本研究由研究一、研究二構成。研究一藉由4家圖書館蒐集成人與兒童圖畫書共6位創作者（幾米、紅膠囊、可樂王、李瑾倫、陳璐茜、賴馬）的50本圖畫書，就書籍文字內容部分，作出14大項的18種分類細項，再由研究者與另一位中文專業之協同研究者，依據這18細項分類，各自將50本圖畫書的文字內容歸類後，針對歧異點進一步深入討論，達到共識後再進行18項內容的歸類分析；另外就文學中的修辭法「借喻」與「反襯」手法運用情形作文字內容分析。結果發現成人圖畫書作者的創作文字內容部分最多是「負面情緒」，佔97%，次為「對現實無奈與不滿」與「成人特有的比喻」，皆佔94%，再來是「關於愛情」佔81%；而兒童圖畫書作者的創作文字內容多是「友情、人際關係」佔95%，次為「負面情緒」佔74%。在修辭法的運用情形，「借喻」方面成人圖畫書作者運用的很多，佔90%，而兒童圖畫書作者的比例卻只佔11%；「反襯」修辭在成人圖畫書作者佔了87%，而兒童圖畫書作者的比例卻只佔5%；說明了創作者在為兒童創作時，多為平鋪直述的表達，而為成人創作的作品，則多為文字中隱涵其他意思，且慣用相反的陳述，加深意念的表達。
研究二延續研究一，同樣以6位創作者的圖畫書作品作為刺激物，進行圖與文的施測與探討。在圖像方面，將6位創作者各5本圖文書創作中，各選出一幅圖像代表作品，分別對128位成人與兒童參與者進行圖像喜好與理解的施測；在文字方面，分別於三位成人圖畫書創作者的三本圖文書創作中，各選出一段文字代表，也對128位參與者進行文字喜好與理解的施測，且在圖像與文字方面，進一步做30幅圖像與9段文字的搭配。結果發現：就圖像喜好整體平均值而言：陳璐茜（M = 3.67）＞可樂王（M = 3.66）＞紅膠囊（M = 3.55）＝李瑾倫（M = 3.55）＞幾米（M = 3.50）＞賴馬（M = 3.35），且6作者間有顯著的差異；以不同年齡來說，兒中（M = 3.87）＞成中（M = 3.58）＞兒高（M = 3.51）＞成高（M = 3.20），4個年齡層間也有顯著的差異，而作者與年齡也有顯著的交互作用。就圖像理解整體平均值而言：李瑾倫（M = 2.27）＞賴馬（M = 2.22）＞陳璐茜（M = 2.00）＞幾米（M = 1.86）＞可樂王（M = 1.76）＞紅膠囊（M = 1.64），且6作者間有顯著的差異；以不同年齡來說，兒中（M = 2.26）＞兒高（M = 2.15）＞成中（M = 1.77）＞成高（M = 1.66），4個年齡層間有顯著的差異；而作者與年齡也有顯著的交互作用。就文字喜好整體平均值而言：幾米（M = 3.88）＞紅膠囊（M = 3.77）＞可樂王（M = 3.66），且三作者間有顯著的差異；以不同年齡來說，兒中（M = 4.20）＞兒高（M = 3.75）＞成中（M = 3.64）＞成高（M = 3.46），4個年齡層間也有顯著的差異；而作者與年齡也有顯著的交互作用。就文字理解整體平均值而言：幾米（M = 1.71）＞紅膠囊（M = 1.45）＞可樂王（M = 1.02），且三作者間有顯著的差異；以不同年齡來說，成高（M = 1.63）＞成中（M = 1.48）＞兒高（M = 1.31）＞兒中（M = 1.15），4個年齡層間也有顯著的差異。而就圖文搭配整體平均值而言：幾米（M = 2.15）＞紅膠囊（M = 1.77）＞可樂王（M = 1.35），且三作者間有顯著的差異，說明三位成人繪本作家的創作，讓參與者反應出的圖文連結程度有著很大的差別，且作者、性別、年齡三因子間達到顯著的交互作用。而圖像喜好與文字喜好普遍來說兒童高於成人，中年級兒童的喜好程度又最高，說明其審美先備知識基礎較為薄弱，故不吝於表現高度的喜好程度；兒童的圖像理解程度普遍高於成人，與研究假設大相逕庭，說明兒童閱圖時較成人更不受拘束，在圖像的世界中能更自由想像；而成人的文字理解程度皆高於兒童，圖像理解程度皆低於兒童的結果，與成人生長於較少影像媒體與圖像刺激的時代，且教學媒體、書籍多為單純文字的學習環境有直接相關。

This research has two parts. In the first research, the researcher collected fifty graphic books of six authors (three from each category), including Jimmy Liao, Mr. Red, King Cola, Chinlun Lee, Lucy Chen, and Laima, from four libraries. The researcher set up fourteen categories and eighteen subcategories. Working in coordination with a Chinese profession, the researcher categorized the content of collected books. In the case of contradictory, the researchers discussed the components until agreeing to put each in a same category. Afterwards, they analyzed how the authors used “metonymy” and “contrast” in their literature.
According to the result, the literature in graphic books for adults mostly deals with “negative feelings (97%),” followed by “discontent with the reality (94%),” “simile meant for adults (94%),” and “feelings about love (81%).” As for children’s graphic books, the content mostly circles around “friendship or interpersonal relationships (95%),” followed by “negative feelings (74%).” Based on the analysis on the usage of figures of speech, “metonymy” are more used in books for adults (90%) than children (11%); “contrast” takes 87% in graphic books for adults but only 5% in children’s graphic books. It shows when writing for children, the authors mostly use direct expression; whereas when writing for adults, the words have other hidden meanings, sometimes with opposite statement to make the meanings deeper.
The second research continues the first one, with the books of the same authors as stimulation, carrying out tests and discussions about graphic and literature. For the graphic, the researcher picked one representative work from each author and tested 128 adults and children for comprehension and appreciation. As for the literature, the researcher excerpted a representative paragraph from three authors (Lucy Chen, King Cola, and Mr. Red) composing for adults and also tested those participants for comprehension and appreciation. Lastly, the researcher tested their readers’ comprehension and appreciation toward the collocation of 30 pictures and 9 paragraphs. After the test, the researcher analyzed the feedback from the participants by calculating the average ranking for each test. The result of the second research are as follows.
For overall appreciation towards the graphics, amongst 128 participants, the highest ranking goes to the work of Lucy Chen (M=3.67), followed by King Cola (M=3.66), Mr. Red and Chinlun Lee (M=3.55), Jimmy Liao (M=3.50), and Laima (M=3.35). There are significant main effect amongst six authors. When analyzed by age differences, the younger children gave higher ranking (M=3.87), followed by younger adults (M=3.58), older children (M=3.51), and older adults (M=3.20). There are also significant main effect amongst these four age groups and significant interaction between the authors and the age groups.
For overall comprehension of the graphics, amongst 128 participants, the highest ranking goes to the work of Chinlun Lee (M=2.27), followed by Laima (M=2.22), Lucy Chen (M=2.00), Jimmy Liao (M=1.86), King Cola (M=1.76), and Mr. Red (M=1.64). There are significant main effect amongst six authors. When analyzed by age differences, the younger children gave higher ranking (M=2.26), followed by older children (M=2.15), younger adults (M=1.77), and older adults (M=1.66). There are also significant main effect amongst these four age groups and significant interaction between the authors and the age groups.
For overall appreciation towards the literature, amongst 128 participants, the highest ranking goes to the work of Jimmy Liao (M=3.88), followed by Mr. Red (M=3.77), and King Cola (M=3.66). There are significant main effect amongst three authors. When analyzed by age differences, the younger children gave higher ranking (M=4.20), followed by older children (M=3.75), younger adults (M=3.64), and older adults (M=3.46). There are also significant main effect amongst these four age groups and significant interaction between the authors and the age groups.
For overall comprehension of the literature, amongst 128 participants, the highest ranking goes to the work of Jimmy Liao (M=1.71), followed by Mr. Red (M=1.45), and King Cola (M=1.02). There are significant main effect amongst three authors. When analyzed by age differences, the older adults gave higher ranking (M=1.63), followed by younger adults (M=1.48), older children (M=1.31), and younger children (M=1.15). There are also significant main effect amongst these four age groups.
Last, for collocation of graphics and literature, among 128 participants, the highest ranking goes to Jimmy Liao (M=2.15), followed by Mr. Red (M=1.77) and King Cola (M=1.35). There are significant main effect among three authors. The result indicates that participants revealed huge differences in linking graphics with literature. There are significant interaction amongst those three factor, which indicates the complexity of graphic-literature collocation among authors, sexualities, and ages.
The data showed the children appreciated both graphics and literature more than adults. The fact that younger children appreciated them the most shows that the children had less procured art appreciation knowledge; as a result, they were willing to give higher ranking. Besides, in most cases, the children comprehended graphics more, which contradicted the hypothesis. This shows that children read with fewer constraints; they can imagine more freely. On the other hand, the fact that adults comprehended the literature more but the graphics less might be related to the fact that adults had grew up with less media and graphic stimulation and that their learning resources were mainly text-based.

（一）中文參考文獻
Moir, A.、Jessel, D.（2000）。Ｂrain Sex（洪蘭譯）。台北：遠流。（原著出版日期不詳於Penguin Book Ltd.）
王蕾雅 、伊彬、 鄧逸平 （2003）。徐秀美插畫風格分析與其時代意義。藝術教育研究中華民國設計學會2002年設計學術研究成果研討會論文集 。35-40。
伊彬、劉瑋婷（2005）。台灣成名兒童圖畫書插畫創作者工作現況之調查研究。中華民國設計學會2002年設計學術研究成果研討會論文集。
伊彬、鄧逸平、黃永宏（2004）。從中華兒童叢書到信誼基金會出版兒童圖畫書插畫風格演變及其意義。藝術教育研究。p23-53。
伊彬（2008）。插畫與電視廣告之實證美學：世代間的美感和偏好。台北市：Airiti Press。
伊彬（2008）。插畫與電視廣告之實徵美學：世代間的美感和偏好。台北：Airiti Press。
李丹（1989）。兒童發展。台北市。五南。
吳鼎（1970）。兒童文學研究。台北市，遠流出版社。
邱麗香（2003）。幾米繪本插畫之新探。國立屏東教育大學藝術教育研究所碩士論文。
林良（1997）。淺語的藝術。台北市：國語日報社。
林美和（2006）。成人心發展、性別與學習。台北市。五南圖書。
胡海國（1976）。成人心理學。台北市。桂冠圖書。
徐素霞編（2002）。台灣兒童圖畫書導賞。台北：國立台灣藝術教育館，13。
陳金燕（2006）。兒童繪畫發展階段與年齡、性別和智力表現之關係研究。國立新竹教育大學教育心理與諮商學系碩士論文。
陳海弘（1999）。兒童文學在語文教育上的應用。載於王亦榮主編語文教育文粹，245-277。
陳詠絮（2007）。台灣成人圖畫書作品消費者行為研究。國立台灣師範大學設計研究所碩士論文。
張志公（1998）。語法與修辭。台北市。新學識。
張春興（1991）。現代心裡學。台北：東華。
曹俊彥（1998）。圖畫．故事．書。美育月刊：兒童插畫特輯。台北，23。
黃瓊瑤（2003）。幾米暢銷圖畫書之分析研究。國立彰化師範大學藝術教育究所在職進修碩士論碩士論文。
黃永宏（2002）。風格研究過程中可能涉及之問題、方法及其意涵之探討。中華民國設計學會2002年設計學術研究成果研討繪論文集。
黃慶萱（1975）。修辭學。台北市。三民書局。
黃富順（1989）。成人心理與學習。台北市。師大書苑。
黃永宏（2001）。信誼基金會出版之兒童圖畫書插畫風格分析。台灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文。
溫彤瑋、張曉彤（2003）。2003繪本大集合。野葡萄文學誌12月號，台北：小知堂出版社，18-32。
董奇（1995）。兒童創造力發展心理。台北市：五南。
楊裕隆、陳美蓉（2005）。台灣繪本發展趨勢之初探。商業設計學報，9，101-118。
蔡宛珊（2005）。成人讀者對圖畫書的解讀－以幾米作品為例。世新大學傳播研究所碩士論文。
鄭明進（1987）。圖畫書的認識。兒童文學研究叢刊，3，64-69。
蔡芳姿（2004）。完形心理學群化原則應用於數位影像設計的創作研究。未出版碩士論文，台灣師範大學設計研究所碩士論文。台北。
劉鳳蕊（2000）。台灣之圖畫書批評語言與討論語彙。輯於「兒童文學與兒童語言」學術研討會論文集（265-190），台北：富春出版社。
冀文慧（2003）。幾米繪本研究。國立台灣師範大學國文系在職進修碩士論文。
蘇振明（2001）。圖畫書的定義與要素。台灣兒童圖畫書導賞。徐素霞。台北：藝術館。ISBN：957-01-0129-6。
蘇振明（1987）。看圖、欣賞語學習：認識兒童讀物插畫及其教育性。兒童文學研究叢刊，3，16-27。
蘇振明（1990）。「兒童讀物插畫」的導賞教學研究。台北市立師範學院學報，21，389-412。
（二）外文參考文獻
Alexander, G. M., & Hines, M. (2002). Sex differences in response to children’s toys
in nonhuman primates. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 467-479.
Connellan, J., Baron-Cohen S., Wheelwright, S., Batki, A., & Ahluwalia, J. (2001).
Sex differences in human neonatal social perception. Infant Behavior and
Development, 23(1), 113-118.
Cupchik, G. C., & Gebotys, R. J. (1990). Interest and pleasure as dimensions of
aesthetic response. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 8 (1), 1-14.
Pakkenberg, B., Pelvig, D., Marner, L., Bundgaard, M. J., Gundersen, H. J. G.,
Nyengaard, J. R., & Regeur, L. (2003). Aging and the human neocortex.
Experimental Gerontology, 38, 95-99.
Salyer, D. L., Lund, T. D., Fleming, D. E., Lephart, E. D., & Horvath, T. L.（2001）.
Sexual dimorphism and aromatase in the rat retina. Developmental Brain
Research, 126(1), 131-136.