Construal level theory (CLT) offers a rich and rigorous conceptual model of how the context shapes mental representations and subsequent outcomes. The theory has generated new understanding of cognitions and behaviors such as prediction, evaluation, and decision making in the fields of psychology and consumer behavior. Recently, management and organizational scholars have begun to leverage CLT to derive novel insights regarding organizational phenomena. This article describes CLT and its theoretical underpinnings, provides a focused and integrated review of organizational research incorporating CLT, and offers an agenda for future work in which CLT opens the door to new avenues of inquiry in organizational research and reinvigorates scholarly interest in cognition in organizations.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Adams JS. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2:267–99 [Google Scholar]
  2. Agerström J, Björklund F. 2009. Moral concerns are greater for temporally distant events and are moderated by value strength. Soc. Cogn. 27:2261–82 [Google Scholar]
  3. Ainslie G. 1975. Specious reward: a behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control. Psychol. Bull. 82:4463–96 [Google Scholar]
  4. Ambrose ML, Schminke M. 2009. The role of overall justice judgments in organizational justice research: a test of mediation. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:2491–500 [Google Scholar]
  5. Amit E, Wakslak C, Trope Y. 2013. The use of visual and verbal means of communication across psychological distance. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 39:43–56 [Google Scholar]
  6. Argote L, Miron-Spektor E. 2011. Organizational learning: from experience to knowledge. Organ. Sci. 22:51123–37 [Google Scholar]
  7. Ayduk Ö, Kross E. 2008. Enhancing the pace of recovery self-distanced analysis of negative experiences reduces blood pressure reactivity. Psychol. Sci. 19:3229–31 [Google Scholar]
  8. Ayduk Ö, Kross E. 2010. From a distance: implications of spontaneous self-distancing for adaptive self-reflection. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 98:5809–29 [Google Scholar]
  9. Barreto I, Patient D. 2013. Toward a theory of intraorganizational attention based on desirability and feasibility factors. Strateg. Manag. J. 34:6687–703 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bartel CA. 2001. Social comparisons in boundary-spanning work: effects of community outreach on members' organizational identity and identification. Adm. Sci. Q. 46:3379–413 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bartel CA, Garud R. 2009. The role of narratives in sustaining organizational innovation. Organ. Sci. 20:1107–17 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bartunek JM, Moch MK. 1987. First-order, second-order, and third-order change and organization development interventions: a cognitive approach. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 23:4483–500 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bass BM, Avolio BJ, Jung DI, Berson Y. 2003. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. J. Appl. Psychol. 88:2207–18 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bem DJ. 1972. Self-perception theory. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 6:1–62 [Google Scholar]
  15. Berson Y, Halevy N. 2014. Hierarchy, leadership, and construal fit. J. Exp. Psychol.: Appl. 20:3232–46 [Google Scholar]
  16. Berson Y, Halevy N, Shamir B, Erez M. 2015. Leading from different psychological distances: a construal-level perspective on vision communication, goal setting, and follower motivation. Lead. Q. 26:2143–55 [Google Scholar]
  17. Bonaccio S, Dalal RS. 2006. Advice taking and decision-making: an integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 101:2127–51 [Google Scholar]
  18. Brebels L, De Cremer D, Van Dijke M, Van Hiel A. 2011. Fairness as social responsibility: a moral self‐regulation account of procedural justice enactment. Br. J. Manag. 22:s1S47–S58 [Google Scholar]
  19. Brockner J, Wiesenfeld BM, Siegel PA, Bobocel DR, Liu Z. 2015. Riding the fifth wave: organizational justice as dependent variable. Res. Organ. Behav. 35:103–21 [Google Scholar]
  20. Brown R. 1958. How shall a thing be called. Psychol. Rev. 65:114–21 [Google Scholar]
  21. Burgoon EM, Henderson MD, Markman AB. 2013. There are many ways to see the forest for the trees: a tour guide for abstraction. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 8:5501–20 [Google Scholar]
  22. Cho TS, Hambrick DC. 2006. Attention as the mediator between top management team characteristics and strategic change: the case of airline deregulation. Organ. Sci. 17:4453–69 [Google Scholar]
  23. Cohen GL, Sherman DK. 2014. The psychology of change: self-affirmation and social psychological intervention. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 65:333–71 [Google Scholar]
  24. Conway P, Peetz J. 2012. When does feeling moral actually make you a better person? Conceptual abstraction moderates whether past moral deeds motivate consistency or compensatory behavior. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 38:7907–19 [Google Scholar]
  25. Daniels MA, Greguras GJ, Gillespie JZ. 2014. Mental construal and perceived job control as antecedents of emotional labor and well-being. Presented at Annu. Acad. Manag. Conf., 74th, Philadelphia, PA
  26. Danziger S, Montal R, Barkan R. 2012. Idealistic advice and pragmatic choice: a psychological distance account. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102:61105–17 [Google Scholar]
  27. De Dreu CK, Giacomantonio M, Shalvi S, Sligte D. 2009. Getting stuck or stepping back: effects of obstacles and construal level in the negotiation of creative solutions. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 45:3542–48 [Google Scholar]
  28. Diekmann KA, Walker SDS, Galinsky AD, Tenbrunsel AE. 2013. Double victimization in the workplace: why observers condemn passive victims of sexual harassment. Organ. Sci. 24:2614–28 [Google Scholar]
  29. Dutton JE, Dukerich JM. 1991. Keeping an eye on the mirror: image and identity in organizational adaptation. Acad. Manag. J. 34:3517–54 [Google Scholar]
  30. Epstein S, O'Brien EJ. 1985. The person–situation debate in historical and current perspective. Psychol. Bull. 98:3513–37 [Google Scholar]
  31. Eyal T, Liberman N, Trope Y. 2008. Judging near and distant virtue and vice. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44:41204–9 [Google Scholar]
  32. Eyal T, Liberman N, Trope Y. 2009. Psychological distance and consumer behavior: a construal level theory perspective. Social Psychology Consumer Behavior M Wänke 61–83 New York: Psychol. Press [Google Scholar]
  33. Festinger L. 1962. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance 2 Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  34. Fishbach A, Dhar R, Zhang Y. 2006. Subgoals as substitutes or complements: the role of goal accessibility. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 91:2232–42 [Google Scholar]
  35. Förster J, Friedman RS, Liberman N. 2004. Temporal construal effects on abstract and concrete thinking: consequences for insight and creative cognition. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 87:2177–89 [Google Scholar]
  36. Förster J, Marguc J, Gillebaart M. 2010. Novelty categorization theory. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 4:9736–55 [Google Scholar]
  37. Freitas AL, Langsam KL, Clark S, Moeller SJ. 2008. Seeing oneself in one's choices: construal level and self-pertinence of electoral and consumer decisions. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44:41174–79 [Google Scholar]
  38. Friedman R, Belkin LY. 2013. The costs and benefits of e-negotiations. Handbook of Research Negotiation M Olekalns, WL Adair 357–84 Cheltenham Glos, UK: Edward Elgar Publ. [Google Scholar]
  39. Fujita K, Henderson MD, Eng J, Trope Y, Liberman N. 2006. Spatial distance and mental construal of social events. Psychol. Sci. 17:4278–82 [Google Scholar]
  40. Galinsky AD, Rucker DD, Magee JC. 2014. Power: past findings, present considerations, and future directions. APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology 3 M Mikulincer, J Simpson, P Shaver, J Dovidio 421–60 Washington, DC: APA [Google Scholar]
  41. Gavetti G, Levinthal D. 2000. Looking forward and looking backward: cognitive and experiential search. Adm. Sci. Q. 45:1113–37 [Google Scholar]
  42. Giacomantonio M, De Dreu CK, Shalvi S, Sligte D, Leder S. 2010. Psychological distance boosts value-behavior correspondence in ultimatum bargaining and integrative negotiation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 46:5824–29 [Google Scholar]
  43. Gilovich T, Kerr M, Medvec VH. 1993. Effect of temporal perspective on subjective confidence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 64:4552–60 [Google Scholar]
  44. Gollwitzer PM. 1999. Implementation intentions: strong effects of simple plans. Am. Psychol. 54:7493–503 [Google Scholar]
  45. Gong H, Medin DL. 2012. Construal levels and moral judgment: some complications. Judgment Decis. Making 7:5628–38 [Google Scholar]
  46. Gruenfeld DH, Inesi ME, Magee JC, Galinsky AD. 2008. Power and the objectification of social targets. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 95:1111–27 [Google Scholar]
  47. Guinote A. 2007. Power and goal pursuit. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 33:1076–87 [Google Scholar]
  48. Hackman JR, Oldham GR. 1976. Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 16:2250–79 [Google Scholar]
  49. Hansen J, Alves H, Trope Y. 2016. Psychological distance reduces literal imitation: evidence from an imitation-learning paradigm. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perform. 42:3320–30 [Google Scholar]
  50. Hansen J, Wänke M. 2010. Truth from language and truth from fit: the impact of linguistic concreteness and level of construal on subjective truth. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 36:111576–88 [Google Scholar]
  51. Heider F. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations New York: Wiley [Google Scholar]
  52. Henderson MD, Trope Y. 2009. The effects of abstraction on integrative agreements: when seeing the forest helps avoid getting tangled in the trees. Soc. Cogn. 27:3402–17 [Google Scholar]
  53. Henderson MD, Trope Y, Carnevale PJ. 2006. Negotiation from a near and distant time perspective. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 91:4712–29 [Google Scholar]
  54. Hideg I, Ferris DL. 2014. Support for employment equity policies: a self-enhancement approach. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 123:149–64 [Google Scholar]
  55. Hodgkinson GP, Healey MP. 2008. Cognition in organizations. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59:387–417 [Google Scholar]
  56. Hofstede G. 1984. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values 5 Newbury Park, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
  57. Hong YY, Morris MW, Chiu CY, Benet-Martinez V. 2000. Multicultural minds: a dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. Am. Psychol. 55:7709–20 [Google Scholar]
  58. Huang L, Galinsky AD, Gruenfeld DH, Guillory LE. 2011. Powerful postures versus powerful roles: Which is the proximate correlate of thought and behavior. Psychol. Sci. 22:195–102 [Google Scholar]
  59. Jones EE, Davis KE. 1965. From acts to dispositions: the attribution process in person perception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 2 L Berkowitz 220–66 New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  60. Joshi PD, Fast NJ. 2013. Power and reduced temporal discounting. Psychol. Sci. 24:4432–38 [Google Scholar]
  61. Joshi PD, Wakslak CJ. 2014. Communicating with the crowd: Speakers use abstract messages when addressing larger audiences. J. Exp. Psychol.: Gen. 143:1351–62 [Google Scholar]
  62. Joshi PD, Wakslak CJ, Raj M, Trope Y. 2016. Communicating with distant others: the functional use of abstraction. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 7:137–44 [Google Scholar]
  63. Kahneman D, Tversky A. 1973. On the psychology of prediction. Psychol. Rev. 80:4237–51 [Google Scholar]
  64. Kalkstein DA, Kleiman T, Wakslak CJ, Liberman N, Trope Y. 2016. Social learning across psychological distance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 110:11–19 [Google Scholar]
  65. Keltner D, Gruenfeld DH, Anderson C. 2003. Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychol. Rev. 110:2265–84 [Google Scholar]
  66. Kinias Z, Sim J. 2016. Facilitating women's success in business: interrupting the process of stereotype threat through affirmation of personal values. J. Appl. Psychol. 101:1185–97 [Google Scholar]
  67. Klitmøller A, Lauring J. 2016. When distance is good: a construal level perspective on perceptions of inclusive international language use. Int. Bus. Rev. 25:1276–85 [Google Scholar]
  68. Kray LJ. 2000. Contingent weighting in self-other decision making. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 83:182–106 [Google Scholar]
  69. Lammers J. 2012. Abstraction increases hypocrisy. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48:2475–80 [Google Scholar]
  70. Lammers J, Galinsky AD, Gordijn EH, Otten S. 2012. Power increases social distance. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 3:3282–90 [Google Scholar]
  71. Ledgerwood A, Trope Y, Chaiken S. 2010a. Flexibility now, consistency later: psychological distance and construal shape evaluative responding. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 99:32–51 [Google Scholar]
  72. Ledgerwood A, Trope Y, Liberman N. 2010b. Flexibility and consistency in evaluative responding: the function of construal level. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 43:257–95 [Google Scholar]
  73. Ledgerwood A, Trope Y, Liberman N. 2015. Construal level theory and regulatory scope. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences R Scott, S Kosslyn 1–9 New York: Wiley [Google Scholar]
  74. Lewin K. 1936. Some social‐psychological differences between the United States and Germany. J. Pers. 4:4265–93 [Google Scholar]
  75. Liberman N, Trope Y. 1998. The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: a test of temporal construal theory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 75:15–14 [Google Scholar]
  76. Locke EA, Latham GP. 2006. New directions in goal-setting theory. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 15:5265–68 [Google Scholar]
  77. Loewenstein G, Prelec D. 1992. Anomalies in intertemporal choice: evidence and an interpretation. Q. J. Econ. 107:573–97 [Google Scholar]
  78. Lu J, Xie X, Xu J. 2013. Desirability or feasibility self–other decision-making differences. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 39:2144–55 [Google Scholar]
  79. Mael F, Ashforth BE. 1992. Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. J. Organ. Behav. 13:2103–23 [Google Scholar]
  80. Magee JC, Galinsky AD. 2008. Social hierarchy: the self‐reinforcing nature of power and status. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2:1351–98 [Google Scholar]
  81. Magee JC, Milliken FJ, Lurie AR. 2010. Power differences in the construal of a crisis: the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull 36:3354–70 [Google Scholar]
  82. Magee JC, Smith PK. 2013. The social distance theory of power. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 17:2158–86 [Google Scholar]
  83. Malkoc SA, Zauberman G. 2006. Deferring versus expediting consumption: the effect of outcome concreteness on sensitivity to time horizon. J. Mark. Res. 43:4618–27 [Google Scholar]
  84. Marguc J, Förster J, Van Kleef GA. 2011. Stepping back to see the big picture: when obstacles elicit global processing. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101:5883–901 [Google Scholar]
  85. Marguc J, Van Kleef GA, Förster J. 2012. Stepping back while staying engaged when facing an obstacle increases psychological distance. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 3:3379–86 [Google Scholar]
  86. McCrea SM, Wieber F, Myers AL. 2012. Construal level mind-sets moderate self-and social stereotyping. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102:151–68 [Google Scholar]
  87. Medin DL, Smith EE. 1984. Concepts and concept formation. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 35:1113–38 [Google Scholar]
  88. Meindl JR, Ehrlich SB, Dukerich JM. 1985. The romance of leadership. Adm. Sci. Q. 30:178–102 [Google Scholar]
  89. Mentovich T, Yudkin D, Tyler T, Trope Y. 2016. Justice without borders: the influence of psychological distance and construal level on moral exclusion. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 42:1349–63 [Google Scholar]
  90. Merritt AC, Effron DA, Monin B. 2010. Moral self‐licensing: when being good frees us to be bad. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 4:5344–57 [Google Scholar]
  91. Milkman KL, Akinola M, Chugh D. 2012. Temporal distance and discrimination: an audit study in academia. Psychol. Sci. 23:7710–17 [Google Scholar]
  92. Mischel W. 1974. Processes in delay of gratification. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 7:249–92 [Google Scholar]
  93. Mitchell JR, Shepherd DA. 2010. To thine own self be true: Images of self, images of opportunity, and entrepreneurial action. J. Bus. Venturing 25:1138–54 [Google Scholar]
  94. Ocasio W. 1997. Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 18:187–206 [Google Scholar]
  95. Okhuysen GA, Galinsky AD, Uptigrove TA. 2003. Saving the worst for last: the effect of time horizon on the efficiency of negotiating benefits and burdens. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 91:2269–79 [Google Scholar]
  96. Packer DJ, Fujita K, Herman S. 2013. Rebels with a cause: a goal conflict approach to understanding when conscientious people dissent. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49:5927–32 [Google Scholar]
  97. Paivio A. 1990. Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  98. Palmeira M. 2015. Abstract language signals power, but also lack of action orientation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 61:59–63 [Google Scholar]
  99. Polman E. 2012. Self–other decision making and loss aversion. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 119:2141–50 [Google Scholar]
  100. Polman E, Emich KJ. 2011. Decisions for others are more creative than decisions for the self. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 37:4492–501 [Google Scholar]
  101. Popper M. 2013. Leaders perceived as distant and close: some implications for psychological theory on leadership. Lead. Q. 24:11–8 [Google Scholar]
  102. Reyt JN, Rubineau B, Wiesenfeld BM. 2015. The effect of resumes’ level of abstraction on candidate evaluation Presented at Annu. Acad. Manag. Conf., 75th, Vancouver, BC [Google Scholar]
  103. Reyt JN, Wiesenfeld BM. 2015. Seeing the forest for the trees: exploratory learning, mobile technology, and knowledge workers’ role integration behaviors. Acad. Manag. J. 58:3739–62 [Google Scholar]
  104. Reyt JN, Wiesenfeld BM, Trope Y. 2016. Big picture is better: the social implications of construal level for advice taking. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 135:22–31 [Google Scholar]
  105. Rizvi S, Bobocel DR. 2015. Using the concept of distance to broaden the horizons of organizational justice. Research in Social Issues in Management: The Social Dynamics of Organizational Justice Vol. 8: SW Gilliland, DD Steiner, DP Skarlicki 37–60 Charlotte, NC: Inf. Age Publ. [Google Scholar]
  106. Rosch E. 1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. J. Exp. Psychol.: Gen. 104:3192–233 [Google Scholar]
  107. Rosch E, Lloyd BB. 1978. Cognition and Categorization Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  108. Rosch E, Simpson C, Miller RS. 1976. Structural bases of typicality effects. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perform. 2:4491–502 [Google Scholar]
  109. Rosen CC, Koopman J, Gabriel A, Johnson RE. 2016. Who strikes back? A daily investigation of when and why incivility begets incivility. J. Appl. Psychol. 101:1620–34 [Google Scholar]
  110. Sagristano MD, Trope Y, Liberman N. 2002. Time-dependent gambling: odds now, money later. J. Exp. Psychol.: Gen. 131:3364–74 [Google Scholar]
  111. Schmeichel BJ, Vohs K. 2009. Self-affirmation and self-control: affirming core values counteracts ego depletion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 96:4770–82 [Google Scholar]
  112. Semin GR, Fiedler K. 1991. The linguistic category model, its bases, applications and range. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2:11–30 [Google Scholar]
  113. Shamir B, House RJ, Arthur MB. 1993. The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: a self-concept based theory. Organ. Sci. 4:4577–94 [Google Scholar]
  114. Smith PK, Galinsky AD. 2010. The nonconscious nature of power: cues and consequences. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 4:10918–38 [Google Scholar]
  115. Smith PK, Trope Y. 2006. You focus on the forest when you're in charge of the trees: power priming and abstract information processing. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90:4578–96 [Google Scholar]
  116. Smith PK, Wigboldus DH, Dijksterhuis AP. 2008. Abstract thinking increases one's sense of power. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44:2378–85 [Google Scholar]
  117. Snefjella B, Kuperman V. 2015. Concreteness and psychological distance in natural language use. Psychol. Sci. 26:91449–60 [Google Scholar]
  118. Steele CM. 1988. The psychology of self-affirmation: sustaining the integrity of the self. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 21:261–302 [Google Scholar]
  119. Stel M, van Dijk E, Smith PK, van Dijk WW, Djalal FM. 2012. Lowering the pitch of your voice makes you feel more powerful and think more abstractly. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 3:497–502 [Google Scholar]
  120. Tenbrunsel AE, Diekmann KA, Wade-Benzoni KA, Bazerman MH. 2010. The ethical mirage: a temporal explanation as to why we are not as ethical as we think we are. Res. Organ. Behav. 30:153–73 [Google Scholar]
  121. Thaler RH. 1981. Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency. Econ. Lett. 8:201–7 [Google Scholar]
  122. Todorov A, Goren A, Trope Y. 2007. Probability as a psychological distance: construal and preference. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 43:473–82 [Google Scholar]
  123. Tolman EC. 1932. Purposive Behavior in Animals and Men New York: Century [Google Scholar]
  124. Trope Y. 1986. Identification and inferential processes in dispositional attribution. Psychol. Rev. 93:3239–57 [Google Scholar]
  125. Trope Y, Liberman N. 2003. Temporal construal. Psychol. Rev. 110:3403–21 [Google Scholar]
  126. Trope Y, Liberman N. 2010. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol. Rev. 117:2440–63 [Google Scholar]
  127. Trope Y, Liberman N, Wakslak C. 2007. Construal levels and psychological distance: effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. J. Consum. Psychol.: Off. J. Soc. Consum. Psychol. 17:283–95 [Google Scholar]
  128. Tumasjan A, Strobel M, Welpe I. 2011. Ethical leadership evaluations after moral transgression: social distance makes the difference. J. Bus. Ethics 99:4609–22 [Google Scholar]
  129. Tumasjan A, Welpe I, Spörrle M. 2013. Easy now, desirable later: the moderating role of temporal distance in opportunity evaluation and exploitation. Entrep. Theory Pract. 37:4859–88 [Google Scholar]
  130. Tyler TR, Blader SL. 2003. The group engagement model: procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 7:4349–61 [Google Scholar]
  131. Tyler TR, Lind EA. 1992. A relational model of authority in groups. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 25:115–91 [Google Scholar]
  132. Vallacher RR, Wegner DM. 1987. What do people think they're doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychol. Rev. 94:13–15 [Google Scholar]
  133. Vallacher RR, Wegner DM. 1989. Levels of personal agency: individual variation in action identification. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57:4660–71 [Google Scholar]
  134. van Houwelingen G, van Dijke M, De Cremer D. 2015. Getting it done and getting it right: Leader disciplinary reactions to followers' moral transgressions are determined by construal level mindset. Lead. Q. 26:5878–91 [Google Scholar]
  135. Vroom VH. 1964. Work and Motivation New York: Wiley [Google Scholar]
  136. Wakslak CJ, Smith PK, Han A. 2014. Using abstract language signals power. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 107:141–55 [Google Scholar]
  137. Wakslak C, Trope Y. 2009. The effect of construal level on subjective probability estimates. Psychol. Sci. 20:152–58 [Google Scholar]
  138. Walsh JP. 1995. Managerial and organizational cognition: notes from a trip down memory lane. Organ. Sci. 6:3280–321 [Google Scholar]
  139. Wiesenfeld BM, Brockner J. 2012. On the reciprocal relationship between basic and applied psychological theory. Organ. Psychol. Rev. 2:2172–82 [Google Scholar]
  140. Wiesenfeld BM, Brockner J, Martin C. 1999a. A self-affirmation analysis of survivors' reactions to unfair organizational downsizings. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 35:5441–60 [Google Scholar]
  141. Wiesenfeld BM, Raghuram S, Garud R. 1999b. Communication patterns as determinants of organizational identification in a virtual organization. Organ. Sci. 10:6777–90 [Google Scholar]
  142. Wilson J. 2014. Geography, identity and psychological distance in virtual groups Presented at Annu. Acad. Manag. Conf., 74th, Philadelphia, PA [Google Scholar]
  143. Wilson J, Crisp CB, Mortensen M. 2013. Extending construal-level theory to distributed groups: understanding the effects of virtuality. Organ. Sci. 24:2629–44 [Google Scholar]
  144. Yudkin DA, Liberman N, Wakslak C, Trope Y. 2016. Measuring up to distant others: expanding and contracting the comparative scope SSRN Work. Pap. 2728788 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error