can visual complexity impede impact appreciation of ... · international journal of sport...

454

International Journal of Sport Communication, 2011, 4, 454-472© 2011 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Can Visual Complexity Impede Impact Appreciation of Mediated Sports? Team Identification and Viewer Response to a

Complex Presentation of College Football

R. Glenn CumminsTexas Tech University, USA

Norman E. Youngblood and Mike MilfordAuburn University, USA

Sport telecasts are frequently the showcase and testing ground for innovative broadcast technologies. One particularly novel example is ESPN’s coverage of college athletics via its multiscreen, or mosaic, format. This experiment tested the impact of its visual complexity by comparing the response of fans high and low in team identification to this format versus a traditional presentation of dull and exciting game play. For highly identified spectators, this format was a detriment to their appreciation of game play, whereas the format had little impact for viewers with low levels of team identification. Moreover, independent of degree of team identification, viewers reported a more negative evaluation of this technique than of a traditional broadcast, and results were consistent regardless of the dull or exciting nature of game play.

Keywords: sports broadcasting, technology, media effects

Contemporary sports broadcasts are a showcase for innovative television technologies. For example, a press release from ESPN previewing its coverage of Monday Night Football in 2010 highlighted a “host of new enhancements” including “maxx-zoom,” “a “virtual telestrator,” and 5.1-channel surround sound (“ESPN’s 2010 NFL Studio,” 2010). Sandomir (2004) offered a telling account of the pervasive application of technology in a description of the telecast of the 2004 Sugar Bowl game, which contained “111 replays, 163 informational graph-ics, 262 changes in the corner score box (down and yardage, statistics), 86 crowd or marching band shots, 120 cuts to the coaches, 28 shots of cheerleaders and 20 sideline reports” (p. 2).

Cummins is with the College of Mass Communications, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX. Young-blood and Milford are with the Dept. of Communication and Journalism, Auburn University, Auburn, AL.

Original research

Visual Complexity in Sports 455

This ubiquitous use of technology in sports broadcasting rests on the implicit, although possibly flawed, assumption that these enhancements increase viewer enjoyment of the event. Although research has demonstrated that some visual pro-duction techniques can enhance response to game play (e.g., subjective camera or the “Skycam”; Cummins, 2009), conclusions remain tentative. To wit, Sandomir (2004) later lamented in his review of the Sugar Bowl that the intrusion of technology “has created broadcasts that are more cluttered than a spring break motel room” (p. 2).

One ambitious application of technology in recent years was ESPN’s Full Circle coverage of a number of college sporting events (Cossar, 2006). The initiative supplemented traditional telecasts of college sporting events on the flagship net-work with additional coverage across sister properties (i.e., ESPN2, ESPN Radio). For example, the network used its channel dedicated to college sport coverage, ESPN-U, to feature a multiscreen, or mosaic, presentation of the October 14, 2006, University of Florida versus Auburn University football game (Figure 1; ESPN Full Circle, 2006b). Similar multiscreen broadcasts were employed for additional events, including college football and men’s and women’s basketball (ESPN Full Circle, 2006a, 2007; ESPNU Full Circle, 2006). Stewart (2006) observed that audience response was mixed. Writing about the mosaic presentation of the University of Miami versus Florida State University college football broadcast, he noted that rat-ings for the presentation could be interpreted as either good or bad. Ratings paled in comparison with the traditional telecast, but the rating for the mosaic presentation was actually higher than those of some other sports telecasts.

Figure 1 — ESPN-U’s mosaic-screen presentation of the University of Florida versus Auburn University.

456 Cummins, Youngblood, and Milford

Although ESPN has since abandoned the technique in its television properties, the structure of that mosaic format remains in the network’s online channel, ESPN3, which allows viewers to monitor multiple events simultaneously (Hiestand, 2007). Moreover, content providers have employed similar multiscreen formats to present interactive broadcasts of sporting events (e.g., AT&T’s Multiview; Grotticelli, 2010). This unique format spurs a number of questions, but perhaps the most pressing is whether viewers like the presentation format. The purpose of this study is to exam-ine the combined impact of visual complexity, team identification, and excitement of game play on viewer appreciation and evaluation of a college football game.

Literature Review

Enjoyment of Mediated Sports

The trumpeting of the “latest and greatest” in technology validates scholars’ long-held contention regarding the highly crafted nature of mediated sports (Clarke & Clarke, 1982; Comisky, Bryant, & Zillmann, 1977; Williams, 1977). The evolution of mediated-sports technology follows an interesting trend. The emphasis at one time was on realism and the transparency of mediation in an attempt to make the at-home viewing experience similar to that of the live spectator (Whannel, 1992). The evolution of technology viewers now take for granted changed the nature of sports coverage. For example, Gamache (2010) noted that the evolution of vid-eotape shifted focus in sports programming from mere discussion of scores and player statistics to instant replay. In the early 1970s, ABC “was at the forefront of the movement to incorporate new technologies and techniques into its sports coverage, from instant replay to slow motion” (McChesney, 1989, p. 63). Scholars have recently argued that technology serves to create an experience unparalleled by in-person spectatorship, an event for which there is no real-world counterpart (Real, 1998). For example, contemporary sports broadcasts reflect highly crafted, strategic distortions of time and space through close-ups, slow-motion replays, and visual enhancements of play meant to augment the viewing experience (Morris & Nydahl, 1985; Whannel, 1992). Ironically, technology is now transforming in-person spectatorship—viewing at stadiums has become increasingly mediated by way of larger-than-life JumboTrons like the “world’s largest high-definition screen” at the new home of the Dallas Cowboys (Bell, 2009).

Of interest here is how the packaging of sports via the pervasive application of technology affects the at-home spectator’s enjoyment. The topic of mediated-sports enjoyment has benefitted from an abundance of scholarly exploration, primarily focusing on enjoyment as a function of select user and content elements. For example, researchers have determined that enjoyment varies with viewers’ affec-tive ties to competitors (Zillmann, Bryant, & Sapolsky, 1989), identification with a team (Wann, Royalty, & Rochelle, 2002), suspense (Knobloch-Westerwick, David, Eastin, Tamborini, & Greenwood, 2009; Peterson & Raney, 2008), or the violent, exciting, or dull nature of game play itself (Bryant, Comisky, & Zillmann, 1981; Westerman & Tamborini, 2010).

Admittedly, these ties between the spectator and the athletes, as well as the nature of game play itself, are major determinants of viewers’ responses. However, such elements rest beyond the control of the networks broadcasting the competi-


tions. Thus, these perspectives largely ignore the myriad ways that broadcasters strategically craft the events for mediated consumption (e.g., Billings, 2008; Clarke & Clarke, 1982; Comisky et al., 1977; Williams, 1977). Several scholars have invoked Aristotle’s concept of spectacle to frame their discussion of this deliber-ate process (e.g., Farrell, 1989; Gruneau, 1989; Hansen, 1999; Morris & Nydahl, 1985). In his touchstone treatise on the elements of drama, Aristotle referred to spectacle as the efforts of the “stage machinist” to enhance a dramatic narrative through production elements external to the narrative (Aristotle, 1961, p. 159). He argued that although these efforts are somewhat effective, they remain secondary to the nature of the content. The modern analog to this sentiment is that although game play largely shapes viewer response, network efforts to embellish play serve to supplement the competition.

Although studies have examined the embellishment of sports broadcasts by sportscaster commentary (e.g., Bryant, Brown, Comisky, & Zillmann, 1982; Comisky et al., 1977; Sullivan, 1991), relatively fewer have emphasized visual ele-ments of sports broadcasts (e.g., Cummins, 2009, Greer, Hardin, & Homan, 2009; Hallmark & Armstrong, 1999). Little research has probed the influence of onscreen graphics, much less the impact of visual complexity such as ESPN’s mosaic screen.

Effects of Visual Complexity

On one hand, the abundance of visual elements contained in sports broadcasts is not novel—media screens are becoming crowded with visual elements (Bergen, Grimes, & Potter, 2005). However, the visual complexity inherent in the mosaic screen, where multiple full-motion video elements are presented simultaneously, is qualitatively distinct from past conceptualizations of the concept (e.g., cuts, pans, zooms, transition effects, etc.; Thorson, Reeves, & Schleuder, 1985). The mosaic screen employed by ESPN’s Full Circle telecast is not the sole example of this format (Grant, 2005). Similar interfaces have been used as an electronic program guide allowing viewers to monitor multiple channels of semantically related content (i.e., election coverage, Donohue, 2004; the Olympic games, Stump, 2006). Such experimentation may be the result of the popular contention that today’s media audiences are adept at processing multiple stimuli simultaneously (Pittman, 1990), although the scientific validity of that claim is dubious (Bergen et al., 2005).

Precious little research has examined how the visual complexity endemic to sports broadcasts affects viewer response, save for possible proprietary findings (e.g., Hiestand, 2009). Research examining news content has shown that visually complex messages challenge viewers’ ability to process the abundance of informa-tion they present (Bergen et al., 2005), but subjective response remains uncertain. As noted earlier, Sandomir (2004) cast the glut of production elements in sports broadcasts in a negative light. To the extent that visual complexity interferes with motives for consuming an event, it would serve as a detriment to enjoyment (Vor-derer, Klimmt, & Ritterfeld, 2004). Rhetorically speaking, a simpler image func-tions as a “naturalistic enthymeme” because the audience assumes it to be a more genuine representation of events (Finnegan, 2001, p. 135). Thus it would seem the audience would dismiss a complex image for lacking authenticity.

Scholarship in the field of visual rhetoric and usability also suggests that the mosaic screen runs counter to heuristics for interface design. Much of the discussion


on visual complexity is based on Arnheim’s (1966, 1969) works on art, film, and psychology, particularly on how the brain processes movement and the relationship between order and complexity. In his discussion of how to design effective Web sites, Baehr (2006; Johnson-Sheehan & Baehr, 2001) drew on Arnheim’s concepts of the selective nature of vision, noting that designers use visual elements to focus the user’s attention, ensure that a user’s focal point is narrow, and aid the user in tuning out extraneous sensory information. To some extent, ESPN’s mosaic screen achieves this, because a single element dominates the screen. Viewers can then selec-tively attend to or ignore ancillary elements (Cummins, Tirumala, & Lellis, 2011).

Empirical examinations of Web-site usability bring to bear the importance of user goals in shaping response to visual complexity. Tuch et al. (2009) found that the complexity of Web pages was negatively related to subjective pleasantness ratings, and participants were able to more easily complete a visual search task on lower complexity pages. Deng and Poole (2010) posited that users’ goal states interacted with complexity to govern response. They distinguished between telic, or goal-motivated, browsing and paratelic, or more playful, modes of consump-tion. For media users in a telic state, increased arousal resulting from complexity is perceived as unpleasant because it interferes with task efficiency. But for users in a less goal-driven mode, complexity was positively associated with pleasantness. One could extend these findings to first suggest that the visually complex mosaic interface would be evaluated more negatively than a simpler presentation. Second, viewers who are not as invested in the competition might find the visual complexity enjoyable, whereas viewers with greater involvement in the competition might find it to be a distraction to their more goal-oriented consumption style.

The converse argument could be made, that the mosaic format is uniquely attractive for viewers highly invested in a competition. One tension characterizing the production of mediated sports is satisfying varying audiences: “the general sports fan, the fan of individual sports, or the member of the wider public, inter-ested mainly in big events” (Brooks, 2002, p. 25). One could view the Full Circle initiative as one example of the myriad efforts on the part of content producers to satisfy all these audiences. Research has long documented how sports fans extend the consumption experience by seeking out information ancillary to the game, and the degree to which they do this varies as a function of their level of interest (Gantz, 1981; Gantz, Wang, Paul, & Potter, 2006; Gantz & Wenner, 1995). For example, interactive media in the form of Web sites, fan forums, and in-game chats extend sport consumption beyond the traditional viewing context before, during, and after the game (Brooks, 2002; McDaniel & Sullivan, 1998; Zagacki & Grano, 2005). Moreover, research has demonstrated objective and subjective differences in sports and team knowledge as a function of identification with a team (Wann & Branscombe, 1995).

Content providers continue to develop innovative media portals that provide sports fans with a wealth of unique consumption experiences. Consider as just one example NASCAR Hot Pass from satellite television provider DirecTV, a service that afforded fans “an immersive experience unattainable” on other networks (San-domir, 2007, p. 5). The service provided channels focusing on particular drivers during a race, where viewers could hear in-car audio, hear commentary specifically about that driver, and see the simultaneous presentation of multiple camera feeds via a mosaic presentation. This is but one of several innovative attempts to televise sports


in a unique and specialized format aimed at the most avid fans (Hiestand, 2007, 2008). In this light, the mosaic screen could be an alternative mode of consumption for those with the greatest interest in sports, as it provides a unique and omniscient perspective that allows them to monitor multiple elements simultaneously.

The study with perhaps the most direct bearing is a recent investigation of this same presentation format that used eye tracking to examine viewer attention to the diversity of elements presented in ESPN’s mosaic screen (Cummins et al., 2011). Cummins et al. reported that viewers with the greatest interest in sports enjoyed the format more than those with less interest. Nonetheless, even the most avid fans’ reported enjoyment of the format was at the midpoint of the evaluation scale, hardly a ringing endorsement. Two limitations handicap the utility of these findings. First, the study was absent a comparison of this novel format against a traditional broadcast of the game. More important, it ignored the role of team identification. Thus, the study painted an incomplete picture of viewer evaluation of this particular iteration of visual complexity.

Team Identification and Viewer Response

As previously noted, degree of identification with a team has enjoyed consider-able popularity as a variable governing spectator response to sports. Wann (2006) conceptually defined team identification as “the extent to which a fan feels a psychological connection to a team and the team’s performances are viewed as self-relevant” (p. 332). Research has demonstrated that identification with a team is a central component of highly identified fans’ self-concept (Wann, Royalty, & Roberts, 2000). Wann and Branscombe (1993) noted that this distinction affects numerous facets of spectators’ behavior, and he and his associates have produced a wealth of research demonstrating that degree of identification shapes a host of behav-ioral, affective, and cognitive responses: knowledge of team-relevant information (Wann & Branscombe, 1995), emotional responses to successful and unsuccessful competitions (Wann, Dolan, McGeorge, & Allison, 1994), “basking in reflected glory” after team victories (Wann & Branscombe, 1990), and biased recollections of team performance (Wann & Dolan, 1994), to name just a few. Although highly identified fans may be found for all levels of athletic competition, research has demonstrated that identification with a team is particularly salient for fans of col-lege sports, aiding in the development of a collective community (Clopton, 2008; Wann & Robinson, 2002). Thus, consideration of this individual characteristic is clearly relevant in assessing viewer response to this visually complex presentation.

Hypotheses and Research Questions

In sum, this visually complex format could be uniquely attractive to those with the greatest attachment to the event, because it provides not only a novel format but also more complete coverage via its ability to present multiple perspectives of play. Alternatively, it could be a detriment to the extent that the format interferes with consumption. To divine an answer, this experiment compares the responses of highly identified fans with those low in team identification to both visually complex and more traditional versions of exciting and dull game play. Our three hypotheses serve to validate research demonstrating viewer preference for exciting


play (Bryant et al., 1981), as well as sports enjoyment, as a function of team iden-tification (Wann et al., 1994):

H1: Content high in intrinsic excitatory potential would elicit greater enjoy-ment than content lower in excitatory potential.

H2: Highly identified viewers would report greater enjoyment of the content than those low in team identification.

H3: Excitatory potential of game play and degree of team identification would interact such that highly identified fans would report stronger responses to exciting game play than fans low in team identification.

The research questions are used to examine how visual complexity interacts with characteristics of both content (i.e., excitatory potential of play) and user (i.e., degree of team identification) to shape appreciation of game play, as well as the evaluation of the televised coverage:

RQ1: Will the level of visual complexity affect viewers’ appreciation for game play or subjective evaluation of the broadcast?

RQ2: Will the level of visual complexity interact with degree of team identi-fication to affect viewers’ appreciation for game play or subjective evaluation of the broadcast?

RQ3: Will the level of visual complexity interact with excitatory potential of game play to affect viewers’ appreciation of game play or subjective evalua-tion of the broadcast?

Method

Design and Independent Variables

To address these hypotheses and research questions, a 2 (degree of team identifica-tion) × 2 (level of visual complexity) × 2 (excitatory potential of game play) mixed-measures experiment was conducted. All but one variable, excitatory potential of game play, were between-subjects variables. As such, participants were randomly assigned to view visually complex or simple broadcasts of both exciting and dull game play.

Factorial variation in degree of team identification was achieved by recruiting participants from two different universities. One university was home to one of the teams featured in the stimuli, Auburn University, and the other was unaffiliated with the teams. Participants responded to a 7-item measure of team identification, the Sports Spectator Identification Scale (Wann & Branscombe, 1993). The scale asks participants to respond to items such as “How important is it to you that the Auburn Tigers win?” For all items, responses were made on 11-point Likert-type scales. Responses were highly consistent (Cronbach’s α = .95), and they were aver-aged to produce a single score. We then selected 120 participants reporting either the highest (M = 9.73, SD = .20) or lowest (M = 1.05, SD = .83) levels of team identification for inclusion in the data analysis. We elected this approach because data revealed that team identification and university of recruitment were not identi-cal. That is, data revealed that some “die hard” Auburn fans could be found at both


universities. Independent-samples t test verified the success of group assignment using this approach, t(118) = 79.19, p < .001.Furthermore, a single item gauging affect toward the opponent indicated that the visiting team was equally disliked by those both high and low in identification with the home team, t(118) = .96, p = .34: M = 2.58 (SD = 2.79) for those with high team identification and M = 2.12 (SD = 2.55) for those with low team identification. In sum, identification with the home team varied, but affect toward the opponent was consistently negative.

Visual complexity was conceptually defined as the presentation of multiple simultaneous visual elements to which viewers must attend. It was operationalized here in two levels, high and low, via the use of stimuli from one of two sources. The high-visual-complexity messages consisted of portions of game play selected from ESPN-U’s mosaic-screen telecast of the University of Florida versus Auburn University football game (see the section on Stimuli). The low-visual-complexity messages were corresponding portions of game play from the traditional broadcast on ESPN.

Excitatory potential was conceptually defined as the intrinsic ability of content to excite or arouse. As such, it is viewed here as a property of the content, not the media user. The variable was operationalized in two levels, high and low. Factorial variation was achieved by a pretest in which 15 students enrolled in a graduate-level sports media seminar viewed all stimuli in a random order. Pretest participants responded to a single item for each segment: “Overall, I thought this segment of the game was exciting.” Responses were gauged via 11-point Likert-type scales anchored by strongly disagree (0) and strongly agree (10). Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) verified the success of the manipulation, F(1, 14) = 212.56, p < .001, η2

p = .94, with the three high-excitatory-potential segments

yielding a mean score of 8.58 (SD = 1.16) and the three low-excitatory-potential clips yielding a mean of 3.64 (SD = 1.33).

Participants

A purposive sample of 120 participants was selected from a larger sample of 214 undergraduate students from two large universities. One university was the home institution of one of the teams featured in the stimuli, where levels of identifica-tion with the team would presumably be high. The other was a large Southwestern university that was not geographically proximate to the teams featured in the stimuli and with no affiliation with the teams. From this larger sample, we purposefully selected the 60 participants highest and 60 who were lowest in team identification (see previous section).

The average age of the participants was 20.57 years (SD = 1.07). Most were women (n = 86; 71.7%); 34 were men (28.3%). An ANOVA examining the inter-action of team identification and gender was not significant, F(1, 116) = 2.44, p = .12. Thus, team identification cut across gender lines.

Dependent Variables

The study gauged the impact of these independent variables on participants’ appreciation of game play and evaluation of the broadcast. Participants responded to 12 items after each segment to measure their evaluation of the game action and broadcast format. Data were subjected to principal-components analysis with


varimax rotation to examine the underlying factor structure. After rotation, two factors emerged with Eigenvalues greater than 1.0, explaining 80.64% of total vari-ance. Appreciation of play (Eigen = 7.80, 65.00% variance) consisted of eight items (α = .97) such as “I feel excited after watching that play.” Evaluation of coverage (Eigen = 1.88, 15.63% variance) consisted of four items (α = .90) such as “It was hard to follow the game action in that segment” (reverse coded).

Stimuli

Stimulus materials consisted of six segments of game play taken from the ESPN and ESPN-U telecasts of the October 14, 2006, football game between the University of Florida and Auburn University. Segments contained a succession of sequential plays, with teams consistently on offense or defense in each segment. We controlled for the waxing and waning of team performance throughout a competition by carefully selecting segments depicting successful play (i.e., positive yardage) by the home team. As previously noted, segments were intuitively selected and then pretested to achieve factorial variation in excitatory potential. Segments ranged in duration from 1 min, 23 s, to 2 min, 43 s (M = 149 s, SD = 45.56). However, aver-age duration did not vary as a function of excitatory potential, t(4) = 1.47, p = .22.

Multiple segments were used to operationalize each variable to verify that the effects observed were products of the variables of interest and not the idiosyncrasies of an individual segment (Jackson & Jacobs, 1983). To control for suspense, seg-ments were presented in a randomly determined order, not chronological order. In addition, because we were not interested in the responses to individual segments, responses were averaged within experimental conditions.

Procedure

Participants at both research locations viewed the stimuli in groups in large class-rooms equipped with overhead projectors and speakers. Participants were not told to refrain from interaction, nor were they encouraged to interact. We can offer the qualitative observation that participants recruited from the university represented by the home team featured in the stimuli were more vocal throughout the presenta-tion. Thus, results could reflect a socialized response in addition to the effects of the variables manipulated in the stimuli.

After completing an informed-consent statement, participants were told they would be evaluating a series of clips from a college football game. No mention was made regarding the visual complexity of the clips. After each segment was shown, the presentation was paused while participants responded to the dependent measures via a paper-and-pencil questionnaire. After the presentation, participants responded to items gauging their interest in sports, level of identification with the teams depicted, and demographic items.

ResultsA pair of mixed-measures ANOVAs was used to conduct an omnibus test of the effects of team identification, visual complexity, and excitatory potential of game play. The dependent measure in one test was appreciation of game play, whereas subjective evaluation of coverage was the dependent measure in the second test.


Effects of Excitatory Potential and Team Identification on Appreciation of Play

The first hypothesis served to verify that appreciation of game play varied as a function of its excitatory potential. The test statistic for excitatory potential of play was significant, F(1, 116) = 912.60, p < .001, η2

p = .89. As predicted, participants

reported greater appreciation for plays higher in excitatory potential (M = 8.50, SD = 1.28) than for those lower in excitatory potential (M = 4.00, SD = 1.59). Moreover, the magnitude of the associated effect size reveals the importance of this variable with respect to appreciation of play.

A main effect was also revealed for degree of team identification, F(1, 116) = 19.17, p < .001, η2

p = .14. Participants highly identified with the Auburn Tigers

reported greater enjoyment (M = 6.68, SD = 1.01) than those low in team iden-tification (M = 5.81, SD = 1.16). Moreover, the Team Identification × Excitatory Potential of Play interaction was likewise significant, F(1, 116) = 12.73, p = .01, η2

p = .10. Figure 2 depicts both the main effect for excitatory potential of play and

this interaction. As predicted, participants reported greater appreciation for excit-ing game play than for dull play, and this effect was more pronounced in highly identified fans. Thus, the three hypotheses were supported.

Figure 2 — Effects of excitatory potential of game play and degree of team identification on appreciation of play.


Effects of Visual ComplexityThe first research question asked whether the use of a visually complex interface affected appreciation of play and evaluation of coverage relative to a traditional presentation. Regarding appreciation of play, the test revealed no impact, F(1, 116) = 1.18, p = .28. Thus, the visually complex screen neither hindered nor increased appreciation of play. In contrast, the test examining subjective evaluation of coverage was significant, F(1, 116) = 28.20, p < .001, η2

p = .20. The evaluation of coverage

was significantly lower for those viewing the visually complex stimuli (M = 5.71, SD = 1.87) than for those who viewed a more traditional format (M = 7.26, SD = 1.35). In sum, even though visual complexity did not hinder enjoyment of play, the technique was not endorsed.

The next test examined the combined effects of visual complexity and degree of team identification. To address RQ2, the test statistic for the Visual Complexity × Team Identification interaction was consulted. The interaction for appreciation of play approached statistical significance, F(1, 116) = 3.89, p = .05, η2

p = .03. As

seen in Figure 3, for those viewers low in team identification, the visually complex

Figure 3 — Effects of visual complexity and degree of team identification on apprecia-tion of play.


interface served to slightly enhance appreciation of play relative to the traditional format. However, for highly identified fans, the complex screen was clearly detri-mental to appreciation of play.

Because this interaction approached significance, two subsequent tests were conducted to independently examine the effect of visual complexity on those highly identified and those low in team identification. For those low in team identification, visual complexity had no impact on appreciation of play, F(1, 58) = .33, p = .57. In contrast, an identical test on highly identified viewers found an effect for visual complexity, F(1, 58) = 5.75, p = .02, η2

p = .09. For highly identi-

fied participants, the visually complex screen significantly impeded appreciation of play (M = 6.37, SD = .97) relative to the traditional presentation of game play (M = 6.97, SD = .96).

A similar test examining participants’ subjective evaluation of the format found no Visual Complexity × Team Identification interaction, F(1, 116) = .57, p = .45. Thus, the negative appraisal observed in response to RQ1 was independent of degree of team identification.

The final research question examined the combined effects of visual complex-ity and excitatory potential of play on appreciation of game play and evaluation of coverage. Regarding appreciation of play, the test statistic was less than unity, F(1,116) = .02, p= .88. Likewise, no relationship was observed between the variables in terms of subjective evaluation of coverage, F(1, 116) = .17, p = .68. Thus, the effects observed in the first hypothesis regarding excitatory potential of game play and enjoyment were independent of the visual complexity of the presentation.

Discussion

Although mediated sports are well known for their robust use of visual elements to enhance the presentation of game play (e.g., Sandomir, 2004), ESPN’s Full Circle presentation of sporting events represented a novel degree of visual complexity. Despite the wealth of research examining the elements that shape enjoyment of mediated sports (Raney, 2006), relatively little research has examined how visual enhancements affect appreciation of play. This study examined one novel presen-tation of mediated sports, the mosaic screen that was part of ESPN’s Full Circle coverage of sports (ESPN Full Circle, 2006a, 2006b). Specifically, this study examined how the presentation of both exciting and relatively dull game play in this format affected viewers’ appreciation and evaluation of coverage of the game compared with a more traditional presentation.

Given past research demonstrating viewer preference for aggressive play (Bryant et al., 1981) and enjoyment as a function of team identification (Wann et al., 1994), it is not surprising that viewers reported greater enjoyment of game play high in excitatory potential than of duller play. Moreover, it is intuitive that viewers who identify with the home team in the stimuli enjoyed the presentation more than those with little attachment to the team, and their appreciation of exciting play was greater than that of those with little team identification. Thus, we focus our attention here on the impact of the visual complexity embodied in the stimuli employed in the study.


Effects of Visual Complexity on Viewer Response

The questions unique to this study explored how viewers high or low in team identification responded to the visually complex presentation of college football compared with a traditional telecast. Although research has demonstrated that visual complexity in other media (e.g., Web sites) is negatively related to subjective evaluation, offerings such as ESPN’s Full Circle demonstrate that content providers continue to employ technology in novel ways to reach sports fans. Results sug-gest that viewers were generally less enthusiastic about this format than what they are accustomed to viewing. The evaluation of the network’s game coverage was significantly lower for those who watched the mosaic-style presentation than for those who saw identical play in a traditional format. However, it is also worth noting that the mean ratings for both groups were above the midpoint of the evaluation scale. Thus, although ratings of the mosaic format were lower than those for the traditional coverage, it would be misleading to construe them as wholly negative.

A more telling finding was the relationship between visual complexity and degree of team identification. For those with very low levels of identification with the team featured in the stimuli (i.e., the home team), the introduction of visual complexity was irrelevant to enjoyment of game play. If anything, the format was mildly more enjoyable, although the difference was trivial (see Figure 3). However, viewers highly identified with the home team reported significantly less enjoyment of the game when they viewed it in this visually complex format. No similar inter-action was found for evaluation of the network’s coverage—it was independent of degree of team identification.

To return to our earlier logic, we considered two contradictory arguments. Scholarship examining complexity in Web sites has demonstrated that complexity is negatively related to pleasantness ratings and makes visual search more chal-lenging (Deng & Poole, 2010; Tuch, Bargas-Avila, Opwis, & Wilhelm, 2009). Furthermore, evidence suggests that this relationship is governed by users’ motiva-tional goals. Goal-directed users respond negatively to complexity, whereas those engaged in a more playful and less goal-oriented form of consumption enjoy the arousal generated by it (Deng & Poole, 2010). Conversely, fans most invested in the competition might enjoy this novel format more than those with less investment because it presents more information and affords them an omniscient perspective to monitor (or selectively ignore) as many game elements as they choose. These results dispel that second possibility, and the notion that this alternative presentation may be uniquely attractive to die-hard fans may be flawed (e.g., Armour, 2006). Thus, Deng and Poole’s observations regarding the difference between telic (information-gathering) and paratelic (entertainment) motivations and complexity seem salient here. Despite being in an entertainment mode, highly identified viewers may be more actively engaged in information gathering and not just consuming the event for mere “entertainment.”

A rhetorical look at the nature of the sport-based community may also provide some insight regarding this manifested difference in enjoyment as a function of team identification and complexity. As Crabbe (2008) demonstrates, few things build community faster than sport because of its ability to provide a common point for identification. For fans, the broadcasts of the games function as communal rituals that reinforce collective identity (Gallagher & Zagacki, 2005; Trujillo & Ekdom,


1985; Zagacki & Grano, 2005). The games become a performance of the commu-nity’s values and identity. As Earnheardt and Haridakis (2009) showed, fans relate strongly to teams primarily through mediated broadcasts, often the only means by which fans and athletes can connect. Visual elements play a significant role in these rituals (Gallagher & Zagacki, 2005). As Burke (1931) argues, audiences prefer a form that is consistent with their expectations.

From this perspective, the broadcast is not merely a mediated sporting event but also a mediated communal event, one that must take into account audience expectations. In this light, changes in the format are more than changes in the medium: They are changes in the community’s ritual. The mosaic format ESPN used unflinchingly emphasized the mediated aspect of the broadcast, separating the community from their ritual by violating their form, the set of expectations that play such a significant role in the community’s ritual. If, as Finnegan (2001) argues, the audience considers a natural and realistic image more authentic, the simpler, traditional broadcast provides a simpler visual message that is preferable because it is more powerful; the direct referent allows for a more condensed but potent message. Moreover, visual innovations in sports broadcasts require time for viewers to become accustomed to the intrusion into the viewing experience. Visual elements that are now a common staple of telecasts, such as the game clock and first-down marker, invoked viewers’ ire when first employed (Levine, 2003).

Implications for Sports Broadcasters

Given the finding that evaluations of the mosaic format were lower than those of the traditional broadcast, regardless of level of identification, the question now turns to the benefit of such novel attempts to provide unique viewing experiences. The key for sports producers becomes identifying the audience that would enjoy this omniscient view of game play. Sport consumption is largely driven by allegiance to teams or athletes (Gantz, 1981). As such, production elements have relatively little influence on viewing behavior for fans invested in a favorite team or athlete. But for fans not invested in the featured teams, novel broadcast formats like this could be aimed at creating interest where it would otherwise be absent. Indeed, these results demonstrate that for viewers low in team identification, enjoyment of play was very slightly greater when viewing the event in the visually complex format.

This format may be advantageous in several circumstances. First, the novelty of the format itself might be of interest to sports fans without attachment to either team. Second, broadcasters could select contests that do not feature marquee teams or athletes for application of novel visual elements to stir interest in the event. Obviously, the validity of this remains subject to empirical scrutiny. Finally, sports producers could continue to relegate such offerings to ancillary properties such as ESPN-U or ESPN3, the network’s online channel. This final possibility is reflected in the diversified nature of the Full Circle coverage, allowing viewers to self-select coverage that suits their individual preferences. Changes in media technology allow for greater viewer agency, selectivity, and personalization with respect to media consumption (Bryant & Love, 1996). Moreover, the digitization and migration of media content to proprietary online portals render notions of channel scarcity moot (Anderson, 2006), so content providers can capitalize on audiences, however small, who do have an interest in this or similar novel formats. Both notions are reflected


in ESPN’s online content strategy, be it the ability to selectively monitor multiple events simultaneously (Hiestand, 2007) or the ability to view competitions catered to specific demographics such as ESPN-W, the online channel devoted to women’s sports (Thomas, 2010).

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Despite these interesting findings, a number of limitations necessitate that the results be interpreted with caution. One limitation of this study is the use of previously recorded game play. On one hand, this limits the generalizability of the findings, because using a game whose outcome had already been decided obviously fails to recreate the dynamics of a live viewing situation. Thus, notions of suspense are rendered moot (e.g., Peterson & Raney, 2008), which undoubtedly reduces vari-ance in the outcomes we gauged. On the other hand, by removing suspense from the study’s design, we also effectively controlled for that variable. This results in a purer examination of the variable of interest (i.e., visual complexity), so we may be more confident regarding the relationships we observed.

The most obvious limitation of this study is the use of a single game and opera-tionalization of visual complexity. Visual complexity can refer to a constellation of techniques used to enhance telecasts of athletic competitions. Thus, the decision to test this one form of complexity was based on the use of a convenient and novel iteration of this concept, the mosaic screen. Replication with other events, competi-tors, sports, and different iterations of visual complexity is warranted. Moreover, other dimensions of viewer response may be relevant. Multiple content providers have employed a similar mosaic format but have also allowed viewers to interac-tively select from the various camera angles to view game play (Grotticelli, 2010; Hiestand, 2008). Future research could examine the content and user variables that influence viewers’ propensity to engage in such interactive spectatorship. Thus, behavioral outcomes and not merely evaluation of the format become of interest.

Which specific forms of visual complexity aid enjoyment, and which impede it? How can visual enhancements alter perceptions of game play, and for which members of the viewing audience? Finally, what theoretical mechanisms explain these effects? Despite the wealth of research examining how content producers craft events for at-home spectators, we have only scratched the surface when it comes to the empirical study of the visual components of this process. As such we do not wish to minimize the results reported here; these findings can serve as a step toward pursuing this line of inquiry.

