Narrative perspective and the emotion regulation of a narrating person

ETC – Empirical Text and Culture Research 3, 2007, 50-61 

Narrative perspective and the emotion regulation 

of a narrating person 1 

Tibor Pólya*, Balázs Kis**, Mátyás Naszódi**, János László* 

*Institute for Psychology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences 

P. O. Box 398, Budapest, Hungary, H-1394 

**Morphologic Ltd., 5. Orbánhegyi út. Budapest, Hungary, H-1126 

Abstract 

The article defines the structural feature of narrative perspective in self-narratives. 

Concentrating on the spatio-temporal component of the perspective, it describes 

three formal variations of perspective, termed as retrospective, experiencing, and 

metanarrative forms. The article also provides the linguistic operationalisation of 

these perspective forms. Following, the narrative perspective algorithm developed 

for the automatic coding of perspective forms is presented. This algorithm reliably 

codes retrospective and experiencing forms of perspective. Finally, an empirical 

study regarding the relationships between the narrative perspective forms and trait 

features of emotion regulation is presented. In this study 83 participants recounted 

self-narratives about five significant life story events. The results reveal relationships 

between the using of perspective forms and the coherence and stability of emotion 

regulation. 

Perspective in a self-narrative 

Perspective is a ubiquitous structural feature of all kinds of a narrative text. The term refers to 

the phenomenon that the content of a narrative, the so called narrative elements such as 

events, characters and circumstances, are presented from some position or point of view 

(Peer, and Chatman, 2001; Prince, 1987). In this sense, perspective is a relational concept 

(e.g. Bal, 1998). Two components of the perspective can be differentiated (e.g. Wiebe, 1991). 

The first component consists of the spatial and temporal dimensions of the position and the 

narrative elements. The second component consists of the possibility that the narrator may 

express the character‟s beliefs, emotions or evaluations. Since these are unperceivable for a 

narrator, in these expressions the character‟s perspective is adopted. This latter component of 

a perspective is sometimes called a psychological perspective (e.g. Uspensky, 1974). Although 

the two components of a perspective often coincide, they do not need to. 

Most analysts of narrative structure agree that there is no essential difference in a 

perspective of a first-person (or a self-) narrative and a third-person narrative (e.g. Cohn, 

1978). However, taking into consideration the aforementioned two components of a perspective 

there is at least one significant difference. In that case when a third-person narrator 

takes the perspective of one of his or her characters, it can be certainly said that another 

1 This research was performed in cooperation between the Morphologic Ltd., the Institute of Psychology of the 

Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and the Institute of Psychology of the University of Pécs. It was supported by 

the grant NKFP 2001/5/26, NKFP 2005/6/074; OTKA T-1386 and OTKA T-049413. The authors are grateful to 

T,M. Lillis for reviewing the language of the manuskript. Correspondence should be addressed to the first 

author: polya@mtapi.hu

NARRATING PERSPECTIVE AND EMOTION REGULATION 51 

person‟s perspective is adopted. However, in the case of a self-narrative, this idea may easily 

prove wrong. It is because the narrator of a self-narrative is identical with one of his or her 

characters. Based on this difference, it can be concluded that the spatial and temporal 

component of perspective is more useful in an investigation of self-narratives. 

In self-narratives two kinds of events can be differentiated: the narrated events and the 

narration itself which can be seen as a sequence of verbal acts. Since there are two kinds of 

events they provide two options for a spatio-temporal location of both the narrative content 

and the position. Considering this, at least the following three forms of perspective in a selfnarrative 

can be described (see Table 1). In the case of a retrospective form, the narrative content 

is located in the narrated events while the position is located in the narration. In the case 

of an experiencing form, both the narrative content and the position are located in the narrated 

events. Finally, in the case of a metanarrative form, both the narrative content and the 

position are located in the narration. 

Table 1. Three perspective forms of a self-narrative 

Perspective forms 

Spatio-temporal location 

Narrative content 

Position 

Retrospective form Narrated events Narration 

Experiencing form Narrated events Narrated events 

Metanarrative form Narration Narration 

Linguistic operationalisation of the perspective forms 

This concept of a perspective in a self-narrative can be defined linguistically by taking into 

consideration those linguistic markers which have a role in spatio-temporal location. There 

are two ways of locating spatially and temporally both the narrative content and the position. 

The narrator may provide the location independently from his or her actual location. In this 

case the narrator uses specific terms referring to places (e.g. name of a town or a street) or 

dates (name of a month or day). Alternatively, the narrator may consider his or her actual 

location. In this dependent case, the narrator uses spatial (e.g. there, here) or temporal (e.g. 

then, now) deictic terms. Both the independent and the dependent ways appear in a selfnarrative, 

and both of them are able to define a particular spatial or temporal location. However, 

there are important differences between their uses. The terms used in an independent 

location are based on a well elaborated spatial and temporal system, while the deictic terms 

are related to a more simpler spatial and temporal system, since they locate either distally or 

proximally the content and the position to each other. Another difference reflects their 

frequency in a self-narrative. Deictic terms appear much more frequently than terms referring 

to places and dates. 

The linguistic operationalisation of the three perspective forms consists of four groups 

of linguistic markers (see Table 2). The most frequently occurring group of linguistic markers 

are the temporal deictic markers, since this group consists of the markers of verb tense. The 

use of the present verb tense locates narrative content and position proximally, while the use 

of the past verb tense locates them distally. In addition, there are several temporal adverbs 

which are able to locate either proximally or distally the narrative content and the position to 

each other (e.g. most [now], akkor [then]). The second group of linguistic markers consists of 

those spatial adverbs and demonstrative pronouns which also can be used in a proximal or a 

distal location (e.g. itt [here], ez [this], ott [there], az [that]). The third group of linguistic

52 

PÓLYA, KIS, NASZÓDI, LÁSZLÓ 

markers consists of specific terms which are related to one of the three perspective forms. 

Those terms which are used in a narrator independent way of location are related to the 

retrospective form since their meaning refers to a distal spatial or temporal location (e.g. 

Budapest [Budapest], Január [January]). Interjections are related to the experiencing form 

since in the case of these terms the content and the position are located proximally to each 

other (Wilkins, 1995) (e.g. hupsz [ops]). Finally, there are some verbs and several modifiers 

which are related to the metanarrative form (Kiefer, 1990) since these terms either refer to a 

present mental act of a narrator (e.g. emlékszem [I remember]) or express the present stance of 

a narrator toward the narrative content (e.g. valószínűleg [probably]) respectively. The last 

group of linguistic markers consists of sentence types. Clauses with the retrospective perspective 

form are always statements. However, clauses with the experiencing or metanarrative 

forms can be a statement, a question, an exclamation or an optative. 

Linguistic markers 

Time deixis 

Tense 

Temporal adverbs 

Space deixis 

Spatial adverbs 

Demonstrative pronouns 

Specific terms 

Table 2. Linguistic markers of the perspective forms 

Retrospective 

form 

Past 

e.g. Akkor (Then) 

Experiencing 

form 

Present 

e.g.Most (Now) 

Metanarrative form 

Present 

e.g. Most (Now) 

e.g. Ott (There) 

e.g. Az (That) 

e.g Itt (Here) 

e.g. Ez (This) 

e.g Itt (Here) 

e.g. Ez (This) 

Date and space terms Interjections Mental verbs and 

e.g. Január (January), e.g. Hupsz (Ops) modifiers 

Budapest (Budapest) 

e.g. Emlékszem 

(I remember), 

Valószínűleg 

(Probably) 

Sentence type Only statement No constrain No constrain 

Narrative perspective algorithm 

The first algorithm for the automatic coding of a perspective in a narrative text was developed 

by Wiebe (1991). This algorithm analyses the psychological component of a perspective in 

third-person narratives. The algorithm has two main components. The first component makes 

a differentiation between sentences that objectively narrate events (objective sentence) and 

sentences which present character‟s thoughts, perceptions, and inner states (subjective sentence, 

see Banfield, 1982). The second component identifies whose psychological point of 

view is expressed in a subjective sentence. Based on their function, linguistic markers can be 

grouped into three groups since they either initiate, continue or resume a character‟s point of 

view. 

