本文报告的两个研究探索了社会规范效应、框架效应作为公众态度干预策略的效果，以及状态焦虑对社会规范效应的调节作用。研究背景设定为一项有现实应用前景的碳减排技术，碳捕集与封存技术（The Carbon Capture and Storage technologies，简称CCS）的公众沟通。该技术有望对遏制全球变暖产生重要作用，在公众知名度较低的新型环保技术当中，该技术具有一定代表性。与很多其他技术类似，除技术层面的因素外，该技术能否在中国大规模实施的一个要素是公众的认知和态度。研究一以社会规范效应和框架效应作为态度干预手段，探索其对大学生被试CCS支持度的影响。研究二在研究一实验结果的基础上扩展被试来源，进一步验证社会规范效应对社会被试样本CCS支持度的影响。研究二引入焦虑情绪这一元素，测查社会规范效应对不同状态焦虑水平的被试是否产生不同影响。这一情绪维度的探索是此前同类研究尚未关注的。两个研究均采用随机对照实验。研究一的结果显示，社会规范信息显著提升了大学生被试的CCS支持度，框架效应则未体现明显效果。在研究二中，社会规范效应对社会被试样本的态度干预效果不显著。研究二同时证明，社会规范效应对不同焦虑水平被试的影响程度没有显著差异。社会规范效应在两个研究中的不同结果，揭示出两个被试样本不同的决策特点。社会被试在决策问题认知、决策中的自我确定感和决策信心方面更有优势，大学生被试的决策过程则更容易受到外部权威信息、参照群体信息的影响。但考虑到社会公众在教育、认知、思维、决策等方面的多元化特点，社会规范效应应该作为一种CCS公众沟通策略在现实沟通中加以应用。焦虑部分的实验结果则为社会规范效应的适用对象可包含高状态焦虑人群提供了一个证据。两个研究的创新性探索途径可以为新型环保技术以及更多领域的的公众态度干预策略提供新的思路，也可以为高状态焦虑个体的决策特点提供有价值的实验证据。但鉴于实验环境与现实决策环境不可避免的差异，本文的结果还需未来实地研究的进一步验证。
其他摘要
The two studies reported in this thesis explored the effectiveness of the social normative effect and the framing effects as public communication strategies, and the moderator effect of state anxiety on the social normative effect. The background of these studies were set in the public communication context of the Carbon Capture and Storage technologies(CCS), which are a set of carbon reduction technologies with a prospect of practical application. CCS is expected to play an important role in alleviation of the global warming, and is representative among new environmental technologies in terms of their low public awareness. Similar with the other technologies, an important factor for the large deployment of CCS in China is the recognition and attitudes of the public, apart from technical factors.Study 1 took the social normative effect and the framing effects as attitude intervention methods to explore their impact on the CCS support degrees of a subject sample of college students. Study 2 expanded the sources of subject sample to further prove the influence of the social normative effect on participants’ attitude towards CCS. The second study also introduced the emotional element of anxiety, to test whether participants with different degrees of state anxiety would receive different influences from the social normative effect. This exploration of emotional dimension is completely new compared with previous studies. Both studies adopted randomized controlled trial experiments. The results of Study 1 showed that the social normative effect significantly improved the CCS support degrees of college students, while the framing effects didn’t show obvious impact. In Study 2, the social normative information didn’t produce a significant effect on the social subject sample’s attitudes to CCS. Another result of Study 2 is that the social normative effect didn’t exert remarkably different influences on participants with different degrees of state anxiety. The inconsistent results of the social normative effect in the two studies revealed the different decision-making characteristics of the two subject samples. The social sample had more advantages in terms of their CCS knowledge, self-assertion of their own opinions and decision-making confidence. In comparison, the sample of college students were inclined to be influenced by external authority and information from reference groups. But in consideration of the diverse characteristics of the social public in education background, cognition, thinking and decision-making abilities, the social normative effect should be adopted as a public communication strategy for CCS in the real communication environment. The experimental results of the state anxiety as part of Study 2 can provide an evidence that the applicable target groups of the social normative effect can include people with high degrees of state anxiety. The novel research approaches of the two studies may inspire new thinking of the public attitude intervention strategies for new environmental technologies and even other research subjects in wider areas. They have also provided valuable experimental evidence for the decision-making characteristics of individuals with high degrees of state anxiety. But in view of the unavoidable differences between an experimental environment and real decision-making contexts, these results may need further validation from field studies in the future.
修改评论