Narratives that offer heightened cognitive challenge and invite diverse interpretations are common in contemporary media entertainment (Kiss & Willemsen, 2017). The present study investigated how engagement with one type of challenge, perceived narrative ambiguity, is associated with entertainment effects and how individuals vary in their response to it.

Perceived narrative ambiguity (PNA) refers to a subjective evaluation of the extent to which a narrative can be interpreted in multiple ways (AUTHOR, 2023). Research into the psychological experience of ambiguity suggests that responses to ambiguity vary widely (Ball-Rokeach, 1974; Furnham & Ribchester, 1995). Previous research revealed that PNA predicts appreciation (but not enjoyment) of movies, but this effect did not differ according to higher-order psychological traits like need for cognition or ambiguity tolerance (AUTHOR, 2023). Following, this study examines the role of narrower, media-based traits and preferences; specifically, how the main effect of PNA on appreciation (H1) is potentially moderated by trait imaginative engagement (H2; Black et al., 2022), eudaimonic motivations (H3; Oliver & Raney, 2011), and preference for narrative complexity (H4; Willemsen et al., 2023).

This study involved an online experiment in which participants (n = 395) were randomly assigned to recall and evaluate either an ambiguous or unambiguous movie. Participants reported on their motivations for hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment use, preferences for narrative complexity, and trait imaginative engagement (the tendency to use one’s imagination while consuming narratives). After answering some priming questions about the plot of their chosen movie, participants evaluated the movie in terms of perceived narrative ambiguity, enjoyment, appreciation, protagonist evaluations, complexity and challenge. Together, these closed-ended measures were used to test the hypotheses and validate other assumptions about the experience of ambiguous narratives.

Dramatic theory (Bentley, 1967), distinguishes among farce, comedy, tragedy, tragicomedy, and melodrama. Oliver and Bartsch (2010) reported dramatic storytelling as more thought-provoking and meaningful than comedy. This disparity becomes apparent when comparing eudaimonic and hedonic entertainment, with the former fostering elaborate over heuristic processing (Oliver & Bartsch, 2011). Eudaimonic entertainment is reported to elicit mixed affect, elevation, and appreciation, which in turn have been linked to knowledge acquisition and prosocial behavior (e.g., Knop-Huelss et al., 2020; Tamborini et al., 2021).

Although theatre in EE remains under-researched, previous studies indicate its potential to improve empathy, attitudes towards socio-political issues and prosocial behavior (e.g., Kou et al., 2020; Rathje et al., 2021). The present study investigated the use of theatre-based entertainment-education (EE) in reducing bystander misconceptions. A hypothesized path model summarizing EE processes discussed in previous literature, was tested in the field using a pre-post design during two performances of a self-written theatre script on the bystander effect (N = 200).

We investigated whether bystander misconceptions decreased following the performance (RQ1), perceived realism and appreciation negatively predicted post-bystander misconceptions (RQ2), and were positively predicted by transportation, mixed affect and elevation (RQ3). Additionally, we examined whether perceived realism and appreciation mediated the association between emotional states and post-bystander misconceptions (RQ4), and whether emotional states mediated the association between transportation and both perceived realism and appreciation (RQ5).

The tragicomedy Blameworthy, written by the first author, was performed twice on stage by 21 students from the university’s theatre club. The storyline follows six bystanders confronted by their personified conscience for being passive in public emergencies (i.e., witnessing victims of a heart attack, sexual harassment, and mobbing). The performances differed in the gender of the actor portraying the conscience, with identification expected to vary depending on whether participants shared the same gender as the actor (H1).

Recent dual-process models of entertainment distinguish between hedonic (pleasurable) and eudaimonic (meaningful) entertainment experiences (Vorderer & Reinecke, 2015). They postulate that hedonic experiences arise from intuitive processing of non-challenging content (e.g., ‘light’ comedy), while eudaimonic experiences result from elaborate processing of challenging media fare (e.g., ‘serious’ drama; Bartsch & Hartmann, 2017; Tamborini et al., 2021). However, recent research suggests an “easy path to eudaimonia” (AUTHORS, 2025, p. 1), where value-affirming content is perceived to be non-challenging, processed intuitively, and evokes both eudaimonic and hedonic experiences (AUTHORS, 2025).

We extend this research in two ways: First, the ‘easy path’ has hitherto only been tested in a laboratory using short videos. Yet, media users’ daily diet of entertainment is likely composed of different content, eliciting heterogeneous experiences. We explore whether hedonic, challenging eudaimonic, and affirmative eudaimonic experiences also manifest on the aggregate level of daily entertainment diets (RQ1). Second, theory (e.g., Oliver & Raney, 2011) and research (AUTHORS, 2024a, 2024b) suggest that eudaimonic entertainment experiences contribute to eudaimonic well-being. However, this work has overlooked the ‘easy path’. Hence, we explore the relationship between daily aggregated entertainment experiences (hedonic, challenging eudaimonic, and affirmative eudaimonic) and eudaimonic well-being (hope, optimism, gratitude, authenticity, meaning in life; RQ2).

We conducted a secondary analysis of a three-week diary study among university students (n = 517; AUTHORS, 2024a, 2024b), measuring entertainment experiences and eudaimonic well-being at the end of each day. We categorized daily observations into the three aggregated entertainment types based on the reported hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment experiences and perceived content challenges and validated the categorization via reported entertainment affects. We then estimated and contrasted marginal means per entertainment type for each well-being outcome (e.g., hope).

Our research contributes to ongoing debates on the nature of eudaimonic entertainment experiences and their impact on well-being.

Having a purpose, a perception of coherence in life, and a feeling that one’s life is significant constitute the subjective experience called meaning in life (King & Hicks, 2021). Individuals’ worldviews represent their “overarching belief structures” (King & Hicks, 2021, p. 571), and disruptions in worldviews could violate one’s sense of meaning in life (Park, 2010). The Meaning Maintenance Model (Heine et al., 2006) suggests that the perception of disruption in one’s meaning in life initiates aversive arousal and motivates meaning restoration (e.g., finding compensatory meaning in other domains; Proulx & Inzlicht, 2012). Our study extends this model by exploring whether meaning restoration can motivate entertainment media use. Recent literature discusses hedonic (pleasure-seeking) and eudaimonic (meaningfulness-seeking) motivations for entertainment use (Oliver & Raney, 2011). Experiencing disruption in one’s worldview could motivate eudaimonic entertainment use as media users seek compensatory meaning experiences to restore a sense of meaning in life. Alternatively, the aversive quality of disruptions in one's worldviews could motivate hedonic media use for mood repair (Reinecke, 2017; Zillmann & Bryant, 1985). Thus, the study asks: How does disruption in meaning in life affect users’ situational media motives? Using a mixed experimental design, participants (N = 128, using Cohen’s d = 0.5 at α = .05, 1- β = .80) are randomly assigned to recall either an instance of worldview-challenging media content (e.g. a belief-shattering news report) or an instance of instructional content (e.g. a recipe video; control group). Participants’ affect and presence of meaning in life (Steger et al., 2006) will be measured before and after the recall task in both conditions. Following the recall, participants will be asked about their situational entertainment motives (Oliver & Raney, 2011). The study will enhance our understanding of media use for coping with disruption in users’ meaning in life. Study materials are shared anonymously here: https://shorturl.at/Np45h

Media research rooted in positive psychology (e.g., Oliver & Bartsch, 2010) suggests entertainment’s potential to reflect on life and meaning. Recent theorizing has focused on narrative vs. non-narrative eudaimonic experiences (Moyer-Guse & Wilson, 2024) and hedonic vs. eudaimonic entertainment’s (Schneider et al., 2021) ability to induce reflective thoughts. However, these theories provide little guidance on whether eudaimonic depictions presented in fiction or non-fiction differ in audience’s eudaimonic responses. Because eudaimonic content represents real-life scenarios, it could be that non-fiction eudaimonic content (e.g., documentaries) have the potential to touch viewers in more powerful ways than abstract representations of life.

The purpose of this research is to explore whether fictionality (i.e., fiction vs. non-fiction) and eudaimonic content (i.e., self-transcendent vs. meaningful affect) differ in audience’s perceived learning and motivation to support social issues. The context of the study is the opioid epidemic because of the numerous stories, in both fiction and nonfiction, that feature individuals struggling with addiction.

RQ1. Will there be an interaction between the fictionality of the narrative and the type of narrative structure (redemptive vs. cautionary tale) on story-consistent emotions (i.e., self-transcendence, meaningful affect)?

RQ2. Will familiarity with the topic moderate the effect of fictionality or narrative structure on story-consistent emotions?

RQ3. When comparing theoretically derived models vs. alternative models of narrative structure and fictionality on perceived learning, which model fits best?

Participants (n = 500) will be recruited via CloudResearch for a between-subjects, 2 (narrative format: fiction vs. nonfiction) by 2 (narrative structure: redemption vs. cautionary tale) by 2 (stimulus sampling) factorial design.

ANOVAs will be conducted to examine interactions of the conditions on emotional responses (RQ1). PROCESS will be used to examine the conditional effect of familiarity on conditions and emotional responses (RQ2). Finally, SEM will be used to assess theoretically derived and alternative models (RQ3).