Volume 10, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2210-4372
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4380
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



What is the impact of reading fiction? We analyze online Dutch book reviews to detect overall affective impact, narrative feelings, response to style and reflection. We create a set of rules that analyze the reviews and detect the impact aspects. We evaluate the detection by asking raters about the presence of these aspects in reviews and comparing these ratings to our detection. Interrater agreements are weak to moderate; however, there is a significant correlation between the model’s predictions for all impact aspects except reflection. The detected impact correlates with book genres in the way one would expect: Narrative feelings are highest for thrillers, and stylistic response is highest for literary books. We can thus estimate some aspects of the response books evoke in readers. Initial results suggest that the appreciation of style is linked to reflection in the reader. However, the concepts underlying the impact categories need further exploration.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Albrechtslund, A. -M. B.
    (2019) Amazon, Kindle, and Goodreads: implications for literary consumption in the digital age. Consumption Markets & Culture, 1–16. doi:  10.1080/10253866.2019.1640216
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10253866.2019.1640216 [Google Scholar]
  2. Appel, M. , Koch, E. , Schreier, M. , & Groeben, N.
    (2002) Aspekte des Leseerlebens: Skalenentwicklung. Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie, 14, 149–154. 10.1026//1617‑6383.14.4.149
    https://doi.org/10.1026//1617-6383.14.4.149 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bachmann-Stein, A.
    (2015) Zur Praxis des Bewertens in Laienrezensionen. In H. Kaulen & C. Gansel (Eds.), Literaturkritik heute. Tendenzen–Traditionen–Vermittlung (pp.77–91). Göttingen: V&R Unipress. 10.14220/9783737002462.77
    https://doi.org/10.14220/9783737002462.77 [Google Scholar]
  4. Berthoud, E. , & Elderkin, S.
    (2013) The Novel Cure: An A to Z of Literary Remedies. Edinburgh, London: Canongate Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Boot, P.
    (2011) Towards a Genre Analysis of Online Book Discussion: socializing, participation and publication in the Dutch booksphere. Selected Papers of Internet Research, IR 12.0. https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/spir/article/viewFile/9076/7167
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (2012) Contextual factors in literary quality judgments: A quantitative analysis of an online writing community. Paper presented atDigital Humanities2012. https://pure.knaw.nl/ws/files/474742/2012_boot_02_contextualfactors.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (2017) A Database of Online Book Response and the Nature of the Literary Thriller. Paper presented atDigital Humanities2017. https://dh2017.adho.org/abstracts/208/208.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  8. boyd, d. , & Ellison, N. B.
    (2008) Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of computer-mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230. 10.1111/j.1083‑6101.2007.00393.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x [Google Scholar]
  9. Busselle, R. , & Bilandzic, H.
    (2009) Measuring narrative engagement. Media Psychology, 12(4), 321–347. 10.1080/15213260903287259
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260903287259 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chevalier, J. A. , & Mayzlin, D.
    (2006) The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. Journal of marketing research, 43(3), 345–354. 10.1509/jmkr.43.3.345
    https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.3.345 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dal Cin, S. , Zanna, M. P. , & Fong, G. T.
    (2004) Narrative persuasion and overcoming resistance. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp.175–191). Mahwah (NJ) & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Domsch, S.
    (2009) Critical genres. Generic changes of literary criticism in computer-mediated communication. In J. Giltrow & D. Stein (Eds.), Genres on the Internet: issues in the theory of genre (pp.221–238). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.188.09dom
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.188.09dom [Google Scholar]
  13. Driscoll, B. , & Rehberg Sedo, D.
    (2019) Faraway, So Close: Seeing the Intimacy in Goodreads Reviews. Qualitative Inquiry, 1077800418801375. doi:  10.1177/1077800418801375
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800418801375 [Google Scholar]
  14. Finn, E. F.
    (2011) The Social Lives of Books: Literary Networks in Contemporary American Fiction. (PhD), Stanford University. Retrieved fromhttps://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:mk148kb9574/The%20Social%20Lives%20of%20Books-augmented.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gerrig, R. J. , & Rapp, D. N.
    (2004) Psychological processes underlying literary impact. Poetics Today, 25(2), 265–281. 10.1215/03335372‑25‑2‑265
    https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-25-2-265 [Google Scholar]
  16. Goffman, E.
    (1956) The presentation of self in everyday life. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. Social Sciences Research Centre.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gruzd, A. , & Rehberg Sedo, D. N.
    (2012) #1b1t: Investigating Reading Practices at the Turn of the Twenty-first Century. Mémoires du livre, 3(2). https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/memoires/2012-v3-n2-memoires0117/1009347ar.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Gutjahr, P. C.
    (2002) No Longer Left Behind: Amazon.com, Reader-Response, and the Changing Fortunes of the Christian Novel in America. Book History, 5, 209–236. 10.1353/bh.2002.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1353/bh.2002.0009 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hajibayova, L.
    (2019) Investigation of Goodreads’ reviews: Kakutanied, deceived or simply honest?Journal of Documentation, 75(3), 612–626. doi:  10.1108/JD‑07‑2018‑0104
    https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-07-2018-0104 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hosoya, G. , Schindler, I. , Beermann, U. , Wagner, V. , Menninghaus, W. , Eid, M. ,
    (2017) Mapping the conceptual domain of aesthetic emotion terms: A pile-sort study. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11(4), 457. 10.1037/aca0000123
    https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000123 [Google Scholar]
  21. Jaakkola, M.
    (2019) From re-viewers to me-viewers: The #Bookstagram review sphere on Instagram and the uses of the perceived platform and genre affordances. Interactions: Studies in Communication & Culture, 10(1–2), 91–110.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Jamieson, S.
    (2004) Likert scales: How to (ab) use them. Medical education, 38(12), 1217–1218. 10.1111/j.1365‑2929.2004.02012.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02012.x [Google Scholar]
  23. Keen, S.
    (2007) Empathy and the Novel. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195175769.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195175769.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kidd, D. C. , & Castano, E.
    (2013) Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science, 342(6156), 377–380. doi:  10.1126/science.1239918
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239918 [Google Scholar]
  25. Knobloch-Westerwick, S. , & Keplinger, C.
    (2006) Mystery appeal: Effects of uncertainty and resolution on the enjoyment of mystery. Media Psychology, 8(3), 193–212. 10.1207/s1532785xmep0803_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0803_1 [Google Scholar]
  26. Knoop, C. A. , Wagner, V. , Jacobsen, T. , & Menninghaus, W.
    (2016) Mapping the aesthetic space of literature “from below”. Poetics, 56, 35–49. 10.1016/j.poetic.2016.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Koopman, E.
    (2016) Effects of “Literariness” on Emotions and on Empathy and Reflection After Reading. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10(1), 82–98. 10.1037/aca0000041
    https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000041 [Google Scholar]
  28. Koopman, E. M. E. , & Hakemulder, F.
    (2015) Effects of literature on empathy and self-reflection: A theoretical-empirical framework. Journal of Literary Theory, 9(1), 79–111. 10.1515/jlt‑2015‑0005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2015-0005 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kuijpers, M. M.
    (2014) Absorbing stories. The effects of textual devices on absorption and evaluative responses. (Ph. D), Utrecht, Utrecht.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kuijpers, M. M. , Hakemulder, F. , Tan, E. S. , & Doicaru, M. M.
    (2014) Exploring absorbing reading experiences. Scientific Study of Literature, 4(1). 10.1075/ssol.4.1.05kui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.4.1.05kui [Google Scholar]
  31. LeBreton, J. M. , & Senter, J. L.
    (2008) Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational research methods, 11(4), 815–852. 10.1177/1094428106296642
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642 [Google Scholar]
  32. Lindell, M. K. , and Brandt, C. J.
    (1997) Measuring interrater agreement for ratings of a single target. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 21, 271–278. doi:  10.1177/01466216970213006
    https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216970213006 [Google Scholar]
  33. Martens, M.
    (2016) Publishers, Readers, and Digital Engagement. London: Palgrave McMillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑51446‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51446-2 [Google Scholar]
  34. McDonald, R.
    (2007) The death of the critic. London, New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Mehling, G. , Kellermann, A. , Kellermann, H. , & Rehfeldt, M.
    (2018) Leserrezensionen auf amazon.de: Eine teilautomatisierte inhaltsanalytische Studie. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Miall, D. S. , & Kuiken, D.
    (2002) A feeling for fiction: Becoming what we behold. Poetics, 30(4), 221–241. 10.1016/S0304‑422X(02)00011‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-422X(02)00011-6 [Google Scholar]
  37. Murray, S.
    (2015) Charting the Digital Literary Sphere. Contemporary Literature, 56(2), 311–339. 10.3368/cl.56.2.311
    https://doi.org/10.3368/cl.56.2.311 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2018) Reading Online: Updating the State of the Discipline. Book History, 21(1), 370–396. 10.1353/bh.2018.0012
    https://doi.org/10.1353/bh.2018.0012 [Google Scholar]
  39. Naik, Y.
    (2012) Finding good reads on Goodreads. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 51(4), 319–323. 10.5860/rusq.51n4.319
    https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.51n4.319 [Google Scholar]
  40. Naper, C.
    (2016) Experiencing the Social Melodrama in the Twenty-first Century. In P. M. Rothbauer , K. I. Skjerdingstad , L. E. McKechnie , & K. Oterholm (Eds.), Plotting the Reading Experience: Theory/Practice/Politics. Waterloo (Ontario): Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Norman, G.
    (2010) Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in health sciences education, 15(5), 625–632. 10.1007/s10459‑010‑9222‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y [Google Scholar]
  42. Oatley, K.
    (1994) A taxonomy of the emotions of literary response and a theory of identification in fictional narrative. Poetics, 23(1–2), 53–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. O’Neill, T. A.
    (2017) An overview of interrater agreement on Likert scales for researchers and practitioners. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 777. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00777
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00777 [Google Scholar]
  44. Ott, M. , Cardie, C. , & Hancock, J.
    (2012) Estimating the prevalence of deception in online review communities. Paper presented at theProceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web, Lyon, France. https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2187864. 10.1145/2187836.2187864
    https://doi.org/10.1145/2187836.2187864 [Google Scholar]
  45. Papacharissi, Z.
    (2011) Conclusion: A networked self. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp.304–318). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Pianzola, F. , Rebora, S. , & Lauer, G.
    (2020) Wattpad as a resource for literary studies. Quantitative and qualitative examples of the importance of digital social reading and readers’ comments in the margins. PloS one, 15(1), e0226708. 10.1371/journal.pone.0226708
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226708 [Google Scholar]
  47. Rebora, S. , Lendvai, P. , & Kuijpers, M.
    (2018) Reader experience labeling automatized: Text similarity classification of user-generated book reviews. Paper presented at theEADH2019, Galway. https://eadh2018.exordo.com/files/papers/76/final_draft/Goodreads_EADH2018_Final.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Rehfeldt, M.
    (2017a) „Ganz große, poetische Literatur–Lesebefehl!“ Unterschiede und Gemeinsamkeiten von Amazon-Rezensionen zu U-und E-Literatur Lesen X. 0. Rezeptionsprozesse in der digitalen Gegenwart. Göttingen: V&R unipress. 10.14220/9783737007450.235
    https://doi.org/10.14220/9783737007450.235 [Google Scholar]
  49. (2017b) Leserrezensionen als Rezeptionsdokumente. Zum Nutzen nicht-professioneller Literaturkritiken für die Literaturwissenschaft. In A. Bartl & M. Behmer (Eds.), Die Rezension. Aktuelle Tendenzen der Literaturkritik (pp.275–289). Würzburg: Köningshausen und Neumann.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Ridenour, L. , & Jeong, W.
    (2016) Leveraging the power of social reading and big data: an analysis of co-read clusters of books on Goodreads. IConference 2016 Proceedings. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/89314/Ridenour292.pdf?sequence=1. 10.9776/16292
    https://doi.org/10.9776/16292 [Google Scholar]
  51. Ross, C. S.
    (1999) Finding without seeking: the information encounter in the context of reading for pleasure. Information Processing & Management, 35(6), 783–799. 10.1016/S0306‑4573(99)00026‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4573(99)00026-6 [Google Scholar]
  52. Sabine, G. , & Sabine, P.
    (1983) Books That Made the Difference: What People Told Us. The Shoe String Press, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Sairio, A.
    (2014) ‘No other reviews, no purchase, no wish list’: Book reviews and community norms on Amazon.com. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English, 15. Retrieved fromwww.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/15/sairio/
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Saricks, J. G.
    (2005) Articulating a Book’s Appeal. Readers’ advisory service in the public library. Third Edition (pp.40–73). Chicago: American Library Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Schindler, I. , Hosoya, G. , Menninghaus, W. , Beermann, U. , Wagner, V. , Eid, M. ,
    (2017) Measuring aesthetic emotions: A review of the literature and a new assessment tool. PloS one, 12(6), e0178899. 10.1371/journal.pone.0178899
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178899 [Google Scholar]
  56. Smith, D.
    (2004) Amazon reviewers brought to book. Guardian. Retrieved fromhttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2004/feb/15/books.booksnews
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Spiteri, L. F. , & Pecoskie, J.
    (2016) Affective taxonomies of the reading experience: Using user-generated reviews for readers’ advisory. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 53(1), 1–9. 10.1002/pra2.2016.14505301032
    https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2016.14505301032 [Google Scholar]
  58. Stein, S.
    (2015) Laienliteraturkritik–Charakteristika und Funktionen von Laienrezensionen im Literaturbetrieb. In H. Kaulen & C. Gansel (Eds.), Literaturkritik Heute (pp.59–76). Göttingen: V&R Unipress. 10.14220/9783737002462.59
    https://doi.org/10.14220/9783737002462.59 [Google Scholar]
  59. Steiner, A.
    (2010) Personal Readings and Public Texts: Book Blogs and Online Writing about Literature. Culture unbound, 2(28), 471–494. 10.3384/cu.2000.1525.10228471
    https://doi.org/10.3384/cu.2000.1525.10228471 [Google Scholar]
  60. Streitfeld, D.
    (2012 2012–08–25). The Best Book Reviews Money Can Buy. New York Times. Retrieved fromhttps://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/business/book-reviewers-for-hire-meet-a-demand-for-online-raves.html
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Taboada, M.
    (2011) Stages in an online review genre. Text & Talk-An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies, 31(2), 247–269. 10.1515/text.2011.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2011.011 [Google Scholar]
  62. Thelwall, M. , & Kousha, K.
    (2016) Goodreads: A social network site for book readers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(4), 972–983. 10.1002/asi.23733
    https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23733 [Google Scholar]
  63. Thelwall, M.
    (2019) Reader and author gender and genre in Goodreads. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 51(2), 403–430. 10.1177/0961000617709061
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000617709061 [Google Scholar]
  64. Tóth, M. , & Audunson, R.
    (2012) Websites for booklovers as meeting places. Library Hi Tech, 30(4), 655–672. 10.1108/07378831211285112
    https://doi.org/10.1108/07378831211285112 [Google Scholar]
  65. Van Noord, G.
    (2006) At last parsing is now operational. Paper presented at theTALN06. Verbum Ex Machina. Actes de la 13e conference sur le traitement automatique des langues naturelles. https://www.let.rug.nl/~vannoord/papers/taln.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Van Putten-Brons, S. , & Boot, P.
    (2017) June is Dutch Literature Month!: Online Book Reviewers and Their Role in the Transmission of Dutch Literature to the English-Speaking World. In E. Brems , O. Réthelyi & T. van Kalmthout (Eds.), Doing Double Dutch (pp.313–327). Leuven: Leuven University Press. 10.2307/j.ctt21c4rzf.19
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt21c4rzf.19 [Google Scholar]
  67. Vásquez, C.
    (2014) ‘Usually not one to complain but…’: Constructing identities in user-generated online reviews. The language of social media (pp.65–90). London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137029317_4
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137029317_4 [Google Scholar]
  68. Wallace, L. K.
    (2016) “My History, Finally Invented”: Nightwood and Its Publics. QED: A Journal in GLBTQ Worldmaking, 3(3), 71–94. 10.14321/qed.3.3.0071
    https://doi.org/10.14321/qed.3.3.0071 [Google Scholar]
  69. Worrall, A.
    (2019) “Connections above and beyond”: Information, translation, and community boundaries in Library Thing and Goodreads. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(7), 742–753. doi:  10.1002/asi.24153
    https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24153 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): aesthetic feeling; narrative feeling; online book review; reading impact; reflection; survey
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error