Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

How does conversational context shape the construal level of future events? According to construal-level theory, temporally distant events are construed more abstractly than close events due to an association between distance and construal level. The authors have argued that situated conversational relevancies determine construal level and therefore that construal level is flexible and determined in situ. Building on research that examined construal level in a language-production paradigm, this research examined the recipient's expectations for abstract versus concrete messages. Results supported the hypotheses that although temporal distance information should direct construal expectancies when shared knowledge information is not salient, social rules dictate that when salient, shared knowledge information determines construal level, overriding temporal distance. These findings support the reciprocal nature of conversational relevance and the symmetry between language production and reception.

Keywords

construal level conversational relevance shared knowledge socially situated cognition linguistic abstraction

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Clark, A.E. , & Semin, G.R. (2007). Talking about alternative futures: Situating construal . Manuscript submitted for publication.

Clark, H.H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Clark, H.H. , & Brennan, S.E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. Resnick , J. Levine , & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127-149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Fussell, S.R. , & Krauss, R.M. (1989). Understanding friends and strangers: The effects of audience design on message comprehension. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 509-525.

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.

Isaacs, E.A. , & Clark, H.H. (1987). References in conversation between experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 26-37.

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.

Liberman, N. , Sagristano, M. , & Trope, Y. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on level of construal . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 523-535.

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.

10.

Liberman, N. , Trope, Y. , & Stephan, E. , (2007). Psychological distance. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (Vol. 2, pp. 353-383). New York: Guilford .

11.

Maass, A. (1999). Linguistic intergroup bias: Stereotype perpetuation through language. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 31, 79-121.

12.

Maass, A. , Salvi, D. , Arcuri, L. , & Semin, G. (1989). Language use in intergroup contexts: The linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 57, 981-993.

13.

Nussbaum, S. , Trope, Y. , & Liberman, N. (2003). Creeping dispositionism: The temporal dynamics of behavior prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 485-497.

14.

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.

15.

Semin, G.R. , & Smith, E.R. (2002). Interfaces of social psychology with situated and embodied cognition. Cognitive Systems Research, 3, 385-396.

16.

Semin, G.R. (in press). Language and social cognition. In F. Strack & J. Förster (Eds.), Social cognition: The basis of human interaction. New York : Psychology Press.

17.

Slugoski, B.R. , Lalljee, M. , Lamb, R. , & Ginsburg, G. (1993). Attribution in conversational context: Effect of mutual knowledge on explanation-giving. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 219-238.

18.

Smith, E.R. , & Semin, G.R. (2004). Socially situated cognition: Cognition in its social context. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 36, 53-117.

19.

Stapel, D. , & Semin, G.R. (2007). The magic spell of language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 23-33.

20.

Trope, Y. , & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110, 403-421.

21.

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.

22.

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.

23.

Wilson, D. , & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In G. Ward & L. Horn (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607-632). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Receivers' Expectations for Abstract Versus Concrete Construal

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References