2008年由次貸引爆之全球金融風暴，除造成美國金融機構破產及併購，亦波及製造業，深究其原因，不外乎輕忽風險管理建立與執行之落實，未完整量化與管理企業所能承受之風險；尤其人壽保險業所銷售之保險契約，各國監理機關皆強化壽險業之監管，以風險資本為壽險業評估清償能力之指標。 風險胃納顯示企業對風險基本態度，包括企業承擔風險之意願，風險限額及控管模式，風險容忍度是揭露企業風險管理之量化和質化結果。本研究依風險基礎資本額制度（Risk-Based Capital，RBC）建立公司整體市場風險容忍度之設定，依據風險限額及預警指標建立控管程序，並檢視個案金融機構風險容忍度之擬定流程。 依個案公司風險限額及預警指標之建立流程，並評估該公司於2007-2008年全球金融風暴之實際財務影響，歸納結果如下；(1)除交易單位風險限額外，並應訂定交易商品及交易員風險限額導入前台交易系統；(2)應增計利率風險；(3)除市場風險限額外，應建置信用風險限額、作業風險限額模組，架構公司整體風險胃納及風險容忍度，並執行限額管理；(4) 發展即時監控系統，檢視公司風險承受度。 / In 2008, global financial crisis, inspired by subprime mortgage, not only caused bankruptcy and mergers and acquisitions of U.S. financial institutions but also spread to manufacturing. Taking a close look at the reasons, they are overlooking the establishment and implementation of risk management implementation and incompletely quantitating the risk that the management companies can bear. National supervisory authorities have strengthened supervision of the insurance industry and established risk capital as an indicator for the insurance industry to assess the solvency. Risk appetite shows the company’s basic attitude towards risk, including the willingness to take risks, risk limit, and control mode. Risk tolerance is to expose the results of the company’s risk management of quantitative and qualitative. This study is according to RBC (Risk-Based Capital) to set the company’s overall market risk tolerance and based on risk limit and early warning indicator to set control procedures. Besides, this study surveys the financial institution case whose preparation process of risk tolerance. According to the case’s established procedures of risk limit and early warning indicator, assessing its actual financial impact during global financial crisis from 2007 to 2008, this study summarizes as follows: (1) In addition to the risk limit of the trading unit, front-end trading system of trading goods and traders into risk limits should be established. (2)Increase the caculation of the interest rate risk. (3) Beside the market risk limit, credit risk limit and operational risk limit model should be established. Build the company’s overall risk appetite and risk tolerance, and implement the quota management. (4) Develop the real-time monitoring system and survey the company’s risk tolerance.

本論文探討台北市連鎖式便利商店的市場進入決策。研究發現在便利商店的產業裡，相較於多重市場接觸(亦即是否已同時出現在其他市場)的考量，與競爭對手門市的距離對廠商的進入決策有較大的影響。此外，上期競爭對手存在與否，也是廠商是否進入該市場的重要衡量依據。大型連鎖店會進入前一期競爭較激烈的市場，這些市場競爭對手的門市已有一家以上；而小型連鎖店通常不會依據對手的門市數目來決定其進入的決策。最後，利用不同的落後期變數設定，本文發現廠商的進入決策具有一致性。這表示在台北市，便利商店已經是相當成熟的產業了。 / In this paper we study entry decisions of the convenience store chains in Taipei. We find that the distance between store pairs is more relevant to firms' entry decisions than the multimarket contact (i.e., firms encounter each other in multiple markets) in this industry. In addition, the presence of a firm's rivals in the previous period plays an important role in the entry decision. The large convenience store chains are more likely to enter more competitive markets, such as markets consisting of more than one rivals' store. On the other hand, the small chains are indifferent to their rivals' presence when making their entry decisions. Lastly, firms' entry decisions are consistent when different measurements of lagged variables are used. We interpret that the convenience store industry may have reached a stable state in Taipei.

對一個母體Ｆ（ｘ）來講，第Ｐ百分位數 就是使得Ｆ（Ｘｐ）＝Ｐ的點，而 的信 賴上、下限就對應到母體的容忍上、下限（Tolerance Limit Lower or Upper）ｒ＝ Ｐ（Ｕ Ｘｐ）or ＝Ｐ（Ｌ Ｘｒ）。古期的無母數作法是根據一個秩統計量（Or der Sta-＆ Koopman及Proschan分別提出不同的無母數方法，二者均是以秩統計量的 線性組合為主。唯Ｈ＆Ｋ的容忍上、下限限於Ψu、ΨL族群，而Ψu＝｛Ｆ：─log（ １－Ｆ）is convex），ΨL＝｛Ｆ：─log F is convex ）；Ｂ＆Ｐ的容忍下限作法 僅適是ＩＦＲ（Increasing Failure Rate） 而且Ｆ（０）＝０的族群。本論文以負 指數分配為母體在參合模式下，εＦ□＋（１－ε）Ｆ□來比較這兩種容忍上、上限 ，同時也覯察了若母體該是參合模式而誤採單一模式時所發生的偏差。 本論文計吊五章，第一章：緒論；第二章：古典的無母數方法；第三章：參合模式下 Hanson & Koopman的方法；第四章：參合模式下Barlow & Proschan 的方法；第五章 ：二種方法的分析比較。

本文以美國境內航空市場為例，探討多重市場接觸與價格離散的關聯，並研究大型航空公司併購案前後多重市場接觸對航空公司競爭策略的影響。本研究發現：(一) 相互容忍說於併購案發生前後皆成立。(二) 相較於考量擴大市場的市佔率，航空公司更應該關注與競爭者間的競爭關係。(三) 併購案發生前後，航空公司的訂價行為都深受競爭對手的競爭策略影響。(四) 併購案發生前，因競爭者多，市場上航空公司平均市佔率的大小是航空公司可採取競爭手段重要因素之一。在最大的1000 個市場中，雖然每家航空公司的市場力量不大，航空公司仍可採取價格競爭，然若是對手間聯合懲罰，則航空公司不敢採取激進手段，且多重市場接觸越多，價格離散程度越大。而在次要競爭的市場中，則因航空公司的平均市占率是最大的1000 個市場的兩倍，因此航空公司並未有明顯競爭行為。但若考量競爭對手間的碰面次數，則多重市場接觸與不同分位價格關係為正，且多重市場接觸越多，價格離散程度越低。併購案發生後，因航空公司間彼此箝制力量大，與競爭對手間的碰面次數越多，越傾向隱性勾結，且高價位的價格上升較低價位價格多，使價格離散程度越大。 / In this paper, we discuss whether multimarket contact matters for price dispersion in the U.S. airline industry, and compare the influence of multimarket contact on airlines’ competition strategies before and after airline mergers and acquisitions. We find that: (a) Before and after the mergers, mutual forbearance exists. (b) In contrast to an airline‘s market share, the relationship between airlines and itself plays a more important role in its pricing strategy.(c) Before and after the mergers, airline companies’pricing strategies are significantly affected by their competitors’strategies. (d) Before the mergers, because of the intense competition, it is the size of the competitors‘ market share that the company decide whether to take aggressive strategies. In the top 1000 competitive markets,airline companies will take aggressive actions to get more passengers for the punishment from its competitor is an incredible threat, however, if competitors collude together, airline companies will hardly dare to cut price. And the effect of an increase in multimarket contact on price dispersion is positive and significant. In the second competitive markets, since the average market share is twice bigger than in the top 1000 markets, airlines prefer not to participate in cut-throat competition. However, if competitors collude, then airline companies will cooperate together, and the effect of an increase in multimarket contact on price dispersion is negative and significant. After the mergers, increase in contacts with competitors would facilitate mutual forbearance and increase price dispersion and higher-percentile prices will increase more than lower-percentile prices.

本研究目的在探討後形式思考的發展，以及後形式思考與人際關係之容忍性、同理心、自我揭露、自主性之關係。受試為644位分佈於青年期後期至成人期(18至80歲)的受試，以問卷法進行研究。資料分析採用百分比差異性考驗與單因子變異數分析。結果發現：1. 在後形式思考的發展方面，青年期後期屬於形式性思考組的百分比高於早成人期與中、老年期屬於於形式性思考組的百分比。早成人期屬於相對性思考組的百分比高於中、老年期屬於相對性思考組的百分比。中、老年期屬於辯証性思考組的百分比高於青年期後期與早成人期屬於辯証性思考組的百分比。綜合三個認知思考組與各年齡組之關係，相對性思考的發展時機比形式性思考要晚，辯証性思考的發展時機比相對性思考要晚。2. 在後形式思考與人際關係之「容忍性」、「同理心」、「自我揭露」、「自主性」之關係方面：(1)後形式思考組的「容忍性」高於形式性思考組的「容忍性」；辯証性思考組的「容忍性」高於相對性思考組的「容忍性」；相對性思考組的「容忍性」高於形式性思考組的「容忍性」。辯証性思考組在容忍性之「統整差異」得分高於形式性思考組與相對性思考組的得分；(2)後形式思考組的「同理心」高於形式性思考組的「同理心」；辯証性思考組的「同理心」高於相對性思考組的「同理心」；相對性思考組的「同理心」高於形式性思考組的「同理心」；(3)後形式思考組的「自我揭露」高於形式性思考組的「自我揭露」；辯証性思考組的「自我揭露」高於形式性思考組與相對性思考組的「自我揭露」；相對性思考組與形式性思考組的「自我揭露」沒有顯著差異；(4)後形式思考組的「自主性」高於形式性思考組的「自主性」；辯証性思考組的「自主性」高於形式性思考組與相對性思考組的「自主性」；相對性思考組與形式性思考組的「自主性」沒有顯著差異。辯証性思考組在「自主性」之相互依賴性高於形式性思考組與相對性思考組的相互依賴性。 本研究根據研究結果討論這些發現的可能原因，並提出後形式思考未來的研究建議，以及研究結果在人際關係實際應用上的啟示。 