Abstract
Our goal was to investigate the basis of human plausibility judgments. Previous research had suggested that plausibility is affected by two factors: concept coherence (the inferences made between parts of a discourse) and word coherence (the distributional properties of the words used). In two experiments, participants were asked to rate the plausibility of sentence pairs describing events. In the first, we manipulated concept coherence by using different inference types to link the sentences in a pair (e.g., causal or temporal). In the second, we manipulated word coherence by using latent semantic analysis, so two sentence pairs describing the same event had different distributional properties. The results showed that inference type affects plausibility; sentence pairs linked by causal inferences were rated highest, followed by attributal, temporal, and unrelated inferences. The distributional manipulations had no reliable effect on plausibility ratings. We conclude that the processes involved in rating plausibility are based on evaluating concept coherence, not word coherence.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Black, A., Freeman, P., &Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1986). Plausibility and the comprehension of text.British Journal of Psychology,77, 51–60.
Burgess, C., Livesay, K., &Lund, K. (1998). Explorations in context space: Words, sentences, discourse.Discourse Processes,25, 211–257.
Collins, A., &Michalski, R. (1989). The logic of plausible reasoning: A core theory.Cognitive Science,13, 1–49.
Connell, L., &Keane, M.T. (2003). PAM: A cognitive model of plausibility.In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CD-ROM). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Connell, L., &Ramscar, M. (2001). Using distributional measures to model typicality in categorization. InProceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 226–231). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Costello, F., &Keane, M. T. (2000). Efficient creativity: Constraints on conceptual combination.Cognitive Science,24, 299–349.
Costello, F., &Keane, M.T. (2001). Alignment versus diagnosticity in the comprehension and production of combined concepts.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 255–271.
Duffy, S. A., Henderson, J. M., &Morris, R. K. (1989). Semantic facilitation of lexical access during sentence processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 791–801.
French, R. M., &Labiouse, C. L. (2002). Four problems with extracting human semantics from large text corpora. In L. R. Gleitman & A. K. Joshi,Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 316–321). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Glenberg, A. M., &Robertson, D. A. (2000). Symbol grounding and meaning: A comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning.Journal of Memory & Language,43, 379–401.
Halldorson, M., &Singer, M. (2002). Inference processes: Integrating relevant knowledge and text information.Discourse Processes,34, 145–161.
Haviland, S. E., &Clark, H. H. (1974). What’s new: Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,13, 512–521.
Hess, D. J., Foss, D. J., &Carroll, P. (1995). Effects of global and local context on lexical processing during language comprehension.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,124, 62–82.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983).Mental models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keane, M.T. (1997). What makes an analogy difficult? The effects of order and causal structure in analogical mapping.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 946–967.
Keane, M.T., Ledgeway, T., &Duff, S. (1994). Constraints on analogical mapping: A comparison of three models.Cognitive Science,18, 287–334.
Kintsch, W. (2001). Predication.Cognitive Science,25, 173–202.
Kintsch, W., &van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Towards a model of text comprehension.Psychological Review,85, 363–394.
Landauer, T. K., &Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge.Psychological Review,104, 211–240.
Lapata, M., McDonald, S., &Keller, F. (1999). Determinants of adjective-noun plausibility. InProceedings of the Ninth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 30–36). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Lemaire, P., &Fayol, M. (1995). When plausibility judgments supersede fact retrieval: The example of the odd-even effect on product verification.Memory & Cognition,23, 34–48.
Lund, K., Burgess, C., &Atchley, R. A. (1995). Semantic and associative priming in high-dimensional semantic space.In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 660–665). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lynott, D., &Ramscar, M. J. A. (2001). Can we model conceptual combination using distributional information? InProceedings of the Twelfth Irish Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science (pp. 1–10). Kildare, Ireland: NUI Maynooth.
Mayer, R. E., &Bromage, B. K. (1980). Different recall protocols for technical texts due to advance organizers.Journal of Educational Psychology,72, 206–255.
Pickering, M. J., &Traxler, M. J. (1998). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 940–961.
Reder, L. M. (1979). The role of elaborations in memory for prose.Cognitive Psychology,11, 221–234.
Reder, L. M. (1982). Plausibility judgments vs. fact retrieval: Alternative strategies for sentence verification.Psychological Review,89, 250–280.
Reder, L. M., &Ross, B. H. (1983). Integrated knowledge in different tasks: The role of retrieval strategy on fan effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,9, 55–72.
Reder, L. M., Wible, C., &Martin, J. (1986). Differential memory changes with age: Exact retrieval versus plausible inference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,12, 72–81.
Redington, M., Chater, N., &Finch, S. (1998). Distributional information: A powerful cue for acquiring syntactic categories.Cognitive Science,22, 425–469.
Smith, E. E., Shafir, E., &Osherson, D. (1993). Similarity, plausibility, and judgments of probability.Cognition,49, 67–96.
Speer, S. R., &Clifton, C., Jr. (1998). Plausibility and argument structure in sentence comprehension.Memory & Cognition,26, 965–978.
Traxler, M. J., &Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study.Journal of Memory & Language,35, 454–475.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
This research was supported in part by University College Dublin, the Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering and Technology Embark Initiative, and the Irish Higher Education Authority’s Multimedia Research Programme in collaboration with Media Lab Europe.
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Connell, L., Keane, M.T. What plausibly affects plausibility? Concept coherence and distributional word coherence as factors influencing plausibility judgments. Memory & Cognition 32, 185–197 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196851
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196851