When Words Speak Louder: The Effect of Verb Abstraction on Inferences from Interpersonal Events

Abstract

When confronted with subject-verb-object descriptions of interpersonal events people seem to make stronger causal attributions to the object and stronger personality inferences about the subject from descriptions with abstract rather than concrete verbs. We examined two explanations for this apparent contradiction: (1) verb abstraction affects causal attributions and personality inferences in opposite directions, and (2) verb abstraction affects both causality and personality inferences about the subject and the object in a parallel yet curvilinear manner. Studies 1, 2, and 3 refuted the first hypothesis and supported the second. Study 4 showed that the curvilinear relationship between verb abstraction and subject/object inferences does not occur because the verb types suggest differential personal control by the subject and the object. Instead, it occurs because different verb types suggest different levels of consensus and distinctiveness (Studies 5 and 6). Subject inferences revealed a negativity effect whereas object inferences revealed a positivity effect (Studies 1, 2, 3, and 6). The implications for person perception and causal attribution are discussed.People often describe interpersonal events. For instance, recruitment officers discuss how a job candidate has taken the lead during a group assessment task. Friends gossip about the romantic adventures of their mutual acquaintances. Television reporters describe the latest spree killing. The simplest manner to describe interpersonal events is through subject-verb-object descriptions (e.g., Paul inter-

The poetry of psychological distance: Bidirectional associations between stimulus speed and its psychological distance and construal level.

“…In total, there were 48 sentences, 12 from each category. DAVs, IAVs, and SVs were adopted from Hoorens et al (2012), and ADJs were adopted from Semin and Fiedler (1988). Half the terms in each category were positive in valence (higher than the median valence by the norms of Warriner et al, 2013), and half were negative (lower than the median valence).…”

A Gricean approach to the use of consensus and distinctiveness in causal attributions of verbally described interpersonal events

“…trust and fear) to control for the implicit consensus and distinctiveness information that participants might derive from different verb types (cf. Hoorens, Maier, & Maris, ; Rudolph & Försterling, ; Rudolph & von Hecker, ; Semin & Fiedler, ). Two questions appeared under each stimulus sentence: ‘To what extent was the event caused by the actor?’ and ‘To what extent was the event caused by the patient?’ Participants answered using 9‐point scales (1 = not at all and 9 = entirely ).…”

“…The combination of a high versus low level on two dimensions of covariation information with two attribution questions resulted in a 2 (Consensus: low vs high) × 2 (Distinctiveness: low vs high) × 2 (Target: actor vs patient) within‐subjects design. Each condition was represented by 18 verbs (three positive and three negative instances of three verb types) taken from Hoorens et al (). Each participant thus responded to 72 items (18 descriptions × 4 consensus–distinctiveness combinations).…”

The poetry of psychological distance: Bi-directional associations between stimulus speed and its psychological distance and construal level

“…In total, there were 48 sentences, twelve from each category. DAVs, IAVs, and SVs were adopted from Hoorens et al (2012), and ADJs were adopted from Semin and Fiedler (1988). Half the terms in each category were positive in valence (higher than the median valence by the norms of Warriner et al, 2013) and half were negative (lower than the median valence).…”