—.
=
=
—
:
—
_—'—
‘—
—
'—'
—
——
—
—

 

THESE

2.00%

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

Temporal Distance and Intentions toward

Socially Desirable and Undesirable Behaviors

presented by

Soe Yoon Choi

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MA degree in Journalism

 

 

W

Major Professor’s Signature

August 14, 2008

 

Date

MSU is an affinnative-action, equal-opportunity employer

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:IProj/Aoc&Pres/CIRC/DateDue.indd

TEMPORAL DISTANCE AND INTENTIONS TOWARD
SOCIALLY DESIRABLE AND UNDESIRABLE BEHAVIORS

By

Soe Yoon Choi

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Journalism

2008

ABSTRACT

TEMPORAL DISTANCE AND INTENTIONS TOWARD
SOCIALLY DESIRABLE AND UNDESIRABLE BEHAVIORS

By
Soe Yoon Choi

Construal Level Theory posits that a decision on distant-future actions is more
likely to depend on abstract than concrete features of those actions whereas a near-future
decision is more likely to depend on concrete than abstract features. This study tested
Construal Level Theory by proposing that people’s intentions toward socially desirable
behaviors (blood donation and recycling) would be greater when they expect them in the
distant than near future as the desirability (abstract features of behaviors) of behaviors
would look more salient in the distant future (hypothesis 1). In contrast, the intentions
toward undesirable behaviors (downloading unauthorized copies of media files and
littering) were hypothesized to decrease with temporal distance (hypothesis 2). The study
further hypothesized that the correlation between perceived descriptive norms and
intention towards socially desirable and undesirable behaviors would weaken over
temporal distance (hypothesis 3). Hypothesis 1 was partially supported as intention
towards blood donation increased whereas intention towards recycling did not change
over time. Hypothesis 2 was not supported as intention towards downloading
unauthorized copies of media files increased and intention towards littering did not
change over time. Hypothesis 3 was not supported as the correlation between intention
and perceived descriptive norms changed in the opposite direction to the hypothetical

prediction.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... iv
I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
II. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 3
Theoretical Background: Construal Level Theory ...................................................................... 3
CLT and Behavioral Intention toward Socially Desirable and Undesirable Behaviors .............. 4
Descriptive Norms and Behavioral Intention .............................................................................. 7
III. METHOD ............................................................................................................................... 10
Overview ................................................................................................................................... 10
Participants ................................................................................................................................ 10
Procedure .................................................................................................................................... 11
Measurements ............................................................................................................................ 12
IV. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 15
Hypothesis 1 .............................................................................................................................. 15
Hypothesis 2 .............................................................................................................................. l7
Hypothesis 3 .............................................................................................................................. 18
V. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................... 21
VI. LIMITATION .......................................................................................................................... 25
VII. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 26
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................... 30
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 34

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Means and standard deviations (SD) for intention, descriptive / situational norms,
and behavioral evaluation
....................................................................................................................................................... 28

Table 2. Correlations between intentions and descriptive / situational norms over temporal
distance
....................................................................................................................................................... 29

I. INTRODUCTION

Intention to engage in a behavior can depend on how far in the future individuals
consider acting on that behavior. For behaviors such as donating blood and recycling,
individuals may not intend to do them today, but may intend to do them some time in the
future. From among the many factors that can affect behavioral intentions, the current
study focused on the temporal distance, which refers to the time interval between the
present and any time in the future when a behavior is supposed to occur. Construal Level
Theory (CLT, hereafter) posits that temporal distance affects the way individuals construe
a behavior and that the effect of temporal distance on the construal is reflected in
behavioral choices and responses to the behavior (Trope & Liberman, 2003). Distant-
future events and behaviors are represented abstractly on a high-level construal whereas
near-future events and behaviors are represented with concreteness and details on a low-
level construal (Trope, Liberman, & Wakslak, 2007). Depending on whether individuals
predict to engage in a behavior in the very near future or distant future, the abstract or
concrete aspects of each construal (i.e., high-level versus low-level construals) can
influence the individuals’ behavioral motivation (Trope et al., 2007).

The current study tested CLT concerning the effects of temporal distance on
intentions to engage in socially desirable and undesirable behaviors. Socially desirable
and undesirable behaviors are categorized into those that are accepted in society or not
(Platow, 1994). In the current study, blood donation and recycling will be categorized as
socially desirable behaviors, and littering and unauthorized downloading of copyrighted
materials will be considered as socially undesirable behaviors. According to CLT, abstract
features such as attitudes and social values (e.g., altruism, independence, freedom, and

equality) are more likely to guide distant than near-future decisions, whereas near-future

decisions are more likely to depend on situational conditions (T rope & Liberman, 2003).
This study hypothesizes that the farther into the future individuals plan socially desirable
behaviors, their intentions to engage in those behaviors will be strengthened as the
abstract aspect (i.e. social desirability) becomes more salient and the concrete aspects (i.e.
situational constraints) become less prominent over temporal distance. In contrast, for
socially undesirable behaviors, the intentions will be greater in the near than distant
fiiture as undesirability becomes more salient in the distant future and situational
constraints that may lead individuals to engage in those behaviors become more
prominent in the nearer time fi'ame.

As another factor affecting intention to engage in behaviors over temporal
distance, the current study further examines the role of perceived descriptive norms,
which pertain to individuals’ beliefs about the prevalence of specific behaviors. Typically,
the more likely individuals are to perceive that a behavior is commonly done by many
others, the more likely they are to consider the behavior as normal. The study suggests
that, especially for socially undesirable behaviors, the more likely individuals consider
the behaviors as popular and prevalent among others, the more likely they intend to
engage in those behaviors in the near future, but the less likely they intend to engage in
those behaviors in the distant future. In sum, this study will firstly test CLT by examining
the changes of behavioral intentions toward socially desirable and undesirable behaviors
over time. Then, the influence of descriptive norms on behavioral intentions over

temporal distance will be discussed.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

Theoretical Background: Construal Level Theory

Trope and Liberman’s (2003) assumption on CLT is that temporal distance
influences individual responses to future events by systematically changing the way they
construe the events. Constructing an event using high—level construals involves drawing
the perceived essence, gist, or summary of the given information whereas constructing an
event by low-level construals involves descriptions using secondary and incidental
features of events or objects (Henderson, Trope, & Camevale, 2006). Near-future events
are often constructed with low-level construals, but distant-future events are constructed
with high-level construals. Because high-level construals consist of superordinate and
more central features and low-level construals include subordinate and less essential
features of events, near future events are described with rich details, whereas distant
future events are without secondary and incidental features of events (Liberman,
Sagristano, & Trope, 2002). For example, Liberman and Trope (1998) found that
individuals used different construals when they described activities, such as reading
science fiction or taking an exam, for either tomorrow or next year. For those engaged in
the former case, reading activities were imagined as “I read a science fiction book by
flipping pages.” However, those describing their activities for next year said, “I will
broaden my horizons by reading a science fiction book.”

CLT has been applied to many studies regarding future choices, evaluations, and
perceptions (Trope & Liberman, 2003), including changes in preference on main versus
filler tasks (Trope & Liberman, 2000), consumers’ choices of products (Trope et al.,

2007), desirability for events depending on the probability of their occurrence (Todorov,

Goren, & Trope, 2007), negotiating styles (Henderson et al. 2006), and activation of
different selves (Kivets & Tyler, 2007). These studies commonly reported that
favorability toward future actions depended on the activities’ specific characteristics
(high-level construal factors or low-level construal factors) that are differently
emphasized over temporal distance. For example, when examining the changes in
preference on main (hi gh-level construal factor) or filler (low-level construal factor) tasks
in the future, Trope and Liberman (2000) found that the attractiveness of the combination
of these tasks change based on individuals’ perceptual emphasis on specific task
characteristics. As a distant future task, individuals preferred the combination of
interesting main and boring filler tasks whereas they preferred boring main and
interesting filler tasks as a near future task. In terms of consumers’ preference on products,
Dhar and Kim (2007) showed that consumers were more likely to focus on abstract
attributes of products, such as quality, when considering their purchase in the distant
future whereas low-level, concrete, or peripheral features, such as prices were intensively
considered at the time of purchase.

CLT and Behavioral Intention toward Socially Desirable and Undesirable Behaviors

Socially desirable behaviors can be characterized as acts that many people
approve and that society rewards, whereas socially undesirable behaviors are those that
many people disapprove of and that society sanctions and punishes (Cialdini, Kallgren, &
Reno, 1991; Kallgren, Reno, & Cialdini, 2000). Social acceptance of behaviors is often
determined by consensual moral codes (Bandura, 1991), and morality becomes an issue
when a person’s choice, when freely performed, may harm or benefit others (Jones, 1991).
Satisfying social values and complying with moral rules can be accomplished by

engaging in socially desirable behaviors and by not engaging in socially undesirable

behaviors. What prevents individuals from engaging in socially desirable behaviors as
often as they wish (or society wishes) and what makes it difficult to refrain from socially
undesirable behaviors can be situational constraints and practical concerns. For example,
as socially desirable behaviors, blood donation is an act that helps others in need, and
recycling is an act that contributes to the efforts to save the environment. On the other
hand, as socially undesirable behaviors, unauthorized downloading of copyrighted
materials (e.g., music, movies, and books) is an act that is illegal and has negative
consequences to society (e.g., adverse impacts on creative efforts) and littering is an act
that increases clean-up costs for society and can harm the environment. The reasons why
individuals may engage in socially undesirable behaviors and may not engage in socially
desirable behaviors can include, for example, “I don’t have the time right now,”
“unauthorized downloading is easy and cheap to get the music file I want,” and “there is
no trash can nearby.”

Based on the concept of CLT, social desirability and undesirability of behaviors
can be values representing hi gh-level construals, which become more salient for the
distant than near-future behavioral decisions. On the other hand, practical concerns
relevant to engaging or not engaging in those behaviors can typify low-level construals,
which can be more prominent for the near than distant-future behavioral decisions. Past
research testing CLT has shown relevant empirical evidence. For example, concerning
moral principles, individuals were more likely to construe future activities with value-
laden terms rather than value-neutral terms and are more likely to apply moral principles
to distant than near-future actions (Eyal, Liberman, & Trope, 2008). Additionally,

immoral behaviors in the distant future were judged more severely than those in the near

future whereas moral behaviors in the distant future were judged more positively than
those in the near future (Eyal et al., 2008). The effects of temporal distance on the
salience of either construal expand to individuals’ perceptual domain. For example,
making decisions for the distant future events was more likely to be based on idealistic
views of decision makers themselves and identity benefits as “intrinsic reinforcements
that support the expression of one’s true self and values,” whereas making decisions for
the near future events was more likely to be based on their pragmatic view of themselves
and instrumental benefits as “extrinsic resources or means that can be used for achieving
other positive outcomes (e. g., financial rewards)” (p. 197, Kivetz & Tyler, 2007). CLT
states that “temporal changes in the attractiveness of an option depend on the value
associated with the high-level construal of the option (high-level value) and the value
associated with the low-level construal of the Option (low-level value)” and predicts that
“temporal distance should increase the weight of high-level value and decrease the
weight of low-level value” (Trope & Liberman, 2003, p. 407).

The prediction of CLT and previous empirical findings in support of CLT
indicates that the values reflected in high-level construals (e.g., the abstract and prosocial
values such as morality, altruism, benefit to others in need, and contribution to the efforts
to save the environment) will be considered more positive than the values reflected in
low-level construals (e.g., the concrete and practical considerations such as efficiency,
materialism, and convenience) in the distant than near future. Therefore, it is expected
that socially desirable and undesirable aspects of behaviors will become more prominent
when individuals consider those behaviors in the distant future, whereas practical

concerns, such as convenience situational constraints, may become more salient when

individuals consider those behaviors in the near future. Thus, the current study predicts
that intention to engage in socially desirable behaviors will be strengthened with temporal
distance and intention to engage in socially undesirable behaviors will be weakened with
temporal distance.

H1: For socially desirable behaviors, intention to engage in a behavior will
increase as temporal distance (i.e., the time interval between the present
and any time in the future when a behavior is supposed to occur) increases.

H2: For socially undesirable behaviors, intention to engage in a behavior will
decrease as the temporal distance increases.

Descriptive Norms and Behavioral Intention

Individuals’ perception of the descriptive norms about a given behavior can be a
relevant factor for individuals’ behavioral intentions. Descriptive norms refer to what
people commonly do (Cialdini et al., 1991; Kallgren et al., 2000). Individuals can vary in
the extent to which they perceive a certain behavior is popular in the society. The effects
of actual and perceived descriptive norms on behavioral intentions have been examined
in bodies of research ranging from condom use (Blanton et al., 2001) to organ donation
(Park & Smith, 2007), littering (Kallgren et al., 2000), energy conservation (Schultz et al.,
2003), college students’ alcohol consumption (Rimal & Real, 2003, 2005) and smoking
(Castro et al., 1987). A meta-analysis showed that perceived descriptive norms explained
on average 5% of the variance in various behavioral intentions even after other predictors
(i.e., attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control of theory of planned
behavior) were taken into account (Rivis & Sheeran, 2003). The effects of descriptive
norms on behavioral intentions and behaviors, however, can vary. For example,

descriptive norms are influential only when the norms are made salient (Kallgren et al.,

2000). Perceived descriptive norms among individuals’ close and important people are
significantly associated with behavioral intentions when the behavior can be done by
individuals alone (i.e., enrolling in a state organ donor registry) but not when the
behavior involves other people (i.e., family discussion) (Park & Smith, 2007).

The current study examines individuals’ perception of descriptive norms as a
factor that has varying effects on behavioral intentions as the temporal distance changes.
The study also considers the possibility that the effect of perceived descriptive norms on
behavioral intentions can be different between socially desirable and undesirable
behaviors. For behaviors in the near future, individuals’ perceived prevalence of the
behavior (i.e., the strength of perceived descriptive norms) can be more strongly and
positively related to their intentions to engage in socially undesirable behaviors than to
their intentions to engage in socially desirable behaviors. Past research on health-related
behaviors provides some relevant evidence. For example, a meta-analysis (Rivis &
Sheeran, 2003) showed that perceived descriptive norms had a stronger relationship with
intentions for health-risk behaviors (e. g., binge drinking and drug use) than for health-
promoting behaviors (e. g., healthy eating and physical exercise). It is possible that the
level of influence of perceived descriptive norms would be greater for socially
undesirable than desirable behaviors as a way of justifying to engage on undesirable
behaviors.

For behaviors in the distant future, temporal distance may weaken the expected
positive relationship between perceived descriptive norms and the intention to engage in
socially undesirable behaviors. That is, for individuals with a stronger perception of

descriptive norms, their intentions to engage in socially undesirable behaviors can be

weaker in the distant than near future. Individuals were more likely to base decisions for
distant-future behaviors on their idealistic view of themselves and identity benefits
(Kivetz & Tyler, 2007). Weaker intentions to engage in socially undesirable behaviors in
the distant future can indicate individuals’ stronger desire to see themselves positively.
Past research has shown that perception on average individuals or the percentage of
others who have certain traits or behave in certain ways is related to self-enhancement.
The phenomena that individuals see themselves as better than average are robust (Alicke
& Govorun, 2005; Williams & Gilovich, 2008). Americans who would say the deceptive
messages overestimated the percentage of others who would also say those messages
(Park & Ahn, 2007). As individuals are more likely to perceive that many others are
engaging in socially undesirable behaviors, their weaker intentions to engage in socially
undesirable behaviors can be a way of enhancing their idealistic self. Furthermore,
individuals are more likely to see themselves as better than others in the future than in the
present (Kanten & Teigen, 2008). In sum, it is expected that the relationship between
individuals’ perceived descriptive norms and intentions to engage in socially undesirable
behaviors will be weaker when they imagine themselves to engage in the behavior in the
near rather than distant fliture.

On the other hand, as individuals are less likely to perceive that many others
engage in socially desirable behaviors, their stronger intentions toward socially desirable
behaviors can be a way of enhancing their idealistic self. As a way to enhance self, people
underestimate the percentage of others who also possess the behaviors and traits of high
personal and social desirability (Campbell, 1986; Sedikides, Gaertner, & Toguchi, 2003).

Americans who would say the honest message underestimated the percentage of others

who would also say those messages (Park & Ahn, 2007). Perceived descriptive norms
may have smaller effects on intentions to engage in socially desirable behaviors.
However, it is expected that the relationship between individuals’ perceived descriptive
norms and intentions to engage in socially desirable behaviors will be weaker when they
imagine themselves toward the behavior in the distant future than in the near future.
H3: There will be differences between socially desirable and socially undesirable
behaviors in the extent to which temporal distance affects the relationship
between perceived descriptive norms and intentions to engage in a
behavior.

III. METHOD
Overview

Participants for this study were recruited from the United States and Korea. Each
participant was randomly selected to answer one of six versions of the survey. The survey
was composed of questionnaires to ask intentions, descriptive norms, situational
descriptive norms, evaluations for behaviors’ (un)desirability, experiences with and
reasons of engaging in each behavior (blood donation, recycling, downloading of
unauthorized copies of media files, and littering) and demographic information.

Participants

A total of 395 participants were recruited from the United States (n = 240) and
Korea (n = 155). In the United States, 97 (40.4%) men and 143 (59.6%) women
completed the survey. In Korea, 71 (45.8%) men and 84 (54.2%) women completed the
survey.

American participants. The participants from the United States were composed of

students (92.9%) and administrative staff (7.1%) of Michigan State University. Of the

10

participants, 65.8% were Caucasian, 14.2% were African American, 0.4% were Native
American, 6.7% were Asian American, 3.8% were Hispanic, 1.3% were Pacific Islander,
0.8% were mixed, and 5.8 % were un-identifiable. Among total participants, 7.1% were
international students. The range of participants’ ages was 18 to 60 years old (M = 23.35,
SD = 6.45). One hundred and twenty one participants (women 56.2%) completed the
questionnaires for desirable behaviors and 119 (women 63%) completed the
questionnaires for undesirable behaviors.

Korean participants. All participants in Korea had the identical ethnicity. The
majority of Korean participants were non-student working adults. Of the participants,
75.5% were non-student working adults employed in large Korean and international
companies. The other 7.1% were employed in professional positions, 0.6% in public
services, 0.6% in education, 2.6% in service sector, 1.3% in self-owned business, 0.6% in
part time positions, and 9% in other professions. The range of participants’ ages was 21 to
48 years old (M = 32.14, SD = 4.98). Seventy nine participants (women 60.8%)
completed the questionnaires for desirable behaviors and 79 (women 47.4%) completed
the questionnaires for undesirable behaviors.

Procedure

American students received extra credit or compensation ($5 per participant) in
exchange of participation in the study. All Korean participants voluntarily participated
without any compensation. Korean participants were contacted via the researcher’s
personal network and snowball sampling.

The American participants completed the questionnaires in English and Korean
participants completed the questionnaires in Korean. As the survey should be equivalent

in transfen'ing the meanings of questionnaires, the original English questionnaires were

11

translated into Korean by a professional English-Korean translator for Korean
participants.
Measurements

In both United States and Korea, about one half of the participants responded to
measurement items concerning socially desirable behaviors and another half responded to
measurement items concerning socially undesirable behaviors. Two behaviors were
selected for each socially desirable and undesirable behavior category. Blood donation
and recycling were chosen as socially desirable behaviors and unauthorized downloading
of copyrighted materials and littering were chosen as socially undesirable behaviors. For
littering and recycling behaviors, a brief vignette with a picture developed with MS office
tool was provided before measuring participants’ behavioral intentions (i.e. Imagine that
on a hot summer day reaching IOOF degrees, you have a job interview at a downtown
building. You have arrived at the entrance of the building and want to get rid of the
bottle of water you just finished. You are in a hurry and do not want to be late, but there
is no trash can nearby. Instead, you see a small pile of trash_(e.g. crushed cans, bottles,
papers, etc) at the comer of the building, which is very close to where you are now. You
also see a recycling bin quite far (about 150 feet or 0.03 mile) away from your
destination.) One half of the participants indicated their intentions to litter and the other
half indicated their intentions to recycle. For blood donation and unauthorized
downloading of copyrighted media files, behavioral intention was measured without
vignettes. Appendix shows the questionnaires. All the measures used a 7-point scale (1 =
strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). See Appendix for all the measurement items and
reliabilities.

Behavioral intentions. Behavioral intentions were measured with four items. For

12

example, items for measuring intention of blood donation include a statement, “I will try
to make myself available for blood donation about (a week /3 months / a year) fiom
now.” Items for measuring intention of littering include a statement, “I will try to discard
the bottle in the small trash pile before the interview,” with a conditional sentence such as
“Imagine yourself about (a week /3 months / a year) from now in the above situation.”

In order to examine the effect of temporal distance on behavioral intentions, each
behavioral intention item was accompanied with one of three time points (a week/3
months/a year). The designation of three time points was partly based on thecommon
way to set temporal distance in previous CLT studies and some comments of participants
who participated in the pre-test to ensure the appropriateness of the temporal distance.
Although the standards for creating intervals of temporal distance were not mentioned in
previous CLT studies, the temporal distance interval was set to observe the relative
salience of high or low-level construals for distant or near-future judgments of activities.
For example, Liberman et a1. (2004) used “within a week” versus “a year later” and
Liberman and Trope (1998) used “tomorrow” versus “some time next year” to stimulate
each construal. It is expected that the four time points will stimulate abstract or concrete
aspects for each behavior.

Descriptive norms. Individuals’ perceptions of descriptive norms were measured
with four questionnaire items for each behavior. For example, a statement such as “Blood
donation is a common behavior that many people do” was used to measure perceived
descriptive norms.

Situational descriptive norms. For measuring intentions to recycle and litter, a

situation was described and provided to the participants to account for the possibility that

13

individuals’ perception of descriptive norms in general could be different from their
descriptive norms specific to the situation (i.e., perceptions of what many others would
do in the described situation). Individuals’ perception of situational descriptive norms for
the recycling and littering vignette was measured by four questionnaire items. For
example, a statement such as “When facing the above situation, many people in America
throw away the bottle in the small pile of trash” was used to measure perceived descriptive
norms.

Social desirability and undesirability evaluations of the behaviors. Each behavior
for this study was evaluated in terms of their social desirability and undesirability. In
order to verify if participants consider blood donation and recycling as socially desirable
behaviors and littering and unauthorized downloading of copyrighted media files as
socially undesirable behaviors, participants responded to six items for each behavior. An
example item is “It is expected that participation in blood donation would enhance
community welfare.”

The participants considered blood donation (M = 5.47, SD = 0.84) as more
socially desirable than downloading unauthorized files (M = 3.26, SD = 0.92), t (393) =
24.94, p < .001, n2 = .61. Recycling (M = 5.73, SD = 0.87) was also considered as more
socially desirable than downloading unauthorized files (M = 2.41, SD = 0.92), t (391) =
36.74, p < .001 , n2 = .78. Although Americans scored consistently higher on social
desirability for each behavior than Koreans did (e.g., M = 5.10, SD = 0.77 among
Koreans and M = 5.71, SD = 0.80 among Americans for blood donation; M = 5.62, SD =
0.81 among Koreans and M = 5.81, SD = 0.91 among Americans for recycling; M = 2.91,

SD = 0.87 among Koreans and M = 3.49, SD = 0.88 among Americans for downloading;

14

M = 2.06, SD = 0.79 among Koreans and M = 2.62, SD = 0.94 among Americans for
littering), there was no significant and substantial interaction effect between culture
(Koreans versus Americans) and behavior type (desirable versus undesirable behaviors).

Past behavior. In order to control the potential effects of past behavior on
behavioral intentions, participants were asked if they had participated in any of the
behaviors examined in the study (see Appendix). An example item is, “I have participated
in blood donation,” with answer options of “yes” or “no.” When included in any of the
main analyses testing all the hypotheses, past behavior did not significantly interact with
any other variables such as temporal distance, culture, and behavior types (desirable
versus undesirable behaviors).

IV. RESULTS

Table 1 shows means and standard deviations for each variable and table 2 shows
correlations between intentions and perceived descriptive norms over each temporal
distance. Since two desirable behaviors (blood donation and recycling) were used for
testing the first hypothesis, the analysis was done on each behavior separately. Similarly,
two undesirable behaviors (downloading media files and littering) were used for testing
the second hypothesis, the analysis was also done separately on each behavior. For testing
hypothesis 3, correlation analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between
perceived descriptive norms and intentions across the three different temporal points.

Hypothesis 1

Hypothesis I predicted that the intention toward socially desirable behaviors
would increase with increases in temporal distance (i.e., the time interval between the
present and any time in the future when a behavior is supposed to occur). A 3 (temporal

distance: 1 week, 3 months, and 1 year) x 2 (culture: Koreans and Americans) between

15

subject two-way ANOVA was used to examine difference in intention to donate blood
and also to examine difference in intention to litter.

Blood donation. The analysis revealed a significant main effect for temporal
distance, F (2, 194) = 8.26, p< .001, n2 = .08. Post hoc comparisons using Tukey’s
procedure (p < .05) revealed that people’s intention to donate blood was greater after a
year from now (M= 3.51, SD = 1.75) than both 3 months (M= 2.82, SD = 1.58) and a
week from now (M = 2.34, SD = 1.55). However, there was not any statistically
significant difference in intention between 3-month and a-week temporal distance. There
was no main effect for culture, F (1, 194) = 0.76, p = .39, n2: .00; Koreans (M = 2.79, SD
= 1.70) and Americans (M = 2.97, SD = 1.69) did not significantly differ in their intention
to donate blood. The analysis did not reveal any significant interaction effect between
temporal distance and culture, F (2, 194) = 0.70, p = .50, n2 = .00. In sum, the results
showed that temporal distance was a significant predictor for the increasing intention
toward blood donation over time. For blood donation, the data were consistent with the
first hypothesis. Particularly, the intention was significantly greater when people
considered donating blood in the distant than in the near future (a week versus a year
from now and 3 months versus a year from now).

Recycling. The analysis did not reveal a significant main effect for temporal
distance, F (2, 193) = 0.15, p = .86, n2 = .00. On the other hand, culture had a significant
main effect, F (1, 193) = 47.64, p < .001, n2 = .20. The analysis showed that Americans
had greater intentions to recycle (M = 4.99, SD = 1.49) than Koreans did (M = 3.49, SD =
1.48). The analysis did not reveal any significant interaction effect between temporal

distance and culture, F (2, 193) = 0.74, p = .48, n2 = .00. The data were not consistent

16

with the first hypothesis in that temporal distance did not significantly influence intention
to recycle.

In summary, the analysis showed that temporal distance was a significant
predictor for the increase in intention to donate blood but not a predictor for intention to
recycle. Cultural difference in behavioral intention was not observed in blood donation.
However, for recycling, Americans showed greater intention to recycle than Koreans did.

Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2 predicted that intention toward socially undesirable behaviors would
decrease as the temporal distance increased. A 2 (culture: Koreans and Americans) x 3
(temporal distance: 1 week, 3 months, and 1 year) between subject two-way ANOVA was
used to examine the difference in intention to download unauthorized copies of media
files and also to examine difference in intention to litter.

Download unauthorized copies of media files. The analysis revealed a significant
main effect for temporal distance F (2, 189) = 7.68, p < .01 , n2 = .07. In the direction
opposite to the hypothesis, however, the intention significantly increased with temporal
distance. Post hoc comparisons using Tukey’s procedure (p<.05) revealed that pe0ple’s
intention after a year from now (M = 4.35, SD = 1.73) was statistically greater than both 3
months (M = 3.52, SD = 2.02) and a week fiom now (M =3.08, SD = 1.78). There was not
any statistically significant difference in intentions between 3-month and a—week
temporal frames.

Culture was a significant predictor for the intention to download unauthorized
media files, F (1, 189) = 6.04, p < .05, n2 = .03. The analysis showed that Americans (M
= 3.88, SD = 2.02) more strongly intended to download unauthorized media files on the

Internet than Koreans did (M = 3.23, SD = 1.66). The analysis did not reveal any

17

significant interaction effect between temporal distance and culture, F (2, 189) = 1.44, p
= .24, n2 = .01. The data were not consistent with the hypothesis in that the significant
effect for temporal distance on the intention to download unauthorized copies of media
files was observed differently fi'om the hypothesis.

Littering. The analysis did not reveal a significant effect for temporal distance, F
(2, 189) = 0.24, p = .79, n2 = .00. However, there was a significant difference in intention
to litter between Koreans and Americans when they faced a situation to recycle or litter a
water bottle while in a hurry. The analysis showed that Koreans had greater intentions to
litter (M= 4.18, SD = 1.67) than Americans did (M= 2.57, SD = 1.52), F (1, 189) = 47.37,
p < .001, n2 = .20. The analysis did not reveal any significant interaction effect between
temporal distance and culture, F (2, 189) = 0.60, p = .55, n2 = .00. The data were not
consistent with the hypothesis in that temporal distance was not a significant predictor for
the intention to litter over temporal distance.

In summary, the analysis showed that there was a significant effect of temporal
distance on intention to download unauthorized copies of media files. However,
inconsistent with the hypothesis, the intention rather increased than decreased with
increasing temporal distance. For intention to litter, there was no significant difference in
the intention over temporal distance. The analysis showed cultural difference in intention
to download unauthorized media files and intention to litter. Americans showed greater
intentions to download unauthorized media files than Koreans did, whereas Koreans had
greater intentions to litter than Americans did.

Hypothesis 3

Hypothesis 3 predicted that the relationship between perceived descriptive norms

and behavioral intentions would change over temporal distance and such changes would

18

differ for socially desirable behaviors and socially undesirable behaviors. Correlations
between perceived descriptive norms and behavioral intentions were examined separately
for desirable and undesirable behaviors and for each temporal time frame. For intentions
to engage in blood donation (a desirable behavior), correlations were r (62) = .30, p = .02
for intention in one week, r (66) = .05, p = .69 for intention in three months, and r (66) =
—.02, p = .86 for intention in one year. Although these correlations decreased over the
temporal distance, Fisher’s r to z transformation showed that these three correlations did
not differ significantly from one another. The difference between r = .30 (intention in one
week) and r = .05 (intention in three months) was 2 = 1.46, p = .14 (two-sided) and the
difference between r = .30 (intention in one week) and r = —.02 (intention in one year)
was 2 = 1.82, p = .07 (two-sided).

On the other hand, for intentions to download unauthorized files on the Internet
(an undesirable behavior), correlations were r (66) = .29, p = .02 for intention in one
week, r (64) = .58, p < .001 for intention in three months, and r (59) = .47, p < .001 for
intention in one year. Fisher’s r to z transformation showed that the difference between r
= .29 (intention in one week) and r = .58 (intention in three months) was significant, 2 =
2.06 p = .04 (two-sided). But the difference between r = .29 (intention in one week) and r
= .47 (intention in one year) was not significant, 2 = 1.21, p = .22 (two-sided).

For intention to recycle (a desirable behavior), correlations between perceived
descriptive norms and intentions were r (61) = .10, p = .43 for intention in one week, r
(66) = .13, p = .29 for intention in three months, and r (66) = .15, p = .20 for intention in
one year. Fisher’s r to z transformation showed that these three correlations did not differ

significantly from one another. The difference between r = .10 (intention in one week)

19

and r = .13 (intention in three months) was 2 = 0.02, p = .88 (two-sided) and the
difference between r = .10 (intention in one week) and r = .15 (intention in one year) was
2 = 0.31, p = .74 (two-sided).

Correlations between situational descriptive norms and intention to recycle were r
(61) = .37, p = .003 for intention in one week, r (66) = .54, p < .001 for intention in three
months, and r (66) = .38, p = .001 for intention in one year. Fisher’s r to z transformation
showed that these three correlations did not differ significantly from one another. The
difference between r = .37 (intention in one week) and r = .54 (intention in three months)
was 2 = 1.26, p = .20 (two—sided) and the difference between r = .37 (intention in one
week) and r = .38 (intention in one year) was 2 = 0.10, p = .91 (two-sided).

For intention to litter (an undesirable behavior), correlations between perceived
descriptive norms and intentions were r (65) = —.12, p = .35 for intention in one week, r
(64) = —.33, p = .008 for intention in three months, and r (59) = —.03, p = .84 for intention
in one year. Although these correlations decreased over the temporal distance, Fisher’s r
to z transformation showed that these three correlations did not differ significantly fiom
one another. The difference between r = —.12 (intention in one week) and r = —.33
(intention in three months) was 2 = 1.26, p = .21 (two-sided) and the difference between r
= —.12 (intention in one week) and r = —.03 (intention in one year) was 2 = 0.49, p = .62
(two-sided).

Correlations between situational descriptive norms and intention to litter were r
(66) = .26, p = .03 for intention in one week, r (64) = .16, p = .21 for intention in three
months, and r (59) = .27, p = .03 for intention in one year. Fisher’s r to z transformation

showed that these three correlations did not differ significantly from one another. The

20

difference between r = .26 (intention in one week) and r = .16 (intention in three months)
was 2 = 0.60, p = .54 (two-sided) and the difference between r = .26 (intention in one
week) and r = .27 (intention in one year) was 2 = 0.09, p = .92 (two-sided).

V. DISCUSSION

This study tested Construal Level Theory (CLT) by examining whether the
intentions toward socially desirable (blood donation and recycling) and undesirable
behaviors (downloading unauthorized copies of media files and littering) would change
with temporal distance (hypotheses 1 and 2). The study further examined how perceived
descriptive norms would influence the intentions toward each behavior over time
(hypothesis 3). The hypotheses predicted that intentions toward socially desirable
behaviors would increase with temporal distance and intentions toward socially
undesirable behaviors would decrease with temporal distance. Additionally, with the
prediction that temporal distance would moderate the relationship between perceived
descriptive norms and intentions, hypothesis 3 specifically expected that perceived
descriptive norms would be more strongly and negatively related to intentions toward
socially undesirable behaviors over time, but less strongly related to intentions toward
socially desirable behaviors.

The current findings showed partial influence of temporal distance on the
intentions toward both socially desirable and undesirable behaviors. First, for blood
donation (a socially desirable behavior), people showed greater intention to donate blood
in the distant (a year from now) than in the near (a week or 3 months from now) future
while evaluating it as socially desirable. This result supports the assumption of CLT
(Trope & Liberman, 2003) since people’s social value (c. g. in the current study, social

desirability) is more likely a behavioral predictor in the distant rather than near future.

21

However, although downloading unauthorized copies of media files was considered as
relatively undesirable behavior in society, people’s intention to download those files
increased with temporal distance. This is probably because people’s intentions do not
depend on the undesirability of the behavior in society. Instead, other factors such as
people’s positive attitudes toward Internet downloading would have influenced their
intentions. For example, the analyses on past behavioral pattern and open-ended
questionnaires showed that about 77.8 % of the total participants (n = 195) had an
experience downloading unauthorized media files via Internet. Furthermore, among those
who have downloaded unauthorized media files, about 56.3% (n = 85) said that it is a free,
cheap, easy, or convenient way of obtaining those files. This implies that people may be
more likely to think that downloading unauthorized media files is beneficial to
themselves rather than to consider it as undesirable act to society. Trope and Liberman
(2003) considered that both values and attitudes are more likely to affect distant than
near-future behavioral decisions. However, it is possible that distant-future behavioral
decisions may depend on either individual values or attitudes based on the type of
behavior they engage in. For example, even when stereotyping is virtually against general
social values, if social norms or individual values are not against it, the tendency of
stereotyping would be more salient in the distant than near future (Trope and Liberman,
2003). For illegal downloading, individuals’ positive attitudes toward downloading (e. g.
the convenience of obtaining materials in easy and affordable ways) may have caused the
increasing intentions over time. Further research would be necessary to find out whether
individual or social values may be stronger predictors for the intention to download

unauthorized copies of media files.

22

In terms of recycling and littering, intentions did not change over time for a
specific situation (facing a choice between the recycling bin and a small pile of trash to
throw away a bottle while in a hurry). Possible reasons for the consistent intention over
temporal distance may include the common belief regarding each behavior. In other
words, people would have taken recycling for granted such that temporal distance would
not have any effect on the level of desirability of recycling and littering. Past behavior
analysis partly supports this assumption. Ninety eight percent (11 = 194) of participants
had the experience of recycling and 66.8% (n = 129) had the experience of littering. In
terms of recycling, the commonality of behavior may have confounded the effect of the
desirability of behavior over temporal distance. Put another way, the high percentage of
participation in recycling may indicate that people do not allow themselves to litter even
under urgent situation (e. g. near-future time frame). Although it cannot be concluded that
the high percentage of participation in recycling implies non-littering behavior, it is
possible that common sense concerning littering induced socially desirable answers of
participants regarding their intentions.

The analysis testing hypothesis 3 revealed minor influence of descriptive norms
as moderators only for the relationship between intention toward downloading
unauthorized copies of media files and temporal distance. That is, the correlation between
the intention and perceived descriptive norms positively increased from one-week to 3-
months temporal distance. This result is not consistent with the hypothesis as it predicted
that the correlation between the intention and perceived descriptive norms toward
undesirable behaviors would be weaker and negative with temporal distance. As noted

earlier, this opposite direction of the effect of descriptive norms on the change in

23

intention over time may be caused because individual values were stronger predictors
than social values concerning downloading of unauthorized copies of media files. If their
intentions would have been more influenced by individual than social values, the
increasing positive correlation between the intention and perceived descriptive norms
over time could be partly supported by the current study’s prediction. That is, as
individual values may not be consistent with or possibly against the societal value, self-
enhancement tendency (Kanten & Tei gen, 2008) would not be prominent in the distant
future.

Cultural difference was observed in the intention towards downloading
unauthorized copies of media files, recycling, and littering. According to the results,
Americans were more likely to download unauthorized media files and recycle than
Koreans whereas Koreans were less likely to download unauthorized media files but
more likely to litter than Americans. The non-significant interaction effects of culture by
temporal distance, however, indicate that there were not any substantial cultural
differences in the effects of temporal distance on behavioral intentions.

Even so, it is still possible that cultural difference in intentions toward these
behaviors imply differing social norms between and probably within cultures (e. g. sub
groups that may be divided by communities, ages, professions, etc) that may have
induced confounding effects of descriptive norms on behavioral intentions. Therefore,
subdivision of groups will be necessary to increase the reliability of the relationship
between perceived descriptive norms and intentions over time. Although all of these
behaviors were turned out to be normal among population, a crucial factor enhancing the

engagement in these behaviors can be more likely to depend on close rather than others’

24

general behaviors. For example, diverse age groups would have different views or
necessities concerning downloading unauthorized media files. Similarly, whether or not
engaging in a specific behavior can also depend on different restrictions or rules of sub
groups. For instance, because most American participants in this study were students and
staff of a large university that accommodates recycling bins, participants may have had
stronger commitment than others who do not have to recycle or have little access to
recycling bins. The recycling policies in Korea have also been firmly established such
that most people often recycle both at home and work places. The compliance of rules
that are recommended by communities takes important roles for people to feel part of
them. For instance, Rimal and Real (2005) pointed out that having a similar pattern of
behaviors is a way of identifying selves within groups and people tend to resemble others
to affirm their status within groups. This implies that strong commitment toward
recycling may be a factor promoting it but may be a mere factor in groups without any
recycling obligations. In sum, consideration on cultural diversification between groups
could increase the reliability of theory testing in terms of the correlation between
intentions and perceived descriptive norms in fixture studies.

VI. LIMITATION

The study’s assumption on the desirability or undesirability of behavior as the
predictor for distant-future behavioral intention was only limited to general social
desirability assumptions on each behavior. For example, although people may think that
downloading unauthorized copies of media files as socially undesirable, it may have been
considered individually desirable. As a result, it is possible that their behavioral intention
in the distant future may reflect individual rather than societal values. Additionally, the

diversity in types of materials downloaded was not considered in this study. Some people

25

may download particular materials that are obviously against their moral values. For
them, downloading could be reflected as more immoral than those who download songs
and movies that are not against their morals.

In terms of recycling and littering behaviors, the study could not verify the
differing level of intention over time probably due to the popularity of recycling in
society and communities. People may have taken recycling for granted but may have had
the intention to avoid littering, therefore answering the questionnaires more desirably
than the study expected. Further studies may need to include questionnaires suggesting
two options (whether a recycling bin or a small trash pile) for throwing away recyclable
materials to make situational dilemma more salient in terms of moral issues. Lastly, as the
composition of participants from Korea and the United States was different in terms of
age or jobs (e. g. Most Korean participants were non-student working adults whereas most
American participants were students), the results may have contained cultural
confounding effects.

VII. CONCLUSION

This study examined how people’s intentions toward socially desirable and
undesirable behaviors change whether they expect them in the near or distant future. Also,
the relationship between intentions, and perceived descriptive and situational norms for
these behaviors over time was analyzed. The study verified partial influence of temporal
distance for a socially desirable behavior (blood donation) but neither for another
desirable behavior (recycling) nor socially undesirable behaviors (downloading
unauthorized copies of media files and littering). Although hypotheses were partially
supported regarding the theoretical assumption of CLT, possibilities may exist for

extending or modifying the theory. In particular, unlike previous studies testing CLT by

26

measuring moral judgment over temporal distance (Eyal, Liberman, & Trope, 2008), this
study tried to verify the salience of social (un) desirability over temporal distance by
measuring intentions. This approach and the findings provide practically important
evidence for further research in other areas such as communication in terms of
development of persuasive messages. In brief, the examination of people’s changing
intention on future behaviors and their relationship with social norms can be an important
process to design campaigns concerning social issues and to apply timely appropriate

messages based on current intentions and descriptive norms on these issues.

27

Table 1. Means and standard deviations (SD) for intention, descriptive / situational norms,
and behavioral evaluation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . Social
BIOOd . Temporal Intention Descriptive Desirability
Donation Distance Norms .
Evaluation
1 week 2.34 (1.55) 4.10 (1.41) 5.51 (0.78)
3 months 2.82 (1.58) 3.93 (1.20) 5.47 (0.81)
1 year 3.51 (1.75) 3.90 (1.24) 5.41 (0.93)
Temporal Descriptive Social Situational
Recycling Distance Intention Norms Desirability Descriptive
Evaluation Norms
1 week 4.46 (1.73) 4.80 (0.97) 5.72 (0.88) 3.36 (1.14)
3 months 4.31 (1.69) 4.68 (1.11) 5.85 (0.80) 3.39 (1.30)
1 year 4.42 (1.57) 4.51 (1.06) 5.64 (0.93) 3.27 (1.18)
Temporal Descriptive Social
Downloading . Intention Desirability
Distance Norms .
Evaluation
1 week 3.08 (1.78) 5.72 (1.04) 3.19 (0.89)
3 months 3.52 (2.02) 5.57 (1.06) 3.23 (0.97)
1 year 4.35 (1.73) 5.83 (1.14) 3.37 (0.90)
Tern oral Descri tive Social Situational
Littering . p Intention p Desirability Descriptive
Distance Norms .
Evaluation Norms
1 week 3.14 (1.77) 4.54 (1.39) 2.49 (1.01) 4.65 (1.27)
3 months 3.22 (1.59) 4.44 (1.44) 2.38 (0.77) 4.94 (1.13)
1 year 3.24 (1.94) 4.93 (1.27) 2.34 (0.98) 5.13 (1.12)

 

Note: Standard deviations are reported in parentheses.

28

Table 2. Correlations between intentions and descriptive / situational norms over

 

 

 

temporal distance
Intention Intention
1 week 3 months 1 year 1 week 3 months 1 year
31006.1 Downloading
Donation
DN .30* .05 -.02 DN .29* 58*“ .47***
(df=62) (df=66) (df=66) (df=66) (df=64) (df=59)
Recycling Littering
DN .10 .13 .15 DN -.12 -.33"”" -.03
(df=61) (df=66) (df=66) (dfi65) (df=64) (df=59)
SDN .37" 54*” .38" SDN .26* .16 .27*
(df=61) (dfi66) (df=66) (df=66) (df=64) (df=59)

 

*p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001
Note

DN: Descriptive Norms
SDN: Situational Descriptive Norms

29

b)

AWN—i

bWN—i

APPENDIX
-Survey Items and Item Reliability-

Behavioral Intentions

Blood Donation (Cronbach’s a = .98 / .98, US/ Korea)

. I will try to make myself available for blood donation about (a week/3 months/a

year) from now.

. I intend to participate in blood donation about (a week/3 months/a year) from now.
. I plan to participate in blood donation about (a week/3 months/a year) from now.
. I have it in my mind to donate blood about (a week/3 months/a year) from now.

Recycling (Cronbach’s a = .92 /.95. US/ Korea)

Imagine yourself about (a week/3 months/a year) from now in the above situation and
answer the questions.

. I will try to use the recycling bin to discard the bottle before the interview.

. I intend to throw away the bottle in the recycling bin before the interview.

. Before having the interview, I plan to get rid of the bottle in the recycling bin.

. I have it in my mind to discard the bottle in the recycling bin instead of the small trash pile

before the interview.

Downloading unauthorized media files on the Internet (Cronbach’s a = .96 / .94. US/
Korea)

. I will try to download media files (songs, movies, dramas, etc) from unofficial file-

sharing sites about (a week/3 months/a year) from now.

. I intend to download unlicensed copies of media files via Internet about (a week/3

months/a year) fi'om now.

. I plan to download pirated online media files about (a week/3 months/a year) from

now.

. I have it in my mind to download unauthorized media files via Internet about (a

week/3 months/a year) fi'om now.
Littering (Cronbach’s a = .93 /.94, US/ Korea)

Imagine yourself about (a week/3 months/a year) from now in the above situation and
answer the questions.

. I will try to discard the bottle in the small trash pile before the interview.

. I intend to throw away the bottle in the small pile of trash before the interview.

. Before having the interview, I plan to get rid of the bottle in the small pile of trash.
. I have it in my mind to discard the bottle in the small trash pile instead of the

recycling bin before the interview.

30

AWN—t

U.) kWNi-t

3MNI-I

GUIAWN—e

Perceived Descriptive Norms
Blood Dorartion (Cronbach’s a = .91 /.90, US/ Korea)

. Many people in America participate in blood donation.

. Many US. citizens are willing to donate blood.

. Blood donation is a common behavior that people in America engage in.
. Many US. citizens donate their blood.

Recycling (Cronbach’s a = .89 / .95, US/ Korea)

. Many people in America participate in recycling.

. Many US. citizens are willing to recycle materials.

. Recycling is a common behavior that people in America engage in.
. Many US. citizens participate in recycling.

Downloading unauthorized media files on the Internet (Cronbach’s a = .89 /.92. US/
Korea)

. Many people in America download unlicensed copies of media files through the

Internet.

. Many US. citizens are willing to download pirated media files online.
. Downloading unauthorized songs or movies via Internet is a common behavior that

people in America engage in.

. Many US. citizens download media files from unofficial file-sharing websites.

Littering (Cronbach’s a = .88 /.94. US/ Korea)

. Many people in America carelessly discard litter

. Many US. citizens are willing to litter.

. Littering is a common behavior that people in America engage in.
. Many US. citizens throw trash on the street.

Behavioral evaluation

Blood Doaation (Cronbach’s a = .67 /.63, US/ Korea)

 

. It is expected that blood donation would enhance community welfare.

. Blood donation does NOT contribute to others’ well-being. *

. Donating blood is an ethical behavior.

. Blood donation is a behavior that undermines morality. *

. Participating in blood donation is beneficial to other people in the society.
. Blood donation is NOT a socially responsible act. *

31

CNKII-hUJNt-t

GUI-5U) *N’d

Recycling (Cronbach’s a = .77 / .80. US/ Korea)

. It is expected that recycling would enhance community welfare.

. Recycling materials does NOT contribute to others’ well-being. *

. Recycling is an ethical behavior.

. Recycling is a behavior that undermines morality. *

. Participating in recycling is beneficial to other people in the society.
. Recycling is NOT a socially responsible act. *

Downloading unauthorized media files on the Internet (Cronbach’s a = .75 /.74. US/
Korea)

. It is expected that downloading pirated media files via Internet would enhance

community welfare.

. Downloading unauthorized media files does NOT contribute to others’ well-being. *
. Downloading media files from unofficial sites is an ethical behavior.
. Downloading unauthorized copies of media files is a behavior that undermines

morality. *

. Downloading songs and movies from unofficial file-sharing sites is beneficial to

other people in the society.

. Downloading unauthorized copies of media files is NOT a socially responsible act. *

Littering (Cronbach’s a = .59 /.67, US/ Korea)

. It is expected that littering would enhance community welfare.
. Careless dumping of recyclable materials does NOT contribute to others’ well-being.

. Throwing away trash in the trash pile instead of trash cans is an ethical behavior.

. Littering is a behavior that undermines morality. *

. Getting rid of trash on the street is beneficial to other people in the society.

. Dropping individuals’ litter in the public place is NOT a socially responsible act. *

Situational Descriptive Norms
Recycling (Cronbach’s a = .89 / .95, US/ Korea)

. When facing the above situation, many people in America throw away the bottle in the

recycling bin.

. When fizcing the above situation, many US. citizens are willing to put the bottle into the

recycling bin.

. Placing the bottle in the recycling bin in the above situation is a common behavior

that people in America engage in.

. When facing the above situation, many US. citizens dispose the bottle in the

recycling bin.

32

Littering (Cronbjch’s a = .93 /.95. US/ Korea)

1 . When facing the above situation, many people in America throw away the bottle in the
small pile of trash.

2. When facing the above situation, many US. citizens are willing to put the bottle on the
small trash pile.

3. Placing the bottle on the small pile of trash in the above situation is a common
behavior that people in America engage in.

4. When facing the above situation, many US. citizens dispose the bottle in the small
pile of trash.

* reverse coded item

33

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alicke, M. D., & Govorun, O. (2005). The better-than-average effect. In M. D. Alicke, D.
A. Dunning, & J. I. Krueger (Eds), The self in social judgment: Studies in self
and identity (pp. 85-106). New York: Psychology Press.

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognition theory of moral thought and action. In W. M.
Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtsz (Eds), Handbook of moral behavior and development
(Vol. 1, pp. 45-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Campbell, J. D. (1986). Similarity and uniqueness: The effects of attribute type, relevance,
and individual differences in self-esteem and depression. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 50, 281-294.

Castro, F. G, Maddahian, E., Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1987). A multivariate
model of the determinants of cigarette smoking among adolescents. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 28, 273-289.

Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative
conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human
behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.
24, pp. 201-234). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Eyal, T., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). Judging near and distant virtue and vice.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1204-1209.

Henderson, M. D., Trope, Y., & Camevale, P. J. (2006). Negotiation fi'om a near and
distant time perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 712-
729.

Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-
contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16, 366-395.

Kallgren, C. A., Reno, R. R., & Cialdini, R. B. (2000). A focus theory of normative
conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1002-1012.

Kanten, A. B., & Teigen, K. H. (2008). Better than average and better with time: Relative
evaluations of self and others in the past, present, and future. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 38, 343-353.

Kivetz, Y., & Tyler, T. R. (2007). Tomorrow I’ll be me: The effect of time perspective on
the activation of idealistic versus pragmatic selves. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Process, 102, 193-211.

Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations

34

in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 5-18.

Liberman, N., Sagristano, M. D., & Trope, Y. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on

level of mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 523-
534.

Park, H. S. & Smith, S. W. (2007). Distinctiveness and influence of subjective norms,
personal descriptive and injunctive norms, and societal descriptive and injunctive
norms on behavioral intent: A case of two behaviors critical to organ donation.
Human Communication Research, 33, 194-218.

Park, H. S., & Ahn, J. Y. (2007). Cultural differences in judgment of truthful and
deceptive messages. Western Journal of Communication, 71, 294-315.

Platow, M. J. (1994). The evaluation of the social desirability of prosocial self-other
allocation choices. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 61-68.

Rimal, R. N. & Real K. (2003). Understanding the influence of perceived norms on
behaviors. Communication Theory, 13, 184-203.

Rimal, R. N. & Real, K. (2005). How behaviors are influenced by perceived norms: A
test of the Theory of Normative Social Behavior. Communication Research, 32,
389-414.

Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J ., & Griskevicius, V. (2003).
The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms.
Psychological Science, 18, 429-434.

Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., & Toguchi, Y. (2003). Pancultural self-enhancement. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 60-79.

Todorov, A., Goren, A., & Trope, Y. (2007). Probability as a psychological distance:
Construal and preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 473-
482.

Trope, Y. & Liberman, N. (2000). Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in
preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 876-889.

Trope, Y. & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal Construal. Psychological Review, 110, 403-
421.

Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal Levels and Psychological

Distance: Effects on Representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 17, 83-95.

35

Williams, E. F., & Gilovich, T. (2008). Do people really believe they are above average?
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1 121-1128.

36

Hllllllllllllll

7
2
5
2
6
o
3
0
3
9
2
1

lllllllllllllllllllllll

l

3

lllllllllll