© 2015 American Psychological Association 0096-3445/15/$ 12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000066
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2015, Vol. 144, No. 3, 522-527
BRIEF REPORT
Controllable Objects Seem Closer Cheryl J. Wakslak and B. Kyu Kim University of Southern California More and more we interact with other people across varying amounts of geographical distance. What shapes our categorization of a fixed amount of such distance as near or far? Building upon and expanding prior work on the association between spatial distance perception and reachability, we argue that people judge a given geographical distance as subjectively smaller when they can exert control across that distance. Studies 1-4 demonstrate this effect of control on spatial distance judgment in disparate contexts, including political, work, and family domains, and explore implications of such judgments for the downstream judgment of travel time to a location (Study 2). We do not find that one’s desire for control moderates these effects (Study 4). Supporting a cognitive association argument, we find evidence that the association between control and distance is bidirectional, with subjective distance influencing perceived controllability (Study 5). Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed. Keywords: control, distance, judgment, decision-making Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000066.supp
across contexts, but also because subjective judgments of geo graphic distance directly factor into many practical decisions, such as planning one’s daily schedule, evaluating a job’s commute, beginning or maintaining a distance-based relationship, and so forth. Exploring this variability in subjective distance perception, we consider controllability as one widely relevant factor that may predict such variation, arguing that an object located at the same geographical distance seems subjectively closer when the object is more controllable. Recent research by Van Boven, Kane, McGraw, and Dale (2010) on the relationship between emotional intensity and sub jective temporal distance hints at one reason to expect an associ ation between controllability and subjective spatial distance. In arguing that emotionality will impact judgments of distance in time, Van Boven et al. imply that this should occur because subjective judgments of distance are likely to be influenced by the “phenomenology that is typically associated with objective dis tance” (p. 873), and, therefore, that experiences that are generally associated with objective proximity will reduce subjective distance (for similar arguments about the use of correlated cues in judg ment, see, e.g., Faro, Leclerc, & Hastie, 2005; Kahneman & Frederick, 2002; Wakslak & Trope, 2009). We contend that this general logic extends to spatial distance judgment as well as temporal distance, and, furthermore, that controllability of an object is generally facilitated by spatial prox imity. This is true for physical objects: even in a world of smart phones and remote controls, in the majority of our everyday interactions proximity enhances (and is sometimes even a prereq uisite for) controllability (e.g., you can’t roll a physical pair of dice without touching it; your remote control loses effectiveness if you are too far away from the object you are turning on, etc.). It is also true for social objects, where despite the proliferation of online
Technology now allows people to efficiently interact with geo graphically distant others. On the one hand, this has rendered the issue of spatial distance especially salient, given our expanded geographical range of connection; on the other hand, it has made distance a less meaningful obstacle, and perhaps thereby less impactful. This latter viewpoint is encapsulated by the “death of distance” perspective (Caimcross, 2001), which argues that tech nology has rendered physical distance between people an unim portant issue. In contrast, others have maintained that distance is far from dead: indeed, most of our social interaction (even online) is still with geographically proximal others (Goldenberg & Levy, 2009; Onnela, Arbesman, Gonzalez, Barabasi, & Christakis, 2011), and although interactions across distance are increasingly common, distance still has a broad impact on relationships (Latane, Liu, Nowak, Bonevento, & Zheng, 1995) and basic cognition (Trope & Liberman, 2010). One important aspect this debate tends to mask is that percep tions of distance may themselves be quite variable. That is, peo ple’s subjective sense of how far away an item at a given objective distance is may vary considerably. This notion is relevant not only for informing the larger question of whether distance still matters by highlighting that distance itself will be experienced differently
This article was published Online First April 27, 2015. Cheryl J. Wakslak, Department of Management and Organization, Mar shall School of Business, University of Southern California; B. Kyu Kim, Department of Marketing, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Cheryl J. Wakslak, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, 3670 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles, CA 90089. E-mail: wakslak@ marshall.usc.edu 522
CONTROLLABLE OBJECTS SEEM CLOSER communication we tend to still exert greater control over people who are in close proximity to us (Armstrong & Cole, 2002; Latane et al„ 1995). Indeed, when considering spatially near objects, people are focused on the practicalities o f concrete action (Fujita, Henderson, Eng, Trope, & Liberman, 2006), which are seen as less relevant to distant objects. Thus, if the phenomenology o f objec tive spatial distance influences subjective spatial distance, then this relationship between spatial proximity and control implies that having control over something should reduce its subjective spatial distance. Thus, people should categorize a given distance between themselves and an object as smaller when they can control the object than when they cannot. This prediction also speaks to recent research on the relationship between spatial distance perception and a person’s action capabil ities. Focusing on the perception o f near distance (the distance right around a person), for instance, research has argued that physical objects are perceived as closer when they are reachable (Witt, Proffitt, & Epstein, 2005); for example, an item just out of reach appears closer when one is holding a tool that would allow one to reach the object than when one is not (see also Linkenauger, Witt, Stefanucci, Bakdash, & Proffitt 2009; W itt & Proffitt, 2008). Controllability extends the concept of “reachability” beyond near space. That is, objects at a distance that are controllable are within a person’s “action-space” (W itt et al., 2005, p. 881) even though not physically nearby. Moreover, an effect o f controllability should not be limited to nonhuman objects, but rather should apply to social objects as well. A more general relationship between controllability and distance perception thus would suggest that prior findings on reachability and its impact on perception of observable distances may be a particular manifestation of a larger association between controllability and subjective distance percep tion that is not confined to near space distances. We explore this hypothesized relationship across five studies; in the first four we focus on the effect of controllability on spatial distance judgm ent and in the final study we explore whether this relationship also holds in the opposite causal direction.
Study 1 Method Forty-five12 U.S. M turk participants (Mage = 35.53; 20 female, one unknown) began by providing brief demographic information, including their current location (city, state). W e then told them they would be paired up with a study partner named Jamie. Participants read that Jamie lived approximately 200 miles away from their location, and that in the course of the study Jamie would complete several short tasks. High-control-condition participants read they would have con trol over many aspects of what Jamie gets to do. These participants choose the order for the tasks Jamie would complete in the first section of the study, and the topic (from two choices) of a brief writing exercise Jamie would do in the second section. Lowcontrol-condition participants read that a previous participant al ready made these choices regarding Jam ie’s tasks. While Jamie ostensibly completed the selected study tasks, participants answered several questions. As an attention check, participants indicated Jam ie’s distance in miles. Then, as our key dependent variable, participants indicated whether this was a large
523
or small distance (1 = very small distance ; 7 = very large distance). We also asked the same question using a 100-point sliding ruler with the same worded anchors. In addition, partici pants indicated whether they thought Jamie would do well at the study tasks (1 = definitely not, 7 = definitely yes) and how connected they felt with Jamie (1 = not at all; 7 = very con
nected).
