Cited by 77Narrative Theory and AnalysisMedia Influence and HealthAesthetic Perception and Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The cognitive science of fiction

Oatley, Keith·2012·WIREs Cognitive Science

Abstract

Fiction might be dismissed as observations that lack reliability and validity, but this would be a misunderstanding. Works of fiction are simulations that run on minds. They were the first kinds of simulation. All art has a metaphorical quality: a painting can be both pigments on canvas and a person. In literary art, this quality extends to readers who can be both themselves and, by empathetic processes within a simulation, also literary characters. On the basis of this hypothesis, it was found that the more fiction people read the better were their skills of empathy and theory‐of‐mind; the inference from several studies is that reading fiction improves social skills. In functional magnetic resonance imaging meta‐analyses, brain areas concerned with understanding narrative stories were found to overlap with those concerned with theory‐of‐mind. In an orthogonal effect, reading artistic literature was found to enable people to change their personality by small increments, not by a writer's persuasion, but in their own way. This effect was due to artistic merit of a text, irrespective of whether it was fiction or non‐fiction. An empirically based conception of literary art might be carefully constructed verbal material that enables self‐directed personal change. WIREs Cogn Sci 2012, 3:425–430. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1185 This article is categorized under: Psychology > Language

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/wcs.1185

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Aristotle., 1970, Poetics. c. 330 BC.
  2. Bartlett FC, 1932, Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology.
  3. Craik KJW, 1943, The Nature of Explanation.
  4. Holland NN, 1975, Five Readers Reading.
  5. 10.4159/9780674029019 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Gerrig RJ, 1993, Experiencing Narrative Worlds: On the Psychological Activities of Reading., 10.12987/9780300159240 · DOI
  7. 10.1002/9781119970910 · DOI
  8. 10.1515/9781400825301 · DOI
  9. Bharata., 1986, Natyasastra.
  10. Lehmann WP, 1996, Poetic principles in the South Asian literary tradition: interrelatedness of grammar, prosody, and other elements of language., Coll Lit, 23, 111
  11. Ingalls DHH, 1990, The Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardana with the Locana of Abhinavagupta.
  12. Anonymous., 2000, The Epic of Gilgamesh: The Babylonian Epic Poem and Other Texts in Akkadian and Sumerian.
  13. Oatley K, 1992, Best Laid Schemes: The Psychology of Emotions.
  14. 10.1037/1089-2680.3.2.101 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Marr D, 1982, Vision.
  16. Helmholtz H, 1962, Treatise on Physiological Optics,
  17. Oatley K, 1988, Drawing visual conclusions from analogy: a theory of preprocessing, cues and schemata in the perception of three dimensional objects., J Intell Syst, 1, 97
  18. 10.1037/a0018775 · DOI
  19. 10.7551/mitpress/7551.001.0001 · DOI
  20. 10.1080/02699931.2010.515151 · DOI
  21. 10.1038/35090060 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.008 · DOI
  23. 10.2307/3685503 · DOI
  24. Jones EE, 1971, The Actor and the Observer: Divergent Perceptions of the Causes of Behavior.
  25. 10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.002 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1207/s1532690xci1603_1 · DOI
  27. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02397.x · DOI
  28. 10.1162/jocn.2008.21029 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Oatley K, 2008, The mind's flight simulator., Psychologist, 21, 1030
  30. 10.1038/scientificamericanmind1111-62 · DOI
  31. 10.1075/ssol.1.1.16oat · DOI
  32. 10.1037/a0019393 · DOI
  33. 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.09.003 · DOI
  34. Djikic M, 2012, Genre or artistic merit: the effect of literature on personality., Sci Study Lit
  35. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199282609.001.0001 · DOI
  36. Collingwood RG, 1938, The Principles of Art.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Oatley, K.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Oatley, Keith
Venue
WIREs Cognitive Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-05-03
Volume
3
Issue
4
Pages
425-430
ISSN
  • 1939-5078 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-5086
OpenAlex
W2049700461
Cited by
77
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
39.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Narrative Theory and Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media Influence and Health
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Aesthetic Perception and Analysis
Keywords
fiction, fiction reading, simulation theory, empathy, theory of mind, social skills, narrative comprehension, artistic literature, personality change, literary art, metaphor, self-directed change

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review