The Contribution of Hot and Cool EF to Pre-Readers’ Narrative Comprehension and Later
Reading Comprehension in Elementary School
Nicole R. Guajardo and Kelly B. Cartwright (Christopher Newport University)
Paper presented December 4, 2014 at the 64th annual conference of the Literacy Research
Association, Marco Island, FL
Theoretical Framework: Skilled reading comprehension involves being aware of one’s own
reading processes (see Cartwright, 2009, 2010, and Pressley, 2002, for reviews) and being able to
infer critical information to make sense of the text being read (Elbro & Buch-Iversen, 2013; Oakhill
& Cain, 2012). In fact, children who have poor metacognitive skills struggle with comprehension
(Paris & Jacobs, 1984), and those with poor comprehension are less able to generate inferences to
support their reading comprehension (Cain & Oakhill, 1999; Laing & Kamhi, 2002; Rapp, Van den
Broek, McMaster, & Kendeou, 2007). Executive function (EF) skills likely account, at least
partially, for individual differences in both reading comprehension and reading awareness.
The importance of executive function, broadly speaking, for reading comprehension is well
documented (e.g., Cartwright, 2002, 2007, 2012; Oakhill & Cain, 2012; Sesma, Mahone, Levine,
Eason, & Cutting, 2009). Recently, theorists have made a distinction between cool and hot
executive function. Cool executive function refers to processes involved in abstract,
decontextualized problems (e.g., working memory, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility),
whereas hot executive function pertains to problems with affective and motivational components
(see Zelazo & Mȕller, 2002; Zelazo & Carlson, 2012). Zelazo and Mȕller (2002) include the
understanding that others can have false beliefs, an important component of theory of mind (ToM),
as an aspect of hot executive function. We propose counterfactual reasoning as another aspect of hot
executive function. Counterfactual reasoning involves comparing an outcome to possible
alternatives (Kahneman & Miller, 1986; Kahneman & Tversky, 1982) and serves a motivational
function (Roese, 1994). By considering alternative antecedents that could have changed an
outcome, individuals can motivate changes in behavior to prepare for future events or modulate
their emotions (Roese, 1994). The established relationship between false belief understanding and
counterfactual reasoning (e.g., Guajardo, Parker, & Turley-Ames, 2008; Guajardo & Turley-Ames,
2004; Perner, Sprung, & Steinkogler, 2004; Riggs, Peterson, Robinson, & Mitchell, 1998) also
supports the proposition that they are two aspects of hot executive function. It follows that not only
cool EF (Borella, Carretti, & Pelegrina, 2010; Sesma et al., 2009), but also hot EF that involves
making inferences, such as ToM and counterfactual reasoning, would predict reading
comprehension.
Theory of mind involves attributing mental and emotional states to others as well as an
awareness of one’s own and others’ thoughts (Astington, Harris, & Olson, 1988). Thus, it is likely
that theory of mind understanding would facilitate reading comprehension because it would help
readers better understand characters’ motivations. Feldman, Bruner, Renderer, and Spitzer (1996)
proposed two landscapes within a story: landscape of consciousness and landscape of action.
Reading comprehension relies on one’s abilities to make inferences from narratives regarding both
landscapes. To fully comprehend a story, readers must be able to understand the events in the story
as well as the characters’ thoughts, perceptions, and motives (Emery, 1996). Evidence for the
importance of mental and emotional state inferences for narrative and reading comprehension has
been shown with both pre-readers (Pelletier & Astington, 2004; Kim & Phillips, 2014; Tompkins,
Guo, & Justice, 2013) and elementary aged readers (Emery, 1996; Shanahan & Shanahan, 1997).
Thus, skilled comprehenders are processing the actions of the story as well as the thoughts and
intentions of the characters. However, across the elementary grades, children typically do not
include references to characters’ internal states in their retellings of stories unless they are stated
explicitly (Shannon, Kameenui, & Baumann, 1988), and their inferences from text are most often
about characters’ actions rather than characters’ internal states (McConaughy, 1985).
Counterfactual reasoning, which involves inferring potential alternative outcomes, is also related to
reading comprehension in adults (Trabasso & Bartolone, 2003). Previous work has not examined
whether counterfactual reasoning is related to pre-reader and early reading comprehension, yet it is
plausible that early counterfactual reasoning lays an important foundation for considering causal
links in a story and making inferences that enhance comprehension.
Finally, as noted above, knowledge of one’s own thoughts is an important part of theory of
mind understanding, and metacognitive skills are important for reading comprehension, which
further suggests a connection between theory of mind understanding and reading. Additionally,
metacognition is considered an executive skill that supports educational success (Meltzer, 2007).
Skilled readers are metacognitively aware, engaging actively and strategically while reading (Jacobs
& Paris, 1987; Pressley, 2002). Mental state understanding is an important aspect of metacognition
(Lecce, Zocchi, Pagnin, Palladino, & Taumoepeau, 2010). Indeed, researchers have supported a
connection between mental state language and metaknowledge about reading (Lecce et al., 2010)
and between metacognition (i.e., metacognitive language and second order theory of mind) and later
reading ability and story comprehension (Pelletier, 2007). Theory of mind understanding leads to
awareness of the author’s intent (Lecce et al., 2010) as well as perhaps awareness of one’s own
mental processes while reading.
Purpose: Previous work has demonstrated associations between both cool and hot executive
function (i.e., theory of mind) and emergent comprehension skills. Less work has examined
associations with reading comprehension and metacognitive awareness in elementary school. The
present longitudinal study adds to this work by examining the role of cool and hot executive
function in pre-reading comprehension in preschool and reading comprehension in elementary
school. We also examined the role of counterfactual reasoning in reading comprehension, which has
not yet been studied in childhood. We hypothesized that false belief performance and counterfactual
reasoning in preschool would predict concurrent narrative comprehension as well as reading
comprehension and metacognitive awareness in elementary school. We also hypothesized that
concurrent false belief understanding would be related to these aspects of reading skill.
Methods and Data Sources: Thirty-one preschoolers (19 girls, 12 boys; 32.3% minority students)
completed measures of working memory, color-shape cognitive flexibility (i.e., cool EF skills),
first-order ToM, counterfactual reasoning (i.e, hot EF skills), vocabulary, and sentence and phrase
comprehension. These same children completed second-order ToM, reading-specific cognitive
flexibility, decoding ability, reading comprehension, and reading awareness tasks 3.75 years later.
Results: During the preschool years, cognitive flexibility, working memory, and ToM contributed
unique variance to children’s sentence and phrase comprehension. Longitudinal data indicated
preschool ToM was related to reading awareness in elementary school, whereas preschool
counterfactual thinking correlated with reading comprehension in elementary school. Regression
analyses indicated preschool counterfactual thinking and general cognitive flexibility uniquely
predicted later reading comprehension. Also, in elementary school, reading-specific cognitive
flexibility (assessed with sorting speed), contributed unique variance to reading comprehension.
Finally, second order ToM predicted elementary students’ reading awareness. The contributions of
EFs to elementary school reading comprehension remained significant, even when decoding was
controlled. Time 1 narrative comprehension and vocabulary (34% of variance in reading
comprehension), Time 2 decoding (20% of variance), and Time 1 and Time 2 hot and cool EF
measures including reading awareness (30% of variance), predicted 84% of the total variance in
reading comprehension. Furthermore, after controlling for Time 1 vocabulary and narrative
comprehension (language comprehension) and Time 2 decoding, preschool EFs (17%) and
elementary school EFs (13%) each accounted for significant, unique variance in reading
comprehension.
Conclusions, Importance, and Interest: Our findings indicate both hot and cool executive
functions contribute to children’s developing comprehension skill: narrative comprehension in
preschool and reading comprehension in elementary school. Such skills allow children to think
flexibly about the actions within a story and about characters’ thoughts. These findings have
implications for ways to enhance young children’s comprehension skills. Training either, or both,
cool and hot executive function skills may prove to be an effective way to enhance children’s
reading comprehension and/or awareness. Additionally, these findings have implications for
theoretical conceptions of reading comprehension processes, such as the popular simple view of
reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990). Hierarchical regression indicates hot
and cool executive skills contribute a practically and statistically significant amount of variance
(30%) to reading comprehension beyond language comprehension and decoding processes, which
account for just over half (54%) of variance in reading comprehension. Thus, our findings suggest
that cognitive processes beyond those traditionally associated with reading comprehension (i.e.,
executive functions) are critical to successful comprehension development.
References:
Astington, J., Harris, P. L., & Olson, D. R. (Eds.) (1988). Developing theories of mind. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
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,
541-552.
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension
failure. Reading and Writing, 11, 489-503.
Cartwright, K. B. (2002). Cognitive development and reading: The relation of reading-specific
multiple classification skill to reading comprehension in elementary school children. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 94, 56-63.
Cartwright, K. B. (2007). The contribution of graphophonological-semantic flexibility to reading
comprehension in college students: Implications for a less simple view of reading. Journal
of Literacy Research, 39, 173-193.
Cartwright, K. B. (2009). The role of cognitive flexibility in reading comprehension: Past, present,
and future. In S. E. Israel & G. Duffy (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Reading
Comprehension (pp. 115-139). NY: Routledge.
Cartwright, K. B. (2010). Word callers: Small-group and one-to-one interventions for children who
“read” but don’t comprehend. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Elbro, C., & Buch-Iversen, I. (2013). Activation of background knowledge for inference making:
effects on reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17(6), 435-452.
Emery, D. W. (1996). Helping readers comprehend stories from the characters’ perspective. The
Reading Teacher, 49, 534-541.
Feldman, C. F., Bruner, J., Renderer, B., & Spitzer, S. (1990). Narrative comprehension. In B. K.
Britton & A. D. Pellegrini (Eds.), Narrative thought and narrative language (pp. 1 - 78).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and
Special Education, 7(1), 6-10.
Guajardo, N., Parker, J., & Turley-Ames, K. J. (2009). Associations among false belief
understanding, counterfactual reasoning, and executive function. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 27, 681–702.
Guajardo, N. R., & Turley-Ames, K. J. (2004). Preschoolers’ generation of different types of
counterfactual statements and theory of mind understanding. Cognitive
Development, 19, 53-80.
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2(2),
127-160.
Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children's metacognition about reading: Issues in definition,
measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22(3-4), 255-278.
Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives.
Psychological Review, 93, 136-153.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In. D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, A.
Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 201-208). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Kim, Y. S., & Phillips, B. (2014). Cognitive correlates of listening comprehension. Reading
Research Quarterly (just accepted) doi:10.1002/rrq.74
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, 5, 436-447.
Lecce, S., Zocchi, S., Pagnin, A., Palladino, P., & Taumoepeau, M. (2010). Reading minds: The
relation between children’s mental state knowledge and their metaknowledge about reading.
Child Development, 81, 1876-1893.
McConaughy, S. H. (1985). Good and poor readers' comprehension of story structure across
different input and output modalities. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 219-232.
Meltzer, L. (Ed.). (2011). Executive function in education: From theory to practice. Guilford Press.
Oakhill, J. V., & Cain, K. (2012). The precursors of reading ability in young readers: Evidence from
a four-year longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 91-121.
Paris, S. G., & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children’s reading
awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development, 55, 2083-2093.
Pelletier, J. (2006). Relations among theory of mind, metacognitive language, reading skills
and story comprehension in L1 and L2 learners. In A. Antonietti, O. Sempio-Liverta,
& A. Marchetti (Eds.), Theory of mind and language in developmental contexts (pp.
77-92). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.
Pelletier, J., & Astington, J. W. (2004). Action, consciousness, and theory of mind: Children’s
ability to coordinate story characters’ actions and thoughts. Early Education &
Development, 15, 5-22.
Perner, J., Sprung, M., & Steinkogler, B. (2004). Counterfactual conditionals and false belief:
a devlopmental dissociation. Cognitive Development, 19, 179-201.
Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J.
Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Rapp, D. N., Broek, P. V. D., McMaster, K. L., Kendeou, P., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Higher-order
comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 289-312.
Riggs, K. J., Peterson, D. M., Robinson, E. J., & Mitchell, P. (1998). Are errors in false belief
tasks symptomatic of a broader difficulty with counterfactuality? Cognitive
Development, 13, 73-90.
Roese, N. J. (1994). The functional basis of counterfactual thinking. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 66, 805-818.
Sesma, H. W., Mahone, E. M., Levine, T., Eason, S. H., & Cutting, L. (2009). The contribution
of executive skills to reading comprehension. Child Neuropsychology, 15, 232-246.
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, S. (1997). Character perspective charting: Helping children to
develop a more complete conception of a story. The Reading Teacher, 50, 668-677.
Shannon, P., Kameenui, E. J., & Baumann, J. F. (1988). An investigation of children’s ability to
comprehend character motives. American Educational Research Journal, 25(3), 441-462.
Tompkins, V., Guo, Y., & Justice, L. M. (2013). Inference generation, story comprehension,
and language skills in the preschool years. Reading and Writing, 26, 403-429.
Trabasso, T., & Bartolone, J. (2003). Story understanding and counterfactual reasoning.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 904-923.
Zelazo, P. D., & Carlson, S. M. (2012). Hot and cool executive function in childhood and
adolescence: Development and plasticity. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 354-360.
Zelazo, P. D., & Müller, U. (2002). Executive function in typical and atypical development. In U.
Goswami (Ed), Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development, pp. 445-469.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.