Publications

Abstract

Experimental psychologists and psycholinguists increasingly turn to online research for data collection due to the ease of sampling many diverse participants in parallel. Online research has shown promising validity and consistency, but is it suitable for all paradigms? Specifically, is it reliable enough for individual differences research? The current paper reports performance on 15 tasks from a psycholinguistic individual differences battery, including timed and untimed assessments of linguistic abilities, as well as domain-general skills. From a demographically homogenous sample of young Dutch people, 149 participants participated in the lab study, and 515 participated online. Our results indicate that there is no reason to assume that participants tested online will underperform compared to lab-based testing, though they highlight the importance of motivation and the potential for external help (e.g., through looking up answers) online. Overall, we conclude that there is reason for optimism in the future of online research into individual differences.

Abstract

Individual differences in cognitive abilities are ubiquitous across the spectrum of proficient language users. Although speakers differ with regard to their memory capacity, ability for inhibiting distraction, and ability to shift between different processing levels, comprehension is generally successful. However, this does not mean it is identical across individuals; listeners and readers may rely on different processing strategies to exploit distributional information in the service of efficient understanding. In the following psycholinguistic reading experiment, we investigate potential sources of individual differences in the processing of co-occurring words. Participants read modifier-noun bigrams like absolute silence in a self-paced reading task. Backward transition probability (BTP) between the two lexemes was used to quantify the prominence of the bigram as a whole in comparison to the frequency of its parts. Of five individual difference measures (processing speed, verbal working memory, cognitive inhibition, global-local scope shifting, and personality), two proved to be significantly associated with the effect of BTP on reading times. Participants who could inhibit a distracting global environment in order to more efficiently retrieve a single part and those that preferred the local level in the shifting task showed greater effects of the co-occurrence probability of the parts. We conclude that some participants are more likely to retrieve bigrams via their parts and their co-occurrence statistics whereas others more readily retrieve the two words together as a single chunked unit.