Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 59, Issue 4, pp 219–230 | Cite as

The detection of semantic illusions: Task-specific effects for similarity and position of distorted terms

  • Henk J. van JaarsveldEmail author
  • Ton Dijkstra
  • Daan Hermans
Original Article

Abstract

The effect of task demands on the detection of semantic illusions was investigated. In Exp. 1, subjects were given a detection task with different instructions for accuracy. Less illusions occurred under instructions that stressed accuracy, indicating strategic control of detection rates. In Exp. 2, sentences with dissimilar distorted terms resulted in shorter latencies than sentences with similar distorted terms in a detection task, but in longer response times in a question-answering task. In Exp. 3, the similarity effect was found to vary with the position of the distorted term in combination with task demands. In a verification task, the similarity effect did not differ for the beginning or the end of sentences. In a question-answering task, a significant similarity effect was observed only for distorted terms at the beginning of sentences. We argue that the results indicate minimal depth of semantic processing with respect to different task requirements. Implications for different theoretical accounts of semantic illusions are discussed.

Keywords

Response Time Detection Rate Significant Similarity Detection Task Task Demand 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baker, L. (1985). How do we know when we don't understand? Standards for evaluating text comprehension. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. MacKinnan, & T. G., Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance. Vol. 1. Theoretical perspectives. (pp. 155–205). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barton, S. B., & Sanford, A. J. (1993). A case study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment. Memory & Cognition, 21, 477–487.Google Scholar
  3. Bredart, S., & Modolo, K. (1988). Moses strikes again: Focalization effect on a semantic illusion. Acta Psychologica, 67, 135–144.Google Scholar
  4. Epstein, W., Glenberg, A. M., & Bradley, M. M. (1984). Coactivation and comprehension: Contribution of text variables to the illusion of knowing. Memory and Cognition, 12, 355–360.Google Scholar
  5. Erickson, T. D. & Mattson, M. E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 540–551.Google Scholar
  6. Foertsch, J., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (1994). In search of complete comprehension: Getting “Minimalists”, to work. Discourse Processes, 18, 271–296.Google Scholar
  7. Glenberg, A. M., & Epstein, W. (1985). Calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 702–718.Google Scholar
  8. Glenberg, A. M., Wilkinson, A. C., & Epstein, W. (1982). The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 10, 597–602.Google Scholar
  9. Graesser, A. C., McMahen, C. L., & Johnson, B. K. (1994). Question asking and answering. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 517–538). Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  10. McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440–466.Google Scholar
  11. Oostendorp, H. van, & Kok, I. (1990). Failing to notice errors in sentences. Language and Cognitive processes, 5, 105–113.Google Scholar
  12. Oostendorp, H. van, & Mul, S. de. (1990). Moses beats Adam: A semantic relatedness effect on a semantic illusion. Acta Psychologica, 74, 35–46.Google Scholar
  13. Reder, L.M., & Cleeremans, A. (1990). The role of partial matches in comprehension: The Moses illusion revisited. In A.C. Graesser & G.H. Bower (Eds.) The psychology of learning and motivation. Vol 25. Inferences and text comprehension (pp. 233–258). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Reder, L. M., & Kusbit, G. W. (1991). Locus of the Moses illusion: Imperfect encoding, retrieval, or match? Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 385–406.Google Scholar
  15. Robertson, S. P., Ullman, J., & Mehta, A. (1992). Simultaneous question comprehension and answer retrieval. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Robertson, S. P., Weber, K., Ullman, J., & Mehta, A. (1993). Parallel question parsing and memory retrieval. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 155–168.Google Scholar
  17. Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1994). Selective processing in text understanding. In M.A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 699–719). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  18. Wilson, S. G., Rinck, M., McNamara, T. P., Bower, G. H., & Morrow, D. G. (1993). Mental models and narrative comprehension: Some Qualifications. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 141–154.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henk J. van Jaarsveld
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ton Dijkstra
    • 2
  • Daan Hermans
    • 3
  1. 1.IWTS, Wundtlaan 1University of NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.NICI, University of NijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Applied LinguisticsUniversity of NijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations