臺灣城鄉後物質價值觀的差異與變遷

An Empirical Analysis of Value Change between Urban and Rural Areas in Taiwan

10.7014/SRMA.2012040002

葉晉嘉(Chin-Chia Yeh)

後物質主義 ； 價值觀變遷 ； 城鄉屬性 ； 台灣社會變遷基本調查 ； 交互作用效果 ； post-materialism ； value change ； urban attribute ； Taiwan Social Change Survey ； interaction effect

調查研究-方法與應用

27期（2012 / 04 / 01）

52 - 79

繁體中文

由於Inglehart論及價值觀變遷時並未考慮城鄉差異的影響，然而環境是影響價值觀的可能因子。因此本研究以價值觀與城鄉屬性與所得之間的關係，針對價值觀在城鄉屬性上各時期的轉變，其結果顯示自1985到2005的20年之間，臺灣後物質價值觀逐漸產生變化，從早期都市組較城鎮組與鄉村組傾向後物質價值，到後期都市組與城鎮組無顯著差異。其次再利用二因子變異數分析，進一步對於所得與城鄉屬性兩個因子，對於價值觀所產生的影響進行分析。除了1985年缺乏所得資料無法進行分析，2005年的資料顯示所得與城鄉屬性會產生交互作用，然而1995年卻不具有交互作用，這可能代表著城鄉價值觀與所得的交互作用雖然存在，但是並不穩定。

The purpose of this study is to discuss the relationships among values, urban attributes and income. The Theory of Value Change by Inglehart does not investigate the effects of the difference between urban and rural areas, and the environment difference between the two areas is a possible factor influencing the value change. To address this shortcoming, this study first reviewed the values transformation within different periods in the urban attributes. The results demonstrated that post-material values in Taiwan changed from 1985 to 2005. The urban group showed more tendency toward post-material values than the town group and village group did early in this period; however, there was no significant difference of post-material values between the urban and town groups late in the period. Second, this study used two-way ANOVA to further analyze how the two factors, income and urban attributes, influenced the values. The data analysis shows that there is an interaction between urban attributes and income in 2005, but this is not found for 1995. It is suggested that an interaction between urban attributes and income does exist, but is unstable.

1. 杜素豪(2004)。環境保護與經濟成長關係的認知分析。農業與經濟，32，71-105。
   連結：
2. 楊婉瑩(2008)。女性主義與後物質主義的關係探究─世界價值變遷的一個側面觀察。問題與研究，47(1)，1-27。
   連結：
3. Abramson, P. R.,Ellis, S.,Inglehart, Ronald(1997).Research in context: measuring value change.Political Behavior,19(1),41-59.
4. Arcury, Thomas A.,Christianson, Eric H.(1990).Environmental Worldview in Response to Environmental Problems: Kentucky 1984 and 1988 Compared.Environment and Behavior,22(3),387-407.
5. Belk, Russell W.(1985).Materialism: Trait Aspects of Living in the Material World.Journal of Consumer Research,12(3),265-280.
6. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly,Rochberg-Halton, Eugene(1978).Reflections on Materialism.University of Chicago Magazine,70(3),6-15.
7. Dalton, Russell J.,Ong, Nhu-Ngoc T.(2003).Civil Society and Social Capital in Vietnam.Modernization and Social Change in Vietnam.
8. Holt, Douglas B.(1995).How Consumers Consume: A Typology of Consumption Practices.Journal of Consumer Research,22(1),1-16.
9. Inglehart, Ronald(1990).Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society.New Jersey:Princeton University Press.
10. Inglehart, Ronald(2000).Globalization and Postmodern value.The Washington Quarterly,23(1),215-228.
11. Inglehart, Ronald(1997).Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies.New Jersey:Princeton University Press.
12. Inglehart, Ronald(1981).Post-materialism in an Environment of Insecurity.The American Political Science Review,75(4),880-900.
13. Inglehart, Ronald(1971).The Silent Revolution in Europe: Intergenerational Change in Post-industrial Societies.The American Political Science Review,65(4),991-1017.
14. Moaddel, Mansoor(ed.)(2007).Values and Perceptions of the Islamic and Middle Eastern Publics.New York:Palgrave.
15. Richins, Marsha L.,Dawson, Scott(1992).A Consumer Values Orientation for Materialism and It's Measurement: Scale Development and Validation.Journal of Consumer Research,19(2),303-316.
16. Rokeach, Milton(1973).The Nature of Human Values.New York:The Free Press.
17. Tremblay, Kenneth R., Jr.,Dunlap, Riley E.(1978).Rural-Urban Residence and Concern with Environmental Quality: A Replication and Extension.Rural Sociology,43(3),474-491.
18. Van Liere, Kent D.,Dunlap, Riley E.(1980).The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: A Review of Hypotheses, Explanations and Empirical Evidence.The Public Opinion Quarterly,44(2),181-197.
19. Wilson, Marc. S.(2005).A Social-value Analysis of Postmaterialism.The Journal of Social Psychology,145(2),209-224.
20. Yankelovich, Daniel(1982).Changing Public Attitudes to Science and the Quality of Life.Science, Technology, & Human Values,7(39),23-29.
21. 吳重禮、許玉芬(2005)。經濟發展vs.環境保護：台灣地區民眾「後物質主義價值」的實證分析。台灣─越南行政改革國際學術研討會，高雄:
22. 杜素豪(2003)。全球化經濟發展中的相對環境價值觀：城鄉與就業身份之分析。全球衝擊與鄉村調適研討會，臺北:
23. 楊重信、周聖平(2001)。台灣民眾之物質／後物質主義價值：社經與地區差異。中華民國區域科學學會／住宅學會2001年聯合年會及論文研討會，臺北:
24. 廖坤榮、陳雅芬(2003)。後物質主義之地方開發政策─台南縣濱南工業區開發案探討。中國行政評論，12(4)，43-76。
25. 劉克智、董安祺(1993)。台灣都市發展的演進─歷史的回顧與展望。人口學刊，26，1-25。
26. 蕭新煌、尹寶珊(2004)。物質主義的浮現？香港與台北的比較。香港社會政治的延續與變遷，香港:
27. 羅啟宏(1992)。台灣省鄉鎮發展類型之研究。台灣經濟月刊，190，41-68。

1. 蔡芬芳、張翰璧、柯瓊芳(2017)。都市化影響之下越南經濟發展與價值觀關係之探究。台灣東南亞學刊，12(1)，79-112。