Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Das ästhetische Paradox bei der Verarbeitung von fiktionalen vs. nicht-fiktionalen Texten

Wimmer, Lena·2015·Heidelberg University Library
DOI 10.11588/heidok.00018232
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.11588/heidok.00018232

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Research works printed but not linked: 194

  1. Alao, S. & Guthrie, J. T. (1999). Predicting conceptual understanding with cognitive and motivational variables. The Journal of Educational Research, 92 (4), 243-254.
  2. Aldrich, V. C. (1966). Back to aesthetic experience. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 24 (3), 365-371.
  3. Aldrich, V. C. (1978). Aesthetic perception and objectivity. British Journal of Aesthetics, 18 (3), 209-216.
  4. Altmann, U., Bohrn, I. C., Lubrich, O., Menninghaus, W. & Jacobs, A. M. (2014). Fact vs fiction -how paratextual information shapes our reading processes. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9 (1), 22-29.
  5. Appel, M. & Malečkar, B. (2012). The influence of paratext on narrative persuasion: Fact, fiction, or fake? Human Communication Research, 38 (4), 459-484.
  6. Augustin, D. & Leder, H. (2006). Art expertise: A study of concepts and conceptual spaces. Psychology Science, 48 (2), 135-156.
  7. Ayres, P. & van Gog, T. (2009). State of the art research into Cognitive Load Theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 25 (2), 253-257.
  8. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  9. Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4 (11), 417-423.
  10. Baddeley, A. D., Thomson, N. & Buchanan, M. (1975). Word length and the structure of short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14 (6), 575-589.
  11. Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173-1182.
  12. Belke, B., Leder, H. & Augustin, D. (2006). Mastering style. Effects of explicit style-related information, art knowledge and affective state on appreciation of abstract paintings. Psychology Science, 48 (2), 115-134.
  13. Belke, B., Leder, H., Strobach, T. & Carbon, C. C. (2010). Cognitive fluency: High-level processing dynamics in art appreciation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4 (4), 214-222.
  14. Bergeron, V. & McIver Lopes, D. (2012). Aesthetic theory and aesthetic science. Prospects for integration. In A. P. Shimamura & S. E. Palmer (Hrsg.), Aesthetic science. Connecting minds, brains, and experience (S. 63-79). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  15. Bertrams, A. & Dickhäuser, O. (2010). University and school students' motivation for effortful thinking. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26 (4), 263-268.
  16. Bohrn, I. C., Altmann, U. & Jacobs, A. M. (2012). Looking at the brains behind figurative language -A quantitative meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies on metaphor, idiom, and irony processing. Neuropsychologia, 50 (11), 2669-2683.
  17. Bohrn, I. C., Altmann, U., Lubrich, O., Menninghaus, W. & Jacobs, A. M. (2013). When we like what we know -A parametric fMRI analysis of beauty and familiarity. Brain and Language, 124 (1), 1-8.
  18. Bortolussi, M. & Dixon, P. (1996). The effects of formal training on literary reception. Poetics, 23 (6), 471-487.
  19. Boscolo, P. & Mason, L. (2003). Topic knowledge, text coherence, and interest: How they interact in learning from instructional texts. The Journal of Experimental Education, 71 (2), 126-148.
  20. Brockmeier, J. (2002). Remembering and forgetting: Narrative as cultural memory. Culture & Psychology, 8 (1), 15-43.
  21. Bullough, E. (1912). 'Psychical distance' as a factor in art and an aesthetic principle. British Journal of Psychology, 1904-1920, 5 (2), 87-118.
  22. Cacioppo, J. T. & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42 (1), 116-131.
  23. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A. & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119 (2), 197-253.
  24. Chatterjee, A. (2011). Neuroaesthetics: A coming of age story. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23 (1), 53-62.
  25. Cheng, Y. H. (2013). The effects of valence-based and discrete emotional states on aesthetic response. International Journal of Psychology, 48 (6), 1057-1071.
  26. Christmann, U. (2008). Rhetorisch-stilistische Aspekte moderner Verstehens-und Verständlichkeitsforschung. In U. Fix, A. Gardt & J. Knape (Hrsg.), Rhetorik und Stilistik. Ein internationales Handbuch historischer und systematischer Forschung (S.1092-1106). Berlin: De Gruyter.
  27. Christmann, U., Wimmer, L. & Groeben, N. (2011). The aesthetic paradox in processing conventional and non-conventional metaphors: A reaction time study. Scientific Study of Literature 1 (2), 199-240.
  28. Conrad, R. & Hull, A. J. (1964). Information, acoustic confusion and memory span. British Journal of Psychology, 55 (4), 429-432.
  29. Cowan, N. (1995). Attention and memory. An integrated framework (Oxford psychology series, Nr. 26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  30. Crozier, W. R. & Chapman, A. J. (1984). The perception of art: The cognitive approach and its context. In W. R. Crozier & A. J. Chapman (Hrsg.), Cognitive processes in the perception of art (Advances in psychology, Bd. 19, S. 3-23). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  31. Cupchik, G. C. & Gebotys, R. J. (1988). The search for meaning in art: Interpretive styles and judgments of quality. Visual Arts Research, 14 (2), 38-50.
  32. Cupchik, G. C., Oatley, K. & Vorderer, P. (1998). Emotional effects of reading excerpts from short stories by James Joyce. Poetics, 25 (6), 363-377.
  33. Currie, G. (1985). What is fiction? The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 43 (4), 385-392.
  34. Daneman, M. & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19 (4), 450-466.
  35. Daneman, M. & Merikle, P. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3 (4), 422-433.
  36. Deffner, G. (1988). Concurrent thinking aloud: An online-tool for studying representations used in text understanding. Text, 8 (4), 351-367.
  37. Dijkstra, K., Zwaan, R. A., Graesser, A. C. & Magliano, J. P. (1994) 71 . Character and reader emotions in literary texts. Poetics, 23 (1-2), 139-157.
  38. Djikic, M., Oatley, K. & Moldoveanu, M. C. (2013). Reading other minds: Effects of literature on empathy. Scientific Study of Literature, 3 (1), 28-47.
  39. Dorfman, M. H. (1996). Evaluating the interpretive community: Evidence from expert and novice readers. Poetics, 23 (6), 453-470.
  40. Earthman, E. A. (1992). Creating the virtual work: Readers' processes in understanding literary texts. Research in the Teaching of English, 26 (4), 351-384.
  41. Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11 (1), 19-23.
  42. Ericsson, K. A. (1988). Concurrent verbal reports on text comprehension: A review. Text, 8 (4), 295-325.
  43. Ericsson, K. A. & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87 (3), 215-251.
  44. Ericsson, K. A. & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis. Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  45. Feist, G. J. (2010). The function of personality in creativity. The nature and nurture of the creative personality. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Hrsg.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (Cambridge handbooks in psychology, S. 113-130). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  46. Fenner, D. E. W. (1996). The aesthetic attitude. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
  47. Ferreira, F. & Patson, N. D. (2007). The 'good enough' approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1 (1-2), 71-83.
  48. Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight is not equal to foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1 (3), 288-299.
  49. Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  50. Geißler, R. (2011). Die Sozialstruktur Deutschlands. Zur gesellschaftlichen Entwicklung mit einer Bilanz zur Vereinigung (6. Aufl.). Wiesbaden: VS /Springer Fachmedien.
  51. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M. & Signorielli, N. (1982). What television teaches about physicians and health. Möbius: A Journal for Continuing Education Professionals in Health Sciences, 2 (2), 44-51.
  52. Gerger, G. & Leder, H. (2013). Cognitive fluency: Titles influence aesthetic evaluations [Abstract]. In U. Ansorge, E. Kirchler, C. Lamm & H. Leder (Hrsg.), Abstracts of the 55th Conference of Experimental Psychologists (S. 95). Lengerich: Pabst.
  53. Gertken, J. & Köppe, T. (2009). Fiktionalität. In S. Winko, F. Jannidis & G. Lauer (Hrsg.), Grenzen der Literatur. Zu Begriff und Phänomen des Literarischen (Revisionen Grundbegriffe der Literaturtheorie, Bd. 2, S. 228-266). Berlin: De Gruyter.
  54. Gibbs, R. W. (1984). Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8 (3), 275-304.
  55. Gigerenzer, G. (1991). From tools to theories: A heuristic of discovery in cognitive psychology. Psychological Review, 98, 254-267.
  56. Gigerenzer, G. (1996). On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A reply to Kahneman and Tversky (1996). Psychological Review, 103 (3), 592-596.
  57. Gigerenzer, G. & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103 (4), 650-669.
  58. Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8 (3), 183-206.
  59. Giora, R. (2002). Optimal innovation and pleasure. In O. Stock, C. Strapparava & A. Nijholt (Hrsg.), The April Fools' Day Workshop on Computational Humour. Proceedings of the twentieth Twente workshop on language technology (S. 11-28). Enschede: University of Twente.
  60. Giora, R. (2003). On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  61. Giora, R., Fein, O., Kronrod, A., Elnatan, I., Shuval, N. & Zur, A. (2004). Weapons of mass distraction: Optimal innovation and pleasure ratings. Metaphor and Symbol, 19 (2), 115-141.
  62. Graves, B. & Frederiksen, C. H. (1991). Literary expertise in the description of a fictional narrative. Poetics, 20 (1), 1-26.
  63. Green, M. C. & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (5), 701-721.
  64. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole (Hrsg.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (S. 41-58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
  65. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  66. Grillparzer, F. (1819). Das goldene Vlies. o.O. Groeben, N. (1994). Frauen -Science Fiction -Utopie. Vom Ende aller Utopie(n) zur Neugeburt einer literarischen Gattung? IASL (Internationales Archiv für Sozialgeschichte der deutschen Literatur), 19 (2), 173-206.
  67. Groeben, N. & Christmann, U. (2000). Argumentationsintegrität als Zielperspektive einer Ethik der Alltagskommunikation: Eine pädagogische Herausforderung. Themenzentrierte Interaktion, 14 (2), 85-92.
  68. Groeben, N. & Schreier, M. (1992). The hypothesis of the polyvalence convention: A systematic survey of the research development from a historical perspective. Poetics, 21 (1-2), 5-32.
  69. Groeben, N. & Schreier, M. (1998). Descriptive vs. prescriptive aspects of the concept of literature: The example of the polyvalence convention. Poetics, 26 (1), 55-62.
  70. Gwet, K. L. (2008). Computing inter-rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 61 (1), 29- 48.
  71. Halász, L. (1991). Emotional effect and reminding in literary processing. Poetics, 20 (3), 247-272.
  72. Halász, L. (1992). Self-relevant reading in literary understanding. In E. F. Nardocchio (Hrsg.), Reader response to literature. The empirical dimension (Approaches to semiotics, Bd. 108, S. 229-245). Berlin: De Gruyter.
  73. Halász, L. (1995). Reinterpretation and personal meaning in literary understanding. In G. Rusch (Hrsg.), Empirical approaches to literature. Proceedings of the fourth biannual conference of the International Society for the Empirical Study of Literature -IGEL. Budapest, August 1994 (S. 304-311). Siegen: LUMIS-Publications.
  74. Hallin, D. C. & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  75. Härtel, M. & Carbon, C.-C. (2013). "Is this art or is it crap?". Context-based categorization of ambiguous objects [Abstract]. In U. Ansorge, E. Kirchler, C. Lamm & H. Leder (Hrsg.), Abstracts of the 55th Conference of Experimental Psychologists (S. 360). Lengerich: Pabst.
  76. Haviland, S. E. & Clark, H. H. (1974). What's new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13 (5), 512-521.
  77. Heath, M. A., Sheen, D., Leavy, D., Young, E. & Money, K. (2005). Bibliotherapy: A resource to facilitate emotional healing and growth. School Psychology International, 26 (5), 563-580.
  78. Hekkert, P. & van Wieringen, P. C. (1996). The impact of level of expertise on the evaluation of original and altered versions of post-impressionistic paintings. Acta Psychologica, 94 (2), 117-131.
  79. Hendersen, D. J. & Clark, H. (2007). Retelling narratives as fiction or nonfiction. In D. McNamara & J. Trafton (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Cognitive Science Society (S. 353-358). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
  80. Henschel, S., Roick, T., Brunner, M. & Stanat, P. (2013). Leseselbstkonzept und Textart: Lassen sich literarisches und faktuales Leseselbstkonzept trennen? Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 27 (3), 181-191.
  81. Hintzenberg, D., Schmidt, S. J. & Zobel, R. (1980). Zum Literaturbegriff in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Berlin: Springer.
  82. Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. London: Addison-Wesley.
