Cover not available

Article published In: Transdisciplinary Approaches to Literature and Empathy
Edited by Paul Sopčák, Massimo Salgaro and J. Berenike Herrmann
[Scientific Study of Literature 6:1] 2016
► pp. 6–41

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Empathy at the confluence of neuroscience and empirical literary studies

 | Department of Rhetoric, University College Roosevelt, Utrecht University
 | Department of Culture and Aesthetics, Stockholm University
 | Reading Centre, Humanities Faculty, University of Stavanger
 | School of Education, Aarhus University
Published online: 21 December 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.6.1.03bur
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.
References (125)
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 591, 617–645. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Battistelli, P. & Farneti, A. (2015). When the theory of mind would be very useful. Front. Psychol. 61:1449. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benedetto, S., Carbone, A., Drai-Zerbib, V., Pedrotti, M. & Baccino, T. (2014). Effects of luminance and illuminance on visual fatigue and arousal during digital reading. Computers in Human Behavior, 411, 112–119. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benedetto, S., Drai-Zerbib, V., Pedrotti, M., Tissier, G. & Baccino, T. (2013). E-readers and visual fatigue. PloS one, 8(12):e83676. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bernaerts, L., Caracciolo, M., Herman, L., & Vervaeck, B. (2014). The storied lives of non-human narrators. Narrative, 22(1), 68–93. [URL]/
Bernhardt, B. C., & Singer, T. (2012). The neural basis of empathy. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 351, 1–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boven, L. van & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Social projection of transient drive states. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(9): 1159–1168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, M. (2015). Kindle vs. Fire: How to choose the right Amazon e-reader. Retrieved from [URL]
Brück, C., Kreifelts, B., Gößling-Arnold, C., Wertheimer, J. & Wildgruber, D. (2014). Inner voices: The cerebral representation of emotional voice cues described in literary texts. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 91, 1819–1827. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bruin de, L., Strijbos, D. & Slors, M. (2014). Situating emotions: From embodied cognition to mindreading. Topoi, 33(1), 173–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bugnyar, T., Reber, S.A., & Buckner, C. (2016). Ravens attribute visual access to unseen competitors. Nature Communications 71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burke, M. (2011). Literary reading, cognition and emotion: An exploration of the oceanic mind. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). The rhetorical neuroscience of style: On the primacy of style elements during literary discourse processing. Journal of Literary Semantics, 42(2), 199–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). The neuroaesthetics of prose fiction: Pitfalls, parameters and prospects. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9(442). [URL]/
(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, Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.) Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? 30 years later. Trends in cognitive sciences, 12(5), 187–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caracciolo, M. (2014a). Beyond other minds: Fictional characters, mental simulation, and ‘unnatural’ experiences. Journal of Narrative Theory, 44(1), 29–53. [URL]/
(2014b). The experientiality of narrative: An enactivist approach. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Catmur, C., Walsh, V., & Heyes, C. M. (2007). Sensorimotor learning configures the human mirror system. Current Biology, 171, 1527–1531. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chapelle Wojciehowski, H., & Gallese, V. (2011). How stories make us feel: Toward an embodied narratology. California Italian Studies, 2(1). Retrieved from [URL]
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chase, J & Reynolds J. (2014) Analytic versus continental: Arguments on the methods and value of philosophy. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheng, Y., Lin, C. P., Liu, H. L., Hsu, Y. Y., Lim, K. E., Hung, D., & Decety, J. (2007). Expertise modulates the perception of pain in others. Current Biology, 17(19), 1708–1713. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cupchik, G. C., Oatley, K., & Vorderer, P. (1998). Emotional effects of reading excerpts from short stories by James Joyce. Poetics, 25(6), 363–377. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Currie, G. (2010). Narratives and narrators: A philosophy of stories. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Empathy for objects. In A. Coplan & P. Goldie (Eds.), Empathy: Philosophical and psychological perspectives (pp. 82–95). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.), 2711, S131–S133. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davis, M. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 441, 113–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. The Annual Review of Psychology, 641, 135–168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diamond, A., & Lee, K. (2011). Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old. Science, 333(6045), 959–964. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Djikic, M., Oatley, K., & Moldoveanu, M. C. (2013). Reading other minds: Effects of literature on empathy. Scientific Study of Literature, 3(1), 28–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Engen, H. G., & Singer, T. (2013). Empathy circuits. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23(2), 275–282. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Esrock, E. J. (2004). Embodying literature. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 11(5–6), 79–89.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (2006). The neural basis of mentalizing. Neuron, 50(4), 531–534. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gallagher, H. L., & Frith, C. D. (2003). Functional imaging of ‘theory of mind’. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 77–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hardy-Vallée, B. & Payette, N. (2009). Beyond the brain: Embodied, situated and distributed cognition: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heyes, C. (2010). Mesmerising mirror neurons. NeuroImage, 511, 789–791. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hollan, D. (2012). Emerging issues in the cross-cultural study of empathy. Emotion Review, 4(1),70–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ickes, W. (2003). Everyday mind reading: Understanding what other people think and feel. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. (1991). The big five inventory. Technical report, University of California, Berkley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kang, Y.-Y., Wang, M.-J. & Lin, R. (2009). Usability evaluation of e-books. Displays, 30(2):49–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keen, S. (2006). A theory of narrative empathy. Narrative, 14(3), 207–236. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Empathy and the novel. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keysers, C., & Gazzola, V. (2007). Integrating simulation and theory of mind: From self to social cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(5), 194–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keysers, C., Kaas, J. H., & Gazzola, V. (2010). Somatosensation in social perception. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(6), 417–428. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keysers, C., Meffert, H., & Gazzola, V. (2014). Reply: Spontaneous versus deliberate vicarious representations: different routes to empathy in psychopathy and autism. Brain, 1371, 1–4. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kidd, D. C., & Castano, E. (2013). Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science 18, 342, 6156, 377–380. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kimmel, M. (2011). From text-linguistics to literary actants – The force dynamics of (emotional) vampirism. Language and Cognition, 3(2), 235–282. [URL]/
Kiverstein, J. & Clark, A. (2009). Introduction: Mind embodied, embedded, enacted: One church or many? Topoi, 28(1),1–7. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koopman, E. (2015). Empathic reactions after reading: The role of genre, personal factors and affective responses. Poetics, 501, 62–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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, 431, 923–927. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kross, E., Ayduk, O., & Mischel, W. (2005). When asking ‘why’ does not hurt. Distinguishing rumination from reflective processing of negative emotions. Psychological Science, 16(9), 709–715. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kross, E., Duckworth, A., Ayduk, O., Tsukayama, E., & Mischel, W. (2011). The effect of self-distancing on adaptive versus maladaptive self-reflection in children. Emotion, 11(5), 1032–1039. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuzmičová, A. (2012). Presence in the reading of literary narrative: A case for motor enactment. Semiotica, 189 (1/4), 23–48. [URL]/
(2014). Literary narrative and mental imagery: A view from embodied cognition. Style, 48(3), 275–293.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
LeDoux, J. E. (1998). The emotional brain. New York: Phoenix.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luhrmann, T. (2011). Toward an anthropological theory of mind. Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society, 36(4), 5–69.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mangen, A., & Kuiken, D. (2014). Lost in an iPad: Narrative engagement on paper and tablet. Scientific Study of Literature, 4(2), 150–177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mar, R. A., Oatley, K., Hirsh, J., dela Paz, J, & 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, 401, 694–712. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mar, R. A., Oatley, K., & Peterson, J. B. (2009). Exploring the link between reading fiction and empathy: Ruling out individual differences and examining outcomes. Communications, 341, 407–428 Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mattar, A. A., & Gribble, P. L. (2005). Motor learning by observing. Neuron, 46(1), 153–160. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miall, D. S., & Kuiken, D. (1999). What is literariness? Three components of literary reading. Discourse Processes, 28(2), 121–138. [URL]/
Mitchell, J. P., Macrae, C. N., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). Dissociable medial prefrontal contributions to judgments of similar and dissimilar others. Neuron, 50(4), 655–663. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nijhof A. D. & Willems, R. M., (2015). Simulating fiction: Individual differences in literature comprehension revealed with fMRI. PLoS ONE 10(2): e01164921. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. (2010). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O'Regan, J. K. & Noë, A. (2001). A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 939–973. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Papies, E. K., Barsalou, L. W., & Custers, R. (2012). Mindful attention prevents mindless impulses. Social Psychological and Personality Science. 3(3) 291–299. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pavarini, G., de Hollanda Souza, D., & Hawk, C. K. (2012). Parental practices and theory of mind development. Journal of Child Family Studies. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petkov, C. I & Belin, P. (2013). Silent reading: Does the brain ‘hear’ both speech and voices? Current Biology, 23(4), R155–R156. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Poulet, G. (1969). Phenomenology of reading. New Literary History, 1(1), 53–68. [URL]/
Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annu. Rev. Neurosci., 271, 169–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rowlands, M. (2010). The new science of the mind: From extended mind to embodied phenomenology: Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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), 806–812. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scarry, E. (2001). Dreaming by the book. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schilhab, T. (2015a). Re-live and learn e Interlocutor-induced elicitation of phenomenal experiences in learning offline. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology. [URL]/
(2015b). Doubletalk – the biological and social acquisition of language. Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schilhab, T. S. (2015c). Words as cultivators of others minds. Frontiers in Psychology, 61, 1690. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schooler, J. W., Smallwood, J., Christoff, K., Handy, T. C., Reichle, E. D., & Sayette, M. A. (2011). Meta-awareness, perceptual decoupling and the wandering mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(7), 319–326.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. & Aharon-Peretz, J. (2007). Dissociable prefrontal networks for cognitive and affective theory of mind: A lesion study. Neuropsychologia, 451, 3054–3067. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2011). The neural bases for empathy. The Neuroscientist, 17(1), 18–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., & Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siegenthaler, E., Wurtz, P., Bergamin, P., & Groner, R. (2011). Comparing reading processes on e-ink displays and print. Displays, 32(5), 268–273. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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, 301, 855–863. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Singer, T., & Lamm, C. (2009). The social neuroscience of empathy. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156(1), 81–96. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stueber, K. (2014). Empathy. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Waal de, F. B. (2008). Putting the altruism back into altruism: the evolution of empathy. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 591, 279–300. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Waal, de F. B. (2009). The Age of empathy: Nature’s lessons for a kinder society. New York: Harmony Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wachowicz, B., Lewandowska, K., Popek, A., Karwowski, W. and Marek, T. (2016), Empathy and modern technology: A neuroergonomics perspective. Hum. Factors Man., 261: 266–284. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, C., Zhu, R. and Handy, T. C. (2015). Experiencing haptic roughness promotes empathy. Journal of Consumer Psychology. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
White, R. E., & Carlson, S. M. (2015). What would Batman do? Self‐distancing improves executive function in young children. Developmental science. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wicker, B., Keysers, C., Plailly, J., Royet, J.P., Gallese, V., & Rizzolatti, G., (2003). Both of us disgusted in my insula: The common neural basis of seeing and feeling disgust. Neuron 401, 655–664. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Willems, R. M., & Casasanto, D. (2011). Flexibility in embodied language understanding. Frontiers in Psychology, 21, 116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views on embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4): 625–635. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zaki, J., & Ochsner, K. N. (2012). The neuroscience of empathy: Progress, pitfalls and promise. Nature Neuroscience, 15(5), 675–680. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (22)

Cited by 22 other publications

Ciesielska, Marta, Natalia Kucirkova & Jenny Thomson
2025. How the Type and Context of Children's Storybook Reading Relate to Select Empathy Skills: A Meta-Analysis. Early Education and Development 36:8 ► pp. 1888 ff. DOI logo
Santi, Elena, Katie Cebula & Sarah McGeown
2025. Reading and Empathy: Qualitative insights into adolescents' experiences with fiction books. Literacy 59:3 ► pp. 304 ff. DOI logo
Schilhab, Theresa S. S. & Gertrud L. Esbensen
2025. Wild animals connect us with nature: about awe, eco-pedagogy, and nature-connectedness. Frontiers in Psychology 16 DOI logo
Denham, A. E.
2024. Empathy & Literature. Emotion Review 16:2 ► pp. 84 ff. DOI logo
Bonasera, Carmen
2023. Exploring the potential of sentiment analysis for the study of negative empathy. Journal of Literary Semantics 52:2 ► pp. 163 ff. DOI logo
Bonasera, Carmen
2025. Does Literariness Influence Negative Empathy? A Study on the Effects of Foregrounding on Readers’ Affective and Aesthetic Reactions. Scientific Study of Literature 14:1 ► pp. 84 ff. DOI logo
Fernandez-Quintanilla, Carolina & Fransina Stradling
2023. Introduction: stylistic approaches to narrative empathy. Journal of Literary Semantics 52:2 ► pp. 103 ff. DOI logo
Eekhof, Lynn S., Kobie van Krieken & Roel M. Willems
2022. Reading about minds: The social-cognitive potential of narratives. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 29:5 ► pp. 1703 ff. DOI logo
Dahy, Faten Abdelaziz & Khaled Mostafa Karam
2021. Potentials of Empathetic Stimuli in Creative Nonfiction: Zimbardo’sThe Lucifer Effectand Danner’sTorture and Truth. English Studies 102:4 ► pp. 468 ff. DOI logo
Pianzola, Federico, Giuseppe Riva, Karin Kukkonen & Fabrizia Mantovani
2021. Presence, flow, and narrative absorption: an interdisciplinary theoretical exploration with a new spatiotemporal integrated model based on predictive processing. Open Research Europe 1 ► pp. 28 ff. DOI logo
Pianzola, Federico, Giuseppe Riva, Karin Kukkonen & Fabrizia Mantovani
2021. Presence, flow, and narrative absorption: an interdisciplinary theoretical exploration with a new spatiotemporal integrated model based on predictive processing. Open Research Europe 1 ► pp. 28 ff. DOI logo
Fernandez-Quintanilla, Carolina
2020. Textual and reader factors in narrative empathy: An empirical reader response study using focus groups. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 29:2 ► pp. 124 ff. DOI logo
Fernandez-Quintanilla, Carolina
2025. Empathy: Stylistic Perspectives. In Reference Module in Social Sciences, DOI logo
Gibbs, Raymond W. & Herbert L. Colston
2019. What psycholinguistic studies ignore about literary experience. Scientific Study of Literature 9:1 ► pp. 72 ff. DOI logo
Kuzmičová, Anežka & Katalin Bálint
2019. Personal Relevance in Story Reading. Poetics Today 40:3 ► pp. 429 ff. DOI logo
Nikolajeva, Maria
2019. What is it Like to be a Child? Childness in the Age of Neuroscience. Children's Literature in Education 50:1 ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
Pianzola, Federico, Katalin Bálint & Jessica Weller
2019. Virtual reality as a tool for promoting reading via enhanced narrative absorption and empathy. Scientific Study of Literature 9:2 ► pp. 163 ff. DOI logo
Consoli, Gianluca
2018. Preliminary steps towards a cognitive theory of fiction and its effects. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science 2:1-2 ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo
D’Adamo, Amedeo
2018. Welcome to Dantean Space!: Empathy and Space in Singin’ in the Rain, Legally Blonde, the Pursuit of Happyness and Aliens. In Empathetic Space on Screen, ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Mangen, Anne, Anne Charlotte Begnum, Anežka Kuzmičová, Kersti Nilsson, Mette Steenberg & Hildegunn Støle
2018. Empathy and literary style. Orbis Litterarum 73:6 ► pp. 471 ff. DOI logo
Oatley, Keith & Maja Djikic
2018. Psychology of Narrative Art. Review of General Psychology 22:2 ► pp. 161 ff. DOI logo
Salgaro, Massimo & Benjamin Van Tourhout
2018. Why Does Frank Underwood Look at Us? Contemporary Heroes Suggest the Need of a Turn in the Conceptualization of Fictional Empathy. Journal of Literary Theory 12:2 ► pp. 345 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue