## 5 Results and Discussion
### The Difference Analysis of Behavioral Outcome Attribution Style on the Intervention Policy Response  
According to the theoretical model established above, individuals summarize causes in various ways according to their behaviors and results, which is the process of attribution. The degree of match between the outcome of the behavior and the expectation will affect the individual's emotions. Furthermore, attribution style can affect an individual's mode of information processing and way of thinking, then affect the resident's subsequent behavior choices. To explore how the attribution style of residents' energy-saving behavior results influences the effect of energy-saving policy intervention, this study analyzed the difference in the response of the attributional style of behavior outcome to policy intervention. Based on the questionnaire and classification method of attribution style designed in this study, the subjects were divided into positive, intermediate, and negative attribution style groups. Then, their degrees of understanding, support, and implementation of different policies were calculated, respectively, as shown in Table 8. On average, residents with a positive attribution style have the highest degree of understanding, support, and implementation of energy-saving policies, while those with an intermediate attribution style have the lowest score. Residents in the three groups of attribution styles have the lowest degree of understanding of the CPP and the lowest degree of implementation of the FCP. In contrast, the three groups of residents have the highest degree of support for ESP and the highest degree of implementation of CPP. Figure 2: Diagram of the response of the residents’ UTP STP and ITP. Furthermore, a one-way ANOVA was used to analyze the difference in the response degree of residents' energy-saving policies in different attribution styles. Table 9 shows that UTP has a significant difference (F = 45.991, Sig = 0.000) in the attribution style. Residents with PAS have a better understanding of various energy-saving policies than those with IAS and NAS. Table 10 shows that STP has significant differences (F = 84.865, Sig = 0.000) in the attribution style. From the mean point of view, residents with PAS have the highest STP, which is significantly higher than those with IAS and NAS. Table 11 shows that ITP has significant differences in attribution style (F = 103.322, Sig = 0.000). Among them, residents with PAS have the highest degree of implementation of energy-saving policies. Therefore, residents' degrees of understanding, support, and implementation of energy-saving policies have significant differences in the attributive style of behavior outcome, so hypothesis H4 is valid. At the same time, by combining the results of the three tables, we found that residents with the intermediate attribution style all scored the lowest on the policy response. This may be caused by the insensitivity of residents with an intermediate attribution style to policy changes. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c 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.** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Attributional Style} & PAS & 4.3107 & \multirow{3}{*}{28.043} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.000} \\  & IAS & 3.9975 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & NAS & 3.9723 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: “\(\text{STP}\)” indicates the degree of understanding of energy-saving policies.  
\end{table} 
Table 10: Difference analysis of STP on the attributional style of behavior outcome.