Research 3B: The latest Moderating Role out of Usage Time

Perceived closeness

We conducted a 2 ? 2 ANOVA to assess the impact of excuse type (currency vs. date) and controllability (non-discretionary vs. discretionary) on perceived closeness. Participants felt less close to the excuse-giver after receiving a time (vs. money) excuse (M_time = 3.65, SD = 1.48; M_money = 4.10, SD = 1.56), F(1, 403) = 9.17, p = .003, ? 2 = .02. While participants felt equally close to the excuse-giver after receiving an excuse for a discretionary and a non-discretionary reason (M_{discretionary} = 3.90, SD = 1.61; M_{non-discretionary} = 3.86, SD = 1.46), F(1, 403) = .11, p = .74, ? 2 = .00, there was a significant interaction between excuse type and controllability, F(1, 403) = , p = .001, ? 2 = .03. Planned comparisons showed that when the reasoning for the scarcity of the resource was non-discretionary, there was no difference in perceived closeness (M_money = 3.83, SD = 1.49; M_time = 3.89, SD = 1.43); F(1, 403) = .09, p = .76, ? 2 = .00. However, when the excuse was due to discretionary reasons, excuses citing money (vs. time) scarcity resulted in greater feelings of closeness (M_money = 4.39, SD = 1.59; M_time = 3.42, SD = 1.50); F(1, 403) = , p < .001, ? 2 = .05 (Figure 5).

Recognized sincerity

Participants perceived a time (vs. money) excuse to be less trustworthy (M_time = 5.39, SD = 1.11; M_money = 5.61, SD = 1.12), F(1, 403) = 3.72, p = .055, ? 2 =.01. While participants felt an excuse for a discretionary and a non-discretionary reason were similarly trustworthy (M_{discretionary} = 5.53, SD = 1.18; M_{non-discretionary} = 5.47, SD = 1.04), F(1, 403) = .44, p = .51, ? 2 = .00, there was a significant interaction between excuse type and controllability, F(1, 403) = 4.03, p = .05, ? 2 = .01. As with perceptions of closeness, planned comparisons showed that when the reason for the scarcity of the resource was non-discretionary, there was no difference in perceived trustworthiness (M_money = 5.46, SD = 1.05; M_time = 5.47, SD = 1.04); F(1, 403) = .00, p = .96, ? 2 = .00. However, when the excuse was due to discretionary reasons, excuses citing money (vs. time) scarcity resulted in greater trust (M_money = 5.76 best free hookup app Raleigh, SD = 1.17; M_time = 5.32, SD = 1.17); F(1, 403) = 7.76, p = .006, ? 2 = .02.

Moderated mediation

Having fun with Processes (Hayes, 2015 ) after the model 8, we next tested whether or not the communication noticed anywhere between reason particular and you will reasoning to your intimacy are determined from the thinking out-of sincerity. Email address details are revealed when you look at the Dining table S5, and you can demonstrate that thinking out of controllability are pronounced when a keen reason alludes to a good discretionary reasoning. The fresh indirect effect of honesty mediated the partnership between justification form of and thinking off closeness for a good discretionary reasoning (95% CI, .06 so you can .47) maybe not a non-discretionary need (95% CI, ?.18 so you’re able to .16).

Talk

Research 3A now offers most support towards the recommended root procedure because of the showing one to differences in perceived intimacy one to result from money and day reasons are attenuated in the event that deficiency of brand new funding was caused by an outward restriction (elizabeth.g., an excellent “needed” non-discretionary purchase). not, when reasons had been followed by details about the internal controllability out of new money (elizabeth.g., an effective “wanted” discretionary purchase), big date excuses led to decreased honesty and you will closeness, than the currency excuses.

In the Research 3B, i browsed an additional moderator out of thought controllability, to give next assistance via moderation in regards to our account: new time of usage sense. Someone fundamentally believe they will have more sparetime regarding coming, but do not keep that it faith for the money (Monga ainsi que al., 2017 ; Zauberman & Lynch, 2005 ). I recommend that someone incorporate this same reasoning in order to anybody else, convinced that anyone else will also have more control over their amount of time in the fresh distant instead of forseeable future. As a result, rejecting welcomes considering financial limits are going to be viewed as additional of your reason-givers’ handle, it doesn’t matter if invites is actually having near- otherwise faraway-coming practices. Alternatively, rejecting invitations predicated on temporal constraints will likely be viewed as way more controllable to own faraway- versus near-future welcomes. Consequently, mentioning limited time (versus. money) when offering a justification to own rejecting a social invitation need a healthier negative impact on attitude regarding social closeness when invitations are getting distant- versus near-upcoming application (H5).