Abstract
Recent studies have demonstrated that participants with an abstract mind-set (high construal level [CL]) showed an increased risk affinity when compared with those with a concrete way of thinking (low CL). With regard to the importance of replicating research findings, we conducted a replication study and re-investigated the CL effect on risk-taking. Furthermore, we extended previous research by comparing experimental groups with a control group as well as by exploring effects of sex. The CL effect on risk-taking was as expected. However, risk-taking by the control group did not differ from that by the experimental groups. Both women and men took less risk after receiving concrete priming rather than abstract priming. However, men were generally more risk-seeking compared with women. Both effects (men being more risk-seeking than women and the CL effect) were successfully replicated.
Highlights
These days there is an ongoing debate regarding the replication problem of priming effects
Lermer and colleagues (2014) referred to construal level theory (CLT; Trope & Liberman, 2010), which states that the way people think about events or objects is subject to the perceived psychological distance (“the subjective experience that something is close or far away from self, here and,” Trope & Liberman, 2010, p. 440)
One explanation why abstract thinking leads to more risk affinity compared with concrete thinking stems from a further CLT prediction: Abstract thinking promotes sensitivity to desirability considerations, and concrete thinking promotes sensitivity to feasibility considerations
Summary
These days there is an ongoing debate regarding the replication problem of priming effects (see for instance, Cesario, 2014; Lermer, Streicher, Sachs, Raue, & Frey, 2016). Participant’s mind-set/construal level (CL) influences their risk propensity; those that think abstractly showed an increased risk propensity compared with those with a concrete mind-set In their studies, Lermer and colleagues (2014) referred to construal level theory (CLT; Trope & Liberman, 2010), which states that the way people think about events or objects is subject to the perceived psychological distance The addition of a control group, with no mind-set manipulation, enables a direct comparison between the risk-taking behavior of participants who are abstract or concrete primed with those whose mind-sets are not externally influenced. Hypothesis 2: Risk-taking behavior of participants without mind-set manipulation differs significantly from the behavior of participants who receive mind-set manipulation
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
