Responsive image
博碩士論文 etd-0602116-204114 詳細資訊
Title page for etd-0602116-204114
論文名稱
Title
如何提昇國小學生家長的捐款意向: 自我知覺論、果報投資假說的觀點及文化因子的調節
How to promote the inclination to donate money among elementary school parents: The perspectives of self-perception theory and karmic- investment hypothesis and the moderating role of cultural factors
系所名稱
Department
畢業學年期
Year, semester
語文別
Language
學位類別
Degree
頁數
Number of pages
51
研究生
Author
指導教授
Advisor
召集委員
Convenor
口試委員
Advisory Committee
口試日期
Date of Exam
2016-06-13
繳交日期
Date of Submission
2016-07-02
關鍵字
Keywords
捐款、自我知覺論、果報投資假說、集體主義、控制觀
self-perception, karmic investments, collectivism, locus of control, monetary donation
統計
Statistics
本論文已被瀏覽 5711 次,被下載 250
The thesis/dissertation has been browsed 5711 times, has been downloaded 250 times.
中文摘要
近年來,募款已經成為學校永續經營的重要課題。本研究依據「自我知覺論」和「果報投資假說」,分別進行二個實驗,探討如何提昇國小家長捐款學校的行為意向(包括捐款意願與金額)。自我知覺論主張人們是根據自己行為推論個人的內在態度,因此,個人回想「助人經驗」後,應會強化「自己是施惠者與樂於助人」的推論,並進而提高捐款意願。相對的,「互饋原則」和「感恩」的觀點則認為回想過去身為受惠者的「受助經驗」會誘發個人感恩與回饋之心,因而提高捐款意願。實驗一檢驗台灣國小家長在回想助人或受助經驗後,那種情況下的捐款意向較高。基於東方文化的集體主義重視人際間互饋規範,集體主義傾向愈明顯的個體,互饋與感恩機制的運作應更為明顯。因此,在第一個實驗中,進一步檢驗集體主義的調節作用:高集體主義的家長,互饋與感恩的作用應勝過自我知覺,相較於回想助人經驗,回想受助經驗較能提高其捐款意向;相對的,低集體主義的家長,較可能受到自我知覺運作歷程的影響,相較於回想受助經驗,回想助人經驗應較能提高其捐款意向。「果報投資假說」認為人們中心升起「善有善報」的因果報應信念時會提高做善事的意願,宛若透過善行或利他行為以投資個人的因果報應,企求未來能夠獲得善果的回應。再者,基於「內控者」會主動、積極地藉由個人做為以改變未來結果,其果報投資的傾向應高於相信命定論的「外控者」,因此,實驗二乃檢驗藉由誘發果報觀以提昇學生家長捐款意向的效應,對於內控者而言是否較外控者更為顯著。在家長的捐款意願方向,研究結果支持假設,實驗一發現高集體主義的學生家長,回想受助經驗較回想助人經驗的捐款意願較高;低集體主義的學生家長則是回想助人經驗較回想受助經驗的捐款意願較高。實驗二顯示內控型家長受到果報觀誘發後的捐款意願高於控制組,外控型家長的捐款意願在兩種實驗情境下沒有差別。至於家長的最大可能捐款金額,兩個實驗的研究結果雖然和假設所預測的一致,但未達顯著水準,主因可能為此依變數測量的變異過大所導致。文末討論研究結果,論述理論貢獻與實用啟發,以及提出研究限制與未來研究方向。對於如何提昇家長捐款意願,本研究應為最先提出與證實兩個文化因子(集體主義和控制觀)對於透過自我知覺與果報觀以提昇捐款意願的調節角色。研究發現對於學校募款可提供文化依仗性模型與嶄新的策略運用。
Abstract
In recent years, fund raise has become an important issue regarding sustainability management among education institutions. To investigate optimal strategies for promoting elementary school parents’ behavior intention to donate money to school fund (as measured by the willingness to donate money and the maximum possible amount of monetary donation), two experimental studies will be conducted to examine the predictions from the self-perception theory and the karmic-investment hypothesis. Self-perception theory posits that people often infer their attitudes, identities, and other internal states by observations of their own behaviors. Thus, people are likely to infer themselves as benefactors rather than beneficiaries when they reflect on help-giving experiences rather than help-receiving. Moreover, such a self perception will activate and strengthen their values and their identities as caring, helpful, prosocial individuals, and thereby increase the inclination to engage in prosocial behavior such as donating money to their children’s schools. On the other hand, one may argue that reflecting on help-receiving experiences should induce stronger prosocial inclinations than dose reflecting on help-giving experiences from the perspectives of the norm of reciprocity and gratitude. The first experiment tested these two competing hypotheses by examining which of these two role reflections, recalling experiences of being a benefactor (i.e., help-giving) versus recalling experiences of being a beneficiary (i.e., help-receiving), would enhance the inclination to donate money more strongly. Furthermore, given