Thank you for making these qualifications, because that's what I was just going to point out. The research was on "Days" viewers, who are used to the "Days" good guy/bad guy style. The research is not applicable to soap viewers as a whole. For a long time in the 90s, Days had a distinctive niche in its storytelling of not having gray characters, just good/evil.

Each soap can addict viewers for different reasons. The soaps are not all the same, even now.

That is an excellent, excellent, excellent point!

What is "addicting" to a Days viewer may not be for a Y&R or OLTL viewer.

Damn, I would love to be doing that study!

When is viewership the highest? Again...when bad people are shown doing bad things.

Seriously.

This goes SUCH a long way to explaining to me what Y&R is so dark these days, and why GH has all-mob all the time. I think these shows are being very driiven by this research.

And, as a researcher, I can't say that's a bad thing. As a viewer, of course, this not what I want to see...all bad, all the time.

But the thing is, look at GH & YR's ratings.... they are falling. fast. so its not working, thats not the answer.

furthermore look at Days, its growing, fast, and its not about bad people doing bad things.

But the thing is, look at GH & YR's ratings.... they are falling. fast. so its not working, thats not the answer.

furthermore look at Days, its growing, fast, and its not about bad people doing bad things.

Yes, and I think that gets at the point that different audiences watch different shows for different reasons.

Part of the Days ratings miracle this year HAS to be the baby switch. And that has a bunch of pretty "bad" people at the core (Nicole, EJ, Sami, Stefano). I realize they're all more "grey" than "black" these days, but you get my point....

So this study's bullsh!t. Turns out.

So, I have found a partial excerpt of the study. If you can excuse the usual academic verbiage, here is the abstract.

Drama's appeal is driven in part by dispositions toward story characters and the deservingness of fortunes that befall them. This article reports the results of longitudinal research testing disposition theory's ability to predict viewer responses to daytime soap opera. A student sample completed a survey asking them to evaluate characters over 10 successive weeks. Measures of character morality and positive/negative outcomes for behaviors were used to predict the results of both viewer enjoyment and official Nielsen ratings in representative independent surveys covering the same 10 weeks. Consistent with disposition theory logic, an a priori specified interaction of character morality and behavioral outcome valence—the Disposition Vector Model—predicted higher Nielsen ratings and increased viewer enjoyment when benefaction/debasement befell characters morally deserving of these outcomes. Although well supported in short-term studies, to our knowledge this is the first study to support disposition theory over extended exposure to soap operas and predicting results in independent data sources.

They lay out their argument as follows:

This investigation uses logic from disposition theory applied to drama (Zillmann, 2000; Zillmann & Cantor, 1976) in order to predict both the exposure to and enjoyment of soap opera. The logic underlying these predictions holds that viewer exposure patterns and enjoyment are influenced by psychological attributes affecting their appreciation of characters and storylines. We began by assuming simply that a) soap opera viewers make specific choices because they anticipate enjoyable outcomes, and enjoyment of these outcomes is determined by basal morality and viewer empathic response. Based on these assumptions, we conducted a longitudinal study designed to test disposition theory’s ability to predict viewer response to daytime soap opera over a 10-week period. The unique contributions of this study fall mostly within three areas. First, we believe ours is the first study to test disposition theory using successive episodes of a television series. Second, our study attempts to provide an unusually rigorous test of the theory by predicting outcomes in independent datasets. Third, we use disposition logic to predict both selective exposure to program content and its enjoyment rather than predicting only enjoyment, which is typical in disposition research.

They have this interesting thing to say about why people watch soaps:

Although soap opera may differ from other forms of drama in a variety of ways, a key distinction for audiences is that in order to understand and enjoy any single episode of a soap opera, viewers must know what happened in the episodes that preceded it. This situation has interesting disposition implications regarding the viewer’s relationship with characters in the story. Almost by necessity, a soap opera viewer’s familiarity with characters and their situations evolves over time. Unlike anthology drama, where characters are developed quickly with narrative techniques often designed to create simple and clear dispositions, soap opera characters aremore complex. Often the roles of hero and villain are easily discernable, but characters and their roles can change over time, and audience dispositions can change along with them. Consideration of this unique feature plays a role in motivations for exposure to soap opera. Most reasons given for viewing soaps are generally similar to those given for other genres (Greenberg & Woods, 1999); however, research shows distinct motives for viewing soap opera are tied to its serial format (e.g., its neverending and unpredictable structure), its abundance of sex and romance, and its complex and interesting character development (Babrow, 1987). The complexity of character development is particularly relevant to our interests in disposition theory’s ability to predict exposure and appeal.

The theoretical basis for this work is "disposition theory". Here is a snippet about what that means:

Entertainment research shows strong support for the application of disposition theory to drama (Raney, 2003, 2006)....For example, in an experiment exposing viewers to three versions of a narrative, Zillmann and Bryant (1975) varied the punishment of a protagonist dispensed to a wrongdoer so that the outcome was either appropriate (equal to the offense), overretributive, or underretributive. They found that the appropriateness of the protagonist’s retribution influenced the likeability of both the protagonist and the antagonist. Moreover, the justness of outcome increased program enjoyment. In a second study using a factorial design varying both the likeability of a character and the fortune/misfortune that befell him, Zillmann and Cantor (1977) showed that viewers expressed joy when a likeably good character was benefited or dislikeable bad character was victimized, but expressed sorrow when the opposite was true (i.e., the good character was victimized or bad character benefited).

The study was therefore driven by three hypotheses:

H1: Individual judgments of soap opera characters’ moral propriety is a positive predictor of character liking and a negative predictor or character disliking.

H2: The moral propriety of character behavior and the deservingness of outcomes associated with that behavior interact to predict program enjoyment over time. The combinations of deserved reward with propriety and deserved punishment with impropriety will predict greater enjoyment.

H3: The disposition interaction (i.e., the interaction between the perceived morality of a character’s behavior and the deservingness of outcomes associated with that behavior) predicts viewers’ program choice/exposure over time. Reward for propriety and punishment for impropriety will predict increased Nielsen ratings.

A succinct summary of methodology is as follows:

Our study examines the content of a soap opera over a 10-week period. During each week, we scored both the moral propriety observed in the behavior of 12 main characters and the deservingness of the outcomes (i.e., the benefaction/debasement) associated with those behaviors. These scores were combined to form a disposition theory vector (representing the extent to which propriety was rewarded and impropriety punished) weighted according to the importance of the comprised behaviors in the overall narrative structure for each week. The disposition theory vector (DT Vector) was then used to predict scores on character liking, program enjoyment, and viewership measured in independent samples. Datasets from three different, independent samples were combined in this study. These included a student sample (used to providemeasures of character disposition along with indicators of the propriety of character behaviors and the valence of behavioral outcomes), a representative fan sample (used only to provide measures of program enjoyment), and a representative Nielsen ratings sample (which measured program exposure). All three data sets provided measures representing weekly evaluations for the same soap opera over the same 10-week period of programming.

Now, this study went on to use HUGE samples. The student sample was 527 undergraduates. About a 10th of the sample each watched one random week of the show. Then they answered questions about viewing habits, character evaluation and show evaluation.

Almost more interesting is the fan sample and Neilsen sample used!

In order to test disposition theory’s ability to predict program enjoyment and program choice in independent and representative data sources (see H2 and H3), we used two archival data sets.3 The first was the official Nielsen ratings dataset (Webster, Phalen, & Lichty, 2006; see also Nielsen, 2008) for the target group ‘‘women 18–24 years old.’’ The second was a professional viewer appreciation survey conducted for the network producing the daytime soap opera under study (what we refer to as the fan sample). Both archival datasets covered the same 10 weeks of the show viewed by our student sample. The results of the fan sample were based on representative samples of U.S. viewers drawn each week for the 10-week period of our study. The sample size within the 10 weeks varied between n D 345 (Week 1) and n D 640 (Week 2). Across all 10 weeks we had access to a total of n D 4326 responses. Participants who were viewers of the soap opera completed a computer-assisted telephone interview.

So the sample sizes were quite interesting. The "target age" information is very fascinating, because it is even younger than the 'desirable' Neilsen demo!

