We report two pre-registered experiments investigating some of the conditions under which readers focus on aesthetically relevant object properties in text processing. Experiment 1 (N = 159) tested the role of narrativity, psychological information about textual characters, and readers’ identification with them. Participants’ focus on aesthetically relevant object properties was stronger after reading a narrative than an expository text. This relationship between participants’ focus and narrativity was not affected by information about textual characters, or readers’ identification with them. Experiment 2 (N = 159) tested the role of narrativity, literariness, and readers’ perception of literary features. Again, reading a narrative led to a stronger focus on aesthetically relevant object properties than reading an expository text. The effect of literary narratives was meditated by readers’ perception of literary features. In sum, narrativity and literariness, but not information about characters or identification with them affect the degree to which readers focus on aesthetically relevant object properties.
AppelM.HanauerD.HoekenH.van KriekenK.RichterT.SandersJ. (2021). The psychological and social effects of literariness: Formal features and paratextual information. In KuikenD.JacobsA. M. (Eds.), Handbook of empirical literary studies (pp. 177–202). De Gruyter.
2.
Baron-CohenS.WheelwrightS. (2004). The Empathy Quotient: An investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(2), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JADD.0000022607.19833.00
BrinckI. (2018). Empathy, engagement, entrainment: The interaction dynamics of aesthetic experience. Cognitive Processing, 19(2), 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-017-0805-x
5.
ChatterjeeA.ThomasA.SmithS. E.AguirreG. K. (2009). The neural response to facial attractiveness. Neuropsychology, 23(2), 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014430
6.
CohenJ. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication & Society, 4(3), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0403_01
7.
ConsoliG. (2018). Preliminary steps towards a cognitive theory of fiction and its effects. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science, 2(1-2), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-018-0019-5
8.
CrozierW.GreenhalghP. (1992). The empathy principle: Towards a model for the psychology of art. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 22(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1992.tb00210.x
9.
DickieG. (1964). The myth of the aesthetic attitude. American Philosophical Quarterly, 1(1), 56–65.
10.
Dodell-FederD.TamirD. I. (2018). Fiction reading has a small positive impact on social cognition: A meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(11), 1713–1727. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000395
11.
FennerD. E. W. (1996). The aesthetic attitude. Humanities Press.
12.
GamioM. (1971). Mexican immigration to the United States: A study of human migration and adjustment. Dover Publications.
13.
GenetteG. (1987). Seuils. Editions du Seuil.
14.
GrandeR. (2013). The distance between us. Washington Square Press.
15.
HartungF.WangY.MakM.WillemsR.ChatterjeeA. (2021). Aesthetic appraisals of literary style and emotional intensity in narrative engagement are neurally dissociable. Communications Biology, 4(1), 1401. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-021-02926-0
16.
HartungF.WithersP.HagoortP.WillemsR. M. (2017). When fiction is just as real as fact: No differences in reading behavior between stories believed to be based on true or fictional events. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1618. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01618
17.
HöfelL.JacobsenT. (2007). Electrophysiological indices of processing aesthetics: Spontaneous or intentional processes?International Journal of Psychophysiology, 65(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2007.02.007
18.
IserW. (1991). Das Fiktive und das Imaginäre: Perspektiven literarischer Anthropologie [The fictive and the imaginary. Perspectives of literary anthropology]. Suhrkamp.
19.
KiddD.CastanoE. (2019). Reading literary fiction and theory of mind: Three preregistered replications and extensions of Kidd and Castano (2013). Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(4), 522–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618775410
20.
KiddD.OngisM.CastanoE. (2016). On literary fiction and its effects on theory of mind. Scientific Study of Literature, 6(1), 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.6.1.04kid
KopatichR. D.SteciuchC. C.FellerD. P.MillisK.SiegesmundR. (2021). Development and validation of the Aesthetic Processing Preference Scale (APPS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000449
23.
KotovychM.DixonP.BortolussiM.HoldenM. (2011). Textual determinants of a component of literary identification. Scientific Study of Literature, 1(2), 260–291. https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.1.2.05kot
MałeckiW.PawłowskiB.SorokowskiP.OleszkiewiczA. (2019). Feeling for textual animals: Narrative empathy across species lines. Poetics, 74, 101334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2018.11.003
MarR. A.OatleyK. (2008). The function of fiction is the abstraction and simulation of social experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(3), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00073.x
28.
MarR. A.RainM. (2015). Narrative fiction and expository nonfiction differentially predict verbal ability. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19, 419–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2015.1069296
29.
MarkovićS. (2012). Components of aesthetic experience: Aesthetic fascination, aesthetic appraisal, and aesthetic emotion. i-Perception, 3(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1068/i0450aap
30.
MenninghausW.WagnerV.WassiliwizkyE.SchindlerI.HanichJ.JacobsenT.KoelschS. (2019). What are aesthetic emotions?Psychological Review, 126(2), 171–195. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000135
31.
MiallD. S.KuikenD. (1999). What is literariness? Three components of literary reading. Discourse Processes, 28(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539909545076
32.
MooreM.GordonP. C. (2015). Reading ability and print exposure: Item response theory analysis of the author recognition test. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1095–1109. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0534-3
MukařovskýJ. (1964). Standard language and poetic language. Georgetown UP.
35.
MukařovskýJ. (1977). The word and verbal art: Selected essays. Yale UP.
36.
PaneroM. E.WeisbergD. S.BlackJ.GoldsteinT. R.BarnesJ. L.BrownellH.WinnerE. (2016). Does reading a single passage of literary fiction really improve theory of mind? An attempt at replication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(5), e46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000064
37.
PietrasK.CzerneckaK. (2018). Art training and personality traits as predictors of aesthetic experience of different art styles among Polish students. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 49(4), 466–474. https://doi.org/10.24425/124344
38.
PugachC.LederH.GrahamD. J. (2017). How stable are human aesthetic preferences across the lifespan?Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 289. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00289
39.
RühlingL. (1996). Fiktionalität und Poetizität [Fictionality and poeticity]. In ArnoldH. L. (Ed.), Grundzüge der Literaturwissenschaft [Essentials of literary studies] (pp. 25–51). Dtv.
40.
SamurD.TopsM.KooleS. L. (2018). Does a single session of reading literary fiction prime enhanced mentalising performance? Four replication experiments of Kidd and Castano (2013). Cognition and Emotion, 32(1), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2017.1279591
41.
SchindlerI.HosoyaG.MenninghausW.BeermannU.WagnerV.EidM.SchererK. R. (2017). Measuring aesthetic emotions: A review of the literature and a new assessment tool. PLOS ONE, 12(6), 1–45. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178899
42.
SchlotzW.WallotS.OmigieD.MasucciM. D.HoelzmannS. C.VesselE. A. (2020). The Aesthetic Responsiveness Assessment (AReA): A screening tool to assess individual differences in responsiveness to art in English and German. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000348
43.
SchmidtS. J. (1980). Grundriß der empirischen Literaturwissenschaft. Teilband 1: Der gesellschaftliche Handlungsbereich Literatur [Fundamentals of the empirical study of literature. Volume 1: Literature as societal system]. Vieweg.
StanovichK. E.WestR. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(4), 402–433. https://doi.org/10.2307/747605
46.
ThompsonE. R. (2008). Development and validation of an international English big-five mini-markers. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(6), 542–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.013
47.
TschacherW.BergomiC.TröndleM. (2015). The Art Affinity Index (AAI): An instrument to assess art relation and art knowledge. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 33(2), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237415594709
48.
van den HovenE.HartungF.BurkeM.WillemsR. M. (2016). Individual differences in sensitivity to style during literary reading: Insights from eye-tracking. Collabra, 2(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.39
49.
van HoltN.GroebenN. (2005). Das Konzept des Foregrounding in der modernen Textverarbeitungspsychologie [The foregrounding concept within modern text processing psychology]. Journal für Psychologie, 13(4), 311–332.
50.
van KriekenK.HoekenH.SandersJ. (2017). Evoking and measuring identification with narrative characters–A linguistic cues framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1190. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01190
51.
van PeerW.HakemulderJ.ZyngierS. (2007). Lines on feeling: Foregrounding, aesthetics and meaning. Language and Literature, 16(2), 197–213. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0963947007075985
52.
van PeerW.SopčákP.CastiglioneD.FialhoO.JacobsA. M.HakemulderF. (2021). Foregrounding. In KuikenD.JacobsA. M. (Eds.), Handbook of empirical literary studies (pp. 145–176). De Gruyter.
WimmerL. (2015). Das ästhetische Paradox bei der Verarbeitung von fiktionalen vs. nicht-fiktionalen Texten [The aesthetic paradox when processing fictional vs. non-fictional texts]. Dissertation, Heidelberg University [available at http://www.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/archiv/18232].
55.
WimmerL.CurrieG.FriendS.FergusonH. J. (2022). The effects of reading narrative fiction on social and moral cognition: Two pre-registered experiments following a multi-method approach. Scientific Study of Literature. https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.21010.wim
56.
WimmerL.CurrieG.FriendS.FergusonH. J. (under revision). Opening the closed mind? Effects of reading literary fiction on need for closure and creativity. Creativity Research Journal.
57.
WimmerL.FriendS.CurrieG.FergusonH. J. (2021). Reading fictional narratives to improve social and moral cognition: The influence of narrative perspective, transportation, and identification. Frontiers in Communication, 5, 136. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.611935
