摘 要
現代創意與美學經濟所強調的是「以創意設計之美，創造經濟上的附加價值」。在室內設計產業裡，要提高作品的附加價值，獲得使用者的偏好，「創意」與「美感」這兩個因素是重要關鍵。本研究的核心即在探討對於室內設計作品之「創意評量」、「美感判斷」與「視覺偏好」這三個變項的關係；主要研究目的包括：
(1)解讀室內設計作品其創意評量及美感判斷構成因素之屬性與特徵。
(2)探討不同屬性之個人對於室內設計作品之創意評量、美感判斷以及視覺偏好的情形，並檢定其差異。
(3)分析創意評量、美感判斷與視覺偏好三變項及其構成因素彼此間之相關程度。
(4)分析個人屬性、創意評量、美感判斷對於視覺偏好的解釋力。
(5)分析創意評量與美感判斷對於視覺偏好之影響途徑。
本研究採用了德懷術與焦點團體法，以及量化的相關研究法；經以自行發展的實景照片問卷對1041位大學生施測後，將調查所得資料，運用電腦統計軟體SPSS及LISREL，進行探索性因素分析、驗證性因素分析、複核效度檢驗、描述性統計、差異檢定、以及皮爾森積差相關、多元廻歸、路徑分析等，結果發現：
(1)創意評量與美感判斷各由7個因素所組成，每個因素各有其獨特的心理屬性與視覺特徵。
(2)在創意評量、美感判斷與視覺偏好三變項的全部28個因素中，不同性別在7個因素、不同年級別在13個因素、不同系別在17個因素上呈現顯著差異。
(3)創意評量、美感判斷與視覺偏好三變項的組成因素其兩兩之間的相關係數全部均達p＜.01（雙尾）的顯著水準。
(4)美感因素及系別等7個變項聯合共可解釋視覺偏好54.6％的變異量。
(5)創意評量與美感判斷對於視覺偏好的各影響路徑，其解釋力依序是「美感判斷→視覺偏好」大於「創意評量→美感判斷」大於「創意評量→美感判斷→視覺偏好」；然而，「創意評量→視覺偏好」並無顯著解釋力。
最後，本研究依據研究結果提出對於設計教學、設計實務以及學術研究之建議。期望本研究能有助於室內設計領域對於相關主題的瞭解、累積相關研究成果、並補創造力研究在有關創意作品特徵研究方面之不足。

Abstract
Today’s creative and aesthetic economy has strongly emphasized the additional economic values generated by the beauty of creative designs. In the interior design industry, creativity and aesthetics are two key components to add additional values and win users preference. The main core of this research is to explore the relationship among variables in creativity evaluation, aesthetic judgment and visual preference about interior design works.
The purposes of this research include:
(1) Interpretation of psychological attributes and visual qualities of people’s creativity evaluation and aesthetic judgment about interior design works.
(2) Exploration of different creativity evaluations, aesthetic judgments and visual preferences between subjects of different sexes, graders and departments.
(3) Analysis of the relationship among creativity evaluation, aesthetic judgment and visual preference, and the correlations between each two factors of these three variables.
(4) Analysis of the explained variance for visual preference.
(5) Analysis of the path of creativity evaluation and aesthetic judgment affecting visual preference.
The applied research methods include the qualitative Delphi and Focus Groups techniques, and the quantitative correlational study. A sampling investigation was conducted using 1041 college students. A self-developed questionnaire with photographs of interior environments was used. The collected data was analyzed with SPSS and LISREL software, applying such techniques as exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, cross-validation, descriptive statistics, t-test, Pearson γ, multiple regression, and path analysis. The results include:
(1) Each of creativity evaluation and aesthetic judgment consists of 7 factors; each factor has unique psychological attributes and visual qualities.
(2) The t-test reveals that, out of a total of 28 factors of creativity evaluations, aesthetic judgments and visual preferences, sexes differ significantly in 7 factors, graders differ significantly in 13 factors, and departments differ significantly in 17 factors.
(3) The Pearson r analysis shows that correlation coefficients between each two factors of the 18 factors are significant at p＜.01 (two-tailed) level.
