程序公平如何與何時影響自我評價 自利性偏誤或不確定管理理論

How and When Does Procedural Fairness Affect Self-evaluation? Self-serving Bias or Uncertainty Management Theory

花崇育(Chong-Yu Hua)

指導教授 ： 吳宗祐 ； 鄭伯壎

國立臺灣大學/理學院/心理學研究所/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201704481

摘要

過去研究已經顯示程序公平與結果利害會產生交互作用以影響員工的自我評價，但是對於程序公平與結果利害「如何」與「何時」影響自我評價仍然是不清楚的。針對「如何」的問題，本研究提出歸因理論，說明程序公平與結果利害會透過歸因自我責任影響到自我評價。針對「何時」的問題，本研究藉由將結果利害細分為「實際」結果利害與「預期」結果利害，提出二個競爭理論：自利性偏誤與不確定管理理論。依據自利性偏誤觀點，當個體面對負向的實際結果利害時，會想要向外搜尋程序公平的訊息；依據不確定管理理論觀點，當個體面對實際結果利害與預期結果利害為不一致時，會想要向外搜尋程序公平的訊息。本研究透過二次的實驗，其結果皆顯示人們在面對結果利害時，會利用程序公平訊息來歸因自我責任，並且支持不確定管理理論觀點，說明當個體面對到「不一致的結果利害」時會更需要搜尋程序公平的訊息。最後，本研究進一步提出綜合討論、研究貢獻、研究限制與未來研究發展。

關鍵字

程序公平 ； 結果利害 ； 自我評價 ； 歸因理論 ； 自利性偏誤 ； 不確定管理理論

並列摘要

Previous research has shown that procedural fairness and outcome favorability often interact to influence employees’ self-evaluation, but has not clarified “how” and “when” this interaction affects self-evaluation. To address the “how” issue, the author proposes that, based on attribution theory, procedural fairness and outcome favorability interact to influence self-evaluation via attributions of self-responsibility. To address the “when” issue, the present research divides outcome favorability into “actual” outcome favorability and “expected” outcome favorability, providing two competing theories: self-serving bias and uncertainty management theory. According to self-serving bias, when people receive a negative actual outcome, they may be more eager to seek information about procedural fairness. In contrast, according to uncertainty management theory, when the actual outcome is inconsistent with the expected outcome, people are more eager to seek information about procedural fairness. The results of 2 experiments show that people use procedural fairness information to make attributions of self-responsibility according to different outcome favorability （actual/expected, positive/negative）. In addition, the results support uncertainty management theory, demonstrating that people tend to search procedural fairness information when actual outcomes are inconsistent with expected outcomes. The research findings, implications, limitations, and future research directions are discussed.

並列關鍵字

procedural fairness ； outcome favorability ； self-evaluation ； attribution theory ； self-serving bias ； uncertainty management theory

參考文獻

Adams, J. S. （1965）. Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz （Ed.）, Advances in experimental social psychology （Vol. 2, pp. 267-299）. New York: Academic Press.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. （1991）. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. （1987）. The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 177-198.

Barclay, L. J., Skarlicki, D. P., & Pugh, S. D. （2005）. Exploring the role of emotions in injustice perceptions and retaliation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 629-643.

Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. （2003）. What constitutes fairness in work settings? A four-component model of procedural justice. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 107-126.