Psychology at the Movies

by Skip Dine Young

  Computer-based media such as videogames, web sites, social networks and a myriad of other technologies now compete for the attention of media consumers. Yet by some measures movies are still thriving. Because of increased ticket prices, 2009 and 2010 were the highest box office grossing years ever.10 The film industry has found ways to cooperate with new media. Although videogames engage time that could be otherwise spent watching movies, Hollywood has capitalized on audience familiarity by making movies based on TV shows (Transformers) and videogames (Lara Croft: Tomb Raider). When a new medium like Facebook catches on, the film industry seizes on the technology to create buzz.

  So, while movies have learned to share the mass market attention, they have not gone away. They may not be the dominant form of entertainment in the 2010s, but they are arguably still the preeminent form. They offer a level of demographic-spanning prestige, visibility, and influence unmatched by any other popular media. TV and pop music stars remain more interested in becoming movie stars than vice versa. The ratings for the Oscars are still higher than other awards shows. Academics and critics still take the aesthetic aspects of movies more seriously than they do videogames. Consequently, certain qualities of filmgoers and the film-viewing experience remain distinct.

  The Movies People Watch

  Why are people flocking to superhero films and ignoring Westerns? What happened to the popularity of drama? These questions are interesting from a cultural psychology perspective because they seek to identify patterns of behavior that reflect the attitudes and values of a certain group at a given time, rather like interpreting responses to a Rorschach Inkblot Test at the cultural level.11 Such interpretations are hard to prove or disprove, but they do provide a provocative impression of cultural activity.

  Box office and attendance figures are one means of quantifying the kinds of movies that people are watching. Appendix B gives the 50 top-grossing films of all time (adjusted for inflation).12 This list provides a good picture of the movies that have most permeated American life. Not everyone has seen all of them, but most are at least tangentially familiar to adult Americans,13 producing a wealth of shared cultural references. The images and story elements of Jaws, Bambi, and the Ten Commandments are so widely understood, they afford material for allusions and jokes (i.e., ones about skinny dipping, dead mothers, and parting seas).

  What makes a film a box office success? So far Hollywood has been unable to figure out a perfect formula, but we can see certain patterns in the list of box office champions. First, they are “democratic” movies, in that they appeal to a wide range of demographics. While some animated films are clearly meant for children, other “child-friendly” (or at least “adolescent-friendly”) movies attract adults as well (Shrek II). Few of these films were particularly controversial at the time of their release (notable exceptions include The Graduate, The Godfather, and The Exorcist). Instead, these films appear to capture mainstream ideas and sentiments, inhabiting a familiar and comfortable zone for the majority of American society.

  To gain a more precise picture of the movies that people are watching, one can use statistical methods to gauge box office success combined with other characteristics of a film or its audience.14 In recent decades, the most predictive factor has been budget—films with higher budgets tend to do better. The psychological mechanisms at work aren't entirely clear. While bigger budgets may allow movie-makers to give the audience what they want, this situation may also be a case of studios dictating what people want. Through intense advertising and controlling theater distribution, the success of certain films can be gained through constricting audience choices.15 Still, there are always exceptions to the “big budget = big box office” rule of thumb. A film like Paranormal Activity, made for next to nothing, can gross over a $100 million while an expensive film like Sucker Punch can bomb.

  There are other predictors of box office success, though none of these factors are very strong. Films that take home awards—Oscars in the major categories (Best Film, Best Actor, et al.) and the technical categories (Best Visual Effects) tend to do somewhat better. In recent times, genre has become important—comedies, sci-fi, and fantasy films tend to be more profitable than other types of films.16 Factors that are minimally predictive of success include whether a film is a sequel or a remake, has a longer run-time or a PG-13 rating (although G and PG movies can do well), and features non-gory violence. Films that do poorly may attribute their failure to factors like: being a biopic or literary adaptation, having an R-rating, or featuring graphic sex. These findings are consistent with the theory that blockbusters must target the vast middle of the population—movies with some (but not too much) sex and violence; are familiar and well-made but not too highbrow; and emphasize humor, nonreality and spectacle.17

  Over the years, the appeal of dramas has diminished while the popularity of fantasy epics has risen. While some dramas do sell tickets and win Oscars (The King's Speech), their financial success can't compare to summer blockbusters. One explanation for this is technological. In order to compete with more intimate forms of visual entertainment like television, movies have had to “go big” by maximizing visual effects. Another explanation is sociopolitical, that today's escapist entertainment is an expression of the narcissistic consumerism that took hold in the 1980s and continues to hold sway in America and other first world countries.

  Other patterns have been observed regarding movie-going and other cultural and economic conditions. One study found that between 1951–2000, there was more slapstick violence in top-grossing comedies (Blazing Saddles, Home Alone, Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me) made during times of high: unemployment, consumer price index, and suicide/homicide rates.18 While it is unlikely that Blazing Saddles was responsible for the social conditions of the 1970s, it is possible that the film (featuring a corrupt, bungling governor, racist townspeople, and flatulent cowboys) visually captured the frustrations of that period.

  What are the kids are watching? The viewing habits of children and teens tend to raise concerns about what how much exposure is appropriate. Young adults and adolescents are a major market for summer blockbusters, since they are most likely to be repeat viewers. Younger children and the family members that accompany them are the driving force behind G and PG-rated films, especially animation (one reason why these films are more successful than R-rated films is simply that they allow more audience members).19

  Theatrical attendance figures, however, don't accurately reflect what kids are watching because most children, particularly those under the age of eight, watch more recorded videos. Video viewing is difficult to track because once a movie is purchased or rented, it is unclear who watches it; and the same video can be watched many times. The same problems are associated with movies broadcast on cable or over the internet. Even so, large-scale surveys have indicated that when it comes to total media use, kids and teens spend less time watching movies/videos than they do television, videogames, or computers. Still, at the turn of the twenty-first century, the average teen watched an average of two movies/videos a week.20

  We can assume that kids watch a lot of G/PG-rated movies on video, but this does not mean that films with age-appropriate content are the only things children are seeing. A 2003 survey asked children aged 10–14 how many movies they had seen that featured extremely violent content including gore, sadism and sexualized violence.21 More than a third (including 20% of the 10 year-olds) reported having watched these R-rated horror films: Scary Movie (48%); I Still Know What You Did Last Summer (44%); Blade (37%); and Bride of Chucky (37%). Children's exposure to questionable film content is of interest because it is connected to such social concerns as cultural values, parenting choices and the effects of media.22

  Scholars curious about social psychological trends aren't the only ones researching what people watch. Hollywood pays for similar research to use in developing, marketing, and advertising movies. While some of this research is publicly available in scholarly journals,23 most is a c
losely guarded secret in order to gain advantage over the competition. Marketing research uses even more diverse methods than we have considered—audience responses at test screenings, focus group interviews, and exit surveys.24 Compared with academic research, commercial researchers are only interested in human nature and cultural conditions as they relate to the bottom line—the profit margin. This data would be a goldmine for social scientific analysis, but it is kept locked away, used to determine which movies get the green light and what alternate ending gets left on the cutting-room floor.

  The Movies People Like

  While box office and attendance figures don't exactly lie, they can be misleading when it comes to gauging people's true preferences. Gigantic advertising campaigns and controlled distribution can get people into the theaters, but they can't guarantee audiences will actually like what they see. Films like Hancock starring Will Smith, may be a success at the box office yet generate so little excitement that few people remember them after their release. On the other hand, a movie like Fight Club may fizzle at the box office, but have such a fervent following, it becomes the subject of many cultural references.

  Audience preferences are reflected in such criteria as critical ratings and awards. Appendix B includes a list of the 50 greatest American movies as judged by the American Film Institute in 2007.25 The AFI list, along with the Oscars and critics’ awards, represents the opinions of an exclusive group of people in the movie industry; films that insiders believe represent what is best about the medium and are therefore worthy of praise.

  The popular Internet Movie Database (IMDB.com) has a rating system to which any user can contribute, and offers a more democratic measure of film preference. The top 50 user-rated films are also included in Appendix B.26 Voters on IMDB tend to be film buffs—people who don't work in the industry but have more than a casual interest in film.

  Interesting patterns emerge from a side-by-side comparison of these three measures of movie acclaim (box office, AFI, and IMDB). There is relatively little overlap (seven films) between box office totals and the AFI choices. Initial financial success apparently has little to do with lasting acclaim. History has not been kind to several of the films on the box office list; epics like Independence Day, Cleopatra, and Airport would struggle to find viewers who consider them high-quality films (much less among the greatest ever). On the other hand, a number of classics (Citizen Kane, The Wizard of Oz, and Casablanca) under-performed or even flopped upon initial release. Overall, the box office champs tend to be movies everyone can enjoy (witness the high number of children's and animated films) while the AFI list captures distinct artistic and historical qualities.

  When the choices of IMDB users were compared with box office totals, only six films (primarily the classics of the special-effects era—two Star Wars installments, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and The Dark Knight) overlapped both lists. In general, most of the feel-good musicals, comedies, romances, and light action movies that dominated the box office list weren't especially well-regarded by film buffs. Their choices were darker, including horror films (Psycho and Silence of the Lambs), intense crime/suspense films (The Usual Suspects and Pulp Fiction), and violent dramas (American History X and Taxi Driver). Even the comedies tended to have a sharp satirical edge (Dr Strangelove and American Beauty). If IMDB.com users represent the typical modern movie buff, particularly men, their darker tastes may reflect the cultural shifts of the 1960s and beyond (Toy Story 3 and Amelie being the notable, and reassuring, exceptions).

  There was considerably more overlap (15 films) between the critical establishment (AFI) and IMDB users. Both groups are more discriminating than everyday moviegoers, who claim to simply want to be entertained. One notable difference was the greater presence of recent films among the film buffs’ choices.27 Twenty-six films on the IMDB list were made after 1990 compared with only two on the AFI list; clearly, AFI members gave greater weight to classics that have stood the test of time. While IMDB voters did not ignore older films (both Citizen Kane and Casablanca made the list), these films tended to be the exceptions. While IMDB users may overvalue the new (e.g., Inception appearing as #8 on the list) and lack historical perspective, the preference for recent films also reflects the visceral impact of immediate experience that gets watered down when films are removed from their original cultural and historical context.

  Only two films made all three lists: The Godfather and Star Wars. Their universal appeal appears rare in a diverse, postmodern society. Made in the 1970s within five years of each other, they represent different poles of the New Hollywood that emerged after the Golden Age. Though technically studio films, both were created by individuals with a strong personal vision who were intentionally manipulating the rules. The Godfather is a serious artistic statement while Star Wars is a valentine to the wonders of imaginative filmmaking, yet both films have strong connections to film history and were hugely popular. Respectively, they set the standards for dramatic independent filmmaking and high concept fantasy that still resonate with audiences today.

  None of the lists in Appendix B were constructed using scientific methods.28 In order to take more focused look at audience preference patterns, social scientists use surveys that access a representative sample of the population. One study surveyed over a thousand people about their preferences for movie monsters (or villains).29 Horror movies have been a robust genre throughout movie history, and the monsters are what appeal to the public imagination. Dracula and other vampires proved to be the most popular, for a variety of reasons including their agelessness, their intelligence, their supernatural strength and even their fashion sense and sex appeal.30 Other favorites included Godzilla, Freddy Krueger, Frankenstein, Chucky, Michael Myers, King Kong, and Hannibal Lecter. The reasons these monsters were popular echoed the popularity of vampires: intelligence, superhuman powers, and the ability to reveal the dark side of human nature.

  When it came to monster preference, there were marked differences between the generations. The “slashers” (i.e., homicidal humans) of Halloween, Friday the 13th, and A Nightmare on Elm Street series were popular with younger respondents (under 25 years of age) but not appreciated by older respondents (over 50). In part, this seemed due to an exposure effect (motion picture homicidal killers have been more frequent in recent decades). There were also differences in the rationale behind the preferences. The fans of Jason, Michael and Freddy tended to focus more of their admiration on negative and pathological qualities (“pure evil,” and “serious psychological problems”) and killing proficiency. Preferring monsters for the degree of their murderousness may have disturbing moral implications, but it could also reflect an honest ability to appreciate qualities that lie at the very core of being an effective monster.

  Other research has focused on the preferences of subgroups of movie viewers. For example, sensation-seeking is a personality characteristic that refers to seeking out novel and risky experiences that provide sensory stimulation (fast driving, gambling, skydiving). Individuals who measure high in sensation-seeking tend to like films with a great deal of violence, horror, action, and rapid editing. Given that men have higher sensation-seeking tendencies than women, this factor may partially explain men's greater preference for action, horror, and sci-fi genres. 31

  The popularity of movie stars is another reflection of audience attitudes and preferences. Many observers have noted that actors have longer and more successful (in terms of number of roles) than actresses. One study systematically assessed the careers of hundreds of Hollywood stars between 1926–1999.32 It confirmed that as women aged, they had fewer starring roles and total roles than actors of the same age. In recent years, the number of roles for older actresses has increased, but the availability of lead parts remains well below those for older men. These results may be interpreted as a reflection of a cultural perception that older women are less attractive. They also raise concerns that this pattern perpetuates the devaluation of older women by effectively removing them fr
om the media spotlight.

  Closing Shots: The Viewers behind the Numbers

  Behind the box office numbers, demographic trends, and aggregate statistical analyses lie the experiences of real people. John Movie Fan spends hours online getting pumped for the latest superhero blockbuster and contributes a small part to the film's record-breaking box office when he attends the midnight opening. Jane Movie Fan, a teenager dreading/anticipating a date to see the latest horror film, is part of a trend of adolescent girls watching more horror movies. Joe Movie Fan, a middle-aged man who daydreams about speeding off into the median while stuck in rush hour traffic, reflects the fact that men love movie car chases.

  We have looked at the “where” and “when” of movie viewing, and have considered characteristics (age, gender, personality) that predict what people are likely to watch which movies. But what happens when people actually watch a movie? And what happens after they watch the movie?33 Box office grosses and demographics can't answer these questions by themselves, buy they set the scene for our continued attention to movie audiences.

  Further Reading

  Austin, B.A. (1989) Immediate Seating: A Look at Movie Audiences. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.

  Pritzker, S.R. (2009) Marketing movies: An introduction to the special issue. Psychology & Marketing, 26 (5), 397--399.