Readers do not always adopt the perspective of the protagonist; however, they will under certain conditions. Experiments 1a and 1b showed that readers will take the perspective of the protagonist from the third-person point of view, but only when explicitly instructed to do so. Experiment 2 demonstrated that reading from the first-person point of view is a text-based manipulation that encourages readers to adopt the perspective of the protagonist. The results of Experiments 3a and 3b replicated the findings of Experiments 1a and 2. Experiment 4 established that simply increasing readers’ attention to the text does not lead to adoption of the protagonist’s perspective; moreover, this suggests that when it does occur, protagonist perspective adoption is not the result of increased attention, but strategic processing.
AlbrechtJ. E.O’BrienE. J. (1993). Updating a situation model: Maintaining both local and global coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1061–1070.
2.
AlbrechtJ. E.O’BrienE. J. (1995). Goal processing and the maintenance of global coherence. In LorchR. F.O’BrienE. J. (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 263–278). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
AlbrechtJ. E.O’BrienE. J.MasonR. A.MyersJ. L. (1995). The role of perspective in the accessibility of goals during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 364–372.
4.
AllbrittonD. W.GerrigR. J. (1991). Participatory responses in text understanding. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 603–626.
5.
AndersonR. C.PichertJ. W. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 1–12.
6.
BailletS. D.KeenanJ. M. (1986). The role of encoding and retrieval processes in the recall of text. Discourse Process, 9, 247–268.
7.
BarsalouL. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral & Brain Science, 22, 577–609.
8.
BarsalouL. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.
9.
BowerG. H.MorrowD. G. (1990). Mental models in narrative comprehension. Science, 247, 44–48.
10.
BrunyeT. T.DitmanT.MahoneyC. R.AugustynJ. S.TaylorH. A. (2009). When you and I share perspectives: Pronouns modulate perspective taking during narrative comprehension. Psychological Science, 20, 27–32.
CookA. E.GuéraudS.WasC. A.O’BrienE. J. (2007). Foregrounding effects during reading, revisited. Discourse Processes, 44, 91–111.
13.
CookA. E.HalleranJ. G.O’BrienE. J. (1998). What is readily available during reading? A memory-based view of text processing. Discourse Processes, 26, 109–129.
14.
CookA. E.O’BrienE. J. (2014). Knowledge activation, integration, and validation during narrative text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 51, 26–49.
15.
CookA. E.WalshE.BillsM. A. A.KircherJ. C.O’BrienE. J. (2016). Validation of semantic illusions independent of anomaly detection: Evidence from eye movements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1–11.
16.
CookA. E.WeiW. (2017). Using eye movements to study reading processes: Methodological considerations. In WasC. A.SansoitF. J.MorrisB. J. (Eds.), Eye tracking technology applications in educational research (pp. 27–47). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
17.
CreerS. D.CookA. E.O’BrienE. J. (2018). Competing activation during fantasy text comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22, 308–320.
18.
FergusonH. J.JayesL. T. (2018). Plausibility and perspective influence the processing of counterfactual narratives. Discourse Processes, 55, 166–186.
19.
FischerM. H.ZwaanR. A. (2008). Embodied language: A review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 825–850.
20.
FranklinN.TverskyB. (1990). Searching imagined environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 63–76.
21.
GarrodS.TerrasM. (2000). The contribution of lexical and situational knowledge to resolving discourse roles: Bonding and resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 526–544.
22.
GernsbacherM. A. (1997). Two decades of structure building. Discourse Processes, 23, 265–304.
23.
GernsbacherM. A.GoldsmithH. H.RobertsonR. R. (1992). Do readers mentally represent characters’ emotional states?Cognition & Emotion, 6, 89–111.
24.
GerrigR. J. (1993). Experiencing narrative worlds: On the psychological activities of reading. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
GlenbergA. A.MeyerM.LindemK. (1987). Mental models contribute to foregrounding during text comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 69–83.
27.
GraesserA. C.SingerM.TrabassoT. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.
28.
GreenM. C. (2004). Transportation into narrative worlds: The role of prior knowledge and perceived realism. Discourse Processes, 38, 247–266.
29.
GreenM. C. (2007). Linking self and others through narrative. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 100–102.
30.
GreenM. C.BrockT. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 701–721.
31.
GuéraudS.HarmonM. E.PeracchiK. A. (2005). Updating situation models: The memory-based contribution. Discourse Processes, 39, 243–263.
32.
HakalaC. M. (1999). Accessibility of spatial information in a situation model. Discourse Processes, 27, 261–279.
33.
HortonW. S.RappD. N. (2003). Out of sight, out of mind: Occlusion and the accessibility of information in narrative comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 104–110.
34.
HuitemaJ. S.DopkinsS.KlinC. M.MyersJ. L. (1993). Connecting goals and actions during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1053–1060.
35.
IsbernerM.RichterT. (2014). Does validation during language comprehension depend on an evaluative mindset?Discourse Processes, 51, 7–25.
KaakinenJ. K.HyönäJ.KeenanJ. M. (2002). Perspective effects on on-line text processing. Discourse Processes, 33, 159–173.
38.
KendeouP.SmithE. R.O’BrienE. J. (2013). Updating during reading comprehension: Why causality matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 854–865.
39.
KintschW. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.
40.
KintschW. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
41.
LongD. L.LeaR. B. (2005). Have we been searching for meaning in all the wrong places? Defining the” search after meaning” principle in comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39, 279–298.
42.
McKoonG.RatcliffR. (1986). Inferences about predictable events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 82–91.
43.
McKoonG.RatcliffR. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440–466.
44.
McKoonG.RatcliffR. (1998). Memory-based language processing: Psycholinguistic research in the 1990s. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 25–42.
45.
McKoonG.RatcliffR. (2015). Cognitive theories in discourse processing research. In O’BrienE. J.CookA. E.LorchR. F. (Eds.), Inferences during reading (pp. 42-67). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
46.
MyersJ. L.O’BrienE. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26, 131-157.
47.
O’BrienE. J.AlbrechtJ. E. (1992). Comprehension strategies in the development of a metal model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 777-784.
48.
O’BrienE. J.CookA. E. (2015). Models of discourse comprehension. In PollatsekA.TreimanR. (Eds.), Handbook on reading (pp. 217-231). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
49.
O’BrienE. J.CookA. E. (2016a). Coherence threshold and the continuity of processing: The RI-Val model of comprehension. Discourse Processes, 53, 326-338.
50.
O’BrienE. J.CookA. E. (2016b). Separating the activation, integration, and validation components of reading. In RossB. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 65, pp. 249-276). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
51.
O’BrienE. J.CookA. E.GuéraudS. (2010). Accessibility of outdated information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 36, 979-991.
52.
O’BrienE. J.MyersJ. L. (1999). Text comprehension: A view from the bottom up. In GoldmanS. R.GraesserA. C.van den BroekP. (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 35-53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
53.
O’BrienE. J.MyersJ. L. (2015, July). Mapping validation processes onto memory-based text processing. Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, Minneapolis, MN.
54.
O’BrienE. J.RizzellaM. L.AlbrechtJ. E.HalleranJ. G. (1998). Updating a situation model: A memory-based text processing view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1200-1210.
55.
PeracchiK. A.O’BrienE. J. (2004). Character profiles and the activation of predictive inferences. Memory & Cognition, 32, 1044-1052.
56.
PichertJ. W.AndersonR. C. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 309-315.
57.
RabinowitzP. J. (1987). Before reading. In RichterD. H. (Ed.), The critical tradition: Classic texts and contemporary trends (pp. 1042-1057). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
58.
RallJ.HarrisP. L. (2000). In Cinderella’s slippers? Story comprehension from the protagonist’s point of view. Developmental Psychology, 36, 202-208.
59.
RappD. N.GerrigR. J. (2006). Predilections for narrative outcomes: The impact of story contexts and reader preferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 54-67.
60.
RosenblattL. M. (1938). Literature as exploration. New York, NY: D. Appleton-Century Co.
61.
SanfordA. J.GarrodS. C. (1989). What, when, and how?: Questions of immediacy in anaphoric reference resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, SI235-SI262.
62.
SingerM. (2006). Verification of text ideas during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 574-591.
63.
SingerM. (2013). Validation in reading comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 361-366.
64.
SingerM.DoeringJ. C. (2014). Exploring individual differences in language validation. Discourse Processes, 5, 167-188.
65.
SmithE. R.O’BrienE. J. (2012). Tracking spatial information during reading: A cue-based process. Memory & Cognition, 40, 791-801.
66.
Van KriekenK. (2017). Ambiguous perspective in narrative discourse: Effects of viewpoint markers and verb tense on readers’ interpretations of represented perceptions. Discourse Processes, 1–16.
67.
WalshE. K.CookA. E.O’BrienE. J. (2018). Overcoming violations of real-world knowledge in a fantasy-world text. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Advanced Online Publication.
68.
WilliamsC. R.CookA. E.O’BrienE. J. (2018). Processing semantic anomalies: Validation against general world knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Advance Online Publication.
69.
ZieglerF.MitchellP.CurrieG. (2005). How does narrative cue children’s perspective taking?Developmental Psychology, 41, 115-123.
70.
ZwaanR. A. (1999a). Embodied cognition, perceptual symbols, and situation models. Discourse Processes, 28, 81-88.
71.
ZwaanR. A. (1999b). Five dimensions of narrative comprehension: The event-indexing model. In GoldmanS. R.GraesserA. C.van den BroekP., (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 93-110). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
72.
ZwaanR. A.RadvanskyG. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162-185.
