熟悉度促进人们与垃圾分类中的志愿者合作及其作用机制

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01358

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

垃圾急剧增长严重污染环境, 亟需垃圾分类和减量, 没有桶前志愿者监管, 垃圾混放污染率居高不下。而居民不配合志愿者的情况时有发生, 如何促进居民与志愿者合作?基于声誉关注和社会距离理论, 为解决垃圾分类困境, 本研究实施3个情境实验和1个质性访谈调研, 考察对志愿者的熟悉度(高/低/陌生)、志愿者年龄(小学生/年轻人/老年人)如何影响不同年龄的居民(中青年和老年人)的合作性, 及其内在作用机制。结果发现, 人们对志愿者熟悉度越高, 合作性越高; 在低熟悉条件下, 对老年志愿者合作性更高(实验1和实验2)。同中青年被试相比, 老年被试对老年志愿者的合作性更高, 但同陌生志愿者的合作性低于中青年被试(实验2)。社会距离和声誉关注可作为熟悉度促进合作的心理机制, 起到链式中介作用(实验3)。多元回归分析和质性调研结果表明, 社区里居民熟悉的志愿者监管引导, 及居民自身的亲社会性, 在垃圾分类推广中起着关键作用。这些重要发现为垃圾分类的推行及降低成本提供了参考价值和科学支撑。

关键词: 熟悉度, 年龄差异, 声誉关注, 社会距离, 合作

Abstract:

Despite the growing urgency of waste separation as an environmental concern, the rates of contamination from unsorted waste remain high without the monitoring from volunteers. How can we facilitate collaboration between residents and volunteers? To address the dilemma of waste separation, the present study conducted three experiments and one qualitative interview based on the theories of competitive altruism and social influence to investigate the effects of familiarity and age on residents' cooperation, as well as the mediating roles of reputational concern and social distance.

Using scenarios, participants were asked to read the instructions (each representing one of the conditions), and then to predict the extent of probability that they would cooperate in each condition. Experiment 1 adopted a 3 (volunteer age group: primary children/younger/older) × 3 (volunteer familiarity: high/low/unfamiliar) within-subjects design to examine the differences in the cooperation of young people (M = 20.16 ± 1.01 years) with volunteers in different conditions. Experiment 2 adopted a 2 (participant age group: younger/older; between-subjects variable) × 3 (volunteer age group: primary children/younger/older; within-subjects variable) × 3 (volunteer familiarity: high/low/unfamiliar; within-subjects variable) mixed design, to examine the age-related differences of the cooperation between younger people (M = 40.63 ± 7.60 years) and older people (M = 68.90 ± 4.97 years) with volunteers in different conditions. The findings of Experiment 1 were replicated. Experiment 3 adopted a 2 (volunteer age group: younger/older) × 2 (volunteer familiarity: high/unfamiliar) within-subjects design, and it lasted for four weeks at an interval of one week for each participant. Experiment 3 aimed to examine the mediating role of reputational concern and social distance in familiarity and cooperation.

Experiment 1 showed that participants cooperated more with the high familiar volunteers than with the low familiar or strange volunteers. The higher the familiarity, the greater the cooperative intention. As age and familiarity interact to affect the cooperative intention, participants cooperated more with older volunteers than with primary children in the low familiar condition. Experiment 2 replicated the results of Experiment 1, and found that familiarity had a significant effect on the cooperative intention of both younger and older adults. Besides, older adults cooperated more with older volunteers while less with strangers than younger adults. Experiment 3 replicated the results of the first two experiments, and examined the underlying mechanism. The mediation analysis showed that social distance and reputational concern play a serial mediating role in the effect of familiarity on cooperation. The results of multiple regression analysis and qualitative interviews showed that the monitoring and feedback of the volunteers, who were familiar with the residents and individual prosociality, played key roles in promoting waste separation.

These findings provide suggestions and scientific support for the practice of waste separation and saving management costs. The present study showed that helping residents to become familiar with volunteers in advance, or recruiting people who are familiar with residents as volunteers, will be helpful for waste separation. These strategies can promote the cooperative intention of residents, and help them form the habit of waste separation. Social distance and reputational concern play a serial mediating role in the effect of familiarity on cooperation.

Key words: familiarity, age differences, reputational concern, social distance, cooperation

中图分类号:

B849: C91

张萱, 刘萍萍. (2023). 熟悉度促进人们与垃圾分类中的志愿者合作及其作用机制. 心理学报, 55(8), 1358-1371.

ZHANG Xuan, LIU Ping-Ping. (2023). Familiarity promotes resident cooperation with volunteers in waste separation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(8), 1358-1371.

图/表 10

参考文献 70

[1]	Abrahamse, W., & Steg, L. (2013). Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23(6), 1773-1785. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.029 URL
[2]	Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596-612. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596 URL
[3]	Bailey, P. E., Ruffman, T., & Rendell, P. G. (2013). Age-related differences in social economic decision making: The ultimatum game. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 68(3), 356-63.
[4]	Bradner, E., & Mark, G. (2002). Why distance matters: Effects on cooperation, persuasion and deception. In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 226-235). New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
[5]	Caprara, G. V., & Steca, P. (2005). Self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of prosocial behavior conducive to life satisfaction across ages. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(2), 191-217. doi: 10.1521/jscp.24.2.191.62271 URL
[6]	Carstensen, L. L., Fung, H. H., & Charles, S. T. (2003). Socioemotional selectivity theory and the regulation of emotion in the second half of life. Motivation and Emotion, 27(2), 103-123. doi: 10.1023/A:1024569803230 URL
[7]	Chen, H., & He, G. (2014). The Effect of psychological distance on intertemporal choice and risky choice. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46(5), 677-690. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.00677
	[ 陈海贤, 何贵兵. (2014). 心理距离对跨期选择和风险选择的影响. 心理学报, 46(5), 677-690.]
[8]	Deng, J., Tang, J., Lu, C., Han, B., & Liu, P. (2022). Commitment and intergenerational influence: A field study on the role of children in promoting recycling in the family. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 185, 106403. https://oi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106403
[9]	Epley, N., Kardas, M., Zhao, X., Atir, S., & Schroeder, J. (2022). Undersociality: Miscalibrated social cognition can inhibit social connection. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(5), 406-418. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2022.02.007 URL
[10]	Farmer, S., & Farrelly, D. (2021). Men increase time spent on a charitable task when in the presence of women and other men: Evidence of competitive altruism in online mating scenarios. Current Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-21-02173-w
[11]	Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). Gpower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods*, 39(2), 175-191. doi: 10.3758/bf03193146 pmid: 17695343
[12]	Fields, E. C., Bowen, H. J., Daley, R. T., Parisi, K. R., Gutchess, A., & Kensinger, E. A. (2021). An ERP investigation of age differences in the negativity bias for self-relevant and non-self-relevant stimuli. Neurobiology of Aging, 103, 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2021.02.009 pmid: 33773473
[13]	Foulkes, L., Leung, J. T., Fuhrmann, D., Knoll, L. J., & Blakemore, S. J. (2018). Age differences in the prosocial influence effect. Developmental Science, 21(6), e12666. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12666 doi: 10.1111/desc.2018.21.issue-6 URL
[14]	Freeberg, T. M. (2020). Familiarity—The bridge from social interactions to relationships? Journal of Comparative Psychology, 134(2), 133-134. doi: 10.1037/com0000224 pmid: 32338942
[15]	Gächter, S., & Fehr, E. (1999). Collective action as a social exchange. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 39(4), 341-369. doi: 10.1016/S0167-2681(99)00045-1 URL
