只問盡義，不求享權？華人親子角色義務對權利正當性之影響

本文旨在探討「義務本位」與「關係主義」文化預設下，親子互動中的角色義務對權利擁有的影響。本文包括四個正式研究，站在子女的角度，皆發現在親子關係中，「盡義務與否」對「權利之正當性」有顯著效果。研究一A與B採情景實驗法，分別蒐集到91筆與87筆有效問卷，研究發現：父母與子女盡了義務比不盡義務，擁有較高的享有權利正當性。這顯示：權利的享有會隨著盡義務∕不盡義務而變動，符合義務取向之假設。研究二A與B同樣採情景實驗法，有效樣本分別為126筆與134筆大學生資料。研究一只發現盡義務與不盡義務有差異，研究二則進一步發現研究一的差異來自父母與子女盡了義務並不會增加權利擁有的正當性，但一旦不盡義務，權利正當性就會下降。這符合關係主義下，親子間係採用只盡義務但不求權利的「需求法則」來互動。本文體現出：對子女而言，父母與子女盡了義務只能保有權利擁有之正當性，卻無法增加享有權利的正當性程度，亦即盡義務的效果有限，沒有加分作用，然一旦不盡義務卻有減分效果。本文揭示了華人親子關係下，「義務取向」與「關係主義」下的義務與權利互動形式為「只問盡義務，不求享權利」。本文對理解現代華人社會新舊倫理混合的人際交往法則具有啟發意義。

關鍵字

家庭倫理；義務優先；需求法則；盡義享權；親子關係

並列摘要

This study identifies the operational rules of rights and obligations in the Chinese parent-child relationship. Chinese societies are obligation oriented. In interpersonal interactions, Chinese people emphasize the fulfillment of obligations. That is, if obligations are not fulfilled, interpersonal rules are violated. Interaction is ＂obligation first＂. Nowadays, culturally Chinese people are also aware of their rights. To investigate the relationship of obligations and rights, we consider the two most important cultural contexts in Chinese societies. In Study 1, we focused on the primacy of obligation. Chinese societies treat obligation as the priority. Thus, the operational rules are: rights vary with obligation or obligation first, rights second, or having rights depends on whether the obligations have been fulfilled or not. In other words, the legitimacy of rights varies with the fulfillment of obligations; the fulfillment of obligations significantly influence rights. In Study 1, we examined H1: In the parent-child relationship, the level of the legitimacy of rights differs significantly depending on whether obligations are fulfilled or violated. The legitimacy of rights of those who fulfill their obligations is significantly greater than those who violate their obligations. In Study 2, we focused on relationalism. Different interactive rules apply in different relationships. Parent-child interaction emphasizes the need rule, which only considers obligations, and neglects rights. As it is essential to fulfill obligations, we inferred that in Chinese parent-child interaction, the effect of the fulfillment of obligations is insignificant, meaning that obligation fulfillment by either party does not enhance the legitimacy of rights. However, once parents or children violate their obligations, it leads to negative results, which considerably lower the legitimacy of rights. Hence, H2: In the parent-child relationship, after fulfiling obligations the legitimacy of rights does not increase, but after violating obligations, the legitimacy of rights is reduced. We explored what influences the legitimacy of rights in the Chinese parent-child relationship by focusing on obligation and relationalism, as well as how fulfillment of obligation affects the variation of the legitimacy of rights. A total of 489 university students (valid sample size = 438) completed online surveys for 2 studies to test the hypotheses: Study 1A examined whether children's rights are influenced by their fulfillment of obligations. Study 1B examined whether parents' rights are influenced by the fulfillment of obligations. Study 2A explored whether children's daily fulfillment of obligations influenced the legitimacy of their rights. Study 2B probed the effect of the daily fulfillment of obligations on the legitimacy of parents'rights. Studies 1A and 1B investigated the impact of the fulfillment of obligations on rights and used the same scenarios and a between-subject design. The analysis indicated that children/parents who fulfill their obligations have greater legitimacy of rights in comparison to those who violate their obligations. H1 is accepted. Obligations have primacy over rights. Study 1 identified a difference in the legitimacy of rights, but it cannot support the conclusion that the cause of the difference is derived from the effect of obligation fulfilment. In addition, Study 1 only indicated that rights vary with obligations, and does not address the degree of variation. Study 2A and 2B explored the various levels of the legitimacy of autonomy/discipline rights before and after children's and parents' fulfillment or violation of obligations. In Study 2, we used scenarions with a 2 (fulfillment of obligation vs. violation of obligation) × 2 (pretest and posttest: pretest vs. posttest) mixed design. The analysis revealed that parents and children do not have more rights when they fulfill obligations. However, if they do not fulfill their obligations, the legitimacy of their rights decreases. This finding corresponds to the need rule under relationalism. Obligations are important, but the effect is limited. Parents and children must fulfill their obligations in order to maintain their rights. Fulfilling obligations does not increase rights, but failing to fulfill obligations decreases rights. In summary, we raised two important points. The first is the asymmetric relationship between obligations and rights in Chinese culture. Second, we identified two perspectives for examining the relation between rights and obligations: the primacy of obligation and relationalism. These findings can inspire research into Chinese ethics and interpersonal morality, and can serve as reference for investigation of the rules of interpersonal relationships. This study also raises questions for future research, such as: In western societies, are rights and obligations equal? Does obligation fulfillment enhance rights? Which cultural mechanism dominates the relationship between rights and obligation? In the future, cultural comparison research can further explore these points.