Construal Level Theory and Enrished or Impoverished Options

1. israelev@post.tau.ac.il Construal Level Theory and Enrished or Impoverished Options Leah Borovoi and NiraLiberman Open University, Tel AvivUniversity

2. Overview • Theoretical background • Psychological Distance • Construal Level Theory • Action Identification Theory • The role of enriched and impoverished options • Two empirical studies • The influence of temporal distance on the decision between enriched and impoverished options • The influence of construal level on the decision between enriched and impoverished options • Discussion

3. Example Planning Today Low Level ConstrualHow do you do this thing? Planning next year High Level ConstrualWhy do you do this thing? Time Climbing mountains Enriched option Very interesting place Good for health Quality time with friendsGreat story to tell afterwards but Difficult Cold Dangerous Select vs. cancel Ordinary hotel Impoverished option Average food Average place Average atmosphere Average service Available cost

4. Construal Level TheoryLiberman & Trope

6. Enriched and Impoverished 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).

7. 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 Abstract Getting organized Showing one’s cleanliness Maintaining a place to live Target actions Making list Cleaning the house Paying the rent Concrete Writing things down Vacuuming the floor Writing a check Why? How?

8. Eyal, Liberman, Trope & Walther (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

9. Hypotheses: • In distant decisions people would prefer enriched options, whereas in close decisions they would prefer impoverished options. • In distant decisions people will have a difficulty to reject. In close decisions people will have a difficulty to select.

10. The present study: Overview • 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. • 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.

11. Study 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

12. Study 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

13. Replication of Shafir’s effect

14. Hypothesis 1:Preferences for enriched alternative by psychological distance

15. Hypothesis 2:Preferences for enriched alternative by time and framing

16. Hypothesis 2:Preferences for enriched alternative by construal and framing

17. Hypothesis 2:Choice difficulty by construal level

18. Discussion Enriched options are more desirable in the distant decisions. 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: - 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 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)

19. Conclusions • Summary • 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.

20. Prepared by PictureCollageMaker Tel Aviv 2008 Questions? Thank You!