Sound: Neuendorf Research

Dr. N’s Research on Sound/Music Effects of Music Score Type on Spectator Response

With FRAMES members Andrew Scheid, Matt Egizii, Alex Farmer, & others

Documentary Impact: Moving Image vs. Sound Only vs. Text With Dr. Jill Rudd and FRAMES members Matt Egizii and Rachel Campbell

Audio-visual Translation (AVT): Subtitling vs. Dubbing With FRAMES members Kara Rader and the late Dr. Paul Skalski

Effects of a Laugh Track on Spectator Response With colleagues at Michigan State and at Cleveland State

Contradictory Sound (planned) With FRAMES members Alex Farmer and Tara Burns

Music Scoring Study #1 Paper presented to the International Society for Presence Research,

Philadelphia, PA, in 2012

“Sunset Gates” short film, with three different scores: Version 1: Rock music compilation score Version 2: Orchestral score Version 3: No music

n = 101 CSU students

Generally, the “rock music” condition resulted in depressed (lower) emotional responses, regardless of positive/negative tone, when asked whether the film “made you feel…”

Angryp < .10 overall

Post hocs: Rock vs. Orchestral

0-10 response scale

1-Rock Music 2-Orchestral Music 3-No Music

Music Experiment Condition

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

Mea

n o

f E

3_1_

SG

_Ext

entY

ou

Fel

tAn

gry

Surprisedp < .10 overall

Post hocs: Rock vs. No

1-Rock Music 2-Orchestral Music 3-No Music

Music Experiment Condition

3.5

4

4.5

5

Mea

n o

f E

3_2_

SG

_Ext

entY

ou

Fel

tSu

rpri

sed

Aggressivep < .10 overall

Post hocs: Rock vs. No

1-Rock Music 2-Classical Music 3-No Music

Music Experiment Condition

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Mea

n o

f E

3_5_

SG

_Ext

entY

ou

Fel

tAg

gre

ssiv

e

Tenderp < .10 overall

Post hocs: Rock vs. No

1-Rock Music 2-Orchestral Music 3-No Music

Music Experiment Condition

2

2.5

3

3.5

Mea

n o

f E

3_7_

SG

_Ext

entY

ou

Fel

tTen

der

Fearfulp < .10 overall

Post hocs: Rock vs. Orchestral/No

1-Rock Music 2-Orchestral Music 3-No Music

Music Experiment Condition

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

Mea

n o

f E

3_9_

SG

_Ext

entY

ou

Fel

tFea

rfu

l

Sadp < .05 overall

Post hocs: Rock vs. Orchestral

1-Rock Music 2-Orchestral Music 3-No Music

Music Experiment Condition

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

Mea

n o

f E

3_12

_SG

_Ext

entY

ou

Fel

tSad

Awestruckp < .05 overall

Post hocs: Rock vs. Orchestral/No

1-Rock Music 2-Orchestral Music 3-No Music

Music Experiment Condition

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Mea

n o

f E

3_14

_SG

_Ext

entY

ou

Fel

tAw

estr

uck

Disappointedp < .05 overall

Post hocs: Rock vs. Orchestral

1-Rock Music 2-Orchestral Music 3-No Music

Music Experiment Condition

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

Mea

n o

f E

3_1

5_S

G_E

xte

ntY

ou

Fe

ltD

isa

pp

oin

ted

Remorsefulp < .10 overall

Post hocs: Rock vs. Orchestral/No

1-Rock Music 2-Orchestral Music 3-No Music

Music Experiment Condition

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Mea

n o

f E

3_1

6_S

G_E

xte

ntY

ou

Fe

ltR

em

ors

efu

l

Anticipationp < .05 overall

Post hocs: No vs. Rock/Orchestral

1-Rock Music 2-Orchestral Music 3-No Music

Music Experiment Condition

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Mea

n o

f E

3_21

_SG

_Ext

entY

ou

Fel

tAn

tici

pat

ion

Happyp = n.s.

Other n.s.:

Joyful

Loving

Optimistic

Amused

1-Rock Music 2-Orchestral Music 3-No Music

Music Experiment Condition

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

Mea

n o

f E

3_11

_SG

_Ext

entY

ou

Fel

tHap

py

Music Score Type (Rock vs. Orchestral vs. None) did not relate to: Presence

Social Richness (TPI)

Social Presence-Passive interpersonal (TPI)

Engagement/Mental immersion (TPI)

Situational spatial (MEC)

Spatial presence-self location (MEC)

General evaluations of the film, e.g., Good/Bad

Interesting/Boring

Strong/Weak

Music Scoring Study #2--planned “Chase Her” short film shot and edited

Three genre music types to be produced by composer James Newberry:

Version 1 = Romantic

Version 2 = Noir/Mystery

Version 3 = Action

AVT Study (Dubbing vs. Subtitling) Paper to be presented to the International

Communication Association in Puerto Rico in May 2015

FILM: “Life is Beautiful” (1997) Version 1: Dubbed to English

Version 2: Italian with English subtitles

n = 168 CSU students

Dubbing vs. Subtitling NO simple, main effects differences in:

Recall

Visual

Dialogue

Narrative

Enjoyment

However, interactions were found with certain intercultural experience indicators...

Visual Recall: Condition x Foreign Language Exposure

p < .05

.00 1.00

Dubbed=0 Subtitled=1

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00

3.20

Vis

ua

l Re

cal

l Es

tim

ate

d M

arg

inal

Me

ans

Does anyone in

your immediate or

extended family

speak a language

other than English?

No

Yes

Dialogue Recall: Condition x Foreign Language Exposure

p < .10

.00 1.00

Dubbed=0 Subtitled=1

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00

3.20

Dia

log

ue

Rec

all E

sti

ma

ted

Ma

rgin

al M

ea

ns

Does anyone in

your immediate or

extended family

speak a language

other than English?

No

Yes

Enjoyment: Condition x Intercultural Exposure

p < .01

.00 1.00

Dubbed=0 Subtitled=1

50.00

52.50

55.00

57.50

60.00

62.50

65.00

En

joy

me

nt

Es

tim

ate

d M

arg

ina

l M

ea

ns

Intercultural

Exposure

Low Exposure

High Exposure

Documentary Modality Study:

Paper presented to the National Communication Association, Orlando, FL, 2012

200 participants recruited from introductory courses in Communication at CSU, randomly assigned to four online conditions:

Version 1: Video (n=69)

Version 2: Sound-only (n=43)

Version 3: Transcript (n=52)

Version 4: Control Group (n=36)

Footage of first-person source:

“B” roll/cutaway images:

Documentary:NO Differences among the Three Delivery Modes (Video vs. Sound Only vs. Transcript):

ATP – Attitudes Toward Prisoners (17 item scale; Melvin et al.)

ATP Women – Attitudes Toward Women Prisoners (17 item scale)

Narrative Transportation (10 item scale; Green & Brock)

Presence of several types (scales for TPI Active Interpersonal, TPI Engagement, TPI Social Richness, MECA Attention Allocation)

Documentary:Key Differences among the Three Delivery Modes

Enjoyment (13 item scale, adapted from Krcmar & Renfro) (p = .059)

Video = 29.98 Sound only = 34.78 Transcript = 33.42

Total Knowledge (11 item scale) (p = .040) Video = 8.54 Sound only = 8.19 Transcript = 9.23

Effects of a Laugh Track on Spectator Response—Two Studies

Study #1—Published in 1988 in Central States Speech Journal

Study #2—Published in 2009 in Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media

Still almost the only studies published on this topic

Laugh Track Study #1 Segment of film Nobody’s Perfekt (1981) was used in two versions:

Version 1: No laugh track

Version 2: Laugh track (added, edited from comedy albums by Richard Pryor)

n = 94 students at Michigan State University, in groups of 3-5

Participants were video recorded as they viewed, and their “mirth behaviors” were coded

Laugh Track Study #1--Results Impact on Perceived Funniness Ratings:

Laugh Track vs. No Laugh Track had no impact

Group membership had a significant impact

Scene (n=6) had a significant impact

Impact on Mirth Behaviors: Laugh Track produced significantly more mirth than No Laugh Track

Group membership had a significant impact

Scene (n=6) had a significant impact

Also, there was a positive correlation (r = .66) between Scene funniness and Scene behavioral effect (effect of laugh track)

30

Laugh Track Study #2

Experimental design: 4 episodes of Andy Griffith Each in two versions

Version 1: No laugh track (serendipitous acquisition by co-investigator Jim Denny)

Version 2: Laugh track

Subjects = 114 students at CSU, in groups of 2-5

Subjects were video recorded as they watched the episode

31

Total perceived funniness scores (across 20 comic points) by condition and episode

6574

127

8376

94

62 65

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Opie theBirdman

Black Dayfor

Mayberry

Opie's I ll-GottenGains

Up inBarney's

Room

No LaughTrack

LaughTrack

Main effect for laugh track: ns

Main effect for episode: F(3,106)=5.32, p=.002

Interaction effect: F(3,106)=3.06, p=.031

32

Social presence/active interpersonal by condition

7.1

10.3

15.9

8.4

10.8

12.6

7.6

10.8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Opie theBirdman

Black Dayfor

Mayberry

Opie's I ll-GottenGains

Up inBarney's

Room

No LaughTrack

LaughTrack

Main effect for laugh track: F(1,106)=0.01, p=.91

Main effect for episode: F(3,106)=1.95, p=.13

Interaction effect: F(3,106)=4.49, p=.005

33

Engagement Presence by condition

20.923.7

31.3

17.7

24.827.3

18.9 18.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Opie theBirdman

Black Dayfor

Mayberry

Opie's I ll-GottenGains

Up inBarney's

Room

No LaughTrack

LaughTrack

Main effect for laugh track: F(1,106)=0.86, p=.36

Main effect for episode: F(3,106)=1.79, p=.15

Interaction effect: F(3,106)=2.78, p=.045

Contradictory Sound (planned)

A most BASIC test of whether we believe our ears or our eyes

Footage shot and edited; instrument prepared

Examples: Running man steps on metal plate, we hear splash

Running man steps on plastic bottle, we hear glass breaking

Car drives away, we hear a bus

Man runs into boxes, we hear bottles

end