Skip to main content
Log in

The rule of tome? Longer novels are more likely to win literary awards

  • Short Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Cultural Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript


Longer novels on shortlists are significantly more likely to win literary awards. This relationship is shown using all shortlisted novels for three prestigious prizes—the Booker Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, and the National Book Award for Fiction, over the time period 1963–2021. The result is robust to controlling for author gender and Goodreads rating, and to whether one uses absolute length (in pages) or relative length on the shortlist. The size of the effect suggests other valid cues are underweighted in the process of selecting a winner. Judgment and decision-making research suggests several causes of the apparent bias. One is the representativeness heuristic: longer novels resemble the tomes that constitute the foundations of the Western canon, and this similarity may subconsciously sway judges. Other explanations include an effort heuristic and the effects of accountability on decisions. These results may explain previous findings that Booker Prize winners are not higher quality than shortlisted novels. The findings cast doubt on the validity of awards as signals of literary merit and have broader implications for the inferred quality of expert judgment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4


  1. One common objection is that awards miss the point of art. Another one is that awards rarely go to the highest quality entry, as judged by posterity (Ginsburgh & Weyers, 1999, 2014).

  2. This paper uses the definition of ‘expert’ suggested by Shanteau (1992)—“those who have been recognized within their profession as having the necessary skills and abilities”.

  3. The twenty greatest works of literature of all time, as compiled in a meta-list on (Sherman, 2022) have an average word count above 200,000 words, whereas the average contemporary novel has a word count of approximately 100,000 words. See Table A2 in Supplementary Information for details.

  4. Versions of this remark has been attributed to Blaise Pascal and Mark Twain.

  5. The majority of research in expert judgment uses tasks like forecasting where performance can be objectively measured (e.g. Tetlock, 2009; Camerer & Johnson, 1991).

  6. One exception is Doris Lessing (Nobel winner in 2007), who was nominated three times for the Booker Prize. Only once did she lose to a shorter novel: in 1971 her entry was 278 pages long and the winner’s was 247 (that winner, V.S Naipaul, also went on to win the Nobel). The other exception is the 2021 winner, Abdulrazak Gurnah, who was nominated for the Booker in 1994 for his novel Paradise (length: 256 pages), which lost out to How Late It Was, How Late (length: 384 pages). See Table A1 in the Supplementary Information for the full list of Nobel winners.

  7. The analysis does not begin from 1950 for three reasons. First, doing so would create a large imbalance in the panel, with half the observations coming from one award. Second, many novels on the shortlist in the 1950-1963 period are not available on Goodreads with ratings. Third, the shift in the shortlist number may have been accompanied by other changes, but without knowing these details it is precautionary to analyze the period within which unobservables regarding the ethos of the award are less likely to have changed.

  8. Incidentally, word count is not a perfect measure of length either, as novels with lots of short words will be pushed up by this metric relative to ones with a preponderance of lengthy “ten-dollar” words, as Hemingway derisively put it in 1950 (adjusting for inflation, those words now cost $124). Character count is the perfect measure, but the resource-intensity of gathering this metric outweighs the marginal benefit.

  9. For example, if a shortlist mean length was 400 pages and the lengths of the five novels were 250, 300, 350, 500 and 600 pages, the relative length scores would be − 150, − 100, − 50, + 100, + 200.

  10. For example, choosing Grand Central Station as a meeting place in New York City. Research on the ability of people to coordinate shows that focal points are not naturally salient (i.e. are not chosen when there is no incentive to match the choice of another person) but become so once there is some payoff to coordination (Mehta et al., 1994).

  11. I thank an anonymous reviewer for making this suggestion.

  12. For example, if there were 100 judges, who each committed to reading 30 novels, then each entry on a shortlist of 150 would be read by 20 judges.


  • Adams, G. S., Converse, B. A., Hales, A. H., & Klotz, L. E. (2021). People systematically overlook subtractive changes. Nature, 592(7853), 258–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, J., Heyndels, B., & Werck, K. (2010). Expert judgements and the demand for novels in flanders. Journal of Cultural Economics, 34(3), 197–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, B. M., Heath, C., & Odean, T. (2003). Good reasons sell: Reason-based choice among group and individual investors in the stock market. Management Science, 49(12), 1636–1652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. F., & Johnson, E. J. (1991). The process-performance paradox in expert judgment-how can experts know so much and predict so badly?.

  • Criscuolo, P., Dahlander, L., Grohsjean, T., & Salter, A. (2021). The sequence effect in panel decisions: Evidence from the evaluation of research and development projects. Organization Science.

  • Dekker, E. (2016). Exemplary goods: Exemplars as judgment devices. Valuation Studies, 4(2), 103–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, E., & de Jong, M. (2018). What do book awards signal? An analysis of book awards in three countries. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 36(1), 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • English, J. F. (2014). The economics of cultural awards. In Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, volume 2, pages 119–143. Elsevier.

