DISCOURSE PROCESSES, 39(2&3), 299–316
Copyright © 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Integrating Memory-Based
and Constructionist Processes in
Accounts of Reading Comprehension
Paul van den Broek, David N. Rapp, and Panayiota Kendeou
University of Minnesota
Memory-based and constructionist processes have both been proposed as essential
components of the activation of concepts (e.g., propositions) and the establishment
of meaningful connections between concepts during reading. In this article, we argue
that a comprehensive theory of reading comprehension should include both sets of
processes. In support of this view, we summarize the results of several studies that
support the contribution of both processes during reading. In addition, we describe
the conceptual framework of the Landscape Model, in which memory-based and
constructionist processes are explicitly interconnected and dynamically interact in an
account of reading comprehension.
In the memoir Baghdad Express, author Joel Turnipseed (2003) described his experiences in the Marine Corps during the Gulf War. His story begins during the
first morning of the air strike on Iraq:
We had gotten up early, packed our gear, and put the finishing touches on our ALICE
packs and our H-harnesses: flashlights and Ka-Bar fighting knives and entrenching
tools and ammo pouches and canteens and first-aid kits buckled and snapped and
duct-taped in their places on nylon straps clipped to a cartridge belt, forming an H
over our bodies. We checked our chemical weapons gear and gas masks. We cleaned
our M–16’s. We dressed for the first time in our desert camouflage uniforms, which
we called “chocolate chips.” We were all reservists activated as truck drivers, but the
Corps’ mission states that every Marine is a combat warrior. (p. 5)
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Paul van den Broek, University of Minnesota, Department of Educational Psychology, 211 Burton Hall, Minneapolis, MN 55455. E-mail:
pvdbroek@umn.edu
300
VAN DEN BROEK, RAPP, KENDEOU
Turnipseed’s equipment only seems to get heavier during his tour of duty:
I carried three seabags, one like a backpack over each shoulder, my rifle in one hand
and a cot in the other. With this load I struggled around and beside and between tents.
I stumbled over ropes and chains, the cement blocks to which they were attached … .
(p. 112)
To understand the information provided in a text, a reader must make connections
between text elements as well as between text elements and prior knowledge. The
first excerpt contains several examples of connections between text elements. For
example, various pieces of Turnipseed’s gear are individually mentioned, providing referential connections for items that are contained in ALICE packs. In addition, the anaphoric term chocolate chips provides a referential connection to the
antecedent uniforms, affording an alternative term for Marine Corps garb. The excerpt also illustrates possible connections to background knowledge. For example,
the terms ALICE packs, chocolate chips, and the specific pieces of gear described
in the paragraph may activate prior knowledge for other military-based concepts
and perhaps even for other dessert- (and desert-) related terms. Thus, each item
from the list of ALICE components may activate other types of military gear (e.g.,
helmet, boots, grenade, etc.) from memory. These types of connections, developed
between information in the text as well as between information in the text and
background knowledge, can become readily available during moment-by-moment
reading processes.
The second excerpt provides an illustration of a different kind of frequently
made connection, one that bridges the conceptual gap between two parts of a text.
Most readers of this excerpt will assume that Turnipseed stumbled over the tent
ropes because of the heavy load he was carrying. The information in the text, as
well as background knowledge (e.g., that people usually do not stumble without
cause, that heavy loads make walking difficult), provide the constraints for the inference that establishes this connection.
In addition to these types of connections, readers can develop more elaborate
associations or expectations about events that they believe may occur as the story
unfolds. For example, when reading the first excerpt readers could generate the
prediction that, despite the fact that reservists traditionally serve as truck drivers
during military operations, Turnipseed will become involved in firefight activity
(otherwise, why would he have mentioned all of his gear and his training as a combat warrior?). Another predictive inference, driven by extensive prior knowledge
about the Gulf War, would lead a reader to expect that Turnipseed will actually encounter little ground activity (and, perhaps, interpret the description of his gear as a
commentary on the absurdity of military situations). These are just a few examples
of elaborate inferences that readers can construct as they read this text. The specific inferences that readers develop will depend on factors such as the reader’s
INTEGRATING READING PROCESSES
301
prior knowledge, willingness to hypothesize about future text events, strategies or
goals for comprehension, and the information provided in the text itself.
As the aforementioned examples illustrate, a central component of comprehension is the identification of semantic connections between the various pieces of information in the text, and between this information and readers’background knowledge. In the discourse processing literature, two sets of processes have been
proposed as providing the foundation for the identification of such meaningful connections: memory-based processes and constructionist processes. According to the
memory-based view of text processing, as a text is read, information in the text (and
any other information already activated in working memory) will trigger a spread of
activation through the reader’s knowledge base, activating associated information
(Gerrig & McKoon, 1998; McKoon, Gerrig, & Greene, 1996; Myers & O’Brien,
1998; O’Brien, 1995). This spread of activation can occur through the episodic
memory representation that the reader has constructed of the text so far as well as
through his or her semantic (background) knowledge. This memory-based activation process is generally described as occurring “for free” (McKoon & Ratcliff,
1992), because it is passive and involves little or no influence of strategy. According
to the constructionist view, readers have explicit and implicit goals or standards they
actively attempt to satisfy when they read a text. These goals or standards have been
labeled as a search/effort after meaning. Readers can use information from prior
text, their developing memory representation of the text, and/or background knowledge in an effort to achieve these goals or standards (Graesser, Singer, & Trabasso,
1994; Long, Seely, & Oppy, 1996; Singer, Graesser, & Trabasso, 1994; van den
Broek, Risden, & Husebye-Hartmann, 1995). These constructionist processes are
active and strategic.
In this article, we propose that both sets of processes are necessary for a complete account of naturalistic reading and that a comprehensive theory of reading
comprehension should include both. Moreover, we argue that memory-based and
constructionist processes dynamically interact, borrowing from, supporting, and,
possibly, conflicting with each other. We illustrate how this dynamic interaction
can be conceptualized by outlining the Landscape Model, a theoretical framework
in which the two sets of processes are integrated.
MEMORY-BASED AND CONSTRUCTIONIST
PROCESSES IN TEXT COMPREHENSION
The processes associated with memory-based and constructionist views differ in a
number of ways. According to the memory-based view of reading, general processes associated with memory influence the availability of information during
reading. Memory-based processes are autonomous and passive (as mentioned,
they occur “for free”). They are “dumb” in the sense that activation is the result
302
VAN DEN BROEK, RAPP, KENDEOU
only of the strength of the signaling information and its associations to other information (either in the developing discourse representation or in prior knowledge),
and not of a desired goal or as a function of comprehension. Constructionist processes, on the other hand, are not automatic; they are outcome-oriented and actively guided by readers’ propensities for establishing meaning. In general, memory-based processes are considered passive whereas constructionist processes are
considered strategic (Graesser et al., 1994; McKoon et al., 1996; McKoon &
Ratcliff, 1995; O’Brien & Myers, 1999; Singer et al., 1994).
There is considerable evidence that memory-based text processing is a powerful factor in determining the availability of information during reading. This evidence has been derived from general research on the basic properties and processes
associated with memory. Classic research on knowledge representation in memory
demonstrates that similarity among concepts leads to faster activation and comparison latencies (e.g., Collins & Loftus, 1975; Collins & Quillian, 1969; Smith,
Shoben, & Rips, 1974). Similarly, during text experiences, concepts (e.g., words)
mentioned in a text reactivate information that has become associated to those concepts during earlier processing cycles (Albrecht & O’Brien, 1993; Cook, Halleran,
& O’Brien, 1998; Myers & O’Brien, 1998; O’Brien & Albrecht, 1991). Moreover,
the more features a current segment of text shares with preceding segments, the
more quickly that earlier information is reactivated. In addition, and in line with
other classic findings on memory (e.g., temporal memory described by Estes,
1972; levels of processing described by Craik & Lockhart, 1972), preceding text
information is more quickly and reliably reactivated with decreases in distance between earlier and later text information, and with greater elaboration of the earlier
information. Thus, there is considerable evidence for the influence of memory-based processes.
Likewise, there is strong evidence that readers frequently engage in constructionist processes aimed at creating meaning. For example, readers more frequently
and more strongly reactivate information from prior processing cycles when this
information contributes to the understanding of a text than when it does not (e.g.,
Goldman & Saul, 1990; O’Brien, Albrecht, Hakala, & Rizzella, 1995; Suh &
Trabasso, 1993; Sundermeier, van den Broek, & Zwaan, in press; van den Broek,
Rohleder, & Narvaez, 1996). Readers also routinely activate background knowledge from memory when it is required for comprehension (e.g., Lucas, Tanenhaus,
& Carlson, 1990; van den Broek, Rohleder, et al., 1996). Thus, readers often
(re)activate information when it contributes to, or is necessary for, implementing
strategies to facilitate comprehension. In addition, variations in readers’ attitudes
or approaches to a text influence the way they process the text. For example, online
processes differ as a function of the type of text a reader expects to read: reading latencies for identical texts vary as a result of expectations about text genre (e.g., fiction or a newspaper article; Zwaan, 1994). Readers’ goals also influence the online
processing of texts. The same texts evoke different patterns of inferential activity,
INTEGRATING READING PROCESSES
303
as evidenced by think-aloud protocols and reading times, depending on whether
subjects read a text for entertainment or for study (Linderholm & van den Broek,
2002; Lorch, Lorch, & Klusewitz, 1993; Narvaez, van den Broek, & Ruiz, 1999).
In addition, subtle text cues (e.g., time shifts or event duration) can lead readers to
develop particular expectations or desires for text events (e.g., preferences for narrative situations). These reader responses, in turn, influence expectations for story
outcomes (Gerrig, 1993; Rapp & Gerrig, 2002; Rapp, Gerrig, & Prentice, 2001;
Rapp & Taylor, 2004).
