知覺父母教養行為對青少年同儕關係滿意度的影響：以對同儕衝突的認知評估與因應策略作為中介歷程
91
0
0
全文
(2) ⋯⋯. -. 4. 4. 4 -. -. 2020. 8.
(3) -. 15. 18. 4 496 t. 1. 2.. 3.. 4. 5. 6.. 4.
(4) Abstract The purpose of this study is to explore the influence of perceptions of parenting practices, namely parental autonomy support (PAS) and parental psychological control (PPC), on adolescents' peer relationship satisfaction (PRS), and taking appraisal of conflict, namely functional-orientated appraisal (FOA) and competitiveorientated appraisal (COA), as well as conflict resolution strategy (i.e., compatibility, self-sacrifice, utility, and escape) as mediators. The participants were adolescents from 15 to 18 years old. In this study, Perceptions of Parents Scale, Parental Psychological Control Questionnaire, Appraisal of Conflict Scale, Conflict Resolution Strategy Scale, and The Satisfaction with Peer Relationship Scale were used as research tools, with independent T-test, Pearson correlation and Structural Equation Modeling(SEM)statistics were used for data analysis. The main findings are: 1.. The effect of PAS on adolescents’ PRS was positive and significant.. 2.. The mediation effect of compatibility strategy on the path from ASP to PRS was positive and significant.. 3.. The mediation effect of self-sacrifice strategy on the path from PPC to PRS was negative and significant.. 4.. The mediation effect of FOA on the path from ASP to PRS was positive and significant.. 5.. The mediation effect of COA on the path from PPC to PRS was negative and significant.. 6.. The serial mediation effect of COA and self-sacrifice strategy on the path from PPC to PRS was negative and significant.. According to these findings, the study provides suggestions for future research directions and practitioners. Keywords: perceptions of parenting practices, peer relationship satisfaction, appraisal of conflict, conflict resolution strategy.
(5) -1............................................................................. - 1 ............................................................................. - 2 ............................................................................. - 3 5 .......................................................... 5 4. ........................... 7 ..................................15 21. ................................................................................21 .............................................................22 ................................................................................24 ................................................................................27 .....................................................................32 35 ................................................................................35 .....................................................39 .........................................................47 51 ........................................................................51 ................................................................................63 .....................................................63 .............................................................66 68 76 ..................................................................................76 ...............................................................................82 .......................................................................84.
(6) 3-1-1. ……………………………………………………………. .23. 3-4-1. ………………………………………………..29. 3-4-2. ………………………………………………..31. 4-1-1. 4. ………...38. 4-2-1. ………………………………………………………………..39. 4-3-1. ……………………………………………………..50. 5-1-1. …………………………………………..59. 2-2-1. 2012. 42. ……………………... 8. 3-1-1. …………………………………………………………………. 21. 4-2-1. ………………………………………………………….. 40. 4-2-2. ………………………………………………………….. 42. 4-2-3. ………………………………………………………….. 44 ………………………………………………………… 46.
(7) 4. 9 i 2018 Schwarz et al., 2012. 7 ( Shaffer, 2005). 6. 1999 4. 2012. 2018.
(8) 4. 1-. -. Engels, Deković, & Meeus, 2002. 2014. 6. 4. 4.
(9) Joussemet, Landry, & Koestner, 2008). -. -. Wu Guo Hsieh. Yeh. -. 2015. Robbins 1994. Perceptions of Parents Scale 2014. 2012. 6. 6 4. 4.
(10) 2018 6. 1995. -. 4 4. 6 2018. 6. i. 2007. 9. i 1-. 2018. 2012 2016 1985. 4. -. Diener.
(11) 6. 4 4. Laursen, 1996; Newman. et al, 2007. 1-. 2007. 9 i. 2018. 1-. 2012 i. -. i. 4 2012 Schwarz et al., 2012. 2007. -.
(12) Furman & Buhrmester, 1992. Hendrick, 1988. Kamo, 1993 2008 1986. 2003. 2017 Amato, 2012 Twenge et al.,2003. Raboteg-Saric & Sakic, 2010; Proctor et al., 2010 2014 Williams & Anthony, 2015. Young et al., 2005 3. 2011. Crissa et al., 2016; Storch & Masia-Warner,. 2004. 4 4.
(13) 4 4. -. 4. 6. -. -. 7 2002 -. 6 3. 1999. Vannucci. -. 2018. 4. 13-17. 100 6. 4 2012. 2014. 4 2007. 2012. -. 6. 6. Kluwer. Johnson.
(14) Rahim, 1986. Cummings, Geoke-Morey, & Papp, 2004. 4. Howe, Rinakdi, Jennings, & Petrakos, 2002 2012. 4. 2012. -. 4. 4 6 6. 4. 2-2-1. 2012. 42.
(15) 2-2-1. 1999 2011. 2011 2012. 2-2-1. 10 trigger 6 reciprocal. 2018 2014. -. 2018. 4. 1. 4. 4. -.
(16) -. 4. 4. coping. 2003. 6 Howell, 2015. 6. 6 Compas et al., 2001. 4. Rahim. Bonoma 1979. -. -. 111integrating. compromising. avoiding. obliging. dominating. integrating. 1compromising obliging. 1-. dominating. 1-. 4. 4 avoiding. 6. Elman 1984 4 Lazarus 4. 14 4.
(17) 1995. -. -. -. 4. 4 6. 1999 4. -. 1. v 2014. 4 Rahim. Bonoma 1979. 2014 1999. 1995. 4 2014. 1999. 1995. 1995.
(18) 4. 4. Cummings et al.,2004. 4 2014. Chiu, Shiue, & Lee, 2002. 2012. 0. 4 2012. 6. 4. 4 4. 4.
(19) 2018 4 1,047. -. 2014 4. 4. 4 2018 4 189. 23. 4. 4. 24. 4.
(20) -. 6 4 2012. 4.
(21) 4. 9 2013. i. 2007. 1986 2014 4 —. love-hostility. —. responsive. 4. autonomy-control. demanding. Schaefer, 1959. Maccoby & Martin, 1983. Grolnick & Gurland , 2002. Joussement et al, 2008 Barber 2002. 1 2 4. 3.
(22) 0 Joussement et al, 2008; Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010 Engels. - 2002 4 12-18. 508 -. 4 2013 4 697 4 v. -. 2016. 4. Schaefer. 1965. 402 -. Barber, 1996. intrusiveness control through guilt withdrawal. love constraining. invalidating feelings. personal attack 4. love withdraw. Barber 1996. guilt induction. verbal expressions. Joussement. possessiveness. -. erratic emotional behavior - 2008 4.
(23) — —. 2014. —. 4. Barber 1996. 4. 4 4. 5 2015. 7 Schaefer Barber. 1965. 1996. - 2008. Joussement 2014 Joussement. Barber 1996 - 2008. 2014 2014. Joussement. - 2008. 2014.
(24) 2014 -. Bandura 1977. Social Learning Theory observational learning. 1modeling. 9. 9. 9. 1. 9. 9. 4. 4. 6. 3 -. 16. 1-. 1-. 4. 4. 1.
(25) 2016. Wu, Guo, Hsieh & Yeh, 2015. -. 4 14. 3 love withdraw 4 v v. 6. 4.
(26) 9. 4. 3. -.
(27) 4 4. 3-1-1.
(28) 4 15. 108. 18. 9. 11. 4. 6. -. -. 15. -. 4 4. 512 8 18 16.22. 20. 4. 12 8. 48. 496 8. 0.74. 3-1-1.
(29) 3-1-1 -. -. 378. 76.2%. 118. 23.8%. 198. 39.9%. 298. 60.1%. 15. 76. 15.3%. 16. 248. 50.0%. 17. 157. 31.7%. 18. 15. 3.0%. 390. 78.6%. 11. 2.2%. 76. 15.3%. 17. 3.4%. 2. 0.4%. 42. 8.6%. 42. 8.6%. 392. 79.8%. 15. 3.1%. 409. 82.5%. 87. 17.5%. 4. 0.8%. 65. 13.1%. 151. 30.4%. 276. 55.6%. 8. 1.6%. 46. 9.3%. 159. 32.1%. 283. 57.1%. 1. 4. 4 4. 4.
