Voice pitch may not only influence the listeners but also the speakers themselves. Based on the theories of embodied cognition and previous research on power, we tested whether lowering their pitch leads people to feel more powerful and think more abstractly. In three experiments, participants received instructions to read a text out loud with either a lower or a higher voice than usual. Subsequently, feelings of power (Experiments 1 and 2) and abstract thinking (Experiment 3) were assessed. Participants who lowered their voice pitch perceived themselves more as possessing more powerful traits (Experiments 1 and 2) and had a higher level of abstract thinking (Experiment 3) compared to participants who raised their voice pitch.
The present study investigated the relationship between category extension and intension for 11 different semantic categories. It is often tacitly assumed that there is a (strong) extension-intension link. However, a recent study by Hampton and Passanisi (2016) examining the patterns of stable individual differences in concepts across participants called this hypothesis into question. To conceptually replicate their findings, two studies were conducted. We employed a category judgment task to measure category extensions, whereas a property generation (in Study 1) and property judgment task (Study 2) were used to measure intensions. Using their method, that is, correlating extension and intension similarity matrices, we found nonsignificant correlations in both studies, supporting their conclusion that similarity between individuals for extensional judgments does not map onto similarity between individuals for intensional judgments. However, multilevel logistic regression analyses showed that the properties a person generated (Study 1) or endorsed (Study 2) better predicted her own category judgments compared to other people's category judgments. This result provides evidence in favor of a link between extension and intension at the subject level. The conflicting findings, resulting from two different approaches, and their theoretical repercussions are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record
An alternative method for deriving typicality judgments, applicable in young children that are not familiar with numerical values yet, is introduced, allowing researchers to study gradedness at younger ages in concept development. Contrary to the long tradition of using rating-based procedures to derive typicality judgments, we propose a method that is based on typicality ranking rather than rating, in which items are gradually sorted according to their typicality, and that requires a minimum of linguistic knowledge. The validity of the method is investigated and the method is compared to the traditional typicality rating measurement in a large empirical study with eight different semantic concepts. The results show that the typicality ranking task can be used to assess children’s category knowledge and to evaluate how this knowledge evolves over time. Contrary to earlier held assumptions in studies on typicality in young children, our results also show that preference is not so much a confounding variable to be avoided, but that both variables are often significantly correlated in older children and even in adults.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.