Construal Level of Thought and the Perceived Norm Level: A Quasi-Experiment Study

Masahiro Fujita; Yuri Taniguchi

doi:10.35295/osls.iisl.2325

Autori

Masahiro Fujita Kansai University, Faculty of Sociology https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1681-8221
Yuri Taniguchi Shiga Prefectural University https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4167-6333

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2325

Parole chiave:

Construal Level Theory, Social Norms, Abstract Thinking, Legal Norms vs. Group Norms, Normative Judgment

Abstract

This study examines how the construal level of thought influences the perceived abstraction of social norms. Based on construal level theory, we hypothesized that individuals with higher abstract thinking would evaluate norm-violating behaviors using more abstract (e.g., legal) norms, while those with lower-level thinking would rely on more concrete (e.g., group) norms. Using vignette-based questionnaires and the Behavior Identification Form (BIF), we surveyed 118 university students. Participants evaluated scenarios involving norm violations by either significant or unknown others. Results showed that higher construal levels were associated with more abstract normative evaluations, particularly when evaluating unfamiliar actors. These findings suggest that abstraction in thought modulates how individuals cognitively access social norms, with implications for understanding moral reasoning, legal judgment, and the evolution of complex social systems.

Downloads

I dati di download non sono ancora disponibili.

Metrics

Statistiche globali

13 Visualizzazioni	9 Download
22 Totale

Biografie autore

Masahiro Fujita, Kansai University, Faculty of Sociology

Email: m.fujita@kansai-u.ac.jp

Yuri Taniguchi, Shiga Prefectural University

Yuri Taniguchi is an Associate Professor at the University of Shiga Prefecture, specializing in social and experimental psychology. She received her doctorate from Osaka Municipal University (now known as Osaka Metropolitan University following its merger with Osaka Prefectural University). Her research focuses on social cognition's psychological mechanisms, particularly implicit inferences and interpersonal perception. Professor Taniguchi is interested in how spontaneous trait inferences and motivational factors shape social perception. Her recent work explores the influence of psychological distance on observers’ judgments and behaviors.

She has published in both Japanese and international journals and actively contributes to interdisciplinary conferences in psychology and law. Her scholarly efforts aim to bridge basic psychological processes with practical implications for understanding social cognition and interpersonal behavior.

Dr. Taniguchi has been an Executive Board Member of the Japanese Society for Law and Psychology since October 2024. Prior to this role, she was a member of the Editorial Secretariat for The Japanese Journal of Law and Psychology from October 2021 to October 2024.

Riferimenti bibliografici

Ajzen, I., 1991. The Theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes [online], 50(2). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Assilaméhou, Y., Lepastourel, N., and Testé, B., 2013. How the Linguistic Intergroup Bias Affects Group Perception: Effects of Language Abstraction on Generalization to the Group. The Journal of Social Psychology [online], 153(1), 98–108. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.2012.711380 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2012.711380

Bellwood, P., 2022. First Farmers: The Origins of Agricultural Societies. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Bilewicz, M., et al., 2017. Language of Responsibility. The Influence of Linguistic Abstraction on Collective Moral Emotions. Psychology of Language and Communication [online], 21(1), 1–15. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/plc-2017-0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/plc-2017-0001

Bourdieu, P., 1987. The forces of law: Toward a sociology of the juridicial field. Hastings Law Journal, 38(5), 814–853.

Braga, J.N., Ferreira, M.B., and Sherman, S.J., 2015. The effects of construal level on heuristic reasoning: The case of representativeness and availability. Decision [online], 2(3), 216–227. Available at: https://doi.org/10/ghd6pq DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000021

Brewer, M.B., 1999. The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love and Outgroup Hate? Journal of Social Issues [online], 55(3), 429–444. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00126 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00126

Deffains, B., and Fluet, C., 2019. Social Norms and Legal Design. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization [online], 36(1), ewz016. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewz016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewz016

Des Jarlais, D.C., et al., 2004. Improving the Reporting Quality of Nonrandomized Evaluations of Behavioral and Public Health Interventions: The TREND Statement. American Journal of Public Health [online], 94(3), 361–366. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.94.3.361 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.94.3.361

Deutsch, M., and Gerard, H.B., 1955. A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology [online], 51(3), 629–636. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046408 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046408

Dunbar, R.I.M., 1992. Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. Journal of Human Evolution [online], 22(6), 469–493. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2484(92)90081-j DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2484(92)90081-J

Dunbar, R.I.M., 1995. Neocortex size and group size in primates: A test of the hypothesis. Journal of Human Evolution [online], 28(3), 287–296. Available at: https://doi.org/10/fsw9sg DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jhev.1995.1021

Feldman, D.C., 1984. The Development and Enforcement of Group Norms. The Academy of Management Review [online], 9(1), 47–53. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/258231 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/258231

Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I., 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Fujita, K., et al., 2006. Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology [online], 90(3), 351–367. Available at: https://doi.org/10/b5jvpg DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.351

Fuller, L.L., 1964. The morality of law. Yale University Press.

Gelfand, M.J., et al., 2011. Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science [online], 332(6033), 1100–1104. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1197754 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1197754

Haidt, J., 2001. The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review [online], 108(4), 814–834. Available at: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.108.4.814

Hart, H.L.A., and Green, L., 2012. The Concept of Law. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780199644704.001.0001

Henrich, J., Heine, S.J., and Norenzayan, A., 2010. The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences [online], 33(2–3), 61–83. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

Hopewell, S., et al., 2025. CONSORT 2025 statement: Updated guideline for reporting randomised trials. The Lancet [online], 405(10489), 1633–1640. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(25)00672-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(25)00672-5

Kahneman, D., and Miller, D.T., 1986. Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review [online], 93(2), 136–136. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.136 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.93.2.136

Kennedy, D., 1976. Form and substance in private law adjudication. Harvard Law Review, 89(8), 1685–1778. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1340104

Ledgerwood, A., and Callahan, S.P., 2012. The Social Side of Abstraction: Psychological distance enhances conformity to group norms. Psychological Science [online], 23(8). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611435920 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611435920

Lermer, E., et al., 2015. The effect of construal level on risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology [online], 45(1), 99–109. Available at: https://doi.org/10/gjv8pd DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2067

Peterson, M.F., and Barreto, T.S., 2015. Descriptive norms and norm innovations: Implications for theorizing level of analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology [online], 46(10), 1332–1335. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115610214 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115610214

Posner, R.A., 1997. Social norms and the law: An economic approach. The American Economic Review [online], 87(2), 365–369. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2950947

Powell, D., and Horne, Z., 2017. Moral Severity is Represented as a Domain-General Magnitude. Experimental Psychology [online], 64(2), 142–147. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000354 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000354

Pryima, S.V., 2021. A legal norm: General theoretical characteristic. Problems of Legality [online], 155, 51–68. Available at: https://doi.org/10.21564/2414-990X.155.243848 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21564/2414-990X.155.243848

Tajfel, H., and Turner, J.C., 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: S. Worchel and W.G. Austin, eds., The psychology of intergroup relations. Boston: Nelson-Hall, pp. 7–24.

Tomasello, M., 2018. A Natural History of Human Thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Trémolière, B., and De Neys, W., 2013. Methodological concerns in moral judgement research: Severity of harm shapes moral decisions. Journal of Cognitive Psychology [online], 25(8), 989–993. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.841169 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.841169

Trope, Y., and Liberman, N., 2010. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review [online], 117(2), 440–463. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963

Turiel, E., 1983. The Development of Social Knowledge: Morality and Convention. Cambridge University Press.

Vallacher, R.R., and Wegner, D.M., 1989. Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology [online], 57(4), 660–671. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.660 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.57.4.660

Vallacher, R.R., Wegner, D.M., and Frederick, J., 1987. The presentation of self through action identification. Social Cognition [online], 5(3), 301–322. APA PsycInfo. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1987.5.3.301 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1987.5.3.301

Wu, C.C., Wu, W.H., and Chiou, W.B., 2017. Construing morality at high versus low levels induces better self-control, leading to moral acts. Frontiers in Psychology [online], 8, 1041. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01041 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01041

Yoo, H.N., and Smetana, J.G., 2022. Distinctions between moral and conventional judgments from early to middle childhood: A meta-analysis of social domain theory research. Developmental Psychology [online], 58(5), 874–889. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001330 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001330