壹、緒論　　　　　　　　　　　 　　 　 　　　 01 一、 研究動機 01 二、 研究目的 10 三、 名詞釋義 11 (一) 認知發展範疇 11 (二) 人際關係範疇 12 貳、文獻探討 15 一、 後形式思考的本質 15 (一) 後形式思考的特徵 15 (二) 相對性思考 22 (三) 辯証性思考 28 (四) 相對性思考與辯証性思考的比較 34 二、 後形式思考的發展 38 三、人際關係的發展 45 (一) 人際關係的重要性 45 (二) 人際關係發展的重要向度 46 四、 後形式運思與人際關係之容忍性、同理心、自我揭露、自主性 之關係 53 (一) 後形式思考與人際關係的本質 53 (二)後形式思考與人際關係之「容忍性」、「同理心」、「自我揭露」、「自主性」 之關係 55 參、研究方法 73 一、 研究架構 73 二、 研究問題與假設 74 三、 研究樣本 76 四、 研究工具 78 (一) 後形式思考的測量 78 (二) 「容忍性」的測量 91 (三) 「同理心」的測量 93 (四) 「自我揭露」的測量 97 (五) 「自主性」的測量 104 五、資料蒐集與樣本來源 111 肆、研究結果 114 一、後形式思考的發展 118 二、後形式思考與人際關係之容忍性、同理心、自我揭露、自主性 之關係 125 (一)形式性思考與後形式思考在「容忍性」的差異 126 (二)形式性思考與後形式思考在「同理心」的差異 129 (三)形式性思考與後形式思考在「自我揭露」的差異 131 (四)形式性思考與後形式思考在「自主性」的差異 133 伍、結果、討論與建議 107 一、結果 107 (一)後形式思考的發展 142 (二)後形式思考與人際關係之「容忍性」、「同理心」、「自我揭露」、 「自主性」之關係 142 二、討論 143 (一)後形式思考的發展 143 (二)後形式思考與人際關係之「容忍性」、「同理心」、「自我揭露」、 「自主性」之關係 114 (三)整體性發展觀的綜合討論 153 三、建議 157 (一)研究的測量工具 157 (二)研究設計的限制與建議 167 (三)未來的研究方向 168 (四)實際應用的啟示 174 參考文獻 181 附錄 197 附錄一：信念量表 197 附錄二：人際關係問卷(A) 205 附錄三：人際關係與信念問卷(A) 215 / The purpose of this study was to investigate the development of postformal thinking and the relationships between postformal thinking and the tolerance、empathy、self-disclosure、autonomy of interpersonal relations. Subjects were 644, ranging from late adolescence to adulthood (age from 18 to 80 years). Questionnaire was used as the research method. The testing of differences between two percentages and one-way ANOVA were used for data analysis. The results were : 1. In the development of postformal thinking, the percentage of formalistic thinker in late adolescence group (18-23 years) was higher than early adulthood groups' (24-40 years) and middle、late adulthood groups' (41-80 years), the percentage of relativistic thinker in early adulthood group was higher than middle、late adulthood groups', the percentage of dialectical thinker in middle、late adulthood group was higher than late adolescence group's and early adulthood group's. According to the findings of the relationships between the cognitive thinking groups and age groups, the developmental timing of relativistic thinking was later than the timing of formalistic thinking, the developmental timing of dialectical thinking was later than the timing of relativistic thinking. 2. In the findings of the relationships between the postformal thinking and the tolerance、empathy、self-disclosure、autonomy of interpersonal relations: (1) The tolerance of the postformal thinking group was higher than the formalistic thinking group's, the tolerance of the dialectical thinking group was higher than the relativistic thinking group's, the tolerance of the relativistic thinking group was higher than the formalistic thinking group's. The score of integration differences of tolerance of the dialectical thinking group was higher than the relativistic thinking group's and the formalistic thinking group's. (2) The empathy of the postformal thinking group was higher than the formalistic thinking group's, the empathy of the dialectical thinking group was higher than the relativistic thinking group's, the empathy of the relativistic thinking group was higher than the formalistic thinking group's. (3) The self-disclosure of the postformal thinking group was higher than the formalistic thinking group's, the self-disclosure of the dialectical thinking group was higher than the relativistic thinking group's and the formalistic thinking group's. (4) The autonomy of the the postformal thinking group was higher than the formalistic thinking group's, the autonomy of the dialectical thinking group was higher than the relativistic thinking group's and the formalistic thinking group's. The interdependence of the dialectical thinking group was higher than the relativistic thinking group's and the formalistic thinking group's. The possible reasons of the above findings were discussed in the paper. According to these findings, suggestions of future research about postformal thinking and implications of practical applications in interpersonal relations were mentioned.