Causality and the allocation of attention during comprehension.

Recent research has suggested that each statement in a narrative text is understood by relating it to its causal antecedents and consequences and that the text as a whole is understood by finding a causal path linking its opening to its final outcome. Fletcher and Bloom (1988) have proposed that in order to accomplish this goal, while minimizing the number of times long-term memory has to be searched, readers focus their attention on the last clause of a narrative that has causal antecedents but no consequences in the preceding text. As a result, a statement that is followed by a causal antecedent should remain the focus of attention, while the same statement followed by a consequence should not. This prediction was tested and confirmed in three experiments which show that when a target statement is followed by a sentence that includes only causal antecedents, (a) continuation sentences related to it are read more quickly, (b) target words drawn from it are easier to recognize, and (c) subject-generated continuations are more likely to be causally related to it.

[1]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Strategies of discourse comprehension , 1986 .

[2]  John B. Carroll,et al.  Language comprehension and the acquisition of knowledge , 1972 .

[3]  W Kintsch,et al.  Understanding and solving word arithmetic problems. , 1985, Psychological review.

[4]  A. Glenberg,et al.  Mental models contribute to foregrounding during text comprehension , 1987 .

[5]  John B. Black,et al.  STORY UNDERSTANDING AS PROBLEM-SOLVING * , 1980 .

[6]  C. Fletcher,et al.  An on-line assessment of causal reasoning during comprehension , 1990, Memory & cognition.

[7]  D. Bobrow,et al.  Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science , 1975 .

[8]  Murray Glanzer,et al.  Short-term storage in the processing of text , 1981 .

[9]  J. Keenan,et al.  The effects of causal cohesion on comprehension and memory , 1984 .

[10]  P. Broek.  The effects of causal relations and hierarchical position on the importance of story statements , 1988 .

[11]  James F. Voss,et al.  Text Processing of Domain-Related Information for Individuals with High and Low Domain Knowledge: Methodological Considerations. , 1979 .

[12]  Geoffrey M. Stephenson,et al.  Memory for a complex social discourse: The analysis and prediction of individual and group recall , 1986 .

[13]  Elizabeth B. Bernhardt,et al.  Learning and comprehension of text , 1988 .

[14]  C. Fletcher,et al.  Causal reasoning in the comprehension of simple narrative texts , 1988 .

[15]  Charles R. Fletcher,et al.  Strategies for the allocation of short-term memory during comprehension , 1986 .

[16]  Charles R. Fletcher.  Short-term memory processes in text comprehension , 1981 .

[17]  R. Kirk.  Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences , 1970 .

[18]  S. Duffy,et al.  Degree of causal relatedness and memory , 1987 .

[19]  T. Trabasso,et al.  Causal relatedness and importance of story events , 1985 .

[20]  T. Trabasso,et al.  Logical necessity and transitivity of causal relations in stories , 1989 .

[21]  J. Mackie,et al.  The cement of the universe : a study of causation , 1977 .

[22]  T. Trabasso.  Causal Cohesion and Story Coherence. , 1982 .

[23]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  Priming in item recognition: The organization of propositions in memory for text , 1980 .

[24]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Toward a model of text comprehension and production. , 1978 .

[25]  Allen Newell,et al.  Human Problem Solving. , 1973 .

[26]  T. Trabasso,et al.  Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events , 1985 .

[27]  R. Jarvella.  Syntactic processing of connected speech , 1971 .