汽車業務員壓力源、壓力因應策略與身心健康之調查研究－以不同自我效能和汽車品牌者為例

文化大學機構典藏 CCUR > 教育學院 > 心理輔導學系暨心理輔導研究所 > 博碩士論文 > Item 987654321/37958

jsp.display-item.identifier=請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://irlib.pccu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/37958

题名:	汽車業務員壓力源、壓力因應策略與身心健康之調查研究－以不同自我效能和汽車品牌者為例 The Study of Car Salespersons' Stressor, Stress Coping Strategies, and the Status of Physical and Mental Health - Subjects were Different Types of Self-Efficacy and Automobile Brands
作者:	王彥舜
贡献者:	心理輔導學系
关键词:	汽車業務員壓力源壓力因應策略身心健康 Car Salespersons Stressor Stress Coping Strategy Physical and Mental Health
日期:	2017
上传时间:	2017-08-29 14:13:06 (UTC+8)
摘要:	本研究旨在調查汽車業務員之壓力源、壓力因應具體策略與身心健康程度之現況，並以不同自我效能與汽車品牌探討汽車業務員壓力源、壓力因應具體策略及身心健康程度的差異情形，作為汽車業務員身心健康預測指標。研究方法採用問卷調查法，以任職於國內汽車展售中心之汽車業務員作為研究母群，並以立意取樣的方式尋找問卷調查對象，獲得有效樣本共165人。研究工具為「汽車業務員身心健康程度調查問卷」，內容包含研究者自編之「汽車業務員工作壓力調查問卷」、黃毓華和鄭英耀（1996）修訂的「一般性自我效能量表」（GSE）及許文耀（1999）編製的「身心健康量表」三部分。研究者針對汽車業務員在一般性自我效能量表得分以「前34%」及「後34%」作為切分點，得分前34%為高自我效能組，得分後34%為低自我效能組。統計分析方法包括描述性統計、卡方檢定、獨立樣本 t 檢定及多元迴歸。資料統計分析結果得以下結論： 1.對汽車業務員而言，壓力來源最大前三項層面，分別依序為：「業績銷售壓力」、「個人生活壓力」與「客戶服務壓力」。最常使用的前三項壓力因應策略，分別依序為「尋求支援因應」、「過度工作因應」與「問題解決因應」。 2.有關汽車業務員壓力源層面，低自我效能組在「組織環境因素」壓力源，比起高自我效能組更容易感受到壓力，其中低自我效能組在「行政瑣事壓力」－車輛維修及鈑噴相關事宜、參與訓練課程以及「職場人際壓力」－與同事間不易建立真誠的人際關係，所感受之壓力，顯著高於高自我效能組；高自我效能組在「行政瑣事壓力」－無行政瑣事壓力選項，顯著高於低自我效能組。不同品牌汽車業務員在壓力來源之種類百分比達到統計顯著差異，其中A品牌汽車業務員比起B品牌汽車業務員，更容易感受到「業績銷售壓力」、「客戶服務壓力」、「職場角色壓力」、「行政瑣事壓力」以及「職場角色壓力」。 3.有關汽車業務員壓力因應策略部分，高自我效能組更傾向選擇「積極問題取向」因應策略，其中高自我效能組在「問題解決因應策略－務必於期限內完成任務，必要時會超時工作」以及「尋求支援因應策略－直接與關鍵人物協商」，選取人數百分比顯著高於低自我效能組；低自我效能組更傾向選擇「消極問題取向」因應策略以及「消極情緒取向」因應策略，其中，低自我效能組在「情緒忍耐或發洩壓力因應策略－將情緒遷怒他人與容易暴怒」、「迴避壓力情境因應策略－刻意與客戶疏遠」以及「物質依賴因應策略－過量抽菸」，選取人數百分比顯著高於高自我效能組。不同品牌汽車業務員，在面臨壓力時所選擇的因應策略之種類百分比達到統計顯著差異，其中，A品牌汽車業務員在面臨壓力時，比起B品牌汽車業務員，更傾向選擇消極問題取向因應「迴避壓力情境－減少留在公司時間」、積極情緒取向因應「尋求情緒支持－藉由宗教力量得到紓解」、「從事休閒活動－獨自從事運動」以及消極情緒取向因應「物質依賴－沉迷電玩／網路／電視」；B品牌汽車業務員更傾向選擇消極問題取向因應「迴避壓力情境－拒絕接聽工作相關來電」、「過度工作－經常自動加班，延長工作時間」以及消極情緒取向因應「情緒忍耐或發洩－壓抑個人情緒」。 4.有關汽車業務員身心健康部分，高自我效能組在「整體分數」、分量表「對自己的生理滿意度」、「身體狀況對生活的干擾程度」以及「焦慮與憂鬱的程度」較佳，平均得分顯著高於低自我效能組；低自我效能組在分量表「不利健康的因應行為」較佳，平均得分統計顯著高於高自我效能組。不同品牌汽車業務員在身心健康部分沒有顯著差異。 5.有關汽車業務員身心健康預測力部分，以「自我效能總分」、「職場人際壓力」以及「物質依賴因應策略」對於身心健康狀態具有預測能力，共可解釋38.00%的變異量。其中以「自我效能總分」最具有預測力，預測力達31%。 This study work is to investigate the current status in the following three areas for the car salespersons': stressor, stress coping strategy, and stages of physical and mental health. Based upon the car salespersons' self-efficacy and automobile brands, the similarities and difference of the above three areas were analyzed. The results could be used as an index for predicting the physical and mental health for car salespersons. The research was based upon survey questionnaires. Using purposive sampling methodology to sample the car salespersons currently employed by car dealers in Taiwan. The total returned samples were 165. The research tool was “Car Salespersons' Physical and Mental Health Survey Questionnaires” which includes the following three parts: (1)Researchers' self-complied survey questionnaires about work related stress encountered by car salespersons. (2)“General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE) measurement tables” by Huang and Cheng (1996 revised). (3)“Physical and Mental Health Evaluation Table”, by Hsu (1999). Based up the General Self-Efficacy Scale, the car salespersons were classified into two groups: High Self-Efficacy Salespersons (68 percentile) and Low Self-Efficacy Salespersons (34 percentile). The collected data were processed and analyzed by statistics methodologies including Descriptive Statistics Analysis, Chi Square Test, Sample t Test, and Multi-Variables Regression Analysis. The conclusions of the data analysis were as follows: 1.For car salespersons: (1)The top 3 types of stress, from highest to lowest, were “sales productivity stress”, “personal life stress” and “customer service stress”. (2)The top 3 commonly used strategies to cope with the stress, from most to least, were “Help Seeking”, “Overwork”, and “Problems Solving”. 