I am just now coming across this question and believe, if it is not too late, can "answer" it. I believe the answer to this question is rooted in how perceptions are formed: stimulation, organization, interpretation-evaluation, memory, and recall. Similarly, both mind and body influence the way that perceptions are formed. In order to understand the impact that others have on our perceptions, we must be reminded that perceptions are based on past experiences (hence the five stages that refer to the conceptualization of perception).

I think of this process like this...

(1) People come into a situation with a perception of what it is to be like- meaning, they believe they understand what is to occur and what they are to experience. Why? We have predictive brains, not reactive. As humans we want to form expectations that influence our perceptions in order to maintain a sense of introspective equilibrium.

(2) The experience/situation occurs. For this question specifically, a story is told.

(3) Once the situation occurs- People react and analyze how their experience compares to their initial perception (and remember expectations influence perception as well).

(4) Naturally, individuals want to experience a sense of equilibrium- in both mind and body. We want to see our perceptions be true because of the expectations we have made on a experience. This stage is where people strive for equilibrium (in order to avoid any cognitive dissonance). People will make one of two choices (a) Confirm that their perception was true- equilibrium, maintained or (b) Realize their perception was incorrect and that equilibrium is off and must seek to fix it (potentially by having their perceptions changed). When perceptions are not validation, there is great potential for individuals to seek clarification elsewhere. In this case, a new way of seeing a story.

Overall, the answer to your question is yes. But, in my own explanation, please understand it is merely theoretical. I am a college student, I have zero credibility in the realm of research, and the only thing I have to support my understanding is what I have read briefly and thought about.

Dear Iris,

YES.

Much of the business of writing is concerned with 'inducing' (evoking?) a particular and unique cognitive stance in the reader/listener -this is particularly true of poetry. Much of poetry is directly related to the endeavour of breaking traditional ways of seeing and introducing the reader to a completely different perspective.

This process may be intended simply to enhance the dramatic effect of a passage as in the use of metaphor:- in this example from 'Burglar', metaphor is used to transform the ordinary objects in a room into the scene of a medieval court. The mental crisis of the main character is brought into stark relief by the judgement of the objects around him:-

From Burglar

So - welcome to the un-welcome guest - ill met - and left,

I share an uncomfortable silence with a stiff, indifferent chair.

Mockery is everywhere - amongst the chinaware - the crystal and the cutlery -

a crown upon the stilted table that waits, impatiently, for me to leave.

But I must stay a-while - must play the unfunny clown - a-while,

with my one jest and my dusty bag of bones.

I am a comma - an interruption at the seance of someone else's furniture.

****

Of course, this type of technique is hardly likely to be world changing - but there is no reason why it can't be. Poetry and literature are extraordinary powerful tools for social change and it is precisely because poetry and literature can break the rules of seeing, that they are able to achieve this.

Please find attached a piece entitled 'The Pyramid and Man' - this piece is intended to introduce the listener to a new way of understanding living processes and the consequence that this understanding may have to modern design problems.

Chris