The literature on interference in the Stroop Color-Word Task, covering over 50 years and some 400 studies, is organized and reviewed. In so doing, a set of 18 reliable empirical finding is isolated that must be captured by any successful theory of the Stroop effect. Existing theoretical positions are summarized and evaluated in view of this critical evidence and the 2 major candidate theories ―relative speed of processing and automaticity of reading― are found to be wanting. It is concluded that recent theories placing the explanatory weight on parallel processing of the irrelevant and the relevant dimensions are likely to be more sucessful than are earlier theories attempting to locate a single bottleneck in attention

/pdf/half-a-century-of-research-on-the-stroop-effect-an-31uxjoznng.pdf

Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review.

We summarize some of the most important findings from research evaluating the hypothesized causes of specific reading disability (dyslexia) over the past four decades. After outlining components of reading ability, we discuss manifest causes of reading difficulties, in terms of deficiencies in component reading skills that might lead to such difficulties. The evidence suggests that inadequate facility in word identification due, in most cases, to more basic deficits in alphabetic coding is the basic cause of difficulties in learning to read. We next discuss hypothesized deficiencies in readingrelated cognitive abilities as underlying causes of deficiencies in component reading skills. The evidence in these areas suggests that, in most cases, phonological skills deficiencies associated with phonological coding deficits are the probable causes of the disorder rather than visual, semantic, or syntactic deficits, although reading difficulties in some children may be associated with general language deficits. Hypothesized deficits in general learning abilities (e.g., attention, association learning, cross-modal transfer etc.) and low-level sensory deficits have weak validity as causal factors in specific reading disability. These inferences are, by and large, supported by research evaluating the biological foundations of dyslexia. Finally, evidence is presented in support of the idea that many poor readers are impaired because of inadequate instruction or other experiential factors. This does not mean that biological factors are not relevant, because the brain and environment interact to produce the neural networks that support reading acquisition. We conclude with a discussion of the clinical implications of the research findings, focusing on the need for enhanced instruction.

http://www.dr-hatfield.com/educ538/docs/Vellutino,+etal+2004.pdf

Specific reading disability (dyslexia): what have we learned in the past four decades?

The authors describe a constructionist theory that accounts for the knowledge-based inferences that are constructed when readers comprehend narrative text. Readers potentially generate a rich variety of inferences when they construct a referential situation model of what the text is about. The proposed constructionist theory specifies that some, but not all, of this information is constructed under most conditions of comprehension. The distinctive assumptions of the constructionist theory embrace a principle of search (or effort) after meaning. According to this principle, readers attempt to construct a meaning representation that addresses the reader's goals, that is coherent at both local and global levels, and that explains why actions, events, and states are mentioned in the text. This study reviews empirical evidence that addresses this theory and contrasts it with alternative theoretical frameworks.

Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension.

Personality may directly facilitate or constrain coping, but relations of personality to coping have been inconsistent across studies, suggesting a need for greater attention to methods and samples. This meta-analysis tested moderators of relations between Big Five personality traits and coping using 2,653 effect sizes drawn from 165 samples and 33,094 participants. Personality was weakly related to broad coping (e.g., Engagement or Disengagement), but all 5 traits predicted specific strategies. Extraversion and Conscientiousness predicted more problem-solving and cognitive restructuring, Neuroticism less. Neuroticism predicted problematic strategies like wishful thinking, withdrawal, and emotion-focused coping but, like Extraversion, also predicted support seeking. Personality more strongly predicted coping in young samples, stressed samples, and samples reporting dispositional rather than situation-specific coping. Daily versus retrospective coping reports and self-selected versus researcher-selected stressors also moderated relations between personality and coping. Cross-cultural differences were present, and ethnically diverse samples showed more protective effects of personality. Richer understanding of the role of personality in the coping process requires assessment of personality facets and specific coping strategies, use of laboratory and daily report studies, and multivariate analyses.

/pdf/relations-between-personality-and-coping-a-meta-analysis-47n0y4nk5h.pdf

Relations between personality and coping: a meta-analysis.

A coherent conception of dyslexia has been difficult to arrive at because research findings have continually created logical paradoxes for the psychometric definition of reading disability. This paper develops the phonological-core variable-difference model. This model of the cognitive characteristics of dyslexic children is one of the few that does not create psychometric paradoxes of the type that have plagued the learning disabilities field. The model provides a way to conceptualize the differences between dyslexic and garden-variety poor readers. The model highlights the importance of viewing the concept of dyslexia as the outcome of the application of an arbitrary criterion in a continuous distribution, thus avoiding the connotations of discreteness that have continually undermined our understanding of reading disability.

Explaining the Differences Between the Dyslexic and the Garden-Variety Poor Reader The Phonological-Core Variable-Difference Model

Applied developmental psychology

Developmental differences in the allocation of processing capacity

The search for the underlying nature and cause (s) of specific reading disability has proceeded for almost a century. At different times reading-disabled children have been described as suffering from a variety of specific cognitive deficits, from perceptual to attentional to memory problems. However, the explanation of this puzzling disorder has eluded investigators to the point where some are claiming that no satisfactory unitary set of principles can be found to explain the problems of all reading-disabled children (e.g., Applebee, 1971). Implicit in such claims is an admission of the inadequacy of current conceptualizations of the disorder.

Cognitive Processes and Reading Disability: A Critique and Proposal

In recent years interest has grown among experimental, educational, and developmental psychologists in the mechanisms underlying individual differences in reading fluency (e.g., Carr, 1981; Perfetti & Lesgold, 1978; Stanovich, 1982a,b; Vellutino, 1979). One of the more puzzling questions under study is the source of reading problems among children with specific reading disability, or developmental dyslexia.

Frederick J. Morrison

Papers

Applied developmental psychology

Developmental differences in the allocation of processing capacity

Cognitive Processes and Reading Disability: A Critique and Proposal

Reading Disability: A Deficit in Rule Learning?

Paired associate learning in reading-disabled children: evidence for a rule-learning deficiency.