心理学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 53 ›› Issue (11): 1271-1285.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.01271
收稿日期:
2021-02-04
发布日期:
2021-09-23
出版日期:
2021-11-25
通讯作者:
孟陆
E-mail:jjzxml123@163.com
基金资助:
Received:
2021-02-04
Online:
2021-09-23
Published:
2021-11-25
Contact:
MENG Lu
E-mail:jjzxml123@163.com
摘要:
排名列表是帮助消费者快速识别品牌或产品优劣的手段。研究基于空间隐喻理论, 探究排名列表的不同展示方式(垂直vs水平)对消费者列表项目评价的极化影响及作用机制。通过5个实验发现: 消费者对于垂直排名列表相比水平排名列表中的项目具有更大的评价极化效应, 并且验证了项目感知差异在上述关系中的中介作用, 即垂直排名列表的评价极化效应是由个体较高的排名列表项目感知差异所驱动的。此外, 当属性可评估性较低时, 才会出现不同列表项目的评价极化效应; 相反, 当排名列表项目属性可评估性较高时, 该评价极化效应消失。
中图分类号:
段珅, 孟陆. (2021). 排名列表项目展示方式对于项目评价的极化效应. 心理学报, 53(11), 1271-1285.
DUAN Shen, MENG Lu. (2021). The polarization effect of project presentation in ranking list on project evaluation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(11), 1271-1285.
实验 | 实验形式 | 实验目的 | 实验材料及刺激物 | 评价极化测量 |
---|---|---|---|---|
实验1a | 线上实验(Credamo) | 正向排名列表主效应初步验证 | 手机性能UI排行榜 | 首末位评价得分估计(百分量表) |
实验1b | 线上实验(营销研究室) | 负向排名列表主效应初步验证 | 手机性能UI排行榜 | 首末位评价得分估计(百分量表) |
实验2 | 实验室实验 | 全排名列表主效应正式验证+中介效应初步验证 | 礼物产品排名情景 | 全项目评价得分估计(百分量表) |
实验3 | 实验室实验 | 正向排名列表项目感知差异中介效应正式验证 | 商学院排名情景 | 首末位评分估计(百分量表)与态度偏好(7点式量表)两种测量 |
实验4 | 实验室实验 | 正向属性可评估性调节效应正式验证 | 手机性能UI排行榜 | 首末位评价得分(7点式量表) |
表1 实验逻辑表
实验 | 实验形式 | 实验目的 | 实验材料及刺激物 | 评价极化测量 |
---|---|---|---|---|
实验1a | 线上实验(Credamo) | 正向排名列表主效应初步验证 | 手机性能UI排行榜 | 首末位评价得分估计(百分量表) |
实验1b | 线上实验(营销研究室) | 负向排名列表主效应初步验证 | 手机性能UI排行榜 | 首末位评价得分估计(百分量表) |
实验2 | 实验室实验 | 全排名列表主效应正式验证+中介效应初步验证 | 礼物产品排名情景 | 全项目评价得分估计(百分量表) |
实验3 | 实验室实验 | 正向排名列表项目感知差异中介效应正式验证 | 商学院排名情景 | 首末位评分估计(百分量表)与态度偏好(7点式量表)两种测量 |
实验4 | 实验室实验 | 正向属性可评估性调节效应正式验证 | 手机性能UI排行榜 | 首末位评价得分(7点式量表) |
项目 排名 | 垂直排名列表 | 水平排名列表 | 同项均值差 (垂直-水平) | 同项差异 显著性 | 累积差异 显著性 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
评分 均值 | 评分 标准差 | 与前项均值差 | 累积 均值差 | 评分 均值 | 评分 标准差 | 与前项 均值差 | 累积 均值差 | ||||
1 | 93.05 | 4.29 | — | — | 86.90 | 5.69 | — | — | 6.15 | ** | — |
2 | 84.94 | 9.01 | 8.11 | 8.11 | 79.09 | 8.87 | 7.81 | 7.81 | 5.85 | ** | n.s |
3 | 77.48 | 11.98 | 7.46 | 15.58 | 73.10 | 10.04 | 5.99 | 13.80 | 4.38 | * | n.s. |
4 | 68.52 | 10.46 | 8.96 | 24.54 | 64.86 | 11.02 | 8.24 | 22.04 | 3.66 | n.s. | n.s. |
5 | 56.69 | 11.10 | 11.83 | 36.37 | 55.73 | 12.92 | 9.13 | 31.17 | 0.96 | n.s. | * |
6 | 43.84 | 9.08 | 12.85 | 49.22 | 49.11 | 13.62 | 6.62 | 37.79 | -5.27 | n.s. | ** |
7 | 34.02 | 12.90 | 9.82 | 59.04 | 42.93 | 10.43 | 6.18 | 43.97 | -8.91 | n.s. | ** |
8 | 27.47 | 8.25 | 6.55 | 65.59 | 36.01 | 9.11 | 6.92 | 50.89 | -8.54 | * | ** |
9 | 20.52 | 6.97 | 6.95 | 72.54 | 29.59 | 6.04 | 6.42 | 57.31 | -9.07 | ** | ** |
10 | 11.39 | 6.31 | 9.13 | 81.67 | 22.44 | 5.99 | 7.15 | 64.46 | -11.05 | *** | *** |
均值 | 51.79 | 9.04 | 9.07 | — | 53.98 | 9.37 | 7.50 | — | — | n.s. a | ** b |
表2 不同礼物排名展现方式中各排序礼物间的评价差异表
项目 排名 | 垂直排名列表 | 水平排名列表 | 同项均值差 (垂直-水平) | 同项差异 显著性 | 累积差异 显著性 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
评分 均值 | 评分 标准差 | 与前项均值差 | 累积 均值差 | 评分 均值 | 评分 标准差 | 与前项 均值差 | 累积 均值差 | ||||
1 | 93.05 | 4.29 | — | — | 86.90 | 5.69 | — | — | 6.15 | ** | — |
2 | 84.94 | 9.01 | 8.11 | 8.11 | 79.09 | 8.87 | 7.81 | 7.81 | 5.85 | ** | n.s |
3 | 77.48 | 11.98 | 7.46 | 15.58 | 73.10 | 10.04 | 5.99 | 13.80 | 4.38 | * | n.s. |
4 | 68.52 | 10.46 | 8.96 | 24.54 | 64.86 | 11.02 | 8.24 | 22.04 | 3.66 | n.s. | n.s. |
