{"title":"Grounded cognition and the representation of momentum: abstract concepts modulate mislocalization.","authors":"Jannis Friedrich, Markus Raab, Laura Voigt","doi":"10.1007/s00426-025-02076-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Literature on grounded cognition argues that mental representations of concepts, even abstract concepts, involve modal simulations. These modalities are typically assumed to reside within the body, such as in the sensorimotor system. A recent proposal argues that physical invariants, such as momentum or gravity, can also be substrates in which concepts can be grounded, expanding the assumed limits of grounding beyond the body. We here experimentally assessed this proposal by exploiting the representational momentum effect and the abstract concept of success. If success is grounded in the physical invariant momentum, the representational momentum effect should be larger for successful targets. We tested this hypothesis across four experiments (three pre-registered). In a surprising finding, we find hints that large trial numbers may hinder being able to find a representational momentum effect, which should be further investigated in future research. Regarding the central hypothesis, although only one experiment found statistically significant support, the effect tended toward the same direction in the three others as well. In order to draw robust conclusions about the results, we performed a mini meta, which aggregates the effects and inference statistics across the N = 271 participants. Across the four experiments, this effect was statistically significant, suggesting evidence in favor of the central hypothesis. These results should be interpreted with caution as there was inconsistency across experiments, suggesting the magnitude of the effect is small, and when asked who they believe moved faster, participants did not reliably indicate the successful target.</p>","PeriodicalId":48184,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung","volume":"89 1","pages":"51"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11754331/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-025-02076-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Literature on grounded cognition argues that mental representations of concepts, even abstract concepts, involve modal simulations. These modalities are typically assumed to reside within the body, such as in the sensorimotor system. A recent proposal argues that physical invariants, such as momentum or gravity, can also be substrates in which concepts can be grounded, expanding the assumed limits of grounding beyond the body. We here experimentally assessed this proposal by exploiting the representational momentum effect and the abstract concept of success. If success is grounded in the physical invariant momentum, the representational momentum effect should be larger for successful targets. We tested this hypothesis across four experiments (three pre-registered). In a surprising finding, we find hints that large trial numbers may hinder being able to find a representational momentum effect, which should be further investigated in future research. Regarding the central hypothesis, although only one experiment found statistically significant support, the effect tended toward the same direction in the three others as well. In order to draw robust conclusions about the results, we performed a mini meta, which aggregates the effects and inference statistics across the N = 271 participants. Across the four experiments, this effect was statistically significant, suggesting evidence in favor of the central hypothesis. These results should be interpreted with caution as there was inconsistency across experiments, suggesting the magnitude of the effect is small, and when asked who they believe moved faster, participants did not reliably indicate the successful target.
期刊介绍:
Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung publishes articles that contribute to a basic understanding of human perception, attention, memory, and action. The Journal is devoted to the dissemination of knowledge based on firm experimental ground, but not to particular approaches or schools of thought. Theoretical and historical papers are welcome to the extent that they serve this general purpose; papers of an applied nature are acceptable if they contribute to basic understanding or serve to bridge the often felt gap between basic and applied research in the field covered by the Journal.