Victorian Novels Provide Timeless Psychological Insights

[SoCalDem]

December 16, 2010
Victorian Novels Provide Timeless Psychological Insights

A new look at classic 19th-century novels reveals an understanding of behavior that largely mirrors the findings of modern psychological research.
http://www.miller-mccune.com/blogs/news-blog/victorian-novels-provide-timeless-psychological-insights-26017/

By Tom Jacobs


A new academic look at classic 19th-century novels, like A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens, pictured, reveals an understanding of behavior that mirrors findings of modern psychological research. Over the past century, countless theories purporting to explain human behavior have been proposed, only to ultimately be modified or discarded. But as it turns out, there was one set of 19th-century writers whose insights into human nature were so nuanced and profound, they still ring true today.

Paging Dr. Austen. And Dr. Bronte. And, of course, Dr. Dickens.

“Victorian authors do seem to be good intuitive psychologists,” concludes a research team led by psychologist John Johnson of Pennsylvania State University, DuBois. According to a large-scale study published in the Journal of Research in Personality, the authors’ depiction of the personality traits, mating strategies and goal-oriented behavior of their characters “largely mirrors the view of those variables as revealed by modern research.”

After sending invitations to hundreds of English departments and individuals interested in Victorian-era literature, Johnson and his colleagues recruited 519 “raters,” each of whom agreed to assess at least one character. (About half the characters were assessed by more than one rater.) The researchers ultimately collected data on 432 characters from 143 canonical novels published between the early 19th and early 20th centuries — essentially, from Jane Austen to E.M. Forster.

snip

All in all, the novels depict a somewhat gentler society than our own (although whether that reflects the reality of the day or the authors’ idealized version of reality is open to question). “Male and female characters are portrayed as more alike than different, more as cooperative, equal partners than competitive rivals,” Johnson and his colleagues conclude. “In today’s world, women are more agreeable than men, while men show higher levels of assertive, dominant behavior,” the researchers write. “Yet in Victorian novels, these differences are statistically non-significant. Furthermore, fictional male characters did not show the greater predilection for short-term mating that men show in today’s world.”

snip

[BeFree]

1. From what I can tell

Most men are caged. Controlled. Compromised.

And for us as a specie, it is probably better that they are.
Let them loose and they might just blow the planet to smithereens just to see it happen.

Maybe women are just big babies, too. I dunno. But they seem to be the only ones (as a whole)
capable of keeping peace and ensuring life somehow continues. I love 'em.

[lunatica]

2. The advent of the pill and the sexual revolution changed everything

I firmly believe that. Mores changed because women were on an equal footing with men so they were able to compete for power and empowerment. It's actually true that in third world cultures where women are given empowerment the local societies benefit.

This is not a call for women to gain power over men. This is an acknowledgment that when power is equally distributed everyone benefits.

[UTUSN]

3. It's called "observation." And profound understanding of human nature.

Like an anthropologist in description.

[cali]

4. Jane Austen was NOT a Victorian

and neither was Forster. As for Dicken's England, how was it a gentler society than our own? That's debatable.

I really think this article is nonsense.

[knitter4democracy]

6. I caught that, too.

Crap study.

[pitohui]

5. more believable if these fools knew what a "novel" or what the "victorian era" was

jesus crap on a crutch, jane austen was not a victorian, if you don't know that, don't come back and tell me that you've ever read a novel, because i just won't believe you -- austen DIED in 1817 so she isn't even CLOSE to being a victorian

but the idiot who wrote this thinks "a christmas carol" is a novel, so we're talking hopeless ignorance here

the whole study bears no relationship to reality or to the victorian novel but i guess it sounds good to the stupid people who don't want to be plothered to read a book -- the point of the exercise is to crap on psychology and on science and judging from the comments in this thread so far, the appeal to "hate on science" is ever green

why be bothered w. accuracy and facts, let's just shit on people's life work, psychology must be bullshit because, as a science, theories change over time as we gain more facts...so that somehow proves jane austen was a victorian novelist?

get help, people, reading comprehension, it's not just a law, it's a good idea...

"intuition" is always to be preferred to actually studying and learning, i can see why this "conclusion" would appeal to the ignorant, it confirms people's laziness, always a nice thing to have confirmed after you've just consumed a lot of turkey and eggnog

[cali]

8. really atrocious.

couldn't agree more with your summation.

[cali]

7. Just wanted to add that all much of great literature throughout the ages

provide timeless insights.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

10. Great art has true psychological insight.

That is why Mozart operas are still performed today - they reflect human nature. Don Giovanni shows a ruthless sex addict/narcissist. I think it is the best opera ever written.

Don Giovanni and The Marriage of Figaro were radical, and the authorities wanted to censor them because they showed the aristocracy in a bad light. Count Almaviva in The Marriage of Figaro was also a relentless skirt chaser. These were written after the American Revolution and ideas of the people overthrowing kings and demanding democracy were discussed a lot.

[NV Whino]

9. Wait, he's using FICTION to compare

to current lifestyle? Never mind the inaccurate time period, but fiction to current lifestyle? Fiction to fiction, okay. Current fiction to current lifestyle, okay. But historic fiction to current lifestyle, what a crock.