Discussion

The present study examined the relationship between literary fiction exposure and various socio-cognitive and emotional constructs, namely empathy (cognitive and affective), mentalisation (self-related and other-related ), anxiety (state and trait), and existential concerns within a Turkish university student and graduate sample. Building upon previous studies in Western contexts (e.g., Kidd & Castano, 2013; Mar et al., 2006) this thesis examined whether exposure to literary fiction predicts mentalisation and/or empathy, and whether anxiety or existential concerns moderate these associations. The results revealed a selective pattern: literary exposure significantly predicted empathy but not mentalisation, whereas existential concerns and trait anxiety showed differentiated effects across both constructs.

5.1. Empathy and Literary Exposure

Consistent with Hypothesis 1, literary exposure significantly predicted higher overall empathy, as well as both cognitive and affective components, even after accounting for demographic variables, existential concerns, and anxiety. While the effect sizes were modest, these findings align with meta-analytic estimates indicating small but reliable social-cognitive benefits of reading literary fiction (Hedges’ g ≈ 0.15; Dodell-Feder & Tamir, 2018). This pattern supports the broader literature suggesting that immersive engagement with character-driven narratives can enhance empathic understanding.

Among the empathy components, cognitive empathy was significantly predicted by literary exposure and existential concerns, whereas trait anxiety showed a negative association. This suggests that reflective engagement with existential themes may facilitate perspective-taking, while chronic anxious traits might hinder cognitive empathic processing. Affective empathy, by contrast, was significantly predicted by literary exposure but not by existential concerns or trait anxiety, though interestingly trait anxiety exhibited a marginal positive trend. This differential pattern may suggest that the empathic benefits of fiction operate through partially distinct mechanisms, as proposed in prior literature, potentially enhancing perspective-taking through intellectual reflection in the cognitive domain, and fostering emotional resonance through narrative immersion in the affective domain. While the current findings align with this theoretical distinction, further research would be needed to directly assess these underlying processes.

Demographic predictors revealed consistent effects across models. Male sex was associated with significantly lower empathy scores in overall, cognitive, and affective dimensions, replicating established sex differences in empathic capacity. Additionally, individuals with monthly spending above ₺45,000 demonstrated higher cognitive and overall empathy scores, possibly reflecting the role of educational or cultural capital in shaping access to fiction or social-cognitive enrichment. Age and education, in contrast, did not significantly predict empathy in this sample. Together, these results suggest that literary exposure independently contributes to empathy beyond demographic and dispositional factors, while also interacting with existential engagement and socio-economic background.

5.2. Mentalisation and Literary Exposure

Contrary to Hypothesis 4, literary exposure did not significantly predict mentalisation, either at the overall level or in its self- and other-oriented components. After accounting for demographic variables, existential concerns, and anxiety, the number of books read from the literary fiction list failed to show any independent or interaction effects in any of the models. These findings challenge the commonly proposed link between literary fiction and enhanced theory of mind abilities, particularly those captured by mentalisation measures such as the MentS. These results stand in contrast to prior claims that literary engagement enhances mentalising capacity, particularly in terms of understanding others’ intentions and perspectives. One possibility is that participants’ recollection of having read these works may not reflect current or immersive reading habits capable of influencing mentalising ability.

Although literary exposure did not emerge as a significant predictor, trait anxiety and existential concerns were robustly associated with mentalisation scores, with differential patterns across subdomains. Specifically, self-oriented mentalisation was strongly negatively predicted by both existential concerns (β = -.30) and trait anxiety (β = -.40), suggesting that heightened internal distress or existential uncertainty may impair reflective capacity about one’s own mental states. By contrast, other-oriented mentalisation was positively predicted by existential concerns (β = .23) and negatively by trait anxiety (β = –.33), indicating that awareness of existential issues may sensitise individuals to others’ inner worlds, while chronic anxiety may impede this process.

Age also emerged as a significant predictor in the self-oriented and overall mentalisation models, with older participants reporting greater reflective capacity. Male sex was associated with lower mentalisation scores in overall and other-oriented domains. Education level and income did not significantly contribute to any mentalisation outcomes. No interaction terms, between literary exposure and existential concerns or anxiety, reached significance, and none improved the models’ explanatory power.

In sum, these findings suggest that mentalisation, particularly in its self- and other-related aspects, is more closely linked to psychological distress and existential sensitivity than to literary engagement. While literary fiction may contribute to empathic capacities, its role in supporting the reflective dimensions of mentalisation appears limited within the context of this study.

5.3. Clinical Implications

A growing body of experimental and clinical research supports the therapeutic potential of literary fiction. Randomised controlled trials have demonstrated that brief exposure to literary texts, compared to popular or non-fiction material, can improve performance on theory of mind and emotion attribution tasks (Kidd & Castano, 2013; Pino & Mazza, 2016). These findings are often attributed to mechanisms such as narrative transportation and character identification, which are thought to engage readers in the simulation of social experiences. Neuroimaging studies further support this account, showing activation of the default mode network (closely associated with mentalisation and autobiographical reasoning) during both literary reading and social cognition tasks (Mar, 2011; Tamir et al., 2018).

Interventions such as the United Kingdom’s “Get into Reading” programme have reported improvements in mood and interpersonal connectedness among participants with depressive symptoms, attributing these effects to facilitated group reflection and identification with complex characters (Dowrick et al., 2012). In autism-spectrum populations, guided literary reading has been shown to foster mutual understanding and shared emotional vocabulary across the so-called “double empathy” problem (Chapple et al., 2021), particularly when combined with reflective writing or therapist-led discussion.

The present study contributes to this literature by highlighting the role of existential concern in moderating the effects of literary exposure on empathy. While literary exposure alone predicted higher cognitive and affective empathy, individuals reporting greater existential concern appeared especially likely to benefit, suggesting that reflective engagement with life’s ultimate concerns may enhance the reader’s openness to fictional others. This finding situates the empathic impact of fiction within an existential framework, echoing studies showing that exposure to existentially themed novels, such as those by Dostoevsky, Camus, or Kafka, can elicit meaning-making and increase a feeling of purpose in life (Landau et al., 2011).

Although literary exposure was not associated with mentalisation in the present sample, prior studies suggest that richly contextualised fiction can nevertheless offer clinical value for populations with mentalising difficulties. In Mentalisation-Based Therapy (MBT), for instance, literary narratives may function as a regulated space in which clients can explore complex interpersonal motives at a safe distance. For individuals with borderline or narcissistic traits (groups often characterised by dysregulated affect and impaired reflective functioning) curated fiction, when accompanied by therapeutic guidance or structured journalling, may support the reactivation and consolidation of mentalising capacities (Bateman & Fonagy, 2016). In such contexts, the emphasis lies not on the volume of reading but on the reader’s active engagement with the narrative’s psychological depth.

Taken together, the findings of the present study suggest that literary fiction may be a valuable tool for enhancing empathy and facilitating existential reflection, particularly when embedded within therapeutic frameworks that prioritise meaning-making and self-other understanding.

5.4. Limitations and Future Directions

Several limitations must be reported. First, literary exposure was assessed through a fixed canonical list in lieu of a validated scale such as the Author Recognition Test (ART). Second, the sample consisted of mainly female students from Yeditepe University studying for their Bachelor’s degree, which limits generalisability. Third, all of the instruments in the present study were self-report measures which could introduce biases, such as social desirability and common method variance. Finally, since a cross-sectional design was employed, no causal inferences can be made between the variables. Experimental or longitudinal studies are needed to determine directionality and mechanism of these associations.

Future studies should employ more comprehensive tools, such as a to-be-developed Turkish ART and include qualitative engagement metrics (e.g., transportation, identification, emotional resonance) to better capture fiction’s psychological impact (Green & Brock, 2000; Koopman, 2016). Furthermore, experimental manipulation of existential salience could also clarify existential concerns’ role regarding literary fiction’s socio-cognitive effects. Lastly, incorporating behavioural tasks or diary methods may reduce method bias and capture real-time shifts in mentalisation or empathy.

5.5. Conclusion

In this Turkish university sample, greater exposure to literary fiction predicted higher empathy, including both cognitive and affective components, even when controlling for demographic variables. Yet, literary exposure showed no significant association with mentalisation. Instead, mentalisation was predicted by lower trait anxiety, older age, and female sex. Existential concerns positively predicted empathy and other-oriented mentalisation, while negatively predicting self-oriented mentalisation. Trait anxiety showed a similarly divergent pattern, negatively predicting cognitive empathy and both dimensions of mentalisation, but trending positively with affective empathy. Interaction effects between literary exposure and anxiety or existential concerns were non-significant across models. Together, these findings suggest that empathy and mentalisation are shaped by partially distinct mechanisms, with literary fiction specifically contributing to empathic processes.