Seeing is Believing? Comparing Negative Affect, Realism and Presence in Visual Versus Written Guardianship Scenarios

Jean Louis van Gelder*, Corinna Martin, Jan-Willem van Prooijen, Reinout de Vries, Marijke Marsman, Margit Averdijk, Danielle Reynald, Tara Donker

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We compared participant responses on three written guardianship scenarios versus visualized versions of the same scenarios in terms of realism, presence, negative affect elicited by the situation, perceived risk, and the choice to intervene. We find that people who received the visual scenarios report higher presence, but not realism, than those who received the written version. Furthermore, visual scenarios elicited stronger negative affect and resulted in a lower likelihood to intervene. Finally, presence, but not negative affect, mediated the relation between condition and the choice to intervene. Implications of the visual scenario method for future research are discussed.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)461-474
Number of pages14
JournalDeviant Behavior
Volume39
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 3 Apr 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Seeing is Believing? Comparing Negative Affect, Realism and Presence in Visual Versus Written Guardianship Scenarios'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this