FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2072213669> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2072213669 abstract "Abstract Various scholars have made claims about literature’s potential to evoke empathy and self-reflection, which would eventually lead to more pro-social behav­ior. But is it indeed the case that a seemingly idle pass-time activity like literary reading can do all that? And if so, how can we explain such an influence? Would the effects be particular to unique literary text qualities or to other aspects that literary texts share with other genres (e. g., narrativity)? Empirical research is necessary to answer these questions. This article presents an overview of empirical studies investigating the relationship between reading and empathy, and reading and self-reflection. We reveal those questions in the research that are not addressed as of yet, and synthesize the available approaches to literary effects. Based on theory as well as empirical work, a multi-factor model of literary reading is constructed. With regard to reading and empathy, the metaphor of the moral laboratory (cf. Hakemulder 2000) comes close to a concise summary of the research and theory. Being absorbed in a narrative can stimulate empathic imagination. Readers go along with the author/narrator in a (fictional) thought-experiment, imagining how it would be to be in the shoes of a particular character, with certain motives, under certain circumstances, meeting with certain events. That would explain why narrativity can result in a broadening of readers’ consciousness, in particular so that it encompasses fellow human beings. Fictionality might stimulate readers to consider the narrative they read as a thought experiment, creating distance between them and the events, allowing them to experiment more freely with taking the position of a character different from themselves, also in moral respects. Literary features, like gaps and ambiguous characterization, may stimulate readers to make more mental inferences, thus training their theory of mind. However, apart from literature possibly being able to train basic cognitive ability, we have little indication for the importance of Regarding self-reflection, while there is no convincing evidence that literary texts are generally more thought-provoking than non-literary texts (either narrative or expository), there is tentative indication for a relation between reading literary texts and self-reflection. However, as was the case for the studies on empathy, there is a lack of systematic comparisons between literary narratives and non-literary narratives. There are some suggestions regarding the processes that can lead to self-reflection. Empirical and theoretical work indicates that the combination of experiencing narrative and aesthetic emotions tends to trigger self-reflection. Personal and reading experience may influence narrative and aesthetic emotions. By proposing a multi-factor model of literary reading, we hope to give an impulse to current reader response research, which too often conflates narrativity, fictionality and literariness. The multi-factor model of literary reading contains (our simplified versions of) two theoretical positions within the field of reader response studies on underlying processes that lead to empathy and reflection: the idea of reading literature as a form of role-taking proposed by Oatley (e. g., 1994; 1999) and the idea of defamiliarization through deviating textual and narrative features proposed by Miall and Kuiken (1994; 1999). We argue that these positions are in fact complementary. While the role-taking concept seems most adequate to explain empathic responses, the defamiliarization concept seems most adequate in explaining reflective responses. The discussion of these two theoretical explanations leads to the construction of a theoret­ical framework (and model) that offers useful suggestions which texts could be considered to have which effects on empathy and reflection. In our multi-factor model of literary reading, an important addition to the previously mentioned theories is the concept »stillness«. We borrow this term from the Canadian author Yann Martel (2009), who suggests reading certain literary texts will help to stimulate self-contemplation (and appreciation for art), moments that are especially valuable in times that life seems to be racing by, and we are enveloped by work and a multitude of other activities. Other literary authors have proposed similar ideas. Stillness is related to, or overlaps with the more commonly used term »aesthetic distance«, an attitude of detachment, allowing for contemplation to take place (cf. Cupchik 2001). Stillness, we propose, allows a space in which slow thinking (Kahneman 2011) can take place. Stillness is not reflection itself, but a precondition for reflection. In our model, stillness is an empty space or time that is created as a result of reading processes: the slowing down of readers’ perceptions of the fictional world, caused by defamiliarization. Our multi-factor model suggests that while role-taking can take place for all types of narratives, literary and fictional narratives may evoke the type of aesthetic distance (stillness) that leads to a suspension of judgment, adding to a stronger experience of role-taking and narrative empathy." @default.
• W2072213669 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2072213669 creator A5006131799 @default.
• W2072213669 creator A5081671273 @default.
• W2072213669 date "2015-01-01" @default.
• W2072213669 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2072213669 title "Effects of Literature on Empathy and Self-Reflection: A Theoretical-Empirical Framework" @default.
• W2072213669 cites W1973512079 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W1979928779 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W1980083892 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W1986930799 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W1993188741 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W1998654502 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2016738977 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2024756381 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2026482250 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2026533004 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2029308812 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2040052812 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2044799127 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2054425497 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2060708208 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2062155476 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2062865797 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2065976060 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2075347661 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2077488271 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2085646006 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2090738946 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2094517542 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2094518516 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2098327022 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2099333352 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2101152439 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2101182646 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2128452805 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2128885791 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2129552065 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2135291602 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2140291362 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2154536454 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2162443577 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2163608125 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2164660261 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W2343853019 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W4235809384 @default.
• W2072213669 cites W4294333904 @default.
• W2072213669 doi "https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2015-0005" @default.
• W2072213669 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W2072213669 type Work @default.
• W2072213669 sameAs 2072213669 @default.
• W2072213669 citedByCount "101" @default.
• W2072213669 countsByYear W20722136692015 @default.
• W2072213669 countsByYear W20722136692016 @default.
• W2072213669 countsByYear W20722136692017 @default.
• W2072213669 countsByYear W20722136692018 @default.
• W2072213669 countsByYear W20722136692019 @default.
• W2072213669 countsByYear W20722136692020 @default.
• W2072213669 countsByYear W20722136692021 @default.
• W2072213669 countsByYear W20722136692022 @default.
• W2072213669 countsByYear W20722136692023 @default.
• W2072213669 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2072213669 hasAuthorship W2072213669A5006131799 @default.
• W2072213669 hasAuthorship W2072213669A5081671273 @default.
• W2072213669 hasBestOaLocation W20722136692 @default.
• W2072213669 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2072213669 hasConcept C120936955 @default.
• W2072213669 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2072213669 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2072213669 hasConcept C186720457 @default.
• W2072213669 hasConcept C199033989 @default.
• W2072213669 hasConcept C2778311575 @default.
• W2072213669 hasConcept C2779885105 @default.
• W2072213669 hasConcept C2780787791 @default.
• W2072213669 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2072213669 hasConcept C554936623 @default.
• W2072213669 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2072213669 hasConceptScore W2072213669C111472728 @default.
• W2072213669 hasConceptScore W2072213669C120936955 @default.
• W2072213669 hasConceptScore W2072213669C138885662 @default.
• W2072213669 hasConceptScore W2072213669C15744967 @default.
• W2072213669 hasConceptScore W2072213669C186720457 @default.
• W2072213669 hasConceptScore W2072213669C199033989 @default.
• W2072213669 hasConceptScore W2072213669C2778311575 @default.
• W2072213669 hasConceptScore W2072213669C2779885105 @default.
• W2072213669 hasConceptScore W2072213669C2780787791 @default.
• W2072213669 hasConceptScore W2072213669C41895202 @default.
• W2072213669 hasConceptScore W2072213669C554936623 @default.
• W2072213669 hasConceptScore W2072213669C77805123 @default.
• W2072213669 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2072213669 hasLocation W20722136691 @default.
• W2072213669 hasLocation W20722136692 @default.
• W2072213669 hasOpenAccess W2072213669 @default.
• W2072213669 hasPrimaryLocation W20722136691 @default.
• W2072213669 hasRelatedWork W2053627212 @default.
• W2072213669 hasRelatedWork W2063382329 @default.
• W2072213669 hasRelatedWork W2066743737 @default.
• W2072213669 hasRelatedWork W2338486445 @default.
• W2072213669 hasRelatedWork W2419473311 @default.
• W2072213669 hasRelatedWork W2493503927 @default.

• next