臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

風險溝通已成為民主國家環境決策不可或缺的工具，一般人對物質風險的判斷與其風險接受度汲汲相關，了解國人對物質風險判斷與直覺毒理概念，將對風險管理相關議題有重大的影響。本研究以自填封閉式問卷，針對台中縣某國中教師138位、國三748位、國一690位、以及全校學生家長，一戶一人共2139位為對象，施以問卷調查。主要目的在了解性別差異對環境物質健康風險危害的判斷及毒理概念之影響，並進一步探討其可能造成差異的原因。問卷係參考國外文獻並自擬而成，內容包含對環境物質健康危害的判斷與毒理概念的認知與態度，受訪者以直覺來判斷並答覆每一問題，結果使用SAS套裝軟體作卡方檢定。結果顯示對於物質風險之判斷，與受測者之背景如教育程度、性別、閱報頻率、住家附近環境等因素有顯著相關。同時國人對於化學物質健康危害的認知相當敏感而極為負面，而且對於有害或者有毒物質的危害極少考慮劑量高低與暴露頻率，此與毒理學家有顯著的差異。而性別不同於環境物質對健康危害的認知也有差異，女性的看法比男性較為敏感而負面，對於其毒理概念女性也較少考慮劑量高低與暴露頻率，此與國外文獻有一致的結果。雖本研究僅就一所學校做調查，我們的結果卻顯示國人對環境中物質風險判斷與毒理概念和美加毒理專家有許多不同。建議加強物質對人體健康影響方面的教育，以培養國人對環境決策理性溝通的能力。

Characterization of the judgments toward domestic chemical risks and intuitive toxicological concepts among the public would be beneficial to elucidate their risk perceptions and risk acceptability and may pave the way for efficient risk communication. Questionnaires adapted from literatures were used to study risk perception currently shared by students（n=1438）, teachers（n=138）of a junior high school and students'' parents（n=2139）on and regulation in the long run. living in Tai-Pyng area of Taichung County, Taiwan. These questions were designed for intuitive analyses to study respondents'' conception and attitude toward chemicals and other risk factors. Data collected for this study were analyzed with the Chi-square test using the SAS program. Our results shows that teachers had much higher perceptions of risk than the other respondents, and their judgments toward chemical risks are related to their education level, gender, newspaper reading rate, and surrounding environments. Our results also show significant differences in perceptions on the risk and toxicology concepts between the public and toxicologists. The public'' attitudes toward chemicals were quite negative and much less sensitive than the toxicologists in terms of dose and exposure. Significant differences in risk perceptions and toxicology concepts were also demonstrated between men and women. Women''s attitudes toward chemicals were quite negative and much less sensitive than men in terms of dose and exposure. Men expressed less concern hazard chemical. Results from this case study imply that the public obviously lacks knowledge of adverse health effects caused by chemicals, and suggest that education of environmental health may be needed for students of high school, college, and university.

第壹章 前 言-------------------------------01
第一節研究背景與動機------------------------01
第二節研究目的------------------------------04
第貳章 文 獻 探 討-------------------------------05
第一節基本人口學變項-------------------------05
第二節個人主觀因素---------------------------07
第三節社會環境因素---------------------------08
第四節性別差異影響---------------------------09
第五節風險的不確定性-------------------------12
第參章材料與方法--------------------------------13
第一節研究主題的建立------------------------13
第二節研究架構------------------------------14
第三節研究對象及實施------------------------15
第四節工具的編製與內容----------------------16
第五節研究工具效度與信度檢定----------------18
第六節名詞界定------------------------------19
第七節計分方式及檢定------------------------20
第肆章結果與討論--------------------------------21
第一節應答者與毒理專家之基本人口學資料------21
第二節應答者對物質危害風險判斷--------------22
第三節直覺毒理學認知與態度------------------31
第四節有關性別基本人口學資料----------------38
第五節性別對健康危害風險判斷之差異----------39
第六節性別對直覺毒理學認知與態度之差異------41
第伍章結 論-------------------------------47
第陸章 研究限制與建議-----------------------------48
第柒章 參 考 文 獻--------------------------------49
表------------------------------------------------55
圖------------------------------------------------83
附錄（問卷調查表）---------------------------------96

1. Sjoberg L：Risk Perception by the Public and by Experts: A Dilemma in Risk Management. Human Ecology Review 6：1-9, 1999.
2. Sjoberg L：Policy Implications of Risk Perception Researsh: A Case of the Emperor''s New Clothes？paper presented at Risk Analysis: Opening the process. Oranized by Society for Risk Analysis-Europe, Pairs, October 11-14,1998.
