Advertisement

Memory & Cognition

, Volume 47, Issue 1, pp 169–181 | Cite as

Mechanisms of word concreteness effects in explicit memory: Does context availability play a role?

  • Randolph S. TaylorEmail author
  • Wendy S. Francis
  • Lara Borunda-Vazquez
  • Jacqueline Carbajal
Article
  • 134 Downloads

Abstract

One explanation for why concrete words are recalled better than abstract words is systematic differences across these word types in the availability of context information. In contrast, explanations for the concrete-word advantage in recognition memory do not consider a possible role for context availability. We investigated the extent to which context availability can explain the effects of word concreteness in both free recall (Exp. 1) and item recognition (Exp. 2) by presenting each target word in isolation, in a low-constraint sentence context, or in a high-constraint sentence context at study. Concreteness effects were consistent with those from previous research, with concrete-word advantages in both tasks. Embedding words in sentence contexts with low semantic constraint hurt recall performance but helped recognition performance, relative to presenting words in isolation. Embedding words in sentence contexts with high semantic constraint hurt both recall and recognition performance, relative to words in low-constraint sentences. The effects of concreteness and semantic constraint were consistent for both high- and low-frequency words. Embedding words in high-constraint sentence contexts neither reduced nor eliminated the concreteness effect in recall or recognition, indicating that differences in context availability cannot explain concreteness effects in explicit memory.

Keywords

Free recall Recognition Concreteness Word frequency Context availability 

References

  1. Adelman, J. S., Brown, G. D. A., & Quesada, J. F. (2006). Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times. Psychological Science, 17, 814–823.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01787.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altarriba, J., Bauer, L. M., & Benevenuto, C. (1999). Concreteness, context availability, and imageability ratings and word associations for abstract, concrete, and emotion words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 578–602.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200738 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database (Release 2). Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  4. Balota, D. A., & Neely, J. H. (1980). Test-expectancy and word-frequency effects in recall and recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 576–587.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.6.5.576 Google Scholar
  5. Balota, D. A., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 364–390.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(85)90013-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhatarah, P., Ward, G., Smith, J., & Hayes, L. (2009). Examining the relationship between free recall and immediate serial recall: Similar patterns of rehearsal and similar effects of word length, presentation rate, and articulatory suppression. Memory & Cognition, 37, 689–713.  https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.5.689 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Buchler, N. E. G., & Reder, L. M. (2007). Modeling age-related memory deficits: A two-parameter solution. Psychology and Aging, 22, 104–121.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.22.1.104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coane, J. H., & Balota, D. A. (2010). Repetition priming across distinct contexts: Effects of lexical status, word frequency, and retrieval test. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 2376–2398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cofer, C. (1968). Free recall of nouns after presentation in sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1, 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, J., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. (1993a). PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 25, 257–271.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204507
  12. Cohen, J. D., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. (1993b). PsyScope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 25(2), 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Criss, A. H., William, A. R., & Smith, L. (2011). The effects of word frequency and context variability in cued recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 119–132.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Groot, A. M. B., Dannenburg, L., & van Hell, J. G. (1994). Forward and backward word translation by bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 600–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fischler, I., & Bloom, P. A. (1979). Automatic and attentional processes in the effects of sentence contexts on word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90534-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forster, K. I. (1981). Frequency blocking and lexical access: One mental lexicon or two? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 190–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glanzer, M., & Adams, J. K. (1985). The mirror effect in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 13, 8–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glanzer, M., Adams, J. K., Iverson, G. J., & Kim, K. (1993). The regularities of recognition memory. Psychological Review, 100, 546–567.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.546 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gollan, T. H., Slattery, T. J., Goldenberg, D., Van Assche, E., Duyck, W., & Rayner, K. (2011). Frequency drives lexical access in reading but not in speaking: The frequency-lag hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 186–209.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022256 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Griffin, Z. M., & Bock, K. (1998). Constraint, word frequency, and the relationship between lexical processing levels in spoken word production. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 313–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hirshman, E., & Arndt, J. (1997). Discriminating alternative conceptions of false recognition: The cases of word concreteness and word frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1306–1323.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.23.6.1306 Google Scholar
  22. Holmes, V. M., & Langford, J. (1976). Comprehension and recall of abstract and concrete sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 559–566.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5371(76)90050-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hunt, R. R., & Einstein, G. O. (1981). Relational and item-specific information in memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 497–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kieras, D. (1978). Beyond pictures and words: Alternative information-processing models for imagery effects in verbal memory. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 532–554.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.85.3.532 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kinsbourne, M., & George, J. (1974). The mechanism of the word-frequency effect on recognition memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 63–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MacLeod, C. M., & Kampe, K. E. (1996). Word frequency effects on recall, recognition, and word fragment completion tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 132–142.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.1.132 Google Scholar
  27. Mandler, G., Goodman, G. O., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. L. (1982). The word-frequency paradox in recognition. Memory & Cognition, 10, 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marschark, M. (1985). Imagery and organization in the recall of prose. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 734–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marsh, R. L., Meeks, J. T., Hicks, J. L., Cook, G. I., & Clark-Foos, A. (2006). Concreteness and item-to-list context associations in the free recall of items differing in context variability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 1424–1430.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.6.1424 Google Scholar
  30. McFalls, E. L., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2002). The influence of contextual constraints on recall for words within sentences. American Journal of Psychology, 115, 67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller, L. M., & Roodenrys, S. (2009). The interaction of word frequency and concreteness in immediate serial recall. Memory & Cognition, 37, 850–865.  https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.6.850 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45, 255–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rayner, K., Ashby, J., Pollatsek, A., & Reichle, E. D. (2004). The effects of frequency and predictability on eye fixations in reading: Implications for the E-Z Reader model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 720–732.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.30.4.720 Google Scholar
  34. Richardson, J. T. E. (2003). Dual coding versus relational processing in memory for concrete and abstract words. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 15, 481–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Romani, C., McAlpine, S., & Martin, R. C. (2008). Concreteness effects in different tasks: Implications for models of short-term memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 292–323.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210601147747 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schwanenflugel, P. J., Akin, C., & Luh, W. M. (1992). Context availability and the recall of abstract and concrete words. Memory & Cognition, 1, 96–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schwanenflugel, P. J., Harnishfeger, K. P., & Stowe, R. W. (1988). Context availability and lexical decisions for abstract and concrete words. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 499–520.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(88)90022-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schwanenflugel, P. J., & LaCount, K. L. (1988). Semantic relatedness and the scope of facilitation for upcoming words in sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 344–354.Google Scholar
  39. Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Shoben, E. (1983). Differential context effects in the comprehension of abstract and concrete verbal materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 82–102.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.9.1.82 Google Scholar
  40. Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Shoben, E. J. (1985). The influence of sentence constraint on the scope of facilitation for upcoming words. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 232–252.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(85)90026-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schwartz, R. M. (1975). Organization and recognition accuracy: The effect of context on blocked presentation. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 5, 329–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Steyvers, M., & Malmberg, K. J. (2003). The effect of normative context variability on recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 760–766.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.5.760 Google Scholar
  43. Tokowicz, N., & Kroll, J. F. (2007). Number of meanings and concreteness: Consequences of ambiguity within and across languages. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 727–779.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960601057068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van Hell, J. G., & de Groot, A. M. B. (1998). Disentangling context availability and concreteness in lexical decision and word translation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51A, 41–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van Hell, J. G., & de Groot, A. M. B. (2008). Sentence context modulates visual word recognition and translation in bilinguals. Acta Psychologica, 128, 431–451.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.03.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Walker, I., & Hulme, C. (1999). Concrete words are easier to recall than abstract words: Evidence for a semantic contribution to short-term serial recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1256–1271.Google Scholar
  47. Wattenmaker, W. D., & Shoben, E. J. (1987). Context and the recallability of concrete and abstract sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 140–150.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.13.1.140 Google Scholar
  48. Wood, G. (1970). Free recall of nouns presented in sentences. Psychonomic Science, 18, 76–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Randolph S. Taylor
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wendy S. Francis
    • 1
  • Lara Borunda-Vazquez
    • 1
  • Jacqueline Carbajal
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TexasEl PasoUSA

Personalised recommendations