Psychological Development and Education ›› 2015, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (2): 198-203.doi: 10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2015.02.09

Previous Articles     Next Articles

The Influence of The Familiarity of Distractions and Cognitive Styles in Text Reading

CHE Xiaowei, ZHANG Qian, LI Shouxin   

  1. School of Psychology, Shandong Normal University, Jinan 250014
  • Online:2015-03-15 Published:2015-03-15

Abstract: The present study explored how the familiarity of distractions and individual cognitive styles influenced text reading by using familiar and unfamiliar words. The study included two stages. In the first stage, participants with different cognitive styles read eight passages and then answered three questions. In the second stage, participants studied a list of 16 words for free recall, consisting of 8 previously familiar distracting words, 8 new familiar words, or consisting of 8 previously unfamiliar distracting words, 8 new unfamiliar words. Half of the participants were cued about the relevance of previous distractions and text reading before recalling the words in the memory test. The results are as follows: the influence of the familiar words was significantly higher than that of the unfamiliar words for field independent participants, while there were no significant differences for field dependent participants. Furthermore, the number of old words (previously distractions) recalled was significantly higher than that of new words in the cued memory task for both familiar and unfamiliar words. The results indicate that: (1) compared to field dependent individuals, field independent individuals are more easily influenced by familiar distractions in text reading; (2) familiar words could lead more significant interference than unfamiliar ones in reading, possibly due to the activation of individual experience rather than the processing priority of familiar words.

Key words: interference, familiarity, field dependence, field independence, text reading

CLC Number: 

  • G442
Brédart, S., Delchambre, M., & Laureys, S. (2006). One's own face is hard to ignore.QuarterlyJournal of Experimental Psychology, 59(1), 46-52.
Burke, D. M., & Shafto, M. A. (2008). Language and aging. In F. I. M. Craik & T. A. Salthouse, The handbook of aging and cognition(3rd ed.). New York :Psychology Press.373-443.
Carlson, M. C., Hasher, L., Connelly, S. L., & Zacks, R. T. (1995). Aging, Distraction, and the Benefits of Predictable Location.Psychology and Aging, 10(3), 427-436.
Connelly, S. L., Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1991). Age and reading: The impact of distraction.Psychology and Aging, 6(4), 533-541.
Devue, C., & Brédart, S. (2008). Attention to self-referential stimuli: Can I ignore my own face? Acta Psychologica, 128(2), 290-297.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1995). The mechanisms of suppression and enhancement in comprehension.Psychologie Canadienne, 36(1), 49-50.
Kemper, S., & McDowd, J. (2006). Eye movements of Young and Older Adults while Reading with Distraction.Psychology and Aging, 21(1), 32-39.
McGinnis, & Debra. (2012). Susceptibility to Distraction during Reading in Young, Young-Old, and Old-Old Adults.Experimental Aging Research, 38(4), 370-393.
Mund, I., Bell, R., & Buchner, A. (2012). Aging and Interference in Story Recall.Experimental Aging Research, 38(1), 20-41.
Taylor, J. K., & Burke, D. M. (2002). Asymmetric aging effects on semantic and phonological processes: naming in the picture-word interference task. Psychology and Aging, 17(4), 662-676.
Thomas, R. C., & Hasher, L. (2012). Reflections of Distraction in Memory: Transfer of Previous Distraction Improves Recall in Younger and Older Adults.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(1), 30-39.
Williams, R. S., & Morris, R. K. (2004). Eye movements, word familiarity, and vocabulary acquisition.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(1/2), 312-339.
Witkin, H. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Oltman, P. K. (1979). Psychological differentiation: Current status.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1127-1145.
Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Oltman, P. K., Goodenough, D. R., Friedman, F., Owen, D. R., et al. (1977).Role of the field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles in academic evolution: A longitudinal study.Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(3), 197-211.
Wyatt, N., & Machado, L. (2013). Distractor Inhibition: Principles of Operation during Selective Attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(1), 245-256.
白学军, 沈德立. (1996). 不同年级学生读课文时眼睛注视方式的研究.心理科学, 19(1), 6—10, 63.
陈向阳, 沈德立. (2004). 中小学生阅读寓言过程的眼动研究.心理科学, 27(4), 777—780.
费广洪, 王细英, 龚桂红. (2013). 图文相关性对不同认知方式大学生阅读影响的眼动研究.心理学报, 45(7), 783—789.
贾广珍, 李寿欣. (2013a). 不同认知方式个体抑制句法歧义的加工.心理学探新, 33(2), 163—167.
贾广珍, 李寿欣. (2013b). 不同认知方式个体抑制歧义词不适当意义的机制.心理科学, 36(2), 340-343.
李寿欣, 徐增杰, 陈慧媛. (2010). 不同认知方式个体在语篇阅读中抑制外部干扰的眼动研究.心理学报, 42(5), 539-546.
刘礼明. (2011).图—词干扰范式下的词频(或词的熟悉度)效应. 福建师范大学硕士学位论文.
孟庆茂, 常建华. (1988). 关于《 镶嵌图形测验》 评分方法及部分常模的修订. 见: 谢斯骏, 张厚粲.认知方式——一个人格维度的实验研究. 北京: 北京师范大学出版社, 278-280.
史玲玲. (2011).不同认知方式个体在句子理解中抑制干扰信息的实验研究. 西南大学硕士学位论文.
徐文俊. (2013).材料熟悉性对个体学习时间分配的影响——基于专家和新手的对比. 浙江师范大学硕士学位论文.
杨丽霞, 陈永明, 崔耀, 周治金. (2002). 理解能力不同的个体抑制干扰信息的效率.心理学报, 34(2), 120—125.
张建鹏, 陈慧媛, 张德香, 李寿欣. (2012). 语境类型对不同认知方式个体代词歧义消解的影响.应用心理学.18(4), 315-322.
周红, 范琳. (2011). 语篇阅读认知研究回顾.中国海洋大学学报( 社会科学版), 4, 52-58.
[1] WEN Kailing, CHEN Ping, YANG Shuang, NING Ning. Proactive Interference Effects on the Orthographic-working Memory in Chinese Children with Spelling Difficulties [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2022, 38(2): 153-160.
[2] YUAN Juanjuan, YANG Yang, ZHENG Zhiwei, LIU Pingping. Picture-text Horizontal Layout Enhances Recognition of Unfamiliar Words: Evidence from 8-year-old Children and Adults [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2021, 37(4): 525-538.
[3] PAN Yi, ZHANG Lin. Attentional Capture by Entirely Irrelevant Stimuli Driven by the Contents of Working Memory [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2019, 35(5): 522-529.
[4] YU Yurong, ZHANG Wanlu, XING Qiang. The Influence of the Fluency of Heterogeneous Context on Recognition in the Phase of Coding and Retrieval [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2019, 35(2): 138-145.
[5] ANG Chen, LV Huan, ZHOU Yacong, LI Bowen, WANG Ruiming. The Familiarity Influence on the Activation of Non-Target Language in Language Comprehension of Unskilled Chinese-English Bilinguals [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2016, 32(1): 26-32.
[6] ZHAO Guangping, ZHOU Chu, GUO Xiuyan. Familiarity-based Recognition of Inter-item Semantic Relations [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2015, 31(4): 385-392.
[7] XING Qiang, SHAN Yong-ming. The Effects of Text Presentation and Structure On Primary School Students’Representation of Math Word Problems [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2013, 29(3): 292-298.
[8] CHANG Song, WANG Rui-ming, LI Li, XIE Jiu-shu. Activation of Non-target words During Chinese-English Bilinguals’ Language Production [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2013, 29(1): 54-60.
[9] LUO Liang, LIN Chong-de, CHEN Guang. Effects of Spatial and Object-based Attention Interference on Spatial and Object Working Memory [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2010, 26(6): 561-568,576.
[10] LI Xiang-yu, ZHENG Xi-fu. A Study on the Attentional Bias to Emotional Information in Pathological Internet User [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2010, 26(4): 357-363.
[11] MENG Hong-xia, LIU Xi-ping. Young Children’s Understanding of the Role of Intention and Action in Pretense [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2010, 26(2): 121-127.
[12] ZHANG Wei, LIU Xiang-ping, SONG Hong-yan. The Influence of Proactive Interference on the Verbal Working Memory of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder(ADHD) and Reading Disability(RD) Children [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2009, 25(2): 28-34.
[13] ZHENG Xi-fu. Achievement of Junior High School Students and Achievement Stroop Interference [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2008, 24(1): 78-82.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!