Following Morris & Reid (1972), two groups of Ss were each given a different version of the same passage to read for comprehension. Version H had high-imagery adjectives, Version L had low-imagery adjectives. Both groups were then tested for free recall of adjectives and adjective-cued recall of nouns. Significant differences were found in mean number of adjectives and mean number of nouns recalled. A direct function was implied between number of adjectives recalled and adjectives correctly recalled and then correctly paired with nouns.
Word concreteness was shown to have a differential effect on recognition-cued recall differences for noun-adjective pairs in a variant of the Tulving and Thomson (1973) paradigm. Consistent with the notion of integration of concrete word pairs, cued recall was superior to recognition for concrete-concrete pairs, but not for other pair types. For abstract-concrete and abstract-abstract pairs the data suggested that recognition was superior to recall. For concrete-abstract pairs there was no difference between recognition and recall. This study was prompted by an attempt to investigate further the notions of encoding specificity (Tulving & Thomson, 1973) and integration of concrete word pairs (Begg, 1972). Olson (1974) showed that the superiority of cued recal1 over recognition performance, found by Tulving and Thomson (1973) only holds for items that could be categorized as noun-adjective pairs. Further examination of the noun-adjective pairs used suggests that they are all concrete-concrete items. Begg (1972) has shown that concrete-concrete adjective-noun pairs lead to better performance on a cued recall task as compared with a free recal1 task for the adjective members of the pairs. Begg argued that this is due to integrated memory structures aroused by concrete-concrete pairs.This study investigates the hypothesis that one factor that affects recall-recognition differences is the degree of integration of a given pair of words. It is proposed that a pair of concrete words is more likely to be encoded as an integrated unit and performance on a cued recall task would be relatively better in the Tulving and Thomson paradigm. On the other hand, word pairs other than concrete-concrete tend not be encoded as integrated units and recognition would be expected to be better than recall. METHOD SubjectsThe subjects were IS volunteers from the introductory psychology course at Brooklyn College. MaterialsThree lists of noun-adjective pairs were constructed . One of the lists, the crit ical list, was used to test the experimental hypothesis while the other two were "priming" lists. Th e critical list was composed of both "high" and " low concreteness' nouns from the Paivio, Yuille, and Madigan (1968) norms, and "high" and "low concreteness' adjectives used by Begg (1972). Stimulus and response concreteness were varied factorially, yielding six pairs each of concrete-concrete (CC), concre te-abstract (CA), abstract-concrete (AC), and abstract-abstract (AA) words . An independent judge with experi ence in the verbal learning area selected pairs so that they were approximately equal in
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.