Journal of Experimental Psychology

1969, Vol. 79, No. 1, 12-17

RETRIEVAL ASYMMETRY IN THE RECALL OF

ADJECTIVES AND NOUNS 1
ROBERT S. LOCKHART 2
Pennsylvania State University

Three experiments were reported in which 5"s were given a one-trial study-
test paired-associate task and instructed that either word of each pair might
be given as the cue for recall. If associations are symmetrical, the probability
of correct recall should be independent of the word given as the cue. In
Exp. I, two lists of adjective-concrete noun pairs were used. The results
showed recall to be independent of presentation order but superior when
cued with the noun. The results of Exp. II showed this symmetry effect to
be a consequence of the relative abstractness of adjectives rather than of
grammatical factors. This conclusion was supported by a further experiment
in which no asymmetry was obtained when adjectives were paired with
abstract nouns. The results were consistent with an interpretation in terms
of the differential retrieval cues provided by abstract and concrete stimuli.

The distinction between the associative
and response learning stages in paired-asso-
ciate (PA) learning (Underwood & Shulz,
1960) has much in common with the distinc-
tion drawn between the accessibility and
availability of verbal items (Handler, 1967;
Tulving & Pearlstone, 1966). If the cor-
rect response (B) is to be given to the
stimulus item (A), then B must be present
in storage (i.e., available) and the stimulus,
A, must provide accessibility or associative
cues that will lead to the retrieval of B from
among the total pool of available items.
This distinction has been used in support-
ing a principle of associative symmetry
(Asch & Ebenholtz, 1962; Horowitz, Nor-
man, & Day, 1966). As formulated by
Horowitz et al., this hypothesis states that
an association between two verbal units,
A-B, is symmetrical if A and B are equally
available. Apparent asymmetries obtained
from measures such as backward recall in a
typical PA task are attributed to the differ-
ential availability of the stimulus and re-
sponse items; the fact that 5"s are always
presented with the stimulus item but have to
recall the response item from memory pro-
motes the relative availability of the latter.
Consider however, a one-trial study-test
PA task in which, for the study trial, there
1 An alternative interpretation is that the re-
This research was supported by National In-
stitute of Child Health and Human Development
Grant HD00151.
2
Now at the University of Toronto.
12
is no distinction between stimulus and re-
sponse. The 5s are presented with PA
items for one study trial and instructed that
they will be given one (either) item from
each pair as a cue stimulus for the recall of
the remaining element (cf. Murdock,
1966b). If the items are high-frequency
words and are assumed therefore to be
readily available, then the situation should
be a favorable one for the demonstration of
associative symmetry; the probability of cor-
rect recall should be independent of the par-
ticular item given as the cue. This specific
hypothesis will be referred to as retrieval
symmetry.
There is some evidence to suggest that
for certain word combinations associations
are not established symmetrically. Kusys-
zyn and Paivio (1966) have shown that
the recall of adjective-noun (A-N) pairs is
a function of word order, performance being
superior when they are presented in the
order N-A. Such a finding is not neces-
sarily evidence against the principle of asso-
ciative symmetry since it can be argued that
for a given order of presentation (A-N or
N-A), associations are symmetrical but that
a stronger association is established for the
N-A order. This explanation stresses the
order of presentation as the critical variable.
sults are independent of the order of pre-
sentation but are a function of the differen-
tial retrieval cues provided by a particular
 RETRIEVAL ASYMMETRY IN RECALL OF WORDS
word (A or N) given as the stimulus for
recall. These alternatives are investigated
in Exp. I.
EXPERIMENT I
In this experiment recall of A-N pairs
was investigated as a function of presenta-
tion order (A-N or N-A) and of the cue
for recall (A or N). A third factor con-
sidered, and one which is of interest in the
use of grammatically structured sequences
such as A-N pairs, is the operation of selec-
tion restrictions (Chomsky, 1965; Katz &
Postal, 1964). Given one word of the pair,
such rules limit the lexical items with which
that word might be paired. Thus, given
the noun "grass," the qualifying adjective
"short" meets the selection restrictions, but
the adjective "angry" does not. Such pair-
ings will be termed appropriate and anomal-
ous, respectively. Some evidence for the
effect of selection rules in the learning of
grammatically structured sequences has been
reported by Rohwer (1966).
Method
Lists.In order to control existing association
strength between the A-N pairs, restricted asso-
ciation norms were compiled by obtaining noun
responses to 120 adjectives, and adjective responses
to 120 nouns. These norms are based on single
responses from independent samples, i.e., each of
70 college students instructed to respond with the
first word (of the specified form class) that came to
mind.
These norms were used to construct two lists,
each consisting of 40 A-N pairs. All nouns were
highly concrete. Concreteness was established us-
ing the rating procedure of Spreen and Shulz
(1966); a noun was considered concrete if it
received a mean rating (based on 20 5"s) of 6.0
or above on the 7-point scale. List 1 contained
40 appropriate A-N pairs in which neither ele-
ment elicited the other with a frequency greater
than one according to the restricted norms. Sam-
ple items are: small apple, heavy cake, warm dress,
ordinary glove. List 2 contained the same nouns
as in List 1 but paired with adjectives such that
the pairing was anomalous. Sample items from
List 2 are: busy apple, loud cake, slow dress, clever
glove.
Procedure.The one-trial study-test procedure
outlined previously was used. The 5"s were allowed
20 sec. to study each of the 40 pairs and were in-
structed that either word of the pair might be
given them as the cue for recalling the other mem-
ber. Each of the stimulus pairs was typed on
13
a blank IBM card. At 20-sec. intervals a buzzer
sounded and 6" turned to the next card. Recall
was unpaced; S was given a deck of cards with
one word typed on each and was instructed to
write in the missing member, working systematically
through the deck, attempting only one item at a
time and never returning to a prior card.
While it would be desirable to obtain recall
scores for both adjective and noun cueing from the
same 5" on the same item, such a procedure is
inappropriate since the two recalls are not inde-
pendent; the first recall constitutes a possible
second learning trial which would augment per-
formance on the second recall of that pair. To
overcome this difficulty each 5"s recall was cued
with the noun for half the items and with the
adjective for the other half. The particular items
constituting these halves were counterbalanced
across 5"s so that each item was cued with adjec-
tive and noun for an equal number of 5"s. The
order in which the words were typed on the stim-
ulus cards was similarly counterbalanced. Thus,
each S had 10 items in each of the four combina-
tions of conditions derivable from the presentation
order (A-N or N-A) combined with the cue
for recall (A or N), the items constituting these
blocks being counterbalanced across 5*s such that
each item was placed in each of these conditions for
an equal number of 5s. Study and recall card
decks were well shuffled for each 61 to ensure
a random sequential order of presentation.
Subjects.Forty undergraduate students enrolled
in an introductory psychology course at Penn-
sylvania State University served as >?s, for which
they received extra grade points. Twenty 5"s were
assigned randomly to each list and within each list
randomly assigned to one of the four blocks. Test-
ing was conducted in groups of between four and
six 5"s.
Results and Discussion
The mean recall scores for the various
conditions are given in Table 1. The order
of presentation has no effect, F < 1, nor is
its interaction with lists or cue stimulus
significant, F < 1 in each case. The su-
TABLE 1
MEAN NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES FOR LISTS 1
AND 2 IN Exp. I
List 1 List 2
Presenta-
tion Cue Cue
Order Total Total
A N A N
A-N 5.75 8.30 14.05 4.80 6.50 11.30
N-A 5.75 8.40 14.15 5.35 6.50 11.85
Total 11.50 16.70 28.20 10.15 13.00 23.15
14 ROBERT S. LOCKHART
periority of recall with noun as compared
with adjective cueing is quite substantial,
-F (1, 38) = 81.4, p < .01. This difference
was obtained for both lists: for List 1, t (38)
= 11.6, p < .01, and for List 2, t (38) =
7.1, p < .01. However, this difference be-
tween adjective and noun cueing is greater
for appropriate pairs (List 1) than for
anomalous pairs (List 2 ) ; the interaction
Lists X Cue yields F (1, 38) = 6.63, p <
.05. Finally, recall (irrespective of cue) is
superior for List 1 than for List 2, F (I,
38) = 4.31, p < .05.
These results display a very pronounced
effect of retrieval asymmetry which is clearly
independent of the order of presentation.
Moreover, while they indicate that adher-
ence to the selection rules governing the
appropriateness of A-N combinations exerts
a facilitating effect on recall and leads to
some increase in the superiority of noun
over adjective cueing, this influence is small
when compared to the main effect across
both lists.
It may be concluded, therefore, that when
S"s are presented with A-N combinations,
such words are associatively linked in a
manner which results in retrieval asym-
metry, recall being superior when cued with
the noun. Experiment I, however, provides
little information concerning the basis of
tnis observed asymmetry. Two possible
interpretations may be considered. First,
the effect might be attributed to the relative
abstractness of adjectives as compared with
concrete nouns. The word-order effect re-
ported by Kusyszyn and Paivio (1966)
also has been obtained when abstract nouns
are paired with concrete nouns (e.g., Paivio,
1965, 1967; Paivio & Olver, 1964). It has
been found that concreteness facilitates recall
with the effect being greater on the stimulus
side. The fact that adjectives and abstract
nouns have much in common in this respect
is evidenced by the high frequency with
which adjectives have abstract noun counter-
parts (e.g., danger-dangerous), the form
class being marked by the presence or ab-
sence of a final morpheme. This interpreta-
tion in tefms of abstractness denies the im-
portance of form class as such. Second, the
effect might be essentially a function of the
form class relationship of noun qualifier.
These alternatives are considered in Exp. II.
EXPERIMENT II
Method
Word lists.Two lists of 36 pairs were con-
structed for this experiment. Thirty-six adjec-
tives with abstract noun equivalents were selected.
The adjective and noun were related in one of
three ways: (a) the adjective was formed by the
addition of a morpheme to the noun, e.g., danger-
dangerous; (6) the noun was formed by the addi-
tion of a morpheme to the adjective, e.g., honest-
honesty; and (c) the form class transformation is
effected by a change in the stem or a change in
the final morpheme, e.g., proud-pride, confident-
confidence. In order to counterbalance any dif-
ferential effect of these three relationships an
equal number (12) of each kind was included.
The two lists then were constructed by pairing each
adjective anomalously with a concrete noun (List
3) and pairing the same concrete noun with the
abstract noun equivalent of the adjective (List 4).
Hence, these two lists differ only to the extent of
a morpheme marking the form class of one member
in each pair. Since the A-N pairings are anomal-
ous, the possible effects of selection restrictions have
been minimized. Sample items from List 3 are:
agreeable pocket, angry bottle, careful butter,
courageous hammer, happy tree, honest piano.
Samples from List 4 are: agreement pocket, anger
bottle, care butter, courage hammer, happiness tree,
honesty piano.
Procedure.The procedure used was identical to
that of the previous experiment. The same coun-
terbalancing of conditions was employed and ex-
tended to hold for each of the sublists of 12 items
representing the three kinds of adjective abstract
noun relationships.
Subjects.Forty undergraduate students enrolled
in an introductory psychology course served as Ss.
Twenty .9s were assigned randomly to each list,
and within lists were assigned randomly to one of
the counterbalancing conditions. The experiment
was conducted in groups of between four and six 5"s.
Results
As in the previous experiment, the effect
of presentation order was not significant,
F < 1. Table 2 gives the mean recall for
Lists 3 and 4 as a function of the cue stim-
ulus. Recall is superior when cued with the
concrete noun, F (1, 38) = 16.1, p < .01.
However, neither the effect of lists nor the
interaction Lists X Cue is significant, F < 1,
and F (1, 38) = 1.9, p > .05, respectively.
The absence of an effect attributable to this
interaction indicates that form class per se
 RETRIEVAL ASYMMETRY IN RECALL OF WORDS IS

TABLE 2 nificant, Fs < 1 for the first two, and F (1,

MEAN NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES FOR LISTS 3 19) = 2.7, p > .05, for the interaction.
AND 4 IN Exp. II
List 3 List 4 GENERAL DISCUSSION
Retrieval asymmetry was found to occur in
Cue M Cue M
four of the five lists used in the present experi-
A 8.60 N (Abstract) 8.85 ments. It occurs when adjectives are paired
N (Concrete) 11.50 N (Concrete) 10.60 with concrete nouns (Lists 1, 2, and 3) and
Total 20.10 19.45 when abstract nouns are paired with concrete
nouns (List 4). It does not occur when ad-
does not contribute to the asymmetry effect. jectives and abstract nouns are paired (List
As far as recall is concerned, Lists 3 and 4 5). The results of Exp. II and III demon-
strate that concreteness and not grammatical
function as equivalent. structure is the crucial variable in accounting
An obvious implication of the results of for the observed asymmetry.
Exp. II is that when adjectives are paired An interesting feature of the results is that
with abstract nouns, no retrieval asymmetry they cannot be accounted for simply in terms
should be obtained. This prediction is tested of the properties of the to-be-recalled items.
in Exp. III. If high-frequency A-N pairs of low association
strength are given in a free recall task, 5s do
EXPERIMENT III not recall more adjectives than nouns (Rosen-
Method berg, 1965, Exp. Ill); and, in a recognition-
memory task, Gorman (1961) found recognition
Word list.A list of 32 pairs (List 5) was con- memory for concrete nouns to be superior to
structed containing adjectives paired with ab- that for abstract nouns. It seems necessary,
stract nouns. The pairings were appropriate and therefore, to interpret the present results in
neither word elicited the other according to the
restricted association norms. All nouns had a terms of an asymmetry of retrieval or accessibil-
mean concreteness rating of 3.0 or less on the ity cues provided by the word given as the stim-
7-point scale. Sample items are: simple affair, ulus for recall. That is, adjective-concrete
foreign event, pleasant fact, careful action, noun pairs are associatively linked in such a
Procedure,The procedure and counterbalancing fashion that the concrete noun provides more
conditions were the same as those used in the cues for the retrieval of the adjective than is
previous two experiments. provided by the adjective for the retrieval of
Subjects.Twenty students from introductory the noun.
psychology classes served as 5s. They were as-
signed randomly to one of the counterbalancing One alternative explanation of this effect re-
conditions and tested in groups of between four quires consideration. It is not unreasonable to
and six 5s. suppose that one of the consequences of ab-
stractness is to reduce the degree of differen-
Results tiation or distinctiveness of such items. If it
is assumed that this reduction in differentiation
The mean recall scores for List 5 are
exerts a negative effect on recall and that the
given in Table 3. Neither the order of pre- effect is greater when such items are stimuli,
sentation, the form class of the cue stimulus, then it follows that recall will be poorer when
nor the interaction between the two is sig- adjectives or abstract nouns are given as the
cue.
TABLE 3 These two interpretations have quite differ-
MEAN NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES FOR LIST 5 ent implications for the observed distribution of
IN EXP. Ill errors. If the poorer recall obtained with ad-
jective cueing is attributable to their relative
Cue
Presentation lack of differentiation, then adjectives as
Order Total
A N
stimuli should result in a higher proportion of
intrusion errors than would occur with nouns
A-N 4.08 3.82 7.90 as stimuli. If, on the other hand, the results
N-A 3.43 4.15 7.58
Total 7.51 7.97 15.48 are interpreted in terms of the presence or
absence of retrieval cues, then the difference
16
TABLE 4
ANALYSIS OF ERRORS IN Ex p. I
Proportion of Errors
Cue
Omissions Intralist
Intrusions
List 1
A .79 .11
N .39 .24
List 2
A .74 .09
N .39 .27
in the distribution of errors should lie in the
higher proportion of omissions with adjective
cueing.
Table 4 gives an analysis of errors for the
results of Exp. I. This analysis offers no sup-
port for an interpretation in terms of stimulus
differentiation; in fact, more intrusions occur
with noun cueing. The difference between the
two conditions clearly lies in the number of
omissions. Combining Lists 1 and 2, a total
of 280 omissions occurred with adjective cue-
ing, representing 76% of all errors made under
this condition. The corresponding figures for
noun cueing are 81% and 39%. A sign test ap-
plied to the proportion of omissions for each
S under the two recall conditions shows this
difference to be significant, p < .01.
An interpretation of the results in terms of
mediating imagery can provide a plausible, if
somewhat speculative, account of both the
asymmetry effect and the error data. Accord-
ing to such an interpretation, the additional
retrieval cues available when the concrete noun
is given as the stimulus consist of imagery
components which mediate the recall of the
adjective or abstract noun. Such imagery,
being more closely linked to and more easily
aroused by the concrete word, is less likely
to be available when the abstract element is the
stimulus. The smaller proportion of omissions
with concrete noun cueing can then be ac-
counted for by assuming that under this condi-
tion the mediating imagery provides partial
information about the response which predis-
poses S to respond with a word he either con-
siders to be correct or which he believes has
a high probability of being correct. With ad-
jective or abstract noun cueing and the un-
availability of the mediator, 5" may literally
have no clue to the concrete item and thus give
no response at all.
Speculative explanations aside, it is clear
that any general formulation of a principle of
ROBERT S. LOCKHART
associative symmetry must take into account
properties of the verbal items other than those
affecting response availability. The results of
the present study show that the rated concrete-
ness of the cue relative to the to-be-recalled
Extralist item is one such property.
Intrusions
Finally, it should be pointed out that the
study time and retention intervals involved in
.10 the present experiments are such that any con-
.37 clusions apply only to retrieval from secondary
.17 memory (Waugh & Norman, 1965). The
.34 data have no direct relevance to the question
of associative symmetry in short-term memory
(Murdock, 1966a).
REFERENCES
ASCH, S. E., & EBENHOLTZ, S. M. The principle of
associative symmetry. Proceedings of the Amer-
ican Philosophical Society, 1962, 106, 135-163.
CHOMSKY, N. Aspects of the theory of syntax.
Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1965.
GORMAN, A. M. Recognition memory for nouns
as a function of abstractness and frequency.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1961, 61,
23-29.
HOROWITZ, L. M., NORMAN, S. A., & DAY, R. S.
Availability and associative symmetry. Psycho-
logical Review, 1966, 73,1-15.
KATZ, J. J., & POSTAL, P. M. An integrated theory
of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge, Mass.:
M.I.T. Press, 1964.
KUSYSZYN, L, & PAIVIO, A. Transition probability,
word order, and noun abstractness in the learn-
ing of adjective-noun paired associates. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 1966, 72, 800-805.
MANDLER, G. Verbal learning. In, New direc-
tions in psychology. III. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, 1967.
MURDOCK, B. B. Forward and backward associa-
tions in paired associates. Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology, 1966, 71, 732-737. (a)
MURDOCK, B. B. The criterion problem in short-
term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychol-
ogy, 1966, 72, 317-324. (b)
PAIVIO, A. Abstractness, imagery and meaningful-
ness in paired-associate learning. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1965, 4,
32-38.
PAIVIO, A. Paired-associate learning and free
recall of nouns as a function of concreteness,
specificity, imagery and meaningfulness. Psy-
chological Reports, 1967, 20, 239-245.
PAIVIO, A., & OLVER, M. Denotative-generality,
imagery and meaningfulness in paired-associate
learning of nouns. Psychonomic Science, 1964,
1,183-184.
ROHWER, W. D. Constraint, meaning and syntax
in paired-associate learning. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1966, 5, 541-547.
 RETRIEVAL ASYMMETRY IN RECALL OF WORDS
ROSENBERG, S. The influence of grammatical and
associative habits on verbal learning. In S.
Rosenberg (Ed.), Directions in psycholinguistics.
New York: Macmillan, 1965.
SPREEN, O., & SHULZ, R. W. Parameters of
abstractness, meaningfulness, and pronunciability
for 329 nouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behavior, 1966, S, 459-468.
TULVING, E., & PEARLSTONE, Z. Availability versus
accessibility of information in memory for words.
17
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Be-
havior, 1966, 5, 381-391.
UNDERWOOD, B. J., & SCHULZ, R. W. Meaningful-
ness and verbal learning. Philadelphia: Lippin-
cott, 1960.
WAUGH, N. C, & NORMAN, D. A. Primary
memory. Psychological Review, 1965, 72, 89-
104.
(Received December 30, 1967)