(4) Multiple regression analysis reveals 7 predictive variables accounting for 54.6％ of total explained variance.
(5) Path analysis of creativity evaluation and aesthetic judgment affecting visual preference reveals the rank of path coefficient is: “aesthetic evaluation → visual preference”＞“creativity evaluation → aesthetic judgment”＞“creativity evaluation → aesthetic judgment → visual preference”. However, “creativity evaluation → visual preference” is not significant.
Based on the findings, this study proposes suggestions for teaching and design practices, and future academic research. The result of this pioneer research is expected to be helpful to gain a deeper understanding of creativity and aesthetic related issues, and can be supplemental to empirical studies on the visual qualities of creative works.

參考文獻
一、中文文獻
王文科（2002）。教育研究法，增訂七版。台北市：五南圖書。
王其敏（2005）。視覺思維與創意教學研究。台北市：揚智文化。
毛連塭、郭有遹、陳龍安、林幸台（2000）。創造力研究。台北市：心理出版社。
朱博湧、江逸之、王慧馨、宋健生、黃仁謙、黃正凱（2006）。藍海策略台灣版：15個開創新市場的成功故事。台北市：天下遠見。
邱皓政（2005）。量化研究法(一)：研究設計與資料處理。台北市：雙葉書廊。
邱皓政（2003）。結構方程模式：LISREL的理論、技術與應用。台北市：雙葉書廊。
邱皓政（2000）。量化研究與統計分析。台北市：五南圖書。
李乙明、李淑貞譯（Robert J. Sternberg主編）（2005a）。創造力Ⅰ：理論。台北市：五南圖書。
李乙明、李淑貞譯（Robert J. Sternberg主編）（2005b）。創造力Ⅱ：應用。台北市：五南圖書。
李長俊譯（Rudolf Arnheim著）（1985）。藝術與視覺心理學。台北市：雄獅圖書。
李錫津（1987）。創造思考教學研究。台北市：台灣書店。
林生傳（2003）。教育研究法：全方位的統整與分析。台北市：心理。
林重新（2003）。教育研究法。台北市：揚智文化。
林家旭（2003）。流行服裝風格與設計要素關係之研究－以米蘭2002/3秋冬女裝作品為例，藝術學報，73：89-97。
林振春（1992）。社會調查，第三版。台北市：五南圖書。
林清山（1988）。多變項分析統計法，第五版。台北市：台灣東華。
芬斯伯里史密斯勛爵（Chris Smith），台北創意轉型之路（2006年2月17日）。自由時報，A19版。
武珊珊等譯（Jacques Maquet著）（2003）。美感經驗：一位人類學者眼中的視覺藝術。台北市：雄獅。
吳清山、林天祐（2002）。德懷術，教育研究月刊，92期。
吳統雄（1984）。電話調查：理論與方法。台北市：聯經。
胡瑋珊譯（Luc de Brabandere著）（2006）。創意人的思考鍛鍊。台北市：臉譜出版。
高清漢（2002）。從風格原型看泳鏡造形特徵與意向的關係，設計學報，7(1)：33-46。
孫旗（1992）。藝術美學探索。台北市：結構群文化事業。
馬信行（1999）。線性結構模式在教育上的應用及所遭遇之問題，教育與心理研究，22：1-14。
莊明振、馬永川（2001）。以微電子產品為例探討產品意象與造形呈現對應關係，設計學報，6(1)：1-16。
莊修田、詹鎔瑄（2001）。室內設計與建築設計工作內容差異研究，生活應用科技學刊，3（2）：147-171。
陳昭儀、陳琦、張素華譯（Jane Piirto著）（1995）。瞭解創意人。台北市：心理出版社。
陳龍安（1995）。創造思考理論與實務。台北市：心理。
郭有遹（2001）。創造心理學。台北市：正中書局。
梁耘瑭譯（Robert L. Solso著）（2003）。視覺藝術認知。台北市：全華。
崔光宙（1992）。美感判斷發展研究。台北市：師大書苑。
彭台光、高月慈、林鉦琹（2006）。管理研究中的共同方法變異：問題本質、影響、測試和補救，管理學報，23（1）：77-98。
黃秀媛譯（W. C. Kim與R. Mauborgne合著）（2005）。藍海策略：開創無人競爭的全新市場。台北市：天下遠見。
張世彗（2003）。創造力－理論、技術/技法與培育。台北市：張世彗。
張春興（1991）。現代心理學。台北市：台灣東華書局。
張春興（2002）。心理學原理。台北市：台灣東華書局。
張美惠譯（Nancy Etcoff著）（1999）。美之為物：美的科學。台北市：時報文化。
張紹勳（2000）。研究方法。台中市：滄海書局。
張曉平（2005）。室內環境之美學因素與美感反應關係研究－以住宅客廳為例，中原大學室內設計研究所碩士論文。
葉啟政（1989）。因徑分析，楊國樞、文崇一、吳聰賢、李亦園編，社會及行為科學研究法。台北市：台灣東華。
董時叡（2001）。工作壓力過程模式之驗證：台灣基層農業推廣人員之分析，應用心理研究，10：199-220。
詹偉雄（2005）。美學的經濟：對台灣社會變遷的60個微型觀察。台北市：風格者。
經濟部工業局（2006）。2005年台灣文化創意產業發展年報。台北市：經濟部工業局。
漢寶德（2004）。漢寶德談美。台北市：聯經。
趙碧華、朱美珍編譯（Allen Rubin, Earl Babbie著）（2000）。研究方法：社會工作暨人文科學領域的運用。台北市：學富文化。
劉思量（1992）。藝術心理學－藝術與創造。台北：藝術家。
賴聲川（2006）。賴聲川的創意學。台北市：天下雜誌。
謝全文（1978）。得懷術在教育研究上的應用，今日教育，34：35。
謝依珊（2005）。室內環境的視覺偏好研究－以住宅餐廳為例，中原大學室內設計研究所碩士論文。
謝潮儀（1983）。德爾婓(Delphi)專家學者問卷法之應用—以台北都會區為例，法商學報，18：109-132。
簡茂發、劉湘川（1993）。電腦式會議式大慧調查法及其在教育上之應用，資訊與教育雜誌，35：6-11。
二、西文文獻
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The Social Psychology of Creativity. NY: Springer- Verlag.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context. Boulder. CO: Westview.
Anderson, H. H. (1959). Creativity as personality development. In H. H. Anderson (Ed.), Creativity and Its Cultivation. New York: Harper & Row.
Backer, J. (1987). The role of the environment in marketing services: The consumer perspective. In J. A. Czepeil, C. A. Congram, & J. Shanahan (Eds.), The Services Challenge: Integrating for Competitive Advantage. (pp.79-84). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York: Meredith.
Besemer, S. P., & Treffinger, D. (1981). Analysis of creative products: Review and synthesis. Journal of Creative Behavior, 15: 158-178.
Besemer, S. P., & O’Quin, K. (1999). Confirming the three-factor Creative Product Analysis Model in an American sample. Creativity Research Journal, 12: 287-296.
Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M. & Robson, K. (2001). Focus Groups in Social Research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Borg. I. & Groenen P. (1997). Modern Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications. NY: Springer-Verlag.
Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models. CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Brunswik, E., (1956). Perception and the Representative Design of Psychological Experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Chuang, H. T., (2007). Children’s Creative Evaluations of School Physical Environments. 3rd Global Conference: Creative Engagements–Thinking with Children. Sydney, Australia.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A system view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Nature of Creativity. (pp. 325-339). Cambridge University Press.
Devlin, K., & Nasar, J. (1989). The beauty and the best: Some preliminary comparisons of “high” versus “popular” residential architecture and public versus architect judgments of same. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9: 333-344.
Diamantopoulos, A. & Siguaw, J. (2000). Introducing LISREL. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic.
Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., & 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 sorting task. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2:3-22.
Groat, L. N., & Després, C. (1991). The significance of architectural theory for environmental design research. In E. H. Zube & G. T. Moore (Eds.), Advances in Environment, Behavior and Design, 3: 3-53. New York: Plenum.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw Hill.
Hershberger, R. G., & Cass, R. C. (1974). Predicting user responses to buildings. In G. Davis (Ed.), Man Environment Interaction: Evaluations and Applications, the State of Art in Environmental Design Research - Field Applications. (pp. 117-134). Milwaukee: Environmental Design Research Association.
Herzog, T. R., (1984). A cognitive analysis of preference for field and forest environments. Landscape Research, 9: 10-16.
Hocevar, D. (1981). Measurement of creativity: Review and critique. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45: 450-464.
Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taconomy and critique of measurement used in the study of creativity. In J. A. Glouer, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of Creativity. NY: Plenum Press.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural equation modeling, 6(1): 1-55.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8.14: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Kaplan, S., (1988). Perception and landscape: Conceptions and misconceptions. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, and Application. New York: Cambridge.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for Structural Equation Modeling. CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
Lang, J. (1987). Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., Mar, C. M., & Reith, J. V. (1994). Alternative strategies for cross-validation of covariance structure models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 29(1): 1-32.
Maquet, J. (1986). The Aesthetic Experience: An Anthropologist Looks at the Visual Arts. Conn.: Yale University Press.
McDonald, R. P. & Ho, M. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation modeling. Psychological Methods, 7: 64-82.
Nasar, J. L. (1983). Adult viewers’ preferences in residential scenes: A study of the relationship of environmental attributes to preference. Environment and Behavior, 15: 589-614.
Nasar, J. L. (1988). Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, and Application. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nasar, J. L. (1989). Symbolic meanings of house styles. Environment and Behavior, 21: 235-257.
Nasar, J. L., & Kang, J. (1989). A post-jury evaluation: The Ohio State University design competition for a center for the visual arts. Environment and Behavior, 21: 464-484.
Nasar, J. L. (1997). New developments in aesthetics for urban design. In G. T. Moore & R. W. Marans (Eds.), Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design, Volume 4: Toward the Integration of Theory, Methods, Research, and Utilization. (pp.149-193). New York: Plenum Press.
Oostendorp, A. (1978). The identification and interpretation of dimensions underlying aesthetic behavior in the daily urban environment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 40(2), 990B.
Osborne, H. (1970). The art of Appreciation. London: Oxford University Press.
Porteous, J. D. (1996). Environmental Aesthetics: Ideas, Politics and Planning. New York: Routledge.
Rapoport, A. (1982). The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Non-Verbal Communication Approach. Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.
Rogers, C. (1959). Toward a theory of creativity. In H. H. Anderson (Ed.), Creativity and Its Cultivation. New York: Harper & Row.
Schmitt, B. H., & Simonson, A. (1997). Marketing Aesthetics: The Strategic Management of Brands, Identity, and Image.
Schwab, D. P. (2005). Research Methods for Organizational Studies, (2nd ed.), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Scott, S. C. (1993). Visual attributes related to preference in interior environment. Journal of Interior Design Education and Research, 18 (1 & 2): 7-16.
Seaton, R. W., & Collins, J. B. (1970). Validity and reliability of ratings of stimulated buildings. In W. S. Mitchell (Ed.), Environmental Design: Research and Practice. (pp. 6-10-1－6-10-12). Los Angeles, CA: Environmental Design Research Association.
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1991). Love the Way You Want It. NY: Bantam.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity. (pp. 3-15). UK: Cambridge University Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives. (pp. 43-75). Cambridge University Press.
Vernon, P. E. (1979). Intelligence: Heredity and Environment. San Francisco: Freeman.
Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetics and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the Natural Environment: Human Behavior and Environment, Advances in Theory and Research, 6:85-125. New York: Plenum.
Westberg, K. L. (1991). The effects of instruction in the inventing process on students’ development of invention. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51. (University Microfilms No. 9107625)
Wohlwill, J. F. (1976). Environmental aesthetics: The environment as a source of affect. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human Behavior and the Environment: Advances in Theory and Research. New York: Plenum Press.
Zube, E. H., Sell, J. L., & Taylor, G. (1982). Landscape perception: Research, application and theory, Landscape Planning, 9: 1-33.