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.

[1]  David J. Bryant,et al.  Mental representations of perspective and spatial relations from diagrams and models. , 1999 .

[2]  K. Fiedler,et al.  The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. , 1988 .

[3]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Structures Of Mental Spaces , 2003 .

[4]  T. McNamara.  Mental representations of spatial relations , 1986, Cognitive Psychology.

[5]  S. Fiske,et al.  The Handbook of Social Psychology , 1935 .

[6]  G. Semin,et al.  Revisiting the past and back to the future: memory systems and the linguistic representation of social events. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[7]  T. Gilovich,et al.  The experience of regret: what, when, and why. , 1995, Psychological review.

[8]  Robin R. Vallacher,et al.  What do people think they're doing? Action identification and human behavior. , 1987 .

[9]  Carolyn Yoon,et al.  Perceived covariation among the features of ingroup and outgroup members: The outgroup covariation effect. , 1996 .

[10]  Yaacov Trope,et al.  Time-dependent gambling: odds now, money later. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[11]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Visuospatial Thinking: Functional Significance of Visuospatial Representations , 2005 .

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

[13]  B. Tversky,et al.  Mental representations of perspective and spatial relations from diagrams and models. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[14]  Robin R. Vallacher,et al.  Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. , 1989 .

[15]  L. Hedges,et al.  Categories and particulars: prototype effects in estimating spatial location. , 1991, Psychological review.

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

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

[18]  Yaacov Trope,et al.  Creeping dispositionism: the temporal dynamics of behavior prediction. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[19]  M. Ross.  Relation of Implicit Theories to the Construction of Personal Histories , 1989 .

[20]  Barbara Tversky.  1 Functional Significance of Visuospatial Representations , 2005 .

[21]  Y. Trope,et al.  The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal. , 2002 .

[22]  W. Mischel,et al.  The personality of familiar and significant people: the lay perceiver as a social-cognitive theorist. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[23]  R. Nisbett,et al.  Behavior as seen by the actor and as seen by the observer , 1973 .

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