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
The Attitude-Behavior Gap in Energy Conservation: Inhibitory Pathways of Social Norm Conflict and the Moderating Role of Goal Self-Efficacy
殷西乐 1何临砚 2周慧娟 2陈思宇 3张峰4
作者信息
- 1. 浙江工商大学工商管理学院, 杭州 310018;浙江工商大学现代商贸研究中心;
- 2. 浙江工商大学工商管理学院, 杭州 310018
- 3. 浙江水利水电学院经济与管理学院, 杭州 310018
- 4. 南开大学经济学院, 天津 300071
- 折叠
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，其效果甚至优于单独提供高指令性规范信息；(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。
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 attitudebehavior 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 not only mitigated the negative effect (increasing the stair-use rate from 20.20% in the norm conflict condition to 36.76%), but also produced a higher rate than the high injunctive norm message alone.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.关键词
社会规范冲突/目标自我效能/心理抗拒/责任感/节能Key words
social norm conflict/goal self-efficacy/psychological reactance/personal responsibility/energy conservation引用本文复制引用
殷西乐,何临砚,周慧娟,陈思宇,张峰.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[EB/OL].(2026-08-20)[2026-08-23].https://chinaxiv.org/abs/202608.00099.学科分类
环境科学技术现状/社会与环境
