輔仁大學
學術資源網

記錄編號6211
狀態NC094FJU00023011
助教查核
索書號
學校名稱輔仁大學
系所名稱大眾傳播學研究所
舊系所名稱
學號492096154
研究生(中)何玫樺
研究生(英)Ho MEi-HWA
論文名稱(中)電腦中介傳播環境下慰語訊息研究
論文名稱(英)Study of Comforting Messages in a Computer-Mediated Communication Environment
其他題名
指導教授(中)張惠蓉
指導教授(英)Chang Hui Jung
校內全文開放日期不公開
校外全文開放日期不公開
全文不開放理由
電子全文送交國圖.同意
國圖全文開放日期.2006.07.26
檔案說明電子全文
電子全文01
學位類別碩士
畢業學年度94
出版年
語文別中文
關鍵字(中)慰語訊息 電腦中介傳播 客氣理論
關鍵字(英)Comforting Messages Computer-Mediated Communication Politeness Theory
摘要(中)本研究想了解在CMC環境下是不是一個進行慰語訊息的「好」情境,探究在CMC環境下慰語訊息的效果層面,從先前的慰語訊息研究發現的個人與情境變項中,找出性別、苦惱者特質與苦惱情境特性主要影響因素,並援引客氣理論中的面子策略來看在CMC環境下是否還有面子需求存在?因為運用客氣理論中的面子需求在支持性傳播中會造成兩難情形:慰語訊息提供者可能會阻礙到苦惱者自尊需求;而苦惱者在尋求支持時,也會破壞本身的形象需求。 採用網路問卷與焦點團體訪談的研究方法,先收集量化資料之後,再去深度了解CMC互動深層的意涵。本研究所提出的影響因素只有性別未對慰語訊息造成影響,但是其他因素皆以單純主要效果呈現,顯示未來研究必須更進一步針對各變項間的關係做更多的討論。最後本研究發現在CMC環境下,個人願意對陌生網友會付出較多心力去傳遞慰語訊息,也都認為慰語訊息中應該滿足苦惱者的面子需求,所以CMC環境可以是進行慰語訊息的好情境,但是在面對面環境下的評價標準在不一定適用於CMC環境,且CMC環境本質的獨特性在於其可轉換性。研究並對CMC環境的慰語訊息提出建議,對於苦惱者而言,CMC環境已是可以進行慰語訊息的良好環境,體會在CMC環境下社交性愉悅;對於慰語訊息提供者也要體認CMC環境的特性,可在訊息中強調自身相關經驗、網路有創意有趣的文字呈現和超連結豐富相關資訊,來增加慰語訊息的效果。
摘要(英)
論文目次內容目錄 第一章 緒論........................... 1 第一節 研究背景與目的.................... 1 第二節 問題意識..................... . 4 第三節 研究問題..................... ..7 第二章 文獻探討......................... 9 第一節  社會支持....................... 9 一、社會支持的定義與起源..................9 二、研究社會支持的三大取向.................11 第二節 慰語訊息的內涵及相關研究...............15 一、社會支持及慰語訊息...................15 二、慰語訊息研究取向....................16 三、人口變項與情境變項相關研究...............19 四、衡量慰語訊息有效性指標.................23 五、測量慰語訊息有效性...................25   第三節  客氣理論與CMC.................... 30 一、客氣理論內涵......................30 二、客氣理論與CMC.....................31 第四節 CMC環境下的慰語訊息............... . 35 一、CMC環境下的人際互動............... .. 35 二、CMC環境下社會支持相關研究............. . 36 第三章 研究問題.......................39 第四章 研究方法.......................42 第一節 研究設計........................ 42 第二節 網路問卷調查法.....................43 一、問卷內容................... . ...43 二、問卷前測................... .. ..44 三、前測分析結果................ .. . . 49 四、正式施測程序................ .. . . 55 第三節 焦點團體法.......................57 一、焦點團體成員招募.................... 57 二、施測過程........................ 58 三、訪談大綱............. ..........58 第五章 研究結果分析與資料處理.................61 第一節 問卷設計與資料處理................... 61 第二節 樣本特性與問卷描述統計................ 62 第三節 五因子變異數分析.................... 65 第四節 研究結果....................... 68 第六章 結論與建議...................... 82 第一節 研究發現........................84 第二節 研究限制與建議.................... 87 一、研究限制............. .......... 87 二、研究建議............. .......... 88 參考書目..............................89 附錄一:網路問卷..........................98 附錄二:單純交互效果檢定與單純主要效果分析摘要表.......... 104 圖表目錄 【表2-1:慰語訊息階層量表】....................18 【表2-2慰語訊息效果相關研究使用問項整理表】............26 【圖2-1:面子策略】........................ 32 【圖3-1:研究架構】........................ 41 【表4-1:前測慰語訊息情境與問項】................. 45 【表4-2:前測慰語訊息與問項】................... 46 【表4-3:前測慰語訊息效果量表】..................48 【表4-4:前測樣本人口變項分布】.................. 49 【表4-5:情境中可被歸罪的程度高低、認知的控制程度對受試者認知歸因之影響】................................ 50 【表4-6:問卷的慰語訊息和客氣理論之間的關係及受試者對漠視面子訊息的敏感程度】..............................52 【表4-7:慰語訊息效果問項之因素負荷表】..............53 【表4-8:項目分析結果總表】....................54 【表4-9:免費廣告與張貼電子問卷廣告信的網站、奇摩家族一覽表】...56 【表4-10:焦點團體參加者背景描述】............ .... 59 【表5-1:問卷慰語訊息效果在各情境的平均數與標準差與題項信度分析】.................... ........... 62 【表5-2:樣本人口變項描述統計】..................64 【表5-3:問卷設計因子一覽表】.............. .... 65 【表5-4:五因子變異數分析摘要表】.................65 【表5-5:性別與慰語訊息效果】........ ........... 68 【表5-6:苦惱者特質因子對慰語訊息效果的影響】........... 69 【表5-7:受試者認為歸因程度高的慰語效果會高於歸因程度低者的條件組合】................. ..............73 【表5-8:受試者認為歸因程度低的慰語效果會高於歸因程度高者的條件組合】 ................. ................74 【表5-9:受試者認為對可控制程度高的慰語效果高於可控制程度低的條件組合】................. ............... 75 【表5-10:受試者認為對可控制程度高的慰語效果高於可控制程度低的條件組合】................. ..............76 【表5-11:受試者認為對形象需求的慰語訊息效果評價最佳的條件組合】. 77 【表5-12:受試者認為對自尊需求的慰語訊息效果評價最佳的條件組合】. 78 【圖5-1:研究問題驗證結果情形圖】....... ......... 81 【附錄表一:事件歸罪程度 × 對事件可控制程度 × 慰語訊息策略(A×B×C)單純交互效果檢定】....... ..................104 【附錄表二:事件歸罪程度 × 對事件可控制程度 × 苦惱者特質(A×B×D)單純交互效果檢定】....... ................ ..105 【附錄表三:事件歸罪程度 × 慰語訊息策略 × 苦惱者特質(A×C×D)單純交互效果檢定】....... .....................106 【附錄表四:對事件可控制程度 × 慰語訊息策略 × 苦惱者特質(B×C×D)單純交互效果檢定】....... .......... .........107 【附錄表五:A(事件歸罪程度)因子單純主要效果分析摘要表】.....109 【附錄表六:B(可控制程度)因子單純主要效果分析摘要表】......111 【附錄表七:C(慰語訊息策略)因子單純主要效果分析摘要表】.....112 【附錄表八:D(苦惱者特質)因子單純主要效果分析摘要表】......113
參考文獻參考書目: 網路資料: 葉雅馨、戴怡君(2004)〈青少年日常生活、網路使用與憂鬱傾向之相關性調查〉上網日期:2005年9月5 日取自:http://www.jtf.org.tw/psyche/melancholia/survey.asp?This=64&Page=1 《台灣網路資訊中心網路使用調查》(2005年7月)上網日期:2005年9月27日取自:http://www.twnic.net.tw/download/200307/200307index.shtml 蔣文宜(2005年9月30日)。〈演活「藍色大門」憂鬱角色 張震擔任最佳募款代言人〉,《東森新聞報》。上網日期:2005年10月3日 取自:http://tw.news.yahoo.com/050930/195/2cyyc.html Birnie, S.A., & Horvath, P. (2002). Psychological predictors of internet social communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(4). Retrieved October 5, 2005, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue4/horvath.html Campell, K.L. (2002). On-line support for eating disorders. Retrieved October 15, 2005, from http://list.msu.edu/cgu-bin/waA2=ind0209b&L=aejmc&F=&S=&p=7258 Parks, M.R., & Floyd, K (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1(4). Retrieved October 21, 2005, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol1/issue4/parks.html Rodgers, S., & Chen, Q. (2005). Internet community group participation: Psychosocial benefits for women with breast cancer. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4). Retrieved September 18, 2005, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/rodgers.html Shklovski, I., & Kraut, R. (2004). The internet and social participation: contrasting cross-sectional and longtitutional analyses. Journal of Computer – Mediated Ccommunication, 10(1). Retrieved October 25, 2005, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue1/shklovski_kraut.html 中文書目: 石計生、羅清俊、曾淑芬、丘曉婷、黃慧琦(2003)。《社會科學研究與SPSS資料分析》,頁244-287。台北:雙葉書局。 吳士宏(1992)。《大學生對話的記憶與社會判斷:語言行為果斷性與性別訊息知效果探討》。政治大學心理研究所碩士論文。 吳佳煇(2004)。〈社會支持對網路成癮的影響〉,《資訊社會研究》,第7期,頁173-189。 吳統雄(1990)。《電話調查:理論與方法》,第二版,台北:聯經出版社。 李政忠(2004)。〈網路調查所面臨問題與解決建議〉,《資訊社會研究》,第6期,頁1-24。 林欣若(2003)。《網路中的女性情誼:以台大椰林「站崗的女人」為例》。政大新聞所碩士論文。 胡幼慧 (1996)。《質性研究:理論、方法以本土女性研究實例》。台北:巨流。 高迪理(1999)。〈社會支持體系中之概念探討〉,《健康與社會政策研討會論文集》。高雄醫學院健康與社會政策研究中心。 傅仰止(1996)。《電腦網路中的人際:關係:以電子郵件傳遞為例》。「資訊科技與社會轉型研討會」。 黃厚銘 (1999)。〈網路人際關係的親疏遠近〉。「第三屆資訊科技與社會轉型研討會」論文。台北:中研院社會所。 黃淑貞、黃春雄、曾德運、黃彥芳、王春美(2003)。〈台灣地區乳癌病友團體成員參與和滿意度研究〉,《衛生教育學報》,第19期,頁41-56。 葉恆芬(2000)。《網路媒體可信度及其影響因素初探研究-以台灣地區網路使用者為例》。中正電傳所碩士論文。 劉奕蘭(2002)。〈網路社會支持的探討〉。論文發表於清華大學社會學研究所主辦之「網路與社會研討會」,新竹。 歐素汝譯(1999)。《焦點團體:理論與實務》。台北:弘智文化。(原書:Stewart,W.D & Shamdasan, D.N. (1990) . Focus Group. London : Sage.) 鄭為元(1992)。〈日常生活戲劇觀的評論家 - 高夫曼〉,葉啟政 (編),《當代社會思想巨擘 - 當代社會思想家》,頁26-55。台北:正中。 鄭麗鳳(2004)。《國中學生內外控信念與利社會行為之相關研究》。國立台灣師範大學公民教育與活動領導系在職進修碩士論文。 魏雅惠(2000)。《癌症專科醫師慰語溝通行為之研究》。交通大學傳播所碩士論文。 蘇蘅、吳淑俊(1997)。〈電腦網路問卷調查可行性及回覆者特質的研究〉,《新聞學研究》。第54期,頁75-100。 英文書目: Albrecht, T. L., Burleson, B R., & Goldsmith, D. (1994). Supportive communication. In M. L. Knapp & G.R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (2nd) (pp. 419-449). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Albrecht, T. L., & Adelman, M. B. (1987). Communicating social support: A theoretical perspective. In T.L Albrecht & M.B. Adelmen (Eds.), Communicating social support (pp. 18-39). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Barbee, A. P., & Cunningham, M. R. (1995). An experimental approach to social support communications: Interactive coping in close relationships. In B.R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 18 (pp. 381-413). Tousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bippus, A. M. (2000). Humor usage in comforting episodes: Factors predicting outcomes. Western Journal of Communication, 64(4), 359-384. Bippus, A. M. (2001). Recipients’ criteria for evaluating the skillfulness of comforting communication and the outcomes of comforting interactions. Communication Monographs, 68(3), 301-313. Braithwaite, P. O., Waldron, V. R., & Finn, J. (1999). Communication of social support in computer-mediated groups for people with disabilities. Health Communication, 11(2), 123-151. Brennan, S. E., & Ohaeri, J.O. (1999). Why do electronic conversations seem less polite? The cost and benefits of hedging. ACM , 2,227-235. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. Burleson, B. R. (1982). The development of comforting communication skill in childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 53, 1578-1588. Burleson, B. R. (1983). Social cognition, empathic motivation, and adults’ comforting strategies. Human Communication Research, 10(2), 295-304. Burleson, B. R. (1984a). Age, social-cognitive development and the use of comforting strategies. Communication Monographs, 51, 140-153. Burleson, B. R. (1984b). Comforting communication. In H.E Sypher & J.L. Applegate (Eds.), Communication by children and adults: Social cognitive and strategic process (pp. 63-105). Sage Publications. Burleson, B. R. (1994a). Comforting messages: Significance, approaches, and effects. In B. R. Burleson, T.L. Albrecht & I.G. Sarason, (Eds.), Communication of social support: Messages, interactions, relationships, and community (pp. 3-28). Sage Publications. Burleson, B. R. (1994b). Comforting messages: Features, functions, and outcomes. In J.A Daly & J.M. Wienann (Eds.), Strategic interpersonal communication (pp. 135-162). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Burleson, B. R., Albrecht, T.L., Goldsmith, D.J., & Sarason, I.G. (1994). Introduction: The communication of social support. In B. R. Burleson, T.L Albrecht & Sarason, I.G. (Eds.), Communication of social support: Messages, interactions, relationships, and Community (pp. 3-28). Sage Publications. Burleson, B. R., & Goldsmith, D.J. (1998). How the comforting process works: Alleviating emotional distress through conversationally induced reappraisals. In D.A Anderson & L.K. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotion: Reasearch, theory, applications, and contexts (pp. 245-280). Academic Press. Burleson, B. R., & Planalp, S. (2000). Producing emotion (al) messages. Communication Theory, 10(2), 221-250. Burleson, B. R., & MacGeorge, E. L. (2002). Supportive communication. In M. L Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Burleson, B. R.& Mortenson, S.R. (2003). Explaining cultural differences in evaluations of emotional support behaviors: Exploring the mediating influences of value systems and interaction goals. Communication Research, 30(2), 113-146. Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Person Education. Canary, D. J., Cody, M. J., & Manusov, V. L. (2000). Interpersonal communication: A goals- based approach. St. Martin’s Press.Casey. Caplan, S. E., & Samter, W. (1999). The role of facework in younger and older adults’ evaluations of social support messages. Communication Quarterly, 47(3), 245-264. Colvin, J., Chenoweth, L., Bold. M., & Harding, C. (2004). Caregivers of older adults: Advantages of internet-based social support. Family Relations, 53(1), 49-57. Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D.W. (1990). Types of social support and specific stress: Toward a theory of optimal mating. In B.R. Sarason, I.G. Sarason & G.R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 319-366). New York: John Wiley. Cutrona, C. E., & Suhr, J.A. (1992). Controllability of stressful events and satisfaction with spouse support behaviors. Communication Research, 19(2), 154-174. Delia, J. G., O’Keefe, B.J., & O’Keefe, D.J. (1982). The constructivist approach to communication. In F.E.X. Dance (Ed.), Human Communication Theory (pp. 47-191). N.Y: Harper& Row Publishers. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R.A., & Murphy, B.C. (1996). Parents’ reactions to children’s negative emotions: Relations to children’s social competence and comforting behaviors. Child Development, 67, 2227-2247. Egbert, N. (2003). Support provider mood and familiar versus unfamiliar events: An investigation of social support quality. Communication Quarterly, 51(2), 209-224. Edwards, R., & Bello, R. (2001). Interpretations of messages: The influence of quivocation, face concerns, and ego-involvement. Human Communication Research, 27(4), 597-631. Franzen, E. (2000). Does the internet make us lonely? European Sociological Review. 16(4), 427-438. Gottlieb, B. H. (1983). Social support strategies: Guidelines for mental health practice. Beverly Hill, CA: Sage. Goldsmith, D. J. (1992.) Managing conflicting goals in supportive interaction: An integrative theoretical framework. Communication Reaearch, 19(2), 264-286. Goldsmith, D. J. (1994). The role of facework in supportive communication. In B.R. Burleson, T. L. Albrecht & I.G. Sarason (Eds.), Communication of social support (pp. 29-49). Beverly Hill, CA: Sage. Goldsmith, D.J., & Dun, S.A. (1997). Sex difference and similarities in the communication of social support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14(3), 317-337. Goldsmith, D.J., & Macgeorge, E. L. (2000). The impact of politeness and