In four experiments, the impact of concreteness of language on judgments of truth was examined. In Experiments 1 and 2, it was found that statements of the very same content were judged as more probably true when they were written in concrete language than when they were written in abstract language. Findings of Experiment 2 also showed that this linguistic concreteness effect on judgments of truth could most likely be attributed to greater perceived vividness of concrete compared to abstract statements. Two further experiments demonstrated an additional fit effect: The truth advantage of concrete statements occurred especially when participants were primed with a concrete (vs. abstract) mind-set (Experiment 3) or when the statements were presented in a spatially proximal (vs. distant) location (Experiment 4). Implications for communication strategies are discussed.
Akehurst, L., Köhnken, G., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. ( 1996). Lay persons’ and police officers’ beliefs regarding deceptive behaviour. Applied Cognitive Psychology , 40, 461-471.
2.
Bar-Anan Y., Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Algom, D. ( 2007). Automatic processing of psychological distance: Evidence from a Stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 136, 610-622.
3.
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. ( 1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
4.
Begg, I.M., Anas, A., & Farinacci, S. ( 1992). Dissociation of processes in belief: Source recollection, statement familiarity, and the illusion of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 121, 446-458.
5.
Bleasdale, F.A. ( 1987). Concreteness-dependent associative priming: Separate lexical organization for concrete and abstract words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 582-594.
6.
Borgida, E., & Nisbett, R.E. ( 1977). The differential impact of abstract vs. concrete information on decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 258-271.
7.
Carroll, J.S. ( 1978). The effect of imagining an event on expectations for the event: An interpretation in terms of the availability heuristic. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 88-96.
8.
Dechêne, A., Stahl, C., Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2010). The truth about the truth: A meta-analytic review of the truth effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 238-257.
9.
de Groot, A.M.B. ( 1989). Representational aspects of word image-ability and word frequency as assessed through word association. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 824-845.
10.
DePaulo, B.M., Lindsay, J.J., Malone, B.E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. ( 2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin , 129, 74-118.
11.
DePaulo, B.M., Rosenthal, R., Rosenkrantz, J., & Green, C.R. ( 1982). Actual and perceived cues to deception: A closer look at speech. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 3, 291-312.
12.
Douglas, K.M., & Sutton, R.M. ( 1993). Effects of communication goals and expectancies on language abstraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 84, 682-696.
13.
Fiedler, K. ( 2008). The implicit meta-theory that has inspired and restricted LCM research: Why some studies were conducted but others not. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 182-196.
14.
Fiedler, K., Semin, G.R., & Bolten, S. ( 1989). Language use and reification of social information: Top-down and bottom-up processing in person cognition. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 271-295.
15.
Förster, J., & Higgins, E.T. ( 2005). How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus . Psychological Science, 16, 631-636.
16.
Freitas, A.L., Gollwitzer, P.M., & Trope, Y. ( 2004). The influence of abstract and concrete mindsets on anticipating and guiding others’ self-regulatory efforts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 739-752.
17.
Fujita, K., Henderson, M., Eng, J., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. ( 2006). Spatial distance and mental construal of social events . Psychological Science, 17, 278-282.
18.
Garry, M., Manning, C.G., Loftus, E.F., & Sherman, S.J. ( 1996). Imagination inflation: Imagining a childhood even inflates confidence that it occurred. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 3, 208-214.
19.
Gregory, W.L., Cialdini, R.B., & Carpenter, K.M. (1982). Self-relevant scenarios as mediators of likelihood estimates and compliance: Does imagining make it so? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 89-99.
20.
Hansen, J., Dechêne, A., & Wänke, M. (2008). Discrepant fluency increases subjective truth. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 44, 687-691.
21.
Henderson, M.D., Fujita, K., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. ( 2006). Transcending the "here": The effect of spatial distance on social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 91, 845-856.
22.
Herzog, S.M., Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2007). Temporal distance and ease of retrieval. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 483-488.
23.
Higgins, E.T. ( 2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55, 1217-1230.
24.
Higgins, E.T., Idson, L.C., Freitas, A.L., Spiegel, S., & Molden, D.C. ( 2003). Transfer of value from fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1140-1153.
25.
Houghton Mifflin. ( 2000). American heritage dictionary of the English language (4th ed.). Retrieved from www.thefreedictionary.com
26.
Johnson, M.K. ( 2006). Memory and reality. American Psychologist , 61, 760-771.
27.
Johnson, M.K., Bush, J.G., & Mitchell, K.J. (1998). Interpersonal reality monitoring: Judging the sources of other people’s memories. Social Cognition, 16, 199-224.
Koehler, D.J. ( 1991). Explanation, imagination, and confidence in judgment . Psychological Bulletin, 110, 499-519.
31.
Kroll, J.F., & Merves, J.S. ( 1986). Lexical access for concrete and abstract words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition , 12, 92-107.
32.
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. ( 2008). The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 322, 1201-1205.
33.
Maass, A. ( 1999). Linguistic intergroup bias: Stereotype perpetuation through language. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advantages in experimental social psychology (Vol. 31, pp. 79-121). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
34.
Paivio, A. ( 1969). Mental imagery in associative learning and memory. Psychological Review, 76, 241-263.
35.
Parks, C.M., & Toth, J.P. ( 2006). Fluency, familiarity, aging, and the illusion of truth . Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 13, 225-253.
36.
Plous, S. ( 1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
37.
Reber, R., & Schwarz, N. ( 1999). Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition, 8, 338-342.
38.
Reyes, R.M., Thompson, W.C., & Bower, G.H. ( 1980). Judgmental biases resulting from differing availabilities of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 39, 2-12.
39.
Rosnow, R.L., & Rosenthal, R. ( 1989). Definition and interpretation of interaction effects . Psychological Bulletin, 105, 143-146.
40.
Rosnow, R.L., & Rosenthal, R. ( 1995). "Some things you learn aren’t so": Cohen’s paradox, Asch’s paradigm, and the interpretation of interaction. Psychological Science, 6, 3-9.
41.
Rosnow, R.L., & Rosenthal, R. ( 1996). Contrasts and interactions redux: Five easy pieces. Psychological Science, 7, 253-257.
42.
Rubini, M., & Menegatti, M. ( 2008). Linguistic bias in personnel selection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 168-181.
43.
Schmid, J., & Fiedler, K. ( 1996). Language and implicit attributions in the Nuremberg trials: Analyzing prosecutors’ and defense attorneys’ closing speeches . Human Communication Research, 22, 371-398.
44.
Schmid, J., & Fiedler, K. ( 1998). The backbone of closing speeches: The impact of prosecution versus defense language on juridical attribution. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1140-1172.
45.
Schmid, J., Fiedler, K., Englich, B., Ehrenberger, T., & Semin, G.R. ( 1996). Taking sides with the defendant: Grammatical choice and the influence of implicit attributions in prosecution and defense speeches . International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 12, 127-148.
46.
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime: A user’s guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.
47.
Schooler, J.W., Gerhard, D., & Loftus, E.F. ( 1986). Qualities of the unreal. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 171-181.
48.
Semin, G.R. ( 2008). Language puzzles: A prospective retrospective on the linguistic category model. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 197-209.
49.
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.
50.
Semin, G.R., & Fiedler, K. ( 1991). The linguistic category model, its bases, applications and range. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1-30). Chichester , UK: Wiley.
51.
Semin, G.R., Higgins, T., Gil de Montes, L., Estourget, Y., & Valencia, J.F. (2005). Linguistic signatures of regulatory focus: How abstraction fits promotion more than prevention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 36-45.
52.
Sherman, S.J., Cialdini, R.B., Schwartzman, D.F., & Reynolds, K.D. (1985). Imagining can heighten or lower the perceived likelihood of contracting a disease: The mediating effect of ease of imagery. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 118-127.
53.
ter Doest, L., & Semin, G. ( 2005). Retrieval contexts and the concreteness effect: Dissociations in memory for concrete and abstract words. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17, 859-881.
54.
Todorov, A., Goren, A., & Trope, Y. ( 2007). Probability as a psychological distance: Construal and preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 473-482.
55.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. ( 2000). Temporal distance and time-dependent changes in preference . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 876-889.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. ( 2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440-463.
58.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. ( 1982). Judgments of and by representativeness. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 84-100). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
59.
Unkelbach, C. ( 2007). Reversing the truth effect: Learning the interpretation of processing fluency in judgments of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 219-230.
60.
Vrij, A. ( 2008). Nonverbal dominance versus verbal accuracy in lie detection: A plea to change police practice. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 35, 1323-1336.
61.
Vrij, A., Evans, H., Akehurst, L., & Mann, S. ( 2004). Rapid judgements in assessing verbal and nonverbal cues: Their potential for deception researchers and lie detection. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 283-296.
62.
Wakslak, C.J., & Trope, Y. ( 2009). The effect of construal level on subjective probability estimates. Psychological Science, 20, 52-58.
63.
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.
64.
Wigboldus, D.H.J., Semin, G.R., & Spears, R. ( 2000). How do we communicate stereotypes? Linguistic biases and inferential consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 5-18.