There is also a growing body of evidence that both memory-based and constructionist processes simultaneously operate during reading. For example, van
den Broek, O’Brien, Halleran, and Kendeou (2004) presented subjects with texts
that varied in two respects: First, target sentences were immediately preceded by a
sentence that provided either a strong or a weak explanation for the target and, second, a potential alternative explanation earlier in the text was either elaborated or
not. The first variation was designed to affect constructionist processing, the second to affect memory-based processing. The results showed that the availability of
earlier information (as measured by speed of recognition) generally was influenced by the extent of elaboration—reflecting memory-based processes—
whereas the processing of the target sentences (as measured by reading speed)
generally was influenced by the explanatory power of the immediately preceding
context—reflecting constructionist processes. Thus, both memory-based factors
and constructionist factors influenced readers’ processing of these texts.
As a result of findings such as these, it is generally accepted that both memory-based and constructionist processes operate during reading. There is much less
agreement about the circumstances in which each occurs and how they can be captured in a single conceptual framework. In the remainder of this article, we contend
that the two sets of processes co-occur and dynamically interact.
INTERACTIONS BETWEEN MEMORY-BASED AND
CONSTRUCTIONIST PROCESSES
In our view, memory-based and constructionist processes both operate during
reading and, moreover, both play an important role in the identification of the semantic connections between the various pieces of information in the text and between this information and readers’ background knowledge. To conceptualize how
memory-based and constructionist processes interact, a number of years ago we
introduced the notion of standards of coherence (van den Broek et al., 1995; see
also van den Broek, Lorch, Linderholm, & Gustafson, 2001). Standards of coherence “reflect a reader’s knowledge and beliefs about what constitutes good comprehension as well as the reader’s specific goals for reading the particular text”
(van den Broek, Virtue, Everson, Tzeng, & Sung, 2002, p. 137). These standards
304
VAN DEN BROEK, RAPP, KENDEOU
influence the extent to which readers will engage in constructionist processes.
They reflect the types of coherence (e.g., referential, causal, spatial) as well as the
strength of coherence that a reader aims to maintain. Standards vary as a function
of reader variables including (but not limited to) reading goals, expectations,
working memory resources, and perspective, as well as contextual variables including text genre, presentation rate, and task variables (van den Broek, Fletcher,
& Risden, 1993; van den Broek et al., 2001). In our interactive view, memory-based activation processes take place as outlined by models such as the Resonance Model (Albrecht & O’Brien, 1993; O’Brien & Myers, 1999; O’Brien,
Rizzella, Albrecht, & Halleran, 1998) or the Landscape Model (van den Broek,
Risden, Fletcher, & Thurlow, 1996; van den Broek, Young, Tzeng, & Linderholm,
1999). The information activated through this autonomous process, constrained
only by the strength of the concepts that trigger it and the strengths of their associations, is evaluated with respect to a reader’s standards of coherence. If the activated
information is sufficient to meet those standards, then the connections are easily
and quickly identified. However, if the activated information is insufficient for satisfying those standards, then more effortful, strategic processes will ensue in an attempt to attain the standards. Consequently, if a reader maintains strict standards
(as a function of reader or contextual variables), then constructionist processes will
be more common, with the benefit of deeper understanding but at the cost of
greater effort by the reader. If, however, the reader maintains relatively relaxed
standards of coherence, then constructionist processes will be less common, with
the benefit that reading will be less effortful but at the cost of a potentially less coherent text representation (van den Broek et al., 2001). Standards of coherence
vary between readers as well as within readers across reading situations (see van
den Broek et al., 1995), but, as illustrated by the passage at the outset of this article,
standards of referential and causal referential coherence have been found to be the
most commonly maintained standards in narrative reading.
To summarize, memory-based and constructionist processes play important,
yet distinct roles in the comprehension process. To establish connections, readers
must activate the to-be-connected information and determine what, if any, connections exist between the activated pieces of information. Memory-based processes
are central to the first component, whereas constructionist processes are central to
the second. To put it differently, memory-based processes provide the input to the
constructionist processes, and the product from the constructionist processes determines whether the memory-based input is sufficient for comprehension. The
standards of coherence that a reader has in a particular reading situation provide
constraints, in addition to those provided by textual information and background
knowledge.
There is empirical evidence for the interactive nature of memory-based and
constructionist processes. For example, the previously described recognition and
reading time results obtained by van den Broek et al. (2004) indicated that reading
INTEGRATING READING PROCESSES
305
involves two steps: (a) passive, autonomous, memory-based activation of information, followed by (b) an active, constructionist, coherence-building process. Furthermore, much of the evidence on memory-based processes described earlier is
based on the use of an inconsistency paradigm and, thereby, also supports the notion that memory-based and constructionist processes interact (Albrecht &
O’Brien, 1993; O’Brien et al., 1998). In the inconsistency paradigm, readers encounter information early in the text (e.g., “Bill was old and weak”) that is inconsistent with later information (“Bill quickly ran and picked up the boy”). By systematically manipulating variables that are hypothesized to affect activation of the
earlier information and observing whether a slowdown in reading of the later sentence occurs, predictions about discourse and knowledge activation in memory can
be assessed (Myers, O’Brien, Albrecht, & Mason, 1994). The logic is that the increased reading time reflects reading difficulty that occurred “because readers recognized the inconsistency between an established characteristic of the protagonist
(e.g., “Bill was old and weak”) and the critical sentence (e.g., “Bill quickly ran and
picked the boy up”), and they needed to engage in some sort of inferential process
to attempt to reestablish coherence” (Albrecht & O’Brien, 1993, pp. 1066–1067).
Thus, the dependent variable in the inconsistency paradigm actually is one that reflects a constructionist process and, therefore, the results in these studies provide
evidence that the simultaneous activation of consistent and inconsistent information results in additional processing by the reader (as evidenced by the slowdown
in reading), because inconsistencies violate the standards of coherence that the
readers in these studies maintained.
Standards of coherence also influence activation of information. For example,
spatial information presented early in a text is more available—as indicated by
naming latency—at later points in the text if the early information helps explain a
later event (e.g., the location of an object explains a later event) than if it does not
serve an explanatory function (Sundermeier et al., in press). Similar patterns have
been observed for objects or events.
A final example of evidence for the interaction between memory-based and
constructionist processes comes from finding that the effects of reading goals are
moderated by memory factors: Readers with high working memory capacity show
greater sensitivity to variations in reading goals than do readers with low working
memory capacity (Linderholm & van den Broek, 2002).
It is important to note that both memory-based processes and constructionist
processes are assumed to operate on knowledge structures, either in the form of episodic memory representations in a discourse model or in the form of pre-existing
semantic (background) knowledge. Conversely, these processes lead to updating
of the ongoing mental representation of a text (e.g., the discourse model) and, possibly, of the reader’s background knowledge—the basis for educational practice
(Kintsch, 1998; McNamara & Kintsch, 1996). Both the memory-based and constructionist views focus on the factors and processes that determine what is acti-
306
VAN DEN BROEK, RAPP, KENDEOU
vated and retrieved during moment-by-moment reading, but may lack an account
of how these processes can lead to changes in the mental representation of
long-term knowledge structures (even though such changes are presumed to influence subsequent processes). A complete description of memory-based and constructionist processing must provide an account not only of how activation and
comprehension occur, but also how these processes both lead to and depend on developing memory structures. This becomes particularly important when attempts
are made to capture the memory-based and constructionist views in a single architecture. We turn to this next.
THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE LANDSCAPE MODEL
OF READING COMPREHENSION
To describe the contributions of memory-based and constructionist processes we
have developed a conceptual model called the Landscape Model (van den Broek,
Risden, et al., 1996; van den Broek et al., 1999). The architecture of the Landscape
Model assumes that as a reader proceeds through a text in reading cycles (with
each cycle roughly corresponding to the reading of a new sentence or proposition),
concepts fluctuate in activation as a function of four sources of information: the
current processing cycle, the preceding cycle, the current episodic text representation, and reader’s background knowledge. With the reading of each cycle, particular concepts are activated and added as nodes to the episodic memory representation of the text. If a concept is already part of the text representation and is
reactivated, its trace is strengthened. In addition, co-activation of concepts leads to
the establishment (or strengthening) of connections between those concepts. The
resulting network representation influences subsequent activation patterns. These
cyclical and dynamically fluctuating activations lead to the gradual emergence of
an episodic memory representation or discourse model of the text, in which textual
propositions and inferences are connected via semantic relations (such as causal
and referential links). Thus, the model captures the fluctuations of concepts during
reading, as well as the evolving discourse model. The resulting memory representation is the product of iterative and reciprocal relations between fluctuations of activations and the episodic text representation.
Two types of mechanisms guide access to these sources of activation. The first
type is cohort activation. The architecture of the model assumes that when a concept is activated during reading, all other concepts currently activated become associated with it. Thus, each concept connects with other, related concepts becoming a cohort. In turn, when any of the individual concepts in a cohort become
active, the other concepts are also activated. This mechanism is passive and operates under a limited pool of activation. Thus, cohort activation is memory-based
INTEGRATING READING PROCESSES
307
and similar to the activation mechanism described by the Resonance Model
(Myers & O’Brien, 1998; O’Brien & Myers, 1999; O’Brien et al., 1998).
The second type of mechanism is coherence-based retrieval. Unlike memory-based activations that are based on, for example, featural overlap, coherence-based retrieval is a strategic mechanism by which information is retrieved
with the aim of meeting a reader’s standards or goals (Linderholm, Virtue, Tzeng,
& van den Broek, 2004). Such retrieval can be from an episodic text representation, from background knowledge, or from the text itself (e.g., via look-backs in a
text). This mechanism operates under a limited pool of activation that can be distributed over concepts and, unlike cohort activation, is strategic (and can be
effortful). Thus, coherence-based retrieval is similar to “search/effort after meaning” mechanisms described by the constructionist view of reading (Graesser et al.,
1994; Singer et al., 1994).
A central factor in the model that determines which sources of activation are accessed consists of the standards of coherence that the reader maintains during
reading (van den Broek et al., 1995). The architecture of the model allows for the
adoption of different types of coherence that a reader may establish (including, but
not limited to, referential, causal, temporal, and spatial connections). Reader standards can vary as a function of individual differences, text types, reading goals, and
so on (Linderholm & van den Broek, 2002; Narvaez et al., 1999; van den Broek et
al., 2001), but for narratives and many other types of text, referential and causal
standards of coherence are often central. During reading, a reader’s standards can
at times be met entirely by the information currently activated in the model through
cohort activation (i.e., memory-based processing), whereas in other cases the
reader may need to actively search the episodic text representation and/or background knowledge to maintain these standards through coherence-based retrieval
(i.e., constructionist processing).
In summary, the architecture of the Landscape Model incorporates a dynamic
interaction of both memory-based and constructionist processes. Thus, these processes are not just complementary views but are part of a single theoretical account
of text comprehension.
APPLICATIONS OF THE LANDSCAPE MODEL
In prior research, the conceptual framework of the Landscape Model has been validated by comparing computational simulations and human data for narrative reading (van den Broek et al., 1999). With regard to online measures, the model’s predictions about the patterns of activation of propositions over the course of reading
were strongly related to the activations reported by actual readers. With regard to
off-line measures, in several studies recall of text propositions was found to be
strongly related to actual recall by readers. In addition to frequency of recall, the
308
VAN DEN BROEK, RAPP, KENDEOU
model also predicted the actual order in which participants recalled the text propositions, with the most strongly represented concepts being recalled first and the
strength of semantic relations determining subsequent recall. Thus, the Landscape
Model captures important aspects of the cognitive processes that take place during
the reading of narrative texts and of the resulting representation in memory.
Since its original conceptualization, the Landscape Model has been extended to
various other reading situations and types of texts. We describe some of these now.
Scientific Text
Whereas initial studies using the Landscape Model have focused on narrative reading, similar findings have been obtained on reading of scientific texts. For example, we have simulated the comprehension of scientific texts and compared the
model’s final text representation to human recall (van den Broek, Kendeou, Sung,
& Chen, 2003; van den Broek et al., 2002). The model’s prediction for recall of
propositions, based on several factors including the accumulated node strength of
concepts over the course or reading, was strongly related to the frequency of recall
of participants. In a related set of simulations, the Landscape Model was used to
simulate comprehension of scientific texts designed to refute students’ misconceptions. The simulations showed that the Landscape Model accurately predicted the
circumstances under which misconceptions and correct conceptualizations are simultaneously activated, and are most likely to lead to revisions of prior knowledge
(Kendeou & van den Broek, 2004).
Differences in Background Knowledge
We have simulated the effects of reader’s prior knowledge on text comprehension.
There is considerable evidence that readers’ prior knowledge, particularly incorrect prior knowledge (i.e., misconceptions), affects comprehension both online
and off-line (Hynd & Alvermann, 1989; Kendeou, Rapp, & van den Broek, in
press; Kendeou & van den Broek, in press). We captured these effects by conducting two simulations and comparing them to human recall for readers with and
without misconceptions for text topics. In these simulations, we included prior
knowledge in the model by means of activation vectors established prior to reading. The two simulations’ predictions for recall were significantly related to the
frequency of recall of human participants with and without misconceptions, respectively. Moreover, the correlations between contrasting model simulations and
readers (e.g., the model without misconceptions and readers with misconceptions)
were substantially smaller. In addition, differences between the two simulations
identified differences in human recall.
INTEGRATING READING PROCESSES
309
Reading Goals
Previous research has shown that reading processes systematically vary as a function of reading purpose. For example, when reading to study, readers are more
likely to engage in processes aimed at establishing coherence than when reading
for entertainment (e.g., Linderholm & van den Broek, 2002; Lorch et al., 1993; van
den Broek et al., 2001). Linderholm et al. (2004) conducted simulations for each
reading purpose by varying the model’s input parameters to capture differences in
readers’ standards for coherence. The simulations demonstrated that reading for
study resulted in more overall activation, and activation of more concepts, than did
reading for entertainment. In particular, the text’s main ideas received considerably more activation in the study simulation than in the entertainment simulation.
Comparisons to human data showed that the model captured readers’ adjustment
of inferential processes as a function of reading goal.
Inconsistency Detection
The Landscape Model has successfully captured the processes by which readers
detect inconsistencies in texts. Linderholm et al. (2004) conducted simulations of
the texts previously used by O’Brien and colleagues in several of their inconsistency detection studies. In the Landscape Model, the likelihood of detecting an inconsistency depends on the extent to which the initial text information (which contradicts information in later statements) received activation in previous reading
cycles, how strongly it was connected to other text concepts, and the extent to
which the later information semantically overlapped with the earlier, inconsistent
text information (van den Broek et al., 1999). This simulation accurately predicted
the patterns of reading times reported by Rizzella and O’Brien (1996).
Relative Contribution of Cohort Activation
and Coherence-Based Processes
The Landscape Model assumes a dynamic interaction between memory-based and
constructionist processes. To determine whether both are necessary for the
model’s prediction of reading comprehension, we conducted a set of three simulations of expository text reading, manipulating the contribution of cohort activation
and coherence-based retrieval across the simulations. The first simulation included
both cohort activation and coherence-based retrieval (consisting of the model’s default focus on referential and causal coherence). In this simulation, the model’s
prediction for recall of propositions, based on the accumulated node strength over
the course of reading, was strongly related to the frequency of recall of participants. (r = .70). When cohort activation was removed from the model—but coherence-based processes were retained—its predictive power decreased significantly
310
VAN DEN BROEK, RAPP, KENDEOU
(r = .60). When coherence-based processes were removed—but cohort activation
was retained—the model’s predictive power decreased even more (r = .50).
In a second set of simulations, we replicated these findings for narrative texts,
with remarkably similar correlations. In this second set we also included a simulation in which both cohort activation and coherence-based processes were eliminated. In this simulation, predictive power decreased even further. The results of
these two sets of simulations show that both cohort activation and coherence-based
retrieval were necessary components in the model for capturing human reading
performance.
In summary, the Landscape Model has been used to capture various reading
situations, text types, and behavioral measures of reading comprehension (e.g.,
recall and latency data). The strong correspondence between predicted and observed data indicates that the Landscape Model has considerable psychological
validity. The architecture of the model, and in particular the dynamic interaction
between memory-based and constructionist processing, unifies reading comprehension into a single conceptual framework that has high predictive power. Indeed, in cases in which this dynamic interaction is “impaired” (as demonstrated
by the final sets of simulations described earlier), the model’s predictive power
is significantly reduced.
DISCUSSION
We have outlined an interactive view that combines autonomous and passive memory-based processes with constructionist processes that are strategic and goal-directed. We hope to have demonstrated that these two sets of processes can be conceived of as components of a dynamically interacting system. An interactive view
reconciles apparent differences between memory-based and constructionist views
by implementing them in a single conceptual framework. This view is similar in
spirit to conceptual frameworks such as the Construction–Integration model
(Kintsch, 1988, 1998), in which memory-based spread of activation (construction)
is followed by a coherence-based inference generation phase (integration), and other
two-stage models designed to capture the complementary nature of memory-based
and constructionist models (e.g., Long et al. 1996; Richards & Singer, 2001). Evidence for such a two-stage process comes not only from behavioral and computational studies, as described previously, but also from neuropsychological research
(e.g., Beeman, 1998; Long & Baynes, 2002; Mason & Just, 2004; Virtue, van den
Broek, & Linderholm, in press). The Landscape Model makes explicit how such underlying two-stage processes mutually influence each other and how together they
functionally lead to the gradual emergence of a memory representation of the text.
An implication of the interactive view of reading comprehension is that any
kind of inference (e.g., spatial, causal, referential, thematic, character-based,
INTEGRATING READING PROCESSES
311
moral) can in principle be generated by virtue of either memory-based or memory-based-followed-by-constructionist processes, given the right combination of
text and reader variables. Consequently, attempts to rigidly assign particular types
of inferences to one set of processes or another are not fruitful and, indeed, misguided. If the information required for making a particular inference is readily
available through memory-based processes, there is no need for constructionist
processes. Of course, certain types of inferences, such as thematic and other abstract inferences, tend to require simultaneous activation of information that is not
immediately available through memory-based processes and, hence, tend to involve more constructionist processes. The point is that both situations are possible.
For example, if by happy circumstance or clever design on the part of the author the
required information becomes available through memory-based spread of activation, then that inference too will be generated “for free” (McKoon & Ratcliff,
1992).
Although memory-based and constructionist processes often operate in concert
with each other, they may, in fact, conflict. One illustration of this situation is the
basis for the inconsistency paradigm: Comprehension may be moving along fine if
it were not for the problem that the earlier, inconsistent information becomes activated, causing conflict and slow down in reading. A second, more dramatic illustration is the finding that memory-based processes may activate information that
results in conflict but in actuality is not relevant. For example, when two characters
are described, information about one character may spill over to a second character
via resonance. When one character is described later in the text, information about
both characters is activated (Cook et al., 1998; Long & Chong, 2001), potentially
resulting in interference.
The integration of memory-based and constructionist processes into a single
theoretical (and computational) framework enriches both views. Accounts of reading that focus on memory-based processes have limited themselves to issues concerning the activation of concepts during reading, leaving comprehension processes per se out of their purview. Conversely, constructionist accounts that focus
on coherence-based and integrative processes tend to assume that activation occurs
but do not explicitly specify how this may occur. To address the limits of these accounts, we have argued that they complement each other.
One reason that memory-based and constructionist accounts may have been
considered in opposition to each other is that it is tempting to equate memory-based processes with bottom-up processing and constructionist processes with
top-down processing. Bottom-up views traditionally describe stimulus-driven processes that do not necessitate higher order cognition. Top-down views traditionally
rely on background knowledge and existing memory representations to mediate
the interpretations of stimuli. We contend that these terms, in their pure form, are
not adequate to describe either process, but have often been used as such. For example, memory-based views are not direct analogs of bottom-up processing.
312
VAN DEN BROEK, RAPP, KENDEOU
These views argue that information in memory is activated to a large degree by elements of a text, thereby assigning an important role to pre-existing memory representations, including organized knowledge such as scripts and schemas. Thus,
memory-based views to some degree require top-down information (e.g., concepts
in prior knowledge that will be activated broadly) to account for relevant activation
processes. In a similar sense, constructionist views are not direct analogs of
top-down processing. In text comprehension, expectations or preferences on the
part of the reader must interact with the actual words being perceived (e.g., Rapp et
al., 2001); top-down processing is affected directly by bottom-up processing.
