2020年COVID-19疫情迫使許多員工和雇主迅速過渡到遠端工作,卻未做足準備。即便疫情已經趨緩，遠端辦公的做法仍普遍存在於各組織，線上會議也變得更加頻繁。儘管虛擬會議如今已司空見慣，但人們也更期望獲得更身臨其境的體驗，例如使用VR頭戴式裝置進入元宇宙參與會議（Galanti , et al. 2021）。Meta於2021年推出的Horizon Workrooms，為虛擬會議帶來前所未有的真實感和互動性。本研究探討元宇宙中的社會性懈怠（social loafing）概念，尤其是自我損耗（ego depletion）如何影響VR環境中的減效出席（presenteeism），進而影響社會性懈怠。此外,還研究了VR頭戴裝置帶來的身體負擔（物理負擔）對自我調節和減效出席的影響，以及探索心流（flow）如何能緩解自我損耗的問題，也研究了對任務、VR科技、小組成員的熟悉度（familiarity）是否會影響相對應的興趣（interest）、互動意願（interaction），進而促進心流的產生。

The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 forced many employees and employers to rapidly transition to remote work without prior preparation. Even as the pandemic has subsided, the practice of remote work persists in organizations, with increased frequency of online meetings. While virtual meetings are now commonplace, there is a growing desire for more immersive experiences, such as using VR headsets to enter the metaverse for meetings. The introduction of Horizon Workrooms by Meta in 2021 offers unprecedented realism and interaction in virtual meetings. This study explores the concept of social loafing in the metaverse, particularly how ego depletion affects presenteeism in VR settings, which in turn impacts social loafing. Additionally, it examines the physical burden of VR headsets and its impact on self-regulation and presenteeism, and investigates how flow experiences can mitigate ego depletion. Lastly, this study investigates whether the task, VR technology, and group member familiarity impact the willingness to engage in interaction (interest).

目錄
論文審定書 ................................................................................................................................ i
摘要 ........................................................................................................................................... ii
Abstract .................................................................................................................................... iii
圖次 ........................................................................................................................................... v
表次 ........................................................................................................................................... v
第一章 緒論 ............................................................................................................................. 1
第一節 研究背景 ................................................................................................................. 1
第二節 研究目的與問題 ..................................................................................................... 3
第三節 研究流程 ................................................................................................................. 3
第二章 文獻回顧 ..................................................................................................................... 4
第一節 元宇宙（Metaverse）與虛擬實境（VR） ........................................................... 4
第二節 刺激-有機體-反應理論（S-O-R） ........................................................................ 6
第三節 心流 ......................................................................................................................... 6
第四節 社會性懈怠 ............................................................................................................. 7
第三章 研究架構 ..................................................................................................................... 8
第一節 研究模型 ................................................................................................................. 8
第二節 研究假說 ................................................................................................................. 8
第三節 操作性定義 ........................................................................................................... 11
第四章 研究方法 ................................................................................................................... 13
第一節 研究設計 ............................................................................................................... 13
第二節 樣本結構描述 ....................................................................................................... 17
第三節 模型衡量方法 ....................................................................................................... 18
第五章 結論與建議 ............................................................................................................... 31
第一節 研究結論 ........................................................................................................... 31
第二節 研究貢獻 ........................................................................................................... 32
第三節 研究限制與未來發展 ....................................................................................... 35
附件一 本研究正式問卷 ....................................................................................................... 36
參考文獻42

Uncategorized References
Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you're having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS quarterly, 665-694.
Ainley, M. (2006). Connecting with learning: Motivation, affect and cognition in interest processes. Educational psychology review, 18, 391-405.
Alnuaimi, O. A., Robert, L. P., & Maruping, L. M. (2010). Team size, dispersion, and social loafing in technology-supported teams: A perspective on the theory of moral disengagement. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(1), 203-230.
Aubé, C., Brunelle, E., & Rousseau, V. (2014). Flow experience and team performance: The role of team goal commitment and information exchange. Motivation and Emotion, 38(1), 120-130.
Bailenson, J. N., Beall, A. C., Loomis, J., Blascovich, J., & Turk, M. (2004). Transformed Social Interaction: Decoupling Representation from Behavior and Form in Collaborative Virtual Environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 13(4), 428-441. https://doi.org/10.1162/1054746041944803
Bakker, A. B., & Van Woerkom, M. (2017). Flow at work: A self-determination perspective. Occupational Health Science, 1, 47-65.
Barhorst, J. B., McLean, G., Shah, E., & Mack, R. (2021). Blending the real world and the virtual world: Exploring the role of flow in augmented reality experiences. Journal of Business Research, 122, 423-436.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (2018). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? In Self-regulation and self-control (pp. 16-44). Routledge.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The Strength Model of Self-Control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 351-355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00534.x
Buxbaum, O. (2016). The S-O-R-Model. In Key Insights into Basic Mechanisms of Mental Activity (pp. 7-9). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29467-4_2
Chidambaram, L., & Tung, L. L. (2005). Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of social loafing in technology-supported groups. Information systems research, 16(2), 149-168.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). The flow experience and its significance for human psychology. Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness, 2, 15-35.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. (1992). Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness. Cambridge university press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikzentmihaly, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience (Vol. 1990). Harper & Row New York.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration. British journal of management, 17(4), 263-282.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative science quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
Espinosa, J. A., Slaughter, S. A., Kraut, R. E., & Herbsleb, J. D. (2007). Familiarity, complexity, and team performance in geographically distributed software development. Organization science, 18(4), 613-630.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of educational research, 74(1), 59-109.
Galanti, T., Guidetti, G., Mazzei, E., Zappalà, S., & Toscano, F. (2021). Work From Home During the COVID-19 Outbreak: The Impact on Employees' Remote Work Productivity, Engagement, and Stress. J Occup Environ Med, 63(7), e426-e432. https://doi.org/10.1097/jom.0000000000002236
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS quarterly, 51-90.
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological bulletin, 112(2), 310.
Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual review of psychology, 47(1), 307-338.
Heatherton, T., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing control: How and why people fail at self-regulation. San Diego: Academic.
Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines. Industrial management & data systems, 116(1), 2-20.
Hummer, J., Sherman, B., & Quinn, N. (2002). Present and unaccounted for. Occupational health & safety, 71(4), 40-40.
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of management journal, 44(2), 238-251.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, Kipling D. (1995). Social Loafing: Research Findings, Implications, and Future Directions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(5), 134-140. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20182353
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of personality and social psychology, 65(4), 681.
Kidwell Jr, R. E., & Bennett, N. (1993). Employee propensity to withhold effort: A conceptual model to intersect three avenues of research. Academy of management review, 18(3), 429-456.
Koopman, C., Pelletier, K. R., Murray, J. F., Sharda, C. E., Berger, M. L., Turpin, R. S., Hackleman, P., Gibson, P., Holmes, D. M., & Bendel, T. (2002). Stanford presenteeism scale: health status and employee productivity. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 44(1), 14-20.
Liu, H., Chu, H., Huang, Q., & Chen, X. (2016). Enhancing the flow experience of consumers in China through interpersonal interaction in social commerce. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 306-314.
Miller, K. A., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1988). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Contemporary Sociology, 17(2), 253.
Milman, A., & Pizam, A. (1995). The role of awareness and familiarity with a destination: The central Florida case. Journal of travel research, 33(3), 21-27.
Murphy, S. M., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Erdogan, B. (2003). Understanding social loafing: The role of justice perceptions and exchange relationships. Human relations, 56(1), 61-84.
Novak, T. P., & Hoffman, D. L. (1997). Measuring the flow experience among web users. Interval Research Corporation, 31(1), 1-35.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). An overview of psychological measurement. Clinical diagnosis of mental disorders: A handbook, 97-146.
Omar A. Alnuaimi, L. P. R. L. M. M. (2010). Team Size, Dispersion, and Social Loafing in
Technology-Supported Teams: A Perspective on
the Theory of Moral Disengagement.
Ozbozkurt, O. B., Bahar, E., & Yesilkus, F. (2023). Fear of COVID-19 as a mediator within the impact of presenteeism on social loafing 1. Work(Preprint), 1-13.
Park, S., & Lee, G. (2020). Full-immersion virtual reality: Adverse effects related to static balance. Neuroscience letters, 733, 134974.
Petty, R. E., Harkins, S. G., & Williams, K. D. (1980). The effects of group diffusion of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information-processing view. Journal of personality and social psychology, 38(1), 81.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of management, 12(4), 531-544.
Qiu, X., & Lo, Y. Y. (2017). Content familiarity, task repetition and Chinese EFL learners’ engagement in second language use. Language Teaching Research, 21(6), 681-698.
Rönkkö, M., & Ylitalo, J. (2011). PLS marker variable approach to diagnosing and controlling for method variance.
Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 26(4), 419-435.
Salanova, M., Bakker, A. B., & Llorens, S. (2006). Flow at work: Evidence for an upward spiral of personal and organizational resources. Journal of Happiness studies, 7(1), 1-22.
Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational psychologist, 26(3-4), 299-323.
Slater, M., & Sanchez-Vives, M. V. (2016). Enhancing Our Lives with Immersive Virtual Reality. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2016.00074
Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Keith Campbell, W., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Egos inflating over time: A cross‐temporal meta‐analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of personality, 76(4), 875-902.
Van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS quarterly, 695-704.
van der Sluis, F., Glassey, R. J., & van den Broek, E. L. (2012). Making the news interesting: Understanding the relationship between familiarity and interest. Proceedings of the 4th Information Interaction in Context Symposium,
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision sciences, 39(2), 273-315.
Walker, C. J. (2010). Experiencing flow: Is doing it together better than doing it alone? The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(1), 3-11.
Whitehouse, D. (2005). Workplace presenteeism: How behavioral professionals can make a difference. Behavioral healthcare tomorrow, 14(1), 32-36.
Yang, H., Lin, Z., Chen, X., & Peng, J. (2023). Workplace loneliness, ego depletion and cyberloafing: can leader problem-focused interpersonal emotion management help? Internet Research, 33(4), 1473-1494.
Yu, Z., Klongthong, W., Thavorn, J., & Ngamkroeckjoti, C. (2021). Understanding rural Chinese consumers’ behavior: A stimulus–organism–response (SOR) perspective on Huawei’s brand loyalty in China. Cogent Business & Management, 8(1), 1880679.
Zhou, T. (2012). Examining mobile banking user adoption from the perspectives of trust and flow experience. Information Technology and Management, 13, 27-37.