R

eaders hold many different kinds of beliefs that

affect the way they read. These include beliefs
about their ability to read effectively (Shell,
Murphy, & Bruning, 1989), text structure
(Zwann, 1994), the credibility of the authors message
(Dole & Sinatra, 1994), personal ideologies (Bogdan,
1990; Thomson, 1993; Wade, Thompson, & Watkins,
1994), self-concept (Athey, 1985), and intentions
(Mathewson, 1994). We believe that readers bring an
even more general set of beliefs to the reading process
beliefs about their role as readers. We propose that each
reader invokes a mental model of the reading process,
hereafter referred to as an epistemology of text, that me-
diates the transactional relationship among the reader,
author, and text (Wineburg, 1991). We further assume
that epistemologies differ as a consequence of each
readers sociolinguistic background. Crucial to our argu-
ment is the assumption that once a particular epistemol-
ogy is invoked, readers transact with a text in a manner
consistent with it. This study tested these assumptions by
examining the degree to which differing epistemologies
are related to different engagement styles while reading.
We began our inquiry with the following ques-
tions: (a) What kind of beliefs might an epistemology of
text include and (b) how do epistemologies differ?
Different researchers have responded to the first ques-
tion in a variety of ways. Fish (1980), for example,
coined the term interpretative communities to refer to
the system of beliefs readers bring to the interpretative
act. Fish proposed that these beliefs are learned from
other members of the community and lead to what he
refers to as a set of interpretative strategies. Making a
similar point, Rosenblatt (1994) described a linguistic-
experiential reservoir that each reader brings to the read-
ing event. Included as part of the linguistic-experiential
reservoir is ones cumulative history with print. Extend-
ing this concept still further, Carey and Harste (1987) ar-
gued that readers engage a text within the broader con-
text of its print setting, a term they used to capture a
highly interactive set of situational and cultural cues that
broadly affect reader engagement.
Several recent empirical studies have examined
readers epistemologies in more detail. For example,
when comparing professional historians and high school
students, Wineburg (1991) found that historians read
texts from a critical perspective in which they actively
questioned and transformed text, whereas high school
students interested in history read from a less critical per-
spective without seriously questioning the legitimacy of
text assertions. Similar findings were reported by Wade
et al. (1994) who compared professional historians and
nonhistorians responses to segments of the Public
Broadcasting Systems video The Civil War. Wineburg
(1991) attributed the differences reported in his study to
what he referred to as an epistemology of text, a term we
have borrowed from him, and concluded:
Before students can see subtexts, they must first believe
they exist. In the absence of such beliefs, students simply
overlooked or did not know how to seek out features de-
signed to shape their perceptions or make them view
events in a particular way. Students may have processed
texts, but they failed to engage them. (p. 510)
Several compelling conclusions emerge from this quote.
One is the assumption that professionals and high school
students differ with respect to their epistemology of text.
Another is that commitment to a particular epistemology
brings with it a system of interpretative strategies that lead
to radically different engagement styles. A third is the
observation that high school students, in contrast to pro-
fessionals, lack specific explicit awareness of their episte-
mologies. Indeed, all of these conclusions are central to
our main argument that different epistemologies predis-
pose individuals to read the same text in different ways.
290
Gregory Schraw
Roger Bruning
The University of NebraskaLincoln, USA
Readers implicit models of reading
Reading Research Quarterly
Vol. 31, No. 3
July/August/September 1996
1996 International Reading Association
(pp. 290305)
ABSTRACTS
WE EXAMINED the relationship between readers implicit models
of the reading process (i.e., tacit, systematic assumptions about the
role of the reader) and reader engagement. A factor analysis of a self-
report inventory produced two factors. Factor 1 corresponded to a
transmissionmodel (i.e., beliefs that meaning is transmitted from the
author and/or text). Factor 2 corresponded to a transactional mod-
el (i.e., beliefs that meaning is constructed by a transaction between
the reader, author, and text). Beliefs relating to each of the two mod-
els were independent, indicating that readers held multiple beliefs
that potentially affected their reading engagement. A cross-classifi-
cation of readers using scores on each of the factors revealed that
endorsing a transactional model was related to higher recall of an ex-
pository text. This was true of both text propositions and proposi-
tional modifiers. An analysis of reader response essays completed af-
ter reading indicated that individuals high on the transactional
dimension reported more critical evaluations of the text, were more
likely to relate text information to prior knowledge, and reported
more affective responses such as anger and empathy. Implications
for reading theory and instruction were discussed.
R e a d e r s i m p l i c i t m o d e l s o f r e a d i n g
L o s l e c t o r e s y s u s m o d e l o s i m p l c i t o s d e l a l e c t u r a
uno de los factores revel que el adherir a un modelo transaccional
estaba relacionado con un mejor recuerdo de textos expositivos.
Esto se verific tanto para las proposiciones del texto, como para
los modificadores proposicionales. Un anlisis de los ensayos me-
diante los que los lectores respondieron, completado luego de la lec-
tura, indic que los individuos muy adheridos a la dimensin
transaccional reportaron ms evaluaciones crticas del texto, rela-
cionaron ms a menudo la informacin textual con los conocimien-
tos previos e incluyeron ms respuestas afectivas como enojo y em-
pata. Se discuten las implicancias para la teora de la lectura y para
la ense anza.
EXAMINAMOS la relacin entre los modelos implcitos del proceso
de lectura que tienen los lectores (presupuestos tcitos y sistemticos
sobre el rol del lector) y el compromiso del lector. Un anlisis de fac-
tores hecho a partir de un inventario de informes produjo dos fac-
tores. El Factor 1 correspondi a un modelo de transmisin (creer
que el significado se transmite desde el autor y/o texto). El Factor 2
correspondi a un modelo transaccional (creer que el significado
se construye mediante una transaccin entre el lector, el autor y el
texto). Las creencias relacionadas con uno u otro modelo fueron in-
dependientes, lo que indica que los lectores poseen mltiples creen-
cias que afectan, en potencia, su compromiso con la lectura. Una
clasificacin transvervsal de los lectores usando los puntajes en cada
I m p l i z i t e L e s e ( r ) - M o d e ll e
WIR UNTERSUCHTEN die Beziehung zwischen den impliziten
Modellen des Leseprozesses (d.h. die selbstverstndlichen, systema-
tischen Annahmen ber die Leserrolle) und dem eigentlichen
Leseverhalten. Eine Analyse der Bestandsaufnahme von Selbst-
erfahrungsberichten ergab zwei Faktoren: Faktor 1 hing mit dem
Transmissionsmodell zusammen (darunter versteht man die
Vorstellung, da die Botschaft vom Autor und/oder vom Text ber-
tragen wird); Faktor 2 korrespondierte mit dem Transaktionsmodell
(darunter versteht man die Vorstellung, da der Sinnzusammenhang
durch die Kommunikation zwischen Leser, Autor und Text entsteht).
Die Annahmenunabhngig vom jeweiligen Modellzeigten, da
die Leser unterschiedliche Einstellungen zum Lesen hatten, die
wesentlich ihr Leseverhalten beeinfluten. Eine Einteilung der Leser
nach einer Punktevergabe fr die jeweiligen Faktoren ergab, da
Anhnger des Transaktionsmodells ein hheres Erinnerungs-
vermgen an einen erklrenden Text aufwiesen. Dies bewahrheit-
ete sich sowohl bei den Textvorgaben wie bei vorgeschlagenen
Vernderungen. Eine Auswertung der Antworten, zusammengefat
in einem Aufsatz nach dem Lesen, zeigte, da jene mit transak-
tionalen Einstellungen einen Text kritischer beurteilten, eher dazu
neigten, Textinformationen mit schon vorhandenem Vorwissen zu
verknpfen und emotionaler mit Wut oder Empathie darauf
reagierten. Die sich daraus ergebenden Mglichkeiten fr Lese-
theorien und Lesevermittlung werden diskutiert.
291
292
ABSTRACTS
L e s m o d l e s i m p l i c i t e s d e l a l e c t u r e d e s l e c t e u r s
gagement dans la lecture. Une classification croise des lecteurs,
partir des scores chacun des facteurs, rvle que ladhsion un
modle transactionnel est lie un meilleur rappel dun texte infor-
matif. Ceci est vrai tant pour les propositions du texte que pour les
modificateurs propositionnels. Une analyse des textes produits par
les lecteurs aprs la lecture montre que les personnes ayant un haut
niveau transactionnel effectuent davantage dvaluations critiques du
texte, ont une plus grande propension lier linformation du texte
leurs connaissances antrieures, et manifestent davantage de
rponses affectives, comme la colre et lempathie. La discussion
porte sur les implications pour la thorie de la lecture et son en-
seignement.
NOUS AVONS examin la relation entre les modles implicites du
processus de lecture quont les lecteurs (i.e les prsupposs tacites,
systmatiques concernant le rle du lecteur) et linvestissement du
lecteur. Lanalyse factorielle dun questionnaire rempli par les per-
sonnes concernes a fait apparatre deux facteurs. Le premier facteur
correspond un modle transmissif (i.e la reprsentation que la
signification est transmise partir de lauteur et/ou du texte). Le
facteur 2 correspond un modle transactionnel (i.e la reprsen-
tation que la signification est construite par une transaction entre le
lecteur, lauteur, et le texte). Les reprsentations relatives chacun
des deux modles sont indpendantes, montrant que les lecteurs ont
des reprsentations multiples qui affectent potentiellement leur en-
Our second guiding question concerned differ-
ences among epistemologies. While the scope of this
question clearly exceeds the present article, we believe
that it is possible to identify three epistemic world views
that readers bring to the reading task. These world views
have been most clearly articulated by contemporary liter-
ary and reader response theorists as three distinct mod-
els of the reading process (Bogdan & Straw, 1990; Straw
& Bogdan, 1993).
The transmission model is based on the assump-
tion that meaning is transmitted directly from the author
to the reader. This model views the reader as a passive
receiver, whose primary objective is to extract the au-
thors intended meaning, rather than as an active maker
of meaning.
The translation model is based on the assumption
that meaning resides in the text independent of the au-
thors intended meaning or the readers ability to con-
struct alternative interpretations. In this view, readers are
expected to decode the message presented implicitly or
explicitly by the text without reference to their own ex-
periences, the cultural milieu in which the text was writ-
ten, or presumed intentions of the author.
The transactional model is based on the assump-
tion that a text means different things to different readers
regardless of what the author intended or what the text
contains. In this view, readers interpret a text given their
own personal goals and purposes within a particular
context. Thus, meaning is constructed by the reader with
respect to his or her prior knowledge of the topic do-
main, previous reading experiences, and situational ob-
jectives. In this view, reading is an inherently subjective
process rather than an act of receiving the authors
meaning or translating the meaning of a text in the most
objective manner possible.
Collectively, these three models clearly delineate
different epistemological assumptions about reading.
Later, in the Method section, we describe a self-report
scale intended to measure beliefs consistent with the
transmission and transactional models.
Much has been written the past two decades about
the shift among professional literary critics from a trans-
lation model (i.e., New Criticism) to a transactional
framework (i.e., reader response critics). This transition
has occurred among both literary theorists and reading
researchers (Straw, 1990). Most of these theorists share
the core assumption that meaning is situated in the dy-
namic relationship among the reader, text, and context
rather than in the text alone or solely with the author.
These theorists also support the assumption that as goals
change, so does the readers engagement with the text
(Hynds, 1990). In short, most contemporary reading the-
orists and practitioners assume that readers bring cultur-
ally instantiated world views to the reading task that pro-
foundly affect the way they engage and respond to a
text (Beach, 1990). Presumably, these beliefs are ac-
quired as part of the readers instructional history, prior
reading experiences, and social/cultural milieu that tacit-
ly or explicitly sanctions a particular interpretative com-
munity (Beach & Brown, 1987; Bleich, 1980; Fish, 1980;
Gambell, 1993; Harste, Burke, & Woodward, 1994; Miall,
1993; Tierney, Lazansky, Raphael, & Cohen, 1987; Wade
et al., 1994).
It goes without saying, however, that most readers
do not behave like professional literary critics and read-
ing researchers. While they undoubtedly bring an episte-
mology of text to each reading experience, and while
their epistemology may change from text to text and sit-
uation to situation, they may have little explicit aware-
ness of their epistemological stance. Presumably, lack of
explicit awareness of ones beliefs predisposes one to
adopt an author/text-centered epistemology (see Straw &
Bogdan, 1993, for a variety of opinions on this matter).
One reason is lack of critical reading experience
(Guthrie, Schaffer, Wang, & Afflerbach, 1995; Thomson,
1993). Another is the recurrent fear of differing from the
instructors preferred interpretation (Gambell, 1993). A
third is that the transmission model is most apt to be
sanctioned in the classroom (Hunt, 1990; Richter, 1994).
The purpose of this study was to examine the rela-
tionship between adults epistemologies of text and their
text understanding and appreciation. We view these
epistemologies as tacit mental models of the reading
process, or what some researchers might refer to as
naive theories of reading (Schraw & Moshman, 1995). To
the best of our knowledge, this question has not been
examined directly in previous empirical research even
though reading researchers and literary theorists have
proposed a variety of models of the reading process and
typically assume that readers incorporate these models
as epistemological frameworks for reading (Harste et al.,
1994; Rosenblatt, 1994; Straw & Bogdan, 1993; Wade et
al., 1994; Wineburg, 1991).
The assumption that individuals invoke tacit belief
systems or epistemologies that serve as mental models
has received a great deal of attention within the psycho-
logical community in the past decade, particularly
among those studying childrens developing theories of
mind (Astington, 1993) and adults scientific reasoning
(Kuhn, 1989). The social-cognitive model of motivation
proposed by Dweck and Leggett (1988) provides a
somewhat different but well-researched example. In this
model, academic performance and motivation are deter-
mined primarily by students implicit theories of intelli-
gence. Some students view intelligence as fixed, while
others view it as changeable. Recent studies indicate that
Reader beliefs 293
those adopting the change-oriented view conceptualize
learning in a fundamentally different way, use more and
different types of strategies to enhance learning, and
attribute academic success to different causes than those
who view intelligence as fixed (Ames & Archer, 1988;
Blumenfeld, 1992).
Our own thinking has been strongly influenced by
these models because they provide a means for interrelat-
ing complex belief systems held prior to task engagement
with subsequent intentions and actual behaviors (see
Ajzen, 1988). We believe this approach has been lacking
in the reader response literature. Specifically, while read-
er response theories have contributed greatly to our un-
derstanding of what readers do while they read, and es-
pecially differences in engagement styles (Britton, 1982;
Iser, 1978; Rosenblatt, 1993; Vipond & Hunt, 1984), they
have had far less to say about what readers bring with
them to the task of reading before they read. Perhaps, as
Wineburgs (1991) findings suggest, observable reader
engagement patterns are only the visible tip of the much
larger, mostly submerged, epistemological iceberg.
Our main assumption in the present study is that
readers approach a text via an epistemological belief sys-
tem that includes, in part, what we henceforth refer to as
an implicit model of the reading process. Given the
exploratory nature of this research, we focused on epis-
temologies consistent with either the transmission/trans-
lation (i.e., author/text-centered) or transactional (i.e.,
reader-centered) models. We did so for two reasons.
One was to simplify the task of constructing an instru-
ment that measured each of these dimensions. (A further
description of this instrument is provided in the Method
section.) A second reason was that the distinction be-
tween the transmission and translation model is much
less salient than the difference between either of them
and the transactional model. This is because only the
transactional model emphasizes the readers active con-
struction of meaning.
By referring to readers beliefs about the reading
process as implicit models, we do not mean that readers
are completely unaware of their beliefs. No doubt many
have explicit awareness of at least some of these beliefs.
Rather, we believe that most lack explicit awareness of
the model that is implied by their system of beliefs, and
that the model, rather than the beliefs per se, is implicit.
This does not mean that readers do not draw on their
implicit model. Our view is that every reader does so, al-
beit tacitly in most cases.
We believe that implicit models of the reading
process lead to different engagement patterns among
readers that, in turn, lead to differences in the way they
construct meaning and respond to a text (see Bereiter &
Scardamalia, 1987, for a comparable argument applied to
writing). Holding beliefs consistent with the transactional
model should lead to more critical and personal engage-
ments with the text. In contrast, holding beliefs consis-
tent with the transmission model should lead to fewer
transactions, particularly those of a personal and aesthet-
ic nature, and a greater emphasis on remembering what
the text says rather than what it implies. Thus, we be-
lieve that when readers spontaneously hold a transac-
tional model prior to reading, even when they have no
prior information about the kind of text they will read,
or when they have any explicit awareness of endorsing
this model, they will be more inclined to understand and
appreciate a text in both a critical and aesthetically ori-
ented manner. In contrast, readers who hold a transmis-
sion model will be more inclined to remember what the
text says and what the author explicitly intended. Table
1 summarizes the hypothesized engagement and re-
sponse patterns of readers holding transmission or trans-
actional models.
Our claim that implicit models are related to reader
engagement and responses leads to several specific re-
search questions. One is whether beliefs consistent with
the transmission and transactional models are mutually
294 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY July/August/September 1996 31/3
Table 1 Hypothesized engagement and response patterns of the transmission and transactional
models
Type of model Beliefs about text Types of engagement and response
Transmission/translation Emphasis on author- and/or Knowledge transmission; objective analysis of text
text-driven meaning; use of content and structure; depersonalized responses
objective critical standards
Transactional Emphasis on self-actualization Knowledge transformation; subjective response to
through constructed meaning; constructed text meaning; affective responses;
subjective and objective standards; relate to personal knowledge and experiences;
relation of text/author to self aesthetic appreciation
exclusive (i.e., if one is high on one dimension, one
must be low on the other) or independent (i.e., ones
position on one dimension is unrelated to the other).
Although none of the theorists cited in this article ad-
dress this issue directly, most appear to believe that it is
possible to endorse both models simultaneously. We
tested this assumption by asking readers to complete a
14-item questionnaire that included items characteristic
of both the transmission (e.g., When I read, I focus on
what the author says is important) and transactional
(e.g., I enjoy sharing the thoughts and reactions of char-
acters in a book) models. We expected two factors to
emerge. One possibility was that the two factors would
be negatively correlated, suggesting that beliefs about
the two models were mutually exclusive; that is, high
support for one model would necessitate low support
for the other. Another possibility was that the two factors
would be uncorrelated, suggesting that support for one
model was unrelated to support for the other.
We also made a number of predictions about text
understanding and personal responses. Consistent with
reader response theories (Bogdan, 1990; Rosenblatt,
1993; Squire, 1994; Straw, 1990; Tompkins, 1980), we ex-
pected readers holding a transactional model to have a
better understanding of the texts underlying main ideas
due to additional elaborative processing of important
text segments. We examined this question by comparing
readers recall for important text propositions versus seg-
ments that modify these propositions. We predicted
transactional readers would recall more important propo-
sitions than transmissional readers, but would not neces-
sarily differ with respect to modifying information. We
also expected transactional readers to produce more
elaborate written responses after reading. These
responses were assumed to reflect the actual responses
readers engaged in while reading the text. A content
analysis was performed of written responses to deter-
mine whether individuals differed in term of text-based
elaborations, critical evaluations, and personal reactions
(see the Method section for further details). We expected
transactional readers to produce more elaborative infer-
ences about the text as well as more critical evaluations
and personal reactions. In contrast, readers characterized
by a transmission model were expected to produce more
retellings of story segments, but fewer personal reac-
tions. This expectation reflects the assumption that trans-
missional readers place more value on the authors
explicit, surface-level message and less value (or none at
all) on personal interpretations and reactions.
M et ho d
Participants
A total of 154 undergraduates (84 female, 70 male)
from a large midwestern U.S. university participated as
part of their regular course assignment. All students were
currently enrolled in a introductory educational psychol-
ogy class that covered learning, memory, motivation,
and testing. Over 95% of the sample consisted of juniors
and seniors, with several sophomores and postbaccalau-
reate students. Approximately 90% of students were en-
rolled in a teacher certification program. Roughly 5%
Reader beliefs 295
Table 2 Items included on the Reader Belief Questionnaire
1. Good readers remember most of what they read verbatim (TM; .43)
2. The main purpose of reading is to learn new information (DNL)
3. I like to pay attention to the authors style while I read (DNL)
4. When I read, I try to bring away exactly what the author meant (TM; .40)
5. I often have strong emotional responses to what I read (TA; .65)
6. I like poetry more than technical text because it is more interpretive (DNL)
7. People should agree on what a book means (TM; .45)
8. When I read, I like to imagine I am living through the experience myself (DNL)
9. Reading for pleasure is the best kind of reading (TA; .44)
10. I like books in which the authors message is strong and clear (TM; .40)
11. I enjoy sharing the thoughts and reactions of characters in a book (TA; .52)
12. When I read, I focus on what the author says is important (TM; .40)
13. Most books mean exactly what they say (TM; .60)
14. When I read, I focus more on how I feel about the information than on what I learn (TA; .55)
Note. TA = transactional model; TM = transmission model; numbers in parentheses indicate factor loadings. DNL indicates an item did not load
on a factor in excess of .30.
more were enrolled in education-related programs such
as speech pathology.
Materials
The target materials consisted of (a) the Reader
Belief Questionnaire, (b) a reader response checklist, (c)
an 800-word text, (d) a free recall test booklet, and (e) a
reader response essay booklet. The Reader Belief
Questionnaire consisted of 14 statements that were con-
sistent with either the transmission/translation or transac-
tional models (see Table 2). Seven of the items tapped
beliefs typical of the transmission and translation models
(e.g., Most books mean exactly what they say). Seven
items tapped beliefs typical of the transactional model
(e.g., I often have strong emotional responses to what I
read). We combined items typical of the transmission
(e.g., When I read, I try to bring away exactly what the
author meant) and translation (e.g., Most books mean ex-
actly what they say) models to form one scale for several
reasons. First, as described earlier, both models assume
that meaning does not originate with the reader, whereas
the transactional model does. Second, collapsing similar
items into a single scale should improve the reliability of
that scale. Third, we wished to limit the number of di-
mensions (i.e., factors) that we could use to partition our
sample in order to improve the statistical power and in-
terpretative simplicity of our data. For example, tri-
chotomizing two scales (as we did in subsequent analy-
ses) leads to 9 mutually exclusive partitions.
Trichotomizing three dimensions leads to 27 partitions.
Henceforth, we refer to the transmission/translation
scale simply as the transmission scale. Individuals rated
each statement using a 5-point Likert scale in which 1
corresponded to strongly disagree and 5 corresponded to
strongly agree. Ratings were made at the outset of the
experiment, without any knowledge of what kind of text
would be read.
The reader response checklist included 10 state-
ments addressing the degree to which the story was (a)
suspenseful, (b) persuasive, (c) vivid and exciting, (d)
easy to picture in ones head, (e) meaningful, (f) thought
provoking, (g) evoked strong emotions, (h) controver-
sial, (i) interesting, and (j) action packed. After reading
the story, individuals rated each dimension using a 5-
point Likert scale in which a 1 corresponded to strongly
disagree and a 5 corresponded to strongly agree.
The story consisted of an 800-word text containing
both expository and narrative elements adapted from
Time magazine (Elmer-DeWitt, 1991). The story de-
scribed the environmental aftereffects of the Persian Gulf
War. We used this story for three reasons: (a) readers
were likely to have some, but not extensive, knowledge
of this topic, (b) the story is typical of what adults en-
counter in their everyday reading, and (c) the story was
interesting and thought provoking, and therefore likely
to elicit a wide range of reader responses.
The story was parsed into 116 propositions and
137 propositional modifiers using the parsing scheme
described by Bovair and Kieras (1985). In this scheme, a
proposition typically corresponds to a single unit of
meaning that includes a predicate and two arguments
that correspond to subject and object nouns. Proposi-
tional modifiers are words or phrases that modify either
the propositions predicate or arguments. For example,
the first statement in the text (i.e., Dante would feel right
at home in Kuwait, a desert paradise that has suddenly
been transformed into an environmental inferno) was
parsed as follows:
Dante feels at home (Proposition 1)
right (Propositional Modifier 1)
in Kuwait (PM 2)
Paradise transformed to an inferno (P 2)
desert (PM 3)
suddenly (PM 4)
environmental (PM 5)
Propositions and propositional modifiers were
scored using the liberal criteria described by Bovair and
Kieras (1985). In this scheme, a segment is scored as
correct if it is recalled verbatim or as a meaning-
preserving paraphrase and is scored as incorrect other-
wise. In contrast, the strict scoring method counts only
verbatim reproductions of the text as correct.
A paid research assistant was trained in the liberal
scoring method and scored each of the 154 recall proto-
cols. Each protocol was scored by the first author as
well. The two scorers discussed each protocol individu-
ally with an overall agreement of 85%. Disagreements
between the judges were settled in conference. The vast
majority of these disagreements concerned inferences
that did not appear specifically in the text, but were con-
sistent with it. Our criterion for counting an inference as
correct was whether reader-inferred information could
be linked directly to a proposition or modifier that ap-
peared in the text (see Bovair & Kieras, 1985, pp.
354358). If this proved impossible, the segment was
scored as incorrect. These segments accounted for less
than 2% of all recalled segments.
The reader response essay booklet consisted of
cover instructions shown in Appendix A and two sheets
of lined notebook paper. Individuals were given as
much time as needed to complete their essays. The
average length was approximately one and one-half
handwritten pages. Essays were scored by classifying
statements into 13 mutually exclusive categories sub-
sumed within three broader categories. These categories
296 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY July/August/September 1996 31/3
were generated in part by a content analysis of randomly
selected protocols (Weber, 1985) and criteria used by
Many and Wiseman (1992). The three main categories
included text-based inferences, critical evaluations of the
text, and personal reactions. Text-based inferences in-
cluded rhetorical questions about information presented
in the text, restatements of text information, and infer-
ences about text information. Critical evaluations
included statements about reader engagement, the de-
scriptiveness of information, the relevance and/or impor-
tance of information, whether the text created a new
understanding in the readers mind, observations about
text structure and style, and the plausibility of informa-
tion. Personal reactions included explicit statements
about readers feeling and emotions, whether the text
was related to ones prior knowledge or personal experi-
ence, feelings of empathy with characters in the story,
and personal opinions and commentary. Examples of
each of the 13 subcategories are provided in Appendix B.
A subset of essays was analyzed in detail. Eight es-
says were selected from each of the high transactional/
high transmission, high transactional/low transmission,
low transactional/high transmission, low transactional/low
transmission categories. These essays were most prototyp-
ical of readers in each of the four categories; for example,
high transactional/low transmission essays maximized
scores on the transactional scale while minimizing scores
on the transmission scale. Each of these essays was scored
by the first author and a trained graduate assistant. The
correlation between scores using Cohens kappa was
k =.73, with differences being resolved in conference.
Procedure
Individuals participated in groups of 10 to 25 and
received identical instructions. All sessions were con-
ducted by a trained graduate student. There were no
time limits on any of the experimental tasks.
Individuals first completed the reader beliefs ques-
tionnaire described above. During the next stage, partici-
pants were given a five-page booklet that included
simple cover instructions and the Burning of Kuwait text.
The instructions specified that students should read the
story as carefully as possible in any way they chose.
Rereading and marking the text were allowed, although
students were not allowed to take notes. The average
completion time during this stage was approximately 10
minutes. After reading, but prior to the recall phase, indi-
viduals completed the 10-item reader response checklist.
Individuals were then asked to recall as much of the sto-
ry as possible. Once everyone had completed the free
recall task, individuals were given as much time as need-
ed to complete the reader response essay. All partici-
pants were debriefed following completion of the study.
R es ult s
Four separate analyses were performed. The first
examined the factor structure and internal consistency of
the Reader Belief Questionnaire. The second investigated
the relationship between implicit model scores and text
recall. The third considered the relationship between
implicit model scores and responses on the reader re-
sponse checklist. The fourth analysis consisted of a con-
tent analysis of prototypical responses in the four cate-
gories described above. All analyses were conducted at
the p <.05 level of significance unless otherwise noted.
Factor analyses of the Reader Belief Questionnaire
The Reader Belief Questionnaire was analyzed in
two ways, first using a principal factor analysis with an
oblique varimax rotation (i.e., correlated factors); sec-
ond, with a principal factor analysis with an orthogonal
varimax rotation (i.e., uncorrelated factors). The oblique
analysis specifically tested whether individual factors de-
rived in a multiple-factor solution were intercorrelated.
The results of both analyses found two uncorrelated fac-
tors (r = .03) that accounted for 69% of the sample vari-
ation. The factors in order of variance explained were:
transactional model (four items, eigenvalue = 1.60, vari-
ance explained = 40%) and transmission model (six
items, eigenvalue = 1.350, variance explained = 29%).
Factor loadings for individual variables are shown in
Table 2. The internal consistencies of each of the factors
using Cronbachs alpha were .76 and .81, respectively.
There were no other factors with eigenvalues in excess
of the traditional cut-off value of 1. Indeed, all other
factors (of a theoretically possible 14) accounted for less
variance combined than either of the two factors
described above.
These results led to two main findings. The first
was that the Reader Belief Questionnaire produced two
psychometrically reliable factors, one corresponding to
beliefs about the transactional model, and another corre-
sponding to beliefs about the transmission model. The
second was that beliefs about the two models were un-
correlated; thus, ones relative agreement with the as-
sumptions of the transactional model did not determine
whether one agreed with the assumptions of the trans-
mission model. Given these findings, we created nine
mutually exclusive categories in which each individuals
composite scores on the transactional and transmission
scales were classified as high, average, or low relative to
the entire groups ratings. Each person was designated as
belonging to one of the nine groups in the remaining
analyses.
Composite scores for each scale were constructed
by taking the mean rating for the four items loading on
Reader beliefs 297
the transactional scale (M = 3.71, SD = .51) and the six
items loading on the transmission scale (M = 2.80, SD =
.42). The transactional scale included items 5, 9, 11, and
14; the transmission scale included items 1, 4, 7, 10, 12,
and 13. Mean scores were used in subsequent analyses
rather than raw scores in order to make the range of
both scales equivalent. This eliminated the possibility
that one scale had greater predictive power simply be-
cause it had greater variability. Scores that were in ex-
cess plus or minus of one half standard deviation were
used as cutpoints to form the high, average, and low
categories for each scale.
The relationship between implicit models and
text recall
Means and standard deviations for total recall
scores (i.e., propositions plus modifiers) are shown in
Table 3. A 3 (transactional model: high, average, low) 3
3 (transmission model: high, average, low) ANOVA re-
vealed significant main effects for the transactional,
F (2, 147) = 3.91, MSE = 227.07, and transmission models,
F (2, 147) = 3.68. A comparison of marginal means for
the transactional model using protected t-tests (i.e., the
Bonferroni method with a equal to p <.018) showed that
the high-transactional group differed significantly from
the low-transactional group, while the average group did
not differ from either the high or low group. A post hoc
analysis of marginal means for transmission scores re-
vealed the reverse pattern. Low-transmission readers
recalled significantly more information than high-
transmission readers. The average group did not differ
from either the high or low group. Separate analyses
conducted on propositions and modifiers yielded identi-
cal results to the total recall score analysis. High-transac-
tional readers recalled more propositions and modifiers
than low-transactional readers. Low-transmission readers
recalled more propositions and modifiers than high-trans-
mission readers. The two-way interaction between the
transactional and transmission variables was not
significant.
We also performed a hierarchical multiple regres-
sion analysis to determine (a) in what order the transac-
tional and transmission variables entered the regression
equation and (b) how much sample variance each vari-
able explained. The transactional variable entered the
equation first, F (1, 154) = 10.57, MSr = 224.39, R
2
= .066.
The transmission variable entered the equation next,
F (2, 153) = 7.62, R
2
= .044. Both scales accounted for a
significant proportion of unique sample variation in total
recall; that is, scores on the transmission scale explained
additional variance over and above scores on the trans-
actional scale. This finding was consistent with the re-
sults of the factor analysis in that each scale explained
unique variation in propositional recall. It also reaffirmed
that readers hold beliefs about the two models simulta-
neously, that these beliefs are independent, and that
these beliefs relate to indices of reading performance in
different ways.
The relationship between implicit models and read-
er responses. Individuals completed the reader response
checklist after reading the story, but prior to recall. Of
the 10 items included on this checklist, three reached
statistical significance using a 3 (transactional model) 3 3
(transmission model) ANOVA. Questions pertaining to
the degree to which the story was suspenseful, persua-
sive, vivid and exciting, easy to picture in ones head,
meaningful, controversial, and interesting did not reach
significance. In contrast, there was a main effect for the
transactional model for both the The story contained lots
of action, F (2, 147) = 4.77, MSE = .918, and the The story
got me emotionally involved statements, F (2, 147) = 4.65,
MSE = .895. An analysis of marginal means for the action
variable found that the high-transactional group (M =
3.26, SD = .84) differed significantly from the average-
(M = 2.70, SD = 1.06) and low- (M = 2.78, SD = .94)
transactional groups, while the average and low groups
did not differ. An analysis of marginal means for the
emotionally involved variable found that the high-trans-
actional group (M = 3.83, SD = .91) differed significantly
from the average- (M = 3.35, SD = 1.00) and low- (M =
3.45, SD = .95) transactional groups, whereas the average
and low groups did not differ.
The statement The story was highly thought provok-
ing led to significant main effects for both the transac-
tional, F(2, 147) = 3.03, MSE = .419, and transmission
scales, F(2, 147) = 5.24. An analysis of marginal means
298 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY July/August/September 1996 31/3
Table 3 Means and standard deviations for total
recall scores
Transactional model
Low Average High
Transmission model
Low (n=10) (n=21) (n=16)
Mean 58.00 52.00 80.74
Standard deviation 22.61 18.72 24.76
Average (n=17) (n=28) (n=24)
Mean 56.11 72.43 64.82
Standard deviation 27.16 25.58 26.86
High (n=13) (n=16) (n=11)
Mean 46.47 49.62 65.09
Standard deviation 21.38 26.08 23.19
found that the high-transactional group (M = 3.92, SD =
.61) differed significantly from the average- (M = 3.68,
SD = .64) and low- (M = 3.49, SD = .64) transactional
groups, while the average and low groups did not differ.
In contrast, the low-transmission group (M = 4.12, SD =
.69) differed significantly from the average- (M = 3.72,
SD = .74) and high-transmission groups (M = 3.41, SD =
.68), whereas the average and high groups did not differ.
These findings suggested several conclusions. One
was that implicit models did not affect most of the re-
sponse dimensions included in the reader response
checklist. The fact that high transactional readers did not
find the story more interesting, vivid, or easy to picture
was surprising given their hypothesized predilection for
personalized engagement while reading. On the other
hand, high transactional readers did find the story signifi-
cantly more thought provoking and action packed.
Perhaps the most important finding was that high trans-
actional readers were significantly more likely to report
being emotionally involved with the story. This reader-
text interaction is assumed to be a critical component of
the transactional process by all reader response theorists
(Bogdan & Straw, 1990; Rosenblatt, 1993; Squire, 1994).
The relationship between implicit models and
essay responses
Eight essays from four groups (i.e., high transac-
tional/high transmission, high transactional/low transmis-
sion, low transactional/high transmission, low transac-
tional/low transmission) were analyzed in detail.
Individuals in these four categories were the most proto-
typical of these categories based on their transactional
and transmission scale scores. Statements included in the
reader response essays were broken down into meaning-
ful idea units (i.e., statements that expressed a single co-
herent idea) and assigned to one of the 13 mutually ex-
clusive subcategories described earlier. A 2 (transactional
model: low, high) 3 2 (transmission model: low, high) 3
3 (response type: text-based, critical evaluation, personal
reaction) repeated-measures ANOVA was performed in
which the transactional and transmission variables were
between-subjects variables and the response type vari-
able was repeated within-subjects. Means and standard
deviations for this analysis are shown in Table 4.
As expected, the main effect for the transactional
model reached significance, F (1, 26) = 16.01, MSE =
5.99. A comparison of marginal means indicated that this
difference was due to a greater total number of respons-
es among the high- (M = 5.48, SD = 3.48) compared to
the low-transactional group (M = 3.48, SD = 3.11).
Subsequent analyses found that neither group differed
when scores from the text-based inference category
were used as dependent variables. In contrast, the main
effect for the transactional model was significant when
the total number of critical evaluations and personal re-
sponses were used in separate analyses.
A significant main effect also was found for the re-
sponse type variable, F (2, 56) = 6.31, MSE = 15.39).
Protected t-tests (p < .018) indicated that text-based infer-
ences were reported significantly less than either critical
evaluations or personal responses, whereas there was no
difference between the latter subcategories. This out-
come revealed that essay responses consisted largely of
critical evaluations (38%) and personal reactions (43%)
to the text.
A separate analysis was performed on emotional
responses given their importance in distinguishing be-
tween high- and low-transactional readers. The main ef-
fect for the transactional variable reached significance,
F (1, 28) = 6.74, MSE = 1.67, indicating that high-
transactional readers (M = 1.83, SD = .61) produced
more emotional responses than low-transactional
Reader beliefs 299
Table 4 Means and standard deviations for essay
responses
Transactional model
Low High
Transmission model
Low M SD M SD
Rhetorical questions 1.63 2.07 .63 .75
Retelling 1.00 .54 1.13 .83
Elaborative inferences .25 .71 .63 1.78
Engagement 1.50 1.77 2.38 1.41
Description .50 .76 1.25 1.38
Relevance .63 .92 1.00 1.07
New understanding .25 .46 .25 .70
Text structure 1.00 1.60 2.50 1.78
Credibility .63 1.19 1.12 1.64
Emotions .25 .46 1.25 1.16
Relate to personal experience .25 .46 1.00 1.41
Empathy .63 1.40 1.31 1.25
Personal opinions 2.63 3.02 1.63 1.77
High
Rhetorical questions .50 .76 .63 1.06
Retelling .75 .71 1.13 .99
Elaborative inferences .63 .92 1.00 1.78
Engagement .75 1.75 1.50 1.41
Description .63 .92 1.38 1.51
Relevance .75 1.16 1.00 1.07
New understanding .00 .00 .63 .74
Text structure .38 .76 1.12 1.81
Credibility .00 . 00 .38 .75
Emotions 1.00 .76 2.37 2.14
Relate to personal experience .63 .75 .88 1.12
Empathy .38 .74 1.25 1.75
Personal opinions 3.13 2.17 2.50 2.26
readers (M = .63, SD = 1.61). Typical examples of high-
transactional responses included Reading about the
fires, sooty sky, and landmines really made me angry,
It made me very angry when the story said the war last-
ed only 42 days, and I cant believe that anyone could
do so much damage in only 42 days. Other high-trans-
actional readers were more blunt: It was a very sick and
devastating thing that happened in Kuwait.
Not only did high-transactional readers produce a
greater number of emotional reactions, their reactions
also appeared to be more intense. For example, high-
transactional readers reacted to information about the oil
spills as follows, When I read about the oil spills, I was
utterly disgusted and This story made me feel de-
pressed that the marine life had been destroyed by the
oil spills. In comparison, one low-transactional reader
reacted to the oil spills in the following way, In my
opinion, the oil spills and burnings were unnecessary.
In addition, most high-transactional readers ap-
peared to associate the storys overall effectiveness with
its ability to engage the reader emotionally. One reader
commented, The story was effective because it worked
peoples emotions. Another responded, Overall, my
opinion of the story is one of sadness. Ive seen tons of
news stories about Kuwait; however, it was different
reading about it in a way that made me feel part of it. It
just seemed more personal and up-front. A third high-
transactional reader stated, The story was a powerful
use of description used to startle the reader and place
him there.
In contrast, low-transactional readers tended to link
their personal responses to isolated facts included in the
story. One reader stated, I didnt care for the story. I
thought it was boring because it had no relevance to my
life. Others made a variety of statements indicative of
their disinclination to emotionally engage the text, in-
cluding Overall, I liked the story because it was more
interesting than my textbook and Im not sure what the
people left homeless, out of work, and hungry had to do
with the story.
These findings are important for several reasons.
One is that they corroborate the results of the Reader
Belief Questionnaire. Individuals who strongly endorsed
the transactional model prior to reading, and before they
even knew what they would read, responded to the story
from much the same perspective after reading. Presum-
ably, the Reader Belief Questionnaire provided a reliable
and valid measure of readers beliefs about the transac-
tional and transmission models. Second, essay responses
were in close agreement with the reader response check-
list, which reported that high-transactional readers found
the story to be more thought provoking and emotionally
charged than did low-transactional readers.
Third, the essays also revealed that high-transac-
tional readers made more critical as well as personal
statements about the text than did low-transactional
readers. This finding closely matches Rosenblatts (1993)
assumption that transactional readers engage in a wider
range of responses while reading. Readers presumably
accomplish this by emphasizing the constructive nature
of reading. In contrast, low-transactional readers showed
less evidence of personal engagement. This finding is
consistent with the idea that a strong belief in the trans-
mission model, when coupled with weak beliefs in the
transactional model, may decrease the number of what
Rosenblatt refers to as aesthetic responses.
A fourth difference was that high-transactional
readers appeared to be more intense about the kind of
personal experiences they had while reading. Often,
these reactions were pointed and deeply felt, as when
one person stated, Even if we could clean up all the
fiery oil wells, what about those who are sick and home-
less, and those who may have serious medical problems
the rest of their lives? The fact that some individuals
tended to be very intense in their personal reactions, and
that most of these individuals were very high on the
transactional scale, yet low on the transmission scale,
corresponds closely to the predictions made by reader
response theorists.
Overall, the essay responses strongly supported the
assertion that individuals who engage a text transaction-
ally experience more personal engagement with the text
that, in turn, leads to more empathy with text events and
characters and a greater sense of shared experience
(Rosenblatt, 1994; Squire, 1994). Yet, while high-
transactional readers responded to the text in a highly
personalized and aesthetic fashion, they also scrutinized
the content and quality of the text quite critically. These
findings indicated that a strong belief in the transactional
model increased the degree to which readers engaged in
both critical and aesthetic responses, whereas strong sup-
port for the transmission model tended to weaken or
preclude aesthetic engagement, but not critical respons-
es. These findings are important because they show that
high transactional readers do not sacrifice a critical analy-
sis of the text while they engage in aesthetic reactions.
Di s cus si o n
This study addressed four questions related to
adults implicit models of reading. These questions in-
cluded: (a) the degree to which readers beliefs were
consistent with the assumptions of the transmission and
transactional models of reading, (b) whether support for
one model was correlated with support for the other, (c)
whether support for either model was related to proposi-
300 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY July/August/September 1996 31/3
tional recall, and (d) whether support for either model
was related to engagement style and personal responses.
Scores from the Reader Belief Questionnaire pro-
duced two factors characterized by beliefs in the trans-
mission and transactional models. An analysis of items
loading on the transmission scale revealed a preference
for personal detachment, decontextualized interpretation
of the text, and the assumption that meaning resides in
the text and/or with the author rather than with reader-
based transactions. Items loading on the transactional
scale revealed a preference for affective engagement,
personal interpretations of the text, and shared experi-
ences with the texts events and characters.
Scores on the transmission and transactional scales
were independent, indicating that support for one model
was not linked to support for another. Some readers
showed strong support for both models, while others
showed low support for both. This enabled each reader
to adopt a unique model configuration, by which we
mean that each reader simultaneously held a distinctive
set of beliefs about two separate models of the reading
process. While two readers might strongly support the
transactional model, they might differ with respect to
their support for the transmission model. One of the
main goals of this study was to examine the relationship
between a readers model configuration and his/her un-
derstanding and appreciation of a typical expository text.
Our analysis of propositional recall and reader re-
sponses indicated that beliefs about each model con-
tributed separately to reading behaviors. Strong support
for the transactional model was related positively to text
recall; support for the transmission model was related
negatively to recall. From a statistical perspective, there
were no significant interactions in any of the analyses,
supporting our claim that beliefs about the transactional
and transmission models make separate contributions to
reading comprehension. Support for the transactional
model explained more variation in recall than support
for the transmission model. This relationship occurred
when either propositions, modifiers, or a composite
score based on both was used. Collectively, the two vari-
ables explained 11% of the total variation in recall.
Beliefs about the two models also were related to
reader engagement variables. Strong support for the
transactional model led to a greater number of critical
responses as predicted by reader response theory (cf.
Bogdan & Straw, 1990; Farrell & Squire, 1990;
Rosenblatt, 1993; Tompkins, 1980). Critical responses
ranged from comments regarding the texts structure and
organization to highly personal responses such as empa-
thy for text events and characters. Personal responses
were much more intense as well. In comparison, strong
support for the transmission model had a negative im-
pact on all aspects of the reading experience, including
fewer critical and personal responses. Personal respons-
es that did occur indicated that high-transmission readers
distanced themselves emotionally from the main events
and human implications of the text.
Taken collectively, these findings support the view
that readers bring a systematic collection of beliefs to the
reading task that affects their reading behaviors. We
have argued that these beliefs constitute an implicit
model of the reading process that places boundaries on
what readers view as legitimate response and interpreta-
tion (Bleich, 1980; Wineburg, 1991). Invoking a transac-
tional model positively affected understanding and
appreciation; invoking a transmission model negatively
affected them. We feel this finding is especially com-
pelling given that individuals read a technical, informa-
tionally dense text that invited a transmission-oriented
reading.
Our findings also suggested that implicit models of
the reading process are an integral component of each
readers epistemology of text, a term we use to denote
the collective knowledge, beliefs, and experiences read-
ers bring to the text. The present study supported the
view that when individuals engage a text from the per-
spective of a reader-centered, constructivist epistemolo-
gy, they generate more critical and personal responses
without sacrificing their understanding of important text
propositions. Indeed, as Wineburg (1991) has suggested,
those with a transactional epistemology were more likely
to engage a text, rather than merely process it.
These findings raise a number of questions about
the nature and acquisition of text epistemologies and the
role of implicit models. Although a comprehensive
analysis lies beyond the scope of this paper, we enumer-
ate four issues we consider to be especially important
for future research.
One concerns the origin and development of im-
plicit models. At least three different influences appear to
be at work in the construction of models, including ex-
periential, sociocultural, and formal instructional factors.
Harste et al. (1994) referred to these factors collectively
as the print setting. Presently, there is no empirical re-
search that we know of that systematically examines the
relationship among print setting variables and the con-
struction of implicit models. Like Harste et al., who sug-
gested that even preschoolers construct such models, we
assume that implicit models develop early and play an
important role throughout ones literacy development.
We further assume that beliefs about the transmission
and transactional models are transmitted through a vari-
ety of social and cultural influences, but especially by
parents and language arts educators (Thomson, 1993).
A closely related issue concerns the implicitness of
Reader beliefs 301
readers implicit models. In analogous research, Dweck
and Leggett (1988) found that older students and even
adults often have little specific awareness of the theories
and models they use to understand their world.
Researchers studying childrens theory of mind
(Astington, 1993) and the use of scientific theories
(Kuhn, 1989) have drawn a similar conclusion. This is
not to say that children and adults lack any explicit
awareness of their beliefs about reading. Rather, we be-
lieve that most readers do not have an explicit aware-
ness of the model that is implied by their system of
beliefs. Our own experiences suggest that classroom dis-
cussion of beliefs and models is rare, even in an era that
emphasizes constructive reading. One important avenue
for future research is to investigate the consequences of
explicit knowledge of ones model on reading compre-
hension and appreciation (see Richter, 1994, for a recent
discussion).
A third issue concerns the degree to which differ-
ent situational constraints affect the adoption of an im-
plicit model. Consistent with the transactional view, we
believe that readers, especially adults, invoke an implicit
model that is most compatible with their situational goals
(Hunt, 1993). In general, promoting transactional read-
ing, either as a free reading activity or as an experimen-
tal manipulation, should lead to a different kind of
reading than studying for a test. On the other hand, we
also believe that older readers bring to each reading
event a relatively stable system of beliefs that affects, but
does not completely determine, how they engage a text.
Earlier we referred to this system of beliefs as a model
configuration. Future research should investigate the rel-
ative flexibility of model configurations among younger
and older readers in a wide variety of settings.
A fourth issue concerns the relationship between
reading instruction and the development of implicit
models. Both popular wisdom and empirical research
suggest that reading instruction at all age levels often
portrays comprehension as an author- and/or text-
centered phenomenon (Applebee, 1990; Hunt, 1993;
Hynds, 1990; Thomson, 1993). Many educators have
found ways to provide an approach to literature more
supportive of transactional reading. These include plac-
ing an emphasis on imaging, relating story information
to personal experiences, and allowing students to
choose reading materials (Galda, 1992; Moffett, 1990;
Zarillo & Cox, 1992). Other strategies include activating
prior knowledge (Tierney & Pearson, 1994), facilitating
student dialogues (Cox & Many, 1992; Moll, 1994), jour-
naling (Thomson, 1993), emphasizing hypothesis testing
(Harste et al., 1994), and above all, promoting a sense of
personal ownership (Miall, 1993) and individual re-
sponse (Rosenblatt, 1993).
From an instructional perspective, we believe older
(and perhaps younger) students may benefit from explic-
it discussion of reading models, although others would
disagree with this point (cf. Dias, 1990). This discussion
should lead to both group and personal reflection on the
role of the reader in the reading process (Straw, 1990;
Willinsky, 1993), and should explore natural linkages be-
tween implicit models and other kinds of knowledge
and beliefs (e.g., literary conventions, text genres) that
readers bring to the text (Beach & Brown, 1987). We be-
lieve that comparing the transmission, translation, and
transactional models is an essential step in the develop-
ment of an explicit epistemology of text, which, in turn,
is essential for effective transactional reading.
Last, let us reiterate some of the potential limitations
of an exploratory study such as this. One is that individu-
als (i.e., college undergraduates) participated in a highly
controlled study that may have affected their responses.
Ironically, we believe this arrangement may have restrict-
ed our findings. A true random sample of all readers
would be expected to increase the variability between
prototypical transmission and transactional readers.
A second limitation is the validity of the Reader
Belief Questionnaire. Our initial findings suggest it was
reliable and possessed an acceptable degree of predic-
tive and convergent validity. Of course, future studies
may choose to use an expanded version of the instru-
ment that distinguishes among the three models de-
scribed earlier (see also Bogdan & Straw, 1990).
A third limitation is the fact that the transactional
and transmission factors explained only 11% of the sam-
ple variation in the experimental passage. One reason is
that this passage is a technical expository text, despite its
occasional narrative qualities. A second reason is that
propositional recall was fairly low for all groups, typical-
ly around 30 to 40% of all possible units. Texts that are
easier to read may lead to different findings than those
reported here.
REFERENCES
AJZEN, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Milton Keynes,
England: Open University Press.
AMES, C., & ARCHER, J. (1988). Achievement in the classroom:
Student learning strategies and motivational processes. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 80, 260267.
APPLEBEE, A.N. (1990). Fostering literary understanding: The state
of the schools. In E.J. Farrell & J.R. Squire (Eds.), Transactions with liter-
ature (pp. 5964). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
ASTINGTON, J.W. (1993). The childs discovery of mind.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
ATHEY, I. (1985). Reading research in the affective domain. In H.
Singer & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of read-
ing (3rd ed., pp. 527553). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
BEACH, R. (1990). New directions in response to literature. In E.J.
302 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY July/August/September 1996 31/3
Farrell & J.R. Squire (Eds.), Transactions with literature (pp. 6578).
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
BEACH, R., & BROWN, R. (1987). Discourse conventions and liter-
ary inference: Toward a theoretical model. In R.J. Tierney, P.L. Anders,
& J. Mitchell (Eds.), Understanding readers understanding (pp.
147173). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
BEREITER, C., & SCARDAMALIA, M. (1987). The psychology of writ-
ten composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
BLEICH, D. (1980). Epistemological assumptions in the study of re-
sponse. In J. Tompkins (Ed.), Reader-response criticism: From formal-
ism to post-structuralism (pp. 134163). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
BLUMENFELD, P.C. (1992). Classroom learning and motivation:
Clarifying and expanding goal theory. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84, 272281.
BOGDAN, D. (1990). In and out of love with literature. In D.
Bogdan & S. Straw (Eds.), Beyond communication: Reading compre-
hension and criticism (pp. 109138). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
BOGDAN, D., & STRAW, S. (Eds.). (1990). Beyond communication:
Reading comprehension and criticism. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
BOVAIR, S., & KIERAS, D.E. (1985). A guide to propositional analy-
sis for research on technical prose. In B.K. Britton & J.B. Black (Eds.),
Understanding expository text (pp. 315362). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
BRITTON, J.N. (1982). Prospect and retrospect. Montclair, NJ:
Boynton/Cook.
CAREY, R.F., & HARSTE, J.C. (1987). Comprehension as context:
Toward reconsideration of a transactional theory of reading. In R.J.
Tierney, P.L. Anders, & J. Mitchell (Eds.), Understanding readers un-
derstanding (pp. 189204). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
COX, C., & MANY, J. (1992). Beyond choosing: Emergent cate-
gories of efferent and aesthetic stance. In J. Many & C. Cox (Eds.),
Reader stance and literary understanding: Exploring the theories, re-
search and practice (pp. 103126). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
DIAS, P. (1990). A literary-response perspective on teaching read-
ing comprehension. In D. Bogdan & S. Straw (Eds.), Beyond commu-
nication: Reading comprehension and criticism (pp. 283300).
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
DOLE, J.A., & SINATRA, G.A. (1994). Social psychology research
on beliefs and attitudes: Implications for research on learning from
text. In R. Garner & P.A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and in-
struction with text (pp. 245265). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
DWECK, C.S., & LEGGETT, E.S. (1988). A social-cognitive approach
to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256273.
ELMER-DEWITT, P. (1991, March 31). The burning of Kuwait.
Time, 137, 3637.
FARRELL, E.J., & SQUIRE, J.R. (Eds.). (1990). Transactions with lit-
erature. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
FISH, S.E. (1980). Interpreting the Variorum. In J. Tompkins (Ed.),
Reader-response criticism: From formalism to post-structuralism (pp.
164184). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
GALDA, L. (1992). Evaluation as a spectator: Changing across time
and genre. In J. Many & C. Cox (Eds.), Reader stance and literary un-
derstanding: Exploring the theories, research and practice (pp.
127142). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
GAMBELL, T.J. (1993). From experience to literary response:
Actualizing readers through the response process. In S. Straw & D.
Bogdan (Eds.), Constructive reading: Teaching beyond communica-
tion (pp. 3045). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
GUTHRIE, J.T., SCHAFFER, W., WANG, Y.Y., & AFFLERBACH, P.
(1995). Relationships of instruction to amount of reading: An explo-
ration of social, cognitive, and instructional connections. Reading
Research Quarterly, 30, 825.
HARSTE, J.C., BURKE, C.L., & WOODWARD, V.A. (1994).
Childrens language and world: Initial encounters with print. In R.B.
Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and
processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 4869). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
HUNT, R.A. (1990). The parallel socialization of reading research
and literary theory. In D. Bogdan & S. Straw (Eds.), Beyond communi-
cation: Reading comprehension and criticism (pp. 91105).
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
HUNT, R.A. (1993). Texts, textoids and utterances: Writing and
reading for meaning, in and out of classrooms. In S. Straw & D.
Bogdan (Eds.), Constructive reading: Teaching beyond communica-
tion (pp. 113129). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
HYNDS, S. (1990). Reading as a social event. In D. Bogdan & S.
Straw (Eds.), Beyond communication: Reading comprehension and
criticism (pp. 237256). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
ISER, W. (1978). The act of reading: A theory of aesthetic response.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
KUHN, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists.
Psychological Review, 96, 674689.
MANY, J.E., & WISEMAN, D.L. (1992). The effect of teaching ap-
proach on third-grade students response to literature. Journal of
Reading Behavior, 24, 265288.
MATHEWSON, G.C. (1994). Model of attitude influence upon read-
ing and learning to read. In R.B. Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell, & H. Singer
(Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp.
11311161). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
MIALL, D.S. (1993). Constructing understanding: Emotion and liter-
ary response. In S. Straw & D. Bogdan (Eds.), Constructive reading:
Teaching beyond communication (pp. 6381). Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
MOFFETT, J. (1990). Ways of teaching literature. In D. Bogdan &
S. Straw (Eds.), Beyond communication: Reading comprehension and
criticism (pp. 301318). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
MOLL, L.C. (1994). Literacy research in communities and class-
rooms: A sociocultural approach. In R.B. Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell, & H.
Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp.
179207). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
RICHTER, D.H. (1994). Falling into theory: Conflicting views of
reading literature. Boston, MA: Bedford Books.
ROSENBLATT, L.M. (1993). The reader, the text, the poem: The
transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern
Illinois University Press.
ROSENBLATT, L.M. (1994). The transactional theory of reading and
writing. In R.B. Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical
models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 10571091). Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
SCHRAW, G., & MOSHMAN, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories.
Educational Psychology Review, 7, 351371.
SHELL, D.F., MURPHY, C.C., & BRUNING, R.H. (1989). Self-
efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 91100.
SQUIRE, J.R. (1994). Research in reader response, naturally inter-
disciplinary. In R.B. Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.),
Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 637652).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
STRAW, S. (1990). Challenging communication. In D. Bogdan & S.
Straw (Eds.), Beyond communication: Reading comprehension and
criticism (pp. 6790). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
STRAW, S., & BOGDAN, D. (Eds.) (1993). Constructive reading:
Teaching beyond communication. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
THOMSON, J. (1993). Helping students control texts:
Contemporary literary theory into classroom practice. In S. Straw & D.
Bogdan (Eds.), Constructive reading: Teaching beyond communica-
Reader beliefs 303
304 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY July/August/September 1996 31/3
APPENDI X A
Each time a person reads a story, he or she has
some kind of personal reaction to it. In this part, we
want you to describe your personal response to the sto-
ry The Burning of Kuwait. First we want you to reread
the story. Next we want you to write a two-page de-
scription of your response. Please try to describe
(a) what it was about the story that affected you, and
(b) what kind of thoughts and emotions it evoked in
you. Dont worry about whether your response is correct
or not; there are no right or wrong answers. Please be in-
formal; we are most interested in what you experienced
when you read the story. Everything you write is com-
pletely anonymous, so dont worry about being candid.
tion (pp. 130154). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
TIERNEY, R.J., LAZANSKY, J., RAPHAEL, T., & COHEN, P. (1987).
Authors intention and readers interpretations. In R.J. Tierney, P.L.
Anders, & J. Mitchell (Eds.), Understanding readers understanding
(pp. 205225). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
TIERNEY, R.J., & PEARSON, P.D. (1994). Learning to learn from
text: A framework for improving classroom practice. In R.B. Ruddell,
M.R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of
reading (4th ed., pp. 496513). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
TOMPKINS, J.P. (Ed.). (1980). Reader-response criticism: From for-
malism to post-structuralism. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
VIPOND, D., & HUNT, R.A. (1984). Point-driven understanding:
Pragmatic and cognitive dimensions of literary reading. Poetics, 13,
261277.
WADE, S.E., THOMPSON, A., & WATKINS, W. (1994). The role of
belief systems in authors and readers constructions of text. In R.
Garner & P.A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction with
text (pp. 265294). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
WEBER, R.P. (1985). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
WILLINSKY, J. (1993). Beyond actualization. In S. Straw & D.
Bogdan (Eds.), Constructive reading: Teaching beyond communica-
tion (pp. 114). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
WINEBURG, S.S. (1991). On the reading of historical texts: Notes
on the breach between school and academy. American Educational
Research Journal, 28, 495520.
ZARILLO, J., & COX, C. (1992). Efferent and aesthetic teaching. In
J. Many & C. Cox (Eds.), Reader stance and literary understanding:
Exploring the theories, research and practice (pp. 235249). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
ZWANN, R.A. (1994). Effect of genre expectations on text compre-
hension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 20, 920933.
Received May 12, 1995
Final revision received September 26, 1995
Accepted October 2, 1995
Reader beliefs 305
APPENDI X B
Representative statements in each of the 13 subcategories
Text-based inferences
1. Rhetorical questions: Did we (America) get what we
wanted in the end?
2. Retellings: The story says there are burning wells and
negative environmental effects.
3. Elaborative inferences: The problems in Kuwait were
due to the ego of a powerful man.
Critical evaluations
4. Engagement: I became quite interested in this article
due to the first paragraph.
5. Descriptiveness: The vivid, descriptive words made it
easy to envision this.
6. Relevance of information: The story was full of impor-
tant information.
7. New understanding: The story made me aware of
problems with the food chain. I had not thought of
these before.
8. Text structure/style: I thought the style was very dif-
ferent because it incorporated the descriptiveness of
fiction, while discussing a nonfictitious subject.
9. Credibility: I do not know whether I can trust the
author.
Personal reactions
10. Emotions: The article made me feel angry and
despondent.
11. Relate to life: I sympathize with the firefighters be-
cause thats what my father does for a living.
12. Empathy: Many innocent people and animals be-
came victims.
13. Personal opinion: Saddam Hussein should be pun-
ished for what he did.