The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal.

By Nira Liberman, Michael D Sagristano, Yaacov Trope. 2002

270 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4337f38a32b0a0156c9635ffef5c91ba6401c1b9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Perceptions and responses to climate policy risks among California farmers (2013, background): “…distance theory suggests that events that are temporally, socially, or geographically close to a person are more tangible and this experience results in greater likelihood to adopt behaviors to help a person adapt to or mitigate the problem (Liberman et al., 2002; Spence et al., 2011, 2012).”
Seeing the invisible hand: Underlying effects of COVID-19 on tourists’ behavioral patterns (2020, unknown): “Compared to low-level construal, high-level construal is simpler, decontextualized, and more coherent (Liberman et al., 2002; Liberman & Trope, 1998; Trope & Liberman, 2010).”
The Influence of Ceiling Height: The Effect of Priming on the Type of Processing That People Use (2007, background): “, fewer subgroups) comprising seemingly disparate items (Isen 1987; Liberman et al. 2002; Seibt and Forster 2004).”
Construal Levels and Psychological Distance: Effects on Representation, Prediction, Evaluation, and Behavior. (2007, methodology): “For example, one study used a categorization task (previously used by Liberman et al., 2002, described above), in which participants grouped objects related to each of four scenarios into as many groups as they deemed appropriate.”
Construal levels and moral judgment: Some complications (2012, background): “Highlevel representations are also more coherent and integrative , whereas low-level representations are more specific and disparate (Liberman et al., 2002, Study 4; Nussbaum , Trope, & Liberman, 2006).”
Seeing the Forest Beyond the Trees: A Construal-Level Approach to Self-Control (2008, background): “Construal levels, in contrast, can apply broadly not only to behavior, but also to any object, situation, or event, as reviewed earlier (e.g., Liberman et al., 2002; Nussbaum et al., 2003).”
Construal levels and self-control. (2006, background): “As mentioned, superordinate categorization is a cognitive process associated with high-level construals, whereas subordinate categorization is associated with low-level construals (Liberman et al., 2002).”
“Proximising” climate change reconsidered: A construal level theory perspective (2016, methodology): “…climate change impacts) were very similar to manipulation checks that were successfully used in previous studies from a CLT perspective (cf. Liberman et al., 2002), the task might have been too demanding in Proximising climate change reconsidered 19 terms of the elements participants had…”
Interpersonal Similarity as a Social Distance Dimension: Implications for Perception of Others' Actions. (2008, background): “CLT’s prediction that distant objects would be construed on a higher level has been supported by research on temporal distance (e.g., Liberman, Sagristano, & Trope, 2002; Liberman & Trope, 1998; Trope & Liberman, 2000), spatial distance (Fujita, Henderson, Eng, Trope, & Liberman, 2006; Henderson, ”