CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 110Narrative Theory and AnalysisAesthetic Perception and AnalysisMedia Influence and Health

Effects of “literariness” on emotions and on empathy and reflection after reading.

Open access
Koopman, Eva Maria (Emy)·2016·Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts
DOI 10.1037/aca0000041
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of foregrounding on affective responses (i.e., emotions) during reading, and on empathy and reflection after reading, using both quantitative and qualitative measures. In addition, the influence of personal factors (trait empathy, personal experience, exposure to literature) on empathy and reflection was explored. Participants (N = 142) were randomly assigned to read 1 of 3 versions of an excerpt from a literary novel about the loss of a child. Versions differed in the level of foregrounded textual features: the "original" version possessed a high level of semantic, phonetic, and grammatical foregrounding; semantic foregrounding was removed in the manipulated version "without imagery" and semantic, phonetic and grammatical foregrounding were removed in the manipulated version "without foregrounding." Results showed that readers who had read the "original" version scored higher on empathy after reading than those who had read the version "without foregrounding." A quantitative analysis of qualitative data showed that participants reading the original version experienced significantly more ambivalent emotions than those in the version without foregrounding. Reflection did not seem to be influenced by foregrounding. Results suggest that personal factors may be more important in evoking reflection.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/aca0000041

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Because the brevity of reading interventions would have provoked test-retest effects in a pre-post design, social and moral cognitive abilities were tested between text conditions after the reading assignment only.

    “Due to the brevity of reading interventions, a pre-post design would have provoked test-retest effects.Therefore, we adopted the approach employed by most similar previous studies (e.g.Black & Barnes, 2015;Chlebuch et al., 2020;Koopman, 2016;Liu & Want, 2015), testing social and moral cognitive abilities between text conditions after the reading assignment only.”

    From The effects of reading narrative fiction on social and moral cognition (2021) · cites this paper as Koopman, 2016

    The Results section (‘Effects of Foregrounding on Empathic Understanding’; page unavailable) compares empathic understanding between text conditions after reading. But the Procedure and Results also describe separate groups assessed before reading, so measurement was not after reading only. Our copy does not give test–retest effects as the reason for that design or report a measure of moral cognitive ability. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Studies focused on individual reading argue for positive impacts of reading literature on adolescent aggression, expressiveness in ill children, self-confidence and functioning, interpersonal empathy, and theory of mind.

    “Paralleling this, studies focused on individual reading argue for positive impacts on adolescent aggression [21, 22], expressiveness in ill children [23], self-confidence and functioning [5], interpersonal empathy [24, 25], and theory of mind [24]”

    From Five studies evaluating the impact on mental health and mood of recalling, reading, and discussing fiction (2022) · cites this paper as [25]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 76 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Althusser, L. (1980). Een brief over kunst: Antwoord aan André Daspre [A letter on art: In reply to André Daspre]. In S. Bogman, Y. van Kempen, A. Mertens, & J. Vogelaar. (Eds.), Drie opstellen over kunst en ideologie [ Three essays on art and ideology] (pp. 9-14). Nijmegen:
  2. Bronzwaer, W. J. M. (1986). Literatuur en ethiek [Literature and ethics]. In De vrije ruimte [The free space] (pp. 61-84). Baarn: Ambo.
  3. Hakemulder, J. (2004). Foregrounding and its effects on readers' perception. Discourse Processes, 38(2), 193-218.
  4. Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statements: Linguistics and Poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350-377). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  5. Mukařovský, J. (1976). On poetic language. J. Burbank, & P. Steiner (Eds. & Trans.). Lisse: De Ridder Press.
  6. Shklovsky, V. (1965). Art as technique. In L. T. Lemon & M. J. Reis (Eds. & Trans.), Russian formalist criticism: Four essays (pp. 3-24). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
  7. Sontag, S. (2007). Literature is freedom. In P. Dilonardo & A. Jump (Eds.), At the same time: Essays and speeches (pp. 192-209). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Koopman, E. M. (.
Affiliations
Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Koopman, Eva Maria (Emy)
Venue
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2016-02
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
82-98
ISSN
  • 1931-3896 (ISSN-L)
  • 1931-390X
DOI
10.1037/aca0000041
OpenAlex
W2529504307
Cited by
110
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5
FWCI
129.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Narrative Theory and Analysis
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Aesthetic Perception and Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Media Influence and Health
Keywords
literariness, foregrounding, empathy, imagery, trait empathy, emotional ambivalence, literary fiction

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