1

Do Everyday Reading Activities Promote Adults' Cognitive Development?

M Cecil Smith Kenneth S. Elliott

Kim M. Hutchinson

Department of Educational Psychology, Counseling, & Special Education

Northern Illinois University

DeKalb, IL 60115

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, October 14, 1994

Running head: READING ACTIVITIES

DRAFT: Do not quote without permission.

2

Do Everyday Reading Activities Promote Adults' Cognitive Development?

Abstract

It has been widely assumed that reading bestows cognitive benefits, but there is little empirical evidence to

support this assumption. Recent research has demonstrated that it is likely that adults' who read acquire certain

cognitive advantages over non-readers. Our study examined the relationship between everyday reading practices

and cognitive abilities in more detail. Adults kept a structured diary, the Reading Activity Method, and recorded

their reading practices for a five-day period. They also completed several tasks deemed to be measures of cognitive

abilities. Comparisons were made between high-exposure and low-exposure readers on the cognitive tasks to

determine the effects of reading practice on cognitive ability. No differences were found. However, given the

robust nature of our volunteer sample, the dependent measures may not be sensitive enough to discern differences

in adult readers' cognitive abilities. Nonetheless the Reading Activity Method offers great potential for

determining principles of expertise regarding reading practices among literate adults.

3

Interest in the everyday reading activities of literate adults has a lengthy history in the study of the

psychology of literacy (Gray & Monroe 1929; Gray & Rogers, 1956; Guthrie & Greaney, 1991). This interest has

manifested itself in studies which examine how adults use their literacy skills in order to accomplish a variety of

tasks that involve reading, such as acquiring knowledge, relaxing with leisure activities, solving work-related

tasks, and becoming informed, participating citizens. Other studies have examined the extent of, and variability

in, adults’ everyday reading activities (Guthrie, Seifert, & Kirsch, 1986). This research has not been concerned,

however, with determining if any relationship exists between reading practices and cognitive growth.

Although it is widely assumed that reading bestows cognitive benefits (i.e., "the more you read, the more

you know"), there is little empirical evidence available which verifies this assumption (West, Stanovich, &

Mitchell, 1993). Keith Stanovich and his colleagues have conducted a series of clever studies testing what has

come to be known as the exposure hypothesis. Their view is that widespread exposure to print results in cognitive

gains which can be measured through a relatively simple methodology involving recognition of information (e.g.,

authors of popular books) found in print sources, such as magazines, novels, and books.

West et al. (1993) administered several such measures to 217 adults who were identified, through

naturalistic observation in an airport waiting area, as readers (i.e., were observed to read, while waiting, for 10

consecutive minutes) or nonreaders (i.e., did not read while waiting). Observed subjects were then approached and

asked to complete the checklists. Persons judged to be readers significantly outperformed nonreaders on measures

associated with reading (e.g., author, magazine, and newspaper recognition tasks). There were no differences on

measures of exposure to TV or movies. Also, readers were superior to nonreaders on vocabulary and general

knowledge measures; these differences held even after the effects of age and education were removed via regression

analyses. These findings demonstrate that simply being a reader makes a difference in terms of enhancing the

individual's literacy skills. Note, however, that there was no evidence as to the extent of the readers' engagement

in reading practices on a regular, daily basis.

Based upon Stanovich's research paradigm, we are currently carrying out a study which examines the

relationship between everyday reading practices and cognitive abilities. In this study, adults keep a structured

diary of their reading practices for a five-day period. The reading diaries make it possible to examine reading

practices in far greater detail than in the West et al. investigation, and to distinguish between high- and low-

activity readers on a variety of measures. In addition, Ss completed several of the recognition tasks developed by

Stanovich et al. Comparisons were then made between high-activity and low-activity readers on the recognition

tasks to determine the effects of practice on cognitive ability.

Our previous research (Smith & Stahl, 1993) used essentially the same data collection methodology as in

the current study and examined (a) the effects of context (e.g., work, school, leisure) on adults' reading practices

and (b) educational and occupational differences in reading practices. Study 1, however, did not examine the

hypothesized relationship between reading practices and cognitive growth. Findings from the current study were

anticipated to both confirm the findings from Study 1 and provide further insights into the relationship between

reading and cognitive development in adulthood.

4

Methodology

The distinguishing feature of the current study is that it utilizes a data collection method which avoids

retrospective sampling of reading activities and inferences as to the extent of a person's reading practices. The

Reading Activity Method (RAM) employs structured diaries to gather information on adults' reading practices

nearly simultaneous with their occurrence. This method is adopted from time use studies in sociology (Robinson,

1985). Four samples have been obtained to date in the present study; data from Samples 1 and 2 will be reported

in this paper.

Sample

Two samples consisting of a total of 74 adult volunteers, ages 20-76 years, were subjects in this study.

There were 52 females and 22 males in the study. The subjects were primarily white and middle-class. While

median educational attainment equaled 15.5 years of schooling, a broad diversity of occupations was represented.

Sample 1 was obtained in Spring 1993 with 42 Ss. Sample 2 was obtained in Summer 1993 with 32 Ss. Subjects

were recruited by graduate students in educational research methods courses. Each student requested the

participation of two adults between the ages of 18 and 98, in good health, and from diverse occupational

backgrounds and educational attainment levels.

Instruments

Reading diary. The Reading Activity Method (RAM) diary is structured so that Ss can record their

reading activities "on-line" on a daily, hour-by-hour basis. The RAM diary contains data forms which are color-

coded to correspond to four six-hour periods during a single day (e.g., 6:01 am to 12:00 pm: pink form). These

data forms consist of clearly marked rows (individual hours of the day, e.g., 6:01 am-7:00 am) and columns in

which Ss record the following information for each reading event:

(1) source of material read (e.g., correspondence, magazine, book);

(2) setting (i.e., where reading occurs: work, school, library, home);

(3) reading time (i.e., number of minutes spent reading each source);

(4) reading volume (i.e., number of pages read for each source);

(5) purpose for reading each source (e.g., for work, school, leisure; personal, and miscellaneous);

(6) effort at reading (rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale: 5="very much effort"; 1="very little, or no,

effort");

(7) strategies for learning and remembering (i.e., any strategies or memory aids which assist in learning

information to be remembered for later use, such as at work or for a test);

(8) enjoyment of reading (i.e., on a 5-point Likert-type scale, 5="very enjoyable"; 1="very unenjoyable").

Ss completed a reading attitude measure, the Adult Survey of Reading Attitudes, in order to examine the

relationship of Ss’ affective states regarding reading with their reading activities. It was expected that Ss with

more positive feelings about reading would be likely to spend more time reading, and to read more texts, than those

Ss with negative attitudes.

Cognitive ability measures. Finally, Ss completed five checklists taken from a study by West, Stanovich,

5

& Mitchell (1993). The purpose of the checklists is to assess Ss' "cultural literacy" taken as an index of their world

knowledge or, more roughly, cognitive ability. Each checklist contained 25-45 items and asked Ss to identify those

items (e.g., book authors, magazine titles, big-city newspapers, well-known persons, and vocabulary words) which

they knew to be correct. The five checklists were the Author Recognition Test, Magazine Recognition Test,

Newspaper Recognition Test, Name Recognition Test, and Vocabulary Recognition Test. Each list contained

several foils (e.g., fictional magazine titles) to guard against guessing. Further information regarding development

of the checklists and psychometric properties can be found in West et al. (1993). The West et al. investigation

demonstrated that a positive relationship exists between print exposure and cognitive ability; however, the

researchers did not examine adults' reading practices in detail, but rather identified Ss as "readers" based upon a

10-minute observation of adults waiting in an airport terminal.

Procedures

Instructions for completing the RAM diary were provided for each S. Ss were asked to record reading

practices for five consecutive days, or for any five days over a 10-14 day period. The reading attitude measure and

checklists could be completed at any time during the data collection period. Graduate students were liaisons

between the researcher and Ss; the students distributed the RAM diaries, answered participants' questions about

data recording procedures, and returned the completed diaries.

Results

The reading practices of the sample will be reported first. These data provide an examination of the

kinds, and extent, of reading practices among the sample. Then, results from a comparison of two groups derived

from the sample--high exposure and low-exposure readers--will be reported. The purpose here was to determine if

there were differences between these two groups of adults on the recognition tasks that served as proxy measures of

cognitive ability.

