違規停車問題向來被視作一個典型的社會困境（social dilemma），當人們處於社會困境時，其行為是「個人利益最大化」的想法與「應該這麼做」的道德意識互相糾纏／相斥下的產物。在前人的研究中已經指出，透過行使外在之賞罰以及變更制度等結構策略（structural strategy），可有效的使處於社會困境的人們產生相互合作的行為。但是，以往有關於社會困境的許多研究皆顯示，僅依賴結構策略是無法對社會困境做出本質性、根本性的解決，之後還需要搭配上能改變人們內在之心理策略（psychological strategy）才能達到預期的效果。本研究立足於「態度理論（attitude theory）」，利用結構方程模型（Structural Equation Modeling, SEM），將機慢車使用者「違規停放機慢車」的決策思考過程予以模式化；同時再進而驗證「說服性溝通」應用於解決「機慢車違規停放」問題上的效果。本研究以國立成功大學的學生為受測者（共178人），並透過追蹤調查法來蒐集所需的資料，分析之後得到以下的結果：(1)僅需要提供「如何避免違規停放機慢車」的具體資訊，便可以削減約2成的違規停放機慢車行為。(2)透過結構方程模式，確認人們在進行停車行為時所存在的決策架構。(3)確認「說服性溝通」在決策中所扮演的角色與其影響效果。此舉顯示出心理策略在某種程度上，確實可彌補結構策略的不足，有助於解決都市交通計畫中所遭遇的社會困境問題。

The illegal parking problem of motorcycles and bikes is always regarded as a typical social dilemma. Under social dilemma, the individual behavior is the result generated from the entanglement of maximizing personal interests and personal moral consciousness. The past researches pointed that the structural strategy relating to the change of institution is a good way to drive people cooperative under social dilemma. But many researches about social dilemma demonstrated that, only relying on the structure strategy is unable to solving social dilemma in essential and fundamental way. Only make the structure strategy and the psychological strategy arrange in a group can achieve the anticipated effect. This research bases on “attitude theory”, model the decision process of people who is thinking about “illegal parking motorcycles or bikes” by SEM. In addition, this study is to investigate the effect of the application of the psychological strategy on solving illegal parking problem of motorcycles and bikes. The follow-up method is adopted in this research for gathering panel data. The students of National Cheng Kung University are treated as the subjects (n=178).Through analyzing theses data, 3 conclusions can be drawn: (1) the fact is that only the provision of the specific information concerning how to avoid illegal parking may reduce 20% of illegal parking rate of motorcycles and bikes. (2) By SEM, the structure of individual’s decision making under the situation of parking problems can be confirmed. (3) the role that “persuasive communication” plays in the decision-making process and its influence are both confirmed. Consequently, the result shows that to somewhat extent psychological strategy can supplement the structural strategy and is helpful to solve the problem of social dilemma that is occurred in urban transportation planning.

中文文獻
1.胡瑋珊 譯（2010）合作的競化，（Axelord, R., 2006），台北市：大塊文化。
2.王國川（1997），計畫行為理論各成份量表之信、效度評估—以青少年機車戴安全帽之研究為例，國立中正大學學報：社會科學分冊，第8卷，第1期，第95~121頁。
3.王國川（1999），探討青少年搭機車戴安全帽之行為意向—計劃行為理論之應用，運輸計劃季刊，第28卷，第2期，第321~351頁。
4.邱皓政（2003），結構方程式—LISREL的理論、技術與應用，台北：雙葉書廊有限公司。
5.侯玉波（2003），社會心理學，台北市：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
6.凌瑞賢（2004），運輸規劃原理與實務，台北市：鼎漢國際工程顧問股份有限公司。
7.陳昌文、鍾玉英、奉春梅、周瑾、顏炯（2004），社會心理學，台北：新文京開發出版有限公司。
8.陳順宇（2007），結構方程模式 AMOS操作，台北市：心理出版社。
9.馮正民，方志文（1993），運輸需求管理研析，運輸，第22期，第77~88頁。
10.傅裕豪、夏晧清、葉光毅（2010），應用心理策略削減機慢車違規停放之初探，第十四屆國土規劃論壇（光碟版），台灣，台南。
11.傅裕豪、夏晧清、葉光毅（2011），應用說服性溝通解決社會困境問題之研究：以機慢車違規停放問題為例，第十五屆國土規劃論壇（光碟版），台灣，台南。
12.葉光毅、黃幹忠、李泳龍（2003），計畫方法論進階，第九章，第254~255頁，台北：新文京開發出版有限公司。
13.榮泰生（2009），Amos與研究方法，台北：五南出版社。
14.蔡勇美、廖培珊、林南作（2007），社會科學—研究方法，台北市：唐山出版社。
西文文獻
1.Anderson, J. C. & Gerbing, D. W. (1988), Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, Vol.103, No.3, pp.411~423.
2.Ajzen, I. (1985), From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior, In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11~ 39). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
3.Ajzen, I. & Madden, T. J. (1986), Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.22, pp.453~474.
4.Ajzen, I.(1987), Attitude, Traits, and Action: Disposition Prediction of Behavior in Personality and Social Psychology, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.20, pp.1~63.
5.Ajzen, I. (2001), Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, Vol.52, pp. 27~58.
6.Bryman Alan and Duncan Cramer (1997), Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS for Windows, 1st ed., London; New York: Routledge.
7.Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. F. (1981),　Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.18, No.1, pp.39~50.
8.Chaiken, S., Liberman, A. & Eagly, A. H.(1989), Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context, In Uleman, J. S. & Bargh, J. A. (Eds.), Unintended thought, pp.212~252. New York: Guilford Press.
9.Chaiken, S. (1987), The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. pp. Zanna, J. M. Olson and C. pp. Herman (eds.), Social influence: The Ontario Symposium, Volume 5, pp.3~39, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10.Camines, E. G. & Zeller, R. A. (1979), Reliability and Validity Assessment, pp.121~132, CA: Sage Publication, Inc.
11.Dahlstrand, U. & Biel, A. (1997), Pro-environmental habit: Propensity levels in behavioral change, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol.27, pp.588~601.
12.Dawes, R. M.(1980), Social dilemmas, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol.31, pp.169~193.
13.Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1984), Cognitive theories of persuasion, In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.17, pp.267~296, 304~359, NY: Academic Press.
14.Eagly, A. H. & Chaiken, S. (1993), The psychology of attitudes, Orlando, FL, US: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
15.Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
16.Gärling, T. and Fujii, S. (2001), Structural Equation Modeling of Determinants of Planning, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Vol.43, No.1, pp.1~8.
17.Gärling, T., Fujii, S. and Boe, O. (2001), Empirical tests of a model of determinants of script-based driving choice, Transportation Research F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, Vol.4, pp.89~102.
18.Gärling, T., Fujii, S., Gärling, A., and Jacobsson, C.(2002), Moderating effects of social value orientation on determinants of proenvironmental behavior intention, Journal of Environmental Psychology(forthcoming).
19.Gollwitzer, pp. M. (1993), Goal achievement: The role of intentions, European Review of Social Psychology, Vol.4, pp.141~185.
20.Grush, J. E., McKeough, K. L., & Ahlering, R. F.(1978), Extrapolating laboratory exposure research to actual political elections, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.36, No.3, pp.257~270.
21.Hardin, G. (1968), The tragedy of the commons. Science, Vol.162, pp.1243~1248.
22.Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., and Kelley, H. H. (1953), Communication and persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press.
23.Zupan, J. M. (1992), Transportation Demand Management: A Cautious Look, Transportation Research Record, NO.1346, pp.1~9.
24.Kelley, S. W. (1992), Developing customer orientation among service employees, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 20, No.1, pp.27~36.
25.Kutner, B., Wilkins, C. & Yarrow, pp. (1952), Verbal attitudes and overt behavior involving racial prejudice, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol.47, pp.647~652.
26.Lynn, M. & Oldenquist, A. (1986), Egoistic and nonegoistic motives in social dilemmas, American Psychologist, Vol.41, No.5, pp. 529~534.
27.Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986), The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.19, pp.123~205.
28.Platt, J. (1973) , Social traps, American Psychologist Vol.28, pp. 641~651.
29.Quintana, S. M. & Maxwell, S. E. (1999), Implications of Recent Developments in Structural Equation Modeling for Counseling Psychology, The Counseling Psychologist, Vol.27, No.4, pp.485~527.
30.Rise, J., Thompson, M. & Verplanken, B. (2003), Measuring implementation intentions in the context of the theory of planned behavior, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology Vol.44, No.2, pp. 87~95.
31.La Piere, R. T. (1934), Attitudes vs. Actions, Social Forces, Vol.13, No.2, pp. 230~237.
32.Ronis, D. L., Yates, J. F. & Kirscht, J. P. (1989), Attitudes, decisions,and habits as determinants of repeated behavior. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler and A. G. Greenwald (eds.) Attitude structure and function, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp.213~239.
33.Ryff, C. D. & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995), The structure of psychological well-being revisited, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.69, No.4, pp.719~727.
34.Schwarz, S. H. (1977), Normative influences on altruism. IN L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology, vol.10, pp.222~280, NewYork: Academic Press.
35.Verplanken, B. & Aarts, H. (1999), Habit, attitude and planned behaviour: Is habit an empty construct or an interesting case of goal-directed automatic? European Review of Social Psychology, Vol.10, pp.101~134.
36.Yamagishi, T. (1986), The structural goal/expectation theory of cooperation in social dilemmas. In E. Lawler and B. Morkovsky (ed.), Advances in Group Processes, Vol. 3. Greenwich, CT: JAL, pp. 52~87.
日文文獻
1.深田博己 (1988)， 説得と態度変容, 北大路書房.
2.湯沢昭、瀧上幸治（2003），中心市街地における迷惑駐輪の現狀と駐輪對策に關する檢討，交通工学，Vol.38，No.6，pp.42~52。
3.藤井聡（2001a），TDMと社会的ジレンマ：交通問題解消における公共心の役割，土木学会論文集，No. 667/IV-50，pp.41~58。
4.藤井聡（2001b），土木計画のための社会的行動理論－態度追従型計画から態度変容型計画へ－，土木学会論文集，No. 688,/IV-53，pp.19~35。
5.藤井聡、中山昌一朗、北村隆一（2001），習慣解凍と交通政策：道路交通シミュレーションによる考察，土木学会論文集，Vol.667(IV-50)：pp.85-102。
6.藤井聡（2002a），交通行動分析の社会心理学的アプローチ，in北村隆一・森川高行 編著，交通行動の分析とモデリング，pp.35~52，技法堂。
7.藤井聡、小畑篤史、北村隆一（2002b），自転車放置者への説得的コミュニケーション：社会的ジレンマ解消のための心理的方略，土木計画学研究・論文集，Vol.19，No.1，pp.439~446。
8.藤井聡（2002），交通行動分析の社会心理学的アプローチ，交通行動の分析とモデリング，北村隆一、森川高行 編，技法堂：pp.35-52。
網路文獻
1.Ajzen, I.(2006), TPB Diagram, 2011.05.23, from “Icek Ajzen - Professor of Psychology University of Massachusetts”, http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/tpb.diag.html
2.法務部（2010），道路交通管理處罰條例。2011.3.3，取自「法務部全國法規資料庫」http://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=K00400 12
3.法務部（2011），道路交通安全規則。2011.3.3，取自「法務部全國法規資料庫」http://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=K0040013
4.法務部（2009），道路交通標誌標線號誌設置規則。2011.3.3，取自「法務部全國法規資料庫」http://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode =K0040014