From Reluctance to Resonance: Increasing Reading Affinity Through Cognitive Intervention
Abstract
Reading affinity, the enjoyment and motivation to read, is a key driver of personal growth, academic achievement, and professional success. However, many adults experience low affinity for reading, often due to cognitive barriers such as slow reading speeds, poor comprehension, or distractions. This study examines whether a structured cognitive training program can enhance reading affinity by improving reading efficiency, comprehension, and confidence. Participants were assessed qualitatively and quantitatively at baseline (day 1), post-intervention (day 90), and follow-up (12 months). Results revealed increased reading enjoyment, a higher number of books read annually, and sustained improvements in reading habits, suggesting that cognitive interventions can foster lasting changes in reading motivation and behaviour.
Introduction
Reading is both a cognitive skill and an emotional experience, shaped by factors such as self-efficacy, cognitive efficiency, and intrinsic motivation. Individuals with high reading affinity derive pleasure from the process of reading and are more likely to engage in regular reading habits, leading to greater knowledge acquisition and personal development. Conversely, those with low reading affinity often associate reading with frustration, boredom, or anxiety, resulting in avoidance behaviours and reduced literacy engagement.
Cognitive barriers, such as slow reading speeds and poor comprehension, are among the most common causes of reading reluctance. These barriers can create a negative feedback loop, where perceived difficulty leads to disengagement, further exacerbating skill deficits. This study investigates whether improving cognitive efficiency through targeted training can enhance reading affinity by reducing frustration, building confidence, and fostering intrinsic motivation.
Methods
Participants
Participants were recruited through literacy programs, educational networks, and online advertisements. Inclusion criteria required adults aged 20–60 with a self-reported low to moderate affinity for reading, defined as reading fewer than five books per year. Exclusion criteria included diagnosed learning disabilities, severe visual impairments, or prior participation in reading enhancement programs. A total of 120 participants were enrolled, with 80 assigned to the intervention group and 40 to the control group.
Study Design
The study employed a mixed-methods design to capture both quantitative and qualitative changes in reading affinity over time. Baseline (Day 1): Participants completed a questionnaire assessing reading habits, self-reported reading affinity, and perceived barriers to reading. Quantitative metrics included the number of books read in the past 12 months and time spent reading weekly. Post-Intervention (Day 90):Participants repeated the questionnaire and reported changes in reading habits and enjoyment. Qualitative interviews were conducted to explore subjective experiences. Follow-Up (12 Months): Long-term changes in reading affinity were assessed using the same questionnaire and interviews.
Training Protocol
The intervention group participated in a 12-week cognitive training program designed to improve reading efficiency and comprehension while addressing emotional and motivational factors. The program included: Reading Efficiency Training: Techniques to increase reading speed and comprehension, such as reducing subvocalisation and optimising eye movements. Cognitive Blocks Removal: Exercises to identify and challenge negative beliefs about reading (e.g., “I’m a slow reader”) and replace them with positive affirmations. Engagement Strategies: Participants were encouraged to select reading materials aligned with their interests and to set achievable reading goals. Reflection and Journaling: Weekly reflections on reading experiences were used to reinforce positive associations with reading.
Measurement Metrics
Reading affinity was evaluated using a combination of quantitative and qualitative metrics: Books Read Annually: Participants reported the number of books read in the past year at each time point. Reading Time: Weekly reading hours were tracked through self-reports. Reading Affinity Scale: A validated questionnaire assessed enjoyment, confidence, and motivation to read (scores ranged from 0 to 100). Qualitative Feedback: Interviews explored participants’ experiences, including perceived changes in reading habits and emotional engagement.
Results
Baseline Performance (Day 1)
At baseline, participants in both groups reported low reading affinity, with an average of 3.2 books read annually and 1.5 hours spent reading per week. The average Reading Affinity Scale score was 38 out of 100. Participants cited common barriers, including slow reading speeds (52%), difficulty comprehending complex texts (46%), and lack of interest in available reading materials (39%). No significant differences were observed between the intervention and control groups (p = 0.89).
Post-Intervention Performance (Day 90)
The intervention group demonstrated substantial improvements, reporting an average of 10.6 books read annually and 5.8 hours spent reading weekly. Their Reading Affinity Scale scores increased to an average of 78, indicating a significant rise in enjoyment, confidence, and motivation. Qualitative feedback revealed that participants felt more capable and motivated to read, with many describing reading as “relaxing” and “rewarding.” In contrast, the control group showed minimal changes, with 3.5 books read annually, 1.7 hours of weekly reading, and an affinity score of 40. Statistical analysis revealed significant main effects for the intervention (F(1, 118) = 134.7, p < 0.001), with a large effect size (d = 2.75).
Long-Term Retention (12 Months)
At the 12-month follow-up, the intervention group sustained their gains, reporting an average of 12.4 books read annually, 6.2 weekly reading hours, and an affinity score of 81. Qualitative interviews highlighted participants’ continued enjoyment of reading and adoption of consistent reading routines. The control group’s performance remained near baseline levels, with 3.6 books read annually, 1.8 weekly reading hours, and an affinity score of 41.
| Metric | Intervention Group | Control Group |
|---|---|---|
| Books Read Annually (Day 1) | 3.2 (SD = 1.5) | 3.3 (SD = 1.4) |
| Books Read Annually (Day 90) | 10.6 (SD = 2.3) | 3.5 (SD = 1.6) |
| Books Read Annually (12 Mo.) | 12.4 (SD = 2.5) | 3.6 (SD = 1.5) |
| Weekly Reading Hours (Day 1) | 1.5 (SD = 0.7) | 1.6 (SD = 0.8) |
| Weekly Reading Hours (Day 90) | 5.8 (SD = 1.2) | 1.7 (SD = 0.8) |
| Weekly Reading Hours (12 Mo.) | 6.2 (SD = 1.3) | 1.8 (SD = 0.9) |
| Affinity Score (Day 1) | 38 (SD = 6.2) | 39 (SD = 5.8) |
| Affinity Score (Day 90) | 78 (SD = 5.1) | 40 (SD = 6.0) |
| Affinity Score (12 Mo.) | 81 (SD = 4.8) | 41 (SD = 5.9) |
Discussion
Mechanisms of Improvement
The intervention group’s gains in reading affinity are attributed to the program’s holistic approach. Improved reading efficiency reduced frustration and cognitive strain, while engagement strategies fostered intrinsic motivation. Reflection and journaling reinforced positive associations with reading, helping participants develop a growth mindset.
Comparison to Existing Literature
Previous research has identified the importance of self-efficacy and motivation in fostering reading habits. This study builds on these findings by demonstrating that cognitive training can directly enhance reading affinity, providing both quantitative and qualitative evidence of lasting behavioural changes.
Applications
Educational Settings: Enhanced reading affinity can improve academic outcomes by encouraging students to engage with challenging texts.
Workplace Development: Professionals can benefit from greater confidence in reading reports, briefs, and technical documents.
Community Literacy Programs: Interventions targeting reading affinity can support adult learners and promote lifelong literacy.
Limitations and Future Research
While this study demonstrated robust findings, future research should explore: Demographic Variability: Examining how factors such as age, education level, and cultural background influence outcomes. Genre Preferences: Investigating whether specific genres or formats (e.g., audiobooks) have a stronger impact on reading affinity. Scalability: Developing digital tools to deliver similar interventions to larger populations.
Conclusion
This study provides compelling evidence that structured cognitive training can significantly increase reading affinity by improving efficiency, confidence, and motivation. By fostering a love of reading, the program empowers individuals to develop sustainable reading habits, enhancing personal growth and lifelong learning.
References
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Springer.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and Motivation in Reading. Handbook of Reading Research, 3, 403–422.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing Metacognitive Awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475.