本研究採2（共同身分團體：強調 vs. 不強調）X 2（階級穩定度：穩定 vs. 不穩定）的二因子組間實驗設計，來檢驗國中現職教師族群的求助行為傾向與感受。本研究以431位桃園市、新竹縣市國中現職教師為研究樣本，受試者隨機被分配到「強調共同團體－階級穩定」、「不強調共同團體－階級穩定」、「強調共同團體－階級不穩定」與「不強調共同團體－階級不穩定」四種實驗情境之一，在閱讀完情境說明後，對「面對面自主性幫助」、「網頁自主性幫助」、「面對面依賴性幫助」或「網頁依賴性幫助」四種求助類型進行選擇，並對四種求助類型的進行感受評估。結果顯示：（一）受試教師對求助方式的偏好選擇並不存有顯著的性別差異、年資差異、職務別差異或教學領域差異。（二）各組教師對各幫助類型的選擇與感受評價未受階級穩定度與共同身分團體操弄的影響。（三）受試教師對求助方式的選擇偏好以「面對面自主性幫助」最多，「網頁自主性幫助」次多，「面對面依賴性幫助」與「網頁依賴性幫助」明顯較少，四種求助行為類型的選擇比例約是6：3：1：1。（四）受試教師對其所偏好選擇的幫助類型的綜合性感受評價明顯優於其他未被其選擇幫助類型的綜合性感受評價，這表示受試教師的選擇偏好與其心理感受評價是顯著一致的。

The study employed a 2 (emphasizing in-group identity or not) X 2 (emphasizing status stability or not) experimental design to examine the effects of in-group identity and status stability on the tendency and feelings of seeking help. A total of 431 junior high school teachers from Taoyaun and Hsinchu city were sampled and randomly assigned to one of four situations -- “emphasizing in-group identity and status stability,” “emphasizing status stability but not in-group identity,” “emphasizing in-group identity but not status stability,” and “emphasizing neither in-group identity nor status stability.” After reading the description of the given situation, subjects had to select one of the four seeking help types -- “face-to-face autonomy-oriented helping,” “face-to-face dependency-oriented helping,” “internet autonomy-oriented helping,” and “internet dependency-oriented helping,” -- as well as to give the appraises and feelings of the four help types. The results of the study are as follow: (1) No gender, tenure, title, or professional field difference was found on subjects’ choices of seeking help. (2) Neither in-group identity effect nor status stability effect was found on the tendency and feelings of seeking help. (3) Subjects of all groups tended to select help types in the order of “face-to-face autonomy-oriented helping,” “face-to-face dependency-oriented helping,” “internet autonomy-oriented helping,” and “internet dependency-oriented helping.” The ratio of the choices was about 6:3:1:1. (4) Subjects tended to give a higher appraises and feelings of the selected help type than other not selected help types, which indicated the consistency of subjects’ preference and appraise.

摘要
目次
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與目的 1
第二節 名詞釋義 4
第二章 文獻探討 6
第一節 幫助行為與類型 6
第二節 階級穩定度與幫助行為的關係 8
第三節 共同身分團體與幫助行為間的關係 13
第三章 研究方法 18
第一節 研究設計 18
第二節 研究假設 18
第三節 研究樣本 19
第四節 問卷設計 21
第五節 實施程序 24
第四章 研究結果 26
第一節 操弄檢核 26
第二節 教師求助類型選擇的背景因素檢核 27
第三節 教師求助類型選擇與感受評估的情境因素檢核 29
第五章 討論與建議 36
第一節 研究結果討論 36
第二節 未來研究方向與建議 40
參考文獻 42
附錄 情境A的版本 44
附錄 情境B的版本 47
附錄 情境C的版本 50
附錄 情境D的版本 53

1、Aderman, D., & Berkowitz, L. (1983). Self-concern and the unwillingness to be helpful. Social Psychology, 46(4), 293-301.
2、Alvarez , K., & van Leeuwen , E. ( 2011 ). To teach or to tell? Consequences of receiving help from experts and peers. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 397-402.
3、Alvarez, K., & van Leeuwen, E. (2015). Paying it forward: How helping others can reduce the psychological threat of receiving help. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45, 1-9.
4、Buunk, B. P., Doosje, B. J., Jans, L. G. J. M., & Hopstaken, L. E. M. (1993). Perceived reciprocity, social support, and stress at work: The role of exchange and communal orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 801-811. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.801
5、Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2010). Another view of “we”: Majority and minority group perspectives on a common ingroup identity. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 296-330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10463280701726132
6、Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
7、Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (2011). The common in group identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of Intergroup Bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 1-26. doi: 10.1080/14792779343000004
8、Halabi, S., Dovidio, J. F., & Nadler, A. (2008). When and how high status groups offer help: Effects of social dominance orientation and status threat. Political Psychology, 29, 841-858.
9、Halabi, S., Dovidio, J. F., & Nadler, A. (2014). Seeking help from the low status group: Effects of status stability, type of help and social categorization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 139-144.
10、Halabi, S., Nadler, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (2011). Reactions to receiving assumptive help: The moderating effects of group membership and perceived need for help. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(12), 2793-2815.
11、Levine, M., Prosser, A., Evans, D., & Reicher, S. (2005). Identity and emergency intervention: How social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 443-453. doi: 10.1177/0146167204271651
12、Nadler, A. (2002). Inter-group helping relations as power relations: Maintaining or challenging social dominance between groups through helping. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 487-502. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00272
13、Nadler, A. (2012). From help-giving to helping relations: Belongingness and independence in social interaction. In K. Deaux & M. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 394-419). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398991.013.0016
14、Nadler, A., & Chernyak-Hai, L. (2013). Helping them stay where they are: Status effects on dependency/autonomy-oriented helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(1), 58-72.
15、Nadler, A., & Halabi, S. (2006). The intergroup status as helping relations model: Giving, seeking and receiving help as tools to maintain or challenge social inequality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 97-110.
16、Nadler, A., Harpaz-Gorodeisky, G., & Ben-David, Y. (2009). Defensive helping: Threat to group identity, ingroup identification, status stability, and common group identity as determinants of intergroup help-giving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 823-834.
17、Scheepers, D., Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2006). Diversity in in-group bias: Structural factors, situational features, and social functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(6), 944-960. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.6.944
18、Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
19、Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1985). Advances in group processes: Theory and research, 2. Greenwich, Conn: JAI Press.
20、van Leeuwen, E., Täuber, S., & Sassenberg, K. (2011). Knocking on the outgroup's door: seeking outgroup help under conditions of task or relational conflict. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33(3), 266-278.