Conversation topics may vary in abstractness. This might impact the effort required by speakers to reach a common ground and, ultimately, an interactive alignment. In fact, people typically feel less confident with abstract concepts and single-words rating studies suggest abstract concepts are more associated with social interactions than concrete concepts-hence suggesting increasing levels of abstractness enhance inner and mutual monitoring processes. However, experimental studies addressing conversational dynamics afforded by abstract concepts are still sparse. In three preregistered experiments we ask whether abstract sentences are associated with specific constructs in dialogue, i.e., higher uncertainty, more curiosity and willingness to continue a conversation, and more questions related to causal and agency aspects. We do so by asking participants to evaluate the plausibility of linguistic exchanges referring to concrete and abstract concepts. Results support theories proposing that abstract concepts involve more inner monitoring and social dynamics compared to concrete concepts and suggest that reaching alignment in dialogue is more effortful with abstract than with concrete concepts.