G Model

POETIC 1255 No. of Pages 13

Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Poetics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/poetic

Explaining the role of character development in the evaluation

of morally ambiguous characters in entertainment media
, Dr.Mariska Kleemansa , , Dr.Allison Edenb , Serena Daalmans, MSca,* ,
Merel van Ommen, MSca , Addy Weijers, MSca
a
Behavioural Science Institute, Communication Science, Radboud University, Postbus 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, The Netherlands
b
Department of Communication, Communication Arts and Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history:
Received 19 April 2016 The current project aims at better understanding how narrative characteristics in stories
Received in revised form 3 October 2016 function in the liking, moral evaluation, and enjoyment of narratives featuring morally
Accepted 10 October 2016 ambiguous characters (MACs). Shafer and Raney (2012) found that viewers differently
Available online xxx enjoyed a heroic versus MAC-centered narrative. Building on this approach, a mixed-
method design was used to investigate character development in two morally ambiguous
Keywords: narratives. Results of both a qualitative content analysis and an experiment provide
Affective Disposition Theory support for the claim that character development is a central mechanism to explain viewer
Character development
responses to MACs in narrative content. Thus, this study provides new directions for
Morally ambiguous characters
understanding characters in media research.
Enjoyment
Viewer responses ã 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The presence of morally ambiguous characters (MACs) in the television landscape has consistently grown over the last
years, as well as related research on these characters (Eden, Grizzard, & Lewis, 2011; Krakowiak & Oliver, 2012; Krakowiak &
Tsay-Vogel, 2013; Raney & Janicke, 2013; Shafer & Raney, 2012). These MACs, sometimes also labeled antiheroes, separate
themselves from the traditionally good and bad characters, because they do not consistently act in a “good” or “evil” way. For
example, popular television characters like Tony Soprano (The Sopranos), Dr. Gregory House (House M.D.), Don Draper (Mad
Men) and Walter White (Breaking Bad), are featured in storylines in which they intermix undeniably bad behavior with good
motives and intentions. The liking and enjoyment of these characters seemingly contradicts tenets of Affective Disposition
Theory (Zillmann, 2000), which states that viewer enjoyment is a result of seeing morally virtuous characters succeed, and
immoral characters punished.
To investigate viewer responses to antihero narratives, Shafer and Raney (2012) explored differences in viewer responses
to the main character of an antihero film (Léon the Professional) versus a traditional hero film (The Rocketeer) across the course
of a narrative. In that study, viewers developed more positive dispositions towards both the hero (The Rocketeer) and the
antihero (Léon) over the course of the narrative, however, in the beginning the antihero was rated as less moral than the hero.
Additionally, while liking of the main character was higher for the hero during the film, both the hero and antihero were
equally liked at the end. Particularly based on the diverging results regarding the moral evaluation of the main character,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: s.daalmans@maw.ru.nl (S. Daalmans).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.10.003
0304-422X/ã 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: M. Kleemans, et al., Explaining the role of character development in the evaluation of morally
ambiguous characters in entertainment media, Poetics (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.10.003
G Model
POETIC 1255 No. of Pages 13

2 M. Kleemans et al. / Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Shafer and Raney (2012, p. 7) concluded that responses to MACs follow a different path than responses to characters in
traditional hero films: they are a result of moral disengagement driven by specifically developed antihero schemas.
A different possible route towards explaining viewer responses to antihero narratives, however, might be found in
examining narrative characteristics specific to morally ambiguous characters such as the moral development of characters
over the course of the narrative (cf. Gregoriou, 2012; Van Ommen, Daalmans, & Weijers, 2014). We propose that viewers use a
well-developed general story schema when viewing fiction: the “canonical” story format (Bordwell, 1985, p. 35). Essential to
this schema is the idea that the classical narrative story structure is characterized by changes, primarily resulting from
“individual characters as causal agents” (Bordwell & Thompson, 2008, p. 77). The main character propels the story forward
because s/he is confronted with a problem that requires a response. The character is put in a (moral) predicament, acts
according to his/her specific character traits and as a result, the plot develops and the character changes (Weijers, 2014, p.
71). Therefore the moral predicaments faced by morally ambiguous characters may actually lead to greater moral
engagement on the part of the viewer as the MACs grow and change throughout the film. This idea contrasts the notion put
forward by Shafer and Raney (2012), among others, that viewers rely on moral disengagement to like and positively evaluate
MACs. Instead, in our view the viewer gets morally engaged with the main character because of the moral development and
change displayed by the morally ambiguous character over the course of the narrative, which is evidenced by increasing
moral deliberation and shifting moral priorities during the narrative. In line with Affective Disposition Theory, then, the
moral challenges faced by the seemingly ambiguous protagonist simply increase viewer engagement and disposition toward
the character as they progress from vice to virtue (or vice versa). As long as the ultimate outcome for the character is morally
justified (cf. Krakowiak & Tsay-Vogel, 2013), viewers can enjoy the narrative without needing to morally disengage.
This possible alternate explanation, which is explored in the current study, may have major consequences for the
theoretical explanation of viewer responses towards MACs. It would mean that both character liking and moral evaluation
are guided by the growing involvement with the main character and insight in the character’s moral deliberation over the
course of the narrative. This growing involvement – or growing moral engagement – is a result of the insight viewers get into
the character over the course of the narrative as a result of his or her deliberation about the behaviors of and consequences
for the character. The narrative thus functions as a moral playground (cf. Hakemulder, 2000; Krijnen, 2007; Mar & Oatley,
2008), which as a concrete case allows viewers to engage with and exercise “our emotions and imagination, our powers of
perceptual discrimination, moral understanding, and reflection” (Carroll, 2000, p. 368–369). The more viewers are aware of
the moral deliberation of the main character and ultimately in favor of the choices s/he makes, the more the ambiguous
character is liked. As a result, the moral development of the main character over the course of the narrative – particularly (but
not exclusively) from vice to virtue – could be of utmost importance for understanding how character development drive
changes in character liking and moral evaluation.
In the current paper, we first outline current research on morality in narrative with a focus on morally ambiguous
characters. In line with Shafer and Raney (2012), we focus on the impact of character development over the course of the
narrative on character liking, moral evaluation and enjoyment of the main character. Next, we conduct a qualitative narrative
analysis (cf. Van Ommen et al., 2014) of two films presenting differential development of two very different morally
ambiguous protagonists. We contrast two types of morally ambiguous main characters identified in prior research on MACs:
One who displays moral development in his behavior over the course of a narrative (Léon) versus one does not exhibit
personal character development (American Psycho). Finally, we replicate Shafer and Raney’s (2012) experimental analysis of
character liking and moral evaluations in these two films.

2. Morally ambiguous characters in entertainment

In the last decades, media psychologists and communication scientists have tried to explain the mechanisms that
underlie the response to, or the perceptions, enjoyment, and appreciation of media characters (Eden, Oliver, Tamborini,
Limperos, & Woolley, 2015; Hoffner & Cantor, 1991; Konijn & Hoorn, 2005; Sanders, 2010; Shafer & Raney, 2012; Zillmann,
2000). One primary theory in this effort has been Affective Disposition Theory (ADT) which conceptualizes viewers as
“untiring moral monitors” (Zillmann, 2000, p. 54) whose evaluation of moral considerations in the narrative influence media
enjoyment and character liking. To be more specific, enjoyment and liking are predicted to be higher when the narrative
involves positive outcomes for good characters and negative outcomes for bad characters (Krakowiak & Oliver, 2012; Raney &
Bryant, 2002; Raney, 2004; Zillmann, 2000). In addition to enjoyment of outcomes at the resolution of a narrative, ADT posits
that dispositions towards characters develop and are formed over time as viewers observe character behavior, morally
evaluate this behavior, and form anticipatory emotions (hope and fear) about possible outcomes for characters (Zillmann,
2000). In line with this, Raney and Janicke (2013) argue that viewers continue to like characters by continuously “recasting
their motivations or behaviors as justified. We do so in order to maintain our positive dispositions, and thus to improve our
chances of enjoying narratives” (Raney & Janicke, 2013, p. 160).
Prior work on soap opera characters has shown that over the course of a serialized narrative, attitudes polarize towards
characters in this fashion – that is, good characters begin with a more virtuous perception by viewers, and over time are
perceived to become more virtuous, whereas bad characters are perceived initially as villains, and over time are perceived to
become even more villainous (Eden et al., 2011; Tamborini, Weber, Eden, Bowman, & Grizzard, 2010). However, there is a
third category of characters neither consistently virtuous nor consistently villainous. These characters were termed “neutral”
in Tamborini et al. (2010) and more accurately “morally ambiguous characters” in Eden et al. (2011). In both studies these

