華人本土自我研究的回顧與前瞻

張仁和; 孫蒨如; 葉光輝

doi:10.6254/IPRCS.201906_(51).0001

山西大学，您好！

感谢采购，人社期刊库｜人社论文库，期间：2024/01/01~2024/12/31

感谢试用，科学期刊库｜科学论文库，期间：2024/10/20~2025/01/20

浏览高级检索

关闭
检索检索高级检索出版物检索
浏览期刊主题浏览核心期刊浏览期刊拼音浏览

关闭

查询符号(半角)	查询符号意义说明
空格	表示为「AND」两个查询词之交集
双引号 ( " " )	片语以双引号标示开始及结束，而且只寻找出现顺序相同的字词，例： " image process "
?	表示一个字母切截，输入两个?表两个字母，依此类推，例：输入「Appl?」，查得结果应为appl e , appl y … ( 常用于英文字查询 )
*	表示不限字母切截，由0~n. 例：输入「appl*」，查得结果应为appl e , appl es , appl y , appl ied , appl ication … ( 常用于英文字查询 )
AND、OR、NOT	布尔逻辑组合关键字，用来扩大或缩小查询范围的技巧。 (1) AND ：缩小查询范围 (2) OR ：扩大查询范围(3) NOT：排除不相关的范围

DOI 是数位物件识别码（ D igital O bject I dentifier ）的简称，
为物件在网路上的唯一识别码，可用于永久连结并引用目标物件。

使用DOI作为永久连结

每个DOI号前面加上「 http://dx.doi.org/ 」便成为永久网址。
如以DOI号为 10.5297/ser.1201.002 的文献为例，此文献的永久连结便是： http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5297/ser.1201.002 。
日后不论出版单位如何更动此文献位置，永久连结所指向的位置皆会即时更新，不再错失重要的研究。

引用含有DOI的文献

有DOI的文献在引用时皆应同时引用DOI。若使用APA、Chicago以外未规范DOI的引用格式，可引用DOI永久连结。

DOI可强化引用精确性、增强学术圈连结，并给予使用者跨平台的良好使用经验，目前在全世界已有超过五千万个对象申请DOI。如想对DOI的使用与概念有进一步了解，请参考（）。

ACI:

数据来源：Academic Citation Index，简称ACI

台湾最大的引用文献资料库，目前收录台湾与港澳地区所出版的人文学、社会学领域学术期刊之书目资料与参考文献，总期刊量超过690种，每年定期公布收录期刊的影响指数(Impact Factor)等指标给大众，并提供专家学者与学术单位实用的计量与分析功能。

五年影响指数（5-Year Impact Factor）：某一期刊前五年所出版的文章在当年度的平均被引用次数。

公式：（前五年发表论文在统计年的被引用次数）÷（前五年论文产出论文总篇数）

例如：A期刊2017年之五年影响指数

(A期刊2012-2016年发表论文在2017年的被引总次数)/(A期刊2012-2016年发表的论文总数)

什么是预刊文章？

为提供读者最前线之学术资讯，于期刊文献获同意刊登后、纸本印制完成前，率先于网路线上发表之文章即为预刊文章。预刊文章尚未有卷期、页次及出版日期资讯，但可藉由DOI号识别。 DOI号是文献的数位身份证字号，不论预刊或正式出版皆不会改变，读者可点击DOI连结，或于DOI号前面加上「 http://dx.doi.org/ 」连结到文献目前最新版本。

如何引用预刊文章？

请使用预刊文章的线上发表日期及DOI号来引用该篇文献。

引用范例(视不同引文格式规范可能有所差异)：

作者姓名。文章篇名。期刊名称。 YYYY/MM/DD线上预先发表。

doi:DOI 号

来源数据

P3 - 31

社会科学 > 心理学

DOI： 10.6254/IPRCS

书目管理工具

相关连结

问题回报

全文下载

华人本土自我研究的回顾与前瞻

A Review of Chinese Indigenous Research on the Self

张仁和(Jen-Ho Chang) ；孙蒨如(Chien-Ru Sun) ；叶光辉(Kuang-Hui Yeh)

本土心理学研究； 51 期 (2019 / 06 / 01) ， P3 - 31

繁体中文 DOI： 10.6254/IPRCS.201906_(51).0001

自我；自我结构；自我历程；华人自我四元论；华人大七性格；无我观； big seven factor model of Chinese personality ； four-part theory of the Chinese self ； individual-oriented self ； non-self ； self ； self-process ； self-structure ； social-oriented self

