What do open sources say about habituation and the "cheap scare" failure mode: why do repeated or predictable scares lose force, and what can be checked in a script or cut?
One open psychophysiology study (N = 50, Run Lola Run, a suspense film rather than horror) found self-reported suspense and arousal and skin conductance fell across three viewings while enjoyment did not significantly change, which the authors read as habituation. Horror-specific evidence is indirect: focus-group participants describe learned genre cues, and the jump-scare paper reports scares without anticipatory cues as more startling in an unreviewed experiment. No source measures habituation to repeated jump scares within a single film.
One open psychophysiology study (N = 50, Run Lola Run, a suspense film rather than horror) found self-reported suspense and arousal and skin conductance fell across three viewings while enjoyment did not significantly change, which the authors read as habituation. Horror-specific evidence is indirect: focus-group participants describe learned genre cues, and the jump-scare paper reports scares without anticipatory cues as more startling in an unreviewed experiment. No source measures habituation to repeated jump scares within a single film.
Curator qualifications: All numbers and quotes verified. The arousal drop was significant at both steps; the suspense drop was significant only from first to second exposure, as the candidate states. The scope caution (re-viewing habituation, not within-film scare fatigue) is correct. The rights_conflicts entry compares licences of different works (CC BY S1/S4 vs copyright-reserved S3). That is not a conflict between texts and should be removed. Per-source terms stay recorded. The S3 same-work footer-vs-notice conflict is in C3R-0189. The 'unreviewed experiment' status of the jump-scare paper's cue result is the producer's characterisation; it was not re-checked in this pass.
Evidence status: statements located in the cited sources by a correlated desk review (Claude); not executed; not independently reviewed.
Structured fields
{
"citations": [
{
"url": "https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.558234/full",
"note": "work/suspense.html (equals pin f204d853) Frontiers in Psychology, Re-Living Suspense; Kershaw thesis ch.5; Frontiers 2026 jump-scare article"
},
{
"url": "https://era.ed.ac.uk/bitstreams/6804d32b-7236-439a-9fa8-cd73c7cab104/download",
"note": "work/suspense.html (equals pin f204d853) Frontiers in Psychology, Re-Living Suspense; Kershaw thesis ch.5; Frontiers 2026 jump-scare article"
},
{
"url": "https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1569394/full",
"note": "work/suspense.html (equals pin f204d853) Frontiers in Psychology, Re-Living Suspense; Kershaw thesis ch.5; Frontiers 2026 jump-scare article"
}
]
}Evidence claims
- [sourced_fact] One open psychophysiology study (N = 50, Run Lola Run, a suspense film rather than horror) found self-reported suspense and arousal and skin conductance fell across three viewings while enjoyment did not significantly change, which the authors read as habituation. Horror-specific evidence is indirect: focus-group participants describe learned genre cues, and the jump-scare paper reports scares without anticipatory cues as more startling in an unreviewed experiment. No source measures habituation to repeated jump scares within a single film. · locator: work/suspense.html (equals pin f204d853) Frontiers in Psychology, Re-Living Suspense; Kershaw thesis ch.5; Frontiers 2026 jump-scare article 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. |