CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 14Aesthetic Perception and AnalysisMedia Influence and HealthNarrative Theory and Analysis

People Searching for Meaning in Their Lives Find Literature More Engaging

Open access
Carney, James, Robertson, Cole·2018·Review of General Psychology
DOI 10.1037/gpr0000134
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Why are some people interested in complex literature and others not? This study experimentally investigated this question by assessing what cognitive traits moderated responses to literary and less-literary fictional vignettes. Specifically, participants were exposed to two variants of a celebrated literary text, one altered so as to remove overtly literary elements. A moderation analysis was performed on responses with respect to three variables: need for cognition (NC); meaning in life (measured in two subscales, search for meaning [SM] and presence of meaning [PM]); and intentionality/mentalizing ability (IM). Results showed that SM moderated interpretive response to the textual variation, such that those with increasing scores on the SM scale were increasingly more likely to rate the literary vignettes as worthy of appreciation. This result, in turn, gave grounds for a second study that investigated the role played by cloze values in identifying a text as “literary.” The latter study showed that the literary and less-literary vignettes exhibited significant differences in cloze values. Taken together, these studies suggest that differences in responsiveness to literary materials may well be driven by preexisting cognitive factors.

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/gpr0000134

Cites

71 of 71 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Arnold, M. (1932). Culture and Anarchy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Barthes, R. (2002). S/Z. (R. Miller, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.
  3. Bourdieu, P. (2013). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. London: Routledge.
  4. Carey, J. (2006). What Good are the Arts? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  5. Casti, J., & Karlqvist, A. (2003). Art and Complexity. Elsevier.
  6. Crothers, S. M. (1917). A Literary Clinic. The Atlantic, 118(3), 291-301.
  7. Derrida, J. (1992). This Strange Insitution Called Literature. In D. Attridge (Ed.), Acts of Literature (pp. 33-75). London: Routledge.
  8. Eagleton, T. (1976). Marxism and Literary Criticism. Vasa. London: Routledge.
  9. Eliot, T. S. (1921). Tradition and the individual talent. In The Sacred Wood (pp. 42-53). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
  10. Empson, W. (1984). Using Biography. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
  11. Greenblatt, S. (1989). Towards a Poetics of Culture. In H. A. Veeser (Ed.), The New Historicism (pp. 1-16). London: Routledge.
  12. Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive Load Theory and Complex Learning: Recent Developments and Future Directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147-177. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Rothman, S., Lichter, S. R., & Nevitte, N. (2005). Politics and professional advancement. The Forum, 3(1), 1-16. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12129-005-1008-y · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Carney, J., & Robertson, C.
Affiliations
  • Brunel University of London (GB)
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
Corresponding author
Carney, James
ORCID
Venue
Review of General Psychology
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2018-06
Volume
22
Issue
2
Pages
199-209
ISSN
  • 1089-2680 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1552
DOI
10.1037/gpr0000134
OpenAlex
W2809668704
Cited by
14
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3
FWCI
0.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Review of General Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Brunel University Research Archive (BURA) (Brunel University London) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Aesthetic Perception and Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Media Influence and Health
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Narrative Theory and Analysis
Keywords
literary appreciation, meaning in life, search for meaning, need for cognition, cloze probability, cognitive characteristics

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