1 / 22

International Communication Association San Diego, 23-28 May 2003

Meeting Mediated People Pushing the Ethic, Aesthetic, and Epistemic Borders. Elly A. Konijn Johan F. Hoorn Free University Amsterdam. International Communication Association San Diego, 23-28 May 2003. Overview. Introduction Processing MPs 9 factors Hypotheses Test 1: FCs

hidi
Télécharger la présentation

International Communication Association San Diego, 23-28 May 2003

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Meeting Mediated People Pushing the Ethic, Aesthetic, and Epistemic Borders Elly A. Konijn Johan F. Hoorn FreeUniversity Amsterdam International Communication Association San Diego, 23-28 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) Konijn-Hoorn

  3. Introduction Pushing the Ethic, Aesthetic, and Epistemic Borders Click action button, then ‘play.’ Konijn-Hoorn

  4. Identification? Empathy? Parasocial interaction? How about liking dissimilar others? How about liking real bastards? How are film-mediated characters processed? Similarity, Attractiveness? What misses? - Underlying mechanisms for establishing involvement. - Processing of distance-related features. - Contribution of negative appraisals to appreciation. 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.’ Konijn-Hoorn

  6. H2. Good, beautiful, realistic FCs  high involvement, low distance, positive appreciation. H3. Bad, ugly, unrealistic FCs  low involvement, high distance, negative appreciation. Hypotheses H1. Unipolar, 16 factors free model fits best in CFA. H4. Mixed evaluations (e.g., good-ugly-realistic) counteract H2 and H3 and heighten appreciation. H5. Similarity, relevance, and valence act as mediators and may counteract H2 and H3. H6. Involvement-distance trade-off explains appreciation better than either involvement or distance alone. Konijn-Hoorn

  7. Method Stimuli: 20 minute excerpts from feature films Bridget Gregory Rocky Dennis Cruella de Vil Vlad Dracul Gandhi Superman Edward Scissorhands Johnny Handsome 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 Konijn-Hoorn

  8. Table 1. Design, Stimuli, and Subjects GoodBad BeautifulUglyBeautifulUgly RealisticGandhi Rocky Bridget Johnny n = 39 n = 42 n = 40 n = 39 UnrealisticSuperman Edward Cruella Dracul n = 36 n = 38 n = 37 n = 41 2 (Ethics) x 2 (Aesthetics) x 2 (Epistemics) between-subjects (N = 312). Dependents: Involvement, distance, appreciation. 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. 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. 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). Konijn-Hoorn

  12. 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). 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 FCs negative valence  lowers involvement for Bad + Beautiful Konijn-Hoorn

  15. Results: • Involvement-distance trade-off (H6) Regression Analysis: All FCs Involvement + distance explain 36% of the variance in appreciation (R2= .36, F(2,306)= 84.98, p < .000, distance significantly contributes). Good FCs Involvement + 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. 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  involvement • Negative appraisals  distance • BUT, 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). 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? Konijn-Hoorn

  18. ENCODE COMPARE RESPOND Identification, empathy, sympathy, warm feelings, approach, etc. Involvement % Appraisal domains Ethics dissimilar good irrelevant beautiful negative valence realistic Features of situation and Fictional Character Aesthetics Fuzzy feature sets Mediators Appreciation similar bad relevant ugly positive valence Epistemics unrealistic Subjective norm vs. group norm Aesthetic distance, antipathy, cold feelings, avoidance, etc. Norm Distance % The PEFiC-model Konijn-Hoorn

  19. Tony Blair Saddam Hussein Discussion 2: Test 2 Mediated Persons realistic Osama Bin Laden George W. Bush heroes villains Between Ss design, N = 401, Date: 14-15 Febr. 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. 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 ? Konijn-Hoorn

  22. ? Konijn-Hoorn

More Related