心理科学 ›› 2023, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (4): 913-920.DOI: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.202304019

• 社会、人格与管理 • 上一篇    下一篇

调节模式与决策角色对延迟选择的影响及机制:过程追踪的视角*

王怀勇, 邢晓雪, 岳思怡**   

  1. 上海师范大学心理学系,上海,200234
  • 出版日期:2023-07-20 发布日期:2023-08-14
  • 通讯作者: **岳思怡, E-mail: 970045846@qq.com
  • 基金资助:
    *本研究得到国家自然科学基金青年项目(71701129) 和上海市教育科学研究一般项目(C17001) 的资助

The Effect and Its Mechanism of Regulatory Mode and Decisional Role on Choice Deferral: From the Perspective of Process Tracking

Wang Huaiyong, Xing Xiaoxue, Yue Siyi   

  1. Department of Psychology, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai, 200234
  • Online:2023-07-20 Published:2023-08-14

摘要: 从过程追踪视角出发,运用信息板技术通过3个实验探讨调节模式对延迟选择的影响及信息加工方式(加工时间、加工深度、加工模式) 与决策角色在其中的中介和调节作用。结果发现:(1) 调节模式影响个体的延迟选择,评估比运动模式者更倾向于延迟选择;(2) 加工时间在调节模式与延迟选择间起中介作用;(3) 决策角色分别调节了调节模式与加工时间、延迟选择的关系,即为自我决策时,评估模式比运动模式者的加工时间更长、更倾向于延迟选择,而为他人决策时二者的偏好无显著差异;(4) 决策角色调节了加工时间在调节模式与延迟选择中的中介作用,表现为有调节的中介,即为自我决策时,评估模式比运动模式者的加工时间更长致使其更倾向延迟选择,而为他人决策时加工时间的中介作用不显著。研究结果对进一步理解不同调节模式个体的延迟选择偏好及机制及如何根据不同调节模式消费者的差异制定有效的营销策略均有一定启示。

关键词: 调节模式, 决策角色, 延迟选择, 加工时间, 信息板

Abstract: Prior studies have shown that there were differences between locomotion and assessment mode in target selection, behavior pattern, and goal realization. However, whether individuals with different regulatory modes have different preferences on choice deferral? This was the first question needed to be answered. Although some studies have indirectly discussed the differences in the process of choice deferral based on the perspective of outcome-orientated, there was little direct research on this problem from the perspective of process tracking. Therefore, the current study used information board to directly trace and reveal the information processing of decision makers with different regulatory modes on choice deferral, and tried to answer the second question. Moreover, people often make decisions not only for themselves, but also for others. Based on the trait-situation interaction theory, whether the effect of regulatory mode on choice deferral and its mechanism vary in different decisional roles? This was the third question needed to be answered.
Three experiments were conducted to explore the impact of regulatory mode on choice deferral, and the mediating role of information processing (processing time, processing depth, processing mode) and the moderating role of decisional roles. The results showed that:(1) Regulatory mode had a significant effect on choice deferral, and the assessors were more inclined to delay choice than the locomotors. (2) Processing time mediated the relation between regulatory mode and choice deferral. (3) Decisional role moderated the relations between regulatory mode, processing time and choice deferral. That is, participants with the assessment mode had longer processing time and were more inclined to delay choice when making decisions for themselves than those with the locomotion mode, but there was no significant difference in preferences when making decisions for others. (4) Decisional role moderated the mediating effect of processing time in the relation between regulatory mode and choice deferral. Specifically, when making decisions for oneself, the processing time of assessors was longer than that of locomotors, indicating that they were more inclined to delay the choice. However, when making decisions for others, the mediating effect of processing time was not significant.
In sum, the regulatory mode could affect people's choice deferral through the mediating effect of processing time, and this effect was restricted by the boundary condition of decisional role. The findings of this study have some implications for further understanding the differences in choice deferral among individuals with different regulatory modes and its mechanism, as well as how to formulate effective marketing strategies according to the differences of consumers with different regulatory modes.

Key words: regulatory mode, choice deferral, decisional role, processing time, information board