[16]	Giardini, F., Vilone, D., Sánchez, A., & Antonioni, A. (2021). Gossip and competitive altruism support cooperation in a Public Good game. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 376(1838), 20200303. https://doi.org/10.1098/stb.2020.0303 doi: 10.1098/rstb.2020.0303 URL
[17]	Goodman, P. S., & Leyden, D. P. (1991). Familiarity and group productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(4), 578-586. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.76.4.578 URL
[18]	Grönlund, H., & Falk, H. (2019). Does it make a difference? The effects of volunteering from the viewpoint of recipients-A literature review. Diaconia, 10(1), 7-26. doi: 10.13109/diac.2019.10.issue-1 URL
[19]	Gutiérrez-Roig, M., Gracia-Lázaro, C., Perelló, J., Moreno, Y., & Sánchez, A. (2014). Transition from reciprocal cooperation to persistent behaviour in social dilemmas at the end of adolescence. Nature Communications, 5(1), 1-7.
[20]	Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
[21]	Hottle, T. A., Bilec, M. M., Brown, N. R., & Landis, A. E. (2015). Toward zero waste: Composting and recycling for sustainable venue based events. Waste Management, 38, 86-94. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.01.019 pmid: 25666546
[22]	Hsee, C. K., & Weber, E. U. (1997). A fundamental prediction error: Self-others discrepancies in risk preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(1), 45-53. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.126.1.45 URL
[23]	Keller, L., & Reeve, H. K. (1998). Familiarity breeds cooperation. Nature, 394(6689), 121-122. doi: 10.1038/28031
[24]	Knickmeyer, D. (2020). Social factors influencing household waste separation: A literature review on good practices to improve the recycling performance of urban areas. Journal of Cleaner Production, 245, 118605. https://doi.org/10.1016/jclepro.2019.118605 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118605 URL
[25]	Latané, B. (1996). Dynamic social impact: The creation of culture by communication. Journal of Communication, 46(4), 13-25. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01501.x URL
[26]	Leeabai, N., Suzuki, S., Jiang, Q., Dilixiati, D., & Takahashi, F. (2019). The effects of setting conditions of trash bins on waste collection performance and waste separation behaviors; distance from walking path, separated setting, and arrangements. Waste Management, 94, 58-67. doi: S0956-053X(19)30347-2 pmid: 31279396
[27]	Li, A. (2020). Social work advocacy in the study of community garbage sorting (Unpublished master's thesis). Jilin University, China.
	[ 李安麒. (2020). 社会工作倡导理论介入社区生活垃圾分类的研究 (硕士学位论文). 吉林大学.]
[28]	Li, C. J., Bian, S. Q., Xue, Y. S., Ma, Z. L., & Ha, M. (2022). Key measure indicators affecting residents’ waste sorting performance in Shanghai communities. Chinese Journal of Environmental Management, 14(2), 27-33.
	[ 李长军, 边少卿, 薛云舒, 马宗良, 玛丽·哈德. (2022). 上海市社区内影响居民垃圾分类效果的关键措施指标研究. 中国环境管理, 14(2), 27-33.]
[29]	Li, C. J., Huang, Y. Y., & Harder, M. K. (2017). Incentives for food waste diversion: Exploration of a long term successful Chinese city residential scheme. Journal of Cleaner Production, 156, 491-499. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.198 URL
[30]	Lin, Z. Y., Wang, X., Li, C. J., Gordon, M. P., & Harder, M. K. (2016). Visual prompts or volunteer models: An experiment in recycling. Sustainability, 8(5), 458-473. doi: 10.3390/su8050458 URL
[31]	Ling, M., Xu, L., & Xiang, L. (2021). Social-contextual influences on public participation in incentive programs of household waste separation. Journal of Environmental Management, 281, 111914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.20.111914 doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111914 URL
[32]	Lu, Y., Zhang, L., & Xu, B. (2016). The Effect on cooperative behaviors by cooperation index and social distance. Journal of Psychological Science, 39(2), 435-440.
	[ 卢洋, 张磊, 徐碧波. (2016). 合作指数与社会距离对合作行为的影响. 心理科学, 39(2), 435-440.]
[33]	Lunn, P., Belton, C., Lavin, C., McGowan, F., Timmons, S., & Robertson, D. (2020). Using behavioural science to help fight the coronavirus. ESRI Working Paper, 656. http://dl.handle.net/10419/237928
[34]	Maddox, P., Doran, C., Williams, I. D., & Kus, M. (2011). The role of intergenerational influence in waste education programmes: The THAW project. Waste Management, 31(12), 2590-2600. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2011.07.023 pmid: 21868211
[35]	Minelgaitė, A., & Liobikienė, G. (2019). The problem of not waste sorting behaviour, comparison of waste sorters and non-sorters in European Union: Cross-cultural analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 672, 174-182. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.342 URL
