Understanding cognition during media consumption is crucial to understanding how individuals process complex stimuli in everyday life. This study employed multi-dimensional Experience Sampling (mDES) to capture real-time thoughts as participants viewed 2-3 minute movie clips across various genres. By utilizing movie clips, this study bridges real-world scenarios with the control of a laboratory setting; revealing how different movie genres uniquely shape thought patterns. I conducted Principal Component Analysis to identify the underlying structure of participants' thoughts. The analysis revealed four distinct thought components, named based on their loading structure: (1) Narrative Comprehension, (2) Episodic Knowledge, (3) Intrusive Distraction, and (4) Sensory Engagement, replicating components found in earlier mDES movie-watching studies (Konu et al., 2021; Wallace et al., 2024). To examine how subjects’ thoughts differed based on the genre of the movie clip, I conducted a series of linear mixed models comparing component scores for each component across genres. The analysis indicated certain thought patterns differed by genre. In Intrusive Distraction, Comedy clips scored significantly lower than Drama clips (p <.001), Romantic Comedy clips (p = .007), and clips of an unspecified genre (other) (p = .010). In Episodic Knowledge, Thriller clips scored significantly lower than Action clips (p = .002), Comedy clips (p <.001), Drama clips (p <.001), Family clips (p <.001), and Romantic Comedy clips (p <.001). Altogether, this study replicates the component structure found in earlier movie watching mDES studies, showing consistency across samples. Additionally, this study makes a significant contribution to the field of ongoing thought research by being the first to empirically establish that individuals’ internal experiences systematically differ based on movie genre. These findings suggest researchers should consider genre-specific influences when designing future movie-based tasks in psychology and neuroimaging studies. However, the small sample size (N=15) warrants caution; larger studies are needed for improved reliability and validity.
Read full abstract