Literary fiction did not improve affective ToM (#225)

Return to View Chart

How to Cite this Report

APA Style

Andrew Liu and Stephen Want. Literary fiction did not improve affective ToM. (2015, June 01). Retrieved 10:29, June 25, 2017 from http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjI1

MLA Style

"Literary fiction did not improve affective ToM" Andrew Liu and Stephen Want. 01 Jun 2015 10:01 25 Jun 2017, 10:29 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjI1>

MHRA Style

'Literary fiction did not improve affective ToM', Andrew Liu and Stephen Want, , 01 June 2015 10:01 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjI1> [accessed 25 June 2017]

Chicago Style

"Literary fiction did not improve affective ToM", Andrew Liu and Stephen Want, , http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjI1 (accessed June 25, 2017)

CBE/CSE Style

Literary fiction did not improve affective ToM [Internet]. Andrew Liu and Stephen Want; 2015 Jun 01, 10:01 [cited 2017 Jun 25]. Available from: http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjI1

Reference to Original Report of Finding Kidd, D.C. & Castano, E. (2013). Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science, 342, 377-380. doi: 10.1126/science.1239918
Title Literary fiction did not improve affective ToM
If the original article contained multiple experiments, which one did you attempt to replicate? e.g., you might respond 'Study 1' or 'Experiment 4'. Study 1
Link to PDF of Original ReportView Article
Brief Statement of Original Result Participants read either literary fiction or non-fiction and then completed the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET). The Literary Fiction group (M = 25.90) outperformed the Nonfiction group (M = 23.47), F(1, 82) = 6.40, p = .01.
Type of Replication Attempted Fairly Direct Replication
Result Type Failure to Replicate
Difference? Opposite Direction, 0.72
Number of Subjects 104
Number of Subjects in Original Study 86
Year in which Replication Attempt was Made 2015
Name of Investigators (Real Names Required) Andrew Liu and Stephen Want
Detailed Description of Method/Results METHOD:
We tested 104 participants (89 female, 15 male) from an undergraduate participant pool. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 46 years old. Forty-seven participants (45.2%) self-identified as Caucasian, the single largest ethnicity in our sample.
Participants completed the following, in this order:
(1) Reading a literary fiction piece ("A Chameleon" by Anton Chekov) or a non-fiction piece ("Bamboo Steps Up" by Cathie Gandel), by random assignment.
(2) The Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET).
(3) The Author Recognition Test (ART), the PANAS, the Transportation Scale, the IRI, and a demographics questionnaire.

DATA:
An SPSS file containing the data is available at the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/f5h9a/

RESULTS:
(1) Participants in the two groups did not differ statistically significantly on any of the demographic variables.
(2) The mean RMET scores of the Literary Fiction group (M = 26.44, SD = 3.68) and the Non-fiction group (M = 26.79, SD = 3.23) were not significantly different, F(1, 102) = .26, p = .61, Cohen's d = -.1.
(3) Excluding univariate outliers (n = 3) did not alter this pattern; the mean RMET scores of the Literary Fiction group (M = 26.44, SD = 3.75) and the Non-fiction group (M = 26.69, SD = 3.17) were not significantly different, F(1, 99) = .13, p = .72, Cohen's d = -.07.
(4) Further excluding participants whose first language was not English (n = 30) did not alter this pattern; the mean RMET scores of the Literary Fiction group (M = 26.82, SD = 3.37) and the Non-fiction group (M = 26.76, SD = 3.39) were not significantly different, F(1, 69) = .01, p = .93, Cohen's d = .02.
(5) Repeating these analyses with the addition of co-variates (gender, age, Transportation Scale scores, PANAS Negative Affect scores) did not change the pattern of results. There was never a statistically significant difference between the groups on the RMET.
Any Known Methodological Differences
(between original and present study)?
There are several methodological differences between the studies: (1) We used only 1 example of literary fiction ("A Chameleon") and 1 example of non-fiction ("Bamboo Steps Up") whereas Kidd and Castano used 3 examples of each. (2) We tested an undergraduate sample whereas Kidd and Castano tested an MTurk sample. Our sample therefore participated for course credit, whereas Kidd and Castano's sample participated for money. Kidd and Castano's sample was older than ours on average (M = 34.27 vs. M = 20.5) and had a higher proportion of males than ours (45% vs. 14%). (3) Our participants took part in the study in groups of between 1 and 4 individuals. (4) We did not include the measure of cognitive ToM that Kidd and Castano included in their Study 1 and that participants completed between reading the texts and completing the RMET. (5) Our sample was ethnically diverse (see Table 1). We are not sure how ethically diverse Kidd and Castano's sample was, but if their participants were not as ethnically-diverse as ours, this may possibly have contributed to differences in the results. (6) Our sample did not seem to be particularly well-read, scoring only a mean of 9.19 (out of a maximum of 65) on the Author Recognition Test (see Table 2). We are not sure how well-read Kidd and Castano's sample was, but if their participants were more well-read than ours, this may possibly have contributed to differences in the results.
Email of Investigator
Name of individuals who
actually carried out the project
Andrew Liu tested the participants. Andrew Liu and Stephen Want analyzed the data.
Location of ProjectThe South Bond Building at Ryerson University
Characteristics of Subjects
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
University students from subject pool
Where did these subjects reside?Canada
Was this a Class Project?No
Further Details of Results as pdf
Additional Comments
Email of Original Investigator
Quantitive Information
I have complied with ethical standards for experimentation on human beings and, if necessary, have obtained appropriate permission from an Institutional Review Board or other oversight group.
TAG: Attention TAG: JDM TAG: Language TAG: Learning TAG: Memory TAG: Perception TAG: Performance TAG: Problem Solving TAG: Social Cognition TAG: Social Psychology TAG: Thinking

Are you posting an unpublished replication attempt that you conducted yourself, or noting a published replication attempt?

Post Unpublished
Post Published