一心多用的双刃剑效应：多任务对亲社会行为的影响

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.01800

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 移动互联网时代, 人们常常不可避免地处于多任务的工作状态。为此, 本研究聚焦于多任务这一情境要素, 探讨其与思维聚焦方式的交互作用对个体亲社会行为的影响。6个线上实验和1个线下实地实验的结果表明：当个体思维聚焦于过程时, 多任务(vs. 单任务)降低个体的自我效能感, 进而降低其亲社会行为; 当个体思维聚焦于结果时, 多任务(vs. 单任务)增加个体的自我效能感, 进而提升其亲社会行为。任务能否完成是一个重要的边界条件, 上述交互效应在工作任务可完成时存在, 当工作任务完不成时, 该不利结果直接降低个体的亲社会行为, 多任务与思维聚焦方式的交互作用消失。

关键词: 多任务, 思维聚焦方式, 自我效能感, 亲社会行为, 任务能否完成

Abstract: In the era of mobile internet, people inevitably find themselves frequently in a multitasking state and are likely to receive online invitations to participate in social projects, such as charity or environmental initiatives. This study examines the effect, mechanism, and boundary conditions of multitasking as a situational factor on the subsequent prosocial behaviors of individuals. This study proposes the following hypotheses: 1: The thinking foucus reverses the effect of multitasking on prosocial behavior. When individuals focus on processes, multitasking reduces their engagement in prosocial behaviors. When individuals focus on outcomes, multitasking increases their engagement in prosocial behaviors. 2: Self-efficacy plays a mediating role in the interaction between multitasking and thinking focus on prosocial behavior. 3: Task feasibility moderates the interaction between multitasking and thinking focus on prosocial behavior intentions. When tasks are feasible, the aforementioned interaction effect remains valid. However, when tasks become infeasible, adverse outcomes directly reduce individuals' intentions to engage in prosocial behavior, resulting in the loss of the interactive effect of multitasking and thinking focus on prosocial behavior.
This research conducted a series of experiments to validate its hypotheses. Study 1a (preregistered) and 1b manipulated independent variables by using the situational imagination and recall method. Study 1c applied simulated real-world tasks to manipulate multitasking to verify the main interaction effect of multitasking and thinking focus on prosocial behavior participation. Study 2 measured the intermediate variable to validate the full model of the mechanism underlying the above interaction effect. Studies 3a and 3b (both preregistered) once again confirmed the mediating role of self-efficacy by using a process-by-moderation approach. Study 4 tested the boundary conditions of the theoretical model: the moderating effect of task feasibility (feasible vs. infeasible).
Research results indicate that when individuals focus on processes, multitasking (vs. single-tasking) reduces their willingness to participate in prosocial behavior (Studies 1a, 1b, 1c, 2, 3b, and 4). However, when individuals focus on outcomes, multitasking (vs. single-tasking) actually increases their willingness to engage in prosocial behavior (Studies 1a, 1b, 1c, 2, 3a, and 4). Additionally, this study verified the mediating role of self-efficacy in the above interaction effect through two methods: measurement of mediation (Study 2) and process-by-moderation approach (Studies 3a and 3b). That is, when individuals focus on processes, multitasking lowers their self-efficacy, subsequently reducing their engagement in prosocial behaviors. On the other hand, when individuals focus on outcomes, multitasking enhances their self-efficacy, subsequently increasing their engagement in prosocial behaviors. This study also indicates that task feasibility is an important boundary condition. When tasks are feasible, the effects proposed in this work are valid. However, when tasks become infeasible, adverse outcomes directly reduce individuals' intentions to engage in prosocial behavior, and the interactive effect of thinking focus and multitasking on prosocial behavior disappears.
This study makes several theoretical contributions. First, this study, for the first time, demonstrates that multitasking, as a situational factor, influences individuals' subsequent prosocial behaviors. This work thereby expands the domain of research on multitasking to its effect on a domain-unrelated decision for the first time. This study also investigated the role of multiple moderating variables, such as thinking focus and task feasibility, effectively integrating seemingly disparate and contradictory findings in the field of multitasking. Second, this study further enriches the research on the effect of unrelated dynamic situational factors on prosocial behavior in the era of mobile internet. Third, this study expands the existing research related to thinking focus. The findings of this project can offer valuable guidance for designing activities that promote prosocial behavior among the public while considering the dynamics of multitasking states.

Key words: multitasking, thinking focus, self-efficacy, prosocial behavior, task feasibility

刘新燕, 伍海兰, 涂菊, 王璐. (2024). 一心多用的双刃剑效应：多任务对亲社会行为的影响. 心理学报, 56(12), 1800-1820.

LIU Xinyan, WU Hailan, TU Ju, WANG Lu. (2024). Double-edged sword effect of multitasking on prosocial behavior. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(12), 1800-1820.

参考文献

[1] Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
[2] Becker M. W., Alzahabi R., & Hopwood C. J. (2013). Media multitasking is associated with symptoms of depression and social anxiety. Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking, 16(2), 132-135.
[3] Caprara G. V., Alessandri G., Di Giunta L., Panerai L., & Eisenberg N. (2010). The contribution of agreeableness and self-efficacy beliefs to prosociality. European Journal of Personality, 24, 36-55.
[4] Chen G., Gully S. M., & Eden D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efcacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 62-83.
[5] Cian L., Longoni C., & Krishna A. (2020). Advertising a desired change: When process simulation fosters (vs. hinders) credibility and persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 57(3), 489-508.
[6] Escalas, J. E., & Luce, M. F. (2003). Process versus outcome thought focus and advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 246-254.
[7] Eysenck M. W.,& Keane, M. T. (Eds). (2015). Cognitive psychology: A student's handbook Psychology Press A student's handbook. Psychology Press.
[8] Fan Y., Jiang J., & Cui. W. (2019). The backfire effect of default amounts on donation behavior in online donation platform. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(4), 415-427.
[樊亚凤, 蒋晶, 崔稳权. (2019). 网络公益平台默认选项设置对个人捐赠意愿的影响及作用机制. 心理学报, 51(4), 415-427.]
[9] Faul F., Erdfelder E., Buchner A., & Lang A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160.
[10] Friedrich, J., & McGuire, A. (2010). Individual differences in reasoning style as a moderator of the identifiable victim effect. Social Influence, 5(3), 182-201.
[11] Gaspar, J. P., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2021). Confident and cunning: Negotiator self-efficacy promotes deception in negotiations. Journal of Business Ethics, 171(1), 139-155.
[12] Goenka, S., & Van Osselaer, S. M. J. (2019). Charities can increase the effectiveness of donation appeals by using a morally congruent positive emotion. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(4), 774-790.
[13] Goldsmith K., Roux C., & Wilson A. V. (2020). Can thoughts of having less ever promote prosocial preferences? The relationship between scarcity, construal level, and sustainable product adoption. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 5(1), 70-82.
[14] Guo X., Zheng H., Ruan D., Hu D., Wang Y., Wang Y., & Chen C. (2023). Associations between empathy and negative affect: Effect of emotion regulation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(6), 892-904.
[郭晓栋, 郑泓, 阮盾, 胡丁鼎, 王毅, 王艳郁, 陈楚侨. (2023). 认知和情感共情与负性情绪: 情绪调节的作用机制. 心理学报, 55(6), 892-904.]
[15] Han, J. J., & Broniarczyk, S. M. (2021). Multitasking as consumer compensatory control. Journal of Consumer Research, 48(3), 456-473.
[16] Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319-340.
[17] Jiang Z. X., Xu J., Gorlin M., & Dhar R. (2021). Beautiful and confident: How boosting self-perceived attractiveness reduces preference uncertainty in context-dependent choices. Journal of Marketing Research, 58(5), 908-924.
[18] Kapadia, C., & Melwani, S. (2021). More tasks, more ideas: The positive spillover effects of multitasking on subsequent creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(4), 542-559.
[19] Kiesel A., Steinhauser M., Wendt M., Falkenstein M., Jost K., Philipp A. M., & Koch I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—A review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849-874.
[20] Kim J. C., Wadhwa M., & Chattopadhyay A. (2019). When busy is less indulging: Impact of busy mindset on self- control behaviors. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(5), 933-952.
[21] Koch I., Poljac E., Müller H., & Kiesel A. (2018). Cognitive structure, flexibility, and plasticity in human multitasking—An integrative review of dual-task and task-switching research. Psychological Bulletin, 144(6), 557-583.
[22] Kong F., Xia Y., Liu Z., Wang M., & Li X. (2023). Media multitasking affects cognitive control: Evidences for scattered attention hypothesis. Journal of Psychological Science, 46(4), 865-872.
[孔繁昌, 夏宇娟, 刘诏君, 王美茹, 李晓瑶. (2023). 媒体多任务行为影响认知控制: 注意分散假说的证据.心理科学, 46(4), 865-872.]
[23] Li A., Sun H., Xiong G., Wang X., & Li B. (2016). The effect and cognitive mechanism of “time poverty” on intertemporal choice and proactive behavior. Advances in Psychological Science, 24(6), 874-884.
[李爱梅, 孙海龙, 熊冠星, 王笑天, 李斌. (2016). “时间贫穷”对跨期决策和前瞻行为的影响及其认知机制. 心理科学进展, 24(6), 874-884.]
[24] Lin T. T. C., Kononova A., & Chiang Y. H. (2020). Screen addiction and media multitasking among American and Taiwanese users. Journal of Computer Information System, 60(6), 583-592.
[25] Lu, M. Y., & Jen, W. (2016). Effects of product option framing and temporal distance on consumer choice: The moderating role of process versus outcome mental simulations. Psychology & Marketing, 33(10), 856-863.
[26] Madore K. P., Khazenzon A. M., Backes C. W., Jiang J. F., Uncapher M. R., Norcia A. M., & Wagner A. D. (2020). Memory failure predicted by attention lapsing and media multitasking. Nature, 587, 87.
[27] Mattarelli E., Bertolotti F., & Incerti V. (2015). The interplay between organizational polychronicity, multitasking behaviors and organizational identification: A mixed-methods study in knowledge intensive organizations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 79, 6-19.
[28] Nardini, G., & Lutz, R. J. (2018). How mental simulation evokes negative affective misforecasting of hedonic experiences. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 35(6), 633-643.
[29] Pan D., Liu Z., & Yang D. (2022). Self-control or indulgence? The impact of upward comparison on consumer behavior. Nankai Business Review, 25(1), 63-75.
[潘定, 刘子瑛, 杨德锋. (2022). 自控还是放纵? 上行比较对消费者行为的影响. 南开管理评论, 25(1), 63-75.]
[30] Pham, L. B., & Taylor, S. E. (1999). From thought to action: Effects of process-versus outcome-based mental simulations on performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(2), 250-260.
[31] Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891.
[32] Ran Y., Niu Y., & Chen S. (2021). “More” is less: Why multiple payment mechanism impairs individual donation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(4), 413-430.
[冉雅璇, 牛熠欣, 陈斯允. (2021). “多”反而少:元认知推断视角下支付渠道数量对个体捐赠的影响. 心理学报, 53(4), 413-430.]
[33] Rosenberg, M. (Ed). (1965). The measurement of self-esteem, society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press.
[34] Różańska, A., & Gruszka, A. (2020). Current research trends in multitasking: A bibliometric mapping approach. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 32(3), 278-286.
[35] Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). General Self-Efficacy Scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnson (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user's portfolio: Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35-37). Windsor: NFER-Nelson.
[36] Sharma, E., & Morwitz, V. G. (2016). Saving the masses: The impact of perceived efficacy on charitable giving to single vs. multiple beneficiaries. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 135(77), 45-54.
[37] Silvia B., Paharia N., & Keinan A. (2017). Conspicuous consumption of time: When busyness and lack of leisure time become a status symbol. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1), 118-138.
[38] Small, D. A., & Cryder, C. (2016). Prosocial consumer behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 10(8), 107-111.
[39] Srna S., Schrift R. Y., & Zauberman G. (2018). The illusion of multitasking and its positive effect on performance. Psychological Science, 29(12), 1942-1955.
[40] Su L., Jiang Y., Chen Z., & DeWall C. N. (2017). Social exclusion and consumer switching behavior: A control restoration mechanism. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1), 99-117.
[41] Sun Q., Huang J., Yu X., & Gao Q. (2023). Give a man a fish or teach him to fish? Differences in donor behavior between high and low social classes. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(10), 1677-1699.
[孙庆洲, 黄靖茹, 虞晓芬, 高倾德. (2023). 授人以鱼还是授人以渔? 高、低社会阶层的捐助行为差异. 心理学报, 55(10), 1677-1699.]
[42] Taylor, S. E., & Schneider, S. K. (1989). Coping and the simulation of events. Social Cognition, 7(2), 174-194.
[43] Thoits, P. A., & Hewitt, L. N. (2001). Volunteer work and well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42(4), 115-131.
[44] Thompson D., Hamilton R., & Petrova P. (2009). When mental simulation hinders behavior: The effects of process- oriented thinking on decision difficulty and performance. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(4), 562-574.
[45] Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039-1061.
[46] van der Schuur, W. A., Baumgartner S. E., Sumter S. R., & Valkenburg P. M. (2015). The consequences of media multitasking for youth: A review. Computers In Human Behavior, 53, 204-215.
[47] Wang, C., & Huang, Y. (2018). “I want to know the answer! Give me fish 'n' chips!”: The impact of curiosity on indulgent choice. Journal of consumer research, 44(5), 1052-1067.
[48] Wang P. X., Wang Y. J., & Jiang Y. W. (2023). Gift or donation? Increase the effectiveness of charitable solicitation through framing charitable giving as a gift. Journal of Marketing, 87(1), 133-147.
[49] Weiner B., Heckhausen H., & Meyer W. U. (1972). Causal ascriptions and achievement behavior: A conceptual analysis of effort and reanalysis of locus of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21(2), 239-248.
[50] Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 407-415.
[51] Wottrich V. M., van Reijmersdal E. A., & Smit E. G. (2018). The privacy trade-off for mobile app downloads: The roles of app value, intrusiveness, and privacy concerns. Decision Support Systems, 106, 44-52.
[52] Xie H., Minton E. A., & Kahle L. R. (2016). Cake or fruit? Influencing healthy food choice through the interaction of automatic and instructed mental simulation. Marketing Letters, 27(4), 627-644.
[53] Xu L. D., Mehta R., & Dahl D. W. (2022). Leveraging creativity in charity marketing: The impact of engaging in creative activities on subsequent donation behavior. Journal of Marketing, 86(5), 79-94.
[54] Zeng F., Jin Q., Chi Y., & Zhou H. (2023). Process or outcome? The impact of psychological simulation on perceived product innovation. Nankai Business Review, 26(2), 154-165.
[曾伏娥, 金其然, 池韵佳, 周海波. (2023). 过程还是结果? 心理模拟对感知产品创新的影响研究. 南开管理评论, 26(2), 154-165.]
[55] Zhao M., Hoeffler S., & Zauberman G. (2007). Mental simulation and preference consistency over time: The role of process-versus outcome-focused thoughts. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 379-388.
[56] Zhao M., Hoeffler S., & Zauberman G. (2011). Mental simulation and product evaluation: The affective and cognitive dimensions of process versus outcome simulation. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(5), 827-839.
[57] Zhang K. J., Cai F. Y., & Shi Z. Y. (2021). Do promotions make consumers more generous? The impact of price promotions on consumers’ donation behavior. Journal of Marketing, 85(3), 240-255.
[58] Zheng L., Zhu Y., & Jiang R. (2019). The mediating role of moral elevation in cause-related marketing: A moral psychological perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(2), 439-454.
[59] Zheng X., Han R., Liu R., & Xu J. (2024). The interactive effect of processing fluency and information credibility on donation in the digital philanthropy context. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(2), 226-238.
[郑晓莹, 韩润蕾, 刘汝晗, 徐菁. (2024). 信息加工流畅性与真实性对互联网公益捐助的影响. 心理学报, 56(2), 226-238.]
[60] Zhou X., Zhang J., Bai B., Zhai H., Cui Y., & Zu C. (2024). Half-hearted is better than one-heart: Media multitasking promotes creativity in people with low working memory capacity. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(8), 1031-1046.
[周详, 张婧婧, 白博仁, 翟宏堃, 崔虞馨, 祖冲. (2024). “三心二意”胜过“一心一意”: 媒体多任务提升低工作记忆容量者创造力. 心理学报, 56(8), 1031-1046.]