A Missing Mechanism of Effect: How People Who Habitually Replot Stories React Differently (Or Not so Differently) to Melanoma Narratives.

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Journal of Health Communication Pub Date : 2024-11-16 DOI:10.1080/10810730.2024.2427395
Helen M Lillie, Manusheela Pokharel, Jakob D Jensen
{"title":"A Missing Mechanism of Effect: How People Who Habitually Replot Stories React Differently (Or Not so Differently) to Melanoma Narratives.","authors":"Helen M Lillie, Manusheela Pokharel, Jakob D Jensen","doi":"10.1080/10810730.2024.2427395","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When stories have undesirable endings, readers often engage in replotting, meaning they imagine alternative plotlines that could change the unwanted ending. Recent research has found that both the cognitive and emotional components of replotting serve as mechanisms of narrative persuasion. Building on this work, the current study assessed if people who habitually replot are more persuaded by a tragic story ending than those who do not, testing hypotheses with melanoma narratives. Cognitive and emotional (i.e., anger, anxiety, sadness, and hope) aspects of replotting were tested as mechanisms of this proposed interaction. Participants (<i>N</i> = 432) were randomized into a 2 (protagonist death vs. survival) x 6 (specific melanoma story) between-subjects online narrative message experiment. Participants who habitually replot had significantly higher melanoma prevention intentions after reading a death (compared to a survival) ending. This effect was not present for other participants. However, counter to hypotheses, the cognitive and emotional aspects of actual replotting did not explain the effect, meaning habitual replotters were not more likely to replot the death ending or experience replotting emotion than other participants were. Future research is needed to determine why habitual replotters are more persuaded by unwanted story endings than other audience members are.</p>","PeriodicalId":16026,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Communication","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Communication","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2024.2427395","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When stories have undesirable endings, readers often engage in replotting, meaning they imagine alternative plotlines that could change the unwanted ending. Recent research has found that both the cognitive and emotional components of replotting serve as mechanisms of narrative persuasion. Building on this work, the current study assessed if people who habitually replot are more persuaded by a tragic story ending than those who do not, testing hypotheses with melanoma narratives. Cognitive and emotional (i.e., anger, anxiety, sadness, and hope) aspects of replotting were tested as mechanisms of this proposed interaction. Participants (N = 432) were randomized into a 2 (protagonist death vs. survival) x 6 (specific melanoma story) between-subjects online narrative message experiment. Participants who habitually replot had significantly higher melanoma prevention intentions after reading a death (compared to a survival) ending. This effect was not present for other participants. However, counter to hypotheses, the cognitive and emotional aspects of actual replotting did not explain the effect, meaning habitual replotters were not more likely to replot the death ending or experience replotting emotion than other participants were. Future research is needed to determine why habitual replotters are more persuaded by unwanted story endings than other audience members are.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
缺失的效应机制:习惯于重写故事的人如何对黑色素瘤叙事做出不同(或不太不同)的反应。
当故事的结局不理想时,读者往往会进行重新构思,即想象其他情节,以改变不理想的结局。最近的研究发现,重构的认知和情感成分都是叙事说服的机制。在此基础上,本研究评估了习惯于重新构思的人是否比不习惯重新构思的人更容易被悲剧性的故事结局所说服,并通过黑色素瘤叙事对假设进行了检验。研究测试了重写的认知和情感(即愤怒、焦虑、悲伤和希望)方面作为这种拟议互动的机制。参与者(432 人)被随机分配到一个 2(主人公死亡与生存)x 6(特定黑色素瘤故事)的主体间在线叙事信息实验中。在阅读了死亡(与生存)结局后,习惯于重写的参与者的黑色素瘤预防意愿明显更高。其他参与者则不存在这种效应。然而,与假设相反的是,实际重写的认知和情感方面并不能解释这种效应,也就是说,习惯性重写者并不比其他参与者更有可能重写死亡结局或体验重写情感。未来的研究需要确定为什么习惯性重拍者比其他观众更容易被不想要的故事结局说服。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
4.50%
发文量
63
期刊介绍: Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives is the leading journal covering the full breadth of a field that focuses on the communication of health information globally. Articles feature research on: • Developments in the field of health communication; • New media, m-health and interactive health communication; • Health Literacy; • Social marketing; • Global Health; • Shared decision making and ethics; • Interpersonal and mass media communication; • Advances in health diplomacy, psychology, government, policy and education; • Government, civil society and multi-stakeholder initiatives; • Public Private partnerships and • Public Health campaigns. Global in scope, the journal seeks to advance a synergistic relationship between research and practical information. With a focus on promoting the health literacy of the individual, caregiver, provider, community, and those in the health policy, the journal presents research, progress in areas of technology and public health, ethics, politics and policy, and the application of health communication principles. The journal is selective with the highest quality social scientific research including qualitative and quantitative studies.
期刊最新文献
Online Media Consumption, Fear, Mental Wellbeing, and Behavioral Compliance During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Longitudinal Study. Optimizing Public Health Crisis Communication: Insights from Technology-Mediated COVID-19 Messaging in Rural Ghana. Opinion Leadership and Sharing Positive and Negative Information About Vaccines on Social Media: A Mixed-Methods Approach. A Missing Mechanism of Effect: How People Who Habitually Replot Stories React Differently (Or Not so Differently) to Melanoma Narratives. Correction.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1