (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》(台北)，5期，47-71。
陳舜文（1994）：「人際關係與爭議解決程序之選擇：由關係性質之組型
探討」，國立台灣大學心理學研究所碩士論文。
陳英昭（1992）：「企業員工之自我概念、溝通恐懼與人際關係之研究」
中國文化大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
Roy,J.lewicki ＆Alexander Hiam （陳郁文、溫蒂雅譯）： 談判策略（台
北） 商周出版公司 。
楊中芳、彭泗清(1999):「中國人人際信任之構化:一個人際關係的觀
點」。《社會學研究》，2期，1-21。
楊中芳 (1991)：「試論中國人的「自己」：理論與研究方向」。《中國人、
中國心—人格與社會篇》。中國本土心理學新紀元研討
會論文集。
楊中芳 (1994):「中國人真是「集體主義」的嗎?--試論中國文化的價
值體系」。見楊國樞(主編):《中國人的價值觀:社會科學
觀點》。台北:桂冠圖書公司。
楊中芳 (1999): 「人際關係與人際情感的構念化」。《本土心理學研究》
(台北)，12期，105-179。
楊中芳 (1993):「試論如何深化本土心理學研究:兼評現階段之研究成
果」。《本土心理學研究》(台北)，1期，267-330。
楊國樞 (1993)：「中國人的社會取向:社會互動的觀點」。見楊國樞、余
安邦主編:〈中國人的心理與行為:理念及方法篇〉。台北:
桂冠圖書公司。
程聖德 （1988）:企業經理人之人格特質與談判策略的關係，國立中興
大學企業管理研究所，碩士論文。
彭邁克 (1993):「難以捉摸的中國人」。香港:牛津大學出版社。
張耀洲（1997）：「與工作績效有關之中國傳統價值觀研究」，國立中山
大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
張金鑑 (1979)：行政學典範。台北:三民。
費孝通(1948/1991):「鄉土中國」。香港:三聯書店。
梁漱溟 (1963)：「中國文化要義」。台北:正中書局，1989年重印。
喬 健 (1982) :「關係芻議」。見楊國樞、文崇一(編):《社會及行為科
學研究的中國化》。台北:中央研究院民族學研究所。
鄭伯壎 (1995) :「差序格局與華人組織行為」。《本土心理學研究》(台
北)，3期，142-219。
潘文章（1986）：企業管理:導論、功能、革新，(台北:三民書局)，頁
248。
韓瑞信（1994）：「行政機構衝突處理方式與工作滿足之研究—台南市政
府之個案分析」東海大學公共行政研究所碩士論文。


二、 英文部分：

Adorno, T.W.， Frenkel-Brunswik, E.，Levinson, D.J.，Sanford, R.N.：
The Authoritarian Personality N.Y.1950
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964)。The Managerial Grid. Houston,
Tx: Gulf Publishing.
Coser, L.A. (1956). The function of social conflict.New York: Free
Press.
Charles R. Milton, Human Behavior in Organizations:Three Levels of
Behavior(Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:Prentice – Hall,
1981), pp.440-447.
Desseler, G. (1976). Organization and Management. New york: A
Contingency Approach. 台北:華泰書局。
Filley, A.C.(1975). Interpersonal Conflict Resolution. Glenview.
Ill: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Fred Luthans, Organizationl Behavior, 5th ed. (New York:McGraw –
Hill, 1989), pp. 419-420.
Gabrenya, W. K.,＆ Hwang,K. K.（1996）.Chinese social interaction ：
Harmony and hierarchy on the good earth. In M. H. Bond
（Ed.）,Handbook of Chinese psychology. Hong Kong ：Oxford
University Press.
Hu, H.C.(胡先縉)(1949. Emotions, real and assumed, in Chinese
society. Institute for Intercultural Studies, Columbia
University, New York, No. RCC-Ch-PR4.
Hsu, F.L.K. (許烺光)(1971). Eros, affect, and pao. In F.L.K. Hsu(許
烺光)(Ed), Kinship and culture. Chicago:University, of
Chicago Press.
Hwang, K.K.(黃光國)(1994). Relation – oriented personalism: On
Chinese social interaction. Unpublished Manuscript,
National Taiwan University.
Hui, C.H. 〝Measurment of Individualism – Collectivism〞Journal of
Research in Personality, V22, 1988, pp 17-36
Hofstede G(1980)Cultures´s consequences.
J.C.McCroskey, Oral Communication Apprehension :
Reconceptualization and a New Look at Measurement, paper
presented at the Central States Speech Association
Convention, (Chicago, Apr. 1981).
Jacobs, J.B. (1982). The concept of guanxi and social politics in
a rural Chinese cultural setting. In S.L. Greenblatt,
R.W.Wilson,＆ A.A.Wilson(Eds.), Social Interaction in
Chinese society. New York : Praeger.
Jeffrey Z. Rubin and Bert R. Brown, The Social Psychology of
Bargaining and Negotiation (New York : Academic Press,
1975), pp . 169 –174.
Kahn , R. L . , & Bouldings , E . (1964). Power and Conflict in
Organizations. New York : Basic Books , Inc..
Leung, K. (梁覺) (1988). Some determinants of conflict avoidance.
