Reading goals do not influence validation processes: no goal × congruency or goal × accuracy interactions on reading times¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? No interactions between reading goal and congruency or accuracy were observed on target or spill-over reading times, providing no evidence that reading for study results in more extensive validation processes online. → Moort 2022

Evidence¶

Moort 2022¶

Moort, M. L. van, Koornneef, A. W., Wilderjans, T. F., & Broek, P. W. van den. (2022). Validation processes and reading purpose: Is validation against knowledge and prior text influenced by reading goal? Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(7), 1533-1552. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000769

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Mixed-effects linear regression on log-transformed reading times from the self-paced reading experiment found "no interactions between goal and congruency or accuracy" on target and spill-over sentences, disconfirming the hypothesis that reading for study produces more extensive validation processes during reading.

"we did not observe evidence that supports Hypothesis 1 that reading for study results in more extensive validation processes online, as we observed no interactions between goal and congruency or accuracy"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Reading for study results in slower reading than reading for general comprehension on both target and spill-over sentences — related
• Both text incongruency and knowledge inaccuracy produce increased reading times on target sentences — related
• Reading goal × congruency interaction on memory: study goal improves memory for congruent but not incongruent targets — related
• Reading goals affect post-validation representation-building rather than validation processes directly — related