Many cross-cultural advertising studies in the last decade focus on matching the advertising messages to consumers’ self-concepts. Despite the cultural differences in self-concept, research on self-concept still has some limitations given the lack understanding of the dialectical thinking style. Dialectical thinking represents one’s perception of conflicted information. To develop the understanding of dialectical thinking in predicting the persuasiveness of advertising messages, this research uses arguments proposed in the literature and validates the importance of dialectical thinking in predicting advertising appeals’ persuasiveness for East Asian bicultural consumers. In addition to dialectical thinking, Benet-Martinez et al. (2002) proposed the concept of Bicultural Identity Integration (BII) to group biculturals into high Bicultural Identity Integration individuals and low Bicultural Identity Integration individuals. Lau-Gesk (2003)’s work claimed that Chinese Americans who perceive Chinese and American cultures are compatible (high Bicultural Identity Integration) tend to favour ads appeals that emphasizing on both cultural values. Whereas, those individuals who perceive the two cultures are contradicted and compartmentalised tend to favour ads appeals that emphasizing on only one cultural value. This research aims to examine the role of product type in moderating the relationship between Bicultural Identity Integration and the persuasiveness of dual-focused advertising appeals. Building upon marketing and psychology literature, the aim of this research is to extend our understanding of impacts of dialectical thinking and Bicultural Identity Integration (BII) on the persuasiveness of dual-focused advertising appeals. This research adopts both qualitative and quantitative techniques to examine the research questions. Firstly, 10 in-depth interviews with Chinese participants from The University of Manchester were conducted to understand the predictors of dialectical thinking. To examine the impacts of dialectical thinking and Bicultural Identity Integration on the persuasiveness of dual-focused advertising appeals, 161 participants were recruited in Experiment 1 and 164 participants were recruited in Experiment 2. The findings suggest that individuals’ perspective-taking and flexibility and openness capabilities tend to predict one’s degree of dialecticism. In Experiment 1, the results showed that dialectical thinking only explains the attitudinal differences among the immigration-based Chinese bicultural group when shared products were promoted. The differences in attitudes among high and low dialectical globalisation-based Chinese biculturals were not significant when either shared or personal products were promoted. Bicultural Identity Integration explains the attitudinal differences within both immigration-based and globalisation-based bicultural groups when shared products were promoted. Experiment 2 results suggested that language cues tend to have a priming effect on immigration-based Chinese biculturals’ degrees of dialecticism. They have shown higher degree of dialecticism when advertising appeals were written in Chinese and are less likely to favour dual-focused advertising appeals; participants also reported lower degree of dialecticism when advertising appeals were written in English and favour dual-focused advertising appeals. However, such priming effects were not significant within the globalisation-based Chinese bicultural group.

Thesis (M.Ed.)--University of the Witwatersrand, Faculty of Education, 1999.

Theodor W. Adorno (1903-1969) propose une philosophie dont les problèmes centraux concernent la réalité sociale. Depuis cette perspective, nous démontrerons, à travers la présentation de quelques modèles théoriques, comment les problèmes traités sont déterminés historiquement et comment la quête de leur résolution engage la philosophie à entrer dans un rapport critique avec elle-même. Cette critique a pour but de corriger les excès de la théorie de la vérité comme adéquation dont la philosophie s’est montrée responsable, tant vis-à-vis d’elle-même que vis-à-vis de l’histoire. À travers ce parcours, nous défendons la thèse que le modèle adornien effectue une « négation déterminée » du concept de totalité sociale en vue d’orienter le penser vers la conscience et la connaissance des éléments hétérogènes de la réalité. Selon nous, une telle réorientation permettrait de rouvrir la conscience à l’expérience de ce qu’elle a de plus précieux : la possibilité de rendre compte de ses erreurs et de les corriger. / Theodor W. Adorno (1903-1969) puts forward a philosophy whose central problems concern social reality. From this same perspective, I aim to demonstrate, through the presentation of few theoretical models, how these problems are historically determined and how the search for their solutions imposes the task of self-criticism upon philosophy. This self-critique aims to correct certain excesses of the identity theory of truth for which philosophy is responsible historically and theoretically. Throughout this development, I argue that the Adornian model carries out a “determinate negation” of the concept of social totality. In this negation, Adorno guides thinking towards an awareness and knowledge of the heterogeneous elements of reality. I argue that this allows conscienceness to open itself to the most important aspect of philosophical experience: the possibility of acknowledging one’s mistakes and of correcting them.

Theodor W. Adorno (1903-1969) propose une philosophie dont les problèmes centraux concernent la réalité sociale. Depuis cette perspective, nous démontrerons, à travers la présentation de quelques modèles théoriques, comment les problèmes traités sont déterminés historiquement et comment la quête de leur résolution engage la philosophie à entrer dans un rapport critique avec elle-même. Cette critique a pour but de corriger les excès de la théorie de la vérité comme adéquation dont la philosophie s’est montrée responsable, tant vis-à-vis d’elle-même que vis-à-vis de l’histoire. À travers ce parcours, nous défendons la thèse que le modèle adornien effectue une « négation déterminée » du concept de totalité sociale en vue d’orienter le penser vers la conscience et la connaissance des éléments hétérogènes de la réalité. Selon nous, une telle réorientation permettrait de rouvrir la conscience à l’expérience de ce qu’elle a de plus précieux : la possibilité de rendre compte de ses erreurs et de les corriger. / Theodor W. Adorno (1903-1969) puts forward a philosophy whose central problems concern social reality. From this same perspective, I aim to demonstrate, through the presentation of few theoretical models, how these problems are historically determined and how the search for their solutions imposes the task of self-criticism upon philosophy. This self-critique aims to correct certain excesses of the identity theory of truth for which philosophy is responsible historically and theoretically. Throughout this development, I argue that the Adornian model carries out a “determinate negation” of the concept of social totality. In this negation, Adorno guides thinking towards an awareness and knowledge of the heterogeneous elements of reality. I argue that this allows conscienceness to open itself to the most important aspect of philosophical experience: the possibility of acknowledging one’s mistakes and of correcting them.

No description available.

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.