relationship on perceived quality of advice about a problem. Human Communication Research, 26(2), 234-263. Goldsmth, D.J., McDermott, V.M., & Alexander, S.C. (2000). Helpful, supportive and sensitive: Measuring the evaluation of enacted social support in personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(3), 369-391. Goldsmith, D.J. (2004). Communicating social support. New York: Cambridge University Press. Herring, S. C. (1996). Two variants of an electronic message schema. In Herring, S. C. (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 81-108). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hale, J. L., & Tighe, M. R. (1997). Effects of event type and sex on comforting messages. Communication Research Reports, 14(2), 214-220. Haythornthwaite, C. (2000). Online personal networks: Size, composition and media use among distance learners. New Media & Ssociety, 2(2), 195-226. Hongladarom, K., & Hongladarom, S. (2005). Politeness in Thai cmputer-mediated communication. In K. Lakoff, S. Robin & I. Sachiko (Eds.) Broadening the horizon of linguistic politeness: Pragmatics and beyondsseries (pp.32-64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jones, S. M., & Burleson, B. R. (1997). The impact of situational variables on helpers’ perceptions of comforting messages: An attributional analysis. Communication Research, 24(5), 530-555. Jones, S. M., & Guerrero, L.K. (2001). The effects of nonverbal immediacy and verbal person centeredness in the emotional support process. Human Communication Research, 27(4), 567-595. Kunkel, A W., & Burleson, B.R. (1999). Assessing explanations for sex difference in emotional support: A test of the difference cultures and skill specialization accounts. Human Communication Research, 25(3), 307-340. Kunkel, A. W. (2002). Explaining sex difference in the evaluation of comforting messages: The mediating role of interaction goals. Communication Reports, 15(1), 29-42. Lin, N. (1986). Conceptualizing social support. In N. Lin, A. Dean & W. Ensel (Eds.), Social support, life events, and depression. (pp.60-82). London: Academic Press. Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. CA: Sage. Mickelson, K. D. (1997). Seeking social support: Parents in electronic support groups. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the internet. (pp.157-178). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2001). Emergence of communication networks. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam(Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research and methods. (pp. 472-497).CA: Sage. Morand, D. A., & Ocker, R. J. (2003). Politeness theory and computer-mediated communication: A sociolinguistic approach to analyzing relational messages. 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Robinson, J. D., & Turner, J. (2003). Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal social support: Cancer and older adults. Health Communication, 15(2), 227-234. Samter, W., & Burleson, B. R. (1984). Cognitive and motivational influences on spontaneous comforting behavior. Human Communication Research, 11, 231-260. Samter, W., Burleson, B. R., & Basden-Murphy, L. (1989). Behavioral complexity is in the eye of the beholder: Effects of cognitive complexity and message. Human Communication Research, 15(4), 612-629. Sarason, B. R., Sarason, I.G., & Pierce, G.R. (1990). Social support: The sense of acceptance and the role of relationship. In Sarason, B.R., Sarason, I.G & Pierce, G.R. (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 95-128). New York: John Wiley. Simmons, T. L. (1994). Politeness theory in computer mediated communication: Face threatening acts in a “Faceless Medium”. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Aston. Birmingham England. Shaw, L. H., & Gant, L. M. (2002). In defense of the internet: The relationship between internet communication and depression, loneliness, self-esteem, and perceived social support. Cyberpsychology & Behavior , 5(2), 157-171. Sibley, C. G.., & Heath, S.O. (2004). A quantitative analysis of the content and structure of public requests for private interaction posted in online public chatrooms. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(2), 231-239. Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. (2002). Computer-mdiated communication effects on disclosure, depressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 317-348. Trees, A. R., & Manusov, V. (1998). Managing face concerns in criticism: Integrating nonverbal behaviors as a dimension of politeness in female friendship dyad. Human Communication Research, 24(4), 564-583. Turner, J. W., Grube, J. A., & Meyers, J. (2001). Developing an optimal match within online communities: An exploration of CMC support communities and traditional support. Journal of Communication, 51(2), 231-251. Xu, Y., & Burleson, B. R. (2001). Effects of sex, culture and support type on perceptions of spousal social support: An assessment of the “support gap” hypothesis in early marriage. Human Communication Research, 27(4), 535-566. Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K.(1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19(1), 50-88. Weiner, B. (1993). On sin versus sickness: A theory of perceived responsibility and social motivation. American Psychologist, 9, 957-965. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43. Walther, J. B., & Boyd, S.(2002).Attraction to computer-mediated social support. In C. A. Lin & D. Atkin (Eds.),Communication technology and society: Audience adoption and uses (pp. 153-188). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2000). Mass media research: An introduction. (6th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Wellman, B. (1999). Net–suffers don’t ride alone: Virtual communities as communities. In B. Wellman (Ed.), Networks in the global village. (pp. 102-148).Westview Press. Wright, K. (1999). Social support satisfaction, on-line communication apprehension, and perceived life stress within computer-mediated support groups. Communication Research Reports, 17(2), 139-147. Wright, K. (2000). Computer-Mediated Social Support, Older Adults, and Coping. Journal of Communication, 50(3), 100-118. Zimmermann, S., & Applegate, J. L. (1994). Communicating social support in organizations: A message-centerd approach In B.R. Burleson, T.L. Albrecht & I.G. Sarason (Eds.), Communication of social support (pp. 50-70). Beverly Hill, CA: Sage
論文頁數114
附註
全文點閱次數
資料建置時間
轉檔日期
全文檔存取記錄
異動記錄M admin Y2008.M7.D3 23:18 61.59.161.35