心理学报 ›› 2024, Vol. 56 ›› Issue (6): 777-798.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00777
收稿日期:
2023-07-13
发布日期:
2024-04-08
出版日期:
2024-06-25
通讯作者:
王璐, E-mail: 基金资助:
Received:
2023-07-13
Online:
2024-04-08
Published:
2024-06-25
摘要:
已有的亲社会研究都在关注对人的慈善捐赠, 关于流浪动物的慈善救助并未有人探讨。由于日常生活中流浪动物救助信息通常会同时呈现动物类型和空间距离, 因此本文基于动物类型和空间距离之间的联结来探讨二者对流浪动物救助意愿的影响, 以及其中的机制和边界条件。通过1个内隐联想测验、1个田野实验和7个不同情景的线上实验和实验室实验, 本文发现:猫与近空间距离更匹配; 狗与远空间距离更匹配(实验1a、1b)。因此, 在近空间距离的情况下, 呈现流浪猫(vs.流浪狗)引发人们对流浪动物的更高救助意愿; 在远空间距离的情况下, 呈现流浪狗(vs.流浪猫)引发人们对流浪动物的更高救助意愿(实验2、3、3S、4、4S、5); 加工流畅性是内在中介(实验4、4S、5)。此外, 思维模式会调节上述“远狗近猫”效应, 也即该效应在基于情感的思维模式下存在但在基于理性的思维模式下消失(实验6)。理论层面, 本文关注了流浪动物这一新颖的慈善捐赠对象, 验证了动物类型和空间距离的内在联系。本文还识别出了流浪动物救助中的“远狗近猫”效应。实践层面, “远狗近猫”效应可以指导慈善组织和机构根据动物类型和空间距离的匹配来合理呈现救助信息。
中图分类号:
柳武妹, 王璐. (2024). 流浪动物慈善救助中的“远狗近猫”效应及其机制探析. 心理学报, 56(6), 777-798.
LIU Wumei, WANG Lu. (2024). The “far dog, near cat” effect in stray animal charity rescue and its mechanism. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(6), 777-798.
研究 | 研究目的 | 研究设计 | DV测量 | 替代性解释及控制变量 | 流浪动物救助情景 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
实验1a (实验室实验) | 检验H1 | 2(动物类型:猫vs.狗) × 2(空间距离:近vs.远) 双因素混合设计 | 单词归纳的平均反应时和平均正确率 | 惯性手的类型 | 无 |
实验1b (线上实验) | 检验H1 | 动物类型(猫vs.狗) 单因素被试间设计 | 人与猫/狗的空间距离远近感知 | 猫/狗的喜爱程度; 是否有宠物猫/狗 | 无 |
实验2 (线下田野实验) | 检验H2 | 2(动物类型:猫vs.狗) × 2(空间距离:近vs.远) 双因素被试间设计 | 愿意参与流浪动物救助公益活动的时长; 动物食粮的购买意愿 | 救助经历; 校区来往频率; 生活费 | 某高校流浪动物保护协会组织的公益救助活动 |
实验3 (线上实验) | 检验H2 | 2(动物类型:猫vs.狗) × 2(空间距离:近vs.远) 双因素被试间设计 | 救助意愿 | 流浪动物的喜爱程度 | 流浪动物公益救助计划 |
实验3S (线上实验) | 扩展情景; 排除解释 | 2(动物类型:猫vs.狗) × 2(空间距离:近vs.远) 双因素被试间设计 | 领养意愿 | 流浪动物的喜爱程度; 流浪动物的可怜程度; 流浪动物的领养时间 | 流浪动物 “云”领养 |
实验4 (实验室实验, 预注册) | 检验H2、H3 | 2(动物类型:猫vs.狗) × 2(空间距离:近vs.远) 双因素被试间设计 | 捐赠金额 | 流浪动物的喜爱程度; 流浪动物的可怜程度; | 流浪动物食物募捐 |
实验4S (线上实验) | 排除 竞争中介 | 2(动物类型:猫vs.狗) × 2(空间距离:近vs.远) 双因素被试间设计 | 救助意愿 | 是否有宠物; 宠物类型; 调节定向 | 流浪动物 “云”救助 |
实验5 (线上实验) | 检验H2、H3 | 2(动物类型:猫vs.狗) × 2(空间距离:近vs.远) 双因素被试间设计 | 领养意愿 | 心理距离; 心理距离−加工流畅性的顺序中介 | 流浪动物 “云”领养 |
实验6 (线上实验) | 检验H4 | 2(动物类型:猫vs.狗) × 2(空间距离:近vs.远)× 2(思维模式:情感vs.理性)三因素被试间设计 | 领养意愿 | 无 | 流浪动物 “云”领养 |
表1 实验开展总览
研究 | 研究目的 | 研究设计 | DV测量 | 替代性解释及控制变量 | 流浪动物救助情景 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
实验1a (实验室实验) | 检验H1 | 2(动物类型:猫vs.狗) × 2(空间距离:近vs.远) 双因素混合设计 | 单词归纳的平均反应时和平均正确率 | 惯性手的类型 | 无 |
实验1b (线上实验) | 检验H1 | 动物类型(猫vs.狗) 单因素被试间设计 | 人与猫/狗的空间距离远近感知 | 猫/狗的喜爱程度; 是否有宠物猫/狗 | 无 |
实验2 (线下田野实验) | 检验H2 | 2(动物类型:猫vs.狗) × 2(空间距离:近vs.远) 双因素被试间设计 | 愿意参与流浪动物救助公益活动的时长; 动物食粮的购买意愿 | 救助经历; 校区来往频率; 生活费 | 某高校流浪动物保护协会组织的公益救助活动 |
实验3 (线上实验) | 检验H2 | 2(动物类型:猫vs.狗) × 2(空间距离:近vs.远) 双因素被试间设计 | 救助意愿 | 流浪动物的喜爱程度 | 流浪动物公益救助计划 |
实验3S (线上实验) | 扩展情景; 排除解释 | 2(动物类型:猫vs.狗) × 2(空间距离:近vs.远) 双因素被试间设计 | 领养意愿 | 流浪动物的喜爱程度; 流浪动物的可怜程度; 流浪动物的领养时间 | 流浪动物 “云”领养 |
实验4 (实验室实验, 预注册) | 检验H2、H3 | 2(动物类型:猫vs.狗) × 2(空间距离:近vs.远) 双因素被试间设计 | 捐赠金额 | 流浪动物的喜爱程度; 流浪动物的可怜程度; | 流浪动物食物募捐 |
实验4S (线上实验) | 排除 竞争中介 | 2(动物类型:猫vs.狗) × 2(空间距离:近vs.远) 双因素被试间设计 | 救助意愿 | 是否有宠物; 宠物类型; 调节定向 | 流浪动物 “云”救助 |
实验5 (线上实验) | 检验H2、H3 | 2(动物类型:猫vs.狗) × 2(空间距离:近vs.远) 双因素被试间设计 | 领养意愿 | 心理距离; 心理距离−加工流畅性的顺序中介 | 流浪动物 “云”领养 |
实验6 (线上实验) | 检验H4 | 2(动物类型:猫vs.狗) × 2(空间距离:近vs.远)× 2(思维模式:情感vs.理性)三因素被试间设计 | 领养意愿 | 无 | 流浪动物 “云”领养 |
思维模式 | 实验条件 | 领养意愿(M ± SD) | F值 | p值 | 加工流畅性(M ± SD) | F值 | p值 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
基于情感的 思维模式 | 近空间距离+流浪猫 | 6.25 ± 0.56 | 19.02 | < 0.001 | 6.19 ± 0.56 | 4.63 | 0.032 |
近空间距离+流浪狗 | 5.60 ± 0.90 | 6.00 ± 0.55 | |||||
远空间距离+流浪猫 | 5.24 ± 1.22 | 51.37 | < 0.001 | 6.00 ± 0.71 | 4.93 | 0.027 | |
远空间距离+流浪狗 | 6.30 ± 0.39 | 6.19 ± 0.51 | |||||
基于理性的 思维模式 | 近空间距离+流浪猫 | 5.92 ± 0.80 | 2.98 | 0.085 | 6.08 ± 0.46 | 0.02 | 0.886 |
近空间距离+流浪狗 | 5.66 ± 1.28 | 6.10 ± 0.55 | |||||
远空间距离+流浪猫 | 5.58 ± 0.92 | 0.03 | 0.865 | 6.01 ± 0.52 | 0.00 | 0.962 | |
远空间距离+流浪狗 | 5.60 ± 1.02 | 6.01 ± 0.51 |
表2 实验6中不同实验条件下的流浪动物领养意愿及加工流畅性
思维模式 | 实验条件 | 领养意愿(M ± SD) | F值 | p值 | 加工流畅性(M ± SD) | F值 | p值 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
基于情感的 思维模式 | 近空间距离+流浪猫 | 6.25 ± 0.56 | 19.02 | < 0.001 | 6.19 ± 0.56 | 4.63 | 0.032 |
近空间距离+流浪狗 | 5.60 ± 0.90 | 6.00 ± 0.55 | |||||
远空间距离+流浪猫 | 5.24 ± 1.22 | 51.37 | < 0.001 | 6.00 ± 0.71 | 4.93 | 0.027 | |
远空间距离+流浪狗 | 6.30 ± 0.39 | 6.19 ± 0.51 | |||||
基于理性的 思维模式 | 近空间距离+流浪猫 | 5.92 ± 0.80 | 2.98 | 0.085 | 6.08 ± 0.46 | 0.02 | 0.886 |
近空间距离+流浪狗 | 5.66 ± 1.28 | 6.10 ± 0.55 | |||||
远空间距离+流浪猫 | 5.58 ± 0.92 | 0.03 | 0.865 | 6.01 ± 0.52 | 0.00 | 0.962 | |
远空间距离+流浪狗 | 5.60 ± 1.02 | 6.01 ± 0.51 |
[1] | Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2006). Understanding regulatory fit. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 15-19. |
[2] | Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R. N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 569-576. |
[3] | Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596-612. |
[4] | Barrouillet, P. (2011). Dual-process theories and cognitive development: Advances and challenges. Developmental Review, 31(2), 79-85. |
[5] | Bornstein, R. F., & D’Agostino, P. R. (1994). The attribution and discounting of perceptual fluency: Preliminary tests of a perceptual fluency/attributional model of the mere exposure effect. Social Cognition, 12(2), 103-128. |
[6] | Brown, C. M., Hengy, S. M., & McConnell, A. R. (2016). Thinking about cats or dogs provides relief from social rejection. Anthrozoös, 29(1), 47-58. |
[7] | Caserotti, M., Vacondio, M., Maze, M., & Priolo, G. (2022). Look behind me! Highly informative picture backgrounds increase stated generosity through perceived tangibility, impact, and warm glow. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 800199. |
[8] |
Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from “feeling right.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 388-404.
pmid: 15008644 |
[9] | Chinese pet industry white paper. (2022). Beijing: China Agriculture Press. |
[中国宠物行业白皮书. (2022). 北京: 中国农业出版社 ] | |
[10] | Chu, X.-Y. (Marcos), Chang, C.-T., & Lee, A. Y. (2021). Values created from far and near: Influence of spatial distance on brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing, 85 (6), 162-175. |
[11] | Crisp, R. J., Farrow, C. V., Rosenthal, H. E. S., Walsh, J., Blissett, J., & Penn, N. M. K. (2009). Interpersonal attachment predicts identification with groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1), 115-122. |
[12] | Duan, S., Liu, F. J., Li, Y. Y., & Meng, L. (2023). Donors or victims? The effect of matching charity appeal protagonist focus and donation types on donation behavior. Management Review, 35(1), 187-198. |
[段珅, 刘凤军, 李园园, 孟陆. (2023). 捐助者还是受助者? 不同慈善捐赠主角与慈善捐赠类型匹配作用对捐赠行为的影响. 管理评论, 35(1), 187-198. ] | |
[13] | Dubois, D., Bonezzi, A., & De Angelis, M. (2016). Sharing with friends versus strangers: How interpersonal closeness influences word-of-mouth valence. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(5), 712-727. |
[14] | Duclos, R., & Barasch, A. (2014). Prosocial behavior in intergroup relations: How donor self-construal and recipient group-membership shape generosity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 93-108. |
[15] | Eder, A. B., & Rothermund, K. (2008). When do motor behaviors (mis)match affective stimuli? An evaluative coding view of approach and avoidance reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(2), 262-281. |
[16] |
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 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 |
[17] | Furnham, A. F. (1988). Lay theories: Everyday understanding of problems in the social science. Pergamon Press. |
[18] | González-Ramírez, M. T., & Landero-Hernández, R. (2021). Pet-human relationships: Dogs versus cats. Animals, 11(9), 2745. |
[19] | Gu, Y., & Chen, R. (2021). How does money phrasing influence intention to donate: The role of construal level and fit. Psychology & Marketing, 38(11), 1911-1927. |
[20] | Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications. |
[21] | Heidenberger, E. (1997). Housing conditions and behavioural problems of indoor cats as assessed by their owners. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 52(3-4), 345-364. |
[22] | Holbrook, M. B., & Woodside, A. G. (2008). Animal companions, consumption experiences, and the marketing of pets: Transcending boundaries in the animal-human distinction. Journal of Business Research, 61(5), 377-381. |
[23] | Hong, J., & Chang, H. H. (2015). “I” follow my heart and “We” rely on reasons: The impact of self-construal on reliance on feelings versus reasons in decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(6), 1392-1411. |
[24] | Huber, J. (2004). A comment on metacognitive experiences and consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 356-359. |
[25] | Izaguirre, E. R., & Montiel, D. O. (2021). Roaming the campus: University stakeholders’ perceptions of, and interactions with, campus cats and dogs. Anthrozoös, 34(3), 423-439. |
[26] | Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110(3), 306-340. |
[27] | Jia, L., Yang, X., & Jiang, Y. (2022). The Pet exposure effect: Exploring the differential impact of dogs versus cats on consumer mindsets. Journal of Marketing, 86 (5), 42-57. |
[28] | Jin, Y. F., & Zhang, Q. Y. (2023). The influence of spatial distance on online comments: Perceived efforts as mediation. Nankai Business Review, Advance online publication. |
[金玉芳, 张倩毓. (2023). 空间距离对在线评论效果的影响:感知努力的中介作用. 南开管理评论, 网络首发.] | |
[29] | Johnson, S. G., & Park, S. Y. (2021). Moral signaling through donations of money and time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 165, 183-196. |
[30] | Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited:Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49-81). Cambridge University Press. |
[31] | Kidd, A. H., & Kidds, R. M. (1980). Personality characteristics and preferences in pet ownership. Psychological Reports, 46(3), 939-949. |
[32] | Kim, H. J., & Jang, J. M. (2018). The easier the better: How processing fluency influences self-efficacy and behavioral intention in pro-social campaign advertising. Sustainability, 10(12), 12. |
[33] | Kim, K., Zhang, M., & Li, X. (2008). Effects of temporal and social distance on consumer evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(4), 706-713. |
[34] | Kirk, C. P. (2019). Dogs have masters, cats have staff: Consumers’ psychological ownership and their economic valuation of pets. Journal of Business Research, 99, 306-318. |
[35] |
Lee, A. Y., & Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 205-218.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.205 pmid: 14769079 |
[36] | Lee, J., Rhee, Y., & Yunjae, C. (2015). How political ideology influences prosocial behavior: Focusing on effects of message framing and psychological distance. The Korean Journal of Consumer and Advertising Psychology (한국심리학회지: 소비자â·광고), 16(3), 415-432. |
[37] | Lee, S., Winterich, K. P., & Ross Jr, W. T. (2014). I'm moral, but I won't help you: The distinct roles of empathy and justice in donations. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 678-696. |
[38] | Liang, J. P., Chen, Z. X., & Lei, J. (2016). Inspire me to donate: The use of strength emotion in donation appeals. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(2), 283-288. |
[39] | Liu, X. Y., Zhang, H. T., & Wang, L. (2023). Negative appeal to evoke sympathy or positive appeal to trigger inspiration? The interactive impact of the valence of recipient' s attitude toward plight and psychological distance on donation intentions. Nankai Business Review, Advance online publication. |
[刘新燕, 张惠天, 王璐. (2023). “悲”天悯人, 还是“乐”善好施?受助者困境态度效价与心理距离对捐赠意愿的交互影响. 南开管理评论, 网络首发.] | |
[40] |
Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 854-864.
pmid: 12374440 |
[41] |
McConnell, A. R., Brown, C. M., Shoda, T. M., Stayton, L. E., & Martin, C. E. (2011). Friends with benefits: On the positive consequences of pet ownership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(6), 1239-1252.
doi: 10.1037/a0024506 pmid: 21728449 |
[42] | Menchetti, L., Calipari, S., Guelfi, G., Catanzaro, A., & Diverio, S. (2018). My dog is not my cat: Owner perception of the personalities of dogs and cats living in the same household. Animals, 8(6), 80. |
[43] |
Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106 (1), 3-19.
doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.106.1.3 pmid: 10197361 |
[44] | Morris, M. W., Menon, T., & Ames, D. R. (2001). Culturally conferred conceptions of agency: A key to social perception of persons, groups, and other actors. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(2), 169-182. |
[45] | Moussaoui, L. S., Blondé, J., Phung, T., Tschopp, K. M., & Desrichard, O. (2022). Does a low-cost act of support produce slacktivism or commitment? Prosocial and impression- management motives as moderators. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 783995. |
[46] | Peasley, M. C., Coleman, J. T., & Royne, M. B. (2018). Charitable motivations: The role of prestige and identification. The Service Industries Journal, 38(5-6), 265-281. |
[47] | Pham, M. T. (2004). The logic of feeling. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (4), 36-69. |
[48] |
Ran, Y. X., Niu, Y. X., & Chen, S. Y. (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 |
|
[49] | Ran, Y. X., Niu, Y. X., Zhang, Y. H., Li, X. X., & Zhang, P. Y. (2023). Literature review on lay theory in the field of marketing: Connotations, effects, and invocations. Foreign Economics & Management, 46(1), 139-152. |
[冉雅璇, 牛熠欣, 张蕴涵, 李秀秀, 张谱月. (2024). 营销视域下的常人理论:内涵、效应与调用. 外国经济与管理, 46(1), 139-152.] | |
[50] | Roberts, R. D. (1984). A positive model of private charity and public transfers. Journal of political Economy, 92(1), 136-148. |
[51] | Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (2011). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. Pinter & Martin Publishers. |
[52] | Savary, J., & Goldsmith, K. (2020). Unobserved altruism: How self-signaling motivations and social benefits shape willingness to donate. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 26(3), 538. |
[53] | Schwarz, N. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 332-348. |
[54] | Semin, G. R., & Palma, T. A. (2014). Why the bride wears white: Grounding gender with brightness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(2), 217-225. |
[55] | Shang, J., Reed, A., & Croson, R. (2008). Identity congruency effects on donations. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(3), 351-361. |
[56] | Shaw, D., McMaster, R., & Newholm, T. (2016). Care and commitment in ethical consumption: An exploration of the ‘attitude-behaviour gap’. Journal of Business Ethics, 136, 251-265. |
[57] | Sheng, G. H., Dai, J. T., & Yue, B. B. (2021). Association of "Green”: A research on the contingency mechanism of the effects of green product packaging color on consumers' green purchase. Foreign Economics & Management, 43(5), 91-105. |
[盛光华, 戴佳彤, 岳蓓蓓. (2021). “绿色”的联想:绿色产品包装颜色影响消费者绿色购买意愿的权变机制研究. 外国经济与管理, 43(5), 91-105.] | |
[58] | Simmons, J. P., & Nelson, L. D. (2006). Intuitive confidence: Choosing between intuitive and nonintuitive alternatives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(3), 409-428. |
[59] | Small, D. A., & Verrochi, N. M. (2009). The face of need: Facial emotion expression on charity advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), 777-787. |
[60] |
Song, W. J., Chen, Y. Y., & Huang, W. H. (2023). Emphasizing recovery or improvement in charitable fundraising should depend on event controllability. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(7), 1133-1151.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01133 |
[宋文静, 陈怡煖, 黄韫慧. (2023). 募捐信息该强调恢复还是改善受事件可控性调节. 心理学报, 55(7), 1133-1151.] | |
[61] | Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological review, 117(2), 440. |
[62] | 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. |
[63] | White, K., & Peloza, J. (2009). Self-benefit versus other- benefit marketing appeals: Their effectiveness in generating charitable support. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 109-124. |
[64] | Winterich, K. P., Mittal, V., & Aquino, K. (2013). When does recognition increase charitable behavior? Toward a moral identity-based model. Journal of Marketing, 77(3), 121-134. |
[65] | Winterich, K. P., Mittal, V., & Ross, W. T.,Jr. (2009). Donation behavior toward in-groups and out-groups: The role of gender and moral identity. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(2), 199-214. |
[66] | Woolley, K., & Liu, P. J. (2021). How you estimate calories matters: Calorie estimation reversals. Journal of Consumer Research, 48(1), 147-168. |
[67] | Xue, H. B., & Fu, G. Q. (2015). Studies on consumption of household pets: A review and perspective. Journal of Marketing Science, 11(1), 1-21. |
[薛海波, 符国群. (2015). 家庭宠物消费研究: 回顾与展望. 营销科学学报, 11(1), 1-21.] | |
[68] | Zagefka, H. (2022). The habituation fallacy: Disaster victims who are repeatedly victimised are assumed to suffer less, and they are helped less. European Journal of Social Psychology, 52(4), 642-655. |
[69] | Zhou, X., Kim, S., & Wang, L. (2019). Money helps when money feels: Money anthropomorphism increases charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(5), 953-972. |
[1] | 郑晓莹, 韩润蕾, 刘汝晗, 徐菁. 信息加工流畅性与真实性对互联网公益捐助的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2024, 56(2): 226-238. |
[2] | 陈颖, 李锋盈, 李伟健. 个体关于加工流畅性的信念对字体大小效应的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(2): 154-162. |
[3] | 靳菲; 朱华伟;. 消费者的权力感与冲动购买[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(7): 880-890. |
[4] | 张晓燕,高定国,傅华. 辩证思维降低攻击性倾向[J]. 心理学报, 2011, 43(01): 42-51 . |
[5] | 侯瑞鹤,俞国良. 加工流畅性和提取流畅性与学习不良儿童学习判断的关系[J]. 心理学报, 2008, 40(09): 994-1001. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||