本研究探討不同制度性誘因機制如何影響台灣使用者使用逆向回收機（Reverse Vending Machines, RVMs）的行為意圖，並比較兩種不同的政策邏輯：一是常見於歐洲部分國家法規制度中的強制性押金退費制度（Deposit Return Scheme, DRS），另一則是類似台灣目前所採行之自願性獎勵模式。本研究以制度理論、計畫行為理論（Theory of Planned Behavior, TPB）及助推理論為理論基礎，並以展望理論作為解釋得失框架的輔助理論觀點，探討避免損失的訊息框架、正向獎勵誘因、知覺便利性及社會期待如何影響個人的回收行為意圖。
本研究採用情境式短文實驗設計，並透過實地方式招募受試者。初步共蒐集335份問卷，經資料篩選後，保留307份台灣逆向回收機使用者之有效問卷進行分析。受試者被隨機分派至「自願性獎勵情境」或「強制性押金情境」。研究結果顯示，態度、主觀規範及知覺行為控制皆能正向預測行為意圖。其中，在計畫行為理論的各項變數中，知覺行為控制的影響最為顯著，顯示便利性及降低使用阻礙在逆向回收機使用行為中具有關鍵作用。
此外，強制性押金情境所產生的行為意圖，顯著高於自願性獎勵情境。然而，此項效果應解釋為避免損失框架與誘因顯著性提高所產生的綜合影響，而非單純由損失規避心理所造成。
本研究透過連結總體層次的制度設計與個體層次的心理機制，補充現有相關文獻，並為台灣政策制定提供實證參考。研究結果顯示，押金制度可能有助於提升民眾的回收行為意圖，但其成效仍有賴於完善、可靠、便利且低阻礙的回收基礎設施作為支持。

This study examines how different institutional incentive mechanisms shape users’ intention to use Reverse Vending Machines (RVMs) in Taiwan. It compares two contrasting policy logics: a mandatory Deposit Return Scheme (DRS), commonly associated with regulatory systems in several European jurisdictions, and a voluntary reward-based model similar to the incentive structure currently used in Taiwan. Drawing on Institutional Theory, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), and Nudge Theory, with Prospect Theory serving as a supporting lens for gain-loss framing, the study investigates how loss-avoidance framing, positive reward incentives, perceived convenience, and social expectations influence recycling intention.
A scenario-based vignette experiment was conducted with field-based participant recruitment. From an initial pool of 335 responses, 307 valid responses from Taiwanese RVM users were retained for analysis. Participants were randomly assigned to either a voluntary reward scenario or a mandatory deposit scenario. The results show that Attitude, Subjective Norms, and Perceived Behavioral Control all positively predict Behavioral Intention. Among the TPB variables, Perceived Behavioral Control has the strongest effect, indicating the central role of convenience and friction reduction in RVM use. The mandatory deposit scenario also generates significantly stronger Behavioral Intention than the voluntary reward scenario. However, this effect should be interpreted as the combined influence of loss-avoidance framing and greater incentive salience, rather than as a pure loss-aversion effect.
The findings contribute to the literature by linking macro-level institutional design with micro-level psychological mechanisms. They also provide policy-relevant evidence for Taiwan, suggesting that a deposit-based system may strengthen recycling intention, but only if it is supported by accessible, reliable, and low-friction return infrastructure.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage Publications.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

Barnes, S. J. (2019). Understanding plastics pollution: The role of economic development and technological research. Environmental Pollution, 249, 812–821.

Botetzagias, I., Dima, A. F., & Malesios, C. (2015). Extending the theory of planned behavior in the context of recycling: The role of moral norms and of demographic predictors. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 95, 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.12.004

Do Valle, P., Rebelo, E., Reis, E., & Menezes, J. (2005). Combining behavioral theories to predict recycling involvement. Environment and Behavior, 37(3), 364–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916504272563

Environmental Protection Administration, Executive Yuan, Taiwan. (2014). Recycling regulations in Taiwan and the 4-in-1 Recycling Program.

European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2019). Directive (EU) 2019/904 of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment. Official Journal of the European Union, L 155, 1–19.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

Hogg, D., Sherrington, C., & Vergunst, T. (2011). A comparative study on economic instruments promoting waste prevention: Final report to Bruxelles Environnement. Eunomia Research & Consulting.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.

Kraft, P., Rise, J., Sutton, S., & Røysamb, E. (2005). Perceived difficulty in the theory of planned behaviour: Perceived behavioural control or affective attitude? British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(3), 479–496. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466604X17533

Lai, Y.-Y., & Lee, Y.-M. (2022). Management strategy of plastic wastes in Taiwan. Sustainable Environment Research, 32, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42834-022-00123-0

Miafodzyeva, S., & Brandt, N. (2013). Recycling behaviour among householders: Synthesizing determinants via a meta-analysis. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 4(2), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-012-9144-4

North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Packaging Europe. (2023). TOMRA recommends efficient in-store reverse vending machines to increase consumer engagement with retailers.

Rhein, S., & Sträter, K. F. (2021). Corporate self-commitments to mitigate the global plastic crisis: Recycling rather than reduction and reuse. Journal of Cleaner Production, 296, 126571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126571

Rhodes, R. E., & de Bruijn, G. J. (2013). How big is the physical activity intention-behaviour gap? A meta-analysis using the action control framework. British Journal of Health Psychology, 18(2), 296–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12032

Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

Sidorczuk-Pietraszko, E., Piontek, W., & Larsson, A. (2025). Are deposit-return schemes an optimal solution for beverage container collection in the European Union? An evidence review. Sustainability, 17(19), 8791. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198791

Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Understanding household garbage reduction behavior: A test of an integrated model. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 14(2), 192–204.

Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.

Thøgersen, J. (2006). Norms for environmentally responsible behaviour: An extended taxonomy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(4), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.09.004

Tonglet, M., Phillips, P. S., & Read, A. D. (2004). Using the theory of planned behaviour to investigate the determinants of recycling behaviour: A case study from Brixworth, UK. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 41(3), 191–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2003.11.001

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

Wan, C., Shen, G. Q., & Choi, S. (2017). Experiential and instrumental attitudes: Interaction effect of attitude and subjective norm on recycling intention. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 50, 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.02.006