How do readers handle incorrect information during reading?

How do readers deal with information that is inconsistent with what they know? This question has typically been addressed by examining whether carefully designed texts can help readers revise inaccurate beliefs. However, texts sometimes present incorrect information that runs counter to readers’ accurate knowledge. Three experiments were performed to examine how individuals process incorrect information during reading. Participants read stories describing familiar historical scenarios. These scenarios included historically accurate or inaccurate outcomes. The scenarios also included contexts that either supported accurate outcomes or utilized suspense to call into question the likelihood of those events. Overall, participants took longer to read inaccurate outcomes than to read accurate outcomes, but suspenseful contexts attenuated this difference. This pattern held even with a task that encouraged readers to consider their prior knowledge. Story contexts were particularly influential when modified to present novel scenarios. These results provide insight into the role of prior knowledge when readers encounter incorrect information, and into the consequences of such experiences.     

How do people know?

To fully understand processes of knowing and knowledge acquisition, it is necessary to examine people's understanding of their own knowing. Individual and developmental differences in what it means to know something, and hence in the criteria for justifying knowledge claims, have potentially wide-ranging implications. In providing support for a claim, young children have difficulty differentiating explanation of why a claim makes sense and evidence that the claim is true. Epistemic understanding progresses developmentally, but substantial variation remains among adults, with few adults achieving understanding of the complementary strengths and weaknesses of evidence and explanation in argument. Epistemic understanding shapes intellectual values and hence the disposition (as opposed to competence) to exercise intellectual skills. Only its most advanced levels support a disposition to engage in the intellectual effort that reasoned argument entails. The sample case of juror reasoning illustrates how epistemic understanding underlies and shapes intellectual performance.     

Driving next to automated vehicle platoons: How do short time headways influence non-platoon drivers’ longitudinal control?

Advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) are taking over an increasing part of the driving task and are supporting the introduction of semi- and fully automated vehicles. As a consequence, a mixed traffic situation is developing where vehicles equipped with automated systems taking over the lateral and longitudinal control of the vehicle will interact with unequipped vehicles (UV) that are not fitted with such automated systems. Different forms of automation are emerging and it appears that regardless of which form is going to become popular on our roads, there is a consensus developing that it will be accompanied by a reduction in time headway (THW). The present simulator study examined whether a ‘contagion’ effect from the short THW held in platoons on the UV drivers would occur. Thirty participants were asked to follow a lead vehicle (LV) on a simulated motorway in three different traffic conditions: surrounding traffic including (1) platoons with short following distance (THW = 0.3 s), (2) large following distance (THW = 1.4 s) or (3) no platoons at all. Participants adapted their driving behaviour by displaying a significant shorter average and minimum THW while driving next to a platoon holding short THWs as when THW was large. They also spent more time keeping a THW below a safety threshold of 1 s. There was no carryover effect from one platoon condition to the other, which can be interpreted as an effect that is not lasting in time. The results of this study point out the importance of examining possibly negative behavioural effects of mixed traffic on UV drivers.     

How do I remember that I know you know that I know?

Communication is aided greatly when speakers and listeners take advantage of mutually shared knowledge (i.e., common ground). How such information is represented in memory is not well known. Using a neuropsychological-psycholinguistic approach to real-time language understanding, we investigated the ability to form and use common ground during conversation in memory-impaired participants with hippocampal amnesia. Analyses of amnesics' eye fixations as they interpreted their partner's utterances about a set of objects demonstrated successful use of common ground when the amnesics had immediate access to common-ground information, but dramatic failures when they did not. These findings indicate a clear role for declarative memory in maintenance of common-ground representations. Even when amnesics were successful, however, the eye movement record revealed subtle deficits in resolving potential ambiguity among competing intended referents; this finding suggests that declarative memory may be critical to more basic aspects of the on-line resolution of linguistic ambiguity.     

When and why do we want to know? How experienced regret promotes post‐decision information search

The effect of emotional and situational factors on the decision to seek out post‐decision information about un‐chosen alternative was examined in five experiments. Experiment 1 tested participants' willingness to find out the outcome of an un‐chosen investment that was likely to have a higher value than the chosen investment. It was found that participants were more willing to acquire information when they were responsible for the decision. Experiment 2 showed that responsibility affects information seeking, in particular when one suspects that a wrong decision was made. Experiments 3–5 examined the role of regret on information seeking. It was shown that regret about making the wrong investment (Experiment 3), forgetting to send in a lottery ticket (Experiment 4), and missing an opportunity to use a discount card after spending a month in Australia (Experiment 5), mediates the information‐seeking behavior. Experiment 5 also demonstrated that the experience of regret (and not its anticipation) influences post‐decision information seeking even when the information is of no future use. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

How do we know that we are unique?

This paper aims to examine the notion of uniqueness as one aspect of the self that is taken for granted in psychotherapy. This paper attempts to address the question 'how do we know that we are unique individuals?' and in so doing, points out some difficulties. One plausible, but not problem-free answer is the notion of privileged access. Some of the problems will be briefly outlined.     

What do children want to know about animals and artifacts? Domain-specific requests for information

Children's questions may reveal a great deal about the characteristics of objects they consider to be conceptually important. Thirty-two preschool children were given opportunities to ask questions about unfamiliar artifacts and animals. The children asked ambiguous questions such as "What is it?" about artifacts and animals alike. However, they were more likely to ask about the functions of artifacts, but about category membership, food choices, and typical locations of animals. They never asked questions about either artifacts or animals that would be considered inappropriate by adults. The results indicate that children hold different expectations about the types of information important for categorizing living and artifact kinds. Young children conceive of artifacts in terms of functions, but conceive of animals in terms of biologically appropriate characteristics. Such results speak to debates about the role of function in children's biological reasoning and to accounts of children's artifact concepts.     

Eye movements during multiple object tracking: where do participants look?

Similar to the eye movements you might make when viewing a sports game, this experiment investigated where participants tend to look while keeping track of multiple objects. While eye movements were recorded, participants tracked either 1 or 3 of 8 red dots that moved randomly within a square box on a black background. Results indicated that participants fixated closer to targets more often than to distractors. However, on 3-target trials, fixation was closer to the center of the triangle formed by the targets more often than to any individual targets. This center-looking strategy seemed to reflect that people were grouping the targets into a single object rather than simultaneously minimizing all target eccentricities. Here we find that observers deliberately focus their eyes on a location that is different from the objects they are attending, perhaps as a consequence of representing those objects as a group.     

Do adult readers know how they read? Evidence from eye movement patterns and verbal reports

The present study was carried out to investigate individual differences in reading styles among competent adult readers and to examine whether readers are aware of their reading style. Individual reading strategies were studied by having the participants read a long expository text while their eye fixation patterns were registered. A cluster analysis was performed on the eye movement data to distinguish between different reading styles. The analysis revealed three types of readers that were coined, following Hyönä, Lorch, and Kaakinen (2002) , fast linear readers, slow linear readers, and topic structure processors. Readers' procedural awareness of their reading behaviour was assessed by a questionnaire. The verbal reports obtained by the questionnaire were then correlated with the corresponding eye behaviour to investigate the extent to which the readers behave the way they report doing. The correlations showed that adult readers are well aware of their general reading speed and reasonably aware of their lookback and rereading behaviour. The amount of time spent looking back in text also correlated positively with the relative success in recalling the main points expressed in the text. It is concluded that systematic and extensive looking back in text is indicative of strategic behaviour.     

On the processing of canonical word order during eye fixations in reading: Do readers process transposed word previews?

Whether readers always identify words in the order they are printed is subject to considerable debate. In the present study, we used the gaze-contingent boundary paradigm (Rayner, 1975) to manipulate the preview for a two-word target region (e.g., white walls in My neighbor painted the white walls black). Readers received an identical (white walls), transposed (walls white), or unrelated preview (vodka clubs). We found that there was a clear cost of having a transposed preview compared to an identical preview, indicating that readers cannot or do not identify words out of order. However, on some measures, the transposed preview condition did lead to faster processing than the unrelated preview condition, suggesting that readers may be able to obtain some useful information from a transposed preview. Implications of the results for models of eye movement control in reading are discussed.     

Assertion and the “How do you know?” challenge

Synthese - In this introduction to the Synthese SI: The Cultural Evolution of Human Social Cognition, we introduce some basic theoretical terms that will help readers to navigate the volume....     

How do the victims respond to bullying?

Reactions to harassment of victims of bullying were studied. One issue was, what kind of behavior on the part of the victim is likely to a) make the others start or continue bullying or b) diminish bullying or put an end to it. Altogether 573 pupils (286 girls, 287 boys) from 11 Finnish schools served as subjects: 67 of them (33 girls, 34 boys) were identified as victims of bullying. Both peer- and self-evaluations were used as methods of the study. Three subscales, describing counteraggressive, helpless, and nonchalant behavioral responses to bullying were established on the basis of peer-evaluations of the victims' behavior. Three different subtypes of victims (the Counteraggressive, the Helpless, and the Nonchalant) were identified. Helplessness and nonchalance were found to be typical responses of the girl victims, while boy victims tended to react to bullying with counteraggression or nonchalance. The victims' self-evaluations of their behavior supported these views. Helplessness and counteraggression in the case of girl victims and counteraggression in the case of boy victims were perceived as making the bullying start or continue. The absence of helplessness in the case of girl victims, and nonchalance as well as the absence of counteraggression in the case of boy victims were perceived as making the bullying diminish or stop. © 1996 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

The development of arithmetic principle knowledge: How do we know what learners know?

This paper reviews research on learners’ knowledge of three arithmetic principles: Commutativity, Relation to Operands, and Inversion. Studies of arithmetic principle knowledge vary along several dimensions, including the age of the participants, the context in which the arithmetic is presented, and most importantly, the type of knowledge assessment (e.g., application of procedures, evaluation of examples). The vast majority of studies utilize single-faceted knowledge assessments, which can lead to incomplete or misleading views of learners’ knowledge. Both context and type of knowledge assessment can influence conclusions about learners’ arithmetic principle knowledge. However, relatively few studies directly address the possible effects of context or type of knowledge assessment on their results. To move the field forward, research that utilizes multifaceted knowledge assessments is needed.     

Where do we look when we count? The role of eye movements in enumeration

Two experiments addressed the coupling between eye movements and the cognitive processes underlying enumeration. Experiment 1 compared eye movements in a counting task with those in a “look” task, in which subjects were told to look at each dot in a pattern once and only once. Experiment 2 presented the same dot patterns to every subject twice, to measure the consistency with which dots were fixated between and within subjects. In both experiments, the number of fixations increased linearly with the number of objects to be enumerated, consistent with tight coupling between eye movements and enumeration. However, analyses of fixation locations showed that subjects tended to look at dots in dense, central regions of the display and tended not to look at dots in sparse, peripheral regions of the display, suggesting a looser coupling between eye movements and enumeration. Thus, the eyes do not mirror the enumeration process very directly.