If you read the article carefully, near the bottom it states that this effect is not found in movie watching or TV watching, only reading. This is supposed to be because the very nature of watching the story play out for us makes us spectators to it.

It's not a matter of being easily influenced, it's more a form of empathy that combines with the way we are naturally wired to make us susceptible to the words of others. Examples can be found in the context of propaganda and other forms of brainwashing that convince people of viewpoints naturally different from their own. And really, the idea that some people are easily influenced and others aren't is pretty false. Even the most sophisticated person can have the wool pulled over their eyes very easily by someone who knows them well and knows their weaknesses.

When I read a book I see what I read play out in my mind. Doesn't that make me a spectator?

Yes, you are right it does say that in the article. For conversation sake, do you agree? I don't, a good action movie can put you in the driver seat as easily as a book. Video games take it even farther and allow you to make decisions for the character. Either way, my point is that a game like call of duty may strengthen your coordination but it doesn't mean everybody goes on killing sprees. Reading the Vampire Chronicles might romanticize vampires, but everyone that reads it doesn't go around biting peoples necks. How many young people in the seventies went to karate school after watching Bruce Lee flicks or kung fu theater?

This is pretty controversial. The film and video game industries are always telling us the attitudes, violence, and sex in their products doesn't influence behavior, and perhaps it doesn't as the author of this article is at pains to point out, but I would think that depends on the skill of the filmmaker. A good film lets you be more than a spectator, never mind a video game!

As for books influencing people's minds, I doubt there's much chance of that as most of us don't read anymore.

This is interesting (my wife is a PhD research psychologist) but it doesn't say anbything about those of us who prefer non-fiction or heavily-researched historical fiction (such as Michner.)

It makes a great deal of sense that reading fiction is a sort of guided experience that can influence behavior. In order to really digest a novel it is necessary to enter the world that the author creates. But reading lacks a great deal of visual and sound stimulus that causes the reader to have to participate in otder to fill in the blanks or connect the dots.

@AG99,

I think you would be surprised at how many people read books. The number is actually growing everywhere in the world except in the United States. But I understand what you are saying. I myself have slacked back to about 60 books a year which is probably the lowest point since I was 8 or 9 years old.

Also, I think the model in the Lions Gate photo should take a geometry class. She isn't drawing the bow correctly. Is evidence that art imitates life and not the other way around.

People need to be careful how they are influenced, but this article is atypical of those who seem to think they have answers reversing free will by what they read.

Although the article was about reading books of fiction the findings may also be generalized to non-fiction as well. The findings support why reading a newspaper is much more informative than simply watching the news. It also supports my philosophy that students need to read the textbook themselves rather than come to class expecting the professor to do it for them.

...you are what you read...the only thing i read is MSNBC articles...no wonder i'm a piece of crap...

You can fall in love with the flawed characters, as long as you don't lose your mind to them. ;)

I've been known to read 2 to 3 books at a time all of different subjects. How would they define that.

Don’t worry, nobody is going to become a serial killer from reading a book. It is true that most (but not all) human beings are little more than products of their environment, and as such will emulate certain people in their lives, both real and fictional. But there is a huge difference between adopting the attitudes of others and becoming a cold-blooded killer. And the same goes for television and movies. For example television commercials can certainly make us want to buy something and movies and TV shows can start trends and otherwise influence what is popular. Violence in the media or in movies however cannot make someone violent. They are two completely different mental processes. All murderers exist in very specific psychological strata and it takes years and years of abuse, starting in early childhood, to drive a person down to that level. And this can only be done through real life interactions with real people, not by showing someone something on a video screen. Of course we all have a different natural resistance to this type of "programming" so not everyone brought up in the exact same environment is going to turn out the same. And when I speak of abuse I’m not talking about necessarily about physical abuse. In fact a lot of the types of treatment that lead to this type of behavior many parents would consider perfectly normal and harmless.

Anyway, to reiterate, TV and movies can influence fads. For example they can cause virtually everyone to think that they MUST drive one of those ridiculous SUV monstrosities without them even realizing that they are being so influenced. But you could never in a million years turn people into murderers by making it seem fashionable or cool to kill. This is because people are either killers or they are not. It is true of course that people who are already potential killers will be drawn to and will feed off of violent images and might even occasionally get ideas on how to kill from a movie. However, it is a lifetime of real life interaction with certain types of real people (usually mostly parents) that drives them down to a point low enough on a scale of mental health were they are capable of murder. It is also these types of real life influences that would put you at a point on this scale were you might fall in love with an abusive partner or even a murderer. None of this happens from reading books or watching TV though.

@ Ken F. I look forward to reading your future posts.

Lou - Thanks but I’m not sure if there will be any future post to read as I’m trying really hard to break myself of the habit of needing to comment on these articles or on the posts of others. This is because more often than not, these discussions are nothing but knee jerk reactions from angry people who must insist that they are right and everyone else is wrong. In fact you rarely come across any intelligent rational discussions and usually they all devolve into some kind of angry paranoid political or religious debate (its all Bush's fault, or its all Obama's fault, etc). Anyway, I guess we’ll see if I can stay out of it or not.

I too read Anna Karenina but I didn't identify with her at all in fact after I read the book I wanted to feel sorry for her (the character) but I couldn't because she could have made different choices and not had such bad outcomes (she would have bad things happen to her but I think she could have done better for herself). In fact if I read a fictional novel and I don't like the way its going I change it in my head to the way I think that it should have gone (which is usually way better and far more interesting anyway of course this is still in my opinion). So how does that fit into this "you are what you read" theory?

So the 'required reading' topics that a teacher chooses for their class may have a profound effect on their social/political views later in life.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Some people might liken that to 'brainwashing', so parents might want to screen the books that teachers 'force' their children to read. In Nazi Germany the children were instructed by their teachers to 'report' any behavior by their parents that might be 'disrespectful' of Adolf Hitler. I hope we don't start to see our kids 'indoctrinated' with the views of their teachers.

@ Roy, how can a forum for debate equate brainwash?

Ken F-2244375

I don't think the article intended to 'paint a picture' of a direct causal relationship between fictional characters and violent actions on the part of the readers, but more a 'nuanced' effect that might affect their future social/political views.

Of course, as you pointed out, those with a 'predisposition' toward a particular activity or attitude may be more profoundly affected than others.

LouK2k12 "@ Roy, how can a forum for debate equate brainwash?"

I think we were talking about the topic of the article, not this vine.

Of course, if you are claiming that people's social/political views cannot be influenced by what they read, then you are basically disagreeing with the conclusions of the study.

Sometimes the right book at the right time can help you work out problems in your own life vicariously. See if it happens to the character it doesn't really fire off those emotional pains but you can still learn from it how to handle it in your life. You can even release the hurt and anger for the character and free yourself.

Is the HBO series "Hung" based off of a book? If so, I'm having it shipped over night!!!!

Geometry isn't as much of a problem but with that grip on the bow string her release will be very hard to do.

So according to the article, I should be a post-apocalyptic survivor, a red hot lover, and one hell-of-a detective. Instead I'm just an old retiree who reads all the time.

So if you are what you read...

I was one of those really precocious readers--reading Sherlock Holmes in second grade, and by the time I hit third I'd read through the entire 'age appropriate' section of the school library (parochial school) and had to get a note signed from my parents before the nuns at school would let me check out books that were 'age appropriate' for the higher grades (my Catholic school was K-8) Mom didn't want to sign it, but dad did otherwise I would have been stuck reading babysitters club (gag!) instead of the stuff I really wanted to read. Any books I broughthome were skimmed through by Mom before i got to read them, and the nuns at school kept a list of what i checked out how long I had it, and when i brought it back and whenever Dad was home (he was in the military) he'd look at the list, ask me questions about the books I'd read to determine which ones I'd actually read and how much i learned from them, and in a few cases told me not to check a particular book out again (and told the nuns not to let me check that book or others like it.

I agree with the article, the kinds of books I read as a child, and the heroines I identified with, did shape who I am and my behaviors. Mansfield Park was one of my favorites "Remember, wherever you go, you must be the lowest and the least, you must not be putting yourself forward..." it was a valuable lesson in humility, and living a life helpful to others, and not always thinking I was the most important, somethin that I do think is sadly lacking these days).

King Lear, The Tempest, Jane Eyre, anything Bronte and Shakespeare and Arthur Conan Doyle. Jules Verne too. Slightly more appropriate for my age, 'A Little Princess' and Nancy Drew and the Noel Streatfield 'Shoes' books (I wanted to be a ballerina) bwere more to my taste, and my absolute favorite was Susan Cooper's 'The Dark Is Rising' sequence (which offended the nuns at my school so i didn't dare talk about them at school. I found them at the local librabry, begged my Mom to by them for me, and she didn't read them so she didn't know it was about magic until Dad came home and we discussed literature. Dad, however, didn't have a proiblem with it, just told me not to talk to the nuns at school about it but he okayed it because it would give me a wider worldview than the (admittedly narrow) one that a Catholic school gave me. So Dad also didn't have too much of a problem when at ten I found a box of books in the attic that he'd read in college and started reading those--Michener, Le Carre, and of course Ian Fleming's James bond books introduced me to politics and the larger world. I had some trouble with 'Mammoth Hunters' and asked dad when he got home about some stuff I didn't understand, and he turned red and took it away from me quickly and told me I could read those when I turned sixteen (Mammoth Hunters has sex in it.)

So yes, I'd agree that books helped shape who i am. Thing is, so did the cartoons and tv i watched as a child. dad and mom kept a strict eye on the TV I watched, I naver had a TV in my room and I got only an hour a day, and a few hours on weekends. Star Trek was on reruns on weeknights, that was my fave, plus any nature shows on public TV that the nuns told us we should watch and write reports on for extra credit. Unfortunately, the stuff I wanted to watch wasn't exactly on Mom's list of Shows Appropriate For Young Ladies so I had to sneak to watch GIJoe and Transformers, Voltron and ExoSquad while with Mom around I watched Cabbage Patch and Smurfs and Strawberry Shortcake.

The church is very confident that what you read will effect your life and therefore actively proscribes 'appropriate' reading that will pour minds into the mold they desire. Enquireing minds are always suspect.

Chris-74.... at 60 books a year I would be going through withdrawal symptoms. I'm that person you find reading the entire cereal box because I don't have a book in my hands.

I was greatly influenced by the character Michael (Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land"). The character made me look at religion in a different way. It made me more accepting of religions other than Christianity. I now see more of the likenesses in religion and less of the differences.

Amanda-207, I'm so glad my mom wasn't a reader. She would have had a stroke over any Robert Heinlein books, Isaac Asimov, Robin Cook, Dean Koontz, and the books on witch craft (found in the religious section of the school library). Stephen King was forbidden (she knew about the movies). I also loved National Geographic, and the Stranger than Fiction series. When I got into high school I started reading Harlequin Romance. The little 200 page ones where the strongest thing they ever did was kiss. (She didn't know that I had already read about s-e-x). She did read through those just to make sure.

My favorite literary character is Moby Dick. I don't know what that means.

Hmmm. On a presumably related note, I've noticed that I've become a more obnoxious person in real life since I started reading all these post-article comment boards. I think it's about experiencing so much unexpurgated bile on a daily basis - it starts to feel normal. Kind of a "you are what you eat" thing. And I've been eating a lot of junk food.

@ Roy, all I said about the article was that it was interesting and disagree with the authors opinion that movies don't carry the same impressions as books. My question to you was why do you equate peer review with brainwash? If we censor books, limit public discourse and demonize opposing views, we are left with a Boo Radley character that would have chosen not to do the right thing. I think it is one thing for a teacher to be "in charge" or even assign homework, but don't forget the other most important aspect of a learning environment which is peer review. It has been awhile since I sat in a classroom, do teachers still act as passive participants? Or do they espouse their own ideology?

@ Ken, there really is meaningful dialogue to be found on the vines. It is trial and error but the point isn't so much to be heard or get a response as exercise my brain. One of my virtual mental filters is to ignore political arguments and I generally only pick a few topics and write a few comments. After being around for awhile and reading what other people have to say, I can think of a few regulars that have valuable insight and experience. People were afraid of wikipedia too, but it has become a pretty valuable source of information above and beyond the U.S. Encyclopedia Britannica. I would say largely because it is regularly reviewed and updated by peer review.

I must disagree with the article. I read a LOT of horror, splatter punk, zombie novels (since I was in grade school)...guess what, I'm a nurse, hardly fending off the zombie hordes that surround my domicile. I'm not hording for the zombie apocalypse (nor would you find me on Doomsday Preppers). Nor am I waiting with baited breath for December 21, the so called end of the world..

My mother, who is 69, loves reading romance novels, she's the sourest, most selfish person I've ever met in life. I have no idea why my father hasn't left her years ago, she'd have no chance at finding another fool to marry her (and I'm actually kind of shocked she even found one).

I just can't agree we become, or adopt the attitudes, of the CHARACTERS we read in novels. Just my opinion from observations from my own life...

"Katniss Everdeen is a her (aka: girl) not a him. :-)"

I've never read the Hunger Games, but I know Katniss is a female.

Makes me wonder what exactly is the author of this article reading? It obviously isn't proofreading.

'Him' refers to the word 'character' - not Katniss Everdeen - and, for better or worse in English anyway, we choose the masculine form of the pronoun to echo a gender-neutral antecedent. The apposition of a female name as an example of a literary character, though spatially nearer the pronoun, cuts no grammatical ice here.

@Eric,

Exactly right and well-stated. It is a shame that students no longer are taught to diagram (parse) sentences in school. They would understand the relationships between pronouns and antecedents much better if they could visualize the relationships. Grammar is becoming a lost art. But apparently ill-informed and ungrammatical criticism is still alive and well.

Eric, you may choose the masculine form of the pronoun, but it didn't make sense in this paragraph. As I went to girls' schools, our pronouns were always feminine. Always choosing the masculine pronoun went out of date about 50 years ago.

I thought the sentence was incorrectly constructed. Them, not him, should have been used.

It was correctly constructed and the problem is now does not negate 50 years ago. A living language tends to evolve due to societal propoganda. A dead language remains as is because it has been set in time and bringing mordern societal propoganda into it is a violation of original intent. An example is the US Constitution, Freedom of Religion had a set understanding in original intent meaning Freedom of a State Church, which was what the Founding Fathers were fighting against. The word religion itself has evolved into an understanding far from the original understanding.

Actually, "he or she" and "him or her" are the proper choices when describing a gender neutral subject. Reverting strictly to the masculine has been incorrect for decades as it ascribes so little value to the feminine as to deny its existence and using the colloquial "they" is technically plural.

I've no doubt that at some point in the future there will be either a singular gender neutral pronoun or the use of "they" will become grammatically acceptable in singular usage, but at this time that is not the case. Personally, I would like to see people become less offended by "it" as referring to a person; we use "it" to describe animals and even children who are too young to be immediately identified (As in: "Is it a boy or a girl?"), but to use this for an undetermined adult is considered offensive.

No, it makes you unable to follow the thread of the conversation, read the article on which you are commenting, use logic, or make anything except stupid statements.

nope it makes you enlightened and open minded and concerned about the welfare of your fellow citizens. :) i read it too. absolutely enthralling and history making in a gripping good way.

the only way to improve upon that is to create a national healthcare organization modeled on the military model. military medicine was the best medicine i've ever had. if it's good enough for the sailors then it's good enough for america.

Dont be too hard on Chris, because far too many follow blind guidance a lot like the people of Germany did under Hitler's rule.

I have to disagree on military medicine and have seen first hand how its care was inappropriate, veterans will disagree with you too, who are not being treated correctly even today.

Wag the Dog is an excellent movie, particularly apropos to the W administration.

Two movies that echo their books quite well are The Eiger Sanction by Trevanian and Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy by Le Carre. The only lack in The Eiger Sanction was the inability to dissect Hemlock's sociopathy as Trevanian did. TTSS I think perfectly captured the tone and tenor of the book--quite surprising given that it is a modern Hollywood treatment. Of course in this case, unless you know the story, you will be BORED most likely--no explosions and long pauses in conversations!

One of the movies that follows the book almost word by word is Tom Jones which even used the dialog from the book in the movie word by word.

Every, did you read the book? Movie doesn't even tell 1/2.

Exactly, we who are not thralls follow free will.

It is because many people just follow propoganda instead of actually researching and have become too lazy to think for themselves.

Ah, yes. You have tried to prove our stupidity by purposely misspelling deceive...you are so very clever CXCo.

Fall back into the assembly line of mindless masses.

To follow like-mindedness is in itself refusal to question any trend or propoganda.

The real problem is the fiction and thus why Christians should seek to read original source instead of all the spin off materials out there, if it is in conflict with original sorce, then it is without merit. Good example is the theory of evolution, look at original source materials and you will discover all of the flaws instead of the propoganda merely headed towrds the agenda of dismissing responsibility to the Creator versus the creature.

Wow, Mr Accountability.

Speaking of agendas, many of your comments seem to be thinly veiled political propaganda.

Crusher...obviously your reading of history and the Hilter era did nothing to show you truth. There is no link between Bush and Hitler. Hitler was trying to take over the world and dominate it. Bush was trying to keep from having America taken over by radical Islamists. The Islamists attacked us. Any torture that occured was used to save further American lives. Check your brain for distortion cause there is a great deal of that going on between your ears!!!

You cant reverse a blind reader or someone who has an axe to grind. A person who rants on and on in the same direction, refuses to be responsible by researching all original sources instead of accepting responsible research themselves. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

And Crusher, your analogy has no merit in overall historical reality, and thus you only have a personal axe to grind supplied with your own blinders.

"Dare to Be Stupid" has a long and ignoble history in this country--note the "Know Nothings" who supported (I think) Martin Van Buren, and let's not forget the three day drunken bash on the White House lawn when Andrew Jackson was sworn in. (they just don't throw parties like that any more, sigh).

Exactly, but we are led to believe they are gods because it is science.

Nevermind you are educating yourself by research, because today we are expected to be mindless thralls. Read the Federalist Papers and you will understand more of what the US Constitution really means.

Rich ... not a valid example. To travel in space requires a means to do so, if that was available would you? The opportunity to be a king is also pretty hard to come by these days leaving aside the small issue of the availability of monsters to fight. To follow the books of myth just requires you stop thinking, much easier and takes little effort.

I have always been a SF reader and adventure reader and read the books of myths from many varied belief systems. It led me to have a fascination with anything space related, an interest in science, history and sociology. I have traveled and lived in other countries, been a risk taker, owned and flown airplanes. In my experience there is much validity in this study .... SF has had a larger and more dramatic impact than any book of myths.