[ SECRET POST #2287 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2287 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11. [tb]


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________


















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 084 secrets from Secret Submission Post #327.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I would like to see receipts for this research, mostly because I'm just curious who actually spent time and grant money researching such a thing.

[(Anonymous)]

Here you go: http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/spoiler-alert-stories-are-not-spoiled-byspoilers.html

[(Anonymous)]

Thanks! Hm, based on the article, all I'm getting is "people enjoyed reading short stories they probably weren't already looking forward to or personally interested in reading outside of the research context more when they contained spoilers." Interesting, definitely, but it doesn't really prove to me that spoilers make people's enjoyment of things better as a rule, and it seems a bit silly that people are holding one extremely short article as definitive proof that spoilers = better media experiences. Especially when the way we process different forms of media differs, and reactions to spoilers can differ depending on the individual and whether or not they're looking forward to or invested in the particular media in question.

[(Anonymous)]

I tip my hat to you, fellow fan of scientific skepticism and method.

It's hard to really judge that one study on the basis of a press release and not the actual article, but still... I wonder how valid and reliable this methodology was. It doesn't strike me as particularly persuasive. But maybe the actual journal article is better.

Also, I can say hands down that if I know the twist of a story I'm very invested in, it does diminish the emotional reaction. I personally consider something most enjoyable if I have very strong emotional reactions to the material/story -- and when spoiled about HUGE provocative elements, it loses that OOMPF~ for lack of a better word and thus it is not as enjoyable. I am actually far less likely to be motivated to even engage myself at all if I know major plot points ahead of time. Why bother if I'm not going to have that surprise/strong emotional response? I don't find rereading/rewatching diminishes my liking of a book/episode but I appreciate it in a very different way the second+ time around once I know what has happened. It's a completely different experience for me. (Sometimes however, it's rewatching an episode I initially really enjoyed makes me realise it wasn't that good in the first place, it was just my emotional response that made it seem that way. And I no longer like it at all.)

I understand this is not true for everyone, and some likely DO respond the way this article suggests -- but it's hardly true overall. To generalize that way seems a bit presumptuous.