Abstract
The present study investigated the relationship between satirical discourse processing and a theoretical model of satire comprehension known as satirical uptake. Word reading times and participant perceptions of sincerity for a set of minimally different satirical and nonsatirical texts were modelled considering individual differences such as need for cognition (NFC) and genre familiarity. Across two experiments, participants read either a mixture of satirical and nonsatirical texts (Experiment 1) or only satirical/nonsatirical texts (Experiment 2), indicating the degree to which they felt the meaning of the text was sincere. Results from both experiments demonstrated satirical texts were read slower than nonsatirical texts. Moreover, longer word reading times were associated with lower sincerity ratings for satirical texts, but only after participants encountered one or more satirical texts. NFC interacted with reading times in Experiment 1 but not Experiment 2, and there were no strong effects for genre familiarity in either experiment. The main conclusion drawn from these results is that successful satirical uptake may require greater processing effort, a result which aligns with theoretical models of satirical discourse as well as the related construct of verbal irony. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.