Understanding others' mental states is a crucial skill that enables the complex social relationships that characterize human societies. Yet little research has investigated what fosters this skill, which is known as Theory of Mind (ToM), in adults. We present five experiments showing that reading literary fiction led to better performance on tests of affective ToM (experiments 1 to 5) and cognitive ToM (experiments 4 and 5) compared with reading nonfiction (experiments 1), popular fiction (experiments 2 to 5), or nothing at all (experiments 2 and 5). Specifically, these results show that reading literary fiction temporarily enhances ToM. More broadly, they suggest that ToM may be influenced by engagement with works of art.

Our ability to infer and understand others' thoughts and feelings, known as theory of mind (ToM), has important consequences across the life span, supporting empathy, pro-social behavior, and coordination in groups. Socialization practices and interpersonal interactions help develop this capacity, and so does engaging with fiction. Research suggests that lifetime exposure to fiction predicts performance on ToM tests, but little evidence speaks to the type of fiction most responsible for this effect. We draw from literary theory and empirical work to propose that literary fiction is more likely than genre fiction to foster ToM, describe the development of a new method for assessing exposure to literary and popular genre fiction, and report findings from 3 samples testing the specificity of the relation between exposure to literary fiction and ToM. Results indicate that exposure to literary but not genre fiction positively predicts performance on a test of ToM, even when accounting for demographic variables including age, gender, educational attainment, undergraduate major (in 2 samples), and self-reported empathy (in 1 sample). These findings offer further evidence that habitual engagement with others' minds, even fictional ones, may improve the psychological processes supporting intersubjectivity. We discuss their implications for understanding the impacts of fiction, and for models of culture more generally.

Scholars from diverse disciplines have proposed that reading fiction improves intersubjective capacities. Experiments have yielded mixed evidence that reading literary fiction improves performance on the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test, a test of Theory of Mind. Three preregistered experiments revealed mixed results. Applying the “small telescopes” method developed by Simonsohn revealed two uninformative failures to replicate and one successful replication. On a measure of the importance of intentions to moral judgments, results were more mixed, with one significant effect in the expected direction, one nonsignificant effect, and one significant effect in the unexpected direction. In addition, two experiments yielded support for the exploratory but preregistered hypothesis that characters in popular fiction are perceived as more predictable and stereotypic than those in literary fiction. These findings help clarify the sociocognitive effects of reading literary fiction and refine questions for future research.

Storytelling is a hallmark human activity. We use stories to make sense of the world, to explain it to our children, to create communities, and to learn about others. This article focuses on fictional stories and their impact on complex sociocognitive abilities. Correlational and experimental evidence shows that exposure to fiction recruits and hones our ability to represent others’ mental states, or theory of mind (ToM). Experimental studies suggest this effect is specific to literary fiction. Using a unique set of texts, we replicate the finding that literary fiction improves ToM performance. Consistent with the expectation of greater focus on characters in literary fiction, linguistic analysis of the texts revealed that the literary texts contain more markers of reflective function, a sophisticated manifestation of ToM. Further analysis showed the prevalence of markers of reflective function partially mediated the effect of literary fiction on ToM performance.

Contrary to Kidd and Castano (2013), Panero et al. (2016) fail to find that reading literary fiction improves performance on an advanced test of theory of mind (ToM), the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test. However, this commentary shows that the findings presented in Panero et al. (2016) are not reliable due to two striking threats to the internal validity of their studies that were not clearly disclosed or discussed in the manuscript or supplementary materials. First, no effective strategy was implemented to ensure that participants read their assigned texts, and examination of the data revealed many participants whose reading times indicate that they were not exposed to the manipulation. Second, further examination shows that two of the largest studies contributing to Panero et al. (2016) are not valid experiments due to a clear failure of random assignment to conditions. These threats to experimental internal validity make the conclusions presented in Panero et al. (2016) untenable. After removing cases in which participants were not exposed to the manipulation and the data from the two studies without random assignment, an analysis reveals that reading literary fiction improves ToM compared to reading popular genre fiction. This result is consistent with prior studies and indicates that a failure to carefully replicate the methods of Kidd and Castano (2013) led to the failure to replicate Kidd and Castano's (2013) results. (PsycINFO Database Record