Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Effects of Psychological Distance on Mental Abstraction: A Registered Report of Four Tests of Construal-Level Theory

  • Sofia Calderon*
  • , Erik Mac Giolla
  • , Karl Ask
  • , Susanne Jana Adler
  • , Jens Agerstroem
  • , Burcu Akpinar
  • , Nihan Albayrak
  • , Francesca Romana Alparone
  • , Shahrazad Amin
  • , Antonio Aquino
  • , Melissa Bachet
  • , Baisile Baisile
  • , Karin M. Bausenhart
  • , Magali Beylat
  • , Olga Bialobrzeska
  • , Eliana C. Bloomfield
  • , Lea Boecker
  • , Matteo Bonora
  • , Shannon T. Brady
  • , Jared G. Branch
  • Nicole E. Brandy, Kelley T. Bui, Mariela Bustos-Ortega, Amparo Caballero, Andi Cai, Katarzyna Cantarero, Stephanie A. Cardenas, Pilar Carrera, Jung-Tzu Chang, Hsuan-Fu Chao, Andrew G. Christy, Jennifer A. Cook, Junhua Dang, Scott Danielson, William E. Davis, Cara de Boer, Elise de Groot, Jaye L. Derrick, Sarah Dittmar, Tim Doering, Celine Douilliez, Martin Egger, Yannik A. Escher, Thomas Rhys Evans, Sofia Fabiani, Gilad Feldman, Nicole Fernandez, Julia Fischer, Magdalena Formanowicz, Malte Friese, Et al.
*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

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. In this international multilab study, we tested four basic hypotheses derived from core assumptions of CLT and explore 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 (Study 1) and Fujita et al. (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 as follows (positive effects are consistent with hypotheses): temporal, d = 0.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.003, 0.16] (effect in original study: d = 0.92); spatial, d = 0.04, 95% CI = [-0.03, 0.11] (effect in original study: d = 0.55); social, d = -0.27, 95% CI = [-0.34, -0.19]; and likelihood, d = 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.
Original languageEnglish
Article number25152459251401177
Number of pages29
JournalAdvances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science
Volume9
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2026

Keywords

  • construal-level theory
  • mental abstraction
  • psychological distance
  • replication
  • multilab
  • open data
  • open materials
  • preregistration
  • TEMPORAL DISTANCE
  • MORAL JUDGMENT
  • FOREST
  • TREES

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Effects of Psychological Distance on Mental Abstraction: A Registered Report of Four Tests of Construal-Level Theory'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this