Abstract
Three studies are presented which suggest that previously reported evidence ( Begg & Paivio, 1969 ) for different modes of storage of abstract and concrete sentences is more likely to reflect differences in comprehension of the abstract and concrete materials used. In Experiment I, S s hearing concrete sentences were later able to distinguish between meaning-preserving and meaning-distorting sentences, whereas S s hearing abstract sentences did not respond to these two types of sentences significantly differently. Experiments II and III present rating data which indicate that the abstract and concrete materials used in Experiment I and in Begg and Paivio's original experiment were not equivalent in comprehensibility or in the sensitivity of the recognition items.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
