Cognitive effects and correlates of reading fiction: Two preregistered multilevel meta-analyses.
Open accessAbstract
= .16, 95% CI [0.13, 0.19]. This effect was moderated by outcome variable (effects were greatest for verbal abilities, followed by general cognitive abilities and empathy/mentalizing/outgroup judgments), fictionality of the print material (greater effects were found for fiction than nonfiction), publication status (published work exhibited greater effects than unpublished work), type of assessment measure (larger effects emerged when neither the outcome nor print exposure were assessed via self-report, than when either the outcome or print exposure were assessed via self-report), participant group (community samples showed greater effects than student samples), study design (greater effects were found for correlational than for experimental designs), and percentage of female participants (via a negative relationship with cognitive benefits). Together, these meta-analyses provide robust evidence for a small-sized positive relationship between reading fiction and cognitive benefits. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The positive association between reading and social cognition seems particularly found for fiction reading and measures of social cognition.
“Although it has been suggested that reading in general could be bene fi cial, this positive association seems to be particularly found for fi ction reading and measures of social cognition (Wimmer et al., 2024).”
From Longitudinal development of theory of mind in adolescence and its associations with fiction reading experience. (2025) · cites this paper as Wimmer et al., 2024
The majority of studies examining the relation between reading experience and theory of mind have been cross-sectional, showing at least a small concurrent association in adults and children, where people who read more fiction perform better on tasks measuring theory of mind or emotion understanding.
“The majority of the studies examining the relation between reading experience and ToM have also been cross-sectional, showing that there seems to be at least a small concurrent association in adults and children, where people who read more fi ction perform better on tasks measuring ToM or emotion understanding”
From Longitudinal development of theory of mind in adolescence and its associations with fiction reading experience. (2025) · cites this paper as Wimmer et al., 2024
Previous research has shown associations between fiction reading and measures of empathy and mentalizing abilities, but not with moral cognition, suggesting that different aspects of social abilities could be differentially associated with exposure to narrative fiction.
“Previous research on this topic has for instance shown associations between fi ction reading and measures of empathy and mentalizing abilities, but not with moral cognition, suggesting that different aspects of our social abilities could be differentially associated with exposure to narrative fi ction (Wimmer et al., 2024).”
From Longitudinal development of theory of mind in adolescence and its associations with fiction reading experience. (2025) · cites this paper as Wimmer et al., 2024
Cited by
Sorted by citations
van der Kleij, S. W., Devine, R. T., Shapiro, L. R., Ricketts, J., & Apperly, I. (2025) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/dev0001965 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wimmer, L., Currie, G., Friend, S., Wittwer, J., & Ferguson, H. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Freiburg (DE)
- University of York (GB)
- Birkbeck, University of London (GB)
- University of Kent (GB)
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
- Published
- 2024-06
- Volume
- 153
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1464-1488
- ISSN
- 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2222
- OpenAlex
- W4394715340
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 38 · 2025: 9
- FWCI
- 136.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (acceptedVersion)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (submittedVersion)
- Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Templeton Religion Trust (TRT0476)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Media Influence and Health
- Social Sciences › Education › Literacy and Educational Practices
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Keywords
- fiction reading, verbal ability, general intelligence, empathy, mentalization, publication status, self-report measures, sex differences
- MeSH terms
- Cognition, Empathy, Humans, Reading, Theory of Mind
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
