Allport, F. H. (1919). Behavior and experiment in social psychology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 14, 297–306.
Altman, R. (1984). A semantic/syntactic approach to film genre. Cinema Journal, 23, 6–18. https://doi.org/10.2307/1225093
Aristotle. (1961). Aristotle’s poetics (S. H. Butcher, Trans.). New York, NY: Hill & Wang. (Original work published c. 335 BCE)
Austin, B. (1983). Critics’ and consumers’ evaluations of motion pictures: A longitudinal test of the taste culture and elitist hypotheses. Journal of Popular Film and Television, 10, 156–167.
Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. T. (2003). Locomotion, assessment, and regulatory fit: Value transfer from “how” to “what”. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 525–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-1031(03)00027-1
Ball, L. J., Threadgold, E., Marsh, J. E., & Christensen, B. T. (2018). The effects of stimulus complexity and conceptual fluency on aesthetic judgments of abstract art: Evidence for a default–interventionist account. Metaphor and Symbol, 33, 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2018.1481255
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Belke, B., Leder, H., & Carbon, C. C. (2015). When challenging art gets liked: Evidence for a dual preference formation process for fluent and non-fluent portraits. PLoS ONE, 10, e131796. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131796
Belke, B., Leder, H., Strobach, T., & Carbon, C. C. (2010). Cognitive fluency: High-level processing dynamics in art appreciation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4, 214–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019648
Berger, J., & Packard, G. (2018). Are atypical things more popular? Psychological Science, 29, 1178–1184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616678187
Blackburn, K. G. (2015). The narrative arc: Exploring the linguistic structure of the narrative (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 993–1022.
Boghrati, R., Hoover, J., Johnson, K. M., Garten, J., & Dehghani, M. (2018). Conversation level syntax similarity metric. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 1055–1073. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0926-2
Brown, N. A., Blake, A. B., & Sherman, R. A. (2017). A snapshot of the life as lived: Wearable cameras in social and personality psychological science. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 592–600.
Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Media violence and the American public: Scientific facts versus media misinformation. American Psychologist, 56, 477–489. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.6-7.477
Chandler, D. (1997). An introduction to genre theory (Web document). Accessed October 1, 2018, at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel_Chandler4/publication/242253420_An_Introduction_to_Genre_Theory
Conor, B., Gill, R., & Taylor, S. (2015). Gender and creative labour. Sociological Review, 63(Supp), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12237
Cutting, J. E. (2016). Narrative theory and the dynamics of popular movies. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 1713–1743. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1051-4
Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., & Lee, L. (2011). Chameleons in imagined conversations: A new approach to understanding coordination of linguistic style in dialogs. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (pp. 76–87). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Davies, M. (2008). The corpus of contemporary American English: 425 million words, 1990–present (Database). Available at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/. Accessed 04 Oct 2018
Desai, K. K., & Basuroy, S. (2005). Interactive influence of genre familiarity, star power, and critics reviews in the cultural goods industry: The case of motion pictures. Psychology and Marketing, 22, 203–223. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20055
Dirks, T. (2018a). Film sub-genres. Retrieved from https://www.filmsite.org/subgenres.html. Accessed 19 Sept 2018
Dirks, T. (2018b). Main film genres. Retrieved from https://www.filmsite.org/genres.html. Accessed 19 Sept 2018
Dirks, T. (2018c). Other major film categories. Retrieved from https://www.filmsite.org/genres2.html. Accessed 19 Sept 2018
Ebert, R. (2017). Awake in the dark: The best of Roger Ebert. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Eden, A., Johnson, B. K., & Hartmann, T. (2018). Entertainment as a creature comfort: Self-control and selection of challenging media. Media Psychology, 21, 352–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2017.1345640
Eliashberg, J., Hui, S. K., & Zhang, Z. J. (2007). From story line to box office: A new approach for green-lighting movie scripts. Management Science, 53, 881–893.
Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Association for Psychological Science, 13, 3–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612436522
Fisher, R. A. (1921). On the probable error of a coefficient of correlation deduced from a small sample. Metron, 1, 3–32.
Fong, K., Mullin, J. B., & Mar, R. A. (2013). What you read matters: The role of fiction genre in predicting interpersonal sensitivity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7, 270–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034084
Forster, M., Leder, H., & Ansorge, U. (2013). It felt fluent, and I liked it: Subjective feeling of fluency rather than objective fluency determines liking. Emotion, 13, 280–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030115
Freitas, A. L., Azizian, A., Travers, S., & Berry, S. A. (2005). The evaluative connotation of processing fluency: Inherently positive or moderated by motivational context? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 636–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.10.006
Freytag, G. (1894). Technique of the drama. Chicago: S. C. Griggs.
Frow, J. (2014). Genre (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Gerger, G., Forster, M., & Leder, M. (2017). It felt fluent but I did not like it: Fluency effects in faces versus patterns. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 637–648. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1145705
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Bayer, U. (1999). Deliberative versus implemental mindsets in the control of action. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 403–422). New York: Guilford Press.
Graf, L. K., & Landwehr, J. R. (2015). A dual-process perspective on fluency-based aesthetics: The pleasure-interest model of aesthetic liking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 395–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315574978
Gray, K. (2018). Quantifying forward motion in naturalistic thought and its link to creativity, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Atlanta.
Greifeneder, R., Alt, A., Bottenberg, K., Seele, T., Zelt, S., & Wagener, D. (2010). Processing fluency systematically biases evaluations of handwritten material. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 230–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610368434
Grey, O. (2016). Monsters from the vault
. Vancouver: Innsmouth Free Press.
Halberstadt, J. (2006). The generality and ultimate origins of the attractiveness of prototypes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 166–183.
Halberstadt, J., & Rhodes, G. (2000). The attractiveness of nonface averages: Implications for an evolutionary explanation of the attractiveness of average faces. Psychological Science, 11, 285–289.
Herrmann, J. B., van Dalen-Oskam, K., & Schöch, C. (2015). Revisiting style, a key concept in literary studies. Journal of Literary Theory, 9, 25–52. https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2015-0003
Hickey, W. (2015). Be suspicious of online movie ratings, especially Fandango’s. FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved from https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fandango-movies-ratings/. Accessed 21 Mar 2018
Holbrook, M. B. (1999). Popular appeal versus expert judgments of motion pictures. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 144–155.
Hsu, G. (2006). Jacks of all trades and masters of none: audiences’ reactions to spanning genres in feature film production. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 420–450. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.51.3.420
Hwang, T. G., Park, C. S., Hong, J. H., & Kim, S. K. (2016). An algorithm for movie classification and recommendation using genre correlation. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 75, 12843–12858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-016-3526-8
Iliev, R., Dehghani, M., & Sagi, E. (2015). Automated text analysis in psychology: Methods, applications, and future developments. Language and Cognition, 7, 265–290. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.30
Iliev, R., Hoover, J., Dehghani, M., & Axelrod, R. (2016). Linguistic positivity in historical texts reflects dynamic environmental and psychological factors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, E7871–E7879.
Ireland, M. E., Davis, T., Schumacher, J., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2018). Experts’ and naïve participants’ fictional dialog reveals individual differences in perspective-taking. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Johnson, B. K., & Rosenbaum, J. E. (2018). (Don’t) Tell me how it ends: Spoilers, enjoyment, and involvement in television and film. Media Psychology, 21, 582–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2017.1338964
Kaspar, K., Wehlitz, T., von Knobelsdorff, S., Wulf, T., & von Saldern, M. A. O. (2015). A matter of font type: The effect of serifs on the evaluation of scientific abstracts. International Journal of Psychology, 50, 272–278.
Katzir, T., Hershko, S., & Halamish, V. (2013). The effect of font size on reading comprehension on second and fifth grade children: Bigger is not always better. PLoS ONE, 8, e74061. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0074061
Labroo, A. A., Dhar, R., & Schwarz, N. (2007). Of frog wines and frowning watches: Semantic priming, perceptual fluency, and brand evaluation, Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 819–831.
Lazer, D., Pentland, A. S., Adamic, L., Aral, S., Barabasi, A. L., Brewer, D., … Jebara, T. (2009). Life in the network: The coming age of computational social science. Science, 323, 721.
Leavitt, J. D., & Christenfeld, N. J. S. (2011). Story spoilers don’t spoil stories. Psychological Science, 22, 1152–1154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417007
MacWhinney, B. (2015). Language development. In L. Liben & U. Müller (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Vol. 2. Cognitive processes (pp. 296–338). New York, NY: Wiley.
Malin, J. J., Vine, V. J., Stanton, A., Cannava, K., Bodie, G., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2014). The arc of narrative: Using language markers to identify stories. Poster presented at the 15th annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Austin.
Mar, R. A., & Oatley, K. (2008). The function of fiction is the abstraction and simulation of social experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00073.x
Mehl, M. R. (2017). The Electronically Activated Recorder (EAR): A method for the naturalistic observation of daily social behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 184–190.
Michel, J. B., Shen, Y. K., Aiden, A. P., Veres, A., Gray, M. K., Pickett, J. P., … Pinker, S. (2011). Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science, 331, 176–182. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199644
Mittell, J. (2006). Narrative complexity in contemporary American television. Velvet Light Trap, 58, 29–40.
Mixer, L. (2018). “And then they boned”: An analysis of fanfiction and its influence on sexual development (Unpublished master’s thesis). Humboldt State University, Arcata, California.
Nalabandian, T., Iserman, M., & Ireland, M. E. (2018). The narrative arc of film scripts and their relation to audience and critic preferences. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Nielsen (2017). Nielsen estimates 119.6 million TV homes in the U.S. for the 2017–18 TV season. Retrieved from http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2017/nielsen-estimates-119-6-million-us-tv-homes-2017-2018-tv-season.html. Accessed 4 Oct 2018
Nunes, J. C., Ordanini, A., & Valsesia, F. (2015). The power of repetition: Repetitive lyrics in a song increase processing fluency and drive market success. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25, 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.12.004
Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). The secret life of fluency. Trends in Cognitive Science, 12, 237–241.
Pakhomov, S., Chacon, D., Wicklund, M., & Gundel, J. (2011). Computerized assessment of syntactic complexity in Alzheimer’s disease: A case study of Iris Murdoch’s writing. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 136–144. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-010-0037-9
Park, G., Schwartz, H. A., Eichstaedt, J. C., Kern, M. L., Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D. J., . . . Seligman, M. E. P. (2015). Automatic personality assessment through social media language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 934–952. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000020
Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., Boyd, R. L., & Francis, M. E. (2015). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC2015. Austin, TX: Pennebaker Conglomerates (www.LIWC.net).
Pennebaker, J. W., Chung, C. K., Frazee, J., Lavergne, G. M., & Beaver, D. I. (2014). When small words foretell academic success: The case of college admissions essays. PLoS ONE, 9, e115844. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115844
Pennebaker, J. W., & Ireland, M. E. (2011). Using literature to understand authors: The case for computerized text analysis. Scientific Study of Literature, 1, 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.1.1.04pen
Perry, G. (2018). Real-life lord of the flies. New Scientist, 237, 41–43.
Pocheptsova, A., Labroo, A. A., & Dhar, R. (2010). Making products feel special: When metacognitive difficulty enhances evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 1059–1069.
Ramos, M., Calvão, A. M., & Anteneodo, C. (2015). Statistical patterns in movie rating behavior. PLoS ONE, 10, e136083. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136083
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. Retrieved from https://r-project.org
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004a). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 364–382.
Reber, R., Winkielman, P., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9, 45–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00008
Reber, R., Wurtz, P., & Zimmermann, T. D. (2004b). Exploring “fringe” consciousness: The subjective experience of perceptual fluency and its objective bases. Consciousness and Cognition, 13, 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1053-8100(03)00049-7
Rocklage, M. D., & Fazio, R. H. (2015). The Evaluative Lexicon: Adjective use as a means of assessing and distinguishing attitude valence, extremity, and emotionality, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 214–227.
Rosenberg, R. S. (2013). Superhero origins: What makes people tick and why we care. n.p.: CreateSpace.
Russell, N. J. C. (2011). Milgram’s obedience to authority experiments: Origins and early evolution. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 140–162.
Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.199
Seufert, T., Wagner, F., & Westphal, J. (2017). The effects of different levels of disfluency on learning outcomes and cognitive load. Instructional Science, 45, 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9387-8
Shevy, M. (2008). Music genre as cognitive schema: Extramusical associations with country and hip-hop music. Psychology of Music, 36, 477–498. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735608089384
Simonton, D. K. (2009). Cinematic success criteria and their predictors: The art and business of the film industry. Psychology and Marketing, 26, 400–420.
Simonton, D. K. (2011). Great flicks: Scientific studies of cinematic creativity and aesthetics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2008). Fluency and the detection of misleading questions: Low processing fluency attenuates the Moses illusion. Social Cognition, 26, 791–799.
Stuart-Smith, J., Pryce, G., Timmins, C., & Gunter, B. (2013). Television can also be a factor in language change: Evidence from an urban dialect. Language, 89, 501–536. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0041
Tanaka, J. W., & Taylor, M. (1991). Object categories and expertise: Is the basic level in the eye of the beholder? Cognitive Psychology, 23, 457–482.
Thompson, K. (1999). Storytelling in the new Hollywood. Cambridge: Harvard.
Trujillo, L. T., Jankowitsch, J. M., & Langlois, J. H. (2014). Beauty is in the ease of the beholding: A neurophysiological test of the averageness theory of facial attractiveness. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 14, 1061–1076. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-013-0230-2
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9
Wanderer, J. J. (1970). In defense of popular taste: Film ratings among professionals and lay audiences. American Journal of Sociology, 76, 262–272.
Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, T. A., & Reber, R., (2008). The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment. In J. Musch & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 195–223). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Youyou, W., Kosinski, M., & Stillwell, D. (2015). Computer-based personality judgments are more accurate than those made by humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 1036–1040.
Zimmermann, J., Brockmeyer, T., Hunn, M., Schauenburg, H., & Wolf, M. (2017). First-person pronoun use in spoken language as a predictor of future depressive symptoms: Preliminary evidence from a clinical sample of depressed patients. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 24, 384–391.