ArticleScientific reports2021
Differences and similarities in the conceptualization of COVID-19 and other diseases in the first Italian lockdown.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emotional distress and affective knowledge representation one year after the COVID-19 outbreak.PloS one · 2025Article
- "I don´t put people into boxes, but…" A free-listing exercise exploring social categorisation of asylum seekers by professionals in two German reception centres.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- The geo domain: a review on the conceptualization of geographical and geopolitical entities.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Review
- Consensus Paper: Current Perspectives on Abstract Concepts and Future Research Directions.Journal of cognition · 2023Article
- Assessing Interpersonal Proximity Evaluation in the COVID-19 Era: Evidence From the Affective Priming Task.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- From Affordances to Abstract Words: The Flexibility of Sensorimotor Grounding.Brain sciences · 2021Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Several studies have highlighted the flexible character of our conceptual system. However, less is known about the construction of meaning and the impact of novel concepts on the structuring of our conceptual space. We addressed these questions by collecting free listing data from Italian participants on a newly-and yet nowadays critical-introduced concept, i.e., COVID-19, during the first Italian lockdown. We also collected data for other five illness-related concepts. Our results show that COVID-19's representation is mostly couched in the emotional sphere, predominantly evoking fear-linked to both possible health-related concerns and social-emotional ones. In contrast with initial public debates we found that participants did not assimilate COVID-19 neither completely to severe illnesses (e.g., tumor) nor completely to mild illnesses (e.g., flu). Moreover, we also found that COVID-19 has shaped conceptual relations of other concepts in the illness domain, making certain features and associations more salient (e.g., flu-fear; disease-mask). Overall, our results show for the first time how a novel, real concept molds existing conceptual relations, testifying the malleability of our conceptual system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.