學生面臨環境議題時，其對科學知識的觀點以及做決定的風格是會影響到學生的親環境行為(Bell & Lederman, 2003; Liem & Bernardo, 2010)。因此，本研究為探討高中學生親環境行為，決策風格，以及科學知識觀點。本研究為量化研究，共使用三份問卷。研究的參與者為台灣兩所高中學生共515名，177名男性學生以及338名女性學生。每份問卷皆以探索性因素分析以及驗證性因素分析調查問卷之信效度以及因素結構，並用結構方程模式探討三者構念之間的關係。研究結果顯示出學生若相信科學知識的發展會被「理論依據」以及「文化背景」影響，其會表現出「理性的」決策風格，進而傾向做出親環境行為。若學生相信科學知識是「改變與暫存」，經由「依賴的」決策風格，其對親環境行為的態度較高。再者，若學生相信科學知識發展會被「社群協商」影響，其會較易使用「直覺的」決策風格，而傾向做出親環境行為。而本研究也發現，若學生為「理性的」決策風格，則傾向不迴避做決定。學生決策風格若為「直覺的」，則會影響其也使用「依賴的」或「迴避的」決策風格。而在環境教育應用上，教師可以鼓勵學生進行邏輯性的思考，促進學生做親環境行為。

When encountering the environmental issues, student’s scientific epistemic views (SEV) and decision-making style (DMS) affected their pro-environmental behavior (PEB). In this study, we investigated the relations among students’ PEB, DMS, and SEV. The participants in this study were 515 Taiwanese students, 177 male students and 338 female students, came from two high schools. Both the exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were used in this study to examine the factor structure, validity, and reliability of three questionnaires. The structural equation modeling analysis was used to examine the structural relationship among students’ PEB, DMS, and SEV. Students had the sophisticated scientific epistemic views, like “Theory-laden (TL)” and “Cultural impacts (CU),” would have the “Rational” decision making style, and performed the pro-environmental behavior. Students believed scientific knowledge is “Changing and tentative (CT)” did not use the “Rational” thinking but use the “Dependent” DMS. Last, students believed scientific knowledge comes from “Social negotiation (SN)” would influence them to do the pro-environmental behavior, through the “Intuitive” decision-making style. In the environmental education, teachers should encourage students using the logical thinking to improve the eco-friendly behavior.

論文審定書 i
論文公開授權書 ii
中 文 摘 要 iii
Abstract iv
Table of Contents v
1. Introduction 1
1.1. Background 1
1.2. Research questions 5
2. Literature review 6
2.1. Pro-environmental behavior 6
2.2. Decision-making style 8
2.3. Scientific epistemic views 11
2.4. The relationships between scientific epistemic views and pro-environmental behavior 14
2.5. The relationships between scientific epistemic views and decision-making style 15
2.6. The relationships between decision-making style and pro-environmental behavior 16
2.7. Study framework 17
3. Methodology 19
3.1. Participants 19
3.2. Questionnaire 20
3.2.1. Pro-environmental behavior questionnaire 20
3.2.2. Decision-making style questionnaire 22
3.2.3. Scientific epistemic views questionnaire 25
3.3. Data analysis 28
3.3.1. The exploratory factor analysis for PEB, DMS, and SEV 30
3.3.2. The confirmatory analysis for PEB, DMS, and SEV 30
3.3.3. The gender difference analysis of PEB, DMS, and SEV 31
3.3.4. The structural equation modeling analysis for PEB, DMS, and SEV 32
4. Result 34
4.1. Students’ pro-environmental behavior 35
4.1.1. The exploratory factor analysis of PEB questionnaire 35
4.1.2. The confirmatory factor analysis of PEB questionnaire 37
4.1.3. The gender difference of the pro-environmental behavior 39
4.2. Students’ decision-making style 40
4.2.1. The exploratory factor analysis of DMS questionnaire 40
4.2.2. The confirmatory factor analysis of DMS questionnaire 43
4.2.3. The gender differences of the decision-making style 45
4.2.4. The interrelations between the factors of the decision-making style 46
4.3. Students’ scientific epistemic views 49
4.3.1. The exploratory factor analysis of SEV 49
4.3.2. The confirmatory factor analysis of SEV survey 52
4.3.3. The gender differences of the scientific epistemic views 54
4.4. The structural relations among students’ pro-environmental behavior, decision-making style, and scientific epistemic views 55
4.4.1. The correlations between students’ scientific epistemic views and decision-making style 55
4.4.2. The correlations between students’ decision-making style and pro-environmental behavior 56
4.4.3. The correlations between students’ pro-environmental behavior and scientific epistemic views 58
4.4.4. The hypothetical model 59
4.4.5. The structural model 61
5. Discussion and conclusion 64
5.1. Students’ pro-environmental behavior 64
5.2. Students’ decision-making style 64
5.3. Students’ scientific epistemic views 67
5.4. The structural relations among PEB, DMS, and SEV 67
5.5. Conclusions and implications 71
Reference 73
Appendix 79

Baiocco, R., Laghi, F., & D'Alessio, M. (2009). Decision-making style among adolescents: Relationship with sensation seeking and locus of control. J Adolesc, 32(4), 963-976.
Bakewell, C., & Mitchell, V.-W. (2003). Generation Y female consumer decision-making styles. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31(2), 95-106.
Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352-377.
Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2001). Beliefs about academic knowledge. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 385-418.
Chawla, L., & Cushing, D. F. (2007). Education for strategic environmental behavior. Environmental Education Research, 13(4), 437-452.
Cheng, J. C.-H., & Monroe, M. C. (2012). Connection to Nature Children’s Affective Attitude Toward Nature. Environment and Behavior, 44(1), 31-49.
De Leeuw, A., Valois, P., Ajzen, I., & Schmidt, P. (2015). Using the theory of planned behavior to identify key beliefs underlying pro-environmental behavior in high-school students: Implications for educational interventions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 128-138.
Gambetti, E., Fabbri, M., Bensi, L., & Tonetti, L. (2008). A contribution to the Italian validation of the General Decision-making Style Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(4), 842-852.
Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilke, H. A. (1999). Explaining proenvironmental intention and behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior1. Journal of applied social psychology, 29(12), 2505-2528.
Harren, V. A. (1979). A model of career decision making for college students. Journal of vocational behavior, 14(2), 119-133.
Henderson, J. C., & Nutt, P. C. (1980). The influence of decision style on decision making behavior. Management Science, 26(4), 371-386.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88-140.
Kals, E., & Russell, Y. (2001). Individual conceptions of justice and their potential for explaining proenvironmental decision making. Social Justice Research, 14(4), 367-385.
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260.
Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science education, 85(3), 291-310.
Kørnøv, L., & Thissen, W. A. (2000). Rationality in decision-and policy-making: implications for strategic environmental assessment. Impact assessment and project appraisal, 18(3), 191-200.
Lee, K. (2009). Gender differences in Hong Kong adolescent consumers' green purchasing behavior. Journal of consumer marketing, 26(2), 87-96.
Lee, S. W.-Y., & Tsai, C.-C. (2012). Students' Domain-Specific Scientific Epistemological Beliefs: A Comparison Between Biology and Physics. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(2).
Liefländer, A. K., Fröhlich, G., Bogner, F. X., & Schultz, P. W. (2013). Promoting connectedness with nature through environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 19(3), 370-384.
Liem, G. A. D., & Bernardo, A. B. (2010). Epistemological beliefs and theory of planned behavior: Examining beliefs about knowledge and knowing as distal predictors of Indonesian tertiary students’ intention to study. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(1), 127-142.
Littledyke, M. (2002). Primary children’s views on science and environmental cognitive and moral development. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon.
Loo, R. (2000). A psychometric evaluation of the general decision-making style inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 29(5), 895-905.
Mitchell, V. W., & Walsh, G. (2004). Gender differences in German consumer decision‐making styles. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3(4), 331-346.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543-578.
Perry Jr, W. G. (1999). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme. Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series: ERIC.
Phillips, S. D., Pazienza, N. J., & Ferrin, H. H. (1984). Decision-making styles and problem-solving appraisal. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(4), 497.
Rhodes, R. E., Beauchamp, M. R., Conner, M., de Bruijn, G.-J., Kaushal, N., & Latimer-Cheung, A. (2014). Prediction of depot-based specialty recycling behavior using an extended Theory of Planned Behavior. Environment and Behavior, 47(9), 1001-1023 .
Ryan, A. G., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students' preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Science Education, 76(6), 559-580.
Schlegelmilch, B. B., Bohlen, G. M., & Diamantopoulos, A. (1996). The link between green purchasing decisions and measures of environmental consciousness. European Journal of Marketing, 30(5), 35-55.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1995). Decision-making style: The development and assessment of a new measure. Educational and psychological measurement, 55(5), 818-831.
Speier, C., Valacich, J. S., & Vessey, I. (1999). The influence of task interruption on individual decision making: An information overload perspective. Decision Sciences, 30(2), 337-360.
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309-317.
Stevens, J. P. (2012). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences: Routledge.
Trautwein, U., & Lüdtke, O. (2007). Predicting global and topic‐specific certainty beliefs: Domain‐specificity and the role of the academic environment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4), 907-934.
Tsai, C. C. (1998). Science learning and constructivism. Curriculum and Teaching, 13(1), 31-52.
Tsai, C. C. (1999). The progression toward constructivist epistemological views of science: A case study of the STS instruction of Taiwanese high school female students. International Journal of Science Education, 21(11), 1201-1222.
Tsai, C. C. (2007). Teachers' scientific epistemological views: The coherence with instruction and students' views. Science Education, 91(2), 222-243.
Tsai, C. C., & Liu, S. Y. (2005). Developing a multi‐dimensional instrument for assessing students’ epistemological views toward science. International Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 1621-1638.
Vlek, C., & Keren, G. (1992). Behavioral decision theory and environmental risk management: Assessment and resolution of four ‘survival’dilemmas. Acta psychologica, 80(1-3), 249-278.
Walsh, G., Mitchell, V. W., & Hennig‐thurau, T. (2001). German consumer decision‐making styles. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 73-95.
Whitmarsh, L., & O'Neill, S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 305-314.
Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio‐scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163-1187.