Social cognition, the skillset involved in interpreting the cognitive and affective states of others, is essential for
navigating the social world. Research has indicated that reading about fictional social content may support social cognitive abilities;
however, the processes underpinning these effects remain unidentified. This study aimed to examine the effect of narrative engagement on
social cognition. A text pretest (N = 11), a manipulation pilot (N = 29) and full experiment
(N = 93) were conducted. In the full experiment, the manipulation failed to vary levels of narrative engagement
(transportation, identification and affective empathy) with a passage from a popular fiction text. A correlation analysis revealed positive
associations between narrative engagement dimensions and social cognition. An exploratory between-groups analysis comparing reading to
no-reading found a significant gain in explicit mental state attribution in the reading group, when controlling for demographic and
dispositional differences.
Appel, M., & Richter, T. (2007). Persuasive effects of fictional narratives increase over time. Media Psychology, 101, 113–134.
Bal, P. M., & Veltkamp, M. (2013). How does fiction reading influence empathy? An experimental investigation of the role of emotional transportation. PLOS ONE, 81, 1–12.
Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient. An investigation of adults with Asperger Syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Autism and Developmental Disorders, 341, 163–175.
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb, I. (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. Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 421, 241–251.
Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., Klein, T. R., & Highberger, L. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 105–118.
Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 107–122.
Black, J. E., & Barnes, J. L. (2015). The effects of reading material on social and non-social cognition. Poetics, 521, 32–43.
Black, J. E., Capps, S. C., & Barnes, J. L. (2018). Fiction, genre exposure and moral reality. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 121, 328–340.
Bormann, D., & Greitemeyer, T. (2015). Immersed in virtual worlds and minds: Effects of in-game storytelling on immersion, need satisfaction, and affective theory of mind. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 61, 646–652.
Busselle, R., & Bilandzic, H. (2008). Fictionality and perceived realism in experiencing stories: A model of narrative comprehension and engagement. Communication Theory, 181, 255–280.
Busselle, R., & Bilandzic, H. (2009). Measuring narrative engagement. Media Psychology, 121, 321–347.
Cadwell, O. G. (2015). Literary fiction’s influence on social cognitive brain activity. Proceedings of the National Conference on Undergraduate Research (pp. 570–574). Cheney, WA: Eastern Washington University.
Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T. -H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., Navé, M., Nosek, B., Pfeiffer, T., Altmejd, A., Buttrick, N., Chan, T., Chen, Y., Forsell, E., Gampa, A., Heikensten, E., Hummer, L., Imai, T., … Wu, H. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 21, 637–644.
Castano, E. (2012). Anti-social behavior in individuals and groups: An empathy-focused approach. In K. Deux & M. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 419–445). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium, 51. (pp. 3–39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, J. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication and Society, 41, 245–264.
Constanzo, M., & Archer, D. (1993). The Interpersonal Perception Task-15 (IPT-15): A guide for researchers and teachers. Unpublished Manual.
Davis, M. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 441, 113–126.
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 101, 1–19. [URL]
Davis, M. H., Mitchell, K. V., Hall, J. A., Lothert, J., Snapp, T., & Meyer, M. (1999). Empathy, expectations, and situational preferences: Personality influences on the decision to participate in volunteer helping behaviors. Personality, 671, 469–503.
de Graaf, A., Hoeken, H., Sanders, J., & Beentjes, W. J. (2012). Identification as a mechanism of narrative persuasion. Communication Research, 391, 802–823.
Djikic, M., & Oatley, K. (2014). The art in fiction: From indirect communication to changes in the self. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 81, 498–505.
Dodell-Feder, D., Lincoln, S. H., Coulson, J. P., & Hooker, C. I. (2013). Using fiction to assess mental state understanding: A new task for assessing theory of mind in adults. PLOS ONE, 81, 1–14.
Dodell-Feder, D. & Tamir, D. I. (2018). Fiction reading has a small positive impact on social cognition: A meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1471, 1713–1727.
Duval, C., Piolino, P., Bejanin, A., Eustache, F., & Desgranges, B. (2010). Age effects on different components of theory of mind. Consciousness and Cognition 201, 627–642.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. -G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 391, 175–191.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
Fong, K., Mullin, J. B., & Mar, R. A. (2013). What you read matters: The role of fiction genre in predicting interpersonal sensitivity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 71, 370–376.
Gerrig, R. (1993). Experiencing narrative worlds. On the psychological activities of reading. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 461, 107–119.
Gilbert, D. T., & Hixon, J. G. (1991). The trouble of thinking: Activation and application of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 601, 509–517.
Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 791, 701–721.
Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2002). In the mind’s eye: Transportation-imagery model of narrative persuasion. In M. C. Green, J. J. Strange, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations (pp. 315–341). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Green, M. C., Garst, J., & Brock, T. C. (2004). The power of fiction: Determinants and boundaries. In L. J. Shrum (Ed.) Blurring the lines between entertainment and persuasion (pp. 161–176). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Hakemulder, J. F. (2004). Foregrounding and its effect on readers’ perception. Discourse Processes, 381, 193–218.
Hall, A. E., & Bracken, C. C. (2011). “I really liked that movie”: Testing the relationship between trait empathy, transportation, perceived realism and movie enjoyment. Media Psychology, 231, 90–99.
Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods, 481, 400–407.
Hemingway, E. (1988). The end of something. In Hemingway, E.In our time (pp. 42–46). London, England: Vintage.
Hsu, C., Conrad, M., & Jacobs, A. M. (2014). Fiction Feelings in Harry Potter: haemodynamic response in the mid-cingulate cortex correlates with immersive reading experience. Neuroport, 251, 1356–1361.
Ickes, W. (Ed.). (1997). Empathic accuracy. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Iguarta, J. -J. (2010). Identification with characters and narrative persuasion through fictional feature films. Communications, 351, 347–373.
Joyce, R. (2012). The unlikely pilgrimage of Harold Fry. London, England: Random House.
Kanske, P., Böckler, A., Trautwein, F., & Singer, T. (2015). Dissecting the social brain: Introducing the EmpaToM to reveal distinct neural networks and brain-behavior relations for empathy and theory of mind. NeuroImage 1221, 6–19.
Keen, S. (2007). Empathy and the novel. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Kidd, D. C., & Castano, E. (2013). Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science, 3421, 377–380.
Kidd, D. C., & Castano, E. (2017a). Different stories: How levels of familiarity with literary and genre-fiction relate to mentalizing. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 111, 474–486.
Kidd, D. C., & Castano, E. (2017b). Panero et al. (2016): Failure to replicate methods caused failure to replicate results. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1121, 1–4.
Kidd, D. C., & Castano, E. (2018a). Reading literary fiction can improve theory of mind. Nature Human Behavior, 21, 604,
Kidd, D. C., & Castano, E. (2018b). Reading literary fiction and theory of mind: Three preregistered replications and extensions of Kidd and Castano (2013). Social Psychological and Personality Science, 201, 1–10.
Koopman, E. M. (2015). Empathic reactions after reading: The role of genre, personal factors and affective responses. Poetics, 501, 62–79.
Koopman, E. M. (2016). Effects of “literariness” on emotions and on empathy and reflection after reading. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 101, 82–98.
Koopman, E. M., & Hakemulder, F. (2015). Effects of literature on empathy and self-reflection: A theoretical-empirical framework. Journal of Literary Theory, 91, 79–111.
Kumkale, G. T., & Albarracín, D. (2004). The sleeper effect in persuasion: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 1301, 143–172.
Kuzmičová, A., Mangen, A., Støle, H., & Begnum, A. C. (2017). Literature and readers’ empathy: A qualitative text manipulation study. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics, 21, 137–152.
Lehne, M., Engel, P., Rohrmeier, M., Menninghaus, M., Jacobs, A. M., & Koelsch, S. (2015). Reading a suspenseful literary text activates brain areas related to social cognition and predictive inference. PLOS ONE, 101, 1–18.
Mar, R. A. (2018a). Stories and the promotion of social cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 271, 257–262.
Mar, R. A. (2018b). Evaluating whether stories can promote social cognition: Introducing the Social Processes and Content Entrained by Narrative (SPaCEN) framework. Discourse Processes, 551, 454–479.
Mar, R. A., & Oatley, K. (2008). The function of fiction is the abstraction and simulation of social experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 31, 173–192.
Mar, R. A., Oatley, K., Djikic, M., & Mullin, J. (2011). Emotion and narrative fiction: Interactive influences before, during and after reading. Cognition and Emotion, 251, 818–833.
Mar, R. A., Oatley, K., Hirsh, J., dela Paz, J., & Peterson, J. B. (2006). Bookworms versus nerds: Exposure to fiction versus non-fiction, divergent associations with social ability, and the simulation of fictional social worlds. Research in Personality, 401, 694–712.
Mar, R. A., Oatley, K., & Peterson, J. B. (2009). Exploring the link between reading fiction and empathy: Ruling out individual differences and examining outcomes. Communications, 341, 407–428.
Mazzocco, P. J., Green, M. C., Sasota, J. A., & Jones, N. W. (2010). This story is not for everyone: Transportability and narrative persuasion. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11, 361–368.
Mumper, M. L., & Gerrig, R. J. (2017). Leisure reading and social cognition: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 111, 109–120.
Nell, V. (1988). The psychology of reading for pleasure: Needs and gratifications. Reading Research Quarterly, 231, 6–50.
Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 151, 625–632.
Nowicki, S. (2010). A manual for diagnostic analysis of nonverbal accuracy 21. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Psychology, Emory University.
Oakley, B. F. M., Brewer, R., Bird, G., & Catmur, C. (2016). Theory of mind is not theory of emotion: A cautionary note on the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1251, 818–823.
Oatley, K. (1999). Why fiction may be twice as true as fact: Fiction as cognitive and emotional simulation. Review of General Psychology, 31, 101–117.
Oatley, K. (2012). The cognitive science of fiction. WIREs Cognitive Science, 31, 425–430.
Paal, T., & Bereczkei, T. (2007). Adult theory of mind, cooperation, Machiavellianism: The effect of mindreading on social relations. Personality and Individual Differences, 431, 541–551.
Panero, M. E., Weisberg, D. S., Black, J., Goldstein, T. R., Barnes, J. L., Brownell, H., & Winner, E. (2016). Does reading a single passage of literary fiction really improve theory of mind? An attempt at replication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1111, 46–54.
Panero, M. E., Weisberg, D. S., Black, J., Goldstein, T. R., Barnes, J. L., Brownell, H., & Winner, E. (2017). No support for the claim that literary fiction uniquely and immediately improves theory of mind: A reply to Kidd and Castano’s commentary on Panero et al. (2016). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1121, 5–8.
Penner, L. A., Fritzsche, B. A., Craiger, J. P., & Freifeld, T. R. (1995). Measuring the prosocial personality. In J. Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 101) (pp. 147–163). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer.
Pino, M. C., & Mazza, M. (2016). The use of “literary fiction” to promote mentalizing ability. PlOS ONE 111, 1–14.
Richter, D., Dietzel, C., & Kunzmann, U. (2010). Age differences in emotion recognition: The task matters. The Journals of Gerontology, 66B, 48–55.
Rocklage, M. D., Rucker, D. D., & Nordgren, L. F. (2018). Persuasion, emotion, and language: The intent to persuade transforms language via emotionality. Psychological Science, 291, 749–760.
Samur, D., Tops, M., & Koole, S. 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, 321, 130–144.
Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., & Aharon-Peretz, J. (2007). Dissociable prefrontal networks for cognitive and affective theory of mind: A lesion study. Neuropsychologia, 451, 3054–3067.
Singer, T., & Lamm, C. (2009). The social neuroscience of empathy. New York Academy of Sciences, 11561, 81–96.
Slater, M. D. (2002). Entertainment education and the persuasive impact of narratives. In M. C. Green, J. J. Strange, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations (pp. 157–182). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Speer, N. K., Reynolds, J. R., Swallow, K. M., & Zacks, J. M. (2009). Reading stories activates neural representations of visual and motor experiences. Psychological Science, 201, 989–999.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 241, 402–433.
Teding van Berkhout, E., & Malouff, J. M. (2016). The efficacy of empathy training: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Counselling Psychology, 631, 32–41.
Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2004). Source credibility and attitude certainty: A metacognitive analysis of resistance to persuasion. Consumer Psychology, 141, 427–442.
Turner, R., & Felisberti, F. M. (2017). Measuring mindreading : A review of behavioral approaches to testing cognitive and affective mental state attribution in neurologically typical adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 81, 47.
Turner, R. & Vallée-Tourangeau, F. (2020). Narrative engagement and social cognition [Data set]. Open Science Framework. [URL]
van Kujik, I., Verkoeijen, P., Dijkstra, K., & Zwaan, R. 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(1), 2–12.
Wacker, R., Bölte, S., & Dziobek, I. (2017). Women know better what other women think and feel: Gender effects on mindreading across the adult life span. Frontiers in Psychology, 81, 1324.
Wallentin, M., Nielsen, A. H., Vuust, P., Dohn, A., Roepstorff, A., & Lund, T. E. (2011). BOLD response to motion verbs in left posterior middle temporal gyrus during story comprehension. Brain & Language, 1191, 221–225.
Walter, H. (2012). Social cognitive neuroscience of empathy: Concepts, circuits and genes. Emotion Review, 41, 9–17.
Zemborain, M. R., & Johar, G. V. (2007). Attitudinal ambivalence and openness to persuasion: A framework for interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 331, 506–514.
Zunshine, L. (2006). Why we read fiction: Theory of mind and the novel. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Turner, Rose & Frédéric Vallée‐Tourangeau
2023. Challenges of measuring empathic accuracy: A mentalizing versus experience‐sharing paradigm. British Journal of Social Psychology 62:2 ► pp. 972 ff.
Gustafsson, Anna W, Per Johnsson, Kajsa Järvholm, Katarina Bernhardsson, Torbjörn Forslid & Anders Ohlsson
2022. The European Federation of Psychology Students’ Associations Junior Researcher Programme: A Reflection from two Research Project Supervisors. PsyPag Quarterly 1:122 ► pp. 44 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.