INFORMATION TO USERS ‘This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. ‘The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations. and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by Sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overtaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9° black and white Photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. Bell & Howell information and Leaming 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Mi 48106-1346 USA ‘800-521-0800 & UMIHorror Film Appeal 1 Affective Responses to Horror Films by ‘Susan Agnes Burggraf March 2000 Submitted to the Faculty of Bryn Mawr College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of PhilosophyUMI Number; 9968283 Copyright 2000 by Burggraf, Susan Agnes All rights reserved. UMI UMI Microform9968283 Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Bell & Howell Information and Leaming Compeny 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 ‘Ann Arbor, Mi 48106-1246Vita Acknowledgments Abstract Introduction Study 1 Introduction Method Results Discussion Study 2 Introduction Method Results Discussion General Discussion References Tables 1-16 241 26 29 47 65 1 76 Horror Film Appeal 2Horror Film Appeal 3 Vita 1, Susan Agnes Burggraf, was bom August 31, 1952 in Jamaica, New York, the daughter of Richard J. and Agnes Flynn Burggrat. | attended St. Joseph School in Garden City, New York from kindergarten through eighth grade and Sacred Heart Academy in Hempstead, New York from which I graduated high school in 1970. | graduated from Rosemont College, Rosemont, Pennsylvania with an A.B. in Psychology in 1975 and remained in the Philadelphia area for the next 18 years. In the 11 years between undergraduate and graduate school, | worked three years as a caseworker for Catholic Social Services of Philadelphia and eight years for the Institute of Pennsylvania Hospital. | began graduate study at Bryn Mawr College in 1985-86 and received a Masters in Human Development in 1989 at which time | also qualified for certification as a School Psychologist. June Price Tangney supervised my masters thesis for which | developed a measure of shame- and guilt-proneness which we called the Self-Conscious Affect and Attribution Inventory for Children. Together we presented several posters at APA and APS conventions in 1987, 1989, 1990, and 1991 and we wrote a chapter “Shame, guilt, and psychopathology” for an edited book in 1994. | did my predoctoral clinical intemship at Children's Seashore House in Philadelphia in 1992-93. | was a teaching assistant at Bryn Mawr from 1986-90 and taught part-time at West Chester University, in West Chester, Pennsylvania from 1990-82. Since 1993, | have been teaching fulltime (except one year was half- time). From 1993-95, | was at Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Maine in the Psychology Department and from 1995-99 at Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, Massachusetts in the Department of Psychology and Education. In 1999, | retumed to Bowdoin where | am currently a full-time Visiting Instructor.Horror Film Appeal 4 Acknowledgments | would like to thank members of my committee: Professors Cynthia Bisman, Kimberly Cassidy, Leslie Rescoria, and Earl Thomas for their helpful comments, questions, and discussion of my thesis. Their clarity has helped to refine and develop the arguments made in this thesis. Most importantly, | would like to thank Professor Clark McCauley for his patient and thorough guidance. Throughout this project, | relied on his insight, steadfastness, integrity, and kindness. His vast knowledge of research methods, data analysis, writing, and argument made this project enjoyable and | am left with an enthusiasm for esearch and ideas in psychology for which | will always be grateful to him. | would like to thank the Department of Psychology and Education at Mount Holyoke College, specifically Janet Crosby and Professors Francine Deutsch, Karen Hollis, Robert Shilkret, and Joseph Cohen for their unwavering support, wisdom, and humor. They are an endless source of inspiration and warmth. | would also like to thank the Psychology Department at Bowdoin College, specfically Donna Trout and Professors Barbara Held and Paul Schafiner for their interest, encouragement, and kindness both in the beginning of this project in 1994-95 and now as it concludes.Horror Fim Appeal 5 Abstract The paradox of horror films is that they can be enjoyed despite their elicitation of hedonically negative emotions such as fear and disgust. Study 1 assessed affective reactions to a 14-minute segment from a popular horror film, Friday the 13¢h-Part Ill, in a 2x3 design varying social setting (alone or with same-sex peers) and stimulus condition (normal audio with video, audio-only, video-only). The first result of interest was that ratings of fear and disgust after the film were as high as ratings of excitement and enjoyment. Thus, it seems that fear and disgust in reaction to cinematic gore and death are not lost in enjoyment and excitement. Main effects of social setting were found for ‘enjoyment (group setting produced greater enjoyment) and for disgust and fright (alone participants more disgusted and frightened). Group influence was also found in beyond-chance similarity of affective responses within a group. The only main effect of stimulus condition was for disgust (higher for both video-only and audio/video than for audio-only). These results indicate that understanding the appeal of horror films will require more attention to the group context in which viewing occurs. Zillmann (1998) has suggested that the appeal of tragedy depends upon relief and emotional contrast effects after the stress of feeling bad while watching a film. To engage this possibility in relation to the appeal of horror, Study 2 obtained ratings of emotional reactions during as well as after two film clips, Friday the 13" and the “Flukeman" episode of X-Files. Results do not supportHorror Film Appeal 6 either the relief hypothesis or the suggestion (Apter, 1992; McCauley, 1998) that negative emotions can be experienced as positive within the safety-frame of fiction. Rather the results indicate that fright and disgust reactions are an amalgam of arousal and negative affect, and that the arousal contributes to enjoyment whereas the negative affect detracts from enjoyment.Horror Film Appeal 7 Introduction Most psychological theories assume that people act to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, at least within the constraints of the resources and choices available. Thus one might assume that hedonistic motives are central in pursuing recreational activities. On the surface, the appeal of horror films seems to contradict this hedonistic assumption. Why do people enjoy viewing drama that arouses terror and disgust? Relief theories focus on the end result (e.g., catharsis, relief from empathy-induced distress, opponent process exhilaration) that makes viewing horror a means to an end rather than a rewarding activity in itself. According to relief theories, the film's ending provides relief from the distress experienced during the film; relief theories therefore predict that viewers enjoy a horror film more after it is over than during the viewing experience. ‘On the other hand, it is possible that viewers enjoy horror as much during the action as at the film's conclusion. The sources of enjoyment during a film might include the following possibilities: that usually negative emotions aroused by these films are somehow experienced as positive, that the high level of arousal that viewers often experience is rewarding (especially to people who have high levels of sensation-seeking; Zuckerman, 1994), or that viewing horror films offers opportunities to demonstrate gender role mastery (Zillmann, & Weaver, 1996; Zillmann, Weaver, Mundorf, & Aust, 1986). These “continuous-Horror Film Appeal & reward” theories predict that horror film viewers enjoy the experience throughout the film, no less than at the film's conclusion. In this paper, first relief and continuous reward theories will be reviewed. Then, dimensions of affective responses to horror films and some of the characteristics of horror films that heighten these responses will be discussed. Two research studies examining hypotheses derived from these explanations of horror film appeal will then be presented. Relief Theories Relief theories propound that the appeal of horror films is found in the relief from emotional distress provided by the film's ending. This relief, brought about by the termination of threat, is understood in terms of two mechanisms. The first mechanism focuses on simple contrast effects or opponent processes: that explain enjoyment after the film by reference to the termination of fear experienced during the film-- “the joy of relief* (Schaller, 1993, p. 287). The second mechanism is more cognitive and focuses on the distress of empathic arousal derived from viewing the protagonist's misfortune during the film and the viewer's subsequent relief from this empathic distress on seeing a satisfactory outcome. Opponent processes. Tamborini and Stiff's relief hypothesis states that "we are aroused and upset by the threats of dire consequences presented during the course of the film. When a just ending is provided, or, when the dreadful effects are removed, we experience this arousal in a pleasurable form.” (1987, p.Horror Film Appeal 9 417). This is consistent with Solomon's (1980) description of the process of affective change from baseline to State A (e.g., terror), to its opposite State B (e.g., joy), followed by a retum to baseline. The affective changes that accompany horror film viewing may follow this pattem such that the fear elicited by the horror film leads to exhilaration as the film ends. According to the ‘opponent process theory of motivation, horror film fans might look forward to the contrast effect and, in fact, the opponent process (i.e., exhilaration) would become stronger with repeated exposure to films of this genre: ‘The opponent process [8] is strengthened through use and weakened through disuse, but the primary affective process [A] is not seriously affected by use. A “B* process will acquire more power if frequently elicited. It will show a shorter latency of response to "A", a quicker rise, a higher asymptote, and a longer decay time. (Solomon & Corbit, 1974, p.129). Thus, opponent process theory might explain the particular loyalty of horror film fans as an acquired taste, such as enjoyment of sky diving. Excitation-transfer, Doif Zillmann’s (1971, 1998) theory states that immediately upon resolution of the suspenseful plot, viewers instantly understand that the story line is resolved and enjoy the conclusion of suspense. However, the excitement that had accompanied fright experienced during the film lingers because physiological arousal does not abate immediately. In other words, physiological changes in arousal lag behind cognitive changes in understandingHorror Film Appeal 10 the plot's resolution. The leftover excitement serves to intensify enjoyment of the relief afforded by the resolution of suspense. This leads to a great enhancement of enjoyment. Relief from empathic arousal. In his paper, "Mechanisms of emotional involvement with drama”, Dolf Zillmann (1994) proposes that it is empathy with the protagonist that is the key mechanism underlying emotional involvement. He observes that rather than taking a subjective viewpoint and identifying with the protagonist as if the viewer's self had traded places with the protagonist, audiences take the viewpoint of an interested observer who empathizes with the plight of the protagonist. “The audience's concem [is] for the welfare of heroes, responding to them as if they were personal friends." (Zillmann, 1994, p. 37). ‘Therefore, Zillmann argues that the key affective response by horror film audiences is empathically aroused distress which is relieved only upon the film's ending. In other words, relief hypotheses should examine the distress of empathic arousal that is terminated by the successful ending, or in fact, any ending, of the film. Similarly, Tamborini, Stiff, and Heidel's (1990) examination of the role of empathy in response to horror films assumes a parallel between empathic responses to protagonists and empathic responsiveness in real life situations. ‘Some evidence for the relation between empathic distress and the role of the film's ending can be found in deWied, Zillmann, and Ordman's (1994) investigation of the role of empathy in affective responses to tragic drama films.Horror Film Appeal 11 Subjects were shown a clip from the film Stee/ Magnolias, a tragedy that depicts the suffering of a woman with diabetes, and were asked to rate their empathic reactions during the film and their enjoyment after the clip. Results support the relief hypothesis: high empathizers experienced greater sadness during the clip and greater enjoyment at the conclusion. However, it is not clear how these results might generalize to affective responses to horror films, both because the emotions are different (e.g., sadness vs. fear and disgust) and because individual differences in audiences (e.g., gender) may be important. For example, Stee! Magnolias was a film that was popular among women, whereas horror films appeal more to young males (Clover, 1992). ‘An additional consideration when weighing the importance of empathic responsiveness is that it may be affected by other competing reactions. In particular, moral judgment or censorship may play a key role in moderating empathic involvement in drama. Specifically, a viewer's disapproval of the protagonist's character or actions might reduce empathic arousal. If relief from empathic arousal is a key mechanism in enjoyment of horror films, moral censorship might be an important variable to consider. Empirical support for the role of moral censorship is provided by Zillmann and Cantor's (1977) finding that children viewing a film did not respond empathically (with concordant emotions) to a protagonist who behaved destructively, whereas they did respond empathically to a well-behaved protagonist. Zillmann (1994) states that “These and other findings on discordant affect make it clear that moral considerationsHorror Film Appeal 12 play a significant part in justifying, allowing, and motivating discordant [i. empathetic] reactions to the emotional experience of others." (p. 48). In order to leam more about how empathy and other affective responses to the plight of another influences preference for dramatic content, Fultz and Nielson (1993) told subjects that they would be hearing a radio program featuring a person in need. They were then given either of two sets of instructions: to take the perspective of the protagonist, or to remain detached and objective while listening to the broadcast. This was followed by questions about their anticipated ‘emotional reactions (sadness, distress, or empathy) to the broadcast, and about whether they would rather listen to the person-in-need program, a news-bulletin program, or a good-fortune program. Although instructions for perspective taking vs. detachment did not have any effect, anticipation of distress was positively correlated with willingness to listen to another's distress, whereas anticipation of empathy did not predict program preference. These findings indicate that anticipated distress and empathy are distinct in terms of their influence on subjects’ willingness to be exposed to a protagonist's suffering. Fultz and Nielson saw this as evidence for the relief hypothesis when they concluded, “Anticipated distress, and anticipated relief from that distress through termination of the exposure, apparently attracts a person to viewing another's suffering." (1993, p. 281) They also point out that anticipated empathy does not seem to influence preference for drama that depicts another's suffering. It seems then that relief is a complex phenomenon.It may be relief from particular negative emotions (e. the appeal of horror films rather than relief from all empathic emotions. My first study will begin to explore this issue by including a measure of individual differences in empathy as a possible predictor of viewer reactions to horror films. Catharsis. Catharsis theory posits that the strong negative emotions elicited by tragedy serve to purge the viewer of preexisting dysphoric arousal. In discussing Aristotle's notion of catharsis in the appeal of tragedy, Mills (1993) noted: “The purging of pity and fear is the function of tragedy, ...their purging or removal would leave the viewer ...feeling less negative than before, which would explain the appeal of tragedy.” (p. 256) Stephen King's (1981, p. 13) endorsement of catharsis explanations of the appeal of horror fiction relate particularly to terror, but he doesn't mention the role of catharsis in purging disgust: *...another paradox is that the ritual outletting of these emotions seems to bring things back to a more stable and constructive state again. ...we make up horrors to help us cope with the real ones.” McCauley (1998) discusses three plausible hypotheses that follow from the catharsis explanation for horror film appeal. The first suggests that those individuals who have more of the emotion to be purged will find the drama more appealing. This hypothesis would predict that those who are feeling fearful and disgusted would view horror films in order to rid themselves of these negative ‘emotions. However, this reason is not usually mentioned by viewers when asked why they enjoy horror after viewing (e.g., Tamborini & Stiff, 1987) or beforeHorror Film Appeal 14 viewing (e.g., a Halloween radio documentary about the appeal of a haunted house on NPR in October 1995 depicted teenage boys happily anticipating, without any seeming negative affect, being terrorized and disgusted). This hypothesis is a relief explanation because it predicts that enjoyment comes from relief in the end of the film. The remaining catharsis explanations are also consistent with relief theories of horror film appeal. McCauley’s (1998) second catharsis hypothesis predicts that filmgoers will leave a horror film with reduced levels of fear and disgust, and the third predicts that enjoyment should be proportional to the degree of fear and disgust reduction. Although Schaller (1993) dismisses the catharsis explanation because the mechanisms involved are unclear, there is. some research evidence that encourages us to examine these hypotheses further. Tamborini and Stiff (1987) found, in their exit interviews of horror filmgoers, that the appeal of the film was related to how exciting and scary respondents rated it (although this result also and perhaps more directly may be understood in terms of reward theory—see below). Research examining relief, however, usually does not focus on purgation of the viewer's own emotion but rather on relief from emotions induced by the horror film itself. ‘Societal fears. Rather than viewing the catharsis explanation of the appeal of horror on the level of the individual viewer, we can look at general trends in the popularity of horror films as they relate to societal-level fears. Stephen King (1981), and others who write about the appeal of horror from a.Horror Film Appeal 15 literary viewpoint talk about the changes in the horror film genre over the past several decades as reflections of changes in society's deep fears. Skal (1993), for example, points to the renewed interest in vampire films as a reflection of the fear of AIDS. He presents a history of the role of the horror film in coping with societal level fears. This view of horror films as reflections of societal level fears relates to McCauley's first catharsis hypothesis, namely that viewers will be attracted to those films that will elicit an emotion that they have in excess. Since, according to this historical analysis, horror films address societal level preoccupations and fears, the appeal derives from heightening and then purging these fears at least temporarily (King, 1981). Further, because these are societal-level fears that individuals may not be conscious of, individual viewers may not be able to describe these fears when they give reasons for liking horror films (e.g., Tamborini & Stiff, 1987). Continuous Reward Theories ‘Whereas relief theories state that viewers tolerate the negative emotions aroused by horror films in anticipation of relief upon the film's ending, reward theories assert that viewers enjoy watching horror films throughout. The hypothesized rewards of viewing include arousal and sensation seeking, relief from boredom, gender role mastery, and “as-if" negative emotions experienced as positive. Arousal. Berlyne (1967) has suggested that rapidly increased arousal, or increases followed by rapid decreases (arousal jag) contribute to enjoyment ofHorror Film Appeal 16 many different kinds of esthetic experience, including jokes and dramas. If a film need only be arousing in order to be attractive, then it is not clear why a documentary of a slaughterhouse is not appealing to most people (McCauley, 1998). Arousal theory might be preserved by positing an optimum level of arousal, beyond which arousal becomes unpleasant. Although plausible, nothing like this inverted-U relationship between arousal and enjoyment seems ever to have been demonstrated. ‘Sensation Seeking. A specification of the arousal hypothesis is the sensation-seeking hypothesis which holds that the arousal elicited by horror films. is rewarding especially to those viewers who generally enjoy high-arousal situations (Zuckerman, 1994). Zuckerman's conceptualization of sensation seeking is that it is a personality trait that predisposes one to take pleasure in risky or other high-arousal events. Zuckerman and Litle (1986) found that preference for horror films was related to the Disinhibition and to the Thrill and Adventure Seeking dimensions of the Sensation Seeking scale for both men and women, but these relations were not strong (1's ranged from .06 to .31). Tamborini and Stiff (1987) found, in their exit interviews of audiences leaving a theater after viewing a horror film, that sensation seeking was not a significant predictor of liking horror films. Overall, the results conceming sensation seeking indicate a small but generally consistent correlation between sensation seeking and enjoyment of horror films (McCauley, 1998).Horror Film Appeal 17 Consistent with this relationship is that gender is related to both Sensation Seeking and enjoyment of horror films. Males are on the average higher than females on the Sensation Seeking Scale (Zuckerman, 1994), and males are often reported to enjoy horror films more than females (Goldstein, 1998; Clover, 1992). The implication is that the gender difference in liking for horror films is mediated by the gender difference in sensation seeking. So far as we are aware, however, no study has examined whether the correlation between gender and horror enjoyment is reduced when Sensation Seeking scores are statistically partialed from the relationship. Age is also related to both liking horror movies and Sensation Seeking. Horror movies are popular with adolescents (Johnston, 1995). Likewise, Sensation Seeking has been found “to increase between childhood and adolescence, to peak in adolescence and decline with age thereafter. ...In some studies, the peak of sensation seeking occurred in the early 20's rather than the teenage years.” (Zuckerman, 1994, pp. 17-18). Predictability and relief from boredom. The relief from boredom provided by involvement in a horror film may to some extent explain its appeal. Schaller (1993) states that one of the reasons for the attractiveness of horror films is that they “provide a relief from the banal" (p. 292). This is related to the arousal and sensation seeking (Zuckerman, 1994) hypotheses, but whereas sensation seeking is conceptualized as a personality trait, relief from boredom may be more situationally bound. Indirect evidence for the relief from boredom hypothesis canHorror Film Appeal 18 be found in Stephen King's observation that “during and after the war years, horror fiction was in decline... The eclipse of horror in fiction that began in 1939 lasted for twenty-five years or so." (1981, p. 29). It seems that horror fiction has “done less well in periods when the American people have been faced with outright examples of horror in their own Ii ." (King, 1981, p. 28). This can be taken as weak evidence that horror fiction may provide a substitute for the involvement and terror associated with war and other real-life horrors, at least for some segments of the population (e.g., adolescents; Oliver, 1993). ‘The ability of horror filmmakers to frighten their customers is constantly challenged by audiences who have become more sophisticated. In order to maintain their appeal as relievers of boredom, horror filmmakers must stay ahead of their audience's ability to predict. Sharkey (1994) states that *...jaded moviegoers are looking for new thrills. ...The audience's security blanket of predictability has been tugged away [e.g., by ambiguity conceming who the good guy is}." (p. 25). Therefore, it seems that familiarity with a horror film changes the viewing experience, since viewers who are familiar can predict the outcome and therefore experience less heightened affective responses. Tamborini, Stiff, and Zillmann (1987) found that past exposure to horror films predicts preference for horror films, but it is not clear what aspects or dimensions of affective responses might be influenced by familiarity. Both my studies will examine the role of familiarity in affective responses to a horror film.Horror Film Appeal 19 Individual vs social reward theories. The continuous reward theories just enumerated—arousal, sensation-seeking, distraction from boredom—are all individual-level theories. To a first approximation, individual level theories make the same predictions for an individual watching alone as for the same individual watching as part of a group of viewers. In contrast to the individual-level theories are group-level or social reward theories that begin from the often-noted but little- theorized fact that most film viewers are not watching alone. Viewers of horror films may be particularly unlikely to be viewing alone (Goldstein, 1998). Thus, it seems likely that enjoyment of horror films depends in part upon the social setting or audience membership. One kind of social reward may be based on success in social role mastery that may be particularly important in adolescent peer groups. Social role mastery includes gender role mastery as well as successful violation of adult social norms. Another kind of reward may be associated with the rewards of group membership in facing a common threat. Gender role mastery (‘snuggle theory). Zillmann, et. al. (1986) examined the gender role socialization aspects of horror film appeal by noting that viewing horror films affords an opportunity to demonstrate social role mastery. Specifically, they found that male college students particularly enjoyed watching a horror film in the company of a distressed female college student and that female students enjoyed watching the film in the company of a male student who demonstrated fearlessness. This opportunity for gender role mastery providedHorror Film Appeal 20 by horror film viewing may be especially important for adolescents who are in the process of establishing skill in performing gender-specific social roles. ‘Social nom violation. Stephen King (1981) describes the importance of horror films in allowing viewers to safely imagine the social norm violation typically depicted without negative consequences: “Horror appeals to us because it says, in a symbolic way, things we would be afraid to say right out straight... The horror film is an invitation to indulge in deviant, antisocial behavior by proxy... Perhaps more than anything else, ...the horror movie says it's okay to join the mob, to become the total tribal being, to destroy the outsider.” (p. 31) Since adolescent males are over-represented among horror film fans (Clover, 1992), itis likely that the desire to violate social norms is also related to enjoying films that most adults, especially women of their parents’ age, do not enjoy. Talking about these films and their graphically violent and disgusting content, then, provides an additional harmless outlet for social norm (at least adult social norm) violation that may serve to strengthen peer in-group cohesion. Social influence and the need for belonging. The basic human need for belonging (Baumeister & Leary, 1996) is at the core of the social explanations of the appeal of horror. Stephen King appreciated this aspect of the appeal of horror films in stating that the fear of being alone is the ultimate human horror: *! believe that we are all ultimately alone and that any deep and lasting human contact is nothing more nor less than a necessary illusion. ...Horror, terror, fear, panic: these are the emotions which drive wedges between us, ...and make usHorror Film Appeal 21 alone." (1981, p. 13) It may be, then, that one aspect of the social basis of horror film appeal is the reassurance that is gained by viewing one's ‘worst nightmare” in the company of peers and being able to trivialize these fears by showing enjoyment. it may be that the mere presence of others serves to reduce anxiety (Schachter, 1959) or the exclamations of enjoyment or fright commonly made by horror film audiences serve a mutual influence function similar to those found by Asch (1956). The first study will examine the role of social factors in affective responses to a horror film. Study 1 Study 1 was designed to explore the structure of affective reactions to a horror film, to test the hypothesis that enjoyment of horror is greater for groups. than for individual viewers, and to test the hypothesis that the film soundtrack may increase enjoyment of horror by providing cues for the fictional unrealty of the violence on the screen. These very general issues were explored in Study 1 in order to provide the foundation for a test of the competing predictions of relief theories and continuous-reward theories in Study 2. Study 1 also tested several predictions about individual differences in enjoyment of horror. Dimensions of Affective Responses Theories about affective responses to horror films have focused on fear, distress, and enjoyment, but to what extent are these separate dimensions or is there a single affective response that subsumes the others? In addition, StephenHorror Film Appeal 22 King's typology of emotional responses to horror includes disgust: *...terror on top, horror below it, and lowest of all, the gag reflex of revulsion." (1981, p. 25); he asserts that successful horror fiction writers elicit all three. Zillmann, Weaver, Mundorf, and Aust (1986), in their study of the presence of opposite sex companions on affective responses to horror films, had subjects rate their affective experiences after