that a collectivist society such as Taiwan relies on the norm of reciprocity more heavily, Experiment 1 further tested the moderating role of collectivism in the relation of recalling help-giving (vs. help-receiving) to the inclination of monetary donation. Specifically, it was predicted that for school parents with high collectivism, recalling experiences of help-receiving should produce a stronger inclination of monetary donation than recalling experiences of help-giving. In contrast, recalling experiences of help-giving than recalling experiences of help-receiving should induce a prominent inclination to donate money for those school parents with low collectivism. According to the notion of karmic investments, people are more likely to do good deeds when the good-behavior–good-outcome association (i.e., a karmic belief) springs to mind, as if they were “investing in karma” while assuring themselves that good things happen to good people. Moreover, the locus of control theory suggests that individuals with internal locus of control orientations believe that reinforcements or future outcomes are contingent upon their own behaviors. Hence, the inclination to invest in karma should be more pronounced among internal-locus-of-control individuals than among external-locus-of-control individuals. This is because people with low internal-locus-of-control tend to believe that reinforcements or future outcomes are beyond their personal control but rather are under the control of powerful others, luck, chance, fate, etc. Experiment 2 examined whether the priming effect of karmic beliefs on the inclination to donate money would be more prominent among parents with a higher internal locus of control orientation. With respect to parents' willingness to donate money, results from the two experiments supported our predictions. Experiment 1 showed recalling experiences of help-receiving induced a higher willingness to donate money than did recalling experiences of help-giving among parents with high collectivism, whereas recalling experiences of help-giving produced a higher willingness to donate money than did recalling experiences of help-receiving among parents with low collectivism. Experiment 2 demonstrated that priming with karmic beliefs induced a higher willingness to donate money than did the control condition among parents with internal locus of control, whereas the willingness to donate money did not differ between the karmic-belief primes and control conditions among parents with external locus of control. In term of the maximum possible amount of money donated, mean differences regarding the predicted interaction were observed. However, thess interactions in Experiments 1 and 2 did not reach significance, probably resulting from greater variance in this dependent measure. Primary results, theoretical contributions, practical implications, research limitations, and future directions were discussed. The current research might be the first to provide experiment evidence showing the moderating role of two cultural factors (i.e., collectivism and locus of control) in promoting the willingness to donate money via the self-perception and karmic-belief interventions. The present findings may provide cultural contingency models and innovative approaches to strategy application regarding school fundraising.
