Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

ion in Communication Several lines of previous research have examined characteristics of a speaker and an audience that are likely to influence the use of abstraction in communication. For example, Beukeboom (2009) Priyanka D. Joshi and Cheryl J. Wakslak, Department of Management & Organization, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern Cali-

[1]  Camiel J. Beukeboom.  When words feel right: How affective expressions of listeners change a speaker's language use , 2009 .

[2]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  More Affected = More Neglected , 2012 .

[3]  Karen M. Douglas,et al.  By their words ye shall know them: Language abstraction and the likeability of describers , 2009 .

[4]  K. Fiedler,et al.  On the different uses of linguistic abstractness: from LIB to LEB and beyond , 2003 .

[5]  Y. Trope,et al.  Seeing the forest when entry is unlikely: probability and the mental representation of events. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[6]  Eliot R. Smith,et al.  Socially situated cognition as a bridge , 2006 .

[7]  D. O. Sears,et al.  The person-positivity bias. , 1983 .

[8]  Gün R. Semin,et al.  Communication constraints on the linguistic intergroup bias , 2003 .

[9]  K. Fiedler,et al.  The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. , 1988 .

[10]  Paul A. M. Van Lange.  Bridging Social Psychology : Benefits of Transdisciplinary Approaches , 2006 .

[11]  Y. Trope,et al.  The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. , 1998 .

[12]  Jochim Hansen,et al.  Truth From Language and Truth From Fit: The Impact of Linguistic Concreteness and Level of Construal on Subjective Truth , 2010, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[13]  Sam J. Maglio,et al.  Scale and construal: How larger measurement units shrink length estimates and expand mental horizons , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[14]  Karen M. Douglas,et al.  Effects of communication goals and expectancies on language abstraction. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[15]  Nicole C. Krämer,et al.  Audience-Tuning Effects on Memory The Role of Audience Status in Sharing Reality , 2009 .

[16]  Y. Trope,et al.  Interpersonal Similarity as a Social Distance Dimension: Implications for Perception of Others' Actions. , 2008, Journal of experimental social psychology.

[17]  Lee Ross,et al.  Temporal differences in trait self-ascription: when the self is seen as an other. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[18]  George Loewenstein,et al.  Helping a Victim or Helping the Victim: Altruism and Identifiability , 2003 .

[19]  D. Hamilton,et al.  Illusory correlation in the perception of groups: an extension of the distinctiveness-based account. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[20]  Yaacov Trope,et al.  Construal levels and self-control. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[21]  D. Hamilton,et al.  Perceiving persons and groups. , 1996, Psychological review.

[22]  M. Zanna,et al.  Establishing a causal chain: why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. , 2005, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[23]  Angela Y. Lee,et al.  It's Time to Vote: The Effect of Matching Message Orientation and Temporal Frame on Political Persuasion , 2009 .

[24]  Susan R. Fussell,et al.  The effects of intended audience on message production and comprehension: Reference in a common ground framework , 1989 .

[25]  Yaacov Trope,et al.  Bulletin Personality and Social Psychology the Use of Visual and Verbal Means of Communication across Psychological Distance on Behalf Of: Society for Personality and Social Psychology , 2022 .

[26]  Gerald Echterhoff,et al.  Audience-tuning effects on memory: the role of shared reality. , 2005, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[27]  Y. Trope,et al.  Representations of the self in the near and distant future. , 2008, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[28]  Brian Mullen,et al.  Boundaries Around Group Interaction: A Meta-Analytic Integration of the Effects of Group Size , 1991 .

[29]  L. Barsalou.  Grounded cognition. , 2008, Annual review of psychology.

[30]  D M Wegner,et al.  That's easy for you to say: action identification and speech fluency. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[31]  Kaoru Yamamoto,et al.  To Be Different. , 1971 .

[32]  D. Proffitt.  Embodied Perception and the Economy of Action , 2006, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[33]  H. Sigall,et al.  Taking the edge off of disagreement: linguistic abstractness and self‐presentation to a heterogeneous audience , 2002 .

[34]  G. Semin,et al.  Language use in intergroup contexts: the linguistic intergroup bias. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[35]  Y. Trope,et al.  Flexibility and Consistency in Evaluative Responding: The Function of Construal Level , 2010 .

[36]  Yaacov Trope,et al.  Spatial Distance and Mental Construal of Social Events , 2006, Psychological science.

[37]  Mark J. Martinko,et al.  Impression Management: An Observational Study Linking Audience Characteristics with Verbal Self-Presentations , 1988 .

[38]  Yaacov Trope,et al.  Time-dependent gambling: odds now, money later. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[39]  Y. Trope,et al.  Construal-level theory of psychological distance. , 2010, Psychological review.

[40]  B. Lickel,et al.  Elements of a Lay Theory of Groups: Types of Groups, Relational Styles, and the Perception of Group Entitativity , 2001 .