Construal Level Theory and Construal Level Theory and Enrished or Impoverished OptionsEnrished or Impoverished Options

Leah Borovoi and Nira LibermanLeah Borovoi and Nira LibermanOpen University, Tel Aviv UniversityOpen University, Tel Aviv University

israelev@post.tau.aisraelev@post.tau.ac.ilc.il

OverviewOverviewTheoretical backgroundTheoretical background

Psychological Distance Construal Level TheoryAction Identification TheoryThe role of enriched and impoverished options

Two empirical studiesTwo empirical studiesThe influence of temporal distance on the decision

between enriched and impoverished optionsThe influence of construal level on the decision

between enriched and impoverished options

DiscussionDiscussion

ExampleExample

TimePlanning TodayPlanning Today

Low Level ConstrualLow Level ConstrualHow do you do this thing?How do you do this thing?

Planning next yearPlanning next year

High Level ConstrualHigh Level ConstrualWhy do you do this thing?Why do you do this thing?

Climbing mountainsClimbing mountainsEnriched optionEnriched optionVery interesting placeVery interesting placeGood for healthGood for healthQuality time with friendsQuality time with friendsGreat story to tell Great story to tell afterwardsafterwardsbutbut DifficultDifficultColdColdDangerousDangerous

Ordinary hotelOrdinary hotelImpoverished Impoverished optionoptionAverage foodAverage foodAverage placeAverage placeAverage Average atmosphereatmosphereAverage serviceAverage serviceAvailable costAvailable cost

SelectSelect vs. vs. cancelcancel

Construal Level TheoryConstrual Level TheoryLiberman & TropeLiberman & Trope

Close EventsClose EventsLow-Level ConstrualLow-Level Construal

Distant EventsDistant EventsHigh-level ConstrualHigh-level Construal

Concrete, specific Abstract, generalSecondary, peripheral, incidental

Primary, central, essential

Contextual DecontextualizedNon Schematic Schematic

Subordinate Superordinate

Enriched and Enriched and Impoverished OptionsImpoverished 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).

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

How?Target actions

Making listCleaning the house

Paying the rent

Concrete

Writing things downVacuuming the floor

Writing a check

Why?Abstract

Getting organizedShowing one’s cleanlinessMaintaining a place to live

Eyal, Liberman, Eyal, Liberman, Trope & Walther Trope & Walther

(2004)(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

Hypotheses:Hypotheses:1. In distant decisions people would

prefer enriched options, whereas in close decisions they would prefer impoverished options.

2. In distant decisions people will have a difficulty to reject. In close decisions people will have a difficulty to select.

The present study: The present study: OverviewOverviewa) 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.b)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.

Study 1: MethodsStudy 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

Study 2: MethodsStudy 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

Replication of Replication of Shafir’s effectShafir’s effect

64% 72%

56%59%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

study 1 study 2

pref

ered

enr

iche

d op

tion

in %

rejectselect

Hypothesis 1:Hypothesis 1:Preferences for enriched Preferences for enriched

alternative alternative by psychological distanceby psychological distance

51%64%

57%

72%

study 1 study 2

pref

ered

enric

hed o

ptio

n in

%

near future, low level construal distant future, high level construal

Hypothesis 2:Hypothesis 2:Preferences for enriched Preferences for enriched

alternative alternative by time and framingby time and framing

3.93

2.962.98

3.91

select reject

rate

d ch

oice

diff

icul

ty

Near future Distant future

Hypothesis 2:Hypothesis 2:Preferences for enriched Preferences for enriched

alternative alternative by construal and framingby construal and framing

4.25 4.28

3.95

4.51

select reject

rate

d ch

oice

diff

icul

ty

how why

Hypothesis 2:Hypothesis 2:Choice difficulty by Choice difficulty by

construal levelconstrual level

4.245.11

3.85

6

enriched impoverished

rate

d ch

oice

diff

icul

ty

how why

DiscussionDiscussionEnriched options are more desirable in the distant decisions.

Theoretical connections: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: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 distancesPotential 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)

ConclusionsConclusionsSummarySummary• 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.

Tel Aviv2008

Thank You!

Questions?

Prepared by PictureCollageMaker