Social Distance, Framing, and Judgment: A Construal Level Perspective

Drawing upon construal level theory, this research investigates the influence of social distance on individuals’ responses to persuasive messages. Experiment 1 (N = 133) demonstrates that the persuasive impact of a gain frame becomes stronger when people make judgments for socially distant (e.g., others) versus proximal entities (e.g., selves). On the other hand, the persuasive impact of a loss frame remains the same across different levels of social distance. Experiment 2 (N = 135) shows that the persuasiveness of a societal frame becomes stronger when people make judgments for socially distant versus proximal entities, whereas the persuasiveness of an individual frame is unaffected by social distance. Experiment 3 (N = 80) provides evidence that mental salience of positive and societal outcomes of an action increases as social distance increases, whereas mental salience of negative and individual outcomes remains the same across different levels of social distance.

[1]  Daniel J. O'Keefe,et al.  Do Loss-Framed Persuasive Messages Engender Greater Message Processing Than Do Gain-Framed Messages? A Meta-Analytic Review , 2008 .

[2]  Jakob D. Jensen,et al.  The Relative Persuasiveness of Gain-Framed Loss-Framed Messages for Encouraging Disease Prevention Behaviors: A Meta-Analytic Review , 2007, Journal of health communication.

[3]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[4]  Alexander J. Rothman,et al.  The Strategic Use of Gain- and Loss-Framed Messages to Promote Healthy Behavior: How Theory Can Inform Practice , 2006 .

[5]  Jakob D. Jensen,et al.  The Advantages of Compliance or the Disadvantages of Noncompliance? A Meta-Analytic Review of the Relative Persuasive Effectiveness of Gain-Framed and Loss-Framed Messages , 2006 .

[6]  Patrick C. Meirick.  Self-Enhancement Motivation as a Third Variable in the Relationship Between First- and Third-Person Effects , 2005 .

[7]  Paschalina Ziamou,et al.  The Influence of Temporal Distance on Consumer Preferences for Technology-Based Innovations† , 2005 .

[8]  Nira Liberman,et al.  Temporal construal effects on abstract and concrete thinking: consequences for insight and creative cognition. , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[9]  Y. Trope,et al.  The pros and cons of temporally near and distant action. , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[10]  N. Weinstein.  Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems: Conclusions from a community-wide sample , 1987, Journal of Behavioral Medicine.

[11]  Mike Schmierbach,et al.  The Interplay of News Frames on Cognitive Complexity , 2004 .

[12]  N. Roese,et al.  Regulatory focus and temporal distance , 2003 .

[13]  Laura R. Umphrey.  The effects of message framing and message processing on testicular self‐examination attitudes and perceived susceptibility , 2003 .

[14]  Yaacov Trope,et al.  Temporal construal. , 2003, Psychological review.

[15]  Richard M. Perloff.  The third-person effect , 2002 .

[16]  William P. Eveland,et al.  Behind the Third-Person Effect: Differentiating Perceptual Processes for Self and Other , 2001 .

[17]  Monique M. Mitchell,et al.  Risk, threat, and information seeking about genital herpes: The effects of mood and message framing , 2001 .

[18]  G. W. Fischer,et al.  Perceived Covariation Among the Features of Ingroup and Outgroup Members : The Outgroup Covariation Effect , 2001 .

[19]  William P. Eveland,et al.  Rethinking the Social Distance Corollary , 1999 .

[20]  Dhavan V. Shah,et al.  Susceptibility and Severity , 1999 .

[21]  Schneider,et al.  All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[22]  David H Tewksbury,et al.  Third-person effects on publication of a holocaust-denial advertisement , 1998 .

[23]  Y. Trope,et al.  The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. , 1998 .

[24]  William P. Eveland,et al.  Support for Censorship of Violent and Misogynic Rap Lyrics , 1997 .

[25]  Joel J. Davis.  The Effects of Message Framing on Response to Environmental Communications , 1995 .

[26]  Klaus Fiedler,et al.  Actor-Observer Bias in Close Relationships: The Role of Self-Knowledge and Self-Related Language , 1995 .

[27]  Lauren G. Block,et al.  When to Accentuate the Negative: The Effects of Perceived Efficacy and Message Framing on Intentions to Perform a Health-Related Behavior , 1995 .

[28]  Peter Salovey,et al.  The Influence of Message Framing on Intentions to Perform Health Behaviors , 1993 .

[29]  Esther Thorson,et al.  Perceived Persuasive Effects of Product Commercials and Public Service Announcements , 1992 .

[30]  Albert C. Gunther,et al.  What We Think Others Think , 1991 .

[31]  G. Keppel.  Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook, 3rd ed. , 1991 .

[32]  Joan Meyers-Levy,et al.  The Influence of Message Framing and Issue Involvement , 1990 .

[33]  R. Perloff.  Ego-Involvement and the Third Person Effect of Televised News Coverage , 1989 .

[34]  S. Chaiken,et al.  The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. , 1987, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[35]  W. Davison.  The Third-Person Effect in Communication , 1983 .

[36]  E. E. Jones,et al.  Perceived Variability of Personal Characteristics in In-Groups and Out-Groups , 1981 .

[37]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[38]  G. Keppel,et al.  Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook , 1976 .

[39]  K. Lewin,et al.  Field theory in social science , 1951 .