ArticlePsychological research2024
Abstract concepts and simulated competition.
Article in Psychological research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Validation and psychometric analysis of the Italian version of the Behavior Identification Form (BIF) in healthy adults.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To better understand the social determinants of conceptual knowledge we devised a task in which participants were asked to judge the match between a definition (expressed in abstract or concrete terms) and a target-word (also either abstract or concrete). The task was presented in the form of a competition that could/could not include an opponent, and in which different percentages of response rounds were assigned to the participant at the experimenter's discretion. Thus, depending on the condition, participants were either exposed to a competitive context mimicking a privileged/unprivileged interaction with the experimenter or to a socially neutral setting. Results showed that manipulation of the social context selectively affected judgments on abstract stimuli: responses were significantly slower whenever a definition and/or a target word were presented in abstract form and when participants were in the favorable condition of responding in most of the trials. Moreover, only when processing abstract material, responses were slower when an opponent was expected to be present. Data are discussed in the frame of the different cognitive engagements involved when treating abstract and concrete concepts as well as in relation to the possible motivational factors prompted by the experimental set-up. The role of social context as a crucial element for abstract knowledge processing is also considered.
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.