The Concreteness Effect in Implicit and Explicit Memory Tests

Retrieval contexts and the concreteness effect: Dissociations in memory for concrete and abstract words

“…As predicted, Hamilton and Rajaram (2001) observed concreteness effects on both conceptual explicit tests (free recall, explicit general knowledge) and no concreteness effect on their perceptual implicit test (implicit word-fragment completion). However, the predicted concreteness effects were not observed on the conceptual implicit test (implicit general knowledge) or on the perceptual explicit test (explicit word-fragment completion).…”

“…The present study considers whether the concreteness effect arises in retrieval contexts other than purely conceptual explicit memory tests, building on recent research by Hamilton and Rajaram (2001). Before introducing in detail the rationale for the present research, we first consider limiting encoding and retrieval contexts as suggested by two of the most influential process theories of the concreteness effect, namely dual coding theory (Paivio, 1971(Paivio, , 1986(Paivio, , 1991 and the relational-distinctiveness processing framework (Marschark & Hunt, 1989;Marschark & Surian, 1992).…”

“…To date, only Hamilton and Rajaram (2001) have systematically considered the concreteness effect in retrieval contexts other than explicit conceptual memory tests. Their second experiment is of particular interest because it compared a broad range of retrieval contexts: free recall, implicit and explicit versions of a (conceptual) general knowledge test, and explicit and implicit versions of a (perceptual) word-fragment completion test.…”

To watch, to see, and to differ: An event-related potential study of concreteness effects as a function of word class and lexical ambiguity

“…Concreteness effects have been robustly demonstrated for nouns in behavioral studies (Hamilton & Rajaram, 2001;Paivio, Walsh, & Bons, 1994; for review, see also Paivio, Yuille, & Madigan, 1968), hemodynamic imaging studies (Jessen et al, 2000;Sabsevitz, Medler, Seidenberg, & Binder, 2005), and electrophysiological studies Kounios & Holcomb, 1994;West & Holcomb, 2000). However, the basis (or bases) of these effects, and their generalizability, has remained unclear.…”

Evidence for an implicit influence of memory on future thinking

“…Indeed, this appears to be the case (again, even though the participants are not aware that this is happening). For instance, participants are more likely to correctly answer general knowledge questions if they were exposed to the answer in an unrelated learning phase (e.g., Blaxton, 1989;Challis & Sidhu, 1993;Hamilton & Rajaram, 2001). Similarly, participants are more likely to incorporate a critical exemplar (typically of low frequency; e.g., cheetah) during a category instance generation task (e.g., list the first eight animals that come to mind; see Geraci & Rajaram, 2004;McDermott & Roediger, 1996;Mulligan, 1997;Rappold & Hashtroudi, 1991;Srinivas & Roediger, 1990) if they have been previously exposed to that item.…”