Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-27 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract： Legacy motivation refers to the phenomenon that individuals want to leave a mark on this planet and be remembered by others for a long time. It is a fundamental motivation that has been widely possessed by human beings. It can have important psychological and behavioral consequences because it offers individuals an enduring meaning for self-identity and motivates them to extend themselves into the future. Previous work examined the influences of legacy motivation in the domains of intergenerational decision making and employee behaviors. However, research on how legacy motivation influences individuals' other behaviors remains in infancy. The current work takes a novel perspective and focuses on the influence of legacy motivation in the domain of financial decision making. We examine how and why legacy motivation affects individuals' risk- taking behavior and when it occurs. We propose that legacy motivation would diminish individuals' tendency to engage in risk-taking behavior. This effect is driven by future self-continuity perception and occurs among people with a high socioeconomic status (SES). Four experiments were conducted to test our proposed hypothesis. Study 1 was designed to offer initial evidence that legacy motivation would lead to a greater perception of future self-continuity. This study employed a one factor (legacy motivation: legacy vs. control) between-subject design and manipulated legacy motivation by asking participants to write an essay on what they wanted to be remembered for by future others. In the control condition, participants were instructed to imagine and write about what life would be in 30 years. Study 2a established the main effect of legacy motivation on individuals' risk-taking tendency. Participants were presented a job recruitment advertisement featuring a high wage but low job security to measure their risk-taking tendency. They indicated their likelihood of adopting this new job. Study 2b replicated the effect of legacy motivation on risk-taking behavior and explored the underlying mechanism of future self-continuity. Risk-taking behavior was operationalized by asking participants to select one of three financial portfolio products that represent different degrees of financial risk. Study 3 investigated the moderation role of individuals' SES. A 2 (legacy motivation: legacy vs. control) � 2 (SES: continuous variable) design was employed, in which legacy motivation was manipulated, and SES was measured. The propositions were supported by several convergent results. Study 1 provided initial evidence that activating legacy motivation would result in a higher future self-continuity perception (Mlegacy = 4.25, SD = 1.50, Mcontrol = 3.81, SD = 1.44; F(1, 182) = 4.08, p = 0.045, Cohen's d = 0.30). Study 2a documented the main effect by showing that legacy motivation weakened individuals' likelihood of engaging in financial risk taking (Mlegacy = 4.22, SD = 1.84, Mcontrol = 4.66, SD = 1.72; F(1, 259) = 4.09, p = 0.044, Cohen's d = 0.25) and ruled out several alternative interpretations such as self-esteem, mood, and impression management. Study 2b confirmed the mediation role of future self-continuity in driving legacy motivation's effect on financial risk taking (b = 0.12, SE = 0.06, 95% CI = 0.03~0.26). Study 3 investigated the moderating role of participants' SES. We found that the legacy effect on financial risk taking as a function of future self-continuity only existed in participants with a relatively high SES (b = 0.19, SE = 0.08, 95% CI = 0.05~0.37) and disappeared with a relatively low SES (b = 0.03, SE = 0.05, 95% CI = -0.04~0.15). This study contributes to the literature on legacy motivation, future self-continuity, and financial risk-taking behavior. It extends the research on legacy motivation by documenting an important behavioral consequence in the domain of individual financial decision making. It also provides a new antecedent for future self-continuity and financial risk-taking behavior.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-27 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract： Aesthetic is the first medium of a product in the era of “appearance economy.” Previous studies have explored the effects of aesthetic elements on consumer behavior, including color, packaging transparency, size, logo shape, and so on. Unlike existing studies, this research discusses the overall dimension of design, that is, the degree of complexity of the design. Specifically, we propose that people’s subjective social status affects their preference for complexity in design. Meanwhile, people with low social status are more likely to prefer a complex packaging design than those with high social status. We conducted five experiments to test the hypotheses. Experiment 1 used 2 (social status: low vs. high) × 2 (product design: simple vs. complex) between-subjects design with 198 adults (female = 128) participating in the experiment. The results showed that people with relatively low social status have higher evaluations of complex packaging designs (vs. simple designs). At the same time, the level of complexity did not influence how people with high social status evaluate products. Using a more rigorous method to manipulate the social status, Experiment 2 employed a one-factor two-level (social status: low vs. high) between-subjects design with 134 adults (female = 97). After manipulating social statuses, participants reported their preferences between complex and simple packaging designs. The result confirmed that people with low social status prefer products with complex designs (vs. simple designs). Similar to Experiment 2, Experiment 3 (211 participants, female = 151) also used a one-way design (social status: low vs. high vs. control) but added a control group as the baseline group for comparison. The results confirmed that a low social status could drive preference for complexity. Furthermore, the results showed that people with low social status prefer complex packing design more than those in control and high social status groups. At the same time, no significant difference was observed in the preference between the high social status and control groups. Experiment 3 also found that consumers’ perceived effort mediated the above effect. Specifically, low social status individuals (vs. individuals in high social status vs. individuals in the control group) perceived that complex packing products entailed more effort from producers. Hence, they preferred such products. Experiment 4 was a pre-registration experiment (200 participants, female = 151). The experimental design and procedure were the same as in Experiment 2. The results also showed that people with low social status preferred complex packaging designs and believed these products had a higher value. Compared with high social status individuals, low social status individuals perceived that producers spent more effort on a product if it had a complex packaging design. Thus, these consumers perceived higher product value, as well as higher preference toward the product (sequential mediation: model 6). Experiment 5 tested the mediation effect by moderators. We proposed that the impact of social status only existed in consumers who believed in the value of effort. Experiment 5 used a 2 (social status: low vs. high) × 2 (product design: simple vs. complex) × 2 (belief in effort value: low vs. high) between-subjects design (346 participants, female = 208). The ANOVA revealed a three-way interaction. Furthermore, the Johnson-Neyman analysis found that the preference for complex design among low social status individuals only existed among those who believed in the value of effort. The results of this interaction again suggested that the preference of low social status individuals for complexity stems from their perception of the producer’s effort in making these products. This study has the following theoretical contributions. First, it brings the perspective of subjective social status to the study of consumer aesthetics. Second, it provides a new mechanism for the role of social status, i.e., social status affects people’s behavior by influencing their perceived importance of effort. Previous explanations of the behavior of low social status individuals have tended to be from a compensatory psychological perspective. In contrast, the current research takes the perspective of effort to demonstrate that low social status individuals value effort, which influences their behavior. Third, this research also contributes to the study of consumer effort, as this study finds that simply changing the level of complexity of packaging design can change people’s perceptions of producer effort.
Subjects: Psychology >> Management Psychology submitted time 2022-06-27
Abstract： Aesthetic is the first medium of a product in the era of “appearance economy.” Previous studies have explored the effects of aesthetic elements on consumer behavior, including color, packaging transparency, size, logo shape, and so on. Unlike existing studies, this research discusses the overall dimension of design, that is, the degree of complexity of the design. Specifically, we propose that people’s subjective social status affects their preference for complexity in design. Meanwhile, people with low social status are more likely to prefer a complex packaging design than those with high social status. We conducted five experiments to test the hypotheses. Experiment 1 used 2 (social status: low vs. high) × 2 (product design: simple vs. complex) between-subjects design with 198 adults (female = 128) participating in the experiment. The results showed that people with relatively low social status have