Neurodivergence,foregrounding,and narrative empathy: A study on readers’ responses to textual manipulation

Abstract

This paper empirically investigates how stylistic foregrounding affects narrative empathy toward unconventional characters, focusing on Daniel Keyes’s Flowers for Algernon (1959), a short story about a cognitively delayed janitor who, after a futuristic treatment, turns into a genius and then regresses to neurodivergence. Our questionnaire-based study compared readers’ empathic responses to original excerpts—rich in linguistic deviations mirroring the protagonist’s cognitive shifts—with responses to manipulated, stylistically neutral versions. Although we hypothesized that foregrounding would enhance empathy, quantitative data reported higher empathy scores for readers of the manipulated versions, though with no statistically significant differences between conditions. Regression analysis showed that aesthetic appreciation was the strongest predictor of state empathy. Foregrounding, conversely, emerged as a negative predictor, suggesting that salient stylistic features may distract from emotional immersion for some readers. However, collected post-reading reflections suggest that foregrounding fosters stronger emotional connections by creating more challenging emotional reactions, as readers become progressively involved in the narrator’s developments and regressions that materialize in his writing style. We provide multiple interpretations of the observed effects of foregrounding in relation to personal factors and the specific literary specimen, highlighting that foregrounding can both enhance and inhibit empathy depending on reader characteristics such as language proficiency and aesthetic sensitivity. While accessibility may facilitate immediate emotional connection, stylistic complexity appears to support reflective, often more intense responses. This study highlights the multifaceted role of literary style in shaping narrative empathy and suggests the need to account for individual reader differences in future empirical research.