本研究首先將使用者區分為資源提供者與資源接受者，再透過使用者行為歷程圖分析其使用情況，從一開始的找尋平台行為到最後進行推廣共享行為，試圖以說服科技理論，去改變使用者對於共享的態度與行為。本研究首先透過文獻回顧，蒐集說服相關的理論以及各種行為改變的策略，再與專家進行討論後篩選出可行的候選策略，接著以故事版的問卷形式，透過SPSS17統計軟體分析其結果，並根據使用者在性別、年齡層以及所得層產生差異時，給出不同使用者於共享平台中的最佳說服策略參考表。
本研究與專家探討後，篩選出提供者之最佳策略為4項，分別為讚美、權威、顏色以及虛擬物件策略；接受者的最佳策略除了前述4項，還有網路俚語策略共5項，首先以提供者全體受測者的統計結果顯示，在共享房屋平台中，設計者可以透過虛擬物件策略的應用，產生有效且顯著的影響；從性別差異探討時，除了提供者使用共享交通與共享美食平台時，讚美策略會產生顯著性的影響，其餘說服策略在性別差異的情況下，無論使用者為提供者或是接受者，都不會產生顯著的影響，本研究之所有成果希望可以對後續的共享平台設計者有所幫助，讓資源的使用可以朝向永續性的發展。

This research first divides users into resource providers and resource receivers, and then analyzes their usage through the user behavior history diagram, from the initial search for platform behavior to the final promotion of sharing behavior,
trying to persuasive technological theories to change User's attitude and behavior
towards sharing. This research first collected persuasive related theories and
various behavior change strategies through literature review, and then discussed
with experts and screened out feasible candidate strategies. Then, in the form of a
story questionnaire, the results were analyzed through SPSS17 statistical software.
When users have differences in gender, age group, and income group, a reference
table of the best persuasive strategy for different users in the sharing platform is
given. After discussing with experts in this research, the best strategies for
selecting providers are praise, authority, color, and virtual object strategies. In
addition to the mentioned 4 strategies, the receiver’s best strategies include
online slang strategies. First, the statistical results of all test subjects of the provider
show that in the shared housing platform, the designer can have an effective and
significant impact through the application of virtual object strategies; when
discussing gender differences, except for the provider’s use of shared
transportation When sharing a food platform, the praise strategy will have a
significant impact. The other persuasive strategies will not have a significant impact
regardless of whether the user is the provider or the receiver under the gender
difference. All the results of this research hope It can be helpful to subsequent
sharing platform designers, so that the use of resources can be developed towards
sustainability.

英文部分
1.Ackermann, L., Mugge, R., & Schoormans, J. (2018). Consumers' perspective on product care: An exploratory study of motivators, ability factors, and triggers. Journal of cleaner production, 183, 380-391.
2.Adaji, I., & Vassileva, J. (2016). Evaluating Persuasive Systems Using the PSD Framework. Paper presented at the UMAP (Extended Proceedings)
3.Ajzen, I. (2002). Constructing a TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations.
4.Albinsson, P. A., & Yasanthi Perera, B. (2012). Alternative marketplaces in the 21st century: Building community through sharing events. Journal of consumer Behaviour, 11(4), 303-315.
5.Belk, R. (2010). Sharing. Journal of consumer research, 36(5), 715-734.
6.Cansoy, M., & Schor, J. (2016). Who gets to share in the “Sharing Economy”: Understanding the patterns of participation and exchange in Airbnb. Unpublished Paper, Boston College.
7.Cathcart, R. L., & Glendon, A. I. (2016). Judged effectiveness of threat and coping appraisal anti-speeding messages. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 96, 237-248.
8.Chen, H.-M., Lin, C.-W., Hsieh, S.-H., Chao, H.-F., Chen, C.-S., Shiu, R.-S., . . . Deng, Y.-C. (2012). Persuasive feedback model for inducing energy conservation behaviors of building users based on interaction with a virtual object. Energy and Buildings, 45, 106-115.
9.Consolvo, S., Everitt, K., Smith, I., & Landay, J. A. (2006). Design requirements for technologies that encourage physical activity. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems.
10.Coombes, E., & Jones, A. (2016). Gamification of active travel to school: a pilot evaluation of the beat the street physical activity intervention. Health & place, 39, 62-69.
11.Dayan, E., & Bar-Hillel, M. (2011). Nudge to nobesity II: Menu positions influence food orders. Judgment and Decision making, 6(4), 333-342.
12.Drozd, F., Lehto, T., & Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2012). Exploring perceived persuasiveness of a behavior change support system: a structural model. Paper presented at the International Conference on Persuasive Technology.
13.Eisenbeiss, M., Wilken, R., Skiera, B., & Cornelissen, M. (2015). What makes deal-of-the-day promotions really effective? The interplay of discount and time constraint with product type. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32(4), 387-397.
14.Felson, M., & Spaeth, J. L. (1978). Community structure and collaborative consumption: A routine activity approach. American behavioral scientist, 21(4), 614-624.
15. Fogg, B., & Euchner, J. (2019). Designing for Behavior Change—New Models and Moral Issues: An Interview with BJ Fogg. Research-Technology Management, 62(5), 14-19.
16.Fogg, B. J. (1998). Persuasive computers: perspectives and research directions. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems.
17.Fogg, B. J. (2009). A behavior model for persuasive design. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 4th international Conference on Persuasive Technology.
18.Fox, K. J. (2019). Humor as a persuasive tool for social change.
19.Frenken, K., Meelen, T., Arets, M., & Van de Glind, P. (2015). Smarter regulation for the sharing economy. The Guardian, 20(5), 2015.
20.Gatto, N. M., Ventura, E. E., Cook, L. T., Gyllenhammer, L. E., & Davis, J. N. (2012). LA Sprouts: a garden-based nutrition intervention pilot program influences motivation and preferences for fruits and vegetables in Latino youth. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 112(6), 913-920.
21.Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis 6th Edition. In: New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
22.Haller, H., Nguyen, V.-B., Debizet, G., Laurillau, Y., Coutaz, J., & Calvary, G. (2017). Energy consumption in smarthome: Persuasive interaction respecting user's values. Paper presented at the 2017 9th IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Data Acquisition and Advanced Computing Systems: Technology and Applications (IDAACS).
23.Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2013). Social motivations to use gamification: an empirical study of gamifying exercise.
24.Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2016). The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the association for information science and technology, 67(9), 2047-2059.
25.Harries, T., Eslambolchilar, P., Stride, C., Rettie, R., & Walton, S. (2013). Walking in the wild–Using an always-on smartphone application to increase physical activity. Paper presented at the IFIP conference on human-computer interaction.
26.He, Z., Luo, Y., & Liang, G. (2013). Runking: A mobile social persuasion system for running exercise. Paper presented at the 2013 Computing, Communications and IT Applications Conference (ComComAp).
27.Ikkala, T., & Lampinen, A. (2015). Monetizing network hospitality: Hospitality and sociability in the context of Airbnb. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing.
28.Jenkins, R., Molesworth, M., & Scullion, R. (2014). The messy social lives of objects: Inter‐personal borrowing and the ambiguity of possession and ownership. Journal of consumer Behaviour, 13(2), 131-139.
29.Kareklas, I., Muehling, D. D., & King, S. (2019). The effect of color and self-view priming in persuasive communications. Journal of Business Research, 98, 33-49.
30.Karppinen, P., Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Alahäivälä, T., Jokelainen, T., Keränen, A.-M., Salonurmi, T., & Savolainen, M. (2016). Persuasive user experiences of a health Behavior Change Support System: A 12-month study for prevention of metabolic syndrome. International journal of medical informatics, 96, 51-61.
31.Ketter, E. (2019). Eating with EatWith: analysing tourism-sharing economy consumers. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(9), 1062-1075.
32.Kluckner, P. M., Weiss, A., Sundström, P., & Tscheligi, M. (2013). Two Actors: Providers and Consumers Inform the Design of an Ambient Energy Saving Display with Persuasive Strategies. Paper presented at the PERSUASIVE (Adjunct Proceedings).
33.Kriston, A., Szabó, T., & Inzelt, G. (2010). The marriage of car sharing and hydrogen economy: A possible solution to the main problems of urban living. International journal of hydrogen energy, 35(23), 12697-12708.
34.Lamberton, C. P., & Rose, R. L. (2012). When is ours better than mine? A framework for understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems. Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 109-125.
35.Lampinen, A., & Cheshire, C. (2016). Hosting via Airbnb: Motivations and financial assurances in monetized network hospitality. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems.
36.Lee, G., Tsai, C., Griswold, W. G., Raab, F., & Patrick, K. (2006). PmEB: a mobile phone application for monitoring caloric balance. Paper presented at the CHI'06 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems.
37.Lee, H. Y., Koopmeiners, J. S., Rhee, T. G., Raveis, V. H., & Ahluwalia, J. S. (2014). Mobile phone text messaging intervention for cervical cancer screening: changes in knowledge and behavior pre-post intervention. Journal of medical Internet research, 16(8), e196.
38.Lehto, T., & Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2011). Persuasive features in web-based alcohol and smoking interventions: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of medical Internet research, 13(3), e46.
39.Liu, S., Gui, D.-Y., Zuo, Y., & Dai, Y. (2019). Good slang or bad slang? Embedding internet slang in persuasive advertising. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 1251.
40.Lu, S., Ham, J., & Midden, C. (2016). The influence of color association strength and consistency on ease of processing of ambient lighting feedback. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47, 204-212.
41.Lu, Y., Kim, Y., Dou, X. Y., & Kumar, S. (2014). Promote physical activity among college students: Using media richness and interactivity in web design. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 40-50.
42.Mohadis, H. M., Mohamad Ali, N., & Smeaton, A. F. (2016). Designing a persuasive physical activity application for older workers: understanding end-user perceptions. Behaviour & Information Technology, 35(12), 1102-1114.
43.Mumm, J., & Mutlu, B. (2011). Designing motivational agents: The role of praise, social comparison, and embodiment in computer feedback. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1643-1650.
44.Oh, J., Lim, H. S., Copple, J. G., & Chadraba, E. K. (2018). Harnessing the persuasive potential of data: The combinatory effects of data visualization and interactive narratives on obesity perceptions and policy attitudes. Telematics and Informatics, 35(6), 1755-1769.
45.Oinas-Kukkonen, H., & Harjumaa, M. (2008). Towards deeper understanding of persuasion in software and information systems. Paper presented at the First international conference on advances in computer-human interaction.
46.Oinas-Kukkonen, H., & Harjumaa, M. (2009). Persuasive systems design: Key issues, process model, and system features. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 24(1), 28.
47.Orji, R. (2014). Exploring the Persuasiveness of Behavior Change Support Strategies and Possible Gender Differences. Paper presented at the BCSS@ PERSUASIVE.
48.Payne, C., & Niculescu, M. (2018). Can healthy checkout end-caps improve targeted fruit and vegetable purchases? Evidence from grocery and SNAP participant purchases. Food Policy, 79, 318-323.
49.Rudolph, M., Feth, D., & Polst, S. (2018). Why users ignore privacy policies–a survey and intention model for explaining user privacy behavior. Paper presented at the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction.
50.Silva, J. M., Zamarripa, S., Moran, E. B., Tentori, M., & Galicia, L. (2006). Promoting a healthy lifestyle through a virtual specialist solution. Paper presented at the CHI'06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
51.Sohn, M., & Lee, J. (2007). UP health: ubiquitously persuasive health promotion with an instant messaging system. Paper presented at the CHI'07 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
52.Thomas, R. J., Masthoff, J., & Oren, N. (2017). Adapting healthy eating messages to personality. Paper presented at the International Conference on Persuasive Technology.
53.Tillema, T., Ben-Elia, E., Ettema, D., & van Delden, J. (2013). Charging versus rewarding: A comparison of road-pricing and rewarding peak avoidance in the Netherlands. Transport Policy, 26, 4-14.
54.Toscos, T., Faber, A., An, S., & Gandhi, M. P. (2006). Chick clique: persuasive technology to motivate teenage girls to exercise. Paper presented at the CHI'06 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems.
55.Truong, K. N., Hayes, G. R., & Abowd, G. D. (2006). Storyboarding: an empirical determination of best practices and effective guidelines. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems.
56.Whillans, A. V., Dunn, E. W., & Norton, M. I. (2018). Overcoming barriers to time-saving: reminders of future busyness encourage consumers to buy time. Social Influence, 13(2), 117-124.
57.Zhong, H., & Huang, L. (2016). The empirical research on the consumers’ willingness to participate in E-waste recycling with a points reward system. Energy Procedia, 104, 475-480.
中文部分
1.鄭伊秦. (2016). 考量使用者類型下節能減碳行為鼓勵資訊系統之說服與遊戲設計策略. 成功大學資源工程學系學位論文(2016 年), 1-200.
2.簡怡慈. (2019). 考量使用者類型電動機車電池交換系統之說服設計策略. (碩士). 國立成功大學, 台南市.
書籍資料
1. 第三次工業革命：世界經濟即將被顛覆，新能源與商務、政治、教育的全面革命
網路資料
1. 國家教育研究院
https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/3276564/(進入時間：2020/09/05)
2. 理財網
https://www.moneydj.com/KMDJ/Wiki/WikiViewer.aspx?KeyID=38e2a33a-9a61-46c4-8bcd-ea64d51969c5(進入時間：2021/01/13)
3. 台灣網路資訊中心報告
TWNIC_TaiwanInternetReport_2019_CH.pdf(進入時間：2021/01/15)
4. 鉅亨網：共享的新經濟模式
https://topics.cnyes.com/sharing/(進入時間：2021/02/01)