ArticleMemory & cognition2025
Grounding of abstract concepts related to power.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Grounded cognition assumes that language and concepts are understood using simulations in different modalities. Evidence for this assumption mainly stems from studies using concrete concepts. Less evidence for grounding exists for abstract concepts, which are assumed to be grounded via metaphors associated with them or via experiences with them in specific situations. In the present study, we developed a new paradigm and investigated grounding of abstract concepts related to power or the exercise of power. As stimulus material, we chose pairs of concepts, for example, democracy and dictatorship. Participants were presented each concept separately and were asked to create a visual image in their mind. Then they were asked to rate images on several aspects. Afterwards they were asked to draw a sketch of the image. Results showed that drawings of high-power concepts had a larger vertical extension than low-power concepts. Results of the questions depended on the specific concepts. For instance, wealth (high-power) was rated as more colorful than poverty (low-power), but democracy (low-power) was rated as more colorful than dictatorship (high-power). These results may partly be explained by the valence of the concepts. Drawings often contained persons, objects, and situations, but were rarely abstract. Sometimes drawings contained metaphorical content and sometimes the content of drawings related to specific experiences. In conclusion, abstract concepts related to power can be depicted visually via grounding in different ways, such as using metaphors, experiences, and actions.
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.