Spatial Distance Affects Implicit Impressions of Others

1
Spatial Distance Affects Implicit Impressions of
Others SoYon Rim, James S. Uleman, and Yaacov
Trope Department of Psychology, New York
University
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION
METHODS

• Integrating two research domains
• Spontaneous Trait Inferences (STIs) (Uleman,
  Newman, Moskowitz, 1996)
• STIs are trait inferences that we make about
  others from observations of their behaviors
• STIs form without intentions or awareness
• Ex. She solved the mystery halfway through the
  book. (infer clever)
• Construal Level Theory (CLT) (Trope Liberman,
  2003)
• Psychological distance ? focus on abstract,
  global, and central features (high level
  construal)
• Psychological proximity ? focus on peripheral,
  concrete, and incidental features (low level
  construal)Traits are abstract person
  representations.
• We hypothesized that perceivers form more STIs
  about spatially distant others than about
  spatially near others from identical behavioral
  information.

• Two possible alternative hypotheses
• Could perceived familiarity or similarity to
  target actors explain the results?
• Familiarity
• Ps were significantly more familiar with the
  spatially near location (Manhattan) than the
  spatially distant location (Florence),
  F(1,38)30.52, plt.001
• but familiarity did not account for the effect
  of distance when entered as a covariate
  F(1,37)6.69, plt.02.
• Similarity

• Some behavioral sentences imply traits and others
  explicitly contain traits
• Phase 2 Ps shown actor-trait pairs and asked
  to determined whether the trait was explicitly
  present in the sentence they read about the actor
  in the photo earlier
• False recognition of an implied trait indicates
  trait was inferred while reading the earlier
  sentence
• Higher proportions of false recognition
  indicate higher instances of STI formation

• Perceivers formed more spontaneous trait
  inferences about spatially distant (Florence)
  actors than spatially near (Manhattan) actors.
• This occurred despite identical behavioral
  information about distant and near actors.
• This effect could not be explained by perceived
  familiarity or similarity.
• Therefore, perceived spatial distance moderates
  the extent to which perceivers implicitly encode
  person information in terms of traits.
• Further Questions to Explore
• What do perceivers infer about psychologically
  near actors?
• Can the effect be replicated with other
  psychological distance manipulations (i.e.
  temporal or social distance)?
• Could these results shed light on cultural
  differences in the correspondence bias (i.e.
  differing levels of chronic psychological
  distance)?

Sample actor/behavior pair
He returned the lost wallet with all the money in
it.
Sample actor/trait pair
HONEST
REFERENCES
METHODS

• Fujita, K., Henderson, M. D., Eng, J., Trope, Y.,
  Liberman, N. (2006). Spatial distance and
  mental construal of social events. Psychological
  Science, 17(4), 278-282.
• Todorov, A., Uleman, J. S. (2002). Spontaneous
  trait inferences are bound to actors faces
  Evidence from a false recognition paradigm.
  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83,
  1051-1065.
• Trope, Y., Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal
  construal. Psychological Review, 110, 403-421.
• Uleman, J. S., Newman, L. S., Moskowitz, G. B.
  (1996). People as flexible interpreters
  evidence and issues from spontaneous trait
  inferences. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
  experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp.
  211-279). San Diego, CA Academic Press, pp.
  211-279.

Participants 45 NYU undergraduates Procedure
False Recognition Paradigm (Todorov Uleman,
1994) Phase 1 Ps memorized photographs paired
with behavioral sentences under 1 of 2 distance
manipulation instructions Spatially Distant
Condition Actor/behavior pairs are NYU students
studying abroad in Florence, Italy Spatially
Near Condition Actor/behavior pairs are NYU
students studying in Manhattan, NY Spatial
distance manipulation developed and validated by
Fujita, Henderson, Eng, Trope, Liberman, 2006
RESULTS
As expected, Ps in the spatially distant
condition falsely recognized implied traits to a
greater extent than Ps in the spatially near
condition, F(1,39) 11.53, plt.005.
For further information contact
soyon.rim_at_nyu.edu OR jim.uleman_at_nyu.edu
yaacov.trope_at_nyu.edu New York University,
Department of Psychology 6 Washington Pl., 7th
Floor New York, NY, 10003, USA