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DRAFT: Do not quote without permission.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 High Exposure Low Exposure t value p

Variable Mean (s.d.) Mean (s.d.)
ASRA 161.04 147.10 -2.14 .036*
(24.02) (28.08)
ART 62.65 58.94 -.61 .54
(24.36) (25.24)
MRT 64.73 69.75 .91 .37
(26.96) (19.95)
NRT 45.38 42.77 -.66 .51
(17.23) (15.90)
NaRT 73.96 67.65 -1.40 .17
(20.00) (17.63)
VRT 63.27 62.19 -.22 .83
(20.82) (19.88)

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