Testing a Dual-Process Model of Media Enjoyment and Appreciation

Morality Predicts Enjoyment But Not Appreciation of Morally Ambiguous Characters

“…On the other hand, morality was not related to appreciation in the same way. Unlike Lewis et al (2014), who suggested appreciation may result from conflicted moral needs, the current findings suggests that enjoyment and appreciation are associated with different perceptions of …”

“…Thoughts about mortality and the meaning of life produce more appreciation in response to meaningful media, but less hedonic enjoyment (Hofer, 2013). Finally, Lewis et al (2014) demonstrated that presenting conflicted morals in stories led to more deliberation about the story, and this deliberation or reflective processing was linked to increased appreciation for the story. Together, these findings suggest that appreciation is linked to self-reflective, deliberative processes resulting from exposure to media, which are separate from the positive hedonic response commonly known as enjoyment.…”

“…However, the fact that MACs uphold some domains while violating others may also be enough to promote self-expansion in viewers, as they try to understand character motives and consequences. This was discussed by Lewis et al (2014), who argue that moral conflict may be more important to understanding the appeal of MACs than heroes and villains. MACs may provide opportunities for viewers to deliberate and expand upon their own moral concept via their own moral ambiguity and conflict.…”

“…Therefore, in future studies, the extent to which the characters provoked moral deliberation or moral conflict in viewers may be taken as a separate indicator of morality, versus the extent to which characters uphold or violate specific domains. This would be a more accurate reflection of the argument set forth by Lewis et al (2014), particularly. Finally, our findings support the notion that morality as a whole is central to enjoyment processes, but less central to appreciation processes.…”

From Good to Bad and Everything in Between: An Analysis of Genre Differences in the Representation of Moral Nature

“…Turiel (1983) described viewers as moral scientists who construct and simulate social experience to develop their ideas about right and wrong. The diverse moral casting might-through mechanisms such as narrative transportation, identification, empathy and temporary expansion of the self (Eden, Daalmans, & Johnson, 2015;Lewis, Tamborini, & Weber, 2014;Shedlosky-Shoemaker, Costabile, & Arkin, 2014;Slater, Johnson, Cohen, Comello, & Ewoldsen, 2014)-function as a moral laboratory (Ricoeur, 1984) or moral playground (Vorderer, Klimmt, & Ritterfeld, 2004). In this moral laboratory, viewers are prompted by the behavior of characters both virtuous and not so virtuous to explore, reflect upon and deliberate about moral issues without facing the consequences of actually making those moral decisions in real life (Krijnen, 2007).…”