Results and Discussion As predicted, participants able to control Jam ie’s task assign ment assessed the distance between themselves and Jamie as smaller (M = 3.14, SD = 1.31) than participants who did not (M = 4.16, SD = 1.01; r(38) = 2.71, p = .010, d = .87). The sliding ruler measure showed a similar trend but did not reach significance (Mc o n tro l = 36.62, SDcontrol = 23.10 vs. Mno_control = 45.36, ^ • ^ n o - c o n tr o l 20.75; f(38) — 1.25, p — .22, d = .40).2 Participants in the two conditions did not differ in terms o f how well they thought Jamie would do (p = .35) or how connected they felt toward Jamie {p = .70); this suggests that any effects are unlikely to be driven by positivity about the target or the target’s social proximity. Study 2 extends this initial finding by using a different control lability manipulation and context; we also examine travel-time expectation as a downstream consequence o f subjective spatial distance perception.
Study 2 Method Ninety-nine U.S. Mturk respondents participated. Because the study involved consideration of work-related control and commute-time estimation, we instructed participants to only com plete the survey if they worked outside the home. We also asked participants directly toward the study’s conclusion whether they currently work outside the home to ensure the inclusion criteria were met; 18 participants reported that they did not currently work outside the home and were therefore excluded from subsequent analysis, leaving a sample of 81 (Mage = 29.59; 23 female, three unknown). High-control-condition participants read a brief paragraph em phasizing ways that people are able to control work-related issues from faraway. They then imagined beginning a new job located 10 miles away from their home and described one way in which they would be able to control something at this work location from home. Low-control-condition participants read a similarly worded paragraph that emphasized ways that people are unable to control work-related issues from faraway. They then imagined beginning a new job 10 miles away from their home, and described one way in which they would be unable to control something at this work location from home.
1 See online supplemental materials for sample size motivation, detailed description of exclusion criteria across studies, number of participants excluded in each study (range = 0-7), and alternative analyses. 2 An aggregate measure created by taking the average of normalized responses for these two measures showed an effect of control on distance perception (McontroI = -.28, SDcontrol = 1.01 vs. Mno.control = .31, ■ 5 0 „ o -co n trci = -84; f(38) = 2.01, p = .051, d = .64).
WAKSLAK AND KIM
524
Next, participants provided judgments of subjective distance (“In the scenario, you were asked to imagine you were just beginning a new job 10 miles from your home. How close or far away would you say the job’s location is from your home? [1 = very close by; 7 = very far away]”) and travel-time (“Imagining that you would commute in moderate traffic, how long would you expect your commute to your work location to be? [1 = very short', 7 = very long]”). We also asked for a free response estimate in minutes, again assuming moderate traffic. In addition, as an atten tion check, we asked participants to report how many miles away the new work location was.3 Participants then completed several follow-up questions about demographics and their current work lives.
to control political actors. Research on political efficacy—the degree to which one believes “individual political action does have, or can have, an impact upon the political process” (Camp bell, Gurin, & Miller, 1954, page 187)—identifies two forms of efficacy (Converse, 1972; Balch, 1974): internal efficacy, one’s beliefs about one’s competence and ability to understand politics, and external efficacy, one’s beliefs regarding the degree to which government authorities are responsive to one’s input. This latter construct therefore well-captures people’s perceptions of their ability to exert control over political actors; we explore whether external efficacy related to an actor in Washington, DC thus predicts perceptions of spatial distance from this location.
Method Results and Discussion Replicating Study 1, high-control participants subjectively judged the work location’s distance as closer (M = 2.95; SD = 1.10) than low-control participants (M = 3.49; SD = 1.21; r(74) = 2.03, p = .046, d = .47). High-control participants also judged the commute time to be shorter (M = 3.35; SD = 1.01) than did low-control participants (M = 3.87; SD = .95; f(74) = 2.32, p = .02, d = .54).4 For the open-ended commute time measure (i.e., commute time estimates in minutes) we also found a similar trend, with participants making lower estimates in the high-controlcondition (M = 19.76; SD = 8.44) than the low-control-condition (Af = 22.33; SD = 6.32; t(72) = \A 9,p = .14, d = .35), although this did not reach significance.5 We further examined whether subjective distance mediates the impact of the control manipulation on judgment of commute time. Using a bootstrapping procedure (Preacher & Hayes, 2004), we identified the path from the control manipulation (0: low-control, 1: high-control) to subjective distance (a = —.54, t = —2.03, p = .046) and the path from distance judgment to commute time judgment (b = .57, t = 7.93, p < .0001). The direct effect from the manipulation to commute time (c = —.52, t = —2.32, p = .02) became insignificant after controlling for the mediator (c' = —.21, t = -1.23, p = .22). Confirming the mediating role of subjective distance judgment, the 95% confidence interval of the indirect effect from the bootstrapping did not include zero (95% Cl, —.72 to —.03). Figure 1 depicts these results.
Study 3 Study 3 explores related effects in a different setting, within a particularly relevant context: the degree to which people feel able
Figure 1. Mediation analysis in Study 3. Statistical significance of the coefficients is indicated by * p < .05 and ** p < .01.
One hundred nine U.S. Mturk participants (Mage = 31.60; 38 female) began by responding to a measure of political efficacy. Four items measured our central construct of external efficacy regarding public officials in Washington (3 items modified from Niemi, Craig, & Mattei, 1991, and a fourth item created for this study; sample item: I can affect what happens in our country’s capital;6 a = .92). We also included a measure of internal efficacy (Niemi et al., 1991; sample item: I think that I am better informed about politics and government than most people; a = .85). Given that internal efficacy measures people’s understanding of politics, rather than their ability to exert control over others, we did not expect internal efficacy to predict spatial distance judgments. Subjective spatial distance judgment was measured by asking participants to rate the distance between their location and Wash ington, DC, home to the federal government (1 = very close by; 7 = very far away). Because participants’ actual objective distance is likely to strongly predict their subjective distance, we were interested in any effect of efficacy when objective distance was controlled for. We asked participants to self-report their zip code and used this to calculate their distance from Washington, DC.7
Results and Discussion Supporting an effect of control on subjective spatial distance, a regression predicting subjective distance of Washington, DC, showed that controlling for actual objective distance (B = 0.001; SE = 0.0001; f( 105) = 9.56, p < .001), external efficacy had the expected negative effect on distance judgment (B = —.20; SE = .10; f(105) = 2.03; p = .045); in contrast, internal efficacy had no significant relationship with distance judgment (B = .05; SE = .12; t(105) = .46; p = .65).8 This supports and extends our earlier findings, demonstrating that perceptions of control relate to sub jective spatial distance judgments, much as manipulated control in Studies 1-2 did. 3 We also measured general sense of control; see online supplemental materials for a discussion. 4 Excluding three outlying responses does not change results, r(71) = 2.32, p = .023. 5 Excluding one outlying response, results reached statistical signifi cance, r(71) = 2.05, p = .044. 6 Full scales provided in online supplemental materials. 7 We also collected self-reported miles from Washington, DC. This highly correlated with the zip-code-based measure, r = .85, p < .001. 8 When the two efficacy predictors were examined in separate regres sions instead of simultaneously, results were highly similar.
