Upload
helmut
View
48
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
[email protected]. Construal Level Theory and Enrished or Impoverished Options. Leah Borovoi and Nira Liberman Open University , Tel Aviv University. Overview. Theoretical background Psychological Distance Construal Level Theory Action Identification Theory - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Construal Level Theory and Construal Level Theory and Enrished or Impoverished OptionsEnrished or Impoverished Options
Leah Borovoi and Nira LibermanLeah Borovoi and Nira LibermanOpen University, Tel Aviv UniversityOpen University, Tel Aviv University
[email protected]@post.tau.ac.ilc.il
OverviewOverviewTheoretical backgroundTheoretical background
Psychological Distance Construal Level TheoryAction Identification TheoryThe role of enriched and impoverished options
Two empirical studiesTwo empirical studiesThe influence of temporal distance on the decision
between enriched and impoverished optionsThe influence of construal level on the decision
between enriched and impoverished options
DiscussionDiscussion
ExampleExample
TimePlanning TodayPlanning Today
Low Level ConstrualLow Level ConstrualHow do you do this thing?How do you do this thing?
Planning next yearPlanning next year
High Level ConstrualHigh Level ConstrualWhy do you do this thing?Why do you do this thing?
Climbing mountainsClimbing mountainsEnriched optionEnriched optionVery interesting placeVery interesting placeGood for healthGood for healthQuality time with friendsQuality time with friendsGreat story to tell Great story to tell afterwardsafterwardsbutbut DifficultDifficultColdColdDangerousDangerous
Ordinary hotelOrdinary hotelImpoverished Impoverished optionoptionAverage foodAverage foodAverage placeAverage placeAverage Average atmosphereatmosphereAverage serviceAverage serviceAvailable costAvailable cost
SelectSelect vs. vs. cancelcancel
Construal Level TheoryConstrual Level TheoryLiberman & TropeLiberman & Trope
Close EventsClose EventsLow-Level ConstrualLow-Level Construal
Distant EventsDistant EventsHigh-level ConstrualHigh-level Construal
Concrete, specific Abstract, generalSecondary, peripheral, incidental
Primary, central, essential
Contextual DecontextualizedNon Schematic Schematic
Subordinate Superordinate
Enriched and Enriched and Impoverished OptionsImpoverished Options
•In many instances we have to choose between enriched and impoverished options (Shafir, Simonson, & Tversky, 1993; Downs, & Shafir, 1999; Zhang, & Mittal, 2008).
•Enriched option has many pros and cons, whereas impoverished option is something average without knowledgeable pros or cons.
•The presence of both many pros and many cons in the enriched options makes both selection and rejection more likely (e.g. Shafir, 1993).
Any action can be described in many ways:-Why do you this thing? Encourages abstract description-How do you this thing? Encourages concrete description
Stephan , Liberman & Trope (2007), Liberman & Trope (1998):-Temporally or socially distant events encourage “why” descriptions-Temporally or socially close events encourage “by” descriptions
How?Target actions
Making listCleaning the house
Paying the rent
Concrete
Writing things downVacuuming the floor
Writing a check
Why?Abstract
Getting organizedShowing one’s cleanlinessMaintaining a place to live
Eyal, Liberman, Eyal, Liberman, Trope & Walther Trope & Walther
(2004)(2004)
•Pros are superior to cons …
•Cons are considered only if pros are sufficient
•Distant future decision are based on pros
•Near future decisions are based on cons
Hypotheses:Hypotheses:1. In distant decisions people would
prefer enriched options, whereas in close decisions they would prefer impoverished options.
2. In distant decisions people will have a difficulty to reject. In close decisions people will have a difficulty to select.
The present study: The present study: OverviewOverviewa) In Study 1 we manipulated temporal
distance. Participants imagined choices either in a distant future or in the near future and selected or rejected one of two courses, scholar partners or restaurants.b)In Study 2 we manipulated construal level directly. Participants first explained either why or how a person would do an action and than selected or rejected one of two job positions and university courses. They rated choice difficulty, and importance of different aspects that described offered options.
Study 1: MethodsStudy 1: Methods
•111 participants read three descriptions of choices (courses, restaurants, student partners for course assignments).•In each choice, two options were given: enriched & impoverished.•Iv: Framing (selection vs. rejection) X Time (near vs. distant future)•Dv: choice, rated choice difficulty
Study 2: MethodsStudy 2: Methods
•118 participants read two descriptions of choices (courses, part time job positions).•In each choice, two options were given: enriched & impoverished.•Iv: Framing (selection vs. rejection) X Construal (low vs. high level construal). •Dv: choice, rated choice difficulty, rated importance of aspects
Replication of Replication of Shafir’s effectShafir’s effect
64% 72%
56%59%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
study 1 study 2
pref
ered
enr
iche
d op
tion
in %
rejectselect
Hypothesis 1:Hypothesis 1:Preferences for enriched Preferences for enriched
alternative alternative by psychological distanceby psychological distance
51%64%
57%
72%
study 1 study 2
pref
ered
enric
hed o
ptio
n in
%
near future, low level construal distant future, high level construal
Hypothesis 2:Hypothesis 2:Preferences for enriched Preferences for enriched
alternative alternative by time and framingby time and framing
3.93
2.962.98
3.91
select reject
rate
d ch
oice
diff
icul
ty
Near future Distant future
Hypothesis 2:Hypothesis 2:Preferences for enriched Preferences for enriched
alternative alternative by construal and framingby construal and framing
4.25 4.28
3.95
4.51
select reject
rate
d ch
oice
diff
icul
ty
how why
Hypothesis 2:Hypothesis 2:Choice difficulty by Choice difficulty by
construal levelconstrual level
4.245.11
3.85
6
enriched impoverished
rate
d ch
oice
diff
icul
ty
how why
DiscussionDiscussionEnriched options are more desirable in the distant decisions.
Theoretical connections:Theoretical connections:- Eyal, Liberman, Trope, & Walther (2004) – cons are more important in
the near decisions, whereas pros are more important in the distant decisions. Practical connections:Practical connections:- In order to make an enriched option more desirable you can ask to think about it hypothetically, to take a perspective of observer, to imagine it in a distant future or far away, to use a cognitive rather than affective mode of decision making. Potential connections with other theories and distancesPotential connections with other theories and distances- positive mood (Isbell, Burns, & Haar, 2005)- supportive environment, common perspective (Beukeboom, 2009)- being in love (Forster, Epstude, & Ozelsel, 2009)- erroneous actions (Vallacher, & Wegner (1987)
ConclusionsConclusionsSummarySummary• People in distant decisions more prefer enriched
alternatives over impoverished alternatives compared to the close decisions.
• In the distant decisions people have more difficulty to reject, but in the close future decisions people have more difficulty to select.
Tel Aviv2008
Thank You!
Questions?
Prepared by PictureCollageMaker