THE ROLE OF SELF-CONSCIOUS EMOTIONS ON INFERENCE GENERATION
A Thesis by
Jill D. Heisler
Bachelor of Arts, Wichita State University, 2010
Submitted to the Department of Counseling, Educational Leadership,
Educational and School Psychology
and the faculty of the Graduate School of
Wichita State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
Master of Education
May 2014
i
© Copyright 2014 by Jill D. Heisler
All Rights Reserved
ii
THE ROLE OF SELF-CONSCIOUS EMOTIONS ON INFERENCE GENERATION
The following faculty members have examined the final copy of this thesis for form and content,
and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of
Master of Education with a major in Educational Psychology.
_______________________________________
Catherine M. Bohn-Gettler, Committee Chair
_______________________________________
Kim McDowell, Committee Member
_______________________________________
Susan Unruh, Committee Member
iii
DEDICATION
To my parents, who inspired my love of reading.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Catherine Bohn-Gettler, for her guidance and
advice throughout my education. I would also like to thank Doris Burgert for her support and
encouragement. I appreciate the following research assistants for their help in conducting this
study: Brady Marzolf and Jeanette De La Torre. Finally, I would like to express gratitude toward
my committee members, Dr. Kim McDowell and Dr. Susan Unruh, for providing me with
feedback and taking the time to be members of my committee.
v
ABSTRACT
Emotion may play a critical role in a reader’s ability to comprehend text. Past research has
shown that happy and sad emotions influence processing, which can impact comprehension.
More specific emotions, such as self-conscious emotions, require a reader to allocate more
cognitive resources to process those emotions. This study examines the effects of pride, shame,
guilt, and neutral emotions on the reader’s ability to generate planning knowledge and physical
knowledge inferences. After an autobiographical memory task, participants read texts that
require a planning knowledge or physical knowledge inference to be generated. Response times
and accuracy rates for the inference generation task were examined. Though there was not a
statistically significant effect of emotion found when examining accuracy rates for knowledge
validating questions, the p-value was less than .10, and demonstrated that pride may facilitate
general knowledge activation during reading.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
Page
1.
INTRODUCTION
1
2.
LITERATURE REVIEW
3
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.5
3
4
8
18
3.
METHOD
21
3.1
3.2
21
21
21
22
22
24
24
3.3
4.
5.
Text Comprehension
Inference Generation
Mood and Emotion
Current Study and Hypothesis
Participants
Materials
3.2.1 State Shame and Guilt Scale (SSGS)
3.2.2 Emotion Induction
3.2.3 Inference Task
3.2.4 Demographic Information
Procedure
RESULTS
27
4.1
4.2
27
30
Verifying the Validity of the Emotion Induction Procedure
Inference Task s
DISCUSSION
5.1
Processes Involved in Inference Generation
5.2
Potential Mediating Variables
5.3
Future Directions
5.4
Implications
40
42
43
44
46
REFERENCES
47
APPENDIXES
53
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
SSGS
Emotion Induction Scripts
Inference Generation Task – Planning Knowledge Stimuli
Inference Generation Task – Physical Knowledge Stimuli
Demographic Survey
vii
54
56
58
62
66
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Reading comprehension is vital for the success of children and adults, whether they are
students in academic settings or simply enjoying a novel. During the education process, students
depend on their ability to read and comprehend text for learning and completing assignments in
every academic subject, such as reading texts to write a research paper, or following instructions
for a science experiment. Adults likewise rely on the ability to comprehend text in their daily
lives, such as reading a memo at work, following directions to bake a loaf of bread, or filling out
a tax return.
Comprehension involves the simultaneous use of multiple processes to create a coherent
mental representation of the text. Although a variety of theories have been proposed to define
and explain comprehension, a dominant theory, the tri-partite model, specifies comprehension as
a process that involves integrating the text content with one’s knowledge (Kintsch & van Dijk,
1978). This integration can be referred to as inference generation, and it is a vital part of
comprehension because readers must construct inferences to encode the meaning of text
(Graesser, Singer, & Trabasso, 1994). The current study examines the inferential processes that
can lead to a better understanding of how individuals comprehend text.
Various factors can influence the way a person comprehends text. One such factor
includes reader variables, such as general attention, attention-allocation skills, inferential skills,
background knowledge, and basic reading skills (Thurlow & van den Broek, 1997; van den
Broek & Kremer, 1999). One variable particularly important to the current study and that can
influence comprehension is the reader’s moods and emotions. Previously, researchers have
examined mood and its influence on text comprehension (Bohn-Gettler & Rapp, 2011; Egidi &
Gerrig, 2009). For example, Bohn-Gettler and Rapp (2011) found that readers in a positive mood
1
generated more text-based inferences and fewer non-coherence processes compared to readers in
a neutral mood. Therefore, a positive mood could be beneficial for certain processes involved in
text comprehension. Some researchers examine more specific emotions that can be evoked in
academic settings (Pekrun, 2006). These academic emotions relate immediately to academic
achievement and the outcomes of academic tasks. Some of these academic emotions are also
classified as self-conscious emotions, which are emotions related to a person’s self-concept or
mental representation one has regarding oneself (Tracy & Robins, 2007). These emotions include
pride, shame, and guilt. Self-conscious emotions require self-evaluation, and therefore require an
individual to utilize his or her cognitive resources to generate and process the emotion.
The processes involved in comprehending text, generating inferences, and managing
moods and emotions can all place additional loads on an individual’s limited cognitive resources
(Ellis, Thomas, & Rodriguez, 1984). Thus, too much strain on those resources in one direction
can cause another factor to receive less attention. According to Forgas’ (1995) affect infusion
model, affect, mood, and emotions can play a part in some levels of cognition when high
cognitive effort and constructive thinking are required. More complex inferences require high
cognitive effort and constructive thinking. Thus, moods and emotions should influence inference
generation during reading comprehension.
Understanding how emotion can affect inferential processing is important to
understanding reading comprehension and its constraints. This study combined emotion and
inference generation to better understand reading comprehension. In the current study,
participants were induced to experience the self-conscious, academic emotions of pride, shame,
or guilt. After inducing these emotions, participants read texts that require inferences to be
generated, and researchers examined the relationship between emotion and inference generation.
2
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Text Comprehension
Tri-partite model of reading comprehension. Kintsch and van Dijk (1978) proposed a
tri-partite model to define and explain the processes underlying reading comprehension. In this
model, there are multiple levels in which information is encoded from the text into a mental
representation. A mental representation is a cognitive account of the ideas and information
presented in the text. A reader must have a highly coherent mental representation of the text in
order to have a high level of reading comprehension. Coherence represents the degree to which
the text is correctly encoded into a complete mental representation within the mind of a reader
(van den Broek, Lorch, Linderholm, & Gustafson, 2001). The first level of the tri-partite model
is the surface structure, the next is the propositional level, and the last level is the situation
model. The surface structure represents the most superficial level of understanding. At this stage,
the reader encodes words without establishing meaning (Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978). Consider
this example: “The child broke the vase. He hid the pieces from his mother.” The reader would
encode only the words and the sentence structure, but not necessarily the meaning of the words.
The propositional level represents a deeper understanding of the textual information
encoded into the mental representation. At this level, the reader encodes the general meaning of
the sentence. The reader paraphrases the gist meanings of text but does not make connections to
background knowledge or within the text itself (Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978). Applied to the
example of the child, the reader may encode that the child broke the object and concealed the
fragments. However, the reader would not move beyond this degree of understanding.
3
The situation model level of comprehension represents the deepest level of processing. At
this level, the reader uses background knowledge and context to more fully understand the
meaning of the text. The reader will also generate inferences. Inferences fill in missing
information in the text, such as adding to a text to connect new content to already processed
information (Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978). For instance, referring back to the example sentence
about the child breaking the vase, the reader might use context clues (e.g., the pieces were hid
from the mother) and background knowledge (e.g., that mothers often get upset about broken
objects) to infer that the child hid the broken pieces in an attempt to avoid his mother’s
disapproval.
Inference Generation
Inference generation is an essential part of the text comprehension process. Graesser et
al.’s (1994) constructionist theory posits that individuals construct inferences by activating
background knowledge structures held in the long-term memory, and that information is used
when encoding the meaning of the text. The background knowledge used during inference
generation can range from specific to generic knowledge that would apply to the text. For
example, if an individual was reading a narrative passage set in a park, the reader might
incorporate generic knowledge about what parks contain. Based on this knowledge, he might
infer that trees, grassy areas, and play structures form the scene in the passage. However,
sometimes more specific knowledge is needed. For instance, imagine a science student is reading
the process for a laboratory experiment. When reading the instructions for an experiment, he
might rely on his more specific background knowledge of sodium bicarbonate to infer the
reaction of the chemical when mixed with vinegar.
4
In inference generation research, there exists a debate about whether inferences are
generated automatically or strategically. Automatic processes refer to cognitive procedures that
are not in the reader’s conscious control, do not require many attentional resources, are
effortless, interfere minimally with other cognitive tasks, and are rapid. In contrast, strategic
processes refer to intentional processes used by a reader to better understand the text (Magliano,
Trabasso, & Graesser, 1999). Automatic processes can reduce the burden on the individual’s
working memory, which can only hold a limited amount of information. Therefore, cognitive
resources are limited and automated processes allow for those cognitive resources to be used for
other tasks (Thurlow & van den Broek, 1997). As an example, novice readers expend most of
their limited cognitive resources on identifying words in a text because this is not yet an
automatic process, which leaves fewer remaining resources for inference generation. In contrast,
skilled readers are more automatic with word identification skills and creating meaning in
combinations of word units. Therefore, a skilled reader’s cognitive resources can be allocated
toward the more complex processes required to comprehend text. One type of inference that can
be generated automatically or strategically is a causal inference.
Causal inferences link a cause and effect when it is not explicitly stated in the text, and
are often required for maintaining coherence. Trabasso, van den Broek, and Suh (1989) suggest
that comprehension is a search for meaning, and that search uses general knowledge to explain
causal relationships. These causal inferences are important to coherence because they help
establish causal connections to link events in texts. During comprehension, a reader uses causal
connections to create a causal chain, which serves as a network that connects important events
throughout a narrative. The reader utilizes the causal chain to understand relationships between
parts of the text as well as to generate causal inferences (Tapiero, van den Broek, & Quintana,
5
2002; Thurlow & van den Broek, 1997; Trabasso & van den Broek, 1985). For instance, when
reading, “the door slammed, and the man woke up,” the reader would infer that the sound of the
door slamming caused the man to awaken. Although research has shown that this type of
inference is often generated quickly and with little effort, there exists variation among readers.
Less skilled readers do not show strong patterns of consistently making this type of inference. In
contrast, highly skilled readers are more likely to consistently generate causal inferences,
suggesting that causal inferences may become more automatic as reading skills increase (Long,
Oppy, & Seely, 1994; Thurlow & van den Broek, 1997).
Causal inferences can include backward, forward, and elaborative inferences. To generate
backward inferences, readers will attempt to better comprehend a sentence by referring to a
previous statement in the text or to their pre-existing background knowledge stored in long-term
memory (Graesser et al., 1994). For example, when reading, “Sally received an invitation to a
party. Sally went to the mall to buy a new dress,” the reader could use the information that Sally
was invited to a party to explain why Sally went to the mall to purchase a dress. Ultimately, the
reader could infer that Sally bought the dress to wear to the party.