  83. Hunt, R. A. & Vipond, D. (1985). Crash-testing a transactional model of literary reading. Reader: Essays in Reader-Oriented Theory, Criticism, and Pedagogy, 14 (1), 23-39.
  84. Jacobs, A. M. & Schrott, R. (2013). Gehirn und Gedicht. Wie Wörter wirklich werden [Abstract]. In U. Ansorge, E. Kirchler, C. Lamm & H. Leder (Hrsg.), Abstracts of the 55th Conference of Experimental Psychologists (S. 11). Lengerich: Pabst.
  85. Jannidis, F. (2003). Polyvalenz -Konvention -Autonomie. In F. Jannidis, G. Lauer, M. Martínez & S. Winko (Hrsg.), Regeln der Bedeutung: Zur Theorie der Bedeutung literarischer Texte (S. 305-328). Berlin: De Gruyter.
  86. Jannidis, F., Lauer, G. & Winko, S. (2009). Radikal historisiert: Für einen pragmatischen Literaturbegriff. In S. Winko, F. Jannidis & G. Lauer (Hrsg.), Grenzen der Literatur. Zu Begriff und Phänomen des Literarischen (Revisionen Grundbegriffe der Literaturtheorie, Bd. 2, S. 3-37). Berlin: De Gruyter.
  87. Janssen, T. (2002). Instruction in self-questioning as a literary reading strategy: An exploration of empirical research. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 2 (2), 95-120.
  88. Jencks, C. (2002). The new paradigm in architecture. The language of post-modernism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  89. Jonas, K., Stroebe, W. & Hewstone, M. (2007). Sozialpsychologie. Eine Einführung (5., vollständig überarb. Aufl). Heidelberg: Springer.
  90. Judd, C. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5 (5), 602-619.
  91. Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension. Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99 (1), 122-149.
  92. Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. (2002). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. In T. A. Polk & C. M. Seifert (Hrsg.), Cognitive modeling (S. 131-177). Cambridge: MIT Press.
  93. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. & Tversky, A. (Hrsg.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty. Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  94. Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80 (4), 237-251.
  95. Kardash, C. M. & Noel, L. (2000). How organizational signals, need for cognition, and verbal ability affect text recall and recognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (3), 317-331.
  96. King, J. & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30 (5), 580-602.
  97. Klein, W. P. (2003). Die Spannung zwischen Fach-und Gemeinsprache als Anlass für Sprachreflexion. Beispiele aus der Computer-und Internetsprache. 11.-13. Jahrgangsstufe. Deutschunterricht (Berlin), 56 (2), 28-32.
  98. Klemer, N., Gartus, A. & Leder, H. (2013). Street art and modern art in matching and non-matching contexts [Abstract]. In U. Ansorge, E. Kirchler, C. Lamm & H. Leder (Hrsg.), Abstracts of the 55th Conference of Experimental Psychologists (S. 374).
  99. Kneepkens, E. W. & Zwaan, R. A. (1994) 72 . Emotions and literary text comprehension. Poetics, 23 (1-2), 125-138.
  100. Kripke, S. A. (1980). Naming and necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  101. Lachmann, R. (1997). Memory and literature. Intertextuality in Russian modernism (Theory and history of literature, vol. 87). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  102. Lachmann, R. (2004). Cultural memory and the role of literature. European Review, 12 (2), 165-178.
  103. Lamarque, P. (2003). Fiction. In J. Levinson (Hrsg.), The Oxford handbook of aesthetics (S. 377-391). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  104. Lamarque, P. & Olsen, S. H. (1994). Truth, fiction, and literature. A philosophical perspective (Clarendon library of logic and philosophy). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  105. Landis, J. R. & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33 (1), 159-174.
  106. Larsen, S. F. & László, J. (1990). Cultural-historical knowledge and personal experience in appreciation of literature. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20 (5), 425-440.
  107. Larsen, S. F. & Seilman, U. (1988). Personal remindings while reading literature. Text, 8 (4), 411-430.
  108. László, J., Meusch, D. & Viehoff, R. (1988). Verbal reports as data in text comprehension research: An introduction. Text, 8 (4), 283-294.
  109. Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A. & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95 (4), 489-508.
  110. Leder, H., Gerger, G., Dressler, S. G. & Schabmann, A. (2012). How art is appreciated. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6 (1), 2-10.
