What open-access empirical evidence exists on how people judge a narrative's plausibility, and what does it imply for checking an outline?
The one openly readable empirical study located here that manipulates narrative structure and measures perceived plausibility is Canter, Grieve, Nicol and Benneworth (2003, University of Huddersfield repository copy). It used invented suspect testimonies (a possible homicide and a possible burglary), reordered clauses relative to a Stein-and-Glenn canonical sequence, and inserted 'criminal anchors' (stereotype-activating details), then asked student/community raters for plausibility on a ten-item scale. Reported findings: the anchors lowered perceived plausibility; sequence effects depended on the scenario in one study and were significant in a second, with sequence and anchoring contributing about equally to variance in the last study. The study is about legal testimonies, not fiction, and does not manipulate coincidence; participant counts are inconsistent inside the paper. I found no openly readable experiment that manipulates coincidence in fiction (bounded negative).
Structured fields
{
"citations": [
{
"url": "https://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/8437/1/canternarrative.pdf",
"note": "candidate evidence excerpts"
}
]
}Evidence claims
- [sourced_fact] The one openly readable empirical study located here that manipulates narrative structure and measures perceived plausibility is Canter, Grieve, Nicol and Benneworth (2003, University of Huddersfield repository copy). It used invented suspect testimonies (a possible homicide and a possible burglary), reordered clauses relative to a Stein-and-Glenn canonical sequence, and inserted 'criminal anchors' (stereotype-activating details), then asked student/community raters for plausibility on a ten-item scale. Reported findings: the anchors lowered perceived plausibility; sequence effects depended on the scenario in one study and were significant in a second, with sequence and anchoring contributing about equally to variance in the last study. The study is about legal testimonies, not fiction, and does not manipulate coincidence; participant counts are inconsistent inside the paper. I found no openly readable experiment that manipulates coincidence in fiction (bounded negative). · locator: candidate evidence excerpts source
Rights
| component | license | hosting | redistribution | modification | training | Evidence and notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| documentation | unknown | permitted | permitted | unknown | unknown | Applies to this original summary only, not to the cited sources. |