Florida State University Libraries

Home , A Fairly Odd Christmas, ChalkZone, Invader Zim, The Fairly OddParents, Time Squad

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2017 Memories of Children's Cartoons: A Look into the Relationship between Nostalgia and Parasocial Relationships in Movie Adaptations Joshua Aaron Baldwin

Follow this and additional works at the DigiNole: FSU's Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected] FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION

MEMORIES OF CHILDREN’S CARTOONS: A LOOK INTO THE RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN NOSTALGIA AND PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS IN MOVIE

ADAPTATIONS

JOSHUA AARON BALDWIN

A Thesis submitted to the School of Communication in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science

2017

Joshua Aaron Baldwin defended this thesis on April 14, 2017. The members of the supervisory committee were:

Arthur Raney Professor Directing Thesis

Russell Clayton Committee Member

Laura Arpan Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the thesis has been approved in accordance with university requirements.

This thesis is dedicated to my wife, Caitlyn Baldwin, who has been the most patient and vigilant through my academic journey. You are delightful, wonderful, and intelligent, and I thank you for

continuing to inspire new ideas for my curiosity and research.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deep gratitude to my committee chair, Dr. Arthur Raney, for all of his help and advice that he has gifted me over the course of grad school and for this thesis.

I was first inspired to go into Communication research when I took his Introduction to Mass

Media course as an undergraduate, and I thought to myself, “I wanted his job.” Thank you for your wisdom and example, and I couldn’t have gone this far without you.

I also want to express my appreciation to my committee members, Dr. Russell Clayton and Dr. Arpan, who have taught me valuable lessons in Communication theory and research within media effects. Both have introduced me to important concepts in the field that I keep a hold of everyday and elicit my curiosity.

Lastly, I want to thank my family for all of their support throughout my academic journey. My father serve as a mentored as to how to become a productive graduate student, and my mother continues to sacrifice her time and talents for the best for me. Most of all, I give my full gratitude and honor to my wife, Caitlyn, for all that she have done to support my physical, mental, and emotional wellbeing.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...... vi ABSTRACT ...... viii 1. INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 Justification for Study ...... 1 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 4 2.1 Remakes, Rereleases, Adaptations, and Sequels ...... 4 2.2 Movie Adaptations...... 6 2.3 Parasocial Interactions/Relationships ...... 6 2.4 Nostalgia ...... 10 2.5 Interactions Between Parasocial Relationships and Nostalgia ...... 14 3. METHODOLOGY ...... 17 3.1 Study Design ...... 17 3.2 Stimuli ...... 17 3.3 Participants ...... 19 3.4 Procedures and Measurements ...... 20 4. RESULTS ...... 23 4.1 Parasocial Relationships ...... 23 4.2 Nostalgia-Proneness...... 30 4.3 Interactions Between Parasocial Relationships and Nostalgia ...... 35 5. DISCUSSION ...... 38 5.1 Overview of Findings ...... 38 5.2 Limitations ...... 45 5.3 Suggestions for Future Research ...... 46 5.4 Conclusion ...... 47 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS ...... 48 APPENDIX B IRB APPROVAL LETTER AND INFORMED CONSENT ...... 53 REFERENCES ...... 55 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 61

LIST OF TABLES

1. Descriptive Statistics for Knowledge for Potential Children’s Cartoons for Stimuli ...... 18

2. Pearson r Correlations Between PSF and Dependent Variables in the Combined Treatment Group ...... 23

3. Pearson r Correlations Between PSF and Dependent Variables with Kim Possible ...... 24

4. Pearson r Correlations Between PSF and Dependent Variables with The Fairly Oddparents...... 24

5. Pearson r Correlations Between PSF and Dependent Variables in the Combined Control Group ...... 24

6. Pearson r Correlations Between PSF and Dependent Variables with Teenage Spy ...... 25

7. Pearson r Correlations Between PSF and Dependent Variables with Greek Out ...... 25

8. Results of t-test and Descriptive Statistics for PSI between High and Low PSF Groups in Treatment, Kim Possible, and The Fairly Oddparents Groups ...... 26

9. Results of t-test and Descriptive Statistics for PSI between High and Low PSF Groups in Control, Teenage Spy and Greek Out Groups ...... 27

10. Results of t-test and Descriptive Statistics for Enjoyment between High and Low PSF Groups in Treatment, Kim Possible, and The Fairly Oddparents Groups ...... 27

11. Results of t-test and Descriptive Statistics for Enjoyment between High and Low PSF Groups in Control, Teenage Spy and Greek Out Groups ...... 28

12. Results of t-test and Descriptive Statistics for Viewing Intentions between High and Low PSF Groups in Treatment, Kim Possible, and The Fairly Oddparents Groups ...... 29

13. Results of t-test and Descriptive Statistics for Viewing Intentions between High and Low PSF Groups in Control, Teenage Spy and Greek Out Groups ...... 30

14. 14. Pearson r Correlations Between Nostalgia-Proneness and Dependent Variables in the Combined Treatment Group ...... 30

15. Pearson r Correlations Between Nostalgia-Proneness and Dependent Variables with Kim Possible ...... 31

16. Pearson r Correlations Between Nostalgia-Proneness and Dependent Variables with The Fairly Oddparents ...... 31

17. Pearson r Correlations Between Nostalgia-Proneness and Dependent Variables in the Combined Control Group ...... 32

18. Pearson r Correlations Between Nostalgia-Proneness and Dependent Variables with Teenage Spy ...... 32

19. Pearson r Correlations Between Nostalgia-Proneness and Dependent Variables with Greek Out ...... 32

20. Results of t-test and Descriptive Statistics for Personal Nostalgia between High and Low Nostalgia-Proneness Groups in Treatment, Kim Possible and The Fairly Oddparents Groups ...... 33

21. Results of t-test and Descriptive Statistics for the Personal Nostalgia between High and Low Nostalgia-Proneness Groups in Control, Teenage Spy and Greek Out Groups ...... 33

22. Results of t-test and Descriptive Statistics for Viewing Intentions between High and Low Nostalgia-Proneness Groups in Treatment, Kim Possible and The Fairly Oddparents Groups ...... 35

23. Results of t-test and Descriptive Statistics for the Viewing Intentions between High and Low Nostalgia-Proneness Groups in Control, Teenage Spy and Greek Out Groups ...... 35

24. Pearson r Correlations for Treatment Group ...... 36

25. Pearson r Correlations for Kim Possible Group ...... 36

26. Pearson r Correlations for The Fairly Oddparents Group ...... 36

27. Pearson r Correlations between Personal Nostalgia, Enjoyment, and Viewing Intentions .... 37

28. Pretest Questionnaire ...... 48

29. Multiple Parasocial Relationship Scale ...... 48

30. Nostalgia-Proneness Inventory ...... 49

31. Dependent Variables Scales...... 51

vii

ABSTRACT

This study examines why one may select and enjoy movie adaptations compared to original movies, through the lens of entertainment and media effect theories. The researcher hypothesized that two constructs, parasocial relationships and nostalgia, which can be observed and predicted through individual differences, are important factors to consider when researching the selection and enjoyment processes associated with entertainment media. Using a 2 x 2 online experimental design, this study tested how participants reacted towards movie storyboards portraying potential movie adaptations based on children’s cartoon shows in order to explore differences between enjoyment, viewing intentions, parasocial interactions, and nostalgic experiences between participants with different levels of nostalgia-proneness and parasocial relationships with established cartoon characters. Results show that those with stronger parasocial relationships with the cartoon characters enjoyed the storyboards more and had stronger intentions to watch the full movie. Results also showed that those with higher nostalgia-proneness were more likely to want to watch the full movie.

viii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Over the last few decades, remakes, adaptations, and sequels of established media franchises have become quite successful and popular. A casual observation reveals this interest for unoriginal works. For example, two movies from well-known franchises, Star Wars and

Jurassic Park, ranked as the highest grossing movies in 2015 (King, 2016). In 2013, seven of the ten most purchased DVDs and Blu-Rays were non-original franchises (Tops of 2013:

Entertainment, 2013). Further, comic books have been adapted into Netflix shows, video games such as Legend of Zelda and God of War have been ported in high definition formats for the current generation consoles, and television shows such as The X-Files have returned with new seasons after more than a decade of being off the air. While many scholarly perspectives within communication have tackled the question as to why media franchises are successful (e.g., Chang

& Ki, 2005; Simonton, 2009; Bohnenkamp et. al., 2015), this thesis argues that audience desire for remakes, adaptations, and sequels can be explained and empirically tested through entertainment theory. More specifically, the researcher investigated the roles that parasocial relationships with franchised characters and the appeal of nostalgia play in the selection and enjoyment process of non-original content. This study builds upon the current literature by testing whether or not movie adaptations from childhood cartoons are more enjoyable and more likely to be selected for viewing than original media content.

1.1 Justification for Study

The justification behind this approach is twofold. The first is that, while media selection has been explored through theories such as mood management, selective exposure, and uses and gratification, the selection of familiar franchises has not been sufficiently explored from the

viewer’s perspective. While theories such as emotional conditioning (Thorson, 1989) and mere exposure effect (Zajonc, 1968) may in part explain the habitual behavior of media selection and enjoyment of franchised content and political economy theory (Murdock & Golding, 1973) may provide an explanation as to while media companies reuse content, they cannot explain all of the variance in the phenomenon. Therefore, this study incorporated one of the traditional concepts within entertainment theory, parasocial relationships, to explain why one may select and enjoy adaptations.

Secondly, viewers of long-term franchises may select newer content from that franchise in order to engage in a eudaimonic experience. As opposed to the hedonic paradigm which conceptualizes enjoyment as a means to obtain pleasure, eudaimonic research explores how media consumption can promote well-being and appreciation (Schreier, 2011). Such experiences may be elicited by franchised content as viewers are provided an opportunity to piece together storylines and character elements from previous iterations of the same narrative. For example, a fan of the Aliens motion picture series may experience appreciation as s/he observes that the developers of the video game Aliens Isolation kept the retro sci-fi style of the space station instead of using a modern interpretation. Similarly, someone could watch the remake of the film

True Grit and appreciate how the writers kept it within the classical tropes of a Spaghetti

Western. These types of experiences may allow for a more critical reading of the content, which may appeal to certain cognitive and emotional needs. Eudaimonic research is relatively new in the field of entertainment research, and this thesis sought to contribute to this literature.

Therefore, this project explored one particular eudaimonic reaction, nostalgia, in relation to media selection and parasocial relationships. Conceptually this resonates with the assumptions of the uses and gratification approach: If a viewer holds a parasocial relationship with a media

character (or persona), then s/he may desire to engage again with that character in order to invoke a nostalgia experience over time.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Remakes, Rereleases, Adaptations, and Sequels

Research examining why returning franchises are often successful has been traditionally conducted in the economic and marketing traditions of communication. From an economic standpoint, Chang and Ki (2005) argued that movies are an experience product, in which the purchaser does not know the valence of the product until after purchase. With their review of secondary data from IMDb.com, they found that sequels had a significant positive relationship with total and first-week box office sales and length of movie’s theater run. Simonton (2009) argued that movie sequels and remakes are often successful because their predecessors served as free marketing. He also argued that adaptations are more often critically successful, especially if movies are based on classic literature. Bohnenkamp and colleagues (2015) also evaluated variables related to the success of movie remakes, such as its similarities to the original and the amount of time between the original and remake releases. In their secondary data analysis, they found that relative levels of brand awareness significantly correlated with a remake’s success.

They also found that remakes that were too similar to the original were negatively correlated to the remake’s success; the same was true when the original had a popular actor or director that contributed towards the movie’s brand. Such studies show the complexities that are involved in the audiences’ selection process, and that no single explanation can model why one chooses a particular option.

One limitation of these studies is that they only focus on movies. However, research with other media has begun to emerge. For example, Situmeang, Leenders, and Wijnberg, (2014) found that positive online evaluations of a video game’s predecessors by critics and consumers

correlated with the success of a sequel. They also found that inconsistencies and volatility in the ratings between the titles created more uncertainty for the predicted quality of the next title, which hindered its success.

Another critical limitation is that these studies examined the macro-level of media selection in the form of sales and ratings instead of the traditional conceptualization of selective exposure in entertainment media and psychology. Classically, Zillmann and Bryant (1985/2013) define selective exposure as a “behavior that is deliberately performed to attain and sustain perceptual control of a stimulus event” (p. 2). This definition reflects an individual’s choice in consuming media content instead of a population’s selective choices, which cannot be empirically observed through secondary studies like the ones reviewed. However, the research on the popularity of unoriginal content may still reveal a theoretical direction to follow in order to understand the selection and enjoyment processes in these types of media content. While this study focused its lens on how one’s psyche pulls specific non-original content, it must also be noted that the entertainment and information industries also pushes reused franchises towards their customers. Within the political economy paradigm, Meehan (2004) argues franchised properties are mass-produced into society’s culture through multiple media and non-media outlets in order to turn a profit. Compared to original content, corporations often feel that betting on non-original content is a safer risk compared to original content which would require more buildup of brand awareness. While this may in part explain why there are so many remakes, rereleases, sequels, and adaptations in media, it does not explicitly explain why one may enjoy them over original content.

2.2 Movie Adaptations

For this study, movie adaptations of children’s television cartoons served as the specific genre of interest for this study. While this topic has traditionally been studied in film and literacy studies, its uniqueness for providing long-term and evolving characters and narratives can be beneficial for studies in entertainment theory. Whenever a previous narrative created for one medium is recreated for a new medium (often times by a different set of creators), an adaptation is created. While the transition of content between media will inherently leave out aspects of the content that only the original medium could host, the new medium will also add new elements which make the adaptation unique from its predecessor (Dicecco, 2011). This must be considered when studying the enjoyment and selection potential of adaptations, especially when evaluating long-term concepts such as parasocial relationships and nostalgia. For example, movie adaptations of video games have rarely been successful (Picard & Fandango, 2008).

2.3 Parasocial Interactions/Relationships

While it could be debated whether parasocial interaction (PSI) and parasocial relationship

(PSR) are theories or broad arrangements of constructs, it would be hard to deny their relevance and importance in the selection and the enjoyment process of entertainment. The paradigm of parasocial activities was originally conceived by Horton and Wohl in 1956 as they described how viewers interact with media personalities such as news anchors. Later the concepts behind parasocial activities were adopted by scholars studying the uses and gratification theory as a motivational need for selective exposure (e.g., Rubin, Perse, & Powell, 1985). Uses and gratification theory was first discussed by Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch in 1973 to describe how selective exposure can fulfill individual needs such as the need to escape, to be entertained, or to de-stress. From the assumptions of uses and gratification, parasocial activities can generally be

described as a driver for a social need that can motivate one to consume media in order to fulfill desires for a particular kind of socialization.

While PSI and PSR were originally conceptualized together and a multitude of studies have combined aspects of their constructs, there has been a recent push to distinguish the two concepts (Dibble, Hartmann, & Rosaen, 2016). This is due to a fundamental splitting between two traditions with regard to the conceptualization of parasocial activities. Generally speaking,

PSI occurs when a viewer has any combination of cognitive, affect, or behavioral responses toward a persona during a single encounter (Klimmt, Hartmann, & Schramm, 2011). PSR, on the other hand, can be described as a long-term, multi-encounter experience between the consumer and the persona.

Although the classical conceptualization of PSI/PSR involves one-way socialization with a persona talking to the audience through the “fourth wall” (such as a newscaster reporting), researchers have shown that its parameters can function with personae that do not create mutual awareness, such as a cast of fictional characters (Perse & Rubin, 1988). For example, Hoffner

(1996) examined the types of characters children parasocially interact with from their favorite television shows. In this study, the researcher asked children to identify their favorite character on television. Then she measured parasocial interactions and perceived character traits. Results showed that attractiveness and intelligence predicted PSI for both genders, while the character’s physical strength predicted PSI for boys only. Ramirez (2015) also examined PSI/PSR with fictional personae among comic book fans. Through qualitative inquiry, he discovered that many comic fans started developing their parasocial relationship with comic book characters outside the medium such through children’s cartoons or film, were inspired by their moral codes, and wishfully identified with the characters’ abilities.

Other entertainment theories, such as identification and fandom, also describe a viewer’s experience with a persona. However, the parasocial paradigm distinguishes itself through its reliance on broader constructs that may encompass elements from these more narrow theories.

For example, identification with a persona may lead to parasocial relations (Tian & Hoffner,

2010). Even so, a quick review of the literature eliminates any confusion in their conceptualizations. Cohen (2001) explains that identification is a process in which one takes on the perspective of a media character. Unlike parasocial activities which evoke either interpersonal cognitions or behaviors, identification predicts that the viewer will be psychologically absorbed into the narrative context and take on the perspectives of a character.

On the contrary, fandom or celebrity worship is an extreme obsession with a media character that goes beyond the norms of parasocially interacting with a role model (McCutcheon, Lange &

Houran, 2002). While similar to PSI/PSR, fans usually view the persona as distant because of his or her high esteem, instead of close enough for interpersonal interactions.

Because of their long and intertwined histories, PSI and PSR’s conceptualizations and operationalizations have often been difficult to separate into distinct concepts. Some studies

(e.g., Tian & Hoffner, 2010) have gone back to their roots by defining parasocial interactions as

“responding to a media persona as a friend or interaction partner” (p. 252). Hartmann and

Goldhoorn (2011) built upon Horton and Wohl’s (1956) original conceptualization of the construct, arguing that PSI is an innate reaction that brings out social behaviors such as mindreading, mutual attention, and mutual adjustment. On the other hand, there has been a school of thought that has helped to evolve PSI as a friendship-like response towards a persona, which relies heavily on the attachment of parasocial relationship. For instance, Rubin, Perse, and

Powell (1985) conceptualized PSI as an interpersonal involvement with a persona in order to fulfill a need for social interactions.

On the other hand, PSR has been described as “a cross-situational relationship that a viewer or user holds to a media person which includes specific cognitive and affective components” (Klimmt, Hartmann, and Schramm, 2011, p. 292). Unlike PSI, PSR as generally understood cannot be described solely as an illusion of interpersonal communication, even if the

PSR involves a series of communitive interactions. This is because, as with relationships in reality, a parasocial relationship does not end between interactions. Therefore, the viewer’s affective and cognitive dispositions towards a persona remain and evolve even when the show is off. Brunick and colleagues (2016) went even further, arguing that interactions within a parasocial relationship can happen across media and through non-media personifications such as toys.

In this thesis, PSI and PSR were conceptualized as distinct phenomena. For PSI,

Hartmann and Goldhoorn’s (2011) definition was used: “an illusionary experience of being engaged in real social interaction with a TV performer during exposure” (p. 1105), which harkens back to Horton and Wohl’s (1956) original concept. For PSR, Tukachinsky’s (2011) definition as “social relationships that are manifested in a mediated context” (p. 74) was employed, which distinguishes PSR from PSI. Undoubtedly, there can be many types of relationships between viewer and content as there are different types in real life. Therefore, in this project, one of Tukachinsky’s subcategories of PSR, parasocial friendship, was used as the measurement.

Because Dibble, Hartmann, and Rosaen (2016) argued that the concepts of PSI and PSR are distinct phenomena when re-conceptualized in this manner, the relationship between the two was reexamined in this thesis.

H1: Participants with higher parasocial friendship with a persona from a childhood

cartoon should experience greater parasocial interactions when watching a slideshow for

a new adaptation of that cartoon than those with lower parasocial friendship.

In addition, based on the assumptions of the uses and gratification approach, relationships should also be observed between parasocial friendship and selective exposure and enjoyment.

H2: Participants with higher parasocial friendship with a persona from a childhood

cartoon should report higher enjoyment after watching a slideshow for a new adaptation

of that cartoon than those with lower parasocial friendship.

H3: Participants with higher parasocial friendship with a persona should report greater

intention to watch a movie after watching a slideshow for the adaptation than those with

lower parasocial friendship.

2.4 Nostalgia

Nostalgia has been explored in a diversity of fields such as literature studies, social psychology, and marketing, through which multiple dimensions and conceptualizations have been developed. However, efforts to bring the constructs into media effects research and more specifically into entertainment theory have been limited. Nostalgia translates from Greek as the burning wish to return (Sedikides, Wildschut & Baden, 2004) and was originally defined as a medical condition by Hofer (1688/1934) to describe extreme homesickness. From an historic perspective, Higson (2014) described the modern interpretation of nostalgia as “a heavily mediated experience, manifested in the intense public re-cycling of narratives, images, sounds,

characters and styles associated with the often recent past” (p. 121). On the other hand, marketing scholars often rely on Holbrook’s (1993) definition as the “longing for the past, a yearning for yesterday” (p. 245) These definitions imply that the nostalgic experience (1) is a temporal-based phenomenon, and (2) requires complex psychological processes.

The temporal dimension of nostalgia can be interpreted as containing two separate-yet- interacting aspects: the age of the media content and the age of the viewer. From the content side, Higson (2014) differentiated modern nostalgia, which is a longing response to one’s understanding of a historical past, from post-modern nostalgia, which is a response to recent history and popular culture. Natterer (2014) approaches a similar distinction with her conceptualization between personal and historic nostalgia in entertainment media. An example that illustrates this might be the different types of nostalgic reactions that would be invoked when watching the film Patriot versus the film Ghostbusters. For the first, one may feel nostalgic for one’s heritage as an American while watching events related to the American

Revolution. On the other hand, Ghostbusters may remind someone who grew up in the 1980s of his or her childhood and the emotional experiences that came with those memories. Age also plays a role in nostalgia. Research has shown that consumer’s preference for media and non- media products develops during the time of adolescent and young adulthood, and nostalgia toward those products becomes stronger as one ages (Holbrook, 1993, 1994; Schindle &

Holbrook, 2003). However, more recent studies have shown that nostalgia can be universally felt by adults (Wildscut et. al., 2006), teenagers, and children (Zhou et. al., 2015).

Nostalgia also has a psychological dimension that involves a complex string of cognitive and affective responses. Oliver and Woolly (2011) proposed that nostalgia can serve as a eudaimonic process in which meaningfulness and appreciation can be developed through media

consumption. Unlike a hedonistic process where consumption is intended to provoke enjoyment, nostalgia can involve both negative and positive emotions; however, it usually evokes more positive emotions (Abeyta, Routledge, & Juhl, 2015; Wildscut et. al., 2006). There is also evidence that nostalgia is triggered by negative emotions in order to counteract one’s negative state through elevation (Stephan et. al., 2014). Holak and Havlena (1998) found that the emotional aspect of nostalgia is associated with tenderness, elation (exhilaration), loss, and serenity and that the intensity of nostalgia is positively related to pleasure and negatively associated with dominance. Nostalgia also allows for high cognitive appraisal in which the recipient compares the present and the past (Sedikides, Wildschut, & Baden, 2004) and serves to elicit positive self-continuity narratives of the self (Sedikides et. al., 2015a). Evidence from research in terror management has also shown that nostalgia may also serve as a distracting mechanism from the idea of death (Routledge et. al., 2008).

Furthermore, one’s ability to engage in a nostalgic response seems to be affected by individual-differences variables. Holbrook (1993) was one of the first to propose that nostalgia- proneness may be a trait or, at the very least, a long-term characteristic in an individual. Later, nostalgia-proneness was defined as an “attitude towards the past” (Schindler & Holbrook, 2003, p. 278). Nostalgia-proneness has begun to be examined in the field of traditional psychology. For example, Batcho (2013) found that nostalgia-proneness was related to positive coping abilities and a positive memory of childhood, while Seehusen and colleagues (2013) found that nostalgia- proneness is positively correlated with needing to belong.

One of the gaps in the literature is whether nostalgia-proneness is related to media selection and enjoyment. As previously shown, nostalgia involves a complex network of positive and negative cognitions and emotions; however, enjoyment as a dimension of the nostalgia

process has yet to be explored. In a related study, Lewis, Tamborini, and Weber (2014) tested a two-step model for enjoyment and appreciation. They found that an all-positive narrative was more enjoyable than a mixed-valance narrative, with the opposite being the case for appreciation.

While the study did not explicitly explore nostalgia per se, it does illustrate how enjoyment and appreciation can be affected and composed of complex and differently valanced content.

Based on past research, it would be safe to argue that viewers who are higher in nostalgia-proneness are more likely to prefer content from the past over newer content

(Holbrook, 1993, 1994; Schindle & Holbrook, 2003). For enjoyment, Hoeksema (2014) found a positive correlation between nostalgia and enjoyment; however, he did not specifically examine nostalgia-proneness. In another study, Pett (2013) surveyed moviegoers attending Back to the

Future and found that a common reason for enjoyment was nostalgia. As a result, the following two hypotheses and one research question were examined.

H4: Higher nostalgia-prone participants, compared to lower nostalgia-prone participants,

should report higher personal nostalgia toward a slideshow for a new adaptation of a

childhood cartoon compared to an original cartoon-based slideshow.

RQ1: Will higher nostalgia-prone participants, compared to those less nostalgia-prone,

report higher enjoyment for a slideshow for a new adaptation of a childhood cartoon

compared to a cartoon-based original slideshow?

H5: Higher nostalgia-prone participants should report greater intentions to watch a movie

adaptation of a childhood cartoon after watching the treatment than those with lower

nostalgia-proneness.

2.5 Interactions Between Parasocial Relationships and Nostalgia

While nostalgia has not typically been studied directly with parasocial relations, it is reasonable to theorize a connection between the two. While nostalgia is often viewed as a personal experience, studies have shown that it can also have a social dimension (Holak &

Havlena, 1998). Studies have shown that nostalgic reflection can fulfill the need to belong

(Sedikides, 2015b), diminish loneliness (Wildschut et. al. (2006), and motivate people to engage in social interactions (Abeyta, Routledge, & Juhl, 2015). Stephan and colleagues (2014) found evidence that nostalgia can serve as a regulator to counteract avoidance motivations and to change them to approach motivations. This helps those feeling nostalgic pursue social and relationship goals and increase their social-efficacy (Abeyta, Routledge, & Juhl, 2015). With the assumptions of PSR discussed earlier, it is reasonable to expect the similarities between friends reminiscing about the past and parasocially reminiscing (see Reeves & Nass, 1996). Just as old friends reconnect and catch up, fans could elicit the same response when reintroduced, for example, to the character Han Solo in Star Wars: The Force Awakens. This is not to say that other elements in media such as the narrative, setting, or score could not elicit nostalgia, but for the argument of this model, the longevity of characters is central. This is further evidenced as nostalgic reflections often entail memories of social events and relationships (Hepper et. al.,

2014).

While literature comparing nostalgia and parasocial activities is limited, some examples have emerged. Evans et al. (2010) found a positive correlation between the nostalgia subscale,

“nostalgia-tradition,” and identification and enjoyment of celebrities who have passed away (e.g.

Elvis, Chris Farley). Also, Furno-Lamude and Anderson (1992) compared the reasons that viewers selected first-run and re-run television shows. They found that nostalgia was correlated

with selecting re-runs, while parasocial attraction was correlated with selecting first-run shows.

While this may, at first glance, appear to contradict other arguments herein, it should be noted that Furno-Lamude and Anderson did not expand their conceptualization to include parasocial relationships. Hoffman (2006), in her focus groups, found that both parasocial relationships and nostalgia can motivate re-consumption of media content.

Another theoretical approach in connecting PSR and nostalgia is what Vorderer called

“ego-emotions,” and what Klimmt, Hartmann, and Schramm called “persona-generated own emotions” (Klimmt, Hartmann, & Schramm, 2011). Wirth and Schramm (2005) conceptualized this classification of emotions as those that are primarily evoked by the predisposition of self rather than the message of the media context. For example, one might get angry with a politician speaking on television or cheer for a football team scoring a touchdown. Neither of these events may be emotion evoking by themselves; however, when interacting with the viewer’s prior experiences and opinions, ego-emotions are experienced. Parasocial relationships with personae allow for ego-emotions to occur as viewers bring the self and the accompanying memories to the reception process. For example, one might become angry when his or her favorite persona acts

“out of character” because it does not match the viewer’s previous understanding of the persona.

Hypothetically then a known character could elicit nostalgia if an individual has a parasocial relationship with him or her. When absent characters return to a television show, movie, or video game, the audience’s memories of that character could be elicited as an ego form of nostalgia.

Whether or not nostalgia is related to PSR as a social or an ego-emotion, both of these approaches suggest that one’s memory of the persona is critical if one is going to experience nostalgia for that persona.

The interaction between nostalgic experiences and parasocial interaction may function together to increase one’s enjoyment of a media content if modeled after the self-determination theory, as described by Tamborini and colleagues (2010). In this model enjoyment is derived from the fulfillment of three intrinsic needs: autonomy, competence, and relativeness (Deci &

Ryan, 1985). According to Wildschut et al. (2006) and Abeyta, Routledge, and Juhl (2015), nostalgia can increase one’s social competence; therefore, when an individual is driven to parasocially interact with a persona from nostalgic motivations, one should see an increase in enjoyment due to the fulfillment of both competence and relativeness needs. Ultimately, however, because of the lack of experimental research examining the relationship between the parasocial and nostalgia constructs, the following two research questions were proposed.

RQ2: Is there a correlational association between parasocial friendship and nostalgia-

proneness?

RQ3: Is there a correlational association between parasocial interaction and personal

nostalgia?

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Study Design

This study examined different levels of parasocial interactions, personal nostalgia, enjoyment, and viewing intentions that participants experienced after viewing a storyboard designed to preview a film adaptation of a childhood cartoon show. Hypotheses were tested and research questions were answered using a two-group, between-group, experimental design in which participants were randomly assigned to watch two of four researcher-created storyboards, previewing either two movie adaptations of childhood cartoon shows or two original cartoon movies (which served as the control group). The two storyboards within each group were presented in a random order to prevent an order effect.

3.2 Stimuli

The children’s cartoon shows that served as the source material of the adaptations were selected before the main study based on a pilot survey. The survey consisted of a list of 18 children’s cartoons that aired between 2001 and 2005 that were recognized by IMDd and

TV.com for either for popularity or quality (see Table 1; WallaceFRCorrice, 2011 and TV.com,

2016). Shows targeted towards preschool children or a mature audience, that came from a previous franchise (to eliminate chance of distorting personal nostalgia), or that had a theatrical movie release were excluded. In the pilot survey, 337 undergraduates participants (72.7% female, Mage = 20.5) rated the overall knowledge of the shows, how they perceived the show’s popularity, and their general enjoyment of the show. The first two dimensions were measured with three original items each on a 7-point Likert scale (see Table 28; αmemory = .886, αpopularity =

.906). Enjoyment was measured with four items from Raney’s (2002) enjoyment scale, using a

7-point scale (see Table 31; α = .966). A promotional image of each show was included with each set of items in order to stimulate memory, and the order of each cartoon show was randomized to deter ordering effects. In addition, one open-ended question asked participants to name a cartoon show from their childhood, in case the other, more appropriate might be identified. All three scales were strongly correlated with each other: memory and popularity, r =

.789, p ≤ .01; popularity and enjoyment, r = .686, p ≤ .01; and enjoyment and memory, r = .793, p ≤ .01. All three scales were then combined into an index, and the author selected the shows associated with the top two scores to use for the stimuli in the main study. Results from the pilot survey revealed that the shows Kim Possible (n = 308, M = 61.06, SD = 10.07) and Fairly

Oddparents (n = 314, M = 62.78, SD = 8.2) were rated the highest on the combined index and, therefore, were selected to be the source material for the stimulus.

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for Knowledge for Potential Children’s Cartoons for Stimuli Show Title Network Years n Mean SD Airing The Fairly OddParents Nickelodeon 01-17 314 6.27 .81 Kim Possible Disney 02-07 308 6.10 1.00 Powerpuff Girls Cartoon Network 98-05 295 5.99 .975 The Proud Family Disney 01-05 266 5.31 1.21 Dexter’s Laboratory Cartoon Network 96-03 276 5.28 1.18 Codename: Kids Next Door Cartoon Network 02-08 188 5.27 1.28 Danny Phantom Nickelodeon 04-07 246 5.15 1.19 Foster’s Home for Imaginary Friends Cartoon Network 04-09 212 5.04 1.33 The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy Cartoon Network 01-07 185 4.71 1.33 Code Lyoko Cartoon Network 03-07 35 4.66 1.32 ChalkZone Nickelodeon 02-08 122 4.52 1.27 Samurai Jack Cartoon Network 01-06 108 4.46 1.48 Winx Club FOX 04-07 60 4.33 1.30 Invader ZIM Nickelodeon 01-03 86 4.31 1.49 Liberty’s Kids PBS 02-03 41 4.23 .956 Megas XLR Cartoon Network 04-05 8 3.37 .72 Time Squad Cartoon Network 01-03 14 3.30 .84 Sheep in the Big City Cartoon Network 00-02 10 3.16 .74

After the stimulus source materials were selected, episodes from both cartoon shows were informally studied in order to determine the main characters with whom to measure PSR.

Three characters from each series were selected based on general frequency in appearance and importance to the show’s plot. Afterward, the researcher wrote a script and created the stimulus material from online images of storyboards from the actual show and hired voice actors to play the parts of the characters. For the two control group stimuli, the researcher photo-manipulated the treatment stimuli in order to replace the franchised characters with original characters.

Therefore, the setting and storylines were the same between groups with the exception of the characters. The researcher named the control stimuli that used the Kim Possible storyline

Teenage Spy and named the control stimuli that used The Fairly Oddparents storyline Greek

Out1. The stimulus materials were also pretested (n = 6) to ensure similarity in quality and

1 enjoyment before conducting the main study. The means for bot h enjoyment (MKim Possible = 5.45,

MTeenage Spy = 5.08; MFairly Oddparents = 5.90, MGreek Out = 4.91) and quality (MKim Possible = 5.67,

MTeenage Spy = 4.67; MFairly Oddparents = 6.20, MGreek Out = 4.83) were similar in scores.

3.3 Participants

A sample of 187 undergraduates (Mage = 20.97, SDage = 3.9; 82.9% female; 70.1%

Caucasian, 21.9% Hispanic, 1.6% African American, 2.7% Asian American, 3.7% Other) taking classes in the College of Communication and Information at Florida State University were used as participants for the main study and were either given course or extra credit for their participation. While convenience is not the most desired method of sampling, Thorson, Wick, and Leshner (2012) argue that nonprobability sampling is sufficient if psychological functions serves as the unit of analysis. Participants completed the study in two parts that were both conducted online.

1 Stimulus material is available upon request 19

3.4 Procedures and Measurements

Participants completed two online Qualtrics questionnaires over the course of approximately one week (Mtime = 7.59 days, SD = 3.18). In the first questionnaire, the participants were randomly assigned into either the treatment or control group which asked to rate a set of cartoon characters based on their perception of their parasocial friendship (PSF) towards the persona. The treatment group rated three characters from the show The Fairly

Oddparents (Timmy Turner, Cosmo, Wanda) and three characters from the show Kim Possible

(Kim Possible, Ron Stoppable, Wade). The control group rated six characters from two fictitious children’s cartoon shows: one called Teenage Spy and the other called Greek Out. An image of each character with his/her name and franchise of origin were placed above to each set of PSF items to ensure clarity. While there are a variety of scales that measure parasocial interactions

(PSI), questionnaires that measure parasocial relationships (PSR) are few and far between. One common scale for PSR is Eyal and Dailey’s (2012) parasocial relational strength model variable scale, which combined items from Rubin, Perse, and Powell’s (1985) parasocial interaction scale

(14 items), along with five items to measure identification (Cohen, 2001), seven items to measure network status, and ratio measurement of the length of time they have known the persona. However, because of the recent call for separating the operationalization of PSI and

PSR, this measurement likely lacks internal validity (Dibble, Hartmann, & Rosaen, 2016).

Instead, for this study, thirteen items from Tukachinsky’s (2010) multiple parasocial relationship scale were used. This scale measures four dimensions within the parasocial paradigm: parasocial friendship-support, parasocial friendship-communication, parasocial love-emotional, and parasocial love-physical. The last two dimensions were dropped due to low relevance to this study. The remaining thirteen items were measured using a 5-point scale. Example items include

Sometimes, I wish I knew what X would do in my situation, and If X was a real person, I could have a warm relationship with him/her (Cronbach’s α = .96; see Table 29).

In addition, nostalgia-proneness was measured for all participants, regardless of condition. Although Holbrook’s (1993) 20-item nostalgia-proneness scale has been the most common measurement for this variable, recently its validity has been questioned (Hallegatte &

Marticotte, 2014). Therefore in this study, nostalgia-proneness was measured with Batcho’s

(2007) nostalgia-proneness inventory. This 17-item scale asks participants to rate how much they miss a list of things from their childhood such as family and holidays on a 9-point scale (see

Table 30; α = .86).

After a week passed, the participants were given the second online Qualtric questionnaire. Each participant remained in their randomly assigned group from the pre-exposure questionnaire and watched either the first storyboard preview adapted from the cartoon shows or one “adapted” from the fictitious control shows. When they finished watching the first assigned slideshow, they answered items that measured the dependent variables of parasocial interaction, nostalgia, enjoyment, and viewing intent. The measurements include Hartmann and Goldhoorn’s

(2011) six item, 5-point experienced parasocial interaction scale, five items from Marchegiani and Phau’s (2013) 7-point personal nostalgia scale, four items to measure enjoyment on a 7-point scale (Raney, 2002), and four original items on a 7-point scale that measured intention to see the movie (see Table 31). The experienced parasocial interaction scale measured the classical notion of PSI with items such as: While watching the slideshow, I had the feeling that X knew that I reacted to him/her, and While watching the slideshow, I had the feeling that X was aware of me

(Cronbach’s α = .96; Hartmann & Goldhoorn, 2011). Personal nostalgia is distinguished from other forms of nostalgia with scale items like: This movie slideshow reminded me of good times

from my past, and This movie slideshow reminded me of my childhood days (Cronbach’s α = .95;

Marchegiani & Phau, 2013). Raney’s (2002) enjoyment scale includes questions such as: How good was the movie slideshow? (Cronbach’s α = .92). Lastly, movie viewing intention was measured with original items like: I would like to see this movie in the theater and I would like to buy this movie on DVD or Blu-Ray (Cronbach’s α = .93). After finishing the first set of measurements, the participants then watched the second storyboard and answered the same dependent variable items.

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

4.1 Parasocial Relationships

Before testing the hypotheses, the researcher first conducted a Pearson r correlation test to observe relationships between parasocial friendship (PSF) and the dependent variables. This was done on multiple levels: within the treatment and control groups combined and with the four stimuli individually. Within the combined treatment group, parasocial friendship was significantly correlated with parasocial interactions (PSI) (r = .283, p = .002, one-tailed), personal nostalgia (r = .383, p < .001, one-tailed), enjoyment (r = .406, p < .001, one-tailed), and viewing intentions (r = .464, p < .001, one-tailed; Table 2).

Table 2: Pearson r Correlations Between PSF and Dependent Variables in the Combined Treatment Group Variables 1 2 3 4 5 1. Parasocial Friendship 1 2. Parasocial Interactions .283* 1 3. Personal Nostalgia .383** .246* 1 4. Enjoyment .406** .309** .574** 1 5. Viewing Intentions .464* .250* .506** .706** 1 *p ≤ .01 (one-tailed) **p ≤ .001 (one-tailed)

Similarly, significant correlations were observed with each treatment stimulus. Within the

Kim Possible stimulus group, PSF was significantly correlated with PSI (r = .256, p = .005, one- tailed), personal nostalgia (r = .424, p < .001, one-tailed), enjoyment (r = .417, p < .001, one tailed), and viewing intentions (r = .450, p < .001, one-tailed; Table 3).

Within The Fairly Oddparents stimulus group, PSF was significantly correlated with PSI

(r = 230, p = .011, one-tailed), personal nostalgia (r = .308, p = .001, one-tailed), enjoyment (r =

.291, p = .002), viewing intentions (r = .434, p < .001, one-tailed; Table 4). 23

Table 3: Pearson r Correlations Between PSF and Dependent Variables with Kim Possible Variables 1 2 3 4 5 1. Parasocial Friendship 1 2. Parasocial Interactions .256** 1 3. Personal Nostalgia .424*** .216* 1 4. Enjoyment .417*** .241** .484*** 1 5. Viewing Intentions .459*** .265** .464*** .706*** 1 *p ≤ .05 (one-tailed) **p ≤ .01 (one-tailed) ***p ≤ .001 (one-tailed)

Table 4: Pearson r Correlations Between PSF and Dependent Variables with The Fairly Oddparents Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6. Parasocial Friendship 1 7. Parasocial Interactions .230* 1 8. Personal Nostalgia .308*** .259** 1 9. Enjoyment .291** .320*** .649*** 1 10. Viewing Intentions .434*** .197* .579*** .714*** 1 *p ≤ .05 (one-tailed) **p ≤ .01 (one-tailed) ***p ≤ .001 (one-tailed)

Significant correlations were also found between PSF and the dependent variables within the combined control group and the individual stimuli; however, the strengths of the correlations were generally weaker compared to the treatment groups (Tables 5-7).

Table 5: Pearson r Correlations Between PSF and Dependent Variables in the Combined Control Group Variables 1 2 3 4 5 1. Parasocial Friendship 1 2. Parasocial Interactions .197* 1 3. Personal Nostalgia .340** .059 1 4. Enjoyment .379** .069 .493** 1 5. Viewing Intentions .349** .109 .474** .793** 1 *p ≤ .05 (one-tailed) **p ≤ .001 (one-tailed)

Table 6: Pearson r Correlations Between PSF and Dependent Variables with Teenage Spy Variables 1 2 3 4 5 1. Parasocial Friendship 1 2. Parasocial Interactions .095 1 3. Personal Nostalgia .320* .088 1 4. Enjoyment .323* -.063 .539* 1 5. Viewing Intentions .318* -.004 .477* .705* 1 *p ≤ .001 (one-tailed)

Table 7: Pearson r Correlations Between PSF and Dependent Variables with Greek Out Variables 1 2 3 4 5 1. Parasocial Friendship 1 2. Parasocial Interactions .242* 1 3. Personal Nostalgia .267** -.022 1 4. Enjoyment .300** .108 .481*** 1 5. Viewing Intentions .283** .115 .458*** .739*** 1 *p ≤ .05 (one-tailed) **p ≤ .01 (one-tailed) ***p ≤ .001 (one-tailed)

Hypotheses 1 through 3 predicted that parasocial interactions, enjoyment, and viewing intentions would be higher with participants with stronger parasocial friendships with the characters in the storyboard previews. To test this, independent t-tests were conducted to compare the means of those who rated higher parasocial friendships with the characters compared to those who rated their friendships with these characters lower. To test Hypothesis 1, the researcher first compared parasocial friendship scores within the treatment group by splitting the sample by parasocial friendship’s mean (M = 3.20) into a high and a low group (Table 8).

Significant differences in PSI were observed between the high (M = 2.35, SD =.93) and the low

(M = 2.01, SD = .84) groups: t(97) = 1.842, p = .035 (one-tailed). A secondary analysis was conducted to examine the differences with the individual treatments: Kim Possible and The

Fairly Oddparents. Within the Kim Possible stimulus group, differences approached significant in PSI was observed between the high group (M = 2.27, SD =.93) and the low group (M = 1.91,

SD = .92): t(97) = 1.583, p = .059 (one-tailed). However, within The Fairly Oddparents stimulus group, significant differences in PSI were also observed between the high (M = 2.42, SD = 1.00) and low groups (M = 2.05, SD = .88): t(97) = 1.942, p = .028 (one-tailed). Therefore, Hypothesis

1 was partially supported.

Table 8: Results of t-test and Descriptive Statistics for PSI between High and Low PSF Groups in Treatment, Kim Possible, and The Fairly Oddparents Groups High Group Low Group 95% CI for t df p (n = 56) (n = 43) Mean

Difference Μ SD Μ SD

Treatment Group 2.35 .93 2.01 .84 -.026 .693 1.842* 97 .035

Kim Possible 2.27 .92 1.91 .92 -.075 .665 1.583 97 .059

The Fairly Oddparents 2.42 1.00 2.05 .88 -.008 .753 1.942* 97 .028

*p ≤ .05 (one-tailed)

In comparison, the differences in PSI between high and low PSF groups in the combined control (M = 2.91), Teenage Spy, and Greek Out stimulus groups were also significant (Table 9).

Within the combined control, a significant differences in PSI was observed between the high group (M = 2.49, SD = .84) and the low group (M = 2.10, SD = .75): t(86) = 2.081, p = .020 (one- tailed). Within the Teenage Spy stimulus, significant differences in PSI were also observed between the high (M = 2.45, SD = .84) and low groups (M = 2.08, SD = .80): t(86) = 1.925, p =

.029 (one-tailed). In addition, within the Greek Out stimulus, significant differences in PSI were likewise observed between the high (M = 2.54, SD = .95) and low groups (M = 2.12, SD = .79): t(86) = 1.983, p = .026 (one-tailed).

To test Hypothesis 2, the researcher used the same process as with Hypothesis 1 to compare enjoyment between high and low groups of parasocial friendship scores within the combined treatment group, as well as with Kim Possible and The Fairly Oddparents separately

(Table 10). Within the combined treatment group, significant differences for enjoyment were observed between the high (M = 4.49, SD =.96) and low (M = 3.85, SD = 1.31) groups: t(72.96)

= 2.749, p = .004 (one-tailed). Significant differences were also found within the separate Kim

Possible and The Fairly Oddparents stimuli groups. Within the Kim Possible stimulus group, significant differences in enjoyment were observed between the high (M = 4.53, SD =.97) and low groups (M = 3.90, SD = 1.47): t(68.80) = 2.435, p = .009 (one-tailed). Within The Fairly

Oddparents stimulus group, significant differences in enjoyment were also observed between the high (M = 4.46, SD = 1.27) and low groups (M = 3.79, SD = 1.42): t(97) = 2.458, p = .008 (one tailed). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was supported.

Table 9: Results of t-test and Descriptive Statistics for PSI between High and Low PSF Groups in Control, Teenage Spy and Greek Out Groups High Group Low Group 95% CI for t df p (n = 60) (n = 28) Mean Difference Μ SD Μ SD

Control Group 2.49 .84 2.10 .75 .017 .759 2.081* 86 .020

Teenage Spy 2.45 .84 2.08 .80 -.012 .744 1.925* 86 .029

Greek Out 2.54 .95 2.12 .79 -.001 .823 1.983* 86 .026

*p ≤ .05 (one-tailed)

Table 10: Results of t-test and Descriptive Statistics for Enjoyment between High and Low PSF Groups in Treatment, Kim Possible, and The Fairly Oddparents Groups High Group Low Group 95% CI for t df p (n = 56) (n = 43) Mean Difference Μ SD Μ SD

Treatment Group 4.49 .94 3.85 1.31 .199 1.093 2.749* 72.96 .004

Kim Possible 4.53 .97 3.90 1.47 .114 1.143 2.435* 68.80 .009

The Fairly Oddparents 4.46 1.27 3.79 1.42 .128 1.201 2.458* 97 .008

*p ≤ .01 (one-tailed)

In comparison, the differences in enjoyment between high and low PSF groups in the

Teenage Spy and Greek Out stimuli groups were also significant (Table 11). Within the combined control, a significant differences in enjoyment was observed between the high group

(M = 4.35, SD = 1.01) and the low group (M = 3.81, SD = .97): t(86) = 2.348, p = .011 (one- tailed). Within the Teenage Spy stimulus, significant differences in enjoyment were also observed between the high (M = 4.30, SD = 1.26) and low groups (M = 3.78, SD = 1.22): t(86) =

1.839, p = .035 (one-tailed). In addition, within the Greek Out stimulus, significant differences in enjoyment were likewise observed between the high (M = 4.41, SD = 1.32) and low groups (M =

3.85, SD = 1.14): t(86) = 1.909, p = .030 (one-tailed).

Table 11: Results of t-test and Descriptive Statistics for Enjoyment between High and Low PSF Groups in Control, Teenage Spy and Greek Out Groups High Group Low Group 95% CI for t df p (n = 60) (n = 28) Mean Difference Μ SD Μ SD

Control Group 4.35 1.01 3.81 .97 .083 .995 2.348* 86 .011

Teenage Spy 4.30 1.26 3.78 1.22 -.042 1.089 1.839* 86 .035

Greek Out 4.41 1.32 3.85 1.14 -.023 1.132 1.909* 86 .030

*p ≤ .05 (one-tailed)

Hypothesis 3 used the same process as with Hypothesis 1 and 2 to compared difference in viewing intentions between the high and low parasocial friendship scores within the combined treatment, and individual Kim Possible, and The Fairly Oddparents groups (Table 12). Within the combined treatment group, significant differences for viewing intentions were observed between the high (M = 3.05, SD =1.11) and low (M = 2.38, SD = 1.15) groups: t(97) = 2.964, p =

.002 (one-tailed). Significant differences were also found within the Kim Possible and The Fairly

Oddparents stimuli groups. Within the Kim Possible stimulus group, significant differences in

viewing intentions were also observed between the high (M = 3.19, SD =1.29) and low groups

(M = 2.48, SD = 1.37): t(97) = 2.625, p = .005 (one-tailed). Within The Fairly Oddparents stimulus group, significant differences in viewing intentions were likewise observed between the high (M = 2.92, SD = 1.24) and low groups (M = 2.27, SD = 1.21) conditions: t(97) = 2.600, p =

.006 (one-tailed). Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was supported.

Table 12: Results of t-test and Descriptive Statistics for Viewing Intentions between High and Low PSF Groups in Treatment, Kim Possible, and The Fairly Oddparents Groups High Group Low Group 95% CI for t df p (n = 56) (n = 43) Mean

Difference Μ SD Μ SD

Treatment Group 3.05 1.11 2.38 1.15 .223 1.128 2.964* 97 .002

Kim Possible 3.19 1.29 2.48 1.37 .172 1.128 2.625* 97 .005

The Fairly Oddparents 2.92 1.24 2.27 1.21 .153 1.140 2.600* 97 .006

*p ≤ .01 (one-tailed)

In comparison, the differences in viewing intentions between high and low PSF groups in the combined control, and the separate Greek Out stimuli group were also significant (Table 13).

Within the combined control, a significant differences in viewing intentions was observed between the high group (M = 2.75, SD = 1.01) and the low group (M = 2.26, SD = 1.14): t(86) =

1.901, p = .031 (one-tailed). Within the Greek Out stimulus, significant differences in viewing intentions were also observed between the high (M = 2.85, SD = 1.31) and low groups (M = 2.29,

SD = 1.29): t(86) = 1.881, p = .032 (one-tailed). There were no significant differences in viewing intentions within the Teenage Spy stimulus group.

Table 13: Results of t-test and Descriptive Statistics for Viewing Intentions between High and Low PSF Groups in Control, Teenage Spy and Greek Out Groups High Group Low Group 95% CI for t df p (n = 60) (n = 28) Mean Difference Μ SD Μ SD

Control Group 2.75 1.10 2.26 1.14 -.022 .991 1.901* 86 .031

Teenage Spy 2.65 1.34 2.24 1.25 -.188 1.006 1.361 86 .089

Greek Out 2.85 1.31 2.29 1.29 -.032 1.152 1.881* 86 .032

*p ≤ .05 (one-tailed)

4.2 Nostalgia-Proneness

Before examining, H4, RQ1, and H5, the researcher conducted a Pearson r correlation test to observe the relationships between nostalgia-proneness and the dependent variables. Within the combined treatment group significant correlations were found between nostalgia-proneness and

PSI (r = .176, p = .041, one-tailed), enjoyment (r = .192, p = .028, one-tailed), and viewing intentions (r = .224, p = .013, one-tailed; Table 14). In the combined treatment group, nostalgia proneness was not significantly correlated with personal nostalgia.

Table 14: Pearson r Correlations Between Nostalgia-Proneness and Dependent Variables in the Combined Treatment Group Variables 1 2 3 4 5 1. Nostalgia-Proneness 1 2. Parasocial Interactions .176* 1 3. Personal Nostalgia .158 .246** 1 4. Enjoyment .192* .309*** .574*** 1 5. Viewing Intentions .224* .205** .506*** .706*** 1 *p ≤ .05 (one-tailed) **p ≤ .01 (one-tailed) ***p ≤ .001 (one-tailed)

Significant correlations were also observed within each treatment stimulus group. Within the Kim Possible stimuli group, nostalgia-proneness was significantly correlated with PSI (r =

.188, p = .031, one-tailed), and viewing intentions (r = .182, p = .036, one-tailed; Table 15).

However, a significant correlation was not found between personal nostalgia and enjoyment or nostalgia-proneness.

Table 15: Pearson r Correlations Between Nostalgia-Proneness and Dependent Variables with Kim Possible Variables 1 2 3 4 5 1. Nostalgia-Proneness 1 2. Parasocial Interactions .188* 1 3. Personal Nostalgia .079 .216* 1 4. Enjoyment .140 .241** .484*** 1 5. Viewing Intentions .182* .265** .464*** .706*** 1 *p ≤ .05 (one-tailed) **p ≤ .01 (one-tailed) ***p ≤ .001 (one-tailed)

Within the The Fairly Oddparents stimulus group, nostalgia-proneness was significantly correlated with personal nostalgia (r = .218, p = .015, one-tailed), enjoyment (r = .197, p = .025, one-tailed), and viewing intentions (r = .218, p = .015, one-tailed). A significant correlation was not observed between personal nostalgia and PSI or nostalgia-proneness.

Table 16: Pearson r Correlations Between Nostalgia-Proneness and Dependent Variables with The Fairly Oddparents Variables 1 2 3 4 5 1. Nostalgia-Proneness 1 2. Parasocial Interactions .149 1 3. Personal Nostalgia .218* .259** 1 4. Enjoyment .197* .320*** .649*** 1 5. Viewing Intentions .218* .197* .579*** .714*** 1 *p ≤ .05 (one-tailed) **p ≤ .01 (one-tailed) ***p ≤ .001 (one-tailed)

In comparison, no significant correlations were found between nostalgia-proneness and the dependent variables within the control, Teenage Spy, and Greek Out groups (Table 17-19).

Table 17: Pearson r Correlations Between Nostalgia-Proneness and Dependent Variables in the Combined Control Group Variables 1 2 3 4 5 1. Nostalgia-Proneness 1 2. Parasocial Interactions .161 1 3. Personal Nostalgia .099 .059 1 4. Enjoyment .092 .069 .493* 1 5. Viewing Intentions .128 .109 .474* .793* 1 *p ≤ .001 (one-tailed)

Table 18: Pearson r Correlations Between Nostalgia-Proneness and Dependent Variables with Teenage Spy Variables 1 2 3 4 5 1. Nostalgia-Proneness 1 2. Parasocial Interactions .128 1 3. Personal Nostalgia .051 .088 1 4. Enjoyment .109 -.063 .539* 1 5. Viewing Intentions .110 -.004 .477* .705* 1 *p ≤ .001 (one-tailed)

Table 19: Pearson r Correlations Between Nostalgia-Proneness and Dependent Variables with Greek Out Variables 1 2 3 4 5 1. Nostalgia-Proneness 1 2. Parasocial Interactions .173 1 3. Personal Nostalgia .129 -.022 1 4. Enjoyment .041 .108 .481* 1 5. Viewing Intentions .110 .115 .458* .739* 1 *p ≤ .001 (one-tailed)

Hypotheses 4 and 5 predicted that personal nostalgia and viewing intentions would be stronger for those with higher nostalgia-proneness compared to those with lower nostalgia- proneness. In addition, Research Question 1 asked if those with higher nostalgia-proneness would enjoy the adaptations more than those with lower nostalgia-proneness. To test these, an independent t-test was conducted by comparing the means of those who scored higher on the

nostalgia-proneness scale compared to those who scored lower. Within the combined treatment,

Kim Possible, and The Fairly Oddparents groups, the participants were split into high and low groups the nostalgia-proneness mean (M = 7.16).In the test of Hypothesis 4, no significant differences were observed for personal nostalgia within the combined treatment or separate Kim

Possible groups; however, a significant difference was found in The Fairly Oddparents between the high (M = 4.89, SD = 1.54) and low group (M = 4.29, SD = 1.60): t(97) = 1.870, p = .033

(one-tailed, Table 20). Therefore Hypothesis 4 was partially supported.

Table 20: Results of t-test and Descriptive Statistics for Personal Nostalgia between High and Low Nostalgia-Proneness Groups in Treatment, Kim Possible and The Fairly Oddparents Groups High Group Low Group 95% CI for Mean t df p (n = 59) (n = 40) Difference Μ SD Μ SD

Treatment Group 4.86 1.51 4.38 1.43 -.126 1.078 1.569 97 .060

Kim Possible 4.83 1.67 4.48 1.54 -.303 1.012 1.069 97 .144

The Fairly Oddparents 4.89 1.54 4.23 1.74 -.037 1.233 1.870* 97 .033

*p ≤ .05 (one-tailed)

In comparison, the differences in personal nostalgia between high and low nostalgia- proneness (M = 7.26) groups in the combined control, Teenage Spy, and Greek Out stimuli groups were not significant (Table 21).

Table 21: Results of t-test and Descriptive Statistics for the Personal Nostalgia between High and Low Nostalgia-Proneness Groups in Control, Teenage Spy and Greek Out Groups High Group Low Group 95% CI for Mean t df p (n = 53) (n = 35) Difference Μ SD Μ SD

Control Group 4.34 1.23 4.27 1.26 -.461 .616 .287 86 .388

Teenage Spy 4.32 1.58 4.35 1.45 -.701 .626 -.112 86 .456

Greek Out 4.37 1.27 4.18 1.34 -.370 .755 .681 86 .249

To answer Research Question 1, the researcher used the same process as with Hypothesis

4 to compare enjoyment between high and low groups of nostalgia-proneness scores within the combined treatment, Kim Possible, and The Fairly Oddparents groups. No significant differences were found between the high and low groups within the treatment groups. In additions no significant differences were found in the combined control, Teenage Spy, and Greek

Out groups.

Hypothesis 5 used the same process as with Hypothesis 4 and Research Question 1 to compare differences in viewing intentions between the high and low nostalgia-proneness scores within the combined treatment (M = 7.20), Kim Possible, and The Fairly Oddparents groups

(Table 22). Within the treatment group, significant differences for viewing intentions were observed between the high (M = 3.02, SD = 1.20) and low groups (M = 2.38, SD = 1.02): t(97) =

2.781, p = .004 (one-tailed). Significant differences were also found within the Kim Possible and

The Fairly Oddparents stimuli groups. Within the Kim Possible stimulus group, significant differences in viewing intentions were also observed between the high (M = 3.15, SD =1.42) and low groups (M = 2.48, SD = 1.18): t(97) = 2.465, p = .008 (one-tailed). Within The Fairly

Oddparents stimulus group, significant differences in viewing intentions were likewise observed between the high group (M = 2.89, SD = 1.34) and the low group (M = 2.27, SD = 1.06) conditions: t(97) = 2.442, p = .008 (one-tailed). Therefore Hypothesis 5 was supported.

In comparison, the differences in personal nostalgia between high and low nostalgia- proneness groups in the treatment, Teenage Spy, and Greek Out stimuli groups were not significant (Table 23).

Table 22: Results of t-test and Descriptive Statistics for Viewing Intentions between High and Low Nostalgia-Proneness Groups in Treatment, Kim Possible and The Fairly Oddparents Groups High Group Low Group 95% CI for Mean t df p (n = 59) (n = 40) Difference Μ SD Μ SD

Treatment Group 3.02 1.20 2.38 1.02 .184 1.103 2.781* 97 .004

Kim Possible 3.15 1.42 2.48 1.18 .131 1.212 2.465* 97 .008

The Fairly Oddparents 2.89 1.34 2.27 1.06 .115 1.116 2.442* 97 .008

*p ≤ .01 (one-tailed)

Table 23: Results of t-test and Descriptive Statistics for the Viewing Intentions between High and Low Nostalgia-Proneness Groups in Control, Teenage Spy and Greek Out Groups High Group Low Group 95% CI for Mean t df p (n = 53) (n = 35) Difference Μ SD Μ SD

Control Group 2.71 1.18 2.43 1.04 -.208 .769 1.140 86 .129

Teenage Spy 2.61 1.40 2.39 1.19 -.350 .800 .774 86 .221

Greek Out 2.80 1.40 2.46 1.18 -.233 .908 1.177 86 .122

4.3 Interactions Between Parasocial Relationships and Nostalgia

To answer the second research question, a Pearson’s r was conducted to test the association between the parasocial friendship index and the nostalgia-proneness index (Tables

24-26). Within the combined treatment group the correlation between parasocial friendship and nostalgia-proneness approached significance (r = .196, p = .052, two-tailed). A significant correlation was found between the two in the Kim Possible stimulus group (r = .208, p = .039, two-tailed); however, no significant correlation was found in The Fairly Oddparents stimulus group (r = .149, p = .141, two-tailed). No significant correlations were found in the control,

Teenage Spy, and Greek Out groups.

Table 24: Pearson r Correlations for Treatment Group Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Parasocial Friendship 1

2. Nostalgia-Proneness .196 1

3. Parasocial Interactions .283** .176 1

4. Personal Nostalgia .383*** .158 .246* 1

5. Enjoyment .406*** .192 .309** .574*** 1

6. Viewing Intentions .464*** .224* .250* .506*** .706*** 1 *p≤.05 (two-tailed) **p≤.01 (two-tailed) ***p≤.001 (two-tailed)

Table 25: Pearson r Correlations for Kim Possible Group Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Parasocial Friendship 1

2. Nostalgia-Proneness .208* 1

3. Parasocial Interactions .256* .188 1

4. Personal Nostalgia .424*** .079 .216* 1

5. Enjoyment .417*** .140 .241* .484*** 1

6. Viewing Intentions .317*** .182 .265** .464*** .706*** 1 *p≤.05 (two-tailed) **p≤.01 (two-tailed) ***p≤.001 (two-tailed)

Table 26: Pearson r Correlations for The Fairly Oddparents Group

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Parasocial Friendship 1

2. Nostalgia-Proneness .149 1

3. Parasocial Interactions .230* .149 1

4. Personal Nostalgia .308** .218* .216* 1

5. Enjoyment .291** .197 .241* .649*** 1

6. Viewing Intentions .434*** .219* .265** .579*** .714*** 1 *p≤.05 (two-tailed) **p≤.01 (two-tailed) ***p≤.001 (two-tailed)

To answer the final research question, the correlation between the PSI index and the personal nostalgia index were tested with a Pearson’s r test. Significant correlations were found in the combined treatment group (r = .246, p = .014, two-tailed), the Kim Possible stimulus group (r = .216, p = .031, two-tailed), and The Fairly Oddparents stimulus group (r = .259, p =

.010, two-tailed). In contrast, no significant correlations were found in the combined control,

Teenage Spy, and Greek Out groups.

In addition to the research questions proposed, there were several consistent correlations of interest. The most notable is the significant correlations between personal nostalgia and enjoyment and personal nostalgia and viewing intentions that was observed in all conditions

(Table 27).

Table 27: Pearson r Correlations between Personal Nostalgia, Enjoyment, and Viewing Intentions Personal Personal Nostalgia/ Enjoyment/ Viewing Groups Nostalgia/Enjoyment Viewing Intentions Intentions Treatment .574* .506* .706* Kim Possible 484* .464* .706* The Fairly Oddparents .649* .579* .714* Control .434* .474* .739* Teenage Spy .539* .477* .705* Greek Out .481* .458* .739* *p ≤ .001 (two-tailed)

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

5.1 Overview of Findings

The purpose of this study was to further understand how and why individuals select and enjoy movie adaptations. To accomplish this, the researcher conducted a 2 x 2 online experiment to explore how differences between the participants’ parasocial friendship with cartoon personae and proneness towards feeling nostalgic affect one’s interaction with characters, enjoyment, feeling of personal nostalgia, and viewing attitudes when watching an adaptation treatment. The second goal of this thesis was to retest the conceptualizations of PSI and PSR to examine whether or not they are related or distinct. Lastly, this study introduced empirical evidence of the relationship between parasocial activities and nostalgia.

The first set of hypotheses of this thesis predicted that those with stronger parasocial friendships with franchised characters from the two shows, Kim Possible and The Fairly

Oddparents, would interact more with the personae in the storyboard preview, enjoy the storyboard more, and desire to watch a full version of the movie adaptation more than those with lower parasocial relationships with these personae, and that this difference would be stronger compared to those exposed to storyboards with original characters. Hypothesis 1 predicted that those with stronger parasocial friendship would parasocially interact with the characters in the storyboard stimuli more than those with weaker parasocial friendship. Results show this is the case for The Fairly Oddparents stimulus and the combined treatment group but not with the Kim

Possible stimulus (although it did approach to significance). This observed relationship between

PSI and PSR is consistent with the existing literature, as individuals who have stronger relationships with media personae often mutually adjust to those characters when consuming

entertainment (Dibble, Hartmann, & Rosaen, 2016). However, as Dibble and colleagues pointed out parasocial relationships do not always form through multiple parasocial interactions over time. This is especially true with fictional characters who typically do not address the audience through the “fourth wall” (Auter & Davis, 1991). Without the mutual awareness created through the pseudo-interpersonal context when a persona addresses the audience through verbal and nonverbal indicators, PSI is more difficult to establish with fictional characters (Hartmann &

Goldhoorn, 2011), though it can be done and has been seen in previous studies (Hoffner, 1996;

Perse & Rubin, 1988).

In contrast, it was unexpected to observe this difference within the control group because no parasocial friendships could actually exist within an original (and unfamiliar) program.

However, a possible explanation for this finding may be found in the schema literature. One argument would be that those who scored high in parasocial friendships with the original, control characters on the spot during the experiment might have accessed an existing story schema in order to create a disposition toward the new and unknown persona. If the new character reminded the participant of another (non-origina)l character or character role, then the parasocial friendship might be more easily developed and could be relatively stronger compared to those with less-developed schemas. Raney (2004) argued that the audience builds schemas around particular character roles over time in order to quickly select their moral and narrative positions

(e.g., recognizing the hero and the villain). This argument might also apply to one’s ability to quickly create friendships with original characters by using preexisting schemas, especially since the original characters in this study portrayed many of the characteristics of the characters in the treatment group (Baldwin, 1992). In addition, differences in parasocial interactions were stronger in the control group compared to the treatment group. Klimmt, Hartmann, and Schramm (2011)

argued that the intensity of PSI would be different between a first encounter with a persona compared to a recognized personae. This is because the first interaction with a persona requires initial impression and motivational disposition formation by drawing between the character on screen and the viewers schemas of similar characters. In contrast, parasocial interactions with known characters would require less attention allocation which may reduce the intensity of the interaction.

Hypothesis 2 predicted that those with stronger parasocial friendships would also enjoy the storyboard treatment more than those with weaker parasocial friendships. The results revealed that those with higher PSR with an established cartoon persona were more likely to enjoy the adaptation. This is consistent with the literature (Vorderer, Klimmt, & Ritterfeld,

2004), as according to uses and gratification paradigm, individuals seek out particular media content to fulfill particular needs which include the need to create and nurture relationships with mediated personae (Conway & Rubin, 1991). Therefore, this study lends further evidence to the claim that individuals select and enjoy media content that contains characters with whom they have parasocial relationships.

Furthermore, this difference was also observed in the control group. Again drawing from schema theory, it is possible that the control stimuli could have been perceived by those with strong parasocial friendships as a “spiritual successor” since the stimulus consisted of a mixture of original (i.e. characters) and non-original (i.e. backgrounds, aesthetics) elements that may be just as appealing as a direct adaptation. Spiritual successors are original works that hearken to the themes and storylines of past content without drawing from an established franchise. Definitions for spiritual successor are limited in the literature; however, within game studies, Carreker

(2012) defined spiritual successor video games as games “designed to be very similar to a

previously released game while distinguishing itself as a separate IP, often made by many of the same team members who worked on the earlier game” (p. 206). From a broader perspective, this definition can be applied to all media. Examples then would include television shows such as

Fringe which was a successor to the X-files, and animated movies such as Corpse Bride which was a successor to The Nightmare before Christmas. These types of entertainment often borrow and honor themes, storylines, aesthetics, and character roles that are discernible by audiences while attempting to bring in original and fresh characters. Therefore, compared to an adaptation, spiritual successors may offer characters with familiar roles that the audience enjoys interacting with while also enjoying the novelty of new characters (see also Bohnenkamp et al., 2015). No research to the researcher’s knowledge has been conducted to operationalize this type of entertainment and to observe how it may relate to the enjoyment and selection process. More research needs to be conducted to examine when spiritual successors are enjoyed.

The third hypothesis predicted that those with stronger parasocial friendships would more likely desire to watch the treatment as a full movie adaptation. This was observed in the results, as those with stronger parasocial friendships with the established cartoon characters were more likely to want to watch the full adaptation. Wallace, Seigerman, and Holbrook (1993) argued that the commercial success of entertainment content is partly dependent on the portrayal of celebrities in advertisements. In parallel, this study shows that the portrayals of fictional characters may also important in one’s selection process. As individuals develop relationship schemas with particular characters, content containing those characters may offer a stronger hedonic appeal for selection because the characters are already known, which increases the probability that the content they are in will be enjoyable (Klimmt, Hartmann, & Schramm, 2011;

Zillmann & Bryant, 1985/2013). This study further provides evidence of this position, as the

effect size with viewing intent between those with stronger parasocial friendship and those with weaker parasocial friendship was stronger with known characters (r = .288) compared to those exposed with original characters (r = .201).

The second part of this study focused on how the differences in nostalgia-proneness predicted how one experienced nostalgia, enjoyment, and intents to view the full adaptation.

Unlike PSR, nostalgia-proneness did not predict the dependent variables as robustly. For instance, significant differences in personal nostalgia were found only in The Fairly Oddparents stimulus group. This may be, as others have criticized (Hallegatte & Marticotte, 2014), that nostalgia-proneness in its current operationalization may only measure a participant’s preference towards things in one’s past (as opped to one’s tendency to feel nostalgic). This may be why the participants higher in nostalgia-proneness towards media were more likely to want to view the full adaptation, but did not feel nostalgic or enjoyment towards the storyboard itself (Holbrook,

1993, 1994). Therefore, while those who are more prone to nostalgia may want to consume content that calls back to their past, it may be shortsighted to assume those highly prone towards nostalgia simply enjoy all content related to their past, without regard to its quality. Instead, while they may seek out entertainment from the past in order to fulfill hedonic needs (Zillmann

& Bryant, 1985/2013), the affective and cognitive reward of enjoyment and nostalgia are not necessarily always present when high nostalgically prone individuals watch an adaptation. In other words, those who are stronger in nostalgia-proneness may evaluate and enjoy entertainment similarly to the general population.

The final piece of this thesis asked if there was a relationship between the parasocial activities and nostalgia-related concepts. It was found that nostalgia-proneness was correlated with parasocial frienship with Kim Possible stimulus but not with The Fairly Oddparents

stimulus. This may be because those with higher nostalgia-proneness may only have strong parasocial relationships with personae who were the primary focus of the adaptation, like Kim

Possible. For multi-character shows like The Fairly Oddparents, other narrative and aesthetic elements such as humor might be more appealing compared to the characters which might make it harder for those with higher nostalgia-proneness to create relationships with.

In contrast, parasocial interaction was correlated with personal nostalgia in all of the treatment stimuli groups. As previous studies have indicated (Holak & Havlena, 1998; Abeyta,

Routledge, & Juhl, 2015; Sedikides, 2015b), nostalgia can promote social experiences that encourage a sense of bonding and social competence with others. This study shows that this connectivity with others when one feels nostalgic may not only apply to real people but also to mediated characters. Therefore, it is possible that if one is socially connected with an established persona from one’s past, then s/he will more likely to prime one’s ego-emotion of nostalgia when the character is onscreen (Klimmt, Hartmann, & Schramm, 2011). This thesis also gives some clarity as to the circumstances in which nostalgia is expressed in social situations. For one, those who already have a strong relationship with a particular character may be more likely to have more competence in their ability to parasocially interact with that persona, allowing for more engaging parasocial interactions, and therefore making it easier to experience nostalgia.

In addition to the hypotheses and research questions of this thesis, there were a few significant relationships that should be addressed. Even though nostalgia has been considered an eudaimonic experience (Oliver and Woolly, 2011), the unexpectedly strong correlations between it and enjoyment and viewing intentions needs to be further investigated. Two theoretical frameworks can be purposed for initial explanation: selective exposure and self-determination theory. Pulling from Stephan and colleagues (2014), nostalgia is not only a response to deter

negative affects but is also a mechanism to turn negatively valenced emotions into positive emotions. In Zillmann and Bryant’s (1985/2013) original theory of selective exposure, individuals have a hedonic need to avoid negative and to seek out pleasurable stimuli. Therefore, nostalgia may serve as a motivational indicator for mood management, as an individual may implicitly seek out nostalgic eliciting material as a safe bet both to cope against negative emotions and to transform that affect into enjoyment. Secondly, nostalgia may serve as a vehicle to fulfill the implicit needs of competence and relativeness in the self-determination model

(Tamborini et. al., 2010). As seen in this study, familiar personae can serve as a major elicitor of nostalgia, which allows viewers to engage in competent parasocializing. Since viewers would already have schemas about the established characters compared to original characters and have already engaged in parasocial interactions with them, viewers of adaptations may feel more competent in their ability to socially engage with the characters which rewards one’s intrinsic need to relate with others. Since the characters are already known, more advance and meaningful interactions such as exploring the characters attitude towards specific scenarios or rehearsing the characters personal idioms may also play out between the viewer and the personae (Klimmt,

Hartmann, & Schramm, 2011; also see Altman & Taylor, 1973).

Lastly, while this study suggests that adaptations with established, non-original characters can be more enjoyable than media content with original characters, this is not always the case.

The results show that while enjoyment and viewing intentions were higher for the Kim Possible storyboards compared to its control title, enjoyment and viewing intentions were lower for The

Fairly Oddparents storyboard compared to its control title. This could be because reused materials like adaptations, remakes, and sequels are not always more enjoyable than original content. Anecdotally, it is common to see an iteration within a franchise that is generally disliked

and receive bad reviews from critics and audience (i.e., movie adaptations of video games;

Picard & Fandango, 2008). For every critically and generally acclaimed movie adaptation such as Lord of the Rings, there is an adaptation that is not generally enjoyed liked the Eragon movie adaptation.

Overall, this study supports the argument that an individual’s parasocial relationships with franchised characters are likely an important predictor of the enjoyment and selection process of movie adaptations. In parallel, an individual’s proneness towards nostalgia also is an important variable to consider when observing one’s entertainment selection process. Many people enjoy watching films with characters that they grew up with, where viewers can add upon their engagement through their prior knowledge of the character’s behavior and personality.

They feel nostalgic when consuming content with their favorite characters from their childhood, which in turn can perpetuates their enjoyment even further. However, this does not guarantee that reused franchises will always be more enjoyable and chosen compared to new and original entertainment.

5.2 Limitations

One of the main limitations of this study is the concern of ecological validity in using storyboards as the stimuli to generalize to selective exposure. This is because storyboards are not a typical form of entertainment media. Therefore, the researcher is limited with any conclusion with regards to selective exposure; however, arguments can still be made for anticipated selective exposure. Because this study created and used storyboards, the researcher was able to manipulate and control the characters presented in each group while keeping the exact same narrative between groups in order to directly observe the effects of characters in adaptations.

Another concern for this study was the effects of character portrayals within the stimulus

material. Because PSR can involve a complex understanding of and intimacy with a persona, if the screenplay portrayed a character in an inconsistent manner from previous interactions, then it may have violated the participant’s expectation and may have reduced overall enjoyment and viewing intentions. From the results observed, this may have occurred with The Fairly

Oddparents stimulus as its control counterpart was more enjoyable and had higher viewer intentions than the treatment. Lastly, since the majority of the participants were female, there may be potential bias in the sample compared to a sample of participants who are more representative of the gender distribution.

5.3 Suggestions for Future Research

Based on the findings in this study, researchers should focus on two concepts for future research. The first is to begin to analyze how and why enjoyment and nostalgia are correlated in different entertainment experiences. More research will be needed to determine when the causal relationship of the two is present in order to develop an appropriate theoretical model for their relationship. Researchers should test to examine if the relationship is present in original and non- original content like remakes and sequels, which narrative, characters, and aesthetic variables may contribute to the variability between the two, and what psychological and affective dispositions best predict ones selection of nostalgic entertainment in general. For instances, one should study whether or not narrative transportation increases how one feels nostalgic. Further, one should test to see if people select nostalgic entertainment for mood management purposes in order to deter negative affective states.

Secondly, researchers should also focus on inductive studies conceptualizing spiritual successors and begin testing what individual differences may come into play between those who

enjoy these types of content compared to those that enjoy the original and those that enjoy recycled entertainment.

5.4 Conclusion

If one takes the time to casually look at the available entertainment present in everyday life, it is not hard to find dozens of examples of adaptations, sequels, prequels, and remakes.

Because of this study, scholars can now better understand the appeal of these types of shows, movies, literature, and games and how we use them to satisfy particular needs. More specifically, there is now evidence that individuals may select and enjoy movie adaptations because of their relationships with known characters, which may elicit nostalgia and enjoyment when watching.

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS

Table 28: Pretest Questionnaire Remembrance

1) I remember watching this cartoon often growing up. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree -Neutral -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

2) I can easily remember the names of the main characters. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree -Neutral -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

3) I have memories of the plot of the cartoon -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree -Neutral -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

Perceived Popularity

1) Many of my friends have talked about this cartoon. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree -Neutral -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

2) I use to see a lot of products from this cartoon at the store. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree -Neutral -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

3) Everyone used to watch this cartoon. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree -Neutral -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

Table 29: Multiple Parasocial Relationship Scale Parasocial Friendship-Communication

1) If X was a real person, I could disclose negative things about myself honestly and fully (deeply) with him/her. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Neutral -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

2) If X were a real person, I could have disclosed a great deal of things about myself to X -Strongly Agree -Agree -Neutral -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

3) Sometimes, I wish I knew what X would do in my situation. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Neutral -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

4) I X was a real person, I could have disclosed positive things about myself honest and fully (deeply) with him/her -Strongly Agree -Agree -Neutral -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

5) Sometime, I wish I could ask X for advice.

Table 29 – Continued -Strongly Agree -Agree -Neutral -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

6) I think X could be a friend of mine. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Neutral -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

Parasocial Friendship-Support

1) If X was a real person, I would be able to count on X in times of need. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Neutral -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

2) If X was a real person, I would give him/her emotional support. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Neutral -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

3) If X was a real person, he/she could count on me in times of need. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Neutral -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

4) If X was a real person, I would/will share my possessions with him/her. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Neutral -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

5) If X was a real person, I could trust him/her completely. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Neutral -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

6) If X was a real person, I could have a warm relationship with him/her. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Neutral -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

7) I want to promote the wellbeing of X. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Neutral -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

Table 30: Nostalgia-Proneness Inventory Please rate how much you miss the following items from when you were younger.

1) Family -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree – Agree a little -Neutral -Disagree a little - Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

2) Things You Did -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree – Agree a little -Neutral -Disagree a little - Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

3) Holidays -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree – Agree a little -Neutral -Disagree a little - Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

4) Heroes and heroines -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree – Agree a little -Neutral -Disagree a little -

Table 30 – Continued Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

5) Toys -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree – Agree a little -Neutral -Disagree a little -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

6) Pet or pets -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree – Agree a little -Neutral -Disagree a little -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

7) Places -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree – Agree a little -Neutral -Disagree a little -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

8) Feelings you had -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree – Agree a little -Neutral -Disagree a little -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

9) Not knowing sad or evil things -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree – Agree a little -Neutral -Disagree a little -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

10) Music -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree – Agree a little -Neutral -Disagree a little -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

11) TV shows, movies -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree – Agree a little -Neutral -Disagree a little -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

12) Church or Temple, etc. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree – Agree a little -Neutral -Disagree a little -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

13) Someone you loved -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree – Agree a little -Neutral -Disagree a little -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

14) School -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree – Agree a little -Neutral -Disagree a little -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

15) Your house -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree – Agree a little -Neutral -Disagree a little -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

Table 30 – Continued 16) Friends -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree – Agree a little -Neutral -Disagree a little -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

17) Having someone to depend on -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree – Agree a little -Neutral -Disagree a little -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

Table 31: Dependent Variables Scales Experience Parasocial Interaction Scale

While I was watching the slideshow, I had the feeling that X . . . 1) Was aware of me. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree -Neutral -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

2) Knew I was there. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree -Neutral -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

3) Knew I was aware of him/her. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree -Neutral -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

4) Knew I paid attention to him/he -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree -Neutral -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

5) Knew that I reacted to him/her. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree -Neutral -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

6) Reacted to what I said or did. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree -Neutral -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

Personal Nostalgia

This movie slideshow reminded me of . . . 1) Good times from my past. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree -Neutral -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

2) When I was young. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree -Neutral -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

3) My childhood days. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree -Neutral -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

4) A pleasant reminder of my past. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree -Neutral -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

5) Memories of good times from my past. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree -Neutral -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

Table 31 – Continued Enjoyment Scale

1) How much did you enjoy the movie slideshow? -Not at all –Didn’t enjoy it –Somewhat didn’t enjoy it –Neutral –Somewhat enjoyed it –Enjoyed it –Highly enjoyed it

2) How much did you enjoy the subject matter of the movie slideshow? -Not at all –Didn’t enjoy it –Somewhat didn’t enjoy it –Neutral –Somewhat enjoyed it –Enjoyed it –Highly enjoyed it

3) How good was the movie slideshow? -Very bad –Bad –Somewhat bad –Neutral –Somewhat good –Good –Very good

4) How exciting was the movie slideshow? -Very boring –Boring -Somewhat boring –Neutral –Somewhat exciting –Exciting –Very Exciting

Movie Viewing Intentions

1) I would like to see this movie in the theater. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree -Neutral -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

2) I would like to buy this movie on DVD or Blu-Ray. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree -Neutral -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

3) I would like to know more about this movie -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree -Neutral -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

4) I am highly anticipated to watch this movie. -Strongly Agree -Agree -Somewhat Agree -Neutral -Somewhat Disagree -Disagree -Strongly Disagree

APPENDIX B

IRB APPORVAL LETTER AND INFORMED CONSENT

REFERENCES

Abeyta, A. A., Routledge, C., & Juhl, J. (2015). Looking back to move forward: Nostalgia as a psychological resource for promoting relationship goals and overcoming relationship challenges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1029-1044. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000036

Altman, I. & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt.

Auter, P. J., & Davis, D. M. (1991). When characters speak directly to viewers: Breaking the fourth wall in television. Journalism Quarterly, 68(1-2), 165-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909106800117

Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 461-484. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033- 2909.112.3.461

Batcho, K. I. (2007). Nostalgia and the emotional tone and content of song lyrics. The American Journal of Psychology, 120(3), 361-381. https://doi.org/10.2307/20445410

Batcho, K. I. (2013). Nostalgia: Retreat or support in difficult times? The American Journal of Psychology, 126(3), 355-367. http://dx.doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.126.3.0355

Bohnenkamp, B., Knapp, A. K., Hennig-Thurau, T., & Schauerte, R. (2015). When does it make sense to do it again? An empirical investigation of contingency factors of movie remakes. Journal of Cultural Economics, 39(1), 15-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10824-014- 9221-6

Brunick, K. L., Putnam, M. M., McGarry, L. E., Richards, M. N., & Calvert, S. L. (2016). Children’s future parasocial relationships with media characters: the age of intelligent characters. Journal of Children and Media, 10(2), 181-190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2015.1127839

Carreker, D. (2012). The Game Developer's Dictionary: A Multidisciplinary Lexicon for Professionals and Students. Cengage Learning.

Cohen, J. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication & Society, 4(3), 245-264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327825mcs0403_01

Conway, J. C., & Rubin, A. M. (1991). Psychological predictors of television viewing motivation. Communication Research, 18(4), 443-463. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365091018004001

Chang, B., & Ki, E. (2005). Devising a practical model for predicting theatrical movie success: focusing on the experience good property. Journal of Media Economics, 18(4), 247-269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327736me1804_2 55

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6

Dibble, J. L., Hartmann, T., & Rosaen, S. F. (2016). Parasocial interaction and parasocial relationship: conceptual clarification and a critical assessment of measures: Parasocial interaction and parasocial relationship. Human Communication Research, 42(1), 21-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12063

Dicecco, N. (2011). On truth and falsity in their intertextual sense: Adaptation as dissimulation. Pivot: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies and Thought, 1(1), 68-82.

Evans, R. D., Hart, P. M., Cicala, J. E., & Sherrell, D. L. (2010). Elvis: Dead and loving it - the influence of attraction, nostalgia, and risk in dead celebrity attitude formation. Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 3, 1-13.

Eyal, K., & Dailey, R. M. (2012). Examining relational maintenance in parasocial relationships. Mass Communication and Society, 15(5), 758-781. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2011.616276

Fetscherin, M., & Conway, M. (2011). Brand love: Interpersonal or parasocial love relationship? 1-17.

Furno-Lamude, D., & Anderson, J. (1992). The uses and gratifications of rerun viewing. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 69(2), 362-372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107769909206900210

Hallegatte, D., & Marticotte, F. (2014). Does Holbrook’s Nostalgia Index measure nostalgia proneness?. Paper presented at 2015 AMA Winter Marketing Educators’ Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Hartmann, T., & Goldhoorn, C. (2011). Horton and Wohl revisited: Exploring viewers' experience of parasocial interaction. Journal of Communication, 61(6), 1104-1121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01595.x

Hepper, E. G., Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Ritchie, T. D., Yung, Y. F., Hansen, N., . . . & Gebauer, J. E. (2014). Pancultural nostalgia: prototypical conceptions across cultures. Emotion, 14(4), 733-747. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036790

Higson, A. (2014). Nostalgia is not what it used to be: Heritage films, nostalgia websites and contemporary consumers. Consumption Markets & Culture, 17(2), 120-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10253866.2013.776305

Hoeksema, B. (2014). Predicting enjoyment, appreciation, interest, and nostalgia from novelty in media content: the case of mashups. (AAT 2073374)

Hofer, J. (1934). Medical dissertation on nostalgia. (C. K. Anspach, Trans.). In Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 2, 376–391. (Original work published 1688)

Hoffmann, J. (2006). “Play it again, Sam”. A differentiating view on repeated exposure to narrative content in media. Communications, 31(3), 389-403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/commun.2006.024

Hoffner, C. (1996). Children's wishful identification and parasocial interaction with favorite television characters. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40(3), 389-402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08838159609364360

Holak, S. L., & Havlena, W. J. (1998). Feelings, fantasies, and memories: An examination of the emotional components of nostalgia. Journal of Business Research, 42(3), 217-226.

Holbrook, M. B. (1993). Nostalgia and consumption preferences: Some emerging patterns of consumer tastes. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 245-256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209346

Holbrook, M. B. (1994). Nostalgia proneness and consumer tastes. In J. A. Howard (Ed.), Buyer behavior in marketing strategy (2nd ed., pp. 348–364). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.

Horton, D., & Richard Wohl, R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215-229.

Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509-523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/268109

King, S. (2016, January 2). ‘Star Wars’ surpasses ‘Titanic’ and ‘Jurassic World,’ breaking more box office records. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-star-wars-continues- to-break-box-office-records-20160102-story.html

Klimmt, C., Hartmann, T., & Schramm, H. (2011). Parasocial Interactions and Relationships. In J. Bryant, and P. Vorderer, Psychology of Entertainment (pp. 291-314). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lewis, R. J., Tamborini, R., & Weber, R. (2014). Testing a Dual Process Model of Media Enjoyment and Appreciation. Journal of Communication, 64(3), 397-416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12101 ‐

Marchegiani, C., & Phau, I. (2013). Development and validation of the personal nostalgia scale. Journal of Marketing Communications, 19(1), 22-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2010.542078

McCutcheon, L. E., Lange, R., & Houran, J. (2002). Conceptualization and measurement of celebrity worship. British Journal of Psychology, 93(1), 67-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000712602162454

Meehan, E. R. (2004). “Holy commodity fetish, Batman!” The political economy of the commercial intertext. In Thomas Schatz (Eds.), Hollywood: Cultural Dimensions: Ideology, Identity and Cultural Industry Studies (pp. 312-328). Routledge.

Murdock, G., & Golding, P. (1973). For a political economy of mass communications. Socialist Register, 10(10), 205-234.

Natterer, K. (2014). How and why to measure personal and historical nostalgic responses through entertainment media. International Journal on Media Management, 16(3), 161- 180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14241277.2014.989567

Oliver, M., & Woolley, J. (2011). Tragic and Poignant Entertainment the Gratification of Meaningfulness as Emotional Response. In K. Doveling, C. von Scheve, and E. Konijn, The Routledge Handbook of Emotions and Mass Media (pp. 134-147).

Perse, E. M., & Rubin, A. M. (1988). Audience activity and satisfaction with favorite television soap opera. Journalism Quarterly, 65(2), 368-375. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908806500216

Pett, E. (2013). “Hey! Hey! I’ve seen this one, I’ve seen this one. It’s a classic”: Nostalgia, repeat viewing and cult performance in Back to the Future. Participations, 10(1), 177- 197.

Picard, M., & Fandango, G. (2008). Video games and their relationship with other media. In M. J. Wolf (Eds.), The video game explosion: A history from Pong to Playstation and beyond (pp. 293-300).

Raney, A. A. (2002). Moral judgment as a predictor of enjoyment of crime drama. Media Psychology, 4(4), 305-322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0404_01

Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge, UK: CSLI Publications and Cambridge university press.

Routledge, C., Arndt, J., Sedikides, C., & Wildschut, T. (2008). A blast from the past: The terror management function of nostalgia. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(1), 132-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.11.001

Rubin, A. M., Perse, E. M., & Powell, R. A. (1985). Loneliness, parasocial interaction and local television and local television news viewing. Human Communication Research, 12, 155- 180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1985.tb00071.x

Rubin, A. M. (2009). Uses and gratifications. In R. Nabi, and M. Oliver, The SAGE Handbook of Media Processes and Effects (147-159).

Schindler, R. M., & Holbrook, M. B. (2003). Nostalgia for early experience as a determinant of consumer preferences. Psychology and Marketing, 20(4), 275-302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.10074

Schreier, M. (2011). (Subjective) Well-Being. In J. Bryant, and P. Vorderer, Psychology of Entertainment (pp. 291-314). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., & Baden, D. (2004). Nostalgia: Conceptual Issues and Existential Functions. In J. Greenberg, S. L. Koole, and T. A. Pyszczynski (Eds.), The Handbook of Experimental Existential Psychology (pp. 200-214).

Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., Routledge, C., & Arndt, J. (2015a). Nostalgia counteracts self discontinuity and restores self continuity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(1), 52-61. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2073 ‐ ‐ Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., Routledge, C., Arndt, J., Hepper, E. G., & Zhou, X. (2015b). To nostalgize: Mixing memory with affect and desire. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 51, 189-273

Seehusen, J., Cordaro, F., Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Routledge, C., Blackhart, G. C., . . . & Vingerhoets, A. J. (2013). Individual differences in nostalgia proneness: The integrating role of the need to belong. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(8), 904-908. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.020

Simonton, D. K. (2009). Cinematic success criteria and their predictors: The art and business of the film industry. Psychology & marketing, 26(5), 400-420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20280

Situmeang, F., Leenders, M., & Wijnberg, N. (2014). The good, the bad and the variable: How evaluations of past editions influence the success of sequels. European Journal of Marketing, 48(7/8), 1466-1486. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ejm-08-2012-0493

Tamborini, R., Bowman, N. D., Eden, A., Grizzard, M., & Organ, A. (2010). Defining media enjoyment as the satisfaction of intrinsic needs. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 758- 777. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01513.x

Tops of 2013: Entertainment. (2013, December 13). Retrieved: http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2013/tops-of-2013-entertainment.html

Thorson, E. (1989). Processing television commercials. Rethinking Communication, 2, 397-410.

Tukachinsky, R. H. (2011). Para-romantic love and para-friendships: Development and assessment of a multiple-parasocial relationships scale. American Journal of Media Psychology, 3(1/2), 73-94.

TV.com. (2016). Shows. Retrieved from: http://www.tv.com/shows/category/kids/decade/2000s/

Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., & Ritterfeld, U. (2004). Enjoyment: At the heart of media entertainment. Communication Theory, 14(4), 388-408. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 2885.2004.tb00321.x

Wallace, W. T., Seigerman, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (1993). The role of actors and actresses in the success of films: How much is a movie star worth? Journal of Cultural Economics, 17(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00820765

WallaceFRCorrice. (2011, August 25). The BEST 2000s Cartoons (2000-2009). Retrieved from: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls003040433

Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Arndt, J., & Routledge, C. (2006). Nostalgia: Content, triggers, functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 975-993. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.975

Wirth, W., & Schramm, H. (2005). Media and emotions. Communication Research Trends, 24(3), 1-44.

Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1-27.

Zhou, X., Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., & Gao, D. G. (2008). Counteracting loneliness on the restorative function of nostalgia. Psychological Science, 19(10), 1023-1029. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02194.x

Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (2013). Selective exposure to communication. Routledge. (Original work published 1985)

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Joshua Baldwin was born in Winchester, Virginia, and was raised in several cities including Raleigh, North Carolina, Tallahassee, Florida, and Idaho Falls, Idaho. He received

A.A. in General Studies at Idaho State University and is B.S. in Media and Communication

Studies at Florida State University. After receiving his Bachelors, Joshua continued to further his academic career by pursuing a M.S. in Media and Communication Studies at Florida State

University. His research focuses on the uses and effects of entertainment media and the long term relationships between individuals and media characters. In August of 2017, he will continue to further his education by pursuing a Ph.D. in Communication at Michigan State University.