Advances in Social Science and Culture ISSN 2640-9682 (Print) ISSN 2640-9674 (Online) Vol. 6, No. 5, 2024 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc 136 Original Paper How Does Misperception of Others Affect One's Own Waste Sorting Behavior?—A Study from Chinese Sample Tao Jiang School of Economics and Management, Zhejiang University of Technology & Science, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China Email: joyjiang1993@163.com, Tel: 15957149859 Received: September 17, 2024 Accepted: October 20, 2024 Online Published: November 01, 2024 doi:10.22158/assc.v6n5p136 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/assc.v6n5p136 Abstract People often misestimate (overestimate or underestimate) the attitudes and behaviors of others in the group, that is, normative misperception (including behavioral misperception and attitudinal misperception) ,which can affect one's own decision-making behavior in turn. This study based on a sample of 1,460 Chinese individuals confirmed that: (1) Overestimated normative misperception positively promoted individuals' own waste sorting behavior, and underestimated normative misperception had no effect on waste sorting. (2) Overestimated behavioral misperception increased individuals' waste sorting behavior, and this effect was mediated by the “impression management motivation-personal norm” chain path. (3) Overestimated attitudinal misperception also increased individual waste sorting behavior, and this effect was mediated by the “impression management motivation-personal norms” and “consequence awareness-personal norms” chain paths. Keywords normative misperception, waste sorting, personal norms, impression management motivation, consequence awareness 1. Introduction Waste sorting is an important way to solve environmental problems of China. In 2019, General Secretary made an important instruction, calling on the whole society to cultivate the good habit of waste sorting and work together to improve the living environment. Since then, China has officially started urban waste sorting and has piloted waste sorting in eight cities, including Beijiang, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Hangzhou, etc. However, the reality dilemma is that successive waste sorting has been carried out with little effect, and it is difficult for people to take waste sorting into their own actions www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 6 No. 5, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 137 (Fan & Xue, 2019; Lin et al., 2023). Thus, how to promote people's waste sorting behavior has become a concern for many research scholars. Whether individuals will implement waste sorting is influenced by many factors, including external factors: such as social interaction (Zuo et al., 2022), publicity and education (Li Wei et al., 2021), situational factors (Qu & Zhu, 2010) and so on; as well as internal factors: such as cognitive level (Liu et al., 2021), attitudes (Ren & Zhang , 2022), environmental emotions (Li et al.， 2021) and so on. There are also some scholars examined the influence of social norms on waste sorting from the perspective of norm activation theory (e.g., Zhang & Wan, 2021; Han et al. 2016; Xu, 2023). However, it is worth noting that social norms exist at both the individual level and collective level (Rimal & Lapinski, 2015), and there is often an inconsistency between the individual's norms perception and the actual social norm existing in the collective level, that is, normative misperception (Chen et al., 2021), which is often manifested in the misestimation of other’s attitudes and behaviors. Normative misperception is easy to occur and can influence a range of behaviors (Prentice & Miller, 1993), such as alcohol use behavior (Kenney et al., 2019), unethical behavior (Halbesleben et al., 2004), cooperative behavior (Yang & Chen, 2022), and so on. Few studies have examined people's waste sorting behavior from the perspective of normative misperception, this paper will analyze waste sorting from the sight of normative misperception to help deeply understand the psychological mechanisms behind waste sorting inaction, and provide a useful supplement to existing theoretical studies. After understanding how normative misperception affect individual's own waste sorting behavior, we can improve residents' waste sorting behaviors by misperception interventions, which in turn contribute to the establishment of a long-term mechanism for urban waste sorting and the construction of sustainable development . 1.1 Normative Misperception and Waste Sorting Normative misperception is an incorrect and biased perception of norms (Prentice & Miller, 1993; Blanton et al., 2008; Soroa-Koury & Yang, 2010), which means that people often systematically misestimate the prevalence of a behavior or attitude. Normative misperception include behavioral misperception and attitudinal misperception: the former refers to people's misestimation of the degree of prevalence of a given behavior, and the latter refers to people's misestimation of the degree of acceptance or approval of a given behavior by the group (Chen et al., 2021). Based on this, this paper focuses on how misestimation of others' behaviors/attitudes towards waste sorting affects people's own waste sorting behavior. The question that needs to be answered before exploring the effect of normative misperception on waste sorting is: did normative misperception appear in waste sorting behavior? If it did, how will people misestimate the attitudes and behaviors of others towards waste sorting? Overestimate or underestimate? Prior research suggests that it is possible for people to overestimate the norms that actually exist in groups, for example, Testa et al. (2020) found that college students generally overestimated other people's sexual behavior and approval of sexual behavior, and Amialchuk et al. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 6 No. 5, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 138 (2019) found that people overestimated other people's substance-use behaviors (including alcohol, tobacco, and drug use), which in turn increased the likelihood of engaging in such behaviors. It is also possible for people to underestimate the norms that actually exist in the group, for example, Bursztyn (2020) found that married men in Saudi Arabia underestimated the support of other men for women's labor force participation, Miyajima and Yamaguchi (2017) found that Japanese men underestimated the willingness of the other men in their group to take maternity leave, and this misperception in turn leads to their inability to actively request maternity leave, thus creating a vicious cycle of normative misperception (van Grootel et al., 2018). So this paper proposes the following two different hypotheses: H1: People generally underestimate others' waste sorting. (underestimated normative misperception) H1a: People generally underestimate others' waste sorting behavior. (behavioral misperception) H1b: People generally underestimate others' degree of approval for waste sorting. (attitudinal misperception) H2: People generally overestimate others' waste sorting. (overestimated normative misperception) H2a: People generally overestimate others' waste sorting behavior. (behavioral misperception) H2b: People generally overestimate others' degree of approval for waste sorting. (attitudinal misperception) The next issue for further consideration is how normative misperception will influence one's own waste sorting behavior. Grimm et al. (2017) noted that perceptions of others' behavior/attitude can influence one's own behavior, because people could justify their moral justification by claiming that their behavior conformed to norms (Schlag et al., 2015). For example, an underestimation of others' pro-social behavior reduced one's own corresponding behaviors (Ganz et al., 2020), whereas overestimation of others' substance use behaviors (including alcohol, tobacco, and drug use) increased the likelihood of engaging in such behaviors (Amialchuk et al., 2019). So this study hypothesizes that normative misperception will have a similar effect on waste sorting behavior. Based on the above reasoning, this paper proposes the following two different hypotheses: H3: Underestimated normative misperception (both behavioral misperception and attitudinal misperception) will reduce one's waste sorting behavior. H4: Overestimated normative misperception (both behavioral misperception and attitudinal misperception) will increase one's waste sorting behavior. 1.2 Personal Norms Personal norms are the individual's conduct standard about the self, which can motivate individuals to develop a moral disposition and a sense of obligation to do what is right (Zhang, 2016). Personal norms can facilitate behavioral implementation not due to social rewards (e.g., praise from others, image enhancement), but the expected post hoc negative experiences (e.g., regret, self-criticism, and guilt) caused by non-compliance with personal norms (Ge & Sheng, 2020). Individual's imagined or actual violations of personal norms leads to guilt, self-denial, and loss of self-esteem, while individual's imagined or actual compliance with personal norms produces pride, increased self-esteem, and a sense www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 6 No. 5, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 139 of security. Thus, personal norms can drive waste sorting behavior not for the utilitarian purpose of obtaining extrinsic rewards, but purely due to an intrinsic sense of moral obligation. Social norms are usually the source of personal norms. Individuals are influenced by shared social rules and norms which shape their expectations of themselves, further form personal norms. When people misjudge the waste sorting behavior of others, their perceived social norms are biased, which leads to a change in personal norms, in turn, changing the implementation of waste sorting behavior. Therefore this paper hypothesizes: H5: Personal norms mediate the relationship between normative misperception and waste sorting. 1.3 Impression Management Motivation Impression management theory suggests that people have the desire to maintain a positive image and avoid creating a negative image (Finkelstein & Penner, 2004). Everyone has impression management motives to a greater or lesser extent, the strength of which varies from person to person.In different social scenarios, people portray different images based on the different types of roles they want to play. The stronger the impression management motivation is, the more individuals want to maintain a good image of themselves and are more likely to engage in pro-social behaviors (Grant & Mayer, 2009). As a typical pro-social behavior, waste sorting behavior, can easily be driven by impression management motivation. Scholars have tried to explain normative misperception from the perspective of impression management (Geiger & Swim, 2016; Chen et al., 2021). The strength of impression management motivation has a close relationship with the strength of social norms perceived by individuals. When individuals misestimate the waste sorting behaviors in a group, the perceived social norms appear in bias, and the impression management motivation will be affected accordingly. When the impression management motivation is strengthened or weakened, the driving force of waste sorting behavior will also change, which in turn affects the waste sorting behavior. Therefore, this paper hypothesizes that impression management motivation also mediates the relationship between normative misperception and waste sorting. Although impression management motivation seeks social rewards (praise from others, image enhancement) as a reward for performing the behavior, it can still strengthen the individual's internal personal norms, and it sublimates external “utilitarian”motivation into internal “responsibility”. In other words, impression management motivation can influence personal norms, further changing one's own waste sorting behavior. Based on the above analysis, this study proposes: H6: Impression management motivation and personal norms play the chain mediation roles in the relationship between the normative misperception and waste sorting. 1.4 Consequence Awareness Consequence awareness generally refers to an individual's awareness of the negative consequences of not performing a certain behavior (Schwartz, 1997). Specifically, the consequence awareness of waste sorting mainly refers to people's perception of the serious negative consequences of failing to waste https://xueshu.baidu.com/s?wd=author:(Shalom%20H.%20Schwartz)%20The%20Hebrew%20University%20of%20Jerusalem&tn=SE_baiduxueshu_c1gjeupa&ie=utf-8&sc_f_para=sc_hilight=person www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 6 No. 5, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 140 sorting, such as land encroachment, destruction of the urban living environment, and the waste of a large amount of resources. When people's perception of the serious consequences of not implementing waste sorting is strong, their likelihood of participating in waste sorting will be the great . The strength of the consequence awareness is also closely related to the degree of the social pressure faced, when others agree with the implementation of waste sorting, then the negative consequences of non-implementation of the behavior felt by the individuals will be more serious. That is to say, the stronger the perceived social norm is, the stronger the consequence awareness is. When the norm perception is biased, the consequence awareness will also be biased. According to norm activation theory (Schwartz, 1997), personal norms are also influenced by individual consequence awareness. When individuals are aware of the consequences of not waste sorting, their sense of moral obligation is more likely to be activated, and individuals will experience a strong sense of personal norms and consciously implement waste sorting behaviors. Therefore, this study proposes: H7: Consequence awareness and personal norms play the chain mediation roles in the relationship between the normative misperception and waste sorting. The theoretical framework is shown in Figure 1. In order to test the above hypotheses, this paper conducted a survey of 1,460 Chinese residents across the country to explore whether people have normative misperception on waste sorting, and further test whether the existence of normative misperception will affect their own waste sorting behaviors. And the mediation analysis was used to clarify the effect of normative misperception on waste sorting, to help deepen the understanding of the psychological mechanisms behind waste sorting inaction, providing a useful supplement to existing theoretical studies. Figure 1. Theoretical Framework 2. Data and Methods 2.1 Subjects This study distributed questionnaires through the Credamo platform, and 1500 Chinese residents participated in the survey. Answers with too long or too short response time were deleted, and 1,460 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 6 No. 5, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 141 valid questionnaires were retained, with an effective recovery rate of 97.33%. There were 703 males and 757 females; the age range was 17-59 years old (M=31.95, SD=7.86). As is shown in Table 1. Table 1. Structure of the Sample Demographic variables Frequency Percentage (%) Gender male 703 48.15 51.85female 757 Age < 25 317 806 237 102 0 21.7 55.2 16.2 7 0 26-35 36-45 46-60 > 60 Education High school and below 92 194 840 333 6.3 13.3 57.5 22.8 College Undergraduate Graduate students and above Annual family income < 100,000 171 256 311 285 367 66 4 11.7 17.5 21.3 19.5 25.1 4.5 100,000 - 150,000 150,000 - 200,000 200,000 - 300,000 300,000 - 500,000 500,000 - 1,000,000 > 1,000,000 Marriage Single 778 682 53.3 46.7Married Children Yes 961 499 65.8 34.2No Occupation Student 187 1018 150 48 25 15 17 12.8 69.7 10.3 3.3 1.7 1.0 1.2 Enterprise personnel Employee Civil Servants Self-employed Freelancers Others www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 6 No. 5, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 142 2.2 Variables and Measurement Normative misperception We adopted the same measurement and calculation method as Chen et al. (2021) and Lapinski et al. (2007). 10 items (7-point scale, 1 means completely disagree, 7 means completely agree) measured subjects' behavioral misperception, five of the items measured one's own daily waste sorting behavior (self-behavioral items, BM), e.g.,“I usually sort my waste”, and five of the items measured the waste sorting behavior of the majority of people in the eyes of the participant (other-behavioral items, BO), e.g., “Most people sort their waste”. The mean of the five BM (Cronbach's α = 0.864) represents the BM score, and the mean of the five BO (Cronbach's α = 0.868) represents the BO score. The other 10 items (7-point scale, 1 means completely disagree, 7 means completely agree) measured subjects' and attitudinal misperception, five of the items measured their own attitudes toward waste sorting behavior (self-attitude items, AM), e.g., “I support waste sorting ”, and five of the items measured the attitudes of the majority toward waste sorting as perceived by the subjects (other-attitude items, AO), e.g., “Most people support waste sorting”. The mean score of the 5 AM (Cronbach's α = 0.833) represents the AM score, and the mean score of the 5 AO (Cronbach's α = 0.815) represents the AO score. According to Duong and Parker (2018) and Chen et al. (2021), the mean of BM and AM scores of all subjects ( MBM and MAM ) can be regarded as the social norms actually present in the group, while the BO and AO scores of each subject represent the subject's perception of the social norms at the individual level, and the difference between them represents the normative misperception. That is, behavioral misperception = BO - MBM, attitudinal misperception = AO -MAM. Waste sorting A self-reported frequency scale was used to measure subject’s waste sorting behavior. Subjects were asked to answer the question “How often have you sorted your waste in the last six months?”The frequency of waste sorting range from 1 to 7, higher value indicated the higher frequency of waste sorting. Personal norms Referring to Stern's (1999) study, personal norms were expressed in 3 items, such as “I think it is my responsibility to sort waste,” scored on a 7-point scale, with 1 indicating total disagreement and 7 indicating total agreement, and Cronbach's α = 0.903. Impression management motivation Adapted from the Workplace Impression Management Motivation Scale developed by Duan et al. (2019), 3 items (Cronbach's α = 0.871) were used to measure impression management motivation, such as “If I carry out waste sorting, other people will have a better impression of me”, scored on a 7-point scale, with 1 representing total disagreement, 7 representing total agreement. Consequence awareness Referring to Stern's (1999), 3 items (Cronbach's 's α = 0.884) were used to measure consequence awareness, such as “Failure to waste sorting will curb ecological sustainability”, scored on a 7-point scale, with 1 representing complete disagreement, 7 representing complete agreement. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 6 No. 5, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 143 Table 2. Variable Measurement Items Variables Measurement items Behavioral misperception I/most people sort their waste. I/most people put out their waste according to the signs on the garbage cans. I/most people sort recyclables such as empty plastic bottles. I/most people sort hazardous waste such as batteries. I/most people sort food waste. Attitudinal misperception I/most people support sorting waste. I/most people support putting out waste according to the symbols in the garbage cans. I/most people support sorting recyclables such as empty plastic bottles. I/most people support sorting hazardous waste such as batteries. I/most people support sorting food waste. Personal norms I think I should sort waste. I think I have a responsibility to sort waste. I feel guilty if I don't sort my waste. Consequence awareness Failure to sort waste will lead to waste of resources. Failure to sort waste will lead to environmental degradation. Failure to sort waste will curb ecologically sustainable development. Impression management motivation People will have a better impression of me if I implement waste sorting. If I implement waste sorting, others will have a more positive and favorable opinion of me. If I sort waste, people will feel good about me. Label variable Waste sorting is a green behavior. Waste sorting can damage the environment. Waste sorting can pollute the air. Waste sorting How often did you sort waste in the last six months? Label variable According to Chen et al. (2021) and Visschers et al. (2016), we set the variable “knowledge of waste sorting” as the label variable, which is not correlated with the above variables. This label variable was measured with three items (Cronbach's α = 0.855), such as “Waste sorting is a www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 6 No. 5, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 144 green behavior,” all of which were scored on a 7-point scale. In order to ensure the sensitivity of the test for common method bias, the label variable was presented and scored in the same way as the other variables. All the items, including the label variable, were placed out of order during the measurement. Control variables Control variables included demographic variables such as age, occupation, education, gender, income, marriage status, and whether or not had children. 2.3 Results 2.3.1 Common Method Bias Test The latent variables involved in this study include: normative misperception (attitudinal misperception and behavioral misperception), personal norms, impression management motivation, and consequence awareness. Firstly, the common method bias test was conducted, and the results of Harman's one-way test showed that there were 8 factors with unrotated eigenroots greater than 1, and the variance of the first unrotated factor was 20.08%, which was much lower than the critical criterion of 40%. Due to the problem of insensitivity of Harman's one-factor method to the variation of CMV and CMB (Tang &Wen, 2020), this study also used the labeled variable method (CFA marker technique) to conduct the test, and there was no significant difference between the baseline model and models C and U (ps > 0.05), which can be regarded as the no or little common method bias. The overall KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) value of the questionnaire was 0.902 and the Barett's test of sphericity chi-square value was 16104.47, p < 0.001, which is statistically significant. Confirmed factor analysis was conducted using AMOS 24, and the model fit index was good [ x2/df =1.781, RMSEA= 0.027, CFI =0.993, NNFI=0.961], the standardized loadings of the factors for all the items were higher than 0.5, the cronbach's α of the questionnaire's subscales were greater than 0.8, indicating the questionnaire had a higher reliability. The combined reliability (CR) were all greater than 0.8, the average variance extracted (AVE) were all greater than 0.6, and the questionnaire had good convergent validity. See Table 3 for details. 2.3.2 Analysis of Results Overestimation or underestimation? According to the formula of normative misperception: behavioral misperception = BO -MBM, attitudinal misperception = AO -MAM. when behavioral/attitudinal misperception > 0, it means that the normative perception of an individual is higher than the actual norm, i.e., there is an overestimated normative misperception; when behavioral/attitudinal misperception < 0, it means that the normative perception of an individual is lower than the actual norm, i.e., there is an underestimated normative misperception. The calculation results of normative misperception are shown in Table 4 below. In terms of waste sorting behavior, 675 (46.23%) overestimated others' waste sorting behavior and 785 (53.77%) underestimated others' waste sorting behavior, and the behavioral misperception in the overestimation group (Moverestimation = 0.32, SD = 0.25) was significantly higher than those in the underestimation group (Munderestimation = -1.36, SD = 1.16), t = -22.125, p < 0.001, 95% CI = [-1.83, -1.53]. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 6 No. 5, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 145 Table 3. Results of the Reliability Test latent variable Observed variables Standardized loading Cronbach’s α CR AVE Self-behavioral items （BM） BM_1 0.818 0.864 0.910 0.671 BM_2 0.791 BM_3 0.833 BM_4 0.862 BM_5 0.788 Other-behavioral items （BO） BO_1 0.823 0.868 0.913 0.677 BO_2 0.801 BO_3 0.842 BO_4 0.855 BO_5 0.791 Self-attitudinal items（AM） AM_1 0.746 0.833 0.893 0.625 AM_2 0.811 AM_3 0.783 AM_4 0.835 AM_5 0.775 Other-attitudinal items （AO） AO_1 0.774 0.815 0.899 0.640 AO_2 0.817 AO_3 0.802 AO_4 0.826 AO_5 0.780 Personal norms （SN） SN_1 0.915 0.903 0.921 0.795SN_2 0.872 SN_3 0.887 Impression management motivation （IM） IM_1 0.834 0.871 0.869 0.689IM_2 0.789 IM_3 0.866 Consequence awareness （CC） CC_1 0.844 0.884 0.905 0.761CC_2 0.879 CC_3 0.893 Label variable （SG） SG_1 0.815 0.855 0.868 0.687SG_2 0.827 SG_3 0.844 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 6 No. 5, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 146 In terms of attitudes toward waste sorting, 718 (49.18%) overestimated others' approval attitudes toward waste sorting and 742 (50.82%) underestimated others' approval attitudes toward waste sorting, and the attitude misperception was significantly higher in the overestimation group ( Moverestimation = 0.31, SD = 0.23) than in the underestimation group (Munderestimation = -1.26, SD = 1.26), t = -21.144, p < 0.001, 95% CI = [-1.72, -1.42]. Table 4. Calculated Results of Normative Misperception behavioral misperception attitudinal misperception Overestimation （ > 0 ） Underestimation （ < 0 ） Overestimation （ > 0 ） Underestimation （ < 0 ） Frequency 675 785 718 742 Mean value 0.32 -1.36 0.31 -1.26 The above analysis indicates that there are both overestimated and underestimated normative misperception in the population. Now we need to further clarify how the overestimated misperception and underestimated misperception will affect one's own waste sorting behavior. The effect of normative misperception on waste sorting This paper will explore how overestimated misperception (attitudinal/behavioral) and underestimated misperception (attitudinal/behavioral) affect waste sorting behavior respectively. Behavioral overestimation group The main effect of behavioral misperception on waste sorting was tested by hierarchical regression with waste sorting as the dependent variable, behavioral misperception as the independent variable, and demographic variables as the control variables. The results showed that none of the seven control variables had a significant effect on waste sorting ( ps > 0.05), and there was a significant main effect of behavioral misperception on waste sorting , β = 0.29, p < 0.05, t = 4.49, 95% CI = [0.42, 1.08], suggesting that the more one overestimated the waste sorting behavior of others, the more one's own waste sorting frequency showed. To further reveal the mechanism of the influence of behavioral misperception on waste sorting, we used Model 80 in Preacher and Hayes' (2004) PROCESS 3.2 (Bootstrap N = 5000) to test the chain mediating roles of impression management motivation, consequences awareness, and personal norms, with all demographic variables as control variables. The results showed a significant main effect of behavioral misperception on waste sorting, effect = 0.74, p < 0.001, t = 4.58, 95% CI = [0.00, 0.42], suggesting that overestimated behavioral misperception do influence one's own waste sorting behavior. The results of the chain mediation effect analysis were shown in Table 5: among the five indirect paths, the paths of “behavioral misperception→personal norms→waste sorting” and “behavioral misperception→impression management motivation→personal norms→waste sorting” were both significant (confidence intervals did not include 0), indicating that the mediating role of personal norms www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 6 No. 5, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 147 was valid, and the chain mediation role of “impression management motivation→personal norms” was also valid. However, the path of “behavioral misperception→consequence awareness→personal norms→waste sorting” was not significant (the confidence interval contains 0). In other words, the main mechanism by which behavioral misperception increase waste sorting was through activating impression management motivation, then strengthening personal norms, and finally achieving the result of enhancing one's own waste sorting. The direct effect of behavioral misperception on waste sorting was still significant, which indicated that impression management and personal norms partially mediate the effect of behavioral misperception on waste sorting , as shown in Figure 2. Table 5. Bootstrap Analysis of the Chain Mediation Effect in the Behavioral Overestimation Group Indirect path effect se LLCI ULCI behavioral misperception→impression management motivation→waste sorting 0.001 0.06 -0.12 0.12 behavioral misperception→consequence awareness →waste sorting 0.01 0.03 -0.05 0.09 behavioral misperception→personal norms →waste sorting 0.20 0.09 0.04 0.40 behavioral misperception→impression management motivation→personal norms→waste sorting 0.03 0.02 0.004 0.08 behavioral misperception→consequence awareness →personal norms→waste sorting 0.01 0.01 -0.002 0.03 Direct path behavioral misperception→waste sorting 0.48 0.17 0.01 0.14 Figure 2. Chain Mediation Model for the Behavioral Overestimation Group (N=675) Note. *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 6 No. 5, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 148 Attitudinal overestimation group The main effect of attitude misperception on waste sorting was tested by hierarchical regression with waste sorting as the dependent variable, attitudinal misperception as the independent variable, and demographic variables as the control variables. The results showed that none of the seven control variables had a significant effect on garbage classification ( ps > 0.05), and that there was a significant main effect of attitudinal misperception on waste sorting, β = 0.16, p < 0.05, t = 2.41, 95% CI = [0.09, 0.91], suggesting that the more one overestimates others' attitudes toward waste sorting, the more one's waste sorting frequency showed. Table 6. Bootstrap Analysis of the Chain Mediation Effect in the Attitudinal Overestimation Group Indirect path effect se LLCI ULCI attitudinal misperception→impression management motivation→waste sorting 0.03 0.05 -0.06 0.15 attitudinal misperception→consequence awareness →waste sorting 0.02 0.04 -0.05 0.10 attitudinal misperception→personal norms →waste sorting 0.20 0.08 0.06 0.37 attitudinal misperception→impression management motivation→personal norms→waste sorting 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.14 attitudinal misperception→consequence awareness →personal norms→waste sorting 0.03 0.02 0.003 0.07 Direct path attitudinal misperception→waste sorting 0.09 0.19 -0.65 0.29 Figure 3. Chain Mediation Model for the Attitudinal Overestimation Group (N=718) Note. *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 6 No. 5, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 149 To further reveal the mechanism by which attitudinal misperception influence waste sorting, we also used model 80 in Preacher and Hayes' (2004) PROCESS 3.2 (Bootstrap N = 5000) to test the chain mediation roles of impression management, consequence awareness, and personal norms, with all demographic variables as control variables. The results showed a significant main effect of attitudinal misperception on waste sorting, effect = 0.44, p < 0.05, t = 2.32, 95% CI = [0.07, 0.81], suggesting that overestimated attitudinal misperception do influence one's own waste sorting behavior. The results of the chain mediation effects analysis were shown in Table 6: Among the five indirect paths, “attitudinal misperception → personal norms → waste sorting ” and “attitudinal misperception → impression management → personal norms → waste sorting ” “attitudinal misperception → consequence awareness→personal norms→waste sorting” were all significant (confidence intervals do not include 0), indicating that the mediating role of personal norms was established, and the chain mediation roles of “impression management motivation→personal norms” and “consequence awareness→personal norms” were also significant. The direct effect of attitudinal misperception on waste sorting was not significant, indicating that “impression management motivation→personal norms” and “consequence awareness→personal norms” played a fully mediating role in the effect of attitudinal misperception on waste sorting . The variable relationship diagram was shown in Figure 3. Behavioral underestimation group The main effect of behavioral misperception on waste sorting was tested by hierarchical regression with waste sorting as the dependent variable, behavioral misperception as the independent variable, and demographic variables as the control variables, and the results showed that none of the seven control variables had a significant effect on garbage classification ( ps > 0.05), the main effect of behavioral misperception on waste sorting was not significant, β = -0.04, p = 0.49 , t = -0.70, 95% CI = [-0.11, 0.05], suggesting that underestimated behavioral misperception did not have a significant effect on one's own waste sorting behavior. Attitudinal underestimation group The main effect of attitudinal misperception on waste sorting was tested by hierarchical regression with waste sorting as the dependent variable, attitudinal misperception as the independent variable, and demographic variables as the control variables, and the results showed that none of the seven control variables had a significant effect on waste sorting ( ps > 0.05), and that the main effect of attitudinal misperception on waste sorting was not significant , β = -0.13, p = 0.10 , t = -1.63, 95% CI = [-0.03, 0.003], suggesting that underestimated attitudinal misperception did not have a significant effect on one's own waste sorting behavior. 2.3.3 Conclusion The above results showed that overestimated normative misperception positively promoted individuals' own waste sorting behavior, and underestimated normative misperception had no effect on waste sorting. In particular, overestimation of behavioral misperception increased individuals' waste sorting behavior, the effect of which was mediated by the chain path “impression management motivation-personal norms”. And overestimation of attitudinal misperception also increased www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 6 No. 5, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 150 individuals' waste sorting behavior, the effect of which was mediated by the chain paths “impression management motivation-personal norms” and “consequence awareness-personal norms”. 3. Discussion 3.1 Attitudinal Misperception vs Behavioral Misperception In the overestimated situation, the attitudinal misperception could activate both the individual's impression management motivation and the consequences awareness, which in turn strengthened the personal norms and achieved the result of enhancing waste sorting behavior. While the behavioral misperception strengthened the personal norms by only activating the impression management motivation, which in turn facilitated the waste sorting. This can be explained by norm-focused theory (Cialdini et al, 1991): behavioral and attitudinal misperception respectively corresponded to people's overestimation of descriptive and imperative norms , which pointed to different motives. The former one associated with internal individual motivation and the latter one involving both interpersonal/external and internal individual motivation. Impression management motivation was more about self-interest, so it was more inclined to be an internal motivation. Consequence awareness was more concerned about the impact on the outside world, so it was more inclined to be an external motive. Therefore, attitudinal misperception can activate both impression management motivation (internal) and consequence awareness (external), while behavioral misperception can only activate impression management motivation (internal). 3.2 Significance of the Study Solving the problem of waste sorting inaction is of great significance in accelerating the establishment of sustainable development society. Based on the perspective of normative misperception, this paper investigated the data of 1460 residents across China and revealed the behavioral mechanism of residents' waste sorting. The study showed that misestimation of social norms in the group significantly affected their own waste sorting behavior. By comparing the waste sorting behaviors of the overestimated and underestimated groups, we found that waste sorting was significantly stronger in the behavioral overestimation group than in the behavioral underestimation group (Moverestimation = 6.33, Munderestimation = 5.72, p < 0.001, t = -9.25, 95% CI = [-0.74, -0.48]), and that waste sorting in the attitudinal overestimation group was significantly stronger in the attitudinal underestimation group (Moverestimation = 6.22, M underestimation = 5.71, p < 0.001, t = -7.81, 95% CI = [-0.65, -0.39]), implying that increasing residents' normative perceptions had a significant contributing effect on waste sorting behavior. This provided some implications for enhancing residents' waste sorting in practice. Normative cues can be used to increase residents' waste sorting behaviors by improving normative perceptions and changing normative misperception. Theoretically, this study compared the different influence mechanisms of two different normative misperception on waste sorting in the overestimated and underestimated situations, which provides new perspectives for waste sorting research and useful complementary to existing theories. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 6 No. 5, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 151 3.3 Limitation and Future Perspectives This study focuses on how normative misperception in different directions (overestimation vs. underestimation) affect residents' waste sorting behavior, and some meaningful results were obtained, but it is worthwhile to explore whether there are other more convincing explanatory variables for the process mechanism of normative misperception on waste sorting . Although this study confirmed the chain mediation role of “impression management motivation-personal norms” and “consequences awareness-personal norms”, it is only through the test of the mediation model in the PROCESS, and the mediating effect can be further confirmed by manipulating the mediators, which will be more convincing. It can be improved in the subsequent research. In addition, although the findings of this study are inspirational and informative for practice, how to improve residents' normative perceptions to enhance waste sorting behaviors in the real world needs to continue to be demonstrated. Even though previous studies have shown that normative information cues have a better effect on misperception intervention, how to apply them in real life still needs to be answered in future studies. Funding Hangzhou Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project (M23JC079). References Blanton, H., Köblitz, A., & McCaul, K. D. (2008). Misperceptions about Norm Misperceptions: Descriptive, Injunctive, and Affective ‘Social Norming’ Efforts to Change Health Behaviors. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(3), 1379-1399. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00107.x Bursztyn, L., González, A. L., & Yanagizawa-Drott, D. (2020). Misperceived social norms: Women working outside the home in Saudi Arabia. The American Economic Review, 110(10), 2997-3029. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20180975 Chen, S. J., Pu, X. L. Zhu, Y., Wang, H., & Liu, J. W. (2021). The impact of normative misperception on food waste in dining out: Mechanism analyses and countermeasures. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(8), 15. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00904 Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R.(1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60330-5 Duan J.Y., Chen L., & Xu T.T. (2019). The Influence of Jijiang on Advice Taking:The Moderation of Face Consciousness. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology, 25(4), 356-363. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-6020.2020.04.008 Duong, H. T., & Parker, L. (2018). Going with the flow: Young motorcyclists’ misperceived norms and motorcycle speeding behaviour. Journal of Social Marketing, 8(3), 314-332. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-10-2017-0064 https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-10-2017-0064 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 6 No. 5, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 152 Finkelstein, M.A., & Penner, L.A. (2004). Predicting organizational citizenship behavior: Integrating the functional and role identity approaches. Social Behavior and Personality, 32(4), 383-398. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2004.32.4.383 Ganz, G., Neville, F. G., Kassanjee, R., & Ward, C. L. (2020). Parental misperceptions of in-group norms for child discipline. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 30(6), 628-644. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2466 Ge, W. D., & Sheng, G. H. (2020). Research on the Impact and Mechanism of Social Norms on Green Consumption. Commercial Research, 0(1), 26-34. https://doi.org/10.13902/j.cnki.syyj.2020.01.004 Geiger, N., & Swim, J. K. (2016). Climate of silence: Pluralistic ignorance as a barrier to climate change discussion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47, 79-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.05.002 Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 900-912. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013770 Grimm, V., Utikal, V., & Valmasoni, L. (2017). In-group favoritism and discrimination among multiple out-groups. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 143, 254-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.08.015 Halbesleben, J. R. B., Buckley, M. R., & Sauer, N. D. (2004). The role of pluralistic ignorance in perceptions of unethical behavior: An investigation of attorneys' and students' perceptions of ethical behavior. Ethics & Behavior, 14(1), 17-30. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1401_2 Han, H. Y., Zhang, Z. J., & Peng, W. H. (2016). An Analysis of the Influence Mechanism of Social Capital on Households' Waste Separation. Journal of Zhejiang University: Humanities and Social Sciences, 46(3), 164-179. https://doi.org/10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN33-6000/C.2014.12.193 Kenney, S. R., Anderson, B. J., Bailey, G. L., & Stein, M. D. (2019). Drug Use-Related Normative Misperceptions and Behaviors Among Persons Seeking Heroin Withdrawal Management. Journal of Addiction Medicine, 13(3), 215-219. https://doi.org/10.1097/ADM.0000000000000482 Lapinski, M. K., Rimal, R. N., DeVries, R., & Lee, E. L. (2007). The Role of Group Orientation and Descriptive Norms on Water Conservation Attitudes and Behaviors. Health Communication, 22(2), 133-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230701454049 Li, W., Wang, Z. H., & Liu, X. G. (2021). Mechanisms of public education influencing waste sorting willingness of urban residents—The mediation of environment emotion and moderation of moral identity. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 35(3), 21-28. https://doi.org/10.13448/j.cnki.jalre.2021.086 Lin, L. Q., Pang, M. L., & Lu, S. K. (2024). Influencing Mechanism of Urban Residents' Domestic Waste Sorting Behavior Based on the Adjustment Effect of Dual-Path Drive and Situational Factors. Ecological Economy, 40(4), 194-205. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 6 No. 5, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 153 Liu, J. Y., Jia, Y. J., & Chi, S. Y. (2021). Effects of pollution cognition and village emotion on farmers’willingness of domestic waste sorting. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 35(10), 48-52. Miyajima, T., & Yamaguchi, H. (2017). I Want to but I Won’t: Pluralistic Ignorance Inhibits Intentions to Take Paternity Leave in Japan. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1508. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01508 Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717-731. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553 Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus: Some consequences of misperceiving the social norm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(2), 243-256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.243 Qu, Y., & Zhu, Q. H. (2009). Study on Resident Behavior Intention of Separating Their Waste at Source. Management Review, 21(9), 108-113. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:ZWGD.0.2009-09-016 Ren, B., & Zhang, Y. R. (2022). Behavior Analysis of Urban Domestic Waste Classification Actors Based on ISPC Framework.Journal of Shanghai Jiao tong University(Philosophy and Social Sciences), 30(5), 134-146. Rimal, R. N., & Lapinski, M. K. (2015). A Re-Explication of Social Norms, Ten Years Later: Social Norms. Communication Theory, 25(4), 393-409. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12080 Schlag, K. H., Tremewan, J., & Van der Weele, J. J. (2015). A penny for your thoughts: A survey of methods for eliciting beliefs. Experimental Economics, 18(3), 457-490. Soroa-Koury, S., & Yang, K. C. C. (2010). Factors affecting consumers’ responses to mobile advertising from a social norm theoretical perspective. Telematics and Informatics, 27(1), 103-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2009.06.001 Stern, P., Dietz, T., Abel, T. D., Guagnano, G., & Kalof, L. (1999). A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of Environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6, 81-97. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Value-Belief-Norm-Theory-of-Support-for-Social-of-St ern-Dietz/1b737419cf820e41e70d1c7198481da627a74fda Testa, M., Livingston, J. A., Wang, W., & Lewis, M. A. (2020). Preventing College Sexual Victimization by Reducing Hookups: A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Personalized Normative Feedback Intervention. Prevention Science, 21(3), 388-397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-020-01098-3 Van Grootel, S., Van Laar, C., Meeussen, L., Schmader, T., & Sczesny, S. (2018). Uncovering Pluralistic Ignorance to Change Men’s Communal Self-descriptions, Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1344. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01344 Visschers, V. H. M., Wickli, N., & Siegrist, M. (2016). Sorting out food waste behaviour: A survey on www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc Advances in Social Science and Culture Vol. 6 No. 5, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 154 the motivators and barriers of self-reported amounts of food waste in households. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 66-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.007 Xu, Y. Y. (2023). Analysis on Influencing Factors of College Students’ Waste Sorting Behavior—From the Perspective of Social Norms. Advances in Psychology, 13(3), 1303-1315. Xue, L. Q., & Fan, W. Y. (2017). A Review of the Domestic Research of Public Administration Issues in Municipal Solid Waste Management.Journal of Public Administration, 10(1), 172-196. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-2486.2017.01.008 Yang, S. S., & Chen, S. J. (2022). Normative misperception in third-party punishment: An explanation from the perspective of belief in a just world. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(3), 281-299. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00281 Zhang, Y., & Wan, X. Y. (2021). Study on the Influence of the Personal Norms and Social Norms on the Urban Residents’ Participation in Garbage Sorting. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 30(7), 1714-1723. Zuo, X. F., Kang, M. Y., & Lu, J. X. (2022). The impact of social interaction and Internet use on rural residents’willingness to sort domestic waste. Resources Science, 44(1), 47-58. https://doi.org/10.18402/resci.2022.01.04