Cited by 158Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsSocial and Intergroup PsychologySocial Representations and Identity

Missing the trees for the forest: A construal level account of the illusion of explanatory depth.

Alter, Adam L., Oppenheimer, Daniel M., Zemla, Jeffrey C.·2010·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

An illusion of explanatory depth (IOED) occurs when people believe they understand a concept more deeply than they actually do. To date, IOEDs have been identified only in mechanical and natural domains, occluding why they occur and suggesting that their implications are quite limited. Six studies illustrated that IOEDs occur because people adopt an inappropriately abstract construal style when they assess how well they understand concrete concepts. As this mechanism predicts, participants who naturally adopted concrete construal styles (Study 1) or were induced to adopt a concrete construal style (Studies 2-4 and 6), experienced diminished IOEDs. Two additional studies documented a novel IOED in the social psychological domain of electoral voting (Studies 5 and 6), demonstrating the generality of the construal mechanism, the authors also extended the presumed boundary conditions of the effect beyond mechanical and natural domains. These findings suggest a novel factor that might contribute to such diverse social-cognitive shortcomings as stereotyping, egocentrism, and the planning fallacy, where people adopt abstract representations of concepts that should be represented concretely.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0020218

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The strength of IOED depends on cognitive characteristics of participants, such as adopting a concrete or abstract construal style or the executive resources available to assess understanding.

    “On the one hand, the strength of IOED depends on cognitive characteristics of participants, such as adopting a concrete or abstract construal style (Alter et al., 2010) or on the executive resources available to assess understanding (Gaviria & Corredor, 2025).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., & Zemla, J. C.
Affiliations
  • New York University (US)
  • Princeton University (US)
  • Rice University (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
2010
Volume
99
Issue
3
Pages
436-451
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2125782830
Cited by
158
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 5
FWCI
4.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Charlotte Elizabeth Procter Fellowship
  • Woodrow Wilson Society
  • National Science Foundation (051811)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Representations and Identity
Keywords
illusion of explanatory depth, construal level theory, conceptual understanding, concrete concepts, social cognition, stereotyping, self-centeredness, planning fallacy, electoral voting, metacognition
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Cognition, Concept Formation, Female, Humans, Illusions, Male, Politics, Psychological Theory, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Behavior, Task Performance and Analysis, Observer Variation, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review