Reading Practices

Ss' reading practices were examined to determine the diversity of print sources which adults read. These

contents were coded into one of 11 source categories:

1) correspondence (e.g., letters, memos);

2) functional (texts read to acquire information to perform a task; e.g., recipe);

3) informational (texts read to acquire information to learn something; e.g.,

pamphlets and brochures);

4) periodicals/journals/newspapers;

5) textbooks and school materials;

6) general books/novels;

7) leisure/entertainment/hobby/avocation (e.g., crossword puzzles, horoscope);

8) religious/spiritual/self-development;

9) children's schoolbooks/storybooks/homework;

6

10) teaching materials and workbooks (e.g., grade lists, lesson plans, tests)

11) consumer (e.g., checkbooks, contracts and loans, insurance policies).

Subjects average reading time per source was highest for general books and novels, M=36.48 (s.d.=24.26). That is,

for each occurrence of reading a book or novel, Ss spent over one-half hour reading. This was significantly greater

than the average time per source for correspondence, functional and informational texts, periodicals and

newspapers, religious materials, and children's books, F(10, 376)=9.62, p < .001. The least amount of time was

spent reading correspondence: Ss averaged 12.63 minutes (s.d.=8.72) reading for each correspondence source

reported.

Ss' average volume of reading per source (i.e., number of pages read) was also highest for books

(M=35.51; s.d.=34.65), which was significantly greater than all other sources, F(10, 366)=8.16, p < .01. No other

sources differed from one another on average reading volume.

Periodicals and newspapers were the source read by the largest percentage of Ss: 73 of 74 Ss (99%)

reported reading these sources. On the other hand, only nine Ss (12%) reported reading consumer sources, such as

their checkbook or bank statements. It may be that Ss are more likely to report reading newspapers rather than

their checkbook in the RAM diaries, however.

Reading practices were most likely to occur at home; 73 Ss (99%) reported doing at least some reading

(minimum = 1 reading event) at home. Reading at work was also common; 52 Ss (70%) reported some reading

occurred in this setting. There were no significant mean differences in time spent reading between any settings,

however.

The most reported purpose for reading was for functional/information/consumer purposes; 71 Ss (96%)

reported at least some reading to fulfill this purpose. Leisure reading was also a common purpose; 69 Ss (93%)

reported at least some reading for fun and relaxation. Ss average reading time for leisure was significantly greater

than for functional/informational/consumer purposes, d.f.=5, 240, F= 5.22, p < .01. Finally, work-related reading

purposes were reported by 55 Ss (74%).

Group Differences

Next, we attempted to control for the confounding problems of alternative hypotheses (high- and low-

exposure readers may differ in a number of ways) by employing regression analyses to control for the effects of age,

education, and occupation on cognitive abilities. A series of hierarchical regression analyses were conducted and

the five recognition tasks were the dependent variables in each analysis. West et al. (1993) noted that it is likely

that differences in print exposure may be found among a group of individuals with the same levels of reading

ability. These differences in exposure to print may result in cognitive differences as well. Their research

demonstrated these effects among adults who were observed to be either readers or non-readers. In our research,

we attempted to take this observation to the next level by determining if such cognitive differences can be found

among those adults who read. We speculated that there would be variability in reading practices resulting in two

somewhat distinct groups: high-exposure readers and low-exposure readers.

Readers were identified as high-exposure or low-exposure in the following manner. A reading activity

index (RAI) score was determined by dividing each Ss' total reading volume (i.e., number of pages read) by total

7

reading time and multiplying the sum by the number of reading events that each S reported. The 26 Ss who scored

above the mean (22.0, s.d.=18.6) were the high-exposure group; the remaining 48 Ss were the low-exposure group.

Table 1 presents the mean scores for the two groups on the reading attitudes measure (ASRA) and the five

recognition tasks. We wondered if differences would be found between high- and low-exposure adult readers on

these measures. A series of t-tests confirmed that there were significant differences on the ASRA, favoring the

high-exposure group, t = -2.14, df = 1, 72, p < .05,but no differences were found on any of the recognition tasks.

Discussion

Thus far in our study we are unable to distinguish high-exposure and low-exposure adult readers on

cognitive outcomes presumed to be related to how extensively people read. The study is not complete, however,

and additional data and analyses from the remaining samples may provide more positive results to support the

findings of West et al. (1993).

The adults in the current sample spent more time reading books and read more volume in books than

among other printed source materials. More adults in the sample read periodicals, such as newspapers, than other

materials, however. Most reading occurred at home, rather than at work. It may be that reading which results in

intellectual stimulation is more common in the workplace than in other settings. Future analyses of the data will

examine cognitive effects of workplace versus home reading.

Despite the disappointing outcomes regarding cognitive effects, the study documents an effective method

for obtaining data on adults' everyday reading practices. Time use studies, while widely used in sociology

(Robinson, 1977) have only rarely been used in psychological research. Diaries have been criticized because the

data they yield may not be valid. We are currently conducting a series of validity studies which we are confident

will demonstrate that valid reading behavior data can be obtained through this methodology.

A prerequisite to understanding the full impact of reading upon cognitive abilities is to learn how adults

select and distribute their reading practices, for what purposes, and under what conditions. A goal of our research

is to articulate the particular principles which account for expert reading practices among adult literates, and to

describe how such practices contribute to adult development. RAM allows us to look carefully at the behaviors of

expert and inexpert readers engaged in ecologically valid literacy activities and to evaluate outcomes related to

these activities.

The recently completed National Assessment of Adult Literacy (Kirsch, Jungeblat, Jenkins, & Kolstad,

1993) found that many American adults have difficulty with a variety of everyday reading literacy tasks. One

criticism of this national assessment is that many of the so-called functional literacy tasks which were devised for

the NALS do not adequately capture adults' real-life reading requirements. The Reading Activity Method

employed in the current study is useful for shedding light on adults' actual reading activities. RAM offers a

potentially useful tool for the dynamic assessment of adults' reading skills and activities across a variety of

contexts, abilities, and characteristics.

8

References

Gray, W.S., & Monroe, R. (1929). The reading interests and habits of adults. New York: Macmillan.

Gray, W.S., & Rogers, B. (1956). Maturity in reading: Its nature and appraisal. Chicago:

The University of Chicago Press.

Guthrie, J., & Greaney, V. (1991). Literacy acts. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.),

Handbook of reading, Vol. 2 (pp. 68-96). New York: Longman.

Guthrie, J.T., Seifert, M., & Kirsch, I.S. (1986). Effects of education, occupation, and setting on reading practices.

American Educational Research Journal, 23, 151-160.

Kirsch, I., Jungeblut, A., Jenkins, L., & Kolstad, A. (1993). Adult literacy in America. Washington, D.C.:

National Center for Education Statistics.

Robinson, J.P. (1977). How Americans use time. New York: Praeger.

Robinson, J.P. (1985). The validity and reliability of diaries versus alternative time use measures. In F.T. Juster

& F.P. Stafford (Eds.), Time, goods, and well-being (pp. 33-61). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social

Research, The University of Michigan.

Smith, M C., & Stahl, N.A. (1993, April). Adults' reading practices and activities: Age, educational, and

occupational effects. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research

Association. New Orleans, LA.

West, R.F., Stanovich, K.E., & Mitchell, H.R. (1993). Reading in the real world and its correlates. Reading

Research Quarterly, 28, 34-50.

9

Table 1. Results of Group Comparisons for Cognitive Variables.

Dependent

Variable

High Exposure

Mean (s.d.)

Low Exposure

Mean (s.d.)

t value p

ASRA 161.04

(24.02)

147.10

(28.08)

-2.14 .036*

ART 62.65

(24.36)

58.94

(25.24)

-.61 .54

MRT 64.73

(26.96)

69.75

(19.95)

.91 .37

NRT 45.38

(17.23)

42.77

(15.90)

-.66 .51

NaRT 73.96

(20.00)

67.65

(17.63)

-1.40 .17

VRT 63.27

(20.82)

62.19

(19.88)

-.22 .83

Key: ASRA: Adult Survey of Reading Attitudes

ART: Author Recognition Test

MRT: Magazine Recognition Test

NRT: Newspaper Recognition Test

NaRT: Names Recognition Test

VRT: Vocabulary Recognition Test