Behavior Research Methods

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 904–911 | Cite as

Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas

  • Marc Brysbaert
  • Amy Beth Warriner
  • Victor Kuperman


Concreteness ratings are presented for 37,058 English words and 2,896 two-word expressions (such as zebra crossing and zoom in), obtained from over 4,000 participants by means of a norming study using Internet crowdsourcing for data collection. Although the instructions stressed that the assessment of word concreteness would be based on experiences involving all senses and motor responses, a comparison with the existing concreteness norms indicates that participants, as before, largely focused on visual and haptic experiences. The reported data set is a subset of a comprehensive list of English lemmas and contains all lemmas known by at least 85 % of the raters. It can be used in future research as a reference list of generally known English lemmas.


Concreteness Ratings Crowdsourcing Word recognition 

Supplementary material

13428_2013_403_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (2.1 mb)
Supplementary material (XLSX 2.09 MB)


  1. Altarriba, J., Bauer, L. M., & Benvenuto, C. (1999). Concreteness, context availability, and image ability ratings and word associations for abstract, concrete, and emotion words. Behavior Research Methods, 31(4), 578–602.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, M., Vigliocco, G., & Vinson, D. (2009). Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations. Psychological Review, 116, 463–498.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., ... Treiman, R. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barber, H. A., Otten, L. J., Kousta, S. T., & Vigliocco, G. (2013). Concreteness in word processing: ERP and behavioral effects in a lexical decision task. Brain and Language, 125(1), 47–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 11, 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brysbaert, M., New, B., & Keuleers, E. (2012). Adding Part-of-Speech information to the SUBTLEX-US word frequencies. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 991–997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (2004). Extensions of the Paivio, Yuille, and Madigan (1968) norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36(3), 371–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33, 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2012). Strength of perceptual experience predicts word processing performance better than concreteness or imageability. Cognition, 125, 452–465.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crutch, S. J., & Warrington, E. K. (2005). Abstract and concrete concepts have structurally different representational frameworks. Brain, 128(3), 615–627.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davies, M. (2009). The 385+ million word corpus of contemporary American English: Design, architecture, and linguistic insights. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(2), 159–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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, 1042–1048.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duñabeitia, J. A., Avilés, A., Afonso, O., Scheepers, C., & Carreiras, M. (2009). Qualitative differences in the representation of abstract versus concrete words: evidence from the visual-world paradigm. Cognition, 110(2), 284–292.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferré, P., Guasch, M., Moldovan, C., & Sánchez-Casas, R. (2012). Affective norms for 380 Spanish words belonging to three different semantic categories. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 395–403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferrand, L., New, B., Brysbaert, M., Keuleers, E., Bonin, P., Méot, A., ... Pallier, C. (2010). The French Lexicon Project: Lexical decision data for 38,840 French words and 38,840 pseudowords. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 488–496.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fischer, M. H., & Zwaan, R. A. (2008). Embodied language: A review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 825–850.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gianico-Relyea, J. L., & Altarriba, J. (2012). Word Concreteness as a Moderator of the Tip-of the-Tongue Effect. Psychological Record, 62, 763–776.Google Scholar
  20. Ghio, M., Vaghi, M. M. S., & Tettamanti, M. (2013). Fine-Grained Semantic Categorization across the Abstract and Concrete Domains. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e67090. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067090 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanley, J. R., Hunt, R. P., Steed, D. A., & Jackman, S. (2013). Concreteness and word production. Memory & Cognition, 41, 365–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41, 301–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaushanskaya, M., & Rechtzigel, K. (2012). Concreteness effects in bilingual and monolingual word learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 935–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keuleers, E., Diependaele, K., & Brysbaert, M. (2010). Practice effects in large-scale visual word recognition studies: A lexical decision study on 14,000 Dutch mono- and disyllabic words and nonwords. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 174. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00174 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keuleers, E., Lacey, P., Rastle, K., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). The British Lexicon Project: Lexical decision data for 28,730 monosyllabic and disyllabic English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 287–304.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kloumann, I. M., Danforth, C. M., Harris, K. D., Bliss, C. A., & Dodds, P. S. (2012). Positivity of the English language. PloS one, 7(1), e29484. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029484 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kousta, S. T., Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Andrews, M., & Del Campo, E. (2011). The representation of abstract words: Why emotion matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 14–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kuperman, V., Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30 thousand English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 978–990.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Laming, D. (2004). Human judgement: The eye of the beholder. London: Thompson Learning.Google Scholar
  30. Loiselle, M., Rouleau, I., Nguyen, D. K., Dubeau, F., Macoir, J., Whatmough, C., & Joubert, S. (2012). Comprehension of concrete and abstract words in patients with selective anterior temporal lobe resection and in patients with selective amygdalo-hippocampectomy. Neuropsychologia, 50, 630–639.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 558–564.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (in press). Modality exclusivity norms for 400 nouns: The relationship between perceptual experience and surface word form. Behavior Research Methods.Google Scholar
  33. Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2011). What drives the organization of object knowledge in the brain? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 97–103.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mate, J., Allen, R. J., & Baqués, J. (2012). What you say matters: Exploring visual–verbal interactions in visual working memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 395–400.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nishiyama, R. (2013). Dissociative contributions of semantic and lexical-phonological information to immediate recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 642–648.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Oliveira, J., Perea, M. V., Ladera, V., & Gamito, P. (2013). The roles of word concreteness and cognitive load on interhemispheric processes of recognition. Laterality, 18, 203–215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinchart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  38. Paivio, A. (2013). Dual Coding Theory, Word Abstractness, and Emotion: A Critical Review of Kousta et al. (2011). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 282–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of experimental psychology, 76, 1–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rubin, D. C. (1980). 51 properties of 125 words: A unit analysis of verbal behavior. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 736–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schock, J., Cortese, M. J., & Khanna, M. M. (2012). Imageability estimates for 3,000 disyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 374–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schwanenflugel, P. J., Harnishfeger, K. K., & Stowe, R. W. (1988). Context availability and lexical decisions for abstract and concrete words. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 499–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Spreen, O., & Schulz, R. W. (1966). Parameters of abstraction, meaningfulness, and pronunciability for 329 nouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 459–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., & Davis, C. J. (2006). The Bristol norms for age of acquisition, imageability, and familiarity. Behavior Research Methods, 38(4), 598–605.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Lewis, W., & Garrett, M. F. (2004). Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 48, 422–488.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Warriner, A. B., Kuperman, V., & Brysbaert, M. (in press). Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods.Google Scholar
  47. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 625–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc Brysbaert
    • 1
  • Amy Beth Warriner
    • 2
  • Victor Kuperman
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Experimental PsychologyGhent UniversityGentBelgium
  2. 2.McMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations