臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

台灣地區每年因騎乘機車死亡人數占所有各車種中之比例為最高，且年輕人為最主要的族群。本研究針對在學之青少年進行問卷調查，並利用統計方法進行相關因子之分析。結果發現，青少年的騎乘行為受人格特質、父母機車安全教育、同儕間錯誤騎乘方式、新聞媒體正面報導所影響。在性別差異中，男性較女性會受同儕朋友的騎乘行為影響；女性在探究新聞媒體交通意外事故內容及風險感知程度上皆較男性高。隨著學歷增加，可能因其技術能力及自信力提高，所以就更有可能做出違反交通法規的情形發生。在有無駕照中，無駕照之青少年明顯高於有駕照之青少年會去瞭解新聞報導機車意外事故的內容，由此可知新聞媒體報導的重要性。最後結構方程模式得知，危險機車騎乘行為對於風險感知為負向關係，代表風險感知愈高之青少年對於危險機車騎乘行為則愈低；而父母家庭正確騎乘機車教育及新聞媒體報導正向新聞資訊對於風險感知為正向關係；人格特質中追求冒險刺激及同儕朋友錯誤騎乘行為對於風險感知為負向關係。

Among the accidental deaths caused by all types of vehicles, motorcycling has the highest proportion. This research aims to investigate the adolescents in school and uses statistical method to analyze the relative factors. The results showed that the riding behaviors on adolescents are affected by personality traits, parental education, incorrect riding styles among peers, and the positive news reports. On gender differences, boys’ riding behaviors are more easily affected by peers’ riding styles than girls’; girls are more able to explore the relation between accidents on news reports and risk perception. As the schooling year increases, the fact that their riding ability and confidence improve may lead to the reason why they are more likely to violate traffic laws. On the category of licensing, the unlicensed adolescents were more prone to get to understand the content of the accidents on news than licensed ones, which shows the importance of media reports. Finally, from the structure equation model we can find that the dangerous riding behavior and risk perception show negative correlation, which means that the higher the risk perception on adolescents, the lower the perception of the dangerous riding behavior. Correct riding education and positive information on media both show positive relationship when risk perception is a variable. The personality traits of loving to pursue adventure excitement and incorrect riding styles among peers both show negative relationship with risk perception.

中文提要……………………………………………………………………… i
英文提要……………………………………………………………………… ii
誌謝…………………………………………………………………………… iii
目錄…………………………………………………………………………… iv
表目錄………………………………………………………………………… vi
圖目錄………………………………………………………………………… viii
第一章 緒論………………………………………………………………… 1
1.1 研究背景與動機…………………………………………………… 1
1.2 研究目的與內容…………………………………………………… 3
1.3 研究範圍與對象…………………………………………………… 4
1.4 研究方法…………………………………………………………… 4
1.5 研究流程…………………………………………………………… 5
第二章 文獻回顧…………………………………………………………… 7
2.1 機車安全駕駛觀念………………………………………………… 7
2.2 風險、風險感知與情境感知理論定義…………………………… 8
2.3 國、內外交通安全風險感知之相關文獻………………………… 10
2.4 青少年行為特性…………………………………………………… 14
2.5 風險感知與駕駛行為之關係……………………………………… 15
2.6 小結………………………………………………………………… 17
第三章 研究方法…………………………………………………………… 18
3.1 研究架構與假設…………………………………………………… 18
3.2 問卷設計與衡量變數……………………………………………… 20
3.3 問卷測試與修改…………………………………………………… 24
3.4 抽樣設計與資料蒐集……………………………………………… 25
3.5 分析方法…………………………………………………………… 26
第四章 在學中青少年機車使用者調查資料統計與分析………………… 30
4.1 樣本結構分析…………………………………………………………… 30
4.2 信度分析…………………………………………………………… 31
4.3 效度分析…………………………………………………………… 32
4.4 問項統計分析……………………………………………………… 33
4.4.1 敘述統計分析………………………………………………… 33
4.4.2 次數分配統計分析…………………………………………… 38
4.4.3 小結…………………………………………………………… 45
4.5 因素分析…………………………………………………………… 46
4.6 各問項與社經背景特性之相關性分析…………………………… 48
4.6.1 性別與各問項之差異性分析………………………………… 48
4.6.2 學歷與各問項之差異性分析………………………………………… 53
4.6.3 有無駕照與各問項之差異性分析…………………………… 59
第五章 結構方程模型驗證與分析………………………………………… 61
5.1 驗證性因素分析…………………………………………………… 62
5.2 路徑分析…………………………………………………………… 64
第六章 結論與建議………………………………………………………… 66
6.1 結論……………………………………………………………………… 66
6.2 建議………………………………………………………………… 67
參考文獻……………………………………………………………………… 69
附錄一 問卷…………………………………………………………………… 73
簡歷…………………………………………………………………………… 77

1.Adams J. Risk. London, England: UCL Press; 1995.
2.Adrian K. Lund and Brain O’Neill, Perceived Risks and Drving Behavior, Accid. anal. & Prev. Vol.18, No.5, pp367-370,1986.
3.Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 411-423, 1988.
4.Benda, H.V., & Hoyos, C.G. Estimating hazards in traffic situations. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 15, 1-9, 1983.
5.Berger, R.J. and Persinger, G.S. Survey of Public Perceptions on Highway Safety. National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations, U.S., DOT Automated Services, Inc., McLean, VA, 1980.
6.Brian A. Jonah, Accident risk and risk-taking behaviour among young drivers, Accident Analysis & Prevention, Volume 18, Issue 4, August 1986, Pages 255-271, ISSN 0001-4575, DOI: 10.1016/0001-4575(86)90041-2.
7.Colin PowellBSc (Tech), MILT. The Perception of Risk and Risk Taking Behavior: Implications for Incident Prevention Strategies. Wilderness & Environmental Medicine 18(1):10-15, 2007.
8.Costa Jr., P.T., McCrae, R.R.,Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FF-I). Professional Manual, Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, 1992.
9.Creyer EH, Ross WT, Evers D. Risky recreation: an exploration of factors influencing the likelihood of participation and the effects of experience. Leisure Studies. 22:239–253, 2003.
10.Endsley, M.R. Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 65–84, 1995.
11.Fred L. Mannering and Lawrence L. Grodsky, Statistical Analysis of Motorcyclists’ Perceived Accident Risk, Accid. Anal. And Prev Vo127, No1, pp.21-31, 1995.
12.Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26(2), 172-199, 1976.
13.Graham, K., and Kinney, G. A Practical Safety Analysis System for Hazards Control, Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 12, N0. 1, 13-20, 1980.
14.H. Summala, Risk Control Not Risk Adjusment: The Zero-Risk Theory of Driver
Behaviour and it’s Implication, Ergonomics, Vol.31, No.4, pp.491-506, 1988a.
15.Harre, N., Foster, S., & O'Neill, M. Self-enhancement, crash-risk optimism and the impact of safety advertisements on young drivers. British Journal of Psychology, 96, 215−230, 2005.
16.Hawkins, R. P. & Pingree, S. Some processes in the cultivation effect. Communication Research, 7(2), 193-226, 1980.
17.Horswill, M.S., Waylen, A.E., Tofield, M.I. Drivers’ ratings of different com- ponents of their own driving skill: a greater illusion of superiority for skills that relate to accident involvement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34, 177–195, 2004.
18.Hughes, J.M., Michell, P.J., & Ramson, W.S. The Concise Oxford Dictionary. (2 ed.) Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1997.
19.Ice Ajzen (1988) , Attitudes, personality and behavior, Chicago, Dorsey Press.
20.Ice Ajzen (1991) , The theory of planned behavior, Organizational behavior and human decision process, pp39-50.
21.Jonah, B. A. Accident risk and risk-taking behaviour among young drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18, 255−271, 1986.
22.Kenneth,Ginsburg,Dennis,Durbin,Felipe, Kalicka,Flaura,Winston, Associations Between Parenting Styles and Teen Driving, Safety-Related Behaviors and Attitudes, American Academy of Pediatrics,2009.
23.Kline, R. B.,Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York:Guilford Press, 1998.
24.Maccoby, E. E. The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 1006-1017,1992.
25.Matthews, M. Moran, A. Age difference in male drivers’ perception of accident risk: The role of perceived driving ability. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18, 299-313, 1986.
26.Mills, K.L., Hall, R.D., McDonald, M., Rolls, G.W.P. The Effects of Hazard Perception Training on the Development of Novice Driver Skills. UK Department of the Environment, Transport, and the Regions (DETR), London, 1998.
27.Narelle Haworth, Mark Symmons, Naomi Kowadlo. Hazard Perception by Inexperienced Motorcyclists. Monash University Accident Research Centre, 2000.
28.Niki Harré, Risk Evaluation, Driving, and Adolescents: A Typology,
Developmental Review 20, pp.206-226, 2000.
29.Rhona Flin, Kathryn Mearns, Rachael Gordon and Mark Fleming, Risk
perception by offshore workers on UK oil and gas platforms, Safety Science 22,131-145, 1996.
30.Rigdon, E. A necessary an sufficient identification rule for structural equation models estimated. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 369-383,1995.
31.Ulrich Trankle, Christhard Gelau, Thomas Metker, Risk perception and age-specific accidents of young drivers, Accident Analysis & Prevention, Volume 22, Issue 2, Pages 119-125, ISSN 0001-4575, 1990.
32.Vlek, C., Stallen, P.J. Rational and personal aspects of risk. Acta Psychologica, 45, 273-300, 1980.
33.Wilde G.J.S, The Theory of Risk Homeostasis: Implications For Safety and Health. Risk Analysis 2, pp.209-225, 1982.
34.Williams, J. T. “Risk, Human Capital and the Investor's Portfolio.'' Journal of Business 51, 65—89, 1978.
35.Wogalter, M. S., DeJoy, D. M., & Laughery, K. R. (Eds.) Warnings and Risk Communication. (382 pages). London: Taylor & Francis, 1999.
36.內政部警政署統計資料，http://www.npa.gov.tw/NPAGip/wSite/np?ctNode=12552&mp=1。
37.王建仁，台灣地區機車使用者風險感認與駕駛行為關聯之研究，國立交通大學運輸科技與管理學系碩士論文，2003。
38.王柏壽，父母與同儕對青少年作決定的影響之比較研究，嘉義師專學報，15期，pp.47-198，1985。
39.交通部，98年度道路交通安全年報，2009。
40.交通部統計處，http://www.motc.gov.tw。
41.交通部運輸研究所，青少年機車駕駛人行為特性、事故風險與管理對策之文獻探討，民國95年。
42.吳宗修，學校交通安全教育之評量，http://www.khjh.kh.edu.tw/khyoung/traffic/5.html，交通安全教育專論，中華民國交通安全教育學會，1995。
43.宋明哲，現代風險管理，五南出版社，台北，2001。
44.林柏丞，青少年交通安全風險感認之研究，國立交通大學運輸科技與管理學系碩士論文，1996。
45.青少年的同儕關係，親師交流道第二十七期，2007。
46.教育部交通安全教育網，
http://content.edu.tw/primary/traffic/tn_dg/safemain.htm。
47.現代青少年的特性，http://www.shute.kh.edu.tw/~healthcare/U20030301002/index.htm。
48.逢甲大學運輸科與與管理學系，
http://iotsafety.rd.fcu.edu.tw/Team%20result/NO.3/motor.html#51。
49.陳鵬升，應用計畫行為理論探討機車交叉路口違規行為之研究，逢甲大學交通工程與管理學系碩士班碩士論文，2006。
50.黃懿慧，科技風險與環保抗爭－台灣風險認知個案研究，台北：五南，1994。
51.葛樹人，心理測驗學，桂冠，臺北市，1996。
52.榮泰生，Amos與研究方法，五南圖書，臺北市，2011。
53.蔡中志，青少年學生交通安全教育，交通安全教育專論，中華民國交通安全教育學會，1995。
54.蕭文龍，多變量分析最佳入門實用書，碁峰資訊，臺北市，2009。
55.鮑雨薇，人格特質、態度、風險感認與大專生機車危險駕駛行為之關係，國立交通大學運輸科技與管理學系碩士論文，2009。
56.凃金堂，SPSS與量化研究，五南圖書，臺北市，2010。