目次 Table of Contents
目次
論文審定書 …… i
中文摘要 …… iv
英文摘要 …… v

第一章緒論 …… 01
第一節研究動機 …… 01
第二節研究目的 …… 01
第二章文獻探討 …… 03
第一節 自我知覺論與助人經驗 …… 03
 一、自我知覺與捐款意向 …… 03
 二、「互饋原則」、「感恩」觀點的競爭假設 …… 04
 三、集體主義傾向的調節作用 …… 04
第二節 果報投資假說與捐款傾向 …… 05
 一、果報投資與捐款意向 …… 05
 二、控制觀的調節作用 …… 06
第三章研究方法 …… 08
第一節 實驗一:集體主義在利他行為角色對於捐款意向的調節作用 …… 08
 一、研究架構 …… 08
 二、參與者與實驗設計 …… 08
 三、自變項:利他行為角色 …… 09
 四、調節變項:集體主義 …… 09
 五、依變項:捐款意向 …… 09
 六、研究假設與資料分析 …… 09
第二節實驗二:控制觀在果報觀對捐款意向誘發效應的調節作用 …… 11
 一、研究架構 …… 11
 二、參與者與實驗設計 …… 11
 三、自變項:果報觀誘發 …… 11
 四、調節變項:控制觀 …… 12
 五、依變項:捐款意向 …… 13
 六、研究假設與資料分析 …… 13
第四章 研究結果 …… 14
第一節 集體主義在利他行為角色對家長捐款意向的調節作用 …… 14
 一、實驗一研究樣本的背景資料 …… 14
 二、相等組檢驗 …… 14
 三、共變數檢驗 …… 15


 四、實驗一主要效果的檢驗 …… 15
 五、集體主義在利他行為角色對家長捐款意願的調節作用 …… 16
 六、集體主義在利他行為角色對家長最大可能捐款金額的調節作用 …… 17
第二節 控制觀在果報觀對家長捐款意向的調節作用 …… 18
 一、實驗二研究樣本的背景資料 …… 18
 二、相等組檢驗 …… 19
 三、共變數檢驗 …… 19
 四、控制傾向在果報觀對家長捐款意願的調節作用 …… 19
 五、控制傾向在果報觀對家長最大可能捐款金額的調節作用 …… 21
第五章 討論 …… 22
第一節 研究發現的討論 …… 22
 一、支持與未支持研究假設的結果 …… 22
 二、理論貢獻 …… 23
 三、實用啟發 …… 24
第二節 研究限制與未來研究方向 …… 25
第三節 結論 …… 26
參考文獻 …… 27
附錄 …… -1-
附錄一 …… -1-
附錄二 …… -5-
參考文獻 References
一、中文部份:
丁文江、趙豐田編(1983)。梁啟超與梁令嫻等書(1927年5月5日),梁啟超年譜長編,上海:人民出版社。
丁文江、趙豐田編(2010)。歐陽哲生整理,梁任公先生年譜長編,北京:中華書局。
王家玄(2014)。感覺與知覺統合在模特兒服裝表演的關係。大專體育學刊,128期,46–54。
吳靜吉(1975a)。內外控量表在輔導上的應用。測驗與輔導,10,152-153。
吳靜吉(1975b)。性別差異和內外控取向對語文流暢性之影響。政治大學學報,31,131–141。
吳靜吉、吳子輝(1975)。內外控量表在輔導上的應用。測驗與輔導,10,152-153。
吳子輝(1975)。內外控取向與自由選擇對閱讀測驗成績之影響。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文。
吳靜吉、潘養源、丁興祥(1980)。內外控取向與工作滿足及績效之關係。國立政治大學學報,41,61-74。
呂勝瑛(1982)。內外控,自我概念與濃縮實驗效果的關係之研究。測驗與輔導,50,790–793。
李蕙年(2007)。Brad E. Cheves專題演講:美國南美以美大學募款成功案例分享,2007年03月21日,東吳大學。
林其昂、鄒佩玲、蔡佩玲(2005)。國立政治大學校務發展研究計畫「e化募款之可行性評估」成果報告,政治大學。
洪蘭(譯) (1997)。H. Gleitman原著。心理學(上)(下)。台北:遠流。
邱文彬,萬金生,李嘉紘(2004)。提昇大專教師網路教學的正向態度:認知失調論的應用與國民性格的調節,教育研究資訊雙月刊(已改為當代教育研究),4(12),59-82。
高麗芷(1994a)。感覺統合(上):全腦開發篇。台北:信誼基金。
高麗芷(1994b)。感覺統合(下):因材施教篇。台北:信誼基金。
張思嘉、郭士賢(2011)。台灣華人婚姻中的控制觀。中華心理衛生學刊,24(4),583-610。
張憶家(1977)。內外控制人格特質對不同輔導方法偏好的影響,測驗與輔導,6(1),332-333。
教育部(2014)。教育統計指標。台北市:作者。
梁啟超(1927)。與梁令嫻等書(1927年5月5日),丁文江、趙豐田編(1983)梁啟超年譜長編,上海:人民出版社。
梁啟超、林洙(2013)。大師.慈父.愛:梁啟超家書選輯。香港:三聯書店。
陳碧婉、陳雁齡(1998)。台南市國中學生焦慮、自尊心、內外控信念和生活壓力之相關研究。國立台南師院學生學刊,19,39-59。
傅瓊儀、陸偉明、程炳林(2002)。以結構方程模式探討制握信念及社會支持在國中生壓力知覺的作用。教育心理學報,34(1),61-82。
鄭碧月、邱文彬(2007)。顧客知覺的服務行為與顧客滿意度的關係:國民性格的調節效應與本土、外商公司的比較。輔仁管理評論,14(1),155-175。
鄭麗玉、陳秀蓉、危芷芬、留佳莉(2006)。心理學。台北:五南。

二、西文部份:
Algoe, S., & Haidt, J. (2004). Witnessing excellence in action: The ‘‘other-praising’’ emotions of elevation, gratitude, and admiration. Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Bartlett, M. Y., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Gratitude and prosocial behavior: Helping when it costs you. Psychological Science, 17, 319–325.
Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74, 183–200.
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 1–62.
Benjamin, D. J., Kimball, M. S., Heffetz, O., & Rees-Jones, A. (2012). What do you think would make you happier? What do you think you would choose? The American economic review, 102, 2083–2110.
Bond, M. H. (1986). The psychology of the Chinese people. New York: Oxford University Press.
Callan, M. J., Kay, A. C., Davidenko, N., & Ellard, J. H. (2009). The effects of justice motivation on memory for self- and other- relevant events. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 614–623.
Callan, M. J., Sutton, R. M., & Dovale, C. (2010). When deserving translates into causing: The effect of cognitive load on immanent justice reasoning. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1097–1100.
Cicero, M. T. (1851). The orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, Vol. III (C.D. Younge, Trans.). London, UK: George Bell & Sons.
Converse, B. A., Risen, J. L., & Carter, T. J.(2012). Investing in karma: When wanting promotes helping. Psychological Science, 23, 923–930.
Cooper, W. H., & Richardson, A. J. (1986). Unfair comparisons. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 179–184.
DeLamater, J. D., & Myers, D. J. (2011). Social psychology (7th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
DeLamater, J. D., & Myers, D. J. (2007). Social psychology (6th ed.). Stamford, CT: Thomson Wadsworth.
Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377–389.
Fox, K. R., & Corbin, C. B. (1989). The physical self-perception profile: Development and preliminary validation. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 408–430.
Gaucher, D., Hafer, C. L., Kay, A. C., & Davidenko, N. (2010). Compensatory rationalizations and the resolution of everyday undeserved outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 109–118.
Gleitman, H. (1991). Psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Norton.
Goodwin, R., & Findlay, C. (1997). “We were just fated together”. Chinese love and the concept of yuan in Hong Kong and England, Personal Relationships, 4, 85–92.
Grant. A., & Dutton, J. (2012). Beneficiary or benefactor: Are people more prosocial when they reflect on receiving or giving? Psychological Science, 23, 1033–1039.
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Traits of creativity. In H. H. Anderson (Ed.), Creativity and its cultivation (pp.142–161). New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers.
Hafer, C. L., & Bègue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 128–167.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London, UK: McGraw-Hill.
Hsu, F. L. K. (1981). American and Chinese: Passage to differences. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Hsu, F. L. K. (1985). The self in cross-cultural perspective. In A. J. Marsella, G. De Vos, & F. L. K. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and self (pp. 24–55). London, UK: Tavistock.
Johnstone, D. B. (2006). Financing higher education: Cost-sharing in international perspective. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Kashima, Y., Yamaguchi, S., Kim, U., Choi, S. C., Gelfand, M. J., & Yuki, M. (1995) Culture, gender and self: A perspective from individualism-collectivism research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 925–937.
Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (1999). Social functions of emotions at four levels of analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 13, 505–522.
Kim, U. (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Conceptual Clarification and Elaboration. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 19–40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kirk, R. E. (2012). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kulas, H. (1996). Locus of control in adolescence: A longitudinal study. Adolescence, 31, 721–729.
Larsen, R. J., & Buss, D. M. (2005). Personality psychology: Domains of knowledge about human nature (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Lerner, M. J. (1977). The justice motive: Some hypotheses as to its origins and forms. Journal of Personality, 45, 1–52.
