PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTANCE OF EVENTS AND ATTRIBUTE DIMENSIONS
by
Parveen Kaur Pannu
B.Comm., University of Northern British Columbia
Prince George, British Columbia

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
August 2019
© Parveen Kaur Pannu

ABSTRACT
Using a Construal Level Theory (CLT) foundation, the authors conduct four studies
which find consumers are more likely to pay attention to short-term (long-term) benefits if an
event is taking place in the near (distant) future. Additionally, when people are deciding for
themselves (acquaintances), they’re more likely to pay attention to short-term (long-term)
benefits and proximal (distant) spatial locations. This research provides theoretical and
managerial implications, as businesses can tailor marketing campaigns to emphasize shortterm/long-term attribute dimensions to prime consumers to choose a certain alternative
depending on how psychologically distant they are from an event/object. The research methods
used were questionnaires where participants chose between two alternatives. The current
research aims to uphold philosophy from previous literature that states: a primary aim of
consumer research is to understand aspects that are influencing different trade-offs of a choice
set in the preference construction process (Bettman, Luce, & Payne, 1998).

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract

ii

Table of Contents

iii

List of Figures

iv

Acknowledgement

v

Chapter I: Introduction

1

Chapter II: Theoretical Background

2

Section 2.1: Construal Level Theory
& Key Hypotheses

2

Chapter III: Experimental Design

5

Section 3.1: Experiment 1

6

Section 3.2: Experiment 2

8

Section 3.3: Experiment 3A

10

Section 3.3: Experiment 3B

13

Chapter IV: Conclusions

16

Bibliography

20-21

Appendices

22-42

iii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1

Experiment 1

8

Figure 2

Experiment 2

10

Figure 3

Experiment 3A

13

Figure 4

Experiment 3B

15

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
A special thank you to my beautiful family and friends for all of the love and unconditional
support over the past 2 years. Thank you for always pushing me to achieve my goals. Last but
not least, thank you to the University of Northern British Columbia, my supervisory committee,
and my thesis supervisor, Dr. Xin Ge, for your guidance and contributions to this paper.

v

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
The choices that trouble consumers the most are those that elicit a trade-off between
immediate and delayed utility (Read, 2007). Immediate utility represents short-term benefits,
whereas delayed utility represents long-term benefits (Wertenbroch, 1998). Consumers make
short-term vs. long-term trade-off decisions every single day whether it be personal or
purchasing decisions. A rich body of literature surrounding trade-off decisions, is intertemporal
choice, which requires trade-offs between smaller-but-sooner and larger-but-later gains (Li, et
al., 2019). Based on existing literature, the ultimate question for the current study becomes,
“when do people choose an alternative with short-term benefits rather than long-term benefits
when psychological distance plays a role and vice-versa?”
The key pillars that Construal Level Theory (CLT) is built upon are the temporal, spatial,
social, and probability psychological distance dimensions. Each of these dimensions is relevant
in consumer choice and each one plays a role in consumer decision making (Trope, Liberman, &
Wakslak, 2007). Existing literature states that if an event/object is psychologically near, people
will have a low-level construal. By contrast, if an event/object is psychologically distant, people
will have a high-level construal. (Trope & Liberman, 2010) A low-level construal is a detailoriented, contextualized point of view, whereas a high-level construal is an abstract, goaloriented point of view. (Trope & Liberman, 2010) For the purposes of the current research, the
temporal and social dimensions of psychological distance will be used as a key manipulation in
all studies.

1

Previous studies have been conducted regarding attribute dimensions using a CLT scope,
however, they have taken a low-level versus high-level construal approach. For example,
(Hernandez, Wright, & Rodrigues, 2015) discovered that people tend to prefer benefit-based
appeals when construal level is high, and attribute-based appeals when construal levels are low.
There was also research conducted by (Ding & Keh, 2017) which investigated the role of
construal level in regards to tangible vs intangible benefits in the service industry. The studies
revealed that consumers who experienced a high construal level or when consumption was
construed at a high level, intangible attributes were more influential in service evaluation and
choice (Ding & Keh, 2017).
The current research differentiates itself from previous studies by examining attribute
dimensions in terms of the short-term versus long-term benefit dichotomy which has yet to be
explored. In particular, this work focuses on the interplay of psychological distance associated
with a decision and the weighting or trade-off of short-term versus long-term benefits when
individuals evaluate alternatives
CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Section 2.1: Construal-Level Theory & Key Hypotheses
Based on existing literature, the key hypotheses for the current study develop quite
naturally. If people are more detail-oriented when an event/object is psychologically near and
more abstract-oriented when an event/object is psychologically distant; wouldn’t they be more
inclined to pay more attention to short-term benefits and spatially proximal events/objects in the
near condition and vice versa for the far condition? Also, when people are psychologically
distant from an event/object, existing literature shows they will have a high-level construal.

2

Extending upon that, we would propose that this high-level construal would prompt people to
pay more attention to long-term benefits (more abstract, goal oriented details). Whereas research
shows that when people are psychologically near from an event/object, they will have a lowlevel construal. This would mean that people would pay more attention to short-term benefits
(more contextualized, concrete details).
In the temporal dimension of psychological distance, research has shown that people tend
to be more optimistic about the distant future. (Trope, Liberman, & Wakslak, 2007) Research in
the temporal dimension has also shown that the relationship between construal levels and
temporal distance is reciprocal; people perceive events and behaviours described in abstract
terms as occurring in the distant future and those described in detailed terms as occurring in the
near future. (Liberman & Förster, 2009) A very interesting perspective on temporal distance and
construal level was demonstrated by (Kim, Rao, & Lee, 2008) through the election process – and
it can provide a better insight to temporal distance. In their experiments, the authors discovered
that political messages which emphasized high-level goals were more effective when the
respondents intended to act in the distant future (specifically six months later); whereas political
messages focussing on low-level actions were more effective when the respondents intended to
act in the near future (specifically next week). (Kim, Rao, & Lee, 2008) Essentially, the
messages which emphasized the high-level goals focussed on the “why” of the political
candidates arguments, whereas the messages which emphasized the low-level goals focussed on
the “how” of the political candidates’ arguments. (Kim, Rao, & Lee, 2008) This study ultimately
revealed that it is the match between the message content and the underlying mental
representation that yields effect on respondents’ persuasion. (Kim, Rao, & Lee, 2008)

3

The current research regarding psychological distance and attribute dimensions, is a
natural extension of past studies, as previous literature states, “distant future decisions, compared
with near future decisions, should be more influenced by value attached to high-level construals
and less influenced by value attached to low-level construals of the same activity.” (Trope &
Liberman, 2000)Thus, the authors formally propose the first key hypothesis:
H1: A long temporal distance associated with an event will prime people to pay more
attention to the long-term benefits.
The social dimension of psychological distance can be explained as how people describe
themselves versus how they describe others; or how people describe themselves in relation to
others. For example, research on the actor–observer bias in attribution has demonstrated that
people tend to explain others' behaviors in abstract terms and their own behavior in concrete
situational terms. (Stephan, Liberman, & Trope, 2011) People are also more likely to evaluate
strangers more abstractly because they are psychologically distant in the social dimension – and
people will likely evaluate familiar people less abstractly. (Stephan, Liberman, & Trope, 2011).
Thus the authors formally propose hypotheses two:
H2: A short (long) social distance associated with an event will prime people to pay more
attention to the short-term (long-term) benefits.
H2: A long social distance associated with an event will prime people to pay more
attention to an event that is spatially distant.
The first version of hypotheses two is a branch off of existing research in which it
has been found that people will have high-level construals when evaluating strangers,
acquaintances, etc. and low-level construals when evaluating themselves, family members, or
4

close friends. Thus, the hypothesis proposed make logical sense. We would hypothesize that
people would pay more attention to short-term benefits when deciding for themselves, family
members or close friends, and long-term benefits when deciding for co-workers, strangers, or
acquaintances due to past research regarding low-level versus high-level construal. The second
version of hypothesis two includes a spatial dimension aspect of psychological distance. The
spatial dimension is how physically near or far an event/object is from someone. (Fujita,
Henderson, Eng, Trope, & Liberman, 2006) The authors demonstrated that increasing the spatial
distance of social events leads to people representing these events with more abstract and highlevel construals. (Fujita, Henderson, Eng, Trope, & Liberman, 2006) These results were obtained
by studies in which the participants were given descriptions of events either taking place at a
spatially near location or a spatially distant location. (Fujita, Henderson, Eng, Trope, &
Liberman, 2006). Based on findings in existing literature, the second version of hypothesis two
was proposed. We would expect people to pay more attention to long-term benefits when an
event/object is spatially distant due to the fact that people have high-level construals about these
events/objects and would naturally prefer the long-term benefits.
CHAPTER III: EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Participants were presented with various scenarios that provided two alternatives out of
which they were instructed to make one choice. All of the experiments are a 2x2 mixed design
ANOVA. The psychological distance was manipulated in each scenario (between-subject) and
the attribute dimensions were manipulated in each scenario as well (within-subject).
Experiment 1 utilized temporal psychological distance paired with temporal attribute
dimensions to see how people can be primed to choose an alternative described in long-term
benefits when an event/object is psychologically distant. Experiment 2 will offer insights into
5

how people are primed to choose an alternative described in short-term benefits when they are
deciding for themselves and vice versa for a socially distant scenario. Lastly, Experiment 3A and
3B will demonstrate how people are primed to choose an alternative described in spatially
proximal attributes when deciding for themselves and vice versa for spatially distant decisions.
Section 3.1: Experiment 1 - Temporal Distance and Temporal Attribute Dimensions
Method
Ninety-one Amazon Mturk members participated in this study for a reimbursement of
C$0.10. The key manipulation involved temporal distance associated with a decision: near
(tomorrow) versus far (one year from now). Participants were randomly assigned to one of two
conditions. The cover story instructed each participant to imagine a scenario in which he/she
planned to replace his/her pillow and purchase a new one either tomorrow (in the near-temporaldistance condition) or one year from now (in the far-temporal-distance condition). After some
searching, he/she became interested in two alternatives in a desirable price range. The product
descriptions were constructed to involve a trade-off between short-term features and long-term
features of the two alternatives. Pillow A delivered immediate comfort but was less durable. By
comparison, Pillow B gradually delivered an optimum level of comfort but was more durable.
(The product descriptions were as follows – “Pillow A utilized plush memory foam technology.
It provided immediate and significant improvement in sleep quality by conforming to the shape
of the user’s head and neck from the first day of usage. It began to lose its original support and
contour over the period of 2 years of usage, after which a replacement would be desirable. Pillow
B utilized bamboo gel technology. It took about 50 days of usage for the pillow to gradually
conform to the shape of the user’s head and neck, and at that time the user would experience
significant improvement in sleep quality. It largely maintained its original support and contour

6

over the period of 2 years of usage, after which it would continue to be in satisfactory
condition.”) After reading the product descriptions, each participant was asked to rate how
attractive the two pillows would be on a seven-point scale, where 1 = “not at all attractive,” and 7
= “highly attractive.” See appendix A. Thus, this experiment used a 2 (temporal distance: near
vs. far; between-subjects) x 2 (alternative: the one with better short-term features vs. the one with
better long-term features; within-subject) mixed-design ANOVA.
Results
The purpose of experiment 1 is to determine if people pay more attention to long-term
benefits when there is a long temporal distance associated with an event/object. Figure 1 presents
the average attractiveness ratings as a function of temporal distance and alternative. A 2
(temporal distance) x 2 (alternative) mixed-design ANOVA on attractiveness yielded a
significant main effect of temporal distance (F (1, 89) = 7.65, p = .007), a significant main effect of
alternative (F (1, 89) = 8.16, p = .005), and a critical, significant interaction effect between
temporal distance and alternative (F (1, 89) = 4.07, p = .047). The two nuisance main effects
indicated that the average attractiveness of the two alternatives pertaining to the long-temporaldistance decision was greater relative to that pertaining to the short-temporal-distance decision,
and that the average attractiveness of the alternative with better long-term features was greater
than that of the one with better short-term features. Follow-up t-tests showed that the interaction
effect was driven by an increase in attractiveness of the alternative with better long-term features
in the far (vs. near)-temporal-distance condition (M A year from now = 3.89 vs.
M Tomorrow = 2.77, t (89) = 3.02, p = .003); however, attractiveness of the alternative with better
short-term features did not change in the far (vs. near)-temporal-distance condition (M A year from
now = 2.62 vs. M Tomorrow = 2.57, t (89) = 0.16, p = .87). Thus, this study demonstrated that a far

7

temporal distance enhanced the weight accorded to long-term benefits in product evaluations. H1
is supported.

Figure 1
Experiment 1: Attractiveness as a function of temporal distance and alternative (7-point scale)
Better short-term features

5.5

Better long-term features

Attractiveness

5
4.5
4

3.89

3.5
3

2.5
2

2.77
2.57

2.62

Tomorrow

A year from now
Decision for

Section 3.2: Experiment 2 - Social Distance and Temporal Attribute Dimensions
Method
Forty-five undergraduate students in an introductory business course at the University of
Northern British Columbia participated in this study. The key manipulation involved social
distance of a decision: near (decision for oneself) versus far (decision for someone else).
Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions. The cover story instructed
each participant to imagine a scenario in which either him/herself (in the near-social-distance
condition) or a fellow undergraduate student (in the far-social-distance condition) was suffering a
8

respiratory disorder; symptoms included difficulty in breathing, coughing, and irritable throat. A
physician advised two alternative medications which provided varying short-term and long-term
benefits. Medicine A offered better short-term benefits (1-day usage to provide fast relief) but
worse long-term benefits (a 55% probability of symptoms recurring in 90 days). Medicine B
offered worse short-term benefits (4-day usage to provide slow relief) but better long-term
benefits (a 30% probability of symptoms recurring in 90 days). Each participant then rated how
attractive the two medicines would be to him/herself or to the fellow student on an eleven-point
scale, where 0 = “not at all attractive,” and 10 = “highly attractive.” See appendix B. Thus, this
experiment used a 2 (social distance: near vs. far; between-subjects) x 2 (alternative: the one
offering better short-term benefits vs. the one offering better long-term benefits; within-subject)
mixed-design ANOVA.
Results
The purpose of experiment 2 is to determine if a short (long) social distance associated
with an event will prime people to pay more attention to the short-term (long-term) benefits of
the event/object. The average attractiveness ratings as a function of social distance and
alternative are presented in Figure 2. The only significant effect in a 2 (social distance) x 2
(alternative) mixed-design ANOVA is the predicted interaction between social distance and
alternative (for the interaction effect, F (1, 43) = 6.67, p = .01; for the main effect of social
distance, F (1, 43) = 0.03, p = .86; for the main effect of alternative, F (1, 43) = 0.24, p = .63). A
follow-up t-test showed that the attractiveness of the alternative offering better short-term
benefits relative to the one offering better long-term benefits (attractiveness better short-term benefits –
attractiveness better long-term benefits) was significantly higher when the participant made the decision
for him/herself compared to when the participant made the decision for a fellow student (M Oneself

9

= 1.22 vs. M A fellow student = –1.86, t (43) = 2.58, p = .01). These results demonstrated that the social
distance of a decision shifted the decision weight associated with short-term benefits and longterm benefits. In particular, a near social distance of the decision rendered participants to pay
more attention to the short-term benefits, and a far social distance led them to pay more attention
to the long-term benefits when they evaluated the alternatives. Thus, H2 is supported by the
findings of Experiment 2.

Figure 2

Experiment 2: Attractiveness as a function of social distance and alternative (11-point scale)

Better short-term benefits
Better long-term benefits

8.5

Attractiveness

8
7.5

7.64

7.39

7
6.5
6

6.17
5.77

5.5
5

Oneself

A fellow student

Decision for
Section 3.3: Experiment 3 - Social Distance and Spatial Attribute Dimension

10

Experiment 3A
Method
Two hundred and eighty-six Amazon Mturk members participated in this study for a
reimbursement of C$0.10. The key manipulation involved social distance associated with a
decision: near (decision for oneself) versus far (decision for an acquaintance). Participants were
randomly assigned to one of the two conditions. The cover story instructed each participant to
imagine a scenario in which either the participant him/herself (in the near-social-distance
condition) or an acquaintance (in the far-social-distance condition) had just won a lottery. The
participant was instructed to further imagine that he/she (or the acquaintance) would like to
donate a portion of the money to a charity. After some research, he/she (or the acquaintance)
became interested in making a donation to one of the two charity organizations with varying
spatial distances that help homeless people. Charity A was a domestic organization based in the
participant’s (or the acquaintance’s) home country; Charity B was an international organization
based in a foreign country. The intended donation can help about 100 individuals by supplying
them with basic necessities including food and shelter either in the home country if the donation
was to made to Charity A, or in the foreign country if the donation was to made to Charity B.
The participant was asked to indicate how likely was he/she to make (or recommend to the
acquaintance) a donation to Charity A and Charity B (on a seven-point scale, where 1 = “very
unlikely,” and 7 = “very likely”). See appendix C. Thus, this experiment used a 2 (social distance
of a decision: near vs. far; between-subjects) x 2 (alternatives: the one with short spatial distance
vs. the one with long spatial distance; within-subject) mixed-design ANOVA.
Results

11

The purpose of experiment 3A was to determine if a long social distance associated with
an event/object will prime people to choose a spatially far alternative The average likelihood
ratings as a function of social distance and alternative are presented in Figure 3. A 2 (social
distance associated with a decision) x 2 (alternatives with varying spatial distance) mixed-design
ANOVA showed an insignificant main effect of social distance (F(1, 284) = 0.26, p = .61), a
significant main effect of alternative (F(1, 284) = 97.16, p < .001), and a significant interaction
effect between social distance and alternative (F(1, 284) = 8.80, p = .003). The nuisance main effect
of alternative indicated that the likelihood to donate to the foreign charity was higher than that to
the domestic charity. Follow-up t-tests demonstrated the nature of the critical interaction between
social distance and alternative: the likelihood to donate to the foreign charity was significantly
higher when the participant made a decision for an acquaintance (M An acquaintance = 3.66), relative to
when the participant made a decision for him/herself (M Oneself = 3.21; t(284) = 2.20, p = .03);
whereas the likelihood to donate to a domestic charity when the participant made a decision for
an acquaintance (M An acquaintance = 2.26) was not statistically different from that when the
participant made a decision for him/herself (M Oneself = 2.45; t(284) = –1.02, p = .31). These results
demonstrated that the social distance of a decision changed individuals’ evaluations of the
alternatives with varying spatial distances. In particular, a far social distance of the decision led
participants to pay more attention to the alternative that was spatially more distant. Thus, the
findings of Experiment 3 provided support for H2

12

Figure 3
Experiment 3A: Likelihood as a function of social distance and alternative (7-point scale)
5.5

Likelihood

5
4.5
4
3.66

3.5
3
2.5
2

Domestic Charity
Foreign Charity

3.21
2.45
Oneself

2.26
An acquaintance
Decision for

Experiment 3B
Method
One hundred and ninety-one Mturk members participated in this study for a
reimbursement of C$0.10. The key manipulation involved social distance associated with a
decision: near (decision for oneself) versus far (decision for a co-worker). Participants were
randomly assigned to one of the two conditions. The cover story instructed each participant to
imagine a scenario in which either the participant him/herself (in the near-social-distance
condition) or a co-worker (in the far-social-distance condition) was selected to attend one of two
conferences for the purpose of professional development. Participants were informed that the
two alternative conferences varied in spatial distances (all else being equal). One of the two
conferences was to be held in the participant’s (or the coworkers’) local city, and the other

13

conference in another city three hours away by driving. In both conferences, there were various
workshops on skill development and opportunities for networking. The issue of feasibility was
controlled by stating that the company would provide travel in each of the scenarios. Each
participant was asked to indicate how likely was he/she to attend (or recommend to the coworker to attend) the local conference or the conference in another city (on a seven-point scale,
where 1 = “very unlikely,” and 7 = “very likely”). See appendix D. Thus, this experiment used a
2 (social distance of a decision: near vs. far; between-subjects) x 2 (alternatives: the one with
short spatial distance vs. the one with long spatial distance; within-subject) mixed-design
ANOVA.
Results
The purpose of experiment 3B was to determine if a long social distance associated with
an event/object will prime people to choose a spatially far alternative. Figure 4 summarizes the
average likelihood ratings as a function of social distance associated with a decision and
alternatives with varying spatial distance. A 2 (social distance) x 2 (alternative) mixed-design
ANOVA showed an insignificant main effect of social distance (F(1, 189) = 1.11, p = .29), a
significant main effect of alternative (F(1, 189) = 61.94, p < .001), and a significant interaction
effect between social distance and alternative (F(1, 189) = 5.21, p = .02). The nuisance main effect
of alternative indicated that the likelihood to attend the conference in another city was higher
than that to attend the conference in the local city. Follow-up t-tests demonstrated the nature of
the critical interaction effect between social distance and alternative: the likelihood to attend the
conference in another city was significantly higher when the participant made a decision for a
co-worker (M A co-worker = 4.65) than when the participant made a decision for him/herself
(M Oneself = 3.97; t(189) = 2.32, p = .02); and by comparison, the likelihood to attend the conference

14

in the local city when the participant made a decision for a co-worker (M A co-worker = 2.39)
was significantly lower relative to when the participant made a decision for him/herself
(M Oneself = 3.04; t(189) = –2.33, p = .02). These results indicated that in the case of a near social
distance of the decision (i.e., the participant made a decision for him/herself), participants
preferred an alternative that was spatially proximal, whereas a far social distance of the decision
(i.e., the participant made a decision for a co-worker) rendered a preference reversal –
participants were more likely to recommend an alternative that was spatially distant to a coworker. These findings support H2.

Figure 4
Experiment 3B: Likelihood as a function of social distance and alternative (7-point scale)
Conference in local city
5.5

Conference in another city
4.65

Likelihood

5
4.5
4
3.5

3.97

3.04

3

2.39

2.5
2

Oneself

A coworker
Decision for

15

CHAPTER IV: CONCLUSIONS
Our goal for this research was to examine attribute dimensions with a CLT scope, in
regards to the dichotomy of short-term vs. long-term benefits, which had yet to be explored. We
have shown that in the long-term, people are more attracted to long-term benefits (experiment 1).
We have also shown that people are more attracted to short-term benefits when deciding for
themselves, and long-term benefits when deciding for an acquaintance (experiment 2). Lastly,
we have shown that people are more likely to choose a spatially proximal alternative when
deciding for themselves and a more spatially distant alternative when deciding for an
acquaintance (experiment 3A and 3B).
Experiment 1 utilized temporal distance and temporal attribute dimensions to show that if
an event/object is in the distant future, people will pay more attention to the long-term benefits.
Building upon existing literature, our hypotheses solidify research that was presented by (Trope,
Liberman, & Wakslak, 2007), in which they mention, “that people can be more satisfied and
make better decisions when the distance matches the type of decision problem.” We have taken
existing research a step further and shown that when there is a match between type of
psychological distance and attribute dimensions (experiment 1) AND a mismatch between type
of psychological distance and attribute dimensions (experiment 2, 3A, and 3B); that the
hypotheses will still be upheld.
Experiment 2 was the only study that utilized an 11-point likert scale (all other studies
utilized a 7-point likert scale). There was no particular reason for this but it does demonstrate
that our hypotheses remain true among varying degrees of ratio scales. Experiment 2 is
particularly intriguing, as it has demonstrated a preference reversal between the two alternatives
presented to participants. According to previous literature, preference reversals are central to

16

consumer psychology – theoretically and managerially. (Chapman & Johnson, 1995)
Furthermore, preference reversals often indicate a mental shift of a consumer, along the
psychological distance dimensions in CLT. (Fiedler, 2007) In the near social distance condition,
people are more likely to choose the medicine with better short-term benefits, and vice-versa in
the far social condition. Expanding on the social aspect of psychological distance, people feel a
sense of responsibility when deciding for others, therefore, they may feel that more caution is
necessary. (Charness & Rabin, 2009) People also tend to see others as being more risk-averse
than themselves, which can cause them to choose a “safer” option that is better in the long-term.
(Lamm, Trommsdorff, & Rost-Schaude, 1972) Hence, the preference reversal; people were more
likely to take the quick relief (Medicine A) when deciding for themselves. Oppositely, people
were more likely to choose the delayed relief (Medicine B) when deciding for others. Not only
did experiment 2 produce results consistent with our hypotheses, it yielded a much stronger
response in the form of a preference reversal, which strengthens the key hypotheses. There are
two important limitations to note about our research. The first limitation is that none of the
scenarios or decisions required, involved consequences. The second limitation is that Amazon
Mturk members are primarily located in the United States. Future research which includes
consequential scenarios and participants from different demographics, would be beneficial.
The managerial implications of the current studies are very important, as it is necessary
for managers to understand how psychological distance influences consumer decisions and tradeoffs in the short vs. long-term. Managers may want to promote a more expensive product in
terms of long-term attributes because consumers tend to be more optimistic about the distant
future. (Trope & Liberman, Temporal Construal, 2003) For example, when providing
customized communications in marketing, it is important for managers to understand when to

17

promote short-term vs. long-term benefits so they can strategically time their marketing
campaigns to cater to each individual purchasing timeline. For example, if managers are
marketing an expensive, luxury product, it would be beneficial to emphasize the long-term
benefits as consumers are more likely to pay attention to these and have a more optimistic view
of spending a large sum of money. Another example is purchasing a desert. Consumers think
about how great the desert will be in that moment and the product is so irresistible that they
forget about the long-term effects such as weight gain or diabetes. In this case, where near future
decisions are being made, it is important for managers to emphasize the short-term benefits as a
consumer would find these more valuable than the long-term benefits. Another example is a
work-out; people pay attention to how tired they are in the moment and want to give up, without
thinking about the long-term benefits of health and fitness. When a consumer is making a longterm commitment or purchase such as a gym membership, they need to promote long-term
benefits to motivate consumers to persevere to achieve the long-term goals. Lastly, if advertising
a gift-type item, managers should also promote long-term benefits as people who are buying gifts
tend to pay more attention to these benefits. Managers can benefit from the current research by
being able to emphasize short-term or long-term benefits, depending on what timeline the
consumer is purchasing on, to maximize profits as a result, and capitalize on the type of construal
level the consumer is having towards an event/object.
In conclusion, the goal of this research has been met and exceeded. We have aimed to fill
the void in current research by analyzing the question, “when do people choose an alternative
with short-term benefits rather than long-term benefits when psychological distance plays a
role?” After receiving significant results from 4 studies, we have successfully answered this
question, in terms of temporal, social, and spatial manipulations. We included the temporal,

18

spatial, and social psychological distance dimensions in our studies. It was very important to
include the temporal dimension of psychological distance, as time is always included in a
purchasing decision. It was also important to include the social and spatial dimensions as people
often buy gifts for others (social) and purchase items or things such as vacations, which
incorporates the spatial dimension. Avenues of future research that may be of interest would be
to discover how participants react when events/objects are described along multiple attribute
dimensions. For example, describing an event as being temporally near or far, and using
attributes described in terms spatial and social dimensions. It would also be beneficial to include
consequential type questions to see if this changes participants evaluations of the given
alternatives. We hope to continue the current research to extend into multiple attribute
dimensions, and look forward to the findings that are yet to come.

19

Bibliography
Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive Consumer Choice Processes. Journal of
Consumer Research, 187-217.
Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1995). Preference Reversals in Monetary and Life Expectancy
Evaluations. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 300-317.
Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2009). The role of responsibility in strategic risk-taking. Journal of Economic
Behaviour & Organization, 241-247.
Ding, Y., & Tat Keh, H. (2017). Consumer reliance on intangible versus tangible attributes in service
evaluation: the role of construal level. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 848-865.
Fiedler, K. (2007). Construal Level Theory as an Integrative Framework for Behavioural Decision-Making
Research and Consumer Psychology. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 101-106.
Fujita, K., Henderson, M. D., Eng, J., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2006). Spatial Distance and Mental
Construal of Social Events. Association for Psychological Science, 278-282.
Hernandez, J. M., Wright, S. A., & Rodrigues, F. F. (2015). Attributes Versus Benefits: The Role of
Construal Levels and Appeal Type on the Persuasiveness of Marketing Messages. Journal of
Advertising, 243-253.
Kim, H., Rao, A., & Lee, Y. A. (2008). It’S Time to Vote: Fit Between Construal Level and Temporal
Distance on Political Persuasion. Association for Consumer Research, 173-175.
Lamm, H., Trommsdorff, G., & Rost-Schaude, E. (1972). Self-image, perception of peers' risk acceptance
and risky shift. European Journal of Social Psychology, 255-272.
Li, X., Yuan, D., Fan, Y., Yan, C., & Gao, L. (2019). Effect of Motion Perception on Intertemporal Choice is
Associated with the Altered Time Perception. Psychological Reports, 117-134.
Liberman, N., & Förster, J. (2009). Distancing from Experienced Self: How Global-versus-Local Perception
Affects Estimation of Psychological Distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 203216.
Read, D. (2007). Time and Marketplace. Marketing Theory, 59-74.
Soman, D., Ainslie, G., Frederick, S., Li, X., Lynch, J., Moreau, P., . . . Zauberman, G. (2005). The
Psychology of Intertemporal Discounting: Why are Distant Events Valued Differently From
Proximal Ones? Marketing Letters, 347-360.
Stephan, E., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2011). The effects of time perspective and level of construal on
social distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 397-402.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2000). Temporal Construal and Time-Dependent Changes in Preference.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 876-879.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal Construal. Psychological Review, 403-421.
20

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance. Psychological
Review, 440-463.
Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal Level Theory and Consumer Behavior. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 113-117.
Wertenbroch, K. (1998). Consumption Self Control via Purchase Quantity Rationing of Virtue and Vice.
Marketing Science, 317-337.

21

Appendix A (Scenario for Experiment 1)
Imagine that you (a fellow student) are (is) suffering from a respiratory disorder. The symptoms
include: difficulty in breathing, coughing, and irritable throat. After seeing a physician, they have
recommended one of the following medications to you (him):
Medicine A
- 1 day usage to provide fast relief
- 55% probability of symptoms recurring in 90 days
Medicine B
- 4-day usage to provide slow relief
- 30% probability of symptoms recurring in 90 days

1. How likely are you to choose (recommend that your fellow student choose) Medicine A?
2. How likely are you to choose (recommend that your fellow student choose) Medicine B?
3. How attractive is Medicine A to you (how attractive do you think Medicine A is to your
fellow student)?
4. How attractive is Medicine B to you (how attractive do you think Medicine B is to your
fellow student)?

22

Appendix B (Scenario for Experiment 2)
Imagine that an acquaintance of yours (you) would like to replace their (your) pillow and purchase a
new one in one year, to improve their (your) overall sleep quality. They (you) have come to find two
options which they (you) believe would best suit their (your) needs. Each pillow uses different
technology and offers unique features. The descriptions of each pillow are as follows (all else being
equal - e.g., they have comparable prices):
Pillow A
- The pillow utilizes plush memory foam technology. It provides immediate and significant
improvement in sleep quality by conforming to the shape of your head and neck from the first day of
usage;
- The pillow begins to lose its original support and contour over the period of 2 years of usage, after
which a replacement would be desirable.
Pillow B
- The pillow utilizes bamboo gel technology. It takes about 50 days of usage for the pillow to
conform to the shape of your head and neck. At that time, you will experience significant
improvement in sleep quality;
- The pillow largely maintains its original support and contour over the period of 2 years of usage,
after which it will continue to be in satisfactory condition

1.
2.
3.
4.

23

How likely are you to recommend (are you) that your acquaintance choose Pillow A?
How likely are you to recommend (are you) that your acquaintance choose Pillow B?
How attractive do you think Pillow A is to your acquaintance (to you)?
How attractive do you think Pillow B is to your acquaintance (to you)?

Appendix C (Scenario for Experiment 3A)
Imagine that an acquaintance of yours (you) has just won the lottery. She (you) has decided
that she will donate a significant portion of the money to charity. After doing some research, she
(you) has found two charities that she may want to donate to. The descriptions of the charities are
as follows (all else being equal):
Charity A:
- Her (Your) donation will provide food and basic necessities (tooth brush, shampoo, and 2
canned food items) to 100 people within her home country;
- Her (Your) donation may impact the lives of people she knows within her home country.
Charity B:
- Her (Your) donation will provide food and basic necessities (tooth brush, shampoo, and 2
canned food items) to 100 people in a foreign country;
- Her (Your) donation will impact the lives of people she may not know within a foreign country.
1.
2.
3.
4.

24

How likely are you to recommend (are you) that your acquaintance donate to Charity A?
How likely are you to recommend (are you) that your acquaintance donate to Charity B?
How attractive do you think Charity A is to your acquaintance (to you)?
How attractive do you think Charity B is to your acquaintance (to you)?

Appendix D (Scenario for Experiment 3B)
Imagine that you (a co-worker) have been selected to attend a conference with your (their) fellow
coworkers. You have (he has) been given the option to attend either conference listed below.
Your (his) employer will provide transportation to either conference. Each conference will allow
you (him) to network and develop interpersonal skills with other members of the company you
(he) work for. The two conferences include the following (all else being equal):
Conference A
- Will provide you (him) with professional development workshops (time management and
financial advising)
- Located in a city 3 hours away
Conference B
- Will not provide you (him) with professional development workshops (time management and
financial advising)
- Located in your (his) local city
1.
2.
3.
4.

25

How likely are you to recommend (are you) that your co-worker attend Conference A?
How likely are you to recommend (are you) that your co-worker attend Conference B?
How attractive do you think Conference A is to your co-worker (to you)?
How attractive do you think Conference B is to your co-worker (to you)?

Appendix E (UNBC Research Ethics Board Approval)

Our research project and amendments (for online questionnaire administration on Amazon
Mturk) were approved by the University of Northern British Columbia’s Research Ethics Board.
The approval number is E2018.0326.024.00(a). Below is a copy of the Research Ethics Board
Application:

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42