Submission 631
Using Conceptual Scaling to Map How Individuals Understand Abstract Concepts
SymposiumTalk-03
Presented by: Lukas S. Huber
How can we quantify how people understand abstract, socially relevant concepts such as "truth", "health", or "gender"? How do individuals differ in their understanding of these concepts?
In this talk, I present recent work using Conceptual Scaling to address these questions. We draw on perceptual categorization research and ask participants to judge concept similarity using triplet comparisons. From these judgments, we construct individual conceptual maps that embed a target concept, such as "truth," among theoretically motivated neighbors like "reality," "honesty," or "reason."
The relative position of the target concept reveals how an individual understands that concept. It allows us to investigate which theoretical position a participant aligns with and how pluralistic their conceptual understanding is. For example, it captures whether someone thinks of "health" as the absence of disease, as a lifestyle-related concept, or as a blend of both. Combining conceptual maps with demographics, we can examine whether conceptual understanding varies systematically with participant characteristics—for instance, how political orientation relates to seeing "gender" as a biological or a social concept. Moreover, we show that relations within individual maps predict how people apply the concept in vignette judgments months later, demonstrating predictive and temporal stability.
Taken together, conceptual scaling provides a principled way to investigate abstract concepts at the individual level, moving beyond vignette tasks, survey methods, and corpus-derived approaches. By illuminating inter-individual differences in conceptual understanding, we hope that our approach ultimately contribute to clearer communication and a better grasp of the sources of disagreement in public and philosophical discourse.