CONTROLLABLE OBJECTS SEEM CLOSER
Study 4 People may differ in terms of how much they want to control an actor across distance. Study 4 sought to explore whether one’s desire for control might moderate any effects of control on spatial distance judgment. It is possible, for instance, that if someone wants control and does not have it, they might show a reactive effect in which they ironically perceive the location as more close by than when they have control. On the other hand, if a simple cognitive association drives the effect of control, we might expect it to be robust across desire for control.
Method Two hundred forty-six U.S. Mturk respondents (Mage = 32.29; 83 female, five unknown gender) participated. Participants in the control [no control] condition read the following: Imagine your high school daughter goes off to a summer camp located 100 miles away from where you live. While you are not a helicopter parent, you are used to having a fairly large amount of control over her life, including what she eats during meals, the people she hangs out with, and the activities that she does. In these critical teenage years, you are grateful to have some control over your daughter’s experi ences and development, although you also recognize that it is useful for her to strengthen her independence. Now, with her far away, you find that because you helped to select the camp and you are able to reach her by phone, you continue to have quite a bit of control over things she does this summer [even though you helped to select the camp and you are able to reach her by phone, you don’t really have control over anything she does this summer].
Participants indicated their daughter’s subjective distance (“Your daughter is at a camp 100 miles away. How near or far would you say that your daughter is?” [1 = very near, 7 = very far]). Because the control manipulation was fairly subtle so as to hold other factors constant, we also had them complete a manip ulation check of control (“How much control do you think you have over your daughter this summer?” [1 = very little; 7 = very much]). We made the value of control ambiguous in the scenario so we could see if the value participants placed on control mod erated the effects of manipulated control. To this effect, we asked participants “To what degree do you prioritize a) being able to have control over your daughter or b) her developing indepen dence?” (1 = definitely independence; 7 = definitely control). We also measured desire for control as a general individual difference factor using the Desirability of Control scale (Burger & Cooper, 1979; sample item: “I enjoy being able to influence the actions of others”; a = .89).
Results and Discussion The control manipulation-check suggested that those in the high control condition thought they had more control over their daugh ter (M = 3.20; SD = 1.07) than did those in the no-control condition (M = 1.94; SD = 1.14; f(238) = 8.84, p < .001). Regression analyses used to explore effects of control condition and participants’ expressed prioritization of control (over indepen dence) in the situation, as well as the interaction of these two factors, revealed only the predicted main effect of control condi
525
tion (B = -.43; SE = .17, t(235) = 2.52, p = .013). The interaction between control condition and desire for control did not reach significance (B = .16; SE = .12, f(235) = 1.33, p = .18), although directionally it suggested that the effect was weaker when participants had a stronger desire for control. A similar regression exploring general desire for control as a moderator revealed only a main effect of control condition (B = -.36; SE = .18; r(232) = 2.06, p = .041), with no evidence of an interaction (p = .87).
Study 5 If control influences subjective distance judgment because peo ple tend to associate control with proximity, then the opposite association may hold true as well. To explore this, in Study 5 we manipulated the subjective distance of a location and asked par ticipants to indicate their expected control over a person at that location.
Method One hundred eight U.S. Mturk respondents (Mage = 31.79; 64 female; 1 unknown gender) were asked to role-play a work situ ation where they lived in Los Angeles and managed five employ ees, one of whom was relocating to Sacramento but would con tinue to work under their supervision.9 Participants then saw a map showing their current location (LA) and the location of their employee (Sacramento). In the subjec tively distant condition, the map was zoomed-in such that the distance between the two points looked large; in the close condi tion the map was zoomed-out such that the distance between the points looked small. Participants responded to a series of questions. As an attention check, participants were asked to select which city their employee had relocated to (San Francisco, Davis, or Sacramento). As a distance manipulation check, participants were asked: How far away would you say that Sacramento is from your current loca tion? (1 = very close by; 7 = very far away). They were then asked three items to gauge anticipated control of the employee: To what degree are you going to be able to . . . exert control over your employee in Sacramento; get your employee in Sacramento to follow your instructions; impact the daily behavior of your em ployee in Sacramento (1 = not at all; 7 = very much; a = .80).
Results and Discussion Supporting the efficacy of the map-manipulation, participants in the near condition reported that Sacramento was closer (M = 4.25; SD = 1.19) than those in the far condition (M = 5.20; SD — .98; f(97.33)10 = 4.42, p < .001). Moreover, the distance manipulation reliably influenced control expectations: Participants in the near condition expected to have higher control over the employee (M = 3.90; SD = .92) than those in the distant condition (M = 3.50; SD = 1.04; f(99) = 2.05, p = .043, d = .41.*11 9 See online supplemental materials for wording. 10Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances was significant. 11 Excluding one outlying response, this effect was stronger, r(98) = 2.51, p = .014.
WAKSLAK AND KIM
526
General Discussion Spatial proximity generally facilitates control over objects. In line with this phenomenology of objective spatial proximity, we demonstrate that controllability reduces subjective spatial distance assessment (Studies 1-4), and that, correspondingly, subjective distance can influence perceptions of controllability (Study 5). These findings demonstrate the variability that exists in subjec tive spatial distance assessment and point to one important trigger of subjective distance judgments. In so doing, they provide an important caveat for more general discussions of the role of geographical distance given current technological advances by highlighting how the subjective perception of distance is not a constant, but rather something that varies. Indeed, one possibility for why people have differing perspectives on whether distance is still relevant today may be differences in control: it is plausible that those who argue technology has made distance irrelevant tend to be people who are able to exert control across distance (e.g., because of their occupation, organizational position, etc.), and these individuals may not appreciate that identical distances seem larger for other people. The current findings also extend past research on reachability and perception of near distances, which has found that objects are seen as closer when they are reachable (Witt et al., 2005). Our findings suggest that this may be part of a broader phenomenon that is not confined to near distances and physical reachability (i.e., one’s ability to physically reach an object located in one’s personal space). Moreover, by showing a conceptually related effect that is observable in the subjective assessment of large distances, our findings raise the broader questions of whether other spatial dis tance perceptual effects that have been studied within the context of small, observable distances (e.g., Balcetis & Dunning, 2010; Cole, Balcetis, & Dunning, 2013; Proffitt, 2006) apply more broadly to subjective perception of large, unobservable distances. The current findings also have important implications for the control literature, which has primarily focused on motivational, emotional, and health-related benefits of having the ability to control objects (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Krause, 1994; Rodin, 1986). The current results suggest that having control over an object can affect more basic judgments as well. Such basic judgments may then, in turn, affect a variety of additional outcomes: for example, by shrinking distance, perceptions of control may lead people to seek to reach and influence those at increasing distances. In addi tion, our final study suggests that subjective distance can influence expectations of control; given that control expectations have im portant consequences, this points to a potential way to reliably influence how controllable something may seem. Thus, for exam ple, an employee asking for permission to work from home might be well-served to frame his home’s location as geograph ically proximal when pitching the idea to his boss, who may be nervous about implications of this change for the employee’s controllability. Future research might build upon the current findings in various ways. For example, we contrasted situations where an actor exerts control across distance with situations where the actor does not exert such control. It might be interesting to consider whether our effects of control extend to the recipient of a controlling behavior, rather than being limited to the actor; if control and proximity are linked, then those who experience being controlled by another
person may judge spatial distances between themselves and the controlling actor as smaller, in a fashion similar to the controlling actors’ judgments. In addition, it might be intriguing to consider the current findings’ implications for the psychology of power. Having power has been argued to create feelings of social distance from others (Magee & Smith, 2013); yet, power is associated with increased control (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003) and given the current findings we might therefore expect having power over someone at a distance to decrease that person’s subjective spatial distance. Thus, although distance judgments on multiple dimensions (e.g., social, spatial) often relate similarly to the same predictor variables (Trope & Liberman, 2010), this may be one case where they do not. While beyond our current scope, future research may more directly explore this issue. Our current findings have practical implications as well, given that judgments of spatial distance enter into varied downstream judgments, from deciding on whether a house one might purchase is too far from work, to considering whether to expand to a geographically distant market. It is important for people making distance-related decisions to appreciate that their subjective dis tance judgments may be systematically influenced by perceived control. Consider, for example, the findings of Study 2. Although perceived control affected judgments of commute time, it is highly unlikely to actually affect objective commute time, given that the highway under one’s vehicle and the other cars on the road are wholly uninfluenced by one’s sense of control over a distant object. Thus, decision-makers might benefit from being aware of the association between control and subjective feelings of distance, so that they can consider whether this relationship is influencing their subjective judgments of distance in a way that may not reflect the realistic impact of distance for the downstream consequence in question.
References Armstrong, D. J., & Cole, P. (2002). Managing distances and differences in geographically distributed work groups. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 167-212). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2010). Wishful seeing: More desired objects are seen as closer. Psychological Science, 21, 147—152. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0956797609356283 Balch. G. I. (1974). Multiple indicators in survey research: The concept of sense of political efficacy. Political Methodology, 1, 1-43. Burger, I. M., & Cooper, H. M. (1979). The desirability of control. Motivation and Emotion, 3, 381-393. Caimcross, F. (2001). The death o f distance: How the communications revolution is changing our lives. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The voter decides. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson. Cole, S., Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2013). Affective signals of threat increase perceived proximity. Psychological Science, 24, 34-40. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797612446953 Converse, P. E. (1972). Change in the American electorate. In A. Campbell & P. E. Converse (Eds.), The human meaning o f social change (pp. 263-337). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and selfdetermination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1 -4899-2271 -7 Faro, D., Leclerc, F., & Hastie, R. (2005). Perceived causality as a cue to temporal distance. Psychological Science, 16, 673-677. http://dx.doi .org/10.11ll/j.l467-9280.2005.01594.x
CONTROLLABLE OBJECTS SEEM CLOSER Fujita, K„ Henderson, M. D„ Eng, J„ Trope, Y„ & Liberman, N. (2006). Spatial distance and mental construal of social events. Psychological Science, 17, 278-282. http://dx.doi.Org/10.Illl/j.1467-9280.2006 ,01698.x Goldenberg, J., & Levy, M. (2009). Distance is not dead: Social interac tion and geographical distance in the Internet era. arXiv:0906 .3202v2[cs.CY], Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: At tribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology o f intuitive judgment (pp. 49-81). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.Org/l 0.1017/CBO9780511808098.004 Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265-284. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0033-295X. 110.2.265 Krause, N. (1994). Stressors in salient social roles and well-being in later life. Journal of Gerontology, 49, P137-P148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ geronj/49.3.P137 Latang, B„ Liu, J. H„ Nowak, A., Bonevento, M„ & Zheng, L. (1995). Distance matters: Physical space and social impact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 795-805. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0146167295218002 Linkenauger, S. A., Witt, J. K„ Stefanucci, J. K., Bakdash, J. Z„ & Proffitt, D. R. (2009). The effects of handedness and reachability on perceived distance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1649-1660. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016875 Magee, J. C., & Smith, P. K. (2013). The social distance theory of power. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 158-186. http://dx.doi .org/10.1177/1088868312472732 Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. The American Political Science Review, 85, 1407-1413. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1963953
527
Onnela, J. P„ Arbesman, S., Gonzalez, M. C„ Barabasi, A. L„ & Christakis, N. A. (2011). Geographic constraints on social network groups. PLoS ONE, 6, el6939. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016939 Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Re search Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717-731. http://dx.doi .org/10.3758/BF03206553 Proffitt, D. R. (2006). Distance perception. Current Directions in Psycho logical Science, 15, 131-135. http://dx.doi.Org/10.llll/j.0963-7214 ,2006.00422.x Rodin, J. (1986). Aging and health: Effects of the sense of control. Science, 233, 1271-1276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.3749877 Trope, Y„ & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440-463. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/a0018963 Van Boven, L„ Kane, J., McGraw, A. P„ & Dale, J. (2010). Feeling close: Emotional intensity reduces perceived psychological distance. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 872-885. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/a0019262 Wakslak, C., & Trope, Y. (2009). The effect of construal level on subjec tive probability estimates. Psychological Science, 20, 52-58. http://dx .doi.org/10.1111/j. 1467-9280.2008.02250.X Witt, J. K., & Proffitt, D. R. (2008). Action-specific influences on distance perception: A role for motor simulation. Journal o f Experimental Psy chology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1479-1492. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0010781 Witt, J. K., Proffitt, D. R., & Epstein, W. (2005). Tool use affects perceived distance, but only when you intend to use it. Journal o f Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 880-888.
Received July 7, 2014 Revision received December 29, 2014 Accepted February 7, 2015 ■
E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online! Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be available online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at http://notify.apa.org/ and you will be notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become available!
Copyright of Journal of Experimental Psychology. General is the property of American Psychological Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2015, Vol. 144, No. 3, 522-527
BRIEF REPORT
Controllable Objects Seem Closer Cheryl J. Wakslak and B. Kyu Kim University of Southern California More and more we interact with other people across varying amounts of geographical distance. What shapes our categorization of a fixed amount of such distance as near or far? Building upon and expanding prior work on the association between spatial distance perception and reachability, we argue that people judge a given geographical distance as subjectively smaller when they can exert control across that distance. Studies 1-4 demonstrate this effect of control on spatial distance judgment in disparate contexts, including political, work, and family domains, and explore implications of such judgments for the downstream judgment of travel time to a location (Study 2). We do not find that one’s desire for control moderates these effects (Study 4). Supporting a cognitive association argument, we find evidence that the association between control and distance is bidirectional, with subjective distance influencing perceived controllability (Study 5). Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed. Keywords: control, distance, judgment, decision-making Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000066.supp
across contexts, but also because subjective judgments of geo graphic distance directly factor into many practical decisions, such as planning one’s daily schedule, evaluating a job’s commute, beginning or maintaining a distance-based relationship, and so forth. Exploring this variability in subjective distance perception, we consider controllability as one widely relevant factor that may predict such variation, arguing that an object located at the same geographical distance seems subjectively closer when the object is more controllable. Recent research by Van Boven, Kane, McGraw, and Dale (2010) on the relationship between emotional intensity and sub jective temporal distance hints at one reason to expect an associ ation between controllability and subjective spatial distance. In arguing that emotionality will impact judgments of distance in time, Van Boven et al. imply that this should occur because subjective judgments of distance are likely to be influenced by the “phenomenology that is typically associated with objective dis tance” (p. 873), and, therefore, that experiences that are generally associated with objective proximity will reduce subjective distance (for similar arguments about the use of correlated cues in judg ment, see, e.g., Faro, Leclerc, & Hastie, 2005; Kahneman & Frederick, 2002; Wakslak & Trope, 2009). We contend that this general logic extends to spatial distance judgment as well as temporal distance, and, furthermore, that controllability of an object is generally facilitated by spatial prox imity. This is true for physical objects: even in a world of smart phones and remote controls, in the majority of our everyday interactions proximity enhances (and is sometimes even a prereq uisite for) controllability (e.g., you can’t roll a physical pair of dice without touching it; your remote control loses effectiveness if you are too far away from the object you are turning on, etc.). It is also true for social objects, where despite the proliferation of online
Technology now allows people to efficiently interact with geo graphically distant others. On the one hand, this has rendered the issue of spatial distance especially salient, given our expanded geographical range of connection; on the other hand, it has made distance a less meaningful obstacle, and perhaps thereby less impactful. This latter viewpoint is encapsulated by the “death of distance” perspective (Caimcross, 2001), which argues that tech nology has rendered physical distance between people an unim portant issue. In contrast, others have maintained that distance is far from dead: indeed, most of our social interaction (even online) is still with geographically proximal others (Goldenberg & Levy, 2009; Onnela, Arbesman, Gonzalez, Barabasi, & Christakis, 2011), and although interactions across distance are increasingly common, distance still has a broad impact on relationships (Latane, Liu, Nowak, Bonevento, & Zheng, 1995) and basic cognition (Trope & Liberman, 2010). One important aspect this debate tends to mask is that percep tions of distance may themselves be quite variable. That is, peo ple’s subjective sense of how far away an item at a given objective distance is may vary considerably. This notion is relevant not only for informing the larger question of whether distance still matters by highlighting that distance itself will be experienced differently
This article was published Online First April 27, 2015. Cheryl J. Wakslak, Department of Management and Organization, Mar shall School of Business, University of Southern California; B. Kyu Kim, Department of Marketing, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Cheryl J. Wakslak, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, 3670 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles, CA 90089. E-mail: wakslak@ marshall.usc.edu 522
CONTROLLABLE OBJECTS SEEM CLOSER communication we tend to still exert greater control over people who are in close proximity to us (Armstrong & Cole, 2002; Latane et al„ 1995). Indeed, when considering spatially near objects, people are focused on the practicalities o f concrete action (Fujita, Henderson, Eng, Trope, & Liberman, 2006), which are seen as less relevant to distant objects. Thus, if the phenomenology o f objec tive spatial distance influences subjective spatial distance, then this relationship between spatial proximity and control implies that having control over something should reduce its subjective spatial distance. Thus, people should categorize a given distance between themselves and an object as smaller when they can control the object than when they cannot. This prediction also speaks to recent research on the relationship between spatial distance perception and a person’s action capabil ities. Focusing on the perception o f near distance (the distance right around a person), for instance, research has argued that physical objects are perceived as closer when they are reachable (Witt, Proffitt, & Epstein, 2005); for example, an item just out of reach appears closer when one is holding a tool that would allow one to reach the object than when one is not (see also Linkenauger, Witt, Stefanucci, Bakdash, & Proffitt 2009; W itt & Proffitt, 2008). Controllability extends the concept of “reachability” beyond near space. That is, objects at a distance that are controllable are within a person’s “action-space” (W itt et al., 2005, p. 881) even though not physically nearby. Moreover, an effect o f controllability should not be limited to nonhuman objects, but rather should apply to social objects as well. A more general relationship between controllability and distance perception thus would suggest that prior findings on reachability and its impact on perception of observable distances may be a particular manifestation of a larger association between controllability and subjective distance percep tion that is not confined to near space distances. We explore this hypothesized relationship across five studies; in the first four we focus on the effect of controllability on spatial distance judgm ent and in the final study we explore whether this relationship also holds in the opposite causal direction.
Study 1 Method Forty-five12 U.S. M turk participants (Mage = 35.53; 20 female, one unknown) began by providing brief demographic information, including their current location (city, state). W e then told them they would be paired up with a study partner named Jamie. Participants read that Jamie lived approximately 200 miles away from their location, and that in the course of the study Jamie would complete several short tasks. High-control-condition participants read they would have con trol over many aspects of what Jamie gets to do. These participants choose the order for the tasks Jamie would complete in the first section of the study, and the topic (from two choices) of a brief writing exercise Jamie would do in the second section. Lowcontrol-condition participants read that a previous participant al ready made these choices regarding Jam ie’s tasks. While Jamie ostensibly completed the selected study tasks, participants answered several questions. As an attention check, participants indicated Jam ie’s distance in miles. Then, as our key dependent variable, participants indicated whether this was a large
523
or small distance (1 = very small distance ; 7 = very large distance). We also asked the same question using a 100-point sliding ruler with the same worded anchors. In addition, partici pants indicated whether they thought Jamie would do well at the study tasks (1 = definitely not, 7 = definitely yes) and how connected they felt with Jamie (1 = not at all; 7 = very con
nected).
Results and Discussion As predicted, participants able to control Jam ie’s task assign ment assessed the distance between themselves and Jamie as smaller (M = 3.14, SD = 1.31) than participants who did not (M = 4.16, SD = 1.01; r(38) = 2.71, p = .010, d = .87). The sliding ruler measure showed a similar trend but did not reach significance (Mc o n tro l = 36.62, SDcontrol = 23.10 vs. Mno_control = 45.36, ^ • ^ n o - c o n tr o l 20.75; f(38) — 1.25, p — .22, d = .40).2 Participants in the two conditions did not differ in terms o f how well they thought Jamie would do (p = .35) or how connected they felt toward Jamie {p = .70); this suggests that any effects are unlikely to be driven by positivity about the target or the target’s social proximity. Study 2 extends this initial finding by using a different control lability manipulation and context; we also examine travel-time expectation as a downstream consequence o f subjective spatial distance perception.
Study 2 Method Ninety-nine U.S. Mturk respondents participated. Because the study involved consideration of work-related control and commute-time estimation, we instructed participants to only com plete the survey if they worked outside the home. We also asked participants directly toward the study’s conclusion whether they currently work outside the home to ensure the inclusion criteria were met; 18 participants reported that they did not currently work outside the home and were therefore excluded from subsequent analysis, leaving a sample of 81 (Mage = 29.59; 23 female, three unknown). High-control-condition participants read a brief paragraph em phasizing ways that people are able to control work-related issues from faraway. They then imagined beginning a new job located 10 miles away from their home and described one way in which they would be able to control something at this work location from home. Low-control-condition participants read a similarly worded paragraph that emphasized ways that people are unable to control work-related issues from faraway. They then imagined beginning a new job 10 miles away from their home, and described one way in which they would be unable to control something at this work location from home.
1 See online supplemental materials for sample size motivation, detailed description of exclusion criteria across studies, number of participants excluded in each study (range = 0-7), and alternative analyses. 2 An aggregate measure created by taking the average of normalized responses for these two measures showed an effect of control on distance perception (McontroI = -.28, SDcontrol = 1.01 vs. Mno.control = .31, ■ 5 0 „ o -co n trci = -84; f(38) = 2.01, p = .051, d = .64).
WAKSLAK AND KIM
524
Next, participants provided judgments of subjective distance (“In the scenario, you were asked to imagine you were just beginning a new job 10 miles from your home. How close or far away would you say the job’s location is from your home? [1 = very close by; 7 = very far away]”) and travel-time (“Imagining that you would commute in moderate traffic, how long would you expect your commute to your work location to be? [1 = very short', 7 = very long]”). We also asked for a free response estimate in minutes, again assuming moderate traffic. In addition, as an atten tion check, we asked participants to report how many miles away the new work location was.3 Participants then completed several follow-up questions about demographics and their current work lives.
to control political actors. Research on political efficacy—the degree to which one believes “individual political action does have, or can have, an impact upon the political process” (Camp bell, Gurin, & Miller, 1954, page 187)—identifies two forms of efficacy (Converse, 1972; Balch, 1974): internal efficacy, one’s beliefs about one’s competence and ability to understand politics, and external efficacy, one’s beliefs regarding the degree to which government authorities are responsive to one’s input. This latter construct therefore well-captures people’s perceptions of their ability to exert control over political actors; we explore whether external efficacy related to an actor in Washington, DC thus predicts perceptions of spatial distance from this location.
Method Results and Discussion Replicating Study 1, high-control participants subjectively judged the work location’s distance as closer (M = 2.95; SD = 1.10) than low-control participants (M = 3.49; SD = 1.21; r(74) = 2.03, p = .046, d = .47). High-control participants also judged the commute time to be shorter (M = 3.35; SD = 1.01) than did low-control participants (M = 3.87; SD = .95; f(74) = 2.32, p = .02, d = .54).4 For the open-ended commute time measure (i.e., commute time estimates in minutes) we also found a similar trend, with participants making lower estimates in the high-controlcondition (M = 19.76; SD = 8.44) than the low-control-condition (Af = 22.33; SD = 6.32; t(72) = \A 9,p = .14, d = .35), although this did not reach significance.5 We further examined whether subjective distance mediates the impact of the control manipulation on judgment of commute time. Using a bootstrapping procedure (Preacher & Hayes, 2004), we identified the path from the control manipulation (0: low-control, 1: high-control) to subjective distance (a = —.54, t = —2.03, p = .046) and the path from distance judgment to commute time judgment (b = .57, t = 7.93, p < .0001). The direct effect from the manipulation to commute time (c = —.52, t = —2.32, p = .02) became insignificant after controlling for the mediator (c' = —.21, t = -1.23, p = .22). Confirming the mediating role of subjective distance judgment, the 95% confidence interval of the indirect effect from the bootstrapping did not include zero (95% Cl, —.72 to —.03). Figure 1 depicts these results.
Study 3 Study 3 explores related effects in a different setting, within a particularly relevant context: the degree to which people feel able
Figure 1. Mediation analysis in Study 3. Statistical significance of the coefficients is indicated by * p < .05 and ** p < .01.
One hundred nine U.S. Mturk participants (Mage = 31.60; 38 female) began by responding to a measure of political efficacy. Four items measured our central construct of external efficacy regarding public officials in Washington (3 items modified from Niemi, Craig, & Mattei, 1991, and a fourth item created for this study; sample item: I can affect what happens in our country’s capital;6 a = .92). We also included a measure of internal efficacy (Niemi et al., 1991; sample item: I think that I am better informed about politics and government than most people; a = .85). Given that internal efficacy measures people’s understanding of politics, rather than their ability to exert control over others, we did not expect internal efficacy to predict spatial distance judgments. Subjective spatial distance judgment was measured by asking participants to rate the distance between their location and Wash ington, DC, home to the federal government (1 = very close by; 7 = very far away). Because participants’ actual objective distance is likely to strongly predict their subjective distance, we were interested in any effect of efficacy when objective distance was controlled for. We asked participants to self-report their zip code and used this to calculate their distance from Washington, DC.7
Results and Discussion Supporting an effect of control on subjective spatial distance, a regression predicting subjective distance of Washington, DC, showed that controlling for actual objective distance (B = 0.001; SE = 0.0001; f( 105) = 9.56, p < .001), external efficacy had the expected negative effect on distance judgment (B = —.20; SE = .10; f(105) = 2.03; p = .045); in contrast, internal efficacy had no significant relationship with distance judgment (B = .05; SE = .12; t(105) = .46; p = .65).8 This supports and extends our earlier findings, demonstrating that perceptions of control relate to sub jective spatial distance judgments, much as manipulated control in Studies 1-2 did. 3 We also measured general sense of control; see online supplemental materials for a discussion. 4 Excluding three outlying responses does not change results, r(71) = 2.32, p = .023. 5 Excluding one outlying response, results reached statistical signifi cance, r(71) = 2.05, p = .044. 6 Full scales provided in online supplemental materials. 7 We also collected self-reported miles from Washington, DC. This highly correlated with the zip-code-based measure, r = .85, p < .001. 8 When the two efficacy predictors were examined in separate regres sions instead of simultaneously, results were highly similar.
CONTROLLABLE OBJECTS SEEM CLOSER
Study 4 People may differ in terms of how much they want to control an actor across distance. Study 4 sought to explore whether one’s desire for control might moderate any effects of control on spatial distance judgment. It is possible, for instance, that if someone wants control and does not have it, they might show a reactive effect in which they ironically perceive the location as more close by than when they have control. On the other hand, if a simple cognitive association drives the effect of control, we might expect it to be robust across desire for control.
Method Two hundred forty-six U.S. Mturk respondents (Mage = 32.29; 83 female, five unknown gender) participated. Participants in the control [no control] condition read the following: Imagine your high school daughter goes off to a summer camp located 100 miles away from where you live. While you are not a helicopter parent, you are used to having a fairly large amount of control over her life, including what she eats during meals, the people she hangs out with, and the activities that she does. In these critical teenage years, you are grateful to have some control over your daughter’s experi ences and development, although you also recognize that it is useful for her to strengthen her independence. Now, with her far away, you find that because you helped to select the camp and you are able to reach her by phone, you continue to have quite a bit of control over things she does this summer [even though you helped to select the camp and you are able to reach her by phone, you don’t really have control over anything she does this summer].
Participants indicated their daughter’s subjective distance (“Your daughter is at a camp 100 miles away. How near or far would you say that your daughter is?” [1 = very near, 7 = very far]). Because the control manipulation was fairly subtle so as to hold other factors constant, we also had them complete a manip ulation check of control (“How much control do you think you have over your daughter this summer?” [1 = very little; 7 = very much]). We made the value of control ambiguous in the scenario so we could see if the value participants placed on control mod erated the effects of manipulated control. To this effect, we asked participants “To what degree do you prioritize a) being able to have control over your daughter or b) her developing indepen dence?” (1 = definitely independence; 7 = definitely control). We also measured desire for control as a general individual difference factor using the Desirability of Control scale (Burger & Cooper, 1979; sample item: “I enjoy being able to influence the actions of others”; a = .89).
Results and Discussion The control manipulation-check suggested that those in the high control condition thought they had more control over their daugh ter (M = 3.20; SD = 1.07) than did those in the no-control condition (M = 1.94; SD = 1.14; f(238) = 8.84, p < .001). Regression analyses used to explore effects of control condition and participants’ expressed prioritization of control (over indepen dence) in the situation, as well as the interaction of these two factors, revealed only the predicted main effect of control condi
525
tion (B = -.43; SE = .17, t(235) = 2.52, p = .013). The interaction between control condition and desire for control did not reach significance (B = .16; SE = .12, f(235) = 1.33, p = .18), although directionally it suggested that the effect was weaker when participants had a stronger desire for control. A similar regression exploring general desire for control as a moderator revealed only a main effect of control condition (B = -.36; SE = .18; r(232) = 2.06, p = .041), with no evidence of an interaction (p = .87).
Study 5 If control influences subjective distance judgment because peo ple tend to associate control with proximity, then the opposite association may hold true as well. To explore this, in Study 5 we manipulated the subjective distance of a location and asked par ticipants to indicate their expected control over a person at that location.
Method One hundred eight U.S. Mturk respondents (Mage = 31.79; 64 female; 1 unknown gender) were asked to role-play a work situ ation where they lived in Los Angeles and managed five employ ees, one of whom was relocating to Sacramento but would con tinue to work under their supervision.9 Participants then saw a map showing their current location (LA) and the location of their employee (Sacramento). In the subjec tively distant condition, the map was zoomed-in such that the distance between the two points looked large; in the close condi tion the map was zoomed-out such that the distance between the points looked small. Participants responded to a series of questions. As an attention check, participants were asked to select which city their employee had relocated to (San Francisco, Davis, or Sacramento). As a distance manipulation check, participants were asked: How far away would you say that Sacramento is from your current loca tion? (1 = very close by; 7 = very far away). They were then asked three items to gauge anticipated control of the employee: To what degree are you going to be able to . . . exert control over your employee in Sacramento; get your employee in Sacramento to follow your instructions; impact the daily behavior of your em ployee in Sacramento (1 = not at all; 7 = very much; a = .80).
Results and Discussion Supporting the efficacy of the map-manipulation, participants in the near condition reported that Sacramento was closer (M = 4.25; SD = 1.19) than those in the far condition (M = 5.20; SD — .98; f(97.33)10 = 4.42, p < .001). Moreover, the distance manipulation reliably influenced control expectations: Participants in the near condition expected to have higher control over the employee (M = 3.90; SD = .92) than those in the distant condition (M = 3.50; SD = 1.04; f(99) = 2.05, p = .043, d = .41.*11 9 See online supplemental materials for wording. 10Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances was significant. 11 Excluding one outlying response, this effect was stronger, r(98) = 2.51, p = .014.
