Automatic processing of psychological distance: evidence from a Stroop task

Abstract

A picture-word version of the Stroop task was used to test the automatic activation of psychological distance by words carrying various senses of psychological distance: temporal (tomorrow, in a year), social (friend, enemy), and hypotheticality (sure, maybe). The pictures implied depth, with the words appearing relatively close to or distant from the observer. The participants classified the spatial distance of words faster when the word's implicit psychological distance matched its spatial distance (e.g., a geographically close word was classified faster when it was "friend" than when it was "enemy"). The findings are consistent with the idea that psychological distance is accessed automatically, even when it is not directly related to people's current goals, and suggest that psychological distance is an important dimension of meaning, common to spatial distance, temporal distance, social distance, and hypotheticality.

Figure 1

The four panels illustrate the four possible spatial-location X word-meaning combinations in each of the experiments. The four conditions are: a word of proximity located near the observer (a congruent condition, Panel A), a word of distance located near the observer (an incongruent condition, Panel B), a word of proximity located far from the observer (an incongruent condition, Panel C), and a word of distance located far from the observer (a congruent condition, Panel D). The actual stimuli were color photographs and not drawings. The present illustration demonstrates words related to hypotheticality – “sure” denotes proximity in that domain, and “maybe” denotes distance. These words were used in Experiments 6 and 12.

Figure 2

Incongruent trials were significantly slower than congruent trials in all experiments, excluding Experiments 2, 8 and 12. In the spatial task, participants classified the spatial distance of the words; and in the words task participants classified the words.

Figure 2

Incongruent trials were significantly slower than congruent trials in all experiments, excluding Experiments 2, 8 and 12. In the spatial task, participants classified the spatial distance of the words; and in the words task participants classified the words.

Figure 2

Incongruent trials were significantly slower than congruent trials in all experiments, excluding Experiments 2, 8 and 12. In the spatial task, participants classified the spatial distance of the words; and in the words task participants classified the words.