Processing and recall of seductive details in scientific text

Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 569–587 www.elsevier.com/locate/cedpsych

Processing and recall of seductive details in scientiWc text Stephen Lehman a,¤, Gregory Schraw b, Matthew T. McCrudden c, Kendall Hartley b a

Department of Psychology, Utah State University, 2810 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322-2810, USA b Department of Educational Psychology, University of Nevada, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 453003, Las Vegas, NV 89154-3003, USA c Foundations and Secondary Education, College of Education and Human Services, 4567 St. Johns BluV Road, South Jacksonville, FL 32224-2676, USA Available online 21 August 2006

Abstract This study examined how seductive details aVect on-line processing of a technical, scientiWc text. In Experiment 1, each sentence from the experimental text was rated for interest and importance. Participants rated seductive details as being more interesting but less important than main ideas. In Experiment 2, we examined the eVect of seductive details on reading time and learning. Seductive details reduced the amount of time readers spent reading base text sentences, and hindered recall of important ideas and deeper processing as measured by an essay task. These Wndings extend previous research [Harp, S. & Mayer, R. E. (1997). Role of interest in learning from scientiWc text and illustrations: on the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 92–102; Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: a theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 441–434.] to suggest that the negative eVects of seductive details’ on comprehension were due to a combination of reduced attentional allocation and disruption of text coherence. © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Seductive details; Text comprehension; Situational interest

*

Corresponding author. Fax: +1 435 797 1448. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Lehman).

0361-476X/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.07.002

570

S. Lehman et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 569–587

1. Introduction Interest involves an enjoyment and willingness to become engaged in a cognitive activity (Schraw, 1998). Students who are interested in a task are more likely to use eVective learning strategies, such as elaboration of ideas, which in turn increases cognitive engagement and promotes understanding (Wade, Buxton, & Kelly, 1999). Moderate to high levels of interest help students read for comprehension. Inserting highly vivid text segments into a text is one way to make a passage more interesting, thereby prompting learners to allocate attention toward relevant or important to-be-learned content. Once learners are attending to relevant or important information, they are more likely to learn that information. For this reason it is important to understand how highly interesting, but unimportant or irrelevant text segments aVect text processing. A number of studies have focused on highly vivid text segments known as seductive details. Seductive details are segments that readers judge as highly interesting, but unimportant or irrelevant to the text’s main ideas. These segments usually contain information that is tangential to the main ideas of a story, but are memorable because they deal with controversial or sensational topics such as sex, death, or romantic intrigue (Kintsch, 1998; Schank, 1979; Wade, 1992). The research on seductive details has produced mixed results (Schraw & Lehman, 2001). The present research investigates on-line processing of seductive details to gain a clearer picture of the processes that produce the seductive details eVect. Garner and colleagues (Garner, Gillingham, & White, 1989; Garner, Alexander, Gillingham, & Brown, 1991) found that while seductive details were recalled well, they interfered with recall for other, more important text segments that were comparably less seductive. In Experiment 1 of Garner et al. (1989), college students read one of two versions of a short, but technical, scientiWc text. The text was three-paragraphs in length, with each paragraph containing one main idea. Those in the seductive details group read the text with the addition of three sentences that included seductive details. Those in the control group recalled 2.80 of the main ideas, while those in the seductive-details group recalled 1.30 main ideas. In Experiment 2, seventh-graders read one of three versions of the same text used in the Wrst experiment. The Wrst version contained only the base text; the second added seductive details. The third version contained only base text, but main ideas were signaled (e.g., italicized). Similar to Experiment 1, seductive details interfered with recall of main ideas. Students who received the seductive-detail version recalled fewer main ideas than either of the no-seductive-details conditions. Garner & Gillingham (1991) asked college students to read one of two versions of a biographical passage about the noted physicist Stephen Hawking. One version included a paragraph comprised of seductive details, whereas the other version did not. There were no signiWcant diVerences between these groups on the recall or short-answer tests. Comparing this study to previous studies by Garner and colleagues, it is unclear why the seductive detail eVect was not replicated. Plausible explanations include diVerences among participants, materials (e.g., type and length of text), and type of seductive detail. One possible explanation is that the seductive details were in one paragraph at the beginning of the passage. The placement of the seductive details at the beginning of the passage, as opposed to various seductive details interspersed throughout the text, may have prevented the seductive details from interfering with text coherence. Another possible explanation is that the text contained a strong narrative component. Narrative structure is much more consistent,

S. Lehman et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 569–587

571

making coherence easier to establish and maintain (Cook & Mayer, 1988; Paxton, 1999). Additionally, the text was much longer with a lower proportion of seductive details. It is plausible that the lower proportion of seductive details might have reduced their negative impact on comprehension. Wade & Adams (1990) were the Wrst researchers to conduct research that controlled explicitly for seductive and non-seductive details. In Experiment 1, participants read a biographical text about Horatio Nelson and rated each sentence for interest and importance. Wade and Adams used these ratings to identify four mutually exclusive types of text segments, including main ideas (i.e., information that is highly interesting and important), factual details (i.e., uninteresting, but important information), seductive details (i.e., highly interesting, but unimportant information), and boring trivia (i.e., uninteresting and unimportant information). In Experiment 2, participants read the text and later did a free recall. Seductive details were recalled signiWcantly better than main ideas, which were recalled better than factual details and boring trivia. They concluded that memory for text segments is dependent, in part, on the interest and importance of the text segment. Findings from Wade & Adams (1990) suggested that readers use diVerent processing strategies when reading diVerent types of text segments. Wade, Schraw, Buxton, & Hayes (1993) examined this possibility in further detail by asking college students to read a 2100 word adaptation of the Horatio Nelson biography used by Wade & Adams (1990). In a pilot study, text segments were rated for interest and importance then grouped into the four categories used by Wade & Adams (1990). In the Wrst experiment, all students read the same passage from computers as reading times were collected, and then completed a free recall task. Seductive details took signiWcantly longer to read, and were recalled better, than main ideas. Surprisingly, reading times for main ideas were faster than other segments even though main ideas were recalled quite well. Wade et al. concluded that readers utilized diVerent processing strategies for diVerent text segments. The strategy used for main ideas appeared to be most eYcient, in part, because individuals were aware that these segments were highly important. In the second experiment, participants read the text in regular manuscript form rather than sentence-by-sentence via computer. Individual interviews were conducted with the readers to determine readers’ processing strategies. The recall Wndings from Experiment 2 replicated those from Experiment 1. Individuals in Experiment 2 reported spending less time reading seductive details compared to main ideas, although participants from Experiment 1 actually spent more time reading seductive details than main ideas. Wade et al. (1993) concluded that seductive details interfered with text processing because readers were unaware of how much time they spent reading them. Schraw (1998) provided additional evidence that seductive details aVect text processing but do not necessarily interfere with recall. Results from two experiments in Schraw (1998) are germane to the present study. In Experiment 2, all participants read the same version of the Nelson biography text with seductive details via computer as reading time per sentence was recorded. Some seductive details took longer to read than main ideas, which suggested that readers were sensitive to changes in interestingness and importance of the text. In Experiment 3, participants read the text with or without seductive details. The presence or absence of seductive details did not interfere with recall of main ideas. Thus, in a study that controlled for seductive and non-seductive versions of the same text, there was no evidence of debilitative eVects for seductive details, a Wnding that was similar to Garner & Gillingham (1991).

572

S. Lehman et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 569–587

In contrast, Harp & Mayer (1997, 1998) found that seductive details interfered with comprehension of a technical, scientiWc text about the process of lightning. Harp & Mayer (1997) examined the role of seductive text segments and seductive illustrations on recall and problem solving. In Experiment 1, participants who read texts that included seductive text segments, seductive illustrations, or both recalled fewer main ideas and demonstrated lower performance on a problem-solving task. Inclusion of seductive segments did not aVect interest ratings. In Experiment 2, researchers compared ratings of cognitive interest (“How much does this material help you understand the process of lightning?”) and emotional interest (“How entertaining is the material?”), a distinction based on the work of Kintsch (1980). Seductive text and illustrations were rated as more emotionally interesting, whereas non-seductive text that included illustrations of important relationships were rated as more cognitively interesting. Harp and Mayer concluded that adjuncts that increase emotional interest have a debilitating eVect on learning, whereas adjuncts that increase cognitive interest have a facilitative eVect on learning. A follow-up study by Harp & Mayer (1998) compared three hypotheses to explain the seductive detail eVect. The distraction hypothesis suggests that seductive details cause poor comprehension by drawing away attention from main ideas (see Hidi, 2001, for a more detailed discussion of this claim). The disruption hypothesis suggests that seductive details cause poor comprehension by disrupting the Xow of cause and eVect ideas in the text. The diversion hypothesis suggests that seductive details cause poor comprehension by prompting readers to construct a coherent mental representation around the seductive details rather than around the main ideas of the passage. To test these hypotheses, Harp & Mayer (1998) conducted four experiments. They examined the role of highlighting important text information (i.e., use of bold and italicized print), providing speciWc learning objectives to readers, organizational signaling of important segments (i.e., use of preview sentences and numbering of steps leading to the formation of lightning), and modifying the order of appearance of seductive details. They concluded that all of the experiments supported the diversion hypothesis, suggesting that seductive details interfered with learning because they activated inappropriate schemata that caused readers to form a mental text representation around the seductive details rather than the main ideas. The research described above indicates that seductive details aVect text processing. Seductive details were recalled in higher proportion than other text segments (Schraw, 1998; Wade & Adams, 1990; Wade et al., 1993) and readers spent more time reading seductive details compared to other types of text segments (Schraw, 1998; Wade et al., 1993). Seductive details can interfere with memory for facts and conceptual understanding (Garner et al., 1989; Harp & Mayer, 1997, 1998), or may show no eVect on memory for facts (Garner & Gillingham, 1991; Schraw, 1998). The purpose of the present research is to reWne and extend Harp and Mayer’s research (1997, 1998) on the impact of seductive details in technical, expository text. This extension is important for several reasons. First, it enables a clariWcation of hypotheses to explain the eVects of seductive details. Second, it provides a more thorough test of the inXuence of seductive details by including measures of reading time. Third, the combination of measures enables us to better identify whether multiple factors cause seductive details to interfere with text processing. Harp & Mayer (1998) suggest that seductive details interfere with processing of technical, expository text due to inappropriate schematic activation. However, the three hypotheses proposed in Harp & Mayer (1998) were not mutually exclusive.

S. Lehman et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 569–587

573

For example, a break in text coherence (i.e., disruption) may cause a change in attentional allocation (i.e., distraction) where attention switches from the main ideas of the text to repairing text coherence. Similarly, disruption of text coherence may cause the reader to believe that the important information is contained in the seductive details and lead to the construction of an inappropriate schema (i.e., diversion). The current research increased the precision of Harp and Mayer’s Wndings in Wve ways. The Wrst was to include reading time data, which enabled an online measure for evaluating the distraction, disruption, and diversion hypotheses. The second was to score recall of the text by identifying 52 idea units relevant to understanding the process of lightning rather than scoring the 9 broad, main ideas used by Harp & Mayer (1998). The rationale for this change was twofold: (a) it permitted a Wner grained comparison of what ideas were recalled and (b) it increased the range of scores in the dependent variable in a manner that should provide a more powerful test of the observed eVect size by reducing restriction of range. The third was to norm the experimental text for interestingness and importance, which Harp and Mayer did not do. In Experiment 1, we normed the passage to ensure that seductive details met the criteria of interesting but unimportant information (Wade & Adams, 1990). Segments were rated on their interestingness as well as their importance. The fourth way was to eliminate illustrations. Participants in all conditions in the Harp & Mayer (1998) study viewed illustrations and read the text. Individuals who read text with seductive details also viewed “seductive illustrations.” This opens the possibility that the diVerent types of illustrations (seductive and non-seductive) may have contributed to the interference experienced by the readers. We excluded illustrations so that an unambiguous test of the eVects of seductive details in text could be made. The Wfth was to eliminate time limits for the reading and recall tasks because time constraints may aVect the type and amount of information studied and recalled. For example, Harp & Mayer’s (1998) 6.5-min study limit could have prevented readers from adequately integrating seductive and nonseductive text information. In the present study, we took measures of free recall, deeper processing and recorded reading time for each sentence of the text. Recording reading times enabled us to determine whether processing time diVered for base text sentences (i.e., non-seductive sentences), seductive detail sentences, and the base text sentences that followed seductive details. We developed three modiWed hypotheses that parallel those articulated by Harp & Mayer’s (1998), with the goal of exploring the eVects of seductive details on reading time, schematic activation and schema construction. The purpose of developing the modiWed hypotheses was to better articulate the factors that aVect online processing; speciWcally, attention, text coherence, and schematic activation. The reduced attention hypothesis (similar to Harp and Mayer’s distraction hypotheses) states that readers use their attentional resources to process seductive details rather than the base text. On this view, seductive details draw reader’s attention away from the base text sentences to the seductive details sentences. This hypothesis would be supported if readers both spend less time reading base text sentences and remember fewer base text idea units. Remembering less information from the base text is necessary to support this hypothesis, since a decrease in reading time can be the result of either increased interest (i.e., highly engaged readers read rapidly) or decreased attention (see Hidi, 2001; Reynolds, 1992). Together, these results would indicate that seductive details prompt readers to skim more rapidly over the base text sentences but devote more attention to encoding seductive details.

574

S. Lehman et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 569–587

The coherence break hypothesis (similar to Harp and Mayer’s disruption hypothesis) states that seductive details reduce text coherence, disrupting the formation of a coherent mental representation. On this view, readers spend additional time attempting to link seductive details into the causal sequence of events in the text. This eVort to repair coherence interrupts the Xow of the causal sequence so that readers’ holistic understanding of the base text is reduced. This hypothesis would be supported if seductive details reduce deeper understanding of base text information and if reading rate slows down on the transition from seductive detail sentences back to base text sentences. Reduced understanding of the text would suggest that a less coherent mental representation had been formed. A slower reading rate at the transition between seductive detail sentences and base text sentences would be consistent with readers trying to repair coherence breaks. Readers attempting to connect information that is causally unrelated require additional processing time (Keenan, Baillet, & Brown, 1984). The inappropriate schema hypotheses (similar to Harp and Mayer’s diversion hypothesis) states that the mental representation of the text is constructed around the seductive details rather than the base text. On this view, readers form a schema about the seductive details rather than about the main ideas in the text. This hypothesis would be consistent with the data if those who read the seductive details text recalled seductive detail idea units at a higher rate than base text information and if deeper understanding of the text was reduced. Overall, we expected our Wndings regarding recall of base text information and deeper processing to parallel those reported by Harp & Mayer (1998). However, due to the norming of experimental materials and the inclusion of online measures of reading time, we expected to provide a more precise and comprehensive analysis of the role that seductive details play in text processing. We expected that the results would support two or more of these hypotheses. The hypotheses and expected eVects on learning and reading time are summarized in Table 1. 2. Experiment 1 2.1. Method 2.1.1. Participants Forty undergraduate education majors from an introductory educational psychology course at a large western university participated in partial fulWllment of their class requireTable 1 Summary of three hypotheses Hypotheses Reduced attention hypothesis

Coherence break hypothesis

Inappropriate schema hypothesis

Predictions Expected eVect on learning:

Reduced recall of base text idea units

Reduced holistic understanding of base text.

Reduced holistic understanding of base text Seductive detail idea units recalled at higher rate than base text idea units

Expected eVect on reading time:

Reduced time spent reading base text sentences

Increased reading time for base text sentences that follow seductive detail sentences

None

S. Lehman et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 569–587

575

ment. Participants’ mean age was 23 years. Sixteen were male and twenty-four were female. All participants were white. 2.1.2. Materials The text was a 50 sentence, 967-word passage that described the formation of lightning and the conditions under which lightning is most likely to occur (see Appendix A). It was adapted from the seductive details text used by Harp & Mayer (1998). As with Harp and Mayer’s version, seductive detail sentences were distributed throughout the base text. The passage was modiWed to increase referential clarity by either modifying sentences or by adding bridging sentences. For example, the original text used the sentence “The rising and falling air currents within the cloud may cause hailstones to form,” whereas the adapted text used “These rising and falling air currents within the cloud may cause hailstones to form because the water droplets are carried back up to the cold upper atmosphere.” Bridging sentences, such as, “As we will see shortly, these hailstones play an important role in the formation of lightning,” were inserted to increase referential clarity. The modiWed passage maintained all of the idea units and seductive details contained in the original Harp and Mayer text. The directions on the interest rating scale asked participants to rate their interest in each sentence of the text using a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 D very uninteresting, 2 D uninteresting, 3 D interesting, 4 D very interesting). Each sentence was numbered and listed individually in the order it was presented in the text. The interest rating scale included the following instructions at the top of the page: “Whenever someone reads a passage, some information is more interesting than others. Now that you have read the ‘Lightning’ passage, we would like you to rate your interest in each of the sentences in the story. Use the 4-point scale below to rate the relative interest of each sentence in the passage. Circle one number for each sentence.” The directions on the importance rating scale asked participants to rate the importance of each sentence of the text using a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 D very unimportant, 2 D unimportant, 3 D important, 4 D very important). Each sentence was numbered and listed individually in the order it was presented in the text. The importance rating scale included the following instructions at the top of the page: “Whenever someone reads a passage, some information is more important to the passage than others. Now that you have read the ‘Lightning’ passage, we would like you to rate the importance of each of the sentences to the story’s overall meaning. Use the 4-point scale below to rate the relative importance of each sentence in the passage. Circle one number for each sentence.” 2.1.3. Procedure Participants were informed that they would be reading a text about lightning at a selfselected pace. They were instructed that they should read the text for understanding and that they would be doing two tasks after all participants had read the text. Next, they removed the text from their folders and read the text. Once all participants had Wnished reading, participants removed the interest rating scale from their folders. The researcher read aloud the instructions on the top of the rating scale and indicated that they should wait for further instructions once they Wnished the scale. The importance rating scale was completed in a fashion identical to the interest rating scale. After all participants had completed the Wnal task, they were debriefed and dismissed. The entire experiment was completed in approximately 35 min.

576

S. Lehman et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 569–587

2.2. Results 2.2.1. Interest ratings For each sentence, separate mean scores for interest were calculated. CoeYcient alpha was used to assess the reliability of the interest ratings. The alpha value reached .91, indicating a high degree of consistency among raters. The grand mean for interest of all sentences was 2.81 (SD D .58). A median split was used to distinguish high interest and low interest sentences. High interest sentences had a mean rating of 2.69 or higher, whereas low interest sentences had a mean rating of 2.68 or lower. High interest scores ranged from 3.58 to 2.69; low interest scores ranged from 2.68 to 2.20. 2.2.2. Importance ratings For each sentence, separate mean scores for importance were calculated. CoeYcient alpha was used to assess the reliability of the importance ratings. The alpha value reached .92, indicating a high degree of consistency within raters. The grand mean for importance of all sentences was 2.96 (SD D .54). A median split was used to distinguish high importance and low importance sentences. High importance sentences had a mean rating of 3.05 or higher, whereas low importance sentences had a mean rating of 3.02 or lower. High importance scores ranged from 3.60 to 3.05; low importance scores ranged from 3.02 to 1.83. 2.2.3. Sentence classiWcation The interest and importance scores were used to identify seductive details. The Wade et al. (1993) criteria of interesting but unimportant information was used to identify seductive details. The 11 sentences (22%) that met the high interest/low importance criteria were labeled seductive details. The following is an example: “For example, eye witnesses in Burtonsville, Maryland, watched as a bolt of lightning tore a hole in the helmet of a high school football player during practice.” The remaining 39 sentences were classiWed as “base text sentences.” The following is an example of a base text sentence: “The electrical diVerences between cloud and ground begin when warm, moist air near the earth’s surface becomes heated and rises rapidly, producing an updraft.” 2.2.4. Summary of results In Experiment 1, participants identiWed 11 seductive details sentences as interesting but unimportant information, supporting the distinction between the material describing the process of lightning and the high interest/low importance information. The thirty-nine sentences not categorized as seductive details were combined and analyzed as “base text” in Experiment 2. 3. Experiment 2 3.1. Method 3.1.1. Participants and design Fifty-three undergraduate students from an introductory educational psychology class at a large southwestern university participated in partial fulWllment of their class research requirement. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions in a two-group

S. Lehman et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 569–587

577

between-subjects design with those in the control group receiving only the base text (i.e., base text sentences only) whereas those in the seductive details group read the seductive details text (i.e., base text sentences and seductive detail sentences). In addition to the between-subjects comparisons, three within-subjects comparisons of the seductive details group were made to compare the reading time and recall of seductive detail sentences with the reading time and recall of base text sentences. 3.1.2. Materials The text was identical to the one used in Experiment 1. The independent variable was the presence or absence of seductive details sentences. Participants in the control condition were given the passage on lighting without seductive detail sentences. The control passage consisted of the 39 base text sentences (741 words) identiWed in Experiment 1. Those in the seductive details condition were given the base text plus the 11 additional seductive detail sentences (226 words). The seductive detail sentences increased the length of the text to 967 words. We will refer to the 39 base text sentences that both groups read as the “base text” and the text that contained seductive detail sentences as the “seductive details text.” In the seductive details text, the seductive detail sentences comprised 26% of the text, and consisted of information regarding the eVects of lighting on humans, such as “Swimmers are sitting ducks for lightning, because water is an excellent conductor of this electrical discharge.” Seductive detail sentences were interspersed throughout passage and were integrated into the base text. A reading timer computer program presented the text one sentence at a time and recorded reading time when participants advanced to the next sentence. The computer program presented reading instructions as well as instructions on how to advance from one sentence of the text to the next. The text was then displayed one sentence at a time with the participant controlling when he or she would advance to the next sentence. While this is an unconventional means of reading, this method allowed an unambiguous and precise measure of the time spent reading passage sentences. The computer recorded the reading time for each sentence in milliseconds. The printed materials included a recall booklet and a deeper processing essay. 3.1.3. Outcome measures Four outcome measures were used, including measures of reading time, recall of text ideas, holistic understanding, and total claims. Reading time was recorded for each sentence of the text to the nearest millisecond. For the recall task, participants were asked to write down as much as they could remember about the story, using as much detail as possible. The base text contained 52 idea units relevant to understanding the process of lighting. Some base text sentences contained two idea units. For example, the sentence “At this altitude, the air temperature is well below freezing, so the water droplets become tiny ice crystals” was divided into the idea units “At this altitude, the air temperature is well below freezing” and “so the water droplets become tiny ice crystals.” Idea units were parsed in this way to enable scoring of the central idea of each sentence clause rather than details that were not essential for understanding the text. The seductive details text contained an additional 20 idea units. Some seductive detail sentences contained two idea units. For example, the sentence “Golfers are prime targets of lightning strikes because they tend to stand in open grassy Welds, or to huddle under trees” was divided into the idea units “Golfers are prime targets of lightning strikes” and “because

578

S. Lehman et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 569–587

they tend to stand in open grassy Welds, or to huddle under trees.” Recall was scored by tallying the number of idea units that were recalled in either verbatim or paraphrase form from the text. Paraphrase and verbatim scores were combined to produce a recall score. Rating sheets were used so that recalled ideas could be tallied with the sentence from which the idea originated, whether base text or seductive detail. One trained rater blind to experimental condition scored all recall protocols, and a second rater scored 20 randomly selected recall protocols. An intra-class correlation was computed to determine rater agreement (Cicchetti, 1994). Inter-rater reliability was high ( D .96), so scores from the Wrst rater were used in the analysis. Using these data, the recall score was computed by summing the tallies of the base text idea units that users recalled. Two measures of deeper processing (holistic understanding and total claims score) were gathered using an essay that tapped participants’ understanding of the cause and eVect relationships in the text. Participants were asked to explain “why lightning is much more common in warm, moist climates than in cool, moist climates.” This task was chosen because it taps a reader’s representation of the casual sequence described in the text. Understanding of causal relationships of a text is widely considered to be a central component of high levels of comprehension (Graesser, Singer, & Trabasso, 1994; van den Broek, Young, Tzeng, & Linderholm, 1999; Zwaan & Radvansky, 1998). A rating system adapted from Lehman & Schraw (2002) was used to quantify the amount of evidence (total claims score) that readers used in their explanations and to holistically evaluate participants’ responses (holistic understanding score). The total claims score reXected the number of causal explanations and inferences that participants made in completing the essay task. The total claims score was the number of legitimate claims used to support the answer to the question that was asked. Legitimate claims could be textual evidence, relevant background knowledge, or valid reasoning. For example in asserting that lightning in more common in warm moist climates than in cool moist climates one participant wrote, “I think lightning is more commonƒbecause the updrafts from the ground carry warm air meeting with the downdrafts from the cloudsƒ.” This statement received one point for accurate textual evidence claim that supported the participant’s claim. The participant further supported their claim by providing information from their background knowledge, “Warm air rises and cool air falls,” so another point was added for this statement. The holistic understanding score judged the overall level to which inferences were generated and interconnected to form an integrated representation of the situation described in the text. The holistic understanding score was a 1–5 rating given to each essay that considered (1) the quantity of evidence used as support for their answer, (2) the extent to which this evidence was factually accurate, and (3) the extent to which the evidence was integrated into a holistic representation of the process of lightning. A score of 1 indicated a clear lack of holistic understanding while a score of 5 indicated a clear example of holistic understanding similar to a “situation model” as described by Graesser et al. (1994). See Appendix B for examples of essays scored for holistic understanding. We assumed the two measures would be correlated in excess of .50, yet would provide somewhat distinct types of information. The scores correlated highly (r D .70). As with the recall score, one rater independently rated essays for both the total claims score and the holistic understanding score. A second rater scored twenty randomly selected essays. Intra-class correlations showed good inter-rater reliability ( D .89,  D .82, respectively).

S. Lehman et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 569–587

579

3.1.4. Procedure Participants were assigned randomly to one of the two experimental conditions. They were given an overview of the tasks and were asked to read the instructions for the reading timer. They were instructed to read the text at a pace that was comfortable to them, and were informed that they would not be able to review sentences that they had previously read. Next they read the passage. After all participants Wnished reading the text, they were asked to recall as much of the text as they could. Once all participants completed the recall task, they answered the deeper processing essay question. Participants were allowed as much time as they needed to complete all the tasks. After all participants had completed the Wnal task, they were debriefed and dismissed. The entire experiment was completed in less than one hour. 3.2. Results Four analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted that examined the between-subjects eVects of seductive details on reading time, recall of base text sentences and the two measures of deeper processing. In addition to these four statistical tests, two pair-wise comparisons were made to explore within-subjects diVerences between base text sentences and seductive detail sentences with regard to reading time and recall. SigniWcance levels were set to p < .05 for all analyses. Table 2 displays a summary of the means and standard deviations for the dependent variables. 3.2.1. Reading time According to the reduced attention hypothesis, seductive details distract readers such that less time is spent reading base text sentences when seductive details are included. To test the reduced attention hypothesis, we compared the reading times for the base text sentences by those who read the seductive details text to those who read the base text. We analyzed reading time by computing the mean time spent reading each word in the base text sentences. Time per word was computed by dividing sentence time by the number of words Table 2 Means and standard deviations for Experiment 2 outcome variables Variable

Condition Base text (no seductive details)

Reading time of base text sentences (seconds) M SD Recall of base text idea units M SD Deeper processing Total claims M SD Holistic understanding M SD ¤

P<.05.

Total Seductive details text

313.63¤ (66.68)

276.42 (64.45)

294.67 (67.58)

11.58¤ (4.60)

8.88 (5.06)

10.23 (4.98)

5.88¤ (1.63)

4.58 (2.08)

5.23 (1.97)

2.81¤ (.90)

1.86 (1.20)

2.34 (1.15)

580

S. Lehman et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 569–587

in that sentence. The presence of seductive details decreased the amount of time readers spent reading base text sentences, (F (1, 53) D 4.92, p D .03, MSE D 8096.6, d D .56). Those who read the seductive details text (i.e., seductive detail sentences and base text sentences) read the base text sentences faster than those who read the base text alone (see Table 2 for means). This Wnding is consistent with the reduced attention hypothesis. 3.2.2. Recall To test the reduced attention hypothesis, we compared recall of base text idea units by those who read the seductive details text to those who read the base text. The recall score was computed by summing the total number of ideas that were recalled from the base text. This yielded a measure of recall of the ideas that were important to understanding the formation of lightning. Adding the seductive detail sentences to the base text interfered with recall of the base text idea units (F (1, 52) D 4.03, p D .05, MSE D 23.38). Those who read the seductive details text remembered less information about the formation of lightning than those who read the base text without seductive details. This moderate eVect size (d D .55) is consistent with the overall Wndings of Harp & Mayer (1997, 1998). The combination of reduced reading time and lower recall for base text sentences is consistent with both predictions of the reduced attention hypothesis. 3.2.3. Deeper processing measures According to the coherence break hypothesis, seductive details interrupt the Xow of the causal sequence so that readers’ holistic understanding of the base text is reduced. To test the coherence break hypothesis, we compared the total claims scores and the holistic understanding scores of those who read the base text and those who read the seductive details text. The inappropriate schema hypothesis also predicts that seductive details will interfere with deeper processing. The total claims score and the holistic understanding score measured deeper processing. The total claims score summed the number of legitimate claims that were made to support the participant’s explanation of what could go wrong in the cause and eVect sequence that produces lightning. Seductive details decreased reader’s ability to produce legitimate claims in support of their explanations (F (1, 52) D 6.35, p D .02, MSE D 3.50). This eVect was moderately large, d D .68 (Cohen, 1988). Those who read the seductive details text included fewer legitimate claims in their essays than those who read the base text. The holistic understanding score was obtained by judging the extent to which the essay provided accurate details that were integrated into a coherent explanation of why lightning would be less common in a speciWc circumstance. Seductive details had a large, detrimental eVect on readers’ holistic understanding of the text. Seductive details substantially reduced readers’ ability to remember and integrate important aspects of how lightning is formed (F (1, 52) D 10.28, p < .01, MSE D 1.13, d D .88). Those who read the seductive details text had lower holistic understanding scores than those who read the base text. These Wndings are consistent with both the coherence break and inappropriate schema hypotheses. 3.2.4. Within-subjects comparison of seductive detail sentences and base text sentences We used three within-subjects comparisons of the seductive details group to compare the reading time and recall of seductive detail sentences with the reading time and recall of base text sentences. First, we examined reading times of sentences to see if seductive detail sentences were read at a diVerent rate than base text sentences. The seductive details

S. Lehman et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 569–587

581

sentences and the base text sentences were read at the same rate by those who read the seductive details text. (t (1, 26) D ¡1.01, p D .32) (see Table 3 for pair-wise comparison means). Second, we compared reading times of base text sentence that immediately followed seductive details to those that did not follow seductive details. We did this to see if seductive detail sentences caused participants to slow their reading rate on the base text sentences that followed them. Participants read base-text sentences following seductive detail sentences at a slower rate than other base text sentences, t (1, 26) D 5.34, p < .01. Seductive detail sentences had a medium to large eVect (d D .65) on the reading rate of the succeeding sentence (Cohen, 1988) (see Table 3). The additional time needed to read sentences following seductive details is consistent with the coherence break hypothesis, where readers must spend additional time trying to link seductive details into the main ideas of the text. Third, we compared the proportion of recall of seductive details with the proportion of recall of base text information. According to the inappropriate schema hypothesis, the proportional recall of seductive detail ideas units should be recalled at a higher rate than base text idea units. A pair-wise comparison of the rate of recall of seductive detail idea units to the rate of recall of base text idea units revealed that seductive details were not more memorable than base-text information, t (1, 25) D ¡1.95, p D .06 d D ¡.51 (see Table 3 for means). This was contrary to the inappropriate schema hypothesis’ prediction that a mental representation constructed around seductive details should result in greater recall of this information, although the results were in the predicted direction. 3.2.5. Summary of results The results of Experiment 2 indicate that seductive details have a detrimental eVect on both recall and deeper processing of text. The between-group comparisons led to two main Wndings. First, those who read the seductive details text performed more poorly on the recall and deeper processing tasks compared to those who read the base text. Second, those who read the seductive details text spent less time reading base text sentences than seductive detail sentences. The within-group comparisons (i.e., seductive details condition) led to two additional main Wndings. First, those who read the seductive details text spent additional time reading Table 3 Means and standard deviations of Experiment 2 within-subject comparisons Variable

Pairs

Reading time (ms/word) M SD

Seductive details 404.55 (91.03)

Base text sentences 398.17 (90.36)

M SD

Base text sentences following SDs 456.59¤ (126.48)

Base text sentences NOT following SDs 385.18 (85.45)

Seductive details idea units .24 (.17)

Base text idea units .17 (.09)

Proportion of recall (ideas recalled/ideas total) M SD ¤

P<.05.

582

S. Lehman et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 569–587

base text sentences following the seductive detail sentences. Second, those who read the seductive details text did not remember seductive detail idea units at a higher rate than base text idea units. These data are consistent with the conclusion that the eVects of seductive details are due to a combination of misdirected attentional resources and reduced coherence, and they partially support the inappropriate schema hypothesis. 4. Discussion The purpose of this research was to examine the eVect of seductive details on recall, understanding, and reading time for a technical, expository text. We evaluated the results with respect to the reduced attention, coherence break, and inappropriate schema hypotheses. The reduced attention hypothesis states that seductive details interfere with comprehension by drawing away attention from base text information. The coherence break hypothesis states that seductive details disrupt comprehension because they interfere with the construction of a coherent mental representation of the text’s main ideas. The inappropriate schema hypothesis states that seductive details cause readers to construct a text representation around seductive details rather than base text information. This inappropriate schema interferes with the integration of important main ideas. Each hypothesis predicted a speciWc combination of two outcomes. The reduced attention hypothesis predicted decreased reading time for base text sentences and reduced memory for base text information. Results from Experiment 2 supported both predictions. Those who read the seductive details text spent less time reading base text sentences and they remembered fewer base text idea units than those who read the text without seductive details. The combination of these two outcomes suggests that faster reading times for base text sentences was the result of reduced attention rather than highly focused attention (interest). These Wndings unambiguously supported the reduced attention hypothesis. The coherence break hypothesis predicted that coherence breaks and the resulting fragmented schema would be evidenced by a reduction in deeper understanding and an increase in processing time for base text sentences following seductive detail sentences. Results supported both predictions. Participants who read the seductive details text produced fewer claims and had lower holistic understanding scores on the essay task. Additionally, these readers spent more time reading base text sentences that followed seductive detail sentences. These Wndings are consistent with the idea that seductive details disrupted the coherence of the passage, and prompted the reader generate a less complete representation of the important events in the text. Together, these results suggest that transitioning between seductive detail sentences and base text sentences disrupted readers’ processing of base text information. The inappropriate schema hypothesis predicted that readers’ construction of an inappropriate schema (one centered around the seductive details rather than around the main ideas) would cause a decrease in deeper understanding and a higher rate of memory for seductive detail idea units than for base text idea units. Results from Experiment 2 partially supported the inappropriate schema hypothesis. Deeper understanding, as measured by the essay task, was lower when seductive details were present. However, those who read the seductive detail text did not remember seductive detail idea units at a higher rate than base text idea units, as should be the case if the readers’ mental representation was constructed around seductive details.

S. Lehman et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 569–587

583

Experiment 2 replicated the previous Wndings of Harp & Mayer (1997, 1998) in that seductive details led to lower recall and less deeper processing of the text. Experiment 2 also extended Harp and Mayer’s Wndings using online measures that suggest that seductive details can damage text comprehension both by distracting readers’ attention away from base text and by disrupting the coherence of the text. While Harp and Mayer attributed the negative eVects of seductive details primarily to diversion (inappropriate schema construction), our online processing Wndings further suggest that reduced attention and reduced coherence also contribute to the negative eVects of seductive details. Overall, there is evidence to support the view that seductive details negatively aVect learning due to reduced attention, coherence disruption, and inappropriate schema construction. It appears that all three processes work in conjunction and may do so interactively. For example, disruption due to coherence breaks may distract a reader’s attention away from main ideas, or distraction while reading seductive details may lead readers to construct a schema based on seductive details rather than main ideas. Future research is needed to examine the separate and combined eVects of these diVerent processes. Although our Wndings are consistent with Harp & Mayer (1997, 1998), they are inconsistent with studies reporting that seductive details do not have a negative eVect on processing and understanding (Schraw, 1998). The eVect of seductive details may depend on their relevance to text in which they appear. For example, Harp & Mayer (1998) inserted seductive segments taken a diVerent passage into an otherwise technical exposition of the process of lightning. As the reading time data from Experiment 2 suggest, readers found the transition from seductive details to the main topic of the passage diYcult to make. In contrast, the materials used by Schraw (1998) included seductive details that were coherent with respect to the main topic of the passage. The eVect of seductive details may also depend on the length or type of text used. Short, technical texts such as those used in Garner et al. (1989) and the present study found negative eVects for seductive details, whereas longer texts with a stronger narrative component, such as the biographies used in Garner & Gillingham (1991) & Schraw (1998), Wnd no negative eVects on learning. The location of the seductive details may aVect how they aVect text processing. Garner & Gillingham (1991) placed a seductive detail paragraph at the beginning of their passage, whereas the seductive details in the present study were interspersed throughout the text. The main conclusion from the present research is that seductive details interfere with comprehension and processing of scientiWc text due to reduced attention to base text, a disruption in coherence of the text, and possibly to inappropriate schema construction. Seductive details do not always induce interference, but they may do so when they draw readers’ attention away from main ideas or create breaks in coherence that readers try to repair. The extent to which seductive details interfere with learning may depend on the extent to which the seductive details are context dependent (Schraw, 2000), the proportion of seductive detail text to base text (seductive detail density), and the relative diYculty of establishing coherence in the text. An important implication of these Wndings is that the eVects of seductive details may depend on the textual situation in which they occur, and suggests that the three hypotheses we tested could be subsumed under a broader “situational processing” explanation. SpeciWcally, the relationship of the content of the seductive details as they relate to the main ideas in the text, the impact they have on text coherence and the diYculty of the text could inXuence the eVect seductive details have on comprehension. An overall, situational framework such as this could provide a possible explanation for the mixed results of previous

584

S. Lehman et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 569–587

research on seductive details. Future research should investigate situations in which seductive details do and do not cause interference. For example, one important question is whether seductive details would produce the same Wndings if the lightning passage used in this research was revised to decrease or eliminate coherence breaks. It seems probable that seductive details would not have the same detrimental eVects on processing under these circumstances. The present research also raises important questions for text writers and educators. Debate has continued for 15 years regarding the relative pros and cons of using seductive details as a means to catch and hold readers’ attention. Our results suggest that seductive details do catch readers’ attention, but that this can be at the expense of consuming cognitive resources that could otherwise to used to understand the main ideas of the text. There is no evidence that suggests seductive details have a strong positive eVect, whereas there is evidence that seductive details can have a detrimental eVect. As a result, we do not recommend using seductive details to enhance text. An alternative strategy is to construct a text that is well-organized, informative, and engaging to readers. Such texts are more interesting to readers, and are easier to process and recall (Schraw & Lehman, 2001), yet do not disrupt coherence, distract attention or divert schematic activation. Appendix A. The process of lightning Lightning can be deWned as the discharge of electricity resulting from the diVerence in electrical charges between the cloud and the ground. Understanding how lightning is formed is important because approximately 150 Americans are killed by lightning every year. Swimmers in particular are sitting ducks for lightning because water is an excellent conductor of its electrical discharge. The electrical diVerences between cloud and ground begin when warm, moist air near the earth’s surface becomes heated and rises rapidly, producing an updraft. You may have experienced these updrafts on airplanes. Flying through clouds with updrafts can cause the plane ride to be bumpy. As the air in these updrafts cools in the cold upper atmosphere, moisture from the updraft condenses into water droplets and forms a cloud. The cloud’s top extends high into the atmosphere. At this altitude, the air temperature is well below freezing, so the water droplets become tiny ice crystals. Within the cloud, the water droplets and ice crystals gradually become too large to be suspended by the updrafts rising from the earth’s warm surface. As the ice crystals within the cloud begin to fall, they drag some of the air from the cloud downward, producing downdrafts. These downdrafts meet the updrafts from the surface within the cloud. These rising and falling air currents within the cloud may cause hailstones to form because the water droplets are carried back up to the cold upper atmosphere. As we will see shortly, these hailstones play an important role in the formation of lightning. Eventually, the downdrafts overcome the updrafts and descend to the earth, where they spread out in all directions, producing the gusts of cool wind people feel just before the start of the rain. When lightning strikes the ground, the heat from the lightning melts the sand, forming fulgurites. Fulgurites are glassy, root-like tubes shaped by the electricity’s path. Fulgurites help scientists understand how lightning spreads and acts against resistance from the soil. Inside the cloud, it is the movement of the updrafts and the downdrafts that cause electrical charges to build, although scientists do not fully understand how it occurs. Most believe that the charge results from the collision of rising water droplets and tiny ice crys-

S. Lehman et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 569–587

585

tals in the updraft with hailstones in the downdraft. This movement causes static electricity to develop with the negatively charged particles falling to the bottom of the cloud, while most of the positively charged particles rise to the top. The negatively charged particles at the bottom of the cloud provide the power for the Wrst downward stroke of a cloud-to-ground lightning Xash, which is started by a “stepped leader.” Many scientists believe that this Wrst stroke is triggered by a spark between the areas of positive and negative charges within the cloud. In trying to understand these processes, sometimes scientists launch tiny rockets into overhead clouds to create lightning. Once triggered, the stepped leader moves downward in a series of steps, each of which is about 50 yards long, and lasts for about 1 millionth of a second. It pauses between steps for about 50 millionths of a second. Stepped leaders can strike a metal airplane, but rarely do any damage because airplane nosecones are built with lightning rods, which diVuse the lightning so it passes through the plane without harming it. As the stepped leader nears the ground, positively charged upward-moving leaders travel up from such objects as trees and buildings, to meet the negative charges. Usually, the upward moving leader from the tallest object is the Wrst to meet the downward moving stepped leader and complete a path between the cloud and earth. The two leaders generally meet about 165 feet above the ground. Negatively charged particles then rush from the cloud to the ground along the path created by the leaders. This type of lightning is not very bright and usually has many branches. Understanding that lightning often strikes the tallest object in the area can help reduce the number of lightning injuries. People in Xat, open areas are at greater risk of being struck.Golfers are prime targets of lightning strikes because they tend to stand in open grassy Welds, or to huddle under trees. These lightning strikes can be very dangerous. For example, eye witnesses in Burtonsville, Maryland, watched as a bolt of lightning tore a hole in the helmet of a high school football player during practice. The bolt burned his jersey, and blew his shoes oV. More than a year later, the young man still won’t talk about his near death experience. The “return stroke” is the electrical current that returns to the cloud. As mentioned previously, when the negatively charged stepped leader nears the earth, it induces an opposite charge, so that when the two leaders connect the cloud to the ground, positively charged particles from the ground rush upward along the same path. This upward motion of the current is the “return stroke,” and it reaches the cloud in about 70 millionths of a second. It produces the bright light that people notice in a Xash of lightning, but the current moves so quickly that its upward motion cannot be perceived. The lightning Xash usually consists of an electrical potential of hundreds of millions of volts. The powerful electrical charge of the return stroke causes air along the lightning channel to be heated brieXy to a very high temperature. Such intense heating causes the air to expand explosively, producing a sound wave we call thunder. Understanding the process of lightning is important to both scientists and the public. Scientists need to know how lightning is created. People in general need to understand how lightning behaves, where it strikes, and how to avoid risk. This knowledge can help to protect the 10,000 Americans who are injured by lightning each year. Appendix B. Examples of holistically scored essays Lightning is more common because when the warm air and the cool air meet it creates a charge which produces lightning. There is still not an explanation of exactly what leads to

586

S. Lehman et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 569–587

the charge. The cool air, moist climates are basically the same so no friction is created, which cause [sic] the spark of light. Holistic understanding score: 1 The warm air rise to meet the cool air which causes the tension and static electricity to form lightning. The moist air causes droplets to rise to form in the clouds which can produce downpours or even hail, which is very important in thunderstorms apparently. It starts to rain when the cloud can’t hold all the moisture. The humidity, or moist [sic], feeds the storms more along with the hot air that mixes and disturbs the cool upper air, that is generally below freezing. Holistic understanding score: 2 Lightning is more common in warm, moist climates than in cool, moist climates, due to the way it if [sic] formed. The electrical charges that come crashing to the ground occur when when [sic] the cool downdraft, the air coming form the cold upper atmosphere, mixes w/ the warm air coming form the ground. In cool climates, the air going up, or the updraft is cool that mixes w/ the cool downdraft where no electrical charges occur. Holistic understanding score: 3 Warm air rises. It has to rise and cool oV to form clouds. We have to have the rising of air up meeting the downdraft from the cloud meet each other. This is what causes the charges in the cloud and the ice crystals, water and hail that generate the charges. The movement up and down has to occur, up from the earth and down from the cloud (by hail, ice crystals and water droplets) in order for the two movements for making the electrical charge in the cloud. The movement of the air helps facilitate the steps down from the cloud that need to meet the ground to cause the strike. Holistic understanding score: 4 In a cool moist climate air cannot rise to form clouds because warm air can hold more water. When the air is heated and can hold water particles the air will begin to rise (warm air rises and cool air sinks) when it reaches the stratosphere it cools and condenses, releasing water particles to begin the formation of clouds. When warm air is continually rising and cool air is continually sinking, the interaction of the two currents with positively and negatively charged particles creates static electricity which can create a spark in the cloud and allow an electric current to Xow down the path of negatively charged particles which will meet with positively charged particles about 165 ft above the ground and the lightning will proceed to strike the earth. Without the warm air rising and holding water molecules we would not have clouds to create these interactions and form lightning. Holistic understanding score: 5 References Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6, 284–290. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cook, L. K., & Mayer, R. E. (1988). Teaching readers about the structure of scientiWc text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 448–456. Garner, R., & Gillingham, M. G. (1991). Topic knowledge, cognitive interest, and text recall: A microanalysis. Journal of Experimental Education, 59, 310–319. Garner, R., Gillingham, M. G., & White, C. S. (1989). EVects of “seductive details” on macroprocessing and microprocessing in adults and children. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 41–57.

S. Lehman et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 569–587

587

Garner, R., Alexander, P. A., Gillingham, M. G., & Brown, R. (1991). Interest and learning from text. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 643–659. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395. Harp, S., & Mayer, R. E. (1997). Role of interest in learning from scientiWc text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 92–102. Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 434–441. Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 191–209. Keenan, J., Baillet, S., & Brown, P. (1984). The eVects of causal cohesion on comprehension and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 115–126. Kintsch, W. (1980). Learning from text, levels of comprehension, or: Why anyone would read a story anyway. Poetics, 9, 87–89. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Lehman, S., & Schraw, G. (2002). EVects of coherence and relevance on shallow and deeper levels of text processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 738–750. Paxton, R. (1999). A deafening silence: history textbooks and the students who read them. Review of Educational Research, 69, 315–339. Reynolds, R. E. (1992). Selective attention and prose learning: Theoretical and empirical research. Educational Psychology Review, 4, 345–391. Schank, R. C. (1979). Interestingness: Controlling inXuences. ArtiWcial Intelligence, 12, 273–297. Schraw, G. (1998). Processing and recall diVerences among seductive details. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 3–12. Schraw, G. (2000). Issues in the measurement of metacogntion. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute for Mental Measurements and Erlbaum Associates. Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: a review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 23–52. van den Broek, P., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T. (1999). The landscape model of reading: inferences and the online construction of memory representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71–98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Wade, S. E. (1992). How interest aVects learning from text. In A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 281–296). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wade, S. E., & Adams, B. (1990). EVects of importance and interest on recall of biographical text. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 331–353. Wade, S., Buxton, W., & Kelly, M. (1999). Using think-alouds to examine reader-text interest. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 194–216. Wade, S. E., Schraw, G., Buxton, W. M., & Hayes, M. T. (1993). Seduction of the strategic reader: eVects of interest on strategies and recall. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 3–24. Zwaan, R., & Radvansky, G. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185.