Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …


The European Journal of Communication Research

Ed. by Averbeck-Lietz, Stefanie / d'Haenens, Leen

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.707
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.151

CiteScore 2018: 0.86

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.460
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.580

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 44, Issue 4


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

A. Marthe Möller
  • Corresponding author
  • Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) University of Amsterdam Amsterdam the Netherlands
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Rinaldo Kühne
Published Online: 2019-10-10 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2018-2015


Videos presented on social media platforms are frequently watched because people find them entertaining. However, videos on social media platforms are often presented together with user comments containing information about how entertaining previous viewers found them to be. This social information may affect people’s entertainment experiences. The goal of the present study was to explore how user comments affect viewers’ hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment experiences in response to online videos. The results of an online experiment (N = 203) showed that user comments in which previous viewers of a video indicate that they enjoyed or appreciated the video increase the hedonic entertainment experiences of new viewers. Viewers’ eudaimonic entertainment experiences were unaffected by user comments. These findings show that entertainment experiences do not emerge in response to online videos alone. Instead, they also depend on information about the entertainment experiences of previous viewers.

Keywords: user comments; entertainment experiences; online videos


  • Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480.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.Web of ScienceGoogle 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.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Bartsch, A., & Hartmann, T. (2017). The role of cognitive and affective challenge in entertainment experience. Communication Research, 44(1), 29–53.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

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

  • Chau, C. (2010). YouTube as a participatory culture. New Directions for Youth Development, 128, 65–74.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.Web of ScienceGoogle 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.Web of ScienceGoogle 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.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Hixson, T. K. (2005). Mission possible: Targeting trailers to movie audiences. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 14(3), 210–224.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.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Khan, M. L. (2017). Social media engagement: What motivates user participation and consumption on YouTube? Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 236–247.Web of ScienceGoogle 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.Google Scholar

  • Konijn, E. A., & Hoorn, J. F. (2004). Reality-based genre preferences do not direct personal involvement. Discourse Processes, 38(2), 219–246.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.Web of ScienceGoogle 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.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Leshner, G. (2017). Experiment, laboratory. In The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods (pp. 1–15). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.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.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Liu, Y. (2006). Word of mouth for movies: Its dynamics and impact on box office revenue. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 74–89.Google Scholar

  • Oliver, M. B., & Bartsch, A. (2011). Appreciation of entertainment. Journal of Media Psychology, 23(1), 29–33.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.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/.Google Scholar

  • Potter, W. J. (2009). Arguing for a general framework for mass media scholarship. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.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.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.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.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.Web of ScienceGoogle 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.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.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.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.Web of ScienceGoogle 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.Google Scholar

  • Tal-Or, N. (2016). How co-viewing affects attitudes: The mediating roles of transportation and identification. Media Psychology, 19, 381–405.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2013). The differential susceptibility to media effects model. Journal of Communication, 63(2), 221–243.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Valkenburg, P. M., & Piotrowski, J. T. (2017). Plugged in: How media attract and affect youth. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.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.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.Web of ScienceGoogle 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.Web of ScienceGoogle 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.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Wirth, W., Hofer, M., & Schramm, H. (2012). Beyond pleasure: Exploring the eudaimonic entertainment experience. Human Communication Research, 38, 406–428.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Xia, L., & Bechwati, N. N. (2008). Word of mouse. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 9(1), 3–13.Google Scholar

  • Zillich, A. F. (2014). Watching television with others: The influence of interpersonal communication on entertainment. Communications, 39(2), 169–192.Web of ScienceGoogle 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.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.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2019-10-10

Published in Print: 2019-11-26

Citation Information: Communications, Volume 44, Issue 4, Pages 427–446, ISSN (Online) 1613-4087, ISSN (Print) 0341-2059, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2018-2015.

Export Citation

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

A. Marthe Möller, Susanne E. Baumgartner, Rinaldo Kühne, and Jochen Peter
Media Psychology, 2019, Page 1

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in