Diegetic and non-diegetic surprises, and their effect on liking, long-term recall and comprehension in narrative television commercials

  1. Jesús Bermejo Berros 2
  2. Jaime López Díez 1
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

  2. 2 Universidad de Valladolid

    Universidad de Valladolid

    Valladolid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01fvbaw18

Comunicación y sociedad = Communication & Society

ISSN: 2386-7876

Ano de publicación: 2019

Título do exemplar: Special Issue: Credibility and Trust in Post-Truth Times and the Network Society

Volume: 32

Número: 1

Páxinas: 91-104

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.15581/003.32.37817 WoS: WOS:000456306500007 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso aberto editor

Outras publicacións en: Comunicación y sociedad = Communication & Society


The aim of this experiment is to classify surprises in audiovisual narratives, and to measure the efficacy of surprise in audiovisual stories in terms of liking, long-term recall and comprehension in television commercials. The theoretical analysis leads to distinguish 3 types of audiovisual narrative surprises: non-diegetic, diegetic implausible and diegetic plausible. In order to test these types of surprises with complete and homogeneous stories in terms of duration, and to show many of these types of surprises to each participant, 16 narrative television commercials (M=40,68 seconds) were used as stimuli in this study. The experimental design was a 4 groups (3 groups of surprise, and 1 non-surprise group, 4 stories each) fully randomised experiment (N=120, Age: 18-24). The results showed that surprise had a significant enhancing effect on liking, on the day of the viewing (c² (3,N=480)=5.83, p=0.12), and one month after (c² (3,N=480)=10.38, p=.016); an ANOVA test showed a significant relation between surprise and the degree of comprehension (F(1,480)=12.14), p<.001): stories that elicited surprise were less comprehended (M=+2.29, SD=0.50) than the ones that did not surprised (M=+2.67, SD=0.89); and non-diegetic surprises elicit better long-term free recall than audiovisual narratives without surprise (50% recalled, AR=3.3). These results suggest a major difference between non-diegetic and diegetic surprises, and they point out that highest levels of surprise elicit a highest degree of liking, even if not fully comprehended. In conclusion, future studies on audiovisual narrative surprises should focus on the relation between the underlying schemata regarding story elements, and the different types of surprising stimuli.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Ang, S. H. & Low, S. Y. M. (2000). Exploring the Dimensions of Ad Creativity. Psychology and Marketing, 17 (10), 835-854.
  • Ash, I. K. (2009). Surprise, memory, and retrospective judgment making: Testing cognitive reconstruction theories of the hindsight bias effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(4), 916-933. https://www.doi.org/10.1037/a0015504
  • Baroni, R. (2007). La tension narrative. Paris: Seuil.
  • Berlyne, D. E. (1960): Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity. New York: McGraw Hill.
  • Bermejo-Berros, J. (2006). La eficacia de la publicidad narrativa. Nuevos caminos para el anunciante. Publifilia, 9, 93-107.
  • Bermejo-Berros, J. & López Díez, J. (2013). Sorpresa y diégesis en la narrativa audiovisual. In P. Gómez Martínez (Ed.), Teorías y aplicaciones narrativas (pp. 131-160). Madrid: Icono 14.
  • Brewer, W. F. (1985). The story-schema: Universal and culture-specific properties. In D. R. Olson, N. Torrance & A. Hildyard (Eds.), Literacy, language and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing (pp. 167-194). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Brewer, W. F. & Lichtenstein, E. H. (1981). Event schemas, story schemas, and story grammars. In J. Long & A. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and Performance IX. (pp. 363-379). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Brewer, W. F. & Lichtenstein, E. H. (1982). Stories are to entertain: A structural-affect theory of stories. Journal of Pragmatics, 6, 473-486. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(82)90021-2
  • Desai, M. M. (1939). Surprise: a historical and experimental study. British Journal of Psychology, Monograph Supplements, 22, 1-124.
  • De Wied, M., Van Boxtel, A., Posthumus, J. A., Goudena, P. P. & Matthys, W. (2009). Facial EMG and heart rate responses to emotion-inducing film clips in boys with disruptive behavior disorders, Psychophysiology, 46(5), 996–1004. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00851.x
  • D'Mello, S. & Graesser, A. (2011). The half-life of cognitive-affective states during complex learning. Cognition & Emotion, 25(7), 1299-1308. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.613668
  • Gross, J. J. & Levenson, R. W. (1995). Emotion elicitation using film. Cognition and Emotion, 9(1), 87-108. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/02699939508408966
  • Heckler, S. E. & Childers, T. L. (1992). The role of expectancy and relevancy in memory for verbal and visual information: What is incongruency? The Journal of Consumer Research, 18(4), 475-492.
  • Hirshman, E., Whelly, M. & Palij, M. (1989). An investigation of paradoxical memory effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 594-609. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90015-6.
  • Hoffner, C. A. & Levine, K. J. (2005). Enjoyment of mediated fright and violence: A metaanalysis. Media Psychology, 7, 207–237. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0702_5
  • Hunt, R. & Worthen, J. B. (Eds.) (2006). Distinctiveness and Memory. Oxford, UK: University Press. https://www.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195169669.001.0001
  • Lee, Y. H. & Mason, C. (1999). Responses to information incongruency in advertising: the role of expectancy, relevancy, and humor. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(2), 156-169.
  • Loef, J. & Verlegh, P. W. J. (2002). Cognitive and affective consequences of two types of incongruent advertising. ERS-2002-42-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM).
  • Lorini, E. & Castelfranchi, C. (2006). The unexpected aspects of surprise. International Journal of Patter Recognition and Artificial Intelligence, 20(6), 817-835. https:// www.doi.org/10.1142/S0218001406004983
  • Maguire, P. & Maguire, R. (2009). Investigating the difference between surprise and probability judgments. Proceedings of the Thirty-First Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Amsterdam (pp. 2359-2364). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Mandler, G. (1982). The structure of value: Accounting for taste. In H. M. S. Clarke & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and Cognition: The 17th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp. 3-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Mandler, J. M. (1984). Stories, scripts, and scenes: Aspects of schema theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Meyer, W-U., Reisenzein, R. & Schützwohl, A. (1997). Towards a process analysis of emotions: The case of surprise. Motivation and Emotion, 21, 251-274. https://www.doi.org/10.1023/ A:1024422330338
  • Michelon, P. & Snyder, A. Z. (2006). Neural correlates of incongruity. In R. R. Hunt & J. B. Worthen (Eds.), Distinctiveness and memory (pp. 361-380). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://www.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195169669.001.0001
  • Niepel, M., Rudolph, U., Schützwohl, A. & Meyer, W.-U. (1994). Temporal characteristics of the surprise reactions induced by schema-discrepant visual and auditory events. Cognition & Emotion, 8(5), 433-452. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/02699939408408951
  • Ortony, A. & Partridge, D. (1987). Surprisingness and expectation failure: What's the difference? IJCAI 87 Proceedings of the Tenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1, 106-108.
  • Reisenzein, R. & Meyer, W.-U. (2009). Surprise. In D. Sander & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), Oxford companion to the affective sciences (pp. 386-387). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Renninger, K. A. & Hidi, S. (2011) Revisiting the Conceptualization, Measurement, and Generation of Interest. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 168-184. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.587723
  • Schaefer, A., Nils, F., Sánchez, X. & Philipot, P. (2010). Assessing the effectiveness of a large database of emotion-eliciting films: A new tool for emotion researchers. Cognition and Emotion, 24(7), 1153-1172. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/02699930903274322
  • Sato, W., Noguchi, M. & Yoshikawa, S. (2007). Emotion elicitation effect of films in a Japanese sample. Social Behavior and Personality, 35(7), 863-874. https://www.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2007.35.7.863.
  • Schellenberg, E.G., Peretz, I. & Vieillard, S. (2008). Liking for happy –and sad– sounding music: Efects of exposure. Cognition and Emotion, 22, 218-237. https://www.doi.org/ 10.1080/02699930701350753
  • Silvia, P. J. (2006). Exploring the psychology of interest. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Smith, D. A. & Graesser, A. C. (1981). Memory for actions in scripted activities as a function of typicality, retention interval, and retrieval task. Memory and Cognition, 9(6), 550-559.
  • Sokolov, E. N. (1963). Perception and the conditioned reflex. New York: Pergamon.
  • Stiensmeier-Pelster, J., Martini A. & Reisenzein, R. (1995). The role of surprise in the attribution process. Cognition and Emotion, 9(1), 5-31. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/02699939508408963
  • Stone, G., Besser, D. & Lewis, L. E. (2000). Recall, Liking, and Creativity in TVCommercials: A New Approach. Journal of Advertising Research, 40(3), 7-18.
  • Tan, E. S. (1996). Emotion and the structure of narrative film. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Tan, E. S. & Diteweg, G. (1996). Suspense, Predictive Inference, and Emotion in Film Viewing. In P. Vorderer, H. J. Wulff & M. Friedrichsen (Eds.), Suspense (pp. 149-188) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Thorson, E. & M. Friestad (1989). The Effects of Emotion on Episodic Memory for Television Commercials. In P. Cafferata & A. Tybout (Eds.), Cognitive and Affective Reactions to Advertising (pp. 305-325). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
  • Törn, F. & Dahlén, M. (2008). Effects of Brand Incongruent Advertising in Competitive Settings. European Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 234-39.
  • Welsh, A. & Brantford, L. (2009). Sex and violence in the slashed horror film: A content analysis of gender differences in the depiction of violence. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 16, 1–25.
  • Worthen, J. B. (2006). Resolution of discrepant memory: An explanation of the effects of bizarreness on memory. In R. R. Hunt & J. B. Worthen (Eds.), Distinctiveness and Memory (pp. 133-156). New York: Oxford University Press. https://www.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195169669.001.0001
  • Yang, T., Lee, D.-Y., Kwak, Y., Choi, J., Kim, C. & Kim, S.-P. (2015). Evaluation of TV commercials using neurophysiological responses. Journal of Physiological Anthropology, 34:19. http://www.doi.org/10.1186/s40101-015-0056-4