higher evaluations of complex packaging designs (vs. simple designs). At the same time, the level of complexity did not influence how people with high social status evaluate products. Using a more rigorous method to manipulate the social status, experiment 2 employed a one-factor two-level (social status: low vs. high) between-subjects design with 134 adults (female = 97). After manipulating social statuses, participants reported their preferences between complex and simple packaging designs. The result confirmed that people with low social status prefer products with complex designs (vs. simple designs). Similar to experiment 2, experiment 3 (211 participants, female = 151) also used a one-way design (social status: low vs. high vs. control) but added a control group as the baseline group for comparison. The results confirmed that a low social status could drive preference for complexity. Furthermore, the results showed that people with low social status prefer complex packing design more than those in control and high social status groups. At the same time, no significant difference was observed in the preference between the high social status and control groups. Experiment 3 also found that consumers’ perceived effort mediated the above effect. Specifically, low social status individuals (vs. individuals in high social status vs. individuals in the control group) perceived that complex packing products entailed more effort from producers. Hence, they preferred such products. Experiment 4 was a pre-registration experiment (200 participants, female = 151). The experimental design and procedure were the same as in experiment 2. The results also showed that people with low social status preferred complex packaging designs and believed these products had a higher value. Compared with high social status individuals, low social status individuals perceived that producers spent more effort on a product if it had a complex packaging design. Thus, these consumers perceived higher product value, as well as higher preference toward the product (sequential mediation: model 6). Experiment 5 tested the mediation effect by moderators. We proposed that the impact of social status only existed in consumers who believed in the value of effort. Experiment 5 used a 2 (social status: low vs. high) × 2 (product design: simple vs. complex) × 2 (belief in effort value: low vs. high) between-subjects design (346 participants, female = 208). The ANOVA revealed a three-way interaction. Furthermore, the Johnson-Neyman analysis found that the preference for complex design among low social status individuals only existed among those who believed in the value of effort. The results of this interaction again suggested that the preference of low social status individuals for complexity stems from their perception of the producer’s effort in making these products. This study has the following theoretical contributions. First, it brings the perspective of subjective social status to the study of consumer aesthetics. Second, it provides a new mechanism for the role of social status, i.e., social status affects people’s behavior by influencing their perceived importance of effort. Previous explanations of the behavior of low social status individuals have tended to be from a compensatory psychological perspective. In contrast, the current research takes the perspective of effort to demonstrate that low social status individuals value effort, which influences their behavior. Third, this research also contributes to the study of consumer effort, as this study finds that simply changing the level of complexity of packaging design can change people’s perceptions of producer effort.
Peer Review Status:
Awaiting Review
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2020-05-24
Abstract：人们普遍拥有“期待不朽、被人铭记”的传承动机，文章通过四个实验探讨了该动机如何通过未来自我连续性的影响作用于个体的金融冒险行为。实验1发现传承动机能够提升个体对未来自我的连续性感知。实验2在此基础上发现传承动机会弱化个体金融冒险行为(2a)，并且该效应被自我连续性感知中介(2b)。实验3进一步考察个体社会经济地位对上述中介效应的调节，结果发现上述中介效应只出现在社会经济地位相对较高(vs. 较低)的个体身上。
Peer Review Status:Awaiting Review
Subjects: Biology >> Zoology submitted time 2017-10-10 Cooperative journals: 《动物营养学报》
Abstract：本试验旨在研究饲粮精氨酸（Arg）水平对肉鸡肉品质的影响。试验选用1日龄罗斯308肉鸡192只，公母各占1/2，按体重相近原则分成4个处理，每个处理8个重复，每个重复6只鸡。4个处理的饲粮在玉米-豆粕型基础饲粮中分别添加0（对照）、0.3％、0.6％、0.9％的L-Arg。试验期42 d。结果表明：饲粮Arg水平可线性提高肉鸡腿肌率（P<0.50），饲粮中添加0.6%Arg的肉鸡的腿肌率最高，可较对照处理提高12.08%。饲粮Arg水平有线性降低肉鸡腹脂率的趋势（P<0.10），饲粮中添加0.9%Arg的肉鸡的腹脂率最低，可较对照处理降低10.20%。饲粮Arg水平可线性降低腿肌中粗脂肪含量（P<0.01），其中饲粮中添加0.6%Arg的肉鸡腿肌中粗脂肪含量最低，可较对照处理降低21.64%。饲粮Arg水平对腿肌的硬度（P<0.01）、弹性（P<0.01）和胸肌的硬度（P<0.10）、弹性（P<0.05）呈先降低后升高的二次曲线变化，饲粮添加0.3%Arg时，肉鸡腿肌的弹性和胸肌的硬度、弹性可降低至最低，分别较对照处理降低了46.34%、10.24%、41.79%。饲粮Arg水平对肉鸡腿肌中C16:0、C16:1、C18:1、C18:0含量（P<0.05）和C20:0、C20:3含量（P<0.10）呈先降低后升高的二次曲线变化。饲粮添加0.6%Arg时，肉鸡腿肌中C16:0、C16:1、C18:1、C18:0、C20:0、C20:3含量最低，分别较对照处理降低了48.58%、52.67%、48.40%、46.72%、54.08%、34.29%。饲粮中适当添加Arg可提高肉鸡腿肌率，有降低肉鸡腹脂率的趋势，可降低肉鸡腿肌中粗脂肪和部分脂肪酸含量，降低腿肌、胸肌的硬度和弹性。
Hits
Hits
Downloads
Comment