节能知行分离困境：社会规范冲突的抑制路径与目标自我效能调节

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2026.2670

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 当下居民节能实践中普遍存在高指令性规范与低描述性规范冲突的“知行分离”困境。已有研究关注了社会规范冲突对节能的负向效应, 但未深入分析其内在影响机制, 对其有效干预手段的探讨更加少见。本研究整合规范焦点与规范激活理论, 提出责任感与心理抗拒的并行中介路径, 并进一步考察目标自我效能的缓解作用。通过两项现场实验和三项情景模拟实验, 在不同节能场景(楼梯使用、低碳出行、餐后打包)中检验理论假设。研究发现：(1)社会规范冲突显著抑制个体节能行为; (2)社会规范冲突通过降低责任感与增强心理抗拒共同抑制节能行为; (3)目标自我效能有效缓解社会规范冲突对节能行为的抑制效应; (4)目标自我效能主要作用于社会规范冲突对责任感的影响路径, 而对社会规范冲突引发的心理抗拒无显著干预效应。研究结果揭示了社会规范冲突对节能行为的抑制路径, 并为设计有效干预手段提供理论支撑和数据支持。

关键词: 社会规范冲突, 目标自我效能, 心理抗拒, 责任感, 节能

Abstract: Social norms are widely used as low-cost nudges to promote pro-environmental behavior, including energy conservation. Both injunctive norms (what people ought to do) and descriptive norms (what most people actually do) significantly influence energy-saving behavior. However, residential energy conservation is often marked by a pervasive attitude-behavior gap, reflected in a conflict between high (positive) injunctive norms and low (negative) descriptive norms. While some interventions deliberately highlight this norm conflict to motivate action, emerging evidence suggests that doing so may backfire, inhibiting rather than promoting energy-saving behavior. Previous research, primarily grounded in the Focus Theory of Normative Conduct, has documented this negative effect but lacks a deep examination of the underlying psychological mechanisms. Integrating the Focus Theory of Normative Conduct with Norm Activation Theory, this study proposed a dual-mediator model, arguing that norm conflict suppresses energy-saving behavior by simultaneously reducing personal responsibility and eliciting psychological reactance. Furthermore, we hypothesized that goal self-efficacy would buffer this inhibitory effect.
A multi-method approach involving five experimental studies (two field studies and three scenario-based experiments) was employed to test the hypotheses across different energy-saving contexts: stair use, intentions to use low-carbon transportation, and intentions to take leftovers home. Study 1 (field experiment, N = 2906) used a one-factor design (norm: control vs. high injunctive norm vs. norm conflict) to examine the effect of norm conflict on actual stair-use behavior. Study 2 (scenario experiment, N = 225) utilized a one-factor between-subjects design (control vs. high injunctive norm vs. norm conflict) to investigate the mediating roles of personal responsibility and psychological reactance in intentions to use low-carbon transportation. Study 3 employed a manipulation-of-mediator design: Studies 3a (N = 200) and 3b (N = 200) each used a 2 (norm: high injunctive vs. conflict) x 2 (mediator: baseline vs. enhanced reactance/responsibility) factorial design to causally test the respective mediating pathways. Study 4 (N = 300) used a 2 (norm: high injunctive vs. conflict) x 2 (goal self-efficacy: high vs. low) between-subjects design to explore the moderating role of goal self-efficacy in intentions to take leftovers home. Finally, Study 5 returned to the field stair-use paradigm and added a “norm conflict + high goal self-efficacy” condition (N = 797) to assess changes in actual behavior following an efficacy-enhancing message. Data were analyzed using analyses of variance (ANOVAs), chi-square tests, bootstrap mediation analyses, and moderated mediation analyses.
The findings consistently demonstrated a significant inhibitory effect of social norm conflict on energy-saving behavior and intentions across contexts. Specifically, in Study 1, the stair-use rate in the norm conflict condition (20.20%) was significantly lower than those in both the high injunctive norm (32.29%) and control (32.96%) conditions. Study 2 supported the proposed dual mediation pathways: norm conflict decreased personal responsibility and increased psychological reactance, which, in turn, reduced energy-saving intentions. The causal roles of these mediators were supported by the manipulation-of-mediator design in Study 3. Study 4 revealed that goal self-efficacy significantly moderated the effect of norm conflict: high efficacy buffered the negative effect of norm conflict on responsibility and consequently on behavioral intention, but did not significantly alleviate the heightened psychological reactance elicited by norm conflict. Crucially, the field experiment in Study 5 showed that introducing a high efficacy message alongside norm conflict information mitigated the negative effect (increasing the stair-use rate from 20.20% in the norm conflict condition to 36.76%).
The present research advances theory by integrating the Focus Theory of Normative Conduct with Norm Activation Theory to identify a dual-pathway (reduced personal responsibility and increased psychological reactance) through which injunctive-descriptive norm conflict undermines energy-saving behavior. It further identifies goal self-efficacy as a key boundary condition that primarily preserves personal responsibility, thereby mitigating the adverse effects of norm conflict. Practically, these findings suggest that interventions should avoid messages emphasizing widespread inaction, and should instead incorporate concrete efficacy cues (e.g., quantifiable personal contributions or demonstrable peer influence) to address the dilemma created by conflicting norms.

Key words: social norm conflict, goal self-efficacy, psychological reactance, personal responsibility, energy conservation

中图分类号:

B849
C91

殷西乐, 何临砚, 周慧娟, 陈思宇, 张峰. (2026). 节能知行分离困境：社会规范冲突的抑制路径与目标自我效能调节. 心理学报, 58(12), 2670-2684.

YIN Xile, HE Linyan, ZHOU Huijuan, CHEN Siyu, ZHANG Feng. (2026). The attitude-behavior gap in energy conservation: Inhibitory pathways of social norm conflict and the moderating role of goal self-efficacy. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 58(12), 2670-2684.

参考文献

[1] Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
[2] Barden J., Rucker D. D., & Petty R. E. (2005). “Saying one thing and doing another”: Examining the impact of event order on hypocrisy judgments of others.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(11), 1463-1474.
[3] Basil D. Z., Ridgway N. M., & Basil M. D. (2008). Guilt and giving: A process model of empathy and efficacy.Psychology & Marketing, 25(1), 1-23.
[4] Beck, M., & Toulouse, N. Ö. (2023). Assessing the impact of energy labels on attitude and behavioral intention: An empirical investigation.Journal of Cleaner Production, 415, 137751.
[5] Bergquist, M., & Nilsson, A. (2016). I saw the sign: Promoting energy conservation via normative prompts.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46, 23-31.
[6] Bhanot, S. P. (2021). Isolating the effect of injunctive norms on conservation behavior: New evidence from a field experiment in California.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 163, 30-42.
[7] Bonan J., Cattaneo C., d’Adda G., & Tavoni M. (2020). The interaction of descriptive and injunctive social norms in promoting energy conservation.Nature Energy, 5(11), 900-909.
[8] Brehm, J. W., & Cole, A. H. (1966). Effect of a favor which reduces freedom.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(4), 420-426.
[9] Carroll, R., & Kachersky, L. (2019). Service fundraising and the role of perceived donation efficacy in individual charitable giving.Journal of Business Research, 99, 254-263.
[10] Chen S. J., Pu X. L., Zhu Y., Wang H., & Liu J. W. (2021). The impact of normative misperception on food waste in dining out: Mechanism analyses and countermeasures.Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(8), 904-918.
[陈思静, 濮雪丽, 朱玥, 汪昊, 刘建伟. (2021). 规范错觉对外出就餐中食物浪费的影响:心理机制与应对策略.心理学报, 53(8), 904-918.]
[11] Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 105-109.
[12] Cialdini R. B., Reno R. R., & Kallgren C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015-1026.
[13] De Groot, J. I. M., & Steg, L. (2009). Morality and prosocial behavior: The role of awareness, responsibility, and norms in the norm activation model.The Journal of Social Psychology, 149(4), 425-449.
[14] Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication.Communication Monographs, 72(2), 144-168.
[15] DiRusso, C., & Myrick, J. G. (2021). Sustainability in CSR messages on social media: How emotional framing and efficacy affect emotional response, memory and persuasion.Environmental Communication, 15(8), 1045-1060.
[16] Elsamen A. A., Fotiadis A., Alalwan A. A., & Huan T. C. (2025). Enhancing pro-environmental behavior in tourism: Integrating attitudinal factors and norm activation theory.Tourism Management, 109, 105155.
[17] Feldman, L., & Hart, P. S. (2016). Using political efficacy messages to increase climate activism: The mediating role of emotions.Science Communication, 38(1), 99-127.
[18] Ge, X. (2023). Experimentally manipulating mediating processes: Why and how to examine mediation using statistical moderation analyses.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 109, 104507.
[19] Habib R., White K., & Hoegg J. (2021). Everybody thinks we should but nobody does: How combined injunctive and descriptive norms motivate organ donor registration.Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(3), 621-630.
[20] Hamann, K. R. S., & Reese, G. (2020). My influence on the world (of others): Goal efficacy beliefs and efficacy affect predict private, public, and activist pro‐environmental behavior.Journal of Social Issues, 76(1), 35-53.
[21] Hamann K. R. S., Reese G., Seewald D., & Loeschinger D. C. (2015). Affixing the theory of normative conduct (to your mailbox): Injunctive and descriptive norms as predictors of anti-ads sticker use.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 44, 1-9.
[22] Han D., Duhachek A., & Agrawal N. (2016). Coping and construal level matching drives health message effectiveness via response efficacy or self-efficacy enhancement.Journal of Consumer Research, 43(3), 429-447.
[23] Han, H. (2014). The norm activation model and theory- broadening: Individuals' decision-making on environmentally- responsible convention attendance.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 462-471.
[24] Han, M. S., & Cudjoe, D. (2020). Determinants of energy-saving behavior of urban residents: Evidence from Myanmar.Energy Policy, 140, 111405.
[25] Hayes A. F.(2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
[26] He G. B., Li S., & Liang Z. Y. (2018). Behavioral decision-making is nudging China toward the overall revitalization.Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(8), 803-813.
[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.]
[27] He, S., & Qian, Q. K. (2023). Planning home energy retrofit in a social environment: The role of perceived descriptive and injunctive social norms.Sustainable Cities and Society, 99, 104954.
[28] Helferich M., Thøgersen J., & Bergquist M. (2023). Direct and mediated impacts of social norms on pro- environmental behavior.Global Environmental Change, 80, 102680.
[29] Hornsey M. J., Chapman C. M., & Oelrichs D. M. (2021). Ripple effects: Can information about the collective impact of individual actions boost perceived efficacy about climate change? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 97, 104217.
[30] Huber J., Viscusi W. K., & Bell J. (2020). Dynamic relationships between social norms and pro-environmental behavior: Evidence from household recycling.Behavioural Public Policy, 4(1), 1-25.
[31] Jacobson R. P., Jacobson K. J. L., & Reid A. E. (2021). Guilt enhances the persuasive effects of injunctive but not descriptive social norms.Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(6), 868-876.
[32] Kallgren C. A., Reno R. R., & Cialdini R. B. (2000). A focus theory of normative conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(8), 1002-1012.
[33] Kang G. W., Piao Z., & Ko J. Y. (2021). Descriptive or injunctive: How do restaurant customers react to the guidelines of COVID-19 prevention measures? The role of psychological reactance.International Journal of Hospitality Management, 95, 102934.
[34] Kavvouris C., Chrysochou P., & Thøgersen J. (2020). “Be careful what you say”: The role of psychological reactance on the impact of pro-environmental normative appeals.Journal of Business Research, 113, 257-265.
[35] Keizer K., Lindenberg S., & Steg L. (2008). The spreading of disorder.Science, 322(5908), 1681-1685.
[36] Kredentser M. S., Fabrigar L. R., Smith S. M., & Fulton K. (2012). Following what people think we should do versus what people actually do: Elaboration as a moderator of the impact of descriptive and injunctive norms.Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(3), 341-347.
[37] Leoniak, K. J., & Cwalina, W. (2019). The role of normative prompts and norm support cues in promoting light- switching behavior: A field study.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 64, 1-11.
[38] McDonald R. I., Fielding K. S., & Louis W. R. (2014). Conflicting norms highlight the need for action.Environment and Behavior, 46(2), 139-162.
[39] Mundaca L., Román-Collado R., & Cansino J. M. (2022). Assessing the impacts of social norms on low-carbon mobility options.Energy Policy, 162, 112814.
[40] Nolan J. M., Schultz P. W., Cialdini R. B., Goldstein N. J., & Griskevicius V. (2008). Normative social influence is underdetected.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7), 913-923.
[41] Onwezen M. C., Antonides G., & Bartels J. (2013). The norm activation model: An exploration of the functions of anticipated pride and guilt in pro-environmental behaviour.Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 141-153.
[42] Reynolds-Tylus T., Martinez Gonzalez A., & Quick B. L. (2019). The role of choice clustering and descriptive norms in attenuating psychological reactance to water and energy conservation messages.Environmental Communication, 13(7), 847-863.
[43] Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change.The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 91(1), 93-114.
[44] Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 221-279.
[45] Smith J. R., Louis W. R., Terry D. J., Greenaway K. H., Clarke M. R., & Cheng X. (2012). Congruent or conflicted? The impact of injunctive and descriptive norms on environmental intentions.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(4), 353-361.
[46] Stone J., Wiegand A. W., Cooper J., & Aronson E. (1997). When exemplification fails: Hypocrisy and the motive for self-integrity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 54-65.
[47] Tang M. H., Tian S. Y., & Xie T. (2024). Beyond the myth of slimming: The impact of social norms on positive body image and caloric intake among young adults.Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(10), 1367-1383.
[汤美慧, 田姝菀, 谢天. (2024). 超越瘦身迷思:“以瘦为美”的社会规范对青年群体积极身体意象与热量摄入的影响.心理学报, 56(10), 1367-1383.]
[48] Wu, B., & Yang, Z. (2018). The impact of moral identity on consumers’ green consumption tendency: The role of perceived responsibility for environmental damage.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 59, 74-84.