CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 44Narrative Theory and AnalysisEmpathy and Medical EducationMedia Influence and Health

Empathy at the confluence of neuroscience and empirical literary studies

Open access
Burke, Michael, Kuzmicova, Anezka, Mangen, Anne, Schilhab, Theresa·2016·Scientific Study of Literature
DOI 10.1075/ssol.6.1.03bur
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The objective of this article is to review extant empirical studies of empathy in narrative reading in light of (a) contemporary literary theory, and (b) neuroscientific studies of empathy, and to discuss how a closer interplay between neuroscience and literary studies may enhance our understanding of empathy in narrative reading. An introduction to some of the philosophical roots of empathy is followed by tracing its application in contemporary literary theory, in which scholars have pursued empathy with varying degrees of conceptual precision, often within the context of embodied/enactive cognition. The presentation of empirical literary studies of empathy is subsequently contextualized by an overview of psychological and neuroscientific aspects of empathy. Highlighting points of convergence and divergence, the discussion illustrates how findings of empirical literary studies align with recent neuroscientific research. The article concludes with some prospects for future empirical research, suggesting that digitization may contribute to advancing the scientific knowledge of empathy in narrative reading.

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 · 10.1075/ssol.6.1.03bur

Cites

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?

  • Fiction books often depict characters' emotions, motivations and intentions, providing insights into their inner worlds and opportunities to foster empathy.

    “Narrative fiction can reflect the social world we live in (Oatley, 2016), and fiction books often depict characters ' emotions, motivations and intentions (Bruner, 1986), providing insights into their inner worlds and opportunities to foster empathy (Burke et al., 2016; Denham, 2024).”

    From Reading and Empathy: Qualitative insights into adolescents' experiences with fiction books (2025) · cites this paper as Burke et al., 2016

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 133 · Cited by 44

Research works printed but not linked: 87

  1. Bal, P. M, & Veltkamp, M. (2013). How does fiction reading influence empathy? An experimental investigation on the role of emotional transportation. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e55341. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055341 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Batson, D. (2009). These things called empathy: Eight related but distinct phenomena. In J. Decety & W. Ickes (Eds.), Social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 3-16) Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Appendix in Mangen & Kuiken, 2014). For a mainly qualitative study on the location and means of literary reading see Burke & Bon (forthcoming).
  3. Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., and Plumb, I. (2001). The "reading the mind in the eyes" test revised version: A study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 42(2), 241-251. pmid:11280420. doi: 10.1111/1469-7610.00715 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645.
  5. Battistelli, P. & Farneti, A. (2015). When the theory of mind would be very useful. Front. Psychol. 6:1449. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01449 · DOI
  6. Benedetto, S., Drai-Zerbib, V., Pedrotti, M., Tissier, G. & Baccino, T. (2013). E-readers and visual fatigue. PloS one, 8(12):e83676.
  7. Bernaerts, L., Caracciolo, M., Herman, L., & Vervaeck, B. (2014). The storied lives of non- human narrators. Narrative, 22(1), 68-93. http://doi.org/10.1353/nar.2014.0002 · DOI
  8. Bernhardt, B. C., & Singer, T. (2012). The neural basis of empathy. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 35, 1-23.
  9. Boven, L. van & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Social projection of transient drive states. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(9): 1159-1168.
  10. Bruin de, L., Strijbos, D. & Slors, M. (2014). Situating emotions: From embodied cognition to mindreading. Topoi no. 33(1),173-184.
  11. Bugnyar, T., Reber, S.A., and Buckner, C. (2016) Ravens attribute visual access to unseen competitors. Nature Communications 7. doi:10.1038/ncomms10506 · DOI
  12. Burke, M. (2011). Literary reading, cognition and emotion: An exploration of the oceanic mind. New York & London: Routledge.
  13. Burke, M., (2013). The rhetorical neuroscience of style: On the primacy of style elements during literary discourse processing. Journal of Literary Semantics, 42(2), 199-216.
  14. Burke, M. (2016). 'The oceanic literary reading mind: An impression'. In S. Groes (Ed.), Memory in the twenty-first century: New critical perspectives from the arts, humanities, and sciences (pp. 119-124). Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,
  15. Burke, M. & Bon E. (forthcoming). The location and means of literary reading. In S. Csábi (Ed.), Expressive minds and artistic creations: Studies in cognitive poetics (pp. to follow) Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
  16. Caracciolo, M. (2014a). Beyond other minds: Fictional characters, mental simulation, and 'unnatural' experiences. Journal of Narrative Theory, 44(1), 29-53. http://doi.org/10.1353/jnt.2014.0005 · DOI
  17. Caracciolo, M. (2014b). The experientiality of narrative: An enactivist approach. Berlin: De Gruyter.
  18. Chartrand, T. L. & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behaviour link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6): 893-910.
  19. Chase, J and Reynolds J. (2014) Analytic Versus Continental: Arguments on the Methods and Value of Philosophy. London: Routledge.
  20. Chow, H. M., Mar, R. A., Xu, Y., Liu, S., Wagage, S., & Braun, A. R. (2015). Personal experience with narrated events modulates functional connectivity within visual and motor systems during story comprehension. Human Brain Mapping, 36(4), 1494-1505.
  21. Coplan, A. (2011). Understanding empathy: Its features and effects. In A. Coplan & P. Goldie (Eds.) Empathy: Philosophical and psychological perspectives, (pp. 3-18). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  22. Coplan, A., and Goldie, P. (2011). Introduction. In A. Copland & P. Goldie (Eds.), Empathy: Philosophical and psychological perspectives, (pp. ix-xlvii). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  23. Cuff, B. M. P., Brown, S., J. Taylor, L. & Howat, D. J. (2016).Empathy: A review of the concept. Emotion Review, 8(2), 144-153
  24. Cupchik, G. C., Oatley, K., & Vorderer, P. (1998). Emotional effects of reading excerpts from short stories by James Joyce. Poetics, 25(6), 363-377.
  25. Currie, G. (2010). Narratives and narrators: A philosophy of stories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  26. Currie, G. (2011). Empathy for objects. In A. Coplan & P. Goldie (Eds.), Empathy: Philosophical and psychological perspectives (pp. 82-95). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  27. Curtis, V., Aunger, R., & Rabie, T. (2004). Evidence that disgust evolved to protect from risk of disease. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B. (suppl.), 271, S131-S133.
  28. Davis, M. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113-126.
  29. Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. The Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135-168.
  30. Engen, H. G., & Singer, T. (2013). Empathy circuits. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23(2), 275-282.
  31. Esrock, E. J. (2004). Embodying literature. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 11(5-6), 79-89.
  32. Gerlach, J., & Buxmann, P. (2011). Investigating the acceptance of electronic books: The impact of haptic dissonance on innovation adoption. Proceedings from ECIS (European Conference on Information Systems), Helsinki, FI.
  33. Hardy-Vallée, B. & Payette, N. (2009). Beyond the brain: Embodied, situated and distributed cognition: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  34. Harris, P. L., de Rosnay, M., & Pons, F. (2005). Language and children's understanding of mental states. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(2), 69-73.
  35. Hein, G., & Singer, T. (2008). I feel how you feel but not always: the empathic brain and its modulation. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 18(2), 153-158.
  36. Herbert, B. M., & Pollatos, O. (2012). The body in the mind: On the relationship between interoception and embodiment. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(4), 692-704.
  37. Hollan, D. (2012). Emerging issues in the cross-cultural study of empathy. Emotion Review, 4(1),70-78.
  38. Immordino-Yang, M. H., Christodoulou, J. A., & Singh, V. (2012). Rest is not idleness implications of the brain's default mode for human development and education. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(4), 352-364.
  39. Immordino-Yang, M. H., McColl, A., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. (2009). Neural correlates of admiration and compassion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(19), 8021-8026.
  40. Johnson, D. R. (2013). Transportation into literary fiction reduces prejudice against and increases empathy for Arab-Muslims. Scientific Study of Literature, 3(1), 77-92.
  41. Jajdelska, E., Butler, C., Kelly, S., McNeill, A., & Overy, K. (2010). Crying, moving, and keeping it whole: What makes literary description vivid? Poetics Today, 31(3), 433-463.
  42. Kang, Y.-Y., Wang, M.-J. & Lin, R. (2009). Usability evaluation of e-books. Displays, 30(2):49-52.
  43. Keen, S. (2006). A theory of narrative empathy. Narrative, 14(3), 207-236.
  44. Keen, S. (2007). Empathy and the novel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  45. Keysers, C., & Gazzola, V. (2007). Integrating simulation and theory of mind: From self to social cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,11(5), 194-196.
  46. Kimmel, M. (2011). From text-linguistics to literary actants-The force dynamics of (emotional) vampirism. Language and Cognition, 3(2), 235-282. http://doi.org/10.1515/langcog.2011.009 · DOI
  47. Kiverstein, J. & Clark, A. (2009). Introduction: Mind embodied, embedded, enacted: One church or many? Topoi no., 28(1),1-7.
  48. Kretzschmar, F., Pleimling, D., Hosemann, J., Füssel, S., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. & Schlesewsky, M. (2013). Subjective impressions do not mirror online reading effort: Concurrent EEG-eyetracking evidence from the reading of books and digital media. PloS one, 8(2):e56178.
  49. Kögler, H. H. & Stueber, K. R. (2000). Introduction: Empathy, simulation, and interpretation in the philosophy of social science. In H. H. Kögler & K. R. Stueber (Eds.), Empathy and agency: The problem of understanding in the human sciences (pp. 1-61). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
  50. Kross, E. & Ayduk, O. (2009). Boundary conditions and buffering effects: Does depressive symptomatology moderate the effectiveness of distanced-analysis on facilitating adaptive self- reflection? Journal of Research in Personality 43: 923-927.
  51. Kuzmičová, A. (2012). Presence in the reading of literary narrative: A case for motor enactment. Semiotica, 189 (1/4), 23-48. http://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2011.071 · DOI
  52. Kuzmičová, A. (2014). Literary narrative and mental imagery: A view from embodied cognition. Style, 48(3), 275-293.
  53. Luhrmann, T. (2011). Toward an anthropological theory of mind. Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society, 36(4), 5-69.
  54. Mangen, A., & Kuiken, D. (2014). Lost in an iPad: Narrative engagement on paper and tablet. Scientific Study of Literature, 4(2), 150-177.
  55. Mar, R. A., Oatley, K., Hirsh, J., dela Paz, J, and Peterson, J. B. (2006). Bookworms versus nerds: Exposure to fiction versus non-fiction, divergent associations with social ability, and the simulation of fictional social worlds Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 694-712. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.002 · DOI · Paper page
  56. Mattar, A. A., & Gribble, P. L. (2005). Motor learning by observing. Neuron, 46(1), 153-160.
  57. Mellmann, K. (2010). Objects of 'empathy': Characters (and other such things) as psycho- poetic effects. In J. Eder, F. Jannidis, & R. Schneider (Eds.) Characters in fictional worlds: Understanding imaginary beings in literature, film, and other media (pp. 416-441). New York: De Gruyter.
  58. Miall, D. S. (2011). Enacting the other: Towards an aesthetics of feeling in literary reading. In P. Goldie & E. Schellekens (Eds.), The aesthetic mind: Philosophy and psychology (pp. 285- 298). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  59. Miall, D. S., & Kuiken, D. (1999). What is literariness? Three components of literary reading. Discourse Processes, 28(2), 121-138. http://doi.org/10.1080/01638539909545076 · DOI
  60. Nijhof A. D. & Willems, R. M., (2015). Simulating fiction: Individual differences in literature comprehension revealed with fMRI. PLoS ONE 10(2): e0116492. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0116492 · DOI
  61. Nussbaum, M. (2010). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
  62. Ochsner, K. N., Ray, R. R., Hughes, B., McRae, K., Cooper, J. C., Weber, J., & Gross, J. J. (2009). Bottom-up and top-down processes in emotion generation common and distinct neural mechanisms. Psychological science, 20(11), 1322-1331.
  63. Pavarini, G., de Hollanda Souza, D., & Hawk, C. K. (2012). Parental practices and theory of mind development. Journal of Child Family Studies. doi: 10.1007/s10826-012-9643-8 · DOI
  64. Petkov, C. I & Belin, P. (2013). Silent reading: Does the brain 'hear' both speech and voices? Current Biology, 23(4):R155-R156.
  65. Poulet, G. (1969). Phenomenology of reading. New Literary History, 1(1), 53-68. http://doi.org/10.2307/468372 · DOI
  66. Rowlands, M. (2010). The new science of the mind: From extended mind to embodied phenomenology: Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  67. Saxbe, D. E., Yang, X. F., Borofsky, L. A., & Immordino-Yang, M. H. (2013). The embodiment of emotion: Language use during the feeling of social emotions predicts cortical somatosensory activity. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 8(7):806-12. doi: 10.1093/scan/nss075 · DOI
  68. Scarry, E. (2001). Dreaming by the book. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  69. Schilhab, T. (2015a). Re-live and learn e Interlocutor-induced elicitation of phenomenal experiences in learning offline. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2015.08.006 · DOI
  70. Schilhab, T. (2015b). Doubletalk -the biological and social acquisition of language. Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures. DOI: 10.1016/j.bica.2015.06.002 · DOI
  71. Shahaeian, A., Peterson, C. C., Slaughter, V., & Wellman, H. M. (2011). Culture and the sequence of steps in theory of mind development. Developmental Psychology, 47(5), 1239- 1247.
  72. Siegenthaler, E., Schmid, L., Wyss, M., & Wurtz, P. (2012). LCD vs. e-ink: An analysis of the reading behaviour. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 5(5):1-7.
  73. Siegenthaler, E., Wurtz, P., Bergamin, P., & Groner, R. (2011). Comparing reading processes on e-ink displays and print. Displays, 32(5):268-273.
  74. Sikora, S., Kuiken, D., & Miall, D. S. (2010). An uncommon resonance: the influence of loss on expressive reading. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28(2): 135-153.
  75. Singer, T. (2006). The neuronal basis and ontogeny of empathy and mind reading: Review of literature and implications for future research. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 30, 855-863.
  76. Singer, T., & Lamm, C. (2009). The social neuroscience of empathy. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156(1), 81-96.
  77. Singer, T., Seymour, B., O'Doherty, J., Kaube, H., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2004). Empathy for pain involves the affective but not sensory components of pain. Science, 303(5661), 1157-1162.
  78. Slaughter, V., Peterson, C. C., & Mackintosh, E. (2007). Mind what mother says: Narrative input and the theory of mind in typical children and those on the autism spectrum. Child Development, 78(3), 839-858.
  79. Stueber, K. (2014). Empathy. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  80. Stueber, K. R. (2012). Varieties of empathy, Neuroscience and the narrativist challenge to the contemporary theory of mind debate. Emotion Review 4(1):55-63.
  81. Waal de, F. B., & Ferrari, P. F. (2010). Towards a bottom-up perspective on animal and human cognition. Trends in cognitive sciences, 14(5), 201-207.
  82. Wachowicz, B., Lewandowska, K., Popek, A., Karwowski, W. and Marek, T. (2016), Empathy and Modern Technology: A Neuroergonomics Perspective. Hum. Factors Man., 26: 266-284. doi: 10.1002/hfm.20627 · DOI
  83. Wallentin, M., Simonsen, A., & Nielsen, A. H. (2013). Action speaks louder than words: Empathy mainly modulates emotions from theory of mind-laden parts of a story. Scientific Study of Literature, 3(1), 137-153.
  84. Wang, C., Zhu, R. and Handy, T. C. (2015) Experiencing haptic roughness promotes empathy Journal of Consumer Psychology. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcps.2015.11.001 · DOI
  85. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views on embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4): 625-635.
  86. Winkielman, P., & Schooler, J. W. (2011). Splitting consciousness: Unconscious, conscious, and metaconscious processes in social cognition. European Review of Social Psychology, 22(1), 1-35.
  87. Zaki, J., & Ochsner, K. N. (2012). The neuroscience of empathy: Progress, pitfalls and promise. Nature Neuroscience, 15(5), 675-680.

Authors
Burke, M., Kuzmicova, A., Mangen, A., & Schilhab, T.
Affiliations
  • Stockholm University (SE)
  • Department of Culture and Aesthetics, Stockholm University
ORCID
Venue
Scientific Study of Literature
Publisher
International Society for the Empirical Study of Literature
Published
2016-12-14
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
6-41
ISSN
  • 2210-4372 (ISSN-L)
  • 2210-4380
DOI
10.1075/ssol.6.1.03bur
OpenAlex
W2552999549
Cited by
44
References
133
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2
FWCI
57.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Study of Literature (publishedVersion)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Narrative Theory and Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Media Influence and Health
Keywords
empathy, narrative reading, neuroscience of empathy, literary theory, embodied cognition, enactive cognition, philosophy of empathy, digital humanities, reader response

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