Now, the paper is far more detailed, but the figure below shows an interesting trend analysis linking "DT Vector" with ratings over the ten week period (in the 18-24 demo). The DT vector is a multiplicative function of a character's likeability, the "justness" of his/her outcome, and the importance of that character to the viewership. (The sum function shows that this is combined over each of the 12 focal characters studied during the time period)

Their ultimate conclusion, then (which I think we could debate--and which does not seem immediately generalizable beyond the DOOL young sample) is

Initial analyses supported the expectations that our respondents were in fact using dimensions of character evaluations that are consistent with disposition theory logic and that moral propriety of character behavior is a positive predictor of character liking (and disliking). Consistent with disposition theory logic, fan program enjoyment and weekly Nielsen ratings were predicted by the benefaction and debasement of characters perceived as morally deserving of these outcomes.

As some of you have pointed out, the study would have wider generalizability if audiences of different shows were assessed and (of course) if audiences of different ages were assessed. But it is noteworthy that this study, funded by NBC, was (logically) focused on only their one show, and their desired demographic.

It is also interesting to me that they chose to do this research with DOOL, but not Passions. It suggests that even by 2005, they were not really investing in saving Passions.

GH has been mob-centric for over a decade, that isn't anything new.

Y&R has only been this morbid overall with this current writing regime. Y&R thrived on being a more subtle soap for years. It was #1 in demos, households, and viewers, so clearly something about it was working that wasn't depressing and morbid. Yet now the #1 soap has to adopt a strategy that's more "dark?" Yeah, I think it's another failed excuse to defend the crappy Y&R writers right now...

Edited October 17, 200916 yr by Y&RWorldTurner

Yeah, I think it's another failed excuse to defend the crappy Y&R writers right now...

Yup.

GH has been mob-centric for over a decade, that isn't anything new.

Y&R has only been this morbid overall with this current writing regime. Y&R thrived on being a more subtle soap for years. It was #1 in demos, households, and viewers, so clearly something about it was working that wasn't depressing and morbid. Yet now the #1 soap has to adopt a strategy that's more "dark?" Yeah, I think it's another failed excuse to defend the crappy Y&R writers right now...

As I think got established up-thread, these results are really only generalizable directly to DOOL, and for the period of the 2004-2005 era where this study is done.

I'm not so sure the results are generalizable to other shows, but I think the methdology is. In that sense, it would be fascinating to affirm what is implied by your note: that the preferences of Y&R viewers in the desired demo differ from those of other soaps. But it would be nice to see this approach applied in a rational way to all the soaps: quantify what the target viewers want/prefer, give it to 'em, and see if it affects ratings. Seems pretty basic, huh?

As I think got established up-thread, these results are really only generalizable directly to DOOL, and for the period of the 2004-2005 era where this study is done.

I'm not so sure the results are generalizable to other shows, but I think the methdology is.

Wait. You've just said the opposite a few posts ago.

But it is noteworthy that this study, funded by NBC, was (logically) focused on only their one show, and their desired demographic. It is also interesting to me that they chose to do this research with DOOL, but not Passions. It suggests that even by 2005, they were not really investing in saving Passions.

I do find it interesting that this study is so recent. So despite the pronouncements that NBC wanted out of the soap business and that Days was doomed, the network was paying these people to conduct research about how to save Days.

Mark, thanks for sharing this insightful study. However, you posted the excerpts without the reference which is not done. Here is the reference for anyone who wants to read the whole article: Ren Weber, Ron Tamborini, Hye Eun Lee, Horst Stipp. Soap Opera Exposure and Enjoyment: A Longitudinal Test of Disposition Theory. Media Psychology, Volume 11, Issue 4. October 2008. pages 462 - 487.

Edited October 18, 200916 yr by Ann_SS

GH? Too much of what should be a good thing. Bad characters who do bad things... ALL.THE.TIME. It's just more than I can bear and it doesn't matter if the 'bad things' they do are supposed to be 'heroic' (that idiotic idea that Sonny and Jason are 'good mobsters'. My eye.

I have always believed that you can get too much of a good thing. Some things become exhausting or boring if you get too much of it. But the networks are often too simplistic in their thinking and once they realize viewers like something they frequently go overboard.

Thanks for your recognition of the generalizing point I made in my post, MarkH!

It seems from the excerpts like the study is about viewers liking it when good things happen to good characters and liking it when bad characters get their just punishment (but not too much or too little punishment). And the study recognizes that a character can change over time, so does allow for complexity in character development.

That seems to be different from what was stated before that the study showed viewers liked watching bad people do bad things.

Also, the graph you posted is of weekly ratings and the model doesn't even seem to predict those perfectly, never mind day-to-day fluctuations. Could this maybe be a different study?

I don't think it's really that surprising that viewers want characters they care about and think highly of to be rewarded, and the ones they don't like to be punished, and will watch more when something like that happens. It seems like that's all the study was confirming.

Edited October 17, 200916 yr by jfung79

Thanks for your recognition of the generalizing point I made in my post, MarkH!

It seems from the excerpts like the study is about viewers liking it when good things happen to good characters and liking it when bad characters get their just punishment (but not too much or too little punishment). And the study recognizes that a character can change over time, so does allow for complexity in character development.

That seems to be different from what was stated before that the study showed viewers liked watching bad people do bad things.

Also, the graph you posted is of weekly ratings and the model doesn't even seem to predict those perfectly, never mind day-to-day fluctuations. Could this maybe be a different study?

I don't think it's really that surprising that viewers want characters they care about and think highly of to be rewarded, and the ones they don't like to be punished, and will watch more when something like that happens. It seems like that's all the study was confirming.

No, my original summary was from a verbal conversation with one of the investigators. Once I tracked down the source, I could be more precise.

I really think this question about whether shows attract audiences with different preferred moral configurations is quite interesting....

ETA: There are also fMRI findings that obviously didn't make it into the article (and, as near as I can tell, are unpublished). These ostensibly tell us about the activation of the brain's reward network when they get scenes that are in their "desired configuration".

Edited October 18, 200916 yr by MarkH

This is all very interesting,but really,who at NBC decided to waste this money on the research?

Why do they try to impose scientific/behavioral research on something that can not be quantified?

Sample 10,100 or 1000 soap viewers and you will get responses as different as the people themselves.

Looking at the state of Days at that time,anyone with a modicum of knowledge about soaps could have told them what was wrong with the shows.

Networks and movie studios spend millions on research,only to have it proved wrong over and over again,yet everyone is too caught up in the 'machine' to admit the emperor has no clothes.

The networks want to make money and see the soaps as nothing more than that.It has always been the case,and that was fine back in the day when the shows raked in millions and ratings were healthy.

Once the soaps got high profile,everyone got more greedy and execs started to interfere,figuring they could make even more.

Look at Guiding Light.Once the axe fell,they started to bring back old characters,saying that's what viewers deserved and wanted.

If they knew that,why didn't they do it before?Probably,because the party line was bring in younger 'sexier' characters and no-one would stand up against it.

I think that we at the message boards represent an minute percentage of viewers.Most,especially in the desired demographic,watch the show fairly regularly and take what is given at face value.Maybe they will flick through a SOD at the checkout,but that is the extent of their interest in anything going on beyond what they see each day.

They are drifting away because of all the other entertainment/leisure options and the fact that the shows themselves no longer provide the same level of involvement/interest.

Very interesting but the problem I have with research like this is that it can be used incorrectly and summarized down to so called "truths" that don't factor in the complexity of the fans reaction to certain characters and storylines.

For example, this researcher found that people like bad characters doing bad things, but his own research says that viewers also enjoy the bad characters paying for their crimes and good characters being rewarded for their goodness (based on your snippets of the research). Also that characters can change over time and so can the viewers reaction to them which seems to me would make gray character more valuable that just black and white characters. If a character is always bad and never has to pay that is just as bad as a good character that is always good and considered boring.

No matter how interesting this type of research may be, I would not want a show written based on the results of a 6 week study and the views of college students, many of whom may be new viewers who have not invested years into a show.

I wonder if NBC was looking to see how to appeal to this target audience only (new, young viewers)so I don't think it can be generalized to the soap viewing audience as a whole.

Still thought provoking though.

Edited October 18, 200916 yr by lmfan