台灣在2018年將核能發電是否繼續發展訴諸公民投票，且投票結果係同意票數多於不同意。然而過去許多能源相關的調查皆顯示民眾普遍對能源政策現狀並不了解，實際上民眾決定連署讓公投成案或投票選擇時的判斷基準又是什麼？政府與民間倡議團體在政策推行及倡議議題時所給予的資訊，對民眾的選擇是否有所影響？
本研究係參考Ajzen（1985）所提出之計畫行為理論發展，並對應研究問題，爬梳知識及資訊相關研究，衍生出知識、風險知覺及利益知覺三構面。介入之資訊則以政府政策資訊為主，在正式實驗前的前導訪談內容確認資訊加強論述方向後，再就政府已設計該方向之海報製作成簡報，並邀請相關領域專家協助確認資訊正確性，遂完成實驗介入工具。實證分析之資料係來自研究者於2019年11月至12月中旬針對高雄市及屏東縣18歲以上民眾所進行之能源及政策的支持度調查。
研究結果顯示，資訊介入對於民眾的知識、風險知覺、利益知覺、態度與行為意圖皆會產生影響。此外，在給予同樣主題、不同面向增強論述取向的資訊的情況下，對於風險知覺、利益知覺、態度及行為意圖的影響也略微不同。且當民眾對於能源現狀及政策相關知識了解程度不同時，其風險與利益知覺也略有不同，民眾對於能源及其政策現況處於一知半解的狀況下，其核能風險知覺、再生能源利益知覺皆偏低，而核能利益知覺則偏高，但若是民眾處於不瞭解者或完全瞭解者，其核能風險知覺、再生能源利益知覺則會提高，而核能利益知覺則降低。再者，民眾是否會進行支持政策的行動，除政策支持度是影響因素之外，主觀規範及行為控制知覺同樣也會影響民眾進行行動意願。

Taiwan resorted to a referendum in 2018 on whether nuclear power generation would continue to develop. The votes on agree outweights those on disagree. However, several energy-related surveys suggest that the general public does not often know the status quo of energy policies. How do they decide to sign a joint referendum or to vote? Does information, either from the government or nongovernmental organizations during policy implementation and advocacy, plays a role in affecting their judgment?
The research employs the Theory of Planned Behavior proposed by Ajzen (1985) for analysis. Furthermore, knowledge, risk perception, and benefit perception are incorporated in the theoretical framework after reviewing related research. The information involved mainly refers to government policy information in this research. Before the formal experiment, interviews were conducted to verify the content of information as well as the orientation of discussion. A briefing, based on posters that convey government policies, was produced. Experts in related fields were invited to help confirm the content of the information. The empirical data were collected via a survey on energy and policy support of citizen over 18 years old in Kaohsiung City and Pingtung County from November to mid-December 2019.
The result shows that information intervention does have an impact on people's knowledge, risk perception, interest perception, attitude, and behavioral intentions. Information with different orientations on the same theme may also enhance the discussion of risk perception, interest perception, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Subjects with different levels of knowledge about the status quo of energy and policy differ in their risk perception and benefit perception. For those subjects underwhelmed by the current state and policies of energy (answered one of the two questions correctly), their perceived nuclear energy risks as well as renewable energy benefits are low and the perceived nuclear energy benefits is high. On the other hand, for the subjects who are either completely unaware of (answered both two questions incorrectly) or fully aware of (answered both two questions correctly) the information, their perceived nuclear energy risks as well as renewable energy benefits increase and their perceived nuclear energy benefits decreases. Apart from the degree of policy support, subjective norms and perception of behavior control affect the public's willingness to take action in support of the policy.

論文審定書 i
誌謝 ii
摘要 iii
Abstract iv
第一章、 緒論 1
第一節、 研究背景 1
第二節、 研究動機 7
第三節、 研究問題與目的 9
第二章、 文獻回顧 10
第一節、 知識、利益知覺與風險知覺 10
第二節、 利益知覺、風險知覺與態度 11
第三節、 計畫行為理論 15
第四節、 資訊介入對知識、利益知覺、風險知覺與態度之影響 16
第三章、 研究方法 19
第一節、 研究架構 19
第二節、 研究範圍、對象及抽樣 22
第三節、 研究設計及施測流程 23
第四節、 資訊介入工具設計 23
第五節、 研究變數與問卷設計 25
第六節、 研究工具之信度及效度檢測分析 27
（一）項目分析 27
（二）效度分析 30
（三）信度分析 35
第四章、 研究結果 37
第一節、 資料收集與分析方法 37
第二節、 敘述性統計 37
第三節、 知識與知覺之關聯 38
（一） 主觀知識與知覺之關聯 38
（二） 客觀知識與知覺之關聯 39
（三） 小結 40
第四節、 知覺與態度之關聯 41
第五節、 影響政策支持行為意圖可能因素 42
（一） 測量模型信效度 42
（二） 結構模型部分 44
（三） 小結 47
第六節、 三種資訊給予對政策支持度之影響 47
第五章、 結論與建議 50
第一節、 結論 50
第二節、 建議 51
第三節、 研究限制 53
參考文獻 54
附錄一、資訊介入工具：中性資訊 61
附錄二、資訊介入工具：中性資訊，並補強政策與健康關聯之論述 65
附錄三、資訊介入工具：中性資訊，並補強政策可行性論述 71
附錄四、假設成立與否一覽表 77
附錄五、預試問卷 79
附錄六、正式問卷 84

中電控股有限公司（2019a）。世界核能發展。擷取自中電控股有限公司：https://www.clpgroup.com/NuclearEnergy/Chi/main/index.aspx
王國川（譯）（2016）。對態度的了解與社會行為的預測（原作者：Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I.）。台北市：聯經出版事業股份有限公司。（原著出版年：2010）
台灣電力公司（2019a）。動態圖表。擷取自台灣電力公司：https://www.taipower.com.tw/TC/Chart.aspx?mid=194
台灣電力公司（2019b）。歷史與發展。擷取自台灣電力公司：https://www.taipower.com.tw/TC/page.aspx?mid=33#33-02
台灣環境資訊協會（2019）。台灣反核運動大事記 1978~2019。擷取自環境資訊中心：https://e-info.org.tw/node/10598
全國法規資料庫（2019）。電業法。擷取自全國法規資料庫：https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=J0030011
社團法人中華民國核能學會（2019）。台灣核能發展歷史。擷取自社團法人中華民國核能學會網站：http://www.chns.org/s.php?id=9&id2=143
杜文苓、李翰林（2011）。環境資訊公開的民主實踐課題－以霄裡溪光電廢水汙染爭議爲例。台灣民主季刊，8（2），59-98。
汪銘生、方之光（1994）。公眾對開發建設之風險知覺與其管理—以高雄地區公眾為例，管理科學學報，11（1），1-23。
吳明隆，涂金堂（2006）。SPSS與統計應用分析(2版)，台北：五南圖書。
李金泉（1993）。SPSS/PC 實務與應用統計分析，台北：松崗。
宋威穎（2018）。環境治理之資訊不對稱及制度依賴相關性實證研究-社會實驗之應用（未出版之博士論文）。國立中山大學，高雄市。
周桂田（2003）。全球在地化風險下之風險溝通與風險評估─以SARS 為Case 分析，「2003 台灣社會學年會」論文。台灣，台北。
林唐裕、王薇棻、余曉婕、郭柏毅、曾佑暉、龍俊業（2018）。2018台灣電力使用與能源轉型民意調查。台北：簡又新。
邱崇原、湯京平（2014）。公民投票與鄰避困境—台灣低放射性廢棄物貯存場的選址經驗及南韓之啟示。台灣民主季刊，11（4），1-36。
洪榮昭、傅惠筠（2012）。大專校院學生節能減碳行為意圖之研究。教育心理學報，44，373-387。
洪鴻智、黃于芳（2000）。農村工業汙染風險知覺的空間特性與決定因素。台灣土地研究，13（2），31-57。
洪鴻智（2005）。科技鄰避設施風險知覺之形成與投影：核二廠。人文及社會科學集刊，17（1），33-70。
陳永平（2014）。再生能源科技在台灣 單元導讀。載於編者（程惠芳），公民能不能？－能源科技、政策與民主（12-15）。新竹市：交通大學出版社。
陳憶寧（2014）。福島危機中台灣民眾對核能的風險感知與態度：政黨傾向、核能知識、信任與科學傳播的角色。中華傳播學會，26，223-265。
梁世武、李均揚（2014）。從鄰避效應與認知失調解析台灣民眾的核電風險認知與態度。台灣公共衛生雜誌，33（4），428-444。
張紹勳、林秀娟（1995）。SPSS For Windows 統計分析-初等統計與高等統計（上冊），台北：松崗。
經濟部（2018）。能源轉型白皮書（初稿）。台北市：經濟部。
經濟部（2018）。長風基金會未全盤了解能源政策 經濟部：在非核家園、穩定供電、改善空污前提下完成能源轉型。擷取自經濟部能源局新聞澄清：https://www.moeaboe.gov.tw/ecw/populace/news/News.aspx?kind=9&menu_id=4360&news_id=15058
楊倍昌（2018）。臺灣科技與社會研究學會：科技公共性的實踐。人文與社會科學簡訊。19，4，215-219。
廖慧珠（2007）。3E融合創造幸福生活。擷取自 能源報導：https://energymagazine.tier.org.tw/Cont.aspx?CatID=&ContID=1199
臺大風險社會與政策研究中心團隊（2017）。邁向能源轉型之路 : 電業法修訂的環境、社會與民主。台北市：國立臺灣大學社會科學院風險社會與政策研究中心。
劉祥熹、莊慶達、陳均龍（2007）。從核四建廠風險認知觀點探討貢寮地區漁業經營對漁村經濟之影響。農業與經濟，（38），119-159。
關復勇、李伶娟（2011）。屬性框架與經濟鏈對廣告效果之影響─以綠色廣告為例。公共事務評論，12（2），19-37。
Ajzen, I. (1991).The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,50,179-211.
Alhakami, A. S. and Slovic, P. (1994). A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit. Risk Analysis, 14 (6), 1085-1096.
Brody, S. D., Peck, B. M. and Highfield, W. E. (2004). Examining Localized Patterns of Air Quality Perception in Texas: A Spatial and Statistical Analysis. Risk Analysis, 24 (6), 1561-1574.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics. Applied probability and statistics section. Structural equations with latent variables.
Chen, MF., Lin, YP. and Cheng, TJ. (2013). Public attitudes toward nanotechnology applications in Taiwan. Technovation, 33, 88-96.
Chen, C. F. and Knight, K. (2014). Energy at work: Social psychological factors affecting energy conservation intentions within Chinese electric power companies. Energy Research & Social Science, 4, 23-31.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Methodology for business and management. Modern methods for business research (p. 295–336).
Covello, V. T. (1983). The Perception of Technological Risks: A literature Review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 23, 285-297.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S. J. and Combs, B. (1978). How Safe Is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes Toward Technological Risks and Benefits. Policy Sciences, 9(1), 121-136.
Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: A reasoned action approach. New York: Psychology Press.
Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research (18:1), 39-50.
Gao, L., Wang, S., Li, J. and Li, H. (2017). Application of the extended theory of planned behavior to understand individual’s energy saving behavior in workplaces. Resources, Conservation & Recycling,127,107-113.
Groothuis, P. A. ang Miller, G. (1997). The Role of Social Distrust in Risk-Benefit Analysis: A Study of the Siting of a Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 15 (3), 241-257.
Grasmüch, D. and Scholz, R. W. (2005) Risk Perception of Heavy Metal Soil Contamination by High-Exposed and Low-Exposed Inhabitants: The Role of Knowledge and Emotional Concerns. Risk Analysis, 25 (3), 611-622.
Hansson, S. O. (2002). Uncertainties in the knowledge society. International Social Science Journal, 54, 39-46.
Hansen, J., Holm, L., Frewer, L., Robinson, Paul. and Sandøe, Peter. (2003).Beyond the knowledge deficit: recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite,41(2),111-121.
Jobin, M., Visschers, V. H.M., van Vliet, O. P.R., Arvai, J., Siegrist, M. (2019). Affect or information? Examining drivers of public preferences of future energy portfolios in Switzerland. Energy Research & Social Science,52,20-29.
Kellstedt, P. M., Zahran, S. and Vedlitz, A. (2008). Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States. Risk Analysis, 28(1), 113-126.
Krewski, D. (1993). Health risk perception. Comments on Toxicology, 4,519-524.
Leiserowitz, A. (2006). Climate Change Risk Perception and Policy Preferences: The Role of Affect, Imagery, and Values. Climate Change, 77(1-2), 45-72.
Levin, Irwin P., Sandra L. Schneider and Gary J. Gaeth (1998). All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 2, 149-188.
Lindell, M. K. and Perry, R.W. (2000). Household adjustment to earthquake hazard: A review of research. Environment and Behavior, 32(4), 461-501.
Lindell, M. K. and Hwang, S. N. (2008). Households’ perceived personal risk and responses in a multihazard environment. Risk Analysis, 28(2), 539-556.
Luce, R. D. and Weber, E. U. (1986). An Axiomatic Theory of Conjoint Expected Risk. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 30 (2), 188-205.
Lynch, D. and Martin, P. (2013). How energy efficiency programs influence energy use: an application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. In proceedings of 2013 European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (eceee) Conference – France 2013.
Mumpower, J. L., Shi, L., Stoutenborough, J. W. and Vedlitz, A . (2013). Psychometric and demographic predictors of the perceived risk of terrorist threats and the willingness to pay for terrorism risk management programs. Risk Analysis, 33(10), 1802-1811.
Nisbet, M. C. (2005). The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion, 17, 90-112.
Park, E. and Ohm, J. Y. (2014). Factors influencing the public intention to use renewable energy technologies in South Korea: Effects of the Fukushima nuclear accident. Energy Policy, 65, 198-211.
Plapp, T. K. (2001). Perception and evaluation of natural risks: Interim report on first results of a survey in six districts. in Germany. Risk Research and Insurance Management Working Paper, 1, 1-10.
Scheufele, D. A., and Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7, 659-667.
Sohn, K. Y., Yang, J. W. and Chang, S. K. (2001). Assimilation of Opinions in Nuclear Decision-Making Using Risk Perception, Annals of Nuclear Energy,28, 553-563.
Simon, H. A. (1955). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99-118.
Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of Risk. SCIENCE, 236,280-285.
Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19, 689-701.
Slovic, P. (2000).The Perception of Risk. Earthscan, London.
Slovic, P. and Peters, E. (2006). Risk Perception and Affect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(6), 322-325.
Stoutenborough, J. W. and Vedlitz, A. (2014).The effect of perceived and assessed knowledge of climate change on public policy concerns: An empirical comparison. Environmental Science & Policy, 37, 23-33.
Stoutenborough, J. W. and Vedlitz, A. (2016). The role of scientific knowledge in the public's perceptions of energy technology risks. Energy Policy, 37, 23-33.
Vandermoere, F. (2008). Hazard Perception, Risk Perception, and the Need for Decontamination by Residents Exposed to Soil Pollution: The Role of Sustainability and the Limits of Expert Knowledge. Risk Analysis, 28 (2), 387-398.
Viklund, M. (2004). Energy Policy Option from the Perception of Public Attitudes and Risk Perception. Energy Policy, 32, 1156-1171.
Wang, S., Wang, J., Lin, S. and Li, J. (2019). Public perceptions and acceptance of nuclear energy in China: The role of public knowledge, perceived benefit, perceived risk and public engagement. Energy Policy, 126, 352-360.
Weinberg, A. M. (1976). The maturity and future of nuclear energy. Paper presented at Energy and physics, Proceedings of the Third General Conference, Bucharest, Rumania.
Weinstein, N. D. and Nicolich, M. (1993). Correct and Incorrect Interpretations of Correlations Between Risk Perceptions and Risk Behaviors. Health Psychology, 12(3),235-245.
Windschitl, P. D. and Wells, G. L. (1996). Measuring psychological uncertainty: verbal versus numeric methods. Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied, 2, 343-364.
Wogalter, M. S., DeJoy, D. and Laughery, K. R. (1999). Warnings and Risk Communication. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis.