Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Report
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The present research examined how construal level and social motivation interact in influencing individ-
Received 4 January 2010 uals’ behavior in social decision making settings. Consistent with recent work on psychological distance
Available online 7 May 2010 and value-behavior correspondence (Eyal, Sagristano, Trope, Liberman, & Chaiken, 2009), it was predicted
that under high construal level individuals’ behavior is based on the social motivation they endorsed, no
Keywords: matter whether pro-social or pro-self. Two experiments involving ultimatum game (Experiment 1) and
Construal level face to face negotiation (Experiment 2) supported the ‘‘increased value-behavior correspondence”
Value-behavior correspondence
hypothesis by showing that pro-socials were more cooperative and pro-selves were more competitive
Integrative negotiation
under high rather than low construal level. Implications for research on social decision making and psy-
chological distance are discussed.
2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Among the most pertinent questions pursued in psychological Construal Level Theory (CLT; Liberman, Trope, & Stephan, 2007;
science is when and why people cooperate with others, thus fore- Trope & Liberman, 2003) proceeds on the basis of the assumption
going immediate personal gain and rendering themselves vulnera- that people mentally represent or construe objects and events at
ble to exploitation by others. What personality factors and different levels of abstraction. The content of the higher level, more
situational influences drive people to prefer fairness over personal abstract construals consists of the perceived essence, gist, or sum-
gain, and to seek mutually beneficial agreements rather than per- mary of the given information; the content of the lower level, more
sonal victory? To contribute to our further understanding of these concrete construals consists of context-dependent, readily obser-
and related issues, the current research invokes Construal Level vable features of objects and events. CLT further proposes that con-
Theory (Trope & Liberman, 2003). Construal Level Theory distin- strual level is a function of psychological distance, with events and
guishes between concrete and specific construals that emerge objects at greater distance being subjected to more global, abstract
when people focus on psychologically close events and objects, construal and events and objects at closer psychological distance
and more abstract and global construals that emerge when people being subjected to more local, concrete construal. Psychological
focus on psychologically distant events and objects. Extending re- distance derives from several sources, including temporal (present
cent work showing that an abstract level of construal may promote versus future), spatial (nearby versus far away), and social (e.g., in-
cooperation (e.g., Agerström & Björklund, 2009a, 2009b; Hender- group versus out-group; Trope & Liberman, 2003).
son, Trope, & Carnevale, 2006; Sanna, Chang, Parks, & Kennedy, There is good evidence that construal level influences people’s
2009), we propose that high psychological distance and concomi- perceptions and behaviors. When individuals are primed with a
tant abstract construal strengthen the value-behavior correspon- distant future, consider issues far away, or consider others catego-
dence – it renders people with pro-social motives more rized as out-group, they tend to adopt a higher level of construal in
cooperative, and people with selfish orientations less cooperative. which abstract and primary features such as goals, desirability con-
This hypothesis was tested in two experiments, one focusing on cerns, and positive features and arguments are emphasized. When,
(single-issue) ultimatum bargaining, and one focusing on (multi- in contrast, individuals are primed with a proximal future, consider
issue) integrative negotiation. issues nearby, or consider others categorized as in-group, they tend
to adopt a lower level of construal in which secondary, concrete
features such as means, feasibility concerns, and negative features
* Corresponding author.
and arguments are emphasized. For e.g., Nussbaum, Trope and
E-mail address: mauro.giacomantonio@uniroma1.it (M. Giacomantonio).
0022-1031/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
** Giacomantonio, M., De Dreu, C. K., Shalvi,
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.001
S., Sligte, D., & Leder, S. (2010). Psychological distance boosts
value-behavior correspondence in ultimatum bargaining and integrative negotiation. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 46(5), 824-829.
Yael
Shalem
__---________-_________-_________-________-________-________-
File #0002098 belongs to Yael Shalem- do not distribute
114 • אישיות.5
Liberman (2003) found that when drawing inferences about oth- (henceforth pro-self motivation) should become less cooperative
ers’ distant future behaviors, participants relied more on abstract, under high rather than low construal level. Put differently, integrat-
stable dispositions (e.g., personality); when drawing inferences ing findings of Eyal et al. (2009) and Torelli and Kaikati (2009), we
about others’ short-term behaviors, participants relied more on suspect that at greater psychological distance individuals with pro-
concrete situational influences. Similarly when primed with a dis- social motives are more likely to act cooperatively, whereas those
tant future, individuals use relatively few categories to organize with pro-self motives are more likely to act in a competitive fash-
material; when asked to think about a short-term future, they cat- ion. Chronically available or temporarily activated pro-social versus
egorize items in a large number of small categories (Liberman, pro-self motivations will have a stronger impact on cooperation un-
Sagristano, & Trope, 2002; for a review see Liberman & Trope, der high rather than low psychological distance. This hypothesis is
2008). consistent with the reasoning of Henderson et al. (2006) who pro-
Recent work has examined the impact of psychological distance posed that: ‘‘one might predict that a temporally distant perspec-
and construal level on cooperation in situations where cooperation tive would act as a kind of magnifying glass for negotiators’
hurts self-interest yet promotes fairness, the interests of others, motivational orientation, with those with an individualistic orien-
and collective welfare. For e.g., Sanna et al. (2009) examined coop- tation exhibiting even more concern for themselves and those with
eration in a resource dilemma and found that participants cooper- a cooperative orientation exhibiting even more concerns for others”
ated more when construal level was high rather than low. (p. 725). We tested this hypothesis by measuring (Experiment 1) or
Likewise, Kortenkamp and Moore (2006) found that individuals manipulating (Experiment 2) social motivation while inducing high
with a chronic concern with future consequences of their actions, (low) level of construal in Ultimatum Bargaining (Experiment 1)
and who thus can be assumed to have a chronic tendency towards and integrative negotiation (Experiment 2).
an abstract level of construal, were more cooperative in a social di-
lemma. Finally, Henderson et al. (2006); also De Dreu, Giacomanto-
Experiment 1
nio, Shalvi, and Sligte (2009) showed that in multi-issue
negotiation, individuals under high construal level paid more
Method
attention to interrelations among issues, developed a better under-
standing of the task, and negotiated more mutually beneficial, inte-
Design and participants
grative agreements.
The experiment contained three distinct phases: measurement
of social value orientation to classify participants as pro-social ver-
sus pro-self motivated; the manipulation of level of construal; and
Construal level and social motivation: the present research
an ultimatum bargaining game to assess cooperation. Twenty-six
male and 44 female students of the University of Rome ‘‘Sapienza”
Whereas the effects of psychological distance and construal le-
were randomly assigned to the conditions of a 2 (high versus low
vel on cooperation appear rather straightforward, the underlying
construal level) 2 (pro-social versus pro-self value orientation)
mechanism remains unclear – why does psychological distance
between-subjects factorial design; money offered in the ultimatum
trigger cooperation rather than competition? In a partial answer
game was the main dependent variable.
to this question, Agerström and Björklund (2009a, 2009b) recently
proposed that moral concerns are more likely to guide judgments
and behaviors about distant events because moral principles are Procedure, tasks, and independent variables
represented at an abstract level. In contrast, they argued, selfish Upon arrival to the laboratory, participants were seated behind
motives and hedonic considerations are represented at a more con- a computer screen via which all measures and instructions were
crete level and thus are weighted more in a short-term perspective. administered. Social value orientation was measured using a com-
Put differently, moral principles are salient under higher levels of puterized version of the nine-item decomposed games measure
construal whereas selfish, hedonistic values and considerations which has been shown to be a reliable, internally consistent meth-
are salient under lower levels of construal. And indeed, Agerström od with high construct validity (e.g., De Dreu & Van Lange, 1995;
and Björklund (2009a, 2009b) showed that participants under high Parks, 1994; Van Lange, 1999). Each item involved a choice among
rather than low construal level were more willing to engage in three different outcomes combinations for the participant and a
moral, altruistic behaviors across a variety of situations and sce- hypothetical other (e.g., Option 1: 480 points to You, and 80 points
narios. Furthermore, their work revealed that the effect of psycho- to Other; Option 2: 540 points to You, and 280 points to Other; Op-
logical distance on moral behavior was mediated by the salience of tion 3: 480 points to You and 480 points to Other). Option 1 is the
moral values. competitive option because it maximizes the difference between
Psychological distance and concomitant construal level thus oneself and the other (480–80 = 400); Option 2 is the individualis-
seems to promote pro-social values and moral consideration, there- tic choice because it maximizes individual outcome (540 points);
by increasing cooperative behavior. However, when examining the Option 3 is the pro-social choice because it maximizes equality
relationship between construal level, concern for morality, and and joint outcome (480 + 480 = 960). Following past work (e.g.,
cooperation, an alternative possibility emerges. Values have been De Dreu & Van Lange, 1995; Parks, 1994) we classified individuals
argued to serve as abstract psychological guides and should there- as pro-social when they made at least six pro-social choices
fore be more likely to be activated when considering distant future (N = 26; 37%), and as pro-self when they made at least six compet-
situations (Eyal et al., 2009; Torelli & Kaikati, 2009). When, in con- itive or individualistic choices (N = 32, 53%). Twelve (17%) partici-
trast, individuals consider near future events or behaviors, they are pants were inconsistent in their choices and were excluded from
driven more by peripheral and secondary aspects of the situation the analyses. This distribution is consistent with previous research
such as time pressure or contingent mood states. Put differently, showing that about 15% of the participants do not make at least six
at high construal level whatever values the individual endorse be- consistent choices and that about 50% of the remaining population
come a stronger driver of behavior than at low construal level. This can be classified as pro-social and the other 50% as pro-self (De
implies that an individual who endorses morality and fairness Dreu & Boles, 1998; De Dreu & Nijstad, 2008).
(henceforth pro-social motivation; Van Lange, 1999) should be- Hereafter participants were introduced to an ostensibly unre-
come more cooperative under high rather than low construal, as lated task designed to manipulate psychological distance and con-
much as an individual who endorses self-interest and hedonism comitant level of construal. Specifically, participants were asked to
__---________-_________-_________-________-________-________-
Article 9 – Mauro Giacomantinio, Carsten K.W. De Dreu, Shaul Shalvi, Daniel Sligte and Susanne Leder • 115
826 M. Giacomantonio et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46 (2010) 824–829
Yael
Shalem
__---________-_________-_________-________-________-________-
File #0002098 belongs to Yael Shalem- do not distribute
116 • אישיות.5
Joint Outcome
shown the payoffs to their counterpart). The scoring system was
designed so that each negotiator could reach an outcome between 1450
0 (in case of total victory to his counterpart) and 1350 (in case of a
total defeat of the counterpart). Because some issues were more
1400
valuable (i.e., provided more points) than others, and rank order
in terms of importance differed within dyads, negotiators could Prosocial
make tradeoffs that resulted in higher joint gain (maximum 1350
1680) than a middle-of-the-road compromise on each of the six is- Proself
sues (maximum 1350). However, because individuals did not re-
ceive their counterpart’s issue chart and were told not to 1300
exchange these issue charts during the negotiation, they were una- Low High
ware of this integrative potential, and through negotiation and the Construal Level
exchange of information, they had to uncover possibilities for
trade-off and high-joint gain. Fig. 2. Joint outcome as a function of construal level and social motives (Exper-
Social motivation was manipulated through instructions (e.g., iment 2).
De Dreu, Beersma, Stroebe, & Euwema, 2006). In the pro-social mo-
tive conditions, we consistently referred to the other party as ‘‘your
Joint outcomes
partner.” In the pro-self motive condition, we consistently referred
A 2 2 (Construal level Social Motives) ANOVA showed that
to the other party as ‘‘your opponent.” Construal level was then
pro-socially motivated dyads achieved higher joint outcomes than
manipulated as in Experiment 1, after participants had read the
pro-self motivated dyads, M = 1477.5 versus M = 1420.5), F(1,
negotiation instructions.1 Upon completion of the construal manip-
36) = 3.62, p = .07, g2 = .09 (marginal). This effect was qualified by
ulation task, participants were seated as dyads and given 15 min to
the construal level social motives interaction, F(1, 36) = 7.78,
reach an agreement. After 15 min of negotiation, or before if dyads
p < .01, g2 = .18. Simple effects showed no effect of social motiva-
reached an agreement earlier, the experimenter collected all materi-
tion in the low distance condition, M = 1475.5 versus M = 1444.1,
als and gave each participant a post-task questionnaire to be filled
F < 1. In the high distance condition, however, pro-socially moti-
out individually and without consulting the counterpart. Then, par-
vated dyads achieved higher joint outcomes than pro-self moti-
ticipants were debriefed, thanked for their participation, and
vated dyads, M = 1518.5 versus M = 1353.3, F(1, 36) = 9.92, p < .01
dismissed.
(see Fig. 2). This pattern supports the value-behavior correspon-
dence hypothesis.
Dependent variables
Joint outcome was obtained by summing the outcomes reached
by the union and the management representatives. In the ques- Cooperative behavior
tionnaire we assessed cooperation with three items (e.g., ‘‘I tried A 2 2 ANOVA revealed a significant two-way interaction, F(1,
to accommodate the other party;” 1 = not at all, to 6 = very much), 36) = 4.35, p < .05, g2 = .11. Simple effect analysis showed that un-
and to check whether participants understood the instructions of der low construal level, social motivation had no effect on cooper-
both manipulations, participants were asked how much they con- ation, M = 3.45 versus M = 3.36, F < 1. Under high construal level,
sidered their partner’s (own) interests, how much they saw the however, pro-socially motivated dyads were more cooperative
partner as an opponent (partner) and whether they had been asked than pro-self motivated dyads, M = 3.93 versus M = 3.22, F(1,
to describe activities to engage in next Monday or Monday next 36) = 6.24, p < .05, g2 = .15. No other effects were significant. This
year. pattern supports the value-behavior correspondence hypothesis.
Cooperation correlated with joint outcomes, r = .51, p < .01. To
test for mediation, we regressed the joint outcomes on the dum-
Results and discussion
my-coded main effects of construal level and social motives and
their interaction before and after cooperative behavior had been
Manipulations checks
controlled for.2 Results showed that the originally significant regres-
All the participants (n = 40, 100%) in the low construal level
sion of joint outcome on the interaction term, b = .41, t(36) = 2.79,
condition answered correctly that they were asked to describe
p < .01, decreased to a marginally significant level when cooperation
activities they will engage in next Monday. Similarly, all the partic-
was entered in the model, b = .28, t(36) = 1.96, p = .06. The associa-
ipants (n = 40, 100%) in the high construal condition answered cor-
tion between cooperative behavior and joint outcome remained
rectly that they were asked to describe activities they will engage
when the predictors were controlled for, b = .41, t(36) = 2.78,
in a Monday next year. This indicates that instructions regarding
p = .01, and a directional Sobel-test showed that the change from
construal level were well understood.
simple to multiple regression was significant, z = 1.67, p < .05. In
A 2 2 ANOVA showed that participants were more likely to
short, the interaction of construal level and social motivation on
see the other negotiator as their partner in the pro-social motiva-
joint outcome was partially mediated by cooperative behavior.
tion condition than in the pro-self motivation condition, M = 3.48
versus M = 3.02; F(1, 36) = 5.19, p < .05, g2=.13. No other effects
2
were significant. The relevance of establishing mediation derives from the fact that joint outcomes
in a negotiation can be achieved through other means than cooperative exchanges.
For e.g., Pruitt and Lewis (1975) showed that integrative agreements can be achieved
1
We deliberately placed the social motive manipulation before the manipulation through trial-and-error (also see Ten Velden, Beersma, & De Dreu, in press), and when
of construal level to avoid the latter influencing the effectiveness of the social motive cooperation takes the form of unconditional concession making, it may actually
manipulation (e.g., that individuals with a local construal level paid more attention to undermine the development of mutually beneficial, integrative agreements (De Dreu
the specific framing than those with a global construal). et al., 2006).
__---________-_________-_________-________-________-________-
Article 9 – Mauro Giacomantinio, Carsten K.W. De Dreu, Shaul Shalvi, Daniel Sligte and Susanne Leder • 117
828 M. Giacomantonio et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46 (2010) 824–829
Conclusions and general discussion whereas dealing with in-group members fosters pro-social motiva-
tion (De Dreu et al., 2000). Thus, when psychological distance is
In two experiments, using different tasks and methods, we ob- operationalized as social distance (e.g., Liviatan, Trope, & Liberman,
tained evidence for the value-behavior correspondence hypothe- 2008), people not only adopt higher levels of construal but also
sis: under high rather than low psychological distance and more pro-self motivation. More research is needed because, as
ensuing abstract rather than concrete levels of construal, pro-so- shown by the present findings and suggested by previous reason-
cially motivated individuals engage in more fair, cooperative ing, the effect of construal level on cooperation depends on intri-
behavior and achieved more mutually beneficial agreements cate social motives along with the specific dimensions of
whereas pro-self motivated individual engage in less cooperation psychological distance that are rendered salient.
and achieve less mutually beneficial, integrative deals. These find- In many social situations conflict of interest looms around the
ings are in line with a basic assumption in Construal Level Theory corner and long-term futures are at stake. When focusing on the
(e.g., Eyal et al., 2009) and extend the theory to the domain of so- immediate pleasures and pains, personal successes and failures,
cial decision making, cooperation, and integrative negotiation. on the short-term consequences of their own behavior, and that
Replicating previous findings (De Dreu et al., 2000; McClintock of others, people construe objects and events in concrete, specific
& Liebrand, 1988; Van Lange, 1999), the current work documented terms. Their basic values and motivational orientations have rela-
that social motives influences cooperativeness. The current results tively little impact on their behavioral actions, as they are driven
contribute to this line of work by demonstrating that these tenden- more by the ‘‘spur of the moment.” But when focusing on the distal
cies are amplified when construal level is high and attenuated future, including their own behavior, and that of others, people
when construal level is low. These findings suggest new research construe objects and events in more global, abstract terms. Their
questions. For e.g., under concrete construal, which factors, instead basic values and motivational orientations more prominently drive
of social motives, drive negotiators’ behavior? According to CLT, behavioral tendencies. The distal future renders pro-self individu-
contextual factors such as, for e.g., time pressure or the negotiation als less cooperative and undermines their ability to negotiate con-
frame (gain versus loss) could be good candidates. In the present structively. Reversely, it renders pro-social individuals more
research such contextual features were held constant across condi- cooperative, and facilitates them in finding mutually beneficial
tions, and new research is needed to further examine this agreements. To promote cooperation so as to develop a sustainable
possibility. future for many rather than some, we not only need policy makers,
With regard to past work on psychological distance and cooper- diplomats, and politicians to have pro-social values and endorse
ation, current findings seem to deviate from the replicated finding fairness. We also need them to adopt a long-term perspective with
that high psychological distance promotes cooperation across the a concomitant abstract level of construal. Only then will they ‘‘walk
board (e.g., Agerström & Björklund, 2009a, 2009b; De Dreu et al., the talk” and act in line with their values and basic principles.
2009; Henderson et al., 2006; Sanna et al., 2009). Specifically, we
replicated this general effect among pro-social individuals, but
found the reverse for pro-self individuals. Two issues are notewor-
thy, however. First, most of past work did neither measure nor References
manipulate social motivation, and it may be that the default for
Agerström, J., & Björklund, F. (2009a). Moral concerns are greater for temporally
the majority of research participants in these prior studies has distant events and are moderated by value strength. Social Cognition, 27,
been to adopt a pro-social rather than pro-self orientation. Indeed, 261–282.
Experiment 2 revealed how subtle changes in the instructions Agerström, J., & Björklund, F. (2009b). Temporal distance and moral concerns:
Future morally questionable behavior is perceived as more wrong and evokes
effectively induce people to adopt a pro-social or, instead, pro-self stronger prosocial intentions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31, 49–59.
motivation. Perhaps the instructions or tasks used in past work Burrus, J., & Roese, N. J. (2006). Long ago it was meant to be: The interplay between
inadvertently emphasized pro-social values, thus creating the time, construal and fate beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32,
1050–1058.
impression that abstract rather than concrete level of construal Camerer, C., & Thaler, R. (1995). Ultimatums, dictators and manners. Journal of
fosters cooperation among all. It should be noted, however, that Economic Perspectives, 9, 337–356.
Henderson et al. (2006), see also (Henderson & Trope, 2009) held De Dreu, C. K. W., Beersma, B., Stroebe, K., & Euwema, M. C. (2006). Motivated
information processing, strategic choice, and the quality of negotiated
constant participants’ motivation by instructing them to adopt a
agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 927–943.
pro-self orientation. This exception brings us to the second issue, De Dreu, C. K. W., & Boles, T. (1998). Share and share alike or winner takes all?
namely that the influence of construal level on cooperation and Impact of social value orientation on the choice and recall of decision heuristics
in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76,
negotiation cannot be reduced to an increase versus decrease in va-
253–267.
lue-behavior correspondence. For e.g., in addition to strengthening De Dreu, C. K. W., Giacomantonio, M., Shalvi, S., & Sligte, D. (2009). Getting stuck or
the value-behavior correspondence, construal level promotes stepping back: Effects of obstacles in the negotiation of creative solutions.
simultaneous (versus sequential) offer behavior (Henderson Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 542–548.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Conflict and creativity: Threat-rigidity or
et al., 2006), facilitates overcoming of obstacles (De Dreu et al., motivated focus? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 648–661.
2009), and focuses the individual on fundamental interests under- De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (1995). The impact of social value
lying issues (Giacomantonio, De Dreu, & Mannetti, 2010). Indeed, orientations on negotiator cognition and behavior. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1178–1188.
the second study showed that cooperative behavior – a behavioral De Dreu, C. K. W., Weingart, L. R., & Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives on
manifestation of the value-behavior correspondence – partially but integrative negotiation: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journal
not fully mediated effects of construal level and social motivation of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 889–905.
Eyal, T., Sagristano, M. D., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Chaiken, S. (2009). When values
on joint outcomes from the negotiation.
matter: Expressing values in behavioral intentions for the near vs distant future.
A limitation to the current work is that we operationalized psy- Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 35–43.
chological distance in terms of the temporal dimension only, leav- Giacomantonio, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Mannetti, L. (2010). Now you see it, now
you don’t: Interests, issues, and psychological distance in integrative
ing open whether other forms of psychological distance such as
negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 750–760.
spatial or social distance have similar effects. Within CLT social dis- Guth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of
tance is hypothesized to engender abstract levels of construal, but ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3,
work on social dilemmas (e.g., Kramer & Brewer, 1984) and nego- 367–388.
Henderson, M. D., & Trope, Y. (2009). The effects of abstraction on integrative
tiation (e.g., Moore, Kurtzberg, Thompson, & Morris, 1999) suggest agreements: When seeing the forest helps avoid getting tangled in the trees.
that facing out-group members induces pro-self motivation Social Cognition, 27, 402–417.
Yael
Shalem
__---________-_________-_________-________-________-________-
File #0002098 belongs to Yael Shalem- do not distribute
118 • אישיות.5
Henderson, M. D., Trope, Y., & Carnevale, P. (2006). Negotiation from a near and Moore, D. A., Kurtzberg, T. R., Thompson, L. L., & Morris, M. W. (1999). Long and
distant time perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, short routes to success in electronically mediated negotiations: Group
712–729. affiliations and good vibrations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Kortenkamp, K. V., & Moore, C. F. (2006). Time, uncertainty, and individual Processes, 77, 22–43.
differences in decisions to cooperate in resource dilemmas. Personality and Parks, C. D. (1994). The predictive ability of social values in resource dilemmas and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 603–615. public good games. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 431–438.
Kramer, R. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1984). Effects of group identity on resource use in a Pruitt, D. G., & Lewis, S. A. (1975). Development of integrative solutions in bilateral
simulated commons dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, negotiation. Journal of Personality e Social Psychology, 31, 621–630.
1044–1057. Sanna, L. J., Chang, E. C., Parks, C. D., & Kennedy, L. A. (2009). Construing collective
Liberman, N., Sagristano, M., & Trope, Y. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on concerns: Increasing cooperation by broadening construals in social dilemmas.
level of construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 523–535. Psychological Science, 20, 1319–1321.
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). The psychology of transcending the here and now. Ten Velden, F.S., Beersma, B., & De Dreu, C.K.W. (in press). It takes one to tango:
Science, 322, 1201–1205. Epistemic motivation and information in integrative negotiation. Personality
Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Stephan, E. (2007). Psychological distance. In A. W. and Social Psychology Bulletin.
Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of basic principles Torelli, C. J., & Kaikati, A. M. (2009). Values as predictors of judgments and
(2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. behaviors: The role of abstract and concrete mindsets. Journal of Personality and
Liviatan, I., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2008). Interpersonal similarity as a social Social Psychology, 96, 231–247.
distance dimension: Implications for perception of others’ actions. Journal of Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110,
Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1256–1269. 403–421.
McClintock, C. G., & Liebrand, W. B. G. (1988). The role of interdependence structure, Van Lange, P. A. M. (1999). The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes:
individual value orientation, and another’s strategy in social decision making: A An integrative model of social value orientations. Journal of Personality and
transformational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, Social Psychology, 77, 337–349.
396–409.
__---________-_________-_________-________-________-________-