Perceptions of (in)sincerity in satirical discourse: A study of word reading times using minimally different texts.

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).