個體之關懷價值對慈善組織評價移轉之關連比較分析

The Comparative Analysis of Individual’s Concern Value to the Transferred Evaluation of Charitable Organizations

黃筱雯(Hsiao-Wen Huang)

指導教授 ： 方珍玲

國立臺北大學/商學院/合作經濟學系/碩士(2009年)

摘要

本研究依Value Activation Theory建立研究架構，「關懷價值程度量表」問卷內容以「關懷價值—慈善組織評價」為兩大構面，設計「人類、動物、地球環境」三種關懷對象，採用群集分析、典型相關分析之統計方法進行資料分析，欲探討受訪者對於關懷價值與慈善組織評價移轉之關連性為何。研究對象為臺灣地區之獸醫師、寵物業者、動物保護團體、防疫人員，以及一般民眾，並將研究對象分為兩大類族群，第一類族群包含獸醫師、寵物業者、動物保護團體、防疫人員；第二類族群為一般民眾。目的在於比較不同身份背景之兩類族群，對於關懷議題是否會有所不同。本研究將專業人員與一般民眾之有效樣本各分為四群，專業人員之四分群分別為工作關懷型、信任關係型、高度公益型、中度公益型；一般民眾之四分群則為感性型、信任關係型、理性型、公益型。
高度公益型與中度公益型在關懷價值與慈善組織評價之平均分數皆較高，其為高度關懷價值與慈善組織評價高之群體，顯示在長期與動物相處之工作經驗下，此兩群體能將工作與關懷之情合而為一。同樣的職業背景與工作經驗下，信任關係型為低度關懷且慈善組織評價低之群體，表示此群體與慈善組織尚未建立信任關係；工作關懷型之群體特徵，其為高度關懷，卻為慈善組織評價低落者，顯示此群體對關懷對象具有憐憫之心，卻無法將同理心轉化為對慈善組織的評價上。
公益型之特質為關懷價值程度高與慈善組織評價高；理性型之特質為關懷價值程度高，但慈善組織評價低；感性型之特質為對於關懷價值程度與慈善組織評價，均持普通、中等的意見，表示此群體本身已有既定的關懷價值與慈善組織評價，但仍缺乏誘因、缺乏激發關懷的情境；信任關係型之特質為關懷價值程度低與慈善組織評價低。

關鍵字

關懷價值 ； 慈善組織評價 ； 群集分析

並列摘要

In this study, “Value Activation Theory” we adopted as our research framework and we set two variables, concern value and evaluation of charitable organizations, in our questionnaire design which is named as the degree of concern value scale. Our questionnaire comprises three objects, people, animals, and natural environment. The methods used are cluster analysis and canonical correlation analysis. Five samples are used: veterinary, pet industry, animal protect association, epidemic prevention workers, and the general public. We separate five samples into two groups, the first is the professional and the second is the public. The purpose is to compare whether two groups is different in the concerned issues or not. The results showed that members of each group could be grouped into four clusters, each holding a unique combination of the concern value. The four clusters of the professional group are named as the concerned workers, the trust relationship, high-engagement philanthropy, and moderate-engagement philanthropy. Another four clusters of the public group are named as the sensibility, the trust relationship, the rationality, and the philanthropy.
For high-engagement philanthropy, and moderate-engagement philanthropy, concern value and evaluation of charitable organizations are highly associated, yet for the trust relationship, the two variables appear to exist in different conceptual domains, which mean that the members still have no confidence in charitable organizations. For the concerned workers, the members place particular importance on two variables, which mean that they have empathy toward concerned issues, but they can not transfer empathy to evaluation of charitable organizations.
For the philanthropy, concern value and evaluation of charitable organizations are highly associated, yet for the rationality, two variables are negative correlation. The cluster of sensibility holds ordinary views, which is still lack of the incentive to arouse the established concern value toward three issues. For the trust relationship, the members still have no confidence in charitable organizations, which are the same as that of the professional.

並列關鍵字

concern value ； evaluation of charitable organizations ； cluster analysis

參考文獻

Alan Radley & Marie Kennedy, (1992), “Reflections upon Charitable Giving: A Comparison of Individuals from Business, ‘Manual’ and Professional Backgrounds”, Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 113-129.

Alissa Sherry & Robin K. Henson(2005), “Conducting and Interpreting Canonical Correlation Analysis in Personality Research: A User-Friendly Primer”, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 84(1), pp.37-48.

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M., (1977), “Attitude-Behavior Relations: A Theoretical Analysis and Review of Empirical Research”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 84, pp. 888-918.

Ajzen, I., (2002), “Perceived Behavioral Control, Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and the Theory of Planned Behavior,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 32, pp. 1-20.

Arvind K. Sinha & Anshoom Jain, (1986), “The Effects of Benefactor and Beneficiary Characteristics on Helping Behavior”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 126(3), pp.361-368.