Measuring inconsistencies can lead you forward: Imageability and the x-ception theory

Accordingtothetraditionalview,bothimageabilityandconcretenessratingsreflectthewaywordmeaningsrelyoninformationmediatedbythesenses.Asaconsequence,thetwomeasuresshouldanddocorrelate.ThelinkbetweenthesetwoindexeswasalreadyhypothesizedanddemonstratedbyPaivioetal.(1968)inaseminalarticle,wheretheyintroducedtheideaofimageabilityratingsforthefirsttime.However,inthisfirststudy,theyalsonotedacontrastingpatternintheratingsforimageabilityandconcretenesswithsomewordsthatrefertoaffectiveattitudesoremotionalstatesreceivinghighimageabilitybutlowconcretenessratings.Recentstudiesconfirmthisinconsistency(e.g.,AltarribaandBauer,2004)leadingtotheclaimthatemotionwordsformaparticularclassoftermsdifferentfrombothconcreteandabstractwords.HereweusetheMRCpsycholinguisticdatabasetoshowthatthethereareotherclassesoftermsforwhichimageabilityandconcretenessareuncorrelated.Weshowthatthecommonfeatureofthesewordclassesisthattheydirectlyorindirectlyrefertoproprioceptive,interoceptive,oraffectivestates,i.e.,tointernal,body-related,sensoryexperiences.Thus,imageabilityandconcretenesscannolongerbeconsideredinterchangeableconstructs;rather,imageabilityisadifferent,andperhapsmoreinteresting,measure:itnotonlyreflectstheeasewithwhichmemoriesofexternaleventscometomind,aspreviouslyhypothesized,butalsoreflectstheeasewithwhichmemoriesofinternaleventscometomind.