3. Pidgeon.N, Hood C, Jones D, et al: Risk Perception in Risk Analysis, Perception and Management. The Royal Society, London: 89-134, 1992.
4. Bayerische R: Risk is a Construct: Perceptions of Risk Perception. Bayerische Ruck, Knesebeck, Munchen, 1993.
5. Beck U: Towards a New Modernity. Risk Society, Sage, London, 1992.
6. Connell RW: The Person and Sexual Politics, Gender and Power. Society, 1987.
7. Slovic P: Perception of Risk: Reflections on the Psychometric Paradigm. Westport, CT: 117-152, 1992.
8. Sowby FD：Radiation and Other Risks. Health Physics 11, 879-887, 1965.
9. 教育部環保小組-環環相扣 第三期~第十期
10. Slovic P：Perception of Risk. Science 236, 280-285（1987）.
11. Kates R, Hohenemser C, and Kasperson J（eds.）, Perilous Progress： Managing the Hazards of Technology. Westview, Boulder, Colorado, 1985.
12. Slovic P, Fischhoof B, and Lichtenstein S：Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk," in R. Schwing and W. A. Albers, Jr.（eds.）, Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe Is Safe Enough?（ Plenum, New York, 1980）.
13. Krimsky S and Golding D（eds.）：Social Theories of Risk. Praeger, Westport, CT, 1992.
14. 劉錦添：環境風險的知覺－台灣的實證研究。臺灣銀行季刊第四十五捲第三期第216~231頁，1994年。
15. Slovic P: Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy, Risk Analysis, Vol, 13, No, 6, 1993.
16. Slovic P：Perception of Risk, Science 236, 280-285, 1987.
17. Nancy K, Torbjorn M, Paul S：Intuitive Toxicology：Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks. Risk Anal, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1992.
18. Slovic P, Torbjorn M, Daniel K, Daniel Merck C. K, Nancy N. and Sheryl B： Intuitive Toxicology.II. Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risk in Canada. Risk Assessment, Vol. 15, No.6, 661-675, 1995.
19. National Academy of Science：Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process National Academy Press, Washington, D.C,1983.
20. Starr C： Risk Management, Assessment, and Acceptability, Risk Analysis 5, 97-102, 1985.
21. Luhmann N: Verstaendigung ueber Risiken und Gefahren, in: Die politische Meinung, 6, 1992.
22. Kraus N, Malmfors T, and Slovic P：Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgements of Chemical Risks," Risk Analysis, Vol. 12, No. 2, 391-404, 1992.
23. Sokolowska J and Tyszka T: Perception and Acceptance of Technological and Environmental Risks: Why Are Poor Countries Less Concerned? Risk Analysis, Vol. 15, No. 6, 1995.
24. Baumer TL：Research on Fear of Crime in the United States. Victimology 3: 254-264, 1978.
25. Riger S, Gorden MT, LeBailly R：Women''s Fear of Crime: From Blaming to Restricting the Victim. Victimology, 3: 274-284, 1978.
26. Steger MAE, Witt SL：Gender Differences in Environmental Orientations: A Comparison of Publics and Activists in Canada and the U.S. West Polit Quart. 42: 627-649, 1989.
27. Aliper J：The Pipeline is Leaking Women All the Way Along. Science , 260: 409-411, 1993.
28. Barke R, Jenkins-Smith H, Slovic P：Risk Perceptions of Men and Women Scientist. Social Sei Quart, 78（1）: 167-176, 1997.
29. Slovic P, Malmfors T, Mertz CK et al : Evaluating Chemical Risks: Results of a Survey of the Birtish Toxicology Society. Hurr Exp. Toxicol. 16: 289-304, 1997.
30. Mertz CK, Slovic P, Purchase IFH：Judgements of Chemical Risks: Comparisions Among Senior Managers, Toxicologists, and the Public. Risk Analysis, Vol. 18, No. 4: 391-404, 1998.
31. Jakobsen L, Karlsson JCH：Vardagsuppfattningar inom riskomradet, in Enander A, Jakobsen L, (eds) , Risk och hot iden svenska vardagen: Allt fran Tjernobyl till skuren sas Overstyrelsen for Civil Beredskap, Stockholm: 9-15, 1996.
32. Fisher GW, Morgan MG, Fischhoof B, et al：What Risk Are People concerned About ? Risk Anal, 11: 303-314, 1991.
33. Lasson TJ, Monten R：Upplevda risker for siukdom och olycksfall : Attityder hos Forvarvarbetande svenskar med kroppsarbete (IPSO) Factum 6, The Institute for Human Safety and Accident Research, Stockholm, 1986.
34. Cutter SL, Tiefenbacher J, Solecki WD：En-Gender Fears: Femininity and Technological Risk Perception. Ind. Crisis Quart, 6: 5-22, 1992.
35. Davidson DJ, Freudenburg WR：Gender and Environmental Concerns: A Review and Analysis of Available Research. Environ. Behav.28: 302-339, 1996.
36. Stanko EA: Women, Crime, and Fear. Annals, AAPSS 539: 46-58, 1995.
37. Sjoqvist M, Ungerfalt R：Gatuvald: En studie krieng stadens mellanmanskliga faror, Department of Ethnology, Goteborg University. Goteborg, 1992.
38. Flynn J, Slovic P, and Mertz CK：Gender, Race and Perception of Environmental Health Risks. Risk Anal, Vol. 14: 1101-1108, 1994.
39. Robert O''Connor E, Richard JB, and Fisher A：Risk Perception, General Environmental Beliefs, and Willingness to Address Climate Change. Risk Analysis, Vol. 19, No. 3: 461-471, 1999.
40. Dorothy E. Patton：The ABC of Risk Assessment: some basic principles can help people understand why controversies occur, EPA Journal, 10-15, 1993.
41. Brian W, Otway H：Risk Communication: Paradigm and Paradox", in: Risk Analysis, 9: 141-145, 1989.
42. 王文科：教育研究法，五南圖書出版公司，1996。
43. Hatcher L：A Step by Step Approach to Using the SAS System for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA: 57-127, 1994.
44. Slovic P： Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield," Risk Analysis, Vol. 19, No. 4, 1999.
45. Ruckelshaus W. D：Risk in a Free Society. Risk Analysis 4, 157-162, 1984.
46. Aaron Wildavsky and Karl Dake:Theories of Risk Perceotion: Who Fears What and Why? Tbeodore J. Lowi:41-61, 1987.
47. Bella D. A： Engineering and Erosion of Trust. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering 113, 117-129, 1987.
48. Dake K： Orienting Dispositions in the Perception of Risk: An Analysis of Contemporary Worldviews and Cultural Biases. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 22,61-82, 1991.
49. Dake K： Myths of Nature: Culture and the Social Construction of Risk," J. Social Issues 48, 21-27, 1992.
50. Peter E and Slovic P：The Role of Affect and Worldviews as Orienting Dispositions in the Perception and Acceptance of Nuclear Power," J. Appl, Social Psychol. 26,1427-1453（1996）.
51. Slovic P and Peter E：The Importance of Worldviews in Risk Perception. Risk Dec. Policy 3（2）: 165-170, 1998.
52. Gregory R, Mendelsohn R： Perceived risk, Dread, and Benefits, Risk Analysis, Vol.13, No. 3, 1993.
53. Slovic P, Fishhoff B and Lichtenstein S：Facts And Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk.
54. Claire Marris, Ian H. Langford, and Timothy O''Riordan：A Quantitative Test of the Cultural Theory of Risk Perceptions: Comparison With the Psychometric Paradigm" Risk Analysis, Vol. 18, No. 5, 1998.
55. Alhakami A：A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit of Technological Hazards.（ Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation. University of Oregon, 1991.
56. Koren G. and Klein N：Bias Against Negative Studies in Newspaper Reports of Medical Research. Journal of the American Medical Association 266, 1824-1826, 1991.
57. Lynn F. M：OSHA''s Carcinogens Standard: Round One on Risk Assessment Models and Assumptions," in B. B. Johnson and V. T. Covello（eds.）. The Social and Cultural Construction of Risk（Rediel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1987）, pp. 345-358.
58. Carson R, Silent Spring（Houghton Mifflin, New York ）, 1962.
59. Frazer J.G：The New Golden Bough:A Study in Magic and Religion . MacMillan, New York, 1959; original work published in 1890.
60. Mauss M, A general Theory of Magic（Norton, New York, 1972;original work published in 1902）.
61. Weinstein N. D：Attitudes of the Public and the Department of Environmental Protection Toward Environmental Hazards（ Final Report, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection）, 1988.
62. Mitchell J. V：Perception of Risk and Credibility at Toxic Sites," Risk Analysis 12,19-26, 1983.
63. Richard PB, Hank JS, Slovic P：Risk Perceptions of Men and Women Scientists. Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 78: 166-176, 1997.