Although research findings are increasingly accessible to the public, people may choose to rely on anecdotal over evidence-based information when making important decisions. Thus, a key challenge facing the scientific community is to develop effective strategies for increasing people’s reliance on research evidence in their decision-making. Focusing on the critical context of cancer-screening decisions, we find that a brief, distance-based intervention can influence people’s intentions to follow evidence-based rather than anecdotal information. Specifically, in a preregistered and well-powered experiment (N = 224), participants who set a screening schedule for the next 10 years before considering a decision for an upcoming appointment were more inclined to follow the implications of evidence-based screening guidelines (vs. an anecdote), compared to participants who only considered the upcoming appointment. The success of this distance-based intervention represents an important first step in translating decades of laboratory research on distance into practical interventions for more complex and consequential decisions.
AkninL.Van BovenL.Johnson-GrahamL. (2015). Abstract construals make the emotional rewards of pro-social behavior more salient. Journal of Positive Psychology, 10, 458–462.
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.
4.
BaskinE.WakslakC. J.TropeY.NovemskyN. (2014). Why feasibility matters more to gift receivers than to givers: A construal-level approach to gift giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 41, 169–182. doi:10.1086/675737
5.
BassandJ. P.PrioriS.TenderaM. (2005). Evidence-based vs. “impressionist” medicine: How best to implement guidelines. European Heart Journal, 26, 1155–1158.
6.
BorgidaE.NisbettR. E. (1977). The differential impact of abstract vs. concrete information on decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 7, 258–271.
7.
CabanaM. D.RandC. S.PoweN. R.WuA. W.WilsonM. H.AbboudP. A.RubinH. R. (1999). Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. Journal of the American Medical Association, 282, 1458–1465.
FujitaK.RobertsJ. C. (2010). Promoting prospective self-control through abstraction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1049–1054. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.013
11.
FujitaK.TropeY.LibermanN.Levin-SagiM. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 351.
12.
HaasJ. S.SpragueB. L.KlabundeC. N.TostesonA. N. A.ChenJ. S.BittonA.…chapiraM. M. (2016). Provider attitudes and screening practices following changes in breast and cervical cancer screening guidelines. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 31, 52–59.
13.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237–251.
14.
LedgerwoodA. (2014). Evaluations in their social context: Distance regulates consistency and context dependence. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8, 436–447.
15.
LedgerwoodA.CallahanS. (2012). The social side of abstraction: Psychological distance enhances conformity to group norms. Psychological Science, 23, 907–913.
16.
LedgerwoodA.TropeY.ChaikenS. (2010). Flexibility now, consistency later: Psychological distance and construal shape evaluative responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 32–51.
17.
LedgerwoodA.WakslakC. J.WangM. A. (2010). Differential information use for near and distant decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 638–642.
18.
LedgerwoodA.SoderbergC. K.SparksJ. (2017). Designing a study to maximize informational value. In MakelM. C.PluckerJ. A. (Eds.), Toward a more perfect psychology: Improving trust, accuracy, and transparency in research (pp. 33–58). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
19.
LedgerwoodA.WangY. A. (2018). Achieving local and global shared realities: Distance guides alignment to specific or general social influences. Current Opinion in Psychology, 23, 62–65.
20.
LedgerwoodA.TropeY.LibermanN. (2015). Construal level theory and regulatory scope. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource.
21.
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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.5
22.
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.
23.
McShaneB. B.BöckenholtU. (2014). You cannot step into the same river twice: When power analyses are optimistic. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 612–625.
24.
MunafòM. R.NosekB. A.BishopD. V.ButtonK. S.ChambersC. D.du SertN. P.…IoannidisJ. P. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 0021.
Nielsen-BohlmanL.PanzerA. M.KindigD. A. (2004). Health literacy: A prescription to end confusion. institute of medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/10883
27.
OdomS. L.BrantlingerE.GerstenR.HornerR. H.ThompsonB.HarrisK. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137–148.
RogersT.BazermanM. H. (2008). Future lock-in: Future implementation increases selection of “should” choices. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106, 1–20.
30.
RynesS. L.ColbertA. E.BrownK. G. (2002). HR professionals’ beliefs about effective Human resource practices: Correspondence between research and practice. Human Resource Management, 41, 149–174.
SlavinR. E. (2008). Cooperative learning, success for all, and evidence-based reform in education. In Éducation et didactique[In French], 2, 149–157.
33.
SoderbergC. K.CallahanS. P.KochersbergerA. O.AmitE.LedgerwoodA. (2015). The effects of psychological distance on abstraction: Two meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 525–548. doi:10.1037/bul0000005
34.
SteigerJ. H. (2004). Beyond the F test: Effect size confidence intervals and tests of close fit in the analysis of variance and contrast analysis. Psychological Methods, 9, 164–182.
35.
TeachmanB. A.NortonM. I.SpellmanB. A. (2015). Memos to the president from a “council of psychological science advisers.”Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 697–700.
36.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2000). Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in preference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 876–889. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.79.6.876
37.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463.
38.
TropeY.LibermanN.WakslakC. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Consumer Psychology, 17, 83–95. doi:10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70013-X
WangA. T.FanJ.Van HoutenH. K.TilburtJ. C.StoutN.K.MontoriV.M.ShahN. D. (2014). Impact of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines on screening mammography rates on women in their 40s. PLoS One, 9, e91399. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0091399.
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.
