低建构的买卖方更易达成二手交易：买卖方的聚焦分离效应

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.01141

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

二手物品常瑜瑕并存, 买卖方的建构水平是否影响其对瑜瑕属性的关注进而影响交易出价?本研究提出并证明了买卖方的聚焦分离效应。通过对二手交易的策略回溯(研究1)、想法编码(研究2)、属性再认(研究3)和属性聚焦(研究4), 发现低建构的买卖方更易达成二手交易, 其原因在于降低建构表征分离了买卖方的关注点, 使得卖方提高了对交易物品消极属性的关注、买方提高了对交易物品积极属性的关注, 从而缩小了双方的出价差值。此外, 建构水平诱发的出价变动效应在卖方身上比在买方身上更明显。这拓展了建构水平理论, 揭示了建构表征影响交易出价的认知机制, 也为二手交易中交易对象的筛选、议价策略的使用、二手平台的管理等提供了认知策略。

关键词: 二手交易, 交易角色, 建构水平, 属性聚焦, 出价差值

Abstract:

Second-hand goods are characterized by a complex interplay of advantages and disadvantages. This study explored how the construal level influences the focus that sellers and buyers devote to these attributes, ultimately impacting the pricing of transactions.

We proposed and proved a focus-separation effect between sellers and buyers: Through a series of empirical investigations encompassing strategy backtracking (Study 1), attribute coding (Study 2), attribute recognition (Study 3), and attribute focus (Study 4) within the realm of second-hand transactions, we revealed that sellers and buyers with lower construal levels were more likely to reach second-hand transactions. Lowering one’s construal level initiates a divergence in the attentional priorities-Sellers became more attuned to the negative attributes of the traded goods, whereas buyers shifted their attention toward positive attributes, leading to the smaller pricing difference. Furthermore, we observed that the impact of construal level on pricing is notably more pronounced among sellers than buyers.

In Study 1, we backtracked real estate agent’s negotiation strategies on the basis of construal level and actual second-hand house transactions. It was found that the lower construal level strategy the real estate agents adopted, the more extensive the seller’s pricing reduction range and the buyer’s pricing increase range. The pricing change effect induced by the construal level was slightly stronger among sellers than buyers. In Study 2, we encoded sellers’ and buyers’ thoughts about trading items based on the dimensions of construal level and attribute focus. We observed that sellers had higher construal levels than buyers and paid more attention to the positive attributes of goods. The relationship between construal level and attribute focus was moderated by the trading role (seller vs. buyer), supporting the focus-separation effect. In Study 3, we measured sellers’ and buyers’ construal levels by Behavior Identification Form and provided four positive and negative product attributes. After the transaction, we tested their recognition accuracy of the two types of attributes, which reflects their attribute’s focus. It was shown that higher construal level separated the attribute concerns of sellers and buyers, making sellers pay more attention to the positive attributes and making buyers pay more attention to the negative attributes of goods, thus increasing the pricing difference between the two sides. In Study 4, we manipulated the focus of sellers and buyers on positive and negative attributes of goods by comparing the attributes of traded goods with those of other goods. It revealed that the effect of construal level on seller-buyer pricing changed with the manipulation of attribute focus: making sellers with higher construal levels pay more attention to negative attributes and making buyers with higher construal levels pay more attention to positive attributes can also reduce seller-buyer pricing difference.

These findings extend the construal level theory, reveal the cognitive mechanism underlying the effect of construal level on trading pricing, and provide cognitive negotiation strategies for second-hand transactions.

Key words: second-hand trading, construal level, attribute focus, trading role, pricing difference

中图分类号:

B849: F713.55

孙庆洲, 高倾德, 吴宝, 黄靖茹, 郭浩智, 江程铭. (2024). 低建构的买卖方更易达成二手交易：买卖方的聚焦分离效应. 心理学报, 56(8), 1141-1156.

SUN Qingzhou, GAO Qingde, WU Bao, HUANG Jingru, GUO Haozhi, JIANG Chengming. (2024). Sellers and buyers with lower construal levels are more likely to reach second-hand transactions: The focus-separation effect between sellers and buyers. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(8), 1141-1156.

图/表 11

参考文献 43

[1]	Adler, S., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). Mapping the jungle: A bibliometric analysis of research into construal level theory. Psychology and Marketing, 38(9), 1367-1383.
[2]	Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488-500.
[3]	Ashby, N. J. S., Dickert, S., & Glöckner, A. (2012). Focusing on what you own: Biased information uptake due to ownership. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(3), 254-267.
[4]	Beijing Sunshine Consumption Big Data Research Institute. (2021). 2020 second-hand platform consumer public opinion data analysis. 2021-03-03 derive from http://www.bjxf315.com/hy/wg/202103/t20210303_1666.html..
	[北京阳光消费大数据研究院. (2021). 2020年二手平台消费舆情数据分析. 2021-03-03 取自http://www.bjxf315.com/hy/wg/202103/t20210303_1666.html ]
[5]	Bowen, J. D. (2021). Psychological distance and the pandemic: Insights from construal level theory and relationship science. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 15(5), e12594.
[6]	Bullard, O., Penner, S., & Main, K. J. (2019). Can implicit theory influence construal level? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29(4), 622-670.
[7]	Carmon, Z., & Ariely, D. (2000). Focusing on the forgone: How value can appear so different to buyers and sellers. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 360-370.
[8]	Carney, K., Kremer, M., Lin, X., & Rao, G. (2022). The endowment effect and collateralized loans. National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Papers 30073.
[9]	Dufner, M., Gebauer, J. E., Sedikides, C., & Denissen, J. J. (2019). Self-enhancement and psychological adjustment: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(1), 48-72. doi: 10.1177/1088868318756467 pmid: 29534642
[10]	Electronic Commerce Research Center of Network Economic. (2022). 2022 (first half) China second-hand e-commerce market Data Report. 2022-08-22 derive from http://www.100ec.cn/detail--6616820..
	[网经社电子商务研究中心. (2022). 2022年(上)中国二手电商市场数据报告. 2022-08-22 取自http://www.100ec.cn/detail--6616820]
[11]	Eyal, T., Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Walther, E. (2004). The pros and cons of temporally near and distant action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(6), 781-795. pmid: 15149255
[12]	Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods*, 39(2), 175-191. doi: 10.3758/bf03193146 pmid: 17695343
[13]	Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140.
[14]	Fox, J. R., Park, B., & Lang, A. (2007). When available resources become negative resources: The effects of cognitive overload on memory sensitivity and criterion bias. Communication Research, 34(3), 277-296.
[15]	Garcia, S. M., Reese, Z. A., & Tor, A. (2020). Social comparison before, during, and after the competition. Oxford University Press.
[16]	Horowitz, J. K., & McConnell, K. E. (2002). A review of WTA/WTP studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44(3), 426-447.
[17]	Irmak, C., Wakslak, C. J., & Trope, Y. (2013). Selling the forest, buying the trees: The effect of construal level on seller-buyer price discrepancy. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 284-297.
[18]	Johnson, E. J., Häubl, G., & Keinan, A. (2007). Aspects of endowment: A query theory of value construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33( 3), 461-474.
[19]	Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325-1348.
[20]	Keller, P. A., Lee, A. Y., & Sternthal, B. (2004). Fitting construal to judgment: The compatibility effect of regulatory focus and level of construal. Unpublished Working Paper, Evanston, IL: Kellogg School of Management Northwestern University.
[21]	Kim, H., Lee, K., & Hong, Y. Y. (2012). Claiming the validity of negative in-group stereotypes when foreseeing a challenge: A self-handicapping account. Self and Identity, 11(3), 285-303.
[22]	Knetsch, J. L. (1989). The endowment effect and evidence of nonreversible indifference curves. The American Economic Review, 79(5), 1277-1284.
[23]	Knetsch, J. L., & Sinden, J. A. (1984). Willingness to pay and compensation demanded: Experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity in measures of value. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 99(3), 507-521.
[24]	Krüger, T., Fiedler, K., Koch, A. S., & Alves, H. (2014). Response category width as a psychophysical manifestation of construal level and distance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(4), 501-512. doi: 10.1177/0146167213517009 pmid: 24351751
[25]	Lu, J., & Shang, X. (2018). Making decisions for others: Multi-dimensional psychological mechanisms and decision feelings. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(9), 1545-1552. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.0545
	[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.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.0545
[26]	Morewedge, C. K., & Giblin, C. E. (2015). Explanations of the endowment effect: An integrative review. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(6), 339-348. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.04.004 pmid: 25939336
[27]	Nayakankuppam, D., & Mishra, H. (2005). The endowment effect: Rose-Tinted and Dark-Tinted glasses. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 390-395.
[28]	Pachur, T., & Scheibehenne, B. (2012). Constructing preference from experience: The endowment effect reflected in external information search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38( 4), 1108-1116.
[29]	Rim, S., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Shapira, O. (2013). The highs and lows of mental representation:A construal level perspective on the structure of knowledge. In DE. Carlston (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of social cognition (pp. 194-219). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
[30]	Saqib, N. U., Frohlich, N., & Bruning, E. (2010). The influence of involvement on the endowment effect: The moveable value function. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(3), 355-368.
[31]	Scarpi, D. (2021). A construal-level approach to hedonic and utilitarian shopping orientation. Marketing Letters, 32(2), 261-271.
[32]	Steinbach, A. L., Gamache, D., & Johnson, R. E. (2019). Don’t get it misconstrued: Executive construal-level shifts and flexibility in the upper echelons. Academy of Management Review, 44(4), 871-895.
[33]	Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463. doi: 10.1037/a0018963 pmid: 20438233
[34]	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 pmid: 21822366
[35]	Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 660-671.
[36]	Weaver, R., & Frederick, S. (2012). A reference price theory of the endowment effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(5), 696-707.
[37]	Wilcox, K., Roggeveen, A. L., & Grewal, D. (2011). Shall I tell you now or later? Assimilation and contrast in the evaluation of experiential products. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(4), 763-773.
[38]	Williams, L. E., Stein, R., & Galguera, L. (2014). The distinct affective consequences of psychological distance and construal level. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6), 1123-1138.
[39]	Yan, D., & Sengupta, J. (2011). Effects of construal level on the price-quality relationship. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 376-389.
[40]	Yan, J., Yang, Y., & Xia, F. (2020). Subjective land ownership and the endowment effect in land markets: A case study of the farmland ‘three rights separation’ reform in China. Land Use Policy, 101, 105137.
[41]	Zavolokina, L., Schlegel, M., & Schwabe, G. (2021). How can we reduce information asymmetries and enhance trust in ‘The Market for Lemons’?. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 19(3), 883-908.
[42]	Zell, E., Strickhouser, J. E., Sedikides, C., & Alicke, M. D. (2020). The better-than-average effect in comparative self-evaluation: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(2), 118-149. doi: 10.1037/bul0000218 pmid: 31789535
[43]	Zhao, Y., Chen, R., Yabe, M., Han, B., & Liu, P. (2021). I am better than others: Waste management policies and self-enhancement bias. Sustainability, 13(23), 13257.

变量	卖方降价指数		买方升价指数		最终成交情况
变量	第1层 β (SE)	第2层 β (SE)	第1层 β (SE)	第2层 β (SE)	第1层 B (SE)	第2层 B (SE)	第3层 B (SE)
对卖方的建构水平策略		−0.25(0.06)^***		/		−0.22(0.16)	−0.28(0.15)
对买方的建构水平策略		/		−0.13(0.06)^*		−0.17(0.16)	−0.18(0.15)
对卖方×买方的建构水平策略		/		/			−0.24(0.13)
年龄	0.10(0.07)	0.09(0.06)	0.01(0.07)	0.01(0.07)	−0.30(0.15)^*	−0.32(0.16)^*	−0.33(0.16)^*
性别	0.01(0.06)	0.02(0.06)	−0.03(0.06)	−0.01(0.06)	0.18(0.14)	0.24(0.15)	0.24(0.15)
工作年限	−0.11(0.07)	−0.09(0.06)	−0.03(0.07)	−0.03(0.07)	−0.03(0.14)	−0.02(0.15)	−0.01(0.15)
ΔR²	0.01	0.06^***	0.00	0.02^*	0.02	0.02	0.01
R²	0.01	0.07^***	0.00	0.02^*	0.02	0.04	0.05

变量	卖方降价指数		买方升价指数		最终成交情况
变量	第1层 β (SE)	第2层 β (SE)	第1层 β (SE)	第2层 β (SE)	第1层 B (SE)	第2层 B (SE)	第3层 B (SE)
对卖方的建构水平策略		−0.25(0.06)^***		/		−0.22(0.16)	−0.28(0.15)
对买方的建构水平策略		/		−0.13(0.06)^*		−0.17(0.16)	−0.18(0.15)
对卖方×买方的建构水平策略		/		/			−0.24(0.13)
年龄	0.10(0.07)	0.09(0.06)	0.01(0.07)	0.01(0.07)	−0.30(0.15)^*	−0.32(0.16)^*	−0.33(0.16)^*
性别	0.01(0.06)	0.02(0.06)	−0.03(0.06)	−0.01(0.06)	0.18(0.14)	0.24(0.15)	0.24(0.15)
工作年限	−0.11(0.07)	−0.09(0.06)	−0.03(0.07)	−0.03(0.07)	−0.03(0.14)	−0.02(0.15)	−0.01(0.15)
ΔR²	0.01	0.06^***	0.00	0.02^*	0.02	0.02	0.01
R²	0.01	0.07^***	0.00	0.02^*	0.02	0.04	0.05

变量	物品出价			属性聚焦
变量	第1层 β(SE)	第2层 β(SE)	第3层 β(SE)	第1层 β(SE)	第2层 β(SE)	第3层 β(SE)
建构水平		0.02(0.05)	−0.12(0.06)^*		0.01(0.05)	−0.22(0.06)^***
交易角色		0.31(0.05)^***	−0.18(0.12)		0.40(0.05)^***	−0.37(0.11)^**
交易角色×建构水平			0.60(0.14)^***			0.94(0.13)^***
月二手交易次数	0.07(0.05)	0.05(0.05)	0.04(0.05)	0.08(0.05)	0.06(0.05)	0.05(0.05)
电子阅读器的拥有情况	0.03(0.05)	0.01(0.05)	−0.01(0.05)	0.04(0.05)	0.02(0.05)	−0.03(0.04)
交易意愿	0.21(0.05)^***	0.19(0.05)^***	0.18(0.05)^***	0.18(0.05)^**	0.16(0.05)^**	0.14(0.05)^**
平均月消费	0.10(0.05)	0.12(0.05)^*	0.13(0.05)^*	0.11(0.05)^*	0.13(0.05)^**	0.14(0.05)^**
年龄	−0.10(0.05)	−0.11(0.05)^*	−0.09(0.05)	−0.04(0.05)	−0.05(0.05)	−0.02(0.05)
性别	0.03(0.05)	0.01(0.05)	−0.01(0.05)	0.08(0.05)	0.06(0.05)	0.04(0.05)
ΔR²	0.08^***	0.10^***	0.04^***	0.08^***	0.16^***	0.10^***
R²	0.08^***	0.18^***	0.22^***	0.08^***	0.24^***	0.34^***

变量	物品出价			属性聚焦
变量	第1层 β(SE)	第2层 β(SE)	第3层 β(SE)	第1层 β(SE)	第2层 β(SE)	第3层 β(SE)
建构水平		0.02(0.05)	−0.12(0.06)^*		0.01(0.05)	−0.22(0.06)^***
交易角色		0.31(0.05)^***	−0.18(0.12)		0.40(0.05)^***	−0.37(0.11)^**
交易角色×建构水平			0.60(0.14)^***			0.94(0.13)^***
月二手交易次数	0.07(0.05)	0.05(0.05)	0.04(0.05)	0.08(0.05)	0.06(0.05)	0.05(0.05)
电子阅读器的拥有情况	0.03(0.05)	0.01(0.05)	−0.01(0.05)	0.04(0.05)	0.02(0.05)	−0.03(0.04)
交易意愿	0.21(0.05)^***	0.19(0.05)^***	0.18(0.05)^***	0.18(0.05)^**	0.16(0.05)^**	0.14(0.05)^**
平均月消费	0.10(0.05)	0.12(0.05)^*	0.13(0.05)^*	0.11(0.05)^*	0.13(0.05)^**	0.14(0.05)^**
年龄	−0.10(0.05)	−0.11(0.05)^*	−0.09(0.05)	−0.04(0.05)	−0.05(0.05)	−0.02(0.05)
性别	0.03(0.05)	0.01(0.05)	−0.01(0.05)	0.08(0.05)	0.06(0.05)	0.04(0.05)
ΔR²	0.08^***	0.10^***	0.04^***	0.08^***	0.16^***	0.10^***
R²	0.08^***	0.18^***	0.22^***	0.08^***	0.24^***	0.34^***

变量	物品出价			积极属性聚焦(积极属性再认正确率)			消极属性聚焦(消极属性再认正确率)
变量	第1层 β(SE)	第2层 β(SE)	第3层 β(SE)	第1层 β(SE)	第2层 β(SE)	第3层 β(SE)	第1层 β(SE)	第2层 β(SE)	第3层 β(SE)
建构水平		0.13(0.05)^**	−0.36(0.06)^***		0.16(0.05)^***	−0.35(0.06)^***		−0.14(0.05)^**	0.34(0.06)^***
交易角色		0.23(0.05)^***	−1.03(0.12)^***		0.24(0.04)^***	−1.08(0.12)^***		−0.17(0.05)^***	1.08(0.13)^***
交易角色× 建构水平			1.36(0.13)^***			1.43(0.12)^***			−1.34(0.13)^***
月二手交易次数	−0.02(0.05)	−0.03(0.05)	−0.03(0.04)	−0.02(0.05)	−0.02(0.05)	−0.37(0.04)	−0.02(0.05)	−0.02(0.05)	−0.02(0.04)
扫拖机器人的拥有情况	0.06(0.05)	0.05(0.05)	0.04(0.04)	0.05(0.05)	0.02(0.05)	0.70(0.04)	−0.02(0.05)	0.01(0.05)	−0.01(0.04)
交易意愿	0.01(0.05)	0.02(0.05)	0.05(0.04)	−0.06(0.05)	−0.06(0.05)	−0.02(0.04)	−0.04(0.05)	−0.04(0.05)	−0.07(0.04)
月消费	0.05(0.05)	0.03(0.05)	0.03(0.04)	0.08(0.05)	0.06(0.05)	0.05(0.04)	0.01(0.05)	0.02(0.05)	0.03(0.04)
年龄	−0.07(0.05)	−0.06(0.05)^*	−0.03(0.04)	−0.12(0.05)^**	−0.11(0.04)^*	−0.08(0.04)^*	0.07(0.05)	0.06(0.05)	0.04(0.04)
性别	0.02(0.05)	0.02(0.05)	0.02(0.04)	−0.02(0.05)	−0.01(0.04)	−0.02(0.04)	−0.02(0.05)	−0.02(0.05)	−0.02(0.04)
ΔR²	0.01	0.06^***	0.18^***	0.03	0.07^***	0.20^***	0.01	0.04^***	0.18^***
R²	0.01	0.07^***	0.25^***	0.03	0.10^***	0.30^***	0.01	0.05^***	0.22^***