目的：隨著社會的演進，現代人對約會及兩性關係的看法也逐漸改變。然而，很多兩性互動的行為仍受傳統文化的影響。約會時誰應該負擔費用這個議題，一直異性戀男女約會中被廣泛討論，但卻缺少實際研究。故本研究以計畫行為理論為架構來探討臺灣適婚男女對約會時所產生之費用的負擔態度與行為，並進行分析與討論。

方法：本研究採用問卷調查法，共收集了568名樣本資料。SPSS 23.0進行研究問題的統計分析。採用描述性統計以了解不同受訪者對負擔約會費用之性別角色態度、付費態度、主觀規範、知覺行為控制與行為意圖的分布情形。單因子變異數分析檢視不同人口統計變項的男女受訪者在性別角色態度、付費態度、主觀規範、知覺行為控制與行為意圖之差異。皮爾森基差相關係數分析探討男女受訪者的性別角色態度、付費態度、主觀規範、知覺行為控制與行為意圖的關係。多元迴歸分析來探討男女受訪者的性別角色態度、付費態度、主觀規範、知覺行為控制對於行為意圖的影響。

結果：研究結果顯示，男性受訪者的付費態度1、主觀規範與月收入對於台灣適婚男女在約會費用的行為意圖一（在未來與約會對象初次約會時我會負擔約會費用）上具有顯著影響；付費態度1、付費態度3、知覺行為控制對於約會費用的行為意圖二（在未來與約會對象初次約會時我會和對方平分約會中的費用）具有顯著影響。女性受訪者的付費態度1、付費態度2與主觀規範對於台灣適婚男女在約會費用的行為意圖一（在未來與約會對象初次約會時我會負擔約會費用）上具有顯著影響；付費態度1、付費態度3、知覺行為控制對於約會費用的行為意圖二（在未來與約會對象初次約會時我會和對方平分約會中的費用）具有顯著影響。

結論：臺灣的適婚男女在初次約會上，仍存在一些傳統的性別角色規範，但在認知與態度上還是傾向於性別平等的，尤其是女性大多願意平分約會費用，不過女性在付費意願方面表現出更多的自主性，但仍存在一定程度的認同男性承擔約會費用的觀念，而男性在性別角色態度和付費態度方面更保守，傾向於承擔約會費用。根據本研究結果，對實務上與未來的研究上提供建議。

Purposes: With the evolution of society, modern views on dating and relationships have gradually changed. However, many behaviors in interpersonal interactions are still influenced by traditional culture. The issue of who should pay for a date has been widely discussed in heterosexual dating, but there is a lack of empirical research. Therefore, this study adopts the Theory of Planned Behavior as a framework to explore the impact of attitudes and behaviors on the intention to pay for a date among single men and women in Taiwan.

Method: This study employed a questionnaire survey method and collected data from 568 participants. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS 23.0. Descriptive statistics were employed to understand the distribution of gender role attitudes, payment attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intentions among respondents regarding paying for a date. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to examine the differences among male and female in gender role attitudes, payment attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intentions among demographic groups. Pearson's correlation coefficient analysis was used to explore the relationships between gender role attitudes, payment attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intentions among male and female participants. Multiple regression analysis was used to explore the influence of gender role attitudes, payment attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control on behavioral intentions for both male and female respondents.

Results: The study results revealed that for male participants, payment attitude1, and subjective norms, along with monthly income, significantly influenced the behavioral intentions of Taiwanese single individuals toward paying for a date on behavioral intention 1 (i.e., "I will pay all the expenses during the first date with a potential partner in the future"). Payment attitude 1, payment attitude 3, and perceived behavioral control have a significant impact on the behavioral intention concerning sharing the costs equally with the partner on behavioral intention 2 (i.e., "I will split the expenses during the first date with a potential partner in the future").
For female participants, payment attitude 1, payment attitude 2, and subjective norms significantly influence the behavioral intention of Taiwanese single individuals toward paying for a date on behavioral intention 1. Payment attitude 1, payment attitude 3, and perceived behavioral control significantly affect the behavioral intention related to sharing the costs equally with the partner behavioral intention2.

Conclusion: In Taiwan, there still exist some traditional gender role norms when the single men and women go on the first date. However, in terms of cognition and attitudes, there is a tendency towards gender equality, especially among women who are generally willing to split the costs of the date. Nevertheless, women also exhibit greater autonomy in their payment preferences, while still holding to some extent the notion of men covering the expenses. On the other hand, men tend to be more conservative in their gender role attitudes and payment preferences, leaning towards assuming the dating expenses. Based on the findings of this study, practical recommendations and suggestions for future research are provided.

Abelson, R. P. (1981). Psychological status of the script concept. American psychologist, 36(7), 715.
Abramova, O., Baumann, A., Krasnova, H., & Buxmann, P. (2016). Gender differences in online dating: What do we know so far? A systematic literature review. 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS),
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Ajzen, I. (2020). The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(4), 314-324.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1975). A Bayesian analysis of attribution processes. Psychological bulletin, 82(2), 261.
Ajzen, I., & Klobas, J. (2013). Fertility intentions: An approach based on the theory of planned behavior. Demographic research, 29, 203-232.
Alksnis, C., Desmarais, S., & Wood, E. (1996). Gender differences in scripts for different types of dates. Sex Roles, 34(5), 321-336.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta‐analytic review. British journal of social psychology, 40(4), 471-499.
Becker, J. C., & Swim, J. K. (2011). Seeing the unseen: Attention to daily encounters with sexism as way to reduce sexist beliefs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(2), 227-242.
Bielby, D. D. V., & Bielby, W. T. (1984). Work commitment, sex-role attitudes, and women's employment. American Sociological Review, 234-247.
Bogle, K. A. (2007). The shift from dating to hooking up in college: What scholars have missed. Sociology Compass, 1(2), 775-788.
Bosson, J. K., Johnson, A. B., Niederhoffer, K., & Swann Jr, W. B. (2006). Interpersonal chemistry through negativity: Bonding by sharing negative attitudes about others. Personal Relationships, 13(2), 135-150.
Bradshaw, C., Kahn, A. S., & Saville, B. K. (2010). To hook up or date: Which gender benefits? Sex Roles, 62(9-10), 661-669.
Buston, P. M., & Emlen, S. T. (2003). Cognitive processes underlying human mate choice: The relationship between self-perception and mate preference in Western society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(15), 8805-8810.
Cameron, J. J., & Curry, E. (2020). Gender Roles and Date Context in Hypothetical Scripts for a Woman and a Man on a First Date in the Twenty-First Century. Sex Roles, 82(5), 345-362.
Clark, C. L., Shaver, P. R., & Abrahams, M. F. (1999). Strategic behaviors in romantic relationship initiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(6), 709-722.
Dai, M., & Morgan, D. (2021). Talking is hard: A mixed-methods exploration of factors associated with communication about mental health issues among black college students. Communication Studies, 72(4), 634-651.
Davis, E. M., & Fingerman, K. L. (2016). Digital dating: Online profile content of older and younger adults. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 71(6), 959-967.
DeLucia, J. L. (1987). Gender role identity and dating behavior: What is the relationship? Sex Roles, 17, 153-161.
Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of personality and social psychology, 94(2), 245.
Eaton, A. A., & Rose, S. (2011). Has dating become more egalitarian? A 35 year review using Sex Roles. Sex Roles, 64(11-12), 843-862.
Emmers-Sommer, T. M., Farrell, J., Gentry, A., Stevens, S., Eckstein, J., Battocletti, J., & Gardener, C. (2010). First date sexual expectations: The effects of who asked, who paid, date location, and gender. Communication Studies, 61(3), 339-355.
Finkel, E. J., & Eastwick, P. W. (2009). Arbitrary social norms influence sex differences in romantic selectivity. Psychological Science, 20(10), 1290-1295.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2011). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Psychology press.
Fisman, R., Iyengar, S. S., Kamenica, E., & Simonson, I. (2006). Gender differences in mate selection: Evidence from a speed dating experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(2), 673-697.
Ginsburg, G. P. (1988). Rules, scripts and prototypes in personal relationships.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of personality and social psychology, 70(3), 491.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ambivalent sexism. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 115-188). Elsevier.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2018). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. In Social cognition (pp. 116-160). Routledge.
Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (2004). Cultural scripts: What are they and what are they good for? In: Walter de Gruyter.
Gul, P., & Kupfer, T. R. (2019). Benevolent sexism and mate preferences: Why do women prefer benevolent men despite recognizing that they can be undermining? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(1), 146-161.
Hair, J. F. (2009). Multivariate data analysis.
Hermann, C., Liang, C. T., & DeSipio, B. E. (2018). Exploring sexual consent and hostile masculine norms using the theory of planned behavior. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19(4), 491.
Holmberg, D., & MacKenzie, S. (2002). So far, so good: Scripts for romantic relationship development as predictors of relational well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19(6), 777-796.
Kelley, K., Pilchowicz, E., & Byrne, D. (1981). Response of males to female-initiated dates. Bulletin of the psychonomic society, 17(4), 195-196.
Klinkenberg, D., & Rose, S. (1994). Dating scripts of gay men and lesbians. Journal of homosexuality, 26(4), 23-35.
Korman, S. K. (1983). Nontraditional Dating Behavior: Date-Initiation and Date Expense-Sharing among Feminists and Nonfeminsts. Family Relations, 575-581.
Korman, S. K., & Leslie, G. R. (1982). The relationship of feminist ideology and date expense sharing to perceptions of sexual aggression in dating. Journal of Sex Research, 18(2), 114-129.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and psychological measurement, 30(3), 607-610.
Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2005). HurryDate: Mate preferences in action. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(3), 227-244.
Lamont, E. (2014). Negotiating courtship: Reconciling egalitarian ideals with traditional gender norms. Gender & Society, 28(2), 189-211.
Laner, M. R., & Ventrone, N. A. (1998). Egalitarian daters/traditionalist dates. Journal of Family Issues, 19(4), 468-477.
Lever, J., Frederick, D. A., & Hertz, R. (2015). Who pays for dates? Following versus challenging gender norms. Sage Open, 5(4), 2158244015613107.
McCarty, M. K., & Kelly, J. R. (2015). Perceptions of dating behavior: The role of ambivalent sexism. Sex Roles, 72(5-6), 237-251.
McFarland, D. A., Jurafsky, D., & Rawlings, C. (2013). Making the connection: Social bonding in courtship situations. American journal of sociology, 118(6), 1596-1649.
Mongeau, P. A., Jacobsen, J., & Donnerstein, C. (2007). Defining dates and first date goals: Generalizing from undergraduates to single adults. Communication Research, 34(5), 526-547.
Morr, M. C., & Mongeau, P. A. (2004). First-date expectations: The impact of sex of initiator, alcohol consumption, and relationship type. Communication Research, 31(1), 3-35.
Morr Serewicz, M. C., & Gale, E. (2008). First-date scripts: Gender roles, context, and relationship. Sex Roles, 58(3), 149-164.
Ong, D., & Wang, J. (2015). Income attraction: An online dating field experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 111, 13-22.
Romaniuk, O., & Terán, L. (2021). First impression sexual scripts of romantic encounters: Effect of gender on verbal and non verbal immediacy behaviors in American media dating culture. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 02654075211033036.
Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1989). YOUNG SINGLES'SCRIPTS FOR A FIRST DATE. Gender & Society, 3(2), 258-268.
Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1993). Young singles' contemporary dating scripts. Sex Roles, 28(9), 499-509.
Scanzoni, J., & Fox, G. L. (1980). Sex roles, family and society: The seventies and beyond. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 743-756.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structures. In: Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shahrabadi, R., Karimi-Shahanjarini, A., Dashti, S., Soltanian, A., & Garmaroudi, G. (2017). Predictors of intention to marriage based on theory of planned behavior among university students in Iran. Electronic physician, 9(4), 4090.
Shulman, A. (1980). Theories of Mate Selection. Marriage and family in a changing society. New York. Free Press, MacMillan Publishing Co.
Simms, D. C., & Byers, E. S. (2013). Heterosexual daters’ sexual initiation behaviors: Use of the theory of planned behavior. Archives of sexual behavior, 42, 105-116.
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of sexual behavior, 15(2), 97-120.
Skopek, J., Schulz, F., & Blossfeld, H.-P. (2011). Who contacts whom? Educational homophily in online mate selection. European Sociological Review, 27(2), 180-195.
White, J. W., & Niles, P. (1990). The Social Construction of Consent: Sexual Scripts and Acquaintance Rape.
Wu, H., Luo, S., Klettner, A., White, T., & Albritton, K. (2021). Gender Roles in the Millennium: Who Pays and Is Expected to Pay for Romantic Dates? Psychological Reports, 00332941211057144.
Youn, G. (2018). Male Partners’ Portion of Date Among Heterosexual College Students: Changes from 1999 to 2014 in Korea. The Open Psychology Journal, 11(1).
方文熙, 廖琳瑋, & 林淑雯（2022）。台灣大學生第一次約會腳本。 性學研究，13（1）， 1-21。
王慶福, 張德榮, & 林幸台（1995）。愛情關係及其影響因素的分析研究。中華輔導學報》(台北)(3)， 92-126。
吳明隆、涂金堂（2014）。SPSS 與統計應用分析. 五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
李怡君（2008）。性別平等教育法校園實施之現況---以宜蘭縣為例。
李美枝、鐘秋玉（1996）。性別與性別角色析論. 本土心理學研究(6), 260-299.
洪凱音（2021）。43％適婚族未婚 逾300萬人 另類國安危機 新生兒也大減. 中國時報。
徐台閣、 李光武（2013）。如何決定調查研究適當的問卷樣本數. 臺灣運動教育學報, 8(1), 89-96。
張靖爾（ 2006） 。台北市高職學生同儕關係與其異性交往態度之研究（人類發展與家庭學系碩士論文）。國立台灣師範大學。
勞動部統計處（2020）。性別勞動統計分析。
黃光國（1995) 。儒家價值觀的現代轉化: 理論分析與實徵研究. 本土心理學研究(3), 276-338。
黃貞蓉 （2005）。異性戀大學生的愛情樂章: 性別觀點的分析（ 性別教育研究所碩士論文）。國立高雄師範大學。
黃囇莉（2001)。 身心違常: 女性自我在父權結構網中的 “迷” 途. 本土心理學研究(15), 3-62。
楊顓芙（2007）。 計畫行為理論主要趨勢之研究-使用文獻共引分析方法 。
蔡文輝（2007)。婚姻與家庭-家庭社會學. 五南圖書出版股份有限公司。