From Film to the Web: Presence and the Medium Kimberly A. Neuendorf, Ph.D. Director, Communication Research Cleveland State University and Professor, School of Communication, Cleveland State University

August 24, 2006Neuendorf, Presence 2006 A Model, rather than a List This presentation lays a foundation for the development of a model of presence that considers the form and content characteristics of a medium, the various types of presence, and the range of outcomes of presence. This model development process relies on five assumptions:

August 24, 2006Neuendorf, Presence 2006 Assumption #1: Form is important Media form has influenced presence potential, and differentially across the types of presence (e.g., Lombard & Ditton et al.’s (2000) six types; or, Biocca, Harms, & Burgoon’s (????) work toward three “orders” of social presence in mediated communication).

August 24, 2006Neuendorf, Presence 2006 Film has been called “the original immersive medium” (Neuendorf, 2004). It includes many unique presence-inducing characteristics, especially when experienced in the darkened environment of a movie theater (Steuer, 1995). Radio, recordings, and pod-casting have capitalized on the auditory capacity, while print media have emphasized the pictorial. The evolving online environment has introduced new modes of presence induction, such as the immediacy of both visual and auditory cues. Gaming has adopted much of the “language” of film to ensure a level of familiarity that may be presence-invoking (Manovich, 2001).

August 24, 2006Neuendorf, Presence 2006 Assumption #2: Content is important While the importance of considering content as well as form has been acknowledged on occasion (e.g., Bracken & Botta’s (2002) inclusion of TV genre type; Lombard & Ditton, 1997), the majority of presence studies have emphasized form over content.

August 24, 2006Neuendorf, Presence 2006 Assumption #3: Interactions are possible Possible interactions between form and content should also be considered. e.g., For example, a study of reactions to presidential candidates during the 2000 debates indicated that large-screen presentations may lead to decreased presence evaluations (Bracken, Neuendorf, & Jeffres, 2003). Here, the content (i.e., faces of politicians) and form (i.e., large-screen closeups) may have interacted; large-screen closeups of other content types (e.g., sports footage, nature scenes) have tended to result in higher presence outcomes.

August 24, 2006Neuendorf, Presence 2006 Assumption #4: Critical variables should come from existing literature Existing theories from media and communication literatures need to be accessed to help identify “critical variables” in the study of presence. Neuendorf’s (2002) notion of “critical variables”—e.g., ????

August 24, 2006Neuendorf, Presence 2006 Neuendorf (2004)--An examination of classic film literature is illustrative for the investigation of form attributes of film, including Hugo Munsterberg’s (1916) analysis of film form as mirroring mental activity; Sergei Eisenstein’s work during the 1920’s that considered precise filmic techniques that generate cross-modal (synesthetic) sensations; Pudovkin’s contention that sound reproduction has greater veracity than pictorial reproduction.

August 24, 2006Neuendorf, Presence 2006 Other media and communication theories may be accessed—e.g., genre theory, expectancy theory, and uses and gratifications may aid in an understanding of the contribution of content elements in the cases of film, radio, television, gaming, and recorded music.

August 24, 2006Neuendorf, Presence 2006 Assumption #5: Outcomes/effects of presence are ??? Efforts should be made to develop a more comprehensive approach to modeling presence types, media form and content, and theory and effects. Seminal attempts to typologize media by presence potential have maintained a narrow focus on particular presence types (e.g., Short, Williams, & Christie’s (1976) treatment of social presence) or on specific applied contexts (e.g., Rice’s (1992) exploration of media in organizational task settings).

August 24, 2006Neuendorf, Presence 2006 The Resulting Model Thus, a model ought to be developed that considers: –(a) both the main effects and interactions of –(b) form and content in –(c) producing various types of presence, and –(d) leading to presence profiles that moderate communication effects in different ways, –(e) and outcomes that are also influenced by other important variables.

August 24, 2006Neuendorf, Presence 2006 form content interactions of form & content presence profiles communication outcomes communication exposure other variables The Resulting Model

August 24, 2006Neuendorf, Presence 2006 Example: Magic Lantern Shows (1600s through 1800s) The original “4D” experience >

August 24, 2006Neuendorf, Presence 2006 form content interactions of form & content presence profiles communication outcomes communication exposure other variables Example: Magic Lantern Shows (1600s through 1800s)

August 24, 2006Neuendorf, Presence 2006 Large image Multiple senses Horror Fantasy e.g., Horror + Multiple senses = greater visceral response High physical presence Low social presence Fear Flight reaction Group exposure Occasional exposure Audience effects Low wearout potential Example: Magic Lantern Shows (1600s through 1800s)

August 24, 2006Neuendorf, Presence 2006 Example: Hale’s Tours (Years???)

August 24, 2006Neuendorf, Presence 2006 Example: The Website and Social Presence Karen Derby thesis

August 24, 2006Neuendorf, Presence 2006 Example: The home film viewing experience— emulating the theatrical experience Some, notably those who grew up with theatrical movie-going, are outfitting their environment--e.g., popcorn machines, theater seating... a “ pseudo-theatrical ” viewing context A type of second-order “theatrical presence,” the feeling that one is viewing in a theater surrounded by others, is something that some want to recapture—so some new DVDs are including audience reactions! (e.g., Robert Rodriguez) >

August 24, 2006Neuendorf, Presence 2006 Early Film and Presence Types (from Marsh, 2003) Voyeuristic:Actualities (e.g., Lumieres) Visceral:“Cinema of Attractions” (e.g., Melies) VicariousNarrative form (e.g., Hepworth, Porter, Griffith)