Abstract concepts and expertise: the case of institutional concepts.
Abstract concepts
Concrete concepts
Expertise
Institutional concepts
Situated conceptualization
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 10 2024
28 10 2024
Historique:
received:
30
04
2024
accepted:
21
10
2024
medline:
29
10
2024
pubmed:
29
10
2024
entrez:
29
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Recent views recognize that abstract concepts encompass a variety of exemplars, each relying on different dimensions, including not only sensorimotor but also inner, linguistic, and social experiences. How these dimensions characterize types of abstract concepts, and whether their weight varies across contexts and individuals remains an open question. We investigated the role of linguistic and social situations in the processing of institutional concepts, such as justice, by individuals with different levels of expertise. In a priming study, legal experts and non-experts were asked to respond to target words (go-trials) consisting of different kinds of abstract (institutional, theoretical) and concrete concepts (food, tools) and to ignore filler words (no-go trials). The verbal stimuli were primed by pictures depicting social-action, linguistic-social, linguistic-textual situations, and a control condition. As predicted, critical priming modulated performance on abstract concepts, likely due to their highly context-dependent meaning. Interestingly, we found that the processing of institutional concepts was selectively facilitated by social action prime, suggesting that this situational content may be integrated to support their representation. Crucially, the dialogic context, the linguistic social prime, affected more non-experts than law-experts, who tended to frame institutional concepts as shared idea for regulating social practices. Our results show that linguistic and social inputs become differently salient for institutional concepts representation depending on individual competence.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39468256
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-77308-7
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-77308-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
25874Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Connell, L. & Lynott, D. Principles of representation: Why you can’t represent the same concept twice. Top. Cogn. Sci. 6(3), 390–406 (2014).
pubmed: 24895329
doi: 10.1111/tops.12097
Lebois, L. A., Wilson-Mendenhall, C. D. & Barsalou, L. W. Are automatic conceptual cores the gold standard of semantic processing? The context-dependence of spatial meaning in grounded congruency effects. Cognit. Sci. 39(8), 1764–1801 (2015).
doi: 10.1111/cogs.12174
Van Dam, W. O., Van Dijk, M., Bekkering, H. & Rueschemeyer, S. A. Flexibility in embodied lexical-semantic representations. Hum. Brain Mapp. 33(10), 2322–2333 (2012).
pubmed: 21976384
doi: 10.1002/hbm.21365
Barsalou, L. W. Context-independent and context-dependent information in concepts. Mem. Cognit. 10(1), 82–93 (1982).
pubmed: 7087773
doi: 10.3758/BF03197629
Yee, E. & Thompson-Schill, S. L. Putting concepts into context. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 23(4), 1015–1027 (2016).
pubmed: 27282993
pmcid: 4975661
doi: 10.3758/s13423-015-0948-7
Paivio, A. Mental representations: A dual coding approach (Oxford University Press, 1986).
Schwanenflugel, P. J., Akin, C. & Luh, W. M. Context availability and the recall of abstract and concrete words. Mem. Cognit. 20(1), 96–104 (1992).
pubmed: 1549068
doi: 10.3758/BF03208259
Hoffman, P., Ralph, M. A. L. & Rogers, T. T. Semantic diversity: A measure of semantic ambiguity based on variability in the contextual usage of words. Behav. Res. Methods 45(3), 718–730 (2013).
pubmed: 23239067
doi: 10.3758/s13428-012-0278-x
Davis, C. P., Altmann, G. T. & Yee, E. Situational systematicity: A role for schema in understanding the differences between abstract and concrete concepts. Cognit. Neuropsychol. 37(1–2), 142–153 (2020).
doi: 10.1080/02643294.2019.1710124
Barsalou, L. W., Dutriaux, L. & Scheepers, C. Moving beyond the distinction between concrete and abstract concepts. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 373(1752), 20170144 (2018).
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2017.0144
Barsalou, L. W. Situated conceptualization: Theory and applications. In Foundations of embodied cognition: Perceptual and emotional embodiment (eds Coello, Y. & Fischer, M. H.) 11–37 (Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2016).
Barsalou, L. W. Challenges and opportunities for grounding cognition. J Cognit. 3(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.116 (2020).
doi: 10.5334/joc.116
Barsalou, L. W. & Wiemerastings, K. Situating abstract concepts. In Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thought 129–163 (Cambridge University Press, 2005).
doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511499968.007
Wiemer-Hastings, K. & Xu, X. Content differences for abstract and concrete concepts. Cognit. Sci. 29(5), 719–736 (2005).
doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_33
McRae, K., Nedjadrasul, D., Pau, R., Lo, B. P. H. & King, L. Abstract concepts and pictures of real-world situations activate one another. Topics Cognit. Sci. 10(3), 518–532 (2018).
doi: 10.1111/tops.12328
Lakhzoum, D., Izaute, M. & Ferrand, L. Intangible features extraction in the processing of abstract concepts: Evidence from picture-word priming. Plos one 16(5), e0251448 (2021).
pubmed: 33974676
pmcid: 8112679
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251448
Borghi, A. A. & Binkofski, F. Words as social tools: An embodied view on abstract concepts (Springer, 2014).
doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-9539-0
Borghi, A. M. et al. Words as social tools: Flexibility, situatedness, language and sociality in abstract concepts Reply to comments on “Words as social tools: Language, sociality and inner grounding in abstract concepts”. Phys. Life Rev. 7, 8 (2019).
Borghi, A. M. et al. Words as social tools: Language, sociality and inner grounding in abstract concepts. Phys. Life Rev. 29, 120–153 (2019).
pubmed: 30573377
doi: 10.1016/j.plrev.2018.12.001
Borghi, A. M. The freedom of words: Abstractness and the power of language (Cambridge University Press, 2023).
doi: 10.1017/9781108913294
Medin, D. L., Lynch, E. B., Coley, J. D. & Atran, S. Categorization and reasoning among tree experts: Do all roads lead to Rome?. Cognit. Psychol. 32, 49–96 (1997).
pubmed: 9038245
doi: 10.1006/cogp.1997.0645
Johnson, K. E. & Mervis, C. B. Impact of intuitive theories on feature recruitment throughout the continuum of expertise. Mem. Cognit. 26, 382–401 (1998).
pubmed: 9584444
doi: 10.3758/BF03201148
Tanaka, J. W. & Taylor, M. Object categories and expertise: Is the basic level in the eye of the beholder?. Cognit. Psychol. 23, 457–482 (1991).
doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(91)90016-H
Bechtold, L., Bellebaum, C., Egan, S., Tettamanti, M. & Ghio, M. The role of experience for abstract concepts: Expertise modulates the electrophysiological correlates of mathematical word processing. Brain Lang. 188, 1–10 (2019).
pubmed: 30428400
doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2018.10.002
Troyer, M. & Marta, K. Harry potter and the chamber of what?: The impact of what individuals know on word processing during reading. Lang. Cognit. Neurosci. 355, 641–657 (2020).
doi: 10.1080/23273798.2018.1503309
Mazzuca, C., Majid, A., Lugli, L., Nicoletti, R. & Borghi, A. Gender is a multifaceted concept: Evidence that specific life experiences differentially shape the concept of gender. Lang. Cognit. 12(4), 649–678. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.202 (2020).
doi: 10.1017/langcog.202
Mazzuca, C. et al. Gender is conceptualized in different ways across cultures. Lang. Cognit. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2023.40 (2023).
doi: 10.1017/langcog.2023.40
Mazzuca, C., Arcovito, M., Falcinelli, I., Fini, C. & Borghi, A. M. Water is and is not H2O, depending on who you ask. Concept. Water Vary Across Chem. Laypeople https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/gy2fz (2023).
doi: 10.31234/osf.io/gy2fz
Villani, C., Lugli, L., Liuzza, M. T. & Borghi, A. M. Varieties of abstract concepts and their multiple dimensions. Lang. Cognit. 11(3), 403–430 (2019).
doi: 10.1017/langcog.2019.23
Villani, C., Orsoni, M., Lugli, L., Benassi, M. & Borghi, A. M. Abstract and concrete concepts in conversation. Sci. Rep. 12(1), 17572 (2022).
pubmed: 36266380
pmcid: 9584910
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-20785-5
Conca, F., Borsa, V. M., Cappa, S. F. & Catricalà, E. The multidimensionality of abstract concepts: A systematic review. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 9(127), 474–491 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.05.004
Crowe, J. Law as an Artifact Kind. Monash Univ. Law Rev. 40, 737–757 (2014).
Ehrenberg, K. M. The Functions of Law (Oxford University Press, 2016).
doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677474.001.0001
Burazin, L. Can there be an Artifact theory of law?. Ratio Juris 29, 385401 (2016).
doi: 10.1111/raju.12134
Roversi, C. Legal Metaphoric Artifacts. In The emergence of normative orders (eds Stelmach, J. et al.) 215–280 (Kraków, 2016).
Burazin, L., Himma, K.-E. & Roversi, C. Law as an artifact (Oxford University Press, 2018).
doi: 10.1093/oso/9780198821977.001.0001
Hart, H. L. A. The concept of law 3rd edn. (Oxford University Press, 2012).
doi: 10.1093/he/9780199644704.001.0001
Villani, Caterina et al. Is justice grounded? How expertise shapes conceptual representation of institutional concepts. Psychol. Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01492-8 (2021).
doi: 10.1007/s00426-021-01492-8
pmcid: 9674748
Roversi, C., Ubertone, M., Villani, C., d’Ascenzo, S. & Lugli, L. Alice in Wonderland: Experimental jurisprudence on the internal point of view. Jurisprudence 14(2), 143–170 (2023).
doi: 10.1080/20403313.2022.2109884
Falandays, J. B. & Spivey, M. J. Abstract meanings may be more dynamic, due to their sociality: Comment on “Words as social tools: Language, sociality and inner grounding in abstract concepts” by Anna M. Borghi et al.. Phys. Life Rev. 29, 175–177 (2019).
pubmed: 30857866
doi: 10.1016/j.plrev.2019.02.011
Prinz, W. Task representation in individual and joint settings. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 9, 268 (2015).
pubmed: 26029085
pmcid: 4428057
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00268
De Vega, M., Robertson, D. A., Glenberg, A. M., Kaschak, M. P. & Rinck, M. On doing two things at once: temporal constraints on actions in language comprehension. Mem. Cognit. 32, 1033–1043 (2004).
pubmed: 15813487
doi: 10.3758/BF03196879
De Vega, M., Moreno, V. & Castillo, D. The comprehension of action-related sentences may cause interference rather than facilitation on matching actions. Psychol. Res. 77, 20–30 (2013).
pubmed: 21755368
doi: 10.1007/s00426-011-0356-1
Chersi, F., Thill, S., Ziemke, T. & Borghi, A. M. Sentence processing: Linking language to motor chains. Front. Neurorobotics 4, 1255 (2010).
doi: 10.3389/fnbot.2010.00004
Boulenger, V. et al. Cross-talk between language processes and overt motor behavior in the first 200 msec of processing. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 18, 1607–1615 (2006).
pubmed: 17014366
doi: 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.10.1607
Buccino, G. et al. Listening to action related sentences modulates the activity of the motor system: A combined TMS and behavioral study. Cogn. Brain Res. 24, 355–363 (2005).
doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.02.020
Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I. & Pulvermüller, F. Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron 41(2), 301–307 (2004).
pubmed: 14741110
doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00838-9
Scorolli, C. & Borghi, A. M. Sentence comprehension and action: Effector specific modulation of the motor system. Brain Res. 1130, 119–124 (2007).
pubmed: 17174278
doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.10.033
Ostarek, M. & Bottini, R. Towards strong inference in research on embodiment–possibilities and limitations of causal paradigms. J. Cognit. 4(1), 5 (2021).
doi: 10.5334/joc.139
Kaschak, M. P. et al. Perception of motion affects language processing. Cognition 94(3), B79–B89 (2005).
pubmed: 15617669
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.06.005
Borreggine, K. L. & Kaschak, M. The action-sentence compatibility effect: Its all in the timing. Cogn. Sci. 30, 1097–1112 (2006).
pubmed: 21702848
doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_91
Garello, S., Ferroni, F., Gallese, V., Cuccio, V. & Ardizzi, M. From breaking bread to breaking hearts: Embodied simulation and action language comprehension. Lang. Cognit. Neurosci. 39(4), 1–12 (2024).
Lauro, L. J. R., Mattavelli, G., Papagno, C. & Tettamanti, M. She runs, the road runs, my mind runs, bad blood runs between us: Literal and figurative motion verbs: An fMRI study. NeuroImage 83, 361–371 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.06.050
Banks, B. et al. Consensus paper: Current perspectives on abstract concepts and future research directions. J. Cognit. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.238 (2023).
doi: 10.5334/joc.238
Barca, L., Burani, C. & Arduino, L. S. Word naming times and psycholinguistic norms for Italian nouns. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 34(3), 424–434 (2002).
pubmed: 12395559
doi: 10.3758/BF03195471
Bertinetto, P. M., Burani, C., Laudanna, A., Marconi, L., Ratti, D., Rolando, C., & Thornton, A. M. CoLFIS (Corpus e Lessico di Frequenza dell’Italiano Scritto). Available on http://www.Istc.Cnr.It/Material/Database (2005).
Judd, C. M., Westfall, J. & Kenny, D. A. Experiments with more than one random factor: Designs, analytic models, and statistical power. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 68, 601–625 (2016).
doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033702
Brysbaert, M. & Stevens, M. Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. J. Cognit. 1(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.10 (2018).
doi: 10.5334/joc.10
Anwyl-Irvine, A. L., Massonnié, J., Flitton, A., Kirkham, N. & Evershed, J. K. Gorilla in our midst: An online behavioral experiment builder. Behav. Res. Methods 52(1), 388–407 (2020).
pubmed: 31016684
doi: 10.3758/s13428-019-01237-x
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/ (2019)
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67(1), 1–48 (2015).
doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Lenth, R. V. emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 1.7.1–1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans (2021).
Bruyer, R. & Brysbaert, M. Combining speed and accuracy in cognitive psychology: Is the inverse efficiency score (IES) a better dependent variable than the mean reaction time (RT) and the percentage of errors (PE)? Psychol. Belg. 51, 5–13 (2011).
doi: 10.5334/pb-51-1-5