Understanding psychological distance
Psychological distance is an essential tool that can help or hinder change.
Psychological distance is a term from construal level theory (developed by Trope and Liberman) that describes our relative relationship to things such as people, objects, and events. The theory says that given two objects and events, we think in more abstract and conceptual terms about the one that is further away from us, and more practically and concretely about the one that is close.
Psychological distance has a specific meaning for “far” and “close” that extends well beyond mere three-dimensional space. The four aspects commonly cited are:
Temporal distance: something/someone is a long time in the future or past
Spatial distance: something/someone is a great physical distance away
Social distance: something/someone is highly dissimilar or unfamiliar
Hypothetical distance: something not-yet-happened is uncertain or unlikely
There are four particular impacts in problem and solution evaluation when in situations of high versus low psychological distance:
Focus: In situations of high psychological distance, people focus on the desirable, the strategic, and the “why”. On the other hand, when psychological distance is low, they focus on “how” — the feasibility of an outcome and the specific tasks required to make it happen.
Value discounting: People often value things less accurately when they are psychologically distant, discounting risks and overvaluing perceived benefits. We see this in the downplaying of the future impacts of climate change, or the idealised fantasy of a future holiday; the relative levels of benefit get blurred.
Stereotyping: People tend to make more generalisations about distant people and groups in situations of high psychological distance, regardless of the predictive validity of those generalisations. Put simply: We are more likely to believe that everyone in a group will behave predictably and uniformly.
Power dynamics: People tend to be more polite and considerate of the individual when psychological distance is low, and vice versa. For example, when you look at a list of people as just numbers on a spreadsheet, you are more likely to consider the abstract, strategic outcomes of your plans instead of the fact that you’re dealing with a physical and emotional person.
This simple framework can dramatically reshape how you think about the purpose of many tasks and initiatives in organisations. For example:
Icebreaker exercises at the start in workshops are not directly relevant to the work, but are important to decrease social distance so that people feel more personally connected and invested in the people and the topic at hand.
Many organisations find it hard to prioritise high-quality recordkeeping because on all aspects, the benefit of good recordkeeping has high psychological distance. This is particularly true if the records go into a system you don’t normally use (high spatial distance), will only be referenced some point in the future (high temporal distance), quite possibly by your successor or someone you don’t know (high social distances), and may never be called upon at all (high hypothetical distance).
Training exercises and simulations are another prime example of how reduced psychological distance is essential for effectiveness. In a simulated emergency drill — even if it isn’t “real” — our brain has to focus on the now, not on some abstract situation that may happen in five years’ time. Our brain is tricked into thinking this situation is something to take seriously, so we can focus on the concrete steps needed to develop better and more practical plans.
It is important to recognise that high psychological distance is not intrinsically bad. Both high and low psychological distance have their uses and drawbacks:
High psychological distance encourages aspiration, strategy, and rational thinking, but can be blind to feasibility and tactical risks. We can increase psychological distance through generalisation, mapping, and quantitative analysis.
By contrast, low psychological distance focuses on practical execution, task design, and emotional connection, but can equally increase anxiety and reactiveness to short-term events. Meetings, stories, and simulations are all effective ways to lower psychological distance.
Understanding levels of psychological distance among staff can explain why some initiatives succeed while others stall. By choosing to recognise, evaluate, and strategically manage psychological distance among staff, organisational leaders can more effectively bridge the gap between aspiration and action.