Please cite this article in press as: M. Kleemans, et al., Explaining the role of character development in the evaluation of morally
ambiguous characters in entertainment media, Poetics (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.10.003
G Model
POETIC 1255 No. of Pages 13

M. Kleemans et al. / Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 3

characters did not follow a set pattern of virtuous behavior. In the Tamborini et al. (2010) paper, these characters were
initially perceived as virtuous, but unlike heroic characters were perceived as less virtuous over time. In the Eden et al. (2011)
study, these characters shifted morality; in some weeks appearing as moral as traditional heroes, and other weeks more like
traditional villains. This type of behavioral inconsistency seems to us to be the defining hallmark of these morally ambiguous
characters.
However, a review of the literature reveals large inconsistencies and a lack of formal definitions for these types of
characters (cf. Eden, Daalmans, & Johnson, 2016; Shafer & Raney, 2012). Literary scholars have termed this type of character
“ambiguous”, while communication scholars and media psychologists previously preferred terms such as neutral,
inconsistent, or fascinating for these characters exhibiting both good and bad traits and/or behavior (Krakowiak, 2015;
Tamborini et al., 2010). Currently, both antiheroes (Donnelly, 2012; Janicke & Raney, 2015; Shafer & Raney, 2012) and morally
ambiguous characters (Eden et al., 2011; Krakowiak & Oliver, 2012; Krakowiak & Tsay, 2011; Krakowiak & Tsay-Vogel, 2013;
Krakowiak & Tsay-Vogel, 2015) are terms that show a considerable overlap in definition and are often used interchangeably
for characters that exhibit both good and bad behavior. Morally ambiguous characters and antiheroes are said to “do both
good and bad things” (Krakowiak & Oliver, 2012, p. 117) and “often behave in immoral ways” which are often alleviated by
redeeming qualities that set them apart from villains (Krakowiak & Tsay-Vogel, 2015).
Shafer and Raney (2012) approached antiheroes from a narrative point of view. Their focus on ‘antiheroes’ as
protagonists (a functional role in a narrative) hints at the importance of character development in the narrative: “
. . . antiheroes serve as protagonists who generally act in questionable ways; modeling (some) bad behavior even if for
justifiable reasons ( . . . ) But despite clearly doing improper things for (at times) corrupt reasons”, in the end antihero
protagonists function as “forces of good” in many narratives despite their moral flaws’ (p. 1030). Recently authors (Eden
et al., 2016; Lieto & Damiano, 2014) took a different approach in categorizing and studying morally ambiguous characters.
They turned to descriptions made by viewers on a TV Tropes wiki (http://www.tvtropes.org) not only to describe the
antihero concept more clearly but also to categorize different subtypes along a sliding scale. First of all, antiheroes have one
thing common: they serve as contrast to traditional virtuous heroes without moral flaws on the one side, and malicious, evil
villains on the other. Antiheroes are the in-between category. TV Tropes distinguishes antiheroes into categories that run
from the “Disney Anti-Hero” to the “Nominal (Anti-)Hero”. The categorization is not based on their functional role in the
narrative (all are protagonists) but on goals (collective versus personal), means (fair fight versus immoral actions) and moral
values they adhere to (cf. Lieto & Damiano, 2014) or moral consistency (Eden et al., 2016). Importantly, the descriptions at TV
Tropes illustrate that over the course of the narrative character development may cause an antihero to shift up or down this
morality scale. All types of antiheroes share major moral flaws (that separate them from virtuous heroes) although the
degree to which that is true is different for each category. However, the most striking difference from a moral point of view
from previous definitions of MACs is the focus on the character’s moral arc over the course of the narrative. This
conceptualization indicates the possibility of moral character development for some of these morally ambiguous characters
over the course of the narrative.

3. Evaluation of morally ambiguous characters

Although previous research (Eden et al., 2011; Eden et al., 2016; Krakowiak & Tsay-Vogel, 2013; Tamborini et al., 2010) has
focused on defining these characters more specifically by analyzing the role character motivations, outcomes and morality
plays as cues prompting specific moral evaluations and enjoyment, character development or change has remained
relatively understudied. There is no research contrasting morally ambiguous characters who exhibit character growth or
change during a narrative from those who do not; indeed both types of characters are likely to be termed “morally
ambiguous.” Therefore, research must do more to distinguish processes and type of moral ambiguity in characters in order to
better define MACs.
Empirical research regarding viewer responses to MACs includes various ways of understanding how viewers come to
form moral evaluations of characters (cf. Van Ommen et al., 2014). Some research positioned media user characteristics as
explanatory factors for viewer responses to MACs. These studies have, for example, explored personality traits (Krakowiak &
Tsay, 2011), or social comparison and morality salience as determinants of character liking (Krakowiak & Tsay-Vogel, 2015).
Other studies have focused on the interplay between viewer characteristics and narrative characteristics as potential
mechanisms for understanding viewer responses to MACs, by for example studying perceived realism, transportation and
suspense (Eden et al., 2011; Krakowiak & Oliver, 2012), and the role of character motivation and outcome (Krakowiak & Tsay-
Vogel, 2013), as well as the role of story schemas in prompting moral disengagement by the viewer (Shafer & Raney, 2012).
In studies conducted by Shafer and Raney (2012) as well as Raney and Janicke (2013), the role of the development of story
schemas in the disposition formation towards antiheroes (or MACs) was explored. Both studies investigated the idea that
“viewers of antihero narratives develop story schemas over time, thus explaining how character liking and enjoyment can
develop in spite of immoral actions of the protagonist” (Shafer & Raney, 2012, p. 4). Raney and Janicke (2013) provided the
initial support for this claim, and Shafer and Raney (2012) investigated this assumption more fully in their study. In the latter
study, it is concluded that, based on a comparison between a traditional hero narrative and an antihero narrative, both
character liking and character morality increased significantly over the course of the narrative for both types of characters.
Where from an ADT perspective morally objectionable character behavior would lead to a decrease in character liking, this
study, however, showed that the antihero condition did not suffer this fate (Shafer & Raney, 2012). Liking of the main

Please cite this article in press as: M. Kleemans, et al., Explaining the role of character development in the evaluation of morally
ambiguous characters in entertainment media, Poetics (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.10.003
G Model
POETIC 1255 No. of Pages 13

4 M. Kleemans et al. / Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

character eventually, at the end of the narrative, did not differ between the conditions: indicating that the viewers
disconnected their feelings towards the MAC protagonist from his morally questionable behavior.
These results are seen as additional support for the assumption that over the course of a narrative, viewers come to
understand and expect certain behavior from the morally ambiguous main character. Viewers derive their enjoyment
from these narratives based on specific story schemas. Since moral interpretation results from a dialogue between a text
and its reader, the way the object of interpretation is shaped or structured influences the way it is read (Fiske, 1987).
Therefore, in the current study we attempt to match narrative characteristics (i.e. moral reasoning and (lack of) moral
development in the narrative (cf. Gregoriou, 2012; Van Ommen et al., 2014), with viewer perceptions of and responses to
morally ambiguous characters. We use a mixed-methods approach to investigate whether character development in the
narrative guides viewer responses. To this end, we first conduct a qualitative narrative analysis of two films containing
MACs, but with very different arcs of moral development, in order to map the moral reasoning in the narrative featuring
MACs as the main character. Second, an experiment testing viewer responses to MACs in the same two films will be carried
out.

4. Qualitative narrative analysis

Qualitative narrative analysis is a step-by-step research procedure for the textual analysis of film and television stories
(e.g., Van Ommen et al., 2014). Qualitative narrative analysis can contribute to the knowledge of the construction of meaning:
textual analysis of stories can show us what texts are and how they work in the process of interpretation by the viewer (Fiske,
1987). Conjectures about the deeper levels of textual meaning are systematically checked against each other, the narrative
cycles, and the overall storyline. In this respect the narrative analysis subscribes to the principle of the “internal coherence as
a parameter for its interpretation” (Eco, 1990, p. 6). This qualitative form of content analysis may serve different purposes.
Most often, it is used to analyze a film to uncover its underlying thematic pattern; which values are at stake for the main
character and which are dominant in this particular setting.
The general idea behind the procedure – followed in the current study – is that character creates plot (Egri, 1960). This
means that the character’s actions cause the series of events (instead of series of events cause actions). Characters react to
circumstances and happenings, but the way the story develops is determined by the course of action the main characters
take. Building on Brady (1984), Weijers (2014) has described the base form of the sequence of events of stories from the
perspective of characters. The ‘building blocks’ of the sequence are called narrative cycles. A narrative cycle starts when a
problem for the main character occurs (A). The main character has to decide what to do (B). He makes a decision and acts (C).
Next, a complication occurs or the nature of the problem changes (A1). Again, the main character has to decide what to do
(B1), etcetera. This is the point of departure for the analysis of how the character develops over the course of a narrative and
its deeper levels of meaning. The latent content of the story line is inferred from the objectives main character pursues, the
concrete dilemmas he faces, the decisions he takes, the things he says and does, and finally, the reasons for his success or
failure, (cf. Van Ommen et al., 2014). This latent content describes the (changing) value conflicts the character faces over the
course of the narrative, and the decisions he makes.
Based on this, the qualitative narrative analysis is used as follows in the current project: the first part of the method is
concerned with the description and analysis of the manifest and latent content of the story, and then the main protagonist’s
story line is analyzed by examining its narrative cycles and the underlying value conflicts that are dramatized by the
narrative. Our first case is Léon (The Professional) [2_TD$IF](Besson & Besson, 1994), as this film was also used in the study of Shafer and
Raney (2012). In the film Léon, the main character (Leone “Léon” Montana) is a professional hitman. He gives shelter to
Mathilda, a 12-year-old girl, after her family is murdered. Léon and Mathilda form an unusual relationship, as she becomes
his protégée and learns the assassin's trade (IMDb, n.d.).
In the process of our research, we then chose a new research case to compare with Léon (i.e. ‘theoretical sampling’, Corbin
& Strauss, 2014). Thus, we selected the film American Psycho, since its narrative, articulated moral dilemmas, and the
development of the main character are a contrast to Léon, yet he is still considered an exemplar of a morally ambiguous
character in the literature (cf. Cojocaru, 2008; Donnelly, 2012; Lee, 2013). In American Psycho [3_TD$IF](Drake & Harron, 2000) the
main character is a wealthy, extremely vicious and amoral New York investment banker, Patrick Bateman, who hides his
alternate psychopathic ego from his co-workers and friends as he escalates deeper into his illogical, gratuitous fantasies and
struggles with irregular bursts of conscience (IMDb, n.d.).

4.1. Narrative analysis

4.1.1. Léon
The narrative analysis of Léon shows that, after taking in the orphan Mathilda, the main character Léon is put in a moral
predicament over and over again – between safeguarding his own interest and saving the life of Mathilda, and helping her get
revenge for the massacre of her family. In the beginning, Léon gives Mathilda shelter in a disgruntled manner and is very
outspoken that he does not want to help her any further. At this point in the movie, Léon is rather selfish and the viewer will
probably not like him that much. At the end of the movie Léon’s predicament is the same, but he sacrifices his life for
Mathilda. Her revenge on the villain, who massacred her family, is completed.

Please cite this article in press as: M. Kleemans, et al., Explaining the role of character development in the evaluation of morally
ambiguous characters in entertainment media, Poetics (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.10.003
G Model
POETIC 1255 No. of Pages 13

M. Kleemans et al. / Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 5

The narrative analysis of Léon (Table 1) revealed that the narrative develops according to a classic Hollywood model (Egri,
1960; Weijers, 2014), in which a choice has to be made by the main character. This choice continuously articulates a latent
conflict of values – egoism versus altruism. Despite his reluctance in the beginning of the narrative, in the end, Léon
unquestioningly chooses the altruistic option. Moreover, the choices he has to make, gain more weight and possible
repercussions over the course of the narrative. Over the course of the narrative, the value opposition changes its tone from
guarding and fulfilling his personal goals (egoism), towards saving Mathilda and fulfilling her goals, which may invariably
lead to his own death (altruism). Furthermore, the analysis of the moral deliberation showcased by Leon, based on the time it
takes him to come to decision after each moral predicament, shows a curvilinear path. He does not deliberate for very long
about his options at either the beginning, or end of the film, indicating moral certainty about his actions. However, when he is
exhibiting moral development and change from egoism to altruism, we can see a measurable increase in the time he takes to
deliberate between possible moral outcomes. He goes through a moral learning curve throughout the film where at plot
point 2 and 3 he shows the most moral deliberation, but at the end of the film he has learned how to be a hero – thus
evidencing moral growth over the film. Importantly, this film follows the central tenets of ADT. The main character
ultimately serves as a vehicle for justice restoration in the film, and the morally corrupt characters are punished.

Table 1
Overview of qualitative narrative analysis Léon.

Plot A) Problem B) Choice C) Decision

Hitman1 Léon meets Mathilda, a 12-
year-old girl who lives with her
dysfunctional family in an
apartment down the hall.
Mathilda's father attracts the ire
of corrupt DEA agents, who have
been paying him to stash cocaine.
After they discover he has been
cutting the cocaine to keep some
for himself, DEA agents storm the
building, led by drug addict
Stansfield. He kills Mathilda's
entire family, while Mathilda buys
groceries.
Mathilda discovers that Léon is a
hitman.
Mathilda learns how to shoot and
partners up with Leon
successfully.3 After this extensive family).
training Mathilda fills a bag with
guns and sets out to kill Stansfield
on her own.
A now enraged Stansfield wants to A NYPD ESU team sent by Stansfield
find out where Léon is.
1,2,3,4
Plot points in the story where the movie was paused in the original study of Shafer and Raney (2012) and therefore also in the current study.
When Mathilda returns and finds
out her family was killed, she
desperately knocks on Léon’s door
and asks him to let her in.
Mathilda begs Léon to take care of
her and teach her his skills, as she
wants to avenge the murder of her
family. When Léon does not listen to
her request, she grabs a gun and
shoots through a window.
Léon discovers her plan (taking
revenge on the murderers of her
captures Mathilda and attempts to
infiltrate Léon's apartment.
Any moment, the police can come in To sneak out of the building and
to kill Léon.
Léon is dying and Mathilda’s
revenge hasn’t been fulfilled.
Open the door, with the risk of Léon gives her shelter. However,
becoming involved in Mathilda’s Léon is very reluctant to help her.
problems/keep the door closed so Deliberation time: 30 s
Mathilda most likely will become a
victim too.
To throw Mathilda out of his Pressed by Mathilda, Léon
apartment and be free of reluctantly starts to train Mathilda.2
responsibilities/To train her in Deliberation time: 5 min
return for running his errands,
cleaning his apartment, and
teaching him how to read.
To let Mathilda carry out her Léon rescues Mathilda and shoots
dangerous plan, thereby saving his two of Stansfield's men in the
own skin/intervene and protect process.
Mathilda, and actively involves Deliberation time: 28 min
himself in her problems.
Focus on his own freedom, flee and Léon ambushes the ESU team and
leave Mathilda behind/try to save grabs Mathilda and creates a quick
Mathilda. escape for her by smashing a hole in
an airshaft.
Deliberation time: 7 min
Léon sneaks out of the building. He
save his life/to stay, find Stanfield, goes unnoticed save for Stanfield,
kill him and let Mathilda have her follows him downstairs where he
revenge. shoots Léon in the back.
Deliberation time: 4 min
Choose to preserve his own life/ As he is dying, Léon places an object
The realization of Mathilda's in his hands that he says is “from
revenge, despite possibility of Mathilda”. Opening his hands,
death. Stansfield discovers that it is the pin
from a grenade. He then opens
Léon's vest to find a cluster of active
grenades, which detonate moments
later, killing them both.4
Deliberation time: 2 min

