## 5 Results and Discussion
### The Difference Analysis of Behavioral Outcome Attribution Style on the Intervention Policy Response
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Class**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**PAS**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**IAS**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**NAS**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & **UTP** & **STP** & **ITP** & **UTP** & **STP** & **ITP** & **UTP** & **STP** & **ITP** \\ \hline PCP & 3.595 & 3.933 & 3.939 & 3.450 & 3.771 & 3.711 & 3.656 & 3.919 & 4.003 \\ FCP & 3.351 & 3.799 & 3.819 & 2.971 & 3.701 & 3.514 & 3.344 & 3.955 & 3.995 \\ ESP & 3.217 & 4.274 & 3.909 & 2.866 & 4.282 & 3.828 & 3.395 & 4.642 & 4.214 \\ CPP & 3.100 & 4.240 & 4.207 & 2.965 & 4.171 & 4.098 & 3.163 & 4.597 & 4.451 \\ Mean & 3.316 & 4.062 & 3.969 & 3.063 & 3.981 & 3.788 & 3.390 & 4.278 & 4.166 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: “PAS” indicates positive attributive style, “IAS” indicates intermediate attribution style, and “NAS” indicates negative attribution style; “PCP” indicates price control policy, “PCP” indicates fee collection policy, “ESP” indicates Economic subsidy policy, and “CPP” indicates Campaign publicity policy.  
\end{table} 
Table 8: The PAS, IAS, and NAS of residents with different attributional styles of behavior outcome. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**UTP**} \\ \cline{3-5}
**Category** & **Mean** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Levene Test**} \\ \cline{3-5}  & & **F** & **Sig.P** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Attributional Style} & PAS & 3.4755 & \multirow{3}{*}{22.874} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.000} \\  & IAS & 3.0495 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & NAS & 3.3247 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: “UTP” indicates the degree of understanding of energy-saving policies.  
\end{table} 
Table 9: Difference analysis of UTP on the attributional style of behavior outcome. Quadratic Response Surface Regression Analysis of Intervention Policies under Different Attribution Styles of Behavioral Outcomes  
In the process of policy intervention in residents' energy-saving behavior, the implementation of the policy is the most direct reflection of its effectiveness. To further explore the nonlinear influence of residents' understanding of and support for energy-saving policies on their implementation under different attribution styles, the quadratic response surface regression analysis model (Formula (3)) with a better fitting effect was adopted in this study to further process and analyze the data. According to the attribution grouping mentioned above, the secondary response regression analysis was conducted for the positive, intermediate, and negative attribution style groups, respectively. Tables 12-14 show that in the positive attribution style group, residents' understanding of and support for the policy has a significant nonlinear effect on the degree of implementation. Under the intermediate attribution style, residents' degrees of understanding and support have no significant positive effect on the degree of execution and even have a negative effect on the degree of execution in terms of ESP and CPP. Under the negative attribution style, residents' degrees of understanding and support for energy-saving policy have a significant negative effect on the degree of implementation, which is significantly reflected in PCP, FCP, and CPP. This further verifies hypothesis H4 mentioned above. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Y (The Degree of Implementation)**} \\ \hline  & **PCP** & **FCP** & **ESP** & **CPP** \\ \hline \(x_{1}\) & \(-0.461\) & \(-0.859\)*** & \(0.112\) & \(-0.476\)* \\ \(x_{2}\) & \(0.582\)* & \(0.806\)*** & \(1.801\)*** & \(1.828\)*** \\ \(x_{1}^{2}\) & \(0.090\)* & \(0.127\)*** & \(0.054\)* & \(0.110\)*** \\ \(x_{2}^{2}\) & \(-0.022\) & \(-0.037\) & \(0.151\)*** & \(-0.148\)*** \\ \(x_{1}x_{2}\) & \(-0.027\) & \(-0.010\) & \(-0.102\) & \(-0.044\) \\ R\({}^{2}\) & \(0.188\) & \(0.298\) & \(0.143\) & \(0.349\) \\ \hline \end{tabular} Note: ***\(p\) \(<\) 0.001; *\(p\) \(<\) 0.05.  
\end{table} 
Table 13: Quadratic response surface regression analysis of intervention policies under intermediate attribution style.