The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Content Differences for Abstract and Concrete Concepts
Abstract
Concept properties are an integral part of theories of conceptual representation and processing. To date, little is known about conceptual properties of abstract concepts, such as idea. This experiment systematically compared the content of 18 abstract and 18 concrete concepts, using a feature generation task. Thirty‐one participants listed characteristics of the concepts (i.e., item properties) or their relevant context (i.e., context properties). Abstract concepts had significantly fewer intrinsic item properties and more properties expressing subjective experiences than concrete concepts. Situation components generated for abstract and concrete concepts differed in kind, but not in number. Abstract concepts were predominantly related to social aspects of situations. Properties were significantly less specific for abstract than for concrete concepts. Thus, abstractness emerged as a function of several, both qualitative and quantitative, factors.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Barsalou, L. W., & Wiemer-Hastings, K. (2005) · Grounding Cognition · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511499968.007 · Cited by 752
Self-citation
Cited by
Barsalou, L. W., & Wiemer-Hastings, K. (2005) · Grounding Cognition · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511499968.007 · Cited by 752
Self-citationToward a brain-based componential semantic representation
Binder, J. R., Conant, L. L., Humphries, C. J., Fernandino, L., Simons, S. B., Aguilar, M., & Desai, R. H. (2016) · Cognitive Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/02643294.2016.1147426 · Cited by 367
On the need for embodied and dis-embodied cognition
Dove, G. (2011) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00242 · Cited by 113
Abstract Concepts and the Embodied Mind: Rethinking Grounded Cognition
Dove, G. (2022) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190061975.001.0001 · Cited by 40
Metadata
- Authors
- Katja Wiemer‐Hastings, K., & Xu, X.
- Venue
- Cognitive Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-09
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 719-736
- ISSN
- 0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
- 1551-6709
- OpenAlex
- W2117999309
- Cited by
- 272
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Content Differences for Abstract and Concrete Concepts. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_33
- The paper
- Katja Wiemer‐Hastings, K., & Xu, X. (2005). Content Differences for Abstract and Concrete Concepts. Cognitive Science. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_33
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
