ISSN 0439-755X
CN 11-1911/B
CN 11-1911/B
Acta Psychologica Sinica ›› 2023, Vol. 55 ›› Issue (7): 1176-1191.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01176
• Reports of Empirical Studies • Previous Articles Next Articles
SUN Hongjie, WANG Meiling, ZHONG Ke
Published:2023-07-25
Online:2023-04-21
SUN Hongjie, WANG Meiling, ZHONG Ke. (2023). The U-shaped effect of intimacy on word-of-mouth intention about consumption failure: Based on the perspective of motivational conflict model. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(7), 1176-1191.
| Experiment | Variable | Low Interpersonal Closeness | Medium Interpersonal Closeness | High Interpersonal Closeness | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experiment1 | Intimacy Manipulation Check | 3.68(1.63) | 4.46(1.50) | 7.98(0.84) | |
| Word-of-mouth Intention | 6.89(1.72) | 4.98(2.07) | 7.88(0.89) | ||
| Experiment2 | Intimacy Manipulation Check | 3.65 (1.60) | 4.45 (1.35) | 7.56 (1.13) | |
| The Motivation to Protect Others' Interests | 7.10 (1.42) | 6.28 (1.72) | 7.61 (0.77) | ||
| The Motivation to Protect Self-image | 4.62 (1.77) | 5.70 (1.48) | 4.07 (1.26) | ||
| Degree of Motivational Conflict | 6.75 (5.46) | 10.83 (5.25) | 4.61 (3.89) | ||
| Word-of-mouth Intention | 6.36 (2.01) | 5.24 (1.73) | 7.54 (0.92) | ||
| Experiment3 | Intimacy Manipulation Check | 4.07(1.54) | 4.76(1.11) | 8.28(0.73) | |
| The Motivation to Protect Others' Interests | 7.03(0.88) | 5.87(2.00) | 7.67(1.17) | ||
| The Motivation to Protect Self-image | 4.86(1.20) | 5.98(1.28) | 4.42(1.67) | ||
| Degree of Motivational Conflict | 7.54(3.75) | 12.05(5.28) | 5.59(5.34) | ||
| Word-of-mouth Intention | 6.71(1.28) | 5.28(1.70) | 7.81(1.19) | ||
| Experiment4 | Intimacy Manipulation Check | Low Merchant Responsibility Group | 3.96(1.78) | 4.40(1.23) | 7.82(0.92) |
| High Merchant Responsibility Group | 3.54(1.80) | 4.78(1.28) | 7.86(0.83) | ||
| Merchant Responsibility Manipulation Check | Low Merchant Responsibility Group | 5.54(1.96) | 5.40(1.84) | 5.80(1.71) | |
| High Merchant Responsibility Group | 7.70(1.11) | 7.62(1.05) | 7.67(1.10) | ||
| The Motivation to Protect Others' Interests | Low Merchant Responsibility Group | 7.04(1.08) | 5.99(1.77) | 7.71(0.81) | |
| High Merchant Responsibility Group | 7.44(0.96) | 7.27(1.27) | 7.78(0.77) | ||
| The Motivation to Protect Self-image | Low Merchant Responsibility Group | 4.93(1.52) | 5.96(1.38) | 4.38(1.45) | |
| High Merchant Responsibility Group | 4.93(1.45) | 4.69(1.70) | 4.08(1.52) | ||
| Degree of Motivational Conflict | Low Merchant Responsibility Group | 7.47(4.84) | 11.90(5.02) | 5.44(4.41) | |
| High Merchant Responsibility Group | 7.35(4.16) | 6.80(5.47) | 4.47(4.69) | ||
| Word-of-mouth Intention | Low Merchant Responsibility Group | 6.87(1.14) | 4.93(1.65) | 7.85(0.78) | |
| High Merchant Responsibility Group | 7.18(0.89) | 7.22(1.12) | 8.11(0.78) |
Table 1 Description of the four main experiments.
| Experiment | Variable | Low Interpersonal Closeness | Medium Interpersonal Closeness | High Interpersonal Closeness | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experiment1 | Intimacy Manipulation Check | 3.68(1.63) | 4.46(1.50) | 7.98(0.84) | |
| Word-of-mouth Intention | 6.89(1.72) | 4.98(2.07) | 7.88(0.89) | ||
| Experiment2 | Intimacy Manipulation Check | 3.65 (1.60) | 4.45 (1.35) | 7.56 (1.13) | |
| The Motivation to Protect Others' Interests | 7.10 (1.42) | 6.28 (1.72) | 7.61 (0.77) | ||
| The Motivation to Protect Self-image | 4.62 (1.77) | 5.70 (1.48) | 4.07 (1.26) | ||
| Degree of Motivational Conflict | 6.75 (5.46) | 10.83 (5.25) | 4.61 (3.89) | ||
| Word-of-mouth Intention | 6.36 (2.01) | 5.24 (1.73) | 7.54 (0.92) | ||
| Experiment3 | Intimacy Manipulation Check | 4.07(1.54) | 4.76(1.11) | 8.28(0.73) | |
| The Motivation to Protect Others' Interests | 7.03(0.88) | 5.87(2.00) | 7.67(1.17) | ||
| The Motivation to Protect Self-image | 4.86(1.20) | 5.98(1.28) | 4.42(1.67) | ||
| Degree of Motivational Conflict | 7.54(3.75) | 12.05(5.28) | 5.59(5.34) | ||
| Word-of-mouth Intention | 6.71(1.28) | 5.28(1.70) | 7.81(1.19) | ||
| Experiment4 | Intimacy Manipulation Check | Low Merchant Responsibility Group | 3.96(1.78) | 4.40(1.23) | 7.82(0.92) |
| High Merchant Responsibility Group | 3.54(1.80) | 4.78(1.28) | 7.86(0.83) | ||
| Merchant Responsibility Manipulation Check | Low Merchant Responsibility Group | 5.54(1.96) | 5.40(1.84) | 5.80(1.71) | |
| High Merchant Responsibility Group | 7.70(1.11) | 7.62(1.05) | 7.67(1.10) | ||
| The Motivation to Protect Others' Interests | Low Merchant Responsibility Group | 7.04(1.08) | 5.99(1.77) | 7.71(0.81) | |
| High Merchant Responsibility Group | 7.44(0.96) | 7.27(1.27) | 7.78(0.77) | ||
| The Motivation to Protect Self-image | Low Merchant Responsibility Group | 4.93(1.52) | 5.96(1.38) | 4.38(1.45) | |
| High Merchant Responsibility Group | 4.93(1.45) | 4.69(1.70) | 4.08(1.52) | ||
| Degree of Motivational Conflict | Low Merchant Responsibility Group | 7.47(4.84) | 11.90(5.02) | 5.44(4.41) | |
| High Merchant Responsibility Group | 7.35(4.16) | 6.80(5.47) | 4.47(4.69) | ||
| Word-of-mouth Intention | Low Merchant Responsibility Group | 6.87(1.14) | 4.93(1.65) | 7.85(0.78) | |
| High Merchant Responsibility Group | 7.18(0.89) | 7.22(1.12) | 8.11(0.78) |
Figure 1. Word-of-mouth intention under different levels of interpersonal closeness (Experiment 1).
Figure 2. Motivations and degree of motivational conflict (Experiment 2).
| Experimental | Experimental1 | Experimental2 | Additional Experiment 1 | Experiment 3 | Additional Experiment 2 | Experiment 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample size | 143 | 155 | 180 | 126 | 120 | 298 |
| Age | ||||||
| Mage | 28.65 | 30.08 | 30.21 | 29.49 | 36.44 | 29.40 |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 53(37.1%) | 60(38.7%) | 68(37.8%) | 47(37.3%) | 41(34.2%) | 121(40.6%) |
| Female | 90(62.9%) | 95(61.3%) | 112(62.2%) | 79(62.7%) | 79(65.8%) | 177(59.4%) |
| Education level | ||||||
| High school or below | 5(3.5%) | 2(1.3%) | 7(3.9%) | 3(2.4%) | Sensitive information, not recorded. | 14(4.7%) |
| Associate degree | 9(6.3%) | 17(11.0%) | 20(11.1%) | 17(13.5%) | 32(10.7%) | |
| Bachelor's degree | 109(76.2%) | 113(72.9%) | 131(72.8%) | 83(65.9%) | 217(72.8%) | |
| Master's degree and above | 20(14.0%) | 23(14.8%) | 22(12.2%) | 23(18.3%) | 35(11.7%) | |
| Occupation | ||||||
| student | 35(24.5%) | 37(23.9%) | 38(21.1%) | 26(20.6%) | 23(19.2%) | 69(23.2%) |
| state-owned enterprise | 29(20.3%) | 33(21.3%) | 38(21.1%) | 23(18.3%) | 7(5.8%) | 41(13.8%) |
| public institution | 10(7.0%) | 13(8.4%) | 17(9.4%) | 13(10.3%) | 6(5.0%) | 30(10.1%) |
| civil servant | 6(4.2%) | 6(3.9%) | 5(2.8%) | 2(1.6%) | 10(8.3%) | 11(3.7%) |
| private enterprise | 60(42.0%) | 59(38.1%) | 70(38.9%) | 54(42.9%) | 32(26.7%) | 131(44.0%) |
| foreign-funded enterprise | 2(1.4%) | 7(4.5%) | 6(3.3%) | 6(4.8%) | 0(0.0%) | 12(4.0%) |
| other | 1(0.7%) | 0(0.0%) | 6(3.3%) | 2(1.6%) | 42(35.0%) | 4(1.3%) |
| Income level | ||||||
| Less than 3000 ￥ | 32(22.4%) | 30(19.4%) | 43(23.9%) | 20(15.9%) | Sensitive information, not recorded. | 67(22.5%) |
| 3000-5000 ￥ | 24(16.8%) | 29(18.7%) | 37(20.6%) | 33(26.2%) | 66(22.1%) | |
| 5000-10000 ￥ | 59(41.3%) | 65(41.9%) | 65(36.1%) | 44(34.9%) | 123(41.3%) | |
| More than 10000 ￥ | 28(19.6%) | 31(20.0%) | 35(19.4%) | 29(23.0%) | 42(14.1%) |
Appendix 1 Demographic Information
| Experimental | Experimental1 | Experimental2 | Additional Experiment 1 | Experiment 3 | Additional Experiment 2 | Experiment 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample size | 143 | 155 | 180 | 126 | 120 | 298 |
| Age | ||||||
| Mage | 28.65 | 30.08 | 30.21 | 29.49 | 36.44 | 29.40 |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 53(37.1%) | 60(38.7%) | 68(37.8%) | 47(37.3%) | 41(34.2%) | 121(40.6%) |
| Female | 90(62.9%) | 95(61.3%) | 112(62.2%) | 79(62.7%) | 79(65.8%) | 177(59.4%) |
| Education level | ||||||
| High school or below | 5(3.5%) | 2(1.3%) | 7(3.9%) | 3(2.4%) | Sensitive information, not recorded. | 14(4.7%) |
| Associate degree | 9(6.3%) | 17(11.0%) | 20(11.1%) | 17(13.5%) | 32(10.7%) | |
| Bachelor's degree | 109(76.2%) | 113(72.9%) | 131(72.8%) | 83(65.9%) | 217(72.8%) | |
| Master's degree and above | 20(14.0%) | 23(14.8%) | 22(12.2%) | 23(18.3%) | 35(11.7%) | |
| Occupation | ||||||
| student | 35(24.5%) | 37(23.9%) | 38(21.1%) | 26(20.6%) | 23(19.2%) | 69(23.2%) |
| state-owned enterprise | 29(20.3%) | 33(21.3%) | 38(21.1%) | 23(18.3%) | 7(5.8%) | 41(13.8%) |
| public institution | 10(7.0%) | 13(8.4%) | 17(9.4%) | 13(10.3%) | 6(5.0%) | 30(10.1%) |
| civil servant | 6(4.2%) | 6(3.9%) | 5(2.8%) | 2(1.6%) | 10(8.3%) | 11(3.7%) |
| private enterprise | 60(42.0%) | 59(38.1%) | 70(38.9%) | 54(42.9%) | 32(26.7%) | 131(44.0%) |
| foreign-funded enterprise | 2(1.4%) | 7(4.5%) | 6(3.3%) | 6(4.8%) | 0(0.0%) | 12(4.0%) |
| other | 1(0.7%) | 0(0.0%) | 6(3.3%) | 2(1.6%) | 42(35.0%) | 4(1.3%) |
| Income level | ||||||
| Less than 3000 ￥ | 32(22.4%) | 30(19.4%) | 43(23.9%) | 20(15.9%) | Sensitive information, not recorded. | 67(22.5%) |
| 3000-5000 ￥ | 24(16.8%) | 29(18.7%) | 37(20.6%) | 33(26.2%) | 66(22.1%) | |
| 5000-10000 ￥ | 59(41.3%) | 65(41.9%) | 65(36.1%) | 44(34.9%) | 123(41.3%) | |
| More than 10000 ￥ | 28(19.6%) | 31(20.0%) | 35(19.4%) | 29(23.0%) | 42(14.1%) |
| Experimental Name | Manipulation and Stimuli | Experimental Name |
|---|---|---|
| Experimental 1 | Manipulated variable (interpersonal closeness): low vs. medium vs. high WeChat groups of different relationships: ?Low closeness: community chat group composed of local strangers ?Medium closeness: colleague chat group composed of ordinary colleagues in the company ?High closeness: friend chat group composed of close friends | Imagine this: after a busy week, you plan to spend a pleasant weekend in a nearby beach resort. So, you made a reservation at a local hotel online in advance. Upon arrival at the hotel, you found that it was relatively close to the scenic area, had a nice exterior decoration, and the room was relatively spacious with basic facilities available. However, the WiFi signal in the room was intermittent, the sound insulation was not very good, there was no hot water while taking a shower, and you had to call the front desk three times before someone answered. Moreover, the attitude of the service staff was not very enthusiastic. In short, you were not satisfied with this stay experience. |
| Experimental2 | Manipulated variable (interpersonal closeness): low vs. medium vs. high WeChat groups of different relationships: ?Low closeness: community chat group composed of local strangers ?Medium closeness: friend chat group composed of ordinary friends ?High closeness: friend chat group composed of close friends | Recently, you purchased a popular mobile phone. This phone has a unique appearance design and is moderately priced. However, after using it, you found that the phone's response would become slow when multiple applications were opened simultaneously. Sometimes it even crashed. In addition, there were problems with low pixel density and poor fingerprint recognition. In short, you were not satisfied with the phone you purchased this time. |
| Additional Experimental1 | Manipulated variable (interpersonal closeness): low vs. medium vs. high WeChat groups of different relationships: ?Low closeness: community chat group composed of local strangers ?Medium closeness: friend chat group composed of ordinary friends ?High closeness: friend chat group composed of close friends | Imagine that you bought an electric car, but after using it, you found that the battery life was short. Therefore, when driving, you cannot drive too fast, and you cannot turn on the air conditioning too much. In addition, charging takes a long time. In short, you were not satisfied with the electric car you purchased this time. |
| Experimental3 | Manipulated variable (interpersonal intimacy): Low vs. Medium vs. High Offline scenarios: ?Low intimacy: After finishing a trip, you take a flight back home and meet a stranger in the airport lounge. To pass the time, you start chatting with each other. ?Medium intimacy: After finishing a trip, you take a flight back home and meet an acquaintance in the airport lounge. To pass the time, you start chatting with each other. ?High intimacy: After finishing a trip, you take a flight back home and meet a close friend in the airport lounge. To pass the time, you start chatting with each other. | Imagine this: After a busy work schedule, you planned a trip to a beautiful island and made an online reservation at a local hotel. Upon arrival, you found that the hotel was relatively close to the attractions, had a decent exterior and basic amenities, but the WiFi signal in the room was intermittent, sound insulation was poor, the water temperature for showers was inconsistent, breakfast was not abundant, and the food was not fresh. Overall, you were not satisfied with your stay at the hotel. |
| Additional Experimental2 | ?Low intimacy: After the trip, you take the flight back, you meet a stranger in the waiting room, and you chat to pass the time. ?Medium intimacy: After the trip, you take the flight back, and in the waiting room you meet an ordinary friend, and in order to pass the time, you two gossip. ?High intimacy: After the trip, you're on a flight back, and in the departure lounge you meet a close friend who is very close, and to pass the time, you gossip. | The busy work is finally over. You plan to visit a beautiful island, so you book a local hotel online in advance. After arriving at the hotel, you find that the hotel is relatively close to the scenic spots, the exterior decoration is good, and the necessary facilities are basically complete, but the WiFi signal in the room is intermittent, and the sound insulation effect is not very good. Not fresh either. All in all, you are not satisfied with your stay experience. |
| Experimental 4 | Manipulated variable: ① Interpersonal Intimacy: Low vs. Medium vs. High Offline scenarios: ?Low intimacy: After the trip, you take a train back home. You meet a stranger on the train and chat with them to pass the time. ?Medium intimacy: After the trip, you take a train back home. You meet an ordinary friend on the train and chat with them to pass the time. ?High intimacy: After the trip, you take a train back home. You meet a close friend on the train and chat with them to pass the time. ② Merchant responsibility: Low vs. High ?Low responsibility: The travel agency has planned three different travel routes for you and recommended the first one. After consideration, you did not accept the agency's suggestion and chose the third route on your own. ?High responsibility: The travel agency has planned three different travel routes for you and recommended the first one. After consideration, you accepted the agency's suggestion and chose the first route. | However, during the trip, you found that the tour route was not well planned, resulting in a lot of time being wasted on the way to the scenic spots. In addition, most of the attractions were ordinary, and the hygiene was not good. The scenic spots were full of vendors selling overpriced and bad-tasting items. Overall, you were not satisfied with this customized tour. |
Appendix 2 Stimulus Materials
| Experimental Name | Manipulation and Stimuli | Experimental Name |
|---|---|---|
| Experimental 1 | Manipulated variable (interpersonal closeness): low vs. medium vs. high WeChat groups of different relationships: ?Low closeness: community chat group composed of local strangers ?Medium closeness: colleague chat group composed of ordinary colleagues in the company ?High closeness: friend chat group composed of close friends | Imagine this: after a busy week, you plan to spend a pleasant weekend in a nearby beach resort. So, you made a reservation at a local hotel online in advance. Upon arrival at the hotel, you found that it was relatively close to the scenic area, had a nice exterior decoration, and the room was relatively spacious with basic facilities available. However, the WiFi signal in the room was intermittent, the sound insulation was not very good, there was no hot water while taking a shower, and you had to call the front desk three times before someone answered. Moreover, the attitude of the service staff was not very enthusiastic. In short, you were not satisfied with this stay experience. |
| Experimental2 | Manipulated variable (interpersonal closeness): low vs. medium vs. high WeChat groups of different relationships: ?Low closeness: community chat group composed of local strangers ?Medium closeness: friend chat group composed of ordinary friends ?High closeness: friend chat group composed of close friends | Recently, you purchased a popular mobile phone. This phone has a unique appearance design and is moderately priced. However, after using it, you found that the phone's response would become slow when multiple applications were opened simultaneously. Sometimes it even crashed. In addition, there were problems with low pixel density and poor fingerprint recognition. In short, you were not satisfied with the phone you purchased this time. |
| Additional Experimental1 | Manipulated variable (interpersonal closeness): low vs. medium vs. high WeChat groups of different relationships: ?Low closeness: community chat group composed of local strangers ?Medium closeness: friend chat group composed of ordinary friends ?High closeness: friend chat group composed of close friends | Imagine that you bought an electric car, but after using it, you found that the battery life was short. Therefore, when driving, you cannot drive too fast, and you cannot turn on the air conditioning too much. In addition, charging takes a long time. In short, you were not satisfied with the electric car you purchased this time. |
| Experimental3 | Manipulated variable (interpersonal intimacy): Low vs. Medium vs. High Offline scenarios: ?Low intimacy: After finishing a trip, you take a flight back home and meet a stranger in the airport lounge. To pass the time, you start chatting with each other. ?Medium intimacy: After finishing a trip, you take a flight back home and meet an acquaintance in the airport lounge. To pass the time, you start chatting with each other. ?High intimacy: After finishing a trip, you take a flight back home and meet a close friend in the airport lounge. To pass the time, you start chatting with each other. | Imagine this: After a busy work schedule, you planned a trip to a beautiful island and made an online reservation at a local hotel. Upon arrival, you found that the hotel was relatively close to the attractions, had a decent exterior and basic amenities, but the WiFi signal in the room was intermittent, sound insulation was poor, the water temperature for showers was inconsistent, breakfast was not abundant, and the food was not fresh. Overall, you were not satisfied with your stay at the hotel. |
| Additional Experimental2 | ?Low intimacy: After the trip, you take the flight back, you meet a stranger in the waiting room, and you chat to pass the time. ?Medium intimacy: After the trip, you take the flight back, and in the waiting room you meet an ordinary friend, and in order to pass the time, you two gossip. ?High intimacy: After the trip, you're on a flight back, and in the departure lounge you meet a close friend who is very close, and to pass the time, you gossip. | The busy work is finally over. You plan to visit a beautiful island, so you book a local hotel online in advance. After arriving at the hotel, you find that the hotel is relatively close to the scenic spots, the exterior decoration is good, and the necessary facilities are basically complete, but the WiFi signal in the room is intermittent, and the sound insulation effect is not very good. Not fresh either. All in all, you are not satisfied with your stay experience. |
| Experimental 4 | Manipulated variable: ① Interpersonal Intimacy: Low vs. Medium vs. High Offline scenarios: ?Low intimacy: After the trip, you take a train back home. You meet a stranger on the train and chat with them to pass the time. ?Medium intimacy: After the trip, you take a train back home. You meet an ordinary friend on the train and chat with them to pass the time. ?High intimacy: After the trip, you take a train back home. You meet a close friend on the train and chat with them to pass the time. ② Merchant responsibility: Low vs. High ?Low responsibility: The travel agency has planned three different travel routes for you and recommended the first one. After consideration, you did not accept the agency's suggestion and chose the third route on your own. ?High responsibility: The travel agency has planned three different travel routes for you and recommended the first one. After consideration, you accepted the agency's suggestion and chose the first route. | However, during the trip, you found that the tour route was not well planned, resulting in a lot of time being wasted on the way to the scenic spots. In addition, most of the attractions were ordinary, and the hygiene was not good. The scenic spots were full of vendors selling overpriced and bad-tasting items. Overall, you were not satisfied with this customized tour. |
| No related articles found! |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||
