Effects of Psychological Distance on Mental Abstraction: A Registered Report of Four Tests of Construal Level Theory

Construal level theory (CLT) proposes that psychological distance influences the level of abstraction at which something is mentally construed: things perceived as less probable (likelihood) or further away from the here (spatial distance), now (temporal distance), or self (social distance) are thought about more abstractly. This international multi-lab study tests four basic hypotheses derived from core assumptions of CLT and explores potential moderators and boundary conditions of the effects. Participants (N = 11,775) from 27 countries and regions were randomly assigned to one of four experimental protocols focused on different types of psychological distance (temporal, spatial, social, or likelihood), and each experiment manipulated psychological distance (close vs. distant). The protocols for temporal distance (N = 2,941) and spatial distance (N = 2,973) were direct replications of Liberman and Trope (1998, Study 1) and Fujita et al. (2006, Study 1), respectively. The remaining two protocols were paradigmatic replications, applying to social distance (N = 2,926) and likelihood (N = 2,936). The effects of psychological distance on construal level for the four present studies were (original effects within parentheses; positive effects are consistent with hypotheses): dtemporal = 0.08, 95% CI [0.003, 0.16] (cf. d = 0.92); dspatial = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.11] (cf. d = 0.55); dsocial = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.34, -0.19]; and dlikelihood = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.11]. Pretests indicated that valence and abstraction were confounded in response options on the outcome measure. Controlling for this confound eliminated the hypothesis-inconsistent effect of social distance, d = 0.006, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.07]. These findings provide limited evidence for the predictions of the theory and present a critical challenge for CLT

Communication via warm haptic interfaces does not increase social warmth

Affective haptic interfaces are designed to influence one’s emotional and physiological state via the sense of touch, and may be applied as communicationmedia to increase the sense of closeness. Recent research suggests that stimulation with physical warmth can enhance this interpersonal closeness: a physical-social warmth link. It is often suggested that this link may be particularly suitable for application in affective haptic interfaces, but the scientific evidence is inconclusive. In this work we investigated whether adding physical warmth to a communication medium—an interactive teddy bear —could increase social connectedness between remotely located interactants and could provide physiological comfort during stressful circumstances. Moreover, we investigated whether the warmth could best be presented to the users as a mere physical attribute of the medium or as mediated body heat; thereby manipulating the attribution of the warmth to either a non-social or social source. The results of two studies in which participants ostensibly received a message from an unknown other (Study 1, N = 65) or comforting messages from their own partner (Study 2, N = 62), and meta-analyses did not provide support for the hypotheses that warmth, purely physical or attributed to one’s partner, can positively influence one’s social and physiological state. Although future research should corroborate our findings, they indicate that the physical-social warmth link may not be as applicable in affective mediated communication as suggested

Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in stable cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=−4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events