5 | 56.69 | 11.10 | 11.83 | 36.37 | 55.73 | 12.92 | 9.13 | 31.17 | 0.96 | n.s. | * |
6 | 43.84 | 9.08 | 12.85 | 49.22 | 49.11 | 13.62 | 6.62 | 37.79 | -5.27 | n.s. | ** |
7 | 34.02 | 12.90 | 9.82 | 59.04 | 42.93 | 10.43 | 6.18 | 43.97 | -8.91 | n.s. | ** |
8 | 27.47 | 8.25 | 6.55 | 65.59 | 36.01 | 9.11 | 6.92 | 50.89 | -8.54 | * | ** |
9 | 20.52 | 6.97 | 6.95 | 72.54 | 29.59 | 6.04 | 6.42 | 57.31 | -9.07 | ** | ** |
10 | 11.39 | 6.31 | 9.13 | 81.67 | 22.44 | 5.99 | 7.15 | 64.46 | -11.05 | *** | *** |
均值 | 51.79 | 9.04 | 9.07 | — | 53.98 | 9.37 | 7.50 | — | — | n.s. a | ** b |
[1] | Abelson R. P. (1995). Attitude extremity. In R. E. Petty, & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences( pp. 25-42). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. |
[2] | Bagchi R., & Derick F. D. (2016). Numerosity and consumer decision making. Current Opinion in Psychology, 10(5), 89-93. |
[3] | Bagchi R., & Ince E. C. (2016). Is a 70% forecast more accurate than a 30% forecast? How level of a forecast affects inferences about forecasts and forecasters. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(1), 31-45. |
[4] | Bao Y. C., Bao Y. Q., & Sheng S. B (2011). Motivating purchase of private brands: Effects of store image, product signatureness, and quality variation. Journal of Business Research, 64(2), 220-226. |
[5] | Bargh J. A., Williams L. E., Huang J. Y., Song H., & Ackerman J. M. (2010). From the physical to the psychological: Mundane experiences influence social judgment and interpersonal behavior. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 33(4), 267-268. |
[6] | Bergen B. K., Lindsay S., Matlock T., & Narayanan S. (2007). Spatial and linguistic aspects of visual imagery in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31(5), 733-764. |
[7] | Brosvic G. M., & Cohen B.D. (1988). The horizontal-vertical illusion and knowledge of results. Percept Mot Skills, 67(2), 463-469. |
[8] | Cai F., Shen H., Hui, & Michael K. (2012). The effect of location on price estimation: Understanding number-location and number-order associations. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(5), 718-724. |
[9] | Casasanto, & Daniel. (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 138(3), 351-367. |
[10] | Chae B., Li X. P., & Zhu R. (2013). Judging product effectiveness from perceived spatial proximity. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 317-335. |
[11] | Chen S. S., Ke Y. N., Jiang J., & Xiao X. (2014). The influence of vertical metaphor of power on power judgment. Journal of Psychological Science, (2), 388-393. |
[ 陈思思, 克燕南, 蒋奖, 肖潇. (2014). 权力概念的垂直方位空间隐喻对权力判断的影响. 心理科学, (2), 388-393.] | |
[12] | Cogan D. G. (1949). Neurology of the ocular muscles. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 109(2), 187. |
[13] | Crawford L. E., Margolies S. M., Drake J. T., & Murphy M. E. (2006). Affect biases memory of location: Evidence for the spatial representation of affect. Cognition and Emotion, 20(8), 1153-1169. |
[14] | Darke P. R., & Ritchie R. J.B. (2007). The defensive consumer: Advertising deception, defensive processing, and distrust. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(1), 114-127. |
