Acta Psychologica Sinica ›› 2021, Vol. 53 ›› Issue (8): 904-918.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00904
• Reports of Empirical Studies • Previous Articles Next Articles
CHEN Sijing1(), PU Xueli1, ZHU Yue2, WANG Hao1, LIU Jianwei1
Received:
2020-11-16
Published:
2021-08-25
Online:
2021-06-25
Contact:
CHEN Sijing
E-mail:chensijing@zust.edu.cn
Supported by:
CHEN Sijing, PU Xueli, ZHU Yue, WANG Hao, LIU Jianwei. (2021). The impact of normative misperception on food waste in dining out: Mechanism analyses and countermeasures. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(8), 904-918.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://journal.psych.ac.cn/acps/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00904
Region | Province | Number of valid questionnaires | Proportion | Response rate |
---|---|---|---|---|
Western (270) | Sichuan (184) | 175 | 18.29% | 95.11% |
Shanxi (86) | 79 | 8.25% | 91.86% | |
Central (320) | Hubei (122) | 117 | 12.23% | 95.90% |
Henan (198) | 188 | 19.64% | 94.95% | |
Eastern (410) | Zhejiang (148) | 146 | 15.26% | 98.65% |
Shandong (262) | 252 | 26.33% | 96.18% | |
Total | 1000 | 957 | 100% | 95.70% |
Table 1 Number of questionnaires distributed and returned in each province
Region | Province | Number of valid questionnaires | Proportion | Response rate |
---|---|---|---|---|
Western (270) | Sichuan (184) | 175 | 18.29% | 95.11% |
Shanxi (86) | 79 | 8.25% | 91.86% | |
Central (320) | Hubei (122) | 117 | 12.23% | 95.90% |
Henan (198) | 188 | 19.64% | 94.95% | |
Eastern (410) | Zhejiang (148) | 146 | 15.26% | 98.65% |
Shandong (262) | 252 | 26.33% | 96.18% | |
Total | 1000 | 957 | 100% | 95.70% |
Variable | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 Behavioral misperception | 0.74 | 0.77 | ||||||
2 Attitudinal misperception | 0.44 | 0.76 | 0.64*** | |||||
3 Sociability | 3.51 | 1.01 | -0.40*** | -0.46*** | ||||
4 Morality | 3.34 | 0.93 | -0.11*** | -0.13*** | 0.39*** | |||
5 Competence | 3.32 | 1.03 | -0.08* | -0.10** | 0.33*** | 0.35*** | ||
6 Amount of food waste | 16.53 | 15.35 | 0.34*** | 0.38*** | -0.47*** | -0.19*** | -0.15*** | |
7 Marker variable | 3.21 | 1.19 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.04 | -0.02 | 0.03 |
Table 2 Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients of variables
Variable | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 Behavioral misperception | 0.74 | 0.77 | ||||||
2 Attitudinal misperception | 0.44 | 0.76 | 0.64*** | |||||
3 Sociability | 3.51 | 1.01 | -0.40*** | -0.46*** | ||||
4 Morality | 3.34 | 0.93 | -0.11*** | -0.13*** | 0.39*** | |||
5 Competence | 3.32 | 1.03 | -0.08* | -0.10** | 0.33*** | 0.35*** | ||
6 Amount of food waste | 16.53 | 15.35 | 0.34*** | 0.38*** | -0.47*** | -0.19*** | -0.15*** | |
7 Marker variable | 3.21 | 1.19 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.04 | -0.02 | 0.03 |
Dependent variable | Independent variable | B | SE | β | LLCI | ULCI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sociability (R2 = 0.23***) | Behavioral misperception | -0.23*** | 0.05 | -0.18 | -0.33 | -0.14 |
Attitudinal misperception | -0.47*** | 0.05 | -0.35 | -0.56 | -0.37 | |
Morality (R2 = 0.02***) | Behavioral misperception | -0.06 | 0.05 | -0.05 | -0.16 | 0.04 |
Attitudinal misperception | -0.12* | 0.05 | -0.10 | -0.22 | -0.02 | |
Competence (R2 = 0.01**) | Behavioral misperception | -0.04 | 0.06 | -0.03 | -0.15 | 0.07 |
Attitudinal misperception | -0.11 | 0.06 | -0.08 | -0.22 | 0.003 |
Table 3 Regression analysis of behavioral and attitudinal misperceptions on sociability, morality, and competence
Dependent variable | Independent variable | B | SE | β | LLCI | ULCI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sociability (R2 = 0.23***) | Behavioral misperception | -0.23*** | 0.05 | -0.18 | -0.33 | -0.14 |
Attitudinal misperception | -0.47*** | 0.05 | -0.35 | -0.56 | -0.37 | |
Morality (R2 = 0.02***) | Behavioral misperception | -0.06 | 0.05 | -0.05 | -0.16 | 0.04 |
Attitudinal misperception | -0.12* | 0.05 | -0.10 | -0.22 | -0.02 | |
Competence (R2 = 0.01**) | Behavioral misperception | -0.04 | 0.06 | -0.03 | -0.15 | 0.07 |
Attitudinal misperception | -0.11 | 0.06 | -0.08 | -0.22 | 0.003 |
Effect | M1 | M2 | M3 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
b | SE | t | p | B | SE | t | p | b | SE | t | p | |
Main effect | ||||||||||||
Behavioral misperception | 3.62 | 0.78 | 4.63 | <0.001 | 1.93 | 0.76 | 2.55 | 0.011 | ||||
Attitudinal misperception | 5.40 | 0.78 | 6.94 | <0.001 | 3.20 | 0.77 | 4.18 | <0.001 | ||||
Mediating effect | ||||||||||||
Sociability | -5.10 | 0.55 | -9.29 | <0.001 | ||||||||
Morality | -0.49 | 0.52 | -0.96 | 0.340 | ||||||||
Competence | -0.09 | 0.45 | -0.19 | 0.851 | ||||||||
Control variable | ||||||||||||
Gender | -1.04 | 1.01 | -1.03 | 0.302 | -1.07 | 0.92 | -1.16 | 0.247 | -1.22 | 0.87 | -1.39 | 0.165 |
Age | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.31 | 0.761 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.46 | 0.648 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.43 | 0.670 |
Education | 1.14 | 0.37 | 3.12 | 0.002 | 1.26 | 0.34 | 3.72 | <0.001 | 0.58 | 0.33 | 1.78 | 0.075 |
Monthly income | 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*** |
Table 4 Hierarchical regression analysis of main and mediating effects
Effect | M1 | M2 | M3 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
b | SE | t | p | B | SE | t | p | b | SE | t | p | |
Main effect | ||||||||||||
Behavioral misperception | 3.62 | 0.78 | 4.63 | <0.001 | 1.93 | 0.76 | 2.55 | 0.011 | ||||
Attitudinal misperception | 5.40 | 0.78 | 6.94 | <0.001 | 3.20 | 0.77 | 4.18 | <0.001 | ||||
Mediating effect | ||||||||||||
Sociability | -5.10 | 0.55 | -9.29 | <0.001 | ||||||||
Morality | -0.49 | 0.52 | -0.96 | 0.340 | ||||||||
Competence | -0.09 | 0.45 | -0.19 | 0.851 | ||||||||
Control variable | ||||||||||||
Gender | -1.04 | 1.01 | -1.03 | 0.302 | -1.07 | 0.92 | -1.16 | 0.247 | -1.22 | 0.87 | -1.39 | 0.165 |
Age | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.31 | 0.761 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.46 | 0.648 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.43 | 0.670 |
Education | 1.14 | 0.37 | 3.12 | 0.002 | 1.26 | 0.34 | 3.72 | <0.001 | 0.58 | 0.33 | 1.78 | 0.075 |
Monthly income | 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*** |
Independent variable | Effect | Effect size | SE | LLCI | ULCI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Behavioral misperception (0.16) | Direct effect | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.17 |
Direct effect (sociability) | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.09 | |
Indirect effect (morality) | 0.002 | 0.003 | -0.003 | 0.01 | |
Indirect effect (competence) | 0.0001 | 0.004 | -0.01 | 0.01 | |
Attitudinal misperception (0.28) | Direct effect | 0.16 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.23 |
Direct effect (sociability) | 0.12 | 0.02 | 0.08 | 0.16 | |
Indirect effect (morality) | 0.003 | 0.004 | -0.01 | 0.01 | |
Indirect effect (competence) | 0.002 | 0.003 | -0.01 | 0.01 |
Table 5 Direct and indirect effects of behavioral and attitudinal misperceptions on food waste
Independent variable | Effect | Effect size | SE | LLCI | ULCI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Behavioral misperception (0.16) | Direct effect | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.17 |
Direct effect (sociability) | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.09 | |
Indirect effect (morality) | 0.002 | 0.003 | -0.003 | 0.01 | |
Indirect effect (competence) | 0.0001 | 0.004 | -0.01 | 0.01 | |
Attitudinal misperception (0.28) | Direct effect | 0.16 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.23 |
Direct effect (sociability) | 0.12 | 0.02 | 0.08 | 0.16 | |
Indirect effect (morality) | 0.003 | 0.004 | -0.01 | 0.01 | |
Indirect effect (competence) | 0.002 | 0.003 | -0.01 | 0.01 |
Nature of eating out | Misperception | Direct effect | Indirect effect |
---|---|---|---|
Social | Behavioral misperception | 0.14** (0.05) | 0.05** (0.02) |
Attitudinal misperception | 0.10 (0.05) | 0.06** (0.02) | |
Non-social | Behavioral misperception | -0.02 (0.06) | 0.02 (0.02) |
Attitudinal misperception | 0.08 (0.06) | 0.07*** (0.02) |
Table 6 Direct and indirect effects of behavioral and attitudinal misperceptions on food waste in social and non-social eating out
Nature of eating out | Misperception | Direct effect | Indirect effect |
---|---|---|---|
Social | Behavioral misperception | 0.14** (0.05) | 0.05** (0.02) |
Attitudinal misperception | 0.10 (0.05) | 0.06** (0.02) | |
Non-social | Behavioral misperception | -0.02 (0.06) | 0.02 (0.02) |
Attitudinal misperception | 0.08 (0.06) | 0.07*** (0.02) |
Descriptive norms | Injunctive norms | N | M | SD |
---|---|---|---|---|
No | No | 53 | 4.01 | 1.26 |
Yes | 53 | 4.53 | 1.53 | |
Yes | No | 53 | 4.88 | 1.29 |
Yes | 53 | 5.61 | 0.85 |
Table 7 Descriptive statistics of food waste intentions
Descriptive norms | Injunctive norms | N | M | SD |
---|---|---|---|---|
No | No | 53 | 4.01 | 1.26 |
Yes | 53 | 4.53 | 1.53 | |
Yes | No | 53 | 4.88 | 1.29 |
Yes | 53 | 5.61 | 0.85 |
Source | Mean square | F | p | η2p | BF10 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Descriptive normative information (DN) | 50.29 | 31.74 | <0.001 | 0.132 | >100 |
Injunctive normative information (IN) | 20.70 | 13.07 | <0.001 | 0.059 | 29.12 |
DN × IN | 0.55 | 0.34 | 0.558 | 0.002 | 0.24 |
Table 8 Analysis of variance of descriptive and injunctive normative information on food waste intentions
Source | Mean square | F | p | η2p | BF10 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Descriptive normative information (DN) | 50.29 | 31.74 | <0.001 | 0.132 | >100 |
Injunctive normative information (IN) | 20.70 | 13.07 | <0.001 | 0.059 | 29.12 |
DN × IN | 0.55 | 0.34 | 0.558 | 0.002 | 0.24 |
Indirect path | Indirect effect | Proportion of total effect (%) | 95% confidence interval | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Lower limit | Upper limit | |||
Normative information → behavioral misperception → waste behavior | -20.42 | 42.69 | -44.71 | -4.86 |
Normative information → sociability → waste behavior | 10.65 | -1(1. The mediating effect of this path was not significant. Therefore, the proportion of total effect mediated through this path is not reported ( | -2.71 | 21.46 |
Normative information → behavioral misperception → sociability → waste behavior | -14.53 | 30.38 | -30.24 | -2.59 |
Table 9 Bootstrap analysis of chain mediating effect
Indirect path | Indirect effect | Proportion of total effect (%) | 95% confidence interval | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Lower limit | Upper limit | |||
Normative information → behavioral misperception → waste behavior | -20.42 | 42.69 | -44.71 | -4.86 |
Normative information → sociability → waste behavior | 10.65 | -1(1. The mediating effect of this path was not significant. Therefore, the proportion of total effect mediated through this path is not reported ( | -2.71 | 21.46 |
Normative information → behavioral misperception → sociability → waste behavior | -14.53 | 30.38 | -30.24 | -2.59 |
Variable | M1 (dependent variable: sociability) | M2 (dependent variable: waste behavior) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficient | SE | t | LLCI | ULCI | Coefficient | SE | t | LLCI | ULCI | |
Constant | 0.07 | 0.13 | 0.50 | -0.20 | 0.34 | 15.18** | 4.70 | 3.23 | 1.29 | 5.45 |
Attitudinal misperception (A) | -1.19*** | 0.18 | -6.79 | -1.54 | -0.84 | 48.11*** | 13.89 | 3.46 | 4.54 | 16.84 |
Normative information (N) | -0.12 | 0.19 | -0.63 | -0.50 | 0.26 | -29.15*** | 6.61 | -4.41 | -9.40 | -3.55 |
Sociability (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 | |
Model | 0.62 | 0.38 | 0.72 | 15.51 | 0.000 | 0.87 | 0.75 | 862.53 | 44.16 | 0.000 |
Table 10 Test of conditional process model
Variable | M1 (dependent variable: sociability) | M2 (dependent variable: waste behavior) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficient | SE | t | LLCI | ULCI | Coefficient | SE | t | LLCI | ULCI | |
Constant | 0.07 | 0.13 | 0.50 | -0.20 | 0.34 | 15.18** | 4.70 | 3.23 | 1.29 | 5.45 |
Attitudinal misperception (A) | -1.19*** | 0.18 | -6.79 | -1.54 | -0.84 | 48.11*** | 13.89 | 3.46 | 4.54 | 16.84 |
Normative information (N) | -0.12 | 0.19 | -0.63 | -0.50 | 0.26 | -29.15*** | 6.61 | -4.41 | -9.40 | -3.55 |
Sociability (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 | |
Model | 0.62 | 0.38 | 0.72 | 15.51 | 0.000 | 0.87 | 0.75 | 862.53 | 44.16 | 0.000 |
Figure 2. Conditional process model of injunctive normative information affecting waste behavior Note. The numbers with and without parentheses indicate the values obtained in the presence and absence of normative information, respectively; *** p < 0.001, * p < 0.05.
[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-3 URL |
[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.20180975 URL |
[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.2012.07.006 URL |
[5] | Chen, J. T., Zhang, B., & Wang, J. X. (2015). Morality: A new dimension of stereotype content. Psychological Exploration, 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/su12010239 URL |
[7] |
Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 105-109.
doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.01242 URL |
[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.2019.03.011 URL |
[10] |
Duong, H. T., & Parker, L. (2018). Going with the flow. Journal of Social Marketing, 8(3), 314-332.
doi: 10.1108/JSOCM-10-2017-0064 URL |
[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.2014.09.011 URL |
[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-z URL |
[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.2006.11.005 URL |
[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.2014.11.010 pmid: 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.2016.05.002 URL |
[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.2020.104025 URL |
[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.2015.05.020 URL |
[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.1700 URL |
[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.1042.2018.00951 URL |
[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.0000000000000482 URL |
[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: 10.1080/17437199.2017.1415767 URL |
[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/su8121288 URL |
[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: 10.1016/j.wasman.2020.07.014 URL |
[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.2017.01508 pmid: 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.
doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.72.3.434 URL |
[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: 10.1080/10810730.2010.546481 pmid: 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/BF03206553 URL |
[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)30108-1 pmid: 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.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159250 URL |
[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-4 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1080/15534510.2011.651302 URL |
[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.2018.02.030 URL |
[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.2016.04.006 URL |
[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-23 URL |
[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.2017.10.005 URL |
[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.2009.06.001 URL |
[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.2015.08.025 URL |
[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.2018.04.047 URL |
[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. |
[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/s11121-020-01098-3 URL |
[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.2019.09.032 URL |
[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.2018.01344 pmid: 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.2015.11.007 URL |
[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)90050-N URL |
[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: 10.1080/15298868.2015.1121916 URL |
[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. |
[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.2017.04.007 URL |
[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. |
[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. |
[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.1042.2014.00731 URL |
[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. |
[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. |
[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. |
[1] | YANG Shasha, CHEN Sijing. Normative misperception in third-party punishment: An explanation from the perspective of belief in a just world [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2022, 54(3): 281-299. |
[2] | CHEN Sijing, XING Yilin, WENG Yijing, LI Chang. Spillover effects of third-party punishment on cooperation: A norm-based explanation [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2021, 53(7): 758-772. |
[3] | CHEN Sijing, XU Yechao. Warmth and competence: Impact of third-party punishment on punishers’ reputation [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(12): 1436-1451. |
[4] | YIN Xile, LI Jianbiao, CHEN Siyu, LIU Xiaoli, HAO Jie. Neural mechanisms of third-party punishment: Evidence from transcranial direct current stimulation [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(5): 571-583. |
[5] | FU Xinyuan; LU Zhiyuan; KOU Yu. Effects of a Stranger’s Presence and Behavior on Moral Hypocrisy [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(8): 1058-1066. |
[6] | CHEN Sijing; HE Quan; MA Jianhong. The Influence of Third-party Punishment on Cooperation: An Explanation of Social Norm Activation [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(3): 389-405. |
[7] | Chi-yue CHIU,Zhi-Min ZOU,Sheng-Dong LIN. Culture and Socially Desirable Responding: An Individual-in-Society Perspective [J]. , 2010, 42(01): 48-55. |
[8] | Song Guangwen,Chen Qishan. THE INFLUENCE OF IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT ON CHANGE OF ATTITUDE AFTER FORCED COMPLIANCE [J]. , 2003, 35(03): 397-403. |
[9] | Ling Wenquan,Zheng Xiaoming,Fang Liluo. CROSS-CULTURE COMPARATIVE RESEARCH ON SOCIAL NORMS [J]. , 2003, 35(02): 246-254. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||