Journal of Children and Media

ISSN: 1748-2798 (Print) 1748-2801 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rchm20

Bad Seed or Good Seed? A Content Analysis of

the Main Antagonists in Walt Disney- and Studio
Ghibli-Animated Films

Yang Feng & Jiwoo Park

To cite this article: Yang Feng & Jiwoo Park (2015) Bad Seed or Good Seed? A Content Analysis
of the Main Antagonists in Walt Disney- and Studio Ghibli-Animated Films, Journal of Children and
Media, 9:3, 368-385, DOI: 10.1080/17482798.2015.1058279

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2015.1058279

Published online: 06 Jul 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1629

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rchm20
Journal of Children and Media, 2015
Vol. 9, No. 3, 368–385, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2015.1058279

BAD SEED OR GOOD SEED? A CONTENT

ANALYSIS OF THE MAIN ANTAGONISTS
IN WALT DISNEY- AND STUDIO
GHIBLI-ANIMATED FILMS

Yang Feng and Jiwoo Park

The purpose of this study is to examine the cultural difference in the portrayal of main antagonists
between Walt Disney-animated films and Studio Ghibli-animated films. We analyze whether main
antagonists engage with both prosocial and aggressive behaviors (including physical, indirect, and
verbal aggression). Moreover, we explore demographics of main antagonists and context of each
aggressive and prosocial act initiated by a main antagonist. Results from a content analysis
showed that main antagonists in Studio Ghibli-animated films tend to participate in both prosocial
and aggressive behaviors, while those in Walt Disney-animated films tend to commit only
aggressive behaviors to harm others. This study concludes that the difference in the portrayal of
main antagonists between Walt Disney-animated films and Studio Ghibli-animated films may
reflect the difference between analytic and holistic thinking style.

KEYWORDS analytic; holistic; animated films; causal attribution; main antagonist

Introduction
Children’s media have been criticized for the portrayal of aggression (Glascock, 2013;
Martins & Wilson, 2012). According to previous film studies (Cox, Garrett, & Graham, 2005;
Ryan & Hoerrner, 2004), any leading character in a film is classified as a protagonist, who
is always the hero/heroine of the film, and any opponent/enemy of the protagonist is
defined as an antagonist. Based on previous studies (Coyne & Whitehead, 2008; Yokota &
Thompson, 2000), aggression portrayed in Walt Disney-animated films was typically
initiated by antagonists. Hence, this study explores the portrayal of the main antagonists
across cultures and compares Walt Disney- and Studio Ghibli-animated films specifically, as
animated films from the two studios originate from different cultures.
As Schaffer (1996) suggested, it is recognizable that Walt Disney-animated films
manifest not only a distinct US style and tone but also reinforce the values and cultural
practices of America. According to Bob Iger, a chief executive officer of the Walt Disney
Company, with the global success of “Frozen,” the highest-grossing animated film in history
($770 million in global revenue), Walt Disney-animated films has become the most
profitable in the world (Kang, 2014). On the other hand, Studio Ghibli is a Japanese
animation studio founded by Isao Takahata and Hayao Miyazaki in 1985. Hairston (2010)
described the founder Hayao Miyazaki as “a cultural icon in his native Japan” (p. 173).

q 2015 Taylor & Francis

 BAD SEED OR GOOD SEED? 369

As carriers of culture, Studio Ghibli-animated films echo the holistic East Asian perspective
of life that emphasizes the idea of interconnected beings living in an environment, which
can be a rare theme in Walt Disney-animated films (Chow, 2012; Stibbe, 2012). Moreover,
Odell and Le Blanc (2009) noted, “now, outside Hollywood, Studio Ghibli is the most
profitable animation company in the world” (p. 14).
According to previous Cognitive Psychology studies (Nisbett, 2003; Nisbett, Peng,
Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001), East Asian culture is influenced by the holistic thinking style and
East Asian people tend to attribute a perpetrator’s behaviors to situational factors, whereas
Western culture is affected by the analytic thinking style and Western people tend to
attribute a perpetrator’s behaviors to internal personal dispositions. Therefore, through an
exploration of how animated films from different cultures portray the main antagonists, this
study aims to offer a fresh perspective for understanding the construction of the
main antagonists in different systems of cultures. The research question for this study is:
How do Walt Disney- and Studio Ghibli-animated films differ in the portrayal of the main
antagonists?

Literature Review
Cultural Difference in Causal Attribution
Previous studies (Cole & Packer, 2011; Nisbett, 2003) noted that people across
cultures adopt different cognitive styles. While individualists perceive the objects as single
and independent entities, collectivists regard the objects as being related to the context
in which they appear (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1999). According to Hofstede’s
Individualism/Collectivism cultural dimension (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Hofstede, 2005),
Japan presents a collectivism tendency (Individualism Index/IDV ¼ 46); in contrast, the USA
shows the highest individualism tendency (Individualism Index/IDV ¼ 91).
On the basis of ancient Eastern philosophies, Nisbett (2003) and his colleagues
(Masuda, Gonzalez, Kwan, & Nisbett, 2008; Masuda & Nisbett, 2001; Nisbett et al., 2001)
proposed the holistic/analytic thinking framework, which addresses the cultural differences
in cognitive thinking styles between East Asians and Westerners. Within this framework, the
holistic thinking style from Eastern philosophical thoughts is defined as an orientation to
the interrelationship between an object and its context, such as attributing the cause of
events to external situational factors and viewing the world as constantly changing
(Nisbett, 2003; Nisbett et al., 2001). Spencer-Rodgers, Peng, Wang, and Hou (2004) also
termed the holistic East Asian culture dialectical culture that consists of three core
principles: the principle of change, the principle of contradiction, and the principle of
holism. According to the principle of change, reality is dynamic and can be understood in
an indefinite number of ways (Cheng, 1987; Peng, Spencer-Rodgers, & Nian, 2006). The
principle of contradiction indicates that two ostensibly contradictory propositions may
both be true simultaneously and objects can be composed of two opposite elements
(Cheng, 1987; Peng et al., 2006). According to the principle of holism, nothing is isolated
and independent; rather, everything is relational and belongs to the whole (Cheng, 1987;
Peng et al., 2006).
In contrast, the analytic thinking style from ancient Greek philosophies is defined as
an orientation to the detachment of an object from its context, such as attributing the
cause of events to the target object’s internal dispositions and perceiving the world as
370 YANG FENG AND JIWOO PARK

being largely static (Nisbett, 2003; Nisbett et al., 2001). Historically, the Greeks categorized
objects and events and generated rules about them that were adequately precise for
systematic description and explanation (Nisbett, 2003). For ancient Greek philosophers
such as Plato and Aristotle, it was hard to reconcile two contradictory propositions (Woelfel,
1987). For instance, Aristotle argued that if A belongs to B and B is opposite to C, then A
does not belong to C (Nisbett, 2003).
Previous research revealed the difference in causal attribution between Eastern
culture and Western culture and provided empirical evidence for the holistic/analytic
thinking framework. Norenzayan, Choi, and Nisbett (1999) found that when making
predictions about how people in general would be expected to behave in a given situation,
Koreans regarded situational factors and the interaction between situations and
personalities as more important than Americans did.
Even though previous studies have identified cultural difference in causal attribution,
we still lack knowledge on the role of media in influencing people’s causal attribution style
at an early age. While the current study will not assess how children’s causal attribution
style is influenced by exposure to the portrayal of main antagonists in animated films from
their own culture, exploring how children’s animated films portray main antagonists is an
important first step in this direction. Therefore, this study aims to analyze how children’s
animated films portray the main antagonists across cultures.

Antagonists, Aggressive Behavior, and Prosocial Behavior

To date, there is no research that has ever explored the cultural difference in causal
attribution from the portrayal of main antagonists in children’s animated films. Does an
antagonist initiate delinquent behaviors as a result of internal negative dispositions that the
character carries across time, place, and social context? Or are the antagonist’s culpable
behaviors tied to a situational factor, such as a particular time, a particular place, or a
particular social context? These questions capture our attention because Social Cognitive
Theory (SCT) suggests that children are learning by observing others’ behaviors, and that
learning will subsequently influence children’s judgments, cognitions, and/or behaviors
(Bandura, 1989). On the basis of SCT, we may assume that how children’s animated films
portray main antagonists and attribute their behaviors to different factors will influence
children’s judgments and/or behaviors.
Previous research (Coyne & Whitehead, 2008; Padilla-Walker, Coyne, Fraser, &
Stockdale, 2013) has identified two types of behaviors depicted in children’s animated
films: one is prosocial behavior, and the other is aggressive behavior. Prosocial behavior is
defined as acts that are “socially desirable and which in some way benefit other persons
or society at large” (Lowery & DeFleur, 1995, p. 354) and that involve being kind,
cooperative, responsible, and altruistic (Strasburger, Wilson, & Jordan, 2009). Based on
Padilla-Walker et al.’s (2013) study, prosocial behaviors portrayed in children’s media were
divided into six categories due to different motivations: (1) public (involves the pursuit of
recognition from others as the primary motivation for prosocial behavior), (2) emotional
(motivated primarily by helping someone else who is showing personal distress), (3) dire
(involves an individual showing prosocial behavior when someone is in a crisis
situation that demands help), (4) anonymous (occurs when a target of prosocial behavior
is not aware of the initiator’s identity), (5) altruistic (motivated primarily by the welfare
of another, and thus generally excluded sought after benefit to the initiator), and
 BAD SEED OR GOOD SEED? 371

(6) compliant (occurs when prosocial behavior is motivated in response to a direct request
for help).
Besides prosocial behavior, others studies (Coyne & Archer, 2004; Coyne & Whitehead,
2008) mainly focused on aggressive behaviors portrayed in children’s media, including
physical, indirect, and verbal aggression. Physical aggression involves acts that are intended
to harm others physically (Coyne & Archer, 2004; Strasburger et al., 2009). Based on Coyne
and Archer’s (2004) study, physical aggressive behaviors portrayed in children’s media
included twenty categories: (1) hitting or punching, (2) kicking, (3) destroying someone’s
property in front of them, (4) biting, (5) pulling hair, (6) threatening to do physical harm, (7)
threatening with a weapon, (8) push, (9) grab, (10) burn, (11) stab, (12) killing or attempting
to kill someone, (13) throw food/object at, (14) strangle, (15) chase, (16) slap, (17) rape,
(18) torture, (19) whip, and (20) stun.
Indirect aggression is also referred to as “social” aggression and is defined as acts that
“are intended to harm others emotionally rather than physically” (Strasburger et al., 2009,
p. 174). Based on Coyne and Whitehead’s (2008) study, indirect aggressive behaviors
portrayed in children’s media were divided into four areas: (1) social exclusion (e.g. malicious
gossip, excluding others from the group, dirty look, ignore, and breaking confidences),
(2) malicious humor (e.g. gestures behind the back, practical jokes, scare, deception, and
make fun of in public and/or behind), (3) guilt induction (e.g. involving undue pressure
and influencing others by making them feel guilty), and (4) indirect physical aggression
(e.g. plotting and kidnapping).
Verbal aggression involves acts that are intended to harm others verbally and was
divided into six categories: (1) yelling or arguing, (2) insulting (not name calling), (3) teasing,
(4) name calling, (5) use sarcasm to insult, and (6) imitate to face (Coyne & Archer, 2004).
Regarding the different types of behaviors portrayed in children’s animated films,
previous research has shed light on the relationship between character type and behavior
type. Yokota and Thompson (2000) studied violence in 74 G-related animated films in the
USA and noted that antagonists frequently committed aggression, whereas aggressive acts
initiated by protagonists were often justified. After content analyzing 47 Walt Disney-
animated films, Coyne and Whitehead (2008) found that antagonists displayed more
indirect aggressive behaviors than protagonists. On the other hand, in Padilla-Walker and
colleagues’ (2013) study, most sample prosocial behaviors that the authors cited were
portrayed by protagonists in the films (e.g. Pascal, Mufasa, Robin Hood, Prince Eric, and Mr
Incredible), who appear to be the “good guy” throughout the story. The link between
antagonists and aggression seems to resonate with the definition of antagonist: “a
character who is seen as the ‘bad guy’, villain, nemesis, or enemy of the protagonist” (Cox,
Garrett, & Graham, 2005, p. 272). According to the holistic/analytic thinking framework, we
may assume that if an antagonist’s behaviors are mostly attributed to internal negative
dispositions, the character will remain “bad” throughout the film and be associated with
unjustified aggressive behaviors. Therefore, as a symbol of Western popular culture, Walt
Disney-animated films may reflect the analytic thinking style and attribute an antagonist’s
behaviors to internal negative dispositions by portraying the character as always being
malicious, selfish, or aggressive towards others. In contrast, if an antagonist’s behaviors are
determined, at least partially, by external situational factors, the character may appear to be
“good” in certain situations within a film and participate in justified aggressive behaviors or
even prosocial behaviors. Therefore, as a symbol of East Asian popular culture, Studio
Ghibli-animated films may echo the holistic thinking style and attribute an antagonist’s
372 YANG FENG AND JIWOO PARK

behaviors to external situational factors by depicting the character as a “bad” guy initiating
unjustified aggressive acts under some situations and a “good” one displaying justified
aggressive acts and/or prosocial acts in other situations.
Since the principle of contradiction in dialectical East Asian culture holds that
objects can be composed of two contradictory elements (Cheng, 1987; Peng et al., 2006),
it is possible that antagonists in Studio Ghibli can possess both good and bad sides
simultaneously. For example, this absence of a clear good versus evil distinction in villains
was noted by Lemish and Bloch (2004) when they analyzed Pokémon, a Japanese television
show marketed in the USA. In addition, since the principle of change indicates that reality is
dynamic (Cheng, 1987; Peng, Spencer-Rogers, & Nian, 2006), we may also expect that a
main antagonist in Studio Ghibli can change between “bad guy” and “good guy,”
depending on the situation. However, since ancient Western philosophers noted that
individual things could not be composed of opposite categories (Nisbett, 2003; Woelfel,
1987), a main antagonist is likely to be portrayed as from-head-to-toe “bad guy” in Walt
Disney-animated films. Moreover, since people in analytic culture tend to perceive the
world as being largely static (Nisbett, 2003; Nisbett et al., 2001), a main antagonist is likely to
remain “bad” from the beginning to the end in Walt Disney-animated films. Therefore,
when portraying a main antagonist, Walt Disney-animated films may prefer to include
unjustified aggressive behaviors to distinguish the character from the “good” ones, as
opposed to the inclusion of prosocial behaviors and justified aggressive behaviors by
Studio Ghibli to blur the good versus evil distinction in the character. Thus, the following
hypotheses were established:
H1: When portraying main antagonists, Studio Ghibli-animated films will include more
prosocial behaviors than Walt Disney-animated films.
H2a: When portraying main antagonists, Studio Ghibli-animated films will include more
justified aggressive behaviors than Walt Disney-animated films.
H2b: When portraying main antagonists, Walt Disney-animated films will include more
unjustified aggressive behaviors than Studio Ghibli-animated films.

Previous studies (Bandura, 2002; Smith et al., 2006) noted that demographic
information of characters could affect children’s motivation to imitate characters’
behaviors. For instance, if characters are similar to the child in gender, appearance, and
socioeconomic status (SES), their behaviors will be more likely to be attended to (Bandura,
2002; Smith et al., 2006). Also, when a film portrays prosocial or aggressive behaviors,
factors related to the consequences and context of prosocial and aggressive behaviors will
influence a child’s motivation to reflect this action in subsequent behaviors (Coyne &
Whitehead, 2008; Padilla-Walker et al., 2013). In other words, a justified aggressive act is
more likely to be imitated than an unjustified one, and a prosocial act is more likely to be
imitated if it has relatively low cost and receives positive reinforcement (Coyne &
Whitehead, 2008; Padilla-Walker et al., 2013). Therefore, we raised the following questions:
RQ1: How are demographics of main antagonists portrayed in Walt Disney-animated
films and Studio Ghibli-animated films?
RQ2: How is the context of the prosocial acts portrayed in Walt Disney-animated films
and Studio Ghibli-animated films?
RQ3: How is the context of the aggressive acts portrayed in Walt Disney- and Studio
Ghibli-animated films?
 BAD SEED OR GOOD SEED? 373

Methods
Programs
For Studio Ghibli, since several films that the two founders (Takahata and Miyazaki)
worked on prior to the establishment of the studio are often claimed as Ghibli’s (Odell & Le
Blanc, 2009), this study included two films (Lupin The Third: The Castle of Cagliostro and
Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind) that were produced before the formation of the studio
but were released under the Ghibli banner (Odell & Le Blanc, 2009). Thus, all the 19 Studio
Ghibli-animated films that had been produced by the year 2012 and dubbed by English
were viewed for the current study (see Table 1). Among the 19 Studio Ghibli-animated films,
six films did not include an antagonist (My Neighbor Totoro, Kiki’s Delivery Service, Only
Yesterday, Whisper of the Heart, My Neighbors the Yamadas, and From up on Poppy Hills). All
the Studio Ghibli films are primarily animated, have at least 60 minutes in length, and have
been initially released in the theatre. Since the oldest Studio Ghibli-animated film was
released in 1979, to make films comparable, we selected all the Walt Disney-animated films
released between 1979 and 2012, which generated 29 films (see Table 2). To be included in
the study, the Disney film must be produced by Walt Disney studio (films produced by Pixar
and other studios were not included), must be primarily animated that has at least
60 minutes in length, and must have been initially released in the theatre. Noticeably, all the
Walt Disney-animated films had at least one antagonist.

Procedure
Before starting the main coding, we trained ourselves on coding procedures and
coded 5 Walt Disney-animated films that were not included in the study. During the main

TABLE 1
Studio Ghibli-animated films from 1979 to 2012
No. Title Release year
1 Lupin The Third: The Castle of Cagliostro 1979
2 Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind 1984
3 Castle in the Sky 1986
4 Grace of the Fireflies 1988
5 My Neighbor Totoro 1988
6 Kiki’s Delivery Service 1989
7 Only Yesterday 1991
8 Porco Rosso 1992
9 Pom Poko 1994
10 Whisper of the Heart 1995
11 Princess Mononoke 1997
12 My Neighbors the Yamadas 1999
13 Spirited Away 2001
14 The Cat Returns 2002
15 Howl’s Moving Castle 2004
16 Tales from Earthsea 2006
17 Ponyo 2008
18 The Secret World of Arrietty 2010
19 From Up on Poppy Hill 2011
374 YANG FENG AND JIWOO PARK

TABLE 2
Walt Disney-animated films from 1979 to 2012
No. Title Release year
1 The Fox and the Hound 1981
2 The Black Cauldron 1985
3 The Great Mouse Detective 1986
4 Oliver & Company 1988
5 The Little Mermaid 1989
6 The Rescuers Down Under 1990
7 Beauty and the Beast 1991
8 Aladdin 1992
9 The Lion King 1994
10 Pocahontas 1995
11 The Hunchback of Notre Dame 1996
12 Hercules 1997
13 Mulan 1998
14 Tarzan 1999
15 Fantasia 2000 2000
16 Dinosaur 2000
17 The Emperor’s New Groove 2000
18 Atlantis: The Lost Empire 2001
19 Lilo & Stitch 2002
20 Treasure Planet 2002
21 Brother Bear 2003
22 Home on the Range 2004
23 Chicken Little 2005
24 Meet the Robinsons 2007
25 Bolt 2008
26 The Princess and the Frog 2009
27 Tangled 2010
28 Winnie the Pooh 2011
29 Wreck-It Ralph 2012

coding session after the training session, we first read the detailed plots and identified
the main antagonist in each film on the basis of the character’s role and importance
inside the film. Moreover, we confirmed the identity of each character after watching
each film. For each identified main antagonist, we analyzed gender, appearance, and SES.
In each film, we analyzed each scene that portrayed the main antagonist, including a
dialogue scene in which the character was involved, a singing scene of the character, a
scene that showed the character’s facial expression, or a scene in which the character was
participating in certain behavior(s). Inside each relevant scene, we determined the type of
each act presented by the character on the basis of the subcategories that were provided
by previous studies (Coyne & Archer, 2004; Coyne & Whitehead, 2008; Padilla-Walker
et al., 2013) and of coding results from the training session. If the act was an indirect,
physical, or verbal aggressive behavior, we further determined the justification of the
behavior. If the act was a prosocial behavior, we further analyzed the cost, reward, and
punishment regarding the behavior. Therefore, on the basis of coding schemes from
previous studies (Coyne & Archer, 2004; Coyne & Whitehead, 2008; Padilla-Walker et al.,
2013) and of the research purpose, we completed a coding sheet for each film. The
coding categories are described below.
 BAD SEED OR GOOD SEED? 375

Characteristics of the Main Antagonists

Gender. The gender of the main antagonist was coded as either male or female
based on physical characteristics. When the character was an animal, classification was
based on name and voice quality (e.g. in The Cat Returns, the Cat King was coded as “male”,
and in The Little Mermaid, Ursula was coded as “female”).

Appearance. Characters were either classified as human, animal or other (e.g. toy,
alien).

Socioeconomic status. SES of the character was coded based on the character’s
housing, dress, and any comments made about the financial situation. For example, high
SES characters appeared to be wealthy, wore nice clothes, and so on (e.g. Princess Kushana
in Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind, Claude Frollo in The Hunchback of Notre Dame). Those
classified as low SES status usually lived on the street, wore tattered clothing, or were slaves
(e.g. John Silver in Treasure Planet). Those classified as middle class were portrayed as
neither rich nor poor. These individuals did not appear to be lacking anything major;
however, they also did not appear to be extremely wealthy (e.g. Sykes in Oliver and
Company, and Yubaba in Spirited Away). Animals were classified based on position. For
instance, the Cat King in The Cat Returns was coded as high SES status, Gonta from Pom
Poko was coded as low SES status, and Kron from Dinosaur was coded as middle class.

Type of Indirect Aggression

On the basis of Coyne and Whitehead’s (2008) study, we identified an act of the
character as indirect aggression if it fell into one of the four areas: (1) social exclusion (e.g. in
Beauty and the Beast, Gaston told Belle that other villagers thought she was strange due to
her fondness of reading books, and in Hunchback of Notre Dame, Glaude Frolle made
Quasimoto feel he did not fit in the crowd), (2) malicious humor (e.g. in Beauty and the Beast,
Gaston laughed at Maurice behind his back), (3) guilt induction (e.g. in Hunchback of Notre
Dame, Glaude Frollo made Quasimoto feel guilty about having the idea of going to the
Festival of Fools), and (4) indirect physical aggression (e.g. in Oliver and Company, Sykes
kidnapped Jennifer and contacted her housekeeper to ask for money).

Type of Physical Aggression

On the basis of Coyne and Archer (2004)’s study and a pilot coding, we identified an
act of the character as physical aggression if it fell into one of the twenty-two categories: (1)
hitting or punching, (2) kicking, (3) destroying someone’s property in front of them, (4)
biting, (5) pulling hair, (6) threatening to do physical harm, (7) threatening with a weapon,
(8) push, (9) grab, (10) burn, (11) stab, (12) killing or attempting to kill someone, (13), throw
food/object at, (14) strangle, (15) chase, (16) slap, (17) rape, (18) torture, (19) whip, (20) stun,
(21) throw the target away, and (22) shooting.

Type of Verbal Aggression

On the basis of Coyne and Archer (2004)’s study, we identified an act of the character
as verbal aggression if it fell into one of the six categories: (1) yelling or arguing, (2) insulting
376 YANG FENG AND JIWOO PARK

(not name calling), (3) teasing, (4) name calling, (5) use sarcasm to insult, and (6) imitate
to face.

Type of Prosocial Behavior

On the basis of Padilla-Walker et al. (2013)’s study, we identified an act of the
character as prosocial behavior if it fell into one of the six categories: (1) public (e.g. in
Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind, princess Kushana asked her soldier to stop pointing gun
at Nausicaä so she could gain Nausicaä’s approval), (2) emotional (e.g. in Howl’s Moving
Castle, the Witch of the Waste comforted Sophie when Sophie was sad), (3) dire (e.g. in
Spirited Away, when Yubaba prevented No Face from catching Chihiro to eat her), (4)
anonymous (e.g. in Treasure Planet, when John Silver prevented others from shooting Jim
without letting Jim know), (5) altruistic (e.g. in Spirited Away, Yubaba wanted her baby to
have a good rest and asked Chihiro to stop talking), and (6) compliant (e.g. in Howl’s Moving
Castle, at Sophie’s sincere request, the Witch of the Waste returned Howl’s heart to Sophie
so that Howl would not die).

Context of Prosocial Behavior

Cost. Based on Padilla-Walker and colleagues’ (2013) study, cost of each prosocial
act was classified as high, low, or no cost. High-cost actions were clearly inconvenient to the
character, and resulted in punishment or loss. Low-cost actions had little negative impact
on the initiator. No-cost actions had no negative impact on the initiator.

Reward/punishment. Whether a character was rewarded or punished was coded for

each prosocial act. An act was considered rewarded if the character received anything
positive for his/her behavior (e.g. verbal praise, accolades, and external reward) (Padilla-
Walker et al., 2013). An act was considered punished if the character received anything
negative (e.g. get punched, hit, and kicked) or if anything positive was taken away (Padilla-
Walker et al., 2013).

Justification of Aggressive Behavior

Acts of indirect aggression, physical aggression, and verbal aggression were coded as
justified if they were portrayed as socially sanctioned or necessary to achieve a greater
good (Coyne & Whitehead, 2008). An example of justified indirect aggression would be
when Ursula casted a “spell” on Ariel to help her change into a human being. An example of
justified physical aggression would be when princess Kushana hit a soldier’s head to stop
him from shooting at Nausicaä. An example of justified verbal aggression would be in
Brother Bear, when Denahi yelled at his brother Kenai, “Killing the bear won’t make you a
man,” in order to stop his brother Kenai from avenging his older brother Sitka’s death on
the bear. Acts were coded as unjustified if they were not socially acceptable and/or were
not necessary to gain a greater good (Coyne & Whitehead, 2008). An example of unjustified
indirect aggression would be in The Little Mermaid when Ursula plotted to kill the Sea King.
An example of unjustified physical aggression would be in Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind
when princess Kushana pointed a gun at Nausicaä and other valley villagers to threaten
 BAD SEED OR GOOD SEED? 377

them. An example of unjustified verbal aggression would be in The Hunchback of Notre

Dame when Claude Frollo called Quasimoto “a monster.”

