Understanding the Role of Context on Memory for Maximally Counterintuitive Concepts


  • Mary Harmon-Vukić Providence College
  • M. Afzal Upal Mercyhurst University




MCI hypothesis, context, situation models, inferencessituation models, inferences


The current study examined how contextual information, defined as information represented at the level of the situation model, influenced memory for minimally and maximally counterintuitive stories. The first two experiments investigated whether the presence of explicit instructions to make sense of “strange information” in the stories influenced memory for maximally counterintuitive stories. Although no such effect was observed, post hoc analyses indicated that maximally counterintuitive stories that support a global inference that integrates the counterintuitive ideas are better recalled compared to stories that do not support such an inference. A third experiment was conducted to directly test the “global-inference” hypothesis. The results from the three experiments highlight the significant role of inferential processing in the integration of counterintuitive ideas, especially for maximally counterintuitive studies.


Albrecht, Jason, Edward O’Brien, Robert Mason and Jerome L. Myers. 1995. “The Role of Perspective in the Accessibility of Goals during the Processing of Narrative Text.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 21: 364–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.2.364 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.2.364

Anderson, John R. 1974. “Retrieval of Propositional Information from Long-Term Memory.” Cognitive Psychology 6: 451–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(74)90021-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(74)90021-8

Barrett, Justin L. 2000. “Exploring the Natural Foundations of Religion.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4(1): 29–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01419-9

---. 2008. “Coding and Quantifying Counterintuitiveness in Religious Concepts: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections.” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 20: 308–338. https://doi.org/10.1163/157006808x371806 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/157006808X371806

Barrett, Justin L. and Melanie A. Nyhof. 2001. “Spreading Non-Natural Concepts: The Role of Intuitive Conceptual Structures in Memory and Transmission of Cultural Materials.” Journal of Cognition and Culture 1(1): 69–100. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853701300063589 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853701300063589

Bering, Jesse M. 2011. The Belief Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny, and the Meaning of Life. New York: Norton.

Boyer, Pascal. 1994. The Naturalness of Religious Ideas: A Cognitive Theory of Religion. Berkeley: University of California Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520911628

---. 2003. “Religious Thought and Behaviour as By-Products of Brain Function.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7: 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(03)00031-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00031-7

Boyer, Pascal and Charles Ramble. 2001. “Cognitive Templates for Religious Concepts.” Cognitive Science 25: 535–564. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2504_2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2504_2

Calvo, Manuel and M. Dolores Castillo. 1996. “Predictive Inferences Occur OnLine, but with Delay: Convergence of Naming and Reading Times.” Discourse Processes 22: 57–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539609544966 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539609544966

Cook, Anne E., John Limber and Edward J. O’Brien. 2001. “Situation-Based Context and the Availability of Predictive Inferences.” Journal of Memory and Language 44(2): 220–234. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2744 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2744

Fincher-Kiefer, Rebecca. 1995. “Relative Inhibition Following the Encoding of Bridging and Predictive Inferences.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 21(4): 981–995. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.4.981 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.4.981

Fincher-Kiefer, Rebecca. 2001. “Perceptual Components of Situation Models.” Memory and Cognition 29: 336–343. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194928 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194928

Gonce, Lauren O., M. Afzal Upal, D. Jason Slone and Ryan Tweney. 2006. “The Added Role of Context in the Recall of Counterintuitive Concepts.” Journal of Cognition and Culture 6(3/4): 521–554. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853706778554959 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853706778554959

Graesser, Arthur, Murray Singer and Thomas Trabasso. 1994. “Constructing Inferences during Narrative Text Comprehension.” Psychological Review 101: 371–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.101.3.371 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371

Halldorson, Michael and Murray Singer. 2002. “Inference Processes: Integrating Relevant Knowledge and Text Information.” Discourse Processes 34: 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3402_2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3402_2

Harmon-Vukic, Mary. E. 2015. “Towards an Empirical Approach to Understanding Counterintuition, the Supernatural, and the Divine.” Religion, Brain & Behavior 5: 50–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599x.2015.1015044 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2015.1015044

Harmon-Vukic, Mary. E., Sabine Guéraud, Karla A. Lassonde and Edward J. O’Brien. 2009. “The Activation and Instantiation of Instrumental Inferences.” Discourse Processes 46: 467–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959661 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959661

Harmon-Vukic, Mary. E. and D. Jason Slone. 2009. “The Effect of Integration on Recall of Counterintuitive Stories.” Journal of Cognition and Culture 9(1-2): 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853709x414638 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853709X414638

Harmon-Vukic, Mary E., M. Afzal Upal and Kelly J. Sheehan. 2012. “Understanding the Memory Advantage of Counterintuitive Concepts.” Brain, Behavior & Religion 2(2): 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599x.2012.672816 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2012.672816

Huff, Marcus, Tino G.K. Meitz and Frank Papenmeier. 2014. “Changes in Situation Models Modulate Processes of Event Perception in Audio-Visual Narratives.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 39: 1003–1015. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036780 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036780

Johnson, Dominic D. P. and Jesse Bering. M. 2006. “Hand of God, Mind of Man: Punishment and Cognition in the Evolution of Cooperation.” Evolutionary Psychology 4: 219–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490600400119 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490600400119

Johnson-Laird, Philip N. 1983. Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lawson, E. Thomas and Robert McCauley. 2002. “The Cognitive Representation of Religious Ritual Form: A Theory of Participants’ Competence with Their Religious Ritual System.” In Current Approaches to the Cognitive Study of Religion, edited by Ilkka Pyysiäinen and Veikko Anttonen, 153–176. London: Continuum. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511606410.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606410.002

Millis, Keith and Joseph Magliano. 1999. “The Co-Influence of Grammatical Markers and Reader Goals on the Memory for Short Discourse.” Journal of Memory and Language 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2643 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2643

Murray, John D., Celia Klin and Jerome L. Myers. 1993. “Forward Inferences in Narrative Text.” Journal of Memory and Language 32: 464–473. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1993.1025 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1993.1025

Myers, Jerome L., Edward J. O’Brien, David Balota and Maria L. Toyofuku. 1984. “Memory Search without Interference: The Role of Integration.” Cognitive Psychology 16: 217–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(84)90008-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(84)90008-2

O’Brien, Edward J. and Jason E. Albrecht. 1991. “The Role of Context in Accessing Antecedents in Text.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 17(1): 94–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.17.1.94 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.17.1.94

O’Brien, Edward J., Dolores M. Shank, Jerome L. Myers and Keith Rayner. 1988. “Elaborative Inferences during Reading: Do They Occur On-line?” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 14(3): 410–420. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.14.3.410 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.14.3.410

Purzycki, Benjamin G. and Aiyana K. Willard. 2014. “MCI Theory: A Critical Discussion.” Religion, Brain & Behavior 6: 207–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599x.2015.1024915 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2015.1024915

Pyysiäinen, Ilkka, and Marc Hauser. 2010. “The Origin of Religion: Evolved Adaptation or By-Product?” Trends in Cognitive Science 14(3): 104–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.12.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.12.007

Rouder, Jeffrey N. and Julia M. Haaf. 2018. “Power, Dominance, and Constraint: A Note on the Appeal of Different Design Traditions.” Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 1(1): 19–26. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/2mf96 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245917745058

Schroeder, Sascha, Tobias Richter and Inga Hoever. 2008. “Getting a Picture That Is Both Accurate and Stable: Situation Models and Epistemic Validation.” Journal of Memory and Language 59: 237–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.05.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.05.001

Singer, Murray. 1993. “Global Inferences of Text Situations.” Discourse Processes 16(1-2): 161–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539309544834 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539309544834

Singer, Murray, Arthur Graesser and Thomas Trabasso. 1994. “Minimal or Global Inference during Reading.” Journal of Memory and Language 33: 421–441. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1020

Sperber, Dan. 1996. Explaining Culture: A Naturalistic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.

Sosis, Richard and Candace A. Alcorta. 2003. “Signaling, Solidarity, and the Sacred: The Evolution of Religious Behavior.” Evolutionary Anthropology 12: 264–274. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.10120 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.10120

Stadtler, Marc, Lisa Scharrer, Timo Skodzik and Rainer Bromme. 2014. “Comprehending Multiple Documents on Scientific Controversies: Effects of Reading Goals and Signaling Rhetorical Relationships.” Discourse Processes 51: 93–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2013.855535 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.855535

Trabasso, Thomas and So Y. Suh. 1993. “Understanding Text: Achieving Explanatory Power Coherence Through Online Inferences and Mental Operations in Working Memory.” Discourse Processes 16: 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539309544827 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539309544827

Upal, M. Afzal. 2005. “Towards a Cognitive Science of New Religious Movements.” Journal of Cognition and Culture 5(2): 214–239. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/1568537054068598

---. 2010. “An Alternative Account of the Minimally Counterintuitiveness Effect.” Cognitive Systems Research 11(2): 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2009.08.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2009.08.003

Upal, M. Afzal, Lauren Gonce, Ryan Tweney, and D. Jason Slone. 2007. “Contextualizing Counterintuitiveness: How Context Affects Comprehension and Memorability of Counterintuitive Concepts.” Cognitive Science 31(3): 415–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/15326900701326568 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15326900701326568

van den Broek, Paul, Robert F. Lorch Jr., Tracey Linderholm and Mary Gustafson. 2001. “The Effects of Readers’ Goals on Inference Generation and Memory for Texts.” Memory and Cognition 29: 1081–1087. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03206376 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206376

van Dijk, Teun A. 2006. “Discourse, Context, Cognition.” Discourse Studies 8(1): 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606059565 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606059565

van Dijk, Teun A. and Walter Kintsch. 1983. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York, NY: Academic.

Voland, Eckart and Wulf Schiefenhövel, eds. 2009. The Biological Evolution of Religious Mind and Behavior. Berlin, Germany: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00128-4

Whitehouse, Harvey. 2004. Modes of Religiosity and the Cognitive Theory of Religious Transmission. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Zhang, Hao and Rumjahn Hoosain. 2005. “Activation of Themes During Narrative Reading.” Discourse Processes 40: 57–82. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp4001_3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp4001_3

Zwaan, Rolf A., Joseph Magliano and Arthur C. Graesser. 1995. “Dimensions of Situation Model Construction in Narrative Comprehension.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 21: 386–397. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.2.386 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.2.386

Zwaan, Rolf A. and Gabriel Radvansky. 1998. “Situation Models in Language Comprehension and Memory.” Psychological Bulletin 123(2): 162–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162



How to Cite

Harmon-Vukić, M., & Upal, M. A. (2020). Understanding the Role of Context on Memory for Maximally Counterintuitive Concepts. Journal for the Cognitive Science of Religion, 5(2), 238–254. https://doi.org/10.1558/jcsr.39064