This document summarizes 5 studies that provide evidence for construal level theory, which predicts that psychologically distant events are represented in a more abstract manner. The studies show that people perceive unlikely events as more likely to occur in distant contexts and locations compared to close contexts. They also found that people prefer to bet on unlikely outcomes if the event is farther away and represent those outcomes more abstractly. The results provide support for construal level theory and the idea that psychological distance is conceptualized as physical distance.

1. C H E R Y L J . W A K S L A K
The where and when of likely
and unlikely events

2. Construal-Level Theory
 An event is psychologically distant:
 1. Not part of one’s direct experience
 2. Past or Future rather than present
 3. Distant rather than near locations
 4. Occur to other people rather than to oneself.
 5. Likelihood of something occurring

3. Probability-as-Distance Conceptualization
 As an event grows increasingly unlikely, people tend
to represent it in a more abstract way.
 Lower likelihood= more distant= more abstract

4. Study 1: east coast/west coast cats
 2x2 Within-Subjects design, 28 Participants
 IV’s:
 Protein in cat blood (one common= 85%, one uncommon= 15%)
 Location of the cat (east coast-close/west coast- distant)
 DV: opinion about which cat would have which protein
 Results: 71% said close friend’s cat would have common
and far away friend’s cat would have uncommon

5. Study 2: poker night
 Within-Subjects design, 39 Participants
 IV: 10 rounds of poker with one common hand and
one uncommon hand occurring
 DV: which round did each occur in?
 Results: 67.57% indicated that uncommon would
occur AFTER the common

6. Results of Study 2

7. Study 3: I’ll bet on that!
 2x2 Between-Subjects Design, 51 Participants
 IV’s:
 Two boxers: an underdog (1/20 chance of winning) and a favorite
(19/20 change of winning),
 Distance: Close (3 miles away), Distant (3,000 miles away)
 DV: Had $100 to bet, split money
 Results: Placed more money on underdog when fight
occurred in distant location

8. Study 4: to insure or not to insure
 2x2 Between-Subject Design, 52 Participants
 IV’s:
 Sam is considering renter’s insurance either tomorrow or in a year
 Either a large percentage of people or a small percentage collect
money on it
 DV’s:
 Likelihood Judgment: Estimate percentage Sam would experience an
event insurance would cover
 Purchase Recommendation: Should Sam purchase insurance? (1:
definitely no-7: definitely yes, scale)

9. Study 4 Results

10. Study 5: spatial distance effects across outcomes
differing in valence
 2x3 Between-Subjects Design, 72 Participants
 IV’s:
 Chance of drawing an ace (4 available) in a 52 card deck on East (distant)vs. West
coast (near)
 Positive (win $2), Negative (lose $2), or Neutral (no money at stake) conditions
 DV’s
 Expectations of unlikely event happening (1-9 scale)
 Betting preference (1-9 scale, where 9= more likely to bet on event)
 Results: unlikely event more likely to occur in distal context and no
main effect of outcome valence

11. Study 5: Results

12. Possible Extensions
 How does personality affect these outcomes?
 Health/ Genetic Counseling
 Small town probability vs. NYC. Does it matter?
 If given a non-exact distance or a between distance?
 Slot machine paradigm
 Lotteries
 Likelihood of sex of babies
 Getting car towed
 Flights delayed