Reliability
Both authors viewed 16 per cent of the Studio Ghibli-animated films (three movies)
and 17 per cent of the Walt Disney-animated films (five movies) independently to check
inter-coder reliability. Once the inter-coder reliability for the above variables reached
acceptable level, the second author viewed all films and completed a coding sheet for each
film. The whole coding procedure is similar to the one adopted by Coyne and Whitehead’s
(2008) study.
Inter-coder reliability was calculated using Cohen’s kappa, which is suitable for
categorical variables. Reliabilities for all coding variables were acceptable: gender of the
character (1.00), character appearance (1.00), SES (.78), detection of relevant scene (.82),
detection of indirect aggression (.87), type of indirect aggression (.89), justification of
indirect aggression (1.00), detection of physical aggression (.87), type of physical aggression
(.78), justification of physical aggression (1.00), detection of verbal aggression (.89), type of
verbal aggression (.80), justification of verbal aggression (1.00), detection of prosocial
behavior (.93), type of prosocial behavior (.83), cost of prosocial behavior (.77), and reward/
punishment of prosocial behavior (.77).

Results

RQ1: How are Demographics of the Main Antagonists Portrayed in Walt Disney-Animated
Films and Studio Ghibli-Animated Films?

Gender. In the 29 Walt Disney-animated films, except for Snooty Flamingos in

Fantasia 2000 whose gender could not be determined, the majority of the main
antagonists were male (82.14 per cent). In the 13 Studio Ghibli-animated films that
included a main antagonist inside, there were seven male characters (53.85 per cent)
and six female characters (46.15 per cent). Results showed that Studio Ghibli-animated

TABLE 3
Characteristics of main antagonists
Walt Disney-animated films (per cent) Studio Ghibli-animated films (per cent)
Gender
Male 23 (82.14) 7 (53.85)
Female 5 (17.86) 6 (46.15)
Character appearance
Human 19 (65.52) 11 (84.62)
Animal 8 (27.59) 2 (15.28)
Other 2 (6.90) 0 (0.00)
SES
High class 9 (31.03) 7 (53.85)
Middle class 18 (62.07) 6 (46.15)
Low class 2 (6.90) 0 (0.00)
N 29 13
378 YANG FENG AND JIWOO PARK

films tend to include more female main antagonists than Walt Disney-animated films (see
Table 3).

Character appearance. In the 29 Walt Disney-animated films, 19 main antagonists

were humans (65.52 per cent), 8 main antagonists were animals (27.59 per cent), and 2 main
antagonists belonged to other type (6.90 per cent). In the 19 Studio Ghibli-animated films,
11 main antagonists were humans (84.62 per cent), 2 main antagonists were animals (15.28
per cent), and there were no main antagonists who belonged to other type. Results
revealed that both Walt Disney and Studio Ghibli tend to portray the main antagonist as a
human being (see Table 3).

Socioeconomic status. In Walt Disney-animated films, most main antagonists

belonged to middle class (62.07 per cent), followed by high class (31.03 per cent), and only
two main antagonist belonged to low class (6.90 per cent). In Studio Ghibli-animated films,
the main antagonists belonged to either high class (53.85 per cent) or middle class (46.15
per cent), and there were no main antagonists who belonged to low class (see Table 3).
H1: When portraying main antagonists, Studio Ghibli-animated films will include more
prosocial behaviors than Walt Disney-animated films do.
RQ2: How is the Context of the Prosocial Acts Portrayed in Walt Disney and Studio Ghibli-
Animated Films?

Generally, only 7 main antagonists in the 29 Walt Disney-animated films (24.14

per cent) presented both prosocial and aggressive behaviors throughout a film, and the rest
of the characters only committed aggressive behaviors. Interestingly, in the 13 Studio
Ghibli-animated films, there were 10 main antagonists who participated in both prosocial
and aggressive behaviors (76.92 per cent). T-test results showed a significant difference
between Walt Disney-animated films (24.14 per cent) and Studio Ghibli-animated
films (76.92 per cent) in the percentage of antagonists involved with prosocial behaviors,
t(df ¼ 40) ¼ 3.22, p , .01.
In terms of prosocial acts portrayed by main antagonists, results showed that there
were 33 prosocial acts in the 29 Walt Disney-animated films and 45 prosocial acts in the
13 Studio Ghibli-animated films. The rate per film for prosocial acts was higher in Studio
Ghibli-animated films (3.46/film) than that in Walt Disney-animated films (1.14/film),
t(df ¼ 40) ¼ 2.12, p , .05. Therefore, Studio Ghibli included more prosocial behaviors in
each movie than Walt Disney-animated films when portraying main antagonists and H1 was
supported. A closer look at the type of prosocial behavior revealed that both Studio Ghibli-
animated films and Walt Disney-animated films included more altruistic prosocial acts than
other types (see Table 4). Moreover, the majority of prosocial acts in both Walt Disney-
animated films and Studio Ghibli-animated films were involved with neither cost (Walt
Disney-animated films: 75.76 per cent, Studio Ghibli-animated films: 95.56 per cent) nor
reward/punishment (Walt Disney-animated films: 75.86 per cent, Studio Ghibli-animated
films: 73.08 per cent).
H2a: When portraying main antagonists, Studio Ghibli-animated films will include more
justified aggressive behaviors than Walt Disney-animated films do.
H2b: When portraying main antagonists, Walt Disney-animated films will include more
unjustified aggressive behaviors than Studio Ghibli-animated films.
TABLE 4
Percentage of behavior type in Walt Disney- and Studio Ghibli-animated films
Walt Disney-animated films Studio Ghibli-animated films

Behavior type No. Justified Rate/film No. unjustified Rate/film No. Justified Rate/film No. unjustified Rate/film
Aggression 23 .79 888 30.62 37 2.85 261 20.08
Indirect aggression 1 .03 418 14.41 6 .46 128 9.85
Social exclusion 0 0 172 5.93 2 .15 54 4.15
Malicious humor 0 0 111 3.83 1 .08 29 2.23
Guilt induction 1 .03 45 1.55 0 0 19 1.46
Indirect physical 0 0 90 3.10 3 .23 26 2.00
Physical aggression 17 .59 314 10.83 23 1.77 80 6.15
Verbal aggression 4 .14 156 5.38 2 .15 53 4.08
Prosocial behavior 33 1.14 45 3.46
Public 1 .03 2 .15
Emotional 3 .10 4 .31
Dire 8 .28 4 .31
Anonymous 1 .03 10 .77
Altruistic 18 .62 31 2.38
Compliant 2 .07 4 .31
N 29 13
BAD SEED OR GOOD SEED?
379
380 YANG FENG AND JIWOO PARK

RQ3: How is the Context of the Aggressive Acts Portrayed in Walt Disney and Studio
Ghibli-Animated Films?

Generally, regarding portraying main antagonists, there were 23 justified and 888
unjustified aggressive acts in the 29 Walt Disney-animated films, and the aggressive acts
included indirect, physical, and verbal aggressive acts. In the 13 Studio Ghibli-animated
films, there were 37 justified and 261 unjustified aggressive acts that included indirect,
physical, and verbal aggressive acts. T-test results revealed no significant difference in the
rate per film for justified aggression between Studio Ghibli (2.85/film) and Walt Disney-
animated films (.79/film), t(df ¼ 40) ¼ 1.88, p ¼ .07. Also, t-test results indicated no
significant difference in the rate per film for unjustified aggression between Walt Disney-
animated films (30.62/film) and Studio Ghibli-animated films (20.08/film), t(df ¼ 40) ¼ 1.95,
p ¼ .06. Therefore, both H2a and H2b were not supported. In addition, we analyzed the
results for each type of aggression as follow (see Table 4).

Physical aggressive behaviors and justification. Results showed that there were 17
justified and 314 unjustified physical aggressive acts in the 29 Walt Disney-animated films.
In the 13 Studio Ghibli-animated films, there were 23 unjustified and 80 justified physical
aggressive acts. T-test results showed no significant difference in the rate per film for
justified physical aggression between Studio Ghibli (1.77/film) animated films and Walt
Disney-animated films (.59/film), t(df ¼ 40) ¼ 1.52, p ¼ .14. Nevertheless, the rate per film
for unjustified physical aggression was higher in Walt Disney-animated films (10.83/film)
than that in Studio Ghibli-animated films (6.15/film), t(df ¼ 40) ¼ 2.57, p , .05. For Walt
Disney-animated films, a chi-square analysis showed that killing or attempting to kill
(n ¼ 62) was the most common physical aggression, followed by hitting or punching
(n ¼ 49), and grab (n ¼ 36), x 2(18) ¼ 286.93, p , .001. Similarly, for Studio Ghibli-animated
films, a chi-square analysis revealed that shooting (n ¼ 22) and killing or attempting to kill
(n ¼ 21) were the most common physical aggression, followed by hitting or punching
(n ¼ 16), and grab (n ¼ 11), x 2(14) ¼ 107.15, p , .001.

Indirect aggressive behaviors and justification. Results showed that there were 1
justified and 418 unjustified indirect aggressive acts in the 29 Walt Disney-animated films.
In the 13 Studio Ghibli-animated films, there were 6 justified and 128 unjustified indirect
aggressive acts. T-test results revealed no significant difference in the rate per film for
justified indirect aggression between Studio Ghibli-animated films (.46/film) and Walt
Disney-animated films (.03/film), t(df ¼ 12.49) ¼ 1.74, p ¼ .11. In addition, t-test results
indicated no significant difference in the rate per film for unjustified indirect aggression
between Walt Disney-animated films (14.41/film) than Studio Ghibli-animated films (9.85/
film), t(df ¼ 40) ¼ 1.36, p ¼ .18. A closer look at the type of indirect aggression revealed that
social exclusion was portrayed most frequently in both Walt Disney-animated films (n ¼ 172,
x 2(3) ¼ 78.58, p , .001) and Studio Ghibli-animated films (n ¼ 56, x 2(3) ¼ 22.36, p , .001).

Verbal aggressive behaviors and justification. Results showed that there were 4
justified and 156 unjustified verbal aggressive acts in the 29 Walt Disney-animated films.
In Studio Ghibli, there were 2 justified and 53 unjustified verbal aggressive acts. The rate per
film for justified verbal aggression was similar in Studio Ghibli (.15/film) to that in Walt
Disney (.14/film), t(df ¼ 40) ¼ .11, p ¼ .92. In addition, t-test results indicated no significant
 BAD SEED OR GOOD SEED? 381

difference in the rate per film for unjustified verbal aggression between Walt Disney-
animated films (5.38/film) and Studio Ghibli-animated films (4.08/film), t(df ¼ 40) ¼ 1.95,
p ¼ .61. For Walt Disney-animated films, results showed that yelling or arguing (n ¼ 88) was
the most common verbal aggression, followed by insulting (not name calling) (n ¼ 39),
and use sarcasm to insult (n ¼ 17), x 2(9) ¼ 440.63, p , .001. Similarly, for Studio Ghibli-
animated films, results revealed that both yelling/arguing (n ¼ 26) and insulting (not name
calling) (n ¼ 24) were the most common verbal aggression, x 2(3) ¼ 37.00, p , .001.

Discussion
Existing research on transnational animated films has focused either on Walt Disney-
animated films (Coyne & Whitehead; Padilla-Walker et al., 2013) or on Studio Ghibli-
animated films (Denison, 2008, 2011), but no studies have compared the two world-known
animation studios in terms of how they portray main antagonists. Based on an analysis of a
census of animated films from Walt Disney and Studio Ghibli between 1979 and 2012, this
study tries to fill the research gap and conceptualizes the difference in the portrayal of main
antagonists between the two studios as the cultural difference in causal attribution.

The Moral Ambiguity of Main Antagonists

Results from this study showed that main antagonists in Studio Ghibli-animated films
tend to engage with prosocial behaviors, as compared to those in Walt Disney-animated
films who tend to participate in unjustified physical aggressive behaviors. Although the
majority of prosocial acts performed by the main antagonists in both Walt Disney- and
Studio Ghibli-animated films did not lead to any cost, there was a higher percentage of
prosocial acts in Studio Ghibli-animated films involved with no cost (95.56 per cent) than
that in Walt Disney-animated films (75.76 per cent), t(df ¼ 76) ¼ 2.58, p , .05. This result
may indicate that prosocial behavior performed by a main antagonist is more encouraged
in Studio Ghibli-animated films than in Walt Disney-animated films. Noticeably, in Studio
Ghibli-animated films, the way to make “evil” become a relative term by portraying a
perpetrator as involved in both prosocial and aggressive behaviors, reflects the holistic
thinking style that emphasizes the relationship between an object and its context (Morris &
Peng, 1994). On the other hand, in Walt Disney-animated films, the way to clearly divide
between “good” and “bad” by portraying a main antagonist as always being evil echoes the
analytic thinking style that emphasizes the detachment of an object from its context (Morris
et al., 1995; Morris & Peng, 1994).
For example, a qualitative analysis of Howl’s Moving Castle, a Studio Ghibli-animated
film in which the main antagonist (the Witch of the Waste) initiated the highest number of
prosocial acts among all, showed that the Witch of the Waste was a supporting example of the
antagonist-turned-deuteragonist. Initially, she was portrayed as the main antagonist
responsible for turning Sophie into a 90-year-old woman. However, after Madame Suliman
removed her magic power, she became a deuteragonist in the appearance of an old lady who
engaged with more prosocial behaviors. In the end, the Witch of the Waste became Sophie’s
companion. In other words, depending on the context or situation, the emphasis was shifted
from the Witch of the Waste being a rigid and permanent “bad” character to her being an
“ambiguous bad” character. Unlike Howl’s Moving Castle, which portrayed the Witch as
an “ambiguous bad” character, Aladdin, a Walt Disney-animated film in which the main
382 YANG FENG AND JIWOO PARK

antagonist (Jafar) initiated the highest number of aggressive acts without involving any
prosocial acts, depicted Jafar as an unambiguous “bad” character who presented aggressive
behaviors all the way to the end. Although Jafar worn a metaphorical mask of normalcy
throughout the movie in order to earn the trust of those around him, his evil desires seeped
out and became clear to others. In terms of aggression, Jafar was somewhat short-tempered
and abusive towards his targets, as evidenced by his yelling at lago and kicking and grabbing
lago’s neck and strangling it. This study uses a possible framework from cognitive
psychology—holistic/analytic thinking framework—to explain the moral ambiguity of the
Studio Ghibli narratives and the unambiguous depiction of good and evil typical of Walt
Disney-animated films. It was showed that many main antagonists in Studio Ghibli-animated
films are not as bad as Jafar in Aladdin or as evil as Gaston in Beauty and the Beast, because
these characters in Studio Ghibli still have their “sweet” side, and their “dark” side might be, at
least, partially attributed to a situational factor. For example, the cause for the Witch of the
Waste’s aggressive behaviors might be traced to the temptation from possessing dark power
and therefore once she lost her dark power, she became a sweet old lady who was considerate
to others. In line with the holistic thinking style that perceives the world as constant changing
(Nisbett, 2003; Nisbett et al., 2001), main antagonists in Studio Ghibli could change their
behavior type during the films. In contrast, consonant with the analytic thinking style that
regards the world as being largely static (Nisbett, 2003; Nisbett et al., 2001), main antagonists
in Walt Disney-animated films maintained their evil personalities throughout the films.

Characteristics of Main Antagonists

In terms of how main antagonists look like, both Walt Disney- and Studio Ghibli-
animated films include more male antagonists than female antagonists. Also, the majority
of male antagonists in both Walt Disney- and Studio Ghibli-animated films tend to be
portrayed as wicked men who perform unjustified aggressive behaviors. However, Studio
Ghibli-animated films tend to include more female antagonists than Walt Disney-animated
films, such as Kushana, Yubaba, Miss Hara, Lady Eboshi, the Witch of the Waste, and Seita’s
aunt. If there was a female antagonist, she was most likely to be human (60 per cent of main
antagonists), which is consistent to previous finding that female characters in children’s
media are statistically more likely to be human and less likely to be imaginary creatures
(Götz & Lemish, 2012). In addition, we noticed that all the female main antagonists in Studio
Ghibli-animated films did not fall into the stereotypes of wicked female characters, because
these female characters engaged with both prosocial and justified aggressive behaviors.
For example, Kushana in Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind was cruel to people living in
other kingdoms, but she was a patriotic princess who loved her own people and wanted to
protect them from the natural disaster. Moreover, in terms of SES, it is noticeable that there
were not many poor main antagonists portrayed in both Studio Ghibli and Walt Disney-
animated films, and most of main antagonists were either extremely rich/noble or at least
possessed certain property. It is possible that after watching such films, children are more
likely to imitate the behaviors from those characters with high social status.

Limitations and Future Research Direction

Although the findings from this study shed light on the cultural difference in the
portrayal of main antagonists, there are still several limitations. First, this study only looked
 BAD SEED OR GOOD SEED? 383

at the main antagonist in each animated film. Future studies may consider focusing not
only on the main antagonist in each film but also on other antagonists in each film. Second,
the difference in the portrayal of main antagonists between Walt Disney- and Studio Ghibli-
animated films may also be attributed to the difference in target audience. While Walt
Disney-animated films mainly target children, Studio Ghibli-animated films target children,
preteens, and adolescents. It is possible that Studio Ghibli-animated films portray their
main antagonists in a more sophisticated way to target an older audience. Third, since the
purpose of the study is to examine the cultural difference in the portrayal of main
antagonists between Walt Disney-animated films and Studio Ghibli-animated films, it is
unknown whether viewing the behaviors of main antagonists has any effect on children’s
real behaviors. Also, it is unclear how teams of writers from the two studios differ in their
ways of developing narratives about the main antagonists. Since this study adopted
content analysis, future studies may (1) conduct in-depth interviews with children to
explore the influence of the portrayal of main antagonists on them, and (2) perform
discourse analysis to investigate the ways in which teams of writers develop the narratives
regarding the main antagonists. Finally, for many American children who tend to be
analytic thinkers, the world is clearly divided between “good” and “evil,” which may
preclude them from understanding the moral ambiguity of the Studio Ghibli narratives.
Therefore, future studies may need to adopt in-depth interviews and/or focus groups to
explore American children’s acceptance of transcultural media texts.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development: Six
theories of child development (Vol. 6, pp. 1 – 60). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann
(Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 121 – 153). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0303_03
Cheng, C.-Y. (1987). Chinese philosophy and contemporary human communication theory.
In D. L. Kincaid (Ed.), Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives (pp. 23 –44).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
Chow, K. K. N. (2012). Toward holistic animacy: Digital animated phenomena echoing East Asian
thoughts. Animation: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 7, 175 – 187. doi:10.1177/
1746847712440063
Cole, M., & Packer, M. (2011). Culture and cognition. In K. D. Keith (Ed.), Cross-cultural psychology:
Contemporary themes and perspectives (pp. 131 – 159). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Coyne, S. M., & Archer, J. (2004). Indirect aggression in the media: a content analysis of British
television programs. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 254 – 271. doi:10.1002/ab.20022
Coyne, S. M., & Whitehead, E. (2008). Indirect aggression in animated Disney films. Journal of
Communication, 58, 382 – 395. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00390.x
Cox, M., Garrett, E., & Graham, J. A. (2005). Death in Disney films: Implications for children’s
understanding of death. OMEGA, 50, 267 – 280.
Denison, R. (2008). Star-spangled Ghibli: Star voices in the American versions of Hayao Miyazaki’s
films. Animation, 3, 129 – 146. doi:10.1177/1746847708091891
384 YANG FENG AND JIWOO PARK

Denison, R. (2011). Transcultural creativity in anime: Hybrid identities in the production,

distribution, texts and fandom of Japanese anime. Creative Industries Journal, 3, 221 – 235.
doi:10.1386/cij.3.3.221_1
Glascock, J. (2013). Prevalence and context of verbal aggression in children’s television
programming. Communication Studies, 64, 259 – 272. doi:10.1080/10510974.2012.755638
Götz, M., & Lemish, D. (2012). Gender representations in children’s television worldwide:
A comparative study of 24 countries. In M. Götz & D. Lemish (Eds.), Sexy girls, heroes and
funny losers: Gender representations in children’s TV around the world (pp. 9– 48).
Switzerland: Peter Lang GmbH.
Hairston, M. (2010). The reluctant messiah: Miyazaki Hayao’s Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind
manga. In T. Johnson-Woods & Manga (Eds.), An anthology of global and cultural
perspectives (pp. 173 – 186). New York, NY: The Continuum International Publishing Group.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. H., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the
mind. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill.
Kang, C. (2014, May6). Walt Disney’s profit rises 27 percent on strength of “Frozen” movie
franchise. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/
business/economy/walt-disneys-profits-rose-27-percents-on-strength-of-frozen-movie-
franchise/2014/05/06/7ce81df2-d56b-11e3-95d3-3bcd77cd4e11_story.html
Lemish, D., & Bloch, L. (2004). Pokémon in Israel. In J. Robin (Ed.), Pikachu’s global adventure: The
rise and fall of Pokémon (pp. 165 – 186). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Lowery, S. A., & DeFleur, M. L. (1995). Milestones in mass communication research. White Plains,
NY: Longman.
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and
motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224 – 253. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
Martins, N., & Wilson, B. J. (2012). Social aggression on television and its relationship to children’s
aggression in the classroom. Human Communication Research, 38, 48– 71. doi:10.1111/j.
1468-2958.2011.01417.x
Masuda, T., Gonzalez, R., Kwan, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (2008). Culture and aesthetic preference:
Comparing the attention to context of East Asians and Americans. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1260 – 1275. doi:10.1177/0146167208320555
Masuda, T., & Nisbett, R. E. (2001). Attending holistically versus analytically: Comparing the
context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
81, 922 – 934. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.5.922
Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
67, 949 – 971.
Norenzayan, A., Choi, I., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Eastern and western perceptions of causality for
social behavior: Lay theories about personalities and social situations. In D. Prentice &
D. Miller (Eds.), Cultural divides: Understanding and overcoming group conflict
(pp. 239– 272). New York, NY: Sage.
Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think. New York, NY:
The Free Press.
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic
versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291 – 310. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.
2.291
Odell, C., & Le Blanc, M. (2009). Studio Ghibli: The films of Hayao Miyazaki & Isao Takahata.
Harpenden, UK: Kamera.
 BAD SEED OR GOOD SEED? 385

Padilla-Walker, L. M., Coyne, S. M., Fraser, A. M., & Stockdale, L. A. (2013). Is disney the nicest place
on Earth? Aº¯content analysis of prosocial behavior inº¯animated disney films. Journal of
Communication, 63, 393 – 412. doi:10.1111/jcom.12022
Peng, K., Spencer-Rodgers, J., & Nian, Z. (2006). Naı̈ve dialecticism and the Tao of Chinese
thought. In U. Kim, K.-S. Yang, & K.-K. H (Eds.), Indigenous and cultural psychology:
Understanding people in context (pp. 247 – 262). New York, NY: Springer ScienceþBusiness
Media, Inc.
Ryan, E. L., & Hoerrner, K. L. (2004). Let your conscience be your guide: Smoking and drinking in
Disney’s animated classics. Mass Communication & Society, 7, 261 – 278. doi:10.1207/
s15327825mcs0703_1
Schaffer, S. (1996). Disney and the imagineering of histories. Postmodern Culture, 6. Retrieved
from http://xroads.virginia.edu/,DRBR2/schaffer.txt
Smith, S. W., Smith, S. L., Pieper, K. M., Yoo, J. H, Ferris, A. L., Downs, E. E., & Bowden, B. (2006).
Altruism on American television: Examining the amount of, and context surrounding, acts
of helping and sharing. Journal of Communication, 56, 707 – 727. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.
2006.00316.x
Spencer-Rodgers, J., Peng, K., Wang, L., & Hou, Y. (2004). Dialectical self-esteem and East-West
differences in psychological well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30,
1416– 1432. doi:10.1177/0146167204264243
Stibbe, A. (2012). Animals erased: Discourse, ecology, and reconnection with the natural World.
Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
Strasburger, V. C., Wilson, B. J., & Jordan, A. B. (2009). Children, adolescents, and the media (2ed.).
Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Triandis, H. C. (1999). Cross-cultural psychology. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 127 – 143.
doi:10.1111/1467-839X.00029
Woelfel, J. (1987). Development of the Western model: Toward a reconciliation of Eastern and
Western perspectives. In D. L. Kincaid (Ed.), Communication theory: Eastern and Western
perspectives (pp. 299 – 318). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc..
Yokota, F., & Thompson, K. M. (2000). Violence in g-rated animated films. Journal of the American
Medical Association, 283, 2716 – 2720. doi:10.1001/jama.283.20.2716

Received 17 November 2014

Final version received 15 May 2015
Accepted 27 May 2015

Dr Yang Feng (Ph.D., Southern Illinois University Carbondale) is an assistant professor in the
Department of Communication Studies, The University of Virginia’s College at Wise,
Wise, VA. Her primary research area focuses on advertising effects and cross-cultural
communication, which advances and applies prominent advertising and
communication theories in the interrelated contexts of culture, politics, and
communication technologies. Email: yf8f@uvawise.edu
Ms Jiwoo Park (Ph.D. Candidate, Southern Illinois University Carbondale) is an assistant
professor in the Department of Advertising and Marketing, Northwood University,
Midland, MI. Her primary research area centers on cross-cultural communication and
media technologies. Email: parkji@northwood.edu