• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >The relationship between severity of consequences, locus of control, and account giving.
【24h】

The relationship between severity of consequences, locus of control, and account giving.

机译：后果严重程度，控制源和帐户授予之间的关系。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Researchers have typically described four types of accounts (or reasons) people give for their adverse behavior: apologies, denials, excuses, and justifications. The purpose of this study is to determine the relationship between different types of accounts, consequence severity of the situation, and locus of control. A three-way interaction was predicted: in high consequence situations, participants would rate apologies, excuses and denial statements higher than justifications, but in low consequence situations, persons with an internal locus of control (internals) would rate apologies and justifications higher, whereas persons with an external locus of control (externals) would prefer denials and excuses, consistent with their locus of control characteristics. The second hypothesis predicted a two-way interaction between consequences and account, where in high consequence situations participants were expected to prefer apologies, denial, and excuses; in low consequence situations they would prefer justifications. An online survey was conducted with 110 graduate students and professionals. Participants were randomly assigned in a counterbalanced mixed-methods approach where they received a combination of low and high consequence scenarios and were asked to rate agreement with different account statements. Participants completed Rotter's (1966) locus of control scale and answered demographic questions. To assess its validity, the instrument was first pilot tested with a convenience sample of 23 participants. A separately recruited, final study sample of 110 different participants was used for the hypothesis testing Final study results supported a three-way interaction: for persons with external locus of control, apologies were rated significantly higher in high consequence situations when compared with low, and denials were rated significantly higher in low consequence situations when compared with high. For internals, there was no significant difference in account ratings between low and high consequences. Their pattern of ratings was similar to the overall ratings of accounts where apologies were rated significantly higher than any other account type; denials were rated significantly higher than excuses or justifications; and excuses and justifications were not significantly different from one another.
机译：研究人员通常描述了人们针对其不良行为提供的四种类型的陈述（或原因）：道歉，拒绝，借口和辩解。本研究的目的是确定不同类型的帐户，情况的严重性和控制源之间的关系。预测了三向互动：在后果严重的情况下，参与者对道歉，借口和否认陈述的评价要高于理由，而在后果严重的情况下，具有内部控制源的人（内部）会对道歉和理由的评价更高。具有外部控制源（外部）的人更喜欢拒绝和借口，这与他们的控制特征相符。第二个假设预测了后果和解释之间的双向交互作用，在这种情况下，在高后果情况下，参与者被要求选择道歉，否认和借口。在低后果的情况下，他们宁愿辩解。对110名研究生和专业人士进行了在线调查。将参与者随机分配到一种平衡的混合方法方法中，在此方法中，他们接受了低后果情景和高后果情景的组合，并被要求对不同帐户对帐单的一致性打分。参与者完成了Rotter（1966）的控制规模所在地，并回答了人口统计学问题。为了评估其有效性，该仪器首先通过23名参与者的便利样本进行了先导测试。使用110名不同参与者的单独募集的最终研究样本进行假设检验。最终研究结果支持三方面的交互作用：对于外部控制源的人，在严重后果情况下的歉意被评估为高，而在低后果情况下则被道歉。与低风险相比，低后果情况下的拒绝率要高得多。对于内部人员而言，低后果和高后果之间的帐户评级没有显着差异。他们的评分方式与帐户的总体评分类似，后者的道歉评分明显高于其他任何帐户类型；拒绝的等级明显高于借口或辩解；借口和理由没有明显的不同。

著录项

  • 作者

    Lewis, Andrea.;

  • 作者单位

    Union Institute and University.;

  • 授予单位 Union Institute and University.;
  • 学科 Psychology Social.;Sociology Criminology and Penology.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2010
  • 页码 144 p.
  • 总页数 144
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号