Psychology of Popular Media Culture Curving Entertainment: The Curvilinear Relationship Between Hedonic and Eudaimonic Entertainment Experiences While Watching a Political Talk Show and Its Implications for Information Processing Franziska S. Roth, Carina Weinmann, Frank M. Schneider, Frederic R. Hopp, Melanie J. Bindl, and Peter Vorderer Online First Publication, April 27, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000147

CITATION Roth, F. S., Weinmann, C., Schneider, F. M., Hopp, F. R., Bindl, M. J., & Vorderer, P. (2017, April 27). Curving Entertainment: The Curvilinear Relationship Between Hedonic and Eudaimonic Entertainment Experiences While Watching a Political Talk Show and Its Implications for Information Processing. Psychology of Popular Media Culture. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000147 Psychology of Popular Media Culture © 2017 American Psychological Association 2017, Vol. 6, No. 2, 000 2160-4134/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000147 Curving Entertainment: The Curvilinear Relationship Between Hedonic and Eudaimonic Entertainment Experiences While Watching a Political Talk Show and Its Implications for Information Processing

Franziska S. Roth, Carina Weinmann, Frank M. Schneider, Frederic R. Hopp, Melanie J. Bindl, and Peter Vorderer University of Mannheim

Two studies were conducted to test the relation between hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment experiences as well as their respective influence on information process- ing while watching a political talk show on TV. Assumptions from entertainment theory and positive psychology served as theoretical basis. A curvilinear relationship between hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment experiences was found through an online survey (N ϭ 675). The second study (N ϭ 132) was an experiment in which hedonic entertainment experiences were manipulated. Again, a curvilinear relationship between both entertainment experiences was detected. Furthermore, entertainment experiences were associated with information processing in a meaningful pattern. These results point to the distinct relationships and effects of different forms of entertainment experiences. Implications for political media and entertainment educa- tion are discussed.

Public Policy Relevance Statement There sometimes seem to be two conflicting views when it comes to how political media are supposed to look like. Some argue they should be very entertaining, to motivate people with low political interest to get involved and learn something on the side. Others argue they should not be entertaining but rather serious, so that real learning is possible at all. Our data cannot support either notion. From our results we would argue that some fun in political content is not necessarily a bad thing. The “correct” mixture is the relevant point; in our studies we see a threshold, a cutoff point, at which fun is too much of a good thing. However, until that point it should be a goal to provide hedonic entertainment experiences, i.e., fun, joy, wittiness, humor.

Keywords: political entertainment, entertainment theory, information processing, sur- vey, experiment

Entertainment research has focused on the dramas, and thrillers (see, e.g., the special issue commonalities, differences, and specialties of of the Journal of Communication, Oliver & This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individualviewer’s user and is not to be disseminated broadly. experiences while watching comedies, Raney, 2014). Slowly but steadily comprehen-

The research described in this article was funded by the Franziska S. Roth, Carina Weinmann, Frank M. Schnei- Deutsche Forschungs gemeinschaft (German Research der, Frederic R. Hopp, Melanie J. Bindl, and Peter Vor- Foundation, Project Number: VO 551/15-1). We thank derer, Institute for Media and Communication Studies, Jonathan Cohen, Christoph Klimmt, and Maria Teresa Soto University of Mannheim. for their valuable input that sparked the idea for this paper. Frederic R. Hopp is now at Department of Communica- Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- tion, University of California, Santa Barbara. Melanie J. dressed to Franziska S. Roth, who is now at the Product Bindl is now at Institute for Journalism, Johannes Guten- Design Department, Zalando SE, Charlottenstraße 4, berg University Mainz. 10969 Berlin, Germany. E-mail: [email protected]

1 2 ROTH ET AL.

sive theoretical models have been developed to most beneficial for political education purposes account for viewers’ experiences while watch- (Roth, 2016; Weinmann, 2015). ing traditional entertainment formats. However, However, many questions in both areas (tra- what at least to some extend has been neglected ditional entertainment media and political me- in the past are the analyses of viewer’s psycho- dia) are still unaccounted for. We know little logical experiences while watching political en- about how the two processes of entertainment tertainment, for example, political talk shows are related to each other. Do both processes just on TV. correlate? Is one process a precondition for the The existing theoretical models can mostly formation of the other? How does the balance be referred to as two-process models of enter- between the processes influence information tainment but differ to some degree in their spe- processing? Only when we gain a deeper un- cific assumptions (Lewis, Tamborini, & Weber, derstanding of the interrelation of both pro- 2014; Oliver & Bartsch, 2010, 2011; Tamborini cesses, we can state clearer advice on how to et al., 2010, 2011; Vorderer & Reinecke, 2015; design political formats to make them entertain- Wirth, Hofer, & Schramm, 2012). Usually, they ing in a way that might endorse the kind of include one form of entertainment that consists deeper information processing that often seems of positive experiences like feeling fun and joy to be the goal of political media. Therefore, this (often referred to as enjoyment or hedonic en- paper will analyze “serious” political talk shows tertainment; Vorderer, Klimmt, & Ritterfeld, as a prototype of political entertainment and the 2004). The second form is shaped by mixed entertainment experiences they offer to estab- emotions, meaning the experience of sadness lish first answers to these questions. and anger as well as of thoughtfulness, mean- ingfulness, and being moved (usually referred Dual-Process Models of Entertainment to as appreciation or eudaimonic entertainment; The early beginnings of entertainment re- Oliver & Bartsch, 2010, 2011; Vorderer & Rit- search focused mainly on positive outcomes of terfeld, 2009; Vorderer & Reinecke, 2012; viewers’ exposure to such content (cf., e.g., Wirth et al., 2012). Bosshart & Macconi, 1998; Zillmann, 1988; Researchers have only begun to adapt and Zillmann & Bryant, 1994). Media users were extend these theoretical frameworks to explain seen as hedonic beings striving for pleasure and entertainment experiences while watching or avoiding negative feelings like sadness, anger, reading political (entertaining) content (Bartsch and frustration. Positive emotions like fun, plea- & Schneider, 2014; Roth, Weinmann, Schnei- sure, or amusement were subsumed under the der, Hopp, & Vorderer, 2014). This proceeding term enjoyment (Vorderer et al., 2004). occurred because political formats can be cata- In addition to this research line, scholarly lysts for the experience of both entertainment discussions about the sad film paradox (i.e., the processes, whereas a “pure” comedy might not paradox that many viewers enjoy movies that be multifaceted enough (Roth, 2016). Further- make them feel sad; Oliver, 1993) started, and more, new questions connecting entertainment the questions on how the “enjoyment” of, for theory and information processing were dis- example, drama, art, and sad documentaries can cussed: Because political content is often sup- be explained became more pressing (Vorderer posed to inform the public, researchers won- & Reinecke, 2015). In addition to enjoyment, a This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. dered to what extent the two processes of second psychological response (called appreci- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. entertainment can enable a systematic, “deeper” ation or eudaimonic entertainment) was ad- processing style that is associated with learning. vanced. The theoretical conception for this pro- So far, it has been demonstrated several times cess differs slightly between two lines of that specific entertainment processes (i.e., eu- research (Vorderer & Reinecke, 2015). daimonic ones) can indeed lead to a deeper, One line of research relies on Aristotle’s Nico- more systematic and effortful processing of machean Ethics. According to this work, only the content (Bartsch & Schneider, 2014; Roth, striving for higher insights and personal develop- 2016). As a secondary effect, research in this ment can create well-being in a person (Aristotle, area can lead to important insights into how 1931). Based on this idea, eudaimonic entertain- political entertainment has to be designed to be ment is conceptualized as an experience of moral- CURVING ENTERTAINMENT 3

ity, thoughtfulness, the feeling of being moved, man, 1993; Waterman, 2008; Waterman, and the gaining of deeper insights about one’s Schwartz, & Conti, 2008). Some researchers own life or human lives in general (Oliver & went so far to see hedonic and eudaimonic Bartsch, 2010, 2011; Oliver, Hartmann, & Wool- conceptions of well-being as hierarchical. Wa- ley, 2012; Oliver & Raney, 2011). terman (1993) was one of the first to theorize The other line of research sees eudaimonic en- that hedonia is a precondition for eudaimonia tertainment as an experience that results from the when it comes to overall life satisfaction. In satisfaction of three intrinsic needs: autonomy, Waterman (2008) and in Waterman et al. competence, and relatedness (Vorderer & Ritter- (2008), he amended this idea by stating the feld, 2009). Those three needs and their impor- following: tance for human well-being were originally pos- tulated by self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Thus, there are three conceivable categories of activi- Ryan, 1985, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). SDT is a ties, (a) those for which both hedonic enjoyment and motivational theory from positive psychology. eudaimonia are experienced; (b) those for which hedo- nic enjoyment, but not eudaimonia, is experienced; and One study by Wirth et al. (2012) can to some (c) those giving rise to neither hedonic enjoyment nor extent be seen as bridging both lines of research. eudaimonia. (Waterman et al., 2008, p. 43) To conceptualize eudaimonic entertainment, these authors use a theory that stems from the same Both studies could demonstrate the proposed tradition like SDT (i.e., positive psychology): the pattern empirically, as have, at least to some six-factor-model of well-being by Ryff and Singer extent, also Linley, Maltby, Wood, Osborne, (2006). With this theory, Wirth and colleagues and Hurling (2009) in their paper on measuring (2012) incorporate the three original intrinsic happiness in different cultures. In their experi- needs autonomy, competence, and relatedness in mental studies, King, Hicks, Krull, and Del their theoretical model. Furthermore, they include Gasio (2006) found a strong relation between the constructs “purpose in life” and “activation of positive mood (as indicator of hedonic happi- central values” as additional dimensions of eudai- ness) and meaning in life (as indicator for eu- monic entertainment. These dimensions comprise daimonic well-being). Overall, the results point experiences, which are rather similar to the con- to the fact that hedonia can exist without eudai- cept of appreciation that has been forwarded by monia but eudaimonia can only develop in hu- Oliver and colleagues (2010, 2011, 2012) as ex- mans when they also experience hedonia. How- plained above. ever, the question remains whether these results Notwithstanding their differences, all de- can also be applied to entertainment research in scribed eudaimonic entertainment concepts general and to the concepts of hedonic and have in common that they relate to some extent eudaimonic entertainment in specific. to basic ideas of positive psychology. Positive Several, albeit in part contradicting, notes psychology states that well-being cannot, after have been made with regard to the question of all, only result from hedonic pleasure but rather how enjoyment and appreciation might be as- needs to be supplemented by eudaimonic expe- sociated with each other. Oliver and Bartsch riences in life (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Some of the (2011) stress that hedonic and eudaimonic en- insights and results of positive psychology tertainment experiences should not be under- might be transferable to entertainment research in order to provide an informational basis on stood “as opposite ends of a continuum” (p. 30). This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. how the processes of hedonic pleasure seeking According to these authors, both processes are This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. and eudaimonic experiences while using media distinct forms of experiences, which develop relate to each other. depending on the content of the media. They may appear together as well as independent The Relation Between Hedonic and from each other. Hence, Oliver and Bartsch Eudaimonic Entertainment (2010, 2011) seem to imply that the eudaimonic entertainment experience can exist on its own. In positive psychology, eudaimonia and he- This, however, is not in line with the above- donia are considered as two related but distinct mentioned research in positive psychology, constructs (Ryan & Deci, 2001, p. 148; see also which assumes eudaimonia to be dependent on Ryan, Huta, & Deci, 2008; Sirgy, 2012; Water- the prior existence of hedonia. 4 ROTH ET AL.

In contrast, entertainment research that refers to each other. In their experiment, they manip- more closely to SDT is more in line with the ulate both processes independently, which sug- original concepts of positive psychology. Vor- gests that they see them as separate. This sug- derer and Ritterfeld (2009) conceptualize enjoy- gestion is also supported by their specific ment (hedonic entertainment) as the fulfillment analysis of the data, as the authors calculate a of “lower order needs” (i.e., emotional ones) structural equation model in which hedonic and and appreciation (eudaimonic entertainment) as eudaimonic entertainment represent separate the fulfillment of “higher order needs” (i.e., (but related) latent variables. rational ones). These labels imply an assump- Overall, entertainment literature in general tion about a specific sequence of the processes, does not seem to have one coherent message that is, enjoyment being inferior to appreciation. concerning the relationship between eudai- However, the authors stress that they do not monic and hedonic entertainment experiences. necessarily see an established hierarchy be- As a consequence, it remains unclear whether tween both. Nonetheless, their conceptualiza- they are positively or negatively correlated, in- tion seems to be rather close to the one proposed dependent factors, or maybe even in a curvilin- by Waterman and colleagues (2008). Another ear or cubic relationship (see Figure 1 for perspective in this context is taken by Tambo- graphic displays on how these relationships rini and colleagues (2010, 2011). They differ- would look like). entiate between eudaimonic and hedonic enter- Furthermore, the question remains to what tainment as two subprocesses of the one overall extent the aforementioned research is applicable experience of media enjoyment. This perspec- to political media in general and political talk tive contradicts the ideas of Waterman and col- shows in particular. leagues (2008), because it implies no hierarchy at all. Entertainment Theory and Political Media In contrast, Wirth et al. (2012) do not explic- itly mention how they see hedonic and eudai- Previous entertainment research has mainly monic entertainment experiences being related used movies as stimuli to investigate psycho-

Linear Relationship (Positive) Linear Relationship (Negative)

Curvilinear Relationship Curvilinear Relationship (Convex) (Concave) This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Cubic Relationship Cubic Relationship

Figure 1. Graphic display of linear, curvilinear, and cubic relationships. CURVING ENTERTAINMENT 5

logical responses. However, no two movies are important part of the viewing experience of the comparable in terms of their storyline, their audience with regard to political talk shows. In main characters, or other important features. their study, both entertainment processes were Therefore, entertainment experiences while strongly associated. Another study by Schnei- watching them differ significantly, whereas po- der, Bartsch, and Gleich (2015) demonstrated litical shows often entail rather similar settings that a positive judgment of the watched show from show to show. Hedonic entertainment ex- was mainly influenced by a hedonic entertain- periences have mainly been researched with ment experience; the eudaimonic experience regard to funny movies like comedies, whereas played a less important role. Finally, Roth eudaimonic entertainment experiences have (2016) found a strong correlation between he- most often been studied by using sad, poignant, donic and eudaimonic entertainment experi- and tragic content. We believe that looking at ences in both experimental studies. It seems both forms of entertainment experiences with possible that hedonic entertainment experiences one format alone should be the next step in are a prerequisite or a baseline for eudaimonic order to understand the relationship between entertainment experiences while watching a talk them. show. Particularly entertaining political formats of- Hence, based on the overall theoretical as- fer such a diversity of experiences: They deal sumptions concerning the two-process models with serious or sad topics but sometimes still in of entertainment and the (few) results concern- a funny or thrilling way (Mattheiß et al., 2013). ing political talk shows, we see clear indications Political talk shows as a round table discussion for a close association and high correlation be- on TV are an especially good example of such tween hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment a format. In these shows, politicians, celebrities, experiences. However, we wondered which and also “ordinary” people discuss political top- shape the association between them might at- ics under the lead of a host (Schultz, 2006). This tain. As a first possibility, it could be a simple type of show is broadcasted around the globe positive one, implying that more experienced (e.g., in South Africa, Finland, Pakistan, Ger- hedonic entertainment also leads to more expe- many, Austria, see Roth et al., 2014, p. 381 in rienced eudaimonic entertainment. This would Footnote 1 for an overview). mean that the funnier, more joyful and enjoy- Due to the debate nature of the shows, the able a political talk show is (which would lead invited guests try to offer their arguments in a to a higher hedonic entertainment experience), rhetorically entertaining fashion, often by fight- the more it would also be appreciated (more ing for the sympathies of the audience (Schultz, eudaimonic entertainment experiences). This, 2006). They argue, add jokes, and try to make however, seems unlikely, as “too much fun” their point by being smart and funny. At the could serve as a strong distraction (Forgas, same time, the topics are usually rather sincere 2013) and would make it impossible for viewers and often the focus of public opinion building at to have a poignant, thoughtful experience while that moment (Wessler & Schultz, 2007), such as watching. war, financial crises, or political scandals. It has Second, the relationship might start as a pos- been argued that this mixture of serious and itive one (i.e., there needs to be some hedonic even tragic topics on one hand and of the rhe- entertainment) but at a specific point during torical style of the participants on the other exposure fun could be “too much of a good This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. leads to a simultaneous emergence of eudai- thing” and, as a consequence, the eudaimonic This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. monic and hedonic entertainment experiences entertainment experience would drop. Applied among viewers (Roth, 2016). to a political talk show on TV, this may mean Some studies have already offered insights that guests who offer some funny comments or on how entertainment experiences may look argue in an amusing manner enable the viewers like with regard to this format. Mattheiß et al. to experience hedonic as well as eudaimonic (2013) were able to demonstrate that viewers entertainment experiences. If, however, they experience hedonic entertainment while watch- start to ridicule the topic or other guests by not ing these shows. Roth et al. (2014) supple- taking them seriously anymore and instead joke mented this result by showing that hedonic and or laugh the entire time, this may be too much eudaimonic entertainment experiences are an and make the eudaimonic entertainment expe- 6 ROTH ET AL.

rience drop. Such a cutoff point and the result- ences. We assess processing strategies in a two- ing curvilinear, concave relationship (see Figure path framework as brought forward by 1) has not been established in any study so far. numerous researchers (for an overview see Another possibility would be that we are Chaiken & Trope, 1999; Schemer, Matthes, & dealing with an even more complicated model, Wirth, 2008). for example, one where the relationship shifts The question of entertainment influences on from positive to negative to positive to negative information processing is highly relevant re- at several points, leading to a cubic trend (see garding the societal impact of political media Figure 1). This is a possible scenario if the talk fare (and entertainment experiences). Educating show is very lively and in some scenes very the electorate, helping with its attitude forma- funny and joyful, in some scenes ridiculous and tion, and triggering its political involvement are “over the top,” and in the next moment probably some of the main goals of political media. Pro- even boring or dull. cessing styles (and especially systematic pro- Furthermore, based on Waterman’s (1993) cessing) are closely tied to learning effects and assumption of hedonia being a precondition of attitude formation (Chaiken & Trope, 1999). eudaimonia and following Roth’s (2016) sug- Therefore, investigating their psychological ef- gestion, we wonder whether a hedonic enter- fects also helps to answer questions that are at tainment experience might be a precondition for the core of the social relevance of political the evolvement of a eudaimonic entertainment media. This has also been acknowledged by experience while viewing political talk shows. different scholars who investigated citizens’ in- This could be supported by Mattheiß et al. formation processing during exposure to vari- (2013) and Schneider et al. (2015) who have ous political entertainment media formats on demonstrated that fun (i.e., hedonic entertain- TV, especially political satire programs like The ment) seems to be one of the driving factors of Daily Show. Basing their assumptions on pro- talk show use overall. Following this, hedonic cesses described through the elaboration likeli- entertainment might be the baseline experience: hood model (ELM; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) Only when people enjoy watching the show and message discounting, some studies investi- they are able to “open up,” get deeper into the gated how political humor, which is of course content and, thus, experience eudaimonic enter- one of the key elements of such programs, af- tainment. If they are bored, however, eudai- fects the processing of the shows’ messages monic entertainment experiences cannot (LaMarre & Walther, 2013; Nabi, Moyer-Gusé, emerge. & Byrne, 2007; Young, 2008). Although they Considering the minimal information avail- revealed that humorous messages, compared able, we pose two research questions concern- with nonhumorous ones (e.g., news programs), ing the shape of association between hedonic lead to less argument scrutiny, the findings also and eudaimonic entertainment experiences as suggest that political humor might in fact well as their hierarchy while watching political encourage deeper information processing in talk shows: viewers. RQ1: How does the relationship between he- Besides, one consistent finding is that view- donic and eudaimonic entertainment experi- ers’ motivations, expectations, and perceptions ences while watching a political talk show look with regard to such programs seem to play a key like? role in how they process the specific content and This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. RQ2: Is a hedonic entertainment experience a what they learn from it (Feldman, 2013; Kim & This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. precondition for the formation of eudaimonic Vishak, 2008; LaMarre, Landreville, Young, & entertainment experiences while watching a po- Gilkerson, 2014; Nabi et al., 2007; Young, litical talk show? 2013). For example, it has been found that viewers tend to provide more cognitive re- Entertainment Theory and sources on processing if they regard political Information Processing entertainment programs to be some kind of news or “serious” information, whereas they With regard to information processing, we allocate less resources if the programs are clas- will analyze one aspect, which has been re- sified as mere entertainment (Feldman, 2013). searched in connection to entertainment experi- All of these findings underline the importance CURVING ENTERTAINMENT 7

of further investigating information processing nounced systematic processing and resulting atti- strategies in the context of political entertain- tude formation compared with hedonic entertain- ment. However, the majority of the mentioned ment experiences. Furthermore, the more studies did not differentiate between hedonic pronounced systematic processing was associated and eudaimonic entertainment (motivations or with higher objective learning of facts from the experiences) as focused on in this article. show. Contrary to that, Schneider and colleagues Nonetheless, the relationship between the (2016) were unable to find effects of eudaimonic two forms of entertainment experiences and entertainment experiences on objective knowl- processing styles has been discussed by several edge (as outcome of more systematic or deeper authors more recently. From a theoretical view- processing) for viewers who watched (nonpoliti- point, Schneider, Weinmann, Roth, Knop, and cal) online video clips. Due to these conflicting Vorderer (2016) have argued that the processes results, there might also be curvilinear processes: which constitute hedonic entertainment experi- Maybe, a very pronounced eudaimonic experi- ences may be rather similar to a more simple ence with the associated feelings of sadness and (i.e., heuristic) form of information processing: thoughtfulness will captivate too many cognitive While consuming specific media content, users resources to deem systematic processing possible lay back, relax, and have fun, thus enjoy what (Bartsch & Schneider, 2014). A less pronounced they are exposed to. If users experience such eudaimonic experience could, however, enhance forms of positive affect, they are rather unmo- the attention for the program due to the associated tivated to process information in detail (Forgas, mixed emotions and even enable a systematic 1995; Lang & Yegiyan, 2008; Schwarz & processing style (Forgas, 1995). Again, one would Clore, 1983). In contrast, experiences of nega- deal with a cutoff point of a curve, where too tive affect signal important changes in the en- much of one experience might hinder the other vironment and motivate the users to process this one. To investigate this effect, we will take a information more carefully (Forgas, 1995; Lang closer look at the relationship between entertain- & Yegiyan, 2008; Schwarz & Clore, 1983). ment experiences and heuristic or systematic in- Such a deeper reflection, however, has been formation processing. described to be one of the core processes un- Based on the existing, conflicting results con- derlying eudaimonic entertainment experiences. cerning information processing styles while us- Consequently, some authors suggested this ing political media, we pose the following re- form of entertainment to be associated with a search question: more elaborate (i.e., systematic) form of pro- RQ3: To what extent is the information pro- cessing. In their article, Bartsch and Schneider cessing while watching political talk shows in- (2014) have similarly connected the two forms fluenced by entertainment experiences? of entertainment experiences with dual-process models of information processing. They even Study 1: Exploratory Online Survey went one step further, proclaiming that enter- tainment experiences might trigger one or the Method other processing style in media users. And in- deed, using two different stimuli covering po- Procedure. In order to answer RQ1, an ex- litical issues (i.e., fictional films and soft news), ploratory online survey was conducted between the authors found viewers’ emotional involve- May 13th and June 5th, 2015, via EFS Survey. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. ment in a eudaimonic sense to stimulate reflec- The study consisted of two waves, with only the This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. tive thinking (i.e., systematic processing). first wave being used for this paper. Participants With regard to entertainment and political me- were recruited by the noncommercial online ac- dia in specific, there are more studies that demon- cess pool SoSci Panel (www.soscipanel.de; strated effects of eudaimonic entertainment expe- Leiner, 2012). SoSci Panel provides access to a riences on deeper information processing (Bartsch pool of German panelists for scholars conducting & Schneider, 2014; Lewis et al., 2014; Roth, noncommercial research. The panelists enlist 2016). However, there are slightly conflicting re- themselves, main recruitment channel is the asso- sults. For example, Roth (2016) demonstrated that ciated SoSci Survey (https://www.soscisurvey.de), eudaimonic entertainment experiences while a freeware to program surveys. SoSci Survey stud- watching political talk shows lead to a more pro- ies always incorporate a link to SoSci Panel at the 8 ROTH ET AL.

end with which participants of the studies can for answering the entertainment questions. Sub- register as panelists. Panelists of the SoSci Panel sequently, we measured participants’ entertain- are aged from under 19 to 69 and older; however, ment experiences by using six items of Oliver most of them are between 20 and 34 years old. and Bartsch’s (2010) audience response scale They have different educational degrees, but the (e.g., hedonic: “I really enjoyed watching the majority holds at least a high school degree (see political talk show”; eudaimonic: “The political https://www.soscisurvey.de/panel/researchers.php). talk show was thought-provoking”). We de- It is necessary to undergo a peer review pro- cided to only incorporate the measure by Oliver cess in order to use the panel. After acceptance and Bartsch (2010), because research has dem- of the study, the link to the questionnaire and an onstrated that it is so far the most appropriate invitation to the study is send out via mail to a entertainment scale to be applied to political specific number of panelists. The number of talk shows (Weinmann, Schneider, Roth, Bindl, contacted panelists depends on the target size of & Vorderer, 2016). the sample for a study as well as the average These and all following items except for the response rates of the panel, and the current sociodemographics were measured on 7-point number of studies conducted via the panel (i.e., Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (do not agree how many studies have recently been accepted). at all)to7(do fully agree). Both subscales for Therefore, after undergoing the review pro- eudaimonic and hedonic entertainment experi- cess with SoSci Panel, the questionnaire was ences displayed a high internal consistency (he- sent to their registered panelists. As an incen- donic: Cronbach’s alpha ϭ .87; eudaimonic: tive, participants had the chance to win a gift Cronbach’s alpha ϭ .81). The values were coupon for Buecher.de (a German website that evenly distributed (see Figures A1 and A2). sells books). The raffle included two coupons with the value of 25 Euro and five coupons with Results the value of 10 Euro. After finishing the study, participants had the chance to sign up for infor- The first study mainly served the purpose to mation on the results. A summary of the results address RQ1. To analyze the association be- was also sent to SoSci Panel. tween hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment Sample. The questionnaire was completely experiences, we calculated one hierarchical re- filled in by 683 persons. Of those, eight partic- gression with forced entry for each measure, ipants were deleted due to their extremely high following the procedure as described by Cohen, or low editing time for the questionnaire, so the Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003). In these regres- final nonstudent sample (N ϭ 675) consisted of sions, we first incorporated a linear, then a cur- 403 females (59.7%) and 272 males (40.3%), vilinear, and lastly a cubic term for the hedonic aged 15 to 80 (M ϭ 37.13, SD ϭ 14.66). The entertainment experience (as proposed indepen- majority of the participants had a university dent variable), always keeping the lower order (50.2%), a high school (24.1%), or a doctoral terms in the regression. The curvilinear term degree (5.6%). was calculated by multiplying the index for the Measures. After a few measures that are hedonic entertainment experience with itself not analyzed in the present paper (e.g., concern- (␹2). For the cubic term, it was multiplied with ing their overall media use and life satisfaction), itself twice (␹3). All terms were mean centered participants were instructed to remember the before entering them (it is, however, not neces- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. last political talk show they had seen on TV. To sary to center the dependent variable; Cohen et This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. enhance memory performance, participants had al., 2003, p. 201). to state the title, the topic, and a short descrip- There was a significant linear (R2 ϭ .18, p Ͻ tion of the talk show. The answers to these .001) as well as curvilinear relationship (⌬R2 ϭ open-ended questions were screened before the .013, p Ͻ .01) between hedonic (M ϭ 3.89, data analysis to ensure that all participants were SD ϭ 1.62) and eudaimonic entertainment ex- thinking about the same format when answering periences (M ϭ 4.04, SD ϭ 1.59). The coeffi- the questions. The statements of the participants cient for the curvilinear term was negative, were rather uniform; the five most important meaning that we are dealing with a concave shows on German TV were named by the ma- shape of the curve (B ϭϪ.065, p Ͻ .001). Note jority, ensuring a homogeneous starting point that the coefficients of polynomial terms cannot CURVING ENTERTAINMENT 9

be interpreted with regard to size of the effect. A cover story was not deemed necessary. As an They, however, indicate the shape of the curve incentive, participation was rewarded with 10 (Cohen et al., 2003). The cubic term did not Euros. Upon arrival, each person was welcomed have a significant impact (⌬R2 ϭ .002, p ϭ .15). and randomly assigned to one of the three ex- perimental conditions. At the beginning, the Discussion participants were shown a clip from a German TV political talk show on a laptop computer The exploratory survey study was conducted with headphones. After watching the clip, par- to investigate RQ1: How does the relationship ticipants filled in the questionnaire. Upon com- between hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment pletion of the questionnaire they were de- experiences while watching a political talk briefed, thanked, and dismissed. It took show look like? Trend analyses for a linear, a participants about 15–20 min to take part in the cubic, as well as a curvilinear relationship study. showed that there seems to be a curvilinear Design and stimulus material. Based on relationship between hedonic and eudaimonic the results of Study 1, a 3 ϫ 1 between-subjects entertainment experiences. Moreover, based on design was applied. The goal was to manipulate the interpretation of the concave shape of the the hedonic entertainment experience of the par- curve, there seems to be a point at which too ticipants to (a) explore whether and how this much of a hedonic entertainment experience changes their eudaimonic experience (RQ1 & inhibits a eudaimonic entertainment experience, RQ2) and (b) investigate to what extent the leading to the drop of the curve, instead of a differing entertainment experiences are related constant ongoing rise of both. This is a new to the information processing style of the par- finding because most literature so far only re- ticipants (RQ3). Three clips from the German ported positive linear correlations (Roth et al., political talk show hart aber fair (English: 2014). tough but fair, aired on November 14th, 2014) The most important limitation of the survey were used as stimuli. Each clip was approxi- study is the lack of available causal inferences, mately four minutes long. The complete talk due to the study’s design as well as to the fact show focused on matters of politically correct that respondents were asked to remember their food and discussed, for example, whether con- last viewing of a talk show. This inhibits the sumers should choose regional over imported robustness of the findings. In order to account food. for these problems and further investigate and Experimental manipulation. In order to corroborate our findings, Study 2 was an exper- influence the participants’ hedonic entertain- iment in which the hedonic entertainment expe- ment experiences, the three clips differed in rience was manipulated. their hedonic value (i.e., how funny and joyful they were) and focused either on the dark sides Study 2: Experiment on the Connection of factory farming (3:43 min, low hedonic en- Between Hedonic and Eudaimonic tertainment), controversial labels for regional Entertainment Processes food (3:58 min, medium hedonic entertain- ment), or the global production processes of a Method ham that is labeled to be situated in the German Black Forest (4:32 min, high hedonic entertain- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Procedure. The experiment was conducted ment). Before the actual experiment, we This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. from August 6th to August 11th 2015 in a checked the manipulation in a pretest with 45 ϭ ϭ lecture hall of a midsized university in Ger- participants (nlow 14), (nmedium 13), ϭ many. The participants in the nonstudent sam- (nhigh 18). Each participant was randomly ple were invited to take part in the study via shown one of the three clips and subsequently distributed flyers. Furthermore, they were di- asked whether she or he thought the clip was rectly addressed around the nearby central train entertaining, by answering the three enjoyment station by student assistants who conducted the items of Oliver and Bartsch’s (2010) audience recruitment for the study. The participants were response scale. The results of a one-way anal- told that the study deals with their viewing ysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that the experience while watching a political talk show. participants’ enjoyment was highest among 10 ROTH ET AL.

those participants who saw the high hedonic the intended variables. First, we measured par- entertainment clip (M ϭ 4.87, SD ϭ 1.75), but ticipants’ entertainment preferences by employ- that the low (M ϭ 3.62, SD ϭ 1.73) and me- ing the eudaimonic and hedonic entertainment dium (M ϭ 3.21, SD ϭ 1.40) conditions were motivations by Oliver and Raney (2011). Six inverted in their level of experienced hedonic eudaimonic and six hedonic items were used entertainment. Notwithstanding the small sam- (eudaimonic; Cronbach’s alpha ϭ .71; hedonic; ple size, which reduces the robustness of this Cronbach’s alpha ϭ .71). Furthermore, we mea- finding, the analysis still indicated significant sured the mood of the participants by applying differences between the three groups, Welch’s Bradley and Lang’s (1994) Self-Assessment F(2, 27.29) ϭ 4.45, p Ͻ .05, partial ␩2 ϭ 172. Manikins for the emotional state of pleasure. Although the three clips elicited different levels We also considered political control vari- of hedonic entertainment experiences, which in- ables; first of all, the political orientation of the dicate a successful manipulation, participants participants. They were asked for which of the experienced the medium hedonic entertainment seven most popular political parties they would clip (food labeling) less funny than the low vote if the parliamentary elections for the Ger- hedonic entertainment clip (factory farming). man Bundestag were taking place on the fol- As a result, we switched the clips for these two lowing Sunday. Furthermore, the respondents’ conditions in the main study. This meant that in internal and external political efficacy was as- the main study the former medium hedonic en- sessed through the Political Efficacy Short tertainment clip was treated as low hedonic Scale, designed by Beierlein, Kemper, Kova- entertainment clip and the former low hedonic leva, and Rammstedt (2012; internal efficacy, entertainment clip was treated as medium hedo- two items; r ϭ .649, p Ͻ .01; external efficacy, nic entertainment clip. two items; r ϭ .561, p Ͻ .001). Participants’ Measures. All participants’ answers (ex- political interest was measured through the five cept sociodemographics and political orienta- items of Otto and Bacherle’s (2011) Short Scale tion) were assessed on 5-point Likert-type Political Interest (Cronbach’s alpha ϭ .93). Fi- scales ranging from 1 (does not apply at all)to nally, the need for cognition of the participants 5(does totally apply). Like in Study 1, three was measured by applying four items from hedonic and three eudaimonic items of Oliver Beißert, Köhler, Rempel, and Beierlein (2014). and Bartsch’s (2010) audience response items The internal consistency of the scale was low were used in order to measure participants’ he- (Cronbach’s alpha ϭ .35). donic and eudaimonic entertainment experi- In order to control for attitudes and experi- ences (hedonic: Cronbach’s alpha ϭ .87; eudai- ences with the talk show topic, the participants’ monic: Cronbach’s alpha ϭ .84). personal relevance of the issue was assessed Participants’ systematic versus heuristic pro- using one item suggested by Rössler (1997): cessing of the clip were assessed with six system- “How important do you consider the topic of atic and six heuristic items of Schemer et al.’s politically correct food?”. To measure their at- (2008) scale. The items were slightly adapted to titude toward the issue, participants were asked account for the specific context of political talk to agree with three statements like: “My attitude show use. In the original scale, all items are relat- towards politically correct food is positive/ ing to a specific, overall topic. This was changed negative” (Roth, 2016; Cronbach’s alpha ϭ so that the items related to the specific topic of the .70). Lastly, we asked them whether they had This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. talk show, for example, “While watching the po- seen the clip before participating in the study. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. litical talk show, it was important for me to know Sociodemographics (age, sex, education) com- all arguments concerning the topic in detail” (sys- pleted the questionnaire. tematic; Cronbach’s alpha ϭ .86) and “While Participants. One hundred and fifty partic- watching the political talk show, I followed the ipants were recruited. Three participants had to offered information only partially.” (heuristic; be excluded from data analyses due to problems Cronbach’s alpha ϭ .69). with the procedure (e.g., one questionnaire was Due to the fact that participants were re- filled out together with another person). Fifteen cruited off the street, it was decided to incorpo- participants were removed from the dataset be- rate several control variables to make sure that cause they had seen the political talk show the groups did not differ too much on other than before participating in the study, which could CURVING ENTERTAINMENT 11

have changed their entertainment experience. In order to analyze the association between This left us with 132 participants in our final eudaimonic and hedonic entertainment experi- sample. It consisted of 80 females (60.6%) and ences for RQ1 and RQ2, we conducted an 52 males (39.4%), aged 14 to 64 (M ϭ 23.45, ANOVA with our three experimental groups SD ϭ 9.72). The level of education was broad, and calculated polynomial trends. The eudai- with 21.2% holding a high school degree, monic entertainment experience was the depen- 15.9% a professional, and 15.9% a university dent variable. The ANOVA indicated a signif- degree. Due to the exclusion of cases, our icant linear, F(1, 131) ϭ 12.656, p Ͻ .001, ϭ ␩2 ϭ ϭ groups differed slightly in size: nlow 46, partial .089, and curvilinear, F(1, 131) ϭ ϭ Ͻ ␩2 ϭ nmedium 44, nhigh 42. 6.137, p .05, partial .045, effect of hedonic entertainment experience on the eudai- Results monic entertainment experience. As in Study 1, the curve was found to have a concave shape A manipulation check was conducted to an- (see Figure 2 for a graphic display): The eudai- alyze whether the three videos led to different monic entertainment experience was highest in hedonic entertainment experiences. We con- the medium hedonic entertainment group (M ϭ ducted two ANOVAs with polynomial trend 3.06, SD ϭ 1.20) and lower in the low (M ϭ analyses to check for differences between the 2.23, SD ϭ 0.79) and high group (M ϭ 2.98, groups. The results for hedonic entertainment SD ϭ 0.90). However, Bonferroni post hoc tests indicated that there was only a significant linear showed that not all groups differed significantly effect in the expected direction, F(1, 131) ϭ (p Ͻ .05) from each other. Specifically, it was 25.570, p Ͻ .001, partial ␩2 ϭ .165. The group not the case between the medium and high with the least hedonically entertaining clip had hedonic entertainment group. the lowest hedonic entertainment experience These results point toward the same outcome (M ϭ 3.15, SD ϭ 0.93), followed by the me- as found in Study 1: Hedonic and eudaimonic dium (M ϭ 3.46, SD ϭ 0.84), and the high entertainment experiences do not seem to rise group (M ϭ 4.06, SD ϭ 0.74). However, Bon- together in a linear fashion but rather in a con- ferroni post hoc tests revealed that only the cave-shaped curve (see Figure 2 for a graphic groups with low and high hedonic entertain- display). ment video differed significantly (p Ͻ .05) re- RQ3 deals with the influence of the entertain- garding their entertainment experience. This ment experiences on the information processing was not the case for the low and medium as well of the content. To check for this, we conducted as medium and high group. Even though the an ANOVA with polynomial contrasts. The ex- results did not show a perfect manipulation (i.e., perimental groups were used as independent the group differences were not all significant), variable. As dependent variable, we used the the overall trends in the results pointed in the indices for systematic and heuristic processing right direction to continue with the analyses. (Schemer et al., 2008). The results support the ANOVAs were conducted to check for dif- notion that processing styles are closely associ- ferences between the groups regarding the as- ated with entertainment experiences. For heu- sessed control variables. There were no signif- ristic processing, there was only a significant icant results regarding mood, age, need for curvilinear trend, F(1, 131) ϭ 4.462, p Ͻ .05, cognition, political interest, external political partial ␩2 ϭ .033. However, the curve is not This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. efficacy, internal political efficacy, attitudes to- shaped concave but convex (see Figure 3 for a This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. ward the topic of the talk show, hedonic, and graphic display), meaning that heuristic pro- eudaimonic entertainment motivations (all F Ͻ cessing was lowest (M ϭ 2.18, SD ϭ 0.71) in 3.064). For gender and political orientation, ␹2– the group with the medium hedonic entertain- tests were conducted and did not reach signifi- ment experience (and highest eudaimonic expe- cance (all p Ͼ .2). Hence, the randomization riences). It was higher in the group with low had been successful. Also, the clips did not hedonic entertainment experience (M ϭ 2.52, influence any of the control variables, pointing SD ϭ 0.74) and the group with the high hedonic toward an adequate amount of similarity of their entertainment experience (M ϭ 2.39, SD ϭ influence to establish internal validity of the 0.69). However, the three groups did not differ manipulation. significantly from each other in Bonferroni post 12 ROTH ET AL.

Figure 2. Graphic display of the curvilinear relationship between hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment experiences.

hoc comparisons. Systematic processing was Discussion highest in the medium hedonic entertainment group (M ϭ 3.72, SD ϭ 0.76) and lower in the Study 2 further corroborated the findings of low (M ϭ 3.21, SD ϭ 0.95) and high hedonic Study 1 regarding RQ1. Like in Study 1, we entertainment experience groups (M ϭ 3.68, found a curvilinear effect: Even though the he- SD ϭ 0.75). Only the low hedonic entertain- donic entertainment experience rose linear ment group differed significantly from the oth- through all three groups, the eudaimonic enter- ers with p Ͻ .05 in Bonferroni post hoc tests. tainment experience was shaped in a concave The curvilinear trend, though, was nonsignifi- curve. We can therefore conclude that there is cant, F(1, 131) ϭ 3.203, p ϭ .07, partial ␩2 ϭ not a simple linear relationship between both .024 (see Figure 3 for a graphic display). forms of entertainment. Moreover, they are This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Figure 3. Graphic display of the curvilinear relationship between hedonic entertainment experience and information processing styles. CURVING ENTERTAINMENT 13

clearly not independent from each other but experience), we can only state this as one of the closely associated, at least when it comes to remaining open questions of our study. watching a political show on TV. This is in line Our second main limitation is closely tied to with previous research on political talk shows the first one: Our manipulation check did not (Roth, 2016; Roth et al., 2014). illustrate perfectly similar differences between Furthermore, due to its experimental design, the groups on all levels. Though, the results of Study 2 could offer some insights for RQ2: Is a the manipulation checks pointed in the right hedonic entertainment experience a precondi- direction overall. Therefore, we argue that this tion for the formation of eudaimonic entertain- problem is not too central and should be dealt ment experiences while watching a political talk with in further replications of this study. show? Because we manipulated the hedonic The third limitation is tied to our way of mea- entertainment experience through the jocularity suring entertainment and information processing. and wittiness of the used clips, we can argue for Both measures were post hoc and self-reports. a causal relationship, in which the hedonic en- Consequently, there is a possibility that our ma- tertainment experience presents the baseline for nipulation influenced the information processing other entertainment forms, ergo eudaimonic en- first and the entertainment experiences were then tertainment experiences. This is in line with affected by the different information processing results by Waterman (1993, 2008); Waterman et styles. Our causal argument in this case mainly al. (2008) as well as Vorderer and Ritterfeld relies on theoretical assumptions and should, (2009) and Roth (2016) who proposed to some therefore, be tested empirically in the future. An- extent a hierarchical entertainment model. other problem regarding measurement is the fact RQ3 was investigated to come to a clearer that we did not control for arousal between the understanding of how the association between he- groups. Studies have shown (Bartsch & Schnei- donic and eudaimonic entertainment experiences der, 2014) that arousal is a central influence in influences information processing. The results entertainment experiences as well as information show that processing styles overall follow a spe- processing; actually, it is one of the connecting cific pattern. When the eudaimonic entertainment elements. Not measuring arousal leaves us with experience is highest the heuristic processing is one less possible explanation for our effects and lowest, whereas the systematic processing is high- should be accounted for in future studies. est. This supports previous studies that demon- strated the positive influence of eudaimonic enter- tainment experiences on the processing of General Discussion information (Bartsch & Schneider, 2014; Lewis et al., 2014; Roth, 2016; Roth et al., 2014). Summary of the Studies’ Findings The most important limitations of Study 2 were threefold. For once, we had to rely on This paper tries to gain insight into how he- distinct clips, which were supposed to differ donic and eudaimonic entertainment processes mainly regarding their jocularity and wittiness. relate to each other and how they influence We can consequently not fully disregard the information processing. Knowledge about this possibility that we, by accident, also manipu- can—in the long run—help to understand how lated other factors that were confounded with to design and create (politically) entertaining the videos (e.g., argument quality that might and similarly educating media formats and This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. have influenced the processing style) or did not shows. The results of our two studies, a survey This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. account for factors that may also play an im- and an experiment, both with nonstudent sam- portant role in the hedonic entertainment expe- ples, are at large uniform regarding their mes- rience (e.g., suspense, Oliver & Bartsch, 2011). sage: A low hedonic entertainment experience However, the clips were from a show that in- leads to low eudaimonic entertainment experi- cludes identical guests and topic. Furthermore, ences, high heuristic processing, and low sys- we discovered no significant differences be- tematic processing. A high hedonic entertain- tween our groups for any of our control vari- ment experience mainly leads to similar results ables, hopefully accounting for the first half of (however, not as distinctive). A medium hedo- this problem (confounded factors). As for the nic entertainment experience yields the highest second part (missing influences on the hedonic results when it comes to eudaimonic entertain- 14 ROTH ET AL.

ment experiences as well as systematic process- detect curvilinear or cubic trends. Entertainment ing. Heuristic processing is lowest in this case. research (as well as most research in communi- cation studies) uses linear models for data anal- Strengths and Weaknesses yses. Maybe it is time to enhance and broaden our scope, for past, present and future data sets. The main strengths of our studies lie in the fact From a practical point of view, we can add that we could replicate our results in two different insights to an ongoing debate in society as well as studies with different methods and nonstudent political communication research through our re- samples. This enhances the robustness of our find- sults. Overall, there sometimes seem to be two ings. However, there are several open questions conflicting views when it comes to how political based on the shortcomings of our studies. We only media are supposed to look like (see, Altheide, used one very specific format (political talk shows 2004; Delli Carpini & Williams, 2001; Van on TV) with one topic (regional food) to look into Zoonen, 2005). Some argue they should be very entertainment processes. It would be worthwhile entertaining, to motivate people with low political to include other political formats and different interest to get involved and learn something on the topics in researching psychological processes be- side. Others argue they should not be entertaining hind entertainment experiences and the influence but rather serious, so that real learning is possible of them on information processing. This could at all. Our data cannot support either notion. From also enhance the possible manipulation strategies our results we would argue (like others before us; for hedonic entertainment experiences. We mainly e.g., Baum, 2005; Holbert, 2014; Moy, Xenos, & concentrated on differences in the wittiness of the Hess, 2005; Prior, 2003; Young, 2008; for an content. However, other differences might be overview see Landreville & LaMarre, 2011) that equally important (e.g., civility of the discussion, some fun in political content is not necessarily a Weinmann & Vorderer, 2015, or suspense, Oliver bad thing, the mixture between fun and serious- & Bartsch, 2010, 2011). Last, we see the necessity ness is the important factor. The Daily Show with for future studies to incorporate measures for the Jon Stewart, which has been argued to contain as outcomes of processing styles, for example, mem- much political humor as serious journalism ory or attitude change, in order to improve re- (Baym, 2005; Brewer & Marquardt, 2007; Fox, search in the field regarding the impact of enter- Koloen, & Sahin, 2007), might be a prototype for tainment processes on political education such a combination. Too much fun will not lead to outcomes. stronger eudaimonic entertainment experiences and more learning. Little fun, however, will not do Theoretical and Practical Implications it either. The “correct” mixture is decisive; in our studies, we see a threshold, a cutoff point, at Our results extend previous studies in enter- which fun is too much of a good thing. However, tainment research by proposing a curvilinear until that point is reached, it should be a goal to relationship between eudaimonic and hedonic provide hedonic entertainment experiences, that entertainment experiences as well as informa- is, fun, joy, wittiness, humor. This is the main take tion processing. Furthermore, we discovered home message regarding the creation of success- first evidence for hedonic entertainment experi- ful political media content: It needs to be hedon- ence as baseline and precondition for the expe- ically entertaining to some point to offer other rience of eudaimonic entertainment. Theoreti- (wished for) outcomes as well. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. cally, this calls for additions to existing This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. theories: Only by analyzing the relation and interaction between the two processes of enter- References tainment more specifically, we can specify how they need to be defined, where they overlap, Altheide, D. L. (2004). Media logic and political commu- where they differ, and how they, together or nication. Political Communication, 21, 293–296. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584600490481307 individually, shape the overall entertainment Aristotle. (1931). Nicomachean ethics (W. D. Ross, experience. Positive psychology can be a worth- Trans.). London, UK: Oxford University Press. while inspiration for such additions. Empiri- Bartsch, A., & Schneider, F. M. (2014). Entertain- cally, our results call for the implementation of ment and politics revisited: How non-escapist more complex analytical models to be able to forms of entertainment can stimulate political in- CURVING ENTERTAINMENT 15

terest and information seeking. Journal of Com- Inquiry, 11, 227–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/ munication, 64, 369–396. http://dx.doi.org/10 S15327965PLI1104_01 .1111/jcom.12095 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonia, eudai- Baum, M. A. (2005). Talking the vote: Why presi- monia, and well-being: An introduction. Journal of dential candidates hit the talk show circuit. Amer- Happiness Studies, 9, 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10 ican Journal of Political Science, 49, 213–234. .1007/s10902-006-9018-1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.t01-1- Delli Carpini, M. X., & Williams, B. A. (2001). Let 00119.x us infotain you: Politics in the new media environ- Baym, G. (2005). The Daily Show: Discursive inte- ment. In L. W. Bennett & R. M. Entman (Eds.), gration and the reinvention of political journalism. Mediated politics: Communication in the future of Political Communication, 22, 259–276. http://dx democracy (pp. 160–181). Cambridge, UK: Cam- .doi.org/10.1080/10584600591006492 bridge University Press. Beierlein, C., Kemper, C. J., Kovaleva, A., & Feldman, L. (2013). Learning about politics from The Rammstedt, B. (2012). Ein Messinstrument zur Daily Show: The role of viewer orientation and Erfassung politischer Kompetenz- und Einflusser- processing motivations. Mass Communication & wartungen: Political Efficacy Kurzskala (PEKS) Society, 16, 586–607. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ [A measurement tool for the assessment of politi- 15205436.2012.735742 cal competence and influence expectations: Polit- Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect ical Efficacy Short Scale (PEKS)] (GESIS- infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, Working Papers, 2012/18). Mannheim, Germany: 117, 39–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909 GESIS – Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissen- .117.1.39 schaften. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/ Forgas, J. P. (2013). Don’t worry, be sad! On the urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-292361 cognitive, motivational, and interpersonal benefits Beißert, H., Köhler, M., Rempel, M., & Beierlein, C. of negative mood. Current Directions in Psycho- (2014). Eine deutschsprachige Kurzskala zur Mes- logical Science, 22, 225–232. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1177/0963721412474458 sung des Konstrukts Need for Cognition [A Ger- Fox, J. R., Koloen, G., & Sahin, V. (2007). No joke: man short scale for the measurement of the need A comparison of substance in The Daily Show for cognition construct] (GESIS-Working Papers with Jon Stewart and broadcast network television 2014|32). Retrieved from http://www.gesis.org/ Coverage of the 2004 Presidential Election Cam- fileadmin/upload/forschung/publikationen/gesis_ paign. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Me- reihen/gesis_arbeitsberichte/WorkingPapers_2014-32 dia, 51, 213–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ .pdf 08838150701304621 Bosshart, L., & Macconi, I. (1998). Media entertain- Holbert, R. L. (Ed.). (2014). Symposium on enter- ment. Communication Research Trends, 18, 3–8. tainment media and politics [Special Issue]. Mass Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring Communication & Society, 17(3). emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the se- Kim, Y. M., & Vishak, J. (2008). Just laugh! You mantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy don’t need to remember: The effects of entertain- and Experimental Psychiatry, 25, 49–59. http://dx ment media on political information acquisition .doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9 and information processing in political judgment. Brewer, P. R., & Marquardt, E. (2007). Mock news Journal of Communication, 58, 338–360. http://dx and democracy: Analyzing The Daily Show. At- .doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00388.x lantic Journal of Communication, 15, 249–267. King, L. A., Hicks, J. A., Krull, J. L., & Del Gaiso, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15456870701465315 A. K. (2006). Positive affect and the experience of Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual- meaning in life. Journal of Personality and Social process theories in social psychology. New York, Psychology, 90, 179–196. http://dx.doi.org/10 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. NY: Guilford Press. .1037/0022-3514.90.1.179 This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individualCohen, user and is not to be disseminated broadly. J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. LaMarre, H. L., Landreville, K. D., Young, D., & (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation Gilkerson, N. (2014). Humor works in funny analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: ways: Examining satirical tone as a key determi- Erlbaum. nant in political humor message processing. Mass Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motiva- Communication & Society, 17, 400–423. http://dx tion and self-determination in human behaviour. .doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.891137 New York, NY: Plenum Press. http://dx.doi.org/10 LaMarre, H. L., & Walther, W. (2013). Ability mat- .1007/978-1-4899-2271-7 ters: Testing the differential effects of political Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and news and late-night political comedy on cognitive “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the responses and the role of ability in micro-level self-determination of behavior. Psychological opinion formation. International Journal of Public 16 ROTH ET AL.

Opinion Research, 25, 303–322. http://dx.doi.org/ Oliver, M. B., Hartmann, T., & Woolley, J. K. 10.1093/ijpor/edt008 (2012). Elevation in response to entertainment por- Landreville, K. D., & LaMarre, H. L. (2011). Work- trayals of moral virtue. Human Communication ing through political entertainment: How negative Research, 38, 360–378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ emotion and narrative engagement encourage po- j.1468-2958.2012.01427.x litical discussion intent in young Americans. Com- Oliver, M. B., & Raney, A. A. (2011). Entertainment munication Quarterly, 59, 200–220. http://dx.doi as pleasurable and meaningful: Identifying hedo- .org/10.1080/01463373.2011.563441 nic and eudaimonic motivations for entertainment Lang, A., & Yegiyan, N. S. (2008). Understanding consumption. Journal of Communication, 61, the interactive effects of emotional appeal and 984–1004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466 claim strength in health messages. Journal of .2011.01585.x Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52, 432–447. Oliver, M. B., & Raney, A. A. (2014). Expanding the http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08838150802205629 boundaries of entertainment research [Special is- Leiner, D. J. (2012, March). SoSci Panel: The non- sue]. Journal of Communication, 64, 361–368. commercial online access panel. Poster presented http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12092 at the GOR 2012, Mannheim, Germany. Retrieved Otto, L., & Bacherle, P. (2011). Politisches Interesse from https://www.soscisurvey.de/panel/download/ Kurzskala (PIKS) – Entwicklung und Validierung SoSciPanel.GOR2012.pdf [Short Scale Political Interest (SSPI) - Develop- Lewis, R. J., Tamborini, R., & Weber, R. (2014). ment and Validation]. Politische Psychologie/ Testing a dual-process model of media enjoyment Journal of Political Psychology, 1, 19–35. and appreciation. Journal of Communication, 64, Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elabora- 397–416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12101 tion likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Wood, A. M., Osborne, G., Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205. & Hurling, R. (2009). Measuring happiness: The http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2 higher order factor structure of subjective and psy- Prior, M. (2003). Any good news in soft news? The chological well-being measures. Personality and impact of soft news preference on political knowl- Individual Differences, 47, 878–884. http://dx.doi edge. Political Communication, 20, 149–171. .org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.07.010 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584600390211172 Mattheiß, T., Weinmann, C., Löb, C., Rauhe, K., Rössler, P. (1997). Agenda-Setting: Theoretische An- Bartsch, K., Roth, F.,...Vorderer, P. (2013). nahmen und empirische Evidenzen einer Medien- Political learning through entertainment - Only an wirkungshypothese [Agenda-setting: Theoretical illusion? How the motivation for watching politi- implications and empirical evidence of a media cal talk shows influences viewers’ experience. effect hypothesis]. Opladen, Germany: West- Journal of Media Psychology, 25, 171–179. http:// deutscher Verlag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3- dx.doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000100 663-09228-5 Moy, P., Xenos, M. A., & Hess, V. K. (2005). Com- Roth, F. S. (2016). Die Rezeption politischer Talk- munication and citizenship: Mapping the political shows im Fernsehen: Der Einfluss des Unterhal- effects of infotainment. Mass Communication and tungserlebens auf die Informationsverarbeitung Society, 8, 111–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/ [The watching of political talk shows on TV: The s15327825mcs0802_3 influence of the entertainment experience on the Nabi, R. L., Moyer-Gusé, E., & Byrne, S. (2007). All information processing]. Wiesbaden, Germany: joking aside: A serious investigation into the per- Springer VS Forschung. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ suasive effect of funny social issue messages. 978-3-658-11522-7 Communication Monographs, 74, 29–54. http://dx Roth, F. S., Weinmann, C., Schneider, F. M., Hopp, .doi.org/10.1080/03637750701196896 F. R., & Vorderer, P. (2014). Seriously enter- Oliver, M. B. (1993). Exploring the paradox of the tained: Antecedents and consequences of hedonic This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. enjoyment of sad films. Human Communication and eudaimonic entertainment experiences with This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is notResearch, to be disseminated broadly. 19, 315–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ political talk shows on TV. Mass Communication j.1468-2958.1993.tb00304.x & Society, 17, 379–399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ Oliver, M. B., & Bartsch, A. (2010). Appreciation as 15205436.2014.891135 audience response: Exploring entertainment grati- Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determina- fications beyond hedonism. Human Communica- tion theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motiva- tion Research, 36, 53–81. http://dx.doi.org/10 tion, social development, and well-being. Ameri- .1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01368.x can Psychologist, 55, 68–78. http://dx.doi.org/10 Oliver, M. B., & Bartsch, A. (2011). Appreciation of .1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 entertainment. Journal of Media Psychology: The- Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and ories, Methods, and Applications, 23, 29–33. human potentials: A review of research on hedonic http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000029 and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psy- CURVING ENTERTAINMENT 17

chology, 52, 141–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/ Van Zoonen, L. (2005). Entertaining the citizen: annurev.psych.52.1.141 When politics and popular culture converge. Ox- Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living ford, UK: Rowman and Littlefield. well: A self-determination theory perspective on Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., & Ritterfeld, U. (2004). eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, Enjoyment: At the heart of media entertainment. 139–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006- Communication Theory, 14, 388–408. http://dx 9023-4 .doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00321.x Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2006). Best news yet on Vorderer, P., & Reinecke, L. (2012). Zwei-Prozess- the six-factor-model of well-being. Social Science Modelle des Unterhaltungserlebens: Unterhaltung Research, 35, 1103–1119. http://dx.doi.org/10 im Schnittbereich hedonischer und non-hedonis- .1016/j.ssresearch.2006.01.002 cher Bedürfnisbefriedigung. [Two-process-models Schemer, C., Matthes, J., & Wirth, W. (2008). Toward of entertainment experience: In the intersection improving the validity and reliability of media infor- area of hedonic and non-hedonic need satisfaction] mation processing measures in surveys. Communica- In L. Reinecke & S. Trepte (Eds.), Unterhaltung in tion Methods and Measures, 2, 193–225. http://dx neuen Medien [Entertainment in new media] (pp. .doi.org/10.1080/19312450802310474 12–29). Köln, Germany: Herbert von Halem. Schneider, F. M., Bartsch, A., & Gleich, U. (2015). Vorderer, P., & Reinecke, L. (2015). From mood to Spaß, Spannung . . . Denkanstöße? Hedonische meaning: The changing model of the user in en- und eudaimonische Gratifikationen, Bewertungen tertainment research. Communication Theory, 25, und Folgen der Rezeption von Stefan Raabs Send- 447–453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/comt.12082 ung “Absolute Mehrheit” [Fun, suspense . . . food Vorderer, P., & Ritterfeld, U. (2009). Digital games. for thought?: Hedonic and eudaimonic gratifica- In R. L. Nabi & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Handbook of tions, evaluations, and outcomes of watching Ste- media effects (pp. 455–467). London, UK: Sage. fan Raab’s talk show “Absolute Mehrheit”]. Stud- Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happi- ies in Communication | Media, 4, 53–68. http://dx ness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudai- .doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2015-1-53 monia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Person- Schneider, F. M., Weinmann, C., Roth, F. S., Knop, ality and Social Psychology, 64, 678–691. http:// K., & Vorderer, P. (2016). Learning from enter- dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.678 taining online video clips? Enjoyment and appre- Waterman, A. S. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: A ciation and their differential relationships with eudaimonist’s perspective. The Journal of Positive knowledge and behavioral intentions. Computers Psychology, 3, 234–252. http://dx.doi.org/10 in Human Behavior, 54, 475–482. http://dx.doi .1080/17439760802303002 .org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.028 Waterman, A. S., Schwartz, S. J., & Conti, R. (2008). Schultz, T. (2006). Geschwätz oder Diskurs? Die The implications of two concepts of happiness Rationalität politischer Talkshows im Fernsehen (hedonic enjoyment and eudaimonia) for the un- [Chatter or discourse? The rationality of political derstanding of intrinsic motivation. Journal of talk shows on TV]. Köln, Germany: Herbert von Happiness Studies, 9, 41–79. http://dx.doi.org/10 Halem. .1007/s10902-006-9020-7 Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattri- Weinmann, C. (2015). Feeling political interest while bution, and judgments of well-being: Informative being entertained? Explaining the emotional expe- and directive functions of affective states. Journal rience of interest in politics in the context of po- of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 513– litical entertainment programs. Psychology of Pop- 523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.3 ular Media Culture. Advance online publication. .513 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000091 Sirgy, M. J. (2012). The psychology of quality of life Weinmann, C., Schneider, F. M., Roth, F. S., Bindl, hedonic well-being, life satisfaction, and eudaimo- M. J., & Vorderer, P. (2016). Testing measurement This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. nia. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. invariance of hedonic and eudaimonic entertain- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individualTamborini, user and is not to be disseminated broadly. R., Bowman, N. D., Eden, A., Grizzard, ment experiences across media formats. Commu- M., & Organ, A. (2010). Defining media enjoy- nication Methods and Measures, 10, 248–257. ment as the satisfaction of intrinsic needs. Journal http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2016.1227773 of Communication, 60, 758–777. http://dx.doi.org/ Weinmann, C., & Vorderer, P. (2015, May). Delib- 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01513.x erative democracy and entertainment: Bridging Tamborini, R., Grizzard, M., Bowman, N. D., Rei- two separate theoretical traditions. Paper pre- necke, L., Lewis, R. J., & Eden, A. (2011). Media sented at the 65th Annual Conference of the Inter- enjoyment as need satisfaction: The contribution national Communication Association (ICA), San of hedonic and nonhedonic needs. Journal of Com- Juan, Puerto Rico. munication, 61, 1025–1042. http://dx.doi.org/10 Wessler, H., & Schultz, T. (2007). Can the mass .1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01593.x media deliberate? Insights from print media and 18 ROTH ET AL.

political talk shows. In R. Butsch (Ed.), Media and Young, D. G. (2013). Laughter, learning, or enlight- public spheres (pp. 15–27). New York, NY: Pal- enment? Viewing and avoidance motivations be- grave Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/ hind The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. 9780230206359_2 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57, Wirth, W., Hofer, M., & Schramm, H. (2012). Be- 153–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08838151 yond pleasure: Exploring the eudaimonic enter- .2013.787080 tainment experience. Human Communication Re- Zillmann, D. (1988). Mood management through search, 38, 406–428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j communication choices. American Behavioral Sci- .1468-2958.2012.01434.x entist, 31, 327–340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ Young, D. G. (2008). The privileged role of the 000276488031003005 late-night joke: Exploring humor’s role Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1994). Entertainment as in disrupting argument scrutiny. Media Psychol- media effect. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), ogy, 11, 119–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ Media effects: Advances in theory and research 15213260701837073 (pp. 437–461). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Appendix

Figure A1. Histogram with distribution of the hedonic entertainment scale values across the sample.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. (Appendix continues) This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. CURVING ENTERTAINMENT 19

Figure A2. Histogram with distribution of the eudaimonic entertainment scale values across the sample.

Received April 22, 2016 Revision received December 11, 2016 Accepted December 16, 2016 Ⅲ This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.