行為科學研究發現，相同經濟意義之資訊若採不同之陳述用語，可能會系統性的影響決策者之風險偏好。此外，人們在不確定性環境下的決策行為，常基於對事件發生可能性的信念進行判斷。本研究整合兩項人類處理資訊之認知特性 (架構效應與模糊效應)，探討其對決策風險偏好之影響。本研究設計兩個不確定性決策問題個案，透過二個受試者間實驗與一個受試者內實驗，操弄「資訊陳述用語 (區分正面陳述資訊與負面陳述資訊兩個處理水準)」與「資訊模糊程度 (區分精確資訊與區間模糊資訊二個處理水準)」，以檢測決策資訊之架構與模糊性對決策偏好影響。實證結果發現，不同的決策問題表徵方式會產生風險偏好相反之架構效應：在風險選擇架構型態下，決策方案採負面陳述，較採正面陳述，將使決策者形成更高程度之風險追求。而在屬性架構型態下，決策方案採負面陳述，較採正面陳述，將使決策者形成更高程度之風險規避。然而，模糊規避現象則僅在部分特定情況下方會發生，故整體實驗結果顯示，架構效應之堅韌性高於模糊效應。此外，本研究亦發現審計人員與會計人員之實務經驗可減緩架構效應與模糊效應之發生。

Behavioral science studies show that a decision maker’s preference is systematically affected by alternative methods of stating economic information, regardless of the fact that the use of this information will result in the same outcome. Furthermore, people commonly make decisions based on their beliefs about the likelihood of a certain event occurring. This study explores the effects of two cognitive characteristics of human information processing (the framing effect and the ambiguity effect) on decision risk preference. In this study, uncertain decisions regarding accounting information were examined using one within-subjects experiment and two between-subjects experiments. The independent variables were “information statements” (including both positive and negative statements) and “information ambiguity” (including precise and interval ambiguity). This study manipulated these variables in an attempt to determine how risk preference in decision makers was affected.  Empirical results indicated that, the framing effect fulfilled predicted outcomes for two framing types. In the risky choice framing: negative statements about the consequences of a decision plan induced higher levels of risk seeking than positive statements concerning the same plan. In the attribute framing: negative statements about the consequences of a decision plan induced higher levels of risk aversion than positive statements concerning the same plan. However, the ambiguity aversions occured only in specific circumstances. In addition, this paper also found that practical experience of auditors and accountants mitigate the effects of framing and ambiguity on decision making.

第壹章　緒論                                           1
  第一節　研究動機                                     1
  第二節　研究目的                                     6
  第三節　研究貢獻                                     7
  第四節　研究流程                                     8
第貳章　文獻回顧與研究假說                             9
  第一節　資訊陳述用語對風險偏好之影響 (架構效應)      9
  第二節　決策問題表徵方式對風險偏好之影響            11
  第三節　資訊的模糊性對風險偏好的影響 (模糊效應)     14
  第四節　研究假說之建立                              22
第參章　實驗設計                                      25
  第一節　實驗一 (風險選擇架構型態) 之實驗設計        25
  第二節　實驗二 (屬性架構型態) 之實驗設計            33
  第三節　額外分析－實驗三之實驗設計                  39
第肆章　實證結果                                      47
  第一節　實驗一 (風險選擇架構型態) 之實證結果        47
  第二節　實驗二 (屬性架構型態) 之實證結果            56
  第三節　額外分析－實驗三之實驗結果                  69
第伍章　研究結論、限制與後續研究建議                  88
  第一節　研究結論                                    88
  第二節　管理意涵                                    90
  第三節　研究限制與後續研究建議                      90
參考文獻                                              92
附錄一：實驗一之實驗工具                              99
附錄二：實驗二之實驗工具                             106
附錄三：實驗三之實驗工具－審計人員版本               113
附錄四：實驗三之實驗工具－會計人員版本               119
附錄五：實驗三之實驗工具－學生版本                   125

表目錄
表1　實驗一之變數設計與組別	26
表2　實驗一之實驗架構	29
表3　實驗二之變數設計與組別	33
表4　實驗二之實驗架構	35
表5　實驗三之實驗架構	44
表6　實驗一之敘述性統計	48
表7　實驗一：資訊陳述用語及模糊程度之ANCOVA分析－甲個案	51
表8　實驗一：資訊陳述用語及模糊程度之t檢定分析表－甲個案	51
表9　實驗一：資訊陳述用語及模糊程度之ANCOVA分析－乙個案	53
表10　實驗一：資訊陳述用語及模糊程度t檢定分析表－乙個案	53
表11　實驗一之甲、乙兩個案研究結果彙總表	55
表12　實驗二之敘述性統計	57
表13　實驗二：資訊陳述用語及模糊程度之ANCOVA分析－甲個案	59
表14　實驗二：資訊陳述用語及模糊程度之t檢定分析表－甲個案	60
表15　實驗二：資訊陳述用語及模糊程度之ANCOVA分析－乙個案	61
表16　實驗二：資訊陳述用語及模糊程度之t檢定分析表－乙個案	62
表17　實驗二之甲、乙兩個案研究結果彙總表	63
表18　實驗二之交叉分析表－甲個案	66
表19　實驗二之交叉分析表－乙個案	68
表20　實驗三之敘述性統計－審計人員	70
表21　實驗三：資訊陳述用語及模糊程度之Repeated ANCOVA分析
－審計人員樣本	72
表22　實驗三之交叉分析表－審計人員樣本	74
表23　實驗三之敘述性統計－會計人員	76
表目錄 (續)
表24　實驗三：資訊陳述用語及模糊程度之Repeated ANCOVA分析
－會計人員樣本	77
表25　實驗三之交叉分析表－會計人員樣本	80
表26　實驗三之敘述性統計－學生樣本	81
表27　實驗三：資訊陳述用語及模糊程度之Repeated ANCOVA分析
－學生樣本	83
表28　實驗三：資訊陳述用語及模糊程度t檢定分析表－學生樣本	83
表29　實驗三：交叉分析表－學生樣本	86
表30　決策態度理由彙總表	87

圖目錄	
圖1　研究流程圖	8
圖2　展望理論之價值函數圖	10
圖3　實驗一：資訊陳述用語及模糊程度之交互作用圖－甲個案	52
圖4　實驗一：資訊陳述用語及模糊程度之交互作用圖－乙個案	54
圖5　實驗二：資訊陳述用語及模糊程度之交互作用圖－甲個案	60
圖6　實驗二：資訊陳述用語及模糊程度之交互作用圖－乙個案	62
圖7　實驗三：資訊陳述用語及模糊程度之交互作用圖－審計人員樣本	72
圖8　實驗三：資訊陳述用語及模糊程度之交互作用圖－會計人員樣本	78
圖9　實驗三：資訊陳述用語及模糊程度之交互作用圖－學生樣本	84

王翰屏，1998，以詞彙溝通機率對審計決策的影響，國立台灣大學商學研究所未出版博士論文。
王翰屏，2002，從機率詞彙的雙向性分析用詞彙溝通機率對審計判斷的影響，第三屆管理學域學術研討會，2002/05/07，台中。
王翰屏、簡俱揚，2007，審計人員與財報使用者對機率詞彙的解釋，2007會計理論與實務研討會，2007/11/08-09，台北大學。
杜榮瑞，2005，機率詞彙與審計判斷：實驗研究，行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。
吳金山、鄭菲菲、林信惠，2005，框架效應對電子商務採購行為意圖影響之研究，資訊管理學報，12 (3)，131-157。
周賓凰、池祥萱、周冠男、龔怡霖，2002。行為財務學：文獻回顧與展望，證券市場發展季刊，14 (2)，1-46。
洪肇鍇，2003，對責任語彙認知之研究，國立政治大學會計學系碩士班論文。
孫碧月，1998，經驗、架構方式對審計決策之影響，國立臺灣大學會計學研究所未發表碩士論文。
劉信賢、林吉祥、丁禹滋、蔡孝棕，2009，任務型式與模糊性避免，2009管理新思維學術研討會，2009/11/06，台灣科技大學。
顏淑玲，2004，個人涉入和事件風險對目標框架的影響，中原大學心理學系碩士學位論文。
Amer, T., K. Hackenbrack, and M. Nelson, 1994. Between-auditor Differences in the Interpretation of Probability Phrases, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 13(1), 126-136.
Asare, S. K., 1992. The Auditor’s Going-concern Opinion Decision: Interaction of Task Variables and the Sequential Processing of Evidence, The Accounting Review, 67, 379-393.
Bateman, C. R., J. P. Fraedrich, and R. Iyer, 2002. Framing Effects within the Ethical Decision Making Process of Consumers, Journal of Business Ethics, 36(1-2), 119-140.
Beaver, W. H., 1991. Problems and Paradoxes in the Financial Reporting of Future Events, Accounting Horizons, 5(4), 122-134.
Bernasconi, M. and G. Loomes, 1992. Failures of the Reduction Principle in an Ellsberg-type Problem, Theory and Decision, 32(1), 77-100.
Bier, V. M. and B. L. Connell, 1994. Ambiguity Seeking in Multi-attribute Decisions: Effects of Optimism and Message Framing, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7(3), 169-182.
Bonner, S. E., R. Libby, and M. W. Nelson, 1997. Audit Category Knowledge as a Precondition to Learning from Experience, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(5), 387-410.
Budner J., 1962. Tolerance of Ambiguity as a Personality Variable, Journal of Personality, 30, 29-40.
Camerer, C. and M. Weber, 1992. Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 325-370.
Chow, C. C. and R. K. Sarin, 2001. Comparative Ignorance and the Ellsberg Paradox, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 22(2), 129-139.
Curley, S. P. and J. E. Yates, 1985. The Center and Range of the Probability Interval as Factors Affecting Ambiguity Preferences, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(2), 273-287.
Dhar, S. K., C. Gonzalez-Vallejo, and D. Soman, 1995. Brand Promotions as a Lottery, Marketing Letters, 6(3), 221-233.
Di Mauro, C. and A. Maffioletti, 1996. An Experimental Investigation of the Impact of Ambiguity on the Valuation of Self-insurance and Self-protection, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 13, 53-71.
Dijk, E. van. and M. Zeelenberg, 2003. The Discounting of Ambiguous Information in Economic Decision Making, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16(5), 341-352.
Du, N. and D. Budescu, 2005. The Effects of Imprecise Probabilities and Outcomes in Evaluating Investment Options, Management Science, 51(12), 1791-1803.
Einhorn, H. J. and R. M. Hogarth, 1985. Ambiguity and Uncertainty in Probabilistic Inference, Psychological Review, 92(4), 433-461.
Ellsberg, D., 1961. Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643-669.
Emby, C., 1994. Framing and Presentation Mode Effects in Professional Judgment: Auditors’ Internal Control Judgments and Substantive Testing Decisions, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 13(Supplement), 102-115.
Emby, C. and D. Finely, 1997. Debiasing Framing Effects in Auditors’ Internal Control Judgement and Testing Decisions, Contemporary Accounting Research, 14(2), 55-77.
Endres, M. L., S. Chowdhury, and M. Milner, 2009. Ambiguity Tolerance and Accurate Assessment of Self-efficacy in a Complex Decision Task, Journal of Management and Organization, 15(1), 31-46.
Fallatah, Y. A. and M. Talha, 2009. Assessing The Characteristics of Accounting Students, The Journal of Applied Business Research, 25(4), 67-84.
Fox, C. R. and A. Tversky, 1995. Ambiguity Aversion and Comparative Ignorance, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(3), 585-603.
Fox, C. R. and M. Weber, 2002. Ambiguity Aversion, Comparative Ignorance and Decision Context, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88(1), 476-498.
Frisch, D. M., 1993. Reasons for Framing Effects, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54(3), 399-429.
Frisch, D. and J. Baron, 1988. Ambiguity and Rationality, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1, 149-157.
Frisch, D. and J. Baron, 1994. Ambiguous Probabilities and the Paradoxes of Expected Utility, In G. Wright and P. Ayton (Eds.), Subjective Probability. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley, 273-294. 
Ganzach, Y. and N. Karsahi, 1995. Message Framing and Buying Behavior: A Field Experiment, Journal of Business Research, 32, 11-17.
Goodie, A. S., 2003. The Effects of Control on Betting: Paradoxical Betting on Items of High Confidence with Low Value, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 598-610.
Gul, F. A., 1984. The Joint and Moderating Role of Personality and Cognitive Style on Decision Making, The Accounting Review, 59(2), 264-277.
Harding, N. and M. Ren, 2007. The Importance in Accounting of Ambiguity Tolerance at the National Level: The Evidence from Australia and China, Asian Review of Accounting, 15(1), 6-24.
Harrison, K. E. and L. A. Tomassini, 1989. Judging the Probability of a Contingent Loss : An Empirical study, Contemporary Accounting Research, 5(2), 642-648.
Hartmann, F., 2005. The Effects of Tolerance for Ambiguity and Uncertainty on the Appropriateness of Accounting Performance Measures, Abacus, 41(3), 241-252.
Heath, C. and A. Tversky, 1991. Preference and Belief: Ambiguity Aversion and Competence in Choice under Uncertainty, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4(1), 5-28.
Highhouse, S., 1994. A Verbal Protocol Analysis of Choice under Ambiguity, Journal of Economic Psychology, 15(4), 621-635.
Ho, J. L. Y., L. R. Keller, and P. Keltyka, 2001. Manager’s Variance Investigation Decisions: An Experimental Examination of Probabilistic and Outcome Ambiguity, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14(4), 257-278. 
Hogarth, R. M. and H. J. Einhorn, 1986. Decision Making under Ambiguity, The Journal of Business, 59(4), 225-250.
Hogarth, R. M. and H. J. Einhorn, 1990. Venture Theory: A Model of Decision Weights, Management Science, 36(7), 780-803.
Keynes, J. M., 1921. A Treatise on Probability, London: Macmillan.
Knight, F. H., 1921. Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Krishnamurthy, P., P. Carter, and E. Blair, 2001. Attribute Framing and Goal Framing Effects in Health Decisions, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(2), 382-399.
Kuhn, K. M., 1997. Communicating Uncertainty: Framing Effects on Responses to Vague Probabilities, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71(1), 55-83.
Lal, M. and L. Hassel, 1998. The Joint Impact of Environmental Uncertainty and Tolerance of Ambiguity on Top Managers’ Perceptions of the Usefulness of Non-conventional Management Accounting Information, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 14(3), 259-271.
Laswad, F. and Y. T. Mak., 1997. Interpretations of Probability Expressions by New Zealand Standard Setters, Accounting Horizons, 11(4), 16-23.
Levin, I. P. and G. J. Gaeth, 1988. How Consumer are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 269-278.
Levin I. P., S. L. Schneider, and G. J. Gaeth, 1998. All Frames are not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149-188.
Liedtka, S. L, B. K. Church, and M. R. Ray, 2008. Performance Variability, Ambiguity Intolerance, and Balanced Scorecard-based Performance Assessment, Behavioral Research in Accounting, 20(2), 73-88.
Liyanarachchi, G. A., 2007. Feasibility of Using Student Subjects in Accounting Experiments: A Review, Pacific Accounting Review, 19(1), 47-67.
MacDonald, A., 1970. Revised Scale for Ambiguity Tolerance: Reliability and Validity, Psychological Reports, 26(3), 791-798.
Magro, A. M. and S. E. Nutter, 2012, Evaluating the Strength of Evidence: How Experience Affects the Use of Analogical Reasoning and Configural Information Processing in Tax, The Accounting Review, 87(1), 291-312.
Marteau, T. M., 1989. Framing of Information: It’s Influence upon Decisions of Doctors and Patients, British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 89-94.
Meyerowitz, B. E. and S. Chaiken, 1987. The Effect of Message Framing on Breast Self-Examination Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 500-510.
Nelson, M. W. and W. R. Kinney, 1997. The Effect of Ambiguity on Auditors Loss Contingency Reporting Judgments, The Accounting Review, 72(2), 257-274.
Nelson, M. W., R. Libby, and S. E. Bonner, 1995. Knowledge Structure and the Estimation of Conditional Probabilities in Audit Planning, The Accounting Review, 70(1), 27-47. 
O’Clock, P. and K. Devine, 1995. An Investigation of Framing and Firm Size on the Auditor’s Going Concern Decision, Accounting and Business Research, 25, 197-207. 
Reimers, J. L., 1992. Additional Evidence on the Need for Disclosure Reform, Accounting Horizons, 6(1), 36-41.
Richard, B., 2003. The Interactive Effect of Message Framing, Presentation Order, and Source Credibility on Recruitment Practices, International Journal of Management, 20(2).  156-163.
Savage, L. J., 1954. The Foundations of Statistics, New York: John Wiley.
Sawers, K., A. Wright, and V. Zamora, 2011. Does Greater Risk-bearing in Stock Option Compensation Reduce the Influence of Problem Framing on Managerial Risk-taking Behavior? Behavioral Research in Accounting, 23(1), 185-201. 
Simon, H. A., 1957. A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice, In Models of Man, pp. 241-260, Edited by H. A. Simon, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
So, S. and M. Smith, 2003. The Impact of Presentation Format and Individual Differences on the Communication of Information for Management Decision Making, Managerial Auditing Journal, 19(1/2), 59-67.
Trautmann, S. T., F. M. Vieider, and P. P. Wakker, 2011. Preference Reversals for Ambiguity Aversion, Management Science, 57(7), 1320-1333.
Trotman, K. T. and J. Sng, 1989. The Effect of Hypothesis Framing, Prior Expectations and Cue Diagnosticity on Auditors’ Information Choice, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 14(5-6), 565-576.
Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman, 1974. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Science, 185, 1124-1131.
Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman, 1981. The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice, Science, 211, 453-458.
Victoravich, L. M., 2010. When do Opportunity Costs Count? The Impact of Vagueness, Project Completion Stage and Management Accounting Experience, Behavioral Research in Accounting, 22(1), 85-108.
Weber, E. U. and D. J. Hilton, 1990. Contextual Effects in the Interpretations of Probability Words: Perceived Base Rate and Severity of Events, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16(4), 781-789.
Wright, G. N., 1984. Behavioral Decision Theory: An Introduction, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Wright, M. and R. Davidson, 2000. The Effect of Auditor Attestation and Tolerance for Ambiguity on Commercial Lending Decision, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 19(2), 67-81.
Zebda, A., 2011. A General Framework for Accounting and Audit Decision Making under Ambiguity, International Journal of Business, Accounting, and Finance, 5(2), 1-30.