  111. Lenkowsky, B. E. & Lenkowsky, R. S. (1978). Bibliotherapy for the LD adolescent. Academic Therapy, 14 (2), 179-185.
  112. Levinson, J. (1997). Emotion in response to art: A survey of the terrain. In M. Hjort & S. Laver (Hrsg.), Emotion and the arts (S. 20-34). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  113. Locher, P., Frens, J. & Overbeeke, K. (2008). The influence of induced positive affect and design experience on aesthetic responses to new product designs. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2 (1), 1-7.
  114. Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116 (1), 75-98.
  115. MacDonald, M. C., Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology, 24 (1), 56-98.
  116. Mar, R. A. & Oatley, K. (2008). The function of fiction is the abstraction and simulation of social experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3 (3), 173-192.
  117. Mar, R. A., Oatley, K., Djikic, M. & Mullin, J. (2011). Emotion and narrative fiction: Interactive influences before, during, and after reading. Cognition & Emotion, 25 (5), 818-833.
  118. Mar, R. A., Oatley, K., Hirsh, J., dela Paz, J. & Peterson, J. B. (2006). Bookworms versus nerds: The social abilities of fiction and non-fiction readers. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 694-712.
  119. Mar, R. A., Oatley, K. & Peterson, J. B. (2009). Exploring the link between reading fiction and empathy: Ruling out individual differences and examining outcomes. Communications, 34 (4), 407-428.
  120. Markovic, S. (2012). Components of aesthetic experience: Aesthetic fascination, aesthetic appraisal, and aesthetic emotion. I-Perception, 3 (1), 1-17.
  121. Martindale, C. (2007). Recent trends in the psychological study of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 25 (2), 121-141.
  122. Marttunen, M. & Laurinen, L. (2001). Learning of argumentation skills in networked and face-to-face environments. Instructional Science, 29 (2), 127-153.
  123. Marttunen, M. & Laurinen, L. (2002). Quality of students' argumentation by e-mail. Learning Environments Research, 5 (1), 99-123.
  124. Mason, L., Gava, M. & Boldrin, A. (2008). On warm conceptual change: The interplay of text, epistemological beliefs, and topic interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 (2), 291-309.
  125. Maw, W. H. & Maw, E. W. (1962). Children's curiosity as an aspect of reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 15 (4), 236-240.
  126. Meutsch, D. (1986). Kognitive Prozesse beim literarischen Lesen von Texten. SPIEL (Siegener Periodicum zur Internationalen Empirischen Literaturwissenschaft), 5 (1), 309-331.
  127. Meutsch, D. & Schmidt, S. J. (1985). On the role of conventions in understanding literary texts. Poetics, 14 (6), 551-574.
  128. Miall, D. S. (1992). Response to poetry: Studies of language and structure. In E. F. Nardocchio (Hrsg.), Reader response: The empirical dimension (S. 153-170). Berlin: De Gruyter.
  129. Miall, D. S. & Kuiken, D. (1994). Foregrounding, defamiliarization, and affect: Response to literary stories. Poetics, 22 (5), 389-407.
  130. Miall, D. S. & Kuiken, D. (1995). Feeling and the three phases of literary response. In G. Rusch (Hrsg.), Empirical approaches to literature. Proceedings of the fourth biannual conference of the International Society for the Empirical Study of Literature -IGEL. Budapest, August 1994. Siegen: LUMIS-Publications.
  131. Miall, D. S. & Kuiken, D. (1999). What is literariness? Three components of literary reading. Discourse Processes, 28 (2), 121-138.
  132. Miall, D. S. & Kuiken, D. (2002). A feeling for fiction: Becoming what we behold. Poetics, 30 (4), 221-241.
  133. Millis, K. (2001). Making meaning brings pleasure: The influence of titles on aesthetic experiences. Emotion, 1 (3), 320-329.
  134. Mischo, C., Groeben, N., Christmann, U. & Flender, J. (2002). Konzeption und Evaluation eines Trainings zum Umgang mit unfairem Argumentieren in Organisationen. Zeitschrift für Arbeits-und Organisationspsychologie, 46 (3), 150- 158.
  135. Nodine, C. F., Locher, P. J. & Krupinski, E. A. (1993). The role of formal art training on perception and aesthetic judgment of art compositions. Leonardo, 26 (3), 219-227.
  136. Nussbaum, E. M. & Kardash, C. M. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (2), 157-169.
  137. Oatley, K. (1994) 73 . A taxonomy of the emotions of literary response and a theory of identification in fictional narrative. Poetics, 23 (1-2), 53-74.
  138. Oatley, K. (1999). Why fiction may be twice as true as fact: Fiction as cognitive and emotional simulation. Review of General Psychology, 3 (2), 101-117.
  139. Oatley, K. (2011). Such stuff as dreams. The psychology of fiction. Chichester: Wiley- Blackwell.
  140. Odağ, Ö. (2008). Frauen lesen anders! Männer auch? -Eine empirische Rezeptionsstudie aus der Medienpsychologie. Psychotherapie und Sozialwissenschaft: Zeitschrift für qualitative Forschung und klinische Praxis, 10 (2), 11-47.
  141. Oliver, M. B. (1993). Exploring the paradox of the enjoyment of sad films. Human Communication Research, 19 (3), 315-342.
  142. Oliver, M. B. & Bartsch, A. (2011). Appreciation of entertainment. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 23 (1), 29-33.
  143. Oliver, M. B. & Raney, A. A. (2011). Entertainment as pleasurable and meaningful: Identifying hedonic and eudaimonic motivations for entertainment consumption. Journal of Communication, 61 (5), 984-1004.
  144. Olson, K., Camp, C. & Fuller, D. (1984). Curiosity and need for cognition. Psychological Reports, 54 (1), 71-74.
  145. Pardeck, J. A. & Pardeck, J. T. (1984). An overview of the bibliotherapeutic treatment approach: Implications for clinical social work practice. Family Therapy, 11 (3), 241- 252.
  146. Peskin, J. (1998). Constructing meaning when reading poetry: An expert-novice study. Cognition and Instruction, 16 (3), 235-263.
  147. Prentice, D. A., Gerrig, R. J. & Bailis, D. S. (1997). What readers bring to the processing of fictional texts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4 (3), 416-420.
  148. Pritchett, B. L. (1988). Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of language processing. Language, 64 (3), 539-576.
  149. Ratcliff, R. & McKoon, G. (1978). Priming in item recognition: Evidence for the propositional structure of sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17 (4), 403-417.
  150. Reber, R., Schwarz, N. & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8 (4), 364-382.
  151. Reicher, G. M. (1969). Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness of stimulus material. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81 (2), 275-280.
  152. Salamé, P. & Baddeley, A. D. (1982). Disruption of short-term memory by unattended speech: Implications for the structure of working memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21 (2), 150-164.
  153. Sanford, A. J. & Garrod, S. C. (1994). Selective processing in text understanding. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Hrsg.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (S. 699-719). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  154. Sanford, A. J. & Garrod, S. C. (1998). The role of scenario mapping in text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 26 (2-3), 159-190.
  155. Schiefele, U. & Krapp, A. (1996). Topic interest and free recall of expository text. Learning and Individual Differences, 8 (2), 141-160.
  156. Schöffl, S. (2005). Fördert der Einsatz von Lernstrategien das Verstehen epischer Texte? Eine Trainingsstudie am Beispiel von Kurzgeschichten. Unveröffentlichte Dissertation, Universität Erfurt.
  157. Searle, J. R. (1975). The logical status of fictional discourse. New Literary History, 6 (2), 319-332.
  158. Seilman, U. & Larsen, S. F. (1989). Personal resonance to literature: A study of remindings while reading. Poetics, 18 (1-2), 165-177.
  159. Sexl, M. (2013). Lesend die Welt erfahren. In J. Bilstein & H. Peskoller (Hrsg.), Erfahrung -Erfahrungen (S. 159-180). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
  160. Slade, J. (1987). Bibliotherapy with siblings of handicapped children. TACD Journal, 15 (2), 133-137.
  161. Spietschka, R. (1991). Lesemotivation und Lektürewirkung. Internationales Archiv für Sozialgeschichte der deutschen Literatur (IASL), 16 (2), 104-127.
  162. Steiger, V. & Irmen, L. (2011). Recht verständlich und ,,gender-fair": Wie sollen Personen in amtlichen Texten bezeichnet werden? Ein Vergleich verschiedener Rezipientengruppen zur Akzeptanz geschlechtergerechter Rechtssprache. Linguistische Berichte, 2011 (227), 297-322.
  163. Stone, G. O., Vanhoy, M. & Orden, G. C. (1997). Perception is a two-way street: Feedforward and feedback phonology in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 36 (3), 337-359.
  164. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 12 (2), 257-285.
  165. Sweller, J. (1989). Cognitive technology: Some procedures for facilitating learning and problem solving in mathematics and science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81 (4), 457-466.
  166. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G. & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10 (3), 251-296.
  167. Tamborini, R., Bowman, N. D., Eden, A., Grizzard, M. & Organ, A. (2010). Defining media enjoyment as the satisfaction of intrinsic needs. Journal of Communication, 60 (4), 758-777.
  168. Tamborini, R., Grizzard, M., Bowman, N. D., Reinecke, L., Lewis, R. J. & Eden, A. (2011). Media enjoyment as need satisfaction: The contribution of hedonic and nonhedonic needs. Journal of Communication, 61 (6), 1025-1042.
  169. Therriault, D. J., Rinck, M. & Zwaan, R. A. (2006). Assessing the influence of dimensional focus during situation model construction. Memory & Cognition, 34 (1), 78-89.
  170. Tomas, V. (1959). Aesthetic vision. The Philosophical Review, 68 (1), 52-67.
  171. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185 (4157), 1124-1131.
  172. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1982a). Evidential impact of base rates. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic & A. Tversky (Hrsg.), Judgment under uncertainty. Heuristics and biases (S. 153-160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  173. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1982b). Judgments of and by representativeness. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic & A. Tversky (Hrsg.), Judgment under uncertainty. Heuristics and biases (S. 84-98). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  174. van Holt, N. & Groeben, N. (2005). Das Konzept des Foregrounding in der modernen Textverarbeitungspsychologie. Journal für Psychologie, 13 (4), 311-332.
  175. Verdaasdonk, H. & van Rees, K. (1992). The narrow margins of innovation in literary research: Siegfried J. Schmidt's proposals for the empirical study of literature. Poetics, 21 (1-2), 141-152.
  176. Viehoff, R. (1986). How to construct a literary poem? Poetics, 15 (3), 287-306.
  177. Vipond, D. & Hunt, R. A. (1984). Point-driven understanding: Pragmatic and cognitive dimensions of literary reading. Poetics, 13 (3), 261-277.
  178. Vogt, S. & Magnussen, S. (2007). Expertise in pictorial perception: Eye-movement patterns and visual memory in artists and laymen. Perception, 36 (1), 91-100.
  179. Vorderer, P. (2011). What's next? Remarks on the current vitalization of entertainment theory. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 23 (1), 60- 63.
  180. Vorderer, P. & Ritterfeld, U. (2009). Digital games. In R. L. Nabi & M. B. Oliver (Hrsg.), The SAGE handbook of media processes and effects (S. 455-467). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
  181. Vorderer, P. & Roth, F. S. (2011). How do we entertain ourselves with literary texts? Scientific Study of Literature, 1 (1), 136-143.
  182. Wagemans, J. (2011). Reflections on the Parallellepipeda project. I-Perception, 2 (6), 648-678.
  183. Walton, K. (1990). Mimesis as make-believe: On the foundations of the representational arts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  184. Welleditsch, D., Nadal, M. & Leder, H. (2013). Unfolding art experience in the museum [Abstract]. In U. Ansorge, E. Kirchler, C. Lamm & H. Leder (Hrsg.), Abstracts of the 55th Conference of Experimental Psychologists (S. 304). Lengerich: Pabst.
  185. Whitfield, A. T. W. (2009). Theory confrontation: Testing the categorical-motivation model. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27 (1), 43-59.
  186. Wildekamp, A., van Montfoort, I. & van Ruiswijk, W. (1980). Fictionality and convention. Poetics, 9 (5), 547-567.
  187. Winkler, I. (2007). Welches Wissen fördert das Verstehen literarischer Texte? Zur Frage der Modellierung literarischen Wissens für den Deutschunterricht. Didaktik Deutsch, 13 (22), 71-88.
  188. Winko, S. (2009). Auf der Suche nach der Weltformel. Literarizität und Poetizität in der neueren literaturtheoretischen Diskussion. In S. Winko, F. Jannidis & G. Lauer (Hrsg.), Grenzen der Literatur. Zu Begriff und Phänomen des Literarischen (Revisionen Grundbegriffe der Literaturtheorie, Bd. 2, S. 374-396). Berlin: De Gruyter.
  189. Winston, A. S. & Cupchik, G. C. (1992). The evaluation of high art and popular art by naive and experienced viewers. Visual Arts Research, 18 (1), 1-14.
  190. Ziegler, J. C., Montant, M. & Jacobs, A. M. (1997). The feedback consistency effect in lexical decision and naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 37 (4), 533-554.
  191. Zwaan, R. A. (1991). Some parameters of literary and news comprehension: Effects of discourse-type perspective on reading rate and surface structure representation. Poetics, 20 (2), 139-156.
  192. Zwaan, R. A. (1994). Effect of genre expectations on text comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20, 920-933.
  193. Zwaan, R. A., Langston, M. C. & Graesser, A. C. (1995). The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: An event-indexing model. Psychological Science, 6 (5), 292-297.
  194. Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123 (2), 162-185. Abbildungsverzeichnis Abbildung 1: Überblick über Fiktionssignale nach der Systematik von Zipfel (2001b) ..... 14 Abbildung 2: Das Informationsverarbeitungsmodell des ästhetischen Prozesses von Leder et al. (2004, S. 492) ............................................................................................... 36 Abbildung 3: Überblick über Emotionen beim fiktional-literarischen Lesen, wie sie von van Holt und Groeben (2006) systematisiert werden .............................................................. 56 Abbildung 4: Klassifikation von Lesestrategien (nach Christmann & Groeben, 1999) ..... 63 Abbildung 5: Funktionen des Lesens im (unmittelbaren) Handlungsprozess und hinsichtlich der (mittelbaren) Folgen (Groeben, 2004, S. 24) ........................................... 71 Abbildung 6: Die hedonic fuency-Hypothese geht von einer negativen linearen Beziehung zwischen kognitivem Aufwand und ästhetischem Gefallen aus. ...................................... 91 Abbildung 7: Die foregrounding-Hypothese postuliert eine positive lineare Beziehung zwischen kogntivem Aufwand und ästhetischem Gefallen ............................................... 92 Abbildung 8: Ein umgekehrt u-förmiger Zusammenhang zwischen kognitivem Aufwand und ästhetischem Gefallen wird von der optimal innovation-Hypothese angenommen ... 94 Abbildung 9: Schematische Darstellung der am literarischen Lesen beteiligten Prozesse, wie sie dem Modell von Schrott und Jacobs (2011, S. 495) zugrunde liegen ................ 113 Abbildung 10: Überblick über die anvisierte Erklärungskette und zugehörige Hauptversuche ............................................................................................................... 147 Abbildung 11: Geschätzte Randmittel für das Erfolgsmaß der Einstellungsinduktion, Vorstudie 2 zu Hauptversuch I ....................................................................................... 169 Abbildung 12: Verlauf des inhaltsanalytischen Maßes für Belastungsbewertung im Lauf der ersten fünf Interviewantworten, über beide Messzeitpunkte hinweg, Hauptversuch II ....................................................................................................................................... 220 Abbildung 13: Wechselwirkung zwischen Reihenfolge der Textstruktur und Messzeitpunkt, Hauptversuch II ..................................................................................... 223 Abbildung 14: Verlauf der Antwortlänge im Lauf der ersten fünf Interviewantworten, über beide Messzeitpunkte hinweg, Hauptversuch II ............................................................. 224 Abbildung 15: Interaktion zwischen Messzeitpunkt und Textreihenfolge, Hauptversuch II ....................................................................................................................................... 227

Cited by

See all 1

Metadata

Authors
Wimmer, L.
Venue
Heidelberg University Library
Publisher
Heidelberg University Library
Published
2015
DOI
10.11588/heidok.00018232
References
0

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Das ästhetische Paradox bei der Verarbeitung von fiktionalen vs. nicht-fiktionalen Texten. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.11588/heidok.00018232
The paper
Wimmer, L. (2015). Das ästhetische Paradox bei der Verarbeitung von fiktionalen vs. nicht-fiktionalen Texten. Heidelberg University Library. https://doi.org/10.11588/heidok.00018232

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.