Forward inferences utilize knowledge structures already in the long-term memory (i.e.,
prior knowledge and experiences) or information provided in the text to predict what will happen
next (Graesser et al., 1994). When considering the example of Sally and the party, a reader could
infer a number of different possibilities. The reader may infer that Sally bought a new dress, that
Sally could not find a suitable dress, or that Sally did in fact attend the party after finding the
dress. Although none of these options were explicitly stated in the text, the reader could use his
or her own experiences of preparing for parties or information provided about Sally to predict
what will happen next in the passage.
6
Elaborative inferences are inferences that add additional information to the text from a
reader’s background knowledge and can be either backward or forward inferences (McKoon &
Ratcliff, 1989). One type of elaborative inference is a consistent inference, which occurs when a
reader elaborates on the text to make it logically consistent (Thurlow & van den Broek, 1997). If
a person reads, “the child ran by the lamp and it broke,” the reader may infer that the child
bumped into the lamp, thus causing its ruin. Or, the reader could infer that the child deliberately
hit the lamp because he wanted to watch it break. Elaborative inferences are not always required
for creating a coherent representation of the text (Thurlow & van den Broek, 1997). In this
instance, determining the child’s intent is not necessary to understanding the sentence.
Elaborative inferences include several knowledge areas, including planning and physical
knowledge (Shears & Chiarello, 2004; Shears, Miller, Ball, Hawkins, Griggs, & Varner, 2007).
Physical inferences are generated based on physical actions that are occurring within the text.
These inferences are usually simple to generate and can be either predictive or backward in
nature. For example, in the text, “The earthquake shook the house. The house collapsed," the
reader would infer that the shaking from the earthquake caused the house to fall. Planning, or
goal-directed, inferences are defined as a series of purposeful actions that support the
achievement of a goal. Planning inferences can include knowledge regarding efficiency,
temporal ordering, and rational sequencing. For example, the text, “The lazy student did not
study for the test. He copied the answers from his friend,” requires the reader to generate more
inferences compared to the physical inference. The reader must infer that the student had a goal
of passing the exam, which caused him to copy answers to achieve that goal.
In general, knowledge-based inferences are drawn from a person’s general knowledge
(Graesser et al., 1994). However, there could be a difference in the way that knowledge is used
7
during the inference generation process or the way in which various areas of knowledge can
form connections in the text. Based on the link between comprehension and the pursuit of causal
relations suggested by Trabasso et al. (1989), there is a hierarchy of knowledge based on logical
necessity, meaning that knowledge dealing with physical situations could be more readily
available than knowledge dealing with planning situations. This may be due to the physical
situation being more urgent and possibly linked to danger (depending on the context). Therefore,
planning inferences could be categorized differently than physical inferences. Research suggests
that planning inferences require more cognitive resources compared to physical inferences,
because planning inferences require the reader to make the link between the text, goals, and goal
achievement rather than simply linking physical cause and effect (Shears & Chiarello, 2004;
Shears et al., 2007).
Although multiple inferences can be generated during the comprehension process,
various factors can influence the type and frequency of inference generation. van den Broek and
Kremer (1999) propose that three factors influence comprehension: text variables, the
instructional context, and reader variables. Each factor can individually influence
comprehension, and the variables may interact with one another. The current study considers two
of the three facets. First, it considers the text variable of what type of inference is suggested in
the text. Second, it considers the instructional context, namely the emotions reader experience as
a function of an induction procedure.
Mood and Emotion
When examining individuals, affect can play a key role in cognitive processing in a
variety of ways. For example, in educational settings, researchers have examined anxiety and its
influences on learning and test performance (Pekrun, 2006). However, moods and emotions
8
should first be considered in the context of their broader theoretical frameworks. These
theoretical models focus on affect (a general term used for both mood and emotion), mood (an
enduring affective state with low intensity), and emotion (a higher intensity affective state with a
short duration,) and their roles in cognitive processes (Forgas, 1995). Emotions can be
categorized in terms of valence (the pleasant or unpleasant nature of the emotion) and activation
(the level of arousal the emotion causes). For example, a pleasant activating emotion could be
enjoyment, and a pleasant deactivating emotion could be relief. Furthermore, an unpleasant
activating emotion could be anxiety, and an unpleasant deactivating emotion could be
hopelessness (Pekrun, Goetz, Frenzel, Barchfeld, & Perry, 2011). In the context of these broader
theoretical frameworks, specific emotions can be considered in terms of how they influence
cognitive processing.
Resource allocation models. One conceptualization of how affect can influence
cognitive processing comes from resource allocation models. Such models suggest that any task
requires a certain degree of cognitive effort, and the amount of cognitive effort allocated to that
task affects memory. Individuals have limited cognitive resources, and emotion can represent a
“drain” on these cognitive resources because attention must be allocated toward processing the
emotion. Therefore, emotion places an additional load on the already limited cognitive resources
that can be available for completing a task (Ellis, Thomas, & Rodriquez, 1984).
This framework is the baseline for the resource allocation model, which describes the
relationship between emotion and cognitive resources (Ellis & Ashbrook, 1988). Ellis, Moore,
Varner, Ottaway, and Becker (1997a) asked participants to write down thoughts as they learned
material. Those participants in a negative mood wrote more irrelevant thoughts and recalled less
material than those in the control group. This study demonstrated that individuals in negative
9
moods expended additional attentional resources when dealing with their mood, leaving fewer of
those resources to help complete the task at hand (Ellis & Ashbrook, 1988; Ellis et al., 1997a).
Kihlstrom (1989) added to this by suggesting that individuals in a depressed mood think about
their mood more than those not in a depressed mood. Therefore, thinking about one’s mood
further consumes those attentional resources needed to complete other cognitive tasks.
Ellis, Ottaway, Varner, Becker, and Moore (1997b) applied the resource allocation model
to readers’ abilities to identify contradictions in texts. When instructed to find contradictions,
participants with a sad mood identified only one third as many contradictions as those in the
control group and made more false identifications. In addition, readers in sad moods reported
experiencing more irrelevant thoughts that were disruptive to the comprehension process.
Negative moods also caused readers to be less accurate when making evaluations regarding how
well they comprehended the text (Ellis et al., 1997b; Stringer & Heath, 2006). Such work
demonstrates that affect can influence certain comprehension processes.
The resource allocation model offers an explanation of how emotion can impact cognitive
processes in general. However, this model does not address the circumstances under which affect
influences cognitive thinking processes, such as varying difficulty levels of tasks. Furthermore, it
does not differentiate between the roles that positive and negative affect can have on processing,
but rather assumes that emotion in general consumes cognitive processing. The affect infusion
model fills this gap by examining under what conditions mood can have an impact on cognitive
processes, as well as the differential effects that could result from positive versus negative
moods.
Affect infusion model. Forgas (1995) proposed a four-leveled approach to processing in
the affect infusion model (AIM). Affect infusion occurs when moods and emotions influence
10
cognitive thinking processes. Thus, the four levels refer to levels of processing that either allow
or do not allow for affect to influence processing (affect infusion).
The first two levels, direct access and motivated processing, have low affect infusion,
meaning that affect is unlikely to play a role in processing. When utilizing direct access,
individuals will activate already-stored information about familiar objects (Forgas, 1995). For
instance, if a person has learned that dogs have fur, that person will continue to access this
information such that he will assume that any dog he sees will have fur. He will access this
information without a great degree of cognitive effort (if any), and mood will not affect the
access of this simple information because no constructive elaboration is involved.
The second level, the motivated processing level, also involves directly accessing
information from long-term memory. However, accessing this information is more goal-directed
in that the information needed is more specific. For example, an individual will use this method
when he has a clear information goal, meaning that a person will search for very specific
information in long-term memory. This processing method requires a high degree of cognitive
effort and predetermined thinking (Forgas, 1995). For example, a contestant on a game show
would use this processing level when searching for the answer to a difficult trivia question.
Although motivated processing requires a greater degree of cognitive effort than direct access, it
does not allow for affect infusion because, similar to direct access, constructive elaboration is not
necessary.
The next two levels, heuristic and substantive processing, allow for more affect infusion
because they require constructive elaboration. Constructive elaboration is a cognitive process
that involves open information search strategies within an individual’s mind and elaboration on
existing cognitive representations. In heuristic processing, a person will process information
11
based on general rules already established through experience (Forgas, 1995). For example, if a
woman knows a few people from neighborhood X and those people engage in gossiping, she
may use heuristic processing to infer that all people from neighborhood X are gossips. If this
woman does not like gossips, she might associate her negative feelings with all people from
neighborhood X. Another example of heuristic processing is treating affect as information, which
is when a person will treat his or her emotions as actual objective information about a particular
object, person, or event. Affect-as-information is used as a heuristic short cut to making
judgments, rather than objectively going through problem-solving strategies to generate
judgments (Forgas 1995). Heuristic processing requires lower degrees of cognitive effort than
some other forms of processing, but it is a form of constructive processing.
The final level of the affect infusion model, substantive processing, uses both high
cognitive effort and a high degree of constructive thinking. Thus, substantive processing allows
for affect infusion. Substantive processing occurs when a person engages in comprehensive and
analytic processing of a particular subject (Forgas, 1995). For instance, an employer would use
this type of processing when evaluating a candidate for an open job position. He may use affect
toward the candidate when they meet in an interview, as well as information of the applicant’s
job history and skills, to engage in problem solving that would lead to an informed decision
about whether or not to hire the candidate. In this scenario, the employer would exert a high
degree of cognitive effort and would also be motivated to make accurate interpretations in order
to correctly evaluate the applicant. This stage is the most demanding and is often used when the
subject is either complex or unfamiliar. One would use this type of processing if he lacked a
specific answer, had enough cognitive capacity to engage in such processing, and required
12
accuracy in his judgment. Furthermore, critical thinking and creativity often require substantive
processing.
Therefore, the affect infusion model hypothesizes that there are certain “types” of
cognitive processing that allow for moods and emotions to influence processing. The affect
infusion model also examines how the valence of an individual’s mood can impact an
individual’s focus of attention and method of processing (Forgas, 1995). Individuals in a
negative mood will use a more methodical processing style, such that they attend to each piece of
information contained within a task, regardless of its relevance to the task. When in a negative
mood, participants are more detail-oriented and more likely to use conservation of information,
meaning they encode the information but may not process it more deeply (Bless & Fiedler,
1995). In contrast, individuals in a positive mood will be more focused on the relevant aspects of
a task. Thus, they can broaden their attention to make connections between important elements
of a task, but can also activate relevant information from long-term memory that is related to the
task but not contained within the task itself. This widened focus of attention enables individuals
to utilize more creative processing due to an activation of general knowledge structures. Thus,
such processing should assist in inference generation.
The previous research focuses on cognition in general, but those principles can also apply
to reading situations, in particular, inference generation. Bohn-Gettler and Rapp (2011) suggest
that mood influences comprehension during the process of reading, and it can also influence
post-reading memory. When induced to feel a positive mood, readers paraphrased and generated
more text-based inferences and fewer non-coherence processes (such as associative inferences)
compared to readers in a neutral mood. This aligns with the findings of Bless and Fiedler (1995).
Because the readers are in a positive mood, they can broaden their focus and make connections
13
between important elements of the text and information from long-term memory. Sad-induced
mood participants generated fewer text-based inferences than those in the happy-induced mood
group. As the affect infusion model suggests, readers in a negative mood will use a more
methodical processing style and make fewer connections between ideas. Those readers were
more detail oriented, regardless of the relevance of those details to the text as a whole.
These studies examine the valence of mood in broad terms of positive or negative.
However, a wide range of more specific emotions can occur in realistic learning settings. It is
important to consider more specific emotions because each emotion can provide new challenges
to the reader. For example, excitement and relief are considered positive emotions. However,
these emotions have very different influences on learners. Excitement tends to activate an
individual and cause him to seek more learning tasks. Relief can cause a student to stop seeking
further learning tasks (Pekrun, 2006). Studying more specific emotions can provide information
needed to understand learning.
Academic emotions. In the control-value theory of achievement emotions, Pekrun
(2006) defines achievement emotions as those related immediately to academic achievement and
the outcomes of an academic task. Those emotions may include: enjoyment, boredom, pride,
shame, and frustration, among others. A student’s perception of the control he has over an
academic activity, along with the perceived importance of the activity, combine to elicit specific
achievement emotions. When a student feels control over a learning task, values the task and
performs well, the resulting emotions are considered positively valenced activating emotions that
can include enjoyment, hope, and pride. These emotions benefit academic performance and
increase motivation. When a student feels control over and values a task but performs poorly,
negatively valenced activating emotions, such as shame, anxiety, and anger can be elicited.
14
These emotions can either decrease motivation or increase motivation depending on the amount
of control the student feels over the task and the level of importance the student places on the
task (Pekrun, 2006). For example, shame can either increase or decrease resiliency based on the
student behavior. When a student perceives the task to be highly important, the student will
likely be motivated to improve task performance (Turner & Schallert, 2001). For example, if a
student values a college course he is taking and performs poorly on the mid-term exam, he will
be motivated to improve his performance to raise his grade on the final exam.
Some academic emotions decrease motivation. When a student feels a lack of control and
does not perceive the task to be important but performs well, the emotion will be a positively
valenced deactivating emotion, such as relief. For example, a high school student is required to
take a certain course but does not value the information provided in the course. He needs to pass
an important exam in order to receive an acceptable letter grade in the course. He will feel relief
after he completes the task with a passing grade, but will not be motivated to increase his
performance since he already avoided failure. If a student lacks control, does not value the task
and performs poorly, negatively valenced deactivating emotions will be elicited, such as
hopelessness and boredom. This can result in decreased performance and motivation (Pekrun,
2006). For example, when a struggling student attempts to comprehend a too-difficult text but
receives no additional support, he will likely not believe that he can improve his reading skills
enough to correctly complete assignments. He will begin to feel hopeless and think he will not
ever be able to perform well. He will not be motivated to increase his performance because he
believes that it is impossible.
Self-Conscious Emotions. Academic emotions are examined in students and are specific
to the nature of the task. Although these emotions can fit into a variety of classifications, another
15
way to categorize some of these emotions is into self-conscious versus basic emotions. The
current study will focus on self-conscious emotions because they require more extensive
cognitive processing than basic emotions. This processing may have more of an impact on
academic tasks.
Basic emotions are those emotions that are based in biology, experienced across all
cultures, associated with specific and universal facial expressions, and developed in the first nine
months of infancy. These emotions are an automatic and immediate response to a stimulus
(Tracy & Robins, 2007). Basic emotions include anger, fear, disgust, sadness, happiness, and
surprise (Shaver, Schwartz, Kirson, & O’Conner, 1987). Basic emotions are often related to
survival or reproduction goals. For example, if a man was standing in a street and a car was
coming toward him, he would experience fear. This fear would most likely cause him to jump
out of the way, thus enabling his continued survival.
The academic emotions of pride, shame, and guilt are classified as self-conscious
emotions. Self-conscious emotions relate to a person's self-concept (the mental representation
one has regarding oneself) and his interpretation of his relationships to other individuals, groups
of individuals, or society in general. Tracy and Robins (2007) suggest that self-conscious
emotions should be distinguished from other emotions. Unlike basic emotions, self-conscious
emotions are not present during infancy and develop between 18 months and 3 years of age,
because they require a developing theory of mind, or how an individual understands himself
(Lagattuta & Thompson, 2007). Because these emotions are more complex, they lack distinctive
and universal facial expressions. Self-conscious emotions are also cognitively complex because
they require self-evaluation. For example, if a person experiences shame, he must evaluate how
16
the event conflicted with his current self-representation. This is not an automatic response to the
event.
Tracy and Robins (2007) propose a theoretical process model of self-conscious emotions.
After an event occurs, the individual enters the first appraisal stage, called survival-goal
relevance. In this stage, one evaluates whether the event is vital to survival, reproduction, or
identity. If the event is related to survival or reproduction, the person will elicit a basic emotion,
such as fear or happiness. If the event is related to an identity goal, the individual will enter a
stage in which his or her attentional focus is on the self.
In the next stage, one focuses on self-representations, which can include current, ideal, or
ought representations of the self (the last being representations based on expectations others have
for the individual). At least one of these self-representations must be activated in order to elicit
self-conscious emotions (Tracy & Robins, 2007). In the third stage, goal relevance, the
individual evaluates whether the event is relevant to his identity goals. If the event supports or
contradicts the individual’s self-representations, the cognitive process will move to the next stage
in self-conscious emotion elicitation.
In the fourth stage, individuals will compare the event with established selfrepresentations and decide whether the event pertains to their identity goals from the second
stage (Tracy & Robins, 2007). If the event is goal-congruent, the emotion elicited will be
positively valenced. If the event is not goal-congruent, a negatively valenced self-conscious
emotion will be elicited.
Once an individual determines whether the event is goal-congruent or goal-incongruent,
the individual enters the fifth stage and will evaluate the cause of the event (Tracy & Robins,
2007), which can be perceived as either internal or external in nature. In conjunction with the
17
theory of the locus of control, an individual must attribute causation to an event. Locus of control
refers to what an individual perceives is the cause for an event or outcome (Dweck, 1986). If the
individual attributes causation to internal forces (i.e., that something about him or connected to
him caused the event) and the outcome is negative, he will feel shame or guilt. If the outcome is
positive, pride will be elicited. When the individual attributes causation to external causes, basic
emotions are elicited.
Shame, Guilt, and Pride. The current study will examine the specific self-conscious
emotions of shame, pride, and guilt. These are important to study because these emotions are
achievement emotions as well as self-conscious emotions. Shame and guilt are elicited when a
person’s stable and global self-representations are called into question. If the individual believes
the self-attribute is uncontrollable, shame will emerge. When the self-attribute is controllable,
guilt transpires (Tracy and Robins, 2007).
Much like shame and guilt, hubris and authentic pride are a result of stable selfrepresentations. Hubristic pride is an overall sense of pride that is not tied to a specific event but
is rather a global self-representation (Tracy and Robins, 2007; Williams & DeSteno, 2008).
Hubristic pride can lead to negative social consequences. Authentic pride is due to specific
achievements. Authentic pride can play a beneficial adaptive role in that it motivates an
individual to develop skills, and it guides decisions that relate to social goals. The current study
will attempt to induce authentic pride because participants will be asked to recall specific events.
Current Study and Hypothesis
The current study examined the role of pride, shame, and guilt in relation to inference
generation in readers. Previously, researchers examined general positive and negative affect and
its influence on reading and inference generation (Bless & Fiedler, 1995; Bohn-Gettler & Rapp,
18
2011). Additionally, Pekrun (2006) has done a great deal of research on academic emotions and
their influences on learning. This study examined emotions that are more complex than general
positive and negative affect in connection with inference generation, which is important for a
greater understanding of how emotions naturally elicited in academic settings can play a role in
comprehension processes. The current study extends previous research by combining many of
these elements to further understand emotions and inference generation.
In the present study, participants reflected upon and wrote about an experience in which
they felt pride, shame, or guilt, in an effort to induce that particular emotion. Then, these
participants engaged in a task that measures the generation of planning versus physical
inferences. This study design, along with the theoretical framework provided, lends itself to
several hypotheses.
Prior research demonstrates that autobiographical memory tasks are effective in
manipulating emotion (Kraus, Adler, & Chen, 2012; Laird & Strout, 2007; Schwarz & Clore,
1983; Westermann, Spies, Stahl, & Hesse, 1996). Therefore, the first hypothesis was that the
emotion manipulation will be effective, which will result in increases in pride for those in the
pride condition, increases in shame for those in the shame condition, increases in guilt for those
in the guilt condition, and no change for those in the control condition.
Because certain inferences require more cognitive resources than others, and because
affect infusion is more likely to occur for tasks that require substantive processing (Bohn-Gettler
& Rapp, 2011; Ellis et al., 1997b; Forgas, 1995; Kihlstrom, 1989; Stringer & Heath, 2006), this
study examined inferences that require differential levels of cognitive effort (physical and
planning knowledge inferences). Planning knowledge inferences require more cognitive
resources because the reader must make connections between the text, goals, and goal
19
achievement, whereas physical knowledge inferences simply link cause and effect (Shears &
Chiarello, 2004; Shears et al., 2007). Therefore, the second hypothesis was that readers would
be more likely to generate physical compared to planning knowledge inferences. This will result
in faster and more accurate responses to physical knowledge inference texts than planning
knowledge inference texts.
Because self-conscious emotions require a good deal of cognitive processing, individuals
induced to elicit these emotions may require more time to generate inferences (Pekrun, 2006).
Because planning knowledge inference generation occurs at the situation model level and uses
substantive processing, this requires participants to use higher levels of cognitive effort and
constructive elaboration (Forgas, 1995). Affect infusion is more likely to occur for tasks that
require substantive processing. Thus, the third hypothesis was that planning knowledge
inferences will be more likely to allow for affect infusion than physical knowledge inferences.
Therefore, there should be an interaction between emotion and inference type, such that planning
knowledge inferences should be more affected by the induced emotion than physical inferences.
Thus, differences in speed and accuracy as a function of emotion will be more pronounced for
the planning knowledge inference texts.
Although self-conscious emotions require individuals to use their cognitive resources to
process the emotion, a difference may occur between the types of emotions being elicited. Pride
is a positively valenced activating emotion and can benefit academic performance and increase
motivation (Pekrun, 2006). This should result in causing individuals in the pride condition to
generate inferences quickly and more accurately. Thus, the fourth hypothesis was that pride
should facilitate inference generation, whereas guilt and shame should hamper it. This will result
in faster and more accurate responses for pride.
20
CHAPTER 3
METHOD
Participants
A total of 91 participants in undergraduate and graduate degree programs at a
Midwestern university were recruited for this study. Participants were recruited through
psychology and education courses. Of the participants who responded, 20 were male and 71 were
female. Caucasians comprised 92.3% of the participants, 4.4% were Hispanic, 1.1% were Asian,
1.1% were mixed race, and 1.1% did not respond. When asked about their year in school, 82.4%
responded that they were undergraduate students and 17.6% responded that they were graduate
students. The median age of participants was 23 years (M = 25.43). Students received course
credit for their participation. The participants were all native English speakers so that language
would not be a confounding factor.
Materials
State Shame and Guilt Scale (SSGS; Marschall, Saftner, & Tangney, 1994). The
SSGS (see Appendix A) is a scale that measures state emotions of pride, shame, and guilt. The
scale consists of fifteen items. Five of these items measure pride (e.g. “I feel pleased about
something I have done”), five items measure shame (e.g. “I feel humiliated, disgraced”), and five
items measure guilt (e.g. “I feel bad about something I have done”). Participants respond to each
item by rating their emotions on a 5-point Likert scale, with one being “not feeling this way at
all,” and five being “feeling this way strongly.” The instructions emphasize that participants
should respond to items based on how they currently feel. The scale was developed to measure
the manipulation of shame in participants. The SGSS is shown to have good reliability with
21
Cronbach’s coefficient alphas of .89 for shame, .82 for guilt, and .87 for pride (Marschall et al.,
1994).
Emotion induction. Participants were randomly assigned to a pride, shame, guilt, or
neutral emotion condition. The neutral emotion served as the control group. Emotions were
induced using an autobiographical memory task (Kraus et al., 2012; Laird & Strout, 2007;
Schwarz & Clore, 1983; Westermann et al., 1996; see Appendix B). A trained researcher asked
participants to remember a specific event in their past that made them feel proud, ashamed, or
guilty. Those in the neutral condition were asked to remember waking up this morning. The
researcher then asked participants to close their eyes and visualize the event as if they were
experiencing it once more. Participants were asked to recall their feelings, specific details of
what happened at the time, the people with them, the images they saw, the sounds they heard,
and the thoughts they had. Finally, the researcher prompted the participants to write about the
event in as much detail as possible (Kraus et al., 2012). Prior research has demonstrated that this
technique is effective in manipulating emotion. This task took about 15 minutes to complete.
Inference task (See Appendices C and D). Participants read 20 four-sentence texts
designed to elicit planning or physical knowledge inferences (developed by Shears & Chiarello,
2004, & Shears et al., 2007; see Table 1 for sample texts). Physical knowledge inferences
required the reader to link cause and effect based on physical actions in the text. However,
planning inferences required the reader to generate an inference about a character’s goal and the
behaviors necessary to achieve that goal.
Each text had two versions: inference and control. In the inference version, the first and
last sentences worked together to facilitate the generation of an inference. Sentences two and
three simply contained additional information about the context. In the control version, the first
22
and last sentences did not work together to facilitate an inference, because the first and last
sentences were unrelated.
Table 1.
Examples of Planning Knowledge and Physical Knowledge Inference Texts
Type
Text
Physical
Knowledge
Inference
Malcolm realized Valentine's
Day was tomorrow. He was not
prepared. He had to figure
something out quickly. He went
to the candy shop.
Malcolm realized the final exam
was tomorrow. He was not
prepared. He had to figure
something out quickly. He went
to the candy shop.
Jessica was in a car accident.
She was really upset at first. She
finally calmed down. Jessica
was injured.
Physical
Knowledge
Control
Jessica was in a better mood.
She was really upset at first. She
finally calmed down. Jessica
was injured.
Planning
Knowledge
Inference
Planning
Knowledge
Control
Text Probe
Word
Inference
Probe Word
Knowledge
Verification
Question
Tomorrow
Girlfriend
Do people
give candy on
special days?
Crash
Are people
hurt in car
accidents?
Injured
In association with each of the four-sentence texts, a text based probe word, an inference
probe word, and a knowledge validating question were be presented. A text based probe word
was a word that was explicitly stated in the text. In the examples regarding Malcolm and the
candy shop (see Table 1), the text-based probe word was “tomorrow,” which appears in the first
sentence. A correct recognition of this probe word would indicate the participant read the text.
An inference based probe word was a word that was not explicitly stated in the four-sentence
text, but the word could be generated from an inference made by the reader based on the
inference text (but not the control text). In the text about Malcolm (see Table 1), the inference
23
based probe word was “girlfriend.” Incorrectly indicating that this word did, in fact, appear in the
text would indicate that the inference was generated. More false recognitions should occur when
reading the inference version compared to the control version. A knowledge validating question
asked the participant a question based on the text. Responses to this question confirmed that the
participant read the text and that the participant had the background knowledge necessary to
make the inference. The answer to this question should be made quickly and accurately after an
inference has been generated. In the Malcolm and the candy shop text, the knowledge validating
question was “Do people give candy on special days?” A faster answer time, along with
increased accuracy rates, would demonstrate that knowledge had been activated by the text. The
inference version of the text should lead to faster answer times and more correct answers.
The stimulus set included 80 texts comprised of 20 planning inference texts, 20 physical
inference texts and 20 planning control texts, and 20 physical control texts. Each participant read
5 planning inference texts, 5 physical inference texts, and 10 control texts in a random order.
Demographic Information (See Appendix D). A demographic questionnaire was given
to participants at the end of the experiment. The questionnaire asked the participants to provide
their gender, age, year in school, ethnicity, race, learning disability, and native language.
Procedures
After a consent process, participants completed the SSGS (Marschall et al., 1994) to
establish a baseline for their emotions of pride, shame, and guilt. After completing the baseline
SSGS, participants were randomly assigned to a pride, shame, guilt, or neutral emotion
condition. Participants completed the autobiographical memory task (Kraus et al., 2012;
Westermann et al., 1996; Laird & Strout 2007) to induce emotion. The autobiographical memory
task was completed in small groups with either all members in each group assigned to the same
24
emotion condition or instructions were presented at the top of a paper. Participants were asked to
recall a time that they felt proud (pride condition), ashamed (shame condition), guilty (guilt
condition), or waking up that morning (neutral condition). Researchers asked the participants a
series of questions to help them recall the situation. Then the participants were asked to write
about the memory. After the participants wrote about the event, the participant had the option to
place the journal entry into a sealed envelope or take the journal entry home. The journal entries
were not read by the researchers and this information was disclosed to the participants.
Following the mood induction, the participants were asked to re-take the SSGS to determine
changes in their emotion as a result of the induction technique.
After the second administration of the SSGS, the participants engaged in the inference
generation task. Each participant completed the task on a computer using E-Prime software. The
participants were given verbal and written instructions that they should read each text for
comprehension. After each text, two probe words were presented, and participants decided, as
quickly and accurately as possible, whether each word appeared in the text. After the probe
words, participants responded to the yes/no knowledge validation question. To indicate whether
the probe words appeared in the text, and to answer the yes/no knowledge validating questions,
the participant were instructed to press keys labeled “yes” (the “0” key) or “no” (the “.” key)
with their right index and middle fingers, respectively. The participants were asked to keep their
hands placed on the “yes” and “no” keys so that measurements of speed and accuracy would not
be compromised.
After the instructions, the participants pressed the space bar. A message appeared on the
screen that read, “Get ready to read sentences.” All stimuli on the screen were centrally
presented. The participants pressed the “yes” key to begin reading the first text. Participants
25
began with five practice trials to become familiarized with the program. The sentences appeared
on the screen one sentence at a time, and the participants pressed the “yes” key to indicate they
were ready for the next sentence. After each text, a message that read, “Get ready to respond
quickly and accurately to words” appeared. The participants were presented with the text probe
word and the inference probe word in randomized order, and participants indicated whether the
words appeared in the text. Following the second probe word, the participants responded to the
knowledge validating question. The computer software recorded the number of correct
responses, the error rates, and the response times for each probe word and question response.
The screen cleared following the participant’s response to the question. The participant
continued the same process for responding throughout the task. In total, the participant
completed 5 practice trials and 20 trials (5 planning inference texts, 5 physical inference texts,
and 10 control texts) in approximately one 20-minute session. Upon completion of the inference
generation task, participants in the shame and guilt condition watched video clips that were
intended to induce a happy mood for five to six minutes (Mirous, 2012). Finally, participants
were asked to complete the demographics survey and were debriefed.
26
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Verifying the Validity of the Emotion Induction Procedure
To ensure the autobiographical emotion induction procedure was effective for each
emotion induction condition, repeated measures ANOVAs were used. The dependent variables
included the SSGS scores, and separate ANOVAs were run for each emotion measured on the
scale (pride, shame, guilt). The independent variables included the emotion induction condition
(pride, shame, guilt, and neutral, between subjects), and whether the SSGS was being measured
at pre- or post-induction (within subjects). No outliers were removed, because the data was
generally normally distributed. See Table 2 for descriptive statistics by condition.
Table 2.
Summary of Summed Scores Before and After Emotion Induction
Emotion
Condition
Pride
(n = 22)
Shame
(n = 22)
Guilt
(n = 24)
Control
(n = 23)
Pride Sum Scores
PrePostInduction
Induction
M
SD
M
SD
Shame Sum Scores
PrePostInduction
Induction
M
SD
M
SD
Guilt Sum Scores
PrePostInduction
Induction
M
SD
M
SD
19.46
3.39
19.18
3.87
7.14
2.40
6.05
1.56
8.5
2.54
7.41
2.63
19.68
3.4
12.91
5.1
8.23
2.93
8.64
4.44
10.23
4.72
10.32
5.68
18.92
4.19
17.38
4.42
7.00
2.59
8.5
3.32
8.08
2.62
11.42
4.73
19.65
3.82
18.91
4.54
7.13
2.42
6.23
1.65
7.44
2.73
6.70
2.62
Pride Emotion Scores. When pride was the dependent variable, the main effect of pre- vs. postinduction was significant, F(1, 87) = 10.09, p = .002, ƞ2 = .10, such that pride scores were higher
at pre- compared to post-test. The interaction between pre-post and emotion condition was not
significant, F(3, 87) = 1.03, p = .38, ƞ2 = .03. The main effect of emotion condition was not
significant, F(3, 87) = .48, p = .69, ƞ2 = .02.
27
Shame Emotion Scores. When shame was the dependent variable, the effect of pre- vs.
post-induction was not significant, F(1, 87) = .01, p = .93, ƞ2 < .001. The main effect of emotion
condition was significant, F(3, 87) = 2.87, p = .04, ƞ2 = .09. Post-hoc Tukey tests showed two
non-statistically significant effects, but effects with p < .10 : Those in shame condition had
higher shame scores than those in the pride and neutral conditions (p = .07 and p < .09,
respectively). However, the interaction between pre-post and emotion condition was also
significant, F(3, 87) = 5.07, p = .003, ƞ2 = .15. Post hoc Tukey tests revealed that at pre-test,
there were no differences between the emotion induction groups (p-values > .05). At post-test,
the pride and neutral conditions had lower shame scores in comparison to the guilt and shame
conditions (p-values < .05). There were no differences between the guilt and shame conditions (p
> .05).
Guilt Emotion Scores. When guilt was the dependent variable, the main effect of pre-vs.
post-induction was not significant, F(1, 87) = 1.08, p = .30, ƞ2 = .01. The main effect of emotion
condition was significant, F(3, 87) = 4.89, p = .003, ƞ2 = .14. Post-hoc Tukey tests indicated that
those in the pride condition had lower guilt scores than those in the shame condition (the effect
that was not significant, but p = .09). Those in the neutral condition had lower guilt scores than
those in the shame (p = .007) and guilt (p < .03) conditions. However, the interaction between
pre- and post-emotion induction and emotion condition was significant, F(3, 87) = 7.17, p <
.001, ƞ2 = .20. Post-hoc Tukey tests indicated that at pre-test, those in the shame condition had
higher guilt scores than those in the guilt and neutral conditions (ps < .05). At post-test, those in
the pride and neutral conditions had lower guilt scores than those in the shame and guilt
conditions (ps < .05).
28
Conclusion. According to the results of the repeated measures ANOVAs, the emotion
induction was effective for the emotion conditions of guilt and shame. However, the emotion
induction procedure may not have been effective for the pride condition. This may be due to the
high pre-induction pride scores: The pre-induction pride scores were approaching ceiling, and
thus the pride scores had little room to increase.
25
20
15
Pre-Induction
10
Post-Induction
5
0
Pride Sum
Score
Shame Sum
Score
Guilt Sum
Score
Figure 1. Mean scores of participants in pride emotion condition.
25
20
15
Pre-Induction
10
Post-Induction
5
0
Pride Sum
Score
Shame Sum
Score
Guilt Sum
Score
Figure 2. Mean scores of participants in shame emotion condition.
29
20
15
10
Pre-Induction
Post-Induction
5
0
Pride Sum
Score
Shame Sum
Score
Guilt Sum
Score
Figure 3. Mean scores of participants in guilt emotion condition
25
20
15
Pre-Induction
10
Post-Induction
5
0
Pride Sum
Score
Shame Sum
Score
Guilt Sum
Score
Figure 4. Mean scores of participants in neutral emotion condition
Inference Tasks
To test the effects of emotion and knowledge area on inference generation, mixed
ANOVAs were utilized. The independent variables included knowledge area (planning vs.
physical; within subjects), sentence type (inference versus control; within subjects), and emotion
condition (pride, shame, guilt, neutral; between subjects). The dependent variables included
30
accuracy rates and response times for each type of probe word, including: text probe words,
inference probe words, and knowledge validating questions. Please see Table 3 for descriptive
statistics of the accuracy rates and response times by condition and inference type.
Text Probe Accuracy Rates. First, the accuracy rates for the text probe words were
examined. The main effect of knowledge area was significant, such that accuracy rates were
higher for physical compared to planning texts, F(1, 90) = 7.58, p =.008, ƞ2 = .08. The main
effect for sentence type was also significant, such that accuracy rates were higher for control
compared to inference texts, F(1, 90) = 12.64, p =.001, ƞ2 = .12. None of the other main effects
or interactions were significant (F-values < 3.14).
Main Effect of Knowledge Area
.940
.930
.920
.910
.900
.890
Planning Knowledge Physical Knowledge
Figure 5. Mean percentage accuracy rate for text probe words by knowledge area.
31
Main Effect of Sentence Type
.960
.940
.920
.900
.880
Control Texts
Inference Texts
Figure 6. Mean percentage accuracy rate for text probe words by sentence type.
Text Probe Response Times. Next, the response times for the text probe words were
examined. The main effect of knowledge area was significant, such that response times were
slower for planning compared to physical texts, F(1, 90) = 8.63, p=.004, ƞ2 = .09. The main
effect of sentence type was also significant, such that response times were slower for control
compared to inference texts, F(1, 90) = 8.00, p = .006, ƞ2 = .08. The interaction between
knowledge area and sentence type was significant, F(1, 90) = 8.53, p = .004, ƞ2 = .09. Post-hoc
Tukey tests indicated that for the planning knowledge texts, response times were slower for the
control compared to the inference texts (p < .05). This difference did not exist for physical
knowledge texts. For the control texts, the response times were slower for the planning compared
to physical knowledge texts (p < .05). This difference did not exist for the inference texts. None
of the other main effects or interactions were significant (F-values < .95).
32
Main Effect of Knowledge Area
1140.000
1120.000
1100.000
1080.000
1060.000
1040.000
1020.000
1000.000
980.000
Planning
Knowledge
Physical
Knowledge
Figure 7. Mean response times (in milliseconds) for text probe words by knowledge area.
Main Effect of Sentence Type
1140.000
1120.000
1100.000
1080.000
1060.000
1040.000
1020.000
1000.000
Control Texts
Inference Texts
Figure 8. Mean response times (in milliseconds) for text probe words by sentence type.
33
Interaction Between Knowledge Area and Sentence Type
1250.000
1200.000
1150.000
1100.000
Control Text
1050.000
Inference Text
1000.000
950.000
Planning Knowledge Area
Physical Knowledge Area
Figure 9. Interaction between knowledge area and sentence type with mean response times (in
milliseconds) to text probe words.
Inference Probe Accuracy Rates. The accuracy rates for inference probe words were
examined. The interaction between knowledge area and sentence type was significant, F(1, 90) =
25.91, p < .001, ƞ2 = .224. Post-hoc Tukey tests indicated that for the planning knowledge texts,
accuracy rates were greater for control texts compared to inference texts (p < .05). For physical
knowledge texts, accuracy rates were greater for inference compared to control texts (p < .05).
For control sentence types, accuracy rates for planning knowledge areas were greater compared
to physical knowledge areas (p < .05). For inference sentence types, accuracy rates were greater
for physical knowledge areas compared to planning knowledge areas (p < .05). None of the other
main effects or interactions were significant (F-values < 2.61).
34
Interaction Between Knowledge Area and Sentence
Type
.980
.960
.940
.920
.900
.880
.860
.840
Control Texts
Inference
Texts
Planning Knowledge Physical Knowledge
Area
Area
Figure 10. Interaction between knowledge area and sentence type with mean percentage
accuracy rates to inference probe words.
Inference Probe Response Times. The response times for inference probe words were
examined. The interaction between knowledge area and sentence type was significant, F(1, 90) =
6.54, p =.01, ƞ2 = .07. Post-hoc Tukey tests indicated that for physical knowledge texts, response
times were slower for control sentence types compared to inference sentence types (p < .05). The
difference did not exist for planning knowledge areas. For control sentence types, response times
for slower for physical knowledge areas compared to planning knowledge areas. The difference
did not exist for inference sentence types. None of the other main effects or interactions were
significant (F-values < 3.31).
35
Interaction Between Knowledge Area and Sentence
Times
1250.000
1200.000
1150.000
1100.000
1050.000
1000.000
950.000
Control Texts
Inference
Texts
Planning
Knowledge Area
Physical
Knowledge Area
Figure 11. Interaction between knowledge area and sentence type with mean response times (in
milliseconds) to inference probe words.
Knowledge Validating Question Accuracy Rates. The accuracy rates for knowledge
validating questions were examined. The main effect of knowledge area was significant, such
that accuracy rates were higher for physical knowledge areas compared to planning knowledge
areas, F(1, 90) = 14.57, p < .001, ƞ2 = .14. The main effect of sentence type was significant, such
that accuracy rates were higher for control texts compared to inference texts, F(1, 90) = 5.19, p
=.023 , ƞ2 = .06.
The interaction between knowledge area and emotion condition was not significant, F(3,
87) = 2.44, p = .07, ƞ2 = .08. Since the p-value is close to a significant effect, information was
inferred using this finding. For the neutral emotion condition, accuracy rates were higher for
physical knowledge areas compared to planning knowledge areas (p < .05). This difference did
not exist for the shame, guilt, and pride emotion conditions. For planning knowledge areas,
accuracy rates were higher for those in the pride emotion condition compared to the neutral
emotion condition (p < .05). This difference did not exist for physical knowledge areas.
36
The interaction between sentence type and emotion condition was not significant, F(3,
87) = 2.14, p =.10, ƞ2 = .07. As with the interaction between knowledge area and emotion
condition, researchers reviewed this finding in terms of implications for the study. For the neutral
emotion condition, accuracy rates were higher for inference texts compared to control texts (p <
.05). This difference did not exist for the shame, guilt, and pride emotion conditions. For
inference sentence types, accuracy rates were higher for the pride emotion condition compared to
the neutral emotion condition (p < .05). In addition, accuracy rates were higher for pride
compared to shame and guilt emotion conditions regarding inference sentence type, but it was
not significant, but p < .10. None of the other main effects or interactions were significant (Fvalues < 1.49).
Interaction Between Knowledge Area and Emotion
Condition
Accuracy Rates
.980
.960
.940
Pride Condition
.920
Shame Condition
.900
Guilt Condition
.880
Neutral Condition
.860
.840
Physical Knowledge Planning Knowledge
Area
Area
Figure 12. Interaction between knowledge area and emotion condition with mean percentage
accuracy rates for knowledge validating questions.
37
Interaction Between Sentence Type and Emotion
Condition
Accuracy Rates
.960
.940
Pride Condition
.920
Shame Condition
.900
Guilt Condition
Neutral Condition
.880
.860
Inference Text
Control Text
Figure 13. Interaction between sentence type and emotion condition with mean percentage
accuracy rates for knowledge validating questions.
Knowledge Validating Question Response Times. None of the main effects or
interactions were significant (F-values < 1.65).
38
Table 3
Accuracy Rates and Response Times for the Inference Generation Task
Inference Sentence Type
Emotion
Knowledge
Probe Word
Accuracy Rates
Response Times
Condition
Area
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Physical
.91
.02
994.46
59.89
Pride
Planning
.93
.02
1072.95
76.57
Physical
.89
.02
1060.08
59.89
Shame
Text Based
Planning
.96
.02
1028.20
76.57
Probe Words
Physical
.94
.02
1106.29
57.34
Guilt
Planning
.99
.02
1013.51
73.31
Physical
.92
.02
1043.25
58.57
Neutral
Planning
.96
.02
1071.86
74.89
Physical
.88
.03
1365.54
99.37
Pride
Planning
.95
.02
1176.71
59.60
Physical
.87
.03
1269.57
99.37
Inference
Shame
Planning
.93
.02
1108.33
59.60
Based Probe
Words
Physical
.90
.02
1234.19
95.14
Guilt
Planning
.95
.02
1170.22
57.06
Physical
.90
.03
1148.83
97.19
Neutral
Planning
.94
.02
1117.39
58.29
Physical
.95
.02
2392.80 135.16
Pride
Planning
.92
.03
2367.02 167.59
Physical
.96
.02
2304.98 135.16
Knowledge
Shame
Planning
.92
.03
2285.46 167.59
Validating
Questions
Physical
.95
.02
2252.46 129.40
Guilt
Planning
.92
.03
2558.98 160.45
Physical
.98
.02
2379.36 132.19
Neutral
Planning
.93
.03
2475.39 163.90
39
Control Sentence Type
Accuracy Rates
Response Times
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
.92
.03
1141.64
78.49
.92
.02
1049.66
60.82
.87
.03
1227.79
78.49
.89
.02
1012.21
60.82
.91
.03
1242.38
75.14
.90
.02
1068.52
58.23
.87
.03
1189.18
76.76
.92
.02
1005.76
59.48
.95
.02
1158.79
65.57
.90
.02
1198.06
74.67
.95
.02
1142.55
65.57
.88
.02
1152.91
74.67
.97
.02
1112.47
62.78
.92
.02
1175.63
71.49
.96
.02
1071.41
64.13
.92
.02
1142.54
73.03
.96
.02
2275.65
168.61
.94
.02
2296.86
156.32
.95
.02
2347.62
168.61
.89
.02
2278.00
156.32
.90
.02
2559.49
161.43
.92
.02
2467.54
149.67
.95
.02
2625.62
164.91
.85
.02
2733.17
152.89
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
The goal of the present study was to determine the effects of particular self-conscious
emotions (pride, shame, and guilt) on inference generation and knowledge activation.
Participants demonstrated statistically significant differences when responding to probe words
(text and inference based) as a function of the knowledge area required to generate the inference
(planning and physical knowledge areas). However, when accounting for emotion condition,
there was not a statically significant effect for probe word recognition with regard to accuracy
rates and reading times. There were interactions that were not significant, but the p-value was
less than .10 for the accuracy of participants’ responses to knowledge validating questions. The
results suggest that emotion may affect knowledge activation, but not the other processes involve
in inference generation.
The first hypothesis, which stated that the emotion manipulation would be effective, was
generally supported. Although the interaction between pre-post induction and emotion condition
was not significant for the pride scores, there was a significant interaction for shame and guilt
scores. Participants in the pride and neutral emotion conditions demonstrated lower shame scores
compared to those in the guilt and shame condition after the emotion induction. Compared to
those in the shame and guilt condition, participants in the pride and neutral conditions had lower
guilt scores after that emotion induction. These results add to the literature that autobiographical
memory tasks can be effective for emotion manipulation (Kraus et al., 2012; Laird & Strout,
2007; Schwarz & Clore, 1983; Westermann et al., 1996). However, pride inductions may be less
effective for normal student populations who may already have high baseline pride scores.
40
The second hypothesis, which stated that readers would be more likely to generate
physical compared to planning knowledge inferences, was supported. Participants demonstrated
faster and more accurate responses to physical knowledge inference texts than planning
knowledge inference texts. Accuracy rates were higher and response times were faster when
viewing text probe words in physical knowledge texts compared to planning knowledge texts.
Accuracy rates were also higher for knowledge validating questions when reading physical
knowledge compared to planning knowledge texts. This aligns with findings by Shears et al.
(2007) that knowledge area influenced inference generation. In particular, planning knowledge
inferences were generated more slowly and less accurately than physical knowledge inferences,
indicating that the inference was less likely to be generated.
The third hypothesis, which stated that pride should facilitate inference generation,
whereas guilt and shame should hamper it, was partially supported when considering knowledge
validating questions. The main effect for emotion condition was not statistically significant.
However, when examining the interaction between sentence type and emotion condition for
accuracy rates regarding the knowledge validating questions, the p-value was not significant, but
p < .10. Those in the neutral emotion condition had higher accuracy rates on inference texts
compared to control texts. For texts that facilitated inference generation, accuracy rates were
higher for those participants in the pride emotion condition compared to participants in the
shame, guilt, and neutral emotion conditions. Unexpectedly, a significant interaction between
knowledge area, emotion, and inference generation was not found when examining probe word
recognition (text probe word and inference probe word). This may be due to the complexity of
specific academic emotions, such that mediating variables (such as working memory) may be
implicated. Potential mediating variables will be described in more detail later.
41
The fourth hypothesis, which stated that there would be an interaction between emotion
and knowledge area, was partially supported. A significant interaction between knowledge area
and emotion when examining probe word recognition (text probe word and inference probe
word) was not found. However, when examining the accuracy rates of the knowledge validating
questions, the p-value was not significant, but p = .07. Those in the neutral emotion condition
had higher accuracy rates for the physical knowledge areas compared to planning knowledge
areas. Accuracy rates were higher for those in the pride emotion condition compared to the
neutral emotion condition for responses to knowledge validating questions in planning
knowledge areas. This indicated that emotion might play a greater role when examining
knowledge activation in comparison to other aspects of inference generation.
Processes Involved in Inference Generation
When reading, a person must begin by identifying letters and words and determine what
the words mean as a unit. Skilled readers usually do this automatically. The reader then must
integrate each new sentence into the context of the rest of the text. Often this requires a reader to
make multiple inferences to establish a coherent mental representation of the text. Texts are
usually incomplete in nature, meaning that they do not tell the reader everything that needs to be
known to understand the text. Thus readers must fill in, or infer, missing pieces of the text with
background knowledge of the topic. This requires activating knowledge (either relevant or
irrelevant to the topic) and then making appropriate links between the pieces of activated
knowledge (Thurlow & van den Broek, 1997). The results suggest that perhaps emotions can
affect inference generation, but perhaps only during the knowledge activation phase. This aligns
with the affect infusion model in that positive emotions are associated with wider knowledge
activation nets.
42
The results of the study contribute to the existing research on inference generation in
connection with the affect infusion model. The finding that pride did not have a significant
effect, but that p < .10 for knowledge area questions but not other aspects of inference generation
might indicate that pride facilitates the activation of knowledge, which aligns with the affect
infusion model’s notion that positive affect facilitates making connections between concepts
(Forgas, 1995). Hence, knowledge activation could play a mediating role between the effects of
emotion and text processing.
Expanding on the affect infusion model, Bohn-Gettler and Rapp (2011) found that
participants with happy-induced moods engaged in more text-based inferences compared to
participants with sad-induced moods. Pride could be compared to happy-induced mood because
both are classified as positive emotions. Previous research found that knowledge-based
inferences depend on general knowledge and general knowledge activation (Graesser et al.,
1994). This could explain why participants in the pride emotion condition had better accuracy
rates on knowledge activation questions. Making text-based inferences requires some activation
of prior knowledge. If pride facilitated that activation, comprehension could improve among
participants.
Potential Mediating Variables
According to the resource-allocation model, emotional duress increases the likelihood of
irrelevant thoughts that interfere with cognitive activities (Ellis & Ashbrook, 1988). Emotions
such as depression and sadness can occupy already limited attentional resources, thus leaving
fewer cognitive resources available for other tasks. The emotions of shame and guilt could be
compared to depression and sadness in that all are negative emotions. Participants in the shame
and guilt emotion conditions did not perform as well on knowledge activation questions
43
compared to the participants in the pride condition. This effect could be a function of readers’
attentional resources being allocated toward processing the emotion, which would therefore
leave fewer resources available for knowledge activation.
Working memory is another potential mediating variable that could play a role in the
current study. As described earlier, working memory refers to the capacity a person has to
mentally manage information within a specific task. The amount of activation available in
working memory varies among individuals, and processing and storage are mediated by
activation in working memory (Just & Carpenter, 1992). Shears et al. (2007) found that working
memory played a role when readers generated knowledge-based inferences based on specific
knowledge areas (physical or planning). Furthermore, Bohn-Gettler and Rapp (2011) found that
the effects of emotion on reading depended upon working memory such that readers with higher
working memory scores were better able to regulate emotions. Hence, their reading processes
were not as likely to be modified as a function of emotion. Therefore, if the current study had
included a measure of working memory capacity, it might allow for finding significant
differences among participants regarding emotion management and inference generation. It may
be that the effects of shame and guilt would be more pronounced among individuals with low
working memory. For example, those participants with larger working memory capacities may
be able to process an emotion while still completing an inference generation task. However,
participants with smaller working memory capacities may have difficulty allocating resources to
both emotion management and inference generation.
Future Directions
A number of design considerations improved the strength of the current study. First, all of
the measures have been used in previous research, hence documentation exists that the measures
44
are reliable and valid. Second, this study was performed in a laboratory setting with many
controlled variables. Researchers were able to control variables such as testing room atmosphere
(room temperature, sound, furniture, etc.), time allowed to complete the activity, and random
assignment. Such experimental control contributes to increased reliability and internal validity.
However, real academic settings do not usually lend themselves to such a controlled
environment. Hence, future research should examine whether these findings would extend into
more naturalistic learning settings.
However, one challenge to consider is the effects of emotion among readers with
disabilities. Originally, the current study intended to include participants with reading
disabilities. After solicitation measures and sufficient response time, only two people
participated that had a documented reading disability. No participants responded to
advertisements sent via the university’s office of disability services. Therefore, information
could not be collected or measured with this population. Reading disabilities can influence the
ways in which a reader encode and retrieve text, the number of inferences a reader generates, and
the working memory span of the reader (Andersson & Ostergren, 2012; Borella, Carretti, &
Pelegrina, 2010; Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, Lambert, & Hamlett, 2012; Laing & Kamhi, 2002).
Individuals with reading disabilities are also more prone to experiencing negative emotions in
academic settings, such as anxiety and shame (Brown, Higgins, Pierce, Hong, & Thoma, 2003;
Denhart, 2008; Maag & Reid, 2006; Shessel & Reiff, 1999; Wilson, Armstrong, Furrie, &
Walcot, 2009). Thus, it was hypothesized that there may have been a stronger link between
inference generation, knowledge areas, and emotion in participants with reading disabilities.
Future research may consider recruiting participants from non-university populations or specific
courses for individuals with reading disabilities, obtaining a more racially and gender diverse
45
sample, and incorporating measures such as working memory capacity. Although controlling for
working memory may increase internal validity, it potentially reduces external validity in that
you cannot control for working memory in academic settings. Additionally, future research
might further explore the idea of resource allocation by examining neuroimaging, which might
shed light on whether emotion leads to the engagement of various brain areas. Furthermore,
Shears et al. (2007) found that there was a difference between knowledge areas when generating
inferences. Often standardized tests do not distinguish between inference types and knowledge
areas assessed during inference tasks. Future research could further study the need for these
distinctions.
Implications
This research may lead to important educational applications and implications. Overall,
these findings support a growing body of work documenting the effects of emotion on
comprehension. Pekrun (2002) found that academic emotions relate to a student's motivation,
learning strategies, cognitive resources, self-regulation, and academic achievement. The current
study supports the notion that academic emotions may also play a role in knowledge activation.
Furthermore, the present study demonstrates that emotion may affect the earlier steps of
inference generation in its effect on knowledge activation. If emotion can facilitate knowledge
activation, this may have important implications for educators seeking to improve the
comprehension skills of their students. In classrooms, emotions can affect the learning
environment. Teachers should encourage environments that promote positive emotions, such as
pride, to help facilitate knowledge activation among students.
46
REFERENCES
47
References
Andersson, U. & Ostergren, R. (2012). Number magnitude processing and basic cognitive
functions in children with mathematical learning disabilities. Learning and Individual
Differences, 22(6), 701 – 714.
Bless, H. & Fielder, K (1995). Affective states and the influence of activated general knowledge.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21,766-778.doi:
10.1177/0146167295217010
Bohn-Gettler, C. M. & Rapp, D. N. (2011). Depending on my mood: Mood-driven influences on
text comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 562-577.doi:
10.1037/a0023458
Borella, E., Carretti, B., & Pelegrina, S. (2010). The specific role of inhibition in reading
comprehension in good and poor comprehenders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(6),
541-552. doi: 10.1177/0022219410371676
Brown, M. R., Higgins, K., Pierce, T., Hong, E, & Thoma, C. (2003). Secondary students'
perceptions of school life with regard to alienation: The effects of disability, gender and
race. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(4), 227 - 238.
Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Lambert, W., & Hamlett, C. (2012). The cognitive and
academic profiles of reading and mathematics learning disabilities. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 45(1), 79 - 95.doi: 10.1177/0022219410393012
Denhart, H. (2008). Deconstructing barriers: Perceptions of students labeled with learning
disabilities in higher education. Journal of Learning Disabilities 41(6), 483-497. doi:
10.1177/0022219408321151
Dweck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10),
1040-1048.
Egidi, G., & Gerrig, R. J. (2009). How valence affects language processing: Negativity bias and
mood congruence in narrative comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 37(5), 547-55.doi:
10.3758/MC.37.5.547
Ellis, H. C., & Ashbrook, P. W. (1988). Resource allocation model of the effects of depressed
mood states on memory. In K. Fiedler & J. Forgas (Eds.), Affect, cognition and social
behavior (pp.25-43). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Hogrefe.
48
Ellis, H.C., Moore, B. A., Varner, L. J., Ottaway, S. A., & Becker, A.S. (1997a). Depressed
mood, task organization, cognitive interference, and memory. Journal of Social Behavior
and Personality, 12(2), 453 - 470.
Ellis, H. C., Ottaway, S. A., Varner, L. J., Becker, A. S., & Moore, B. A. (1997b). Emotion,
motivation, and text comprehension: The detection of contradictions in passages. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 126(2), 131-146.doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.126.2.131
Ellis, H.C., Thomas, R.L., & Rodriguez, I.A. (1984). Emotional mood states and memory:
Elaborative encoding, semantic processing, and cognitive effort. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 470-482.
Forgas, J.P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The Affect Infusion Model (AIM). Psychological
Bulletin 117(1), 39-66.
Graesser, A.C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative
textcomprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371-395.
Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: individual
differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122-149.
Kihlstrom, J. F. (1989). On what does mood-dependent memory depend? Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 4, 23-32.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978).Toward a model of text comprehension and production.
Psychological Review, 85(5), 363-394.doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363
Kraus, M. W., Adler, N., & Chen, T. W. D. (2012). Is the association of subjective SES and selfrated health confounded by negative mood? An experimental approach. Health
Psychology. doi: 10.1037/a0027343
Lagattuta, K. H. & Thompson, R. A. (2007). The development of self-conscious emotions:
Cognitive processes and social influence. In J.L. Tracy, Robins, and Tangney, The SelfConscious Emotions: Theory and Research (pp. 91 - 113). New York, NY: The Guilford
Press.
Laing, S. P. & Kamhi, A. G. (2002). The use of think-aloud protocols to compare inferencing
abilities in average and below-average readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities 35(5),
436 - 447.
49
Laird, J. D. & Strout, S. (2007). Emotional Behaviors as Emotional Stimuli. In J. A. Coan &
J.J.B. Allen (Eds.), Handbook of Emotion Elicitation and Assessment (54 – 64). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Long, D. L., Oppy, B. J., & Seely, M. R. (1994). Individual differences in the time course of
inferential processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 20, 1456-1470.
Maag, J. W., & Reid, R. (2006). Depression among students with learning disabilities: assessing
the risk. Journal of Learning Disabilities 39(1), 3 - 10.
Magliano, J. P., Trabasso, T., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). Strategic processing during
comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 615 - 629.
Marschall, D. E., Saftner, J. L., & Tangney, J. P. (1994). The State Shame and Guilt Scale.
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
McKoon, G. & Ratcliff, R. (1989). Semantic associations and elaborative inference. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(2), 326-338.
Mirous, H. J. (2010). Mood makes or breaks meaning: Mood effects on inference processing
during narrative comprehension in adults & children. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved
from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. AAT 3508337).
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries,
and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review,
18, 315-341.doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Barchfeld, P., & Perry, R. P. (2011). Measuring emotions
in students' learning and performance: The achievement emotions questionnaire.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 36 - 48.
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgment of well-being:
Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 45(3), 513 - 523.
Shaver, E, Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O'Connor, C. (1987). Emotion knowledge: Further
exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,
1061-1086.
50
Shears, C. & Chiarello, C. (2004). Knowledge-based inferences are not general. Discourse
Processes, 38(1), 31-55.doi:10.1207/s15326950dp3801
Shears, C., Miller, V., Ball, M., Hawkins, A., Griggs, J., & Varner, A. (2007). Cognitive demand
differences in causal inferences: Characters' plans are more difficult to comprehend than
physical causation. Discourse Processes, 43(3), 255-278. doi:
10.1080/01638530701226238
Shessel, I., & Reiff, H. B. (1999). Experiences of adults with learning disabilities: Positive and
negative impacts and outcomes. Learning Disability Quarterly 22(4), 305 - 3176.
Stringer, R., & Heath, N. (2006). Possible relationships between depressive symptoms and
reading. Canadian Journal of School Psychology. 21, 93-105.
Tapiero, I., van den Broek, P., & Quintana, M. P. (2002). The mental representation of narrative
texts as networks: the role of necessity and sufficiency in the detection of different types
of causal relations. Discourse Processes 34(3), 237-258.
Thurlow, R., & van den Broek, P. (1997). Automaticity and inference generation during reading.
Reading & Writing Quarterly, 13, 165 - 181.
Trabasso, T., & van den Broek, P. W. (1985).Causal thinking and representations of narrative
events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 612–630.
Trabasso, T., van den Broek, P., & Suh, S. Y. (1989). Logical necessity and transitivity of causal
relations in stories. Discourse Processes, 12, 1–25.
Tracy, J. L. & Robins, R. W. (2007). The self in self-conscious emotions: A cognitive appraisal
approach. In J.L. Tracy, Robins, and Tangney, The Self-Conscious Emotions: Theory and
Research (pp. 3-20). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Turner, J. E., & Schallert, D. L. (2001). Expectancy–value relationships of shame reactions and
shame resiliency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 320-329.doi: 10.1037/00220663.93.2.320
van den Broek, P., & Kremer, K.E. (1999). The mind in action: What it means to comprehend
during reading. In B. Taylor, M. Graves & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Reading for
meaning (pp. 1-31). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
51
van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’
goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29(8), 10811087.
Westermann, R., Spies, K., Stahl, G., & Hesse, F. W. (1996). Relative effectiveness and validity
of mood induction procedures: A meta- analysis. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 26(4), 557-580.
Williams, L. A. & DeSteno, D. (2008). Pride and perseverance: The motivational role of pride.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(6), 1007 - 1017. doi: 10.1037/00223514.94.6.1007
Wilson, A. M., Armstrong, C. D., Furrie, A., & Walcot, E. (2009). The mental health of
Canadians with self-reported learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities
42(24), 24 - 40. doi: 10.1177/0022219408326216
52
APPENDIXES
53
APPENDIX A
SSGS
The following are some statements which may or may not describe how you are feeling right
now. Please rate each statement using the 5-point scale below. Remember to rate each
statement based on how you are feeling right at this moment.
Not feeling
this way
at all
1. I feel good about myself.
Feeling
this way
somewhat
Feeling
this way
very strongly
1 ------- 2 ------- 3 ------- 4 ------- 5
2. I want to sink into the floor and disappear. 1 ------- 2 ------- 3 ------- 4 ------- 5
3. I feel remorse, regret.
1 ------- 2 ------- 3 ------- 4 ------- 5
4. I feel worthwhile, valuable.
1 ------- 2 ------- 3 ------- 4 ------- 5
5. I feel small.
1 ------- 2 ------- 3 ------- 4 ------- 5
6. I feel tension about something I have done. 1 ------- 2 ------- 3 ------- 4 ------- 5
7. I feel capable, useful.
1 ------- 2 ------- 3 ------- 4 ------- 5
8. I feel like I am a bad person.
1 ------- 2 ------- 3 ------- 4 ------- 5
54
9. I cannot stop thinking about something
bad I have done.
1 ------- 2 ------- 3 ------- 4 ------- 5
10. I feel proud.
1 ------- 2 ------- 3 ------- 4 ------- 5
11. I feel humiliated, disgraced.
1 ------- 2 ------- 3 ------- 4 ------- 5
12. I feel like apologizing, confessing.
1 ------- 2 ------- 3 ------- 4 ------- 5
13. I feel pleased about something I have done. 1 ------- 2 ------- 3 ------- 4 ------- 5
14. I feel worthless, powerless.
15. I feel bad about something I have done.
1 ------- 2 ------- 3 ------- 4 ------- 5
1 ------- 2 ------- 3 ------- 4 ------- 5
55
APPENDIX B
EMOTION INDUCTION SCRIPTS
Script for Pride Condition (Adapted from the script used in Kraus et al., 2012)
Researcher: Please close your eyes and remember a specific time when you felt proud or
satisfied with something you did. Try to remember the event as if you were actually experiencing
it for a second time. (pause) What lead up to that event? (pause) How did you feel in the
moment? (pause) Who was with you during that time? (pause)During the moment, what did you
see and hear? (pause) What thoughts were running through your mind? (pause) What actions
were you doing during the moment? On the paper provided, write about this event in as much
detail as possible.
Script for Shame Condition (Adapted from the script used in Kraus et al., 2012)
Researcher: Please close your eyes and remember a specific time when you felt shamed,
disrespected, or devalued. Try to remember the event as if you were actually experiencing it for a
second time. (pause) What lead up to that event? (pause) How did you feel in the moment?
(pause) Who was with you during that time? (pause)During the moment, what did you see and
hear? (pause) What thoughts were running through your mind? (pause) What actions were you
doing during the moment? On the paper provided, write about this event in as much detail as
possible.
Script for Guilt Condition (Adapted from the script used in Kraus et al., 2012)
Researcher: Please close your eyes and remember a specific time when you felt guilt or remorse
about something you did. Try to remember the event as if you were actually experiencing it for a
second time. (pause) What lead up to that event? (pause) How did you feel in the moment?
56
(pause) Who was with you during that time? (pause)During the moment, what did you see and
hear? (pause) What thoughts were running through your mind? (pause) What actions were you
doing during the moment? On the paper provided, write about this event in as much detail as
possible.
Script for Neutral Condition (Adapted from the script used in Kraus et al., 2012)
Researcher: Please close your eyes and remember waking up this morning. Try to remember the
event as if you were actually experiencing it for a second time. (pause) What lead up to that
event? (pause) How did you feel in the moment? (pause) Who was with you during that time?
(pause)During the moment, what did you see and hear? (pause) What thoughts were running
through your mind? (pause) What actions were you doing during the moment? On the paper
provided, write about this event in as much detail as possible.
57
APPENDIX C
INFERENCE GENERATION TASK – PLANNING KNOWLEDGE STIMULI
Type
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Text
Nina's birthday is coming up.
She likes balloons.
Everyone will be excited.
Her dad bought her a cake.
Nina's throat is very sore.
She likes balloons.
Everyone will be excited.
Her dad bought her a cake.
The doctor is late for surgery.
He likes to be on time.
His patient is in the operating room.
The doctor is speeding on the freeway
The doctor is ready for surgery.
He likes to be on time.
His patient is in the operating room.
The doctor is speeding on the freeway.
The 15 year old boy was caught drinking beer.
His parents were angry.
The boy felt guilty.
His parents grounded him.
The 15 year old boy was babysitting.
His parents were angry.
The boy felt guilty.
His parents grounded him.
Sally went to the bank.
She drove quickly.
She had to get there before closing time.
Her rent was due in the morning.
Sally went to the parade.
She drove quickly.
She had to get there before closing time.
Her rent was due in the morning.
Cindy was low in energy.
She had just finished working.
Cindy was driving home.
She drank a raspberry smoothie.
Cindy was listening to the radio.
She had just finished working.
Cindy was driving home.
She drank a raspberry smoothie.
Malcolm realized Valentine's Day was tomorrow.
He was not prepared.
He had to figure something out quickly.
He went to the candy shop.
Malcolm realized the final exam was tomorrow.
He was not prepared.
He had to figure something out quickly.
He went to the candy shop.
58
Knowledge
Verification
Question
Text Probe
Word
Inference
Probe Word
Cake
Party
Is cake good for
sore throats?
Freeway
Rush
Can doctors be
late?
Boy
Punish
Rent
Cash
Do people pay
rent?
Drank
Boost
Can a smoothie
increase your
energy?
Tomorrow
Girlfriend
Do people give
candy on special
days?
Do parents punish
their children?
Type
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Text
Ellen's friend's baby shower is coming up.
Ellen made invitations.
Her friend is having a boy.
Ellen went shopping.
Ellen's friend is on her way over.
Ellen made invitations.
Her friend is having a boy.
Ellen went shopping.
Erin got straight A's on her report card.
It was a huge accomplishment for her.
Her parents were so proud.
Her parents took her to dinner.
Erin received a beautiful postcard.
It was a huge accomplishment for her.
Her parents were so proud.
Her parents took her to dinner.
Melvin loves piano music.
He tries to support the arts.
Music could entertain him for hours.
He is taking piano lessons.
Melvin loves watching movies.
He tries to support the arts.
Music could entertain him for hours.
He is taking piano lessons.
Sherry was constantly eating.
It was her favorite thing to do.
She loved to try new cuisines.
She bought a membership to 24 Hour Fitness.
Sherry was constantly traveling.
It was her favorite thing to do.
She loved to try new cuisines.
She bought a membership to 24 Hour Fitness.
The little girl was starting school.
She was five years old.
She wanted to make new friends.
She woke up before dawn.
The little girl was in school.
She was five years old.
She wanted to make new friends.
She woke up before dawn.
Connie's sunglasses were broken.
They were her favorite pair.
She wanted to replace them.
She went to the mall.
Connie's sunglasses were the latest style.
They were her favorite pair.
She wanted to replace them.
She went to the mall.
Jodie visited the slaughterhouse.
She had never been inside the building.
The experience had a big impact on her.
Jodie became a vegetarian the next day.
Jodie visited the historical building.
She had never been inside the building.
The experience had a big impact on her.
Jodie became a vegetarian the next day.
59
Text Probe
Word
Inference
Probe
Word
Knowledge
Verification
Question
Present
Friend
Do people buy gifts
for friends?
Card
Reward
Do postcards get
grades?
Lessons
Play
Do people practice
the piano?
Constantly
Exercise
Do people travel
while exercising?
School
Excited
Does school start
before dawn?
Pair
Buy
Visited
Disgusted
Are sunglasses
needed inside?
Do vegetarians eat
meat?
Type
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Text
Elise's clothes were dirty.
It had been a month since she'd washed them.
She couldn't put it off any longer.
She did her laundry.
Elise's front steps were dirty.
It had been a month since she'd washed them.
She couldn't put it off any longer.
She did her laundry.
Judy wanted to go to the concert.
She had been wanting to for years.
Judy finally made a commitment to do it.
She stopped at the box office.
Judy wanted to learn French.
She had been wanting to for years.
Judy finally made a commitment to do it.
She stopped at the box office.
The day was getting hot.
The sun was shining brightly.
Mark considered his plans.
Mark decided to go to the beach.
The day was going to be busy.
The sun was shining brightly.
Mark considered his plans.
Mark decided to go to the beach.
The lazy student did not study for the test.
He went to bed late last night.
He was tired in class.
He copied the answers from his friend.
The lazy student rode the bus.
He went to bed late last night.
He was tired in class.
He copied the answers from his friend.
Jake lost the bike race.
He loves to ride his bike.
He has been riding for eight years.
He decided to train even harder.
Jake lost the bike lock.
He loves to ride his bike.
He has been riding for eight years.
He decided to train even harder.
Alex's paint supplies were getting low.
He always forgets to refill before it's too late.
He has a lot of errands to run.
He went to the art supply store.
Alex's car was low on fuel.
He always forgets to refill before it's too late.
He has a lot of errands to run.
He went to the art supply store.
Martha's daughter is graduating soon.
She had just turned eighteen.
Martha is so proud of her.
Martha went to the flower shop.
Martha's daughter is in her room.
She had just turned eighteen.
Martha is so proud of her.
Martha went to the flower shop.
60
Text Probe
Word
Inference
Probe
Word
Knowledge
Verification
Question
Laundry
Machine
Stopped
Buy
Are concert tickets
sold in grocery
stores?
Day
Cool
Can it be less hot at
the beach?
Answers
Cheat
Do students have to
copy?
Decided
Next
Can training
improve skills?
Paint
Brushes
Do people paint?
Daughter
Surprise
Can flowers be
gifts?
Can laundry be
washed?
Type
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Text
The wedding was next week.
Everyone but Vincent was ready.
He was so nervous.
Vincent had to rent a tuxedo.
The camping trip was next week.
Everyone but Vincent was ready.
He was so nervous.
Vincent had to rent a tuxedo.
Martin has been stressed lately by his work.
He has so many deadlines.
He has more responsibility than ever.
He is doing meditation.
Martin enjoys his work.
He has so many deadlines.
He has more responsibility than ever.
He is doing meditation.
The evening news revealed the dangers of sun
exposure.
The news is always filled with advice.
People tend to trust the news.
People go out to buy sunscreen.
The evening news revealed the dangers of travel.
The news is always filled with advice.
People tend to trust the news.
People go out to buy sunscreen.
Sarah was feeling very sick.
Her stomach was in knots.
She knew something was about to happen.
She went to the doctor.
Sarah was feeling very lucky.
Her stomach was in knots.
She knew something was about to happen.
She went to the doctor.
61
Knowledge
Verification
Question
Text Probe
Word
Inference
Probe Word
Tuxedo
Attend
Do people wear
dress clothes
camping?
Work
Relax
Is meditation
relaxing?
People
Burn
Can travel be fun?
Doctor
Cure
Can doctors make
you feel better?
APPENDIX D
INFERENCE GENERATION TASK – PHYSICAL KNOWLEDGE STIMULI
Type
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Text
Jessica was in a car accident.
She was really upset at first.
She finally calmed down.
Jessica was injured.
Jessica was in a better mood.
She was really upset at first.
She finally calmed down.
Jessica was injured.
Mark's car tire went flat.
He didn't have any money left.
He had just replaced them last week.
He couldn't drive anywhere.
Mark's car tires were new.
He didn't have any money left.
He had just replaced them last week.
He couldn't drive anywhere.
The wine glass fell from the table.
It was still full of red wine.
The glass had been left there by accident.
Pieces of glass went everywhere.
The wine glass sat on the table.
It was still full of red wine.
The glass had been left there by accident.
Pieces of glass went everywhere.
Sarah took the aspirins.
She had been busy all afternoon.
She had such a headache.
Her pain went away.
Sarah looked for her purse.
She had been busy all afternoon.
She had such a headache.
Her pain went away.
The bright sun was shining on the field.
It was still winter time.
Al had just built a snowman.
Al's snowman began to melt.
The clouds shaded the field.
It was still winter time.
Al had just built a snowman.
Al's snowman began to melt.
Dorothy poured the bucket of water on the fire.
It was a small camp fire.
She was ready to leave.
The fire went out.
Dorothy placed the bucket of water by the fire.
It was a small camp fire.
She was ready to leave.
The fire went out.
62
Text
Probe
Word
Inference
Probe
Word
Knowledge
Verification
Question
Injured
Crash
Are people hurt in
car accidents?
Drive
Stuck
Do people stop
driving because of
new tires?
Table
Shattered
Does glass break?
Pain
Relief
Do aspirins relieve
pain?
Field
Heat
Will sun melt
snow?
Bucket
Smoke
Is fire extinguished
by water?
Type
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Text
Allen forgot to feed his goldfish all week.
He needed countless reminders.
He could never remember things.
Allen's goldfish died.
Allen forgot to read his book all week.
He needed countless reminders.
He could never remember things.
Allen's goldfish died.
Ronny had too much caffeine.
He didn't know what to do with himself.
He tried to keep himself entertained.
He couldn't go to sleep.
Ronny had too much to eat.
He didn't know what to do with himself.
He tried to keep himself entertained.
He couldn't go to sleep.
Marie flipped the switch.
She'd had such a long day at work.
She just wanted to relax.
The light went out.
Marie flipped the pages of her magazine.
She'd had such a long day at work.
She just wanted to relax.
The light went out.
Joe struck the birthday balloon with a pin.
He was just playing around.
He was always finding new ways to have fun.
The balloon burst.
Joe struck the birthday card with a pin.
He was just playing around.
He was always finding new ways to have fun.
The balloon burst.
Greg bicycled across the broken glass.
He's usually very cautious.
He was in a hurry to get to work on time.
Greg's tire went flat.
Greg carefully bicycled across the busy street.
He's usually very cautious.
He was in a hurry to get to work on time.
Greg's tire went flat.
Peter chopped the onions for the salad.
He wasn't sure how to prepare vegetables.
He was helping his mom out.
Peter couldn't stop crying.
Peter chopped tomatoes for the salad.
He wasn't sure how to prepare vegetables.
He was helping his mom out.
Peter couldn't stop crying.
The scientist poured the powder into the boiling
water.
He made careful observations.
He took perfect time measurements.
After a few minutes the powder disappeared.
The scientist watched the water closely.
He made careful observations.
He took perfect time measurements.
After a few minutes the powder disappeared.
63
Text
Probe
Word
Inference
Probe
Word
Knowledge
Verification
Question
Forgot
Starved
Do goldfish need
to be fed?
Sleep
Wired
Does caffeine
make you sleepy?
Flipped
Dark
Can lights be put
out?
Birthday
Poked
Bicycled
Sharp
Will glass pop
tires?
Salad
Sting
Do tomatoes make
your eyes water?
Scientist
Mixed
Will pins break
cards?
Will water dissolve
metal?
Type
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Text
Alice tripped on the stairs.
The stairs were made of concrete.
They were very steep.
Alice's knee was bleeding.
Alice climbed on the stairs.
The stairs were made of concrete.
They were very steep.
Alice's knee was bleeding.
The sugar was all used up.
Sugar adds so much flavor.
Sugar is the best.
The coffee tasted bitter.
The sugar was in the cup.
Sugar adds so much flavor.
Sugar is the best.
The coffee tasted bitter.
The basketball player hurt his knee.
He had been practicing very hard.
Basketball was his biggest obsession.
He couldn't play in the big game.
The basketball player used his skills.
He had been practicing very hard.
Basketball was his biggest obsession.
He couldn't play in the big game.
Phillip put water-filled trays in the freezer.
He had many things to take care of.
His mom had left him a list of chores.
He was making ice.
Phillip put water-filled trays on the counter.
He had many things to take care of.
His mom had left him a list of chores.
He was making ice.
The ringer on Marcy's phone was turned off.
She took her phone everywhere.
It usually played her favorite song.
She had missed several of Sean's calls.
The ringer on Marcy's phone was musical.
She took her phone everywhere.
It usually played her favorite song.
She had missed several of Sean's calls.
The earthquake shook the house.
It was loud and frightening.
The house was old and rickety.
The house collapsed.
The owners loved the house
It was loud and frightening.
The house was old and rickety.
The house collapsed.
The paint splattered on the furniture.
The couch was brand new.
The paint was bright red.
The couch was ruined.
It was Tuesday.
The couch was brand new.
The paint was bright red.
The couch was ruined.
64
Text
Probe
Word
Inference
Probe
Word
Knowledge
Verification
Question
Knee
Fell
Coffee
Sweeten
Is sugar sweet?
Player
Out
Do injuries feel
good?
Trays
Cubes
Can you make ice
on a counter?
Ringer
Hear
Do phones make
noise?
Collapsed
Destroyed
Paint
Spilled
Can falling cause
cuts to knees?
Can noise damage
a house?
Do people paint
their couches?
Type
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Inference
Control
Text
Edward forgot to put on sunscreen.
The sun was bright.
There were barely any clouds in the sky.
He got a sunburn.
The water was cold.
The sun was bright.
There were barely any clouds in the sky.
He got a sunburn.
Alexis slept peacefully.
Alexis had to be at work by nine.
She had to wake up by eight.
Alexis woke up late.
The alarm clock was set.
Alexis had to be at work by nine.
She had to wake up by eight.
Alexis woke up late.
Stacy got a flu shot.
She was an intelligent girl.
She was always thinking ahead.
Stacy did not catch the flu.
Stacy had a good idea.
She was an intelligent girl.
She was always thinking ahead.
Stacy did not catch the flu.
The marathon was held on the hottest day of the year.
It was held annually.
Thousands of people came to watch.
Many runners collapsed.
The marathon was held on a Saturday.
It was held annually.
Thousands of people came to watch.
Many runners collapsed.
65
Text
Probe
Word
Inference
Probe
Word
Knowledge
Verification
Question
Forgot
Apply
Do people apply
sunscreen?
Alarm
Morning
Do broken alarm
clocks work?
Flu
Prevent
Is the flu good to
catch?
Held
Exhausted
Can runners get
overheated?
APPENDIX E
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY
Instructions: Please complete the following items by circling the appropriate option or filling in
the blank. As with all aspects of this study, your responses will not be linked to your name, and
you will remain anonymous.
1. Age (in years):
__________
2. Gender:
__________
3. Ethnicity:
__________
4. Is English your native language?
Yes
No
If English is not your native language, what is your native language?
____________
5. Please indicate your current level of study.
Graduate
6. What is your college major?
__________
7. What year are you in your current program?
_________
8. Do you have a reading disability that is
documented with Wichita State University?
Yes
9. Please describe your reading disability:
66
Undergraduate
No