簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 李濟慈
CHI-TZU LEE
論文名稱： 人格特質之於情緒表達差異探討:以LIB為調節變項
The Impact of Personality Traits on Emotion Expressions: Linguistic Intergroup Bias as Moderator
指導教授： 謝亦泰
Yi-Tai Seih
口試委員: 張譯尹
Yi-Ying Chang
黃美慈
Mei-Tzu Huang
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 管理學院 - 企業管理系
Department of Business Administration
論文出版年： 2020
畢業學年度： 108
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 64
中文關鍵詞： 親和性 、內外團體 、五大人格特質 、字詞分析
外文關鍵詞： Agreeableness, Linguistic Intergroup Bias, Ten Item Personality Industry, Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count
相關次數： 點閱：394  下載：1 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報
  •  上一筆

    • 經濟學家指出，性格是決定成功的關鍵因素之一；然而性格是一種動態概念，心理學家發現，日常生活的行為模式及習慣養成，與性格培養有著密切相關，它們不但顯示性格，甚至可以形塑性格。在職場上，性格是最被企業重視的特質之一，這也是為什麼適性測驗是求職者要進入面試關卡前的首要任務。維珍集團(Virgin Group)總裁Richard Branson曾經發表一篇文章〈我的選才策略:聚焦於性格〉探討性格對企業選才的重要性；而根據數位教育公司Hyper Island對逾5,000位企業領袖的「Tomorrow’s Most Wanted」調查，78%的企業領袖認為性格是篩選員工的最主要因素，其次是文化契合度，而僅有39%的企業領袖認為能力是重要的。
    親和性(Agreeableness)被認為是親和特質正向的一面，體現了慷慨、憐憫、溫暖及仁慈；親和性高者偏向樂於助人、富同情心，而親和性低者則較偏向直言不諱、冷漠。故本研究欲探討親和性的高低是否影響員工對於一件事情的描述方式，而基於語言組間偏誤理論(Linguistic Intergroup Bias, LIB)是否有加乘效果。本研究透過區分內外團體，以及受試者的五大人格特質分析，檢驗其對於問卷影片主角處境的看法差異。本研究樣本採線上問卷方式蒐集，共得185份有效樣本。本研究在影片心得書寫部分採開放性作答，並以語文探索與字詞計算(Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count, LIWC)工具進行文本分析。

    Economists pointed out that personality is one of the key factors which determine success. Psychologists have found that the behavior patterns and habits of daily life are closely related to personality cultivation. Personality do not only display itself, but also can help us shape our characteristics. In the workplace, personality is known as one of the most valued qualities by companies, which is the reason why adaptive testing is almost the first task for job seekers before taking interviews.
    Agreeableness is considered to be the positive side of the trait of affinity, reflecting generosity, compassion, warmth and kindness. Therefore, this study aims to explore whether the level of Agreeableness affects the way employees describe a scenario, and whether there is a multiplication effect based on Linguistic Intergroup Bias (LIB). A total of 185 valid research samples were collected through online questionnaires. In this study, an open writing task was designed in the video section and Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) was used for text analysis.

    摘要 I ABSTRACT II 誌謝 III TABLE OF CONTENTS IV LIST OF TABLES VI LIST OF FIGURES VII CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 8 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 10 2.1 Linguistic Intergroup Bias (LIB) 10 2.2 Empathy 15 2.3 Agreeableness 18 2.4 Hypotheses Testing 21 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 23 3.1 Research Architecture and Hypothesis 23 3.1.1 Research Framework 23 3.1.2 Hypotheses 24 3.2.1 Research Procedure 26 3.2.1.1 Demographic Information 27 3.3.1.2 Personal Traits and Self-esteem 28 3.3.1.3 Video Section 28 3.2 Measures 30 3.3 Data Analysis 31 3.3.1 Descriptive Statistics 31 3.3.2 LIWC Analysis 31 3.3.3 Independent Samples T-Test 32 3.3.4 Regression Analysis 32 CHAPTER 4 RESULT 34 4.1 Descriptive Statistics 34 4.2 Hypothesis Testing 37 4.2.1 State Verbs 37 4.2.2 Empathy 39 4.2.3 Summary of Research Hypotheses 40 4.2.4 Cognitive Processes 40 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION 43 5.1 Summary of the Study 43 5.2 Academic Contributions and Practical Implications 45 5.3 Research Limitations and Future Suggestions 46 5.3.1 Research limitations 46 5.3.2 Future Suggestions 47 REFERECE 49 APPENDIX Ⅰ – IN-GROUP SURVEY 52 APPENDIX Ⅱ – OUT-GROUP SURVEY 57

    1. Anne M., Daniela S., Luciano A., & Grin S. (1989). Language Use in Intergroup Contexts: The Linguistic Intergroup Bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57.
    2. Anne M., Angela M., Silvia Z., & Dagmar S. (1995). Linguistic Intergroup Bias: Differential Expectancies or In-Group Protection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68.
    3. Anne M., Roberta C., & Samantha R. (1996). Linguistic Intergroup Bias: Evidence for In-Group-Protective Motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71.
    4. Clark M. A., Robertson M. M., & Young S. (2019). “I feel your pain”: A Critical Review of Organizational Research on Empathy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40.
    5. Cremers J., Pennings H. J. M., Mainhard T., & Klugkist I. (2019). Circular Modeling of Circumplex Measurements for Interpersonal Behavior. Assessment, 1-16.
    6. Elliott R., Bohart A. C., Watson J. C., & Greenberg L. S. (2011). Empathy. Psychotherapy, 48, 43-49.
    7. Fiedler K., & Semin G. R. (1988). On the Causal Information Conveyed By Different Interpersonal Verbs: The Role of Implicit Sentence Context. Journal of Social Cognitive, 6(1), 21-39.
    8. Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A Very Brief Measure of the
    50
    Big Five Personality Domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504-528.
    9. Graziano W. G., Habashi M. M., & Tobin R. M. (2007). Agreeableness, Empathy, and Helping: A Person ╳ Situation Perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 583-599.
    10. Graziano W. G., & Eisenberg N. (1997). Agreeableness: A Dimension of Personality. Handbook of Personality Psychology, 795-816.
    11. Jensen-Cambell L. A., Graziano W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a Moderator of Interpersonal Conflict. Journal of Personality, 323-362.
    12. Kowalski R. M. (1996). Complaints and Complaining Functions, Antecedents, and Consequences. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 179-195.
    13. Maslach C., Jackson S. E., Leiter M.P., & Schaufeli W. B (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory, 3rd Edition. Consulting Psychologists Press.
    14. Mehrabian A., & Epstein N. (1972). A Measure of Emotional Empathy. Journal of Personality, 40(4), 525-543.
    15. Pennebaker J. W., Boyd R. L., Jordan K. and Blackburn K. (2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.
    51
    16. Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Single-Item Self-Esteem Scale (SISE). APA PsycTests.
    17. Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1988). The Cognitive Functions of Linguistic Categories in Describing Persons: Social Cognition and Language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 558–568.
    18. Shamay-Tsoory S. G., Aharon-Peretz J, & Perry D. (2009). Two Systems for Empathy: A Double Dissociation Between Emotional and Cognitive Empathy in Inferior Frontal Gyrus Versus Ventromedial Prefrontal Lesions. Journal of Neurology, 132, 617-627.
    19. Singer T., & Lamm C. (2009). The Social Neuroscience of Empathy. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156, 81-96.

    QR CODE