“己之所欲”还是“成人之美”？解释水平视角下个体赠送-接受礼物的偏好不对称性

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 解释水平理论被广泛应用于消费研究领域。本研究以解释水平理论为理论基础，采用情境问卷调查方法，通过5个实验探讨个体赠送与接受礼物时是否存在性别和角色偏好的不对称性。结果发现，一般情境下，受性别因素影响，男生偏好赠送和接受工具性礼物，女生偏好赠送和接受表达性礼物。但随着心理距离（社会距离和空间距离）的拉近，个体的解释水平降低，更关心他人的喜好和需求，赠送者会更基于接收者的偏好进行礼物选择。

关键词: 解释水平, 性别, 情境, 心理距离, 礼物赠送-接受

Abstract: Construal level theory has been widely used in consumer research. The current study, based on the construal level theory and used situational questionnaire, examined whether or not the gender and givers-recipients' role would influence the preference asymmetry of gifts with five experiments. The results revealed that under the general situation, the preference asymmetry was generally influenced by gender—males preferred to give and receive instrumental gifts whereas females preferred to give and receive expressive gifts. However, as the psychological distance (social distance and spatial distance) increasing, the individual's construal level decreased, and the giver would consider more other's preferences and needs, and more likely to choose gifts based on the recipient's preferences.

Key words: construal level theory, gender factor, situation, psychological distance, gift givers-recipients

中图分类号:

B849

李开云, 王思杰, 杨蕙菁, 毕艳, 张文君, 林丰勋. “己之所欲”还是“成人之美”？解释水平视角下个体赠送-接受礼物的偏好不对称性[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(1): 136-144.

LI Kaiyun, WANG Sijie, YANG Huijing, BI Yan, ZHANG Wenjun, LIN Fengxun. “My Desire or Your Wish?” The Asymmetry of Givers-Recipients' Gift Preference from the Perspective of Construal Level Theory[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2020, 18(1): 136-144.

参考文献

陈文沛. (2013). 产品属性、消费者介入与新产品购买行为的关系. 财经论丛, (2), 101-106
杜伟宇, 蒋运霞. (2014). 消费者的解释水平对其选择偏好的影响. 心理研究, 7(1), 15-22, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-1159.2014.01.003
黄俊, 李晔, 张宏伟. (2015). 解释水平理论的应用及发展. 心理科学进展, 23(1), 110-119
黄俊, 李晔, 张宏伟. (2016). 解释水平理论完善过程中的四个问题. 心理科学, 39(4), 887-892
孙晓玲, 张云, 吴明证. (2007). 解释水平理论的研究现状与展望. 应用心理学, 13(2), 181-186, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-6020.2007.02.014
王财玉. (2013). 消费决策的特质论、情境论及应用. 广东工业大学学报(社会科学版), 13(3), 74-79
许彩国. (2003). 消费者购买决策影响因素分析. 消费经济, 19(1), 51-53, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-5682.2003.01.018
杨秀丽, 程永运. (2009). 对情境因素下消费者超市购物行为的研究. 价值工程, 28(4), 112-114, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-4311.2009.04.039
周惠. (2014). 大学生情侣间赠送礼物行为的心理学研究 (硕士学位论文). 曲阜师范大学.
Baskin, E., Wakslak, C. J., Trope, Y., & Novemsky, N. (2014). Why feasibility matters more to gift receivers than to givers: A construal-level approach to gift giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 169-182, doi: 10.1086/675737.
Choi, W. J., Park, J. H., & Yoon, H. J. (2018). Your gift choice for your boss versus your subordinate would not be the same: The interplay of power and giver-receiver role on consumers’ gift preferences. Journal of Business Research, 91, 1-7, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.033.
Dhar, R., & Kim, E. Y. (2007). Seeing the forest or the trees: Implications of construal level theory for consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 96-100, doi: 10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70014-1.
Freitas, A. L., Langsam, K. L., Clark, S., & Moeller, S. J. (2008). Seeing oneself in one’s choices: Construal level and self-pertinence of electoral and consumer decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 1174-1179, doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.02.011.
Fujita, K., Henderson, M. D., Eng, J., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2006). Spatial distance and mental construal of social events. Psychological Science, 17(4), 278-282, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01698.x.
Fujita, K., & Sasota, J. A. (2011). The effects of construal levels on asymmetric temptation-goal cognitive associations. Social Cognition, 29(2), 125-146, doi: 10.1521/soco.2011.29.2.125.
Gino, F., & Flynn, F. J. (2011). Give them what they want: The benefits of explicitness in gift exchange. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5), 915-922, doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.015.
He, Y. Q., Zhang, J. F., Zhou, Y. Y., & Yang, Z. L. (2019). “Monkey See, Monkey Do?”: The effect of construal level on consumers’ reactions to others’ unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(2), 455-472, doi: 10.1007/s10551-018-3870-x.
Henderson, M. D. (2013). When seeing the forest reduces the need for trees: The role of construal level in attraction to choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 676-683, doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.03.001.
Rim, S., Uleman, J. S., & Trope, Y. (2009). Spontaneous trait inference and construal level theory: Psychological distance increases nonconscious trait thinking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(5), 1088-1097, doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.06.015.
Sinha, I. (1994). A conceptual model of the role of situational type on consumer choice behavior and consideration. Advances in Consumer Research, 21, 477-482.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403-421, doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.403.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463, doi: 10.1037/a0018963.
Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83-95, doi: 10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70013-X.
Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 310-320, doi: 10.1509/jmkr.40.3.310.19238.
Wirtz, J., Hung, Y., Yeung, C., & Chiang, J. (2017). From switching intent to behavior: A construal level theory perspective in the context of contractual services. In C. L. Campbell (Ed.), The customer is NOT always right? Marketing orientationsin a dynamic business world. Developments in marketing science: Proceedings of the academy of marketing science. Cham: Springer.
Yi, R., Stuppy-Sullivan, A., Pickover, A., & Landes, R. D. (2017). Impact of construal level manipulations on delay discounting. PLoS One, 12(5), e0177240, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177240.

[1]	尹静, 李传英, 马世超, 徐瑜姣, 李永升. 大学生人格与手机依赖的关系：压力感知的中介与性别的调节作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(3): 426-432.
[2]	张硕, 蔡雪斌, 邓旭阳, 赵馨. 青少年家庭功能与心理复原力的关系：一个有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(2): 204-211.
[3]	岳鹏飞, 胡文丽, 张嘉鑫, 史梦梦. 粗暴养育与中学生学习投入：状态焦虑与性别的作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(2): 226-232.
[4]	朱娜平, 王文平, 李丽琼, 刘雁伶. 数量让位价值：5～10岁儿童公平分配发展的“此消彼长”[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(2): 233-239.
[5]	李启明, 王纪婷. 家庭氛围、子女生活满意度与心理健康代际传递的关系：亲子性别和子女年龄的差异[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(2): 282-288.
[6]	周广方, 魏子晗, 欧阳良媛, Ngure Mary Muthoni, 王晓庄. 描述信息与经验不一致对个体风险选择的影响：决策模型的拟合[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(1): 29-36.
[7]	侯娟, 郑心怡, 王秀, 方晓义. 金钱与时间感受启动对择偶标准的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(6): 838-844.
[8]	郭庆童, 徐铭雪, 许春艳, 刘秀丽. 大学生宿舍人际关系困扰与手机成瘾的关系：序列中介模型及性别差异[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(5): 650-656.
[9]	朱莹莹, 马晓晴, 唐卓仪, 杨敏齐. 睡眠类型对大学生抑郁的影响：一个有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(5): 657-664,694.
[10]	赵悦彤, 孙晓娟, 白倩, 张向葵. 空间活动问卷的修订及信效度检验[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(3): 289-296.
[11]	刘啸莳. 母亲受教育水平和青少年学业自尊的关系：母亲教养方式的中介作用和性别的调节作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(1): 59-65.
[12]	魏淑华, 赵健, 董及美, 陈功香. 工作对家庭的增益与中小学教师的工作满意度：职业认同的中介作用及其性别差异[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(1): 125-130,136.
[13]	康廷虎, 王旎撰, 高吴平. 记叙文阅读中主人公转换对情境模型更新的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(1): 1-7.
[14]	岳鹏飞, 史梦梦, 刘旭, 白学军. 词汇的唤醒度对情绪标注效应的影响—ERPs研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(1): 31-38.
[15]	张奇勇, 卢家楣. 学生的首因效应对教师情绪感染力的影响：情绪真实性判断的中介作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(1): 60-66.