正义有根据吗?专业知识如何塑造制度概念的概念表征。

Caterina Villani, Stefania D'Ascenzo, Anna M Borghi, Corrado Roversi, Mariagrazia Benassi, Luisa Lugli
{"title":"正义有根据吗?专业知识如何塑造制度概念的概念表征。","authors":"Caterina Villani,&nbsp;Stefania D'Ascenzo,&nbsp;Anna M Borghi,&nbsp;Corrado Roversi,&nbsp;Mariagrazia Benassi,&nbsp;Luisa Lugli","doi":"10.1007/s00426-021-01492-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":501681,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Research","volume":" ","pages":"2434-2450"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00426-021-01492-8","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is justice grounded? How expertise shapes conceptual representation of institutional concepts.\",\"authors\":\"Caterina Villani,&nbsp;Stefania D'Ascenzo,&nbsp;Anna M Borghi,&nbsp;Corrado Roversi,&nbsp;Mariagrazia Benassi,&nbsp;Luisa Lugli\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00426-021-01492-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":501681,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2434-2450\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00426-021-01492-8\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01492-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Research","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01492-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

使用抽象概念是人类认知的一个标志。虽然存在着多种抽象概念,但它们一直被认为是与具体概念相对立的单一概念。在这里,我们关注制度概念,如正义或规范,研究它们与其他类型的抽象和具体概念的细粒度差异,并探索它们的表征是否根据个人熟练程度而变化。具体来说,我们要求法律领域的专家和非专家在16个维度上评估四种概念(即制度、理论、食物、人工制品):抽象-具体;象性;上下文可用性;熟悉;获得年龄;取得方式;社会价;社会元认知;唤起;价;interoception;元认知;感性模态强度;body-object互动;嘴和手的参与。结果表明,制度概念比其他类别更依赖于语言/社会和内心经验,并以积极效价为主要特征。此外,出现了对制度领域更微妙的特征:纯制度概念(如议会)被认为更类似于技术工具,而元制度概念(如有效性)主要以抽象成分为特征。重要的是,对于个人熟练程度,我们发现专业水平影响概念表征。只有法律专家将制度概念与外在感受和情感体验联系起来,也显示出对两种制度概念的更有根据和定位的表现。总的来说,我们的发现突出了抽象概念的丰富性和灵活性,并表明它们在体现和基础的程度上有所不同。研究结果对当前概念表征理论和社会制度的影响进行了讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Is justice grounded? How expertise shapes conceptual representation of institutional concepts.

Is justice grounded? How expertise shapes conceptual representation of institutional concepts.

Is justice grounded? How expertise shapes conceptual representation of institutional concepts.

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.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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