Studies using a grammaticality decision task have revealed surprising flexibility in the processing of word order during sentence reading in both alphabetic and non-alphabetic scripts. Participants in these studies typically exhibit a transposed-word effect, in which they make more errors and slower correct responses for stimuli that contain a word transposition and are derived from grammatical as compared to ungrammatical base sentences. Some researchers have used this finding to argue that words are encoded in parallel during reading, such that multiple words can be processed simultaneously and might be recognised out of order. This contrasts with an alternative account of the reading process, which argues that words must be encoded serially, one at a time. We examined, in English, whether the transposed-word effect provides evidence for a parallel-processing account, employing the same grammaticality decision task used in previous research and display procedures that either allowed for parallel word encoding or permitted only the serial encoding of words. Our results replicate and extend recent findings by showing that relative word order can be processed flexibly even when parallel processing is not possible (i.e., within displays requiring serial word encoding). Accordingly, while the present findings provide further evidence for flexibility in the processing of relative word order during reading, they add to converging evidence that the transposed-word effect does not provide unequivocal evidence for a parallel-processing account of reading. We consider how the present findings may be accounted for by both serial and parallel accounts of word recognition in reading.

Introduction: Helping behavior is a fundamental aspect of social interaction, yet little is known about how accurately helpers can predict the emotional responses of help-seekers, particularly when interacting with strangers.Methods: This study investigated social prediction errors in helping behavior between strangers and examined how outcomes and contexts influence these errors. In three scenario-based experiments, we assessed helpers’ predictions and help-seekers’ evaluations of gratitude, satisfaction, enthusiasm, and competence across different helping situations.Results: Our findings reveal consistent underestimation of help-seekers’ positive emotions by helpers, with the degree of underestimation varying based on the outcomes and contexts of the helping behavior.Discussion: The results demonstrate that social prediction errors in helping behavior are context-dependent and outcome-based, highlighting the complexity of social cognition in prosocial behavior.