Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-v2srd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-28T15:37:56.700Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychological closeness and concrete construal may underlie high-fidelity social emulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2022

David A. Kalkstein Open the ORCID record for David A. Kalkstein [Opens in a new window]  and
Yaacov Trope Open the ORCID record for Yaacov Trope [Opens in a new window]
David A. Kalkstein
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA dkalkste@stanford.edu www.davidkalkstein.com
Yaacov Trope
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY 10003, USA yaacov.trope@nyu.edu https://sites.google.com/nyu.edu/tropelab//
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We compare bifocal stance theory's (BST) approach to social learning to construal level theory's (CLT) – a social-cognitive theory positing that psychological closeness to a model influences action-representation and thus modulates how concretely or abstractly observers emulate models. Whereas BST argues that social motives produce higher fidelity emulation, CLT argues that psychological closeness impacts cognitive construal and produces more concrete emulation across diverse motivations for emulation.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e259
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Genschow, O., Hansen, J., Wanke, M., & Trope, Y. (2019). Psychological distance modulates goal-based versus movement-based imitation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 45, 1031–1048.Google ScholarPubMed
Gilead, M., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2020). Above and beyond the concrete: The diverse representational substrates of the predictive brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 43, 1–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, J., Alves, H., & Trope, Y. (2016). Psychological distance reduces literal imitation: Evidence from an imitation-learning paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 320.Google ScholarPubMed
Hubbard, A. D., Kalkstein, D. A., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2021). Construal processes. In Van Lange, P. A. M., Higgins, E. T., Kruglanski, A. W. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 67–84). The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Kalkstein, D., Hubbard, A., & Trope, Y. (2018). Expansive and contractive learning experiences: Mental construal and living well. In Forgas, J. & Baumeister, R. (Eds.), The social psychology of living well (pp. 223–236). Taylor and Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalkstein, D. A., Kleiman, T., Wakslak, C. J., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2016). Social learning across psychological distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 322, 1201–1205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110, 403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed