Cover not available

Article published In: Scientific Study of Literature
Vol. 7:2 (2017) ► pp.203–231

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

A sixth sense

Narrative experiences of stories with twist endings

 | Aoyama Gakuin University
 | Osaka City University
 | Shukutoku Junior College
 | Kyoto University
 | Northwestern University
Published online: 28 June 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.17002.kom
Abstract
Stories with twist endings are popular, but little research has examined how readers experience them. To begin developing such an account, we examined the affective responses that emerge during stories with twist endings. In Experiment 1, 28 Japanese participants read a story with a twist ending. Greater empathy and stronger expectations were associated with slower reading times during participants’ first reading of the story. However, on participants’ second reading, greater empathy and stronger expectations were associated with faster reading times. In Experiment 2, we tested the generality of these effects by asking 36 English-speaking participants to read four stories with twist endings. The results were similar to Experiment 1. Readers’ initial and recurring responses to stories with twist endings reflect changes in surprise and empathy. These feelings underlie engagement with and interest in unexpected and often incoherent contents, which are characteristics of stories with twist endings.
Article outline
  • Reading and rereading
    • Readers’ responses
  • The current study
  • Experiment 1
    • Method
      • Participants
      • Materials
      • Procedure
    • Results and discussion
      • First reading
      • Second reading
      • Residual reading times
    • Readers’ emotions
  • Experiment 2
    • Method
      • Participants
      • Materials
      • Procedure
    • Results and discussion
      • First reading
      • Second reading
    • Residual reading times
    • Readers’ emotions
  • General discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (65)
References
Albrecht, J. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (1993). Updating a mental model: Maintaining both local and global coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 191, 10611–070.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Allbritton, D. W., & Gerrig, R. J. (1991). Participatory responses in text understanding. Journal of Memory & Language, 301, 603–626. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bohn-Gettler, C. M., & Rapp, D. N. (2011). Depending on my mood: Mood-driven influences on text comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1031, 562–577. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Emotions in reading and writing. In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 437–457). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brewer, W. F. (1996). The nature of narrative suspense and the problem of rereading. In P. Vorderer, H. J. Wulff, & M. Friedrichsen (Eds.), Suspense: Conceptualizations, theoretical analyses, and empirical explorations (pp. 107–127). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brewer, W. F., & Lichtenstein, E. H. (1982). Stories are to entertain: A structural-affect theory of stories. Journal of Pragmatics, 61, 473–486. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carretti, B., Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R., & Romanò, M. (2005). Updating in working memory: A comparison of good and poor comprehenders. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 911, 45–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cupchik, G. C., Leonard, G., Axelrad, E., & Kalin, J. D. (1998). The landscape of emotion in literary encounters. Cognition and Emotion, 121, 825–847. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2005). Why does rereading improve metacomprehension accuracy? Evaluating the levels-of-disruption hypothesis for the rereading effect. Discourse Processes, 401, 37–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Egidi, G., & Gerrig, R. J. (2009). How valence affects language processing: Negativity bias and mood congruence in narrative comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 371, 547–555. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gerrig, R. J. (1993). Experiencing narrative worlds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gerrig, R. J., Bagelmann, K. A., & Mumper, M. L. (2016). On the origins of readers’ outcome preferences. Discourse Processes, 531, 603–631. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gillioz, C., Gygax, P., & Tapiero, I. (2012). Individual differences and emotional inferences during reading comprehension. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 661, 239–250. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 791, 701–721. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gygax, P., Tapiero, I., & Carruzzo, E. (2007). Emotion inferences during reading comprehension: What evidence can the self-pace reading paradigm provide? Discourse Processes, 441, 33–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horton, W. S., & Rapp, D. N. (2003). Out of sight, out of mind: Occlusion and the accessibility of information in narrative comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 101, 104–110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoshi, S. (1985). “The cost of kindness” and other fabulous tales. Philadelphia, PA: C and P Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ishikawa, T. (1992). Aibiki. Kodansha. Tokyo. (in Japanese)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacovina, M. E., Hinze, S. R., & Rapp, D. N. (2014). Fool me twice: The consequences of reading (and rereading) inaccurate information. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 281, 558–568 Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kintsch, W., & Keenan, J. M. (1973). Reading rate as a function of the number of propositions in the base structure of sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 257–274. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kintsch, W., Kozminsky, E., Streby, W. J., McKoon, G., & Keenan, J. M. (1975). Comprehension and recall oftext as a function of content variables. Journal ofVerbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 141, 196–214. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Komeda, H., Kawasaki, M., Tsunemi, K., & Kusumi, T. (2009). Differences between estimating protagonists’ emotions and evaluating readers’ emotions in narrative comprehension. Cognition and Emotion, 231, 135–151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Komeda, H., & Kusumi, T. (2006). The effect of a protagonist’s emotional shift on situation model construction. Memory & Cognition, 341, 1548–1556. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Komeda, H., Tsunemi, K., Inohara, K., Kusumi, T., & Rapp, D. N. (2013). Beyond disposition: The processing consequences of explicit and implicit invocations of empathy. Acta Psychologica, 1421, 349–355. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Komeda, H., Nihei, Y., & Kusumi, T. (2005). The roles of readers’ feelings in understanding narratives: Forefeel, empathy, and a sense of strangeness. The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 751, 479–486. (In Japanese with English abstract). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorch, R. F., & Myers, J. L. (1990). Regression analyses of repeated measures data in cognitive research. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 161, 149–157.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Magliano, J. P., Skowronski, J. J., Britt, M. A., Guss, C. D., & Forsythe, C. (2008). What do you want? How perceivers use cues to make goal inferences about others. Cognition, 1061, 594–632. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Magliano, J. P., Taylor, H. A., & Kim, H. J. (2005). When goals collide: Monitoring the goals of multiple characters. Memory & Cognition, 331, 1357–1367. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mar, R. A., & Oatley, K. (2008). The function of fiction is the abstraction and simulation of social experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 31, 173–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., & Kambe, G. (2005). The effect of relevance instructions on reading time and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 971, 88–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 221, 247–288. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mensink, M. C., & Rapp, D. N. (2011). Evil geniuses: Inferences derived from evidence and preferences. Memory & Cognition, 391, 1103–1116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miall, D. S. (1989). Beyond the schema given: Affective comprehension of literary narratives. Cognition and Emotion, 31, 55–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Literary discourse. In Graesser, A., Gernsbacher, M. A., & Goldman, S. R. (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 321–355.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miall, D. S., & Kuiken, D. (1995). Aspects of literary response: A new questionnaire. Research in the Teaching of English, 291, 37–58.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Shifting perspectives: Readers’ feelings and literary response. In van Peer, W. & Chatman, S. (Eds.), New perspectives on narrative perspective (pp. 289–301). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). A feeling for fiction: Becoming what we behold. Poetics, 301, 221–241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Millis, K. K., Simon, S., & tenBroek, N. S. (1998). Resource allocation during the rereading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 261, 232–246. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oatley, K. (1994). A taxonomy of the emotions of literary response and a theory of identification in fictional narrative. Poetics, 231, 53–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Emotions and the story worlds of fiction. In M. C. Green, J. J. Strange, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Narrative impact (pp. 39–69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oatley, K., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1987). Towards a cognitive theory of emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 11, 29–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Brien, E. J., Rizzella, M. L., Albrecht, J. E., & Halleran, J. G. (1998). Updating a situation model: A memory-based text processing view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 241, 1200–1210.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortony, A., & Turner, T. J. (1990). What’s basic about basic emotions? Psychological Review, 971, 315–331. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peshkam, A., Mensink, M. C., Putnam, A. L., & Rapp, D. N. (2011). Warning readers to avoid irrelevant information: When being vague might be valuable. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 361, 219–231. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pettijohn, K. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (2016). Narrative event boundaries, reading times, and expectation. Memory & Cognition, 441, 1064–1075. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Polichak, J. W., & Gerrig, R. J. (2002). “Get up and win!”: Participatory responses to narrative. In M. C. Green, J. J. Strange, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations (pp. 71–95). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radvansky, G. A., Zwaan, R. A., Curiel, J. M., & Copeland, D. E. (2001). Situation models and aging. Psychology and Aging, 161, 145–160. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raney, G. E., Therriault, D., & Minkoff, S. (2000). Repetition effects from paraphrased text: Evidence for an integrated representation model of text representation. Discourse Processes, 291, 61–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rapp, D. N. (2008). How do readers handle incorrect information during reading? Memory & Cognition, 361, 688–701. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rapp, D. N., & Gerrig, R. J. (2002). Readers’ reality-driven and plot-driven analyses in narrative comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 301, 779–788. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Predilections for narrative outcomes: The impact of story contexts and reader preferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 541, 54–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rapp, D. N., Gerrig, R. J., & Prentice, D. A. (2001). Readers’ trait-based models of characters in narrative comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 451, 737–750. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rapp, D. N., Komeda, H., & Hinze, S. R. (2011). Vivifications of literary investigation. The Scientific Study of Literature, 11, 123–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scrimin, S., & Mason, L. (2015). Does mood influence text processing and comprehension? Evidence from an eye-movement study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 851, 387–406. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van den Broek, P., & Kendeou, P. (in press). The development of language comprehension skills: Change and continuity in the ability to build coherence. In K. Cain & D. Compton (Eds.), Theories of reading development, a 20 year celebration of scientific studies of reading. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
van den Broek, P., Young, M., Yuhtsuen, T., & Linderholm, T. (1999). The landscape model of reading: Inferences and the online construction of memory representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71–98). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
VandenBos, G. R. (Ed.). (2007). APA dictionary of psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wallot, S., Hollis, G., & van Rooij, M. (2013). Connected text reading anddifferences in text reading fluency in adult readers. PLoS One, 81:e71914. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zillmann, D. (1994). Mechanisms of emotional involvement with drama. Poetics, 231, 33–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A. (1999a). Five dimensions of narrative comprehension: The event-indexing model. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 93–110). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999b). Embodied cognition, perceptual symbols, and situation models. Discourse Processes, 281, 81–88. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., Magliano, J. P., & Graesser, A. C. (1995). Dimensions of situation model construction in narrative comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 211, 386–397.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situational models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 1231, 162–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., Radvansky, G. A., Hilliard, A. E., & Curiel, J. M. (1998). Constructing multidimensional situation models during reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21, 199–220. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., & Rapp, D. N. (2006). Discourse comprehension. In M. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 725–764). San Diego, CA: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue