stepping back while staying engaged: when facing an obstacle increases psychological distance

8
Stepping Back While Staying Engaged: When Facing an Obstacle Increases Psychological Distance Janina Marguc 1 , Gerben A. Van Kleef 1 , and Jens Fo ¨ rster 1 Abstract When do people respond to obstacles by mentally ‘‘stepping back’’ and taking a more distanced perspective? Manipulating obstacles to social goals, to personal goals, and in a computer game, three studies tested the hypothesis that people should increase psychological distance upon facing an obstacle primarily when distancing is relevant, that is, when the obstacle appears on their own path to a goal or when they are engaged and motivated to follow through with activities. As expected, participants who imagined a goal-relevant versus a goal-irrelevant obstacle indicated greater estimates for an unrelated spatial distance (Study 1). Moreover, chronically engaged participants provided smaller font size estimates after thinking about how to reach a personal goal with versus without an obstacle (Study 2), and participants primed with engagement indicated greater estimates for an unrelated spatial distance after navigating a maze with versus without an obstacle (Study 3). Implications for related research are discussed. Keywords obstacles, psychological distance, engagement, self-regulation When facing an obstacle during goal pursuit, people might do several things: They might disengage and attend to more attrac- tive things to do. If they stay engaged, they might try to ignore the obstacle, move on as if nothing happened, and run the risk of the obstacle firing back at them. They might also acknowl- edge the existence of the obstacle and focus on it so much that they loose sight of their goal. Or they might mentally step back, look at the situation from a more distanced perspective, and thereby hopefully understand how the obstacle relates to their goal, see potential ways around it, or think of rather unusual means to reach their goal. The current research deals with the last possibility, which to us seems the most promising of the above. Specifically, our research examines to what extent the well-known metaphor of ‘‘mentally stepping back’’ reflects a response that is common to dealing with obstacles. But what do we mean by obstacles? Just as the goals that people pursue can vary, the obstacles they might encounter can take different shapes (e.g., social, mental, physical) and may appear in diverse settings (e.g., work, private, clinical). There- fore, we define obstacles by what they all have in common: They constitute interfering forces (Higgins, 2006) that impede the standard course of action and thus require people to figure out how they might achieve their goal despite the obstacle (Marguc, Fo ¨rster, & Van Kleef, in press). The notion that mentally stepping back might be useful for dealing with obstacles can be traced back to Lewin (1935). He theorized that to overcome a barrier standing in the way of a desired object, people need to perceive the entire problem situation so that the ‘‘path to the goal becomes a unitary whole’’ (p. 83). In addition, he proposed that adopting an overall per- spective on a problem situation should be easier to the extent that people can psychologically distance themselves from the situation at hand and detach from the directional pull of the goal without disengaging altogether. In other words, when peo- ple try to overcome an obstacle, adopting a more encompassing perspective might go hand in hand with greater psychological distance, a variable that has gained considerable interest in social psychology (Liberman & Trope, 1998; for reviews, see Liberman & Trope, 2008; Liberman, Trope, & Stephan, 2007; Trope & Liberman, 2010) and has been defined as ‘‘a subjective experience that something is close or far away from the self, here, and now’’ (Trope & Liberman, 2010, p. 440). Numerous antecedents of increasing versus decreasing psychological distance have been identified, including, for example, global versus local perception (Liberman & Fo ¨rster, 2009a), abstract versus concrete construal levels (Liberman, 1 Department of Social Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands Corresponding Author: Janina Marguc, Department of Social Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Weesperplein 4, 1018 XA Amsterdam, The Netherlands Email: [email protected] Social Psychological and Personality Science 3(3) 379-386 ª The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1948550611423842 http://spps.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on December 18, 2014 spp.sagepub.com Downloaded from

Upload: j

Post on 12-Apr-2017

214 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Stepping Back While Staying Engaged: When Facing an Obstacle Increases Psychological Distance

Stepping Back While Staying Engaged:When Facing an Obstacle IncreasesPsychological Distance

Janina Marguc1, Gerben A. Van Kleef1, and Jens Forster1

AbstractWhen do people respond to obstacles by mentally ‘‘stepping back’’ and taking a more distanced perspective? Manipulatingobstacles to social goals, to personal goals, and in a computer game, three studies tested the hypothesis that people shouldincrease psychological distance upon facing an obstacle primarily when distancing is relevant, that is, when the obstacleappears on their own path to a goal or when they are engaged and motivated to follow through with activities. As expected,participants who imagined a goal-relevant versus a goal-irrelevant obstacle indicated greater estimates for an unrelated spatialdistance (Study 1). Moreover, chronically engaged participants provided smaller font size estimates after thinking about howto reach a personal goal with versus without an obstacle (Study 2), and participants primed with engagement indicated greaterestimates for an unrelated spatial distance after navigating a maze with versus without an obstacle (Study 3). Implications forrelated research are discussed.

Keywordsobstacles, psychological distance, engagement, self-regulation

When facing an obstacle during goal pursuit, people might do

several things: They might disengage and attend to more attrac-

tive things to do. If they stay engaged, they might try to ignore

the obstacle, move on as if nothing happened, and run the risk

of the obstacle firing back at them. They might also acknowl-

edge the existence of the obstacle and focus on it so much that

they loose sight of their goal. Or they might mentally step back,

look at the situation from a more distanced perspective, and

thereby hopefully understand how the obstacle relates to their

goal, see potential ways around it, or think of rather unusual

means to reach their goal. The current research deals with

the last possibility, which to us seems the most promising of the

above. Specifically, our research examines to what extent the

well-known metaphor of ‘‘mentally stepping back’’ reflects a

response that is common to dealing with obstacles.

But what do we mean by obstacles? Just as the goals that

people pursue can vary, the obstacles they might encounter can

take different shapes (e.g., social, mental, physical) and may

appear in diverse settings (e.g., work, private, clinical). There-

fore, we define obstacles by what they all have in common:

They constitute interfering forces (Higgins, 2006) that impede

the standard course of action and thus require people to figure

out how they might achieve their goal despite the obstacle

(Marguc, Forster, & Van Kleef, in press).

The notion that mentally stepping back might be useful for

dealing with obstacles can be traced back to Lewin (1935). He

theorized that to overcome a barrier standing in the way of a

desired object, people need to perceive the entire problem

situation so that the ‘‘path to the goal becomes a unitary whole’’

(p. 83). In addition, he proposed that adopting an overall per-

spective on a problem situation should be easier to the extent

that people can psychologically distance themselves from the

situation at hand and detach from the directional pull of the

goal without disengaging altogether. In other words, when peo-

ple try to overcome an obstacle, adopting a more encompassing

perspective might go hand in hand with greater psychological

distance, a variable that has gained considerable interest in

social psychology (Liberman & Trope, 1998; for reviews, see

Liberman & Trope, 2008; Liberman, Trope, & Stephan,

2007; Trope & Liberman, 2010) and has been defined as ‘‘a

subjective experience that something is close or far away from

the self, here, and now’’ (Trope & Liberman, 2010, p. 440).

Numerous antecedents of increasing versus decreasing

psychological distance have been identified, including, for

example, global versus local perception (Liberman & Forster,

2009a), abstract versus concrete construal levels (Liberman,

1 Department of Social Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam,

Netherlands

Corresponding Author:

Janina Marguc, Department of Social Psychology, University of Amsterdam,

Weesperplein 4, 1018 XA Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Email: [email protected]

Social Psychological andPersonality Science3(3) 379-386ª The Author(s) 2012Reprints and permission:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1948550611423842http://spps.sagepub.com

at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on December 18, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 2: Stepping Back While Staying Engaged: When Facing an Obstacle Increases Psychological Distance

Trope, & Sherman, 2007; Bar-Anan, Liberman, & Trope,

2006), high versus low power (e.g., Hogg, 2001; Hogg &

Reid, 2001), fluency versus disfluency (Alter &

Oppenheimer, 2008), anticipated effort (Proffitt, Stefanucci,

Bandon, & Epstein, 2003; Stefanucci, Proffitt, Banton, &

Epstein, 2005), or stereotypes (Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne,

& Jetten, 1994). Psychological distance is also associated

with various outcomes that could be useful for dealing with

obstacles. For instance, greater distance was shown to

decrease emotional involvement (Williams & Bargh, 2008),

enhance creative thinking (Forster, Friedman, & Liberman,

2004; Jia, Hirt, & Karpen, 2009), promote integrative

agreements among negotiators (Henderson, 2011; Henderson,

Trope, & Carnevale, 2006), and align people’s behavioral

intentions with their values rather than with feasibility

concerns (Eyal, Sagristano, Trope, Liberman, & Chaiken,

2009). This suggests that mentally stepping back, or increasing

psychological distance, might help people keep their higher-

order goals and values in mind without becoming too entangled

in their affective response to obstacles, obtaining better out-

comes when obstacles appear in the context of negotiations, or

discovering unforeseen ways around an obstacle.

Despite the prevalence of obstacles and the potential

benefits of responding to them by mentally stepping back, the

relationship between obstacles and psychological distance has

not been examined. Our research aims to close this gap by

investigating whether and when people respond to obstacles

by increasing psychological distance. Four dimensions of psy-

chological distance have been identified: spatial distance, tem-

poral distance, social distance, and hypotheticality. Because

the stepping back metaphor directly implies increasing the space

between oneself and another object and the spatial dimension

has been proposed to underlie other dimensions of psychological

distance (e.g., Boroditsky, 2000; Trope & Liberman, 2010), we

start by examining the impact of obstacles on spatial distance.

