a e j m c morality heroes & villains ( meghan sanders)
Post on 12-Jul-2015
852 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
August 2011 1
Meghan S. SandersAssistant Professor
Deputy Director, Media Effects LabManship School of Mass Communication
msand@lsu.edu@LSUMediaMEL
09/22/11 2
● Having relationships is necessary to enjoyment (Vorderer,
Klimmt & Ritterfeld, 2004)
● Can be equally transporting, suspenseful and cognitively
engaging (Krakowiak & Oliver, 2009)
Connections with Characters:
What We Know
● Viewers care less about what happens to disliked characters (Hoffner & Cantor, 1 991 ),
and distance themselves from them (Konijn & Hoorn, 2005)
● Identification, social attraction, and strength of parasocial relationship can
influence dispositions (Konijn & Hoorn, 2005; Tian & Hoffner, 2007)
● Individual differences factor into the dispositions formed and the enjoyment (Oliver,
1 996; Raney, 2002; Raney, Schmid, Niemann, & Ellensohn, 2009;Weber et al., in press)
● Our own personalities can interact with the type of character, to influence
identification levels and enjoyment (Sanders, 2003)
● Anti-hero’s actions sim ilar to hero’s when it comes to moral judgment (Raney et al., 2009)
Identification rather than moral judgment drives enjoyment
● Morally ambiguous characters are just as realistic, and emotionally enjoyable and
transporting as heroes, and just as cognitively enjoyable as both (Krakowiak & Oliver, 2009)
● Prolonged exposure more strongly polarizes virtue perceptions of heroes and villains,
while neutral characters less virtuous (Tamborini, Weber, Eden, Bowman, & Grizzard, 201 0)
The consequences influence how righteous the outcomes are perceived to be
Perceived righteousness is more in line with more conventional values
● Within character type, variability in perceptions and responses exist (Sanders, 2005)
7
Connections with Characters:
What We Know
Where do we go from here?09/22/11 8
● Do we need a hero and a
villain for enjoyment?
Viewers may impose a moral
category on characters, when
they aren’t explicitly present
Story schemas at play
09/22/11 9
Condition 1N=27
Condition 2N=30
Condition 3N=32
Strong dissimilarity
No justification for bad behaviors
M=2.67 ->M=6.04
Wilks’ λ=.91, F(2,86)=4.45, p<.05, pη2=.09
Wilks’ λ=.94, F(2,86)=2.95, p=.06, pη2=.07
F(2,86)=.14, p>.05, pη2=.003
● Can we change allegiances?
Can a hero become a villain, and a villain a hero?
At what point does moral disengagement turn into engagement?
Does it depend on the infraction?
09/22/11 13
● Moral continuum
Encompass the stringent moral virtues, amorality, and everything in
between
● Which characters lead viewers to deitecally shift (Busselle &
Blandzic, 2008)?
● How is morality used in the cognitive process? (Raney 2002,
2004; Sanders, 201 0)
09/22/11 14
Sanders & Tsay, in progress: http://bit.ly/pz3Cf3
top related