Situating construal level: The function of abstractness and concreteness in social contexts

Social Cognition

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 201-221

  Jiga Boy, Gabriela M ^a   Clark, Anna E ^b   Semin, Gün R ^c  

^a SWANSEA UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^c UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84879832235     PISSN: 0278016X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1521/soco.2013.31.2.201     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Abelson, R. P., & Prentice, D. A. (1997). Contrast tests of interaction hypotheses. Psychological Methods, 2, 315-328. doi:10.1037/1082- 989X.2.4.315 (Pubitemid 127453674)
2. Barsalou, L. (2008). Grounding symbolic operations in the brain's modal systems. In G. R. Semin & E. R. Smith (Eds.), Embodied grounding: Social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches (pp. 9-42). New York: Cambridge University Press.
3. Beukeboom, C. J., & Semin, G. R. (2006). How mood turns on language. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 553-566. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005. 09.005 (Pubitemid 44145281)
4. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2003). Effects of communication goals and expectancies on language abstraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 692-696. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.682
6. Fiske, S. T. (1992). Thinking is for doing: Portraits of social cognition from daguerreotype to laserphoto. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 877-889. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.6.877
7. Förster, J. (2009). Cognitive consequences of novelty and familiarity: How mere exposure influences level of construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 444-447. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.10.011
8. Fussell, S. R., & Krauss, R. M. (1989). The effects of intended audience on message production and comprehension: Reference in common ground framework. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 203-219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(89)90019-X
9. Glenberg, A. (2008). Toward the integration of bodily states, language, and action. In G. R. Semin & E. R. Smith (Eds.), Embodied grounding: Social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches (pp. 43-70). New York: Cambridge University Press.
10. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press. doi unavailable.
11. James, W. (1890/1983). The principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12. Krauss, R. M., & Fussell, S. R. (1996). Social psychological models of interpersonal communication. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 55-701). New York: Guilford.
13. Liberman, N., & Förster, J. (2009). The effect of psychological distance on perceptual level of construal. Cognitive Science, 33, 1330-1341. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01061.x
14. Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 5-18. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.5
15. Liberman, N., Sagristano, M., & Trope, Y. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on level of construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 523-535. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00535-8
16. Liberman, N., Trope, Y., McCrea, S. M., & Sherman, S. J. (2007). The effect of level of construal on temporal distance of activity engagement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 143-149. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.009 (Pubitemid 44780570)
17. Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Stephan, E. (2007). Psychological distance. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (Vol. 2, pp. 353-383). New York: Guilford.
18. Liviatan, I., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2008). Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others' actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1256-1269. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.007
19. Maass, A. (1999). Linguistic intergroup bias: Stereotype perpetuation through language. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 79-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60272-5
20. Niedenthal, P. M., Barsalou, L. W., Winkielman, P., Krauth-Gruber, S., & Ric, F. (2005). Embodiment in attitudes, social perception, and emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 9, 184-211. doi:10.1207/ s15327957pspr0903-1 (Pubitemid 41356682)
21. Nussbaum, S., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Creeping dispositionism: The temporal dynamics of behavior prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 485-497. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.485 (Pubitemid 38397266)
22. Reitsma-van Rooijen, M., Semin, G. R., & van Leeuwen, E. (2007). The effects of linguistic abstraction on interpersonal distance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 817-823. doi:10.1002/ejsp.410
23. Rubini, M., & Semin, G. R. (1994). Language use in the context of congruent and incongruent ingroup behaviours. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 355-362. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01031.x
24. Semin, G. R. (2009). Language and social cognition. In F. Strack & J. Förster (Eds.), Social cognition - The basis of human interaction (pp. 269-290). New York: Psychology Press.
25. Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 558-568. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.54.4.558
26. Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1989). Relocating attributional phenomena within a language-cognition interface: The case of actors' and observers' perspectives. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 491-508.
27. Semin, G. R., Gil de Montes, L., & Valencia, J. F. (2003). Communication constraints on the linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 142-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022- 1031(02)00523-1 (Pubitemid 36445987)
28. Semin, G. R., & Smith, E. R. (2002). Interfaces of social psychology with situated and embodied cognition. Cognitive Systems Research, 3, 385-396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1389-0417(02)00049-9 (Pubitemid 38647208)
29. Semin, G. R., & Smith, E. R. (2013). Socially situated cognition in perspective. Social Cognition, 31(2), 125-146.
30. Slugoski, B. R., Lalljee, M., Lamb, R., & Ginsburg, G. P. (1993). Attribution in con versational context: Effect of mutual knowledge on explanation-giving. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 219-238. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420230302
31. Smith, E. R., & Semin, G. R. (2004). Socially situated cognition: Cognition in its social context. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 53-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(04)36002-8 (Pubitemid 39752190)
32. Stephan, E., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2011). The effects of time perspective and level of construal on social distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 397-402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jesp.2010.11.001
33. Trope, Y. & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440-463. doi:10.1037/a0018963
34. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110, 403-421. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.403 (Pubitemid 37189432)
35. Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 660-671. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.660
36. Wakslak, C. J., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Alony, R. (2006). Seeing the forest when entry is unlikely: Probability and the mental representation of events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 641-653. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.135.4.641 (Pubitemid 44706764)
37. Wigboldus, D. H. J., & Douglas, K. M. (2007). Language, expectancies and intergroup relations. In K. Fiedler (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 79-106). New York: Psychology Press.
38. Wigboldus, D. H. J., Semin, G. R., & Spears, R. (2000). How do we communicate stereotypes? Linguistic bases and inferential consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 5-18. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.5
39. Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In G. Ward & L. Horn (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607-632). Oxford: Blackwell.