Journal of Communication ISSN 0021-9916
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Testing a Dual-Process Model of Media Enjoyment and Appreciation Robert J. Lewis1 , Ron Tamborini2 , & René Weber3 1 Department of Advertising and Public Relations, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA 2 Department of Communication, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA 3 Department of Communication, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA
This article presents a dual-process model of media entertainment representing 2 psychological appraisal processes, and examines how these processes evoke appreciation or enjoyment as a function of the presence/absence of cognitive conflict. The first process (which characterizes experiences of appreciation) is deliberative and slow, and results from cognitive conflict. The second process (which characterizes experiences of enjoyment) is automatic and fast, and occurs when cognitive conflict is inconsequential. Both appraisal processes result from the same underlying framework of intuitive preferences. 2 studies vary narrative conflict among sets of intuitive moral domains to test dual-process predictions regarding slow/fast response times and the association of the presence/absence of conflict with self-reported experiences of appreciation/enjoyment. Discussion examines theoretical implications for entertainment research. doi:10.1111/jcom.12101
Entertainment research has traditionally focused on the enjoyment response as a pleasurable reaction. For example, literature abounds on entertainment’s effects on transient moods (Oliver, 2003), character liking and dispositional considerations (Cohen, 2001; Giles, 2002; Hoffner & Cantor, 1991; Raney, 2004), or the enjoyment of various genres such as suspense (Comisky & Bryant, 1982; Vorderer & Knobloch, 2000; Vorderer, Wulff, & Friedrichsen, 1996), humor (Zillmann & Cantor, 1976), sports (Bryant, 1989), erotica (Tamborini, Stiff, & Zillmann, 1987), violence (Zillmann, 1998), and horror (Tamborini, 1991; Tamborini & Stiff, 1987). Although this focus naturally extends from an understanding of entertainment as pleasure and diversion, not all entertainment experiences elicit such responses. For example, tragedy or serious drama make up a considerable portion of the standard media diet, and though many would tell you that they “like” these forms of narrative, fewer would label their experiences with them as fun or pleasurable. Limitations associated with characterizing entertainment’s appeal purely in terms of pleasure have been
Corresponding author: Robert J. Lewis; e-mail:
[email protected] Journal of Communication 64 (2014) 397–416 © 2014 International Communication Association
397
Media Enjoyment and Appreciation
R. J. Lewis et al.
addressed in recent investigations that distinguish entertainment’s enjoyment and appreciation as two types of positive appraisal and propose that different processes are responsible for producing them (Tamborini, Grizzard, Bowman, et al., 2011). The current article begins by examining how entertainment scholars have identified enjoyment (a purely pleasurable response) and appreciation (a meaningful response associated with mixed emotion) as two qualitatively distinct experiences. Next, it introduces Tamborini’s (2011, 2012) dual-process model, which proposes that the distinction between these experiences can be understood as resulting from two types of cognitive processing that may operate during narrative appraisal. Two studies are then presented showing support for the notion that distinct cognitive processes are used to appraise different narrative forms, and that appraisals associated with these processes are identifiable as the experience of enjoyment and appreciation. Discussion centers on the implications of the model for several areas of entertainment and media theory. Distinguishing Enjoyment and Appreciation
Understanding the attraction to tragedy and other forms of sad media from a hedonic approach has been problematic for media scholars (cf., Mares & Cantor, 1992; Nabi, Finnerty, Domschke, & Hull, 2006). Most research on selective exposure to media entertainment uses logic consistent with the pleasure principle to explain media choice. For example, a large body of research on exposure to entertainment applies mood management theory, which argues that media selection is driven by the desire to perpetuate pleasurable mood states and curtail nonpleasurable ones. Yet these understandings seem incapable of explaining the choice of sad media, which seems to run in direct conflict with this type of logic. To address this theoretical limitation, Oliver and Bartsch (2010) defined enjoyment as positive affect driven by hedonic gratifications (i.e., pleasure seeking), and appreciation as qualitatively distinct, as it is driven by “eudaimonic” gratifications (i.e., meaningful experiences characterized by the contemplation of human virtues). Vorderer (2009) and Vorderer, Klimmt, and Ritterfeld (2004) agreed that not all responses are based on pleasure seeking. They used a dual-process model (with “rational” vs. “emotional” systems) to distinguish enjoyment from appreciation based on which types of needs are satisfied, where “lower order” (emotional) needs distinguish enjoyment and “higher order” (rational) needs distinguish appreciation. In Tamborini’s (2011, 2012) approach, a similar dual-process model is used, but his model does not distinguish enjoyment from appreciation based on a hierarchy of needs. Instead, he distinguishes the two concepts by the cognitive processes underlying media appraisals. The model focuses on appraisal processes and remains agnostic toward whether needs exist in some hierarchy. Additionally, the model adopts the concept of moral intuition to identify a major source of needs. We use these terms intuition and motivation as Haidt (2001) used them to represent drives that can be triggered, satisfied, left unsatisfied, or violated. 398
Journal of Communication 64 (2014) 397–416 © 2014 International Communication Association
R. J. Lewis et al.
Media Enjoyment and Appreciation
Dual-process Model of Enjoyment and Appreciation
Dual-process theories of human reasoning suggests that two types of thinking work in unison to generate judgment, one that is fast and intuitive and another that is slow and deliberative (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999). Although this approach has been recently challenged, considerable research supports the claim that qualitatively distinct types of processing underlie intuitive versus reflective thinking (cf. Evans & Stanovich, 2013). According to Tamborini’s (2011, 2012) dual-process model, the qualitative difference between these two types of processing can be used to differentiate emotional responses to media that are quick, gut-level reactions from those that are careful and considered. His model describes two types of positive media appraisal: one resulting from quick, intuitive processing (thought to account for most appraisal responses) and another from slower, reflective processing brought about when different intuitive preferences are in conflict within the mind of an audience member. The model’s suggestion that the audience’s need to resolve such conflict activates a distinct form of processing is consistent with recent literature that defines deliberative processing as resulting from the heightened demand on working memory associated with higher order reasoning processes (Evans & Stanovich, 2013). According to logic underlying the model, the need for higher order reasoning arises when conflict occurs, which requires an audience member to sublimate the drive to satisfy some need(s) in order to profit from the satisfaction of others. When applied to entertainment theory, these two types of processing can be used to distinguish enjoyment from appreciation in a manner that adds conceptual and operational clarity (Tamborini, 2011). According to this model, enjoyment is a positive response that results from quick, intuitive processing. It occurs when an entertainment experience satisfies one or more instinctive needs. All other things being equal, an individual is more likely to respond quickly and enjoy a media experience in which all salient needs are satisfied. By contrast, appreciation is a positive response characterized by the type of slower, controlled appraisals necessary for weighing the salience of conflicting needs. When entertainment places needs in conflict, and that conflict goes unresolved within the narrative, audience members are confronted with a dilemma. In order to positively appraise and profit from the experience, they must first accept the fact that one need should be sacrificed in order to satisfy another need. In this case, an individual is likely to respond more slowly and appreciate the experience. For example, consider the 1989 children’s film The Little Mermaid. Such a narrative would likely be enjoyed (and not so much appreciated) because there is little cognitive conflict throughout the film, and all of the audience’s salient needs are satisfied in the plot resolution. (A curse is lifted from the protagonists, justice is served to the main villain, and a romantic interest is fulfilled at the end of the film.) By contrast, consider the 1993 film Schindler’s List. This type of narrative would likely be appreciated (and not so much enjoyed) because the audience’s needs are in conflict throughout the film, and not all of them are satisfied in the plot resolution. (Schindler, the main character, is trying to protect a large number of Jews in Nazi-era Germany while lying Journal of Communication 64 (2014) 397–416 © 2014 International Communication Association
399
Media Enjoyment and Appreciation
R. J. Lewis et al.
to the authorities and risking his life. Although he saves many lives he must sacrifice other lives to do this, and the plot resolution leaves him hunted by the Red Army, and weeping that he did not prevent even more deaths.) The model is applied here to narrative media in order to provide an empirical test of its ability to distinguish enjoyment from appreciation in a manner consistent with Oliver and Bartsch (2010). To accomplish this task, moral foundations theory (MFT; Haidt & Joseph, 2008) is used to identify conditions in which we would expect automatic or controlled processes to govern evaluative responses. MFT posits the existence of five different instinctive domains of morality thought to govern all moral judgments. They are called care, fairness, authority, ingroup loyalty, and purity. Each domain represents an adaptation with its own intuitive processing systems. Similar to the understanding of enjoyment and appreciation discussed above, MFT applies a dual-process model of intuitive versus deliberative systems to moral judgment. It argues that most judgments are made automatically and without conscious deliberation. Yet it is consistent with the idea that when simultaneous adherence to all activated intuitions is impossible within a narrative (i.e., during a moral dilemma), audience members are more likely to deliberate on the relative salience of competing intuitions during the appraisal process. Notably, the dual-process model provided in this study is consistent with Oliver and Bartsch’s (2010) proposal that appreciation results from thinking about human virtues, but the model’s logic extends their work to provide a cognitive account of the mechanisms (instinctive moral domains) and processes (needs satisfaction) common to both enjoyment and appreciation. It represents positive appraisals resulting from fast and intuitive processes as enjoyment, and positive appraisals resulting from slow and deliberative processes as appreciation. Study 1
Study 1 tests the above logic by examining whether participants exposed to narratives that depict conflicted or nonconflicted resolutions will display the type of differences hypothesized in slow/fast appraisal response times. When combined with self-report results to be introduced in Study 2, such findings would help provide support for the model’s intuitive/deliberative systems distinction for the experiences of enjoyment/appreciation. Study 1 examines the time taken to evaluate three different types of narrative endings. The first two ending types (labeled “all positive” and “mixed positive”) are included both because of their use in testing the theoretical processes under examination, and because they are commonly found in narrative media. The third ending type (labeled “all negative”) is included only because of its use in testing the theoretical processes under examination, and is seldom found in narrative media. The first two ending types represent narrative forms expected to produce enjoyment and appreciation, and comprise the central comparison conditions in Study 1. The “all-positive” ending is representative of popular media with an overall positive 400
Journal of Communication 64 (2014) 397–416 © 2014 International Communication Association
R. J. Lewis et al.
Media Enjoyment and Appreciation
theme. In this example, all of the audience member’s moral intuitions are upheld, and all salient needs are satisfied. The audience is not required to violate or thwart the satisfaction of one need in order to profit from the satisfaction of another need. This is the type of resolution we might typically think of as a happy ending. The “mixed-positive” ending is representative of popular media with a negatively valenced theme, but one that leads to a positive appraisal. In this example, some of the individual’s moral intuitions are upheld while others are violated. As such, not all salient needs are satisfied, leading to cognitive conflict. Instead, the audience is required to sublimate the drive to satisfy one need in order to profit from the satisfaction of others. This is the type of resolution we might typically think of as a tragic ending. The third type of resolution represents one of two forms of narrative expected to produce dislike. Although it does not represent a type of resolution central to the theoretical distinction between enjoyment and appreciation, it is included to elicit a negative response and to be used as a comparative base in analyses examining response time in Study 1 (note: this same ending type serves as a comparison condition in Study 2). It is labeled an “all-negative” ending. In this example, all of the user’s moral intuitions are violated so that none of the audience’s salient needs is satisfied. This ending is not representative of popular media, as it would likely evoke strong negative audience reactions and result in commercial failure.1 Based on the logic of MFT and Tamborini’s (2011, 2012) dual-process model, we would expect the speed with which individuals evaluate these three narrative ending types to vary as a function of the absence/presence of conflict. It is expected that evaluations of narrative conclusions will be faster for all-positive (H1a) and all-negative (H1b) endings than for the mixed-positive endings. In other words, when an audience member sublimates some need(s) to satisfy some other need(s), evaluations will be slower than when all or none of the activated needs are satisfied. Method Participants
Participants (N = 180) were recruited from communication courses at a large university in the Midwestern United States. As age and gender data were collected in a separate, online survey, this information was unavailable for seven of the subjects who reported to the lab, leaving 172 participants (M age = 20.02, SD = 1.44; nfemales = 110) with full data. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three subject groups (nA = 58, nB = 58, nC = 64) to counterbalance different narrative ending types. Students took part for course credit, and were treated in adherence to the American Psychological Association’s (2002) ethical guidelines for conducting research. Stimuli
Stimuli consisted of 12 short, textual narratives, each with two components: (a) a main body or introduction followed by (b) an alternative ending that resolved the storyline differently depending on condition. Three versions of each narrative were created by Journal of Communication 64 (2014) 397–416 © 2014 International Communication Association
401
Media Enjoyment and Appreciation
R. J. Lewis et al.
combining the narrative’s main body with one of three different endings (one for each of the comparison conditions of the study). Participants viewed each of the 12 narrative introductions with one of the three alternative endings.2 As mentioned above, the three alternative endings were labeled “all positive,” “mixed positive,” and “all negative.” The all-positive endings presented no conflict between intuitions, and the situation was resolved positively by adhering to all moral intuitions. The all-negative endings presented no conflict between intuitions, but the situation was resolved negatively by violating all moral intuitions. Finally, the mixed-positive endings depicted a conflict situation in which one or more moral intuitions had to be violated in order to adhere to other moral intuition(s). The ending type is intended to manipulate the extent to which the dilemma is salient to the participants during the appraisal process. The mixed-positive story ending should make the dilemma especially salient and the other ending types (all positive and all negative) should not. Essentially, the conflict presented in the main body of the narrative is “overshadowed” by the all-positive and all-negative endings, whereas the conflict is maintained by the mixed-positive ending. The narratives (and their endings) were presented as “plots to several hypothetical films.” Many of the narratives were based on previously published moral dilemmas known to elicit responses in brain regions associated with cognitive conflict (cf. Greene, Nystrom, Engell, Darley, & Cohen, 2004). Procedure
After providing consent, participants were seated in front of a 17-inch monitor and began by entering an anonymous research identification code, then pressing the spacebar on the keyboard. Participants were led through the experiment by instructions on the monitor. Before evaluating any of the narrative endings, participants were instructed to fully read the narratives and their endings before making their evaluation. These instructions were followed by two practice trials before seeing a reminder of the instructions, and proceeding to the test block of 12 narratives. After reading a narrative introduction, participants read and rated one of three possible alternative endings on a screen by itself (see Figure 1 for an example). Experimental Design
A single-factor, within-subject design varied exposure to the three ending types. First, the 12 different narratives were randomly divided into three equal groups (Figure 2a). Second, the three sets of four narratives were assigned to three subject groups counterbalanced for ending type. These groups were used to determine which resolutions were paired with different narratives for each participant (Figure 2b). Every participant saw an equal number of the three ending types, for a total of four exposures per ending type. After this grouping and pairing (depicted in Figure 2), 12 narratives (each with its assigned ending) were presented in random order for each individual participant. 402
Journal of Communication 64 (2014) 397–416 © 2014 International Communication Association
R. J. Lewis et al.
Media Enjoyment and Appreciation
Ava does nothing. The baby cries and the group is killed.
Enemy soldiers have taken over Ava’s village, and are killing all civilians. Ava and some townspeople are hiding in a cellar when she hears soldiers. Her baby begins to cry loudly. She covers his mouth to block the sound. If she removes her hand the soldiers will find and kill her child, and everyone else.
Ava suffocates the baby to save the group.
Ava comforts and quiets the baby so the group is saved.
Figure 1 Example of possible trials from Study 1. After instructions, participants read a narrative introduction. On the following screen, participants read and rated the ending assigned to their subject group by pressing one of two buttons (labeled “Like” and “Dislike”) on the keyboard. Each participant was exposed to only one of the three alternative endings depicted above.
Narrative groups
a Narrative group A
Safari Sophie's Choice Saving Comrades
Narrative group B Narrative group C
b
Saving Civilians Courtroom Battle
Bad Samaritans
All Positive
Amelia's Justice Vacation's Over Keller's Firm All Negative
Mad Dog
Dirt Poor Illegal Lunch Mixed Positive
Subject Group
1
A
B
C
Subject Group
2
B
C
A
Subject Group
3
C
A
B
Figure 2 Narrative groupings for subjects and ending types. The design eliminates carryover effects resulting from narratives or their endings. (a) Twelve narrative scenarios are placed into three groups (groups A, B, and C) of four. (b) The three narrative groups (A, B, and C) are paired with different ending types for all three subject groups. Each subject sees the narratives and assigned endings for his/her subject group presented in random order.
Journal of Communication 64 (2014) 397–416 © 2014 International Communication Association
403
Media Enjoyment and Appreciation
R. J. Lewis et al.
Evaluation Time Measure
Evaluation time served as the dependent variable for the study. This measure was obtained through the use of Empirisoft’s “DirectIN” millisecond-accurate keyboard and E-Prime 2.0 stimulus presentation software. The evaluation time measure commenced as soon as the participant pressed the spacebar to display the ending screen. The measure ceased when the participant pressed one of two buttons (labeled “Like” and “Dislike”) to rate the ending. Participants were instructed to use their middle or index fingers on both hands to press one of two buttons in order to evaluate the narrative endings. Because using different hands may produce confounds arising from motor-speed differences between right versus left hands, the side on which “Like” versus “Dislike” appeared was balanced such that for half of the participants the sides were switched. Another potentially confounding variable was reading speed. As the evaluation time measure used in this study confounded time taken to evaluate the ending with time taken simply to read the ending, a separate sample of participants (N = 72) was recruited before conducting the primary study for the sole purpose of establishing a baseline average reading time for each of the possible alternative endings.3 Baseline average reading times were subtracted from each response time to establish the final measures of evaluation time for every participant on each ending. By doing this subtraction, the time taken to read each narrative ending was removed from the evaluative response time, thus leaving a purer measure of evaluation time that was, when aggregated, independent of the time taken to read a particular ending. Results
Before analyzing response time data, the baseline average reading times for each of the alternative endings were subtracted from their respective evaluative response times. This ensured that, overall, data reflected evaluation time independent of reading time differences unique to each ending. All analyses were carried out using these measures with reading time subtracted. Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests of evaluation times showed that the evaluation time variables for the three ending types were not normally distributed. Thus, in addition to performing analyses on the untransformed evaluation time data, hypothesis tests below are also presented using natural log transformations in an attempt to normalize the dependent variable. These transformations were successful in normalizing the distributions for the all-positive (Kolmogorov–Smirnov Z = 0.94, p = .34) and mixed-positive (Kolmogorov–Smirnov Z = 0.89, p = .41) evaluation times, but unsuccessful in normalizing the distribution for the all-negative endings (Kolmogorov–Smirnov Z = 1.70, p = .006). Initially, a one-way, repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted with three levels representing all-positive, mixed-positive, and all-negative endings with planned contrasts to test Hypothesis 1a and 1b. As the sphericity assumption was violated in this study, multivariate tests using Pillai’s trace test 404
Journal of Communication 64 (2014) 397–416 © 2014 International Communication Association
Media Enjoyment and Appreciation
1,500 0
milliseconds
3,000
R. J. Lewis et al.
All-positive
Mixed-positive
All-negative
Ending Type
Figure 3 Mean evaluation times (in milliseconds) for the three narrative ending types.
statistic were used (cf. Vasey & Thayer, 1987). The main effect for ending type was significant with both the normalized evaluation times, Pillai’s Trace = .37, F(2, 149) = 44.46, p < .001, and the untransformed data, Pillai’s Trace = .40, F(2, 178) = 60.43, p < .001. As expected, contrasts indicated that the average time taken to evaluate mixed-positive endings (M = 2,846, SD = 2,786) was longer than the average time taken to evaluate all-positive endings (M = 1,241, SD = 1,341), F(1, 150) = 71.17, p < .001 (untransformed: F(1, 179) = 65.25, p < .001), thus providing support for Hypothesis 1a (see Figure 3 for means). The second comparison concerned the expectation that mixed-positive endings would take longer to evaluate than all-negative endings (Hypothesis 1b). Contrary to Hypothesis 1b, however, the contrast did not detect a difference between the mixed-positive (M = 2,846 ms) and all-negative (M = 2,733 ms) ending types, F(1, 150) = 0.03, p = .87, untransformed: F(1, 179) = 0.34, p = .56.4 Next, results from participants’ responses indicating liking versus disliking were analyzed to check the frequency with which participants gave positive ratings of the different ending types. Analysis of the rating data showed that all-positive endings were given a positive rating in 94% of all cases, mixed-positive endings were given a positive rating in 46% of all cases, and all-negative endings were given a positive rating in 11% of all cases. The all-positive endings were liked much more often than the all-negative endings, t(11) = 23.83, Cohen’s d = 10.61, p < .001, and the mixed-positive endings, t(11) = 21.72, Cohen’s d = 9.26, p < .001. Although it is difficult to say whether mixed-positive endings were generally “liked” by the participants, as they were rated positively only 46% of the time, it is clear that they were positively evaluated much more often than the all-negative endings, t(11) = 10.37, Cohen’s d = 4.42, p < .001, even though the time taken to evaluate these two types of endings was similar (Figure 3 and Table 1). Journal of Communication 64 (2014) 397–416 © 2014 International Communication Association
405
Media Enjoyment and Appreciation
R. J. Lewis et al.
Table 1 Proportion of positive ratings for each narrative ending All positive
Mixed positive
All negative
Narrative title
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Safari Saving Civilians Amelia’s Justice Bad Samaritans Sophie’s Choice Courtroom Battle Vacation’s Over Dirt Poor Saving Comrades Mad Dog Keller’s Firm Illegal Lunch M
.95 .98 .97 .97 .95 .97 .86 .97 .98 .81 .88 .97 .94
.22 .13 .18 .18 .22 .18 .35 .18 .13 .39 .33 .18
.59 .26 .29 .55 .19 .77 .52 .38 .66 .71 .28 .40 .46
.50 .44 .46 .50 .39 .43 .50 .49 .48 .46 .45 .49
.09 .05 .16 .11 .05 .03 .03 .03 .10 .03 .22 .43 .11
.29 .21 .37 .32 .22 .18 .18 .18 .31 .18 .42 .50
Lastly, demographic variables were examined to test their relationships with evaluation time as well as with liking versus disliking of the narrative endings. A relationship was found between gender and evaluation time. On analysis of the combined evaluation times for the three ending types, females were faster in their evaluations of the all-negative endings than males, t (170) = 2.26, Cohen’s d = .38, p < .05. Study 1 discussion
The results from Study 1 are consistent with the assumption that conflicting intuitive preferences will lead to longer appraisal times. The large difference in appraisal speed for the mixed-positive endings versus the all-positive endings is indicative of different processes characteristic of each type of appraisal process described in the dual-process model. The slower appraisals for the mixed-positive endings indicate a deliberative response resulting from cognitive conflict, whereas the faster appraisals for the all-positive endings indicate an intuitive response in the absence of conflict. The study also provides a basis for Study 2, which attempts to map these intuitive/deliberative responses to self-reported experiences characteristic of enjoyment versus appreciation. Contrary to expectations, however, the all-negative endings also took longer to evaluate than the all-positive endings. Yet as participants reported disliking the all-negative endings, it is doubtful that these endings were experienced as “appreciation.” There are several possible interpretations of this finding. For example, it may be that any negative emotional experience yields a perception of incongruity, which could trigger some amount of deliberation. Second, it may be that negative endings in narratives are uncommon and violate participants’ expectations for a positive ending, 406
Journal of Communication 64 (2014) 397–416 © 2014 International Communication Association
R. J. Lewis et al.
Media Enjoyment and Appreciation
leading to longer appraisal time. Lastly, it may be that the all-negative endings were perceived to uphold some intuitions while violating others, and are more properly described as “mixed-negative” endings rather than all-negative endings. Further research is required to investigate these interpretations. Notably, as the procedure used in Study 1 only measured a unidimensional valuation (i.e., simple liking rather than enjoyment and appreciation) of the different endings, this limits our ability to claim that mixed-positive endings are appreciated more than the other two endings, and that the all-positive endings are enjoyed more than mixed-positive or all-negative endings. Study 2 was thus conducted to see whether the manner in which audiences experience enjoyment and appreciation in response to satisfying and unsatisfying endings is consistent with the dual-process model’s distinction. Study 2
Although Study 1’s demonstration that incongruent intuitions evoked by the mixed-positive endings affected appraisal speed, this demonstration does not link differences in appraisal speed with the experiences of enjoyment versus appreciation. Study 2 is designed to address this limitation by determining whether the presence/absence of conflicting intuitions will yield appraisals consistent with Oliver and Bartsch’s (2010) conceptualizations of enjoyment and appreciation. In their operationalization of enjoyment they include concepts of fun, having a good time, and being entertained. These concepts relate specifically to diversion and amusement, and should thus tap the degree to which appraisals are purely positive, consistent with the dual-process logic regarding nonconflicted, fast, and intuitive responses to all-positive endings. By contrast, in their operationalization of appreciation, they include concepts of meaningfulness, being moved, and provoking thought. These concepts relate to strong, especially negative emotion, personal significance, and deliberation, consistent with the dual-process logic regarding conflicted, slow, and deliberative appraisals of mixed-positive endings. Study 2 examines whether narratives with all-positive endings will produce self-reported appraisals consistent with conceptualizations of enjoyment, whereas the narratives with mixed-positive endings will produce self-reported valuations consistent with conceptualizations of appreciation (but not enjoyment). The aim of the second study is therefore to map the conflicted/nonconflicted narrative endings from Study 1 onto self-reported experiences of appreciation/enjoyment described by Oliver and Bartsch (2010). Based on the incongruity logic from Study 1, mixed-positive endings should be rated higher on appreciation than both all-positive endings (Hypothesis 1a [H1a]) and all-negative endings (H1b). With regard to enjoyment of the three ending types, all-positive endings will be enjoyed the most (H2a), mixed-positive endings will be rated lower on enjoyment than the all-positive endings (H2b), and all-negative endings will be rated lowest on enjoyment (H2c). Journal of Communication 64 (2014) 397–416 © 2014 International Communication Association
407
Media Enjoyment and Appreciation
R. J. Lewis et al.
Method Participants
Participants (N = 117, nfemales = 79) were recruited from communication courses at a large university in the Midwestern United States. In a manner identical to that in Study 1, participants were randomly assigned to one of three subject groups (nA = 38, nB = 41, and nC = 38) to counterbalance different narrative resolution types. Students took part for course credit, and were treated in adherence to the American Psychological Association’s (2002) ethical guidelines. Procedure
Following informed consent procedures, participants were seated in front of a 17-inch monitor and began by pressing the spacebar on the keyboard. Participants were led through the experiment by on-screen instructions. The task began with two practice trials. Participants then read the 12 test narratives, seeing only the alternative endings assigned to their subject group just as in Study 1. Each survey item appeared on a separate screen, below the narrative and the assigned ending. Stimuli and Design
Stimuli and design were identical to Study 1. Once again, narratives were presented as “plots to several hypothetical films.” Different from Study 1, however, survey respondents rated the narrative endings assigned to their subject group on a continuous scale using multiple items, rather than giving a single dichotomous response. Owing to the nonecological nature of these short text narratives, and the possibility that they lack the ability to actually entertain participants, there was concern that measuring appreciation and enjoyment may lead to floor effects. In order to address this concern, analyses were conducted on preliminary versions of the mixed-positive narrative endings used in this study. Measures of self-reported appreciation were collected (using the same scale from the current study) on versions of the narratives used in the present study that were not yet in their final form. The results of these analyses revealed that the mixed-positive endings were, on average, rated above the midpoint on a 7-point scale measuring appreciation (M = 4.66, SD = 1.12), with a range of 4.28. Although this was limited to testing only the mixed-positive endings, it shows that such short, nonecological stimuli can be evaluated without suffering from floor effects. Of course, it is likely that more ecological stimuli (e.g., feature length films) would be rated even higher, on average, thus creating even larger differences between enjoyment and appreciation for the different ending types. Measures
Participants rated their assigned ending for each narrative individually on enjoyment and appreciation using two 3-item scales (see Oliver & Bartsch, 2010, for scale validation). Both measures use a 7-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). For enjoyment, items asked whether the story would be “fun,” “a good time,” and “entertaining.” For appreciation, items asked whether 408
Journal of Communication 64 (2014) 397–416 © 2014 International Communication Association
Media Enjoyment and Appreciation
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
R. J. Lewis et al.
All Positive
Mixed Positive Appreciation
All Negative Enjoyment
Figure 4 Mean ratings for the three ending types on appreciation and enjoyment.
the story would be “meaningful,” “moving,” and “thought-provoking.” Reliabilities were assessed for all 36 endings. Alpha reliabilities for enjoy measures ranged from .78 to .96, and for appreciate measures from .72 to .91, with one ending falling lower at α = .62 for appreciation. Results
To test the predictions of H1a and H1b that the mixed-positive endings would be rated higher on appreciation than the all-positive and all-negative endings, a one-way, repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with planned contrasts between the three ending types. The ANOVA yielded significance, F(2, 115) = 24.98, η2 = .17, p < .001. Consistent with H1a and H1b, planned contrasts revealed that mixed-positive endings were appreciated more than all-positive endings F(1, 116) = 4.58, η2 = .03, p = .03, and all-negative endings F(1, 116) = 38.16, η2 = .03, p = .03. Examination of the means plot for appreciation (Figure 4) shows that both the all-positive (M = 4.41, SD = 1.14) and mixed-positive (M = 4.61, SD = 1.14) endings were slightly higher than the neutral midpoint, whereas the all-negative (M = 3.89, SD = 1.22) endings were slightly lower than the neutral midpoint. To test the second hypothesis predicting that all-positive endings would be rated highest on enjoyment, the mixed-positive endings second highest, and the all-negative endings lowest, another one-way, repeated measures ANOVA was conducted. Once again, the ANOVA yielded significance, F(2, 115) = 51.72, η2 = .39, p < .001. Consistent with H2a, H2b, and H2c, planned contrasts revealed that all-positive endings were enjoyed more than mixed-positive endings Journal of Communication 64 (2014) 397–416 © 2014 International Communication Association
409
Media Enjoyment and Appreciation
R. J. Lewis et al.
F(1, 116) = 69.01, η2 = .37, p < .0001, and that mixed-positive endings were enjoyed more than all-negative endings F(1, 116) = 80.46, η2 = .41, p < .03. Examination of the means plot for enjoyment (Figure 4) shows that the all-positive endings (M = 4.62, SD = 1.01) were the only ending type rated above the midpoint. Both mixed-positive endings (M = 3.68, SD = 1.17) and all-negative endings (M = 3.31, SD = 1.13) were rated below the midpoint. Study 2 discussion
The patterns observed in Study 2 were consistent with hypotheses. The model specifies that appreciation can be characterized by cognitive conflict and deliberation due to weighing the salience of incongruent intuitions. The findings for Hypothesis 1 regarding appreciation are consistent with this; the mixed-positive endings (which took longer to evaluate in Study 1) were rated higher on appreciation than the all-positive endings. The findings for Hypothesis 2 regarding enjoyment are also consistent with the dual-process model. The model specifies that enjoyment increases as the satisfaction of salient needs increases. This is clearly visible in the pattern of means for enjoyment ratings, with the all-positive endings (written to satisfy all salient needs) being rated highest, followed by the mixed-positive endings (written to satisfy one need at the expense of another), and finally the all-negative endings (written to satisfy no salient needs) rated lowest. General discussion
The results of both studies can be looked at separately and in combination. Findings from Study 1 are consistent with predicted differences in appraisal response times for mixed-positive versus all-positive endings. In Study 2, self-report data from the mixed-positive and all-positive endings are consistent with predictions that endings associated with longer appraisal times would be rated higher on appreciation whereas those associated with shorter appraisal times would be rated higher on enjoyment. This is visible in the crossover pattern depicted on the left side of Figure 4. Taken together, these findings support the dual-process model’s attempt to build on suggestions that enjoyment and appreciation were qualitatively distinct experiences (Oliver & Bartsch, 2010) associated with “rational” versus “emotional” systems (Vorderer, 2009; Vorderer et al., 2004). Yet, instead of distinguishing these experiences as the satisfaction of “lower order” (emotional) and “higher order” (rational) needs, the current studies support claims that the qualitative difference between these experiences can be accounted for by two distinct cognitive processes that underlie appraisal (Tamborini, 2011, 2012; Tamborini, Grizzard, Bowman, et al., 2011). Limitations
Although these results offer support for the dual-process logic underlying this investigation, limitations associated with the sample and stimuli used in these two studies 410
Journal of Communication 64 (2014) 397–416 © 2014 International Communication Association
R. J. Lewis et al.
Media Enjoyment and Appreciation
should be addressed by future research. First, it is possible that the emotional reactions examined in this research may differ in older versus younger populations (Gross et al., 1997; Piaget, 1948). For example, younger children may lack the cognitive maturity to appreciate conflicted narratives in the manner discussed here. Future research should examine how different age groups appraise narratives with moral dilemmas in order to determine how development impacts the processing of conflict between moral intuitions. Another concern regards the ecological nature of the short, narrative scenarios and their resolutions. Typical entertainment experiences with television, film, novels, etc., should have more potential to create stronger emotional reactions (due to the longer time investment with these media, the different sensory channels associated with their content, and other production-feature differences) This could affect the self-reported appraisal of these media experiences. Future experimental research should attempt to replicate the findings here using full-length films (and other media) demonstrated to vary on the presence/absence of conflict. Finally, we pay special attention to limitations that might stem from the concept labels used in this investigation. Our study set out to address issues associated with recent claims that enjoyment and appreciation were qualitatively distinct reactions to entertaining media, and what we perceived as potential ambiguity in attempts to distinguish these concepts both conceptually and operationally. Although we believe that the evidence and reasoning presented in this study helps accomplish this goal, we are sensitive to the fact that our dual-process distinction of enjoyment and appreciation may be at odds with common usage of the terms. The importance of this should not be overlooked, as common usage of the terms (though they may be vague and confusing) may limit understating of our work. In this regard, we emphasize the fact that two types of audience response can be distinguished by the qualitatively distinct processes that produce them. In line with recent efforts to distinguish these two systems in cognitive science, these responses could be called type 1 and type 2 (cf. Evans & Stanovich, 2013). In line with earlier research on media appeal, they could be called delight and enlightenment (Zillmann & Bryant, 1994). We have used the terms enjoyment and appreciation to make clear the relevance of our work to discussion of this topic in recent entertainment theory research. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that other entertainment research using the labels enjoyment and appreciation may conceptualize them in a manner not captured by the dual-process distinction, and that these conceptualizations may have their own value. For example, while our approach uses the terms enjoyment and appreciation to distinguish responses produced by different cognitive systems, other approaches have used these terms to distinguish responses representing the satisfaction of different types of needs (Vorderer, 2009; Oliver, 2008). Vorderer and Ritterfeld’s (2009) “two-level model of entertainment motivation” (p. 459) characterized enjoyment as the satisfaction of “immediate, lower-order needs” of “pleasure” and “comprehension” (p. 458) and characterized appreciation as the satisfaction of “less immediate, higher-order goals” (identified as the self-determination needs of authority, autonomy, and relatedness; cf. Ryan & Deci, Journal of Communication 64 (2014) 397–416 © 2014 International Communication Association
411
Media Enjoyment and Appreciation
R. J. Lewis et al.
2000). Such a needs-based distinction may have value for entertainment theory separate from the distinction made by our dual-process model. While the intended value of our approach lies in its ability to uncover mechanisms that drive qualitatively distinct responses, the value of their approach may lie in its ability to focus attention on important needs satisfied by entertainment. In a similar way, Oliver’s (2008) understanding of appreciation may identify important components of an entertainment experience (e.g., tenderness, eudemonia) that are not neatly captured in the dual-process framework. The dual-process distinction is not intended to challenge research based on such other uses of the terms. Its goal is to add greater precision to this work in a manner that might increase our understanding of the processes that shape audience response. It is likely that the diversity of audience response to media cannot be reduced to a single enjoyment/appreciation dichotomy. Future Directions
Despite these limitations, the two studies reported here have important implications for researchers interested in audience response to entertainment. For example, combining the logic of MFT with Tamborini’s (2011, 2012) dual-process model suggests a number of possible avenues for studying media and morality. Some of these include characterizations of antiheroes, variance in audience response due to individual differences in morality, and conflict resulting from intuitions indirectly associated with morality. With regard to the characterization of antiheroes, Raney and Bryant (2002) suggested that audiences often make quick judgments of characters using simple heuristics, but it may be the case that longer, more deliberative judgments of characters are also frequent. Antiheroes have been defined as characters that do not consistently uphold all domains of morality (Tamborini, Grizzard, Eden, & Lewis, 2011). With this definition in mind, it seems plausible that many narrative protagonists could be characterized as antiheroes (even seemingly benign characters such as Dennis the Menace might evoke cognitive conflict and deliberation due to their mixed morality). It may be the case that today’s well-known (anti)heroes force audiences to deliberate over the value of conflicting moral domains, and through this deliberation shape the foundation upon which a society judges right from wrong. Of course, the proportion of protagonists that fit this definition of an antihero is an empirical question and remains to be determined. The present studies might also inform future research attempting to explain variance in audience response due to individual differences. MFT delineates five different instinctive domains of morality and posits that the salience of these intuitive domains differs for individuals and groups. For example, Graham, Haidt, and Nosek (2009) show that U.S. conservatives tend to weigh more heavily the domains of authority, loyalty, and purity than do U.S. liberals. Tamborini (2011, 2012) maintains that an audience member’s tendency to prefer one moral intuition over another should lead to different evaluations (like vs dislike) of a story that upholds one domain over the other. For example, if ingroup loyalty is more salient to audience members than all 412
Journal of Communication 64 (2014) 397–416 © 2014 International Communication Association
R. J. Lewis et al.
Media Enjoyment and Appreciation
other intuitions, then they are more likely to respond positively to resolutions that uphold ingroup loyalty at the cost of other intuitions. Although these theoretically independent moral intuitions were not separately manipulated in the present studies, future research should test whether the relative salience of different intuitions affects response times and appraisals of narratives with such conflict. Lastly, although the dual-process model is applied to moral judgments in the current study, the framework can be extended to incorporate a broader intuitionist perspective (Tamborini, Grizzard, Bowman, et al., 2011). Recent evidence demonstrates that narratives focusing on other intuitions and needs (e.g., those from self-determination theory, Ryan & Deci, 2000; and some from Maslow’s hierarchy, Maslow, 1987) can affect audience response (Tamborini, Lewis, Prabhu, Grizzard, & Wang, 2012; Tamborini, Prabhu, Wang, Lewis, & Grizzard, 2012). Other research shows similar results with nonnarrative media such as news (Tamborini, Prabhu, Wang, & Grizzard, 2013). These studies raise questions about how audience members who place great value on different needs and intuitions would respond to media that satisfy some needs and leave others thwarted. Whether resultant deliberations produce experiences characteristic of appreciation remains for future research to determine. Prior to this investigation, no research had examined the possibility that dual-process mechanisms might distinguish enjoyment and appreciation. These two studies show that the absence/presence of message content portraying conflicting intuitions can (a) produce the type of fast/slow evaluation times predicted by dual-processes models and (b) produce appraisals consistent with the enjoyment/appreciation distinction found in entertainment literature (Oliver & Bartsch, 2010). As such, these studies provide initial evidence of a dual-process model defining enjoyment and appreciation as two qualitatively different responses (one intuitive, the other deliberative), that stem from the same framework of basic intuitive preferences. In validating this dual-process framework, the present investigation demonstrates the model’s utility as a guide for research investigating these important areas of entertainment theory. Notes 1 A fourth type story ending might be labeled a “mixed negative” ending. Similar to the “all-negative” ending, it is not central to the theoretical distinction between enjoyment and appreciation, and is also not included as the all-negative ending serves the purpose of a comparative base. 2 All narrative stimuli are available upon request. 3 To ascertain the baseline average reading time for each of the narrative endings, participants only read the narrative endings without evaluating them. They were instructed to read at a comfortable pace, and to press the spacebar at the very instant they finished reading. They were given a dozen practice trials each to ensure they understood the task. 4 After the overall comparisons were conducted, the means for individual narrative endings were compared to ensure that the overall findings reported were consistent for all 12 Journal of Communication 64 (2014) 397–416 © 2014 International Communication Association
413
Media Enjoyment and Appreciation
R. J. Lewis et al.
narratives, and not driven by outliers in the stimulus materials. As expected, analysis of appraisal times for the 12 individual narratives used with each of the three ending types was consistent with overall analysis reported in Study 1 results. For 10 of the 12 total narratives, appraisal times for mixed-positive endings were significantly greater than appraisal times for the all-positive endings, whereas differences between mixed-positive and all-negative endings varied. This shows that the overall findings were not due to an abnormality in the stimulus materials, but were consistent across almost all of the narratives.
References American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html doi:10.1037/ 0003-066X.57.12.1060 Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54, 462–479. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.54.7.462. Bryant, J. (1989). Viewer’s enjoyment of televised sports violence. In L. A. Wenner (Ed.), Media, sports, and society (pp. 270–289). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Cohen, J. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication and Society, 4, 245–264. doi:10.1207/S15327825MCS0403_01. Comisky, P., & Bryant, J. (1982). Factors involved in generating suspense. Human Communication Research, 9, 49–58. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1982.tb00682.x. Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 223–241. doi:10.1177/1745691612460685. Giles, D. C. (2002). Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for future research. Media Psychology, 4, 279–305. doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0403_04. Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029–1046. doi:10.1037/a0015141. Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44, 389–400. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027. Gross, J. J., Carstensen, L. C., Pasupathi, M., Tsai, J., Gottestam, K., & Hsu, A. Y. C. (1997). Emotion and aging: Experience, expression, and control. Psychology and Aging, 12, 590–599. doi:10.1037//0882-7974.12.4.590. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814. Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2008). The moral mind: How five sets of innate intuitions guide the development of many culture-specific virtues, and perhaps even modules. In P. Carruthers, S. Laurence & S. Stich (Eds.), The innate mind (Vol. 3, pp. 367–391). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195179675.001.0001. Hoffner, C., & Cantor, J. (1991). Perceiving and responding to mass media characters. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Responding to the screen: Reception and reaction processes (pp. 63–101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 414
Journal of Communication 64 (2014) 397–416 © 2014 International Communication Association
R. J. Lewis et al.
Media Enjoyment and Appreciation
Mares, M. L., & Cantor, J. (1992). Elderly viewers’ responses to televised portrayals of old age: Empathy and mood management versus social comparison. Communication Research, 19, 459–478. doi:10.1177/009365092019004004. Maslow, A. H. (1987). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Santa Monica, CA: Salenger Incorporated. Nabi, R. L., Finnerty, K., Domschke, T., & Hull, S. (2006). Does misery love company? Exploring the therapeutic effects of TV viewing on regretted experiences. Journal of Communication, 56, 689–706. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00315.x. Oliver, M. B. (2003). Mood management and selective exposure theory. In J. Bryant, D. Roskos-Ewoldsen & J. Cantor (Eds.), Communication and emotion (pp. 85–106). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Oliver, M. B. (2008). Tender affective states as predictors of entertainment preference. Journal of Communication, 58, 40–61. Oliver, M. B., & Bartsch, A. (2010). Appreciation as audience response: Exploring entertainment gratifications beyond hedonism. Human Communication Research, 36, 53–81. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01368.x. Piaget, J. (1948). The moral judgment of the child. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. Raney, A. A. (2004). Expanding disposition theory: Reconsidering character liking, moral evaluations, and enjoyment. Communication Theory, 14, 348–369. doi:10.1111/ j.1468-2885.2004.tb00319.x. Raney, A. A., & Bryant, J. (2002). Moral judgment and crime drama: An integrated theory of enjoyment. Journal of Communication, 52, 402–415. doi:10.1111/ j.1460-2466.2002.tb02552.x. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68. Tamborini, R. (1991). Responding to horror: Determinants of exposure and appeal. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Responding to the screen: Reception and reaction processes (pp. 305–328). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Tamborini, R. (2011). Moral intuition and media entertainment. Journal of Media Psychology, 23, 39–45. doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000031. Tamborini, R. (2012). A model of intuitive morality and exemplars. In R. Tamborini (Ed.), Media and the moral mind (pp. 43–74). London, England: Routledge. Tamborini, R., Grizzard, M. N., Bowman, N., Reinecke, L., Lewis, R. J., & Eden, A. (2011). Media enjoyment as needs satisfaction: The contribution of hedonic and non-hedonic needs. Journal of Communication, 6, 1025–1042. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01593.x. Tamborini, R., Grizzard, M. N., Eden, A., & Lewis, R. J. (2011). Imperfect heroes and villains: Patterns of upholding and violating distinct moral domains and character appeal. Paper submitted to the 97th annual meeting of the National Communication Association, New Orleans, LA. Tamborini, R., Lewis, R.J., Prabhu, S., Grizzard, M., & Wang, L. (2012). Media’s influence on the salience of moral intuitions and egoistic motivations. Paper presented at the 98th annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Orlando, FL. Tamborini, R., Prabhu, S., Wang, L., & Grizzard, M. (2013, June). Setting the moral agenda: News exposure’s influence on the salience of moral intuitions. Paper presented at the 63rd Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, London, England. Journal of Communication 64 (2014) 397–416 © 2014 International Communication Association
415
Media Enjoyment and Appreciation
R. J. Lewis et al.
Tamborini, R., Prabhu, S., Wang, L., Lewis, R.J., & Grizzard, M. (2012). Media’s influence on altruistic versus egoistic response. Paper presented at the 98th annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Orlando, FL. Tamborini, R., & Stiff, J. (1987). Predictors of horror film attendance and appeal: An analysis of the audience for frightening films. Communication Research, 14, 415–436. doi:10.1177/009365087014004003. Tamborini, R., Stiff, J., & Zillmann, D. (1987). Preference for graphic horror featuring male versus female victimization: Personality and past film viewing experiences. Human Communication Research, 13, 529–552. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1987.tb00117.x. Vasey, M. W., & Thayer, J. E. (1987). The continuing problem of false positives in repeated measures ANOVA in psychophysiology: A multivariate solution. Psychophysiology, 24, 479–486. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1987.tb00324.x. Vorderer, P. (2009). What do we want when we want narratives? Retrieved from http://sites.google.com/a/newliteracies.co.cc/xin-su-yang-yan-jiu-qun/2009shu-weixu-shi-guo-ji-gong-zuo-fang/1-2-vorderer Vorderer, P., & Knobloch, S. (2000). Conflict and suspense in drama. In D. Zillmann & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Media entertainment: The psychology of its appeal (pp. 59–72). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Vorderer, P., & Ritterfeld, U. (2009). Digital games. In R. Nabi & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Sage handbook of media processes and effects (pp. 455–467). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., & Ritterfeld, U. (2004). Enjoyment: At the heart of media entertainment. Communication Theory, 14, 388–408. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885. 2004.tb00321.x. Vorderer, P., Wulff, H. J., & Friedrichsen, M. (Eds.) (1996). Suspense: Conceptualizations, theoretical analyses, and empirical explorations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Zillmann, D. (1998). The psychology of the appeal of portrayals of violence. In J. H. Goldstein (Ed.), Why we watch: The attractions of violent entertainment (pp. 179–211). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1994). Entertainment as media effect. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 437–461). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. (1976). A disposition theory of humor and mirth. In T. Chapman & H. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and application (pp. 93–115). London, England: Wiley.
416
Journal of Communication 64 (2014) 397–416 © 2014 International Communication Association
