资源与产业 ›› 2022, Vol. 24 ›› Issue (5): 124-134.DOI: 10.13776/j.cnki.resourcesindustries.20221011.001
• 非主题来稿选登 • 上一篇
贺丽莳,单晓雨
收稿日期:
2021-07-20
修回日期:
2021-11-18
出版日期:
2022-10-20
发布日期:
2022-12-23
通讯作者:
单晓雨,硕士生,主要从事技术经济和企业管理研究。E-mail:shanxiaoyu3708@163.com
作者简介:
贺丽莳,博士、讲师,主要从事技术经济与企业管理研究。Email:hhuhls@163.com
基金资助:
HE Lishi, SHAN Xiaoyu
Received:
2021-07-20
Revised:
2021-11-18
Online:
2022-10-20
Published:
2022-12-23
摘要: 保护生态环境是保障自然资源可持续利用的重要一环,引导居民践行绿色消费行为有助于缓解我国当前的自然资源压力,减少环境污染,助力城市可持续发展。基于S-O-R(刺激-机体-反应)模型,以共情为中介变量、自然拟人化为调节变量,构建信息框架(亏损框架vs.获益框架)对绿色消费行为影响的概念模型,并通过两个实验探讨信息框架对绿色消费行为影响的内在机制。实证分析结果表明,相较于获益框架,亏损框架更能提升个体绿色消费行为意向;共情在信息框架与绿色消费行为意向之间发挥中介作用,中介效应值为0.319,且亏损框架下个体的共情程度更高;自然拟人化正向调节共情在信息框架对绿色消费行为影响中的中介作用,即自然拟人化程度越高,共情的中介作用越强,亏损框架(vs.获益框架)对个体共情和绿色消费行为意向的影响越强。研究结果丰富了绿色消费行为研究体系,为政府和企业有效开展绿色营销、引导个体践行绿色消费行为提供了理论依据和实践启示。
中图分类号:
贺丽莳, 单晓雨. 可持续发展背景下信息框架对绿色消费行为的影响研究——基于共情的中介作用[J]. 资源与产业, 2022, 24(5): 124-134.
HE Lishi, SHAN Xiaoyu. IMPACTS OF INFORMATION FRAMEWORK ON GREEN CONSUMPTION BEHAVIORS UNDER SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT BASED ON MEDIATING EMPATHY[J]. Resources & Industries, 2022, 24(5): 124-134.
陈武英, 刘连启, 2016. 情境对共情的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 24(1): 91-100.〔CHEN W Y, LIU L Q, 2016. The effect of context on empathy[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 24(1): 91-100.〕 何利, 沈镭, 陶建格, 等, 2019. 再生资源回收利用的理论研究与实践进展综述[J]. 资源与产业, 21(4): 60-67.〔HE L, SHEN L, TAO J G, et al, 2019. Overall reviews of theoretical research and practical progress of renewable resources recycling[J]. Resources & Industries, 21(4): 60-67.〕 李利茹, 罗彪, 孙莹, 等, 2021. 绿色广告对消费者购买节能产品意图的影响机制研究: 基于SOR模型(英文)[J/OL]. (2021-06-22) [2021-07-15].https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CAPJ&dbname=CAPJLAST&filename=ZKJD20210618006&uniplatform=NZKPT&v=qGCM6QLZXCm WQP3MTtMGPEo5C9-8mQi1OxkHUbiu3g5EJVJ24As3sRlJjtLY5_ub.〔LI L R, LUO B, SUN Y, et al, 2021. Research on the influence mechanism of green advertising on consumers' intention to purchase energy-saving products: based on the SOR model[J/OL]. (2021-06-22) [2021-07-15].https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CAPJ&dbname=CAPJLAST&filename=ZKJD20210618006&uniplatform=NZKPT&v=qGCM6QLZXCm WQP3MTtMGPEo5C9-8mQi1OxkHUbiu3g5EJVJ24As3sRlJjtLY5_ub.〕 李倩倩, 范雅雯, 2018. 共情对公益广告说服效果的影响研究[J]. 管理学报, 15(3): 420-426.〔LI Q Q, FAN Y W, 2018. A study of the influence of empathy on the persuasion of public service advertising[J]. Chinese Journal of Management, 15(3): 420-426. 〕 李伟, 蒋玉石, 曹香叶, 等, 2021. 消极拟人化信息框架对居民环境行为影响研究[J].软科学, 35(2): 123-128.〔LI W, JIANG Y S, CAO X Y, et al. 2021. Research on the influence of negative anthropomorphic message framing on residents' environmental behavior[J]. Soft Science, 35(2): 123-128. 〕 李文明, 殷程强, 唐文跃,等, 2019. 观鸟旅游游客地方依恋与亲环境行为: 以自然共情与环境教育感知为中介变量[J]. 经济地理, 39(1): 215-224.〔LI W M, YIN C Q, TANG W Y, et al, 2019. Place attachment and pro-environmental behaviors of bird-watching tourists: taking natural empathy and perception of environmental education as mediating variables[J]. Economic Geography, 39(1): 215-224. 〕 廖纮亿, 柯彪, 2020. 基于计划行为理论和环境价值观的城市居民低碳出行行为研究[J].资源与产业, 22(4): 64-70.〔LIAO H Y, KE B, 2020. Low carbon commuting behaviors of urban residents based on planning behavior theory and environmental values[J]. Resources & Industries, 22(4): 64-70.〕 刘聪慧, 王永梅, 俞国良, 等, 2009. 共情的相关理论评述及动态模型探新[J]. 心理科学进展, 17(5): 964-972.〔LIU C H, WANG Y M, YU G L, et al, 2009.Related theories and exploration on dynamic model of empathy[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 17(5): 964-972. 〕 戚海峰,于辉,向伟林,等, 2019. 绿色消费情境下消费者为什么会言行不一?[J].心理科学进展, 27(7): 1307-1319.〔QI H F, YU H, XIANG W L, et al, 2019. Discussion of current theories and future research on attitudebehavior gap in green consumption[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 27(7): 1307-1319.〕 盛光华, 岳蓓蓓, 龚思羽, 2019. 绿色广告诉求与信息框架匹配效应对消费者响应的影响[J]. 管理学报, 16(3): 439-446.〔SHENG G H, YUE B B, GONG S Y, 2019. Impact of the matching effect between green advertising appeal and information framework on consumer responses[J]. Chinese Journal of Management, 16(3): 439-446.〕 王国才,刘文静,王希凤, 2021.不同促销方式下促销购买限制的作用情境研究: 框架效应视角[J/OL]. (2021-06-30) [2021-07-16]. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CAPJ&dbname=CAPJLAST&filename=LKGP20210624007&uniplatform=NZKPT&v=0gy_6gslfyTFBqQO3nnVa93L3IbZ9MhB-XfCvzdA4SIQidSscVlhXm P461s8qiDF.〔WANG G C, LIU W J, WANG X F, 2021. A situational study on the role of promotion purchase restriction under different promotion types: from the perspective of framing effect theory[J/OL]. (2021-06-30) [2021-07-16]. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CAPJ&dbname=CAPJLAST&filename=LKGP20210624007&uniplatform=NZKPT&v=0gy_6gslfyTFBqQO3nn Va93L3IbZ9MhB-XfCvzdA4SIQidSscVlhXm P461s8qiDF.〕 王建明, 吴龙昌, 2015. 绿色购买的情感-行为双因素模型:假设和检验[J]. 管理科学, 28(6): 80-94.〔WANG J M, WU L C, 2015. Two-factor model of affection-behavior in green purchase: hypotheses and test[J]. Journal of Management Science, 28(6): 80-94.〕 王晓红, 胡士磊, 张雪燕, 2018. 消费者缘何言行不一:绿色消费态度—行为缺口研究述评与展望[J].经济与管理评论, 34(5): 52-62.〔WANG X H, HU S L, ZHANG X Y, 2018. Why consumer's words are not matched by their deeds: a literature review and prospects of attitude-behavior gap in green consumption[J]. Review of Economy and Management, 34(5):52-62.〕 许丽颖, 喻丰, 邬家骅, 等, 2017. 拟人化:从“它”到“他”[J]. 心理科学进展, 25(11): 1942-1954.〔XU L Y, YU F, WU J H, et al, 2017. Anthropomorphism: antecedents and consequences[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 25(11): 1942-1954.〕 张惠程, 2018. 国内外资源型城市绿色转型研究综述[J]. 资源与产业, 20(5): 9-15.〔ZHANG H C, 2018. Green transformation research overview of resource-based cities domestic and overseas[J]. Resources & Industries, 20(5): 9-15. 〕 朱翊敏, 2014. 慈善营销中契合类型与信息框架对消费者响应的影响[J]. 南开管理评论, 17(4): 128-139.