0 个人觉得这篇文章赞

摘要 │ 参考文献 (69) │ 被引用文献 (5) │ 国际计量

摘要〈TOP〉

并列摘要〈TOP〉

According to our systematic review of research on the self that has been published in Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, the most discussed domains of research relate to self-structure (self as an object) and self-process (self as an agent). The main topics in the self-structure domain are the four-part theory of the Chinese self, and the big seven factor model of Chinese personality. The former indicates that the Chinese self contains four sub-selves: the individual-oriented self, the relationship-oriented self, the familistic (group)-oriented self, and the other-oriented self. In addition, each sub-self has two domains (public and private), and four aspects (actual, ideal, ought, and possible). The whole self-structure consists of these 4 × 2 × 4 dimensions. Most current empirical research on this domain focuses mainly on distinguishing between the individual-oriented self and the social-oriented self (including the relationship-oriented self, the familistic or group-oriented self, and the other-oriented self). In addition, a non-self perspective has been proposed in recent years. It provides a relatively unique approach to understanding the Chinese self-structure. However, the non-self model is currently solely theoretical without related measurements or experimental paradigms. Empirical investigation is needed to examine the validity of its psychological propositions, and then explores its specific psychological mechanism. The traditional big five model (openness, consciousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) has been challenged in the Chinese cultural context. Full support for this model has not been found in Chinese sample. After a series of studies that applied a more culturally appropriate perspective and research design, researchers proposed the big seven factor model of Chinese personality: competence, industriousness, other-orientedness, agreeableness, extraversion, large-mindedness, and contentedness. It showed better model fit and validity in Chinese societies. The major topics in the domain of self-process are the bicultural composite self, and person-situation interactive self-regulation. Some research has revealed that modern Chinese people develop an integrated self that includes both individual and social orientations. How these individuals behave is contingent on the context. They behave more interdependently in the social-oriented context, and more independently when they encounter an individual-oriented context. The person-situation fit indicates that in Chinese societies, the self is not a fixed or static entity. It is quite flexible and malleable to fit in the demanding of the situation. It has process-based characteristics, and it operates dynamically with agency. That is, as an agent, the goal of the self is frequently to balance the needs of both oneself and others in different contexts. The underlying mechanism of how these different selves are integrated, composited, or balanced still remains unclear. In our review of Chinese indigenous self research, we also noticed that the research methods employed by Chinese indigenous self researchers include qualitative interviews, content analyses, questionnaires, survey investigations, and experimental manipulations. How to combine these different qualitative and quantitative methods to gain an advantage in conducting studies of the Chinese indigenous self also needs to be considered. Finally, we expect the future indigenous research on the Chinese self can go beyond the dual structural perspective of individual and social orientation and explore new issues, such as providing further theoretical elucidation and empirical testing of the construct of selflessness. Moreover, we should pay more attention to the social changes and technological developments of the modern impetuousness on the Chinese self. For instance, the digital interfaces and mobile phones such as ＂i＂ generation effect (iPhone, internet, and I), and population aging in Chinese societies. These changes might have great impacts on the psychological process of the individual, and on the management of the structure and the process characteristics of the contemporary Chinese self. These important issues also need to be addressed in future research.

参考文献 ( 69 ) 〈TOP〉

王秀槐(2002)。人我之际：台湾大学生的生涯建构历程。本土心理学研究，17，165-242。
连结：
余思贤,孙蒨如(2004)。华人的内隐自尊。本土心理学研究，22，329-357。
连结：
吴志文,叶光辉(2015)。工作自主经验与父母教养行为：双元自主性促进因素的范畴优势性检证。本土心理学研究，43，3-54。
连结：
吴志文,叶光辉(2011)。双元自主性的共存与范畴优势性运作机制：以讯息区辨表现降低共同方法变异。中华心理学刊，53，59-77。
连结：
洪瑞斌(2017)。「个我」与「大我」以双文化自我观点建构台湾大学生生涯叙说。本土心理学研究，47，161-231。
连结：

被引用文献 ( 5 ) 〈TOP〉

陈采熏(2021)。中文版怀旧功能量表信效度分析之初探。人文社会科学研究，15(1)，77-96。
郭丁荧(2021)。不同背景高中生的学生角色知觉之分析比较。教育学志，45，1-49。
(2023)。「角色义务」与「独立自主」的相生相依：矫正学校青年自我「关联身分」野地闯荡实践历程的现象学探究。本土心理学研究，59，191-257。
(2023)。台湾高龄者由自我认同迈向统整之历程：双文化自我的观点。本土心理学研究，59，123-189。
(2024)。从价值观迈向幸福感的十字路口：运用多层次模型探讨个体价值、文化价值与主观幸福感的关系。台湾公共卫生杂志，43(3)，280-299。

国际计量

〈TOP〉

E-mail ：

文章公开取用时，将寄通知信至您填写的信箱地址