The effects of reading narrative fiction on social and moral cognition

May combine two claims.

Bal and Veltkamp (2013) did not contrast narrative with expository texts or examine effects on morality; they used only short texts as stimuli.

“Bal and Veltkamp (2013) did not contrast narrative with expository texts or examine effects on morality; in addition, they used only short texts as stimuli.”

• cites Bal and Veltkamp (2013) sourceDisputed

  Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

  Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

May combine two claims.

The Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test has been criticized for its association with verbal intelligence, for reflecting emotion recognition rather than Theory of Mind, and for possibly not being sensitive to interindividual differences within neurotypical populations.

“Despite its widespread application, this measure has been criticized for its association with verbal intelligence (Baker et al., 2014), concerns that it reflects emotion recognition rather than ToM (Oakley et al., 2016; see also Mar, 2018b), and that it might not be sensitive to interindividual differences within neurotypical populations (Black, 2019).”

• cites Baker et al., 2014 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Oakley et al., 2016 sourceSupported
• cites Black, 2019Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

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.”

• cites Bal & Veltkamp, 2013 sourceSupported
• cites Chlebuch et al. 2020 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Djikic et al., 2013 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

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.”

• cites Black & Barnes, 2015 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Chlebuch et al., 2020 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Koopman, 2016 sourcePartly supported

  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

May combine two claims.

In Pino & Mazza (2016), at post-test, the literary fiction group outperformed the remaining groups on two indicators of ToM (first- and second-order false belief test and faces task), but not on any indicator of empathy.

“At post-test, the literary fiction group outperformed the remaining groups on two indicators of ToM, namely the first-and second-order false belief test and the faces task, but not on any indicator of empathy.”

• cites Pino & Mazza, 2016 sourceSupported

May combine two claims.

Pino & Mazza (2016) did not contrast narrative with expository texts and did not examine effects on morality.

“However, this study did not contrast narrative with expository texts and did not examine effects on morality.”

• cites Pino & Mazza, 2016 sourceSupported

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The higher attrition in the expository non-fiction condition may be a consequence of the expository non-fiction books failing to match participants' personal preferences as well as the narrative books.

“This pattern may be a consequence of the expository non-fiction books failing to match participants' personal preferences as well as the narrative books (e.g.Harkrader & Moore, 1997;Summers, 2013;Topping et al., 2008).”

• cites Harkrader & Moore, 1997 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Summers, 2013 sourcePartly supported

  The FEAtURE section (page not provided) reports that adults differ in their fiction-versus-nonfiction preferences and that book appeal influences reading choices. It does not examine the citing study’s participants, whether its expository books matched their preferences less well than its narrative books, or whether such a mismatch caused higher attrition. (LLM, conf=0.82)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Topping et al., 2008 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Bal and Veltkamp (2013) randomly assigned participants to read either a short narrative fiction excerpt or a set of narrative non-fiction newspaper articles.

“Bal and Veltkamp (2013) randomly assigned participants to read either a short narrative fiction excerpt or a set of narrative non-fiction newspaper articles.”

• cites Bal and Veltkamp (2013) sourcePartly supported

  The Study 1 and Study 2 Materials and Methods say participants were randomly assigned to fiction or newspaper-article control conditions, with the fiction group reading a story or a novel chapter. But Study 1 explicitly describes the nonfiction newspaper reports as “not narrative in nature,” so the claim’s characterization of the control articles as narrative is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.89)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

May combine two claims.

Author gender can introduce bias because author gender impacts the experience of grief and readers' perception of authorial skills.

“This can introduce bias because (an author's) gender impacts on the experience of grief, the theme of some of our texts (Bierhals et al., 1996;Schwab, 1996), and on readers' perception of authorial skills (Armstrong & McAdams, 2009;Paludi & Strayer, 1985;Weinberg & Kapelner, 2018).”

• cites Bierhals et al., 1996 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Schwab, 1996 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Armstrong & McAdams, 2009 sourceSupported

May combine two claims.

Experiment 2 goes beyond Pino and Mazza (2016) by implementing follow-up assessments, manipulating narrativity and fictionality separately, and including indicators of morality in addition to measures of ToM and empathy.

“Experiment 2 goes beyond the study byPino and Mazza (2016) by implementing follow-up assessments in addition to pre-and post-tests, manipulating narrativity and fictionality separately instead of contrasting different types of narratives, and by including indicators of morality in addition to measures of ToM and empathy.”

• cites Pino and Mazza (2016) sourceSupported

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Empathy increased from the pre-test baseline only in the fiction group at follow-up, and only when readers were emotionally transported into the story.

“Empathy increased from the pre-test baseline only in the fiction group at follow-up, and only when readers were emotionally transported into the story.”

• cites Bal and Veltkamp (2013) sourceSupported

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

All participants had reading times within 3.5 SD of the sample mean.

“all participants had reading times within 3.5SD of the sample mean”

May combine two claims.

Pre-registered exploratory analyses showed that the three text conditions did not differ regarding the PANAS positive or negative affect scores, or the IRI total score (ps > .05).

“Pre-registered exploratory analyses showed that the three text conditions did not differ regarding the PANAS positive or negative affect scores, or the IRI total score (ps > .05).”

May combine two claims.

The present findings do not support the suggestion that reading fictional stories improves recipients' social cognitive abilities, including empathy and ToM, or implicit morality.

“The present findings do not support the suggestion that reading fictional stories improves recipients' social cognitive abilities, including empathy and ToM, or implicit morality.”

May combine two claims.

None of the ANCOVAs showed a significant effect of text condition (ps > .07), nor did any of the predefined contrasts reach significance (ps > .06).

“None of the ANCOVAs showed a significant effect of text condition (ps > .07),nor did any of the predefined contrasts reach significance (ps >.06).”

May combine two claims.

All other effects of time and all interactions between time and text condition were non-significant (ps ≥ .05).

“All other effects of time and all interactions between time and text condition were non-significant (ps ≥ .05).”

May combine two claims.

There was a significant effect of time on percentage dwell-time to the eye region in the eye-tracking affective empathy task; percentage dwell-time decreased significantly between pre-test and post-test only (p = .04).

“There was a significant effect of time on the percentage dwell-time to the eye region in the eye-tracking affective empathy task; contrasts (pre-test vs post-test; post-test vs follow-up) showed that percentage dwell-time decreased significantly between pre-and post-test only (p = .04).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The sad video was rated as moderately sad (M = 3.77).

“the sad video was rated as moderately sad (M = 3.77)”

May combine two claims.

Using a comparable design, text length, and measures (in addition to implicit measures novel in this field), Experiment 1 did not replicate the finding that reading a short narrative fiction text improves empathy and Theory of Mind; results did not show condition differences on any outcome measure.

“Using a comparable design, text length, and measures (in addition to implicit measures novel in this field), Experiment 1 did not replicate this finding.Results did not show condition differences on any outcome measure.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Pupil diameter was greater during the sad than during the neutral video (M = 981.05 vs 962.79, t(93) = 3.10, p = .003, d = 0.32).

“pupil diameter was greater during the sad than during the neutral video (M = 981.05vs 962.79, t(93) = 3.10, p = .003,d = 0.32)”

May combine two claims.

The majority of participants in all text conditions demonstrated prosocial behaviour: 35 out of 38 in narrative fiction, 33 out of 35 in narrative non-fiction, and 24 out of 25 in expository non-fiction passed the test.

“Regarding the prosocial behaviour test, the majority of participants in all text conditions demonstrated prosocial behaviour: 35 out of 38 in the narrative fiction condition, 33 out of 35 in the narrative non-fiction condition, and 24 out of 25 in the expository non-fiction condition passed the test.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Overall accuracy on the RMET was 73%.

“Overall accuracy on the RMET was good (M = 73%).”

May combine two claims.

The distinctions between narrative and expository text and between fiction and non-fiction have been ignored in most of the studies cited above.

“These distinctions have, however, been ignored in most of the studies cited above.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Mar's assumption regarding the priority of narrativity over fictionality has not yet been empirically tested.

“Still, Mar's assumption regarding the priority of narrativity over fictionality has not yet been empirically tested.”

• cites Mar (2018a)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The concept of narrative is orthogonal to that of fiction; there are both fictional and non-fictional narratives.

“The concept of narrative, though, is orthogonal to that of fiction; there are both fictional and non-fictional narratives, such as biographies and histories (see e.g.Schaeffer, 2013).”

• cites Schaeffer, 2013Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Both fiction and non-fiction stories can invite vivid imaginings, cause beliefs, and engage us emotionally.

“Both fiction and non-fiction stories can invite vivid imaginings, cause beliefs, engage us emotionally, and so on.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

Narratives present events unfolding over time and typically concern the actions and interactions of agents, real or imagined, and are contrasted with expository texts that describe facts or situations without putting them into a story structure.

“Narratives present events unfolding over time, and typically concern the actions and interactions of agents, real or imagined.They are contrasted with non-narrative modes of presentation, such as expository texts that describe facts or situations without putting them into the structure of a story (Graesser et al., 2003).”

• cites Graesser et al., 2003Not checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Because improving social-cognitive abilities does not automatically improve morality, increased social cognition cannot be regarded as a sufficient condition of enhanced morality.

“Since improving social-cognitive abilities does not automatically improve morality (see above), increased social cognition cannot be regarded as a sufficient condition of enhanced morality.”

May combine two claims.

Available experiments on morality are difficult to summarize due to their heterogeneity, and none have disentangled the contributions of fictionality and narrativity to moral improvement.

“Taken together, the available experiments on morality are difficult to summarize due to their heterogeneity, and none of them have disentangled the contributions of fictionality and narrativity to moral improvement.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

A meta-analysis by Dodell-Feder and Tamir (2018) synthesized fourteen experimental studies reporting a total of 53 effect sizes.

“In a meta-analysis, fourteen experimental studies reporting a total of 53 effect sizes were synthesized by Dodell-Feder and Tamir (2018).”

• cites Dodell-Feder and Tamir (2018) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Communion is associated with allocentric behaviours and pro-social traits including cooperation, while agency is associated with egocentric behaviours and anti-social traits including assertiveness.

“Communion is associated with allocentric behaviours, since it is related to cultivating social relationships and pro-social traits including cooperation, while agency is associated with egocentric behaviours, since it is linked with distancing the self from others and anti-social traits including assertiveness (Bakan, 1966).”

• cites Bakan, 1966Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The extant evidence base mainly relies on measures of social cognition, though some researchers have considered morality as well.

“Furthermore, the extant evidence base mainly relies on measures of social cognition, though some researchers have considered morality as well.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

In existing studies, the fictional narratives concerned social content whereas the non-fictional texts did not, so any effects of fiction on social cognition might be driven by the social content of those texts.

“An additional problem with the existing studies is that the fictional narratives concerned social content, whereas the non-fictional texts did not, and therefore any effects of fiction on social cognition might be driven by the social content of those texts.”

May combine two claims.

When fiction reading was compared separately to non-fiction and no-reading controls, significant improvements in social cognition were seen only for fiction compared to no-reading, suggesting that reading any short text accounts for some of the small improvement.

“However, when fiction reading was compared to non-fiction and no-reading control groups separately, significant improvements in social cognition were only seen for fiction compared to no-reading, which suggests that reading any short text accounts for some of the small improvement.”

• cites Dodell-Feder and Tamir (2018) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Kidd and Castano (2019) found an inconsistent pattern of moral judgements: more frequent moral judgements for the literary fiction group in Experiment 1, less frequent in Experiment 3, and no group differences in Experiment 2.

“The pattern of results was inconsistent, with more frequent moral judgements for the literary fiction group in Experiment 1, less frequent moral judgements for the literary fiction group in Experiment 3, and no group differences in moral judgement in Experiment 2.”

• cites Kidd and Castano (2019) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

There is widespread agreement that non-fiction standardly aims for accurate representation and invites belief, whereas fiction standardly invites readers to imagine what is not the case.

“Although the contrast between fiction and non-fiction is contested, there is widespread agreement that works of non-fiction standardly aim for accurate representation and invite belief, whereas works of fiction standardly invite readers to imagine what is not the case (see e.g.Friend, 2012).”

• cites Friend, 2012 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Narratively structured accounts, fictional and nonfictional, can simulate social experiences and encourage focus on persons' experiences and social interactions, so narrativity seems more fundamental to social and moral cognition than fictionality does.

“Second, narratively structured accounts, fictional and nonfictional, can simulate social experiences, so are able to encourage the reader to focus on the experiences and social interactions of persons, so narrativity seems more fundamental to social and moral cognition than fictionality does.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

In both experiments, social cognition was assessed using a battery of indicators including self-report, behavioural, and implicit measures, thereby increasing methodological rigour and explanatory power compared to all previous studies that tested effects of fiction reading on social cognition.

“In both experiments, social cognition was assessed using a battery of indicators including self-report, behavioural, and implicit measures, thereby increasing methodological rigour and explanatory power compared to all previous studies that have tested effects of fiction reading on social cognition.”

May combine two claims.

Measures of implicit moral attitudes have proven to be better predictors of real-life action than measures of explicit attitudes and have been shown to be sensitive to narrative-based changes.

“In sum, measures of implicit (moral) attitudes have proven to be better predictors of real-life action than measures of explicit attitudes (e.g., Perugini & Leone, 2009); they have also been shown to be sensitive to narrativebased changes (Green & Brock, 2000).”

• cites Perugini & Leone, 2009 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Green & Brock, 2000 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The meta-analysis provides some evidence for a positive relationship between reading narrative fiction and social cognitive abilities, but it is limited.

“So although this meta-analysis provides some evidence for a positive relationship between reading narrative fiction and social cognitive abilities, it is limited.”

May combine two claims.

Experimental support for the effect of fiction reading on social cognition has been indirect, weak, and controversial, with many effects failing to replicate.

“Despite strong claims in the recent literature (e.g.Kidd & Castano, 2013), experimental support has so far been rather indirect (often relying on a single measure of social cognition), weak, and controversial (many effects have failed to replicate; see e.g.Panero et al., 2016;Samur et al., 2018).”

• cites Kidd & Castano, 2013 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Panero et al., 2016 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Samur et al., 2018 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Interrater agreement was not calculated since there was no indication of any disagreement.

“Interrater agreement was not calculated since there was no indication of any disagreement.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The reading time cut-off was based on an average word reading speed of 239ms reported by Benjamin and Gaab (2012).

“The reading time cut-off was based on an average word reading speed of 239ms reported by Benjamin and Gaab (2012).”

• cites Benjamin and Gaab (2012)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The order of videos was randomized.

“Order of videos was randomized.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

For the IAMS task, the IACS score was included as an additional covariate.

“For the IAMS task, the IACS score was included as an additional covariate.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

To avoid repeated viewing of the same videos at the three time points, three pairs of videos describing different neutral and sad events, recorded by three different female actors, were used.

“To avoid repeated viewing of the same videos at the three time points (pre-vs post-vs follow-up testing sessions), we used three pairs of videos, describing different neutral and sad events, recorded by three different female actors.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Overall accuracy on the RMET and animations tasks was good (M = 69% and 3.01, respectively).

“Overall accuracy on the RMET and animations tasks was good (M = 69% and 3.01, respectively)”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

All methodological procedures were approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the School of Psychology at the University of Kent prior to commencement and were pre-registered on the Open Science Framework.

“All methodological procedures were approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the School of Psychology at the University of Kent, prior to commencement, and pre-registered on the Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/cazmr/?view_only=c899a53508da407bb3af2fe80d129cc5.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Both authors congruently rated readability to be in the easy to moderate range, and attractiveness to be medium, for all texts.

“Both authors congruently rated readability to be in the easy to moderate range, and attractiveness to be medium, for all texts.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In the present sample, Cronbach's alpha for the Interpersonal Reactivity Index was .84.

“In the present sample Cronbach's alpha was .84.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Engagement with the reading task was assessed at the end of the follow-up testing session using a compliance check questionnaire and email prompts, providing a treatment check.

“Engagement with the reading task was assessed at the end of the follow-up testing session.”

• Also stated in: § Procedure · plain

  “In combination with the email prompts sent out between pre-and post-tests, this questionnaire provided a treatment check and helped identify participants who did not engage with the reading assignment to a sufficient degree.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The original set of 36 RMET items was split into two equally difficult halves based on item accuracy reported for university students.

“the original set of 36 items was split into two equally difficult halves (as in Samur et al., 2018, Experiment 3), based on the item accuracy reported for university students (Baron-Cohen et al., 2001)”

• cites Samur et al., 2018 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Baron-Cohen et al., 2001 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

In the current sample, Cronbach's alpha was .90 for positive affect and .90 for negative affect.

“In the current sample Cronbach's alpha was .90 for positive affect and .90 for negative affect.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Participants were randomly assigned to read an excerpt from either a narrative fiction, narrative non-fiction, or expository non-fiction text.

“To test this assumption, participants were randomly assigned to read an excerpt from either a narrative fiction, narrative non-fiction, or expository non-fiction text.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The deviation from the pre-registration was recommended by an anonymous reviewer.

“The deviation from the pre-registration was recommended by an anonymous reviewer”

May combine two claims.

In Experiment 1, because task order was kept consistent across conditions, any order effects were comparable across the three text conditions, so no condition was disadvantaged or favoured.

“However, by keeping the order of tasks consistent, any order effects were comparable across the three text conditions; therefore, no condition was disadvantaged or favoured.”

May combine two claims.

Using entire books to be read in a natural environment improves the experiment's internal validity by providing a stronger experimental manipulation, and enhances its external validity by making the reading experience more akin to real-life.

“This more comprehensive reading stimuli improves the experiment's internal validity by providing a stronger experimental manipulation, and enhances its external validity by making the reading experience more akin to real-life (Kuzmičová, 2016).”

• cites Kuzmičová, 2016Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Sample size was determined before any data analysis.

“Sample size was determined before any data analysis.”

• Also stated in: § Participants · plain

  “Sample size was determined before any data analysis.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The reading-time exclusion criterion was stricter than the pre-registered plan to exclude participants whose reading duration was more than 3.5 SD away from the sample mean.

“This exclusion criterion was stricter than the pre-registered plan to exclude participants whose reading duration was more than 3.5SD away from the sample mean.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Participants were randomly allocated to one of nine books which were either narrative fiction, narrative non-fiction, or expository non-fiction.

“participants were randomly allocated to one of nine books which were either narrative fiction, narrative non-fiction, or expository non-fiction”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The D6 measure has proven to outperform other error-penalty formulas.

“Implicit moral identity was indexed by the D6 measure (Greenwald et al., 2003), because we wanted to replicate procedures by Perugini and Leone (2009), and this indicator has proven to outperform other error-penalty formulas (Greenwald et al., 2003).”

• cites Greenwald et al., 2003 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Friendship is experienced by virtually everyone.

“friendship is experienced by virtually everyone (Bukowski et al., 2009)”

• cites Bukowski et al., 2009Not checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

In every ANCOVA, two planned contrasts were implemented: a contrast comparing both narrative conditions to the expository condition, and a contrast comparing the fictional condition with both non-fictional conditions.

“In every ANCOVA, two planned contrasts were implemented: First, a contrast comparing both narrative conditions to the expository condition, and second, a contrast comparing the fictional condition with both non-fictional conditions.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The preregistered target was to recruit 150 participants per condition to reach a total pre-exclusions sample size of N=450, based on the sample size rationale in Kidd and Castano (2019) showing that N=305 had 80% power to detect the effect observed in Kidd and Castano (2013, Experiment 5, d=.33).

“Based on the sample size rationale in Kidd and Castano (2019; these authors showed that a final sample size of N = 305 had 80% power to detect the effect observed in Kidd and Castano (2013, Experiment 5, d = .33)),our preregistered target was to recruit 150 participants per condition (narrative fiction, narrative nonfiction, expository non-fiction) in order to reach a total (pre-exclusions) sample”

• cites Kidd and Castano (2019) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Kidd and Castano (2013) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Approximately one third of data sets would meet exclusion criteria.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The final sample for analysis would be N=300, with N=100 in each condition.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Texts were comparable in length.

“Texts were comparable in length.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Data collection was stopped as soon as a minimum of 150 participants per condition was achieved.

“Data collection was stopped as soon as a minimum of 150 participants per condition was achieved.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The order of the test halves was counterbalanced across participants.

“The order of the test halves was counterbalanced across participants.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

A total of N = 150 eligible participants was targeted, reflecting practicality in terms of time, funding, personnel, and laboratory space.

“A total of N = 150 eligible participants, evenly randomized across the three text conditions (narrative fiction vs narrative non-fiction vs expository non-fiction), was targeted, reflecting practicality in terms of time, funding, personnel, and laboratory space.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The initial target sample was reached after 462 volunteers.

“The initial target sample was reached after 462 volunteers.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Friendship is reciprocal.

“friendship is reciprocal (Telfer, 1970)”

• cites Telfer, 1970Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The number of analyzed cases varies between tasks due to technical problems, incomplete administration of tasks, or exclusion of participants with scores more than 3SD away from the sample mean.

“† The number of analyzed cases varies between tasks due to technical problems, incomplete administration of tasks, or exclusion of participants with scores more than 3SD away from the sample mean.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Data of participants (N=8) who were familiar with Chinese characters were excluded from analysis of the IAMS task.

“Data of participants (N=8) who were familiar with Chinese characters were excluded from analysis of the IAMS task.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Participants were randomly allocated to one of the three reading conditions (narrative fiction vs. narrative non-fiction vs. expository non-fiction).

“participants were randomly allocated to one of the three reading conditions (narrative fiction vs. narrative non-fiction vs. expository non-fiction)”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The RMET was not repeated at follow-up because doing so would have required splitting the 36 items into triplets of 12, which might have threatened the test's reliability.

“The RMET was not repeated this time because this would have required that the original set of 36 items be split into triplets of 12 items per testing session.This might have threatened the test's reliability.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

When exclusion criteria were applied, 340 participants remained in the final sample.

“When exclusion criteria were applied, 340 participants remained in the final sample”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Participants were excluded from analyses if they spent less than 728s reading the assigned text excerpt, indicating reading time below two thirds of the time very fast readers would require.

“(iii) spent less than 728s reading the assigned text excerpt, indicating their reading time was below two thirds of the time very fast readers would require to read the text 1 .”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Some participants were not included in all analyses due to technical problems or scores more than 3SD away from the sample mean, affecting up to 17 participants (16.35%) per measure.

“Some participants were not included in all analyses due to technical problems or scores more than 3SD away from the sample mean.This affected up to 17 participants (16.35%) per measure.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

In the final sample, 121 participants had read narrative fiction; 54.5% were female, mean age 34.02, SD 13.70.

“121 of whom had read narrative fiction (54.5% female, mean age = 34.02,SD of age = 13.70)”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Participants were instructed to stop reading after 159 pages (part 1 of the book) to ensure a comparable amount of reading between text conditions.

“Participants were instructed to stop reading after 159 pages, i.e., part 1 of the book, to ensure a comparable amount of reading between text conditions.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Readability was assessed subjectively by authors 2 and 3.

“Readability was assessed subjectively by authors 2 and 3.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The study used naturalistic texts that facilitated natural reading.

“we used naturalistic texts that facilitated natural reading.”

• cites Kurby & Zacks, 2015 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Molinari et al., 2011 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Participants were excluded from analyses if they failed one attention check item interspersed within a questionnaire (Transportation Scale).

“Participants were excluded from analyses if they did any of the following: (i) failed one attention check item that was interspersed within a questionnaire (Transportation Scale; Green & Brock, 2000)”

• cites Green & Brock, 2000 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Transportation was originally planned as a covariate but was not used because the transportation scale refers to narrative texts and does not seem applicable for expository reading stimuli.

“We originally planned to implement transportation as a covariate, yet due to recommendations by two anonymous reviewers we opted against thisthe transportation scale refers to narrative texts, so does not seem to be applicable for expository reading stimuli.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Participants were excluded from analyses if they selected more than five mock authors in the Author Recognition Test-Genres, meaning their foils score was more than 3.5 SD above the sample mean.

“(ii) selected more than five mock authors (i.e., foils) in the Author Recognition Test-Genres (ART-G; Mar & Rain, 2015), meaning their foils score was more than 3.5 SD above the sample mean”

• cites Mar & Rain, 2015 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Grief is primarily solitary.

“grief is primarily solitary (Barrett & Scott, 1989)”

• cites Barrett & Scott, 1989 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The transportation scale refers to narrative texts and does not seem applicable for expository reading stimuli.

“the transportation scale refers to narrative texts, so does not seem to be applicable for expository reading stimuli.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In the current sample, Cronbach's alpha for the Transportation Scale was .82.

“In the current sample Cronbach's α was .82.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

In the final sample, 109 participants had read expository non-fiction; 58.7% were female, mean age 31.20, SD 10.93.

“109 who had read expository non-fiction (58.7% female, mean age = 31.20,SD of age = 10.93)”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The narrative fiction text uses internal focalization and is told from the widow's perspective.

“Using internal focalization, the story is told from the widow's perspective.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

All measures, manipulations, and exclusions are reported.

“All measures, manipulations, and exclusions are reported.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

In the final sample, 110 participants had read narrative non-fiction; 60.9% were female, mean age 32.13, SD 10.36.

“110 who had read narrative non-fiction (60.9% female, mean age = 32.13,SD of age = 10.36)”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The number of analyzed data varies between tasks due to incomplete administration or technical problems, or command of Chinese language in the IAMS.

“*The number of analyzed data varies between tasks due to incomplete administration or technical problems (or command of Chinese language in the IAMS).”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The narrative non-fiction text is from the perspective of a woman dealing with the loss of her husband.

“this memoir is from the perspective of a woman dealing with the loss of her husband.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Grief increases in the course of a lifetime.

“grief increases in the course of a lifetime (Znoj, 2015)”

• cites Znoj, 2015 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

One participant was excluded because English was not their primary language.

“Excluded (n=1) ▪ English not primary language (n= 1)”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The mean D6 value in the moral IAT is consistent with previous research showing a preference for an implicit moral self-concept.

“the positive mean D6 value (M = .66)in the moral IAT is consistent with previous research showing a preference for an implicit moral self-concept.”

May combine two claims.

Grief is an emotion relevant to emotional alignment, its emotional content naturally evokes empathy, and the tendency to grieve has been found to correlate with a tendency to empathize.

“In Experiment 1, we chose grief as a theme likely to promote social cognition since it is an emotion and hence relevant to the question of emotional alignment; its emotional content naturally evokes empathy; and the tendency to grieve has been found to correlate with a tendency to empathize (Kellehear, 2002;Oltjenbruns, 1991).”

• cites Kellehear, 2002 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Oltjenbruns, 1991 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

Grief has significant cognitive content based on recognition of a specific loss and desire for a continued relationship with the loved one, and it is a moral emotion in the sense that a grieving person often thinks of themselves as morally bound to the memory of the loved one.

“Moreover, grief has a significant cognitive content in that it is based on the recognition of a specific loss and the desire for a continued relationship with the loved one (Gustafson, 1989;Ratcliffe, 2017).Also, it is a moral emotion in the sense that a grieving person often thinks of themselves as morally bound to the memory of the loved one (McCracken, 2005).”

• cites Gustafson, 1989 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Ratcliffe, 2017 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites McCracken, 2005 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The ART-G fiction sub-score was implemented as a covariate to adjust for differences in lifetime fiction exposure.

“In the present experiment, the ART-G fiction sub-score was implemented as covariate since we were interested in the effect of reading a short text, adjusted for differences in lifetime fiction exposure.”

May combine two claims.

Length of texts was approximately 6,000 words, based on previous literature, and was matched across conditions.

“Length of texts, approximately 6,000 words, was based on previous literature (e.g.Kidd & Castano, 2013), and”

• Also stated in: § Reading stimuli · plain

  “was matched across conditions.”

• cites Kidd & Castano, 2013 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Experiment 2 employed a longitudinal design in which N=104 participants were randomly assigned to read an entire book over seven days.

“Experiment 2 employed a longitudinal design.N=104 participants were randomly assigned to read an entire book over seven days.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The order of videos was counterbalanced across participants.

“Order of videos was counterbalanced across participants.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Experiment 1 employed a well-powered, pre-registered design.

“In Experiment 1 we employed a well-powered, pre-registered design to test the prediction that reading a short narrative text, regardless of its fictionality, leads to improvements in social and moral cognitive abilities.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Participants were randomized (n=461).

“Randomized (n= 461)”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Immigration is national/societal.

“immigration is national/societal (Oxford English Dictionary)”

• cites Oxford English DictionaryNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Artificial texts have been criticized for lack of coherence and contextual richness, not meeting recipients' reading goals, and being shorter than naturalistic texts, which likely distort normal reading processes.

“they have been criticized for properties such as lack of coherence and contextual richness, not meeting recipients' reading goals, and being shorter than naturalistic texts, which likely distort normal reading processes (Graesser et al., 1994;Magliano & Graesser, 1991).”

• cites Graesser et al., 1994Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Magliano & Graesser, 1991 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

A comprehensive battery of self-report, behavioural, and implicit measures was applied to assess social and moral cognition.

“a comprehensive battery of self-report, behavioural, and implicit measures was applied to assess social and moral cognition”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The texts were not aligned according to time of creation or individual writing style, which may have led participants to rate the texts as differentially relatable.

“We also did not align the texts according to time of creation or individual writing style, which may have led participants to rate the texts as differentially relatable.”

May combine two claims.

Both a short and a longer reading intervention may not be suitable to reveal potential reading-based benefits for social and moral cognition.

“Thus, both a short and a longer reading intervention may not be suitable to reveal potential reading-based benefits for social and moral cognition.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

One line of research has utilized experimental manipulations to demonstrate that reading a short narrative fiction text improves empathy and Theory of Mind.

“One line of research has utilized experimental manipulations to demonstrate that reading a short narrative fiction text improves empathy and ToM (Dodell-Feder & Tamir, 2018).”

• cites Dodell-Feder & Tamir, 2018 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The linear mixed-effect models did not yield significant interactions between text condition and time, so the data could not support the hypothesis that narrative texts have advantages over expository texts.

“However, as none of the linear mixed-effect models yielded significant interactions between text condition and time, which would show advantages for the narrative over the expository condition, our data was not able to support this hypothesis.”

May combine two claims.

Social cognitive abilities were not directly assessed while participants read the narratives, so the extent to which they were employed during reading cannot be ascertained.

“These processes were not directly assessed here, so we cannot ascertain to what extent social cognitive abilities were employed while participants read the narratives.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Text stimuli were carefully selected based on subject matter, narrative focalization, and length.

“Text stimuli were carefully selected based on subject matter, narrative focalization, and length”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Experiment 2 implemented baseline and follow-up assessments in addition to post-tests.

“Experiment 2 implemented baseline and follow-up assessments in addition to post-tests.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Texts were still selected by the researchers, which entails the possibility of an experimenter bias.

“texts were still selected by the researchers, which entails the possibility of an experimenter bias”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Stimulus texts addressed a variety of themes with social content matched across conditions.

“Stimulus texts addressed a variety of themes with social content matched across conditions.”

May combine two claims.

Social and moral processing did not differ at baseline between text conditions or between participants who were or were not included in analyses, and these factors did not interact to affect baseline levels.

“Hence, social and moral processing did not differ at baseline between text conditions or between participants who were or were not included in analyses, and these factors did not interact to affect baseline levels.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The positive mean D6 value in the moral IAT is consistent with previous research showing a preference for an implicit moral self-concept.

“the positive mean D6 value (M = .63;t(103) = 32.22,p < .001,d = 3.16) in the moral IAT is consistent with previous research showing a preference for an implicit moral self-concept.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

All analyses were pre-registered.

“All analyses were pre-registered”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Improvements in experimental design (incorporating further measurement time points) and experimental manipulation (improving intensity/length of text materials and breadth/range of themes) enabled a stronger test of the prediction than Experiment 1.

“Improvements regarding the experimental design (i.e.incorporating further measurement time points) and the experimental manipulation (i.e.improving both intensitylength of text materials, and breadthrange of themes), enabled a stronger test of this prediction than Experiment 1.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The present study tested social and moral cognitive abilities in a rather general sense.

“we tested social and moral cognitive abilities in a rather general sense”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Preliminary analysis of the eye-tracking paradigm replicated the basic effects seen in Cowan et al. (2014).

“Preliminary analysis of the eye-tracking paradigm replicated the basic effects seen in Cowan et al. (2014)”

• cites Cowan et al. (2014) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Neither reading (fictional or nonfictional) narratives nor (narrative or expository) works of fiction was associated with systematic gains in the outcomes of interest.

“Considering the overall patterns of results, neither reading (fictional or nonfictional) narratives nor (narrative or expository) works of fiction was associated with systematic gains in the outcomes of interest.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The expository non-fiction pieces lack the literary qualities of any of the narrative works.

“the expository non-fiction pieces lack the literary qualities of any of the narrative works”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

The book themes selected were likely to invite empathy and activate an understanding of the characters' minds.

“The book themes selected were likely to invite empathy and activate an understanding of the characters' minds; such processes have been highlighted as a requirement of narrative-based enhancement of social cognition (Mar, 2018a).”

• cites Mar, 2018aNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The naturalistic texts still differed along several variables, which harbours the risk of confounds.

“but still differed along several variables, which harbours the risk of confounds”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Author gender varied: the two narrative texts were written by women, whereas the expository text was written by a man.

“author gender varied regarding the grief (and immigration) theme(s) the two narrative texts were written by women, whereas the expository text was written by a man.”

May combine two claims.

Experiment 2's stronger manipulation may have negatively affected participants' engagement, caused attrition, and ultimately impeded the detection of potential effects.

“but this may have negatively affected participants' engagement with the reading, caused attrition and ultimately impeded the detection of potential effects”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The present findings relate to typically developing adults of a relatively young age.

“The present findings relate to typically developing adults of a relatively young age”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The current measures are implicit indicators predicting moral emotions and moral behaviour that philosophers of fiction have assumed to benefit from reading fictional narratives.

“the current measures are implicit indicators predicting moral emotions and moral behaviour that philosophers of fiction have assumed to benefit from reading fictional narratives (e.g., Nussbaum, 1990)”

• cites Nussbaum, 1990Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Experiment 2 confirmed the overall pattern of results from Experiment 1, even though a different experimental design was utilized.

“Crucially, Experiment 2 confirmed the overall pattern of results from Experiment 1, even though a different experimental design was utilized here.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Stories about animals that failed to raise participants' general concern for animal welfare have nevertheless been found to increase their concern for the welfare of the species depicted in those narratives.

“stories about animals that failed to raise participants' general concern for animal welfare have nevertheless been found to increase their concern for the welfare of the species depicted in those narratives (Małecki et al., 2019).”

• cites Małecki et al., 2019 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Reading fictional stories has been proposed as a way to promote social cognitive abilities, and there is some evidence to support this view, as synthesized in two recent meta-analyses.

“Reading fictional stories has been proposed as a way to promote these abilities, and there is some evidence to support this view, as synthesized in two recent meta-analyses (Dodell-Feder & Tamir, 2018;Mumper & Gerrig, 2017).”

• cites Dodell-Feder & Tamir, 2018 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Mumper & Gerrig, 2017 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Experiment 1 was well-powered.

“Experiment 1 was well-powered”