Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42204047›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2026

Adding volition to word processing: Expected utility norms for 80,000 English words and multiword expressions.

Andrew Wang, Marc Brysbaert, Fritz Günther

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Andrew WangMelbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, 3010, Australia. andreww3.wang@gmail.com.
Marc BrysbaertDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Fritz GüntherDepartment of Psychology, Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study examined the concept of word usefulness by analyzing expected utility ratings for over 80,000 English words and multiword expressions. Participants used best-worst ratings to indicate how useful it is to know each word/expression. Our findings show a high level of agreement regarding the usefulness of words and expressions. Stimuli were rated as more useful if they were more frequent, widely known, learned early in life, and central to the semantic network. Concreteness had a substantial negative correlation, indicating that abstract words in general received higher utility scores than concrete words. Positive stimuli received slightly lower utility scores than negative stimuli. Expected utility was a good predictor of which words are known to speakers of English as a first and second language, but did not contribute to predicting response times to known words. These findings suggest that expected utility is a variable affecting which words are likely to be learned, but does not affect word processing times (much). The expected utility scores are freely available for research and education.

Indexed as

LanguageVocabularyWord ProcessingFemaleHumansMaleReaction TimeSemanticsExpected utilityLexical decisionMultiword expressionsWord recognition

Identifiers

PMID42204047
PMCPMC13216137

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.