Effect of Narrative Outcomes on Viewer Engagement After Exposure: A Longitudinal Study

pitque · April 29, 2025, 9:12am

Speaker: Danny Yihan Jia @pitque
Affiliation: Boston University

Co-authors: James J. Cummings

Title: Effect of Narrative Outcomes on Viewer Engagement After Exposure: A Longitudinal Study

Abstract: The use of multiple narrative endings has become common in the creation of fiction, film, and television, yet little is known about how they affect audiences’ experiences. This proposed longitudinal study examines how different film endings—protagonist success or antagonist success—influence viewers’ retrospective imaginative involvement, a reflective engagement process extending beyond initial narrative exposure. Specifically, it explores how differing resolutions shape viewers’ perceptions of the film (e.g., enjoyment and appreciation), and whether these perceptions contribute to RII over one month. The findings could offer insights into the psychological mechanisms behind narrative engagement and provide practical implications for creators to craft narratives that enhance engagement.

Long abstract

Audiences’ engagement with narratives is often conceptualized as confined to the temporal bounds of the narrative encounter (Slater et al., 2018). However, perspectives on retrospective imaginative involvement (RII) suggest audiences may reflect on narrative elements post-exposure (Slater et al., 2018; Ewoldsen et al., 2021; Sethi et al., 2022). This post-exposure contemplation indicates a narrative’s impact extends beyond immediate consumption, prompting psychological involvement long after the experience (Sethi et al., 2022).
Both anecdotal evidence and empirical research support the prevalence of RII (Ewoldsen et al., 2021; Sherrick et al., 2022; Ulusoy et al., 2022). However, past studies have predominantly relied on survey methodologies and correlational designs, limiting the ability to make causal claims about how in-the-moment experiences influence post-exposure engagement. Ulusoy et al. (2022) called for experimental designs to address these gaps. This study responds by investigating how different story resolutions impact RII.

Story Resolution as Potential Antecedent to RII
Writers use various ending techniques to engage audiences (Barber, 2010; Neupert, 1995; Smorti, 2004), and these endings shape audiences’ perception and memory. Classic “happy endings” offer closure and satisfaction (e.g., The Shawshank Redemption). Conversely, ending with the antagonist’s victory can defy expectations, evoking unease or frustration (Zillmann, 2014). These choices create lasting psychological effects beyond the final scene.
When a narrative provides a definitive resolution, the tone—whether favorable to the protagonist or antagonist—may shape future imaginative involvement. Protagonist victories generate feelings of pleasure, satisfaction, or relief (Krakowiak, 2024; Krakowiak & Tsay-Vogel, 2015). This may lead to static-RII, where audiences reflect on the narrative’s facts without feeling the need to “rewrite” the outcome (Ewoldsen et al., 2022; Ulusoy et al., 2022).
Conversely, antagonist victories may reduce enjoyment and create dissatisfaction, prompting dynamic-RII. This involves reimagining or interpreting alternative outcomes where the protagonist succeeds (Schibler et al., 2024; Ulusoy et al., 2022). Dissatisfaction drives viewers to revisit themes, characters, and events to explore unfulfilled possibilities and seek cognitive resolution.
H1: A story ending with the protagonist’s victory (vs. the antagonist’s victory) will lead to higher static-RII, mediated by increased satisfaction with the narrative resolution.
H2: A story ending with the antagonist’s victory (vs. the protagonist’s victory) will lead to higher dynamic-RII, mediated by lower satisfaction with the narrative resolution.

Linking Enjoyment and Appreciation to RII.
Narrative engagement often encompasses two primary evaluative dimensions: enjoyment and appreciation (Lewis et al., 2014; Oliver & Bartsch, 2010). Enjoyment is typically associated with hedonic pleasure, arising from positive emotions such as satisfaction, relief, and amusement during the narrative experience (Krakowiak & Tsay-Vogel, 2015). In contrast, appreciation is often associated with mixed affects, poignancy, contemplation, and/or challenging cognitions (Oliver & Bartsch, 2010; Oliver & Raney, 2014; Oliver, 2008).
Both enjoyment and appreciation can be influenced by narrative resolution. For example, Krakowiak (2024) found positive character outcomes tend to increase enjoyment and appreciation. Additionally, heightened enjoyment of a narrative outcome was linked to decreased coping behaviors, whereas heightened appreciation was associated with increased coping behaviors (Krakowiak, 2024). RII is particularly relevant in this context, as it can serve as a coping mechanism to fulfill unmet psychological needs (Sherrick et al., 2022; Ulusoy et al., 2022). Audiences who experience dissatisfaction with a narrative ending—such as one where the antagonist prevails—may be more motivated to engage in RII to alleviate frustration or unresolved tension. By reimagining alternative narrative outcomes, viewers may find ways to mentally resolve the dissatisfaction induced by an unfavorable ending.
Furthermore, narrative viewers often reflect on enjoyment and appreciation after the narrative experience, and these retrospective evaluations change over time (Ott & Slater, 2024). As a result, these evaluations can influence RII at different stages post-exposure. While enjoyment may drive static-RII after a satisfying ending, appreciation’s role in static and dynamic-RII is less clear.
H3: A story ending with the protagonist’s victory (vs. the antagonist’s victory) will lead to higher levels of enjoyment.
RQ1: Will different story resolutions lead to different levels of appreciation?
RQ2: How will enjoyment and appreciation of the film contribute to RII over the course of one month after narrative exposure?

Methods
Stimuli
Participants will watch the 2017 film Get Out. The narrative follows a Black man who uncovers a sinister plot during a visit to his white girlfriend’s family estate. The film explores themes of racial exploitation and systemic injustice. Two endings will be used: a) the theatrical ending where the protagonist escapes, and b) an ending where he survives but is imprisoned for self-defense (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3JS7_OcPWQ). Participants will be randomly assigned to one of the two conditions.

Procedure
After viewing, participants will complete a questionnaire measuring their 1) satisfaction with the ending, 2) enjoyment and appreciation, and 3) personality traits that might influence RII (e.g., trait curiosity). A one-month longitudinal design will be employed to better capture RII and retrospective enjoyment and appreciation. Separate questionnaires measuring RII, enjoyment, and appreciation will be administered three days, one week, two weeks, and one month after viewing.
The study will be conducted in January 2025, with data collection concluding by February 2025. We are submitting this as a paper because data will be collected before the IGEL conference.

References
Barber, S. (2010). Abandoned images: film and film’s end. Reaktion Books.
Berg, C. R. (2006). A taxonomy of alternative plots in recent films: Classifying the “Tarantino effect”. Film Criticism, 31(1/2), 5-61.
Ewoldsen, D. R., Busselle, R., Sethi, N., & Slater, M. D. (04 2021). 734735Retrospective Imaginative Involvement and Entertainment Narratives: Initial Forays. In The Oxford Handbook of Entertainment Theory. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190072216.013.38
Ewoldsen, D. R., Hoewe, J., & Grady, S. (2022). A cognitive processing framework for media interpretation. Journal of Media Psychology.
Glaser, M., Choi, Y. K., & Baumgartner, H. (2024). (Un) Bothered by the Story’s Ambiguity: How Individual Differences in Consumers’ Need for Closure Affect Transportation and Brand Attitude in Narrative Ads. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 9(1), 46-57.
Koch, G. (1997). “ Against All Odds” or the Will to Survive: Moral Conclusions from Narrative Closure. History and Memory, 9(1/2), 393-408.
Krakowiak, K. M. (2024). How It Ends: Exploring How Narrative Closure and Character Outcomes in Series Finales Relate to Viewer Responses and Coping Behaviors. Mass Communication and Society, 1-28.
Krakowiak, K. M., & Tsay-Vogel, M. (2015). The dual role of morally ambiguous characters: Examining the effect of morality salience on narrative responses. Human Communication Research, 41(3), 390-411.
Lewis, R. J., Tamborini, R., & Weber, R. (2014). Testing a dual-process model of media enjoyment and appreciation. Journal of Communication, 64(3), 397-416.
Lu, A. S., Green, M. C., Sousa, C. V., Hwang, J., Lee, I. M., Thompson, D., & Baranowski, T. (2023). To Pause With a Cliffhanger or a Temporary Closure? The Differential Impact of Serial Versus Episodic Narratives on Children’s Physical Activity Behaviors. Communication Research, 00936502231166091.
Neupert, R. J. (1995). The end: narration and closure in the cinema. Wayne State University Press.
Oliver, M. B. (2008). Tender affective states as predictors of entertainment preference. Journal of Communication, 58(1), 40-61.
Oliver, M. B., & Bartsch, A. (2010). Appreciation as audience response: Exploring entertainment gratifications beyond hedonism. Human communication research, 36(1), 53-81.
Oliver, M. B., & Raney, A. A. (2011). Entertainment as pleasurable and meaningful: Identifying hedonic and eudaimonic motivations for entertainment consumption. Journal of Communication, 61(5), 984-1004.
Ott, J. M., & Slater, M. D. (2024). Postexposure engagement with more and less eudaimonic films: 10-year patterns of response and the role of parasocial relationship and retrospective imaginative involvement. Psychology of Popular Media, 13(1), 150.
Schibler, K., Hahn, L., & Green, M. C. (2024). Investigating Responses to Narrative Cliffhangers Using Affective Disposition Theory. Media Psychology, 27(1), 1-25.
Sethi, N., Grady, S. M., Ulusoy, E., Baldwin, J., & Ewoldsen, D. R. (2022). What do we do with narratives after the fact? Exploring dimensions of Retrospective Imaginative Involvement. Communication Reports, 35(2), 106-119.
Sherrick, B., Hoewe, J., & Ewoldsen, D. R. (2022). Using narrative media to satisfy intrinsic needs: Connecting parasocial relationships, retrospective imaginative involvement, and self-determination theory. Psychology of Popular Media, 11(3), 266.
Slater, M. D., Ewoldsen, D. R., & Woods, K. W. (2018). Extending conceptualization and measurement of narrative engagement after-the-fact: Parasocial relationship and retrospective imaginative involvement. Media Psychology, 21(3), 329-351.
Smorti, A. (2004). Narrative strategies for interpreting stories with incongruent endings. Narrative Inquiry, 14(1), 141-167.
Thissen, B. A., Menninghaus, W., & Schlotz, W. (2021). The pleasures of reading fiction explained by flow, presence, identification, suspense, and cognitive involvement. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15(4), 710.
Ulusoy, E., Sethi, N., Baldwin, J., Grady, S. M., & Ewoldsen, D. R. (2022). Can’t stop thinking about Star Wars and The Office: antecedents of retrospective imaginative involvement. Human Communication Research, 48(4), 622-633.
Zillmann, D. (2014). Anatomy of suspense. In The entertainment functions of television (pp. 133-163). Psychology Press.

Hakemulder · June 6, 2025, 12:45pm

Comment that might not be very relevant for you, but anyway. Your talk reminded me of a film with two endings… included in the ONE version of the movie, that I would say relates to both psychological richness and aesthetic richness: The French Lieutenant’s Woman

Do you know what type of (dynamic) retrospective imaginative involvement (RII) your participants had: Did you collect open responses? If so: Would be interesting to see, maybe whether these can be categorized and then compared between the conditions.

Also, different question, maybe related issue: I would love to know more about open endings. These would probably also lead to RII?

Finally: great that you included this longitudinal aspect in your design. Did you ask all the participants the same questions in the various posttests? Since I see much less difference than I (and you?) would expect, maybe a next study with a much larger sample size you could randomly assign participants to either do the posttest one day later, or one week later, or 30 days later or 60 days later. To have them all answer the same questionnaire might stimulate them to want to be consistent? Or maybe because they were asked a number of times they were simply all remembered of the movie equally, and therefore were involved in RII at the same level? So a result of the testing, overriding that of the experimental manipulation?

In any event, would love to see the follow up studies that you’re going to run!

pitque · June 6, 2025, 2:54pm

Hi Dr. Hakemulder!
Thank you so much for the questions!!
Dynamic RII focuses on imagining alternative developments for characters or events. For example, participants might envision a different plot twist, imagine dialogue that never appeared in the narrative, or imagine being a character in the story.

All 6 RII dimensions were measured using the 27‐item scale from Sethi et al. (2022). I haven’t conducted an item‐by‐item analysis, but it would indeed be interesting to explore which specific aspects of engagement participants are invoking.

Regarding open endings, I think yes! That will be one of my future studies in this area but we haven’t picked a good stimulus for that yet. My hypothesis is that suspense or cliffhangers could be strongly associated with RII and drive a need for future installments of the narrative. There’s a growing trend of television series using cliffhangers in the end of a season to keep viewers engaged for the next season so I think this would be interesting to explore.

We administered the same post‐test questionnaire to all participants. You’re correct that repeated testing can cue memory of the film. Ideally, a larger sample would allow us to randomly assign participants to only one post‐test, but our current resources don’t permit that large of a sample size (and the associated cost ). Because all participants followed the same procedure, however, I believe our general conclusions should still hold.

Thank you so much! Please let me know if there’s any more questions!

Hakemulder · June 6, 2025, 5:42pm

Thanks for that, that is very helpful. I did not want to suggest an item by item analysis, that would be a “fishing expedition”; what I meant to ask was whether you also had people write out their responses, to open questions. These might be informative when you compare the conditions. Thanks again, and good luck with the follow-up studies!