1. Experimental Conditions
Construal Level and Communication
among Intra-minority Intergroup Relations
Tina Nguyen1, Maureen Craig, Ph.D. 2, Kentaro Fujita, Ph.D. 2
1 University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 2 The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
METHODS
205 exclusively heterosexual MTurk workers were recruited and paid $0.50 for participation (183 women, 22 men; Mage = 39.6, SDage = 13.6; Range=19-70; 78% Caucasian women, 12% African-American, 5% Asian-American, 4% Hispanic-American, and 0.1% Native-American)
How might goals influence the level of abstraction in language (concrete vs. abstract)?
Experimental Conditions
Ingroup only, formation goal
Ingroup only, maintenance goal
Ingroup + gay men, formation goal
Ingroup + gay men, maintenance goal
Experimental Manipulation
(write a short speech to hypothetical group)
Behavior Identification Form
(action identification; measures abstraction)
(Vallacher & Wegner, 1989)
Group Attitudes
(toward gay men, lesbians, straight people)
Linguistic Category Model
(Coenen, Hedebouw, & Semin, 2006)
Adjective:
Characteristic or feature,
State Verb:
Mental/emotional state,
State Action Verb:
Emotional result of action,
Interpretive Action Verb:
Defined action; many behaviors,
Descriptive Action Verb:
One certain activity or action,
ex: aggressive
ex: hate
ex: anger
ex: fight
ex: hit
Is concrete language tactically used to reduce psychological distance and signal closeness?
Abstract
Concrete
Is abstract language strategically used to find shared commonalities?
BACKGROUND
Intra-minority Intergroup Relations: Intergroup relations among stigmatized groups
Perceived discrimination  Coalition or derogation of other stigmatized groups
“Disadvantaged racial minority” in-group identity vs. social identity threat (Craig & Richeson, 2012; Craig, DeHart, Richeson & Fiedorowicz, 2012)
Construal Level Theory: How events are represented based on psychological distance (Trope & Liberman, 2010)
Abstract construal: Superordinate features
Concrete construal: Subordinate details
Abstract Language in Communication
Strategic signaling: Highlighting shared essential qualities, e.g., addressing heterogeneous audiences (Joshi & Wakslak, 2014)
Undesired signaling: Continuing to use abstract language in psychologically close groups, e.g., close friend groups, families, etc.
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
Within ingroups, construal level in language mirrored construal level patterns in thinking
Greater perceived social distance cued more abstract thinking
Being in a hypothetical group with gay men elicited more favorable attitudes toward gay people
Future research on coalitional language use among stigmatized groups should also consider group members’ level of effort/motivation to form and maintain coalitions
Level of Abstraction in Speeches
Behavior Identification Form
Maintenance
Formation
HYPOTHESES
Groups containing ingroup and outgroup (vs. ingroup only) will use more abstract language
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Ingroup only
Ingroup + Gay Men
Ingroup only
Ingroup + Gay Men
Thank you to my mentors—Dr. Maureen Craig and Dr. Ken Fujita—for their guidance on this research project, to Jessica Carnevale, Paul Stillman, and Nikki Dusthimer for their helpful feedback, and to Jasmen Hale for volunteering to code participants’ responses. Thank you to the Summer Research Opportunities Program for providing me with this independent research experience.
Abstract language: Formation (vs. maintenance) goals elicited more abstract language for ingroups; marginal interaction, p = .108
Abstract thought: Formation (vs. maintenance) goals elicited more abstract thinking, regardless of group members, p = .004
Attitudes: For ingroup + outgroup, maintenance (vs. formation) goals elicited more favorable attitudes toward gay people, p = .082
Formation (vs. maintenance) goals will elicit more abstract language