CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 8Media Influence and HealthNarrative Theory and AnalysisChild and Animal Learning Development

Fact or fiction?: Clarifying the relationship between reading and the improvement of social skills

Chlebuch, Natasha, Goldstein, Thalia R., Weisberg, Deena Skolnick·2020·Scientific Study of Literature
DOI 10.1075/ssol.20007.chl
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Many studies have claimed to find that reading fiction leads to improvements in social cognition. But this work has left open the critical question of whether any type of narrative, fictional or nonfictional, might have similar effects. To address this question, as well as to test whether framing a narrative as fiction matters, the current studies presented participants (N = 268 in Study 1; N = 362 in Study 2) with literary fiction texts, narrative nonfiction texts, expository nonfiction texts, or no texts. We tested their theory-of-mind abilities using the picture-based Reading the Mind in the Eyes task and a text-based test of higher-order social cognition. Reading anything was associated with higher scores compared to reading nothing, but the effects of framing and text type were inconsistent. These results suggest that prior claims regarding positive effects of reading fiction on mentalizing should be seen as tenuous; other mechanisms may be driving previously published effects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1075/ssol.20007.chl

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Many studies that deployed the Simulation Model sought and claimed to find effects that became manifest after reading a single text.

    “However, many studies that deployed the model (e.g., Bal & Veltkamp, 2013;Chlebuch et al. 2020;Djikic et al., 2013) sought and claimed to find effects that became manifest after reading a single text.”

    From The effects of reading narrative fiction on social and moral cognition (2021) · cites this paper as Chlebuch et al. 2020

  • 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 Chlebuch et al., 2020

  • Previous research has not consistently shown that perceived fictionality can be experimentally controlled.

    “previous research has not consistently shown that perceived fictionality can be experimentally controlled (Wimmer, 2015; see also Chlebuch et al., 2020)”

    From The effects of reading narrative fiction on social and moral cognition (2021) · cites this paper as Chlebuch et al., 2020

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chlebuch, N., Goldstein, T. R., & Weisberg, D. S.
Affiliations
  • Villanova University (US)
  • George Mason University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Scientific Study of Literature
Publisher
International Society for the Empirical Study of Literature
Published
2020-12-31
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
167-192
ISSN
  • 2210-4372 (ISSN-L)
  • 2210-4380
DOI
10.1075/ssol.20007.chl
OpenAlex
W3116767941
Cited by
8
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 2
FWCI
4.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
benjamins.com/content/customers/rights (unspecified, 78 d)
Locations
Scientific Study of Literature (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • 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
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
Keywords
fiction reading, social cognition, theory of mind, narrative framing, narrative nonfiction, mentalization, Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test

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