Scholars from diverse disciplines have proposed that reading fiction improves intersubjective capacities. Experiments have yielded mixed evidence that reading literary fiction improves performance on the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test, a test of Theory of Mind. Three preregistered experiments revealed mixed results. Applying the “small telescopes” method developed by Simonsohn revealed two uninformative failures to replicate and one successful replication. On a measure of the importance of intentions to moral judgments, results were more mixed, with one significant effect in the expected direction, one nonsignificant effect, and one significant effect in the unexpected direction. In addition, two experiments yielded support for the exploratory but preregistered hypothesis that characters in popular fiction are perceived as more predictable and stereotypic than those in literary fiction. These findings help clarify the sociocognitive effects of reading literary fiction and refine questions for future research.
AchesonD. J.WellsJ. B.MacDonaldM. C. (2008). New and updated tests of print exposure and reading abilities in college students. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 278–289. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.1.278
2.
BalP. M.VeltkampM. (2013). How does fiction reading influence empathy? An experimental investigation on the role of emotional transportation. PLoS ONE, 8, e55341.
3.
Baron-CohenS.WheelwrightS.HillJ.RasteY.PlumbI. (2001). The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” Test revised version: A study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 241–251. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00715
4.
BlackJ.BarnesJ. (2015). The effects of reading material on social and non-social cognition. Poetics, 52, 32–43. doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2015.07.001
5.
BrunerJ. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi:10.2307/357832
6.
CulpeperJ. (2001). Language and characterisation: People in plays and other texts. London, England: Longman.
7.
DjikicM.OatleyK.CarlandM. (2012). Genre or artistic merit? The effect of literature on personality. Scientific Study of Literature, 2, 25–36. doi:10.1075/ssol.2.1.02dji
8.
DjikicM.OatleyK.MoldoveanuM. C. (2013). Opening the closed mind: The effect of exposure to literature on the need for closure. Creativity Research Journal, 25, 149–154. doi:10.1080/10400419.2013.783735
9.
EderJ.JannidisF.SchneiderR. (2010). Characters in fiction: An introduction. In EderJ.JannidisF.SchneiderR. (Eds.), Revisionen: Characters in fictional worlds: Understanding imaginary beings in literature, film, and other media (pp. 3–64). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
10.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. -G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
11.
FiebichA.ColtheartM. (2015). Various ways to understand other minds: Towards a pluralistic approach to the explanation of social understanding. Mind & Language, 30, 235–258. doi:10.1111/mila.12079
12.
FongK.MullinJ. B.MarR. A. (2013). What you read matters: The role of fiction genre in predicting interpersonal sensitivity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7, 370–376. doi:10.1037/a0034084
13.
FurmanL. (Ed.). (2012). The PEN/O. Henry Prize Stories 2012. New York, NY: Anchor.
14.
GavalerC.JohnsonD. (2018). The genre effect: A science fiction (vs. realism) manipulation decreases inference effort, reading comprehension, and perceptions of literary merit. Scientific Study of Literature, 7, 79–108. doi:10.1075/ssol.7.1.04gav
15.
GelderK. (2004). Popular fiction: The logic and practice of a literary field. London, England: Routledge.
16.
HakemulderJ. (2000). The moral laboratory: Experiments examining the effects of reading literature on social perception and moral self-concept. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/upal.34
17.
HirschfeldL. (2006). Who needs a theory of mind? In VialeR.AndlerD.HirschfeldL. (Eds.), Biological and cultural bases of human inference (pp. 131–160). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
HoppenstandG. (Ed.). (1998). Popular fiction: An anthology. New York, NY: Longman.
19.
JohnsonD. R. (2012). Transportation into a story increases empathy, prosocial behavior, and perceptual bias toward fearful expressions. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 150–155. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.005
20.
JohnsonD. R.JasperD. M.GriffinS.HuffmanB. L. (2013). Reading narrative fiction reduces Arab-Muslim prejudice and offers a safe haven from intergroup anxiety. Social Cognition, 31, 578–598. doi:10.1521/soco.2013.31.5.578
21.
KeenS. (2011). Readers’ temperaments and fictional character. New Literary History, 42, 295–314. doi:10.1353/nlh.2011.0013
22.
KiddD. C.CastanoE. (2013). Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science, 342, 377–380. doi:10.1126/science.1239918
23.
KiddD.CastanoE. (2017a). Different stories: How levels of familiarity with literary and genre fiction relate to mentalizing. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11, 474–486. doi:10.1037/aca0000069
24.
KiddD. C.CastanoE. (2017b). Panero et al. (2016): Failure to replicate methods caused the failure to replicate results. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, e1–e4. doi:10.1037/pspa0000072
25.
KiddD.OngisM.CastanoE. (2016). On literary fiction and its effects on theory of mind. Scientific Study of Literature, 6, 42–58. doi:10.1075/ssol.6.1.04kid
26.
KoopmanE. M. E. (2016). Effects of “literariness” on emotions and on empathy and reflection after reading. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10, 82.
27.
MarR. A.OatleyK.HirshJ.dela PazJ.PetersonJ. B. (2006). Bookworms versus nerds: Exposure to fiction versus non-fiction, divergent associations with social ability, and the simulation of fictional social worlds. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 694–712. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.002
28.
MarR. A.OatleyK.PetersonJ. B. (2009). Exploring the link between reading fiction and empathy: Ruling out individual differences and examining outcomes. Communications, 34, 407–428. doi:10.1515/COMM.2009.025
29.
MiesenH. (2004). Fiction readers’ appreciation of text attributes in literary and popular novels: Some empirical findings. International Journal of Arts Management, 7, 45–56.
30.
MoranJ. M.YoungL. L.SaxeR.LeeS. M.O’YoungD.MavrosP. L.GabrieliJ. (2011). Impaired theory of mind for moral judgment in high-functioning autism. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 2688–2692. doi:10.1073/pnas.1011734108
31.
MumperM.GerrigR. (2017). Leisure reading and social cognition: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11, 109–120. doi:10.1037/aca0000089
32.
NussbaumM. C. (1985). “Finely aware and richly responsible”: Moral attention and the moral task of literature. The Journal of Philosophy, 82, 516–529. doi:10.2307/2026358
33.
NussbaumM. C. (1991). Literary imagination in public life. New Literary History, 22, 877–910. doi:10.2307/469070
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, e46–e54. doi:10.1037/pspa0000064
36.
PetersonE.MillerS. F. (2012). The eyes test as a measure of individual differences: How much of the variance reflects verbal IQ?Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 220. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00220
37.
PinoM. C.MazzaM. (2016). The use of “literary fiction” to promote mentalizing ability. PLoS ONE, 11, e0160254. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0160254
38.
RainM.MarR. (2014). Measuring reading behavior: Examining the predictive validity of print-exposure checklists. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 32, 93–108. doi:10.2190/EM.32.1f
39.
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, 130–144.
40.
SchneiderR. (2001). Toward a cognitive theory of literary character: The dynamics of mental-model construction. Style, 35, 607–639. doi:10.5325/style.35.4.607
41.
SimonsohnU. (2015). Small telescopes: Detectability and the evaluation of replication results. Psychological Science, 26, 559–569.
42.
TamirD.BrickerA.Dodell-FederD.MitchellJ. (2016). Reading fiction and reading minds: The role of simulation in the default network. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11, 215–224. doi:10.1093/scan/nsv114
43.
van KuijkI.VerkoeijenP.DijkstraK.ZwaanR. A. (2018). The effect of reading a short passage of literary fiction on theory of mind: A replication of Kidd and Castano (2013). Collabra: Psychology, 4, 7. doi:10.1525/collabra.117
44.
VellanteM.Baron-CohenS.MelisM.MarroneM.PetrettoD. R.MasalaC.PretiA. (2013). The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” test: Systematic review of psychometric properties and a validation study in Italy. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 18, 326–354. doi:10.1080/13546805.2012.721728
45.
YoungL.CamprodonJ. A.HauserM.Pascual-LeoneA.SaxeR. (2010). Disruption of the right temporoparietal junction with transcranial magnetic stimulation reduces the role of beliefs in moral judgments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 6753–6758. doi:10.1073/pnas.0914826107
46.
YoungL.CushmanF.HauserM.SaxeR. (2007). The neural basis of the interaction between theory of mind and moral judgment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 8235–8240. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701408104
47.
YoungL.SaxeR. (2008). The neural basis of belief encoding and integration in moral judgment. Neuroimage, 40, 1912–1920. doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21137
48.
ZunshineL. (2015a). From the social to the literary: Approaching Cao Xueqin’s The Story of the Stone from a cognitive perspective. In ZunshineL. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive literary studies (pp. 176–196). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
49.
ZunshineL. (2015b). The secret life of fiction. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 130, 724–731. doi:10.1632/pmla.2015.130.3.724
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
