“单枪匹马”还是“人多势众”——企业道歉者人数对消费者宽恕的影响
|
摘要
企业在向消费者道歉时,应该如何安排道歉者人数,一位还是多位道歉者?本研究通过五个实验揭示了企业道歉背景下的"人数效应":(1)相比多人道歉,一人道歉使消费者表现出更高的宽恕意愿(实验1a、2、3、4)和宽恕行为(实验1b),且不同人数的多人道歉对宽恕的影响无显著差异。(2)情绪共情和责任预期中介道歉者人数对宽恕的影响(实验2)。具体而言,与多人道歉相比,消费者对一人道歉的情绪共情和责任预期更高,进而促进其宽恕。(3)道歉者的实体性调节消费者对一人/多人道歉的宽恕(实验4),即高实体性可提升消费者对多人道歉的宽恕,从而弱化一人道歉与多人道歉在消费者宽恕上的差异。
A company apology necessarily involves the apology representative, which may consist of one person or multiple people. Previous research has suggested that the number of people is an important determinant in various aspects of communication, such as impression formation, willingness to talk, sharing contents, and pro-social behavior. Thus, we suggest that, the size of apology representative(i.e., either one or multiple) could influence consumer forgiveness. Moreover, we postulate that entitativity could moderate the main effect. Entitativity, which refers to the degree to which a collection of individuals comprises a single coherent entity, may attenuate the perception difference between one person and many people. A high entitative group may be inherently treated as a single individual, and are processed and judged differently than a low entitative group. Thus, entitativity may moderate the effect of the size of apology representative(one versus multiple) on forgiveness. Five experiments were conducted to examine the above hypotheses. Experiment 1a and 1b investigated whether apologizer size(one versus multiple) affects consumers' forgiveness. In particular, Experiment 1a measured the willingness to forgive by using the TRIM scale and Experiment 1b measured the behavioral index of forgiveness by using a resource allocation task. Additionally, Experiment 2 identified the underlying process by showing that the effect of the apologizer size on forgiveness is mediated by consumers' emotive reaction(i.e., emotional empathy) and cognitive reaction(i.e., expected responsibility) towards the apologizer(s). Further, Experiment 3 tried to rule out some alternative explanations, such as whether the picture or the number influences consumer forgiveness. Finally, Experiment 4 aimed to exploring the role of entitativity in the effect of apologizer size on consumer forgiveness. Results are as follows.(1) Compared to multiple apology representatives, one apology representative leads to greater consumer forgiveness, which includes forgiving intentions and forgiving behaviors.(2) The apologizer-size effect is driven by the consumers' emotional empathy and expected responsibility to the apologizer(s). Specifically, relative to multiple apology representatives, one apology representative induces higher emotional empathy and expected responsibility, thereby facilitating consumer forgiveness.(3) Entitativity could attenuate the effect of apologizer size on consumer forgiveness. Further, we discussed the theoretical contributions to the extant literature on the apology, the number of people, psychological distance, and entitativity, while offering some practical implications for managers.
A company apology necessarily involves the apology representative, which may consist of one person or multiple people. Previous research has suggested that the number of people is an important determinant in various aspects of communication, such as impression formation, willingness to talk, sharing contents, and pro-social behavior. Thus, we suggest that, the size of apology representative(i.e., either one or multiple) could influence consumer forgiveness. Moreover, we postulate that entitativity could moderate the main effect. Entitativity, which refers to the degree to which a collection of individuals comprises a single coherent entity, may attenuate the perception difference between one person and many people. A high entitative group may be inherently treated as a single individual, and are processed and judged differently than a low entitative group. Thus, entitativity may moderate the effect of the size of apology representative(one versus multiple) on forgiveness. Five experiments were conducted to examine the above hypotheses. Experiment 1a and 1b investigated whether apologizer size(one versus multiple) affects consumers' forgiveness. In particular, Experiment 1a measured the willingness to forgive by using the TRIM scale and Experiment 1b measured the behavioral index of forgiveness by using a resource allocation task. Additionally, Experiment 2 identified the underlying process by showing that the effect of the apologizer size on forgiveness is mediated by consumers' emotive reaction(i.e., emotional empathy) and cognitive reaction(i.e., expected responsibility) towards the apologizer(s). Further, Experiment 3 tried to rule out some alternative explanations, such as whether the picture or the number influences consumer forgiveness. Finally, Experiment 4 aimed to exploring the role of entitativity in the effect of apologizer size on consumer forgiveness. Results are as follows.(1) Compared to multiple apology representatives, one apology representative leads to greater consumer forgiveness, which includes forgiving intentions and forgiving behaviors.(2) The apologizer-size effect is driven by the consumers' emotional empathy and expected responsibility to the apologizer(s). Specifically, relative to multiple apology representatives, one apology representative induces higher emotional empathy and expected responsibility, thereby facilitating consumer forgiveness.(3) Entitativity could attenuate the effect of apologizer size on consumer forgiveness. Further, we discussed the theoretical contributions to the extant literature on the apology, the number of people, psychological distance, and entitativity, while offering some practical implications for managers.
引文
[1]Lazare,A..On Apology.New York:Oxford University Press,2004.
[2]Schweitzer,M.E.,Brooks,A.W.,Galinsky,A.D..The Organizational Apology.Harvard Business Review,2015,94(9):44-52.
[3]Ran,Y.,Wei,H.,Li,Q..Forgiveness from Emotion Fit:Emotional Frame,Consumer Emotion,and Feeling-right in Consumer Decision to Forgive.Frontiers in Psychology,2016,7(1775):1-16.
[4]Coombs,W.T.,Holladay,S.J..Comparing Apology to Equivalent Crisis Response Strategies:Clarifying Apology`s Role and Value in Crisis Communication.Public Relations Review,2008,34(3):252-257.
[5]Frantz,C.M.,Bennigson,C..Better Late Than Early:The Influence of Timing on Apology Effectiveness.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,2005,41(2):201-207.
[6]Sinha,J.,Lu,F.C..Value Relationships:Self-construal Effects on Post-transgression Consumer Forgiveness.Journal of Consumer Psychology,2016,26(2):265-274.
[7]Hill,K.,Boyd,D..Who Should Apologize When an Employee Transgresses?Source Effects on Apology Effectiveness.Journal of Business Ethics,2015,130(1):163-170.
[8]Aaker,J.,Fournier,S.,Brasel,S.A..When Good Brands Do Bad.Journal of Consumer Research,2006,31(1):1-16.
[9]Wei,H.,Ran,Y..Male Versus Female:How the Gender of Apologizers Influences Consumer Forgiveness.Advance Online Publication.Journal of Business Ethics,2017,DOI:10.1007/s10551-017-3440-7.
[10]Gorn,G.J.,Jiang,Y.,Johar,G.V..Babyfaces,Trait Inferences,and Company Evaluations in a Public Relations Crisis.Journal of Consumer Research,2008,35(1):36-49.
[11]Brinke,L.,Adams,G.S..Saving Face?When Emotion Displays During Public Apologies Mitigate Damage to Organizational Performance.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2015,130(1):1-12.
[12]Barasch,A.,Berger,J..Broadcasting and Narrowcasting:How Audience Size Affects What People Share.Journal of Marketing Research,2014,51(3):286-299.
[13]Small,D.A.,Loewenstein,G.,Slovic,P..Sympathy and Callousness:The Impact of Deliberative Thought on Donations to Identifiable and Statistical Victims.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2007,102(2):143-153.
[14]Hamilton,D.L.,Sherman,S.J..Perceiving Persons and Groups.Psychological Review,1996,103(2):336-355.
[15]Slovic,P..If I Look at the Mass I Will never Act:Psychic Numbing and Genocide.Judgment and Decision Making,2007,2(2):79-95.
[16]Enright,R.D..The Human Development Study Group.The Moral Development of Forgiveness.In Kurtines,W.,Gewirtz,J..(Eds.),Moral Behavior and Development.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum,1991,(1):123-152
[17]Jenni,K.,Loewenstein,G..Explaining the Identifiable Victim Effect.Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,1997,14(3):235-257.
[18]Dickert,S.,Sagara,N.,Slovic,P..Affective Motivations to Help Others:A Two-stage Model of Donation Decisions.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,2011,24(4):361-376.
[19]Small,D.A.,Loewenstein,G..Helping a Victim or Helping the Victim:Altruism and Identifiability.Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,2003,26(1):5-16.
[20]Dickert,S.,Slovic,P..Attentional Mechanisms in the Generation of Sympathy.Judgment and Decision Making,2009,4(4):297-306.
[21]Dickert,S.,Kleber,J.,Peters,E.,Slovic,P..Numeracy as a Precursor to Pro-social Behavior:The Impact of Numeracy and Presentation Format on the Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying Donation Decisions.Judgment and Decision Making,2011,6(7):638-650.
[22]Hsee,C.K.,Rottenstreich,Y..Music,Pandas,and Muggers:On the Affective Psychology of Value.Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,2004,133(1):23-30.
[23]Joshi,P.D.,Wakslak,C.J..Communicating with the Crowd:Speakers Use Abstract Messages When Addressing Larger Audiences.Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,2014,143(1):351-362.
[24]Susskind,J.,Maurer,K.,Thakkar,V.,Hamilton,D.L.,Sherman,J.W..Perceiving Individuals and Groups:Expectancies,Dispositional Inferences,and Causal Attributions.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1999,76(2):181-191.
[25]Critcher,C.R.,Dunning,D..Predicting Persons`versus a Person`s Goodness:Behavioral Forecasts Diverge for Individuals Versus Populations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,2013,104(1):28-44.
[26]Critcher,C.R.,Dunning,D..Thinking about Others versus Another:Three Reasons Judgments about Collectives and Individuals Differ.Social and Personality Psychology Compass,2014,8(12):687-698.
[27]O`Laughlin,M.J.,Malle,B.F..How People Explain Actions Performed by Groups and Individuals.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,2002,82(1):33-48.
[28]Worthington,E.L..A Stress-and-Coping Theory of Forgivingness and Relevant Evidence.In Worthington(Ed.),Forgiveness and Reconciliation.Great Britain:Routledge Press,2006:15-83.
[29]Hook,J.N.,Worthington,E.L.,Jr.,Utsey,S.O..Collectivism,Forgiveness,and Social Harmony.The Counseling Psychologist,2009,37(6):821-847.
[30]Hall,J.H.,Fincham,F.D..Self-forgiveness:The Stepchild of Forgiveness Research.Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,2005,24(5):621-637.
[31]Mc Cullough,M.E.,Rachal,K.C.,Sandage,S.J.,Worthington Jr,E.L.,Brown,S.W.,Hight,T.L..Interpersonal Forgiving in Close Relationships:II.Theoretical Elaboration and Measurement.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1998,75(6):1586-1603.
[32]Newheiser,A.K.,Sawaoka,T.,Dovidio,J.F..Why Do We Punish Groups?High Entitativity Promotes Moral Suspicion.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,2012,48(4),931-936.
[33]Guerin,B..Diffusion of Responsibility.Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,2011.
[34]Campbell,D.T..Common Fate,Similarity,and Other Indices of the Status of Aggregates of Persons as Social Entities.Behavioral Science,1958,3(1):14-25.
[35]Lickel,B.,Hamilton,D.L.,Wieczorkowska,G.,Lewis,A.,Sherman,S.J.,Uhles,A.N..Varieties of Groups and the Perception of Group Entitativity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,2000,78(2):223-246.
[36]杨晓莉,刘力,李琼,弯美娜.社会群体的实体性:回顾与展望.心理科学进展,2012,20(8):1314-1321.
[37]Smith,R.W.,Faro,D.,Burson,K.A..More for the Many:The Influence of Entitativity on Charitable Giving.Journal of Consumer Research,2013,39(5):961-976.
[38]Roschk,H.,Kaiser,S..The Nature of an Apology:An Experimental Study on how to Apologize after a Service Failure.Marketing Letters,2013,24(3):293-309.
