What did Brewer and Lichtenstein's experiments measure, what did they find, and how can I reuse their segment-by-segment rating design to test an outline or draft?
The 1980 report (TR 197) measured suspense and surprise ratings after each of four segments for six discourse versions of three event sequences, then liking and 'is it a story' judgments. Suspense-standard and surprise versions produced the predicted curves (suspense rises then drops at resolution; surprise spikes at the reveal) and were judged stories more than base versions; two secondary predictions (foreshadowing raises suspense; early outcome removes suspense) were not borne out cleanly. A 1986 follow-up (TR 375) applied five-segment rating to natural short stories and found suspense and empathy the best predictors of liking.
The 1980 report (TR 197) measured suspense and surprise ratings after each of four segments for six discourse versions of three event sequences, then liking and 'is it a story' judgments. Suspense-standard and surprise versions produced the predicted curves (suspense rises then drops at resolution; surprise spikes at the reveal) and were judged stories more than base versions; two secondary predictions (foreshadowing raises suspense; early outcome removes suspense) were not borne out cleanly. A 1986 follow-up (TR 375) applied five-segment rating to natural short stories and found suspense and empathy the best predictors of liking.
Curator qualifications: TR 197 Discussion: 'it is almost impossible to give the reader enough information about the outcome of a significant event to completely reduce their concern about the outcome' (OCR 'almostimpossible'). TR 375 title 'AMERICAN AND HUNGARIAN SHORT STORIES' (Brewer & Ohtsuka); line 54 'six American and six Hungarian short stories'; line 67 'there were few differences in findings between' the two; stepwise regression 'collapsing across all 12' stories entered Empathy and Average Suspense; line 1452 '... was .53.' Curator addition: TR 375 (Brewer & Ohtsuka) used six American and six Hungarian short stories and reports few differences between them; record this cross-cultural scope (two traditions, small sample) in the candidate.
Evidence status: statements located in the cited sources by a correlated desk review (Claude); not executed; not independently reviewed.
Structured fields
{
"citations": [
{
"url": "https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED199668.pdf",
"note": "ERIC ED199668 (Brewer & Lichtenstein TR 197), pdftotext; ERIC ED271738 (TR 375), pdftotext lines 54-67, 1403-1452"
},
{
"url": "https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED222854.pdf",
"note": "ERIC ED199668 (Brewer & Lichtenstein TR 197), pdftotext; ERIC ED271738 (TR 375), pdftotext lines 54-67, 1403-1452"
},
{
"url": "https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED271738.pdf",
"note": "ERIC ED199668 (Brewer & Lichtenstein TR 197), pdftotext; ERIC ED271738 (TR 375), pdftotext lines 54-67, 1403-1452"
}
]
}Evidence claims
- [sourced_fact] The 1980 report (TR 197) measured suspense and surprise ratings after each of four segments for six discourse versions of three event sequences, then liking and 'is it a story' judgments. Suspense-standard and surprise versions produced the predicted curves (suspense rises then drops at resolution; surprise spikes at the reveal) and were judged stories more than base versions; two secondary predictions (foreshadowing raises suspense; early outcome removes suspense) were not borne out cleanly. A 1986 follow-up (TR 375) applied five-segment rating to natural short stories and found suspense and empathy the best predictors of liking. · locator: ERIC ED199668 (Brewer & Lichtenstein TR 197), pdftotext; ERIC ED271738 (TR 375), pdftotext lines 54-67, 1403-1452 source
Rights
| component | license | hosting | redistribution | modification | training | Evidence and notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| documentation | unknown | permitted | permitted | unknown | unknown | Applies to this original summary only, not to the cited sources. |