Jump to content

Construal level theory: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Mmosier3 (talk | contribs)
52 edits
Mmosier3 (talk | contribs)
52 edits
Line 58: Line 58:


===Social Distance===
===Social Distance===

Social distance is the measure of space between two or more groups. In order to talk more in-depth about social distance, one must first understand what a social group is. Social groups are friendships that are form through common interest of the people involved. People are drawn to social groups for much different reason such as; culture, religion, race, social states, or hobbies. Some of the social groups people are born in such as race and religion are most common to continue to identify with them. People can change their religion and there by changing their social group. It is most common for people to stay in their social group. When it comes to social groups your either in a person social group or your in the out group. the different group vary with how similar they are two each other.<ref name="Mattew 185–192">{{cite journal|last=Mattew|first=Justin|coauthors=Matlock teenie|title=ween spatial distance an distance|journal=Social Psychology|year=201|volume=42|issue=spatial constraint on social cognition|pages=185–192}}</ref
Social distance is the measure of space between two or more groups. In order to talk more in-depth about social distance, one must first understand what a social group is. Social groups are friendships that are form through common interest of the people involved. People are drawn to social groups for much different reason such as; culture, religion, race, social states, or hobbies. Some of the social groups people are born in such as race and religion are most common to continue to identify with them. People can change their religion and there by changing their social group. It is most common for people to stay in their social group. When it comes to social groups your either in a person social group or your in the out group. the different group vary with how similar they are two each other.<ref name="Mattew 185–192">{{cite journal|last=Mattew|first=Justin|coauthors=Matlock teenie|title=ween spatial distance an distance|journal=Social Psychology|year=201|volume=42|issue=spatial constraint on social cognition|pages=185–192}}</ref


Revision as of 16:15, 10 December 2013

Construal level theory (CLT) is a theory in social psychology that describes the relation between psychological distance and the extent to which people's thinking (e.g., about objects and events) is abstract or concrete.[1] The general idea is that the more distant an object is from the individual the more abstract it will be thought of, while the opposite relation between closeness and concreteness is true as well. In CLT, psychological distance is defined on several dimensions — temporal, spatial, social and hypothetical distance being considered most important,[2] though there is some debate among social psychologists about further dimensions like informational, experiential or affective distance.[3]

An example of construal level effects would be that although planning one's next summer vacation one year in advance will evoke rather abstract thoughts about holidays (e.g., anticipating fun and relaxation), the very same vacation planned to occur very soon will evoke more concrete expectations (e.g. having a drink at the hotel pool, going for a trip in an off-road vehicle, having oysters at a restaurant).

Construal level theory has also revealed insights into how people react to advertising. Martin, Gnoth and Strong (2009) found that future-oriented consumers react most favorably to ads that feature a product to be released in the distant future and that highlight primary product attributes. In contrast, present-oriented consumers prefer near-future ads that highlight secondary product attributes. Consumer attitudes were mediated by perceptions of the perceived usefulness of the attribute information.[4]

Occurring to the construal level theory is how people perceive events can be changed through the different components: time, space, social distances and hypothical. In order for people perceptions to be modify the person hast to experience on of the four components. [5]

How do these component work with construal level theory?

These are the main four of distances with the theory. They are the different type of space in which people think in life. Human thinks in the different distances because they are often have't experience an event and therefore people can only image how it will turn out. [6] A construal level is how people categorize the world around them from in inside their brain.[7]

experiment

Jen Forest did an experiment to examines how when people have an absence of experiences construal level comes into play. Forest did two experiments to see is the absence theory is correct. In the first experiment college student from Europe were shown Hebrew letters on a scene. The reason why the experiment used Hebrew letters is due too most people's lack of knowledge of Hebrew alphabet. According to the construal theory in order for people to think in the four distances they can’t have prior knowledge of the events. The letters where show in different intervals to participant . The second part of experiment where done with computers, the participants were showing letters and they had to match it with the image of on the computer. Participants had to complete the task in a fast manner. The second experiment used the abstract thinking process. Participants were given Hebrew letters with the instruction to explain what the word in Hebrew mean. Participants did not remember seeing the letter in the first task. The study found that people have an absence of experiences they often think abstractedly. [8]


Within the temporal, spatial, social and hypothetical distances there are two levels of measurement, High level and low level.

High level is when people think abstractedely and thinking of event at far distances away. When thinking on this level people are looking at the bigger picture; not forcing on the little details. In this state of mind people are able to examine how other people are feeling; is a person feeling sad or anger and why is that person feeling this emotion.[9] In high level is where people make judgment of the situation, that they are faced with and form a decision that they feel is most appropriate. [10]

Low level is when people think more concretely and at a closer distances then high level. When people are think in a low level they are perceives the part of the world that nearest to them. This is both physical and mentally. In low level people to not have as much control over their actions as they own action in high level.[11] People tend be more detail oriented when thinking in this process.An example of this would be when a person notices the color of a pen. They are not paying attention if the person is taking a test or just writing a note. The forces is more on an aspect small aspect ether then the overall detail.[12]



Construal Level Theory Dimensions

Temporal Distances

1. The planning fallacy

The planning fallacy describes how people tend to not consciously think through the future in all its details. This leads to people tending to overcommit to different events in the future. They then realize as the events become closer that they cannot possibly go to all of the events that they had planned. This can be due to the events overlapping, or not having the time to fully commit to all of their previous plans. [13]

2. Time discounting

Time discounting or temporal discounting is a wide range of multiple ideas involving the connection between time and distance. The overall theory that this includes is that people put more value and worth into immediate events and outcomes, and apply less value to future outcomes or events. The way we categorize different events can influence this time discounting. When something is associated with emotional ideas there is more time discounting. Cognitive events or outcomes have less value attached to them in the future. For example a person’s anniversary may be thought of with more value than the business meeting on the same day. Negative or dreaded events or outcomes tend to have more value than positive events or outcome. This could be having to take a difficult exam versus having a class pizza party. The discounting rate is effected and measured by the amount of value placed on the event or outcome. If there is a small reward it is discounted faster than if the reward were larger. [13]

3. Levels of Mental Construals

CLT divides the mental construals into two main levels: the high-level and the low-level. High-level construals are a way of thinking in a big-picture way. This is a superordinate or central approach, thinking in the overall idea of the situation. An example of this way of thinking is watching children playing outside and thinking that they are having fun. Low-level construals are more detail-oriented or subordinate thought processes. This would be like watching the same children playing but thinking instead about their ages or the kind of game they are playing. This level puts more interest in how the situation is different from others instead of finding how they are the same or similar. Desirability puts more importance in the end result and is a high-level construal or way of thinking.Feasibility, on the other hand, is more focused on the means or how to get to the end result and is a low-level construal or way of thinking. The levels of the construals main focus is based on distance, but there are multiple kinds of distance other than just physical distance. [13]

Spatial Distance

Spatial physical distance is the distance in which the events are taking place from each other. If the event such as a graduation is taking place down the street it is being processed on a low level. If the graduation is taking place in another state then the person is processing on a high level. The reason is that they have to make the arrangement for their travels. Buying the plane tricks and booking a hotel for the time period they are here. [14]

Spatial distance can alter how people perceive an event, judging the out come and if they will attend the event. When an event is located far from the person it is viewed more abstractedly and there for in a positive manner. Like wise when events are location is near people view it as more concern, therefore less positive.[14]

Henderson effect did four study that to see how spatial actually effect Judgment

In the first study participant were shown cartoons and told to act as if they work for firm company producing cartoons. Their job was to view the cartoon for the firm company. The second part of the study the participants push a bottom when cartoon character show a behavior. The results of the study found that when the people distances far, they check on bottom when they found it to be near. The study found as shown that people felt more familiar with spatial near events then spatial far events. Lastly the study found that people more shown event at father spatial distances the more actually people can judge others are behaviors. This is because they are not looking are at the details that would confuses them. [14]

In the second study examines how spatial distance is affected by bias. The study hypnoticals that the more people make assumption their feither in distance an event was view. In the study all participant read the same paper, but they were divided into different groups. Each group was told that the writer is form either their college or a different college far way. The Study found that participants look at the paper in general when they were told paper from a person spatially far way. Participant view paper as having more in detail when looking at closer distances. Participants from study also thought the closer on event of to a parson increase the chances of the event to occur.[14]

The third study forced on spatial distance and predictions of events. Participant were given different situation that would be normal for college student actually do but experimenter change the amount of hours a student would do a task depending on what college person was from. The results showed that when a person is making judgment on spatial distant person life, they stick to what they find normal.[14]

In the fourth study they examine spatial distances and tends based on reasoning. participant receive graphs that are form the college NYU but were told some of the graphics were form other colleges. The graphics show if people from the college enjoy the campus food. The result of study of study showed that people process far distances as abstract and near distances concern. The study basely confines construal level theory.[14]



Social Distance

Social distance is the measure of space between two or more groups. In order to talk more in-depth about social distance, one must first understand what a social group is. Social groups are friendships that are form through common interest of the people involved. People are drawn to social groups for much different reason such as; culture, religion, race, social states, or hobbies. Some of the social groups people are born in such as race and religion are most common to continue to identify with them. People can change their religion and there by changing their social group. It is most common for people to stay in their social group. When it comes to social groups your either in a person social group or your in the out group. the different group vary with how similar they are two each other.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). This was shown through testing of temporal distance to see if this would also receive the perception of social distance. These were found to have similar results, being that as one level of distance goes up so does the other. So when the time is more distant and associated with another person, this person is thought of as being less like oneself, and more distant socially. Therefore, temporal and social distance can increase or decrease familiarity depending on whether there is more distance or less. This familiarity can dictate whether the other person is more approachable, or can allow more interaction. Also lack or familiarity can cause discrimination involving stereotypes, empathy levels, and people’s willingness to help this person. Therefore these distances that dictate familiarity are very important socially and explain a lot of different interactions.[15] This can be applied to almost any situation, such as people thinking in a more distant or high-level construal and therefore being more open to comprehensive exams. These cover more of a wide overarching idea of the subject, whereas people thinking in lower-level construals or the more near future tend to be more content with detail-specific test. This was shown through a study that was done by showing participants a number of partial pictures and pairing that with ideas of either the close future or the distant future. When looking at these images with the idea of the close future the participants were more able to view the image as a whole concrete image. The opposite happened by getting more abstract interpretations of the distant future images. [16] These all come back to the theory’s original ideas of the relationships between the high-level construals, low-level construals and the associated distances whether of a spatial, temporal, personal, or social level.[17]

Judgments

People judge all aspects of their lives, including events, people, and society. Events are often judged by what we know about them and how we think of them. If an event is close in time we are more likely to think in terms of concrete low-level construals, making the details more important. If an even is further away however we think more in terms of abstract: overall ideas that follow high-level construals.[18] When judging prediction of time it takes to finish a task there were perceptions made depending on whether the specifics of the task were different. For example they thought it would take them more time to complete a task when it was further in the future, posed as hypothetical and therefore more abstract, and when participants were primed with abstract ideas beforehand.[19] Memories can also be effected by different construal levels and distances. The further in one’s past an event occurred the more abstract, high-level thinking occurs. Recalling memories from long ago as more of an overall idea of the event is using a different level of construals to fit the distance from the event. When memory of something more recently is recalled it can be done so more concretely with focus on more details. This is a low-level approach to a correspondingly close situation.[20]

Stereotyping

Abstract and concrete thinking along with the categorization of people can lead to the use of stereotypes. These representations can change our judgment of people who do not fit in the same categories as ourselves and are therefore more socially distant. For example when viewing a different group of people in a more distant or high-level way, one may easily use abstract or centralized views. viewing a group of teenager in the mall, an adult may think that they are up to no good, or that they are trouble makers. This is an overall abstract and centralized view only focused on one broad aspect of the group. These are usually incorrect, and can lead to stereotypes and discrimination. Also thinking in the lower level, such as with people that the individual is closer to and therefore people who are less distant allows for more detailed ideas and perceptions of the person. Therefore these perceptions are often more correct and less likely to create or strengthen stereotypes. The more temporal distance there is, the more it increases discrimination against groups that are mainly racially or sexually different than ourselves. People also tend to be more likely to think if others discriminatively when thinking of them in more abstract terms. When people are categorized in such a way that is distinctly different from one self, there tends to be more negative effects, along with the use of abstraction, and further temporal and social distance.[21]

Categorization

We form categories depending on the use of the different construal level. This shapes how we view things as either alike or different. These categories can be as simple as the distance being more abstract and the future being more specific details.[13] Categories can be of different kinds of people where those who are more physically distant or different from ourselves can be categorized as others or out-groups different from ourselves. This can form group bonds, along with attitudes that differ toward out-groups. We can also categorize ourselves, this is often used when people are thinking about their specific qualities, or more of who they are overall. So when thinking about oneself in the present people tend to be more focused on their individual concrete qualities in more detail, versus when they think of themselves in the future they think more of how they will be in the years to come in an overall abstract way.[21] Objects and events are also categorized by distance. Both good and bad experiences that are thought to happen in the distant future tend to be predicted to be more extreme. For example a birthday party or jury duty that will happen in three months will be viewed as either far better or worse than if these events occurred tomorrow. These events in the distant future are also planned out with less considerations to other events going on and the time possible to accomplish all these events, again supporting the planning fallacy. These categories are differentiated by only the time between the present and how far into the future the event occurs.[22]

Decision Making/Risky Behavior

Distance or high-level construals can make alternative choices that are hard to accomplish more desirable. Near-future or low-level construals can oppositely make alternative choices that are hard to accomplish less desirable. Risky behavior therefore is also affected by this theory by making more difficult or impossible outcomes more attractive and therefore having people take higher risks for less likely outcomes.[13] High-level construals can have an effect of valuing rewards that are more risky, and further in the future. The ideas of time and probability are often thought of in very similar ways; therefore, they tend to correspond, as one increases the other one does as well. The connections between these two are often made automatically without the conscious knowledge of the individual.[23] When thinking of investments in a high-level construal people tend to have more risk taking behavior. When thinking about the same investment in a low-level construal there is more focus on the present and what the risk would mean in terms of the here and now. This can deter some risk taking behavior by looking more at the actual details, and less about an overall possible feeling for the future. Across the overall idea of decision making CLT has been supported for aiding in the help or harm of organizational decision making processes and outcomes.[24] This has even been studied in more common decisions such as the choice to procrastinate. More concrete activities, or near future events tend to give a more high-level construal, and therefore people were less likely to procrastinate for these functions, than for more abstract activities set further into the future.[25]

Interpersonal

People tend to view others as either similar or different from oneself. This corresponds to social distance. As one is viewed as less similar to one self they are thought of as more socially distant or in higher-level construals, and as they are seen as more similar to one self, the social distance decreases or lower-level construals. These levels in society help to create bonds and relationships between people. The high-level construals helps to create social diversity by making people interested in meeting new and more different people. Low-level construals are more of a help to relationships with people who are more similar to us, and aids in sustaining already formed relationships with people in our inner circle and in-group.[13] The frequency of the exposure to a certain situation or person can also influence the construal level used. The more often a person has been exposed to either of these the more likely it is that they are going to use a lower-level approach to describe them, involving more specific detail learned over time. In contrast, a less familiar event or person would probably be described in a higher-level more abstract view due to the lack or small amount of exposure involved.[26] People tend to use these construals to interact and create and opinion of others. These opinions can often be unconscious or automatic, and are not always something that people are aware of doing. People tend to create more of these snap judgments when the person of whom they are making their opinion of is more spatially distant from oneself. This affects people’s opinions on an implicit level, showing how construal levels are an automatic phenomena.[27] People tend to give these opinions more freely and consciously when the person being judged is further away in distance. There have been found to be more descriptive and aware answers to opinions of other people when they are more distant from the individual.[28]

Social Power

Power in society can give an idea of being more distant from others who have either more or less power than one self. Differing social status can create social distance and therefore parallel the other forms of distance as well. This is a form of social distance that can lead individuals to believe themselves to be more different and therefore more distant than others. This is a hierarchical way of thinking, in the social and economic sense. For example there are less billionaires, than middle individuals, and as a group those who fit into these categories feel more distant from the other groups of people. As this distance grows people think more in the abstract or the central view. This happens when comparing other groups that are different and distant from the individual. An example of this is stereotyping as one group looks only at one aspect of an overall group in a much more abstract way of thinking. This could be by saying that unemployed people are lazy, which is a central element in a very abstract less detail oriented way of perceiving and viewing a group of people who are socially distant from the perceiver. Extending these distances created by the different amount of power in society can broaden a person’s social diversity, and extend across these distances, allowing people to not be hindered completely by these social distances. Changing the construal level used to think of people in different categories can allow for the reduction of the social differences. For example instead of thinking of unemployed people as lazy, and learning more about them, such as that they lost their job due to a work related injury, gives more detailed understanding and allows for a lower level of construal. This can make people view one another as more equal in the human sense and the social sense.[13]

Politeness

Temporal and spatial distance has an influence of levels of politeness. Higher-level construals and increasing distance, increases politeness cues, and lower-level construals or less distant events decrease politeness cues. Even physical distance can be reflective of the high and low level construals of politeness. For example the distance from which people stand away from each other when having a conversation, or after initially meeting can determine the level of politeness one displays. The closer in distance that people stand from each other the less polite and more informal the meeting is portrayed to be. This can be seen through closer more intimate relations hugging or embracing, versus keeping a polite or respectful distance.[13] The politeness theory states that being polite is used in social situations to reflect and control social distance. This is due to the relation to the abstract, along with temporal distances, and spatial distances. These results were found cross-culturally, giving more credence to the relationship between the construals levels, and the level of politeness. Through testing this theory together findings were conclusive that not only does politeness tend to increase with temporal, and spatial distance, along with abstraction, but also oppositely increasing politeness also increases the level of spatial, and temporal distance, along with a higher level of abstraction.[29]

Self-Regulation/Self-Control

There is a connection between distance and the facilitation of self-regulation or self-control. It has been shown that the future and further distances is a better facilitator of self-regulation, and that as distance to the event decreases this self-regulation decreases as well.[13] When people fear that they will be unable to achieve their goal do to the temptations that can distract them, they choose to use self-control methods to make decisions avoiding these temptations and giving themselves a better chance at attaining their goal. People are more likely to act in this fashion when thinking in a high-level construal. This high-level thinking can induce or increase measures of self-control. There were found to be two different strategies that accomplish this. The first method is choice bracketing. This is used to recognize these harmful temptations, and protect against being swayed by them. Through acknowledging detrimental choices and determining a number of positive and helpful substitutes people can find ways to help aid their self-control, by thinking ahead into the distant future about what they should and shouldn’t do. This is mainly through high-level construals due to the fact that they are thinking ahead into the future. The other method to furthering their self-control is through self-imposed punishments. These are punishments that people give to themselves for acting on impulsive or detrimental choices instead of the more self-controlled ones. Because high-level construals support self-control this method tends to be found more often when people are using the higher-level construals.[30]

Social Conflict-Negotiation-Persuasion

Negotiations and persuasion are social conflicts that are spilt into many different aspects. When negotiating or trying to persuade someone there are often major considerations and minor considerations. Major issues are aspects such as values, ideology, and overall beliefs. These are often more important and focused on when thinking in the near future, or low-level construals are used. Minor issues are more specific interests that are more important and focused on when thinking in the distant future, or high-level construals.[13] The construal level theory and persuasive communications are connected and interrelated in many aspects.[31] When looking at negotiations in relation to the high-level construal there were multiple findings that showed a major difference between the future and the present. When people are more temporally distant or personally distant from an outcome, they are less likely to come to an easy conclusions or compromise over minor objectives. More distance between the present and the time when the negotiations take place make people more willing to come to a joint conclusion. Lastly thinking more abstractly about the negotiation in general more often had an outcome of more overall conclusions and compromises.[32]

Consumer Behaviors

Decision making also is used in process such as consumerism. The high and low level construals effect the way people consider purchasing items. When buying items feasibility, which is low-level and desirability, which is high-level, play a large role in what we buy and why we buy it. This includes the way we view rebates, and the more distance involved to receive the rebate the less likely the buyer is to pursue the rebate. Low-level is also more likely to increase the level of risk taking and to increase the likelihood of the purchase of insurance or a protection plan. Looking at purchasing something from a further distance however highlights the main aspect of the item often making it seem more positive and satisfactory. Advertising also uses this as a way to build the excitement and hype of an item. For example cell phone add will negate to advertise every little detail of their product, but instead only show the newest or most unique aspect highlighting the new camera or voice feature, instead of how to turn it on and off. This makes the consumer more likely to purchase the item, by seeing advertised to come out in the future. This effects aspects such as persuasion, and is used to persuade consumers to buy the company’s products by highlighting the higher level and more central aspects of the item.[33]

Regret

Regret is also a large aspect of consumer behaviors that is effected by the different level of construals. Regret and feeling like they have made the wrong choice is very different as distance increases or decreases. When pre-purchasing or preordering an item far in the future the consumer may regret or change their decision in the extended time that they are forced to wait to receive the item. This may also have the opposite effect however by strengthening the commitment, and this can occur with the added consistency of advertising, and through constantly being reminded of the positive qualities of the product. Again showing how important advertising is to the persuasion of consumers. Even in events where it is in the present or near future the first reaction is often regret that later often changes toward the appreciation of our choices. Regret in this manor also can be used in social situations such as in marriage, and deciding who to date.[34] Purchasing decisions can also be influenced by physical distance. Being able to touch or see the product in person, versus a more abstract idea of the item can influence potential buyers to be more exited or committed to purchasing the item. This physical distance and experiencing the product alone can be all that the consumer needs to buy the product, making this a very important aspect of why we buy what we do. These effects of physical distance mirror those of the special and temporal distance.[35] These aspects of consumer behaviors can be manipulated by the companies by knowing how the consumer thinks, and by changing the level of construal used the purchasing of the item can also be changed or manipulated.[36] All of these aspects of consumer behaviors and how the producers influence the behaviors show how much psychology and the construal level theory are present in all aspects of these decisions. [37]

See also

References

  1. ^ Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463.
  2. ^ Bar-Anan, Y., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2006). The association between psychological distance and construal level: Evidence from an implicit association test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(4), 609-622.
  3. ^ Fiedler, K. (2007). Construal level theory as an integrative framework for behavioral decision-making research and consumer psychology. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 101-106.
  4. ^ Martin, B.A.S., Gnoth, J., & Strong, C. (2009). Temporal construal in advertising: The moderating role of temporal orientation and attribute importance upon consumer evaluations, Journal of Advertising, 38 (3), 5-19.
  5. ^ Forster, John (10-26-2008). "Cognitive consequences of novelty and familiarity: How mere exposure influences level of construal". Jornal of Experimental social psychology: 4. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  6. ^ Forster, John (10-26-2008). "Cognitive consequences of novelty and familiarity: How mere exposure influences level of construal". Jornal of Experimental social psychology: 4. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  7. ^ Klaus, Fiedler (3-29-2012). "On the relation between distinct aspect of psychological distance: An ecological basis of contrual - level theory". Journal of Experimantal Socail psychology. 1: 1014-1021. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate=, |date=, and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
  8. ^ Forster, John (10-26-2008). "Cognitive consequences of novelty and familiarity: How mere exposure influences level of construal". Jornal of Experimental social psychology: 4. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  9. ^ Lange, Paul. Handbook of Theories of Socail Psychology. Sage. pp. 120–134.
  10. ^ Klaus, Fiedler (3-29-2012). "On the relation between distinct aspect of psychological distance: An ecological basis of contrual - level theory". Journal of Experimantal Socail psychology. 1: 1014-1021. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate=, |date=, and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
  11. ^ Klaus, Fiedler (3-29-2012). "On the relation between distinct aspect of psychological distance: An ecological basis of contrual - level theory". Journal of Experimantal Socail psychology. 1: 1014-1021. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate=, |date=, and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
  12. ^ Lange, Paul. Handbook of Theories of Socail Psychology. Sage. pp. 120–134.
  13. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Trope, Y. L. (2012). Construal Level Theory. In P. K. Van Lange, Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology (pp. 118-134). Washington DC: Sage Publications Ltd.
  14. ^ a b c d e f Cite error: The named reference Henderson 2006 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ Stephan, E. L. (2010). The effects of time perspective and level of construal on social distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 397-402.
  16. ^ Wakslak, C. (2012). The experience of cognitive dissonance in important and trivial domains: A construal level theory approach. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1361-1364.
  17. ^ Fujita, K. H. (2006). Spatial distance and mental construal of social events. Association for Psychological Science, 278-282.
  18. ^ Kyung, E. G. (2013). Construal level and temporal judgments of the past: The moderating role of knowledge. Bulletin of the Psycholonomic Society.
  19. ^ Kanten, A. (2011). The effect of construal level on prediction of task duration. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1037-1047.
  20. ^ Halamish, V. N.-A. (2013). In a year, memory will benefit from learning, tomorrow it won't: Distance and Construal level effects on the basis if metamemory judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1621-1627.
  21. ^ a b McCrea, S. W. (2012). Construal level mind-sets moderate self and social stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51-68.
  22. ^ Liberman, N. S. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 523-534.
  23. ^ Chen, H. H. (2011). The effect of construal level on intertemporal choice and risky choice. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 442-452.
  24. ^ Trautmann, S. K. (2011). Prospect theory or construal level theory? Diminishing sensitivity vs. psychological distance in risky decisions. Acta Psychologica, 254-260.
  25. ^ McCrea, S. L. (2008). Construal Level and Procrastination. Association for Psychological Science, 1308-1314.
  26. ^ Forster, J. (2008). Cognitive consequences of novelty and familiarity: How mere exposure influences level of construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 444-447.
  27. ^ Rim, S. U. (2009). Spontaneous trait inference and construal level theory: Psychological distance increases nonconscious trait thinking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1088-1097.
  28. ^ McCarthy, R. S. (2011). You're getting warmer: Level of construal affects the impact of central traits in impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1304-1307.
  29. ^ Stephan, E. L. (2010). Politeness and psychological distance: A construal level perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 268-280.
  30. ^ Fujita, K. R. (2010). Promoting prospective self-control through abstraction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1049-1054.
  31. ^ Katz, S. B. (2013). Construal level theory of mobile persuasion. Media Psychology, 245-271.
  32. ^ Henderson, M. (2006). Temporal distance, mental construal, and negotiation. The Sciences and Engineering, 3507.
  33. ^ Liberman, N. T. (2007). Construal Level Theory and Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 113-117.
  34. ^ Liberman, N. T. (2007). Construal Level Theory and Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 113-117.
  35. ^ Kardes, F. R. (2007). Construal-level effects on preference stability, preference-behavior correspondence, and the suppression of competing brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 135-144.
  36. ^ Dhar, R. K. (2007). Seeing the forest through the trees: Implications of construal level theory for consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 96-100.
  37. ^ Tsai, C. I. (2011). No pain no gain? How fluency and construal level affect consumer confidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 1-29.

Trope, Y. L. (2012). Construal Level Theory. In P. K. Van Lange, Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology (pp. 118–134). Washington DC: Sage Publications Ltd.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Construal_level_theory&oldid=585449279"