Transportation and subtext processing. A key argument of this paper is that
eudaimonic motivation may lead people to engage in more total subtext processing (including counterarguments, intended elaborations, and non-valenced thoughts about the subtext) during narrative exposure because they are more inclined to attend to stories’ underlying meanings. To reflect this prediction, a hypothesis was posed:
H1: Eudaimonic entertainment use motivation will positively predict total subtext processing. Another important argument advanced in this study is that subtext processing might be able to occur even during narrative transportation. This claim is inconsistent with the E-ELM’s contention that transportation reduces audience members’ awareness of the persuasive subtext (Slater & Rouner, 2002). But, as previously discussed, the E-ELM is based upon the assumption that people have hedonic motivations when they consume stories. Eudaimonic motivation may increase the likelihood that viewers engage in simultaneous subtext and narrative focus. Consistent with the E-ELM, transportation should impede total subtext processing for people with lower eudaimonic motivation (who are hedonically motivated by default). But individuals with higher eudaimonic motivations may find elaboration on the subtext to be entirely
compatible with narrative transportation. Alternatively, if the E-ELM is accurate, the predicted negative effect of transportation on subtext processing may apply, regardless of eudaimonic motivation level. Because there are two feasible explanations for how eudaimonic motivation and narrative transportation are related, and how these variables may interact to affect subtext processing, two research questions were posed:
RQ2: How will eudaimonic entertainment use motivation moderate the effect of transportation on total subtext processing? (see Figure 2)
Figure 2. Predicted relationships between transportation and total subtext processing, and the moderating role of eudaimonic motivation
Supplemental conclusion scenes. Scholars working on the development of
entertainment-education interventions and theory have suggested that supplemental conclusions have a beneficial effect on persuasive outcomes, in part because they restate important lessons in the narrative subtext that audience members would otherwise miss while they are transported. To test this proposition, the current study compares the persuasive impact of a television drama with, and without, a supplemental conclusion. Current theorizing on narrative persuasion suggests that audience members may have difficulty following the persuasive subtext (Slater & Rouner, 2002). As such, supplemental conclusions may be needed to explain or reinforce the recommended beliefs, attitudes and behaviors at the end of the story (Slater, 2002a). For this reason, participants in the supplemental conclusion condition are expected to exhibit beliefs about organ donation that are more consistent with the narrative subtext, have more favorable attitudes toward organ donation, and be more willing to register as organ donors. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed:
beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions than participants in the no conclusion condition.
Eudaimonic entertainment use motivation. People can be either more or less
eudaimonically motivated to attend to, and focus on, the meaning of the story (Oliver & Bartsch, 2010), and this study has argued that this motivation should be tied to their ability to be
persuaded by the meaning of the story. Those with greater eudaimonic motivation may be more inclined to process the underlying persuasive subtext, and thus should be more likely to generate intended elaborations in response. Importantly, a caveat to this premise is that intended
elaboration will result in persuasion only if counterarguing, another type of subtext processing, is low. There is no guaranteed way to restrict participants’ counterarguing, but selecting a narrative that they are unlikely to counterargue against creates a positive condition for the suppression of counterarguments and the generation of intended elaboration. For this reason, a narrative that has already been shown to be persuasive was selected as a stimulus (Morgan et al., 2009). The documented effectiveness of the story suggests that it succeeded at prompting more intended elaboration than counterargumentation. Hence, eudaimonic motivation is expected to positively predict story-consistent beliefs, attitudes, and intended behaviors.
The supplemental conclusion is also expected to moderate the effect of eudaimonic motivation on story consistent beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. In the no
supplemental conclusion condition, eudaimonic motivation should be associated with greater persuasion. However, in the supplemental conclusion condition, eudaimonic motivation should be less strongly related (or not related at all) to subtext-consistent attitudes, because the
supplemental conclusion will help bring people with lower eudaimonic motivation up to speed on the primary argument of the persuasive subtext. Put differently, the less eudaimonically
motivated participants are, the more persuasive influence the supplemental conclusion should have. Following this logic, it is predicted that:
H3: Eudaimonic motivation will positively predict story-consistent beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions.
H4: Exposure to the supplemental conclusion and eudaimonic motivation will interact, such that the effect of eudaimonic motivation predicted in H3 will be greater for participants in the no conclusion condition (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Predicted relationships between eudaimonic motivation, subtext consistent beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions, and the moderating role of supplemental conclusion
The role of intended elaboration. This study is also concerned with examining intended elaboration as the cognitive mechanism responsible for the effects of eudaimonic motivation on narrative persuasion. As briefly mentioned in the prior rationale, the predictions expressed in H3 and H4 are based on the premise that eudaimonic motivation leads to supportive subtext
processing. Presuming that counterarguing is low, this intended elaboration should play a critical and positive role in the persuasion process (Niederdeppe, Kim, et al., 2011; Wright, 1973). Hence, greater ability or motivation to generate intended elaboration should result in more episode-consistent beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. In other words, intended
elaboration (subtext processing in favor of the embedded arguments) is expected to mediate the relationship between eudaimonic motivation and persuasive outcomes.
It has already been argued that people who are less eudaimonically motivated should be more affected by the supplemental conclusion. This may be because they will be less inclined to process the persuasive subtext and generate intended elaboration that leads to persuasion, and therefore will benefit more from the direct appeal presented in the supplemental conclusion. If so, the same interaction between eudaimonic motivation and the supplemental conclusion predicted for persuasive outcomes should be mirrored for intended elaboration. Specifically, the positive association between eudaimonic motivation and intended elaboration should be stronger in the no conclusion condition than in the conclusion condition. This interaction would provide some evidence that expected effect of eudaimonic motivation on the persuasiveness of
supplemental conclusions is due to intended elaboration. Based on this logic, the following four hypotheses were posed:
H5: Eudaimonic motivation will positively predict intended elaboration.
H6: Intended elaboration will positively predict story-consistent beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions.
H7: Intended elaboration will mediate the effect of entertainment use motivation on story- consistent beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions.
H8: The expected positive association between eudaimonic entertainment use motivation and intended elaboration (predicted in H5) will be stronger in the no supplemental conclusion condition than in the supplemental conclusion condition (see Figure 4).
H7: Intended Elaboration mediates the relationship between Eudaimonic Entertainment Use Motivations and Persuasive Outcomes.
Figure 4. Predicted relationships among eudaimonic motivations, intended elaboration, persuasive outcomes, and supplemental conclusion.
3. METHOD