No grammatical gender effect on affective ratings: evidence from Italian and German languages

Montefinese, Maria; Ambrosini, Ettore; Roivainen, Eka

doi:10.1080/02699931.2018.1483322

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Across the review as a whole, the results from 32% of all samples were classified as offering support for relativity, 24% were classified as offering mixed support, and 43% as offering no support. With the exception of one particularly large study (Montefinese, Ambrosini, & Roivainen, 2019, N = 924 and N = 105, total N = 1,029), there was no evidence that the results were driven by only a small cluster of highly powered studies (see Fig. 1).…”

Section: Overall Resultsmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…A further 23% were classified as providing mixed support; reasons were the finding that results were more consistent with grammatical gender in one group than another (that spoke a different language), but apparently not more so than chance itself (Haertlé, 2017); results limited to one property but not another, despite evidence that both were linked to biological sex (Konishi, 1993); evidence to suggest an effect of the grammatical gender of a language the participants did not speak, with no direct comparison of this effect with the language they did speak (Sedlmeier, Tipandjan, & Jänchen, 2016); and effects limited to second-and thirdchoice, but not first-choice, adjectives (Semenuks et al, 2017). The remaining 75% of samples offered cases of no support at all (Flaherty, 2001;Imai et al, 2014;Landor, 2014;Mickan, Schiefke, & Stefanowitsch, 2014;Montefinese et al, 2019;Semenuks et al, 2017). It should be noted that the study by Montefinese et al represents an extreme outlier.…”

Section: Results By Task Typementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Grammatical gender and linguistic relativity: A systematic review

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many languages assign nouns to a grammatical gender class, such that "bed" might be assigned masculine gender in one language (e.g., Italian) but feminine gender in another (e.g., Spanish). In the context of research assessing the potential for language to influence thought (the linguistic relativity hypothesis), a number of scholars have investigated whether grammatical gender assignment "rubs off" on concepts themselves, such that Italian speakers might conceptualize beds as more masculine than Spanish speakers do. We systematically reviewed 43 pieces of empirical research examining grammatical gender and thought, which together tested 5,895 participants. We classified the findings in terms of their support for this hypothesis and assessed the results against parameters previously identified as potentially influencing outcomes. Overall, we found that support was strongly task-and context-dependent, and rested heavily on outcomes that have clear and equally viable alternative explanations. We also argue that it remains unclear whether grammatical gender is in fact a useful tool for investigating relativity.

show abstract

Section: Overall Resultsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Results By Task Typementioning

confidence: 99%

Grammatical gender and linguistic relativity: A systematic review

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nonetheless, the correlation between male and female AoA ratings was quite high ( r = 0.77), suggesting that our results were not affected by the imbalance in the number of male and female participants who rated our words. Moreover, we performed independent-sample t -tests for each word, contrasting male vs. female AoA ratings, as well as the corresponding equivalence tests (conservatively using a Cohen’s d value of 1; see Lakens, 2017 and Montefinese et al, 2018, for a detailed description of this approach). The results from these tests were inconclusive.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Italian Age of Acquisition Norms for a Large Set of Words (ItAoA)

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Age of acquisition (AoA) is an important psycholinguistic variable that affects the performance of healthy individuals and patients in a large variety of cognitive tasks. For this reason, it becomes more and more compelling to collect new AoA norms for a large set of stimuli in order to allow better control and manipulation of AoA in future research. An important motivation of the present study is to extend previous Italian norms by collecting AoA ratings for a much larger range of Italian words for which concreteness and semantic-affective norms are now available thus ensuring greater coverage of words varying along these dimensions. In the present study, we collected AoA ratings for 1,957 Italian content words (adjectives, nouns, and verbs), by asking healthy adult participants to estimate the age at which they thought they had learned the word in a Web survey procedure. First, we found high split-half correlation within our sample, suggesting strong internal reliability. Second, our data indicate that the ratings collected in this study are as valid and reliable as those collected in previous studies for Italian across different age populations (adult and children) and other languages. Finally, we analyzed the relation between AoA ratings and other lexical-semantic variables (e.g., word frequency, imageability, valence, arousal) and showed that these correlations were generally consistent with the correlations reported in other normative studies for Italian and other languages. Therefore, our new AoA norms are a valuable source of information for future research in the Italian language. The full database is available at the Open Science Framework (osf.io/3trg2).

show abstract

“…We also tested for spatio-temporal regions of significant between-study equivalence for updating (D KL ) and surprise (I S ) using equivalence testing (Rogers, Howard, & Vessey, 1993;Schuirmann, 1987). In particular, we performed the so-called two one-sided (t-)tests for equivalence (TOST, see D. Lakens, 2017;Daniël Lakens, Scheel, & Isager, 2018;Montefinese, Ambrosini, & Roivainen, 2018). Although it is never statistically possible to conclusively show the absence of any effect, this approach allows to reject the presence of meaningful effects by testing whether the observed effect size for a non-significant test is close enough to zero (or, in other words, too small to be of practical importance or meaningful).…”

Section: Let Us Callmentioning

confidence: 99%