Using agreement probability to study differences in types of concepts and conceptualizers

1Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Agreement probability p(a) is a homogeneity measure of lists of properties produced by participants in a Property Listing Task (PLT) for a concept. Agreement probability’s mathematical properties allow a rich analysis of property-based descriptions. To illustrate, we use p(a) to delve into the differences between concrete and abstract concepts in sighted and blind populations. Results show that concrete concepts are more homogeneous within sighted and blind groups than abstract ones (i.e., exhibit a higher p(a) than abstract ones) and that concrete concepts in the blind group are less homogeneous than in the sighted sample. This supports the idea that listed properties for concrete concepts should be more similar across subjects due to the influence of visual/perceptual information on the learning process. In contrast, abstract concepts are learned based mainly on social and linguistic information, which exhibit more variability among people, thus, making the listed properties more dissimilar across subjects. Relative to abstract concepts, the difference in p(a) between sighted and blind is not statistically significant. Though this is a null result, and should be considered with care, it is expected because abstract concepts should be learned by paying attention to the same social and linguistic input in both, blind and sighted, and thus, there is no reason to expect that the respective lists of properties should differ. Finally, we used p(a) to classify concrete and abstract concepts with a good level of certainty. All these analyses suggest that p(a) can be fruitfully used to study data obtained in a PLT.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Canessa, E., Chaigneau, S. E., & Moreno, S. (2024). Using agreement probability to study differences in types of concepts and conceptualizers. Behavior Research Methods, 56(1), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-02030-z

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free