Temporal construal.

By Yaacov Trope, Nira Liberman. Psychology Review, 2003

2,605 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/53d423132089c03cf5d3bbaa267d86a92ab2e2b1

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 Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Negative practice–value correlations in the GLOBE data: Unexpected findings, questionnaire limitations and research directions (2010, background): “From a distance we tend to evaluate options broadly or abstractly, whereas from up close we tend to emphasize specific or more concrete issues (Trope & Liberman, 2003).”
Too Much of a Good Thing: The Benefits of Implementation Intentions Depend on the Number of Goals (2012, background): “Perceived Difficulty, Commitment, and Goal Success Thinking concretely about how, when, and where to pursue a goal can alert people to the difficulties that stand in the way of goal achievement (Lynch et al. 2010; Trope and Liberman 2003; Zauberman and Lynch 2005).”
Temporal construal effects on abstract and concrete thinking: consequences for insight and creative cognition. (2004, background): “Construal Level Theory Construal Level Theory (CLT; Liberman & Trope, 1998; Trope & Liberman, 2000; for a review see Trope & Liberman, 2003) proposes that temporal distance, defined as the perceived proximity of an event in time, changes peoples’ responses to future events by altering their mental…”
Flawed Self-Assessment (2004, neutral): “People also base their predictions about events in the distant future on abstract, higher-level features of a situation and give short shrift to more concrete, low-level features that can have a significant impact on behavior (Trope & Liberman, 2003).”
Spatial Distance and Mental Construal of Social Events (2006, background): “Volume 17—Number 4 281 Gilovich & Medvec, 1993; Ross, 1989; Trope & Liberman, 2003).”
Time, Uncertainty, and Individual Differences in Decisions to Cooperate in Resource Dilemmas (2006, background): “10.1177/0146167205284006PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETINKortenkamp, Moore / TIME AND UNCERTAINTY IN RESOURCE DILEMMAS”
Effects of multiple psychological distances on construal and consumer evaluation: A field study of online reviews (2016, background): “…more likely to be represented in high-level terms of abstract and central features; whereas close events (e.g., events in places and at times that are here and now, respectively) are more likely to be represented in low-level terms of concrete and peripheral features (Trope & Liberman, 2000, 2003).”
Modeling the interplay between affect and deliberation. (2015, background): “Research on construal-level theory (Trope & Liberman, 2003) also documents a distinction between proximate and nonproximate factors and provides evidence that level of construal plays a role in the relationship between nontemporal proximity and affective responses.”
Procrastination of Enjoyable Experiences (2010, background): “Though not a perfect measure of procrastination, differences in completion rates for different groups can be used as a proxy for different levels of procrastination, with a higher failure to complete being representative of a higher level of procrastination.”
Consumer response to brand extensions: Construal level as a moderator of the importance of perceived fit (2008, positive): “Drawing on the premise that temporally distant (near) future events tend to be represented with abstract (concrete) concepts (Trope & Liberman, 2003), we varied the temporal distance of brand extension introductions.”