IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0201157.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Readers and their roles: Evidence from readers of contemporary fiction in the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Allen Riddell
  • Karina van Dalen-Oskam

Abstract

Reading serves many ends. Some readers report that works of fiction provide an imaginative escape from the rigors of life, others report reading in order to be intellectually challenged. While various characterizations of readers’ engagement with prose fiction have been proposed, few have been checked using representative samples of readers. Our research reports on reader self-descriptions observed in a representative sample of 501 adults in the Netherlands. Reader self-descriptions exhibit regularities, with certain self-descriptions predicting others. Contrary to existing theories which posit two types of readers characterized by non-overlapping concerns (identifying readers and distanced readers), we find that while some readers attend to plot structure or read in order to be intellectually challenged, reader self-descriptions overlap more than received theories predict. We hypothesize that some readers have cultivated more reading techniques than others, with educated or experienced readers tending to report deriving additional experiences from reading.

Suggested Citation

  • Allen Riddell & Karina van Dalen-Oskam, 2018. "Readers and their roles: Evidence from readers of contemporary fiction in the Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-12, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0201157
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201157
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201157
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201157&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0201157?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Clinton, Joshua & Jackman, Simon & Rivers, Douglas, 2004. "The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(2), pages 355-370, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Francis,David C. & Kubinec ,Robert, 2022. "Beyond Political Connections : A Measurement Model Approach to Estimating Firm-levelPolitical Influence in 41 Economies," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10119, The World Bank.
    2. Arianna Degan & Antonio Merlo, 2006. "Do Voters Vote Sincerely?," PIER Working Paper Archive 06-008, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    3. Nathan Canen & Kristopher Ramsay, 2024. "Quantifying theory in politics: Identification, interpretation, and the role of structural methods," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 36(4), pages 301-327, October.
    4. Běla Plechanovová, 2011. "The EU Council enlarged: North-South-East or core-periphery?," European Union Politics, , vol. 12(1), pages 87-106, March.
    5. Eijffinger, Sylvester & Mahieu, Ronald & Raes, Louis, 2018. "Inferring hawks and doves from voting records," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 107-120.
    6. Tasos Kalandrakis, 2006. "Roll Call Data and Ideal Points," Wallis Working Papers WP42, University of Rochester - Wallis Institute of Political Economy.
    7. Matilde Bombardini & Bingjing Li & Francesco Trebbi, 2023. "Did US Politicians Expect the China Shock?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 113(1), pages 174-209, January.
    8. Jonathan B Slapin, 2014. "Measurement, model testing, and legislative influence in the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(1), pages 24-42, March.
    9. Sanford C. Gordon & Dimitri Landa, 2018. "Polarized preferences versus polarizing policies," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 193-210, July.
    10. Benjamin Williams, 2019. "Identification of a nonseparable model under endogeneity using binary proxies for unobserved heterogeneity," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 10(2), pages 527-563, May.
    11. Omar A. Guerrero & Ulrich Matter, 2016. "Revealing the Anatomy of Vote Trading," Papers 1611.01381, arXiv.org.
    12. Rene Lindstadt, Jonathan B. Slapin & Ryan J. Vander Wielen, 2009. "Balancing Competing Demands: Position-Taking and Election Proximity in the European Parliament," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp295, IIIS.
    13. Nathan J. Canen & Chad Kendall & Francesco Trebbi, 2020. "Political Parties as Drivers of U.S. Polarization: 1927-2018," NBER Working Papers 28296, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Jon Eguia, 2013. "On the spatial representation of preference profiles," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 52(1), pages 103-128, January.
    15. Ash, Elliott & Galletta, Sergio & Pinna, Matteo & Warshaw, Christopher S., 2024. "From viewers to voters: Tracing Fox News’ impact on American democracy," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    16. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:48:y:2010:i::p:811-833 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Friedel Bolle, 2018. "Simultaneous and sequential voting under general decision rules," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 30(4), pages 477-488, October.
    18. Ashish Arora & Michelle Gittelman & Sarah Kaplan & John Lynch & Will Mitchell & Nicolaj Siggelkow & Robert J. Carroll & David M. Primo & Brian K. Richter, 2016. "Using item response theory to improve measurement in strategic management research: An application to corporate social responsibility," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 66-85, January.
    19. Keith Poole, 2007. "Changing minds? Not in Congress!," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 131(3), pages 435-451, June.
    20. Jörg L. Spenkuch & B. Pablo Montagnes & Daniel B. Magleby, 2018. "Backward Induction in the Wild? Evidence from Sequential Voting in the US Senate," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(7), pages 1971-2013, July.
    21. Christopher J Fariss & James Lo, 2020. "Innovations in concepts and measurement for the study of peace and conflict," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(6), pages 669-678, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0201157. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.