Thought of closeness
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).
Sensed 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 popular hookup apps Shreveport. 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
Having fun with Processes (Hayes, 2015 ) after the design 8, i 2nd tested if the telecommunications noticed anywhere between excuse method of and you may cause into intimacy are determined by the thinking out of trustworthiness. Results are revealed within the Dining table S5, and demonstrate that perceptions away from controllability are very noticable when an reason alludes to an effective discretionary reason. Brand new secondary aftereffect of sincerity mediated the connection anywhere between reason particular and you can ideas off closeness for a great discretionary reason (95% CI, .06 to help you .47) perhaps not a non-discretionary reason (95% CI, ?.18 to .16).
Conversation
Analysis 3A now offers extra assistance towards the suggested fundamental processes of the exhibiting you to differences in identified closeness one to originate from currency and you can big date excuses is actually attenuated if deficiency of the newest resource is the consequence of an external restriction (e.g., good “needed” non-discretionary purchase). But not, when excuses was in fact accompanied by information regarding the internal controllability from the new financing (age.grams., a great “wanted” discretionary pick), time reasons contributed to reduced honesty and you can intimacy, versus money excuses.
Inside the Studies 3B, we looked an additional moderator from imagined controllability, supply then service through moderation for our membership: the latest time of your own practices sense. Anyone fundamentally faith they will have way more leisure time on the upcoming, but don’t hold which religion for money (Monga et al., 2017 ; Zauberman & Lynch, 2005 ). I advise that anybody implement which exact same reasoning in order to someone else, believing that anyone else will also have more control more than its time in the faraway rather than not too distant future. Because of this, rejecting invitations centered on economic restrictions shall be viewed as exterior of your own excuse-givers’ manage, no matter whether invitations is having near- otherwise faraway-coming use. On the other hand, rejecting invitations predicated on temporary constraints will likely be regarded as a whole lot more manageable for faraway- instead of close-coming welcomes. This is why, pointing out short time (compared to. money) when giving an excuse to have rejecting a social invite have to have a healthier bad influence on ideas away from social closeness whenever invites was to own distant- in the place of close-future application (H5).