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.
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.