Communicating with the crowd: Speakers use abstract messages when: Addressing larger audiences

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Volumn 143, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 351-362

  Joshi, Priyanka D ^a   Wakslak, Cheryl J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Audience size; Audience tuning; Construal level; Message framing

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LITERATURE; MALE; PERCEPTION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SOCIAL DISTANCE; SPEECH; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTENTION; COMMUNICATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; METAPHOR; SOCIAL DISTANCE; SOCIAL PERCEPTION; SPEECH; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84893353191     PISSN: 00963445     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0032413     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Amit, E., Wakslak, C., & Trope, Y. (2013). The use of visual and verbal means of communication across psychological distance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 43-56.
2. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645.
3. Baskin, E., Wakslak, C. J., Trope, Y., & Novemsky, N. (2013). Why a frying pan is better than flowers: A construal-level approach to gift exchange. Unpublished manuscript.
4. Beukeboom, C. J. (2009). When words feel right: How affective expressions of listeners change a speaker's language use. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 747-756.
5. Coenen, L. H. M., Hedebouw, L., & Semin, G. R. (2006). Measuring language abstraction: The linguistic categorization model manual. Unpublished manuscript, Free University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
6. Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2003). Effects of communication goals and expectancies on language abstraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 682-696.
7. Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2010). By their words, ye shall know them: Language abstraction and the likeability of describers. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 366-374.
8. Echterhoff, G., Higgins, E. T., & Groll, S. (2005). Audience-tuning effects on memory: The role of shared reality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 257-276.
9. Echterhoff, G., Lang, S., Krämer, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2009). Audiencetuning effects on communicators' memory: The role of audience status in sharing reality. Social Psychology, 40, 150-163.
10. Fiedler, K., Bluemke, M., Friese, M., & Hofmann, W. (2003). On the different uses of linguistic abstractness: From LIB to LEB and beyond. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 441-453.
11. Fujita, K., Henderson, M., Eng, J., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2006). Spatial distance and mental construal of social events. Psychological Science, 17, 278-282.
12. Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 351-367.
13. Fussell, S. R., & Krauss, R. M. (1989). The effects of intended audience on message production and comprehension: Reference in a common ground framework. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 203-219.
14. Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression management: An observational study linking audience characteristics with verbal selfpresentations. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 42-65.
15. Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 336-355.
16. Hansen, J., & Wanke, M. (2010). Truth from language and truth from fit: The impact of linguistic concreteness and level of construal on subjective truth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1576-1588.
17. Kim, H., Rao, A. R., & Lee, A. Y. (2009). It's time to vote: The effect of matching message orientation and temporal frame on political persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 877-889.
18. Ledgerwood, A., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Flexibility and consistency in evaluative responding: The function of construal level. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 43, pp. 257-295). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
19. Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 5-18.
20. Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (2001). Elements of a lay theory of groups: Types of groups, relational styles, and the perception of group entitativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 129-140.
21. 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.
22. Maass, A., Salvi, D., Arcuri, L., & Semin, G. R. (1989). Language use in intergroup contexts: The linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 981-993.
23. Maglio, S. J., & Trope, Y. (2011). Scale and construal: How larger measurement units shrink length estimates and expand mental horizons. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 165-170.
24. McConnell, A. R., Sherman, S. J., & Hamilton, D. L. (1994). Illusory correlation in the perception of groups: An extension of the distinctiveness-based account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 414-429.
25. Mullen, B., Cooper, C., Cox, P., Fraser, C., Hu, L., Meisler, A.,... Symons, C. (1991). Boundaries around group interaction: A metaanalytic integration of the effects of group size, Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 271, 283.
26. Proffitt, D. R. (2006). Embodied perception and economy of action. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 110-122.
27. Pronin, E., & Ross, L. (2006). Temporal differences in trait self-ascription: When the self is seen as another. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 197-209.
28. Rubini, M., & Sigall, H. (2002). Taking the edge of disagreement: Linguistic abstractness and self presentation to a heterogeneous audience. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 343-351.
29. Sagristano, M., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2002). Time-dependent gambling: Odds now, money later. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 364-376.
30. Sah, S., & Loewenstein, G. (2012). More affected _ more neglected: Amplification of bias in advice to the unidentified and many. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 3, 365-372.
31. Sears, D. O. (1983). The person-positivity bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 233-250.
32. Semin, G. R., De Montes, G. L., & Valencia, J. F. (2003). Communication constraints on the linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 142-148.
33. 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.
34. Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Helping a victim or helping the Victim: Altruism and identifiability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26, 5-16.
35. Smith, E. R., & Semin, G. R. (2006). Socially situated cognition as a bridge. In P. A. M. Van Lange (Ed.), Bridging social psychology: Benefits of transdisciplinary approaches (pp. 145-150). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 845-851.
37. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440-463.
38. Vallacher, R. R., Wegner, D. M., & Somoza, M. P. (1989). That's easy for you to say: Action identification and speech fluency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 199-208.
39. Wakslak, C. J., Nussbaum, S., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). Representations of the self in the near and distant future. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 757-773.
40. 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.