The question underlying this article is whether imaginary world fiction (e.g., a genre of fiction involving a fictional world as well as fantasy, good heroes, evil antiheroes, and magic) has co-opted our presumed evolved intrinsic motivation for exploration of unfamiliar environments. To test this hypothesis, the authors examine whether specific characteristics said to be related to our exploratory drive predict individual variability in preference for imaginary world fiction.
The search for predictors of individual differences in attraction to imaginary worlds fiction needs to be addressed in the context of several broader questions: What differentiates readers from non-readers, fiction from non-fiction readers, and readers of all kinds of fiction from readers who specialize in a particular genre, topic, or style? And for those who specialize, we need at the very least to differentiate readers who prefer imaginary world fiction (e.g., Tolkien) from those who prefer fiction set in the real world (e.g., Balzac). Of course, real-world fiction is not of a piece: Balzac is far more remote than Toni Morrison, both of which are far more “literary” than best-selling author Jacqueline Susann.
Dubourg and Baumard (D&B) test a number of provocative hypotheses about the characteristics of people who consume imaginary world fiction by comparing the characteristics of such individuals to the general population. That the authors do not examine what distinguishes these individuals from those who prefer other kinds of fiction, non-fiction, or who prefer not to read at all, limits the conclusions we can draw. Many characteristics distinguish individuals who like to read from the general population. Reading is associated with education which is associated with socioeconomic status, just to name two obvious characteristics. To find out what distinguishes those drawn to that slice of literature in which events take place in an imaginary world, we need to pit readers of this genre against readers of other kinds of genres. The authors do cite one study (Purhonen et al., Reference Purhonen, Gronow and Rahkonen2009) comparing readers of different genres, using that study to support the claim that age is negatively correlated with preference for imaginary world literature. Actually, however, the Purhonen et al. study simply shows that with age, people are less interested in a broad category of fiction that includes science fiction along with thrillers, whodunits, and horror (most of which are not set in an imaginary world).
D&B test whether characteristics related to a drive for spatial exploration characterize readers of imaginary world fiction: age, affluence, openness to experience (and its correlate, academic achievement). Why not a more direct test, examining the reading preferences of those who like actual spatial exploration (hikers, climbers, undersea divers)? After all, the authors state that “humans find imaginary worlds very attractive for the same reasons, and under the same circumstances, as they are lured by unfamiliar environments in real life.” Would it be a problem for the theory if people who like to explore novel environments are infrequent fiction readers, or choose to relax by reading whodunnits?
Novel hypotheses should be tested against plausible alternative ones. Here are a few, framed in terms of a contrast between those who prefer imaginary world fiction versus those who prefer other kinds of fiction.
Examine preference for spatial versus psychological exploration. All genres of fiction invite exploration of one sort or another. While imaginary worlds fiction takes readers into a novel environment to be explored, real-world fiction invites readers into the minds of its characters. A greater interest in psychological than spatial issues may be associated with a preference for real-world fiction, while a greater interest in spatial than psychological issues may be associated with a preference for imaginary world fiction. And of course, evolving to read other peoples' minds is as important for survival as is evolving to explore unfamiliar space.
Examine inclination to see world in black and white terms. A preference for imaginary world fiction may be associated with a tendency to see the world in terms of good and evil (a theme which is common in imaginary worlds fiction, e.g., Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter). In contrast, a preference for real-world fiction may be associated with disinclination to see the world in such black and white terms, and with greater tolerance of moral ambiguity.
Examine sense of agency. A preference for imaginary over real-world fiction may be associated with a sense of lack of agency, for which individuals compensate by identifying with heroic characters possessing magical powers. This is the explanation that psychoanalyst Bettelheim (Reference Bettelheim1976) proposed for children's enduring love of fairy tales, a form of imaginary world fiction in which seemingly helpless children win out over seemingly all powerful evil adults.
Examine education in the humanities versus sciences and mathematics. A preference for imaginary world fiction versus literary fiction might be related to educational background. I would wager that those of any age and affluence level who prefer literary fiction (e.g., Balzac) to imaginary world fiction (e.g., Tolkien) are likely to have had a humanities (rather than a science) education. Their counterparts who prefer Tolkien to Balzac are likely to have had an education focused on science and/or mathematics. An education in the humanities would probably shape individuals to like what we call “literary fiction,” which is primarily based in real-world settings, and to dislike imaginary worlds fiction as not serious literature. As anecdotal evidence, I note that the renowned American literary critic, Wilson (Reference Wilson1956), did not think that Tolkien was a great writer, referring to his work as “juvenile trash.”
In short, there are a variety of possible distinguishing markers of individuals who like fictions about fictional worlds beside the overly general ones presented here argued to be related to our evolved need for spatial exploration.
D&B have posed an interesting question. I would not approach it in the same way, but they have opened up a new area of psychological research, one we should explore broadly, pitting multiple groups as well as alternative hypotheses against one another.
You have
Access
The question underlying this article is whether imaginary world fiction (e.g., a genre of fiction involving a fictional world as well as fantasy, good heroes, evil antiheroes, and magic) has co-opted our presumed evolved intrinsic motivation for exploration of unfamiliar environments. To test this hypothesis, the authors examine whether specific characteristics said to be related to our exploratory drive predict individual variability in preference for imaginary world fiction.
The search for predictors of individual differences in attraction to imaginary worlds fiction needs to be addressed in the context of several broader questions: What differentiates readers from non-readers, fiction from non-fiction readers, and readers of all kinds of fiction from readers who specialize in a particular genre, topic, or style? And for those who specialize, we need at the very least to differentiate readers who prefer imaginary world fiction (e.g., Tolkien) from those who prefer fiction set in the real world (e.g., Balzac). Of course, real-world fiction is not of a piece: Balzac is far more remote than Toni Morrison, both of which are far more “literary” than best-selling author Jacqueline Susann.
Dubourg and Baumard (D&B) test a number of provocative hypotheses about the characteristics of people who consume imaginary world fiction by comparing the characteristics of such individuals to the general population. That the authors do not examine what distinguishes these individuals from those who prefer other kinds of fiction, non-fiction, or who prefer not to read at all, limits the conclusions we can draw. Many characteristics distinguish individuals who like to read from the general population. Reading is associated with education which is associated with socioeconomic status, just to name two obvious characteristics. To find out what distinguishes those drawn to that slice of literature in which events take place in an imaginary world, we need to pit readers of this genre against readers of other kinds of genres. The authors do cite one study (Purhonen et al., Reference Purhonen, Gronow and Rahkonen2009) comparing readers of different genres, using that study to support the claim that age is negatively correlated with preference for imaginary world literature. Actually, however, the Purhonen et al. study simply shows that with age, people are less interested in a broad category of fiction that includes science fiction along with thrillers, whodunits, and horror (most of which are not set in an imaginary world).
D&B test whether characteristics related to a drive for spatial exploration characterize readers of imaginary world fiction: age, affluence, openness to experience (and its correlate, academic achievement). Why not a more direct test, examining the reading preferences of those who like actual spatial exploration (hikers, climbers, undersea divers)? After all, the authors state that “humans find imaginary worlds very attractive for the same reasons, and under the same circumstances, as they are lured by unfamiliar environments in real life.” Would it be a problem for the theory if people who like to explore novel environments are infrequent fiction readers, or choose to relax by reading whodunnits?
Novel hypotheses should be tested against plausible alternative ones. Here are a few, framed in terms of a contrast between those who prefer imaginary world fiction versus those who prefer other kinds of fiction.
Examine preference for spatial versus psychological exploration. All genres of fiction invite exploration of one sort or another. While imaginary worlds fiction takes readers into a novel environment to be explored, real-world fiction invites readers into the minds of its characters. A greater interest in psychological than spatial issues may be associated with a preference for real-world fiction, while a greater interest in spatial than psychological issues may be associated with a preference for imaginary world fiction. And of course, evolving to read other peoples' minds is as important for survival as is evolving to explore unfamiliar space.
Examine inclination to see world in black and white terms. A preference for imaginary world fiction may be associated with a tendency to see the world in terms of good and evil (a theme which is common in imaginary worlds fiction, e.g., Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter). In contrast, a preference for real-world fiction may be associated with disinclination to see the world in such black and white terms, and with greater tolerance of moral ambiguity.
Examine sense of agency. A preference for imaginary over real-world fiction may be associated with a sense of lack of agency, for which individuals compensate by identifying with heroic characters possessing magical powers. This is the explanation that psychoanalyst Bettelheim (Reference Bettelheim1976) proposed for children's enduring love of fairy tales, a form of imaginary world fiction in which seemingly helpless children win out over seemingly all powerful evil adults.
Examine education in the humanities versus sciences and mathematics. A preference for imaginary world fiction versus literary fiction might be related to educational background. I would wager that those of any age and affluence level who prefer literary fiction (e.g., Balzac) to imaginary world fiction (e.g., Tolkien) are likely to have had a humanities (rather than a science) education. Their counterparts who prefer Tolkien to Balzac are likely to have had an education focused on science and/or mathematics. An education in the humanities would probably shape individuals to like what we call “literary fiction,” which is primarily based in real-world settings, and to dislike imaginary worlds fiction as not serious literature. As anecdotal evidence, I note that the renowned American literary critic, Wilson (Reference Wilson1956), did not think that Tolkien was a great writer, referring to his work as “juvenile trash.”
In short, there are a variety of possible distinguishing markers of individuals who like fictions about fictional worlds beside the overly general ones presented here argued to be related to our evolved need for spatial exploration.
D&B have posed an interesting question. I would not approach it in the same way, but they have opened up a new area of psychological research, one we should explore broadly, pitting multiple groups as well as alternative hypotheses against one another.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflict of interest
None.