May 2003 Konijn-Hoorn 1
International Communication AssociationSan Diego, 23-28 May 2003
Meeting Mediated People
Pushing the Ethic, Aesthetic, and Epistemic Borders
Elly A. KonijnJohan F. Hoorn
Free UniversityAmsterdam
May 2003 Konijn-Hoorn 2
Overview
• Introduction• Processing MPs• 9 factors• Hypotheses• Test 1: FCs• Disc. 1: Model• Disc. 2: Test 2 (MPs)• Disc. 3: Future
• (reality perception)
May 2003 Konijn-Hoorn 3
Introduction
Pushing the Ethic, Aesthetic, and Epistemic Borders
Click action button,then ‘play.’
May 2003 Konijn-Hoorn 4
How are film-mediated characters processed?
Identification? Empathy? Parasocial interaction?
How about liking dissimilar others? How about liking real bastards?
What misses?- Underlying mechanisms for establishing involvement.- Processing of distance-related features.- Contribution of negative appraisals to appreciation.
Similarity, Attractiveness?
May 2003 Konijn-Hoorn 5
Review: 9 factors
1. Ethics 2. Aesthetics 3. Epistemics
4. Similarity 5. Relevance 6. Valence
7. Involvement (incl. Identification, empathy)
8. Distance
9. Appreciation
Engagement
Measurement unipolar, not bipolar 16 scales e.g. ‘It is so ugly – amazingly beautiful.’
May 2003 Konijn-Hoorn 6
Hypotheses
H6. Involvement-distance trade-off explains appreciation better than either involvement or distance alone.
H2. Good, beautiful, realistic FCs high involvement, low distance, positive appreciation.
H3. Bad, ugly, unrealistic FCs low involvement, high distance, negative appreciation.
H4. Mixed evaluations (e.g., good-ugly-realistic) counteract H2 and H3 and heighten appreciation.
H1. Unipolar, 16 factors free model fits best in CFA.
H5. Similarity, relevance, and valence act as mediators and may counteract H2 and H3.
May 2003 Konijn-Hoorn 7
Method
Stimuli: 20 minute excerpts from feature films
Gandhi BridgetGregory
RockyDennis
JohnnyHandsome
Superman Cruellade Vil
EdwardScissorhands
VladDracul
good bad good bad good bad good bad
beautiful ugly beautiful ugly
realistic unrealistic
Structured questionnaire, 6 to 12 items per scale, 6-point. Cronbach’s .82 < < .97
May 2003 Konijn-Hoorn 8
Table 1. Design, Stimuli, and Subjects
Good Bad
Beautiful Ugly Beautiful Ugly
Realistic Gandhi Rocky Bridget Johnnyn = 39 n = 42 n = 40 n = 39
Unrealistic Superman Edward Cruella Draculn = 36 n = 38 n = 37 n = 41
2 (Ethics) x 2 (Aesthetics) x 2 (Epistemics) between-subjects (N = 312). Dependents: Involvement, distance, appreciation.
May 2003 Konijn-Hoorn 9
Manipulation Check & Controls
Significant main effects as expected, Ethics strongest factor 2 (Ethics) * 2 (Aesthetics) * 2 (Epistemics) ANOVA.
Male (n = 136) and female (n = 175)
equally divided over experimental conditions,
as was their age (mean age 22.4, sd = 5.74, range 17-61).
No significant effects.
May 2003 Konijn-Hoorn 10
Results: Model fit (H.1)
Table 3. Chi-Square, Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) for Four Variants of the PEFiC-model on Item Level
Model df Chi-Square AIC RMSEA
16 factors rigid 5132 10739.50 12567.27 0.065
16 factors free 4902 9639.80 10755.80 0.056
9 factors rigid 5216 12764.36 17476.07 0.085
9 factors free 5128 12309.64 16336.39 0.081
Browne & Cudeck (1993): .01 < RMSEA < .05 = perfect fit; < .08: reasonable fit.
May 2003 Konijn-Hoorn 11
Results: General hypotheses tests
Main effects (H2, H3, H4)
Ethics
Good FCs raise more involvement and appreciation, and less distance than Bad FCs (p < .000, 2 = .56).
Aesthetics
Beautiful FCs raise more involvement than Ugly FCs, but no difference in distance and appreciation (p < .000, 2 = .08).
Epistemics
Realistic FCs raise more involvement and less distance than Unrealistic FCs, but no difference in appreciation (p < .000, 2 = .11).
May 2003 Konijn-Hoorn 12
May 2003 Konijn-Hoorn 13
Interaction effects (H4)
Ugliness compensates badness:Bad FCs raise more involvement when they are ugly than when they are beautiful (Johnny, Dracul).
The beauty of bad FCs increases badness:Heightens distance, and tempers involvement (Bridget, Cruella).
Represented realism attenuates effects of FC-Ethics on appreciation:Unrealistic Bad FCs are appreciated better than Realistic Bad FCs
(Cruella, Dracul).
May 2003 Konijn-Hoorn 14
Results: Mediating Variables (H5)Similarity, Relevance, and Valence
All FCs are rated more dissimilar than similar:Similarity increases involvement, but not appreciation. Dissimilarity does not lower involvement.
Relevance (relevant-irrelevant) affects appreciation more than FC-type:When a Good-realistic FC is irrelevant to the observer positive effects on involvement and appreciation disappear.
Valence intensifies:positive valence higher involvement for Ugly FCsnegative valence lowers involvement for Bad + Beautiful
May 2003 Konijn-Hoorn 15
Good FCsInvolvement + distance explain 46% (R2= .46, F(2,150)= 62.74, p < .000).The best predictor is Distance.
Bad FCs Involvement + distance explain 24% (R2= .24, F(2,153)= 23.95, p < .000). The best predictor is Involvement.
Results: Involvement-distance trade-off (H6)
Regression Analysis:
All FCsInvolvement + distance explain 36% of the variance in appreciation (R2= .36, F(2,306)= 84.98, p < .000, distance significantly contributes).
May 2003 Konijn-Hoorn 16
Conclusions
All specified factors are needed to explain observers’ involvement, distance and appreciation for FCs.
Scales are unipolar, processes are parallel (mixed appraisals).(e.g., that Edward has hands is Realistic, that they are scissors is Unrealistic)
Support for main claims:Positive appraisals involvementNegative appraisals distanceBUT, all kinds of counteracting effects occurred.
(e.g., positive dissimilarity, positive appreciation for bad FCs)
Distance is needed to predict final appreciation best (in combination with involvement).
May 2003 Konijn-Hoorn 17
Discussion 1: PEFiC-Model
• PEFiC explains complicated emotional encounters with FCs,e.g., some like it bad.
• Submodels in PEFiC: Encoding, comparison, response phase.
• Good vs. Bad FCs need different explanatory models?
May 2003 Konijn-Hoorn 18
Norm
Epistemics
Aesthetics
Ethicsgood
beautiful
realistic
bad
ugly
unrealistic
Involvement
Distance
Appreciation
dissimilar
irrelevant
negative valence
similar
relevant
positive valence
%
%
ENCODE COMPARE RESPONDFe
atur
es o
f situ
atio
nan
d Fi
ctio
nal C
hara
cter
Identification,empathy, sympathy,warm feelings, approach, etc.
Aesthetic distance,antipathy, cold feelings, avoidance,etc.
Appraisal domains
Mediators Fuzzyfeature sets
Subjective norm vs.group norm
The PEFiC-model
May 2003 Konijn-Hoorn 19
Discussion 2: Test 2 Mediated Persons
George W. Bush Osama Bin Laden
heroes villains
Saddam HusseinTony Blair
realistic
Between Ss design, N = 401, Date: 14-15 Febr. 2003
May 2003 Konijn-Hoorn 20
Table 1. Means (sd) on the Interpersonal Judgment Scales across Eight Fictional Characters (FC, N= 312) compared to the
means (sd) across Four Mediated Persons (MP, N= 401)
Mean FC Mean MP Epistemics realistic 1.92 (1.11) 2.34 (1.00) + .42
Epistemics unrealistic 2.32 (1.20) 2.61 (1.18) + .29
Relevance relevant 1.88 (1.01) 1.37 ( .86) - . 51
Relevance irrelevant 2.06 (1.03) 2.27 ( .96) + .21
Involvement 1.79 ( .97) 0.92 ( .79) - . 87
Similar results for FC and MP in model fit.
May 2003 Konijn-Hoorn 21
Discussion 3: Future
• Reality perception complicated: • e.g.
realistically represented (e.g., Bridget is realistically represented) vs.
plausibility of meeting in real life (cf. irrelevant?)
• Context, framing, priming ?
May 2003 Konijn-Hoorn 22
?