Our narrative perspective algorithm differs in three respects from that of Wiebe. First, 

this algorithm reflects the spatio-temporal component of the perspective instead of the 

psychological component. Second, the unit of analysis is the narrative clause. Finally, the 

algorithm makes a decision about every narrative clause independently from the preceding or 

subsequent units. Recently, this line of research continued in a development of sentiment 

analyzers which aim at identifying automatically positive and negative opinions, emotions


and evaluations in a text (e.g. Wilson, Wiebe, and Hoffmann, 2005; Yi, Nasukawa, Bunescu, 

and Niblack, 2003). 

The narrative perspective algorithm is based on morphological analysis which is 

carried out by the HUMOR software (Prószéky, and Tihanyi, 1993). It lists all linguistic 

markers which constitute the linguistic operationalisation of the perspective concept. The 

linguistic markers are grouped into 12 codes (see Table 3). There are three codes for reflecting 

verb tense: present tense (VERB_PRESENT), past tense (VERB_PAST), and other 

tense (VERB_OTHER). These codes are assigned by considering the results of a morphological 

analysis. While the tokens of the following codes are listed in dictionary files. Temporal 

adverbs and spatial adverbs with demonstrative pronouns are grouped into two groups 

of proximal or distal codes (PROXTIME, DISTTIME, and PROXLOC, DISTLOC). Among 

the specific terms interjections (SPEC_INT), relevant mental verbs (SPEC_VERB), and 

relevant modifiers (SPEC_MOD) are also listed in dictionary files. Finally, punctuation marks 

are grouped into two groups: sentences closed by a dot (PUNCMARK_.) and sentences 

closed by an exclamation or a question mark (PUNCMARK_!). 

The adopted perspective form in a narrative clause is identified by the co-presence of 

these linguistic codes. As an example, consider the next short excerpt from a hypothetical 

narrator who recounts a traffic accident. 

(1) I took the road to the grocery store. 

(2) I see a car running to me! 

(3) And I do not remember more, even now.” 

The narrator adopts retrospective perspective form in the first sentence, because of the past 

verb tense (VERB_PAST). In the second sentence, the narrator adopts experiencing perspective 

form, indicated by three linguistic markers: present verb tense (VERB_PRESENT), 

proximal spatial adverb (PROXLOC) and exclamation mark (PUNCMARK_!). Finally, the 

narrator adopts metanarrative perspective form in the third sentence. It is also indicated by 

three markers: the occurrence of the verb of remember (SPEC_VERB), present verb tense 

(VERB_PRESENT), and proximal temporal adverb (PROXTIME). 

Linguistic markers 

Time deixis 

Tense 

Table 3. Linguistic codes of the narrative perspective algorithm 

Retrospective 

form 

VERB_PAST 

Experiencing 

form 

VERB_PRESENT 

VERB_OTHER 

PROXTIME 

Metanarrative 

form 

VERB_PRESENT 

Temporal adverbs DISTTIME 

PROXTIME 

Space deixis 

Spatial adverbs DISTLOC PROXLOC PROXLOC 

Demonstrative pronouns DISTLOC PROXLOC PROXLOC 

Specific terms -- SPEC_INT SPEC_VERB 

SPEC_MOD 

Sentence PUNCMARK_. PUNCMARK_! PUNCMARK_!

54 


Reliability of the narrative perspective algorithm 

Two studies have investigated the reliability of the narrative perspective algorithm. The first 

study analysed 3 self-narratives which consisted of 220 narrative clauses. The performance of 

the algorithm was measured by two variables of recall and accuracy. As these two variables 

show, the algorithm is most successful in identifying the retrospective form, followed by the 

experiencing and the metanarrative form (see Table 4). 

Table 4. Performance of the narrative perspective algorithm 


Recall 

(%) 

Accuracy 

(%) 

Retrospective form 88.1 96.7 

Experiencing form 84.5 83.3 

Metanarrative form 62.5 71.4 

The second study analysed 130 self-narratives recounted by homosexual men and women 

participating in an In Vitro Fertilisation (henceforth IVF) treatment (Pólya, 2007). The length 

of these self-narratives were 15 696 narrative clauses which were coded manually and by the 

narrative perspective algorithm as well. The correlation coefficients between two ways of 

coding reflect the algorithm‟s performance. The correlation coefficient was r = 0.89, p < 0.01 

in the case of a retrospective form, r = 0.85, p < 0.01 in the case of an experiencing form, and 

finally it was r = 0.63, p < 0.01 in the case of a metanarrative form. 

In sum, the narrative perspective algorithm codes reliably the retrospective, and 

experiencing forms, however the identification of the metanarrative form does not reach the 

80% level which was set as a performance criterion. Consequently, the results regarding the 

metanarrative form should be treated with some caution. 

Perspective in a self-narrative and emotion regulation 

Two studies have investigated the role of perspective forms in conveying hidden information 

about those subjective experiences of the narrating person which relate to social identity. 

Three components of these subjective experiences can be differentiated: meaning, emotion 

and self-esteem. In the first study (Pólya, László, and Forgas, 2005), participants were read 

short self-narratives. These stories were about significant life events strongly related to some 

social identity category: a homosexual man coming out to his parents, a woman learning 

about a failure of her In Vitro Fertilisation (henceforth IVF) treatment, and a Jewish man 

recalling how he was informed about his secret ethnic origin. The first two life events are 

related to the gender identity, while the third one is related to the ethnic identity of a narrating 

person. The perspective forms taken by the narrators were systematically manipulated. 

Results revealed that the perspective form taken in these self-narratives reflects all three 

components of the subjective experiences. Considering the meaning component, narrators 

taking the retrospective perspective form were perceived as mentally more coherent than 

narrators taking the experiencing form. Considering the emotion component, narrators taking 

the experiencing perspective form were perceived as experiencing higher affective intensity 

compared to narrators taking the retrospective form. Finally, in terms of the self-esteem 

component, narrators taking a retrospective form were also perceived as more positively


valued socially, and social value can be seen as a trace of the self-esteem of the hypothetical 

narrator. 

The second study (Pólya, 2007) aimed at exploring the same relationships however 

taking into consideration self-narratives recounted by real persons. Self-narratives were also 

about significant life events which were strongly related to a social identity category. 

Homosexual men and women enrolled in an IVF treatment narrated life events threatening 

their gender identity (e.g. expressing attraction towards a man, or visiting a friend who has 

two children, respectively). The quality of the social identity related subjective experience 

was explored by several questionnaires. The analysis revealed a similar pattern of relationships 

as in the first study between perspective and social identity related subjective 

experiences. However, the most significant relationship emerged between the emotional 

component and the narrative perspective. Frequent use of the retrospective and metanarrative 

perspective forms were related to more coherent emotional experiences, while frequent use of 

the experiencing form was related to higher affective intensity. One possible explanation for 

this latter result is that the use of evaluation devices is responsible for the emergence of this 

relationship. Among others, direct quotation of past utterances, thoughts and feelings have 

been considered as an evaluation device (Labov, 1972, 1997). As Sakita (2002) argues, one 

function of direct quotation is to show an emotion rather than to simply state it. This argument 

can explain the explored relationship between the frequency of adopting the experiencing 

form and the felt emotional intensity, since according to our definition of the narrative 

perspective, direct quotations are coded as an experiencing perspective form. 

This study continues this research line, but it is an extension of the earlier studies in 

several respects. First, this study concentrates on trait features of emotion regulation, instead 

of state features of emotional experience. It can be assumed that these features are related to 

each other to some extent. For example, persons who are experiencing more coherent and less 

intensive emotions during verbal recounting of negative life events presumably are more 

efficient at regulating their emotional experiences. Based on this consideration, a positive 

correlation is hypothesised between the coherent emotion regulation and the frequency of the 

retrospective perspective forms, and negative correlations are hypothesised between the stable 

emotion regulation and the frequency of the experiencing perspective form. Because of the 

relatively low reliability of the metanarrative perspective codes, we did not set a hypothesis 

for this perspective form. Second, an important difference from earlier studies reflects the fact 

that emotional experiences investigated here are not related to a social identity category. 

Finally, whereas earlier studies have focused solely on life stories regarding negative life 

events, here positively valued life events also will be considered. 

Study 

Subjects 

83 persons participated in this study. However, participants who did not recount all the five 

stories investigated in this study were not considered, so data from 75 persons (28 males and 

47 females) have been analysed. Participants were recruited from two age cohorts: young 

adults (18-35 years old: 46 persons, M = 23.04, SD = 3.94) and adults (45-60 years old: 29 

persons, M = 52.17, SD = 3.92). Persons were paid 1000 HUF. 

Procedure 

Participants recounted eleven stories in this study. The first story was about an earliest 

memory. Then they constructed five stories reflecting pictures selected from the Thematic

56 


Apperception Test. Finally, participants told five stories about the following life story events: 

an event during which a person experienced achievement, loss, fear, and two events with 

„significant others‟, one is valenced as negative, and the other as positive. In the second part 

of the session, personality measures were administered. Recounted narratives were taperecorded 

and later transcribed. Only the latter five stories were analysed. The software was 

run in a way that a sequence of an identical perspective form was counted as one occurrence 

irrespective of the length of a sequence. That is to say in a sequence of narrative clauses 

„retrospective – retrospective – experiencing – experiencing – metanarrative – metanarrative‟ 

each form is counted once, while in the sequence of „retrospective – experiencing – 

metanarrative – retrospective – experiencing – metanarrative‟ each form is counted twice. 

Personality measures 

Trait features of emotion regulation were measured by questionnaires. The coherence of 

emotion regulation was measured by administering the Clarity factor of the Trait Meta-Mood 

Scale (Salovey, et al., 1995) which reflects on how clearly a person sees his or her feelings. 

The Purpose to Life Scale (Antonovsky, 1987) was also used to measure the sense of 

coherence construct. This construct “is a global orientation that expresses the extent to which 

one ha s a pervasive, enduring though dynamic feeling of confidence that (1) the stimuli 

deriving from one‟s internal and external environments in the course of living are structured, 

predictable, and explicable; (2) the resources are available to one to meet the demands posed 

by these stimuli; and (3) these demands are challenges, worthy of investment and engagement 

(Antonovsky, 1987: 19).” Accordingly, sense of coherence construct has three factors: (1) 

comprehensibility, (2) manageability and (3) meaningfulness. 

Stability of emotion regulation was reflected by administering the Emotion stability 

factor of the Big Five Questionnaire (Caprara, Barbaranelli, and Borgogni, 1993). This factor 

consists of two subfactors. The emotional control subfactor measures the capacity for coping 

with anxiety and emotions. The impulse control subfactor measures the capacity for managing 

irritability, discontent, and anger. 

Results 

Means and standard deviations for the relative frequencies of the three perspective forms are 

presented in Table 5. Consistent with the earlier study, participants used the retrospective 

form (M = 0.51, SD = 0.08) significantly more frequently than the experiencing form (M = 

0.38, SD = 0.07) (t = 8.21, df = 74, p < 0.001) and they also adopted the experiencing form 

more frequently than the metanarrative form (M = 0.11, SD = 0.05) (t = 25.72, df = 74, p < 

0.001). Potential differences in using perspective forms between groups of males and females, 

and young adults and adults were examined by using t-tests. The results did not reveal any 

gender difference. Whit regard to age differences, young adults used more frequently the 

metanarrative form (M = 0.12, SD = 0.05) than adult participants (M = 0.09, SD = 0.05) (t = 

2.31, df = 73, p < 0.05). However, using the retrospective and experiencing forms there were 

no age differences. Furthermore, considering the content of stories two patterns of perspective 

forms emerged (see Table 5). In the stories regarding relation episodes the relative 

frequencies of retrospective and experiencing forms were almost equal, varying between 0.41 

and 0.44, and the occurrence of a metanarrative form was considerable, 0.15. In contrast, the 

other three stories were dominated by the retrospective form, varying between 0.55 and 0.59, 

the experiencing form was used less frequently, in a range between 0.34 and 0.37, while the 

metanarrative form was adopted very rarely, 0.07 or 0.08.


Table 5. Descriptive data for relative frequencies of perspective forms 

Content of narratives 


Retrospective Experiencing Metanarrative 

M SD M SD M SD 

Story of a bad relation 0,42 0,12 0,43 0,11 0,15 0,09 

Story of loss 0,55 0,15 0,37 0,15 0,08 0,06 

Story of fear 0,56 0,16 0,36 0,15 0,08 0,07 

Story of a good relation 0,44 0,14 0,41 0,13 0,15 0,11 

Story of achievement 0,59 0,12 0,34 0,11 0,07 0,05 

Total 0,51 0,08 0,38 0,07 0,11 0,05 

Means and standard deviations for variables measuring emotion regulation are presented in 

Table 6 and 7. There is only one marginal difference between male and female participants (see 

Table 6). Male participants have higher Emotional control subfactor (M = 38.07, SD = 12.31) 

than female participants (M = 33.34, SD = 9.79) (t = 1.84, df = 73, p < 0.10). 

Table 6. Descriptive data for measures of emotion regulation 

Measures of emotion 

All 

Males Females t-tests 

regulation 

N = 75 N = 28 N = 47 

M SD M SD M SD 

TMMS: Clarity factor 43,82 7,80 44,79 9,55 43,24 6,57 n. s. 

PLS: Sense of coherence 46,19 9,67 47,57 12,08 45,36 7,93 n. s. 

Comprehensibility factor 16,63 4,46 17,57 5,02 16,06 4,03 n. s. 

Manageability factor 13,69 3,19 14,07 3,89 13,47 2,72 n. s. 

Meaningfulness factor 15,87 3,09 15,93 3,91 15,83 2,53 n. s. 

BFQ: Emotional stability 68,97 18,47 73,43 20,67 66,32 16,6 n. s. 

factor 

Emotional control 

subfactor 

9 

35,11 10,96 38,07 12,31 33,34 9,79 T(73) = 

1,84 

p < 0,10 

Impulse control subfactor 34,19 8,14 35,36 9,53 33,49 7,20 n. s. 

TMMS: Trait Meta-Mood Scale; PLS: Purpose to Life Scale; BFQ: Big Five Questionnaire 

There is also one marginal difference between age groups (see Table 7). Adult participants 

have higher (M = 17.72, SD = 4.74) Comprehensibility factor than young adults (M = 15.93, 

SD = 4.18) (t = 1.72, df = 73, p < 0.10). 

Since gender and age differences were moderate, in further analysis participants were 

pooled. 

To explore the relationships between the use of perspective forms and the emotion 

regulation measures several correlation analyses were run (see Table 8).

58 


Table 7 

Descriptive data for measures of emotion regulation 

Measures of emotion regulation Young adults Adults t-tests 

N = 46 

N = 29 

M SD M SD 

TMMS: Clarity factor 43,04 6,43 45,03 9,55 n. s. 

PLS: Sense of coherence 45,36 8,18 47,55 11,68 n. s. 

Comprehensibility factor 15,93 4,18 17,72 4,74 T(73) = 

1,72 

p < 0,10 

Manageability factor 13,63 2,84 13,79 3,74 n. s. 

Meaningfulness factor 15,76 2,43 16,03 3,96 n. s. 

BFQ: Emotional stability factor 70,48 14,47 66,59 23,56 n. s. 

Emotional control subfactor 36,07 9,02 33,59 13,52 n. s. 

Impulse control subfactor 34,41 7,01 33,83 9,78 n. s. 

TMMS: Trait Meta-Mood Scale; PLS: Purpose to Life Scale; BFQ: Big Five Questionnaire 

With regard to retrospective perspective form, there were several positive correlations with 

the coherence of an emotion regulation. In the story of a bad relation relative frequency of the 

retrospective form correlated positively with the Clarity factor (r = 0.28, p < 0.01), the Sense 

of coherence construct (r = 0.27, p < 0.05), and its three factors, such as Comprehensibility (r 

= 0.17, p < 0.10), Manageability (r = 0.26, p < 0.05) and Meaningfulness (r = 0.32, p < 0.01). 

In the story of loss, relative frequency of the retrospective form also correlated positively with 

the Clarity factor (r = 0.22, p < 0.05). However, regarding the sense of coherence construct, 

only with the Meaningfulness factor was there a positive correlation (r = 0.15, p < 0.10). 

These results confirm the hypothesised positive correlation between retrospective perspective 

form and the coherent emotion regulation. However, in a positively valued achievement story 

a negative correlation appeared between the retrospective form and the Meaningfulness factor 

(r = -0.16, p < 0.10). 

Considering the experiencing form, negative correlations were found between the 

occurrence of an experiencing perspective form and the stability of emotional experience in 

two negative stories. In the story of a bad relation the frequency of using the experiencing 

form correlated negatively with the Impulse control subfactor (r = -0.17, p < 0.10). While in 

the story of loss, the frequency of taking the experiencing form correlated negatively with the 

Emotional stability factor (r = -0.15, p < 0.10) and its Emotional control subfactor (r = -0.16, 

p < 0.10). 

Finally, regarding the metanarrative form, negative correlations appeared in the story 

of a bad relation between using the metanarrative form and the coherence of emotion 

regulation. The relative frequency correlates negatively with the Clarity factor (r = -0.25, p < 

0.05), the Sense of coherence construct (r = -0.26, p < 0.05), and its three factors, such as 

Comprehensibility (r = -0.24, p < 0.05), Manageability (r = -0.25, p < 0.05) and 

Meaningfulness (r = -0.21, p < 0.01). Although negative correlations appeared solely in the 

story of a bad relation, these results are consistent with the hypothesised negative correlation 

between the metanarrative perspective form and the coherent emotion regulation.

Content of 

narratives 

Story of a 

bad relation 

Table 8 

Correlations between the relative frequencies of perspective forms and the measures of emotion regulation 

Perspective 

form 

TMMS: 

Clarity 

factor 

PLS: Sense 

of 

coherence 

Comprehens 

ibility factor 

Manageability 

factor 

Meaningfulness 

factor 

BFQ: Emotional 

stability factor 

Emotional 

control 

subfactor 

Impulse 

control 

subfactor 

Retrospective .28** .27* .17+ .26* .32** .27* .30** .15 

Experiencing -.09 -.08 .01 -.07 -.18+ .06 -.01 -.17+ 

Metanarrative -.25* -.26* -.24* -.25* -.21* -.42** -.38** -.40** 

Story of loss Retrospective .22* .14 .10 .12 .15+ .15 .16+ .15 

Experiencing -.20* -.13 -.10 -.11 -.15 -.15+ -.16+ -.15 

Metanarrative -.09 -.03 -.02 -.05 -.03 -.01 -.02 -.02 

Story of fear Retrospective .07 .04 .05 .04 .02 .00 .03 -.09 

Experiencing -.13 -.08 -.07 -.06 -.09 -.01 -.07 .09 

Metanarrative .10 .07 .02 .03 .15 .03 .06 .01 

Story of a 

good relation 

Story of 

achievement 

Retrospective -.02 -.07 -.07 -.07 -.03 .09 .09 .05 

Experiencing -.04 .06 .06 .05 .06 .02 .01 .01 

Metanarrative .07 .01 .02 .02 -.03 -.14 -.13 -.08 

Retrospective -.12 -.13 -.08 -.11 -.16+ -.07 .01 -.08 

Experiencing -.10 .11 -.08 .10 .12 -.01 -.04 .04 

Metanarrative .08 .07 .01 .06 .12 .09 .08 .11 

** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, + p < 0.10

Discussion 

This article described a algorithm developed for the automatic coding of spatio-temporal 

component of perspective in self-narratives. Subsequently, a study was presented which 

explored the relationship between the narrative perspective of recounted significant life events 

and trait features of the narrating person‟s emotion regulation. 

The results have confirmed our hypotheses. The use of a retrospective perspective 

form indicates coherent regulation of emotions, while the use of an experiencing form reflects 

the instability of emotion regulation. These results are consistent with the relationships identified 

in two earlier studies (Pólya, 2007; Pólya, László, and Forgas, 2005), and also with 

other studies (Pennebaker, Mayne, and Francis, 1997). Pennebaker and his co-workers have 

found that the level of distress is predicted by the frequency of using past tense verbs: persons 

who used frequently past tense verbs experienced less distress. Since past verb tense is 

indicative of a retrospective perspective form, this result is in line with the explored relationship 

between using retrospective perspective form and coherent emotion regulation. 

Surprisingly, as opposed to earlier stories, in this study the metanarrative perspective behaved 

similarly to the experiencing perspective: Strong negative correlations were found between 

the use of the metanarrative perspective and the coherence of emotion regulation. This result 

may be due to the relatively low reliability of the automatic coding of the linguistic patterns of 

the metanarrative perspective. Nevertheless, it can be concluded from this study that the 

narrative perspective of a self-narrative is informative about the coherence and stability of the 

narrating person‟s emotion regulation, and the perspective algorithm validly measures 

emotional coherence and stability through the use of retrospective and experiencing perspective 

forms. 

However, there are at least two important constraints which should be taken into consideration. 