We propose that as people deal with obstacles throughout

their lives, they might implicitly learn that adopting a more dis-

tanced perspective can help them overcome obstacles to their

goals. Over time, they might develop an ‘‘if obstacle, then dis-

tance’’ routine that is stored in procedural memory (Tulving &

Schacter, 1990) and that can be triggered spontaneously (see

Liberman & Trope, 1998) whenever they are trying to over-

come an obstacle. Such procedural priming has been found

to carry over to completely unrelated tasks (Wyer, Shen, &

Xu, in press; see also Forster, Liberman, & Friedman, 2007);

therefore, obstacles might lead to a more general sense of

increased spatial distance between oneself and other objects.

To illustrate, experiencing an obstacle while writing a review

might result in perceiving greater distance between oneself and

the computer screen, or between oneself and another city.

A recent series of studies (Marguc et al., in press) revealed a

similar link between obstacles and global processing: Upon

facing an obstacle in one task, participants broadened their

perception and used more inclusive categories in subsequent,

unrelated tasks. However, these effects were mainly found

when participants’ engagement and motivation to follow

through with ongoing activities was high rather than low,

which suggests that a global processing response to obstacles

reflects attempts to solve a problem. Because global processing

and psychological distance are related (Liberman & Forster,

2009a; 2009b) and because mentally stepping back would seem

of little use when an obstacle is irrelevant to one’s current goal

pursuit or if one is not very engaged, we propose that obstacles

should increase psychological distance only when they appear

on one’s own path to a goal rather than on other people’s paths

to their goals and when engagement is high rather than low.

Overview

In Study 1, participants read a scenario in which an obstacle

occurred on their path to a social goal or on an irrelevant path.

Afterward, they estimated the distance between two Dutch cit-

ies, Amsterdam (i.e., their current location) and Roosendaal

(i.e., a location unrelated to the scenario). Study 2 examined the

role of chronic engagement and explored a new way of measur-

ing psychological distance based on the notion that faraway

objects tend to look smaller and on research showing that

goal-related motivational states influence size perception

(e.g., van Koningsbruggen, Stroebe, & Aarts, 2010; Veltkamp,

Aarts, & Custers, 2008). After specifying an important personal

goal, participants imagined how to reach their goal either with or

without an obstacle. Next, they estimated the font size of various

letters presented on the screen. We reasoned that smaller font

size estimates reflect greater psychological distance. In Study

3, participants were primed with high versus low engagement

and completed a computerized maze with or without an obstacle.

Subsequently, they estimated the distance between ‘‘here’’ and

central station. In all studies, we controlled for potential effects

of mood after the manipulation. We also asked how important

the goal was for participants (Study 1), how much they valued

it (Study 2), how motivated they were to reach it, and how con-

fident they were about reaching their goal (Studies 1 and 2). In

Study 3, we asked how difficult the maze task was for partici-

pants and how much they enjoyed it. Whereas enjoyment had

an effect that we will describe in more detail below, none of the

remaining measures influenced psychological distance when

controlled for as a covariate. Therefore, we will not address them

further. All participants were probed for suspicions, remuner-

ated, thanked, and debriefed.

Study 1Method

Participants

A total of 124 first-year students (mean age 29 years; 86

females) participated in this study. They received course

credit in return.

Materials and Procedure

After several unrelated tasks, this study was introduced as a

study on ‘‘Planning and Implementing Everyday Activities.’’

380 Social Psychological and Personality Science 3(3)

at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on December 18, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 3: Stepping Back While Staying Engaged: When Facing an Obstacle Increases Psychological Distance

Participants were asked to imagine, as vividly and realistically

as possible, one of several ostensibly randomly selected situa-

tions. They were encouraged to take all the time they needed

for this, as we would get back to it later. All participants read

that they were en route to the birthday party of their best friend

who lives in another city and whom they have not seen for a

while. To strengthen motivation, the scenario contained state-

ments such as ‘‘you would really like to take this opportunity

to see your friend’’ and ‘‘you have bought a nice present and

even baked your friend’s favorite chocolate cake.’’ Participants

in the obstacle (no-obstacle) condition further read about a

newscast interrupting the radio program and reporting that

due to heavy storms the road they were driving on (a road

elsewhere in the Netherlands) was blocked by a fallen tree.

Participants were asked to think of how they could get to their

friend’s birthday party despite the blockage (how they would

drive to their friend’s birthday party by car). In other words,

everybody was asked to think of concrete means for how they

might reach their goal.

After several control questions (i.e., mood, importance,

motivation, confidence), participants were introduced to an

ostensibly unrelated study and were asked to estimate the dis-

tance between Amsterdam (i.e., their current location) and

Roosendaal (i.e., a city not mentioned in the scenarios) in

kilometers. We borrowed this measure from Liberman and

Forster (2009a) who showed that global perception influences

spatial distance estimates with the self, here, now as a refer-

ence point. No suspicions regarding the purpose of the study

were expressed.

Results and Discussion

Some participants indicated rather extreme distances. There-

fore, values deviating 2 SD or more from the sample mean

(2.42%) were excluded prior to analyses. Because Levene’s

test suggested that equal variances cannot be assumed,

F(1, 119) ¼ 9.38, p ¼ .003, adjusted statistics are reported.

As expected, participants in the obstacle condition indicated

larger distance estimates (M ¼ 111.97, SD ¼ 69.90) than par-

ticipants in the no-obstacle condition (M¼ 89.90, SD¼ 49.35),

t(103.86)¼�2.00, p¼ .048. Because in both conditions a road

from A to B was ‘‘blocked by a fallen tree,’’ it is reasonable to

assume that the concept of obstacles was activated for all par-

ticipants. However, only in the obstacle condition participants

actually had to solve a problem. One may thus conclude that

distancing occurs only when people encounter an obstacle

they need to overcome rather than an obstacle other people

might need to overcome.

Indeed, the manipulation and the dependent measure in

Study 1 were rather similar in that both might involve mental

simulations of traversing a spatial distance between A (i.e.,

here) and B (i.e., somewhere else). Participants might thus have

misattributed a longer distance or increased effort (see Proffitt

et al., 2003; Stefanucci et al., 2005) involved in overcoming the

obstacle to an unrelated spatial distance. To address this issue,

participants in Study 2 were asked to imagine an important

personal goal and estimate the font size of single letters

presented on the screen. This dependent measure was only

indirectly related to spatial distance and therefore unlikely to

involve mental simulations of traversing a distance between

A and B. Moreover, because single letters are content-free, it

was completely unrelated to the manipulation and thus better

suited to show carryover effects from obstacles to unrelated

objects. We are not aware of any research showing carryover

effects of anticipated effort on the perceived size of objects that

are entirely unrelated to the manipulation.

The main aim of the next two studies was to examine the

moderating role of different variables related to engagement.

The first such variable is locomotion (Kruglanski et al., 2000),

a self-regulatory orientation in which people are concerned with

moving from state to state and committing the psychological

resources necessary to initiate and maintain goal-directed move-

ment in a straightforward manner. A person high in locomotion

can be characterized as task-oriented, attending to activities,

and persisting conscientiously until completion even in the

face of obstacles or setbacks—in other words, as highly

engaged. A person low in locomotion can be characterized

simply by a lesser amount of these attributes, as locomotion

is a unidimensional construct.

We predicted an Obstacle � Engagement interaction, such

that very engaged individuals should be more likely than less

engaged individuals to increase psychological distance upon

facing an obstacle. In Study 2, this should be evidenced in par-

ticipants high in locomotion being more likely than those low

in locomotion to indicate smaller font size estimates after fac-

ing an obstacle compared with not facing an obstacle.

Study 2Method

Participants

A total of 81 first-year students (mean age 21 years; 61

females) participated for course credit. Four participants who

noticed a link between the manipulation and the dependent

measure and two participants who failed to follow instructions

were excluded from the analyses.

Materials and Procedure

Several weeks before the main study, chronic locomotion was

measured using the regulatory mode questionnaire (Kruglanski

et al., 2000). Sample items are ‘‘Most of the time my thoughts

are occupied with the task that I wish to accomplish’’ or ‘‘When

I get started on something, I usually persevere until I finish.’’

The main study was introduced as ‘‘a study on personal

goals.’’ To ensure that participants understood what kind of

goals we meant, several examples were provided (e.g., ‘‘to suc-

ceed in my studies/work’’ or ‘‘to stop smoking’’). All partici-

pants specified their most important personal goal for the

next 6 months. Participants in the obstacle condition were then

asked to name the biggest possible obstacle that might interfere

Marguc et al 381

at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on December 18, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 4: Stepping Back While Staying Engaged: When Facing an Obstacle Increases Psychological Distance

with reaching their goal. These participants were instructed to

think about how they could reach their goal despite the obsta-

cle, that is, how they could overcome the obstacle they had just

described. Participants in the no-obstacle condition did not spe-

cify any obstacle, but were directly asked to think about how

they could reach their goal, that is, how they could get from

their present situation to the goal they wanted to achieve. As

in Study 1, we encouraged participants to take all the time they

needed for this.

After several control questions (i.e., mood, value, motiva-

tion, confidence), the dependent measure was introduced as a

test of ‘‘Detailed Estimation Skills.’’ Participants were pre-

sented with 20 different letters, each on a separate screen. Their

task was to estimate the font size of each letter. The mean of all

font size estimates was our measure of psychological distance.

Results and Discussion

We regressed font size estimates on the main effect of obstacle

(contrast coded: obstacle ¼ 1; no-obstacle ¼ �1), the main

effect of locomotion (mean-centered), and the Obstacle �Locomotion interaction. There were no main effects (all Fs <

1). However, as predicted, a significant Obstacle � Locomo-

tion interaction emerged, B ¼ �2.34, SE ¼ .91, t(74) ¼�2.57, p ¼ .01 (see Figure 1). To further inspect the nature

of this interaction and test our hypothesis that individuals high

in locomotion should be most likely to increase psychological

distance upon facing an obstacle, we examined regions of sig-

nificance using the Johnson-Neyman (J-N) technique (Bauer &

Curran, 2005; Johnson & Neyman, 1936). In contrast to the

more common pick-a-point approach, in which an arbitrary

point (e.g., 1 SD above and below the sample mean) is used

to test the effect of the focal variable at ‘‘high’’ versus ‘‘low’’

levels of a continuous variable, the J-N technique allows

researchers to avoid such arbitrariness and specify where on the

entire continuum of the moderator the effect of the focal vari-

able is significant (Aiken & West, 1991; Hayes & Matthes,

2009). More specifically, the J-N technique mathematically

derives points at which the effect of the focal variable transi-

tions between statistically significant and nonsignificant. In the

present study, these points were �.46 and .92 (noncentered

values: 3.49 and 4.87 on a scale from 1 to 6), meaning that for

participants scoring high on locomotion (above 4.87), font size

estimates were significantly smaller in the obstacle condition

compared with the control condition. By contrast, for partici-

pants with moderate scores on locomotion (between 3.49 and

4.87), font size estimates did not differ as a function of condi-

tion, and for participants scoring low on locomotion (below

3.49) font size estimates were bigger in the obstacle condition

compared with the control condition.1

Further qualifying Study 1, this study examined whether

chronic levels of engagement moderate the effect of obstacles

on psychological distance. Operationalizing engagement in

terms of locomotion (Kruglanski et al., 2000), we hypothesized

and found that psychological distance is most likely to increase

upon facing an obstacle when chronic engagement is high

rather than low. Moreover, because the obstacle manipulation

was content-wise and procedurally very different from the

dependent measure, misattributions that might have explained

results in Study 1 were unlikely to occur in Study 2.

In Study 3, we sought to replicate Study 2 with a validated

measure of psychological distance, that is, a variant of the dis-

tance estimate from Study 1 (see also Alter & Oppenheimer,

2008; Liberman & Forster, 2009a). We also examined another

variable related to engagement: Kuhl’s (1994) concept of vola-

tility. Individuals low in volatility (hereafter referred to as

engaged) are similar to those high in locomotion in that they are

not easily distracted and are inclined to follow through with

what they do. They are the ones for whom mentally stepping

back in response to obstacles should be most relevant. Individ-

uals high in volatility (hereafter referred to as volatile) are sim-

ilar to those low in locomotion in that they are not very engaged

in ongoing activities. However, whereas the latter are generally

not very concerned with movement, the former move quite a

lot: They tend to think about attractive alternatives while they

are still busy with something and disrupt ongoing activities

prematurely to start something new.

Examining volatility in addition to locomotion allows us to

rule out the possibility that a propensity toward movement or

action rather than engagement is driving our effects. Moreover,

because we did not measure chronic volatility, but used a

recently developed and successfully validated manipulation

(Marguc et al., in press), we could test our hypothesis experi-

mentally, assign equal numbers of participants to all groups,

and demonstrate causality. Finally, we left the scenario tech-

nique and replicated effects with yet another, physically visible

obstacle manipulation: A computerized maze in which an

obstacle does or does not suddenly appear and block the most

direct path to the goal (Marguc et al., in press). We predicted

Locomotion (Mean Centered)2.001.00.00–1 .00–2 .00

Mea

n Fo

nt S

ize

35.00

30.00

25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

YesNoYesNo

Obstacle

Figure 1. Font size estimates as a function of obstacle condition andlocomotion (Study 2; reference lines added). Note: Smaller values indi-cate greater psychological distance.

382 Social Psychological and Personality Science 3(3)

at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on December 18, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 5: Stepping Back While Staying Engaged: When Facing an Obstacle Increases Psychological Distance

that participants primed with engagement, but not those primed

with volatility, should indicate greater distance estimates after

facing an obstacle compared with not facing an obstacle.

Study 3Method

Participants

A total of 133 undergraduates (mean age 21 years; 78 females)

participated in this study. They received €7 or course credit as

compensation.

Materials and Procedure

After several unrelated tasks, participants were introduced to

our manipulation of volatility, an ostensible test of social com-

petence. On a sheet of paper, they saw several statements and

photographs of young men and women. Half of the male and

female faces had a neutral facial expression; the other half was

smiling. Depending on condition, half of the statements repre-

sented engagement (e.g., ‘‘When I’m watching an enthralling

movie, I wouldn’t even think of doing something else.’’) or

volatility (e.g., ‘‘Even the most enthralling movie doesn’t stop

me from getting up and doing something else for a while.’’).

Irrespective of condition, the remaining statements were neu-

tral fillers (e.g., ‘‘I like the color white, even if it’s technically

not a color. I just like it.’’). Participants were instructed to read

the statements carefully, look at the photographs until they felt

they knew which statement belonged to which photograph, and

map each statement onto one photograph. They worked at their

own pace until they were finished. In a previous study (Marguc

et al., in press, Study 6), this manipulation increased persis-

tence among participants primed with engagement versus

volatility.

The subsequent task was an allegedly unrelated pretest for

games to be used in future studies. Participants read that they

were randomly assigned to the ‘‘maze game,’’ which involved

moving a figure from the upper left corner to a specified goal

on the right side of the screen. They were asked to perform as

well as possible, supposedly because we were interested in the

average difficulty of the game. After a simple practice maze, a

more complex maze followed. Everyone received the same

maze, except that in the obstacle condition, a large obstacle

would suddenly appear and block the most direct path to the

goal (see Figure 2).

All participants reached the finish flag and answered several

control questions (i.e., difficulty, enjoyment). In a seemingly

unrelated study, participants were asked to ‘‘estimate the

distance between ‘here’ and central station (in meters).’’ No

suspicions regarding the purpose of the study were expressed.

Results and Discussion

As in Study 1, estimates deviating 2 SD or more from the sam-

ple mean (3.01%) were excluded prior to analyses. A 2 (Obsta-

cle: Yes vs. No) � 2 (Prime: Engaged vs. Volatile) analysis of

variance (ANOVA) on the estimated distance between ‘‘here’’

and central station revealed no main effects, F < 1. However, as

predicted, a significant Obstacle � Prime interaction emerged,

F(1, 125) ¼ 6.92, p ¼ .01, Zp2 ¼ .05 (see Figure 3). Simple-

effects analyses further revealed that participants primed with

engagement indicated greater distance estimates in the obstacle

condition (M ¼ 2,811.03, SD ¼ 1,359.47) compared with the

no-obstacle condition (M ¼ 2,118.64, SD ¼ 1,465.50), F(1,

125) ¼ 4.24, p ¼ .04, Zp2 ¼ .03. For participants primed with

volatility, this difference was not significant (obstacle: M ¼2,406.16, SD ¼ 1,469.51; no-obstacle: M ¼ 2,990.32, SD ¼1,188.38), F(1, 125) ¼ 2.79 p ¼ .10, Zp

2 ¼ .02. Although

enjoyment of the maze task influenced distance estimates when

entered as a covariate in the main analysis, F(1, 124) ¼ 4.48,

p¼ .04, Zp2¼ .04, the Obstacle� Prime interaction remained

significant, F(1, 124) ¼ 6.60, p ¼ .01, Zp2 ¼ .05. Therefore,

Figure 2. Maze manipulation used in Study 3 (obstacle condition). Inthe obstacle condition, an obstacle appeared while navigating themaze. In the no-obstacle condition, no obstacle appeared.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Engaged Volatile

Estim

ated

Dis

tanc

e

Prime

Obstacle No Obstacle Yes

Figure 3. Distance estimates (‘‘here’’—central station) as a functionof obstacle condition and primed volatility versus engagement(Study 3).

Marguc et al 383

at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on December 18, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 6: Stepping Back While Staying Engaged: When Facing an Obstacle Increases Psychological Distance

the main results in this study cannot be explained by differences

in enjoyment.

Replicating Study 2 with a different variable related to

engagement, Study 3 lends further support for the idea that

engagement moderates the impact of obstacles on psycho-

logical distance. In addition to establishing causality by

manipulating rather than measuring engagement versus vola-

tility, this study also demonstrates that both chronic and situa-

tional differences in engagement influence how people

respond to obstacles.

General Discussion

Three studies show that obstacles increase psychological dis-

tance when they appear on people’s own path to their goal

rather than on an irrelevant path and when people are highly

engaged in what they are doing. More specifically, participants

who had to overcome an obstacle on the way to their best

friend’s birthday party provided larger estimates for an unre-

lated spatial distance than participants who did not have to

overcome an obstacle because it appeared on a different route

(Study 1). In line with the idea that faraway objects tend to look

smaller, participants who are typically very engaged in what

they are doing also provided smaller font size estimates after

thinking about how to reach a personal goal despite an obsta-

cle compared with thinking only about how to reach their goal

(Study 2). Finally, participants primed with engagement pro-

vided larger estimates for an unrelated spatial distance after

navigating a computerized maze with rather than without an

obstacle (Study 3).

In the latter studies, less engaged participants did not

respond to obstacles by increasing psychological distance, pre-

sumably because they were not very concerned with overcom-

ing obstacles and thus mentally stepping back was of little use

to them. Somewhat surprisingly, there was even a reverse effect

in Study 2, such that participants low in locomotion indicated

bigger font sizes after facing an obstacle. Although the only

prediction we had for these participants was that they should

not increase psychological distance in response to obstacles,

it seems possible that individuals low in locomotion, who are

generally not very concerned with movement, might have

started to examine the obstacle more closely rather than trying

to find ways around it. Importantly, the finding that highly

engaged participants increased psychological distance in

response to obstacles suggests that mental stepping back does

not reflect avoidance but rather an attempt to solve a problem.

Future research needs to show whether and how this response

really helps people overcome obstacles to their goals.

Given that a lack of fluency has been associated with

increased psychological distance (Alter & Oppenheimer,

2008), one might wonder whether our effects could be due to

obstacles decreasing the feeling of fluency associated with a

goal pursuit. Although this explanation seems plausible at first,

it is unclear how a fluency-based account would explain the

moderation effects we found in Studies 2 and 3. Would, for

example, engaged individuals be more likely than less engaged

ones to estimate written in a disfluent font to be

further away than New York written in a fluent font? From a

fluency perspective, stimuli naturally feel close or distant to the

extent that they are easy versus difficult to process (Alter &

Oppenheimer, 2008). Hence, to predict results similar to ours

based on fluency, one would need to assume that individuals

low in engagement would not even experience a difficult-to-

read font as disfluent.

More generally, our research not only introduces a hitherto

unexplored antecedent of psychological distance. It also makes

a methodological contribution by measuring psychological

distance via size perception. If psychologically driven size

estimates map onto distance estimates, then psychological

distance (Trope & Liberman, 2010) might provide a new theo-

retical framework for interpreting findings on size perception.

From this framework one could in turn derive interesting pre-

dictions. For example, would dieters perceive apples to be big-

ger and closer if a dieting goal is active? Would a basketball

player estimate the basket to be smaller and further away when

thinking about how to overcome a personal problem? Granted,

the font size measure used in Study 2 needs further validation.

However, because Study 3 replicated Study 2 with a common

measure of psychological distance, there is reason to assume

that greater psychological distance might indeed co-occur with

smaller size perceptions.

Our results are also in line with research showing that moti-

vational factors influence psychological distance. Such factors

have been examined in the context of size estimates (see van

Koningsbruggen et al., in press; Veltkamp et al., 2008) and,

to some extent, in the context of distance estimates. For exam-

ple, research has shown that greater anticipated effort from

carrying a heavy versus light backpack increases perceived

physical distance (Proffitt et al., 2003; Stefanucci et al.,

2005) and that a lack of progress toward personal goals makes

people feel closer to others who are instrumental to goal attain-

ment (Fitzsimons & Fishbach, 2010). In light of such findings,

interesting questions emerge: Would obstacles influence other

known dimensions of psychological distance, including tem-

poral distance, social distance, and probability (see Trope &

Liberman, 2010) in the same way as they influence spatial dis-

tance? Would obstacles have different effects depending on

whether the target of an estimate is instrumental (e.g., alterna-

tive means) or detrimental (e.g., unsuccessful means) to goal

attainment? Might motivational factors in general determine

when the four distance dimensions vary together and when not?

Finally, it would be fascinating to examine whether people

also physically move back upon facing an obstacle. This would

link the present findings to theories of embodied cognition (for

a review, see Barsalou, 2008) and would further elucidate the

processes involved in dealing with obstacles.

To conclude, our research revealed that an ‘‘if obstacle, then

distance’’ routine exists and that this routine is only triggered

when adopting a more distanced perspective is relevant (i.e.,

when an obstacle appears on one’s own path to a goal; when

engagement is high). The notion of ‘‘stepping back’’ is thus

more than a suggestion one might read about in self-help

384 Social Psychological and Personality Science 3(3)

at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on December 18, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 7: Stepping Back While Staying Engaged: When Facing an Obstacle Increases Psychological Distance

books: It reflects what people are doing psychologically when

they are trying to overcome obstacles to their goals.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to

the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship,

and/or publication of this article.

Note

1. We examined univariate and multivariate outliers following Judd

and McClelland (1989). There was one univariate outlier and one

multivariate outlier based on high studentized deleted residuals.

Removing these did not change the pattern of significant and non-

significant results.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and

interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

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, 161-167.

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, 609-622.

Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psy-

chology, 59, 617-645.

Bauer, D. J., & Curran, P. J. (2005). Probing interactions in fixed and

multilevel regression: Inferential and graphical techniques. Multi-

variate Behavioral Research, 40, 373-400.

Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time

through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75, 1-28.

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.

Fishbach, A., Friedman, R. S., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2003). Leading

us not unto temptation: Momentary allurements elicit overriding

goal activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

84, 296-309.

Fitzsimons, G. M., & Fishbach, A. (2010). Shifting closeness: Inter-

personal effects of personal goal progress. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 98, 535-549.

Forster, J., Friedman, R., & Liberman, N. (2004). Temporal construal

effects on abstract and concrete thinking: Consequences for insight

and creative cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 87, 177-189.

Forster, J., Liberman, N., & Friedman, R. (2007). Seven principles of

goal activation: A systematic approach to distinguishing goal prim-

ing from priming of non-goal constructs. Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 11, 211-233.

Hayes, A. F., & Matthes, J. (2009). Computational procedures for

probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS

implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 924-936.

Henderson, M. D. (2011). Mere physical distance and integrative

agreements: When more space improves negotiation outcomes.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 7-15.

Henderson, M. D., Trope, Y., & Carnevale, P. J. (2006). Negotiation

from a near and distant time perspective. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 91, 712-729.

Higgins, E. T. (2006). Value from hedonic experience and engage-

ment. Psychological Review, 113, 439-460.

Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personal-

ity and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184-200.

Hogg, M. A., & Reid, S. A. (2001). Social identity, leadership, and

power. In A. Y. Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The use and abuse

of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corruption (pp.

159-180). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Jia, L., Hirt, E., & Karpen, S. (2009). Lessons from a faraway land:

The effect of spatial distance on creative cognition. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1127-1131.

Johnson, P. O., & Neyman, J. (1936). Tests of certain linear hypoth-

eses and their applications to some educational problems. Statisti-

cal Research Memoirs, 1, 57-93.

Judd, C. M., & McClelland, G. H. (1989). Data analysis: A model

comparison approach. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich.

Kruglanski, A. W., Thompson, E. P., Higgins, E. T., Atash, M. N.,

Pierro, A., Shah, J. Y., & Spiegel, S. (2000). To ‘‘do the right

thing’’ or to ‘‘just do it": Locomotion and assessment as distinct

self-regulatory imperatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 79, 793-815.

Kuhl, J. (1994). A theory of action and state orientation. In J. Kuhl & J.

Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state

orientation (pp. 9-46). Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe.

Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality: Selected papers.

New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Liberman, N., & Forster, J. (2009a). Distancing from experienced self:

How global versus local perception affects estimation of psycholo-

gical distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97,

203-216.

Liberman, N., & Forster, J. (2009b). The effect of psychological

distance on perceptual construal. Cognitive Science, 33,

1330-1341.

Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desir-

ability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test

of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 75, 5-18.

Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). The psychology of transcending

the here and now. Science, 322, 1201-1205.

Liberman, N., Trope, Y., Macrae, S., & Sherman, S. J. (2007). The effect

of level of construal on the temporal distance of activity enactment.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 143-149.

Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Stephan, E. (2007). Psychological dis-

tance. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychol-

ogy: Handbook of basic principles (Vol. 2, pp. 353-383). New

York, NY: Guilford Press.

Marguc et al 385

at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on December 18, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 8: Stepping Back While Staying Engaged: When Facing an Obstacle Increases Psychological Distance

Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., Milne, A. B., & Jetten, J. (1994).

Out of mind but back in sight: Stereotypes on the rebound. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 808-817.

Marguc, J., Forster, J., & Van Kleef, G. A. (in press). Stepping back to

see the big picture: When obstacles elicit global processing. Jour-

nal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publica-

tion. doi: 10.1037/a0025013

Proffitt, D. R., Stefanucci, J. K., Banton, T., & Epstein, W. (2003).

The role of effort in perceiving distance. Psychological Science,

14, 106-112.

Stefanucci, J. K., Proffitt, D. R., Banton, T., & Epstein, W. (2005).

Distances appear different on hills. Perception & Psychophysics,

67, 1052-1060.

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal level theory of psycho-

logical distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440-463.

Tulving, E., & Schacter, D. L. (1990). Priming and human memory

systems. Science, 247, 301-306.

van Koningsbruggen, G. M., Stroebe, W., & Aarts, H. (2011).

Through the eyes of dieters: Biased size perception of food follow-

ing tempting food primes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol-

ogy, 47, 293-299.

Veltkamp, M., Aarts, H., & Custers, R. (2008). Perception in the service

of goal pursuit: Motivation to attain goals enhances the perceived size

of goal-instrumental objects. Social Cognition, 26, 720-736.

Williams, L. E., & Bargh, J. A. (2008). Keeping one’s distance: The

influence of spatial distance cues on affect and evaluation. Psycho-

logical Science, 19, 302-308.

Wyer, R. S., Shen, H., & Xu, A. J. (in press). The role of procedural

knowledge in the generalization of social behavior. In D. Carlston

(Ed.), Handbook of social cognition (3rd ed.). New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Bios

Janina Marguc is a PhD candidate at the University of Amsterdam,

Netherlands. Her PhD project is on the cognitive effects of obstacles.

More generally, she is interested in self-regulation, embodiment, and

social cognition.

Gerben A. Van Kleef is an associate professor of social psychology at

the University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. His main research interests

revolve around emotion, power, social influence, conflict, and group

processes.

Jens Forster is a full professor of social psychology at the University

of Amsterdam, Netherlands. His research focuses on self-regulation,

social cognition, knowledge activation, embodiment, metacognition,

and thinking and processing styles.

386 Social Psychological and Personality Science 3(3)

at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on December 18, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from