<%BANNER%>

Media at the Movies: Analyzing the Movie-Viewing Audience


PAGE 1

MEDIA AT THE MOVIES: ANALYZI NG THE MOVIE-VI EWING AUDIENCE By SEAN MICHAEL MAXFIELD A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN MASS COMMUNICATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2003

PAGE 2

This thesis is dedicated to my family, all the survey/questionnaire people who have the courage and patience to ask stra ngers for help in getting a j ob done, and to all people who in some way contributed to this thesis, great or small. It is finally done!

PAGE 3

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the fo llowing people for their help and encouragement, as well as giving of their time and talent, throughou t this thesis process. First, I would like to thank my parents and other family member s for their time, support, love, and monetary aid, without which I would not ev en be writing this thesis. I would especially like to thank my parents for their assistance in gett ing the Orlando theater to help me with the surveys. In the same way, I would like to th ank the theaters that allowed me the time and opportunity to get people’s ideas on paper about the movies. Special thanks go to Cinemark Theater in Orlando and Gator Cinemas in Gainesville. They both get ten stars! A special thank-you goes to fellow graduate student Todd Holmes, who got me through the first leg of this thesis when we origin ally proposed its begi nning for our research class. He was there to give this baby life. I would also like to thank my chair, James Babanikos, for taking time to listen to this thesis idea and running with it. He also gave me more confidence in trying to explain myself to others, especially when talking with my other committee members. My other committee members, Dr. Michael Weigold and Dr. John Wright, should also be congratulated. They taught me how to rese arch my ideas and to make things more concrete. Dr. Wright gave me the initial idea to try this thesis, a nd Dr. Weigold gave me a refresher course on SPSS and statistical tests. Without their help, I would not be this far. I will remember them most of all becau se they made it fun to answer questions in

PAGE 4

iv classes and taught a sometimes-shy guy to talk in class. All my committee members gave me their best and helped me to beco me a better researcher and student. Before my committee guided my studies, there was one person who helped me develop as a grad student a nd that was Dr. Kim Walsh-Childers. Kim had been my advisor for a year and a half and started me on the path of writing a thesis. She made it sound less scary. I would also like to thank her for helping in my firs t contacts with UF. This last thank you is for all who aided me in my thesis and who may remain nameless, from the patrons at the movie theate rs who answered my survey to the people at the UF computer lab. They provided some of the essential ingredients of this thesis and should also be congratulated for their help.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY.......................................................1 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................................9 Introductory History...................................................................................................9 Foundation Study.....................................................................................................12 Other Related Studies...............................................................................................16 Uses and Gratifications Theory................................................................................40 3 SURVEY AND METHODOLOGY........................................................................44 Research Questions and Survey...............................................................................45 Sampling Technique.................................................................................................46 Collecting Surveys...................................................................................................48 Analysis of Research Questions...............................................................................53 Analyzing the Remaining Questions (R esearchers’ Reasons for Adding the Remaining Questions):...................................................................................54 4 DATA AND RESULTS...........................................................................................56 Data Cleaning...........................................................................................................56 Data Analysis...........................................................................................................59 Analysis of Written-Response Answers...................................................................64 5 CONCLUSION AND CL OSING THOUGHTS......................................................91 Looking at Likert Scales..........................................................................................94 Closing Thoughts...................................................................................................102

PAGE 6

vi APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE................................................................................................109 B TABLE OF RESPONSES......................................................................................115 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................151 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................154

PAGE 7

vii LIST OF TABLES Table page 1: Times...................................................................................................................... ......69 2: Miss the Theater............................................................................................................ .70 3: Feelings about Critiques................................................................................................71 4 : Feelings about Trailers..................................................................................................72 5: Ad Effect................................................................................................................... .....72 6: Movie Stars................................................................................................................. ...73 7: Subject Matter.............................................................................................................. ..74 8: Word of Mouth..............................................................................................................7 5 9: Director.................................................................................................................... ......76 10: Seeing a Movie with Someone?...................................................................................77 11: Rating TV as a Medium...............................................................................................78 12: Rating Radio as a Medium...........................................................................................78 13: Rating Internet as a Medium........................................................................................79 14: Rating Magazines as a Medium...................................................................................80 15: Rating Newspapers as a Medium.................................................................................80 16: Rating Theaters as a Medium......................................................................................81 17: Rating Word-of-Mouth as a Medium..........................................................................82 18: $5 Increase-Yes or No.................................................................................................82 19: How Much Do Movies Make Up Your Entertainment?..............................................83

PAGE 8

viii 20: Age Ranges................................................................................................................. .84 21: Sex( m, f, or no).......................................................................................................... .84 22: Counts for Feelings about Critiques............................................................................85 23: Counts for Feelings about Trailers...............................................................................86 24: Counts for Ad Effect....................................................................................................86 25: Counts for Movie Stars................................................................................................87 26: Counts for Subject Matter............................................................................................87 27 : Counts for Word-of-Mouth.........................................................................................88 28: Counts for Director......................................................................................................88 29: General Linear Model: Within-Subjects Factors.........................................................89 30: Correlations............................................................................................................... ...90 31: Respondent Answers..................................................................................................115

PAGE 9

ix Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Mast er of Arts in Mass Communication MEDIA AT THE MOVIES: ANALYZI NG THE MOVIE-VI EWING AUDIENCE By Sean Maxfield December 2003 Chair: James Babanikos Major Department: Mass Communication This study attempted to determine why people go to the movies to see the film they see. The following variables were examined to answer that question: movie stars, directors, trailers, general adve rtising, word of mouth, subjec t matter/genre, and reviews. Data were collected via an intercept sample of 400 re spondents at several theater locations in central and north central Florida. Data analysis indicated that each criterion was related to movie-viewing choice. The s ubject matter of a film and featured movie stars were reasons most often cited for going to a theater to see a motion picture.

PAGE 10

1 CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY Movies have become a big part of everyda y life, starting small at their origins and growing as of 1910. In the 1910s, the motion picture industry evol ved from “an industry dominated by mom-and-pop businesses to a mature, complex industry” (Fuller 1996). The movie audience served as the catalys t for this change in the industry. The purpose of the current study is to an alyze the movie-viewing audience and to see what motivates them to go see a particular movie in a theater. It is important to get inside the mind of the spectator, or moviegoer, to understand the nature of this selectionwhy one chooses to see a certain film of th e many offered. Previous studies examined the socio-economic aspects of moviegoers such as looking at income levels and leisure activities in order to see the impact of movi e watching on society in general. This new study is more specific, investig ating how a person is initially enticed to go see a movie, whether this is through word of mouth, expos ure to various media outlets ranging from movie previews to movie critiques in a ne wspaper or on TV, the drawing power of the cast or director, and so on. Movi es continue to be big busine ss. In fact, their popularity seems to grow with time, despite the comp etition for people’s leisure time and money. To give an indication of just how big movi es have become over time, “WorldWide Box Office.Com” was consulted. This Web site, which records current and past box-office trends, tracks the total box office receipts for movies that suggest the popularity of film in general. For example, 1989 f eatured such hits as Batman and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and had total receipts of $5,987.5 million for that year alone. 2002, on the other

PAGE 11

2 hand, featured movie blockbusters like Spider-Man and Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers and had receipts totaling $15,275.9 million (Worldwide Box Office 2003). This indicates there is a huge difference in box offi ce receipts from the la te 80’s to the early part of the new millennium. Previous studies can also show how thi ngs have changed for audiences watching movies. The study of the effect s of movies on people can be tr aced back to the early 20th century. In January 1929, a group of Universi ty of Chicago undergraduates were given a project in which they had to write aut obiographical accounts of their movie-going experiences and the impact that movies had on their lives. There were mixed responses from participants, from those who thought that movies were beneath them and that they were “a lower order of art” to those who felt that movies were “guiding factors” in their lives (Fuller 1996). This 1929 study would late r be elaborated on and advanced by other researchers in 1986. The impetus for the current study was a 1986 research report published by the Newspaper Advertising Bureau. The study show ed the socio-economic statistics of who goes to the movies (including age and sex groups), how peopl e learn about a particular movie, the effects of cable and VCR usag e on the movie-going public, and activities people have engaged in instead of going to a movie. This study focused more on sociological reasoning rather than psychologi cal concerns. The sociological concerns refer to “who” goes to the movies (their ag e, sex, and socio-economic bracket) and with whom. The psychological concerns refer to “why” people go to the movie, the inherent characteristics that prompt peopl e to see a specific film. Th is "why" is the main topic on which this current study will be focused.

PAGE 12

3 Also, many things have changed in the entertainment industry since 1986, making it easier for a researcher to gain access to various material s. Marc Vernet summarizes some of these changes in his essay, The Fe tish in the Theory and History of Cinema (Bergstrom 1999): Certainly the working conditions of the re searcher have change d. Today we have access to a film library richer by far than a nything available to us before, thanks to videocassettes, videodisks and an abundance of films on microfilm and microfiche, and also digital media with immens e data storage capacity such as video disc, Photo CD and CD ROM. Increasingly film archives are able to offer services that were previously unimaginable through multimedia programs th at allow interactive access to large numbers of documents from many sources. One can simultaneously access a film, its scripts, storyboards, director's notes and correspondence, production stills, etc. An update to the study is therefore warrant ed. The new technologi es also give the potential moviegoer far more options. For example, in 1986 only about one-quarter of the population owned a videocassette recorder. Now, most people in the United States own a VCR and, with current advances in computer technology, ma ny people are turning to their computer screens and DVD players for en tertainment. Clearly the market place is not the same, and there would be a definite benefit in seeing how the movie-going experience has changed since the 1986 study. Another significant reason for conducting th is study is to lo ok beyond the simple matter of buying a movie ticket. There is mo re to choosing a movie than what a boxoffice report may show. According to Eugene Vale, author of The Technique of Screen and Television Writing, “psychologists and sociologist s could learn a great deal by

PAGE 13

4 studying and comparing the receipt s of pictures. The public’s responses show an interest that betrays its latent desire s, problems, and difficulties” (Vale 1982). This basically means that people do not always go to the movies for the same reasons. They may go see a particular movie for a reason that has nothing to do with the social commentary the film displays (Vale 1982). It also m eans that a story told at one particular time might not be as successful at another point in time (V ale 1982). For example, many people in the industry and in the movie-going public resisted movies about terrorism after the Sept. 11 attacks, whereas before there were no such indication that those m ovies would be avoided (Ramos 2001). Vale sees movies as having the ability “to keep us up to date on our changing times” (Vale 1982). However, Vale also points out that analysis of moviegoing behavior is still “opa que” or unclear (Vale 1982). A major goal of the present study is to help clarify the m ovie-going behavior of the public. To understand the impact of movie watching, it is also necessary to get inside the mind of the spectator or the moviegoer. Th e idea of identification is paramount. Vale reminds us that “the spectator anticipates, evaluates, moves forward, feels suspense, experiences emotions, hopes and fears, is joyful and is depressed, satisfied and disappointed. In order to cause the spectator to undergo al l these pleasant and unpleasant reactions and feelings, he must be interest ed” (Vale 1982). This means that the person watching a movie must be interested in what he /she expects to see in order to go out to a movie, which gets back to the idea of prev iews and genre/subject matter. The spectator holds a pivotal role in a film’s construc tion and presentation because many producers and directors will support a movi e based on audience response to an idea. Advance screenings are routinely offere d to measure a film’s effectiveness in connecting with its

PAGE 14

5 audience (Austin 1989). Changes to that m ovie will then be made based on audience response to what is seen. It is the spect ator or moviegoer who will ultimately decide whether a movie has a happy or sad ending, a nd whether it makes millions or becomes a box-office dud. As a result, it is important to analyze the movie-viewing audience to see what motivates them to go see a movie in the theater. This statement is at the core of the current study. By studying why people go to the movies, the primary investigator feels that it will be possible to open up a wider array of human be havior topics that c ould be discussed. For example, uses and gratific ation theory can be analyzed as to how it applies to moviegoing behavior: what needs are satisfied by going to a movie and why? This is especially true because most of the past research material has not touched on recent time, especially since the year 2000. It is now a good time to re-examine the movie-going experience. Besides the theoretical and concrete reasons for perfor ming this study, the primary investigator also had personal reasons for conducting the study. This investigator has been interested in all aspects of movies a nd trivia surrounding movi es for a good part of his life. Stores like Best Buy are phasi ng out their video colle ctions and times are changing. At the same time, the research ers heard more and more people they knew saying that they would rather wait until video to see a movie instead of going to a theater to see the same movie. The primary inves tigator wanted to make sure that movie watching is still popular to the general public and discover if othe r ways of viewing a movie had become more popular. He also wa nted to find out the reasons why people go to a movie and what really gets people to go a theater, besides something to do on a weekend with friends or a significant other.

PAGE 15

6 Upon speculation though, there are still some th ings that going to a theater offers over such technological marvels as DVD, movi e rentals, or even cable. By seeing a movie in a theater, people can be the firs t on the block to say they saw a movie and discuss it. Second, the theater offers an at mosphere of camaraderie among friends and people joined together for the same goal, to watch a film on a theater screen. The other media, like video rentals, can be watched in private, but the theater almost demands the company of others. Another reason people go back to the theater is the size of the screen. No TV or video-viewing device has yet been able to match the size of watching a movie on the big screen, unless a person owns his or her own theater. There is something to be said about watching a movie on a big screen. A person can almost feel like they are in the movie. Bruce A. Austin, a researcher on th e film audience, also indicates that movies seen in the theater offer something extra than rentals or cable. Austin states that movies offer a moderately priced activity that involves others and facilitate contact and conversation about the movie between pe ople (Austin 1989). A quote from William Phillips of Analyzing Film sums up the very reasons to sit in a theater to watch a movie: If film entertains well, if many people see it, then it usually refl ects the fantasies or daydreams of many in its audiences. And s eeing one's fantasies on a large screen in a darkened room is usually pleasurab le and reassuring. (Phillips 1985) In conclusion, Austin states that knowi ng whether movie theaters are in danger of being replaced is a mystery and is elusiv e (Austin 1989). For example, in 1986, Variety gave a story on January 15 that headline d, "VCR Effect on Tix Sales Peaking; Study Suggests Homevid a Phase." Six weeks after that story the same publication, wrote an article with this headline: "Teens Leav ing Theaters for Homevid: New Study Gives

PAGE 16

7 Exhibs Bad News"(Austin 1989). You had one story saying that vide o-rentals were just a phase and the next story talked about th e theater business being in jeopardy. One 1982 study even stated that frequent moviegoers do not subscribe to cable TV. In 1986, a study came up with the result that three quarters of moviegoers prefer to see movies in a theater (Austin 1989). It is the hope of the current study that it will be able to shed more light on the flourishing or cha nging effect of movie theaters and their business to the general public over the e ffect of other means of viewing movies. In this current study, the effects of seve ral key variables on movie choice will be examined. These were chosen based on the 1986 study and combining variables that the 1986 study and related studies had not combine d. Other variables, like word-of-mouth and the director, were added based on inform al questioning of a few people about why they like to going to a movie and because of other research material that saw these variables as important reasons for movie-going behavior. Th e resulting variables are as follows: movie critiques, movie previews, th e director’s influence, movie-star power, general advertising (including ti e-in products), genre/subject matter, and word of mouth. Slight effects created by social ob ligations may also be included. Based on initial speculation, the primary investigator hopes to find that a good majority of people are still going to the movi es and base their movie-viewing choice on subject matter and genre rather than on word-o f-mouth or on who stars in the movie. Are people choosing movies based on their own desi res and wants, rather than on the desires and wants of people they are a ttending a movie with? It is also speculated that people go to the movies because they want to see a ce rtain movie star and will go to a movie purely based on this fact, despite subject matter. Another speculation is that people pay

PAGE 17

8 particular attention to what a critic says in regards to what movie they will be seeing. It is expected that the research may lead to showing critiques as ha ving a high influence on why people go to the movies over a ll other variables in this study. This current study can also have other appli cations. For example, it could help film production and distribution companies reach th eir audience the best way possible once they know exactly what motivates a moviegoer to go see the film that they go see. More of these applications will be discusse d later in the course of this study. The following chapter will discuss the histor y of the movie-viewing studies, related studies, relation to uses and gr atifications theor y, and how movie-view ing behavior will be advanced by the current study.

PAGE 18

9 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introductory History Something began changing in the film i ndustry as of 1910. Movies started to become very popular. According to At the Picture Show by Kathryn Fuller, the origin of this transformation came from the desire of the film exhibitors who wanted to please audiences. Fuller said that the movie-goi ng experience grew to become an immensely popular form of entertainment due to "film exhib itors, striving to create larger theaters for demanding audiences, film producers trying to outdo each other to release spectacular feature length films, and fan-magazine publishe rs hoping to tap the fu ll potential of their advertisers and readers" (F uller 1996). Most importan tly, the movie audience was responsible for this change in the indust ry. It was this group who was buying the fan magazines, paying higher ticket prices fo r a more elaborate show, and making moviewatching a weekly habit (Fuller 1996). In Europe, research on movie-going began in 1914 (Austin 1989). One significant study, published in 1929, analyzed responses to questionnaires that were distributed in 1914 and 1915 to Swiss school child ren, ages 8 to 15. It asked the basic question: "Why do you like going to the cinema?" The 1914 study had the following results. The first was that children liked to go to the movies for education, entertainment, and because of the beauty of the film. The second result wa s that girls found movi es more interesting than boys did.

PAGE 19

10 A similar study was performed during World Wa r II in Vienna. In this case, adults were surveyed and interviewed about their m ovie-going interests, but not at theaters. The important point about the Vienna study was that relaxation was the primary motive for going to the movies (Austin 1989). The current study looks to be a more curre nt view of the Vienna study and seeks respondents at the theaters they attend. The current study alre ady assumes that people are going for some relaxation, but th e researchers want to know beyond the idea of relaxation and look at the influence of ads, trailers, m ovie stars, subject matter/genre, directors, critiques, and word of mouth on movie patrons. Another study of Soviet filmgoers in 1966 found seven reasons for movie attendance; for relaxation, to find something new, to experience a sharp plot, to see an actor’s performance, to listen to music in th e movie, because they had nowhere else better to spend leisure time, and to see the skill in shooting a film (Austin 1989). These reasons mention some of the variables that will be us ed in the current study, but they do not take into account the ideas of media use and exposur e, including ads, tra ilers, and critiques. While Europe had already started resear ch into movie-going behavior, the United States began similar research during the 1920s. In January 1929, a group of University of Chicago undergrads were given a project in which they ha d to write autobiographical accounts of their movie-going experiences and th e impact that movies had on their lives. Researchers wanted to look at how movies and their existence had influenced these undergrads as children (Fuller 1996). The resu lts of this study were that students were able to explain movies’ influence on their ch ildhood and how they helped in creating the students’ sense of identity (Fuller 1996). This 1929 study also helped lay down the

PAGE 20

11 foundation for further studies of media in fluence on behavior and showed how the movies helped shape lives in general, such as what movies young adults liked as children and how desires and attitudes from movies ar e expressed over a person's lifetime (Fuller 1996). The 1929 study would later be elaborated on and advanced by other researchers, In 1952, an article looked into how movies appeal to audiences because they made the real world more bearable (Austin 1989 ). It touched on the idea of why people go to the movies, but just barely. In 1 957, the MPAA commissioned a survey to find out about Americans’ movie-going behavior (A ustin 1989). The resulting report was entitled, The Public Appraises Movies and included interviews conducted between June and July of 1957 with individuals who were 15 years and older. Interviewees were asked to give what they thought were the main reas ons people go to the movies (Austin 1989). They were also asked about the last time they went to the movies and why they went. The majority of reasons for attending movies cen tered on recreation and entertainment (57%) in the 1957 study. Other reasons included passin g time, habit, just because they wanted to, to see a movie they were interested in, to see a certain actor or actress, educational purposes, had read the book about a movie, had interesting advertising, had heard about the movie from someone else, to get away fr om everyday routine, relaxation, and because they were tired of watchi ng television (Austin 1989). Then two studies came in 1977. Both reporte d that audiences go to the movies for the aesthetic experience that movies provide the desire to relax, the desire to be entertained, the ability of movi es to provide new experiences, and the ability of movies to allow for learning (Austin 1989).

PAGE 21

12 In 1978, the Newspaper-Advertising Bur eau had conducted a study on the moviegoing experience. 604 respondents were aske d to rank the importance of movie going out of a list of five options (Austin 1989). The 1978 study was important in that three of the five reasons generated the most ag reement among respondents. They were entertainment, social activity, and escape from everyday activities. But researchers know that ranking is not the best wa y to get results. For this reason the current study has not planned to use ranking scales. Foundation Study As mentioned in chapter 1 of the curren t study, a research report published by the Newspaper Advertising Bureau in 1986 show ed the socio-economic statistics of who goes to the movies (including age and sex groups), how peopl e learn about a particular movie, the effects of cable and VCR usage on the movie-going public, and activities used as an alternative to going to the movies. It was primarily designed "to promote the efficient use of the newspaper medium fo r the advertising and marketing needs of individual companies" (Newspaper Adver tising Bureau 1986). The 1986 report showed that time has changed the movie-going experi ence. It stated th at in 1946, the average American went to the movies 29 times a year; by 1984, the average was down to five times (Newspaper Advertising Bureau 1986). This study, performed in 1985, used a sample of 1,000 respondents who were c ontacted by telephone us ing random-digitdialing techniques. One respondent was in terviewed from each household called, and the sample of 1,000 was "balanced on age and se x" (Newspaper Advertising Bureau 1986). Leo Bogart and B. Stuart Tolley came up with the design, questionnai re, analysis, and the actual report. All of this was under the direction of the Newspaper Advertising Bureau (Newspaper Advertising Bureau 1986). The study focused on the fact that movies

PAGE 22

13 provide a social event for peopl e to meet and that people woul d rather go to the movies with someone than go it alone (New spaper Advertising Bureau 1986). The 1986 study's first question dealt with "Who goes to the movi es?" The answer followed after the study was performed: Our study shows that the 24% of the public who go once a month or more often represent 83% of adu lt movie admissions. Of these f ilm buffs, two out of five are between 18 and 24, (an age group that makes up only 18% of all adults) and almost 70% are under 35. Being younger, nearly ha lf of the frequent moviegoers are single, and they are also above average in education. They also have more money – at least over a $15,000 income per fam ily. (By contrast, among the one out of three adults who are over 50, 72% have not gone to the movies in the past year). (Newspaper Advertising Bureau 1986) The 1986 study went on to examine the experience of going to the movies by looking at who goes with whom, the marita l status of movie-goers, the ages, the education, income, and the sex of movie-goe rs as compared to the frequency of a respondent's movie-going frequency (Newspap er Advertising Bureau 1986). It also showed evidence of having thought about w hy people go to the movies. The study found that "59% of those surveyed said they deci ded to go when they did because they wanted to see a particular film rather than becau se they just felt lik e going out" (Newspaper Advertising Bureau 1986). Some respondents s howed interest in a movie because of its cast and others wanted an up lifting movie-choice. The “why” consisted of responses like "just felt like going out," "wanted to see a particular movie," and "no answer" (Newspaper Advertising Bureau 1986). It also showed if the decision to go to a movie was an independent decision, or one made by their viewing partner. The 1986 study also showed some of the reasons why people go to the movies based on reviews and advertisi ng while not focusing on specific s like plot, actors, or type of movie:

PAGE 23

14 People find out about new films from the newspapers (37% among frequent movie goers) and from television (32%). One in three (31%) finds out before the film is launched, 28% at the time of release, and 39% afterwards. A majority says they usually pay attention to movie reviews, and 36% had read reviews or commentary on the last film they saw. Of these, 54% saw them in the newspaper; 40% on TV, and 12% in a magazine. Compared to those remembering reviews or commentaries, three out of five (61%) remember coming across advertising for the last film prior to viewing it. Most mention several sources, with equal nu mbers (55%) naming newspapers and TV (Most initial launch promo tions rely heavily on TV.) Of those who recall advertising, about half (47%) remember something, but their recollections do not focus on any specifics like the actors, plot, or type. (Newspaper Advertising Bureau 1986) The study did begin to touch on the question of why people go to the movies. However, it did not examine this perspectiv e by using all forms of advertising and all reasons for wanting to go to a movie before you enter the theater. The current study will advance the ideas of advertising, previews, and reviews while taking into account the specifics of plot, actors and type of movie. The 1986 study did focus on what people wanted to know about a movie before they go to a theater, which did include plot, ac tors, the rating, and wh at type of film it was. In this respect, the 1986 study began incorporating some of the current study's variables, but not collectively in the same category nor in the context of deciding what movie a respondent will choose. The 1986 study also looked at cate gories of frequent and infrequent moviegoers in the following manner: What are the kinds of things people want to know before they decide to go see a film? Frequent moviegoers do not differ very much from the rest of the moviegoing public in their answers to this openended question. Thirty-six percent want to know about the plot; 32% the actors; 22% th e rating; 14% what type of film it is. Another 9% say they want to know if it is 'clean,’ ‘not trashy.’ 13% want reassurance that the film is worth seei ng, and 7% want to know what the reviews have said. The infrequent movie goers are more interested than others in comedies. (Newspaper Advertising Bureau 1986)

PAGE 24

15 The 1986 study also studied what moviegoers want in ads to make a decision on a movie. This list included star ting times (84%), address of th e theaters (69%), film rating (67%), a plot description (53%), admission pr ice (51%), the names of the supporting cast (44%), a picture of the lead ing star (29%), and the na me of the director (19%) (Newspaper Advertising Bureau 1986). This was the same for infrequent and fr equent moviegoers. The study documented how people first found out about a movie. It did not take into account the recent developments of the Internet and word-ofmouth, which has helped with the success of such films as My Big Fat Greek Wedding in 2002 (About.com 2002). The 1986 study finished by looking at the impact of cable TV and the VCR on movie-watchers. One of the significant f acts here was the following: "77% of the frequent movie-goers, compared with only 43% of the genera l public, prefer to go out to see a new movie rather than watch it on TV, reinforcing the point that the occasion of going out comes first and then the attraction of the specific film" (Newspaper Advertising Bureau 1986). The study then went into the socio-economic statistics and other related behaviors for those owning cable and VCRs including income and education. An important part of the 1986 study, in relation to our thesis, discusses th e effect of the VCR on movie-theater attendance: Fifty-six percent of VCR owners say th at outside movie-goi ng habits haven't changed; 41% say it is less, 2% more. Apart from the time they spend with their VCRs, 28% say they are watching TV less, 6% say they are watching more. The remaining two-thirds say they have not changed. (Newspaper Advertising Bureau 1986). The current study wishes to focus on the movie-theater aspect of movie watching, since there are now so many ways to wa tch movies in 2003, as compared to 1986. Interestingly, VCRs did not h eavily affect those who went to theaters to see their movies,

PAGE 25

16 even though it represented another way to see movies and/or wait for a movie to come to video without using the theater. This hinted th at there is still something to be said about seeing a movie in the theater over using your VCR or cable. After looking at this previous research and seeing the many advances that have been made since the 1986 study, there would be a definite benefit in seeing how the movie-going experience has changed since the 1986 study and focus on “why” people go the movies rather than on “whom” is goi ng. The new study will be similar to the 1986 study in that it will look into the nature of the movie-watching experience by examining what encourages people to go the movies. Other Related Studies One of the closest descriptions of the current study came from Bruce Austin's own description of the movie selec tion process by moviegoers. It went from a wide angle of movie choice to a narrow angle of movie choi ce (Austin 1989). This followed a pattern of awareness to persuasion, and then to a deci sion on a film that is to be seen in the theater. The factors, which influenced the ch ange from wide angle to a narrow angle, include the following: publicity and advertising, reviews, pe rsonal influence, story type, and production elements (Austin 1989). These factors represent many of the variables in the current study with trailers included with advertising, revi ews represented by critiques, story type representing subject matter and genre, and personal influence representing word-of-mouth influence. The differences between this example and the current study are the inclusions of direct or and actors into one elemen t (production elements) and the fact that this description wa s merely a blueprint for future research. In a sense, the current study carries out this plan to fru ition. This descriptio n does not show which element has the most influence in helping a person determine what movie to see, and the

