Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
Previous article
Next article
Original Article

Psychological Distance Cues in Online Messages

Interrelatedness of Probability and Spatial Distance

Published Online:October 18, 2017https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000229

Abstract

Abstract. Growing evidence reveals that people rely on heuristic cues when processing online information. The current research, by adopting a construal level theory approach, examined whether psychological distance cues within online messages influence message processing. According to construal level theory, spatial and hypothetical distances (i.e., probabilities, likelihoods) share an association based on psychological distance. Construal level literature suggests that people overgeneralize this association and attribute unlikely events to distant places and likely events to close-by places. The current research provides a novel test of this relationship in an online communication setting. In two within-subjects experiments (Studies 1 and 2), we presented participants tweets depicting likely and unlikely events, and measured whether they attribute them to spatially close or far sources. Confirming our predictions, participants utilized the psychological distance cues and attributed the likely tweets to spatially close and the unlikely tweets to spatially far sources. In two follow-up experiments, we tested the same relationship by employing between-subjects designs. In Study 3 where participants saw one spatial distance and both likely and unlikely tweets, participants formed the same association albeit less strongly and attributed the unlikely tweets to spatially distant sources. In Study 4, where participants saw two spatial distances and only one tweet, the expected association was not formed. Findings suggest that comparison of likelihood information is necessary to form an association between source location and tweet likelihood. The implications of psychological distance and a construal level theory approach are discussed in the context of online heuristics and persuasion.

References

  • Alter, A. L. & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). Effects of fluency on psychological distance and mental construal (or why New York is a large city, but New York is a civilized jungle). Psychological Science, 19(2), 161–167. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02062.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Alter, A. L. & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 219–235. doi: 10.1177/1088868309341564 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Backstrom, L., Sun, E. & Marlow, C. (2010). Find me if you can: Improving geographical prediction with social and spatial proximity. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, Raleigh, NC, USA. New York, NY: ACM, 61–70. doi: 10.1145/1772690.1772698 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bar-Anan, Y., Liberman, N. & Trope, Y. (2006). The association between psychological distance and construal level: Evidence from an Implicit Association Test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(4), 609–622. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.135.4.609 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bar-Anan, Y., Liberman, N., Trope, Y. & Algom, D. (2007). Automatic processing of psychological distance: evidence from a Stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 610. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.610 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T. & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. doi: 10.1177/1745691610393980 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cumiskey, K. M. (2011). Mobile symbiosis: A precursor to public risk-taking behavior?. In R. LingS. W. CampbellEds., Mobile communication: Bringing us together and tearing us apart (pp. 17–36). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Danielson, D. R. (2006). Web credibility. In C. GhaouiEd., Encyclopedia of human computer interaction (pp. 713–721). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • de Bruijn, G. J. & Budding, J. (2016). Temporal consequences, message framing, and consideration of future consequences: Persuasion effects on adult fruit intake intention and resolve. Journal of Health Communication, 21(8), 944–953. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2016.1179366 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ellithorpe, M. E., Brookes, S. E. & Ewoldsen, D. R. (2016). So close and yet so far: Construal level moderates cultivation effects. Media Psychology, 19(1), 27–48. doi: 10.1080/15213269.2015.1040126 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Eysenbach, G. (2008). Credibility of health information and digital media: New perspectives and implications for youth. In M. J. MetzgerA. J. FlanaginEds., Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 123–154). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. doi: 10.1162/dmal.9780262562324.123 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Kuss, O. & Sa, E. R. (2002). Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: A systematic review. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(20), 2691–2700. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.20.2691 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Flanagin, A. J. & Metzger, M. J. (2001). Internet use in the contemporary media environment. Human Communication Research, 27(1), 153–181. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2001.tb00779.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Flanagin, A. J. & Metzger, M. J. (2008). Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility. In M. J. MetzgerA. J. FlanaginEds., Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 5–28). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Foster, M. I. & Keane, M. T. (2015). Why some surprises are more surprising than others: Surprise as a metacognitive sense of explanatory difficulty. Cognitive Psychology, 81, 74–116. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.08.004 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Fox, S. & Rainie, L. (2002). Vital decisions. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media//Files/Reports/2002/PIP_Vital_Decisions_May2002.pdf.pdf First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Gigerenzer, G. & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451–482. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Guadagno, R. E., Muscanell, N. L., Rice, L. M. & Roberts, N. (2013). Social influence online: The impact of social validation and likability on compliance. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2(1), 51. doi: 10.1037/a0030592 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hansen, J. & Wänke, M. (2010). Truth from language and truth from fit: The impact of linguistic concreteness and level of construal on subjective truth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(11), 1576–1588. doi: 10.1177/0146167210386238 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hilligoss, B. & Rieh, S. Y. (2008). Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment: Construct, heuristics, and interaction in context. Information Processing & Management, 44(4), 1467–1484. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2007.10.001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Holden, C. J., Dennie, T. & Hicks, A. D. (2013). Assessing the reliability of the M5-120 on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1749–1754. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.020 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Honey, C. & Herring, S. C. (2009). Beyond microblogging: Conversation and collaboration via Twitter. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-09). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press, 1–10. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2009.89 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Horrigan, J. A. (2008). Online shopping. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media//Files/Reports/2008/PIP_Online%20Shopping.pdf First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T. & Tseng, B. (2009). Why we twitter: An analysis of a microblogging community. In H. ZhangM. SpiliopoulouB. MobasherC. L. GilesA. McCallumO. NasraouiJ. SrivastavaJ. YenEds., Advances in web mining and web usage analysis (pp. 118–138). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Kahneman, D. & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93(2), 136. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.136 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kaltenbrunner, A., Scellato, S., Volkovich, Y., Laniado, D., Currie, D., Jutemar, E. J. & Mascolo, C. (2012). Far from the eyes, close on the web: impact of geographic distance on online social interactions. Proceedings of the 2012 ACM workshop on online social networks. New York, NY: ACM, 19–24. doi: 10.1145/2342549.2342555 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kata, A. (2010). A postmodern Pandora’s box: Anti-vaccination misinformation on the Internet. Vaccine, 28(7), 1709–1716. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.12.022 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Katz, S. J. & Byrne, S. (2013). Construal level theory of mobile persuasion. Media Psychology, 16(3), 245–271. doi: 10.1080/15213269.2013.798853 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kim, D. H., Sung, Y. H., Lee, S. Y., Choi, D. & Sung, Y. (2016). Are you on Timeline or News Feed? The roles of Facebook pages and construal level in increasing ad effectiveness. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 312–320. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.031 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kim, H., Rao, A. R. & Lee, A. Y. (2009). It’s time to vote: The effect of matching message orientation and temporal frame on political persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 877–889. doi: 10.1086/593700 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York, NY: Basic books. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Lee, A. R. (2017). Psychological proximity to issues of the elderly: The role of age-morphing technology in campaigns for the elderly. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 311–323. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.046 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Liberman, N. & Trope, Y. (2008). The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 322(5905), 1201–1205. doi: 10.1126/science.1161958 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Liberman, N., Trope, Y. & Stephan, E. (2007). Psychological distance. In A. W. KruglanskiE. T. HigginsEds., Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 353–383). New York, NY: Guilford Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Lim, S., Cha, S. Y., Park, C., Lee, I. & Kim, J. (2012). Getting closer and experiencing together: Antecedents and consequences of psychological distance in social media-enhanced real-time streaming video. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1365–1378. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.02.022 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Lutchyn, Y. & Yzer, M. (2011). Construal level theory and theory of planned behavior: Time frame effects on salient belief generation. Journal of Health Communication, 16(6), 595–606. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2011.551991 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Maguire, R., Maguire, P. & Keane, M. T. (2011). Making sense of surprise: an investigation of the factors influencing surprise judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(1), 176. doi: 10.1037/a0021609 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Metzger, M. J. & Flanagin, A. J. (2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 210–220. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.012 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J. & Medders, R. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 413–439. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J. & Zwarun, L. (2003). College student Web use, perceptions of information credibility, and verification behavior. Computers & Education, 41(3), 271–290. doi: 10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00049-6 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Nan, X. (2007). Social distance, framing, and judgment: A construal level perspective. Human Communication Research, 33(4), 489–514. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00309.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Norman, E., Tjomsland, H. E. & Huegel, D. (2016). The distance between us: Using construal level theory to understand interpersonal distance in a digital age. Frontiers in Digital Humanities, 3, 5. doi: 10.3389/fdigh.2016.00005 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Pashler, H. & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2012). Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 528–530. doi: 10.1177/1745691612465253 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Purcell, K., Brenner, J. & Rainie, L. (2012). Search engine use 2012. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media/Files/Reports/2012/PIP_Search_Engine_Use_2012.pdf First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Reber, R. & Schwarz, N. (1999). Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition, 8, 338–342. doi: 10.1006/ccog.1999.0386 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Reisenzein, R. (2000). Exploring the strength of association between the components of emotion syndromes: The case of surprise. Cognition & Emotion, 14(1), 1–38. doi: 10.1080/026999300378978 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Soderberg, C. K., Callahan, S. P., Kochersberger, A. O., Amit, E. & Ledgerwood, A. (2014). The effects of psychological distance on abstraction: Two meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/bul0000005 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Stephan, E., Liberman, N. & Trope, Y. (2010). Politeness and psychological distance: A construal level perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 268. doi: 10.1037/a0016960 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 18, 643–662. doi: 10.1037/h0054651 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sundar, S. S. (2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In M. J. MetzgerA. J. FlanaginEds., Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 73–100). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Sundar, S. S., Knobloch‐Westerwick, S. & Hastall, M. R. (2007). News cues: Information scent and cognitive heuristics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(3), 366–378. doi: 10.1002/asi.20511 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sungur, H., Hartmann, T. & van Koningsbruggen, G. M. (2016). Abstract mindsets increase believability of spatially distant online news. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1056. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01056 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Topolinski, S. & Strack, F. (2009). The architecture of intuition: Fluency and affect determine intuitive judgments of semantic and visual coherence, and of grammaticality in artificial grammar learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(1), 39–63. doi: 10.1037/a0014678 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Trope, Y. & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.403 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Trope, Y. & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463. doi: 10.1037/a0018963 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1975). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. In D. WendtC. VlekEds., Utility, probability, and human decision making (pp. 141–162). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Wakslak, C. J. (2012). The where and when of likely and unlikely events. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 150–157. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp. 2011.10.004 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wright, S., Manolis, C., Brown, D., Guo, X., Dinsmore, J., Chiu, C. Y. P. & Kardes, F. R. (2012). Construal-level mind-sets and the perceived validity of marketing claims. Marketing Letters, 23(1), 1–9. doi: 10.1007/s11002-011-9151-4 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Zhao, M. & Xie, J. (2011). Effects of social and temporal distance on consumers’ responses to peer recommendations. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 486–496. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.48.3.486 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Zubiaga, A. & Ji, H. (2014). Tweet, but verify: Epistemic study of information verification on Twitter. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 4(1), 1–12. doi: 10.1007/s13278-014-0163 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar