Goals are related to many interpersonal processes. As one of the cognitive representations of desired states that individuals wish to achieve, goals make people’s daily life meaningful (Freund & Hennecke, 2015). Further, the pursuit and realization of meaningful goals relates closely to success in life (Boudreaux & Ozer, 2013; Chen & Latham, 2014). However, goals may also become a hindrance. When individuals have multiple goals that they desire, but lack the resources to pursue these goals, they may face potential goal conflict. Under such a circumstance, in order to pursue some goals, individuals may have to give up other obstructive goals (Segerstrom & Solberg Nes, 2006). As goal conflict is a part of daily life, the obstructive effect related to goal conflict may be due to the lack of resources of individuals who pursue the goal, and thus the lack of resources requires individuals to make a choice when facing goal conflict. In our research we examined ego depletion resulting from prior self-control as an antecedent of goal pursuit. In two experiments we explored which kinds of goals would be chosen at the cost of giving up other kinds of goals when resources were lacking, and the mechanism underlying this selection.

Ego Depletion and Psychological Distance in Construal-Level Theory

In construal-level theory (CLT), it is proposed that the individual’s reaction to an event depends on his or her mental construal of that event: different construal levels have different degrees of abstraction (Trope & Liberman, 2010). Events are construed based on the origin point, that is, the individual’s own (self) experience that has actually (fact) occurred right now (at this moment in time) at the place where the individual is located (here). Within these four dimensions, the individual will construe events that are further distant from the origin point as being at further psychological distance, and with a higher degree of abstraction (Trope & Liberman, 2010). According to CLT, there is a spontaneous and two-way relationship between psychological distance and construal level, and there are also correlations among the four dimensions of psychological distance (Trope, Liberman, & Wakslak, 2007). Events construed at a higher level will be spontaneously presented as being at a further psychological distance, whereas events that occurred, and are presented as being, at a further psychological distance will be spontaneously construed at a higher level (Soderberg, Callahan, Kochersberger, Amit, & Ledgerwood, 2015). Thus, individuals will spontaneously make decisions consistent with their own current construal level (Maglio, Trope, & Liberman, 2013).

From the perspective of ego depletion, besides intuition, resources that individuals use in making decisions are the capabilities to think prudently and carefully (Pocheptsova, Amir, Dhar, & Baumeister, 2009). In order to use these capabilities individuals need to exert self-control. However, there are limits to individuals’ ability to exert self-control so that, when mental activities have seriously depleted their resource of self-control, individuals will experience ego depletion (Baumeister, 2016; Tice, Baumeister, Shmueli, & Muraven, 2007).

The relationship between ego depletion and construal level has also been examined deeply (see, e.g., Fujita & Carnevale, 2012; Fujita & Han, 2009; Wan & Agrawal, 2011). Ego depletion harms the individual’s ability to think cautiously and carefully, increases that individual’s use of direct reasoning in dealing with issues, and leads to the individual feeling fatigued, so that he or she feels the constraint of resources (Pocheptsova et al., 2009). As direct reasoning and focus on resources is related to low-level construal, ego depletion lowers the individual’s construal level (Wan & Agrawal, 2011). In regard to the influence of ego depletion on the individual’s goal pursuit, from the perspective of overconfidence, DeBono and Muraven (2013) proposed that ego-depleted individuals would set more realistic goals, and would be less over-confident in their goal selection, compared to those who were not ego-depleted. Thus, based on CLT and the theory of ego depletion, we concluded that ego-depleted individuals who have a lower construal level would prefer goals that are construed at a lower level (e.g., temporally proximal, near in social distance, near in spatial distance, and a goal that it is certain can be achieved) to those construed at a higher level.

Ego Depletion and Goal Focus

According to CLT, in goal-directed behaviors the desirability of the final state of an event is construed at a high level, which is the abstract and core feature of the event; however, the feasibility of reaching the final state of that event is construed at a low level, which is the concrete and peripheral feature of the event (Liberman & Trope, 2014). Further, these authors also proposed that, compared to an event in the near future, a distant future event is construed at a higher level; thus decisions related to a distant future event are influenced more by the desirability of the event, rather than the feasibility of the event (Liberman & Trope, 2014).

According to goal-setting theory, the two basic characteristics and core features of a goal are accuracy and difficulty. The difficulty of a goal is presented as the objective probability of successful realization of that goal (Chen & Latham, 2014). In CLT this is described as probability distance (Todorov, Goren, & Trope, 2007). Individuals also set temporally proximal or distant goals. Compared to the temporality of a goal, as the core and basic feature of the goal, the objective probability of successfully realizing the goal (Chernev, 2004) is likely to be construed at a higher level. Based on the preceding argument, we proposed our first hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Compared to temporality, the probability of realizing the goal will be construed at a higher level.

According to CLT, ego depletion may lower the individual’s construal level, resulting in a change in goal pursuit (Wiesenfeld, Reyt, Brockner, & Trope, 2017). As we have proposed, ego-depleted individuals would focus more on the relatively subordinate feature of a goal, would pay less attention to its core feature, and would make a choice according to their current construal level. This effect would also be influenced by the individual’s priming focus. If individuals are primed to focus on the core feature of the goal, the effect of ego depletion would also reduce the individual’s priming focus, thus the moderating role of priming focus would strengthen the ego-depleted individual’s decreased attention on the goal’s core feature, and would also strengthen his or her attention on the subordinate feature of the goal, which, in turn, would lead to the ego-depleted individual preferring the subordinate feature of the goal. Thus, we proposed our second hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Ego-depleted individuals will prefer uncertain short-term goals to certain long-term goals.

Combining CLT with goal-setting theory, we could infer that when goals have both end value (desirability) and social distance, the end value (desirability) of the goal would be its core feature, and the goal would be construed at a higher level, and social distance would be the subordinate feature of the goal (Liviatan, Trope, & Liberman, 2008). Thus, compared to when the individual is setting a goal for himself or herself, when setting a goal for others, ego-depleted individuals would pursue the goal that is certain and that has a lower end value in preference to a goal that is uncertain and has a higher end value. Thus, we proposed Hypothesis 3:
Hypothesis 3: Ego-depleted individuals will prefer a goal that is certain with a low end value, compared to a goal that is uncertain with high end value, especially when setting goals for others.

We hypothesized that compared to individuals whose ego was not depleted, depletion of the ego from prior self-control would lead to the individual lowering his or her construal level, and, in turn, this ego depletion would make that individual focus more on subordinate features rather than core features of a goal. In Experiment 1, we first examined the situation when goals simultaneously have both temporality and probability of being realized. In order to distinguish the subordinate feature and the core feature, we used a pretest to evaluate the relative importance of temporality and probability. Then, we examined the effect of ego depletion on individuals’ construal level, while considering the moderating effect of priming focus. In Experiment 2, we further investigated the situation when goals simultaneously have both end value and social distance, by examining the effect of ego depletion on goal pursuit, while considering difference in the effect when setting a goal for oneself or setting a goal for others.

Experiment 1

In Experiment 1 we examined the relationship between self-control and goal preference, from the aspects of temporality and probability of realizing a goal. Individuals were set a long-term goal versus a short-term goal, or a goal that they could be sure could be realized (certain goal) versus a goal they could not be sure could be realized (uncertain goal). We predicted that individuals who had experienced self-control (i.e., those who have ego depletion and a lower construal level) would focus more on the subordinate feature of the goal and, thus, would prefer an uncertain short-term goal to a long-term certain goal.

Pretest

We used relative subjective importance to distinguish which was the core feature and which the subordinate feature between probability of realizing the goal and temporality of the goal. According to Sagristano, Trope, & Liberman (2002), if the subjective importance of feature A is dependent on feature B, and not vice versa (i.e., the subjective importance of feature B is independent no matter what feature A is), then feature A is the relatively subordinate feature and feature B is the relatively core feature that individuals should construe at a higher level compared to feature A.

We asked participants to assess the importance of the other feature when they already knew about one feature of the goal, by conducting an experiment with a 2 (known feature of goal: probability vs. temporality) × 2 (the construal level of the known feature: high vs. low) between-subject design. We recruited 80 students as participants at the Peking University library. After excluding incorrect data, responses from 39 male and 37 female participants (M_age = 22.0 years, SD = 2.86) were included in analysis. Participants were assigned to one of four scenarios randomly, and each was asked to imagine that he or she was going to set a goal and was instructed to indicate the subjective importance of another feature of this goal on a scale of 1 (not important at all) to 9 (very important).

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed a significant interaction effect, F(1,76) = 16.84, p < .01, η² = 0.03, when participants faced an uncertain goal that there was little probability of achieving (construed at a high level), and the subjective importance of temporality of goals (M = 6.99) was significantly lower than when they faced a certain goal that it was sure could be achieved (construed at a low level), M = 7.82, p < .01, t(36) = 0.50, Cohen’s d = 0.17, which indicates that the level of probability of realizing the goal had a significant influence on the subjective importance of temporality. That is to say, the subjective importance of temporality was dependent on the probability of the goal being achieved, whereas the importance of probability of realizing the goal did not vary by the description of the temporality of the goal, regardless of whether it was a long-term goal (M = 6.01) or a short-term goal (M = 6.15, p > .1). These results confirmed that when a goal has both temporality and probability, the probability of realizing the goal is the core feature and, thus, is construed at a higher level.

We then examined the effect of ego depletion on goal pursuit, when the goal had both temporality and probability, and considered the moderating effect of priming focus.

Method

Participants. We recruited 140 students as participants through advertising on a bulletin board at Peking University. Each participant received about US$2 as payment. After excluding incorrect data, the responses of 58 male and 74 female participants (M_age = 23.3 years, SD = 2.73) were included in the analysis. We conducted a 2 (ego depletion: present vs. absent) × 2 (priming-focus feature: temporality vs. probability) between-subject design.

Measures. As researchers do not agree upon an approach to measuring goal preference (e.g., Kopetz, Kruglanski, Arens, Etkin, & Johnson, 2012), we adapted Tubbs’ (1993) method, using not only goal selection but also allocation of time and energy between two goals as our dependent variables of goal preference.

Procedure. Participants randomly assigned to the experimental condition were first asked to make a binary choice between two different versions of a number of products (e.g., a jasmine-scented candle vs. a lavender-scented candle). This manipulation of ego depletion is based on the everyday-choice context used by Vohs et al. (2008), that is, continuous deliberative choice making from two types of product means that individuals need to exert self-control, which would make them experience ego depletion.

However, just reading product information without choice does not deplete ego resources (Vohs & Baumeister, 2011). Participants randomly assigned to the control condition did not make choices, but just read a product catalogue and pointed out products that they had used before. After the participants in the experimental condition had made 60 binary choices and those in the control condition had viewed 60 groups of products, all participants then completed four manipulation check questions about their focus on ego resources (Cronbach’s α = .96; e.g., “How tired are you?” and “How often did you think about your feeling of tiredness when working on the task?”; Wan & Agrawal, 2011). All ratings were made on a scale anchored at 1 (not at all) and 9 (a lot).

After that, all participants rated their construal level by completing a simplified Behavior Identification Framework (10 items; Cronbach’s α = .75; Tsai & McGill, 2011). We performed a back-translation procedure (Brislin, 1980) for all measures, with the assistance of two doctoral students in the behavior research field.

Next, all participants were asked to imagine that they were newly recruited graduates in a company and needed to set some goals to prove themselves. Participants were randomly assigned to reading a version of a scenario in which the focus was primed on the probability of the success of the goal (e.g., “You need to seize every opportunity to prove yourself effectively”) or on the temporality of the goal (“You need to seize every opportunity to prove yourself as soon as possible”). All participants had to make a choice between a temporally proximal goal which it was not certain could be achieved (goal A), and a temporally distant goal which it was certain could be achieved (goal B). Participants’ goal selection preference on a scale of 1 (absolutely prefer goal A) to 10 (absolutely prefer goal B), and time and energy allocation between goal A and goal B were both recoded as dependent variables.

Results

Manipulation checks. As we had expected, ego-depleted participants reported a stronger focus on ego resource (M = 4.42, SD = 1.82) than did those participants who were not ego-depleted, M = 2.66, SD = 1.71, F(1,132) = 32.54, p < .01, η² = 0.19. Participants in the ego-depletion condition also reported a lower construal level (M = 6.1, SD = 2.50) than did those in the baseline (no ego depletion) condition, M = 7.4, SD = 2.30, F(1,132) = 5.72, p < .05, η² = 0.02. Both of the above results confirmed that the ego depletion manipulation was successful.

Goal preference. A goal preference index was formed by averaging participants’ responses to three items: selection preference, allocation of time, and energy with a Cronbach’s α of .96. A 2 × 2 ANOVA showed a significant main effect of ego depletion on goal selection: ego-depleted individuals preferred short-term uncertain goals (M = 3.33) compared to individuals who were not ego-depleted, who preferred long-term certain goals, M = 6.09, F(1,132) = 39.50, p < .01, η² = 0.02. The main effect of the priming-focus feature on goal selection was not significant, F(1,132) = 2.53, p > .10. More importantly, the ego depletion priming-focus feature interaction effect was significant, F(1,132) = 15.68, p < .01, η² = 0.05. When individuals were primed to focus on probability, ego-depleted individuals preferred short-term uncertain goals (M = 2.43), whereas individuals who were not ego-depleted preferred long-term certain goals, M = 6.83, p < .01, t(66) = 1.95, Cohen’s d = 1.82, which indicates the moderating role of the priming-focus feature: when primed to focus on the core feature of a goal (probability of success), ego-depleted individuals would prefer a short-term uncertain goal, whereas individuals who were not ego-depleted would prefer a long-term certain goal.

Discussion

In Study 1 our results provided evidence of the proposed relationship between self-control and goal preference, suggesting that exerting self-control results in a state of ego depletion and lower construal level and this, in turn, affects the individual’s goal preference, with ego-depleted individuals more likely to focus on the goal’s temporal feature, which is relatively subordinate compared to probability.

Experiment 2

In Experiment 2 our aim was to replicate the results of Study 1 in a different scenario by examining goal preference under the condition of social distance. As dimensions of psychological distance, both social distance and probability of realizing a goal would be seen as relatively subordinate features compared to the end value (desirability) of a goal, thus individuals would pay more attention to the social distance and probability of realizing a goal under a condition of ego depletion.

Method

Participants. We recruited 140 students through advertising on a bulletin board at Peking University. Each of the participants received about US$2 as payment. After excluding incorrect data, the responses of 86 male and 52 female participants (M_age = 23.2 years, SD = 3.21) were included in analysis. We conducted a 2 (ego depletion: present vs. absent) × 2 (social distance of the goal: for self vs. for others) between-subject design.

Measures. We used the same measure as in Experiment 1, with not only goal selection but also time and energy allocation between two goals as our dependent variables of goal preference.

Procedure. Participants first completed the same ego-depletion manipulation task as in Experiment 1. After either making 60 binary choices or viewing 60 groups of products, participants then completed four manipulation check questions about their focus on ego resources (Cronbach’s α = .94). All ratings were made on a scales anchored at 1 (not at all) and 9 (a lot).

After that, participants were randomly assigned to either imagine themselves as newly recruited employees in a company who needed to achieve goals to prove themselves (e.g., “You need to carry out career planning for yourself”) or to set goals for a stranger (e.g., “Please carry out career planning for Mr. X”). All participants had to choose between a high end-value goal which it was not certain could be achieved (goal A), and a low end-value goal which it was certain could be achieved (goal B). Participants’ goal selection preference was made on a scale of 1 (absolutely prefer goal A) to 10 (absolutely prefer goal B), and allocation of time and energy between goal A and goal B were both recoded as dependent variables. We used a back-translation procedure (Brislin, 1980) for all measures, with the assistance of two doctoral students in the behavior research field.

Results

Manipulation checks. As we had expected, ego-depleted participants reported a stronger focus on ego resource (M = 4.37, SD = 1.74) than did those participants who were not ego-depleted, M = 3.02, SD = 1.52, F(1,138) = 23.68, p < .01, η² = 0.20, confirming that the ego-depletion manipulation was again successful.

Goal preference. A goal preference index was formed by averaging participants’ responses to three items: selection preference, time, and energy allocation with a Cronbach’s α of .99. A 2 × 2 ANOVA showed a significant main effect of ego depletion on goal selection: ego-depleted individuals preferred low end-value certain goals (M = 5.50, SD = 1.94), and individuals who were not ego-depleted preferred high end-value uncertain goals, M = 3.28, SD = 2.15, F(1,138) = 40.52, p < .05, η² = 0.15. The main effect of social distance of goals was also significant: an uncertain high end-value goal was preferred when setting a goal for self (M = 5.65, SD = 2.29), whereas a certain low end-value goal was preferred when setting a goal for others, M = 2.93, SD = 1.80, F(1,138) = 62.72, p < .05, η² = 0.24. More importantly, the interaction effect between ego depletion and the social distance of the goal was significant, F(1,138) = 24.31, p < .01, η² = 0.03, which means that when setting a goal for others, ego-depleted individuals would prefer a low end-value goal that it was certain could be achieved (M = 4.40, SD = 2.14) over a high end-value goal that it was not certain could be achieved, M = 2.04, SD = 1.45, p < .01, t(67) = 6.95, Cohen’s d = 1.70.

Discussion

Experiment 2 was designed to complement Experiment 1 by exploring whether or not the social distance dimension of a goal would affect the relationship between ego depletion and goal preference that we had observed in Experiment 1. The results of Experiment 2 showed that when the goal contains both end value (desirability) and probability of being realized, the desirability of the goal is the high-construal-level feature that should be considered primarily in decision making, whereas the probability distance of the goal relates to feasibility, which belongs to the subordinate-feature classification (Fujita & Carnevale, 2012). Thus, ego-depleted individuals would focus more on probability of realizing the goal when setting a goal for others compared to those who are not ego-depleted. These results provided additional robustness to our findings in Experiment 1.

General Discussion

Our main aim in this study was to explore whether or not ego depletion from exerting self-control affects individuals’ construal level, and whether or not this effect then, in turn, also affects their goal preference. Overall, the reactions of ego-depleted participants in the two experiments indicated that exerting self-control lowered their construal level. When ego-depleted individuals were faced with a multiple-goal conflict, they would focus more on the relatively subordinate features of the goal, with a decreased emphasis on the core feature of the goal.

In the process of goal pursuit, individuals will pay attention to different features of goals. Individuals have various mental representations for objects and events at different psychological distances, which simultaneously affect their beliefs, decisions, and attitudes (Trope & Liberman, 2010). According to CLT, in the far-psychological-distance mental representation condition, individuals pay more attention to the core feature in making their decisions. In contrast, in the near-psychological-distance mental representation, individuals focus more on the subordinate feature in their decisions (Liberman & Trope, 2014). In line with this theory, we found this phenomenon occurring in relation to goal pursuit. In the condition of ego depletion, our participants showed a preference toward the subordinate feature of a goal. This result is consistent with previous results reported in a study on the focus in goal pursuit, in which the researchers found that individuals focusing on the process rather than the outcome of the goal were more adaptive when goal pursuit demanded self-regulation (Freund & Hennecke, 2015). According to Freund and Hennecke (2015) as with the subordinate-feature focus, process focus was also perceived as being more relevant than outcome focus in goal pursuit, when individuals had to exert self-control or self-regulation.

From the perspective of ego depletion, we examined the influence of ego depletion on goal preference, and compared the participants’ construal level in regard to the goal’s different features from the point of social cognition, putting forward a new perspective to analyze goal selection. Our findings contribute to goal-setting theory and shed light on people’s priority in making a selection among multiple goals from the perspective of ego depletion. We tested a proposal that different features of goals are construed at different levels, which influences the priority that individuals set when facing the conflict of multiple goals. Our findings in this research also testified that ego-depleted individuals with a lower construal level would strengthen their focus on the subordinate feature of a goal, which provides evidence of the existence of a carryover effect of self-control on goal setting (Wieber, Sezer, & Gollwitzer, 2014).

In the results of our two experiments we have provided behavioral evidence of the ego-depletion effect, which previously had only indirect support from the results of laboratory experiments. An important direction for future researchers is to obtain direct evidence of this relationship from experimental studies carried out in the field. Furthermore, other dimensions of psychological distance would also be worth exploring in future research, for example, the extent to which spatial distance affects goal preference (Kleiman, Stern, & Trope, 2016). It would also be worthwhile to explore the dynamism of self-control, and the effect of dynamic self-control on construal level and goal preference (Fujita, Carnevale, & Trope, 2016).

There are several limitations in our study. In regard to goal conflict design, we induced the binary-choice situation by the presentation of a multiple-goal conflict. This design technique has relatively weak generalizability as, in reality, individuals may face more complicated situations. A better technique would be to use a triple-choice situation to reflect a real-world multiple-goal conflict. In addition, the relatively small sample size in our study may signal that generalizing our findings needs to be undertaken with caution.

Baumeister, R. F. (2016). Toward a general theory of motivation: Problems, challenges, opportunities, and the big picture. Motivation and Emotion, 40, 1–10. https://doi.org/bwt9

Boudreaux, M. J., & Ozer, D. J. (2013). Goal conflict, goal striving, and psychological well-being. Motivation and Emotion, 37, 433–443. https://doi.org/bwvb

Brislin, R. W. (1980). Cross-cultural research methods: Strategies, problems, applications. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research. Vol. 4: Environment and culture (pp. 47–82). New York. NY: Plenum Press.

Chen, X., & Latham, G. P. (2014). The effect of priming learning vs. performance goals on a complex task. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 125, 88–97. https://doi.org/bwvc

Chernev, A. (2004). Goal–attribute compatibility in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 141–150. https://doi.org/ctt597

DeBono, A., & Muraven, M. (2013). Keeping it real: Self-control depletion increases accuracy, but decreases confidence for performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 879–886. https://doi.org/bwvd

Freund, A. M., & Hennecke, M. (2015). On means and ends: The role of goal focus in successful goal pursuit. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 149–153. https://doi.org/bwvm

Fujita, K., & Carnevale, J. J. (2012) Transcending temptation through abstraction: The role of construal level in self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 248–252. https://doi.org/bwvn

Fujita, K., Carnevale, J. J., & Trope, Y. (2016). Understanding self-control as a whole vs. part dynamic. Neuroethics, 1–14. https://doi.org/bwvp

Fujita, K., & Han, H. A. (2009). Moving beyond deliberative control of impulses: The effect of construal levels on evaluative associations in self-control conflicts. Psychological Science, 20, 799–804. https://doi.org/bpd7xk

Kleiman, T., Stern, C., & Trope, Y. (2016). When the spatial and ideological collide: Metaphorical conflict shapes social perception. Psychological Science, 27, 375–383. https://doi.org/bwvq

Kopetz, C. E., Kruglanski, A. W., Arens, Z. G., Etkin, J., & Johnson, H. M. (2012). The dynamics of consumer behavior: A goal systemic perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 208–223. https://doi.org/fgj6kj

Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2014). Traversing psychological distance. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 364–369. https://doi.org/bwvr

Liviatan, I., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2008). Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others’ actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1256–1269. https://doi.org/d7hmp3

Maglio, S. J., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2013). The common currency of psychological distance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 278–282. https://doi.org/bwvs

Pocheptsova, A., Amir, O., Dhar, R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). Deciding without resources: Resource depletion and choice in context. Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 344–355. https://doi.org/bm2kr7

Sagristano, M. D., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2002). Time-dependent gambling: Odds now, money later. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 364–376. https://doi.org/cmx6d2

Segerstrom, S. C., & Solberg Nes, L. (2006). When goals conflict but people prosper: The case of dispositional optimism. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 675–693. https://doi.org/cs6gpq

Soderberg, C. K., Callahan, S. P., Kochersberger, A. O., Amit, E., & Ledgerwood, A. (2015). The effects of psychological distance on abstraction: Two meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 525–548. https://doi.org/bwvt

Tice, D. M., Baumeister, R. F., Shmueli, D., & Muraven, M. (2007). Restoring the self: Positive affect helps improve self-regulation following ego depletion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 379–384. https://doi.org/b7g4j8

Todorov, A., Goren, A., & Trope, Y. (2007). Probability as a psychological distance: Construal and preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 473–482. https://doi.org/d72ht7

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463. https://doi.org/dwj5xx

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. https://doi.org/c89kbm

Tsai, C. I., & McGill, A. L. (2011). No pain, no gain? How fluency and construal level affect consumer confidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 807–821. https://doi.org/d2dw27

Tubbs, M. E. (1993). Commitment as a moderator of the goal-performance relation: A case for clearer construct definition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 86–97. https://doi.org/b57q5g

Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J., Twenge, J. M., Nelson, N. M., & Tice, D. M. (2008). Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: A limited-resource account of decision making, self-regulation, and active initiative. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 883–898. https://doi.org/fsmw86

Wan, E. W., & Agrawal, N. (2011). Carryover effects of self-control on decision making: A construal- level perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 199–214. https://doi.org/fqh826

Wieber, F., Sezer, L. A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2014). Asking “why” helps action control by goals but not plans. Motivation and Emotion, 38, 65–78. https://doi.org/bwvv

Wiesenfeld, B. M., Reyt, J. N., Brockner, J., & Trope, Y. (2017). Construal level theory in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4. Advance online publication. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/1ktcysw

This research was supported by a grant from the Beijing Planning Office of Philosophy and Social Science (15JYB014)

and a grant from the China Association of Science and Technology (2015ZCYJ1-10).

Jin Liu, Graduate School of Education, Beijing Institute of Technology, Room 411, Central Building, No. 5 South Zhong Guan Cun Street, Haidian District, Beijing 100081, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]