(30) 1 1-1. 1-2. 2. 2-1. 2-2. 2-3. 2-4. 2-5. 2-6.
(31) 3. 3-1 3-2 3-3. 3-4. 3-5. 3-6. 4. 4-1. 4-2. 4-3. 4-4.
(32) 4-5. 4-6.
(33) 4. 4. Perceptions of Parents Scale Wu. Guo. Hsieh. Yeh. 2015. Robbins, 1994. 4. 9. 6 6. 4. 6. 4 1. 6. 3. 9. 6. Cronbach’s α α. 3. .84. 6. 2. .90. Cronbach’s. .94. 2014. 4. -. 12 4. 4 1. 2. 3. 4.
(34) 2014. / Cronbach’s α Cronbach’s α. .80. .85. .91. 2018 9 6 2. 5. 4 3. 1. 4. Cronbach’s α. 5. .88. .76. 4. 3-41. Cronbach’s α Cronbach’s α. .81. .90.
(35) 3-4-1. 1 6. .79. 11. .75 -. 9. 2. .73. 7. .73. 1. .70. 4. .69. 5. .69. 13. .66. 14. .66. 12. .78. 10. .77. 8. .72. 15. .63. 3. .55 2. 2. .43 .30. 4 2018. 4. 6 4 4. 5. 1. 20. 5 4. 2018 Cronbach’s α. .77. .90.
(36) / 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 3-4-2 Cronbach’s α. .83. Cronbach’s α Cronbach’s α. Cronbach’s α. .73. .72. .73.
(37) 3-4-2. 1 17. 3. 9. .82. 1. .74 .57. 4. 13. .76. 8. .68. 19. .59. 3. .48. 7. .73. 5. .69. 20. .65. 10. .48. 15 18. 4. .85. v. 14. 2. .87 7. .71. 6. 6. .53. 2. .26 2. .30 .30. 2. 4. 0. 2016. 4 Diener 1985 7. 1 4. v 5. 5 2. .91. Cronbach’s α. .93. 4 3. 6. 2016 Cronbach’s α. -. 7.
(38) 4 SPSS. 23. -. 4 4 Mplus. 8.3. (structural. equation modeling, SEM). Cronbach’s α. 4 3-1-1. -. -. 4. t 4. 4. 4. 1 4.
(39) 4 2. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. structural equation modeling, SEM SEM. 4 4. 4. 4 4. measurement model. Little. -. Little, Cunningham,. Shahar & Widaman 2002. 4. Little. -. Little, Cunningham, Shahar & Widaman 2002.
(40) 4 4 4. 1= 1=. 0=. 1=. 1= 1=. 0= 0=. 4. 0=. 0= 1. 4. 4. χ2/df 2005. CFI TLI. .90 Bentler, 1990. .05 SRMR. .05 .08. 3 Kline,. Bentler & Bonnett, 1980. .08. RMSEA. Browne & Cudeck, 1993. Hu & Bentler,1999 Mplus product of coefficients approach. 4 Hayes. Preacher 2010. approach. bootstrapping 2,000 50th. 95%CI. 2. 95% 1950th. 4 5%. α<.05.
(41) 4-1-1. 4. 4.29 3. 4. 0.88. 1.87. 1. 2. 0.70 =4.41. =0.81. =3.87. 1. =1.00,. t=5.15 , p<.00. =1.96. =0.88. =1.81. =0.70, t= 1.08 , p=.28 3.52. 4. 3. 0.75. 2. 2.18. 3. 0.76 3.65. 3. 2. 0.83. 2. 2.35. 3. 2.33. 0.78. 2 1.99 0.77. 3. 0.80. 1. 2 =3.49. =3.75. =0.80, t= -3.51 , p<.00. =0.87.
