Over the hills and far away: The link between physical distance and abstraction

Current Directions in Psychological Science

Volumn 19, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 390-394

  Henderson, Marlone D ^a   Wakslak, Cheryl J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

abstraction; construal level; psychological distance; space

Indexed keywords

EID: 78650332086     PISSN: 09637214     EISSN: 14678721     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963721410390802     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Bar-Anan, Y., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2006). The association between psychological distance and construal level: Evidence from an implicit association test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 609-622. Demonstrates that people have an implicit association between more psychological distance (e.g., increased physical distance from events) and abstract thinking.
2. Fujita, K., Henderson, M.D., Eng, J., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2006). (See References). Demonstrates that events that are geographically far away are thought about in more abstract, higher-level terms.
3. Henderson, M.D., Fujita, K., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2006). (See References). Demonstrates that people's judgments and predictions reflect a more general way of thinking when dealing with events and people that are physically far away from them.
4. Liberman, N., & Förster, J. (2009). (See References). Demonstrates that making people focus on general patterns rather than specific details increases how psychologically far away (e.g., physical distance) events seem from them.
5. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). (See References). Reviews research in support of construal level theory, specifically highlighting how people's level of abstract thinking is related to the extent that they think about the future, the past, remote locations, another person's perspective, and counterfactual alternatives.
6. Alter, A., & Oppenheimer, D. (2008). Effects of fluency on psychological distance and mental construal (or why New York is a large city, but New York is a civilized jungle). Psychological Science, 19, 161-167.
7. Amit, E., Algom, D., & Trope, Y. (2009). Distance-dependent processing of pictures and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 400-415.
8. Cairncross, F. (1997). The death of distance: How the communication revolution will change our lives. London, England: Orion.
9. Casasanto, D., & Boroditsky, L. (2008). Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106, 579-593.
10. Fujita, K., Henderson, M.D., Eng, J., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2006). Spatial distance and mental construal of social events. Psychological Science, 17, 278-282.
11. Henderson, M.D. (2009). Psychological distance and group judgments: The effect of physical distance on beliefs about common goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1330-1341.
12. Henderson, M.D. (in press). Mere physical distance and integrative agreements: When more space improves negotiation outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
13. Henderson, M.D., Fujita, K., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2006). Transcending the 'here': The effect of spatial distance on social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 845-856.
14. Henderson, M.D., & Wakslak, C.J. (2010). Psychological distance and priming: When do semantic primes impact social evaluations? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 975-985.
15. Jia, L., Hirt, E., & Karpen, S. (2009). Lessons from a faraway land: The effect of spatial distance on creative cognition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1127-1131.
16. Latané, B., Liu, J., Nowak, A., Bonevento, M., & Zheng, L. (1995). Distance matters: Physical space and social impact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 795-805.
17. Liberman, N., & Förster, J. (2009). Distancing from experienced self: How global-versus-local perception affects estimation of psychological distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 203-216.
18. Meyers-Levy, J., & Zhu, R. (2007). The influence of ceiling height: The effect of priming on the type of processing that people use. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 174-186.
19. Proffitt, D.R., Stefanucci, J., Banton, T., & Epstein, W. (2003). The role of effort in perceived distance. Psychological Science, 14, 106-112.
20. Rim, S., Uleman, J., & Trope, Y. (2009). Spontaneous trait inference and construal level theory: Psychological distance increases non-conscious trait thinking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1088-1097.
21. Shani, Y., Igou, E., & Zeelenberg, M. (2009). Different ways of looking at unpleasant truths: How construal levels influence information search. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110, 36-44.
22. Stephan, E., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2010). Politeness and psychological distance: A construal level perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 268-280.
23. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440-463.
24. Wakslak, C. (2010). The effect of perspective on the evaluation of stock performance. Unpublished manuscript, University of Southern California.
25. Wakslak, C.J., & Trope, Y. (2009). The effect of construal-level on subjective probability estimates. Psychological Science, 20, 52-58.