Cover not available

Article published In: Scientific Study of Literature
Vol. 7:1 (2017) ► pp.79–108

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

The genre effect

A science fiction (vs. realism) manipulation decreases inference effort, reading comprehension, and perceptions of literary merit

 | Department of English, Washington and Lee University, USA
 | Department of Psychology, Washington and Lee University, USA
Published online: 23 November 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.7.1.04gav
Abstract
Some purport that literary fiction is determined by high inference demands. The subgenre of science fiction is often defined by story-world tropes that may reduce inferential demands. However, science fiction with high inference demands may also constitute literary fiction. Instead of inferential demands, it may be readers’ responses to setting that distinguishes science fiction and narrative realism. In two experiments, a story was manipulated for contemporary and science-fiction settings. Also, a version of each text with and without explanatory statements manipulated inference demand. Readers perceived the science-fiction text as lower in literary quality. For science fiction, readers also exerted less inference effort for theory of mind, but more for understanding the world. Regardless of inference effort, participants who read the story in the science-fiction world performed more poorly on comprehension. Readers’ expectations triggered by setting tropes seem to be particularly potent determinants of literary quality perceptions, inference effort, and comprehension.
Article outline
  • Current studies
  • Experiment 1
    • Method
      • Participants
      • Design and materials
      • Questionnaires
      • Reading comprehension
    • Procedure
    • Results
      • Literary quality
      • Inference effort – theory of mind
      • Experience-taking
      • Transportation
      • Reading comprehension
      • Trait empathic concern and perspective-taking
      • Free response literary definition
      • Reading speed
    • Discussion
  • Experiment 2
    • Method
      • Participants
      • Design and materials
      • Questionnaires
      • Reading comprehension
    • Procedure
    • Results
      • Literary quality
      • Inference effort – theory of mind
      • Inference effort – world
      • Inference effort – plot
      • Affective empathy
      • Transportation
      • Reading comprehension – theory of mind
      • Reading comprehension – world
      • Reading comprehension – plot
      • Reading speed
    • Discussion
  • General discussion
  • Future research and limitations
  • Conclusion
  • References
References (38)
References
Alexandrov, V. E. (2007). Literature, literariness, and the brain. Comparative Literature, 59(2), 97–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Attebery, B. (2004). Fantasy as mode, genre, formula. In David Sandner (Ed.), Fantastic literature: a critical reader (pp. 293–309). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baldick, C. (2015). The Oxford dictionary of literary terms. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Retrieved November 11, 2016, from [URL]
Benthian, C. (2012). The Literariness of new media art – a case for expanding the domain of literary studies. Journal of Literary Theory, 61, 311–336. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cawalti, R. G. (1976). Adventure, mystery and romance: formula stories as art and popular culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, P., & Bortolussi, M. (2005). Approach and selection of popular narrative genre. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 231, 3–17. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). The scientific study of literature: what can, has, and should be done. Scientific Study of Literature, 11, 59–71. 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, 31, 28–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emmott, C., Sanford, A. J., & Dawydiak, E. J. (2007). Stylistics meet cognitive science: studying style in fiction and readers’ attention from an interdisciplinary perspective. Style, 411, 204–224.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eason, S. H., Goldberg, L. F., Young, K. M., Geist, M. C., & Cutting, L. E. (2012). Reader – text interactions: How differential text and question types influence cognitive skills needed for reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1041, 515–528. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fong, K., Mullin, J. B., Mullin, & Mar, R. A. (2013). What you read matters: The role of fiction genre in predicting interpersonal sensitivity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(4), 370–376. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hanauer, D. (1998). Reading poetry: an empirical investigation of formalist, stylistic, and conventionalist claims. Poetics Today, 191, 565–580. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Inference [Def. 1]. (2016). Oxford English dictionary. Retrieved October 18, 2016, from [URL]
Iza, M., & Ezquerro, J. (2000). Elaborative inferences. anales de psicología, 161, 227–249.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kidd, D. C., & Castano, E. (2013). Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science, 3421, 377–380. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keegan, K. (2006). Why fabulist and new wave fabulist stories in an anthology named paraspheres? In Rusty Morrison and Ken Keegan (Eds.), Paraspheres: extending beyond the spheres of literary and genre fiction (pp. 625–637). Richmond, CA: Omnidawn.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: a paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koopman, E. M. (2016). Effects of “literariness” on emotions and on empathy and reflection after reading. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 101, 82–98. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koopman, E. M., & Hakemulder, F. (2015). Effects of literature on empathy and self-reflection: a theoretical-empirical framework. Journal of Literary Theory, 91, 79–111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maslin, J. (2012). The lies that buoy, then break a marriage, ‘Gone Girl,’ by Gillian Flynn. The New York Times, May 29. Retrieved November 11, 2016, from [URL]
Miall, D. S. (2009). The neuropsychology of literariness [Abstract]. Conference on Neuroaesthetics, September 24–26, Copenhagen. Retrieved November 11, 2016, from [URL]
(2011). Science in the perspective of literariness. Scientific Study of Literature, 11, 7–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Foregrounding and the sublime: Shelley in Chamonix. Language and Literature, 161, 155–168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mahapatra, S., Das, J. P., Stack-Cutler, H., & Parrila, R. (2010). Remediating reading comprehension difficulties: a cognitive processing approach. Reading Psychology, 311, 428–453. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 141, 1–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 191, 228–242. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panero, M. E., Black, J., Barnes, J. L., Weisberg, D. S., Goldstein, T. R., Brownell, H., & Winner, E. (2016). Does reading a single passage of literary fiction really improve theory of mind? An attempt at replication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1111, e46–e54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peretz, E. (2014). It’s Tartt – but is it Art? Vanity Fair, July. Retrieved November 11, 2016, from [URL]
Rice, C. (2010). Literariness. In Patrick Colm Hogan (Ed.), The Cambridge encyclopedia of the language sciences (pp. 450–453), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shklovksy, V. (1970). Sterne’s Tristram Shandy: stylistic commentary. In L. T. Lemon & M. J. Reis (Eds., Trans.), Russian formalist criticism: four essays (pp. 25–57). Lincoln: University of Nebraska.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shen, Y. (2007). Foregrounding in poetic discourse: between deviation and cognitive constraints. Language and Literature, 16(2), 169–181. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simerka, B. (2012). Cognitive theories of genre: The prototype effect and early modern Spanish tragedy. Bulletin of the Comediantes, 641, 153–217. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steiner, P. (1984). Russian formalism: A metapoetics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomashevksy, B. (1970). Thematics. In L. T. Lemon & M. J. Reis (Eds., Trans.), Russian Formalist criticism: four essays (pp. 61–98). Lincoln: University of Nebraska.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Peer, W. (1986). Stylistics and psychology: investigations of foregrounding. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Introduction to foregrounding: a state of the art. Language and Literature, 161, 99–104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walczyk, J. J., Wei, M., Griffith-Ross, D. A., Goubert, S. E., Cooper, A. L., & Zha, P. (2007). Development of the interplay between automatic processes and cognitive resources in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 991, 861–887. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Whalen, D. H., Zunshine, L., & Holquist, M. (2012). Theory of mind and embedding of perspective: A psychological test of a literary “sweet spot.” Scientific Study of Literature, 21, 301–315. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (11)

Cited by 11 other publications

Tabullo, Ángel & María Florencia Chiófalo
2024. Not All Fiction is the Same: Literary and Genre Fiction Reading Associations with Expository and Narrative Text Comprehension. Trends in Psychology 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
Zhang, Shuai, Kausalai (Kay) Wijekumar & Bing Han
2021. An Analysis of Grade 4 Reading Textbooks used in Mainland China: Do the Texts and Activities Support Higher Order Reading Comprehension Skills?. Technology, Knowledge and Learning 26:2 ► pp. 251 ff. DOI logo
Nicholes, Justin
2020. Science fiction prototyping’s features and impact on college students’ perceptions of writing. Scientific Study of Literature 10:1 ► pp. 98 ff. DOI logo
Quinlan, Joshua A. & Raymond A. Mar
2020. How Imagination Supports Narrative Experiences for Textual, Audiovisual, and Interactive Narratives. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Imagination, ► pp. 466 ff. DOI logo
Zunshine, Lisa
2020. Embodied Social Cognition and Comparative Literature. Poetics Today 41:2 ► pp. 171 ff. DOI logo
Deane, Paul, Swapna Somasundaran, René R. Lawless, Hilary Persky & Colleen Appel
2019. The Key Practice, Building and Sharing Stories and Social Understandings: The Intrinsic Value of Narrative. ETS Research Report Series 2019:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Gavaler, Chris & Dan Johnson
2019. The literary genre effect. Scientific Study of Literature 9:1 ► pp. 34 ff. DOI logo
Kidd, David & Emanuele Castano
2019. Reading Literary Fiction and Theory of Mind: Three Preregistered Replications and Extensions of Kidd and Castano (2013). Social Psychological and Personality Science 10:4 ► pp. 522 ff. DOI logo
Joyce, Stephen
2018. Convergence Publishing and Prestige Niches. In Transmedia Storytelling and the Apocalypse, ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Creative Writing Across the Curriculum [Linguistic Approaches to Literature, 40], 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