MSpace will be unavailable on Sunday Jan 29, 2023 between the times of 8:00AM CST and 12:00PM CST. Please plan your submissions accordingly.

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.supervisorGaucher, Danielle (Psychology) Starzyk, Katherine (Psychology)en_US
dc.contributor.authorNeufeld, Katelin Helene
dc.date.accessioned2014-09-16T17:25:44Z
dc.date.available2014-09-16T17:25:44Z
dc.date.issued2014-09-16
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1993/24047
dc.description.abstractResistance to rectifying local injustice and methods of addressing such resistance are often studied in terms of motivational barriers (e.g., system justification, Jost & Banaji, 2004). I propose that a cognitive mechanism called construal level may also play an important role. Construal level refers to whether people are thinking concretely or abstractly. For example, if considering the act of locking a door, one might construe the behavior as putting a key in a lock (a concrete construal) or as securing a house (an abstract construal). Construal level theory (Liberman & Trope, 1998) states that people think concretely about near events and thinking concretely makes people more concerned about feasibility (e.g., “Is it affordable?”), whereas thinking abstractly makes people more concerned about morality (Eyal, Liberman, & Trope, 2008). Thus, inducing abstract thinking might increase support for addressing local injustice. I assessed this novel proposal in two experimental studies that focused on the lack of adequate water services in First Nations and included measures of social action as dependent variables. In Study 1 (n = 151 White Canadian undergraduates; 44% women), participants thought about either a local or distant injustice. I hypothesized participants would support the local injustice less as they would think more concretely and thus be more concerned with feasibility and less concerned with morality; no differences emerged (p’s > .36, d’s < .15). In Study 2 (n = 166 White Canadian undergraduates; 66% women), I directly manipulated construal level and had all participants consider a local injustice. People led to think abstractly (vs. concretely) were more supportive of addressing injustice because they were more morally outraged, experienced more empathy, and thought the problem was easier to solve, 95% CI = [0.22, 0.98]. Thus, the results suggest that induced abstract thinking may be an effective tool for achieving local social change.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectconstrual level theoryen_US
dc.subjectFirst Nationsen_US
dc.subjectsocial actionen_US
dc.subjectwateren_US
dc.titleThe role of abstract construals in increasing public support for addressing local injusticeen_US
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis
dc.typemaster thesisen_US
dc.degree.disciplinePsychologyen_US
dc.contributor.examiningcommitteeVorauer, Jacquie (Psychology) Woolford, Andrew (Sociology)en_US
dc.degree.levelMaster of Arts (M.A.)en_US
dc.description.noteOctober 2014en_US
local.subject.manitobayesen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record