A Cognitive Module for Stories: Reasoning Improves With Stories of Personal Struggle

A Cognitive Module for Stories: Reasoning Improves With Stories of Personal Struggle | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article A Cognitive Module for Stories: Reasoning Improves With Stories of Personal Struggle John Powell Taylor, Casey A. Young This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7547375/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract We make the case that stories are a universal trait and a relevant selection criteria for mates. Given the apparent influence of evolutionary pressures on reasoning performance, such as with detecting cheaters (Gigerenzer & Hug, 1992 ) or illness (Taylor, 2017 ), we sought to explore how reasoning differs from story perception in three experiments. Our participants received either social contract or abstract scenarios (Cosmides, 1989 ; Gigerenzer & Hug; 1992 ; Markovits, 2013; Wason, 1968 ) or a five-sentence story depicting a personal struggle that culminated in a rule about overcoming that struggle. Half of the participants chose from four options to logically test the rule and half selected which of the four options would complete the story in a satisfying way. In experiments 2 and 3, we used only the personal struggle stories and rules, this time inducing a conflict between a satisfying conclusion and the logic of the rules half the time and aligning with the climax of the story with the logic half the time. We found that participants could consistently reason as well or better than with social contract scenarios and, when asked to complete the stories, did so in a way that was consistent with a heroic reward for a likable protagonist or a punishment for an unlikable protagonist. Critically, our findings diverged appropriately from reasoning when instructions prompted logical solutions, suggesting that their story perception was a different process from reasoning. We cannot yet say the extent to which this story process has been influenced via evolutionary pressures, although we conclude it is a promising avenue for consideration. Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Few narratives illustrate the potent nature of storytelling as effectively as Romeo and Juliet. Shakespeare’s classic is so ubiquitous with storytelling it has been translated into over 20 languages and adapted across diverse cinematic interpretations, themed theatrical productions, and narrative innovations (Estill & Johnson, 2015). Perhaps the only story format more omnipresent is the old wives' tale, i.e. toads causing warts, a cautionary tale recorded in written English as far back as 1387 (Estill & Johnson, 2015). Old wives' tales, much like Romeo and Juliet, clearly demonstrate how stories can transcend geographic and cultural boundaries, much like urban legends, gossip, myths, folklore, and a myriad of other genres of storytelling. Additionally, stories carry cultural weight in their telling. In Chinese families, storytelling emphasizes honor and the family unit, conveying valuable traits and behaviors essential for success within their culture (Miller et al., 2002 ). Irish-American families often recount stories in which the protagonist's actions are pardoned, fostering an environment that encourages children to explore without the fear of judgment (Miller et al., 2002 ). The Pre-European era of colonialism revealed ample evidence that no particular group of peoples exclusively possessed a specific story subject (Hogan, 2004 ). Thus, storytelling themes have woven across time and culture, consistently depicting conflict, love, and sacrifice leading us to suspect that, if stories are a universal cognitive function, then story processing must have a systematic influence on thinking and behavior. The Universality of Stories Before written language, mass printing, and broadcasting, humans transmitted the relationship between themselves and their environment predominantly through oral storytelling or musical traditions (Berkes et al., 2000 ). When considering the universality of storytelling, it is important to consider stories in ancestral terms. The value of storytelling may lie in comprehending unfamiliar or uncertain scenarios, enabling collaborative skill development, and enhancing social cohesion by reinforcing group identity and intergroup relations (Bietti et al., 2018 ). Societies have employed storytelling and music as educational tools; stories and songs encoding essential information about dangers, sustenance, morality, norms, and relationships (Schniter et al., 2018 ). Thus, we suggest there may be plausible reasons for the universality of storytelling and story perception, though universality alone is insufficient to suggest either are heritable traits. While there exists limited evidence for an inherent cognitive storytelling or story reception function, some scholars have postulated evolutionary mechanisms that might give rise to innate cognitive processes related to narratives (Sugiyama, 2001 ; Schniter et al., 2018 ). Storytelling has independently flourished in different cultures, making a compelling argument for the adaptiveness of storytelling (Bietti et al., 2018 ). The consistency of storytelling themes, comprehension, and celebration across cultures speaks to a universality typical of evolved traits and one that may imply more than mere self-representation. Instead, narratives may serve the purpose of efficiently acquiring vital survival information. Wiessner ( 2014 ) set out to study how the use of fire impacted the Ju’/hoansi Bushmen culture. The Ju’/hoansi Bushmen in Botswana, Weissner found, increased storytelling while sitting around the fire at night compared to daytime conversations. In this distinctive environment, where there was no work to do and the group gathered in companionship, talk turned to strengthening bonds, exchanging social information, sharing entertainment, and experiencing collective emotions. She also found that, with gatherings of 15 or more people, the Ju’/hoansi told more stories of past hunts, talked about marriage and customs around premarital relationships, discussed possible dangers and their resolutions as well as social disputes, and recounted traditional myths. Through her findings, Wiessner illuminated the cultural and social significance of fireside storytelling, both practical and for entertainment. Such firelight bonding may have benefitted the storytellers directly, providing an avenue for the selection of a story cognition trait. Cultural standing within one's group, as well as the ability to alter one's standing in a positive way, has a significant impact on mate selection. Donahue and Green ( 2016 ) found that the art of storytelling elevates perceived status, aiding men in attracting long-term partners; storytelling transcends mere entertainment and becomes a conduit for transmitting crucial cultural information (Dunbar, 2014 ). In this context, Lange and Euler ( 2014 ) propose that poets have more increased sexual access the more they have published in the literary canon. They propose one possibility for their findings is that humans have evolved a capacity for literature, one that may have been subject to sexual selection. However, the success of storytellers in mating could also be linked to the status afforded them by their accomplishments or their notable verbal skills. Success in acquiring a mate is only beneficial if their offspring can also survive and mate. In this regard, parents utilize storytelling to impart knowledge and convey the hazards of the environment to their children. Therefore, stories that promote traits like generosity, cooperation, restraint, and sacrifice, which are vital for forming social connections in human societies, might serve as parenting adaptations (Coe et al., 2006 ). The narrative content across cultures emphasizes the diverse strategies for ensuring survival and reaffirms storytelling’s value in bolstering survival and successful reproduction (Dunbar, 2014 ). However, the importance of storytelling is not only in the content of the story but how the story is told. When a story is told well our brains release oxytocin and dopamine (Zak, 2020) and when a story is told in a flat, direct structure, the same response is not found (Pruitt, 2022 ). In short, as put by Sugiyama ( 2001 ), processing narrative is a cognitive function that reliably develops, is species-typical, and is complex. The observable difference in the way the brain responds implies a strong biological connection to stories, but that alone is not enough. There must also be one or more selection pressures that promote storytelling to exist as a trait. Any such trait must also be economical and aid in survival. As such, the types of stories shared, not just the proficiency of the storyteller, may matter greatly for survival. The Importance of Stories Sugiyama ( 2001 ) suggested that storytelling replaces the need for first-hand experiences, enabling individuals to gather valuable insights without accepting any risks. Stories may therefore allow for rehearsing possible outcomes, reducing the risks in practicing dangerous activities (Gottschall, 2005 ). Notably, Smith et al. (2017) illustrated the substantial impact of storytelling on mate selection and potential survival. Smith et al. showed how the significance of skilled storytellers in mate selection persisted, even compared to other vital skills such as fishing, hunting, and reputation building. Research on storytelling has also demonstrated how communities effectively employed stories to coordinate social behavior, to allow individuals in the community enhanced navigation of their complex social landscapes (Sugiyama, 2001 ; Donahue & Green, 2016 ). Collectively, these findings align with the notion that narratives serve as efficient conduits for information tailored to adapt to relevant local environments (Donahue & Green, 2016 ). Stories are often personal, however, not just vessels to convey lessons. McAdams and McLean ( 2013 ) highlight that the narratives individuals construct about their lives pivotally shape their perceptions and responses to the world. Such personal accounts, often subjective reflections on life events, do not exist in isolation; instead, individuals weave them into the fabric of familiar cultural narratives to give context to their experiences, as emphasized by Hammack ( 2008 ), McLean and Syed (2016), and Meltzoff ( 1988 ). Additionally, Pruitt ( 2022 ) discusses how the content of the story is less important than how the story is told, providing an aesthetic experience that holds the listener immersed. The dynamic interplay between personal storytelling and cultural narratives illuminates the symbiotic relationship between individual expression and shared cultural frameworks. For example, nighttime storytelling by the Ju/' hoansi (!Kung) Bushmen may help foster higher orders of theory of mind (Wiessner, 2014 ) while shaping linguistic development and providing cultural touchpoints for the next generation. For example, most skills, including hunting songs, dancing, and social rules, are acquired through cultural transmission by Aka Pygmy children by age 10 (Hewlett & Cavalli-Sforza, 1986 ). In light of the universality, possible selection pathways, usefulness, and ease with which stories are told and received, we believe there is sufficient reason to explore the possibility of a cognitive module for stories. Such a module should be separate from recognized cognitive modules, like reasoning, and aid in story perception. In order to distinguish such a module from other well-studied cognitive processes, we examine reasoning, in particular, as an evolved trait. A Cognitive Module for Stories It is important to recognize that higher-order functions like story cognition do not preclude them from evolutionary selection. Reasoning, for example, appears to have been influenced in such a way. Initial investigations using Wason’s Selection Task (WST) revealed rather poor performance in drawing logical conclusions. When the WST conditions were altered to be about social or physical survival, substantial improvements occurred on the task (McKay & Dennett, 2009 ). For example, Taylor ( 2017 ) found that performance on the WST improved when he gave participants rules that evoked threats of illness. To explore this phenomenon, Taylor ( 2017 ) showed participants scenarios involving contagion and food contamination and asked them to reason about potential vectors of disease. His findings indicated that the threat of illness influenced reasoning in a similar way as social threats, such as cheating (McKay & Dennett, 2009 ; Speer et al., 2020 ; Taylor, 2017 ). Specifically, Speer et al. ( 2009 ) suggested a specialized brain area that plays a role in enabling cheating detection. Thus, reasoning likely has adaptive elements, shaped through natural selection, and holds a privileged position in cognition (Speer et al., 2020 ; McKay & Dennett, 2009 ). In relevant contexts, storytelling may play a similar role. Compared to reasoning, the adaptive nature of stories remains a limited area of research. However, Taylor et al. ( 2017 ) has shown that the familiarity of stories may override typical patterns of reasoning errors using common nursery rhymes in a modified version of the WST. Participants read well-known nursery rhymes that concluded with a logical rule instead of the natural ending to the rhyme, putting into conflict the familiar ending of the rhyme and typical reasoning responses (i.e. the matching bias). Taylor et al. ( 2017 ) found that familiar nursery rhyme material leading up to the rule altered participants' reasoning patterns, akin to the belief bias, as in Evans' (1972) research. Intriguingly, the influence of nursery rhyme knowledge on reasoning was independent of beliefs about the real world. Taylor et al. attributed their findings to a familiarity heuristic overriding the typical matching heuristic, the result of explicit knowledge of the familiar nursery rhymes. It remains to be seen whether unfamiliar stories can impact reasoning in a similar fashion. It is conceivable that individuals inherently understand narrative structures or principles of stories, which should influence their performance on tasks like the WST. If so, an inherent grasp of storytelling elements should impact reasoning processes, even in the absence of highly familiar material. For our first experiment investigating the impact of unfamiliar stories on reasoning, we aimed to investigate how participants could actively choose a satisfying ending for a story, focusing on the ease and consistency of their selections. Moreover, we aimed to investigate whether the cognitive processes involved in this task differed from those employed in reasoning and whether the observed effects extended beyond heroic stories to include tragic narratives. We posited that participants would naturally and consistently demonstrate an ability to identify satisfying endings for heroic and tragic stories, suggesting a distinct cognitive process separate from reasoning about the same materials. Experiment 1 Rationale In experiment 1, we sought to examine distinctions in reasoning performance between personal struggles, cheaters, and abstract problems using Wason’s ( 1968 ) selection task. In the original experiment, participants read the rule, 'If a card has a vowel on one side, then it must have an odd number on the other side.' The participants attempted to test the veracity of this rule by selecting from four cards, for example, an “A” (the True Antecedent; TA), a “K” (the False Antecedent; FA), a “7” (the True Consequent; TC), and a “2” (the False Consequent; FC). Wason originally found that most participants demonstrated a pattern of verification bias, which was his explanation for the participants’ faulty choices of the TA and the TC (Wason, 1968 ). Only the TA and the FC cards can logically break the rules if the “A” card has an even number on the other side or the “2” card has a vowel on the other side. Additionally, we tested the WST as a story completion task to gauge its effectiveness in measuring story processing compared to a rule violation task. With this, we hoped to establish the WST as a valuable paradigm for exploring the intricacies of story processing. Experiment 1 Methods Participants Four hundred and