Thus, both memory-based and constructionist views rely on a combination of bottom-up and top-down processing. Thinking about them as either completely bottom-up or completely top-down fails to capture the wide array of reader processes
that operate during naturalistic text experiences.
The integration of memory-based and constructionist processes highlights the
importance of investigating the exact nature of their interaction. For example, although we have described the two types of processes as operating in sequence, they
may in fact overlap and alternate (van den Broek et al., 1999). If the information
activated via memory-based processes is insufficient to satisfy the reader’s standards, this may lead to an increase in constructionist processing. These processes
may involve selective focus on a subset of activated concepts that, in turn, may trigger a second wave of memory-based spread of activation. Of course, even in this
case, the initial activation of this dynamic process is likely driven by memory-based activation. Alternatively, it is conceivable that the constructionist processes evoke a strategic search of memory that is different from cohort activation
(cf. Long & Lea, 2005/this issue). A final possibility is that an increase in constructionist processes involves a loosening of the constraints on activation from memory-based processes, resulting in broader availability of information (we thank an
anonymous reviewer for these suggestions). An important question for future research is to determine the boundary conditions and the exact mechanisms of interaction between memory-based and constructionist processes. Continued research
on the nature of integrated memory-based and constructionist processes will be
necessary to outline how memory is constructed, accessed, and retrieved during
reading—spontaneously as well as strategically.
CONCLUSION
Models of text processing have described a variety of underlying mechanisms that
attempt to account for the ways in which people read, understand, and remember
texts. To outline these processes, a variety of explanations have been invoked, involving both passive and strategic knowledge activation. We contend that only by
considering the dynamic interactions of these processes, rather than the viability of
INTEGRATING READING PROCESSES
313
each in isolation, can we propose a generalizable theory that appropriately accounts for naturalistic text comprehension. Our simulations using the Landscape
Model represent one attempt at illustrating the importance and validity of these interactions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by the Center for Cognitive Sciences at the University
of Minnesota through Grant No. HD–07151 from the National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development, by the Guy Bond Endowment for Reading and
Literacy, by a Golestan fellowship at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study
in the Humanities and Social Sciences to Paul van den Broek, by a Faculty Summer Research Fellowship from the Office of the Dean of the Graduate School of
the University of Minnesota to David N. Rapp, and by an Eva O. Miller Fellowship
to Panayiota Kendeou. We thank Robert F. Lorch, Jr. for his comments on an earlier version of this article.
REFERENCES
Albrecht, J. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (1993). Updating a mental model: Maintaining both local and global
coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1061–1069.
Beeman, M. (1998). Coarse semantic coding and discourse comprehension. In M. Beeman & C.
Chiarello (Eds.), Getting it right: The cognitive neuroscience of right hemisphere language comprehension (pp. 225–284). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428.
Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 240–247.
Cook, A. E., Halleran, J. G., & O’Brien, E. J. (1998). What is readily available? A memory-based view
of text processing. Discourse Processes, 26, 109–129.
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.
Estes, W. K. (1972). An associative basis for coding and organization in memory. In A. W. Melton & E.
Martin (Eds.), Coding processes in human memory (pp. 161–190). Washington, DC: Winston.
Gerrig, R. J. (1993). Experiencing narrative worlds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gerrig, R. J., & McKoon, G. (1998). The readiness is all: The functionality of memory-based text processing. Discourse Processes, 26, 67–86.
Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1990). Flexibility in text processing: A strategy competition model.
Learning and Individual Differences, 2, 181–219.
Graesser, A., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.
Hynd, C., & Alvermann, D. E. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions in science: An on-line study of
prior knowledge activation. Reading Research and Instruction, 28, 12–26.
314
VAN DEN BROEK, RAPP, KENDEOU
Kendeou, P., Rapp, D. N., & van den Broek, P. (in press). The influence of reader’s prior knowledge on
text comprehension and learning from text. In Progress in Education. Nova Science.
Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2004, August). Comprehension of refutation texts: A simulation using the Landscape Model. Paper presented at the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Society for Text
and Discourse, Chicago.
Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (in press). The effects of reader’s misconceptions on comprehension
of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction–integration
model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Linderholm, T., & van den Broek, P. (2002). The effects of reading purpose and working memory capacity on the processing of expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 778–784.
Linderholm, T., Virtue, S., Tzeng, Y., & van den Broek, P. (2004). Fluctuations in the availability of information during reading: Capturing cognitive processes using the Landscape Model. Discourse
Processes, 37, 165–186.
Lorch, R. E. J., Lorch, E. P., & Klusewitz, M. A. (1993). College students’ conditional knowledge about
reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 239–252.
Long, D. L., & Baynes, K. (2002). Discourse representation in the two cerebral hemispheres. Journal of
Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 228–242.
Long, D. L., & Chong, J. L. (2001). Comprehension skill and global coherence: A paradoxical picture
of poor comprehenders’ abilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1424–1429.
Long, D. L., & Lea, R. B. (2005). Have we been searching for meaning in all the wrong places? Defining the “search after meaning” principle in comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39, 279–298.
Long, D. L., Seely, M. R., & Oppy, B. J. (1996). The availability of causal information during reading.
Discourse Processes, 22, 145–170.
Lucas, M. M., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Carlson, G. N. (1990). Levels of representation in the interpretation
of anaphoric reference and instrument inference. Memory and Cognition, 18, 611–631.
Mason, R. A., & Just, M. A. (2004). How the brain processes causal inferences in text: A theoretical account of generation and integration component processes utilizing both cerebral hemispheres. Psychological Science, 15, 1–7.
McKoon, G., Gerrig, R. J., & Greene, S. B. (1996). Pronoun resolution without pronouns: Some consequences of memory-based text processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 22, 919–932.
McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440–466.
McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1995). The minimalist hypothesis: Directions for research. In C. A.
Weaver, S. Mannes, & C. R. Fletcher (Eds.), Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter
Kintsch (pp. 97–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247–288.
Myers, J. L., & O’Brien, E. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse
Processes, 26, 131–157.
Myers, J. L., O’Brien, E. J., Albrecht, J. E., & Mason, R. A. (1994). Maintaining global coherence during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 876–886.
Narvaez, D., van den Broek, P., & Ruiz, A. B. (1999). The influence of reading purpose on inference
generation and comprehension in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 488–496.
O’Brien, E. J. (1995). Automatic components of discourse comprehension. In E. P. Lorch & E. J.
O’Brien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 159–176). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
INTEGRATING READING PROCESSES
315
O’Brien, E. J., & Albrecht, J. E. (1991). The role of context in accessing antecedents in text. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 777–784.
O’Brien, E. J., Albrecht, J. E., Hakala, C. M., & Rizzella, M. L. (1995). Activation and suppression of
antecedents during reinstatement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 21, 626–634.
O’Brien, E. J., & Myers, J. L. (1999). Text comprehension: A view from the bottom-up. In S. R.
Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 35–53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc.
O’Brien, E. J., Rizzella, M. L., Albrecht, J. E., & Halleran, J. G. (1998). Updating a situation model: A
memory-based text processing view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 24, 1200–1210.
Rapp, D. N., & Gerrig, R. J. (2002). Readers’ reality-driven and plot-driven analyses in narrative comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 30, 779–788.
Rapp, D. N., Gerrig, R. J., & Prentice, D. A. (2001). Readers’ trait-based models of characters in narrative comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 737–750.
Rapp, D. N., & Taylor, H. A. (2004). Interactive dimensions in the construction of mental representations
for text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 988–1001.
Richards, E., & Singer, M. (2001). Representation of complex goal structures in narrative comprehension. Discourse Processes, 31, 111–135.
Rizzella, M. L., & O’Brien, E. J. (1996). Accessing global causes during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1208–1218.
Singer, M., Graesser, A. C., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Minimal or global inference during reading. Journal
of Memory and Language, 33, 421–441.
Smith, E. E., Shoben, E. J., & Rips, L. J. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural
model for semantic decisions. Psychological Review, 81, 214–241.
Suh, S., & Trabasso, T. (1993). Inferences during reading: Converging evidence from discourse analysis, talk-aloud protocols, and recognition priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 279–300.
Sundermeier, B. A., van den Broek, P., & Zwaan, R. A. (in press). Causal coherence and the availability
of locations and objects during narrative comprehension. Memory and Cognition.
Turnipseed, J. (2003). Baghdad express. New York: Penguin.
van den Broek, P., Fletcher, C. R., & Risden, K. (1993). Investigations of inferential processes in reading: A theoretical and methodological integration. Discourse Processes, 16, 169–180.
van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., Sung, Y. C., & Chen, M. (2003, June). Comprehension and memory of
science texts: A simulation using the Landscape Model. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Society for Text and Discourse, Madrid, Spain.
van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. E. J., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals
on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory and Cognition, 29, 1081–1087.
van den Broek, P., O’Brien, E. J., Halleran, J. G., & Kendeou, P. (2004). Memory-based and explanatory processes during reading. Manuscript in preparation.
van den Broek, P., Risden, K., & Husebye-Hartmann, E. (1995). The role of reader’s standards of coherence in the generation of inferences during reading. In E. P. Lorch & E. J. O’Brien (Eds.), Sources of
coherence in reading (pp. 353–374). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
van den Broek, P., Risden, K., Fletcher, C. R., & Thurlow, R. (1996). A “landscape” view of reading:
Fluctuating patterns of activation and the construction of a stable memory representation. In B. K.
Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 165–187). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
van den Broek, P., Rohleder, L., & Narvaez, D. (1996). Causal inferences in the comprehension of literary texts. In R. J. Kreuz & M. S. MacNealy (Eds.), Empirical approaches to literature and aesthetics
(pp. 179–200). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
316
VAN DEN BROEK, RAPP, KENDEOU
van den Broek, P., Virtue, S., Everson, M., Tzeng, Y., & Sung, Y. C. (2002). Comprehension and memory of science texts: Inferential processes and the construction of a mental representation. In J. Otero,
J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 131–154).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
van den Broek, P., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T. (1999). The landscape model of reading. In
H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71–98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Virtue, S., van den Broek, P., & Linderholm, T. (in press). Hemispheric processing of causal inferences.
Memory & Cognition.
Zwaan, R. A. (1994). Effect of genre expectations on text comprehension. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 920–933.