# data[].attributes.headline
第六組「不同校園徵才活動是否可以增加企業對學生的吸引力」

# data[].attributes.subject
第六組「不同校園徵才活動是否可以增加企業對學生的吸引力」

# data[].attributes.body
What was your original question?

原先設定的題目為「企業在大學生族群的社群經營策略研究」，從大學生角度針對企業現有維運社群做改善計畫。但後來認為該研究較難實作，提出建議後也不容易驗證方案可行性。故從其他企業與大學生接觸點著手。將題目改成「哪種校園招募方式對學生最有效」。改題後，意識到若從企業端切入，我們會因為沒有數據而認定不了招募有效的數量。因此，我們將題目修正成「不同校園徵才活動是否可以增加企業對學生的吸引力」，參考現有理論，將企業吸引力以雇主知識研究的三個向度來量化，並針對不同校園徵才活動進行比較與分析。

Why do you think it is important?

企業為了吸引社會新鮮人前去投遞履歷，可能會選擇舉辦徵才說明會、前去就業博覽會擺攤等徵才方式。這些校園招募管道深深的影響著大學生對於企業的認知，其重要性不言而喻。而我們以學生身份，較能為企業解決的問題在「招募」上，其他像是組織結構、政策面的議題、人事變動等公司內部問題，因資訊不足或影響層面太廣，不好深入探討。

# data[].attributes.body
1.當企業和學生接觸的時間越長，吸收越多關於企業的資訊時，越能提升學生對企業的吸引力。

2.(A)這樣的研究結果，剛好呼應到Trevor and Davis的文獻，當求職者有求職行為時，會因為主動花時間搜尋企業相關訊息，進而增加雇主知識和企業吸引力之間的相關性。

(B)企業提供獎學金是在所有校園招募方式中，對提升企業對學生對企業吸引力效果最不顯著的方式。

3.沒有更詳細的找出解釋變數和被解釋變數之間的相關性，和各變數的解釋能力。

# data[].attributes.body
主題學到→不同器材的使用部位會對擦拭行為的結果有不同的影響

大家標語沒辦法看超過兩行、不同受訪者的觀察基準不同、有些受訪者的訪談內容會出現前後矛盾

我們還沒找到不會擦拭的受訪者(不確定大家會不會在說謊)

# data[].attributes.body
1.我們在這個專題所學到的事

過程中我們有時會找不到研究的方向，即使我們知道需要探討的問題，卻不知道如何更深入的分析資訊，因此我們向教授詢問問卷的設計方向與內容，經過多次修改

2.我們遇到什麼困難

搜尋資料初期，我們發現許多調查的結果與我們原先的假設相同，因此對於設計問卷沒有明確的方向，另外，我們發現心理安全感與個人特質高度相關，即使在問卷中，我們分門別類探討真正影響的因素還是覺得，可能引文個人因素產生許多偏差，而對數據準確度產生疑問。

# data[].attributes.body
What were the most important ideas I learned about the topic?

What surprised me most? Why?

What didn’t I find out? Why?

# data[].attributes.body
What was your original question?

Why do you think it is important?

What are your hypotheses about the topic, and what prior knowledge or assumptions are you basing them on?

# data[].attributes.body
問題1. 你有參加過哪些徵才方式?

問題2.(量表 徵才方式1)

填寫經過此招募方式後，對於該企業的想法?

（接著照雇主知識的三個向度設計問題）

雇主熟悉度

1. 當找工作時，這是第一個我會想到的公司

2. 在眾多企業中，我能輕易的辨認出這家公司

3. 我知道這家公司有到我的學校招募員工

4. 整體而言我對這家公司非常熟悉

雇主形象

1. 我了解我將/想要應聘的崗位的工作內容

2. 我知道在該工作崗位我需要與哪些同事共事

3. 我知道雇主公司的價值主張

雇主聲望

1. 我相信學校的其他學生對這家公司評價很高

2. 我的朋友們高度評價這家公司爲好的僱主

3. 我們學校的其他學生對這個公司作爲僱主有非常好的印象

# data[].attributes.body
1. 請問您在中山大學的健身房使用完器材後，是否會擦拭器材?/了解填寫問卷的樣本中有多少比例的人有擦拭器材的習慣

2. 下列何者最貼近你目前的想法?

a.我對為何需要擦拭器材及擦拭器材後可能造成的結果沒有興趣，也不會擦

b.若健身房在擦拭器材後會給予獎勵或針對不擦拭器材的行為施以懲罰，我就會擦拭器材

c.我其實不想擦拭器材，但不擦拭的話感覺很自私/沒有公德心，所以還是會擦

d.擦拭器材是我覺得是必要的，所以不管健身房是否有規定或身邊的人是否會擦拭，我都會擦拭器材

e.我很認同使用器材後擦拭的行為且會實踐，這會讓我覺得我是一個有公德心的人，且可以透過自己的力量把環境變得更好

f.我覺得使用完器材後擦拭的行為會讓我收穫很多快樂，在擦拭的過程中也能得到很多樂趣

3. 我很認同使用器材後擦拭的行為且會實踐，這會讓我覺得我是一個有公德心的人，且可以透過自己的力量把環境變得更好

4. 我覺得使用完器材後擦拭的行為會讓我收穫很多快樂，在擦拭的過程中也能得到很多樂趣

/為了瞭解中山大學健身房使用者現在對擦拭器材的動機處於自我決定理論的哪一個階段

3. 您的生理性別/年級/健身習慣?/ 想了解生理性別/年級/健身習慣的不同是否會造成擦拭器材動機的差異

4. 您覺得使用器材後不擦拭可能對健身房帶來什麼樣的影響?/為了了解中山大學健身房使用者是否了解不擦拭器材將造成的影響

5. 假設您的朋友沒有在使用完健身器材之後擦拭器材，是否會影響你進行擦拭行為的動機/公平理論

# data[].attributes.body
1.您的年齡

18～25

26～35

36～45

46～55

56～65

2. 您的職業

學生

軍公教

電子業

服務業

製造業

金融業

自媒體

醫療產業

自由業

其他：（請說明）

3.您在目前的工作崗位任職幾年（學生請跳到下一題）

5年內（職場新鮮人）

6～10年

10年以上

4.請問您是否遠距過？

是，疫情期間有

是，疫情後仍持續遠距

是，疫情前就有

是，疫情後偶爾遠距

否，從來沒有

5.您覺得遠距教學或是辦公對您來說是有效率的嗎？

是

否

不一定

6.對您來說遠距辦公的效率來自於⋯？

自由的分配時間

個人空間能夠更專注的完成工作

不用處理人際問題

我在遠距時很沒效率

其他：（請說明）

7.請問在實施遠距期間對您的心情有任何影響

正面影響

負面影響

時好時壞

沒有影響

我沒有遠距過

8.您覺得遠距會影響您跟同學或同事間的人際關係嗎？

會，正面影響

會，負面影響

不一定

不會，沒有關係

我沒有遠距過

9.倘若在遠距期間，工作上或學習上遇到問題您會傾向⋯？

直接在遠距會議提出

私下傳訊息發問

到辦公室再說

忽略問題

10.遠距期間溝通上時間的延遲（等待對方回覆訊息的時間）是否讓您感到焦慮

是

否

不一定

11.學校或是公司對於遠距有一套完整的配套措施

是

否

12.能否在家辦公是我選擇工作時一大考量因素

非常同意

同意

普通

不同意

非常不同意

13.一段時間沒有與同事或同學實體見面是否會感到尷尬或難為情？

是

否

沒差

「心裡安全感」是指團隊成員能夠自由的在討論過程中提供新點子、指出可能的缺失與問題，即便可能招致其他團隊成員的懲罰或羞辱，還是願意展現各類有可能產生人際關係風險的行為。

14.在了解以上「心理安全感」的定義後，您是否認同遠距有可能降低心理安全感進而降低整體績效(因無法在對談時看到對方表情而無從判斷情況或是訊息在延遲回覆時心理產生壓力等等問題)

是

否

15. 近年來混和辦公(遠距、移動式辦公)的趨勢盛行，您認為哪一種模式是您認為效率最高的(EX.一週實體上班幾天或有重要事項再進公司)

完全遠距

完全實體

混合辦公（遠距為主）

混和辦公（實體為主）

我不管在哪辦公效率都很好

16. 對您來說遠距辦公所面對的挑戰為何(EX.需要自制力或在家辦公就得負責做家事等等的壓力)

17.「在微軟的一項調查中，84%的受訪者表示他們因為合作和社交而感到有動力在辦公室工作。」請問您工作的動力為何?

薪水

員工之間的感情

成就感

打發時間

其他：（請說明）

18.對於遠距工作的相關治理政策是否有推薦的方式(例如應該如何監督員工按時完成工作或是維持員工積極度)

# data[].attributes.body
Social influence: Compliance and conformity-Web of Science Core Collection

The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior-Web of Science Core Collection

Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being-Web of Science Core Collection

Towards a neo-configurational theory of intrinsic motivation.: EBSCOhost 檢索系統

Self-determination theory and work motivation (selfdeterminationtheory.org)

# data[].attributes.body
1. Keywords

Tang-Ping

Learned Helplessness Theory

Social Loafing

2. How do Chinese people evaluate “Tang-Ping” (lying flat) and effort-making: The moderation effect of return expectation

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.871439/full

Does "Nei Juan" affect "Tang Ping" for hotel employees? The moderating effect of effort-reward imbalance

https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:000922691600001

A Functional Model of Social Loafing: When and How Does Social Loafing Enhance Job Performance?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-023-05599-3

The effect of students&apos; effort-reward imbalance on learning engagement: the mediating role of learned helplessness and the moderating role of social support

https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:001169105900001

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
School of Social Development, East China University of Political Science and Law, Shanghai, China

"Tang-Ping" (TP), referring to "lying flat" literally, has been a buzzword in China web media since 2021. As the opponent of effort-making (EM) behaviors which have both instrumental and purpose values in Confucian culture, TP has a negative moral implication in China and has been criticized by the state-owned media. Meanwhile, the meaning of TP also contains a negative form of resistance toward social and organizational inequality, which may be acceptable under unfair circumstances. This study employed the imagined-scenario method to investigate the public's moral evaluations of TP and EM behaviors under conditions of different return expectations. An online questionnaire with 2 (TP vs. EM) by 2 (low vs. high return expectation) between-participants designed scenarios were employed, along with the measurements of obligation belief of effort (OBE) and improvement belief of effort (IBE) scales ( N = 210). The results found that (1) TP behaviors were evaluated as morally wrong in general, while EM behaviors were morally right; (2) the return expectation of the scenario moderated the behavior type's effect on moral evaluation, that EM behaviors were evaluated positively regardless of return expectation, while TP behaviors became acceptable with a neutral score under the low return expectation; (3) both OBE and IBE correlated positively with evaluations of EM while negatively with evaluations of TP. The theoretical and practical implications were discussed.

Introduction

Tang-Ping (躺平, TP for short), meaning "lying flat" literally, has become a buzzword in Chinese web media, which refers to a simple lifestyle without effort making. In April 2021, a post titled "TP Is Justice" at Baidu Tieba (a Chinese internet forum) described the poster's lifestyle, which he called TP. In the now-deleted post, the poster said he had had no full-time work for 2 years, only done part-time with 200 CNY income monthly (about 32 USD). He tried to keep an elementary life without any intention of marriage, parenthood, or apartment purchase, which were typical stressors in contemporary China ( Wikipedia Contributors, 2022). The poster also cited ancient Greek cynicism philosophy to interpret his behaviors as "I could sleep in my jar and sunbath as Diogenes," which reflected the term of modern Kynicism that " rejection of the official culture by means of irony and sarcasm" ( Žižek, 2009; Ling and Li, 2022).

After this post, the meaning of TP has been extended to a negatively resistant behavior toward social competition. Most official media in China criticized the saying and phenomenon of TP, such as an editorial, " 'Lying flat' shameful, where is the sense of justice" ('躺平'可耻, 哪来的正义感), by state media Xinhua ( Wang, 2021). Besides criticizations, a few Chinese media and scholarships also mentioned the social structural background behind TP: High pressure in apartment-purchase and child-parenting, over-competitions in education and the workplace, and low return rate after effort making ( Xiang, 2021; Ling and Li, 2022). Under this relatively unfair circumstance, some Chinese people started to give up part of their ambition and desire and chose TP instead of struggling and making efforts. All the published media and scholarships, no matter with a criticized or sympathetic stand, indicated that TP is opposite to effort-making (EM) behavior and the doctrine of self-exertion as a Confucian cultural value ( Fwu et al., 2017).

Existing literature has discussed the relationship between cultural values and EM behaviors in academic learning (e.g., Li, 2012; Fwu et al., 2017). From the perspective of Chinese cultural psychology, EM has both instrumental value for individuals' self-improvement and purpose value as individuals' obligation to fulfill. For the latter, Confucian culture regard EM as a way to self-exertion ( Jin-Ji, 尽己), and lack of EM is viewed as morally wrong ( Fwu et al., 2014). Li (2012) also argued that learning with effort is "virtue-oriented" with moral significance in Eastern cultures while "mind-oriented" in the West. Hwang (2012) compared Confucian and western ethics and argued that academic EM is a kind of unconditional positive duty that asks individuals to behave actively and regarding not doing so as a sin, distinguished from Kant's perfect duty of omission or imperfect duty of commission.

To conceptualize and quantitatively measure the internalized cultural value of EM in academic learning, Chen et al. (2016) proposed the Beliefs about Effort theory, that Chinese people hold two kinds of effort beliefs at the same time: Obligation-oriented belief of effort (OBE) that it is someone's obligation to make an effort on learning and improvement-oriented belief of effort (IBE) that effort can help to conquer one's ability limitation and to improve one's academic performance. In empirical research, OBE and IBE showed different functions. When students experienced a failure in which they did not get the expected return of achievement, OBE positively predicted the striving behaviors after failure. In contrast, IBE did not have this effect ( Chen et al., 2019). As an internalized cultural value, OBE emphasizes continuous EM behavior as a virtue even with failure (low return), while IBE regards EM as a method for ability improvements and achievements. Although the Beliefs about Effort theory was developed in the academic field, cultural values may still influence people's evaluation of EM and TP behaviors in the non-academic workplace, which will be explored in the current research.

In the organizational and working context, EM behaviors are also encouraged by cultural values. However, the representation of the return of EM is different from that in the academic and learning context. In the learning context, students' EM behaviors are targeted at their own improvement and achievement in the academic field. However, in the workplace, although workers also need to improve their working skills, such improvements are also instruments for their working tasks. Along with workers' self-improvement of personal skills and careers, workers' EM behaviors are also their social exchange with the administrative authorities, paying labor in exchange for a fair salary ( Cooper and Scandura, 2015; Hussain and Shahzad, 2022). Compared to the academic field, whether there would be a fair return may influence individuals' evaluation of EM behaviors. Past research demonstrated multiple forms of organizational justice, including distributive and procedural justice ( Tyler, 1994). In this article, we focus on distributive justice about whether the EM behavior could get a fair return or not.

Considering this distinction, people's evaluation process of EM and TP behaviors may also differ in academic and working situations. As mentioned before, EM in the academic field is an unconditional positive duty ( Hwang, 2012), while not EM is a sin ( Fwu et al., 2014). But what about TP (not EM) in the workplace? If a worker chooses to TP when the organization does not offer a fair return, do the observers in a Confucian culture still evaluate TP as morally wrong? We infer that, compared to the unconditional positive duty in the academic context, EM would be a kind of conditional positive duty (i.e., Kant's imperfect duty, refer to Hwang, 2012, for a review of duty theories), and that EM is a virtue but not EM is just lack of virtue while not a sin. The condition of EM as a positive duty in the workplace would be organizational fairness, which would be operationalized as the return expectation in our empirical research.

Meanwhile, EM in the workplace is still a way for self-exertion; thus, the internalized cultural values may still function in the moral evaluation process toward EM and TP behaviors in the workplace. According to Chen et al. (2016), OBE emphasizes the purpose value of EM itself, while IBE emphasizes the instrumental value of achievements. Therefore, OBE and IBE would both correlate positively with evaluations of EM and negatively with that of TP. At the same time, the correlations of OBE-EM/TP should be more stable regardless of return expectation, while IBE-EM/TP should be more dependent on the fairness of circumstance.

In our previous qualitative research ( Hsu, 2022), Chinese people's understanding of TP had a precondition of high competition with low return expectations within social and organizational contexts. Although most participants regarded TP with negative attitudes, some people stated a positive form of TP as a circuitous resistance and sympathized with it. The English version of TP's phenomenography can be found in Supplementary material.

Meanwhile, how ordinary people evaluate TP, its relationship with cultural values of efforts, and the condition of return expectation are still unclear. Based on previous research on EM and the current social issue of TP, the present article aims to extend the applied range of Chinese cultural theory about EM to a more general social context. By the quantitative method of imagined scenarios, empirical research was designed to investigate the public's moral evaluation of TP and EM behaviors under different return expectation conditions. Participants' effort beliefs (OBE and IBE) were also measured. Three hypotheses were proposed:

H1: In general, TP would be evaluated worse than EM.

H2: EM would be evaluated positively under both high and low return expectation conditions for the existence of virtue value under low return expectation.

H3: TP would be evaluated less negatively under high return expectation conditions than low for the absence of instrumental value.

H4: In general, evaluations of EM are positively correlated with OBE and IBE, while evaluations of TP are negatively correlated with OBE and IBE.

H5: Correlations of OBE-TP/EM are more stable than IBE-TP/EM, that OBE correlated with evaluation of TP/EM regardless of return expectation. In contrast, IBE would correlate with TP/EM higher under high return expectation conditions than low return expectation conditions.

Methods

Participants and procedure

An online questionnaire survey was conducted at www.credamo.com with its national representative sample pool in China. After excluding 76 invalid responses which failed in the manipulation check items, 210 Chinese people participated in this study (Age: M = 29.81, SD = 6.38; Gender: 53.8% women, 46.2% men; Education: 2.9% high-school and below, 85.7% bachelor, 11.4% graduate).

After reading the informed consent, participants were invited to complete an anonymous questionnaire that lasted 10-15 min. The effective response providers could get five CNY rewards, and the staff of www.credamo.com executed the payment process with desensitization from research data. All questions were presented in Chinese.

Instrument

Scenario questions

Four scenarios were constructed to investigate the effect of behavior types (TP vs. EM) and return expectations (low vs. high), followed by two evaluation questions. The original Chinese versions of the scenarios can be found in the Supplementary material, and the English translations are as follows:

Version 1 (EM with low return expectation): Zhang graduated from university recently and entered an internet company. The company provided high amounts of annual performance bonuses, but Zhang heard that few colleagues had gotten it. After entering the company, Zhang not only accomplished his responsibilities but also participated in additional project team jobs, did voluntary overtime work, whose performance was among the top.

Version 2 (EM with high return expectation): Zhang graduated from university recently and entered an internet company. The company provided high amounts of annual performance bonuses, and Zhang heard that many colleagues had gotten it. After entering the company, Zhang not only accomplished his responsibilities but also participated in additional project team jobs, did voluntary overtime work, whose performance was among the top.

Version 3 (TP with low return expectation): Zhang graduated from university recently and entered an internet company. The company provided high amounts of annual performance bonuses, but Zhang heard that few colleagues had gotten it. After entering the company, Zhang only accomplished his responsibilities, seldom participated in additional project team jobs, did no unnecessary overtime work, whose performance was just so-so.

Version 4 (TP with high return expectation): Zhang graduated from university recently and entered an internet company. The company provided high amounts of annual performance bonuses, and Zhang heard that many colleagues had gotten it. After entering the company, Zhang only accomplished his responsibilities, seldom participated in additional project team jobs, did no unnecessary overtime work, whose performance was just so-so.

The between-participant design was employed. Each participant was randomly assigned to one version. After reading the scenario, participants were asked to answer two questions: Q1 of the evaluation of others' behavior: " do you agree with Zhang's way of working?" Q2 of the behavior tendency of oneself: " if you were Zhang, would you behave as his way? " Both were scored by Likert 5-point scales ranging from −2 (strongly disagree/absolutely will not) to 2 (strongly agree/absolutely will).

Beliefs of effort scales

To measure participants' cultural beliefs about efforts in non-academic fields, eight items (including 4 of OBE and 4 of IBE) in the Chinese version of the Beliefs of Effort Scale ( Wang and Chen, 2020) were selected and modified. The wording in the original scales of "student" and "learning" was replaced by "people/everyone" and "working," e.g., " hard-working is everyone's duty" (OBE_1) and " everyone could overcome his/her difficulties in work if working hard" (IBE_1). The revised and corresponding original items can be found in the Supplementary material. All the items were scored by Likert 5-point scales ranging from −2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree). The revised OBE and IBE scales show high internal consistency (αOBE = 0.80, αIBE = 0.84).

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations

The descriptive results of the four conditions are presented in Table 1, with correlations with OBE and IBE scales. The evaluations of EM are all positive, while evaluations of TP are neutral and negative, indicating Chinese people's general attitude toward these two behaviors. The scores of OBE and IBE are both significantly higher above 0 ( M OBE = 1.23, SD OBE = 0.64, p < 0.01; M IBE = 1.00, SD IBE = 0.81, p < 0.01) and correlated moderately with each other ( r = 0.63, p < 0.01), indicating modern Chinese people's general endorsements of traditional values of efforts.

Table 1. Descriptive and correlational results.

The evaluations of EM have positive correlations with beliefs of efforts, while TP is negative in general, although some are insignificant. Hypothesis 4 is partially supported. Since the sample sizes were relatively small within each condition, the OBE/IBE's differences in correlating with moral evaluations under different conditions are not tested. However, according to the numerical values of r s, the patterns of OBE-TP/EM and IBE-TP/EM correlations are not differentiated. Hypothesis 5 is not supported.

ANOVA

A 2 (Behaviors: TP vs. EM) by 2 (Return Expectations: low vs. high) by 2 (Questions: Q1 vs. Q2) mix-design ANOVA on the evaluation scores of behaviors was executed ( Table 2 and Figure 1).

Table 2. ANOVA result.

Figure 1. Three-way interaction between behaviors, return expectations, and questions. Error bars indicate 95% CI. TP, Tang-Ping; EM, effort-making. Q1: "do you agree with Zhang's way of working?" Q2: "if you were Zhang, would you behave as his way?"

The behavior type shows significant main effect with largest effect size [ F(1, 206) = 133.22, p < 0.01, partial η ² = 0.39], and EM behaviors are evaluated better than TP. Hypothesis 1 is supported.

The return expectation shows significant main effect [ F(1, 206) = 5.22, p = 0.02, partial η ² = 0.03], and significant interaction with behavior type [ F(1, 206) = 16.31, p < 0.01, partial η ² = 0.07]. As in Figure 1, return expectation does not influence the evaluation of EM [simple main effect: F(1, 105) = 2.80, p = 0.10, partial η ² = 0.03], but does influence the evaluation of TP [simple main effect: F(1, 101) = 13.46, p < 0.01, partial η ² = 0.12], and that TP is acceptable under low return expectation ( M = −0.82, SD = 0.17) while morally wrong under high return expectation ( M = −0.94, SD = 0.16). Hypotheses 2 and 3 are supported.

Besides, the question type also shows a significant but small main effect [ F(1, 206) = 5.03, p = 0.03, partial η ² = 0.02], and the scores on Q1 (agreement of Zhang's behavior, M = 0.34) are slightly higher than Q2 (behavior tendency as Zhang, M = 0.21), while the interaction terms between question type and other IV are all insignificant. Since there is little theoretical meaning in combining different behavior types (i.e., the main effect of question type including both TM and EM behaviors), the implication of this result would not be discussed.

Discussion

The present study examined the Chinese public's moral evaluation of the behaviors of TP and EM under different return expectations. As a violation of the traditional value of efforts in China, TP got negative moral evaluations in general by public observers, in contrast with the EM behaviors. Meanwhile, when EM behaviors could get positive evaluation regardless of the return expectation, the TP behaviors were acceptable and understandable under low return expectations presented by neutral scores.

These results reveal the similarities and distinctions between the media and scholarship comments and ordinary Chinese people's understanding of the TP phenomenon. Just as the Chinese state media's criticism, ordinary people also showed disapproval attitude toward the passive working attitudes of TP. However, such disapproval attitudes were conditioned in an organizational environment with procedural and distributive justice ( Tyler, 1994), which was seldom mentioned in Chinese media's commentaries (some international media discussed this background, such as BBC, see Allen, 2021). In the current research, we found the moderation role of distributive justice (manipulated as return expectation) in the moral evaluation process. When the environment is unfair that individuals' efforts could hardly get returns of equal value, as the manipulation of low return expectations in the quasi-experiment, the behaviors of TP may become a reasonable way to cope with social pressure, which is accepted by the Chinese public. Hard-working ethics are worthy of being encouraged, but social and organizational unfairness also needs to be criticized and reformed. Furthermore, the cultural value of efforts may play a role in concealing social contradictions, which need to be studied outside the discipline of psychology in the future.

The present study extended the previous literature on the cultural value of EM to a more general social context. Encouraged by ancient Chinese philosophies of Confucius' Analects and I-Ching, EM is a way of self-exertion doctrine that is not limited to the academic domain. Meanwhile, the functions of EM value in different social domains may differ. According to Hwang (1998, 2012) and Fwu et al. (2014), academic EM is connected to filial piety to parents and is an unconditional positive duty in Confucian culture, and not EM (TP) is morally wrong. However, in the present study, the data patterns of EM and TP differed in simple main effects of ANOVA, that under an unfair situation, EM was approved, but TP got a neutral score ( Table 1). According to these results, in the public's view, EM in an unfair workplace is not unconditional, but conditional positive duty, that EM is encouraged but TP is acceptable but not a sin.

In the view of social cognition, there are two motives underlying observers' evaluating process of EM.First, one's evaluation is motivated by the cultural value of self-exertion that everyone should make an effort. Second, one could also be motivated by the value of fairness to express their discontent with unfair circumstances, which would help to regard TP as negatively resistant behavior accompanied by frustration or anger emotions toward inequality. The neutral score of TP may result from two opposing motives, which could be measured and tested in further research. Besides, although previous theoretical literature argued that academic EM is an unconditional duty ( Hwang, 2012), there may still exist some conditions in people's moral evaluation process of academic EM, just as the working EM in our research. The moral philosophy of cultural ideals and people's actual moral cognition process should be differentiated, which could be discovered in further research.

On the results of measurements, the OBE and IBE scales were constructed in the learning virtue research ( Chen et al., 2016), and the modified version showed its explanatory power in non-academic topics. Both OBE and IBE correlated positively with EM while negatively with TP, indicating the general influence of cultural value on moral evaluation. As the exception, the correlations were insignificant for effort-making in high return-expectation situations. It could be due to the low SDs of Q1 and Q2 (0.59 and 0.76) with a small sample size ( n = 55) in this situation, which should be clarified with a larger sample size in the future.

A the same time, the two types of effort beliefs did not show a difference in correlating with evaluations of TP/EM behaviors. According to the Beliefs about Effort theory ( Chen et al., 2016), OBE emphasizes the purpose value of EM itself, while IBE emphasizes the instrumental value of achievements. Thus, the correlations of OBE-EM/TP should be more stable regardless of return expectation, while IBE-EM/TP should be more dependent on the fairness of circumstance, which could not be found in this study. Several possibilities may exist: (1) the OBE and IBE had a 0.63 correlation with each other, and the participants with high IBE scores would have higher OBE scores; (2) the manipulation of return expectation in quasi-experiments was about the short-term return, while the construct of IBE includes both short-term achievement and long-term self-improvement after persistent effort making behaviors. The differences between correlations were not tested directly by moderation in regression analysis (such as Hayes Test) or other similar statistics due to the between-participants design and relatively small sample size. In further research, within-participants design, scenarios with short-term vs. long-term return expectation manipulation and large sample size should be employed to clarify the functional similarities and differences between OBE and IBE in the workplace.

This study also has several limitations. First, the scenarios were designed from a third-party stand, aiming at the public's evaluation of other people's TP and EM behaviors, not individuals' own behavior tendencies. Even the Q2 questions asked the participants to imagine "if you are Zhang," the answers still could not represent individuals' own TP or EM behavior tendency in the actual organizational situation, which should be studied in future field research.

Second, there was also literature about hard-working virtue and its functions in western culture in organizational behavior discipline, such as Protestant Work Ethic ( Mirels and Garrett, 1971). Meanwhile, there are also similar social phenomena to TP in other societies with different wording, such as Satori Generation in Japan and Sampo Generation in Korea ( Arifahsasti and Iskandar, 2022). This article started with a view of Chinese cultural research on China's social phenomena. At the same time, the interaction effects between hard-working value and return expectation may also be applied to other working ethics and other societies. Further research could explore the value of EM in other East-Asia societies and other hard-working ethics in non-Confucian societies.

Third, our previous qualitative research indicated that Chinese people's buzz-wording of TP is discussed in both organizational and social contexts (refer to Supplementary material); the latter indicates the high pressure and over-competition with a low return rate in modern China society. In the current quasi-experiment, we only discussed TP/EM behaviors in the workplace. Further research should also investigate the functions of the cultural value of EM in a general social context, such as the issues of apartment-purchase and child-parenting.

Fourth, the sample was collected through an online questionnaire with a relatively high invalid respond rate (26.58%) and potential accessibility bias ( Wright, 2005; Van Selm and Jankowski, 2006); thus, the representativeness and generalizability of the results should be verified in an off-line sample of non-internet users.

Data availability statement

The original data included in this study are available by contact with the corresponding author: xuhanyu@ecupl.edu.cn.

Ethics statement

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent from the patients/participants or patients/participants legal guardian/next of kin was not required to participate in this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work, and has approved it for publication.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Social Science Found of China (22SHB00765).

Conflict of interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.871439/full#supplementary-material

References

Chen, S. W., Fwu, B. J., Wei, C. F., and Wang, H. H. (2016). High-School Teachers' Beliefs about Effort and Their Attitudes toward Struggling and Smart students in a Confucian Society. Front. Psychol. 7:1366. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01366

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fwu, B. J., Chen, S. W., Wei, C. F., and Wang, H. H. (2017). The Mediating Role of Self-Exertion on the Effects of Effort on Learning Virtues and Emotional Distress in Academic Failure in a Confucian Context. Front. Psychol. 7:2047. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02047

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Frontiers | How do Chinese people evaluate "Tang-Ping" (lying flat) and effort-making: The moderation effect of return expectation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Tang-Ping" (TP), referring to "lying flat" literally, has been a buzzword in China web media since 2021. As the opponent of effort-making (EM) behaviors whi...

# data[].attributes.body
Organizational Attractiveness as an Employer on College Campuses: An Examination of the Applicant Population

# data[].attributes.body
1. Keywords:

Psychological strain, Psychological safety, psychological safety technology, team psychological safety, emerging industries

2. Article:

How trust in coworkers fosters knowledge sharing in virtual teams? A multilevel moderated mediation model of psychological safety, team virtuality, and self-efficacy

https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:000855557800001

Moderated Mediation between High Performance Work Systems (HPWS) and Employee Voice Behavior: The Role of Psychological Safety and Supportive Leadership

https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:001130365500003

Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams

https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:000081160000005

The impact of a challenging work environment: Do job stressors benefit citizenship behavior of project managers?

https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:000792886200005

Ongoing Remote Work, Returning to Working at Work, or in between during COVID-19: What Promotes Subjective Well-being?

https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:000922441600001

# data[].attributes.body
1.Keywords:

Online learning, Mental health,COVID-19,Learning Efficiency,Learning stress

2.References:

Wei, Z. (2022). Social support, psychological responses, and mental health among college students during online learning. INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2078375

Lin, T.-J. (2021). Exploring the Differences in Taiwanese University Students’ Online Learning Task Value, Goal Orientation, and Self-Efficacy Before and After the COVID-19 Outbreak. ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER, 30(3), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00553-1

Wong, Wai-lap Lance, 及Ka-wai Anna Yuen. 「Online Learning Stress and Chinese College Students’ Academic Coping during COVID-19: The Role of Academic Hope and Academic Self-Efficacy: Journal of Psychology」. Journal of Psychology 157, 期 2 (2023年2月): 95–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2022.2148087.

Turan, Z., Kucuk, S. & Cilligol Karabey, S. The university students’ self-regulated effort, flexibility and satisfaction in distance education. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 19, 35 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00342-w

Vander Schee, Brian A., 及Tim Dugan Birrittella. 「Hybrid and Online Peer Group Grading: Adding Assessment Efficiency While Maintaining Perceived Fairness: Marketing Education Review」. Marketing Education Review 31, 期 4 (2021年Winter月): 275–83.https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2021.1887746.

# data[].attributes.body
1.

Keywords:

Artificial intelligence, Human resource management, employees, AI on HR practices

2.

Articles:

Singh, A., Shaurya, A. Impact of Artificial Intelligence on HR practices in the UAE. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8, 312 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00995-4

Johnson, B. A. M., Coggburn, J. D., & Llorens, J. J. (2022). Artificial Intelligence and Public Human Resource Management: Questions for Research and Practice. Public Personnel Management, 51(4), 538-562. https://doi.org/10.1177/00910260221126498

Ekuma, K. (2023). Artificial Intelligence and Automation in Human Resource Development: A Systematic Review. Human Resource Development Review, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/15344843231224009

Bankins, S. The ethical use of artificial intelligence in human resource management: a decision-making framework. Ethics Inf Technol 23, 841–854 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-021-09619-6

Charlwood, A., & Guenole, N. (2022). Can HR adapt to the paradoxes of artificial intelligence? Human Resource Management Journal, 32(4), 729–742. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12433

# data[].attributes.headline
Please discuss the topic assigned to your team.

# data[].attributes.subject
Please discuss the topic assigned to your team.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Please write down some keywords that you would like to use for your search.

2. Please select 5 articles that are most relevant to your topic.

# data[].attributes.body
回想遠距上課的日子。

1. 遠距上課和非遠距上課的期間，你社交生活有何不同？

2. 遠距上課與非遠距上課對你的學習來說各有何優缺點？這些優缺點會因課程不同而有差異嗎？請舉出具體的例子。

# data[].attributes.body
1. 腦力激盪，就你或周圍的人來說，擦健身房機器或不擦健身房機器的原因是什麼？

2. 就這些原因，怎麼樣可以增加你或周圍的人擦拭機器的意願呢？

# data[].attributes.body
1. 身邊是否有安靜離職或躺平主義的例子？描述這個狀況。

2. 你認為安靜離職或躺平主義的原因是什麼？

# data[].attributes.body
1. 遠距上課時，你1) 較敢說出心裡的想法，2)較不敢說出心裡的想法，還是3)沒有差別？為什麼？

2. 腦力激盪：有哪些因素會影響遠距上課的心理安全感？人格特質？班上同學是否為舊識？領導者？團隊或組織的文化？

# data[].attributes.body
1. 有無校園徵才的經驗？印象好與印象不好的經驗為何？為什麼？

2. 對未來公司的期待。當你在選擇工作時，重視的是哪些事情？請依照重要程度排序。

# data[].attributes.body
找尋實際有使用AI在人資的例子。哪些公司？如何運用AI?

# data[].attributes.body
1. 探討「混合工作對於心理安全感的影響」

2. 原因：遠距工作所導致心理安全感的降低可能會對工作表現產生負面影響

3. 假設：在實體情境下較能提升心理安全感，而遠端工作可能會對團隊的心理安全感產生負面影響