Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T11:26:11.593Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gender is a multifaceted concept: evidence that specific life experiences differentially shape the concept of gender

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2020

CLAUDIA MAZZUCA Open the ORCID record for CLAUDIA MAZZUCA [Opens in a new window] ,
ASIFA MAJID ,
LUISA LUGLI ,
ROBERTO NICOLETTI  and
ANNA M. BORGHI Open the ORCID record for ANNA M. BORGHI [Opens in a new window]
CLAUDIA MAZZUCA*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of York
ASIFA MAJID
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of York
LUISA LUGLI
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy and Communication, University of Bologna
ROBERTO NICOLETTI
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy and Communication, University of Bologna
ANNA M. BORGHI
Affiliation:
Department of Dynamic and Clinical Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, and Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, Italian National Research Council, Rome
*
Address for correspondence: Claudia Mazzuca, Department of Psychology, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Gender has been the focus of linguistic and psychological studies, but little is known about its conceptual representation. We investigate whether the conceptual structure of gender – as expressed in participants’ free-listing responses – varies according to gender-related experiences in line with research on conceptual flexibility. Specifically, we tested groups that varied by gender identity, sexual orientation, and gender-normativity. We found that different people stressed distinct aspects of the concept. For example, normative individuals mainly relied on a bigenderist conception (e.g., male/female; man/woman), while non-normative individuals produced more aspects related to social context (e.g., queer, fluidity, construction). At a broader level, our results support the idea that gender is a multifaceted and flexible concept, constituted by social, biological, cultural, and linguistic components. Importantly, the meaning of gender is not exhausted by the classical dichotomy opposing sex, a biological fact, with gender as its cultural counterpart. Instead, both aspects are differentially salient depending on specific life experiences.

Keywords

genderabstract conceptsconceptual flexibilityfree-listing taskembodied and grounded cognition
Type
Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 2020 , pp. 649 - 678
Check for updates
Copyright
© UK Cognitive Linguistics Association, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Thanks to Henk van den Heuvel and Erwin Komen at the Humanities Lab, Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University, for technical support, Professor Roberto Baiocco for theoretical suggestions, and Sara De Giovanni of the Cassero LGBT Center of Bologna for help with participants recruitment. We are also grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. The first author was supported by the Marco Polo program from the University of Bologna to visit Radboud University, where the first draft of this paper was written.

References

references

Ansara, Y. G. & Hegarty, P. (2014). Methodologies of misgendering: recommendations for reducing cisgenderism in psychological research. Feminism & Psychology 24(2), 259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
APA (American Psychological Association) (2015). Guidelines for psychological practice with transgender and gender nonconforming people. American Psychologist 70(9), 832–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, A. H., LaFrance, M. & Dovidio, J. F. (2019). Is man the measure of all things? A social cognitive account of androcentrism. Personality and Social Psychology Review 23(4), 307–331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barca, L., Mazzuca, C. & Borghi, A. M. (2017). Pacifier overuse and conceptual relations of abstract and emotional concepts. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, e02014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barsalou, L. W. (1987). The instability of graded structure: implications for the nature of concepts.  In Neisser, U. (ed.), Emory symposia in cognition, 1. Concepts and conceptual development: ecological and intellectual factors in categorization (pp. 101–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 59, 617–645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barsalou, L. W., Dutriaux, L. & Scheepers, C. (2018). Moving beyond the distinction between concrete and abstract concepts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 373(1752), e2017.0144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barsalou, L. W. & Sewell, D. R. (1984). Constructing representations of categories from different points of view. Emory Cognition Project Technical Report #2, Emory University.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. & Wiemer-Hastings, K. (2005). Situating abstract concepts. In Pecher, D. & Zwaan, R. (eds), Grounding cognition: the role of perception and action in memory, language, and thought (pp. 129–163). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42(2), 155–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: a cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review 88(4), 354–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bernini, L. (2016). La ‘teoria del gender’, i ‘negazionisti’ e la ‘fine della differenza sessuale’. AG About Gender-Rivista internazionale di studi di genere, 5(10), 367–381.Google Scholar
Binder, J. R., Westbury, C. F., McKiernan, K. A., Possing, E. T. & Medler, D. A. (2005). Distinct brain systems for processing concrete and abstract concepts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 17(6), 905–917.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borghi, A. M., Barca, L., Binkofski, F., Castelfranchi, C., Pezzulo, G. & Tummolini, L. (2019). Words as social tools: language, sociality and inner grounding in abstract concepts . Physics of Life Reviews 29, 120–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borghi, A. M., Barca, L., Binkofski, F. & Tummolini, L. (2018a). Abstract concepts, language and sociality: from acquisition to inner speech. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 373(1752), e2017.0134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borghi, A. M., Barca, L., Binkofski, F. & Tummolini, L. (2018b). Varieties of abstract concepts: development, use and representation in the brain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 373(1752), e2017.0121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borghi, A. M. & Barsalou, L. (2020). Perspective in the conceptualization of categories. Psychological Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01269-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borghi, A. M. & Binkofski, F. (2014). Words as social tools: an embodied view on abstract concepts. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boroditsky, L., Fuhrman, O. & McCormick, K. (2011). Do English and Mandarin speakers think about time differently? Cognition 118(1), 123–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L. A. & Phillips, W. (2003). Sex, syntax, and semantics. In Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (eds), Language in mind: advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 61–79). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B. & Kuperman, V. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods 46(3), 904–911.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butler, J. (1990) Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Butler, J. (1993a). Bodies that matter: on the discursive limits of ‘sex ’. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Butler, J. (1993b). Critically queer. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 1(1), 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casasanto, D. (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts: good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 138(3), 351–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casasanto, D. & Lupyan, G. (2015). All concepts are ad hoc concepts. In Margolis, E. & Laurence, S. (eds), The conceptual mind: new directions in the study of concepts (pp. 543–566). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Charrad, M., Ghazzali, N., Boiteau, V. & Niknafs, A. (2014). NbClust: an R package for determining the relevant number of clusters in a data set. Journal of Statistical Software 61(6), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowe, S. & Prescott, T. (2003). Continuity and change in the development of category structure: insights from the semantic fluency task. International Journal of Behavioral Development 27(5), 467–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cubelli, R., Paolieri, D., Lotto, L. & Job, R. (2011). The effect of grammatical gender on object categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 37(2), 449–460.Google ScholarPubMed
Della Rosa, P. A., Catricalà, E., Vigliocco, G. & Cappa, S. F. (2010). Beyond the abstract–concrete dichotomy: mode of acquisition, concreteness, imageability, familiarity, age of acquisition, context availability, and abstractness norms for a set of 417 Italian words. Behavior Research Methods 42(4), 1042–1048.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Desai, R. H., Reilly, M. & van Dam, W. (2018). The multifaceted abstract brain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1752), e2017.0122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devor, H. (1997). FTM: female-to-male transsexuals in society. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Ellemers, N. (2018). Gender stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology 69, 275–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fausto‐Sterling, A. (1993). The five sexes. The Sciences 33(2), 20–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2012). Sex/gender: biology in a social world. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2019). Gender/sex, sexual orientation, and identity are in the body: How did they get there? Journal of Sex Research 56(4/5), 529–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality. Volume 1: an introduction. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Gabriel, U. & Gygax, P. (2016). Gender and linguistic sexism. In Giles, H. & Maas, A. (eds), Language as social action: Vol. 21. Advances in intergroup communication (pp. 177–192). Peter Lang Publishing.Google Scholar
Gabriel, U., Gygax, P. M. & Kuhn, E. A. (2018). Neutralising linguistic sexism: Promising but cumbersome? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 21(5), 844–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galili, T. (2015). dendextend: an R package for visualizing, adjusting, and comparing trees of hierarchical clustering. Bioinformatics 31(22), 3718–3720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galupo, M. P., Pulice-Farrow, L. K., & Ramirez, J. L. (2017). “Like a Constantly Flowing River”. Gender Identity Flexibility among Non-binary Transgender Individuals. In Sinnott, J. D. (Ed.), Identity flexibility during adulthood: Perspectives in adult development. (pp. 163–177). Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-55658-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galupo, M. P., Lomash, E. & Mitchell, R. C. (2017b). ‘All of my lovers fit into this scale’: sexual minority individuals’ responses to two novel measures of sexual orientation. Journal of Homosexuality 64(2), 145–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galupo, M. P., Mitchell, R. C. & Davis, K. S. (2018). Face validity ratings of sexual orientation scales by sexual minority adults: effects of sexual orientation and gender identity. Archives of Sexual Behavior 47(4), 1241–1250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galupo, M. P., Pulice-Farrow, L. & -Ramirez, J. L. (2017a). ‘Like a constantly flowing river’: gender identity flexibility among nonbinary transgender individuals. In Sinnott, J. D. (ed.), Identity flexibility during adulthood (pp. 163–177). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garbagnoli, S. (2014). ‘L’ideologia del genere’: l’irresistibile ascesa di un’invenzione retorica vaticana contro la denaturalizzazione dell’ordine sessuale. About Gender 3(6), 250–263.Google Scholar
Ghio, M., Vaghi, M. M. S. & Tettamanti, M. (2013). Fine-grained semantic categorization across the abstract and concrete domains. PloS One 8(6), e67090.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenwald, A. G. & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review 102(1), 4–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E. & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74(6), 1464–1480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harpaintner, M., Trumpp, N. M. & Kiefer, M. (2018). The semantic content of abstract concepts: a property listing study of 296 abstract words. Frontiers in Psychology 9, e01748.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haslanger, S. (1995). Ontology and social construction. Philosophical Topics 23(2), 95–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegarty, P., Ansara, Y. G. & Barker, M. J. (2018). Nonbinary gender identities. In Dess, N. K., Marecek, J. & Bell, L. C. (eds), Gender, sex, and sexualities: psychological perspectives (pp. 53–76). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Herdt, G. (ed.) (1993). Third sex, third gender: beyond sexual dimorphism in culture and history. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
Hoenig, K., Sim, E. J., Bochev, V., Herrnberger, B. & Kiefer, M. (2008). Conceptual flexibility in the human brain: dynamic recruitment of semantic maps from visual, motor, and motion-related areas. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20(10), 1799–1814.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hyde, J. S., Bigler, R. S., Joel, D., Tate, C. C. & van Anders, S. M. (2019). The future of sex and gender in psychology: five challenges to the gender binary. American Psychologist 74(2), 171–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobson, R. & Joel, D. (2018). An exploration of the relations between self-reported gender identity and sexual orientation in an online sample of cisgender individuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior 47(8), 2407–2426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, R. & Joel, D. (2019). Self-reported gender identity and sexuality in an online sample of cisgender, transgender, and gender-diverse individuals: an exploratory study. Journal of Sex Research 56(2), 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joel, D. (2016). Captured in terminology: sex, sex categories, and sex differences. Feminism & Psychology 26(3), 335–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joel, D. & Fausto-Sterling, A. (2016). Beyond sex differences: new approaches for thinking about variation in brain structure and function. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 371(1688), e2015.0451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joel, D., Tarrasch, R., Berman, Z., Mukamel, M. & Ziv, E. (2014). Queering gender: studying gender identity in ‘normative’ individuals. Psychology & Sexuality 5(4), 291–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan-Young, R. & Rumiati, R. I. (2012). Hardwired for sexism? Approaches to sex/gender in neuroscience. Neuroethics 5(3), 305–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kachel, S., Steffens, M. C. & Niedlich, C. (2016). Traditional masculinity and femininity: validation of a new scale assessing gender roles. Frontiers in Psychology 7, e00956.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kassambara, A. & Mundt, F. (2017). factoextra: extract and visualize the results of multivariate data analyses. R package version 1.0.5. Online <https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=factoextra>..>Google Scholar
Kiefer, M. & Barsalou, L. W. (2013). Grounding the human conceptual system in perception, action, and internal states. In Prinz, W., Beisert, M. & Herwig, A. (eds), Action science: foundations of an emerging discipline (pp. 381–407). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B. & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Oxford: Saunders.Google Scholar
Lawson, R. G. & Jurs, P. C. (1990). New index for clustering tendency and its application to chemical problems. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences 30(1), 36–41.Google Scholar
Lebois, L. A., Wilson‐Mendenhall, C. D. & Barsalou, L. W. (2015). Putting everything in context. Cognitive Science 39(8), 1987–1995.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lederer, J. (2019). Gesturing the source domain: the role of co-speech gesture in the metaphorical models of gender transition. Metaphor and the Social World 9(1), 32–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenth, R. (2020). emmeans: estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.4.4. Online <https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans>..>Google Scholar
Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D. B. & Levinson, S. C. (2004). Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(3), 108–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Majid, A., Burenhult, N., Stensmyr, M., De Valk, J. & Hansson, B. S. (2018). Olfactory language and abstraction across cultures. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 373(1752), e2017.0139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malt, B. C. & Majid, A. (2013). How thought is mapped into words. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 4(6), 583–597.Google ScholarPubMed
McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S. & McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods 37(4), 547–559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mellem, M. S., Jasmin, K. M., Peng, C. & Martin, A. (2016). Sentence processing in anterior superior temporal cortex shows a social-emotional bias. Neuropsychologia 89, 217–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Misersky, J., Majid, A. & Snijders, T. M. (2019) Grammatical gender in German influences how role-nouns are interpreted: evidence from ERPs. Discourse Processes 56(8), 643–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motschenbacher, H. (2019). Language and sexual normativity. In Barrett, R. & Hall, K. (eds), Oxford handbook of language and sexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, in press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190212926.001.0001Google Scholar
Murphy, G. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murtagh, F. & Legendre, P. (2014). Ward’s hierarchical agglomerative clustering method: Which algorithms implement Ward’s criterion? Journal of Classification 31(3), 274–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, K. R., Key, A. C. & Eaton, N. R. (2015). Gender cognition in transgender children. Psychological Science 26(4), 467–474.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: a dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A., Hulbert, J. & Trueswell, J. (2008). Does language guide event perception? Evidence from eye movements. Cognition 108(1), 1551–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pérez, E. O. & Tavits, M. (2019). Language influences public attitudes toward gender equality. Journal of Politics 81(1), 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesciarelli, F., Scorolli, C. & Cacciari, C. (2019). Neural correlates of the implicit processing of grammatical and stereotypical gender violations: a masked and unmasked priming study. Biological Psychology 146, e107714.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prinz, J. (2002). Furnishing the mind: concepts and their perceptual basis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prinz, J. (2012). Beyond human nature . London: Penguin/New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Team, R Core (2019). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Online <https://www.R-project.org/>..>Google Scholar
Regier, T. & Kay, P. (2009). Language, thought, and color: Whorf was half right. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13(10), 439–446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Risman, B. J. (2004). Gender as a social structure: theory wrestling with activism. Gender & Society 18(4), 429–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, D. & Hayes, A. (2020). broom: convert statistical analysis objects into tidy tibbles. R package version 0.5.4. Online <https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=broom>..>Google Scholar
Roughgarden, J. (2004). Evolution’s rainbow: diversity, gender, and sexuality in nature and people. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Roversi, C., Borghi, A. M. & Tummolini, L. (2013). A marriage is an artefact and not a walk that we take together: an experimental study on the categorization of artefacts. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 4(3), 527–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Team, RStudio (2018). RStudio: integrated development for R. RStudio, Boston, MA. Online <http://www.rstudio.com/>..>Google Scholar
Rubin, G. (1975). The traffic in women: notes on the ‘political economy’ of sex. In Reiter, R. (ed.), Toward an anthropology of women (pp. 157–210). New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
Samuel, S., Cole, G. & Eacott, M. J. (2019). Grammatical gender and linguistic relativity: a systematic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 26(6), 1767–1786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savin-Williams, R. C. (2016). Sexual orientation: Categories or continuum? Commentary on Bailey et al. (2016). Psychological Science in the Public Interest 17(2), 37–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sera, M. D., Elieff, C., Forbes, J., Burch, M. C., Rodríguez, W. & Dubois, D. P. (2002). When language affects cognition and when it does not: an analysis of grammatical gender and classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 131(3), 377–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shea, N. (2018). Metacognition and abstract concepts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1752), e2017.0133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Troche, J., Crutch, S. & Reilly, J. (2014). Clustering, hierarchical organization, and the topography of abstract and concrete nouns. Frontiers in Psychology 5, e00368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Troche, J., Crutch, S. J. & Reilly, J. (2017). Defining a conceptual topography of word concreteness: clustering properties of emotion, sensation, and magnitude among 750 English words. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, e01787.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Anders, S. M. (2015). Beyond sexual orientation: integrating gender/sex and diverse sexualities via sexual configurations theory. Archives of Sexual Behavior 44(5), 1177–1213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Anders, S. M., Goldey, K. L. & Kuo, P. X. (2011). The steroid/peptide theory of social bonds: integrating testosterone and peptide responses for classifying social behavioral contexts. Psychoneuroendocrinology 36(9), 1265–1275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Villani, C., Lugli, L., Liuzza, M. T. & Borghi, A. M. (2019). Varieties of abstract concepts and their multiple dimensions. Language and Cognition 11(3), 403–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, C. & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society 1(2), 125–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan, L., François, R., Grolemund, G., Hayes, A., Henry, L., Hester, J. & Kuhn, M. (2019). Welcome to the Tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software 4(43), e01686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickham, H., François, R., Henry, L. & Müller, K. (2020). dplyr: a grammar of data manipulation. R package version 0.8.4. Online <https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr>..>Google Scholar
Wiemer‐Hastings, K. & Xu, X. (2005). Content differences for abstract and concrete concepts. Cognitive Science 29(5), 719–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson-Mendenhall, C. D., Barrett, L. F., Simmons, W. K. & Barsalou, L. W. (2011). Grounding emotion in situated conceptualization. Neuropsychologia 49(5), 1105–1127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Witt, S. D. (1997). Parental influence on children’s socialization to gender roles . Adolescence 32(126), 253–260.Google ScholarPubMed
Yee, E., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2016). Putting concepts into context. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 23(4), 1015–1027.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zipf, G. K. (1935). The psycho-biology of language. an introduction to dynamic philology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar