CAUSAL BRIDGING INFERENCES - VALIDATING CONSISTENT AND INCONSISTENT SEQUENCES

It is proposed that causal bridging inferences must be validated again st Pertinent knowledge before being accepted by the reader. According to this analysis, understanding each of the consistent sequence, Dorot hy Poured the water on the bonfire, so the bonfire went out, and the i nconsistent, Dorothy poured the water on the bonfire, but the bonfire grew hotter, invokes the pertinent knowledge, ''water extinguishes fir e.'' In agreement with this prediction, subjects answered Does water e xtinguish fire? more quickly after reading both consistent and inconsi stent sequences than after the control temporal sequence, Dorothy PLAC ED the water BY the bonfire, The bonfire grew hotter. However, removin g the appropriate conjunction, ''but,'' from the inconsistent sequence abolishes its answer time facilitation (Experiment 3). It is proposed that, in the latter case, text ideas feed back to and so qualify pert inent knowledge.