Claims

Readers with an entertainment goal generate more associative inferences than readers with a study goal, though the participant-level test was marginal

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2001 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? Readers reading for entertainment produced more associations connecting text to personal experience than readers reading to study, with the effect marginal against subject variability. → P. van den Broek 2001

Evidence

P. van den Broek 2001

P. van den Broek, R. F. Lorch, Jr., T. Linderholm, & M. Gustafson. (2001). The effects of readers' goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29(8), 1081-1087. https://link.springer.com/journal/13414

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Think-aloud ANOVA from the same experiment: entertainment-goal readers made more associative inferences (retrieving information unrelated to text coherence) than study-goal readers. The item-level test was reliable, but "the effect was marginal in the test against subject variability."

"Table 1 shows that the readers in the entertainment conditionproduced more associations than did the readers in the study condition, although the effect was marginal in the test against subject variability [ F1(1,55) = 3.86, MSe = .006, .05 , p , .1, F2(1,135) = 20.57, MSe = .0107]."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id entertainment-goal-more-associations
title Readers with an entertainment goal generate more associative inferences than readers with a study goal, though the participant-level test was marginal
description Readers with an entertainment goal generate more associative inferences than readers with a study goal, though the participant-level test was marginal
status review
evidence_strength weak
newest_evidence 2001
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-17
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — p-van-den-broek-2001

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.