The art of thinking · 4 · Comprehension and mental representation
Inference (reading comprehension)
Also known as: Bridging inference, Elaborative inference
German: Inferenz
In the psychology of reading, an inference is information that a reader adds to what a text states explicitly, either to connect sentences into a coherent whole (bridging inference) or to fill in details, causes and consequences that the text leaves open (elaborative inference).
- Cognitive psychology
- Reading comprehension
In one sentence
In reading, an inference is what readers add to the text — bridging inferences connect sentences, elaborative ones fill in what is left open.
Example
“Disconnect the power supply. Remove the cover.” Readers infer that the cover belongs to the unit just disconnected and that disconnecting comes first for safety — neither is stated.
What the research shows
Susan E. Haviland and Herbert H. Clark (1974) showed that readers take longer to understand a sentence when its given information has no direct antecedent and must be bridged by an inference (“We got some beer out of the trunk. The beer was warm.” is read faster than a version in which the beer was not mentioned before). Gail McKoon and Roger Ratcliff (1992) proposed a minimalist hypothesis: during normal reading, readers automatically draw only the inferences needed for local coherence and those based on easily available information. Arthur C. Graesser, Murray Singer and Tom Trabasso (1994) argued in a constructionist theory that readers also draw inferences that explain why events happen and that address their reading goals.
Evidence status
That bridging inferences are drawn routinely is well established. Which elaborative inferences are drawn during reading, rather than later when needed, is debated and depends on the reader's knowledge, goals and the text; the minimalist and constructionist positions mark the range. Readers with little prior knowledge draw fewer and less accurate inferences. This sense of inference is unrelated to inference in AI, where Training vs. inference describes a model producing output from new input.
How it applies
Steps that rely on unstated knowledge leave the reader to infer it; experts tend to overlook such gaps (the curse of knowledge). The glossary “Applied cognitive psychology for information use” takes this up under comprehensibility. Safety-related conditions should never depend on what a reader may infer; what must be stated follows from the risk assessment and the applicable requirements for information for use.
External references
How to read this pool
Entries, context cards and transitional topics
The art of thinking explains ways of thinking — where a method comes from, what it asks of you and how it was adapted later. You meet four kinds of content here, each with its own job:
- Glossary entry
- Defines one concept or method of thinking: its origin, an example and how it relates to neighboring ideas. “X vs. Y” sections set two methods side by side.
- Context card of the art of thinking
- A short, self-contained answer to one question about a way of thinking — its lineage, its steps, its limits. These cards are listed on The art of thinking only.
- Transitional topicBridges both pools
- A context card that bridges both pools: it shows how a way of thinking was adapted into documentation, analysis or quality practice. It sits with the reference context cards and is marked as transitional wherever it appears.
- Reference entry or context card
- Belongs to the Glossary & Norms Space on regulation, norms and engineering. Entries here link to one only where a method is also an established tool of documentation or quality work, such as the five whys or a user’s mental model.