ReferencesAnderson, C. (2006). The long tail: Why the future of business is selling less of more. New

York: Hyperion.Aristotle. (1961). Poetics (Fergusson, F., Trans.). New York: Dramabooks.Armour, N. (2006, December 16). Advances in technology changing the way fans see the

game. AP Newswire, p. 1.Arnheim, R. (1966). Toward a psychology of art: Collected essays. Berkley: University of

California Press.Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual thinking. Berkley: University of California Press.


Baehr, C. (2006). Web development: A visual spatial approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bell, J. (2009, September 18). Cowboys’ new palace in Dallas. USA Today, p. 1C.Bergen, L., Grimes, T., & Potter, D. (2005). How attention partitions itself during simultane-

ous message presentations. Human Communication Research, 31, 311–336.Billings, A.C. (2008). Olympic media: Inside the biggest show on television. London:

Routledge.Brooks, R. (2002). Representing sport. London: Arnold.Bryant, J., Brown, D., Comisky, P.W., & Zillmann, D. (1982). Sports and spectators: Com-

mentary and appreciation. The Journal of Communication, 32(1), 109–119.Bryant, J., Comisky, P., & Zillmann, D. (1981). The appeal of rough-and-tumble play in

televised professional football. Communication Quarterly, 29, 256–264.Bryant, J., & Love, C. (1996). Entertainment as the driver of new information technology. In

R.R. Dholakia, N. Mundorf, & N. Dholakia (Eds.), New infotainment technologies in the home: Demand-side perspectives (pp. 91–114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Burke, K. (1931). Counter-statement. Berkeley: University of California Press.Clarke, A., & Clarke, J. (1982). “Highlights and action replays”—Ideology, sport and

the media. In J. Hargreaves (Ed.), Sport, culture and ideology (pp. 62–87). London: Routledge.

Clopton, A.W. (2008). College sports on campus: Uncovering the link between fan identifica-tion and sense of community. International Journal of Sport Management, 9, 343–362.

Comisky, P., Bryant, J., & Zillmann, D. (1977). Commentary as a substitute for action. The Journal of Communication, 27(3), 150–153.

Cossar, H. (2006). ESPN Full Circle and media convergence. Flow, 5(4). Retrieved from http://flowtv.org/2006/12/espns-full-circle-and-media-convergence/

Crabbe, T. (2008). Fishing for community: England fans at the 2006 FIFA World Cup. Soccer & Society, 9, 428–438.

Cummins, R.G. (2009). The effects of subjective camera and fanship on viewers’ experience of presence and perception of play in sports telecasts. Journal of Applied Communica-tion Research, 37, 453–475.

Cummins, R.G., Tirumala, D., & Lellis, J.M. (2011). Viewer attention to ESPN’s mosaic screen: An eye-tracking investigation. The Journal of Sports Medicine, 6, 23–54.

Deng, L., & Poole, M.S. (2010). Affect in Web interfaces: A study of the impacts of Web page visual complexity and order. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 34, 711–730.

Donohue, S. (2004, October 18). Dish Network casts virtual vote; “Mosaic” election channel brings six nets together. Multichannel News, p. 22.

Earnheardt, A.C., & Haridakis, P.M. (2009). An examination of fan–athlete interaction: Fandom, parasocial interaction, and identification. Ohio Communication Journal, 47, 27–53.

ESPN Full Circle. (2006a, October 10). Florida vs. Auburn. Retrieved from http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2619367

ESPN Full Circle. (2006b, August 21). Florida State vs. Miami. Retrieved from http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2562129

ESPN Full Circle. (2007, March 26). NCAA Women’s Championship. Retrieved from http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/ncaatourney07/news/story?page=fullcircle0403

ESPN-U Full Circle. (2006, February 27). UNC vs. Duke. Retrieved from http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2347040

ESPN’s 2010 NFL Studio and Monday Night Football production. (2010, September 10). Retrieved from http://www.espnmediazone3.com/us/2010/09/10/espn%E2%80%99s-2010-nfl-studio-and-monday-night-football-production

Farrell, T.B. (1989). Media rhetoric as social drama: The Winter Olympics of 1984. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 6, 158–182.


Finnegan, C.A. (2001). The naturalistic enthymeme and visual argument: Photographic representation in the “Skull Controversy.”. Argumentation and Advocacy, 37, 133–149.

Gallagher, V., & Zagacki, K.S. (2005). Visibility and rhetoric: The power of visual images in Norman Rockwell’s depictions of civil rights. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 91, 175–200.

Gamache, R. (2010). A history of sports highlights: Replayed plays from Edison to ESPN. Jefferson, NC: MacFarland.

Gantz, W. (1981). An exploration of viewing motives and behaviors associated with televi-sion sports. Journal of Broadcasting, 25, 263–275.

Gantz, W., Wang, Z., Paul, B., & Potter, R.F. (2006). Sports versus all comers: Comparing TV sports fans with fans of other programming genres. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50, 95–118.

Gantz, W., & Wenner, L.A. (1995). Fanship and the television sports viewing experience. Sociology of Sport Journal, 12, 56–74.

Grant, P. (2005, August 30). New on TV: The multiple-channel screen. The Wall Street Journal, p. B1.

Greer, J.D., Hardin, M., & Homan, C. (2009). “Naturally” less exciting? Visual production of men’s and women’s track and field coverage during the 2004 Olympics. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53, 173–189.

Grotticelli, M. (2010, October 22). AT&T Multiview wins the hearts of sports fans. Broadcast Engineering. Retrieved from http://broadcastengineering.com/news/att-multiview-1022

Gruneau, R. (1989). Making spectacle: A case study in television sports production. In L.A. Wenner (Ed.), Media, sports, & society (pp. 134–154). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hallmark, J.R., & Armstrong, R.N. (1999). Gender equity in televised sports: A comparative analysis of men’s and women’s NCAA Division 1 basketball championship broadcasts, 1991–1995. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43, 222–235.

Hansen, A.D. (1999). Narrating the game: Achieving and coordinating partisanship in real time. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32, 269–302.

Hiestand, M. (2007, November 23). ESPN’s online arm pulls in viewers. USA Today, p. C3.Hiestand, M. (2008, April 18). Tailor-made options with just a few clicks: Viewers can

choose camera angles, check out features. USA Today, p. C3.Hiestand, M. (2009, July 31). “Sports Center” goes Pavlovian. USA Today, p. C3.Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1983). Generalizing about messages: Suggestions for design and

analysis of experiments. Human Communication Research, 9, 169–191.Johnson-Sheehan, R., & Baehr, C. (2001). Visual-spatial thinking in hypertexts. Technical

Communication, 48(1), 22–30.Knobloch-Westerwick, S., David, P., Eastin, M.S., Tamborini, R., & Greenwood, D. (2009).

Sports spectators’ suspense: Affect and uncertainty in sports entertainment. The Journal of Communication, 59, 750–767.

Levine, S. (2003, December 17). Graphics, gadgets grow up. Daily Variety, p. A1.McChesney, R.W. (1989). Media made sport: A history of sports coverage in the United

States. In L.A. Wenner (Ed.), Media, Sports, and Society (pp. 49–69). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

McDaniel, S.R., & Sullivan, C.B. (1998). Extending the sports experience: Mediations in cyberspace. In L.A. Wenner (Ed.), Mediasport (pp. 266–281). London: Routledge.

Morris, B.S., & Nydahl, J. (1985). Sports spectacle as drama: Image, language, and technol-ogy. Journal of Popular Culture, 18, 101–110.

Peterson, E.M., & Raney, A.A. (2008). Reconceptualizing and reexamining suspense as a predictor of mediated sports enjoyment. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52, 544–562.

Pittman, R. (1990, January 24). We’re talking the wrong language to “TV babies.” The New York Times, p. A15.


Raney, A.A. (2006). Why we watch and enjoy mediated sports. In A.A. Raney & J. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of sports and media (pp. 313–329). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Real, M.R. (1998). Mediasport: Technology and the commodification of postmodern sport. In L.A. Wenner (Ed.), Mediasport (pp. 14–26). London: Routledge.

Sandomir, R. (2004, January 7). By the numbers, the college bowl games have less action. The New York Times, p. D2.

Sandomir, R. (2007, February 19). It’s 1 driver per channel on NASCAR Hot Pass. The New York Times, p. D5.

Stewart, L. (2006, September 6). ESPN “Full Circle” doesn’t square with the viewers. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/06/sports/sp-espn6

Stump, M. (2006, February 20). Four screens on five-ring event. Multichannel News, p. 26.Sullivan, D.B. (1991). Commentary and viewer perception of player hostility: Adding punch

to televised sports. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 35, 487–504.Thomas, K. (2010, October 16). An ESPN site for women, but not all are delighted. The

New York Times, p. D1.Thorson, E., Reeves, B., & Schleuder, J. (1985). Message complexity and attention to televi-

sion. Communication Research, 4, 427–454.Trujillo, N., & Ekdom, L.R. (1985). Sportswriting and American cultural values: The 1984

Chicago Cubs. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2, 262–281.Tuch, A.N., Bargas-Avila, J.A., Opwis, K., & Wilhelm, F.H. (2009). Visual complexity of

Websites: Effects on users’ experience, physiology, performance, and memory. Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67, 703–715.

Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., & Ritterfeld, U. (2004). Enjoyment: At the heart of media enter-tainment. Communication Theory, 14, 388–408.

Wann, D.L. (2006). The causes and consequences of sport team identification. In A.A. Raney and J. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of sports and media (pp. 331–352). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wann, D.L., & Branscombe, N.R. (1990). Die-hard and fair-weather fans: Effects of iden-tification on BIRGing and CORFing tendencies. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 14, 103–117.

Wann, D.L., & Branscombe, N.R. (1993). Sports fans: Measuring degree of identification with their team. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 1–17.

Wann, D.L., & Branscombe, N.R. (1995). Influence of identification with a sports team on objective knowledge and subjective beliefs. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26, 551–567.

Wann, D.L., & Dolan, T.J. (1994). Influence of spectators’ identification on evaluation of the past, present, and future performances of a sports team. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 547–552.

Wann, D.L., Dolan, T.J., McGeorge, K.K., & Allison, J.A. (1994). Relationships between spectator identification and spectators’ perceptions of influence, spectators’ emotions, and competition outcome. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 16, 347–364.

Wann, D.L., & Robinson, T.N., III. (2002). The relationship between sport team identifica-tion and integration into and perceptions of a university. International Sports Journal, 6, 36–44.

Wann, D.L., Royalty, J., & Roberts, A. (2000). The self-presentation of sport fans: Investigat-ing the importance of team identification and self-esteem. Journal of Sport Behavior, 23, 198–206.

Wann, D.L., Royalty, J.L., & Rochelle, A.R. (2002). Using motivation and team identifica-tion to predict sport fans’ emotional responses to team performance. Journal of Sport Behavior, 25, 207–216.

Westerman, D., & Tamborini, R. (2010). Scriptedness and televised sports: Violent consump-tion and viewer enjoyment. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 321–337.


Whannel, G. (1992). Fields in vision: Television sport and cultural transformation. London: Routledge.

Williams, B.R. (1977). The structure of televised football. The Journal of Communication, 27(3), 133–139.

Zagacki, K.S., & Grano, D. (2005). Radio sports talk and the fantasies of sport. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 22, 45–63.

Zillmann, D., Bryant, J., & Sapolsky, B.S. (1989). Enjoyment from sports spectatorship. In J. Goldstein (Ed.), Sports, games, and play: Social and psychological viewpoints (2nd ed., pp. 241–278). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

can visual complexity impede impact appreciation of ... · international journal of sport...

Documents