What you read matters: The role of fiction genre in predicting interpersonal sensitivity.

Abstract

Previous studies have found a positive relationship between exposure to fiction and interpersonal sensitivity. However, it is unclear whether exposure to different genres of fiction may be differentially related to these outcomes for readers. The current study investigated the role of four fiction genres (i.e., Domestic Fiction, Romance, Science-Fiction/Fantasy, and Suspense/Thriller) in the relationship between fiction and interpersonal sensitivity, controlling for other individual differences. Participants completed a survey that included a lifetime print-exposure measure along with an interpersonal sensitivity task. Some, but not all, fiction genres were related to higher scores on our measure of interpersonal sensitivity. Furthermore, after controlling for personality, gender, age, English fluency, and exposure to nonfiction, only the Romance and Suspense/Thriller genres remained significant predictors of interpersonal sensitivity. The findings of this study demonstrate that in discussing the influence of fiction print-exposure on readers it is important to consider the genre of the literature being consumed.

The effects of reading material on social and non-social cognition

“…Although we found no experimental effect of reading material on performance on the Intuitive Physics Test, our correlational results suggest that the relationship between lifelong reading habits and ToM ability (Kidd & Castano, 2013;Fong et al, 2013;Mar et al, 2006;Mar, Oatley, et al, 2009;Mar, Tackett, et al, 2009) may extend to non-social cognitive ability. Scores on the ART were the strongest predictor of RME performance in our study, as had been the case for Kidd and Castano (v p 2 = .13 in our study and theirs; for IP, the effect was v p 2 = .12).…”

“…Although our results support past experimental (Kidd & Castano, 2013) and correlational (Fong et al, 2013;Mar et al, 2006;Mar, Oatley, et al, 2009;Mar, Tackett, et al, 2009) research, the current study has a variety of limitations, many of which can be attributed to the use of a within-subject design. Many participants were unwilling or unable to read four separate pieces over a three-hour period, even with breaks, and we had to discard one third of the original sample.…”

“…The RME (Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, Hill, et al, 2001) has been used frequently as a measure of ToM in fiction research (e.g., Djikic et al, 2013;Fong et al, 2013;Kidd & Castano, 2013;Mar et al, 2006;Mar, Oatley, et al, 2009;Mar, Tackett, et al, 2009). The RME is a multiple-choice test that presents participants with photographs of the eye region of the face and requires them to choose which of four words best describes the emotion that the person in the photograph is feeling.…”

“…Fong et al, 2013;Mar et al, 2006;Mar, Oatley, et al, 2009), one-tailed tests were used to compare RME scores across the literary fiction and nonfiction conditions. To compare models, we used an adaptation of Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC), the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC; Schwarz, 1978) that includes a correction for sample size and model complexity.…”

Argument Strength and the Persuasiveness of Stories

“…Stories entail the actions and experiences of one or more protagonists and a plot line with certain schematic elements (e.g., setting, event, attempt, reaction, and consequence; Rumelhart, 1975). In recent years, empirical research has demonstrated that fictional as well as nonfictional narratives can have a pervasive impact on attitudes and beliefs about real-world issues (narrative persuasion; e.g., Green & Brock, 2000; Prentice et al, 1997), on knowledge and memory (Fazio & Marsh, 2008; Marsh, Meade, & Roediger, 2003), and on social abilities and personality (Fong, Mullin, & Mar, 2013; Mar & Oatley, 2008). In some of these studies the stories as a whole or their main narrative arc suggested a particular stance toward a topic (e.g., a story about a psychiatric patient who murdered a child led recipients to have more negative beliefs about the group of psychiatric patients; Green & Brock, 2000).…”