PAGE 26

17 current study will get this answer by compar ing responses by looking at Likert scales. The current study will look at 400 respondents and see which mean is the highest among the variables of the study. Bruce A. Austin also did a study and e ssay on the film audience in 1983. He looked at film research as being a neglected at the time. He stated there was a paucity of research on the consumer, the one who watche s the movies (Austin 1983). Austin also stated that the ones who produce movies have not been the most accepting of audience studies when in fact they should be. He sited Handel (1953), who in performing social science research, discovered that audience research was used in all areas of mass communication except film (Austin 1983). Now, Austin sees the research concerning audiences and film expanding as the 1986 study proved. Austin cited that film audiences are worth looking at because of the amount of money consumers are willing to spend on film. As of 1976, Austin stated that 53.36% of U.S. amusement expenditures came from movie watching (Austin 1983). His research suggested that movie-audience research would offer the potential for "h istorical and behavioral e xplanations regarding large audiences and their interact ion with a popular mass medium (Austin 1983). Austin examined the reasons why there had been an ab sence of audience resear ch with film. It was because of the secretive nature of the m ovie industry. He stated some researchers in the past have been unable to gain access to boxoffice returns data and that there is little understanding from other sectors of life, like the government, commercial business, or other foundations. In this way, Austin meant that researchers who wished to seek such information about movie watching may find that they are on their own when it comes to funding their projects. Government, commercia l business, and other foundations had not

PAGE 27

18 found such research to be worth their time or money. Austin went on to say that the development of TV had also taken away resear ch interests. TV had supplanted movies in the audience research field (Austin 1983). After describing the lack of sufficient research at the time, Austin mentioned several ideas to help change research with film audiences. His first idea would lead researchers to believe that subject matter was important in looking at what the audience liked about movies, especially in determin ing whether or not to see a movie (Austin 1983). Austin saw the audience as discriminatin g in what they chose and he wished to see the reasons behind such discrimination. He was getting at the que stion of why people go to the movies, the backbone of the current study. Other ideas for further audience examination concerned looked at the context in which a movie is presented in a theater, the public's taste in movies, and to look at wh at moviegoers get out of going to a movie (Austin 1983). This last idea harkens back to the idea of uses and gr atifications theory. Patrons will use going to the movie theat er as some sort of gratification. Austin stated that many tools could be used to look at audience behavior with film, be they quantitative or qualitative. The current study will look at both quantitative and qualitative methods by using Li kert scales and written res ponses. Most importantly, Austin stated that researchers must get into the element of the study, a movie theater. He looked down upon telephone or mail surveys (A ustin 1983). The current study will be seeking this very idea by going to a theater to obtain surveys. Respondents will be asked to fill out a survey at the theater. While some studies focused on research paucity, other researchers focused on film’s ability to influence an audience. Noel Carroll analyzed the effect of emotions that

PAGE 28

19 film can produce in the audience. He descri bed audience members as wanting to identify with the characters they saw on the screen (Plantinga and Smith, 2002). Carroll saw genre as having the ability to elicit specific emotions, thus lending to the current study the idea that genre is important in an alyzing movie-viewing choice. Dr. Brain R. Johnson supports Carroll's idea of a film bei ng able to elicit emotions. Johnson had done a dissertation on st ress reactions to motion pictures and the variables that predict such r eactions. Being a clinical ps ychologist, Johnson has even used motion pictures as a therapeutic aid. His work points to th e importance of looking at what the audience sees on the screen and why they like what they like. Johnson saw that part of being human is to feel emoti on and that people will chose to feel emotions through watching a film. He saw movies as be ing able to elicit such emotions as fear, happiness, anger, and pain (Plantinga and Smith, 2002). Sometimes watching a movie can help ease emotional burdens. He descri bed people who may be in constant fear and that seeing something less fearful on screen would help them relieve stress. Johnson made the following comment on the ability of movies to elicit emotions: Cinema more than any other art form has a way of drawing viewers into a situation that, for a moment, makes them a witness and sometimes an emotional participant to what is happening on screen. (Plantinga and Smith, 2002) Johnson echoed Carroll’s idea that the audien ce goes to see films because of the need to identify with something or someone they see on screen. He talked about living vicariously thorough the characters on the scr een. Speaking in psychological terms, the Carroll and Johnson’s ideas form reasons w hy people may go to see a movie in the theater, but it does not touch on why a speci fic movie choice was made. The current

PAGE 29

20 study will look at the perspective of the individual audience member’s reason for choosing a certain movie based on media exposur e rather than looking into their mindset for watching a movie. The current study unde rstands that identification is a reason for going to see a certain movie, but that this is to satisfy some hidden want. The current study wishes to look at that which is not al ways hidden. The study wishes to look at the way a person decides what movie they will see based on what they have been exposed to through various media, not through what thei r inner self wants to see on the screen. David Sterritt, staff writer at the Chri stian Science Monitor, also commented on film’s ability to release emotion. He talked about one movie patron crying when Bogart leaves Bergman in Casablanca saying that Hollywood’s stock in trade is to tug at emotions (Plantinga and Smith, 2002). He discussed talking about a movie with friends and family even after the movie was over, and how personal people would get when a movie they liked was put down by others. This indicates an inherent power in film over the audience, as well as the ability of word-of-mouth, to influence audience members. The current study wishes to see how this power develops by the many variables surrounding movie-viewing choice in the hopes that this study will lead others to do similar studies concerning emotional aspects and other aspects of film. Word-of-mouth, other people talking about a movie, will be one of the key variables in the current study. Sterritt suggested that obse rving the audience was the key to deducing a film's power to elicit emotions. The current study will an alyze the audience as being key to understanding likes and dislikes in movie-viewing choice. Sterrit drove home his point by talking with Professor William Luhr who said that movies are designed to take us on an emotiona l roller coaster. Luhr mentioned hits like

PAGE 30

21 Jurassic Park where the director moves the audience from slow moments to a rapid chase while changing our emotions in the process from calm to excited (Plantinga and Smith, 2002). Sterrit looked at the way the movi e-going experience manipulates people to feel a certain way and what better place to see how this starts than by looking at the reasons why people chose a movie in the first pl ace. Sterrit wanted to make sure that what is considered manipulation is not mean t to be negative and talked with Krin Gabbard, chairman of the comparative-literatu re department at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. Gabbard had said that manipulation, in the sense of an emotional roller coaster, is what a director or movie puts us on and is not necessarily bad because it does not directly go against the thi ngs we would like to achieve ourselves as ordinary people (Plantinga and Smith, 2002). While acknowledging that movies are designed to make people feel a certain wa y, the current study will focus on looking at reasons why a movie was chosen to discover what media is most successful at getting people to sit in a theater. In Analyzing Films: A Practical Guide William H. Phillips gave a look at why viewers react emotionally to film by describing his reacti ons to the movie Coming Home At first he felt the characters were geared toward establishing certain viewpoints. They were simplistic. That aspect of the film did not move him. But the subject matter of the movie, the aftermath of the Vietnam War, was a nd still is a relevant subject to most adult Americans who lived during that time (Phillip s 1985). Despite his feelings about the characters, Coming Home still struck a cord with Phillips. It is a film’s ability to make a person see something that looks and feels familia r that also allows people to be attracted to the movie theater. Even though a movie is ge ared to strike certain emotional chords, it

PAGE 31

22 may have other effects on viewers depe nding upon that viewer’s knowledge and life experiences. People will go to a movie for all sorts of reasons and the current study wishes to know why they chose a certain m ovie based on what they know or what media they have been exposed to. In a future study, it may be advisable to look at what a person knows about life before they chose a movie, but the current study is interested in why they chose a movie based on media use and ex posure to certain media outlets, including word-of mouth-exposure. While some movies are designed to elicit a variety of emotions, some genre types are designed to elicit specific emotions. G ood examples of this come from the work of Noel Carroll and his book The Philosophy of Horror. Carroll discussed the theory of the horror movie or "art-horror, with examples like Psycho and Creepshow, and discussed the definition of the horror movie. He posited that horror is an emotional state "wherein some physical agitation is caused by observi ng what is on-screen" (Carroll 1990). He also discussed how the horror movie is struct ured to elicit emotions from the audience and why the audience would be attracted to th ese movies. Carroll described horror-like emotion as "some kind of stirring, perturbation, or arrest physiologically registered by an increase in heartbeat, respira tion, or the like" (Carroll 1990). He said the key to this release of emotion is the horror narrative, the subject matter of the movie, where monsters or maniacs allow the audience to feel for intended victims. Carroll acknowledged that people respond differently to different kinds of horror. For example, John might react differently to the vampire menace in Bram Stoker's Dracula than Jenny would react to Hannibal Lector in The Silence of the Lambs This indicates that movie companies may have a hard time targeting all horror lovers with their movies.

PAGE 32

23 Carroll said it is the ability of the horro r movie to suspend belief that allows a person to become scared. Most of the monste rs in horror movies operate outside of the physical or normal world (Carroll 1990). It is this idea th at scares the audience. The monsters are designed to be lethal and impure. Carroll indicated that the audience seeks shock-value by going to a horror movie. They want to be scared which is why they choose a scary movie. In support of Carroll ’s idea, Charles Derry wrote that moviewatchers will want to be scared, but will gr asp at something that can be explained in order to alleviate thei r fears (Derry 1977). People rememb er that this is a movie when they remember it is make-believe. People will find something in the horror movie that they respond to, especially afte r such horror success as Psycho which managed to give birth to whole genre of crazed killers (Derry 1977). The secret to being scared in a horror m ovie is the narrative thread, which Carroll discovered was similar in most horror movies He spoke of the underlying thread of discovery, where the character discovers some secret of the universe or something that seems unreal becomes true in the movie (Carroll 1977). Carroll and Derry’s work are related to th e current study in that they take subject matter and genre as main reasons why people go to the movies. The current study looks at that aspect, but also takes into account other reasons why people go see a movie based on ideas such as what a person knows about a movie beforehand and who may be starring in or directing a movie. Carroll discu ssed one subject area, while the current study wishes to take into account all subject ma tter and all types of movies. Carroll also focused on the watching of a movie, while th e current study wishes to focus on the after

PAGE 33

24 and before of watching a movie by taking surv eys after and before watching the feature presentation. While some films manipulate emotions, other films have the ability to make people feel a specific way while the audience wa tches. An example of this is through examination of the film The Man with the Golden Arm which was a study performed by Charles Winick, a noted researcher and a pr ofessor of sociology at the GSUC (Brooker and Jermyn, 2003). In the film, Frank Sinatra portrayed a jazz player who struggled with an addiction to heroin. Winick's view was that while the film presents addiction as an undesirable affliction, it does not offer specific recommendations as to how to handle said addiction (Brooker and Jermyn, 2003). He test ed several hypotheses, including the fact that moviegoers may be affected by gaining mo re permissive attitude s towards drug use. Using different demographics of New York teens, Winick found different groups based on income (such as low and middle class) as well as different ethnic and gender backgrounds (white and black viewers as well as male and female viewers). Winick's study involved asking respondents several st atements regarding their feelings on addiction with a six-point scale for each st atement. The statements were designed to indicate restrictive attitudes towards addicti on instead of permissive attitudes (Brooker and Jermyn, 2003). The respondents were then allowed to view The Man with the Golden Arm at their local theaters after which Wi nick reexamined their responses to the similar statements on addiction. After perf orming the study, Winick found that exposure to the film was related to more permissive at titudes toward narcotics. He also discovered that while examining the effects of his addic tion scale before and af ter watching the film, he also observed comparisons between lower and middle class, white and black, and male

PAGE 34

25 and female viewers. These comparisons reve aled no significant di fference in attitudes toward addiction. This also indicated th e use of demographics and different sexual groups in a study. Another surprising effect wa s that the presence of Sinatra, as a star, had the ability to affect established attitude s on addiction. For this reason, it is also important to look at the presen ce of movie stars in order to study the audience effect of watching a film for the current study. This idea will be used in the current study while taking into account all reasons why people a ttend a movie. The current study is not looking for ways in which a film influences its audience, but th e reason(s) why people pick a specific movie on one night they plan to go to a theater using the available choices. The respondents in the current study were not previously exposed to any material, like Winick’s addiction statements, that might af fect responses when the investigators will give out their survey. Winick's final speculation was that seeing a problem (like addiction) film will initiate a learning process but will not change basic attitudes (Brooker and Jermyn, 2003). If film has the ability to even start a learning process, Winick’s study showed that watching and gauging audience behavior is a key to discovering the effects of media exposure. This is the very reason the curre nt study uses the audiences as its gauge on why people go to the movies. Other studies also showed particular r eactions to a movie by respondents, such as women's response to watching violence in The Accused Philip Schlesinger, Rebecca Dobash, and C. Kay Weaver performed this st udy. Schlesinger is a professor of film and media studies at the University of Sterling, Doba sh is a professor of social research in the department of applied social science at th e University of Manchester whose primary

PAGE 35

26 research concerns violence, and Weaver is a senior lecturer in the department of management communication at the University of Waikato in New Zealand. They had respondents view the movie The Accused starring Jodie Foster, which dealt with the subject of rape. The researcher s in this study were trying to establish reactions to scenes of sexual violence committed against women in the film (Brooker and Jermyn, 2003). The study made it easy to assess emotional imp act of a graphic display of sexual violence upon female viewers (Brooker and Jermyn, 2003). The study indicated the following results: most women thought the film was "v iolent and disturbing," Women who had had an experience of violence rate d it as not exciting, 58% rated the film as "not entertaining, and just over 40% found it entertaining” (Brooker and Jermyn, 2003). The most prevalent aspect among respondents was the s hock aspect of watching moments in The Accused that showed rape, and many of the re spondents indicated feelings of shock, horror, disgust, distress, a nd anger (Brooker and Jermyn, 2003). While it is important to realize that the audience's feelings were measured, one female respondent’s comment demands the use of word-of-mouth as an aspect of the current study: I must admit when I went to go and see it-it was the big thing-'oh, there is this rape scene in it...everyone has got to go and see it. (Brooker and Jermyn, 2003) This last comment indicate s the ability of word-of-mout h heard about a picture to get a person to go see a movie and its reason for inclusion into the current study as a reason why people attend movies. There were also differences found in et hnic diversity as well as among women in The Accused study. This example can be used to display ethnic diversity as well as emotional reactions. Women of White, Asia n, and Afro-Caribbean backgrounds were all

PAGE 36

27 listed as groups who participated in this st udy, all with varying sizes of responses to the film. For example, Asian women had different reactions to The Accused than did AfroCaribbean or White respondents. In fact, 99% of the Asian women saw the film as educational (if you behave badly, then that is what could happen) (Brooker and Jermyn, 2003). The movie was also seen as more o ffensive and disturbing to Afro-Caribbean women than it was for Asian and White vi ewers (Brooker and Jermyn, 2003). As an example of differences, all women were aske d on a scale of differing response what they felt about the movie (feelings on whether th e film was realistic, believable, serious, exciting, entertaining, violent, offensive, di sturbing, handles issues and educational). Under the scale of "Believabl e," about 95% of White wome n thought it was believable, about 61% of Asian women felt it was believ able, and 85% of Afro-Caribbean women felt it was believable. This indicated th at the researchers’ study not only found differences among women’s reactions to the movie, but also the fact th at different ethnic groups found it different as well. The resear chers themselves even stated that ethnic background appeared to make a significant difference in interpreting programs, in this case film, with violent scenes (Brooker and Jermyn, 2003). In relation to the current study, The Accused study focused on differences in ethnic backgrounds and differences in emoti onal reactions to a film that respondents watched, and the study showed that word-of mouth can be an important factor in watching a movie. The current study differs fr om this study in that the current study will focus on reasons why people go to movies that do not have to deal with emotions, although people may have emotional responses to some of the questions asked. The researchers will hear what pe ople felt about a certain ques tion, even though these verbal

