Jump to content

Construal level theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mmosier3 (talk | contribs) at 21:21, 9 December 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 perception to modify the person hast to experiences on of the four components. [5]

How so these component work with construal level theory?

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

emperment

Jen Forest did an experiment to exam 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 experience college student form Europe were show Hebrew letters on a scene. The reason why experiment used Hebrew letter is due to most people lack of knowledge of Hebrew alphabet. According the construal theory in order for people to think in the four distances can’t have prior knowledge of the events. The letter where show in different intervals. The second part of task done with computers, the participants were show a letter 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 abstract thinking process. Participants were given Hebrew letters with the instruction to explain what the world in Hebrew mean. Participants did not remember seeing the letter in the first task. The study found that people have an absence of expense they often think abstractedly. [8]


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

High level is when people think abstractedly and thinking of event at a 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 is that person feeling this emotion.[9] In this 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 perceive 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 in high level..[11] People tend be more detail oriented when in this think process. An example of this a person would notices the color of pen. They are not pay attention if the person is taking a test or just writing a note. The force is more on an aspect small aspect where then the overall detail..[12]



Construal level theory dimension

temporal distances

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]

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]

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 distnce.[13]

Spatial Distance

Spatial distance has two dimensions with the theory mental and physical distances. Spatial distance is a term in psychology that is used for how one perceives events by how far or near the event is to the person and effect the outcome has on the person. Research has found that when a person plans in the far future, one creates a fantasy that is to their liking. When people make plans that are in the near future they are more realistic. An example is when little girls start planning their wedding in such detail with abstract objects that it is impossible to create the wedding. When the time comes for women to get married they do what is achievable and currently works by thinking of important details like what food to serve. Within the mental dimension there are two levels thinking of processing high and low. A high level is when a person is able to think abstractly an example is about how people feel. People have the ability of relating what of people thinking about and how a person would react to a setitution. Their able to think of all the possibles an secenaries. A low-level event is that in the near future an often view as negative. An example of a low level would be the color of a chair. When thinking in low level mind set pay attraction to small detail. That are often not important to the big picture. [14]

Spatial physical distance is the distance is 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 hostil for the time perid they are here. [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. Social groups are friendships that are form through common interest of the people involved. People are drawn to social group 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. People can change their religion and there by changing their social group.It is most commen for people to stay in there socail group.[15]

Social distance is more about feeling of the people within the group and how they interact with other group members. If a social group feels secure and open with another group they would be exhibiting close distance. Close distance is when people in socail groups relate to other social groups. They feel like the other socail groups are smilar to their group. Therefore seeing the group as a distance extantion of there socail group. In the case a group feel insecure and close off then the group would exhibit far distances. Far distances is when people in a socail group feel as if they can’t relate to the other group. the other groups is not view as being extention to there social groups. An example of social groups that would feel open to each other would a religious group and community services groups. These would have a close distance between the groups because they have common belief son helping others. People can frequenly find both religish and community group often meemvers are assocaited with both social groups. Groups that would have far distance would be NAAP and KKK would be groups that would have far in distances between them. The reason why is that these groups believe in the opposite of each other. Would be closed off to each other because the two groups would be harm to the other group.The resean why they can be harm is that NAAP is a organization tthat help to create equal for all races whereas the KKK is a group that purpose is about white power bing in change and over the other races.[15]

Social distance can also lead to people creating more distance between the groups. Groups go about this through different avenues. One the way is through education; by education their members then create separation. Separation by education also means more power for the educated group. Location of were people live is way of forming social groups and separating other groups. An example of this is the wealthy lives in community where the poor could not live due to economic status.[15]

Hypnothical distance

Hypnothical distance is the four components to the construal level theory. Hypnotically distances is person ability to thing on a level that is both abstract and concert. The theory measure how people formulate plans in a realistic manner. the theory also address the accuracy or lack of accuracy in one planning and how challenges alter the accuracy. Another way one’s predictions can be a skewed by sociality viewed; also one own personal mood can interfere with the process. Construal- level their relates to hypothetical because it measure the process of think abstract and concrete planning.[16]

Under the hypothetical theory abstract and concert has to do with the time period the event takes places. Abstract thinking occurs when an event is normally for in the future and the detail are not thoroughly planned though. An example would be the first week of a student is gave information need for a research paper due at the end of the semester. When create plans they formed loosely. The student might plan to find all the resources by first month of school in order prepaid. Have written draft part due by the second months. When the time have these component completed the student push the dates back because there is no urgency. Concert thinking occurs when people plans are in the near future, are and often thought throw.[17]

However by the time people plans become concert they often have over book their schedule. an example of this would by time the resources paper is due, student also other obligation such: test, presentation, and dances and other social events. As the due draw date near student realizes that it’s impossible to do complete all task they committed to they start going throw their plans making more concert by cutting out insecurity event. This process aloud make the plans realist and less abstract unofficial.[18]

When people make that are in the distance future they often make plans know that they are unrealism, and most likely not going to be able follow throw with the plans. People make even throw know aren’t reasonable, because they are thinking abstractedly and often plans on finding a way of forces the plans to work. Example of unrealism plans would Joy plan to start a business with in the next to years. She an idea of where the business could be located and what the business would look like. Joy has no experience in running business. She don’t even know how to manage people or how to do book keeping. She also has no back around in business and does not future plan of educating herself on business. Joy does even have the money to start the business and she has know idea of how to a business plan in order to get a loan. Joy is not taking the steps need indoor to make her plans concert. When the diedline comes to start the business the business she will not have the resources need . Joy plans are abstract therefore more a dream then reality. Relalistic planning is when people make plans that know they will follow throw which. An example would be schedule a doctor appoint on their day off they make these plan know that are actually throw. They also make sure they have reliable transportations to doctor offices and back home. This is realistic planning because they have plans that are achievable.[19]

Optimistically plans a role in the hypothetic distance theory. Optimistic can effect when people make plans future and how many errors are occur with the planning process. When people are people are planning abstracting they often optimistic. View their future plans as being perfect. When people fanatic about event they believe that every aspect is going go occurring to their plans. Example of Optimiticalism planning is when Sam is going to a prom, he have great idea of how the night will turn out. Then Sam will ask the girl he likes to prom and she will agree to go with him. The night will be perfect in mind; he will say all the right things to her. Sam confident in himself will lead him to win is date hart. The end plan for the night is Sam and this girl to be in a relationship with each other. This is optimistic because they believe everything will turn out the right way. When people concert they often see things going wrong with their event. Because they gasp what the event will most likely turn out. These events are more realistic. When the prom draws near Sams confident goes down. He starts realizing that things could go wrong with his perfect plan. The girls might not agree be his date to prom. If she agree then things could go wrong; Sam could say the entire wrong thing and look like a jerk. If he looks like a jerk then she will not date him. When a plan becomes more concerts then people become less optimistic. [20]

Perceptions

Perceptions are effected by the construal level theory in almost all aspects of psychology.[13] There have been strong relationships and similarities found throughout the different kinds of distances. These include temporal, spatial, personal, and social. It tends to be that when distance on one of these levels increases the other levels also increase. These have been found to greatly correlate with one another across the different levels of distance.[21] 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.[22] 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.[23] 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.[24]

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.[25] 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.[26] 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.[27]

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. 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.[28]

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. 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. When thinking about oneself in the present people tend to be more focused on their individual qualities, versus when they think of the future and how they will be in the years to come.[28] 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. 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. These outcomes are differentiated by only the time between the present and how far into the future the event occurs.[29]

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.[30] 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.[31] 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.[32]

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.[33] 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.[34] 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.[35]

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.[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.[36]

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.[37]

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.[38] 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.[39]

Consumer Behaviors

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 k 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 Henderson, Marlone (2006). "Transcending the 'Here': The Effect of Spatial Distance on Social Judgment". Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology. 91. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  15. ^ a b c Mattew, Justin (201). "ween spatial distance an distance". Social Psychology. 42 (spatial constraint on social cognition): 185–192. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  16. ^ Armor, David (9-2006). "Accuracy, error and bias in predictions for real versus hypothetical events". US: American Psychological Assiciation. 4: 39. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  17. ^ Armor, David (9-2006). "Accuracy, error and bias in predictions for real versus hypothetical events". US: American Psychological Assiciation. 4: 39. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  18. ^ Armor, David (9-2006). "Accuracy, error and bias in predictions for real versus hypothetical events". US: American Psychological Assiciation. 4: 39. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  19. ^ Armor, David (9-2006). "Accuracy, error and bias in predictions for real versus hypothetical events". US: American Psychological Assiciation. 4: 39. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  20. ^ Armor, David (9-2006). "Accuracy, error and bias in predictions for real versus hypothetical events". US: American Psychological Assiciation. 4: 39. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  21. ^ Fiedler, K. J. (2012). On the relations between distinct aspects of psychological distance: An ecological basis of construal level theory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1014-1021.
  22. ^ Stephan, E. L. (2010). The effects of time perspective and level of construal on social distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 397-402.
  23. ^ 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.
  24. ^ Fujita, K. H. (2006). Spatial distance and mental construal of social events. Association for Psychological Science, 278-282.
  25. ^ Kyung, E. G. (2013). Construal level and temporal judgments of the past: The moderating role of knowledge. Bulletin of the Psycholonomic Society.
  26. ^ Kanten, A. (2011). The effect of construal level on prediction of task duration. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1037-1047.
  27. ^ 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.
  28. ^ a b McCrea, S. W. (2012). Construal level mind-sets moderate self and social stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51-68.
  29. ^ Liberman, N. S. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 523-534.
  30. ^ Chen, H. H. (2011). The effect of construal level on intertemporal choice and risky choice. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 442-452.
  31. ^ Trautmann, S. K. (2011). Prospect theory or construal level theory? Diminishing sensitivity vs. psychological distance in risky decisions. Acta Psychologica, 254-260.
  32. ^ McCrea, S. L. (2008). Construal Level and Procrastination. Association for Psychological Science, 1308-1314.
  33. ^ Forster, J. (2008). Cognitive consequences of novelty and familiarity: How mere exposure influences level of construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 444-447.
  34. ^ Rim, S. U. (2009). Spontaneous trait inference and construal level theory: Psychological distance increases nonconscious trait thinking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1088-1097.
  35. ^ 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.
  36. ^ Stephan, E. L. (2010). Politeness and psychological distance: A construal level perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 268-280.
  37. ^ Fujita, K. R. (2010). Promoting prospective self-control through abstraction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1049-1054.
  38. ^ Katz, S. B. (2013). Construal level theory of mobile persuasion. Media Psychology, 245-271.
  39. ^ Henderson, M. (2006). Temporal distance, mental construal, and negotiation. The Sciences and Engineering, 3507.

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=585337085"