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum Press.
Lerner, M. J. (2003). The justice motive: Where social psychologists found it, how they lost it, and why they may not find it again. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 388 –389.
Liu, W., & Aaker, J. L. (2008). The happiness of giving: The time-ask effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 543–557.
Loersch, C. & Payne, B. K. (2011). The situated inference model: An integrative account of the effects of primes on perception, behavior, and motivation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 234–252.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
Marsh, H. W., & Richards, G. E. (1986). The Rotter locus of control scale: The comparison of alternative response formats and implications for reliability, validity, and dimensionality. Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 509–528.
McCullough, M. E., Kilpatrick, S. D., Emmons, R. A., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Is gratitude a moral affect? Psychological Bulletin, 127, 249–266.
McCullough, M. E., & Tsang, J. (2004). Parent of the virtues? The prosocial contours of gratitude. In R. A. Emmons & M. E. McCullough (Eds.), The psychology of gratitude (pp. 123–141). New York: Oxford University Press.
Narayanan, L., Menon, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A cross-cultural comparison of job stressors and reactions among employees holding comparable jobs in two countries. International Journal of Stress Management, 6, 197–212.
Nowicki, S., & Marshall, M. P. (1974). A locus of control scale for noncollege as well as college adults. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 136–137.
Nowicki, S., & Strickland, B. R. (1973). A locus of control scale for children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 148–154.
Ozer, M., (2010). The Understanding of Karma and Etiology in Buddhist Ladakh in Relation to the Theory of Locus of Control. Ladakh Studies, 26, 6–13.
Pennebaker, J. W., & Seagal, J. D. (1999). Forming a story: The health benefits of narrative. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 1243–1254.
Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 365–392.
Petty, R. E., DeMarree, K. G., Briñol, P., Horcajo, J., & Strathman, A. J. (2008). Need for cognition can magnify or attenuate priming effects in social judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 900–912.
Piff, P. K., Kraus, M. W., Côté, S., Cheng, B. H., & Keltner, D. (2010). Having Less, Giving More: The Influence of Social Class on Prosocial Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 771–784.
Pruitt, D. G. (1968). Reciprocity and credit building in a laboratory dyad. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 143–147.
Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social Learning and Clinical Psychology. Prentice-Hall.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80, 1–28.
Rotter, J. B. (1990). Internal versus external control of reinforcement: A case history of a variable. American Psychologist, 45, 489–493.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. (2001). Values hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 268–290.
Shidlovski, D. & Hassin, R. R. (2011).When Pooping Babies Become More Appealing: The Effects of Nonconscious Goal Pursuit on Experienced Emotions. Psychological Science, 22, 1381–1385.
Taylor, S. E., Peplau, L. A., & Sears, D. O. (2006). Social psychology, (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Tong, J., & Wang, L. (2006). Validation of locus of control scale in Chinese organizations. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 941–950.
Triandis, H. C. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. in J.J. Berman (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1989 (pp. 41–133). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C .H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 59, 1006–1020.
Trope, Y. (1975). Seeking information about one's ability as a determinant of choice among tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 1004–1013.
Trope, Y. (1982). Self-assessment and task performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 201–215.
Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 151–176.
Wilke, H., & Lanzetta, J. T. (1970). The obligation to help: The effects of amount of prior help onsubsequent helping behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 483–493.
Yuki, M. (2003). Intergroup comparison versus intragroup relationships: A cross-cultural examination of social identity theory in North American and East Asian cultural contexts. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 166–183.
Zhong, C. B., & Liljenquist, K. (2006). Washing away your sins: Threatened morality and physical cleansing. Science, 313, 1451–1452.
電子全文 Fulltext
本電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。
論文使用權限 Thesis access permission:自定論文開放時間 user define
開放時間 Available:
校內 Campus: 已公開 available
校外 Off-campus: 已公開 available


紙本論文 Printed copies
紙本論文的公開資訊在102學年度以後相對較為完整。如果需要查詢101學年度以前的紙本論文公開資訊,請聯繫圖資處紙本論文服務櫃台。如有不便之處敬請見諒。
開放時間 available 已公開 available

QR Code