Yaacov Trope

Construal-level theory of psychological distance

People are capable of thinking about the future, the past, remote locations, another persons perspective, and counterfactual alternatives. Without denying the uniqueness of each process, it is proposed that they constitute different forms of traversing psychological distance. Psychological distance is egocentric: Its reference point is the self in the here and now, and the different ways in which an object might be removed from that point-in time, in space, in social distance, and in hypotheticality-constitute different distance dimensions. Transcending the self in the here and now entails mental construal, and the farther removed an object is from direct experience, the higher (more abstract) the level of construal of that object. Supporting this analysis, research shows (a) that the various distances are cognitively related to each other, (b) that they similarly influence and are influenced by level of mental construal, and (c) that they similarly affect prediction, preference, and action.

Construal Levels and Self-Control

The authors propose that self-control involves making decisions and behaving in a manner consistent with high-level versus low-level construals of a situation. Activation of high-level construals (which capture global, superordinate, primary features of an event) should lead to greater self-control than activation of low-level construals (which capture local, subordinate, secondary features). In 6 experiments using 3 different techniques, the authors manipulated construal levels and assessed their effects on self-control and underlying psychological processes. High-level construals led to decreased preferences for immediate over delayed outcomes, greater physical endurance, stronger intentions to exert self-control, and less positive evaluations of temptations that undermine self-control. These results support a construal-level analysis of self-control.

Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in preference

Five studies tested the predictions of temporal construal theory and time-discounting theories regarding evaluation of near future and distant future options (outcomes, activities, products). The options had abstract or goal-relevant features (called high-level construal features) as well as more concrete or goal-irrelevant features (called low-level construal features). The studies varied the valence (positive vs. negative) and the type of valence (affective vs. cognitive) of the low-level and high-level construal features. The results show that the weight of high-level construal features, compared with the weight of low-level construal features, is greater in determining distant future preferences than near future preferences. The implications of the results for extant theories of time-dependent changes in preference are discussed.

The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal

Abstract Four studies examined the prediction of construal level theory that the more distant future events would be construed in higher-level, more abstract, and simple terms. Objects were categorized into broader categories when they pertained to distant future situations than to near future situations (Study 1). Positive and negative experiences in the more distant future were expected to be more prototypical—less variable and more extreme (Study 2). More distant future coping experiences were expected to be less variable (Study 3). Preferences for events and activities that were expected in the distant future were organized around simpler structures than preferences for the same events when they were expected in the near future (Study 4). These results support the principle of temporal construal, according to which the more distant future is represented in a more schematic, abstract, and coherent way.

You focus on the forest when you're in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing

Elevated power increases the psychological distance one feels from others, and this distance, according to construal level theory, should lead to more abstract information processing. Thus, high power should be associated with more abstract thinking-focusing on primary aspects of stimuli and detecting patterns and structure to extract the gist, as well as categorizing stimuli at a higher level-relative to low power. In 6 experiments involving both conceptual and perceptual tasks, priming high power led to more abstract processing than did priming low power, even when this led to worse performance. Experiment 7 revealed that in line with past neuropsychological research on abstract thinking, priming high power also led to greater relative right-hemispheric activation.

Spatial Distance and Mental Construal of Social Events

Construal-level theory proposes that increasing the reported spatial distance of events leads individuals to represent the events by their central, abstract, global features (high-level construal) rather than by their peripheral, concrete, local features (low-level construal). Results of two experiments indicated that participants preferred to identify actions as ends rather than as means to a greater extent when these actions occurred at a spatially distant, as opposed to near, location (Study 1), and that they used more abstract language to recall spatially distant events, compared with near events (Study 2). These findings suggest that spatially distant events are associated with high-level construals, and that spatial distance can be conceptualized as a dimension of psychological distance.

Seeing the Forest When Entry is Unlikely: Probability and the Mental Representation of Events

Conceptualizing probability as psychological distance, the authors draw on construal level theory (Y. Trope & N. Liberman, 2003) to propose that decreasing an events probability leads individuals to represent the event by its central, abstract, general features (high-level construal) rather than by its peripheral, concrete, specific features (low-level construal). Results indicated that when reported probabilities of events were low rather than high, participants were more broad (Study 1) and inclusive (Study 2) in their categorization of objects, increased their preference for general rather than specific activity descriptions (Study 3), segmented ongoing behavior into fewer units (Study 4), were more successful at abstracting visual information (Study 5), and were less successful at identifying details missing within a coherent visual whole (Study 6). Further, after exposure to low-probability as opposed to high-probability phrases, participants increasingly preferred to identify actions in ends-related rather than means-related terms (Study 7). Implications for probability assessment and choice under uncertainty are discussed.

The association between psychological distance and construal level: Evidence from an implicit association test

According to construal level theory (N. Liberman, Y. Trope, & E. Stephan, in press; Y. Trope & N. Liberman, 2003), people use a more abstract, high construal level when judging, perceiving, and predicting more psychologically distal targets, and they judge more abstract targets as being more psychologically distal. The present research demonstrated that associations between more distance and higher level of construal also exist on a pure conceptual level. Eight experiments used the Implicit Association Test (IAT; A. G. Greenwald, D. E. McGhee, & J. L. K. Schwartz, 1998) to demonstrate an association between words related to construal level (low vs. high) and words related to four dimensions of distance (proximal vs. distal): temporal distance, spatial distance, social distance, and hypotheticality. In addition to demonstrating an association between level of construal and psychological distance, these findings also corroborate the assumption that all 4 dimensions of psychological distance are related to level of construal in a similar way and support the notion that they all are forms of psychological distance.

Body Cues, Not Facial Expressions, Discriminate Between Intense Positive and Negative Emotions

Joy or Pain? Face recognition and processing are so completely central to human social interactions that these functions are supported by specialized regions in the brain. One of the fundamental aspects being processed is emotion, particularly whether the emotion being expressed is positive or negative. Nevertheless, neuroimaging studies have documented that perceiving opposite emotions often activates the same or overlapping regions. Aviezer et al. (p. 1225) report that the recognition of positive versus negative emotions actually relies on information communicated by the body—the extent to which perceivers identified joy versus grief in composite figures was driven by whether the body came from a joyous (versus grievous) image rather than the face. The body reveals what the face conceals. The distinction between positive and negative emotions is fundamental in emotion models. Intriguingly, neurobiological work suggests shared mechanisms across positive and negative emotions. We tested whether similar overlap occurs in real-life facial expressions. During peak intensities of emotion, positive and negative situations were successfully discriminated from isolated bodies but not faces. Nevertheless, viewers perceived illusory positivity or negativity in the nondiagnostic faces when seen with bodies. To reveal the underlying mechanisms, we created compounds of intense negative faces combined with positive bodies, and vice versa. Perceived affect and mimicry of the faces shifted systematically as a function of their contextual body emotion. These findings challenge standard models of emotion expression and highlight the role of the body in expressing and perceiving emotions.

The pros and cons of temporally near and distant action.

The present research demonstrated that in considering an action, considerations against (con) the action tend to be subordinate to considerations in favor of (pro) the action in that cons are considered only if the level of pros is sufficient, whereas pros are considered independent of the level of cons (Studies 1A and IB). The authors therefore concluded that pros constitute a higher construal level than cons and predict, on the basis of temporal construal processes (Y. Trope & N. Liberman. 2003). that pros would be more salient in making decisions for the more distant future, whereas the reverse should hold for cons. As predicted, participants generated more pros and fewer cons toward new exam procedures (Study 2), public policies (Study 3), and personal and interpersonal behaviors (Studies 4-6) that were expected to take place in the more distant future. This research also examined the limiting conditions and the evaluative consequences of these shifts.