C. La-procédure, Abduction-Négation La procédure CAN (Conflit-Abduction-Négation) (Saillenfest and Dessalles, 2014b; Dessalles, 2008a) est basée sur la résolution de conflits via l'abduction

. Cette-procédure-n, objectifs sont générésgénérés`générésà la volée, en fonction des conflits cognitifs internes au moment o` u ils sont détectés Le résultat de la procédure CAN, qui consiste en un ensemble d'actions et de justifications, peut conduire un observateuràobservateur`observateurà percevoir le comportement de l'agent commé etant goal-oriented, tout en ignorant comment les objectifs (goals) ontétéontété générés. Dans la partie 5, nous avons introduit la notion de conflit cognitif. L'origine des conflits cognitifs vient d'´ evaluations -les nécessités -opposées d'une même situation (ou d'un même prédicat), par exemple lorsqu'une situation non désirée (qui reçoit donc uné evaluation de valence négative) se produit (elle reçoitreçoitégalement uné evaluation de valence positive et de grande intensité car l'inattendu de sa non-occurrence estélevéestélevé) En particulier, nous avons montré que lesévénementslesévénements surprenantsétaientsurprenantsétaient sources de conflits cognitifs

?. Conflit, Un conflit cognitif est détecté, c'est-` a-dire qu'une situation s reçoit deuxévaluationsdeuxévaluations de valences opposées v 1 < 0 et v 2 > 0. La procédure de résolution de ce conflit commence ? ´ Etape 2 : La procédure réalise une abductionàabductionà partir de s, elle cherche une cause " faible " qui fait baisser l'intensité du conflit. Si l'´ evaluation de CAN est assimilablè a un système de planificationàplanificationà ordre-partiel. Les plans ne sont pas recalculés intégralement lorsqu'une contradiction est détectée, Présentons un exemple de raisonnement (réalisé par un personnage, John) pour trouver un trésor qui utilise la procédure CAN (on trouvera après cet exemple un détail, p.204

. John-doit-traverser-le-pont-et-john-se-trouve-juste-avant-le-pont, Possibilité numéro 1 : ... [Le pont n'est pas cassé] John décide de traverser le pont, aller au château et de prendre le trésor. Possibilité numéro 2 : ... [Le pont est cassé] John ne peut rien faire pour changer cetétatcetétat de fait. John ne peut pas traverser le pont

?. Le-trésor, désiré mais non-vrai Abduction : " action : Prendre le trésor " ?Propagation sur Je suis dans le château " ?Abduction : " action : Aller dans le château " ? ?Propagation sur Je suis de l'autre côté du pont ? ?Abduction : " action : Traverser le pont " ? ? ?Propagation sur Je suis près du pont " ET " Le pont n'est pas cassé " ? ? ?Abduction impossiblè a partir de " Le pont n'est pas cassé " ? ? ?Négation : ¬ " Le pont n'est pas cassé " ? ? ?Abduction impossiblè a partir de ¬ " Le pont n'est pas cassé " ? ? Fin de la procédure : ´ echec " action : Traverser le pont " impossible ? ?Abduction : " action : Prendre le long chemin procédure : succès ?Fin de la procédure : succès Fin de la procédure : succès Plan calculé, ??Analyse du calcul du plan, p.? ?Propagation sur " Je suis près du pont " ? ? ?Fin de la procédure : succès ? ?Fin

L. 'un-des-résultats-fondamentaux-relatifàrelatif, relatifà la complexité de Kolmogorov est le théorème d'invariance qui dit que la taille de la description minimale d'un objet est invariante (` a une constante près) entre les différents langages universels (Li and Vitányi, pp.104-105, 2008.

L. Abduction and . Qu, elle est définie par Peirce (CP 5.189) consistè a générer une hypothèse qui explique une observation. Peirce décrit ainsi le fonctionnement de l'abduction : " The surprising fact, C, is observed ; But if A were true, C would be a matter of course, Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true

C. La-procédure, Conflit-Abduction-Négation) (Saillenfest and Dessalles, 2014b; Dessalles, 2008a) est une procédure de résolution de conflits cognitifs via l'abduction. C'est une procédure de détermination d'une hypothèse explicative qui

. Aristote, Poétique. Le Livre de Poche. (env. 335 avant JC, traduction par Michel Magnien de, 1990.

B. Bae and R. M. Young, A computational model of narrative generation for surprise arousal. Computational Intelligence and AI in Games, IEEE Transactions on, vol.6, issue.2, pp.131-143, 2014.

P. Bailey, Searching for storiness : Story-generation from a reader's perspective, Working notes of the Narrative Intelligence Symposium, pp.157-164, 1999.

M. Bal, Narratology : Introduction to the theory of narrative, 1997.

S. Baron-cohen, The descent of mind : Psychological perspectives on hominid evolution., chapter The evolution of a theory of mind, pp.261-277, 1999.

R. Baroni, La tension narrative : suspense, curiosité et suprise, 2007.

J. Bates, The role of emotion in believable agents, Communications of the ACM, vol.37, issue.7, pp.122-125, 1994.
DOI : 10.1145/176789.176803

R. Beaugrande and B. N. Colby, Narrative Models of Action and Interaction*, Cognitive Science, vol.11, issue.1, pp.43-66, 1979.
DOI : 10.1207/s15516709cog0301_3

A. Bleske-rechek, L. Nelson, J. Baker, and M. R. Brandt, Evolution and the trolley problem: People save five over one unless the one is young, genetically related, or a romantic partner., Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, vol.4, issue.3, pp.115-127, 2010.
DOI : 10.1037/h0099295

´. E. Borel, La m??canique statique et l'irr??versibilit??, Journal de Physique Th??orique et Appliqu??e, vol.3, issue.1, pp.189-196, 1913.
DOI : 10.1051/jphystap:019130030018900

M. Bortolussi and P. Dixon, Psychonarratology, Foundations for the empirical study of literary response, 2003.

M. Boulton, Anatomy of the Novel, 1975.

C. Bremond, La logique des possibles narratifs, Communications, vol.8, issue.1, pp.60-76, 1966.
DOI : 10.3406/comm.1966.1115

W. F. Brewer, Suspense : Conceptualizations, theoretical analyses, and empirical explorations, chapter The nature of narrative suspense and the problem of rereading, pp.107-127, 1996.

S. Catellin, Sérendipité : du conte au concept, 2014.

N. Chater, The Search for Simplicity: A Fundamental Cognitive Principle?, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, vol.49, issue.2, pp.273-302, 1999.
DOI : 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1976.tb01524.x

N. Chater and G. D. Brown, From Universal Laws of Cognition to Specific Cognitive Models, Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, vol.32, issue.1, pp.36-67, 2008.
DOI : 10.1080/03640210701801941

N. Chater and P. M. Vitányi, Simplicity: a unifying principle in cognitive science?, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol.7, issue.1, pp.19-22, 2003.
DOI : 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00005-0

S. B. Chatman, Reading Narrative Fiction, 1993.

Y. Cheong and R. M. Young, Suspenser : A story generation system for suspense. Computational Intelligence and AI in Games, IEEE Transactions on, vol.7, issue.1, pp.39-52, 2015.

M. Chion, ´ Ecrire un scénario. Cahiers du cinéma -I.N.A, 1985.

H. Chockler and J. Y. Halpern, Responsibility and blame : a structuralmodel approach, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol.22, issue.1, pp.93-115, 2004.

J. Cohen, Defining Identification: A Theoretical Look at the Identification of Audiences With Media Characters, Mass Communication and Society, vol.4, issue.3, pp.245-264, 2001.
DOI : 10.1207/S15327825MCS0403_01

F. Cushman, L. Young, and M. Hauser, The Role of Conscious Reasoning and Intuition in Moral Judgment: Testing Three Principles of Harm, Psychological Science, vol.292, issue.12, pp.1082-1089, 2006.
DOI : 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01614.x

N. Dehn, Story generation after tale-spin, Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Artificial intelligence, pp.16-18, 1981.

J. Dessalles, A structural model of intuitive probability, Proceedings of the seventh International Conference on Cognitive Modelling, pp.86-91, 2006.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00614806

J. Dessalles, A computational model of argumentation in everyday conversation : A problem-centred approach The Netherlands, The Netherlands, Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Computational Models of Argument, pp.128-133, 2008.

J. Dessalles, La pertinence et ses origines cognitives : nouvelles théories, 2008.

U. Eco, Les limites de l'interprétation. Grasset, 1992.

J. Feldman, How surprising is a simple pattern? Quantifying ?Eureka!?, Cognition, vol.93, issue.3, pp.199-224, 2004.
DOI : 10.1016/j.cognition.2003.09.013

R. E. Fikes and N. J. Nilsson, Strips: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving, Artificial Intelligence, vol.2, issue.3-4, pp.189-208, 1972.
DOI : 10.1016/0004-3702(71)90010-5

S. Fish, Being interdisciplinary is so very hard to do. Profession, pp.15-22, 1989.

L. Forguson, Common sense, 1989.

G. Freytag, Freytag's technique of the drama : an exposition of dramatic composition and art, 1894.

J. Ganascia and C. Debru, CYBERNARD: A Computational Reconstruction of Claude Bernard's Scientific Discoveries, Model-Based Reasoning in Science, Technology, and Medicine, pp.497-510, 2007.
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-540-71986-1_28

R. J. Gerrig, Reexperiencing Fiction and Non-Fiction, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol.47, issue.3, pp.277-280, 1989.
DOI : 10.2307/431007

R. J. Gerrig, Experiencing narrative worlds : On the psychological activities of reading, 1993.

P. Gervàs, Computational approaches to storytelling and creativity. The AI magazine, pp.49-62, 2009.

P. Gervàs, the living handbook of narratology, chapter Story Generator Algorithms, 2013.

A. Graesser, M. Singer, and T. Trabasso, Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension., Psychological Review, vol.101, issue.3, pp.371-375, 1994.
DOI : 10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371

A. C. Graesser, K. L. Lang, and R. M. Roberts, Question answering in the context of stories., Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, vol.120, issue.3, pp.254-277, 1991.
DOI : 10.1037/0096-3445.120.3.254

M. C. Green, T. C. Brock, and G. F. Kaufman, Understanding Media Enjoyment: The Role of Transportation Into Narrative Worlds, Communication Theory, vol.31, issue.4, pp.311-327, 2004.
DOI : 10.1037//0003-066X.41.9.954

T. L. Griffiths and J. B. Tenenbaum, Probability, algorithmic complexity, and subjective randomness, Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the cognitive science society, pp.480-485, 2003.

S. Guglielmo and B. F. Malle, Can Unintended Side Effects Be Intentional? Resolving a Controversy Over Intentionality and Morality, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol.24, issue.12, pp.1635-1647, 2010.
DOI : 10.1037/10628-000

B. Habib and J. Ganascia, The reasoning process underlying claude bernard's scientific discoveries, Proceedings of the IJCAI-09 Workshop on Abductive and Inductive Knowledge Development (AIAI09) of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp.48-53, 2009.

H. L. Hart and T. Honoré, Causation in the law, 1985.
DOI : 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198254744.001.0001

S. Hidi, Interest and Its Contribution as a Mental Resource for Learning, Review of Educational Research, vol.60, issue.4, pp.549-571, 1990.
DOI : 10.3102/00346543060004549

J. R. Hobbs, M. E. Stickel, D. E. Appelt, M. , and P. , Interpretation as abduction, Artificial Intelligence, vol.63, issue.1-2, pp.69-142, 1993.
DOI : 10.1016/0004-3702(93)90015-4

B. Hochman, Character in literature, 1985.

J. T. Johnson and J. Drobny, Proximity biases in the attribution of civil liability., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol.48, issue.2, pp.283-296, 1985.
DOI : 10.1037/0022-3514.48.2.283

T. M. Jones, Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations : An issue-contingent model, The Academy of Management Review, vol.16, issue.2, pp.366-395, 1991.

W. Kintsch, Learning from text, levels of comprehension, or: Why anyone would read a story anyway, Poetics, vol.9, issue.1-3, pp.87-98, 1980.
DOI : 10.1016/0304-422X(80)90013-3

J. Knobe, Intentional action and side effects in ordinary language, Analysis, vol.63, issue.3, pp.190-194, 2003.
DOI : 10.1093/analys/63.3.190

D. A. Lagnado and S. Channon, Judgments of cause and blame: The effects of intentionality and foreseeability, Cognition, vol.108, issue.3, pp.754-770, 2008.
DOI : 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.06.009

Y. Lavandier, La dramaturgie. Le Clown & l'enfant, 2004.

M. Lebowitz, Story-telling as planning and learning, Poetics, vol.14, issue.6, pp.483-502, 1985.
DOI : 10.1016/0304-422X(85)90015-4

M. Li and P. Vitányi, An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and its Applications, 2008.

E. Lipsky, The Mystery Writer's Handbook, chapter Suspense, pp.103-112, 1956.

G. Lucas and M. Meyjes, Indiana jones and the last crusade, 1989.

L. Macedo, A. Cardoso, R. Reisenzein, E. Lorini, C. et al., Artificial surprise. Handbook of research on synthetic emotions and sociable robotics : New applications in affective computing and artificial intelligence, pp.267-291, 2009.
DOI : 10.4018/978-1-60566-354-8.ch015

L. Magnani, Abduction, Reason, and Science, 2001.
DOI : 10.1007/978-1-4419-8562-0

P. Maguire, P. Moser, R. Maguire, and M. Keane, A computational theory of subjective probability [featuring a proof that the conjunction effect is not a fallacy], Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp.960-965, 2013.

R. Maguire, P. Maguire, and M. T. Keane, Making sense of surprise: An investigation of the factors influencing surprise judgments., Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, vol.37, issue.1, pp.176-186, 2011.
DOI : 10.1037/a0021609

B. F. Malle, Intentional action in folk psychology. Blackwell companion to the philosophy of action, 2010.

B. F. Malle and J. Knobe, The Folk Concept of Intentionality, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol.33, issue.2, pp.101-121, 1997.
DOI : 10.1006/jesp.1996.1314

B. F. Malle and S. E. Nelson, Judgingmens rea: the tension between folk concepts and legal concepts of intentionality, Behavioral Sciences & the Law, vol.80, issue.5, pp.563-580, 2003.
DOI : 10.1002/bsl.554

M. Mateas and P. Sengers, Narrative intelligence, Proceedings AAAI Fall Symposium on Narrative Intelligence, pp.1-10, 1999.
DOI : 10.1075/aicr.46

M. Mateas and A. Stern, Façade : An experiment in building a fullyrealized interactive drama, Game Developers Conference, 2003.

J. R. Meehan, Tale-spin, an interactive program that writes stories, Proceedings of the 5th international joint conference on Artificial intelligence, pp.91-98, 1977.

W. Meyer, R. Reisenzein, and A. Schützwohl, Toward a process analysis of emotions : The case of surprise, Motivation and Emotion, vol.21, issue.3, pp.251-274, 1997.
DOI : 10.1023/A:1024422330338

R. Miletitch, N. Sabouret, and M. Ochs, Susciter l?????motion dans la narration automatique, Techniques et sciences informatiques, vol.31, issue.4, pp.477-501, 2012.
DOI : 10.3166/tsi.31.477-501

D. T. Miller and S. Gunasegaram, Temporal order and the perceived mutability of events: Implications for blame assignment., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol.59, issue.6, pp.1111-1118, 1990.
DOI : 10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1111

N. 'gbala, A. Branscombe, and N. R. , Mental simulation and causal attribution : When simulating an event does not affect fault assignment, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, issue.2, pp.31139-162, 1995.

N. R. Norrick, Conversational Narrative : Storytelling in everyday talk, 2000.
DOI : 10.1075/cilt.203

M. Ochs, N. Sabouret, C. , and V. , Simulation of the dynamics of nonplayer characters' emotions and social relations in games. Computational Intelligence and AI in Games, IEEE Transactions on, vol.1, issue.4, pp.281-297, 2009.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01169947

A. Ortony and D. Partridge, Surprisingness and expectation failure : what's the difference ?, Proceedings of the 10th international joint conference on Artificial intelligence, pp.106-108, 1987.

O. Neill, B. Riedl, and M. , Dramatis : A computational model of suspense, Proceedings of the 28th AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, pp.944-950, 2014.

C. S. Peirce, Collected papers of charles sanders peirce, 1974.

R. Pérez-y-pérez and M. Sharples, MEXICA: A computer model of a cognitive account of creative writing, Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, vol.13, issue.2, pp.119-139, 2001.
DOI : 10.1037/0033-295X.88.2.93

R. Pérez-y-pérez and M. Sharples, Three computer-based models of storytelling : Brutus, minstrel and mexica. Knowledge-Based Systems, pp.15-29, 2004.

E. J. Phares and K. G. Wilson, Responsibility attribution: Role of outcome severity, situational ambiguity, and internal-external control1, Journal of Personality, vol.3, issue.3, pp.392-406, 1972.
DOI : 10.1177/001872676702000302

D. A. Pizarro, E. Uhlmann, and P. Bloom, Causal deviance and the attribution of moral responsibility, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol.39, issue.6, pp.653-660, 2003.
DOI : 10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00041-6

G. Prince, A Dictionary of Narratology, 1987.

M. J. Rattermann, L. Spector, J. Grafman, H. Levin, and H. Harward, Partial and total-order planning: evidence from normal and prefrontally damaged populations, Cognitive Science, vol.16, issue.6, pp.25941-975, 2001.
DOI : 10.1207/s15516709cog2506_3

R. Reisenzein, Exploring the Strength of Association between the Components of Emotion Syndromes: The Case of Surprise, Cognition & Emotion, vol.10, issue.1, pp.1-38, 2000.
DOI : 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00373.x

R. Reisenzein, The subjective experience of surprise. The message within : The role of subjective experience in social cognition and behavior, pp.262-279, 2000.

M. Riedl and R. Young, An intent-driven planner for multi-agent story generation, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on BIBLIOGRAPHIE Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp.186-193, 2004.

M. O. Riedl and R. M. Young, An Objective Character Believability Evaluation Procedure for Multi-agent Story Generation Systems, Intelligent Virtual Agents, pp.278-291, 2005.
DOI : 10.1007/11550617_24

M. O. Riedl and R. M. Young, Narrative planning : Balancing plot and character, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol.39, issue.1, pp.217-268, 2010.

D. E. Rumelhart, Notes on a schema for stories. Representation and understanding : Studies in cognitive science, pp.211-236, 1975.

D. E. Rumelhart, Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension, chapter Schemata : The building blocks of cognition, pp.33-58, 1980.

A. Saillenfest and J. Dessalles, Role of kolmogorov complexity on interest in moral dilemma stories, Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp.947-952, 2012.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00794348

A. Saillenfest and J. Dessalles, Using unexpected simplicity to control moral judgments and interest in narratives, 2013 Workshop on Computational Models of Narrative of OpenAccess Series in Informatics (OASIcs) Schloss Dagstuhl?Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, pp.214-227, 2013.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00853806

A. Saillenfest and J. Dessalles, Can believable characters act unexpectedly ? Literary and Linguistic Computing, pp.606-620, 2014.

A. Saillenfest and J. Dessalles, A cognitive approach to narrative planning with believable characters, 2014 Workshop on Computational Models of Narrative of OpenAccess Series in Informatics (OASIcs) Schloss Dagstuhl?Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, pp.177-181, 2014.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01072224

A. Saillenfest, J. D. Dessalles, R. Dale, A. S. Warlaumont, J. Yoshimi et al., Some probability judgments may rely on complexity assessments, Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp.2069-2074, 2015.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01196802

R. C. Schank and R. P. Abelson, SCRIPTS, PLANS, GOALS, AND UNDERSTANDING, 1977.
DOI : 10.1016/B978-1-4832-1446-7.50019-4

URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00692030

B. Schlenker, T. Britt, J. Pennington, R. Murphy, and K. Doherty, The triangle model of responsibility., Psychological Review, vol.101, issue.4, pp.632-652, 1994.
DOI : 10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.632

M. Sharples, How we write : Writing as creative design, 1999.
DOI : 10.4324/9780203272732

K. G. Shaver, The attribution of blame : causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness, 1985.
DOI : 10.1007/978-1-4612-5094-4

H. A. Simon, Complexity and the representation of patterned sequences of symbols., Psychological Review, vol.79, issue.5, pp.369-382, 1972.
DOI : 10.1037/h0033118

T. C. Smith and I. H. Witten, A Planning Mechanism for Generating Story Text, Literary and Linguistic Computing, vol.6, issue.2, pp.119-126, 1991.
DOI : 10.1093/llc/6.2.119

M. Sternberg, Telling in Time (II): Chronology, Teleology, Narrativity, Poetics Today, vol.13, issue.3, pp.463-541, 1992.
DOI : 10.2307/1772872

N. Szilas, A COMPUTATIONAL MODEL OF AN INTELLIGENT NARRATOR FOR INTERACTIVE NARRATIVES, Applied Artificial Intelligence, vol.3, issue.8, pp.753-801, 2007.
DOI : 10.1017/S0140525X00017520

N. Szilas and U. Richle, Towards a computational model of dramatic tension, 2013 Workshop on Computational Models of Narrative of OpenAccess Series in Informatics (OASIcs) Schloss Dagstuhl?Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, pp.257-276, 2013.

K. H. Teigen and G. Keren, Surprises: low probabilities or high contrasts?, Cognition, vol.87, issue.2, pp.55-71, 2003.
DOI : 10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00201-9

D. Terrell, A test of the gambler's fallacy: Evidence from pari-mutuel games, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, vol.185, issue.3, pp.309-317, 1994.
DOI : 10.1007/BF01064047

M. Theune, S. Faas, A. Nijholt, and D. Heylen, The virtual storyteller, Proceeding of the Technologies for In- BIBLIOGRAPHIE teractive Digital Storytelling and Entertainment (TIDSE) Conference, pp.204-215, 2003.
DOI : 10.1145/962185.962193

S. Thiriot and J. Kant, USING ASSOCIATIVE NETWORKS TO REPRESENT ADOPTERS' BELIEFS IN A MULTIAGENT MODEL OF INNOVATION DIFFUSION, Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), pp.11261-272, 2008.
DOI : 10.1142/S0219525908001611

URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01169951

M. Toolan, Narrative : A critical linguistic introduction, 2012.

T. Trabasso and L. L. Sperry, Causal relatedness and importance of story events, Journal of Memory and Language, vol.24, issue.5, pp.595-611, 1985.
DOI : 10.1016/0749-596X(85)90048-8

F. Truffaut and A. Hitchcock, Le cinéma selon Hitchcock, 1975.

S. R. Turner, Minstrel : a computer model of creativity and storytelling, 1993.

A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment., Psychological Review, vol.90, issue.4, pp.293-315, 1983.
DOI : 10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.293

P. Van-den-broek, The effects of causal relations and hierarchical position on the importance of story statements, Journal of Memory and Language, vol.27, issue.1, pp.1-22, 1988.
DOI : 10.1016/0749-596X(88)90045-9

P. Vorderer, Suspense : Conceptualizations, theoretical analyses, and empirical explorations, chapter Toward a psychological theory of suspense, pp.233-254, 1996.

S. G. Ware and R. M. Young, Modeling narrative conflict to generate interesting stories, Proceedings of the Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment, pp.210-215, 2010.

D. Zillmann, Mechanisms of emotional involvement with drama, Poetics, vol.23, issue.1-2, pp.33-51, 1995.
DOI : 10.1016/0304-422X(94)00020-7