PSYCHOANALYSIS OF SHALLOW READING AND POPULAR CULTURE COMMUNICATION

(1)

Revista Argentina de Clínica Psicológica 2020, Vol. XXIX, N°2, 1145-1153

DOI: 10.24205/03276716.2020.356 1145

P

SYCHOANALYSIS OF

S

HALLOW

R

EADING AND

P

OPULAR

C

ULTURE

C

OMMUNICATION

Lai Zheng

Abstract

Shallow reading is a social practice to acquire information quickly via various modern media. This paper aims to disclose the correlations between shallow reading and popular culture communication. Firstly, the correlations between the two factors were analysed theoretically. Then, a questionnaire survey was carried out on the psychology of shallow reading in seven dimensions, namely, reading perception, reading memory, reading thinking, reading emotion, reading will, reading attention, other influencing factors. Next, the survey results were analysed on the statistical software SPSS26.0, focusing on how each dimension of shallow reading changes with the age, gender and profession of the respondents. The results show that the reading psychology is not greatly affected by non-intellectual influencing factors, but by intellectual ones; the most prominent factors affecting reading psychology come from family, school and society. The research results help the government, colleges, and the media to cope with the psychological changes of the audience.

Key words: Shallow Reading, Popular Culture, Communication, Psychological Analysis.

Received: 14-02-19 | Accepted: 19-10-19

INTRODUCTION

Shallow reading, as a way of reading relative to deep reading, has become a very powerful cultural transmission in modern society. The prosperity of shallow reading has its historical inevitability and corresponding material and technical conditions. From the individual level, the study of shallow reading and shallow reading behaviour psychology can help to find the way of individual psychological acceptance of the audience and the situation and problems in the process of acceptance, so as to take effective measures to promote the spread of positive culture (Bjornsdottir, Halldorsson, Steinberg et al., 2014). The ideal mode of cultural communication should be a good process of cultural adaptation. In this process, the individual audience obtains the harmonious relationship with the original culture and the new culture, that is, the

Pingdingshan University, Pingdingshan 467000, China. E-Mail: [email protected]

integration model proposed by the theory of cultural adaptation, and maintains the active identification and participation of the original culture and the new culture. The research finds that good cultural communication is related to

mental health, social adaptation and

interpersonal relationships. Therefore, through the study of shallow reading and shallow reading behaviour psychology, we can understand the psychological status of a small number of audiences, and contribute to the good development of the physical and mental health and social adaptation of the audiences. Shallow reading is an important phenomenon in today's cultural communication (García & Cain, 2014). The audience is the whole market of cultural communication industry. To study the behaviour psychology of shallow reading and shallow reading is to start with the phenomenon of shallow reading, crack the code of behaviour psychology of shallow reading, put forward more targeted and feasible industrial development strategies, promote the development of cultural communication industry, and thus promote the

(2)

LAI ZHENG 1146

great prosperity and development of socialist culture.

In recent years, domestic and foreign scholars' research on shallow reading and shallow reading behavior psychology is mainly divided into the following two aspects: Firstly, special research shallow reading current or specific research shallow reading behavior psychology. A review of the literature on shallow reading behavior psychology in China found that there are few studies on the psychological direction of shallow reading behavior. Although many scholars have made a lot of achievements in shallow reading phenomena or shallow reading behavioral psychology, however, there are few systematic studies that links the two and causes each other (Lieberoth, 2015). Secondly, to adapt to the actual situation of audience segmentation, the academic research on shallow reading and shallow reading behaviour psychology is becoming more and more detailed and more refined. This aspect is certainly conducive to solving specific problems, but shallow reading and popular cultural communication. The value and strength of the overall development of the theory and the macroscopic grasp are relatively weakened, so a more macroscopic study is needed as a supplement. Based on the above research on shallow reading, the research on single shallow reading and shallow reading behavior psychology is comprehensive, and the related theoretical results are relatively mature. However, the value and strength of overall development and macroscopic grasp are relatively weak, and there is no systematic and relatively macroscopic research on the relevance of shallow reading, shallow reading psychology and mass culture communication. Therefore, this study attempts to build on the relationship between shallow reading and the shallow reading behaviour of the audience in cultural communication based on the rich theory of cultural and communication psychology, to find out the psychological connection between them, and to the audience. The psychological factors in the process are analyzed to explore the psychological rules of the audience in the modern cultural communication. Combining different communication psychological phenomena and research perspectives, a systematic study on shallow reading and shallow reading behaviour psychology is carried out (Van den Boer, van Bergen, & de Jong, 2014). It is hoped that we can enrich the relevant theoretical and empirical research on the study of popular culture and communication psychology in China, and then come up with media operation strategies and cultural communication

industry strategy recommendations that adapt to the contemporary audience psychology (Lenhard, Schroeders, & Lenhard, 2017).

RELEVANT THEORY OF SHALLOW READING AND POPULAR CULTURE COMMUNICATION

Overview of psychological theory of shallow reading

Reading psychology is an internal psychological process or motive force that guides, stimulates and maintains individual activities by goals or objects. Reading psychology is a term used to describe the internal causes of human behavior in psychology. From the relationship between reading psychology and behavior, reading psychology has the functions of activating, directing, maintaining and adjusting behavior. In the 20th century, maslow, a humanistic psychologist, put forward the theory of need subordination. Cognitive psychology rose in the 20th century and developed the theory of reading psychology based on cognitive theory. He believed that individuals formed different concepts about information from outside through encoding, storing, extracting and outputting (Bohn-Gettler & Kendeou, 2014). These concepts were between stimulation and behavior. It plays a mediating role, thus explaining the reading psychology of the individual who produces some complex behavior. From the perspectives of readers' beliefs, values and goals, this paper discusses achievement performance, choice of activities and intensity of continuing to engage in activities. They believe that reading psychology can be used to examine why an individual chooses this behavior, behavioral potential, behavioral intensity, persistence of the behavior, as well as individual cognitive and emotional reactions when engaging in the behavior. The state of state can stimulate and guide individual behavior. In school, Zhang Chunxing pointed out that there are two factors in the formation of learning reading psychology. The former is due to the internal needs of individuals, while the latter is only caused by external incentives. Students who study under the influence of external incentives cannot produce spontaneous learning. Daily incentives disappear or decrease. Learning and reading psychology will also weaken or disappear. Inner reading psychology refers to the individual who responds to internal needs and engages in various activities of interest, so that in the absence of incentives, he will still spontaneously engage in learning.

(3)

PSYCHOANALYSIS OF SHALLOW READING AND POPULAR CULTURE COMMUNICATION 1147

Composition of shallow reading motivation and related research on scales

Figure 1

.

Model diagram of reading

motivation, reading behavior and reading

achievement

Reading Psychology Value and goal

Ability and effectiveness belief Popular culture

communication

Reading behavior

Quantity

Scope

Number of Readings Reading

achievements Mental maturity

Value Enhancement Rich in

connotation

Reading psychology refers to the internal psychological process and internal dynamic process of individual reading activities guided, stimulated and maintained by reading-related goals. In short, reading psychology is the power to stimulate and guide individual behavior toward reading goals. According to Wang Yuguang and Xu Yan's narrative of the causes of reading psychology, reading needs are the source of motivation for people to read. With reading needs, people will put forward reading purposes for themselves, induce strong reading desire, and point to specific objects to form reading psychology. Reading demand is the external driving force. Reading psychology is the internal driving force of an individual. Part of the research on reading psychology focuses on general reading psychological phenomena such as reading attitude and reading goal orientation, while part of the research scholars is devoted to developing evaluation tools to measure reading psychology. Summarize reading psychology as spontaneous needs. Internal reading psychology and external reading psychology influenced by interpersonal relationship. The first batch of measuring tools on how to acquire reading psychology and personal and environmental factors, reading psychological profile were developed. Two forms of self-report scale and interview were designed (Kjeldsen, Kärnä, Niemi et al., 2014). Reading psychology was generally divided into three parts, the reader's self-concept, reading values and reading preferences. In addition, the purpose of reading can be divided into four reading psychology, acquiring knowledge, improving

personal quality, integrating into society, and professional achievement. According to the needs of reading psychology, it can be divided into practical needs, development needs, pleasure needs and escape needs. Scholars put forward the theory of the constitutive factors of reading psychology as shown in Figure 1.

Research on reading psychology, reading behavior and reading achievement

The motivation to read can stimulate reading behavior. Gao Xiang believes that the intensity of motivation has an important impact on reading performance. Under the similar conditions of intelligence and other aspects, the intensity of reading motivation between different students will result in differences in reading and reading levels. In the reading psychology, Zhang Biyin proposed that

“motivation not only affects the mastery of written

knowledge, but also affects the expression of new or previously written knowledge.” Many studies have

shown that the relationship between cognitive and motivational factors, as well as the motivational factors impact of students' reading comprehension. Liu Peiyun et al. proposed that reading motivation is multi-faceted and specific, with the number of readings and frequency. There was a significant positive correlation between reading performance and degree reading. Reading opportunities affect the depth of reading materials, the choice of reading time, the type of reading or the curiosity, society, recognition, and achievement of reading. The belief and value of reading also play an important role in influencing reading achievement (Jang, Dunlop, Park et al., 2015). In addition, Song Yaoting et al. proposed a relationship model between reading motivation, reading behavior and reading achievement as shown in Figure 2. In this model, there are three variables, namely reading motivation, reading behavior and reading achievement, in which reading motivation and reading behavior are process variables, reading achievement is the result variable reading motivation as potential independent variable, while reading behavior and reading achievement are Potential dependent variable (Sénéchal, Hill, & Malette, 2018). The study found that reading opportunities directly affect the frequency, frequency and reading achievement of reading, and indirectly affect the reading achievement through the frequency and frequency of reading. Reading frequency and frequency also directly affect reading achievement (Rothou & Padeliadu, 2015).

(4)

LAI ZHENG 1148

Figure 2

.

Hierarchical representation map of

reading comprehension

Reading perception

Reading memory

Reading thinking Reading emotion Reading will

Reading attention

Other factors

SURVEY OF THE RELEVANCE BETWEEN SHALLOW READING AND POPULAR CULTURE COMMUNICATION

Questionnaire preparation and statistical methods

Based on psychology, from the analysis of psychological structure of reading psychology, combined with open questionnaire materials, the shallow reading psychology is divided into seven dimensions, namely: reading perception, reading memory, reading thinking, reading emotion, reading will, reading attention, other influencing factors, etc.

(1) Questionnaire preparation

On the basis of the theoretical construction of the shallow reading psychological questionnaire, according to the analysis and induction of the open-ended questionnaire, the shallow reading psychological questionnaire including 90 items was initially compiled. After that, the readability and suitability of each topic were evaluated by two experts, three researchers and two teachers, respectively. The presentation of some topics has been revised. The questionnaire consists of seven dimensions and 90 items:

Reading perception: 10 items; Reading memory: 4 items; Reading thinking: 11 items; Reading emotion: 10 items; Reading will: 10 items; Reading attention: 7 items; Other factors: 38 items.

There are two open questions. The title is graded

by five, and the rating is “always, often, sometimes, rarely, never”. The description of the project is

divided into positive description and negative description. The item described in the positive direction begins with 5 points. 5 points for “always”, 4 points for “often”, 3 points for “sometimes”, 2

points for “rare”, and 1 point for “never”. The

opposite narrative is the opposite. The project is carried out according to the principle of cross-alignment, and the items belonging to different factors and different expressions are mixed and arranged to avoid the influence of the mindset when the students answer the questions.

(2) Project screening

500 respondents were selected to predict the preliminary shallow reading psychological questionnaire. 456 valid questionnaires were collected and the results were analyzed by SPSS26.0 statistical software. Through item analysis and reliability test of the data, we delete the low-related items, revise some expressions that are not easily understood by the audience, and finally form the formal reading psychological questionnaire. The formal questionnaire consists of 42 questions.

