不确定性跨期决策视角下绿色行为的心理机制及干预

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2024.01048

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

公众的绿色行为普遍要求将可持续原则纳入日常的跨期决策, 选择对环境友好的长远利益。然而, 绿色行为通常“知易行难”, 其重要原因可能在于人们对行为的结果和效用等存在不确定性感知。在绿色行为的跨期决策研究中, 不确定性感知如何影响决策偏好尚缺少证据。因此, 本研究拟基于整合的不确定性跨期决策新理论框架, 综合运用行为实验、眼动追踪、现场实验, 辅以计算建模、眼动操纵等技术, 揭示在不确定性条件下, 人们践行绿色跨期行为的规律和心理机制, 并探索基于心理机制助推和助力绿色行为的有效途径。本研究将加深对绿色行为心理机制的理解, 并为有效促进绿色行为提供方案, 为相关公共政策的制定与发布提供依据。

关键词: 跨期决策, 绿色行为, 不确定性, 可持续性, 助推

Abstract:

Citizens’ green behavior plays an integral role in China’s economic development and the achievement of carbon neutrality and carbon peaking goals in. Exploring the underlying mechanism of decision-making that affects citizens’ green behavior and promoting green behavior effectively and persistently are important issues to improve the efficiency of environmental governance in our nation. Green behavior requires citizens to incorporate sustainability principles into their daily decisions, opting for long-term environmentally friendly benefits. While it is hard to put green behavior into practice. One of the most important reasons for this may lie in the perception of uncertainty about the outcome and utility of green behavior. However, research in the field of behavioral decision-making has mainly focused on the behavioral performance of green behavior within the framework of intertemporal choice, leaving the relationship between uncertainty and intertemporal choice in green behavior remaining unclear. This study proposes that uncertainty should be incorporated into the framework of intertemporal choice when studying the underlying mechanism of citizens’ green behavior.

Thus, in order to formulate effective behavioral promotion programs, this study aims to reveal the behavioral performance and the underlying mechanism of citizens’ green behavior, based on the framework of intertemporal choice with uncertainty. This study proposes to utilize behavioral experiments, eye-tracking technology, field experiments, computational modeling, eye movement manipulation, and other methods and elaborates on three studies. First, Study 1 aims to provide clarity on various types of uncertainty in green behavior through a comprehensive review of existing research. The impact of various types of uncertainty on the choice preference of green behavior will then be explore using cognitive behavioral experiments, which is based on the framework of intertemporal choice combined with uncertainty. Furthermore, Study 2 explore the mechanism of this impact on the cognitive process of green behavior. Following the experimental paradigm of Study 1, Study 2 will utilize eye-tracking technology, along with computational modeling and eye-movement manipulation methods, to reveal the underlying information processing of green behavior and alter green choice preference by shifting visual attention from uncertain to certain information. It aims to explore the underlying mechanism of how uncertainty perception contributes to green behavior as well as to verify whether reducing uncertainty perception is the core driving factor for promoting green behavior. Finally, based on the behavioral performance and underlying mechanism of green behavior revealed in the preceding two studies, Study 3 will explore and verify the methods toward promoting green behavior underlying the principle of reducing uncertainty perception by employing field experiments. Study 3 aims to develop nudging and boosting programs for green behavior.

This study has the following implications. On the theoretical level, firstly, this study expects to fill the gap in existing research and provide a new theoretical basis for green behavior research by clarifying the impact of various types of uncertainty in green behavior. Secondly, it expects to combine behavioral experiments and eye-tracking technology to provide converging evidence to shed light on a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the decision-making mechanism of green behavior. On the application level, it will provide practical methods for effectively promoting green behavior by reducing various uncertainty perceptions. As a result, it will potentially provide psychological support and advice for the formulation and release of relevant public policies.

Key words: intertemporal choice, green behavior, uncertainty, sustainability, nudge

中图分类号:

B849: C91

周蕾, 林浇敏, 陈艺琦, 梁泳超, 古晨妍, 孙祺章. (2024). 不确定性跨期决策视角下绿色行为的心理机制及干预. 心理科学进展 , 32(7), 1048-1056.

ZHOU Lei, LIN Jiao-Min, CHEN Yi-Qi, LIANG Yong-Chao, GU Chen-Yan, SUN Qi-Zhang. (2024). The psychological mechanism and promotion of green behavior from the perspective of uncertainty intertemporal decision-making. Advances in Psychological Science, 32(7), 1048-1056.

图/表 1

参考文献 72

[1]	白晶, 张义, 戴侃记, 张建霞, 张少白, 张峰, 张发胜, 李德兵. (2015). 陕西省山区留守儿童预防接种核心信息干预效果评价. 医学动物防制, 31(12), 1370-1372.
[2]	陈泓菲, 辛自强. (2018-3-19). 助推, 促进, 由心而治——社会治理的三种心理学路径. 中国社会科学报, 6.
[3]	陈凯. (2020). 信息干预对绿色消费行为的影响分析. 中国特色社会主义研究, 2(5/6), 126-131.
[4]	范志国, 郭靖丽. (2014). 虚拟品牌社群体验对消费者购买意愿影响的实证研究——基于感知不确定性的中介效应. 工业技术经济, 33(11), 29-37.
[5]	郭梦茜, 张宁. (2022). 助推手卫生的行为干预策略. 心理科学进展, 30(4), 863-876. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.00863
[6]	何贵兵, 李纾, 梁竹苑. (2018). 以小拨大: 行为决策助推社会发展. 心理学报, 50(8), 803-813. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00803
[7]	何贵兵, 杨鑫蔚, 蒋多. (2017). 环境损益的社会折扣: 利他人格的影响. 心理学报, 49(10), 1334-1343.
[8]	黄元娜, 宋星云, 邵洋, 李纾, 梁竹苑. (2018). 以小拨大: 默认选项和反应模式效应助推中国器官捐献登记. 心理学报, 50(8), 868-879. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00868
[9]	李爱梅, 王海侠, 孙海龙, 熊冠星, 杨韶丽. (2018). “长计远虑”的助推效应: 怀孕与环境跨期决策. 心理学报, 50(8), 858-867. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00858
[10]	林浇敏, 李爱梅, 周雅然, 何军红, 周蕾. (2022). 眼动操纵技术在决策研究中的应用前景: 改变决策行为. 心理科学进展, 30(8), 1794-1803. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.01794
[11]	生态环境部环境与经济政策研究中心. (2022). 公民生态环境行为调查报告. 2023-12-05取自: http://www.prcee.org/zyhd/202306/t20230629_1034892.html
[12]	新华社. (2020). 习近平在第七十五届联合国大会一般性辩论上的讲话. 2022-01-30取自: http://bit.ly/3vDFMm6
[13]	张耕, 刘震宇. (2010). 在线消费者感知不确定性及其影响因素的作用. 南开管理评论, 13(5), 99-106.
[14]	张书维, 王宇, 周蕾. (2018). 行为公共政策视角下的助推与助力: 殊途同归. 中国公共政策评论, 15(2), 20-38.
[15]	钟玲, 曹磊, 刘清芝, 张小丹. (2021). 关于推动绿色生活方式的思考与建议. 环境与可持续发展, 46(5), 140-143.
[16]	周蕾, 李爱梅, 张磊, 李纾, 梁竹苑. (2019). 风险决策和跨期决策的过程比较: 以确定效应和即刻效应为例. 心理学报, 51(3), 337-352. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00337
[17]	Amir, D., Jordan, M. R., & Rand, D. G. (2018). An uncertainty management perspective on long-run impacts of adversity: The influence of childhood socioeconomic status on risk, time, and social preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 217-226.
[18]	Ammerman, A. S., Lindquist, C. H., Lohr, K. N., & Hersey, J. (2002). The efficacy of behavioral interventions to modify dietary fat and fruit and vegetable intake: A review of the evidence. Preventive Medicine, 35(1), 25-41. doi: 10.1006/pmed.2002.1028 pmid: 12079438
[19]	Arimura, T. H., Li, S., Newell, R. G., & Palmer, K. (2012). Cost-effectiveness of electricity energy efficiency programs. The Energy Journal, 33(2), 63-100.
[20]	Ashley, R., Blackwood, D., Butler, D., Davies, J., Jowitt, P., & Smith, H. (2003). Sustainable decision making for the UK water industry. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering Sustainability, 156(1), 41-49.
[21]	Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., & Welch, I. (1992). A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. Journal of Political Economy, 100(5), 992-1026.
[22]	Boon-Falleur, M., Baumard, N., & André, J. -B. (2021). Risk-seeking or impatient? Disentangling variance and time in hazardous behaviors. Evolution and Human Behavior, 42(5), 453-460.
[23]	Brunyé, T. T., & Gardony, A. L. (2017). Eye tracking measures of uncertainty during perceptual decision making. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 120, 60-68. doi: S0167-8760(17)30238-6 pmid: 28732659
[24]	Bulley, A., & Pepper, G. V. (2017). Cross-country relationships between life expectancy, intertemporal choice and age at first birth. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(5), 652-658.
[25]	Carson, R. T., & Tran, B. R. (2009). Discounting behavior and environmental decisions. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 2(2), 112-130.
[26]	Chen, Y., Lu, F., & Zhang, J. (2017). Social comparisons, status and driving behavior. Journal of Public Economics, 155, 11-20.
[27]	Cooper, D. J., & Rege, M. (2011). Misery loves company: Social regret and social interaction effects in choices under risk and uncertainty. Games and Economic Behavior, 73(1), 91-110.
[28]	Corral-Verdugo, V., Fraijo-Sing, B., & Pinheiro, J. Q. (2006). Sustainable behavior and time perspective: Present, past, and future orientations and their relationship with water conservation behavior. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 40(2), 139-147.
[29]	Dai, J., Pachur, T., Pleskac, T. J., & Hertwig, R. (2019). Tomorrow never knows:Why and how uncertainty matters in intertemporal choice. In R. Hertwig, T. J. Pleskac, T. Pachur, & the Center for Adaptive Rationality (Eds.), Taming uncertainty (pp. 175-190). Mit Press.
[30]	De Groot, J. I. M., Steg, L., & Poortinga, W. (2013). Values, perceived risks and benefits, and acceptability of nuclear energy. Risk Analysis, 33(2), 307-317. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01845.x pmid: 22642255
[31]	Emas, R. (2015). The concept of sustainable development: Definition and defining principles. Brief for GSDR, Florida International University.
[32]	Enzler, H. B., Diekmann, A., & Liebe, U. (2019). Do environmental concern and future orientation predict metered household electricity use? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 62, 22-29.
[33]	Farias, A. R., Coruk, S., & Simão, C. (2021). The effects of temporal discounting on perceived seriousness of environmental behavior: Exploring the moderator role of consumer attitudes regarding green purchasing. Sustainability, 13(13), 7130.
[34]	Fiorenzato, E., & Cona, G. (2022). One-year into COVID-19 pandemic: Decision-making and mental-health outcomes and their risk factors. Journal of Affective Disorders, 309, 418-427. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2022.04.144 pmid: 35490882
[35]	Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 351-401.
[36]	Fuller, C., Michie, S., Savage, J., McAteer, J., Besser, S., Charlett, S.,... Duckworth, G., (2012). The feedback intervention trial (FIT)—improving hand-hygiene compliance in UK healthcare workers: A stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. PloS One, 7(10), Article e41617.
[37]	Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472-482.
[38]	Grandin, A., Guillou, L., Sater, R. A., Foucault, M., & Chevallier, C. (2022). Socioeconomic status, time preferences and pro-environmentalism. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 79, Article 101720.
[39]	Haltinner, K., & Sarathchandra, D. (2022). Predictors of pro-environmental beliefs, behaviors, and policy support among climate change skeptics. Social Currents, 9(2), 180-202.
[40]	Hardisty, D. J., & Weber, E. U. (2009). Discounting future green: Money versus the environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 329-340.
[41]	Hersh, M. A. (1999). Sustainable decision making: The role of decision support systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 29(3), 395-408.
[42]	Hertwig, R. (2017). When to consider boosting: Some rules for policy-makers. Behavioural Public Policy, 1(2), 143-161.
[43]	Hertwig, R., & Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2017). Nudging and boosting: Steering or empowering good decisions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 973-986. doi: 10.1177/1745691617702496 pmid: 28792862
[44]	Jian, Y., Yu, I. Y., Yang, M. X., & Zeng, K. J. (2020). The impacts of fear and uncertainty of COVID-19 on environmental concerns, brand trust, and behavioral intentions toward green hotels. Sustainability, 12(20), 8688.
[45]	Joireman, J. A., Van Lange, P. A. M., & Van Vugt, M. (2004). Who cares about the environmental impact of cars? Those with an eye toward the future. Environment and Behavior, 36(2), 187-206.
[46]	Kidd, C., Palmeri, H., & Aslin, R. N. (2013). Rational snacking: Young children’s decision-making on the marshmallow task is moderated by beliefs about environmental reliability. Cognition, 126(1), 109-114.
[47]	Kortenkamp, K. V., & Moore, C. F. (2006). Time, uncertainty, and individual differences in decisions to cooperate in resource dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(5), 603-615. pmid: 16702154
[48]	Lew, D. K. (2018). Discounting future payments in stated preference choice experiments. Resource and Energy Economics, 54, 150-164.
[49]	Liao, Y. -K., Wu, W. -Y., & Pham, T. -T. (2020). Examining the moderating effects of green marketing and green psychological benefits on customers’ green attitude, value and purchase intention. Sustainability, 12(18), 7461.
[50]	Loomes, G., Orr, S., & Sugden, R. (2009). Taste uncertainty and status quo effects in consumer choice. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 39(2), 113-135.
[51]	Luckman, A., Donkin, C., & Newell, B. R. (2020). An evaluation and comparison of models of risky intertemporal choice. Psychological Review, 127(6), 1097-1138.
[52]	McGuire, J. T., & Kable, J. W. (2013). Rational temporal predictions can underlie apparent failures to delay gratification. Psychological Review, 120(2), 395-410. doi: 10.1037/a0031910 pmid: 23458085
[53]	Noar, S. M., Benac, C. N., & Harris, M. S. (2007). Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychological Bulletin, 133(4), 673-693. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.673 pmid: 17592961
[54]	Pichert, D., & Katsikopoulos, K. V. (2008). Green defaults: Information presentation and pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(1), 63-73.
[55]	Premier Ministre Français (Ed.) (2011). “Green nudges”: New incentives for ecological behaviour. Centre d'analyse stratégique,
[56]	Qin, C., Xu, J., Wong-Parodi, G., & Xue, L. (2018). Change in public concern and responsive behaviors toward air pollution under the dome. Risk Analysis, 40(10), 1983-2001.
[57]	Read, D. (2004). Intertemporal choice. In N. H. Derek & J. Koehler (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 424-443). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
[58]	Refaie, N., & Mishra, S. (2020). Embodied capital and risk-related traits, attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes: An exploratory examination of attractiveness, cognitive ability, and physical ability. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(7), 949-964.
[59]	Reijula, S., & Hertwig, R. (2022). Self-nudging and the citizen choice architect. Behavioural Public Policy, 6(1), 119-149.
[60]	Ryu, H., & Jun, S. (2019, May). Influence of social self- identification on sustainable consumption: Moderating role of future self-continuity. Paper presented at the 48^th Annual EMAC Conference, Hamburg, Germany.
[61]	Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424.
[62]	Stöckigt, G., Schiebener, J., & Brand, M. (2018). Providing sustainability information in shopping situations contributes to sustainable decision making: An empirical study with choice-based conjoint analyses. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 43, 188-199.
[63]	Sun, X., Su, W., Guo, X., & Tian, Z. (2021). The impact of awe induced by COVID-19 pandemic on green consumption behavior in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(2), 543.
[64]	Tanaka, T., Camerer, C. F., & Nguyen, Q. (2010). Risk and time preferences: Linking experimental and household survey data from Vietnam. American Economic Review, 100(1), 557-571.
[65]	Thaler, R. H., Sunstein, C. R., & Balz, J. P. (2013). Choice architecture. In E. Shafir (Ed.), The behavioral foundations of public policy (pp. 428-439). Princeton University Press.
[66]	van der Wal, A. J., van Horen, F., & Grinstein, A. (2018). Temporal myopia in sustainable behavior under uncertainty. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 35(3), 378-393.
[67]	Vedadi, A., & Greer, T. H. (2021). Revisiting how perceived uncertainty and herd behavior influence technology choice. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 33(6), 1-19.
[68]	Winterich, K. P., Nenkov, G. Y., & Gonzales, G. E. (2019). Knowing what it makes: How product transformation salience increases recycling. Journal of Marketing, 83(4), 21-37. doi: 10.1177/0022242919842167
[69]	Wu, X., Li, J., & Li, Y. (2022). The impact of uncertainty induced by the COVID-19 pandemic on intertemporal choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 103, Article 104397.
[70]	Yoon, A., Jeong, D., & Chon, J. (2021). The impact of the risk perception of ocean microplastics on tourists’ pro-environmental behavior intention. Science of The Total Environment, 774, Article 144782.
[71]	Zhang, X., Wu, Z., & He, Q. (2023). A mini-review on how the COVID-19 pandemic affected intertemporal choice. Psychoradiology, 3, Article kkad021.
[72]	Zhang, Y., Gao, Y., & Jiang, J. (2021). An unpredictable environment reduces pro-environmental behavior: A dynamic public goods experiment on forest use. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 78, Article 101702.