| 摘要: | 本研究目的欲以結構方程模型建立工作－生活衝突、不同來源的社會支持、疲勞與幸福感之間的關係，及瞭解工作者的工作－生活衝突、社會支持、疲勞與幸福感相關因子。本研究採問卷調查法，以方便抽樣對台灣中部地區20至65歲之全職工作者進行調查，並使用「工作－生活衝突量表」、「社會支持量表」、「疲勞量表」、「中國人幸福感量表」作為研究工具，回收有效問卷共601份。以SPSS 22.0統計套裝軟體進行描述性統計分析、單因子變異數分析及皮爾森相關分析，並以LISREL8.52對工作－生活衝突、不同來源的社會支持、疲勞與幸福感進行路徑分析。主要研究結果如下： 一、在結構方程式中，工作－生活衝突對於疲勞有顯著的影響，對幸福感的影響則需透過疲勞才能產生間接影響。工作－生活衝突本身並不會對個體的幸福感造成影響，而是當工作－生活衝突對個體造成負面影響（疲勞）時，才會影響到個體的幸福感。 二、在結構方程式中，社會支持對於疲勞有顯著的影響，不論社會支持來源為何，家人支持、朋友支持與同事支持皆能夠預測疲勞，即社會支持越高，疲勞程度越低。不同來源之社會支持與幸福感皆呈中度正相關，不僅對幸福感有直接的影響，也可透過疲勞對幸福感產生間接的影響；即社會支持增加，疲勞程度會降低，進而增加幸福感。不論社會支持的來源為何，對於個體都有正向的幫助。 三、工作－生活衝突、社會支持、疲勞與幸福感之相關危險因子。 (1)年齡越大、教育程度越高、經濟狀況越差、準時下班越困難者、職業類別越高層，工作－生活衝突越高。男性、已婚者，工作－生活衝突也較高。 (2)社會支持部分，整體而言，女性在三種來源的社會支持程度皆較男性高，但僅在家人支持方面達顯著差異。其他變項在三種來源的社會支持上的差異並不一致。 (3)疲勞方面，女性、30至39歲，疲勞程度明顯較高；而自覺經濟狀況越差及準時下班越困難者，疲勞程度也越高。 (4)幸福感方面，自覺經濟狀況越好者，幸福感越高；50歲以上、已婚者及自覺下班沒有困難者，幸福感顯著較高。 最後，本研究依據上述研究結果提出建議，期能作為職場心理健康促進、個人幸福感提昇，及職業健康心理學領域未來研究之參考。
The purposes of this study were (1) to construct structural equation models (SEMs) of work-life conflict, burnout, well-being and social support from three sources (including family, friends, and colleagues) respectively, and (2) to investigate the predictors of employees’ work-life conflict, social support, burnout and well-being. The study adopted the cross-sectional research design with convenience sampling to collect data from full-time employees aged from 20 to 65 years old in central Taiwan. A self-reported questionnaire including “work-life conflict inventory”, “social support inventory”, “burnout inventory” and “Chinese happiness inventory” was used in this study. In total, 601 valid questionnaires were obtained. Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA and Pearson’s correlation using the SPSS 22.0. The paths of work-life conflict, social support, burnout and well-being using LISREL 8.52 were conducted as well. The main results were as follows: (1) In the SEM, work-life conflict showed a direct and significant impact on burnout. However, work-life conflict showed an indirect impact on well-being; burnout mediated the relationship. (2) In the SEM, social support had a negative impact on burnout directly, no matter was from which sources. All three kinds of social support had positive impacts on well-being, directly and indirectly. (3) The predictors of work-life conflict, social support, burnout and well-being were presented below: (a) The work-life conflict levels were significantly different in sex, age, educational level, marital status, financial status, occupational profession. (b) In social support, female had a higher level of social support than male did in each source, but only the support from family showed a statistical significance. The other demographic or occupational variables did not show consistent difference on the three kinds of social support. (c) The burnout levels showed significant differences in sex, age, self-perceived financial status and the level of difficulty in getting off work on time. (d) The well-being levels showed significant differences in age, marital status, self-perceived financial status and the level of difficulty in getting off work on time. |