WAKSLAK AND KIM
526
General Discussion Spatial proximity generally facilitates control over objects. In line with this phenomenology of objective spatial proximity, we demonstrate that controllability reduces subjective spatial distance assessment (Studies 1-4), and that, correspondingly, subjective distance can influence perceptions of controllability (Study 5). These findings demonstrate the variability that exists in subjec tive spatial distance assessment and point to one important trigger of subjective distance judgments. In so doing, they provide an important caveat for more general discussions of the role of geographical distance given current technological advances by highlighting how the subjective perception of distance is not a constant, but rather something that varies. Indeed, one possibility for why people have differing perspectives on whether distance is still relevant today may be differences in control: it is plausible that those who argue technology has made distance irrelevant tend to be people who are able to exert control across distance (e.g., because of their occupation, organizational position, etc.), and these individuals may not appreciate that identical distances seem larger for other people. The current findings also extend past research on reachability and perception of near distances, which has found that objects are seen as closer when they are reachable (Witt et al., 2005). Our findings suggest that this may be part of a broader phenomenon that is not confined to near distances and physical reachability (i.e., one’s ability to physically reach an object located in one’s personal space). Moreover, by showing a conceptually related effect that is observable in the subjective assessment of large distances, our findings raise the broader questions of whether other spatial dis tance perceptual effects that have been studied within the context of small, observable distances (e.g., Balcetis & Dunning, 2010; Cole, Balcetis, & Dunning, 2013; Proffitt, 2006) apply more broadly to subjective perception of large, unobservable distances. The current findings also have important implications for the control literature, which has primarily focused on motivational, emotional, and health-related benefits of having the ability to control objects (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Krause, 1994; Rodin, 1986). The current results suggest that having control over an object can affect more basic judgments as well. Such basic judgments may then, in turn, affect a variety of additional outcomes: for example, by shrinking distance, perceptions of control may lead people to seek to reach and influence those at increasing distances. In addi tion, our final study suggests that subjective distance can influence expectations of control; given that control expectations have im portant consequences, this points to a potential way to reliably influence how controllable something may seem. Thus, for exam ple, an employee asking for permission to work from home might be well-served to frame his home’s location as geograph ically proximal when pitching the idea to his boss, who may be nervous about implications of this change for the employee’s controllability. Future research might build upon the current findings in various ways. For example, we contrasted situations where an actor exerts control across distance with situations where the actor does not exert such control. It might be interesting to consider whether our effects of control extend to the recipient of a controlling behavior, rather than being limited to the actor; if control and proximity are linked, then those who experience being controlled by another
person may judge spatial distances between themselves and the controlling actor as smaller, in a fashion similar to the controlling actors’ judgments. In addition, it might be intriguing to consider the current findings’ implications for the psychology of power. Having power has been argued to create feelings of social distance from others (Magee & Smith, 2013); yet, power is associated with increased control (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003) and given the current findings we might therefore expect having power over someone at a distance to decrease that person’s subjective spatial distance. Thus, although distance judgments on multiple dimensions (e.g., social, spatial) often relate similarly to the same predictor variables (Trope & Liberman, 2010), this may be one case where they do not. While beyond our current scope, future research may more directly explore this issue. Our current findings have practical implications as well, given that judgments of spatial distance enter into varied downstream judgments, from deciding on whether a house one might purchase is too far from work, to considering whether to expand to a geographically distant market. It is important for people making distance-related decisions to appreciate that their subjective dis tance judgments may be systematically influenced by perceived control. Consider, for example, the findings of Study 2. Although perceived control affected judgments of commute time, it is highly unlikely to actually affect objective commute time, given that the highway under one’s vehicle and the other cars on the road are wholly uninfluenced by one’s sense of control over a distant object. Thus, decision-makers might benefit from being aware of the association between control and subjective feelings of distance, so that they can consider whether this relationship is influencing their subjective judgments of distance in a way that may not reflect the realistic impact of distance for the downstream consequence in question.
References Armstrong, D. J., & Cole, P. (2002). Managing distances and differences in geographically distributed work groups. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 167-212). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2010). Wishful seeing: More desired objects are seen as closer. Psychological Science, 21, 147—152. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0956797609356283 Balch. G. I. (1974). Multiple indicators in survey research: The concept of sense of political efficacy. Political Methodology, 1, 1-43. Burger, I. M., & Cooper, H. M. (1979). The desirability of control. Motivation and Emotion, 3, 381-393. Caimcross, F. (2001). The death o f distance: How the communications revolution is changing our lives. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The voter decides. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson. Cole, S., Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2013). Affective signals of threat increase perceived proximity. Psychological Science, 24, 34-40. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797612446953 Converse, P. E. (1972). Change in the American electorate. In A. Campbell & P. E. Converse (Eds.), The human meaning o f social change (pp. 263-337). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and selfdetermination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1 -4899-2271 -7 Faro, D., Leclerc, F., & Hastie, R. (2005). Perceived causality as a cue to temporal distance. Psychological Science, 16, 673-677. http://dx.doi .org/10.11ll/j.l467-9280.2005.01594.x
CONTROLLABLE OBJECTS SEEM CLOSER Fujita, K„ Henderson, M. D„ Eng, J„ Trope, Y„ & Liberman, N. (2006). Spatial distance and mental construal of social events. Psychological Science, 17, 278-282. http://dx.doi.Org/10.Illl/j.1467-9280.2006 ,01698.x Goldenberg, J., & Levy, M. (2009). Distance is not dead: Social interac tion and geographical distance in the Internet era. arXiv:0906 .3202v2[cs.CY], Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: At tribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology o f intuitive judgment (pp. 49-81). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.Org/l 0.1017/CBO9780511808098.004 Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265-284. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0033-295X. 110.2.265 Krause, N. (1994). Stressors in salient social roles and well-being in later life. Journal of Gerontology, 49, P137-P148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ geronj/49.3.P137 Latang, B„ Liu, J. H„ Nowak, A., Bonevento, M„ & Zheng, L. (1995). Distance matters: Physical space and social impact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 795-805. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0146167295218002 Linkenauger, S. A., Witt, J. K„ Stefanucci, J. K., Bakdash, J. Z„ & Proffitt, D. R. (2009). The effects of handedness and reachability on perceived distance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1649-1660. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016875 Magee, J. C., & Smith, P. K. (2013). The social distance theory of power. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 158-186. http://dx.doi .org/10.1177/1088868312472732 Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. The American Political Science Review, 85, 1407-1413. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1963953
527
Onnela, J. P„ Arbesman, S., Gonzalez, M. C„ Barabasi, A. L„ & Christakis, N. A. (2011). Geographic constraints on social network groups. PLoS ONE, 6, el6939. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016939 Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Re search Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717-731. http://dx.doi .org/10.3758/BF03206553 Proffitt, D. R. (2006). Distance perception. Current Directions in Psycho logical Science, 15, 131-135. http://dx.doi.Org/10.llll/j.0963-7214 ,2006.00422.x Rodin, J. (1986). Aging and health: Effects of the sense of control. Science, 233, 1271-1276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.3749877 Trope, Y„ & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440-463. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/a0018963 Van Boven, L„ Kane, J., McGraw, A. P„ & Dale, J. (2010). Feeling close: Emotional intensity reduces perceived psychological distance. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 872-885. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/a0019262 Wakslak, C., & Trope, Y. (2009). The effect of construal level on subjec tive probability estimates. Psychological Science, 20, 52-58. http://dx .doi.org/10.1111/j. 1467-9280.2008.02250.X Witt, J. K., & Proffitt, D. R. (2008). Action-specific influences on distance perception: A role for motor simulation. Journal o f Experimental Psy chology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1479-1492. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0010781 Witt, J. K., Proffitt, D. R., & Epstein, W. (2005). Tool use affects perceived distance, but only when you intend to use it. Journal o f Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 880-888.
Received July 7, 2014 Revision received December 29, 2014 Accepted February 7, 2015 ■
E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online! Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be available online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at http://notify.apa.org/ and you will be notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become available!
Copyright of Journal of Experimental Psychology. General is the property of American Psychological Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