Reading perception: 4 items; Reading memory: 4 items; Reading thinking: 6 items; Reading emotion: 6 items; Reading will: 6 items; Reading attention: 6 items; Other factors: 10 items. There are two open questions. (3) Formal implementation of testing

Unified training for the main test before the test, explaining the research content and methods, and unifying the guidance. And explain the relevant issues in detail. Randomly select 550 students, answer each question in the questionnaire, and withdraw 500 valid questionnaires.

Reliability analysis of the questionnaire

In this study, the homogeneity reliability coefficient (Cronbach's Alpha coefficient) was selected as the reliability index of the reading motivation questionnaire. It indicates that the internal consistency of the questionnaire is relatively high. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 1.

The questionnaire was divided into two halves by odd-even halving method, and then the reliability coefficients were calculated (using Guttman halving reliability and Spearman-Brown halving reliability of two indicators). The results are shown in Table 2, which shows that the questionnaire has good halving reliability (Marinak, Malloy, Gambrell et al., 2015).

Validity test of the questionnaire

According to the theory of psychological test, the correlation coefficient between the total score of a

(5)

Table 1.

Cronbach's Alpha reliability test

Reading perception

Reading memory

Reading thinking

Reading emotion

Reading will

Reading attention

Other factors

Total scale Coefficient

α 0.7973*** 0.8412*** 0.7678*** 0.8397*** 0.8570*** 0.8665*** 0.9084*** 0.9603***

Note: ***p<0.01

Table 2.

Split-half reliability coefficient

Reading memory

Total scale Guttman

split-half reliability

0.8035*** 0.8286*** 0.7758*** 0.8563*** 0.8623*** 0.8696*** 0.9101*** 0.9166***

S-B split-half

reliability 0.8070*** 0.8300*** 0.7860*** 0.8576*** 0.8632*** 0.8702*** 0.9101*** 0.9168***

Note: ***p<0.001

Table 3.

Correlation between the factors and the total score of the questionnaire

Total score Reading

perception 1

Reading

memory 0.622 1

Reading

thinking 0.578 0.690 1

Reading

emotion 0.635 0.576 0.612 1

Reading will 0.633 0.645 0.607 0.655 1

Reading

attention 0.588 0.607 0.622 0.734 0.619 1

Other factors 0.523 0.570 0.597 0.697 0.626 0.602 1

Total score 0.756 0.791 0.817 0.858 0.826 0.832 0.847 1

scale and the score of each subscale can be used as an index to measure the content validity of the scale. The correlation between each subscale and the total score of the questionnaire is shown in the table. It can be seen from the table that the correlation between the scores of each subscale and the total scores of the questionnaire has reached a significant level. According to the theory of psychological test, the content validity of a good scale should be above 0.60. Table 3 shows that the internal consistency of the questionnaire is good, and its content validity is acceptable.

Questionnaire survey and questionnaire data preprocessing

The questionnaire test process is completed by the students who have been guided to study English and American literature. The measurement process is strictly in accordance with the requirements of the questionnaire. Before the questionnaire is issued, explain the answering method to the students, and declare that the questionnaire survey is only used

for academic research, and is not named to eliminate the concerns of the participants, so that the subjects can answer the questions as true as possible (Tobia & Marzocchi, 2014).

After entering data, data should be pre-processed before data analysis. Firstly, the missing values are processed. The missing values are replaced by the average of all the values of the variable by Replace Missing Values in SPSS26.0. Secondly, the reverse scoring of the subject is re-scored. Finally, different variables of the same project are integrated to form new variables. The data are analyzed after data preprocessing.

SURVEY RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Reading ability refers to the subjective condition that readers can successfully complete reading activities. The general factors that constitute reading ability, the role of individual and mutual, is called the reading ability structure. Reading ability consists of

(6)

LAI ZHENG 1150

three factors: knowledge factor, psychological factor, and skill factor. This study mainly analyzes the seven factors of intellectual factors and non-intellectual factors of psychological factors. The results are shown in Table 4.

Figure 3

.

Comparison of mean and standard

deviation of various factors

According to Figure 3, the overall analysis of each factor and the research results of each specific project, the overall reading mental state of the audience is good. The average and frequency

distribution of 42 specific projects showed that the average score was more than 3 points and there were 27 questions. It is divided into 4 points or more and has 15 questions. From the frequency distribution, the total of 4 points and 5 points accounted for more than 60% of the items accounted for 41 questions, and only 1 question was below 60%. According to the overall analysis of various factors and the research results of each specific project, the overall reading mentality of the audience is good.

Analysis of psychological factors of readers of different ages in shallow reading behavior

According to Table 5, the mean values of the total scores were 161.1240 for the juvenile group, 170.8100 for the youth group, 169.0654 for the middle-aged group, and 160.2857 for the old group, and the F value was 2.539, which was significant at the 0.05 level. It shows that there are significant differences in the ability of reading in all age groups.

Table 4.

Mean and standard deviation of various factors

Reading perception Reading memory Reading thinking Reading emotion Reading will Reading attention Other factors

Mean 15.9740 15.7900 22.8680 23.6020 24.6900 23.2520 39.5140

Standard

deviation 3.23330 3.64149 5.70716 5.04644 5.24680 5.70874 8.48704

Figure 4

.

Comparison of various factors in different age groups

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Mean Standard deviation

Reading perception Reading memory

Reading thinking Reading emotion

Reading will Reading attention

Other factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Reading perception Reading memory Reading thinking Reading emotion

Other factors Juvenile group

Average Standard deviation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Reading perception Reading memory Reading thinking Reading emotion

Reading will Reading attention Other factors Youth group Average Standard deviation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Reading perception Reading memory Reading thinking Reading emotion

Other factors Middle-age group

Average Standard deviation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Reading perception Reading memory Reading thinking Reading emotion

Reading will Reading attention Other factors Old group Average Standard deviation

(7)

Table 5.

Comparison of various factors in different age groups

Juvenile group Youth group Middle-age group Old group

F P

Average Standard

deviation Average

Standard

deviation Average

Standard

deviation Average

Standard deviation

Y1 16.0741 3.13361 16.4800 2.74683 15.8131 3.48888 16.0496 3.12744 1.393 0.235

Y2 16.0978 3.34516 16.4800 2.98305 16.1215 2.49854 15.6198 3.85423 3.875 0.004

Y3 23.8372 4.81552 23.3600 5.52774 23.9252 6.41446 22.2645 5.59281 3.105 0.015

Y4 23.5158 4.96516 24.2700 4.39664 24.0187 5.36231 22.9001 5.30004 1.255 0.287

Y5 25.6271 4.90412 25.6800 3.88599 24.8318 6.03838 24.1584 5.61547 2.433 0.047

Y6 23.6043 6.53782 24.2200 4.12820 24.1121 5.11993 22.6175 6.09275 3.518 0.008

Y7 39.8412 7.92456 40.3200 8.18829 40.2430 8.52946 37.5234 8.60437 2.281 0.060

ZF 167.8025 31.09345 170.8100 24.26441 169.0654 36.05846 161.1245 30.6425 2.539 0.039

Table 6. Comparison of different genders in various factors

Male Female

F P

Average Standard deviation Average Standard deviation

Y1 15.7764 3.41305 16.1875 3.01916 5.214 0.024

Y2 15.4985 3.63008 16.1175 3.63317 0.351 0.556

Y3 22.6000 6.15834 23.0500 5.18099 3.684 0.057

Y4 23.3346 5.25794 23.7592 4.81150 3.417 0.061

Y5 24.5408 5.31489 24.7546 5.17875 1.178 0.278

Y6 23.1298 5.64675 23.2258 5.78725 0.305 0.586

Y7 39.0745 8.64745 39.9975 8.30049 1.745 0.197

ZF 164.3000 31.73654 167.1845 29.27455 6.078 0.014

Among them, the youth group and the middle-aged group had the highest similar scores, the juvenile group had the second, and the old group had the lowest value. In terms of various factors, except for factor 1 (reading perception), factor 4 (reading emotion), and factor 7 (other influences), the difference between factor 2 (reading memory) and factor 6 (reading attention) reached 0.01 level. Significant differences, factor 3 (reading thinking), factor 5 (reading will), reached significant differences at the 0.05 level. There are significant differences in reading psychology between grades. The grades of reading vary significantly in each grade. Among them, the youth group and the middle-aged group had the highest similar scores, and the juvenile group and the old-aged group had the lowest similar scores. In terms of various factors, reading perception, reading emotions, and other influences are not significant, and there are significant differences in reading memory, reading attention, reading thinking, and reading will. The results are shown in Figure 4.

Analysis of psychological factors of different gender readers in shallow reading behavior

According to Table 6, there are differences in reading psychology between men and women, with F value of 6.056, reaching a significant difference at the level of 0.05. On the average of the seven factors, women are higher than men, indicating that women have higher reading ability than men. Factor 1

(reading perception) had significant difference at 0.05 level, and women had better reading perception than men.

As is shown in Figure 5, we can see that men and women have significant differences in reading psychology. Women have higher reading ability than men. There are significant differences in reading perception, and women are better than men in reading perception. Females are better than males in acoustically accurately distinguishing four tones, similar pronunciations and different intonations, as well as in perceiving colors. Women's observation is also better than men's, more accurate and comprehensive.

Figure 5

.

Comparison of mean and standard

deviation of different gender

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Average Standard deviation Male Female

(8)

LAI ZHENG 1152

Table 7.

Comparison of different professional readers in various factors

Professional technician stratum Industrial worker stratum Agricultural worker stratum

F P

Average Standard deviation Average Standard deviation Average Standard deviation

Y1 16.5738 3.04245 15.6678 3.12647 15.1678 3.48217 9.475 0.000

Y2 16.1345 3.55687 15.5874 3.45761 15.2453 3.95453 2.645 0.045

Y3 23.5945 5.84115 23.0045 5.26378 21.3456 5.62845 6.642 0.001

Y4 24.0075 4.81378 23.6743 5.23471 22.7548 5.23478 2.713 0.049

Y5 25.2347 4.79856 24.1723 6.00415 24.1256 5.19436 2.678 0.083

Y6 23.7786 5.20478 23.7985 5.31786 21.4896 6.75478 5.943 0.006

Y7 39.9342 8.70475 39.2146 7.99476 38.7853 8.57423 0.641 0.578

ZF 169.2578 28.5237 165.1452 33.24016 159.3642 30.42174 4.432 0.046

Analysis of psychological factors in different reading behaviors of different professional readers

Table 7 shows that there are significant differences in reading ability among professional technician stratum, industrial worker stratum and agricultural worker stratum (F=4.478 P= 012). The average score of professional technician stratum is 169.2541, that of industrial worker stratum is 165.1846, and that of agricultural worker stratum is 159.3095, which indicates that the reading ability of professional technician stratum, industrial worker stratum and agricultural worker stratum is declining. There were no significant differences in factors 2 (reading memory), 4 (reading emotion), 5 (reading will) and 7 (other influences). Factor 1 (reading perception), factor 3 (reading thinking) and factor 6 (reading attention) all had significant differences at the level of 0.01.

From Figure 6, we can see that the declining trend of professional technician stratum, industrial worker stratum and agricultural worker stratum, which shows that the professional technician stratum are better than the industrial worker stratum, and the industrial worker stratum are better than the agricultural worker stratum in reading these three factors. According to the survey, there are significant differences in reading psychology among professional technician stratum, industrial worker stratum and agricultural worker stratum. The reading ability of professional technician stratum, industrial worker stratum and agricultural worker stratum is decreasing. Agricultural laborers are affected by the environment, culture, education and lack of reading materials. Professional technician stratum have a good reading environment. Electronic publications and networks exist widely. Primary school students have a relatively rich vocabulary and words. Knowledge factors and skills factors are higher than those of industrial worker stratum and agricultural worker stratum. There are no significant differences in reading memory, reading emotion, reading will and other factors. There are significant differences in

reading perception, reading thinking and reading attention.

Figure 6

.

Psychological factors in different

reading behaviours of different professional

readers

(a) Different reading behaviors of professional technician stratum

(b) Different reading behaviors of industrial worker stratum

(c) Different reading behaviors of agricultural worker stratum

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Reading perception

Reading memory

Reading thinking

Reading emotion

Reading will Reading

attention Other factors Professional technician stratum

Average

Standard deviation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Reading perception

Reading memory

Reading thinking

Reading emotion

Other factors Industrial worker stratum

Average Standard deviation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Reading perception

Reading memory

Reading thinking

Reading emotion

Reading will Reading

attention Other factors Agricultural worker stratum

Average

(9)

CONCLUSIONS

By investigating and analysing the psychological status of shallow reading audience, we can get a preliminary understanding of the psychological status of shallow reading audience. There are significant differences in the psychological factors of reading. There are no significant differences in reading perception, reading emotion and other factors, but there are significant differences in reading memory, reading attention, reading thinking and reading will. There are significant differences in reading perception between men and women, and women are better than men in reading perception. Women's reading ability is generally higher than men. Professional technician stratum, industrial worker stratum and agricultural worker stratum have significant differences in reading psychology. The reading ability of professional technician stratum, industrial worker stratum and agricultural worker stratum is decreasing. There are no significant differences in reading memory, reading emotion, reading will and other factors. There are significant differences in reading perception, reading thinking and reading attention. Generally speaking, the non-intellectual factors in reading psychological factors have no obvious influence on pupils’ reading psychology, and their

differences are mainly reflected in the intellectual factors. The objective factors influencing reading psychological factors mainly come from family, school and society. Researchers analyzed and discussed the causes of the above results and put forward relevant countermeasures.

Acknowledgements

The phased results of the National Scientific Research Project Cultivation Fund of Pingdingshan University, "Feasibility Path Research of Folk

Resources Utilization and Traditional

Reconstruction under the Strategy of Rural Rejuvenation" (Project Number: PXY-PYJJ202003)

REFERENCES

Bjornsdottir, G., Halldorsson, J. G., Steinberg, S., Hansdottir, I., & Kristjansson, K. (2014). The adult reading history questionnaire (ARHQ) in Icelandic: Psychometric properties and factor structure. Journal of learning disabilities, 47(6),

532-542.

Bohn-Gettler, C. M., & Kendeou, P. (2014). The interplay of reader goals, working memory, and text structure during reading. Contemporary educational psychology, 39(3), 206-219.

García, J. R., & Cain, K. (2014). Decoding and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis to identify which reader and assessment characteristics influence the strength of the relationship in English. Review of Educational Research, 84(1), 74-111.

Jang, E. E., Dunlop, M., Park, G., & van der Boom, E. H. (2015). How do young students with different profiles of reading skill mastery, perceived ability, and goal orientation respond to holistic diagnostic feedback? Language Testing, 32(3), 359-383.

Kjeldsen, A. C., Kärnä, A., Niemi, P., Olofsson, Å., & Witting, K. (2014). Gains from training in phonological awareness in kindergarten predict reading comprehension in grade 9. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(6), 452-467.

Lenhard, W., Schroeders, U., & Lenhard, A. (2017). Equivalence of screen versus print reading comprehension depends on task complexity and proficiency. Discourse Processes, 54(5-6), 427-445.

Lieberoth, A. (2015). Shallow gamification: Testing psychological effects of framing an activity as a game. Games and Culture, 10(3), 229-248. Marinak, B. A., Malloy, J. B., Gambrell, L. B., &

Mazzoni, S. A. (2015). Me and my reading profile: A tool for assessing early reading motivation. The Reading Teacher, 69(1), 51-62.

Rothou, K. M., & Padeliadu, S. (2015). Inflectional morphological awareness and word reading and reading comprehension in Greek. Applied psycholinguistics, 36(4), 1007-1027.

Sénéchal, M., Hill, S., & Malette, M. (2018).

Individual differences in grade 4 children’s

written compositions: The role of online planning and revising, oral storytelling, and reading for pleasure. Cognitive Development, 45, 92-104.

Tobia, V., & Marzocchi, G. M. (2014). Predictors of reading fluency in Italian orthography: Evidence from a cross-sectional study of primary school students. Child neuropsychology, 20(4), 449-469. Van den Boer, M., van Bergen, E., & de Jong, P. F. (2014). Underlying skills of oral and silent reading. Journal of experimental child psychology, 128, 138-151.