如今高齡化的社會愈發重視老的議題，人們普遍希望在生理、心理與社會層面，均能保持正向的態度。
根據自我效能理論，高自我效能即能幫助個人擁有更正向積極的行為；故本研究基於自我效能理論，觀察藉由設計的介入，是否能提高使用者的自我效能，達到正向老化的可能。本研究以通用設計原則切入，並針對中高齡以上的使用者，探討不同文具使用經驗，對其自我效能的影響。經由文獻探討與深度訪談後，發現通用設計原則中的公平使用，為重要影響因素；故後續以滿足公平使用原則與否，作為文具使用任務的變因，並根據任務結果，分析使用者自我效能的變化，判斷設計能否影響老化認知。
在任務設計部分，選取市售的文具產品，以產品績效方案（product performance program，PPP）的37項指標，評估其通用設計的達成度，分為符合公平原則與不符合兩組，作爲任務樣本。本研究改編一般性自我效能量表（generalized self-efficacy scale，GSES），詢問受試者在任務前、與操作兩組不同文具樣本後，各自的自我效能預期，再對量表分數進行獨立樣本t檢定、訪談內容分析，最終得出以下研究結果：

1. 使用者使用文具產品的經驗，可以改變自我效能。
2. 滿足通用設計中公平使用原則的設計，可以在使用者的老化閾限前，減緩其老化認知的產生。
3. 對通用設計原則明確的優先排序，可以更接近使用者的真實需要。

An aging society pays more and more attention to aging issues, and people generally hope to maintain a positive attitude on physical, psychological, and social levels. According to self-efficacy theory, high self-efficacy can help individuals with more positive behaviors. Therefore, this research was based on self-efficacy theory to observe whether design intervention could improve the user’s self-efficacy and achieve the possibility of positive aging. This research used universal design principles and targeted middle-aged and older users to explore the influences of different stationery experiences on self-efficacy. After literature reviews and in-depth interviews, this research found that the equitable use of universal design principles was an important influencing factor. Therefore, whether or not the principle was satisfied was used as the variable of the stationery performance tasks. Based on the task results, changes in the user’s self-efficacy were analyzed, and whether the design could affect aging perception was determined. Commercially available stationery products were used for designing performance tasks and evaluated by the PPP (product performance program) index for the achievement of universal design. These stationery products were divided into two groups as task samples, according to whether or not they followed the principle of equitable use. In order to measure self-efficacy, this research adapted the generalized self-efficacy scale (GSES) to inquire the participants about their self-efficacy expectations before the tasks and after using different stationery samples. A paired sample t-test on the scale scores was performed, and interviewed contents were analyzed. The results of this research were as follows.

1. The user’s experience of using stationery products could adjust self-efficacy.
2. Designs that complied with the equitable use principle could alleviate the effect of aging perceptions before reaching the user’s threshold.
3. The unambiguous priority of universal design principles could get closer to the user’s actual needs.

中文文獻

(1) 中川聰（2015）。ユニバーサルデザインの教科書（三版）。日経BP。
(2) 方恪修（2010）。建立通用設計應用於產品開發過程模式之研究：以手工具為例［未出版碩士論文］。大同大學。
(3) 王桂沰（2005）。企業．品牌。識別．形象：符號思維與設計方法。全華。
(4) 行政院主計處（2017）。105年受僱員工動向調查報告。行政院主計處。
(5) 何秀煌（1991）。記號學導論。水牛。
(6) 余虹儀（2008）。愛．通用設計：充滿愛與關懷的設計概念。網路與書。
(7) 吳明隆、凃金堂（2008）。SPSS與統計應用分析。五南。
(8) 吳治勳（2010）。對老的刻板印象、老化自我覺知及最適老化［未出版博士論文］。國立臺灣大學。
(9) 吳啟誠、張瓊云（2020）。主題分析在教育研究上的應用。特殊教育發展期刊，69，29-42。
(10)吳惠林、杜英儀、彭素玲、王怡修（2014）。改善我國中高齡與高齡者勞動參與之因應對策［計畫編號：PG10401-0347］。勞動部。
(11)李政忠（2004）。網路調查所面臨的問題與解決建議。資訊社會研究，6，1-24。
(12)李柏靜、胡碧嬋（2014）。商標識別性之符號學分析—由MISS WU案談起。智慧財產權月刊，190，65-91。
(13)沈慶盈（2007）。談社工員自我效能的提升。社區發展季刊，120，208-220。
(14)阮小林、張慶林、杜秀敏、崔茜（2009）。刻板印象威脅效應研究回顧與展望。心理科學進展，17（4），836-844。
(15)林本炫（2007）。不同質性方法的資料分析比較。在周平、楊弘任（編），質性研究方法的眾聲喧嘩（頁127-149）。復文。
(16)林生傳（2003）。教育研究法：全方位的統計與分析。心理。
(17)林承賢（2006）。網路問卷調查回收率影響因素之初探分析－以1999-2003年臺灣博碩士論文為例［未出版碩士論文］。國立中正大學。
(18)林彥佑（2007）。消費者對筆類通用設計產品的認知研究［未出版碩士論文］。實踐大學。
(19)林銘煌（2000）。產品造形中的符號與符碼。設計學報，2（5），73-81。
(20)邱天助（2002）。老年符號與建構：老人研究的社會文化轉折。正中。
(21)邱圓惠（2008）。自我探索課程對國中生自我效能及生活適應影響之研究［未出版碩士論文］。國立臺灣師範大學。
(22)胡舜安（2003）。臺灣地區中部地區國小高年級學童自我概念及其相關因素之研究［未出版碩士論文］。國立臺(23)中教育大學。
(24)財団法人共用品推進機構（編）（2000）。高齢者にわかりやすい駅のサイン計画。都市文化社。
(25)高淑清（2008）。質性研究的18堂課—首航初探之旅。麗文文化。
(26)國民健康署（2016）。104年健康行為危險因子監測調查。國民健康署。
(27)國家發展委員會（2020）。中華民國人口推估（2020年至2070年）。國家發展委員會。
(28)張芬芬（2010）。質性資料分析的五步驟：在抽象階梯上爬升。初等教育學刊，35，87-120。
(29)張素梅（1997）。統計學（上）、（下）。三民書局。
(30)梁明皓、魏慧娟、郭書馨（2020）。高齡者自我效能、自尊對憂鬱傾向之影響：雲林縣兩沿海鄉鎮的現況。福祉科技與服務管理學刊，8（2），100-116。https://doi.org/10.6283/JOCSG.202006_8(2).100
(31)郭為藩（1972）。自我心理學。開山書店。
(32)陳建山（2003）。漢字造型符號形式轉化之創作研究［未出版碩士論文］。國立交通大學。
(33)黃富順、楊國德（2016）。高齡學（二版）。五南。
(34)黃群智、林振陽、丁誌魰（2007）。臺灣企業產品設計運用「通用設計」概念之研究。應用藝術與設計學報，2，81-97。
(35)管健、柴民權（2011）。刻板印象威脅：新議題與新爭議。心理科學進展，19（12），1842-1850。https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2011.01842
(36)趙毅衡、胡易容（2014）。符號學：傳媒學辭典。新銳文創。
(37)劉國鑑、蔡鴻星、沈美嬌、張水清、洪念民（2011）。統計學。新文京開發。
(38)蔡建誠（1995，10月13日）。年齡主義的社會建構。星島日報。

英文文獻

(1) Applewhite, A. (2016). This chair rocks: A manifesto against ageism. Celadon.
(2) Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
(3) Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
(4) Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 1-45). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527692.003
(5) Baudrillard, J. (1968). Le système des objets. Gallimard.
(6) Bednar, M. J. (1977). Barrier-free environments. Hutchinson & Ross.
(7) Butler, R. N. (1969). Age-ism: Another form of bigotry. The Gerontologist, 9(4, Pt. 1), 243-246. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/9.4_Part_1.243
(8) Clarkson, J., & Coleman, R. (2015). History of inclusive design in the UK. Applied Ergonomics, 46(Pt. B), 235-247.
(9) Coleman, R., Lebbon, C., Clarkson, J., & Keates, S. (2003) From margins to mainstream. In J. Clarkson, S. Keates, R. Coleman, & C. Lebbon (Eds.), Inclusive design: Design for the whole population (pp. 1-25). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471- 0001-0_1
(10)Dillman, D. A., Tortora, R. D., & Bowker, D. (1998). Principles for constructing web surveys: An initial statement [Technical Report]. Social and Economic Sciences Research Center, Washington State University.
(11)Donahue, S. J., & Gheerawo, R. (2009). Inclusive design 2.0: Evolving the approach and meeting new challenges. In Royal College of Art (Ed.), Proceedings of Include 2009, 5th International Conference on Inclusive Design. Helen Hamlyn Research Center.
(12)Draper, S. W., & Norman, D. A. (1986). Introduction. In D. A. Norman, & S. W. Draper (Eds.), User centered system design: New perspectives on human-computer interaction (pp. 1-6). Lawrence Erlbaum.
(13)Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.
(14)Hooyman, N. R., Kawamoto, K. Y., & Kiyak, H. A. (2021). Social gerontology: A multidisciplinary perspective (10th ed.). Pearson.
(15)Joyce, J. (2022, January 30). Inclusive design. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www. nngroup.com/articles/inclusive-design/
(16)Kawauchi, Y. (2009). Universal design: A reconsideration of barrier. Institute for Human Centered Design.
(17)Keates, S. (2005). BS 7000-6: 2005, Design management systems: Managing inclusive design guide. British Standards Institution.
(18)Krippendorff, K. (1989). On the essential contexts of artifacts or on the proposition that “design is making sense (of things)”. Design Issues, 5(2), 9-39.
(19)Krippendorff, K., & Butter, R (1984). Product semantics: Exploring the symbolic qualities of form. Innovation, 3(2), 4-9.
(20)Levy, B. (2009). Stereotype embodiment: A psychosocial approach to aging. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(6), 332-336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 8721.2009.01662.x
(21)Mace, R. (1985). Universal design: Barrier-free environments for everyone. Designers West, 33(1), 147-152.
(22)Maldonado, T. (1958). Neue Entwicklungen in der Industrie und die Ausbildung des Produktgestalters. Ulm: Journal of the Hochschule für Gestaltung, 2, 25-40.
(23)McCoy, M. (1984). Defining a new functionalism in design. Innovation: The Journal of the Industrial Designers Society of America, 3(2), 16-19.
(24)Morris, C. W. (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs. The University of Chicago Press.
(25)Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. Basic Books.
(26)Norman, D. A. (2005a). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books.
(27)Norman, D. A. (2005b). Human-centered design considered harmful. Interactions, 12(4), 14-19.
(28)Peirce, C. S. (1883). Studies in logic, by members of the Johns Hopkins University. Little Brown.
(29)Rowe, J. W., & Kahn, R. L. (1987). Human aging: Usual and successful. Science, 237(4811), 143-149. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3299702
(30)Saussure, F. D. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Verlag nicht ermittelbar.
(31)Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35-37). Nfer-Nelson.
(32)Shum, A., Holmes, K., Woolery, K., Price, M., Kim, D., Dvorkina, E., Dietrich-Muller, D., Kile, N., Morris, S., Chou, J., & Malekzadeh, S. (2016). Inclusive. Microsoft.
(33)Smith, S. L., Pieper, K., Choueiti, M., Tofan, A., DePauw, A., & Case, A. (2017). Seniors on the small screen: Aging in popular television content. USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.
(34)Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4-28. https://doi.org/ 10.1006/jesp.1998.1373
(35)Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797-811. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797
(36)The Center for Universal Design (1997, April 1). The principles of universal design, version 2.0. https://projects.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_ud/ udprinciplestext.htm
(37)Turner, J. S., & Helms, D. B. (1986). Contemporary adulthood. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
(38)United Nations (2019). World population prospects 2019. United Nations.
(39)White, B. J., & Annis, P. (1995). Universal design facility: State of the art teaching tool. Housing and Society, 22(1-2), 29-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/08882746.1995. 11430217