Abstract
This paper proposes a conceptual framework of multiversional narrative processing, or multiversionality. Multiversionality is the consideration of multiple possible event sequences for an incomplete narrative during reception, from reading a novel to listening to the story of a friend’s day. It occurs naturally and is experienced in a wide range of cases, such as suspense, surprise, counterfactuals, and detective stories. Receiving a narrative, we propose, is characterized by the spontaneous creation of competing interpretive models of the narrative that are then used to create predictions and projections for the narrative’s future. These predictions serve as a mechanism for integrating incoming information and updating the narrative model through prediction error, without completely eliminating past versions. We define this process as having three aspects: (1) constrained expectations, (2) preference projection, and (3) causal extrapolation. Constrained expectations and preference projections respectively create the bounds and subjective desires for a narrative’s progress, while causal extrapolation builds, reworks, and maintains the potential models for understanding the narrative. We offer multiversionality as a novel framework for thinking about narrative, social cognition, and decision making that presents adaptive benefits and future directions for empirical study.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Austen, J. 1988. Pride and Prejudice. Oxford University Press.
Bálint, K., M.M. Kuijpers, M.M. Doicaru, F. Hakemulder, and E.S. Tan. 2017. The effect of suspense structure on felt suspense and narrative absorption in literature and film. Narrative Absorption 27: 177. https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.27.10bal.
Bietti, L.M., O. Tilston, and A. Bangerter. 2019. Storytelling as adaptive collective sensemaking. Topics in Cognitive Science 11 (4): 710–732.
Booth, C., M. Rowlinson, P. Clark, A. Delahaye, and S. Procter. 2009. Scenarios and counterfactuals as modal narratives. Futures 41 (2): 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2008.07.037.
Byrne, R.M. 2005. The rational imagination: How people create alternatives to reality. MIT Press.
Bridgeman, T. 2005. Thinking ahead: A cognitive approach to prolepsis. Narrative 13 (2): 125–159. https://doi.org/10.1353/nar.2005.0007.
Brockington, G., Moreira, A. P. G., Buso, M. S., da Silva, S. G., Altszyler, E., Fischer, R., & Moll, J. (2021). Storytelling increases oxytocin and positive emotions and decreases cortisol and pain in hospitalized children. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(22).
Brooks, P. 1984. Reading for the plot: Design and intention in narrative. Random House.
Bruner, J.S. 1986. Actual minds, possible worlds. Harvard University Press.
Breithaupt, F. 2012. Kultur der Ausrede. Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Breithaupt, F., B. Li, T.M. Liddell, E.B. Schille-Hudson, and S. Whaley. 2018. Fact vs. affect in the telephone game: All levels of surprise are retold with high accuracy, even independently of facts. Frontiers in Psychology 9 (2210): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02210.
Breithaupt, F. (2002). Das Indiz. Lessings und Goethes Laokoon-Texte und die Narrativität der Bilder. In M. Hein, M. Hüners, & T. Michaelsen (Eds.), Ästhetik des Comic (pp. 37–50). Erich Schmidt Verlag.
Brydevall, M., D. Bennett, C. Murawski, and S. Bode. 2018. The neural encoding of information prediction errors during non-instrumental information-seeking. Scientific reports 8 (1): 6134. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-24566-x.
Carroll, N. 1990. The philosophy of horror: Or, paradoxes of the heart. Routledge.
Carroll, N. (2001). The paradox of suspense. In Beyond Aesthetics: Philosophical Essays (pp. 254–270). Cambridge University Press. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605970.017
Chan, G.C., J.E. Foy, and J.P. Magliano. 2018. Factors that affect crossover between multiple worlds within a narrative. Discourse Processes 55 (8): 666–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1323540.
Chatman, S.B. 1980. Story and discourse: Narrative structure in fiction and film. Cornell University Press.
Clark, A. 2015. Surfing uncertainty: Prediction, action, and the embodied mind. Oxford University Publishing.
Daniel, T.A., and J.S. Katz. 2019. Spoilers affect the enjoyment of television episodes but not short stories. Psychological Reports 122 (5): 1794–1807.
Deane, P., S. Somasundaran, R.R. Lawless, H. Persky, and C. Appel. 2019. The key practice, building and sharing stories and social understandings: The intrinsic value of narrative (Research Report No. RR-19-31). Princeton: Educational Testing Service. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12266.
Dennis, J.P., and J.S. Vander Wal. 2009. The Cognitive Flexibility Inventory: Instrument Development and Estimates of Reliability and Validity. Cognitive Therapy and Research 34: 241–253.
De Vega, M., M. Urrutia, and B. Riffo. 2007. Canceling updating in the comprehension of counterfactuals embedded in narratives. Memory & Cognition 35 (6): 1410–1421.
Dodell-Feder, D., and D.I. Tamir. 2018. Fiction reading has a small positive impact on social cognition: A meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 147 (11): 1713–1727. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000395.
Eekhof, L.S., M.M. Kuijpers, M. Faber, X. Gao, M. Mak, E. van den Hoven, and R.M. Willems. 2021. Lost in a story, detached from the words. Discourse Processes. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2020.1857619.
Ely, J., A. Frankel, and E. Kamenica. 2015. Suspense and surprise. Journal of Political Economy. 123 (1): 215–260. https://doi.org/10.1086/677350.
Epstude, K., and N.J. Roese. 2008. The functional theory of counterfactual thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Review 12 (2): 168–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308316091.
Fauconnier, G. 1994. Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge University Press.
Fitzgerald, J. 1984. The relationship between reading ability and expectations for story structures. Discourse Processes 7 (1): 21–41.
Flesch, W. 2007. Comeuppance: Costly signaling, altruistic punishment, and other biological components of fiction. Harvard University Press.
Forster, E. M. (1927). Aspects of the novel. Arnold.
Freud, S. (1922). Beyond the pleasure principle. (C. J. M. Hubback, Transl.). International Psycho-Analytical Press. (Original work published 1920).
Frith, U., and F. de Vignemont. 2005. Egocentrism, allocentrism, and Asperger syndrome. Consciousness and Cognition 14 (4): 719–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2005.04.006.
Friston, K. 2010. The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11 (2): 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2787.
Friston, K., J. Kilner, and L. Harrison. 2006. A free energy principle for the brain. Journal of Physiology-Paris 100 (1-3): 70–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis.2006.10.001.
Friston, K., C. Thornton, and A. Clark. 2012. Free-energy minimization and the dark-room problem. Frontiers in psychology 3 (130): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00130.
Gabora, L. 2017. Honing theory: a complex systems framework for creativity. Nonlinear Dynamic in Psychology and Life Science 21 (1): 35–88.
Gerrig, R.J., and W.G. Wenzel. 2015. The role of inferences in narrative experiences. In Inferences during reading (pp. 362–385), ed. E.J. O’Brien, A.E. Cook, and R.F. Lorch Jr. Cambridge University Press.
Green, M.C., T.C. Brock, and G.F. Kaufman. 2004. Understanding media enjoyment: The role of transportation into narrative worlds. Communication Theory 14 (4): 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00317.x.
Gross, J.J., and O.P. John. 2003. Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85 (2): 348–362.
Gumbrecht, H.U. 2004. Production of presence: What meaning cannot convey. Stanford University Press.
Haberlandt, K. 1982. Reader expectations in text comprehension. Advances in Psychology 9: 239–249.
Hamilton, A., and F. Breithaupt. 2013. These things called event: Toward a unified narrative theory of events. Spr. Datenverarbeitung 37: 65–87.
Hayden, A., E.P. Lorch, R. Milich, C. Cosoreanu, and J. Van Neste. 2018. Predictive inference generation and story comprehension among children with ADHD: Is making predictions helpful? Contemporary Educational Psychology 53: 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.02.003.
Hayes-Roth, B., A. Stern, and J.H. Murray. 1998. Interactive fiction. IEEE Intelligent Systems and their Applications 13 (6): 12–15.
Hellekson, K., & Busse, K. (Eds.). (2006). Fan fiction and fan communities in the age of the internet: new essays. McFarland.
Hohwy, J. 2013. The predictive mind. Oxford University Press.
Hutchins, T.L., P.A. Prelock, and W. Chace. 2008. Test-retest reliability of a theory of mind task battery for children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 23 (4): 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357608322998.
Hutto, D. 2007. The Narrative Practice Hypothesis: Origins and Applications of Folk Psychology. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 60: 43–68. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1358246107000033.
Hutto, D.D., and S. Gallagher. 2017. Re-authoring narrative therapy: Improving our selfmanagement tools. Philosophy, Psychiatry and Psychology 24 (2): 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1353/ppp.2017.0020.
Kahneman, D., and D.T. Miller. 1986. Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review 93 (2): 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.136.
Keen, S. 2006. A theory of narrative empathy. Narrative 14 (3): 207–236.
Kintsch, W. 1988. The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review 95 (2): 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163.
Knobloch, Silvia, Grit Patzig, Anna-Maria Mende, and Matthias Hastall. 2004. Affective news: Effects of discourse structure in narratives on suspense, curiosity, and enjoyment while reading news and novels. Communication Research 31 (3): 259–287.
Koenitz, H. (2015). Towards a specific theory of interactive digital narrative. In Interactive Digital Narrative (pp. 91-105). Routledge.
Koopman, E., and F. Hakemulder. 2015. Effects of literature in empathy and self-reflection: A theoretical-empirical framework. Journal of Literary Theory 9 (1): 79–111.
Kukkonen, K. 2020. Probability designs: Literature and predictive processing. Oxford University Press.
Kustritz, A. (2014). Seriality and transmediality in the fan multiverse: Flexible and multiple narrative structures in fan fiction, art, and vids. TV/Series, 6.
Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Descriptive application (Vol. 2). Stanford University Press.
Lagrange, V., B. Hiskes, C. Woodward, B. Li, and F. Breithaupt. 2019. Choosing and enjoying violence in narratives. PloS one 14 (12): e0226503.
Leavenworth, M.L. 2015. The paratext of fan fiction. Narrative 23 (1): 40–60.
Leavitt, J.D., and N.J. Christenfeld. 2011. Story spoilers don’t spoil stories. Psychological Science 22 (9): 1152–1154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417007.
Liveley, G. 2019. Narratology: Ancient and modern. Oxford University Press.
Magliano, J.P., K. Dijkstra, and R.A. Zwaan. 1996. Generating predictive inferences while viewing a movie. Discourse Processes 22 (3): 199–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539609544973.
Mar, R.A. 2018. Stories and the promotion of social cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science 27 (4): 257–262.
Mar, R.A., and K. Oatley. 2008. The Function of Fiction is the Abstraction and Simulation of Social Experience. Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science 3 (3): 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00073.x.
McNamara, D.S., and J. Magliano. 2009. Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 51: 297–384.
Montfort, N. 2005. Twisty Little Passages: an approach to interactive fiction. MIT Press.
Montfort, N. (2011). Toward a theory of interactive fiction. In K. Jackson-Mead & J. R. Wheeler (Eds.), IF Theory Reader (pp. 25-58). Transcript On Press.
Mumper, M.L., and R.J. Gerrig. 2017. Leisure reading and social cognition: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 11 (1): 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000089.
Murray, J.D., C.M. Klin, and J.L. Myers. 1993. Forward inferences in narrative text. Journal of Memory and Language 32 (4): 464–473. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1993.1025.
Nabi, R.L., and M.C. Green. 2015. The role of a narrative's emotional flow in promoting persuasive outcomes. Media Psychology 18 (2): 137–162.
Norenzayan, A., S. Atran, J. Faulkner, and M. Schaller. 2006. Memory and mystery: the cultural selection of minimally counterintuitive narratives. Cognitive Science 30 (3): 531–553. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_68.
Oatley, K. 1999. Why fiction may be twice as true as fact: Fiction as cognitive and emotional simulation. Review of General Psychology 3 (2): 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.3.2.101.
Oatley, K. 2016. Fiction: Simulation of Social Worlds. Trends in cognitive sciences 20 (8): 618–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.06.002.
Ortony, A., G.L. Clore, and A. Collins. 1990. The cognitive structure of emotions. Cambridge University Press.
Rapp, D.N., and R.J. Gerrig. 2006. Predilections for narrative outcomes: The impact of story contexts and reader preferences. Journal of Memory and Language 54 (1): 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.04.003.
Reisenzein, R. 2000. Exploring the strength of association between components of emotion syndromes: The case of surprise. Cognition & Emotion 14 (1): 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999300378978.
Reisenzein, R., Meyer, W. U., & Niepel, M. (2012). Surprise. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (2nd ed., pp. 564–570). Elsevier. doi: 0.1016/B978-0-12-375000-6.00353-0
Rodriguez-Cabrero, J., J.Q. Zhu, and E.A. Ludvig. 2019. Costly curiosity: People pay a price to resolve an uncertain gamble early. Behavioural processes 160: 20–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2018.12.015.
Roediger, H.L., and K.B. McDermott. 1995. Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 21 (4): 803–814. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.4.803.
Roese, N.J. 1997. Counterfactual thinking. Psychological Bulletin 121 (1): 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.133.
Saerys-Foy, J. E. & Magliano, J. P. (2021). From shots to storyworlds: The cognitive processes supporting the comprehension of serialized television. In T. Nannicelli and H. J. Pérez (Eds.), Cognition, Emotion, and Aesthetics in Contemporary Serial Television. Routledge, 97-116.
Scotney, V.S., S. Weissmeyer, N. Carbert, and L. Gabora. 2019. The Ubiquity of Cross-Domain Thinking in the Early Phase of the Creative Process. Frontiers in psychology 10: 1426. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01426.
Scott, W.A. 1962. Cognitive complexity and cognitive flexibility. Sociometry 25 (4): 405–414. https://doi.org/10.2307/2785779.
Scrivner, C., J.A. Johnson, J. Kjeldgaard-Christiansen, and M. Clasen. 2021. Pandemic practice: Horror fans and morbidly curious individuals are more psychologically resilient during the COVID-19 pandemic. Personality and individual differences 168: 110397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110397.
Segal, E. 2010. Closure in detective fiction. Poetics Today 31 (2): 153–215. https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-2009-018.
Schmid, W. (2003). Narrativity and eventfulness. In T. Kindt and H. H. Müller (Eds.), What is Narratology? Questions and Answers Regarding the Status of a Theory (pp. 17–35). de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110202069.17
Smith, F. 1975. The role of prediction in reading. Elementary English 52 (3): 305–311.
Smuts, A. (2009). The paradox of suspense. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/paradox-suspense/
Sugiyama, M.S. 1996. On the origins of narrative: Storyteller bias as a fitness-enhancing strategy. Human Nature 7 (4): 403–425.
Tamir, D.I., A.B. Bricker, D. Dodell-Feder, and J.P. Mitchell. 2016. Reading fiction and reading minds: the role of simulation in the default network. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience 11 (2): 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsv114.
Tooby, J., and L. Cosmides. 2001. Does beauty build adapted minds? Toward an evolutionary theory of aesthetics, fiction, and the arts. SubStance 30 (1): 6–27.
Topolinski, S., and F. Strack. 2015. Corrugator activity confirms immediate negative affect in surprise. Frontiers in Psychology 6 (134): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00134.
Trabasso, T., and J.P. Magliano. 1996. Conscious understanding during comprehension. Discourse Processes 21 (3): 255–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539609544959.
Van den Broek, P., C.R. Fletcher, and K. Risden. 1993. Investigations of inferential processes in reading: A theoretical and methodological integration. Discourse Processes 16 (1-2): 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539309544835.
Yon, D., C. Heyes, and C. Press. 2020. Beliefs and desires in the predictive brain. Nature Communications 11 (4404): 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18332-9.
Zacks, J.M. 2020. Event perception and memory. Annual Review of Psychology 71: 165–191. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-051101.
Zacks, J.M., N.K. Speer, K.M. Swallow, T.S. Braver, and J.R. Reynolds. 2007. Event perception: A mind-brain perspective. Psychological Bulletin 133 (2): 273–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.2.273.
Zacks, J.M., and G.A. Radvansky. 2014. Event cognition. Oxford University Press.
Zunshine, L. 2003. Theory of mind and experimental representations of fictional consciousness. Narrative 11 (3): 270–291.
Zunshine, L. 2006. Why We Read Fiction: Theory of Mind and the Novel. Ohio State University Press.
Zwaan, R.A., M.C. Langston, and A.C. Graesser. 1995. The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: An event-indexing model. Psychological Science 6 (5): 292–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00513.x.
Zwaan, R.A., and G.A. 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.
Zwaan, R.A. 2016. Situation models, mental simulations, and abstract concepts in discourse comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 23 (4): 1028–1034. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0864-x.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hiskes, B., Hicks, M., Evola, S. et al. Multiversionality: Considering multiple possibilities in the processing of narratives. Rev.Phil.Psych. 14, 1099–1124 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-022-00621-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-022-00621-5