What are we doing when we are reading?

被引:0
作者
Secco, Francesca [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Antwerp, Ctr Philosoph Psychol, Antwerp, Belgium
基金
欧洲研究理事会;
关键词
Reading; automaticity; control; Stroop task; intentional action; SEMANTIC ACTIVATION; WORD; INTERFERENCE; AUTOMATICITY; COLOR; MYTH; ATTENTION; ROLES;
D O I
10.1080/09515089.2024.2387825
中图分类号
B82 [伦理学(道德学)];
学科分类号
摘要
When we read a list of words, are we doing something, or is it something that just happens to us? On the one hand, according to intention-for-action theories, reading can be active only if we do it intentionally, meaning that the action is caused and sustained by the agent's intention. Many cases of reading seem to be intentional: consider, for instance, when a person is reading a novel, a newspaper article, or an academic paper. Yet, reading often seems to be something that passively happens to us. It is sufficient that a word appears in front of us to make us read it. Numerous studies on the Stroop task - a well-known experimental set-up in the cognitive sciences - make clear that reading is unavoidable, suggesting that reading takes place regardless of the agent's intention. This tension constitutes the reading puzzle. I argue that if intention is necessary for a process to be active, then intention-for-action theories fail to account for such a distinctive human activity as reading. I conclude that reading represents a real challenge to the intention-for-action theories and shows that what an agent can actively do should not be limited to behaviors that involve intentions.
引用
收藏
页数:23
相关论文
共 68 条
[1]   Automaticity of Word Reading: Evidence From the Semantic Stroop Paradigm [J].
Augustinova, Maria ;
Ferrand, Ludovic .
CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 2014, 23 (05) :343-348
[2]   Suggestion does not de-automatize word reading: Evidence from the semantically based Stroop task [J].
Augustinova, Maria ;
Ferrand, Ludovic .
PSYCHONOMIC BULLETIN & REVIEW, 2012, 19 (03) :521-527
[3]   Single-letter coloring and spatial cuing do not eliminate or reduce a semantic contribution to the Stroop effect [J].
Augustinova, Maria ;
Flaudias, Valentin ;
Ferrand, Ludovic .
PSYCHONOMIC BULLETIN & REVIEW, 2010, 17 (06) :827-833
[5]   The Stroop effect and the myth of automaticity [J].
Besner, D ;
Stolz, JA ;
Boutilier, C .
PSYCHONOMIC BULLETIN & REVIEW, 1997, 4 (02) :221-225
[6]   Varieties of Attention: Their Roles in Visual Word Identification [J].
Besner, Derek ;
Risko, Evan F. ;
Stolz, Jennifer A. ;
White, Darcy ;
Reynolds, Michael ;
O'Malley, Shannon ;
Robidoux, Serje .
CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 2016, 25 (03) :162-168
[7]  
Birkerts Sven., 1994, GUTENBERG ELEGIES FA
[8]  
Bratman Michael., 1987, Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason, DOI DOI 10.2307/2185304
[9]   Sentence interference in the Stroop task [J].
Brega, AG ;
Healy, AF .
MEMORY & COGNITION, 1999, 27 (05) :768-778
[10]   Motor Intentions: How Intentions and Motor Representations Come Together [J].
Brozzo, Chiara .
MIND & LANGUAGE, 2017, 32 (02) :231-256