En este artículo proponemos que el proceso de comprensión de narraciones interpersonales recoge los cambios que se producen en las relaciones de los protagonistas como consecuencia de las interacciones habidas entre ellos. Para comprobar esta hipótesis medimos la accesibilidadde una frase que describía una relación (próxima o distante) entre los protagonistas de un episodio, en el que acontecía una interacción interpersonal (positiva o negativa).
Los resultados del experimento realizado mostraron que el tiempo de lectura de la relación final de los protagonistas dependía de la congruencia con la relación previa y con la conducta. Estos resultados se presentan contrastando las diferentes perspectivas teóricas en la comprensión de narraciones y enfatizando la relevancia de la cognición social en la comprensión de textos interpersonales.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbrechtJ. E.MyersJ. L. (1998). Accessing distant text information during reading: effects of contextual cues.Discourse Processes, 26, 87–109.
2.
BartholowB. D.FabianiM.GrattonG.BettencourtA. (2001). A psychophysiological examination of cognitive processing of and affective responses to social expectancy violation.Psychological Science, 12, 197–204.
3.
BirtchnellJ. (1993). How human relates: A New interpersonal theory. East Susses, UK: Psychology Press.
4.
BroemerP. (2001). Ease of recall moderates the impact of relationships-related goals on judgments of interpersonal closeness.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 261–266.
5.
De VegaM. (1995). Backward updating of mental models during continues reading of narrative.Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 120–136.
6.
De VegaM.DíazJ. M.LeónI. (1997). To know or not to know. Comprehending protagonists' beliefs and their emotional consequences.Discourse Processes, 23, 169–193.
7.
DopkinsS. (1996). Representations of superordinate goal inferences in memory.Discourse Processes,21, 85–104.
8.
GámezE. (1995). El papel de los esquemas de vinculación y posición interpersonales en la comprensión de episodios de conducta narrados. Tesis doctoral. Universidad de La Laguna.
9.
GámezE.MarreroH. (1999). Por sus actos los conocereis: inferencia de la relación interpersonal en narraciones verbales y pictóricas.Estudios de Psicología, 62, 3–22.
10.
GámezE.MarreroH. (2001). Interpersonal motives in comprensión of narratives.Discourse Proceses, 31 (3), 215–240.
11.
GlenbergA. M. (1987). Mental models contribute to foreground during text comprehension.Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 129–131.
12.
GraesserA. C.NakamuraG. V. (1982). The impact of the schema on comprehension and memory. EnBowerG. H. (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 16, pp. 36–52). New Jersey: Academic Press.
13.
GraesserA. C.SingerM.TrabassoT. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension.Psycohological Review, 101, 371–395.
14.
HoneycuttJ. M. (1993). Memory structures for the rise and fall of personal relationships. EnDuckS. (Ed.), Individuals in relationships (pp. 60–86). Londres: Sage.
15.
KirkR. C. (1982). Experimental design.CA: Brooks/Cole.
16.
LongD. L.GoldingJ. M. (1993). Superordinate goal inferences: Are they automatically generated during comprehension?Discourse Processes, 16, 55–73.
17.
LongD. L.GoldingJ. M.GraesserA. C. (1992). A test of the on-line status of goal related inferences.Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 634–647.
18.
LutzM. F.RadvanskyG. A. (1997). The fate of completed goal information in narrative comprehension.Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 293–310.
19.
MckoonG.RatcliffR. (1992). Inference during reading.Psychological Review, 99, 440–466.
20.
MorrowD. G.BowerG. H.GreenspanS. L. (1989). Updating situation models during narrative comprehension.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 28, 292–312.
21.
MyersJ. L.O'brienE. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading.Discourse Processes, 26, 131–159.
22.
O'brienE. J.RizzellaM. L.AlbrechtJ. E.HalleranJ. G. (1998). Updating a situation model: a memory-based text processing view.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24, 1200–1210.
23.
PlanalpS.SurraC. (1992). The role of account-making in the growth and deterioration of close relationship.HarveyEn J. H.OrbuchT. L.WeberA. L. (Eds.), Attributions, accounts, and close relationship (pp. 71–92). Nueva York: Springer-Verlag.
24.
PlanalpS.RiversM. (1996). Changes in knowledge of close relationships. EnFletcherG.FitnessJ. (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 229–324). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
SafranJ.D. (1990). Towards a refinement of cognitive therapy in light of interpersonal theory: I Theory.Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 87–105.
26.
SingerM.GraesserA. C.TrabassoT. (1994). Minimal or global inference during reading.Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 421–441.
27.
SchankR. C. (1986). Explanation patterns: Understanding mechanically and creatively, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
28.
SchankR. C.AbelsonR. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
SuhS.TrabassoT. (1993). Inferences during reading: converging evidence from discourse analysis, talk-aloud protocols and recognition priming.Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 279–300.
31.
TrzebinskiJ. (1989). The role of goal categories in the representation of social knowledge. EnPervinL. A. (Ed.), Goals Concepts in Personality and Social Psychology (pp. 363–409). Hillsdate, NJ:LEA.
