
doi: 10.1037/a0027004
pmid: 23398183
Kousta, Vigliocco, Del Campo, Vinson, and Andrews (2011) questioned the adequacy of dual coding theory and the context availability model as explanations of representational and processing differences between concrete and abstract words. They proposed an alternative approach that focuses on the role of emotional content in the processing of abstract concepts. Their dual coding critique is, however, based on impoverished and, in some respects, incorrect interpretations of the theory and its implications. This response corrects those gaps and misinterpretations and summarizes research findings that show predicted variations in the effects of dual coding variables in different tasks and contexts. Especially emphasized is an empirically supported dual coding theory of emotion that goes beyond the Kousta et al. emphasis on emotion in abstract semantics.
Male, Concept Formation, Emotions, Humans, Female, Semantics
Male, Concept Formation, Emotions, Humans, Female, Semantics
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 98 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
