近年來，雙北地區高房價與高租金加重租屋族居住負擔，儘管政府持續推動租金補貼政策，仍有部分符合資格之租客未提出申請，顯示政策接受度除受補貼內容影響外，亦涉及租客之心理認知。因此，本研究以雙北租屋族為研究對象，結合助推理論(Nudge Theory)與結構方程模型(SEM)，探討不同助推設計對租屋補貼申請意願之影響，以及心理中介變項所扮演之角色。本研究驗證兩項議題，分別是「資訊揭露」的助推方法與「說服框架」的助推方法是否影響租屋補貼的申請意願：「資訊揭露」的組別中又分為「基本資訊揭露」與「充分資訊揭露」兩群，並以權利知覺、制度信任作為心理中介變項；「說服框架」的組別又分為「利得框架」與「損失框架」兩群，並以效益認知作為心理中介變項。兩個組別皆以租屋補貼申請意願作為應變項，同時進一步檢驗所得、申請租屋補貼經驗以及通勤時間等基本資料變項之調節效果。本研究採用問卷調查法蒐集資料，在「資訊揭露」組中收回 617 份樣本，於「說服框架」組中收回 613 份樣本，並透過信效度分析、結構方程模型(SEM)、拔靴法以及多群組分析進行實證檢驗。
研究結果顯示，充分資訊揭露雖未直接提升租屋補貼申請意願，但可透過權利知覺與制度信任等心理機制間接提升租客之申請意願；相較之下，損失框架相較於利得框架，無論直接效果或中介效果皆未達顯著。多群組分析結果顯示，所得於資訊揭露模型中呈現邊際顯著調節效果，申請租屋補貼經驗則具有顯著調節效果，而通勤時間及說服框架組之所得與申請經驗皆未具有顯著調節效果。整體而言，本研究顯示，相較於改變政策訊息之呈現方式，提升政策資訊的完整性與透明度，更能增進租客對租屋補貼政策之權利知覺與制度信任，進而提升其申請意願。

In recent years, soaring housing prices and rents have increased the housing burden on tenants in the Taipei metropolitan area. Although the government has continued to expand the rental subsidy program, some eligible tenants still do not apply, suggesting that policy acceptance is influenced not only by subsidy benefits but also by tenants' psychological perceptions. Therefore, this study focuses on tenants in the Taipei metropolitan area and integrates Nudge Theory with Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to examine the effects of different nudge designs on rental subsidy application intentions and the mediating roles of psychological factors. This study investigates two nudge approaches: Information Disclosure and Persuasion Framing. In the Information Disclosure group, participants were assigned to either the basic information disclosure or comprehensive information disclosure condition, with Rights Perception and Institutional Trust serving as mediating variables. In the Persuasion Framing group, participants were assigned to either the gain-framing or loss-framing condition, with Perceived Benefits serving as the mediating variable. In both groups, Intention to Apply for Rental Subsidy was treated as the dependent variable. In addition, the moderating effects of demographic variables, including income, age, previous rental subsidy application experience, and commuting time, were examined. Data were collected through a questionnaire survey, yielding 617 valid responses for the Information Disclosure group and 613 valid responses for the Persuasion Framing group. Reliability and validity analyses, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), Bootstrapping, and Multi-Group Analysis were employed for empirical testing.
The results indicate that although comprehensive information disclosure did not directly increase tenants' intention to apply for rental subsidies, it indirectly enhanced their application intention through psychological mechanisms involving rights perception and institutional trust. In contrast, compared with the gain-framed message, the loss-framed message showed neither significant direct nor indirect effects. Multi-group analysis further revealed that income exhibited a marginally significant moderating effect in the information disclosure model, while prior experience with rental subsidy applications demonstrated a significant moderating effect. In contrast, commuting time, as well as income and prior application experience in the persuasion framing model, showed no significant moderating effects. Overall, the findings suggest that improving the completeness and transparency of policy information is more effective than altering message framing in enhancing tenants' rights perception, institutional trust, and intention to apply for rental subsidies.

一、英文文獻
Aiken, L. R. (1974). Two scales of attitude toward mathematics. Journal for research in Mathematics Education, 5(2), 67-71.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Akinsulire, A. A., Idemudia, C., Okwandu, A. C., & Iwuanyanwu, O. (2024). Economic and social impact of affordable housing policies: A comparative review. International Journal of Applied Research in Social Sciences, 6(7), 1433-1448.
Anacker, K. B. (2019). Introduction: Housing affordability and housing policy in the United States. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 34, 1–7.
Andreas T. Schmidt (2019). Getting Real on Rationality—Behavioral Science, Nudging, and Public Policy. Philpapers, Ethics 129(4): 511-543.
Ashraf, N., Camerer, C. F., & Loewenstein, G. (2005). Adam Smith, Behavioral Economist. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(3), 131–145.
Bang, H. M., Shu, S. B., & Weber, E. U. (2020). The role of perceived effectiveness on the acceptability of choice architecture. Behavioural Public Policy, 4(1), 50-70.
Benartzi, S., & Thaler, R. H. (2007). Heuristics and biases in retirement savings behavior. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(3), 81-104.
Beshears, J., & Kosowsky, H. (2020). Nudging: Progress to date and future directions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 161(S), 3–19.
BETA (2025). Stigma in government services: Literature review. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Brainard, W. C., & Scarf, H. E. (2005). How to Compute Equilibrium Prices in 1891. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 64(1), 57–83.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (2015). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Ravenio books.
Chon, A. I. M. (2025). Research on maintaining judicial fairness: Institutional innovation and practical exploration. In SHS Web of Conferences, 213, 02001. EDP Sciences.
Denary, W., Fenelon, A., Whittaker, S., Esserman, D., Lipska, K. J., & Keene, D. E. (2023). Rental assistance improves food security and nutrition: an analysis of national survey data. Preventive medicine, 169, 107453.
Didenko, N. I., Romashkina, G. F., Skripnuk, D. F., & Kulik, S. V. (2020). Dynamics of trust in institutions, the legitimacy of the social order, and social open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(4), 111.
Dodson, J., Taylor, E., & Goldie, X. (2020). Commuting burden and housing affordability for low-income renters. AHURI Final Report.
Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., & Vlaev, I. (2010). MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy. Cabinet Office and Institute for Government.
Estadieu, L., Klauer, K. C., Vobkuhle, A., & Thomaschke, R. (2025). Institutional trust in crisis? Conceptual and methodological challenges in measuring institutional trust. Sociology Compass, 19(6), e70073.
Faisal Yousef Sabah (2025). Global approaches to affordable housing: comparative insights from developed and developing countries and the case of Palestine. Frontiers In Built Environment.
Finkelstein, A., & Notowidigdo, M. J. (2017). The effects of information and application assistance on take-up, targeting, and welfare. In Proceedings. Annual Conference on Taxation and Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the National Tax Association, 110, 1–50. National Tax Association.
Fischer, W., Rice, D., & Mazzara, A. (2019). Research shows rental assistance reduces hardship and provides platform to expand opportunity for low-income families. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Fusaro, V. A., Baidoo, C., Carey, N., & Coley, R. L. (2025). Rental assistance, housing insecurity, & well-being: Spillover effects of emergency rental assistance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Social Science & Medicine, 118795.
Galvez, M., & Knudsen, B. (2024). Discrimination against voucher holders and the laws to prevent it: Reviewing the evidence on source of income discrimination. Cityscape, 26(2), 145–168.
Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2012). Field experiments: Design, analysis, and interpretation. (No Title).
Ghaleb, M., & Yaslioglu, M. (2024). Structural equation modeling (SEM) for social and behavioral sciences studies: Steps sequence and explanation. Journal of Organizational Behavior Review, 6(1), 69-108.
Handayani, N. (2025). Exploring the Relationship Between Administrative Transparency and Public Trust in Government Institutions and Agencies. The Journal of Academic Science, 2(9), 2116-2123.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 43(1), 115-135.
Herman, H., Aslinda, A., & Jayadi, K. (2025). Public Perceptions and Participatory Policy Implementation in National Development: The Case of Indonesia's Gold Program. International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age (IJPADA), 12(1), 1-23.
Hernanz, V., Malherbet, F., & Pellizzari, M. (2004). Take-up of welfare benefits in OECD countries: a review of the evidence.
Hiatt, J. M. (2006). ADKAR: A model for change in business, government, and our community. Prosci Learning Center Publications.
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Institute for Health and Social Policy. (2021). Report of the housing mobility research road map project.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
Kitt, S., Axsen, J., Long, Z., & Rhodes, E. (2021). The role of trust in citizen acceptance of climate policy: Comparing perceptions of government competence, integrity and value similarity. Ecological Economics, 183, 106958.
Lavee, E. (2022). Hybrid entitlement: Welfare recipients’ perceptions of entitlement to social rights. Journal of Social Policy, 51(4), 669-686.
Linos, E., & Lasky-Fink, J. (2022). It's not your fault: Reducing stigma increases take-up of government programs. NBER Working Paper Series, 30307.
Mansoor, M. (2021). Citizens' trust in government as a function of good governance and government agency's provision of quality information on social media during COVID-19. Government information quarterly, 38(4), 101597.
McDonnall, M. C., & Lund, E. M. (2020). Employers’ intent to hire people who are blind or visually impaired: a test of the theory of planned behavior. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 63(4), 206-215.
Miriam Elnemr Rofael (2025). Improving the Housing Choice Voucher Program through Source of Income Discrimination Laws. The Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy, 32(3), 503-525.
Moynihan, D., Herd, P., & Harvey, H. (2015). Administrative burden: Learning, psychological, and compliance costs in citizen-state interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 43-69.
Münscher, R., Vetter, M., & Scheuerle, T. (2016). A review and taxonomy of choice architecture techniques. International Journal of Project Management, 34(1), 14–22.
Parkinson, J. A., Eccles, K. E., Goodman, A. (2014). Positive impact by design: the Wales centre for behaviour change. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(6), 517–522.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior research methods, 40(3), 879-891.
Read, D. (2007). Utility theory from Jeremy Bentham to Daniel Kahneman. Working Paper, London School of Economics.
Saghai, Yashar (2013). Salvaging the concept of nudge. Journal of Medical Ethics, 39(8), 487–493.
Schapiro, R., Blankenship, K., Rosenberg, A., & Keene, D. (2022). The effects of rental assistance on housing stability, quality, autonomy, and affordability. Housing Policy Debate, 32(3), 456-472.
Scheunemann, L., Chaudhry, Z., Dugas, M., Afif, Z., Muñoz Boudet, A. M., & Vakis, R. (2024). Behavioral solutions for successful subsidy reform: Research note. World Bank Group.
Schoeffer, J., Kuehl, N., & Machowski, Y. (2022). There is not enough information: On the effects of explanations on perceptions of informational fairness and trustworthiness in automated decision-making. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 1616–1628.
Selman, J. (2025). Rental Assistance in Middle-Income Countries: Quasi-experimental Evidence from Chile. Universidad de Chile, Departamento de Economía.
Sharma, A. (2025). Managing Resistance in Complex Digital Transformations: A Comparative Study of Change Management Models in Complex Organizational Systems. IJSAT-International Journal on Science and Technology, 16(3).
Simon, H. A. (1955). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99-114.
Steffen et al. (2021). The influence of gain–loss framing on COVID-19 compliance. Curr Psychol.
Sunstein, C. R. (2015). The Ethics of Nudging. Yale Journal on Regulation, 32, 413-450.
Swope, C. B., & Hernández, D. (2019). Housing as a determinant of health equity: A conceptual model. Social Science & Medicine, 243, 112571.
Tabuga, A. D. (2013). Policy awareness and participation by persons with disability in the Philippines. PIDS Discussion Paper Series.
Tallyfy. (2023). ADKAR model: Awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, and reinforcement. Tallyfy. Available at: https://tallyfy.com/adkar-model/
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International journal of medical education, 2, 53.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Libertarian Paternalism. The American Economic Review, 93(2), 175-179.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458.
Ui, T. (2022). Optimal and robust disclosure of public information. ArXiv preprint. ArXiv: 2203.16809.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2025). Worst case housing needs: 2025 report to Congress. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Van Aaken, A. (2015). Judge the nudge: In search of the legal limits of paternalistic nudging in the EU. In A. Alemanno & A.-L. Sibony (Eds.), Nudge and the law: A European perspective. Hart Publishing.
Waldron, R. (2024). Responding to housing precarity: The coping strategies of generation rent. Housing Studies, 39(1), 124-145.
Woodward, R. (2009). The organisation for economic co-operation and development (OECD). Routledge.
Yang, R., & Liu, B. (2026). Beyond Satisfaction: A Dual-Process Psychological Model of Public Service Reuse. Frontiers in Psychology, 17, 1765532.

二、中文文獻
內政部(2023)。300 億元中央擴大租金補貼專案計畫(租金補 2.0)。取自內政部不動產資訊平台。
內政部(2025)。租賃市場透明化之現況及展望專題報告。取自立法院第 11 屆第 3 會期內政委員會第 5 次全體委員會議。
內政部國土管理署(2024)。300 億元中央擴大租金補貼專案：補貼金額加碼機制與分級制度。取自內政部不動產資訊平台。
內政委員會(2025)。「如何健全住宅租賃市場及租賃雙方權益保障」之修法公聽會紀錄。立法院公報，114(97)，369-432。
安磊諮詢顧問有限公司(2024)。「113 年住宅需求動向調查」委託專業服務案。內政部國土管理署。
林朝陽、曾玟雅、黃巾芳(2019)。《新北市住宅租金補貼分級制度評估與分析》。新北市政府城鄉發展局，1-70。
陳欽雨、呂博裕、曹鐘緯(2016)。利他行為、資訊透明和互動關係對社區依附及生活品質之影響：以物業管理業為例。服務業管理評論，14，76-96。
謝博明、黃于禎(2021)。從家戶租屋需求觀點探討台灣租金補貼與租賃住宅政策。公共事務評論，19(2)，1-24。
顏郁婷(2015)。電子化政府對 e 生活品質影響模型之建立。國立政治大學博碩士論文系統。