Understood intimacy
We conducted a 2 ? 2 ANOVA to assess the impact of excuse type (currency vs. big 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).
Thought of honesty
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
Using Processes (Hayes, 2015 ) adopting the design 8, we second looked at if the correspondence noticed ranging from excuse kind of and you may reason with the intimacy is actually driven by the perceptions off trustworthiness. Email address details are found during the Dining table S5, and reveal that attitudes from controllability are particularly obvious whenever an reason alludes to good discretionary reasoning. Brand new indirect effect of trustworthiness mediated the connection ranging from excuse particular and you may thoughts out of closeness having a beneficial discretionary reason (95% CI, .06 in order to hookup websites Wichita Falls .47) perhaps not a non-discretionary reasoning (95% CI, ?.18 in order to .16).
Dialogue
Study 3A has the benefit of most help to the proposed root process by indicating that variations in identified closeness one come from currency and you can date reasons try attenuated if the lack of the newest money is actually the result of an outward limitation (elizabeth.grams., an effective “needed” non-discretionary pick). Although not, when excuses were followed closely by information about the internal controllability away from new resource (elizabeth.g., a good “wanted” discretionary purchase), date excuses triggered decreased trustworthiness and you may closeness, as compared to currency reasons.
Into the Data 3B, we explored an extra moderator out of thought of controllability, provide further assistance via moderation for our membership: the new timing of your own usage experience. Some one fundamentally believe obtained even more free time about coming, but don’t keep so it faith for cash (Monga mais aussi al., 2017 ; Zauberman & Lynch, 2005 ). I advise that people incorporate so it same logic in order to someone else, believing that other people will also have more control more its time in new faraway in place of not too distant future. As a result, rejecting welcomes predicated on monetary constraints can be regarded as outside of one’s justification-givers’ control, it doesn’t matter if welcomes was for close- otherwise distant-upcoming application. Alternatively, rejecting invites predicated on temporal constraints will likely be seen as much more manageable to have faraway- versus close-future invites. As a result, pointing out limited time (compared to. money) whenever providing a justification to possess rejecting a personal invitation need to have a more powerful bad influence on attitude out-of interpersonal closeness whenever invites is to have faraway- rather than close-future application (H5).