First, the explored relationships seem to be dependent on the valence of the stories, 

since the confirming results have emerged only in the self-narratives recounting negatively 

valenced life events, and were absent in the self-narratives about positively valenced life 

events. This valence dependence can also be observed in relation to other types of emotional 

processes. The organization and dynamics of social sharing are markedly different for positively 

versus negatively valued emotional events (Rimé, and Zech, 2001; Zech and Rimé, 

2005). Second, the explored relationships also seem to be content dependent, since the 

strength of relationships were different in the three negatively valenced stories (bad relation, 

loss and fear). Although these constraints raise questions for further studies the new method 

of analysis presented here, the automatic coding of narrative perspective in self-narratives 

may contribute effectively to this work. 

References 

Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unravelling the mystery of health. How people manage stress and 

stay well. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Bal, M. (1998). Narratology. Introduction to the theory of narrative. 2nd edition, Toronto: 

University of Toronto Press. 

Banfield, A. (1982). Unspeakable sentences: Narration and representation in the language of 

fiction. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 

Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, C., & Borgogni (1993). The Big 5 questionnaire. A new 

questionnaire to assess the 5 factor model. Personality and Individual Differences, 

15(3), 281-288. 

Cohn, D. (1978). Transparent minds. Princeton: Princeton University Press.


Kiefer, F. (1990). Modalitás. [Modality.] Budapest: MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézete. 

Labov, W. (1972). The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. In Language in the 

inner city. (pp. 354-396). Oxford: Blackwell. 

Labov, W. (1997). Some further steps in narrative analysis, The Journal of Narrative and Life 

History, 7(1-4), 395-415. 

Peer, W. v., & Chatman, S. (Eds.), (2001). New perspectives on narrative perspective. 

Albany: State University of New York Press. 

Pennebaker, J.W., Mayne, T.J., & Francis, M.E. (1997). Linguistic predictors of adaptive 

bereavement, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(4), 863-871. 

Pólya, T. (2007). Identitás az elbeszélésben. Szociális identitás és narratív perspektíva 

[Identity in a self-narrative. Social identity and narrative perspective.] Budapest: Új 

Mandátum Kiadó. 

Pólya, T., László, J., & Forgas, J.P. (2005). Making sense of life stories: The role of narrative 

perspective in communicating hidden information about social identity, European 

Journal of Social Psychology, 35(6), 785-796. 

Prince, G. (1987). Dictionary of narratology. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 

Prószéky, G., & Tihanyi, L. (1993). Humor: High-speed unification morphology and its 

applications for agglutinative languages. La tribune des industries de la langue. No. 

10. 28-29, OFIL, Paris. 

Rimé, B., & Zech, E. (2001). The social sharing of emotion: Interpersonal and collective 

dimensions. Boletin di Psicologia, 70, 97-108. 

Sakita, T.I. (2002). Reporting discourse, tense, and cognition. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 

Salovey, P., Mayer, J.D., Goldman, S.L., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T.P. (1995). Emotional 

attention, clarity, and repair: Exploring emotional intelligence using the Trait Meta- 

Mood Scale. In J.W. Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure, and health. (pp. 125- 

154). Washington: American Psychological Association. 

Wiebe, J. (1991). Tracking point of view in narrative. Computational Linguistics, 20(2), 233- 

287. 

Wilkins, D.P. (1995). Expanding the traditional category of deictic elements: Interjections as 

deictics. In J.F. Duchan, G.A. Bruder, & L.E. Hewitt (Eds.), Deixis in narrative. A 

cognitive science perspective. (pp. 359-386). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. 

Uspensky, B.A. (1974). The poetics of composition: Structure of the artistic text and the 

typology of compositional forms. Berkeley: University of California Press. 

Wilson, T., Wiebe,J., & Hoffmann, P. (2005). Recognizing contextual polarity in phrase level 

sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of HLT/EMNLP-05, pages 347-354. 

Yi, J., Nasukawa, T., Bunescu, R., & Niblack, W. (2003). Sentiment analyzer: Extracting 

sentiments about a given topic using natural language processing techniques. In 

Proceedings of the Third IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, pages 427- 

434. 

Zech, E. & Rimé, B. (2005). Is it talking about an emotional experience helpful Effects on 

emotional recovery and perceived benefits. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 

12, 270-287.

Narrative perspective and the emotion regulation of a narrating person

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?