AbstractA hypothesis that is covered is for the recognition of concrete nouns and abstract noun pairs; which states that concrete noun pairs are easier to recall then abstract noun pairs. An experiment was conducted to examine rather concrete noun pairs are easier to recall than abstract noun pairs. All participants were presented with pairs of concrete nouns and abstract nouns and then told to recall the word to which it was paired. After this it was established that concrete noun pairs were recalled more than abstract nouns. The experiment concluded the hypothesis to be true.Concrete Nouns over Abstract Nouns Recognition Researchers have looked at the use of concrete nouns over abstract nouns and the ability of pairings being recalled.
Allan Paivio (1965) backed up concreteness recall by the conceptual peg hypothesis which states that compound word images that combine pairs are formed during a presentation. For example if presented with the pairing baby- bottle you would be able to recall when showed the word baby, bottle because you were able to conduct an image of a baby holding a bottle. This increases the chances of recalling concrete nouns. Hypothesis for this was the concreteness was high in imagery it was known to have a higher recall rate. Is this due to concrete words being easier transcribed into imagery form We will take a look at the past experiments to help answer these questions. Paivio(1965) looked at all outcomes for pairings concrete- concrete, concrete-abstract which can be a clock paired with time, abstract-concrete which can be love paired with men, and abstract-abstract pairings which can be viewed as happiness paired with love. Findings showed that the mean for abstract-abstract was 6.05 and concrete-concrete was 11.
41 proving that concrete-abstract nouns were easier to recall when paired. Richardson (1985) also performed an experiment similar to Paivio (1965) except his participants were instructed to think of mental images of the word pairings. They found that use of a mnemonic device like imagining the word pairings increased the correct recall of concrete word pairs. It did not increase the correct recall of abstract word pairings. It was suggested by Richardson that images of concrete nouns are more available and interchangeable; when thinking of abstract nouns there in not a direct image. Instead we have to use a metaphor or an indirect image.
For example, if the noun was faith we may think of a church. But at recall the picture of a church could mean religion, faith or house. Marschark and Hunt (1989) also experimented with imagery and concrete-abstract pairings. In their third experiment, they asked subjects to rate the pairings on a seven point scale from easy to combine meaningfully or difficult. The results of this experiment compared to ours in that again the concrete nouns were recalled better than the abstract nouns. Paivio, Clark and Khan (1988) explored the effects of concreteness and relations of words on composite imagery and cued recall.
They found that their subjects were able to recall more concrete than abstract pairs. When their subjects were shown only the stimuli, they were able to remember more complete images for unrelated concrete pairs than for the related abstract pairs. Their experiment also requested the subjects to rate the vividness of the imagery for the stimuli. Ratings for vividness were higher for related abstract pairs than for unrelated concrete pairs Day and Bellezza (1983) looked into if the formation of a visual image will result in greater performance in paired associate learning tasks. They also explored imagery and relatedness.
In their results they found that relatedness was a significant factor in the recall of concrete noun pairs. They also had their participants rate the noun pairs on their imagery. The participants rated the concrete noun pairs with higher imagery than the abstract noun pairs. And for the noun pairs that were related words, imagery was rated higher than unrelated noun pairs. A related pair of abstract noun pairs, rated higher in imagery than unrelated concrete noun pairs. Crawford and Allen (1996) took a group of participants and looked at the effects of hypnosis levels and visualization abilities. Participants were tested on the Harvard Group Scale and the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility scale.
After the results came back the subjects that scored high or low consistently were chosen. The chosen participants were given paired list and told to try to remember them in any way. Then subjects were given one word from the pair and asked to recall the other. The words were high and low imagery words. Several participants were able to recall the correctly all of the high imagery word pairings. The performance of those who were highly insusceptible to hypnosis showed a significant enhancement in the total of words they were able to recall during hypnosis. Those that were low in susceptibility to hypnosis were able to recall more words than who are highly susceptible to in the woke condition.MethodParticipants The experiment consisted of 20 Cleveland State University Students both male and female enrolled in an experimental psychology lab course; no other requirements were given for participation in experiment.
The experimenter was a male graduate student at Cleveland State University. He was not enrolled in the course.Materials Two decks of cards were used, words were written in black ink on 3X4 inch index cards.
The first deck of cards bared 38 word-pairing nouns 15 were concrete nouns, 15 were abstract nouns, at the beginning and end of the deck four neutral imagery cards were placed to minimize the primacy and recency effect. This is in reference to Richardson (1985) stating that words that are mostly remembered are administered at the beginning or the end of the list causing the position effect. The second deck of cards contained 30 cards, single words on each card. Fifteen cards consisted of concrete nouns, and 15 abstract nouns all with one word on each card. These were also on 3X4 inch index cards written in black ink, the 30 words in the second deck were all previously exposed in the first deck. All cards were handwritten.
All words that were used were same as Paivio (1969)Procedure Opening we will get a brief example of exactly what concrete nouns and abstract nouns are. Concrete nouns are words that represent objects and substances; they exist physically meaning they can be touched such as a person, a phone, a door. Not only can you place your hand on these items you can also get a picture of what the items are. Whereas abstract nouns are the opposite, these nouns relate to things having no physical existence non representable, such as feelings, happiness, idea, truth.
In pairings for concrete you would run into examples such as spoon-bowl, elbow- rock. Where law-ability, hour-time would be pairings or abstract nouns. Twenty students participated in a study to satisfy a class requirement for psychology 412 this is a lab course. The study took place over three days on the first day seven students participated in the study, the second day another seven students and on the third and final day six students participated in study. During the study only one student was brought into the classroom at a time, the classroom was quiet. The subject was seated in a chair with back support in the middle of the classroom in the front row directly in front of the experimenter that stood at a podium in front of the class, facing the participant.
The experimenter presented two decks of cards; he provided brief instructions of the experiment. Participants were told you as a subject will be shown groups of words. The participants were told to memorize which word was paired with that word in the first deck. Following the presentation of the first deck of cards, the experimenter would then show the second deck of cards and the participant would have one opportunity to recall the correct word to complete the pair. The experimenter began the experiment. The participant was presented with the first deck of cards, one at a time for five seconds each.
Once the first deck of cards was completed the experimenter presented deck two one card at a time for five seconds each. In that five seconds one of three things could happen you guessed correctly, you guessed incorrectly or you ran out of time. After each card was administered he wrote down correct, incorrect, or no answer.Once the participant finished going through the second deck of cards the experiment was complete and the participant was asked to leave the room and to send in the next student. After we left the classroom the experimenter recorded the results for abstract and concrete nouns, with a pencil.
Data collection took three days then all information was tallied.ResultsMean for the recall of concrete nouns in our experiment was 7.65. The mean for the recall of the abstract nouns was 1.15. The standard deviation for the concrete noun recall was 3.0211.
The standard deviation for the abstract noun recall was 1.4239. The degree of freedom for both conditions was 19.
Using a correlated t-test the results of the recall of concrete nouns versus abstract nouns were significant t (19) = 9.35, P