1. May 2003Konijn-Hoorn1 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

2. May 2003Konijn-Hoorn2 Overview Introduction Processing MPs 9 factors Hypotheses Test 1: FCs Disc. 1: Model Disc. 2: Test 2 (MPs) Disc. 3: Future (reality perception)

3. May 2003Konijn-Hoorn3 Introduction Pushing the Ethic, Aesthetic, and Epistemic Borders Click action button, then ‘play.’

4. May 2003Konijn-Hoorn4 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?

5. May 2003Konijn-Hoorn5 Review: 9 factors 1. Ethics 2. Aesthetics3. Epistemics 4. Similarity 5. Relevance6. 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.’

6. May 2003Konijn-Hoorn6 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.

7. May 2003Konijn-Hoorn7 Method Stimuli: 20 minute excerpts from feature films Gandhi Bridget Gregory Rocky Dennis Johnny Handsome Superman Cruella de Vil Edward Scissorhands Vlad Dracul goodbadgoodbadgoodbadgoodbad beautifuluglybeautifulugly realisticunrealistic Structured questionnaire, 6 to 12 items per scale, 6-point. Cronbach’s.82 <  <.97

8. May 2003Konijn-Hoorn8 Table 1. Design, Stimuli, and Subjects GoodBad BeautifulUglyBeautifulUgly Realistic GandhiRockyBridgetJohnny n = 39 n = 42 n = 40 n = 39 Unrealistic SupermanEdwardCruellaDracul n = 36 n = 38 n = 37 n = 41 2 (Ethics) x 2 (Aesthetics) x 2 (Epistemics) between-subjects ( N = 312). Dependents: Involvement, distance, appreciation.

9. May 2003Konijn-Hoorn9 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.

10. May 2003Konijn-Hoorn10 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 ModeldfChi-SquareAICRMSEA 16 factors rigid513210739.5012567.270.065 16 factors free 49029639.80 10755.800.056 9 factors rigid521612764.3617476.070.085 9 factors free512812309.6416336.390.081 Browne & Cudeck (1993):.01 < RMSEA <.05 = perfect fit; <.08: reasonable fit.

11. May 2003Konijn-Hoorn11 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).

12. May 2003Konijn-Hoorn12

13. May 2003Konijn-Hoorn13 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).

14. May 2003Konijn-Hoorn14 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

15. May 2003Konijn-Hoorn15 Good FCs Involvement + distance explain 46% ( R 2 =.46, F (2,150) = 62.74, p <.000). The best predictor is Distance. Bad FCs Involvement + distance explain 24% ( R 2 =.24, F (2,153) = 23.95, p <.000). The best predictor is Involvement. Results: Involvement-distance trade-off (H6) Regression Analysis: All FCs Involvement + distance explain 36% of the variance in appreciation ( R 2 =.36, F (2,306) = 84.98, p <.000, distance significantly contributes ).

16. May 2003Konijn-Hoorn16 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 dis similarity, positive appreciation for bad FCs) Distance is needed to predict final appreciation best (in combination with involvement).

17. May 2003Konijn-Hoorn17 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?

18. May 2003Konijn-Hoorn18 Norm Epistemics Aesthetics Ethics good beautiful realistic bad ugly unrealistic Involvement Distance Appreciation dissimilar irrelevant negative valence similar relevant positive valence % % ENCODECOMPARERESPOND Features of situation and Fictional Character Identification, empathy, sympathy, warm feelings, approach, etc. Aesthetic distance, antipathy, cold feelings, avoidance, etc. Appraisal domains Mediators Fuzzy feature sets Subjective norm vs. group norm The PEFiC-model

19. May 2003Konijn-Hoorn19 Discussion 2: Test 2 Mediated Persons George W. Bush Osama Bin Laden heroes villains Saddam Hussein Tony Blair realistic Between Ss design, N = 401, Date: 14-15 Febr. 2003

20. May 2003Konijn-Hoorn20 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 unrealistic2.32(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.

21. May 2003Konijn-Hoorn21 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 ?

22. May 2003Konijn-Hoorn22 ?