Is justice grounded? How expertise shapes conceptual representation of institutional concepts.
Journal
Psychological research
ISSN: 1430-2772
Titre abrégé: Psychol Res
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 0435062
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2022
Nov 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
8
3
2021
medline:
23
11
2022
entrez:
7
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Using abstract concepts is a hallmark of human cognition. While multiple kinds of abstract concepts exist, they so far have been conceived as a unitary kind in opposition to concrete ones. Here, we focus on Institutional concepts, like justice or norm, investigating their fine-grained differences with respect to other kinds of abstract and concrete concepts, and exploring whether their representation varies according to individual proficiency. Specifically, we asked experts and non-experts in the legal field to evaluate four kinds of concepts (i.e., institutional, theoretical, food, artefact) on 16 dimensions: abstractness-concreteness; imageability; contextual availability; familiarity; age of acquisition; modality of acquisition; social valence; social metacognition; arousal; valence; interoception; metacognition; perceptual modality strength; body-object interaction; mouth and hand involvement. Results showed that Institutional concepts rely more than other categories on linguistic/social and inner experiences and are primarily characterized by positive valence. In addition, a more subtle characterization of the institutional domain emerged: Pure-institutional concepts (e.g., parliament) were perceived as more similar to technical tools, while Meta-institutional concepts (e.g., validity) were characterized mainly by abstract components. Importantly, for what concerns individual proficiency, we found that the level of expertise affects conceptual representation. Only law-experts associated Institutional concepts with exteroceptive and emotional experiences, showing also a more grounded and situated representation of the two types of institutional concepts. Overall, our finding highlights the richness and flexibility of abstract concepts and suggests that they differ in the degree of embodiment and grounding. Implications of the results for current theories of conceptual representation and social institutions are discussed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33677705
doi: 10.1007/s00426-021-01492-8
pii: 10.1007/s00426-021-01492-8
pmc: PMC9674748
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2434-2450Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Cognition. 2018 Jan;170:83-87
pubmed: 28961430
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2018 Aug 5;373(1752):
pubmed: 29915001
Front Psychol. 2019 Apr 24;10:838
pubmed: 31068854
Cogn Psychol. 1997 Feb;32(1):49-96
pubmed: 9038245
Psychol Res. 2022 Nov;86(8):2451-2467
pubmed: 33170357
Am J Psychol. 2004 Fall;117(3):389-410
pubmed: 15457808
Cognition. 2019 Sep;190:61-71
pubmed: 31026671
Annu Rev Psychol. 2007;58:25-45
pubmed: 16968210
Cogn Sci. 2005 Sep 10;29(5):719-36
pubmed: 21702791
Behav Res Methods. 2013 Dec;45(4):1191-207
pubmed: 23404613
Behav Res Methods. 2011 Dec;43(4):1100-9
pubmed: 21681627
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2018 Aug 5;373(1752):
pubmed: 29915011
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2018 Aug 5;373(1752):
pubmed: 29914990
Behav Res Methods. 2019 Apr;51(2):453-466
pubmed: 30484218
Front Psychol. 2014 Dec 19;5:1459
pubmed: 25566137
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2022 Jul;75(7):1343-1354
pubmed: 34623202
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2018 Aug 5;373(1752):
pubmed: 29914993
Cognition. 2012 Dec;125(3):452-65
pubmed: 22935248
Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2002 Aug;34(3):424-34
pubmed: 12395559
Cortex. 2018 Mar;100:215-225
pubmed: 29455947
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2018 Aug 5;373(1752):
pubmed: 29915005
Behav Res Methods. 2013 Jun;45(2):516-26
pubmed: 23055172
Brain. 1984 Sep;107 ( Pt 3):829-54
pubmed: 6206910
Top Cogn Sci. 2018 Jul;10(3):490-500
pubmed: 29932299
Front Psychol. 2011 Oct 17;2:260
pubmed: 22028696
Cogn Neuropsychol. 2003 May 1;20(3):213-61
pubmed: 20957571
Dev Sci. 2018 Mar;21(2):
pubmed: 28224689
PLoS One. 2013 May 15;8(5):e64500
pubmed: 23691234
Front Psychol. 2017 Dec 01;8:2014
pubmed: 29250003
Psychon Bull Rev. 2016 Aug;23(4):1015-27
pubmed: 27282993
Psychon Bull Rev. 2016 Aug;23(4):1109-21
pubmed: 25832355
Neuron. 2004 Jan 22;41(2):301-7
pubmed: 14741110
Mem Cognit. 1992 Jan;20(1):96-104
pubmed: 1549068
Mem Cognit. 1998 Mar;26(2):382-401
pubmed: 9584444
J Child Lang. 2020 Sep;47(5):1084-1099
pubmed: 32345380
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003 Jul 29;358(1435):1177-87
pubmed: 12903648
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2018 Aug 5;373(1752):
pubmed: 29915010
Cortex. 2012 Jul;48(7):905-22
pubmed: 21601842
Front Psychol. 2018 Sep 19;9:1748
pubmed: 30283389
Behav Res Methods. 2010 Nov;42(4):1042-8
pubmed: 21139171
Prog Neurobiol. 2018 Jan;160:1-44
pubmed: 28734837
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2018 Aug 5;373(1752):
pubmed: 29915012
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2018 Aug 5;373(1752):
pubmed: 29915002
Neuropsychologia. 2016 Aug;89:217-224
pubmed: 27329686
Behav Brain Sci. 1999 Aug;22(4):577-609; discussion 610-60
pubmed: 11301525
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2018 Aug 5;373(1752):
pubmed: 29914991
Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 May 23;7:186
pubmed: 23720617
Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 1999 Nov;31(4):578-602
pubmed: 10633977
Front Hum Neurosci. 2012 Oct 08;6:275
pubmed: 23060778
Cogn Neuropsychol. 2020 Jul - Sep;37(5-6):288-311
pubmed: 31269862
PeerJ. 2018 Dec 7;6:e5987
pubmed: 30568852
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2018 Aug 5;373(1752):
pubmed: 29914992
Neuroimage. 2011 Jun 1;56(3):1714-25
pubmed: 21356317
PLoS One. 2015 Jan 28;10(1):e0114615
pubmed: 25629816
PLoS One. 2013 Jun 25;8(6):e67090
pubmed: 23825625
Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59:617-45
pubmed: 17705682
Behav Res Methods. 2014 Sep;46(3):904-11
pubmed: 24142837
Front Psychol. 2016 Oct 10;7:1498
pubmed: 27777563
J Cogn. 2020 Oct 23;3(1):42
pubmed: 33134816
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2013 Feb;142(1):288-291
pubmed: 23398184
Psychon Bull Rev. 2016 Aug;23(4):1043-54
pubmed: 27294421
Front Psychol. 2018 Sep 25;9:1599
pubmed: 30319470
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2013 Sep;8(5):573-85
pubmed: 26173215
Phys Life Rev. 2019 Jul;29:120-153
pubmed: 30573377
Cogn Sci. 2008 Apr 5;32(3):591-605
pubmed: 21635348
J Mem Lang. 2021 Feb;116:104173
pubmed: 32952286