Scholarlink

<p>Reading motivation has traditionally been assessed through self-report measures capturing conscious attitudes, yet emerging dual-process theories suggest that automatic implicit associations may operate independently from deliberative explicit orientations. This study examined implicit-explicit dissociations in reading motivation among 132 university students using Implicit Association Tests, self-report questionnaires, eye-tracking methodology, and behavioral observation. Results revealed modest correlation between implicit and explicit motivation (<i>r</i> = 0.24), with 57% of participants exhibiting notable dissociations. Eye-tracking data demonstrated that implicit motivation predicted attentional bias toward reading materials more strongly than explicit motivation across multiple metrics (first fixation duration, total fixation duration, fixation count). Critically, implicit-explicit dissociations predicted corresponding attention-behavior inconsistencies: individuals with conflicting motivational orientations showed mismatches between automatic attentional capture and subsequent voluntary reading engagement. Mediation analyses indicated that attentional bias partially mediated implicit motivation’s effects on behavior. These findings challenge assumptions of motivational coherence and demonstrate that comprehensive understanding of reading engagement requires assessing both automatic and deliberative motivational processes.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Reading motivation’s hidden divide: eye-tracking evidence of implicit-explicit dissociations and their attentional consequences

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月1日

查看全文
  • Shengjun Ding

摘要

Reading motivation has traditionally been assessed through self-report measures capturing conscious attitudes, yet emerging dual-process theories suggest that automatic implicit associations may operate independently from deliberative explicit orientations. This study examined implicit-explicit dissociations in reading motivation among 132 university students using Implicit Association Tests, self-report questionnaires, eye-tracking methodology, and behavioral observation. Results revealed modest correlation between implicit and explicit motivation (r = 0.24), with 57% of participants exhibiting notable dissociations. Eye-tracking data demonstrated that implicit motivation predicted attentional bias toward reading materials more strongly than explicit motivation across multiple metrics (first fixation duration, total fixation duration, fixation count). Critically, implicit-explicit dissociations predicted corresponding attention-behavior inconsistencies: individuals with conflicting motivational orientations showed mismatches between automatic attentional capture and subsequent voluntary reading engagement. Mediation analyses indicated that attentional bias partially mediated implicit motivation’s effects on behavior. These findings challenge assumptions of motivational coherence and demonstrate that comprehensive understanding of reading engagement requires assessing both automatic and deliberative motivational processes.