在室內環境設計實務中，利用創意增加作品的附加價值令使用者喜愛是重要關鍵。本研究以室內環境設計案例，探討一般大眾對於室內環境設計之創意與偏好的相關問題。並進一步了解，對於這些問題，具室內/空間/建築設計相關教育背景與其他不同教育背景的受測者之間是否有差異？故本研究的目的主要為：
1.解讀室內環境設計其偏好構成因素之特徵。
2.解讀不同屬性受測者對於室內環境設計的創意評量與偏好之差異。
3.探討創意評量與偏好兩個變項及其構成因素之間的相關程度。
4.探討個人屬性與創意對於偏好的解釋力。
本研究以相關性研究法為方法，將自行發展的圖片問卷透過實體與網路問卷調查後，運用電腦統計軟體SPSS將調查所得的資料，進行因素分析、描述性統計、差異檢定、皮爾森積差相關、多元迴歸分析等，結果發現：
1.室內環境設計偏好，是由6個因素所組成，每個因素都有著不同的空間特徵。
2.不同屬性之受測者，對於室內環境設計之創意評量與偏好，的確會有顯著差異。
3.室內環境設計之創意與偏好兩變項之間具有顯著之相關。
4.創意評量6個因素加上個人屬性3個因素共9個變項可以共同解釋「室內環境設計偏好」80.6％的變異量。
最後，依據本研究的結果，對室內環境設計實務與後續研究提出一些建議，期望能對創意設計相關議題有所助益。

In interior environment design, using the creativity to increases the additional value of the work and win users preference is the important key. Using interior environment design works as example, this research is trying to analyze the relationship among variables in creativity and preference. For this question, has any difference between the interior/space/architectural design related educational background with other different educational background ?
The purposes of this research include:
1.Interpretation of characteristic of people’s preference about interior environment design works.
2.Exploration of differentiation toward creativity and preference between subjects of different sexes, ages, occupations, and study background.
3.Analysis of the relationship among creativity evaluation and preference, and the correlations between factors of two variables.
4.Analysis of the explained variance for preference.
The applied research methods include the qualitative Delphi techniques, and the quantitative correlational study. After using a self-developed questionnaire with photographs of interior environments, the collected data was analyzed with SPSS software, applying such techniques as exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, descriptive statistics, t-test, Pearson r, multiple regression. The results include:
1.Preference about interior environment design consist of 6 factors respectively; each factor has unique spatial characteristic.
2.Sexes, ages, occupations and study background differ significantly in some factors of preference about interior environment design.
3.The variables in creativity and preference about interior environment design are significantly related to each other.
4.Multiple regression analysis reveals 9 predictive variables accounting for 80.6％ of total explained variance.
Based on the result of this research, propose suggestions for design practice and future academic research, and expected to be helpful to issues about creativity in interior environment design.

一、中文文獻
于正倫（2004）。城市環境創造－景觀與環境設施設計，台北：田園城市。
王受之（1997）。世界現代設計，台北：藝術家出版社。
王錦堂（1987）。環境心理學，台北：茂榮圖書公司出版。
李玉龍（1988）。新設計史，台北：六合出版社。
張宜慶（1998）。電腦網路德菲研究系統之建構及其可行性研究，國立交通大學傳播研究所碩士論文。
張春興（1994）。現代心理學，台北：東華書局股份有限公司。
張銘勳（1999）。色彩知覺與意象空間對色彩調和關係之探討。新竹，台灣：交通大學應用藝術研究所碩士論文。
張鋒、 馮慶林、何亞雲（2003）。20年來的西方創造性心理測量研究：方法與問題. 西北師大學報：社科版.
郭有遹（1989）。創造的定義及其所衍生的問題。創造思考教育，創刊號，10-12。
陳玫玲（2005）。知識於創意設計中的角色。國立台北科技大學創新設計研究所。
陳龍安（1997）。創造思考教學的理論與實際（修訂版）。臺北︰心理。
黃添進（2000）。網路問卷調查可行性評估研究，國立臺北大學統計學研究所碩士論文。
楊坤原（2001）。創造力的意義及其影響因素。科學教育，88，33-36。
楊國樞等（1989）社會及行為科學研究法。台北，台灣：東華書局股份有限公司。
詹志禹（2000）。知識創造的本質與脈絡：演化論觀點. 2007/4/20, 取自
http://tim.nccu.edu.tw/croci/rusultl.htm
蔡承志、林禎舜、蔡麗瓊（2000）。電子郵件調查穩定度的探討，收入中央研究院調查研究工作室主編，《新世紀調查研究的課題－方法、對象與倫理，第三屆「調查研究方法與應用」學術研討會論文集》，台北，台灣：51-55。
鄭立君（2005）。西方現代藝術設計簡史，上海：人民美術出版社。
蕭大坤（2003）。現代室內設計史，台北：當代設計雜誌社。
龔志宏（2009）。美感、創意與偏好之關係研究－以大廳與客廳為例，中原大學室內設計研究所碩士論文。

二、英文文獻
Ackerman, J. S. (1963) Style, in Ackerman and Carpenter (eds.), Art and Archaeology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. pp 174-186
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in the context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Westview Press.
Anderson, H. H. (1959). Creativity as personality development. In H. H. Anderson (Ed.), Creativity and Its Cultivation. New York: Harper & Row.
Besemer S.P. & O’Quin K.(1999). Creative Product, in M Runco and S Pritzker (eds), Encyclopedia of Creativity, Academic Press, San Diego, 413-422
Cropley, A. J. (Ed.) (1999) Definition of creativity, in M Runco and S Pritzker (eds), Encyclopedia of Creativity, Academic Press, San Diego, pp.511-524.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: a systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp.325-339). New York: Cambridge university press.
Devlin, K., and Nassar, J. (1989). The beauty and the best: Some preliminary comparisons of 'high' and 'popular' residential architecture and public versus architect judgments of same. Journal of Environmental Psychology,9, pp.333-344.
Duffy, M., Bailey, S., Beck, B., & Barker, D. G. (1986). Preference in nursing home design: A comparison of residents, administrators, and designers. Environment and Behavior. 18, 246-257
Focillon, H. (1948) The life of forms in art. New York: Wittenborn.
Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., and Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences. San Francisco: Freeman.
Groat, L. (1982). Meaning in post-modern architecture: An examination using the multiple sortingtask. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, pp.3-22.
Hershberger, R. G. (1969).Astudy of meaning and architecture. Dissertation Abstracts International, 2435-A.
Hocevar, D & Bachelor, P. (1989). A Taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the study of creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R.
Hon. P.H.(2004). The Rt. Hon. Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Cabinet Minister for Women Speech to Citigroup: "Creativity in the Knowledge Economy" London, June 29 2004. Retrieved December06, 2005 from http://www.dti.gov.uk/ministers/speeches/hewitt290604.html
Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective, Environment and Behavior, 19(1), pp.3-32.
Lynch, M. D., & Harris, C. R. (2001). Fostering creativity in children, K-8: Theory and practice. Allyn and Bacon.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). 創造力研究五十年. 收錄於R. J. Sternberg編, 創造力 (576-590頁). 台北：五南圖書.
Múgica, M., & De Lucio, J. V. (1996). The role of on-site experience on landscape preferences-A case study at Doñana National Park (Spain), Journal of Environmental Management, 47, pp.229–239.
Nassar, J. L. (1988). Architectural symbolism: A study of house-style meaning.Paper presented at the 19th annual meeting of the Environmental Design Research Association, Pomona, CA
Pesut, D. J. (1990). Creative thinking as a selfregulatory metacognitive process—A model for education, training and further research. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 26(3), 163-164.
Rapoport, A., (1977). Human Aspect of Urban Form. Textbook, Great Britain
Renzulli, J. S. & Reis, S. M. Student product assessment form (SPAF). Retrieved July, 30, 2007, from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/sem/pdf/spaf.pdf.
Robert Gifford (2000). Decoding Modern Architecture: A Lens Model Approach for Understanding the Aesthetic Differences of Architects and Laypersons. Environment and Behavior, 2000; 32; 163.
Ryan, R. L. (2005). Exploring the effects of environmental experience on attachment to urban natural areas, Environment and behavior, 37(1), pp.3-42.
Schapiro, M. (1961) Style, in M. Phillipson (ed.), Aesthetics Today. Cleveland: World Publishing. pp. 81-113
Schirrmacher, R. (1988). Art and creativity development for young children. New York: Delmar Publishers.
Scott, S. C.(1993). Visual attributes related to preference in interior environment. Journal of Interior Design Education and Research, 18(1 & 2), pp.7-16
Sternberg, R. J. (1989). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York: Penguin Books.
Zube, E. H., Sell, J. L., and Taylor, G. (1982). Landscape perception: Research,application And theory, Landscape Planning, 9, pp.1-33.