| 摘要: | 本研究旨在探究飼養寵物為犬、貓者的寵物依附關係、情感狀態及利動物行為之相關情形，並檢驗三者間的徑路模式。研究方法採用問卷調查法，藉由立意取樣抽取受訪者，運用網路問卷蒐集樣本資料，研究對象共計548人。主要研究工具為「寵物依附關係量表」、「情感狀態量表」及「利動物行為量表」。調查所得資料，以描述統計、t考驗、單因子變異數分析、相關分析、迴歸分析與結構方程模型等統計方法處理。本研究主要發現如下：
一、 就寵物依附關係而言，在性別（女＞男）、年齡之「親密互動」（成年晚期>成年中期）、婚姻狀況之「親密互動」（已婚＞未婚）、教育程度（高中職以下＞大專院校；研究所以上）、居住狀況之「關愛行動」（獨居＞與他人同住）、寵物類型（狗＞貓）、飼養時間（兩年以上＞半年~未滿一年）、飼養角色（主要＞次要照顧者）等變項上有顯著差異。就情感狀態而言，在性別之「正向情感」（女＞男）、婚姻狀況之「負向情感」（未婚＞已婚）、居住型態之「負向情感」（近郊＞都市）、飼養狀況之「正向情感」（現在＞曾經）、飼養狀況之「負向情感」（曾經＞現在）、飼養角色之「正向情感」（主要＞次要照顧者）；飼養角色之「負向情感」（次要＞主要照顧者）等變項上有顯著差異。就利動物行為而言，性別（女＞男）、年齡（成年前期＞成年中期）、教育程度（高中職以下＞大專院校）、寵物類型（狗；都有＞貓）、寵物數量（兩隻以上＞一隻）、飼養角色（主要＞次要）等變項上有顯著差異。
二、 寵物依附關係、正負向情感狀態、利動物行為之間有顯著相關。
三、 寵物依附關係和正向情感狀態對利動物行為的解釋力為23.5％。
四、 性別、飼養角色、寵物類型、教育程度、飼養時間對寵物依附關係的解釋力為13.7％。性別、飼養角色對正向情感狀態的解釋力為5.0％。居住型態、飼養狀況、居住狀況、飼養角色對負向情感狀態的解釋力為4.8％。飼養角色、寵物類型、寵物數量、性別對利動物行為的解釋力為10.6%。
五、 本研究提出之寵物依附關係、情感狀態及利動物行為三者間之徑路模式不成立。
最後，依據本研究結果加以討論，提供相關具體建議，作為未來推廣動物生命教育工作或相關研究之參考。
The purpose of this study was to investigate the correlation of pet attachment, affectivity and pro-animal behavior among owners. Survey data were collected using an internet panel survey of 548 pet owners. The main research tools in this study included Scale of Pet Attachment, Scale of Affectivity and Scale of Pro-animal Behavior . Data was analyzed by descriptive statistics, means of t-test, one-way ANOVA, product-moment correlation, multiple regression and Structural equation modeling. The main findings were as follows:
1. On pet attachment , variables as follows had significant differences: gender (female> male), age of "intimate interaction" (late adulthood> middle adulthood), marital status of "intimate interaction" (married> unmarried), education level (senior high > bachelor's degree; graduate degree), living conditions "Caring action" (Alone> living with others), pet type (dog> cat), rearing time (more than two years> six months to less than one year) , rearing roles (primary> secondary caregivers).On affectivity, variables as follows had significant differences: gender of "positive affectivity " (female> male), marital status of "negative affectivity " (unmarried> married), living status of "negative affectivity " (suburban> Urban), rearing conditions of "positive affectivity " (now> once), rearing conditions of "negative affectivity " (once> now), raising roles of "positive affectivity " (primary> secondary caregivers); rearing roles of "negative affectivity "(secondary> primary caregivers).On pro-animal behavior, variables as follows had significant differences: gender (female> male), age (pre-adulthood > middle adulthood), educational level (senior high> bachelor's degree), pet type (dog; both> cat), number of pets (Two or more > one), raising roles (primary> secondary) variables had significant differences.
2. There were significant correlations among pet Pet attachment, affectivity and pro-animal behavior.
3. Pet attachment and positive affectivity could predict 23.5% variance of pro-animal behavior.
4. Pet owners’ gender, rearing roles, pet type, education level, rearing time could predict 13.7% variance of pet attachment. Pet owners’ gender, rearing roles could predict 5.0% variance of positive affectivity. Living patterns, rearing status, living situation, rearing roles could predict 4.8% variance of negative affectivity. Rearing role, pet type, number of pets, and Pet owners’ gender could predict 10.6% variance of pro-animal behavior.
5. The path model among the pet attachment, affectivity and pro-animal behavior was not valid.
Finally, the implications of this study were discussed and recommendations for future animal welfare education were suggested. |