Journal of Cross – Cultural Psychology, 19, 125 –136.
Litterer, J. A. (1970). Conflict in organization : A reexamination,
in William P. Sexton (Ed.). Organization Theories. Ohio :
Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.
Liu, Whei – ching(劉惠琴) (1993). Conflict resolution processes in
close relationship. Journal of Women and Gender Studies, 4,
207 –242. National Taiwan University, Taipei: Wonen's
Research Program, Population Studies Center.
M. E. Shaw, Group dynamics : The Psychology of Small Group Behavior,
(New York : Mc Graw – Hill Inc. , 1976).
March, J. G. ＆ Simon, H. A. (1958). Organization. New York : Wiley.
McClelland , D. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton. NJ : Van
Nostrand.
Martin Patchen, " Models of Cooperation and Conflict, " The Journal
of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 25, No. 3 (1981) , pp . 495-520.
Ma, R. (1992). The role of unofficial intermediaries in
interpersonal conflicts in the Chinese culture.
Communication Quarterly, 40.
Michael N. Chanin and Joy A. Schneer, "A Study of the Relationship
Between Jungian Personality Dimensions and Conflict –
Handling Behavior , " Human Relations , Vol . 37, No . 10
(1984), pp. 863.
Paul R. Lawrence and Jay W. Lorsch , Organization and Environment ,
(Cambridge , Massachusetts : Harvard University Press
，1967a）pp.73-78
P . A . Pilkonis, “Shyness , Public and Private, and It's
Relationship to other Measures of Social Behavior”,
Journal of Personality’ (1979) , Vol . 45, No. 4, PP .
585 –595.
P . Shockley – Zalabak , "The Effects of Sex Differences on the
Preference for Utilization of Conflict Styles of Managers
in a Work Settiog : An Exploratory Study, " Public Personnel
Management Journal, Vol . 10 (1981) , pp. 289 – 295.
Pye, L. W.(1970/1992). The Spirit of Chinese Politics : A Psychocul-
tural study of Authority Crisis in Political Development.
見胡祖慶譯 : 〈中國人的政治文化〉台北 : 風雲論壇出版社。
Pye, L. W. (1982/1989). The Dynamic of Chinese Politics. 見胡祖
慶 : 〈中國政治的變與常〉台北 : 五南出版社。
Pruitt, D. G. , & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social Conflict :
Escalation, Stalemate, & Settlement. New York : Random
House.
Patricia A . Renwick, "The Effects of Sex Differences on the
Perception and Management of Superior – Subordinate
Conflict : An Exploratory Study, " Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, Vol . 19 (1977) , pp. 403 – 415.
Pondy , L. R. (1967). Organizationl conflict: concepts and models .
Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 296 –320.
Robbins, S. P. (1974). Managing Organizational Conflict : A
Nontraditional Approach. New York : Englewood
Prentice –Hall Inc..
Robert A. Baron, "Reducing Organizational Conflict : An
Incompatible Response Approach, " Journal of Applied
Psychology , Vol . 69, No. 2 (1984), pp . 272 –279.
Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal
conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 368 –376.
R. B. Rubin & E. E. Graham, “Communication Correlates of College
Success : An Exploratory Investigation”, Communication
Education, (1988)Vol . 37, PP . 14- 27.
Simmel, G. (1908/1955). Conflict : The Web of Group Affiliations.
trans. by K. H. Wolff & R. Bendix. Glencoe, ,Ill : Free
Press.
Solomon, R. H. (1971). Mao's Revolution and Chinese Political Cul –
ture. Berkeley CA :University of California Press.
Stephen P. Robbins, Organizational Behavior : Concepts,
Controversies , and Applications , 4thed. (Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey : Prentice – Hall , 1989a), p. 368.
Stephen P. Robbins, " ´Conflict Management´and ´Conflict
Resolution´Are Not Synonymous Terms, " California
Management Review, Vol . 21, No. 2 (1978), PP. 67 – 75.
Thomas, K. W. (1977). Toward multi – dimensional values in
teaching : The example of conflict behavior.
Trubisky, P. , Ting – Toomey, S. , & Lin, S. L. (1991). The influence
of individualism – collectivism and self – monitoring on
conflict styles. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 15, 65 – 84.
Ting – Toomey, S. , Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H. S.,
Lin, S. L. , & Nishida, T. (1991). Culture, face
maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal
conflict : A study in five cultures. The International
Journal of Conflict Management, 2, 275 – 296.
Triandis et. al. (1986)”The measurement of etic aspects of
individualism and collectivism across cultures Australian
Journal of Psychology. 38, 257 – 267.
佛洛依德(1948) Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, 《群
體心理學與自我分析》
Triadis, H. C., McCuster, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod
probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006 – 1020.
Tedeschi, J. T., Schlenker, B. R., & Bonoma, T. V. (1973). Conflict,
power and games : The experi – mental study of interpersonal
relations. As cited by M. Afzalur Rahim. Managing
Conflict in Organization New York ：Prageger Publishers
，1986。
Toknnies, F. (1988). Community and society (Gemeinschaft und
gesellschaft). Trans. by Charles P. Loomis. New York :
Harper & Row.