請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/66983
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 鄭佳昆(Chia-Kuen Cheng) | |
dc.contributor.author | Chia-Yu Yu | en |
dc.contributor.author | 游家瑜 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T01:16:20Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2022-09-01 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2020-08-21 | |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2020-08-16 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 1.吳佳靜、張俊彥,(2019),自然景觀健康效益之研究,造園景觀學報,23(3),1-18。 2.李京憲,(2011),校園環境之景觀生態結構對使用者生心理影響之研究,碩士論文,國立臺灣大學,臺北。 3.邱方歆,(2018),以演化觀點探討物理環境對地方情感連結之影響,碩士論文,國立臺灣大學,臺北。 4.索賀,(2015),遊伴親密程度對環境之安全感與偏好之影響,碩士論文,國立臺灣大學,臺北。 5.翁珮怡、江彥政、張俊彥,(2011),土地開發程度對自然度感受及生心理反應之影響,造園景觀學報,17(1),41-60。 6.教育部,重編國語辭典修訂本臺灣學術網路第五版,取自http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cbdic/search.htm 7.黃昱瑄,(2011),都市環境中認知自然度之影響因子探討,碩士論文,國立臺灣大學,臺北。 8.楊喬羽、沈瓊桃,(2018),家庭接納對成年期同性戀及雙性戀者身心健康之影響,台灣公共衛生雜誌,37(4),453-463。 9.廖婉婷,(2012),不同公園情境對自然度感受及偏好影響之研究,碩士論文,國立臺灣大學,臺北。 10.鄭佳昆、沈立、全珍衡,(2009),熟悉度於不同情境下對視覺景觀偏好之影響探討,戶外遊憩研究,22(4),1-21。 11.鄭博云,(2019),神祕性與偏好關係之再探討,碩士論文,國立臺灣大學,臺北。 12.韓可宗. (2005). 「稀樹草原假說」就景觀美質、偏好與復癒反應的再次驗證. 地理學報, 41, 25-44. 13.Adevi, A. A., Grahn, P. (2012). Preferences for landscapes: A matter of cultural determinants or innate reflexes that point to our evolutionary background? Landscape Research, 37(1), 27-49. 14.Andrews, P. J. (1989). Palaeoecology of laetoli. Journal of Human Evolution, 18(2), 173-181. 15.Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape john wiley. New York. 16.Back, M. D., Penke, L., Schmukle, S. C., Asendorpf, J. B. (2011). Knowing your own mate value: Sex-specific personality effects on the accuracy of expected mate choices. Psychological Science, 22(8), 984-989. 17.Balling, J. D., Falk, J. H. (1982). Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and behavior, 14(1), 5-28. 18.Beery, T., Jönsson, K. I., Elmberg, J. (2015). From environmental connectedness to sustainable futures: Topophilia and human affiliation with nature. Sustainability, 7(7), 8837-8854. 19.Brierley, M.-E., Brooks, K. R., Mond, J., Stevenson, R. J., Stephen, I. D. (2016). The body and the beautiful: Health, attractiveness and body composition in men’s and women’s bodies. PLoS One, 11(6). 20.Bringslimark, T., Hartig, T., Patil, G. G. (2007). Psychological benefits of indoor plants in workplaces: Putting experimental results into context. HortScience, 42(3), 581-587. 21.Buss, D. M. (1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of personality and social psychology, 54(4), 616. 22.Buss, D. M. (1995). Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological science. Psychological Inquiry, 6(1), 1-30. 23.Buss, D. M. (2006). Strategies of human mating. Psihologijske teme, 15(2), 239-260. 24.Chan, E. Y., Zlatevska, N. (2019). Is meat sexy? Meat preference as a function of the sexual motivation system. Food quality and preference, 74, 78-87. 25.Chang, C.-Y., Chen, P.-K. (2005). Human response to window views and indoor plants in the workplace. HortScience, 40(5), 1354-1359. 26.Darwin, C. (1859). The origin of the species. London: Murray. 27.Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London: Murray. 28.Durante, K. M., Griskevicius, V., Hill, S. E., Perilloux, C., Li, N. P. (2011). Ovulation, female competition, and product choice: Hormonal influences on consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 921-934. 29.Durante, K. M., Li, N. P. (2009). Oestradiol level and opportunistic mating in women. Biology letters, 5(2), 179-182. 30.Durante, K. M., Li, N. P., Haselton, M. G. (2008). Changes in women's choice of dress across the ovulatory cycle: Naturalistic and laboratory task-based evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(11), 1451-1460. 31.Falk, J. H., Balling, J. D. (2010). Evolutionary influence on human landscape preference. Environment and Behavior, 42(4), 479-493. 32.Grinde, B., Patil, G. G. (2009). Biophilia: Does visual contact with nature impact on health and well-being? International journal of environmental research and public health, 6(9), 2332-2343. 33.Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N. J., Mortensen, C. R., Cialdini, R. B., Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Going along versus going alone: When fundamental motives facilitate strategic (non) conformity. Journal of personality and social psychology, 91(2), 281. 34.Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Miller, G. F., Kenrick, D. T. (2007). Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: When romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals. Journal of personality and social psychology, 93(1), 85. 35.Guéguen, N. (2009a). Menstrual cycle phases and female receptivity to a courtship solicitation: An evaluation in a nightclub. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30(5), 351-355. 36.Guéguen, N. (2009b). The receptivity of women to courtship solicitation across the menstrual cycle: A field experiment. Biological psychology, 80(3), 321-324. 37.Han, K.-T. (2007). Responses to six major terrestrial biomes in terms of scenic beauty, preference, and restorativeness. Environment and Behavior, 39(4), 529-556. 38.Hartmann, P., Apaolaza-Ibanez, V. (2010). Beyond savanna: An evolutionary and environmental psychology approach to behavioral effects of nature scenery in green advertising. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 119-128. 39.Hill, S. E., Durante, K. M. (2011). Courtship, competition, and the pursuit of attractiveness: Mating goals facilitate health-related risk taking and strategic risk suppression in women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(3), 383-394. 40.Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. (1989). The prediction of preference. In R. Kaplan S.Kaplan (Eds.), The Experience of Nature: A psychological perspective (pp. 40-71).New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 41.Kellert, S. R. (1997). Values. In S. R. Kellert. (Ed.), The value of life: Biological diversity and human society (pp. 9-34). Washington: Island Press. 42.Kenrick, D. T., Li, N. P., Butner, J. (2003). Dynamical evolutionary psychology: Individual decision rules and emergent social norms. Psychological review, 110(1), 3. 43.Kuo, F. E., Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime? Environment and behavior, 33(3), 343-367. 44.Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological science, 1(2), 115-121. 45.Lohr, V. I., Pearson-Mims, C. H. (2006). Responses to scenes with spreading, rounded, and conical tree forms. Environment and Behavior, 38(5), 667-688. 46.Lyons, E. (1983). Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environment and behavior, 15(4), 487-511. 47.Maner, J. K., Kenrick, D. T., Becker, D. V., Robertson, T. E., Hofer, B., Neuberg, S. L. Schaller, M. (2005). Functional projection: How fundamental social motives can bias interpersonal perception. Journal of personality and social psychology, 88(1), 63. 48.Masuch, K., Einenkel, K. E., Weninger, M. J., Schwarzl, C., Girsovics, V., Oberzaucher, E. (2018). Nature catches the eye–human gaze behaviour as a detector of spontaneous visual attention. Human Ethology Bulletin, 33(2), 13-21. 49.Moura, J., Júnior, F., Washington, S., Silva, T. C., Albuquerque, U. P. (2018). The influence of the evolutionary past on the mind: An analysis of the preference for landscapes in the human species. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 2485. 50.Moura, J. M. B., Junior, W. S. F., Silva, T. C., Albuquerque, U. P. (2017). Landscapes preferences in the human species: Insights for ethnobiology from evolutionary psychology. Ethnobiology and Conservation, 6. 51.Otterbring, T. (2018). Healthy or wealthy? Attractive individuals induce sex-specific food preferences. Food Quality and Preference, 70, 11-20. 52.Parsons, R., Daniel, T. C. (2002). Good looking: In defense of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60(1), 43-56. 53.Pretty, J., Peacock, J., Sellens, M., Griffin, M. (2005). The mental and physical health outcomes of green exercise. International journal of environmental health research, 15(5), 319-337. 54.Reeve, S. D., Mogilski, J. K., Welling, L. L. (2019). Environmental safety threat alters mate choice processes in humans: Further evidence for the environmental security hypothesis. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 5(2), 186-198. 55.Snell, T. L., Simmonds, J. G., Greenway, A. P. (2015). Ecopsychology and evolutionary psychology: Implications and limitations of habitat selection theory. Ecopsychology, 7(2), 96-103. 56.Strumse, E. (1996). Demographic differences in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(1), 17-31. 57.Sundie, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Vohs, K. D., Beal, D. J. (2011). Peacocks, porsches, and thorstein veblen: Conspicuous consumption as a sexual signaling system. Journal of personality and social psychology, 100(4), 664. 58.Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. Sexual Selection the Descent of Man, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 136-179. 59.Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaźmierczak, A., Niemela, J., James, P. (2007). Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and urban planning, 81(3), 167-178. 60.Ulrich, R. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery. Science, 224(4647), 224-225. 61.Ulrich, R. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. The biophilia hypothesis, 7, 73-137. 62.Voland, E., Grammer, K. (2003). Evolutionary aesthetics. Springer Science Business Media. 63.Wecker, S. C. (1963). The role of early experience in habitat selection by the prairie deer mouse, peromyscus maniculatus bairdi. Ecological Monographs, 33(4), 307-325. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/66983 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 過去研究時常使用演化假說與觀點對景觀美學進行探討,並指出景觀偏好是出於求生本能。相關假說如大草原假說、森林假說、親生命假說以及植栽和水這兩個演化元素,皆認為特殊的環境類型與元素能提供較佳的生存條件,也是人類最早的棲地環境類型。然而過去的實證研究尚無法歸因為演化本能所導致的景觀偏好,因此部分學者也認為目前相關論述仍屬於一種假說。 性選擇為生物的重要演化本能之一,相關研究指出男女擇偶條件的來源皆是要能確保後代的生存。研究也指出個體受到異性吸引後,確實會特意產生一些行為來傳達自己的交往價值(mate value),但目前尚未有研究證實個體在展現這些交往價值時,對象真的會覺得其更有吸引力。近年來許多研究皆以產品選擇的角度,探討個體在受到吸引之後對於消費選擇偏好的改變,但在景觀相關領域則較無文獻以演化觀點中繁衍後代的角度探討景觀的偏好與選擇。 從演化觀點可推知個體偏好較能生存的景觀環境,同時個體受到異性吸引後會開始繁衍後代,並做出確保後代生存的選擇;因此本研究推論個體在處於受到吸引的情況下會比一般情況更加偏好可以生存的環境,包括大草原、森林、自然度較高、有植栽、有水元素等特殊環境。另外因相關研究發現個體所展現的交往價值,似乎與男女的伴侶偏好有所相符,因此本研究也推論個體透過特殊景觀環境展現交往價值確實能提高其伴侶吸引力。 本研究分為兩部分。研究一以網路問卷形式探討伴侶吸引力對景觀偏好之影響,實驗依不同受測者性別、觀看有或無吸引力之同性或異性個體照片隨機分為六組。實驗包含兩部分:第一部分先將受測者隨機分組觀看人像照片,填寫吸引力量表;第二部分請受測者觀看不同環境類型與元素模擬之景觀照片,包括沙漠、草原、森林、有無植栽水體和不同自然度照片共21張,並進行知覺感受與偏好測量。結果發現人在受到吸引時確實會改變其景觀偏好,且會較偏好自然度高的景觀環境。 研究二接續研究一的結果,探討不同自然度的景觀環境對伴侶吸引力的影響。同樣是以網路問卷的形式進行調查,實驗分為兩部分:首先隨機讓受測者觀看一位同性或異性網友的社群平台Instagram主頁面,並對此網友發佈的9張同組自然度景觀環境照片個別進行知覺感受與偏好測量,第二部分請受測者根據看完此網友照片後的感想,以吸引力量表評估此網友之吸引力。每位受測者各會觀看共兩組不同網友、不同自然度的實驗照片。研究結果發現確實個體看到對象喜歡自然度越高的環境時,會覺得其越有吸引力。進一步分析可發現,個體會因為自己偏好自然度較高的環境,進而認為對象的吸引力較高,顯示人類展現的交往價值確實與性選擇的伴侶偏好相符。 本研究證明演化假說與觀點能以伴侶吸引力與繁衍後代的角度探討景觀美學。由於過去研究無法直接歸因是演化中的生存本能導致的景觀偏好,因此本研究替演化觀點相關研究建立實證基礎,證明確實是因為演化本能所造成,另外過去景觀效益相關研究並無針對伴侶吸引力進行探討,因此本研究也為景觀效益開啟新的觀點,說明景觀環境能有助於傳達自我形象、展現交往價值以提高伴侶吸引力,在此擴大了演化觀點與景觀環境的應用性。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | In the past, research often used evolutionary hypotheses to explore landscape aesthetics, and pointed out that landscape preference is based on survival instincts. However, past empirical studies were not able to attribute landscape preference to evolutionary instincts. Therefore, some scholars considered that the current relevant discussions were still hypotheses. Sexual selection is one of the important evolutionary instincts. Researches said that both of men and women choose the mate who ensures the survival of offspring. Studies also pointed out that when individuals are attracted, they do something to convey their mate value intentionally. However, no research confirmed that when individual shows their mate value, the object will really find them more attractive. Also, less literature in landscape discuss landscape preferences and choices from the perspective of multiplication. This study was divided into two parts. Study 1 explored the impact of mate attraction on landscape preference by an online questionnaire. First, subjects were asked to evaluate the attractiveness of portrait photos. Second, the subjects were asked to evaluate the naturalness and preference of 21 landscape photos, including deserts, grasslands, forests, the presence or absence of plants and water. The result showed that when people are attracted, they will indeed change their landscape preferences, and they will prefer landscape environments which are more natural. Study 2 continued the results of Study 1, exploring the impact of different naturalness on mate attraction by an online questionnaire. First, subjects were asked to watch the main page of Instagram of a same-sex or a opposite-sex netizen, including 9 photos of same naturalness. Then, they evaluated the naturalness and preference. Second, subjects were asked to evaluate the attractiveness of netizens. Each subject watched two groups of photos of different netizens and different naturalness. The results found that individuals actually find the object more attractive when they see the more natural environment the object posted, and subject also prefer environment that is more nature. Study 2 indicated that mate value displayed by humans is consistent with mate preferences. This study proved that evolutionary hypotheses could explore landscape aesthetics from the perspective of mate attraction and multiplication. This study established an empirical basis for research on evolutionary perspectives and proved that it is indeed due to evolutionary instincts. In addition, past studies of landscape benefits didn’t talk about mate attraction. This study also found a new perspective on landscape benefits, indicating that landscape environment can convey self-image and show mate value to increase attractiveness. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T01:16:20Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-1608202022035100.pdf: 5859174 bytes, checksum: 566ee5285b78e73df444244691f6e1d7 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2020 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 誌謝 I 摘要 III Abstract V 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究緣起 1 第二節 研究目的 2 第三節 研究流程 2 第二章 文獻回顧 3 第一節 演化觀點與假說 3 一、 大草原假說(Savanna Hypothesis) 4 二、 森林假說(Forest Hypothesis) 4 三、 親生命假說(Biophilia Hypothesis) 4 四、 植栽與水等其他演化觀點 5 五、 演化假說相關實證研究 6 六、 景觀效益 7 第二節 伴侶吸引力 9 一、 性選擇(sexual selection) 9 二、 伴侶吸引動機(mate attraction motives) 10 三、 交往價值(mate value) 11 第三節 小結 14 第三章 以演化觀點探討伴侶吸引力對景觀偏好之影響 16 第一節 研究背景 16 一、 研究問題 17 二、 研究架構與假設 17 三、 名詞定義 18 第二節 研究方法 19 一、 研究工具 19 二、 實驗流程與問卷發放 23 三、 資料處理與分析方法 24 第三節 研究結果 25 一、 受測者背景 25 二、 描述性統計與量表信度分析 26 三、 伴侶吸引力與景觀環境偏好之關係 27 四、 伴侶吸引力對自然度與景觀偏好之關係影響 27 五、 同性戀與雙性戀結果 30 第四節 小結 37 第四章 以演化觀點探討景觀環境對伴侶吸引力之影響 39 第一節 研究背景 39 一、 研究問題 40 二、 研究架構與假設 40 三、 名詞定義 40 第二節 研究方法 41 一、 研究工具 41 二、 實驗流程與問卷發放 46 三、 資料處理與分析方法 47 第三節 研究結果 48 一、 受測者背景 48 二、 描述性統計與量表信度分析 49 三、 景觀偏好、自然度與伴侶吸引力之關係 50 第四節 小結 55 第五章 結論與建議 56 第一節 結論與討論 56 第二節 未來研究建議與應用 60 一、 研究限制與未來研究建議 60 二、 研究應用 61 引用文獻 62 附錄一:實驗一之研究問卷 68 附錄二:實驗一之研究照片評值 72 附錄三:實驗一之照片來源網址 80 附錄四:實驗二之研究問卷 82 附錄五:實驗二之研究照片評值 88 附錄六:實驗二之照片來源網址 94 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 以演化觀點探討伴侶吸引力與景觀環境之關係 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Exploring the Relationship between Mate Attraction and Landscape Environment from Evolutionary Perspectives | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 108-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 張伯茹(Po-Ju Chang),林晏州(Yann-Jou Lin),歐聖榮(Sheng-Jung Ou),林建堯(Chien-Yau Lin) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 演化假說,景觀偏好,伴侶吸引力,交往價值,景觀效益, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Evolutionary Hypotheses,Landscape Preference,Mate Attraction,Mate Value,Landscape Benefit, | en |
dc.relation.page | 95 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202003622 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2020-08-17 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 生物資源暨農學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 園藝暨景觀學系 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 園藝暨景觀學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
U0001-1608202022035100.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 5.72 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。