Cover not available

In:Perspectives on Abstract Concepts: Cognition, language and communication
Edited by Marianna Bolognesi and Gerard J. Steen
[Human Cognitive Processing 65] 2019
► pp. 121–144

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 6
Determinants of abstractness and concreteness and their persuasive effects

Published online: 6 June 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.65.07hus
Abstract
The writing guideline to avoid abstractness and to use concrete language instead has a long and well-deserved reputation. Nevertheless, it is not clear what constitutes concrete language. In this chapter we report two studies. The first investigates the determinants of concreteness and abstractness using a rating task. The results show that for all word classes sensory perceptibility is an important component and that the determinants specificity and drawability/filmability vary with word class. In the second study, we used the insights from study 1 to manipulate a text from the National Budgeting Institute (Nibud) that addresses adolescents from different educational levels. The results only show effects of educational level on comprehension and persuasive power; no effects of concreteness were found. The studies raise issues about the validity of the writing guideline to be concrete.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Study 1: Determinants of concreteness and abstractness
    • 2.1Method
      • 2.1.1Word list
      • 2.1.2Participants and procedure
      • 2.1.3Results
    • 2.2Conclusion and discussion
  • 3.Study 2: Effects of concreteness
    • 3.1Introduction
    • 3.2Method
      • 3.2.1Materials
        • Original version
        • Abstract version
        • Concrete version
        • Concrete version with detailed examples
      • 3.2.2Participants and design
      • 3.2.3Instruments
      • 3.2.4Procedure
      • 3.2.5Statistical analysis
    • 3.3Results
      • 3.3.1Text appreciation
      • 3.3.2Persuasive impact
      • 3.3.3Comprehensibility
      • 3.3.4Other measures
    • 3.4Conclusion and discussion
  • 4.General discussion
  • Acknowledgment
  • Notes
  • References
References (33)
References
Brysbaert, M., Stevens, M., De Deyne, S., Voorspoels, W., & Storms, G. 2014. Norms of age of acquisition and concreteness for 30,000 Dutch words. Acta Psychologica 150, 80–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coltheart, M. 1981. The MRC psycholinguistic database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 33A, 497–505. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Connell, L., & Lynott, D. 2012. Strength of perceptual experience predicts word processing performance better than concreteness or imageability. Cognition 125(3), 452–465. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Douma, P. 1994. Wees zo concreet mogelijk. Schrijfadviseurs over concreet en abstract taalgebruik. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 16(1), 16–31.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ernestus, M., & Cutler, A. 2015. BALDEY: A database of auditory lexical decisions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 68, 8, 1469–1488. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frey, K. P., & Eagly, A. H. 1993. Vividness can undermine the persuasiveness of messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65(1), 32–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibson, R., & Zillmann, D. 1994. Exaggerated versus representative exemplification in news reports: Perception of issues and personal consequences. Communication Research 21(5), 603–624. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gowers, S. E. 1986. The complete plain words. Revised ed. by S. Greenbaum & J. Whitcut. London: Guild Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. M. 2011. Coh-Metrix: Providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher 40(5), 223–234. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guadagno, R. E., Rhoads, K. V. L., & Sagarin, B. J. 2011. Figural vividness and persuasion: Capturing the “elusive” vividness effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 37(5), 626–638. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. 2010. Truth from language and truth from fit: The impact of linguistic concreteness and level of construal on subjective truth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36(11), 1576–1588. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hustinx, L., & de Wit, E. 2012. Kunnen levendige getuigenissen je achter de tralies doen belanden? Een experimenteel onderzoek naar het effect van levendig taalgebruik op oordelen over schuld bij leken en ‘experts’. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 34(3), 213–228. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Loon-Vervoorn, W. A. 1985. Voorstelbaarheidswaarden van Nederlandse woorden. Lisse: Swetz and Zeitlinger.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McMaster, K. L., Van den Broek, P., Espin, C. A., White, M. J., Rapp, D. N., Kendeou, P., Bohn-Gettler, C. M., & Carlson, S. 2012. Making the right connections: Differential effects of reading intervention for subgroups of comprehenders. Learning and Individual Differences 22(1), 100–111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M., & Cai, Z. 2014. Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oostdijk, N., Reynaert, M., Monachesi, P., Noord, G. van Ordelman, R., Schuurman, I., & Vandeghinste, V. 2008. From D-Coi to SoNaR: A reference corpus for Dutch. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, J. Odijk, S. Piperidis, & D. Tapias (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08). Marrakech: European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Available from [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Orwell, G. 1961. Politics and the English language. In G. Orwell, Collected essays (337–351). London and Liverpool: Mercury Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paivio, A. 1971. Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1986. Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. 1968. Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph Supplement 76(1p2), 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pettus, C., & Diener, E. 1977. Factors affecting the effectiveness of abstract versus concrete information. The Journal of Social Psychology 103(2), 233–242. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reyes, R. M., Thompson, W. C., & Bower, G. H. 1980. Judgmental biases resulting from differing availabilities of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39(1), 2–12. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2001. Resolving the effects of concreteness on interest, comprehension, and learning important ideas from text. Educational Psychology Review 13(3), 263–281.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sadoski, M., Goetz, E. T., & Rodriguez, M. 2000. Engaging texts: Effects of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest and recall in four text types. Journal of Educational Psychology 92(1), 85–95. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, T., Land, J., & Mulder, G. 2007. Linguistics markers of coherence improve text comprehension in functional contexts. Information Design Journal 15(3), 219–235. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scharrer, L., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. 2014. You’d better ask an expert: Mitigating the comprehensibility effect on laypeople’s decisions about science-based knowledge claims. Applied Cognitive Psychology 28(4), 465–471. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shedler, J., & Manis, M. 1986. Can the availability heuristic explain vividness effects? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(1), 26–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silfhout, G. van, Evers-Vermeul, J., Mak, W. M., & Sanders, T. J. M. 2014. Connectives and layout as processing signals: How textual features affect students’ processing and text representation. Journal of Educational Psychology 106(4), 1036–1048. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, S. M., & Shaffer, D. R. 2000. Vividness can undermine or enhance message processing: The moderating role of vividness congruency. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26(7), 769–779. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spooren, W., Smith, B., & Renkema, J. 2000. De invloed van stijl en type argumentatie op de overtuigingskracht van een direct mail. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 22, 344–357.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spreen, O., & Schulz, R. W. 1966. Parameters of abstraction, meaningfulness, and pronounceability for 329 nouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 5(5), 459–468. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. 1973. Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology 5(2), 207–232. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue