Emotional gratifications during media use ⴚ An integrative approach1 ANNE BARTSCH, ROLAND MANGOLD, REINHOLD VIEHOFF and PETER VORDERER

Abstract The desire to experience emotions is widely considered to be a key motivation for media use, especially for the use of media entertainment. But what exactly do people seek when they seek emotions? What kinds of gratifications do they obtain from the experience of emotions during media use? An overview of research on emotional gratifications shows that emotions can be gratifying in multiple ways ⫺ ranging from simple hedonistic gratifications to more complex gratifications such as feeling competent or morally good. An integrative framework is outlined that aims at a more systematic understanding of emotional gratifications and their influence on selective media use. We suggest that different aspects of an emotion’s gratification potential are appraised simultaneously, and integrated into a holistic appraisal outcome that can be conceptualized as ‘meta-emotion’. Meta-emotions guide the recipient’s intuitive decision to accept, or reject a media offer’s invitation to experience emotions. Key words: emotion, gratification, selective media use, meta-emotion Introduction The desire to experience emotions is widely considered to be a key motivation for media use. Emotions and emotionally significant events are prominent topics in the media ⫺ especially when it comes to entertainment, art, and fiction, but also in the case of news, advertising, or mixed genres such as infotainment, edutainment, and so on. At the same time, emotions are an expected, and often desired outcome of media use. A variety of emotions, and other affective phenomena have been studied in the context of media use including empathy, suspense, humor, interest, erotic feelings, as well as negative emotions such as anger, fear, and sadness. But what exactly do people Communications 31 (2006), 261⫺278 DOI 10.1515/COMMUN.2006.018

03412059/2006/031⫺0261 쑕 Walter de Gruyter

262

A. Bartsch, R. Mangold, R. Viehoff and P. Vorderer

seek when they seek emotions? What kinds of gratifications do they find in the experience of emotions during media use? This article gives an overview of research on emotion-related gratifications. From this overview, it becomes evident that the experience of emotions during media use can be gratifying in multiple ways, ranging from simple hedonistic gratifications to more complex gratifications such as testing one’s competence at coping with emotions, or self-enhancing thoughts and feelings about the moral value of emotions. In the second part of the article, an integrative approach is outlined that aims at a more systematic understanding of the heterogeneous research literature on emotional gratifications. The theoretical framework we propose is based on the three-level model of emotional communication of Bartsch and Hübner (2004; Bartsch and Viehoff, 2003), and on the multiple appraisal approach of Mangold, Unz, and Winterhoff-Spurk (2001). Within this framework, the experience of emotions during media use can be described as a motivationally complex situation that is characterized by synergy effects as well as conflicts between different kinds of potential gratifications. Finally, we address the question of how people manage to evaluate the gratification potential of emotions, and use this information to make intuitive decisions concerning selective media use. Research overview Scholars from different theoretical and methodological backgrounds have studied the role of emotions in people’s media choices, and they have proposed different explanations of what makes emotions gratifying. Our research overview proceeds on a wide notion of ‘gratification’ that includes the context of the uses-and-gratifications approach, but also goes beyond it in some important respects. We assume that selfreported gratifications provide an incomplete picture of what motivates people’s media choices. Emotions can be gratifying and motivate selective media use regardless of whether the person is aware of that fact or not (Vorderer, 1992; Suckfüll, 2004). Our understanding of emotional gratification explicitly includes rewarding media effects that have been studied within a selective exposure paradigm (Zillman, 2000; Bryant and Davies, in press) as well as other related conceptualizations ⫺ such as enjoyment (Vorderer, Klimmt, and Ritterfeld, 2004). In the absence of a theoretically elaborated definition of ‘gratification’, we propose to use the term as an umbrella term for all those ⫺ gratifying, rewarding, enjoyable, etc. ⫺ aspects of behavior that explain why certain behavior is consciously or unconsciously preferred to alternative behavioral options. Starting from this rather abstract

Emotional gratifications during media use

263

and general notion of gratification does not mean, however, that we accept the notorious lack of theoretical foundation that the uses-andgratifications-approach has often been accused of. Rather, we propose to consider the concept’s ‘lack of theory’ as an openness for theory, i. e., ⫺ as a chance to integrate different lines of research and theories on how and why emotions are appreciated by media users. In the following section, we shortly summarize research literature that pertains to this question. Building on state of the art literature, we will then try to reduce complexity and look for common ground between individual approaches in terms of underlying theoretical assumptions on the nature of emotional gratifications. Mood management The most prominent account of why people appreciate emotions during media use is Zillmann’s (1988; 2000) theory of mood management. Mood management theory is based on the hedonistic principle which says that people always try to maximize pleasant feeling states and minimize unpleasant ones. According to Zillmann, pleasure can be derived from all kinds of emotions, including so-called negative emotions such as fear or sadness. Drawing on the two-factor theory of emotion of Schachter and Singer (1962), he assumes that positive and negative emotions share an unspecific arousal component that is not valenced in itself. Rather, hedonic valence stems from emotion’s regulating effect on arousal. People typically prefer an intermediate level of arousal. Therefore, under-aroused recipients find it pleasant to experience emotions that increase arousal, whereas over-aroused recipients find arousing stimulation unpleasant, and prefer soothing media stimuli. Mood management theory has generated an impressive body of research supporting the idea that arousal regulation is an important motive in people’s media choices (Bryant, Roskos-Ewoldsen, and Cantor, 2003; Knobloch, in press). Sensation seeking Another kind of emotion-related gratification was proposed by Zuckerman (1979). Zuckerman’s concept of sensation seeking says that people ⫺ at least some people ⫺ seek emotions beyond the optimal level of arousal. Sensation seeking is defined as “the seeking of varied, novel, complex and intense sensations and experiences, and the willingness to take … risks for the sake of such experience” (Zuckerman, 1994: 27, as cited in Zuckerman, in press). The strength of the sensation seeking motive is a relatively stable personality trait that has been

