Moral Schemas in Crime Dramas: the Matter of Context for the Activation of an Antihero Schema and Its Impact on Moral Judgment Making Sophie H
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2013 Moral Schemas in Crime Dramas: The Matter of Context for the Activation of an Antihero Schema and Its Impact on Moral Judgment Making Sophie H. Janicke Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION MORAL SCHEMAS IN CRIME DRAMAS: THE MATTER OF CONTEXT FOR THE ACTIVATION OF AN ANTIHERO SCHEMA AND ITS IMPACT ON MORAL JUDGMENT MAKING By SOPHIE H. JANICKE A Dissertation submitted to the School of Communication in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2013 Sophie Helga Janicke defended this dissertation on October 14, 2013. The members of the supervisory committee were: Arthur Raney Professor Directing Dissertation David McNaughton University Representative Laura Arpan Committee Member Juliann Cortese Committee Member The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements. ii This dissertation is dedicated to my loving grandmother Prof. Dr. Helga Fischer (1926-2011) and awesome sister Romy. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to send out a great thank you to my advisor Dr. Arthur Raney. Without his incredible mentorship I would have never made it thus far. Back in 2008, he kindly agreed to advise me on my final Diplom thesis, taking on an extra work load that went completely beyond his call of duty. I am truly grateful for this opportunity he gave me back then. Now, at the end of my Ph.D. program, I can say that being one of Dr. Raney’s mentee’s was the greatest work experience I have ever had. His dedication as a teacher left me inspired, motivated and richer for the experience. He taught me that the right amount of challenge, guidance, and respect in the classroom pushes, students beyond what they would have imagined. His dedication as a researcher, to always ask the big “why does it matter” question, has taught me to always look at the bigger picture. Finally, Dr. Raney was a great mentor on a personal level, truly caring, which helped me to remember that we, first and foremost, are humans and not research robots, which is something easily forgotten on the challenging journey through the Ph.D. program. I am most grateful for Dr. Raney’s support during the dissertation writing process and I’m looking forward to further collaborations in the years to come. I also would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Laura Arpan for her kindness to be always approachable and for her advice on class preparation, methodological and statistical problems, and her kind encouragement during the job application process. I am most grateful for her understanding and words of comfort in hard times. I also would like to thank Dr. Juliann Cortese and Dr. David McNaughton for serving on my dissertation committee and providing me with their critical insight and expertise. Finally, I would like thank Dr. Steve McDowell and the Department of Communication supporting my 3D research financially, allowing me to attend conferences, network, and publish this research. I also would like to thank Dr. Ulla Sypher for her advice on teaching and her insight on the cultural peculiarities of the American university system. Last, I am most grateful that I had the opportunity to meet, and make friends with, so many wonderful people over the course of the program. Thank you Gin, Ania, Asha, Shruti, Andy, and my wonderful office mate Wanda, for the great time. I also would like to thank my partner Jordon Andrade for watching “24” with me, and bearing with me on the billion times I talked about “antiheroes” and “moral schemas” over dinner. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix List of Figures ................................................................................................................... xi Abstract ............................................................................................................................. xii 1. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1 Problem Statement ...................................................................................................4 Importance of the Study ...........................................................................................6 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...............................................................................................8 Defining Antiheroes .................................................................................................8 Story Schemas ........................................................................................................10 Differences between Hero and Antihero Schemas ....................................12 Typicality and facilitation effect ....................................................16 Dual-Process Theories of Information Processing ................................................18 Moral Intuitions .........................................................................................21 Moral Reasoning ........................................................................................21 The Model of Intuitive Morality and Exemplars (MIME).........................22 How Deliberate Appraisals can become Automatic: An Argument for the Schema Approach ...........................................................................................24 Attitude Accessibility.................................................................................26 Approval of Immoral Actions ....................................................................30 3. STUDY ONE .................................................................................................................32 Hypotheses of Study One.......................................................................................32 Study One Methodology ........................................................................................34 Sample........................................................................................................34 Procedure ...................................................................................................34 Stimulus material ...........................................................................35 Dependent variables .......................................................................35 Study One Results and Discussion ........................................................................39 Data Cleaning.............................................................................................39 Hypotheses Testing ....................................................................................40 v Results and discussion of H1 .........................................................40 Results and discussion of H2 .........................................................46 Conclusion of Study One .......................................................................................51 Limitations of Study One ...........................................................................52 4. GOALS AND GENERAL METHODS OF STUDY TWO ..........................................55 Hypotheses of Study Two ......................................................................................56 General Methods of Study Two .............................................................................61 Design and Sample ...................................................................................61 Demographics ............................................................................................63 Procedure ...................................................................................................64 Discussion Plan for Study Two..................................................................66 5. STUDY TWO, TREATMENT 1 ...................................................................................68 Methods..................................................................................................................68 Stimulus Material: Television Narrative ....................................................68 Revenge (“Pilot”, 2003, 42 minutes) .............................................70 Cold Case (“Look again”, 2003, 42 minutes) ................................70 Independent Variables ...............................................................................71 Social justice ..................................................................................71 Moral disengagement tendency .....................................................71 Moral disengagement tendency time 2 ..........................................71 Currently watching an antihero show ............................................72 Dependent Variables ..................................................................................72 Typicality evaluations (DV1) ........................................................73 In and out of context character evaluations (DV2) ........................76 Manipulation Checks .................................................................................79 Results ....................................................................................................................81