政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/78750
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113648/144635 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51585893      線上人數 : 826
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧：
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料
    •  進階搜尋
    政大機構典藏 > 理學院 > 心理學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/78750


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/78750


    題名: 類別相似性線索對於社會排斥後續反應之影響
    Categorical Similarity Cues from the Possible Future Affiliated People Elicit Different Reactions after Social Exclusion.
    作者: 洪嘉欣
    Hong, Jia Sin
    貢獻者: 孫蒨如
    Sun, Chien Ru
    洪嘉欣
    Hong, Jia Sin
    關鍵詞: 社會排斥
    類別相似性線索
    攻擊行為
    親和行為
    去類別化
    再類別化
    social exclusion
    ostracism
    categorical similarity cue
    prosocial behavior
    aggression
    decategorization
    recategorization
    日期: 2015
    上傳時間: 2015-10-01 14:17:16 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 過往研究指出當個體受到社會排斥威脅後，可能產生兩種相反的行為，一者是具攻擊性的行為，而另一者則是希冀與其他人連結之親和傾向。本研究提出社會排斥之兩階段模式，認為當個體受到排斥威脅時，會同時有兩種不同的行為反應，一個是『避免傷害』，當此反應被激發時，被排斥個體會展現出『戰或逃』的行為傾向；而另一個反應則為『尋求歸屬』，在此反應被激發時，被排斥個體則會展現出『親近與示好』的行為傾向。而個體會出現何種反應，端視其之後互動的對象本身的屬性而定。若後續互動對象與先前排斥者間具有高相似性，此拒絕相似線索會引發個體展現出較高的戰或逃行為。相對的，若是後續互動對象所具有的特性與其自身之特性具有高相似性，亦即具有接納相似線索時，個體則會出現較多的示好行為。而這種隨著後續屬性，個體會出現不同反應歷程的假設在已完成的四個實驗中獲得初步的驗證。
    實驗一（83名實驗參與者）採取2 (社會排斥：有、無) × 5 (類別相似線索：高拒絕線索vs.中拒絕線索 vs.高接納線索 vs.中接納線索 vs. 中性線索)之混合設計，結果發現受社會排斥威脅者會有較高意願加入帶有高可能接受線索之團體、較不願意加入帶有高拒絕線索之團體。實驗二（47名實驗參與者）採取閾下觸發來操弄社會排斥威脅，顯示社會排斥的確會讓人加速處理那些與拒絕者與可能接受者相關之訊息。而實驗三（74名實驗參與者）重複驗證了實驗一之發現，並且發現受社會排斥威脅之參與者在反應時間上會較快決定拒絕帶有高拒絕線索之團體，也會較快決定加入帶有高接納線索的團體（兩者皆對比於對中性線索團體之決策反應時間）。
    實驗四（75名實驗參與者）則採取2 (社會排斥：有、無) × 2 (認知負荷：高、低) × 3 (類別相似線索：高拒絕線索vs.高接納線索vs. 中性線索)之混合設計，並發現當被社會排斥者處於高認知負荷狀態時，他們雖然還是能使用拒絕線索來選擇團體，但卻不會使用接受線索，顯示拒絕相似性線索為較為優先之線索。
    實驗五A（67名實驗參與者）則採取2 (社會排斥：有、無) × 2 (性格回饋：有、無) × 4 (類別相似線索：拒絕線索對象vs.接納線索對象vs. 中性線索對象vs.原拒絕者)之混合設計，並發現當被給予性格回饋之後，受社會排斥威脅者會對於帶有接納線索的對象有較高的評價。而實驗五B（31名實驗參與者）採取2 (社會排斥：有、無) × 4 (類別相似線索：拒絕線索對象vs.接納線索對象vs. 中性線索對象vs.原拒絕者)之混合設計，發現受到社會排斥威脅者會對於帶有拒絕線索的對象及原拒絕者都會有較低的評價。
    而實驗六與七則認為當個體對於相似性線索的認知被去、再類別化作業改變時，個體的反應也應隨之改變。實驗六採取（51名實驗參與者）則採取3 (社會排斥組別：社會排斥一般作業組、社會排斥再類別化組、控制組) × 4 (類別相似線索：拒絕線索對象vs.接納線索對象vs. 中性線索對象vs.原拒絕者)之混合設計，並發現當受到社會排斥者完成再類別化作業後，比起完成一般作業的參與者，他們對於原先帶有拒絕線索對象的評價會提升，而他們亦會提升對於原拒絕者的評價，顯示再類別化作業可以讓受威脅者感知到互動對象跟自己可以共屬另一個有意義之團體、自己與互動對象是相連結的，因而提升對這些對象之評價。
    實驗七採取（46名實驗參與者）則採取3 (社會排斥組別：社會排斥一般作業組、社會排斥去類別化組、控制組) × 4 (類別相似線索：拒絕線索對象vs.接納線索對象vs. 中性線索對象vs.原拒絕者)之混合設計，並發現去類別化作業可以削弱類別相似性線索，因此使得受排斥者降低對原先帶有接納線索之對象的評價，亦會提升原先帶有拒絕線索對象之評價。換言之，由於去類別化作用會降低被威脅個體與互動對象的連結感，亦即他們對於互動對象與自己的相似性知覺會降低，個體因而降低對此類對象之評價；另一方面，去類別化作用也會降低帶有拒絕線索對象以及原拒絕者的相似性知覺，因而提升對於此類對象之評價。
    綜合以上所述，本研究以一系列之研究來檢驗：個體受到社會排斥後，後續互動對象身上之類別相似性線索如何影響受威脅者之反應傾向。實驗一至五發現，當個體被社會排斥之後，他們對於那些帶有拒絕線索的個體會展現出戰或逃的行為傾向，並對帶有接納線索的個體展現親近與示好之行為，而拒絕相似性線索較為優先。而實驗六及七分別使用『再類別化』及『去類別化』兩種作業來改變類別相似性線索，來改變受社會排斥威脅者對於接納線索的知覺使其後續行為隨之改變。
    Previous research shows that social exclusion may cause either fight-or-flight behavior toward innocent people or a substantial increase in affiliation behavior. A two-stage model is proposed to explain people’s reactions after experiencing social exclusion. For these threatened individuals, groups that resemble their rejecter would provoke a defensive attitude and hostile behaviors. These individuals also show hospitality to those groups that resemble themselves to gain inclusion. The former process is more primary than the other.
    Experiment 1 (83 participants) and 3 (74 participants) used a scenario story to manipulate social exclusion. Groups with different categorical cues categorical similarity cues were provided. The results suggested that people after experiencing social exclusion tended to reject groups that resemble to previous rejecter. By contrast, groups that fit the characteristics of the target person were much preferred and received more resources.
    The second experiment (47 participants) used subliming priming to manipulate social exclusion. Main dependent measure was the decision time of lexical decision task. As predicted, compared to participants in control condition (all priming words in random order), those in social exclusion condition (being primed with rejection-softball and inclusion-enjoy-learning) processed rejection associated words (related to the reject group) and acceptance associated words (related to the perspective group) significantly faster than no association words.
    Experiment 4 (75 participants) used a 2 (social exclusion vs. control condition) x 2 (cognitive load: heavy vs. light) x 3 (categorical similarity cues: high rejective cue, high perspective cue, irrelevant cue) mixed-design. The results indicated that the excluded participants who had a heavy cognitive load could only avoid groups that resemble the previous rejecter and showed no preference for groups that might be suitable for them. To defend is the primary process.
    From experiment 5A to experiment 7, cyberostracism was employed to manipulate social exclusion. Experiment 5A (67 participants) used a 2 (social exclusion: social exclusion condition vs. control condition) x 2 (personality feedback: feedback vs. no feedback) x 4 (categorical similarity cues: rejective cue, perspective cue, irrelevant cue, rejecter) mixed-design. It was found that only those who with perspective cue could receive better evaluation from excluded participants. Experiment 5B suggested that excluded participants would evaluate people with rejective cues worse than those who in control group.
    The experiment 6 and 7 used decategorization and recategorization task to change the perceptions of categorical similarity cues. Experiment 6 (51 participants) showed that recategorization task could weaken the effect of the rejective cue and thus excluded participants would give better evaluation to people with rejective cue than participants in social exclusion only condition. Experiment 7 (46 participants) suggested that decategorization task might weaken the effect of perspective cue and therefore the evaluation tended to decrease for people with perspective cue.
    Eight experiments provided convergent evidence to this study to suggest that categorical similarity cues of possible affiliated people could elicit different reactions from excluded people.
    參考文獻: 中文文獻
    何春吉（1997）。自我肯定對內團體偏私現象的影響。未出版之碩士學位論文。中壢：中原大學。
    高立宇 （2008）。 華人社會排斥現象之探討：情境因素與個人因素對反應策略的影響。未出版之碩士學位論文。中壢：中原大學。
    張仁和、黃金蘭、林以正（2013）。從情緒平和與止觀探討心理位移日記書寫方法的療癒機制。教育心理學報，44，589-607。
    孫蒨如、王崇信（2005）。 華人的自我評價與自我肯定歷程。本土心理學研究，24， 139-187。
    黃囇莉（2005）。 人際和諧與人際衝突。載於楊國樞、黃光國和楊中芳（主編），華人本土心理學（頁521-566）。台北：遠流。
    楊國樞（2005）。華人社會取向的理論分析。載於楊國樞、黃光國和楊中芳（主編），華人本土心理學（頁173-214）。台北：遠流。

    英文文獻
    Augoustinos, M., Walker, I., & Donaghue, N. (2014). Social cognition: An integrated introduction.: sage.
    Ayduk, O., Mischel, W., & Downey, G. (2002). Attentional mechanisms linking rejection to hostile reactivity: The role of “hot” versus “cool” focus. Psychological Science, 13(5), 443-448.
    Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Social exclusion impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), 589-604. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.589
    Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529.
    Baumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M., & Nuss, C. K. (2002). Effects of social exclusion on cognitive processes: Anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 817-827. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.83.4.817
    Beest, I. v., & Williams, K. D. (2006). When Inclusion Costs and Ostracism Pays, Ostracism Still Hurts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 918-928.
    Blackhart, G. C., Nelson, B. C., Knowles, M. L., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). Rejection Elicits Emotional Reactions but Neither Causes Immediate Distress nor Lowers Self-Esteem: A Meta-Analytic Review of 192 Studies on Social Exclusion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(4), 269-309. doi: 10.1177/1088868309346065
    Burson, A., Crocker, J., & Mischkowski, D. (2012). Two types of value-affirmation implications for self-control following social exclusion. . Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(4), 510-516.
    Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A Review and Reformulation of Social Information-Processing Mechanisms in Children`s Social Adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 74-101.
    Crocker, J., & Canevello, A. (2008). Creating and Undermining Social Support in Communal Relationships: The Role of Compassionate and Self-Image Goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(3), 555-575.
    Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5-18.
    DeWall, C. N., & Baumeister, R. F. (2006). Alone but feeling no pain: Effects of social exclusion on physical pain tolerance and pain threshold, affective forecasting, and interpersonal empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 1-15. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.1
    DeWall, C. N., Maner, J. K., & Rouby, D. A. (2009). Social Exclusion and Early-Stage Interpersonal Perception: Selective Attention to Signs of Acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 729-741. doi: 10.1037/a0014634
    Dijksterhuis, A., & Aarts, H. (2003). On Wildebeests and Humans The Preferential Detection of Negative Stimuli. Psychological Science, 14(1), 14-18.
    Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1999). Reducing Prejudice Combating Intergroup Biases. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(4), 101-105.
    Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Kawakami, K. (2003). Intergroup contact: The past, present, and the future. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(1), 5-21.
    Forsyth, D. (2009). Group Dynamics. (5 ed.). CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
    Gaertner, L., Iuzzini, J., & O’Mara, E. M. (2008). When Rejection by One Fosters Aggression Against Many: Multiple-Victim Aggression as a Consequence of Social Rejection and Perceived Groupness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 958-970.
    Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Banker, B. S., Houlette, M., Johnson, K. M., & McGlynn, E. A. (2000). Reducing intergroup conflict: From superordinate goals to decategorization, recategorization, and mutual differentiation., 4(1), 98. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice., 4(1), 98-114.
    Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (1989). Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 239-249.
    Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2000). Social exclusion and selective memory: How the need to belong influences memory for social events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(4), 486-496.
    Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L., Jefferis, V., & Knowles, M. (2005). On the outside looking in: Loneliness and social monitoring. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(11), 1549-1560.
    Gilbert, D. T., Pelham, B. W., & Krull, D. S. (1988). On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived. Journal of personality and social psychology, 54(5), 733-740.
    Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual review of psychology, 53(1), 575-604.
    Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 3-23.
    Jones, L. M., & Foley, L. A. (2003). Educating children to decategorize racial groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(3), 554-564.
    Lakin, J. L., Chartrand, T. L., & Arkin, R. M. (2008). I Am Too Just Like You Nonconscious Mimicry as an Automatic Behavioral Response to Social Exclusion. Psychological Science, 19(8), 816-822.
    Leary, M. R. (2010). Affiliation, acceptance, and belonging: The pursuit of interpersonal connection. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5 ed., pp. 864-897). NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
    Leary, M. R., Terdal, S. K., Tambor, E. S., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor - the sociometer hypothesis. [Article]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 518-530. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.518
    Lee, J., & Shrum, L. J. (2012). Conspicuous consumption versus charitable behavior in response to social exclusion: A differential needs explanation. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 530-544.
    Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Schaller, M. (2007). Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the "porcupine problem". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 42-55. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.42
    Maslow, A. H. (1954). Toward a psychology of being. NJ: Van Nostrand.
    Molden, D. C., Lucas, G. M., Gardner, W. L., Dean, K., & Knowles, M. (2009). Motivations for prevention or promotion following social exclusion. Being rejected versus being ignored. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 415-431.
    Nezlek, J. B., Wesselmann, E. D., Wheeler, L., & Williams, K. D. (2012). Ostracism in everyday life. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice., 16(2), 91–104.
    Ojanen, T., Gronroos, M., & Salmivalli, C. (2005). An Interpersonal Circumplex Model of Children`s Social Goals: Links With Peer-Reported Behavior and Sociometric Status. Developmental Psychology, 41(5), 699-710.
    Park, J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2015). Social exclusion causes a shift toward prevention motivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 153-159.
    Pervin, L. A., Cervone, D., & John, O. P. (2004). Personality: Theory and Research (9 ed.). NY: John Wiley & Sons.
    Pickett, C. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). The Social Monitoring System: Enhanced Sensitivity to Social Cues as an Adaptive Response to Social Exclusion. In C. L. G. Pickett, Wendi L., K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying. (pp. 213-226). NY: Psychology PressSydney Symposium of Social Psychology series.
    Richman, L. S., & Leary, M. R. (2009). Reactions to Discrimination, Stigmatization, Ostracism, and Other Forms of Interpersonal Rejection: A Multimotive Model. Psycholgical Review, 116(2), 365-383.
    Rosenberg, M. (1965). Rosenberg self-esteem scale (RSE). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. Measures Package, 61.
    Sacco, D. F., Wirth, J. H., Hugenberg, K., Chen, Z. S., & Williams, K. D. (2011). The world in black and white: Ostracism enhances the categorical perception of social information. [Article]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(4), 836-842. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.001
    Sedikides, C., Campbell, W. K., Reeder, G. D., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). The relationship closeness induction task. Representative Research in Social Psychology., 23, 1-4.
    Seta, J. J., & Seta, C. E. (1996). Big fish in small ponds: a social hierarchy analysis of intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1210-1221.
    Shapiroa, J. R., Baldwinb, M., Williamsc, A. M., & Trawalter, S. (2011). The company you keep: Fear of rejection in intergroup interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 221-227.
    Sherif, M. (1958). Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. American journal of Sociology, 63(4), 349-356.
    Steele, C. M., & Liu, T. J. (1983). Dissonance processes as self-affirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 5-19.
    Stillman, T. F., Baumeister, R. F., Lambert, N. M., Crescioni, A. W., DeWall, C. N., & Fincham, F. D. (2009). Alone and without purpose: Life loses meaning following social exclusion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 686-694. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.007
    Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European journal of social psychology, 1(2), 149-178.
    Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
    Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Bartels, J. M. (2007). Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 56-66. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.56
    Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can`t join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1058-1069.
    Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Social exclusion causes self-defeating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 606-615. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.83.3.606
    Warburton, W. A., Williams, K. D., & Cairns, D. R. (2006). When ostracism leads to aggression: The moderating effects of control deprivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 213-220.
    Williams, K. D. (2002). Ostracism: The power of silence. NY: Guilford Press.
    Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425-452.
    Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 748-762.
    Williams, K. D., & Jarvis, B. (2006). Cyberball: A program for use in research on interpersonal ostracism and acceptance. Behavior Research Methods, 38(1), 174-180.
    Williams, K. D., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). Social ostracism by coworkers: Does rejection lead to loafing or compensation? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(7), 693-706.
    描述: 博士
    國立政治大學
    心理學研究所
    98752503
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098752503
    資料類型: thesis
    顯示於類別:[心理學系] 學位論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 大小格式瀏覽次數
    250301.pdf2356KbAdobe PDF2403檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回饋