时间标志对炫耀性亲社会行为意愿的影响

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.0526

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

个体参与炫耀性亲社会行为的意愿会受到环境因素的影响。基于自我意识理论和高成本代价信号理论, 本文探索了时间标志对炫耀性亲社会行为意愿的影响。通过6个实验, 结果证实：在一段时间的开始(vs. 结束), 个体更倾向于从事炫耀性亲社会行为(实验1a、实验1b和实验1c)。其解释机制在于开端时间标志会激发个体的状态性公我意识(实验2a和实验2b)。进一步分析发现, 自我监控在上述影响中发挥调节作用, 对于低自我监控者, 时间标志的启动难以有效地影响参与者的炫耀性亲社会行为意愿(实验3)。本文拓展了时间标志与炫耀性亲社会行为的相关研究, 同时为慈善组织或企业在关键时间节点策划公益营销活动提供实践指导。

关键词: 时间标志, 炫耀性亲社会行为, 状态性公我意识, 自我监控

Abstract:

Conspicuous prosocial behavior refers to prosocial behavior that expresses a positive self-image to others through public display. Previous studies have focused on the impact of individual psychological factors on conspicuous prosocial behavior. However, individuals’ participation in conspicuous prosocial behaviors changes under the influence of contextual factors. Based on self-awareness theory and costly signaling theory, this study explores the mechanism and boundary condition under which the situational factor of temporal landmarks affects the willingness to engage in conspicuous prosocial behavior.

Six experiments were conducted to test this study’s hypotheses. Experiments 1a, 1b, and 1c explored the effects of temporal landmarks on the willingness to engage in conspicuous prosocial behavior. Experiment 1a (N = 140, 84 females) employed a 3 (temporal landmarks: start vs. end vs. control, between groups) × 2 (recycling sign: yes vs. no, within groups) mixed experimental design wherein participants were randomly assigned to the start group (6:00~9:00), end group (19:00~22:00), and control group (rest of the day). Experiment 1b (N = 198, 123 females) employed a 2 (temporal landmarks: start vs. end) × 2 (conspicuous: public vs. anonymous) between-subjects design to validate the effect of the start/end of the month on the behavior of publicly donating hematopoietic stem cells. Experiment 1c (N = 195, 117 females) employed a 2 (temporal landmarks: start vs. end) × 2 (conspicuous: public vs. anonymous) between-subjects design to explore the impact of participants’ donation intention and amount on Monday/Friday in the public/anonymous context. Experiment 2a (N = 141, 103 females) employed a single-factor (temporal landmarks: start vs. end) between-subjects design that used conspicuous kindness as an indicator of conspicuous prosocial behavior and measured participants’ situational public self-awareness. Experiment 2b (N = 249, 172 women) employed a 2 (temporal landmarks: start vs. end) × 3 (conspicuous products: prosocial products vs. luxury goods vs. control) between-subjects design to investigate whether temporal landmarks affected conspicuous prosocial or other conspicuous behaviors. Experiment 3 (N = 194, 127 females) employed a single-factor (temporal landmarks: start vs. end) between-subjects design, with both groups completing the experiment on July 1. The difference between the start and end groups was that the former emphasized the beginning of the month, whereas the latter emphasized Saturday. The participants reported their self-monitoring levels, situational public self-awareness, and willingness to engage in conspicuous prosocial behavior.

Experiment 1a revealed that individuals preferred to purchase conspicuous prosocial products when initiating start (vs. end) temporal landmarks. Experiment 1b indicated that participants in the start group (end group) were more willing to leave an e-mail to make an appointment to donate hematopoietic stem cells under the public (anonymous) condition. Experiment 1c demonstrated that at the beginning of a period, participants were more likely to make charitable donations and give higher amounts when the donors’ names were disclosed. Experiment 2a illustrated that the above effects were driven by situational public self-awareness. The beginning of a period motivated participants’ public self-awareness, making them more inclined to engage in conspicuous prosocial behaviors. Experiment 2b indicated that the start temporal effect existed only for conspicuous prosocial goods (vs. luxury goods vs. control condition). Experiment 3 examined the moderating role of self-monitoring levels. Individuals with high self-monitoring were more inclined to engage in conspicuous prosocial behavior at the beginning (vs. end) of a period, whereas, for individuals with low self-monitoring levels, temporal landmarks did not effectively influence their conspicuous prosocial behavior.

This study reveals the relationship between temporal landmarks and conspicuous prosocial behavior, which has theoretical implications for the literature on temporal landmarks and conspicuous prosocial behavior as well as provides practical guidance for marketing managers to encourage individuals to engage in prosocial actions corresponding to temporal landmarks.

Key words: temporal landmarks, conspicuous prosocial behavior, situational public self-awareness, self-monitoring

中图分类号:

B849: C91

蒯玲, 卫海英, 姚琦, 肖婷文, 谢升成. (2025). 时间标志对炫耀性亲社会行为意愿的影响. 心理学报, 57(4), 526-543.

KUAI Ling, WEI Haiying, YAO Qi, XIAO Tingwen, XIE Shengcheng. (2025). The impact of temporal landmarks on the willingness of conspicuous prosocial behavior. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(4), 526-543.

图/表 14

参考文献 50

[50]	[庞隽, 尚子琦, 刘晓梅. (2022). 末端时间标志对消费者风险决策的影响. 南开管理评论, 25(1), 76-86.]
[51]	Peetz, J., & Wilson, A. E. (2013). The post-birthday world: Consequences of temporal landmarks for temporal self-appraisal and motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 249-266. doi: 10.1037/a0030477 pmid: 23066883
[52]	Peetz, J., & Wilson, A. E. (2014). Marking time: Selective use of temporal landmarks as barriers between current and future selves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(1), 44-56. doi: 10.1177/0146167213501559 pmid: 23969622
[53]	Peloza, J., White, K., & Shang, J. (2013). Good and guilt-free: The role of self-accountability in influencing preferences for products with ethical attributes. Journal of Marketing, 77(1), 104-119.
[54]	Pfattheicher, S., & Keller, J. (2015). The watching eyes phenomenon: The role of a sense of being seen and public self-awareness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(5), 560-566.
[55]	Piff, P. K., Kraus, M. W., Côté, S., Cheng, B. H., & Keltner, D. (2010). Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(5), 771-784. doi: 10.1037/a0020092 pmid: 20649364
[56]	Price, L. L., Coulter, R. A., Strizhakova, Y., & Schultz, A. E. (2018). The fresh start mindset: Transforming consumers’ lives. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(1), 21-48.
[57]	Savary, J., Li, C. X., & Newman, G. E. (2020). Exalted purchases or tainted donations? Self-signaling and the evaluation of charitable incentives. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30(4), 671-679.
[58]	Shang, Z. Q., Chen, Z. X., & Wu, G. P. (2022). The effect of temporal landmarks on self-construal and consumer preference for advertising appeals. Nankai Business Review, 25(4), 48-60.
	[尚子琦, 陈增祥, 吴培冠. (2022). 时间标志对消费者自我建构及广告诉求偏好的影响. 南开管理评论, 25(4), 48-60.]
[59]	Shelton, M. L., & Rogers, R. W. (1981). Fear-arousing and empathy-arousing appeals to help: The pathos of persuasion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11(4), 366-378.
[60]	Shum, M. S. (1998). The role of temporal landmarks in autobiographical memory processes. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 423-442. pmid: 9849113
[61]	Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 526-537.
[62]	Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 125-129. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.1.125 pmid: 3735063
[63]	Solomon, M. R., & Schopler, J. (1982). Self-consciousness and clothing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8(3), 508-514.
[64]	Tyler, J. M., Kearns, P. O., & McIntyre, M. M. (2016). Effects of self-monitoring on processing of self-presentation information. Social Psychology, 47(3), 174-178.
[65]	Van Bommel, M., Van Prooijen, J. W., Elffers, H., & Van Lange, P. A. (2012). Be aware to care: Public self-awareness leads to a reversal of the bystander effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 926-930.
[66]	Vésteinsdóttir, V., Reips, U. D., Joinson, A., & Thorsdottir, F. (2017). An item level evaluation of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale using item response theory on Icelandic Internet panel data and cognitive interviews. Personality and Individual Differences, 107, 164-173.
[67]	Wallace, E., & Buil, I. (2021). A typology of conspicuous donation on Facebook. Journal of Services Marketing, 35(4), 535-552.
[68]	Wallace, E., & Buil, I. (2023). Antecedents and consequences of conspicuous green behavior on social media: Incorporating the virtual self-identity into the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Business Research, 157, 113549.
[69]	Wallace, E., Buil, I., & De Chernatony, L. (2017). When does “liking” a charity lead to donation behaviour? Exploring conspicuous donation behaviour on social media platforms. European Journal of Marketing, 51(11/12), 2002-2029.
[70]	Wallace, E., Buil, I., & De Chernatony, L. (2020). ‘Consuming good’ on social media: What can conspicuous virtue signalling on Facebook tell us about prosocial and unethical intentions?. Journal of Business Ethics, 162(3), 577-592.
[71]	Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063 pmid: 3397865
[72]	White, K., Habib, R., & Hardisty, D. J. (2019). How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework. Journal of Marketing, 83(3), 22-49.
[73]	Wu, C. H., Kwan, H. K., Liu, J., & Lee, C. (2021). When and how favour rendering ameliorates workplace ostracism over time: Moderating effect of self-monitoring and mediating effect of popularity enhancement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 94(1), 107-131.
[74]	Yao, Q., Wu, Z. J., Zhang, C. Q., & Fu, G. Q. (2020). Effect of power on conspicuous prosocial behavior. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(12), 1421-1435. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.01421
	[姚琦, 吴章建, 张常清, 符国群. (2020). 权力感对炫耀性亲社会行为的影响. 心理学报, 52(12), 1421-1435.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.01421
[75]	You, L., & Lee, Y. H. (2019). The bystander effect in cyberbullying on social network sites: Anonymity, group size, and intervention intentions. Telematics and Informatics, 45, 101284.
[76]	Yu, S., Hudders, L., & Cauberghe, V. (2018). Are fashion consumers like schooling fish? The effectiveness of popularity cues in fashion e-commerce. Journal of Business Research, 85, 105-116.
[1]	Alter, A. L., & Hershfield, H. E. (2014). People search for meaning when they approach a new decade in chronological age. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(48), 17066-17070.
[2]	Balabanis, G., & Stathopoulou, A. (2021). The price of social status desire and public self-consciousness in luxury consumption. Journal of Business Research, 123, 463-475.
[3]	Beal, B. (2020). What are the irreducible basic elements of morality? A critique of the debate over monism and pluralism in moral psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(2), 273-290. doi: 10.1177/1745691619867106 pmid: 31721660
[4]	Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2007, January). Understanding philanthropy: A review of 50 years of theories and research. Paper presented at the meeting of the 35th annual conference of the Association for Research on Nonprofit and Voluntary Action, Chicago.
[5]	Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2006). Incentives and prosocial behavior. American Economic Review, 96(5), 1652-1678.
[6]	Bereczkei, T., Birkas, B., & Kerekes, Z. (2010). Altruism towards strangers in need: Costly signaling in an industrial society. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(2), 95-103.
[7]	Bi, S., & Pang, J. (2016). A trip to your past: The effect of ending on preference for nostalgic products. Advances in Consumer Research, 44, 720.
[8]	Bi, S., Perkins, A., & Sprott, D. (2021). The effect of start/end temporal landmarks on consumers’ visual attention and judgments. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 38(1), 136-154.
[9]	BliegeBird, R., & Smith, E. (2005). Signaling theory, strategic interaction, and symbolic capital. Current Anthropology, 46(2), 221-248.
[10]	Breines, J. G., & Chen, S. (2012). Self-compassion increases self-improvement motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(9), 1133-1143. doi: 10.1177/0146167212445599 pmid: 22645164
[11]	Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methodsin cross-cultural research (pp.137-164). Beverly Hills: Sage.
[12]	Carlo, G., & Randall, B. A. (2002). The development of a measure of prosocial behaviors for late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(1), 31-44.
[13]	Carver, C. S., & Humphries, C. (1981). Havana daydreaming: A study of self-consciousness and the negative reference group among Cuban Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(3), 545-552.
[14]	Cassidy, T., & Lynn, R. (1989). A multifactorial approach to achievement motivation: The development of a comprehensive measure. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62(4), 301-312.
[15]	Chell, K., & Mortimer, G. (2014). Investigating online recognition for blood donor retention: An experiential donor value approach. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19(2), 143-163.
[16]	Chen, S., Sun, Z., Zhou, H., & Shu, L. (2023). Simple or complex: How temporal landmarks shape consumer preference for food packages. Food Quality and Preference, 104, 104734.
[17]	Chen, S., & Wei, H. (2023). Linking temporal landmarks to voluntary simplicity: The mediating roles of self-transcendence and self-enhancement. Journal of Business Ethics, 188(4), 693-708.
[18]	Chen, Y., & Gao, L. (2022). The identified donor effect: Disclosure of the donor’s name shapes the recipient’s behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 32(2), 232-250.
[19]	Dai, H., Milkman, K. L., & Riis, J. (2015). Put your imperfections behind you: Temporal landmarks spur goal initiation when they signal new beginnings. Psychological Science, 26(12), 1927-1936. doi: 10.1177/0956797615605818 pmid: 26546079
[20]	Dang, A., & Arndt, A. D. (2017). How personal costs influence customer citizenship behaviors. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 39, 173-181.
[21]	Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 283-308. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.283 pmid: 38376350
[22]	Feng, W. T., Xu, Y. P., Huang, H., & Wang, T. (2022). Kawai vs. Whimsical: The influence of cuteness types of luxury brands on consumers’ preferences. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(3), 313-330.
	[冯文婷, 徐瑗苹, 黄海, 汪涛. (2022). 萌萌哒还是古灵精怪?奢侈品品牌可爱风格对消费者偏好的影响. 心理学报, 54(3), 313-330.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00313
[23]	Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(4), 522-527.
[24]	Ferguson, E., Atsma, F., De Kort, W., & Veldhuizen, I. (2012). Exploring the pattern of blood donor beliefs in first-time, novice, and experienced donors: Differentiating reluctant altruism, pure altruism, impure altruism, and warm glow. Transfusion, 52(2), 343-355. doi: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2011.03279.x pmid: 21848847
[25]	Foulkes, L., Leung, J. T., Fuhrmann, D., Knoll, L. J., & Blakemore, S. J. (2018). Age differences in the prosocial influence effect. Developmental Science, 21(6), e12666.
[26]	Froming, W. J., Walker, G. R., & Lopyan, K. J. (1982). Public and private self-awareness: When personal attitudes conflict with societal expectations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18(5), 476-487.
[27]	Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 530-555. pmid: 10900995
[28]	Gervais, W. M., & Norenzayan, A. (2012). Like a camera in the sky? Thinking about God increases public self-awareness and socially desirable responding. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 298-302.
[29]	Gino, F., & Mogilner, C. (2014). Time, money, and morality. Psychological Science, 25(2), 414-421. doi: 10.1177/0956797613506438 pmid: 24317421
[30]	Goukens, C., Dewitte, S., & Warlop, L. (2009). Me, myself, and my choices: The influence of private self-awareness on choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(5), 682-692.
[31]	Grace, D., & Griffin, D. (2006). Exploring conspicuousness in the context of donation behaviour. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(2), 147-154.
[32]	Grace, D., & Griffin, D. (2009). Conspicuous donation behaviour: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review, 8(1), 14-25.
[33]	Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Miller, G. F., & Kenrick, D. T. (2007). Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: When romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 85-102. pmid: 17605591
[34]	Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 392-404. doi: 10.1037/a0017346 pmid: 20175620
[35]	Gunia, B. C., Barnes, C. M., & Sah, S. (2014). The morality of larks and owls: Unethical behavior depends on chronotype as well as time of day. Psychological Science, 25(12), 2272-2274. doi: 10.1177/0956797614541989 pmid: 25287664
[36]	Harbaugh, W. T. (1998). What do donations buy?: A model of philanthropy based on prestige and warm glow. Journal of Public Economics, 67(2), 269-284.
[37]	Hayes, A. F. (2014). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Journal of Educational Measurement, 51(3), 335-337.
[38]	Hennecke, M., & Converse, B. A. (2017). Next week, next month, next year: How perceived temporal boundaries affect initiation expectations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(8), 918-926.
[39]	Ingram, K. K., Ay, A., Kwon, S. B., Woods, K., Escobar, S., Gordon, M.,... Jain, K. (2016). Molecular insights into chronotype and time-of-day effects on decision-making. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 29392.
[40]	Johnson, C. M., Tariq, A., & Baker, T. L. (2018). From Gucci to green bags: Conspicuous consumption as a signal for pro-social behavior. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 26(4), 339-356.
[41]	Khodakarami, F., Petersen, J. A., & Venkatesan, R. (2015). Developing donor relationships: The role of the breadth of giving. Journal of Marketing, 79(4), 77-93.
[42]	Koo, M., Dai, H., Mai, K. M., & Song, C. E. (2020). Anticipated temporal landmarks undermine motivation for continued goal pursuit. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 161, 142-157.
[43]	Kouchaki, M., & Smith, I. H. (2014). The morning morality effect: The influence of time of day on unethical behavior. Psychological Science, 25(1), 95-102. doi: 10.1177/0956797613498099 pmid: 24166855
[44]	Lennox, R. D., & Wolfe, R. N. (1984). Revision of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(6), 1349-1364. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.46.6.1349 pmid: 6737217
[45]	MacDonnell, R., & White, K. (2015). How construals of money versus time impact consumer charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(4), 551-563.
[46]	Miller, G. F. (2007). Sexual selection for moral virtues. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 82(2), 97-125.
[47]	Moon, H., & Sprott, D. E. (2016). Ingredient branding for a luxury brand: The role of brand and product fit. Journal of Business Research, 69(12), 5768-5774.
[48]	Neumayr, M., & Pennerstorfer, A. (2021). The relation between income and donations as a proportion of income revisited: Literature review and empirical application. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(3), 551-577.
[49]	Ogunfowora, B. (2013). When the abuse is unevenly distributed: The effects of abusive supervision variability on work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(8), 1105-1123.
[50]	Pang, J., Shang, Z. Q., & Liu, X. M. (2022). The ending temporal landmark effect on risky decision-making. Nankai Business Review, 25(1), 76-86.

变量	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. 性别	1
2. 年龄	0.09	1
3. 月收入	0.21^*	0.40^***	1
4. 受教育水平	−0.02	−0.26^**	0.18^*	1
5. 积极情绪	0.21^*	0.23^**	0.15	0.16	1
6. 消极情绪	−0.09	−0.27^**	−0.24^**	−0.08	−0.49^***	1
7. 时间标志	−0.09	0.17^*	−0.02	−0.15	−0.16	−0.07	1
8. 购买意愿	0.21^*	0.26^**	0.23^**	−0.11	0.18^*	−0.28^**	0.34^***	1
M	0.40	30.06	2.48	2.79	4.96	2.21	0.00	5.21
SD	0.49	9.50	0.94	0.70	1.22	1.14	0.82	1.99

变量	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. 性别	1
2. 年龄	0.09	1
3. 月收入	0.21^*	0.40^***	1
4. 受教育水平	−0.02	−0.26^**	0.18^*	1
5. 积极情绪	0.21^*	0.23^**	0.15	0.16	1
6. 消极情绪	−0.09	−0.27^**	−0.24^**	−0.08	−0.49^***	1
7. 时间标志	−0.09	0.17^*	−0.02	−0.15	−0.16	−0.07	1
8. 购买意愿	0.21^*	0.26^**	0.23^**	−0.11	0.18^*	−0.28^**	0.34^***	1
M	0.40	30.06	2.48	2.79	4.96	2.21	0.00	5.21
SD	0.49	9.50	0.94	0.70	1.22	1.14	0.82	1.99

变量	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. 性别	1
2. 年龄	0.11	1
3. 月收入	0.14	0.33^***	1
4. 受教育水平	0.05	0.09	0.21^**	1
5. 时间标志	0.01	−0.01	0.03	0.01	1
6. 炫耀性	0.03	−0.02	−0.05	0.12	0.01	1
7. 是否留E-mail	0.05	0.06	0.31^***	0.12	0.11	0.11	1
M	0.38	31.46	2.79	3.03	0.50	0.50	0.64
SD	0.48	10.66	0.96	0.69	0.50	0.50	0.48

变量	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. 性别	1
2. 年龄	0.11	1
3. 月收入	0.14	0.33^***	1
4. 受教育水平	0.05	0.09	0.21^**	1
5. 时间标志	0.01	−0.01	0.03	0.01	1
6. 炫耀性	0.03	−0.02	−0.05	0.12	0.01	1
7. 是否留E-mail	0.05	0.06	0.31^***	0.12	0.11	0.11	1
M	0.38	31.46	2.79	3.03	0.50	0.50	0.64
SD	0.48	10.66	0.96	0.69	0.50	0.50	0.48

变量	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. 性别	1
2. 年龄	−0.11	1
3. 月收入	0.02	0.34^***	1
4. 受教育水平	0.00	−0.18^*	0.21^**	1
5. 地位动机	0.05	0.05	0.09	0.03	1
6. 时间标志	0.14^*	0.09	0.20^**	−0.09	0.10	1
7. 炫耀性	−0.05	−0.06	0.08	0.02	0.01	0.02	1
8. 捐赠意愿	−0.14	−0.04	0.04	−0.01	0.21^**	−0.05	0.05	1
9. 捐赠金额	−0.11	−0.08	0.19^**	−0.03	0.17^*	0.11	0.14	0.44^***	1
M	0.40	32.57	2.86	2.97	5.59	0.50	0.50	5.83	55.09
SD	0.49	9.58	0.96	0.65	0.72	0.50	0.50	1.09	28.05