Speaker: Giulia Scapin @Giulia_Scapin
Affiliation: Department of Communication Science, VU Amsterdam & Department of Communication, University of Haifa
Title: Manipulating Foregrounding Processing with Shared Reading Inspired Prompts
Abstract (long version below): This symposium is focused on the topic of Shared Reading. It showcases different empirical methods - both quantitative and qualitative - that can be used to investigate the effects of Shared Reading or look at how Shared Reading can be incorporated into research designs within empirical literary studies. We hope to inspire a discussion on the different choices of experiment designs: measures, stimulus materials, observation methods, as well as analytical approaches (coding schemes, statistical tests, etc.). The possibilities of using Shared Reading as a method for data collection will also be discussed.
Long abstract
The exploration of the effects of foregrounding on empathy has been a topic of debate in the Empirical Study of Literature. Recent results have suggested that a key element to consider in this relationship is the way the reader processes foregrounding, which fluctuates between shallow and deep processing (Harash, 2021; Scapin et al., 2023). However, the direction of this relationship is still far from clear. The present contribution is a first step towards this goal and explores the possibility of manipulating readers’ processing of foregrounding. In this presentation, I will examine whether Shared Reading (SR) may deepen the processing of foregrounding. It will be argued that there are some meaningful similarities between the assumed phases in the processing of foregrounding and the dynamics of SR (Raes, 2021; Davis et al., 2016). I propose that SR can be conceptualised as a guided processing of foregrounding. In an experimental design, I used SR-inspired prompts to stimulate readers to deepen their process of stylistic features in a literary text. In one condition, readers listened to the story and responded to prompts designed with the help of professional Reader Leaders. I compared the (self-reported) depth of foregrounding processing of this group with that of a control condition, where participants only read the text. In total,130 participants will be collected online. At the moment, this exploratory attempt is an ongoing process, and the final results will be presented and discussed during the conference. Preliminary outcomes suggest the importance of considering readers’ “awareness or understanding of the variable being measured” (Howard & Dailey, 1979, p.144), which makes data susceptible to Response-Shift Bias. The findings of this study will enhance our understanding of how to further explore the influence of stylistic features on readers (e.g., their empathy), helping to clarify the direction of this relationship.
References
Davis, P., Magee, F., Koleva, K., Tangeras, T. M., Hill, E., Baker, H., Crane, L. (2016). What Literature Can Do. Guy’s and St Thomas’ Charity. The Reader, UK. https://www.thereader.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/What-Literature-Can-Do.pdf [retrieved on the 19-01-2024]
Harash, A. (2021). The model of failed foregrounding. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 16(4), 594-609. APA PsycNet
Howard, G. S., & Dailey, P. R. (1979). Response-Shift Bias: A Source of Contamination of Self-Report Measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64 (2).
Raes, J. (2021). Shared Reading. The Ultimate Therapy. Lannoo Campus Publishers.
Scapin, G., Loi, C., Hakemulder, F., Bálint, K., & Konijn, E. (2023). The role of processing foregrounding in empathic reactions in literary reading. Discourse Processes, 60(4–5), 273–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2023.2198813