| Literature DB >> 35185735 |
Xiaojun Liu1,2, Shiqi Chen1,2,3, Xiaotong Guo1,2,3, Hanliang Fu1,2,3.
Abstract
The unwillingness of college students to use recycled water has become a key barrier to sewage recycling on campus, and it is critical to strengthen their inclination to do so. This paper used college students in Xi'an as a case study and adopted event-related potential technology to explore the effect of social norms on the willingness to use recycled water and the neural mechanism of cognitive processing. The results suggested the following: (1) The existence of social norms might influence college students' willingness to use recycled water. (2) When individuals' willingness to use recycled water is lower than the social norm, there is a bigger feedback-related negative amplitude. (3) College students pay more attention to social norms in groups with closer social distance. These findings can be used to provide a scientific basis for persuading the public to use recycled water from the perspective of the social norm to drive public acceptability.Entities:
Keywords: feedback-related negativity; public willingness; recycled water; social distance; social norms
Year: 2022 PMID: 35185735 PMCID: PMC8856723 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.818292
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1Experiment procedure (The text-type stimulus materials were presented in Chinese in the formal experiment).
FIGURE 2(A) The grand averaged event-related potentials (ERPs) waveforms at FZ, FCZ, CZ, CPZ, and PZ of social norm deviation in Task 1. (B) The scalp distribution of feedback-related negativity (FRN) and P300 of social norm deviation in Task 1. (C) ANOVA results of social norm deviation in Task 1.
The average peak value and standard error of FRN and P300 in the social norm deviation scenario.
| Social norm deflection scenario | EEG components | |||
| FRN | P300 | |||
| Average peak value | Standard error | Average peak value | Standard error | |
| Positive deflection | −4.227 | 2.184 | 0.613 | 1.150 |
| Negative deflection | −3.392 | 2.842 | 0.990 | 1.310 |
| Zero deflection | −1.985 | 2.798 | 2.330 | 1.650 |
The average peak value and standard error of FRN and P300 in different social distance scenarios.
| Social norm scenario | EEG components | ||||
| Social norm deflection | Social distance | FRN | P300 | ||
| Average peak value | Standard error | Average peak value | Standard error | ||
| Dormitory | Positive deflection | −6.616 | 2.104 | 1.920 | 1.343 |
| Negative deflection | −5.193 | 1.911 | |||
| Major | Positive deflection | −4.849 | 2.219 | 1.302 | 1.669 |
| Negative deflection | −4.380 | 2.251 | |||
| School | Positive deflection | −3.934 | 2.538 | 0.959 | 1.090 |
| Negative deflection | −3.523 | 2.415 | |||
FIGURE 3(A) Grand averaged ERPs waveforms at FZ, FCZ, and CZ of social norm deviations from different social distances in Task 1. (B) ANOVA results of social norm deviations from different social distances in Task 1.
FIGURE 4(A) Grand averaged ERPs waveforms at CZ, CPZ, and PZ of social distances in Task 2. (B) ANOVA results of social distances in Task 2.
Mean and standard deviation (M ± SD) of willingness to reuse recycled water and response time in various stages of ERPs experiment.
| The experimental stage | Willingness to reuse recycled water | Response time (ms) | |
| Task 1 | 3.554 ± 1.601 | 1974.737 ± 786.708 | |
| Task 2 | High social norm scenarios | 4.110 ± 1.662 | 1503.870 ± 1184.340 |
| Low social norm scenarios | 3.160 ± 1.595 | 1556.190 ± 1238.536 | |
FIGURE 5(A) The mean response time of Task 1 with no social norm and Task 2 with the social norm. Error bars depict the standard error of the mean. (B) Take the social norm value in Task 2 as a function of a priori category.
Symbol table.
| Denotation | Abbreviation |
| event-related potentials | ERPs |
| anterior insula | AI |
| anterior cingulate cortex | ACC |
| feedback-related negativity | FRN |
| Judge-Advisor System | JAS |