Abstracts 2005 - The Psychonomic Society

Posters 1113–1119 Thursday Evening
A number of studies examining predictive inferences have found evidence
that they can be activated immediately after a biasing story
context. More recent research has also shown that in some situations,
predictive inferences can be encoded into memory. Although the nature
of the memory representation for predictive inferences is somewhat
unclear (i.e., specific inferences vs. general state changes), it is
clear that predictive inferences can be stored in memory. The present
study expanded upon earlier research and examined how inference
specificity affects the encoding of predictive inferences. Participants
read stories that have previously been shown to result in the encoding
of predictive inferences in one of three versions: one that was altered
to make the inference less compelling, one that mentioned a general
“state change” outcome, or one that explicitly mentioned the inference
outcome. Following a backgrounding second paragraph, a target line
explicitly mentioned the inference outcome, and reading times were
measured. Results are compared with previous findings and implications
for theories of discourse processing are considered.
(1113)
Predictive Inferences: The Interacting Influence of Context and
General World Knowledge. SABINE GUERAUD, University of New
Hampshire, ISABELLE TAPIERO, University of Lyon 2, & EDWARD J.
O’BRIEN, University of New Hampshire—Previous research has
demonstrated that the activation of predictive inferences can be affected
both by the immediately preceding context and information
contained in an earlier portion of the discourse model. Experiments 1
and 2 demonstrated that the same immediate context can result in the
activation of very different inferences when different character trait
descriptions of the protagonist are presented in an early portion of the
passage. Experiment 3 demonstrated that the trait descriptions were
sufficient to produce activation of only one specific inference; this occurred
even though the immediately preceding context in isolation lead
to the activation of a very different inference. Results of all three experiments
are discussed within the memory-based view of text processing.
(1114)
Resolving Inconsistencies During Reading. ANNE E. COOK, University
of Utah, & SABINE GUERAUD & EDWARD J. O’BRIEN,
University of New Hampshire—Previous research has shown a slowdown
in reading times on a target sentence (e.g., Mary ordered a
cheeseburger and fries) when that sentence was inconsistent with earlier
information (e.g., Mary was a vegetarian). The present study investigated
how readers resolved that inconsistency. A second target
sentence was added later in the text that was also inconsistent (e.g.,
Mary decided she wanted to eat a steak). In Experiment 1, reading
times did not slow down on this second target sentence, but did slow
down on the spillover sentence. In Experiment 2, the degree of inconsistency
was explicitly reduced (e.g., with the information that
Mary used to be a vegetarian). The slowdown in reading times became
evident on the target sentence. Thus, the slowdown in reading
for the second-target-sentence conditions was greater and more immediate
when the text provided a resolution for the first target sentence
than when the reader needed to generate one.
(1115)
Visual Perspective Taking in Narratives. ANGELA S. RALANO &
CELIA M. KLIN, SUNY, Binghamton—Horton and Rapp (2003) found
that readers sometimes encode information from the visual perspective
of story protagonists. The goal of the present research was to
replicate and extend these findings. In Experiment 1, we found that
after reading a narrative, participants responded more slowly to a
question about a target object if that object had been visually occluded
from the protagonist’s view (e.g., surfers occluded by fog). In Experiment
2, we used a recognition probe task and found that participants
responded more slowly in the occluded version than in a nonoccluded
version to a probe word representing the target object (e.g., surfers).
In Experiment 3, we measured reading time on a line that reintroduced
the targeted object. As in Experiments 1 and 2, reading times were
68
slower in the occluded version. We conclude that occluded objects are
less accessible in readers’ memory representations.
(1116)
Interactions Between Reader Characteristics and Text Properties in
Comprehension of Scientific Principles. PANAYIOTA KENDEOU
& PAUL VAN DEN BROEK, University of Minnesota—We investigated
the effects of accuracy of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension
of scientific texts. Think-aloud and reading-time results
indicated that differences in prior knowledge affected online inferential
processing, but only in terms of content and not in terms of the
processes per se. In addition, readers with inaccurate knowledge engaged
in conceptual change processes, but only when the text structure
foregrounded misconceptions (refutation structure). These online
effects were independent of readers’ working memory capacity and
need for cognition, although each of these factors influenced specific
reading situations (e.g., when the text was difficult). The results of a
recall task indicated that differences in prior knowledge, but not in
text structure, influenced readers’ memory for the texts. These offline
effects were also independent of readers’ working memory capacity
and need for cognition.
(1117)
Inferences and Cognitive Resources: A Knowledge Domain Issue?
CONNIE SHEARS, Chapman University—Cognitive resources are
required to form knowledge-based inferences. Comprehension relies
on our ability to form inferences from many knowledge domains.
Thus, specifying the resource differences between domains of knowledge
is important for understanding when comprehension processes
may be slowed or unsuccessful. Claims that cognitive resources are
differentially relied upon for types of inferences (predictive vs. explanatory)
have been examined, yet resource requirements may differ
at a more fundamental level. The knowledge drawn upon to form inferences
may itself depend on varying amounts of cognitive resources
to support the formation of causal inferences. I hypothesized that brief
narrative texts based on physical versus planning knowledge would
elicit differences in comprehension if these two knowledge domains
require varying amounts of cognitive resources. Results indicated that
answers to comprehension questions were faster and more accurate for
texts based on physical knowledge rather than planning knowledge.
However, probe measures of inference processing were not different
between knowledge domains. These findings suggest that cognitive
resource differences may be specific to knowledge domains rather
than to the inference process itself.
(1118)
The Role of Attention in Perspective Taking. SHUHONG LIN &
BOAZ KEYSAR, University of Chicago—Dual-process theories of cognitive
processing state that two systems—automatic versus controlled—
interact and affect behavior. We propose that perspective taking in
conversation uses a similar dual process. Failure to take another’s perspective
happens when one relies on automatic, readily accessible processing;
taking another’s perspective requires more effortful, controlled
processing. We tested this hypothesis through two experiments that manipulated
the attentional capacity of the participants while they played
a referential communication game. In Experiment 1, participants performed
a concurrent secondary task, inducing either a high or low cognitive
load. In Experiment 2, participants with either high or low working
memory span played the same communication game. We found that
participants’ comprehension is more egocentric when under a high-load
manipulation than under low load, and participants with lower working
memory span behave more egocentrically than those with high span.
This demonstrates that perspective taking is an effortful process.
(1119)
Does Mental Imagery Improve Text Comprehension? LAURA
MOTYKA & DAVID W. ALLBRITTON, DePaul University—An experiment
investigated the effectiveness of mental imagery instructions