Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

To understand how viewers respond to two common movie plots (falling in love and cheating), this study considers the perspectives they might take. Study 1 tests which protagonists’ perspective viewers adopt when watching movies with falling-in-love versus betrayal plots. Study 2 then shows that viewers’ perspective orientation influences their affective experiences and enjoyment of betrayal movies but not falling-in-love movies. Study 3 explores the processes that lead to varying levels of enjoyment, attained by viewing movies with falling-in-love and cheating plots. A moderated mediation model reveals three processes: affective states resulting from goal attainment/failure, meaning derived through identification, and affective dispositions formed according to moral judgments. Viewers’ romantic beliefs moderate the second process, and their morality standards moderate the third.

Keywords

morality movie enjoyment perspective-taking romantic dramas romantic beliefs

Romantic dramas draw relatively less attention from media psychologists than other popular genres, such as crime dramas (e.g., Raney, 2002), even though romances often perform just as well at the box office (Demeter, n.d.). The few studies of romantic dramas also tend to focus narrowly on how they portray romantic beliefs, ideals (Hefner & Wilson, 2013; Tanner et al., 2003), or myths about love (Johnson, 2007), as well as how exposure to romantic content might be associated with unrealistic expectations (Galloway et al., 2015), romantic beliefs (Hefner, 2019; Hefner & Wilson, 2013), fears of being single (Timmermans et al., 2019), or masculine courtship strategies (Hefner & Kretz, 2021). What is missing is a clear description of how viewers enjoy these types of narratives, which vary widely in terms of whether they portray ideals, feature happy endings that idealize relationships, or offer realistic portrayals (Hefner & Wilson, 2013). In reality, relationships do not last forever, and some movie protagonists betray their partners too. Therefore, the current study accounts for viewers’ responses to romantic movies by explicitly delineating cheating plots from falling-in-love plots (hereafter, love plots) and adopting a comparative approach, as is common in media entertainment research (e.g., comparisons of viewers’ responses to dramas featuring heroes and villains; Krakowiak & Oliver, 2012; Krakowiak & Tsay-Vogel, 2015).

However, in prior comparative studies, whether characters are clear heroes or morally ambiguous, they generally represent an obvious protagonist in a narrative, which encourages viewers to adopt their perspectives (Rall & Harris, 2000). In contrast, romantic dramas by definition involve more than one primary character. The precise identity of the protagonist thus may be less salient and less likely to dictate viewers’ perspective-taking. For example, some viewers consistently adopt the perspective of “good” characters (Chung & Slater, 2013) or those engaged in longer causal chains of events (Magliano et al., 2005), but others prefer the perspective of characters similar to themselves,ⁱ such as the character that shares their self-identified gender (Chen et al., 2016).

Perspectives in this sense refer to “the physical or psychological point from which the events and actions in a story are perceived” (van Peer & Maat, 2001, p. 230) or a “representation of a spatiotemporal vantage in the story world from which the details of the story world might be perceived,” also known as a perceptual perspective (Dixon & Bortolussi, 2019, p. 514). When people process narratives, they develop mental or situation models about the depicted events according to a specific character’s perspective, which influences their narrative understanding (Busselle & Bilandzie, 2008). Because perspective-taking influences how viewers perceive the narrative world (Busselle & Bilandzie, 2008) and likely affects their enjoyment, we start this research by examining whether viewers always adopt the same character’s perspective. That is, in Study 1, we explore which character’s perspective viewers adopt when viewing romantic dramas, featuring either a love or a cheating plot: the agent (who loves or cheats) or the object (who is being loved or cheated on), before we even begin exploring mechanisms that might account for viewers’ enjoyment of movies with love and cheating plots.

When viewers adopt a character’s perspective, that character’s goals become more accessible to them, as indicated by situation models of narratives (Bower & Morrow, 1990; Costabile, 2016; Morrow, 2001). Viewers may vicariously feel happiness when the focal character achieves their goals and sadness if they fail, reflecting common associations of goal attainment and failure with happiness and sadness, respectively (Bagozzi et al., 1998). Such emotional responses in turn should influence movie enjoyment. If movies have love plots, viewers’ existing schemata guide their expectations of the unfolding events (Mazzocco et al., 2007; Seabrook et al., 2016): They anticipate that the shared goal (whether the movie makes it explicit or implicit) is to be in a romantic relationship. Observing characters in a love plot achieve this goal should result in happiness for viewers, regardless of whether they adopt the perspective of the agent character or the object character. Conversely, in romantic movies with cheating plots, the primary characters’ goals diverge, so perspective-taking may affect viewers’ emotional responses, which in turn influences their enjoyment. We test this idea in Study 2.

Finally, we combine the preceding findings to predict and test whether the differing impacts of love and cheating plots on enjoyment might reflect different processes. By focusing on scenarios in which self-identified male or female viewers adopt the perspective of an object character who shares the same gender, Study 3 also reflects input from various theoretical frameworks, such as the mental model of narrative processing (Busselle & Bilandzic, 2008), identification as a form of character engagement (Cohen, 2001; Forster, 2021), eudaimonic aspects of media enjoyment (Oliver & Bartsch, 2010), and affective disposition theory (Zillmann, 2000). In this effort, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of multiple pathways that may explain the varied effects of love and cheating plots on viewers’ enjoyment.

In more detail, the pathways start with watching each type of plot and ultimately achieving varying enjoyment levels. We predict three main routes. Reflecting the unique characteristics of romantic movies, including the presence of multiple primary characters, we consider how these psychological processes might be triggered by the object, whose perspective viewers adopt, or the agent, who interacts with the object character. First, according to mental models of narrative processing, adopting the perspective of particular characters (i.e., objects) aligns viewers with their goals. Therefore, goal disruption in cheating plots might induce more negative emotional experiences than does goal fulfillment in love plots, leading to distinct levels of enjoyment. This path involves affective states resulting from goal simulation.

Second, perspective-taking fosters identification (Cohen & Tal-Or, 2017; Hoeken et al., 2016). However, people with romantic beliefs may find cheating plots less appealing than love plots, due to the belief conflicts they create. They would be less likely to identify with an object being cheated on than one being loved, even if they adopt the object’s perspective. Such reduced identificationⁱⁱ should hinder the degree to which they derive meaning from that character’s experiences or enjoy the movie, implying a path involving the derivation of meaning through identification. In contrast, viewers with weak romantic beliefs can identify with object characters in either cheating or love plots, such that they would derive meaning from and enjoy both plots to similar degrees.

Third, once they take the object’s perspective, viewers’ evaluations of the agent likely influence their enjoyment. In line with the disposition formation process outlined in affective disposition theory (Zillmann & Cantor, 1977) and the moral sanction theory of delight and repugnance (Zillmann, 2000), greater moral censoring likely applies more to the character who cheats, more so than to one who loves. Consequently, viewers might develop a negative affective disposition, which directly reduces enjoyment (Eden et al., 2011), along a moral judgment in the formation of an affective disposition path. In addition, viewers’ intolerance of morally debatable behaviors may magnify the effect of this path on enjoyment.

Perspective Taking

Mental Models of Narrative Processing

According to Busselle and Bilandzic (2008), when they encounter narratives, people develop situation models to represent the story, the physical setting, and the chronological sequence of events. Such narrative processing also involves cognitive representations of characters in a microworld. In this process, viewers alter their focus, from their actual to a narrative world (Busselle & Bilandzic, 2008), and adopt a character’s perspective (J. B. Black et al., 1979; Rall & Harris, 2000). Their situation models reflect the point of view of that character (Morrow, 2001). Selecting a consistent perspective helps them construct coherent situation models (Rall & Harris, 2000). In many cases, people adopt the protagonist’s point of view, which informs both their understanding and their recall (J. B. Black et al., 1979; Rall & Harris, 2000). For example, narrative recall tends to be more accurate if other characters act in ways consistent with the protagonist whose perspective the viewers adopt. In light of the important role of perspective-taking for narrative processing, it seems possible that the perspective that viewers adopt might determine their enjoyment of romantic narratives.

Romantic Movies

This general tendency, such that viewers take a protagonist’s perspective to build situation models, is complicated by romantic movies, which feature more than one primary character. In such contexts, the identity of the protagonist is less salient. People might take the perspectives of agent characters (J. B. Black et al., 1979), who participate in longer causal chains of events (Magliano et al., 2005). In cheating films, the agent cheats on a partner, rather than being the one who has been betrayed. However, viewers are less likely to take the perspectives of more stigmatized characters (Chung & Slater, 2013) or of those who engage in immoral behaviors with an identifiable victim (Frazer et al., 2022), such as cheaters in cheating plots. Considering these conflicting possibilities, before testing whether and how perspective-taking affects enjoyment of romantic movies, we seek to establish whether viewers tend to take the perspective of active agents (who engage in acts of love or cheat) or objects (who are being loved or betrayed) in romantic movies when they watch movies about falling in love or cheating:

RQ1: What perspectives do viewers take when watching film clips of someone being loved or being cheated on?

Study 1

Design, Participants, and Procedures

Because this study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, it was impractical to recruit participants for in-person visits to physical laboratories to view complete films. Expecting MTurk workers to commit to watching entire feature films also is unrealistic. Therefore, and in line with prior media research, we used edited clips (Frazer et al., 2022). In turn, we developed a 2 × 3 research design with two plot types (falling in love vs. cheating) and three levels of movie variation, which mitigates the potential effects of idiosyncratic characteristics of a particular movie clip. Male and female participants (self-identified by the MTurk gender filter, during their initial recruitment) were assigned to watch one of six movie clips, featuring female or male agent characters. The six clips represented three pairs of love and cheating movies, and in each pair, the agent (who loves or cheats) is played by the same actor (Supplemental Table A1), which reduces concerns about confounding effects of viewers’ preferences for a particular actor across plot conditions.

When watching romantic movies, female and male viewers arguably might empathize more with the object being loved by a male or female agent, respectively, due to perceived similarity (Chen et al., 2016). Therefore, we assigned participants to watch clips in a way that ensured that the gender of the agent differed from the participants’ self-identified gender; female participants saw movies with male agents, and male participants saw movies with female agents, similar to a randomized block design (Keppel & Wickens, 2013). These participants also had to complete attention check questions successfully. The sample of 254 participants indicated, using a list, which movies they had already seen and then were assigned to watch a clip from a randomly chosen movie that they had not seen.ⁱⁱⁱ They read its synopsis to understand the movie clip (Supplemental Appendix A) (for a similar approach, see Appel & Mengelkamp, 2022), then watched the clip immediately thereafter (6–7 minutes). The film clips were edited and compiled to tell a love or cheating story, in line with the synopsis. To reduce any confounding influence of potential punishment, the outcomes of cheating were not included into any clips or synopses. After watching their assigned movie clip, participants indicated what perspective they took.

Measurements

To gather information about whose perspective the participants took, the measure offered different options for each film type. That is, when asked “Whose perspective did you take when you watched the movie clip?” in the love plot, participants could indicate (1) the agent (person who loves) or (2) the object (person being loved). In the cheating plot condition, the options include (1) the agent (person who cheats), (2) the object (person cheated on), and (3) the person with whom the agent has an affair.

As a manipulation check, participants indicated which statement described the clip they just watched: (1) “The agent has an affair with the other woman/the other man and betrays his/her girl/boyfriend (wife/husband)” or (2) “The agent has a romantic relationship with the object.” The names of the agent and the object were specified in the questions; the names used reflected the movie content.

Results^iv

All participants in the love condition selected the appropriate option, and 94.4% of participants in the cheating condition selected the right option. Thus, participants could generally tell which plot type they had viewed. As Table 1 reveals, when watching a movie clip featuring a love plot, 36.43% of the participants took the perspective of the loving agent, and 63.57% took the perspective of the object of that love. When watching a movie clip featuring a cheating plot with the same agent characters, 41.60% took the perspective of the cheating agent, 44.80% of the participants took the perspective of the object being cheated on, and 13.60% took that of the new love. Analyzing only participants who took the perspectives of the agent and object, but not the new love, reveals that the distribution of perspectives taken does not vary across plot types, X² (1, N = 237) = 3.32, p = .07. Nor does the distribution of perspectives taken vary across participant genders, whether they viewed love plots, χ² (1, N = 129) = 0.34, p = .54, or cheating plots, χ² (1, N = 125) = 4.33, p = .12.

Table 1.

Perspectives Taken by Viewers.

Movie	Study 1 (N = 254)
	Agents		Objects		New loves
	N	%	N	%	N	%
Being loved
Female participants
Purple Violets (Male agent)	7	31.82	15	68.18	–	–
The Holiday (Male agent)	1	4.76	20	95.24	–	–
Some Voices (Male agent)*	14	63.64	8	36.36	–	–
Male participants
Must Love Dogs (Female agent)	6	30.00	14	70.00	–	–
My Girlfriend’s Boyfriend (Female agent)	7	33.33	14	66.67	–	–
Pride and Prejudice (Female agent)*	12	52.17	11	47.83	–	–
Total	47	36.43	82	63.57	–	–
Being cheated
Female participants
Little Children (Male agent)	9	42.86	2	9.52	10	47.62
Closer (Male agent)	13	59.09	7	31.82	2	9.09
Sylvia (Male agent)*	0	0.00	21	100.00	0	0.00
Male participants
Unfaithful (Female agent)	7	43.75	8	50.00	1	6.25
Tempting Fate (Female agent)	10	47.62	9	42.86	2	9.52
The Aftermath (Female agent)*	13	54.17	9	37.50	2	8.33
Total	52	41.60	56	44.80	17	13.60

Film clips used only in Study 1.

Discussion

We find no significant effect of the distribution of perspective-taking across two plot conditions. Excluding the minority of respondents who took the new love’s perspective, the percentage of participants who take the object’s perspective is relatively higher than the percentage who took the agent’s perspective in both the love (object: 63.56%; agent: 36.43%) and the betrayal (object: 51.85%; agent: 48.15%) conditions. This finding might reflect our study design, in that participants were assigned to watch the movie with objects who shared their self-identified gender. We address this issue in Study 2, in which we do not match on gender.

Approximately 40% of participants (Table 1) accepted the cheating agent’s perspective while watching cheating plots, consistent with research that suggests people can adopt the perspective of good or bad protagonists (Ziegler et al., 2005). On the basis of these initial findings, in Study 2 we also explore the effects of perspective-taking on enjoyment. Furthermore, they justify Study 3, in which we compare the enjoyment derived from cheating versus love plots when viewers take the perspective of the object.

Perspective-Taking

Goal Accessibility in Mental Models

When they process narratives, limited information in working memory is available to help viewers develop situation models (Bower & Morrow, 1990). If they adopt a specific character’s perspective, they observe events from that character’s psychological vantage point (Zwaan, 1999) and focus their attention on that character’s thoughts, actions, and goals (Bower & Morrow, 1990; Morrow et al., 1987, 1989). Because information about the focal character’s goal thus is highly accessible in their working memory, viewers use information relevant to the protagonist’s goals to organize their situation models (Morrow et al., 1989). That is, people tend to adopt the protagonist’s perspective, and in this process, they access and leverage information about the protagonist’s goals and actions undertaken to achieve those goals (Morrow, 2001).

Prior findings along these lines generally come from research into narratives that feature one character. In studying movies with multiple characters, Magliano et al. (2005) explore two determinants of goal primacy: role type and role centrality. Protagonists, whose role type generally is portrayed positively, can be distinguished from antagonists, who are usually portrayed in negative ways. Role centrality is “the extent to which a narrative entity is connected within the network representation of the narrative” (Magliano et al., 2005, p. 1359), such that it can distinguish primary characters involved in longer causal chains from secondary characters. These authors find that participants monitor both protagonists’ and antagonists’ goals if they are primary characters, which indicates that people can shift the perspectives they take while consuming the narrative (see also Bortolussi et al., 2018). In addition to asking participants to indicate a sole perspective they take, as in Study 1, it thus may be relevant to address the relative degree to which people take the perspectives of multiple primary characters.

Movie Enjoyment

Narrative understanding involves “inferring the intentions (i.e., the plans and goals) of the characters” (Foss & Bower, 1986, p. 94). When viewers take a character’s perspective, they build situation models based on information about that character’s goal, which also affects their emotional responses (Morrow, 2001). When readers create situation models of the narrative world from this perspective, they become aware of and hope the focal character attains their goals (Oatley, 1995). As research on goal-directed behaviors suggests, attaining goals is associated with happiness, but failing to meet them leads to feelings of sadness (Bagozzi et al., 1998). In movies with love plots, viewers’ schemata about similar narratives shape their expectations and inferences about the storyline (Ghosh & Gilboa, 2014; Mandler, 2014), namely, that the primary characters eventually will fall in love or reach a similarly positive outcome.^v Therefore, the perspective they take should not affect viewers’ emotional experiences when observing this happy ending. But with a cheating plot, the goals of the primary characters (cheater, cheated-on, and new love) diverge, so the perspectives viewers adopt might affect both their emotional states and their enjoyment of the movie.

To test these predictions, Study 2 takes a different approach from that used in Study 1: Participants rate the extent to which they take the perspective of each character, and we consider a tendency to take the agent’s versus the object’s perspective (relative perspective orientation) as a potential determinant of their viewing experiences. This approach acknowledges that participants might shift their perspectives (Ziegler et al., 2005) and rely on different points of view to varying degrees (Magliano et al., 2005). Viewers’ relative perspective orientation then might influence their emotional experiences and enjoyment of cheating plots, but not love plots in which the characters attain the same goals.

H1: Relative perspective orientation affects viewers’ enjoyment when they watch cheating movies but not love movies, and the effect is mediated by their affective states.

Study 2

Design, Participants, and Procedures

This study featured a 2 × 2 design with two plot types (love vs. cheating) and two levels of movie variation (see Supplemental Table A1). Participants were recruited from MTurk. The identifiers of the Study 1 participants appeared on an exclusion list, so they could not see or participate in this study. Regardless of their self-identified gender, the Study 2 participants were assigned to watch one of the movie clips randomly, though a screening question still prevented them from being assigned to a movie they had seen already. Any respondents who failed attention checks were omitted. The final sample of 578 viewers watched the assigned movie clip, indicated their affective states and enjoyment, rated the degree to which they took different characters’ perspectives while watching, and also indicated the perspective they took.

Measurements

All measures used 5-point scales, unless specified otherwise (see Supplemental Appendix B).

Manipulation check items for plot type

In Study 1, we asked participants to select one of two options; in Study 2, we asked them to rate two items. Depending on the condition to which they were randomly assigned, they indicated the degree to which they agreed that (1) “The agent has an affair with the other woman/the other man and betrays his/her girl-/boyfriend (wife/husband)” or (2) “The agent has a romantic relationship with the object.” The names of the agent and the object were specified in the questions; the names used reflected the movie content.

Perspective-taking

Participants rated how frequently (1 = never; 5 = always) they watched the movie from the agent’s and object’s perspectives. The names of the characters and actors were provided to facilitate these ratings. Similar to Study 1, participants also indicated the perspective they mainly took.

Affective states

Happiness/sadness are associated with goal achievement/failure (Bagozzi et al., 1998). On Chang’s (2006) scale, participants rated the degree to which the movie clip made them feel happy (pleased, happy, contented, cheerful, satisfied, optimistic; Cronbach’s α = 0.98) and sad (low-spirited, depressed, sad, gloomy, dissatisfied, sorry; Cronbach’s α = 0.96). Responses to the sadness items were reversed and averaged with responses to the happiness items (Cronbach’s α = 0.94; M = 3.26, SD = 1.10).

Enjoyment

Participants completed Wirth et al.’s (2012) scale, which includes three items (e.g., “Altogether, it gave me pleasure to watch the film”) (Cronbach’s α = 0.94; M = 3.44, SD = 1.21).

Results

Manipulation checks

Compared with cheating movies (M = 4.58, SD = 0.54), love movies (M = 2.07, SD = 1.16) generated significantly lower betrayal ratings, F (1, 576) = 1144.47, p < .01, η² = 0.67. Compared with the cheating movies (M = 3.59, SD = 1.23), the love movies (M = 4.46, SD = 0.59) also generated significantly higher love ratings, F (1, 576) = 107.56, p < .01, η² = 0.16.

Perspective taking

Repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVA) indicated that, even if participants were more likely to take the perspective of the agent (M = 3.37, SD = 1.12) than that of the object (M = 3.27, SD = 1.29), with a discrepancy of .10 (SD = 1.67), the difference was not significant. However, the interaction of the plot type with the perspective target on perspective-taking was significant, F (1, 577) = 16.12, p < .01. Specific to love plots, participants appeared less likely to take the perspective of the agent (M = 3.30, SD = 1.14) than the object (M = 3.52, SD = 1.11), F (1, 246) = 4.23, p = .04. In contrast, viewers of cheating plots were more likely to take the perspective of the agent (M = 3.42, SD = 1.11) than the object (M = 3.08, SD = 1.11), F (1, 328) = 14.15, p < .01. In general then, participants take the perspective of the object at least some of the time, watching either love plots (84.27%) or cheating plots (71.21%) (see Supplemental Table A2).

Relative perspectives

Some viewers identified with new loves in the betrayal plot condition, which was not possible in the love plot condition. If we use categorical responses (i.e., whose perspective viewers take) to compare the two plot conditions, we would need to remove participants who identify with new loves, which would reduce the sample size. Instead, we rely on relative perspective scores. Specifically, we subtract the ratings of the object from the ratings of the agent, such that higher scores indicate a stronger orientation toward taking the perspective of the agent rather than the object. This approach is justified by the recognition that viewers can switch perspectives (Bortolussi et al., 2018), and the perspective they take (i.e., agent’s, object’s, or new love’s) influences the relative perspective score, F (1, 575) = 174.97, p < .01, η = 0.42, M_agent = 1.14, SD = 1.35, M_object = −1.08, SD = 1.26, M_{new love} = 0.32, SD = 1.39.

With Hayes’s (2022) process macro, we conducted a moderated mediation analysis with enjoyment as the dependent variable, relative perspective (mean-centered) as the independent variable, plot type (cheating plot = 1, love plot = 0) as the moderator, and affective states as the mediator. The index of moderated mediation is significant (IMM = 0.07, bootstrap SE = 0.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.01, 0.13]) (see Supplemental Table A3 and Supplemental Figure A1). Among participants watching love plots, the relative perspective did not affect enjoyment through affective states (indirect effect = 0.02, bootstrap SE = 0.02, 95% CI [−0.02, 0.05]), but for those watching cheating plots, it did (indirect effect = 0.08, bootstrap SE = 0.02, 95% CI [0.04, 0.13]). In detail, participants oriented toward the agent’s perspective in cheating plots expressed more positive affect than those oriented toward the object’s perspective and, in turn, enjoyed the movie more. The interaction of relative perspective and plot type exerted the expected, significant influence on affective states too (b = 0.11, SE = 0.04, t = 2.50, p = .01; Supplemental Figure A2).^vi These findings support H1.

Categorical responses

Supplemental Table A4 summarizes the perspective that participants actually took. After excluding those who took the new love’s perspective (N = 87), the distribution of perspective varied significantly by plot type, χ²(1, N = 491) = 11.52, p = .01. When watching love plots, more participants took the perspective of the objects (56.05%), similar to the results in Study 1. But when watching cheating plots, more participants took the perspective of the agents (59.26%), in contrast with our Study 1 findings. That is, when participants were not assigned to watch movies in which the objects shared their self-identified gender, participants were less likely to take the perspective of the character suffering the betrayal. The distribution of perspectives taken does not vary across participant genders, whether they viewed love plots, χ² (1, N = 248) = 0.72, p = .80, or cheating plots, χ² (1, N = 243) = 0.32, p = .36.

When the analysis involved only those adopting the agent’s (coded 1) or the object’s (coded 0) perspective, the results of the moderated mediation analysis were not significant (IMM = .17, bootstrap SE = 0.09, CI [−0.01, 0.35]) (see Supplemental Table A5). Nevertheless, and as expected, the indirect effect of perspective type on enjoyment through affective states in the cheating plot condition was significant (indirect effect = 0.17, bootstrap SE = 0.07, CI [0.03, 0.32]), whereas that in the love plot condition was not (indirect effect = 0.01, bootstrap SE = 0.05, 95% CI [−0.10, 0.11]).

Discussion

Similar to Study 1, which demonstrated across the two conditions that more participants took the perspectives of the object, Study 2 affirms that more love plot viewers took the object’s perspective, even without matching participants’ self-identified gender with the object characters’ gender. But more betrayal plot viewers took the agent’s perspective. These distinct findings in the betrayal plot condition indicate that similarity helps explain why people adopt the object’s perspective when viewing betrayal plots in Study 1.

These findings further suggest that when a movie features a love plot, the relative perspective orientation does not trigger different emotional experiences, but if it offers a cheating plot, this relative perspective orientation influences viewers’ emotional experiences, resulting in different enjoyment levels. Specifically, if participants take the agent’s perspective to a greater degree, as opposed to the object’s, they experience more positive emotions and greater enjoyment. But according to both Studies 1 and 2, some participants take objects’ perspectives, even when watching movies with cheating plots, which undermines their emotional experiences and decreases their enjoyment.

Process Differences for Enjoying Moves With Love Versus Cheating Plots

If people watch movies from the object’s perspective, regardless of whether they feature a love or cheating plot, certain responses might affect their enjoyment of the distinct plots. To identify them, as well as moderators of this enjoyment process, we propose a three-path moderated mediation model (Figure 1), which we test by instructing study participants to take the perspective of the object. Our focus on romantic dramas implies dyadic relationships of the agent and the object, and accordingly, we consider two paths that focus on the object and one that entails evaluations of the agent.

Figure 1.

Proposed model, study 3.

Path 1 (Object-Centered): Goal Fulfillment/Disruption and Affective States

As implied by the Study 2 findings and mental models of narrative processing (Busselle & Bilandzie, 2008), when people adopt the object’s perspective, information about the object’s goal is highly accessible. Viewers achieve different emotional experiences, depending on goal fulfillment or disruption in the plots. Watching love plots implies that viewers vicariously go through their success experiences (goals are fulfilled), whereas watching cheating plots from the object’s perspective implies they undergo their failure experiences (goals are disrupted). As a result, their emotional experiences should differ, and their enjoyment should vary.

H2: Cheating plots reduce viewers’ enjoyment through negative influences on emotional experiences.

Path 2 (Object-Centered): Meaning Derivation Through Identification

Perspective-taking influences identification with the character (Cohen & Tal-Or, 2017; Hoeken et al., 2016), which also is associated with drama enjoyment (Raney et al., 2009). Identification with a character refers to “an affinity toward the character that is so strong that we become absorbed in the text and come to an empathic understanding for the feelings of the character experiences, and for his or her motives and goals” (Cohen, 2013, p. 184). Igartua and Barrios (2012) demonstrate that identification consists of three components: cognitive empathy, emotional empathy, and merging. Similarly, Oatley (1999) defines identification with literary characters in terms of empathy and merging.

Even when instructed to take a character’s perspective though, people may be less willing to identify with them if that identification would produce discomfort. Individual differences inform the degree to which viewers are willing to identify with a character (Cohen & Tal-Or, 2017), and people with varying orientations differ in how much they are willing to identify with the one being betrayed versus the one being loved. The strength of participants’ romantic beliefs represents one such individual difference that likely has relevant effects on identification. Romantic beliefs refer to an ideology of romanticism that contains common beliefs, such as love at first sight, one true love for each person, love conquers all, true love is perfect (idealization), or love can make a relationship work (love finds a way) (Sprecher & Metts, 1989). Such beliefs then determine how people interpret and respond to relevant information (Knee et al., 2003). Romantic movies often portray these ideals and positive outcomes consistent with them (Hefner & Wilson, 2013), thus perpetuating these beliefs (Galloway et al., 2015; Hefner, 2019), but infidelity challenges such beliefs. People with stronger romantic beliefs tend to express more distress about emotional infidelity in relationships (Cann et al., 2001) and perceive more severe transgressions if their favorite celebrities engage in infidelity (Hu et al., 2022).

Thus, even if perspective-taking usually increases identification with a character (Cohen & Tal-Or, 2017), viewers with stronger romantic beliefs might be less likely to identify with objects in cheating plots than in love plots, because cheating is not consistent with their belief system, and humans seek to avoid the distress associated with belief conflicts (Cann et al., 2001). If they were instructed to take the object’s perspective, viewers with strong romantic beliefs might identify more with an object being loved rather than being betrayed, because the former’s experiences align with their beliefs, whereas the latter’s challenge them. People without such beliefs likely can identify with the object to similar degrees, regardless of whether the plot features love or cheating.

H3: Cheating plots generate less identification among viewers with stronger romantic beliefs but not among those with weaker such beliefs.

Identification with characters, as a form of engagement, enhances enjoyment (Bilandzic & Busselle, 2011; Cohen & Tal-Or, 2017), as also evidenced by studies in various genres, including thrillers, romantic comedies, and dramas (Igartua, 2010). However, for love-related movies, the enjoyment derived from identification also may be mediated by eudaimonic experiences, in which consumers seek to derive meaning from their consumption. Human dramas, with their portrayal of struggles and imperfections, offer meaningful insights into the human condition, shedding light on the depth of people’s pain and sorrow (Oliver & Hartmann, 2010). Similarly, romance narratives, celebrating love, caring, and enduring relationships, provide meaningfulness and insights into vital life aspects (Oliver & Hartmann, 2010). These representations deepen understanding of the human condition, so such meaningful movies may prompt reflections on the meaning of life (Oliver & Hartmann, 2010).

Therefore, we test a mechanism that might account for the positive relationship between identification and enjoyment in Study 3: When people identify with a character, they can elaborate on that character’s experiences, through which they derive meaning. Such meaning derivation, also known as a eudaimonic experience, is characterized by deliberative processes and contemplative responses linked to the meaning of life (Oliver & Bartsch, 2010). As prior research suggests, identification with a protagonist is associated with more cognitive elaboration about the film (Igartua, 2010), and eudaimonic motives for movie consumption often prompt identification with the protagonist (Igartua & Barrios, 2013; Rasul et al., 2022). Finally, when a movie encourages viewers to reflect on life, they tend to enjoy it more (Knobloch-Westerwick et al., 2013).

Any movie can have multiple meanings, open to interpretations, perhaps especially movies with cheating plots, in which the conflicts cannot always be dichotomized as good versus evil or right versus wrong. Considering how difficult relationships can be to maintain, some viewers might not blame every character who finds new love (e.g., if the existing relationship has already soured). The more viewers identify with a character, the more likely they are to interpret the meaning of a movie from that character’s perspective (Cohen, 2002) and perceive the viewing experience as eudaimonic. If viewers with weaker romantic beliefs identify with the object to the same degree, regardless of the plot type, this meaning derivation path through identification should not vary with the plot type. But the path triggered by the plot type should be significant among those with stronger romantic beliefs.

H4: Romantic beliefs moderate the effect of plot type on enjoyment, through identification and eudaimonic experiences, such that the path is significant only among those with stronger romantic beliefs.

Path 3 (Agent-Centered): Moral Judgment in the Formation of Affective Disposition

In contrast with the prior two paths, this path pertains to evaluation of the agent. Cheating movies portray the morally wrong behaviors of the agent. To understand why people enjoy stories involving immoral or morally ambiguous behaviors (Krakowiak & Oliver, 2012; Shafer & Raney, 2012), some studies rely on affective disposition theory (ADT; Zillmann & Cantor, 1977), which suggests that enjoyment depends on viewers’ affective disposition toward the characters (disposition formation process) and whether they undergo positive and negative experiences (outcome evaluation process). Building on ADT, Zillmann’s (2000) moral sanction theory of delight and repugnance suggests that moral judgments lead to affective dispositions toward characters. Tamborini et al. (2021) introduce a modified version of the model, or MADT, that presents a framework for moral judgments in narrative viewing that encompasses both the development of dispositions and the assessment of outcomes. Both models suggest that morality assessments determine viewers’ affective dispositions. When viewers find characters’ behaviors noble and morally acceptable, they develop a positive disposition and expect positive outcomes for them. If they find characters’ behaviors morally unacceptable, they develop a negative disposition and expect negative outcomes. To the degree that the outcomes are consistent with viewers’ expectations, they enjoy the drama more.

The agents in cheating movies experience significantly varying punishments, so to reduce the complexity induced by these various outcomes, the current study focuses on the role of moral censoring in the disposition formation process; the edited videos and synopses do not specify the outcomes for participants. Prior literature exploring viewers’ enjoyment of morally problematic characters emphasizes this disposition formation process. For example, Eden et al. (2011) find that the moral judgment of characters in a drama shapes viewers’ liking of these characters, which influences their enjoyment of the drama. Eden et al. (2017) also demonstrate that lower morality ratings of characters are associated with a lower level of drama enjoyment. Furthermore, viewers are more likely to engage in moral scrutiny of a character who engages in morally wrong or ambiguous behaviors (Shafer & Raney, 2012). For example, they likely engage in more negative moral judgments of a character who cheats than of one who loves. Viewers of cheating movies who are instructed to adopt the object’s perspective thus might express a more negative affective disposition toward the agent than viewers of love movies, which could decrease their enjoyment of cheating movies.

H5: Cheating plots reduce viewers’ enjoyment through negative moral judgments of the agent, which result in viewers’ negative affective disposition.

Individual differences also affect viewers’ enjoyment of morally problematic characters (J. E. Black et al., 2019). Viewers vary in their tolerance of morally debatable behaviors (Katz et al., 1994), which may affect their moral judgments. When people’s virtues are made salient (cf. when vices are made salient), narratives featuring a good character induce more positive affect and enjoyment than ones with a morally ambiguous character (Krakowiak & Tsay-Vogel, 2015). In contrast with the idea that viewers act as “untiring moral monitors” who constantly engage in moral censoring (Zillmann, 2000, p. 54), it is more likely that viewers’ tolerance of morally debatable behaviors varies. If they are less tolerant (Katz et al., 1994), they likely engage in moral censoring when watching cheating plots. The moral judgment process triggered by watching cheating versus love plots should be magnified among these viewers.

H6: Tolerance of morally debatable behaviors moderates the effect of plot type on enjoyment, through moral judgments of and disposition toward the agent, such that the path is magnified if viewers express less tolerance of morally debatable behaviors.

Study 3

Design, Participants, and Procedures

This study used the same 2 × 3 design, featuring plot type (love vs. cheating) and movie variation (three levels), as in Study 1 (Supplemental Table A1), to explore how plot type influences viewers’ enjoyment of movies if they take the object’s perspective. In accordance with Albrecht et al.’s (1995) approach, participants were specifically assigned to watch a film clip from this perspective; after reading the synopsis but before watching the assigned clip, explicit instructions on the screen asked them to view the movie clip from the object’s perspective. To facilitate this perspective-taking, the screen also displayed photos of the characters and names of the characters and actors. The movie clips and the assignment approach matched Study 1.

Participants who did not participate in the first two studies were recruited from MTurk, and responses featuring failed attention checks were omitted. The final sample size is 620. The procedures were similar to those in Studies 1 and 2 except that (1) participants first completed a value and lifestyle survey that included scales to capture their romantic beliefs and intolerance of morally debatable behaviors, and (2) they were instructed to view the movie from the object’s perspective. After watching the clip, they indicated their enjoyment, affective states, eudaimonic experiences, identification with the object, perceptions of the morality of the agent, and affective disposition toward the agent. They also completed manipulation check questions.

Measurements

All measures were on 5-point scales, unless specified otherwise.

Manipulation check items for plot type

Depending on the condition to which they had been randomly assigned, participants answered the betrayal or love questions from Study 2.

Viewers’ intolerance of morally debatable behaviors

Participants rated whether they thought each behavior in a list is always justified, never justified, or something in between (e.g., “Lying in your own interest”). These measures reflect a subscale (honest–dishonesty) of the morally debatable behavior scale from Katz et al. (1994). The Cronbach’s α was 0.92. For these reversed scores, higher values indicate participants’ greater intolerance (M = 3.98, SD = 0.96).

Romantic beliefs

Using Sprecher and Metts’s (1989) scale (Cronbach α = 0.88), participants answered six items to capture their agreement with assertions that “love finds a way” (e.g., “If I love someone, I know I can make the relationship work, despite any obstacles,” Cronbach α = 0.87), three items capturing “one and only” (e.g., “There will be only one real love for me,” Cronbach α = 0.86), three items capturing “idealization” (e.g., “The relationship I will have with my true love will be nearly perfect,” Cronbach α = 0.87), and three items capturing “love at first sight” (e.g., “When I find my true love, I will probably know it soon after we meet,” Cronbach α = 0.71) (M = 3.47, SD = 0.64).

Affective states

Participants rated the positive (Cronbach’s α = 0.97) and negative (Cronbach’s α = 0.95) affective state items from Study 2. Their responses to the negative items were reversed and averaged with their responses to the positive items (Cronbach’s α = 0.96; M = 3.26, SD = 1.11).

Identification with the object

Participants rated the degree to which they identified with the object using Tal-Or and Cohen’s (2010) scale (e.g., “During the clip viewing, I could really ‘get inside’ the object’s head”; Cronbach’s α = 0.89; M = 3.69, SD = 0.82). The names of the object and actor were specified in the questions; the names used reflected the movie content.

Eudaimonic experiences

Participants answered seven questions on Oliver and Raney’s (2011) scale, with the wording altered to capture viewing experiences (e.g., “The movie made me reflective”) (Cronbach’s α = 0.91; M = 3.30, SD = 0.97).

Morality of the agent character

Participants rated the agent’s morality using Chang’s (2021) five-item scale: “The agent’s behavior was ethical/not evil/moral/justified/not ill-willed given his/her situation” (Cronbach’s α = 0.94; M = 3.31, SD = 1.18). The names of the agent and actor were specified in the questions; the names used reflected the movie content.

Affective disposition toward the agent character

On Shafer and Raney’s (2012) scale, participants rated the degree to which they liked the agent character (M = 3.53, SD = 1.29).

Enjoyment

Participants rated the same enjoyment scale as in Study 2 (Cronbach’s α = 0.93).

Results

Manipulation checks

Compared with cheating movies (M = 4.37, SD = 0.78), love movies (M = 2.23, SD = 1.14) generated significantly lower betrayal ratings, F (1, 618) = 748.55, p < .01, η² = 0.55. Compared with the cheating movies (M = 3.63, SD = 1.19), the love movies (M = 4.36, SD = 0.71) also generated significantly higher love ratings, F (1, 618) = 85.34, p < .01, η² = 0.12.

Hypothesis testing

Hayes’s (2022) Process macro, with cheating plots coded 1 and love plots coded 0, was adopted to test the customized model in Figure 1. As H2 predicts, the findings of the customized model with 5,000 bootstraps (Supplemental Appendix C) confirm that the indirect effect of plot type on enjoyment, through affective states, is significant (indirect effect = −0.47, bootstrap SE = 0.06, CI: [−0.58, −0.35]). Cheating plots trigger less positive affective states, which leads to less enjoyment (see Supplemental Table A6).

In support of H3, in the customized model, the interaction between plot type and romantic beliefs exerts a significant effect on identification (b = −0.24, SE = 0.10, t = −2.46, p = .01) (Supplemental Figure A3). The results also confirm H4: The meaning-deriving path is moderated by participants’ romantic beliefs (IMM = −0.09, bootstrap SE = 0.04, 95% CI [−0.17, −0.01]), such that the effect of plot type on enjoyment through this path is significant only for participants with stronger romantic beliefs (indirect effect = −0.09, bootstrap SE = 0.03, 95% CI [−0.16, −0.03]), not those who express moderate (indirect effect = −0.03, bootstrap SE = 0.02, 95% CI [−0.08, 0.01]) or low (indirect effect = 0.03, bootstrap SE = 0.04, 95% CI [−0.04, 0.10]) such beliefs.

Consistent with H5, plot type affects enjoyment through its influence on perceptions of the agent’s morality and the participant’s affective disposition toward that agent (indirect effect = −0.18, bootstrap SE = 0.04, 95% CI [−0.25, −0.11]). The findings also confirm H6. First, the interaction effect between plot type and viewers’ moral intolerance on perceptions of the agent’s morality is significant (b = −0.71, SE = 0.06, t = −11.56, p = .01, Supplemental Figure A4). Second, the moral reasoning path is moderated by participants’ moral intolerance (IMM = −0.08, bootstrap SE = 0.02, 95% CI [−0.11, −0.05]). The effect of plot type on enjoyment, through the agent’s morality and affective disposition toward the agent, appears stronger when participants’ moral intolerance is high (indirect effect = −0.25, bootstrap SE = 0.05, 95% CI [−0.36, −0.15]), as opposed to moderate (indirect effect = −0.18, bootstrap SE = 0.04, 95% CI [−0.26, −0.11]) or low (indirect effect = −0.11, bootstrap SE = 0.02, 95% CI [−0.15, −0.06]). Contrast tests also confirm that the effect size of the path among participants with high intolerance is significantly greater than that among those with moderate intolerance (contrast effect = −0.07, bootstrap SE = 0.02, 95% CI [−0.11, −0.04]) and those with low intolerance (contrast effect = −0.15, bootstrap SE = 0.03, 95% CI [−0.22, −0.09]). The effect size of the path among participants with moderate intolerance also is greater than that among those with low intolerance (contrast effect = −0.07, bootstrap SE = 0.02, 95% CI [−0.11, −0.04]).

In another model, featuring three parallel paths but no moderators, Paths 1 (affective states due to goal attainment/failure; indirect effect = −0.47, bootstrap SE = 0.06, 95% CI [−0.58, −0.33]) and 3 (moral judgment in forming an affective disposition; indirect effect = −0.18, bootstrap SE = 0.04, 95% CI [−0.25, −0.11]) are significant, whereas Path 2 (meaning derived through identification; indirect effect = −0.04, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [−0.08, 0.01]) is not. According to contrast tests, the effect size of Path 1 is significantly greater than those of Paths 2 (contrast effect = −0.37, bootstrap SE = 0.05, 95% CI [−0.47, −0.27]) or 3 (contrast effect = −0.25, bootstrap SE = 0.07, 95% CI [−0.38, −0.11]). The effect size of the third path also is significantly greater than that of the second path (contrast effect = −0.12, bootstrap SE = 0.04, 95% CI [−0.20, −0.05]).

Discussion

The findings support the three-path moderated mediation model in Figure 1. Cheating plots, as opposed to love plots, elicit more negative affective responses and, in turn, reduce enjoyment, confirming the affective states resulting from goal simulation path. The results also support the derivation of meaning through the identification path, though the effect of plot type on enjoyment through this path is significant only when viewers have stronger romantic beliefs, not when they have moderate or weak beliefs. In particular, the difference disappeared for the latter two groups of participants. They identified with both loved and betrayed objects to the same degree and could derive meaning from the movie they watched regardless of the featured plots. Such eudaimonic experiences enhance their enjoyment. The findings also confirm the moral judgment in the formation of an affective disposition path. The degree to which viewers refuse to tolerate immoral behaviors moderates the effects of plot type on enjoyment through this path, such that people with less moral tolerance generate stronger negative effects, through their negative evaluations of the agent.

General Discussion

With three studies, this article helps clarify people’s perspective-taking when they watch romantic movies with love and betrayal plots. Notably, in Study 1, viewers are more likely to take the objects’ perspectives when viewing either plot if the objects share their self-identified gender; in Study 2, without any gender matching, viewers instead are more likely to take the object’s perspective only when watching love plots, whereas they are more likely to take the agent’s perspective when viewing betrayal plots (though about one-third still adopt the object’s perspective). Study 2 also demonstrates that perspective orientation induces different emotional responses and enjoyment when viewers watch cheating plots but not love plots. Finally, Study 3 tests a three-path process moderated mediation model to identify the different processes that lead to enjoyment when watching movies with both plot types, from the perspective of the object who shares the viewers’ gender. The evidence in support of both the affective state and morality judgment paths suggests that love plots induce greater enjoyment than cheating plots. In contrast, the superior effects of love plots (cf. cheating plots) on enjoyment through the meaning path are only significant for viewers with strong romantic beliefs. Still, viewers lacking strong romantic beliefs can identify with the object in the cheating plot and derive eudaimonic meaning from their viewing process, which leads to their enjoyment.

These studies extend extant literature in three important ways. First, prior studies of romantic movies tend to focus on portrayals of romantic ideals and their influences on viewers’ romantic beliefs (Galloway et al., 2015; Hefner & Wilson, 2013). By distinguishing two common plots (falling in love and cheating), we demonstrate how and why viewers enjoy them differently. Second, the current research establishes the importance of perspective-taking for understanding viewers’ responses to two common plots. Taking a character’s perspective makes their goals more accessible, which then determines viewers’ enjoyment through their emotional experiences, depending on whether such goals are attained or disrupted. Third, we integrate several influential entertainment-related theories (e.g., mental models of narrative processing, identification as a form of character engagement, eudaimonic experiences as an aspect of viewing experiences, ADT) to delineate three unique psychological processes that account for these different effects of love and cheating plots on movie enjoyment.

The findings enrich ADT in particular. In line with the disposition formation process outlined in ADT (Raney, 2002, 2004; Zillmann, 2000), we confirm that moral judgments of an agent influence viewers’ affective disposition toward that character. Also, consistent with prior research (Eden et al., 2011), we demonstrate that dispositions toward characters affect viewers’ enjoyment. As expected, individual differences are critical in the disposition formation process; participants’ intolerance of morally debatable behaviors amplifies their perceived immorality of the agent’s behaviors. Furthermore, whereas prior research often focuses on one major character and questions whether enjoyment depends on viewers’ affective disposition toward that character and their positive or negative experiences (Raney, 2004), the current study takes a different approach. It demonstrates that, when taking the object’s perspective, viewers evaluate the agent with whom the object interacts, and those evaluations influence their enjoyment. When testing applications of ADT, researchers thus should consider viewers’ perspectives. If viewers take the perspective of the agent, differences in affective dispositions toward that agent might not arise, assuming their perspective-taking prompts matching evaluations (Bortolussi et al., 2018).

Perspective-taking already is a widely explored construct in media psychology literature. Communication research exploring the effects of perspectives often centers on their effects on persuasion (Kim et al., 2020; Nan et al., 2017) but ignores their influence on enjoyment. It also tends to address the effects of a first-person (cf. third-person) perspective (Chen & Bell, 2022), rather than taking the perspective of specific characters. By extending this stream of research, our study addresses the effects of taking a particular character’s perspective on the viewer’s own movie enjoyment.

Finally, our findings help explain why movies depicting betrayal plots often perform as well as love stories (The Numbers, n.d.): Viewers without strong romantic beliefs can identify with the object and derive eudaimonic meaning from their plight. Real life is full of conflicts, struggles, and failure. People whose ideas of love are close to reality likely can find meaning, even in a relationship failure. Whereas prior research has explicated how people develop romantic beliefs (Galloway et al., 2015) and how romantic beliefs influence their romantic relationships (Zagefka & Bahul, 2021), we take a different approach and explore how such beliefs influence viewers’ enjoyment of romantic movies featuring different plots.

Further Research Directions

We propose that goal simulation, triggered by perspective-taking, represents a mechanism that determines affective responses (Studies 2 and 3). Additional analyses (see footnote 6) of participants’ responses in Study 2 confirmed that viewers’ goal-oriented engagement magnified the results of the interaction between relative perspective and plot type on affective states, suggesting that goal attainment or failure might play a role in the process. However, such effects on affective states also might be triggered by other factors, such as being reminded of personal experience or general expectations of how people would feel. Further research might directly gauge whether viewers engage in goal simulation when they adopt a character’s perspectives, to rule out these other possibilities.

To reduce unnecessarily confounding influences of gender discrepancies between objects and viewers, in Study 1, participants watched movies in which the object characters displayed the same gender. In such conditions, they were more likely to take the objects’ perspectives, regardless of plot type. Without such gender matching (Study 2), love plot viewers still adopted the object’s perspective to a greater degree, but betrayal plot viewers were more likely to adopt the agent’s perspective. This difference suggests that matching the object’s self-identified gender increased their likelihood of taking the object’s perspective, but questions surrounding gender differences between objects and viewers and their influences on perspective-taking deserve further investigation.

In the various plots of cheating movies, cheaters’ immoral behaviors are punished to varying degrees. According to ADT, outcome evaluations are important components for drama enjoyment. To reduce this confounding influence, the clips used in this study did not reveal any outcomes. Raney and Bryant (2002) argue that a justice sequence, or “a series of events that portray the committing of a crime and the ultimate consequences experienced by the offender” (p. 404), can influence film enjoyment. Additional research thus might explore whether restored justice moderates viewers’ enjoyment of cheating plots.

As we show, romantic beliefs and the strength of people’s intolerance of immoral behaviors both exert influences, such that the former moderates identification with objects, and the latter moderates their moral censoring of agents. Other individual differences might be relevant too, such as vigilantism, or “favorable attitudes toward retribution and punishment by private citizens” (Raney & Bryant, 2002, p. 407); punitiveness, defined as “attitudes concerning severity of punishment” (Raney & Bryant, 2002, p. 407); a propensity to morally disengage (Krakowiak & Tsay, 2011); or Machiavellianism (J. E. Black et al., 2019). Additional research might test these potential moderators of viewers’ appreciation of betrayal plots.

This article deals with moral judgment; another important construct that influences appreciation of crime dramas is moral disengagement (Bandura, 2002, 2016). In a fictitious, narrative world, people use different mechanisms to accept and defend morally reprehensible behaviors, like displacement, diffusion of responsibility, or distortion of consequences. Moral disengagement is also likely if people try to enjoy a movie with cheating plots. To the degree that people morally disengage, they may be better able to enjoy such movies. Our Study 3 focuses on taking objects’ perspectives and explores viewers’ moral judgment of the agents. Extended research might compare moral judgments expressed by viewers who adopt different characters’ perspectives or when stories are presented from a first- or third-person perspective. For example, a third-person perspective induces more abstract processing than a first-person perspective, so it encourages harsher judgments of people’s own behaviors (Agerström et al., 2013). If viewers watch a betrayal plot as onlookers, they might engage in greater moral censoring.

We take a comparative approach to the effects of watching betrayal versus love plots on enjoyment. Research that focuses on one particular type of plot, such as betrayal plots, could leverage the findings of Study 2 that suggest perspective-taking affects the enjoyment of movies with betrayal plots through affective states. In addition to this path, such studies might consider whether the effect of perspective-taking on enjoyment of betrayal plots can be explained by the derivation of meaning through identification path or the affective disposition toward the interacting character.

Finally, none of our studies explore which factors lead to viewers’ perspective-taking. Some factors reside within viewers, such as an individual capacity to deduce the hidden thoughts and emotions of another person (Myers & Hodges, 2012). Others likely involve the interaction between the characters and viewers, such as whether viewers like the actors who play the characters or find the characters similar to them (e.g., ethnicity, education, social status). Still other factors might relate to the narrators or narration styles. For example, in written narratives, pronouns affect people’s perspectives, such that some pronouns (you, I) encourage an actor’s perspective, whereas others (he, she) prompt an onlooker’s perspective (Brunyé et al., 2009). Narrators’ attitudes and techniques (e.g., whether they offer viewers access to a character’s mind, if a voiceover is present) matter (Bortolussi et al., 2018), and similarly, the camera angles (through the eyes of protagonists vs. observing protagonists’ actions as onlookers) may dictate viewers’ perspective-taking. The salience (screen time) and primacy (appearing earlier) of the different characters likely affects the degree to which viewers take their perspectives too. Further research into these considerations clearly is warranted.

Limitations

Asking MTurk workers to watch full-length movies and ensuring they pay close attention is infeasible, leading us to edit shorter clips from each film to present the core plot (falling in love or cheating). This approach also helps reduce any potential influence of side plots. However, the process of enjoying a full-length film may differ from that of a movie clip, so additional research is needed to test the proposed model with full-length films. This research also does not address how viewers interpret the motives for cheaters’ behaviors, which may provide further insights into their appreciation of cheating plots.

Personal experiences can affect movie enjoyment, especially if perceived similarity with characters increases viewers’ identification (Hoeken et al., 2016; Slater & Rouner, 2002). For example, viewers who have cheated or been cheated on might identify more closely with an agent or object. However, collecting information about such personal information is both difficult and ethically questionable. It also could alert participants to the study’s purpose. Moreover, prior research has demonstrated that people’s responses to inquiries about their extramarital affairs are not reliable (Zapien, 2017). Nevertheless, to gain a full picture of how people appreciate cheating movies, such behaviors might need to be considered.

In Studies 1 and 3, we recruited participants who self-identified as men or women and randomly assigned them to watch movies in which the agent was a woman or man, respectively. We did not pose personal questions about their sexual orientation, nor did we account for nonbinary gender identifications. Gay viewers might respond to heterosexual romances differently than heterosexual viewers, as might people with more fluid gender identities. Again, requesting information about such personal information can be challenging and ethically questionable, but further research might seek ways to integrate such demographic traits.

Finally, it is difficult to identify existing films that differ only in the intended factor (i.e., love and cheating plots) but not in other factors (e.g., agent/object as protagonist, screen time of the agent/object, number of close-up shots of the agent/object). Even though we selected movies that feature the same male and female actors as agents, other variables might influence viewers’ relative perspective-taking or movie enjoyment. Moreover, even though the agents are the same actors in the love and cheating plot conditions, objects are not played by the same actors across the two plot conditions. The attractiveness of the male and female actors playing the object characters might affect viewers’ perspective-taking or character engagement (identification).

Conclusion

This research demonstrates the importance of perspective-taking for determining movie enjoyment. It also provides insights into three distinct processes that can account for varying responses to romantic movies with distinct plot types. These insights should encourage further research into romantic movies, an important genre that often achieves strong box office positions (Demeter, n.d.).

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-crx-10.1177_00936502241261124 – Supplemental material for Enjoyment of Love-Related Dramas and the Implications of Perspective Taking

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-crx-10.1177_00936502241261124 for Enjoyment of Love-Related Dramas and the Implications of Perspective Taking by Chingching Chang in Communication Research

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I appreciate Yi-ming Chiu for editing the videos and Yu-chuan Hung for assisting in data collection on M-Turk.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author received funding from National Science Council (#108-2410-H-001 -108 -SS3).

Open Practices

The data underlying this article can be accessed through this link: .

ORCID iD

Chingching Chang

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biography

Chingching Chang (PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison) is a Distinguished Research Fellow at Academia Sinica in Taiwan, specializing in media and consumer psychology. Her research has appeared in numerous journals, including Journal of Communication, Human Communication Research, Political Communication, Media Psychology, New Media & Society, Science Communication, Journal of Advertising, Health Communication, and Digital Journalism, among others. Her work also spans across diverse fields such as health communication, science communication, advertising, business psychology, and social relationships, reflecting her broad impact across multiple domains of media and psychological research.

References

Agerström

Björklund

Carlsson

(2013). Look at yourself! Visual perspective influences moral judgment by level of mental construal. Social Psychology, 44, 42–46. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000100

Albrecht

J. E.

O’Brien

E. J.

Mason

R. A.

Myers

J. L.

(1995). The role of perspective in the accessibility of goals during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 364–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.2.364

Appel

Mengelkamp

(2022). Watching videos on a smartphone: Do small screens impair narrative transportation? Media Psychology, 25(5), 653–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2021.2025109

Bagozzi

R. P.

Baumgartner

Pieters

(1998). Goal-directed emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 12(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999398379754

Baldassano

Hasson

Norman

K. A.

(2018). Representation of real-world event schemas during narrative perception. Journal of Neuroscience, 38(45), 9689–9699.

Bandura

(2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31(2), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724022014322

Bandura

(2016). Moral disengagement: How people do harm and live with themselves. Worth Publishers.

Bilandzic

Busselle

R. W.

(2011). Enjoyment of films as a function of narrative experience, perceived realism and transportability. Communications, 36(1), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2011.002

Black

J. B.

Turner

T. J.

Bower

G. H.

(1979). Point of view in narrative comprehension, memory, and production. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(2), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90118-X

10.

Black

J. E.

Helmy

Robson

Barnes

J. L.

(2019). Who can resist a villain? Morality, Machiavellianism, imaginative resistance and liking for dark fictional characters. Poetics, 74, 101344.

11.

Bortolussi

Dixon

Linden

(2018). Putting perspective taking in perspective. Review of General Psychology, 22(2), 178–187. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000131

12.

Bower

G. H.

Morrow

D. G.

(1990). Mental models in narrative comprehension. Science, 247(4938), 44–48. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2403694

13.

Brunyé

T. T.

Ditman

Mahoney

C. R.

Augustyn

J. S.

Taylor

H. A.

(2009). When you and I share perspectives: Pronouns modulate perspective taking during narrative comprehension. Psychological Science, 20(1), 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02249.x

14.

Busselle

Bilandzic

(2008). Fictionality and perceived realism in experiencing stories: A model of narrative comprehension and engagement. Communication Theory, 18(2), 255–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00322.x

15.

Busselle

Bilandzic

(2009). Measuring narrative engagement. Media Psychology, 12(4), 321–347.

16.

Cann

Mangum

J. L.

Wells

(2001). Distress in response to relationship infidelity: The roles of gender and attitudes about relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 38(3), 185–190.

17.

Chang

(2006). Beating the news blues: Mood repair through exposure to advertising. Journal of Communication, 56(1), 198–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00010.x

18.

Chang

(2021). How morality judgments influence humor perceptions of prankvertising. International Journal of Advertising, 40(2), 246–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2020.1772648

19.

Chen

Bell

R. A.

(2022). A meta-analysis of the impact of point of view on narrative processing and persuasion in health messaging. Psychology & Health, 37(5), 545–562. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2021.1894331

20.

Chen

Bell

R. A.

Taylor

L. D.

(2016). Narrator point of view and persuasion in health narratives: The role of protagonist–reader similarity, identification, and self-referencing. Journal of Health Communication, 21(8), 908–918. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2016.1177147

21.

Chung

A. H.

Slater

M. D.

(2013). Reducing stigma and out-group distinctions through perspective-taking in narratives. Journal of Communication, 63(5), 894–911. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12050

22.

Cohen

(2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication and Society, 4(3), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0403_01

23.

Cohen

(2002). Deconstructing ally: Explaining viewers’ interpretations of popular television. Media Psychology, 4(3), 253–277. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0403_03

24.

Cohen

(2013). Audience identification with media characters. In Bryant

Vorderer

(Eds.), Psychology of entertainment (pp. 183–197). Routledge.

25.

Cohen

Tal-Or

(2017). Antecedents of identification. In Hakemulder

Kuijpers

M. M.

Tan

E. S.

Bálint

Doicaru

M. M.

(Eds.), Narrative absorption (pp. 133–153). John Benjamins.

26.

Costabile

K. A.

(2016). Narrative construction, social perceptions, and the situation model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(5), 589–602.

27.

Demeter

(n.d.). Which movie genres earned the most at the box office between 1980 and 2020? Cutting Room Music. https://cuttingroommusic.com/2021/04/20/which-movie-genres-earned-the-most-at-the-box-office-between-1980-and-2020/

28.

Dixon

Bortolussi

(2019). Readers’ processing of perceptual perspective and stance. Discourse Processes, 56(7), 513–529.

29.

Eden

Daalmans

Johnson

B. K.

(2017). Morality predicts enjoyment but not appreciation of morally ambiguous characters. Media Psychology, 20(3), 349–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2016.1182030

30.

Eden

Grizzard

Lewis

R. J.

(2011). Disposition development in drama: The role of moral, immoral and ambiguously moral characters. International Journal of Arts and Technology, 4(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijart.2011.037768

31.

Forster

R. R. T.

(2021). Character engagement and identification. In Kuiken

Jacobs

A. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of empirical literary studies (pp. 251–275). De Gruyter.

32.

Foss

C. L.

Bower

G. H.

(1986). Understanding actions in relation to goals. In Sharkey

N. E.

(Ed.), Advances in cognitive science (Vol. 1, pp. 94–124). Horwood.

33.

Frazer

Moyer-Gusé

Grizzard

(2022). Moral disengagement cues and consequences for victims in entertainment narratives: An experimental investigation. Media Psychology, 25(4), 619–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2022.2034020

34.

Frisoni

Di Ghionno

Guidotti

Tosoni

Sestieri

(2023). Effects of a narrative template on memory for the time of movie scenes: Automatic reshaping is independent of consolidation. Psychological Research, 87(2), 598–612.

35.

Galloway

Engstrom

Emmers-Sommer

T. M.

(2015). Does movie viewing cultivate young people’s unrealistic expectations about love and marriage? Marriage & Family Review, 51(8), 687–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2015.1061629

36.

Ghosh

V. E.

Gilboa

(2014). What is a memory schema? A historical perspective on current neuroscience literature. Neuropsychologia, 53, 104–114.

37.

Hayes

A. F.

(2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.

38.

Hefner

(2019). Does love conquer all? An experiment testing the association between types of romantic comedy content and reports of romantic beliefs and life satisfaction. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 8, 376–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000201

39.

Hefner

Kretz

V. E.

(2021). Does the glass slipper fit? Disney princess films and relationship beliefs and attitudes. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 33(3), 125–133. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000290

40.

Hefner

Wilson

B. J.

(2013). From love at first sight to soul mate: The influence of romantic ideals in popular films on young people’s beliefs about relationships. Communication Monographs, 80, 150–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2013.776697

41.

Hoeken

Kolthoff

Sanders

(2016). Story perspective and character similarity as drivers of identification and narrative persuasion. Human Communication Research, 42(2), 292–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12076

42.

Liu

Cai

(2022). Whose bed have your boots been under? People’s expected responses toward celebrities’ romantic relationship infidelity. Psychology of Popular Media. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000450

43.

Igartua

J.-J.

(2010). Identification with characters and narrative persuasion through fictional feature films. Communications, 35(4), 347–373. https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2010.019

44.

Igartua

J. J.

Barrios

(2012). Changing real-world beliefs with controversial movies: Processes and mechanisms of narrative persuasion. Journal of Communication, 62(3), 514–531. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01640.x

45.

Igartua

J.-J.

Barrios

(2013). Hedonic and eudaimonic motives for watching feature films. Validation of the Spanish version of Oliver–Raney’s scale. Communications, 38(4), 411–431. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2013-0024

46.

Johnson

K. A.

(2007). Unrealistic portrayals of sex, love, and romance in popular wedding films. In Galician

Merskin

D. L.

(Eds.), Critical thinking about sex, love, and romance in the mass media. (pp. 355–366). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

47.

Katz

R. C.

Santman

Lonero

(1994). Findings on the revised morally debatable behaviors scale. Journal of Psychology, 128(1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1994.9712707

48.

Keppel

Wickens

W. D.

(2013). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook (5th ed.). Prentice-Hall.

49.

Kim

H. K.

Wojcieszak

Igartua

J.-J.

Lim

C. M.

(2020). The presence of the protagonist: Explaining narrative perspective effects through social presence. Media Psychology, 23(6), 891–914. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2019.1665548

50.

Knee

C. R.

Patrick

Lonsbary

(2003). Implicit theories of relationships: Orientations toward evaluation and cultivation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR070

51.

Knobloch-Westerwick

Gong

Hagner

Kerbeykian

(2013). Tragedy viewers count their blessings: Feeling low on fiction leads to feeling high on life. Communication Research, 40(6), 747–766. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212437758

52.

Krakowiak

K. M.

Oliver

M. B.

(2012). When good characters do bad things: Examining the effect of moral ambiguity on enjoyment. Journal of Communication, 62(1), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01618.x

53.

Krakowiak

K. M.

Tsay

(2011). The role of moral disengagement in the enjoyment of real and fictional characters. International Journal of Arts and Technology, 4(1), 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijart.2011.037772

54.

Krakowiak

K. M.

Tsay-Vogel

(2015). The dual role of morally ambiguous characters: Examining the effect of morality salience on narrative responses. Human Communication Research, 41(3), 390–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12050

55.

Magliano

J. P.

Taylor

H. A.

Kim

H.-J. J.

(2005). When goals collide: Monitoring the goals of multiple characters. Memory & Cognition, 33(8), 1357–1367. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193368

56.

Mandler

J. M.

(2014). Stories, scripts, and scenes: Aspects of schema theory. Psychology Press.

57.

Mazzocco

P. J.

Green

M. C.

Brock

T. C.

(2007). The effects of a prior story-bank on the processing of a related narrative. Media Psychology, 10(1), 64–90.

58.

Morrow

(2001). Situation models and point of view in narrative understanding. In van Peer

Chatman

(Eds.) New Perspectives on Narrative Perspective (pp. 225–239). SUNY Press.

59.

Morrow

D. G.

Bower

G. H.

Greenspan

S. L.

(1989). Updating situation models during narrative comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(3), 292–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90035-1

60.

Morrow

D. G.

Greenspan

S. L.

Bower

G. H.

(1987). Accessibility and situation models in narrative comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(2), 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(87)90122-7

61.

Myers

M. W.

Hodges

S. D.

(2012). Making it up and making do: Simulation, imagination, and empathic accuracy. In Markman

K. D.

Klein

W. K. P.

Suhr

J. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of imagination and mental simulation (pp. 281–294). Psychology Press.

62.

Nan

Futerfas

(2017). Role of narrative perspective and modality in the persuasiveness of public service advertisements promoting HPV vaccination. Health Communication, 32(3), 320–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1138379

63.

Oatley

(1995). A taxonomy of the emotions of literary response and a theory of identification in fictional narrative. Poetics, 23(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(94)P4296-S

64.

Oatley

(1999). Meetings of minds: Dialogue, sympathy, and identification, in reading fiction. Poetics, 26(5), 439–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-422X(99)00011-X

65.

Oliver

M. B.

Bartsch

(2010). Appreciation as audience response: Exploring entertainment gratifications beyond hedonism. Human Communication Research, 36(1), 53–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01368.x

66.

Oliver

M. B.

Hartmann

. (2010). Exploring the role of meaningful experiences in users’ appreciation of “good movies”. Projections, 4(2), 128–150.

67.

Oliver

M. B.

Raney

A. A.

(2011). Entertainment as pleasurable and meaningful: Identifying hedonic and eudaimonic motivations for entertainment consumption. Journal of Communication, 61(5), 984–1004. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01585.x

68.

Rall

Harris

P. L.

(2000). In Cinderella’s slippers? Story comprehension from the protagonist’s point of view. Developmental Psychology, 36, 202–208. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.36.2.202

69.

Raney

A. A.

(2002). Moral judgment as a predictor of enjoyment of crime drama. Media Psychology, 4(4), 305–322. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0404_01

70.

Raney

A. A.

(2004). Expanding disposition theory: Reconsidering character liking, moral evaluations, and enjoyment. Communication Theory, 14(4), 348–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00319.x

71.

Raney

A. A.

Bryant

(2002). Moral judgment and crime drama: An integrated theory of enjoyment. Journal of Communication, 52(2), 402–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02552.x

72.

Raney

A. A.

Schmid

Niemann

Ellensohn

(2009, May). Testing affective disposition theory: A comparison of the enjoyment of hero and antihero narratives [Paper presentation]. 59th Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago, IL, United States.

73.

Rasul

Shin

Beede

(2022). Fictional politainment: Exposure to international television drama and attitude toward female politicians. International Communication Gazette. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17480485221097250

74.

Seabrook

R. C.

Ward

L. M.

Reed

Manago

Giaccardi

Lippman

J. R.

(2016). Our scripted sexuality: The development and validation of a measure of the heterosexual script and its relation to television consumption. Emerging Adulthood, 4(5), 338–355.

75.

Shafer

D. M.

Raney

A. A.

(2012). Exploring how we enjoy antihero narratives. Journal of Communication, 62(6), 1028–1046. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01682.x

76.

Slater

M. D.

Rouner

(2002). Entertainment—education and elaboration likelihood: Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory, 12(2), 173–191. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00265.x

77.

Sprecher

Metts

(1989). Development of the Romantic Beliefs Scale and examination of the effects of gender and gender-role orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6(4), 387–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407589064001

78.

Tal-Or

Cohen

(2010). Understanding audience involvement: Conceptualizing and manipulating identification and transportation. Poetics, 38(4), 402–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2010.05.004

79.

Tamborini

Grizzard

Hahn

Kryston

Ulusoy

. (2021). The role of narrative cues in shaping ADT: What makes audiences think that good things happened to good people? In Vorderer

Klimmt

(eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Entertainment Theory (pp. 311–342). Oxford University Press.

80.

Tanner

L. R.

Haddock

S. A.

Zimmerman

T. S.

Lund

L. K.

(2003). Images of couples and families in Disney feature-length animated films. American Journal of Family Therapy, 31(5), 355–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926180390223987

81.

The Numbers. (n.d.). Top 2014 movies at the domestic box office. https://www.the-numbers.com/box-office-records/domestic/all-movies/cumulative/released-in-2014

82.

Timmermans

Coenen

Van den Bulck

(2019). The Bridget Jones effect: The relationship between exposure to romantic media contents and fear of being single among emerging adults. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 8(2), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000175

83.

van Peer

Maat

H. P

. (2001). Narrative perspective and the interpretation of characters’ motives. Language and Literature, 10(3), 229–241.

84.

Wirth

Hofer

Schramm

(2012). Beyond pleasure: Exploring the eudaimonic entertainment experience. Human Communication Research, 38(4), 406–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01434.x

85.

Zagefka

Bahul

(2021). Beliefs that contribute to dissatisfaction in romantic relationships. The Family Journal, 29(2), 153–160.

86.

Zapien

(2017). Participation bias and social desirability effects in research on extramarital affairs: Considerations of meaning and implications for sexual behavior research [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 1565–1571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1020-7

87.

Ziegler

Mitchell

Currie

(2005). How does narrative cue children’s perspective taking? Developmental Psychology, 41(1), 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.1.115

88.

Zillmann

(2000). Basal morality in drama appreciation. In Bondebjerg

(Ed.), Moving images, culture, and the mind (pp. 53–63). University of Luton.

89.

Zillmann

Cantor

J. R.

(1977). Affective responses to the emotions of a protagonist. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(2), 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(77)80008-5

90.

Zwaan

R. A.

(1999). Situation models: The mental leap into imagined worlds. Current Directions in Psychological science, 8(1), 15–18.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.10 MB

Enjoyment of Love-Related Dramas and the Implications of Perspective Taking

Abstract

Keywords

Perspective Taking

Mental Models of Narrative Processing

Romantic Movies

Study 1

Design, Participants, and Procedures

Measurements

Results iv

Discussion

Perspective-Taking

Goal Accessibility in Mental Models

Movie Enjoyment

Study 2

Design, Participants, and Procedures

Measurements

Manipulation check items for plot type

Perspective-taking

Affective states

Enjoyment

Results

Manipulation checks

Perspective taking

Relative perspectives

Categorical responses

Discussion

Process Differences for Enjoying Moves With Love Versus Cheating Plots

Path 1 (Object-Centered): Goal Fulfillment/Disruption and Affective States

Path 2 (Object-Centered): Meaning Derivation Through Identification

Path 3 (Agent-Centered): Moral Judgment in the Formation of Affective Disposition

Study 3

Design, Participants, and Procedures

Measurements

Manipulation check items for plot type

Viewers’ intolerance of morally debatable behaviors

Romantic beliefs

Affective states

Identification with the object

Eudaimonic experiences

Morality of the agent character

Affective disposition toward the agent character

Enjoyment

Results

Manipulation checks

Hypothesis testing

Discussion

General Discussion

Further Research Directions

Limitations

Conclusion

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-crx-10.1177_00936502241261124 – Supplemental material for Enjoyment of Love-Related Dramas and the Implications of Perspective Taking

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Open Practices

ORCID iD

Supplemental Material

Notes

Author Biography

References

Supplementary Material

Results^iv