Recognized 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 https://datingranking.net/local-hookup/spokane/ to the excuse-giver after receiving a time (vs. money) excuse (Mtime = 3.65, SD = 1.48; Mmoney = 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 (Mdiscretionary = 3.90, SD = 1.61; Mnon-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 (Mmoney = 3.83, SD = 1.49; Mtime = 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 (Mmoney = 4.39, SD = 1.59; Mtime = 3.42, SD = 1.50); F(1, 403) = , p < .001, ? 2 = .05 (Figure 5).
Thought trustworthiness
Participants perceived a time (vs. money) excuse to be less trustworthy (Mtime = 5.39, SD = 1.11; Mmoney = 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 (Mdiscretionary = 5.53, SD = 1.18; Mnon-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 (Mmoney = 5.46, SD = 1.05; Mtime = 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 (Mmoney = 5.76, SD = 1.17; Mtime = 5.32, SD = 1.17); F(1, 403) = 7.76, p = .006, ? 2 = .02.
Moderated mediation
Playing with Process (Hayes, 2015 ) following the model 8, we next checked-out if the communications noticed between reason kind of and you may need into closeness try determined by perceptions of sincerity. Email address details are found into the Dining table S5, and you may show that attitudes away from controllability are very noticable whenever a keen justification cites an effective discretionary reasoning. This new indirect effectation of trustworthiness mediated the relationship anywhere between reason sorts of and you can attitude regarding closeness having a beneficial discretionary reason (95% CI, .06 so you’re able to .47) perhaps not a non-discretionary cause (95% CI, ?.18 to .16).
Conversation
Investigation 3A also offers more support with the advised root procedure from the indicating you to definitely differences in seen closeness one to result from money and you may time excuses is attenuated if deficiency of the fresh new financing are the result of an external constraint (elizabeth.g., a good “needed” non-discretionary purchase). Yet not, when excuses was basically with factual statements about the interior controllability out-of the fresh capital (age.grams., a beneficial “wanted” discretionary pick), day reasons contributed to diminished sincerity and you may closeness, than the money excuses.
In Studies 3B, we looked a supplementary moderator away from seen controllability, to offer next assistance via moderation for our membership: the newest timing of usage experience. Individuals basically trust obtained a lot more time throughout the coming, but never hold so it religion for the money (Monga mais aussi al., 2017 ; Zauberman & Lynch, 2005 ). We recommend that someone implement which same logic so you’re able to others, convinced that someone else will also have additional control more their amount of time in the fresh faraway in place of near future. Because of this, rejecting invitations predicated on monetary limitations will be considered additional of the justification-givers’ handle, regardless of whether welcomes was to possess close- or faraway-upcoming practices. In contrast, rejecting welcomes based on temporary limitations should be seen as significantly more manageable for faraway- versus near-future welcomes. Thus, citing small amount of time (versus. money) whenever providing an excuse to own rejecting a social invite should have a more powerful negative influence on feelings off social closeness whenever welcomes are to possess distant- rather than near-coming practices (H5).