Reading Skill Moderates the Impact of Semantic Similarity and Causal Specificity on the Coherence of Explanations

Discourse Processes

Volumn 51, Issue 1-2, 2014, Pages 143-166

  Wittwer, Jörg ^a   Ihme, Natalie ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84891934888     PISSN: 0163853X     EISSN: 15326950     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2013.855577     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Baker, L. 1979. Comprehension monitoring: Identifying and coping with text confusions. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11: 365 - 374.
2. Bonawitz, E. B. and Lombrozo, T. 2012. Occam's rattle: Children's use of simplicity and probability to constrain inference. Developmental Psychology, 48: 1156 - 1164.
3. Bromme, R., Jucks, R. and Runde, A. 2005. " Barriers and biases in computer-mediated expert-layperson-communication ". In Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication-and how they may be overcome, Edited by: Bromme, R., Hesse, F. W. and Spada, H. 89 - 118. New York, NY: Springer.
4. Brown, J. I., Fishco, V. V. and Hanna, G. 1993. The Nelson-Denny reading test, Itasca, IL: The Riverside Publishing Company.
5. Connell, L. and Keane, M. T. 2004. What plausibility affects plausibility? Concept-coherence and distributional word coherence as factors influencing plausibility judgments. Memory and Cognition, 32: 185 - 197.
6. Connell, L. and Keane, M. T. 2006. A model of plausibility. Cognitive Science, 30: 95 - 120.
7. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M. and Cai, Z. 2004. Coh-metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36: 193 - 202.
8. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M. and Trabasso, T. 1994. Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 3: 371 - 395.
9. Grice, H. P. 1975. " Logic and conversation ". In Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, Edited by: Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. 41 - 58. New York, NY: Academic Press.
10. Haberlandt, K. and Bingham, G. 1978. Verbs contribute to the coherence of brief narratives: Reading related and unrelated sentence triples. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17: 419 - 425.
11. Hilton, D. 1990. Conversational processes and causal explanation. Psychological Bulletin, 107: 65 - 81.
12. Hilton, D. J. and Erb, H.-P. 1996. Mental models and causal explanation: Judgments of probable cause and explanatory relevance. Thinking & Reasoning, 2: 273 - 308.
13. Judd, C. M., Kenny, D. A. and McClelland, G. H. 2001. Estimating and testing mediation and moderation in within-participant designs. Psychological Methods, 6: 115 - 134.
14. Kamalski, J., Sanders, T. and Lentz, L. 2008. Coherence marking, prior knowledge and comprehension of informative and persuasive text: Sorting things out. Discourse Processes, 45: 323 - 345.
15. Keil, F. C. 2006. Explanations and understanding. Annual Review of Psychology, 57: 227 - 254.
16. Kikas, E. 2003. University students' conceptions of different physical phenomena. Journal of Adult Development, 10: 139 - 150.
17. Kintsch, W. 1998. Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
18. Landauer, T. K. and Dumais, S. T. 1997. A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis: Theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104: 211 - 240.
19. Langer, I., Schulz, V., Thun, F., Meffert, J. and Tausch, R. 1973. Merkmale der Verständlichkeit schriftlicher Informations- und Lehrtexte [Features of comprehensibility of informational and instructional texts]. Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 20: 269 - 286.
20. Lehman, S. and Schraw, G. 2002. Effects of coherence and relevance on shallow and deep text processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94: 738 - 750.
21. Lombrozo, T. 2006. The structure and function of explanations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10: 464 - 470.
22. Lombrozo, T. 2011. The instrumental value of explanations. Philosophy Compass, 6: 539 - 551.
23. Lombrozo, T. 2012. " Explanation and abductive inference ". In Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning, Edited by: Holyoak, K. J. and Morrison, R. G. 260 - 276. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
24. Maier, J. and Richter, T. 2013. How nonexperts understand conflicting information on social science issues: The role of perceived plausibility and reading goals. Journal of Media Psychology, 25: 14 - 26.
25. McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M. and Graesser, A. C. 2010. Coh-Metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes, 47: 292 - 330.
26. Mohamed, M. T. and Clifton, C. Jr. 2008. Processing inferential causal statements: Theoretical refinements and the role of verb type. Discourse Processes, 45: 24 - 51.
27. O'Reilly, T. and McNamara, D. S. 2007. Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: Good texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse Processes, 43: 121 - 152.
28. Rapp, D. N. 2008. How do readers handle incorrect information during reading?. Memory & Cognition, 36: 688 - 701.
29. Read, S. J. and Marcus-Newhall, A. 1993. Explanatory coherence in social explanations: A parallel distributed processing account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65: 429 - 447.
30. Richter, T., Schroeder, S. and Wöhrmann, B. 2009. You don't have to believe everything you read: Background knowledge permits fast and efficient validation of information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96: 538 - 558.
31. Richter, T. and van Holt, N. 2005. ELVES: Ein computergestütztes Diagnostikum zur Erfassung der Effizienz von Teilprozessen des Leseverstehens [ELVES: Computer-based assessment of the efficiency of component processes involved in reading comprehension]. Diagnostica, 51: 169 - 182.
32. Salmon, W. C. 1989. Four decades of scientific explanation, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
33. Schmalhofer, F. and Glavanov, D. 1986. Three components of understanding a programmer's manual: Verbatim, propositional, and situational representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 25: 279 - 294.
34. Singer, M. 2006. Verification of text ideas during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 54: 574 - 591.
35. Singer, M. and O'Connell, G. 2003. Robust inference processes in expository text comprehension. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 15: 607 - 631.
36. Stukker, N., Sanders, T. and Verhagen, A. 2008. Causality in verbs and in discourse connectives: Converging evidence of cross-level parallels in Dutch linguistic categorization. Journal of Pragmatics, 40: 1296 - 1322.
37. Tapiero, I., van den Broek, P. and Quintana, M.-P. 2002. The mental representation of narrative texts as networks: The role of necessity and sufficiency in the detection of different types of causal relations. Discourse Processes, 34: 237 - 258.
38. Thagard, P. 2007. Coherence, truth and the development of scientific knowledge. Philosophy of Science, 74: 26 - 47.
39. Todaro, S., Millis, K. and Dandotkar, S. 2010. The impact of semantic and causal relatedness and reading skill on standards of coherence. Discourse Processes, 47: 412 - 446.
40. Trout, J. D. 2007. The psychology of scientific explanation. Philosophy Compass, 2/3: 564 - 591.
41. van den Broek, P., Bohn-Gettler, C., Kendeou, P., Carlson, S. and White, M. J. 2011. " When a reader meets a text: The role of standards of coherence in reading comprehension ". In Text relevance and learning from text, Edited by: McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P. and Schraw, G. 123 - 140. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
42. Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E. and Gray, J. 2008. The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20: 470 - 477.
43. Wiley, J. and Myers, J. L. 2003. Availability and accessibility of information and causal inferences from scientific text. Discourse Processes, 36: 109 - 129.
44. Wolff, P. and Song, G. 2003. Models of causation and the semantics of causal verbs. Cognitive Psychology, 47: 276 - 332.