Rare Constructions Are More Often Sentence‐Initial

Main clause phenomena (MCPs) are syntactic constructions that occur predominantly or exclusively in main clauses. I propose a processing explanation for MCPs. Sentence processing is easiest at the beginning of the sentence (requiring less search); this follows naturally from widely held assumptions about sentence processing. Because of this, a wider variety of constructions can be allowed at the beginning of the sentence without overwhelming the sentence‐processing mechanism. Unlike pragmatic and grammatical accounts of MCPs, the processing account predicts avoidance of MCPs in non‐initial main clauses (non‐initial coordinate clauses and premodified clauses). A corpus study supports these predictions, but it is somewhat inconclusive. A further corpus study examines another type of syntactic construction, premodifying adjunct phrases (“openers”); the prediction here is that less common types of opener will be especially avoided in non‐initial contexts. The prediction is confirmed, supporting the processing view of rare constructions.     

Syntactic context and lexical access

Recent studies demonstrating that multiple meanings of an ambiguous word are initially accessed even when only one reading is syntactically appropriate with the preceding context can be criticized on at least two grounds. First, many of the syntactic contexts used were not truly restrictive, and, secondly, subjects may not have had time to integrate the context before processing the ambiguous word. In the present study, subjects listened to a sentence ending in an ambiguous word and then made a lexical decision to a target related to either the appropriate or inappropriate reading. Contexts were completely restrictive, and a pause was introduced between the context and the ambiguous word. Multiple access still obtained, providing further support for the claim that lexical access is not guided by syntactic context.     

Effects of Stimulus Number and Target-to-Distractor Ratio on the Performance of Random Array Letter Cancellation Tasks

Cancellation tests are commonly used in the clinical assessment of visuospatial function, but there has been little study of task characteristics influencing performance. This study was designed to assess factors which affect cancellation performance. Sixteen healthy subjects sequentially performed four random-array letter cancellation tasks. The forms contained 50 and 100 stimuli and target:distractor (T/D) ratios of 1:4 and 1:9 with target letter “A” and randomly selected letter distractors. The primary performance measure was calculated as the number of correctly cancelled targets divided by the time to complete the task, corrected for accuracy. This measure revealed a strong effect of T/D ratio (p< .0001), with performance adversely affected by higher proportion of distractors. There was no effect of stimulus number. This suggests that T/D ratio should be considered in cancellation test design and interpretation.     

Attributions of Responsibility for Obesity: Narrative Communication Reduces Reactive Counterarguing Among Liberals

Informed by theory and research on attributions and narrative persuasion, we compared the effectiveness of narrative and nonnarrative messages in changing attributions of responsibility for causes and solutions related to obesity in the United States. We randomly assigned 500 adults to view one of three messages (narrative, evidence, and a hybrid of the two) emphasizing environmental causes of obesity, or a no‐exposure control condition. The narrative condition increased the belief that societal actors (government, employers) are responsible for addressing obesity, but only among liberals. This pattern of results was partially explained by the success of the narrative condition in reducing reactive counterarguing, relative to the evidence condition, among liberals. We conclude with theoretical and practical implications.