1

Assignment 4: Short Paper

Alexis Lefranc (2760796), Eva M. Maiquez Seitam (2770932), Maya Ozagar (2765869), Sima
Haidar (2745436), Valentina Marinelli (2770251)
Faculty of Social Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
S_P3EP
J. L. Arendsen
February 4, 2024
4400 words
 2

Contents

Abstract............................................................................................................................................ 3
Introduction......................................................................................................................................4
Theory........................................................................................................................................ 4
Method............................................................................................................................................. 7
Participants and Design..............................................................................................................7
Stimulus Material.......................................................................................................................7
Procedure................................................................................................................................... 8
Operationalization......................................................................................................................8
Results............................................................................................................................................10
Exploratory Analyses...............................................................................................................10
Manipulation and Randomization Check.................................................................................10
Hypothesis Testing...................................................................................................................12
Additional analysis...................................................................................................................13
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................... 14
Discussion...................................................................................................................................... 15
References......................................................................................................................................18
Appendix A....................................................................................................................................21
Operationalization....................................................................................................................21
First Independent Variable....................................................................................................... 21
Second Independent Variable...................................................................................................21
Measuring Instrument.............................................................................................................. 22
Appendix B.................................................................................................................................... 23
Pre-test Results.........................................................................................................................23
Appendix C.................................................................................................................................... 25
Stimulus Material.....................................................................................................................25
Appendix D....................................................................................................................................27
Word Export of our Qualtrics Survey...................................................................................... 27
 3

Abstract

This study examines how movie type (sequel vs. non-sequel) and reviews (positive vs.
negative) influence customer attitudes towards films, reflecting on the industry's tendency
towards producing movies and the strategic implications of such decisions. It investigates the
idea that sequels and positive reviews have a significant impact on audience preferences, based
on articles indicating that sequels provide comfort and maintenance of loved characters,
attracting audiences. Reviews, on the other hand, are critical indicators of a movie's quality,
impacting customer decisions in an environment where determining value is complex.
The research uses a 2x2 between-subjects design, analysing responses from 277
participants about their opinions towards movies based on movie categories and review intensity.
The results show that positive reviews have a significant effect on movie choices, supporting the
second hypothesis that positive reviews enhance movie appeal. However, no significant
difference was found between sequel and non-sequel movies in terms of audience attitude,
challenging the first hypothesis that sequels inherently attract more viewers. Finally, the third
hypothesis was found to be accepted, proving that a sequel supported by a positive review leads
to greater satisfaction among the audience.
These insights can help the film industry improve its marketing efforts by considering
audience preferences and taking valence into account. By examining the relationship between
movie type and reviews, the study adds to the knowledge of consumer behaviour and provides a
clear understanding of how these variables affect movie choice.
 4

The Impact of Movie Type and Reviews on Consumer Movie Choices: An Investigation
into the Role of Originality and Critical Reviews

Lately, the cinema industry has been laying on the production of sequels, bringing back
an audience that was once moved by these fantasy and romantic stories. However, the intention
behind making a “sequel” rather than a “non-sequel” movie is also strategic. In fact, according to
Tetik & Türkeli (2023), in most cases producing a sequel cannot be a risk. People who
previously enjoyed the movie are likely to watch it for their curiosity, also they perceive it as a
comfort purchase. In addition, previous research by Moon et al. (2010) has revealed that reviews
of critics do capture moviegoers' attention since they are published on many channels. Thus, the
type of reviews is likely to affect the movie choice.
According to the literature, sequel movies would be more appealing. “The audience for
sequels wants to find out more, to spend more time with characters they are interested in and to
find out what happened to them after their story was over.” (Leitch T. M., 1990). Additionally,
types of review affect the choice of the movie as we can see in a study by Shieh & Lin (2022)
where they mention results of studies by Bristor (1990), Dowling & Staehelin (1994) and
Harrison-Walker (2001) stating that measuring a movie’s value before purchasing is more
difficult compared to other tangible products; therefore, people often seek others’ opinions to
lower their risk and uncertainty. However, there is no prior research linking each movie type with
a negative and positive review to see if that has an interaction effect. This research aims to
discover if linking each movie type with a negative and positive review is going to influence the
choice of consumers.
This research can contribute to the understanding of consumer behaviour. It can expose
how different elements, the type of movie and reviews, can influence people's choice of cinema
consumption. In addition, the findings can contribute to the entertainment industry by suggesting
people in the industry optimize their marketing approach based on audience preferences and
review trends.

Theory

In the domain of customer psychology, encompassing areas like advertising, marketing,

and consumer behaviour, sequel movies have attracted significant interest. Researchers have
 5

examined their effects in various contexts to illuminate how they influence consumer
preferences.
For instance, Bohnenkamp et al. (2015) suggest that studios often produce remakes to
capitalise on existing intellectual property, assuming that audiences' familiarity with the
non-sequel film will attract them to the sequel production. This familiarity factor can persuade
viewers to opt for the sequel film, indicating that sequel movies impact consumer choices
beyond simple emotions. Similarly, Leitch (1990) argues that the rhetorical aspects of remakes
play a crucial role in how studios and marketing campaigns present sequel films to draw in
audiences. While the primary focus is on rhetorical strategies, it also reveals how studios may
highlight changes in sequel versions to attract viewers.
Furthermore, Gunter (2018) examines how movie studios increasingly rely on
producing remakes and sequels and how the success of sequel films, like sequels, can influence
the business side of the industry. This success may indirectly impact audience preferences by
shaping the availability and advertising efforts of similar films in the market. Consequently, these
factors shed light on why sequel movies remain a popular choice, offering viewers a unique
cinematic experience that transcends emotional appeal."
Hypothesis 1: People will exhibit a more positive attitude towards the sequel movie over
the non-sequel movie.
Critics reviews are a factor that can both, positively and negatively affect a consumer's
choice regarding product selection. Motion pictures seem to have greater results and attract more
audiences based on positive reviews. Boatwright et al. (2007) analysed how film critics' reviews
impact the success of movies. They checked whether critics served as influencers who affected
early box office sales or predictors who influenced the overall box office success. The findings
showed that specific film critics act as influencers rather than predictors, particularly affecting
early box office sales. This implies that positive reviews from critics could influence movie
choices considerably.
Another approach is the exploration of the Dutch film industry, as Gemser et al. (2006)
conducted a study that investigates the impact of reviews on moviegoers’ choices. Their research
focused on both art-house and mainstream films and aimed to discern whether reviews directly
influenced art-house movie choices and predicted mainstream movie success. The results showed
that art-house films were highly influenced by the number and size of reviews, increasing early
 6

box office revenue. Mainstream movie's success was predicted by positive reviews, affecting the
box office revenue. This suggests that positive reviews played a significant role in the success of
art-house and mainstream films.
In addition, a fundamental aspect to consider is the nature of movie reviews.
Hennig-Thurau et al. (2012) took a closer look at the impact of professional reviewers'
judgments on the success of movies in the United States. Their study aimed to distinguish
between the "influencer effects" and "predictor effects" of reviews. The results showcased that
reviews significantly influenced long-term box office success, supporting the influencer effect.
As the evaluations by reviewers became more positive, their influence on box office success
grew stronger. Therefore, this research highlights the potential influence of positive reviews on
movie choice and the economic success of films.
Hypothesis 2: People will exhibit a more positive attitude towards movies with positive
reviews than with negative reviews.
As hypothesized above, people will be more likely to choose the sequel movie over the
non-sequel one. A study from prior research shows that “positive reviews can play a significant
role in the success of both art-house and mainstream films” (Gemser et al. 2006). This finding
reveals the power of reviews but does not link it to movie type of sequel versus non-sequel,
which is why in this study movie reviews shall be used as a moderator on movie type. This
relation has not been explored in depth yet but could provide a significant answer to the research
gap.
Therefore, an interaction effect between movie type and reviews can be tested to see
whether people are more likely to choose a sequel movie with positive reviews rather than a
non-sequel movie with positive reviews.
Hypothesis 3: People will exhibit a more positive attitude towards the sequel movie over
the non-sequel movie. This effect is moderated by movie reviews: People will be more likely to
exhibit a positive attitude towards a sequel movie with positive reviews than a non-sequel movie
with positive reviews.
 7

Method

Participants and Design

Participants were randomly distributed among the conditions of 2 (Movie type: sequel, no
sequel) X 2 (Ratings: positive, negative) between-subject design with attitude towards the movie
as the dependent variable.
A total of 397 participants were recruited, from which 277 were selected. Our target
group was adults ranging between 18 and 80 years of age. The participants were approached
through an online survey conducted on Qualtrics distributed on social media platforms Instagram
and WhatsApp. Recruitment occurred between December 10, 2022, and January 8, 2023. The
total number of participants (valid response; N=277; response rate = 397). The sample consisted
of age (M = 31 + SD = 16.423), female (69%)/male (29%)/other (2%) ratio. Most participants
were highly educated (High School: 17%; Bachelor’s degree: 61%; Master’s degree: 19%; PhD
or higher: 3%) and most of them originated from Europe (Asia 13%, Europe 52%, North
America 31%, Oceania 1%, and South America 3%).

Stimulus Material

During the pre-test process, the stimulus materials were slightly changed to fix the
credibility of the posters, and the clarity of the words used to identify the movie types. The word
original movie was changed to non-sequel, while the second movie type, sequel, remained
unchanged. Moreover, two new movie posters were chosen to promote the upcoming films. Both
have a silhouette of a wizard holding a wand in a forest with a dark background.
For the first independent variable (see Appendix A), the title of the movie was
manipulated, implementing two conditions: non-sequel movie and sequel movie. The titles
selected were, “Magic of the Cursed Child”, and “Harry Potter: Magic of the Cursed Child”.
Since “Harry Potter” is a well-known saga, it was chosen to be incorporated into the title of the
sequel movie. Non-sequel movie poster and Sequel movie poster results are shown in Appendix
Figures 1 and 2.
In addition, in the second variable (see Appendix A), two new conditions were chosen
again. This time, four reviews were shown next to the posters; two identical positive reviews and
 8

two negative. This aimed to measure the influence that reviews have on the attitudes towards the
movie. Positive reviews and Negative review results are showcased in Appendix Figures 3 and 4.

Procedure

After being randomly assigned, participants received a brief introduction about the survey
along with instructions and an estimate of the time needed to complete it. They were given an
option for whether they gave consent to use their answers. The survey automatically ended for
participants who did not give consent. Participants who agreed to the terms are later asked about
their demographics which are age, gender, education level, and place of origin.
Afterwards, participants were presented with a movie poster with its review which was
negative or positive. five statements were given under the poster. Candidates were asked to give
a response between “strongly agree” and “strongly disagree” to these statements. Later, to have
more accurate data, participants were asked about their movie-watching habits and the degree to
which they are familiar with Harry Potter for control and background variables. The survey was
followed by questions for manipulation checks variables to understand if the elements used in the
survey were accurately understood and represented by the participants. Finally, subjects were
thanked for participating in the survey and asked to contact us if they had any questions. The
survey approximately took five minutes to complete.

Operationalization

Dependent Variable

Attitude Towards the Movie. The dependent variable for this study is the attitude
towards the selected movie, measured by participants choosing the option that best matches their
attitude towards the movie regarding seeing reviews or a sequel from a list using a 5-point Likert
scale (1, "Strongly disagree," to 5, "Strongly agree"). The movie attributes are based on Garlin
and McGuigan's (2002) scale.
 9

Control, Background and Manipulation Check Variables

Enjoyment of Watching Movies. Participants were asked to rate their general enjoyment
of watching movies on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly
Agree."
Frequency of Movie Watching. Participants indicated how often they engage in
watching movies, with response options ranging from "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree"
on a 5-point Likert scale.
Familiarity with the Harry Potter Saga. Participants expressed their familiarity with
the Harry Potter saga using a 5-point Likert scale, with response options ranging from "Strongly
Disagree" to "Strongly Agree."
Likability of the Harry Potter Saga. Participants rated their overall liking of the Harry
Potter saga on a 5-point Likert scale, spanning from "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree.
Exposure to Movie Sequel. Participants were asked whether they had seen movie
sequels previously. This manipulation variable is dichotomous, with response options of "Yes" or
"No."
Exposure to Movie Poster. Participants were asked whether they had seen the poster of
the selected movie. This manipulation variable is dichotomous, with response options of "Yes" or
"No."
Exposure to Positive Movie Reviews. Participants were asked whether they had seen
positive reviews regarding movies previously. This manipulation variable is also dichotomous,
with response options of "Yes" or "No."
Gender Identity. Gender identity refers to a sense of belonging and self-identification to
one gender and the extent to which a person experiences being like others of one’s gender (Fisher
et al., 2016). This variable contains three multiple-choice answers where the participants can
choose the gender they identify as between “male”, “female” or “other”.
Age. Age refers to the participant's years of age. This variable is measured with an
open-ended option.
Educational Level. Educational level refers to the highest level of formal education that
an individual has completed. This variable contains four multiple-choice answers where the
participants can choose their specific education between “high school”, “bachelor”, “master” or
“PhD or higher”.
 10

Place of Origin. Palace of origin refers to the geographical location or region where an
individual originally comes from. This variable contains six multiple-choice answers where they
can choose their respective continent between “Africa”, “Asia”, “Europe”, “North America”,
“South America” and “Oceania”.

Results

Exploratory Analyses

The correlation matrix (see Table 1 below) illustrates multiple significant relationships
between the variables being investigated. These correlations provide useful information about
probable patterns and relationships in the overall context of the research.
First, movie type (Non-Sequel) shows a weak negative correlation with attitude towards
movies (r = -.21, p = .068), indicating that individuals who express a particular attitude towards
movies tend to have a slightly decreased likelihood of categorizing the movie as a non-sequel
rather than a sequel.
Moreover, attention to reviews suggests a strong positive correlation (r = .68, p < 0.001),
indicating a meaningful and statistically significant relationship between attention to reviews and
attitude towards movies. This suggests that individuals who pay more attention to positive movie
reviews tend to have more positive attitudes towards movies.
Finally, the variable attitude towards movies and movie type with the moderating variable
RS (attention to reviews * movie type). The correlation matrix indicates that the moderating
variable shows a strong negative correlation with attitude towards movies (r = -1.03, p <0.001),
indicating that the interaction between reviews and sequel type may not significantly impact
attitudes towards movies.

Manipulation and Randomization Check

During the survey, participants were confronted with 3 manipulation check questions
regarding the exposure of specific stimuli to check whether the participants correctly perceived
the different aspects of the content in the form of alternating reviews and posters. First, a
dichotomous question was used to see if participants saw a movie sequel. A frequency test was
conducted, and results showed that a significant 84% of participants affirmed having seen the
 11

movie sequel, while 16% reported not seeing it. Moreover, a second dichotomous question was
used to see if participants saw a movie review, 75% of participants acknowledged seeing one,
with 25% stating that they didn’t.
Finally, participants had to answer a question about seeing a poster. 61% of participants
indicated they had seen it, while 39% indicated that they had not seen it. Despite the poster's
question, which formulation might have created confusion, the two main manipulations
regarding the reviews and sequels worked and therefore it was decided to maintain the 277
participants.

Table 1
Correlation Coefficients and Descriptive Statistics

n M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Attitudea 277 4.71 18.13

2. Reviewa 277 .5 .51 .36**

3. Sequela 277 .5 .49 -.11 -.03

4. Ageb 277 16.42 31.3 -.20** -.01 .02

5. Genderc 277 .48 1.73 .06 -.02 -.07 .11

6. Educationd 277 1.08 2.38 -.05 .03 -.07 .43** .03

7. Placee 277 2.45 6.96 -.06 .05 .09 -.19** -.03 -.08

8. SRf 277 .43 .24 -.02 .56** .58** -.03 .02 -.04 .15*

a
measured with 5-point Likert Scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = strongly agree) ; b open ended; c
1 = Male, 2 = Female, 3 = Other; d 1 = High School, 2 = Bachelor, 3 = Master, 4 = Phd or Higher;
e
1 = Africa, 2 = Asia, 3 = Europe, 4 = North America, 5 = South America, 6 = Oceania. f SR =
Sequel and Review Interaction. ** p < .01 (2-tailed); * p < .05 (2-tailed)
 12

Hypothesis Testing

Effect of Movie Type on Movie Attitude

The first hypothesis suggested that the audience would be more inclined to watch a
sequel rather than a non-sequel movie. However, after testing the hypothesis through a univariate
analysis (ANOVA), the results show a non-significant effect between the two variables,
2
F(1,275)=3.362, p=.068, 𝑅 = .012. The descriptive statistics show that participants who saw the
Non-sequel poster (M=3.72, SD=1.08) did not report significant differences compared to people
who saw the Sequel movie poster (M=3.52, SD = .760). The outcome therefore does not support
the first hypothesis previously predicted: the differences between sequel and non-sequel do not
influence the audience’s movie attitude.

Effect of Reviews on Movie Attitude

The second hypothesis predicted a positive effect of positive reviews on participants’

attitudes towards the movie. The univariate analysis (ANOVA) showed significant results
between the independent variable Reviews and the dependent variable Movie attitude F
2
(1,275)=41.446, p <.001, 𝑅 = .131. The descriptive statistics confirm the results showing a
slightly higher preference towards the poster next to a positive review (M=3.96, SD = .99) rather
than a negative review (M=3.28, SD = .74). Based on this outcome the prediction for the second
hypothesis is supported, showing that positive reviews give rise to more attention to movies.

Effect of Reviews and Movie Type on Movie Attitude

Finally, for the third hypothesis, it was predicted that participants would be more
disposed to choose a sequel movie next to a positive review. After using univariate analysis
(ANOVA) with movie type and review as the independent variables and movie attitude as the
dependent variable, the results still showed a significant effect between the movie attitude and
2
reviews, F(1,273)=43.759, p <.001, 𝑅 = .216, and a non-significant one between movie attitude
2
and movie type, F(1,273)=3.362, p=.068, 𝑅 = .216. Moreover, the effect of the interaction
between the two independent variables movie type and review, appears to be significant,
2
F(1,277)=26.232, p <.001, 𝑅 = .216.
 13

Participants who were shown a non-sequel next to a negative review did not show much
more interest in the movie (M=3.11, SD = .773) compared to the people who were exposed to a
sequel next to a negative review (M=3.44, SD= .771). On the other hand, people who saw a
non-sequel poster next to a positive review appeared to be more inclined to see the movie
(M=4.298, SD =1.01) compared to those who saw a sequel poster next to a positive review
(M=3.59, SD = .840). The results do not support the previous hypothesis, however, they show
that when the type of movie and the valence of the review interact with each other, the audience
will pay more attention to a non-sequel movie if it is accompanied by a positive review.

Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations of Conditions

Sequela Non-Sequelb

M SD M SD

Positive review 3.60 .84 4.30 1.02

Negative review 3.45 .67 3.11 .77

a
‘Harry Potter: magic of the cursed child’
b
‘Magic of the cursed child’
Note. 5-point Likert Scale (1= strongly disagree, 5= strongly agree)

Additional analysis

Additional analyses were conducted between the dependent variable attitude towards the
movie and background variables. The correlation matrix provided several significant
relationships between variables: enjoyment of watching movies, frequency of watching movies
and liking the Harry Potter saga. In addition, interaction effects and moderation analysis were
conducted. It presents a better understanding of potential patterns and dynamics within our
dataset.
 14

Enjoyment of watching movies

Regression analysis with attitude towards movies as the dependent variable and
enjoyment of watching movies as the independent variable was conducted. The model illustrated
2
a significant effect between variables p=.037, 𝑅 =.016. However, the effect of enjoyment of
watching movies on attitude towards movies was weak, β=.128, b(SE)=.214, t = 2.102, p=037,
%95CI[.013, .414]. Therefore analysis indicated that the greater the enjoyment of watching
movies, the more positive the attitude towards movies.

Frequency of watching movies

Likewise, another regression analysis was conducted between the frequency of watching
movies as an independent variable and attitude towards movies as the dependent variable. A
2
significant effect was found between variables, p=.032, 𝑅 =.017. The frequency of watching
movies on attitude towards movies was weak, β=.130, b(SE) = .165, t=2.161, p=.032,
%95CI[.015,.315]. Thus, the greater the frequency of watching movies, the more positive the
attitude towards movies.

Liking the Harry Potter saga

Regression analysis for independent variables liking the Harry Potter saga and dependent
variable attitude towards movies was conducted. A significant effect was seen between variables
2
p<.001, 𝑅 =.051. The effect that occurred between liking the Harry Potter saga and attitude
towards movies was weak to moderate, β = .226, b(SE) = .262, t = 3.809, p<.001,
%95CI[.127,.398]. Consequently, liking the Harry Potter saga is positively correlated with
attitude toward movies.

Conclusion

This study involving adults above 18 years old from various backgrounds aimed to
identify the impact of movie type: non-sequel versus sequel, and reviews: positive versus
negative, on the audience’s movie attitude.
Confirming the first hypothesis, the results showed that the differences between sequel
and non-sequel did not influence the audience’s movie attitude, rejecting our hypothesis. These
 15

findings go against all prior research on the topic of sequels versus non-sequels. It fails to show
that “the effect of the performance of a sequel is also affected by the experiential information
associated with the non-sequel movie” (Belvaux, B., & Mencarelli, R. 2021), which explains
why a sequel is successful and why according to Hadida (2009) sequels hold a significant
position in the movie industry and can have a big advantage compared to non-sequel movies.
There was no significant correlation between sequels and movie attitude. However, the study by
Hadida (2009) explored this correlation more extensively, analyzing not only movie preferences
or attitudes but also movie performances across five distinct categories. Therefore, the limitation
to fewer conditions might explain the contrasting results between the two studies.
Regarding the second hypothesis, the results showed that positive reviews give rise to
more attention to movies than negative reviews. These findings are consistent with the results of
Simmons (1994) mentioned in a study by Reinstein & Snyder (2005) stating that one-third of the
people going to a movie chose a film because of a favourable review. This study also accords
with more prior research suggesting that “positive reviews from critics could influence movie
attitude considerably” (Boatwright et al. 2007).
For the third hypothesis, the results confirmed it, showing that participants who were
shown a sequel next to a positive review showed more interest in the movie compared to the
participants who were exposed to a non-sequel next to a positive review. The results thus show
that when the type of movie and the valence of the review interact with each other, the audience
will pay the most attention to a sequel movie accompanied by a positive review. There is no prior
research linking each movie type with a negative and positive review to see if that has an
interaction effect. Therefore this study helped to advance research with new findings, filling a
prior research gap, which could still be researched more in the future.

Discussion

As previously mentioned, only one hypothesis had significant results, and no significant
effect was found between movie sequels and movie attitude. In this section, we will discuss some
limitations that may have contributed to these findings. Additionally, we will provide
recommendations for further research.
After conducting a frequency and crosstabs analysis, unexpected results emerge in
response to two dichotomous questions: 'Did you see a good review' and 'Did you see a movie
 16

sequel,' with possible answers 'Yes' and 'No.' The expected outcome, given the random
distribution of the research, was a 50% response rate for each manipulation check question and
the other half for a sequel. However, the results showed that 84% of participants indicated seeing
a movie sequel, while 75% indicated seeing a positive review. This discrepancy suggests a
potential issue with the clarity of the questions, leading to participant misinterpretations.
Specifically, participants may have been more inclined to respond 'yes' when faced with vague
questions, such as these, which can be attributed to 'recency effects,' as discussed by McClendon
(2003). To clarify, this limitation pertains to the potential for participant misunderstanding due to
unclear question phrasing.
Furthermore, the sample composition poses potential limitations. The majority of the
participants were recruited through social media platforms, mainly Generation Z. This may have
introduced a sampling bias by accidentally excluding other age groups, including millennials and
older generations. Notably, the mode age among survey respondents was 20, and approximately
64% of participants fell within the age range of 18 to 25. This age skew raises concerns about the
generalizability of the findings beyond this demographic.
Additionally, some cultural biases came out within the sample. A significant portion of
the participants, around 52%, comes from European backgrounds, while 33% originated from
North America. Conversely, Eastern countries and South America were underrepresented,
comprising only 14% and 2%, respectively. This cultural skew may impact the applicability of
the study's findings to a more diverse and global context.
To gain a deeper understanding of the interconnections between movie types, reviews,
and attitudes toward movies, future research should incorporate the following specific steps. To
address cultural differences in movie perceptions, researchers should conduct cross-cultural
investigations based on the insights gleaned from Barza & Memari's (2014) study, 'Movie Genre
Preference and Culture.' This research should systematically explore how cultural factors shape
perspectives toward various movie types and reviews. Moreover, to further understand how age
influences attitudes towards movies, future studies should replicate and expand upon the work
presented by Mares et al. (2008), titled 'Age Differences in Adults' Emotional Motivations for
Exposure to Films.' Researchers should conduct age-related variations in responses to diverse
movie types and reviews, as illuminated in their research. This approach will allow for a deeper
exploration of viewer preferences across different age groups.
 17

To reinforce our findings and their relevance to the world of movies, it is essential to
emphasize the significance of replication and meta-analysis, aligning with Ioannidis et al. (2012).
Future studies in this field should prioritize research techniques to validate their results and
enhance our understanding of the intricate relationships among movie types, reviews, and
audience attitudes. Replicating studies across diverse samples and settings tailored to the movie
industry's unique characteristics will not only strengthen the reliability of our insights but also
provide a context-specific understanding of how movies exert influence on viewers' attitudes and
preferences.
 18

References

Barza, S., & Memari, M. (2014). Movie genre preference and culture. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 98, 363–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.427
Belvaux, B., & Mencarelli, R. (2021). Prevision model and empirical test of box office results
for sequels. Journal of Business Research, 130, 38-48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.008
Boatwright, P., Basuroy, S., & Kamakura, W. A. (2007b). Reviewing the reviewers: The impact
of individual film critics on box office performance. Quantitative Marketing and
Economics, 5(4), 401–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11129-007-9029-1
Bohnenkamp, B., Knapp, A., Hennig‐Thurau, T., & Schauerte, R. (2014). When does it make
sense to do it again? An empirical investigation of contingency factors of movie remakes.
Journal of Cultural Economics, 39(1), 15–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-014-9221-6
Bornstein, R. F. & Craver-Lemley, C., (2006). Self-generated visual imagery alters the mere
exposure effect. Cognitive Illusions, 13(6), 1056–1060.
https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03213925
Castillo, A., Benitez, J., Llorens Montes, F. J., & Luo, X. (2021). Social media-driven customer
engagement and movie performance: Theory and empirical evidence. Decision Support
Systems, 145, 113516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2021.113516
D’Astous, A., Colbert F., Nobert V. (2007). Effects of Country-Genre Congruence on the
Evaluation of Movies: The Moderating Role of Critical Reviews and Moviegoers’ Prior
Knowledge, 10(1), 45-51. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i40047567
Fisher, et al. (2016). Gender identity, gender assignment and reassignment in individuals with
disorders of sex development: major of dilemma. Journal of Endocrinological
Investigation, 39(11), 1207–1224.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40618-016-0482-0
Garlin, F. V., & McGuiggan, R. L. (2002). Sex, spies and celluloid: Movie content preference,
choice, and involvement. Psychology and Marketing, 19(5), 427-445.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.10018
​Gemser, G., Van Oostrum, M., & Leenders, M. A. (2006). The impact of film reviews on the box
office performance of art house versus mainstream motion pictures. Journal of Cultural
Economics, 31(1), 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-006-9025-4
 19

Gunter, B. (2018). Why are Sequels and Remakes So Popular with Movie Studios? In Predicting
Movie Success at the Box Office. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71803-3_10
Hadida, A. L. (2009). Motion picture performance: A review and research agenda.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(3), 297-335.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00240.x
Hennig‐Thurau, T., Marchand, A., & Hiller, B. (2012). The relationship between reviewer
judgments and motion picture success: re-analysis and extension. Journal of Cultural
Economics, 36(3), 249–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-012-9172-8
Holotova, V., Kacianova, D., & Galambosova, J. (2020). Retro marketing - A power of nostalgia
which works among the audience. Communication Today, 11(2).
https://communicationtoday.sk/wp-content/uploads/10_HOLOTOVA-et-al.pdf
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2012). Why science is not necessarily Self-Correcting. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 7(6), 645–654. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612464056
Kantola, A. (2018). Nostalgia’s Effects on Consumers [Dissertation, Aalto University School of
Business Marketing]. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/160014428.pd
Leitch, T. M. (1990). Twice-told tales: The rhetoric of the remake. Literature/Film Quarterly,
18(3), 138-149. Retrieved from
http://vu-nl.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/twice-to
ld-tales-rhetoric-remake/docview/226995488/se-2
Mares, M. L., Oliver, M. B., & Cantor, J. (2008). Age Differences in Adults' Emotional
Motivations for Exposure to Films. Media Psychology, 11(4), 488-511.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240237378_Age_Differences_in_Adults'_Emot
ional_Motivations_for_Exposure_to_Films
McClendon, M. J. (1986). Response-order effects for dichotomous questions. Social Science
Quarterly, 67(1), 205.
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1291582967?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=t
rue&sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals&imgSeq=1
Moon, S., Bergey, P. K., & Iacobucci, D. (2010). Dynamic Effects among Movie Ratings, Movie
Revenues, and Viewer Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 74(1), 108–121.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.1.108
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In
 20

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 123–205).

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60214-2
Rana, S., Raut, S. K., Prashar, S., & Quttainah, M. A. (2020). The transversal of nostalgia from
psychology to marketing: what does it portend for future research? The International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, 30(4), 899–932.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoa-03-2020-2097
Reinstein, D. A., & Snyder, C. M. (2005). The influence of expert reviews on consumer demand
for experience goods: A case study of movie critics*. Journal of Industrial Economics,
53(1), 27-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-1821.2005.00244.x
Shieh, H., & Lin, S. (2022). A study of the relationship between online movie reviews and the
intention to watch the movie. Journal of Economics and Management, 44, 344-375.
https://doi.org/10.22367/jem.2022.44.14
Sotelo-Duarte, M. (2022). Collecting nostalgic pieces of plastic: The journey of toy collectors
and the effects of nostalgia. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal,
25(2), 319-336. https://doi.org/10.1108/qmr-07-2021-0090
Tetik, T., & Türkeli, Ö.(2023). Popular Cinema as Nostalgia Industry: Reunions, Remakes and
Sequels. sinecine: Sinema Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14(1), 7-31.
https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/sinecine/issue/76823/1253910
Van Lange, P. a. M., Schippers, M. C., & Balliet, D. (2011). Who volunteers in psychology
experiments? An empirical review of prosocial motivation in volunteering. Personality
and Individual Differences, 51(3), 279–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.038
Weingarten, E., & Wei, Z. (2023). Nostalgia and consumer behaviour. Current Opinion in
Psychology, 49, 101555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101555
Wulf, T., Rieger, D., & Schmitt, J. B. (2018). Blessed by the past: Theorizing media-induced
nostalgia as an audience response factor for entertainment and well-being. Poetics, 69,
70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2018.04.001
 21

Appendix A

Operationalization

First Independent Variable

The first independent variable for this research is “Movie type”. This is going to be
distinguished between Sequels and Non-Sequels. This variable will be operationalized through
the Mere Exposure Effect. This phenomenon is identified as the development of a preference for
something, merely because there is familiarity with it. This situation occurs through cognitive
bias that makes usual things perceived as safer as stated in a study by Bornstein &
Craver-Lemley (2022). Therefore, since familiarity gives a feeling of safeness it is predicted that
the audience will choose the sequel to remain in a comfort zone making a conventional choice.
In this research, the familiar element will be the movie Harry Potter. The variable “Movie
type” will be controlled by showing a Harry Potter movie and a Non-sequel movie. Through this
manipulation, it will be possible to verify if showing a sequel plot movie poster or a sequel of a
famous movie chain will influence the audience's choice.

Second Independent Variable

The variable "reviews" refers to the extent to which individuals consider critical
evaluations and assessments of movies when making viewing decisions. This variable is
operationalized through the theory of the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), a theory that
distinguishes between two distinct routes of persuasion. This framework, introduced by Van
Lange et al. (2011), provides insights into the process and influences on attitude change during
decision-making.
Within the ELM there are two ways of persuasion, the first route is known as the central
route. This path is chosen by participants who carefully consider movie reviews when
determining which film to watch. They are presented with detailed movie reviews, including
both positive and negative aspects, and are tasked with rating the impact of these reviews on
their movie choice decisions. The second route is the peripheral route. Participants adopting this
route make decisions based on simpler factors, such as the visual appeal of the movie poster.
They are exposed to visually captivating movie posters but do not receive in-depth reviews. This
 22

peripheral route often involves making decisions without looking deeply into the provided
information, as discussed by Petty et al. (1986).
To manipulate the level of attention to reviews, participants will be assigned to different
experimental conditions. In the Central Route Condition, participants will be exposed to detailed
movie reviews before making their movie choices. These reviews will contain both positive and
negative aspects, and participants' responses will be evaluated based on their reliance on these
reviews in their decision-making process. In contrast, participants in the Peripheral Route
Condition will not receive detailed movie reviews. Instead, they will be presented with visually
appealing movie posters, simulating a decision-making process primarily influenced by
peripheral factors. By manipulating the level of attention to reviews through these two
conditions, it is possible to assess and examine how this moderator influences movie choice
decisions, providing insights into the role of critical evaluations in the movie-watching process.

Measuring Instrument

The dependent variable determined for this research is movie attitude. It will be measured
by a 5-point Likert scale, similar to “Movie preference was measured by requiring respondents to
rate each set of movie attributes on a 7-point scale anchored by 1, “Least prefer,” to 7, “Most
prefer,” (Garlin, F. V., & McGuiggan, R. L., 2002). A similar scale will be used in our research
as well, but the respondents will rate their attitude toward a movie on a 5-point Likert scale
agreeing or disagreeing (ranging from 1, “Strongly disagree,” to 5, “Strongly agree”) for
statements such as “This movie interest me”, “I would watch this movie” or “This title is
appealing”.
 23

Appendix B

Pre-test Results
Table A1

Non-sequel Movie Poster Descriptive Statistics

n Min Max M SD

1. Credible 24 1 6 3.17 1.71

2. Original 23 1 6 3.00 1.60

3. New Plot 24 1 6 2.96 1.46

4. Sequel 22 2 6 4.36 1.30

5. Familiar 22 2 6 4.14 1.28

6. Valid N 22

Table A2

Sequel Movie Poster Descriptive statistics

n Min Max M SD

1. Credible 24 1 5 2.63 1.37

2. Original 23 1 5 2.74 1.21

3. New Plot 23 2 5 3.48 1.12

4. Sequel 23 1 5 1.87 1.01

5. Familiar 24 1 5 2.12 .09

6. Valid N 23
 24

Table A3

Positive Reviews Descriptive statistics

n Min Max M SD

1. Credible 24 1 6 2.88 1.597

2. Matters 23 1 6 2.83 1.775

3. persauded 24 1 6 2.58 1.816

4. Valid N 23

Table A4

Negative Reviews Descriptive statistics

n Min Max M SD

1. Credible 24 1 4 2.17 1.129

2. Matters 23 1 3 2.00 .522

3. Persuaded 24 1 5 3.17 1.274

4. Valid N 23
 25

Appendix C

Stimulus Material
Figure B1
Stimulus Material 1

Figure B2
Stimulus Material 2
 26

Figure B3
Stimulus Material 3

Figure B4
Stimulus Material 4
 27

Appendix D

Word Export of our Qualtrics Survey

Survey Flow

Block: Introduction (1 Question)

Standard: Demographics (4 Questions)
BlockRandomizer: 1 - Evenly Present Elements
Standard: Stimulus Material A (1 Question)
Standard: Stimulus Material B (1 Question)
Standard: Stimulus Material C (1 Question)
Standard: Stimulus Material D (1 Question)
Standard: Dependent Variable (1 Question)
Standard: Control and background variables (1 Question)
Standard: Manipulation check variables (4 Questions)
Standard: Conclusion (1 Question)

Start of Block: Introduction

Thank you for participating and showing interest in our research. We are a research group
consisting of Alex Lefranc, Eva M. Maiquez Seitam, Maya Ozagar, Sima Haider and Valentina
Marinelli, and we are students of Communication Science at the Vrije Universiteit of
Amsterdam. In this survey, you will be shown a movie poster with its review next to it under
which you will be asked to answer some questions. This will take around 5 minutes of your time!
Your participation is voluntary and to ensure your privacy, this survey will remain anonymous.
We will only use this data for the purpose of this research. Your personal data will be seen only
by our research team, and teachers from the Communication Science department at the VU.
If you have any questions or comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with us at
e.m.maiquez.seitam@student.vu.nl

o I have read and understood the information and consent to the use of my answers. (1)
o I do not consent to the use of my answers. (2)
 28

Demographics

Age What’s your age? ------------------------

Skip To: End of Survey If Condition: What’s your age? Is Less Than 18. Skip To: End of Survey.

Gender What’s your gender?

o Male (1)
o Female (2)
o Other (3)
Education Level What’s your education level?
o High School (1)
o Bachelor (2)
o Master (4)
o PhD or higher (5)
Place Where do you come from?
o Asia (2)
o Europe (9)
o North America (6)
o South America (7)
o Oceania (10)
o Africa (11)
 29

Stimulus Material A

Please look carefully at this movie poster with its review:

Now select what best matches your opinion on the following statements ranging from “Strongly
disagree” to “Strongly agree”.

Strongly Disagree (2) Neither Agree (5) Strongly

disagree (1) agree nor agree (6)
disagree (4)

This movie
o o o o o
interests me
(4)

I would o o o o o
watch this
movie (6)

This title is o o o o o
appealing (9)

I will pay o o o o o
attention to
the review
before
watching this
movie (11)

This review o o o o o
will
influence my
decision in
watching the
movie (14)

Stimulus Material B
 30

Please look carefully at this movie poster with its review:

Now select what best matches your opinion on the following statements ranging from “Strongly
disagree” to “Strongly agree”.

This movie:
Strongly Disagree (2) Neither Agree (4) Strongly
disagree (1) agree nor agree (5)
disagree (3)

This movie o o o o o
interests me
(5)

I would o o o o o
watch this
movie (6)

This title is o o o o o
appealing (4)

I will pay o o o o o
attention to
the review
before
watching this
movie (7)

This review o o o o o
will
influence my
decision in
watching this
movie (10)

Stimulus Material C
 31

Please look carefully at this movie poster with its review:

Now select what best matches your opinion on the following statements ranging from “Strongly
disagree” to “Strongly agree”

Strongly Disagree (2) Neither Agree (4) Strongly

disagree (1) agree nor agree (5)
disagree (3)

This movie o o o o o
interest me
(1)

I would o o o o o
watch this
movie (2)

This title is o o o o o
appealing (3)

I will pay o o o o o
attention to
the review
before
watching this
movie (5)

This review o o o o o
will
influence my
decision in
watching this
movie (6)

Stimulus Material D
 32

Please look carefully at this movie poster with its review:

Now select what best matches your opinion on the following statements ranging from “Strongly
disagree” to “Strongly agree”.

Strongly Disagree (2) Neither Agree (4) Strongly

disagree (1) agree nor agree (5)
disagree (3)

This movie o o o o o
interests me
(1)

I would o o o o o
watch this
movie (2)

This title is o o o o o
appealing (3)

I will pay o o o o o
attention to
the review
before
watching this
movie (5)

This review o o o o o
will
influence my
decision in
watching this
movie (6)

Dependent Variable
 33

Attitude Select what best matches your opinion on the following statements ranging from
“Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree”.

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree (4) Strongly

disagree (2) disagree agree (5)
(1) nor agree
(3)

My attitude towards o o o o o
the movie changes
when I see its
reviews (1)

My attitude towards o o o o o
the movie changes
depending on if it is
a sequel or not (4)

Regardless of the o o o o o
reviews, I would go
see the movie. (5)

Control and background variables

 34

Select what best matches you on the following statements ranging from “Strongly disagree” to
“Strongly agree”.

Strongly Disagree (2) Neither Agree (4) Strongly

disagree (1) agree nor agree (5)
disagree (3)

I enjoy o o o o o
watching
movies (1)

I often o o o o o
watch
movies (2)

I am familiar o o o o o
with the
saga of
"Harry
Potter" (3)

I like the o o o o o
saga of
"Harry
Potter" (4)

Manipulation check variables

Did you see a movie sequel?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Did you see a good review?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Q15 Have you seen the poster shown in this survey?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Q17 Were the conditions clear regarding the poster?
 35

o Yes (1)
o No (3)
Conclusion

We thank you for your participation in our survey! Your answers in this experiment will
be used for research. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact us at
e.m.maiquez.seitam@student.vu.nl. You may now close this survey.