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

Masahiro Fujita; Yuri Taniguchi

doi:10.35295/osls.iisl.2325

Autores

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

DOI:

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

Palavras-chave:

Teoria do Nível de Construto, Normas Sociais, Pensamento Abstrato, Normas Legais vs. Normas de Grupo, Julgamento Normativo

Resumo

Este estudo investiga como o nível de construto do pensamento influencia a percepção da abstração das normas sociais. Com base na teoria do nível de construto, foi levantada a hipótese de que indivíduos com pensamento mais abstrato tenderiam a avaliar comportamentos que violam normas com base em normas mais abstratas (por exemplo, normas legais), enquanto aqueles com pensamento mais concreto se baseariam em normas mais específicas (por exemplo, normas de grupo). Para testar essa hipótese, foram utilizados questionários baseados em vinhetas, juntamente com o Behavior Identification Form (BIF), aplicados a uma amostra de 118 estudantes universitários. Os participantes avaliaram cenários envolvendo violações normativas cometidas por pessoas significativas ou desconhecidas. Os resultados indicaram que níveis mais altos de construto estavam associados a avaliações normativas mais abstratas, especialmente ao julgar atores desconhecidos. Esses achados sugerem que o grau de abstração do pensamento modula o acesso cognitivo às normas sociais, com implicações para a compreensão do raciocínio moral, do julgamento legal e da evolução de sistemas sociais complexos.

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Metrics

Estatísticas globais

13 Visualizações	9 Downloads
22 Total

Biografia do Autor

Masahiro Fujita, Kansai University, Faculty of Sociology

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

Yuri Taniguchi, Universidade Prefeitoral de Shiga

Yuri Taniguchi é Professora Associada na Universidade Prefeitoral de Shiga, especializada em psicologia social e experimental. Obteve seu doutorado na Universidade Municipal de Osaka (atualmente conhecida como Universidade Metropolitana de Osaka, após sua fusão com a Universidade Prefeitoral de Osaka). Sua pesquisa foca nos mecanismos psicológicos da cognição social, em especial as inferências implícitas e a percepção interpessoal.
A professora Taniguchi tem interesse em como as inferências espontâneas de traços e os fatores motivacionais moldam a percepção social. Seus trabalhos recentes investigam a influência da distância psicológica nos julgamentos e comportamentos dos observadores.
Ela publicou em revistas acadêmicas japonesas e internacionais, e participa ativamente de congressos interdisciplinares nas áreas de psicologia e direito. Seu esforço acadêmico visa estabelecer pontes entre os processos psicológicos básicos e suas implicações práticas para a compreensão da cognição social e do comportamento interpessoal.
A Dra. Taniguchi é membro do Conselho Executivo da Sociedade Japonesa de Psicologia e Direito desde outubro de 2024. Anteriormente, atuou como membro da Secretaria Editorial da Revista Japonesa de Psicologia e Direito de outubro de 2021 a outubro de 2024.

Referências

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