Updating during reading comprehension: Why causality matters

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 39, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 854-865

  Kendeou, Panayiota ^a   Smith, Emily R ^b   O'Brien, Edward J ^b  

^a NEAPOLIS UNIVERSITY PAFOS   (Cyprus)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE   (United States)

Author keywords

Causality; Refutation texts; Updating

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; READING; SEMANTICS; STUDENT; TIME; UNIVERSITY;

CAUSALITY; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; READING; SEMANTICS; STUDENTS; TIME FACTORS; UNIVERSITIES; VOCABULARY;

EID: 84883026852     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0029468     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Cook, A. E., & Guéraud, S. (2005). What have we been missing? The role of general world knowledge in discourse processing. Discourse Processes, 39, 265-278. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2005.9651683
2. Cook, A. E., Halleran, J. G., & O'Brien, E. J. (1998). What is readily available during reading? A memory-based view of text processing. Discourse Processes, 26, 109-129. doi: 10.1080/01638539809545041
3. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., & Middleton, E. L. (2005). What constrains the accuracy of metacomprehension judgments? Testing the transfer-appropriate-monitoring and accessibility hypotheses. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 551-565. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.011
4. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., & Tang, D. T. W. (2010). Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misin-formation. Memory & Cognition, 38, 1087-1100. doi: 10.3758/MC.38.8.1087
5. Garrod, S., & Terras, M. (2000). The contribution of lexical and situational knowledge to resolving discourse roles: Bonding and resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 526-544. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1999.2694
6. Gerrig, R. J., & McKoon, G. (1998). The readiness is all: The functionality of memory-based text processing. Discourse Processes, 26, 67-86. doi: 10.1080/01638539809545039
7. Gerrig, R. J., & O'Brien, E. J. (2005). The scope of memory-based processing. Discourse Processes, 39, 225-242. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2005.9651681
8. Gillund, G., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1984). A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. Psychological Review, 91, 1-67. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.91.1.1
9. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371
10. Guéraud, S., Harmon, M. E., & Peracchi, K. A. (2005). Updating situation models: The memory-based contribution. Discourse Processes, 39, 243-263.
11. Hakala, C. M., & O'Brien, E. J. (1995). Strategies for resolving coherence breaks in reading. Discourse Processes, 20, 167-185. doi: 10.1080/01638539509544936
12. Hintzman, D. L. (1986). "Schema abstraction" in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 93, 411-428. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.93.4.411
13. Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1994). Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1420-1436. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.20.6.1420
14. Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1998). Updating accounts following a correction of misinformation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1483-1494. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.24.6.1483
15. Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1999). Modifying mental representations: Comprehending corrections. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 303-318). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Kendeou, P., Muis, K., & Fulton, S. (2011). Reader and text factors in reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 34, 365-383. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01436.x
17. Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2005). The effects of readers' misconceptions on comprehension of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 235-245. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.235
18. Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2007). Interactions between prior knowledge and text structure during comprehension of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1567-1577. doi: 10.3758/BF03193491
19. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
20. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363
21. Koriat, A. (1993). How do we know that we know? The accessibility model of the feeling of knowing. Psychological Review, 100, 609-639. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.609
22. Koriat, A. (1995). Dissociating knowing and the feeling of knowing: Further evidence for the accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 311-333. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.124.3.311
23. Long, D. L., & Chong, J. L. (2001). Comprehension skill and global coherence: A paradoxical picture of poor comprehenders' abilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1424-1429. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.27.6.1424
24. Magliano, J. P., Trabasso, T., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). Strategic process-ing during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 615-629. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.615
25. McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1998). Memory-based language processing: Psycholinguistic research in the 1990s. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 25-42. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.25
26. McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. P. (2009). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 297-384). New York, NY: Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/S0079-7421(09)51009-2
27. Myers, J. L., & O'Brien, E. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26, 131-157. doi: 10.1080/01638539809545042
28. O'Brien, E. J., & Albrecht, J. E. (1991). The role of context in assessing antecedents in text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 94-102. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.17.1.94
29. O'Brien, E. J., Cook, A. E., & Guéraud, S. (2010). Accessibility of outdated information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 979-991. doi: 10.1037/a0019763
30. O'Brien, E. J., & Myers, J. L. (1987). The role of causal connections in the retrieval of text. Memory & Cognition, 15, 419-427. doi: 10.3758/BF03197731
31. O'Brien, E. J., & Myers, J. L. (1999). Text comprehension: A view from the bottom up. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 35-53). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
32. O'Brien, E. J., Rizzella, M. L., Albrecht, J. E., & Halleran, J. G. (1998). Updating a situation model: A memory-based text processing view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1200-1210. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.24.5.1200
33. Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2007). Revising what readers know: Updating text representations during narrative comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 35, 2019-2032. doi: 10.3758/BF03192934
34. Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2009). Noticing and revising discrepancies as text unfolds. Discourse Processes, 46, 1-24. doi: 10.1080/01638530802629141
35. Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85, 59-108. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.85.2.59
36. Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (1988). A retrieval theory of priming in memory. Psychological Review, 95, 385-408. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.95.3.385
37. Rizzella, M. L., & O'Brien, E. J. (2002). Retrieval of concepts in script-based texts and narratives: The influence of general world knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 780-790. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.28.4.780
38. Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1981). Understanding written language: Explorations of comprehension beyond the sentence. New York, NY: Wiley.
39. Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1998). The role of scenario mapping in text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 26, 159-190. doi: 10.1080/01638539809545043
40. Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (2005). Memory-based approaches and beyond. Discourse Processes, 39, 205-224.
41. Trabasso, T., & Suh, S. (1993). Understanding text: Achieving explanatory coherence through on-line inferences and mental operations in working memory. Discourse Processes, 16, 3-34.
42. Trabasso, T., & van den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 612-630. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(85)90049-X
43. van den Broek, P., & Kendeou, P. (2008). Cognitive processes in comprehension of science texts: The role of co-activation in confronting misconceptions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 335-351. doi: 10.1002/acp.1418
44. van den Broek, P., Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39, 299-316. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2005.9651685
45. van den Broek, P., Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading: Inferences and the online construction of memory representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 62-87). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
46. Zwaan, R. A., Magliano, J. P., & Graesser, A. C. (1995). Dimensions of situation model construction in narrative comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 386-397. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.21.2.386
47. Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162-185. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162