  • Frey, B. S., & Gallus, J. (2017). Towards an economics of awards. Journal of Economic Surveys, 31(1), 190–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gemser, G., Leenders, M. A., & Wijnberg, N. M. (2008). Why some awards are more effective signals of quality than others: A study of movie awards. Journal of Management, 34(1), 25–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburgh, V. (2003). Awards, success and aesthetic quality in the arts. Journal of Economic perspectives, 17(2), 99–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburgh, V., & Van Ours, J. C. (2003). Expert opinion and compensation: Evidence from a musical competition. American Economic Review, 93(1), 289–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburgh, V., & Weyers, S. (1999). On the perceived quality of movies. Journal of Cultural Economics, 23(4), 269–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburgh, V., & Weyers, S. (2014). Nominees, winners, and losers. Journal of Cultural Economics, 38(4), 291–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, A., & Petrova, V. (2006). Auteur discourse and the cultural consecration of american films. Poetics, 34(3), 180–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsee, C. K., Rottenstreich, Y., & Xiao, Z. (2005). When is more better? on the relationship between magnitude and subjective value. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5), 234–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, J. R., & Davis, J. H. (1995). Choice/matching preference reversals in groups: Consensus processes and justification-based reasoning. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64(3), 325–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen, G. D. (2015). Consumers, experts, and online product evaluations: Evidence from the brewing industry. Journal of Public Economics, 126, 114–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 430–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klayman, J., & Brown, K. (1993). Debias the environment instead of the judge: An alternative approach to reducing error in diagnostic (and other) judgment. Cognition, 49(1–2), 97–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kovács, B., & Sharkey, A. J. (2014). The paradox of publicity: How awards can negatively affect the evaluation of quality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(1), 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, J., Wirtz, D., Van Boven, L., & Altermatt, T. W. (2004). The effort heuristic. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1), 91–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lea, R. (2015). The big question: Are books getting longer?.

  • Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehta, J., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1994). The nature of salience: An experimental investigation of pure coordination games. The American Economic Review, 84(3), 658–673.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milkman, K. L., Carmona, R., & Gleason, W. (2007). A statistical analysis of editorial influence and author-character similarities in 1990s New Yorker fiction. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 22(3), 305–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milkman, K. L., Payne, J. W., & Soll, J. B. (2015). A user’s guide to debiasing. WileyBlackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making.

  • Minson, J. A., Mueller, J. S., & Larrick, R. P. (2018). The contingent wisdom of dyads: When discussion enhances vs. undermines the accuracy of collaborative judgments. Management Science, 64(9), 4177–4192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morewedge, C. K., Kassam, K. S., Hsee, C. K., & Caruso, E. M. (2009). Duration sensitivity depends on stimulus familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(2), 177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moseley, M., et al. (2019). How the booker prize won the prize. American, British and Canadian Studies, 33, 206–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National-Book-Awards (2021). National Book Awards website. [Online; accessed 20-September-2021].

  • Nelson, R. A., Donihue, M. R., Waldman, D. M., & Wheaton, C. (2001). What’s an Oscar worth? Economic Inquiry, 39(1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pardoe, I., & Simonton, D. K. (2008). Applying discrete choice models to predict academy award winners. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 171(2), 375–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponzo, M., & Scoppa, V. (2015). Experts’ awards and economic success: Evidence from an Italian literary prize. Journal of Cultural Economics, 39(4), 341–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schelling, T. C. (1960). The strategy of conflict: With a new preface by the author. Harvard University Press.

  • Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanteau, J. (1992). Competence in experts: The role of task characteristics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53(2), 252–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, S. (2022). The greatest books.

  • Slovic, P. (1975). Choice between equally valued alternatives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1(3), 280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. R., & Zarate, M. A. (1992). Exemplar-based model of social judgment. Psychological Review, 99(1), 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, N., Brown, G. D., & Chater, N. (2005). Absolute identification by relative judgment. Psychological Review, 112(4), 881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. E. (2009). Expert political judgment. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Troutman, C. M., & Shanteau, J. (1976). Do consumers evaluate products by adding or averaging attribute information? Journal of Consumer Research, 3(2), 101–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


I am very grateful to Conor Brennan, John O'Hagan, Pete Lunn, Eleanor Denny, Deirdre Robertson and Shane Timmons for thoughtful feedback on an early draft, which greatly improved the paper. I also thank the three anonymous Reviewers for valuable comments and suggestions. I thank the Irish Research Council for PhD funding (grant GOIPG/2019/66).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Féidhlim P. McGowan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file 1 (pdf 198 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McGowan, F.P. The rule of tome? Longer novels are more likely to win literary awards. J Cult Econ 48, 311–329 (2024).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: