Teoria nivelul de construct

The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal

Nira Liberman, Michael D. Sagristano and Yaacov Trope

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 38 (2002)

Daiana-Maria Jitaru, Julia Buehler, Marius-Marian BabanIntroduction to Social Psychology 23.01.2014

2

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Study 1,2,3,4

3. General discussion

4. Group discussion

5. Result of our experiment

Daiana-Maria Jitaru, Julia Buehler, Marius-Marian Baban

Introduction to Social Psychology 23.01.2014

3

Introduction



Construal Level of Theory

People construct:

-abstract representations of information (high-level construal) DISTANT FUTURE

-concrete representations of information (low-level construal) NEAR FUTURE

where TEMPORAL DISTANCE is a determinant for the CLT

4

Introduction



Levels of representation:

a)Abstraction levelb)Components of acts levelc)Lower level

, where TEMPORAL DISTANCE is a determinant for the CLT

5

Introduction



Levels of representation:

a)Abstraction level Studying for an exam (superordinate)b)Components of acts level Readingc)Lower level Learning materials (subordinate)

6

Introduction



Temporal distance

proximal distantConstrued at detailed level

Construed at concrete level

Specific goals General goals

More groups applying to concrete categorization

Fewer groups applying to broader categorization

Complex categories, more ambiguous, lower prototypicality

How?-procedure

Simple categories, less ambiguous, higher prototypicality

Why?-reasoning

7

Study 1 – planning leasure activities



- Individual will use fewer broader categories to classify objects, that pertain to distant future situation than near future situations

I.V. D.V. (effect of temporal distance) (number of categories)

Participants: 84 undergraduates (no influence on results regarding the

gender)Materials: 4 pages scenario questionnaire for each participant

38 related objects for each scenario (camping, moving out, yard sale, New York city visit)

near/distant future(camping,etc) randomly assigned

Hypothesis

Method

Scenario 1 example

Yard sale: ‘‘Imagine that you will be having a yard sale this upcoming weekend(sometime next summer, in 2000).’’

The objects were:

chairs, roller blades, sweaters,crib, candy dish, fish tank, board games,

blender, bikes,coats, dumbbells, infant clothes, books, coffee maker,puzzles, plates,

CDs, toaster, toys, cutlery, shoes, skis,chess set, bird cage, ties, baseball cards,

picture frames,juicer, ceramic figurines, glassware, boots, dolls, clock,

records, T-shirts, lamps, skateboards, and paint brushes.

8

9




Procedure: split each scenario into groups of related items include all items place each items only in one group

conclusion: - distant future events high-level abstract categories

- near future events lower-level more specific categories

Results

10




Results Mean number of categories for near future= 7,06->More groups applying to concrete categorization

Mean number of categories for distant future = 5,90->Fewer groups applying to broader categorization

p<0,001

11

Study 2 – significant time x type of day interaction



Good/bad day compared to near future would show less category heterogeneity

and more inter-category heterogeneity.

Participants: 160 undergraduates

Materials:unrelated task before the experiment started (20 min.)randomly assigned for one of the 4 questionnaires (good vs. bad day for tomorrow or year from now on)

Procedure:describe things that would happen and rate them from -3,0,3rate how realistic was the day described from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very realistic)

Hypothesis

Method

Questionnaire ‘‘Experiences of good days’’

Instructions : ‘‘We all have good days and bad days in our lives. In the present study we would like to ask about your own experience of good days.”

Please imagine yourself tomorrow (a year from now).

Imagine now that tomorrow (a year from now) you are having a good day.

Spend a minute or two thinking about all the things that are going to happen to you during that good day tomorrow (a year from now).

Now, please list these things below, each on a separate line.Re-read the

events you have listed and rate how positive or negative was each of these

events on a scale ranging from )3(very negative) to 3 (very positive), with 0

labeled ‘‘neutral.’’

12

13

Study 2 – significant time x type of day interaction



1. Main effect of type of the day significant (good days are less diverse than bad days)2. Main effect of time-> insignificant 3.There is a time x type of the day interaction, with p<0,2

Results

Significant time

Type of the day interaction

Good Bad

Tomorrow 2,25 -1,81

A year from now on

2,49 -1,98

14

Study 3 – everyday life tasks



More inter-categories variance in the near future than in the distant future.

Participants: 64 undergraduates Materials: unrelated tasks (5 min.)

life-style questionnaire (31 tasks) randomly assigned for near/distant

future

Procedure: things that we are going to do or experience rate from 1(not at all) to 7(extremely well) how well

are you going to cope with that

Hypothesis

Method

15

Study 3 – every life tasks



ANOVAPeople did not expect to cope significantly

better in the distant future( 5,14) than in the near future( 4,90).

Conclusion: People represent a more distant future in a simple less differentiated manner.

Results

16

Study 4 – Events, activities and people



Simpler structure should underlie people`s preferences regarding the distant

future than the near future.

Participants: 214 undergraduates Materials:questionnaire on personal

preferences and evaluation styles 3 pages, with 25 life events,daily

activities and meeting people listed

Procedure: rate from 1 (not at all) to 7( very much) each domain

Hypothesis

Method

Events,activities,people

See our experiment!

17Daiana-Maria Jitaru, Julia Buehler, Marius-Marian Baban


18

Study 4 – Events, activities and people



The rating were subjected to a non-metric multidimensional analysis (MDS). Multi-

dimensional scale indicate that the more similar are two data points, the more proximal they will be.

Results

19

Keep in mind



Experiment findings

Study 1 – Objects in more distant future situations are classified into broader categories;Study 2 – Positive and negative experiences in the more distant future are expected, to be more

prototypical;Study 3 – More distant future coping experiences are less variable;Study 4 – More distant future preferences are organized around simpler structures;

20

General discussion



Temporal distance systematically changes the way actions and events are represented distant future represented more schematic, abstract, coherent

Possibility that participants perceived the near future as more important and relevant and therefore were more involved in construing near events than distant future events.

Only study 1&3 can be considered less effortful

Future research ???????!! response time as an independent measure of effort

21

General discussion



Temporal distance as a determinant of construal-related phenomena

Causal attribution of behavior differences between dispositional and situational attributions fundamental attribution error or correspondence bias ( when explaining the behavior of others, appears the tendency of favoring dispositional attributions over situational ones)

Distant future(using traits): “She is lazy”Near future(using situational causes): “No place offered her fair employment”CLT(temporal perspective) moderation correspondence

bias

22

General discussion



Counterfactual thinking – how people mentally construct alternatives to reality

Counterfactuals(distant events) less similar original event\

Researchers(overconfidence, the planning fallacy and focalism) explain biases as a result of underweighting the influence of specific, contextual, non-schematic factors

CLT these biases will be more pronounced in making predictions for a more distant future

Nussbaum et al. (2001) found that overconfidence(d.f.)> overconfidence(n.f.)

23

General discussion



Perceived value of an event derives from its construal:

Value of a high-level aspect of a target object is different from the value of its low-level aspects.

More distant future central and goal-related feature of alternative received more weight than secondary and goal-irrelevant feature (desirability, than feasibility)

24

General discussion



Interesting direction for future research:

Conceptualization of the future and past temporal distances, the various instances of social distance (self vs. other, in-group vs. out-group, in-role vs. out-of-role) and other distance dimensions (e.g., spatial distance, similarity).

Group work

• 1.Think about a simple experimental design which involves the two levels of construal.

• 2.Compare the procedure in your experiment with the procedures used at the experiments in the present article.

25Daiana-Maria Jitaru, Julia Buehler, Marius-Marian Baban


Thank you very much for your attention

26

Near Future experiment sheet

10.02.2010 27

How much would you like to … in one day from now?Rate each of the situation from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much)

1. finish your Research Proposal at Introduction in Social Psychology

2. watch TV3. eat in a well known and expensive Chinese Restaurant 4. order a pizza, because your are too tired to cook5. to meet Angelina Jolie6. show your solidarity in a protest7. to meet Jude Law8. go to a movie at the cinema with your friends9. to meet The Pope10. watch a theater play in your own town11. to meet Queen Elisabeth of England12. to meet Dalai Lama13. take musical lessons for your favourite instrument14. to go to a travel agency to ask more informations about a trip

you always dreamed of15. go to ice-skating with your friends

Distant Future experiment sheet

10.02.2010 28

How much would you like to … three months from now?Rate each of the situation from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much)

1. finish your Research Proposal at Introduction in Social Psychology

2. watch TV3. eat in a well known and expensive Chinese Restaurant 4. order a pizza, because your are too tired to cook5. to meet Angelina Jolie6. show your solidarity in a protest7. to meet Jude Law8. go to a movie at the cinema with your friends9. to meet The Pope10. watch a theater play in your own town11. to meet Queen Elisabeth of England12. to meet Dalai Lama13. take musical lessons for your favourite instrument14. to go to a travel agency to ask more informations about a trip

you always dreamed of15. go to ice-skating with your friends

Results of our experiment

10.02.2010 29

NF - E DF - E NF - D.A. DF - D.A. NF - P DF - P

4.22 4.68 4.22 4.23 2.56 3.73

NF – E. – Near future – eventsDF – E. – Distant future – eventsD.A. – Daily activitiesP – Persons to meet

Documents

Teoria nivelul de construct