居住流动性对消费者易得型产品偏好的影响

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.0896

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

当今居住流动是一个非常普遍的现象。然而现有研究并没有深入探讨居住流动性对消费者产品选择和决策的影响。本研究发现激活居住流动性会导致消费者偏好那些易得性属性相对高而理想性属性相对低的产品(我们称之为“易得型”产品)。同时, 我们提出过程关注是这一效应的内在机制。研究1a通过二手数据验证了居住流动性与个体的易得型产品偏好之间具有相关关系, 研究1b通过操纵感知居住流动性, 验证了感知居住流动性与易得型产品偏好间的因果关系。研究1c在真实的产品选择情境中进一步证明了主效应的稳健性。研究2证明了过程关注的中介效应, 并排除了可能的替代解释。研究3a证明了最大化者特质的调节作用。研究3b证明了决策对象是感知居住流动性影响易得型产品偏好的边界条件。

关键词: 居住流动性, 易得型产品, 过程关注, 最大化者, 决策对象

Abstract:

Nowadays, billions of people frequently change their residence, and residential mobility has become an essential part of consumers’ lives all over the world. Researchers have recognized the importance of residential mobility and prior research mainly focused on how residential mobility affected individuals’ self-concept and their interactions with others. There are also some research investigating the long-term effects of residential mobility on individuals’ health and education. However, little is known about how residential mobility influences consumers’ product preferences. To fill this research void, this research focused on the feasible and desirable attributes of products and proposed that residential mobility strengthened consumers’ process focus mind-set, which in turn increased their preferences for feasible (rather than desirable) products. In addition, we believed that this effect would not be significant for maximizers, and this effect would also be attenuated when consumers made decisions for others rather than for themselves.
We conducted ten studies (4 in appendix) to test our hypotheses. Study 1a used secondary data from CHFS to provide preliminary evidence for the relationship between residential mobility and preference for feasible product. Study 1b employed a single factor (residential mobility: high vs. low) between-subjects design and 150 Credamo workers were recruited. We manipulated participants’ residential mobility through a writing task and then measured their preferences for four pairs of products. The results showed that residential mobility increased consumers’ preference for feasible products. In Study 1c, we aimed to measure participants’ preference in a real product choice context to test the robustness of our main effect. This study employed a single factor (residential mobility: high vs. low) between-subjects design, and we randomly recruited university students. We manipulated residential mobility in a different way and told participants that they had the extra chance to win a puzzle to measure their real choice. The results further confirmed the robustness of the effect of residential mobility on the preference for feasible products in a real product choice context.
In Study 2 we tried to explore the underlying mechanism. This study employed a single factor (residential mobility: high vs. low) between-subjects design. 400 Credamo workers participated in the study. The manipulation of mobility and measurement of preference for feasible products was similar to Study 1b. Then we measured participants’ process focus mind-set. This study not only showed that our proposed effect was driven by process focus, but also ruled out alternative explanations such as abstract thinking, primary focus, sense of control and anxiety. In Study 3a, we employed a single factor (residential mobility: high vs. low) between-subjects design and recruited 434 Credamo workers. We manipulated residential mobility same as Study 1b and measured whether participants were maximier or satisficeer. Results replicated the effect of residential mobility on preference for feasible products and showed the moderating role of maximizer. Finally, in Study 3b, we conducted a 2 (mobility: high vs. low) × 2 (object of decision: self vs. others). Results showed that the effect of residential mobility on preference for feasible products would be attenuated if participants made decisions for others rather than for themselves.
Taken together, this research demonstrated that consumers with high residential mobility preferred feasible products, which was driven by process focus. For consumers who were maximizers or those who decide for others, this effect would not be significant. Our research not only reveals a novel downstream effect of residential mobility, but also enriches the literature on feasibility preference and process focus. Accordingly, this research yields strong practical implications for marketing strategies.

Key words: residential mobility, feasible product, process focus, maximizer, self-other difference

中图分类号:

B849: F713.55

王丽丽, 苏笑, 梁可茵. (2025). 居住流动性对消费者易得型产品偏好的影响. 心理学报, 57(5), 896-914.

WANG Lili, SU Xiao, LIANG Keyin. (2025). The impact of residential mobility on consumers’ preference for feasible products. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(5), 896-914.

图/表 10

图1 概念模型

图2 研究1b居住流动性对易得型产品偏好的主效应

图3 研究2中过程关注的中介作用

注: ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, ns p < 0.05

图4 研究3a中最大化者特质的调节作用

图5 研究3a中最大化者特质的调节作用及过程关注被调节的中介作用

注: ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, + p < 0.1

图6 研究3b中决策对象的边界作用

图7 研究3b中决策对象的调节作用及过程关注被调节的中介作用

注: ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, ns p < 0.05

附表1 研究1d易得型产品偏好测量的设计

学习桌A	学习桌B
消费者质量评价：4.5/5分	消费者质量评价：3/5分
大小：120 cm × 60 cm × 75 cm	大小：120 cm × 60 cm × 75 cm
售价：298元(含运费与一年保修)	售价：298元(含运费与一年保修)
附注：本产品需消费者自行组装, 一般约需耗时2小时, 共计25个步骤。	附注：本产品需消费者自行组装, 一般约需5分钟时间, 共计6个步骤。

附图1 研究1e中产品类型与感知居住流动性的交互效应

附图2 研究4a中过程关注的中介作用注: **表示p值小于0.01, *表示p值小于0.05, ns表示p值大于0.05。

参考文献 83

[1]	Achar, C., Agrawal, N., & Hsieh, M. H. (2020). Fear of detection and efficacy of prevention: Using construal level to encourage health behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 57(3), 582-598.
[2]	Aggarwal, P., & Zhao, M. (2015). Seeing the big picture: The effect of height on the level of construal. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(1), 120-133.
[3]	Baskin, E., Wakslak, C. J., Trope, Y., & Novemsky, N. (2014). Why feasibility matters more to gift receivers that to givers: A construal-level approach to gift giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 169-182.
[4]	Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 187-217.
[5]	Castaño, R., Sujan, M., Kacker, M., & Sujan, H. (2008). Managing consumer uncertainty in the adoption of new products: Temporal distance and mental simulation. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(3), 320-336.
[6]	Choi, H., & Oishi, S. (2019). The psychology of residential mobility: A decade of progress. Current Opinion in Psychology, 32, 72-75.
[7]	Coulter, R., & Van Ham, M. (2013). Following people through time: An analysis of individual residential mobility biographies. Housing Studies, 28(7), 1037-1055.
[8]	Dar-Nimrod, I., Rawn, C. D., Lehman, D. R., & Schwartz, B. (2009). The maximization paradox: The costs of seeking alternatives. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(5-6), 631-635.
[9]	Darrat, A. A., Darrat, M. A., & Amyx, D. (2016). How impulse buying influences compulsive buying: The central role of consumer anxiety and escapism. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 31, 103-108.
[10]	Deane, G. D. (1990). Mobility and adjustments: Paths to the resolution of residential stress. Demography, 27, 65-79. pmid: 2303142
[11]	Escalas, J. E., & Luce, M. F. (2003). Process versus outcome thought focus and advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 246-254.
[12]	Escalas, J. E., & Luce, M. F. (2004). Understanding the effects of process-focused versus outcome-focused thought in response to advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 274-285.
[13]	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
[14]	Förster, J., Friedman, R. S., & Liberman, N. (2004). Temporal construal effects on abstract and concrete thinking: Consequences for insight and creative cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 177-189. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.177 pmid: 15301626
[15]	Fowler, P. J., McGrath, L. M., Henry, D. B., Schoeny, M., Chavira, D., Taylor, J. J., & Day, O. (2015). Housing mobility and cognitive development: Change in verbal and nonverbal abilities. Child Abuse and Neglect, 48, 104-118.
[16]	Freund, A. M., Hennecke, M., & Riediger, M. (2010). Age-related differences in outcome and process goal focus. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7(2), 198-222.
[17]	Frost, R. (2020). Are Americans stuck in place? Declining residential mobility in the U.S. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University.
[18]	Gan, L., Wu, Y., He, Q., He, X., & Yi, D. C. (2019). Research оf China Household Finance 2016. Chengdu: Southwest University of Finance and Economics Press.
	[甘犁, 吴雨, 何青, 何欣, 弋代春. (2019). 中国家庭金融研究2016. 成都: 西南财经大学出版社.]
[19]	Han, N. R., Baek, T. H., Yoon, S., & Kim, Y. (2019). Is that coffee mug smiling at me? How anthropomorphism impacts the effectiveness of desirability vs. feasibility appeals in sustainability advertising. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51, 352-361.
[20]	Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Ebook - The Guilford Press.
[21]	Hendriks, M., Ludwigs, K., & Veenhoven, R. (2016). Why are locals happier than internal migrants? The role of daily life. Social Indicators Research, 125(2), 481-508.
[22]	Herzog, S. M., Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2007). Temporal distance and ease of retrieval. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(3), 483-488.
[23]	Hsieh, M. H., & Yalch, R. F. (2020). How a maximizing orientation affects trade-offs between desirability and feasibility: The role of outcome- versus process- focused decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 33(1), 39-51.
[24]	Hughes, J., & Scholer, A. A. (2017). When wanting the best goes right or wrong: Distinguishing between adaptive and maladaptive maximization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(4), 570-583. doi: 10.1177/0146167216689065 pmid: 28903657
[25]	Iyengar, S. S., Wells, R. E., & Schwartz, B. (2006). Doing better but feeling worse: Looking for the “best” job undermines satisfaction. Psychological Science, 17(2), 143-150. pmid: 16466422
[26]	Jelleyman, T., & Spencer, N. (2008). Residential mobility in childhood and health outcomes: A systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 62(7), 584-592.
[27]	Kaftan, O. J., & Freund, A. M. (2020). How to work out and avoid procrastination: The role of goal focus. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 50(3), 145-159. doi: 10.1111/jasp.12646
[28]	Kay, A. C., Whitson, J. A., Gaucher, D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Compensatory control: Achieving order through the mind, our institutions, and the heavens. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(5), 264-268.
[29]	Kim, K., Zhang, M., & Li, X. (2008). Effects of temporal and social distance on consumer evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(4), 706-713.
[30]	Kray, L. J. (2000). Contingent weighting in self-other decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83(1), 82-106. pmid: 10973784
[31]	Lai, L. (2010). Maximizing without difficulty: A modified maximizing scale and its correlates. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(3), 164-175.
[32]	Landau, M. J., Kay, A. C., & Whitson, J. A. (2015). Compensatory control and the appeal of a structured world. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 694-722. doi: 10.1037/a0038703 pmid: 25688696
[33]	Li, Q., Li, C., McCabe, S., & Xu, H. (2019). Always best or good enough? The effect of ‘mind-set’ on preference consistency over time in tourist decision making. Annals of Tourism Research, 75, 186-201.
[34]	Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5-18.
[35]	Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Stephan, E. (2007). Psychological distance. In Kruglanski, A. W., Higgins, E. T. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (Vol. 2, pp. 353-383). New York, NY: Guilford.
[36]	Liu, N., Lou, Y., Wang, X., & Li, S. (2022). More expensive, more attractive? The effect of pricing on gift evaluation: Differences between giver and receiver. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.790434
[37]	Liu, W. (2008). Focusing on desirability: The effect of decision interruption and suspension on preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(4), 640-652.
[38]	Lu, J., Xie, X., & Xu, J. (2013). Desirability or feasibility: Self-other decision-making differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(2), 144-155. doi: 10.1177/0146167212470146 pmid: 23239813
[39]	Luan, M., & Li, H. (2017). Good enough—compromise between desirability and feasibility: An alternative perspective on satisficing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 110-116.
[40]	Lun, J., Oishi, S., & Tenney, E. R. (2012). Residential mobility moderates preferences for egalitarian versus loyal helpers. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 291-297.
[41]	Lun, J., Roth, D., Oishi, S., & Kesebir, S. (2012). Residential mobility, social support concerns, and friendship strategy. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(3), 332-339.
[42]	Malhotra, K., Carolyn, C. (2006). The impact of desirability and feasibility considerations for self and others. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
[43]	Malkoc, S. A., Zauberman, G., & Bettman, J. R. (2010). Unstuck from the concrete: Carryover effects of abstract mindsets in intertemporal preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 112-126.
[44]	Mason, C. H., & Perreault Jr, W. D. (1991). Collinearity, power, and interpretation of multiple regression analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 268-280.
[45]	Misuraca, R., & Fasolo, B. (2018). Maximizing versus satisficing in the digital age: Disjoint scales and the case for “construct consensus”. Personality and Individual Differences, 121, 152-160.
[46]	Moyle, P., & Parkes, K. (1999). The effects of transition stress: A relocation study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(5), 625-646.
[47]	Mulder, C. H. (2007). The family context and residential choice: A challenge for new research. Population, Space and Place, 13(4), 265-278.
[48]	Nenkov, G. Y., Morrin, M., Schwartz, B., Ward, A., & Hulland, J. (2008). A short form of the maximization Scale: Factor structure, reliability and validity studies. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(5), 371-388.
[49]	Oishi, S. (2010). The psychology of residential mobility: Implications for the self, social relationships, and well-being. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(1), 5-21. doi: 10.1177/1745691609356781 pmid: 26162059
[50]	Oishi, S., & Kesebir, S. (2012). Optimal social-networking strategy is a function of socioeconomic conditions. Psychological Science, 23(12), 1542-1548. doi: 10.1177/0956797612446708 pmid: 23129061
[51]	Oishi, S., Kesebir, S., Miao, F. F., Talhelm, T., Endo, Y., Uchida, Y., Shibanai, Y., & Norasakkunkit, V. (2013). Residential mobility increases motivation to expand social network: But why?. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(2), 217-223.
[52]	Oishi, S., Lun, J., & Sherman, G. D. (2007). Residential mobility, self-concept, and positive affect in social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 131-141. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.131 pmid: 17605594
[53]	Oishi, S., Miao, F. F., Koo, M., Kisling, J., & Ratliff, K. A. (2012). Residential mobility breeds familiarity-seeking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(1). 149-162. doi: 10.1037/a0024949 pmid: 21843015
[54]	Oishi, S., & Schimmack, U. (2010). Residential mobility, well-being, and mortality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(6), 980-994. doi: 10.1037/a0019389 pmid: 20515253
[55]	Oishi, S., Talhelm, T., Lee, M., Komiya, A., & Akutsu, S. (2015). Residential mobility and low-commitment groups. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 3(1), 54-61.
[56]	Pfundmair, M., Lermer, E., Frey, D., & Aydin, N. (2015). Construal level and social exclusion: Concrete thinking impedes recovery from social exclusion. The Journal of Social Psychology, 155(4), 338-355.
[57]	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.
[58]	Pollai, M., & Kirchler, E. (2012). Differences in risk-defusing behavior in deciding for oneself versus deciding for other people. Acta Psychologica, 139(1), 239-243. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.09.013 pmid: 22018657
[59]	Polman, E. (2012). Effects of self-other decision making on regulatory focus and choice overload. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 980-993. doi: 10.1037/a0026966 pmid: 22429272
[60]	Qiu, T., Bai, Y., & Lu, J. (2020). Taking risks for the best: Maximizing and risk-taking tendencies. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(4), 499-508.
[61]	Richardson, C. M., Ye, H. J., Ege, E., Suh, H., & Rice, K. G. (2014). Refining the measurement of maximization: Gender invariance and relation to psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 229-234.
[62]	Schmidt, C. (2014). Optimal commuting and migration decisions under commuting cost uncertainty. Urban Studies, 51(3), 477-492.
[63]	Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1178-1197. pmid: 12416921
[64]	Spiller, S. A., Fitzsimons, G. J., Lynch Jr, J. G., & McClelland, G. H. (2013). Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(2), 277-288.
[65]	Taylor, S. E., Pham, L. B., Rivkin, I. D., & Armor, D. A. (1998). Harnessing the imagination: Mental simulation, self-regulation, and coping. American Psychologist, 53(4), 429-439. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.53.4.429 pmid: 9572006
[66]	Torelli, C. J., & Kaikati, A. M. (2009). Values as predictors of judgments and behaviors: The role of abstract and concrete mindsets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(1), 231-247. doi: 10.1037/a0013836 pmid: 19210077
[67]	Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2000). Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in preference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 876-889. pmid: 11138758
[68]	Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403-421. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.110.3.403 pmid: 12885109
[69]	Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463. doi: 10.1037/a0018963 pmid: 20438233
[70]	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
[71]	Van Knippenberg, B., Martin, L., & Tyler, T. (2006). Process-orientation versus outcome-orientation during organizational change: The role of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(6), 685-704.
[72]	Wang, L., You, Y., & Yang, C. M. (2020). Restrained by resources: The effect of scarcity cues and childhood socioeconomic status (SES) on consumer preference for feasibility. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 37(3), 557-571.
[73]	Wang, Y., Kirmani, A., & Li, X. (2021). Not too far to help: Residential mobility, global identity, and donations to distant beneficiaries. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(6), 878-889.
[74]	Webb, R. T., Pedersen, C. B., & Mok, P. L. (2016). Adverse outcomes to early middle age linked with childhood residential mobility. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 51(3), 291-300. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.04.011 pmid: 27288289
[75]	White, K., MacDonnell, R., & Dahl, D. W. (2011). It’s the mind-set that matters: The role of construal level and message framing in influencing consumer efficacy and conservation behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 472-485.
[76]	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.
[77]	Yu, M., Wu, X., Huang, L., & Luo, S. (2020). Residential mobility mindset enhances temporal discounting in the loss framework. Physiology and Behavior, 225, 113107.
[78]	Yuan, B., Yang, C., Sun, X., Yin, J., & Li, W. (2021). How does residential mobility influence generalized trust?. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(3), 995-1014.
[79]	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.
[80]	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.
[81]	Zhao, X., Lynch Jr, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197-206.
[82]	Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Developmental phases in self-regulation: Shifting from process goals to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 29-36.
[83]	Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1999). Acquiring writing revision skill: Shifting from process to outcome self-regulatory goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 241-250.