ArticleCognitive processing2025
Specificity ratings for English data.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distinguishing abstraction from abstractness: Specificity norms for 8,500 English words.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Specificity effect in concrete/abstract semantic categorization task.Cognitive processing · 2026Article
- Red and blue language: Word choices in the Trump and Harris 2024 presidential debate.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Beyond concreteness: why word specificity is the missing piece in theories on embodied language comprehension.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A dataset of specificity ratings for English words is hereby presented, analyzed and discussed in relation with other collections of speaker-generated ratings, including concreteness. Both, specificity and concreteness are analyzed in their ability to explain decision latencies in lexical and semantic tasks, showing important individual contributions. Specificity ratings are collected through best-worst scaling method on the words included in the ANEW dataset (Bradley and Lang in Affective norms for English words (ANEW): instruction manual and affective ratings (Tech. Rep.). Technical report C-1, the center for research in psychophysiology, 1999), chosen for its compatibility with many other collections of rating resources, and for its comparability with Italian specificity data (Bolognesi and Caselli in Behav Res Methods 55(7):3531-3548, 2023), allowing for cross-linguistic comparisons. Results suggest that specificity plays an important role in word processing and the importance of taking specificity into consideration when investigating concreteness effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.