Is viewing a painting like reading a story?: Trans-symbolic comprehension processes and aesthetic responses across two media

References

• Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 17(1), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022086
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D. (2006). [R] lmer, p-values, and all that. https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2006-May/094765.html
   Google Scholar
• Belke, B., Leder, H., Strobach, T., & Carbon, C. (2010). Cognitive fluency: High-level processing dynamics in art appreciation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(4), 214–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019648
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benton, M. (1992). Looking at paintings: Representation and response. In M. Benton (Ed.), Secondary worlds: Literature teaching and the visual arts (pp. 1–19). Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bohn-Gettler, C. M., & Rapp, D. M. (2011). Depending on my mood: Mood-driven influences on text comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 562–577. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023458
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewer, W. F., & Lichtenstein, E. H. (1982). Stories are to entertain: A structural-affect theory of stories. Journal of Pragmatics, 6(5–6), 473–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(82)90021-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruder, K. A., & Ucok, O. (2000). Interactive art interpretation. Symbolic Interaction, 23(4), 337–358. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2000.23.4.337
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bullot, N. J., & Reber, R. (2013). The artful mind meets art history: Toward a psycho-historical framework for the science of art appreciation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(2), 123–180. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000489
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson, S. E., Seipel, B., & McMaster, K. (2014). Development of a new reading comprehension assessment: Identifying comprehension differences among readers. Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.03.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clinton, V., & Van den Broek, P. (2012). Interest, inferences, and learning from texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 650–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohn, N. (2013). Visual narrative structure. Cognitive Science, 37(3), 413–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohn, N. (2016). A multimodal parallel architecture: A cognitive framework for multimodal interactions. Cognition, 146(146), 304–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.10.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleman, D. (2013). Guiding principles for the arts, grades K-12. New York State Education Department. http://usny.nysed.gov/rttt/docs/guidingprinciples-arts.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Coté, N., Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25(1), 1–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539809545019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cupchik, G. C., & Gebotys, R. J. (1988). The search for meaning in art: Interpretive styles and judgments of quality. Visual Arts Research, 14(2), 38–50. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1989-25368-001
   Google Scholar
• D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. C. (2012). Dynamics of affective states during complex learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(2), 145–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forster, M., Leder, H., & Ansorge, U. (2013). It felt fluent, and I liked it: Subjective feeling of fluency rather than objective fluency determines liking. Emotion, 13(2), 280–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030115
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox, M. C., Ericsson, K. A., & Best, R. (2011). Do procedures for verbal reporting of thinking have to be reactive? A meta-analysis and recommendations for best reporting methods. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 316–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021663
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franklin, M. B., Becklin, R. C., & Doyle, C. L. (1993). The influence of titles on how paintings are seen. Leonardo, 26(2), 103–108. https://doi.org/10.2307/1575894
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Gernsbacher, M. A., Goldsmith, H. H., & Robertson, R. R. (1992). Do readers mentally represent characaters’ emotional states? Cognition & Emotion, 6(2), 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939208411061
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gernsbacher, M. A., Hallada, B. M., & Robertson, R. R. (1998). How automatically do readers infer fictional characters’ emotional states? Scientific Studies of Reading, 2(3), 271–300. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0203_5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gernsbacher, M. A., Varner, K. R., & Faust, M. E. (1990). Investigating differences in general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(3), 430–445. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.16.3.430
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graf, L., & Landwehr, J. (2015). A dual-process perspective on fluency-based aesthetics: The pleasure-interest model of aesthetic liking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(4), 395–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315574978
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graf, L., & Landwehr, J. (2017). Aesthetic pleasure versus aesthetic interest: The two routes to aesthetic liking. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(15). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartzel, J., Agresti, A., & Caffo, B. (2001). Multinomial logit random effects models. Statistical Modelling, 1(2), 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471082X0100100201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishisaka, Y., & Takahashi, S. (2006). The effect of inaccurate perspective on impression of paintings: The protocol analysis of observers’ free talking. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Kansei. http://psycho.hes.kyushu-u.ac.jp/~lab_miura/Kansei/Workshop/proceedings/P-102.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35(7), 1567–1577. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193491
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (1980). Learning from text, levels of comprehension, or: Why anyone would read a story anyway. Poetics, 9(1–3), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(80)90013-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 92(2), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (2012). Musings about beauty. Cognitive Science, 36(4), 635–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01229.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363–394. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuusela, H., & Paul, P. (2000). A comparison of concurrent and retrospective verbal protocol analysis. American Journal of Psychology, 113(3), 387–404. https://doi.org/10.2307/1423365
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leder, H., Carbon, C., & Ripsas, A. (2006). Entitling art: Influences of title information on understanding and appreciation of paintings. Acta Psychologica, 121(2), 176–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.08.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leder, H., & Nadal, M. (2014). Ten years of a model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments: The aesthetic episode – Developments and challenges in empirical aesthetics. British Journal of Psychology, 105(4), 443–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12084
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loughlin, S. M., Grossnickle, E., Dinsmore, D., & Alexander, P. (2015). “Reading” paintings: Evidence for trans-symbolic and symbol-specific comprehension processes. Cognition and Instruction, 33(3), 257–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2015.1076822
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magliano, J. P., Loschky, L. C., Clinton, J., & Larson, A. M. (2013). Is reading the same as viewing? An exploration of the similarities and differences between processing text- and visually based narratives. In B. Miller, L. Cutting, & P. McCardle (Eds.), Unraveling the behavioral, neurobiological, & genetic components of reading comprehension (pp. 78–90). Brookers Publishing Co.
   Google Scholar
• Magliano, J. P., & Millis, K. K. (2003). Assessing Reading Skill With a Think-Aloud Procedure and Latent Semantic Analysis. Cognition and Instruction, 21(3), 251–283. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2103_02
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magliano, J. P., Millis, K. K., Levinstein, I., & Boonthum, C., . (2011). Assessing comprehension during reading with the reading strategy assessment tool (RSAT). Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 131–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9064-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maki, R. H. (1998). Test predictions over text material. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 117–144). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• McMaster, K. L., van den Broek, P., Espin, C. A., White, M. J., Rapp, D. N., Kendeou, P., Bohn-Gettler, C. M., & Carlson, S. (2012). Making the right connections: Differential effects of reading intervention for subgroups of comprehenders. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(1), 100–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., Levinstein, I. B., & Boonthum, C. (2004). iSTART: Interactive strategy training for active reading and thinking. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 36(2), 222–233. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195567
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Millis, K. (2001). Making meaning brings pleasure: The influence of titles on aesthetic experiences. Emotion, 1(3), 320–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.1.3.320
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, B. E. (1973). Description of children’s verbal responses to works of art in selected grades one through twelve. Studies in Art Education, 14(3), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/1320189
   Google Scholar
• Mumper, M. L., & Gerrig, R. J. (2021). The representation of emotion inferences. Discourse Processes, 58(8), 681–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2021.1882196
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muñoz, B., Magliano, J. P., Sheridan, R., & McNamara, D. S. (2006). Typing versus thinking aloud when reading: Implications for computer-based assessment and training tools. Behavior Research Methods, 38(2), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192771
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozuru, Y., Best, R., & McNamara, D. S. (2004). Contribution of reading skill to learning from expository texts. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Chicago, Illinois.
   Google Scholar
• Pelowski, M., Markey, P. S., Forster, M., Gerger, G., & Leder, H. (2017). Move me, astonish me … delight my eyes and brain: The Vienna integrated model of top-down and bottom-up processes in art perception (VIMAP) and corresponding affective, evaluative, and neurophysiological correlates. Physics of Life Reviews, 21, 80–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2017.02.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols in reading. Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The Reader, The Text, The Poem. Southern Illinois University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Silvia, P. J. (2005). What is interesting? Exploring the appraisal structure of interest. Emotion, 5(1), 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-2542.5.1.89
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solso, R. (2003). The psychology of art and evolution of the conscious brain. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Steciuch, C. C., Kopatich, R. D., Feller, D. P., Durik, A. M., & Millis, K. (2021). Don't go with your gut: Exploring the role of motivation in aesthetic experiences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15(1), 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000259
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stout, C. J. (1995). Critical conversations about art: A description of higher-order thinking generated through the study of art criticism. Studies in Art Education, 36(3), 170–188. https://doi.org/10.2307/1320907
   Google Scholar
• Tonks, S. M., Magliano, J. P., Schwartz, J., & Kopatich, R. D. (2021). How situational competence beliefs and task value relate to inference strategies and comprehension during reading. Learning and Individual Differences, 90, 102306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner, S. A., & Silvia, P. J. (2006). Must interesting things be pleasant? A test of competing appraisal structures. Emotion, 6(4), 670–674. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.6.4.670
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Gog, T., Paas, F., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Witte, P. (2005). Uncovering the problem-solving process: Cued retrospective reporting versus concurrent and retrospective reporting. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 11(4), 237–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.11.4.237
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar