慈善捐赠是指社会各种组织、单位和个人自愿地将它们所拥有的财产、时间或者精力无偿地转让给受赠者管理、处分或者使用的一种行为，是慈善事业的重要组成部分。《慈善蓝皮书：中国慈善发展报告（2020）》显示，2019年我国个人慈善捐赠同比增长了10.54%，这归功于互联网募捐的迅猛发展。随之带来的就是互联网募捐信息数量的增加；同样，网络招募志愿者信息也在不断增加。面对如此巨大的信息数据，什么样的信息更能吸引公众的关注，激发公众的捐赠意愿就成为一个值得研究的问题。

信息框架效应是指人们对一个客观上相同问题的不同描述导致了不同的决策判断，通常被分为特征框架效应、风险选择框架效应和目标框架效应。信息框架理论在商业广告诉求的研究中已经很成熟，近年来有一些学者将其拓展到了慈善诉求的研究。目前，学者多运用特征框架和风险选择框架研究慈善诉求方式对个体捐赠意愿的影响。本研究受到绿色广告有效性研究的启发，基于解释水平理论，从目标框架角度探究目标实现的及时性对慈善捐赠意愿（慈善捐款意愿/志愿服务意愿）的影响，以及影响过程中的中介机制。

本研究分为两个实验，采用不同的解释水平操纵方法，设计情境实验，探究目标框架(长期目标/短期目标)和解释水平（高解释水平/低解释水平）对个人捐赠意愿的交互影响以及这种影响的中介变量。研究结果表明，解释水平与目标框架的交互作用会影响个体捐赠意愿。高解释水平个体对具有长期目标的慈善诉求有着更高的捐赠意愿和志愿服务参与意愿；与之对应，低解释水平个体更倾向于捐赠或参与具有短期目标的慈善诉求。此外，研究还发现，加工流畅性在解释水平与目标框架的交互作用对捐赠意愿的影响中起到中介作用。

研究结论为非营利组织机构设计慈善诉求、公益广告文案、编写新闻报道等众多场景提供了新的视角。如果慈善项目面对的群体属于高解释水平，这意味着他们可能更关注慈善项目的长远意义，这时可以进行项目整合，或强调项目的可持续性；如果面向低解释水平个体，他们可能会更注重事件的具体结果或自己行为的现实意义，这时可以建议将项目划分小类，使之更为具体。这些对于激励个体捐赠意愿，推动志愿服务事业有着重要意义。

Charitable donation refers to a kind of behavior in which various organizations, units and individuals in society voluntarily transfer their property, time or energy to the recipient for management, disposal or use. It is an important part of charity. The "Blue Book of Charity: China Philanthropy Development Report (2020)" shows that in 2019, personal charitable donations in China increased by 10.54% per year, thanks to the rapid development of Internet fundraising. This is followed by an increase in the amount of information on Internet fundraising; similarly, information on online recruitment of volunteers is also increasing. Faced with such a huge amount of information and data, what kind of information can more attract the public's attention and stimulate the public's willingness to donate becomes a question worthy of research.

 

Information framing effect means that people’s different descriptions of an objectively same problem lead to different decision-making judgments, which are usually divided into attribute framing effect, risk choice framing effect and goal framing effect. The information framing theory has been very mature in the research of commercial advocacy. In recent years, some scholars have extended it to the research of charity appeal. At present, scholars mostly use the attribute framing effect and risk choice framing effect to study the influence of charity appeals on individual donation willingness. Inspired by the research on the effectiveness of green advertising, this research explores the impact of the timeliness of goal realization on the willingness of charitable donations (charitable donations/volunteer services) from the perspective of the goal framing effect based on the theory of interpretation level, as well as the intermediary mechanism in the influence process.

 

This research is divided into two experiments, using different construal level manipulation methods, we explored what we have explored by designing contextual experiments the interactive effects of goal framing effect (long-term goals/short-term goals) and construal level (high construal level/low construal level) on personal donation willingness and the mediating variables of this effect.The research results show that the interaction between the construal level and the goal framing effect will affect the individual's willingness to donate. Individuals with high construal level have higher willingness to donate and willingness to participate in charitable appeals with long-term goals; correspondingly, individuals with low construal level are more inclined to donate or participate in charitable appeals with short-term goals. In addition, the study also found that Processing fluency plays a mediating role in the influence of the interaction between the construal level and the goal framing effect on the willingness to donate.

 

The research conclusions provide a new perspective for non-profit organizations in designing charity appeals, public service advertisement copywriting, and writing news reports. For example, if the group faced by a charity project is at a high construal level of interpretation, it means that they may pay more attention to the long-term significance of the charity project. At this time, project integration can be carried out, or the sustainability of the project can be emphasized; if it is targeted at individuals with a low construal level , they may pay more attention to the specific results of the event or the practical significance of your actions. At this time, you can suggest dividing the project into smaller categories to make it more specific. These are of great significance for motivating individuals' willingness to donate and promoting voluntary service.

[1] 中国社会科学院社会政策研究中心. 慈善蓝皮书：中国慈善发展报告（2020）[R]. 北京: 社会科学文献出版社, 2020.
[2] 定险峰, 易晓明. 群体灾难下的慈善捐赠——共情的中介效应[J]. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2011, 19(03):363-366.
[3] Levin I P, Schneider S L, Gaeth G J. All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1998, 76(2):149-188.
[4] Loewenstein K J. Explaining the Identifiable Victim Effect[J]. Journal of Risk&Uncertainty, 1997, 14(3):235-257.
[5] Loewenstein G, Small D A. The scarecrow and the tin man: The vicissitudes of human sympathy and caring[J]. Review of General Psychology, 2007, 11(2):112-126.
[6] D Ein-Gar, Levontin L. Giving from a distance: Putting the charitable organization at the center of the donation appeal[J]. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2013, 23(2):197-211.
[7] Kogut T. Someone to blame: When identifying a victim decreases helping[J]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2011, 47(4):748-755.
[8] 朱翊敏. 事业涉入度和信息描述方式对消费者响应的影响——基于企业慈善营销[J]. 华东经济管理, 2014, 28(2):160-165.
[9] Chunmiluan Chang, Yukgang Lee. Framing Charity Advertising: Influences of Message Framing, Image Valence, and Temporal Framing on a Charitable Appeal1[J]. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2009, 39(12):2910-2935.
[10] Kopfman, et al. Affective and cognitive reactions to narrative versus statistical evidence organ donation[J]. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 1998, 26(3):279-300.
[11] White K, Peloza J. Self-Benefit Versus Other-Benefit Marketing Appeals: Their Effectiveness in Generating Charitable Support[J]. Journal of Marketing, 2009, 73(4):109-124.
[12] Park K, L Ee S S. The Role of Beneficiaries' Group Identity in Determining Successful Appeal Strategies for Charitable Giving[J]. Psychology & Marketing, 2015, 32(12):1117-1132.
[13] 戴鑫, 周文容, 曾一帆. 广告信息框架与信息目标对受众亲社会行为的影响研究[J]. 管理学报, 2015, 12(6):880-887.
[14] 朱翊敏. 慈善营销广告中信息陈述方式与顺序对消费者响应的影响[J]. 商业经济与管理, 2014, (4):49-58.
[15] D Laufer, Silvera D H, Mcbride J B, et al. Communicating charity successes across cultures: Highlighting individual or collective achievement?[J]. European Journal of Marketing, 2015, 44(9/10):1322-1333.
[16] Ford J B, Merchant A. Nostalgia drives donations: The power of charitable appeals based on emotions and intentions[J]. Journal of Advertising Research, 2010, 50(4):450-459.
[17] Hung I W, Jr R S W. Differences in perspective and the influence of charitable appeals: When imagining oneself as the victim is not beneficial[J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 2009, 46(3):421-434.
[18] Savary J, Goldsmith K, Dhar R. Giving Against the Odds: When Tempting Alternatives Increase Willingness to Donate[J]. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 2015, 52(1):27-38.
[19] Anik L, Norton M I, Ariely D. Contingent Match Incentives Increase Donations[J]. Journal of marketing research, 2014, 51(6):790-801.
[20] Liu W, Jennifer A. The Happiness of Giving: The Time-Ask Effect[J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 2008, 35(3):543-557.
[21] Winterich K P, Mittal V, Aquino K. When Does Recognition Increase Charitable Behavior? Toward a Moral Identity-Based Model[J]. Journal of Marketing, 2013, 77(3):121-134.
[22] Ira Teieh. A marketing persecetive of donation attitudes and intentions:an analysis of seleeted factors which may impact alumn contributions[D]. New York: New York University, 2001.
[23] Adrian Sargeant, Lucy Woodliffe. Gift giving: an interdisciplinary review[J]. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 2007, 12(4):275-307.
[24] Sargeant A, Ford J B, West D C. Perceptual determinants of nonprofit giving behavior[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2006, 59(2):155-165.
[25] 侯俊东. 非营利组织感知特性对个人捐赠行为影响研究[D]. 湖北: 华中科技大学, 2009.
[26] 胡晓明. 个人慈善捐赠动力机制研究[D]. 河南: 郑州大学, 2017.
[27] 闫岩. 计划行为理论的产生、发展和评述[J]. 国际新闻界, 2014, 36(7):113-129.
[28] 谢晓霞. 慈善组织品牌形象对公民慈善捐赠的影响[J]. 山东社会科学, 2016, (S1):455-456.
[29] 石国亮. 慈善组织个人捐赠吸引力的实证研究[J]. 行政论坛, 2015, 22(5):77-83.
[30] 赵芬芬. 基于组织动员情境的员工捐赠意愿影响因素研究[J]. 科技与管理, 2016, 18(2):98-104.
[31] 张义. 怀旧倾向对个人捐赠意愿的影响研究[D]. 上海: 东华大学, 2013.
[32] Merchant A, Ford J B, Rose G. How personal nostalgia influences giving to charity[J]. Dissertation Abstracts International. Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 2009, 69(7A):2796.
[33] Bekkers R, Wiepking P. Generosity and Philanthropy: A Literature Review[J]. Ssrn Electronic Journal, 2007, (1):14-21.
[34] 何志兴. 个人捐赠行为影响因素的实验研究[D]. 湖南: 湖南师范大学, 2014.
[35] Wilson J.Volunteering[J].Annual Review of Sociology,2000, (26):215-240.
[36] David Horton Smith. Altruism, Volunteers, and Volunteerism[J]. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 1981, 10(1):21-36.
[37] Mark, Snyder, Allen, et al. Volunteerism: Social Issues Perspectives and Social Policy Implications[J]. Social Issues and Policy Review, 2008, 2(1):1-36.
[38] Hart D, Donnelly T M, Atkins Y R. High School Community Service as a Predictor of Adult Voting and Volunteering[J]. American Educational Research Journal, 2007, 44(1):197-219.
[39] Matsu Ba M K, Hart D, Atkins R. Psychological and social-structural influences on commitment to volunteering[J]. Journal of Research in Personality, 2007, 41(4):889-907.
[40] Carlo G, Okun M A, Knight G P, et al. The interplay of traits and motives on volunteering: agreeableness, extraversion and prosocial value motivation[J]. Personality and Individual Differences, 2005, 38(6):1293-1305.
[41] Ayelet, Erez, and, et al. Attachment, personality, and volunteering: Placing volunteerism in an attachment-theoretical framework[J]. Personality and Individual Differences, 2008, 44(1):64-74.
[42] Grube J A, Piliavin J A. Role Identity, Organizational Experiences, and Volunteer Performance[J]. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 2016, 26(9):1108-1119.
[43] Matsu Ba M K, Hart D, Atkins R. Psychological and social-structural influences on commitment to volunteering[J]. Journal of Research in Personality, 2007, 41(4):889-907.
[44] Gebauer J E, Riketta M, Broemer P, et al. Pleasure and pressure based prosocial motivation: Divergent relations to subjective well-being[J]. Journal of Research in Personality, 2008, 42(2):399-420.
[45] Mark, Snyder, Allen, et al. Volunteerism: Social Issues Perspectives and Social Policy Implications[J]. Social Issues and Policy Review, 2008, 2(1):1-36.
[46] Gillath O, Shaver P R, Mikulincer M, et al. Attachment, Caregiving, and Volunteering: Placing Volunteerism in an Attachment-Theoretical Framework[J]. Personal Relationships, 2005, 12(4):425-446.
[47] Levin Irwin P, Schneider Sandra L, Gaeth Gary J. All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1998, 76(2):149-188.
[48] Jiaxi Peng, Yuan Jiang, Danmin Miao, Rui Li, Wei Xiao. Framing effects in medical situations: Distinctions of attribute, goal and risky choice frames[J]. Journal of International Medical Research, 2013, 41(3):771-776.
[49] James N, Druckman, Rose McDermott. Emotion and the Framing of Risky Choice[J]. Political Behavior, 2008, 30(3):297-321.
[50] Mishra S, Fiddick L. Beyond Gains and Losses: The Effect of Need on Risky Choice in Framed Decisions[J]. J Pers Soc Psychol, 2012, 102(6):1136-1147.
[51] X. T Wang, Frédéric Simons, Serge Brédart. Social cues and verbal framing in risky choice[J]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2001, 14(1):1-15.
[52] Kwak Youngbin, Huettel Scott. The order of information processing alters economic gain-loss framing effects[J]. Acta psychologica, 2018, 182(C):46-54.
[53] 王青春, 阴国恩, 张善霞, 姚姝君. 青少年决策中的风险选择框架效应[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2011, 9(4):268-272.
[54] Jia Jin, Wuke Zhang, Mingliang Chen. How consumers are affected by product descriptions in online shopping: Event-related potentials evidence of the attribute framing effect[J]. Neuroscience Research, 2017, 125:21-28.
[55] Yu, Si, Cho. Effects of emotional exemplars in responsibility attribution-framed news reports on perception and evaluations of social issues[J]. Asian Journal of Communication, 2015, 25(5):525-545.
[56] Leong L M, Mckenzie C R M, Sher S, et al. The Role of Inference in Attribute Framing Effects[J]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2017, 30(5):1147-1156.
[57] Gamliel E, Zohar A H, Kreiner H. Personality Traits Moderate Attribute Framing Effects[J]. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 2013, 5(5):584-592.
[58] Mcelroy T, Conrad J. Thinking about product attributes: Investigating the role of unconscious valence processing in attribute framing[J]. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2009, 12(2):157-161.
[59] 徐富明, 文桂婵, 吴修良, 李海军, 相鹏. 阈下特征框架效应心理机制初探[J]. 应用心理学, 2013, 19(1):3-9.
[60] Ahluwalia, Rohini, Burnkrant, et al. Consumer Response to Negative Publicity: The Moderating Role of Commitment[J]. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 2000, 37(2):203-214.
[61] Chang, Lee. Effects of message framing, vividness congruency and statistical framing on responses to charity advertising[J]. International Journal of Advertising, 2010, 29(2):195-220.
[62] Avineri E, Waygood E. Applying valence framing to enhance the effect of information on transport-related carbon dioxide emissions[J]. Transportation Research Part A Policy & Practice, 2013, 48(Special SI):31-38.
[63] 张广宇, 张梦. 定制化情境下旅游服务购买决策的目标框架效应[J]. 旅游学刊, 2016, 31(1):57-67.
[64] Helena Bilandzic, Anja Kalch, Jens Soentgen. Effects of Goal Framing and Emotions on Perceived Threat and Willingness to Sacrifice for Climate Change[J]. Science Communication, 2017, 39(4):466-491.
[65] 陈剑梅, 傅琦. 劝捐策略和框架效应对个体捐赠决策的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2016, 14(3):377-383.
[66] 谢晔, 周军. 情绪和框架效应对个体捐赠决策影响的实验研究[J]. 心理科学, 2012, 35(4):951-956.
[67] Rudd M, Aaker J, Norton M I. Getting the most out of giving: Concretely framing a prosocial goal maximizes happiness[J]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2014, 54:11-24.
[68] Ravi Dhar, Eunice Y, Kim. Seeing the Forest or the Trees: Implications of Construal Level Theory for Consumer Choice[J]. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2007, 17(2):96-100.
[69] Liberman, Nira, Trope, et al. The Role of Feasibility and Desirability Considerations in Near and Distant Future Decisions: A Test of Temporal Construal Theory[J]. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1998, 75(1):5-18.
[70] Liberman N, Sagristano M, Trope Y. The Effect of Temporal Distance on Level of Mental Construal[J]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2002, 38(6):523-534.
[71] Nussbaum S, Trope Y, Liberman N. Creeping Dispositionism: the Temporal Dynamics of Behavior Prediction[J]. Journal of personality and social psychology, 2003, 84(3):485-497.
[72] Stephan E, Liberman N, Trope Y. Politeness and Psychological Distance: a Construal Level Perspective[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2010, 98(2):268-280.
[73] Trope Y, Liberman N, Wakslak C. Construal Levels and Psychological Distance: Effects on Representation, Prediction, Evaluation, and Behavior[J]. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2007, 17(2):83-95.
[74] Stephan E, Liberman N, Trope Y. Politeness and Psychological Distance: a Construal Level Perspective[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2010, 98(2):268-280.
[75] Nussbaum Shiri, Liberman Nira, Trope Yaacov. Predicting the near and distant future[J]. Journal of experimental psychology General, 2006, 135(2):152-161.
[76] 沈旺, 高雪倩, 代旺, 杨博全. 基于解释水平理论与调节定向理论的社交网络隐私悖论研究[J]. 情报科学, 2020, 38(8):120-127.
[77] 王艳芝, 卢宏亮, 宗毅. 解释水平匹配对定制产品价值感知的影响[J]. 经济与管理评论, 2018, 34(3):105-118.
[78] 李悦, 谢炜. 信息特征对个体限制性政策抵触态度的影响：基于解释水平理论[J]. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2020, 28(2):404-408.
[79] 何昊, 黎建新, 汪涛. 合理性视角下企业的环境责任行为与消费者响应：解释水平的调节效应[J]. 商业经济与管理, 2017, (1):64-72.
[80] 王丹, 郭中实. 整合框架与解释水平：海内外报纸对“一带一路”报道的对比分析[J].新闻与传播研究, 2020, 27(3):5-20.
[81] 栾墨, 吴霜, 李虹. 预期交流与创造力的关系：解释水平的调节作用[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(10):1178-1188.
[82] 毛良斌. 社会公共事件中网民话语表达框架形成及其影响因素——基于解释水平理论的视角[J]. 新闻与传播研究, 2020, 27(9):95-110.
[83] 李开云, 王思杰, 杨蕙菁, 毕艳, 张文君, 林丰勋. “己之所欲”还是“成人之美”？解释水平视角下个体赠送-接受礼物的偏好不对称性[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(1):136-144.
[84] 高成. 享乐和实用情景下消费者对产品差异化的偏好——属性可比性和解释水平的调节作用[J]. 首都经济贸易大学学报, 2020, 22(3):91-101.
[85] 孙乃娟, 郭国庆. 群发性危机背景下服务补救的宽恕效果研究——危机性质和解释水平的调节[J]. 管理学刊, 2019, 32(6):54-61.
[86] Daniel M. Oppenheimer. Consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: problems with using long words needlessly[J]. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2006, 20(2):139-156.
[87] Rolf Reber, Pascal Wurtz, Thomas D Zimmermann. Exploring “fringe” consciousness: The subjective experience of perceptual fluency and its objective bases[J]. Consciousness and Cognition, 2004, 13(1):47-60.
[88] Trope Y, Liberman N. Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in preference[J]. Journal of personality and social psychology, 2000, 79(6):876-889.
[89] Cho H. If I Don't Understand It, It Must Be New: Processing Fluency and Perceived Product Innovativeness[J]. Advances in Consumer Research, 2006, 33(1):319-320.
[90] Norbert Schwarz. Metacognitive Experiences in Consumer Judgment and Decision Making[J]. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2004, 14(4):332-348.
[91] Daniel M. Oppenheimer. The secret life of fluency[J]. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2008, 12(6):237-241.
[92] Pascal Wurtz, Rolf Reber, Thomas D. Zimmermann. The feeling of fluent perception: A single experience from multiple asynchronous sources[J]. Consciousness and Cognition, 2008, 17(1):171-184.
[93] Adam L. Alter, Daniel M. Oppenheimer. Predicting short-term stock fluctuations by using processing fluency[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2006, 103(24):9369-9372.
[94] Laurie Balbo, Florence Jeannot. The fit between message framing and temporal distance: An efficient way to promote an innovative product[J]. Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition), 2015, 30(1):28-49.
[95] Hyunjin Song, Norbert Schwarz. If It's Difficult to Pronounce, It Must Be Risky: Fluency, Familiarity, and Risk Perception[J]. Psychological Science, 2009, 20(2):135-138.
[96] 单从文, 余明阳, 王良燕. 品牌延伸对消费者品牌忠诚的影响因素研究——基于品牌概念与品牌延伸架构[J]. 现代管理科学, 2015, (10):97-99.
[97] Kentaro, Fujita, Yaacov, et al. Construal levels and self-control[J]. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 2006, 90(3):351-367.
[98] White K, Macdonnell R, Dahl D. W. It's the Mind-Set That Matters: The Role of Construal Level and Message Framing in Influencing Consumer Efficacy and Conservation Behaviors[J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 2011, 48(3):472-485.
[99] 孙瑾, 苗盼. 近筹vs.远略——解释水平视角的绿色广告有效性研究[J]. 南开管理评论, 2018, 21(4):195-205.
[100]吴月燕, 彭璐珞, 严露娜, 等. “阳春白雪”还是“下里巴人”——消费者对文雅和通俗广告语体的态度[J]. 南开管理评论, 2019, 22(1):215-226.
[101]Lee Angela Y, Aaker Jennifer L. Bringing the frame into focus: the influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion[J]. Journal of personality and social psychology, 2004, 86(2):205-218.
[102]Liberman N, Idson L C, Camacho C J, Higgins E T. Promotion and prevention choices between stability and change[J]. Journal of personality and social psychology, 1999, 77(6):1135-1145.
[103]Yang X, Ringberg T, Mao H, et al. Construal (In)compatibility Effect: The Moderating Role of a Creative Mind-Set | Journal of Consumer Research | Oxford Academic[J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 2011, 38(4):681-696.
[104]Norbert Schwarz. Metacognitive Experiences in Consumer Judgment and Decision Making[J]. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2004, 14(4):332-348.
[105]王新珠, 牛永革, 李蔚. 促销方式对质量感知的影响——基于解释一致效应与加工流畅性分析[J]. 软科学, 2016, 30(4):111-113.
[106]White K, Macdonnell R, Dahl D. W. It's the Mind-Set That Matters: The Role of Construal Level and Message Framing in Influencing Consumer Efficacy and Conservation Behaviors[J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 2011, 48(3):472-485.
[107]Yaacov Trope, Nira Liberman.Temporal construal[J]. Psychological Review, 2003, 110(3):403-421.
[108]Freitas A L, Gollwitzer P M, Trope Y. The influence of abstract and concrete mindsets on anticipating and guiding others~self regulatory efforts[J]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2004, 40(6):739-752.
[109]Vallacher R R, Wegner D M. Levels of personal agency:Individual variation in action identification[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1989, 57(4):660-671.
[110]单禹. 低解释水平操纵对大学生性别刻板印象的干预作用[D]. 上海: 华东师范大学, 2013.
[111]Alter A L, Oppenheimer D M, Zemla J C. Missing the Trees for the Forest:A construal Level Account of the Illusion of Explanatory Depth[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2010, 99(3):436-451.
[112]Preacher K J, Hayes A F. SPSS and SAS Procedures For Estimating Indirect Effects in Simple Mediation Models[J]. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 2004, 36(4):717-731.