[39]Kogut,T.,Slovic,P.,V?stfj?ll,D..Scope Insensitivity in Helping Decisions:Is It a Matter of Culture and Values?Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,2015,144(6):1042-1052.
[40]Santelli,A.G.,Struthers,C.W.,Eaton,J..Fit to Forgive:Exploring the Interaction between Regulatory Focus,Repentance,and Forgiveness.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,2009,96(2):381-394.
[41]Devlin,H.C.,Zaki,J.,Ong,D.C.,Gruber,J..Not as Good as You Think?Trait Positive Emotion Is Associated with Increased Self-reported Empathy but Decreased Empathic Performance.Plo S One,9(10):e110470.
[42]Preacher,K.J.,Hayes,A.F..SPSS and SAS Procedures for Estimating Indirect Effects in Simple Mediation Models.Behavior Research Methods,Instruments,&Computers,2004,36(4):717-731.
[43]Finkel,E.J.,Rusbult,C.E.,Kumashiro,M.,Hannon,P.A..Dealing with Betrayal in Close Relationships:Does Commitment Promote Forgiveness?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,2002,82(6):956-974.
[44]Amit,E.,Wakslak,C.,Trope,Y..The Use of Visual and Verbal Means of Communication across Psychological Distance.Personality&Social Psychology Bulletin,2013,39(1):43-56.
[45]De Neys,W..Dual Processing in Reasoning Two Systems but One Reasoner.Psychological Science,2006,17(5):428-433.
[46]Slotnick,S.D.,Dodson,C.S..Support for a Continuous(Single-Process)Model of Recognition Memory and Source Memory.Memory&Cognition,2005,33(1):151-170.
[47]Choi,Y.,Lin,Y.H..Consumer Response to Crisis:Exploring the Concept of Involvement in Mattel Product Recalls.Public Relations Review,2009,35(1):18-22.
(1)详见《哈佛商业评论》中文版一文:http://www.hbrchina.org/2015-10-09/3415.html
(2)本文通过一个课堂实验对企业名称进行了前测(N=57)。仅根据企业名称,所有被试(NAmilue=23,NApearl=24)对企业态度(1=“负面/不欢迎/讨厌”,6=“积极/欢迎/喜欢”;α=0.89)、品牌个性(1=“非常不活泼/不真诚”,6=“非常活泼/真诚”)、产品质量(1=“非常差”,6=“非常好”)进行了评价。分析结果表明:被试对Amiblue和Apearl的品牌态度、个性推断、产品质量均无显著感知差异(ps>0.15)。因此,Amiblue和Apearl企业名称的前测成功。
[2]Schweitzer,M.E.,Brooks,A.W.,Galinsky,A.D..The Organizational Apology.Harvard Business Review,2015,94(9):44-52.
[3]Ran,Y.,Wei,H.,Li,Q..Forgiveness from Emotion Fit:Emotional Frame,Consumer Emotion,and Feeling-right in Consumer Decision to Forgive.Frontiers in Psychology,2016,7(1775):1-16.
[4]Coombs,W.T.,Holladay,S.J..Comparing Apology to Equivalent Crisis Response Strategies:Clarifying Apology`s Role and Value in Crisis Communication.Public Relations Review,2008,34(3):252-257.
[5]Frantz,C.M.,Bennigson,C..Better Late Than Early:The Influence of Timing on Apology Effectiveness.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,2005,41(2):201-207.
[6]Sinha,J.,Lu,F.C..Value Relationships:Self-construal Effects on Post-transgression Consumer Forgiveness.Journal of Consumer Psychology,2016,26(2):265-274.
[7]Hill,K.,Boyd,D..Who Should Apologize When an Employee Transgresses?Source Effects on Apology Effectiveness.Journal of Business Ethics,2015,130(1):163-170.
[8]Aaker,J.,Fournier,S.,Brasel,S.A..When Good Brands Do Bad.Journal of Consumer Research,2006,31(1):1-16.
[9]Wei,H.,Ran,Y..Male Versus Female:How the Gender of Apologizers Influences Consumer Forgiveness.Advance Online Publication.Journal of Business Ethics,2017,DOI:10.1007/s10551-017-3440-7.
[10]Gorn,G.J.,Jiang,Y.,Johar,G.V..Babyfaces,Trait Inferences,and Company Evaluations in a Public Relations Crisis.Journal of Consumer Research,2008,35(1):36-49.
[11]Brinke,L.,Adams,G.S..Saving Face?When Emotion Displays During Public Apologies Mitigate Damage to Organizational Performance.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2015,130(1):1-12.
[12]Barasch,A.,Berger,J..Broadcasting and Narrowcasting:How Audience Size Affects What People Share.Journal of Marketing Research,2014,51(3):286-299.
[13]Small,D.A.,Loewenstein,G.,Slovic,P..Sympathy and Callousness:The Impact of Deliberative Thought on Donations to Identifiable and Statistical Victims.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2007,102(2):143-153.
[14]Hamilton,D.L.,Sherman,S.J..Perceiving Persons and Groups.Psychological Review,1996,103(2):336-355.
[15]Slovic,P..If I Look at the Mass I Will never Act:Psychic Numbing and Genocide.Judgment and Decision Making,2007,2(2):79-95.
[16]Enright,R.D..The Human Development Study Group.The Moral Development of Forgiveness.In Kurtines,W.,Gewirtz,J..(Eds.),Moral Behavior and Development.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum,1991,(1):123-152
[17]Jenni,K.,Loewenstein,G..Explaining the Identifiable Victim Effect.Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,1997,14(3):235-257.
[18]Dickert,S.,Sagara,N.,Slovic,P..Affective Motivations to Help Others:A Two-stage Model of Donation Decisions.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,2011,24(4):361-376.
[19]Small,D.A.,Loewenstein,G..Helping a Victim or Helping the Victim:Altruism and Identifiability.Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,2003,26(1):5-16.
[20]Dickert,S.,Slovic,P..Attentional Mechanisms in the Generation of Sympathy.Judgment and Decision Making,2009,4(4):297-306.
[21]Dickert,S.,Kleber,J.,Peters,E.,Slovic,P..Numeracy as a Precursor to Pro-social Behavior:The Impact of Numeracy and Presentation Format on the Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying Donation Decisions.Judgment and Decision Making,2011,6(7):638-650.
[22]Hsee,C.K.,Rottenstreich,Y..Music,Pandas,and Muggers:On the Affective Psychology of Value.Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,2004,133(1):23-30.
[23]Joshi,P.D.,Wakslak,C.J..Communicating with the Crowd:Speakers Use Abstract Messages When Addressing Larger Audiences.Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,2014,143(1):351-362.
[24]Susskind,J.,Maurer,K.,Thakkar,V.,Hamilton,D.L.,Sherman,J.W..Perceiving Individuals and Groups:Expectancies,Dispositional Inferences,and Causal Attributions.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1999,76(2):181-191.
[25]Critcher,C.R.,Dunning,D..Predicting Persons`versus a Person`s Goodness:Behavioral Forecasts Diverge for Individuals Versus Populations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,2013,104(1):28-44.
[26]Critcher,C.R.,Dunning,D..Thinking about Others versus Another:Three Reasons Judgments about Collectives and Individuals Differ.Social and Personality Psychology Compass,2014,8(12):687-698.
[27]O`Laughlin,M.J.,Malle,B.F..How People Explain Actions Performed by Groups and Individuals.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,2002,82(1):33-48.
[28]Worthington,E.L..A Stress-and-Coping Theory of Forgivingness and Relevant Evidence.In Worthington(Ed.),Forgiveness and Reconciliation.Great Britain:Routledge Press,2006:15-83.
[29]Hook,J.N.,Worthington,E.L.,Jr.,Utsey,S.O..Collectivism,Forgiveness,and Social Harmony.The Counseling Psychologist,2009,37(6):821-847.
[30]Hall,J.H.,Fincham,F.D..Self-forgiveness:The Stepchild of Forgiveness Research.Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,2005,24(5):621-637.
[31]Mc Cullough,M.E.,Rachal,K.C.,Sandage,S.J.,Worthington Jr,E.L.,Brown,S.W.,Hight,T.L..Interpersonal Forgiving in Close Relationships:II.Theoretical Elaboration and Measurement.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1998,75(6):1586-1603.
[32]Newheiser,A.K.,Sawaoka,T.,Dovidio,J.F..Why Do We Punish Groups?High Entitativity Promotes Moral Suspicion.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,2012,48(4),931-936.
[33]Guerin,B..Diffusion of Responsibility.Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,2011.
[34]Campbell,D.T..Common Fate,Similarity,and Other Indices of the Status of Aggregates of Persons as Social Entities.Behavioral Science,1958,3(1):14-25.
[35]Lickel,B.,Hamilton,D.L.,Wieczorkowska,G.,Lewis,A.,Sherman,S.J.,Uhles,A.N..Varieties of Groups and the Perception of Group Entitativity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,2000,78(2):223-246.
[36]杨晓莉,刘力,李琼,弯美娜.社会群体的实体性:回顾与展望.心理科学进展,2012,20(8):1314-1321.
[37]Smith,R.W.,Faro,D.,Burson,K.A..More for the Many:The Influence of Entitativity on Charitable Giving.Journal of Consumer Research,2013,39(5):961-976.
[38]Roschk,H.,Kaiser,S..The Nature of an Apology:An Experimental Study on how to Apologize after a Service Failure.Marketing Letters,2013,24(3):293-309.
[39]Kogut,T.,Slovic,P.,V?stfj?ll,D..Scope Insensitivity in Helping Decisions:Is It a Matter of Culture and Values?Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,2015,144(6):1042-1052.
[40]Santelli,A.G.,Struthers,C.W.,Eaton,J..Fit to Forgive:Exploring the Interaction between Regulatory Focus,Repentance,and Forgiveness.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,2009,96(2):381-394.
[41]Devlin,H.C.,Zaki,J.,Ong,D.C.,Gruber,J..Not as Good as You Think?Trait Positive Emotion Is Associated with Increased Self-reported Empathy but Decreased Empathic Performance.Plo S One,9(10):e110470.
[42]Preacher,K.J.,Hayes,A.F..SPSS and SAS Procedures for Estimating Indirect Effects in Simple Mediation Models.Behavior Research Methods,Instruments,&Computers,2004,36(4):717-731.
[43]Finkel,E.J.,Rusbult,C.E.,Kumashiro,M.,Hannon,P.A..Dealing with Betrayal in Close Relationships:Does Commitment Promote Forgiveness?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,2002,82(6):956-974.
[44]Amit,E.,Wakslak,C.,Trope,Y..The Use of Visual and Verbal Means of Communication across Psychological Distance.Personality&Social Psychology Bulletin,2013,39(1):43-56.
[45]De Neys,W..Dual Processing in Reasoning Two Systems but One Reasoner.Psychological Science,2006,17(5):428-433.
[46]Slotnick,S.D.,Dodson,C.S..Support for a Continuous(Single-Process)Model of Recognition Memory and Source Memory.Memory&Cognition,2005,33(1):151-170.
[47]Choi,Y.,Lin,Y.H..Consumer Response to Crisis:Exploring the Concept of Involvement in Mattel Product Recalls.Public Relations Review,2009,35(1):18-22.
(1)详见《哈佛商业评论》中文版一文:http://www.hbrchina.org/2015-10-09/3415.html
(2)本文通过一个课堂实验对企业名称进行了前测(N=57)。仅根据企业名称,所有被试(NAmilue=23,NApearl=24)对企业态度(1=“负面/不欢迎/讨厌”,6=“积极/欢迎/喜欢”;α=0.89)、品牌个性(1=“非常不活泼/不真诚”,6=“非常活泼/真诚”)、产品质量(1=“非常差”,6=“非常好”)进行了评价。分析结果表明:被试对Amiblue和Apearl的品牌态度、个性推断、产品质量均无显著感知差异(ps>0.15)。因此,Amiblue和Apearl企业名称的前测成功。