viewing a popular horror film. They found delight and distress to be distinct factors. Arousal theory (Zuckerman, 1994; Schlosberg, 1954) states that the level of arousal of an emotion is independent of the valence (pleasantness or unpleasantness) of that emotion. This suggests that the excitement or arousal component may be independent of enjoyment in viewing a horror film. Further, in his analysis of facial expressions, Schlosberg (1954) mentions an additional dimension of emotional response, namely ‘attention versus rejection’, which includes interest on the one hand and contempt or disgust on the other. Recent research (Simons, Detenber, Roedema, & Reiss, 1999; Tellegen, Watson, & Clark, 1999) has found that arousal is independent of the valence of affect. In light of this, the first study explored the possibility that arousal may be independent of the hedonic quality of affective reactions to horror film. Effect of Group Context of Viewing To our knowledge, the only previous study of the effect of social context ‘on enjoyment of horror is the work of Zillmann et al (1986) on ‘snuggle theory’. This theory focuses on gender roles and their impact in a mixed-sex group.Horror Film Appeal 23 However, as noted above, group based rewards involving norm violation and fear-reduction do not depend on mixed-sex groups, and Study 1 was designed to determine whether horror is more appealing to group viewers than to single viewers. Thus, participants assigned to groups in Study 1 were all assigned to same-sex groups, in order to rule out snuggle-theory effects. The prediction was that enjoyment of the horror film would be higher for group viewers than for individual viewers. Another aspect of group influence investigated in Study 1 was the impact of group viewing on within-group similarity of affective reactions. Increased agreement of opinions within a group has been a reliable outcome of group interaction in the literature on group dynamics that began with Festinger’s (1950) treatment of the origins and effects of group cohesion. In particular, Festinger related uniformity of attitudes and values within groups to the tendency of groups to share common goals and a common social reality. Thus, a second prediction about group context was that affective reactions within a group would be positively correlated. In other words it was predicted that variation within a group would be smaller than expected in relation to the variation of affective reactions across groups. Effect of Sound Track and Cinematography Zillmann (1994) assumes that emotional involvement in drama depends on losing awareness of cinematographic cues; he asks, “Why is it that peopleHorror Film Appeal 24 exposed to drama lose, or at any rate, abandon their cognizance of the artificiality of the situation?* (p. 33) On the other hand, it may be that cinematography and the sound track are crucial to the appeal of horror films. McCauley (1998), using a documentary format that did not employ the usual horror film sound and cinematographic techniques, showed subjects videos that portrayed gore on a level similar to that found in horror films. He found that only about ten percent of participants watched these videos to the end and none reported liking them. Since the scenes portrayed in these videos were not more gory than those typically found in horror films, McCauley suggested that the difference in appeal might be related to cues that signal that the scene is fictitious, namely the sound track and cinematographic cues. Therefore, contrary to Zillmann's (1994) analysis of the role of empathy in involvement in drama, discussed above, it seems unlikely that horror film viewers lose awareness of the artificiality of the film and become immersed to the point of forgetting that itis fictitious. The sound track provides an important cue to the fictitious nature of the horror film. Music seems to be important also in modulating arousal (Tamborini, Stiff, & Heidel, 1990). Kellaris & Kent (1994), in their research on aspects of music that contribute to heightened arousal and attraction, found that tempo or pacing of the music is crucial. It seems likely that the music provides powerful cues as to which emotions the film is or should be eliciting. The first study presented here examined the role of the sound track on affective responses byHorror Film Appeal 25, using three viewing conditions: one group had only the sound, another group only the video, and a third group both sound and video together. The prediction was that, without the soundtrack, screen violence is less enjoyable. In order that the loss of soundtrack would not mean loss of plot, a film clip was required that had little dialog. The clip employed, from Friday the 13°-Part Il, satisfied this requirement; it was almost completely a chase scene in which the female protagonist spoke only a few exclamations. idual As noted above, gender and age, as well as previous exposure to the film, have been related to liking for horror. These individual differences were assessed in Study 1, and enjoyment of horror was predicted to be higher for males, younger viewers, and those unfamiliar with the horror film from which the clip was taken. In addition, empathic responsiveness is a key component of relief explanations of the appeal of horror films (as discussed above). Specifically, Zillmann (1994) sees empathic distress to the plight of the protagonist as the key to emotional involvement in the film. Enjoyment, according to this relief theory, is. then associated with the ending when the burden of empathic distress is relieved. Therefore, in terms of individual differences, the prediction was that viewers higher on empathic involvement would be more likely to enjoy the film. Finally, it seems likely that individual differences in sensitivity to disgust (Rozin, Haidt, & McCauley, 1993) may be relevant to enjoyment of horror films.Horror Film Appeal 26 Such films are full of disgust-eliciting stimuli, including death and body envelope violations (McCauley, 1998). Since disgust is one of the potential affective responses to horror, Study 1 will assess the contribution to enjoyment of individual differences in disgust sensitivity. The prediction here was not clear. Relief theory would suggest that those less sensitive to disgust should be less disgusted during the film and thus experience less enjoyment after the film resolution. Continuous reward theory would suggest instead that more disgust during the film would be experienced as greater enjoyment when “as if” negative emotions are experienced as positive. Method Respondents 66 men and 69 women (mean age=18.5; 83% white, 12% Asian, 2% Black, 8% mixed race/other) were recruited from an introductory psychology ‘subject pool in a large private college and received course-related credit. Procedure Respondents were randomly assigned to one of the six conditions (20-24 subjects, roughly equal numbers of men and women, in each condition) in a 3 {audio-only, video-only, both audio and video) by 2 (alone, group) experimental design. All groups were same-sex and consisted of from 2 to 4 participants. First, respondents were seated approximately 5 feet from the TV screen in a semi-darkened room and then watched a 14-minute segment of Friday the 13¢h-Part Ilf (same segment used in Zillmann, et. al, 1986). Those in the audio-Horror Film Appeal 27 only condition were arranged in the same manner except that a cassette player with the sound track from the film clip was placed on top of the TV. During the clip, respondents in the audio-only condition were given the following written instruction: “While listening to this audio clip, try to imagine what might be happening. Please use the space below to write down what you imagine as you are listening." After the clip, all completed the following pencil-and-paper measures. Measures Affective Responses Questionnaire. Immediately following the film clip, respondents were asked to rate 12 "Affective Responses" items similar to those used by Zillmann, et. al. (1986). In addition to six of Zillmann’s items (involving, exciting, pleasant, frightening, boring, and enjoyable), the following were also used: entertaining, disgusting, annoying, depressing, embarrassing, and silly. These items were included to assess a fuller range of possible affective responses. Respondents were given unipolar 11-point scales (where O="not at all" and 10="extremely*) to rate each item. D-scale. Rozin, Haidt, & McCauley's (1993) Disgust Scale was used to assess individual differences in sensitivity to disgust. Of the 32-items, half are forced choice and half use a 3-point rating scale. This measure combines reactions to the eight disgust domains (food, body products, hygiene, animals, sex, death, and violations of the body envelope) into a single scale whichHorror Film Appeal 28 previous research has found to have adequate reliabilities (alphas range from .80 to .87) in different groups of respondents. Moral Judgment Questionnaire. Respondents were given six scenarios (one of which had an obvious victim and the others in which a norm might have been violated but did not involve a victim) similar to those used by Haidt, Koller, and Dias (1993) in research on moral judgment. After each scenario, forced choice (yes/no) questions assessed 4 aspects of moral judgment: whether the behavior depicted is wrong, whether the protagonist should be stopped, whether the behavior would bother the respondent, and a universalizing question asking if the behavior would be considered wrong in another culture (total of 24 items in the scale). This scale did not relate to other results and will not be discussed further. Davis Empathy Scale. This 28-item scale (Davis, 1983) involves rating the self on empathy items using 4-point scales. For the purposes of the first study, a global summary score was used as an assessment of empathy in addition to Davis's four scales: Empathic Concem, Perspective Taking, Personal Distress upon seeing another's distress, and Fantasy (empathy in reaction to fiction). In the current study, reliability coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) were .81, 82, .79, and .80. Demographic Questionnaire. This brief questionnaire asked about demographic factors: age, sex, race, year in college, major, religion in which subject was raised, strength of religious beliefs, father's education, and mother'sHorror Film Appeal 29 education. In addition, the following questions related to horror film viewing were asked: familiarity with the horror film that was shown, preferences conceming horror film viewing (j.e. alone, with a group of friends, or with boy/girffriend), number of horror films seen in past year, and an open-ended question: “What (if anything) do you find most appealing about horror movies?" Besults: Factor Analysis of Affective Responses Questionnaire The twelve affective response items were entered into a factor analysis. Principal component analysis revealed three components with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 (3.8, 2.0, 1.8) that accounted for 64% of the variance. Oblimin rotation found negligible correlations (-.11 to .12) among the three components, and varimax rotation was employed to explore the structure of the items. ‘The three items loading highest on the first rotated component (27% of variance) were Frightening, Exciting, and Involving (loadings .82, .87, .77), but Frightening loaded .33 on the third component as well. This first component was clearly an arousal dimension (Boring loading -.75 on it), and is represented in the Results by a scale averaging Exciting and Involving (correlation .70) and called in the results “Exciting”. The three items loading highest on the second rotated component (20% of the variance) were Enjoyable, Pleasant, and Entertaining (loadings .88, .80, .76), and this component is represented in the Results by a scale averaging Enjoyable and Entertaining (correlation .76). Pleasant was not used in order to provide a parallel to study 2 where due to wording changes (inHorror Film Appeal 30 Study 2 subjects were asked “how do you feel?” rather than “rate the movie clip” as in Study 1) the Pleasant item was dropped. The three items loading highest on the third rotated component (17% of the variance) were Disgusting, Depressing, and Embarrassing (loadings .74, .70, .68), but the intercorrelations among these were not strong (.24-.37). Thus the theoretically important assessments of disgust and fright are represented in the Results by the single Disgusting rating and the single Frightening rating. is of tal The mean affective ratings of Enjoyable, Exciting, Disgusting, and Frightening are presented, by experimental condition in Table 1. It is interesting to note that the film clip was not rated on the average as very enjoyable (highest mean 4,7 on a scale of 0 to 10, in the full audio and video ). The means for Exciting, Disgusting, and Frightening are generally at least as high as the corresponding means for Enjoyable, indicating that participants have by no means lost awareness of negative emotional reactions in their experience of the film. Multivariate ANOVA showed a significant effects (p<.01) of both social setting and stimulus condition, with no interaction (including participant gender as. covariate did not change the results). Univariate tests (p<.05) for social setting showed that participants viewing in groups rated the film as more enjoyable, less. disgusting, and less frightening than viewers in the alone condition. Univariate tests for stimulus condition showed that participants exposed only to the audioHorror Film Appeal 31 track of the film clip rated the experience as less disgusting than participants who saw the video portion of the film, either with or without audio. Within-group influence ‘One indicator that the appeal of horror films may be connected to the social situation is that 110 of the 114 who say they watch horror movies (21 “never see” horror movies) indicated that their preferred manner of viewing horror is with another person. As described above, respondents who saw the film in a group were more likely to enjoy it and were less likely to be disgusted or frightened than those who saw the film alone. Looking only at the 68 participants in the group condition, the role of mutual influence was assessed by examining the within-groups variance estimate relative to the group-mean variance estimate Oneway ANOVA across 21 groups for each of the four affective response measures showed that all tended to be more similar within groups than would be expected on the basis of variation in group means. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 2, where percent of variance accounted for by within- group similarity is described with an eta squared for each affective measure. The eta squared for Enjoyable (69%) is significantly greater than chance, indicating group influence toward consensus in rating how enjoyable the experience was. Simple correlations between the individual differences variables and the four affective response measures are presented in Table 3. As expected, malesHorror Film Appeal 32 found the experience more enjoyable than females, although it is interesting to note that there is no hint of a gender difference in ratings of excitement, disgust, or fright. Also as expected, participants who report watching horror films find the experience more enjoyable and more exciting. Again unsurprising is the fact that participants who had previously seen the film from which the clip was taken found the experience a little less disgusting and frightening. Contrary to expectation, the Davis Empathy Scale was not strongly related to affective experience; the only significant correlations showed participants higher on empathy slightly more likely to find the experience disgusting. For the separate Davis scales, those who were higher on Empathic Concem were slightly more likely to experience fright. Surprisingly, the Davis scale most relevant to this study, Fantasy (empathic responsiveness to characters in fiction) yielded all non-significant near zero correlations. Perhaps even more surprising was the fact that the measure of individual differences in sensitivity to disgust, the D-scale, was not significantly correlated with reporting the experience as. Disgusting for the full sample. When the audio-only participants were eliminated due to a floor effect for that condition (see Table 1), a positive relation between the D-scale and the affective dimensions of disgust, enjoy, and fright emerged. Overall, high D-scale scores were significantly correlated with low enjoyment of the film.Horror Film Appeal 33 Predicting Enjoyment from Other Affective Ratings ‘Taking enjoyment of the film as the phenomenon to be explained leads to an examination of how excitement, disgust, and fright contribute to enjoyment. Table 3 also presents the intercorrelations of the affective reactions, which suggest that finding the experience more exciting is associated with more enjoyment (r=.53), but that finding the experience more disgusting or more frightening is not related to enjoyment (rs of -.11, .13). It seems unlikely that disgust and fright are irrelevant to enjoyment of horror films, and a multiple regression approach to predicting enjoyment leads to more comprehensible results. The R-squared for the regression predicting enjoyment including Exciting, Disgusting, and Frightening is .34 (.32 adjusted), and the beta weights for both Exciting and Frightening are greater than chance, with p<.01. The partial correlation between Enjoyable and Exciting is little different from the zero-order correlation (.55 versus zero-order .53). The partial correlation between Enjoyable and Frightening, however, is a significant negative -.23 (versus zero-order +.13). The partial correlation between Enjoyable and , even without Frightening in the regression, beta for Disgusting Disgusting is -. is not significant (partial -.16). Discussion In contrast to Zillmann et al's (1986) report of two factors, delight and disgust, in affective reactions to horror, the results of Study 1 indicate the value of a more complex assessment of affective reactions. The results do indicate aHorror Film Appeal 34 component of positive affect (Enjoyable) that corresponds to Zillmann's factor of delight. Disgust and fright, however, did not form a common factor in Study 1 and had to be considered separately in relation to the effect of experimental manipulations and in predicting enjoyment. Further, the results of Study 1 implicate an affective component of arousal (Excitement) that does not correspond to either Delight or Disgust. An arousal component that is relatively independent of hedonic value has been reported in recent studies of the physiology of emotion (Tellegen, et al, 1999; Simons, et al, 1999), and this issue will be given further attention in the General Discussion of this report. ‘The pattem of means for Enjoyable, Exciting, Disgusting, and Frightening makes clear that fright and disgust in reaction to cinematic gore and death are not lost in enjoyment and excitement. Across conditions, the film was generally rated about as disgusting and frightening as it was enjoyable. Rather than fright being lost in arousal and enjoyment, the negative partial correlation between Enjoyable and Frightening suggests that fright is an amalgam of arousal and negative affect; in this amalgam the arousal is a positive contribution to ‘enjoyment but the fright, partialed of arousal, actually detracts from enjoyment. This suggestion will be examined further in Study 2. ‘The personality measures included in Study 1 showed relatively few and weak relations with affective reactions. The Davis Empathy Scale was not related to enjoyment, and the D-Scale was only slightly related (negatively) to enjoyment. Not surprisingly, participants who reported watching horror filmsHorror Film Appeal 35. found the clip more enjoyable, and the usual gender difference was found in Which males rated the film as more enjoyable than females. Even here there is a bit of a puzzle, however, in that males did not differ from females in excitement, disgust, or fright. The manipulation of stimulus conditions—audio only, video only, audio with video—had surprisingly little effect on affective reactions. Disgust reactions were weaker in the audio-only condition, in the absence of screen gore. The predicted decrease in enjoyment in the video-only condition, compared with the video-with-audio condition, was not found, Thus there was no support for the hypothesis that the sound track might increase enjoyment by signaling the unreality of the screen violence. Taken together, the most consistent set of findings in this study concem the impact of social setting and mutual influence on affective responses to the horror clip. The presence of other viewers led to greater enjoyment, less fright, and less disgust than the same stimulus experienced alone. Further, a significant within-group correlation of enjoyment ratings indicated some kind of social construction or norm formation in reactions to the film. These results are not surprising given the large majority of respondents who prefer to view horror films in the company of others rather than alone. In practical terms, the results of social influence in Study 1 indicated that research on reactions to horror film may more easily be generalized to experience outside the laboratory if the film is shown to groups rather than toHorror Film Appeal 36 individuals. Study 2 thus drops the individual condition to focus on affective reactions to horror in a group context. This second study was designed to offer a more definitive test of the role of relief in response to horror films, and a further test of group influence in liking for these films. Because the first study assessed affective responses after the film clip, it was not clear whether respondents felt differently after the film than they did while viewing the clip. In other words, does the pattem of results for the first study, especially for positive affect, relate to relief the respondents felt because they saw successful resolution of the film plot? Or do viewers truly enjoy the film even while it is depicting graphic violence and gore? To address these questions that are central to relief theory, the second study asked respondents to rate the affective response items both during and after the horror film segments. Relief theory (Zillmann, 1994, 1998) claims that horror movie appeal, as well as the appeal of other types of entertainment that elicit negative affect, rests on viewers’ anticipation of relief from the negative affect that they feel during the movie. Relief is delivered when the plot line of the drama is resolved, when the protagonist is safe and even victorious. One mechanism examines contrast effects or opponent processes. Zillmann’s (1971, 1998) excitation transfer theory predicts that relief at the end with its associated positive affect is further fueled byHorror Film Appeal 37 physiological arousal that lingers but is now no longer associated with fright or disgust and so is re-attributed to enjoyment. Excitation transfer predicts that enjoyment at the end is proportional to the fright and disgust experienced while viewing the film. The second mechanism, called appraisal theory by Zillmann (deWied, Zillmann, & Ordman, 1994; Tamborini, Stiff, & Heidel, 1990), states that empathic identification with the protagonist causes the negative arousal during the movie and when the plot is resolved the viewer experiences relief from the vicarious fright experienced during the movie. Relief theory presumes that affect is one dimensional or bipolar, that it is not possible to experience both positive and negative affects at the same time. The logic of this model insists that a graphic horror film could not be watched with enjoyment while it is eliciting fright and disgust in the viewer. “The premise that portrayals of violence are inherently appealing is simply untenable.” (Zillmann, 1998, p. 210). However, some researchers have argued that positive and negative affect are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Recently, Tellegen et. al. (1999) have suggested a hierarchical model of aftect with three levels: a general overarching bipolar positive/negative dimension similar to that posited by relief theory, a middle level incorporating both positive and negative affect as independent dimensions, and a lowest and most specific level which contains the discrete emotions. The middle level of this model points to the possibility that a viewer may enjoy the entertainment value of the plot line, the cinematographic skill of aHorror Film Appeal 38 horror movie, and the thrill of arousal, while also feeling fright and disgust. Reward theory, an alternative to relief theory, views affective responses to horror films as complex and conflicting but assumes that these responses must be predominantly or on-balance positive. The paradox is that people like to watch horror films, and reward theory includes any hypothesis that can help explain why, minute by minute, the viewer chooses to stay and watch the film rather than tuming it off or leaving the room. There are various species of reward theories. One species of reward theory suggests that emotional reactions to horror fiction are not qualitatively the same as the same-named emotions elicited by real experience (Apter, 1992; McCauley, 1998; Carroll, 1990). Viewers are aware throughout that they are watching movie fiction because cinematographic cues are abundant, especially the ubiquitous sound track. McCauley (1998) found that research subjects quickly tumed off film clips from documentaries (e.g. slaughterhouse) that contained gory situations similar in disgust-eliciting content to popular horror films but dissimilar in containing no fiction cues such as music. In other words, one reason why horror movies are enjoyable may be because they are fictionalized stories that are clearty designed to elicit disgust and fright and viewers are aware of this fact. Enjoyment of the elicited fright and disgust hinges on this awareness; given this awareness, usually negative emotions, such as fright and disgust, may be experienced as positive. Another species of reward theory points to the power of suspense. Noe!Horror Film Appeal 39 Carroll (1990), in his The Philosophy of Horror or Paradoxes of the Heart, posits the notion of “art-horror” to distinguish the emotions elicited by horror fiction from actual fright or disgust. In addition to viewers’ awareness that movie characters are not actually being killed, maimed, or terrorized, audiences are enticed by suspenseful dramatic plot lines that capture their curiosity. Carroll states, are attracted to the majority of horror fictions because of the way that the plots of discovery and the dramas of proof pique our curiosity, and abet our interest, ideally satisfying them in a way that is pleasurable.” (p. 185). In other words, the story line is pleasurable throughout because viewers know it is a story and the art-horror it elicits is intrinsic to the pleasure of involvement. The current study examines the reward theory claim that the experience of art-horror is pleasurable because it is part of a generally positive entertainment experience and not because it is relieved at the end of the film. ‘Study 1 found that familiarity with the film clip was associated with affective reactions, particularly reduced disgust and fright. Since the film clip (Friday the 13-Part Ill) used for the first study was familiar to two thirds of the sample, the second study used both the same clip (for the purposes of comparison) and another horror segment (from the X-Files television program) that was likely to be less familiar. In order to test the reward theory (vs. relief on ending theory) respondents were asked for affective response ratings at baseline then during, immediately after, and looking back on both film clips. Although personality differences in reactions to horror movies was not aHorror Fim Appeal 40 central focus in Study 2, a measure of sensation seeking was included. As McCauley (1998) stated in his review of horror movie appeal research, “There is little doubt, on the basis of this evidence, that high sensation seekers like horror movies more than low sensation seekers do. The relationship is not always strong, but it is consistent.” (pp. 150-151) A central interest in Study 2 was the idea that the social context of watching a horror movie in a group of peers is important to enjoyment. As Goldstein (1998) asserts, “People rarely attend horror films or boxing matches alone...” (p. 215). Similar to violent sports, they may “...serve as social occasions for the expression of intense emotion.” (Goldstein, 1998 p. 217). Study 1 found strong group effects on affective reactions to a horror film, specifically enjoyment, disgust and fright, and the current study further examines the role of within-group influence. Previous research examining the role of social influence (Zillmann, et. al., 1986) has focused on gender interactions. Zillmann, et. al's finding of a “snuggle effect’, where men who show low levels of fear enjoy watching horror movies with women who show distress, and vice versa, clearly demonstrates one kind of social influence on enjoyment of horror. However, Study 2 was designed to leam more about social influence, as in Study 1, that does not depend on gender interaction. Thus, Study 2 examined group influence in single-sex groups of female participants. ‘Summary of hypotheses for Study 2:Horror Film Appeal 41 Conceming negative affect, relief theory (Zillmann, 1998) predicts that participants will have higher negative affect (fright and disgust) during the film than at baseline (prefilm assessment), and that negative affect will fall toward baseline level just after the film has ended in threat resolution. Looking back on the film after some minutes of interpolated activity (personality surveys), participants’ negative affect should remain lower than during the film. Thus, relief theory predicts midfilm negative affect will be higher than prefilm, endfilm and look-back negative affect for the Friday 13th clip (which ends in resolution). Relief theory predicts that midfilm and endfilm negative affect will be higher than prefilm and perhaps look-back negative affect for the X-Files clip (which is interrupted without resolution). Conceming positive affect, Zillmann (1998) predicts that positive affect is lowered during the horror film but rebounds at film resolution with extra arousal from transferred excitation from the earlier negative affect. Positive affect is assumed to come from empathizing with the success of the protagonist in escaping threat. Thus, relief theory predicts positive affect should be lower in midfilm than at baseline, and higher at endfilm and look-back than at baseline for Friday13th. For the X-Files, relief theory predicts positive affect should be lower than baseline at midfilm, endfilm, and look-back, as the film threat is never resolved. For negative affect, in accord with relief theory, reward theory predicts that participants will have negative reactions to the fear- and disgust-eliciting cues inHorror Film Appeal 42 ahorrorfilm. However reward theory sees these negative reactions as unreal, as-if emotions that need have no impact on positive reactions to the film and may even contribute to feeling entertained and transported from everyday experience—especially for individuals high on sensation seeking. Thus, reward theory predicts that negative affect should be higher in midfilm than at baseline, endfilm, or look-back. For positive affect, unlike relief theory, reward theory posits that participants are being entertained and experiencing positive affect throughout the film, without regard to what negative affect may also exist. Thus reward theory predicts that positive affect should be higher than baseline at midfilm, endfilm, and look-back. One variant of reward theory is a prediction from Wicklund's (Duval, & Wicklund, 1972) theory of objective vs. subjective self awareness (OSAWT). ‘Subjective self awareness is associated with a focus of attention outside the self, on the environment. Objective self awareness is associated with a focus of attention on the self, an awareness necessarily tinged with the threat of evaluation. The theory predicts, and considerable evidence has been found, that individuals find the state of objective self awareness to be unpleasant and they will do work to avoid this state. If attention to film shifts individuals away from objective and toward subjective self awareness, then any film should be experienced as positive to the extent that it holds the attention of viewers. A very speculative prediction from OSAWT is that self esteem should increase fromHorror Film Appeal 43 baseline (pretest) levels after watching either film clip. Social influence theory suggests that the presence of others is an important part of the viewing experience. In the first study, participants watching in groups reported more positive reactions than participants watching the same clip alone. The impact of these groups was evident also in a significant group effect on enjoyment of the film, indicating some kind of social construction of enjoyment—a kind of consensus about whether the film was enjoyable or not. Thus social influence theory predicts a group effect on enjoyment and perhaps on other affective responses to the films. Method Respondents 81 women from a women's college were recruited from an introductory psychology subject pool, and from announcements offering free movie tickets at a local theater. Film Clips ‘Two film clips were shown. The first was the same 14-minute segment of Friday the 13-Part Ill shown in Study 1. The clips filled with action and suspense as a masked killer stalks a young woman after killing her friends one by one. It ends after she kills the villain, even nudging him to make sure he is, dead and then she walks outside slowly to the sound of crickets, the unrelenting suspense-arousing music soundtrack having ended with the death of the villain. The second film clip was an episode of X-Files, a weekly televisionHorror Film Appeal 44 program that aired on Friday nights at 10:00 pm. This episode (22-minute clip, aired 9/23/94), called “The Host’, portrays a character called "The Flukeman* who was a post-Chemobyl Soviet seaman whose dead body was occupied by a giant worm that takes over the sewer system in Newark, New Jersey and invades buildings via the plumbing. It is particularly suspenseful and graphic with a more involved plot line than the Friday the 13" clip. The action is not resolved at the end of the X-Files clip. In fact the end of the clip is at a point when the quasi- human parasite is revealed for the first time. Participants were given the opportunity to stay to see the rest of the episode after the data collection was finished. Procedure Groups ranging in size from 2 to 23 women viewed the films together. Overall, there were 14 different groups: four groups of two participants, one group of three, four groups of four, two groups of seven, one group of eight, one group of nine, and one group of 23 in an attempt to get as many participants as possible on the last night of data collection. All respondents saw and heard the clips (natural viewing conditions) sitting in chairs in a semi-darkened room. Each of the clips was stopped approximately halfway through, and respondents completed a 9-item affective response questionnaire (described below). Then the clip was resumed and respondents again completed the affective response questionnaire and a measure of state self esteem at the endHorror Film Appeal 45 of each clip. The 9-item affective response questionnaires were again given at the very end of the session after both clips and other measures. (E.g., “Looking back over the first film, Friday the 13°-II you saw, how much emation did you experience?"). The “looking back” questions came approximately 30 minutes after the Friday the 13" clip and ten minutes after the X-Files clip. In order to ensure that respondents did not consult their previous answers, each affective response questionnaire was separated from the next with a blank sheet of blue Paper and kept under their chairs to prevent looking ahead. Instructions were to complete the questionnaire up to the first blue paper during the first break (approximately 1 minute duration) which was indicated by a period of gray “fuzz" on the screen. After completing each questionnaire they placed it back under their chair. Likewise, they completed the questionnaire in the second folder during the second break (end of the Friday the 13" clip). After the clips, respondents completed the remaining pencil-and-paper measures: Measures Affective Responses Questionnaire. Respondents completed this questionnaire seven times: pretest, in the middle and at the end of both clips, and later looking-back at the experience of watching each clip. The nine items from the three affective response scales determined in Study 1 were included: enjoying, excited, disgusted, entertained, frightened, depressed, amused, involved, and embarrassed (see appendix of measures) In order to be clear thatHorror Film Appeal 46 they were to rate their own experience rather than the movie itself, directions for this measure were “How do you feel right now on each of the following? | am...” For look-back, the instructions were modified to “I was...”. In order to reduce the possibility that respondents would remember their previous answers, the scale was given without numbers but rather used a line of the same length as in Study 1. The left end of the line was the ‘not at all" end of the unipolar scale, and the right end was the "extremely" end. Respondents were asked to place an "X" on the line that corresponded to the degree to which they felt the adjective described their response. Lines were then measured for the number of centimeters from the left that the X was placed (a 0-26 scale). Sensation Seeking Scale. Zuckerman's (1994) Sensation Seeking Scale - Form V was used. Respondents were given 40 forced-choice items that describe various risky activities (content included physical risk such as flying an airplane, sexual exploration, social norm violation, exploring new and unusual places or being with unconventional people). The Sensation Seeking Scale-V yields five scales: Thrill and Adventure Seeking, Experience Seeking, Disinhibition, Boredom Susceptibility, and Total Sensation Seeking which is a combination of the previous four scales. Demographic Questionnaire. This brief questionnaire asked about demographic factors: age, race, year in college, strength of religious beliefs, father’s education, mother's education. In addition, the following questions related to horror film viewing were asked: familiarity with the two horror clips thatHorror Film Appeal 47 was shown, preferences concerning horror film viewing (i.e. alone, with a group of friends, or with boy/girtfriend), number of horror films seen in past year *, and number of sad movies seen in past year. [" Note: There were outliers in for both number of horror movies and number of sad movies and these outliers were recoded to be within a closer range to other respondents.] Self Esteem and Self Perception. The Rosenberg Self Esteem Inventory was administered three times: pretest, and after each clip. Because this was used as a repeated measure, the same format as for the affective response measure was used: subjects rated their responses by marking an X ona line. Another self perception measure was given as a time-filler in order to provide a further delay in the look-back affective response measure. The self perception measure assess moral and religious attitudes that may be related to horror movie viewing. Results of this ten-item measure are not analyzed in the current study. Results In view of the many comparisons and correlations undertaken in these analyses, all significance tests are conducted at p<.01, two-tailed. foc Zillmann et. al. (1986) used the Enjoy item alone rather than a factor analytically derived Delight scale in their analyses because that is the term most people use to describe their positive affect in reaction to entertainment events. InHorror Film Appeal 48 the current study, a combination of Enjoying and Entertained is used for the same reason. Although Amused is related to these, we decided to exclude it from the enjoy scale because it is colloquially an ambiguous term that is sometimes used sarcastically. Reliability coefficients (alpha) for the 2-item Enjoy scale (Enjoying and Entertained) for the seven time points (pretest, mid, end, and look-back Friday 13", and mid, end, and look-back X-Files) was .69 at pretest and ranged from .84 to .95 for each of the film clip reaction time points (see Table 5). The remaining six affective response items were entered into separate factor analyses (see Table 4) for each of the seven times this measure was given. Principal component analysis revealed that three factors account for most of the variance. Oblimin rotation revealed two items loading on each factor. The items (Excited and Involved) loading highest on the first factor named Excited/Involved (eigenvalues range from 1.4 to 2.3) accounted for 24-38% of variance. The items (Embarrassed and Depressed) loading on the second factor named Embarrassed/Depressed (eigenvalues range from 0.9 to 2.3) accounted for 14-39% of variance. With the remaining itams (Frightened and Disgusted), the third factor named Frightened/Disgusted (eigenvalues range from 0.9 to 2.2) accounted for 15-37% of variance. See Table 4 for the loadings for each item. Each of the four affective response scales was calculated by averaging the two component items. Reliability coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) for Excited/Involved ranged from .56 to .89 over the seven times the scale was givenHorror Film Appeal 49 (see Table6). For Depressed/Embarrassed, alphas ranged from .41 to .64 (see Table 7). For Frightened/Disgusted, alphas ranged from a low .27 at pretest when these affects were probably not relevant to waiting for the study to begin, to .B1 (see Table 8). Correlations among Affective Response Scales Contrary to the prediction from relief theory that greater fright and disgust during a horror movie will be related to relief or enjoyment at the end, in the current study there is a significant negative correlation between Frightened /Disgusted at the midpoint of the Friday 13" clip and Enjoy at the end (Pearson correlation: f=-.50; p<.01). Unlike the X-Files clip, the plot in the Friday the13” clip resolves at the end. [Note: This is the only correlation between two affect scales at two different time points that was hypothesized. The remaining correlations address relations either between two time points for the same affect scale or within time points for different affect scales.] Significant bivariate correlations (see Table 5) among the seven repetitions of the Enjoy affect scale reveal that individual differences in positive experience were highly stable within a clip and moderately stable across clips. The within-clip correlations range from .80 to .89, values close to the reliability coefficients of the Enjoy scale. On the other hand, the between-clip correlations, ranging from .39 to .52 signify that there was a relation between positive affect for the two clips (not surprising since the exact same measure was used for clips that were similar in eliciting fear and disgust).Horror Film Appeal 50 Bivariate correlations for the other three affect scales (see Tables 6-8) followed the same pattem and are presented as background information about the measures before examining the hypotheses conceming the affect scales. In contrast with the low alphas for Embarrassed/Depressed, the bivariate correlations (see Table 7) indicate that there is adequate test-retest reliability for this scale, especially in response to the same movie clip. The bivariate correlations among the four affective response scales at each time point (see Table 9) indicate that Enjoy is strongly related to Excited/Involved across all time points, particularly when judgments were made from memory looking back on the film experience. That is the more excitement a person experiences the more enjoyment. In fact, the correlations between Enjoy and Excited/Involved are close to those found within the scales themselves (see Tables 5-8) and indicate the very close connection between enjoyment and excitement. Similarly, there is a consistent pattem of positive correlations between the Frightened/Disgusted and Embarrassed/Depressed scales indicating that the negative affects tend to vary together. On the other hand, the mostly non-significant correlations between Frightened/Disgusted and both Enjoy and Excited/Involved suggest that these are seemingly independent aspects of the viewing experience. The significant negative correlations between Enjoy and Frightened/Disgusted for both the midpoint and end of the Friday 13" clip are exceptions to this pattem. This suggests that high levels of negative affect may have inhibited enjoyment. TheHorror Film Appeal 51 Friday 13° clip was a long pursuit scene with a very simple plot without much dialogue punctuated by gory violence so that if viewers had high levels of disgust and fright, there wasn’t an interesting plot line to engage their attention despite their negative affect. The X-Files clip portrayed a more complex plot that may have engaged viewers’ enjoyment independent of the fright and disgust that it also elicited. Also, the Depressed/Embarrassed scale is not correlated with either Enjoy or Excited/Involved, which indicates that such dysphoric affects are not simply the inverse of enjoyment. Relative Contribution of Relevant Affect Scales to Enjoyment In order to further assess the relations between Enjoy and the other affect scales, regressions (see Table 10) predicting Enjoy were performed for each of the seven time points. In order to simplify the analyses, Excited/Involved and Frightened/Disgusted but not Embarrassed/Depressed were used as predictors in the regression. Since these two scales (Excited/Involved and Frightened/Disgusted) are not only theoretically more relevant to the horror movie viewing experience than Embarrassed/Depressed but also show more significant zero-order correlations with Enjoy, these two scales were used as. predictors. Similar to the simple zero-order correlations between Enjoy and Excited/Involved discussed above, the partial correlations also indicate that Excited/Involved is related to Enjoy at all seven time points. in fact, rather than diminish the degree of relation between Excited/Involved, the addition of Frightened/Disgusted in the regression only serves to strengthen that relation. InHorror Film Appeal 52 fact, the contribution of Excited/Involved is so strong as to raise the possi that enjoyment of horror movies is not very likely without excitement. For Frightened/Disgusted, in contrast to the zero-order correlations where the relations between Enjoy and Frightened/Disgusted were small, especially for the X-Files clip, the regression results show a stronger and more consistent pattern of inverse relations. This means that the zero-order correlations are hiding a case of classical suppression such that when Excited/Involved variance is partialed from Fright/Disgust, the latter is negatively related to Enjoy. Equally, when FrightDisgust variance is partialed from Excited/involved, Excited/Involved is more strongly related to Enjoy. This pattem of findings indicates that excitement in reaction to horror movies is enjoyable and that fright and disgust are not enjoyable but the excitement variance in fright suppresses its negative relation to enjoyment and the small negative affect variance (from Frightened/Disgusted) in excitement suppresses some of its positive relation to enjoyment. This provides a clearer picture of why fright and disgust may not be negatively related to enjoyment not only in the zero-order correlations but also in the experiences of horror movie fans who report enjoyment despite fright and disgust. Repeat Me Exploring the rival relief vs. reward hypotheses about the appeal of horror movie viewing, repeated measures comparisons across the seven data collection points were performed for the four affect scales (see Table 11). Overall, thereHorror Film Appeal 53 were significant differences among the data collection points for Enjoy, Excited/Involved, and Frightened/Disgusted but not for Embarrassed/ Depressed. This supports the claim that whereas the other three scales are relevant as. horror movie reaction measures, Embarrassed/Depressed is not particular to the viewing experience. The low means (ranging from 2.1 to 2.8 in a scale that potentially ranges from 0-26) for Embarrassed/Depressed in Table 11 suggests a floor effect, especially with the smaller standard deviations. Planned comparison t-tests comparing pretest with all other time points, midpoint and end for both clips, and end and look-back for both clips were performed in order to test specific hypotheses. Relief theory predicts that enjoyment would significantly increase from midpoint to end especially for the Friday the 13" clip which has a resolved plot at the end. However, there are no significant differences between midpoint and ending for either clip. This finding points to reward theory, which predicts enjoyment levels that are the same from midpoint to ending. Look-back X-Files is significantly different from end X-Files indicating that the experience was even more positive in memory than it was at the end of the clip. Significant differences between pretest Enjoy and all time points for X-Files but none for Friday 13" clip shows that actually watching the Friday 13" clip was no more enjoyable than anticipating watching it, whereas the more complex plot line in the X-Files clip was probably more enjoyable. The lack of difference in Enjoy between the end of the Friday the 1" clip and the retrospective look-back later suggests that at least for this short duration, theHorror Film Appeal 54 experience of recall is equally pleasurable as the immediate aftermath. The pattem of findings for Excited/Involved shows significant differences between the pretest and all other time points except for the end and look-back for the Friday the 13" clip. The reduced excitement at these two time points makes sense because those are the only two time points that involve a resolved plot line. This suggests that a more appropriate claim for relief theory is rather than greater enjoyment at the end with a resolved story line, there is relief from excitement. Further support for this version of a relief explanation is found in the significantly greater excitement at the midpoint than at the end of the Friday 13” clip. Moreover, the unresolved plot line of the X-Files clip could have contributed to the higher level of Excited/Involved on look-back than at the end. This is a particularly compelling explanation given that the end of the X-Files clip was at a moment of high action, an important tuming point in the plot but without resolution. For Frightened/Disgusted, as expected, all later time points are significantly higher than pretest baseline. The significantly lower fright and disgust in looking back on the Friday the 13” clip may be due to a change in memory of the experience over time or with an intervening distractor task given the resolved plot line. However, this change is not immediate upon resolution since there is no difference in Frightened/Disgusted from midpoint to ending. The finding of no reduction in enjoyment between any of the time points for the Friday the 13° clip, along with reduced fright and disgust in looking back on theHorror Film Appeal 55 Friday the 13" clip suggests that one of the factors that fuel horror fans’ enthusiasm for the genre is reduced negative affect without loss of positive affect. The significantly greater Frightened/Disgusted at the end of the X-Files clip is probably a straightforward result of the point in the action when the clip ended, As mentioned above, the end of the clip did not see resolution of the disgusting and frightening aspects of the plot. In fact, the particular point when the clip ended revealed a graphic portrayal of “the thing” for the first time in all its gory detail. Relati Contrary to the prediction derived from previous research, the Sensation Seeking scales were not clearly related to affective experience in this study (see Table 12). One exception is that both Enjoy and Excited/Involved were positively correlated with Experience Seeking at the midpoint of the X-Files clip. Participants with higher levels of experience seeking or pursuing novel experiences were more likely to enjoy and be excited and involved in the X-Files clip, at least initially. This provides further evidence that the X-Files clip with its richer story line is more interesting and engaging than the Friday the 13" clip. In order to explore the possibility of a distractor effect such that viewing a horror movie can provide relief from objective self-awareness, comparisons in self esteem from pretest to the end of each film was performed. There were significant differences from pretest to the end of each film (Friday the 13°: eta squared=.13, p<.01, mean pretest self-esteem=18.4, std dev=4.9; mean FridayHorror Film Appeal 56 13°=19.2, std dev=4.9; mean X-Files=19.1, std dev=4.8). Paired t-tests comparing each post-film self-esteem mean with pretest yielded significant results for each. Caution must be used in interpreting these results because there is no control comparison of the effects of multiple administrations of the ‘same self-esteem measure and the effects of distractors on self-esteem changes in general. The significant negative correlation (see Table 13) between self- esteem and Excited/Involved at the end of the Friday the 13" clip taken together with the negative sign of all of the remaining non-significant correlations between self-esteem and involvement (and excitement) further hints at the possibility that involvement in viewing the clips may have provided relief from negative affect derived from seff focus for viewers with low self-esteem. In other words, this may provide some support for the relief from objective self awareness claim. For reasons of self selection, it is not surprising that previous research (see Study 1) has found a relation between horror movie viewing experience and positive affective responses. Unlike in Study 1 where a large number of participants were familiar with the Friday 13" clip, the women in the current study were largely unfamiliar with the clip (71 out of 80 had never seen Friday 13” clip and 74 out of 80 had never seen the X-Files clip.) General horror movie viewing experience was assessed by asking what is the typical social setting in which the respondent views horror movies with the option to check “never see”. A dichotomous sees/doesn't see horror movie variable was created from this.Horror Film Appeal 57 Horror movie viewing experience was also assessed by asking the number of horror movies the respondent typically sees in a year (mean=3.3, std dev=6.1). ‘An additional question, for contrast purposes, asked the number of sad movies in a year (mean=7.4, std dev=6.7). There was a consistent pattem of significant positive correlations between whether or not participants see horror movies at all and the Enjoy affect scale (see Table 14), indicating that those who are familiar with this genre in general found the clips shown in this study more enjoyable than those who are not familiar with the genre. This is not surprising, since experience is likely to be related to interest and previous enjoyment, in addition to knowledge of what to expect from horror movie plots. This enhanced enjoyment was not simply the result of anticipation, since the correlation between seeing horror movies and the pretest Enjoy affect scale was not significant. Similarly, Excited/Involved was also greater in participants who are familiar with this form of entertainment (“Sees horror movies”) specifically in response to the X-Files clip at both midpoint and end. In contrast, the correlations between the remaining two negative affect scales and experience with seeing horror movies were non-significant. Interestingly, all of the non-significant correlations between both negative affect scales (Embarrassed/ Depressed and Frightened/Disgusted) and seeing horror were in the negative or inverse direction, weakly suggesting that experience with the horror genre corresponds to reduced negative affect. The combination of high positive affect and even slightly diminished negative affect in the experience of seeing a horror movie might serve to motivate viewersHorror Film Appeal 58 to see more horror movies. Interestingly, knowing how many horror movies a participant has seen does not contribute to understanding affective responses. Therefore, in Predicting affective responses it seems more important to know if a person sees movies from this genre at all rather than knowing the extent of experience. The correlations between number of sad movies and affect are similar to the correlations with number of horror movies seen. Relation between Horror Viewing Experience and Affect Contrary to expectations, there was not a strong relation between horror movie viewing experience and individual difference variables overall, especially sensation seeking (see Table 15). A notable exception is the positive correlation between Thrill and Adventure Seeking and seeing horror movies. This is consistent with previous research (Zuckerman, 1994), which has found that horror movie fans are likely to be sensation seekers. Group Influence Study 1 found a significant effect for group in enjoyment of a horror film clip. Specifically, there was reduced within-groups variance for both excitement and enjoyment in Study 1. The current study examined the role of the group further by looking at the group effect at seven time points (see Table 16). Table 16 shows the percent of variance that is accounted for by the group with whom the participant watched the clips for the four affect scales at each of the seven data collection points. There was a consistent pattem of significantHorror Film Appeal 59 findings for the Enjoy scale from the end of the Friday 13" clip through alll the remaining time points. Overall, approximately a third of the variance in enjoyment was accounted for by group differences. The pattem of findings from non-significant group influence at baseline and at the midpoint of the Friday 13” clip to later significant group effects suggest that the group takes more than a few minutes to exert its influence, since the midpoint of the Friday 13° clip was approximately 12 minutes into the study. Although the pattem of findings for group effects in the Excited/Involved scale was non-significant for all Friday 13” time points, there was a significant finding of mutual group influence for the X-Files clip. In contrast, group membership did not account for a significant portion of the variance in either the Embarrassed/Depressed or Frightened/Disgusted scales. These findings are consistent with findings from Study 1, where the effect of group membership on Disgust was non-significant. This pattem of findings suggests that although, as found in Study 1, the presence of others is likely to reduce overall disgust, disgust and fright reactions to horror movies is less subject than enjoyment to contagion or social influence. Taken together with the Enjoy scale findings, the effects of the group on enjoyment and possibly ‘excitement but not negative affect point to a reason why viewers typically prefer to see horror movies in groups. In response to the question asking how respondents prefer to see horror movies, only 2% said they prefer to see horror movies alone, whereas 61% said they prefer to be in groups and 12% wouldHorror Film Appeal 60 rather be with a date (the remaining respondents said that they never see horror movies). Group effects on whether or not a participant stayed after the study was finished to watch the end of the X-Files clip were particularly strong. 55% of the variance in the decision to stay was accounted for by mutual influence. in fact, nine of the fourteen groups were unanimous in their decisions to stay orleave (three of the fourteen unanimous groups stayed). In order to further explore these group effects, analyses where a unit was a group rather than an individual were performed. Specifically, group means and standard deviations for each affect scale were calculated and then differences from pretest were examined to determine if shifts in mean from pretest were related to decreased standard deviation. All correlations were nonsignificant. ‘Study 2: Discussion ‘Study 2 was a correlational study of 80 participants who viewed two film clips in all-female groups ranging in size from 2 to 23. Unlike previous studies (Sparks, 1991) that assessed negative affect during and positive affect after suspenseful films, Study 2 used an affective response instrument that assessed a range of positive (e.g., enjoy) and negative (e.9., disgust) affects. Without this full range at midpoint and ending, the predictions of relief theories and reward theories cannot be fully tested. A further innovation of Study 2 was a baselineHorror Film Appeal 61 affect measure before the first film clip began; again this was to provide a better test of the predictions of relief and reward theories. The measures of affective reactions used in Study 2 were subtly but importantly different from those used in Study 1. In Study 1, participants were asked after the clip from Friday the 13th to rate the film they had just seen in terms of how enjoyable it was, how exciting, disgusting, frightening and so forth. In Study 2 participants were asked to rate “how you are feeling right now” on many of the same kinds of measures: enjoying, excited, disgusted, frightened, and so forth. This change was made in order that the ratings in Study 2 would more closely match the terms of relief theory, which is not a theory of esthetic judgment but a theory of emotional reactions to film. In order to provide ratings more like the overall film ratings of Study 1, Study 2 participants also made ‘lookback’ ratings of what they had been feeling while watching each film clip (about 30 minutes earlier for Friday 13” and about ten minutes earlier for the X- Files). Possibly because of this difference in the target of the ratings-- instantaneous affective experience versus overall film rating~the structure of affective ratings in Study 2 was similar but not identical the structure in Study 1. Study 1 found Enjoyable and Entertaining highly correlated in a two-item scale called “Enjoyable”, and Study 2 similarly found Enjoyment and Entertained highly correlated in a two-item scale.. Study 1 found Exciting and Involving highly correlated in a two-item scale called “Exciting”, and Study 2 similarly foundHorror Film Appeal 62 Excited and Involved highly correlated in a two-item scale. Unlike Study 1, however, Study 2 found Frightened and Disgusted sufficiently correlated that they could be averaged in a two-item scale. Again unlike Study 1, Study 2 found a negative affect component of Depressed/Embarrassed, although this component seemed to suffer a floor effect in showing no significant variation from baseline to film exposures. Still, Study 2 supports Study 1 in pointing to an arousal component of affective reactions (Excited/Involved) that can be distinguished from a positive reward component (Enjoyment/Entertained) and one or more negative reward components (Disgusted/Frightened and perhaps Embarrassed/Depressed). Consistent with these distinctions are the results from both Study 1 and Study 2 of regression analyses predicting enjoyment from arousal and fright . In Study 1, zero-order correlation between fright and enjoyment was negligible, but regression analysis showed a significant negative relationship between fright and enjoyment when arousal variance was partialed from the fright ratings. In Study 2, reactions to Friday 13th showed significant negative zero-order correlations between fright/disgust and enjoyment but negligible relationship between fright/disgust and enjoyment for reactions to X-Files. Thus Studies 1 and 2 showed the same pattem of “classical suppression” (Cohen & Cohen, 1983): negligible zero-order correlations between hedonically negative affective reactions and enjoyment hide significant negative partial correlations between negative affect and enjoyment. In other words, negative affect does interfereHorror Film Appeal 63 with film enjoyment, but the arousal aspect of the negative affect makes a positive contribution to enjoyment. Theoretically, these results do not support McCauley's (1998) hypothesis that usually negative emotions such as fear and disgust can be experienced as positive within the “safety frame” (Apter, 1992) of fiction. Once partialed of their contribution to arousal, fear and disgust reduce enjoyment of the film experience. Nor do the results of Study 2 support relief theory. The most prominent species of relief theory, appraisal theory and excitation-transfer theory, both predict that negative affect should be dominant during the viewing of horror films. and that those feeling most frightened or disgusting during the film should feel the most enjoyment when the film ends. Instead, the repeated assessments of positive and negative reactions tell the same story during and after the film and looking back at the experience of the film: enjoyment of the film is not consistently higher after the film or looking back on it than when enjoyment is assessed during the film. Reactions of disgust and fright are not consistently lower after the film than during the film. The viewers who enjoy the film the most at the end and looking back are essentially the same viewers who enjoy the film the most while watching it, and those who react with the most fright and disgust during the film are not those who find it most enjoyable after its conclusion. Thus neither relief theory nor McCauley's (1998) version of reward theory are supported by the results of Study 2. As suggested above in relation to the regression results, another version of reward theory may be more successful--aHorror Film Appeal 64 version that points to arousal as the major source of enjoyment for horror films. This version asserts that increased arousal is rewarding (Berlyne, 1967), at least for some people (Zuckerman, 1994), and that horror films are rewarding so long as the enjoyment of arousal is greater than the punishment of negative affect such as fright and disgust. This is consistent with reward theory because it asserts that the balance of reward from arousal versus punishment from fright and disgust must be predominantly positive throughout the film in order to keep the viewer from turing off or turning away from the film. The results and theories just considered are all focused on an individual level of analysis. Study 2 confirms Study 1 in showing the need for attention to group-level mechanisms of enjoyment of horror films. Zillmann et al (1986) opened this issue with their demonstration of cross-gender interactions effects such that males like a horror film more in the company of a frightened female, and females like a horror film more in the company of an unflappable male. Studies 1 and 2 go further in showing reduced variation in affective reactions within groups of viewers. This result cannot be attributed to gender role interaction, as Studies 1 and 2 both examined same-sex groups. Rather there seems to be some kind of mutual influence toward a normative affective reaction in groups of viewers. Attempts to link the variance of ratings within a group to the mean affect ratings or shifts in these ratings were not successful, and the origins and nature of social influence among viewers remains mysterious. it may be that horror film audiences influence each other in a manner similar to theHorror Film Appeal 65 group influence findings of Asch (1956) where influence was based on public report of personal reactions, but further research is needed to determine the mechanism of mutual influence. General Discussion Taken together, Studies 1 and 2 make several contributions to understanding the appeal of horror films, but they also raise a number of new issues and questions for future research. Here | summarize briefly both the contributions and their associated uncertainties. ‘The first contribution is an advance in understanding the structure of ‘emotional reactions to horror films. The results of Studies 1 and 2, despite using somewhat different sets of ratings (affect words) in relation to somewhat different targets (rating film or rating current emotional state), have converged in two important respects. The first is that affective reactions to film probably cannot be adequately represented as two independent dimensions of “delight’ and “disgust” as suggested by Zillmann et al (1986). In both studies, the positive affect of enjoyment was closely related to excitement and involvement, but negatively related to negative affect of fright and disgust. Thus, a full assessment of reactions to film would seem to require at least an arousal dimension, an hedonically positive dimension of enjoyment, and one or more hedonically negative dimensions such as disgust and fright. Recent research on the components or dimensions of emotional experience (Tellegen, et al, 1999, Simons, et al, 1999) have suggested that, atHorror Film Appeal 66 least for some purposes, arousal or intensity can be usefully distinguished from positive and negative hedonic tone. in particular, Simons et al. (1999) has measured verbal and physiological reactions to both slides and brief video tapes, and has found that much of the variation in emotional reactions can be represented in a unipolar arousal dimension and a bipolar dimension of hedonic positive vs. negative reactions. It is clear that research on affective reactions to horror films--and other emotionally arousing films--can both profit by and contribute to the burgeoning literature on the structure of emotional experience. Studies 1 and 2 also agree in pointing to a second aspect of the structure of affective reaction to horror films. Enjoyment and entertainment are positively related to excitement and involvement, but negatively related to disgust and fright. The negative relation between enjoyment and fright or disgust becomes. clear only when the arousal component is partialed from disgust and fright reactions. Thus Studies 1 and 2 suggest a resolution of the uncertainty about the role of negative emotions in enjoyment of horror films. Zillmann’s relief theory suggested that negative emotions elicited by disgust were incompatible with enjoyment of the film during the film, whereas reward theory (McCauley, 1998; Apter 1992) suggested that usually negative emotions might be experienced as positive within the safety-frame of fiction. The resolution suggested in Discussion of Study 2 was that both are incorrect, and a new version of reward theory was advanced in which disgust and fright are decomposed into an arousal componentHorror Film Appeal 67 that contributes positively to enjoyment and a negative hedonic component that reduces enjoyment. This resolution seems preferable to the apparent message of simple correlations, which for both the Friday 13th clip in Study 1 and the X-Files clip in Study 2, would suggest that fright and disgust are unrelated to enjoyment of the film. This suggestion is a priori highly implausible. Likewise implausible, in retrospect, is any relief theory that suggests that viewers submit to an unpleasant experience in order to feel good when the unpleasantness stops. The literature on delay of gratification (Mischel, Ebbesen, & Zeiss, 1972; Mischel, 1974) suggests that such delay is more a hard-won skill than an easy or natural ability. Still, the arousal-value version of reward theory may be said to create as. many problems as it solves. Increasing arousal is presumably associated with increasing enjoyment only up to some optimal point, after which arousal becomes less enjoyable. Like other inverted-U functions, this one is likely to prove difficutt to pin down empirically. Informal observation of viewers of horror films does at least suggest some titration of arousal and negative affect, however: viewers sometimes look away, or close their eyes, at the most intensely violent and gory scenes. Also in favor of the arousal version of reward theory is the broad attraction of everyday arousal-increasing interventions such as tea, coffee, and jogging. ‘One attraction of the arousal-increase version of reward theory is that it may help understand the appeal of films other than horror films. Violent actionHorror Film Appeal 68 films are full of death and body-envelope violations that presumably elicit fright and disgust similar to that elicited by horror films. Tragedies and tearjerkers (de Wied, et al, 1994) present a similar paradox: these are films that are enjoyable despite eliciting a usually negative emotion of sadness (Mills, 1993). It seems possible that violent films and tragic films succeed in being enjoyable in the same way as horror films: the arousal value of the negative emotions elicited is positive enough to outweigh the negative hedonic value of these emotions. Also, the clearly fictitious nature of these forms of entertainment cued by the sound track provides necessary information to the viewer (McCauley, 1998) to allow ‘enjoyment. Finally, a clear contribution of Studies 1 and 2 is the demonstration of group-level effects on the enjoyment of horror. Study 1 showed that watching in a group is more enjoyable, less disgusting and less frightening than watching alone, and showed also a group influence toward similarity of enjoyment ratings within groups of viewers. Study 2 confirmed the group influence toward similarity of enjoyment ratings. Unfortunately, Studies 1 and 2 did not provide any hints as to the nature or origins of this influence. ‘Thus, Studies 1 and 2 have established a new phenomenon--a pattem of group influence on the mean and variance of affective reactions to horror films~- but this pattem will not be understood without additional research, The group influence toward uniformity is unlikely to be mere compliance, since the ratings were made individually and the opportunity for comparison ofHorror Film Appeal 69 the written ratings was remote at best. Rather the influence is likely to a form of internalized group norm that reduces viewers’ uncertainty about what interpretation to give the combination of arousal with positive and negative affect that they are experiencing. If this interpretation is correct, then the group influence on level and variance of affective reaction should be diminished or eliminated in a condition where a group of viewers are physically proximate while each individual watches a different film on a separate video screen. Alast contribution must be seen as tentative indeed. Study 2 took a long shot in including the Rosenberg self-esteem scale, a trait measure, in hope of showing a state change in self esteem associated with watching a horror film. This prediction came from the idea that an important reward of attending to fiction is distraction, especially distraction from self-evaluation that Wicklund (Duval & Wicklund, 1972) described as a state of objective self-awareness. This prediction cannot be said to have been seriously tested, as Study 2 did not include any kind of control group to assess change from sheer repetition of the self-esteem measure with delays of ten or twenty minutes. Still, the increased self esteem associated with watching the Friday 13th clip, and remaining after watching the X-Files clip, suggests that more systematic tests of the distraction hypothesis may be warranted. In conclusion, Studies 1 and 2 have introduced innovations in both experimental manipulation and measurement of affective reactions to horror films. These innovations have provided evidence against relief theories inHorror Film Appeal 70 general and against reward theories that claim that usually negative affect is somehow experienced as positive in the frame of fiction. The results suggest instead a form of reward theory in which viewing horror films is enjoyable to the extent that the unpleasantness of fright and disgust are outweighed by the enjoyment of their arousal value. This arousal version of reward theory has some promise for understanding enjoyment of action films and tragedies, which, like horror films, seem paradoxical insofar as viewers find them enjoyable even as they elicit negative affective reactions such as fright, disgust, and sadness.Horror Film Appeal 71 Apter, M. J. (1992). The da New York: The Free Press. Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70(9, Whole No. 416). Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. Berlyne, D. E. (1967). Arousal and reinforcement. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 1-110). Lincoln: University of Nobraska Press. Carroll, N. (1990). The philosophy of horror or paradoxes of the heart. New York: Routledge. Clover, C. J. (1992). Men, women, and chain saws: Gender in the Modem horror film. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2 ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring ind Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113-126. jal differences in empathy:Horror Film Appeal 72 Davis, M. H., Hull, J. C., Young, R. D., & Warren, G. G. (1987). Emotional reactions to dramatic film stimt empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 126-133. deWied, M., Zillmann, D., & Ordman, V. (1994). The role of empathic The effects of cognitive and emotional distress in the enjoyment of cinematic tragedy. Poetics, 23, 91-106. Duval, S. & Wicklund, R. A. (1972). A theory of objective self awareness. New York: Academic Press. Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271-292. Fultz, J., & Nielson, M. E. (1993). Anticipated vicarious affect and willingness to be exposed to another's suffering. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 14(3), 273-283. Goldstein, J. H. (1998). Why we watch. In J.H. Goldstein (Ed.), Why we watch: The attractions of violent entertainment (pp. 212-226). New York: Oxtord University Press. Haidt, J., Koller, S. H., & Dias, M. G. (1993). Affect, culture, and morality or is it wrong to eat your dog? Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 613-628. Kellaris, J. J., & Kent, R. J. (1994). An exploratory investigation of responses elicited by music varying in tempo, tonality, and texture. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2(4), 381-401. King, S. (1981). Danse macabre. New York: Berkley Books.Horror Film Appeal 73 McCauley, C. (1998). When screen violence is not attractive. In J.H. Goldstein (Ed.), Why we watch: The attractions of violent entertainment (pp. 144-162). New York: Oxford University Press. Mills, J. (1993). The appeal of tragedy: An attitude interpretation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 14(3), 255-271. Mischel, W. (1974). Processes in delay of gratification. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances it rimental social logy, (vol. 7). New York: ‘Academic Press. Mischel, W., Ebbesen, E. B., & Zeiss, A. R. (1972). Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification. Journal of Personaltiy and Social Psychology, 21, 204-218. Oliver, M. B. (1993). Adolescents’ enjoyment of graphic horror. Communication Research, 20, 30-50. Rozin, P., Haidt, P., & McCauley, C. R. (1993). Disgust. InM. L. Lewis, & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 575-594). New York: Guilford. Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation: Experimental studies of the sources of gregariousness. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. ‘Schaller, M. (1993). Feeling bad to feel good: Comments and observations. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 14(3), 285-294. ‘Schlosberg, H. (1954). Three dimensions of emotion. Psychological Review, 61, 81-88.Horror Film Appeal 74 Sharkey, B. (1994, October 30). Cover your eyes, quick. The New York Times. p. Section 2. Simons, R. F., Detenber, B. H., Roedema, T. M., & Reiss, J. E. (1999). Emotion-processing in three systems: The medium and the message. Psychophysiology, 36, xxx-200. Skal, D. J. (1993). The monster show: A cultural history of horror. New York: Penguin Books. Solomon, R. L. (1980). The opponent-process theory of acquired motivation: The costs of pleasure and the benefits of pain. American Psychologist, 35, 691-712. Solomon, R. L., & Corbit, J. D. (1974). An opponent-process theory of motivation: Temporal dynamics of affect. Psychological Review, 81, 119-145. Tamborini, R., & Stiff, J. (1987). Predictors of horror film attendance and appeal: An analysis of the audience for frightening films. Communication Research, 14(4), 415-436. Tamborini, E., Stiff, J., & Heidel, C. (1990). Reacting to graphic horror: A model of empathy and emotional behavior. Communication Research, 17(5), 616-640. Tamborini, R., Stiff, J., & Zillmann, D. (1987). Preference for graphic horror featuring male versus female victimization: Personality and past film viewing experiences. Human Communication Research, 13(4), 529-552. Tellegen, A., Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1999). On the dimensional andHorror Film Appeal 75 hierarchical structure of affect. Psychological Science, 10(4), 297-303. Zillmann, D. (1994). Mechanisms of emotional involvement with drama. Poetics, 23, 33-51. Zillmann, D. (1998). The psychology of the appeal of portrayals of violence. In J.H. Goldstein (Ed.), Why we watch: The attractions of violent entertainment (pp. 179-211). New York: Oxford University Press. Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1977). Affective responses to the emotions of a protagonist. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 155-165. Zillmann, D., & Weaver, J. B. (1996). Gender-socialization theory of horror. In J. Weaver, & R. Tamborini (Eds.), Horror films: Current research on audience preferences and reactions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. & Aust, C. F. (1986). Effects of Zillmann, D., Weaver, J. B., Mundorf, an opposite-gender companion’s affect to horror on distress, delight, and attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 586-594. Zuckerman, M., & Litle, P. (1986). Personality and curiosity about morbid and sexual events. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 47-56. Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. New York: Cambridge University Press.Horror Film Appeal 76 Table 1 i Condit Video Both Audio Eta Social Setting: ‘only Audio & Video ‘only Squared Enjoyab! Alone 28 (2.0) 27 (2.1) 3.1 (22) setting .05* Group 37 (2.5) 47 (3.0) 3.5 (2.0) stimulus .01 Exciting Alone 45 (1.7) 5.4 (2.2) 5.3 (2.3) setting .00 Group 45 (24) 4.7 (2.6) 5.1 (2.2) stimulus .02 Disgusting Alone 6.1 (2.2) 57 (2.8) 2.8 (2.3) setting .05* Group 45 (3.1) 45 (3.1) 2.4 (2.6) stimulus .20* Frightening Alone 40 (23) 5.3 (2.5) 46 (2.6) setting .04* Group 37 (2.8) 3.5 (2.0) 3.8 (2.6) stimulus .01 Notes: Potential scale range is 0-10. * p<.05 for Univariate ANOVA, following Multivariate ANOVA p<.01 for Setting and Stimulus Condition, with no significant interaction. Sample sizes: video on! 22 alone; 24 group both audio and video: 23 alone; 20 group audio only: 22 alone; 24 groupHorror Film Appeal 77 Table 2 \r Fi Group Eta Squared (20,47) Source: % Ratio Probability Enjoyable . 69 2.18 p<.05 Exciting 65 1.72 p<.07 Disgusting 62 1.49 p<.13 Frightening 60 1.33 p<.2t Note: 68 subjects were members of 21 single-sex groups with mean group size of 3.24 group size number of groups 2 1 14 3 4 6Horror Film Appeal 78 Enjoyable Exciting Disgusting _ Frightening Exciting 53" Disgusting = 04 Frightening 13 60" 37 Davis Empathy (total) a1 -.03 17° MM Empathic Concem “17 02 07 18° Perspective Taking -.09 -.03 15, 10 Personal Distress -.06 -.05 08 07 Fantasy 00 02 14 -.07 Disgust Sensitivity 21" -01 15 22" (without audio group +) (-.31 *) (-.07) (24*) (25°) Familiarity with Friday13 «15 02 -2t* 17" Eversee Horror Films 34" 25" -.06 05, Sex 1=male; 2=female -.32" -12 08 04 Notes: * p<.05 two-tailed N's range from 134-135 a N=89 for sample without audio groupHorror Film Appeal 79 excited/ embarrassed/ frightened/ involved depressed disgusted excited 77 to 96 08 to 20 -.38 to .17 pretest 83 -.08 17 Friday 13” 771 891.85 .04/ 201.10 =.3B /-.21/-27 X-Files (92/96/95 =01/.04/.04 — -.08/ .03/ .02 involved 80 to 94 ~34 10.11 -.13 to 25 pretest 80 A -13 Friday 13” 87/80/89 207 /-34/-15 24/25/14 X-Files 90/88/94 3021-07 1-06 = 10/-.11/-.01 frightened 18 to 45 -.04 to 32 .56 to .84 pretest 25 +04 ‘82 Friday 13" 28/.19/ 45 26/18/32 69/ 721.56 X-Files :22/.24/.18 :09/.07/.08 (81/76/84 disgusted -.36 to -.09 -.08 to .12 65 to 96 pretest +36 12 65 Friday 13” -.13/--20/-13 02 /-.08/-.03 89/92/95 X-Files -13/-09/-.11 -.07/-03/-06 93/96/95 depressed -16 to .17 .40 to .89 +22 to 51 Pretest ~.14 78 21 Friday 13° -.02/ .17/-.06 84/40/88 06/51/02 X-Files -08/-16/-04 — .66/.78/.74 (38 /-.22/.32 embarrassed -.06 to 22 .78 to .97 pretest 22 89 Friday 1%" = -.03/-.06/-.01 88 / .89/ 87 5 X-Files .01/.10/.00 97/94/95 213/13 /-17 Note: n=80 Numbers in bold indicate factor on which item was included. The three loadings next to Friday 13" and X-Files are midpoint / end / look back.Horror Film Appeal 80 1. pretest 62 42 32 35 46 42 44 2. mid Friday 12" a4 80 39 42 40 3. end Friday 13° 22 184 45 52 ‘7 4. lookback Friday 13" 22 45 49 45 5. mid X-Files at -87 84 6. end X-Files ary 7. look-back X-Files 28 Notes: _Allcorrelations are significant at p<.01 n=80 Correlations in bold are for same movie clip (either Friday 13° or X-Files).Horror Film Appeal 81 Table 6: 1. pretest 63 46 45 44 49 39 42 2. mid Friday 19" 58 85 72 44 43 44 3. end Friday 19° 63 73 55 54 54 4, look-back Friday 13" 2 39 36 39 5. mid X-Files Bt 87 6. end X-Files 82 87 7. look-back X-Files 89 Notes: All correlations are significant at p<.01 n=80 Correlations in bold are for same movie clip (either Friday 13° or X-Files).Horror Film Appeal 82 Table 7: 1. pretest oa Ad 44 43 52 36 2. mid Friday 13” 84 -83 61 58 8. end Friday 13” 45 94 67 63 4. look-back Friday 13° St 68 58 5. mid X-Files 44 6.end X-Files 69 7. look-back X-Files 60 69 78 .79 .78 Notes: All correlations are significant at p<.01 n=80 Correlations in bold are for same movie clip (either Friday 13" or X-Files).Horror Fim Appeal 83 1. pretest 225" a 24 ge 25" 23" 2. mid Friday 13° 478 79 50 44 46 3. end Friday 15° ST 85 52 46 52 4. look-back Friday 13° 63 46 a2 st 5. mid X-Files B 75 6. end X-Files 84 7. look-back X-Files at Notes: “indicates non-significant. All other correlations are significant at p<.01 n=80Horror Film Appeal 64 Table 9: Embarrassed Erightened/ Affect Scales: Enjoy (Depressed Disgusted pretest 79° -.04 04 mid Friday 13” 63° 01 -.05 end Friday 13” aa. 13 WwW look-back Friday 13" 69" 08 15 mid X-Files 79° -.09 .07 end X-Files 85" “1 30° look-back X-Files 89° -.06 16 Embarrassed/Depressed: pretest o1 16 mid Friday 13” -31" 4a* end Friday 13” -27 50° look-back Friday 13” 46° mid X-Files 7" end X-Files 28 look-back X-Files 36° Erightened/Disgusted: pretest -.05 mid Friday 13” -50* end Friday 13” -36* look-back Friday 13" -.24 mid X-Files AT end X-Files .09 look-back X-Files -.02 Notes: ‘p<.01 n=80Horror Film Appeal 85 Table 10: Bisgusted involved Variance % Enjoy Scales: pretest -13 (-.05) 79" (.79") 63° mid Friday 13” -59* (-.50°*) 69° (.63*) 61° end Friday 13” -43* (-36*) 71" (62°) 587° look-back Friday 13 -.49* (-.24) 76* (.69°) 61° mid X-Files ~37* (-.17) 82° (.79") 68° end X-Files -.33* (09) 87° (.85*) 76° look-back X-Files -.36* (-.02) .90* (89°) 82° Notes: n=80 *p<.01Horror Film Appeal 66 Table 11: Affect scales: ns (stan: scales pretest 12.2°(5.4) 11.5°(6.0) 2.2(2.9) 2.2/3.1) mid Friday 13° 12.3(7.1) 1426.1) _2.7(35) —-10.2° (6.8) end Friday 13” 11.6(7.4) 12.9%(6.2) _2.8'(4.0) 10.3" (7.1) look-back Friday 13" 11.5(7.2) 12.4(65) 2.3(8.5) —-9.0°" (6.8) mid X-Files 15.4°(6.5) 13.5°(6.6) 2.2'(28) 8.46.1) end X-Files 14.69°(7.3) 14.2°(7.3) 22(34) — 10.6*"(6.7) look-back X-Files -16.1*°(7.2) 15.4°*(7.1) 2.1(2.6) —-11.09(7.4) Repeated measures anova: F=14.0° = E=7.1° E16" £=37.9° effect size (eta squared): 15 08 02 132 Notes: n=80 __* indicates non-significant; * p<.01 Planned comparison (paired t-tests; p<.01 for all significant results): Enjoy: a— Pretest is significantly different from mid X-Files, end X-Files and look-back X-Files. b— End X-Files is significantly different from look-back X-Files. Excited: Involved: ¢— There is a significant difference between pretest and other scales except end Friday 13” and look-back Friday 13”. d— Mid Friday 13" is significantly different from end Friday 13”. e—End X-Files is significantly different from look-back X-Files. Embarrassed! Depressed: {— There is a significant difference between end Friday 13” and look- back Friday 13”. Disgusted: g — There is a significant difference between pretest and all other time points. h—End Friday 13” is significantly different from look-back Friday 13”. i Mid X-Files is significantly different from end X-Files.Horror Fim Appeal 87 Table 12: Thrill and Adventure Experience Boredom Seeking Seeking —_DisinhibitionSuseptibility Total Enjoy: pretest +06 20 08 “16 04 mid Friday 13” -.02 06 12 03 05 end Friday 13” a 05, 12 ~.03 10 look-back Friday 13” 10 15 19 -07 15 mid X-Files 7 34° 09 a14 19 end X-Files 13 26 04 =10 13 look-back X-Files 05 27 -00 -15 08 Pletinveved: os 18 -07 -14 -02 mid Friday 13" -.08 01 02 -20 -.08 end Friday 13” 06 02 01 -20 -.08 look-back Friday 13” -.01 08 08 -20 00 mid X-Files 19 34° 05 oA 18 end X-Files 12 26 -01 -.09 A look-back X-Files 07 23 -07 -20 03 (table continues) Notes: *p<.01 n=80Horror Film Appeal 88 Table 12 (continued): ‘Theil and Adventure Experience Boredom Seeking Seeking Disinhibition Suseptibilty Total prota sssesiDeprassed: 10 04 12 06 mid Friday 13” -.07 04 -.08 03 -.04 end Friday 13” -.05 2 -.04 -.02 00 look-back Friday 13” -.11 aw -.08 -.01 -.04 mid X-Files -.06 12 04 03 04 end X-Files -.03 04 -.02 04 00 look-back X-Files 17 05 -.06 08 -.05 Frightened/Di i: pretest 05 -.02 03 215 -.02 mid Friday 13” 14 09 “18 -16 14 end Friday 13” -.09 -.02 -19 “16 17 look-back Friday 19" -.21 01 o12 11 -16 mid X-Files -.02 05 04 +07 01 end X-Files -.02 5 .00 -.05 03 look-back X-Files 213 03 +08 01 -.07 Notes: * p<.01 n=80Horror Film Appeal 89 Table 13: Excited/ Embarrassed/ _Frightened/ Enjoy Involved Depressed Disgusted pretest 14 +12 216 212 mid Friday 13” -.01 29 “AT 12 end Friday 13” +08 -36° +20 18 look-back Friday 19” -.10 +27 +23 16 mid X-Files -18 -.23 ~32* +07 end X-Files +21 “19 +23 -15 look-back X-Files 2.24 +27 +31 “14 Notes: *p<.01 n=80Horror Film Appeal 90 Table 14: Sees Number ‘Number horror horror sad movies movies movies Enjoy: pretest 14 03 04 mid Friday 13° 33° 29° 08 end Friday 13” 42" 2 10 look-back Friday 13” 38° 33¢ 22 mid X-Files 40° 23 25 end X-Files a7 23 23 look-back X-Files 29° 20 23 Raney aed 13 -.08 02 mid Friday 13” 21 03 -.08 end Friday 13” 20 04 05 look-back Friday 13” 18 12 07 mid X-Files 38° A9 28 end X-Files 33° 13, 24 look-back X-Files 29 12 25 (table continues) Notes: *p<.01 n=80Horror Film Appeal 91 Table 14 (continued): Pearson past year Sees Number Number horror horror sad movies movies movies Embarrassed/Depressed: Pretest 11 ~22 -.06 mid Friday 13” -21 13 09 end Friday 13” -23 14 02 look-back Fri 13” -.28 -16 04 mid X-Files 12 -.06 03 end X-Files +07 -.04 01 look-back X-Files -10 =10 -.05 Erightened/Disgusted: pretest 01 -.05 05 mid Friday 13” -19 +23 -.03 end Friday 13” 16 15, +05 look-back Fri 13” -29 +23 -.06 mid X-Files -.04 “17 -.04 end X-Files -.05 -12 aw look-back X-Files 213 “18 02 Notes: * p<.01 n=80Horror Film Appeal 92 Table 15: PB Sees Number Number horror horror sad movies movies movies Sensation Seeking scales: Thrill and Adventure 36° 23 27 Experience Seeking 13 -01 A7 Disinhibition AT 13 12 Boredom Susceptibility 01 +08 -.04 Total Sensation Seeking 26 12 20 Good Person scales: Self Esteem -12 06 -.03 Belief in Afterlife -.02 25 06 Ethical Values 12 07 +01 Rosenberg Self Esteem- pretest AS 06 -.03 Notes: *p<.01 n=80Horror Film Appeal 93 Group Eta ‘Squared % Enjoy: pretest 25 mid Friday 13" 32 end Friday 13” 34° look-back Friday 13” 37° mid X-Files 36° end X-Files 33° look-back X-Files 32° Excited/Involved: pretest 27 mid Friday 13" 25 end Friday 13” 25 look-back Friday 13” 29 mid X-Files 44° end X-Files 39° look-back X-Files 42° (table continues) Notes: n=80 *p<.01Horror Film Appeal 94 Table 16 (continued): Group Eta Squared % Embarrassed/Depressed: Pretest 15 mid Friday 13” 14 end Friday 13” 1 look-back Friday 13” 14 mid X-Files 18 end X-Files 18 look-back X-Files 1" Frighten : pretest 19 mid Friday 13” 31 end Friday 13” 27 look-back Friday 13” 18 mid X-Files 17 end X-Files 19 look-back X-Files 17 Notes: n=80 *p<.01