近年來，隨著企業籌資需求上升、金融機構避險需求增加、以及一般民眾投資理財意識抬頭，各式金融創新產品因應而生。這些金融創新產品可以滿足不同客戶之需求，提升企業競爭力，或是協助一般民眾達到投資理財之目標…等目的，而以上都是傳統金融商品所無法提供的功能，因此金融創新之重要性不言而喻。然而，在目前相關文獻中，鮮少研究探討金融創新與其創新擴散相關議題。 基於上述動機，本研究旨在利用以往用於科技技術創新之「創新擴散」與「行銷鴻溝」模型，探討「金融創新」當中最具代表性之創新產品「連動式債券」，是否也擁有類似科技技術創新之創新擴散與行銷鴻溝現象。 本研究以台灣地區2002 年以後主管機關核准連動式債券銷售業務開始，到2008 年雷曼兄弟倒閉事件爆發為止，做為研究期間範圍。首先，根據創新擴散與行銷鴻溝理論建構出研究架構，提出探索性假設。接著，透過先導個案之方式針對銀行與壽險業者進行訪談，得出對應探索性假設的初步答案，形成研究假設。最後，再將研究假設設計成問卷，針對所有連動式債券第一線銷售人員進行發放與回收，以進行假設檢定量化分析。 經由本研究結果發現：(一) 金融創新產品存在與科技技術創新相同之創新擴散模式； (二) 金融創新產品擴散過程中，先後採用之不同族群存在不同特性，包括風險承受度、投資預備金額、投資連動債之專業知識程度皆隨時間遞減；(三)金融創新產品擴散過程中，也存在科技技術創新所面臨難以跨越的鴻溝，其中產品單位金額大小是最關鍵之成因。然而，由於金融創新技術相較於科技創新技術較不需要時間與金錢成本去進步改良，因此金融業者僅須透過調整產品單位金額大小，便可輕易跨越鴻溝。也由於金融創新產品此種技術特性，業者其實是有能力同時向不同族群區隔進行銷售，但是礙於主流市場消費者一定要在看到可參考之成功經驗後才敢購買，因此業者仍然會先從早期市場開始銷售，形成與科技技術創新擴散模型相同之模式；(四) 有別於科技技術創新擴散模式當中，早期市場消費者之接受行為擁有降低創新不確定之象徵意義，在金融創新產品擴散過程當中，早期市場消費者之採用行為，並不能代表產品風險已經縮小至一定程度，因為金融市場之風險並不會隨技術進步而消失。然而，主流市場消費者卻存有科技技術創新擴散模型之習性，誤以為早期市場消費者之接受行為代表著金融創新產品之風險已縮小而積極跟進購買，因而承擔了超過原本所能容忍之風險程度，導致最後往往面臨虧損。 / In recent years, many kinds of financial innovation products have been invented in response to the rising demands of corporate financing, financial institutions’ hedging, and personal financial management of general public. These financial innovation products can meet different needs of different customers, bring competitiveness to enterprises, or even help the general public to manage their money more efficiently, while these are which the traditional financial products cannot achieve. As a result, the importance of financial innovation goes without saying. However, in the existing literatures, there are only a few studies concentrated on this issue. This study took 2002 to 2008 as the research period, which was from the Taiwan government first approved the business of selling structured notes to the outbreak of bankruptcy of Lehman Brother. This study first constructed the research framework and exploratory hypotheses based on the innovation diffusion theory, then explored the corresponding answers to the initial exploratory hypotheses through interviewing workers in banks and insurance companies and formed the research hypotheses, and finally conducted a questionnaire survey among those first-line sales of structured notes to test the research hypotheses statistically. This study found that: (a) financial innovation had the same pattern with the technological innovation diffusion process, but it was because general customers needed to see a successful example to pursue themselves to accept that financial innovation; (b) different groups in the innovation diffusion process had different features, including the level of risk tolerance, the amount of money used to invest, and the knowledge of investing structured notes, and the level of these features will gradually decrease as the time point of their acceptance; (c) there also existed a chasm in the financial innovation diffusion process as the technological innovation diffusion, and the key to cross the chasm was the price of each product; (d) the acceptance of earlier customers in the process of financial innovation diffusion did not mean that the risk of the products had reduced, which was quite different from the technological innovation diffusion process, and later customers usually perceive lower risk than it actually was and borne more risk than they actually can afford without knowing the above difference.