Reading habits quest

53
MONIEK M. KUIJPERS, SHAWN DOUGLAS, AND DON KUIKEN

Capturing the Ways We Read:
Introducing the Reading Habits Questionnaire
Introduction
Reading habit measures are often included as intervening variables in research
designs investigating reading experiences. It is assumed that people's reading habits
mediate effects of reading specific texts on the immediate experience and the eventual
outcomes of reading. The term reading habits, however, can refer to a variety of
different concepts.
Reading habits vary as a function of reading motives (e.g., reading for curiosity,
reading for educational success), reading efficacy (e.g., word recognition, linguistic
fluency), background knowledge (e.g., conceptual knowledge of a text's topic or
genre), and sociocultural influences (e.g., reading expectations, bilingual
competence). However, once established, reading habits may motivate subsequent
reading by providing the background that supports reading pleasure, interest, or
engagement. On the one hand, fluent generalization of habitually rehearsed concepts
may support reading pleasure (e.g., familiarity with approaches to fictional character
development may increase narrative comprehension and reading pleasure). On the
other hand, disfluent reconstruction of infrequently rehearsed concepts may support
reading interest (e.g., poorly understood approaches to fictional character
development may increase reading interest) (Whitfield 2009; Winkielman et al.
2006). More plausibly, the balance between fluent generalization and disfluent
reconstruction may facilitate the blend of interest and pleasure that is experienced as
engagement with an aesthetic object (Graf and Landwehr 2015).
So far, there is no systematic research available on how reading habits influence
different types of reading experiences and on how they co-occur or interact with
certain personality traits. Or if there is research available it involves only one type of
reading habit (repeated 'exposure') and its relationship to a certain trait or behavior
(cf. Black et al. 2018, on the effects of genre exposure on moral judgments; Stern et
al. 2018, on the effects of genre exposure on beliefs about interpersonal
relationships). In these examples, reading habits were at the core of their research
questions; however, in most empirical literary studies, reading habits are usually
considered a covariate in the overall design. As there is no 'universally' used reading
habit measure in the field of empirical literary studies, the results of different studies
are hard to compare. And thus, we are no closer to finding out how reading habits –
and which of them – influence the reading experience and the effects of reading.
The aim of this paper is to report development of a measure of reading frequency
across a range of text genres. Its multivariate structure allows for the identification of
groups of readers with contrasting profiles of genre familiarity, the usefulness of
which to the field of empirical literary studies we aim to demonstrate in this paper.
Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies 31.1 (Spring 2020): 53-69.
Anglistik, Volume 31 (2020), Issue 1

© 2020 Universitätsverlag WINTER GmbH Heidelberg
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

54 MONIEK M. KUIJPERS, SHAWN DOUGLAS, AND DON KUIKEN
Reading Habits
Reading Frequency
Even though reading frequency is something that is measured quite often in empirical
literary studies, there is no 'gold standard' instrument available for this purpose. The
underlying question in every reading frequency measure is the same: how much do
you read? However, the question format varies enormously, from minutes per day
(Schutte and Malouff 2004) to hours per week (Dixon et al. 1993), times per year
for personal use only / no unauthorized distribution
(Kuijpers et al. 2019), or a more general estimate from never to always (Scales and
Rhee 2001). It is difficult to assess what the best question format might be, as there is
something to say in favor of each one.
The disadvantage of all these types of measures is that they do not tell us anything
about what is being read – or how it is being read. In other words, these measures
cannot tell us what exactly is habitually rehearsed. Usually broad distinctions are
Winter Journals
made between fiction and non-fiction reading, literary and non-literary reading, or
reading for pleasure and reading for business/school. However, more fine-grained
distinctions (between genres, for example) are rarely made. As we do not know what
is more important in terms of reading experience and effects of reading – the
frequency with which people read or the subject matter that they read – it may be
useful to combine a reading frequency measure with relevant genre distinctions.

Print Exposure
A person's previous print exposure is usually captured by presenting a list of author
names (real and fake) and asking participants to indicate with which authors they are
familiar (Mar et al. 2006; Mar and Rain 2015; Stanovich and West 1989). The
original Author Recognition Test (ART) was developed by Stanovich and West
(1989) to account for "individual differences in exposure to print," without the
confounding influence of socially desirable answering (1989, 402). Because the list of
author names includes false names and the participants are made aware that indicating
recognition of a false name will subtract points from their total scores, it is argued that
this will discourage overestimation of previous exposure to print. Recent research,
however, has found that socially desirable answering in the field of research on
creativity and the arts is "probably less of a problem than researchers fear"
(McKibben and Silvia 2017, 57). McKibben and Silvia investigated the relationships
between socially desirable answering (i.e., through responses on the Balanced
Inventory of Desirable Responding, Paulhus 1984; Paulhus and Reid 1991) and
several major creativity scales and scales for assessing arts knowledge, including the
Aesthetic Fluency Scale (Smith and Smith 2006) with added literature questions.
Responding on such social desirability scales is plausibly correlated with how people
respond to the ART. However, McKibben and Silvia found essentially no relationship
between socially desirable responding and people's responses to all of the scales used
in their study. What is more, even though the ART was developed with the explicit
purpose of discouraging socially desirable answering, whether the instrument


CAPTURING THE WAYS WE READ: INTRODUCING THE READING HABITS QUESTIONNAIRE 55
succeeds in doing so is another matter. Overall, when the ART is used in empirical
literary studies in its various adaptations, scores are very low. This could be due to the
particular samples chosen for study (i.e., first-year psychology students rather than
literature students, or students rather than more experienced readers), but it could also
be due to the warning in the instructions not to select any false author names:
participants may doubt themselves and choose not to select names they recognize but
do not clearly remember reading.
Moreover, it is unclear what exactly is being measured with the ART. As Black et
al. (2018) argue, author recognition tests do not measure actual reading behavior,
rather they "serve as a proxy of exposure to literature, assuming that name recognition
may arise through reading book reviews or browsing bookstores" (330). However, as
Rain and Mar (2014) argue, participants might also be familiar with author names for
other reasons than personal experience with books, such as having heard their names
in popular media outlets or being exposed to them in classes they did not choose to
take (2014, 104-105). Obviously, this would "introduce noise into the measurement of
[…] print exposure and obscure possible relations" (104).
And so, even though it is not technically a measure of how much people have
read, Acheson et al. (2008) nonetheless claim that it is a measure of "the amount of
texts people read," Kidd and Castano (2013) claim it captures life time exposure to
literature, and Rain and Mar (2014) state that it measures reading behavior. What
exactly is print exposure, then, and how does it relate to reading frequency? In a study
on rereading and appreciation of literary texts, Kuijpers and Hakemulder (2018) used
both the Dutch version of the ART (Koopman 2015) and a simple reading frequency
measure ("How many hours per week do you read fiction for your own pleasure?"),
enabling analyses using either one of them as a covariate. They found that the two
measures positively correlated with each other, but only moderately so (r = .26, p =
.01), indicating that the two measures are related, but do not capture the same thing.
The linear mixed models in which the two measures were included yielded very
different results, depending on which of the two measures was included as a fixed
effect (for an overview of the full results, see Kuijpers and Hakemulder 2018). In
another study, Rain and Mar (2014) specifically set out to validate print exposure
checklists such as the ART. They compared the predictive validity of their adapted
ART with a simple six-item reading habits questionnaire (e.g., "I like to read fiction,"
"I read fiction," "I like to read non-fiction," "I prefer to read fiction over non-fiction").
They found that participants' responses to the reading habits questionnaire were better
able to predict their book shopping behavior than their responses to the ART (2014,
100). The authors argue that participants might have been primed to respond in a
socially desirable way in case of the ART. As recent studies have shown, however,
the effect of socially desirable responding on reading habit measures remains an
empirical question requiring more extensive evaluation. These results, alternatively,
may indicate that the self-report reading habits questionnaire captured actual reading
behavior more effectively than the indirect index of print exposure that the ART
offers.


Even though the ART's ability to capture reading behavior is only based on an
assumption that knowing author names is related to how much a person reads, it is a
widely used measure and it often leads researchers to claim that more reading leads to
higher empathic skills (Kidd and Castano 2013; Panero et al. 2016), greater social
ability (Mar et al. 2006), and greater verbal abilities (Acheson et al. 2008; Mar and
Rain 2015). Evidently, there is a need for more critical reflection on the measures we
use and the conclusions we draw from them.
Genre Preferences
One area in which the ART has been adapted is the expansion of the author checklist
by some researchers to include different genres. This approach allows for an
investigation of what people are reading and whether they are more familiar with one
genre than another. Fong et al. (2013, 371) adapted the ART to include enough author
names for each of four different genres, allowing a print exposure score to be
calculated per genre. Using this version of the ART they were able to show that
reading romance texts showed positive correlations with interpersonal sensitivity,
whereas reading science fiction/fantasy did not.
Similarly, Black et al. (2018) developed the Genre Familiarity Test (GFT), which
is based on the same assumptions as the ART. However, given their interest in the
relationships between people's exposure to fiction and their moral judgments (Black
et al. 2018), especially their beliefs about relationships (Stern et al. 2018), they mostly
include genres that present things and events as they could be, rather than how they
are (Black et al. 2018, 330). That is why the GFT includes seven genres and divides
science fiction and fantasy into distinct categories.
Both of these scales use a small number of genres, and, because these scales do
not ask about how often people read, their use risks confounding author name
familiarity with actual reading frequency. Also, recent research on online social
reading platforms like Goodreads and Wattpad shows that the range of genres people
currently are reading far exceeds four to seven categories (cf. Rebora and Pianzola
2018), and this variety should be reflected in the instruments used to measure reading
habits. This is of particular importance when using convenience samples of
undergraduate students; young adult readers are exposed to – and actually read –
fiction in a plethora of genres.
Reading Habits and Openness to Experience

Previously developed reading skills enable the emergence of particular reading habits,
but reading habits also enable further development of reading skills. This pattern of
reciprocal causation is evident throughout development (see Mol and Bus 2011, for a
review). During preschool years, children's parentally supervised exposure to fictional
narratives increases technical reading skills (e.g., word spelling, word reading ability),
while having such skills also supports pleasure/interest in further reading (or being
read to). During school years 5 to 12, educational exposure to narrative fiction and
expository texts increases reading comprehension (e.g., knowledge extension,


inference skills), while reading comprehension also supports pleasure/interest in

further (voluntary) reading. Among young adults, voluntary exposure to fiction (e.g.,
short stories, poetry) and non-fiction (e.g., political essays, magazine articles)
facilitates complex forms of comprehension (e.g., expressive language, argument
organization), while these complex forms of comprehension also support
pleasure/interest in further reading.
Among the factors involved in such reciprocal causation, recent research has
addressed trait (personality) differences in openness to experience. Among young
adults, trait conscientiousness has repeatedly been shown to predict academic
performance, probably because conscientiousness supports goal setting and self-
regulation (Poropat 2009). However, trait openness to experience also has been
shown to predict academic performance, probably because openness to experience
supports focused but flexible cognitive exploration (DeYoung 2015). More
concretely, within domains affected by general reading skills, openness to experience
predicts (1) SAT verbal scores (Noftle and Robins 2007); (2) global reading
achievement (Beaujean et al. 2011); and (3) reading fluency (Krach et al. 2016). In
the domain of literary reading (which is focal here), openness to experience predicts
(1) familiarity with fiction genres (Fong et al. 2013); (2) preference for culture-related
reading material (e.g., 'classical literature;' Schutte and Malouff, 2004); (3) preference
for literary texts (Kraaykamp and van Eijck 2005; Swami et al. 2012); and (4) the
rated importance of literary reading (Wild et al. 1995). Together these results indicate
that trait openness to experience supports habitual reading, especially habitual reading
of literary fiction that involves multi-layered plots and stylistic nuance (e.g.,
metaphors, irony).
One goal of the present study is to examine the contribution of trait openness to
experience to young adults' habitual selection of particular text genres (e.g., novels,
poetry, thrillers, essays).
The Present Research and Objectives

In the present study we set out to develop a self-report reading habits measure that
captures reading frequency across a broad spectrum of genres. One of our main
concerns was with the variety of genres that should be represented on this scale. First,
we wanted to include a range of fiction as well as non-fiction genres, enabling
relatively comprehensive coverage of people's reading habits. Within the range of
fiction genres, we wanted to be sensitive to fine-grained categories. For example, the
Fantasy genre that is represented on several different ART scales, can be further
divided into science fiction, narratives that involve ghosts, myths, and fables, as well
as children's literature. We also divided the literary fiction genre into different types,
namely poetry, short stories, and novels. We ended up with 21 different genres,
presented in table 1.
In addition to developing and testing this new reading habits questionnaire, the
goals of the present study were to (2) test different prompts on the new reading habits
questionnaire (i.e., "how often do you read" versus "how much do you enjoy reading"


versus "how much do you get absorbed when reading"); (3) demonstrate how this
measure could be used to identify groups of readers of interest to the further study of
literature reception; and (4) examine more closely the relationships between trait
openness to experience and reading habits (i.e., the contribution of trait openness to
experience to young adults' habitual selection of various fiction genres [e.g., novels,
short stories, poetry, romances, thrillers]). Our design enables comparison of readers
who habitually read fiction (e.g., novels) with those who read non-fiction (e.g.,
essays), as well as of readers who habitually read literature (e.g., poetry) with those
who read popular fiction (e.g., thrillers). Furthermore, it enables comparison of
empirically derived groups of readers who tend to select particular combinations of
such text genres (e.g., literature, fantasy, and non-fiction). Openness to experience
may predict which genres – or which genre combinations – are habitually selected.
Methods
Participants
264 introductory psychology students (196 females, 66 males, 2 undeclared; mean
age 19.0 years, range 16 to 39) completed an online study. Self-reported ethnicity was
East Asian (28%), South Asian (16%), European (13%), Euro-North American
(26%), and Other (17%). For 66% of participants, English was the first language.
Most participants (83%) either were taking or had just taken a first-year English
course, whereas some (17%) had taken other literature courses. Participants were
eligible if they reported during an online mass testing session (at the beginning of
term) that they had at least one memorable experience of reading poetry, short stories,
or novels during the preceding year. Eligible participants could sign up for a second
online session (without knowing the basis for their eligibility) and receive partial
course credit for their participation.
Procedure
When participants went to the online research website, they were told that the study
was about "meaningful reading experiences," that the study would require 1.5 to 2
hours to complete, and that their responses would be anonymized and remain
confidential. Participants were first asked to (1) identify the text (a poem, short story,
or novel) that provided their most memorable reading experience during the
preceding year; (2) recall, as richly and as completely as possible, what made that
reading experience memorable; and (3) answer a few simple questions about why
they originally read that text and whether they had re-read it.
Then participants completed two questionnaires designed to assess their level of
absorption while reading this memorable text (the Story World Absorption Scale;
Kuijpers et al. 2014; the Absorption-like States Questionnaire; Kuiken and Douglas
2017), and a third that assessed the outcomes of their reading experience (an
expanded version of the Experiencing Questionnaire; Kuiken et al. 2012). Finally,
participants completed (1) the newly developed Reading Habits Questionnaire; (2)


two measures of trait openness to experience (the Tellegen Absorption Scale

[Tellegen and Atkinson 1974], the Openness/Intellect components of the Big Five
Aspect Scales [DeYoung et al. 2007]), and (3) a short form of the Marlowe-Crowne
Social Desirability Scale (Reynolds 1982).
Measures
Reading Habits Questionnaire (RHQ)
The RHQ was modeled on similar instruments described by Scales and Rhee (2001)
and Schutte and Malouff (2004). Participants were asked to rate how often they read
each of 21 text genres (from 0 = "never during the past year" to 6 = "almost every day
during the past year"), including fiction (e.g., short stories), non-fiction (e.g., political
essays), and popular media (e.g., magazines). The full set of text genres can be found
in table 1. Then they were asked whether they enjoyed reading each of these 21 text
genres on a scale from 0 = "not at all" to 6 = "extremely" and when they read these
text types, how absorbed they usually felt on a scale from 0 = "not at all" to 6 =
"extremely." The three prompts were presented right beneath one another to make
clear that these were three different questions.
Fiction Non-Fiction
Literature (Poetry) Newspapers
Literature (Novels) Magazines
Literature (Short Stories) Personal email
Historical Fiction (involving actual figures and Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter)
events)
Romance (involving love, interpersonal Reports, manuals (e.g., recipes, technical
relationships) instructions)
Thriller (involving madness, horror, disaster) Science essays, articles, or books (non-fiction)
Thriller (involving criminal activities, detective History essays, articles, or books (non-fiction)
work)
Fantasy (Science Fiction) Political essays, articles, or books (non-fiction)
Fantasy (involving ghosts, monsters, magical
events)
Fantasy (e.g., myths, fables, legends)
Fantasy (e.g., children's literature, fairy tales)
Comics (e.g., comic strips, graphic novels)
Comedy (e.g., humor, satire)
Table 1: Text genres included in the Reading Habits Questionnaire
Tellegen Absorption Scale (TAS)

The 34 items from the TAS (Tellegen and Atkinson 1974) are rated on a 5-point scale
(from 0 = "not at all true of me" to 4 = "extremely true of me"). In this study, we are
using the factor structure as suggested by analyses in Douglas et al. (in preparation):
(1) Self-organizing Attention (α=.82) captures the capacity (or incapacity) for


attentional control; (2) Sensorimotor Involvement (α=.83) measures an embodied and

visual way of approaching experiences; and (3) Self-altering Imagination (α=.90)
captures the capacity for imagining an altered sense of self or an altered sense of
experience. The internal consistency of the total TAS score was excellent (α=.90).
Openness to Experience (BFAS; Big Five Aspects Scale)

For a measure of openness to experience (α=.84), we used the Big Five Aspects
Scales (BFAS) Openness to Experience dimension, which can be divided into a 10-
item BFAS Intellect (α=.76) and 10-item BFAS Openness (α=.76) scale (DeYoung et
al. 2007). Each statement was rated on a 5-point scale (from 0 = "not at all true of me"
to 4 = "extremely true of me"). Sample Intellect items are "I formulate ideas clearly"
and "I like to solve complex problems;" sample Openness items are "I need a creative
outlet" and "I believe in the importance of art."
Social Desirability Scale (SDS)

A short form of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Form C; Reynolds
1982) was administered to assess the influence of socially-desirable responding.
Participants were asked to mark each of 13 statements about themselves as either
"true" or "false" (e.g., "No matter who I'm talking to, I'm always a good listener").
Results
Reading Habit Factors
Principal Components Analysis of the Reading Habits Questionnaire ratings
(Oblimin; Kaiser Normalization; eigen values > 1; no double loadings) indicated six
factors when using the "How often do you read the following text types" prompt:
1. Literary Fiction: literature (poetry) (.67); romance (involving love,
interpersonal relationships) (.60); literature (novels) (.52); literature (short
stories) (.44).
2. Fantasy Fiction: fantasy (involving ghosts, monsters, magical events)
(.77); fantasy (e.g., myths, fables, legends) (.77); fantasy (science fiction)
(.72).
3. Thriller Fiction: thrillers (involving madness, horror, disaster) (.84);
thrillers (involving criminal activities, detective work) (.79).
4. Comic Fiction: comics (e.g., comic strips, graphic novels) (.77); comedy
(e.g., humor, satire) (.57); fantasy (e.g., children's literature, fairy tales)
(.57).
5. Cultural Non-fiction: political essays, articles, or books (.82); history
essays, articles, or books (.80); historical fiction (involving actual figures
and events) (.65); science essays, articles, or books (.61); newspapers
(.55).


6. Popular Media: personal email (.61); social media (e.g., Facebook,

Twitter) (.59); reports, manuals (e.g., recipes, technical instructions) (.53);
magazines (.44).
None of the preceding factor scores correlated significantly with a measure of socially
desirable responding (Reynolds 1982). (Overall the six-factor structure remained
stable across all three answering prompts.)
Reading Habit Profiles

Rather than presuming uniform patterns of co-occurrence among the ratings of
reading frequency, cluster analysis was used to identify qualitatively different profiles
of reading habits. Hierarchical cluster analysis (Ward's method; Squared Euclidian
Distances) of reading frequencies for each of the 21 RHQ genres revealed six distinct
clusters. The summary of these reading profiles presented in table 2 takes advantage
of the clear six-factor structure derived from these 21 ratings (Literary Fiction,
Fantasy Fiction, Thriller Fiction, Comic Fiction, Cultural Non-fiction, and Popular
Media). With a few added details, these are the cluster summaries:
Cluster 1: Selective Literary Readers, with high levels of commitment to
reading literary fiction (but not poetry) and moderately high levels
of commitment to reading thrillers.
Cluster 2: Non-readers, with low levels of commitment to reading the entire
spectrum of fiction genres (and cultural non-fiction).
Cluster 3: Selective Fantasy Readers, with moderately high levels of
commitment to reading fantasy fiction (but not thrillers).
Cluster 4: Cultural Non-fiction Readers, with high levels of commitment to
reading cultural non-fiction (but not fiction).
Cluster 5: Inclusive and Avid Literary Readers, with high levels of
commitment to reading all types of literary fiction (especially poetry
and including comedy), as well as one type of thriller (involving
criminal activities, detective work).
Cluster 6: Inclusive and Avid Fantasy Readers, with high levels of
commitment to reading all types of fantasy and all types of thrillers.
The preceding 6-cluster pattern suggested two groups of literary readers (Clusters 1
and 5) and two groups of fantasy readers (Clusters 3 and 6). Also, this pattern
suggested that Non-readers (Cluster 2) and Cultural Non-fiction Readers (Cluster 4)
are potentially useful comparison groups.


Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5 Cluster 6

Cluster N 50 50 38 37 28 44
Fantasy Fiction -.635 -.942c .424b -.231 .824b 1.096a
Cultural Non-fiction -.031 -.609c -.878c 1.209a 1.142a -.258
Thriller Fiction .444b -.847c -.690c -.089 .434b .854a
Comic Fiction .140 -.645c -.326c -.017 1.434a -.043
Literary Fiction .376a -.486c .089 -.574c .651a .116
Popular Media .320 -.137 -.955c .775a -.105 .031
Table 2: Reading Habits: Variations in reading profiles, as indicated by factor scores of rated
reading frequency for each of 21 genres. Note. a Largest or not different from the largest (LSD
< .10); b Less than the largest but at least .4 SD above the overall average rating; c Smallest or
not different from the smallest (LSD < .10)
Effects of Trait Openness to Experience on Reading Habits

One goal of the present study was to examine the contribution of openness to
experience to young adults' habitual selection of particular text genres (or genre
combinations). If (trait) openness to experience supports the pleasure/interest of
(state) open reflection during memorable reading, it may also support the habitual
selection of text genres that distinctively afford such reflection.
Fiction vs. Non-Fiction Readers

As shown in table 3, planned comparisons between the clusters indicated that readers
who frequently (habitually) read fiction (Clusters 1, 3, 5 and 6) differed from Non-
readers (Cluster 2) in BFAS Openness to Experience. With BFAS Openness to
Experience as a dependent variable, a planned comparison between Fiction Readers
and Non-readers was significant, F(1, 241) = 7.73, p = .006. However, this difference
obscured an asymmetry between BFAS Openness and BFAS Intellect. With BFAS
Openness as a dependent variable, the comparison between Fiction Readers and Non-
readers was significant, F(1, 241) = 5.20, p = .023, but the comparison between
Cultural Non-fiction readers (Cluster 4) and Non-readers was not. In contrast, with
BFAS Intellect as a dependent variable, the comparison between Fiction Readers and
Non-readers was significant, F(1, 241) = 5.21, p = .023, but so also was the
comparison between Cultural Non-fiction Readers and Non-readers, F(1, 241) = 3.91,
p = .049. Thus, BFAS Intellect predicted habitual reading of both fiction and non-
fiction, while BFAS Openness predicted only habitual reading of fiction.
Results for the TAS confirmed that habitually reading fiction is supported by trait
openness to experience. In an initial one-way ANOVA with TAS Total as the
dependent variable, Fiction Readers (Clusters 1, 3, 5, and 6) differed from Non-
readers (Cluster 2), F(1, 241) = 12.46, p < .001. Even so, this difference obscured an
asymmetry between TAS Self-altering Imagination and TAS Self-organizing
Attention. Specifically, with TAS Self-altering Imagination as the dependent variable,


the comparison between Fiction Readers and Non-readers was significant, F(1, 241)
= 11.30, p = .001, but the comparison between Non-readers and Cultural Non-fiction
Readers was not. By contrast, with TAS Self-organizing Attention as the dependent
variable, the planned comparison between Fiction Readers and Non-readers was
significant, F(1, 241) = 9.37, p = .002, but so was the planned comparison between
Cultural Non-fiction Readers (Cluster 4) and Non-readers (Cluster 2), F(1, 241) =
4.39, p = .037. In sum, TAS Self-altering Imagination (like BFAS Openness) was
elevated among habitual readers of fiction; TAS Self-organizing Attention (like
BFAS Intellect) was elevated among habitual readers of fiction and non-fiction.
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5 Cluster 6

Cluster N 50 50 38 37 28 44
BFAS Total 2.73 2.46 2.68 2.67 2.69 2.67

Openness 2.54 2.33 2.55 2.59 2.59 2.53
Intellect 2.90 2.58 2.80 2.75 2.78 2.81
TAS Total 1.87 1.51b 1.74b 1.83 2.22a 1.94a

Self- 1.95a 1.57b 1.72ab 1.95a 2.19a 2.01a
organizing
Attention
Sensorimotor 2.08b 1.74b 1.96ab 2.05a 2.34a 2.14a
Involvement
Self-altering 1.63 1.28b 1.46b 1.57b 2.08a 1.69
Imagination
Table 3: Variations in openness to experience (both BFAS components, all three TAS
components) as a function of Reading Habits. Note. a Different from Cluster 2 (p < .05); b not
different from Cluster 2 (p < .05)
Avid and Inclusive Literary Fiction Readers

TAS Self-altering Imagination scores were especially high among those who
habitually read a broad spectrum of literary fiction. That is, Frequent and Avid
Literary Readers (Cluster 5) not only had higher scores on Self-altering Imagination
than did Non-readers (Cluster 2), but also higher scores than Cultural Non-fiction
Readers, Selective Fantasy Readers, Inclusive and Avid Fantasy Readers, and even
Selective Literary Readers (all p < .05). As might be expected from these results,
when all factor scores for reading fiction (literature, fantasy, thriller, comedy) and
cultural non-fiction were regressed on TAS Self-altering Imagination, Literary Fiction
(but neither Fantasy Fiction nor Thriller Fiction) independently predicted this
component of the TAS (β = .13, p = .035).
General Discussion
The current study presents the development of a new reading habits measure that
emphasizes actual reading frequency, rather than preference or mere exposure. In an


online survey study, introductory psychology students were asked to recount their
most memorable reading experience during the preceding year and fill out
questionnaires on reading experience. Exploratory factor analysis of the reading
habits measure suggested six broad genre distinctions (i.e., Literary Fiction, Fantasy
Fiction, Thriller Fiction, Comic Fiction, Cultural Non-Fiction, and Popular Media),
whereas cluster analysis indicated six contrasting profiles of reader engagement (i.e.,
groups of readers who habitually choose to read a certain combination of genres).
None of the factor scores correlated significantly with a measure of socially desirable
responding.
One advantage of the Reading Habits Questionnaire over measures that capture
either preference or exposure (directly or indirectly) is that it enables separate
assessment of reported reading frequency (the frequency prompt), reported reading
pleasure (the enjoyment prompt) and reported reading engagement (the absorption
prompt). In the present report, we only showed results of factor and cluster analyses
on reported reading frequency. The RHQ, however, also allows for analyses that
combine responses on these three prompts. Such analyses could be used, for example,
to isolate unenjoyable but frequent genre exposure, such as when people read poetry
because they are required to for educational purposes. Also, the interactive
combination of the frequency prompt and the absorption prompt (e.g., their cross-
product) may indicate how often someone reads a selected genre in an engaged
manner. Even so, just using the frequency prompt, as in the present study, already
provides a more comprehensive impression of a person's reading habits than using an
author recognition test or a simple reading frequency scale, especially because of the
range of genres included in the RHQ (21 in total).
Additional benefits of using the RHQ over author recognition tests are its
translatability and thus its suitability for cross-cultural comparison studies. One of the
main problems with the ART is that it cannot be used in other language areas, even if
the sample speaks English, as they might not be familiar with most of the author
names on the list outside of their own language. Since its inception, versions of the
ART have been developed in several different language areas, besides the Canadian-
American area where it was originally developed. However, because the list of
authors can never be the same (or even similar) and each language area may involve a
distinctive reader population (e.g., more diverse, more often multilingual, access to a
more diverse range of genres), the ART could not readily be used in cross-cultural
studies of reading habits.
Results using the RHQ also indicate the utility of multi-dimensional assessment of
reading habits. On the one hand, its factor structure with the frequency prompt echoes
common (and broad) genre distinctions (Literary Fiction, Fantasy Fiction, Thriller
Fiction, Comic Fiction, Cultural Non-fiction, and Popular Media). On the other hand,
cluster analysis identified groups of readers who habitually choose combinations of
these genres. For example, Selective Literary Readers read literary fiction (but not
poetry) and thriller fiction; Inclusive and Avid Literary Readers read all types of
fiction (especially poetry) but only one type of thriller (detective stories).


Openness and Reading Habits

Comparison of groups with contrasting reading profiles indicated that these groups of
readers also differed in trait openness to experience.
First, generic openness to experience (BFAS Openness to Experience) was
elevated among habitual readers of fiction and among habitual readers of cultural
non-fiction. Thus, generic openness to experience reflects sustained but receptive
attention either during sensuous-aesthetic engagement with fiction (i.e., openness) or
during rational-intellectual engagement with non-fiction (i.e., intellect) (DeYoung
2015). Second, openness specifically (BFAS Openness) was elevated among habitual
readers of fiction but not among habitual readers of cultural non-fiction. This
reinforces the notion that sustained but flexible attention during sensuous-aesthetic
engagement characterizes habitual readers of fiction but perhaps not habitual readers
of non-fiction. The elevated scores on TAS Self-organizing Attention among habitual
readers of fiction converged with the elevated scores on BFAS Openness among
habitual readers of fiction. Third, self-altering imagination (TAS Self-altering
Imagination) was elevated among avid and inclusive readers of literary fiction (who
also read poetry) but not among selective readers of literary fiction who also read
thrillers.
These results directly show the utility and versatility of the Reading Habit
Questionnaire. Investigators can use it to look at the distribution of scores across a
range of different fiction and non-fiction genres, zoom in on common genre
distinctions, or identify groups of readers who habitually choose to read certain
combinations of text genres. For example, it becomes possible to compare the
personality traits of avid (literary) readers and non-readers or to compare the kinds of
experiences they commonly report when reading certain types of texts (e.g.,
enjoyment, absorption, frustration).
Outlook
The present research provides an alternative approach to measuring reading habits.
We are planning follow-up studies in which we compare the RHQ to
methodologically different measures of the 'same' construct (e.g., the ART and other
self-report reading frequency measures). Also, we plan to examine further whether
reading frequency is independent of socially desirable responding and (relatively)
independent of generic linguistic competence (e.g., reading speed, vocabulary
development). Most importantly, we plan to investigate whether the RHQ predicts
reading experience, including absorption and flow, but also more finely tuned aspects
of literary reading (e.g., response to stylistic variations, focalization, or metaphor
comprehension). These follow-up studies will involve more diverse samples to ensure
the measure's versatility and utility in a variety of different situations.


Works Cited
Acheson, Daniel J., Justine B. Wells, and Maryellen C. Macdonald. "New and
Updated Tests of Print Exposure and Reading Abilities in College Students."
Behavior Research Methods 40.1 (2008): 278-289. DOI:10.3758/BRM.40.1.278.
Beaujean, Alexander A., Michael W. Firmin, Shanna Attai, Courtney B. Johnson,
Ruth L. Firmin, and Kena E. Mena. "Using Personality and Cognitive Ability to
Predict Academic Achievement in a Young Adult Sample." Personality and
Individual Differences 51.6 (2011): 709-714. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.023.
Black, Jessica E., Stephanie C. Capps, and Jennifer L. Barnes. "Fiction, Genre
Exposure, and Moral Reality." Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts
12.3 (2018): 328-340. DOI:10.1037/aca0000116.
DeYoung, Colin G. "Openness/Intellect: A Dimension of Personality Reflecting
Cognitive Exploration." APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology:
Personality Processes and Individual Differences 4 (2015): 369-399.
DeYoung, Colin G., Lena C. Quilty, and Jordan B. Peterson. "Between Facets and
Domains: 10 Aspects of the Big Five." Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 93.5 (2007): 880-896. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880.
Douglas, Shawn, Moniek M. Kuijpers, and Don Kuiken. "Tellegen Absorption Scale:
A Bifactor Re-Specification as Self-Organizing Attention, Sensorimotor
Involvement, and Self-Altering Imagination." (In preparation).
Dixon, Peter, Marisa Bortolussi, Leslie C. Twilley, and Alice Leung. "Literary
Processing and Interpretation: Towards Empirical Foundations." Poetics 22.1-2
(1993): 5-33. DOI:10.1016/0304-422X(93)90018-C.
Fong, Katrina, Justin B. Mullin, and Raymond A. Mar. "What You Read Matters:
The Role of Fiction Genre in Predicting Interpersonal Sensitivity." Psychology
of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 7.4 (2013): 370-376. DOI:
10.1037/a0034084.
Graf, Laura K. M., and Jan R. Landwehr. "A Dual-Process Perspective on Fluency-Based
Aesthetics: The Pleasure-Interest Model of Aesthetic Liking." Personality and Social
Psychology Review 19.4 (2015): 395-410. DOI:10.1177/1088868315574978.
Kidd, David Comer, and Emanuele Castano. "Reading Literary Fiction Improves Theory
of Mind." Science 342.6156 (2013): 377-380. DOI:10.1126/science.1239918.
Koopman, Eva Maria Emy. "Empathic Reactions After Reading: The Role of Genre,
Personal Factors and Affective Responses." Poetics 50 (2015): 62-79. DOI:
10.1016/j.poetic.2015.02.008.
Krach, Kathleen S., Michael P. McCreery, Scott A. Loec, and Paul W. Jones. "Do
Dispositional Characteristics Influence Reading?" Reading Psychology 30 (2016):
470-486. DOI:10.1080/02702711.2015.1066908.
Kraaykamp, Gerbert, and Koen Van Eijck. "Personality, Media Preferences, and
Cultural Participation." Personality and Individual Differences 38.7 (2005): 1675-
1688. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2004.11.002.
Kuijpers, Moniek M., Shawn Douglas, and Don Kuiken. "Personality Traits and
Reading Habits that Predict Absorbed Narrative Fiction Reading." Psychology


of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 13.1 (2019): 74-88. DOI:

10.1037/aca0000168.
Kuijpers, Moniek M., and Frank Hakemulder. "Understanding and Appreciating
Literary Texts Through Rereading." Discourse Processes 55.7 (2018): 619-641.
DOI:10.1080/0163853X.2017.1390352.
Kuijpers, Moniek M., Frank Hakemulder, Ed S. Tan, and Miruna M. Doicaru.
"Exploring Absorbing Reading Experiences: Developing and Validating a Self-
Report Scale to Measure Story World Absorption." Scientific Study of Literature
4.1 (2014): 89-122. DOI:10.1075/ssol.4.1.05kui.
Kuiken, Don, and Shawn Douglas. "Forms of Absorption that Facilitate the Aesthetic
and Explanatory Effects of Literary Reading." Narrative Absorption 27 (2017):
219-252.
Kuiken, Don, Paul Campbell, and Paul Sopčák. "The Experiencing Questionnaire:
Locating Exceptional Reading Moments." Scientific Study of Literature 2.2
(2012): 243-272. DOI:10.1075/ssol.2.2.04kui.
Mar, Raymond A., and Marina Rain. "Narrative Fiction and Expository Nonfiction
Differentially Predict Verbal Ability." Scientific Studies of Reading 19.6 (2015):
419-433. DOI:10.1080/10888438.2015.1069296.
Mar, Raymond A., Keith Oatley, Jacob Hirsh, Jennifer dela Paz, and Jordan B.
Peterson. "Bookworms Versus Nerds: Exposure to Fiction Versus Non-Fiction,
Divergent Associations with Social Ability, and the Simulation of Fictional Social
Worlds." Journal of Research in Personality 40.5 (2006): 694-712. DOI:
10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.002.
McKibben, William B., and Paul J. Silvia. "Evaluating the Distorting Effects of
Inattentive Responding and Social Desirability on Self-Report Scales in Creativity
and the Arts." The Journal of Creative Behavior 51.1 (2017): 57-69.
DOI:10.1002/jocb.86.
Mol, Suzanne E., and Adriana G. Bus. "To Read or Not to Read: A Meta-Analysis of
Print Exposure from Infancy to Early Adulthood." Psychological Bulletin 137.2
(2011): 267-296. DOI: 10.1037/a0021890.
Noftle, Erik E., and Richard W. Robins. "Personality Predictors of Academic
Outcomes: Big Five Correlates of GPA and SAT Scores." Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 93.1 (2007): 116-130. DOI:10.1037/0022-
3514.93.1.116.
Panero, Maria Eugenia, Deena S. Weisberg, Jessica Black, Thalia R. Goldstein,
Jennifer L. Barnes, Hiram Brownell, and Ellen Winner. "Does Reading a Single
Passage of Literary Fiction Really Improve Theory of Mind? An Attempt at
Replication." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 111.5 (2016): e46-
e54. DOI:10.1037/pspa0000064.
Paulhus, Delroy L. "Two-Component Models of Socially Desirable Responding."
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46.3 (1984): 598-609. DOI:
10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598.


Paulhus, Delroy L., and Douglas B. Reid. "Enhancement and Denial in Socially
Desirable Responding." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60.2
(1991): 307-317. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.307.
Poropat, Arthur E. "A Meta-Analysis of the Five-Factor Model of Personality and
Academic Performance." Psychological Bulletin 135.2 (2009): 322-338. DOI:
10.1037/a0014996.
Rain, Marina, and Raymond A. Mar. "Measuring Reading Behavior: Examining the
Predictive Validity of Print-Exposure Checklists." Empirical Studies of the Arts
32.1 (2014): 93-108. DOI:10.2190/EM.32.1f.
Rebora, Simone, and Federico Pianzola. "A New Research Programme for Reading
Research: Analysing Comments in the Margins on Wattpad." DigitCult-Scientific
Journal on Digital Cultures 3.2 (2018): 19-36. DOI:10.4399/97888255181532.
Reynolds, William M. "Development of Reliable and Valid Short Forms of the
Marlowe‐Crowne Social Desirability Scale." Journal of Clinical Psychology
38.1 (1982): 119-125. DOI:10.1002/1097-4679.
Scales, Alice M., and Ock Rhee. "Adult Reading Habits and Patterns." Reading
Psychology 22.3 (2001): 175-203. DOI:10.1080/027027101753170610.
Schutte, Nicola S., and John M. Malouff. "University Student Reading Preferences in
Relation to the Big Five Personality Dimensions." Reading Psychology 25.4
(2004): 273-295. DOI:10.1080/02702710490522630.
Smith, Lisa F., and Jeffrey K. Smith. "The Nature and Growth of Aesthetic Fluency."
New Directions in Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Eds. Paul Locher, Colin
Martindal, and Leonid Dorfman. Amityville, NY: Baywood, 2006. 47-58.
Stanovich, Keith E., and Richard F. West. "Exposure to Print and Orthographic
Processing." Reading Research Quarterly 24.4 (1989): 402-433. DOI:
10.2307/747605.
Stern, Stephanie C., Brianne Robbins, Jessica E. Black, and Jennifer L. Barnes.
"What You Read and What You Believe: Genre Exposure and Beliefs About
Relationships." Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts (2018):
advanced online publication. DOI:10.1037/aca0000189.
Swami, Viren, Jakob Pietschnig, Stefan Stieger, Ingo W. Nader, and Martin Voracek.
"Beautiful as the Chance Meeting on a Dissecting Table of a Sewing Machine and
an Umbrella! Individual Differences and Preference for Surrealist Literature."
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 6.1 (2012): 35-42. DOI:
10.1037/a0024750.
Tellegen, Auke, and Gilbert Atkinson. "Openness to Absorbing and Self-Altering
Experiences ('Absorption'), a Trait Related to Hypnotic Susceptibility." Journal of
Abnormal Psychology 83.3 (1974): 268-277. DOI:10.1037/h0036681.
Whitfield, Allan T.W. "Theory Confrontation: Testing the Categorical-Motivation
Model." Empirical Studies of the Arts 27.1 (2009): 43-59. DOI:
10.2190/EM.27.1.c.
Wild, T. Cameron, Don Kuiken, and Don Schopflocher. "The Role of Absorption in
Experiential Involvement." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69.3
(1995): 569-579. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.69.3.569.


Winkielman, Piotr, Jamin Halberstadt, Tedra Fazendeiro, and Steve Catty.

"Prototypes Are Attractive Because They Are Easy on the Mind." Psychological
Science 17.9 (2006): 799-806. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01785.x.



Reading habits quest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reading habits quest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

53

MONIEK M. KUIJPERS, SHAWN DOUGLAS, AND DON KUIKEN

Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies 31.1 (Spring 2020): 53-69.

Anglistik, Volume 31 (2020), Issue 1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Anglistik, Volume 31 (2020), Issue 1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Anglistik, Volume 31 (2020), Issue 1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Reading Habits and Openness to Experience

Anglistik, Volume 31 (2020), Issue 1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

inference skills), while reading comprehension also supports pleasure/interest in

The Present Research and Objectives

Anglistik, Volume 31 (2020), Issue 1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Anglistik, Volume 31 (2020), Issue 1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

two measures of trait openness to experience (the Tellegen Absorption Scale

Tellegen Absorption Scale (TAS)

Anglistik, Volume 31 (2020), Issue 1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

attentional control; (2) Sensorimotor Involvement (α=.83) measures an embodied and

Openness to Experience (BFAS; Big Five Aspects Scale)

Social Desirability Scale (SDS)

Anglistik, Volume 31 (2020), Issue 1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

6. Popular Media: personal email (.61); social media (e.g., Facebook,

Reading Habit Profiles

Anglistik, Volume 31 (2020), Issue 1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5 Cluster 6

Effects of Trait Openness to Experience on Reading Habits

Fiction vs. Non-Fiction Readers

Anglistik, Volume 31 (2020), Issue 1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5 Cluster 6

BFAS Total 2.73 2.46 2.68 2.67 2.69 2.67

TAS Total 1.87 1.51b 1.74b 1.83 2.22a 1.94a

Avid and Inclusive Literary Fiction Readers

Anglistik, Volume 31 (2020), Issue 1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Anglistik, Volume 31 (2020), Issue 1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Openness and Reading Habits

Anglistik, Volume 31 (2020), Issue 1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Anglistik, Volume 31 (2020), Issue 1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 13.1 (2019): 74-88. DOI:

Anglistik, Volume 31 (2020), Issue 1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Anglistik, Volume 31 (2020), Issue 1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Winkielman, Piotr, Jamin Halberstadt, Tedra Fazendeiro, and Steve Catty.

Anglistik, Volume 31 (2020), Issue 1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

You might also like