phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | choice between cause-focused and consequence-focused responses to social problems— “However, how people choose among the variety of potential social actions remains elusive.” | |
| claim-type | prediction— “This framework introduces novel testable predictions of how regulatory scope might guide the pursuit of different actions to address perceived social problems.” | |
| method — evidence | — “In this Perspective, we draw on construal level theory and regulatory scope theory to understand how people might choose to mitigate social problems.” | |
| mechanism | Features of a social problem contract or expand regulatory scope, and the width of scope then determines whether the solution pursued targets consequences or causes— “We propose that focusing on different features contracts or expands scope, which directs the pursuit of solutions to address either the consequences or causes of a problem (Fig. 1).” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Where an emotion is aimed (at affected individuals versus at the system) narrows or widens scope, which in turn channels action towards relief or towards structural change— “These prior findings might be explained by a regulatory scope mechanism: emotions directed at those affected by a social problem might contract scope and promote the pursuit of consequence-focused actions to help those affected directly, whereas emotions directed at the social system might expand scope and promote the pursuit of cause-focused… | mechanisms[1] |
| builds-on | construal level theory and regulatory scope theory— “In this Perspective, we draw on regulatory scope theory10 and construal level theory11,12 to explain when and why people pursue different solutions to address social problems.” | claim_relations[0] |
| sense | scope versus psychological distance - TWO CONSTRUCTS ROUTINELY CONFLATED, SEPARATED HERE IN ONE SENTENCE: distance is how far a mental object is from the person, scope is how wide a range of possibilities they are considering, and the theory's predictions turn on the second not the first— “Importantly, whereas psychological distance refers to the distance between a person and a mental object, scope refers to the span and breadth of possibilities that one considers” | senses[0] |
| sense | the framework - CARVED BY AIMS RATHER THAN BY ACTIONS: prior schemes classify what people do, this one classifies what they are trying to achieve, so a given act of protest or donation can land in different categories under the two schemes— “Importantly, existing frameworks primarily focus on categorizing the actions themselves rather than their underlying aims. For example, in response to police violence, people could donate directly to the family of someone who was harmed42 or donate to organizations seeking to restructure local and state police budgets43. Although these… | senses[1] |
| sense | construal level - AS THE INSTRUMENT FOR MOVING SCOPE: described as the most studied tool for modulating scope, with the abstract expanding it and the concrete contracting it, so a study that manipulates construal is manipulating scope only through that link— “Construal level (seeing something as more concrete or abstract) is the most studied ‘tool’ for modulating scope: directing people to the abstract expands scope, whereas directing people to the concrete contracts scope” | senses[2] |
| differs in | psychological distance —distinct-from→ scope — THE AXIS IS WHAT EACH CONSTRUCT IS A DISTANCE OR SPAN OF, AND BOTH DEFINITIONS ARE GIVEN. 'whereas psychological distance refers to the distance between a person and a mental object, scope refers to the span and breadth of possibilities that one considers.' A paper distinguishing two of its own constructs by defining each - the cleanest form this field takes, and rare.— “Importantly, whereas psychological distance refers to the distance between a person and a mental object, scope refers to the span and breadth of possibilities that one considers”— “psychological distance refers to the distance between a person and a mental object, scope refers to the span and breadth of possibilities that one considers” | concept_edges[0] |
| audit | construal level —part-of→ regulatory scope — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but regulatory scope theory EXPANDS ON construal level theory; part-of is loose.— “Regulatory scope theory10 expands on construal level theory and describes how people act and make decisions to achieve different goals by changing the breadth or scope of their considerations” | concept_edges[1] |
| for which use | limitation — any comparison between this framework's categories and earlier ones: existing frameworks categorise the actions themselves while this one categorises by the aims of the action, so the two sort the same behaviour differently— “Importantly, existing frameworks primarily focus on categorizing the actions themselves rather than their underlying aims. For example, in response to police violence, people could donate directly to the family of someone who was harmed42 or donate to organizations seeking to restructure local and state police budgets43. Although these… | limitations[5] |
| for which use | limitation — any claim here about scope: the authors distinguish it from psychological distance, which is the distance between a person and a mental object, whereas scope is the span and breadth of possibilities considered— “Importantly, whereas psychological distance refers to the distance between a person and a mental object, scope refers to the span and breadth of possibilities that one considers” | limitations[6] |
| for which use | limitation — the status of the account given here: it is a Perspective drawing on regulatory scope theory and construal level theory— “In this Perspective, we draw on regulatory scope theory10 and construal level theory11,12 to explain when and why people pursue different solutions to address social problems” | limitations[7] |
| evidential status | mechanism — the paper's own words: We propose that— “We propose that focusing on different features contracts or expands scope, which directs the pursuit of solutions to address either the consequences or causes of a problem (Fig. 1).” | mechanisms[0] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | The proposed model as a whole has not been empirically tested; only some of its paths have prior support.— “Although prior research provides support for some of the predictions outlined here, future research is needed to empirically test the full proposed model.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The intergroup studies cited as support did not actually measure expanded scope as the mediating mechanism.— “However, these studies did not test expanded scope as a mechanism.” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | Regulatory scope is only one of several possible mechanisms driving social action.— “Importantly, although regulatory scope is a useful lens for understanding the solutions people pursue to reduce social problems, this is just one possible mechanism and engagement in social actions is not exclusively guided by scope.” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | The five features analysed are illustrative rather than an exhaustive set of scope-modulating features.— “Although this list of features is not exhaustive and additional features certainly influence the pursuit of solutions (for example, the diversity of groups affected by the issue or social familiarity), we focus on these five features as initial illustrations.” | limitations[3] |
| limitation | The feasibility-versus-desirability prediction is offered as plausible reasoning that still requires empirical test. | limitations[4] |
| limitation | The framework sorts the same actions by a different principle from the frameworks it replaces. | limitations[5] |
| limitation | Two adjacent constructs are distinguished in one sentence, and the theory depends on keeping them apart. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[6] |
| limitation | The paper is a Perspective that draws two existing theories together rather than reporting a study. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[7] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | The paper's central proposal is that a proximal or lower-level focus pushes people towards solutions that relieve suffering, while a distal or higher-level focus pushes them towards solutions that attack the problem's causes. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | The framework names five specific features of a social problem that are proposed to expand or contract scope and thereby steer which kind of solution is chosen. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | The relation between construal features and chosen solutions is claimed to run in both directions: acting on consequences itself pulls attention to the present, while acting on causes pulls attention to the future. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | The authors flag the emotion-target pathway as an untested, novel prediction generated by their framework rather than an established result. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | The authors suggest that if people mostly pursue consequence-focused actions, for feasibility or short-term reward, the root cause remains and the problem may persist. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[4] |
| quantity | 90 per cent / 10 per cent — Share of surveyed anti-poverty NGO supporters reporting consequence-focused actions (donating, fair-trade purchases) versus cause-focused actions (signing petitions), cited in support of the framework Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| definition | social problem Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | social action Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | collective action Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| definition | psychological distance Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| definition | level of construal Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[4] |
| definition | regulatory scope theory Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[5] |
| definition | feasibility and desirability Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[9] |
| definition | group efficacy Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[10] |
| definition | hope Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[11] |
| definition | Affirmation actions Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[12] |
| definition | informed actions Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[13] |
| definition | benevolence actions Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[14] |
| definition | activism actions Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[15] |
| definition | consequence-focused solutions Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[16] |
| definition | cause-focused solutions Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[17] |
| concept | regulatory scope Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[0] |
| concept | construal level Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[1] |
| concept | psychological distance Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[2] |
| concept | social action Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[3] |
| concept | scope Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[4] |
When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824