The famous result did not hold up here. Earlier work found that telling readers the ending first increased their enjoyment, possibly by making the story easier to process. Levine, Betzner and Autry replicated the method closely with different stories and found the opposite: given before a story reduced enjoyment. Given , they made no discernible difference.
They also tested the proposed mechanism directly by measuring , which is where would show up. And they added a condition nobody had tried, placing the spoiler partway through, once a reader has had a chance to get invested. That turned out to be the inert case. Whatever spoilers do, they appear to do it before you start.
A well-known finding holds that spoilers help. Earlier work found that information given before a story increased enjoyment of it, perhaps by increasing the processing fluency a reader experiences while reading. The result is memorable because it contradicts how almost everyone says they feel about being told the ending.
Levine, Betzner and Autry went at it on several fronts in one experiment. They tested reliability by closely replicating the existing methods, and generality by using different stories. They examined the proposed mechanism by measuring reading time. And they added a condition the literature had not covered: spoilers presented mid-story, after a reader has had a chance to get invested.
The main result runs the other way. Spoilers presented before a story reduced enjoyment. The mid-story spoilers had no discernible effect at all. That pattern is interesting in its own right, because it puts the damage in how a reader takes up a story rather than in the reading itself.
The authors handle the disagreement carefully rather than claiming victory. They discuss the difference between their findings and those in the literature with respect to types of spoilers, and to potentially critical methodological factors. That is the honest position. One experiment with short stories contradicting another experiment with short stories tells you the effect is fragile and condition-dependent, which is not the same as knowing what spoilers do.
wat. Told the ending first, these readers enjoyed the story less, not more.
wat wat
A counterintuitive finding traveled widely as settled fact. A close replication that reverses it suggests the effect depends on which spoilers and which stories, rather than on something general about how reading works.
How do we know?
One experiment closely replicated the existing methods to test reliability, used different stories to test generality, measured reading time to probe processing fluency, and added a mid-story spoiler condition.
What is still unknown
A single experiment with short stories, so it does not overturn the earlier work so much as contradict it. The authors discuss the disagreement in terms of types of spoilers and potentially critical methodological factors rather than declaring a winner.
Learn something?
Where to next
How does a story change a mind without presenting a single argument?stories
Can a few minutes with a text change how well you read another person?reading
Does a spoiler really make a story more enjoyable?reading