Department of Philosophy and Communication, University of Bologna, Via Azzo Gardino, 23, 40122, Bologna, Italy.
Department of Dynamic and Clinical Psychology, and Health Studies, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Psychol Res. 2022 Nov;86(8):2434-2450. doi: 10.1007/s00426-021-01492-8.
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.
使用抽象概念是人类认知的标志。虽然存在多种类型的抽象概念,但迄今为止,它们一直被视为与具体概念相对立的单一类型。在这里,我们专注于制度概念,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微差异,并探索它们的表示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评估四种概念(即制度、理论、食品、人工制品)在 16 个维度上的差异:抽象性-具体性;形象性;语境可用性;熟悉度;习得年龄;习得模式;社会价值;社会元认知;唤醒度;价值;内感受;元认知;感知模态强度;身体-物体相互作用;嘴和手的参与度。结果表明,制度概念比其他类别更依赖于语言/社会和内在体验,主要特征是积极的价值。此外,还出现了对制度领域更微妙的描述:纯粹的制度概念(如议会)被认为与技术工具更相似,而元制度概念(如有效性)主要以抽象成分为特征。重要的是,就个人熟练程度而言,我们发现专业水平会影响概念的表示。只有法律专家将制度概念与外感受和情感体验联系起来,同时对两种类型的制度概念也有更具体和情境化的表示。总体而言,我们的发现强调了抽象概念的丰富性和灵活性,并表明它们在体现程度和情境化程度上存在差异。讨论了这些结果对当前概念表示和社会制度理论的影响。