Science1 publisher3 min readPublished
Current Opinion in Psychology review ties fiction more closely than nonfiction to verbal skill
Reading narrative fiction predicts verbal and language skills better than reading nonfiction, according to a review in Current Opinion in Psychology. That link is correlational, and the review's case for novels over other books is thinner than its case for reading itself.
The Scientist · Science desk
What happened
- In a Swiss study of 700 children, discussing stories that featured inclusion raised sensitivity to unfairness and harm more than a standard language curriculum did.
- A study that followed people for five decades found teenagers who read more in their free time grew into more socially connected adults.
- Among more than 3,500 older US adults, book readers outlived nonreaders by 23 months, measured when 20% of each group had died.
Compiled by The ScientistSomething wrong?How this is made
Why it matters
- constraint Because the language-skill result is a correlation, it cannot show whether novels build verbal skill or fluent readers choose novels, so it is thin ground for prescribing a genre.
- decision A reader dividing time between genres keeps the reported brain benefits either way, since slower tissue loss and stronger connectivity attach to reading in general.
- contradiction The account suggests fiction may help extend lives, but the survival study pooled genres, and with 87% of its book readers reading fiction it could not isolate a fiction effect.
"Predictor" is a correlational word. Fiction reading tracks verbal and language skill more closely than nonfiction reading does [2]. The review explains the link by describing fiction as a bridge between reading for pleasure and language proficiency, because its language and style hook readers [3]. The same pattern would appear if the causation ran the other way, with children who already read fluently being the ones who choose novels.
The closest thing to an experiment in the phys.org account is a Swiss study of 700 children [5]. Talking about stories that featured inclusion made the children more sensitive to unfairness and harm than a standard language curriculum did [5]. A standard curriculum is a sensible control. The study tested story content and discussion, though, and did not set fiction against nonfiction. The review's kindness finding is specific to fiction but observational: children and teenagers who read more fiction tend to behave more kindly and have fewer problems with peers [4].
The survival figure needs the most care. Among more than 3,500 older adults in a nationally representative US sample, book readers survived 23 months longer than nonreaders, measured at the point when 20% of each group had died [7]. The measure compares when the first fifth of each group died. It is not a comparison of average lifespan. The association was much stronger for books than for newspapers or magazines [8]. The study did not separate fiction from nonfiction, and 87% of its book readers read fiction [9], leaving 13% who did not [1]. The account does not give an effect size for the language-skill comparison or say what the survival study adjusted for, so the 23 months cannot yet be credited to the books themselves.
Much of the review's cognitive evidence concerns reading of any kind. The findings on slower loss of brain tissue and stronger neuronal connectivity apply to fiction and nonfiction alike [10]. The five-decade study tracked how much teenagers read in their free time, whatever the genre, and found they grew into adults who saw and talked with family and friends more often [6]. Earlier studies found cognitive benefits from both genres [11].
The argument for fiction in particular is a proposal. Novels may add a benefit because they stand in for social engagement [11]. A long novel's many characters and plotlines keep readers recalling and connecting information in a way a short informational text typically does not [12].
In my view the evidence supports a narrow conclusion. The line on Instagram Reels and business podcasts that people serious about growth read nonfiction [14] gets no support from it. Fiction holds a correlational edge on language skill [2], while the protective brain findings belong to reading in general [10]. The authors hope the review prompts more research, and it makes the case for making books accessible to everyone, regardless of age, taste or language [13].
What to watch
- Publication of the effect size and underlying studies behind the fiction-versus-nonfiction language comparison, to show how large the gap is.
- A trial that assigns readers to fiction or nonfiction and then measures verbal skill, to test whether the correlation runs from novels to language.
- A reanalysis of the older-adult survival cohort that separates fiction readers from nonfiction readers and reports its adjustments.