1. Nicole Burden, Maura Dooley, Jane Neal (Graduate student mentor), and
Dr. Katja Wiemer (Faculty mentor)
Department of Psychology, Northern Illinois University
Memory representations of abstract and concrete causal item pairs
Introduction
Causal-model theory
•causal order of events are stored in
memory through experience and learning
Associative learning
•retrieval from memory is based on the
strength of the relationship between events
Fenker, Waldmann, and Holyoak (2005)
•Causal relations are retrieved from
memory and assessed more quickly when
presented in the predictive (cause - effect)
direction- how events are most commonly
experienced
•Slower responses when causal relations
are presented in the diagnostic (effect -
cause) direction- order in this case doesn’t
match memory representation
Experiment 1
Is the difference between predictive and
diagnostic direction the same for abstract
and concrete concepts?
Experiment 2
Aim
• Test whether there is a difference
between predictive and diagnostic
order when making associative
evaluations
• Increase participant accuracy and
replicate the findings of Experiment 1
Predictions
1.There will be no effect of direction
when participants are asked to decide if
pairs are associated but not causally
related
2.There will be a larger effect of direction
for concrete pairs
Preliminary Results
Prediction 1: There will be no effect of direction for the associative task
• No sig. differences p’s>0.5
Prediction 2: There will be a bigger effect of direction for concrete pairs in the
causal task
•Concrete pairs: t(43)= 3.695, p<.001, Cohen’s d= 0.557
•Abstract pairs: t(43)= 3.447, p=.001, Cohen’s d= 0.520
Method
Design
2 (Abstract vs. Concrete pairs) x 2 (Direction:
Predictive vs. Diagnostic) x 2 Task instructions
(Associative vs. Causal)
Participants: N=94 undergraduates
Causal task: Are the word pairs causally related?
• N= 80 causal pairs; 40 Abstract and 40 concrete
• N= 80 unrelated ; 40 abs. and 40 conc.
Associative task: Are the word pairs related in any
way? (associated)
• N= 64 causal pairs; 32 abs. and 32 conc.
• N= 32 associated pairs; 16 abs. and 16 conc.
• N= 96 unrelated pairs, 48 abs. and 48 conc.
Word pairs were presented in both the predictive
and diagnostic direction, and order of predictive
and diagnostic blocks was counterbalanced across
8 versions of the experiment (4 per instruction type)
921.9
854.26
1034.87
912.35919.04
860.13
1229.08
1126.2
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Abstract Concrete Abstract Concrete
Participant RTs in Msec
Predictive
Diagnostic
Associated instructions Causal instructions
*
*
Discussion
• The results of Exp. 1 were partly replicated
• Participants were faster to respond to pairs in the predictive direction,
but the effect was similar for both abstract and concrete pairs
• This was found only when participants were evaluating causality, not
associations
• Along with the results of Fenker et al. (2005), this suggests that causal
relations may be stored in memory
• Future work
• Examine an items analysis and analyze text corpora to see how often
the causal pairs are encountered in the predictive vs. diagnostic
direction in text
References
Fenker, D. B., Waldmann, M. R., & Holyoak, K. J. (2005). Accessing causal relations in semantic memory. Memory &
Cognition, 33(6), 1036-1046.
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Abstract Concrete
Predictive Diagnostic
*Only a sig. difference for concrete pairs
Predictive Diagnostic
Abstract Entertainment- Fun
Loss- Grief
Fun- Entertainment
Grief- Loss
Concrete Virus- Infection
Storm- Flooding
Infection– Virus
Flooding- Storm
Example trial
+
LOSS
GRIEF
The second word
replaced the first
word, and
remained on
screen until the
response was
given
The first word was
presented for 1,000 msec
Blank screen presented for
500 msec
Fixation cross presented
for 1,000 msec
*