Emotions and mass media
2 The descent of emotions in media
Darwinian perspectives
Frank Schwab and Clemens Schwender
Why do humans devote so much of their time and energy to the media and bring such enormous resources to bear making up and telling stories? They go to the movies, watch television, listen to the radio, and read books and comics. Even in societies with little or no access to mass media people spend countless hours listen-ing to and telllisten-ing stories, slisten-inglisten-ing and danclisten-ing together, actlisten-ing out and laughlisten-ing together over fi ctional events (cf. Konijn this volume). The emotional involvement in such stories is often as intense as that of real events. The perception of anger, sorrow, fear, and hate, not to mention pleasure and joy, is immediate and direct. It would appear that an essential function of the mediation of real and fi ctional stories is the generation of this emotional component. Medially mediated entertainment, having no other apparent purpose than amusement, is seemingly dysfunctional in nature, as it prevents people from attending to presumably more important things in life. The function of emotion in the perception of media is therefore essential for an understanding of media and the role of media in society today.
From an evolutionary point of view, the emotional response represents a sponta-neous, perceptual appraisal. This innate appraisal mechanism can be triggered by real or imagined events – including those that are medially mediated. The role of the evolved emotion mechanism in dealing with media is a primary topic of discus-sion with respect to evolutionary considerations in the communication sciences (Schwender 2006) and media psychology (Schwab 2007b).
In the following, we introduce the fundamental assumptions behind evolutionary psychology, consider those aspects that distinguish the evolutionary perspective from the conventional social sciences, and outline a scientifi c approach to testing the various assumptions made. Following this introduction, we examine the evolu-tionary view of emotions as a mechanism of adaptation; we also consider media and emotions as elements in an evolutionary psychology approach to media. Examples of entertainment provided by fi ctional stories and the media mediation of informa-tion as news allow us to examine more closely the role of emoinforma-tions from an evolu-tionary perspective. What we refer to collectively as ‘media’ today is essentially the use of new technology to convey old content. Fairy tales and legends, as well as rumor and gossip (Dunbar 2004), are phenomena that have been around far longer than technologies such as the computer, play console, fi lm, television, radio or even print, all of which – that is, the thesis of evolutionary psychology – simply repackage ancient subjects and themes.
Such archaic and phylogenetically ancient subject areas as survival and death and love and jealousy are particularly relevant in this respect. In addition to the content
16 F. Schwab and C. Schwender
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 of media entertainment, the skillful presentation of such content in the various
media forms is also of interest in the development of evolutionary theory and various approaches are described. Finally, we consider the question of why the reception and use of emotionalizing media entertainment rewards users and recipi-ents with such a multitude of positive emotions and conclude with a brief look at prospects for further research.
In this chapter we develop an evolutionary perspective on emotional media reception, and in the case of medially mediated aesthetic entertainment, look at these aspects in greater detail. By aesthetics we are here referring in general to the appraisal of sensory perceptions.
Media reception through Darwin’s eyes
Bizarre somersaults. If we were to come across an animal sniffi ng along the ground like a dog, it would hardly surprise us. Presumably the creature is following the trail of a scent or searching for food. But then if it would suddenly stop and turn a som-ersault? – ‘What was that?’ Such behavior, seemingly devoid of any functional purpose, demands an explanation (Dennett 2004).
If we then look at the immense appetite for media and the human inclination to satisfy emotional and aesthetic needs and desires through the use of media, we would have to admit that at fi rst glance this, too, seems biologically absurd.
Evolutionary psychologists are continually amazed by these ‘somersaults’ that occur in human behavior. Beyond those biologically essential functions, such as mating, rearing our young, feeding, and avoiding being fed upon, what possible benefi t could derive from this strange, extravagant, and frequently elaborate human behavior?
Media events induce emotions in the recipient or user through the presentation of emotional topics and events within an emotionalizing dramaturgy (Schwender 2006). Since the beginning of the earliest media – cave painting, theater, and pictorial and written notation – but even prior to this, almost all human cultures have expended signifi cant resources on the emotional engagement of its members (Zillmann 2000). Through the use of emotionalizing, generally entertaining, media, recipients thereby fulfi ll their desire to experience a multitude of diverse emotions.
But just why do recipients invest such a vast amount of time and money in entertain-ment and artistic amuseentertain-ment? And in the context of evolution, what prerequisites have humans evolved that make it possible to enjoy these emotionalizing media offerings? What are the evolved mechanisms that allow them to perceive and under-stand media?
The evolution of emotions. Darwin, in his book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animal (1872/2005), particularly emphasized the role of emotions, characteriz-ing some as becharacteriz-ing innate and universal in nature. Current fi ndcharacteriz-ings indicate that pri-mates demonstrate comparable emotional expressions, that various cultures express certain emotions in similar ways, and that the activities of specifi c areas in the brain – among these the amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex – are linked to specifi c emotions. Such fi ndings suggest an evolutionary basis for human emotion. Emotion researchers such as Nesse (1990), Fredrickson (1998), and Ekman and Davidson (1994) all assume evolved biological functions for specifi c emotional states. From an evolutionary perspective, negative emotions, for example, serve to prepare the
The descent of emotions in media 17 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
individual mentally and physiologically to deal adaptively with adverse circum-stances (cf. Cantor this volume). Positive emotions, on the other hand, appear to stimulate the expansion of human mental capability. Fredrickson (1998: 218) described this as ‘broaden[ing] our mindset.’ The evolutionary perspective thus supplements conventional, that is, proximate, current genetic and ontogenetic approaches to emotion theory with ultimate and thus phylogenetic explanations (Cosmides and Tooby 2000). Nevertheless, it is also necessary to determine how the respective emotional mechanisms arose. Their structural development – that is, the central assumption of evolutionary psychology – accordingly determines their design and this, in turn, their functionality. Media events target these evolved emo-tional mechanisms (e.g., moral indignation, jealousy, pride, success, shame, and guilt), and media recipients react to the contents in accordance with their evolved mental emotional architecture. This – that is, the hypothesis – motivates user behav-ior and infl uences the cognitive processing of the media content.
Looking at psychology through Darwin’s eyes
Charles Darwin rather cautiously only hinted at the possibility of extending the theory of evolution to the human species:
In the future I see open fi elds for far more important researches. Psychology will be securely based on the foundation already well laid by Mr. Herbert Spencer, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation. Much light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history.
(Darwin 1859/2008: 283) Today it is evolutionary psychology that has adopted Darwin’s course. If sensory perception and communication make up key elements of the human entity, then an examination, from an evolutionary psychology perspective, of modern methods of communication by means of fi lm, television, internet, and the mobile phone, and their effects, is not only possible but even advisable.
For the evolutionary psychologist, the human mind is fi rst and foremost an
‘adaptive toolbox’ (Gigerenzer and Selten 2002) that our early ancestors could use in learning to adapt to their environment. Thus the human mental architecture would appear to be, at least in part, a sort of intellectual fossil. Evolutionary psychol-ogists refer to this as the mismatch of evolutionary design (Workman and Reader 2008) and make the following assumptions: in the course of human evolution we fi nd multigenerational adaptive problems whose solution has yielded certain selec-tion advantages. For this purpose, area-specifi c evolved psychological mechanisms (EPM) have arisen; these can be conceptualized as information-processing struc-tures. An analysis of such EPMs always includes the question of their ultimate and proximate biological functions (Workman and Reader 2008). Thus the main thesis of evolutionary psychology: modern humans, in their aptitude and in behavior, are very much the result of an evolutionary process of adaptation. The body, like the brain, has developed by means of adaptation to its natural, social, and perhaps even sexual environment (Cosmides and Tooby 1992). Initial efforts to integrate evolu-tionary theory and psychology mainly utilized evoluevolu-tionary ideas as a conceptual framework. Not until the 1970s do we fi nd the fi rst approaches that can be ascribed
18 F. Schwab and C. Schwender
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to evolutionary psychology in the strict sense. Michael Ghiselin’s approach (‘Darwin
and evolutionary psychology’), which appeared in 1973 in the journal Science, can be considered the starting point for the current discussion. In 1992, the fi rst (and still today, primary) work was published that draws together the fundamental ideas and concepts behind the theory. The Adapted Mind (Barkow et al. 1992) explores approaches, theories, and explanations of the brain as an instrument adapted to specifi c environmental conditions. Two further surveys of the fi eld, Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (Crawford and Krebs 1998) and the current Evolutionary Psychology (Workman and Reader 2008), carry on this effort.
Evolutionary psychology is not a further psychological discipline, but rather a new paradigm within the fi eld of psychology, a theory on the development of the human mind. It is a new perspective on the various psychological disciplines. It criticizes the supposition, widely disseminated in the cognitive psychology and com-munications sciences, that a small number of domain-spanning all-purpose mecha-nisms, such as learning and rationality, provide the basis for human psychological functioning.
Evolutionary psychology methods derive from evolutionary biology and experi-mental and cognitive psychology. Hypotheses are developed based on presumed conditions in early evolutionary history. Assumptions about phylogeny aid in the construction of the hypotheses and are not intended as either ex post facto specula-tion or explanatory luxury. Hypotheses on evolved mechanisms are tested by means of standardized experiments; these, however, sometimes must be carried out in various cultures in order to be able to make universally valid – culture-independent and thus anthropological – statements.
This is made impressively clear in the work of Tooby and Cosmides (1992) on the Wason selection task. The experiments test for correct logical conclusion. Even when the inner logic remains unaltered, the results of this test change systematically when the domain changes. The Wason selection task is a task that can be completed using logical reasoning; however, the number of correct answers increases if the task is not presented in the abstract but rather contextually and increases even more when it involves the detection of cheating (Cosmides and Tooby 1992).
Humans, it would seem, are not equipped with a fully fl exible domain-nonspecifi c decision-making disposition; instead, specifi c, contextually oriented mechanisms have evolved in the brain.
Although evolutionary psychology can be described as the fusion of cognitive psy-chology with Darwinian thinking, a pre-eminent role is given to emotion. Thus it is worth looking briefl y at the key aspects of evolutionary thinking with respect to human emotionality; in doing so, the main focus will be on the perspective of the Santa Barbara school (e.g., Cosmides and Tooby 2000; for an overview of further prominent evolutionary emotion psychology approaches see Meyer et al. 1997;
Schwab 2004, 2006; Workman and Reader 2008).
Evolutionary psychology and emotions: Darwin’s perspective as an ‘eye-opener’
Why is the evolutionary perspective key to an analysis of emotions? Computer gamers are attracted to Lara Croft; female fi lmgoers react with delight to George Clooney and fear for Gandalf’s life. Yet surely it is clear to us all that fi lm and television images
The descent of emotions in media 19 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
are merely moving dots of light and that the written word by itself is more than suffi -cient to trigger these emotions. Explanations of such phenomena are not easily accessible by means of a purely rational–cognitive approach – indeed, they appear extremely unreasonable. The logic of the heart and thus of emotion, is primarily an evolutionary one.
In evolutionary psychology, emotions have been characterized as being the band leaders of a ‘cognitive orchestra’ (Cosmides and Tooby 2000). These various emo-tional directors – meta-programs – each recognize specifi c situations (even when they are being medially mediated); each seeks to infl uence in own fashion the various cognitive subprograms and subroutines.
Emotions choose adaptive tool combinations and apply these to the solution of adaptive problems. Emotional meta-programs, however, are evolved approximations and by no means infallible. Even so, in the long term, emotions have contributed to an increase in the net lifespan reproductivity of the human organism; emotions thus offer far more than short-term strategies for problem-solving.
Emotions as adaptations: how does research into emotions profi t from an evolutionary per-spective? The presumed relationship between past environment and the structure of emotions makes the evolutionary approach particularly fruitful for emotion researchers. Knowledge of earlier evolutionary aspects of the environment allows them to make assumptions about the architecture of emotional mechanisms. Emo-tional adaptation involves the following criteria:
1 An evolutionarily reoccurring situation or condition.
2 An adaptive problem.
3 Motivational stimuli.
4 Situation-detection algorithms.
5 Priority-allocation algorithms.
6 An internal communication system.
7 Specifi c reaction algorithms of the cognitive subroutines that need to be controlled.
Emotional meta-programs can infl uence goals, motives, conceptual and interpreta-tional contexts, perception, memory, attention, physiology, communication, and expression. A further important function is to be found in their recalibration function with respect to past, emotional decisions. Along with the ability to utilize fantasy and media-conveyed fi ction, Homo sapiens (the modern human) is able to access the much more fl exible and risk-free evolved wisdom provided by emotions. Humans use media in order to experience the subjective emotional signifi cance of the most diverse media narratives; instead of the need to experience and thereby gain maturity from a real relationship crisis, they are able to test emotional reactions to medially mediated problem relationships without repercussions. By watching, the individual learns how others gain experience and transfers this knowledge to his or her own situation.
Media and emotions: an evolutionary perspective
An explicit involvement with media is rather rare among evolutionary psychologists;
Barkow, in ‘Gossip and Social Stratifi cation’ (1992), addresses the perception of subjects and persons in the mass media. The hypotheses he develops provide a
20 F. Schwab and C. Schwender
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 theoretical foundation for the model of parasocial interaction (Horton and
Wohl 1956; Nass and Shyam Sundar 1994; Schramm 2008). Steven Pinker (2002:
521) formulates fundamental assumptions about the functions of fi ction, humor, art, and entertainment in his chapter ‘The meaning of life.’ Currently two contribu-tions making reference to evolutionary theses can be found in the volume edited by Bryant and Vorderer, Psychology of Entertainment (2006). Vorderer et al. develop some fundamental concepts with respect to our motivation to let ourselves be enter-tained (see also ‘Entertainment is Emotion,’ Tan 2008); Ohler and Nieding (2006) write about entertainment from an explicitly evolutionary perspective. Most recently, the Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie (Journal of Media Psychology) devoted a special issue to the topic of evolutionary psychology (Schwab 2007b).
Media events are produced by people for people. They are geared to human needs, motives, emotions, intentions, and cognitive processes. The use of these terms in the psychological literature, however, varies greatly; thus we fi rst need to defi ne them.
Drawing on Bischof (2008: 323–35), needs refers to those things an organism requires for its preservation and ongoing growth and development – for example, nourish-ment, sexuality, affi liation, security. A motive, that is, an impetus, arises when such a need is not spontaneously fulfi lled. Emotions are the means by which a motive, coming up against a barrier in the environment, can appeal to the cognitive system for a solu-tion. The so-called negative emotions signal a malfuncsolu-tion. Positive emotions indicate the success of an effort and send the all-clear. This all suggests – as a product of evolution – a particular behavior and can contribute to specifi c, subjective feelings.
Media psychology is the discipline that attempts to describe and explain human experience and behavior with respect to media. The media user in a modern infor-mation society functions, from an evolutionary psychology perspective, primarily in accordance with the evolved structural traits of the human mind. Evolutionary media psychologists are above all interested in those aspects of human function dealing with media that have arisen by means of natural and reproductive selection forces.
For example: the selection of media as well as the attention given to media content and its perception and interpretation – we assume – are infl uenced by evolved mental processes (Schwender 2006). From an evolutionary perspective, such selection pro-cesses are not exclusively the result of current learning propro-cesses and ontogenetic expe-riences. The fundamental motives and needs of the media user are products of human evolution; these evolved, genetically based motives and needs are experienced not as biological imperatives, but rather as an emotion or mood; they do not determine behav-ior but appear instead to function as an appeal for corresponding behavbehav-ior, an emo-tionally tinged interpretation of the environment. Emotions have thus been described as ‘the whispering of the genes’ (Schwab 2003: 295). The ‘uses and gratifi cations’
approach (Blumler and Katz 1974) does emphasize this needs orientation of media activities but it assumes that these emotional appeals are always consciously accessible and communicable. Zillman’s treatment (1988) of emotion and mood-oriented selection of media (Zillmann and Bryant 1985; Knobloch et al. 2002; Oliver 2003;
Schramm 2005), however, is more closely in line with evolutionary reasoning.
Brief summary: the evolutionary foundation of media and emotion
The inclination to satisfy emotional and aesthetic needs using media may seem biologically absurd, yet it is exactly such bizarre behavior that the evolutionary
The descent of emotions in media 21 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
perspective addresses. Evolutionary psychology looks at how emotional mechanisms arise, and thus extends the conventional focus of psychology on purely proximate, ontogenetic, and current genetic lines of questioning to a phylogenetic, ultimate perspective, supporting the theory and allowing for construction of hypotheses.
Thus human emotions, with respect to both psychological make-up and behavioral consequences, are also the result of evolutionary processes of adaptation. The human genetic confi guration, physiology, and brain have all developed in adapta-tion to the environment. It therefore seems rather unlikely that – as assumed in cognitive psychology and the communication sciences – only a small number of inter-domain, multipurpose mechanisms such as learning and reasoned decision-making have developed as the basis of human psychological functioning (Sherry 2004). Evolutionary psychology (Cosmides and Tooby 2000; Fredrickson 1998) emphasizes the central role of emotion: emotions help humans to make decisions in highly relevant situations. Media producers utilize these connections in the pro-duction of emotion-invoking media content. As media recipients, we are infl uenced by these evolved emotional mechanisms in the selection of media, attention paid, perception, and interpretation of emotional content – so the assumption. Emo-tional media content fi ts like a key in the lock of the evolved emoEmo-tional mechanism of the media user or recipient.
Entertainment from an evolutionary perspective
What is the evolutionary benefi t of entertainment? Evolutionary psychologists (Buss 2008;
Workman and Reader 2008) are inquiring into the functional and adaptive value of various behavioral patterns and capabilities. Humans have acquired through evolu-tion the ability to test hypotheses about the world in a sort of mental simulaevolu-tion – a virtual rehearsal of the mind; they are thus able to explore a situation without having to incur the risks present in the real world. Both the virtual rehearsal via the imagination (internal), as well as the sandbox, play kitchen, etc. (external), offer a protected space in which to test the dos and don’ts of the human existence. Films, novels, radio plays, online role-playing games, etc. are in this sense nothing more than medially recorded propositions for such rehearsals. Social selection pressures assume a key role as the formative force in the phylogenetic development of this capability. Through parasocial relationships (Horton and Wohl 1956; Giles 2002;
Gleich 1997; Horton and Strauss 1957; Bente and Otto 1996; Vorderer 1998) and the observation of media fi gures, media recipients are able to explore their emo-tional, interpersonal, and social problems – the situations, hence the assumption, that humans experience as particularly stimulating and entertaining. Media events and fi gures serve as human mock-ups and function much like a scarecrow (Schwender 2006), whose shape and form are specifi cally intended to deceive a bird’s perceptual processes; the features trigger specifi c evolved mental processes and thus target a specifi c element of the bird’s social environment – in this case, an enemy. The effect of media is in many aspects very similar. Visual and aural stimuli trigger emotions and thus evolved emotion mechanisms. Media recipients are moved to laugh and cry over fi ctional persons and events; they interact parasocially with the characters and form long-term, even parasocial, relationships with them.
Media content that is entertaining should furthermore take greater precedence, because of its evolutionarily relevant and therefore emotional content.
22 F. Schwab and C. Schwender
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 As media recipients, we are fi rst and foremost interested in social content
(Schwender 2006): How do I establish and preserve a sexual relationship? How do I fi nd and maintain cooperation partners? How do I present myself in a positive light? How do I get rid of rivals? How do I protect myself from harm? How do I protect my loved ones and my offspring? According to Barkow (1989), all funda-mental goals are biologically determined, but subgoals and complex plans are open to cultural negotiation. Today, some of these social negotiations are carried out in the media. Establishing and preserving a relationship with a sexual partner is a fun-damental goal for most humans. The question of whether this is best done at a party, via the personals, or Web 2.0, and how to go about it is an essential compo-nent of many media offerings.
Among the topics dominating media content one fi nds self-aware moral emotions such as shame and guilt as well as critical emotions such as anger, loathing, and con-tempt (Rozin et al. 1999; see also the contribution from Unz this volume). These emotions evaluate social behavior. Talk shows, political affairs programming, crime thrillers, stories of everyday heroes and superheroes – time and again we fi nd issues of morality: standards and rules of behavior and the infringement of such rules in reciprocally altruistic groups, the exploitation of a group or a group member, and defense against such exploitation (Cosmides and Tooby 1992; Schwab 2004;
Schwender 2006; Trivers 2002). Emotions that play a role here include sympathy, pride, sorrow, contempt, shame, guilt, strife, and moral indignation. These emotions are a part of the mental architecture developed during ontogeny. They are shaped by the respective society (see also Döveling 2005). Media perform in part the fi ne-tuning of our sense of morality (Schwab 2004; Schwender 2006). In a rapidly chang-ing cultural environment, fi lms and television programs offer opportunities for discussions of good and evil. Humans have the capacity to imagine all kinds of differ-ent situations. These mdiffer-ental rehearsals offer prevdiffer-entative strategies for problem-solving, and media depictions are their audiovisual representation.
Such inner rehearsals need not only deal with one’s own behavior but are also equally valid for critically exploring the thoughts and deeds of others. Media recipi-ents transplant themselves into the inner worlds of their media fi gures and thus are able to fathom their motives. The borders are quite wide open here – even the visu-alized representations of psychotics (Repulsion, Polanski, UK 1965), perceptions altered by drugs (Easy Rider, Hopper, USA 1969), and dreams and nightmares (Mulholland Drive, Lynch, USA 2001) may acceptably be explored as behavioral and experiential possibilities.
According to the supernormal conversation hypothesis (Nettle 2005), humans are most interested in the fate of fi ctive persons when a problem of biological fi tness, for example, personal gain or loss, or a threat to reproductive possibilities, is presented in an intensifi ed form (bigger than life).
The basic themes of media entertainment thus seem to be closely connected to the evolved motive and emotion system, which is primarily organized around social problems. Motives and emotions are the perennial ‘whispering of our genes,’
appeals from the human phylogeny (Schwab 2003: 295).
Emotions in the media thus are almost exclusively associated with fi tness-relevant issues; however, the involvement with media content not only triggers emotional reactions, but, at the same time, humans also become emotionally motivated to a critical involvement with the media content itself. Tan describes this thus: