本土心理學中的創造性「繼承」與「轉化」：以權威取向的理論發展為例

Applying Creative Inheritance and Transformation to Indigenous Psychology: Authoritarian Orientation Theory as an Example

10.6254/IPRCS.202106_(55).0002

簡晉龍(Chin-Lung Chien)

文化系統取徑 ； 本土心理學 ； 社會取向 ； 關係主義 ； 權威取向 ； authoritarian orientation ； cultural system approach ； Chinese relationalism ； indigenous psychology ； social orientation

本土心理學研究

55期（2021 / 06 / 01）

35 - 97

繁體中文

在楊國樞院士（楊先生）號召下，本土心理學已累積不少本土理論與成果。在後楊先生的時代，本土心理學者可以做什麼？如何做？作者提出創造性「繼承」與「轉化」，作為當前學者可努力的方向。本文先指出楊氏的「社會取向」之待解問題，包括本土契合性之疑慮與自我能動性之缺乏；接著以「權威取向」（社會取向次取向）理論發展為例，說明如何透過創造性繼承與轉化，以解決待解之問題。首先，研究者採主位取徑（emic approach）的質性研究，梳理出當前權威取向之內涵及形成歷程。此作法繼承、也精緻化了楊先生的權威取向，更解決其本土契合性之疑慮。接著，借鏡黃光國教授的「文化系統取徑」（cultural system），將權威取向之內涵置於「關係」與「自我」的普世模型中重新詮釋，並將人們抗拒權威之可能性納入理論中。此作法不但補足權威取向在自我能動性之機制與展現，更跨出楊先生的既有框架而有理論轉化與突破。近期，權威取向不但已應用至師生議題，也具應用至其他上下關係（如軍隊的官與兵）之潛力，顯示該理論具延展性與可應用性。此外，權威關係原本就是人類的基本關係形式之一，作為一個本土理論，權威取向不但具本土契合性，同時也具有普世性的意義。最後，本文也對如何進行理論繼承與轉化，提出一些可能的具體作法與再思考。然而，如何做創造性繼承與轉化並無標準程序，本文僅拋磚引玉，供本土學術同儕參考。

Kuo-Shu Yang was the founder of and a strong advocate for the practice of indigenous psychology in Taiwan. Indigenous psychology has continued to develop even after his passing. In the post-Yang era, what are the tasks of indigenous psychologists? How should these tasks be implemented? Social orientation is Professor Yang's most critical theory. It entails two major problems that require solutions: (1) whether social orientation possesses indigenous compatibility (IC) in modern Taiwan, and (2) the mechanism and display of self-agency, which was predetermined in Yang's theory. I used the theoretical development of authoritarian orientation (a sub-dimension of social orientation) as an example to depict how creative inheritance and creative transformation can be applied to resolve the aforementioned problems. They can also serve as tools to strengthen future indigenous psychological research. Creative inheritance entails use of an emic approach and qualitative research design to collect people's experiences of interacting with authority figures in order to analyze the content and formation process of authoritarian orientation. This method has been used to refine Yang's conceptualization of authoritarian orientation and to resolve concerns about indigenous compatibility. Creative transformation entails application of the cultural system approach (Hwang, 2015a, 2015b) to interpret the connotation of authoritarian orientation in terms of universal models of relationships and of the self. By applying this approach, the possibility of resistance to authority is also incorporated into the authoritarian orientation theory. This method not only supplements the lack of self-agency in the original conceptualization of authoritarian orientation, but also expresses the possibility of disobedience (e.g., overt agreement but covert opposition) or rebellion against authority, thereby extending Yang's original framework and achieving theoretical transformation. Recently, some researchers applied authoritarian orientation to the topic of education and explored the dispute over whether Taiwanese society should respect teachers. Their qualitative analysis revealed that Respect for Teachers is composed of Reverence for teachers and Fear of teachers. The researchers speculated that Reverence has positive effects on teacher-student interaction and student learning, whereas Fear has have negative effects. In addition, the researchers expected that the degree of Reverence for or Fear of a specific teacher could change with teacher-student interaction. They also discussed the possibility of applying authoritarian orientation to other hierarchical relationship contexts, such as officers and soldiers in the military as well as supervisors and subordinates in enterprises. Thus, authoritarian orientation theory has the potential to address multiple contexts in future research. As an indigenous theory, authoritarian orientation not only has IC with the contemporary social context, but also relates to a universal concept. The relational models theory indicates that authority ranking is a universal form of social relations (Fiske, 1991). Relationship regulation theory indicates that in an authority ranking model, hierarchical motives prompt superiors and subordinates to perform differently; subordinates tend to respect and obey superiors (Rai & Fiske, 2011). Authoritarian orientation theory corresponds to both these theories, suggesting that it has some degree of universal meaning. However, in Confucian societies authority ranking receives increased emphasis and discourse to the extent that it has evolved into the psychological and behavioral patterns of Chinese authoritarian orientation. I proposed possible concrete methods for enabling creative inheritance and transformation. For creative inheritance, researchers can adopt a qualitative research method or conduct a review and conceptual analysis to gain renewed insight into existing concepts in order to attain a refined understanding. For creative transformation, researchers can use creative imagination to propose a novel theoretical framework or adopt the cultural system approach. Although I suggested feasible directions and concrete methods, these are only a few of the various possibilities. Maintaining diversity and openness may still be the optimal strategy to deepen indigenous theory and research. Theory creation is one of the most crucial objectives and tasks for developing indigenous psychology. Systematic dialog between indigenous and mainstream psychology is possible only from a theoretical perspective. Contemporary scholars can apply creative inheritance and transformation to decades of accumulated achievements in indigenous psychology to propose more comprehensive indigenous theories, or to adapt existing theories to respond to current social issues. No standard procedures are available regarding how creative inheritance and transformation are conducted. The approaches and suggestions presented in the present study may serve as a reference point.

1. 王叢桂,羅國英(2010)。華人工作價值與工作契合度對工作滿意度與組織承諾度的影響。應用心理研究，24，199-238。
   連結：
2. 王叢桂,羅國英(2010)。自我發展與利他服務價值觀的融合：華人工作價值的變遷與發展。本土心理學研究，33，3-57。
   連結：
3. 周婉茹,周麗芳,鄭伯壎,任金剛(2010)。專權與尚嚴之辨：再探威權領導的內涵與恩威並濟的效果。本土心理學研究，34，223-284。
   連結：
4. 林姿葶,鄭伯壎(2012)。華人領導者的噓寒問暖與提攜教育：仁慈領導之雙構面模式。本土心理學研究，37，253-302。
   連結：
5. 洪瑞斌(2017)。「個我」與「大我」：以雙文化自我觀點建構台灣大學生生涯敘說。本土心理學研究，47，161-231。
   連結：
6. 高旭繁(2013)。忠於自我或見機行事？華人關鍵情境下的行為差異。本土心理學研究，40，3-44。
   連結：
7. 張婷婷,張妤玥(2012)。工作與家庭的意義對因應職家衝突的影響──華人雙文化自我觀之展現。本土心理學研究，37，141-189。
   連結：
8. 許功餘,王登峰,楊國樞(2001)。台灣與大陸華人基本性格向度的比較。本土心理學研究，16，185-224。
   連結：
9. 許詩淇,葉光輝(2019)。華人人際及群際關係主題研究的回顧與前瞻。本土心理學研究，51，33-88。
   連結：
10. 黃光國(2011)。論「含攝文化的心理學」。本土心理學研究，36，79-110。
    連結：
11. 黃懿慧(2002)。「關係取向」理論模式初探：組織與利益關係人關係之探討。本土心理學研究，18，95-172。
    連結：
12. 黃囇莉,鄭琬蓉,黃光國(2008)。邁向發聲之路：上下關係中「忍」的歷程與自我之轉化。本土心理學研究，29，3-76。
    連結：
13. 楊國樞(2004)。華人自我的理論分析與實徵研究：社會取向與個人取向的觀點。本土心理學研究，22，11-80。
    連結：
14. 楊國樞(2005)。人際關係中的緣觀。華人本土心理學（上），台北:
    連結：
15. 楊國樞,劉奕蘭,張淑慧,王琳(2010)。華人雙文化自我的個體發展階段：理論建構的嘗試。中華心理學刊，52，113-132。
    連結：
16. 樊景立,鄭伯壎(2000)。華人組織的家長式領導：一項文化觀點的分析。本土心理學研究，13，126-180。
    連結：
17. 韓貴香,李美枝(2008)。捨近求遠的求助模式：論「面子威脅」對華人選擇求助對象的影響。中華心理學刊，50，31-48。
    連結：
18. 簡晉龍,李美枝,黃囇莉(2009)。幸福之路：雙重自我建構的分流與匯合。中華心理學刊，51，453-470。
    連結：
19. 簡晉龍,陳貽照,鍾昆原,許詩淇(2017)。儒教「尊尊」的體現：權威敏感之運作與社會適應。本土心理學研究，48，121-165。
    連結：
20. 簡晉龍,黃囇莉(2015)。華人權威取向之內涵與形成歷程。本土心理學研究，43，55-123。
    連結：
21. Adorno, T. W.,Frenkel-Brunswik, E.,Levinson, D. J.,Sanford, R. N.(1950).The authoritarian personality.New York:Harper.
22. Altemeyer, B.(1981).Right-wing authoritarianism.Winnipeg, Canada:University of Manitoba Press.
23. Angyal, A. (1941). Foundations for a science of personality. New York: Commonwealth Fund.
24. Bedford、 O.,Yeh, K.-H.(2020).,未出版
25. Bond、 M. H.,Hwang, K. K.(1986).The social psychology of Chinese people.The psychology of the Chinese people,Hong Kong:
26. Brewer, M. B.,Chen, Y.-R.(2007).Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism.Psychological Review,114,133-151.
27. Brown, R.(1965).The authoritarian personality and the organization of attitudes.Social psychology,New York:
28. Chen、 S. W.,Wang, H. H.,Wei, C. F.,Fwu, B. J.,Hwang, K. K.(2009).Taiwanese students’ self attributions for two types of achievement goals.The Journal of Social Psychology,149,179-193.
29. Chien、 C.-L.(2016).Beyond authoritarian personality: The culture-inclusive theory of Chinese authoritarian orientation.Frontiers in Psychology,7(924)
30. Chien、 C.-L.,Hsu, S.-C.,Lin, T.-H.,Chen, Y.-C.,Huang, S.-C.,Huang, C.-P.,Chen, W.-Y.(2019).The development and validation of the respecting-teachers scale in a Confucian cultural context.The 15th European Conference on Psychological Assessment
31. Dien, D. S.(1999).Chinese authority-directed orientation and Japanese peer-group orientation: Questioning the notion of collectivism.Review of General Psychology,3(4),372-385.
32. Duckitt, J.(2013).Introduction to the special section on authoritarianism in societal context: The role of threat.International Journal of Psychology,48,1-5.
33. Duckitt, J.,Bizumic, B.,Krauss, S. W.,Heled, E.(2010).A tripartite approach to right-wing authoritarianism: The authoritarianism-conservatism-traditionalism model.Political Psychology,31,685-715.
34. Fiske, A. P.(1991).Structure of social life: The four elementary forms of human relations: Communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching, market pricing.New York:Free Press.
35. Fiske, A. P.(2002).Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures─A critique of the validity and measurement of the constructs: Comment on Oyserman.Psychological Bulletin,128,78-88.
36. Funke, F.(2005).The dimensionality of right-wing authoritarianism: Lessons from the dilemma between theory and measurement.Political Psychology,26,195-218.
37. Han、 K.-H.,Li, M.-C.,Hwang, K.-K.(2005).Cognitive responses to favor requests from different social targets in a Confucian society.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,22,283-294.
38. Hannover, B.,Pöhlmann, C.,Springer, A.,Roeder, U.(2005).Implications of independent versus interdependent self-knowledge for motivated social cognition: The semantic procedural interface model of the self.Self and Identity,4,159-175.
39. Harrington, L.,Liu, J. H.(2002).Self-enhancement and attitudes towards high achievers: A bicultural view of the independent and interdependent self.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,33,37-55.
40. Hofstede, G.(2003).Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations.London:Sage.
41. Huang、 Y.-H.,Bedford, O.,Zhang, Y.(2017).The relational orientation framework for examining culture in Chinese societies.Culture and Psychology,24(4),477-490.
42. Hwang、 K.-K.(2000).Chinese relationalism: Theoretical construction and methodological considerations.Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,30,155-178.
43. Hwang、 K.-K.(1987).Face and favor: The Chinese power game.American Journal of Sociology,92,945-974.
44. Hwang、 K.-K.(2011).The Mandala Model of Self.Psychological Studies,56,329-334.
45. Hwang、 K.-K.(2015).Cultural system vs. pan-cultural dimensions: Philosophical reflection on approaches for indigenous psychology.Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,45,2-25.
46. Hwang、 K.-K.(2015).Culture-inclusive theories of self and social interaction: The approach of multiple philosophical paradigms.Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,45,95-107.
47. Johnson, J. A.(1999).Persons in situations: Distinguishing new wine from old wine in new bottles.European Journal of Personality,13,443-453.
48. Lewin, K. (1943). Psychology and the process of group living. The Journal of Social Psychology, 17(1), 113-131.
49. Liu、 J. H.(2015).Globalizing indigenous psychology: An East Asian form of hierarchical relationalism with worldwide implications.Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,45,82-94.
50. Lu、 L.(2008).The individual-oriented and social-oriented Chinese bicultural self: Testing the theory.The Journal of Social Psychology,148,347-373.
51. Lu、 L.,Yang, K.-S.(2006).Emergence and composition of the traditional─modern bicultural self of people in contemporary Taiwanese societies.Asian Journal of Social Psychology,9,167-175.
52. Markus, H.,Kitayama, S.(1991).Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.Psychological Review,98,224-253.
53. Mavor, K. I.,Louis, W. R.,Laythe, B.(2011).Religion, prejudice, and authoritarianism: Is RWA a boon or bane to the psychology of religion?.Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,50,22-43.
54. Meade, R. D.,Whittaker, J. O.(1967).A cross-cultural study of authoritarianism.The Journal of Social Psychology,72,3-7.
55. Milgram, S.(1974).Obedience to authority: An experimental review.New York:Harper & Row.
56. Oesterreich, D.(2005).Flight into security: A new approach and measure of the authoritarian personality.Political Psychology,26,275-297.
57. Oyserman, D.,Coon, H. M.,Kemmelmeier, M.(2002).Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin,128,3-72.
58. Rai, T. S.,Fiske, A. P.(2011).Moral psychology is relationship regulation: Moral motives for unity, hierarchy, equality, and proportionality.Psychological Review,118,57-75.
59. Roiser, M.,Willig, C.(2002).The strange death of the authoritarian personality: 50 years of psychological and political debate.History of the Human Sciences,15,71-96.
60. Singelis, T. M.,Brown, W. J.(1995).Culture, self, and collectivist communication: Linking culture to individual behavior.Human Communication Research,21,354-389.
61. Singh, P. N.,Huang, S. C.,Thompson, G.(1962).A comparative study of selected attitudes, values, and personality characteristics of American, Chinese, and Indian students.Journal of Social Psychology,57,123-132.
62. Stone, W. F.,Lederer, G.,Christie, R.(1993).Introduction: Strength and weakness.Strength and weakness: The authoritarian personality today,New York:
