心理学报 ›› 2024, Vol. 56 ›› Issue (12): 1800-1820.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.01800 cstr: 32110.14.2024.01800
收稿日期:
2023-10-09
发布日期:
2024-11-04
出版日期:
2024-12-25
通讯作者:
王璐, E-mail: luwang@zuel.edu.cn基金资助:
LIU Xinyan1,2, WU Hailan1, TU Ju1, WANG Lu1,2()
Received:
2023-10-09
Online:
2024-11-04
Published:
2024-12-25
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。
中图分类号:
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.
任务能否完成 | 思维聚焦方式 | 多任务 | 自我效能感 | 留守儿童学习包捐赠参与意向 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | p | η2 | M | SD | p | η2 | |||
可完成 | 过程 | 单任务 | 5.52 | 0.69 | <0.001*** | 0.016 | 5.40 | 1.03 | 0.021* | 0.007 |
多任务 | 5.00 | 1.01 | 5.04 | 0.97 | ||||||
结果 | 单任务 | 5.37 | 0.67 | 0.003** | 0.011 | 5.26 | 0.80 | <0.001*** | 0.026 | |
多任务 | 5.79 | 0.69 | 6.00 | 0.70 | ||||||
完不成 | 过程 | 单任务 | 4.81 | 1.26 | 0.610 | 0.000 | 5.00 | 1.30 | 0.903 | 0.000 |
多任务 | 4.88 | 1.06 | 4.98 | 1.34 | ||||||
结果 | 单任务 | 4.87 | 1.32 | 0.609 | 0.000 | 5.04 | 1.33 | 0.899 | 0.000 | |
多任务 | 4.80 | 1.10 | 5.02 | 1.33 |
表1 不同实验条件下的自我效能感及留守儿童学习包捐赠参与意向(N = 820)
任务能否完成 | 思维聚焦方式 | 多任务 | 自我效能感 | 留守儿童学习包捐赠参与意向 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | p | η2 | M | SD | p | η2 | |||
可完成 | 过程 | 单任务 | 5.52 | 0.69 | <0.001*** | 0.016 | 5.40 | 1.03 | 0.021* | 0.007 |
多任务 | 5.00 | 1.01 | 5.04 | 0.97 | ||||||
结果 | 单任务 | 5.37 | 0.67 | 0.003** | 0.011 | 5.26 | 0.80 | <0.001*** | 0.026 | |
多任务 | 5.79 | 0.69 | 6.00 | 0.70 | ||||||
完不成 | 过程 | 单任务 | 4.81 | 1.26 | 0.610 | 0.000 | 5.00 | 1.30 | 0.903 | 0.000 |
多任务 | 4.88 | 1.06 | 4.98 | 1.34 | ||||||
结果 | 单任务 | 4.87 | 1.32 | 0.609 | 0.000 | 5.04 | 1.33 | 0.899 | 0.000 | |
多任务 | 4.80 | 1.10 | 5.02 | 1.33 |
[1] |
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
doi: 10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191 pmid: 847061 |
[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. |
[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.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00415 |
[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.]
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00415 |
|
[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.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00892 |
[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.]
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00892 |
|
[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.
pmid: 3615707 |
[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.]
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2016.00874 |
|
[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.
doi: 10.3758/brm.40.3.879 pmid: 18697684 |
[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.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00413 |
[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.]
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00413 |
|
[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.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01677 |
[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.]
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01677 |
|
[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.
pmid: 5010406 |
[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.
pmid: 2926637 |
[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.
doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3614-3 |
[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.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00226 |
[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.]
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00226 |
|
[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.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.01031 |
[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.]
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.01031 |
[1] | 蒯玲, 卫海英, 姚琦, 肖婷文, 谢升成. 时间标志对炫耀性亲社会行为意愿的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2025, 57(4): 526-543. |
[2] | 李卉, 刘思懿, 庞怡. 社交机器人对3~5岁儿童分享行为的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2025, 57(4): 573-583. |
[3] | 李曦, 纪林芹, 迟晓慧, 王舒冉, 张文新, 曹衍淼. 多巴胺系统基因调节青少年同伴拒绝与亲社会行为关系: 平行潜增长模型[J]. 心理学报, 2025, 57(4): 584-598. |
[4] | 聂衍刚, 陈沛, 王林欣, 喻承甫, 利振华. 父母情感温暖、自我控制与青少年亲社会行为的关系: 多基因的调节作用及父母差异[J]. 心理学报, 2025, 57(4): 599-613. |
[5] | 韩宪国, 金国敏, 李丹, 刘世宏, 吴琴, 刘俊升, 陈欣银. 父母温暖与儿童晚期亲社会行为的关系: 集体取向的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2025, 57(4): 614-630. |
[6] | 林荣茂, 余巧华, 胡添祥, 张九妹, 叶玉珊, 连榕. 敬畏感与亲社会行为关系的三水平和结构方程模型元分析[J]. 心理学报, 2025, 57(4): 631-651. |
[7] | 孙瑾, 杨静舒. 互惠利他的先行优势:品牌的互惠角色影响消费者亲社会行为[J]. 心理学报, 2025, 57(2): 315-330. |
[8] | 王天鸿, 金珊, 程子鹏, 娄宇, 谢晓非. 利他炫耀中的预测偏差:助人者低估来自旁观者的社会评价[J]. 心理学报, 2024, 56(9): 1210-1224. |
[9] | 王婧嫣, 张洪. 直觉还是推理?亲社会行为的决策模式与人性感知[J]. 心理学报, 2024, 56(9): 1225-1238. |
[10] | 石荣, 刘昌, 唐慧琳, 郝俊懿, 沈汪兵. 自发的善行:加工模式和情境紧急性影响亲社会行为[J]. 心理学报, 2024, 56(9): 1239-1251. |
[11] | 林靓, 徐博雅, 杨莹, 张庆鹏, 寇彧. 青少年亲社会行为的网络分析及核心维度[J]. 心理学报, 2024, 56(9): 1252-1265. |
[12] | 周详, 张婧婧, 白博仁, 翟宏堃, 崔虞馨, 祖冲. “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[J]. 心理学报, 2024, 56(8): 1031-1046. |
[13] | 赵纤, 胡义秋, 黎志华. 脱贫家庭青少年社会流动信念与亲社会行为的纵向发展关系:城乡差异的调节作用[J]. 心理学报, 2024, 56(11): 1499-1511. |
[14] | 张玮玮, 陈逸群, 朱莉琪. “近朱者赤”:同伴捐赠决策信息对青少年亲社会行为的影响及公正世界信念的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2023, 55(9): 1453-1464. |
[15] | 刘倩文, 王振宏. 亲子关系、感觉加工敏感性与COMT Val158Met多态性对学前儿童亲社会行为的交互影响[J]. 心理学报, 2023, 55(5): 711-725. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||