[15] | Dehaene S., Piazza M., Pinel P., & Cohen L. (2003). Three parietal circuits for number processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20(3-6), 487-506. |
[16] | Dehaene S., Spelke E., Pinel P., Stanescu R., & Tsivkin S. (1999). Sources of mathematical thinking: Behavioral and brain-imaging evidence. Science, 284(5416), 970-974. |
[17] | Deng X., Kahn B. E., Unnava H. R., & Lee H. (2016). A "wide" variety: Effects of horizontal versus vertical display on assortment processing, perceived variety, and choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(5), 682-698. |
[18] | Dijksterhuis A. (2004). Think different: The merits of unconscious thought in preference development and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 586-598. |
[19] | Ding, Y., & Zhong, J. Q. (2020). The effect of social crowding on individual preference for self-improvement products. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(2), 216-228. |
[ 丁瑛, 钟嘉琦. (2020). 社会拥挤对自我提升类产品偏好的影响. 心理学报, 52(2), 216-228.] | |
[20] | Faro D. (2010). Changing the future by reshaping the past: The influence of causal beliefs on estimates of time to onset. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 279-291. |
[21] | Faul F., Erdfelder E., Buchner A., & Lang A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160. |
[22] | Gamliel E., & Peer E. (2016). The average fuel-efficiency fallacy: Overestimation of average fuel efficiency and how it can lead to biased decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(2), 435-445. |
[23] | Hartmann M., Gashaj V., Stahnke A., & Mast F. W. (2014). There is more than "more is up": Hand and foot responses reverse the vertical association of number magnitudes. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance, 40(4), 1401-1414. |
[24] | Hayes A. F. ( 2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. |
[25] | Holmberg L. (1975). The influence of elongation on the perception of volume of geometrically simple objects. Psychological Research Bulletin, 15(2), 1-18. |
[26] | Hsee C. K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 247-257. |
[27] | Hsee C. K. (1998). Less is better: When low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11(2), 107-121. |
[28] | Hsee C. K., & Zhang J. (2010). General evaluability theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 343-355. |
[29] | Isaac M. S., Brough A. R., & Grayson K. (2016). Is top 10 better than top 9? The role of expectations in consumer response to imprecise rank claims. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(3), 338-353. |
[30] | Isaac M. S., & Schindler R.M. (2014). The top-ten effect: Consumers' subjective categorization of ranked lists. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6):1181-1202. |
[31] | Judd C. M., & Lusk C.M. (1984). Knowledge structures and evaluative judgments: Effects of structural variables on judgmental extremity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(6), 1193-1207. |
[32] | Koo D. M., & Lee J.H. (2011). Inter-relationships among dominance, energetic and tense arousal, and pleasure, and differences in their impacts under online vs. offline environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1740-1750. |
[33] | Lakoff G., & Johnson M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenges to Western thought. New York: Basic Books. |
[34] | Landau M. J., Meier B. P., & Keefer L. A. (2010). A metaphor-enriched social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1045-1067. |
[35] | Leclerc F., Hsee C. K., & Nunes J. C. (2005). Narrow focusing: Why the relative position of a good in its category matters more than it should. Marketing Science, 24(2), 194-205. |
[36] | Liberman A., & Chaiken S. (1991). Value conflict and thought-induced attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27(3), 203-216. |
[37] | Liu H. Y., Zhang S. X. (2019). To see the truth of space: A literature review and prospects of spatial metaphors’ effects on the consumption behavior. Foreign Economics & Management, 41(2), 59-72. |
[ 刘红艳, 张斯贤. (2019). 看清"空间"真面目: 空间隐喻对消费行为的影响研究述评与展望. 外国经济与管理, 41(2), 59-72.] | |
[38] | Lu, X., & Hsee, Christopher K. (2018). Joint evaluation versus single evaluation: A field full of potentials. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(8), 827-839. |
[ 路西, HSEE, Christopher K. (2018). 联合评估和单独评估:富有潜力的助推手段. 心理学报, 50(8), 827-839.] | |
[39] | Meier B. P., Hauser D. J., Robinson M. D., Friesen C. K., & Schjeldahl K. (2007). What\"s \"up\" with god? vertical space as a representation of the divine. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 93(5), 699-710. |
[40] | Millar M., & Abraham T. (1986). Thought-induced attitude change: The effects of schema structure and commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2), 259-269. |
[41] | Ouellet M., Santiago J., Israeli Z., & Gabay S. (2010). Is the future the right time?. Experimental Psychology, 57(4), 308-314. |
[42] | Paulhus D. L., & Lim D. T.K. (1994). Arousal and evaluative extremity in social judgments: A dynamic complexity model. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24(1), 89-99. |
[43] | Pham M. T (1996). Cue representation and selection effects of arousal on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(4), 373-387. |
[44] | Pope D. G. (2009). Reacting to rankings: Evidence from "America's best hospitals". Journal of Health Economics, 28(6), 1154-1165. |
[45] | Rodas M. A., & Roedder J.D. (2019). The secrecy effect: Secret consumption increases women’s product evaluations and choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(6), 1093-1109. |
[46] | Romero M., & Biswas D. (2016). Healthy-left, unhealthy- right: Can displaying healthy items to the left (versus right) of unhealthy items nudge healthier choices?. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(1), 103-112. |
[47] | Ryan K. M. (2018). Vertical video: Rupturing the aesthetic paradigm. Visual Communication, 17(2), 245-261 |
[48] | Schubert T. W. (2005). Your highness: Vertical positions as perceptual symbols of power. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 89(1), 1-21. |
[49] | Schwartz B. ( 1981). Vertical classification: A study in structuralism and the sociology of knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. |
[50] | Sevilla J., Isaac M. S., & Bagchi R. (2018). Format neglect: How the use of numerical versus percentage rank claims influences consumer judgments. Journal of Marketing, 82(6), 150-164. |
[51] | Shen L. X., Hsee C. K., Wu Q. S., & Tsai C. I. (2012). Overpredicting and under profiting in pricing decisions: Evaluability in pricing decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(5), 512-521. |
[52] | Song, Y. Q., & Zhang, J. J. (2014). Temporal-spatial metaphor in conceptual representation: Can spatial information be activated when processing the temporal reference which implied in the changing shape of objects? Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46(2), 216-226. |
[ 宋宜琪, 张积家. (2014). 空间隐喻和形状变化对物体内隐时间概念加工的影响. 心理学报, 46(2), 216-226.] | |
[53] | Sun, J. (2011). Consumer brand preference construction: The moderating role of evaluation mode. Management Review, 23(8), 103-111. |
[ 孙瑾. (2011). 属性可比性对消费者品牌评价的影响: 评价模式的调节作用. 管理评论, 23(8), 103-111.] | |
[54] | Tsiros M. (2017). Convexity neglect in consumer decision making. Journal of Marketing Behavior, 2(4), 286-286. |
[55] | Wang, Z., Lu Z. Y. (2013). The vertical spatial metaphor of moral concepts and its influence on cognition. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 45(5), 538-545. |
[ 王锃, 鲁忠义. (2013). 道德概念的垂直空间隐喻及其对认知的影响. 心理学报, 45(5), 538-545.] | |
[56] | Williams C. M. (1966). Horizontal versus vertical display of numbers. Human Factors, 8(3), 237. |
[57] | Wu L. M., Mo L., & Wang R. M. (2006). The activation process of spatial representations during real-time comprehension of verbs. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 38(5), 663-671. |
[58] | Yunhui H., & Han G. (2018). The minimal deviation effect: Numbers just above a categorical boundary enhance consumer desire. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(4), 775-791. |
[59] | Zhang M., & Wang J. (2009). Psychological distance asymmetry: The spatial dimension vs. other dimensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3):497-507. |
[60] | Zhao X. R., He X. Y., Wei Z., Chen G. Y., Chen Q., & Huang L. X. (2018). Interpersonal choice: The advantage on the left or on the right?. International Journal of Psychology, 53(5), 331-338. |
[61] | Zhu M., & Ratner R. K. (2015). Scarcity polarizes preferences: The impact on choice among multiple items in a product class. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(1), 13-26. |
[62] | Zhu, Y. M. (2019). Influence of consumer participation level on identification in online brand community——The moderating effect of product type and brand familiarity. Journal of Business Economics, (2), 51-61. |
[ 朱翊敏. (2019). 在线品牌社群成员参与程度对其社群认同的影响——产品类型和品牌熟悉度的调节. 商业经济与管理, (2), 51-61.] |
[1] | 张积家, 付雅, 王斌. 文化影响亲属词性别概念加工中的空间隐喻与重量隐喻——来自彝族、白族和摩梭人的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(4): 440-455. |
[2] | 王汉林, 蒋泽亮, 冯晓慧, 鲁忠义. 道德概念的空间形象性:语言因素和具身因素的共同作用[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(2): 128-138. |
[3] | 汪新筱;严秀英;张积家;董方虹. 平辈亲属词语义加工中长幼概念的空间隐喻和重量隐喻——来自中国朝鲜族和汉族的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(2): 174-185. |
[4] | 黎晓丹; 杜建政; 叶浩生. 中国礼文化的具身隐喻效应:蜷缩的身体使人更卑微[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(6): 746-756. |
[5] | 和秀梅;张夏妮;张积家;肖二平;王 娟. 文化图式影响亲属词语义加工中的空间隐喻 ——来自汉族人和摩梭人的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(5): 584-599. |
[6] | 唐佩佩;叶浩生;杜建政. 权力概念与空间大小:具身隐喻的视角[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(4): 514-521. |
[7] | 宋宜琪;张积家. 空间隐喻和形状变化对物体内隐时间概念加工的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(2): 216-226. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||