Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:10:35.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relation between understanding and agreeing in response to one-sentence assertion*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2014

YASUHIRO OZURU ,
DAVID BOWIE  and
GIULIA KAUFMAN
YASUHIRO OZURU*
Affiliation:
University of Alaska Anchorage
DAVID BOWIE
Affiliation:
University of Alaska Anchorage
GIULIA KAUFMAN
Affiliation:
University of Alaska Anchorage
*
†Address for correspondence: Yasuhiro Ozuru, Department of Psychology, University of Alaska Anchorage. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three quasi-experimental studies were conducted to investigate the relationship between the evaluative (i.e., agree/true) and the meta-cognitive (i.e., understand) response, and to determine which type of response people are more likely to provide when responding to one-sentence assertive statements. In Studies 1 and 2, participants performed two separate tasks in which they were asked to indicate the levels of: (i) understanding and (ii) agreement / perceived truthfulness of 126 one-sentence statements. The results indicated that participants were likely to provide a negative evaluative response (i.e., disagree/false) to a statement that they did not understand. In Study 3, participants were asked to evaluate the same 126 statements and choose between four response options: agree, disagree, understand, do not understand. The results indicated that people are more likely provide an evaluative response regardless of the understandability of a statement. The results of these studies are discussed in relation to (i) pragmatic perspective of how people infer speakers’ meaning, and (ii) cognitive processes underlying evaluative and meta-cognitive response.

Keywords

pragmaticssentence comprehensionsentence evaluationcognition
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 36 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

references

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bargh, J. A., Chaiken, S., Govender, R., & Pratto, F. (1992). The generality of the automatic attitude activation effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 893−912.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernicot, J., & Laval, V. (2004). Speech acts in children: the examples of promises. In Noveck, I. & Sperber, D. (Eds.), Experimental pragmatics (pp. 207−227). Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloem, I., & La Heij, W. (2003). Semantic facilitation and semantic interference in word translation: implications for models of lexical access in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 468–488.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: some universal in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42(4), 368−407.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clifton, C. Jr. (2000). Evaluating models of human sentence processing. In Crocker, M., Pickering, M., & Clifton, C. (Eds.), Architectures and mechanisms for language comprehension (pp. 31−55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1664 [1984]). The philosophical writings of Descartes, trans. Cottingham, J., Stootoff, R., & Murdoch, D., New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Duffy, S. A., Henderson, J. M, & Morris, R. K. (1989). Semantic facilitation of lexical access during sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(5), 791−801.Google ScholarPubMed
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., & Hacker, D. J. (2002). Metacomprehension of science texts: investigating the levels-of-disruption hypothesis. In Otero, J., León, J. A., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 255−279). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fazio, R. H. (2000). Accessible attitudes as tools for object appraisal: their costs and benefits. In Maio, G. & Olson, J. (Eds.), Why we evaluate: functions of attitudes (pp. 1−36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Feist, G. J., & Rosenberg, E. L. (2012). Psychology: perspectives & connections, 2nd ed.New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Fusaro, M., & Harris, P. L. (2008).Children assess informant reliability using bystanders’ non-verbal cues. Developmental Science, 11, 781−787.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., & Pearlmutter, N. J. (1998). Constraints on sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science, 2, 262−268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilbert, D. T., Krull, D. S., & Malone, P. S. (1990). Unbelieving the unbelievable: some problems in the rejection of false information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 601−613.Google Scholar
Gilbert, D. T., Tafarodi, R. W., & Malone, P. S. (1993). You can’t not believe everything you read. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 221−233.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3 (pp. 41−58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Koriat, A. (1993). How do we know that we know? The accessibility model of the feeling of knowing. Psychological Review, 100, 609–639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
La Heij, W., Dirkx, J., & Kramer, P. (1990). Categorical interference and associative priming in picture naming. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 511–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676−703.Google Scholar
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57−74.Google Scholar
Perelman, C., & Olbrecht-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Semin, G. R. (1995). Interfacing language and social cognition. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 182−194.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., Clement, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359−393.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Noveck, I. (2004). Introduction. In Noveck, I. & Sperber, D. (Eds). Experimental pragmatics (pp. 1−22). Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: communication and cognition, 2nd ed.Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Swinney, D. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645−659.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, M. K., & Brown-Schmidt, S. (2008). Language processing in the natural world. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B363, 1105−1122.Google Scholar
Thomsen, C. J.Lavine, H., & Kounios, J. (1996). Social value and attitude concepts in semantic memory: relational structure, concept strength, and the fan effect. Social Cognition, 14, 191−225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1985). A theory of action identification. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Van der Henst, J.-B., & Sperber, D. (2004). Testing the cognitive and the communicative principles of relevance. In Noveck, I. & Sperber, D. (Eds.), Experimental pragmatics (pp. 229−278). Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Voss, J. F., Fincher-Kiefer, R., Wiley, J., & Silfies, L. N. (1993). On the processing of arguments. Argumentation, 7, 165−181.Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2011). Relevance theory. In Horn, L. and Ward, G. (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 249−290). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar