Goal coordination in narrative comprehension

Abstract

In this paper, we report two experiments in which the consequence of maintaining multiple, unrelated character goals during comprehension were studied. This is in contrast to previous work that has focused on a single goal, or multiple related goals. The results showed that the presence of active subsequent goals can diminish the availability of earlier mentioned goals, even in the absence of semantic and other relations. In contrast, the status of earlier mentioned goals does not influence the availability of subsequent goals. These results support an explanation-based view of comprehension.

Correcting false information in memory: Manipulating the strength of misinformation encoding and its retraction

“…It is well established that cognitive load-that is, the division of attention between two tasks-can have debilitating effects on memory retrieval (e.g., Craik, Naveh-Benjamin, Govoni, & Anderson, 1996) and can reduce depth of encoding and impede strategic processes (Magliano & Radvansky, 2001). Cognitive load at misinformation encoding should therefore reduce the continued influence of misinformation.…”

When goals collide: Monitoring the goals of multiple characters

“…In fact, Trabasso and Nickels (1992) defined the protagonist as the character with the longest causal chain, on the basis of a causal network analysis of the story. Furthermore, there is a preponderance of research suggesting that viewers monitor the goals of the primary protagonist (e.g., Long & Golding, 1993;Lutz & Radvansky, 1997;Magliano & Radvansky, 2001;. Thus, we conceptualized this character as a baseline control.…”

How valence affects language processing: Negativity bias and mood congruence in narrative comprehension

“…Still, such a convergence between the measures is not necessarily the rule. For example, it is well known that readers understand characters' actions in reference to the most local goal (Magliano & Radvansky, 2001;Suh & Trabasso, 1993). However, this generalization holds for moment-by-moment integration processes, but not necessarily for reflective processes.…”