Competition for working memory among writing processes
Abstract
Narrative, descriptive, and persuasive texts were written by college students in longhand or on a word processor. Participants concurrently detected auditory probes cuing them to retrospect about whether they were planning ideas, translating ideas into sentences, or reviewing ideas or text at the moment the probes occurred. Narrative planning and longhand motor execution presumably were heavily practiced, freeing capacity for rapid probe detection. Spare capacity was distributed equally among all 3 processes, judging from probe reaction times, when planning demands were low in the narrative condition. When motor execution demands were low in the longhand condition, however, reviewing benefited more than planning. The results indicate that planning, translating, and reviewing processes in writing compete for a common, general-purpose resource of working memory.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Spoken language is a reflection of the process of language construction.
“spoken language is a reflection of the process of language construction”
From Syntactic Networks of Interlanguage Across L2 Modalities and Proficiency Levels (2021) · cites this paper as Kellogg, 2001
Cognitive processes and production patterns are inconsistent across modalities.
“Cognitive processes and production patterns are inconsistent across modalities; spoken language is a reflection of the process of language construction, whereas written language is a revised and polished product (Halliday, 1989; Levelt, 1989; Kellogg, 2001; Cutting, 2011).”
From Syntactic Networks of Interlanguage Across L2 Modalities and Proficiency Levels (2021) · cites this paper as Kellogg, 2001
Written language is a revised and polished product.
“written language is a revised and polished product”
From Syntactic Networks of Interlanguage Across L2 Modalities and Proficiency Levels (2021) · cites this paper as Kellogg, 2001
Language production processes and working memory related to speaking and writing differ.
“This means that language production processes and working memory related to speaking and writing differ (Levelt, 1989; Kellogg, 2001; Kuiken and Vedder, 2012).”
From Syntactic Networks of Interlanguage Across L2 Modalities and Proficiency Levels (2021) · cites this paper as Kellogg, 2001
Previous studies have found no congruence between speaking and writing in terms of cognitive processes; speaking includes conceptualization, modulation, and monitoring, while writing is divided into planning, formulation, and monitoring.
“Previous studies have found no congruence between speaking and writing in terms of cognitive processes; the former includes conceptualization, modulation, and monitoring, while the latter is divided into planning, formulation, and monitoring.”
From Syntactic Networks of Interlanguage Across L2 Modalities and Proficiency Levels (2021) · cites this paper as Kellogg, 2001
Cited by
Sorted by citations
MARTINUSSEN, R., HAYDEN, J., HOGG-JOHNSON, S., & TANNOCK, R. (2005) · Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry · doi:10.1097/01.chi.0000153228.72591.73 · Cited by 1,297 · see citing works
A meta-analysis of working memory in individuals with autism spectrum disorders
Habib, A., Harris, L., Pollick, F., & Melville, C. (2019) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0216198 · Cited by 179 · see citing works
Execution and pauses in writing narratives: Processing time, cognitive effort and typing skill
Alves, R. A., Castro, S. L., & Olive, T. (2008) · International Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1080/00207590701398951 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
Syntactic Networks of Interlanguage Across L2 Modalities and Proficiency Levels
Hao, Y., Wang, X., Wu, M., & Liu, H. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.643120 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
“This means that language production processes and working memory related to speaking and writing differ (Levelt, 1989; Kellogg, 2001; Kuiken and Vedder, 2012).”
BackgroundL2 language development in oral and written modalities
Son, M. (2024) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263124000329 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kellogg, R. T.
- Affiliations
- Missouri University of Science and Technology (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kellogg, Ronald T.
- ORCID
- Kellogg, Ronald T.
- Venue
- The American Journal of Psychology
- Publisher
- University of Illinois Press
- Published
- 2001
- Volume
- 114
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 175
- ISSN
- 0002-9556 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2313167905
- Cited by
- 199
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 14.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The American Journal of Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Writing and Handwriting Education
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Keywords
- working memory, writing process, resource competition, word processing, narrative planning, text reviews, text translation, spare capacity
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Analysis of Variance, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Mental Processes, Reaction Time, Writing, Word Processing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
