Individuals can construe the world around them more concretely or more abstractly, with consequences for their judgments and behaviors. With five studies involving 3,963 U.S. adult participants, we test whether people hold stereotypes about the tendency for different groups to think more concretely or more abstractly. Across Studies 1 to 3, individuals report explicit and consistent construal level stereotypes about social groups in various demographic, occupational, and non-human categories. In Studies 2 and 3, we provide evidence that construal level stereotypes are correlated with, yet distinct from, stereotypes about their competence, agency, and power. In Studies 4 and 5, we offer evidence of predictive validity with two experiments showing that individuals use construal level stereotypes to inform employee selection decisions. These findings integrate and advance two major topics in social cognition: construal level theory and stereotyping. We discuss societal implications of construal level stereotypes predicting behaviors associated with discrimination in resource allocation.
AdlerN. E.EpelE. S.CastellazzoG.IckovicsJ. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy white women. Health Psychology, 19, 586–592.
2.
AguilarP.CaballeroA.SevillanoV.FernándezI.MuñozD.CarreraP. (2020). The relationships between economic scarcity, concrete mindset and risk behavior: A study of Nicaraguan adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(11), Article 3845.
3.
Bar-AnanY.LibermanN.TropeY. (2006). The association between psychological distance and construal level: Evidence from an implicit association test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(4), 609–622.
4.
BianL.LeslieS. J.CimpianA. (2017). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests. Science, 355(6323), Article 38391.
5.
BlessH.BurgerA. M. (2017). Mood and the regulation of mental abstraction. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(2), 159–164.
6.
BuhrmesterM. D.TalaifarS.GoslingS. D. (2018). An evaluation of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, its rapid rise, and its effective use. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 149–154.
7.
BurgoonE. M.HendersonM. D.WakslakC. J. (2013). How do we want others to decide? Geographical distance influences evaluations of decision makers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(6), 826–838.
8.
BurrusJ.RoeseN. J. (2006). Long ago it was meant to be: The interplay between time, construal, and fate beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(8), 1050–1058.
9.
CaballeroA.FernándezI.AguilarP.MuñozD.CarreraP. (2021). Does poverty promote a different and harmful way of thinking? The links between economic scarcity, concrete construal level and risk behaviors. Current Psychology, 42, 8402–8413.
10.
CareyJ. M.CarmanK. R.ClaytonK. P.HoriuchiY.HtunM.OrtizB. (2020). Who wants to hire a more diverse faculty? A conjoint analysis of faculty and student preferences for gender and racial/ethnic diversity. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 8(3), 535–553.
11.
CarusoE. M.RahnevD. A.BanajiM. R. (2009). Using conjoint analysis to detect discrimination: Revealing covert preferences from overt choices. Social Cognition, 27(1), 128–137.
CrouzevialleM.SchmidP. C.TropeY. (2023). Beliefs about abstraction: Low-level and high-level construal signal different lay theories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(5), 1351–1367. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001332
14.
DodsonS. J.GoodwinR. D.WakslakC. J.DiekmannK. A.GrahamJ. (2025). She sees the trees, he sees the forest: Descriptive gender stereotypes of concreteness and abstractness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000453
15.
DuboisD.RuckerD. D.GalinskyA. D. (2015). Social class, power, and selfishness: When and why upper and lower class individuals behave unethically. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(3), 436–449.
16.
DupreeC. H.TorrezB.ObiohaO.FiskeS. T. (2021). Race–status associations: Distinct effects of three novel measures among White and Black perceivers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(3), 601–625.
17.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.
18.
Efrat-TreisterD.OregS.DoverY. (2024). The relationships between affect dimensions and level of construal. European Journal of Social Psychology, 54(3), 715–729.
19.
FiskeS. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In GilbertD. T.FiskeS. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 357–411). McGraw-Hill.
20.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed)stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902.
21.
FleischmannA.BurgmerP. (2020). Abstract thinking increases support for affirmative action. Sex Roles, 82(7), 493–511.
22.
FörsterJ.FriedmanR. S.LibermanN. (2004). Temporal construal effects on abstract and concrete thinking: Consequences for insight and creative cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.177.
23.
FrybergS. A.MarkusH. R.OysermanD.StoneJ. M. (2008). Of warrior chiefs and Indian princesses: The psychological consequences of American Indian mascots. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30(3), 208–218.
24.
FujitaK.TropeY.LibermanN.Levin-SagiM. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3), 351–367.
25.
GamoranA.HadarB.GileadM. (2024). Thinking in 3D: A multidimensional mapping of the effects of distance on abstraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 127(5), 949–963.
26.
García-PérezM. A. (2023). Use and misuse of corrections for multiple testing. Methods in Psychology, 8, Article 100120.
27.
GreenP. E.SrinivasanV. (1990). Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 3–19.
28.
GrossmannI.PeetzJ.DorfmanA.RotellaA.BuehlerR. (2024). The wise mind balances the abstract and the concrete. Open Mind, 8, 826–858.
29.
HallJ. A.GohJ. X. (2017). Studying stereotype accuracy from an integrative social-personality perspective. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(11), Article e12357.
30.
HessY. D.CarnevaleJ. J.RosarioM. (2018). A construal level approach to understanding interpersonal processes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12(8), Article e12409.
31.
HigginsE. T.PittmanT. S. (2008). Motives of the human animal: Comprehending, managing, and sharing inner states. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 361–385.
32.
HofstedeG. J.HofstedeG. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. SAGE Publications.
33.
JoshiP. D.WakslakC. J.AppelG.HuangL. (2020). Gender differences in communicative abstraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(3), 417–435.
34.
JoshiP. D.WakslakC. J.RajM.TropeY. (2016). Communicating with distant others: The functional use of abstraction. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(1), 37–44.
35.
KarpinskiA.HiltonJ. L. (2001). Attitudes and the implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5), 774–788.
36.
KochA.ImhoffR.DotschR.UnkelbachC.AlvesH. (2016). The ABC of stereotypes about groups: Agency/socioeconomic success, conservative–progressive beliefs, and communion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(5), 675–709.
37.
KochA.ImhoffR.UnkelbachC.NicolasG.FiskeS.TeracheJ.CarrierA.YzerbytV. (2020). Groups’ warmth is a personal matter: Understanding consensus on stereotype dimensions reconciles adversarial models of social evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 89, Article 103995.
38.
KteilyN.BruneauE.WaytzA.CotterillS. (2015). The ascent of man: Theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(5), 901–931.
39.
LabrooA. A.PatrickV. M. (2009). Psychological distancing: Why happiness helps you see the big picture. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(5), 800–809.
40.
LeeD. S.FujitaK. (2023). From whom do people seek what type of support? A regulatory scope perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 124(4), 796–811.
41.
LeeperT. J.HoboltS. B.TilleyJ. (2020). Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments. Political Analysis, 28(2), 207–221.
42.
LermerE.StreicherB.SachsR.RaueM.FreyD. (2016). Thinking concretely increases the perceived likelihood of risks: The effect of construal level on risk estimation. Risk Analysis, 36(3), 623–637.
43.
LinvilleP. W.FischerG. W.YoonC. (1996). Perceived covariation among the features of ingroup and outgroup members: The outgroup covariation effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 421–436.
44.
LuguriJ. B.NapierJ. L.DovidioJ. F. (2012). Reconstruing intolerance: Abstract thinking reduces conservatives’ prejudice against nonnormative groups. Psychological Science, 23(7), 756–763.
45.
MilkmanK. L.AkinolaM.ChughD. (2012). Temporal distance and discrimination: An audit study in academia. Psychological Science, 23(7), 710–717.
46.
MuellerJ. S.WakslakC. J.KrishnanV. (2014). Construing creativity: The how and why of recognizing creative ideas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 51, 81–87.
47.
NguyenT.CarnevaleJ. J.ScholerA. A.MieleD. B.FujitaK. (2019). Metamotivational knowledge of the role of high-level and low-level construal in goal-relevant task performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(5), 876–899. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000166
48.
NicolasG.BaiX.FiskeS. T. (2022). A spontaneous stereotype content model: Taxonomy, properties, and prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(6), 1243–1263. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000312
49.
OakesP. J.HaslamS. A.TurnerJ. C. (1994). Stereotyping and social reality. Blackwell Publishing.
50.
PennebakerJ. W.RiméB.BlankenshipV. E. (1996). Stereotypes of emotional expressiveness of Northerners and Southerners: A cross-cultural test of Montesquieu’s hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(2), 372–380.
51.
PlantE. A.DevineP. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 811–832.
52.
PyoneJ. S.IsenA. M. (2011). Positive affect, intertemporal choice, and levels of thinking: Increasing consumers’ willingness to wait. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 532–543.
53.
RattanA.DweckC. S. (2010). Who confronts prejudice? The role of implicit theories in the motivation to confront prejudice. Psychological Science, 21(7), 952–959.
54.
ReytJ. N.WiesenfeldB. M.TropeY. (2016). Big picture is better: The social implications of construal level for advice taking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 135, 22–31.
55.
SchroederJ.EpleyN. (2016). Mistaking minds and machines: How speech affects dehumanization and anthropomorphism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 1427–1437.
56.
ShermanJ. W.MacraeC. N.BodenhausenG. V. (2000). Attention and stereotyping: Cognitive constraints on the construction of meaningful social impressions. European Review of Social Psychology, 11(1), 145–175.
57.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press.
58.
SlepianM. L.MasicampoE. J.AmbadyN. (2015). Cognition from on high and down low: Verticality and construal level. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(1), 1–17.
59.
SmithP. K.TropeY. (2006). You focus on the forest when you’re in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 578–596.
60.
SmithP. K.WigboldusD. H. J.DijksterhuisA. (2008). Abstract thinking increases one’s sense of power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 378–385.
61.
TropeY.LedgerwoodA.LibermanN.FujitaK. (2021). Regulatory scope and its mental and social supports. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(2), 204–224.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463.
64.
VallacherR. R.WegnerD. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 660–671.
65.
VenusM.JohnsonR. E.ZhangS.WangX. H.LanajK. (2019). Seeing the big picture: A within-person examination of leader construal level and vision communication. Journal of Management, 45(7), 2666–2684.
66.
WakslakC. J. (2012). The experience of cognitive dissonance in important and trivial domains: A construal-level theory approach. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(6), 1361–1364.
67.
WiesenfeldB. M.ReytJ. N.BrocknerJ.TropeY. (2017). Construal level theory in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 367–400.
68.
WilliamsL. E.SteinR.GalgueraL. (2014). The distinct affective consequences of psychological distance and construal level. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6), 1123–1138.
69.
YinY.BarrettR.WilliamsM.WiesenfeldB. M.WakslakC. J. (2025). Developing a General Construal Questionnaire. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672251321318
70.
YogeeswaranK.DasguptaN. (2014). The devil is in the details: Abstract versus concrete construals of multiculturalism differentially impact intergroup relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(5), 772–789.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
