焦点阅读中信息加工的意识性研究

摘要： 采用独立记得-知道范式(IRK)和加工分离范式(PDP)探讨焦点阅读中文本表征的意识性。根据阅读材料中人物特征与其目标行为的关系，创设一致和恢复一致两种实验条件,实验1、2分别使用独立记得-知道范式，加工分离范式研究文本表征的意识性问题。研究结果发现被试在两种实验条件下的有意识加工和无意识加工指标上有显著差异，说明在焦点阅读中命题表征和情境模型的建构都是有意识的。
Abstract: Long et al. (2006) found that the construction of situation model is conscious while the construction of text base is unconscious through the two paradigms（IRK and PDP） in text reading. This is inconsistent with the processing theory of Bi-mechanism in text-reading which states that the construction of situation model is unconscious in coherence-based reading while is conscious in focus-based reading. We think that the inconsistence is caused by the nature of experiment material. In this study, two experiments were designed to explore the consciousness of text representation in focus-based reading with both Independence-Remember-Know (IRK) and Process-Dissociation-Procedure (PDP) paradigms. A self-paced, line-by-line reading paradigm was used in this study. In experiment 1, 40 University students were asked to read 12 narrative passages. According to the relationship between the elaboration on a characteristic of the protagonist and the subsequent target action carried out by the protagonist, the independent variable had two levels: consistent version and qualified version. The dependent variable was the rate of “remember” or “know” judgment. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two material sets. After reading all of the texts, participants received the recognition test. They were instructed to press a key labeled new if they believed the sentence did not appear in one of the texts they had read. Otherwise, the participants were instructed to press a key labeled old if they believed the sentence appeared in one of the texts they had read, then they were asked to decide whether they had a vivid, clear consciousness of the sentence; if so, they were asked to press a key labeled R (for remember). If they did not have a vivid, clear consciousness of the sentence but still believed the sentence had appeared in one of the texts, they were asked to press a key labeled K (for know). In experiment 2, 48 University students were asked to read 12 groups narrative passages. The independent variable was as same as that in experiment 1. The dependent variable was the hit rate of “Old” judgment and the false alarm rate of “New” judgment. Participants were randomly assigned to a material set. Each participant read twelve blocks of texts, and then they received a recognition test after each block. After reading one block, they were given one