談判不管在政治上或是商業上，被應用的範圍相當廣泛，甚至到日常生活的應用也隨處可見。人並非天生就是一個好的談判者，但可以透過後天的訓練來達成。然而會成為什麼風格的談判者，主要受到談判者本身的人格因素影響。

影響談判的因素有很多，本文主要在探討人格特質對談判的影響，而提出了馬基維利主義人格和自我監控程度，做為本研究的兩大研究人格特質影響談判的主軸變數，並且使用道德決策的模型來建立本研究的假說。本研究採用問卷調查的方式，並且用敘述性統計、T檢定、單因子變異數分析及迴歸分析，來研究談判者的人格特質對於談判戰術道德觀和使用意圖的影響。本研究的實證結果如下：

1.談判者的背景對於談判戰術道德觀有顯著的影響，談判者的性別與教育程度對
於談判戰術道德觀的影響有比較顯著的不同。
2.馬基維利主義人格對於談判戰術道德觀有顯著的影響，馬基維利主義程度較高
者，認為「蠶食術」、「出乎意料的價格」和「刺探」為比較可行的戰術。
3.自我監控程度對於談判戰術道德觀與談判意向有顯著的干擾影響。

關鍵字：談判戰術、道德決策、馬基維利主義人格、自我監控

Negotiation is applied to many fields, which are included in politics, business and even in daily life. An outstanding negotiator is not congenital, but it can be trained to be an excellent one. The type of negotiator what the person will be is affected by his personality.

Negotiation is affected by many factors, and we will discuss the personality in this research. We focus on Machiavellianism and self-monitoring which are the two major variables in this research. And we use Ethical Decision Making Model to establish the hypothesis in this research. The questionnaire survey is the main method to collect the data, and we investigate the relationship among negotiator’s p personality, attitude toward negotiation tactics and negotiation intention by descriptive statistics, T-test, Analysis of Variance and Regression Analysis. The results are follows:
(1) Different backgrounds significantly influence the ethical attitude toward negotiation tactics, for example, the negotiator’s sex and level of education.
(2) Machiavellianism significantly influence s the ethical attitude toward negotiation tactics, for example, the negotiators have higher level of Machiavellianism and their ethic attitudes are weaker in “salami-tactics” , “shock them with your opening offer” and “advance man”.
(3) The degree of self-monitoring of the negotiators significantly influences the relationship between ethical attitude toward negotiation and negotiation intention.

Keywords: Negotiation tactic, ethical decision making, Machiavellianism, self-monitoring.

摘要……………………………………………………………………………………i
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………ii
致謝詞………………………………………………………………………………iii
目錄……………………………………………………………………………………iv
圖目錄…………………………………………………………………………………vi
表目錄…………………………………………………………………………………vii

第一章 緒論…………………………………………………………1
第一節 研究背景與動機……………………………………………………1
第二節 研究問題……………………………………………………………3
第三節 研究對象與目的………………………………………………………4
第四節 研究流程………………………………………………………………5
第五節 研究限制………………………………………………………………6
第二章 文獻探討……………………………………………………7
第一節 談判理論………………………………………………………………7
第二節 談判戰術……………………………………………………………10
第三節 倫理決策……………………………………………………………17
第四節 馬基維利人格主義…………………………………………………21
第五節 自我監控……………………………………………………………24
第三章 研究架構與方法……………………………………………26
第一節 研究架構……………………………………………………………26
第二節 研究變數與假說……………………………………………………27
第三節 問卷設計……………………………………………………………30
第四節 樣本和資料蒐集……………………………………………………34
第五節 研究方法…………………………………………………………35
第四章 資料分析結果………………………………………………36
第一節 資料分析……………………………………………………………36
第二節 信度分析……………………………………………………………41
第三節 單因子變異數分析與 T-test、迴歸分析……………………………42
第四節 假說檢定與討論……………………………………………………51
第五章 結論與建議…………………………………………………53
第一節 研究發現與結論……………………………………………………53
第二節 管理實務的建議……………………………………………………56
第三節 未來研究建議………………………………………………………57
參考文獻…………………………………………………………………………58
附錄：談判戰術道德觀問卷………………………………………………62

一、中文部分
王智弘，1992，自我監控理論在諮商督導上的運用，輔導月刊，28(1)，31-35(譯
自： C.J. Haferkamp, 1989)。
王菀咨，2005，相依性及個人背景對談判戰術道德觀及談判意向之影響，國立東
華大學國際企業學系碩士班論文。
李青芬、李雅婷、趙慕芬合譯，1994，組織行為學(Robbins, S.P., Organization
Behavior, 9nd ed.)。
吳統熊，1995，態度與行為研究的信度與效度：理論、反應、反省，民意學術專
刊，夏季號。
黃俊英，1992，行銷研究：管理與技術，華泰。
黃賀，2009，組織行為：影響力的形成與發揮，前程文化。
徐繼達，1994，模糊集合理論應用在貿易談判上可行性研究-以中美牛肉談判為
例，台灣大學農經所博士論文。
張國忠，1998，商業現代化和商業談判的教育訓練，商業現代化，第28期，41-46
頁。
張國忠，2006，談判：原理與實務，前程文化。
彭彥綺，2006，馬基維利主義傾向與向上影響行為之關聯研究，國立中山大學人
力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
鄭麗玉，1995，認知心理學，五南圖書。
劉必榮，1993，談判，時報文化出版企業有限公司，台北。
劉必榮，1996，談判聖經，商周文化出版社。
劉仲矩，1995，馬基維利傾向與工作成效及工作滿足關係之研究—以壽險業人員
為例，私立淡江大學國際企業學研究所碩士論文(未出版)。

二、英文部分
Bazerman, M., & Carroll, J.1987. Negotiation Cognition, Research Organizational Behavior 9, 247-288.
Calhoon, R. P. 1969. Niccolo Machiavelli and the twentieth century administrator. Academy of management Journal,Vol.12, 205-212.
Carnevale, P.J. ,& Pruitt, D.G. (1992).Negotiation and Mediation. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 531-582.
Christie, R. ,& Geis, F. L. 1970. Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.
Domelsmith, D. E., & Dietch, J. T. 1978.Sex Difference in the relationship between Machiavellianism and Self-Disclosure. Psychology Reports, Vol.42, 715-721.
Dubinsky, A. J., & Loken, B. 1989. Analyzing ethical decision making in marking. Journal of Business Research, Vol.19, 83-107.
Hunter, J. E., Boster, F. J., & Gerbing, D. W. 1982. Machiavellian belief and personality: construct invalidity of the Machiavellian dimension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6): 1293-1305.
Leary, M. R., Knight, P. D. & Barnes, B. D. 1986. Ethical Ideologies of Machiavellian. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol.12, 75-80.
Lewicki, R.J., Litterer, J.A., Minton, J.W. & Saunders, 1995. Negotiation: Reading, Exercises and Case 2/e. Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Illinois.
Lewicki, R. J.,& Robinson, R. J. 1998.Ethical and Unethical Bargaining Tactics: An Empirical Study. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(6), 665-682.
Lippa, R. 1976. Expressive control and the leakage of dispositional introversion-extraversion during role-played teaching. Journal of Personality. Vol 44(4), 541-559.
Jones, T. M. 1991. Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: an issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, Vol.16, 366-395.
Luft, J.,& Ingham, H. 1955.The Johari window, a graphic model of interpersonal awareness. Proceedings of the western training laboratory in group development (Los Angeles: UCLA).
Michaels, R.E., Kunmar, A. , & Samu, S. 1995.Activity-Specific Role Stress in Purchasing. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 31(1), 11-19.
Okanes, M. M. ,& Murrary, L. W. 1982. Machiavellianism and achievement orientations among Foreign and American master’s studies in business administration. Psychological Reports, 50:519-526.
Poole , B. L. 1995. Never Take No for an Answer-A Guide to Successful Negotiation 2/e. Kogan Page Limited, London.
Reitz, H. J., Wall, J. A., Jr., & Love, M. S. 1998. Ethics in Negotiation: Oil and Water or good Lubrication? Business Horizons, 5-14.
Ricks, J., & Fraedrich, J. 1999. The paradox for productive sales but poor management reviews. Journal of Business Ethic, 20: 197-205.
Sheth, J. 1973. A Model of Industrial Buyer Behavior. Journal of Marketing, 37, 50-56.
Snyder, M. 1972. Individual differences and the self-control of expressive behavior. Thesis (Ph. D.)--Dept. of Psychology, Stanford University, 84-90.
Snyder, M. 1974. Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Oersonality and Social Psychology, 20(4), 526-537.
Snyder, M. 1979. Self-Monitoring Processes. Advance in Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press.
Syner, M., & Debono, K. G. 1985. Appeals to image and claims about quality:
Understanding the psychology of advertising. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.49, 586-597.
Snyder, M. & Gangestad, S. 1986. On the nature of self-monitoring of assessment, matters of validity. Journal of personality and social psychology, Vol. 51, 125-139.
Snyder, M., & Swann, W. B. 1976. When actions reflect attitudes: The politics of impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 34(5), Nov 1976, 1034-1042
Trevino, L. K. 1986. Ethical Decision Making in Organization: A Person-Situation Interactionist Model. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, No.3, 601-617.
Vleeming, R. G. 1979. Machiavellianism：a Preliminary Review. Psychology Reports, Vol.44, 295-310.
Wastell, C., & Booth, A. 2003. Machiavellianism: an alexithmic perspective. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 22(6): 730-744.
Wilson, D. S., Near, D. C., & Miller, R. R. 1996. Machiavellianism: a synthesis of the evolutionary and psychological literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 199(2): 285-299.