The effects of user comments on hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment experiences when watching online videos

References

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480.10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469Search in Google Scholar

Baek, H., Oh, S., Yang, H.-D., & Ahn, J. (2017). Electronic word-of-mouth, box office revenue and social media. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 22, 13–23.10.1016/j.elerap.2017.02.001Search in Google Scholar

Bartsch, A. (2012). As time goes by: What changes and what remains the same in entertainment experience over the life span? Journal of Communication, 62, 588–608.10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01657.xSearch in Google Scholar

Bartsch, A., & Hartmann, T. (2017). The role of cognitive and affective challenge in entertainment experience. Communication Research, 44(1), 29–53.10.1177/0093650214565921Search in Google Scholar

Brand, B. (2013). Life is Beautiful. [Animated short film]. Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fDoTmjHa1l.Search in Google Scholar

Cameron, J., & Geidner, N. (2014). Something old, something new, something borrowed from something blue: Experiments on dual viewing TV and Twitter. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58(3), 400–419.10.1080/08838151.2014.935852Search in Google Scholar

Chakravarty, A., Liu, Y., & Mazumdar, T. (2010). The differential effects of online word-of-mouth and critics’ reviews on pre-release movie evaluation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 24, 185–197.10.1016/j.intmar.2010.04.001Search in Google Scholar

Chau, C. (2010). YouTube as a participatory culture. New Directions for Youth Development, 128, 65–74.10.1002/yd.376Search in Google Scholar

Cheung, C. M. K., & Thadani, D. R. (2012). The impact of electronic word-of-mouth communication: A literature analysis and integrative model. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 461–470.10.1016/j.dss.2012.06.008Search in Google Scholar

Geise, S., & Baden, C. (2015). Putting the image back into the frame: Modeling the linkage between visual communication and frame‐processing theory. Communication Theory, 25(1), 46–69.10.1111/comt.12048Search in Google Scholar

Hall, A., & Zwarun, L. (2012). Challenging entertainment: Enjoyment, transportation, and need for cognition in relation to fictional films viewed online. Mass Communication and Society, 15(3), 384–406.10.1080/15205436.2011.583544Search in Google Scholar

Hixson, T. K. (2005). Mission possible: Targeting trailers to movie audiences. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 14(3), 210–224.10.1057/palgrave.jt.5740182Search in Google Scholar

Hsueh, M., Yogeeswaran, K., & Malinen, S. (2015). “Leave your comment below”: Can biased online comments influence our own prejudicial attitudes and behaviors? Human Communication Research, 41(4), 557–576.10.1111/hcre.12059Search in Google Scholar

Khan, M. L. (2017). Social media engagement: What motivates user participation and consumption on YouTube? Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 236–247.10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.024Search in Google Scholar

Klaaren, K. J., Hodges, S. D., & Wilson, T. D. (1994). The role of affective expectations in subjective experience and decision-making. Social Cognition, 12(2), 77–101.10.1521/soco.1994.12.2.77Search in Google Scholar

Konijn, E. A., & Hoorn, J. F. (2004). Reality-based genre preferences do not direct personal involvement. Discourse Processes, 38(2), 219–246.10.1207/s15326950dp3802_4Search in Google Scholar

Lee, J., Park, D. H., & Han, I. (2008). The effect of negative online consumer reviews on product attitude: An information processing view. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 7(3), 341–352.10.1016/j.elerap.2007.05.004Search in Google Scholar

Lee, M., & Youn, S. (2009). Electronic word of mouth (eWOM): How eWOM platforms influence consumer product judgement. International Journal of Advertising, 28(3), 473–499.10.2501/S0265048709200709Search in Google Scholar

Leshner, G. (2017). Experiment, laboratory. In The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods (pp. 1–15). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0096Search in Google Scholar

Lewis, R. J., Tamborini, R., & Weber, R. (2014). Testing a dual-process model of media enjoyment and appreciation. Journal of Communication, 64(3), 397–416.10.1111/jcom.12101Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Y. (2006). Word of mouth for movies: Its dynamics and impact on box office revenue. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 74–89.10.1509/jmkg.70.3.074Search in Google Scholar

Oliver, M. B., & Bartsch, A. (2011). Appreciation of entertainment. Journal of Media Psychology, 23(1), 29–33.10.1027/1864-1105/a000029Search in Google Scholar

Oliver, M. B., Weaver, J. B., & Sargent, S. D. (2000). An examination of factors related to sex differences in enjoyment of sad films. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 155–174.10.1207/s15506878jobem4402_8Search in Google Scholar

Pew Research Center (2018). Who uses Pinterest, Snapchat, YouTube and WhatsApp: % of U.S. adults who use each social media platform. Retrieved March 6, 2018 from http://www.pewinternet.org/chart/who-uses-pinterest-snapchat-youtube-and-whatsapp/.Search in Google Scholar

Potter, W. J. (2009). Arguing for a general framework for mass media scholarship. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.10.4135/9781483329864Search in Google Scholar

Price, V., & Tewksbury, D. (1997). News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In G. A. Barnett & F. J. Boster (Eds.), Progress in Communication Sciences (pp. 173–212). Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Search in Google Scholar

Rieger, D., Reinecke, L., Frischlich, L., & Bente, G. (2014). Media entertainment and well-being-linking hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment experience to media-induced recovery and vitality. Journal of Communication, 64(3), 456–478.10.1111/jcom.12097Search in Google Scholar

Roth, F. S., Weinmann, C., Schneider, F. M., Hopp, F. R., Bindl, M. J., & Vorderer, P. (2017). 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.10.1037/ppm0000147Search in Google Scholar

Shedlosky-Shoemaker, R., Costabile, K. A., Deluca, H. K., & Arkin, R. M. (2011). The social experience of entertainment media: Effects of others’ evaluations on our experience. Journal of Media, 23(3), 111–121.10.1027/1864-1105/a000042Search in Google Scholar

Slater, D. M., Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2015). Message variability and heterogeneity: A core challenge for communication research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 39(1), 3–31.10.1080/23808985.2015.11679170Search in Google Scholar

Sparks, J. R., Areni, C. S., & Cox, K. C. (1998). An investigation of the effects of language style and communication modality on persuasion. Communications Monographs, 65(2), 108–125.10.1080/03637759809376440Search in Google Scholar

Stangor, C., & Ruble, D. N. (1989). Strength of expectancies and memory for social information: What we remember depends on how much we know. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25(1), 18–35.10.1016/0022-1031(89)90037-1Search in Google Scholar

Steinfield, C., Ellison, N. B., & Lampe, C. (2008). Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 434–445.10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.002Search in Google Scholar

Sundar, S. S. (2008). Self as source: Agency and customization in interactive media. In E. Konijn, S. Utz, M. Tanis & S. Barnes (Eds.), Mediated interpersonal communication (pp. 58–74). New York, NY: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Tal-Or, N. (2016). How co-viewing affects attitudes: The mediating roles of transportation and identification. Media Psychology, 19, 381–405.10.1080/15213269.2015.1082918Search in Google Scholar

Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2013). The differential susceptibility to media effects model. Journal of Communication, 63(2), 221–243.10.1111/jcom.12024Search in Google Scholar

Valkenburg, P. M., & Piotrowski, J. T. (2017). Plugged in: How media attract and affect youth. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.10.12987/yale/9780300218879.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Voigt, C., Howat, G., & Brown, G. (2010). Hedonic and eudaimonic experiences among wellness tourists: An exploratory enquiry. Annals of Leisure Research, 13(3), 541–562.10.1080/11745398.2010.9686862Search in Google Scholar

Waddell, T. F., & Sundar, S. S. (2017). # thisshowsucks! The overpowering influence of negative social media comments on television viewers. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61(2), 393–409.10.1080/08838151.2017.1309414Search in Google Scholar

Walther, J. B., Deandrea, D., Kim, J., & Anthony, J. C. (2010). The influence of online comments on perceptions of antimarijuana public service announcements on YouTube. Human Communication Research, 36(4), 469–492.10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01384.xSearch in Google Scholar

Winter, S., Krämer, N. C., Benninghoff, B., & Gallus, C. (2018). Shared entertainment, shared opinions: The influence of social TV comments on the evaluation of talent shows. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 62(1), 21–37.10.1080/08838151.2017.1402903Search in Google Scholar

Wirth, W., Hofer, M., & Schramm, H. (2012). Beyond pleasure: Exploring the eudaimonic entertainment experience. Human Communication Research, 38, 406–428.10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01434.xSearch in Google Scholar

Xia, L., & Bechwati, N. N. (2008). Word of mouse. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 9(1), 3–13.10.1080/15252019.2008.10722143Search in Google Scholar

Zillich, A. F. (2014). Watching television with others: The influence of interpersonal communication on entertainment. Communications, 39(2), 169–192.10.1515/commun-2014-0011Search in Google Scholar

Zillmann, D., Weaver, J. B., Mundorf, N., & Aust, C. F. (1986). Effects of an opposite-gender companion’s affect to horror on distress, delight, and attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(3), 586–594.10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.586Search in Google Scholar

Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 432.10.1037/0033-2909.99.3.432Search in Google Scholar