Audiobooks aren't cheating

[ufcasey]

According to this CNN article anyways. Just thought I would share:

Relax, readers: Audiobooks aren't 'cheating'
www.cnn.com/2016/08/16/health/audiobooks-brain-cheating/index.html

As is required of all women in their 30s, I am in a book club. At the first meeting of this group, one poor unsuspecting woman mentioned that she had listened to that month's selection instead of reading it. That, the rest of the group decided together, is definitely cheating. Never mind that no one could exactly articulate how or why it was cheating; it just felt like it was, and others would agree. She never substituted the audiobook for the print version again (or, if she did, she never again admitted it).

This question -- whether or not listening to an audiobook is "cheating" -- is one University of Virginia psychologist Daniel Willingham gets fairly often, especially ever since he published a book, in 2015, on the science of reading. (That one was about teaching children to read; he's got another book out next spring about adults and reading.) He is very tired of this question, and so, recently, he wrote a blog post addressing it. (His opening line: "I've been asked this question a lot and I hate it.") If, he argues, you take the question from the perspective of cognitive psychology -- that is, the mental processes involved -- there is no real difference between listening to a book and reading it. So, according to that understanding of the question: No, audiobooks are not cheating.

His reasoning reveals some fascinating insights about the way the brain makes sense of language, whether written or spoken. But first, consider what that assertion -- that listening is cheating -- is saying: It suggests that the listener got some reward without putting in the work. Because that does seem to be the typical argument, Willingham said. "It's not that you're missing out on something, or it's not that this experience could be better for you," he told Science of Us. "It's that you're cheating. And so they think you're getting the rewarding part of it ... and it's the difficult part that you've somehow gotten out of." So that implies, Willingham argues, that to your brain, listening is less "work" than reading. And that is true, sort of -- but it stops being true somewhere around the fifth grade.
The lasting benefits of growing up around books

There are two basic processes happening when you're reading: There is decoding, or translating the strings of letters into words that mean something. And then there is language processing, or comprehension -- that is, figuring out the syntax, the story, et cetera. (It's obviously much more complicated than that; this is what's known as the "simple view" of reading, but it's sufficient for thinking about the question at hand.) Researchers have studied the question of comprehension for decades, and "what you find is very high correlations of reading comprehension and listening comprehension," Willingham said. As science writer Olga Khazan noted in 2011, a "1985 study (PDF) found listening comprehension correlated strongly with reading comprehension -- suggesting that those who read books well would listen to them well. In a 1977 study, college students who listened to a short story were able to summarize it with equal accuracy as those who read it." Listeners and readers retain about equal understanding of the passages they've consumed, in other words.

Decoding, by contrast, is specific to reading, Willingham said; this is indeed one more step your mind has to take when reading a print book as compared to listening to the audiobook version. But by about late elementary school, decoding becomes so second-nature that it isn't any additional "work" for your brain. It happens automatically.

According to the simple model of reading, then, you really can't consider listening to a book to be easier than reading it. But there are other differences here, of course, one being that it's really easy for your mind to begin to wander when you're listening to an audiobook. But is that more or less likely to happen as skimming the less interesting parts when you're reading? There's not exactly an easy way to test that question empirically, but there are some comparable things about the way people circle back to catch the stuff they missed, whether they're reading or listening. "About 10 to 20 percent of the eye movements you make are actually regressions, where your eyes are moving backwards," Willingham explained. Many of those regressions happen when you thought you had the word, but -- whoops, no, you didn't quite get it; others happen when you might be trying to work out syntax.

And something similar happens with the brain's auditory system, specifically a phenomenon called echoic memory. "I'm sure you've had the experience where someone says something, and you're not really listening, and then you can tell from their intonation that they've stopped talking and that they've asked you a question," Willingham said. "And you're like, 'Oh, shit, I totally was not listening to this person.' And then you say, 'I'm sorry, what?' And then in that moment where you say, 'I'm sorry, what?' -- you're able to recover what it was they asked you." You did not listen. And yet you still heard, and there is a wisp of a memory of that, which is still banging around inside your mind. "And you are, in the time it takes you to say, 'I'm sorry, what?' -- you are consulting that little memory store, and you get the last second or two of what they said," he continued. So that, he argues, is comparable to the visual system's eye regressions: In both mental processes, your mind ticks back to what it just consumed, in order to double check the meaning.

The TL;DR version of all of this is that as far as the mental processes are concerned, there really isn't much difference between reading and listening to a book. One is not more work than the other. And yet there is, maybe, something to the way your elementary-school teacher might've phrased the question -- you're only cheating yourself. Returning for a moment to the simple model of reading: The decoding process does become automatic once you've passed a certain level of reading proficiency, but you can become even better at this well into adulthood -- and the only way to get better is by reading. The improvements are small ("infinitesimal," as Willingham put it) but they are there, and up for the grabs for a reader. Comprehension, too, is something that improves the more you read. And there are also, of course, times when you need to remind yourself of something farther back in the text, something that is no longer held in that one- to two-second echoic memory. (Which Greyjoy is Victarion, again?) You could pause the audiobook and hit that 15-second rewind button until you find it. But you probably won't.

There's also this question to contend with: Are you consuming the text the way the author intended it? (And how much does that matter?) The reader of Willingham's own audiobook did a wonderful job, for example, but there were jokes stepped on, punch lines that didn't quite land the way Willingham exactly intended. (This, incidentally, is why listening to one of those recent books in the funny female memoir genre -- like Amy Poehler's Yes Please -- is often a much better experience than reading them.) "The idea that you are experiencing the novel in a way the author did not intend, that you're missing out in some way -- I'm much more open to that than 'You listened to it, you big cheater,'" Willingham said.

The literary value of audiobooks versus print books -- that's up for wider interpretation. But there's another way to consider the question of cheating, one that, incidentally, annoys Willingham the most. On my commute this week, for example, I began listening to H Is for Hawk, and so some might argue that, once I'm done, I can't claim to have really "read" it. "There are people who think of reading as a sort of achievement, a mark of honor that you've done something worthy of respect," Willingham said. "There's this sense that when you have read a book, you've done something that is worthy of pride, and it is worthy of other people patting you on the back."

This, to his mind, is nonsense, a holdover from elementary-school days. "You know, there are classrooms that are set up with that very much in mind," he said. "There's a reader wall and you get a star next to your name every time you finish a book, and the number of books is counted. And I think some of that feeling in adults may be ... a hangover from prior school experiences." It's a rather sad way to view reading as an adult, he contends, and he has a point. After all, grown-ups can't exchange a list of books they've read for a free personal pan pizza.

[ufcasey]

Personally I think some books are BETTER in audiobook versus regular reading. Vice versa is true too - some books just do not translate well to audiobook or the audiobook narrator just ruins it in general with annoying voices or the narrator makes it unclear who is talking because there isn't enough variation between the characters voices they use.

I tend to listen to audiobooks while doing chores or traveling in the car or before going to sleep (that way the eye strain won't keep me awake longer than I should be). I'll read books when I have time to actually sit down and enjoy a book, which I try to make time for every day. So I do like like reading more in some ways because I am not multi-tasking like I am while listening to an audiobook. So maybe that multi-tasking is "cheating", but I don't think it is. I'm still paying attention to the book, because how much attention do you have to pay to folding laundry? LOL

[labbie]

This is interesting.
As an avid audiobook user I whole-heartedly agree that some books come across way better on audio, and some worse.
I too listen while doing dishes, laundry, driving the car or walking the dog. I sort of equate the audio vs. print experience to the e-book vs. paper book experience, at least for me. Each has it's place, and without all of these options, I wouldn't be able to enjoy the # of books that I do currently. 
Sure, I'd love to be able to curl up in a chair with a good book, but it's not always feasible.

I also wonder what those who feel "listening is cheating" would say about a visually impaired person. Could they not join their bookclub, or participate in a discussion about a particular book?

[revjen]

I blew through the article without really reading it. If i'd had it on audio, I would probably have paid more attention to it.

For me, I get to listen more in depth whereas I skim when I read. Audiobooks force me to pay attention to every word.

[susiebw]

I hate the very idea of "cheating" in this sense. How are you cheating, exactly? The very idea is ridiculous. If you can contribute meaningfully to a discussion of a book, why would it matter at all how you had consumed it? I completely agree with the fact that some audiobooks are so much better than the print version. Any book by a comic is going to be better as an audiobook read by the author. Really, any memoir or autobiography is likely to be better as an audiobook read by the author, IMO.

If you are listening to an abridged version of a book instead of reading the whole thing, I can see that. It's like reading the Cliffs Notes or the Readers Digest versions of a book. In that sense, you are not getting the full experience, and may not be able to participate meaningfully in a discussion.

[litskispeciality]

I'm so glad you posted this! I'm victim to "audio is cheating" and I'm not sure why. I also echo the thought that some books (Coo-Coo's Calling for example) is so much better with the narration. I think Gillian Flynn's books are another great example when it comes from so many perspectives. I like reading more than listening (I'm a visual learner), but I should get into audio books more since I also like to knit, and can't find a way to do both at the same time.

[secretlyevil]

Equating audiobooks to cheating is like saying graphic novels aren't real books. I'm sure there are some who say that but the entire thought process is narrow minded and two dimensional at best. At worst, just dumb.

[sassypants]

When I was in HS I listened to George Orwell's 1984 and I totally felt like I was cheating then, but I don't still feel that way anymore. Not sure why I changed my perspective, but I like them now. I prefer to listen to "fluffy" books over serious stuff because I do feel like I don't focus as carefully on an audiobook, though.

[alleinesein]

Not cheating. Some books are better suited for the audio format. I probably would've aced my damn Shakespeare class in high school if I had audio versions of everything we read. I don't see how they can be cheating from a time spent viewpoint; audiobooks take forever to get through a story. I can plow through a book in 2 hours that takes 6-8 hrs to narrate.

[GilliC]

Assorted thoughts while reading this:

And there are also, of course, times when you need to remind yourself of something farther back in the text, something that is no longer held in that one- to two-second echoic memory. (Which Greyjoy is Victarion, again?) You could pause the audiobook and hit that 15-second rewind button until you find it. But you probably won't.

I do this all the time. I grew up with books on tape, where it was pretty easy to rewind a few seconds and listen to something again. When the format switched to CDs, skimming became very difficult, and I'd usually hit the backwards track (chapter) skip by accident, which made it a nightmare to get back to wherever I was. The Audible app led to a huge resurgence in my audiobook listening, because I use the "back 30 seconds" button a lot to review snippets I feel I didn't fully hear or retain.

There's also this question to contend with: Are you consuming the text the way the author intended it? (And how much does that matter?) The reader of Willingham's own audiobook did a wonderful job, for example, but there were jokes stepped on, punch lines that didn't quite land the way Willingham exactly intended. (This, incidentally, is why listening to one of those recent books in the funny female memoir genre -- like Amy Poehler's Yes Please -- is often a much better experience than reading them.)

UGH! This irritates me. "Funny female memoir" is not a genre. "Comedy memoir" (or "funny memoir" if you prefer) is a genre. Why the @#%& does the gender of the author matter in this context. Unless this genre encompasses only  childbirth, menstruation, and gender discrimination, there is nothing to differentiate humorous memoirs written by women from those written by men. It just happens that statistically, women seem to be better at it.

After all, grown-ups can't exchange a list of books they've read for a free personal pan pizza.

I sooooo wish we could!!! 

[GilliC]

Aug 17, 2016 1:41:27 GMT -5 alleinesein said:

Not cheating. Some books are better suited for the audio format. I probably would've aced my damn Shakespeare class in high school if I had audio versions of everything we read. I don't see how they can be cheating from a time spent viewpoint; audiobooks take forever to get through a story. I can plow through a book in 2 hours that takes 6-8 hrs to narrate.

Not to mention that as a playwright, Shakespeare actually intended for his work to be heard rather than read.

[snshne322]

If it's cheating then I should cut my yearly number in half, or maybe more than that. I adore audiobooks. Like revjen, I'm excellent at skimming. I don't think I skim the important things, but I'll gloss over the details of what the field looked like from the car window as the characters drove down the road. Things like that. Audio? I love "forcing" myself to get those little details. I've definitely listened to some crappy audiobooks that were probably better in print, and vice versa.

It's interesting how many people do think it's cheating. Other than here, I don't often advertise that I listen to audiobooks.

[labbie]

Aug 17, 2016 1:41:27 GMT -5 alleinesein said:

Not cheating. Some books are better suited for the audio format. I probably would've aced my damn Shakespeare class in high school if I had audio versions of everything we read. I don't see how they can be cheating from a time spent viewpoint; audiobooks take forever to get through a story. I can plow through a book in 2 hours that takes 6-8 hrs to narrate.

This is where I feel very old. In high school, we did listen to Shakespeare during class- on albums. Lol!
Although I guess now they're coming back into fashion, this still cracks me up.

[litskispeciality]

Gillic I love the rewind feature. Sometimes I have to listen/read a line 3 or 4 times to really get the point. I get a bit distracted reading physical/e-books if anyone is in the room, audio helps keep me focused. I also get hung up on little details, like the road they drove by, or the color of the shirt someone wore on a Wednesday, e-books help me skip worrying about if those details will be important later on.