The Time for Action is Now: Subjective Temporal Proximity Enhances Pursuit of Remote-Future Goals

Running head: TEMPORAL PROXIMITY AND REMOTE-FUTURE GOALS 1

The Time for Action is Now: Subjective Temporal Proximity Enhances Pursuit of Remote-

Future Goals

Nadia Y. Bashira, Anne E. Wilson

b, Penelope Lockwood

a, Alison L. Chasteen

a, and Susan

Alisatb

aUniversity of Toronto

bWilfrid Laurier University

Article Type: Research Report

Manuscript #: 2012SOCOG000189RR

Corresponding author: Nadia Y. Bashir

University of Toronto

Department of Psychology

100 St. George Street

Toronto, ON

M5S 3G3

Canada

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 1-416-978-7344

Fax: 1-416-978-4811

mailto:[email protected]

TEMPORAL PROXIMITY AND REMOTE-FUTURE GOALS 2

Abstract

Although individuals must act today to achieve many long-term, collective future goals, they

often consider such goals to be temporally remote concerns that do not require immediate action.

In two studies, we examined whether individuals are more motivated to pursue long-term

collective future goals when they subjectively experience them as temporally proximal, holding

constant objective date projections. We found that experimentally inducing participants to view

distant future climate change consequences as temporally proximal enhanced pro-environmental

motivation (Study 1) and behavior during the week following the study (Study 2), because the

subjective temporal proximity made them construe climate change goals more concretely (Study

2). Thus, although the temporally distant nature of remote future goals may generally undermine

motivation, making these goals feel temporally close can motivate individuals to pursue them in

the present.

Keywords: subjective temporal distance, motivation, goals, behavior change, time

perception


The Time for Action is Now: Subjective Temporal Proximity Enhances Pursuit of Remote-

Future Goals

Recently, Michelle Obama (2011) has encouraged present-day efforts to fight childhood

obesity, proclaiming that “we have to do everything we can today to give all our kids [a] healthy

future.” Similarly, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon (2009) has urged immediate pro-

environmental action, warning that, “By the end of this century, sea levels may rise between half

a metre and two metres” if climate change progresses. Although action today can avert unwanted

future outcomes, individuals often fail to pursue such long-term, collective future goals in the

present (Adams & Rau, 2011; Höhne, Eisbrenner, Hagemann, & Moltmann, 2009). In the current

research, we examined whether making remote future goals feel subjectively closer in time

boosts goal-pursuit motivation.

Individuals may be slow to pursue remote future goals in part because the objective

temporal distance of these goals reduces goal-pursuit motivation. Indeed, individuals discount

future outcomes (Frederick, Loewenstein, & O’Donoghue, 2002) and are less motivated to

achieve or avert them when these outcomes are objectively distant in time (Forster, Higgins, &

Idson, 1998). Furthermore, individuals’ construals of temporally remote goals undermine their

goal-pursuit motivation (McCrea, Liberman, Trope, & Sherman, 2008; Trope & Liberman, 2003,

2010). Specifically, when considering a goal, such as “averting climate change,” individuals may

form low-level (e.g., purchasing sustainable beverage containers) or high-level (e.g., protecting

the environment) representations of the goal. Whereas low-level representations are concrete and

convey the mechanics of goal pursuit, high-level representations are abstract and convey the

essence of the goal (Liberman & Trope, 1998; Vallacher & Wegner, 1987). Because concrete

construals indicate how to pursue a goal, construing goals concretely versus abstractly leads to


earlier anticipated goal-directed action, less procrastination, and earlier goal completion

(Gollwitzer & Brandstätter, 1997; Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006; McCrea et al., 2008).

Construal level theory indicates, however, that individuals construe goals that are

objectively distant in time less concretely (Liberman & Trope, 1998; Trope & Liberman, 2003,

2010). Although abstract construals can facilitate goal pursuit under some circumstances by

reducing temptation and emphasizing the desirability of goals (Fujita, Trope, Liberman, &

Levin-Sagi, 2006; Liberman & Trope, 1998), concrete construals may facilitate the pursuit of

remote collective future goals more effectively for two key reasons. First, because concrete

construals map onto specific behaviors more closely, concrete construals are more likely to

facilitate the pursuit of complex goals (Vallacher & Wegner, 1987). Remote collective future

goals may be particularly complex because they are temporally distant and affect multiple people

(Pahl & Bauer, 2013). Thus, concrete construals may be especially likely to facilitate the pursuit

of such goals. Second, whereas concrete construals (e.g., washing clothing in cold water) may

make remote collective future goals seem feasible for an individual to pursue, abstract construals

(e.g., protecting the planet) may convey that these goals require the efforts of multiple

individuals and are less feasible for individual goal pursuit.

Past research may therefore seem to imply that objectively distant goals will often fail to

spur action. It may, however, be possible to boost motivation by simply making these goals feel

closer to the present: If objectively distant future goals seem temporally closer, individuals may

construe them more concretely and therefore be motivated to pursue them today.

Although researchers have focused nearly exclusively on the implications of perceiving

objectively near (e.g., tomorrow) versus distant (e.g., next year) goals, initial evidence indicates

that individuals can be induced to view future goals as subjectively close versus distant, and that


doing so affects goal pursuit (Peetz, Wilson, & Strahan, 2009; Pennington & Roese, 2003).

Furthermore, Peetz et al. (2009) demonstrated that students who perceived their future academic

goals as subjectively proximal thought more about steps they could take to accomplish them,

which in turn predicted greater academic motivation and behavior. Although they interpreted

their findings in terms of research on process versus outcome focus (Pham & Taylor, 1999), their

results are consistent with construal level theory.

In these studies, however, researchers examined relatively short-term, personal goals,

whereas the current research investigates much longer-term, collective goals. Researchers have

described personal goals as socially closer (i.e., closer to the perceiver) than collective goals, and

social proximity produces corresponding feelings of temporal proximity (Stephan, Liberman, &

Trope, 2011). Remote collective future goals, then, may be doubly distant due to their temporal

and social remoteness (Pahl & Bauer, 2013). Whereas it may be relatively easy to make

objectively immediate (i.e., temporally and socially proximal) goals feel close enough to boost

goal-pursuit motivation, it remains unknown whether increasing subjective temporal proximity is

sufficiently powerful to alter individuals’ construals of much longer-term, collective goals.

Given that individuals must often act today to achieve or avert collective outcomes that will not

occur for many years or decades, it is important to understand the malleability of subjective time

in these contexts. This insight may be particularly critical in the context of threatening future

outcomes (e.g., averting an economic recession or climate change). Indeed, if negative future

outcomes seem threatening, individuals may relegate them to the distant future (Hennes, Jost, &

Ruisch, 2012) and consequently experience less motivation to address them (Feinberg & Willer,

2011). If individuals can be induced to perceive even highly threatening outcomes as temporally

close, however, they may be less able to ignore them and more motivated to address them.


In sum, although past research suggests a link between subjective time, construal level,

and goal pursuit motivation, key questions remain unanswered. First, because past research has

examined only relatively short future timeframes and personal goals (Peetz et al., 2009), we

examined whether it is possible to alter the subjective timeframe of objectively remote collective

future goals, goals that are more psychologically distant (Pahl & Bauer, 2013). Second, we

examined whether altering the subjective timeframe of objectively remote future outcomes is

sufficiently powerful to alter individuals’ motivation and actual goal-pursuit behavior. Third,

because researchers have not previously examined the relationships between subjective temporal

distance, concrete construals, and goal pursuit, we assessed whether perceiving remote future

goals as temporally close increases goal-pursuit behavior because it promotes concrete goal

construals. We tested these possibilities by assessing whether individuals could be induced to

view future climate change consequences as temporally close and whether this affected their pro-

environmental motivation (Study 1) and behavior during the week following the manipulation

(Study 2). We also examined whether concrete construals of climate change goals mediated this

effect (Study 2). We predicted that individuals who subjectively experienced climate change

consequences as temporally close (even though their calendar time remained constant) would

demonstrate greater pro-environmental motivation and behavior, because they would construe

climate change goals more concretely.

Study 1

We first examined whether individuals can be induced to subjectively experience remote

future goals as temporally close and whether this affects their present-day motivation to pursue

them. Individuals are less motivated to avert future outcomes described in highly pessimistic

terms, because they seem threatening (Feinberg & Willer, 2011). This may occur, however, only


when individuals can relegate threatening outcomes to the more distant future (Hennes, Jost, &

Ruisch, 2012). When remote future consequences feel temporally close, individuals may be

unable to ignore them. We therefore predicted that when climate change consequences were

made to seem temporally close, participants would be more pro-environmentally motivated,

regardless of whether these consequences were described in mildly or highly pessimistic terms.

Method

Participants. Participants were 65 undergraduate students who received course credit or

$10. Two participants who completed the timeline task (described below) incorrectly, one

participant who did not complete the study, and one participant with a behavioral intentions

score more than three standard deviations above the mean were excluded. Accordingly, 21 male

and 40 female participants (Mage = 18.77 years, SD = 1.36) were included in analyses.

Procedure. Participants were first randomly assigned to place a dot representing “2020”

on a timeline extending from the “present” (i.e., 2010) to the year 2085 (i.e., close condition) or

2025 (i.e., distant condition; Figure 1). This manipulation is based on the premise that the shorter

physical distance between the “present” endpoint and the dot representing “2020” in the close

versus distant condition makes 2020 feel closer to the present (Peetz et al., 2009; Pennington &

Roese, 2003). Next, participants read about climate change consequences that could occur by

2020 (e.g., “with global temperatures expected to rise by two to six degrees Celsius…climate

change will drastically change our world”). They were randomly assigned to read a version that

was mildly pessimistic (“we’ve probably guaranteed that we’ll see additional warming in the

future. But if we take steps to make environmentally-friendly choices in our everyday lives, we

can make sure that climate change doesn’t spiral out of control”) or highly pessimistic (e.g., “the

emissions that we release today guarantee that we’ll see additional warming in the future, even if


we make drastic changes to our lifestyle tomorrow”), a manipulation based on that used in

previous research (Feinberg & Willer, 2011). Participants randomly assigned to a control

condition did not complete the timeline task or read a message. Participants then rated their pro-

environmental behavioral intentions (17 items; Cronbach’s α = .91; e.g., “I plan to carry a

reusable coffee cup or water bottle with me;” Bashir, Lockwood, Dolderman, Sarkissian, &

Quick, 2011). They also completed two manipulation check items about the subjective temporal

distance of the timeframe discussed in the message (r = .73; e.g., “The year 2020 feels close to

the present”) and two items concerning the extent to which the message was pessimistic (r = .68;

e.g., “The author is pessimistic about the future”). All ratings were made on scales anchored at

1(Strongly disagree) and 7(Strongly agree).

Results

Manipulation checks. Subjective temporal distance. A 2(subjective temporal distance:

close, distant) × 2(message pessimism: low, high) analysis of variance (ANOVA), excluding

participants in the control condition, revealed that participants in the close condition (M = 5.35,

SD = 1.36) reported that 2020 felt temporally closer than did participants in the distant condition

(M = 4.48, SD = 1.52), F(1,44) = 4.23, p = .05, ηp2 = .09. There was no main effect of message

pessimism or distance × pessimism interaction, Fs < .19, ps > .67.

We then conducted weighted contrasts to compare participants in the close and distant

conditions to those who did not undergo the temporal manipulation. This minimized the

familywise error rate of our statistical tests by reducing the number of comparisons conducted

(Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991). Because individuals generally view climate change consequences

as temporally distant (Lorenzoni, Leiserowitz, De Franca Doria, Poortinga, & Pidgeon, 2006),

we predicted that participants in the distant and control conditions would not differ in their


subjective perceptions of the time period discussed in the message. Accordingly, we compared

participants in the close condition (2) to those in the distant (-1) and control (-1) conditions.

Participants in the close condition perceived 2020 to be temporally closer than did participants in

the distant and control (Mcontrol = 3.64, SD = 2.06) conditions, t(57) = 3.02, p = .004. Participants

in the distant and control conditions did not differ significantly in perceived distance, t(57) =

1.53, p = .13.

Message pessimism. A 2(subjective distance) × 2(pessimism) ANOVA revealed that

participants perceived the high-pessimism message (M = 5.23, SD = 1.64) to be more pessimistic

than the low-pessimism message (M = 3.30, SD = 1.09), F(1,44) = 22.50, p < .001, ηp2 = .34.

There was no main effect of subjective distance or distance × pessimism interaction, Fs < 2.29,

ps > .13.

Behavioral intentions. A 2 × 2 ANOVA, excluding participants in the control condition,

revealed a main effect of subjective distance: Participants induced to view 2020 as subjectively

close (M = 4.04, SD = 1.03) were more pro-environmentally motivated than were those induced

to view 2020 as distant (M = 3.48, SD = .95), F(1,44) = 3.92, p = .05, ηp2 = .08. There was no

main effect of message framing or distance × pessimism interaction, Fs < .94, ps > .33. As with

the subjective distance responses, we then compared the motivation of participants in the close

condition (2) to that of participants in the distant (-1) and control (-1) conditions. As predicted,

participants in the close condition were more pro-environmentally motivated than were those in

the distant and control (Mcontrol = 3.43, SD = .98) conditions, t(57) = 2.21, p = .03. Participants in

the distant and control conditions did not differ in motivation, t(57) = .15, p = .88.

Discussion


This study is the first to demonstrate that individuals can be induced to view objectively

remote future goals as subjectively close in time and that doing so enhances their goal-pursuit

motivation. Furthermore, although individuals are often resistant to highly pessimistic messages

aimed at encouraging individuals to pursue distant future goals (Feinberg & Willer, 2011), our

results suggest that increasing the subjective temporal proximity of remote future goals may

boost motivation regardless of whether these goals are described in mildly or highly pessimistic

terms. Because behavioral intentions do not necessarily translate into behavior change (Webb &

Sheeran, 2006), however, we examined the impact of subjective temporal proximity on actual

behavior in Study 2.

Study 2

In Study 2, we examined the mechanism through which increasing the perceived

closeness of a remote outcome affects goal pursuit. Individuals construe objectively close goals

more concretely than distant goals (Liberman & Trope, 1998; Trope & Liberman, 2003, 2010).

Furthermore, concrete goal construals facilitate goal pursuit (Gollwitzer & Brandstätter, 1997;

McCrea et al., 2008). We therefore investigated whether increasing the subjective temporal

proximity of remote future goals would make individuals construe these goals more concretely

and ultimately pursue them in the present.

Method

Participants. Session 1 participants were 190 undergraduate students who received

course credit. Three participants who received the wrong timeline task, four participants who

completed the timeline task incorrectly, and one participant who reported reversing the scale

endpoints were excluded. Thus, 85 male and 97 female participants (Mage = 19.18 years, SD =

2.79) were included in Session 1 analyses. Session 2 participants were 42 male and 81 female


students who had taken part in Session 1. There were more female than male participants in

Session 2 versus Session 1, χ2(1, N=182) = 24.04, p < .001, but the gender ratio did not differ

across conditions in Session 2, χ2(2, N=123) = .17, p = .92. Although participants who did versus

did not complete Session 2 reported performing more past pro-environmental behaviors,

F(1,180) = 7.37, p = .007, the difference between these groups did not differ across conditions,

F(2,176) = .93, p = .40.1

Procedure. Session 1. Because this study included a followup measure of pro-

environmental behavior, we controlled for existing individual variability in pro-environmental

behavior. Specifically, immediately before Session 1, participants completed a version of the

behavioral intentions measure used in Study 1 that assessed the extent to which participants had

engaged in the pro-environmental behaviors over the past year (α = .89).2 In the lab, participants

were randomly assigned to place a dot representing the year “2025” on a timeline extending from

the “present” (i.e., 2013) to the year 2090 (i.e., close condition) or 2030 (i.e., distant condition).

Next, they read the same pro-environmental message used in Study 2 with the exception that the

focal year had been changed to 2025. Because message type did not moderate the temporal effect

observed in Study 1, all participants in Study 2 read the high-pessimism message. Participants

randomly assigned to a control condition did not complete the timeline task or read a message.

Participants then rated the extent to which it is possible to avert climate change consequences by

pursuing concrete (e.g., “Making more environmentally sustainable choices when purchasing

beverages;” five items; α = .89) versus abstract (e.g., “Protecting the planet;” five items; α = .90;

item wording modified from Liberman and Forster [2008] and Vallacher and Wegner [1987])

pro-environmental goals along 7-point scales anchored at 1(Strongly disagree) to 7(Strongly


agree).3

Lastly, participants completed the subjective temporal distance manipulation check

measure used in Study 1 (r = .59).

Session 2. One week after completing Session 1, participants completed an online version

of the pro-environmental behavior premeasure in which they reported the extent to which they

had performed the behaviors during the previous week (α = .94).

Results

Manipulation check. An ANOVA revealed a significant effect of temporal condition on

subjective temporal distance, F(2,179) = 4.49, p = .01, ηp2 = .05. Participants in the close

condition (M = 5.00, SD = 1.31) perceived 2025 to be temporally closer than did participants in

the distant (M = 4.34, SD = 1.65) and control (M = 4.25, SD = 1.63) conditions, t(179) = 2.97, p

= .003. Participants in the distant and control conditions did not differ in perceived temporal

distance, t(179) = .32, p = .75.

Behaviors. An ANCOVA controlling for participants’ baseline pro-environmental

behavior revealed a marginal overall effect of temporal condition on pro-environmental

behaviors, F(2,119) = 2.88, p = .06, ηp2 = .05.

4 The critical planned contrast, however, was

significant: Participants in the close condition (M = 4.03, SD = 1.12) performed more pro-

environmental behaviors than did participants in the distant (M = 3.87, SD = 1.16) and control

(M = 3.90, SD = 1.23) conditions, t(119) = 2.39, p = .02. Participants in the distant and control

conditions did not differ in behavior, t(119) = .05, p = .96. Thus, participants in the close

condition actually reported performing more pro-environmental behaviors during the week

following the manipulation than did those in the other conditions.

Mediation analysis. We argue that participants in the close versus distant and control

conditions behaved more pro-environmentally because they construed climate change goals more


concretely. A mediation model based on 5000 bootstrapped resamples (Preacher & Hayes, 2008)

revealed a significant indirect effect of temporal condition on behaviors through concrete

construals (95% bias-corrected CI [.0001, .12]). Thus, subjective temporal proximity increased

behavior because participants in the close condition (M = 5.76, SD = .92) were more likely to

construe climate change goals concretely than were those in the distant (M = 5.37, SD = 1.31)

and control (M = 5.54, SD = 1.14) conditions, b = .22, SE = .11, t(119) = 2.14, p = .04, and these

concrete construals in turn increased their pro-environmental behavior during the week following

the study, b = .17, SE = .07, t(118) = 2.39, p = .02.5, 6

Discussion

This study demonstrates that increasing the subjective temporal proximity of remote

future goals boosts not only individuals’ motivation but also their actual goal-pursuit behavior.

Furthermore, these findings provide the first evidence that shifting the subjective temporal

proximity of goals promotes goal-pursuit behavior because it makes individuals construe these

goals more concretely.

General Discussion

The present studies demonstrate that individuals can be encouraged to pursue objectively

remote goals, goals not necessarily associated with immediate or personal benefits. Indeed,

whereas past research indicates that the objective temporal distance of remote future goals may

typically undermine motivation to pursue them (Hall & Fong, 2007; Lorenzoni et al., 2006), we

demonstrate that individuals are more motivated to pursue such goals when they subjectively

perceive them as temporally close. Specifically, making climate change consequences feel

temporally close increased participants’ pro-environmental motivation (Study 1) and behavior

during the week following the study (Study 2). Inducing subjective temporal proximity enhanced


goal-pursuit behavior because it made participants construe these goals more concretely (Study

2).

These findings make several important contributions to research on temporal distance.

First, they reveal that it is possible to shift individuals’ subjective temporal perceptions of

objectively remote goals (i.e., collective goals occurring in a decade) and that doing so affects

goal-pursuit motivation and behavior. Past research has focused nearly exclusively on the

motivational implications of a goal’s objective temporal distance (e.g., Forster et al., 1998;

Liberman & Forster, 2008). In addition, although initial research has examined the motivational

implications of a goal’s subjective temporal distance, these studies have focused on personal

goals (e.g., achieving academic success) in the objectively immediate future, which are already

psychologically proximal (Peetz et al., 2009). Thus, our findings demonstrate for the first time

that subjective temporal perceptions have implications for objectively distant goals, goals that

may seem so psychologically remote that it is difficult to make them feel close or motivate

individuals to pursue them. Second, consistent with research on objective temporal distance (e.g.,

Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006; McCrea et al., 2008), our findings provide causal evidence for the

role of concrete construals in influencing goal pursuit when goals seem subjectively close in

time. These results demonstrate that individuals can construe even remote future goals concretely

and that such concrete perceptions produce changes in goal-pursuit behavior that persist over

time, at least in the short term.

Given these theoretical implications, it is important to examine the motivational impact

of subjective temporal perceptions further. The present studies focused on the goal of averting

climate change, because of its real-world importance and utility for examining subjective

perceptions of objectively remote goals. Given, however, that individuals are more motivated to


pursue a variety of approach-based and avoidance-based goals that are objectively close versus

distant in time (Forster et al., 1998), we argue that our findings apply to approach-based (e.g.,

achieving economic sustainability) and other avoidance-based (e.g., averting health epidemics)

long-term goals as well. Future research should verify this directly. In addition, participants in

our studies read about specific climate change consequences that would occur at a point in time

that was made to feel subjectively close or distant. Providing subtle reminders about future goals

in conjunction with a manipulation of subjective temporal proximity may also, however, boost

goal pursuit. Researchers may wish to examine this in future work.

In their speeches quoted above, Obama (2011) and Ban (2009) condemned the inaction

that typically characterizes responses to remote future risks. Such inaction may stem in part from

individuals’ perceptions of objectively remote outcomes (Liberman & Trope, 1998; Trope &

Liberman, 2003, 2010). The present research demonstrates, however, that simply increasing the

subjective temporal proximity of remote outcomes, without altering their objective distance, can

enhance motivation and behavior to address them.


References

Adams, G. A., & Rau, B. L. (2011). Putting off tomorrow to do what you want today: Planning

for retirement. American Psychologist, 66, 180-192. doi: 10.1037/a0022131

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 50, 179-211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Ban, K. (2009, September 3). Speech to World Climate Conference–3. UN News Centre.

Retrieved from http://www.un.org

Bashir, N. Y., Lockwood, P., Dolderman, D., Sarkissian, T., & Quick, L. K. (2011) Emphasizing

jobs and trees: Increasing the impact of proenvironmental messages on migrants. Basic

and Applied Social Psychology, 33, 255-265. doi: 10.1080/01973533.2011.589319

Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2011). Apocalypse soon? Dire messages reduce belief in global

warming by contradicting just-world beliefs. Psychological Science, 22, 34-38. doi:

10.1177/0956797610391911

Forster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Idson, L. C. (1998). Approach and avoidance strength during goal

attainment: Regulatory focus and the “goal looms larger” effect. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 75, 1115-1131. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.75.5.1115

Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time

preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 351-401. doi:

10.1257/002205102320161311

Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Construal levels and self-control.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 351–367. doi: 10.1037/0022-

3514.90.3.351

http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.351

http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.351


Gollwitzer, P. M., & Brandstätter, V. (1997). Implementation intentions and effective goal

pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 186–199. doi: 10.1037//0022-

3514.73.1.186

Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A

meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38,

69–119. doi: 10.1013/S0065-2601(06)38002-1

Hall, P. A., & Fong, G. T. (2007). Temporal self-regulation theory: A model for individual

health behavior. Health Psychology Review, 1, 6-52.

Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation,

moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from

http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf

Hennes, E. P., Jost, J. T., & Ruisch, B. (2012, October). Economic concerns distort recall and

evaluation of climate change information. Talk presented at the Society of Experimental

Social Psychology Annual Conference, Austin, TX.

Höhne, N., Eisbrenner, K., Hagemann, M., & Moltmann, S. (2009, July). G8 climate scorecards.

Gland, Switzerland: World Wildlife Fund for Nature & Allianz SE. Retrieved from

http://www.worldwildlife.org/climate/Publications/WWFBinaryitem12911.pdf

Liberman, N., & Forster, J. (2008). Expectancy, value and psychological distance: A new look at

goal gradients. Social Cognition, 26, 515-533. doi: 10.1521/soco.2008.26.5.515

Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near

and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 75, 5-18. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.5


Lorenzoni, I., Leiserowitz, A., De Franca Doria, M., Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2006).

Cross-national comparisons of image associations with “global warming” and “climate

change” among laypeople in the United States of America and Great Britain. Journal of

Risk Research, 9, 265-281. doi: 10.1080/13669870600613658

McCrea, S. M., Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Sherman, S. J. (2008). Construal level and

procrastination. Psychological Science, 19, 1308-1314. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-

9280.2008.02240.x

Obama, M. (2011, March 15). Remarks by the First Lady at National League of Cities

Conference. The White House. Retrieved from www.whitehouse.gov

Pahl, S., & Bauer, J. (2013). Overcoming the distance: Perspective taking with future humans

improves environmental engagement. Environment and Behavior, 45, 155-169. doi:

10.1177/0013916511417618

Peetz, J., Wilson, A. E., & Strahan, E. J. (2009). So far away: The role of subjective temporal

distance to future goals in motivation and behavior. Social Cognition, 27, 475-495. doi:

10.1521/soco.2009.27.4.475

Pennington, G. L., & Roese, N. J. (2003). Regulatory focus and temporal distance. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 563-576. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00058-1

Pham, L. B., & Taylor, S. E. (1999). From thought to action: Effects of process- versus outcome-

based mental simulations on performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

25, 250-260. doi: 10.1177/0146167299025002010

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and

comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40,

879-891. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879


Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data

analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Stephan, E., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2010). Politeness and psychological distance: A

construal level perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 268-280.

doi: 10.1037/a0016960

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110, 403-421.

doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.403

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance.

Psychological Review, 117, 440-463. doi: 10.1037/a0018963

Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do people think they’re doing? Action

identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 3–15. doi: 10.1037//0033-

295X.94.1.3

Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: individual variation in

action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 660–671. doi:

10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.660

Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior

change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 249–

268. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.249


Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC)

Canada Graduate Scholarship to NYB and SSHRC grants to AEW and PL.


Figure Caption

Figure 1. Study 1 subjective temporal proximity manipulation. The shorter physical distance

between the “present” endpoint and the dot representing “2020” in the close condition, relative to

the distant condition, makes 2020 feel closer to the present.


Footnotes

1Attrition may have occurred because all participants received course credit for the in-lab

session but were entered into a draw for one of only three gift cards for completing the followup

session.

2Because we planned to use the same items in our followup behavior measure, we

dropped one behavior that students could not necessarily implement within one week (i.e., “I

learned about jobs related to environmental issues”).

3We focused on the perceived efficacy of concrete versus abstract strategies rather than

general preferences for them (as captured by the Behavioral Identification Form [Vallacher &

Wegner, 1989]). Perceived strategy efficacy may map more closely onto a key predictor of

behavior (i.e., perceived behavioral control; Ajzen, 1991) and may therefore indicate more

precisely why favoring concrete strategies affects goal pursuit. Researchers may wish to examine

this distinction directly in future work.

4The timeframes of the past and followup behavior measures differed markedly (one year

versus one week). Thus, it is more appropriate to treat past behaviors as a covariate, rather than a

dependent variable in a pretest-posttest design.

5The manipulation had a similar effect on construals when we tested a combined index

comprising the concrete and reverse-scored abstract construal items.

6We also assessed participants’ behavioral intentions. Although the overall ANCOVA

was significant, p=.007, and the contrast comparing the near versus distant and control

conditions was marginally significant, p=.07, the near and distant conditions did not differ

significantly, p=.81. This may have been due to a testing effect: The past behavior and

behavioral intentions measures contained modified versions of the same items and were


completed in close succession. Nonetheless, when we reran the mediation analysis as a serial

mediation (Hayes, 2012) and included behavioral intentions as the second serial mediator, the

indirect effect was significant [.0001, .06].

Documents

The Time for Action is Now: Subjective Temporal Proximity Enhances Pursuit of Remote-Future Goals