ArticleBehavior research methods2026
Distinguishing abstraction from abstractness: Specificity norms for 8,500 English words.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Psycholinguistic norms quantify dimensions of word form, use, and/or meaning and are important for studies involving word stimuli. Among the most commonly used norms are those for concreteness, quantifying the degree to which a word's referent can be understood through the senses. The dimension of concreteness has been found to be related to performance in language processing and memory tasks, yet recent research suggests that (1) ratings of concreteness may be conflated with how specific a word's meaning is, and (2) concreteness and specificity may have opposite effects on lexical-semantic processing. In the present study, we collected specificity scores for a large sample of English words, assessed their reliability and validity, and tested their relationships to lexical processing and memory accuracy. We found that specificity and concreteness are indeed correlated and have different behavioural effects. This large dataset of specificity scores will be an important resource for future lexical-semantic studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41673344What 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.