Canned Emotions. Effects of Genre and Audience Reaction on Emotions

in Art & Perception
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Laughter is said to be contagious. Maybe this is why TV stations often choose to add so-called canned laughter to their shows. Questionable as this practice may be, observers seem to like it. If such a simple manipulation, assumingly by inducing positive emotion, can change our attitudes toward the film, does the opposite manipulation work as well? Does a negative sound-track, such as screaming voices, have comparable effects in the opposite direction? We designed three experiments with a total of 110 participants to test whether scream-tracks have comparable effects on the evaluation of film sequences as do laugh-tracks. Experiment 1 showed segments of comedies, scary, and neutral films and crossed them with three sound tracks of canned laughter, canned screams, and no audience sound. Observers had to rate the degree of their subjective amusement and fear as well as general liking and immersion. The sound-tracks had independent effects on amusement and fear, and increased immersion when the sound was appropriate. Experiment 2 was identical, but instead of canned sounds, confederates of the experimenter enacted the sound-track. Here, the effects were even stronger. Experiment 3 manipulated social pressure by explicit evaluations of the film clips, which were particularly influential in comedies. Scream tracks worked as well as laugh tracks, in particular when the film was only mildly funny or scary. The information conveyed by a sound track is able to change the evaluation of films regardless of their emotional nature.

Sections

References

Asch S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgments, in: Groups, Leadership and Men, Guetzkow H. (Ed.), pp. 177190. Carnegie Press, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

Backhaus N. and Brandenburg S. (2014). Emotions in the movies – Is there a need for a new film set for emotion elicitation? in: TeaP 2014: Abstracts of the 56th Conference of Experimental Psychologists, Schütz A. C. , Drewing K. and Gegenfurtner K. R. (Eds), p. 18, Pabst Science Publishers, Lengerich, Germany.

Chapman A. J. (1973). Funniness of jokes, canned laughter and recall performance, Sociometry 36, 569578.

Chapman A. J. and Chapman W. A. (1974). Responsiveness to humor: Its dependency upon a companion’s humorous smiling and laughter, J. Psychol. 88 , 245252.

Donoghue E. E. , McCarrey M. W. and Clément R. (1983). Humour appreciation as a function of canned laughter, a mirthful companion, and field dependence: Facilitation and inhibitory effects, Can. J. Behav. Sci. 15 , 150162.

Ekman P. , Friesen W. V. and Ancoli S. (1980). Facial signs of emotional experience, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 39 , 11251134.

Fuller R. G. C. and Sheehy-Skeffington A. (1974). Effects of group laughter on responses to humorous material, a replication and extension, Psychol. Rep. 35 , 531534.

Gross J. J. and Levenson R. W. (1995). Eliciting emotions using films, Cogn. Emot. 9, 87108.

Lawson T. J. , Downing B. and Cetola H. (1998). An attributional explanation for the effect of audience laughter on perceived funniness, Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 20 , 243249.

Leventhal H. and Mace W. (1970). The effect of laughter on evaluation of a slapstick movie, J. Pers. 31 , 1630.

Lieberman E. A. , Neuendorf K. A. , Denny J. Skalski P. D. and Wang J. (2009). The language of laughter: A quantitative/qualitative fusion examining television narrative and humor, J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 53, 497514.

Nonsanchuk T. A. and Lightstone J. (1974). Canned laughter and public and private conformity, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 29, 153156.

Pistole D. D. and Shor R. E. (1979). A multivariate study of the effect of repetition on humor appreciation as qualified by two social influence factors, J. Gen. Psychol. 100 , 4351.

Platow M. J. , Haslam S. A. , Both A. , Chew I , Cuddon M. , Goharpey N. , Maurera J. , Rosinia S. , Tsekourasa A. and Gracec D. M. (2005). “It’s not funny if they’re laughing”: Self-categorization, social influence, and responses to canned laughter, J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 41 , 542550.

Provine R. R. (1992). Contagious laughter: Laughter is a sufficient stimulus for laughs and smiles, Bull. Psychonom. Soc. 30 , 14.

Provine R. R. (2000). Laughter: A Scientific Investigation . Penguin Books, New York, NY, USA.

Shariff A. F. and Tracy J. L. (2011). What are emotion expressions for? Curr Dir. Psychol. Sci. 20 , 395399.

Smyth M. M. and Fuller R. G. C. (1972). Effects of group laughter on responses to humorous material, Psychol. Rep. 30 , 132134.

Vraga E. K. , Johnson C. N. , Carr D. J. , Bode J. and Bard M. T. (2014). Filmed in front of a live studio audience: Laughter and aggression in political entertainment programming. J. Broadcast Electron. Media 58 , 131150.

Figures

  • Mean intensity of emotional ratings for the target emotions, from 0 (not at all) to 8 (very strong). Error bars represent standard deviations.

    View in gallery
  • Set-up of Experiments 1 and 2. The seats marked in gray were only present in the second experiment. Subscript numbers indicate to which experiment/s the seats belonged. The pre-study took place in the same room with a very similar set-up. E = experimenter, S = subject, C = confederate.

    View in gallery
  • Mean scores of the dependent variables amusement (Fig. 3A) and fear (Fig. 3B) divided by genre and audience sound. Ratings ranged from 0 (not at all) to 8 (very strongly). Error bars indicate standard error of the mean.

    View in gallery
  • Means and standard deviations for the target emotions amusement (A) and fear (B). Values ranged from 0 (not at all) to 8 (very much). Error bars indicate SEM.

    View in gallery
  • Set-up of Experiment 3. E = experimenter, C1–3 = confederates, S = subject, TA = technical assistant.

    View in gallery
  • Inconsistent pressure led to a stronger deviation from the original movie rating than inconsistent pressure. Error bars represent standard deviation.

    View in gallery

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 25 25 10
Full Text Views 19 19 12
PDF Downloads 6 6 6
EPUB Downloads 4 4 3