Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43 (2007) 483–488 www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp 0022-1031/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.008 Temporal distance and ease of retrieval  Stefan M. Herzog ¤ , Jochim Hansen, Michaela Wänke Department of Psychology, University of Basel, Missionsstrasse 60/62, CH- 4055 Basel, Switzerland Received 29 April 2005; revised 21 December 2005 Available online 12 July 2006 Abstract Construal Level Theory (CLT; Trope & Liberman, 2003) proposes that pro-arguments (pros) constitute high-level construals and counter-arguments (cons) low-level construals. Therefore, pros are more salient for distant-future actions than are cons and the reverse holds for near-future actions (Eyal, Liberman, Trope, & Walther, 2004). We further predicted and results from one experiment show that participants found it easier to generate pros if an action pertained to the distant rather than the near future. For cons the eVect was reversed: participants found it more diYcult to generate cons if the action pertained to the distant rather than the near future. Conse- quently, people were more in favor of the action if it pertained to the distant rather than the near future. Ease of retrieval mediated the eVect of temporal distance on attitudes. The mutual relevance of the CLT framework and research on ease of retrieval is discussed.  2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Temporal distance; Construal level; Ease of retrieval; Attitudes When people consider a future action they often think about pro-arguments (pros) and counter-arguments (cons). The outcome of their thoughts is likely to determine atti- tudes towards the action and related behavior. People are more likely to carry out the action if the pros outweigh the cons. Interestingly, the result of this mental exercise and therefore the attitudinal and behavioral consequences may diVer depending on mere temporal distance to the action. Construal Level Theory (CLT; Trope & Liberman, 2003) proposes that people create more abstract representa- tions (high-level construals) of distant-future actions and more concrete representations (low-level construals) of near-future actions. According to CLT, high-level constru- als consist of general, abstract, simple, and decontextual- ized features that convey the essence of information about future actions, whereas low-level construals include more speciWc, concrete, complex, and contextual details of future actions. For example, high-level construals of a health cam- paign could comprise individual health beneWts and eco- nomical beneWts for society through increased quality of life and reduced health insurance premiums. These high- level construals are related to the question of why one would want to implement a health campaign. In contrast, low-level construals of a health campaign could comprise the implementation costs and the organizational coordina- tion eVorts of the campaign. These low-level construals are related to issues of how to implement a health campaign. Construal level theory and attitude processes Concerning attitude processes, CLT proposes that pro- arguments (pros) about an action constitute high-level construals and that counter-arguments (cons) constitute low-level construals (Eyal et al., 2004). Actions are thus construed more in terms of their pro-aspects if the actions pertain to the distant as opposed to the near future. Conversely, actions are construed more in terms of their con-aspects if the actions pertain to the near as opposed to the distant future. Experimental evidence is consistent with the mapping of pros to high-level construals and cons to low-level construals. Participants in Eyal and colleagues’  We thank Jakub Samochowiec for comments on an earlier version of this draft and Laura Wiles for editing the manuscript. * Corresponding author. Fax: +41 61 267 35 26. E-mail address: stefan.herzog@unibas.ch (S.M. Herzog).