A E J M C Morality Heroes & Villains ( Meghan Sanders)

14
August 2011 1 Meghan S. Sanders Assistant Professor Deputy Director, Media Effects Lab Manship School of Mass Communication [email protected] @LSUMediaMEL

Transcript of A E J M C Morality Heroes & Villains ( Meghan Sanders)

Page 1: A E J M C  Morality    Heroes &  Villains ( Meghan  Sanders)

August 2011 1

Meghan S. SandersAssistant Professor

Deputy Director, Media Effects LabManship School of Mass Communication

[email protected]@LSUMediaMEL

Page 3: A E J M C  Morality    Heroes &  Villains ( Meghan  Sanders)
Page 4: A E J M C  Morality    Heroes &  Villains ( Meghan  Sanders)
Page 5: A E J M C  Morality    Heroes &  Villains ( Meghan  Sanders)

● Having relationships is necessary to enjoyment (Vorderer,

Klimmt & Ritterfeld, 2004)

● Can be equally transporting, suspenseful and cognitively

engaging (Krakowiak & Oliver, 2009)

Page 6: A E J M C  Morality    Heroes &  Villains ( Meghan  Sanders)

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)

Page 7: A E J M C  Morality    Heroes &  Villains ( Meghan  Sanders)

● 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

Page 8: A E J M C  Morality    Heroes &  Villains ( Meghan  Sanders)

Where do we go from here?09/22/11 8

Page 9: A E J M C  Morality    Heroes &  Villains ( Meghan  Sanders)

● 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

Page 10: A E J M C  Morality    Heroes &  Villains ( Meghan  Sanders)

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

Page 11: A E J M C  Morality    Heroes &  Villains ( Meghan  Sanders)

Wilks’ λ=.94, F(2,86)=2.95, p=.06, pη2=.07

Page 12: A E J M C  Morality    Heroes &  Villains ( Meghan  Sanders)

F(2,86)=.14, p>.05, pη2=.003

Page 13: A E J M C  Morality    Heroes &  Villains ( Meghan  Sanders)

● 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

Page 14: A E J M C  Morality    Heroes &  Villains ( Meghan  Sanders)

● 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