基於路網車流的不確定變化特質，交通管理者所提供的路況資訊亦需反應路況之不確定狀態；另一方面，用路人對不確定路況資訊的反應也因內在特性與自身經驗影響路徑決策。在探討不確定狀態下之決策行為理論中，以風險觀念為基礎之期望理論發展於1979年，最初應用於探討投資、金融等領域，之後於1992年修正為累計期望理論。近年來續見應用累計期望理論探討用路人之路徑決策行為，即將路況資訊可能出象(outcome)(如：旅行時間)與附屬機率之形式呈現，並獲得若干成果。然檢視累計期望理論目前應用於交通範疇中仍存在若干模式建構與研究實驗設計上須考量之課題，本研究探討課題包含：動態參考點設定、動態路徑決策影響、延伸有限的資訊出象狀態、替代方案(路徑)的期望值出象差異狀態等以及以反應用路人之風險態度分群。而本研究採用控制實驗法，透過靜態問卷與動態控制實驗兩階段分別進行路徑決策行為調查，控制實驗主要以兩個層面進行調查：其一為控制資訊出象的程度多寡，另一為控制路徑方案的期望值、旅行時間、附屬機率資訊，以探討累計期望理論中用路人面臨不確定資訊之決策行為與風險態度。
本研究工作內容包含三部分: (1)初始問卷調查用路人基本特性及對不確定之出象強度資訊給予的決策表現。(2)擬真動態控制實驗，設計動態資訊導引擬真環境，觀測與探討受測者在兩種不同完整程度的出象強度資訊導引下的決策行為，並以累計期望理論為基礎建構與校估參數。(3)系統化比較兩種不同程度之出象強度下之模式解釋能力，以及風險態度表現與參考點變動。
綜整本研究實證結果之重要結論：(1)本研究應用累計期望理論分別設計兩項出象強度資訊與三項出象強度資訊之動態控制實驗，發現用路人在不同程度之出象強度資訊給予下，其風險態度表現相似，顯示出象強度資訊完整度給予差異對決策行為影響程度較小。(2)本研究以絕對偏差均數作為衡量指標計算不同出象強度資訊下的累計期望模式解釋能力，發現給予兩項出象強度資訊之決策行為，累計期望模式具有較佳的解釋能力。(3)觀察靜態問卷與動態控制實驗的實證結果差異，發現於靜態問卷調查下較傾向風險規避態度，於動態控制實驗下較傾向風險追求，可發現用路人於決策過程中並非保持一致的決策標準。(4)在控制期望值、旅行時間及附屬機率資訊給予的情境組合下，可發現用路人的決策行為會顯著的受到附屬機率資訊影響。

Based on uncertain variation of traffic flow of network, traffic information provided by traffic managers need to reflect uncertain traffic status in network. On the other hand, drivers’ route choice behavior toward uncertain traffic information are affected by their essential properties and experiences themselves. One of choice behavior theories which with risk concept—cumulative prospect theory (CPT) is developed initially in 1979, were applied originally to research investment, finance related fields, in recent years CPT are applied to survey drivers’ route choice behavior, which traffic information described by possible outcome(eg.travel time and correspond possibilities), and some studies reached achievements. However, some model construction and experimental design of CPT on traffic issues were founded while viewing applied CPT traffic studies, and this study mainly research traffic issues of CPT including: setting of dynamic reference point, dynamic route choice effect included, extending limited information outcome status, expected values of outcome variation status of route alternatives, and risk attitude grouping depend on decision behavior characteristics. This study adopted controlled experiment method, conducting route decision behavior by a static questionnaire and a dynamic experiment respectively, controlling two contexts experimental design: one was controlling completion of travel time information of routes, the other was controlling differences and similarities of expected value, travel time and corresponded possibilities information of route alternatives, which to survey drivers’ route choice behavior and risk attitude when encountering uncertain information based on cumulative prospect theory.
The tasks of this study were in three folds: the first task was a questionnaire to investigate subjects’ basic information and decision behavior toward obtaining uncertain outcome probabilities information. The second task was a verisimilitude dynamic controlled experiment, by designing dynamic information guidance surroundings to measure and research subjects’ route choice behavior on two different completion level of travel time information, and construct model by CPT and calibrated parameters. The third task was conducting a systematic comparison two different level of complete outcome probability information of CPT explain abilities, risk attitude and the reference point changes.
Conclude the main findings in this study are summarize in the following:
1. Respectively design two outcome probability information and three outcome probability information to construct dynamic controlled experiment based on CPT, finding drivers’ risk attitude was similar, which means drivers’ decision behavior were less affected by complete level of traffic information.
2. Trough mean absolute deviation to measure model explain ability under different information, we found the explain abilities of giving two outcome probabilities information based on CPT is best.
3.Campared the questionnaire results and dynamic controlled experiment results, people tend to risk averse attitude in questionnaire results, on the other hand, people tend to risk seeking attitude in dynamic controlled experiment results, hence driver didn’t keep consistency of decision standard.
4. Drivers’ route choice behavior is obvious affected by possibilities in traffic information under controlling expected mean, travel time and correspond probabilities.

目錄
第一章 緒論	1
1.1研究背景	1
1.2 研究目的	5
1.3 研究範圍	5
1.4 研究方法	6
1.5 研究內容與流程	7
第二章 文獻回顧	10
2.1 累計期望模式(Cumulative Prospect Theory, CPT)	10
2.1.1累計期望模式之演進	10
2.1.2累計期望模式之假設與意涵	11
2.1.3累計期望模式之決策過程	13
2.2 累計期望模式於路徑決策行為應用之探討	14
2.3 累計期望模式建構與實驗設計之探討	20
2.3.1模式建構探討	20
2.3.2實驗設計探討	23
2.4 累計期望模式之後續修正與發展	24
2.5 小結	25
第三章 控制實驗與研究架構	26
3.1 累計期望模式基本建構	27
3.1.1累計期望理論(Cumulative Prospect Theory, CPT)	27
3.2 控制實驗法	31
3.2.1 第一階段：靜態問卷調查	31
3.2.2 第二階段：動態控制實驗	39
3.2.3 第三、四部份：模式校估與比較	47
3.2.4 模式分析	48
第四章 問卷結果分析	50
4.1 問卷分析方法	51
4.2 調查結果與樣本分析	51
4.2.1樣本特性分析	51
4.2.2情境設計認知分析	54
第五章 動態控制實驗分析	70
5.1 動態控制實驗實施方法	70
5.2本研究應用逐點路徑選擇行為--累計期望模式	71
5.3 模式建構與參數校估分析	72
5.3.1參與實驗總人數	72
5.3.2整體模式	73
5.3.3兩項出象強度資訊導引下之參數校估分析	73
5.3.4三項出象強度資訊導引下之參數校估分析	76
5.4 兩種不同出象強度資訊下之累計期望模式解釋能力分析	81
5.4.1 總體解釋能力比較	82
5.4.2 個體分群特性解釋能力比較	85
5.5 兩種不同出象強度資訊下之風險態度分析	86
5.5.1 兩項出象強度資訊下風險態度變化	86
5.5.2三項出象強度資訊下之風險態度變化	91
5.6 兩種不同出象強度資訊下之參考點分析	95
5.6.1 兩項出象強度資訊下參考點變化	95
5.6.2 三項出象強度資訊下參考點變化	98
5.7動態控制實驗分析結果小結	100
第六章 結論與建議	102
6.1結論	102
6.2建議	104
參考文獻	105
附錄一 問卷調查	109
附錄二 兩項出象強度資訊導引-個體途中風險轉換情形	120
附錄三 三項出象強度資訊導引-個體途中風險轉換情形	124
附錄四 兩項出象強度資訊導引-各路線逐次參考點位置與參考點變動量	128
附錄五 三項出象強度資訊導引-各路線逐次參考點位置與參考點變動量	133
 
表目錄
表1-1 Mahmassani and Herman(1988)動態旅運行為研究方法	6
表2-1累計期望模式組成元素表	12
表2-2累計期望理論應用於路徑選擇行為相關文獻彙整表	18
表2-2累計期望理論應用於路徑選擇行為相關文獻彙整表(續)	19
表2-3累計期望理論應用於路徑選擇課題彙整表	20
表2-4參考點設置彙整表	21
表2-5風險態度定義彙整表	22
表2-5風險態度定義彙整表(續)	23
表3-1問卷設計結構表	33
表3-2調查情境設計彙整表	35
表3-3兩項出象強度資訊認知態度情境內容設計表	36
表3-4三項出象強度資訊認知態度情境內容設計表	37
表3-5風險行為定義彙整表	38
表3-6實驗因子彙整表	42
表3-7實驗路網決策路口與實驗設計說明表	45
表3-8車內資訊模擬器之顯示畫面	47
表4-1問卷分析方法彙整表	51
表4-2受測者特性分配比例表	52
表4-3駕駛經驗與使用導航系統特性分配比例表	52
表4-4交通資訊依賴傾向比例表	53
表4-5路線移轉行為及認知問題反應彙整表	53
表4-6一般資訊之使用情形與認知問題反應彙整表	54
表4-7兩項出象強度資訊下風險態度卡方檢定彙整表	56
表4-8三項出象強度資訊情境下風險態度卡方檢定彙整表	57
表4-9兩種不同出象強度情境組合成對樣本T檢定	57
表4-10兩項出象強度資訊情境下集群分析彙整表	59
表4-11三項出象強度資訊情境下集群分析彙整表	59
表4-12卡方檢定顯著變數彙整表	60
表4-13性別-兩項出象強度資訊情境下風險態度卡方檢定彙整表	61
表4-14年齡-兩項出象強度資訊情境下風險態度卡方檢定彙整表	62
表4-15學歷-兩項出象強度資訊情境下風險態度卡方檢定彙整表	62
表4-16職業-兩項出象強度資訊情境下風險態度卡方檢定彙整表	63
表4-17開車經驗-兩項出象強度資訊情境下風險態度卡方檢定彙整表	63
表4-18使用導航經驗-兩項出象強度資訊情境下風險態度卡方檢定彙整表	64
表4-19性別-三項出象強度資訊情境下風險態度卡方檢定彙整表	64
表4-20年齡-三項出象強度資訊情境下風險態度卡方檢定彙整表	65
表4-21學歷-三項出象強度資訊情境下風險態度卡方檢定彙整表	65
表4-22職業-三項出象強度資訊情境下風險態度卡方檢定彙整表	66
表4-23駕駛經驗-三項出象強度資訊情境下風險態度卡方檢定彙整表	67
表4-24所有情境參考點分佈彙整表	67
表5-1累計期望模式參數意涵表	72
表5-2兩項出象強度資訊-累計期望模式校估參數值彙整表	74
表5-3兩項出象強度資訊-累計期望模式校估結果	75
表5-4完整三項出象強度資訊-累計期望模式校估參數值彙整表	77
表5-5完整三項出象強度資訊-累計期望模式校估結果	78
表5-6限縮的三項出象強度資訊-累計期望模式校估參數值彙整表	79
表5-7限縮的三項出象強度路徑決策累計期望模式校估結果	80
表5-8兩種不同出象強度資訊導引下解釋整體絕對偏差數彙整表	82
表5-9兩種不同出象強度資訊導引下解釋絕對偏差均數成對T檢定	84
表5-10樣本分群-兩種不同出象強度資訊導引解釋偏差均數成對T檢定	85
表5-11整體動態實驗風險態度分群	87
表5-12兩階段風險態度群體表現轉變分佈彙整表	87
表5-13兩項出項強度資訊情境下受測者風險態度分佈彙整	88
表5-14兩項出象強度資訊下兩階段情境風險態度轉變分佈彙整表	89
表5-15途中分段之風險態度彙整表	91
表5-16控制實驗整體受測者風險態度分群	91
表5-17受測者於兩階段風險態度表現	92
表5-18三項出象強度資訊知情境下風險態度分佈彙整表	93
表5-19三項出象強度-兩階段情境之風險態度彙整表	93
表5-20途中分段之風險態度彙整表	95
表5-21兩項出象強度資訊下之被選路線組合比例彙整表	96
表5-22三項出象強度資訊下之被選路線組合比例彙整表	98
 
圖目錄
圖1-1研究流程圖	9
圖2-1 (a)期望模式之價值函數圖; (b)期望模式之權重函數圖	11
圖2-2累計期望模式之權重函數圖	12
圖2-3累計期望模式決策流程圖	14
圖3-1研究架構流程圖	27
圖3-2兩替代路徑方案示意圖	34
圖3-3三替代路徑方案示意圖	34
圖3-4兩項出象強度調查示範例題	37
圖3-5三項出象強度調查示範例題	38
圖3-6參考點定義示意圖	39
圖3-7動態控制實驗架構圖	40
圖3-8動態控制實驗決策流程圖	41
圖3-9模擬車內導航系統介紹示意圖	43
圖3-10實驗說明示意圖	43
圖3-11實驗路網示意圖	44
圖3-12動態控制實驗執行介面示意圖	46
圖4-1兩項出象強度資訊下風險態度分布圖	55
圖4-2三項出象強度資訊下風險態度分布圖	56
圖4-3依定義-兩種不同出象強度資訊情境下風險態度分布彙整表	58
圖4-4集群分析-兩種不同出象強度資訊情境下風險態度分布彙整表	59
圖4-5風險態度個體分群分析分布彙整表	60
圖4-6兩項出象強度資訊參考點分布圖	68
圖4-7三項出象強度資訊參考點分布圖	69
圖5-1動態控制實驗執行流程圖	71
圖5-2兩項出象強度資訊-價值函數圖	74
圖5-3兩項出象強度資訊-獲得權重函數圖	75
圖5-4兩項出象強度資訊-損失權重函數圖	75
圖5-5完整三項出象強度資訊-獲得與損失感受計算示意圖	76
圖5-6限縮的三項出象強度資訊-獲得與損失感受計算示意圖	76
圖5-7完整三項出象強度資訊-價值函數圖	77
圖5-8完整三項出象強度資訊-獲得權重函數圖	78
圖5-9完整三項出象強度資訊-損失權重函數圖	78
圖5-10限縮的三項出象強度資訊-價值函數圖	80
圖5-11限縮的三項出象強度資訊-獲得權重函數圖	80
圖5-12限縮的三項出象強度資訊-損失權重函數圖	80
圖5-13模式解釋決策行為偏差(Bias)分析示意圖	82
圖5-14兩項出象強度資訊解釋絕對偏差均數圖	83
圖5-15完整三項出象強度資訊解釋絕對偏差均數圖	84
圖5-16限縮的三項出象強度資訊解釋絕對偏差均數圖	84
圖5-17兩項出象強度資訊下之兩階段風險態度表現群體轉變分佈	88
圖5-18兩項出項強度-整體途中風險態度轉換次數圖	90
圖5-19受測者1-途中風險態度轉換次數示意圖	90
圖5-20三項出象強度-兩階段風險態度分群移轉	92
圖5-21逐次決策過程風險態度轉移次數分配表	94
圖5-22受測者-途中風險態度轉換情形示意圖	95
圖5-23 參考點位置與參考點變動量示意圖	97
圖5-24兩項出象強度資訊-路線A逐次參考點位置	98
圖5-25兩項出象強度資訊-路線A逐次參考點變動量	98
圖5-26三項出象強度資訊-路線A逐次參考點位置	99
圖5-27三項出象強度資訊-路線A逐次參考點變動量	100

參考文獻
1.	Avineri, E. (2006). The effect of reference point on stochastic network equilibrium. Transportation Science, 40(4), 409-420.
2.	Ben-Elia, E., Erev, I., and Shiftan, Y. (2008), “The combined effect of information and experience on drivers’ route-choice behavior,” Transportation, Vol.35 No.2, pp.165-177.
3.	Ben-Elia, E., and Shiftan, Y. (2010), “Which road do I take? A learning-based model of route choice with real-time information,” Transportation Research Part A, Vol.44, pp.249-264.
4.	Cohen, M., Jaffray, J. Y., and Said, T. (1987),” Experimental comparison of individual behavior under risk and under uncertainty for gains and for losses,”Organizational behavior and human decision processes, Vol.39, issue1, pp.1-22.
5.	Connors, R. D., & Sumalee, A. (2009). A network equilibrium model with travellers’ perception of stochastic travel times. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 43(6), 614-624.
6.	Chorus, C. (2012). What about behaviour in travel demand modelling? An overview of recent progress. Transportation Letters, 4(2), 93-104.
7.	Delle Site, P., & Filippi, F. (2012). Stochastic user equilibrium with reference-dependent route choice and endogenous reference points. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 54, 547-556.
8.	Fennema, H., & Wakker, P. (1997). Original and cumulative prospect theory: A discussion of empirical differences. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 53-64.
9.	Gao, S., Frejinger, E., & Ben-Akiva, M. (2010). Adaptive route choices in risky traffic networks: A prospect theory approach. Transportation research part C: emerging technologies, 18(5), 727-740.
10.	Hjorth, K., & Ramjerdi, F. (2011). A Prospect Theory Approach to Travel Time Variability. In International Choice Modeling Conference (pp. 2-4). 
11.	Jou, R. C., & Chen, K. H. (2013). An application of cumulative prospect theory to freeway drivers’ route choice behaviours. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 49, 123-131. 
12.	Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 263-291.
13.	Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American psychologist, 39(4), 341.
14.	Khattak, A. J., Schofer, J. L., & Koppelman, F. S. (1993). Commuters' enroute diversion and return decisions: analysis and implications for advanced traveler information systems. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,27(2), 101-111.
15.	Katsikopoulos, K. V., Duse-Anthony, Y., Fisher, D. L. and Duffy, S. A. (2000), “The framing of drivers' route choices when travel time information is provided under varying degrees of cognitive load,” Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol.42, pp.470-481.
16.	Katsikopoulos, K. V., Duse-Anthony, Y., Fisher, D. L., & Duffy, S. A. (2002). Risk attitude reversals in drivers' route choice when range of travel time information is provided. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 44(3), 466-473.
17.	Kothiyal, A., Spinu, V., & Wakker, P. P. (2011). Prospect theory for continuous distributions: A preference foundation. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 42(3), 195-210. 
18.	Mahmassani, H. S., & Herman, R. (1990). Interactive experiments for the study of tripmaker behaviour dynamics in congested commuting systems.Developments in Dynamic and Activity-Based Approaches to Travel Analysis, 272-298.
19.	Nwogugu, M. (2006). A further critique of cumulative prospect theory and related approaches. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 179(2), 451-465.
20.	Razo, M. D. (2010), “Route choice behavior in risky networks with real-time information,” Master of science, Civil and environmental engineering department, Massachusetts institute of technology.
21.	Razo, M., & Gao, S. (2010). Strategic thinking and risk attitudes in route choice.Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,2156(1), 28-35. 
22.	Razo, M., & Gao, S. (2013). A rank-dependent expected utility model for strategic route choice with stated preference data. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 27, 117-130.
23.	Starmer, C. (2000). Developments in non-expected utility theory: The hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of economic literature, 332-382.
24.	Senbil, M., & Kitamura, R. (2004, January). Reference points in commuter departure time choice: a prospect theoretic test of alternative decision frames. In Intelligent Transportation Systems (Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 19-31). Taylor & Francis Group.
25.	Schmidt, U., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (2008). Third-generation prospect theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 36(3), 203-223.
26.	Sikka, N. (2012), “Understanding travelers' route choice behavior under uncertainty, ” Dissertation, University of Iowa.
27.	Delle Site, P., & Filippi, F. (2012). Stochastic user equilibrium with reference-dependent route choice and endogenous reference points. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 54, 547-556.
28.	Delle Site, P., & Filippi, F. (2012). Stochastic user equilibrium with reference-dependent route choice and endogenous reference points. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 54, 547-556.
29.	Schmidt, U., & Zank, H. (2012). A genuine foundation for prospect theory.Journal of Risk
30.	Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and uncertainty, 5(4), 297-323. 
31.	Timmermans, H. (2010). On the (ir) relevance of prospect theory in modelling uncertainty in travel decisions. EJTIR, 4(10). 
32.	Viti, F., Bogers, E., & Hoogendoorn, S. (2005). Day-to-day learning under uncertainty with information provision: Model and data analysis. In 16th International Symposium on Transportation and Traffic Theory, Maryland, US.
33.	Van Wee, B. (2010), “Prospect theory and travel behaviour: A personal reflection based on a seminar,” EJTIR, Vol.4, No.10, pp.385-394
34.	Van de Kaa, E. J. (2012). , “Timmermans’ Misleading Critique of Prospect Theory Actually Supports its Relevance for Travel Choice Modellinga,” EJTIR, Vol.12, No.4, pp.440-458.
35.	Xu, H., Zhou, J., and Xu, W. (2011), “ A decision-making rule for modeling travelers’ route choice behavior based on cumulative prospect theory,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol.19, No.2, pp.218-228.
36.	Zhu, W. and Timmermans, H.J.P. (2010), “Decision making model incorporating choice of decision criteria,” In Proceedings of the 89th TRB Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C.
37.	Zhang, W., & He, R. (2014). Dynamic Route Choice Based on Prospect Theory.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 138, 159-167.
38.	林沛穎(2014)，「嵌入個人差異化即時路徑導引資訊：無異帶模式與累計期望模式之比較」，私立淡江大學運輸科學研究碩士論文
39.	楊雲榮(1998)，「建立探討車內資訊系統影響駕駛人動態路徑選擇/變換行為所需之實驗環境」，私立淡江大學土木工程研究所碩士論文。
40.	蘇秋如(2006)，「個人化路徑導引資訊：動態路徑選擇行為模式之應用」，私立淡江大學運輸科學研究所碩士論文。
41.	鄭佩琪(2007)，「基於認路原則之車內路徑導引資訊系統之研究」，私立淡江大學運輸科學研究所碩士論文。