Moral Judgement as a Predictor of Enjoyment of Crime Drama

Requests for reprints should be sent to Arthur A. Raney, Department ofCommunication, 356 Diffenbaugh Building, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL323061531. E-mail: [email protected]

Moral Judgment as a Predictor ofEnjoyment of Crime Drama

Arthur A. RaneyDepartment of Communication

Florida State University

The goal of the study is to better understand the relationship between factorsinvolved in moral judgment of entertainment and the enjoyment of crimedrama. After completing numerous social-justice measures, the 139participants viewed one of two clips from a crimepunishment movie and thenresponded to survey items regarding their enjoyment of the clip. The clipsdiffered in the type of crime presented. It was predicted that the differentcrimes would elicit different levels of moral judgment about the punishmentsfor those crimes, which would then impact enjoyment. Although the levels ofenjoyment reported for the two clips were similar, enjoyment was predicted bydifferent factors of moral judgment in each condition, as predicted. The resultslend further support to disposition theory and the integrated model of crime-drama enjoyment, as well as identify factors of moral reasoning thatconsistently serve as predictors of crime-drama enjoyment.

Crime on television and in motion pictures has been the subject of myriad socialcritiques (e.g., Lowenthal, 1999; Medved, 1992; U.S. House Subcommittee onTelecommunications and Finance, 1994) and scholarly inquiries (e.g., Dominick,1973; Grabe, 1996; Peff l e y, Shields, & Williams, 1996). Although scrutiny is mostoften directed at the potential negative effects of such fare, some researchers haveattempted to understand the mass appeal or the enjoyment of media violence andcrime (see Goldstein, 1998, for an overview). One key factor in determining theappreciation of all dramatic entertainment is the resolution of conflict betweencharacters (Raney, in press); specifically for crime dramas, this resolution ispresented as the enacting of some sense of justice. Although the role of justiceoutcomes has been identified as important to entertainment, few specifics areknown about how an individuals sense of moral judgment might influence theevaluation of these justice outcomes, and thus influence enjoyment. The presentstudy seeks to explore this process by examining the relationship betweenpsychological factors related to moral judgment and the enjoyment of crime drama.

MEDIAPSYCHOLOGY, 4,307324.Copyright 2002, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

3 0 8 RANEY

Although much criticism is levied at the violence contained within crimedrama, this genre of media entertainment is much more than a series of relatedacts of aggression. Most often, the violence has a context, a purpose, a message,or a value. Typically a violent criminal action and the subsequent (often-violent)punishment for that action are at the heart of the story line. This standard formulaseems to define the genre: A crime is committed causing an injustice that resultsin the need for some form of retribution or punishment to restore justice. (Note:Hereafter, this series of events will be referred to as a justice sequence.) Violenceis often the means through which justice and injustice are wrought, but the justicesequence as a whole is what is ultimately most important to the story line.

With that in mind, it seem reasonable to suggest that these crimepunishmentdyads make a statement about what is a fair and appropriate retribution for thegiven crime; that is, they each make some statement about justice. In turn, eachjustice sequence also communicates a sense of justice (or just-ness) to theaudience. The sequences make a statement about justice, and the audiencemembers hear/see those statements.

Furthermore, it seems reasonable to suggest that the viewer can then subjectthese justice statements to rigorous moral reasoning. For instance, when a viewerwatches the officers on NYPD Bluearrest and cart to prison the gang initiateresponsible for a drive-by shooting, she may consider whether jail time is anappropriate punishment for the killing, according to her personal sense of justice.Based on that sense, the viewer may disagree with the punishment portrayed. Forinstance, she may hold to a strict lex-talionicprinciple of justice, and thereforefavor a more severe or retaliatory punishment for the suspect.

Ultimately, each viewer can weigh the crimepunishment sequence againsthis or her own sense of moral propriety to determine whether justice was served.Evidence from the active audience and uses and gratification (e.g., Katz,Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974), contextual features of media violence (e.g., Kunkelet al., 1995; Potter, 1997), media literacy (e.g., Potter, 2001), and media effects(e.g., Jose & Brewer, 1984; Zillmann, 1998; Zillmann & Bryant, 1975) literaturesuggests that these evaluations do indeed take place. Consequently, it seemsreasonable to suggest that the outcome of the comparative process will impact aviewers enjoyment1 of the sequence and the drama as a whole. The mainobjective of the present study is to investigate this proposition.

In addressing the role of moral judgment in enjoyment, Zillmann (2000)noted that great variability exists between individuals with regard to notions ofsocial justice, propriety, and retributive equity. Therefore, how viewers judge thejustice presentations will greatly vary as well. Zillmann stated, In constructingtheories of drama appreciation that involve moral sanction as an essentialmechanism it is therefore imperative to recognize, and make allowances for, thediversity of basal morality in strata of the population at large (pp. 6061). Thepresent study investigates how the comparison between a crime dramas

statement of justice and a viewers personal notion of social justice ultimatelyaffects the enjoyment of the crime drama.

THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The most comprehensive explanations of the enjoyment of various media contentare the disposition-based theories forwarded by Zillmann and his colleagues. Intheir most basic forms, disposition-based theories indicate that enjoyment ofmedia content is a function of a viewers affective disposition toward charactersand the outcomes associated with those characters. In sum, enjoyment increasesas positive outcomes are experienced by liked characters and/or negativeoutcomes are experienced by disliked characters. Conversely, enjoymentdecreases as negative outcomes are experienced by liked characters and/orpositive outcomes are experienced by disliked characters. Support fordisposition-based theories has been demonstrated with humorous content(Zillmann, Bryant, & Cantor, 1974; Zillmann & Cantor, 1972, 1976), sportsspectatorship (Sapolsky, 1980; Zillmann, Bryant, & Sapolsky, 1989; Zillmann &Paulus, 1993), dramatic content in general (Zillmann, 1994, 2000; Zillmann &Cantor, 1976), fright-inducing drama (Hoffner & Cantor, 1991; Oliver, 1993),action films (King, 2000), reality-based programming (Oliver, 1996), and newsprogramming (Zillmann, Taylor, & Lewis, 1998).

Of specific interest for the current project is the moral-sanction theory ofdelight and repugnance (Zillmann, 2000). The theory serves as an extension ofthe more general disposition theory of mirth (Zillmann & Cantor, 1976) and asthe most comprehensive explication of the nature of drama appreciation to date.The model predicts enjoyment of drama in which positive or hoped-for outcomes(i.e., justice conditions) and/or negative and feared-for outcomes (i.e., injusticeconditions) are presented. More specifically, in situations involving justice,witnessing the victimization of a disliked antagonist at the hands of a likedprotagonist fosters delight (i.e., enjoyment). The intensity of that enjoymentincreases with (a) the liking of the protagonist, (b) the disliking of the antagonist,and (c) the extent to which the antagonist is deemed deserving of a particularvictimization.

In contrast, in situations involving injustice, witnessing the victimization of aliked protagonist at the hands of a disliked antagonist fosters repugnance (i.e.,counterenjoyment). The intensity of that counterenjoyment increases with (a) theliking of the protagonist, (b) the disliking of the antagonist, and (c) the extent towhich the protagonist is deemed undeserving of a particular victimization.

The theory is perfectly intuitive and seems to mirror our social relationships:Humans tend to like it when good things happen to their friends and dislike itwhen bad things happen to those same people. Furthermore, humans tend todislike it when good things happen to their enemies, whereas they tend to find

M O R A LJ U D G M E N TAND ENJOYMENT 3 0 9

3 1 0 RANEY

delight in the misfortunes of those same enemies. One leading rationale for thispattern of evaluation is based in justice considerations. Specifically, we like itwhen good things happen to our friends (or a liked character in a drama) becausewe think that those people deserve to receive good things; their benefaction iswhat is just. Similarly, we dislike it when an enemy (or a disliked character in adrama) prospers because we do not think that they deserve such; in such a case,an injustice occurs. Good people deserve benefaction; bad people deservemisfortune. These justice considerations are accepted as a key mechanism in alldisposition-based theories of enjoyment (Raney, in press).

Furthermore, with dramatic content, moral judgments of justice also dictatehow dispositions toward characters are formed, altered, and maintained(Zillmann, 1994, 2000). That is, a viewers moral judgment of a charactersbehaviors determines the extent to which the character is liked or disliked. So itfollows that we form more positive dispositions toward those characters whosebehaviors best fit within our sense of moral propriety. Likewise, we form morenegative dispositions toward those characters whose behaviors least fit withinour sense of moral propriety. Consequently, Zillmann (2000) suggested thatviewers of drama must act as untiring moral monitors, who continually renderverdicts about the rightness or wrongness of a characters actions. As a result,when viewing a drama, we like characters whose actions we judge as proper ormorally correct, whereas we dislike characters whose actions we judge asimproper or morally incorrect. As with all disposition-based theories, thestrength of these affective dispositions falls along a continuum of affect, andbecause of our constant moral monitoring, these dispositions are subject tochange as the drama progresses.

Zillmann and Bryant (1975) first demonstrated the role of moral judgment inthe formation of affective dispositions in drama. In the study, children at varyinglevels of moral development (based on Kohlberg, 1981, and Piaget, 1948)viewed one of three versions of a fairy tale. The plot of the tale involved a goodking who has an opportunity to punish his evil predecessor who had previouslyplanned to banish the good king to the kingdoms wasteland. The three versionsdiffered in the severity of punishment enacted by the good king: an under-retribution condition in which the evil king was forgiven, an equitable-retributioncondition in which the evil king received the banishment that he had planned forthe good king, or an excessive-retribution condition in which the evil king waspublicly beaten and imprisoned for life. It was predicted that the older children(7- to 8-year olds), who were assumed to be at higher stages of moraldevelopment, would be free to enjoy the equitable-retribution version, but not theunder- or excessive-retribution ones that violated their sanctions of moralpropriety. In contrast, younger children (4-year olds), who were assumed to be atan earlier stage of development, would be unable to make such moral judgmentbased distinctions and would, thus, enjoy the condition in which the wrong had


been most appropriately righted (i.e., the excessive-retribution condition).These predictions were supported in full and were further validated by Zillmannand Cantor (1977).

As a result, the role of moral judgment in the enjoyment of dramaticentertainment is generally accepted. Because individuals hold different levelsand notions of moral propriety (Zillmann, 2000), it follows that these differinglevels and notions lead to different enjoyment experiences between people.Disposition-based theories address this fact by conceptualizing dispositionalaffiliation and enjoyment along a continuum. However, to date disposition-basedtheories in general and the moral sanction theory more specifically, althoughassuming individual differences in basal morality, have not directly sought topredict enjoyment based on those differences.2 Again, the moral sanction theorysuggests that enjoyment is predicted by a viewers evaluation of the outcomesassociated with characters with whom some affiliative disposition has beenformed. Furthermore, those affiliative dispositions are said to be formed basedon the viewers moral judgment of the charactersbehaviors. It seems to followthat, if we better understand how a viewer makes these moral judgments (i.e.,better understand the moral-judgment criteria for an individual viewer), wemight better predict how she or he will judge the behaviors of characters (andthus better understand how, in what direction, and with what intensitydispositions are formed, and ultimately better predict enjoyment).

Raney and Bryant (2002) took the perspective outlined above in relation tocrime-based entertainment. The researchers attempted to extend moral sanctiontheory to include the identification of individually held notions of social justiceas predictors of dispositional affiliation and thus enjoyment. The resultingintegrated model of enjoyment of crime drama suggests that both affective(traditionally associated with disposition-based theories; specifically, empathy)and cognitive factors influence the enjoyment of a crime drama (see Fig. 1).These cognitive factors include ones personally held notions of social justice,which are then used as the interpretive or evaluative lens through whichcharacters and their behaviors are judged and dispositions formed. Two majorcomponents of social justiceattitudes about vigilantism and punitivepunishment3have been identified as key cognitive inputs that predict how thebehaviors of characters within a crime drama are evaluated, disposition areformed, and ultimately enjoyment is ascribed. An initial evaluation lent supportto the integrated model, with enjoyment of a crime drama being predicted bothby empathy (in keeping with disposition and moral sanction theory) and the twocomponents of social justice. The current work serves as a further examinationof the Raney and Bryant (2002) model.

3 1 2 RANEY

Figure 1. An integrated model of crime-drama enjoyment from Raney and Bryant (2002).

According to the integrated model of enjoyment, the affective and cognitivefactorsthat is, empathy, attitudes about vigilantism, and attitudes aboutpunitive punishmentwill be used to evaluate the charactersbehaviors, inparticular the crime(s) and punishment(s), resulting in actual moral judgments.These moral judgments ultimately lead to the formation of a dispositionalaffiliation with the characters. Those dispositional affiliations seemingly wouldbe comprised of two key components: affect toward the victim and/or villain (asinfluenced by subjectively held levels of empathic concern) and cognitionsregarding the justice enacted by or deservedness for the punishment(s) in light ofthe crime(s) (as influenced by the individually held notions of social justice).And because the support for moral sanction theory indicates that dispositionalaffiliations predict enjoyment, it follows that the measure of a viewers sympathyand of a viewers attitudes about the propriety of the enacted justice will directlyimpact a viewers enjoyment of the presentation.

In summary, Raney and Bryant (2002) contended that empathy and social-justice attitudes held by each viewer will impact a viewers moral judgmentsabout the characters and their actions in a crime drama. The outcome of thesemoral evaluationsoperationalized for this study as sympathy toward the plightof the victim and an evaluation of the deservedness of the criminals

punishmentare then thought to impact enjoyment. Further testing of thesepredictions are the goal of the present project.

As suggested by Zillmann (2000), this process will differ between crimedramas because the relative severity of the crime presented will elicit differentmoral judgments. More specifically, some crimes may be relatively tooinnocuous to motivate moral judgments, whereas others might be so egregiousthat moral judgments become nearly universal. Therefore, the following isexpected:

Hypothesis 1: The nature of the relationships between empathy, social-justiceattitudes, moral judgments, and enjoyment will vary based on the relativeseverity of the crime presented in the crime drama.

To evaluate Hypothesis 1, we used two experimental conditions defined bythe relative severity of the crime depicted in each condition. To do so, onecondition was exposed to stimulus materials depicting physical (but not sexual)abuse of a woman and property destruction (henceforth, the no-rape condition).In a second condition, the stimulus materials depicted physical and sexual abuseof a woman, as well as property destruction (henceforth, the rape condition). Inan attempt to further evaluate the integrated model of enjoyment, the followingwas predicted:

Hypothesis 2: Enjoyment in the rape condition will be positively predicted bythe following: (a) a viewers judgment of sympathy for the victim of thecrime, and (b) a viewers judgment of the deservedness of the punishmentpresented for the crime, both of which will be predicted by three key social-justice attitudes: (a) vigilantism, (b) punitiveness, and (c) empathy.

Similarly, but with variation expected (as predicted in Hypothesis 1), wepredicted the following:

Hypothesis 3: Enjoyment in the no-rape condition will be positively predictedby the following: (a) a viewers judgment of sympathy for the victim of thecrime, and (b) a viewers judgment of the deservedness of the punishmentpresented for the crime, both of which will be predicted by three key social-justice attitudes: (a) vigilantism, (b) punitiveness, and (c) empathy.


METHODOLOGY

Overview

Groups of male and female undergraduate students were administered apersonality questionnaire that included items measuring attitudes and valuesconcerning empathy, vigilantism, and punitive punishment for criminal behavior.On completion of the questionnaire, the students viewed one of two editedportions (approximately 18 minutes) of a motion picture. The two experimentalconditions differed only by the nature of the crime committed in the movie clip;otherwise, the two clips were identical.

Following exposure to the video segment, the students rated their enjoyment ofthe presentation under the guise that the information would be used to determinethe viability of expanding student programming on a local cable-access station.The response form also contained measures of victim sympathy and deservednessof punishment in relation to the crimepunishment sequence in the stimulusmaterials. The personality measures were then used in conjunction with theenjoyment and other dependent measures to further investigate the relationshipbetween moral judgment (in relation to crime and punishment) and enjoyment.

Sample

Research participants were 158 undergraduate students enrolled incommunication courses. Previous exposure to the motion picture used wasmeasured on the follow-up questionnaire; 18 participants stated that they hadpreviously seen the film and were excluded from the analysis. Therefore, the datafor 139 participants were analyzed. Of these participants, more were female(61.9%) than male and more were White (81.3%) than non-White.

Procedure

Research participants were informed that they would complete three shortresearch projects: a personality study (independent measure), an evaluation of aradio-news spot (distracter), and an evaluation of a motion picture for the studenttelevision services (stimulus and dependent measure). All participants completedIRB-approved consent forms and were debriefed about the purpose of the studyat the end of the research session.

Independent Measures. During the personality study, participantscompleted a 33-item survey ambiguously titled Personality Questionnairedesigned to identify the attitudes and opinions of participants with regard tosocial justice and empathy. Twenty-two social-justice items were taken from the

3 1 4 RANEY

a = .92), and 6 measured attitudes regardingpunitiveness (observed a = .85). The final 11 items were drawn from an extantempathy measure (Ordman, 1996; Salomonson & Tamborini, 1994, as cited inOrdman, 1996). The specific items identified the respondentsoverall empathicconcern for others in need, as well as their ability and willingness to seesituations from another persons perspective (observed a = .75). All items, aftercorrecting for reverse-scored items, were scored on a scale from 1 (StronglyDisagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Therefore, the independent measures yieldedthree powerful unidimensional scales: vigilantism, punitiveness, and empathy.

During the second project, participants evaluated (for recall and companyimage) a radio news spot about an international corporations reaction to aproduct defect. This distracter task was used to provide separation between theindependent-measure data collection and exposure to the stimulus materials.

Dependent Measures. Participants were informed that the third and finalproject was to determine the feasibility of expanding the student televisionservices on local cable to include feature-length motion pictures. To that end,participants viewed an edited portion of a motion picture (i.e., the stimulusmaterials) and completed the enjoyment questionnaire. To rate enjoyment of theexperimental stimulus, participants responded to six items concerning variousentertainment aspects of the motion picture clip: how exciting, suspenseful, good,and well acted the clip was, overall enjoyment, and enjoyment of the subject. T h estudents also responded to two items designed to assess their future intentions:how much they would like to see and how likely they were to watch the entiremovie. All of the items were scored on an 11-point scale from 0 (Not at alls u s p e n s e f u l) to 10 (E x t remely suspenseful). The observed a for the enjoymentmeasure was .96.

Two additional sets of items measured aspects of the viewersmoral-judgmental reaction to the presentation, that is, the products of their moralreasoning. A three-item victim sympathy measure investigated the extent towhich the viewer felt sorry for the victims of the crime (observed a = .89). Allof the items were scored on an 11-point scale similar to the enjoyment factor.The second set contained two items that measured the extent to which the viewerthought the assailant received a rightful punishment (i.e., deservedness). Thedeservedness items (r = .70, p < .001) also employed an 11-point scale with 0representing deserving much less punishment, and 10 representing deservingmuch more punishment.

Therefore, the dependent measure yielded three powerful unidimensionalscales as well: enjoyment, victim sympathy, and deservedness. However, victimsympathy and deservednessas functions or products of moral judgmentwillalso be used as predictors of enjoyment.


Experimental Stimuli. The motion picture Rob Roy (1995), an historicaldrama about Robert Roy MacGregor (Rob Roy), a hero of 18th Century Scotland,served as a source for the stimulus material. Several short scenes from the filmwere edited and combined to produce an 18-minute clip. The scenes were selectedto establish the narrative context of the film, define character roles (e.g., villain,victim), present a crime, and present a retribution (or justice) for the crime.

Two versions of the film clip, differing only in the crime, were created forviewing and analysis. In the first version, the crime involved the rape and otherphysical abuses of Rob Roys wife, Mary, and the burning and destruction oftheir home and livestock (hereafter, rape condition). In the second version, the30-second rape sequence was omitted (although the nonsexual, physical abusesremained) and replaced with 30 seconds of additional footage of the burning anddestruction of the MacGregor home (hereafter, no-rape condition). All otheraspects of the two versions were identical: clip length, content of scenes, andretribution (the killing of the villain by Rob Roy). No direct or indirect allusionto a sexual assault was made in the no-rape condition stimulus material.

RESULTS

Independent Measures and Random Assignment

Although research participants were not randomly assigned to a specific groupor session (participation times were selected by the individual), the groups wererandomly assigned to one of the two experimental conditions. One-way analysesof variance (ANOVA) were completed to ensure that the conditions werehomogenous relative to the moral judgment factors of empathy, vigilantism, andpunitiveness. As expected, no statistically significant differences (p > .1) werefound between conditions for the three independent measures.

Dependent Measures

Given the different crimes presented, one might expect an overall difference inevaluations of enjoyment, victim sympathy, and deservedness between the twoconditions. One-way A N O VAs found a significant difference only indeservedness between the two conditions: Interestingly enough, the punishmentin the rape condition (M = 5.46, SD = 1.32) was judged to be significantly moresevere than deserved (F = 4.14, p< .05) than it was in the no-rape condition (M= 4.99, SD= 1.38). As was mentioned, no significant differences were found forthe enjoyment (F = 1.75, p> .1) or the victim sympathy (F = 1.92, p> .1) factor.

3 1 6 RANEY

Hypotheses Testing

To test the hypotheses, path analysis was employed using Lisrel 8.0; a single pathmodel was used in each condition to test the hypotheses. The path modeldiagrams the proposed relationships between the variables: When watching acrime drama, it is proposed that a viewers attitudes about social justice willpredict specific moral judgments about the events portrayed in the content, whichwill then predict enjoyment.

Rape Condition. As Figure 2a indicates, with respect to the social-justicefactors predicting moral judgments, only one of the paths approachedsignificance: empathy predicting victim sympathy. None of the social-justicefactors were significant predictors of deservedness. In other words, neitherempathy, vigilantism, nor punitiveness was observed to predict the actual moraljudgments of viewers of the rape condition (except empathy weakly predictingvictim sympathy).

As Figure 2a further indicates, victim sympathy was found to be a significantpredictor of enjoyment; deservedness was not. The resulting path model for therape condition was an acceptable fit for the data: c 2 = 7.25, p > .1; GFI = .97;AGFI = .84.

Figure 2a. Path model for hypothesis testing: Rape condition.

No-Rape Condition. In the no-rape conditionas in the previous casenone of the paths from empathy, vigilantism, or punitiveness to deservednesswere significant. However, as Figure 2b indicates, all three social-justice factorswere significant predictors of victim sympathy in the no-rape condition, withpunitiveness carrying a negative coefficient.


Figure 2b. Path model for hypothesis testing: No-rape condition.

As Figure 2b further indicates, both victim sympathy and deservedness werefound to be significant predictors of enjoyment. The resulting path model for theno-rape condition also was an acceptable fit for the data: c 2 = 3.45, p > .1; GFI= .98; AGFI = .91.

DISCUSSION

The ultimate goal of the present study is to better understand the relationshipbetween factors involved in moral judgment and the enjoyment of dramainvolving crime and punishment. The integrated model of enjoyment of crimedrama suggests that certain subjectively held notions of social justice will predicta viewers moral judgments about how deserving the criminals punishment wasand how sympathetic he or she is toward the victim. In turn, the outcome of thosetwo moral judgments (i.e., deservedness and victim sympathy) will predictenjoyment. Hypothesis 1 suggested that these predictive processes will varybased on the nature of the mediated crime (in this case, a rape and a no-rapecondition).

Hypothesis 1 was supported; indeed, the two conditions rendered quitedifferent predictive relationships among the variables. More will be stated aboutthis finding shortly.

Hypotheses 2 and 3 seek to test the integrated model of crime-dramaenjoyment (Raney & Bryant, 2002) by proposing that certain subjectively heldnotions of social justice (i.e., vigilantism, punitiveness, and empathy) will predicta viewers moral judgments about how deserving the criminals punishment wasand how sympathetic the viewer is toward the victim. In turn, the outcome ofthose two moral judgments will predict overall enjoyment. Hypothesis 2

3 1 8 RANEY

predicted this process for stimulus materials containing a rape scene; Hypothesis3 did so for the same stimulus material without the rape scene.

Both Hypotheses 2 and 3 were supported in part. More specifically, in the rapecondition (Hypothesis 2) enjoyment was significantly predicted by victims y m p a t h y. This finding clearly supports disposition theory. As predicted by thet h e o r y, enjoyment increases in relation to positive outcomes for the likedcharacters and negative outcomes for the disliked. Beyond this finding, nothingelse that was hypothesized in Hypothesis 2 was supported. Specifically, none ofthe three personality factors or the deservedness factor was predictive of any otherfactor; although, as we will see later, all were so in the no-rape condition. Why?

The most logical explanation is found in the notion of the latitude of moralsanction identified by both Zillmann (2000) and Raney and Bryant (2002),which posits that the nature of certain crimes presented in dramas fall within theboundaries of acceptable injustice for some viewers, whereas the same crimefalls outside those boundaries for others. As a result, a mediated crime might be,for instance, too inconsequential (e.g., a simple assault) to engage much moralreasoning. As a result, the moral monitoring is too inconsequential tosignificantly influence the enjoyment process. In such cases, it can be expectedthat reliance on other influences (e.g., disposition) overwhelmingly, if notcompletely, guide ones enjoyment.

In the rape condition, the crime presented is, of course, not inconsequential;in fact, it is generally considered one of the most heinous crimes imaginable. Inthis case, it seems that the rape falls outside the boundaries of the viewersacceptable injustice into a range of unacceptable injustice. However, theterms acceptable and unacceptable are not necessarily linked to enjoyment; infact, no significant differences were observed for the enjoyment factor betweenthe rape and no-rape conditions (F = 1.75, p > .1). Instead, the term acceptablerefers to that which engages moral deliberation. The heinous nature of the crime,it would seem, made moral considerations unnecessary. All viewers thought thatthe act was deplorable, thus eliminating any variance on the deservedness factoreven between participants with quite different social-justice beliefs. This wouldseem to explain why victim sympathy was the only positive predictor ofenjoyment in the rape condition.

In the no-rape condition (Hypothesis 3), the empathy, vigilantism, andpunativeness factors all significantly predicted victim sympathy as anticipated.Note that punativeness unexpectedly carried a negative beta coefficient inrelation to victim sympathy in this condition. One plausible explanation for thisfinding is that the viewers who are more likely to sympathize with a victim arealso those more likely to sympathize with convicted criminals to the extent thatthey oppose death as a punishment for crime. In other words, they sympathizewith the plight of the criminal, perhaps on a basic human level (e.g., reverencefor human life or life in general). Therefore, although the viewer agrees that


some punishment is due the criminal, perhaps they cannot morally justify thatpunishment being death. This would appear to be a reasonable explanation forthe finding; however, if it is the case, then one might expect that punitiveness and(the more general) empathy factor would be correlated. However, such acorrelationas is reported belowwas not found. Unfortunately, no otherexplanation is readily available from this author or from a review of the extantliterature. In fact, the punativeness measure itself may be the cause. Furtherinvestigation is needed.

Nevertheless, the identification of predictors of victim sympathy is extremelyimportant. To this point, entertainment theorists have relied on disposition topredict enjoyment of drama. Now, at least in the case of crime dramas, it seemsthat predictors of dispositionother than empathy, which has been identified inthe literaturehave been isolated, namely vigilantism and punativeness.Furthermore, the overall correlation between the empathy factor and the othertwo factors are not statistically significant (empathyvigilantism r = .16, p >.05; empathypunativeness r = .16, p> .05), which perhaps indicates somewhatindependent influences on victim sympathy (and thus, disposition).

Also, the two measures of moral judgmentvictim sympathy anddeservednesswere found to be significant predictors of enjoyment. Again, withregard to victim sympathy, this finding supports disposition theory. However,deservedness unexpectedly carried a negative beta coefficient. Therefore, themore a viewer thought the villain deserved a less severe punishment, the more thedrama was enjoyed. Conversely, the more a viewer thought the villain deserved amore severe punishment, the less the drama was enjoyed. It appears that thephenomenon can be explained in terms of expectations of the genre. Earlier, it wasmentioned that the crimes must fall within the boundaries of expected injustice toengage moral reasoning, and apparently in this case that happened. However, thepunishment for that crime must also follow some guidelines based onexpectations. As a result of these findings, it is suggested that persons expect thatthe punishment for a crime that is portrayed must surpass the deservedpunishment that is determined through moral reasoning. In other words, viewersof crime drama tend to expect (and perhaps even demand) a retribution that isgreater than what is morally acceptable in reality. This would explain why viewersenjoyed the stimulus material with the punishment that was shown, even though,when further probed, they suggested that a lessor punishment would meet theirown moral standard for justice. Furthermore, this might shed light on therighteous justice of todays entertainment fare identified by Zillmann (1998),which is typified by the apparent euphoria of young men upon seeing the badguys being riddled with bullets and collapsing in deadly convulsions (p. 205).

The study is not without its failings as well. Deservedness was not predictedby anything, in either condition. It seems reasonable to suggest that ones beliefsabout social justice and empathy have an impact on how one determines

3 2 0 RANEY

deservedness; however, in this study, no connection could be made. Furthermore,one could reasonably expect some relationship between victim sympathy anddeservedness; the correlation observed between the two factors wasnonsignificant (p > .1) in both conditions. Identifying moral judgment factorsthat predict determinations of deservedness is the next step in this process.However, this initial step in better understanding the contributors to dispositionformation in crime dramas will hopefully prove useful in encouraging others toconduct similar research with this and other entertainment genres.

NOTES

1Throughout all entertainment studies, the term enjoyment remain somewhat nebulous.Historically, the term appreciation was used almost exclusively to refer to ones hedonicresponse to media fare. Only in the last decade or so have we started using the (arguablybroader) term enjoyment. Much like the term entertainment, scholars have yet toconclusively define enjoyment, but for the sake of this project, enjoyment will bediscussed as the pleasure experienced from consuming media entertainment and will bemeasured with self-report items often employed in this research tradition.

2Zillmann (1991, 1994, 2000) and Hoffmann (1987) have identified empathy as the chiefmechanism by which dispositions are formed. The current work, although agreeing thatempathy plays a large role in disposition formation, contends that empathy is not the solepredictor or determinant of how a character will be judged. Surely other factors contributeto the moral judgment of the behaviors of an individual in real-life and characters in adrama. In other words, various factors (including empathy) help us evaluate the rightnessand wrongness of behaviors; we attempt to identify and understand some of theseadditional factors.

3Regarding vigilantism, Raney and Bryant (2002) stated that the term is generally usedto refer to attitudes favorable to retribution and punishment enacted by private citizens orby unsanctioned law enforcement agents (p. 407) And in reference to punitivepunishment, the researchers stated that the factor taps into an individuals attitudesconcerning severity of punishment (p. 407).

REFERENCES

Dominick, J. R. (1973). Crime and law enforcement on prime-time television.Public Opinion Quarterly, 37, 241250.

Goldstein, J. H. (Ed.). (1998). Why we watch: The attractions of violententertainment. New York: Oxford University Press.

Grabe, M. E. (1996). Tabloid and traditional television news magazine crimestories: Crime lessons and reaffirmation of social class distinctions.Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(4, Winter), 926946.


3 2 2 RANEY

Hoffmann, M. L. (1987). The contribution of empathy to justice and moraljudgment. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development(pp. 4780). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hoffner, C., & Cantor, J. (1991). Factors affecting childrens enjoyment of afrightening film sequence. Communication Monographs, 58(1), 4162.

Jose, P. E., & Brewer, W. F. (1984). Development of story liking: Characteridentification, suspense, and outcome resolution. D e v e l o p m e n t a lPsychology, 20, 911924.

Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of masscommunication by the individual. In J. G. Blumler, & E. Katz (Eds.), Theuses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratificationresearch (pp. 1932). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

King, C. M. (2000). Effects of humorous heroes and villains in violent actionfilms. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 524.

K o h l b e rg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Kunkel, D., Wilson, B., Donnerstein, E., Linz, D., Smith, S., Gray, T. ,Blumenthal, E., & Potter, W. J. (1995). Standpoint: Measuring televisionviolence: The importance of context. Journal of Broadcasting andElectronic Media, 39(2, Spring), 284291.

Lowenthal, D. (1999, August 23). The case for censorship. The Weekly Standard,21 [Lexis-Nexis].

Medved, M. (1992). Hollywood vs. America: Popular culture and the war ontraditional values. New York: Harper Collins.

Oliver, M. B. (1993). Adolescentsenjoyment of graphic horror: Effects ofattitudes and portrayals of victim. Communication Research, 20(1), 3050.

Oliver, M. B. (1996). Influences of authoritarianism and portrayals of race onCaucasian viewers responses to reality-based crime dramas.Communication Reports, 9(2), 141150.

Ordman, V.V. (1996). Effects of exposure to tragedy as filmed entertainment onanger in men and women: Is crying cathartic? (Doctoral dissertation,University of Alabama, 1996). D i s s e rtation Abstracts International,5706a, 2255.

Peffley, M., Shields, T., & Williams, B. (1996). The intersection of race andcrime in television news stories: An experimental study. P o l i t i c a lCommunication, 13(3), 309327.

Piaget, J. (1948). The moral judgment of the child. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Potter, W. J. (1997). The problem of indexing risk of viewing televisionaggression. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 14, 228248.

Potter, W. J. (2001). Media literacy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Raney,A. A. (in press). Disposition-based theories of enjoyment. In J. Bryant, J.Cantor, & D. Roskos-Ewoldsen (Eds.), Communication and emotions:Essays in honor of Dolf Zillmann. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Raney, A. A., & Bryant, J. (2002). Moral judgment and crime drama: Anintegrated theory of enjoyment. Journal of Communication, 52(2), 402415.

Salomonson, K., & Tamborini, R. (1994). Stable and situational determinants ofcomforting: A model of empathy, film genre, and mood state. Paperpresented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, NewOrleans, LA.

Sapolsky, B. S. (1980). The effect of spectator disposition and suspense on theenjoyment of sport contests. International Journal of Sport Psychology,11(1), 110.

U.S. House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance (1994). Violenceon television: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Telecommunicationsand Finance of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House ofRepresentatives, One Hundred Third Congress, first session, May 12, June25, July 1, 29, and September 15, 1993. (GPO Item No. 1019-A).Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Zillmann, D. (1991). Empathy: Affect from bearing witness to the emotion ofothers. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Responding to the screen:Reception and reaction processes (pp. 135167), Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Zillmann, D. (1994). Mechanisms of emotional involvement with drama.Poetics, 23, 3351.

Zillmann, D. (1998). The psychology of the appeal of portrayals of violence. InJ. H. Goldstein (Ed.), Why we watch: The attractions of violententertainment (pp. 179211). New York: Oxford University Press.

Zillmann, D. (2000). Basal morality in drama appreciation. In I. Bondebjerg(Ed.), Moving images, culture, and the mind (pp. 5363). Luton: Universityof Luton Press.

Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1975). Viewers moral sanction of retribution in theappreciation of dramatic presentations. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 11, 572582.


Zillmann, D., Bryant, J., & Cantor, J. (1974). Brutality of assault in politicalcartoons affecting humor appreciation. Journal of Research in Personality,7, 334345.

Zillmann, D., Bryant, J., & Sapolsky, B. S. (1989). Enjoyment from sportsspectatorship. In J. H. Goldstein (Ed.), Sports, games, and play: Social andpsychological viewpoints (2nd ed.), 241278. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. (1972). Directionality of transitory dominance as acommunication variable affecting humor appreciation. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 24, 191198.

Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. (1976). A disposition theory of humor and mirth. In T.Chapman & H. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, andapplication (pp. 93115). London: Wiley.

Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. (1977). Affective responses to the emotions of aprotagonist. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 155165.

Zillmann, D., & Paulus, P. B. (1993). Spectators: Reactions to sports events andeffects on athletic performance. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L. K.Tennant (Eds.), Handbook on research in sport psychology (pp. 600619).New York: Macmillan.

Zillmann, D., Taylor, K., & Lewis, K. (1998). News as nonfiction theater: Howdispositions toward the public cast of characters affect reactions. Journal ofBroadcasting and Electronic Media, 42(2), 153169.

3 2 4 RANEY

Moral Judgement as a Predictor of Enjoyment of Crime Drama

Documents

Transcript of Moral Judgement as a Predictor of Enjoyment of Crime Drama