No abstract

Whether information is routinely and nonstrategically evaluated for truth during comprehension is still a point of contention. Previous studies supporting the assumption of nonstrategic validation have used a Stroop-like paradigm in which participants provided yes/no judgments in tasks unrelated to the truth or plausibility of the experimental sentences. Other studies using a nonevaluative task failed to support this assumption. This leaves open the possibility that validation is conditional on an evaluative mindset of the reader. In the present study, we investigated this question directly by using a nonevaluative probe task. Participants responded to the probe words "true" or "false" with two different keys after reading true or false sentences for comprehension. Results provide evidence for routine validation even when it is not encouraged by the task, but they also suggest that semantic processing is critical for validation to occur. These results can be taken as evidence for a close connection between validation and comprehension rather than validation being a goal-dependent process.

No abstract

Aus kognitionspsychologischer Perspektive beruhen Lesefähigkeiten auf der effizienten Bewältigung von Teilprozessen des Leseverstehens auf Wort-, Satz- und Textebene. In diesem Beitrag stellen wir mit ProDi-L ein neuartiges computergestütztes Diagnostikum vor, das durch die kombinierte Erfassung von Antwortrichtigkeit und Reaktionszeit als Indikatoren für die Zuverlässigkeit und Effizienz einzelner Teilprozesse eine differenzierte prozessbezogene Diagnostik des Leseverstehens bei Grundschulkindern ermöglichen soll. Mittels sechs Subtests sollen zusammenhängende, aber psychometrisch klar trennbare Teilfähigkeiten des Leseverstehens erfasst werden. In einer Querschnittsuntersuchung an 536 Kindern der Klassenstufen 1–4 konnten dieser Annahme entsprechend Belege für die faktorielle Validität von ProDi-L erbracht werden. Die Zusammenhänge der Testwerte von ProDi-L mit kriterialen Lesefähigkeitsmaßen (gemessen mit ELFE 1–6), Lehrerurteilen und sprachfreien Intelligenzmaßen (diskriminante Validität) sprechen außerdem für die Konstrukt- und Kriteriumsvalidität des Instruments.

Stories are a powerful means to change people’s attitudes and beliefs. The aim of the current work was to shed light on the role of argument strength (argument quality) in narrative persuasion. The present study examined the influence of strong versus weak arguments on attitudes in a low or high narrative context. Moreover, baseline attitudes, interindividual differences in working memory capacity, and recipients’ transportation were examined. Stories with strong arguments were more persuasive than stories with weak arguments. This main effect was qualified by a two-way interaction with baseline attitude, revealing that argument strength had a greater impact on individuals who initially were particularly doubtful toward the story claim. Furthermore, we identified a three-way interaction showing that argument strength mattered most for recipients who were deeply transported into the story world in stories that followed a typical narrative structure. These findings provide an important specification of narrative persuasion theory.