Abstract
The same phenomenon or action may evoke different imaginations across the minds of people. For instance, locking the door could be construed either as putting the key into the lock or as securing the house. According to the construal level theory, the former (latter) is more likely to happen among people with a low (high) level of construal, who have an intrinsic inclination to focus on peripheral details (central features) of the phenomena or action. Given that object’s peripheral details are more concrete and less abstract than its central features, people with a low (high) level of construal have better developed concrete-mindset (abstract-mindset). Previous research has been consistently assuming that people with a low (high) level of construal are better at cognitively processing the concrete (abstract) phenomenon or action. However, this assumption has not yet been empirically tested with EEG methodology. In this paper, we test this assumption through within-subject experimental design (n = 44) conducting EEG methodology. Results of the P-300 component of the event-related brain potential, which is an indicator of mental workload, demonstrated that people with a low (high) level of construal experienced a greater mental workload when they were processing abstract (concrete) phenomena.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Notes
Our pilot test based on 250 undergraduate students revealed that those abstract words are perceived more abstract than those concrete words (toverall = 5.21, poverall < .01), whereas those concrete words are perceived more concrete than those abstract words (toverall = 4.57, poverall < .01).
The term of confounding effect refers to an alternative explanation for our causal inference.
References
Allison, B. Z., & Polich, J. (2008). Workload assessment of computer gaming using a single-stimulus event-related potential paradigm. Biological Psychology, 77(3), 277–283.
Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Suppressing secrecy through metacognitive ease: Cognitive fluency encourages self-disclosure. Psychological Science, 20(11), 1414–1420.
Bar-Anan, Y., Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Algom, D. (2007). Automatic processing of psychological distance: Evidence from a Stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 610–622.
Carter, A. B., Bobocel, D. R., & Brockner, J. (2019). When to explain why or how it happened: Tailoring accounts to fit observers’ construal level. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 26(1), 158–170.
Courchesne, E., Hillyard, S. A., & Galambos, R. (1975). Stimulus novelty, task relevance and the visual evoked potential in man. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 39(2), 131–143.
Cuthbert, B. N., Schupp, H. T., Bradley, M. M., Birbaumer, N., & Lang, P. J. (2000). Brain potentials in affective picture processing: Covariation with autonomic arousal and affective report. Biological Psychology, 52(2), 95–111.
Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics ıncluding ındependent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134(1), 9–21.
Dickson, D. S., Cerda, V. R., Beavers, R. N., Ruiz, A., Castañeda, R., & Wicha, N. Y. (2018). When 2×4 is meaningful: The N400 and P300 reveal operand format effects in multiplication verification. Psychophysiology, 55(11), 1–22.
Ding, Y., & Keh, H. T. (2017). Consumer reliance on intangible versus tangible attributes in service evaluation: The role of construal level. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(6), 848–865.
Eyal, T., Sagristano, M. D., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Chaiken, S. (2009). When values matter: Expressing values in behavioral intentions for the near vs. distant future. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1), 35–43.
Friedman, D., Cycowicz, Y. M., & Gaeta, H. (2001). The novelty P3: An event-related brain potential (ERP) sign of the brain's evaluation of novelty. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 25(4), 355–373.
Fujita, K., & Carnevale, J. J. (2012). Transcending temptation through abstraction: The role of construal level in self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(4), 248–252.
Fujita, K., & Han, H. A. (2009). Moving beyond deliberative control of impulses: The effect of construal levels on evaluative associations in self-control conflicts. Psychological Science, 20(7), 799–804.
Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3), 351–367.
Gevins, A., & Smith, M. E. (2003). Neurophysiological measures of cognitive workload during human-computer ınteraction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 4(1–2), 113–131.
Gokcay, A., Celebisoy, N., Gokcay, F., & Atac, C. (2006). Cognitive functions evaluated by P300 and visual and auditory number assays in children with childhood epilepsy with occipital paroxysms (CEOP). Seizure, 15(1), 22–27.
Goldstein, A., Spencer, K. M., & Donchin, E. (2002). The influence of stimulus deviance and novelty on the P300 and novelty P3. Psychophysiology, 39(6), 781–790.
Gray, H. M., Ambady, N., Lowenthal, W. T., & Deldin, P. (2004). P300 as an index of attention to self-relevant stimuli. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(2), 216–224.
Guastello, S. J. (2016). Cognitive workload and fatigue in financial decision making. Tokyo: Springer.
Hajcak, G., MacNamara, A., & Olvet, D. M. (2010). Event-related potentials, emotion, and emotion regulation: An integrative review. Developmental Neuropsychology, 35(2), 129–155.
Hansen, J. (2019). Construal level and cross-sensory influences: High-level construal increases the effect of color on drink perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(5), 890–904.
Isreal, J. B., Chesney, G. L., Wickens, C. D., & Donchin, E. (1980). P300 and tracking difficulty: Evidence for multiple resources in dual-task performance. Psychophysiology, 17(3), 259–273.
Jung, T. P., Makeig, S., Westerfield, M., Townsend, J., Courchesne, E., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2001). Analysis and visualization of single trial event related potentials. Human Brain Mapping, 14(3), 166–185.
Kathner, I., Wriessnegger, S. C., Müller-Putz, G. R., Kübler, A., & Halder, S. (2014). Effects of mental workload and fatigue on the P300, alpha and Theta band power during operation of an ERP (P300) brain–computer interface. Biological Psychology, 102, 118–129.
Kivetz, Y., & Tyler, T. R. (2007). Tomorrow I’ll be me: The effect of time perspective on the activation of ıdealistic versus pragmatic selves. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 193–211.
Kok, A. (2001). On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity. Psychophysiology, 38(3), 557–577.
Lammers, J. (2012). Abstraction increases hypocrisy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(2), 475–480.
Luck, S. J. (2014). An introduction to the event-related potential technique. Cambridge: MIT Press.
MacGregor, K. E., Carnevale, J. J., Dusthimer, N. E., & Fujita, K. (2017). Knowledge of the self-control benefits of high-level versus low-level construal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(4), 607–620.
Mak, J. N., McFarland, D. J., Vaughan, T. M., McCane, L. M., Tsui, P. Z., Zeitlin, D. J., Sellers, E. W., & Wolpaw, J. R. (2012). EEG correlates of P300-based brain–computer interface (BCI) performance in people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Journal of Neural Engineering, 9(2), 026014.
Mochizuki-Kawai, H., Tsukiura, T., Mochizuki, S., & Kawamura, M. (2006). Learning-related changes of brain activation in the visual ventral stream: An fMRI study of mirror reading skill. Brain Research, 1122(1), 154–160.
Nidal, K., & Malik, A. S. (2014). EEG/ERP analysis: Methods and applications. New York, NY: CRC Press.
Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American psychologist, 17(11), 776.
Palomba, D., Angrilli, A., & Mini, A. (1997). Visual evoked potentials, heart rate responses and memory to emotional pictorial stimuli. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 27(1), 55–67.
Peng, W., Hu, L., Zhang, Z., & Hu, Y. (2012). Causality in the association between P300 and alpha event-related desynchronization. PLoS One, 7(4).
Polich, J. (2007). Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118(10), 2128–2148.
Pozharliev, R., Verbeke, W. J., Van Strien, J. W., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2015). Merely being with you increases my attention to luxury products: Using EEG to understand consumers' emotional experience with luxury branded products. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(4), 546–558.
Reyt, J. N., Wiesenfeld, B. M., & Trope, Y. (2016). Big picture is better: The social implications of construal level for advice taking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 135, 22–31.
Rim, S., Uleman, J. S., & Trope, Y. (2009). Spontaneous trait inference and construal level theory: Psychological distance increases nonconscious trait thinking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1088–1097.
Sauseng, P., & Klimesch, W. (2008). What does phase information of oscillatory brain activity tell us about cognitive processes? Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 32(5), 1001–1013.
Shaw, E. P., Rietschel, J. C., Hendershot, B. D., Pruziner, A. L., Miller, M. W., Hatfield, B. D., & Gentili, R. J. (2018). Measurement of attentional reserve and mental effort for cognitive workload assessment under various task demands during dual-task walking. Biological Psychology, 134, 39–51.
Slepian, M. L., Masicampo, E. J., & Ambady, N. (2015). Cognition from on high and down low: Verticality and construal level. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(1), 1–17.
Soltani, M., & Knight, R. T. (2000). Neural origins of the P300. Critical Reviews in Neurobiology, 14(3–4), 20–46.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403–421.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463.
Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83–95.
Ullsperger, P., Freude, G., & Erdmann, U. (2001). Auditory probe sensitivity to mental workload changes–an event-related potential study. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 40(3), 201–209.
Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 660–671.
Wakslak, C., & Trope, Y. (2009). The effect of construal level on subjective probability estimates. Psychological Science, 20(1), 52–58.
Wakslak, C. J., Nussbaum, S., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). Representations of the self in the near and distant future. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4), 757–773.
Wiesenfeld, B. M., Reyt, J. N., Brockner, J., & Trope, Y. (2017). Construal level theory in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(March), 367–400.
Wu, C., Liu, Y., & Quinn-Walsh, C. M. (2008). Queuing network modeling of a real-time psychophysiological index of mental workload—P300 in event-related potential (ERP). IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 38(5), 1068–1084.
Xu, G., Wu, Y., & Li, M. (2020). The study of influence of sound on visual ERP-based brain computer Interface. Sensors, 20(4), 1203–1217.
Zhang, M., & Wang, J. (2009). Psychological distance asymmetry: The spatial dimension vs. other dimensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3), 497–507.
Zhu, L., He, Y., Chen, Q., & Hu, M. (2017). It's the thought that counts: The effects of construal level priming and donation proximity on consumer response to donation framing. Journal of Business Research, 76, 44–51.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ozkara, B.Y., Dogan, V. Is either peripheral detail(s) or central feature(s) easy to mentally process?: EEG examination of mental workload based on construal level theory. Curr Psychol 41, 5185–5194 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01036-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01036-0