Affect in the abstract: Abstract mindsets promote sensitivity to affect

Critcher, Clayton R.; Ferguson, Melissa J.

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.04.014

Cited by 30 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The affective terms used in attitudinal scales allow participants to evaluate the affective components of attitudes, but such use does not mean that these same labels might not be used to describe actually experienced concrete emotions if employed in tasks not involving mere evaluation. This difference is supported by previous research that distinguishes between abstract affects and concrete affects (see Bülbül & Menon, ), or that which differentiates between abstract appraisals based on the desirability of an action and vivid emotional experience resulting from being faced with a real stimulus (Critcher & Ferguson, ). Taking into account the fact that affects can be abstract or concrete helps us to explain some contradictions, such as why thinking in an abstract way about moral behaviours sometimes leads to more extreme affective‐moral judgements (e.g., Agerström & Björklund, ; Liberman & Trope, ), whereas on other occasions we find such extreme judgements in concrete conditions (e.g., Gong & Medin, ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

“…When people fill out affective attitudinal scales, they do not need to experience concrete emotions as if they were faced with the stimulus in a real situation. This difference helps to explain apparent contradictions in CLT: Abstract affects would be involved when affects drive intentions in a more long-term perspective (e.g., B€ ulb€ ul & Menon, 2010) and when people are more sensitive to affective information in abstract mindsets (e.g., Critcher & Ferguson, 2011); but concrete affects should be considered when people interact directly with emotional stimuli (see Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999;Van Boven, Kane, McGraw, & Dale, 2010). Thus, affects would be abstract construals when people focus on their evaluative value, such as when they are used to measure attitudes; on the other hand, they could be considered concrete construals when they are used to describe actual phenomenological experiences.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Construal level as a moderator of the role of affective and cognitive attitudes in the prediction of health‐risk behavioural intentions

Carrera

Caballero

Muñoz

et al. 2014

British J Social Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Esta es la versión de autor del artículo publicado en: This is an author produced version of a paper published in: El acceso a la versión del editor puede requerir la suscripción del recurso Access to the published version may require subscription Construal level as a moderator of the role of affective and cognitive attitudes in the prediction of health-risk behavioral intentions.Many cases of health-promoting and health-risk behaviors present intercomponent ambivalence, a kind of "heart vs. mind conflict" which reduces the predictive power of psychological models such as the Theory of Planned Behavior (Conner & Sparks, 2002). Conner, Povey, Sparks, James and Shepherd (1998) studied 12 health-risk behaviors very common in young people, and found drinking alcohol (the most ambivalent), sleeping 7-8 hours per night and exercising as good examples of behaviors in which there were ambivalent attitudes.In the case of health-risk behaviors, when there is high intercomponent attitudinal ambivalence (e.g., fun but unhealthy, or healthy but boring), affective attitudes are usually stronger predictors of intentions than cognitive attitudes (Lawton, Conner, & McEachan, 2009;Lawton, Conner, & Parker, 2007;Trafimow & Sheeran, 1998;Trafimow et al., 2004). The present research extends these findings to the domain of Construal Level Theory (CLT; Liberman, Trope, & Stephan, 2007;Trope & Liberman, 2003) by showing how the level at which people construe their future intentions influences which attitudinal component is used (affective or cognitive).According to CLT, individuals use more abstract mental models when they represent actions situated in the distant future (versus concrete mental models used to represent near-future events). Abstract or high-level construals are relatively simple and decontextualized representations focused on superordinate traits and relevant goals; at the opposite pole are situated concrete or low-level construals, contextualized and more detailed representations that include subordinate features. Liberman and Trope (1998) found that superordinate aspects like desirability are valued more when people make decisions about the distant future, whereas subordinate aspects such as feasibility are

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Construal level as a moderator of the role of affective and cognitive attitudes in the prediction of health‐risk behavioural intentions

Carrera

Caballero

Muñoz

et al. 2014

British J Social Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This causes consumers to experience more intense emotions than they had anticipated when they learn about, for instance, events that occurred in distant places (Ebert & Meyvis, ). Thus, as reflected in the mind and body, metaphor and affect do not unilaterally color judgments and decisions as a function of psychological distance (see also Critcher & Ferguson, ).…”

Section: Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological distance in consumer psychology: Consequences and antecedents

Maglio

2019

Consumer Psychology Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wherever consumers envision faraway locations, remember the past, predict the future, consider the perspective of others, or entertain remote possibilities, their minds extrapolate beyond what lies in front of them to something psychologically distant.Conjuring and considering that which is psychologically distant thus lies at the heart of how most people spend a substantial portion of their lives. As integrated here, seeing something as psychologically distant causes people to think about and act on it in systematically different ways than the same thing seen as psychologically close. Recent advances in these consequences suggest that the effects of psychological distance on consumer decision-making continue to grow increasingly nuanced.Consumer outcomes thus at times benefit from seeing things as near and, at other times, benefit from seeing things as far. Accordingly, this review thereafter summarizes the antecedents that lead people to see things as psychologically distant or psychologically close. It closes in considering how future considerations might expand the conceptualization and application of psychological distance. K E Y W O R D Sprobability, psychological distance, social distance, space, time

show abstract

“…Thus, the present study adapted CATLM to explore the effect of using YouTube to learn guitar skills. According to the attention-to-affect model (Critcher & Ferguson, 2011;Satpute, Shu, Weber, Roy, & Ochsner, 2013), learning is an emotional and cognitive experience (Frijda, 1986). In this cognitive experience, cognitive failure can cause absent-mindedness and failure of attention (Forster & Lavie, 2007;Tipper & Baylis, 1987).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%