ArticlePerspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science2023
The Myth of Normal Reading.
Article in Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- How we should measure orthographic depth: Or should we?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Review
- Reading and skimming clinical information: insights from experiments examining medical students' eye movement behaviour.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- The Enhanced Literate Mind Hypothesis.Topics in cognitive science · 2025Article
- Adieu Bias: Debiasing Intuitions Among French Speakers.Psychologica Belgica · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We argue that the educational and psychological sciences must embrace the diversity of reading rather than chase the phantom of normal reading behavior. We critically discuss the research practice of asking participants in experiments to read "normally." We then draw attention to the large cross-cultural and linguistic diversity around the world and consider the enormous diversity of reading situations and goals. Finally, we observe that people bring a huge diversity of brains and experiences to the reading task. This leads to four implications: First, there are important lessons for how to conduct psycholinguistic experiments; second, we need to move beyond Anglocentric reading research and produce models of reading that reflect the large cross-cultural diversity of languages and types of writing systems; third, we must acknowledge that there are multiple ways of reading and reasons for reading, and none of them is normal or better or a "gold standard"; and fourth, we must stop stigmatizing individuals who read differently and for different reasons, and there should be increased focus on teaching the ability to extract information relevant to the person's goals. What is important is not how well people decode written language and how fast people read but what people comprehend given their own stated goals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.