Calderon, Sofia, Giolla, Erik, Ask, Karl, Adler, Susanne, Agerstrom, Jens ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6670-0718, Akpinar, Burcu, Albayrak, Nihan, Alparone, Francesca, Amin, Shahrazad, Aquino, Antonio, Bachet, Melissa, Baisile, Baisile, Bausenhart, Karin, Beylat, Magali, Bialobrzeska, Olga, Bloomfield, Eliana, Boecker, Lea, Bonora, Matteo, Brady, Shannon, Branch, Jared, Brandy, Nicole, Bui, Kelley, Bustos-Ortega, Mariela, Caballero, Amparo, Cai, Andi, Cantarero, Katarzyna, Cardenas, Stephanie, Carrera, Pilar, Chang, Jung-Tzu, Chao, Hsuan-Fu, Christy, Andrew, Cook, Jennifer, Dang, Junhua, Danielson, Scott, Davis, William, de Boer, Cara, de Groot, Elise, Derrick, Jaye, Dittmar, Sarah, Doring, Tim, Douilliez, Celine, Egger, Martin, Escher, Yannik, Evans, Thomas ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6670-0718 and et., al. (2025) Effects of psychological distance on mental abstraction: a registered report of four tests of Construal Level Theory. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. ISSN 2515-2459 (Online) (In Press)

Preview

PDF (Author's Accepted Manuscript) 51581 EVANS_Effects_Of_Psychological_Distance_On_Mental_Abstraction_(AAM)_2025.pdf - Accepted Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial. Download (1MB) | Preview

Abstract

Construal level theory (CLT) proposes that psychological distance influences the level of abstraction at which something is mentally construed: things perceived as less probable (likelihood) or further away from the here (spatial distance), now (temporal distance), or self (social distance) are thought about more abstractly. This international multi-lab study tests four basic hypotheses derived from core assumptions of CLT and explores potential moderators and boundary conditions of the effects. Participants (N= 11,775) from 27 countries and regions were randomly assigned to one of four experimental protocols focused on different types of psychological distance (temporal, spatial, social, or likelihood), and each experiment manipulated psychological distance (close vs. distant). The protocols for temporal distance(N= 2,941)and spatial distance(N= 2,973)were direct replications of Liberman and Trope (1998, Study 1) and Fujita et al. (2006, Study 1), respectively. The remaining two protocols were paradigmatic replications, applying to social distance (N= 2,926) and likelihood (N= 2,936). The effects of psychological distance on construal level for the four present studies were (original effects within parentheses; positive effects are consistent with hypotheses): dtemporal =0.08, 95% CI [0.003, 0.16] (cf. d= 0.92); dspatial =0.04, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.11] (cf. d= 0.55); dsocial= -0.27, 95% CI [-0.34, -0.19]; and dlikelihood= 0.03, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.11].Pretests indicated that valence and abstraction were confounded in response options on the outcome measure. Controlling for this confound eliminated the hypothesis-inconsistent effect of social distance, d= 0.006, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.07]. These findings provide limited evidence for the predictions of the theory and present a critical challenge for CLT.

Item Type:	Article
Uncontrolled Keywords:	construal level theory, mental abstraction, psychological distance, replication, multi-lab
Subjects:	B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology R Medicine > R Medicine (General) R Medicine > RG Gynecology and obstetrics
Faculty / School / Research Centre / Research Group:	Faculty of Education, Health & Human Sciences Faculty of Education, Health & Human Sciences > Institute for Lifecourse Development Faculty of Education, Health & Human Sciences > Institute for Lifecourse Development > Centre for Professional Workforce Development Faculty of Education, Health & Human Sciences > School of Human Sciences (HUM)
Last Modified:	03 Dec 2025 11:31
URI:	https://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/51581

Actions (login required)

View Item

Downloads