〔ZHU Y M, 2014. The Influences of type of fit between company and cause, and information framing on consumers' responses to cause-related marketing[J]. Nankai Business Review, 17(4): 128-139.〕 ALLEN C T, KAREN A, MACHLEIT, et al, 1992.A comparison of attitudes and emotions as predictors of behavior at diverse levels of behavioral experience[J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(3): 493-504. BAEK T H, YOON S, 2017. Guilt and shame: environmental message framing effects[J]. Journal of Advertising, 46(3): 440-453. BAGOZZI R P, MOORE D J, 1994. Public service advertisements: emotions and empathy guide prosocial behavior[J]. Journal of Marketing, 58(1): 56-70. BARTSCH A, KLOSS A, 2019. Personalized charity advertising: can personalized prosocial messages promote empathy, attitude change, and helping intentions toward stigmatized social groups? [J]. International Journal of Advertising, 38(3): 345-363. BATSON C D, 2012. Altruism in humans[J].Evol Psychol, 10(1):95-99. CHANG C, LEE Y, 2010. Framing charity advertising: influences of message framing, image valence, and temporal framing on a charitable appeal[J]. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39 (12): 2910-2935. CHEN T, RAZZAQ A, QING P, et al, 2021. Do you bear to reject them? The effect of anthropomorphism on empathy and consumer preference for unattractive produce[J]. Journal of Retailing & Consumer Services, 61: 102556. DAVIS J L, LE B, COY A E, 2011. Building a model of commitment to the natural environment to predict ecological behavior and willingness to sacrifice[J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(3): 257-265. DAVIS M H, 1980. Individual differences in empathy: a multi-Dimensional approach[J]. Dissertation Abstracts International, 40(7-B): 3480. DING Z, SUN J, WANG Y, et al, 2021. Research on the influence of anthropomorphic design on the consumers' express packaging recycling willingness the moderating effect of psychological ownership[J]. Resources, Conservation & Recycling. 168: 105269. EPLEY N, WAYTZ A, CACIOPPO J T, 2007. On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism[J]. Psychological Review, 114(4): 864-86. GRINSTEIN A, HAGTVEDT H, KRONROD A, 2019. Aesthetically (dis)pleasing visuals: a dual pathway to empathy and prosocial behavior[J]. International Journal of Research in Marketing. 36(1): 83-99. Hoffman M L, 2001. Empathy and moral development: implications for caring and justice[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. JUN S, SUNG J, GENTRY J W, et al, 2015. Effects of underdog (vs. top dog) positioning advertising[J]. International Journal of Advertising, 34(3): 495-514. KAHNEMAN D, TVERSKY A, 1982. The psychology of preferences[J]. Scientific American, 246(1): 160-173. KATZ N, BURCHFIELD K B, 2020. Special-needs companion animals and those who care for them: stories of identity and empathy[J]. Society & Animals: Journal of HumanAnimal Studies, 28(1): 21-40. LAKSMIDEWI D, SOELASIH Y, 2019. Anthropomorphic green advertising: how to enhance consumers' environmental concern[J]. Business & Economics Review, 29(1): 72-84. MEHRABIAN A, RUSSELL J A, 1974. An approach to environmental psychology[M]. Cambridge: MIT Press. MOON S, BERGEY P K, BOVE LL, et al, 2016. Message framing and individual traits in adopting innovative, sustainable products (ISPs): evidence from biofuel adoption[J]. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3553-3560. PRGUDA E, NEUMANN D L. 2014. Inter-human and animal-directed empathy: a test for evolutionary biases in empathetic responding[J].Behavioural Processes, 108: 80-86. REINHART A M, MARSHALL H M, FEELEY T H, et al, 2007. The persuasive effects of message framing in organ donation: the mediating role of psychological reactance[J]. Communication Monographs, 74(2): 229-255. SCHWARZ N,2012. Feelings-as-information theory[M]. New York: Sage Publication. TAM K P, LEE S L, CHAO M M, 2013. Saving Mr. Nature: anthropomorphism enhances connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature[J]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3): 514-521. TOUTAIN C M, 2010. Drawing emotion from rhetorical appeals to nature: a critical analysis of corporate green advertisements[D]. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University. YOUNG W, HWANG K, MCDONALD S, et al, 2010.Sustainable consumption: green consumerbehaviour when purchasing products [J]. Sustainable Development, 18(1): 20-31. YUE D, TONG Z, TIAN J, et al, 2021. Anthropomorphic strategies promote wildlife conservation through empathy: the moderation role of the public epidemic situation[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(7): 3565. |
[1] | 朱智洺, 桂梦婷, 李红艳. “双碳”目标下江苏省碳平衡潜力预测研究[J]. 资源与产业, 0, (): 1-13. |
[2] | 刘戎, 吴秋昊. “十三五”期间节水政策的量化评价——基于PMC指数模型[J]. 资源与产业, 0, (): 40-50. |
[3] | 朱萸, 何治呈. 基于知识流动热点数据的成品油销售企业零售客户流失建模分析[J]. 资源与产业, 2022, 24(5): 117-123. |
[4] | 万欣, 苏鹏程, 毛鹏. 异质性治理主体视角下环境规制的治污路径——基于中介效应的空间差异分析[J]. 资源与产业, 2022, 24(5): 108-116. |
[5] | 朱智洺, 李亚洁, 符磊. 城市群扩容能否降低工业废水污染?——以长三角为例[J]. 资源与产业, 2022, 24(5): 81-89. |
[6] | 闻少博, 陈志华, 刘雪勇. 中美博弈视角下中国稀土资源供应风险研究[J]. 资源与产业, 2022, 24(5): 1-9. |
[7] | 徐雨珠, 谭俊涛, 王仲智. 基于疫情扰动的江苏省经济韧性提升研究[J]. 资源与产业, 2022, 24(5): 10-18. |
[8] | 杜焱, 胡鑫杨. 我国2030年实现碳达峰路径研究——基于经济、能源、碳排放系统的SD模型[J]. 资源与产业, 2022, 24(5): 19-28. |
[9] | 王宁, 李因果. 中国OFDI对“一带一路”国家GTFP的门槛效应研究[J]. 资源与产业, 2022, 24(5): 29-30. |
[10] | 孙才志, 张佳亮. 中国与“一带一路”沿线国家农产品贸易的虚拟水流动研究[J]. 资源与产业, 2022, 24(5): 40-50. |
[11] | 许纪校, 王尧, 唐勇军. 红线控制下高质量水资源优化配置——以南京市为例[J]. 资源与产业, 2022, 24(5): 70-80. |
[12] | 姜翔程, 王睿. 基于LMDI-Attribution的江苏省水足迹效率变化驱动力分析[J]. 资源与产业, 2022, 24(4): 30-41. |
[13] | 张云宁, 朱红艳, 欧阳红祥, 等. 长江经济带乡村人居环境可持续发展水平评价与空间格局研究[J]. 资源与产业, 2022, 24(4): 42-54. |
[14] | 沈泓成, 罗婷. 设立城市矿产示范基地的影响因素——基于76个样本城市的定性比较分析[J]. 资源与产业, 2022, 24(4): 55-64. |
[15] | 俞蕾, 杨高升. 农田水利设施供给效率评价及影响因素分析——基于SBM-Malmquist-Tobit模型[J]. 资源与产业, 2022, 24(4): 77-89. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||