Events can be far away from or near an observer in several respects: They can be distant or close in a spatial, temporal, social, or hypothetical sense. They can also vary in magnitude, physically, or in terms of impact and importance. We examine the existence of a general effect of perceived magnitude on judgments of subjective closeness. Studies 1 to 4 show that proximity judgments, of any type, are affected by the severity of an event so that a highly severe event will be described as closer than a less severe one. Study 5 demonstrates the Magnitude Effect for positive events. Finally, Study 6 shows that the effect can be extended to distances between comparable events, in addition to the distance from an observer to an event. We see the Magnitude Effect as a spillover from the scales used to describe events to the scales used to describe distances.
AlterA. L.BalcetisE. (2011). Fondness makes the distance grow shorter: Desired locations seem closer because they are more vivid. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 16-21.
2.
AlterA. L.OppenheimerD. M. (2008). Effects of fluency on psychological distance and mental construal (or why New York is a large city, but New York is a civilized jungle). Psychological Science, 19, 161-167.
3.
BalcetisE.DunningD. (2010). Wishful seeing: More desired objects are seen as closer. Psychological Science, 21, 147-152.
4.
Bar-AnanY.LibermanN.TropeY.AlgomD. (2007). Automatic processing of psychological distance: Evidence from a Stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 610-622.
5.
BoroditskyL. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 1-22.
6.
CasasantoD.BoroditskyL. (2008). Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106, 579-598.
7.
ColeS.BalcetisE.DunningD. (2013). Affective signals of threat produce perceived proximity. Psychological Science, 24, 34-40.
8.
DeLuciaP. R. (1991). Pictorial and motion-based information for depth perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 738-748.
9.
FiedlerK.JungJ.WänkeM.AlexopoulosT. (2012). On the relations between distinct aspects of psychological distance: An ecological basis of construal-level theory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1014-1021.
10.
FischerK.JungermannH. (1996). Rarely occurring headaches and rarely occurring blindness: Is rarely = rarely? Meaning of verbal frequentistic labels in specific medical contexts. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9, 153-172.
11.
HarrisA. J. L.CornerA. (2011). Communicating environmental risks: Clarifying the severity effect in interpretations of verbal probability expressions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1571-1578.
12.
HarrisA. J. L.CornerA.HahnU. (2009). Estimating the probability of negative events. Cognition, 110, 51-64.
13.
HelsonH. (1964). Adaptation-level theory: An experimental and systematic approach to behavior. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
14.
KantenA. B. (2011). The effect of construal level on predictions of task duration. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1037-1047.
15.
LibermanN.TropeY. (2008). The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 322, 1201-1205.
16.
LibermanN.TropeY.McCreaS.ShermanS. (2007). The effect of level of construal on the temporal distance of activity enactment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 143-149.
17.
LundbergU.BratfischO.EkmanG. (1972). Emotional involvement and subjective distance: A summary of investigations. Journal of Social Psychology, 87, 169-177.
MaglioS. J.TropeY. (2011). Scale and construal: How larger measurement units shrink length estimates and expand mental horizons. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 165-170.
20.
MaglioS. J.TropeY.LibermanN. (2013). Distance from a distance: Psychological distance reduces sensitivity to any further psychological distance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 644-657.
21.
McNamaraT. P.DiwadkarW. A. (1997). Symmetry and asymmetry of human spatial memory. Cognitive Psychology, 34, 160-190.
22.
OppenheimerD. M.LeBoeufR. A.BrewerN. T. (2008). Anchors aweigh: A demonstration of cross-modality anchoring and magnitude priming. Cognition, 106, 13-26.
ParducciA. (1995). Happiness, pleasure, and judgment: The contextual theory and its applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
PattA. G.SchragD. P. (2003). Using specific language to describe risk and probability. Climatic Change, 61, 17-30.
26.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.
27.
ProffittD. R.StefanucciJ.BantonT.EpsteinW. (2003). The role of effort in perceiving distance. Psychological Science, 14, 106-112.
28.
RimS.HansenJ.TropeY. (2013). What happens why? Psychological distance and focusing on causes versus consequences of events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 457-472.
29.
SadallaE. K.BurroughsW. J.StaplinL. J. (1980). Reference points in spatial cognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 516-528.
30.
StevensS. S. (1971). Issues in psychophysical measurement. Psychological Review, 78, 426-450.
31.
TeigenK. H. (1998). When the unreal is more likely than the real: Post hoc probability judgments and counterfactual closeness. Thinking & Reasoning, 4, 147-177.
32.
TeigenK. H. (2005). The proximity heuristic in judgments of accident probabilities. British Journal of Psychology, 96, 423-440.
33.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2010). Construal level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440-463.
34.
TverskyA. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.
35.
Van BovenL.KaneJ.McGrawA. P.DaleJ. (2010). Feeling close: Emotional intensity reduces perceived psychological distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 872-885.
36.
VerplankenB. (1997). The effect of catastrophe potential on the interpretation of numerical probabilities of the occurrence of hazards. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1453-1467.
37.
WakslakC. J.TropeY.LibermanN.AlonyR. (2006). Seeing the forest when entry is unlikely: Probability and the mental representation of events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 641-653.
38.
WänkeM.ReutnerL. (2011). Direction-of-comparison effects: How and why comparing apples with oranges is different from comparing oranges with apples. In KerenG. (Ed.), Perspectives on frames (pp. 177-193). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
39.
WeberE. U.HiltonD. J. (1990). Contextual effects in the interpretations of probability words: Perceived base rate and severity of events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 781-789.
40.
WilliamsL. E.BarghJ. A. (2008). Keeping one’s distance: The influence of spatial distance cues on affect and evaluation. Psychological Science, 19, 302-308.
41.
XiaoY. J.Van BavelJ. J. (2012). See your friends close, and your enemies closer: Social identity and identity threat shape the representation of physical distance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 959-972.
42.
YanivI.FosterD. P. (1995). Graininess of judgment under uncertainty: An accuracy-informativeness tradeoff. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 424-432.
43.
ZhangC.LakensD.IJsselsteijnW. A. (2015). The illusion of nonmediation in telecommunication: Voice intensity biases distance judgments to a communication partner. Acta Psychologica, 157, 101-105.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
