Cited by 123Media Influence and HealthEmpathy and Medical EducationAction Observation and Synchronization

The Use of “Literary Fiction” to Promote Mentalizing Ability

Open access
Pino, Maria Chiara, Mazza, Monica·2016·PLOS ONE

Abstract

Empathy is a multidimensional process that incorporates both mentalizing and emotional sharing dimensions. Empathic competencies are important for creating interpersonal relationships with other people and developing adequate social behaviour. The lack of these social components also leads to isolation and exclusion in healthy populations. However, few studies have investigated how to improve these social skills. In a recent study, Kidd and Castano (2013) found that reading literary fiction increases mentalizing ability and may change how people think about other people's emotions and mental states. The aim of our study was to evaluate the effects of reading literary fiction, compared to nonfiction and science fiction, on empathic abilities. Compared to previous studies, we used a larger variety of empathy measures and utilized a pre and post-test design. In all, 214 healthy participants were randomly assigned to read a book representative of one of three literary genres (literary fiction, nonfiction, science fiction). Participants were assessed before and after the reading phase using mentalizing and emotional sharing tests, according to Zaki and Ochsner' s (2012) model. Comparisons of sociodemographic, mentalizing, and emotional sharing variables across conditions were conducted using ANOVA. Our results showed that after the reading phase, the literary fiction group showed improvement in mentalizing abilities, but there was no discernible effect on emotional sharing abilities. Our study showed that the reading processes can promote mentalizing abilities. These results may set important goals for future low-cost rehabilitation protocols for several disorders in which the mentalizing deficit is considered central to the disease, such as Autism Spectrum Disorders and Schizophrenia.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0160254

Cites

46 of 46 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?

  • 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.”

    From The effects of reading narrative fiction on social and moral cognition (2021) · cites this paper as Pino & Mazza, 2016

  • Only one previous experiment has tested the effects of reading on social cognition using entire books as stimuli.

    “Only one previous experiment has tested the effects of reading on social cognition using entire books as stimuli (Pino & Mazza, 2016).”

    From The effects of reading narrative fiction on social and moral cognition (2021) · cites this paper as Pino & Mazza, 2016

  • 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.”

    From The effects of reading narrative fiction on social and moral cognition (2021) · cites this paper as Pino & Mazza, 2016

  • 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.”

    From The effects of reading narrative fiction on social and moral cognition (2021) · cites this paper as Pino and Mazza (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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

7 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. [10]Davidson JH. Clinical empathy and narrative competence: the relevance of reading talmudic legends as literary fiction. Rambam Maimonides Med J. 2015; 6: e0014 10.5041/RMMJ.10198 25973266 PMC4422453 · DOI
  2. [19]Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Spong A, Scahill V, Lawson J. Are intuitive physics and intuitive psychology independent? A test with children with Asperger Syndrome. Developmental and Learning Disorders. 2001; 5: 47– 78.
  3. [22]Saunders G. Tenth of December. Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2014.
  4. [26]Reynolds A. Troika. Subterranean; First edition, 2011.
  5. [27]Bradbury R. Fahrenheit 451. Reissue edition, 2013.
  6. [31]D’Orazio DM. The journal’s publication of research that incorrectly employs Davis’ Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Sex Abuse. 2004; 16: 173– 4. 15208901

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pino, M. C., & Mazza, M.
Affiliations
University of L'Aquila (IT)
Corresponding author
Pino, Maria Chiara
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2016-08-04
Volume
11
Issue
8
Pages
e0160254
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2505321358
Cited by
123
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 1
FWCI
191.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca - Università degli Studi dell Aquila (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Media Influence and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
Keywords
literary fiction, mentalization, empathy, emotional sharing, reading, fiction and non-fiction, science fiction, social cognition, social skills, autism spectrum disorder, schizophrenia, rehabilitation
MeSH terms
Autism Spectrum Disorder, Adult, Emotions, Female, Humans, Literature, Male, Reading, Schizophrenia, 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