Some purport that literary fiction is determined by high inference demands. The subgenre of science fiction is often defined by story-world tropes that may reduce inferential demands. However, science fiction with high inference demands may also constitute literary fiction. Instead of inferential demands, it may be readers’ responses to setting that distinguishes science fiction and narrative realism. In two experiments, a story was manipulated for contemporary and science-fiction settings. Also, a version of each text with and without explanatory statements manipulated inference demand. Readers perceived the science-fiction text as lower in literary quality. For science fiction, readers also exerted less inference effort for theory of mind, but more for understanding the world. Regardless of inference effort, participants who read the story in the science-fiction world performed more poorly on comprehension. Readers’ expectations triggered by setting tropes seem to be particularly potent determinants of literary quality perceptions, inference effort, and comprehension.
Alexandrov, V. E. (2007). Literature, literariness, and the brain. Comparative Literature, 59(2), 97–118.
Attebery, B. (2004). Fantasy as mode, genre, formula. In David Sandner (Ed.), Fantastic literature: a critical reader (pp. 293–309). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Baldick, C. (2015). The Oxford dictionary of literary terms. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Retrieved November 11, 2016, from [URL]
Benthian, C. (2012). The Literariness of new media art – a case for expanding the domain of literary studies. Journal of Literary Theory, 61, 311–336.
Cawalti, R. G. (1976). Adventure, mystery and romance: formula stories as art and popular culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Dixon, P., & Bortolussi, M. (2005). Approach and selection of popular narrative genre. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 231, 3–17.
Emmott, C., Sanford, A. J., & Dawydiak, E. J. (2007). Stylistics meet cognitive science: studying style in fiction and readers’ attention from an interdisciplinary perspective. Style, 411, 204–224.
Eason, S. H., Goldberg, L. F., Young, K. M., Geist, M. C., & Cutting, L. E. (2012). Reader – text interactions: How differential text and question types influence cognitive skills needed for reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1041, 515–528.
Fong, K., Mullin, J. B., Mullin, & Mar, R. A. (2013). What you read matters: The role of fiction genre in predicting interpersonal sensitivity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(4), 370–376.
Hanauer, D. (1998). Reading poetry: an empirical investigation of formalist, stylistic, and conventionalist claims. Poetics Today, 191, 565–580.
Inference [Def. 1]. (2016). Oxford English dictionary. Retrieved October 18, 2016, from [URL]
Iza, M., & Ezquerro, J. (2000). Elaborative inferences. anales de psicología, 161, 227–249.
Kidd, D. C., & Castano, E. (2013). Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science, 3421, 377–380.
Keegan, K. (2006). Why fabulist and new wave fabulist stories in an anthology named paraspheres? In Rusty Morrison and Ken Keegan (Eds.), Paraspheres: extending beyond the spheres of literary and genre fiction (pp. 625–637). Richmond, CA: Omnidawn.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: a paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Maslin, J. (2012). The lies that buoy, then break a marriage, ‘Gone Girl,’ by Gillian Flynn. The New York Times, May29. Retrieved November 11, 2016, from [URL]
Miall, D. S. (2009). The neuropsychology of literariness [Abstract]. Conference on Neuroaesthetics, September 24–26, Copenhagen. Retrieved November 11, 2016, from [URL]
Miall, D. S. (2007). Foregrounding and the sublime: Shelley in Chamonix. Language and Literature, 161, 155–168.
Mahapatra, S., Das, J. P., Stack-Cutler, H., & Parrila, R. (2010). Remediating reading comprehension difficulties: a cognitive processing approach. Reading Psychology, 311, 428–453.
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 141, 1–43.
Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 191, 228–242.
Panero, M. E., Black, J., Barnes, J. L., Weisberg, D. S., Goldstein, T. R., 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, e46–e54.
Peretz, E. (2014). It’s Tartt – but is it Art?Vanity Fair, July. Retrieved November 11, 2016, from [URL]
Rice, C. (2010). Literariness. In Patrick Colm Hogan (Ed.), The Cambridge encyclopedia of the language sciences (pp. 450–453), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shklovksy, V. (1970). Sterne’s Tristram Shandy: stylistic commentary. In L. T. Lemon & M. J. Reis (Eds., Trans.), Russian formalist criticism: four essays (pp. 25–57). Lincoln: University of Nebraska.
Shen, Y. (2007). Foregrounding in poetic discourse: between deviation and cognitive constraints. Language and Literature, 16(2), 169–181.
Simerka, B. (2012). Cognitive theories of genre: The prototype effect and early modern Spanish tragedy. Bulletin of the Comediantes, 641, 153–217.
Steiner, P. (1984). Russian formalism: A metapoetics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Tomashevksy, B. (1970). Thematics. In L. T. Lemon & M. J. Reis (Eds., Trans.), Russian Formalist criticism: four essays (pp. 61–98). Lincoln: University of Nebraska.
Van Peer, W. (1986). Stylistics and psychology: investigations of foregrounding. London: Croom Helm.
Van Peer, W. (2007). Introduction to foregrounding: a state of the art. Language and Literature, 161, 99–104.
Walczyk, J. J., Wei, M., Griffith-Ross, D. A., Goubert, S. E., Cooper, A. L., & Zha, P. (2007). Development of the interplay between automatic processes and cognitive resources in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 991, 861–887.
2024. Not All Fiction is the Same: Literary and Genre Fiction Reading Associations with Expository and Narrative Text Comprehension. Trends in Psychology
Eekhof, Lynn S., Kobie van Krieken & Roel M. Willems
2022. Reading about minds: The social-cognitive potential of narratives. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 29:5 ► pp. 1703 ff.
Zhang, Shuai, Kausalai (Kay) Wijekumar & Bing Han
2021. An Analysis of Grade 4 Reading Textbooks used in Mainland China: Do the Texts and Activities Support Higher Order Reading Comprehension Skills?. Technology, Knowledge and Learning 26:2 ► pp. 251 ff.
2020. How Imagination Supports Narrative Experiences for Textual, Audiovisual, and Interactive Narratives. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Imagination, ► pp. 466 ff.
Zunshine, Lisa
2020. Embodied Social Cognition and Comparative Literature. Poetics Today 41:2 ► pp. 171 ff.
Deane, Paul, Swapna Somasundaran, René R. Lawless, Hilary Persky & Colleen Appel
2019. The Key Practice, Building and Sharing Stories and Social Understandings: The Intrinsic Value of Narrative. ETS Research Report Series 2019:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
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 ► pp. 522 ff.
Joyce, Stephen
2018. Convergence Publishing and Prestige Niches. In Transmedia Storytelling and the Apocalypse, ► pp. 121 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 november 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.