Table 1.
Measures used in both studies with sample items, answer formats, and quality indicators (where applicable).
Fig 1.
Mean attitudes (left) and intentions (right) to perform pro-organ donation behaviors across time and as a function of the humorous treatment for Study 1 (top) and Study 2 (bottom). In Study 1 (top), the humorous treatment positively affected attitudes and intentions compared with no treatment (T1 before the show, T2 immediately after the treatment), but the effect declined after four weeks (T3). In Study 2, the humorous treatment exerted similar positive effects as the neutral control treatment that delivered the same information about organ donation. Error bars are 95% confidence intervals. Numbers indicate n per group. Note that the y axis is cropped (range 1–7).
Fig 2.
Preregistered models tested the humor and peripheral processing hypotheses. The indirect effects of interest are a*b and a*d*b. The numbers correspond to specific coefficients. All mediation results are reported in detail in the Supplement. Models are based on PROCESS (A: Model 4, B: Model 6) [37].
Fig 3.
Mean knowledge (left) and fears (right) regarding organ donation across time and as a function of the humorous treatment for Study 1 (top) and Study 2 (bottom). Knowledge (sum ranging from 0–7) and fears (mean ranging from 1–7) were transformed into POMP scores (percentage of maximum possible scores, Table 1, ranging from 0–100%). Fear scores were re-coded, so higher scores mean less fear/more correct knowledge. Fear and knowledge items comprise the same content, but were framed either as knowledge or fears. Interestingly, mean percentage correct was higher when the items were framed as knowledge (left) instead of fears (right). Both studies show that humorous interventions lead to fewer fears (right). Error bars are 95% CIs. Numbers indicate n per group.