社会与工程心理学研究室知识库

水资源短缺逐渐成为全球性问题，节约水资源刻不容缓。仅仅依赖金钱刺激很难解决水资源浪费问题，而心理与行为科学可以发挥重要作用。近年来，西方研究者探讨行为决策的经典理论(如安于现状偏差、决策双系统模型、社会规范和框架效应等)和节水行为之间的关系，同时提出诸如信息传播方式与内容、情绪等影响个体节水行为的因素。基于行为决策的理论，我们认为通过传递不同的节水方法信息，将影响居民的节水意愿和节水行为。在这个研究中，我们通过2个研究，探讨了不同节水方法信息的效果和影响。

在预备研究的基础上设计5种不同的节水方法描述，其中简单方法组仅告知节水方法，社会规范方法组增加社会规范描述，数量化方法组增加量化数据，积极框架数量化方法组在量化数据基础上增加积极框架描述，消极框架数量化方法组在量化数据基础上增加消极框架描述。

研究提出五个假设: (1) 5个实验组与对照组比较，实验组人均用水量更少;(2) 社会规范方法组与简单方法组比较，社会规范节水方法组人均用水量更少;(3)数量化方法组与简单方法组比较，数量化节水方法组人均用水量更少;(4)积极框架数量化方法组与数量化方法组比较，积极框架数量化方法组人均用水量更少;消极框架数量化方法组与数量化方法组比较，消极框架数量化方法组人均用水量更少;(5)消极框架数量化方法组与积极框架数量化方法组比较，消极框架数量化方法组人均用水量更少。

研究一通过问卷调查的方式，比较检测5种节水宣传对节水态度的影响。研究结果表明:人们普遍受社会规范影响，结果与假设二一致，其余假设在研究一中未得到验证。

为明确不同描述方式对节水行为的影响，开展了研究二。研究二为组内组间混合设计。组内变量为时间，组间变量为分组。实验组共分为5组，分组和研究一相同，并设对照组。选择北京市朝阳区某小区作为研究对象，按照组别发放不同内容的实验材料(冰箱贴)，对全体居民共1583户用水量做了为期3个月的追踪以检验干预效果。研究共回收有效数据1005户。研究结果表明:5个实验组与对照组人均用水量比较结果均为显著差异，实验组人均用水量更低，结果与假设---一致;增加量化描述组与单纯介绍节水方法组人均用水量比较，结果显示显著差异，增加量化数据组人均用水量更低，与假设三一致;其余假设在研究二中未得到验证。

综合研究一和研究二的实验结果，本文得出以下结论:

(1)通过归纳总结，制作简单、可行的节水方法清单，可以有效促进居民节水行为;

(2)在提供的信息中体现社会规范、量化数据等内容，可提升居民对节水方法的接受程度;

(3)在量化数据基础上，附加框架信息对于提升居民节水意愿和节水行为并没有显著效果。

The shortage of water is becoming global problem that human-beings need to solve, the human-beings have to take action to save water. researchers have tried many ways to persuade individuals to encourage people to conserve water, most of which are financial incentive. but the effectiveness of these approaches is mixed, as they apply rationalist thinking to decision-making but do not account for non-rational decision processes. Recent years, researchers have discussed how the theories about behavior decision-making promote the water-saving behavior and they found some factors such as information dissemination and emotion influence the water-saving behavior. According to some theories about behavior decision-making, we consider the information about water-saving methods will influence the water consumption.

In this research, we conducted two studies to explore how the information about water-saving methods influences the water consumption.

Based on the preliminary study, five different water-saving methods are described. The simple method group just know the water-saving method. The social normative method group know the water-saving method and the social norm information besides the water-saving method. The quantification method group were Based on the preliminary study, five different water-saving methods are described. The simple method group just know the water-saving method. The social normative method group know the water-saving method and the social norm information besides the water-saving method. The quantification method group were also told the quantitative data about the water-saving method. The positive framework quantitative method group got the information in a positive frame and The active framework quantification method group got the information in a negative frame.

The study proposes five hypotheses: (1) there were significant differences between the experimental group and the experimental group, The experimental group had less water per capita; (2) There were significant differences between the social normative method group and the simple method group, and the social normative water saving method group had less water per capita ;(3) there were significant differences between the quantification method group and the simple method group, and the water consumption per capita in the numerical water saving method group was There were significant differences between the positive framework quantitative method group and the quantification method group, and the active framework quantification method group had less water per capita. In the same way9 the number of less; (4) negative frames quantitative method group compared with the quantification method group, with significant differences, the negative frame quantitative method group per capita water consumption less; (5) There were significant differences in the number of negative frames quantitative method group and positive frame quantitative method group， and the negative frame quantization method group had less water per capita.

Study 1 used questionnaires to investigate the influence of different water-saving method information. Five groups of participants finished different questionnaires with different information about water-saving method. The results show that people arc generally affected by social norms. The results are consistent with hypothesis 2, and the other hypotheses are not verified in the study.

Study 2 was conducted to explore the actual impact of different information about water-saving method. Study 2 is a mixed design, the measuring time is within-subject variable and the information is between-subjects variable. The experimental group was divided into 5 groups, the same group as study 1，and set the control group. Study 2 chooses a district in Chaoyang District of Beijing as the research object. According to the different groups of experimental materials released (refrigerator). A total of 1583 households were followed up for 3 months to examine the effect of the inerervention. A total of 1005 valid data were collected. The results showed that the average water consumption of the eve experimental groups was significantly lower than that of the control group, and the per capita water consumption of the experimental group was lower than that of the control group. The results were consistent with the hypothesis 1.The results showed significant differences, the increase in per capita water consumption in the quantified data set was lower, consistent with Hypothesis 3; the remaining hypotheses were not validated in Study 2.

In present research, we come to the following conclusions:

1. It is a effective way to decrease water consumption by providing a list of some simple and practicable water-saving methods.

2. People are ready to accept the information about water-saving methods contained social norms and quantitative data.

3. The frames of the water-saving information don't play an important role in water-saving consumption.