(42) =3.70. =0.78. =3.47. 1. =0.98, t=2.27 , p=.03. =2.53,. =2.20. =0.80. =0.77, t=4.63 , p<.00 4.82. 4. 5. 1.28 =1.23. =4.95 =4.37. 1. =1.36, t=4.28 , p<.00. 4. r = -.64, p < .001. 4-1-1. r = .34,. p < .001. r = -.24, p < .001 r = -.17, p < .001 r = .32, p < .001. r = .30,. p < .001. r = -.10, p = .03 r = -.20, p < .001 r = -.13, p = .003. =.22, p < .001. r = .20, p < .001 r= .26, p < .001 r = .35, p < .001 r= -.22, p < . 001. r.
(43) r = -.25, p < .001 r = .65, p < .001 r = .20, p = .03. r = -.17, p < .001. r = -.29, p < .001. r = .21, p < .001. < .001. r = .40, p. r = .52, p < .001 r = .33, p < .001 r = -.29, p < .001. r = .15, p = .001 r = -.26, p < .001 r = .39, p < .01 r = .30, p < .001 r = .29, p < .001. r = -.13, p = .003 r = -.25, p < .001. 4.
(44) 4-1-1. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1.. 1. 6. 4.29. 0.88. 2.. 1. 4. 1.87. 0.70. -.64***. 3.. 1. 5. 3.52. 0.75. .34***. -.17***. 4.. 1. 5. 2.18. 0.76. -.24***. .32***. -.25***. 5.. 1. 5. 3.65. 0.83. .30***. -.13**. .65***. -.29***. 6.. 1. 5. 2.35. 0.78. -.20*. .22***. .20*. .21***. .15**. 7.. 1. 5. 2.33. 0.80. -.05. .20***. .02. .40***. .02. .08. 8. 38. 1. 5. 1.99. 0.77. -.20***. .26***. -.17***. .52***. -.26***. .39**. 9.. 1. 7. 4.82. 1.28. .35**. -.22***. .33***. -.29***. .29***. -.13** -.03. N=496. 8. .30*** -.25***.
(45) 4-2-1. 3. 9. 4-2-1 χ2. df. p. χ2 / df. CFI. TLI. 302.23. 105.00. .00. 2.88. .96. .94. .062. .032. 1002.82. 455.00. .00. 2.20. .92. .91. .049. .048. 455.93. 203.00. .00. 2.25. .96. .94. .050. .030. 1337.66. 641.00. .00. 2.09. .93. .91. .047. .047. RMSEA SRMR. 4-2-1 γ =.37, p < .001. 1-1 1-2 3. Mackinnon, Krull, & Lockwood, 2000; Zhao, Lynch, & Chen, 2010.
(46) 4-2-1.
(47) 4-2-2 β =.36, p < .001. 2-1 β = -.28, p = .008 2-2 γ =.45, p < .001. 1 2-3. 2-4. p < .001. 1. γ =.41,. 4. γ =.34, p = .002. γ =.31, p = .005 1 4 γ =.12, p = .014. 1 γ =.28, p = .004. 4.
(48) 4-2-2.
(49) 4-2-3 β = .22, p < .001. 3. 3-1 β = -.22, p < .001. 3 3-2. γ =.44, p < .001. 3 3-3 =.38, p < .001. γ. 3 3-4. 4 γ =.23, p = .001. 3 4.
(50) 4-2-3.
(51) 4-2-4. 4 β =.64, p < .001 β =.27, p < .001. 5. 4-1 β = .51, p < .001. β =.59, p< .001. 4-2. β =.23, p =.003. 5 β =.17, p = .007. β = -.19, p = .001. 5. β = -.25, p = .026 γ = .44, p < .001. γ =.38, p < .001. γ =.27, p = .005. γ =.17, p = .033. 5 γ =.19, p = .010 γ = .28, p = .006. 5.
(52) 4-2-4.
(53) 2-5 6. 4-3. 4-4. 4-5. 2-6. 3-5. 3-. 4-6 4-3-1. —. —. 9 —. —. 7. 4-3-1. 9 7. 9 estimate = .16, Sobel’s Z-value = 3.04, p = .002, 95% CI = [.076, .281] 2-5 estimate = -.11, Sobel’s Z-value = -2.13,. 9 p = .034, 95% CI = [-.236, -.026] 2-6 7. 9. estimate = .08, Sobel’s Z-value = 2.03, p < .041, 95% CI = [.017, .163] —. —. —. 7. 9. —. 9 —. —. 7. 4-3-1. 9 7. estimate. 9. = .10, Sobel’s Z-value = 3.16, p = .002, 95% CI = [.049, .171] 7 estimate = -.08, Sobel’s Z-value = -2.45, -.032]. 3-6 9. 3-5 9. p = .013, 95% CI = [-.165, —. —. 7.
(54) —. — —. —. 4-3-1 estimate. 7 = .28, Sobel’s Z-value = 4.73, p < .001, 95% CI = [.171, .405] 3. 4estimate = .10,. 7. Sobel’s Z-value = 2.53, p = .01, 95% CI = [.041, .198]. estimate = .19,. Sobel’s Z-value = 3.29, p = .001, 95% CI = [.093, .330] estimate = .22, Sobel’s Z-value = 3.54, p < .001, 95% CI = [.113, .353]. 4-4. 4. 7. estimate = .10, Sobel’s Z-value = 2.50, p = .013, 95% CI = [.033 .195] estimate = .07, Sobel’s Z-. 4 value = 2.47, p = .02, 95% CI = [.024, .153]. —. —. —. —. —. 9 — —. 7. — 4-3-1. 9 8. 7 4-5. 9 4-6. 8 7. 9. estimate = -.03, Sobel’s Z-value = -1.56, p = .112, 95% CI = [-.069, -.004] 7 9 8. 4. 4 7. 9.
(55) estimate = -.03, Sobel’s Z-value = -1.47, p = .140, 95% CI = [-.070, -.003]. — 9. —. —. 7.
(56) 0 4-3-1. 0. estimate SE. Sobel's Z value. p value. 95%CI. →. →. .16. .05. 3.04. .00**. [.076, .281]. →. →. -.11. .05. -2.13. .03*. [-.236, -.026]. →. →. -.04. .03. -1.13. .26. [-.122, .011]. →. .03. .04. 0.58. .56. [-.046, .129]. →. 5. →. →. .10. .03. 3.16. .00**. [.049, .171]. →. →. -.08. .03. -2.45. .01*. [-.165, -.032]. →. →. .28. .06. 4.73. .00*** [.171, .405]. →. →. .10. .04. 2.53. .01*. [.041, .198]. →. →. .19. .06. 3.29. .00**. [.093, .330]. →. →. .22. .06. 3.54. .00*** [.113, .353]. →. →. →. .06. .04. 1.38. .17. [-.012, .148]. →. →. →. -.03. .02. -1.56. .11. [-.069, -.004]. →. →. →. -.01. .02. -0.35. .72. [-.053, .029]. →. →. →. .02. .03. 0.70. .49. [-.034, .097]. 5. 5.
(57) 8. 7. 1-1. 2016. Engels. 2002. 1-2. 2. 5.
(58) 7 2014. 4 2015. 7. 2 3. 8 2. 8. 2012. 2014. 2018 2018. 2-1. 8.
(59) 4 2-2 2018. Furman. 7. Buhrmester 1992. 8. 4. 4. 2-2 2002. 3. 4. 7. 8. 8.
(60) 8. 6. 5. 2-3. 8. 2-4 Bandura 1977. Social Learning Theory observational learning. modeling. 8.
(61) 8 8. —. —. 2-5. —. — 2 2-. 6. 2018. 3-1. 8 4 1999. 3-2.
(62) 3-3 3-4. Bandura. 1977. 8. 7. 1. —. —. 3-5. —. —. — — —. — —. —.
(63) 2012. 4-1 4-2 2014 —. 2018 —. —. —. 4-3. —. — 4-4. —. — —. — —. — 4-5. 2. 8. —. —. 7. 8. —.
(64) 8 4. 3. 7 8 2 8. 7. 7.
(65) 5-1-1. 1. 6. 1-1. 6. 1-2. 6. 2. 6. 5. 6 6. 9. 2-1 2-2 2-3. 6. 2-4. 6. 2-5. 6. 2-6. 6. 3. 6. 5. 5. 6. 9. 6. 9. 3-2. 3-4. 6. 3-5. 6. x. o. x. x. 6. 3-1. 6. x. 6. 9. 3-3. o. 5. 6 6. 5. 6. 9.
(66) 3-6. 4. 6. 6. 6. 9. 9. 4-1. 9. 4-2. 9. 4-3. 6. 4-4. 6. 4-5. 6. 4-6. 6. 2-1 2-3. 2-5 4-1 4-3 4-5. 5. 5. 0. 6. 9. 6. 9. 6. 9. 6. 9. o. x. x.
(67) 1999 —. 0. —. 8 2014 8. 8. 0 8. 0. 8. 8.
(68) 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 4. 2. 8.
(69) 2015. 1. 2016. Engels, 2002. 2016. 0. 1 2015 0 Bandura 1977. 0 Social Learning Theory. 5. 8 2018 2014. 0. 2018. 9. 0. 0. Furman. Buhrmester 1992. 15. 18. 3. 76.2%. 23.8%. 60.1%. 0 0. 0 0. 39.9%.
(70) .30. 0. 0 4-5. 0. 8. 0. 0. 0.
(71) 0. 0. 0. 0.
(72) 0. 0 15 0. 0 0 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 0. 18.
(73) 0 0. 0. William Doherty 1995 Information and Advice Feeling and support. Thomas Gordon Effectiveness Training. 1960s. P.E.T. Child Owns Problem. 0. 0. Parent.
(74) 6. 2003 26. 71-95 2018 122-164. 2008). 3 30. 155-197. 1999 2003. 2014) 60. 219-271. 2017. 2014 10. 2. 61-86. 2012) 3. 7. 98-114. 1999. 2011. 0 49. 219-251. 2011. 2007 20 1. 1-30.
(75) 2014 13. 2. 55-74. 2016. 1999 2002 23. 163-195. 2011) (I) http://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/handle/20.500.12235/40978 2014. 61. 2. 239-258 1 2015 3. 357-375. 2007. 11. 78-. 91 1986 1. 28. 7-28 1995 79. 87-118. 2012 3. 31-59. 2014. 8 27(2) 173-. 199 2016 45 2013 19. 2. 1-18. 57-92.
(76) 2016. — 0 (. ) 2018. 14 81-. 108 2012 54. 4. 433-450 2018 31. 9. 1. 2012 11. 1. 105-123. 2013 21 4. 81-120. 29-67.
(77) Amato, P. R. (1986). Marital conflict, the parent-child relationship and child selfesteem. Family Relations, 403-410. Anna Vannucci, Christine McCauley Ohannessiana, Kaitlin M. Flannery, Andres De Los Reyes, Songqi Liu (2018). Associations between friend conflict and affective states in the daily lives of adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 65, 155-166. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bentler,P.M., & Bonnett,D.G.. 1980. . Significant tests and goodness of fit in the. analysis of covariance structure. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606. Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. K.A. Bollen, & J.S. Long. 1993 .Alternative ways of assessing model fit . In Eds.. ,Testing structural equation models,136-162.. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological bulletin, 107(2), 238. Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child development,67(6), 3296-3319. Barber, B. K. (2002). Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents. American Psychological Association. Beate Schwarz, Boris Mayer, Gisela Trommsdorff, Asher Ben-Arieh, Mihaela Friedlmeier,Katarzyna Lubiewska, Ramesh Mishra, and Karl Peltzer(2012). Does the Importance of Parent and Peer Relationships for Adolescents’ Life Satisfaction Vary Across Cultures? Journal of Early Adolescence, 32(1), 55–80. Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A. H., & Wadsworth, M. E. (2001). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Problems, progress, and potential in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 87– 127. Chiu, S. I., Shiue, S. P., & Lee, J. Z. (2002). A study on the relationships among family function, parent-adolescent conflict, coping strategies, and life adjustment. Hong Kong Journal of Social Science, 22, 141-178. Cummings, E. M., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Papp, L. M. (2004). Everyday marital conflict and child aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32(2), 191-202..
(78) Carmel Proctor, P. Alex Linley, John Maltby (2010). Very Happy Youths: Benefits of Very High Life Satisfaction Among Adolescents. Social Indicators Research, 98( 3), 519–532. Doherty, W. J. (1995). Boundaries between parent and family education and family therapy: The levels of family involvement model. Family Relations, 353-358. Elman, M. R., & Gilbert, L. A. (1984). Coping strategies for role conflict in married professional women with children. Family Relations, 317-327. Engels, R. C., Deković, M., & Meeus, W. (2002). Parenting practices, social skills and peer relationships in adolescence. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal,30(1), 3-17. Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of personal relationships. Child development, 63(1), 103-115. Grolnick, W. S., & Gurland, S. T. (2002). Mothering: Retrospect and Prospect. In J. P. McHale & W. S. Grolnick (Eds.), Retrospect and Prospect in the Psychological Study of Families (pp. 5-33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gordon, T. (2008). Parent effectiveness training: The proven program for raising responsible children. Harmony. Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 93-98. Hu,L., & Bentler,P.M. 1999 . Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6 , 1-55. Howe, N., Rinaldi, C. M., Jennings, M., & Petrakos, H. (2002). Constructive and destructive sibling conflict, pretend play, and social understanding. Child Development, 73(5), 1460-1473. Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2010). Quantifying and testing indirect effects in simple mediation models when the constituent paths are nonlinear. Multivariate behavioral research, 45(4), 627-660. Howell, K. H., Kaplow, J. B., Layne, C. M., Benson, M. A., Compas, B. E., Katalinski, R. & Pynoos, R. (2015). Predicting adolescent posttraumatic stress in the aftermath of war: Differential effects of coping strategies across trauma.
(79) reminder, loss reminder, and family conflict domains. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 28(1), 88-104. Kamo, Y. (1993). Determinants of marital satisfaction: A comparison of the United States and Japan. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(4), 551-568. Kluwer, E. S., & Johnson, M. D. (2007). Conflict frequency and relationship quality across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(5), 1089-1106. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications. Laursen, B. (1996). Closeness and conflict in adolescent peer relationships: Interdependence with friends and romantic partners. The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence, 186-210. Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural equation modeling, 9(2), 151-173. Maccoby, E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parentchild interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Socialization, personality and social development, 4, 1–101. MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1(4), 173181. Mireille Joussemet, Rene´e Landry and Richard Koestner(2008). A Self Determination Theory Perspective on Parenting. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 194–200. Michael M.Crissa, Benjamin J.Houltbergb, LixianCuic, Cara D.Boslera, Amanda SheffieldMorrisa, Jennifer S.Silkd (2016). Direct and indirect links between peer factors and adolescent adjustment difficulties. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 43, 83-90. Newman, B. M., Lohman, B. J., & Newman, P. R. (2007). Peer group membership and a sense of belonging: their relationship to adolescent behavior problems. Adolescence, 42(166), 242-263. Rahim, M. A. (1986). Referent role and styles of handling interpersonal conflict. The Journal of social psychology, 126(1), 79-86..
(80) Rahim, A., & Bonoma, T. V. (1979). Managing organizational conflict: A model for diagnosis and intervention. Psychological reports, 44(3), 1323-1344. Robbins, R. J. (1994). An assessment of perceptions of parental autonomy support and control: Child and parent correlates. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of Rochester. Schaefer, E. S. (1959). A circumplex model for maternal behavior. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59(2), 226. Schaefer, E. S. (1965). A configurational analysis of children’s reports of parent behavior. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29, 552 – 557. Storch, E. A., & Masia-Warner, C. (2004). The relationship of peer victimization to social anxiety and loneliness in adolescent females. Journal of adolescence, 27(3), 351-362. Shaffer, D. R. (2005). Social and personality development 4 th edition. Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). A theoretical upgrade of the concept of parental psychological control: Proposing new insights on the basis of SelfDetermination Theory. Developmental Review, 30, 74-99. Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Foster, C. A. (2003). Parenthood and marital satisfaction: a meta-analytic review. Journal of marriage and family, 65(3), 574583. Williams, L. R., & Anthony, E. K. (2015). A model of positive family and peer relationships on adolescent functioning. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(3), 658-667. Wu, C. W., Guo, N. W., Hsieh, Y. S., & Yeh, K. H. (2015). The facilitating effect of need-supportive parenting on the change rate and adaptation of dual autonomy among Taiwanese adolescents. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 74(4), 181-195. Young, J. F., Berenson, K., Cohen, P., & Gracia, J. (2005). The role of parent and peer support in predicting adolescent depression: A longitudinal community study. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15(4), 407-423. Zora Raboteg-Saric, Marija Sakic (2010). Relations of Parenting Styles and Friendship Quality to Self-Esteem, Life Satisfaction and Happiness in Adolescents. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 9(3) , 749–765. Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197206..
(81)
(82) 0. 1.. □. 2.. □ □. 3.. □ ______. 4.. □. □. □. □. □. ________________ 5.. □. □. 6.. □. _____. □. _____. _____. _____ 7.. □. 0. □. □. □. 0. 8.. □. 0. □. □. □. 0.
(83) /. 8. … 1.. /. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 2.. /. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 3.. /. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 4.. /. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 5.. /. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 6.. /. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.. /. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8.. /. 9.. /. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 10.. /. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 11.. /. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 12.. /. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 13.. /. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 14.. /. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 15.. /. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 16.. /. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 17.. /. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 18.. /. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 19.. /. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 20.. /. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 21.. /. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
(84) …. 1.. /. 1. 2. 3. 4. 2.. /. 1. 2. 3. 4. 3.. /. 1. 2. 3. 4. 4.. /. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.. /. 1. 2. 3. 4. 6.. /. 1. 2. 3. 4. 7.. /. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. / /. /. 8.. /. 9.. /. /. 10.. /. 11.. /. /. 12.. / /. /. /. /.
(85) 4. 8. …. 1.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 2.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 3.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 4.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 5.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 8.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 9.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 10.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 11.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 12.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 13.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 14.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 15.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
(86) …. 1.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 2.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 3.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 5.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 8.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 9.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 10.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 19.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 20.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 4.. 0. 0. 11. 12.. 2 0. 13. 14.. 0. 15. 16.. 0. 17. 18.. 3. 2.
(87) 4. 8. 1.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 2.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 3.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 4.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 5.. 0.
(88) 0. 0. 8. 1. 2.. 2. 3. 2019. 9. 11 15. 20. 4 0. 4. 4. 0 30 4 5. 0.
(89) 6. 1 2. QRcode. 0. 3 0 0 7.. 8. 1 2 3. 3. 0. 2 4 4. 4 9. 0 _______________ 0. 0. ______. ____. ____. _____________ _____________. _____. ____. ____.
(90)
(91)
(92)
相關文件
Abstract - The main purpose of this study is applying TRIZ theory to construct the Green Supply Chain management (GSCM) strategies for the international tourist hotel.. Based on
Based on the above concept, the purpose of this study was to explore the local residents’ perceptions and attitudes towards tourism development, whom have little or no
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the hospitality students’ entrepreneurial intentions based on theory of planned behavior and also determine the moderating
The purpose of this study is to analyze the status of the emerging fraudulent crime and to conduct a survey research through empirical questionnaires, based on
Leung, Shuk-Kwan S.; Chou, Hui-Chi（2012）.A Survey Study on Parental Involvement in Mathematics Learning for Elementary School Children. Proceedings of the 36th Conference of
The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of learning organization culture on teachers’ study and teaching potency in Public Elementary Schools.. The research tool of
It also has great influence on their leisure lives, or even health.The purpose of this study is to explore the extent to which leisure constraint and leisure activity demand to
The main purpose of this study is to explore the status quo of the food quality and service quality for the quantity foodservice of the high-tech industry in Taiwan;
