), 杨宜苗2 1辽宁师范大学国际商学院, 大连 116029
2东北财经大学工商管理学院, 大连 116025
收稿日期:2020-10-22出版日期:2021-12-25发布日期:2021-10-26通讯作者:林让E-mail:linrang_dufe@163.com基金资助:国家自然科学基金面上项目(71872030);国家社会科学基金重大项目(18ZDA058)Effect of ambivalent attitudes on post-decision self-evaluation: Two-stage moderation effect with a mediator
LIN Rang1,2(), YANG Yimiao2 1LNU-MSU College of International Business, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian 116029, China
2School of Business Administration, Dongbei University of Finance and Economics, Dalian 116025, China
Received:2020-10-22Online:2021-12-25Published:2021-10-26Contact:LIN Rang E-mail:linrang_dufe@163.com摘要/Abstract
摘要： 矛盾态度不仅影响信息搜索、态度形成和决策行为, 而且影响决策后自我评价。本研究构建了一个基于不确定性的中介作用、决策困难水平和结果效价的双调节作用的矛盾态度与决策后自我评价关系模型, 3个实验通过设计冲突情境对矛盾态度进行操纵, 冲突情境包括选择一所大学和就业企业, 运用SPSS 20.0软件对数据进行分析, 发现矛盾态度对决策后自我评价存在积极影响, 矛盾态度通过不确定性影响决策后自我评价的中介过程受到决策困难水平和结果效价的调节。矛盾态度和决策困难水平对不确定性产生影响, 不确定性和结果效价对决策后自我评价产生影响, 由于不确定性的分离效应, 使矛盾态度和决策困难水平对决策后自我评价产生相互冲突的双重作用结果。当获得负面结果时, 相较于低决策困难水平, 高决策困难水平的个体, 矛盾态度通过不确定性对决策后自我评价产生积极影响; 当获得正面结果时, 相较于高决策困难水平, 低决策困难水平的个体, 矛盾态度通过不确定性对决策后自我评价产生积极影响。
图/表 11
图1理论模型
图1理论模型表1两所大学对比
| 维度 | 大学A | 大学B |
|---|---|---|
| 毕业后月薪 | 5000~9000 | 4000~6000 |
| 就业率 | 87% | 93% |
| 学校所在城市 | 一线 | 二线 |
| 平均教师水平(最高5分) | 4.4 | 4.8 |
表1两所大学对比
| 维度 | 大学A | 大学B |
|---|---|---|
| 毕业后月薪 | 5000~9000 | 4000~6000 |
| 就业率 | 87% | 93% |
| 学校所在城市 | 一线 | 二线 |
| 平均教师水平(最高5分) | 4.4 | 4.8 |
图2实验1矛盾态度、决策困难水平和结果效价的交互作用
图2实验1矛盾态度、决策困难水平和结果效价的交互作用表2两家企业对比
| 维度 | 企业A | 企业B |
|---|---|---|
| 毕业后月薪 | 6000~10000 | 4000~6000 |
| 员工数量 | 5387 | 30592 |
| 所在城市 | 一线 | 二线 |
| 品牌价值排名 | 55 | 9 |
表2两家企业对比
| 维度 | 企业A | 企业B |
|---|---|---|
| 毕业后月薪 | 6000~10000 | 4000~6000 |
| 员工数量 | 5387 | 30592 |
| 所在城市 | 一线 | 二线 |
| 品牌价值排名 | 55 | 9 |
图3实验2矛盾态度、决策困难水平和结果效价的交互作用
图3实验2矛盾态度、决策困难水平和结果效价的交互作用表3不确定性的调节作用
| 变量：决策 后自我评价 | Coeff. | SE | t | p | LLCI | ULCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 常数 | 15.63 | 0.57 | 27.37 | 0.00 | 14.51 | 16.76 |
| 结果效价 | -7.09 | 0.35 | -20.1 | 0.00 | -7.78 | -6.40 |
| 不确定性 | -1.44 | 0.11 | -12.9 | 0.00 | -1.66 | -1.22 |
| 结果效价 × 不确定性 | 1.06 | 0.07 | 15.2 | 0.00 | 0.92 | 1.20 |
表3不确定性的调节作用
| 变量：决策 后自我评价 | Coeff. | SE | t | p | LLCI | ULCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 常数 | 15.63 | 0.57 | 27.37 | 0.00 | 14.51 | 16.76 |
| 结果效价 | -7.09 | 0.35 | -20.1 | 0.00 | -7.78 | -6.40 |
| 不确定性 | -1.44 | 0.11 | -12.9 | 0.00 | -1.66 | -1.22 |
| 结果效价 × 不确定性 | 1.06 | 0.07 | 15.2 | 0.00 | 0.92 | 1.20 |
图4不确定性和结果效价对决策后自我评价的影响
图4不确定性和结果效价对决策后自我评价的影响表4矛盾态度和决策困难水平对不确定性的影响
| 变量：不确定性 | Coeff. | SE | t | p | LLCI | ULCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 常数 | 8.87 | 1.07 | 8.23 | 0.00 | 6.75 | 11.0 |
| 矛盾态度 | -3.45 | 0.64 | -5.31 | 0.00 | -4.72 | -2.17 |
| 决策困难水平 | -3.35 | 0.69 | -4.80 | 0.00 | -4.72 | -1.97 |
| 矛盾态度 × 决策困难水平 | 2.62 | 0.42 | 6.21 | 0.00 | 1.79 | 3.45 |
表4矛盾态度和决策困难水平对不确定性的影响
| 变量：不确定性 | Coeff. | SE | t | p | LLCI | ULCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 常数 | 8.87 | 1.07 | 8.23 | 0.00 | 6.75 | 11.0 |
| 矛盾态度 | -3.45 | 0.64 | -5.31 | 0.00 | -4.72 | -2.17 |
| 决策困难水平 | -3.35 | 0.69 | -4.80 | 0.00 | -4.72 | -1.97 |
| 矛盾态度 × 决策困难水平 | 2.62 | 0.42 | 6.21 | 0.00 | 1.79 | 3.45 |
图5矛盾态度和决策困难水平对不确定性的影响
图5矛盾态度和决策困难水平对不确定性的影响表5不确定性的中介作用
| 结果效价 | 决策困难水平 | Effect | SE | LLCI | ULCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 正面结果 | 低 | 0.24 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.43 |
| 正面结果 | 高 | -0.45 | 0.19 | -0.83 | -0.09 |
| 负面结果 | 低 | 0.23 | 0.25 | -0.73 | 0.28 |
| 负面结果 | 高 | 1.60 | 0.32 | 0.98 | 2.28 |
表5不确定性的中介作用
| 结果效价 | 决策困难水平 | Effect | SE | LLCI | ULCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 正面结果 | 低 | 0.24 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.43 |
| 正面结果 | 高 | -0.45 | 0.19 | -0.83 | -0.09 |
| 负面结果 | 低 | 0.23 | 0.25 | -0.73 | 0.28 |
| 负面结果 | 高 | 1.60 | 0.32 | 0.98 | 2.28 |
图6实验3矛盾态度、决策困难水平和结果效价的交互作用
图6实验3矛盾态度、决策困难水平和结果效价的交互作用参考文献 50
| [1] | Alicke M. D., & Sedikides C.(2009). Self-enhancement and self-protection: What they are and what they do. European Review of Social Psychology, 20(1), 1-48. doi: 10.1080/10463280802613866URL |
| [2] | Anderson C. J.(2003). The psychology of doing nothing: Forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 139-167. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.139URL |
| [3] | Armitage C. J., & Arden M. A.(2007). Felt and potential ambivalence across the stages of change. Journal of Health Psychology, 12(1), 149-158. doi: 10.1177/1359105307071749URL |
| [4] | Bee C. C., & Madrigal R.(2013). Consumer uncertainty: The influence of anticipatory emotions on ambivalence, attitudes, and intentions. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 12(5), 370- 381. doi: 10.1002/cb.v12.5URL |
| [5] | Brown J. D., Dutton K. A., & Cook K. E.(2001). From the top down: Self-esteem and self-evaluation. Cognition & Emotion, 15(5), 615-631. |
| [6] | Chernev A.(2006). Decision focus and consumer choice among assortments. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 50-59. doi: 10.1086/jcr.2006.33.issue-1URL |
| [7] | Clark J. K., Wegener D. T., & Fabrigar L. R.(2008). Attitudinal ambivalence and message-based persuasion: Motivated processing of proattitudinal information and avoidance of counterattitudinal information. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(4), 565-577. |
| [8] | de Liver Y., van der Pligt J., & Wigboldus D. H. J.(2007). Positive and negative associations underlying ambivalent attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(2), 319-326. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2006.02.012URL |
| [9] | Engel J. F., Kollat D. T., & Blackwell R. D.(1978). Consumer behavior. 3rd ed. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden. |
| [10] | Förster J., & Higgins E. T.(2005). How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus. Psychological Science, 16(8), 631-636. pmid: 16102066 |
| [11] | Grant S. J., & Tybout A. M.(2008). The effect of temporal frame on information considered in new product evaluation: The role of uncertainty. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 897-913. doi: 10.1086/527342URL |
| [12] | Hanselmann M., & Tanner C.(2008). Taboos and conflicts in decision making: Sacred values, decision difficulty, and emotions. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(1), 51-63. |
| [13] | Howe L. C., & Krosnick J. A.(2017). Attitude strength. Annual review of psychology, 68(1), 327-352. doi: 10.1146/psych.2017.68.issue-1URL |
| [14] | Huang M. X., Xie T. T., & Feng X. L.(2010). How do ambivalent consumers interpret diversified word-of-mouth information? Acta Psychologica Sinica, 42(10), 998-1010. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2010.00998URL |
| [ 黄敏学, 谢亭亭, 冯小亮.(2010). 矛盾的消费者是如何解读多元化口碑信息的? 心理学报, 42(10), 998-1010.] | |
| [15] | Jiang H., Liang J., Wang H., & Sun P.(2016). The interplay of emotions, elaboration, and ambivalence on attitude- behavior consistency. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 15(2), 126-135. doi: 10.1002/cb.v15.2URL |
| [16] | Jonas K., Broemer P., & Diehl M.(2000). Attitudinal ambivalence. European Review of Social Psychology, 11(1), 35-74. doi: 10.1080/14792779943000125URL |
| [17] | Kahn B. E., & Meyer R. J.(1991). Consumer multi-attribute judgments under attribute-weight uncertainty. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 508-522. doi: 10.1086/jcr.1991.17.issue-4URL |
| [18] | Kahneman, D., & Tversky A. (2000). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341-350. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341URL |
| [19] | Kaplan K. J.(1972). On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Bulletin, 77(5), 361-372. doi: 10.1037/h0032590URL |
| [20] | Koller M., & Salzberger T.(2007). Cognitive dissonance as a relevant construct throughout the decision-making and consumption process: An empirical investigation related to a package tour. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 6(3), 217- 227. doi: 10.1362/147539207X251022URL |
| [21] | Krosnick J. A., & Petty R. E.(1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In R.E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick(Eds.), Attitude strength:Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1-24. |
| [22] | Lin R., Yang Y. M., & Xia C. Y.(2020). The effect of ambivalent attitude on selective exposure-The moderated role of elaboration. China Business and Market, 34(6), 51- 62. |
| [ 林让, 杨宜苗, 夏春玉.(2020). 消费者矛盾态度对选择性信息接触的影响. 中国流通经济, 34(6), 51-62.] | |
| [23] | Lipshitz R., & Strauss O.(1997). Coping with uncertainty: A naturalistic decision making analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 149-163. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1997.2679URL |
| [24] | Mcgraw K. M., Hasecke E., & Conger K.(2003). Ambivalence, uncertainty, and processes of candidate evaluation. Political Psychology, 24(3), 421-448. doi: 10.1111/pops.2003.24.issue-3URL |
| [25] | Moody G. D., Galletta D. F., & Lowry P. B.(2014). When trust and distrust collide online: The engenderment and role of consumer ambivalence in online consumer behavior. Electronic Commerce Research & Applications, 13(4), 266- 282. |
| [26] | Newby-Clark I. R., Mcgregor I., & Zanna M. P.(2002). Thinking and caring about cognitive inconsistency: When and for whom does attitudinal ambivalence feel uncomfortable? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(2), 157- 166. pmid: 11831406 |
| [27] | Nohlen H. U., van Harreveld F., Rotteveel M., Barends A. J., & Larsen J. T.(2016). Affective responses to ambivalence are context-dependent: A facial EMG study on the role of inconsistency and evaluative context in shaping affective responses to ambivalence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 42-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.001URL |
| [28] | Priester J. R, & Petty R. E.(1996). The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: Relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 431-449. pmid: 8831157 |
| [29] | Reich T., & Wheeler S. C.(2016). The good and bad of ambivalence: Desiring ambivalence under outcome uncertainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(4), 493-508. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000047pmid: 27078506 |
| [30] | Rothman N. B., Pratt M. G., Rees L., & Vogus T. J.(2017). Understanding the dual nature of ambivalence: Why and when ambivalence leads to good and bad outcomes. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 33-72. doi: 10.5465/annals.2014.0066URL |
| [31] | Sawicki V., Wegener D. T., Clark J. K., Fabrigar L. R., Smith S. M., & Durso G. R. O.(2013). Feeling conflicted and seeking information: When ambivalence enhances and diminishes selective exposure to attitude-consistent information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(6), 735-747. doi: 10.1177/0146167213481388URL |
| [32] | Sengupta J., & Johar G. V.(2002). Effects of inconsistent attribute information on the predictive value of product attitudes: Toward a resolution of opposing perspectives. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 39-56. doi: 10.1086/339920URL |
| [33] | Shan C. L., & Zhao H. Y.(2017). Study on the impact paths of electronic word of mouth on consumer attitudes-From the perspective of ambivalence attitude. Soft Science, 31(4), 108-111. |
| [ 单春玲, 赵含宇.(2017). 网络口碑对消费者态度的影响路径研究--基于矛盾态度视角. 软科学, 31(4), 108-111.] | |
| [34] | Sincoff J. B.(1990). The psychological characteristics of ambivalent people. Clinical Psychology Review, 10(1), 43- 68. doi: 10.1016/0272-7358(90)90106-KURL |
| [35] | Soutar G. N., & Sweeney J. C.(2016). Are there cognitive dissonance segments? Australian Journal of Management, 28(3), 227-249. doi: 10.1177/031289620302800301URL |
| [36] | Tudoran A. A., Olsen S. O., & Dopico D. C.(2012). Satisfaction strength and intention to purchase a new product. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11(5), 391-405. doi: 10.1002/cb.v11.5URL |
| [37] | van Dijk E., & Zeelenberg M.(2003). The discounting of ambiguous information in economic decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16(5), 341-352. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0771URL |
| [38] | van Dijk E., & Zeelenberg M.(2006). The dampening effect of uncertainty on positive and negative emotions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19(2), 171-176. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0771URL |
| [39] | van Harreveld F., van der Pligt J., & de Liver Y. N.(2009). The agony of ambivalence and ways to resolve it: Introducing the MAID model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(1), 45-61. doi: 10.1177/1088868308324518pmid: 19144904 |
| [40] | Visser P. S., Bizer G. Y., & Krosnick J. A.(2004). Exploring the latent structure of strength–related attitude attributes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 1-67. |
| [41] | Wei J., & Zuo B.(2013). Attitude certainty: The strength index of the knowing and doing Consistency. Psychological Research, 6(5), 51-56. |
| [ 魏谨, 佐斌.(2013). 态度确定性:知行一致的强度指标. 心理研究, 6(5), 51-56.] | |
| [42] | Wu R. J., & Li D. J.(2014). The outcome valence, mental simulation and regret. Journal of Making Science, 10(3), 51-61. |
| [ 武瑞娟, 李东进.(2014). 选择结果效价、心理模拟和后悔. 营销科学学报, 10(3), 51-61.] | |
| [43] | Xia C. Y., Lin R., & Yang Y. M.(2020). Effect of option number on satisfaction: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Business Economics, 40(1), 5-14. |
| [ 夏春玉, 林让, 杨宜苗.(2020). 选择数量对满意度的影响-一个有调节的中介模型. 商业经济与管理, 40(1), 5- 14.] | |
| [44] | Xu Z. F., & Xi J. Z.(2018). Attitudinal ambivalence: Origins and coping strategies. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(2), 331-343. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.00331URL |
| [ 徐展菲, 席居哲.(2018). 矛盾态度的成因与应对. 心理科学进展, 26(2), 331-343.] | |
| [45] | Yang L. F., & Unnava H. R.(2016). Ambivalence, selective exposure, and negativity effect. Psychology & marketing, 33(5), 331-343. doi: 10.1002/mar.20878URL |
| [46] | Yeung N., & Summerfield C.(2012). Metacognition in human decision-making: Confidence and error monitoring. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1594), 1310-1321. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0416URL |
| [47] | Zemborain M. R., & Johar G. V.(2007). Attitudinal ambivalence and openness to persuasion: A framework for interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 506-514. doi: 10.1086/502810URL |
| [48] | Zhang Y., & Mittal V.(2005). Decision difficulty: Effects of procedural and outcome accountability. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 465-472. doi: 10.1086/jcr.2005.32.issue-3URL |
| [49] | Zhang Q. Y., & Sun X. X.(2018). The research on effect of consumer confusion on green brand purchase intention-The mediating role of ambivalent attitude. Consumer Economics, 34(3), 82-89. |
| [ 张启尧, 孙习祥.(2018). 消费者困惑对绿色品牌购买意向影响研究--矛盾态度的中介作用. 消费经济, 34(3), 82-89.] | |
| [50] | Zhu D. Q., & Xie X. F.(2013). Which one is better, maximizing or satisficing? Advances in Psychological Science, 21(2), 309-316. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.00309URL |
| [ 朱冬青, 谢晓非.(2013). 最优化与满意型决策风格孰优孰劣? 心理科学进展, 21(2), 309-316.] |
相关文章 15
| [1] | 张红, 任靖远, 刘晨阳, 罗劲. 创造性产品评价中的从众效应[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(6): 688-698. |
| [2] | Gerd Gigerenzer, 栾胜华, 刘永芳. 人非理性且难教化?论支持自由家长主义的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(4): 395-406. |
| [3] | 王晓田. 如何用行为经济学应对不确定性：拓展有效助推的范围[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(4): 407-414. |
| [4] | 吕小康, 付春野, 汪新建. 反驳文本对患方信任和道德判断的影响与机制 *[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(10): 1171-1186. |
| [5] | 谢其利, 李崇敬, 全小山, 何飞, 江光荣. 少年夫妻老来伴：夫妻依恋与留守老人孤独感[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(7): 771-781. |
| [6] | 李锐;田晓明;柳士顺. 仁慈领导会增加员工的亲社会性规则违背吗？[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(5): 637-652. |
| [7] | 蒿坡;龙立荣;贺伟. 共享型领导如何影响团队产出？信息交换、激情氛围与环境不确定性的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(10): 1288-1299. |
| [8] | 王震;孙健敏;张瑞娟. 管理者核心自我评价对下属组织公民行为的影响：道德式领导和集体主义导向的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2012, 44(9): 1231-1243. |
| [9] | 韩晓燕;迟毓凯. 自发社会比较中的威胁效应及自我平衡策略[J]. 心理学报, 2012, 44(12): 1628-1640. |
| [10] | 杨智辉,王建平. 广泛性焦虑个体的注意偏向[J]. 心理学报, 2011, 43(02): 164-174. |
| [11] | 黄敏学,谢亭亭,冯小亮. 矛盾的消费者是如何解读多元化口碑信息的?[J]. 心理学报, 2010, 42(10): 998-1010. |
| [12] | Gary ,L. ,Brase. 进化频率表征对统计推理（非）灵活性的影响：认知风格和简要提示不影响贝叶斯推理[J]. 心理学报, 2007, 39(03): 398-405. |
| [13] | 赵晋全,杨治良,秦金亮. 前瞻记忆的自评和延时特点[J]. 心理学报, 2003, 35(04): 455-460. |
| [14] | 韩世辉,肖峰. 影响视觉复合刺激中整体和局部性质加工的几种因素[J]. 心理学报, 1999, 31(3): 274-283. |
| [15] | 钱铭怡,陈仲庚,张莘. 抑郁者操作任务中目标设立与自我评价的特点[J]. 心理学报, 1999, 31(2): 209-214. |
PDF全文下载地址:
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=5107
