Morally Judging Entertainment: A Case Study of Live Tweeting During Downton Abbey

Media Psychology

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 221-242

  Ji, Qihao ^a   Raney, Arthur A ^a  

^a FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84927074788     PISSN: 15213269     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15213269.2014.956939     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Abramson, J. B., Arterton, F. C., & Orren, G. R. (1988). The electronic commonwealth: The impact of new media technologies on democratic politics. New York, NY: Basic Books.
2. Bulkeley, W. M. (2010). TR10: Social TV. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved from http://www2.technologyreview.com/article/418541/tr10-social-tv/
3. Doughty, M., Rowland, D., & Lawson, S. (2012, July). Who is on your sofa? TV audience communities and second screening social networks. In Proceedings of the 10th Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) European Conference on Interactive Television and Video (pp. 79–86). New York, NY: ACM Press.
4. Graham, J., & Haidt, J. (n.d.). Moral Foundation Dictonary. Retrieved from http://www.moralfoundations.org/othermaterials
5. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.
6. Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 852–870). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
7. Haidt, J., & Bjorklund, F. (2008). Social intuitionists reason, as a normal part of conversation. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology, Vol. 2: The cognitive science of morality: Intuition and diversity (pp. 181–217). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98–116.
9. Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2008). The moral mind: How 5 sets of innate moral intuitions guide the development of many culture-specific virtues, and perhaps seven modules. In P. Carruthers, S. Laurence, & S. Stich (Eds.), The innate mind: Foundations and the future, Vol. 3 (pp. 367–391). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
10. Hanna, R., Rohm, A., & Crittenden, V. L. (2011). We're all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem. Business Horizons, 54, 265–273.
11. Harrington, S., Highfield, T., & Bruns, A. (2013). More than a backchannel: Twitter and television. Participations: Journal of Audience & Reception Studies, 10, 405–409.
12. Hartmann, T. (2011). Users' experiential and rational processing of virtual violence. In K. Poels & S. Malliet (Eds.), Vice city virtue: Moral issues in digital game play (pp. 135–150). Leuven, Belgium: Acco.
13. Highfield, T., Harrington, S., & Bruns, A. (2013). Twitter as a technology for audiencing and fandom: The #Eurovision phenomenon. Information, Communication, & Society, 16, 315–339.
14. Hoffmann, M. L. (1987). The contribution of empathy to justice and moral judgment. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 47–80). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15. Huang, J., Thornton, K. M., & Efthimiadis, E. N. (2010). Conversational tagging in Twitter. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia (pp. 173–178). New York, NY: ACM Press.
16. Joeckel, S., Bowman, N., & Dogruel, L. (2012). Gut or game? The influence of moral intuitions on decisions in video games. Media Psychology, 15, 460–485.
17. Joinson, A. (1998). Causes and implications of disinhibited behavior on the Internet. In J. Gackenbach (Ed.), Psychology and the internet: Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and transpersonal implications (pp. 43–60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
18. Jones, S. G. (1997). The internet and its social landscape. In S. G. Jones (Ed.), Virtual culture: Identity and communication in cybersociety (pp. 7–35). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. Kenen, D. (1982). Soapsuds, space, and sociability: A participant observation of the laundromat. Urban Life, 11, 163–183.
20. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization In D. A. Golsin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
21. Krakowiak, K., & Oliver, M. B. (2012). When good characters do bad things: Examining the effect of moral ambiguity on enjoyment. Journal of Communication, 62, 117–135. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01618.x
22. Lewis, S., Zamith, R., & Hermida, A. (2013). Content analysis in an era of big data: A hybrid approach to computational and manual methods. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57, 34–52.
23. Lofland, L. H. (1973). A world of strangers: Order and action in urban public space. New York, NY: Basic Books.
24. Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2010). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13, 114–133.
25. McPherson, K., Huotari, K., Cheng, F. Y.-S., Humphrey, D., Cheshire, C., & Brooks, A. L. (2012). Glitter: A mixed-methods study of Twitter use during Glee broadcasts. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work Companion (pp. 167–170). New York, NY: ACM Press.
26. Nielsen Social. (2014). Products. Retrieved from http://www.nielsensocial.com/products/
27. Oliver, M. B., & Bartsch, A. (2011). Appreciation of entertainment: The importance of meaningfulness via virtue and wisdom. Journal of Media Psychology, 23, 29–33.
28. Pappacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: The internet as a public sphere. New Media & Society, 4, 9–27.
29. Poniewozik, J. (2010, March 22). Twitter and TV: How social media is helping old media. Time. Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1971444,00.html
30. Raney, A. A. (2002). Moral judgment as a predictor of enjoyment of crime drama. Media Psychology, 4, 305–322.
31. Raney, A. A. (2005). Punishing media criminals and moral judgment: The impact on enjoyment. Media Psychology, 7, 145–163.
32. Raney, A. A. (2010). Media enjoyment as a function of affective dispositions toward and moral judgment of characters. In K. Döveling, C. von Scheve, & E. Konijn (Eds.), Handbook of emotions and the mass media (pp. 166–178). London, UK: Routledge.
33. Raney, A. A. (2011). Fair ball: Exploring the relationship between media sports and viewer morality. In A. C. Billings (Ed.), Sports media: Transformation, integration, consumption (pp. 77–93). London, UK: Routledge.
34. Raney, A. A., & Bryant, J. (2002). Moral judgment in crime drama: An integrated theory of enjoyment. Journal of Communication, 52, 402–415.
35. Raney, A. A., & Janicke, S. H. (2014). Morality and the selection, reception, and effects of entertainment media. In M. B. Oliver & A. A. Raney (Eds.), Media and social life (pp. 29–45). New York, NY: Routledge.
36. Rest, J. (1983). Morality. In J. Flavell & E. Markman (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol 3, Cognitive development (pp. 556–629). New York, NY: Wiley.
37. Savage, N. (2011). Twitter as medium and message. Communications of the ACM, 54(3), 18–20. Retrieved from http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2011/3/105332-twitter-as-medium-and-message/abstract. doi:10.1145/1897852.1897860
38. Schirra, S., Sun, H., & Bentley, F. (2014). Together alone: Motivations for live-tweeting a television series. In Proceedings of the 2014 Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (CHI) (pp. 2441–2450). New York, NY: ACM Press.
39. Shafer, D. M., & Raney, A. A. (2012). Exploring how we enjoy antihero narratives. Journal of Communication, 62, 1028–1046.
40. Snider, M. (2013). Twitter can boost TV ratings. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/personal/2013/08/06/nielsen-twitter-affects-tv-ratings/2613267/
41. Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7, 321–326.
42. Tamborini, R. (2011). Moral intuition and media entertainment. Journal of Media Psychology, 23, 39–45.
43. Tamborini, R., Eden, A. L., Bowman, N. D., Grizzard, M., & Lachlan, K. A. (2012). The influence of morality subcultures on the acceptance and appeal of violence. Journal of Communication, 62, 21–38.
44. Walther, J. (2003). Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2538–2557.
45. Weber, R., Tamborini, R., Lee, H. E., & Stipp, H. (2008). Soap opera exposure and enjoyment: A longitudinal test of disposition theory. Media Psychology, 11, 462–487. doi:10.1080/15213260802509993
46. Wohn, D. Y., & Na, E.-K. (2011). Tweeting about TV: Sharing television viewing experiences via social media message streams. First Monday, 16. Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3368/2779
47. Zillmann, D. (1991). Empathy: Affect from bearing witness to the emotion of others. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Responding to the screen: Reception and reaction processes (pp. 135–167). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
48. Zillmann, D. (1994). Mechanisms of emotional involvement with drama. Poetics, 23, 33–51.
49. Zillmann, D. (2000). Basal morality in drama appreciation. In I. Bondebjerg (Ed.), Moving images, culture and the mind (pp. 53–63). Luton, UK: University of Luton Press.
50. Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1976). A disposition theory of humor and mirth. In A. J. Hapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humour and laughter: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 93–115). London, UK: Wiley.