Lorch, R. F.,Jr, & Lorch, E. P. (1986). On-line processing of summary and importance signals in reading. Discourse Processes, 9(4), 489-496.
Lorch, R.; Lorch, E.
1986
Lorch, R. F.,Jr, & Lorch, E. P. (1986). On-line processing of summary and importance signals in reading. Discourse Processes, 9(4), 489-496.
1
This study examined the issue of how readers respond to signals in a text that certain information is relevant. Stimuli in experiment 1 (N = 77 undergraduates) were five texts adapted from The People's Almanac #2 (Wallechinsky, D., & Wallace, I., New York: Bantam Books, 1978). Several target sentences were identified in each text - 50% of which were "summary statements" & the other 50% were "important statements" expressing support for the argument. Signal sentences were used to precede half the target sentences in each text. Comprehension questions involving summarization of the text & conclusions were used. Reading times for target sentences were recorded. Ss took longer to read a summary sentence if the preceding sentence signaled it as a summary, than when no signal was provided. The effect of signaling a summary was larger for poor readers (as measured by pretesting) than for good readers. There was no corresponding effect of signaling on reading time for sentences marked as important statements. Experiment 2 examined whether importance signals have any effect on reading. Ss (N = 100) read texts containing importance signals under unrestricted conditions & were given a cued recall test of memory for important information. It was found that recall of important information was enhanced by signaling. The results demonstrate that experienced readers use text signals to guide their attention to relevant information in a text.
In sum, better recallers were less affected by signals than poorer recallers. This finding suggests that both good and poor recallers attend to summary signals while reading, but better recallers are less affected by signals because they are more efficient at integrating the signaled information into their memory representations for the text as they read.
77
5