[36]	Molina, J. A., Ferrer, A., Giménez-Nadal, J. I., Gracia-Lázaro, C., Moreno, Y., & Sanchez, A. (2019). Intergenerational cooperation within the household: A public good game with three generations. Review of Economics of the Household, 17(2), 535-552. doi: 10.1007/s11150-018-9414-4
[37]	Moore, S. M., & Geuss, M. N. (2020). Familiarity with teammate’s attitudes improves team performance in virtual reality. PLOS ONE, 15(10), e0241011. https://doi.org/0.1371/journal.pone.0241011 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241011 URL
[38]	Niu, Z. H., Jiang, S., Qiu, J. J., Shen, Z. M., & Zhang, F. (2010). The effect of social distance on representation of other’s behavior: The role of valence of the content of evaluation. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology, 16(4), 291-300.
	[ 牛忠辉, 蒋赛, 邱俊杰, 申之美, 张锋. (2010). 社会距离对他人行为表征的影响: 评价内容效价的作用. 应用心理学, 16(4), 291-300.]
[39]	Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411-419. doi: 10.1017/S1930297500002205 URL
[40]	Pillemer, K., Wells, N. M., Meador, R. H., Schultz, L., Henderson, C. R., & Cope, M. T. (2017). Engaging older adults in environmental volunteerism: The retirees in service to the environment program. The Gerontologist, 57(2), 367-375.
[41]	Quervel-Chaumette, M., Dale, R., Marshall-Pescini, S., & Range, F. (2015). Familiarity affects other-regarding preferences in pet dogs. Scientific Reports, 5(1), 1-7.
[42]	Rand, D. G. (2016). Cooperation, fast and slow: Meta-analytic evidence for a theory of social heuristics and self-interested deliberation. Psychological Science, 27(9), 1192-1206. doi: 10.1177/0956797616654455 pmid: 27422875
[43]	Romano, A., Bortolotti, S., Hofmann, W., Praxmarer, M., & Sutter, M. (2021). Generosity and cooperation across the life span: A lab-in-the-field study. Psychology and Aging, 36(1), 108-118. doi: 10.1037/pag0000457 pmid: 33705189
[44]	Romano, A., Saral, A. S., & Wu, J. (2021). Direct and indirect reciprocity among individuals and groups. Current Opinion in Psychology, 43, 254-259. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.003 pmid: 34481332
[45]	Simmel, G. (1955). Conflict and the web of group affiliations. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
[46]	Sun, Q., Cheng, H., & Liu, Y. (2022). Exposure to positive and negative nature affects cooperative behavior: The mediating role of cooperative expectations. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology, 29(1), 12-19.
	[ 孙倩, 程红利, 刘永芳. (2022). 正负性自然环境对合作行为的影响: 合作预期的中介作用. 应用心理学, 29(1), 12-19.]
[47]	Sylwester, K., & Roberts, G. (2013). Reputation-based partner choice is an effective alternative to indirect reciprocity in solving social dilemmas. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(3), 201-206. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.11.009 URL
[48]	Számadó, S., Balliet, D., Giardini, F., Power, E. A., & Takács, K. (2021). The language of cooperation: Reputation and honest signalling. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 376(1838), 20200286. https://doi.org/10.1098/stb.2020.0286 doi: 10.1098/rstb.2020.0286 URL
[49]	Tan, C., Wang, P., & Cui, Y. (2017). Should I sacrifice my profit before his eyes? Partner’s ability and social distance affecting the tendency of reputation-profit game. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49(9), 1206-1218. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.01206 URL
	[ 谈晨皓, 王沛, 崔诣晨. (2017). 我会在谁面前舍弃利益?——对象的能力与社会距离对名利博弈倾向的影响. 心理学报, 49(9), 1206-1218.]
[50]	Tao, L., Fu, L., Zhang, X., Feng, X., & Fu, M. R. (2020). The perceived self-efficacy on early functional exercise adherence among postoperative breast cancer patients. Chinese Journal of Surgical Oncology, 12(1), 84-88.
	[ 陶琳, 付岚, 张晓霞, 冯先琼, Fu, M. R. (2020). 乳腺癌患者术后自我效能感对早期功能锻炼依从性的影响. 中国肿瘤外科杂志, 12(1), 84-88.]
[51]	Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83-95. doi: 10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70013-X pmid: 21822366
[52]	van Doesum, N. J., Murphy, R. O., Gallucci, M., Aharonov- ajar, E., Athenstaedt, U., Au, W. T.,... van Lange, P. A. (2021). Social mindfulness and prosociality vary across the globe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(35), e2023846118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023846118 doi: 10.1073/pnas.2023846118 URL
[53]	van Lange, P. A., de Bruin, E., Otten, W., & Joireman, J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 733-746. pmid: 9325591
[54]	Wang, S. (2019). Community experience and its optimization in solving the dilemma of garbage classification. Journal of Zhejiang Gongshang University, 33(3), 121-128.
	[ 王泗通. (2019). 破解垃圾分类困境的社区经验及其优化. 浙江工商大学学报, 33(3), 121-128.]
[55]	Wang, X. (2021). Analysis of influencing mechanism on waste separation behavior in Shanghai. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 47, 101479. https://doi.org/0.1016/j.seta.2021.101479 doi: 10.1016/j.seta.2021.101479 URL
[56]	Woodard, R., Firoozmand, F., & Harder, M. K. (2000). The use of cash vouchers to incentive householders to recycle. Population, 97(143, 100), 89-667.
[57]	Wu, J., Balliet, D., & van Lange, P. A. (2016). Reputation management: Why and how gossip enhances generosity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37(3), 193-201. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.11.001 URL
[58]	Xie, X., Wang, Y., Gu, S., & Li, W. (2017). Is altruism just other-benefiting? A dual pathway model from an evolutionary perspective. Advances in Psychological Science, 25(9), 1441-1455. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2017.01441 URL
	[ 谢晓非, 王逸璐, 顾思义, 李蔚. (2017). 利他仅仅利他吗? ——进化视角的双路径模型. 心理科学进展, 25(9), 1441-1455.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2017.01441
[59]	Xu, D. Y., Lin, Z. Y., Gordon, M. P. R., Robinson, N. K. L., & Harder, M. K. (2016). Perceived key elements of a successful residential food waste sorting program in urban apartments: Stakeholder views. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134, 362-370. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.107 URL
[60]	Xu, L., Chu, X., & Ling, M. (2021). Influence of role models on public participation in household waste separation: An examination of local contextual moderators. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, 1934-1943. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2021.04.032 URL
[61]	Yao, B., Scott, G. G., McAleer, P., O'Donnell, P. J., & Sereno, S. C. (2014). Familiarity with interest breeds gossip: Contributions of emotion, expectation, and reputation. PLOS ONE, 9(8), e104916. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.one.0104916 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0104916 URL
[62]	Yu, H., Yang, J., Zhang, Y., & Jin, S. (2013). Imagining contact reduce intergroup bias: Theoretical basis, practical demand, underlying mechanisms. Advances in Psychological Science, 21(10), 1824-1832. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.01824
	[ 于海涛, 杨金花, 张雁军, 金盛华. (2013). 想象接触减少偏见: 理论依据, 实践需要与作用机制. 心理科学进展, 21(10), 1824-1832.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.01824
[63]	Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2p2), 1-27.
[64]	Zelenika, I., Moreau, T., & Zhao, J. (2018). Toward zero waste events: Reducing contamination in waste streams with volunteer assistance. Waste Management, 76, 39-45. doi: S0956-053X(18)30172-7 pmid: 29576514
[65]	Zhan, Y., Xiao, X., Tan, Q., Li, J., & Zhong, Y. (2022). Influence of reputational concern and social distance on moral decision-making under the harmful dilemma: Evidence from behavioral and ERPs study. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(6), 613-627. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00613
	[ 占友龙, 肖啸, 谭千保, 李琎, 钟毅平. (2022). 声誉关注与社会距离对伤害困境中道德决策的影响: 来自行为与ERPs的证据. 心理学报, 54(6), 613-627.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00613
[66]	Zhang, J., Zhao, L., & Hu, S. (2021). Visualizing recycling: Promoting recycling through mental simulation. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 174, 105783. https://doi.org/0.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105783 doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105783 URL
[67]	Zhang, L., Xu, B., & Ding, L. (2017). The different effects on cooperative behavior among teenagers by the social distance and the cooperation index. Psychological Development and Education, 33(4), 410-416.
	[ 张磊, 徐碧波, 丁璐. (2017). 社会距离与合作指数对不同年龄青少年合作行为影响的差异. 心理发展与教育, 33(4), 410-416.]
[68]	Zhang, Q., & Deng, Z. (2020). Closeness difference: The influence of social distance on implicit cooperative attitude. Psychology: Techniques and Applications, 8(9), 521-526.
	[ 张琪, 邓铸. (2020). 亲疏有别: 社会距离对内隐合作态度的影响. 心理技术与应用, 8(9), 521-526.]
[69]	Zhang, Y. B., Harwood, J., & Hummert, M. L. (2005). Perceptions of conflict management styles in Chinese intergenerational dyads. Communication Monographs, 72(1), 71-91. doi: 10.1080/0363775052000342535 URL
[70]	Zhao, Y., Chen, R., Yabe, M., Han, B., & Liu, P. (2021). I am better than others: Waste management policies and self-enhancement bias. Sustainability, 13, 13257. https://doi.rg/10.3390/su132313257 doi: 10.3390/su132313257 URL

前半句情境框架	实验条件举例	自变量条件	因变量问题
小黄把吃剩的外卖拿出去扔掉, 一位志愿者告诉小黄, 要先将饭菜投放到厨余垃圾桶, 再将餐盒等投放到其他垃圾桶。	这位志愿者是小黄认识了5年的小学生邻居。	高熟悉−小学生	实验1: 您认为小黄此时是否会立刻分类? (是/否/不确定) 实验2: 您认为小黄此时(下次)会立刻分类的可能性是? (1~7)
	这位志愿者是小黄在小区见过且有印象的一位小学生。	低熟悉−小学生
	这位志愿者是小黄不认识的一位小学生。	陌生的−小学生
	这位志愿者是小黄认识了5年的年轻人邻居。	高熟悉−年轻人
	这位志愿者是小黄在小区见过且有印象的一位年轻人。	低熟悉−年轻人
	这位志愿者是小黄不认识的一位年轻人。	陌生的−年轻人
	这位志愿者是小黄认识了5年的老年人邻居。	高熟悉−老年人
	这位志愿者是小黄在小区见过且有印象的一位老年人。	低熟悉−老年人
	这位志愿者是小黄不认识的一位老年人。	陌生的−老年人

前半句情境框架	实验条件举例	自变量条件	因变量问题
小黄把吃剩的外卖拿出去扔掉, 一位志愿者告诉小黄, 要先将饭菜投放到厨余垃圾桶, 再将餐盒等投放到其他垃圾桶。	这位志愿者是小黄认识了5年的小学生邻居。	高熟悉−小学生	实验1: 您认为小黄此时是否会立刻分类? (是/否/不确定) 实验2: 您认为小黄此时(下次)会立刻分类的可能性是? (1~7)
	这位志愿者是小黄在小区见过且有印象的一位小学生。	低熟悉−小学生
	这位志愿者是小黄不认识的一位小学生。	陌生的−小学生
	这位志愿者是小黄认识了5年的年轻人邻居。	高熟悉−年轻人
	这位志愿者是小黄在小区见过且有印象的一位年轻人。	低熟悉−年轻人
	这位志愿者是小黄不认识的一位年轻人。	陌生的−年轻人
	这位志愿者是小黄认识了5年的老年人邻居。	高熟悉−老年人
	这位志愿者是小黄在小区见过且有印象的一位老年人。	低熟悉−老年人
	这位志愿者是小黄不认识的一位老年人。	陌生的−老年人

前半句情境框架	实验条件举例	自变量条件	因变量问题
您把吃剩的外卖拿出去扔掉, 一位志愿者告诉您, 要进行垃圾分类, 要先将饭菜投放到厨余垃圾桶, 再将餐盒等投放到其他垃圾桶。	这位志愿者是第三方公司的一位老年人, 您对这位老年人不熟悉	陌生的−老年人	您此时(下次)会立刻分类的可能性是? (1~7)
	这位志愿者是第三方公司的一位年轻人, 您对这位年轻人不熟悉	陌生的−年轻人
	这位志愿者是住在您小区的一位老年人, 您对这位老年人非常熟悉	高熟悉−老年人
	这位志愿者是住在您小区的一位年轻人, 您对这位年轻人非常熟悉	高熟悉−年轻人

前半句情境框架	实验条件举例	自变量条件	因变量问题
您把吃剩的外卖拿出去扔掉, 一位志愿者告诉您, 要进行垃圾分类, 要先将饭菜投放到厨余垃圾桶, 再将餐盒等投放到其他垃圾桶。	这位志愿者是第三方公司的一位老年人, 您对这位老年人不熟悉	陌生的−老年人	您此时(下次)会立刻分类的可能性是? (1~7)
	这位志愿者是第三方公司的一位年轻人, 您对这位年轻人不熟悉	陌生的−年轻人
	这位志愿者是住在您小区的一位老年人, 您对这位老年人非常熟悉	高熟悉−老年人
	这位志愿者是住在您小区的一位年轻人, 您对这位年轻人非常熟悉	高熟悉−年轻人

预测变量	均值	标准差	模型1		模型2		模型3		模型4
预测变量	均值	标准差	β	t	β	t	β	t	β	t
年龄(岁)	54.76	15.55	0.13	1.05	0.11	0.91	0.05	0.37	−0.00	−0.04
性别	0.45	0.50	−0.12	−1.67	−0.11	−1.50	−0.07	−0.92	−0.06	−0.75
学历	3.32	1.98	0.29	2.62^**	0.29	2.58^*	0.17	1.42	0.22	1.84
有孩子否¹	0.92	0.27	0.09	1.14	0.08	0.94	0.06	0.70	0.04	0.56
分类态度	6.34	1.03			0.11	1.44	0.11	1.47	0.02	0.28
见值守否²	0.37	0.49					0.22	2.66^**	0.25	3.12^**
志愿意愿³	5.57	1.76							0.26	3.05^**
R²			0.07		0.08		0.12		0.17
F			3.14^*		2.94^*		3.72^**		4.68^***
ΔR²					0.01		0.04		0.05
ΔF					2.09		7.07^**		9.31^**