Reading habits and line bisection: a developmental approach

Chokron, Sylvie; Agostini, Maria De

doi:10.1016/0926-6410(95)00018-6

Cited by 134 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This bias disappeared when the participants had been trained in the right-to-left direction (the subjective midpoint nearly coincided with the true midpoint in this case, regardless of the side of presentation). The main effect of training was significant [F (1,8) Chokron and Imbert (1993) and Chokron and de Agostini (1995), who demonstrated the existence of a rightward bias in the estimation of the subjective midpoint by monolingual Arabic and Israeli readers tested using the classical bisection task. However, remember that the participants in the present experiment were bilingual students (with a possible bias in favor of left-to-right reading), whereas Chokron and colleagues' participantswere monolinguals.This can probably explain why a lack of bias (instead of the expected reversed bias) was observed here for the right-to-left training condition.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What determines the eyes’ landing position in words?

Ducrot

Pynte

2002

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What determines the eyes’ landing position in words?

Ducrot

Pynte

2002

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Second, people are quicker to identify the names of powerful groups in the upper part of the visual field and powerless groups in the lower part of the visual field (Schubert, 2005). Third, people imagine action in the left-right axis more readily when it proceeds in the direction of their written language; from left-to-right for English and Italian speakers and from right-to-left for Arabic speakers, for example (Chatterjee, Southwood, & Basilico, 1999;Maass, Pagani, & Berta, 2007;Maass & Russo, 2003; see also Chokron & De Agostini, 1996Spalek & Hammad, 2005). Recently, Maass, Suitner, Favaretto, and Cignacchi (2009) have shown that imagery along the left-right axis is further affected by stereotypes about groups' agency.…”

Section: Alternative Explanations Of Graph Order Preferencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Graphing the order of the sexes: Constructing, recalling, interpreting, and putting the self in gender difference graphs.

Hegarty¹,

Lemieux²,

McQueen³

2010

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Published as Hegarty, P., Lemieux, A., & McQueen, G. (2010). Graphing the order of the sexes: Constructing, recalling, interpreting, and putting the self in gender difference graphs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98,[375][376][377][378][379][380][381][382][383][384][385][386][387][388][389][390][391]. AbstractGraphs seem to connote facts more than words or tables do. Consequently, they seem unlikely places to spot implicit sexism at work. Yet, in 6 studies (N _ 741), women and men constructed (Study 1) and recalled (Study 2) gender difference graphs with men's data first, and graphed powerful groups (Study 3) and individuals (Study 4) ahead of weaker ones. Participants who interpreted graph order as evidence of author "bias" inferred that the author graphed his or her own gender group first (Study 5). Women's, but not men's, preferences to graph men first were mitigated when participants graphed a difference between themselves and an opposite-sex friend prior to graphing gender differences (Study 6). Graph production and comprehension are affected by beliefs and suppositions about the groups represented in graphs to a greater degree than cognitive models of graph comprehension or realist models of scientific thinking have yet acknowledged.

show abstract

“…Reading habits influence people's preferences, decision making, perceptual-motor performance, attentional momentum, and how they represent numbers and time (e.g., Chokron & De Agostini, 1995, 2000Eviator, 1995;Shaki, Fischer, & Petrusic, 2009;Spalek & Hammad, 2005;Van der Henst & Schaeken, 2005). In most of the studies listed here, the effects of reading habits on cognition were examined using cross-cultural comparisons of readers with a left-to-right (e.g., English) orthographic system to readers with a right-to-left (e.g., Arabic) orthographic system.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Habitual reading biases in the allocation of study time

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Item order can bias learners' study decisions and undermine the use of more effective allocation strategies, such as allocating study time to items in one's region of proximal learning. In two experiments, we evaluated whether the influence of item order on study decisions reflects habitual responding based on a reading bias. We manipulated the order in which relatively easy, moderately difficult, and difficult items were presented from left to right on a computer screen and examined selection preference as a function of item order and item difficulty. Experiment 1a was conducted with native Arabic readers and in Arabic, and Experiment 1b was conducted with native English readers and in English. Students from both cultures prioritized items for study in the reading order of their native language: Arabic readers selected items for study in a right-to-left fashion, whereas English readers largely selected items from left to right. In Experiment 2, native English readers completed the same task as participants in Experiment 1b, but for some participants, lines of text were rotated upside down to encourage them to read from right to left. Participants who read upsidedown text were more likely to first select items on the right side of an array than were participants who studied right-side-up text. These results indicate that reading habits can bias learners' study decisions and can undermine agenda-based regulation.Keywords Self-regulated study . MetacognitionResearch on the allocation of study time has demonstrated that the difficulty of materials influences how long students study them and which are selected for study (for reviews, see Dunlosky & Ariel, 2011;Son & Kornell, 2009). For instance, when students have limited time for study, they often first select the easiest unlearned materials to study and then transition to progressively more difficult ones (Metcalfe, 2009). According to the agenda-based regulation framework (Ariel, Dunlosky, & Bailey, 2009), students are developing an agenda-or simple plan-to help them maximize performance. This particular agenda has been called using a region of proximal learning (RPL; Metcalfe, 2002), and using it can improve learning (Kornell & Metcalfe, 2006). Recently, however, Dunlosky and Ariel (in press) reported that how materials were presented influenced students' item selections and undermined their use of an RPL agenda.In particular, Dunlosky and Ariel (in press) examined the influence of the presentation order of items on studytime allocation for relatively easy, moderately difficult, and difficult English-Spanish translations. On each trial, three English words were presented side by side in a row, and participants chose translations to study by clicking a button below each English word. Item difficulty (i.e., easy, moderate, or difficult) was presented above each English word. Items were ordered from left to right either from the easiest to the most difficult item or from the most difficult to the easiest item. Learners often chose to study the easier items...

show abstract

Reading habits and line bisection: a developmental approach

Cited by 134 publications

References 42 publications

What determines the eyes’ landing position in words?

What determines the eyes’ landing position in words?

Graphing the order of the sexes: Constructing, recalling, interpreting, and putting the self in gender difference graphs.

Habitual reading biases in the allocation of study time

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About