進階搜尋


   電子論文尚未授權公開,紙本請查館藏目錄
(※如查詢不到或館藏狀況顯示「閉架不公開」,表示該本論文不在書庫,無法取用。)
系統識別號 U0026-0209201509390100
論文名稱(中文) 同理心與自我概念、心智理論、情緒覺察之間關係初探
論文名稱(英文) The exploration of relationships between empathy and self-concept, theory of mind, and emotional awareness
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 心理學系認知科學碩士班
系所名稱(英) MS in Cognitive Science
學年度 103
學期 2
出版年 104
研究生(中文) 蕭詠如
研究生(英文) Yong-Ru Hsiao
學號 U76021022
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
論文頁數 62頁
口試委員 指導教授-胡中凡
口試委員-王珮玲
口試委員-周麗芳
中文關鍵字 同理心  心智理論  自我概念  情緒覺察 
英文關鍵字 empathy  theory of mind  self-concept  emotional awareness 
學科別分類
中文摘要 社會認知是個體判斷及推測他人的心理狀態和行為動機的過程。同理心為社會認知的核心要素之一,是一種與自身相關、了解並經驗他人感覺的能力,在人際互動與良好的社會適應中扮演了關鍵的角色。Baron-Cohen和Wheelwright(2004)定義同理心具有兩個取向:辨別他人心理狀態的能力(例如意圖、信念、慾望和情緒等等)和具有適當地回應這些能力的情緒之能力。對應Spinella(2005)所提出的同理心成份後,一般將同理心分成認知成份與情感成份,其中認知成份的同理心包含在心中推論他人心智歷程的能力,而情緒成分則包含實際的情緒反應。
同理心和社會認知中許多其他能力都有密不可分的關係,Marshall、Hudson與Fernandez(1995)提出了同理心是指個體必須先察覺另一人的情緒狀態,同時將自己置於對方的觀點看事情。心智理論功能在高層級處理情境線索歷程中扮演了同理心的必要角色之一,而心智理論功能是一種瞭解自己和他人的慾望、意圖、信念,並繼而預測他人行為的一種能力(Wellman,1993)。有些研究者將心智理論功能及認知同理心劃上等號(e.g., Blair, 2005),認為兩者皆為對另一個個體內心狀態的表徵,但有些研究的結果卻認為兩者並不相等。雖然認知同理心仰賴許多建構心智理論功能所需的能力,但由於認知同理涉及到情緒的歸屬(但心智理論功能無),因此這兩個概念主要可在心理學及神經學的層級上有所區別(Reniers et al., 2011)。情緒覺察則是在與他人情感連結、同理他人情緒狀態的過程時中有所貢獻,若一開始無法覺察他人情緒,那麼在後續與他人的情感連結中就會遇到同理困難的狀況。除了和同理心歷程有關的能力外,正向的自我概念是在同理心的發展中有關的因素之一,擁有正向的自我概念可以幫助發展中的孩子自覺是否有能力去了解以及幫助他人。
自陳式量表是測量同理心最方便的工具之一,The Empathy Quotient(EQ)在其他國家地區被翻譯成了不同的語言版本以供研究之用,皆得到了不錯的信效度。而為了更有效率的測量,後續有許多研究者便發展了許多不同題數的The Empathy Quotient量表。研究一主要在編制中文版The Empathy Quotient並檢測其信效度,並以驗證性因素分析來驗證Baron-Cohen的一因素模型、Lawrence所建構的三因素模型和Muncer和Ling的短版三因素模型,結果為Muncer和Ling的短版三因素模型的適配較其他兩者佳。然而,由於適配的結果離一般認為的良好適配仍有落差,因此本研究多加入負向因素來檢驗反向題的影響,並發現在加入負向因素後整體模型有良好的適配情形。
研究二則檢驗自我概念、情緒覺察及心智理論功能對於同理心的影響,第一部分以多元迴歸來檢驗自我概念、心智推理總分是否能夠預測同理心分數,結果顯示兩者雖皆可預測同理心分數,但兩者之間並無中介效果。第二部分則是檢驗情緒覺察及心智理論功能對同理心分數的預測,但結果皆不顯著。
討論的部分,本研究將針對以上結果的可能解釋進行探討。在本研究中,同理心測量量表已被發現有良好的配適程度,在後續相關領域的研究中將能提供另一有效測量同理心的工具,另外,針對影響同理心的概念和因素,本研究亦提供了相關的結果作為一初步的開端,未來仍需要更多研究在此領域繼續進行探討。
英文摘要 Empathy is an ability of experiencing and understanding others’ feeling, hence it plays an important role in social interaction and interpersonal relationship. Theory of mind(ToM) is is part of the 'high level' route for processing situational cues and plays a necessary role for empathy. Emotional awareness also makes contributions when mentalizing others’ emotion state and establishing social bonds with other people. With positive self-concept, children might have more chances to know if they have the ability to understand and help others. Without these components, the development of empathy might be hindered. The main aim in Study 1 was trying to develop a Chinese version of The Empathy Quotient and know if there were valid and consistent in Taiwan. The results revealed a three-factor structure as constructed by Muncer and Ling and they showed the best fit. The structure was even better when “negative wording effect” was considered. Study 2 then examined the influences of emotional awareness, self-concept, and ToM in empathy. In the study, a multiple-regression was used to test the mediating effect of ToM ability between self-concept and empathy. Same method was used to examine if the emotional awareness and ToM would affect the scores of empathy. The results showed no supportive evidence across different empathy component. Based on the results, the present study proposed some interpretations to explain the findings of Study 2. The present study also provided a preliminary result in investigating factors that might affect the development of empathy.
論文目次 目次
第一章、前言 1
第一節、同理心 2
第二節、文獻回顧小結 8
第三節、研究問題 9
第四節、研究假設與預期發現 10
第二章、同理心量表(The Empathy Quotient)中文版編制 11
第一節、研究目的 11
第二節、研究方法 11
第三節、研究結果 13
第四節、結論與討論 18
第三章、同理心與自我概念、心智理論功能及情緒覺察間的關係 20
第一節、研究目的 20
第二節、研究方法 21
第三節、研究結果 25
第四節、結論與討論 35
第四章、綜合討論 37
第一節、各研究結果討論 37
第二節、研究限制 39
第三節、未來方向 39
參考文獻 40
附錄一、同理心量表(The Empathy Quotient)中文版問卷 44
附錄二、Kolmogorov-Smirnov常態檢定 48
附錄三、Baron-Cohen一因素模型之因素負載表 50
附錄四、Lawrence三因素模型之因素負載表 52
附錄五、Lawrence三因素模型之因素間相關 54
附錄六、Muncer和Ling三因素模型之因素負載表 55
附錄七、Muncer和Ling三因素模型之因素間相關 56
附錄八、Lawrence三因素模型加入負向字詞效果後之因素負載 57
附錄八、Lawrence三因素模型加入負向字詞效果後之因素負載(續) 58
附錄九、Lawrence三因素模型加入負向字詞效果後之因素相關表(在各因素和負向字詞相關設為0的情況下) 59
附錄十、Muncer和Ling三因素模型加入負向字詞效果後之因素負載表 60
附錄十一、Muncer和Ling三因素模型加入負向字詞效果後之因素相關表(在各因素和負向字詞相關設為0的情況下) 61
附錄十二、Muncer和Ling十五題的短版同理心量表 62
參考文獻 中文參考文獻
洪儷瑜(1986)。同理心及其效果之探索。高雄師院學報,14,227-244。
張春興(主編)(1998)。張氏心理學辭典。臺北市:東華。
葉在庭、花茂棽、劉珣瑛 (2009)。猜猜我在想什麼?--中文版心智推理作業的信效度研究及其在老年人的表現初探。中華心理學刊,51(3), 375-395。
葉在庭、辜靖淳、方俊凱 (2014)。邊緣性人格患者在情緒覺察與同理心之表現探討。中華心理衛生學刊,27(2), 253-281。
趙梅如、鍾思嘉 (2014)。觀點取替故事同理心量表的發展。中華心理衛生學刊, 15,39-60。
英文參考文獻
Barnett, M. A. (1987). Empathy and related responses in children. Empathy and its development, 146-162.
Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”? Cognition, 21(1), 37-46.
Baron-Cohen, S., O'Riordan, M., Stone, V., Jones, R., & Plaisted, K. (1999). Recognition of faux pas by normally developing children and children with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 29(5), 407-418.
Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The Empathy Quotient: An Investigation of Adults with Asperger Syndrome or High Functioning Autism, and Normal Sex Differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(2), 163-175.
Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various χ 2 approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 296-298.
Bird, G., & Viding, E. (2014). The self to other model of empathy: providing a new framework for understanding empathy impairments in psychopathy, autism, and alexithymia. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 47, 520-532.
Blair, R. J. R. (2005). Responding to the emotions of others: dissociating forms of empathy through the study of typical and psychiatric populations. Consciousness and cognition, 14(4), 698-718.
Bosacki, S. L. (2000). Theory of mind and self-concept in preadolescents: Links with gender and language. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 709.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of personality and social psychology, 44(1), 113.
de Vignemont, F., & Singer, T. (2006). The empathic brain: how, when and why? Trends in cognitive sciences, 10(10), 435-441.
Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and cognitive neuroscience reviews, 3(2), 71-100.
Feshbach, N. D. (1978). Studies of empathic behavior in children. Progress in experimental personality research, 8, 1-47.
Fitts, W. H., & Roid, G. H. (1964). Tennessee self concept scale: Counselor Recordings and Tests Nashville, TN.
Gallese, V. (2003). The roots of empathy: the shared manifold hypothesis and the neural basis of intersubjectivity. Psychopathology, 36(4), 171-180.
Ganji, N., Marascht, A. S., Sadeghi, B., Tabatabaei, S. K. R., Pordavoody, N., Bagheri, A., . . . Zakaryaei, N. S. (2013). A study of validity and reliability of the Persian version of the empathy Quotient questionnaire. Journal of American Science, 9(4s), 230-240.
Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice: Cambridge University Press.
Horan, P. M., DiStefano, C., & Motl, R. W. (2003). Wording effects in self-esteem scales: Methodological artifact or response style? Structural Equation Modeling, 10(3), 435-455.
Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.
Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35(4), 401-415.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36.
Kim, J., & Lee, S. J. (2010). Reliability and validity of the Korean version of the Empathy Quotient Scale. Psychiatry investigation, 7(1), 24-30.
Lane, R. D., Quinlan, D. M., Schwartz, G. E., Walker, P. A., & Zeitlin, S. B. (1990). The Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale: A cognitive-developmental measure of emotion. Journal of personality assessment, 55(1-2), 124-134.
Lawrence, E. J., Shaw, P., Baker, D., Baron-Cohen, S., & David, A. S. (2004). Measuring empathy: reliability and validity of the Empathy Quotient. Psychological Medicine, 34, 911-924. doi: 10.1017/S0033291703001624
Loewen, P. J., Lyle, G., & Nachshen, J. S. (2009). An eight-item form of the Empathy Quotient (EQ) and an application to charitable giving. Retrieved from crcee. umontreal. ca/pdf/Eight% 20Question% 20ES_final. pdf.
Marshall, W., Hudson, S., Jones, R., & Fernandez, Y. M. (1995). Empathy in sex offenders. Clinical psychology review, 15(2), 99-113.
Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of personality, 40(4), 525-543.
Muncer, S. J., & Ling, J. (2006). Psychometric analysis of the empathy quotient (EQ) scale. Personality and Individual Difference, 40, 1111-1119.
Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and brain sciences, 1(04), 515-526.
Preti, A., Vellante, M., Baron-Cohen, S., Zucca, G., Petretto, D. R., & Masala, C. (2011). The Empathy Quotient: A cross-cultural comparison of the Italian version Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 16(1), 50-70.
Reniers, R. L., Corcoran, R., Drake, R., Shryane, N. M., & Völlm, B. A. (2011). The QCAE: A questionnaire of cognitive and affective empathy. Journal of personality assessment, 93(1), 84-95.
Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of consulting psychology, 21(2), 95.
Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2011). The neural bases for empathy. The Neuroscientist, 17(1), 18-24.
Spinella, M. (2005). Prefrontal substrates of empathy: Psychometric evidence in a community sample. Biological psychology, 70(3), 175-181.
Völlm, B. A., Taylor, A. N., Richardson, P., Corcoran, R., Stirling, J., McKie, S., . . . Elliott, R. (2006). Neuronal correlates of theory of mind and empathy: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study in a nonverbal task. Neuroimage, 29(1), 90-98.
Wellman, H., 1993: Early understanding of mind: The normal case. In S. Baron-Cohen, H. Tager-Flusberg, and D. Cohen (eds), Understanding Other Minds: Perspectives from Autism. Oxford University Press, 10-39
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2020-09-10起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw