基改食品對於民眾所產生的態度與知覺風險會影響其消費行為，過去探討影響基因改造食品之知覺風險相關的研究，大多數學者採用基因接受度模型來測量各變數間的路徑關係，較常使用的變項有信任和知識程度，且會分別對知覺風險與知覺利益產生影響，進而影響對基因改造之態度。本研究參考此模型並加入新的構面：世代影響，目的是為了瞭解世代影響、食物恐懼、社會信任、基改知識、知覺風險與利益以及行為意向間之影響關係。
本研究以台灣民眾為樣本對象，有效回收樣本423份。首先進行預試找出符合信度與效度的題項，再藉由驗證性因素分析來確定各變項與潛在變項間之因素結構，最後利用路徑分析來評估結構方程模型中變項間之路徑關係。
本研究發展出的結構模式結果顯示，世代影響對知覺風險有正向影響，社會信任對知覺風險有負向影響；基改知識對知覺利益有正向影響；而知覺風險對行為意向有負向影響，知覺利益對行為意向有正向影響；食物恐懼對行為意向產生負向影響。本研究貢獻在於對基改食品上的知覺與行為意向間之機制有更佳的了解，並嘗試加入新的影響因素來探討結構模式，此外本研究也藉由分群來瞭解對各群組間的影響差異。研究討論包含對廠商以及政府的管理意涵與建議，以及未來研究的發展方向。

The attitudes and perceived risk of GM foods toward people will affect it's consumer behavior. To investigate the effects of perceived risks in GM food, most researchers use the gene technology acceptance model to measure the relationship of path analysis. More commonly used variables are the degree of trust and knowledge, and it have an impact on perceived risk and perceived benefits respectively, thereby affecting the attitude of GM. In this study, refer to this model and add a new dimension (intergenerational influence), the purpose is to understand the relationship about intergenerational influence, food neophobia, social trust, GM knowledge, perceived risk, perceived benefit and behavioral intentions. 
In this study, samples taken from Taiwan, we retrieved 423 valid samples. First we start pilot test to identify the item of reliability and validity, then using confirmatory factor analysis to determine the factor structure between variables and potential variables. In the end, we use path analysis to assess the relationship between variables of structural equation model. 
Our study developed a structural model ,and the results of structural equation modeling analysis give evidence that GM knowledge and intergenerational influence have positive impacts on the perceived risk,but social trust have negative impact on the perceived benefits. while the perceived risk and food neophobia have negative impacts on the behavioral intention,but the perceived benefits have positive impacts on the behavioral intention. The contribution of this study is that more understanding the mechanism between perception and behavior intention, and our study try to add a new dimension to probe the structural model, in addition, our study by clustering groups to understand the impact of differences. Our Study included management implications and recommends for manufacturers and government, as well as the future direction of research.

目錄
目錄	I
表目錄	II
圖目錄	III
第一章 緒論	1
第一節 研究背景與動機	1
第二節 研究目的	4
第三節 研究流程	5
第二章 文獻探討	6
第一節 大眾對基因改造食品之知覺相關理論	6
第二節 影響大眾對基因改造之知覺利益與風險的因素	12
第三章 研究方法	18
第一節 研究架構	18
第二節 研究假說	18
第三節 研究變數之定義與衡量	21
第四節 研究設計	26
第五節 問卷設計	27
第六節 分析方法	27
第四章 實證分析結果	30
第一節 預試分析	30
第二節 正式樣本結構分析	32
第三節 探索性因素分析	33
第四節 驗證性因素性分析	35
第五節 路徑分析	36
第六節 各構面之變異數分析	41
第五章 結論與討論	47
第一節 研究結論與貢獻	47
第二節 管理意涵	50
第三節 研究限制與後續研究建議	50
參考文獻	51
附錄一 基因改造食品之知覺風險問卷	62
附錄二 基因改造之介紹	65

 
表目錄
表1-1 台灣重大食安事件	3
表2-1 知覺利益的整理	10
表2-2 信任的定義整理	14
表2-3 世代影響的定義整理	15
表2-4 食物恐懼問卷	16
表2-5 食物恐懼定義整理	16
表3-1 知覺利益與知覺風險量表	21
表3-2 對基因改造食品的知覺風險量表	22
表3-3 食物恐懼量表	23
表3-4 對基因改造之知識量表	23
表3-5 社會信任量表	24
表3-6 世代影響量表	25
表3-7行為意向量表	26
表4-1 題項分析與探索性因素分析	31
表4-2 樣本特性	32
表4-3 題項分析與探索性因素分析	34
表4-4 一階驗證模型配適度	35
表4-5 各構面驗證性因素分析結果	36
表4-6 平均變異抽取量平方根與構面間相關係數之比較結果	36
表4-7 結構模型適配度	37
表4-8 未分群之樣本路徑分析係數結果	39
表4-9 基改知識分群資料	39
表4-10 基改知識分群比較表	41
表4-11 總和模式與分群模式之比較	41
表4-12 性別在各構面上之差異性檢定	42
表4-13 曾經購買在各構面上之差異性檢定	42
表4-14 婚姻狀況在各構面上之差異性檢定	43
表4-15 不同的教育程度在各構面上之差異性檢定	44
表4-16 不同的月收入在各構面上之差異性檢定	45
表4-17 不同的年齡在各構面上之差異性檢定	45
表4-18 不同居住地在各構面上之差異性檢定	46
表5-1  研究結果整理表	47

 
圖目錄
圖1-1 研究流程圖	5
圖2-1 基因接受度模型	8
圖3-1 研究架構	18
圖4-1 資料分析流程	30
圖4-2 本研究結構模式分析結果	37
圖4-3 本研究模型路徑效果分析	39
圖4-4 基改知識程度低之路徑圖	40
圖4-5 基改知識程度高之路徑圖	40

參考文獻
一、	英文部分
1.	Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.
2.	Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 16(1), 74-94.
3.	Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative science quarterly, 36(3).
4.	Barrena, R., & Sanchez, M. （2012）. Neophobia, personal consumer values and novel food acceptance. Food Quality and Preference.
5.	Batrinou, A. M., Spiliotis, V., & Sakellaris, G. (2008). Acceptability of genetically modified maize by young people. British food journal, 110(3), 250-259.
6.	Bauer, M. W., Durant, J., & Gaskell, G. （1998）. Biotechnology in the public sphere: a European sourcebook. NMSI Trading Ltd..
7.	Bauer, R. A. (1960). Consumer behavior as risk taking. Dynamic marketing for a changing world, 398.
8.	Bauer, R. A. (1967). Source effect and persuasibility: A new look. Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior. Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 559-578.
9.	Bearden, W. O., & Rose, R. L.（1990）. Attention to social comparison  information:An individual difference factor affecting consumer conformity. Journal of Consumer Research, 461-471.
10.	Blackwell, R. D., Miniard, P. W., & Engel, J. F. (2006). Consumer behavior, 10.Aufl., Mason.
11.	Boccaletti, S., & Moro, D. （2000）. Consumer willingness-to-pay for GM food products in Italy. AgBioForum, vol. 3, no. 4 （2000）.
12.	Bredahl, L. (1999). Consumers» Cognitions With Regard to Genetically Modified Foods. Results of a Qualitative Study in Four Countries. Appetite, 33(3), 343-360.
13.	Bredahl, L. (2001). Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified food–results of a cross-national survey.Journal of consumer policy, 24(1), 23-61.
14.	Bredahl, L., Grunert, K. G., & Frewer, L. J. （1998）. Consumer attitudes and decision-making with regard to genetically engineered food products–a review of the literature and a presentation of models for future research. Journal of consumer Policy, 21（3）, 251-277.
15.	Chen, M. F., & Li, H. L. （2007）. The consumer’s attitude toward genetically modified foods in Taiwan. Food Quality and Preference, 18（4）, 662-674.
16.	Chin, W. W., & Todd, P. A. (1995). On the use, usefulness, and ease of use of structural equation modeling in MIS research: a note of caution. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 19, 237-237.
17.	Connor, M., & Siegrist, M. （2010）. Factors influencing people’s acceptance of gene technology: The role of knowledge, health expectations, naturalness, and social trust. Science Communication, 32（4）, 514-538.
18.	Costa-Font, J., & Mossialos, E. （2005 a）. Is dread of Genetically Modified food associated with the consumers’ demand for information? Applied Economics Letters, 12（14）, 859-863.
19.	Costa‐Font, J., & Mossialos, E. （2005 b）. ‘Ambivalent’individual preferences towards biotechnology in the European Union: products or processes?. Journal of risk research, 8（4）, 341-354.
20.	Costa-Font, M., & Gil, J. M. (2012). Meta-attitudes and the local formation of consumer judgments towards genetically modified food. British Food Journal,114(10), 1463-1485.
21.	Costa-Font, M., Gil, J. M., & Traill, W. B. （2008）. Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy. Food Policy, 33（2）, 99-111.
22.	Cox, D. F., Risk handling in consumer behavior-An intensive study of two cases, in Donald F. Cox (ed.), ”Risk taking and information handling in consumer behavior,” Boston: Harvard University Press, pp. 34-81, 1976.
23.	Dosman, D. M., Adamowicz, W. L., & Hrudey, S. E. （2001）. Socioeconomic determinants of health‐and food safety‐related risk perceptions. Risk Analysis,21（2）, 307-318.
24.	Dowling, G. R. and R. Staelin, “A model of perceived risk and risk-handling activities,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.21, No. 6, pp. 119-134, 1994
25.	Fallon, A. E., Rozin, P., & Pliner, P. （1984）. The child's conception of food: The development of food rejections with special reference to disgust and contamination sensitivity. Child development, 566-575.
26.	Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. （1978）. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy sciences, 9（2）, 127-152.
27.	Flight, I., Leppard, P., & Cox, D. N. (2003). Food neophobia and associations with cultural diversity and socio-economic status amongst rural and urban Australian adolescents. Appetite, 41(1), 51-59.
28.	Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. （1994）. Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk analysis, 14（6）, 1101-1108.
29.	Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 18(1).
30.	Frewer, L. J., & Shepherd, R. （1995）. Ethical concerns and risk perceptions associated with different applications of genetic engineering: Interrelationships with the perceived need for regulation of the technology. Agriculture and Human Values, 12（1）, 48-57.
31.	Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. （1995）. Genetic engineering and food: what determines consumer acceptance?. British Food Journal, 97（8）, 31-36.
32.	Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1997). Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk, benefit, and ethics. Science, technology & human values, 22(1), 98-124.
33.	Frewer, L. J., Scholderer, J., & Bredahl, L. （2003）. Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: The mediating role of trust.Risk Analysis, 23（6）, 1117-1133.
34.	Fukuyama, F. (1996). Trust still counts in a virtual world. Forbes ASAP Supplement, 1337051, 33-34
35.	Grunert, K. G., Bredahl, L., & Scholderer, J. （2003）. Four questions on European consumers’ attitudes toward the use of genetic modification in food production. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 4（4）, 435-445.
36.	Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate analysis. Englewood: Prentice Hall International.
37.	Heckler, S. E., Childers, T. L., & Arunachalam, R. （1989）. Intergenerational influences in adult buying behaviors: An examination of moderating factors.Advances in Consumer Research, 16（1）, 276-284.
38.	Hossain, F., Onyango, B., Schilling, B., Hallman, W., & Adelaja, A. （2003）. Product attributes, consumer benefits and public approval of genetically modified foods. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 27（5）, 353-365.
39.	Huffman, W. E., Rousu, M., Shogren, J. F., & Tegene, A. （2004）. Who do consumers trust for information: the case of genetically modified foods?.American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86（5）, 1222-1229.
40.	James, Clive. 2013. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2013. ISAAA Brief  No. 46. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.( http://www.isaaa.org/).
41.	John, D. R. （1999）. Consumer socialization of children: A retrospective look at twenty-five years of research. Journal of consumer research, 26（3）, 183-213.
42.	Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 user's reference guide (pp. 29-30). Chicago: Scientific Software. 
43.	Koivisto-Hursti, U. K., & Magnusson, M. K. （2003）. Consumer perceptions of genetically modified and organic foods. What kind of knowledge matters?.Appetite, 41（2）, 207-209.
44.	Krewski, D., Slovic, P., Bartlett, S., Flynn, J., & Mertz, C. （1994）.Health risk perceptions in Canada （ERC 94-3, Environmental Risk Management Working Paper）. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: University of Alberta.
45.	Lin, C. T. J. （1995）. Demographic and socioeconomic influences on the importance of food safety in food shopping. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 24, 190-198.
46.	Liu, C., Marchewka, J. T., Lu, J., & Yu, C. S. (2004). Beyond concern: a privacy–trust–behavioral intention model of electronic commerce. Information & Management, 42(1), 127-142.
47.	Lusk, J. L., House, L. O., Valli, C., Jaeger, S. R., Moore, M., Morrow, J. L., & Traill, W. B. （2004）. Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food: Evidence from experimental auctions in the United States, England, and France. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 31（2）, 179-204.
48.	Lusk, J. L., Jamal, M., Kurlander, L., Roucan, M., & Taulman, L. (2005). A meta-analysis of genetically modified food valuation studies. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 28-44.
49.	Macoubrie, J. (2005). Informed public perceptions of nanotechnology and trust in government. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
50.	Mather, D. W., Knight, J. G., Insch, A., Holdsworth, D. K., Ermen, D. F., & Breitbarth, T. （2012）. Social Stigma and Consumer Benefits Trade-Offs in Adoption of Genetically Modified Foods. Science Communication, 34（4）, 487-519.
51.	Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. （1995）. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review, 20（3）, 709-734.
52.	McKnight, H. D., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). The impact of initial consumer trust on intentions to transact with a web site: a trust building model. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3), 297-323.
53.	Meyer, D. C., & Anderson, H. C. （2000）. Preadolescents and apparel purchasing: Conformity to parents and peers in the consumer socialization process. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 243–258.
54.	Moerbeek, H., & Casimir, G. （2005）. Gender differences in consumers’ acceptance of genetically modified foods. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29（4）, 308-318.
55.	Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1985). The effect of price on subjective product evaluations. Perceived quality: How consumers view stores and merchandise, 209-32.
56.	Moon, W., & Balasubramanian, S. K. （2001a）. A multi-attribute model of public acceptance of genetically modified organisms. In 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL （No. 20745）. American Agricultural Economics Association （New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association）.
57.	Moon, W., & Balasubramanian, S. K. （2004b）. Public attitudes toward agrobiotechnology: The mediating role of risk perceptions on the impact of trust, awareness, and outrage. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy,26（2）, 186-208.
58.	Moore, E. S., Wilkie, W. L., & Alder, J. A. （2001）. Lighting the torch: how do intergenerational influences develop?. Advances in Consumer Research, 28, 287-293.
59.	Moore, E. S., Wilkie, W. L., & Lutz, R. J. （2002）. Passing the torch: intergenerational influences as a source of brand equity. The Journal of Marketing, 17-37.
60.	Moreau, C. P., Lehmann, D. R., & Markman, A. B. （2001）. Entrenched knowledge structures and consumer response to new products. Journal of marketing research, 14-29.
61.	Moschis, G. P. (1985). The role of family communication in consumer socialization of children and adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research, 898-913.
62.	Mucci, A., & Hough, G. （2004）. Perceptions of genetically modified foods by consumers in Argentina. Food Quality and Preference, 15（1）, 43-51.
63.	Murphy, P. E., & Enis, B. M. （1986）. Classifying products strategically. The Journal of Marketing, 24-42.
64.	Nunnally, J. C. Bernstein (1994). Psychometric theory.
65.	Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. (2000). Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The Provisitions of Article 6 of the'Habitats' Directive 92/43/EEC. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
66.	Onyango, B., Hossain, F., Hallman, W., Schilling, B., & Adelaja, A. （2003）. Public perception of food biotechnology: Uncovering factors driving consumer acceptance of genetically modified food. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 34（1）, 36-42.
67.	Peter, J. P., & Tarpey Sr, L. X. (1975). A comparative analysis of three consumer decision strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 29-37.
68.	Pliner, P., & Hobden, K. （1992）. Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans. Appetite, 19（2）, 105-120.
69.	Pliner, P., & Salvy, S.J. （2006）. The psychology of food choice. Frontiers in Nutritional Science, No. 3 （pp.75–92）.
70.	Pollatsek, A., & Tversky, A. (1970). A theory of risk. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 7(3), 540-553.
71.	Radas, S., Teisl, M. F., & Roe, B. (2008). An open mind wants more: opinion strength and the desire for genetically modified food labeling policy. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 42(3), 335-361.
72.	Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change1. The Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 93-114.
73.	Roselius, R. (1971). Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods. Journal of marketing, 35(1).
74.	Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. （1998）. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of management review, 23（3）, 393-404.
75.	Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. （1980）. The psychological categorization of foods and non-foods: A preliminary taxonomy of food rejections. Appetite, 1（3）, 193-201.
76.	Rozin, P., Haidt, J., & McCauley, C. R. （1993）. Disgust. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland （Eds.）, Handbook of emotions （pp. 575–594）. New York: Guilford Press.
77.	Saher, M., Lindeman, M., & Hursti, U. K. K. （2006）. Attitudes towards genetically modified and organic foods. Appetite, 46（3）, 324-331.
78.	Sandman, P. M. （1989）. Hazard versus outrage in the public perception of risk. In Effective risk communication （pp. 45-49）. Springer US.
79.	Sandman, P. M. （1999）Risk = Hazard + Outrage: Coping with Controversy about Risks. Engineering News-Record,from  http://www.psandman.com/articles/amsa.htm
80.	Savadori, L., Savio, S., Nicotra, E., Rumiati, R., Finucane, M., & Slovic, P. （2004）. Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk analysis,24（5）, 1289-1299.
81.	Siegrist, M. （2000）. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk analysis, 20（2）, 195-204.
82.	Siegrist, M., & Buhlmann, R. (1999). Die Wahrnehmung verschiedener gentechnischer Anwendungen: ergebnisse einer MDS-Analyse. Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie, 30(1), 32-39.
83.	Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., & Roth, C. （2000）. Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk analysis, 20（3）, 353-362.
84.	Siegrist, M., Keller, C., & Kiers, H. A. (2006). Lay people's perception of food hazards: comparing aggregated data and individual data. Appetite, 47(3), 324-332.
85.	Siegrist, M., Stampfli, N., Kastenholz, H., & Keller, C. （2008）. Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging. Appetite, 51（2）, 283-290.
86.	Slovic, P. （1987）. Perception of risk. Science, 236（4799）, 280-285.
87.	Sorgo, A., & Ambrožič-Dolinšek, J. (2010). Knowlege of, attitudes toward, and acceptance of genetically modified organisms among prospective teachers of biology, home economics, and grade school in Slovenia. Biochemistry and molecular biology education: a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 38(3), 141.
88.	Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. （1994）. Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated with food production and food consumption: an empirical study.Risk analysis, 14（5）, 799-806.
89.	Starr, C. （1969）. Social benefit versus technological risk. What is our society willing to pay for safety?. Science.
90.	Townsend, E., & Campbell, S. （2004）. Psychological determinants of willingness to taste and purchase genetically modified food. Risk Analysis,24（5）, 1385-1393.
91.	Traill, W. B., Jaeger, S. R., Yee, W. M., Valli, C., House, L. O., Lusk, J. L., Moore M., & Morrow Jr, J. L. （2005）. Categories of GM risk-benefit perceptions and their antecedents. 
92.	Traill, W. B., Yee, W. M., Lusk, J. L., Jaeger, S. R., House, L. O., Morrow Jr, J. L., Valli, C., & Moore, M. （2006）. Perceptions of the risks and benefits of genetically-modified foods and their influence on willingness to consume. Acta Agriculturae Scand Section C, 3（1）, 12-19.
93.	van Oorschot, K（2008）.The effect of （Reverse） Intergenerational Influence on Brand Equity. Master Thesis ,University of Maastricht.
94.	Veeman, M. M., Adamowicz, W. L., & Hu, W. （2005）. Risk perceptions, social interactions and the influence of information on social attitudes to agricultural biotechnology. Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta.
95.	Vilella‐Vila, M., Costa‐Font, J., & Mossialos, E. （2005）. Consumer involvement and acceptance of biotechnology in the European Union: a specific focus on Spain and the UK. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29（2）, 108-118.
96.	Viswanathan, M., Childers, T. L., & Moore, E. S. （2000）. The measurement of intergenerational communication and influence on consumption: Development, validation, and cross-cultural comparison of the IGEN scale. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28（3）, 406-424.
97.	Ward, S. （1974）. Consumer socialization. Journal of Consumer Research, 1-14.
98.	Webster, C., & Wright, L. B. (1999). The Effects of Strength of Family Relationship on Intergenerational Influence. Advances in Consumer Research,26(1).
99.	Xu, J., Shim, S., Lotz, S., & Almeida, D. （2004）. Ethnic identity, socialization factors, and culture‐specific consumption behavior. Psychology & Marketing,21（2）, 93-112.
100.	Zaltman, G., & Burger, P. C. (1975). Marketing research: Fundamentals and dynamics (pp. 500-509). Hinsdale, Illinois: Dryden Press.
101.	Zechendorf, B. (1994). What the public thinks about biotechnology. Nature Biotechnology, 12(9), 870-875.
二、	中文部分
1.	吳明隆（2009）。結構方程模式 Amos 的操作與應用。五南文化。
2.	柯光亮與鄭時宜(2008)，「消費者購買生技保健食品行為意向之研究」，2008創新、整合與應用學術研討會。
3.	楊佩純 (2006)，台灣與美國消費者對基因改造食品認知與願付價值之分析，臺灣海洋大學應用經濟研究所碩士論文。