twenty-five participants began experiment 1. We excluded 48, regardless of their condition or performance, for completing in under ninety seconds, which we deemed at the outset to be an unreasonable time to complete the entire experiment, leaving 377 participants in experiment 1. Each received $ 1.00 for completing the experiment, whether their data contributed to the analysis or not. Design The experiment was a 2 (instructions) x 3 (story type) between-subjects factorial design. We presented participants with three scenarios via Qualtrics, either three personal struggle scenarios, three social contract scenarios, or three abstract scenarios. Please note that each participant experienced only one condition, thus making this experiment a fully between-subjects design. We averaged participants' logical sum score across their three stories as our primary measure, similar to Platt & Griggs ( 1993 ). Selecting the TA or the FC added one point to the score, while selecting the FA or the TC subtracted one point from the score. Thus, there was a range of -2 to + 2 for each scenario presented. We assessed the logical sum values regardless of which instructions participants received, even though half of the participants did not determine a logical outcome. In the case of story complete, their scores do not represent accuracy, as in a logical task, but how much their choices align with performance on a logical task. Materials To construct the new scenarios depicting personal struggle, we developed stories consisting of five to six sentences. According to Pruitt ( 2022 ), in order for a person to connect with the material, there must be a beginning, middle, and end. Our stories followed such a format, including an introductory sentence, a crisis, an attempted but unsuccessful resolution of the crisis, an escalation of the stakes, and a climactic statement presented as an if/then statement, requiring the protagonist to overcome the challenge. The narratives for the social contract and abstract scenarios were relatively unchanged from those used by others (Cosmides, 1989 ; Gigerenzer & Hug; 1992 ; Markovits, 2013; Wason, 1968 ). These scenarios did not follow the strict narrative arc we imposed on the personal struggle stories. As a control for any effects of narrative structure, we presented half of the participants with just the rule and no scenario or narrative. Following each rule, we presented four virtual cards to the participants. In each set of cards, one represented the antecedent, one the consequent, one the opposite of the antecedent, and one the opposite of the consequent. For example, for the rule “If Doreen must ask for help, then she will fail”, one card read “Doreen asks for help” (the true antecedent; TA), one read “Doreen refuses all help” (the false antecedent; FA), one read “Doreen fails to get the grant” (the true consequent; TC), and “Doreen succeeds at getting the grant” (the false consequent; FC). Subsequently, we instructed participants to either A) select the cards that constituted a satisfying ending to the scenario or B) identify the cards that could potentially violate the rule when we provided no scenario. The cards themselves were never flipped over to reveal the other side and, in fact, had no other side as they were entirely virtual. Procedures Participants viewed written instructions delivered through Qualtrics, which read: We would like you to think of each of the choices as printed on a two-sided card that has a front and a back, with information on both the side that you can see as well as on the hidden side. For simplicity, we present only one side of these cards, and you cannot actually turn them over, but consider them to be like actual cards that could be turned over to reveal information you do not know. For our task, we would like you to simply click on the card or cards that you select. You may select 0, 1, 2, 3, or all 4 cards as you deem necessary! They progressed at their own pace, reading instructions, a scenario, if one was present, and a rule. They made their final choices by selecting any of four squares, which displayed the TA, FA, TC, and FC in a random order. Participants selected their preferred cards by clicking a checkbox below the square containing text. Qualtrics randomly assigned participants to receive three stories all in one condition, personal struggle, social contract, or abstract, as well as whether or not they always, or never, readyany scenarios or narratives before the rules. Finally, the story order and the four cards the participants could select following each rule were randomly ordered for every participant. Experiment 1 Results We analyzed the choices made by participants based on their relation to the rule, including selecting the TA, FA, TC, or FC, and the various combinations of their selections in Table 1 . The ‘Other’ column includes many other possible combinations of options, including selecting all, none, and the inclusion of the FA choice among the selected options. We use the reasoning terminology here, as we are adapting a reasoning paradigm, even though half of the participants (the story instruction condition) had no logically correct answer to the prompt. Of primary interest are the participants who selected both TA and FC exclusively (TA + FC), as these are the logically correct responses and exclusive selection of these items suggests that the reasoner is correctly identifying violations of the rule. We computed logical sum scores for all scenarios, similar to Platt & Griggs ( 1993 ) and Taylor ( 2017 ). A logical sum score is computed by awarding a point (+ 1) each for selecting the TA or the FC and subtracting a point (-1) each for selecting the FA or the TC. For example, selecting TA/TC results in + 1 and − 1 point, giving a score of 0. TA/TC/FC selections result in a score of 1 and TA/FC selections result in a score of 2. Negative scores occur for subjects who select more incorrect options than correct options. Again, for half of the subjects, a logical sum score does not indicate intentional accuracy on a reasoning task. The use of the logical sum score is still useful for assessing the variation in responses that the participants provided, however. Table 1 Combinations most frequently selected by participants in response to personal struggle, abstract, or social contract scenarios, following instructions to complete the story or determine where the rule could be violated. Complete the Story TA FA TC FC TA/FC TA/TC FA/FC All 4 Other Personal Struggle 22 15 23 45 44 24 7 0 9 Abstract Struggle 25 10 35 13 5 43 26 10 19 Social Struggle 34 12 22 30 33 6 24 3 28 Rule Violated TA FA TC FC TA/FC TA/TC FA/FC All 4 Other Personal Struggle 33 22 26 31 17 19 17 3 15 Abstract Struggle 30 16 21 27 2 35 31 11 16 Social Struggle 42 21 15 28 13 19 24 9 21 Key: TA = True Antecedent, FA = False Antecedent, TC = True Consequent, FC = False Consequent We analyzed the logical sum score using a 3 (personal struggle/social contract/abstract) x 2 (story/reasoning instruction) between-subjects ANOVA, which revealed a main effect for instruction (F(1, 371) = 5.098, p < 0.05) in which the story instruction produced significantly higher logical sum scores than the reasoning instruction. We also found a main effect for the scenario type (F(2, 371) = 13.028, p 0.05). The means and standard error of the logical sum scores are in Fig. 1 . Planned pairwise comparisons for the scenario type conditions revealed that the personal struggle (p < 0.01) and social contract (p < 0.01) scenarios produced higher logical sum scores than the abstract scenarios. We observed no other significant differences. Experiment 2 Rationale Having determined that reasoning about personal struggles was comparable to reasoning about cheaters and that participants could reliably select a satisfying conclusion to our stories, we created Experiment 2 to further disentangle reasoning and story processes. All materials were the personal struggle stories from Experiment 1 but we modified either the rules or the instructions to explore the nature of satisfying endings as well as the effect of incongruencies on reasoning, much like the incongruences Taylor et al. ( 2017 ) employed with nursery rhymes. In this case, the stories were not familiar to participants. However, the ease and consistency with which participants could identify the elements of a satisfying ending allowed us to place satisfying or unsatisfying climaxes at odds with valid reasoning. Experiment 2 Methods Participants Of the two hundred and fifty MTurk participants we recruited, we excluded 41 for finishing the entire experiment in less than 90 seconds. As in experiment 1, we paid participants $ 1 for their participation, regardless of whether we included their data or not. Design We sought to further explore the reasoning and storytelling processes of the personal struggle scenarios in experiment 2. We created a 2 (instructions) x 2 (congruency) between-subjects factorial design. As with experiment 1, we instructed participants to either determine which cards violated the rule or which produced a satisfying ending. The congruency variable amounted to whether the rule was stated in such a way that violating or overcoming the personal struggle led to a heroic (and satisfying) outcome for the hero or an unsatisfying, unheroic ending. As with experiment 1, we measured the logical sum scores as our primary measure. Materials Stories for this experiment were the same as experiment 1, notably all containing likeable characters. Each of the presented stories was followed by a rule that signified a narrative climax to the scenarios. Participants read either a rule that, if overcome, ended heroically or an ending that, if overcome, ended tragically. For example, Quinlan the mountain climber’s personal struggle was stated as, “If Quinlan tried to climb the mountain, then he would succumb to the pain.” The satisfying conclusion to this story, from the position of a typical hero’s journey, would be that Quinlan does climb the mountain (TA) and he does not succumb to the pain (FC). For the incongruent stories, we presented a rule that employed the opposite antecedents and consequents than those in the congruent condition. For example, Quinlan the mountain climber’s personal struggle read, “If Quinlan gave up climbing, then he would overcome the pain.” From a logical standpoint, the correct selections of TA (gave up climbing) and the FC (succumbs to the pain) are narratively unsatisfying, though logically these are what one must choose in order to test if the rule has been violated. From a storytelling standpoint, the FA (trying to climb) and the TC (not succumbing to the pain) is narratively satisfying and typical of a heroic story arc but logically the incorrect choices. We refer to these incongruent stories as tragic stories and the congruent stories as heroic stories. As with experiment 1, we presented four digital cards featuring the TA, FA, TC, and FC for both the heroic and tragic story conditions. We instructed half the participants to identify “any and all events that could violate” the personal struggle rule. The remaining participants were to identify any and all events the protagonist “might encounter in a satisfying conclusion” to the story. Participants then selected zero to four cards depending on the instructions they received at random. The cards did not reveal their opposite side, being digital and fixed. Procedures The procedures were identical to experiment 2. Participants viewed written instructions delivered through Qualtrics and read them at their own pace. They made their final choices by selecting any of four squares, which displayed the TA, FA, TC, and FC in a random order. Qualtrics randomly assigned participants to receive three stories all in the same condition and either all tragic or all heroic stories. They also received only the reasoning instructions or only the “satisfying ending” instructions. We also randomized story order and the card order after each rule. Experiment 2 Results As in experiment 1, we compiled the average logical sum score for each participant across the three stories they responded to. Table 2 displays the various combinations of their selections and, like in experiment 1, the ‘Other’ column totaled many other possible combinations of options. Our primary interest was again the combination of TA and FC exclusively (TA + FC), as these are the logically correct responses and exclusive selection of these items suggests that the reasoner is correctly searching for violations of the rule while excluding irrelevant information. As before, for half of the subjects, a logical sum score does not indicate intentional accuracy on a reasoning task. Table 2 Combinations selected most frequently by participants in response to scenarios congruent or incongruent with a heroic conclusion, following instructions to either complete the story or determine if the rule has been violated. Complete the Story TA only FA Only TC only FC Only TA/FC TA/TC FA/TC FA/FC All 4 Other Congruent 77 46 43 94 34 5 2 7 3 15 Incongruent 42 74 97 37 5 1 5 10 2 10 Rule Violated TA only FA Only TC only FC Only TA/FC TA/TC FA/TC FA/FC All 4 Other Congruent 71 48 34 78 25 2 4 10 0 22 Incongruent 51 59 50 60 13 10 13 3 6 14 We analyzed the logical sum score using a 2 (congruent/incongruent climax rule) x 2 (story/reasoning instruction) between-subjects ANOVA, which revealed a main effect for instruction (F(1, 203) = 6.45, p < 0.05) in which the reasoning instruction produced significantly higher logical sum scores than the story instruction. We also found a main effect for congruency (F(1, 203) = 52.08, p < 0.001). The interaction between instruction and congruence also reached significance (F(1, 203) = 7.91, p < 0.01). The means and standard error of the logical sum scores are in Fig. 2 . Planned simple comparisons revealed that ending incongruent stories produced a lower logical sum score than reasoning about rules incongruent with a heroic story (p < 0.01). Additionally, logical sum scores were higher when rules were congruent with a heroic story than when incongruent for both the reasoning (p < 0.01) and story instructions (p < 0.001). Experiment 3 Rationale Experiment 3 was our attempt to extend the findings of experiment 2 wherein we reversed the affective valence of the stories by making the protagonist unlikeable. We created three new stories each invoking a moral lesson, in which the participants should prefer a tragic ending for the unlikeable characters. Thus, a congruent conclusion to the story was now a tragic one and a heroic conclusion incongruent with a satisfying ending, one in which the protagonist is taught a lesson. Otherwise, experiment 3 was identical to experiment 2. Experiment 3 Methods Participants Two hundred and fifty participants began experiment 3 and 166 completed the experiment in 90 seconds or longer. About twice as many as in the first two experiments, 84 in total, completed the experiment in less than 90 seconds. As this was the exclusion criterion that we used in the first experiment, we excluded these participants prior to any analysis. Participants received $ 1.00 for completing the experiment, whether their data contributed to the final analysis or not. Design The experiment was a 2 (instructions) x 2 (rule orientation) between-subjects factorial design. As with the previous two experiments, we instructed participants to either determine which cards violated the rule or which produced a satisfying ending. The congruency variable amounted to whether the rule was stated in such a way that violating or overcoming the personal struggle led to a heroic (and satisfying) outcome for the hero or an unsatisfying, unheroic ending. We also measured the logical sum scores as our primary measure as in the first two experiments. Materials We created three new stories featuring a personal struggle of an unlikable character for experiment three. A rule followed each story, which signified a narrative climax. Participants received either a rule that, if overcome, would produce a heroic ending or a tragic ending. We presented the rules and cards in the same manner as in experiments 1 and 2. Participants selected the cards either found in a satisfying ending or the cards that might feature a violation of the rule on the other side of the card, per the instructions they received. The cards never revealed their opposite side, being digital and fixed. Procedures Participants received all three stories in a random order. Each participant received either heroic or tragic rules for all three stories. The instructions for determining violations of the rule or selecting a satisfying ending following the presented cards were also randomized, and participants answered at their own pace. Experiment 3 Results We compiled the average logical sum score as in the prior two experiments. Table 3 demonstrates the frequency of various combinations of selections. Table 3 Complete the Story TA only FA Only TC only FC Only TA/FC TA/TC FA/TC FA/FC All 4 Other Tragic Congruent 14 10 11 17 19 29 2 5 2 2 Heroic Congruent 9 26 17 20 6 15 13 22 0 13 Rule Violated TA only FA Only TC only FC Only TA/FC TA/TC FA/TC FA/FC All 4 Other Tragic Congruent 14 10 10 15 10 21 3 35 1 9 Heroic Congruent 5 14 12 9 11 21 10 15 6 13 We analyzed the logical sum score using a 2 (congruent/incongruent climax rule) x 2 (story/reasoning instruction) between-subjects ANOVA, which revealed a main effect for congruency (F(1, 174) = 23.45, p < 0.001). The interaction between instruction and congruence approached significance (F(1, 203) = 3.55, p = 0.061). The means and standard error of the logical sum scores are in Fig. 3 . In spite of the non-significant interaction, we conducted planned simple comparisons, which demonstrated that ending congruent stories produced a higher logical sum score than reasoning about rules congruent with a tragic story (p = 0.049). Additionally, logical sum scores were higher when rules were congruent with a tragic story than when incongruent for both the reasoning (p < 0.021) and story instructions (p < 0.001). Discussion The act of storytelling is not a simple recitation of facts; storytelling likely requires a higher level of cognition, involving decision-making, social cognition, and perhaps something unique to stories. Cron (2014) went so far as to claim that storytelling did more for our evolution as humans than did the opposable thumb, “...all opposable thumbs did was let us hang on. It was stories that told us what to hang onto…” (8:47 − 8:54). In pursuit of such a cognitive process, we sought to examine the role of stories in a language-dependent task. Specifically, we sought to uncover whether processing stories occupies a privileged place within human cognition as others have found with cheating (Speer et al., 2020 ) or illness avoidance (Taylor, 2017 ). While prior research on reasoning has mainly explored the influence of scenario structure and content on decision-making, we focused on the influence of heroic- and tragic-oriented stories on selections on the WST. We revealed several things about both stories and reasoning. First, like with threats of cheaters or illness on the WST, we showed that reasoning performance increases in response to rules conveying the personal struggles of a central protagonist, in which no cheating is evident. In Experiment 1, participants selected the TA and FC together at equal rates in the personal struggle and classic cheater conditions. This effect was more pronounced under instructions to produce a satisfying conclusion compared to instructions to seek out rule violations. Thus, we concluded that personal struggles, with or without narratives, improve reasoning performance. In order to further differentiate the “cheater detection” cognitive module from story processing, we conducted Experiment 2 to explore the effects of reasoning and story completion when stories are bound for either satisfying or unsatisfying endings. Here, we found that participants’ reasoning responses were influenced by the congruency between the story ending and the rule, but that concluding the story in a satisfying way produced a much more pronounced effect on participants’ selections. In short, we argue that participants are at least sometimes able to shift their processes to identifying violations of a rule, even in the face of an unsatisfying ending. While they prefer a heroic ending, they can ignore the potentially dissatisfying tragic end to correctly assess a rule for violations. In Experiment 3, we further examined the effect of congruency with tragic stories. Although the interaction between instructions and congruence did not achieve statistical significance, our results at least hint that, similar to Experiment 2, participants think of stories, and seek logical violations, in much the same way for tragic stories as for heroic ones. The lack of significance for our interaction may stem from a higher number of participants removed due to rushed performance than in the first two experiments, less compelling tragic stories than heroic stories, more difficulty in reasoning about stories involving tragic rules, a different cognitive process for tragic stories, or some combination of these. In their prior work with nursery rhymes molded into the WST format, Taylor et al. ( 2017 ) suggested the availability heuristic was responsible for changes in reasoning, resulting from incongruities of highly familiar rhymes and proper deductive solutions on the WST. In the present studies, we utilized completely novel stories, limiting familiarity with the material. It is possible an general, abstract notion of familiarity applies to stories but we suspect that is not the case. When asked to reason, participants produced a different pattern of results than when asked to consider the scenarios as stories requiring a conclusion. In fact, the participants seemed to be able to reason about stories incongruent with their preferred conclusions, counter to Taylor et. al’s findings. While a general familiarity heuristic may still be possible, we suggest it is unlikely given our findings. In broader terms, our findings offer substantial evidence supporting the notion that story processing systematically influences human thinking and behavior. Similar to cognition around cheater detection, it may be that storytelling relies on a universal cognitive function. Our findings certainly support the assertion that processing stories is a separate cognitive function from either cheater detection or logical reasoning. While we explored story processing in an abstract, laboratory task, there is sufficient evidence of mating or survival pressures from cross-cultural research (Buss, 1989 , Dunbar, 2014 ; Coe et al., 2006 ) to believe that invoking story completion processes in an adapted version of the WST may engage a cognitive module that is responsible for stories. Not only might stories hold a privileged place in cognition, but there may be at least two distinct reasons for this. Our results in Experiment 3 reflect preferences to punish unlikeable protagonists while the results in Experiment 2 reflect preferences for protagonists to overcome their struggles. The intriguing duality of these results may hint at the nature that stories serve, or once served for our collective ancestors, such as lessons for acceptable behavior or as ways to shun or elevate those in the tribe, village, family, or other social group. These are questions for future research, however, as our results only allow us to conclude that stories have a powerful and consistent effect on thinking. Further exploration into what elements make a story tragic, socially relevant, or different from other processes is still necessary. An obvious avenue of research is to investigate the universality of our findings. Similarly, is there a universal story structure, such as the hero’s journey (Campbell, 1949 ), to which humans are especially attuned? Recognizing the pivotal role of storytelling in shaping human experience, potential components of an evolved storytelling module likely include processes related to perception, comprehension, and emotional engagement, memory encoding and retrieval, cognitive schemas, theory of mind, and moral reasoning, let alone beliefs, attitudes, and cognitive development (For examples, see Wiessner, 2014 ; Miller et al., 2002 ; Dunbar, 2014 ; Coe et al., 2006 ; Sugiyama, 2001 ; Schniter et al., 2018 ). Exploring neurocognitive aspects, such as neural correlates associated with story processing, also offers a promising avenue for future research. Clearly, further examination is necessary for the nuanced development of a robust cognitive module for stories. Future researchers have fertile ground for expanding upon our findings, particularly in the realm of story cognition within culturally specific storytelling. As participants engage with narratives that may diverge from their cultural roots, there is further opportunity to explore how such incongruencies resonate within story perception and reasoning. It may be enlightening to know whether stories can encode lessons and emotions in spite of cultural differences with the story recipient. For example, Fennelly ( 2023 ) uses Return: The Promise of the Day , a Korean play, to understand and connect with the emotion of the story, even as a non-Korean language speaker. Indeed, future research that can disentangle cultural influences from our findings will be able to speak more strongly to the universality of a cognitive story module. Of course, understanding the interplay between cultural narratives and cognitive processes has broad implications for developing culturally sensitive interventions and education materials. And if there is indeed a central, evolutionary trait related to storytelling, it leaves hope for a pathway to connect people, one that even supersedes cultural barriers. Declarations Author Contribution J.P.T. and C.A.Y. wrote the main manuscript and J.P.T. prepared figures 1-3 and tables 1-3. Both authors reviewed the manuscript. Data Availability Data for all three experiments can be found at https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1QDlR9mc-QzHDZ6YaopfaXPd3HDWyPzf8?usp=sharing Author Note We have no conflicts or interests to disclose The research was not externally funded. The study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Southern Oregon University in accordance with U.S. federal regulations (Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46). We obtained informed consent from all participants. Clinical trial number: not applicable. References Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications , 10 (5), 1251. https://doi.org/10.2307/2641280 Bietti, L. M., Tilston, O., & Bangerter, A. (2018). Storytelling as adaptive collective sensemaking. Topics in Cognitive Science , 11 (4), 710–732. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12358 Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 12 (1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00023992 Campbell, J. (1949). The Hero with a Thousand Faces . http://civicvirtue.info/weblog/wp-content/uploads/hero-with-a-thousand-faces.pdf Coe, K., Aiken, N. E., & Palmer, C. T. (2006). Once Upon A Time: Ancestors and the evolutionary significance of Stories. Anthropological Forum , 16 (1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00664670600572421 Cosmides, L. (1989). The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition , 31 (3), 187–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(89)90023-1 ​​Cron, L., & [Tedx (2014). Talk]. Wired for story: Lisa Cron at TEDxFurmanU [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74uv0mJS0uM&t=534s Donahue, J. K., & Green, M. C. (2016). A good story: Men’s storytelling ability affects their attractiveness and perceived status. Personal Relationships , 23 (2), 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12120 Dunbar, R. (2014). How conversations around campfires came to be. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 111 (39), 14013–14014. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1416382111 Estill, L., & Johnson, E. (2015, March 19). Fun international facts about Shakespeare . https://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/fun-international-facts-about-shakespeare Evans, J. S. B. (1972). Interpretation and matching bias in a reasoning task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology , 24 (2), 193–199. 10.1080/00335557243000067 Fennelly, K. (2023). Archaeology, emotional storytelling, and performance. Public Archaeology , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14655187.2022.2149683 Gigerenzer, G., & Hug, K. (1992). Domain-specific reasoning: Social contracts, cheating, and perspective change. Cognition , 43 (2), 127–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90060-u Gottschall, J. (2005). Quantitative literary study: A modest manifesto and testing the hypotheses of feminist fairy tale studies. In J. Gottschall, & D. S. Wilson (Eds.), The literary animal: Evolution and the nature of narrative (pp. 199–224). Northwestern University. Hammack, P. L. (2008). Narrative and the cultural psychology of identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review , 12 (3), 222–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308316892 Hewlett, B. S., & Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. (1986). Cultural transmission among aKa pygmies. American Anthropologist , 88 (4), 922–934. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1986.88.4.02a00100 Hogan, P. C. (2004). The mind and its stories: Narrative universals and human emotion. Choice Reviews Online , 41 (08), 41–4471. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.41-4471 Lange, B. P., & Euler, H. Α. (2014). Writers have groupies, too: High quality literature production and mating success. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences , 8 (1), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0097246 Markovits, H. (2015). Conditional reasoning and semantic memory retrieval. In A. Feeney, & V.A. Thompson, (Eds.), Reasoning as memory (Kindle edition; pp 53–70). New York, NY: Psychology Press. McAdams, D. P., & McLean, K. C. (2013). Narrative identity. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 22 (3), 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413475622 McLean, K. C., & Syed, M. (2015). Personal, master, and alternative narratives: An integrative framework for understanding identity development in context. Human Development , 58 (6), 318–349. https://doi.org/10.1159/000445817 McKay, R., & Dennett, D. C. (2009). The evolution of misbelief. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 32 (6), 493–510. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x09990975 Meltzoff, A. N. (1988). Infant imitation and memory: Nine-month-olds in immediate and deferred tests. Child Development , 59 (1), 217. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130404 Miller, P. J., Wang, S., Sandel, T., & Cho, G. E. (2002). Self-esteem as folk theory: A comparison of European American and Taiwanese mothers’ beliefs. Parenting , 2 (3), 209–239. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327922par0203_02 Platt, R. D., & Griggs, R. A. (1993). Facilitation in the abstract selection task: The effects of attentional and instructional factors. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology , 46 (4), 591–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749308401029 Pruitt, T. (2022). Engaging the Science of Storytelling in Archaeological Communications. Archaeological Review from Cambridge , 37 (2), 70–92. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.99613 Schniter, E., Wilcox, N. T., Beheim, B., Kaplan, H., & Gurven, M. (2018). Information transmission and the oral tradition: Evidence of a late-life service niche for Tsimane Amerindians. Evolution and Human Behavior , 39 (1), 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.10.006 Smith, D., Schlaepfer, P., Major, K., Dyble, M., Page, A. E., Thompson, J., Chaudhary, N., Salalι, G. D., Mace, R., Astete, L. H., Ngales, M., Vinicius, L., & Migliano, A. B. (2017a). Cooperation and the evolution of hunter-gatherer storytelling. Nature Communications , 8 (1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02036-8 Speer, N. K., Reynolds, J. R., Swallow, K. M., & Zacks, J. M. (2009). Reading stories activates neural representations of visual and motor experiences. Psychological Science , 20 (8), 989–999. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02397.x Speer, S., Smidts, A., & Boksem, M. S. (2020). Cognitive control increases honesty in cheaters but cheating in those who are honest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 117 (32), 19080–19091. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2003480117 Sugiyama, M. S. (2001). Food, foragers, and folklore: the role of narrative in human subsistence. Evolution and Human Behavior , 22 (4), 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1090-5138(01)00063-0 Taylor, J. P. (2017). Reasoning improves in response to threats of contagion and food contamination. Evolutionary Psychological Science , 3 , 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-017-0088-6 Taylor, J. P., Ashworth, S. J., Petrovich, S., & Young, C. A. (2017). Inducing an availability heuristic on the Wason selection task overrides the matching bias. Journal of Cognitive Psychology , 29 (4), 508–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2017.1281282 Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology , 20 (3), 273–281. 10.1080/14640746808400161 Wiessner, P. (2014). Embers of society: Firelight talk among the Ju/’hoansi Bushmen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 111 (39), 14027–14035. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1404212111 Zak, P. J. (2020, October 2). Neurological correlates allow us to predict human behavior. The Scientist Magazine®. https://www.the-scientist.com/neurological-correlates-allow-us-to-predict-human-behavior-67948 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 01 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 01 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 15 Dec, 2025 Reviews received at journal 13 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 13 Sep, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 11 Sep, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 11 Sep, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 11 Sep, 2025 First submitted to journal 05 Sep, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7547375","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":515936763,"identity":"c72f4bd4-67db-41f0-9ba0-8dee776da238","order_by":0,"name":"John Powell Taylor","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Southern Oregon University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"John","middleName":"Powell","lastName":"Taylor","suffix":""},{"id":515936764,"identity":"35106d8e-26de-473d-88f1-4dc98f22df89","order_by":1,"name":"Casey A. Young","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Casey","middleName":"A.","lastName":"Young","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-05 23:08:08","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7547375/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7547375/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":91838213,"identity":"2157d651-9911-43a9-8f58-d9c5a94fdb5d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 09:42:53","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":67082,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"ACognitiveModuleforStoriesReasoningImprovesWithStoriesofPersonalStruggle.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7547375/v1/5e2f1147926fddbc665dfc8d.docx"},{"id":91839170,"identity":"d71c7589-1572-4240-afac-063169e83690","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 09:50:53","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":17453,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"d5979ed4c78442baa7b9471bbe10d3e7.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7547375/v1/cf92368e41437721cff57db9.json"},{"id":91838222,"identity":"a355b281-a967-4ad0-abf2-c21d0956e99a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 09:42:53","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":134517,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"d5979ed4c78442baa7b9471bbe10d3e71enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7547375/v1/11b7f820bcf7a03a6e50d5b8.xml"},{"id":91838217,"identity":"4dc38291-3f4a-4084-8905-3ea5e2d676ad","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 09:42:53","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":11281,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7547375/v1/1329aef575a3a3b91ac53849.png"},{"id":91838223,"identity":"5ac69f4b-ffcc-44e2-a040-1b84ab18ca43","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 09:42:53","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":10163,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7547375/v1/d1bd385f4de5b59574a9c771.png"},{"id":91838221,"identity":"601de4d7-88f2-4f40-b9b0-e3334a1fa509","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 09:42:53","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":9903,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7547375/v1/b92fadfa1a9091c518c05ea5.png"},{"id":91839171,"identity":"5973a687-ad33-4b57-9848-7e706b096789","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 09:50:53","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":5033,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7547375/v1/35e4a1813b6e75f6be9b7b9b.png"},{"id":91839173,"identity":"4950bd70-bf79-4f19-8de8-ddfff243be15","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 09:50:53","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":4652,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7547375/v1/cb7b8f027aa5a282e7c18783.png"},{"id":91838218,"identity":"4a95a04c-0fb1-4c9f-88e3-64f5f2c18df5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 09:42:53","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":4550,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7547375/v1/1858b3d6dfba237370808ec5.png"},{"id":91838225,"identity":"cf41da30-00ff-4e91-9e7d-6a79d79af036","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 09:42:53","extension":"xml","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":117399,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"d5979ed4c78442baa7b9471bbe10d3e71structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7547375/v1/5dd865c04cf836cb49bda6d2.xml"},{"id":91838226,"identity":"28cb77f0-5b41-4987-a93a-370b98a5839c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 09:42:53","extension":"html","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":142107,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7547375/v1/69b3f243d6ee5d94180e64ca.html"},{"id":91838212,"identity":"588760f9-07ac-44b0-af1e-c23b04b37c09","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 09:42:53","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":19751,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAverage Logical Sum Score on a Wason-like Task Following Reasoning or Story-Completion Instructions\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7547375/v1/fd32419432649b01bfc82f03.png"},{"id":91838215,"identity":"f4ae61f6-a177-4758-9b25-da9a64644cb4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 09:42:53","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":17657,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAverage Logical Sum Scores for Stories with a Rule Congruent or Incongruent with a Heroic Ending\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7547375/v1/134fea5a3e4ca5c0b841d306.png"},{"id":91842166,"identity":"db33a30d-3cd3-4ca4-8b0d-68206945f8f9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 09:58:53","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":16813,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAverage Logical Sum Scores for Stories with a Rule Congruent or Incongruent with a Tragic Ending\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7547375/v1/ea43f04735e6f4779ca51def.png"},{"id":91843609,"identity":"76b9a839-92dc-4a2e-9a34-6478a27f62c6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 10:06:53","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":840298,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7547375/v1/7c9c83be-098a-4b96-925c-a92950398a32.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"A Cognitive Module for Stories: Reasoning Improves With Stories of Personal Struggle","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eFew narratives illustrate the potent nature of storytelling as effectively as Romeo and Juliet. Shakespeare\u0026rsquo;s classic is so ubiquitous with storytelling it has been translated into over 20 languages and adapted across diverse cinematic interpretations, themed theatrical productions, and narrative innovations (Estill \u0026amp; Johnson, 2015). Perhaps the only story format more omnipresent is the old wives' tale, i.e. toads causing warts, a cautionary tale recorded in written English as far back as 1387 (Estill \u0026amp; Johnson, 2015). Old wives' tales, much like Romeo and Juliet, clearly demonstrate how stories can transcend geographic and cultural boundaries, much like urban legends, gossip, myths, folklore, and a myriad of other genres of storytelling.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, stories carry cultural weight in their telling. In Chinese families, storytelling emphasizes honor and the family unit, conveying valuable traits and behaviors essential for success within their culture (Miller et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). Irish-American families often recount stories in which the protagonist's actions are pardoned, fostering an environment that encourages children to explore without the fear of judgment (Miller et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). The Pre-European era of colonialism revealed ample evidence that no particular group of peoples exclusively possessed a specific story subject (Hogan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, storytelling themes have woven across time and culture, consistently depicting conflict, love, and sacrifice leading us to suspect that, if stories are a universal cognitive function, then story processing must have a systematic influence on thinking and behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe Universality of Stories\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore written language, mass printing, and broadcasting, humans transmitted the relationship between themselves and their environment predominantly through oral storytelling or musical traditions (Berkes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). When considering the universality of storytelling, it is important to consider stories in ancestral terms. The value of storytelling may lie in comprehending unfamiliar or uncertain scenarios, enabling collaborative skill development, and enhancing social cohesion by reinforcing group identity and intergroup relations (Bietti et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Societies have employed storytelling and music as educational tools; stories and songs encoding essential information about dangers, sustenance, morality, norms, and relationships (Schniter et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, we suggest there may be plausible reasons for the universality of storytelling and story perception, though universality alone is insufficient to suggest either are heritable traits.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile there exists limited evidence for an inherent cognitive storytelling or story reception function, some scholars have postulated evolutionary mechanisms that might give rise to innate cognitive processes related to narratives (Sugiyama, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Schniter et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Storytelling has independently flourished in different cultures, making a compelling argument for the adaptiveness of storytelling (Bietti et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The consistency of storytelling themes, comprehension, and celebration across cultures speaks to a universality typical of evolved traits and one that may imply more than mere self-representation. Instead, narratives may serve the purpose of efficiently acquiring vital survival information.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWiessner (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) set out to study how the use of fire impacted the Ju\u0026rsquo;/hoansi Bushmen culture. The Ju\u0026rsquo;/hoansi Bushmen in Botswana, Weissner found, increased storytelling while sitting around the fire at night compared to daytime conversations. In this distinctive environment, where there was no work to do and the group gathered in companionship, talk turned to strengthening bonds, exchanging social information, sharing entertainment, and experiencing collective emotions. She also found that, with gatherings of 15 or more people, the Ju\u0026rsquo;/hoansi told more stories of past hunts, talked about marriage and customs around premarital relationships, discussed possible dangers and their resolutions as well as social disputes, and recounted traditional myths. Through her findings, Wiessner illuminated the cultural and social significance of fireside storytelling, both practical and for entertainment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSuch firelight bonding may have benefitted the storytellers directly, providing an avenue for the selection of a story cognition trait. Cultural standing within one's group, as well as the ability to alter one's standing in a positive way, has a significant impact on mate selection. Donahue and Green (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) found that the art of storytelling elevates perceived status, aiding men in attracting long-term partners; storytelling transcends mere entertainment and becomes a conduit for transmitting crucial cultural information (Dunbar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). In this context, Lange and Euler (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) propose that poets have more increased sexual access the more they have published in the literary canon. They propose one possibility for their findings is that humans have evolved a capacity for literature, one that may have been subject to sexual selection. However, the success of storytellers in mating could also be linked to the status afforded them by their accomplishments or their notable verbal skills.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSuccess in acquiring a mate is only beneficial if their offspring can also survive and mate. In this regard, parents utilize storytelling to impart knowledge and convey the hazards of the environment to their children. Therefore, stories that promote traits like generosity, cooperation, restraint, and sacrifice, which are vital for forming social connections in human societies, might serve as parenting adaptations (Coe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). The narrative content across cultures emphasizes the diverse strategies for ensuring survival and reaffirms storytelling\u0026rsquo;s value in bolstering survival and successful reproduction (Dunbar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, the importance of storytelling is not only in the content of the story but how the story is told. When a story is told well our brains release oxytocin and dopamine (Zak, 2020) and when a story is told in a flat, direct structure, the same response is not found (Pruitt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In short, as put by Sugiyama (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e), processing narrative is a cognitive function that reliably develops, is species-typical, and is complex. The observable difference in the way the brain responds implies a strong biological connection to stories, but that alone is not enough. There must also be one or more selection pressures that promote storytelling to exist as a trait. Any such trait must also be economical and aid in survival. As such, the types of stories shared, not just the proficiency of the storyteller, may matter greatly for survival.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eThe Importance of Stories\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eSugiyama (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e) suggested that storytelling replaces the need for first-hand experiences, enabling individuals to gather valuable insights without accepting any risks. Stories may therefore allow for rehearsing possible outcomes, reducing the risks in practicing dangerous activities (Gottschall, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Notably, Smith et al. (2017) illustrated the substantial impact of storytelling on mate selection and potential survival. Smith et al. showed how the significance of skilled storytellers in mate selection persisted, even compared to other vital skills such as fishing, hunting, and reputation building. Research on storytelling has also demonstrated how communities effectively employed stories to coordinate social behavior, to allow individuals in the community enhanced navigation of their complex social landscapes (Sugiyama, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Donahue \u0026amp; Green, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Collectively, these findings align with the notion that narratives serve as efficient conduits for information tailored to adapt to relevant local environments (Donahue \u0026amp; Green, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStories are often personal, however, not just vessels to convey lessons. McAdams and McLean (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) highlight that the narratives individuals construct about their lives pivotally shape their perceptions and responses to the world. Such personal accounts, often subjective reflections on life events, do not exist in isolation; instead, individuals weave them into the fabric of familiar cultural narratives to give context to their experiences, as emphasized by Hammack (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), McLean and Syed (2016), and Meltzoff (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, Pruitt (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) discusses how the content of the story is less important than how the story is told, providing an aesthetic experience that holds the listener immersed. The dynamic interplay between personal storytelling and cultural narratives illuminates the symbiotic relationship between individual expression and shared cultural frameworks. For example, nighttime storytelling by the Ju/' hoansi (!Kung) Bushmen may help foster higher orders of theory of mind (Wiessner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) while shaping linguistic development and providing cultural touchpoints for the next generation. For example, most skills, including hunting songs, dancing, and social rules, are acquired through cultural transmission by Aka Pygmy children by age 10 (Hewlett \u0026amp; Cavalli-Sforza, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn light of the universality, possible selection pathways, usefulness, and ease with which stories are told and received, we believe there is sufficient reason to explore the possibility of a cognitive module for stories. Such a module should be separate from recognized cognitive modules, like reasoning, and aid in story perception. In order to distinguish such a module from other well-studied cognitive processes, we examine reasoning, in particular, as an evolved trait.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eA Cognitive Module for Stories\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt is important to recognize that higher-order functions like story cognition do not preclude them from evolutionary selection. Reasoning, for example, appears to have been influenced in such a way. Initial investigations using Wason\u0026rsquo;s Selection Task (WST) revealed rather poor performance in drawing logical conclusions. When the WST conditions were altered to be about social or physical survival, substantial improvements occurred on the task (McKay \u0026amp; Dennett, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). For example, Taylor (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) found that performance on the WST improved when he gave participants rules that evoked threats of illness. To explore this phenomenon, Taylor (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) showed participants scenarios involving contagion and food contamination and asked them to reason about potential vectors of disease. His findings indicated that the threat of illness influenced reasoning in a similar way as social threats, such as cheating (McKay \u0026amp; Dennett, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Speer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Taylor, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Specifically, Speer et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) suggested a specialized brain area that plays a role in enabling cheating detection. Thus, reasoning likely has adaptive elements, shaped through natural selection, and holds a privileged position in cognition (Speer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; McKay \u0026amp; Dennett, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). In relevant contexts, storytelling may play a similar role.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCompared to reasoning, the adaptive nature of stories remains a limited area of research. However, Taylor et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) has shown that the familiarity of stories may override typical patterns of reasoning errors using common nursery rhymes in a modified version of the WST. Participants read well-known nursery rhymes that concluded with a logical rule instead of the natural ending to the rhyme, putting into conflict the familiar ending of the rhyme and typical reasoning responses (i.e. the matching bias). Taylor et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) found that familiar nursery rhyme material leading up to the rule altered participants' reasoning patterns, akin to the belief bias, as in Evans' (1972) research. Intriguingly, the influence of nursery rhyme knowledge on reasoning was independent of beliefs about the real world. Taylor et al. attributed their findings to a familiarity heuristic overriding the typical matching heuristic, the result of explicit knowledge of the familiar nursery rhymes. It remains to be seen whether unfamiliar stories can impact reasoning in a similar fashion. It is conceivable that individuals inherently understand narrative structures or principles of stories, which should influence their performance on tasks like the WST. If so, an inherent grasp of storytelling elements should impact reasoning processes, even in the absence of highly familiar material.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor our first experiment investigating the impact of unfamiliar stories on reasoning, we aimed to investigate how participants could actively choose a satisfying ending for a story, focusing on the ease and consistency of their selections. Moreover, we aimed to investigate whether the cognitive processes involved in this task differed from those employed in reasoning and whether the observed effects extended beyond heroic stories to include tragic narratives. We posited that participants would naturally and consistently demonstrate an ability to identify satisfying endings for heroic and tragic stories, suggesting a distinct cognitive process separate from reasoning about the same materials.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Experiment 1 ","content":"\u003ch2\u003eRationale\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn experiment 1, we sought to examine distinctions in reasoning performance between personal struggles, cheaters, and abstract problems using Wason\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1968\u003c/span\u003e) selection task. In the original experiment, participants read the rule, 'If a card has a vowel on one side, then it must have an odd number on the other side.' The participants attempted to test the veracity of this rule by selecting from four cards, for example, an \u0026ldquo;A\u0026rdquo; (the True Antecedent; TA), a \u0026ldquo;K\u0026rdquo; (the False Antecedent; FA), a \u0026ldquo;7\u0026rdquo; (the True Consequent; TC), and a \u0026ldquo;2\u0026rdquo; (the False Consequent; FC). Wason originally found that most participants demonstrated a pattern of verification bias, which was his explanation for the participants\u0026rsquo; faulty choices of the TA and the TC (Wason, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1968\u003c/span\u003e). Only the TA and the FC cards can logically break the rules if the \u0026ldquo;A\u0026rdquo; card has an even number on the other side or the \u0026ldquo;2\u0026rdquo; card has a vowel on the other side.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, we tested the WST as a story completion task to gauge its effectiveness in measuring story processing compared to a rule violation task. With this, we hoped to establish the WST as a valuable paradigm for exploring the intricacies of story processing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eExperiment 1 Methods\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFour hundred and twenty-five participants began experiment 1. We excluded 48, regardless of their condition or performance, for completing in under ninety seconds, which we deemed at the outset to be an unreasonable time to complete the entire experiment, leaving 377 participants in experiment 1. Each received \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e1.00 for completing the experiment, whether their data contributed to the analysis or not.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDesign\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe experiment was a 2 (instructions) x 3 (story type) between-subjects factorial design. We presented participants with three scenarios via Qualtrics, either three personal struggle scenarios, three social contract scenarios, or three abstract scenarios. Please note that each participant experienced only one condition, thus making this experiment a fully between-subjects design.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe averaged participants' logical sum score across their three stories as our primary measure, similar to Platt \u0026amp; Griggs (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). Selecting the TA or the FC added one point to the score, while selecting the FA or the TC subtracted one point from the score. Thus, there was a range of -2 to +\u0026thinsp;2 for each scenario presented. We assessed the logical sum values regardless of which instructions participants received, even though half of the participants did not determine a logical outcome. In the case of story complete, their scores do not represent accuracy, as in a logical task, but how much their choices align with performance on a logical task.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMaterials\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo construct the new scenarios depicting personal struggle, we developed stories consisting of five to six sentences. According to Pruitt (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), in order for a person to connect with the material, there must be a beginning, middle, and end. Our stories followed such a format, including an introductory sentence, a crisis, an attempted but unsuccessful resolution of the crisis, an escalation of the stakes, and a climactic statement presented as an if/then statement, requiring the protagonist to overcome the challenge.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe narratives for the social contract and abstract scenarios were relatively unchanged from those used by others (Cosmides, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e; Gigerenzer \u0026amp; Hug; \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e; Markovits, 2013; Wason, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1968\u003c/span\u003e). These scenarios did not follow the strict narrative arc we imposed on the personal struggle stories. As a control for any effects of narrative structure, we presented half of the participants with just the rule and no scenario or narrative.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFollowing each rule, we presented four virtual cards to the participants. In each set of cards, one represented the antecedent, one the consequent, one the opposite of the antecedent, and one the opposite of the consequent. For example, for the rule \u0026ldquo;If Doreen must ask for help, then she will fail\u0026rdquo;, one card read \u0026ldquo;Doreen asks for help\u0026rdquo; (the true antecedent; TA), one read \u0026ldquo;Doreen refuses all help\u0026rdquo; (the false antecedent; FA), one read \u0026ldquo;Doreen fails to get the grant\u0026rdquo; (the true consequent; TC), and \u0026ldquo;Doreen succeeds at getting the grant\u0026rdquo; (the false consequent; FC). Subsequently, we instructed participants to either A) select the cards that constituted a satisfying ending to the scenario or B) identify the cards that could potentially violate the rule when we provided no scenario. The cards themselves were never flipped over to reveal the other side and, in fact, had no other side as they were entirely virtual.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProcedures\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants viewed written instructions delivered through Qualtrics, which read:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe would like you to think of each of the choices as printed on a two-sided card that has a front and a back, with information on both the side that you can see as well as on the hidden side. For simplicity, we present only one side of these cards, and you cannot actually turn them over, but consider them to be like actual cards that could be turned over to reveal information you do not know. For our task, we would like you to simply click on the card or cards that you select. You may select 0, 1, 2, 3, or all 4 cards as you deem necessary!\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThey progressed at their own pace, reading instructions, a scenario, if one was present, and a rule. They made their final choices by selecting any of four squares, which displayed the TA, FA, TC, and FC in a random order. Participants selected their preferred cards by clicking a checkbox below the square containing text.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eQualtrics randomly assigned participants to receive three stories all in one condition, personal struggle, social contract, or abstract, as well as whether or not they always, or never, readyany scenarios or narratives before the rules. Finally, the story order and the four cards the participants could select following each rule were randomly ordered for every participant.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eExperiment 1 Results\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe analyzed the choices made by participants based on their relation to the rule, including selecting the TA, FA, TC, or FC, and the various combinations of their selections in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. The \u0026lsquo;Other\u0026rsquo; column includes many other possible combinations of options, including selecting all, none, and the inclusion of the FA choice among the selected options. We use the reasoning terminology here, as we are adapting a reasoning paradigm, even though half of the participants (the story instruction condition) had no logically correct answer to the prompt. Of primary interest are the participants who selected both TA and FC exclusively (TA\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;FC), as these are the logically correct responses and exclusive selection of these items suggests that the reasoner is correctly identifying violations of the rule.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe computed logical sum scores for all scenarios, similar to Platt \u0026amp; Griggs (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e) and Taylor (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). A logical sum score is computed by awarding a point (+\u0026thinsp;1) each for selecting the TA or the FC and subtracting a point (-1) each for selecting the FA or the TC. For example, selecting TA/TC results in +\u0026thinsp;1 and \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1 point, giving a score of 0. TA/TC/FC selections result in a score of 1 and TA/FC selections result in a score of 2. Negative scores occur for subjects who select more incorrect options than correct options. Again, for half of the subjects, a logical sum score does not indicate intentional accuracy on a reasoning task. The use of the logical sum score is still useful for assessing the variation in responses that the participants provided, however.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCombinations most frequently selected by participants in response to personal struggle, abstract, or social contract scenarios, following instructions to complete the story or determine where the rule could be violated.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"10\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eComplete the Story\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTA/FC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTA/TC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFA/FC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll 4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOther\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePersonal Struggle\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e45\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAbstract Struggle\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial Struggle\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e33\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRule Violated\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTA/FC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTA/TC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFA/FC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll 4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOther\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePersonal Struggle\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e33\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAbstract Struggle\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial Struggle\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"10\"\u003eKey: TA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;True Antecedent, FA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;False Antecedent, TC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;True Consequent, FC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;False Consequent\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe analyzed the logical sum score using a 3 (personal struggle/social contract/abstract) x 2 (story/reasoning instruction) between-subjects ANOVA, which revealed a main effect for instruction (F(1, 371)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.098, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) in which the story instruction produced significantly higher logical sum scores than the reasoning instruction. We also found a main effect for the scenario type (F(2, 371)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.028, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). The interaction between instruction and scenario type approached significance but did not reach it at the 0.05 level (F(2, 371)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.64, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). The means and standard error of the logical sum scores are in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePlanned pairwise comparisons for the scenario type conditions revealed that the personal struggle (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) and social contract (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) scenarios produced higher logical sum scores than the abstract scenarios. We observed no other significant differences.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Experiment 2 ","content":"\u003ch2\u003eRationale\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHaving determined that reasoning about personal struggles was comparable to reasoning about cheaters and that participants could reliably select a satisfying conclusion to our stories, we created Experiment 2 to further disentangle reasoning and story processes. All materials were the personal struggle stories from Experiment 1 but we modified either the rules or the instructions to explore the nature of satisfying endings as well as the effect of incongruencies on reasoning, much like the incongruences Taylor et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) employed with nursery rhymes. In this case, the stories were not familiar to participants. However, the ease and consistency with which participants could identify the elements of a satisfying ending allowed us to place satisfying or unsatisfying climaxes at odds with valid reasoning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eExperiment 2 Methods\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOf the two hundred and fifty MTurk participants we recruited, we excluded 41 for finishing the entire experiment in less than 90 seconds. As in experiment 1, we paid participants \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e1 for their participation, regardless of whether we included their data or not.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDesign\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe sought to further explore the reasoning and storytelling processes of the personal struggle scenarios in experiment 2. We created a 2 (instructions) x 2 (congruency) between-subjects factorial design. As with experiment 1, we instructed participants to either determine which cards violated the rule or which produced a satisfying ending. The congruency variable amounted to whether the rule was stated in such a way that violating or overcoming the personal struggle led to a heroic (and satisfying) outcome for the hero or an unsatisfying, unheroic ending. As with experiment 1, we measured the logical sum scores as our primary measure.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMaterials\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eStories for this experiment were the same as experiment 1, notably all containing likeable characters. Each of the presented stories was followed by a rule that signified a narrative climax to the scenarios. Participants read either a rule that, if overcome, ended heroically or an ending that, if overcome, ended tragically.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor example, Quinlan the mountain climber\u0026rsquo;s personal struggle was stated as, \u0026ldquo;If Quinlan tried to climb the mountain, then he would succumb to the pain.\u0026rdquo; The satisfying conclusion to this story, from the position of a typical hero\u0026rsquo;s journey, would be that Quinlan does climb the mountain (TA) and he does not succumb to the pain (FC).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor the incongruent stories, we presented a rule that employed the opposite antecedents and consequents than those in the congruent condition. For example, Quinlan the mountain climber\u0026rsquo;s personal struggle read, \u0026ldquo;If Quinlan gave up climbing, then he would overcome the pain.\u0026rdquo; From a logical standpoint, the correct selections of TA (gave up climbing) and the FC (succumbs to the pain) are narratively unsatisfying, though logically these are what one must choose in order to test if the rule has been violated. From a storytelling standpoint, the FA (trying to climb) and the TC (not succumbing to the pain) is narratively satisfying and typical of a heroic story arc but logically the incorrect choices. We refer to these incongruent stories as tragic stories and the congruent stories as heroic stories.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs with experiment 1, we presented four digital cards featuring the TA, FA, TC, and FC for both the heroic and tragic story conditions. We instructed half the participants to identify \u0026ldquo;any and all events that could violate\u0026rdquo; the personal struggle rule. The remaining participants were to identify any and all events the protagonist \u0026ldquo;might encounter in a satisfying conclusion\u0026rdquo; to the story. Participants then selected zero to four cards depending on the instructions they received at random. The cards did not reveal their opposite side, being digital and fixed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eProcedures\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe procedures were identical to experiment 2. Participants viewed written instructions delivered through Qualtrics and read them at their own pace. They made their final choices by selecting any of four squares, which displayed the TA, FA, TC, and FC in a random order.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eQualtrics randomly assigned participants to receive three stories all in the same condition and either all tragic or all heroic stories. They also received only the reasoning instructions or only the \u0026ldquo;satisfying ending\u0026rdquo; instructions. We also randomized story order and the card order after each rule.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eExperiment 2 Results\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs in experiment 1, we compiled the average logical sum score for each participant across the three stories they responded to. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e displays the various combinations of their selections and, like in experiment 1, the \u0026lsquo;Other\u0026rsquo; column totaled many other possible combinations of options. Our primary interest was again the combination of TA and FC exclusively (TA\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;FC), as these are the logically correct responses and exclusive selection of these items suggests that the reasoner is correctly searching for violations of the rule while excluding irrelevant information. As before, for half of the subjects, a logical sum score does not indicate intentional accuracy on a reasoning task.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCombinations selected most frequently by participants in response to scenarios congruent or incongruent with a heroic conclusion, following instructions to either complete the story or determine if the rule has been violated.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"11\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c11\" colnum=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eComplete the Story\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTA only\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFA Only\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTC only\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFC Only\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTA/FC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTA/TC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFA/TC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFA/FC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll 4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOther\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCongruent\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e77\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e46\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e94\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIncongruent\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e74\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e97\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRule Violated\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTA only\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFA Only\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTC only\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFC Only\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTA/FC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTA/TC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFA/TC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFA/FC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll 4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOther\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCongruent\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e71\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e48\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e78\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIncongruent\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e51\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e59\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe analyzed the logical sum score using a 2 (congruent/incongruent climax rule) x 2 (story/reasoning instruction) between-subjects ANOVA, which revealed a main effect for instruction (F(1, 203)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.45, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) in which the reasoning instruction produced significantly higher logical sum scores than the story instruction. We also found a main effect for congruency (F(1, 203)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;52.08, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). The interaction between instruction and congruence also reached significance (F(1, 203)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.91, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). The means and standard error of the logical sum scores are in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePlanned simple comparisons revealed that ending incongruent stories produced a lower logical sum score than reasoning about rules incongruent with a heroic story (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). Additionally, logical sum scores were higher when rules were congruent with a heroic story than when incongruent for both the reasoning (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) and story instructions (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Experiment 3 ","content":"\u003ch2\u003eRationale\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExperiment 3 was our attempt to extend the findings of experiment 2 wherein we reversed the affective valence of the stories by making the protagonist unlikeable. We created three new stories each invoking a moral lesson, in which the participants should prefer a tragic ending for the unlikeable characters. Thus, a congruent conclusion to the story was now a tragic one and a heroic conclusion incongruent with a satisfying ending, one in which the protagonist is taught a lesson. Otherwise, experiment 3 was identical to experiment 2.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eExperiment 3 Methods\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTwo hundred and fifty participants began experiment 3 and 166 completed the experiment in 90 seconds or longer. About twice as many as in the first two experiments, 84 in total, completed the experiment in less than 90 seconds. As this was the exclusion criterion that we used in the first experiment, we excluded these participants prior to any analysis. Participants received \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e1.00 for completing the experiment, whether their data contributed to the final analysis or not.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDesign\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe experiment was a 2 (instructions) x 2 (rule orientation) between-subjects factorial design. As with the previous two experiments, we instructed participants to either determine which cards violated the rule or which produced a satisfying ending. The congruency variable amounted to whether the rule was stated in such a way that violating or overcoming the personal struggle led to a heroic (and satisfying) outcome for the hero or an unsatisfying, unheroic ending. We also measured the logical sum scores as our primary measure as in the first two experiments.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMaterials\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe created three new stories featuring a personal struggle of an unlikable character for experiment three. A rule followed each story, which signified a narrative climax. Participants received either a rule that, if overcome, would produce a heroic ending or a tragic ending. We presented the rules and cards in the same manner as in experiments 1 and 2.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants selected the cards either found in a satisfying ending or the cards that might feature a violation of the rule on the other side of the card, per the instructions they received. The cards never revealed their opposite side, being digital and fixed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eProcedures\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants received all three stories in a random order. Each participant received either heroic or tragic rules for all three stories. The instructions for determining violations of the rule or selecting a satisfying ending following the presented cards were also randomized, and participants answered at their own pace.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eExperiment 3 Results\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe compiled the average logical sum score as in the prior two experiments. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e demonstrates the frequency of various combinations of selections.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"11\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c11\" colnum=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eComplete the Story\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTA only\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFA Only\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTC only\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFC Only\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTA/FC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTA/TC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFA/TC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFA/FC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll 4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOther\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTragic Congruent\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHeroic Congruent\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRule Violated\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTA only\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFA Only\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTC only\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFC Only\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTA/FC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTA/TC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFA/TC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFA/FC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll 4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOther\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTragic Congruent\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHeroic Congruent\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe analyzed the logical sum score using a 2 (congruent/incongruent climax rule) x 2 (story/reasoning instruction) between-subjects ANOVA, which revealed a main effect for congruency (F(1, 174)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;23.45, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). The interaction between instruction and congruence approached significance (F(1, 203)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.55, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.061). The means and standard error of the logical sum scores are in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn spite of the non-significant interaction, we conducted planned simple comparisons, which demonstrated that ending congruent stories produced a higher logical sum score than reasoning about rules congruent with a tragic story (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.049). Additionally, logical sum scores were higher when rules were congruent with a tragic story than when incongruent for both the reasoning (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.021) and story instructions (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe act of storytelling is not a simple recitation of facts; storytelling likely requires a higher level of cognition, involving decision-making, social cognition, and perhaps something unique to stories. Cron (2014) went so far as to claim that storytelling did more for our evolution as humans than did the opposable thumb, \u0026ldquo;...all opposable thumbs did was let us hang on. It was stories that told us what to hang onto\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo; (8:47\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;8:54).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn pursuit of such a cognitive process, we sought to examine the role of stories in a language-dependent task. Specifically, we sought to uncover whether processing stories occupies a privileged place within human cognition as others have found with cheating (Speer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) or illness avoidance (Taylor, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). While prior research on reasoning has mainly explored the influence of scenario structure and content on decision-making, we focused on the influence of heroic- and tragic-oriented stories on selections on the WST.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe revealed several things about both stories and reasoning. First, like with threats of cheaters or illness on the WST, we showed that reasoning performance increases in response to rules conveying the personal struggles of a central protagonist, in which no cheating is evident. In Experiment 1, participants selected the TA and FC together at equal rates in the personal struggle and classic cheater conditions. This effect was more pronounced under instructions to produce a satisfying conclusion compared to instructions to seek out rule violations. Thus, we concluded that personal struggles, with or without narratives, improve reasoning performance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn order to further differentiate the \u0026ldquo;cheater detection\u0026rdquo; cognitive module from story processing, we conducted Experiment 2 to explore the effects of reasoning and story completion when stories are bound for either satisfying or unsatisfying endings. Here, we found that participants\u0026rsquo; reasoning responses were influenced by the congruency between the story ending and the rule, but that concluding the story in a satisfying way produced a much more pronounced effect on participants\u0026rsquo; selections. In short, we argue that participants are at least sometimes able to shift their processes to identifying violations of a rule, even in the face of an unsatisfying ending. While they prefer a heroic ending, they can ignore the potentially dissatisfying tragic end to correctly assess a rule for violations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Experiment 3, we further examined the effect of congruency with tragic stories. Although the interaction between instructions and congruence did not achieve statistical significance, our results at least hint that, similar to Experiment 2, participants think of stories, and seek logical violations, in much the same way for tragic stories as for heroic ones. The lack of significance for our interaction may stem from a higher number of participants removed due to rushed performance than in the first two experiments, less compelling tragic stories than heroic stories, more difficulty in reasoning about stories involving tragic rules, a different cognitive process for tragic stories, or some combination of these.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn their prior work with nursery rhymes molded into the WST format, Taylor et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) suggested the availability heuristic was responsible for changes in reasoning, resulting from incongruities of highly familiar rhymes and proper deductive solutions on the WST. In the present studies, we utilized completely novel stories, limiting familiarity with the material. It is possible an general, abstract notion of familiarity applies to stories but we suspect that is not the case. When asked to reason, participants produced a different pattern of results than when asked to consider the scenarios as stories requiring a conclusion. In fact, the participants seemed to be able to reason about stories incongruent with their preferred conclusions, counter to Taylor et. al\u0026rsquo;s findings. While a general familiarity heuristic may still be possible, we suggest it is unlikely given our findings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn broader terms, our findings offer substantial evidence supporting the notion that story processing systematically influences human thinking and behavior. Similar to cognition around cheater detection, it may be that storytelling relies on a universal cognitive function. Our findings certainly support the assertion that processing stories is a separate cognitive function from either cheater detection or logical reasoning. While we explored story processing in an abstract, laboratory task, there is sufficient evidence of mating or survival pressures from cross-cultural research (Buss, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e, Dunbar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Coe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) to believe that invoking story completion processes in an adapted version of the WST may engage a cognitive module that is responsible for stories.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot only might stories hold a privileged place in cognition, but there may be at least two distinct reasons for this. Our results in Experiment 3 reflect preferences to punish unlikeable protagonists while the results in Experiment 2 reflect preferences for protagonists to overcome their struggles. The intriguing duality of these results may hint at the nature that stories serve, or once served for our collective ancestors, such as lessons for acceptable behavior or as ways to shun or elevate those in the tribe, village, family, or other social group. These are questions for future research, however, as our results only allow us to conclude that stories have a powerful and consistent effect on thinking. Further exploration into what elements make a story tragic, socially relevant, or different from other processes is still necessary.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAn obvious avenue of research is to investigate the universality of our findings. Similarly, is there a universal story structure, such as the hero\u0026rsquo;s journey (Campbell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1949\u003c/span\u003e), to which humans are especially attuned? Recognizing the pivotal role of storytelling in shaping human experience, potential components of an evolved storytelling module likely include processes related to perception, comprehension, and emotional engagement, memory encoding and retrieval, cognitive schemas, theory of mind, and moral reasoning, let alone beliefs, attitudes, and cognitive development (For examples, see Wiessner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Miller et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Dunbar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Coe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Sugiyama, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Schniter et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e ). Exploring neurocognitive aspects, such as neural correlates associated with story processing, also offers a promising avenue for future research. Clearly, further examination is necessary for the nuanced development of a robust cognitive module for stories.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFuture researchers have fertile ground for expanding upon our findings, particularly in the realm of story cognition within culturally specific storytelling. As participants engage with narratives that may diverge from their cultural roots, there is further opportunity to explore how such incongruencies resonate within story perception and reasoning. It may be enlightening to know whether stories can encode lessons and emotions in spite of cultural differences with the story recipient. For example, Fennelly (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) uses \u003cem\u003eReturn: The Promise of the Day\u003c/em\u003e, a Korean play, to understand and connect with the emotion of the story, even as a non-Korean language speaker. Indeed, future research that can disentangle cultural influences from our findings will be able to speak more strongly to the universality of a cognitive story module. Of course, understanding the interplay between cultural narratives and cognitive processes has broad implications for developing culturally sensitive interventions and education materials. And if there is indeed a central, evolutionary trait related to storytelling, it leaves hope for a pathway to connect people, one that even supersedes cultural barriers.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eJ.P.T. and C.A.Y. wrote the main manuscript and J.P.T. prepared figures 1-3 and tables 1-3. Both authors reviewed the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eData for all three experiments can be found at https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1QDlR9mc-QzHDZ6YaopfaXPd3HDWyPzf8?usp=sharing\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Note\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe have no conflicts or interests to disclose\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research was not externally funded.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Southern Oregon University in accordance with U.S. federal regulations (Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46). We obtained informed consent from all participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClinical trial number: not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBerkes, F., Colding, J., \u0026amp; Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. \u003cem\u003eEcological Applications\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1251. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/2641280\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/2641280\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBietti, L. M., Tilston, O., \u0026amp; Bangerter, A. (2018). Storytelling as adaptive collective sensemaking. \u003cem\u003eTopics in Cognitive Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(4), 710\u0026ndash;732. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12358\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/tops.12358\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBuss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. \u003cem\u003eBehavioral and Brain Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;14. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00023992\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/s0140525x00023992\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCampbell, J. (1949). \u003cem\u003eThe Hero with a Thousand Faces\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://civicvirtue.info/weblog/wp-content/uploads/hero-with-a-thousand-faces.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://civicvirtue.info/weblog/wp-content/uploads/hero-with-a-thousand-faces.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCoe, K., Aiken, N. E., \u0026amp; Palmer, C. T. (2006). Once Upon A Time: Ancestors and the evolutionary significance of Stories. \u003cem\u003eAnthropological Forum\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(1), 21\u0026ndash;40. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00664670600572421\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00664670600572421\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCosmides, L. (1989). The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. \u003cem\u003eCognition\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(3), 187\u0026ndash;276. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(89)90023-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/0010-0277(89)90023-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e​​Cron, L., \u0026amp; [Tedx (2014). Talk]. \u003cem\u003eWired for story: Lisa Cron at TEDxFurmanU\u003c/em\u003e [Video]. YouTube. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74uv0mJS0uM\u0026amp;t=534s\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74uv0mJS0uM\u0026amp;t=534s\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDonahue, J. K., \u0026amp; Green, M. C. (2016). A good story: Men\u0026rsquo;s storytelling ability affects their attractiveness and perceived status. \u003cem\u003ePersonal Relationships\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(2), 199\u0026ndash;213. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12120\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/pere.12120\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDunbar, R. (2014). How conversations around campfires came to be. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e111\u003c/em\u003e(39), 14013\u0026ndash;14014. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1416382111\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1073/pnas.1416382111\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEstill, L., \u0026amp; Johnson, E. (2015, March 19). \u003cem\u003eFun international facts about Shakespeare\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/fun-international-facts-about-shakespeare\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/fun-international-facts-about-shakespeare\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEvans, J. S. B. (1972). Interpretation and matching bias in a reasoning task. \u003cem\u003eThe Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(2), 193\u0026ndash;199. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/00335557243000067\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00335557243000067\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFennelly, K. (2023). Archaeology, emotional storytelling, and performance. \u003cem\u003ePublic Archaeology\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;15. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/14655187.2022.2149683\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/14655187.2022.2149683\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGigerenzer, G., \u0026amp; Hug, K. (1992). Domain-specific reasoning: Social contracts, cheating, and perspective change. \u003cem\u003eCognition\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(2), 127\u0026ndash;171. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90060-u\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/0010-0277(92)90060-u\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGottschall, J. (2005). Quantitative literary study: A modest manifesto and testing the hypotheses of feminist fairy tale studies. In J. Gottschall, \u0026amp; D. S. Wilson (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eThe literary animal: Evolution and the nature of narrative\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 199\u0026ndash;224). Northwestern University.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHammack, P. L. (2008). Narrative and the cultural psychology of identity. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Social Psychology Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(3), 222\u0026ndash;247. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308316892\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1088868308316892\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHewlett, B. S., \u0026amp; Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. (1986). Cultural transmission among aKa pygmies. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Anthropologist\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e88\u003c/em\u003e(4), 922\u0026ndash;934. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1986.88.4.02a00100\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1525/aa.1986.88.4.02a00100\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHogan, P. C. (2004). The mind and its stories: Narrative universals and human emotion. \u003cem\u003eChoice Reviews Online\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(08), 41\u0026ndash;4471. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5860/choice.41-4471\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5860/choice.41-4471\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLange, B. P., \u0026amp; Euler, H. Α. (2014). Writers have groupies, too: High quality literature production and mating success. \u003cem\u003eEvolutionary Behavioral Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(1), 20\u0026ndash;30. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/h0097246\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/h0097246\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarkovits, H. (2015). Conditional reasoning and semantic memory retrieval. In A. Feeney, \u0026amp; V.A. Thompson, (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eReasoning as memory\u003c/em\u003e (Kindle edition; pp 53\u0026ndash;70). New York, NY: Psychology Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcAdams, D. P., \u0026amp; McLean, K. C. (2013). Narrative identity. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Directions in Psychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(3), 233\u0026ndash;238. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413475622\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0963721413475622\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcLean, K. C., \u0026amp; Syed, M. (2015). Personal, master, and alternative narratives: An integrative framework for understanding identity development in context. \u003cem\u003eHuman Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e58\u003c/em\u003e(6), 318\u0026ndash;349. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1159/000445817\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1159/000445817\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcKay, R., \u0026amp; Dennett, D. C. (2009). The evolution of misbelief. \u003cem\u003eBehavioral and Brain Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(6), 493\u0026ndash;510. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x09990975\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/s0140525x09990975\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMeltzoff, A. N. (1988). Infant imitation and memory: Nine-month-olds in immediate and deferred tests. \u003cem\u003eChild Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e59\u003c/em\u003e(1), 217. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/1130404\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/1130404\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMiller, P. J., Wang, S., Sandel, T., \u0026amp; Cho, G. E. (2002). Self-esteem as folk theory: A comparison of European American and Taiwanese mothers\u0026rsquo; beliefs. \u003cem\u003eParenting\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(3), 209\u0026ndash;239. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1207/s15327922par0203_02\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1207/s15327922par0203_02\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePlatt, R. D., \u0026amp; Griggs, R. A. (1993). Facilitation in the abstract selection task: The effects of attentional and instructional factors. \u003cem\u003eThe Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e(4), 591\u0026ndash;613. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/14640749308401029\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/14640749308401029\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePruitt, T. (2022). Engaging the Science of Storytelling in Archaeological Communications. \u003cem\u003eArchaeological Review from Cambridge\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(2), 70\u0026ndash;92. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.99613\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17863/CAM.99613\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchniter, E., Wilcox, N. T., Beheim, B., Kaplan, H., \u0026amp; Gurven, M. (2018). Information transmission and the oral tradition: Evidence of a late-life service niche for Tsimane Amerindians. \u003cem\u003eEvolution and Human Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e(1), 94\u0026ndash;105. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.10.006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.10.006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmith, D., Schlaepfer, P., Major, K., Dyble, M., Page, A. E., Thompson, J., Chaudhary, N., Salalι, G. D., Mace, R., Astete, L. H., Ngales, M., Vinicius, L., \u0026amp; Migliano, A. B. (2017a). Cooperation and the evolution of hunter-gatherer storytelling. \u003cem\u003eNature Communications\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02036-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41467-017-02036-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpeer, N. K., Reynolds, J. R., Swallow, K. M., \u0026amp; Zacks, J. M. (2009). Reading stories activates neural representations of visual and motor experiences. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(8), 989\u0026ndash;999. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02397.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02397.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpeer, S., Smidts, A., \u0026amp; Boksem, M. S. (2020). Cognitive control increases honesty in cheaters but cheating in those who are honest. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e117\u003c/em\u003e(32), 19080\u0026ndash;19091. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2003480117\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1073/pnas.2003480117\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSugiyama, M. S. (2001). Food, foragers, and folklore: the role of narrative in human subsistence. \u003cem\u003eEvolution and Human Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(4), 221\u0026ndash;240. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/s1090-5138(01)00063-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/s1090-5138(01)00063-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTaylor, J. P. (2017). Reasoning improves in response to threats of contagion and food contamination. \u003cem\u003eEvolutionary Psychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e, 201\u0026ndash;211. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-017-0088-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s40806-017-0088-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTaylor, J. P., Ashworth, S. J., Petrovich, S., \u0026amp; Young, C. A. (2017). Inducing an availability heuristic on the Wason selection task overrides the matching bias. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cognitive Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(4), 508\u0026ndash;519. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2017.1281282\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/20445911.2017.1281282\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. \u003cem\u003eQuarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(3), 273\u0026ndash;281. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/14640746808400161\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/14640746808400161\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWiessner, P. (2014). Embers of society: Firelight talk among the Ju/\u0026rsquo;hoansi Bushmen. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e111\u003c/em\u003e(39), 14027\u0026ndash;14035. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1404212111\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1073/pnas.1404212111\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZak, P. J. (2020, October 2). Neurological correlates allow us to predict human behavior. The Scientist Magazine\u0026reg;. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.the-scientist.com/neurological-correlates-allow-us-to-predict-human-behavior-67948\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.the-scientist.com/neurological-correlates-allow-us-to-predict-human-behavior-67948\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"evolutionary-psychological-science","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"evop","sideBox":"Learn more about [Evolutionary Psychological Science](http://link.springer.com/journal/40806)","snPcode":"40806","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/40806/3","title":"Evolutionary Psychological Science","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7547375/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7547375/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eWe make the case that stories are a universal trait and a relevant selection criteria for mates. Given the apparent influence of evolutionary pressures on reasoning performance, such as with detecting cheaters (Gigerenzer \u0026amp; Hug, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e) or illness (Taylor, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), we sought to explore how reasoning differs from story perception in three experiments. Our participants received either social contract or abstract scenarios (Cosmides, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e; Gigerenzer \u0026amp; Hug; \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e; Markovits, 2013; Wason, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1968\u003c/span\u003e) or a five-sentence story depicting a personal struggle that culminated in a rule about overcoming that struggle. Half of the participants chose from four options to logically test the rule and half selected which of the four options would complete the story in a satisfying way. In experiments 2 and 3, we used only the personal struggle stories and rules, this time inducing a conflict between a satisfying conclusion and the logic of the rules half the time and aligning with the climax of the story with the logic half the time. We found that participants could consistently reason as well or better than with social contract scenarios and, when asked to complete the stories, did so in a way that was consistent with a heroic reward for a likable protagonist or a punishment for an unlikable protagonist. Critically, our findings diverged appropriately from reasoning when instructions prompted logical solutions, suggesting that their story perception was a different process from reasoning. We cannot yet say the extent to which this story process has been influenced via evolutionary pressures, although we conclude it is a promising avenue for consideration.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"A Cognitive Module for Stories: Reasoning Improves With Stories of Personal Struggle","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-22 09:42:48","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7547375/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-01-01T17:09:50+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-01-01T16:44:53+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"49175532176984637211634619627616533014","date":"2025-12-15T19:26:31+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-10-13T08:51:55+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"63215269989084679609023905222305976601","date":"2025-09-13T13:10:35+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-09-11T10:19:09+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-09-11T08:43:18+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-09-11T08:42:54+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Evolutionary Psychological Science","date":"2025-09-05T22:57:21+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"evolutionary-psychological-science","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"evop","sideBox":"Learn more about [Evolutionary Psychological Science](http://link.springer.com/journal/40806)","snPcode":"40806","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/40806/3","title":"Evolutionary Psychological Science","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"5ca36622-8aaf-414f-a24b-830ad80a91ff","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 22nd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"in-revision","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-01T17:23:34+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-22 09:42:48","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7547375","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7547375","identity":"rs-7547375","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}