Literature DB >> 11407422

Susceptibility to semantic illusions: an individual-differences perspective.

B Hannon1, M Daneman.   

Abstract

When asked How many animals of each kind did Moses take on the ark?, people frequently respond "two" even though they know it was Noah, not Moses, who took animals on the ark. We replicate previous research by showing that susceptibility to semantic illusions is influenced by the semantic relatedness of both the impostor word and the surrounding context. However, we also show that the two text manipulations make independent contributions to semantic illusions, and we propose two individual-differences mechanisms that might underlie these two effects. We propose that the ability to resist the lure of a semantically related impostor word is related to the individual's skill at accessing and reasoning about knowledge from long-term memory. And we propose that the ability to resist the lure of the surrounding sentential context is related to the individual's capacity to simultaneously process and store information in working memory.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11407422     DOI: 10.3758/bf03196396

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  6 in total

1.  Using working memory theory to investigate the construct validity of multiple-choice reading comprehension tests such as the SAT.

Authors:  Meredyth Daneman; Brenda Hannon
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2001-06

2.  Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  M Daneman; P M Merikle
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1996-12

3.  Partial matching in the Moses illusion: response bias not sensitivity.

Authors:  E N Kamas; L M Reder; M S Ayers
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1996-11

4.  The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction-integration model.

Authors:  W Kintsch
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1988-04       Impact factor: 8.934

5.  A case study of anomaly detection: shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment.

Authors:  S B Barton; A J Sanford
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1993-07

6.  A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension.

Authors:  M A Just; P A Carpenter
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1980-07       Impact factor: 8.934

  6 in total
  8 in total

1.  The Influences of Pre-testing Reviews and Delays on Differentialassociative Processing versus A Condition in which Students chose their Learning Strategy.

Authors:  Brenda Hannon
Journal:  J Educ Train Stud       Date:  2013-10

2.  Cross-linguistic variation in the neurophysiological response to semantic processing: evidence from anomalies at the borderline of awareness.

Authors:  Sarah Tune; Matthias Schlesewsky; Steven L Small; Anthony J Sanford; Jason Bohan; Jona Sassenhagen; Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2014-01-18       Impact factor: 3.139

3.  Differential-associative processing or example elaboration: Which strategy is best for learning the definitions of related and unrelated concepts?

Authors:  Brenda Hannon
Journal:  Int J Educ Res       Date:  2012-10-01

4.  Benzodiazepines and semantic memory: effects of lorazepam on the Moses illusion.

Authors:  Marie Izaute; Laurence Paire-Ficout; Elisabeth Bacon
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2003-11-28       Impact factor: 4.530

5.  Hearing impairment, cognition and speech understanding: exploratory factor analyses of a comprehensive test battery for a group of hearing aid users, the n200 study.

Authors:  Jerker Rönnberg; Thomas Lunner; Elaine Hoi Ning Ng; Björn Lidestam; Adriana Agatha Zekveld; Patrik Sörqvist; Björn Lyxell; Ulf Träff; Wycliffe Yumba; Elisabet Classon; Mathias Hällgren; Birgitta Larsby; Carine Signoret; M Kathleen Pichora-Fuller; Mary Rudner; Henrik Danielsson; Stefan Stenfelt
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2016-09-02       Impact factor: 2.117

6.  Misinformation lingers in memory: Failure of three pro-vaccination strategies.

Authors:  Sara Pluviano; Caroline Watt; Sergio Della Sala
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-07-27       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Interpreting quantifier scope ambiguity: evidence of heuristic first, algorithmic second processing.

Authors:  Veena D Dwivedi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Not All Factors Contribute Equally to European-American and Hispanic Students' SAT Scores.

Authors:  Brenda Hannon
Journal:  J Intell       Date:  2019-08-01
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.