請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/101248完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 王俊豪 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Jiun-Hao Wang | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 侯佳宜 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Chia-I Hou | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-01-13T16:05:14Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2026-01-14 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2026-01-13 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2025 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2025-11-25 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | Ahn, S. J., Le, A. M. T., & Bailenson, J. (2013). The effect of embodied experiences on self-other merging, willingnesss, and helping behavior. Media Psychology, 16(1), 7-38.
Ahn, S. J. (2021). Designing for persuasion through embodied experiences in virtual reality. Persuasive gaming in context, 163-179. Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Albarracin, D., Johnson, B. T., Fishbein, M., & Muellerleile, P. A. (2001). Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: a meta analysis. Psychological bulletin, 127(1), 142. Albrecht, S. L., & Carpenter, K. E. (1976). Attitudes as predictors of behavior versus behavior intentions: A convergence of research traditions. Sociometry, 1-10. Alisson-Silva, F., Kawanishi, K., & Varki, A. (2016). Human risk of diseases associated with red meat intake: Analysis of current theories and proposed role for metabolic incorporation of a non-human sialic acid. Molecular aspects of medicine, 51, 16-30. Anderson, J., Asher, K., point people included Sharon, A. E., Nunez, D. C., & Valle, J. (2017). An experimental investigation of the impact of video media on pork consumption. Technical report, Faunalytics. Arnocky, S., & Stroink, M. (2010). Gender differences in environmentalism: The mediating role of emotional empathy. Current Research in Social Psychology, 16(9), 1-14. Altmann, T. K. (2008, July). Attitude: a concept analysis. In Nursing forum (Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 144-150). Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishing Inc. Bujić, M., Salminen, M., Macey, J., & Hamari, J. (2020). “Empathy machine”: how virtual reality affects human rights willingness. Internet Research, 30(5), 1407-1425. Bacca-Acosta, J., Sierra-Puentes, M., Avila-Garzon, C., Molina-Pinzon, N., Nieto, G. L., Torres-Urrea, C., & Rodriguez-Velasquez, J. (2023, June). Emotional and cognitive empathy, enjoyment, and ease of use of a virtual reality environment about migration in Colombia. In International Conference on Immersive Learning (pp. 533–542). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. Barbara A. Gault & John Sabini (2000). The roles of empathy, anger, and gender in predicting willingness toward punitive, reparative, and preventative public policies. Cognition & Emotion, 14:4, 495-520. DOI: 10.1080/026999300402772 Barbot, B., & Kaufman, J. C. (2020). What makes immersive virtual reality the ultimate empathy machine? Discerning the underlying mechanisms of change. Computers in Human Behavior, 111, 106431. Barrett, T., & Naughton, C. (2014). Problem-based learning: an integrative approach to the cultivation of person-centeredness, empathy, and compassion. In Integrative Learning (pp. 43-57). Routledge. Batchelder, L., Brosnan, M., & Ashwin, C. (2017). The development and validation of the empathy components questionnaire (ECQ). PloS one, 12(1), e0169185. Batson, C. D., & Ahmad, N. Y. (2009). Using empathy to improve intergroup willingness and relations. Social issues and policy review, 3(1), 141-177. Bertrand, P., Guegan, J., Robieux, L., McCall, C. A., & Zenasni, F. (2018). Learning empathy through virtual reality: multiple strategies for training empathy-related abilities using body ownership illusions in embodied virtual reality. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5, 326671. Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1999). The affect system has parallel and integrative processing components: Form follows function. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 76(5), 839. Camilleri, K., & Jago, M. (2020). Presence and user engagement in virtual environments. Journal of Virtual Reality Studies, 15(2), 45–63. Camilleri, L., Gill, P. R., & Jago, A. (2020). The role of moral disengagement and animal empathy in the meat paradox. Personality and Individual Differences, 164, 110103. Carretié, L., Hinojosa, J. A., Albert, J., López‐Martín, S., De La Gándara, B. S., Igoa, J. M., & Sotillo, M. (2008). Modulation of ongoing cognitive processes by emotionally intense words. Psychophysiology, 45(2), 188-196. Carretié, L., Mercado, F., Tapia, M., & Hinojosa, J. A. (2001). Emotion, attention, and the ‘negativity bias’, studied through event-related potentials. International journal of psychophysiology, 41(1), 75-85. Caruso, D. R., & Mayer, J. D. (1998). A measure of emotional empathy for adolescents and adults (Unpublished manuscript). Chang, C. (2013). Seeing is believing: The direct and contingent influence of pictures in health promotion advertising. Health communication, 28(8), 822-834. Chen, Y., Dou, G., & Chen, L. (2021). The basic empathy scale in Chinese college students: Adaptation and psychometric properties of a revised form. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 774199. Chern, W. S., Ishibashi, K., Taniguchi, K., & Tokoyama, Y. (2003). Analysis of the food consumption of Japanese households. Christov-Moore, L., Simpson, E. A., Coudé, G., Grigaityte, K., Iacoboni, M., & Ferrari, P. F. (2014). Empathy: Gender effects in brain and behavior. Neuroscience & biobehavioral reviews, 46, 604-627. Clark, A. J. (2010). Empathy and sympathy: Therapeutic distinctions in counseling. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 32, 95–101. Cohen, D., & Strayer, J. (1996). Empathy in conduct-disordered and comparison youth. Developmental psychology, 32(6), 988. Collier, E. S., Oberrauter, L. M., Normann, A., Norman, C., Svensson, M., Niimi, J., & Bergman, P. (2021). Identifying barriers to decreasing meat consumption and increasing acceptance of meat substitutes among Swedish consumers. Appetite, 167, 105643. Condon, P., & Feldman Barrett, L. (2013). Conceptualizing and experiencing compassion. Emotion, 13(5), 817. Cornish, A., Raubenheimer, D., & McGreevy, P. (2016). What we know about the public’s level of concern for farm animal welfare in food production in developed countries. Animals, 6(11), 74. Crofton, E., Murray, N., & Botinestean, C. (2021). Exploring the effects of immersive virtual reality environments on sensory perception of beef steaks and chocolate. Foods, 10(6), 1154. Cuff, B. M., Brown, S. J., Taylor, L., & Howat, D. J. (2016). Empathy: A review of the concept. Emotion review, 8(2), 144-153. Cummings, J. J., Tsay-Vogel, M., Cahill, T. J., & Zhang, L. (2022). Effects of immersive storytelling on affective, cognitive, and associative empathy: The mediating role of presence. New Media & Society, 24(9), 2003-2026. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71–100. Davis, M. H. (1983). The effects of dispositional empathy on emotional reactions and helping: A multidimensional approach. Journal of personality, 51(2), 167-184. Davis, M. H., & Franzoi, S. L. (1991). Stability and change in adolescent self-consciousness and empathy. Journal of research in Personality, 25(1), 70-87. Day, T. W. M. (2015). The Oculus Rift as a portal for presence: The effects of technology advancement and sex differences in the horror video game genre. Michigan State University. De Corte, K., Buysse, A., Verhofstadt, L. L., Roeyers, H., Ponnet, K., & Davis, M. H. (2007). Measuring empathic willingness: Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Psychologica Belgica, 47, 235–260. Decety, J., & Yoder, K. J. (2016). Empathy and motivation for justice: Cognitive empathy and concern, but not emotional empathy, predict sensitivity to injustice for others. Social neuroscience, 11(1), 1-14. De Leeuw, E. D. (2005). To mix or not to mix data collection modes in surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 21(2), 233–255. Domingo, J. L., & Nadal, M. (2017). Carcinogenicity of consumption of red meat and processed meat: A review of scientific news since the IARC decision. Food and chemical toxicology, 105, 256-261. Ditton, T., & Lombard, M. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2), 321-321. Eisenberg, N., & Strayer, J. (1987). Critical issues in the study of empathy. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 3-15). New York: Cambridge University Press. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B., Karbon, M., Maszk, P., Smith, M., ... & Suh, K. (1994). The relations of emotionality and regulation to dispositional and situational empathy-related responding. Journal of personality and social psychology, 66(4), 776. Fan, Y., Duncan, N. W., De Greck, M., & Northoff, G. (2011). Is there a core neural network in empathy? An fMRI based quantitative meta-analysis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(3), 903-911. Fazio, R. H. (1981). Direct experience and willingnesss behavior consistency. Advances in experimental social psychology, 14. Felnhofer, A., Kothgassner, O. D., Beutl, L., Hlavacs, H., & Kryspin-Exner, I. (2012). Is virtual reality made for men only? Exploring gender differences in the sense of presence. Proceedings of the International Society on presence research, 103-112. Fonseca, D., & Kraus, M. (2016, October). A comparison of head-mounted and hand-held displays for 360 videos with focus on willingnesss and behavior change. In Proceedings of the 20th international academic mindtrek conference (pp. 287-296). Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M., Ouellette, J. A., & Burzette, R. (1998). Cognitive antecedents to adolescent health risk: Discriminating between behavioral intention and behavioral willingness. Psychology and Health, 13(2), 319-339. Godin, G., & Kok, G. (1996). The theory of planned behavior: a review of its applications to health-related behaviors. American journal of health promotion, 11(2), 87-98. Goetz, J. L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. (2010). Compassion: an evolutionary analysis and empirical review. Psychological bulletin, 136(3), 351. Goldberg, L. R., & Strycker, L. A. (2002). Personality traits and eating habits: The assessment of food preferences in a large community sample. Personality and individual differences, 32(1), 49-89. Graça, J., Calheiros, M. M., Oliveira, A., & Milfont, T. L. (2018). Why are women less likely to support animal exploitation than men? The mediating roles of social dominance orientation and empathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 129, 66-69. Hamilton-Giachritsis, C., Banakou, D., Garcia Quiroga, M., Giachritsis, C., & Slater, M. (2018). Reducing risk and improving maternal perspective-taking and empathy using virtual embodiment. Scientific reports, 8(1), 2975. Hamilton, R. W., & Thompson, D. V. (2007). Is there a substitute for direct experience? Comparing consumers' preferences after direct and indirect product experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 546-555. Hayes, E. R., & Darkenwald, G. G. (1990). Attitudes toward adult education: An empirically-based conceptualization. Adult education quarterly, 40(3), 158-168. Herzog Jr, H. A., Betchart, N. S., & Pittman, R. B. (1991). Gender, sex role orientation, and willingness toward animals. Anthrozoös, 4(3), 184-191. Hielkema, M. H., & Lund, T. B. (2021). Reducing meat consumption in meat-loving Denmark: Exploring willingness, behavior, barriers and drivers. Food Quality and Preference, 93, 104257. Hoffman, M. L. (1977). Sex differences in empathy and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 712-722. Horen, F., Meijers, M. H., Zhang, Y., Delaney, M., Nezami, A., & Van Lange, P. A. (2024). Observing the earth from space: Does a virtual reality overview effect experience increase pro-environmental behaviour? Plos one, 19(5), e0299883. Janeksela, G. M. (1978). Predicting behavior from attitudes: problems and solutions. International Review of Modern Sociology, 245-256. Jennett, C., Cox, A. L., Cairns, P., Dhoparee, S., Epps, A., Tijs, T., & Walton, A. (2008). Measuring and defining the experience of immersion in games. International journal of human-computer studies, 66(9), 641-661. Joung, S. H., Park, S. W., & Ko, Y. J. (2014). Willingness to pay for eco-friendly products: case of cosmetics: case of cosmetics. Asia Marketing Journal, 15(4), 33-49. Kamas, L., & Preston, A. (2021). Empathy, gender, and prosocial behavior. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 92, 101654. Kampmann, I. L., Emmelkamp, P. M., & Morina, N. (2016). Meta-analysis of technology-assisted interventions for social anxiety disorder. Journal of anxiety disorders, 42, 71-84. Keen, S. (2006). A theory of narrative empathy. Narrative, 14(3), 207-236. Kellert, S. R., & Berry, J. K. (1987). Willingness, knowledge, and behaviors toward wildlife as affected by gender. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006), 15(3), 363-371. Kellert, S. R. (1988). Human-animal interactions: A review of American willingness to wild and domestic animals in the twentieth century. Keller, C., & Siegrist, M. (2015). Does personality influence eating styles and food choices? Direct and indirect effects. Appetite, 84, 128-138. Khanjani, Z., Mosanezhad Jeddi, E., Hekmati, I., Khalilzade, S., Etemadi Nia, M., Andalib, M., & Ashrafian, P. (2015). Comparison of cognitive empathy, emotional empathy, and social functioning in different age groups. Australian Psychologist, 50(1), 80-85. Kildal, C. L., & Syse, K. L. (2017). Meat and masculinity in the Norwegian Armed Forces. Appetite, 112, 69-77. Kim, D. H., Cho, S. H., Kim, J. H., Seong, P. N., Lee, J. M., Jo, C. U., & Lim, D. G. (2009). Comparison of the quality of the chicken breasts from organically and conventionally reared chickens. Food Science of Animal Resources, 29(4), 409-414. Knight, S., Vrij, A., Cherryman, J., & Nunkoosing, K. (2004). Willingness towards animal use and belief in animal mind. Anthrozoös, 17(1), 43-62. Kors, M. J., Ferri, G., Van Der Spek, E. D., Ketel, C., & Schouten, B. A. (2016, October). A breathtaking journey. On the design of an empathy-arousing mixed-reality game. In Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (pp. 91-104). Kubberød, E., Ueland, Ø., Rødbotten, M., Westad, F., & Risvik, E. (2002). Gender specific preferences and willingness towards meat. Food Quality and Preference, 13(5), 285-294. Kubberød, E., Ueland, Ø., Tronstad, Å., & Risvik, E. (2002). Willingness towards meat and meat-eating among adolescents in Norway: a qualitative study. Appetite, 38(1), 53-62. Kunst, J. R., & Haugestad, C. A. P. (2018). The effects of dissociation on willingness to eat meat are moderated by exposure to unprocessed meat: A cross-cultural demonstration. Appetite, 120, 356-366. Laan, L. N. (2022). Stimulating sustainable food choices using virtual reality: Taking an environmental vs health communication perspective on enhancing response efficacy beliefs. Environmental Communication, 16(1), 1-22. Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1998). Emotion, motivation, and anxiety: Brain mechanisms and psychophysiology. Biological psychiatry, 44(12), 1248-1263. Lee, J., Wu, D. Y., Lin, J. H., Kim, J., & Ahn, S. J. (2023). Using time travel in virtual reality (VR) to increase efficacy perceptions of influenza vaccination. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 28(3), zmad010. Lee, S., Kim, Y., & Choi, D. (2023). Enhancing presence in virtual reality through sensory integration. VR Applications Quarterly, 8(1), 25–39. Lin, N., & Roberts, K. R. (2020). Using the theory of planned behavior to predict food safety behavioral intention: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 90, 102612. Ling, Y., Nefs, H. T., Brinkman, W. P., Qu, C., & Heynderickx, I. (2013). The relationship between individual characteristics and experienced presence. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1519-1530. Lombard, M., & Jones, M. T. (2015). Defining presence. Immersed in media: Telepresence theory, measurement & technology, 13-34. Macaskill, A., Maltby, J., & Day, L. (2002). Forgiveness of self and others and emotional empathy. The Journal of social psychology, 142(5), 663-665. Macdiarmid, J. I., Douglas, F., & Campbell, J. (2016). Eating like there's no tomorrow: Public awareness of the environmental impact of food and reluctance to eat less meat as part of a sustainable diet. Appetite, 96, 487-493. McAfee, A. J., McSorley, E. M., Cuskelly, G. J., Moss, B. W., Wallace, J. M., Bonham, M. P., & Fearon, A. M. (2010). Red meat consumption: An overview of the risks and benefits. Meat science, 84(1), 1-13. Magai, C., Hunziker, J., Mesias, W., & Culver, L. C. (2000). Adult attachment styles and emotional biases. International journal of behavioral Development, 24(3), 301-309. Makransky, G., & Petersen, G. B. (2021). The cognitive affective model of immersive learning (CAMIL): A theoretical research-based model of learning in immersive virtual reality. Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), 937-958. Martingano, A. J., Hererra, F., & Konrath, S. (2021). Virtual reality improves emotional but not cognitive empathy: A meta-analysis. Mertens, A., von Krause, M., Meyerhöfer, S., Aziz, C., Baumann, F., Denk, A., ... & Maute, J. (2020). Valuing humans over animals–Gender differences in meat-eating behavior and the role of the Dark Triad. Appetite, 146, 104516. Micha, R., Wallace, S. K., & Mozaffarian, D. (2010). Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation, 121(21), 2271-2283. Michalska, K. J., Kinzler, K. D., & Decety, J. (2013). Age-related sex differences in explicit measures of empathy do not predict brain responses across childhood and adolescence. Developmental cognitive neuroscience, 3, 22-32. Murphy, F. C., Sahakian, B. J., Rubinsztein, J. S., Michael, A., Rogers, R. D., Robbins, T. W., & Paykel, E. S. (1999). Emotional bias and inhibitory control processes in mania and depression. Psychological medicine, 29(6), 1307-1321. Nam, K. C., Jo, C., & Lee, M. (2010). Meat products and consumption culture in the East. Meat Science, 86(1), 95-102. Neys, J., & Jansz, J. (2010). Political Internet games: Engaging an audience. European Journal of Communication, 25(3), 227-241. Nicovich, S. G., Boller, G. W., & Cornwell, T. B. (2005). Experienced presence within computer-mediated communications: Initial explorations on the effects of gender with respect to empathy and immersion. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2), JCMC1023. Nightingale, S. D., Yarnold, P. R., & Greenberg, M. S. (1991). Sympathy, empathy, and physician resource utilization. Journal of General Medicine, 6, 420–423. Novianggie, V., & Asandimitra, N. (2019). The influence of behavioral bias, cognitive bias, and emotional bias on investment decision for college students with financial literacy as the moderating variable. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 9(2), 92-107. Paul, E. S. (2000). Empathy with animals and with humans: Are they linked? Anthrozoös, 13(4), 194-202. Pifer, R., Shimizu, K., & Pifer, L. (1994). Public willingness toward animal research: Some international comparisons. Society & Animals, 2(2), 95-113. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853094X00126 Plechatá, A., Morton, T., Perez-Cueto, F. J., & Makransky, G. (2022). A randomized trial testing the effectiveness of virtual reality as a tool for pro-environmental dietary change. Scientific reports, 12(1), 14315. Pompian, M. M. (2012). Behavioral finance and wealth management: how to build investment strategies that account for investor biases (Vol. 667). John Wiley & Sons. Prättälä, R., Paalanen, L., Grinberga, D., Helasoja, V., Kasmel, A., & Petkeviciene, J. (2007). Gender differences in the consumption of meat, fruit and vegetables are similar in Finland and the Baltic countries. European Journal of Public Health, 17(5), 520-525. Rayner, M., & Scarborough, P. (2017). Mitigation potential and global health impacts from emissions pricing of food commodities. Nature Climate Change, 7(1), 69-74. Rayner, M., & Scarborough, P. (2018). Health-motivated taxes on red and processed meat: A modelling study on optimal tax levels and associated health impacts. PloS one, 13(11), e0204139. Rogers, C. (1959). A theory of therapy, and interpersonal relationships as developed in the client-centered framework. In J. S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science, Volume 3: Formulations of the person in the social context (pp. 184-256). New York: McGraw-Hill. Rosenfeld, D. L., & Tomiyama, A. J. (2021). Gender differences in meat consumption and openness to vegetarianism. Appetite, 166, 105475. Rothgerber, H. (2013). Real men don't eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 14, 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030379. Sacau, A., Laarni, J., & Hartmann, T. (2008). Influence of individual factors on presence. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 2255-2273. Sanchez-Vives, M. V., & Slater, M. (2005). From presence to consciousness through virtual reality. Nature reviews neuroscience, 6(4), 332-339. Santos, M. L. S., & Booth, D. A. (1996). Influences on meat avoidance among British students. Appetite, 27(3), 197-205. Sas, C. (2004). Individual differences in navigation and experiencing presence in virtual environments (Doctoral dissertation, University College Dublin). Schutte, N. S., & Stilinović, E. J. (2017). Facilitating empathy through virtual reality. Motivation and emotion, 41, 708-712. Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Aharon-Peretz, J., & Perry, D. (2009). Two systems for empathy: a double dissociation between emotional and cognitive empathy in inferior frontal gyrus versus ventromedial prefrontal lesions. Brain, 132(3), 617-627. Shin, D. (2018). Empathy and embodied experience in virtual environment: To what extent can virtual reality stimulate empathy and embodied experience? Computers in human behavior, 78, 64-73. Sinclair, S., Beamer, K., Hack, T. F., McClement, S., Raffin Bouchal, S., Chochinov, H. M., & Hagen, N. A. (2017). Sympathy, empathy, and compassion: A grounded theory study of palliative care patients’ understandings, experiences, and preferences. Palliative medicine, 31(5), 437-447. Singer, T., & Klimecki, O. M. (2014). Empathy and compassion. Current biology, 24(18), R875-R878. Siverson, R. M., & Starr, H. (1990). Opportunity, willingness, and the diffusion of war. American Political Science Review, 84(1), 47-67. Skarbez, R., Neyret, S., Brooks, F. P., Slater, M., & Whitton, M. C. (2017). A psychophysical experiment regarding components of the plausibility illusion. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 23(4), 1369-1377. Slater, M., Lotto, B., Arnold, M. M., & Sanchez-Vives, M. V. (2009). How we experience immersive virtual environments: the concept of presence and its measurement. Anuario de psicología, 40(2), 193-210. Slater, M., & Steed, A. (2000). A virtual presence counter. Presence, 9(5), 413-434. Smit, E. S., Meijers, M. H. C., & van der Laan, L. N. (2021). Using virtual reality to stimulate healthy and environmentally friendly food consumption among children: An interview study. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(3), 1088. Smith, C., & Stamoulis, C. (2023). Effects of multidomain environmental and mental health factors on the development of empathetic behaviors and emotions in adolescence. Plos one, 18(11), e0293473. Song, J., & Fiore, S. M. (2017, September). VR what we eat: Guidelines for designing and assessing virtual environments as a persuasive technology to promote sustainability and health. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 1519-1523). SAGE Publications. Sörqvist, P., Hedblom, D., Holmgren, M., Haga, A., Langeborg, L., Nöstl, A., & Kågström, J. (2013). Who needs cream and sugar when there is eco-labeling? Taste and willingness to pay for “eco-friendly” coffee. PloS one, 8(12), e80719. Springmann, M., Mason-D’Croz, D., Robinson, S., Wiebe, K., Godfray, H. C. J., Rayner, M., & Scarborough, P. (2017). Mitigation potential and global health impacts from emissions pricing of food commodities. Nature Climate Change, 7(1), 69-74. Swinburn, B. A., Sacks, G., Hall, K. D., McPherson, K., Finegood, D. T., Moodie, M. L., & Gortmaker, S. L. (2011). The global obesity pandemic: shaped by global drivers and local environments. The lancet, 378(9793), 804-814. Taylor, N., & Signal, T. D. (2005). Empathy and willingness to animals. Anthrozoös, 18(1), 18-27. Starr, H. (1978). “Opportunity” and “willingness” as ordering concepts in the study of war. International interactions, 4(4), 363-377. Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: the mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychological bulletin, 110(1), 67. Tham, J., Duin, A. H., Gee, L., Ernst, N., Abdelqader, B., & McGrath, M. (2018). Understanding virtual reality: Presence, embodiment, and professional practice. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 61(2), 178-195. Tham, J., Wang, X., & Loh, S. (2018). The role of presence in learning through VR. Education and Virtual Reality Journal, 10(3), 87–102. Tian, Q., & Robertson, J. L. (2019). How and when does perceived CSR affect employees’ engagement in voluntary pro-environmental behavior? Journal of Business Ethics, 155, 399-412. Todd, J., Kothe, E., Mullan, B., & Monds, L. (2016). Reasoned versus reactive prediction of behaviour: A meta-analysis of the prototype willingness model. Health psychology review, 10(1), 1-24. Xu, C., Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2023). The impact of information about animal husbandry systems on consumers’ choice of meat products in a virtual supermarket. Food and Humanity, 1, 459-470. Van Loon, A., Bailenson, J., Zaki, J., Bostick, J., & Willer, R. (2018). Virtual reality perspective-taking increases cognitive empathy for specific others. PloS one, 13(8), e0202442. Wake, A. D. (2021). The willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccine and its associated factors: “vaccination refusal could prolong the war of this pandemic” – a systematic review. Risk management and healthcare policy, 2609-2623. Wan, X., Qiu, L., & Wang, C. (2022). A virtual reality‐based study of color contrast to encourage more sustainable food choices. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 14(2), 591-605. Wan, Y., Zhao, H., & Wu, L. (2022). Virtual reality’s impact on cognitive and emotional processes: A review. Journal of Immersive Media Studies, 20(4), 123–145. Westbury, H. R., & Neumann, D. L. (2008). Empathy-related responses to moving film stimuli depicting human and non-human animal targets in negative circumstances. Biological psychology, 78(1), 66-74. Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social issues, 25(4), 41-78. Wilk, C., & Petrinec, A. (2021). Caregiver willingness to provide care in the ICU: A concept analysis. Nursing Forum, 56(3), 684-692. World Health Organization. (2008). Fats and fatty acids in human nutrition. World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 91. Yuan, J., Tian, Y., Huang, X., Fan, H., & Wei, X. (2019). Emotional bias varies with stimulus type, arousal and task setting: Meta-analytic evidences. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 107, 461-472. Zhan, Y., Ren, Y., & Xu, J. (2025). Willingness to pay a premium for eco-label products in China: a mediation model based on quality value. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 1783. | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/101248 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 為因應紅肉攝取過量所帶來的健康挑戰，本研究聚焦於牛肉消費，探討在虛擬實境（VR）情境中，同理心如何影響飲食態度與行為。借助VR所營造的高度沉浸感與感官吸引力，本研究意在探索同理心與臨場感等心理機制是否能促進人們減少牛肉攝取的意圖。研究採用實驗設計，招募142位參與者，分析性別、年齡、同理心水準與參與程度等變項對飲食態度的影響。
結果顯示，性別與年齡對同理心、臨場感及飲食態度與行為變化皆無顯著影響。回歸分析發現，同理心對反牛肉飲食態度具邊際顯著的預測力（p = 0.055），而性別（p = 0.358）與年齡（p = 0.142）則不具統計顯著性。此外，這些變項對未來牛肉消費傾向與對牛隻痛苦的態度改變亦未產生顯著解釋力。 研究進一步指出，較高同理心水準可增強參與者在VR中的臨場感體驗，進而影響其飲食態度。具備較高同理心的受試者回報更高的臨場感，並表現出降低牛肉攝取的意願。此結果強化了VR作為促進情感參與的干預工具之潛力，對於鼓勵健康飲食行為與回應紅肉過度攝取所造成的健康疑慮具有實際意義。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | This study explores the role of empathy in Virtual Reality (VR) environments in influencing dietary willingness and behaviors, with a particular focus on beef consumption. By leveraging VR’s immersive and interactive features, the research examines how psychological mechanisms such as empathy and presence shape individuals’ intentions to reduce beef intake. An experimental design was employed, involving 142 participants from Taiwan, to test the effects of demographic factors (gender, age), individual differences in empathy, and levels of engagement on changes in dietary behaviors.
The results indicate that gender and age did not significantly affect empathy, presence, or changes in dietary willingness. However, regression analysis showed a marginally significant effect of empathy on the willingness to reduce beef consumption, while other demographic variables were not significant predictors. Additionally, the predictors failed to explain significant changes in future beef consumption willingness and concern for the suffering of cows. Additional examination demonstrated that compassion markedly strengthens individuals’ perception of immersion in virtual reality settings, consequently decreasing their inclination to eat beef. These results indicate that VR technology can function as a potent means of enhancing emotional involvement, encouraging nutritious dietary choices, and reducing health hazards linked to excessive red meat intake. Beyond the health implications, this research emphasizes the prospect of VR in advancing public health and sustainability initiatives. By encouraging dietary changes, VR interventions can help reduce the health risks of red meat consumption while also addressing the environmental impact of livestock production. The study provides practical insights into designing VR-based behavioral interventions, highlighting empathy as a fundamental factor and laying the foundation for future research on how VR can influence health-related behavior change. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2026-01-13T16:05:14Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2026-01-13T16:05:14Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT --------------------------------------------------------- iii CHINESE ABSTRACT --------------------------------------------------------- iv ENGLISH ABSTRACT -------------------------------------------------------- v TABLE OF CONTENTS -------------------------------------------------------- vii LIST OF FIGURES -------------------------------------------------------------- x LIST OF TABLES ---------------------------------------------------------------- xi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION --------------------------------------------- 1 1.1 Background --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1.2. Justification for Using Cows as a Research Subject ---------------------- 8 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES---------- 12 2.1. Attitude and Willingness in Behavioral Prediction ------------------------- 13 2.2. Empathy -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16 2.2.1. Cognitive Empathy and Affective Empathy ----------------------- 19 2.2.2. Empathy, Compassion, and Sympathy ----------------------------- 21 2.2.3. Empathy Toward Human and Animals ---------------------------- 24 2.3. Virtual Reality and Empathy ------------------------------------------------ 27 2.4. Prescence --------------------------------------------------------------------------32 2.5. VR and Prescence ------------------------------------------------------------- 35 2.6. VR, Dietary Choices and Meat Consumption ------------------------------ 37 2.7. Individual Differences in Presence ------------------------------------------ 40 2.8. Empathy and Gender --------------------------------------------------------- 44 2.9. Presence and Gender --------------------------------------------------------- 46 2.10. Gender Differences in Meat Consumption -------------------------------- 47 2.11. Supplementary Studies ------------------------------------------------------- 51 2.11.1. Decision to Use Integrated Empathy Scale ---------------------- 51 2.11.2. Comparative Analysis of Empathy Measurement Approaches ---------------------------------------------------------- 55 2.11.3. Emotional Biases and Meat Consumption ----------------------- 57 2.11.4. Negative Bias and Positive Bias -------------------------------- 58 2.11.5. Pompian’s Emotional Biases ------------------------------------ 60 2.11.6. Culture and Meat Consumption --------------------------------- 62 CHAPTER THREE: METHOD AND RESULTS ----------------------------- 65 3.1. Research Design --------------------------------------------------------------- 65 3.2. Participants --------------------------------------------------------------------- 68 3.3. Measurement ------------------------------------------------------------------- 69 3.4. Exploratory Factor Analysis ------------------------------------------------- 71 3.5. Statistical Analysis ------------------------------------------------------------ 74 3.6. Results -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 75 3.7. Discussion ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 84 CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS -88 4.1. Conclusion ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 88 4.2. Practical implications ---------------------------------------------------------- 90 4.3. Limitations and Suggestions -------------------------------------------------- 92 REFERENCES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 95 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ON METHOD ------------------------------ 111 APPENDICES 1. Questionnaire of Beef Consumption and Willingness--------------------- 112 2. Revised Basic Empathy Scale ------------------------------------------------ 115 3. Level of Presence -------------------------------------------------------------- 116 4. Ethical Review Approval ----------------------------------------------------- 117 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. A Conceptual Model of the Primary Hypotheses for Empathy, Presence, and Willingness Toward Beef Consumption ------------------------- 44 Figure 2. Two virtual cows in a virtual pasture, along with a virtual hand ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 66 Figure 3. An injured cow that groans in pain ------------------------------------ 66 Figure 4. Scree Plot of Exploratory Factor Analysis ---------------------------- 72 Figure 5. The path diagram of the mediation analysis -------------------------- 76 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Domestic Meat Production 2014-2023 ------------------------------- 3 Table 2. Factor Loadings Matrix from Exploratory Factor Analysis ------- 73 Table 3. Factor Correlation Matrix from Exploratory Factor Analysis ---- 73 Table 4. Path Coefficients of Mediation Analysis ---------------------------- 76 Table 5. Descriptive Statistics --------------------------------------------------- 76 Table 6. ANOVA Results for Future Beef Consumption Willingness Across Groups ---------------------------------------------------------- 78 Table 7. Post Hoc Comparisons of Future Beef Consumption Willingness Across Groups ---------------------------------------------------------- 78 Table 8. T-Test Results for Gender Differences in Empathy ---------------- 79 Table 9. T-Test Results for Gender Differences in Presence ---------------- 80 Table 10. ANCOVA Results for Gender Differences in Anti-Beef-Eating Willingnesss ---------------------------------------- 80 Table 11. ANCOVA Results for Gender Differences in Willingness Toward the Suffering of Cows ---------------------------------------- 80 Table 12. ANCOVA Results for Gender Differences in Future Beef Consumption Willingness --------------------------------------- 81 Table 13. Regression Results for Predicting Changes in Anti-Beef-Eating Willingness --------------------------------------------------------------- 82 Table 14. Regression Results for Predicting Changes in Future Beef Consumption Willingnesss ------------------------------ 82 Table 15. Regression Results for Predicting Changes in Willingness Toward the Suffering of Cows -------------------------- 83 | - |
| dc.language.iso | en | - |
| dc.subject | 同理心 | - |
| dc.subject | 肉類消費 | - |
| dc.subject | 臨場感 | - |
| dc.subject | 虛擬實境 | - |
| dc.subject | empathy | - |
| dc.subject | meat consumption | - |
| dc.subject | presence | - |
| dc.subject | virtual reality | - |
| dc.title | 虛擬實境中的同理心與臨場感對肉類消費意願改變的研究 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | How Empathy and Presence in Virtual Reality Affect Willingness to Reduce Meat Consumption | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 114-1 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 博士 | - |
| dc.contributor.coadvisor | 蕭崑杉 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.coadvisor | Kun-sun Shiao | en |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 方珍玲;黃馨慧;蔡必焜;張春炎 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Chen-Ling Fang;Hsin-Hui Hwang;Pi-Kun Tsai ;Chun-Yen Chang | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 同理心,肉類消費臨場感虛擬實境 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | empathy,meat consumptionpresencevirtual reality | en |
| dc.relation.page | 117 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202504615 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2025-11-25 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 生物資源暨農學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 生物產業傳播暨發展學系 | - |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2026-01-14 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 生物產業傳播暨發展學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-114-1.pdf | 2.35 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
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。