Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.19066/cogsci.2019.30.4.3

The Effect of a Construal Level of Reading on Elementary School Students' Volume of Reading and Pleasure of Reading  

Kim, Yi-young (Kongju National University)
Au, Yun-kyung (Kongju National University)
Publication Information
Korean Journal of Cognitive Science / v.30, no.4, 2019 , pp. 219-238 More about this Journal
Abstract
The objective of the current study is to explore psychological factors that can encourage elementary school students to read. Specifically, the current study verified the effect of manipulating the construal level, which is known to influence goal achievement, on the reading volume of the students. Two hundred elementary school students were separated into groups with high and low preferences for reading, as well as those with high and low reading volumes in general. Then, the study proceeded to categorize the students into the abstract construal-level group who were directed to think about why they have to read and the concrete construal-level group who were directed to think about how they should read. The participants were asked to read for two weeks, and their reading volume and reported pleasure of reading were measured. As a result, the study confirmed the main effect of the construal level, in that the group of students who were directed to have a concrete perspective about their reading objective by thinking about how to read had a higher reading volume than the group directed to have an abstract perspective about their reading objective. In addition, the group that generally had a lower-level preference for reading both read more and enjoyed reading more after it was directed to construe the reading activity concretely. However, the group that generally had a higher level of preference for reading maintained high reading volumes and high pleasure of reading regardless of the construal level. Furthermore, the group that generally read less both read more and enjoyed reading more after it was directed to construe reading concretely. However the group that generally read more also enjoyed reading more after it was directed to construe reading abstractly. The current study is significant in that it expands the discussion about the effect of construal level, which had been mainly a subject of behavioral economic research, into the field of educational instruction. The study also provides a practical implication for the types of perspective that are effective in motivating people with a higher or lower preference for certain tasks, as well as those with higher or lower levels of achievement for certain tasks.
Keywords
Reading; Construal Level; Reading Volume; Reading Preference; Reading Pleasure;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2011). Matthew effects in young readers: Reading comprehension and reading experience aid vocabulary development. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(5), 431-443.   DOI
2 Carver, R. P. (1990). Intelligence and reading ability in Grades 2-12. Intelligence, 14(4), 449-455.   DOI
3 Chomsky, C. (1972). Stages in language development and reading exposure. Harvard Educational Review, 42(1), 1-33.   DOI
4 Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1998). What reading does for the mind. American Educator, 22, 8-17.
5 de Jonge, P., & de Jong, P. F. (1996). Working memory, intelligence and reading ability in children. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(6), 1007-1020.   DOI
6 Dhar, R., & Kim, E. Y. (2007). Seeing the forest or the trees: Implications of construal level theory for consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 96-100.   DOI
7 Fjortoft, N., Gettig, J., & Verdone, M. (2018). Smartphones, memory, and pharmacy education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 82(3), 7054-7054.   DOI
8 Fujita, K. (2008). Seeing the forest beyond the trees: A construal-level approach to self-control. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(3), 1475-1496.   DOI
9 Fujita, K., Henderson, M. D., Eng, J., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2006). Spatial distance and mental construal of social events. Psychological Science, 17(4), 278-282.   DOI
10 Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3), 351-367.   DOI
11 Gable, S. L., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 103-110.   DOI
12 Hansen, J., & Trope, Y. (2013). When time flies: How abstract and concrete mental construal affect the perception of time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(2), 336-347.   DOI
13 Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (2003). The early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap by age 3. American Educator, 27(1), 4-9.
14 Hartanto, A., & Yang, H. (2016). Is the smartphone a smart choice? The effect of smartphone separation on executive functions. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 329-336.   DOI
15 Hirsch Jr, E. D., & Moats, L. C. (2001). Overcoming the language gap. American Educator, 25(2), 4-9.
16 Johnson, J., Fabian, V., & Pascual-Leone, J. (1989). Quantitative hardware stages that constrain language development. Human Development, 32(5), 245-271.   DOI
17 Katzir, T., Kim, Y., Wolf, M., O’Brien, B., Kennedy, B., Lovett, M., & Morris, R. (2006). Reading fluency: The whole is more than the parts. Annals of dyslexia, 56(1), 51-82.   DOI
18 Kirby, J. R., Desrochers, A., Roth, L., & Lai, S. S. V. (2008). Longitudinal predictors of word reading development. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49(2), 103-110.   DOI
19 Lee, L., & Ariely, D. (2006). Shopping goals, goal concreteness, and conditional promotions. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 60-70.   DOI
20 Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Bowman, L. L. (2013). Use of instant messaging predicts self-report but not performance measures of inattention, impulsiveness, and distractibility. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(12), 898-903.   DOI
21 Liberman, N., Sagristano, M. D., & Trope, Y. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(6), 523-534.   DOI
22 Loh, K. K., & Kanai, R. (2014). Higher media multi-tasking activity is associated with smaller gray-matter density in the anterior cingulate cortex. Plos one, 9(9), e106698-e106698.   DOI
23 Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5-18.   DOI
24 Liberman, N., Trope, Y., McCrea, S. M., & Sherman, S. J. (2007). The effect of level of construal on the temporal distance of activity enactment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(1), 143-149.   DOI
25 Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal level theory and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 113-117.   DOI
26 McCardle, P., Cooper, J. A., Houle, G. R., Karp, N., & Paul-Brown, D. (2001). Emergent and early literacy: Current status and research directions. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 16(4), 183-85.   DOI
27 McCrea, S. M., Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Sherman, S. J. (2008). Construal level and procrastination. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1308-1314.   DOI
28 Moisala, M., Salmela, V., Hietajarvi, L., Salo, E., Carlson, S., Salonen, O., ... & Alho, K. (2016). Media multitasking is associated with distractibility and increased prefrontal activity in adolescents and young adults. NeuroImage, 134, 113-121.   DOI
29 Muter, V., & Diethelm, K. (2001). The contribution of phonological skills and letter knowledge to early reading development in a multilingual population. Language learning, 51(2), 187-219.   DOI
30 Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M. J., & Stevenson, J. (2004). Phonemes, Rimes, Vocabulary, and Grammatical Skills as Foundations of Early Reading Development: Evidence From a Longitudinal Study. Developmental Psychology, 40(5), 665-681.   DOI
31 Pfost, M., Dorfler, T., & Artelt, C. (2012). Reading competence development of poor readers in a German elementary school sample: An empirical examination of the Matthew effect model. Journal of Research in Reading, 35(4), 411-426.   DOI
32 Rabinovich, A., Morton, T. A., Postmes, T., & Verplanken, B. (2009). Think global, act local: The effect of goal and mindset specificity on willingness to donate to an environmental organization. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(4), 391-399.   DOI
33 Ritchie, S. J., & Bates, T. C. (2013). Enduring links from childhood mathematics and reading achievement to adult socioeconomic status. Psychological Science, 24(7), 1301-1308.   DOI
34 Scarborough, H. S., Dobrich, W., & Hager, M. (1991). Preschool literacy experience and later reading achievement. Journal of learning Disabilities, 24(8), 508-511.   DOI
35 Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and individual differences, 25(2), 167-177.   DOI
36 Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive Psychology Progress: Empirical Validation of Interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410-421.   DOI
37 Smith, C., Constantino, R., & Krashen, S. (1997). Differences in print environment for children in Beverly Hills, Compton and Watts. Emergency Librarian, 24(4), 8-9.
38 Todorov, A., Goren, A., & Trope, Y. (2007). Probability as a psychological distance: Construal and preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(3), 473-482.   DOI
39 Stanovich, K. E. (2009). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Journal of Education, 189(1-2), 23-55.   DOI
40 Stanovich, K. E., Cunningham, A. E., & Feeman, D. J. (1984). Intelligence, cognitive skills, and early reading progress. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(3), 278-303.   DOI
41 Tressoldi, P. E., Stella, G., & Faggella, M. (2001). The development of reading speed in Italians with dyslexia: A longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(5), 414-417.   DOI
42 Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463.   DOI
43 Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of consumer psychology, 17(2), 83-95.   DOI
44 Ulkumen, G., & Cheema, A. (2011). Framing goals to influence personal savings: The role of specificity and construal level. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(6), 958-969.   DOI
45 Uncapher, M. R., & Wagner, A. D. (2018). Minds and brains of media multitaskers: Current findings and future directions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(40), 9889-9896.   DOI
46 Vaessen, A., & Blomert, L. (2010). Long-term cognitive dynamics of fluent reading development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105(3), 213-231.   DOI
47 Wise, J. C., Sevcik, R. A., Morris, R. D., Lovett, M. W., & Wolf, M. (2007). The relationship among receptive and expressive vocabulary, listening comprehension, pre-reading skills, word identification skills, and reading comprehension by children with reading abilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50(4), 1093-1109.   DOI
48 Verhoeven, L., van Leeuwe, J., & Vermeer, A. (2011). Vocabulary growth and reading development across the elementary school years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(1), 8-25.   DOI
49 Wakslak, C., & Trope, Y. (2009). The effect of construal level on subjective probability estimates. Psychological Science, 20(1), 52-58.   DOI
50 Wilmer, H. H., Sherman, L. E., & Chein, J. M. (2017). Smartphones and cognition: A review of research exploring the links between mobile technology habits and cognitive functioning. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 605.   DOI
51 Wise, J. C., Sevcik, R. A., Morris, R. D., Lovett, M. W., Wolf, M., Kuhn, M., . . . Schwanenflugel, P. (2010). The relationship between different measures of oral reading fluency and reading comprehension in second-grade students who evidence different oral reading fluency difficulties. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41(3), 340-348.   DOI
52 Wolf, M. (1984). Naming, reading, and the dyslexias: A longitudinal overview. Annals of dyslexia, 34(1), 87-115.   DOI
53 Wolf, M., & Gow, D. (1986). A longitudinal investigation of gender differences in language and reading development. First language, 6(17), 81-110.   DOI
54 Wolf, M., & Stoodley, C. J. (2008). Proust and the squid: The story and science of the reading brain. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
55 김혜정 (2014). 국어교육 제재 선정과 독서 목록 구성에 대한 일고. 국어교육연구, 55.
56 김동일, 김희주, 김희은, 안성진 (2018). 난독증 및 읽기 부진 학생 대상 프로그램의 효과 분석. 아시아교육연구, 19(2), 403-427.
57 김상인 (2015). 난화기법이 난독증(dyslexia) 학생의 심리안정과 난독증 감소에 미치는 효과. 예술 심리치료연구, 11, 21-43.
58 김선희, 박현숙 (2003). 반구 자극 중재가 난독증 아동의 읽기 향상에 미치는 효과. 특수교육학연구, 38(2), 57-84.
59 백재은 (2015). 독서치료 독서목록에서의 카테고리와 치유서의 관계 분석 연구. 한국비블리아학회지, 26(2), 217-239.   DOI
60 변우열 (1996). 중고등학교 필독도서목록에 관한 연구. 한국도서관 정보학회지, 24, 243-274.
61 이홍재, 김미라, 남기춘 (1998). 난독증의 이해: 난독증의 분류와 평가. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 17(1), 1-24.
62 한윤옥 (2004). 독서치료를 위한 상황별 독서목록의 기초적 요건에 관한 연구 II-사례분석을 통한 상황설정 및 분류체계 예시. 한국문헌정보학회지, 38(3), 249-275.   DOI
63 Baron, N. S. (2017). Reading in a digital age. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(2), 15-20.   DOI
64 Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323-370.   DOI