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

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.202304019

Abstract

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

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

Wang Huaiyong, Xing Xiaoxue, Yue Siyi. The Effect and Its Mechanism of Regulatory Mode and Decisional Role on Choice Deferral: From the Perspective of Process Tracking[J]. Journal of Psychological Science, 2023, 46(4): 913-920.

王怀勇, 邢晓雪, 岳思怡. 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^*[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(4): 913-920.

References

[1] 蔡海娟. (2018) . 延迟选择过程中自我—他人决策偏好差异研究 (硕士学位论文) . 上海师范大学.
[2] 崔楠, 徐岚, 谢雯婷. (2016) . 做会后悔还是不做会后悔?——自我调节模式对不作为惯性的影响. 心理学报, 48(4), 423-434.
[3] 黄仁辉, 刘雁伶, 罗小凤, 严蔷薇, 李洁. (2017) . 不确定性容忍度、决策者角色对医疗决策的影响. 中国临床心理学杂志, 25(3), 426-429.
[4] 卢长宝, 王传声. (2018) . 过多促销品会导致过多选择效应吗?——时间压力的调节作用. 经济管理, 40(3), 109-127.
[5] 陆静怡, 尚雪松. (2018) . 为他人做决策: 多维度心理机制与决策体验. 心理科学进展, 26(9), 1545-1552.
[6] 王怀勇, 陈翠萍. (2021) . 调节模式对选择超载的影响及其机制: 一个有中介的调节模型. 心理科学, 44(5), 1057-1063.
[7] 吴岩, 高约飞, 赵思敏, 王穗苹. (2019) . 常识性知识和语篇语境对代词指认的影响. 心理学报, 51(3), 293-303.
[8] Anderson, C. J. (2003). The psychology of doing nothing: Forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 139-167.
[9] Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. T. (2003). Locomotion, assessment, and regulatory fit: Value transfer from "how" to "what". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(5), 525-530.
[10] Chang C. C., Chuang S. C., Cheng Y. H., & Huang T. Y. (2012). The compromise effect in choosing for others. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(2), 109-122.
[11] Chen C. Y., Rossignac-Milon M., & Higgins E. T. (2018). Feeling distressed from making decisions: Assessors' need to be right. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(4), 743-761.
[12] Dhar, R. (1996). The effect of decision strategy on deciding to defer choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9(4), 265-281.
[13] Dhar, R., & Nowlis, S. M. (1999). The effect of time pressure on consumer choice deferral. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(4), 369-384.
[14] Etkin, J., & Ghosh, A. P. (2018). When being in a positive mood increases choice deferral. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(1), 208-225.
[15] Godinho S., Prada M., & Garrido M. V. (2016). Under pressure: An integrative perspective of time pressure impact on consumer decision-making. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 28(4), 251-273.
[16] Jonas, E., & Frey, D. (2003). Information search and presentation in advisor-client interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(2), 154-168.
[17] Kerstholt, J. (1994). The effect of time pressure on decision-making behaviour in a dynamic task environment. Acta Psychologica, 86(1), 89-104.
[18] Krijnen J. M. T., Zeelenberg M., & Breugelmans S. M. (2015). Decision importance as a cue for deferral. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(5), 407-415.
[19] Kruglanski A. W., Thompson E. P., Higgins E. T., Atash M. N., Pierro A., Shah J. Y., & Spiegel S. (2000). To "do the right thing" or to "just do it": Locomotion and assessment as distinct self-regulatory imperatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 793-815.
[20] Larasati, A., & Yeh, M. Y. (2016). Does more attractive choice always decrease choice deferral? The moderating effect of ideal point. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 54, 43-51.
[21] Leonhardt J. M., Keller L. R., & Pechmann C. (2011). Avoiding the risk of responsibility by seeking uncertainty: Responsibility aversion and preference for indirect agency when choosing for others. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(4), 405-413.
[22] Liu Y., Polman E., Liu Y. F., & Jiao J. L. (2018). Choosing for others and its relation to information search. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 147, 65-75.
[23] Luan M., Fu L. S., & Li H. (2018). Do maximizers maximize for others? Self-other decision-making differences in maximizing and satisficing. Personality and Individual Differences, 121, 52-56.
[24] Mugon J., Struk A., & Danckert J. (2018). A failure to launch: Regulatory modes and boredom proneness. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1126.
[25] Nagpal A., Khare A., Chowdhury T., Labrecque L. I., & Pandit A. (2011). The impact of the amount of available information on decision delay: The role of common features. Marketing Letters, 22(4), 405-421.
[26] Nordbye G. H. H., Riege A. H., & Teigen K. H. (2018). Better safe than sorry: Risking irresponsibility by seeking uncertainty. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31(1), 87-99.
[27] Orehek E., Mauro R., Kruglanski A. W., & van der Bles, A. M. (2012). Prioritizing association strength versus value: The influence of self-regulatory modes on means evaluation in single goal and multigoal contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(1), 22-31.
[28] Pierro A., Giacomantonio M., Pica G., Kruglanski A. W., & Higgins E. T. (2011). On the psychology of time in action: Regulatory mode orientations and procrastination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(6), 1317-1331.
[29] Pilli, L. E., & Mazzon, J. A. (2016). Information overload, choice deferral, and moderating role of need for cognition: Empirical evidence. Revista de Administração, 51(1), 36-55.
[30] Rassin, E., & Muris, P. (2005). Indecisiveness and the interpretation of ambiguous situations. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(7), 1285-1291.
[31] Sela A., Berger J., & Liu W. (2009). Variety, vice, and virtue: How assortment size influences option choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 941-951.
[32] Shortland N., Alison L., & Thompson L. (2020). Military maximizers: Examining the effect of individual differences in maximization on military decision-making. Personality and Individual Differences, 163, Article 110051.
[33] Steffel M., Williams E. F., & Perrmann-Graham J. (2016). Passing the buck: Delegating choices to others to avoid responsibility and blame. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 135, 32-44.
[34] Wang, H. Y., & Liu, Y. F. (2016). The impact of regulatory fit on postdecision evaluation. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 44(3), 383-390.
[35] Wang Z. J., Kuang Y., Tang H. Y., Gao C., Chen A., & Chan K. Q. (2018). Are decisions made by group representatives more risk averse? The effect of sense of responsibility. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31(3), 311-323.
[36] Zhang C. Y., Ni Y., & Feng T. Y. (2017). The effect of regulatory mode on procrastination: Bi-stable parahippocampus connectivity with dorsal anterior cingulate and anterior prefrontal cortex. Behavioural Brain Research, 329, 51-57.