摘要
在永續觀念逐漸深入政策、教育與市場的現今社會，消費者對於將永續落實在消費決策中都有了更高的認識與了解，國內市場上的永續商品也變得更加多樣化。過去文獻對個別消費者的永續消費行為有多方探討，但將永續納入以送禮為購買動機下的消費情境仍在發展當中。送禮行為牽涉到更複雜的社會關係建立，包括對價支付、形成互惠關係、表達社會身分與立場、創造儀式感等，這些禮物背後的購買需求的出現，使永續商品得以被消費者身為送禮者時納入考慮，形成潛在的永續送禮市場。
本研究探討當今消費者在購買動機為「送禮」時，是否會較「為自己購買時」更傾向選擇具永續屬性的產品，並進一步檢視消費者自我監控程度在其中的潛在調節效果。研究採實驗法驗證假設，透過操弄購買動機（送禮 vs. 自用）與送禮情境（聖誕節、生日、無特定場合）進行線上實驗，取得消費者在不同情境中的實際永續選擇與自我監控程度。實驗一發現：購買動機差異無法顯著提升永續產品的購買意圖，且消費者的自我監控程度並不具調節效果；實驗二顯示：在國內的華人文化背景架構下，三個送禮情境之間的永續商品選擇傾向並未展現出顯著差異，推翻原先認為節日送禮的社會影響因素將改變永續偏好的假設。研究結果有助於補足永續行銷文獻中對送禮情境的探討，亦為國內想要投注在永續身品開發之企業在節慶及日常禮品設計上提供實務建議。

Abstract
The policies, education and markets, consumers have a higher awareness and understanding of sustainability nowadays. Sustainable products have become more diversified in the market. In the past, literature has discussed the sustainable consumption behavior of individual consumers in many ways, but the inclusion of sustainability in consumption scenarios with gift-giving as a purchase motivation is still under development. Gift-giving behavior involves the establishment of more complex social relationships, including payment of consideration, forming reciprocal relationships, expressing social identity and position, creating a sense of ritual, etc. The emergence of the purchasing needs behind these gifts allows sustainable products to be taken into consideration by consumers as gift-givers, forming a potential sustainable gift-giving market.
This study explores whether consumers are more likely to choose sustainable products when their purchase motivation is gift giving than when they buy for themselves, and further examines the potential moderating effect of consumers' self-monitoring on the gift-giving context. The moderating effect of gift-giving occasion on this relationship. The study used an experimental method to verify the hypothesis, and conducted an online experiment by manipulating purchase motivation (gift giving vs. self-use) and gift-giving occasion (Christmas, birthday, no specific occasion), and measured consumers' sustainable purchase intention and self-monitoring. The study found that purchase motivation can indeed significantly increase the purchase intention of sustainable products, but consumers' self-monitoring level does not have a significant moderating effect; in addition, under the framework of the Chinese cultural background in China, the tendency to choose sustainable products among the three gift-giving occasions did not show significant differences, overturning the original assumption that the social influence factors of holiday gift-giving will change sustainable preferences. The research results help to supplement the discussion of gift-giving contexts in sustainable marketing literature, and also provide practical suggestions for domestic companies that want to invest in the development of sustainable products in the design of festival and daily gifts.

目錄
論文審定書 i
致謝 ii
摘要 iii
Abstract iv
目錄 v
圖目錄 vii
表目錄 vii
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與研究動機 1
一、近年永續議題發展 1
二、永續消費市場規模擴張 2
第二節 研究目的 4
第三節 研究程序 6
第二章 文獻探討 7
第一節 永續消費行為 7
第二節 送禮與自用消費情境的心理機制與行為差異 9
第三節 自我監控 11
第四節 永續送禮相關文獻 12
第五節 假說推論 14
一、購買動機對永續產品購買意圖之影響 14
二、自我監控在送禮情境下，對永續產品購買意圖提高的潛在調節效果 15
三、送禮情境在送禮情境下，對永續產品購買意圖提高的潛在調節效果 16
第三章 研究架構、假說推論與研究方法 18
第一節 研究架構 18
第二節 研究對象與抽樣方法 19
第三節 實驗刺激與前測設計 19
第四節 實驗設計 21
第五節 變數操作性定義與衡量方式 22
自我監控程度 22
第五節 統計分析方法 24
一、敘述性統計分析 24
二、問卷信度分析 24
三、迴歸分析 24
四、單因子變異數分析 24
第四章 統計分析與研究結果 25
第一節 樣本結構分析 25
第二節 變數的平均值、標準差及量表信度分析 28
第三節 控制變數檢定 28
第四節 假設驗證 29
一、主效果驗證 29
二、自我監控程度對永續產品購買意圖提高的潛在調節效果 31
三、送禮情境的差異對提高實際永續產品選擇機率的潛在調節效果 31
第五節 控制變數潛在影響探討 32
第五章 研究結論與建議 34
第一節 研究討論與結論 34
一、不同購買動機下永續產品的選擇傾向 34
二、自我監控與送禮情境差異對永續產品選擇的潛在調節效果 34
三、性別對實際永續選擇具有潛在影響力 35
第二節 研究貢獻與建議 36
一、理論意涵 36
二、實務意涵 36
第三節 研究限制與未來研究建議 36
一、研究限制 36
二、未來研究建議 37
參考文獻 39
附錄 44
一、前測問卷 44
二、正式問卷 50

劉千綾（2024年8月4日）。看好疫後電商動能 經部估今年零售業網路銷售續創高。中央社。取自https://www.cna.com.tw/news/afe/202408040038.aspx
高偉倫（2025年2月1日）。ESG懶人包》什麼是ESG？全面解析ESG核心定義、案例、檢測工具，一次讀懂ESG的行動指南。CSR@天下。取自https://csr.cw.com.tw/article/43025
動腦雜誌（2023年7月31日）。 2023消費者永續指數出爐！ESG認知度一年內大幅躍升。 東方線上。取自https://www.isurvey.com.tw/2_event/detail.aspx?id=686
陳瑋鴻、陳禹蓁（2023年7月4日）。ESG是什麼？ESG怎麼做？與CSR哪裡不同？2024最新企業永續發展趨勢。商業周刊。取自https://www.businessweekly.com.tw/carbon-reduction/blog/3010720
曾麗玉（2020）。品牌社群參與與品牌依附之關係:自我監控人格特質之干擾效果。﹝碩士論文。中國文化大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/m84575。
Belk, R. W. (1973). Application and analysis of the behavioural differential inventory for assessing situational effects in consumer behaviour. In Ward, S. & Wright, K. (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (pp. 370–380). Association for Consumer Research.
Brough, A. R., Wilkie, J. E., Ma, J., Isaac, M. S., & Gal, D. (2016). Is eco-friendly unmanly? The green-feminine stereotype and its effect on sustainable consumption. Journal of consumer research, 43(4), 567-582.
Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our common future—Call for action. Environmental conservation, 14(4), 291-294.
Chang, C.-C. A., & Lin, Y.-C. (2024). Giving a conspicuously branded gift: The role of guilt. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 48(5), e13090. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.13090
Chin, S. C., Wang, T. R., & Ho, C. M. S. (2024). Gifts that give twice are not twice as nice: Consumers avoid socially responsible gifts for picky recipients. Psychology & Marketing, 41(9), 2070-2081.
Das, G., Peloza, J., Varshneya, G., & Green, T. (2021). When do consumers value ethical attributes? The role of perceived quality in gift-giving. European Journal of Marketing, 55(1), 315–335. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0202
Eagly Alice H. (2009), “The His and Hers of Prosocial Behavior: An Examination of the Social Psychology of Gender,” American Psychologist, 64 (8), 644–58.
Farbotko, C., & Head, L. (2013). Gifts, sustainable consumption and giving up green anxieties at Christmas. Geoforum, 50, 88-96.
Fraj, E., & Martinez, E. (2006). Influence of personality on ecological consumer behaviour. Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review, 5(3), 167-181.
Francois-Lecompte, A., & Roberts, J. A. (2006). Developing a measure of socially responsible consumption in France. Marketing Management Journal, 16(2).
Givi, J., & Galak, J. (2022). Gift recipients’ beliefs about occasion‐based and non occasion‐based gifts: The importance of signaling care and meeting expectations in gift giving. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 32(3), 445–465.
Givi, J., & Mu, Y. (2022). Your gift, but my attitude: Gift-givers’ aversion to attitude-inconsistent gifts. European Journal of Marketing, 56(5), 1488–1511. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2021-0075
Green, T., & Peloza, J. (2014). Finding the right shade of green: The effect of advertising appeal type on environmentally friendly consumption. Journal of Advertising, 43(2), 128–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2013.834805
Green, T., Tinson, J., & Peloza, J. (2016). Giving the gift of goodness: An exploration of socially responsible gift-giving. Journal of Business Ethics, 134, 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2076-0
Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J., & Borin, N. (1998). The effects of store name, brand name and price discounts on consumers’ evaluations and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 74(3), 331–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(99)80099-2
Gulliford, L., Morgan, B., Hemming, E. et al. Gratitude, self-monitoring and social intelligence: A prosocial relationship?. Curr Psychol 38, 1021–10p{:XZ2B C/1 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00330-w
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Haq, G., Owen, A., Dawkins, E., & Barrett, J. (2007). The carbon cost of christmas. Stockholm Environment Institute: Stockholm, Sweden.
Hurst, K. F., & Sintov, N. D. (2022). Guilt consistently motivates pro-environmental outcomes while pride depends on context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 80, 101776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101776
Komter, A. E. (1996). Reciprocity as a Principle of Exclusion: Gift giving in the Netherlands. Sociology, 30(2), 299-316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038596030002006 (Original work published 1996)
Kowalski, R. (2011). The gift – Marcel Mauss and international aid. Journal of Comparative Social Welfare, 27(3), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/17486831.2011.595069
Kumar, A., Prakash, G., & Kumar, G. (2021). Does environmentally responsible purchase intention matter for consumers? A predictive sustainable model developed through an empirical study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 58, 102270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102270
Li, L., Wang, Z., Li, Y., & Liao, A. (2021). Impacts of consumer innovativeness on the intention to purchase sustainable products. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, 774–786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.02.002
Liu, N., Lou, Y., Wang, X., & Li, S. (2022). More expensive, more attractive? The effect of pricing on gift evaluation: Differences between giver and receiver. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 790434.
Othman, M. N., Ong, F. S., & Teng, A. (2005). Occasions and motivations for gift-giving: a comparative study of Malay and Chinese consumers in urban Malaysia. Asia Pacific Management Review, 10(3), 197-204.
Ollitervo, V., Sipilä, J., & Terho, H. (2025). The package says more than a thousand words: The effect of eco-labelling and package material on consumer's purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Behaviour. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2473
Otnes, C., Lowrey, T. M., & Kim, Y. C. (1993). Gift selection for easy and difficult recipients: A social roles interpretation. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1086/209347
Park, Y., & Yi, Y. (2021). Is a gift on sale “heart-discounted”? Givers’ misprediction on the value of discounted gifts and the influence of service robots. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 61, 102489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102489
Polman, E., & Lu, Z. Y. (2022). Are people more selfish after giving gifts? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 35(2), e2252.
Quoquab, F., & Mohammad, J. (2020). A review of sustainable consumption (2000 to 2020): What we know and what we need to know. Journal of Global Marketing, 33(5), 305-334.
Scammon, D. L., Shaw, R. T., & Bamossy, G. (1982). IS A GIFT ALWAYS A GIFT? AN INVESTIGATION OF FLOWER PURCHASING BEHAVIOR ACROSS SITUATIONS. Advances in consumer research, 9(1).
Segev, R., Shoham, A., & Ruvio, A. (2012). What does this gift say about me, you, and us? The role of adolescents’ gift giving in managing their impressions among their peers. Psychology & Marketing, 29(10), 752–764. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20561
Sheinov, V. P., & Dziavitsyn, A. S. (2024). M. Snyder’s self-monitoring scale: Short version, reliability, validity, factor structure. Education & Pedagogy Journal, 1(9), 62–74. https://doi.org/10.23951/2782-2575-2024-1-62-74
Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.1.125
Thygesen, N. (2019). The gift economy and the development of sustainability. Local Economy, 34(6), 493-509.
White, K., Habib, R., & Hardisty, D. J. (2019). How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework. Journal of Marketing, 83(3), 22–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919825649
Yadav, R., Giri, A., & Alzeiby, E. A. (2024). Analyzing the motivators and barriers associated with buying green apparel: Digging deep into retail consumers' behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 81, 103983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.103983
Zemack-Rugar, Y., Rabino, R., Cavanaugh, L. A., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2016). When donating is liberating: The role of product and consumer characteristics in the appeal of cause-related products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(2), 213-230.