知覺自我控制與其機制之研究

Abstract

本論文旨在探討消費者達成目標的知覺自我控制與背後運作的機制，分作兩篇研究檢視。研究一主要檢視當個體採取外在影響自我控制的策略時，這些策略對於知覺自我控制的影響。該研究從預期負面情緒與知覺風險的角度，來解釋兩種外在策略：賭金與裁判員，如何影響個體的知覺自我控制。除了外在施加的控制策略之外，個體本身的傾向也是影響知覺自我控制的主因，因此研究二則欲探討個體內在的時間傾向與其訊息解讀框架等非外在性的機制，對於知覺自我控制的影響。為因應不同研究的目的，研究一採用結構方程模式的方法分析資料，檢視一概念性的架構模式；研究二則進行準實驗設計，透過三因子變異數分析檢視不同的實驗情境下，受測者的知覺自我控制是否也不一致。 首先，第一篇研究採結構方程模式探究在兩種預先承諾策略(即賭金做為懲罰、以及選擇裁判員做為監督人)之下，個體的心理機制如何影響其知覺自我控制。當採取這兩種策略的個體決定賭金與裁判員時，會先評估目標的想要性與可行性，而賭金跟裁判員的策略採用也意味著，潛在金錢損失與主觀規範影響將伴隨而來。此一研究推測知覺金錢風險可能引起知覺心理風險，例如：不舒服、焦慮、緊張、懊悔、及罪惡感，而主觀規範性影響則可能誘發丟臉、尷尬、與恥辱等知覺社會風險。本研究認為當知覺金錢風險、知覺心理風險、與知覺社會風險愈高時，將抑制個體的誘惑沈浸意向，並帶來較高的知覺自我控制。為了檢視這樣的推論，本研究招募自願的台灣大學大學部學生作為受測者，共蒐集375份有效樣本以LISREL 8.7 軟體進行分析。該研究將部分自我意識的預期負面情緒納入知覺社會風險與知覺心理風險，並發現賭金與裁判員的策略將透過知覺心理風險(即不舒服、焦慮、緊張、懊悔、及罪惡感等情緒)，從而強化個體的知覺自我控制。雖然此一研究結果支持主觀規範對於知覺社會風險與預期負面情緒的影響，但研究結果卻反而指出知覺社會風險與誘惑沈浸意向之間呈現邊際正面顯著關係。在研究一的討論與意涵當中，本論文提出可能的解釋與相關研究結果闡述。 本論文的第二篇研究則闡述未來時間導向的個體會比現在導向的個體，具較高程度的知覺自我控制。此研究將目標達成的時間距離以及個體詮釋目標的調節焦點框架視為干擾變數，發展一2(未來導向vs. 未來導向)*2 (促進調節焦點 vs. 趨避調節焦點)*2(短近的時間距離 vs. 長遠的時間距離)的準實驗設計，以受測者間(between-subject)方式，共蒐集334份有效樣本，並以三因子變異數分析檢視此一研究的假說推論。析言之，未來導向的人因其考量未來結果與趨避風險的行為特徵，跟趨避調節焦點框架的契合將帶來較高程度的知覺誘惑抗拒。更重要的是，在目標時間距離短近的情況下，有著趨避調節焦點框架的未來導向個體，將比有著促進調節焦點框架的個體具更高的知覺自我控制來抗拒誘惑。此一研究結果也發現，在趨避調節焦點框架的情況下，面對短近目標時間距離的未來導向個體，將比面臨短近目標時間距離的現在導向個體，具較低的誘惑沈浸意向。如統研究一，本論文在研究二的結果討論及意涵中，針對研究二的結果提出闡述與解讀。

This research mainly examines consumers’ perceived self-control in goal pursuit and its underlying mechanisms, including two studies for further discussion. In the first study, this research focuses on the influence of two externally imposed strategies (i.e. stakes and referees) on individuals’ perceived self-control from the perspective of anticipated negative emotions and perceived risks. This study scrutinizes how the two strategies affect individuals’ perceived self-control. Moreover, in the second essay, this study further explores how an individual’s time orientation and goal framing influence his/her perceived self-control. An individual’s orientation and framing should be critical factors that are different from the externally imposed strategies to guide self-control intention. To address the distinct research goals, study 1 adopts structural equation model to examine a conceptual framework, whereas study 2 employs a quasi-experimental design and three-way ANOVA to see the perceived self-control under disparate experimental scenarios. In specific, study 1 examines how the psychological mechanisms affect perceived self-control under the use of two pre-commitment strategies: stake as penalty and referees as supervisors. Individuals adopting the two strategies will evaluate the goal desirability and feasibility before deciding on the stake and referees that are often accompanied by potential monetary loss and subjective normative influence. While the monetary risk is likely to induce a perception on psychological loss in terms of discomfort, anxiety, tension, regret, and guilt, subjective normative influence may yield a perception on social risks in terms of shame, embarrassment, and humiliation. Study 1 suggests that higher extent of perceived monetary risk, perceived psychological risk, and perceived social risk will help inhibit indulgence intention and contribute to a higher degree of self-control intention. To support the inference, this study recruits undergraduate students in National Taiwan University to participate in the survey with total 375 usable samples being analyzed in LISREL 8.7 program. Including some anticipated negative emotions into the construct of perceived social risk and psychological risk, this study finds that both stake and referees will intensify an individual’s perceived self-control through an increase in individuals’ perceived psychological risk (i.e. discomfort, anxiety, tension, regret, and guilt). Despite the effect of subjective norms on perceived social risk and anticipated negative emotions (i.e. shame, embarrassment, and humiliation), the effect of perceived social risk on indulgence intention is found to be against the inference but instead shows marginally significant and positive. This study provides explanations in the discussion and implication. In the second study, this research demonstrates that future oriented individuals are more likely than present oriented people to exert a higher extent of perceived self-control. Temporal distance towards goals and the regulatory focus of goal framing are regarded as the moderators here. With a 2 (future orientation versus present orientation)*2 (promotion focus versus prevention focus)*2 (near temporal distance versus far temporal distance) quasi-experiment design, this research examines the hypotheses in 3-way ANOVA. Specifically, future orientation characterized by a focus on future consequences and avoidance of risky behavior reveals a regulatory fit with the prevention focus, which in turn leads to higher extent of perceived resistance to temptations. More importantly, in a condition of goal proximity, future oriented individuals with prevention focus will tend to have higher extent of perceived self-control than with promotion focus to resist temptations. This research also finds that in a condition of prevention framing, a future oriented person in front of near temporal distance will have lower intention to indulge than a present oriented person in front of near temporal distance. As Study 1, advanced interpretation of research results are presented in the discussion and implication in Study 2.