Department of Psychology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, A1B 3X9, Canada.
Mem Cognit. 2020 May;48(4):683-690. doi: 10.3758/s13421-019-00992-8.
Pollock (Behavior Research Methods doi:10.3758/s13428-017-0938-y, Pollock, 2018) points out that most memory experiments using abstract and concrete words have a potential confound: Raters express more disagreement, on average, about the rating for an abstract word than for a concrete word, as evidenced by the larger standard deviation of the rating (SDR). Therefore, past demonstrations of the concreteness effect could be explained by the disagreement hypothesis: Words that engender disagreement (i.e., have a larger SDR) are more difficult to remember than those that engender agreement (i.e., have a smaller SDR). Three experiments test predictions of the disagreement hypothesis. In Experiment 1, concreteness (abstract vs. concrete) and SDR size (small vs. large) were factorially manipulated. A concreteness effect was observed for both SDR sizes, but there was no effect of SDR and there were no interactions involving SDR. In Experiment 2, a concreteness effect was observed despite using abstract words with a small SDR and concrete words with a large SDR, the opposite of what the disagreement hypothesis predicts. Experiment 3 replicated Experiment 2 but with a larger set of stimuli. The results offer no support for the disagreement hypothesis.
波洛克(Pollock)(行为研究方法 doi:10.3758/s13428-017-0938-y,Pollock,2018)指出,大多数使用抽象词和具体词的记忆实验都存在潜在的混淆:与具体词相比,评分者对抽象词的评分平均存在更大的分歧,这表现在评分的标准差(SDR)更大。因此,过去对具体效应的证明可以用分歧假设来解释:引起分歧(即 SDR 较大)的词比引起一致意见(即 SDR 较小)的词更难记住。三个实验检验了分歧假设的预测。在实验 1 中,具体性(抽象与具体)和 SDR 大小(小与大)被进行了析因操作。两种 SDR 大小都观察到了具体效应,但 SDR 没有影响,也没有涉及 SDR 的相互作用。在实验 2 中,尽管使用了 SDR 较小的抽象词和 SDR 较大的具体词,但仍观察到了具体效应,这与分歧假设的预测相反。实验 3 复制了实验 2,但使用了更大的刺激集。结果对分歧假设没有支持。