水是和不是H2O,取决于你问谁:化学家和外行人对水的概念各不相同

IF 2.4 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Claudia Mazzuca, Marta Arcovito, Ilenia Falcinelli, Chiara Fini, Anna M. Borghi
{"title":"水是和不是H2O,取决于你问谁:化学家和外行人对水的概念各不相同","authors":"Claudia Mazzuca,&nbsp;Marta Arcovito,&nbsp;Ilenia Falcinelli,&nbsp;Chiara Fini,&nbsp;Anna M. Borghi","doi":"10.1111/cogs.70094","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Conceptual representations can be shaped by multiple factors, including expertise. In this study, we tested whether the concept of water is represented differently across laypeople and chemists, focusing on psychological essentialism. Essentialized categories are thought to be determined by internal factors (e.g., chemical composition). Previous research suggests laypeople do not essentialize “water.” Here, we sought to verify whether extensive experience with chemicals might lead to more essentialist conceptions. In the first two experiments, participants provided H<sub>2</sub>O estimates, typicality, centrality, and frequency ratings for water examples, which showed that chemists partially incorporate H<sub>2</sub>O in their conceptual representation of “water.” Experiment 3 underlined qualitative differences in the semantic organization of “water” across the two groups using similarity ratings. Experiment 4 consolidated these results with a sentence acceptability task, underlying the importance of chemical composition in determining what counts as “water” for chemists. Finally, Experiment 5 showed that laypeople consider both “H<sub>2</sub>O” and “water” as more abstract compared to chemists. Our results provide evidence on the variability of both psychological essentialism and conceptual representation overall, which can vary as a function of expertise.</p>","PeriodicalId":48349,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Science","volume":"49 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cogs.70094","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Water Is and Is Not H2O, Depending on Who You Ask: Conceptualizations of Water Vary Across Chemists and Laypeople\",\"authors\":\"Claudia Mazzuca,&nbsp;Marta Arcovito,&nbsp;Ilenia Falcinelli,&nbsp;Chiara Fini,&nbsp;Anna M. Borghi\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cogs.70094\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Conceptual representations can be shaped by multiple factors, including expertise. In this study, we tested whether the concept of water is represented differently across laypeople and chemists, focusing on psychological essentialism. Essentialized categories are thought to be determined by internal factors (e.g., chemical composition). Previous research suggests laypeople do not essentialize “water.” Here, we sought to verify whether extensive experience with chemicals might lead to more essentialist conceptions. In the first two experiments, participants provided H<sub>2</sub>O estimates, typicality, centrality, and frequency ratings for water examples, which showed that chemists partially incorporate H<sub>2</sub>O in their conceptual representation of “water.” Experiment 3 underlined qualitative differences in the semantic organization of “water” across the two groups using similarity ratings. Experiment 4 consolidated these results with a sentence acceptability task, underlying the importance of chemical composition in determining what counts as “water” for chemists. Finally, Experiment 5 showed that laypeople consider both “H<sub>2</sub>O” and “water” as more abstract compared to chemists. Our results provide evidence on the variability of both psychological essentialism and conceptual representation overall, which can vary as a function of expertise.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48349,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Science\",\"volume\":\"49 8\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cogs.70094\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.70094\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.70094","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

概念表示可以由多种因素塑造,包括专业知识。在这项研究中,我们测试了水的概念是否在外行人和化学家之间表现不同,重点关注心理本质主义。本质化的范畴被认为是由内部因素(例如,化学成分)决定的。先前的研究表明,外行人并不认为“水”是必要的。在这里,我们试图验证广泛的化学经验是否会导致更多的本质主义概念。在前两个实验中,参与者提供了水的估计、典型性、中心性和频率评级,这表明化学家在他们对“水”的概念表示中部分地包含了水。实验3通过相似性评分强调了两组“水”语义组织的质的差异。实验4通过一个句子可接受性任务巩固了这些结果,揭示了化学成分在化学家判定什么是“水”时的重要性。最后,实验5表明,与化学家相比,外行人认为“H2O”和“water”更抽象。我们的研究结果为心理本质主义和概念表征的可变性提供了证据,这些可变性可以作为专业知识的函数而变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Water Is and Is Not H2O, Depending on Who You Ask: Conceptualizations of Water Vary Across Chemists and Laypeople

Water Is and Is Not H2O, Depending on Who You Ask: Conceptualizations of Water Vary Across Chemists and Laypeople

Conceptual representations can be shaped by multiple factors, including expertise. In this study, we tested whether the concept of water is represented differently across laypeople and chemists, focusing on psychological essentialism. Essentialized categories are thought to be determined by internal factors (e.g., chemical composition). Previous research suggests laypeople do not essentialize “water.” Here, we sought to verify whether extensive experience with chemicals might lead to more essentialist conceptions. In the first two experiments, participants provided H2O estimates, typicality, centrality, and frequency ratings for water examples, which showed that chemists partially incorporate H2O in their conceptual representation of “water.” Experiment 3 underlined qualitative differences in the semantic organization of “water” across the two groups using similarity ratings. Experiment 4 consolidated these results with a sentence acceptability task, underlying the importance of chemical composition in determining what counts as “water” for chemists. Finally, Experiment 5 showed that laypeople consider both “H2O” and “water” as more abstract compared to chemists. Our results provide evidence on the variability of both psychological essentialism and conceptual representation overall, which can vary as a function of expertise.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Science PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.00%
发文量
139
期刊介绍: Cognitive Science publishes articles in all areas of cognitive science, covering such topics as knowledge representation, inference, memory processes, learning, problem solving, planning, perception, natural language understanding, connectionism, brain theory, motor control, intentional systems, and other areas of interdisciplinary concern. Highest priority is given to research reports that are specifically written for a multidisciplinary audience. The audience is primarily researchers in cognitive science and its associated fields, including anthropologists, education researchers, psychologists, philosophers, linguists, computer scientists, neuroscientists, and roboticists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信