個體的認知觀點具有不同的範圍，有些人較為廣泛；而有些人則較為侷限，因此每個人擁有不同的思考模式，使得每個人的行為決策有所不同，在日常生活中與職場上都是如此。人力資源管理是企業經營中重要的環節之一，其中包含了許多的管理決策，在企業遭遇經營困難，而需要部門縮編或是組織重組時，常常會採取資遣員工的方式，來節省人力成本。在選擇資遣對象時，有許多資遣標準需要考慮，其中有屬於個人層次的標準也有屬於組織層次的標準，個人層次或是組織層次的考量也具有範圍上的差異。故本研究欲探討，在不同範圍的認知觀點下，個體在資遣標準的選擇上是否會有所不同。以擴展與建構理論（Broaden-and-build Theory）為基礎，本研究將個體的認知觀點區分為兩種：宏觀（範圍大）與細微（範圍小），在不同範圍的認知觀點下，檢驗個體在資遣標準的選擇上，是否會隨著觀點宏觀或是細微，而以組織層次標準（範圍大）或是個人層次標準（範圍小）為優先選擇。本研究分為兩部分，第一部分為變項之間的相關性分析；第二部分為實驗操作，研究樣本採線上問卷方式蒐集，第一部份得到267份有效樣本；第二部分則得到125份有效樣本。本研究在個體對於資遣標準的衡量上，採用排序作業的方式進行，將排序結果量化之後，以SPSS Statistic 20.0進行分析。研究結果發現：個體的認知觀點與資遣標準的排序之間具有相關性，當個體觀點處於宏觀時，其資遣標準排序作業會以組織層次標準為優先；反之，當個體觀點處於細微時，其資遣標準排序作業會以個人層次標準為優先。

Everyone’s cognitive perspectives have different scopes, some are more extensive and some are more limited. Therefore, each person has different thinking, which makes each person’s behavior and decision-making different, both in daily life and the workplace. Human resource management is one of the important functions of business operation, which contains many management decisions. When a company encounters operating difficulties and requires departmental downsizing or organization restructuring, layoff is often adopted to save the labor cost. There are many criteria to be considered when selecting the employees being layoff, among these criteria, there are criteria about the individual level and organizational level. There are also differences in scope for consideration about these two levels. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore whether individuals will have different choices in the layoff criteria under the different scope of perspective. Based on Broaden and build Theory（B&B Theory）, this study differentiated individuals’ cognitive perspective into two types: macro and subtle, and individuals were tested whether they will follow the macro or subtle perspective and take the organizational-level criteria or individual-level criteria as priority choice.This study was divided into two parts, the first part was the correlation analysis between the variables, and the second part was the experimental operation. The samples were collected via online questionnaires, the first part had 267 valid samples, the second part had 125 valid samples. This study adopted ranking method to measure the individual’s consideration about layoff criteria. The results of this study found that there is a correlation between the perspective and the ranking of layoff criteria. When the individual’s perspective was at the macro level, the ranking of layoff criteria will prioritize the organizational-level criteria; on the contrary, when the individual’s perspective was at the subtle level, the ranking of layoff criteria will prioritize the individual-level criteria.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdle.
Cornfield, D. B. (1982). Seniority, human capital, and layoffs: A case study.Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society,21(3), 352-364.
Elvira, M. M., & Zatzick, C. D. (2002). Who’s displaced first? The role of race in layoff decisions. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society,41(2), 329-361.
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions?. Review of general psychology, 2(3), 300-319.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden–and–build theory of positive emotions.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences,359(1449), 1367-1377.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought‐action repertoires.Cognition & emotion,19(3), 313-332.
Fong, C. T. (2006). The effects of emotional ambivalence on creativity.Academy of Management Journal,49(5), 1016-1030.
Isgett SF, Fredrickson BL (2015) Broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences 56:864–869
Kraft, M. A. (2015). Teacher layoffs, teacher quality, and student achievement: Evidence from a discretionary layoff policy. Education Finance and Policy, 10(4), 467-507.
Kimchi, R., & Palmer, S. E. (1982). Form and texture in hierarchically constructed patterns.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8(4), 521–535.
Lansdowne, Z. F., & Woodward, B. S. (1996). Applying the borda ranking method. Air Force Journal of Logistics, 20(2), 27-29.
Palmon, O., Sun, H., & Tang, A. (1997). Layoff Announcements: Stock Market Impact and Financial Performance. Financial Management, 26(3), 54-68.
Pfadenhauer, D. M. (2009). Selection and communication in layoff planning: The cornerstones of a successful reduction in force. The Journal of Private Equity, 12(3), 94-103.
Reagan, P. B. (1992). On-the-job training, layoff by inverse seniority, and the incidence of unemployment. Journal of Economics and Business, 44(4), 317-324.
Spielberger, C. D. (2010). State‐Trait anger expression inventory. The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology, 1-1.
Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 660–671.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070