Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T17:53:56.232Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Abstract Construal Level and its Link to Self-Control and to Cross-Situational Consistency in Self-Concept: Predicting Health-Risk Behavioral Intentions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2018

Itziar Fernández ,
Amparo Caballero ,
Dolores Muñoz ,
Pilar Aguilar  and
Pilar Carrera
Itziar Fernández
Affiliation:
Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (Spain)
Amparo Caballero*
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain)
Dolores Muñoz
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain)
Pilar Aguilar
Affiliation:
Universidad Loyola Andalucía (Spain)
Pilar Carrera
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Amparo Caballero, Departamento de Psicología Social y de Metodología de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Calle Iván Pavlov, 6. 28049 Madrid (Spain). E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

From a dispositional perspective, we extend the action identification theory (Vallacher & Wegner, 1987) and construal level theory (Trope & Liberman, 2003) to cross-situational consistency of self and self-control. Two studies examined the relationships among the abstract mindset (Vallacher & Wegner, 1989), cross-situational consistency in self-concept (Vignoles et al., 2016), and self-control (Tangney, Baumeister, and Boone 2004). In Study 1, participants (N = 725) characterized by high cross-situational consistency showed more abstraction in their thinking (p < .001, ηp2 = .17). In Study 2 (N = 244) cross-situational consistency and self-control explained 10% of construal level, with self-control being a significant predictor (p < .001). Construal level and cross-situational consistency explained 17% of self-control; both were significant predictors (p < .001). Self-control explained 8% of cross-situational consistency (p < .001). Study 2 showed that participants with higher levels of abstraction, cross-situational consistency, and self-control reported a greater intention to control their future sugar intake (p < .001). Data supported relationships among abstract construal level, cross-situational consistency and self-control.

Keywords

abstract construal levelcontrol sugar intakecross-situational consistencyself-control
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 21 , 2018 , E47
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, PSI 2014–53321–P

References

Carrera, P., Caballero, A., Fernández, I., & Muñoz, D. (2017). Abstractness leads people to base their behavioral intentions on desired attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 27–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.12.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrera, P., Caballero, A., Muñoz, D., González-Iraizoz, M., & Fernández, I. (2014). Construal level as a moderator of the role of affective and cognitive attitudes in the prediction of health risk behavioural intentions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53, 773–791, https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12058CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carrera, P., Muñoz, D., Caballero, A., Fernández, I., & Albarracín, D. (2012). The present projects past behavior into the future while the past projects attitudes into the future: How verb tense moderates predictors of drinking intentions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1196–1200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.04.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cross, S. E., Hardin, E. E., & Gercek-Swing, B. (2011). The what, how, why, and where of self-construal. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 142 –179. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310373752CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eyal, T., Sagristano, M. D., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Chaiken, S. (2009). When values matter: Expressing values in behavioral intentions for the near vs. distant future. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.07.023CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernández, I., Carrera, P., Páez, D., & Sánchez, F. (2008). Interdependent self-construal, competitive attitudes, culture and emotional reactions on sadness. Psychologia, 51, 214–234. https://doi.org/10.2117/psysoc.2008.214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández, I., Carrera, P., Páez, D., Alonso-Arbiol, I., Campos, M., & Basabe, N. (2014). Prototypical anger components: A multilevel study. Cross-Cultural Research, 48, 400–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397114523932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández, I., Páez, D., & González, J. L. (2005). Independent and interdependent self-construals and socio-cultural factors in 29 nations. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale. International Review of Social Psychology, 18, 35–63.Google Scholar
Freitas, A. L., Salovey, P., & Liberman, N. (2001). Abstract and concrete self-evaluative goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 410–412. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.410CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fujita, K. (2008). Seeing the forest beyond the trees: A construal level approach to self-control. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1475–1496. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00118.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujita, K., & Carnevale, J. J. (2012). Transcending temptation through abstraction: The role of construal level in self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 248–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412449169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujita, K., Eyal, T., Chaiken, S., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2008). Influencing attitudes toward near and distant objects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 562–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.10.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujita, K., & Han, H. A. (2009). Moving beyond deliberative control of impulses: The effect of construal levels on evaluative associations in self-control conflicts. Psychological Science, 20, 799–804. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02372.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 220–266). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal distance on level of construal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magen, E., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Harnessing the need for immediate gratification: Cognitive reconstrual moderates the reward value of temptations. Emotion, 7, 415–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maloney, P. W., Grawitch, M. J., & Barber, L. K. (2012). The multi-factor structure of the Brief Self-Control scale: Discriminant validity of restraint and impulsivity. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 111–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.10.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 420–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610375557CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nussbaum, S., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Creeping dispositionism: The temporal dynamics of behavior prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 485–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.485CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Owe, E., Vignoles, V. L., Becker, M., Brown, R., Smith, P. B., Lee, S. W. S. … Jalal, B. (2014, July). Deconstructing “independence vs. interdependence”: A multidimensional approach to cultural models of selfhood. Paper presented at the 17th EASP General Meeting. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Smith, P. K., & Trope, Y. (2006). You focus on the forest when you are in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 578–596. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.578CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spassova, G., & Lee, A. Y. (2013). Looking into the future: A match between self-view and temporal distance. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1086/669145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110, 403–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.403CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do people think they’re doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.1.3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 660–671. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Boven, L., Kamada, A., & Gilovich, T. (1999). The perceiver as perceived: Everyday intuitions about the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77, 1188–1199. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vignoles, V. L., Owe, E., Becker, M., Smith, P. B., Easterbrook, M. J., Brown, R., … Bond, M. H. (2016). Beyond the “East-West” dichotomy: Global variation in cultural models of selfhood. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 966–1000. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000175CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watkins, E., Moberly, N. J., & Moulds, M. L. (2008). Processing mode causally influences emotional reactivity: Distinct effects of abstract versus concrete construal on emotion response. Emotion, 8, 364–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.8.3.364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wegner, D. M., Vallacher, R. R., Kiersted, G. W., & Dizadji, D. M. (1986). Action identification in the emergence of social behavior. Social Cognition, 4, 18–38. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1986.4.1.18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisz, J. R., Rothbaum, F. M., & Blackburn, T. C. (1984). Standing out and standing in: The psychology of control in American and Japan. American Psychologist, 39, 955–969. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.9.955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, K., MacDonnell, R., & Dahl, D. W. (2011). It´s the mindset that matters: The role of construal level and message framing in influencing consumer efficacy and conservation behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 472–485. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.3.472CrossRefGoogle Scholar