Submitted by Juliana Mansur (juliana.kopp@fgv.br) on 2016-02-22T13:14:22Z No. of bitstreams: 1 TESE_JULIANA MANSUR_VERSÃO DIGITAL.pdf: 1961862 bytes, checksum: c1bd07a7bcc2dfd3f04c3b85b4581a3a (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Janete de Oliveira Feitosa (janete.feitosa@fgv.br) on 2016-02-25T14:29:12Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 TESE_JULIANA MANSUR_VERSÃO DIGITAL.pdf: 1961862 bytes, checksum: c1bd07a7bcc2dfd3f04c3b85b4581a3a (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Marcia Bacha (marcia.bacha@fgv.br) on 2016-02-29T11:47:15Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 TESE_JULIANA MANSUR_VERSÃO DIGITAL.pdf: 1961862 bytes, checksum: c1bd07a7bcc2dfd3f04c3b85b4581a3a (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-02-29T11:47:31Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 TESE_JULIANA MANSUR_VERSÃO DIGITAL.pdf: 1961862 bytes, checksum: c1bd07a7bcc2dfd3f04c3b85b4581a3a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-02-03 / Although cross-cultural leadership research has thrived in international business literature, little attention has been devoted to understanding the effectiveness of non-western theories beyond their original contexts. The purpose of this study is to examine the cross-cultural endorsement of paternalistic leadership, an emerging non-western leadership theory, using data from GLOBE project. Using multigroup confirmatory factor analyses we found measurement equivalence of a scale derived from GLOBE’s data, which enabled us to compare the endorsement of paternalistic leadership dimensions across 10 cultural clusters and 55 societies. Our study revealed that there are significant differences in the importance societies give to each dimension, suggesting that paternalism as leadership style is not universally nor homogeneously endorsed. Furthermore, results suggest that different patterns of endorsement of each of these dimensions give rise to idiosyncratic shades of paternalistic leadership across societies. Implications for theory and future research on international business are discussed. / Paternalistic leadership is a flourishing area in leadership literature, traditionally assumed to be culture bounded. However, empirical evidences have suggested that rather than national cultures, the conditions under which paternalistic leaders are effective can be related to the fit between the style of a leader and that of his or her followers. In the present research, we focus on paternalistic leadership and contrast it with empowering leadership, as two opposite ways on how leaders influence followers, to explore the individual conditions under which both styles can be effective. Adopting a follower-centered approach, we base our arguments on person-supervisor (P-S) fit theory and regulatory focus theory to propose that leadership effectiveness may be contingent to followers’ own values and motivational needs. We expected paternalistic leadership behaviors (e.g, authority, benevolence, support) to supply motivational needs for predominantly prevention-focused followers, and empowering leadership behaviors (e.g. empowerment, encouragement and autonomy) to supply motivational needs for predominantly promotion-focused followers. Using data collected from two experimental studies and a business simulation, we found support for these ideas, showing that fit increased followers’ perception of attitudinal and behavioral outcomes, such as in-role and creative performance.

The present thesis explores how answering questions on values in surveys could be influenced. Findings about cognitive processes occurring in general during answering questions, as well as factors that may influence the given answers are presented in the first part of the theoretical section. Afterwards, Schwartz's circular model of values is presented together with the instruments he developed to measure their importance. At the end of the theoretical section, the results of existing studies on the possibilities of influencing values are described. A series of three experimental online studies, involving nearly 600 respondents, builds on the findings presented in the theoretical section. The experiments examine the malleability of individualistic and collectivistic values based on induced changes in regulatory focus and self-construal of participants. In the first of the studies, the given values were affected by the content of previous questions, but this effect was in the opposite direction than originally anticipated. In the next two studies, the experimental manipulation did not lead to significant differences between groups. Causes of the results, limits of the conducted studies and prospects for future research are discussed in the last sections of the thesis.

No description available.

No description available.

本研究經由兩個系列的實驗設計以探討套票的使用行為與續購行為。其中，實驗一是以虛擬情境檢視套票型式影響消費者的使用意圖，並以受測者的規範導向做為調節變數；實驗二則更進一步地以較接近真實生活的情境來進行操弄，更明確地檢測了消費者對套票的實際使用情形以及續購行為，除仍以受測者的生理規範導向做為調節變數，另探討了套票持有的前期與後期對使用行為的調節效果。 實驗一的結果顯示透過不同套票類型所引發持有者沉入成本上的差異，可能導致受測者在套票的使用意願不同。具體來說，愈是能讓受測者感受到不使用便等同於虧損的套票，受測者的使用意願便會更高。此外，不同規範導向的受測者所重視的目標不同。積極導向動機較強的受測者，行為較易受到努力得到想要結果的動機驅策，所以比較在意結果是否能獲得之前欠缺的東西；反過來說，保守導向動機較強的受測者，行為較易受到努力保持現有結果的動機引導，所以比較在意結果是否會失去之前擁有的東西。以不同動機系統為主的不同類型受測者的行為會有很大的差異。積極導向者比較容易追尋更完美的結果，所以當競爭者推出可能是較佳的替代品時，轉換意願較高；至於保守導向者則較在意持有現有可接受的結果，所以發現可能是較佳的替代品時，則寧願使用手中持有的套票。 至於實驗二的結果則顯示受測者在套票持有的前期較易於使用套票，換言之，隨著套票持有的時間愈久，對未使用完畢套票的沉入成本感受會隨著時間降低，使用套票的可能性也就因此愈低。此外，不同的套票型式對保守導向者的影響比較大，對保守導向動機較強的受測者而言，若所持有的套票型式是較容易感受到當未使用套票時，就意謂著沉入成本無法回收時，使用套票的意願會較高。而當持有的型式是較不容易感受到套票成本的型式時，使用此套票的可能性就相對降低了。但是積極導向動機系統為主的受測者來說，套票的實體型式對使用行為的差異就不太明顯了。不同型式的套票，並不會對積極導向者產生太大使用行為上的差異。 若保守導向者持有的是較容易感受到此套票成本的型式時，在套票持有的前期與後期間的使用差距不太會有明顯的改變，也就是說，他們比較不會因為套票持有的時間較久就明顯地降低使用行為，但若持有的是比較不容易感受到成本的套票時，在套票持有的後期會比前期容易不去使用套票。至於對積極導向者來說，這項因為套票型式上的差別造成在持有套票的前期與後期使用套票上的變化就不太明顯，事實上，積極導向者無論持有何種型式的套票，在後期都會明顯的降低使用套票的行為。 當套票使用完畢後，原持有的是較不容易感受到成本的套票型式受測者，續購意願比較高。而原持有的是較容易感受到套票成本的型式時，相對上的續購意願會較低。這項影響僅對保守導向者有影響，至於對積極導向者來說，就沒有什麼明顯的差異。 研究的結果大致與研究假說一致，因此，對於理論與實務上亦據本研究的結論提一些的建議。 關鍵詞: 沉入成本效果、規範導向論、動機系統、價格組合、套票、認知評估論 / This study utilized two experimental designs in testing consumer behavior in the usage and repurchase of bundled tickets (price bundling). In the first experiment, a traditional context was employed by using respondent regulatory focus as the moderator to test the impact of bundled ticket types on consumer usage intention. In the second experiment, a more realistic context was employed to examine consumers’ real usage and repurchase behavior with the bundle. Here in addition to using respondents’ regulatory focus as pure-moderator, study two also included bundling quasi-moderator—possession phases. The results of the first study showed that the difference in sunk cost effects caused by the two types of bundling would result in different bundling utilization intentions. Moreover, respondents within different motivation systems showed significantly different behavior patterns—promotion focus respondents were more likely to seek better gains, thus when competitors provided better alternatives, these respondents were more likely to make the switch. Prevention focus respondents, on the other hand, cared more about losses, making them more likely to remain with the original service provider. The result of the second study showed that compared with the later phase, bundling usage propensity was higher in the earlier holding phase. Moreover, different forms of bundled tickets had different extent influences on prevention focus respondents. Prevention focus respondents held that separate types caused them to have higher intentions in using bundling, but they would be relatively less likely to use bundling when they were in possession of an integrated one. However, the effect of different types of bundling on the usage behavior of promotion focus respondents was not significant. Among prevention focus respondents who were more sensitive to bundled ticket costs, there is no significant difference in their utilization of bundling from earlier to later phases. However, if the bundled tickets in possession were the integrated type, they were less likely to use the tickets in the later phase than in the earlier one. Regarding promotion focus respondents, the effect of bundled ticket form in the usage of said tickets in the two phases was not significant. In fact, no matter what form the bundling took, promotion focus respondents displayed significantly less use for the bundling in the later phase. Bundling possession forms had the direct impact on repurchasing behavior. In this regard, respondents holding integrated bundling types displayed a higher incidence of repurchase behavior. This was, however, only effective when it came to prevention focus respondents; no significant difference was found regarding promotion focus respondents. The results of this study yielded suggestions for both theoretical and practical areas. Key Words: Sunk Cost Effect, Regulatory Focus Theory, Motivation Systems, Price Bundling, Bundled Ticket, Cognitive Evaluation Theory

在全球化的背景下，企業間的競爭變得愈加劇烈，需要員工提供寶貴的意見想法，方能幫助組織成長與發展，因此瞭解員工說與不說的背後原因，便顯得更加重要。本研究以社會情緒選擇理論（socioemotional selectivity theory, SST）理論為基礎，並以兩種未來時間觀：開放式未來時間觀（open-ended future time perspective）與限制式未來時間觀（limited future time perspective）分類方式進行探討，期望進一步瞭解其對兩種員工意見表達行為：建言行為（voice behavior）與沉默行為（silence behavior）的影響效果，以及兩種調節焦點：促進性焦點（promotion focus）、預防性焦點（prevention focus）在其中所扮演的中介角色。同時，本研究探討知覺心理安全氛圍（perceived psychological safety climate）對未來時間觀與意見表達行為間關係的調節效果。本研究採問卷調查法施測，共蒐集249對員工-同事對偶樣本。研究結果顯示：（一）開放式未來時間觀與促進性建言呈顯著正相關；開放式未來時間觀與抑制性建言未具有顯著相關；限制式未來時間觀與沉默行為呈顯著正相關；（二）調節焦點並未中介未來時間觀與意見表達行為間之關係；（三）知覺心理安全氛圍並未調節未來時間觀與意見表達行為間關係。最後，針對研究結果，進一步討論理論與實務意涵、研究限制與未來研究方向。 / This study is based on the socioemotional selectivity theory (SST), and has three objectives: First, to assess the effect of future time perspective (open-ended / limited) on opinion expression behavior (voice / silence). Second, to test the mediating role of regulatory focus (promotion / prevention) in the relationship between the future time perspective and the opinion expression behavior. Third, to examine the moderating role of perceived psychological safety climate on the relationship of future time perspective and opinion expression behavior. The results collected of 249 valid dyad (employee-colleague) pair showed that (1) open-ended future time perspective was positively related to promotive voice behavior, but not to prohibitive voice behavior; limited future time perspective was positively related to silence behavior. (2) regulatory focus did not mediate the relationship between future time perspective and opinion expression behavior. (3) no support was found for the expected moderating role of perceived psychological safety climate in the future time perspective—opinion expression behavior relationship. Finally, the study’s implications for theory and practice are discussed, its limitations are identified, and directions for future research are suggested.