When do people respond to obstacles by mentally “stepping back” and taking a more distanced perspective? Manipulating obstacles to social goals, to personal goals, and in a computer game, three studies tested the hypothesis that people should increase psychological distance upon facing an obstacle primarily when distancing is relevant, that is, when the obstacle appears on their own path to a goal or when they are engaged and motivated to follow through with activities. As expected, participants who imagined a goal-relevant versus a goal-irrelevant obstacle indicated greater estimates for an unrelated spatial distance (Study 1). Moreover, chronically engaged participants provided smaller font size estimates after thinking about how to reach a personal goal with versus without an obstacle (Study 2), and participants primed with engagement indicated greater estimates for an unrelated spatial distance after navigating a maze with versus without an obstacle (Study 3). Implications for related research are discussed.
AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
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 Yorkis a civilized jungle). Psychological Science, 19, 161–167.
3.
Bar-AnanY.LibermanN.TropeY. (2006). The association between psychological distance and construal level: Evidence from an implicit association test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,135, 609–622.
4.
BarsalouL. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.
5.
BauerD. J.CurranP. J. (2005). Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regression: Inferential and graphical techniques. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 373–400.
6.
BoroditskyL. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75, 1–28.
7.
EyalT.SagristanoM. D.TropeY.LibermanN.ChaikenS. (2009). When values matter: Expressing values in behavioral intentions for the near vs. distant future. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 35–43.
8.
FishbachA.FriedmanR. S.KruglanskiA. W. (2003). Leading us not unto temptation: Momentary allurements elicit overriding goal activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 296–309.
9.
FitzsimonsG. M.FishbachA. (2010). Shifting closeness: Interpersonal effects of personal goal progress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 535–549.
10.
FörsterJ.FriedmanR.LibermanN. (2004). Temporal construal effects on abstract and concrete thinking: Consequences for insight and creative cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 177–189.
11.
FörsterJ.LibermanN.FriedmanR. (2007). Seven principles of goal activation: A systematic approach to distinguishing goal priming from priming of non-goal constructs. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 211–233.
12.
HayesA. F.MatthesJ. (2009). Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 924–936.
13.
HendersonM. D. (2011). Mere physical distance and integrative agreements: When more space improves negotiation outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 7–15.
14.
HendersonM. D.TropeY.CarnevaleP. J. (2006). Negotiation from a near and distant time perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 712–729.
15.
HigginsE. T. (2006). Value from hedonic experience and engagement. Psychological Review, 113, 439–460.
16.
HoggM. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184–200.
17.
HoggM. A.ReidS. A. (2001). Social identity, leadership, and power. In Lee-ChaiA. Y.BarghJ. A. (Eds.), The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corruption (pp. 159–180). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
18.
JiaL.HirtE.KarpenS. (2009). Lessons from a faraway land: The effect of spatial distance on creative cognition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1127–1131.
19.
JohnsonP. O.NeymanJ. (1936). Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their applications to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs, 1, 57–93.
20.
JuddC. M.McClellandG. H. (1989). Data analysis: A model comparison approach. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
21.
KruglanskiA. W.ThompsonE. P.HigginsE. T.AtashM. N.PierroA.ShahJ. Y.SpiegelS. (2000). To “do the right thing” or to “just do it": Locomotion and assessment as distinct self-regulatory imperatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 793–815.
22.
KuhlJ. (1994). A theory of action and state orientation. In KuhlJ.BeckmannJ. (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 9–46). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
23.
LewinK. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality: Selected papers. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
24.
LibermanN.FörsterJ. (2009a). Distancing from experienced self: How global versus local perception affects estimation of psychological distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 203–216.
25.
LibermanN.FörsterJ. (2009b). The effect of psychological distance on perceptual construal. Cognitive Science, 33, 1330–1341.
26.
LibermanN.TropeY. (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.
27.
LibermanN.TropeY. (2008). The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 322, 1201–1205.
28.
LibermanN.TropeY.MacraeS.ShermanS. J. (2007). The effect of level of construal on the temporal distance of activity enactment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 143–149.
29.
LibermanN.TropeY.StephanE. (2007). Psychological distance. In KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 353–383). 2, New York, NY: Guilford Press.
30.
MacraeC. N.BodenhausenG. V.MilneA. B.JettenJ. (1994). Out of mind but back in sight: Stereotypes on the rebound. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 808–817.
31.
MargucJ.FörsterJ.Van KleefG. A. (in press). Stepping back to see the big picture: When obstacles elicit global processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0025013
32.
ProffittD. R.StefanucciJ. K.BantonT.EpsteinW. (2003). The role of effort in perceiving distance. Psychological Science, 14, 106–112.
33.
StefanucciJ. K.ProffittD. R.BantonT.EpsteinW. (2005). Distances appear different on hills. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 1052–1060.
34.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2010). Construal level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463.
35.
TulvingE.SchacterD. L. (1990). Priming and human memory systems. Science, 247, 301–306.
36.
van KoningsbruggenG. M.StroebeW.AartsH. (2011). Through the eyes of dieters: Biased size perception of food following tempting food primes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 293–299.
37.
VeltkampM.AartsH.CustersR. (2008). Perception in the service of goal pursuit: Motivation to attain goals enhances the perceived size of goal-instrumental objects. Social Cognition, 26, 720–736.
38.
WilliamsL. E.BarghJ. A. (2008). Keeping one’s distance: The influence of spatial distance cues on affect and evaluation. Psychological Science, 19, 302–308.
39.
WyerR. S.ShenH.XuA. J. (in press). The role of procedural knowledge in the generalization of social behavior. In CarlstonD. (Ed.), Handbook of social cognition. (3rd ed.).New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