264

A. Bartsch, R. Mangold, R. Viehoff and P. Vorderer

shown to correlate with specific patterns of media use, particularly the preference for horror films and other forms of media violence (Zuckerman, 1996; Johnston, 1995; Sparks, 1986; Tamborini and Stiff, 1987). Zuckerman concluded that sensation seeking is a need in its own right that can sometimes override the hedonistic need for balanced arousal. Intrinsic motivation Intrinsic motivation has mostly been studied in the context of skilldemanding media activities such as reading or playing computer games (Groeben and Vorderer, 1988; Vorderer et al., in press). Most authors agree that the balance between the recipient’s skills and the media offer’s demands is essential to intrinsic motivation. If media-related skills are challenged, but not overcharged, a feeling of competence arises that motivates recipients to continue their media activity (Vorderer, Steen, and Chan, in press). Forms of media use, such as watching television or films, are often considered rather ‘passive’, and have not been related to intrinsic motivation until recently. However, some authors (Bartsch, Hübner, and Viehoff, 2003; Mikos, 1996; Früh, 2002) have suggested that coping with media-induced emotions is a skill-demanding activity that can lead to feelings of success and competence if the person manages to cope successfully, for instance, if one manages to cope with fear during a horror film. Modes of reception Emotions can not only be perceived as a challenge in themselves. They are also related to other goals and challenges in the reception process. Research on modes of reception (e. g. Vorderer, 1992; Suckfüll, 2004; Gehrau, Bilandzic and Woelke, 2005; Appel et al., 2002) is particularly interesting in this regard. Suckfüll (2004) asked people about different kinds of involvement during film viewing. Her results showed that Emotional Involvement correlates with other modes of reception, especially with Diegetic Involvement (getting absorbed in the fictional world), Socio-Involvement (identifying with characters), and Ego-Involvelment (relating the film to one’s own life). There was also a weaker but positive correlation with Elaboration (reading between the lines), indicating that emotional involvement is helpful rather than obstructive for the pursuit of more analytic goals of reception. The correlations of emotional involvement with other modes of reception seem quite plausible, as one can hardly feel part of a fictional world if one does not react emotionally to events in this

Emotional gratifications during media use

265

world; one can hardly identify with a character if one does not empathize with his, or her emotions and so on. Studies of experiential states during reading (Appel et al., 2002) and music reception (Schramm, 2005) found somewhat different, but largely comparable results. It can thus be concluded that the experience of emotions is helpful for a variety of other goals and strategies in the reception process including even more analytic modes of reception. Mood adjustment Media-induced emotions can also be instrumental for the attainment of goals outside the reception process. Knobloch’s (2003) concept of mood adjustment says that people use the media in order to adjust their moods to the demands of their current situation. If, for instance, one has been provoked, and wants to pay back the provoker, an aggressive mood seems optimally suited to attain this goal. Knobloch and Alter (as cited in Knobloch, in press) were able to show that male participants preferred bad news that sustained their bad moods if they had been provoked and were promised an opportunity to pay back the provoker. As predicted, this effect was absent in female participants. This was explained in terms of gender specific norms of anger expression. Women are not supposed to be aggressive, whereas it is often considered as ‘unmanly’ not to pay back a provoker. For women it should therefore be more in accord with their goals to dissipate anger. In the case where no opportunity was presented to take revenge, both sexes preferred good news. Meta-emotion Besides its interaction with recipients’ goals and intentions, the gender socialization of emotions has been studied as a research topic in its own right. Oliver’s (1993) studies on sad film preference are a prominent example of this line of research. Oliver showed that the preference for so-called ‘chick flicks’, or ‘tearjerkers’ is a stable pattern of media use that is much more frequent in women than in men. In those respondents who scored high on sad film preference, a positive correlation was found between sadness and enjoyment of the film (Oliver, 1993; Oliver, Weaver, and Sargent, 2000). Oliver therefore concluded that feeling sad is central to what these people appreciate about sad films. She explains this in terms of social norms concerning other-directed forms of sadness such as empathy, sympathy, and pity. Other-directed sadness is morally valued in our culture, especially in the female gender stereotype, whereas it is more ambivalent in the

266

A. Bartsch, R. Mangold, R. Viehoff and P. Vorderer

male stereotype. Thus, especially for women, empathic sadness should be gratifying because it has been constantly rewarded during their socialization, and is associated with self-enhancing thoughts and feelings. A similar trend was present in the results found by Vorderer and Schramm (2004) on musical preferences of people who are in a sad mood, with women being more likely than men to choose sad music and to dwell on their mood instead of changing it. Oliver (1993) introduced the concept of meta-emotion to describe this tendency to think and feel positively or negatively about specific emotions. We will come back to this concept below. Gender socialization of horror Another example of gender specific norms are Mundorf and Mundorf’s (2003) observations on the ‘gender socialization of horror’. According to these authors, teenagers love to watch horror films, especially in mixed sex dyads, because horror films provide a suitable context for the display of gender-typed behaviors, such as male courage and the female need for comfort and protection. Consistent with this hypothesis, it was shown that both the enjoyment of horror film segments, and the attractiveness ratings of cross-sex companions varied as a function of the companion’s display of gender-typed behaviors (Zillman, Weaver, Mundorf, and Aust, 1986). Apparently, these gender-specific ways of dealing with fear are part of a courtship ritual that is self-enhancing for both partners. Downward social comparison The self-enhancing function of media emotions was also observed in studies on downward social comparison pioneered by Mares and Cantor (1992). People who are low in self-esteem typically prefer media offers featuring others who are worse off than themselves. In the Mares and Cantor (1992) study, elderly participants who felt lonely themselves preferred portrayals of lonely old people, whereas integrated participants preferred more optimistic portrayals of age. In a similar vein, Knobloch and Zillmann (2003) found that young people who are lonely or lovelorn preferred love-lamenting pop songs to love-celebrating ones. Apparently, watching or listening to stories of others with similar problems helps people to cope with their own shortcomings and misfortunes. Here again, the social meaning context of emotions is decisive. Watching the problems of others does not better one’s own problems in any way. The only thing it betters is the perceived meaning of one’s problems in the context of social

Emotional gratifications during media use

267

status. The stigmatizing significance of the problem is changed if one realizes that the problem is quite common, or if one manages to transfer the stigma to someone who ‘really’ has this problem when compared to oneself. Towards an integrative framework Although this research overview is far from being exhaustive, it shows that there are many good reasons to believe that the experience of emotions can be gratifying for media users (see also Vorderer, Klimmt, and Ritterfeld, 2004). Emotions can be gratifying because they help to attain a pleasant state of arousal, or because they give rise to novel, intense, and sensational kinds of experiences. Furthermore, emotions pose a challenge to the recipient’s coping skills and can thus lead to feelings of success and competence if one manages to cope successfully. Emotions can be helpful for the attainment of the recipient’s goals, both internal and external, to the reception process. Finally, emotions can enhance the recipient’s self-esteem if they are interpreted in a social meaning context that relates them to valued gender stereotypes or improves the recipient’s perceived social status. Having summarized the research on emotional gratifications from different theoretical and methodological backgrounds, we will now turn to the conclusions that can be drawn from this heterogeneous research literature. Is there some common denominator that hints at a more systematic understanding of emotional gratifications? Considering the numerous accounts of what makes emotions gratifying in the context of media use, it is not easy to find common ground between them. Some of these accounts consider emotional gratifications as passive stimulus effects (e. g., mood management, sensation seeking) whereas others propose that emotional gratifications arise from people’s active engagement with the media (e. g., intrinsic motivation, modes of reception, mood adjustment). Some refer to individual goals, needs, and desires (e. g., mood management, sensation seeking, intrinsic motivation) whereas others stress the importance of the social meaning context of emotions (e. g., gender socialization of emotion, meta-emotion, downward social comparison). Does it really make sense to subsume this broad variety of theoretical explanations under the umbrella term ‘emotional gratification’? Despite the difficulties that are associated with an integrative approach, we are convinced that working on it is worth the effort for the following reason: The actual complexity of emotionally driven media selection processes does not depend on how widely or narrowly the concept of ‘gratification’ is defined. Emotions as such are highly

268

A. Bartsch, R. Mangold, R. Viehoff and P. Vorderer

complex phenomena that cannot be reduced to either stimulus effects, intentional action, or cultural norms and values (Bartsch and Viehoff, 2003). Thus, a comprehensive model of the influence of emotion on selective media use needs to take into account the whole range of motivating factors that are associated with the experience of emotions ⫺ whether they are called gratification, reward, enjoyment, or otherwise. In the remaining part of this article we will sketch some initial ideas on how such an integrative approach might look. First, the model of emotional communication of Bartsch and Hübner (2004) is introduced. This model was developed as a general framework for analyzing the role of emotions in communication processes. As we will argue, it can also be helpful for modeling the motivating aspects of emotions in the context of media use. Secondly, drawing on the multiple appraisal approach of Mangold, Unz, and Winterhoff-Spurk (2001), we address the question of how recipients evaluate the gratification potential of emotions and use this information to make intuitive media choices. Bartsch and Hübner’s three-level model of emotional communication The model of emotional communication of Bartsch and Hübner (2004; Bartsch and Viehoff, 2003), was developed in an effort to integrate recent advances in emotion research into a communication-theoretical framework. The model comprises three interrelated levels of complexity that are inherent in emotion, each yielding a different account of how and why emotions contribute to communication processes. The three complexity levels are: 1. innate stimulus-response-patterns 2. associative schemata 3. symbolic meaning In the context of emotion theory, innate stimulus-response-patterns, associative schemata, and symbolic meaning are commonly considered as constituents of individual emotions. However, as Bartsch and Hübner (2004) argued, there is growing evidence that emotions are inherently social and communicative. Emotions are part of a communication system that relates them to other people’s emotions and unfolds social dynamics that go beyond the sum of individual emotions. The details of the model were spelled out elsewhere (Bartsch and Hübner, 2004; 2005; Bartsch and Viehoff, 2003) and are not given here due to space limitations. Rather, we focus on the model’s general

Emotional gratifications during media use

269

three-level structure and discuss how it might contribute to a more systematic understanding of emotional gratifications2. Innate stimulus-response-patterns On a stimulus-response level, emotions can be gratifying because of stimulus qualities that are present during the emotional experience. Emotions give rise to bodily feelings that act as internal stimuli, and they can change the way external stimuli are perceived. This is due to physiological and neuro-physiological effects of arousal such as changes in heart rate, muscle tone, or attention. If emotionrelated changes result in stimulus qualities that are pleasant or fascinating, recipients will be motivated to continue, or to repeat exposure to this kind of emotional stimulation. This is basically what mood management and sensation seeking are about. Selective media use on this level has mostly been described within a framework that combines theories of arousal, and behavioral learning (Zillmann, 1988; Zuckerman, 1979; Bryant and Davies, in press). Recent advances in the neuroscience of emotions (e. g., LeDoux, 1996; Damasio, 1994) and evolutionary psychology of emotions (Schwab, 2004; Schwender, 2001; Ohler and Nieding, in press) have stimulated a revision of this framework. But the basic research interests of early behaviorist approaches such as implicit mechanisms of attention, motivation, and learning, are still up to date. Associative schemata On the level of associative schemata, emotions can be gratifying due to their relation with intentional aspects of the reception process. Emotions can be useful for the attainment of the recipient’s goals (e. g., getting absorbed in the fictional world), or they can be perceived as a challenge in themselves (e. g., coping with fear during a horror film). If emotions are goal conducive, or if they pose a challenge that can be coped with successfully, a feeling of success and competence arises that motivates recipients to continue their media activity, and to apply successful strategies of reception to other media offers in the future. Research topics such as intrinsic motivation, modes of reception, and mood adjustment refer to this type of gratification, which derives from successful action. On this level, selective media use unfolds new dynamics that go beyond selective exposure and include selective adoption of specific skills and strategies of reception. This intentional type of media selectivity can best be described from a perspective that focuses on the recipient’s active involvement with the media, such as the uses and gratifications approach (e. g., Blumler and Katz, 1974; Rubin, 1981) and

270

A. Bartsch, R. Mangold, R. Viehoff and P. Vorderer

other action-centered theories of media use (e. g., Groeben and Vorderer, 1988; Vorderer, 1992; Schmidt, 1980; Renckstorf, 1989). Symbolic meaning On the level of symbolic meaning, emotions can be gratifying due to their significance in terms of the recipient’s norms, values, and self-ideals. Emotions can be perceived as displays of personal values, desirable character traits, and other features defining the identity and social status of the person. This is where research topics such as gender socialization of emotions and downward social comparison come into play. If emotions are interpreted in such a way as to confirm the recipient’s norms, values, and self-ideals, this will further encourage cognitive elaboration, and communication of the emotional experience. Here again, media selectivity unfolds a new quality that goes beyond the other two levels. On a symbolic level, emotional communication can be described as a selective construction of social meaning that is driven by normative and self-presentational concerns. The codes and conventions of emotional media use can best be analyzed from a culturalist perspective (e. g., Viehoff, 2005; Schmidt, 2005; Fahlenbrach, 2002; Alfes, 1995). If one accepts that different accounts of the gratification potential of emotion are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary, it seems premature to propose a comprehensive theory, or definition, of ‘emotional gratification’, since the relation of the three complexity levels has given rise to several long-standing controversies concerning the nature of emotion, such as the mind-body problem, the nature-nurture debate, the imagery debate, and the Zajonc-Lazarus debate on the primacy of affect over cognition, or vice versa (for an overview see Bartsch and Hübner, 2004). Clearly, more research is needed in order to resolve these controversies and to arrive at a mature theory of emotional gratification. However, even at this preliminary state of affairs, it seems fair to conclude that the experience of emotions during media use is a motivationally complex situation. Different kinds of potential gratifications can be obtained using different strategies of emotional communication, including selective exposure to arousing media stimuli, selective adoption of emotion-related skills and strategies of reception, and selective construction of social meaning. On the basis of theoretical considerations, both conflicts and synergy effects of emotional gratifications can be predicted. Sometimes, goal attainment requires a delay of hedonistic gratifications, but not all successful behaviors that are necessarily unpleasant. By the same token, acting morally can

Emotional gratifications during media use

271

sometimes require a delay of egoistic goals, but not all moral acts are necessarily self-denying. With this complex interplay of emotional gratifications in mind, the question arises how recipients manage to make media choices with minimal cognitive effort. How do they analyze a large array of potential gratifications and inconveniences that a media offer has in store for them? How do they find out whether two, or more, potential gratifications are mutually exclusive? How do they come up with an optimal strategy of reception that combines as many gratifications as possible, while keeping the ‘costs’ in terms of gratifications missed, and inconveniences accepted, as low as possible? Of course we cannot offer a definite answer to all of these questions. Nevertheless we will sketch some initial ideas ⫺ based on Mangold, Unz and WinterhoffSpurk’s (2001) multiple appraisal approach ⫺ that account for the intuitive ease of emotionally driven aspects of media selection. Mangold, Unz, and Winterhoff-Spurk’s multiple appraisal approach The multiple appraisal approach was proposed by Mangold, Unz and Winterhoff-Spurk (2001) in an attempt to explain the simultaneous presence of multiple emotions during media use, a finding that is typical of studies on emotions during media use carried out by their research group and others (Mangold, 2000, Unz, Schwab, and Winterhoff-Spurk, 2002; Renaud and Unz, in press). The multiple appraisal approach is based on appraisal theories of emotion (e. g., Scherer, 2001; Lazarus, 1991). According to these theories, emotions are a result of cognitive appraisal processes that evaluate situations with respect to personal goals, needs, and desires. Appraisal criteria that are relevant to emotion include the situation’s novelty, pleasantness, and goal conduciveness, the person’s coping potential, the causal agency of oneself, or others, the certainty versus uncertainty of outcomes, and the compatibility of situations with social norms and selfideals. Each emotion is characterized by a specific pattern of appraisals. Fear, for instance, is typically caused by situations that are novel, unpleasant, goal discrepant, uncertain, and hard to control. Drawing on this general model of emotion elicitation, Mangold, Unz, and Winterhoff-Spurk (2001) proposed that media use is a complex situation that allows for multiple appraisals. First, emotion-eliciting appraisals can focus on media content, e. g., on a cruel horror scenario. Second, appraisal can focus on the reception situation, e. g., being comfortably seated with a friend in front of a TV set. Third, appraisal can focus on the emotions that are experienced during media use, e. g., being concerned that one’s fear might outlast horror film

272

A. Bartsch, R. Mangold, R. Viehoff and P. Vorderer

viewing and keep one from getting to sleep later that night. Recently, Wirth, Schramm, and Böcking (in press) further developed this approach. They differentiated six types of ‘situational references’ that can be addressed by emotion-eliciting appraisals: 1) the media content, 2) the reception situation, 3) the ‘making of’, 4) the viewer’s memories and daydreams, 5) interactions of media content with the viewer’s situation, and 6) interactions of media content with the reception situation. Here we will only consider the third frame of reference mentioned by Mangold, Unz, and Winterhoff-Spurk (2001) ⫺ appraisals that focus on the viewer’s own emotions. This frame of reference differs from the other two as well as from those of Wirth, Schramm, and Böcking (in press), in one important respect: Instead of environmental situations, or medial and mental representations of such situations, the focus of appraisal is on the person’s own emotional state, and the perceived consequences of this emotional state for his or her goals, needs, and desires. In this case, appraisal is not what gives rise to the emotion in the first place ⫺ the emotion is already there; it has been caused by appraisals of environmental situations, or their representations. Appraisal of one’s own emotions is a secondary process that evaluates already existing emotions and gives rise to socalled ‘meta-emotions’ (Oliver, 1993; Bartsch and Viehoff, 2003; Mayer and Gaschke, 1988; Gottman, Katz and Hooven, 1997). The concept of meta-emotions is similar to that of meta-cognition. It assumes that people can have emotions about emotions much like they can have thoughts about thoughts. For instance, one can be ashamed of losing one’s temper, enjoy a moment of bittersweet melancholy, and so on. If considered from a multiple appraisal perspective, the emotional gratifications mentioned in the research overview bear a striking resemblance to appraisal dimensions proposed by Scherer (2001) and other appraisal theorists. Emotions can be gratifying due to their novelty and pleasantness; the parallels with stimulus level gratifications such as mood management and sensation seeking are easy to recognize. Emotions can also be gratifying due to their goal conduciveness, and controllability; this is where schema level gratifications such as mood adjustment, successful coping, and the relation of emotional involvement with other modes of reception come into play. Finally, emotions can be gratifying due to their normative significance, which is the case with symbolic gratifications such as downward social comparison, or living up to valued gender stereotypes. These parallels lead us to conclude that the gratification potential of emotions during media use might be appraised in the same intuitive and effortless manner that is typical of emotion-eliciting appraisal

Emotional gratifications during media use

273

processes (Lazarus, 1991; Scherer, 2001), but with the difference that in the case of emotional gratifications, appraisal criteria are not applied to environmental events or media events, but to the recipient’s own emotions. Meta-emotions that result from this secondary process of appraisal could serve as a holistic appraisal outcome that integrates information about different kinds of gratifications and inconveniences that are associated with the experience of primary emotions. Drawing on Mangold, Unz, and Winterhoff-Spurk’s (2001) multiple appraisal approach, selective media use can be understood as a spontaneous action tendency that stems from meta-emotions. The most basic action tendency of emotions ⫺ and arguably of meta-emotions as well ⫺ is to approach or avoid the event that gave rise to emotion (Arnold, 1960; Roseman, 2001). In the case of meta-emotion, this action tendency would be a tendency to approach or avoid situations that give rise to the primary emotion (Maio and Esses, 2001). Just like people use primary emotions to make intuitive decisions concerning approach or avoidance of environmental situations, they might use meta-emotions to decide whether they should welcome or reject a media offer’s invitation to experience emotions (Oliver, 1993). Summary and outlook Figure 1 summarizes the basic ideas of this article. It shows a simplified process model of how emotional gratifications lead to selective media use. The process starts with the presence of a media offer. Media content and the reception situation are appraised, and this appraisal (A), gives rise to emotions. At this point emotional gratifications come into play. We propose that media-related emotions are subject to a second process of appraisal that evaluates the gratification potential of these emotions. The focus of appraisal is now on recipients’ own emotions instead of on the media offer. Emotions are appraised with respect to stimulus gratifications: Is the emotion pleasant? Is it fascinating? Emotions are also appraised with respect to intentional gratifications: Is the emotion helpful for the attainment of the recipients’ goals? Does it pose a challenge that can be coped with successfully? Finally, the symbolic gratification potential of emotions is appraised: Is the emotion morally correct? Does it enhance the recipients’ self-esteem? And so on. From these appraisals a holistic appraisal outcome is formed. We call this holistic appraisal outcome meta-emotion because it is based on the same set of appraisal criteria that give rise to primary emotions, with the difference that in the case of meta-emotions the object of appraisal is another emotion. Meta-emotions motivate selective media use, since they are associated

274

A. Bartsch, R. Mangold, R. Viehoff and P. Vorderer

Figure 1. A simplified process model of emotional gratifications, and their relevance for selective media use (A ⫽ emotion eliciting appraisal).

with a tendency to approach or avoid the primary emotion in question. This helps recipients to decide on an intuitive basis whether they should welcome or reject a media offer’s invitation to experience emotions. Of course, the value of such an integrative approach to emotional gratifications still needs to be demonstrated empirically. We therefore conclude by sketching a strategy for future research. In order to exploit the particular strengths of this approach, multiple aspects of the gratification potential of emotion need to be studied simultaneously. Studying more than one type of emotional gratification at a time makes it possible to observe their interrelations, e. g., their relative influence on media choices, their conflicts, their synergy effects, and so on. Suitable methods for the simultaneous measurement of emotional gratifications would be questionnaire studies and qualitative interviews. As we pointed out at the beginning of this article, relying exclusively on introspective measures would be problematic. Fortunately, however, the majority of emotional gratifications mentioned in the research overview have already been established using experimental research methods. In this context, introspective methods can be considered a complementary source of data that enables us to study complexities of the subject matter that need to be controlled in experimental studies. Another useful research strategy would be to analyze cues to emotional gratifications in media offers (Bartsch and Viehoff, 2003). A systematic understanding of how media offers recruit recipi-

Emotional gratifications during media use

275

ents’ willingness and ability to experience emotions in a gratifying way would open further avenues for experimental research using carefully analyzed and/or manipulated media stimuli. Notes 1. Based on a paper presented at the conference ‘Media use and selectivity ⫺ New approaches to explaining and analysing audiences’, January 26⫺28, 2006, Erfurt. 2. Modeling the social dynamics that arise from the interaction of individuals’ search for emotional gratification would be a fascinating task; unfortunately, we cannot elaborate on this aspect in the context of this article. Consequently, the approach as it is outlined here is rather individual-centered in focus. However, this does not mean to say that social macro-dynamics are generally out of its scope. For a detailed discussion of problems concerning the integrated modeling of individual micro-processes and social macro-processes, see Vorderer and Valsiner (1999).

References Alfes, H. (1995). Literatur und Gefühl. Emotionale Aspekte literarischen Lesens und Schreibens [Literature and feeling. Emotional aspects of literary reading and writing]. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Appel, M., Koch, E., Schreier, M., and Groeben, N. (2002). Aspekte des Leseerlebens: Skalenentwicklung [Aspects of reading experience: Scale development]. Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie, 14, 149⫺154. Arnold, M. B. (1960). Emotion and personality: Vol. 1. Psychological aspects. New York: Columbia University Press. Bartsch, A. and Hübner, S. (2004). Emotionale Kommunikation ⫺ Ein integratives Modell [Emotion communication ⫺ An integrative model]. Dissertation, MartinLuther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg. Bartsch, A., Hübner, S., and Viehoff, R. (2003). Über das Glück des Lesens [On the joy of reading]. Schüler 2003 Lesen und Schreiben, 26⫺29. Bartsch, A. and Viehoff, R. (2003). Meta-emotion: In search of a meta-account for entertainment by negative emotions. Siegener Periodikum zur Internationalen Empirischen Literaturwissenschaft, 22, 309⫺328. Blumler, J. and Katz, E. (Eds.). (1974). The uses of mass communications. Current perspectives on gratifications research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Bryant, J. and Davies, J. (in press). Selective exposure processes. In J. Bryant and P. Vorderer (Eds.), Psychology of Entertainment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bryant, Roskos-Ewoldsen, and Cantor (Eds.). (2003). Communication and Emotion. Essays in honor of Dolf Zillmann. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error. Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Putnam. Fahlenbrach, K. (2002). Protestinszenierungen. Visuelle Kommunikation und kollektive Identitäten in Protestbewegungen [Protest stagings. Visual communication and collective identity in protest movement]. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Früh, W. (2002). Unterhaltung durch das Fernsehen: Eine molare Theorie [Entertainment through television: A molar theory]. Konstanz: UVK. Gehrau, V., Bilandzic, H., and Woelke, J. (Eds.). (2005). Rezeptionsstrategien und Rezeptionsmodalitäten [Strategies and modalities of reception]. Munich: Reinhard Fischer.

276

A. Bartsch, R. Mangold, R. Viehoff and P. Vorderer

Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., and Hooven, C. (1997). Meta-emotion: How families communicate emotionally. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Groeben, N. and Vorderer, P. (1988). Leserpsychologie: Lesemotivation ⫺ Lektürewirkung [Psychology of the reader: Reading motivation ⫺ Effects of reading]. Münster: Aschendorff. Johnston, D. D. (1995). Adolescents’ motivations for viewing graphic horror. Human Communication Research, 21, 522⫺552. Knobloch, S. (2003). Mood adjustment via mass communication. Journal of Communication, 53, 233⫺250. Knobloch, S. (in press). Mood-management. Theory, evidence, and advancements. In J. Bryant and P. Vorderer (Eds.), Psychology of Entertainment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Knobloch, S. and Zillmann, D. (2003). Appeal of love themes in popular music. Psychological Reports, 93, 653⫺658. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. LeDoux, J. E. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York: Simon and Schuster. Maio, G. R. and Esses, V. M. (2001). The need for affect: Individual differences in the motivation to approach or avoid emotions. Journal of Personality, 69, 583⫺615. Mangold, R. (2000). Der abendliche Horror? Unterhaltung und Emotionen bei Fernsehnachrichten [The daily horror? Entertainment and emotion during television news viewing]. In G. Roters, W. Klingler, and M. Gerhards (Eds.), Unterhaltung und Unterhaltungsrezeption (pp. 119⫺140). Baden-Baden: Nomos. Mangold, R., Unz, D., and Winterhoff-Spurk, P. (2001). Zur Erklärung emotionaler Medienwirkungen: Leistungsfähigkeit, empirische Überprüfung und Fortentwicklung theoretischer Ansätze [Explaining emotional media effects: Efficiency, empirical testing, and further development of theoretical approaches]. In P. Rössler, U. Hasenbrink, and M. Jäckel (Eds.), Theoretische Perspektiven der Rezeptionsforschung (pp. 163⫺180). Munich: Reinhard Fischer. Mares, M.-L. and Cantor, J. (1992). Elderly viewers’ responses to televised portrayals of old age. Communication Research, 19, 459⫺478. Mayer, J. D. and Gaschke, Y. N. (1988). The experience and meta-experience of mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 105⫺111. Mikos, L. (1996). The experience of suspense: Between fear and pleasure. In P. Vorderer and M. Friedrichsen (Eds.), Suspense: Conceptualizations, theoretical analyses, and empirical explorations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mundorf, N. and Mundorf, J. (2003). Gender socialization of horror. In J. Bryant, D. Roskos-Ewoldsen, and J. Cantor (Eds.), Communication and Emotion. Essays in honor of Dolf Zillmann (pp. 155⫺178). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ohler, P. and Nieding, G. (in press). An evolutionary perspective on entertainment. In J. Bryant and P. Vorderer (Eds.), Psychology of Entertainment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Oliver, M. B. (1993). Exploring the paradox of sad films. Human Communication Research, 19, 315⫺342. Oliver, M. B., Weaver, J. B., and Sargent, S. L. (2000). An examination of factors related to sex differences in enjoyment of sad film. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44, 282⫺300. Renaud, D. and Unz, D. C. (in press). Die M-DAS ⫺ Eine modifizierte Version der differentiellen Affekt Skala zur Erfassung von Emotionen bei der Mediennutzung [The M-DAS ⫺ A modified version of the Differential Affect Scale for measuring emotions during media use]. Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie. Renckstorf, K. (1989). Mediennutzung als soziales Handeln. Zur Entwicklung einer handlungstheoretischen Perspektive der empirischen (Massen-) Kommunikations-

Emotional gratifications during media use

277

forschung [Media use as social action. Towards an action-theoretical perspective of empirical (mass) communication research]. In M. Kaase and W. Schulz (Eds.), Massenkommunikation. Theorien, Methoden, Befunde. (Special issue 30 of Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Roseman, I. J. (2001). A model of appraisal in the emotion system: Integrating theory, research and applications. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, and T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion (pp. 68⫺91). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rubin, A. M. (1981). An examination of television viewing motivations. Communication Research, 8, 141⫺165. Schachter, S. and Singer, J. E. (1962). Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional states. Psychological Review, 69, 379⫺399. Scherer, K. R. (2001). Appraisal considered as a process of multilevel sequential checking. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, and T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion (pp. 92⫺120). New York: Oxford University Press. Schmidt, S. J. (1991). Grundriß der empirischen Literaturwissenschaft [Outline of the empirical science of literature]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. (Original work published 1980) Schmidt, S. J. (Ed.). (2005). Medien und Emotionen [Media and emotions]. Münster: Lit. Schramm, H. (2005). “Wer fühlen will, muss hören!” Zusammenhänge zwischen Musikrezeptionsmodalitäten, Musikgenrepräferenzen und der situativen Nutzung von Musik zur Regulierung von Stimmungen [“Who wants to feel, must listen!” The connection of modes of music reception, music preferences, and situational use of music for mood regulation]. In V. Gehrau, H. Bilandzic, and J. Woelke (Eds.), Rezeptionsstrategien und Rezeptionsmodalitäten (pp. 149⫺166). Munich: Reinhard Fischer. Schwab, F. (2004). Evolution und Emotion: Evolutionäre Perspektiven in der Emotionsforschung und der angewandten Psychologie [Evolution and emotion: Evolutionary perspectives in emotion research and applied psychology]. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Schwab, F., Unz, D., Mangold, R., and Winterhoff-Spurk, P. (1998). Motive der Nachrichtennutzung Jugendlicher: Entwicklung eines Fragebogens auf der Grundlage des Gratifikations-Netzes von Wenner [Motives of using news in adolescents: Development of a questionnaire based on the gratification-web of Wenner]. Arbeiten der Fachrichtung Psychologie der Universität des Saarlandes, 188. Saarbrücken: Universität des Saarlandes. Schwender, C. (2001). Medien und Emotionen. Evolutionspsychologische Bausteine einer Medientheorie [Media and emotions. Evolutionary psychology components of a media theory]. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag. Sparks, G. G. (1986). Developing a scale to assess cognitive responses to frightening films. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 30, 65⫺73. Suckfüll, M. (2004). Rezeptionsmodalitäten. Ein integratives Konstrukt für die Medienwirkungsforschung [Modes of reception. An integrative construct for media effects research]. Munich: Reinhard Fischer. Tamborini, R. and Stiff, J. (1987). Predictors of horror film attendance and appeal: An analysis of the audience for frightening films. Communication Research, 14, 415⫺436. Unz, D. C., Schwab, F., and Winterhoff-Spurk, P. (2002). Der alltägliche Schrecken? Emotionale Prozesse bei der Rezeption gewaltdarstellender Nachrichten [The daily shock? Emotional processes during reception of violence in the news]. In P. Rösler, S. Kubisch, and V. Gehrau (Eds.), Empirische Perspektiven der Rezeptionsforschung. Angewandte Medienforschung. Bd. 23. (pp. 97⫺116). Munich: Reinhard Fischer.

278

A. Bartsch, R. Mangold, R. Viehoff and P. Vorderer

Viehoff, R. (2005). Programmierte Bilder. Gedanken zur ritualisierten Zirkelstruktur von Wahrnehmung und Inszenierung durch die Bild(schirm)medien [Programmed images. Thoughts on the ritualized circular structure of perception and staging in the visual media]. In L. Fischer (Ed.), Programm und Programmatik. Kultur- und medienwissenschaftliche Analysen (pp. 113⫺131). Konstanz: UVK. Vorderer, P. (1992). Fernsehen als Handlung: Fernsehfilmrezeption aus motivationspsychologischer Perspektive [TV viewing as action: Reception of films on television from a motivational psychology perspective]. Berlin: Edition Sigma. Vorderer, P., Bryant, J., Pieper, K., and Weber, R. (in press). Playing computer games as entertainment. In P. Vorderer and J. Bryant (Eds.). Playing computer games ⫺ Motives, responses, and consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., and Ritterfeld, U. (2004). Enjoyment: At the heart of media entertainment. Communication Theory, 14, 388⫺408. Vorderer, P. and Schramm, H. (2004). Musik nach Maß. Situative und personenspezifische Unterschiede in der Selektion von Musik [Made-to-measure music. Situation- and person-specific differences in music selection]. Jahrbuch Musikpsychologie, 17, 89⫺108. Vorderer, P., Steen, F. F., and Chan, E. (in press). Motivation. In J. Bryant and P. Vorderer (Eds.), Psychology of Entertainment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Vorderer, P. and Valsiner, J. (1999). (Sozial-)Psychologie und Soziologie ⫺ oder: Das Mikro-Makro-Problem(-bewusstsein) [(Social) psychology and sociology ⫺ or: The micro-macro problem (-awareness)]. In N. Groeben (Ed.), Zur Programmatik einer sozialwissenschaftlichen Psychologie (pp. 115⫺149). Münster: Aschendorff. Wirth, W., Schramm, H., and Böcking, S. (in press). Emotionen bei der Rezeption von Unterhaltung. Eine Diskussion klassischer und aktueller Ansätze zur Erklärung medial vermittelter Emotionen [Emotions during entertainment reception. A discussion of classical and current approaches towards explaining media induced emotions]. In B. Frizzoni and I. Tomkowiak (Eds.), Unterhaltung: Konzepte ⫺ Formen ⫺ Wirkungen. Zürich: Chronos. Zillmann, D. (1988). Mood management through communication choices. American Behavioral Scientist, 31, 327⫺340. Zillmann, D. (2000). Mood Management in the context of selective exposure theory. In M. F. Roloff (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (Vol. 23, pp. 103⫺123). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zillmann, D., Weaver, J. B., Mundorf, N., and Aust, C. F. (1986). Effects of an opposite-gender companion’s affect to horror on distress, delight, and attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 586⫺594. Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. New York: Wiley. Zuckerman, M. (1996). Sensation seeking and the taste for vicarious horror. In J. B. Weaver and R. Tamborini (Eds.), Horror films: Current research on audience preferences and reactions (pp. 147⫺160). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Zuckerman, M. (in press). Sensation seeking in entertainment. In J. Bryant and P. Vorderer (Eds.), Psychology of Entertainment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.