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 (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).
Understood sincerity
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, Reno hookup dating sites? 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
Using Techniques (Hayes, 2015 ) adopting the model 8, i next examined whether or not the communication observed anywhere between reason kind of and need into the closeness was inspired from the attitudes off sincerity. Results are found inside Desk S5, and you will reveal that thinking of controllability are noticable whenever an enthusiastic reason cites an effective discretionary need. The newest secondary aftereffect of honesty mediated the partnership between reason kind of and feelings off intimacy to own an excellent discretionary reason (95% CI, .06 to help you .47) not a low-discretionary need (95% CI, ?.18 to help you .16).
Dialogue
Investigation 3A has the benefit of most support into the recommended hidden process from the appearing you to variations in detected intimacy one result from currency and you may big date reasons is actually attenuated if lack of brand new resource was caused by an external restriction (e.g., good “needed” non-discretionary buy). not, whenever reasons have been followed closely by information regarding the internal controllability off new investment (age.grams., a great “wanted” discretionary purchase), day excuses lead to reduced honesty and closeness, compared to money reasons.
When you look at the Investigation 3B, i browsed an extra moderator regarding detected controllability, provide subsequent assistance via moderation for our account: the newest time of your application sense. Anybody basically faith they’ve got a whole lot more sparetime in the upcoming, but never hold that it belief for money (Monga mais aussi al., 2017 ; Zauberman & Lynch, 2005 ). I recommend that anybody implement that it same reasoning so you’re able to anyone else, convinced that other people will also have additional control over their time in the new distant rather than near future. This is why, rejecting invitations based on economic constraints is considered external of your reason-givers’ handle, regardless of whether invitations are getting near- otherwise faraway-coming consumption. In contrast, rejecting invitations based on temporal restrictions will likely be considered far more manageable to possess faraway- in the place of near-upcoming welcomes. This means that, citing short time (against. money) when providing an excuse getting rejecting a personal invitation must have a stronger bad impact on attitude regarding interpersonal intimacy whenever invitations is actually to possess faraway- in place of close-upcoming consumption (H5).