oa De concreetheid van teksten: concreetheidsscores en een meetinstrument

References

1. Bell, B.E., & Loftus, E. (1989). Trivial persuasion in the courtroom: The power of (a few) minor details. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 669-679.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Bolognesi, M., Burgers, C., & Caselli, T. (2020). On abstraction: decoupling conceptual concreteness and categorical specificity. Cognitive Processing, 21, 365–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-020-00965-9
   [Google Scholar]
3. Brysbaert, M., Stevens, M., De Deyne, S., Voorspoels, W., & Storms, G. (2014). Norms of age of acquisition and concreteness for 30,000 Dutch words. Acta Psychologica, 150, 80-84.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Douma, P. (1994). ‘Wees zo concreet mogelijk’. Schrijfadviseurs over concreet en abstract taalgebruik. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 16, 17-31.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Elliott, W. B., Rennekamp, K. M., & White, B. J. (2015). Does concrete language in disclosures increase willingness to invest?Review of Accounting Studies, 20(2), 839-865.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., Rooij, J. de & Toorn, M. van den (2019, januari). 5.9 Het onbepaald voornaamwoord (indefiniet pronomen). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. https://e-ans.ivdnt.org/topics/pid/ans0509lingtopic. (geraadpleegd 11januari2023).
   [Google Scholar]
7. Hansen, J. & Wänke, M. (2010). Truth from language and truth from fit: The impact of linguistic concreteness and level of construal on subjective truth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(11), 1576-1588.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Hoeken, H., & O’Keefe, D. J. (2022). The reconstructability of persuasive message variables affects the variability of experimental effect sizes: evidence and implications. Human Communication Research, 48(4), 543-552.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Hubers, F., Cucchiarini, C., Strik, H., & Dijkstra, T. (2019). Normative data of Dutch idiomatic expressions: Subjective judgments you can bank on. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1075.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Hustinx, L., Hofstra, I., & Janssen, A. (2019). Zijn concrete argumenten doorslaggevender? Een experiment naar het effect van mate van concreetheid op sociale oordelen. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 41(1), 129–142.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Hustinx, L., & Spooren, W. (2019). Determinants of abstractness and concreteness and their persuasive effects. In M.Bolognesi, & G.J.Steen (Red.), Perspectives on Abstract Concepts: Cognition, Language and Communication (pp. 121-143). Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.65.07hus
    [Google Scholar]
12. van Loon-Vervoorn, W. A. (1985). Voorstelbaarheidswaarden van Nederlandse woorden. Swetz and Zeitlinger.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Löhr, G. (2022). What are abstract concepts? On lexical ambiguity and concreteness ratings. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 13(3), 549–566.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Muraki, E. J., Abdalla, S., Brysbaert, M., & Pexman, P. M. (2022). Concreteness ratings for 62,000 English multiword expressions. Behavior Research Methods, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01912-6
    [Google Scholar]
15. Nahari, G. (2018). The applicability of the verifiability approach to the real world. In P.Rosenfeld (Ed.), Detecting Concealed Information and Deception: Verbal, Behavioral, and Biological Methods (pp. 329–350). Academic Press. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-812729-2.00014-8
    [Google Scholar]
16. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Pettus, C. & Diener, E. (1977). Factors affecting the effectiveness of abstract versus concrete information. The Journal of Social Psychology, 103(2), 233-242. DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1977.9713322
    [Google Scholar]
18. Reijnierse, W. G., Burgers, C., Bolognesi, M. & Krennmayr, T. (2019). How polysemy affects concreteness ratings: The case of metaphor. Cognitive Science, 43(8), 1-11, e12779.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Sadoski, M. (1999). Theoretical, empirical and practical considerations in designing informational text. Document Design, 1(1), 24-34.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Sadoski, M., Goetz, E. T., & Rodriguez, M. (2000). Engaging texts: Effects of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and recall in four text types. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 85-95.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Shedler, J. & Manis, M. (1986). Can the availability heuristic explain vividness effects?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 26-36.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Spooren, W.P.M.S., Hustinx, L.G.M.M., Aben, J.E.J. & Turkenburg, E. (2015). Concreetheid onder de loep. In M.Boogaard, B.van den Bogaerde, S.Bacchini, M.Curcic, N.de Jong, E.le Pichon & L.Rasier (Eds.), Proceedings of de achtste Anéla Conferentie Toegepaste Taalwetenschap 2015 (pp. 97-110). Eburon.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Vrij, A. (2018). Deception and truth detection when analyzing nonverbal and verbal cues. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(2), 160–167. doi:10.1002/acp.3457
    [Google Scholar]