- Email: [email protected]
Recall of abstract and concrete words equated for meaningfulness
~OURNAL OF VERBAL LEARNING AND VERBAL BEHAVIOR 5, 455-458
(1966)
Recall of Abstract and Concrete Words Equated for Meaningfulness WILLIAM F. DUKES AND JARVIS BASTIAN
Department o/ Psychology, University of Cali/ornia, Davis, Calilornia A list of 10 abstract and I0 concrete nouns, equated for meardngfulness (Noble's m), was compiled, half of each type being high-frequency words, half, low-frequency words ("AA" and "1-to-24" in the Thorndike-Lorge Tables, respectively). The words were presented singly by means of a projector to 3 groups of college students. All groups were shown the list twice, with the sequence 6f the words changed from first to second presentation and from group to group. Immediate free recall was tested. Significantly more concrete than abstract words were recalled, thereby eliminating meaningfulness, at least as indicated by association-frequency, as the crucial factor in the differential recall. Several investigators have reported that words signifying something "concrete" are more efficiently remembered than those with an "abstract" referent. Epstein (1962), for example, found that concrete nouns yield higher R-S learnnig scores than abstract ones, and Paivio (1963) observed that adjectivenoun paired associates were more effectively learned when the nouns were concrete. Gorman (1961) demonstrated a similar superiority in short-term recognition scores, and Brener (1940) found the memory span for concrete words to be slightly greater than that for abstract ones. In an exploratory experiment involving immediate recall of abstract and concrete nouns presented auditorily, the present writers obtained results consonant with those just cited. Close inspection of the stimuluswords, however, suggested that the abstract and concrete lists, although subjected to the usual controls of word length, frequency of usage, and obvious sequential associations, might still differ in some unspecified aspect of meaning--familiarity, "richness," breadth of association, or the like. This speculation was supported by Epstein's designation of his concrete words as "high meaning," his ab-
stract as "low meaning," in accordance with their Noble m values (1952). When Noble's technique, essentially a counting of the number of different associations directly elicited by a word, was applied to our preliminary lists, similar differences in m between abstract and concrete were apparent. These differences in m's raise several questions. Is the traditional abstract-concrete dichotomy largely interlocked with familiarity and degree of meaningfulness? If so, how do these differences in familiarity and degree of meaningfulness evolve? Do the noted differences in recall simply reflect differing degrees of association-elicitation? The present paper is concerned with the last question, with reexamining the hypothesis concerning the differential memory for abstract and concrete words when m's for the two are equated. METHOD
Subjects. The Ss were members of undergraduate classes at the University of California, Davis. They were tested in 3 groups. Since the first random group contained 7 male and 11 female students, this restriction was applied in the otherwise random selection of the other two groups. Stimulus Materials. Four psychologists independently categorized each word in two lists of
455
456
DUKES AND BASTIAN
6-to-9-1etter, singular nouns according to "abstractness-concreteness." Although no criteria were specified for this operation, classifications apparently were made on the basis of ostensibility of reference. One list was comprised of 25 dAA" words having Thorndike-Lorge frequencies (1944) exceeding 100 per 1,000,000, the other of 40 words with Thorndike-Lorge frequencies between 1 and 24, inclusive. The "I-to-24" list was later supplemented by 22 additional words to facilitate matching for m. Consensus was unanimous for all but 4 of the 87 words, these 4 being discarded from further consideration. Estimates of m for these words were obtained by using Noble's production method (1952) in a small upper-division psychology class (N-----10). On the basis of the resulting m's 20 words were selected, 10 concrete, 10 abstract, half of each being "AA" words, half "1-to-24" words. The concrete and abstract were equated for m, as were the comparable sub-groups--that is, m for "AA" concrete = m for "AA" abstract, and similarly for the "I-to-24" words. The words chosen, together with their re's, are printed in Table 1. Procedure. Two separate slides for each word were prepared. The slides were presented by means of an Eastman Carousel projector, one word every 3 sec. When all 20 words had been projected, the list was repeated, after a 10-see rest period, in a different order. For each group the presentation schedule was so arranged that every run of 4 words contained 2 abstract and 2 concrete---e.g., ACCA, CACA, AACC, etc.; words occurring at or near the ends of the first presentation were in the middle of the other; and, no word immediately followed the same word in
Concrete m
m
escape health opinion silence MHF
High frequency 8.75 8.75 11.75 9.00 9.50 9.55
of usage friend island journal picture village
boredom hatred poverty strategy treason MLF MA
Low frequency 6.00 6.00 9.00 7.50 7.00 7.10 8.32
of usage banner fxeckle saliva tunnel vinegar
century
MC
RESULTS A summary of the principal results of the recall test is given in Table 2. The "concrete" words were recalled slightly better than the "abstract," the mean recall being 4.78 and 4.04, respectively.Analysis of variance indicates this "abstract-concrete" variable to be significant in recall, F(I,51) -----6.99, p < .05. As m i g h t be expected, freq u e n c y was also a significant source of variance, F ( 1 , 5 1 ) z 6.50, p < .05. C o n t r a r y to expectations, h o w e v e r , the less f r e q u e n t words y i e l d e d higher recall scores, 4.78 vs. 4.04. I n a d d i t i o n the i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n these two ( a b s t r a c t n e s s and f r e q u e n c y ) was significant, F(1,51)-~4.92, p < .05. T h e o n l y o t h e r significant source was "groups," F ( 2 , 5 1 ) - 4.27, p < .05, b u t since it represents a conf o u n d i n g of Ss and orders, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of this finding will n o t b e a t t e m p t e d . DISCussioN
TABLE 1 STIMULUS WORDS AND ~OBLE ~t~ VALUES
Abstract,
both presentations. The order of presentation also varied from group to group. The Ss were told merely that the experiment involved memory for words which would be shown individually and briefly on the screen before them. They were asked not to talk or make notes while the slides were being shown. After the slides had been presented, Ss were asked to write down in 2 rain all the words they could remember.
9.25 10.50 8.75 10.00 9.75 9.65 7.50 6.00 7.00 7.50 7.00 7.00 8.32
T h e s e d a t a i n d i c a t e t h a t the s u p e r i o r i t y of " c o n c r e t e " over " a b s t r a c t " w o r d s in recall is not solely a f u n c t i o n of differing association values, as m e a s u r e d b y N o b l e m-counts. T h i s finding, of course, does n o t necessarily valid a t e the t r a d i t i o n a l a b s t r a c t - c o n c r e t e distinction or e l i m i n a t e m e a n i n g f u l n e s s as a crucial v a r i a b l e in the differential recall. A l t h o u g h control was a t t e m p t e d o v e r m e a n ingfulness of the stimulus words as well as TABLE 2 MEAN I2¢I2¢IEDIATE FREE RECALL SCORE (N ~ 54)
Abstract Concrete High Frequency Low Frequency H + L
1.67 2.37 4.04
2.37 2.41 4.78
A+ C 4.04 4.78
ABSTRACT A N D C O N C R E T E
over the frequency of their usage, the adequacy, as well as the relevance, of the control procedures used is open to question. Compiled in a pre-television, pre-atomic-energy, pre-jet-plane era, the Thorndike-Lorge Tables are to some degree anachronistic, and some of their frequencies, suspect. "Atomic," for example, has a frequency count of 1, and "nuclear" occurs less than once per million words. Several features of Noble's index of meaningfulness have also been questioned. [See, for example, Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957) and Staats and Staats (1959).] Certainly his use of the results of association techniques is in striking contrast to that of the clinician for whom dearth or blockage of association does not indicate lack of linguistic meaning. Aspects of meaning which might be pertinent to the obtained concreteabstract results but neglected or obscured by Noble's method are such factors as salience, stability, and concentration of the associations. That is, for two words which are equal in total amount of associations produced (m), one might include more items of importance to the person's behavior--more "ego-involving" in personality terminology--(salience); or, one might produce a more consistent array of associative responses upon repetition of the production test (stability); or, again, one might represent a more restricted sampling of items, being linked with a narrower range of experiences (concentration). Noble (1958) does demonstrate a relationship between m and emotionality but not an equivalence. Despite these and other possible limitations, the Thorndike-Lorge Tables and Noble's m-values appear to be the most appropriate controls presently available for frequency of usage and meaningfulness, respectively. The findings regarding frequency in which the less frequent words are better recalled than the more frequent, although similar to Gorman's (1961), are contrary to those usually obtained. Comments about these re-
457
WORDS
suits as well as those for abstractness cannot proceed very far without mentioning the interaction of these variables (frequency-abstractness). The abstract-concrete effects are due mainly to the high-frequency words; the frequency effects stem largely from the abstract words. (See Table 2.) It might be hypothesized in retrospect that this sample of low-frequency abstract words is more "emotionally loaded" or "personally relevant" than its high-frequency counterpart --"hatred," "treason," "poverty," vs. "century," "silence," "opinion." Such words may be, in the context of the remaining words, like the isolated elements in the yon Restorff experiments. The near equality of three of the four cell entries in Table 2, the discrepant result being that for high-frequency abstract words, suggests that it is just as fitting to ask why the high-frequency abstract words were recalled so poorly as why the low-frequency words were recalled so well. To this "otherside-of-the-coin" question, one might speculate that disengaging words like "escape," "opinion," etc., from a sensible context is more detrimental to recall than it is in the case of words like "poverty," "strategy," etc. This hypothesis, though speculative here, should not be too difficult to test empirically. REFERENCES BREr:ER, R. An experimental investigationof memory span. £. exp. Paycho[., 1940, 26, 467-482. EPSTEIN, W. Backward association as a function of meaningfulness. J. gen. Psychol., 1962, 67, 1120. GORMAN, ALOYSIA M. Recogafitionmemory for nouns as a function of abstractness and frequency. J. exp. Psychol., 1961, 61, 23-29. Nosr~E, C. E. An analysis of meaning. Psychol. Rev., 1952, 59, 421-430. NotatE, C. E. Emotionality (e) and meaningfulness (m). Psychol. Rep., 1958, 4, 16. OSCOOD, C. E., SUCl, G. J., TANNT~BAU~, P. H. The measurement of meaning. Urbane: University of Illinois Press, 1957. PAr¢IO, A. Learning of adjective-noun paired associates as a function of adjective-noun word order and noun abstractness. Caned. J. PsychoI., 1963, 17, 370-379.
458
DUKES AND BASTIAN
STAATS, A. W., n~n~ STAATS,C. K. Meaning and m: Correlated but separate. Psychol. Rev., 19~9, 66, 136-144. THORNDIXE, E. L., AND LORGE, I. The Teacher's word
book of 30,000 words. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teacher's College, Columbia University, 1944. (Received February 1, 1965.)
(1966)
Recall of Abstract and Concrete Words Equated for Meaningfulness WILLIAM F. DUKES AND JARVIS BASTIAN
Department o/ Psychology, University of Cali/ornia, Davis, Calilornia A list of 10 abstract and I0 concrete nouns, equated for meardngfulness (Noble's m), was compiled, half of each type being high-frequency words, half, low-frequency words ("AA" and "1-to-24" in the Thorndike-Lorge Tables, respectively). The words were presented singly by means of a projector to 3 groups of college students. All groups were shown the list twice, with the sequence 6f the words changed from first to second presentation and from group to group. Immediate free recall was tested. Significantly more concrete than abstract words were recalled, thereby eliminating meaningfulness, at least as indicated by association-frequency, as the crucial factor in the differential recall. Several investigators have reported that words signifying something "concrete" are more efficiently remembered than those with an "abstract" referent. Epstein (1962), for example, found that concrete nouns yield higher R-S learnnig scores than abstract ones, and Paivio (1963) observed that adjectivenoun paired associates were more effectively learned when the nouns were concrete. Gorman (1961) demonstrated a similar superiority in short-term recognition scores, and Brener (1940) found the memory span for concrete words to be slightly greater than that for abstract ones. In an exploratory experiment involving immediate recall of abstract and concrete nouns presented auditorily, the present writers obtained results consonant with those just cited. Close inspection of the stimuluswords, however, suggested that the abstract and concrete lists, although subjected to the usual controls of word length, frequency of usage, and obvious sequential associations, might still differ in some unspecified aspect of meaning--familiarity, "richness," breadth of association, or the like. This speculation was supported by Epstein's designation of his concrete words as "high meaning," his ab-
stract as "low meaning," in accordance with their Noble m values (1952). When Noble's technique, essentially a counting of the number of different associations directly elicited by a word, was applied to our preliminary lists, similar differences in m between abstract and concrete were apparent. These differences in m's raise several questions. Is the traditional abstract-concrete dichotomy largely interlocked with familiarity and degree of meaningfulness? If so, how do these differences in familiarity and degree of meaningfulness evolve? Do the noted differences in recall simply reflect differing degrees of association-elicitation? The present paper is concerned with the last question, with reexamining the hypothesis concerning the differential memory for abstract and concrete words when m's for the two are equated. METHOD
Subjects. The Ss were members of undergraduate classes at the University of California, Davis. They were tested in 3 groups. Since the first random group contained 7 male and 11 female students, this restriction was applied in the otherwise random selection of the other two groups. Stimulus Materials. Four psychologists independently categorized each word in two lists of
455
456
DUKES AND BASTIAN
6-to-9-1etter, singular nouns according to "abstractness-concreteness." Although no criteria were specified for this operation, classifications apparently were made on the basis of ostensibility of reference. One list was comprised of 25 dAA" words having Thorndike-Lorge frequencies (1944) exceeding 100 per 1,000,000, the other of 40 words with Thorndike-Lorge frequencies between 1 and 24, inclusive. The "I-to-24" list was later supplemented by 22 additional words to facilitate matching for m. Consensus was unanimous for all but 4 of the 87 words, these 4 being discarded from further consideration. Estimates of m for these words were obtained by using Noble's production method (1952) in a small upper-division psychology class (N-----10). On the basis of the resulting m's 20 words were selected, 10 concrete, 10 abstract, half of each being "AA" words, half "1-to-24" words. The concrete and abstract were equated for m, as were the comparable sub-groups--that is, m for "AA" concrete = m for "AA" abstract, and similarly for the "I-to-24" words. The words chosen, together with their re's, are printed in Table 1. Procedure. Two separate slides for each word were prepared. The slides were presented by means of an Eastman Carousel projector, one word every 3 sec. When all 20 words had been projected, the list was repeated, after a 10-see rest period, in a different order. For each group the presentation schedule was so arranged that every run of 4 words contained 2 abstract and 2 concrete---e.g., ACCA, CACA, AACC, etc.; words occurring at or near the ends of the first presentation were in the middle of the other; and, no word immediately followed the same word in
Concrete m
m
escape health opinion silence MHF
High frequency 8.75 8.75 11.75 9.00 9.50 9.55
of usage friend island journal picture village
boredom hatred poverty strategy treason MLF MA
Low frequency 6.00 6.00 9.00 7.50 7.00 7.10 8.32
of usage banner fxeckle saliva tunnel vinegar
century
MC
RESULTS A summary of the principal results of the recall test is given in Table 2. The "concrete" words were recalled slightly better than the "abstract," the mean recall being 4.78 and 4.04, respectively.Analysis of variance indicates this "abstract-concrete" variable to be significant in recall, F(I,51) -----6.99, p < .05. As m i g h t be expected, freq u e n c y was also a significant source of variance, F ( 1 , 5 1 ) z 6.50, p < .05. C o n t r a r y to expectations, h o w e v e r , the less f r e q u e n t words y i e l d e d higher recall scores, 4.78 vs. 4.04. I n a d d i t i o n the i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n these two ( a b s t r a c t n e s s and f r e q u e n c y ) was significant, F(1,51)-~4.92, p < .05. T h e o n l y o t h e r significant source was "groups," F ( 2 , 5 1 ) - 4.27, p < .05, b u t since it represents a conf o u n d i n g of Ss and orders, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of this finding will n o t b e a t t e m p t e d . DISCussioN
TABLE 1 STIMULUS WORDS AND ~OBLE ~t~ VALUES
Abstract,
both presentations. The order of presentation also varied from group to group. The Ss were told merely that the experiment involved memory for words which would be shown individually and briefly on the screen before them. They were asked not to talk or make notes while the slides were being shown. After the slides had been presented, Ss were asked to write down in 2 rain all the words they could remember.
9.25 10.50 8.75 10.00 9.75 9.65 7.50 6.00 7.00 7.50 7.00 7.00 8.32
T h e s e d a t a i n d i c a t e t h a t the s u p e r i o r i t y of " c o n c r e t e " over " a b s t r a c t " w o r d s in recall is not solely a f u n c t i o n of differing association values, as m e a s u r e d b y N o b l e m-counts. T h i s finding, of course, does n o t necessarily valid a t e the t r a d i t i o n a l a b s t r a c t - c o n c r e t e distinction or e l i m i n a t e m e a n i n g f u l n e s s as a crucial v a r i a b l e in the differential recall. A l t h o u g h control was a t t e m p t e d o v e r m e a n ingfulness of the stimulus words as well as TABLE 2 MEAN I2¢I2¢IEDIATE FREE RECALL SCORE (N ~ 54)
Abstract Concrete High Frequency Low Frequency H + L
1.67 2.37 4.04
2.37 2.41 4.78
A+ C 4.04 4.78
ABSTRACT A N D C O N C R E T E
over the frequency of their usage, the adequacy, as well as the relevance, of the control procedures used is open to question. Compiled in a pre-television, pre-atomic-energy, pre-jet-plane era, the Thorndike-Lorge Tables are to some degree anachronistic, and some of their frequencies, suspect. "Atomic," for example, has a frequency count of 1, and "nuclear" occurs less than once per million words. Several features of Noble's index of meaningfulness have also been questioned. [See, for example, Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957) and Staats and Staats (1959).] Certainly his use of the results of association techniques is in striking contrast to that of the clinician for whom dearth or blockage of association does not indicate lack of linguistic meaning. Aspects of meaning which might be pertinent to the obtained concreteabstract results but neglected or obscured by Noble's method are such factors as salience, stability, and concentration of the associations. That is, for two words which are equal in total amount of associations produced (m), one might include more items of importance to the person's behavior--more "ego-involving" in personality terminology--(salience); or, one might produce a more consistent array of associative responses upon repetition of the production test (stability); or, again, one might represent a more restricted sampling of items, being linked with a narrower range of experiences (concentration). Noble (1958) does demonstrate a relationship between m and emotionality but not an equivalence. Despite these and other possible limitations, the Thorndike-Lorge Tables and Noble's m-values appear to be the most appropriate controls presently available for frequency of usage and meaningfulness, respectively. The findings regarding frequency in which the less frequent words are better recalled than the more frequent, although similar to Gorman's (1961), are contrary to those usually obtained. Comments about these re-
457
WORDS
suits as well as those for abstractness cannot proceed very far without mentioning the interaction of these variables (frequency-abstractness). The abstract-concrete effects are due mainly to the high-frequency words; the frequency effects stem largely from the abstract words. (See Table 2.) It might be hypothesized in retrospect that this sample of low-frequency abstract words is more "emotionally loaded" or "personally relevant" than its high-frequency counterpart --"hatred," "treason," "poverty," vs. "century," "silence," "opinion." Such words may be, in the context of the remaining words, like the isolated elements in the yon Restorff experiments. The near equality of three of the four cell entries in Table 2, the discrepant result being that for high-frequency abstract words, suggests that it is just as fitting to ask why the high-frequency abstract words were recalled so poorly as why the low-frequency words were recalled so well. To this "otherside-of-the-coin" question, one might speculate that disengaging words like "escape," "opinion," etc., from a sensible context is more detrimental to recall than it is in the case of words like "poverty," "strategy," etc. This hypothesis, though speculative here, should not be too difficult to test empirically. REFERENCES BREr:ER, R. An experimental investigationof memory span. £. exp. Paycho[., 1940, 26, 467-482. EPSTEIN, W. Backward association as a function of meaningfulness. J. gen. Psychol., 1962, 67, 1120. GORMAN, ALOYSIA M. Recogafitionmemory for nouns as a function of abstractness and frequency. J. exp. Psychol., 1961, 61, 23-29. Nosr~E, C. E. An analysis of meaning. Psychol. Rev., 1952, 59, 421-430. NotatE, C. E. Emotionality (e) and meaningfulness (m). Psychol. Rep., 1958, 4, 16. OSCOOD, C. E., SUCl, G. J., TANNT~BAU~, P. H. The measurement of meaning. Urbane: University of Illinois Press, 1957. PAr¢IO, A. Learning of adjective-noun paired associates as a function of adjective-noun word order and noun abstractness. Caned. J. PsychoI., 1963, 17, 370-379.
458
DUKES AND BASTIAN
STAATS, A. W., n~n~ STAATS,C. K. Meaning and m: Correlated but separate. Psychol. Rev., 19~9, 66, 136-144. THORNDIXE, E. L., AND LORGE, I. The Teacher's word
book of 30,000 words. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teacher's College, Columbia University, 1944. (Received February 1, 1965.)