The empirical study of literary experiences affords the opportunity to investigate the extent to which the interpretations of literary critics may coincide with the meaning construction operations of flesh-and-blood readers. The present study explores the analytical potential of a statistics-based Check-all-that-apply (CATA) methodology, traditionally used in consumer research, in the study of real reader response. To this purpose, an online questionnaire designed along CATA lines is used to investigate the emergence of storyworld possible selves during narrative interaction with the graphic short story “City” (Wasco, 2015). The findings are compared to those of two previous studies of this short story, one literary (Herman & Vervaeck, 2019) and the other empirical (Martínez & Herman, 2020), and suggest that a CATA methodology can enlighten aspects of readerly response not previously addressed, particularly regarding the idiosyncratic construction of the main character in ways relevant to individual readers’ construction of themselves.
AbdiH.WilliamsL. J. (2010). Correspondence analysis. In SalkindN. J.DoughertyD. M.FreyB. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of research design (pp. 267–278). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
AdamsJ.WilliamsA.LancasterB.FoleyM. (2007). Advantages and uses of check-all-that-apply response compared to traditional scaling of attributes for salty snacks. In 7th Pangborn sensory science symposium, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 12–16 August, 2007.
3.
AlberJ. (2018). Rhetorical ways of covering up speculations and hypotheses, or why empirical investigations of real readers matter. Style, 52(1–2), 34–39. https://doi.org/10.5325/style.52.1-2.0034
4.
AlberJ. (2020). Literature as identity laboratory: Storyworld possible selves and boundary expansions. REAL: Yearbook of Research in English and American Literature, 36(1), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.2357/REAL-2021-0002
5.
AresG.JaegerS. R. (2013). Check-all-that-apply questions: Influence of attribute order on sensory product characterization. Food Quality and Preference, 28, 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.08.016
6.
BeekmanT. L.SeoH. S. (2022). Cognitive styles influence eating environment-induced variations in consumer perception of food: A case study with pad Thai noodle. Food Quality and Preference, 98, 104525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.10452
7.
BellA.van der BomI.SmithJ. (2019). A reader response method not just for ‘you’. Language and Literature, 28(3), 241–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947019859954
CulpeperJ. V.Fernandez-QuintanillaC. (2017). Fictional characterization. In LocherM. A.JuckerA. H. (Eds.), Pragmatics of fiction (pp. 93–128). Berlin, GER: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110431094-004.
12.
DudekB. (2021). A sense of fear and anxiety in digital games: An analysis of cognitive stimuli in Slender – The Eight Pages. Game Studies. The International Journal of Computer Game Research21(2). https://gamestudies.org/2102/articles/dudek
13.
DunkelC.KerpelmanJ. (Eds.). (2006). Possible selves: Theory, research and applications. New York, NY: Nova Science.
14.
EmmottC. (1992). Splitting the referent: An introduction to character enactors. In DaviesM.RavelliL. (Eds.), Advances in systemic linguistics: Recent theory and practice (pp. 221–228). London, UK: Pinter.
15.
FauconnierG.TurnerM. (2002). The way we think. Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York, NY: Basic Books. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.40-1223.
16.
FawzyR. M. (2023). VR As a metaleptic possible world of global citizenship embodiment: A cognitive stylistic approach. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 39(1), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqad078
17.
FishS. (1980). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18.
FreyJ. (2003). A million little pieces. Hachette: John Murray Publishers Ltd.
19.
GhasseminejadM. (2023). Storyworld possible selves: A framework for measuring narrative engagement. Cahier Voor Literatuurwetenschap, 14, 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1515/fns-2024-2006
20.
GhasseminejadM.MartínezM. A. (2024). Secondary storyworld possible selves: Narrative response and cultural (un)predictability. Frontiers of Narrative Studies, 10(1), 105–125. https://doi.org/10.1515/fns-2024-2006
21.
GreenacreM. (2007). Correspondence analysis in practice. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
22.
HermanD. (2011). The emergence of mind: Representations of consciousness in narrative discourse in English. Lincoln, NE: U. of Nebraska Press.
23.
HermanL.VervaeckB. (2019). Handbook of narrative analysis (2). Lincoln, NE: U of Nebraska P.
24.
ISO 5492. (2008). Sensory analysis – Vocabulary. ISO 5492. Vernier, SWTZ: International Standardization Office.
25.
JaegerS. R.BeresfordM. K.LoK. R.HunterD. C.ChheangS. L.AresG. (2020). What does it mean to check-all-that-apply? Four case studies with beverages. Food Quality and Preference, 80, 103794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.10379
26.
JakobsA. M.LüdtkeJ., (2017) Immersion into narrative and poetic worlds: A neurocognitive poetics perspective. In HakemulderF.KuijpersM. M.TanE. S.BálintK.DoicaruM. (Eds.), Narrative absorption (pp. 69–96). Amsterdam, NETH: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/LAL.27.05JAC
27.
KardelaH.Kedra-KardelaA. (2019). The speaking subject in Jerzy Bartminski’s linguistic worldview program: A cognitive grammar perspective. Etnolingwistyka, 31, 73–85. https://doi.org/10.17951/et.2019.31.73
28.
KuijpersM. M.LusettiM.LendvaiP.ReboraS. (2024). Validation of the story world absorption scale through annotation of online book reviews. Journal of Cultural Analytics, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.22148/001c.92531
KukshinovE. (2024). Unestablished boundaries: The capabilities of immersive technologies to induce empathy, tell stories, and immerse. Media and Communication, 12, 8423. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.8423
31.
LancasterB.FoleyM. (2007). Determining statistical significance for choose-all-that-apply question responses. In 7th Pangborn sensory science symposium, Minneapolis, USA, 12–16 August, 2007.
32.
LawlessH. T.HeymannH. (2010). Sensory evaluation of food: Principles and practices. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.
33.
LinY.LiuY.LiuS.KortesniemiM.LiuJ.ZhuB.LaaksonenO. (2022). Sensory and chemical characterization of Chinese bog bilberry wines using check-all-that-apply method and GC-quadrupole-MS and GC-orbitrap-MS analyses. Food Research International, 151, 110809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110809
34.
LoiC.HakemulderF.KujpersM.LauerG. (2023). On how fiction impacts the self-concept: Transformative Reading experiences and storyworld possible selves. Scientific Study of Literature, 12(1), 44–67. https://doi.org/10.61645/ssol.181
35.
LoiC.ScapinG.AlberJ.MartínezM.-Á. (2024). Measuring storyworld possible selves in depression stories: Linguistic features, personal relevance, and the narrative experience. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000721
36.
MargolinU. (2012). Character. In HermanD. (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to narrative (pp. 66–79). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521856965.005
37.
MarkusH. R. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(2), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.2.63
MartínezM. A. (2014). Storyworld possible selves and the phenomenon of narrative immersion: Testing a new theoretical concept. Narrative, 22(1), 110–131. https://doi.org/10.1353/nar.2014.0004
MartínezM. A. (2022). Ambiguity, multi-stable storyworlds, and storyworld possible selves in Rosemary Timperley’s ghost story ‘Harry’. Brumal. Research Journal on the Fantastic, 10(2), 47–71. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/brumal.894
MartínezM. A. (2025a). Storyworld possible selves. In AlberJ.SchneiderR. (Eds.), Routledge companion to literature and cognitive studies (pp. 228–243). Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003387473.
44.
MartínezM. A. (2025b). Storyworld possible selves and narrative intersubjectivity. Berlin, GER: De Gruyter.
45.
MartínezM. A.HermanL. (2020). Real readers Reading wasco’s ‘city’: A storyworld possible selves approach. Language and Literature, 29(2), 147–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947020936013
46.
MartínezM. A.Sánchez-PardoE. (2019). Past storyworld possible selves and the autobiographical reformulation of dante’s myth in lorine niedecker’s ‘switchboard girl’. Journal of Literary Semantics, 48(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1515/jls-2019-2008
47.
McCloskeyI. P.SylvanM.ArrheniusS. P. (1996). Descriptive analysis for wine quality experts determining appellations by chardonnay wine aroma. Journal of Sensory Studies, 11, 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1996.tb00032.x
MeynersM.CasturaJ. C.CarrB. T. (2013). Existing and new approaches for the analysis of CATA data. Food Quality and Preference, 30(2), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.06.010
MuchaK. (2016). Diskurs-Konstruktionen als Mentale Raumkonstruktionen. Zur emotiven Funktion von Literatur aus der Perspektive kognitionslinguistischer Theoriebildungen. Journal of Literary Theory, 10(2), 271–302. https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2016-0011
52.
NünningA. (2020). Taking responsibility for the future: Ten proposals for shaping the future of the study of culture into a problem-solving paradigm. In Bachmann-MedickD.KugeleJ.NünningA. (Eds.), Futures of the study of culture (pp. 29–65). Berlin, GER: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110669398-003
O'BrienR.SimonJ. E.TepperB. J. (2022). How do trained panelists characterize baby leafy greens? A comparison of descriptive analysis and napping. Journal of Food Science, 87(1), 396–414. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.15985
55.
OrdenD.Fernández-FernándezE.Tejedor-RomeroM. (2023). Image-based evaluation of beers at an online pint of science festival using projective mapping, check-all-that-apply, and acceptability. Journal of Sensory Studies, 38(4), e12834. https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12834
56.
PalmerA. (2004). Fictional minds. Lincoln, NE: U. of Nebraska P.
57.
ParenteM. E.ManzoniA. V.AresG. (2011). External preference mapping of commercial antiaging creams based on consumers’ responses to a check-all-that-apply question. Journal of Sensory Studies, 26, 158–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2011.00332.x
58.
PeplowD.CarterR. (2014). Stylistics and real readers. In BurkeM. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of stylistics (pp. 440–454). Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315795331.CH27
59.
Piqueras-FiszmanB.JaegerS. R. (2014). The impact of the means of context evocation on consumers’ emotion associations towards eating occasions. Food Quality and Preference, 37, 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.04.017
QuinlanJ. A.MarR. A. (2020). How imagination supports narrative experiences for textual, audiovisual, and interactive narratives. In AbrahamA. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the imagination (pp. 466–478). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108580298.028
62.
RasinskiK. A.MingayD.BradburnN. M. (1994). Do respondents really mark all that apply on self-administered questions?Public Opinion Quarterly, 58, 400–408. https://doi.org/10.1086/269434
SchleuterM. (2020) “My storyworld possible self.” Evaluating reader responses to a graphic novel with a focus on self-transformation. Bachelor’s Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.
65.
SchneiderR. (2021). Potential and actual cognitive-emotional engagement with characters: A response to Michael Whitenton and Bonnie Howe & Eve Sweetser. Biblical Interpretation, 29, 530–550. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685152-29040006
SelaniM. M.PatinhoI.Rios-MeraJ. D.SaldañaE.Contreras-CastilloC. J. (2022). Projective mapping in the development of sausages: A case study. In LorenzoJ. M.PateiroM.SaldañaE.MunekataP. E. S. (Eds.), Sensory analysis for the development of meat products (pp. 163–172). Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822832-6.00011-4
68.
SmythJ. D.DillmanD. A.ChristianL. M.SternM. J. (2006). Comparing check-all and forced-choice question formats in web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfj007
69.
StangherlinN. (2016). Nemesis and the persistence of tragic framing: Bucky Cantor as Job, Hebrew Prometheus, and Reverse Oedipus. Philip Roth Studies, 12(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.5703/philrothstud.12.1.73
70.
StradlingF. (2022). Book review: Storyworld possible selves. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics, 31(3), 457–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/09639470221120450
71.
SudmanS.BradburnN. M. (1982). In Length and format of questionnairesBradburn. In N. M. (Ed.), Asking questions: A practical guide to questionnaire design (pp. 87–100). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
72.
ToveyS. (2022). Engaging the reluctant preservice teacher reader: Exploring possible selves with literature featuring teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 44(4), 271–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2022.2060878
73.
TurnerS. G.HookerK. (2022). Are thoughts about the future associated with perceptions in the present? Optimism, possible selves, and self-perceptions of aging. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 94(2), 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091415020981883
74.
VaeßenJ.StrasenS. (2021). A cognitive and cultural reader response theory of character construction. In BellA.BrowseS.GibbonsA.PeplowD. (Eds.), Style and reader response: Minds, media, methods (pp. 81–98). Amsterdam, NETH: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.36.05vae
75.
VarelaP.AresG. (2012). Sensory profiling, the blurred line between sensory and consumer science. A review of novel methods for product characterization. Food Research International, 48(2), 893–908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2012.06.037
76.
VarelaP.AresG. (2014). Novel techniques in sensory characterization and consumer profiling. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
77.
VarelaP.ArvisenetG.GoneraA.MyhrerK. S.FifiV.ValentinD. (2022). Meat replacer? No thanks! the clash between naturalness and processing: An explorative study of the perception of plant-based foods. Appetite, 169, 105793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105793
78.
VieiraA. H.BalthazarC. F.RochaR. S.SilvaR.GuimaraesJ. T.PaganiM. M.CruzA. G. (2020). The free listing task for describing the sensory profiling of dairy foods: A case study with microfiltered goat whey orange juice beverage. Journal of Sensory Studies, 35(5), e12594. https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12594
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
