), 濮雪丽1, 朱玥2, 汪昊1, 刘建伟1 1浙江科技学院经济与管理学院, 杭州 310023
2浙江工商大学工商管理学院, 杭州 310018
收稿日期:2020-11-16出版日期:2021-08-25发布日期:2021-06-25通讯作者:陈思静E-mail:chensijing@zust.edu.cn基金资助:*国家自然科学基金项目(71701185);浙江省软科学项目(2020C35020)The impact of normative misperception on food waste in dining out: Mechanism analyses and countermeasures
CHEN Sijing1(), PU Xueli1, ZHU Yue2, WANG Hao1, LIU Jianwei1 1School of Economics and Management, Zhejiang University of Science and Technology, Hangzhou 310023, China
2School of Business Administration, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou 310018, China
Received:2020-11-16Online:2021-08-25Published:2021-06-25Contact:CHEN Sijing E-mail:chensijing@zust.edu.cn摘要/Abstract
摘要： 规范错觉是指个体的规范感知与实际存在于群体中的社会规范之间存在差异, 规范错觉影响了社会生活的方方面面。对957份问卷调查的分析显示, 人们普遍高估了他人的食物浪费(行为错觉)以及对浪费的赞同程度(态度错觉), 而这两种错觉又加剧了人们自身的浪费行为。中介效应检验显示, 印象管理中的社交性维度部分中介了两种错觉与浪费行为间的关系。两个随机对照实验进一步检验了描述性(命令性)规范信息对行为(态度)错觉的影响, 结果发现, 描述性规范信息降低了行为错觉, 并通过社交性减少了浪费行为; 而命令性规范信息并不改变态度错觉本身, 但通过降低态度错觉对浪费的影响而减少了浪费行为。上述结果意味着两种规范信息尽管高度相似, 但其作用机制却可能不同, 同时这一发现也为政策制定者提出了两种干预途径。
图/表 12
表1各省份发放和回收样本数
| 地区 | 省份 | 有效样本数 | 所占比例 | 有效回收率 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 西部(270) | 四川(184) | 175 | 18.29% | 95.11% |
| 陕西(86) | 79 | 8.25% | 91.86% | |
| 中部(320) | 湖北(122) | 117 | 12.23% | 95.90% |
| 河南(198) | 188 | 19.64% | 94.95% | |
| 东部(410) | 浙江(148) | 146 | 15.26% | 98.65% |
| 山东(262) | 252 | 26.33% | 96.18% | |
| 总计 | 1000 | 957 | 100% | 95.70% |
表1各省份发放和回收样本数
| 地区 | 省份 | 有效样本数 | 所占比例 | 有效回收率 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 西部(270) | 四川(184) | 175 | 18.29% | 95.11% |
| 陕西(86) | 79 | 8.25% | 91.86% | |
| 中部(320) | 湖北(122) | 117 | 12.23% | 95.90% |
| 河南(198) | 188 | 19.64% | 94.95% | |
| 东部(410) | 浙江(148) | 146 | 15.26% | 98.65% |
| 山东(262) | 252 | 26.33% | 96.18% | |
| 总计 | 1000 | 957 | 100% | 95.70% |
表2变量描述性统计与相关系数
| 变量 | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 行为错觉 | 0.74 | 0.77 | ||||||
| 2 态度错觉 | 0.44 | 0.76 | 0.64*** | |||||
| 3 社交性 | 3.51 | 1.01 | -0.40*** | -0.46*** | ||||
| 4 道德 | 3.34 | 0.93 | -0.11*** | -0.13*** | 0.39*** | |||
| 5 能力 | 3.32 | 1.03 | -0.08* | -0.10** | 0.33*** | 0.35*** | ||
| 6 食物浪费量 | 16.53 | 15.35 | 0.34*** | 0.38*** | -0.47*** | -0.19*** | -0.15*** | |
| 7 标签变量 | 3.21 | 1.19 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.04 | -0.02 | 0.03 |
表2变量描述性统计与相关系数
| 变量 | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 行为错觉 | 0.74 | 0.77 | ||||||
| 2 态度错觉 | 0.44 | 0.76 | 0.64*** | |||||
| 3 社交性 | 3.51 | 1.01 | -0.40*** | -0.46*** | ||||
| 4 道德 | 3.34 | 0.93 | -0.11*** | -0.13*** | 0.39*** | |||
| 5 能力 | 3.32 | 1.03 | -0.08* | -0.10** | 0.33*** | 0.35*** | ||
| 6 食物浪费量 | 16.53 | 15.35 | 0.34*** | 0.38*** | -0.47*** | -0.19*** | -0.15*** | |
| 7 标签变量 | 3.21 | 1.19 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.04 | -0.02 | 0.03 |
表3行为错觉和态度错觉对社交性、道德和能力的回归分析
| 因变量 | 自变量 | B | SE | β | LLCI | ULCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 社交性 (R2 = 0.23***) | 行为错觉 | -0.23*** | 0.05 | -0.18 | -0.33 | -0.14 |
| 态度错觉 | -0.47*** | 0.05 | -0.35 | -0.56 | -0.37 | |
| 道德 (R2 = 0.02***) | 行为错觉 | -0.06 | 0.05 | -0.05 | -0.16 | 0.04 |
| 态度错觉 | -0.12* | 0.05 | -0.10 | -0.22 | -0.02 | |
| 能力 (R2 = 0.01**) | 行为错觉 | -0.04 | 0.06 | -0.03 | -0.15 | 0.07 |
| 态度错觉 | -0.11 | 0.06 | -0.08 | -0.22 | 0.003 |
表3行为错觉和态度错觉对社交性、道德和能力的回归分析
| 因变量 | 自变量 | B | SE | β | LLCI | ULCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 社交性 (R2 = 0.23***) | 行为错觉 | -0.23*** | 0.05 | -0.18 | -0.33 | -0.14 |
| 态度错觉 | -0.47*** | 0.05 | -0.35 | -0.56 | -0.37 | |
| 道德 (R2 = 0.02***) | 行为错觉 | -0.06 | 0.05 | -0.05 | -0.16 | 0.04 |
| 态度错觉 | -0.12* | 0.05 | -0.10 | -0.22 | -0.02 | |
| 能力 (R2 = 0.01**) | 行为错觉 | -0.04 | 0.06 | -0.03 | -0.15 | 0.07 |
| 态度错觉 | -0.11 | 0.06 | -0.08 | -0.22 | 0.003 |
表4层次回归对主效应和中介效应的检验
| 效应 | M1 | M2 | M3 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| b | SE | t | p | B | SE | t | p | b | SE | t | p | |
| 主效应 | ||||||||||||
| 行为错觉 | 3.62 | 0.78 | 4.63 | <0.001 | 1.93 | 0.76 | 2.55 | 0.011 | ||||
| 态度错觉 | 5.40 | 0.78 | 6.94 | <0.001 | 3.20 | 0.77 | 4.18 | <0.001 | ||||
| 中介效应 | ||||||||||||
| 社交性 | -5.10 | 0.55 | -9.29 | <0.001 | ||||||||
| 道德 | -0.49 | 0.52 | -0.96 | 0.340 | ||||||||
| 能力 | -0.09 | 0.45 | -0.19 | 0.851 | ||||||||
| 控制变量 | ||||||||||||
| 性别 | -1.04 | 1.01 | -1.03 | 0.302 | -1.07 | 0.92 | -1.16 | 0.247 | -1.22 | 0.87 | -1.39 | 0.165 |
| 年龄 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.31 | 0.761 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.46 | 0.648 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.43 | 0.670 |
| 教育水平 | 1.14 | 0.37 | 3.12 | 0.002 | 1.26 | 0.34 | 3.72 | <0.001 | 0.58 | 0.33 | 1.78 | 0.075 |
| 月收入 | 1.15 | 0.53 | 2.17 | 0.031 | 0.35 | 0.49 | 0.71 | 0.475 | 0.88 | 0.47 | 1.87 | 0.061 |
| R2 | 0.01* | 0.18*** | 0.27*** | |||||||||
| ΔR2 | 0.16*** | 0.09*** | ||||||||||
表4层次回归对主效应和中介效应的检验
| 效应 | M1 | M2 | M3 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| b | SE | t | p | B | SE | t | p | b | SE | t | p | |
| 主效应 | ||||||||||||
| 行为错觉 | 3.62 | 0.78 | 4.63 | <0.001 | 1.93 | 0.76 | 2.55 | 0.011 | ||||
| 态度错觉 | 5.40 | 0.78 | 6.94 | <0.001 | 3.20 | 0.77 | 4.18 | <0.001 | ||||
| 中介效应 | ||||||||||||
| 社交性 | -5.10 | 0.55 | -9.29 | <0.001 | ||||||||
| 道德 | -0.49 | 0.52 | -0.96 | 0.340 | ||||||||
| 能力 | -0.09 | 0.45 | -0.19 | 0.851 | ||||||||
| 控制变量 | ||||||||||||
| 性别 | -1.04 | 1.01 | -1.03 | 0.302 | -1.07 | 0.92 | -1.16 | 0.247 | -1.22 | 0.87 | -1.39 | 0.165 |
| 年龄 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.31 | 0.761 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.46 | 0.648 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.43 | 0.670 |
| 教育水平 | 1.14 | 0.37 | 3.12 | 0.002 | 1.26 | 0.34 | 3.72 | <0.001 | 0.58 | 0.33 | 1.78 | 0.075 |
| 月收入 | 1.15 | 0.53 | 2.17 | 0.031 | 0.35 | 0.49 | 0.71 | 0.475 | 0.88 | 0.47 | 1.87 | 0.061 |
| R2 | 0.01* | 0.18*** | 0.27*** | |||||||||
| ΔR2 | 0.16*** | 0.09*** | ||||||||||
表5行为错觉和态度错觉对浪费行为的直接和间接效应
| 自变量 | 效应 | 效应值 | SE | LLCI | ULCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 行为错觉 (0.16) | 直接效应 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.17 |
| 间接效应(社交性) | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.09 | |
| 间接效应(道德) | 0.002 | 0.003 | -0.003 | 0.01 | |
| 间接效应(能力) | 0.0001 | 0.004 | -0.01 | 0.01 | |
| 态度错觉 (0.28) | 直接效应 | 0.16 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.23 |
| 间接效应(社交性) | 0.12 | 0.02 | 0.08 | 0.16 | |
| 间接效应(道德) | 0.003 | 0.004 | -0.01 | 0.01 | |
| 间接效应(能力) | 0.002 | 0.003 | -0.01 | 0.01 |
表5行为错觉和态度错觉对浪费行为的直接和间接效应
| 自变量 | 效应 | 效应值 | SE | LLCI | ULCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 行为错觉 (0.16) | 直接效应 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.17 |
| 间接效应(社交性) | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.09 | |
| 间接效应(道德) | 0.002 | 0.003 | -0.003 | 0.01 | |
| 间接效应(能力) | 0.0001 | 0.004 | -0.01 | 0.01 | |
| 态度错觉 (0.28) | 直接效应 | 0.16 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.23 |
| 间接效应(社交性) | 0.12 | 0.02 | 0.08 | 0.16 | |
| 间接效应(道德) | 0.003 | 0.004 | -0.01 | 0.01 | |
| 间接效应(能力) | 0.002 | 0.003 | -0.01 | 0.01 |
表6不同就餐性质下行为错觉和态度错觉对浪费行为的直接和间接效应
| 就餐性质 | 错觉水平 | 直接效应 | 间接效应 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 社交性 | 行为错觉 | 0.14**(0.05) | 0.05**(0.02) |
| 态度错觉 | 0.10 (0.05) | 0.06**(0.02) | |
| 非社交性 | 行为错觉 | -0.02 (0.06) | 0.02 (0.02) |
| 态度错觉 | 0.08 (0.06) | 0.07***(0.02) |
表6不同就餐性质下行为错觉和态度错觉对浪费行为的直接和间接效应
| 就餐性质 | 错觉水平 | 直接效应 | 间接效应 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 社交性 | 行为错觉 | 0.14**(0.05) | 0.05**(0.02) |
| 态度错觉 | 0.10 (0.05) | 0.06**(0.02) | |
| 非社交性 | 行为错觉 | -0.02 (0.06) | 0.02 (0.02) |
| 态度错觉 | 0.08 (0.06) | 0.07***(0.02) |
表7食物浪费行为意向的描述统计
| 描述性规范 | 命令性规范 | N | M | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 无 | 无 | 53 | 4.01 | 1.26 |
| 有 | 53 | 4.53 | 1.53 | |
| 有 | 无 | 53 | 4.88 | 1.29 |
| 有 | 53 | 5.61 | 0.85 |
表7食物浪费行为意向的描述统计
| 描述性规范 | 命令性规范 | N | M | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 无 | 无 | 53 | 4.01 | 1.26 |
| 有 | 53 | 4.53 | 1.53 | |
| 有 | 无 | 53 | 4.88 | 1.29 |
| 有 | 53 | 5.61 | 0.85 |
表8描述性规范信息与命令性规范信息对食物浪费行为意向的方差分析
| 来源 | 均方 | F | p | η2p | BF10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 描述性规范信息DN | 50.29 | 31.74 | <0.001 | 0.132 | >100 |
| 命令性规范信息IN | 20.70 | 13.07 | <0.001 | 0.059 | 29.12 |
| DN × IN | 0.55 | 0.34 | 0.558 | 0.002 | 0.24 |
表8描述性规范信息与命令性规范信息对食物浪费行为意向的方差分析
| 来源 | 均方 | F | p | η2p | BF10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 描述性规范信息DN | 50.29 | 31.74 | <0.001 | 0.132 | >100 |
| 命令性规范信息IN | 20.70 | 13.07 | <0.001 | 0.059 | 29.12 |
| DN × IN | 0.55 | 0.34 | 0.558 | 0.002 | 0.24 |
表9链式中介效应的Bootstrap分析
| 间接路径 | 间接 效应 | 占总效应比例(%) | 95%置信区间 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 下限 | 上限 | |||
| 规范提示→行为错觉→浪费行为 | -20.42 | 42.69 | -44.71 | -4.86 |
| 规范提示→社交性→浪费行为 | 10.65 | -2(2该路径的中介作用不显著, 因此未报告其效应占比(温忠麟, 叶宝娟, | -2.71 | 21.46 |
| 规范提示→行为错觉→社交性→浪费行为 | -14.53 | 30.38 | -30.24 | -2.59 |
表9链式中介效应的Bootstrap分析
| 间接路径 | 间接 效应 | 占总效应比例(%) | 95%置信区间 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 下限 | 上限 | |||
| 规范提示→行为错觉→浪费行为 | -20.42 | 42.69 | -44.71 | -4.86 |
| 规范提示→社交性→浪费行为 | 10.65 | -2(2该路径的中介作用不显著, 因此未报告其效应占比(温忠麟, 叶宝娟, | -2.71 | 21.46 |
| 规范提示→行为错觉→社交性→浪费行为 | -14.53 | 30.38 | -30.24 | -2.59 |
图1描述性规范信息影响浪费行为的链式中介模型 注:***p < 0.001,*p < 0.05。
图1描述性规范信息影响浪费行为的链式中介模型 注:***p < 0.001,*p < 0.05。表10条件过程模型的检验
| 变量 | M1(因变量: 社交性) | M2(因变量: 浪费行为) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 系数 | SE | t | LLCI | ULCI | 系数 | SE | t | LLCI | ULCI | |
| 常数 | 0.07 | 0.13 | 0.50 | -0.20 | 0.34 | 15.18** | 4.70 | 3.23 | 1.29 | 5.45 |
| 态度错觉(A) | -1.19*** | 0.18 | -6.79 | -1.54 | -0.84 | 48.11*** | 13.89 | 3.46 | 4.54 | 16.84 |
| 规范提示(N) | -0.12 | 0.19 | -0.63 | -0.50 | 0.26 | -29.15*** | 6.61 | -4.41 | -9.40 | -3.55 |
| 社交性(S) | -27.24*** | 10.52 | -2.59 | -10.71 | -1.39 | |||||
| A×N | 1.11*** | 0.27 | 4.16 | 0.58 | 1.65 | -19.42 | 15.57 | -1.25 | -11.21 | 2.58 |
| S×N | 29.87* | 11.34 | 2.63 | 1.61 | 11.67 | |||||
| R | R2 | MSE | F | p | R | R2 | MSE | F | p | |
| 模型 | 0.62 | 0.38 | 0.72 | 15.51 | 0.000 | 0.87 | 0.75 | 862.53 | 44.16 | 0.000 |
表10条件过程模型的检验
| 变量 | M1(因变量: 社交性) | M2(因变量: 浪费行为) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 系数 | SE | t | LLCI | ULCI | 系数 | SE | t | LLCI | ULCI | |
| 常数 | 0.07 | 0.13 | 0.50 | -0.20 | 0.34 | 15.18** | 4.70 | 3.23 | 1.29 | 5.45 |
| 态度错觉(A) | -1.19*** | 0.18 | -6.79 | -1.54 | -0.84 | 48.11*** | 13.89 | 3.46 | 4.54 | 16.84 |
| 规范提示(N) | -0.12 | 0.19 | -0.63 | -0.50 | 0.26 | -29.15*** | 6.61 | -4.41 | -9.40 | -3.55 |
| 社交性(S) | -27.24*** | 10.52 | -2.59 | -10.71 | -1.39 | |||||
| A×N | 1.11*** | 0.27 | 4.16 | 0.58 | 1.65 | -19.42 | 15.57 | -1.25 | -11.21 | 2.58 |
| S×N | 29.87* | 11.34 | 2.63 | 1.61 | 11.67 | |||||
| R | R2 | MSE | F | p | R | R2 | MSE | F | p | |
| 模型 | 0.62 | 0.38 | 0.72 | 15.51 | 0.000 | 0.87 | 0.75 | 862.53 | 44.16 | 0.000 |
图2命令性规范信息影响浪费行为的条件过程模型 注: 括号内/外分别表示有/无规范提示;***p < 0.001,*p < 0.05。
图2命令性规范信息影响浪费行为的条件过程模型 注: 括号内/外分别表示有/无规范提示;***p < 0.001,*p < 0.05。参考文献 64
| [1] | Blanton, H., Köblitz, A., & McCaul, K. D. (2008). Misperceptions about norm misperceptions: Descriptive, injunctive, and affective ‘social norming’ efforts to change health behaviors. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(3),1379-1399. doi: 10.1111/spco.2008.2.issue-3URL |
| [2] | Bursztyn, L., González, A. L., & Yanagizawa-Drott, D. (2020). Misperceived social norms: Women working outside the home in Saudi Arabia. American Economic Review, 110(10),2997-3029. doi: 10.1257/aer.20180975URL |
| [3] | Buzby, J. C., Wells, H. F., & Hyman, J. (2014). The estimated amount, value, and calories of postharvest food losses at the retail and consumer levels in the United States (USDA- ERS Economic Information Bulletin No.121). Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service of Department of Agriculture. |
| [4] | Chen, F. F., Jing, Y., & Lee, J. M. (2012). “I” value competence but “we” value social competence: The moderating role of voters’ individualistic and collectivistic orientation in political elections. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(6),1350-1355. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.07.006URL |
| [5] | Chen, J. T., Zhang, B., & Wang, J. X. (2015). Morality: A new dimension of stereotype content. Psychological Exploration, 35(5),442-447. |
| [ 程婕婷, 张斌, 汪新建.(2015). 道德: 刻板印象内容的新维度. 心理学探新, 35(5),442-447.] | |
| [6] | Chumg, H. F., Shi, J. W., & Sun, K. J. (2020). Why employees contribute to pro-environmental behaviour: The role of pluralistic ignorance in Chinese society. Sustainability, 12(1),239. doi: 10.3390/su12010239URL |
| [7] | Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4),105-109. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.01242URL |
| [8] | Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24,201-234. |
| [9] | de Kwaadsteniet, E. W., Kiyonari, T., Molenmaker, W. E., & van Dijk, E. (2019). Do people prefer leaders who enforce norms? Reputational effects of reward and punishment decisions in noisy social dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 84,103800. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2019.03.011URL |
| [10] | Duong, H. T., & Parker, L. (2018). Going with the flow. Journal of Social Marketing, 8(3),314-332. doi: 10.1108/JSOCM-10-2017-0064URL |
| [11] | Eriksson, K., Strimling, P., & Coultas, J. C. (2015). Bidirectional associations between descriptive and injunctive norms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 129,59-69. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.09.011URL |
| [12] | FAO.(2019). The state of food and agriculture. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. |
| [13] | Ferrer, R. A., Klein, W. M., Persoskie, A., Avishai-Yitshak, A., & Sheeran, P. (2016). The tripartite model of risk perception (TRIRISK): Distinguishing deliberative, affective, and experiential components of perceived risk. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 50(5),653-663. doi: 10.1007/s12160-016-9790-zURL |
| [14] | Finkelstein, J. (1989). Dining out: A sociology of modern manners. Cambridge, England: Polity Press. |
| [15] | Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2),77-83. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005URL |
| [16] | Garnett, C., Crane, D., West, R., Michie, S., Brown, J., & Winstock, A. (2015). Normative misperceptions about alcohol use in the general population of drinkers: A cross- sectional survey. Addictive Behaviors, 42,203-206. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.11.010pmid: 25482365 |
| [17] | Geiger, N., & Swim, J. K. (2016). Climate of silence: Pluralistic ignorance as a barrier to climate change discussion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47,79-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.05.002URL |
| [18] | Goldring, M. R., & Heiphetz, L. (2020). Sensitivity to ingroup and outgroup norms in the association between commonality and morality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 91,104025. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104025URL |
| [19] | Graham-Rowe, E., Jessop, D. C., & Sparks, P. (2015). Predicting household food waste reduction using an extended theory of planned behaviour. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 101,194-202. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.05.020URL |
| [20] | Hamerman, E. J., Rudell, F., & Martins, C. M. (2018). Factors that predict taking restaurant leftovers: Strategies for reducing food waste. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 17(1),94-104. doi: 10.1002/cb.1700URL |
| [21] | Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications. |
| [22] | Hu, C. P., Kong, X. Z., Wagenmakers, E. J., Ly, A., & Peng, K. P. (2018). The Bayes factor and its implementation in JASP: A practical primer. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(6),951-965. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.00951URL |
| [ 胡传鹏, 孔祥祯, Wagenmakers, E. J., 彭凯平.(2018). 贝叶斯因子及其在JASP中的实现. 心理科学进展, 26(6),951-965.] | |
| [23] | Jeffreys, H. (1998). The theory of probability. Oxford,England: Oxford University Press. |
| [24] | Kenney, S. R., Anderson, B. J., Bailey, G. L., & Stein, M. D. (2019). Drug use-related normative misperceptions and behaviors among persons seeking heroin withdrawal management. Journal of Addiction Medicine, 13(3),215-219. doi: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000482URL |
| [25] | Kok, G., Peters, G. J. Y., Kessels, L. T., ten Hoor, G. A.,& Ruiter, R. A. (2018). Ignoring theory and misinterpreting evidence: The false belief in fear appeals. Health Psychology Review, 12(2),111-125. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2017.1415767URL |
| [26] | Lapinski, M. K., Rimal, R. N., DeVries, R., & Lee, E. L. (2007). The role of group orientation and descriptive norms on water conservation attitudes and behaviors. Health Communication, 22(2),133-142. pmid: 17668993 |
| [27] | Liu, Y., Cheng, S., Liu, X., Cao, X., Xue, L., & Liu, G. (2016). Plate waste in school lunch programs in Beijing, China. Sustainability, 8(12),1288. doi: 10.3390/su8121288URL |
| [28] | Matzembacher, D. E., Brancoli, P., Maia, L. M., & Eriksson, M. (2020). Consumer’s food waste in different restaurants configuration: A comparison between different levels of incentive and interaction. Waste Management, 114,263-273. doi: S0956-053X(20)30380-9pmid: 32683242 |
| [29] | Miyajima, T., & Yamaguchi, H. (2017). I want to but I won’t: Pluralistic ignorance inhibits intentions to take paternity leave in Japan. Frontiers in Psychology, 8,1508. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01508pmid: 28979216 |
| [30] | Neighbors, C., Larimer, M. E., & Lewis, M. A. (2004). Targeting misperceptions of descriptive drinking norms: Efficacy of a computer-delivered personalized normative feedback intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(3),434-447. pmid: 15279527 |
| [31] | Park, H. S., Smith, S. W., Klein, K. A., & Martell, D. (2011). College students’ estimation and accuracy of other students’ drinking and believability of advertisements featured in a social norms campaign. Journal of Health Communication, 16(5),504-518. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2010.546481pmid: 21298586 |
| [32] | Pearson, D., Minehan, M., & Wakefield-Rann, R. (2013). Food waste in Australian households: Why does it occur? The Australasian-Pacific Journal of Regional Food Studies, 3,118-132. |
| [33] | Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4),717-731. doi: 10.3758/BF03206553URL |
| [34] | Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus: Some consequences of misperceiving the social norm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(2),243-256. pmid: 8433272 |
| [35] | Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1996). Pluralistic ignorance and the perpetuation of social norms by unwitting actors. Advances in Experimental Psychology, 28,161-209. |
| [36] | Prentice, D. A., & Paluck, E. L. (2020). Engineering social change using social norms: Lessons from the study of collective action. Current Opinion in Psychology, 35,138-142. doi: S2352-250X(20)30108-1pmid: 32746001 |
| [37] | Qi, D., & Roe, B. E. (2016). Household food waste: Multivariate regression and principal components analyses of awareness and attitudes among US consumers. PloS One, 11(7),e0159250. |
| [38] | Rimal, R. N., & Lapinski, M. K. (2015). A re-explication of social norms, ten years later. Communication Theory, 25(4),393-409. doi: 10.1111/comt.2015.25.issue-4URL |
| [39] | Sandstrom, M., Makover, H., & Bartini, M. (2013). Social context of bullying: Do misperceptions of group norms influence children’s responses to witnessed episodes? Social Influence, 8(2-3),196-215. |
| [40] | Schanes, K., Dobernig, K., & Gözet, B. (2018). Food waste matters: A systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182,978-991. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.030URL |
| [41] | Schmidt, K. (2016). Explaining and promoting household food waste-prevention by an environmental psychological based intervention study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 111,53-66. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.04.006URL |
| [42] | Schroeder, C. M., & Prentice, D. A. (1998). Exposing pluralistic ignorance to reduce alcohol use among college students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(23),2150-2180. doi: 10.1111/jasp.1998.28.issue-23URL |
| [43] | Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18(5),429-434. pmid: 17576283 |
| [44] | Sokoloski, R., Markowitz, E. M., & Bidwell, D. (2018). Public estimates of support for offshore wind energy: False consensus, pluralistic ignorance, and partisan effects. Energy Policy, 112,45-55. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.005URL |
| [45] | Soroa-Koury, S., & Yang, K. C. C. (2010). Factors affecting consumers’ responses to mobile advertising from a social norm theoretical perspective. Telematics and Informatics, 27(1),103-113. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2009.06.001URL |
| [46] | Stancu, V., Haugaard, P., & Lähteenmäki, L. (2016). Determinants of consumer food waste behaviour: Two routes to food waste. Appetite, 96,7-17. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.08.025URL |
| [47] | Stöckli, S., Dorn, M., & Liechti, S. (2018). Normative prompts reduce consumer food waste in restaurants. Waste Management, 77,532-536. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.047URL |
| [48] | Tang, D. D., & Wen, Z. L. (2020). Statistical approaches for testing common method bias: Problems and suggestions. Journal of Psychological Science, 43(01),215-223. |
| [ 汤丹丹, 温忠麟.(2020). 共同方法偏差检验: 问题与建议. 心理科学, 43(01),215-223.] | |
| [49] | Testa, M., Livingston, J. A., Wang, W. J., & Lewis, M. A. (2020). Preventing college sexual victimization by reducing hookups: A randomized controlled trial of a personalized normative feedback intervention. Prevention Science, 21(3),388-397. doi: 10.1007/s11121-020-01098-3URL |
| [50] | van der Werf, P., Seabrook, J. A., & Gilliland, J. A. (2020). Food for thought: Comparing self-reported versus curbside measurements of household food wasting behavior and the predictive capacity of behavioral determinants. Waste Management, 101,18-27. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.09.032URL |
| [51] | van Grootel, S., van Laar, C., Meeussen, L., Schmader, T., & Sczesny, S. (2018). Uncovering pluralistic ignorance to change men’s communal self-descriptions, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Frontiers in Psychology, 9,1344. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01344pmid: 30147664 |
| [52] | Visschers, V. H. M., Wickli, N., & Siegrist, M. (2016). Sorting out food waste behaviour: A survey on the motivators and barriers of self-reported amounts of food waste in households. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45,66-78. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.007URL |
| [53] | Vlek, C., & Keren, G. (1992). Behavioral decision theory and environmental risk management: Assessment and resolution of four “survival” dilemmas. Acta Psychologica, 80(1-3),249-278. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(92)90037-EURL |
| [54] | Voisin, D., Girandola, F., David, M. A. P., & Aim, M. -A. (2016). Self-affirmation and an incongruent drinking norm: Alcohol abuse prevention messages targeting young people. Self and Identity, 15(3),262-282. doi: 10.1080/15298868.2015.1121916URL |
| [55] | Wang, L. -E., Cheng, S. -K., Liu, G., Liu, X. -J., Bai, J. F., Zhang, D., … Liu, Y. (2015). Study on theories and methods of Chinese food waste. Journal of Natural Recourses, 30(5),715-724. |
| [ 王灵恩, 成升魁, 刘刚, 刘晓洁, 白军飞, 张丹, … 刘尧.(2015). 中国食物浪费研究的理论与方法探析. 自然资源学报, 30(5),715-724.] | |
| [56] | Wang, L. -E., Liu, G., Liu, X. -J., Liu, Y., Gao, J., Zhou, B., … Cheng, S. K. (2017). The weight of unfinished plate: A survey-based characterization of restaurant food waste in Chinese cities. Waste Management, 66,3-12. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.04.007URL |
| [57] | Wang, X. Z., Niu, Y. G., & Li, W. (2015). Demarketing persuasion and face need: The role of construction level of appeal. Contemporary Finance & Economics, (7),79-85. |
| [ 王新珠, 牛永革, 李蔚.(2015). 逆营销说服与面子需要: 诉求建构水平的作用. 当代财经, (7),79-85.] | |
| [58] | Wang, Z. G., Liao, W. Y., & Zhang, W. S. (2018). Can “Clear Dishes” action reduce grain waste in universities and colleges?——Based on 237 questionnaires of students of universities and colleges in Beijing. Agricultural Economics and Management, 49(3),27-35. |
| [ 王志刚, 廖文玉, 张文胜.(2018). “光盘行动”能否减少餐桌浪费——基于北京高校237份大学生问卷调查. 农业经济与管理, 49(3),27-35.] | |
| [59] | Warde, A., & Martens, L. (2000). Eating out: Social differentiation, consumption and pleasure. Cambridge,England: Cambridge University Press. |
| [60] | Wen, Z. L., & Ye, B. J. (2014). Analyses of mediating effects: The development of methods and models. Advances in Psychological Science, 22(5),731-745. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2014.00731URL |
| [ 温忠麟, 叶宝娟.(2014). 中介效应分析: 方法和模型发展. 心理科学进展, 22(5),731-745.] | |
| [61] | Willer, R., Kuwabara, K., & Macy, M. W. (2009). The false enforcement of unpopular norms. American Journal of Sociology, 115(2),451-490. pmid: 20614762 |
| [62] | Zhang, D., Lun, F., Cheng, S. -K., Gao, L. W., Liu, X. -J., Cao, X. C., … Yu, W. (2016). The phosphorus footprint and its environmental analysis for restaurant food waste: Taking Beijing as an example. Journal of Natural Recourses, 31(5),812-821. |
| [ 张丹, 伦飞, 成升魁, 高利伟, 刘晓洁, 曹晓昌, … 喻闻.(2016). 城市餐饮食物浪费的磷足迹及其环境排放——以北京市为例. 自然资源学报, 31(5),812-821.] | |
| [63] | Zhang, P. P., Bai, J. F., Cheng, S. -K., & Liu, X. -J. (2018). Does information intervention affect food waste?——Randomized controlled trials in catering industry. Journal of Natural Recourses, 33(8),1439-1450. |
| [ 张盼盼, 白军飞, 成升魁, 刘晓洁.(2018). 信息干预是否影响食物浪费?——基于餐饮业随机干预试验. 自然资源学报, 33(8),1439-1450.] | |
| [64] | Zhang, P. -P., Bai, J. F., Liu, X. -J., & Cheng, S. -K. (2019). Food waste at the consumer segment: Impact and action. Journal of Natural Recourses, 34(2),437-450. |
| [ 张盼盼, 白军飞, 刘晓洁, 成升魁.(2019). 消费端食物浪费: 影响与行动. 自然资源学报, 34(2),437-450.] |
相关文章 8
| [1] | 陈思静, 邢懿琳, 翁异静, 黎常. 第三方惩罚对合作的溢出效应：基于社会规范的解释[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(7): 758-772. |
| [2] | 陈思静, 徐烨超. “仁者”还是“智者”：第三方惩罚对惩罚者声誉的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(12): 1436-1451. |
| [3] | 殷西乐, 李建标, 陈思宇, 刘晓丽, 郝洁. 第三方惩罚的神经机制：来自经颅直流电刺激的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(5): 571-583. |
| [4] | 傅鑫媛;陆智远;寇彧. 陌生他人在场及其行为对个体道德伪善的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(8): 1058-1066. |
| [5] | 陈思静;何铨;马剑虹. 第三方惩罚对合作行为的影响：基于社会规范激活的解释[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(3): 389-405. |
| [6] | 赵志裕,邹智敏,林升栋. 文化与社会赞许反应: 社会个人互动的观点[J]. 心理学报, 2010, 42(01): 48-55. |
| [7] | 凌文辁，郑晓明，方俐洛. 社会规范的跨文化比较[J]. 心理学报, 2003, 35(02): 246-254. |
| [8] | 王二平,徐联仓. 北京职工工作社会规范观念的基本特征——跨文化的比较研究[J]. 心理学报, 1993, 25(1): 33-40. |
PDF全文下载地址:
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=5031