63. Sun、 C. R.(2017).An examination of the four-part theory of the Chinese self: The differentiation and relative importance of the different types of social-oriented self.Frontiers in Psychology,8,1106.
64. Tiedens, L. Z.,Unzueta, M. M.,Young, M. J.(2007).An unconscious desire for hierarchy? The motivated perception of dominance complementarity in task partners.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,93,402-414.
65. Triandis, H. C.(1994).Theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of collectivism and individualism.Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications,Thousand Oaks, CA:
66. Triandis, H. C.(1999).Cross-cultural psychology.Asian Journal of Social Psychology,2,127-143.
67. Triandis, H. C.,Gelfand, M. J.(1998).Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,74,118-128.
68. Whitley, B. E., Jr.(1999).Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,77,126-134.
69. Yang、 K.-S.(1981).Social orientation and individual modernity among Chinese students in Taiwan.The Journal of Social Psychology,113,159-170.
70. Yang、 K.-S.(2000).Monocultural and cross-cultural indigenous approaches: The royal road to the development of a balance global psychology.Asian Journal of Social Psychology,3,241-263.
71. Yang、 K.-S.(2003).s culture-bound linear theory: A preliminary statement of the double-Y model of basic human needs.Nebraska symposium on motivation: Vol. 49. Cross-cultural differences in perspectives on the self,Lincoln, NE:
72. Yang、 K.-S.(1999).Towards an indigenous Chinese psychology: A selective review of methodological, theoretical, and empirical accomplishments.Chinese Journal of Psychology,41,181-211.
73. Yang、 K.-S.(2004).Toward a theory of the Chinese self: Conceptual analysis in terms of social orientation and individual orientation.Proceedings of the symposium on Chinese self process, knowledge, and evaluation,Taiwan:
74. Yang、 K.-S.(1995).Chinese social orientation: An integrative analysis.Chinese societies and mental health,Hong Kong:
75. Yang、 K.-S.,Bond, M. H.(1990).Exploring implicit personality theories with indigenous or imported constructs: The Chinese case.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,58,1087-1095.
76. Yeh、 K. H.,Bedford, O.,Yang, Y. J.(2009).A cross-cultural comparison of the coexistence and domain superiority of individuating and relating autonomy.International Journal of Psychology,44,213-221.
77. 石之瑜(1998)。「權威人格」研究的今昔。問題與研究，37，67-91。
78. 朱依君(2017)。從親師生三者重建校園新倫理。台灣教育評論月刊，6，157-158。
79. 吳清基(2010)。老師，我愛您。師友，513，50-54。
80. 李亦園（編）,楊國樞（編）(1972).中國人的性格.台北:中央研究院民族學研究所.
81. 李亦園（編）,楊國樞（編）(1972).中國人的性格：科際綜合性的討論.台北:中央研究院民族學研究所.
82. 李美枝(2002)。中國人社會取向的本土契合度。從現代到本土：慶賀楊國樞教授七秩華誕論文集，台北:
83. 林佳範(2004)。校園裡憲法的守護神──「尊師重道」新解。學生輔導，91，146-149。
84. 洪蘭（譯）、梁若瑜（譯）,Lew, W. J. F.(2001).華人性格研究.台北:遠流出版公司.
85. 韋政通(1974).中國文化與現代生活.台北:水牛出版社.
86. 徐隆德（譯）、Hsu, L. K.(1988).中國人與美國人.台北:巨流圖書公司.
87. 張維安（譯）、陳介玄（譯）,翟本瑞（譯）,Hamilton, G. G.(1990).中國社會與經濟.台北:聯經出版公司.
88. 許詩淇(2004)。臺灣師範大學社會教育研究所。
89. 陸洛(2007)。個人取向與社會取向的自我觀：概念分析與實徵測量。美中教育評論，4，1-23。
90. 喬健（編）,潘乃谷（編）(1995).中國人的觀念與行為.天津:天津人民出版社.
91. 黃光國(2014)。論「含攝文化的積極心理學」。台灣心理諮商季刊，6，36-47。
92. 黃光國(2017).儒家文化系統的主體辯證.台北:五南圖書公司.
93. 黃光國(2002)。從「現代性」到「本土化」：論「個人現代性」研究的方法論。從現代到本土：慶賀楊國樞教授七秩華誕論文集，台北:
94. 黃光國(2015).盡己與天良：破解韋伯的迷陣.台北:心理出版社.
95. 黃光國(2018).內聖與外王：儒家思想的完成與開展.台北:心理出版社.
96. 黃光國(1995).知識與行動：中華文化傳統的社會心理詮釋.台北:心理出版社.
97. 黃光國(2009).儒家關係主義：哲學反思、理論建構與實徵研究.台北:心理出版社.
98. 黃光國(2013).社會科學的理路.台北:心理出版社.
99. 黃光國(1999)。多元典範的研究取向：論社會心理學的本土化。社會理論學報，2，1-51。
100. 黃光國,楊國樞(1972)。個人現代化程度與社會取向強弱。中央研究院民族學研究所集刊，32，245-278。
101. 黃囇莉(2006).人際和諧與衝突：本土化的理論與研究.台北:揚智文化公司.
102. 黃囇莉,朱瑞玲(2012)。是亂流？還是潮起、潮落？──尋找臺灣的「核心價值」及其變遷。高雄行為科學學刊，3，61-94。
103. 楊中芳(2001).如何理解中國人.台北:遠流出版公司.
104. 楊中芳(2005)。本土化心理學的研究策略。華人本土心理學（上），台北:
105. 楊國樞(1997)。心理學研究的本土契合性及其相關問題。本土心理學研究，8，75-120。
106. 楊國樞(1993)。我們為什麼要建立中國人的本土心理學？。本土心理學研究，1，6-88。
107. 楊國樞(1982)。緣及其在現代化生活中的作用。中華文化復興月刊，15，51-67。
108. 楊國樞(2005)。華人社會取向的理論分析。華人本土心理學（上），台北:
109. 楊國樞(2005)。本土心理學的意義與發展。華人本土心理學（上），台北:
110. 楊國樞(1981)。中國人的性格與行為：形成及蛻變。中華心理學刊，23，39-57。
111. 楊國樞(2009)。楊國樞（2009）：〈社會與人格心理學在台灣的發展及研究：回顧與前瞻〉。台灣心理學會主辦「台灣心理學會第四十八屆年會」（台北）主題演講。
112. 楊國樞(1988).中國人的蛻變.台北:桂冠圖書公司.
113. 楊國樞(1965)。現代心理學中有關中國國民性的研究。思與言，2，3-19。
114. 楊國樞（編）(1992).中國人的價值觀──社會科學觀點.台北:桂冠圖書公司.
115. 楊國樞（編）,文崇一（編）(1982).社會及行為科學研究的中國化.台北:中央研究院民族學研究所.
116. 楊國樞（編）,余安邦（編）(1993)。中國人的社會取向：社會互動的觀點。中國人的心理與行為──理念及方法篇（一九九二），台北:
117. 楊國樞,余安邦,葉明華(1991)。中國人的個人傳統性與現代性：概念與測量。中國人的心理與行為（一九八九），台北:
118. 楊國樞、彭邁克, M. H.(1985)。中國人描述性格所採用的基本向度：一項心理學研究中國化的實例。現代化與中國化論集，台北:
119. 楊國樞,葉光輝,黃囇莉(1989)。孝道的社會態度與行為。中央研究院民族學研究所集刊，65，171-227。
120. 楊國樞,葉明華(2005)。家族主義與泛家族主義。華人本土心理學（上），台北:
121. 楊國樞,瞿海源(1974)。中國「人」的現代化：有關個人現代性的研究。中央研究院民族學研究所集刊，37，1-38。
122. 葉光輝(2017).從親子互動脈絡看華人性格的養成.台北:五南圖書公司.
123. 葉光輝(2018).華人心理的本土化研究.台北:臺灣大學出版中心.
124. 葉明華,楊國樞(1998)。中國人的家族主義：概念分析與實徵衡鑑。中央研究院民族學研究所集刊，83，169-225。
125. 葉英堃（編）,曾文星（編）(1971).現代生活與心理衛生.台北:水牛出版社.
126. 葉啟政(1984).社會、文化和知識份子.台北:東大圖書公司.
127. 鄒川雄(1998).中國社會學理論：尺寸拿捏與陽奉陰違.台北:洪葉文化.
128. 鄒川雄(2000).中國社會學實踐：陽奉陰違的中國人.台北:洪葉文化.
129. 鄭伯壎,黃敏萍(2005)。華人企業組織中的領導。華人本土心理學（下），台北:
130. 鄭伯壎,樊景立(2001)。初探華人社會的社會取向：台灣與大陸之比較研究。中華心理學刊，43，207-221。
131. 賴思伃(2011)。政治大學心理學系。
132. 錢淑芬,廖帝涵(2009)。軍隊的階級倫理如何框住人際互動：憲兵義務役士兵。復興崗學報，96，79-100。
133. 簡晉龍(2013)。政治大學心理學研究所。
134. 簡晉龍(2019)。科技部補助專題研究計畫成果報告科技部補助專題研究計畫成果報告,台北:科技部。
135. 簡晉龍,許詩淇,黃仲平(2019)。尊師重道？師生關係的尊師之內涵、轉化及其功能。2019 台灣應用心理學年會暨學術研究會，高雄:

1. (2024)。華人組織中的人際關係：回顧與展望。中華心理學刊，66(1)，153-193。