Goals require considering the immediate present as well as distant times, places, people, and possibilities. Although proximal goals require sensitivity to local opportunities, distal goals require action plans robust to variability. Construal level theory proposes that people contract versus expand regulatory scope (i.e., the range of possibilities one accounts for) to address these challenges. A primary tool they use to do so is construal level: low-level construal (representation that highlights unique, idiosyncratic features of events) contracts scope; high-level construal (representation that captures essential, core features) expands scope. Fourteen experiments (4 in the main text, 10 in the Online Supplement) support these assertions by documenting meta-motivational beliefs. Lay people recognize the benefits of construal level for modulating scope across a gradient of temporal distance, and across multiple distance dimensions. They also appreciate diverse methods with which to induce differences in construal level, including social preferences. We discuss theoretical and methodological implications.
Ben-ShacharM. S.MakowskiD.LüdeckeD.PatilI.WiernikB. M.ThériaultR.KelleyK.StanleyD.CaldwellA.BrunettJ.KarrethJ.WaggonerP.effectsize: Indices of Effect Size (R Package Version 0.8.9). https://doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.package.effectsize
2.
BersonY.HalevyN. (2014). Hierarchy, leadership, and construal fit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(3), 232–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000017
3.
BohnsV. K.LucasG. M.MoldenD. C.FinkelE. J.CoolsenM. K.KumashiroM.RusbultC. E.HigginsE. T. (2013). Opposites fit: Regulatory focus complementarity and relationship well-being. Social Cognition, 31(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2013.31.1.1
4.
ByrneD. (1971). The attraction paradigm. Academic Press.
5.
CalderonS.Mac GiollaE.AskK.GranhagP. A. (2020). Subjective likelihood and the construal level of future events: A replication study of Wakslak, Trope, Liberman, and Alony (2006). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(5), e27–e37. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000214
6.
CalderonS.Mac GiollaE.AskK.LukeT. J. (in press). Effects of psychological distance on mental abstraction: A registered report of four tests of construal level theory. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/wqbhd_v2
7.
DouglasB. D.EwellP. J.BrauerM. (2023). Data quality in online human-subjects research: Comparisons between MTurk, Prolific, CloudResearch, Qualtrics, and SONA. PLOS ONE, 18(3), e0279720. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279720
8.
DryerD. C.HorowitzL. M. (1997). When do opposites attract? Interpersonal complementarity versus similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 592–603. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.3.592
9.
DuckworthA. L.GendlerT. S.GrossJ. J. (2016). Situational strategies for self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(1), 35–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615623247
10.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
11.
FitzsimonsG. M.FinkelE. J. (2010). Interpersonal influences on self-regulation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(2), 101–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410364499
FitzsimonsG. M.FishbachA. (2010). Shifting closeness: Interpersonal effects of personal goal progress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018581
14.
FitzsimonsG. M.ShahJ. Y. (2008). How goal instrumentality shapes relationship evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(2), 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.319
FreitasA. L.GollwitzerP.TropeY. (2004). The influence of abstract and concrete mindsets on anticipating and guiding others’ self-regulatory efforts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(6), 739–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.04.003
17.
FujitaK.LeP. Q.ScholerA. A.MieleD. B. (2024). The metamotivation approach: Insights into the regulation of motivation and beyond. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 18(2), e12937. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12937
18.
FujitaK.OrvellA.KrossE. (2020). Smarter, not harder: A toolbox approach to enhancing self-control. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7(2), 149–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732220941242
19.
FujitaK.TropeY.LibermanN.Levin-SagiM. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3), 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.351
20.
Giner-SorollaR.MontoyaA. K.ReifmanA.CarpenterT.LewisN. A.JrAbersonC. L.BostynD. H.ConriqueB. G.NgB. W.SchoemannA. M.SoderbergC. (2024). Power to detect what? Considerations for planning and evaluating sample size. Personality And Social Psychology Review, 28(3), 276–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683241228328
IidaM.SeidmanG.ShroutP. E.FujitaK.BolgerN. (2008). Modeling support provision in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(3), 460–478. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.460
23.
JansenE. J.MieleD. B.FujitaK.ScholerA. A. (2022). Managing the motivation of others: Do managers recognize how to manage regulatory focus in subordinates?Motivation Science, 8(4), 330–345. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000273
24.
Johnson-GreyK. M.BoghratiR.WakslakC. J.DehghaniM. (2020). Measuring abstract mind-sets through syntax: Automating the linguistic category model. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(2), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619848004
25.
LeP. Q.StanczakO. J.HildebrandL. K.WallaceL.BerkmanE.FujitaK. (2025). A case study for optimizing research paradigms: The within-subjects effect of temporal distance on language abstraction. Open Science Framework. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/9uyh8_v1
26.
LeeD. S.FujitaK. (2023). From whom do people seek what type of support? A regulatory scope perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 124(4), 796–811. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000405
27.
LibermanN.TropeY. (2008). The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 322(5905), 1201–1205.
28.
MacGregorK. E.CarnevaleJ. J.DusthimerN. E.FujitaK. (2017). Knowledge of the self-control benefits of high-level versus low-level construal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(4), 607–620. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000130
29.
MieleD. B.ScholerA. A. (2018). The role of metamotivational monitoring in motivation regulation. Educational Psychologist, 53(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1371601
30.
MieleD. B.ScholerA. A.FujitaKentaro. (2020). Metamotivation: Emerging research on the regulation of motivational states. In ElliotA. J. (Ed.), Advances in motivation science (Vol. 7, pp. 1–42). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2019.10.001
NguyenT.CarnevaleJ. J.ScholerA. A.MieleD. B.FujitaK. (2019). Metamotivational knowledge of the role of high-level and low-level construal in goal-relevant task performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(5), 876–899. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000166
33.
NguyenT.FujitaK. (2024). On psychological distance and construal level: A regulatory perspective. In CarlstonD. E.JohnsonK.HugenbergK. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of social cognition (2nd ed., pp. 354–375). Oxford University Press.
34.
NguyenT.ScholerA. A.MieleD. B.EdwardsM. C.FujitaK. (2023). Predicting academic performance with an assessment of students’ knowledge of the benefits of high-level and low-level construal. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 14(2), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506221090051
35.
NguyenT.TogawaT.ScholerA. A.FujitaK. (2020). A cross-cultural investigation of metamotivational knowledge of construal level in the United States and Japan. Motivation Science, 6(4), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000178
36.
NguyenT.TogawaT.ScholerA. A.MieleD. B.FujitaK. (2022). A cross-cultural investigation of metamotivational beliefs about regulatory focus task-motivation fit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(5), 807–820. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211025423
37.
NisbettR. E.WilsonT. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231
38.
PackerD. J.FujitaK.HermanS. (2013). Rebels with a cause: A goal conflict approach to understanding when conscientious people dissent. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(5), 927–932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.05.001
39.
ScholerA. A.MieleD. B. (2016). The role of metamotivation in creating task-motivation fit. Motivation Science, 2(3), 171–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000043
40.
ScholerA. A.MieleD. B.MurayamaK.FujitaK. (2018). New directions in self-regulation: The role of metamotivational beliefs. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(6), 437–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418790549
41.
SmithP. K.WigboldusD. H. J.DijksterhuisA. (2008). Abstract thinking increases one’s sense of power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(2), 378–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.12.005
42.
SoderbergC. K.AmitE.CallahanS. P.KochersbergerA. O.LedgerwoodA. (2015). The effects of psychological distance on abstraction: Two meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 525–548. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000005
43.
TropeY.LedgerwoodA.LibermanN.FujitaK. (2021). Regulatory scope and its mental and social supports. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(2), 204–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620950691
44.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963
45.
VallacherR. R.WegnerD. M. (1987). What do people think they are doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.1.3
46.
WagnerR. K.SternbergR. J. (1985). Practical intelligence in real-world pursuits: The role of tacit knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(2), 436–458. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.2.436
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(4), 641–653. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.135.4.641
49.
ZimmermanB. J.KitsantasA. (1996). Self-regulated learning of a motoric skill: The role of goal setting and self-monitoring. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 8(1), 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413209608406308
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.
