Hi, my name is Leah from Tel Aviv University Hi, my name is Leah from Tel Aviv University. First of all I'd like to say how excited I'm to be here in Rome. I have always wanted to visit the great city so needless to say not much effort went into my decision to attend the conference. Thank you all for coming to my presentation. You can see here pictures of people who were involved in this research. me, my supervisor Nira Liberman and Yacoov Trope from NYU.

offered exclusively to members of the Hilton Club Classic example Planning sometime in the distant future High Level Construal Planning Today Low Level Construal Time Imagine considering a vacation to Rome Thee equally attractive vacation packages Nothing I want to begin with a classic example. Imagine you want to get away from the routine and decide to take a trip to Rome. You are browsing through different vocation packages which seem equally attractive. But then discover one package stand out as being especially attractive – a brand new five star hotel offering 5 star catering, free city tours and health SPA – all for a modest prize. A closer look discloses, however, that this most attractive package is offered exclusively to the members of a hilton club, which you are not. Would this unattainable option change the way you evaluate the other packages, the entire offer or your motivation to go to Rome? How about making the same choice for your summer vocation in 2009? Especially attractive package: a brand new five star hotel offers attractive tours that are all included in the quite moderate price offered exclusively to members of the Hilton Club Thee equally attractive vacation packages

Construal Level Theory (CLT) Trope & Liberman (2000) Everyday life evaluations and choices often pertain to events that take place in some point in near or distant future. The way people evaluate options changes in a systematic manner with temporal distance People form higher level representations of events in the more distant future. As you know, everyday life evaluations and choices often pertain to some point of time in the immediate or distant future. Nira Liberman and Yaacov Trope proposed a construal level theory that says that the way people evaluate options changes in a systematic manner with temporal distance. How does this work? People form higher level representations of events in the more distant future.

Construal Level Theory Liberman & Trope Distant Events High-level Construal Close Events Low-Level Construal Abstract, general Concrete, specific Primary, central, essential Secondary, peripheral, incidental Decontextualized Contextual Schematic Non Schematic Superordinate Subordinate Now, moving on to our motivations for conducting our studies. To address the question of the influence of psychological distance, we will look at the, Construal Level Theory. Nira Liberman from Tel Aviv University and Yacoov Trope from NYU proposed that psychological distance influences peoples’ responses to future events by systematically changing the way they construe these events. CLT states that people mentally construe objects that are psychologically near in terms of low level, concrete, specific, secondary, peripheral, incidental, contextual, non schematic and subordinate features, whereas in the distance, people mentally construe the same objects or events in terms of high level, abstract, general, primary, central, essential, decontextual, schematic and superordinate characteristics. Pictorially speaking, people tend to focus on the trees when they consider near decisions, but the focus on the forest when they consider distant decisions. Taking an example of hotels, when considering distant future possibilities people focus on the desirability of 5 star hotel, but when considering near possibilities people tend to focus on the feasibility whether this hotel is available for them..

As you can see from this text heavy slide, many researchers have investigated Construal Level Theory and it has plenty of empirical evidence. These are just a few of the articles that were published in recent years on CLT.

Research question: Research hypothesis: How adding a desirable, but unattainable option into a set of options influenced distant and near future evaluations? Research hypothesis: Attractive but unattainable option would enhance the attractiveness of the distant future sets of options, but damage the attractiveness of the near future sets of options. Now come to our research, we investigate How adding a desirable, but unattainable option into the set of options influences distant and near future evaluations? We hypothesize that an attractive but unattainable option would enhance the attractiveness of the distant future sets of options, but damage the attractiveness of the near future sets of options. Meaning that when planning your 2009 summer holiday, travel agency offering attractive but unavailable hotel would be seen in a positive light, but when planning for the immediate future you’ll prefer to avoid travel agency that offers attractive but unavailable hotel.

Liberman & Trope (1998). Desirability considerations (i. e Liberman & Trope (1998) Desirability considerations (i.e., the value of an action’s end state) receive more weight in a distant future decision. Feasibility considerations (i.e., ease or difficulty in reaching the desired end-state), receive more weight in a near future decision. Förster, Liberman, and Kuschel (2008) Distant time perspective enhances assimilation of a target into a category Near time perspective enhances exclusion (or contrast) of a target away from a category Previous research has shown several mechanisms that underlie this prediction. First "desirability considerations" or the value of an action’s end state receive more weight in a distant future decision. In our example the end state is a five star hotel with attractive tours that are all included in the moderate price. Feasibility considerations (the ease or difficulty in reaching the desired end-state), receive more weight in a near future decision. In our example feasibility considerations are that this attractive package is unavailable. It is offered exclusively to members of the Hilton Club which you are not. Since feasibility considerations are less important in the distant future, attractive but unavailable option valued higher and influence positively the distant future sets. Second, distant time perspective enhances assimilation of a target into a category, whereas near time perspective enhances exclusion (or contrast) of a target away from a category. For example, in the previous experiment participants compared their athletic skills to either a moderately high standard or a moderately low standard and then rated their expected athletic performance in an athletic competition that would take place either the next day or a year from then. Compared to a control condition, in which time was not specified, a distant time perspective enhanced assimilation (i.e., produced a high self-rating after comparison to a high standard and a low self-rating after comparison to a low standard) whereas a proximal time perspective enhanced contrast (i.e., produced a low self-rating after comparison to a high standard and a high self-rating after comparison to a low standard). This means that in the near future attractive but unavailable option would be compared to other options and therefore the value of the set would be reduced. But in the distant future attractive but unavailable option would be assimilated into the set of options and therefore it's value would increase.

Method Participants were asked to imagine a situation in which they were either: Looking for a job Choosing among university courses Looking for a roommate Buying a computer Looking for an apartment In our research participants were asked to imagine a situation in which they were either: Looking for a job, Choosing among university courses, Looking for a roommate, Buying a computer or Looking for an apartment. They read scenarios and filled in questionnaires.

Method Participants examined three options that varied on five dimensions. In some sets, a fourth option was added, which was highly attractive (dominant on all dimensions) but unattainable. Participants indicated how attractive would be the set of options in either the near or the distant future. In each scenario participants saw sets with three options that varied on five dimensions. The design was crossed by two factors: presence of attractive but unattainable option and time of decision. In some sets, a fourth option was added, which was highly attractive (dominant on all dimensions) but unattainable. Participants indicated how attractive would be the set of options, their motivation to choose, and evaluated the attractiveness of other options in either the near or the distant future.

Manipulation check: Was an attractive but unattainable option perceived positively or negatively? Other Alt. AUA 4.24 7.42 Jobs 3.99 6.31 Computers 4.62 7.01 Courses 4.12 6.91 Roommates 7.23 Apartments Results First, we did a manipulation check: Was an attractive but unattainable option perceived positively or negatively? For example, we could have been that if something is unattainable you perceive it as unattractive out of psychological defense mechanism. We can see that all attractive but unattainable options were perceived as much more attractive than the average available options.

Jobs & Computers: Evaluation of the set For the sake of time, I'm going to describe only the first two scenarios contents together as the scenarios we look at were presented to the same subjects one after another. Results from the other scenarios were the same. We can see that in the near future scenarios inclusion of unattainable options decreased the evaluation of the set, whereas in the distant future it increased the evaluation of the set. The difference was statistically significant.

Jobs & Computers: Motivation to choose We can see that in the near future decisions inclusion of attractive but unattainable option decreased the motivation to choose among the options, whereas in the distant future it increased the motivation to choose

Jobs & Computers: Evaluation of neighbor options We can see that both for the near future and in the distant future decisions, the inclusion of attractive but unattainable option decreased the evaluation of neighbor options, however the effect was higher in the near future.

Conclusions Time discounting of the attainable options Evaluation of the set and motivation to choose increased after adding the attractive but unattainable option in the distant future condition. Evaluation of the set and motivation to choose are reduced after adding the attractive but unattainable option in the near future condition. An attractive but unattainable option decreases the evaluation of neighbor options both in the near and in the distant future condition. Let’s now get to the conclusions: We saw time discounting of the attainable options Evaluation of the set and motivation to choose benefit from the attractive but unattainable option in the distant future condition. Evaluation of the set and motivation to choose are reduced after adding the attractive but unattainable option in the near future condition. Attractive but unattainable option decreases the evaluation of neighbor options both in the near and in the distant future condition.

General information Our Tel Aviv lab: Prof. Nira Liberman Rotem Alony Leah Borovoi Tali Nissan Oren Shapira Ayelet Shpizaizen My research interests: a) The impact of psychological distance on - information search strategies - memory mistakes (e.g., source confusions) - hindsight bias - counterfactual thinking - evaluation of enriched and impoverished options b) The role of (vague vs. concrete) goals in cognitive, emotional and behavioral response to feedback That is our laboratory at Tel Aviv University And my research interests, so if you’d like to e-mail me to discuss or collaborate on any of these subjects, please do get in touch

Prepared by PictureCollageMaker Tel Aviv 2008 Questions? So, thank you for listening so attentively. Does anyone have questions? Thank You!