2.Regarding the area of “ Stressor”: (1)workplace/organization factors: -High Self-Efficacy Salespersons: more resilient to stress -Low Self-Efficacy Salespersons: more likely to feel stressed (2)From administration issues (including car maintenance, car body work and painting, participation of training courses, and colleague relationships.): -High Self-Efficacy Salespersons: perform better than lower self-efficacy salespersons as shown in the right column. -Low Self-Efficacy Salespersons: have difficulty in establishing a genuine and sincere relationships with colleagues, and more likely to feel stressed from coworkers. (3)Other non administration issues: -High Self-Efficacy Salespersons: Score higher -Low Self-Efficacy Salespersons: Score lower There were statistically significant difference for the proportions of various types of stressors for the car salespersons of different automobile brands. 3.Regarding the “Stress Coping Strategies” : (1)Proactive Coping Strategy: -High Self-Efficacy Salespersons: more likely to choose -Low Self-Efficacy Salespersons: less likely to choose (2)Problems Solving Strategy (such as to meet the project deadline and will work over time if necessary.): -High Self-Efficacy Salespersons: more likely to choose -Low Self-Efficacy Salespersons: less likely to choose (3)Seeking Supports Strategy (such as direct consultations with key personnel.): -High Self-Efficacy Salespersons: more likely to choose -Low Self-Efficacy Salespersons: less likely to choose (4)Passive Coping Strategy: -High Self-Efficacy Salespersons: less likely to choose -Low Self-Efficacy Salespersons: more likely to choose (5)Passive Emotion Strategy: -High Self-Efficacy Salespersons: less likely to choose -Low Self-Efficacy Salespersons: more likely to choose (6)Control the Emotion and Relieve the Stress Strategy: -High Self-Efficacy Salespersons: less likely to act as shown at right column. -Low Self-Efficacy Salespersons: more likely to vent the anger to innocent people or being irascible to others. (7)Avoid the Stressful Environments Strategy: -High Self-Efficacy Salespersons: less likely to choose to keep distance from customers. -Low Self-Efficacy Salespersons: more likely to choose to keep distance from customers. (8)Substances Reliance Coping Strategy: -High Self-Efficacy Salespersons: less likely to be heavy smoking. -Low Self-Efficacy Salespersons: more likely to be heavy smoking. When the stress arose, there were statistically significant difference for the Stress Coping Strategies among the car salespersons of different automobile brands. 4.Regarding “Physical and Mental Health” : (1)Overall Physical and Mental Health States: -High Self-Efficacy Salespersons: total score was higher -Low Self-Efficacy Salespersons: total score was lower (2)Physiological Satisfaction: -High Self-Efficacy Salespersons: Scored higher -Low Self-Efficacy Salespersons: Scored lower (3)Impacts of Daily Life from Physical Health: -High Self-Efficacy Salespersons: Scored higher -Low Self-Efficacy Salespersons: Scored lower (4)Degrees of Anxiety and Depression: -High Self-Efficacy Salespersons: Scored higher -Low Self-Efficacy Salespersons: Scored lower (5)Coping Adverse Health Behaviors: -High Self-Efficacy Salespersons: Scored lower -Low Self-Efficacy Salespersons: Scored higher There are no statistically significant difference for the physical and mental health among the car salespersons of different automobile brands. 5.Regarding “the predictability of regression analysis for Mental Health of Car Salespersons”: The “Self-Efficacy Overall Scores”, “Workplace Colleague Relationships”, and “ Substances Reliance Coping Strategy” can be used to predict the Physical and Mental Health. The combined Coefficient of Determination is 38.00%, i.e., 38.00% of the the variations of the Physical and Mental Health can be predicted by these three variables. Among the three, “Substances Reliance Coping Strategy” are most significant with 31%.
显示于类别:	[心理輔導學系暨心理輔導研究所 ] 博碩士論文

文件中的档案:

档案	描述	大小	格式	浏览次数
index.html		0Kb	HTML	304	检视/开启

检视Licence

在CCUR中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.

数据加载中.....