Please cite this article in press as: M. Kleemans, et al., Explaining the role of character development in the evaluation of morally
ambiguous characters in entertainment media, Poetics (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.10.003
G Model
POETIC 1255 No. of Pages 13

6 M. Kleemans et al. / Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

4.1.2. American psycho

Contrary to Léon, the central value-conflict that drives the narrative in the film American Psycho is whether or not the
main character should express frustration by violence (see Table 2). The moral decisions made by Patrick Bateman are an
attempt to give meaning to his life, or resist giving into this self-centered violent urge towards others. Thus, the concrete
choices Patrick Bateman is faced with in American Psycho do not necessarily emerge out of actual problems he encounters but
are continuous variations of the same value-conflict. The moral ‘starting-point’ in the narrative is the same for Léon and
Patrick Bateman: both are characters expressing explicit immoral behavior, namely murder. However, what sets the two
morally ambiguous protagonists apart is that over the course of the narrative, there is no moral weight added to the choices
to be made for Patrick Bateman, nor does he change from primarily egoistic to altruistic motives. This is further evident in the
examination of moral deliberation time demonstrated by the character during the course of the narrative: In contrast to
Léon, moral deliberation time for Patrick Bateman remains almost constant during the course of the film.
As a result of this dissimilarity, Patrick Bateman is not challenged to (morally) change or adapt over the course of the
narrative, and therefore shows no moral development, while Léon does. Interesting to note is that American Psycho, despite

Table 2
Overview of qualitative narrative analysis American Psycho.

Plot A) Problem B) Choice C) Decision

Patrick Bateman is a wealthy and vain
investment banker. He also leads a
secret life as a serial killer. Bateman and
his associates flaunt their business
cards in a display of utter vanity.
Paul has mistaken Bateman for a
comparable associate.
Bateman has a threesome with two
prostitutes.
Bateman new colleague reveals his new
business card, sending Bateman over
the edge.
Bateman has met a female model.
Bateman invites his secretary to meet him A violent urge arises.
at his apartment for drinks.
Bateman has a threesome at Paul's
apartment.
Bateman finds a kitten and uses it at an
ATM, which in his imagination reads,
“Feed me a stray cat."
A police chase ensues.
Bateman calls his lawyer. He confesses his Bateman panics.
murders in detail.
1,2,3,4
Plot points in the story where the movie was paused. In this study the points are after an important decision of the main character or the aftermath of
this decision.
Bateman becomes To accept his ‘defeat’/To express his Bateman murders a homeless man and
embarrassed by the frustration by violence his dog in an alleyway in a fit of frustrated
superiority of co- rage.1
worker Paul Allen's Deliberation time: 2 min 30 s
card.
Bateman feels To accept his defeat/To express his Bateman gets Paul drunk and lures him
humiliated. frustration by violence and exerting back to his apartment, where he
power. ambushes and murders him with an axe.
Bateman disposes of Paul's body, and then
goes to Paul's apartment to stage the
situation so that others believe Paul has
run off.
Deliberation time: 3 min 50 s
A violent urge arises. To express his personal frustration by The two women leave his apartment
violence/not give in to his violent urge bruised and bloodied.
towards unknown others. Deliberation time: 30 s
Bateman feels To accept his personal defeat/To Bateman tries to kill Luis, but cannot
humiliated. express his frustration by violence bring himself to strangle him. Next
towards colleague Luis. Bateman is having sex with Luis’
girlfriend Courtney.2
Deliberation time: 4 min 13 s
A violent urge arises. To express his personal frustration by Bateman murders the model
violence/not give in to his violent urge Deliberation time: 43 s
towards others.
To express his personal frustration by Eventually he decides not to kill as he
violence/not give in to his violent urge decides that she is too innocent and pure
towards a colleague. to be killed.
Deliberation time: 4 min 50 s
A violent urge arises. To express his personal frustration by Bateman kills one woman during and the
violence/not give in to his violent urge. other woman after sex with a chainsaw.
He confesses his urge to his girlfriend but
she does not listen. He breaks up with her
bluntly.3
Deliberation time: 3 min
A woman sees him To express his personal frustration by Bateman shoots her instead and lets the
and tries to stop him. violence/not give in to his violent urge cat go.
and accept the fact that he is caught. Deliberation time: 1 min
Bateman might get To express his personal frustration by Bateman destroys the police cars and kills
arrested. violence, and escape/not give in to his the pursuing officers. Fleeing to his office,
violent urge and accept the legal Bateman accidentally enters the wrong
consequences of his behavior. building, where he murders a security
guard and a janitor.
Deliberation time: 1 min
To confess to his heinous crimes/to After confessing his crimes to his lawyer,
keep giving into his urges to deploy Bateman realizes that the atrocities only
power towards others. happened in his imagination.4
Deliberation time: 1 min

Please cite this article in press as: M. Kleemans, et al., Explaining the role of character development in the evaluation of morally
ambiguous characters in entertainment media, Poetics (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.10.003
G Model
POETIC 1255 No. of Pages 13

M. Kleemans et al. / Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 7

the lack of moral development by the protagonist, still tries to restore justice in some fashion at the end of the film. Through a
rather abrupt twist in the plot in the final sequence of the narrative of American Psycho Patrick Bateman confesses his
(fictitious/imaginary) murders (or so it seems) to his lawyer, who convinces him of the impossibility of him having
committed these acts.

4.2. Narrative analysis: discussion

Building on the narrative analysis, we can argue that the two analyzed films – both featuring morally ambiguous
protagonists – vary in the degree of character development in narrative. We see this both in the moral dilemmas faced by the
characters, as well as the amount of time they spend deliberating on their options. Therefore, we now turn to the role of
character development as a narrative characteristic in order to study the mechanism underlying the prompting and use of
schemas in the liking, moral evaluation, and enjoyment of narratives with MACs. Our analysis illustrates that Léon shows
moral development over time and American Psycho does not. We argue that Léon’s moral character development over the
course of the narrative, exemplified by the growing moral deliberation evidenced by the character, should allow the viewer
to become more morally engaged with the fate of the protagonist, since over the course of the narrative he grows in moral
terms. Via viewing his moral deliberation, viewers gain insight into the character regarding the moral choices he has to make.
This insight into the moral deliberation of the character about his choices and his positive moral character growth – we posit
– will lead to a growth in liking as well as more positive moral evaluation over the course of the narrative for viewers.
Conversely, for American Psycho, for which the results of the narrative analysis revealed no change in either complexity or
duration of moral deliberation over the course of the narrative (i.e. no moral development for the character), we argue that
liking and moral evaluation will become more negative due to lack of moral engagement with the protagonist. This latter
expectation is opposite to what could be expected when following the logic of Shafer and Raney (2012) who argue that
viewers will morally disengage with the protagonist of American Psycho, thus resulting in increased liking and more positive
moral evaluations for Patrick Bateman over the course of the narrative.
In all, the above discussed results of the conducted narrative analysis of American Psycho and Léon inform the expectations
of the second study in this project. These expectations can be summarized as follows:
H1. Over the course of the film narrative, character liking will (a) increase for the morally ambiguous character that shows
character development and will (b) conversely decrease for the morally ambiguous character without character
development.

H2. Over the course of the film narrative, moral evaluations of the character will (a) become more positive for the morally
ambiguous character that shows character development and will (b) conversely become more negative for the morally
ambiguous character without character development.
What remains unclear is how character development – or a lack thereof – translates into enjoyment of the narrative. The
literature has revealed that a broad spectrum of different kinds of MACs is immensely enjoyed by viewers (Eden et al., 2011;
Eden et al., 2015; Raney & Janicke, 2013; Shafer & Raney, 2012), and these may or may not show character development.
Therefore, it is unclear if viewers might enjoy narratives with different types of morally ambiguous protagonists to different
degrees. Since we do not have clear expectations here, we formulate the following research question:
RQ1. Do differences exist in the enjoyment of the storyline featuring a morally ambiguous protagonist that does or does
not develop over the course of the narrative?

5. Method

5.1. Procedure

In a cinema-style classroom, an experiment was conducted in which 164 university students either watched a film that
included a morally ambiguous character that showed character development (Léon, n = 81) or a film about a morally
ambiguous character without character development (American Psycho, n = 83). The three dependent variables (liking, moral
evaluation, and enjoyment) were measured four times during the experiment – at three points during the film and
immediately after the film. For Léon we used the three plot points that were used in the Shafer and Raney (2012) study: we
stopped the film after 9:50, 43:30, 61:23 and immediately after the film. For American Psycho the plot points were after 22:29,
53:54, 61:18 and also immediately after the film (see Tables 1 and 2).

5.2. Participants

One hundred and sixty-four students from a large Dutch university participated in the experiment. Of this initial number,
only 145 remained for the analysis (63.4% female; age range 17–27, M = 20.49 years old, SD = 1.75). A total number of 18
participants (n = 7 for Léon, n = 11 for American Psycho) were previously exposed to the film they watched during the
experiment. We decided to remove these participants as it is reasonable that their liking and moral evaluations of the main

Please cite this article in press as: M. Kleemans, et al., Explaining the role of character development in the evaluation of morally
ambiguous characters in entertainment media, Poetics (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.10.003
 G Model
POETIC 1255 No. of Pages 13

8 M. Kleemans et al. / Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

character were at least partly based on previous knowledge about the narrative character of the film. One participant did not
answer the question whether she previously watched the film (in this case: American Psycho) and was excluded too.1

5.3. Measures

All measures were identical to and adapted from Shafer and Raney (2012). The liking of the main character was measured
four times by asking the participants to rate the main character on a 51-point continuum ranging from 1 (hate) to 51 (love).
Means scores were calculated for each plot point and included in the analyses (overall M = 21.71; SD = 13.13).
Moral evaluation of the main character in the film was measured using a 51-point continuum scale (Shafer & Raney, 2012).
Participants rated the moral evaluation of the character on a scale ranging from 1 (evil) to 51 (good) at the four plot points
(overall M = 16.37; SD = 13.26).
Enjoyment was measured at the same four plot points, by asking participants seven enjoyment-related questions on a
scale ranging from (1) not at all to (7) very much (cf. Raney, 2002; Raney, 2005) – including how exciting the film was, how
suspenseful the film was, how much one would like to see the entire film, and how likely one was to watch the entire film.
The last two questions were only asked at plot point 1, 2, and 3. The scores on the items in the scale were averaged at each
time point (overall M = 4.36; SD = 1.19), as the scales at each measurement point (i.e., plot point) proved to be reliable
(Cronbach’s a ranged between a = 0.782 and a = 0.878).

6. Results

Repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to analyze the liking (H1) and moral evaluation (H2) of the
main character for each film separately at the four previously described plot points. Moreover, character liking and moral
evaluations for each film were compared at the four plot points using a repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA). To answer RQ1, the enjoyment was analyzed with repeated measures ANOVAs for both films separately.
The first hypothesis stated that character liking would increase for the morally ambiguous character showing character
development over the course of the film narrative (H1a) and decrease for the morally ambiguous character without character
development (H1b). Liking of the main character in the film Léon was shown to increase over time (F(3,71) = 35.74; p < 0.001;
h2part = 0.60). Post-hoc F-tests showed that at plot point 1 (M = 25.00; SE = 1.19), liking was significantly lower (p < 0.001)
than at plot point 2 (M = 32.28; SE = 1.15), plot point 3 (M = 30.84; SE = 1.27), and after the film (plot point 4, M = 36.81;
SE = 1.17). Moreover, the differences between the other plot points also appeared to be significant (p-values ranged from
p < 0.001 to p = 0.033). The study thus not only confirmed hypothesis 1a, but also replicated the results that were previously
found by Shafer and Raney (2012). Except for the slight decrease in liking between plot point 2 and 3, the pattern of the
increased liking over time is similar in the two studies.2
As predicted in hypothesis 1b, liking scores for the main character in American Psycho generally decreased over the course
of the narrative (F(3,68) = 11.98; p < 0.001; h2part = 0.35). At plot point 1, liking (M = 13.38; SE = 1.04) was significantly higher
(p-values ranged from p < 0.001 to p = 0.008) than at plot point 2 (M = 11.25; SE = 0.99), plot point 3 (M = 7.96; SE = 1.03), and
plot point 4 (M = 10.13; SE = 1.08). Moreover, the differences between the other plot points were significant (p-values ranged
from p < 0.001 to p = 0.005), except for plot point 2 versus plot point 4 (p = 0.202). As the means show, liking increased after
watching the last part of the film. This can easily be explained by twist in the narrative of the film at the end: the main
character confesses to his heinous crimes for the first time.
Regarding character morality, it was predicted in H2a that the moral evaluation of Léon would become more positive over
the course of the narrative. At plot point 1 (M = 18.18; SE = 2.87) moral evaluation was indeed lower (F(3,71) = 21.80;
p < 0.001; h2part = 0.479) compared to plot point 2 (M = 26.12; SE = 1.27), plot point 3 (M = 24.45; SE = 1.42), and plot point 4
(M = 31.47; SE = 1.44). Similar to liking, moral evaluation decreased between plot point 2 and 3. Post-hoc tests showed that
differences between all plot points were significant (p-values ranged from p < 0.001 to p = 0.033). In all, H2a is confirmed.
Hypothesis 2b predicted that moral evaluations of the character become more negative over the course of the narrative
for Patrick Bateman in American Psycho. A significant effect was found (F(3,68) = 14.37; p < 0.001; h2part = 0.388), with means
indicating that moral evaluations decreased up to plot point 3, and then again increased to the initial level. To be more
specific, both at plot point 1 (M = 7.24; SE = 0.61) and plot point 4 (M = 7.90; SE = 1.03), character morality was rated higher

1
Statistical analyses (t-tests, one-tailed) generally supported this expectation: at the first plot point, the liking (t(79) = 1.008; p = 0.031) of the MAC in the
film Léon was significantly higher for these participants (M = 32.43; SD = 4.20) compared to participants who watched the film for the first time (M = 25.00;
SD = 10.22). Participants that were previously exposed to Léon also had higher moral evaluations of the MAC (DM = 9.53), but this difference was not
significant (p = 0.159). The same pattern emerged for American Psycho: liking of the main character (t(80) = 2.70; p = 0.004) was higher (M = 21.27; SD = 10.62)
among the participants who had watched the film earlier than the participants that did not watch it before they participated in the experiment (M = 13.38;
SD = 8.77); the difference in moral evaluation (DM = 3.94) was again not significant (p = 0.090).
2
When comparing the results of the Shafer and Raney study (2012) with ours, we see that the Dutch viewers in the our study have lower ratings of liking
and moral scrutiny of Léon than the US participants Shafer and Raney studied. This finding may hint to the existence of other factors that also influence
viewer responses to MACs, such as cultural differences. In his study on popularity of TV-fiction in small European countries, Biltereyst (1992) points out the
importance of cultural and linguistic affinity: own language drama is more successful (p. 533). This may explain why the US participants reported higher
liking and moral evaluation. Nevertheless, as the results in both studies followed the same pattern, there is no reason to assume that these factors may have
affected the results significantly.

Please cite this article in press as: M. Kleemans, et al., Explaining the role of character development in the evaluation of morally
ambiguous characters in entertainment media, Poetics (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.10.003
G Model
POETIC 1255 No. of Pages 13

M. Kleemans et al. / Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 9

compared to plot point 2 (M = 6.35; SE = 0.75) and plot point 3 (M = 4.54; SE = 0.68). However, differences between plot point 1
and 4 on the one hand and plot point 2 on the other hand were only marginally significant (respectively p = 0.077 and
p = 0.091). The results thus generally supported the hypothesis, noting that there are again indications that the plot twist at
the end of the film influenced viewer responses, in this regard moral evaluation.
To test the influence of the character development in the narrative in a more advanced way, liking and morality scores
were compared at the four plot points (see Fig. 1). A significant interaction between film and time (see Fig. 1) was found (F
(6,138) = 14.00; p < 0.001; h2part = 0.378). With regard to liking, results indicated that the main character in Léon was more
liked at all time points than the main character in the film American Psycho (all post-hoc p-values < 0.001). Moreover,
compared with the differences in liking between the two films at plot point 1 (DM = 11.62; SE = 1.58), differences in liking
further increased at plot point 2 (DM = 21.30; SE = 1.52), plot point 3 (DM = 22.88; SE = 1.64), and plot point 4 (DM = 26.68;
SE = 1.60). Similar results were obtained for moral evaluation: differences in moral evaluation between Léon and American
Psycho increased from M = 10.94 (SD = 3.01) at plot point 1, via respectively M = 19.77 (SD = 1.49) and M = 19.91 (SD = 1.59) to
M = 23.57 (SD = 1.79) at plot point 4. These results provide additional support for our assumption that character development
in the narrative – at least partly – explains liking and moral evaluation of characters, as films that both include a morally
ambiguous character affected viewers in different ways.
RQ1 questioned whether differences exist in the enjoyment of the storyline featuring a morally ambiguous character that
does or does not develop over the course of the narrative. First, results showed that there was no overall difference in
enjoyment scores between the two films (p = 0.618). However, enjoyment fluctuated during the film experience over the
course of the narrative. Results for Léon (see Fig. 2) showed a slight increase in enjoyment over the course of the narrative (F
(3,70) = 3.96; p = 0.011; h2part = 0.145). Post-hoc analyses further refined the differences by showing that enjoyment at plot
point 1 (M = 4.10; SE = 0.14) was significantly lower compared to plot point 2 (M = 4.44; SE = 0.14; p = 0.005) and plot point 4
[(Fig._1)TD$IG]
50.00
45.00 Liking - Leon
40.00
35.00 Liking - American Psycho
30.00
25.00 Liking Leon (Shafer & Raney,
2012)
20.00
Morality - Leon
15.00
10.00
Morality - American Psycho
5.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 Morality - Leon (Shafer &
Raney, 2012)
Plot point

Fig. 1. Liking and morality scores by condition across time.

[(Fig._2)TD$IG]
4.50
4.44 4.42
4.40

4.30 4.31

4.22 4.23
4.20

4.10 Leon
4.10
4.06 4.07
American Psycho
4.00

3.90

3.80
1 2 3 4
Plot point

Fig. 2. Enjoyment scores across time for Léon and American Psycho.

Please cite this article in press as: M. Kleemans, et al., Explaining the role of character development in the evaluation of morally
ambiguous characters in entertainment media, Poetics (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.10.003
G Model
POETIC 1255 No. of Pages 13

10 M. Kleemans et al. / Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

(M = 4.42; SE = 0.12; p = 0.009). Enjoyment at plot point 3 (M = 4.31; SE = 0.15) did not differ significantly from the other plot
points. For American Psycho (see Fig. 2), a marginally significant effect (F(3,68) = 2.48; p = 0.069; h2part = 0.099) appeared.
Contrast analyses shed further light on this effect, by showing that there is a quadratic instead of a linear effect: at the
beginning (M = 4.06; SE = 0.16) and the end of the film (M = 4.07; SE = 0.16), enjoyment is lower than during the film (plot point
2: M = 4.22; SE = 0.16; plot point 3: M = 4.23; SE = 0.18; p = 0.009).

7. Discussion

The overall aim of this project was to assess if narrative characteristics, specifically character moral development, might
function as an underlying mechanism in the liking, moral evaluation, and enjoyment of narratives featuring morally
ambiguous characters. The results from both the narrative analysis and the experimental study together can be seen as initial
support for this claim. The positive character development in the narrative of Léon is mirrored in viewers’ increased liking
and more positive moral evaluation of the main character over the course of the narrative. Overall, the development of the
character in Léon, based on Leon’s moral deliberations and the decisions he makes, fosters engagement with the character by
the viewers, resulting in a growing liking and an increasingly more positive moral evaluation over time. These findings are in
line with ADT, as both moral evaluation and liking are positive, and positively related over the narrative.
With regard to enjoyment, we see that the character development of Léon was related to an increased enjoyment of the
film over the course of the narrative. These findings are in line with ADT (also discussed by Shafer & Raney, 2012) and may be
explained from our perspective by the moral development experienced by the protagonist from egoism to altruism.
Although Léon dies, he does so in a self-sacrificing manner, allowing the child Mathilda to survive and enacting justice on the
villainous characters threatening them both. Therefore, Léon dies a hero, which is a positive outcome for the character, and
thus enjoyable for viewers. This is in line with the discussion of the “Grand Resolution” of suspenseful drama by Zillmann
(1996) where he argues that enjoyment is best served by a morally acceptable and applaudable final outcome in which the
good characters triumph over, and destroy, all evil agents.
In contrast to the growth of Léon, the relative lack of character development in the narrative of American Psycho is visible
in the decrease of liking and moral evaluation of the main character over the course of the narrative. In combination with the
flat moral deliberation time evidenced by the character, this seems reflective of the limited possibility for moral engagement
with the character by the viewers. However, the plot twist at the end of American Psycho – a moment of unexpected character
change – in which the character finally confesses his crimes, was related to increased liking and the positive moral evaluation
after plot point 4. We posit that this abrupt break of character allowed for greater engagement by viewers, as Patrick Bateman
now evidences greater possibility for moral change, but this is speculative. It may be that the confession of the character
allowed viewers to accept this as a minimally satisfying resolution of justice (Zillmann, 1996) independent of the liking felt
towards Patrick Bateman.
In American Psycho, enjoyment took the shape of an inverted-U curve, highest in the middle of the film. This may be
related to understanding the appreciation of entertainment with negative affective messages such as horror films (King &
Hourani, 2007; Tamborini & Stiff, 1987). These studies argue that experiences of thrill and suspense – i.e. negative valence
and emotional arousal – may increase enjoyment (see also Oliver & Bartsch, 2010). Following the narrative of American
Psycho as outlined in the narrative analysis, negative valence and arousing content (e.g., violence) are lowest both at the
beginning of the film and at the end, and highest in the middle. These results suggest that in the case of American Psycho,
other forces besides moral engagement and justice resolution may be driving enjoyment.
In considering the findings regarding American Psycho, we need to address the ostensible moral ambiguity of Patrick
Bateman. In line with Donnelly (2012), Cojocaru (2008), and Lee (2013), we argue that he is a morally ambiguous character.
Yet, based on the results from our narrative analysis, as well as our experimental study, we might instead argue that – despite
being a charming and attractive serial killer – he is quite morally consistent, particularly in comparison with Léon. Therefore,
the character liking and moral evaluations over the course of American Psycho simply reiterates the polarization effect found
in previous ADT research (Eden et al., 2011; Tamborini et al., 2010). This begs the question, is the central characteristic of a
morally ambiguous character growth and moral change over time; or a lack of consistent morality?
Books on dramatic writing (e.g., Egri, 1960; Weijers 2014) postulate the idea that every main character needs
contradictions and moral doubts in order to be able to propel the story. “Contradictions within a character and around him,
create conflict and decisions” (Egri, 1960, p. 65). A character is revealed through predicament and the decisions he is forced to
make facing these problems. Eventually the character will grow: “Of necessity he must change, and alter his attitude toward
life” (Egri, 1960, p. 61). Moral ambiguity seems to be a prerequisite for all character driven drama and will lead to character
change.
If most characters in character driven drama are morally ambiguous and will change over the course of the narrative,
what is the difference between hero and antihero characters? In the beginning heroes are morally good but they have serious
moral flaws for dramatic purposes. Or as Aristotle (in Hiltunen, 2002, p. 17) puts it: “This character (the hero) must be morally
good, but not perfect; the hero's mistakes make him human and understandable”. On the other hand of the spectrum of
morally ambivalent film characters, we have characters that are essentially bad, but in character-driven drama their actions
must be human and understandable as well. They do wrong things but for the right reasons. Therefore, we propose a
continuum in moral ambiguity of main characters in films along two axes: a morality axis and a character development axis.
Genuine, virtuous heroes – as well as evil villains – who are morally consistent throughout the narrative are opposed on the

Please cite this article in press as: M. Kleemans, et al., Explaining the role of character development in the evaluation of morally
ambiguous characters in entertainment media, Poetics (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.10.003
G Model
POETIC 1255 No. of Pages 13

M. Kleemans et al. / Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 11

morality axis, yet similar on the character development axis. However, characters who start out as either heroes or villains, or
any type of character in between, yet display moral change over a narrative, would be considered MACs. Based on our
research we propose that there are different types of MACs dependent on their starting point on the morality axis and the
displayed moral character growth during the narrative. It may, although this is speculative, also depend on the viewer’s
expectation that the character could possibly change in the narrative – the latitude for potential moral growth. This
differentiation may allow for greater variance in emotional expectations on the part of the viewer – we cannot hope and fear
Patrick Bateman will change or act differently, because his lack of development does not allow it, yet Leon demonstrates
greater moral variability and thus greater potential for moral growth. The TV Tropes categorization used in recent studies by
Eden et al., 2016 and Lieto and Damiano, 2014 could serve as a tentative source of inspiration for further research into this
type of possible categorization.
Our study was not without limitations. First, we adapted single-item measures of liking and morality from Shafer and
Raney (2012) despite well-known issues with single-item measures (Diamantopoulos, Sarstedt, Fuchs, Wilczynski, & Kaiser,
2012). We would note that as a primary interest of our study was to compare to the findings of Shafer and Raney (2012), use
of these measures was integral to our results. Also, we would agree with other researchers (Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007) who
argue that single-item measures are often sufficient to capture the essence of a construct, particularly one as easy to access as
“liking” for example. However, we would suggest future research use a more nuanced measure of morality to capture the
dimensions and domains of possible moral infractions or upholding, as the single item measure used in the current study is
unlikely to capture moral nuance or complexity reflected in current understandings of media psychology, particularly in
regards to characters (cf. Eden et al., 2015; Eden et al., 2016). Second, we use only two selected media stimuli (Leon and
American Psycho) to examine moral ambiguity in narrative. This may limit the generalizability of our findings (Reeves,
Yeykelis, & Cummings, 2015). However, again we would argue that we extend the work of Shafer and Raney (2012) with our
decision here, and thus are well on the way towards examining the course of MAC-based narratives generally with this line of
research. Additionally, by using the qualitative analysis in addition to the qualitative, our data does not reduce a media
message down to specific attributes, but examines the intra-message change on specific messages over time, as Reeves et al.
(2015) recommend. While we would certainly hope future research continues to provide examples and study the effects of
MAC narratives, we would argue that what we have done here is an important step in this direction.
Future research should also explore if the moral deliberation by the character in the narrative also prompts moral
deliberation on the side of the viewer. This moral deliberation may lead into greater insight into the character as well as the
self (cf. Shedlosky-Shoemaker, Costabile, & Arkin, 2014; Slater, Johnson, Cohen, Comello, & Ewoldsen, 2014). Morally
ambiguous characters may, via their growth and change, allow for viewers to imagine themselves also growing and changing
along. This may promote meaningful connections with characters, perceptions of moral significance, and even moral
elevation on the part of the viewer (Oliver, Hartmann, & Woolley, 2012). However, this type of self-expansion and moral
growth may be enjoyable upon reflection of the film at a later date, or via discussion with others, and thus may not be evident
in a laboratory study such as ours. In all, in order to take on new directions in studying the responses to and effects of MACs
scholars thus need to come to a more well-established description of how these characters are portrayed over time, and how
these portrayals interact with viewer expectations and responses. This is an important addition to the current field of
studying the responses to (different types of) MACs.

[4_TD$IF]1Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the Editor-in-Chief Marc Verboord and the two anonymous reviewers at Poetics for their thoughtful
feedback and support.

References

Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing
Research, 44, 175–184.
Besson, C. Producer, & Besson, L. Director (1994). Léon the Professional [Motion Picture]. France: Gaumont.
Biltereyst, D. (1992). Language and culture as ultimate barriers? An analysis of the circulation, consumption and popularity of fiction in small European
countries. European Journal of Communication, 7(4), 517–540.
Bordwell, D., & Thompson, K. (2008). Film art, an introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bordwell, D. (1985). Narration in the fiction film. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Brady, B. (1984). The keys to writing for television and film. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Carroll, N. (2000). Art and ethical criticism: An overview of recent directions of research. Ethics, 110(2), 350–387.
Cojocaru, D. (2008). Confessions of an American Psycho: James Hogg’s and Bret Easton Ellis’s Anti-Heroes’ Journey from Vulnerability to Violence. Contagion:
Journal of Violence Mimesis and Culture, 15(1), 185–200.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Diamantopoulos, A., Sarstedt, M., Fuchs, C., Wilczynski, P., & Kaiser, S. (2012). Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for
construct measurement: A predictive validity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 434–449.
Donnelly, A. M. (2012). The new American hero: Dexter, Serial killer for the masses. The Journal of Popular Culture, 45(1), 15–26.
Drake, J. Producer, & Harron, M. Director (2000). American Psycho [Motion Picture]. USA: Lionsgate Films.
Eco, U. (1990). The limits of interpretation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Eden, A., Grizzard, M., & Lewis, R. (2011). Disposition development in drama: The role of moral, immoral, and ambiguously moral characters. International
Journal of Arts and Technology, 4, 33–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJART.2011.037768.
Eden, A., Oliver, M. B., Tamborini, R., Limperos, A., & Woolley, J. (2015). Perceptions of moral violations and personality traits among heroes and villains. Mass
Communication and Society, 18(2), 186–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.923462.

Please cite this article in press as: M. Kleemans, et al., Explaining the role of character development in the evaluation of morally
ambiguous characters in entertainment media, Poetics (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.10.003
G Model
POETIC 1255 No. of Pages 13

12 M. Kleemans et al. / Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Eden, A., Daalmans, S., & Johnson, B. K. (2016). Morality predicts enjoyment but not appreciation of morally ambiguous characters. Media Psychology1–25.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2016.1182030.
Egri, L. (1960). The art of dramatic writing. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Fiske, J. (1987). Television culture. London/New York: Methuen.
Gregoriou, C. (2012). ‘Times like these, I wish there was a real Dexter’: Unpacking serial murder ideologies and metaphors from TV’s Dexter internet forum.
Language and Literature, 21(3), 274–285.
Hakemulder, J. (2000). The moral laboratory: Experiments examining the effects of reading literature on social perception and moral self-concept. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hiltunen, A. (2002). Aristotle in Hollywood: The anatomy of successful storytelling. Bristol: Intellect Books.
IMDb (n.d.). Léon: The Professional. Retrieved September 4, 2015, from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110413/.
IMDb (n.d.). American Psycho. Retrieved September 4, 2015, from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144084/.
Janicke, S. H., & Raney, A. A. (2015). Exploring the role of identification and moral disengagement in the enjoyment of an antihero television series.
Communications, 40(4), 485–495.
King, C. N., & Hourani, N. (2007). Don’t tease me: Effects of ending type on horror film enjoyment. Media Psychology, 9(3), 473–492. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/15213260701282915.
Konijn, E. A., & Hoorn, J. F. (2005). Some like it bad: Testing a model for perceiving and experiencing fictional characters. Media Psychology, 7, 107–144. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0702_1.
Krakowiak, K. M., & Oliver, M. B. (2012). When good characters do bad things: Examining the effect of moral ambiguity on enjoyment. Journal of
Communication, 62, 117–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01618.x.
Krakowiak, K. M., & Tsay, M. (2011). The role of moral disengagement in the enjoyment of real and fictional characters. International Journal of Arts and
Technology, 4, 90–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJART.2011.037772.
Krakowiak, K. M., & Tsay-Vogel, M. (2013). What makes characters’ bad behaviors acceptable? The effects of character motivation and outcome on
perceptions, character liking, and moral disengagement. Mass Communication & Society, 16, 179–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2012.690926.
Krakowiak, K. M., & Tsay-Vogel, M. (2015). The dual role of morally ambiguous characters: Examining the effect of morality salience on narrative responses.
Human Communication Research, 41, 390–411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12050.
Krakowiak, K. M. (2015). Some like it morally ambiguous: The effects of individual differences on the enjoyment of different character types. Western Journal
of Communication, 79(4), 472–491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2015.1066028.
Krijnen, T. (2007). There is more(s) in television. Studying the relationship between television and moral imagination. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam
Doctoral dissertation.
Lee, C. (2013). Shopping and slaying, fucking and flaying: Serial consumption in American psycho. In A. Macdonald (Ed.), Murders and acquisitions:
Representations of the serial killer in popular culture (pp. 105–122).New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Lieto, A., & Damiano, R. (2014). A hybrid representational proposal for narrative concepts: A case study on character roles. In M. A. Finlayson, J. C. Meister, & E.
G. Bruneau (Eds.), Workshop on computational models of narrative (pp. 106–115)..
Mar, R. A., & Oatley, K. (2008). The function of fiction is the abstraction and simulation of social experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(3), 173–
192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00073.x.
Oliver, M. B., & Bartsch, A. (2010). Appreciation as audience response: Exploring entertainment gratifications beyond hedonism. Human Communication
Research, 36(1), 53–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01368.x.
Oliver, M. B., Hartmann, T., & Woolley, J. K. (2012). Elevation in response to entertainment portrayals of moral virtue. Human Communication Research, 38,
360–378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01427.x.
Raney, A. A., & Bryant, J. (2002). Moral judgment and crime drama: An integrated theory of enjoyment. Journal of Communication, 52, 402–415. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02552.x.
Raney, A. A., & Janicke, S. H. (2013). How we enjoy and why we seek out morally complex characters in media entertainment. In R. Tamborini (Ed.), Media and
the moral mind (pp. 152–170).London, England: Routledge.
Raney, A. A. (2004). Expanding disposition theory: Reconsidering character liking, moral evaluations, and enjoyment. Communication Theory, 14(4), 348–
369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00319.x.
Raney, A. A. (2005). Punishing media criminals and moral judgment: The impact on enjoyment. Media Psychology, 7(2), 145–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
S1532785XMEP0702.
Reeves, B., Yeykelis, L., & Cummings, J. J. (2015). The use of media in media psychology. Media Psychology1–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
15213269.2015.1030083.
Sanders, M. S. (2010). Making a good (bad) impression: Examining the cognitive processes of disposition theory to form a synthesized model of media
character impression formation. Communication Theory, 20(2), 147–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01358.x.
Shafer, D. M., & Raney, A. A. (2012). Exploring how we enjoy antihero narratives. Journal of Communication, 63, 1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-
2466.2012.01682.x.
Shedlosky-Shoemaker, R., Costabile, K. A., & Arkin, R. M. (2014). Self-expansion through fictional characters. Self and Identity, 13, 556–578. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/15298868.2014.882269.
Slater, M. D., Johnson, B. K., Cohen, J., Comello, M. L. G., & Ewoldsen, D. R. (2014). Temporarily expanding the boundaries of the self: Motivations for entering
the story world and implications for narrative effects. Journal of Communication, 64, 439–455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12100.
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365087014004003.
Tamborini, R., Weber, R., Eden, A., Bowman, N. D., & Grizzard, M. (2010). Repeated exposure to daytime soap opera and shifts in moral judgment toward
social convention. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54(4), 621–640.
Van Ommen, M., Daalmans, S., & Weijers, A. (2014). Who is the doctor in this house? Analyzing the moral evaluations of medical students and physicians of
House, MD. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 5(4), 61–74.
Weijers, A. (2014). The craft of screenwriting. Den Haag: Boom Lemma Uitgevers.
Zillmann, D. (1996). The psychology of suspense in dramatic exposition. In P. Vorderer, H. J. Wulff, & M. Friedrichsen (Eds.), Suspense: Conceptualizations,
theoretical analyses, and empirical explorations (pp. 199–231).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zillmann, D. (2000). Basal morality in drama appreciation. In I. Bondebjerg (Ed.), Moving images, culture and the mind (pp. 53–63).Luton, UK: Luton University
Press.

Mariska Kleemans (Ph.D., Radboud University, 2013) is an Assistant Professor in the Behavioural Science Institute at Radboud University. Her research
focuses on the causes and consequences of emotional (news) messages. In particular, she investigates how news producers can optimize their task of
informing children and adolescents about significant events in society.

Allison Eden (Ph.D., Michigan State University, 2011) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at Michigan State University. Her
research interests include media psychology, entertainment effects, and morality.

Please cite this article in press as: M. Kleemans, et al., Explaining the role of character development in the evaluation of morally
ambiguous characters in entertainment media, Poetics (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.10.003
G Model
POETIC 1255 No. of Pages 13

M. Kleemans et al. / Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 13

Serena Daalmans is working on her PhD in Communication at the Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University and a lecturer at the Communication
Science department at the Radboud University Nijmegen. Her research focuses on morality in television content.

Merel van Ommen is working on her PhD in Communication at the Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University and is a lecturer at the
Communication Science department at the Radboud University Nijmegen. Her research focuses on the way in which viewers come to moral evaluations
about television drama. She is also working as a television- and film critic for several Flemish and Dutch magazines.

Addy Weijers is a lecturer in Communication Science at the Radboud University Nijmegen and teaches script writing at the International Media and
Entertainment management Academy of the NHTV in Breda. Qualitative content analysis of morality in TV-narratives and the way viewers deal with moral
topics in drama, are the main focus of his research.

Please cite this article in press as: M. Kleemans, et al., Explaining the role of character development in the evaluation of morally
ambiguous characters in entertainment media, Poetics (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.10.003