Article What’s the value of a star? Actor familiarity and likeability effects on emotional mimicry of cinematic displays ELEN LOTMAN, Tallinn University, Estonia, [email protected] ALAN VOODLA, Tartu University, Estonia, [email protected] ANDERO UUSBERG, Tartu University, Estonia, [email protected] 4 10.2478/bsmr-2019-0001 BALTIC SCREEN MEDIA REVIEW 2019 / VOLUME 7 / ARTICLE ABSTRACT Researchers and practitioners have long been intrigued by the role of stars in the film industry (McDonald 2005). Actors with star status can enhance the economic prospects of a film (Wallaceet al. 1993). For instance, replacing average stars with top stars has been shown to increase revenue (Nelson, Glotfelty 2012). A meta-analysis of 61 studies collating data from 1545 films has shown the significant effect of commercial star power on Hollywood films’ revenues (Hofmann,et al. 2017). The Hollywood movie industry can be viewed as a system that maintains and regulates the popularity of existing and emerging stars through agents, producers and award systems (McDonald 2013). Yet it is unclear why the phenomenon of on the European star system consider it stardom arises. According to one hypoth- a rare phenomenon (Hedling 2009), sug- esis, the fact that stardom is more evident gesting that European stardom should be in Hollywood revenue-dependent filmmak- appreciated differently (Soila 2009), that ing than in independent filmmaking, sug- one of the differences comes from the lack gests that stars activate some psychologi- of the industrial construction of the star’s cal inclinations that motivate people to see image (Vincendeau 2000). Yet, the poten- a movie (Cutting et al. 2011; Cutting et al. tial of the stardom phenomenon to also 2010; Del Vecchio et al. 2018; Silver 2007). occur in Europe is clearly visible, and one of Given that stars as “inputs” to filmmaking the issues connected with it has been that are expensive both in terms of salary and the faces on the screen are charming but special demands, it would not make sense unrecognizable (Hedling 2014). to pay more for an otherwise equivalent This poses a question – what kind of “input” (there are probably thousands of psychological mechanism could make peo- talented actors among the unknown faces) ple prefer to see familiar faces acting as unless audiences responded more favour- different characters? In a way, star pref- ably to a star than to a lesser known actor. erence is quite paradoxical, as seeing the This suggests that by developing and main- same faces in different roles might work taining the star system, Hollywood taps against the phenomenon of suspension of into some psychological mechanism that disbelief (Ferri 2007), because recogniz- makes general audiences’ respond more ing an actor playing a character should favourably to stars. It is therefore highly theoretically remind the audience that the likely that the star system is one way in character is not real. Why do audiences which Hollywood film producers cope with nevertheless prefer to see the same faces the unparalleled dependence on audience in different roles? Part of the answer could revenue (Hollywood has not had any official involve empathetic reactions to stars. It is state support system, as opposed to most known that more familiar individuals elicit of the rest of the world). Different accounts stronger contagion of emotion, not only in 5 BALTIC SCREEN MEDIA REVIEW 2019 / VOLUME 7 / ARTICLE the general human population (Norscia, (1) the affective feelings recognized in Palagi 2011), but also in children with actors, (2) experienced by themselves, autism (Hudry, Slaughter 2009), chimpan- and, (3) electromyographic (EMG) activity zees (Campbell, de Waal 2011) and dogs recorded from three facial muscles in (Romero et al. 2013). Emotional contagion, five-time windows. a phenomenon of someone’s emotions and related behaviour causing the elicitation SAMPLE AND PROCEDURE of similar processes in others, has gener- The final sample of 41 participants (mean ally been described as a primitive part of age = 26.59, SD = 5.95; 11 males) consisted an empathetic response (Shamay-Tsoory of volunteers recruited from the University 2011). We therefore hypothesized that stars of Tartu. are preferred by audiences in part because Upon arrival to the lab, each partici- familiar and likeable actors induce stronger pant signed an informed consent form and empathic reactions. was seated 1 metre from a stimulus moni- In this study, we tested this hypothesis tor. They were told that the purpose of the by measuring facial emotional mimicry – experiment was to study cinematic emo- the automatic and unconscious mirroring tional experiences. The EMG electrodes of others’ facial expressions of emotion – were then placed according to the instruc- of emotional expressions in cinematic dis- tion of electromyographic research with plays by three well-known Estonian actors. human subjects (Fridlund, Cacioppo 1986). To assess the star status of the actors, we Participants were then instructed to view measured how familiar and likeable each video clips and evaluate the valence and actor was to each study participant. If our intensity of their own emotional experi- hypothesis stands and stardom has implicit ences and those of the displayed actors. effects on empathic reactions, we should During the experiment, each participant observe stronger empathic responses for was alone in a dimly lit room. Each experi- higher levels of familiarity and/or likeability. mental session lasted approximately 30 Specifically, we expect that familiarity and/ minutes. After the experiment, participants or likeability increase self-rated affect as completed a questionnaire that included well as facial emotional mimicry elicited by the familiarity and likeability ratings. actors displaying emotional expressions in short clips. STIMULI AND DESIGN The participants viewed 5-second video METHODS clips on a 19-inch monitor. In each clip, We used data from an experiment that was actor’s facial expressions changed from originally designed to assess the effect of an initially neutral state to a state express- cinematic lighting on empathic reactions. ing either anger, happiness, or disgust. Here, we provide a summary of the meth- The actresses were well-known to most ods; for full details see Voodla et al (2020, participants. The 18 unique clips (3 actors forthcomin). expressing 3 different emotions under 2 In the experiment, three well-known lighting conditions) were presented twice in female actors displayed three emotions randomized order within a block of 36 trials. (happiness, anger, and disgust) in two light- One presentation of a clip was followed by ing conditions (the latter not distinguished affective ratings of the participants’ emo- in the present analyses). We recorded the tion and the other by affective ratings of the perceived familiarity and perceived likeabil- actor’s emotion. The experiment comprised ity of each actor by asking each participant of 3 blocks with a total of 108 trials. to rate “How familiar this actress is to you?” and “How likable this actress is to you?”, MEASURES respectively. The dependent variables After each clip, participants were asked included participants’ assessments of either about the emotion of the actor 6 BALTIC SCREEN MEDIA REVIEW 2019 / VOLUME 7 / ARTICLE (“Using the scales below, please character- differed more than 5 SD from participant ize the emotion experienced by the person average (EEGLAB autorej function). in the clip”) or about their own emotions Manipulation check analyses re- (“Using the scales below, please character- ported in Voodla, et al. (2020, forthcoming) ize the emotion you experienced during revealed that the facial muscle showing the the clip”). Participants responded using strongest activity to displays of disgust was two consecutive visual-analogue scales zygomaticus rather than the levator, which measuring valence (“Was the emotion suggested that we did not observe facial pleasant or unpleasant?”; 0 “Unpleasant” mimicry of disgust. We therefore excluded and 100 “Pleasant”) and intensity (“Was the disgust clips from further analysis since emotion strong or weak?”; 0 “Weak” and we cannot test familiarity and likeability 100 “Strong”). Given that valence and inten- effects on facial mimicry without a valid sity are related, we converted participant mimicry signal. responses to these questions into a single affective response strength score for each STATISTICAL ANALYSIS emotion under investigation: happiness The data were analysed in the statistical strength = valence + intensity; anger computing environment RStudio (RStudio and disgust strength = (100 – valence) + Team 2015). For many analyses, we fit lin- intensity. ear mixed-model regressions with empathic Facial mimicry reactions were response measures as the dependent measured with electromyography. Previ- variable. In these models, we included a ous research has shown that facial expres- random participant factor to statistically sions of discrete emotions activate rela- control for individual differences in respon- tively discrete facial muscle groups which siveness to all actors and a random actor include Zygomaticus Major for happiness, factor to control for mean actor effects on Corrugator Supercilii for anger, and Leva- all participants. These models were opti- tor Labii for disgust (Dimberg et al. 2000; mized to detect covariance between famili- Lundqvist 1995). To measure activity within arity and likeability ratings and dependent these muscles,