추상적 또는 구체적으로 생각하는 것이 자제력에 미치는 영향
English
Share
Overview
출처: 디에고 레이네로 & 제이 반 바벨-뉴욕 대학교
아이스크림의 두 번째 서빙을 자제하든, 재미있는 파티에 참석하는 대신 공부하거나 저축 계좌에 돈을 버리기로 결정하든, 장기적인 결과에 찬성하여 단기 적인 결과를 희생(즉, 만족을 지연)하는 것은 자기 통제의 중심 임차인입니다. 사람들이 자제력을 발휘할 때, 그들은 그들의 목표를 달성하는 것을 돕기 위하여 수많은 심리학 프로세스를 참여합니다. 이러한 자율 규제 프로세스는 수십 년 동안 심리학자들에 의해 연구되었습니다.
유혹적인 단기 보상에 저항하기로 한 결정은 개인의 사고 방식과 초점에 따라 달라질 수 있습니다. 심리학자들은 누군가가 사건을 어떻게 해석하는지, 즉 합의 수준 이론(CLT)이라는 이론인 판단과 결정을 내리는 방식에 영향을 미칠 수 있다는 증거를 발견했습니다. 특히 CLT는 동일한 개체 또는 이벤트가 추상성 또는 심리적 거리의 여러 수준에서 표현될 수 있으며, 가장 일반적으로 높은(추상/원거리) 또는 낮은(콘크리트/근교) 수준의 응집수준에서 나타낼 수 있다고 주장합니다. 1 높은 수준의 월경이 수반되는 상황에 대해 생각하면 개체 또는 이벤트의 글로벌, 초급, 중앙 특징(즉, 축소 및 큰 그림을 보는 것)을 강조하는 반면, 낮은 수준의 응경이있는 상황에 대해 생각하는 것은 독특하고 구체적인 특징에 초점을 맞춘 다수있습니다. 예를 들어, 높은 수준의 응집체로 캐치를 하는 아이들에 대해 생각하면 이 활동을 “재미있는 아이들”로 묘사할 수 있지만, 낮은 수준의 침구를 가진 반면, 공의 색상이나 어린이의 나이와 같은 특정 기능에 집중할 수 있습니다.
다음 실험 테스트는 높은 수준의 응집과 결정 또는 상황에 접근하는 것이 낮은 수준의 회경보다 더 큰 자기 통제로 이어질 지 여부. 이 실험은 일련의 “왜”(높은 수준의 조작) 또는 “방법”(낮은 수준의 조작) 질문을 묻는 통해 참가자의 수준의 회경수준을 프라이밍하는 일반적인 방법을 활용합니다. 2
Procedure
Results
Analyzing the manipulation check revealed that participants exposed to why questions generated responses that reflected higher levels of construal compared with those exposed to how questions. The data (Figure 1) typically indicate that those primed in high-level construal, prefer immediate over delayed outcomes less than those primed in low-level construal. This suggests that high-level construal leads to greater self-control than low-level construal.
Figure 1: Preference for immediate over delayed outcomes. The difference scores in dollar amounts were plotted by level of construal.
Applications and Summary
How people construe a situation can shape their overall mindset and focus, influencing consequent judgments and decisions. Participants who answered questions of why they engaged in actions displayed a reduced tendency to prefer immediate over delayed outcomes compared with those who responded to questions of how they engaged in actions. That is, time delay had less of an impact on those individuals primed to a high-level versus a low-level construal. This reflects that those who construed the situation in a high-level construal showed a greater tendency to make decisions that reflected self-control, than did those in a low-level construal.
Our lives are full of situations where we seek to utilize self-control. Dieters resist enticing sweets, smokers push back against addictive cravings, we all try to focus on work despite the allure of procrastination, and we all know the importance of saving money for our future. Our health and financial well-being depend on a certain degree of self-control.
One dominant approach to understanding decision making is a dual-system model: The "hot system", composed of affective mental representations, which, when activated, leads to appetitive, impulsive responses, and the "cool system", composed of emotionally neutral cognitions that guide behavior in a contemplative, reflective manner.4,5 This dual-process approach was embraced in nobel prize winner Daniel Kahneman's bestseller, Thinking Fast and Slow, wherein he describes System 1 as the quick, intuitive, emotional system, and System 2 as the slow, deliberative, rational system.6
Although there is an inevitable interplay between these mental processes and self-control, these findings suggest that a crucial aspect of self-control is how we construe a decision or situation. Do we approach situations with a broad and global perspective, enhancing the perceived psychological distance and thus eliciting greater self-control, or do we approach it with a narrow and specific perspective, shrinking the perceived psychological distance and reducing self-control? This work may be informative to individuals as well as organizations who wish to promote long-term rewards.
References
- Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110, 403-421.
- Freitas, A. L., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Trope, Y. (2004). The influence of abstract and concrete mindsets on anticipating and guiding others' self-regulatory efforts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 739-752.
- Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. (2000). The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 253-285). New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244, 933-938.
- Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106, 3-19.
- Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.
Transcript
Objects and events can be mentally represented at multiple levels of abstractness and distance in what are known as construal levels.
For instance, consider children playing catch in a park. Those who observe the kids from afar and see the big picture of them having fun, display an abstract level of interpretation—high construal.
Such emphasis on the global picture contrasts with others who think about specific and narrow features, such as the stain on the white shirt. This is an example of having a low, concrete level of construal
Moreover, how someone interprets the event can even influence how they make decisions. For example, a mother viewing the kids with high construal might show self-control and delay calling them in for dinner. On the other hand, the father—with low construal—may show less self-control and call them in because of how dirty they are getting.
This video demonstrates how to investigate the relationship between manipulating construal level and approaching decisions and self-control in a laboratory setting.
In this experiment, participants’ construal levels are first manipulated through priming and then they are asked to make decisions across a number of scenarios in two seemingly separate studies.
Participants are first randomly assigned to either a high- or low-level condition. In the former group, they answer a sequence of “why” questions, which represents a more abstract level of thinking. Whereas the latter participants are asked to reply to a series of “how” questions, which signify a more concrete level of construal.
For the second study, participants are instructed to read four scenarios that describe an item that they might buy. They are asked to indicate the dollar amount that they would pay to receive the item immediately and at a later date. The dollar amounts constitute the dependent measure of self-control.
According to the Construal Level Theory, which theorizes that how someone construes an event can influence their decisions, participants who underwent the high-level manipulation are expected to show greater self-control—a reduced preference for the immediate reward. The opposite is expected with those in the low-level condition who are likely to value immediate over delayed rewards.
Prior to running the experiment, determine the number of participants needed by performing a power analysis. To begin, greet each one in the lab and obtain consent to take part in the study.
Explain to the participant that they will be doing two studies and that in the first one, they will be completing a survey about opinions and activities.
For those in the high-level condition, tell them that the question to consider is: “Why do I maintain good physical health?”. Explain that they should fill in the four responses on the sheet by answering why they would engage in their previous answer. Give sufficient time for the participant to fill in the form.
For those in the low-level group, have them consider: “How do I maintain good physical health?”. Note that the only difference here is answering how.
Following the manipulation phase, have everyone read four scenarios that describe an item they might buy. Ask them to indicate the dollar amount they would pay to receive the item immediately or delayed in time, ranging from one month to a year.
Finally, use funneled debriefing and ask a series of increasingly probing questions to assess whether participants had any suspicion or awareness regarding the experimental manipulations. Afterwards, thank them for taking part in the study.
To analyze the data, have two judges who are unaware of the experimental conditions, independently assess each participant’s level of construal based on the abstractness of their responses to the why versus how manipulation.
If a response was a low-level answer—referred to as subordinate means—code it as a negative one. If the reply to the same statement was high-level—known as a superordinate end—code it as a positive one. Otherwise, record the response as a 0.
Sum the ratings of each participant’s four responses to create an index ranging from -4 to +4, with positive scores indicating higher levels of construal. Graph the averages and use a two-sample t-test to confirm that the high-level condition resulted in a significantly higher mean than the low-level group.
To examine self-control, compute the difference scores by subtracting the dollar value participants were willing to pay for the delayed outcome from the amount they were willing to pay for an immediate result. Large difference scores indicate stronger preferences for the immediate, and hence, a lack of self-control.
Graph the average difference scores and use multivariate analysis of variance with the two levels of construal and four scenarios as factors to assess significance.
Results showed that those primed in the high-level manipulation preferred immediate over delayed outcomes less than those primed in the low-level condition, suggesting that construal level affects self-control.
Now that you are familiar with how thinking abstractly versus concretely can impact self-control, let’s look at other real-life situations where the theory can be applied, such as in diplomacy and advertising.
In international diplomacy, the construal level of those involved can be the difference between war and peace. If a situation is approached with a broad and global perspective, enhancing the perceived psychological distance and thus eliciting greater self-control, there is a greater likelihood of peace.
In contrast, approaching a situation with a narrow and specific perspective—shrinking the perceived psychological distance and reducing self-control—enhances the likelihood of escalation. Without a doubt, it is often better when cooler heads prevail.
Researchers have shown that Construal Level Theory can be used to influence consumers’ decisions. For example, when a buyer’s mindset is at a psychological distance from making a purchase, advertisements also viewed from afar—such as billboards—should accentuate higher-level attributes, like the desirability of a product.
Conversely, ads viewed at the time of purchase, like in-store fliers, should emphasize low-level attributes, such as feasibility and price, to match the mindset shift to one that is more detail-oriented. Thus, tailoring marketing campaigns to match a shopper’s level of construal can lead to increased sales.
You’ve just watched JoVE’s video on the effects of thinking abstractly or concretely on self-control. Now you should have a good understanding of how to design and execute an experiment with manipulations of construal levels, how to analyze and assess the results, as well as how to apply the principles to a number of real-world situations.
Thanks for watching!