PAGE 37

28 responses will not be a primary piece of th e current study. The current study will take information from different ethnic and se xual backgrounds, but w ill only record the different sexes. The researchers wish the current study to apply to all people and not segregate any one group's responses as the researchers did in The Accused study. The current study will also use the idea of word-of-mouth that was important to The Accused study (see above) to see why people go to the movies. While some movies allow for emotional re sponses to a film theme, others are designed to just get the audience excited in some way. Zillmann and Bryant suggested that exposure to entertainment sources can also be used to regulate excitation (Rosengren, Wenner, and Palmgreen, 1985). For example, a person who is bored may seek to go to an action picture to become excited or a hi ghly excited person may want to see a movie that is more calm or soothing, like a love st ory. This suggested th at respondents will choose a movie based on how they feel and how they want to feel, not just because of subject matter, actors, or th e advertising campaign surrounding a movie. The current study will be different in that it will be performed from th e viewpoint of those purchasing tickets prior to entering the theater and those leaving the theater area after having seen a movie. The current study will be primarily based on conclusions as to what can be seen and analyzed from the data co llected, not on excitation level. Cynthia A. Freeland, from the department of philosophy at the University of Houston, did a study on cognitive science in rela tion to film theory. This looked at the movie-watcher’s inner mind and leads to ideas used in the current study. Freeland’s study showed the differences and simila rities between several philosophers and psychologists in their examination of film: Anderson, Currie, Carroll (same as above),

PAGE 38

29 and Tan. Psychologist Joseph Anderson describe d movies as illusions that can fool the observer and that films are "potentially acceptable to every human being on earth” (Freeland 1997). His importance in the curr ent study comes from his views of looking at film as significant and worth studying. Ande rson also likened filmmakers to computer programmers who try to understand what is goi ng on in the head of the audience but are not always successful (Freeland 1997). He sa w movies as not a moviegoers to “read," but to experience as if interacting with a co mputer program (Freeland 1997). Philosopher Gregory Currie stated that th e key to watching film and its interpretation is stimulation through imagination. He said patrons go to th e theaters to stimulate their minds. Currie also said that if a person wants to examine me ntal states of a moviegoer, then that person must look at a moviegoer's behavior. It is essential to look at how a person acts during a movie or look at their choices in order to get inside their head. The current study will look at behavior from the point of initial movie-going choice in the hopes that such choices will allude to what mental need is being satisfied. While Currie supported an imagination theory of going to the movies, Ps ychologist Ed S. Tan saw movies as an emotion-producing machine, much like the previous research by Dr. Johnson and Noel Carroll. Tan saw filmmakers as those w ho "generate and manipulate our emotional responses through aspects of narrative and ot her film mechanisms” (Freeland 1997). Tan believed that movie patrons realized that film was real but accepted a movie as illusion. This means people know that movies are fake but audiences accept the idea that such fakeness is for the good of enjoying the film (Freeland 1997). Freeland's viewpoints from each philosophe r and psychologist held that movies can lead a moviegoer's thoughts or emotions down a certain path designed by the

PAGE 39

30 particular moviegoer, but people are willing to go down that path as part of the magic of movies and use their imaginations. The current study wishes to suggest the inner working of a person as they choose a movie, but the study already understands people are going to see a movie regardless of how they ar e being lead by the f ilmmaker or how they feel. The current study will focus on why a certain movie was chosen among others that were available at the time and on what basis a person chooses that movie based on what they know about the movie beforehand. It is already assumed that a person knows a movie is used for imagination’s stimulati on in relation to the current study. The researchers of the current st udy wish to focus on what is the primary motivator(s) to going to see a specific movie fr om the outside world of medi a usage, not what motivates a person internally to see a movie. The cu rrent study is performed having the person in a state before or after seeing a movie, not examining their behavior during a movie. Besides studies conducted by researchers, movie production companies also hold their own studies. Bruce A. Austin describe d several of these studies in "Immediate Seating." These studies include the following: -Concept tests: Questionnaires are used to rate different movie synopsizes and if respondents would attend a movie described. They were first performed by the Gallup poll in 1937 (Austin 1989). They were found to carry less weight in production decisionmaking. The current study will use the movi egoer, but does not suggest what kind of movie they will see. A moviegoer for the current study will be seeing a movie based on media exposure and what each particular moviegoer looks for in a movie they will be seeing.

PAGE 40

31 -Casting tests: Developed as early as 1929 by Paramount, this test rated a particular movie stars marquee-value (Austin 1989). Re spondents were asked which names (out of a list of movie stars) they woul d be more likely to attend a mo vie to see. The results were considered of questionable value. This was due in part because at the time of such blockbuster movies as “Star Wars,” “Alie n,” and “Rocky,” no one knew the names of Harrison Ford, Sigourney Weaver, and Sylv ester Stallone (Austin 1989). Now many people do know them. -Emotional-response tests: This test was designed by Peter and Lee Zoellner in 1968, to predict the success of movies based on analys is of the script compared to emotional responses gathered before the script was written. Galvanic skin responses were measured, including emotional arousal and perspi ration level, for various themes that the scripts might be using (Austin 1989). The scri pts were also analyzed for four qualities: affluence, affection, status, and security. Th e four-quality responses were then compared to the skin responses. This type of resear ch has not been favored by the movie industry because the GSR (Galvanic Skin response) meas ures are uncertain as to what they are measuring. The current study wishes to ex amine why people go to the movies but not their reactions to specific movie themes. The current study may have some emotional responses, but there will be no GSR responses taken as the researchers wish to discover why people go to a movie, not the re action to a certain movie theme. -Title tests: This test, al so started by George Gallup in 1947, measured the success of a possible movie based on the title chosen for it. Gallup said a good title could add $300,000 to a picture's total gross at the box o ffice (Austin 1989). Industry researchers now agree that a title will not make or break a film. The title is designed to be enticing,

PAGE 41

32 communicate the essential theme of the movie, and be easy to remember (Austin 1989). What was particularly interes ting in this study was that seque ls, with a somewhat familiar title, did not always guarantee success at the box office. This was true for The Sting II and Butch Cassidy and the S undance Kid: The Early Days (Austin 1989). The current study is not interested in the title although that may or may not coax a person to see a certain movie. In the current study, the title is not as meaningful as is the use of trailers and ads that actually describe a movi e before a person sees a movie. -Ad and research test: Advertising and prom otional research was also conducted on what aspects of the film were most appealing so they could be eas ily exploited at the beginning of the movie's release to the public. Thes e included trailer tests and previews of upcoming films shown to respondents. Fo r example, An Officer and a Gentleman was tested ten times before emphasizing the roman tic elements of the film over the military and rites of passage elements (Austin 1989). The current study acknowledges the influence of advertising to get people to go to a movie, but the study is looking at ads in competition with other aspects of media use, including critiques, movie stars, word-of mouth and subject matter. -Sneak previews: First occu rring in 1911 by Thomas H. In ce, these "advance screenings” were used to develop the final look a film will have before seen by the general public. Questionnaires, simple observations, or other f eedback devices were also used to measure an audience’s feelings about the movi e. A past example involved First Blood. Audiences were asked to choose between th e ending people are familiar with and an alternate ending where John Ram bo dies. Recruited audiences were not typically told the type of the film and there were a lot of typical movie elements, like music and credits that

PAGE 42

33 were improvised for the sneak preview. The fear here for production companies was that critics would attend such sneak previews and hurt the opening potential with their critiques (Austin 1989). The current study wi ll look at movies that have already experienced their sneak previews and some of the movies have been in release for many weeks. The current study wishes to find out why people go to the movies, not "if" they will go as suggested by the above studies. -Word-of-mouth control: A study which began in 1976 where Columbia pictures engaged the Wharton School of Applied Resear ch in trying to control word-of-mouth. The main point was to stop misinformation a nd get out a positive word about a film. Most of the specific details were held secret The current study will take into account the effect of word-of-mouth and its ability to coax people to go see a movie, but this is after the movie has been released to the general public. The current study is not trying to control word-of-mouth, but rath er examine its effect on why people will be tempted to see a movie in the theater. -Direct-mail marketing: Fi rst initiated in 1983 for Para mount’s re-release of Reds, this marketing campaign sent information about a movie (description of the movie) tailored using zip codes or occupation ca tegories. If you answered th e questions in this campaign, the incentive was that a pers on would receive a discount on a ticket to see the movie that was being marketed. The current study is not interested in the far-away aspects of finding audience likes and dislikes about a par ticular movie. The current study wishes to go right to the source of where people buy tick ets at the theater a nd get a more direct response to reasons why people see a particular movie and what motivated them to see it.

PAGE 43

34 The current study will be trying to fish fo r information like the direct-mail study, but it will be done at the place where people come and go from seeing a movie, the theater. While acknowledging the importance of th e spectator, movie studios will tend to reinvent successes of the recent past. This leads back to how movie-going behavior can be unclear at times (Vale 1982). There is no reason to take risks if a previous formula has worked. For example, Spider-Man was based on a super-hero created by Marvel Comics. It was a successful movie for most of the summer of 2002, in terms of ticket sales. Recently in February 2003, Daredevil was released and it was also based on a Marvel Comics' character. The Hulk another movie based on a Marvel character, will be released in June 2003. Early re ports indicated that Daredevil has already had success and was the number one movie in America for multiple weeks (The Box-Office Report 2003). The new thesis/study would be a step in bringing clarity as to why audiences choose the movies they want to see. While producers and directors look to repe at past successes, they cannot always assume they know what an audience will like and dislike. According to Vale, a person would have to "cut open all the locked homes and apartmen ts and look in and listen to inaudible thoughts and amorphous feelings” (V ale 1982). This is something that is clearly impossible. One thing has still b een proven true no matter what the subject matter: Money made by a movie alone is not a clear depiction of an audience’s taste (Vale 1982). Past research also suggested that many pe ople go to the movies for identification (reducing the gap between film a nd spectator). This spoke of being able to experience a movie-character’s life in the theater and retu rn to the respondent’s normal life when the

PAGE 44

35 lights come up (Burnett 1991). A person could escape into another life by watching a movie. They see something on screen that would have some relation to something in their own life, perhaps an unrealized dream. One way to escape reality in the theater is to look at the concept of celebrity. The star of a movie has a place in any movi e-viewing study, including the current study and the studies mentioned here. The star is said to hold the spectator’s attention. The actor or actress is considered “a super-per son who is bigger than life” and as a part of a spectacle performed for the movie-viewer (Burnett 1991). From this source, it can be determined that everything in a movie is designed to hook a movie viewer, from the soundtrack to the special effects. Movie stars are just one piece of a whole once you enter the movie theater (Burnett 1991). While discussing the topic of movie-star Jacqueline Rose of Queen Mary and Westfield College in London talk ed about The Cult of Celebrity which appeared in the London Review of Books The article talked about the idea of people following a celebrity, seeing their films or appearances, and collecting memorabilia based on the fact that there specific celebrity is present in the things they buy, read, or see. The life of a celebrity would invite others to watch what he or she does, even if the celebrity was trying to remain more private (Rose 2003). The interesting thing was that following a celebrity in high moments and low moments had a tendency to unite people in thoughts and feelings. Rose focused on the examples of Princess Diana a nd Mary Bell, but her ideas encompassed all celebriti es, including those in film (Rose 2003). Rose made the point that people are interested in following celebrities, but there is an essence of shame in that the public is willing to hear bad things about their cele brities as well as good.

PAGE 45

36 Fans will want their celebrity to be pure or above being human and making mistakes. She said it puts into question our own morality from wanting to know even the worse things about our favorite celebriti es. Rose also talked about celebrities being hesitant to admit that they are involved in a balancing act between a public life and a private life with an audience of fans who be interested in both (Rose 2003). Ce lebrities themselves are performing for a world stage when they ente r a room or walk out the door. Rose said it is the fan audience that will be going to see a celebrity’s movies and the movies may be what makes or breaks the celebrity. The current study wishes to see what eff ect, if any, the presence of a movie star has on a person's movie-viewing choice when going to a theater. Will a person see a movie just because they like th e celebrity or their previous movies? The current study will benefit from Rose's depiction of celebrity as it will be the basis of the researcher’s own definition of movie star for the current study. But the single idea of celebrity is only one reason why a person may be motivated to go see a particular movie. The current study will take into account movie stars as we ll as other variables including trailers, ads, critiques, subject matter, wo rd-of-mouth, and the presence of a particular director. Sometimes even directors can be seen as celebrities. Vale attests that “people have a strong wish to identify themselves with other people even if it is only for the short durat ion of a movie show” (Vale 1982). He goes on to say that identification happens as a result of the characters mi rroring something that intrigues the spectator (Vale 1982) Vale claims that resear ch has shown that people go to the movies to “satisfy some mental crav ing,” like a person who goes to a restaurant because they want something to eat (Vale 1982). This means that sometimes a spectator

PAGE 46

37 may want to go see a movie to be scared while other times a spectator may want to see a movie to witness the triumph of good over evil after he or she has had a bad day. Next, Vale describes an audience showing outward signs of a movie’s impact, talking about audience members who cried or laughed, but he recognizes that these are only outward signs of what goes on inside th e spectator’s mind (Vale 1982). Dr. Stuart Fischoff of California State University did a film-choice study in 1998. His research shows that viewers look to movies for fantasy fulfillment and emotional experience (Fischoff 1998). In the study, Fischoff took a nationwide sa mple of 560 respondents and asked them to fill out a questionnaire concerning their favorite films, genres, and elements that contributed to their love of a movie. He was looking at comparisons between what he called “The Beholder” (what wa s perceived by the mind of the viewer about a film) and “The Beheld” (the actual elements of the f ilm and the film itself) (Fischoff 1998). His results indicated that drama was the most popular genre in terms of all-time favorite films. Fischoff also discovered that what is on the screen, “The Beheld,” determines a movie’s popularity more than what “The Beholder” may be thinking about the film. He saw that plot devices and central characters were the most potent forces in evaluating a film by respondents, not the male or female leads. Fischoff also found that respondents paid more attention to male leads than female leads in determining all-time favorite movies. Finally, Fischoff’s study stated that certain them es were the most popular in concerning the idea of fantasy fulfillment among his respondents. Th ey were the triumph of the underdog, heroism, and adventure (Fischoff 1998).

PAGE 47

38 Fischoff looked at how movies obtain “all-time favorite status” using movie elements like plot, character, and director. He did not apply this to how people first decide on a movie, but how such elements im pacted a respondent’s favorite movies. He saw that favorite films were more establishe d by what was on the screen rather than what an audience member was looking for inside hims elf or herself, such as fantasy fulfillment or escapism (Fischoff 1998). Fischoff’s study is unique in that it wa nts to look at both filmic and psychoemotional qualities contributing to a movie’s all-time favorite status (Fischoff 1998). His focus was on the completion of the film experi ence, not the choices one makes to pick a film. Fischoff’s study was also consistent with us es and gratifications theory in that a film’s impact and meaning may be seen as “a joint function of both what the artists intended to create and what the audience seek s and/or receives fr om a film” (Fischoff 1998). This implies that a movie audience ’s own needs and wants are important in studying the impact of movie-viewing choice. Fischoff studied which genre of film was liste d most frequently in a list of favorite films compiled from his respondents. He used similar variables to the ones used in the current study including, the e ffect of director, plot, a nd movie-star power on movieviewing choice. Fischoff focused primarily on movies already seen and the ways in which movies help fulfill a viewer’s fantas ies by the way a movie is constructed. He studied what people are looking for in each genr e of film, from fantasy fulfillment to the featured elements of a movie ( like plot and characters). The current thesis will elaborate on these underlying reasons of fantasy fulfillment and escapism, but will look more

PAGE 48

39 closely at the time before a person goes to s ee a movie and why a pers on goes to a movie, rather than examining what they have already seen and what they cons ider to be their alltime favorite films. While some studies focus on varying movi e-choice using different themes, other studies seek to learn why some movies are more successful than others. Barry Litman did an empirical study of theatrical movies and why some are successful and some are not. He examined this from the aspects of the scheduling of a movie’s release, the marketing scheme, and the total creativity us ed to create the movie. He acknowledged the fact that people will see movies with thei r favorite stars, just as the current study will look at the effects of movie-star power on movi e-viewing choice. Litman also looked at the marketing campaign for a movie that relate s to the use of tra ilers and ads in the current study. He also considered how the di rector and the acting cr ew work together to affect a movie’s success and how the ratings assigned by the Motion Picture Association of America effect a movie’s revenue (Litman 1983). In order to prove the success of movi es, Litman developed a revenue equation with dependent and independent variables. Th e dependent variable wa s theatrical rentals, which he obtained from films earning at le ast $1 million. The independent variables consisted of story types (the current study repr esents these as genre types) and ratings and how they impact total reve nue of a movie (Litman 1983). The remaining independent variables involved the use of box-office stars in a movie's cast, the production cost for making the movie, the distribution of a fi lm by a major company or an independent company, the peak periods for releasing m ovies (around Christmas, Easter, and in summer), the movies which had been nominate d for Academy awards, and the impact of

PAGE 49

40 a critic’s reviews. These variables were used in a multiple regression analysis, which is a statistical technique that can be used to place observed and estimated data in an equation for revenue (Litman 1983). Litman found that ratings and picture type, or genre, had nothing to do with his revenue equation. He also saw that movie stars were not a big effect when the other variables were held c onstant. So according to his study, ratings and subject matter had no real impact on the succ ess of movies. He also discovered that movie superstars don't allow for additional revenues to a film (Litman 1983). The important determinants in movie revenue su ccess were the production cost, the critics' rating, use of a major distributor, and any possible links to the Academy Awards. He admitted that the movie industry may not give up such secrets, but they can be found out (Litman 1983). Litman used some of the va riables that will be used in the current study such as ads, trailers, movie stars, and critiques, but he used them to discover revenue and success, rather than why people go to the movies. He wanted to discover if there is a certain formula for making successful movies, but not why people will go, the focus of the current study. Uses and Gratifications Theory In conclusion, the main theory behind the current study idea comes from the uses and gratifications approach. This theory stat es that "people's media consumption patterns are intended actions on the part of the viewer s," and "that in dividuals do make conscious choices about what they see and read in the media" (Salwen and Stacks, 1996). In dealing with the current study, the researchers are looking at what helps people to decide the movie they want to see in the theate r and what helps them make that decision, especially what are the top reas ons for making that decision.

PAGE 50

41 What is essential to the uses and gratifi cations tradition has be en audience activity, which is highly correlated with the idea for the current study; to s ee why people want to go to the movies (Rosengren, Wenner, and Pa lmgreen, 1985). According to this idea of audience activity, uses and gr atifications theory suggest s that there is a media dependency. This means earlier researchers in the theory have examined the extent to which a respondent would miss a particular medi um if it were not available. The current study makes this clear with question #2 in Appe ndix A. Results from previous studies by such researchers as Lindlof (1986), Rubi n (1981), and Wenner (1982) have suggested dependence on a medium (like movies) related to the number and strength of the motives for attending that medium (Salwen and Stack s, 1996). The current study looks at these motives by the questionnaire devised in Appendix A. This study will be examining the motives behind choosing a movie by looking at variables that th e researchers will operationalize later in Chapter 3, including di rector influence, subject matter/genre influence, and movie-star infl uence. The current research will also look at motives like the appearance of a movie star or a type of subject matter that motivates a respondent to go see a movie. To sum up, past research in uses and gratification showed that the audience will use a movie (by watching it) to gratify some aspect of themselves or to escape a feeling of boredom (Salwen and St acks, 1996). This idea of boredom is an underlying gratification, and the current study is not dealing w ith boredom as a reason for going to the movies. The curr ent study assumes people are going to a movie for more than just the escape from boredom since th ey made the decision to buy a ticket to a specific film. One uses and gratifications ’ researcher, Blumler (1979), suggested many other reasons why people would use a medium like the movies, which include gaining

PAGE 51

42 information (knowing about what the movie is like or whether the critic on a movie was right or wrong), for an escape or diversi on, and to identify with the characters a respondent sees on the screen (Salwen and Stacks, 1996). These were some of the gratifications that rese archers speak of when they refer to uses and gratificat ions theory. For the purposes of audience activity for th e current study idea, the researchers will look at the idea of movie-viewi ng choice and use eleven -point Likert scales to describe a person’s reasons for wanting to choose a movie. Before looking at the scales, there needs to be a definition for the us e of movie-viewing choice here in the current study. Movieviewing choice comes from the idea of an a udience who watches the movies. It is known that the film industry depends on targeting "t he maximum possible audience" and that is done through "a wide variety of market re search techniques" (B landford, Grant, and Hillier, 2001). This indicates that the film industry uses tr ailers, advertising, critiques, and subject matter to influence the viewing choice of movie goers. In the current study, the researchers wish to see what variables affect viewing choice so as to gauge what variables influence a respondent ’s decision. The researchers want to find out if the marketing for a movie is doing its job as well as finding out what motivates people to go see a movie. Audience activity suggests "that media use is motivated by needs and goals that are defined by audience members themselves, and that active participation in the communication process may facilitate, limit, or otherwise influence the gratifications and effects associated with exposure" (Rosengr en, Wenner, and Palmgreen, 1985). In other words, the audience is the group you need to examine in order to designate how the media works toward satisfying an audience memb er’s needs. You need to look at them

PAGE 52

43 without interference and let th e audience decide for itself wh at it likes and dislikes. Researchers, including Levy and Windahl in 1984, did work that suggested "positive, significant correlations between messages of audience activity and indicators of gratifications sought and obtained" (Rose ngren, Wenner, and Palmgreen, 1985). This showed that measuring audience response can lead to successful results and can be correlated with uses and gratifications theor y. It was possible to see what makes people go to the movies by looking at their responses to a questionnaire or survey. The positive aspect of previous research in uses and grat ifications had indicated that continued study and experimentation "holds great promise for increasing our knowledge about the role of mass communication in huma n life" (Rosengren, Wenne r, and Palmgreen, 1985). Performing the current study can only advance the cause of uses and grat ifications theory. The following chapter will begin with reasons for using a survey and a preview of using survey methodology. A discussion will follow to discuss the methodology for the current questionnaire (see Appendix A) to be used in this thesis.

PAGE 53

44 CHAPTER 3 SURVEY AND METHODOLOGY As supported by Zillmann in Me dia Gratifications Research the survey or questionnaire has been one of the best ways to research uses and grat ifications theory and is the method used in the current study (R osengren, Wenner, and Palmgreen, 1985). The survey is merited for being efficient w ith minimal problems of effort and cost (Rosengren, Wenner, and Palmgreen, 1985). Although being the preferred method of research in uses and gratifi cations theory, the survey has limitations. These arise from "the validity of inferences fr om introspective repo rts of consumption reasons about actual consumption reasons" (Rosengren, Wenner, and Palmgreen, 1985). This results from respondents who may be thinking about what their culture w ould say about a question in a survey instead of what the respondent trul y feels. Respondents may want to somehow make themselves look good to the investigat or and will tailor their responses to match what they think an investigator wants to hear Researchers do not see this limitation as a huge hindrance and criticism is usually cast asid e. Anything that is a limitation can be bypassed by using the idea of an experiment, or a manipulation of messages (Rosengren, Wenner, and Palmgreen, 1985). In the case of the survey/questionnaire for the current study, all respondents will remain anonymous, aside from age and sex, and respondents will have already made a choice to see a movie because surveys will be given and collected at the theater. Another way to el iminate limitations of a survey is to make responses clear for the respondent so that th e questions and the responses provide clarity for both the respondent and the researcher (Rosengren, Wenner, and Palmgreen 1985).

PAGE 54

45 Sometimes researchers have to accept limitations of a survey, but using it in conjunction with experimentation can be successful. Both survey and experiment can be chosen by researchers, or used together, for thei r studies in uses and gratifications. In order to test the question of why peopl e like to go to the movies, the primary investigator of the current study did an info rmal questioning to fish for the reasons why people go see a specific film at movie theaters and came up with the following reasons: movie critiques, movie trailers, general adve rtising (ads in newspaper, magazine, movie posters, and on TV), movie-star power, word -of-mouth, and the director of a film. The informal questioning was done by asking fr iends, family, co-workers, and fellow researchers about the current st udy in the Clearwater and Gain esville, Fla. areas and by asking what they thought were the reasons why they like to go to the movies. Frequency of response, talking with fellow researchers, an analysis of the 1986 study, and the related studies in Chapter 2 were all used to judge what variables would be used. Again, this study assumes movie patrons have already made the decision to see a movie, regardless of ideas of boredom or simple entertainment. The purpose of the present investigation is designed to discover which reasons for going to the movies had the highest response among the variables used in the current study. The overall research question is what the perceived exposure to the variables in this study will have on movie-viewing choice. Research Questions and Survey The underlying research questions are as follows: R1) What is the relationship between r eading or watching m ovie critiques in newspapers, magazines, TV, et c. and movie-viewing choice?

PAGE 55

46 R2) What is the relationship between watc hing trailers for an upcoming movie and movie-viewing choice? R3) What is the relationship between watching general advertising (ads in newspaper, magazine, movie posters, and on TV) and movie-viewing choice? R4) What is the relationship between perceived movie-star power and movieviewing choice? R5) What is the relationshi p between preferences in genre or subject matter and movie-viewing choice? R6) What is the relationship between wo rd-of-mouth comments that are heard about a movie and movie-viewing choice? R7) What is the relationshi p between the director of a film and movie-viewing choice? The survey instrument appears in Appendix 1. Sampling Technique The population for the present study will c onsist of all those who go to a movie theater, from teenagers to older adults (18+ ). Surveys will be conducted while patrons are standing in line to enter a movie theater or as they exit the theater. This is considered a convenience sample (Ryerson University 2003). This means that the current study is good for exploratory research that can provide valuable insights into movie-viewing choice. The surveys will be explained if need ed, but are designed to be self-explanatory so that respondents will have ease in answering them ( a su ggested time of 4 minutes or less was practiced by the primary investigator). The primary investigator will be present to answer any questions. A maximum of 400 surveys will be collected at theater

PAGE 56

47 locations in Gainesville and Orlando. Gator Cinemas is the theater in Gainesville, and Cinemark is the theater in Orlando. The pro cess at a theater is to sample a group of people on a given night during the weekend or on a night during the week, preferably when the lines are longer at the theater for better sampling and quickness of getting respondents. Each respondent wi ll asked if he or she could fill out a questionnaire. The initial plan will be to get at least 400 respondents, excl uding those who fill out the survey totally wrong or those younger than 18 years of age. For the purpose of saving time and money, this current study will be using a purposive sample, based on a movie patron’s wi llingness to be at a theater (Wimmer and Dominick, 2000). The satisfactory sample size of 400 will be used for the current study and the following age groups are used: 18-22, 23-27, 28-32, 33-37, 38-42, 43-47, 48-52, 53-57, 58-62, 63-67, 68-72, 73-77, 78-82, 83-87, Above 87 (Wimmer and Dominick, 2000). In the case of using a purposive sample as in staying outside the theater, the researchers were first told to collect surveys as patrons left the theater by the managers of the theaters where the surveys were collect ed. This did change questions 14 and 15, which were originally used to get patrons befo re they saw a movie. After initial research was performed, some respondents did answer with the movie they saw and asked the primary investigator if they could do so. In this way, surveys will be given to patrons that come out of the theater (occasionally be fore they went to s ee their movie), but the researchers have not been able to get everyone who exits because of the voluntary nature of the survey (some possible respondents have declined to take the survey) and the fact that only one principle investig ator is available to administ er/collect the surveys. The

PAGE 57

48 primary investigator, in this case, will be us ing three clipboards to obtain surveys and will tell respondents the following information be fore letting them decide on the survey: I am doing a survey for a thesis, a university project, on how to improve the moviegoing experience and look at why people go to the movies. This will not take long and I am not trying to sell you anything. It should take only four minutes or less of your time. After completing the survey, each respondent was thanked for his or her time. Once all the necessary information was obt ained, the data will be analyzed by looking at the data objectively and by using a statistical program called SPSS, which is available for use at the computer labs on the University of Florida campus. It is a method supported by most analysts and makes the anal ysis of huge amounts of data easier than working with a simple calculator (Sigma Plot and Sigma Stat, 2003). Many fellow researchers in varied disciplines and at the University of Florida continually support this method. Collecting Surveys The primary investigator began collecting survey information the week of March 14, 2003, where approximately 41 surveys were obtained in a four-hour period on a weekend (Friday to Saturday) at Gator Cine mas (a theater in Oaks Mall Plaza in Gainesville, Fla.). Permission to collect survey s had already been given by that theater’s manager. Fourteen of those surveys were obt ained at another theater in town. Over the next several weekends, about 34 to 50 surv eys were obtained each night of the weekend (Friday to Sunday). This was performed over two to three day periods on weekends and lasted up until the second to last week in April 2003. Th ree weekends were spent in Orlando, Fla., where 300 of the surveys were obt ained. Most of the data was collected on the weekends at night when movie going was typically at its peak, and a majority of

PAGE 58

49 participants were free of obligations such as regular work hours and school, an assumption supported by the number of surveys obtained and research studied in Chapter 2. It was helpful obtaining the surveys in Or lando, which is a heavily traveled tourist location. Several respondents indicated th ey were on vacation, even from other countries. The speculation was that if a sim ilar survey was done over several states and countries, then an overall movie-behavior study could be performed. The current study showed only one sample that could be expanded, depending primarily on time and money. In order to examine the survey, the prim ary variables of the current study will be operationalized, or put into simple terms, below: 1) Movie-Viewing Choice: It is to be ma de clear that this is not meant to be a variable in this study, but it is a term composed of all the othe r variables that will be used and needs to be defined. Movie-viewing c hoice is only a term used and will not be measured, by itself, in this study. Movie-view ing choice will be judged based on a series of eleven-point scales. For each, respondents will be asked to rate, on a scale of 0-10, the extent to which seven factors influence movi e selection or their m ovie-viewing choice. The seven factors were: movie critiques, movi e trailers/ previews, ge neral advertising for movies, movie-star influence, genre/ subject matter influe nce, word-of-mouth, and the influence of a particular director of a movie. The measures are designed to find out how respondents perceived movie-viewing choice to be affected by writt en movie critiques, watching movie trailers, looking at ads (in newspapers, magazines, radio, the Internet and posters), motiva tion to go see a movie

PAGE 59

50 based on who is starring in it, the presence of the director of a movie, word of mouth spread about a movie, and motivation to go s ee a movie because of th e subject matter. The following are the factors influencing movie selection. 1) Critique Influence: Critique influen ce will be measured by asking respondents to rate, on a scale of 0-10, the extent to which movie critiques influence movie selection. For this measure, a rating of 10 means “h eavy influence” and a score of 0 means “no influence at all.” For the present study, critiques were defined as follows: Non-academic writing on contemporary films, usually in newspapers and magazines, taking the form of anything fr om a short tabloid assessment of a new film, accompanied by a star rating to a l onger piece accompanied by other material, such as a retrospective look at the work of a director or leading actor. A critique is also an ‘immediate written response to a film's release.’” (Blandford, Grant, and Hillier, 2001) 2) Preview Influence: Preview influen ce will be measured by asking respondents, again using a 0-10 scale, the extent to wh ich movie trailers/previews influence movie selection. For this measure, a rating of te n means “heavy influence” and a score of zero means “no influence at all.” This measure will be used to indicate how movie trailers affect a respondent's decision to go see a movi e. Trailers are those small previews of upcoming movies seen in the theater or at home on TV. Movie previews come in different lengths. Small trailers are called teasers. For the pres ent study, trailers or teasers will be defi ned as the following: A short film advertising a forthcoming attraction at a cinema, normally (though not necessarily) a compilation of clips from that film, and normally prepared by the film's distributor. (Blandford, Grant, and Hillier, 2001)

PAGE 60

51 3) General Advertising Influence: Genera l advertising influence will be measured by asking respondents, again using a 0-10 s cale, the extent to which ads (found in newspapers, in magazines, in posters, on the radio, and on the Internet) influence their movie selection. For this m easure, a rating of ten means “heavy influence” and a rating of zero means “no influence at all.” Basical ly, this measure was meant to include all other forms of advertising th at are not mentioned with al l other variables. General advertising includes ads in magazines, movie posters advertising an upcoming movie, ads for a movie seen in a newspaper, ads of a movie mentioned on the radio, movie stars promoting a movie on a show like Entertainment Tonight and even ads for a movie seen on the Internet (Blandford, Grant, and Hillier 2001). Advertisements can include the name of the movie, its stars, and the directing and producing credits. They frequently include pictures of whom or what the film is about. 4) Movie-Star Influence: Movie-star influence will be measured by asking respondents, again using a 0-10 sc ale, the extent to which the presence of a certain actor or actress in a movie influences movie selecti on. For this measure, a rating of ten means “heavy influence” and a rating of zero means “ no influence at all.” This measure talks about how a star (be it an act or or actress) of a movie ma y influence a respondent to go see a movie in a theater if only because that star will be in that movie. Movie-star influence will be defined in the present study as follows: A film star is a performer whose presence in a film can assure box-office success and who generates interest in his or her li fe beyond film roles. (Blandford, Grant, and Hillier, 2001)

PAGE 61

52 Note: Box-office means "the takings earned by a film during its theatrical release” (Blandford, Grant, and Hillier, 2001). 5) Genre/ Subject Matter Influence: Genre/Subject matter will be measured by asking respondents, on a scale of 0-10, the extent to which th e subject matter, or type of genre of a movie, influences movie selecti on. For this measure, a rating of ten means “heavy influence” and a rating of zero means “no influence at all.” This measure concerns the effect of how a movie's plot or subject matte r affects how people go to the movies. Genre concerns different types of movies like action, co medy, horror, drama, etc. Genre, in the current study, is meant to include all genre types, even those not mentioned here. Subject matter concerns th e basic ideas presented in a movie. For example, the movie Saving Private Ryan had war as its primary subject matter. For the purpose of this present study, genre/subject ma tter will be defined together as follows: Genre is "a category, kind, or t ype of art or cultural artifact with certain elements in common. In film, common genre elements in clude subject matter, theme, narrative and stylistic conventions, motifs, character types, plots, and iconography" (Blandford, Grant, and Hillier, 2001). 6) Word-of-Mouth Influence: The perceived influence of word-of-mouth will also be measured by asking respondents, on a scale of 0-10, to what extent word-of-mouth, or the ideas and speech of others who saw the movie and talk about it, influences movie selection. For this measure, a rating of te n means “heavy influence” and a rating of zero means “no influence at all.” Word-of-mouth will be defined in the current study as the response to a movie that is spread by those who have seen it and are ta lking about it and/or the buzz about a movie

PAGE 62

53 that is spread by the general public. An example would be a friend who saw My Big Fat Greek Wedding and told you about it. After hearing about it from him or her, you decide to go see the movie based on what you heard. 7) The Director Influence: This influence results when someone wants to see a movie in the theater because they like the di rector’s previous work. For example, a person may want to see Minority Report because Steven Spielber g directs it and/or they liked the last pictures direct ed by Spielberg, such as A.I. or Saving Private Ryan To measure the extent to which the director influences a respondent's decision to go to see a movie in the theater, respondents will indicate, on a scal e of 0-10, about how much the presence of a director influences them in wanting to see a movie in the theater. The current study will examine how this va riable ranks among the others and get an average or mean of these responses from the respondents. Analysis of Research Questions Note: Movie-viewing choice was measured by responses to the questionnaire in Appendix 1 and is not separate from them. Research question #1 asks whether a rela tionship exists between movie critiques and movie-viewing choice. Respondents’ 0-10 “influence” sc ores will be utilized in comparing the effect of movie critiques on movie-viewing choice. Research question #2 asks whether a rela tionship exists between movie trailers/ previews and movie-viewing choice. Respondents’ 0-10 “influence” scores will be utilized in comparing the e ffect of movie trailers/ prev iews on movie-viewing choice Research question #3 asks whether a relationship exists between general advertising and movie-viewing choice. Respondents’ 0-10 “influence” scores will be utilized in comparing the effect of ge neral advertising on movie-viewing choice.

PAGE 63

54 Research question #4 asks whether a re lationship exists between movie-star power and movie-viewing choice. Respondents’ 0-10 “influence” scores will be utilized in comparing the effect of moviestar power on movie-viewing choice. Research question #5 asks whether a rela tionship exists between subject matter/ genre and movie-viewing choice. Respondents’ 0-10 “influence” scores will be utilized in comparing the effect of subject matter/genre on movie-viewing choice. Research question #6 asks whether a rela tionship exists between word-of-mouth heard about a movie and movie-viewing choice. Respondents’ 0-10 "influence” scores will be utilized in comparing the effect of word-of-mouth on movie-viewing choice. Research question #7 asks whether a relati onship exists between the director of a film and movie-viewing choice. Respondents’ 0-10 "influence" sc ores will be utilized in comparing the effect of the dire ctor on movie-viewing choice. Analyzing the Remaining Questions (R esearchers’ Reasons for Adding the Remaining Questions): Times per month (question # 1 in Appendix A): This will be used to find out how many times a person goes to a movie to establish frequency. Someone else (question #10 in Appendix A): This will be used to establish whether it was a respondent’s individual choice to see a movie or wh ether it was someone else’s. $5 price increase (question #12 in Appendix A): This will be used to determine a respondent’s enjoyment of the theater and whet her or not a price in crease would effect theater going. Film seeing or seen (question #14 in Appendi x A): This will be used to establish a genre type as well as verify the date and an swer any questions about the type of movie seen that are not answered by the other survey questions.

PAGE 64

55 First prompted you (question #15 in Appendix A): This will be used to take care of any other reason for going to see a movie be sides the primary ones mentioned in the survey, especially in relati on to the research questions. Sex and age (questions #16 and 17 in Appendix A): These will be used to give a frame of reference for all respondents w ithout giving names and for age and sex comparison. Now that the survey has been discussed, the process of distributing and collecting the surveys will be described as well as the examination of results once the total 400 surveys was collected.

PAGE 65

56 CHAPTER 4 DATA AND RESULTS Data Cleaning First, 400 surveys were obtained from par ticipants at local th eaters in Gainesville and Orlando. For the purpose of data analysis there are certain things that had to be changed from the original Excel program/spreadsheet, where was recorded the total 400 survey answers from their original paper copi es. This Excel program will have a copy of its readout attached to this study (See Appendix B). On this table and readout, missing values are those not filled out or missed by re spondents. For certain numbers and survey answers, the following had to be performed for data analysis: -Any blank spaces were either answered as NA or were not answered by the participant in the original Excel data set. -In the original data set, some respondents ha d given additional condi tions to a yes or no on question #12. For the purposes of data anal ysis, only “yes” or “no” was taken as a valid response. In the original data set, th ese extra comments were designated as “yes?” or “no?” The “?” indicates that a participan t added extra words to his/her response which was unnecessary for the purposes of this particular survey and analysis. -In a few cases, respondents circled ma le and female for question 17, even though they were supposed to circle one only. In this case, it was assumed that they did not circle the sex question. -In several cases, a person gave an “X” in stead of circling a number in which case an “X” on a number or in a res ponse was interpreted as a circle.

PAGE 66

57 -Some respondents put two answers to a questio n that only demanded one, or their circles were too broad to consider one response or number. In this case, the first half of each column or question would have the first num ber chosen and the second half would have the second number chosen of all the responses that had two choices. For example, the first 58 cells had the first number chosen and the second 58 had the second number chosen. This followed for any survey question where such a conflict arose: -All responses left blank meant the respondent did not answer a question, forgot to see it, or left it as NA (Not Applicable) -All “<” or “>” answers were changed to th e very next number th ey indicate (for example: “>6” was changed to 7 for the basis of statistical analysis). -All “<1” answers were changed to “0.5.” -One answer listed as "all the time" for th e “times per month” question was changed to the average number of days in a year or 30. -Using cross multiplication and comparison, severa l worded values were changed to meet the times per month value (examples: 1 a week was changed to .3 rounded, 20 a decade was changed to 0.2, 1 a year was changed to 0.08, 3 a year became 0.25, etc.). Comparing days in a year to days in a month did all this. -“Every other month” was translated into "1." -For the purpose of data an alysis, several categories were made for question 10, which concerned whether a person was going to a m ovie for himself or someone else. One subject, “377,” responded to the question with free coupons, which was not a valid answer according to the rules of the question and was designa ted as no response. This kind of response may need to be further ex amined, as people do like to use coupons, but

PAGE 67

58 not for this current study. The categ ories were divided by the following for statistical/data analysis: 1-I did (the respondent alone) 2-I did and someone else did (Subject 72 said "We were winging it, so this counted here) 3-Someone else did (respondent mentioned a name or said they did not want to see it themselves) -For question 12, the $5 increase question, severa l divisions arose for data analysis. They were the following: 1-No 2-Yes 3-No? 4-Yes? Here the question mark indicates that the respondent added a condition to the answer even though that was unnecessary. -For the rating question (quest ion 11), there were several subjects who did not answer according to the rating rules given. In hi ndsight, having each medium accompanied by a scale of 1-7 could have solved this problem (s ee Likert scales for earlier questions). For these reasons, the researchers then made several judgment calls: -All subjects who gave the response of "check" or “NA” were not counted or left blank, as they gave no valid answer for this question. (Examples: subject 153, 224, 227, 258, 278, and 327 for rating TV and subj ects 21 and 224 for rating theater)

PAGE 68

59 -For the purpose of data anal ysis, the age ranges needed to be changed to single numbers to represent each range: 1= 18-22 2= 23-27 3= 28-32 4= 33-37 5= 38-42 6= 43-47 7= 48-52 8= 53-57 9= 58-62 10= 63-67 11= 68-72 No one over the age range of 68-72 answered our questionnaire. -For the purpose of data/stati stical analysis, al l the responses for question 17 (male or female) were translated as the following: F= 1 M= 2 Both M and F or no answer= 3 Data Analysis The following were the results of using SPSS and looking over the data obtained from the 400 surveys, all logged on the Excel program and seen in Appendix B (All other tables can be found at the end of this chapte r). The statistical program, SPSS, was used. It is known for “expertise and in data mining and st atistical analysis” and holds a 30-year

PAGE 69

60 success record (Sigma Plot and Sigma Stat, 2003). For each table, each set of numbers to the left indicates the amount of respondents who answered in that way (for example in Table 6, 19 respondents gave the answer “4” to question 6 on the survey). All tables can be found at the end of this study after the bibliography: Table 1: Shows all results of frequencie s, means, and percents of respondents who did and/or did not answer the question (questi on 1 of the survey) of "Times per month." The highest number of times people said they went to the movies was at least 2 times a month; 105 respondents. The second highest frequency was 1 time a month. Table 2: Shows all results of frequencie s, means, and percents of respondents who did and/or did not answer question 2 of th e survey on whether they would miss going to the theater if it were no longe r available. 134 respondents gave the response of 10, thus leading to "very much," and only about 14 said 0 or "not at all. All respondents had about 66.9% over the number “7” for wanting the theater to remain in existence. Table 3: Shows the results of frequenc ies, means, and percents of respondents who did and did not answer the question 3 of the survey, a respondent's feelings on how movie critiques in the newspa per, magazines, on TV, etc. make you want to go to a movie theater. The mean was 3.77 and the mode was 0. Table 4: Shows the results of frequenc ies, means, and percents of respondents who did and/or did not answer the question 4 of the survey, a responde nt’s feelings on the influence of watching trailers or previews on a respondent's movie c hoice. The mean was 7.17 and the mode was 8.

PAGE 70

61 Table 5: Shows the results of frequencie s, mean, and percents of respondents who did and/or did not answer question 5, a responde nt’s feelings on how ads influence their decision to choose a movie. The mean was 5.92 and the mode was 5. Table 6: Shows the results of frequencies, means, and percents of respondents who did or did not answer question 6, a respondent ’s feelings on how movie stars influence their decision to go to a movie theater. The mean was 7.21 and the mode was 10. Table 7: Shows the results of frequencies, means, and percents of respondents who did or did not answer question 7 on the surv ey which indicated how genre or subject matter influenced their decision to go to a movie. The mean here was 7.68 and the mode was 10. Table 8: Shows the results of frequencies, means, and percents of respondents who did or did not answer question 8 on the surv ey, indicating how word-of-mouth influences a person's decision to go to the movies. The mean was 6.88 and the mode was 8. Table 9: Shows the results of frequencies, means, and percents of respondents who did or did not answer question 9 on our surv ey, indicating how the director of a movie influences a person's decision to go to the theater and choose a movie. The mean was 3.88 and the mode was 0. Table 10: Shows the results of frequencies, means, a nd percents of respondents who did or did not answer question 10 about whether they were going to see a movie because they wanted to or because of so meone else. 191 respondents chose the movie themselves out of a valid 362. Nineteen peop le went above what the question asked and said they wanted to see it as well as because of someone else.

PAGE 71

62 Table 11-17: Shows the results of frequenc ies, means, and percents of respondents who did and/or did not answer question 11, a question where respondents were asked to rate several media influences on their eff ectiveness in getting people to go a movie theater. This was to measure what medium was used primarily to go to a movie in the theater. This question may need to be reexamined at another time as many respondents were confused as to whether you needed to rank or rate the media and respondents did a little of both. Several of the respondents answered beyond the 17 range giving such values as 0, 10, and 9 as responses. The answer s to this question were not as essential to the primary research questions asked in this study, but there will be a record of the responses given: TV had a mean of 2.78 and a mode of 1, radio had a mean of 4.75 and a mode of 7, internet had a mean of 4.28 and a mode of 7, magazines had a mean of 4.79 and a mode of 7, newspapers had a mean of 3.92 and a m ode of 1, theaters had a mean of 3.23 and a mode of 1, and word-of-mouth had a mean of 3.52 and a mode of 3. Table 18: Shows the results of frequencies, means, and percents for the answer to question 12, whether respondents would favor a $5 increase in ticket prices for movies. Some people added extra qualifications to be fo llowed when they said “yes” or “no” to this question (22 people said they would agre e “yes” or “no,” but they added extra words on the survey to qualify their decision). The following list gives their responses and their written comments: Subject 3: Circled yes and wrote “Depends.” Subject 4: Circled yes and wrote “Once a semest er. Would mostly wait for them to come out on DVD.”

PAGE 72

63 Subject 25: Circled yes and wrote “Just not as often.” Subject 50: Circled yes a nd wrote “But movie would have to be great.” Subject 81: Circled yes and wrote “But would not be happy about it.” Subject 114: Circled yes and wrote “But not as much.” Subject 128: Did not make a circle and wrote “Less.” Subject 151: Circled yes and wrote “Less frequently.” Subject 154: Circled yes a nd wrote “More seldom.” Subject 160: Circled no a nd wrote “Would rent.” Subject 176: Circled no and wrote “Maybe.” Subject 190: Circled yes and wrote “But will see two during a month.” Subject 209: Circled yes and wr ote “But not very often.” Subject 224: Did not make a circ le and wrote “Not as often.” Subject 267: Circled yes a nd no and wrote “Go less.” Subject 284: Circled no a nd wrote “No! Cable.” Subject 320: Circled yes a nd wrote “More seldom.” Subject 330: Circled no and wrote “Not as much.” Subject 366: Circled no and wr ote “Could not afford it.” Subject 397: Circled no and wrote “Much less.” Subject 399: Gave no circle and wrote “Sometimes.” These answers will be discussed in the conclusion (Chapter 5). Table 19: Shows the results of frequenc ies, means, and percents for question 13 on the survey, which asked how much people rely on movies for their entertainment. The mean here was 6.15 and the mode was 7.

PAGE 73

64 Table 20: Shows the results of frequencies, means, and percents for question 16, which was to indicate an age range that res pondents fell into. No respondent went above the 68-72 year age range. The mean here was 4.08 and the mode was 4.00. The highest frequency went to the 18-22-age bracket at 83 respondents. Table 21: Shows the results of frequenc ies, means, and percents for question 17 on our survey, which verified participant’s sex as male or female. A majority of respondents were female, a bout 215 of the total 400. Analysis of Written-Response Answers For question 14, respondents gave the movie they had seen or the movie they were going to see. Primarily, people who we re exiting the movie an swered this question, due to the theater owners’ s uggestion that responses be collected after a movie was finished. Respondents who became confused had their confusion cleared up by the primary investigator who was present at th e time they answered the questionnaire. According to a checked count of the responses, Anger Management came out with 57 votes (the highest number for a ny one film mentioned here), Phone Booth came out as the second highest at 41 votes, and Chicago and Bringing Down the House were tied at 22 votes. These responses only in cluded respondents who answered with one movie only. Some respondents gave more than one movie even though they were only asked for one. Those respondents who gave more than one answer were not included here in this count. For question 15, respondents were told to wr ite down what first prompted them to see the movie they mentioned in question 14. This was done to s ee if there were any additional and outstanding reasons (besides critiques, trailers, movie-stars, director, ads, movie-star power, and word of mouth) w hy people go to the movies that the current

PAGE 74

65 researchers may have missed by informal questioning and by studying other research. Since this question was a written one and th e other questions concerning why a person goes to the movies were Likert scales, this study could not compare the earlier responses (Likert scale answers) to que stion 15 by data analysis. Be sides the other reasons this study addressed for going to the movies by util izing the variables in the questionnaire, the other responses were the following: -Read the Book (had about 7 respondents) -Funny -Nothing better to do (About 2 respondents) -Oscar winner -Finish a sequel (saw the first one) -To get out of the house -Because of the rating -Had less violence -Might be interesting Table 22-Table 28: To show a physical di stribution of the respondents’ answers to the questions in the survey, a series of bar charts was structured to indicate the respondents’ distribution of numb ered responses to each of the research questions. Each table has an x-axis representing each number of the Likert scale, and the y-axis shows how many people answered with that particular number. The following is an analysis of what each table is looking at: Table 22: Shows the responses to question 3. The x-axis shows each number of the Likert scale and the y-axis shows how many people answered that way (Ex: About 100

PAGE 75

66 people answered 0 to question 3). The lowe st value came from respondents answering 9 to this question and the highest came from those answering 0. Table 23: Shows the responses to qu estion 4. The lowest value came from respondents answering 1 to question 4 about th e influence of trailers on movie choice. This did not include the fact that the absolute lowest count came from those values that were missing because a respondent did not answer this question or forgot to answer it. The highest number for res pondents here was a close tie between the number 8 and 10, with 8 being the highest. Table 24: Shows the responses to que stion 5 in Appendix 1. Again, some respondents did not answer this question about ad effect. The highest bar comes from those who answered 5 on this Likert scal e question. The lowest came from those who answered 1. A majority of the responses ar e centered on the middle of the chart. This shows that the mean is centered around 5 just as it did using the frequencies program on SPSS. Table 25: Shows the responses to question 6 on the questionnaire. There are some missing values and the lowest number came fr om those respondents who answered 1 to this question about movie stars affecting thei r movie choice. The highest bar came from 10. Table 26: Shows the responses to ques tion 7 on the questionnaire concerning the effect of subject matter a nd genre on movie-viewing choi ce. Taking away the missing values, the lowest amount of responses came when looking at the bar of 1. The highest came from the bar of 10.

PAGE 76

67 Table 27: Shows the responses to questi on 8 on the survey concerning the effect of word of mouth. Without missing values, the lowest bar came from respondents who answered 1 to this question. The highest bar came from those who answered with the number 8. Table 28: Shows the responses to que stion 9 on the survey/questionnaire, concerning the effect of the director on m ovie choice. There are missing values, and the lowest bar came from respondents who answer ed 10 or 6. The highest bar comes from those who answered 0. An F-test (analysis on variance among mean s) was performed on the basis of movie choice for each of the research questions concerning critiques, trailers, ads, stars, genre, word-of-mouth, and director i nvolving repeated measures. It was discovered that the means, ranked on page 43, mirrored the frequenc ies analysis done usi ng an F-test. This confirmed the original ranking of the means using frequencies. This can be seen in Table 29. The following is a list of Pearson Correla tions from Table 30 to show that there may or may not be a causal relationship between the primary variables in this study (based on the seven research que stions relating to the primary variables) and the times per month question and the entertainm ent question (#13) on the survey: -According to the table and the asterisks, the correlation betw een feelings about critiques and those on trailers, ad eff ect, movie stars, and director, and the entertainment question are all correlated as signi ficant at the 0.01 level.

PAGE 77

68 -The table also shows a significant correla tion at the 0.01 level for the relationship between trailers and critiques, ads, movie stars, subject matter, word-of-mouth, and the entertainment question. -The table shows a significant correlation at the 0.01 level for the re lationship between ad effect and ads with critiques, trailers, movi e stars, subject matter, word-of-mouth, and the entertainment question. -For movie stars, there is a significant correlation at th e 0.01 level for relations with critiques, trailers, ads, subject matter, director, an d the entertainment question. -For the subject matter relationship, there is a significant relationshi p at the 0.01 level for trailers movie stars, word-of-mouth, di rector, and the entertainment question. -For the word-of-mouth relationship, there is a significant correlati on at the 0.01 level for trailers, ads, subject matter, and director. -For the director relationship, there is a si gnificant relationship at the 0.01 level for relations with critiques, m ovie stars, subject matter, word-of-mouth, times per month, and the entertainment question. -For the times per month question, there is a significant correlati on at the 0.01 level for relations with director and the entertainment question. The next few statements touch on a signi ficant correlation at the 0.05 level for the following relations: -Critiques and word-of-mouth -Ads and director -Ads and times per month -Word-of-mouth and critiques

PAGE 78

69 -Word-of-mouth and the entertainment question -Director and ads -Times per month and ads One correlation had negative products, indi cating less of a relation between the categories: -Times per month and feelings about trailers. This may lead to the belief that ad effect may have no reason to be associated with the amount of times one goes to see a movie per month. The next chapter will discuss how the resu lts affected the current study, what could be improved, and what the current study c ould be used for in the field of mass communication. The next chapter begins by ta lking about the idea of summary statistics and how they can be applied to the results of the current study. The following tables are those referred to in the above chapter and will be mentioned in subsequent chapters. The full set of responses, give n by study participants, can be seen in Appendix B. Table 1 begins on this page: Table 1: Times N Valid 392 Missing 8 Mean 2.67 Median 2.00 Mode 2 Std. Deviation 2.296 Range 30 Sum 1046

PAGE 79

70 Table 1 (Continued): Times Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 0 8 2.0 2.0 2.0 0 1 .3 .3 2.3 0 1 .3 .3 2.6 0 2 .5 .5 3.1 0 1 .3 .3 3.3 1 13 3.3 3.3 6.6 1 90 22.5 23.0 29.6 2 105 26.3 26.8 56.4 3 70 17.5 17.9 74.2 4 61 15.3 15.6 89.8 5 18 4.5 4.6 94.4 6 8 2.0 2.0 96.4 7 2 .5 .5 96.9 8 7 1.8 1.8 98.7 10 2 .5 .5 99.2 11 1 .3 .3 99.5 15 1 .3 .3 99.7 30 1 .3 .3 100.0 Total 392 98.0 100.0 Missing System 8 2.0 Total 400 100.0 Table 2: Miss the Theater Valid 400 N Missing 0 Mean 7.23 Median 8.00 Mode 10 Std. Deviation 2.881 Range 10 Sum 2892

PAGE 80

71 Table 2 (Continued): Miss the Theater Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 0 14 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 8 2.0 2.0 5.5 2 13 3.3 3.3 8.8 3 17 4.3 4.3 13.0 4 20 5.0 5.0 18.0 5 39 9.8 9.8 27.8 6 22 5.5 5.5 33.3 7 39 9.8 9.8 43.0 8 59 14.8 14.8 57.8 9 35 8.8 8.8 66.5 10 134 33.5 33.5 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Table 3: Feelings about Critiques Valid 400 N Missing 0 Mean 3.77 Median 4.00 Mode 0 Std. Deviation 3.086 Range 10 Sum 1508 Feelings about Critiques Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 0 99 24.8 24.8 24.8 1 25 6.3 6.3 31.0 2 28 7.0 7.0 38.0 3 46 11.5 11.5 49.5 4 35 8.8 8.8 58.3 5 51 12.8 12.8 71.0 6 25 6.3 6.3 77.3 7 32 8.0 8.0 85.3 8 30 7.5 7.5 92.8 9 10 2.5 2.5 95.3 10 19 4.8 4.8 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0

PAGE 81

72 Table 4 : Feelings about Trailers Valid 398 N Missing 2 Mean 7.17 Median 8.00 Mode 8 Std. Deviation 2.607 Range 10 Sum 2854 Feelings about Trailers Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 0 15 3.8 3.8 3.8 1 3 .8 .8 4.5 2 11 2.8 2.8 7.3 3 16 4.0 4.0 11.3 4 13 3.3 3.3 14.6 5 33 8.3 8.3 22.9 6 28 7.0 7.0 29.9 7 57 14.3 14.3 44.2 8 88 22.0 22.1 66.3 9 47 11.8 11.8 78.1 10 87 21.8 21.9 100.0 Total 398 99.5 100.0 Missing System 2 .5 Total 400 100.0 Table 5: Ad Effect Valid 398 N Missing 2 Mean 5.92 Median 6.00 Mode 5 Std. Deviation 2.581 Range 10 Sum 2358

PAGE 82

73 Table 5 (Continued): Ad Effect Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 0 10 2.5 2.5 2.5 1 7 1.8 1.8 4.3 2 27 6.8 6.8 11.1 3 34 8.5 8.5 19.6 4 35 8.8 8.8 28.4 5 62 15.5 15.6 44.0 6 47 11.8 11.8 55.8 7 54 13.5 13.6 69.3 8 55 13.8 13.8 83.2 9 25 6.3 6.3 89.4 10 42 10.5 10.6 100.0 Total 398 99.5 100.0 Missing System 2 .5 Total 400 100.0 Table 6: Movie Stars Valid 398 N Missing 2 Mean 7.21 Median 8.00 Mode 10 Std. Deviation 2.328 Range 10 Sum 2869

PAGE 83

74 Table 6 (Continued): Movie Stars Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 0 5 1.3 1.3 1.3 1 3 .8 .8 2.0 2 9 2.3 2.3 4.3 3 17 4.3 4.3 8.5 4 19 4.8 4.8 13.3 5 30 7.5 7.5 20.9 6 44 11.0 11.1 31.9 7 71 17.8 17.8 49.7 8 67 16.8 16.8 66.6 9 56 14.0 14.1 80.7 10 77 19.3 19.3 100.0 Total 398 99.5 100.0 Missing System 2 .5 Total 400 100.0 Table 7: Subject Matter Valid 398 N Missing 2 Mean 7.68 Median 8.00 Mode 10 Std. Deviation 2.198 Range 10 Sum 3055

PAGE 84

75 Table 7 (Continued): Subject Matter Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 0 6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1 2 .5 .5 2.0 2 6 1.5 1.5 3.5 3 9 2.3 2.3 5.8 4 7 1.8 1.8 7.5 5 35 8.8 8.8 16.3 6 24 6.0 6.0 22.4 7 64 16.0 16.1 38.4 8 81 20.3 20.4 58.8 9 69 17.3 17.3 76.1 10 95 23.8 23.9 100.0 Total 398 99.5 100.0 Missing System 2 .5 Total 400 100.0 Table 8: Word of Mouth Valid 398 N Missing 2 Mean 6.88 Median 7.00 Mode 8 Std. Deviation 2.306 Range 10 Sum 2740

PAGE 85

76 Table 8 (Continued): Word of Mouth Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 0 11 2.8 2.8 2.8 1 2 .5 .5 3.3 2 10 2.5 2.5 5.8 3 12 3.0 3.0 8.8 4 17 4.3 4.3 13.1 5 39 9.8 9.8 22.9 6 55 13.8 13.8 36.7 7 68 17.0 17.1 53.8 8 89 22.3 22.4 76.1 9 49 12.3 12.3 88.4 10 46 11.5 11.6 100.0 Total 398 99.5 100.0 Missing System 2 .5 Total 400 100.0 Table 9: Director Valid 399 N Missing 1 Mean 3.88 Median 3.00 Mode 0 Std. Deviation 3.036 Range 10 Sum 1550

PAGE 86

77 Table 9 (Continued): Director Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 0 80 20.0 20.1 20.1 1 25 6.3 6.3 26.3 2 48 12.0 12.0 38.3 3 47 11.8 11.8 50.1 4 37 9.3 9.3 59.4 5 46 11.5 11.5 70.9 6 14 3.5 3.5 74.4 7 38 9.5 9.5 84.0 8 31 7.8 7.8 91.7 9 18 4.5 4.5 96.2 10 15 3.8 3.8 100.0 Total 399 99.8 100.0 Missing System 1 .3 Total 400 100.0 Table 10: Seeing a Movie with Someone? Valid 362 N Missing 38 Mean 1.89 Median 1.00 Mode 1 Std. Deviation .969 Range 2 Sum 685 Seeing a Movie with Someone? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid I did 191 47.8 52.8 52.8 I did and someone else 19 4.8 5.2 58.0 someone else 152 38.0 42.0 100.0 Total 362 90.5 100.0 Missing System 38 9.5 Total 400 100.0

PAGE 87

78 Table 11: Rating TV as a Medium Valid 383 N Missing 17 Mean 2.78 Median 2.00 Mode 1 Std. Deviation 2.088 Range 7 Sum 1064 Rating TV as a Medium Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 164 41.0 42.8 42.8 2 63 15.8 16.4 59.3 3 38 9.5 9.9 69.2 4 31 7.8 8.1 77.3 5 26 6.5 6.8 84.1 6 22 5.5 5.7 89.8 7 38 9.5 9.9 99.7 8 1 .3 .3 100.0 Total 383 95.8 100.0 Missing System 17 4.3 Total 400 100.0 Table 12: Rating Radio as a Medium Valid 369 N Missing 31 Mean 4.75 Median 5.00 Mode 7 Std. Deviation 2.171 Range 7 Sum 1751

PAGE 88

79 Table 12 (Continued): Rating Radio as a Medium Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 0 5 1.3 1.4 1.4 1 41 10.3 11.1 12.5 2 29 7.3 7.9 20.3 3 38 9.5 10.3 30.6 4 34 8.5 9.2 39.8 5 49 12.3 13.3 53.1 6 54 13.5 14.6 67.8 7 119 29.8 32.2 100.0 Total 369 92.3 100.0 Missing System 31 7.8 Total 400 100.0 Table 13: Rating Internet as a Medium Valid 370 N Missing 30 Mean 4.28 Median 5.00 Mode 7 Std. Deviation 2.496 Range 7 Sum 1585 Rating Internet as a Medium Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 0 9 2.3 2.4 2.4 1 80 20.0 21.6 24.1 2 35 8.8 9.5 33.5 3 26 6.5 7.0 40.5 4 28 7.0 7.6 48.1 5 33 8.3 8.9 57.0 6 33 8.3 8.9 65.9 7 126 31.5 34.1 100.0 Total 370 92.5 100.0 Missing System 30 7.5 Total 400 100.0

PAGE 89

80 Table 14: Rating Magazines as a Medium Valid 364 N Missing 36 Mean 4.79 Median 5.00 Mode 7 Std. Deviation 2.130 Range 7 Sum 1745 Rating Magazines as a Medium Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 0 6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1 37 9.3 10.2 11.8 2 23 5.8 6.3 18.1 3 38 9.5 10.4 28.6 4 40 10.0 11.0 39.6 5 49 12.3 13.5 53.0 6 54 13.5 14.8 67.9 7 117 29.3 32.1 100.0 Total 364 91.0 100.0 Missing System 36 9.0 Total 400 100.0 Table 15: Rating Newspapers as a Medium Valid 372 N Missing 28 Mean 3.92 Median 4.00 Mode 1 Std. Deviation 2.204 Range 9 Sum 1457

PAGE 90

81 Table 15 (Continued): Rating Newspapers as a Medium Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 0 3 .8 .8 .8 1 73 18.3 19.6 20.4 2 42 10.5 11.3 31.7 3 58 14.5 15.6 47.3 4 39 9.8 10.5 57.8 5 49 12.3 13.2 71.0 6 34 8.5 9.1 80.1 7 72 18.0 19.4 99.5 8 1 .3 .3 99.7 9 1 .3 .3 100.0 Total 372 93.0 100.0 Missing System 28 7.0 Total 400 100.0 Table 16: Rating Theaters as a Medium Valid 369 N Missing 31 Mean 3.23 Median 3.00 Mode 1 Std. Deviation 2.154 Range 10 Sum 1191 Rating Theaters as a Medium Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 0 3 .8 .8 .8 1 111 27.8 30.1 30.9 2 57 14.3 15.4 46.3 3 57 14.3 15.4 61.8 4 34 8.5 9.2 71.0 5 35 8.8 9.5 80.5 6 23 5.8 6.2 86.7 7 48 12.0 13.0 99.7 10 1 .3 .3 100.0 Total 369 92.3 100.0 Missing System 31 7.8 Total 400 100.0

PAGE 91

82 Table 17: Rating Word-of-Mouth as a Medium Valid 372 N Missing 28 Mean 3.52 Median 3.00 Mode 3 Std. Deviation 1.925 Range 7 Sum 1308 Rating Word-of-Mouth as a Medium Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 0 1 .3 .3 .3 1 61 15.3 16.4 16.7 2 69 17.3 18.5 35.2 3 81 20.3 21.8 57.0 4 47 11.8 12.6 69.6 5 44 11.0 11.8 81.5 6 25 6.3 6.7 88.2 7 44 11.0 11.8 100.0 Total 372 93.0 100.0 Missing System 28 7.0 Total 400 100.0 Table 18: $5 Increase-Yes or No Valid 397 N Missing 3 Mean 1.44 Median 1.00 Mode 1 Std. Deviation .728 Range 3 Sum 571

PAGE 92

83 Table 18 (Continued): $5 Increase-Yes or No Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No 262 65.5 66.0 66.0 Yes 113 28.3 28.5 94.5 No? 5 1.3 1.3 95.7 Yes? 17 4.3 4.3 100.0 Total 397 99.3 100.0 Missing System 3 .8 Total 400 100.0 Table 19: How Much Do Movies Make Up Your Entertainment? Valid 396 N Missing 4 Mean 6.15 Median 7.00 Mode 7 Std. Deviation 2.596 Range 10 Sum 2434 How Much Do Movies Make Up Your Entertainment? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 0 6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1 7 1.8 1.8 3.3 2 30 7.5 7.6 10.9 3 29 7.3 7.3 18.2 4 35 8.8 8.8 27.0 5 57 14.3 14.4 41.4 6 32 8.0 8.1 49.5 7 66 16.5 16.7 66.2 8 52 13.0 13.1 79.3 9 35 8.8 8.8 88.1 10 47 11.8 11.9 100.0 Total 396 99.0 100.0 Missing System 4 1.0 Total 400 100.0

PAGE 93

84 Table 20: Age Ranges Valid 397 N Missing 3 Mean 4.08 Median 4.00 Mode 1 Std. Deviation 2.549 Range 10 Sum 1621 Age Ranges Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 18-22 83 20.8 20.9 20.9 23-27 55 13.8 13.9 34.8 28-32 52 13.0 13.1 47.9 33-37 34 8.5 8.6 56.4 38-42 55 13.8 13.9 70.3 43-47 43 10.8 10.8 81.1 48-52 32 8.0 8.1 89.2 53-57 23 5.8 5.8 95.0 58-62 9 2.3 2.3 97.2 63-67 7 1.8 1.8 99.0 68-72 4 1.0 1.0 100.0 Total 397 99.3 100.0 Missing System 3 .8 Total 400 100.0 Table 21: Sex( m, f, or no) Valid 400 N Missing 0 Mean 1.48 Median 1.00 Mode 1 Std. Deviation .524 Range 2 Sum 590

PAGE 94

85 Table 21 (Continued): Sex( m, f, or no) Freque ncy Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Female 215 53.8 53.8 53.8 Male 180 45.0 45.0 98.8 Both or no answer 5 1.3 1.3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Table 22: Counts for Feelings about Critiques Feelings about Critiques10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0Count120 100 80 60 40 20 0

PAGE 95

86 Table 23: Counts for Fee lings about Trailers Feelings about trailers10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 MissingCount100 80 60 40 20 0 Table 24: Counts for Ad Effect ad effect10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 MissingCount70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

PAGE 96

87 Table 25: Counts for Movie Stars movie stars10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 MissingCount100 80 60 40 20 0 Table 26: Counts for Subject Matter subject matter10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 MissingCount100 80 60 40 20 0

PAGE 97

88 Table 27 : Counts for Word-of-Mouth word of mouth10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 MissingCount100 80 60 40 20 0 Table 28: Counts for Director director10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 MissingCount100 80 60 40 20 0

PAGE 98

89 Table 29: General Linear Model: Within-Subjects Factors Measure: MEASURE_1 VIEW Dependent Variable 1 CRITIC 2 TRAILERS 3 ADS 4 STARS 5 GENRE 6 MOUTH 7 DIRECTOR Estimated Marginal MeansVIEW VIEW Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 3.773 .155 3.468 4.078 2 7.189 .130 6.934 7.445 3 5.917 .130 5.662 6.171 4 7.207 .117 6.977 7.438 5 7.692 .109 7.478 7.906 6 6.889 .116 6.661 7.117 7 3.856 .152 3.558 4.155

PAGE 99

90 Table 30: Correlations Correlation 1 .17 ** .20 ** .19 ** .05 .10 .23 ** .00 .24 ** .00 .00 .00 .28 .04 .00 .99 .00 3798.84 559.54 651.14 565.97 145.50 288.48 883.85 777.03 9.52 1.40 1.64 1.42 .36 .72 2.22 1.96 400 398 398 398 398 398 399 393 396 .17 ** 1 .39 ** .30 ** .20 ** .15 ** .01 .31 ** .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .78 .90 .00 559.54 2698.38 1041.12 738.81 460.04 356.33 43.63 844.37 1.40 6.79 2.62 1.86 1.15 .90 .11 2.14 398 398 398 398 398 396 397 391 394 .20 ** .39 ** 1 .36 ** .16 ** .21 ** .10 .11 .31 ** .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .04 .02 .00 651.14 1041.12 2643.73 862.25 375.27 511.33 310.63 264.22 840.82 1.64 2.62 6.65 2.17 .94 1.29 .78 .67 2.14 398 398 398 398 398 396 397 391 394 .19 ** .30 ** .36 ** 1 .24 ** .08 .21 ** .07 .28 ** .00 .00 .00 .00 .09 .00 .12 .00 565.97 738.81 862.25 2151.69 489.90 180.11 611.53 162.95 668.04 1.42 1.86 2.17 5.42 1.23 .45 1.54 .41 1.70 398 398 398 398 398 396 397 391 394 .05 .20 ** .16 ** .24 ** 1 .25 ** .13 ** .03 .17 ** .28 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .48 .00 145.50 460.04 375.27 489.90 1917.18 496.44 346.45 68.89 395.37 .36 1.15 .94 1.23 4.82 1.25 .87 .17 1.00 398 398 398 398 398 396 397 391 394 .10 .15 ** .21 ** .08 .25 ** 1 .21 ** .06 .11 .04 .00 .00 .09 .00 .00 .21 .01 288.48 356.33 511.33 180.11 496.44 2110.68 600.99 127.06 276.93 .72 .90 1.29 .45 1.25 5.31 1.51 .32 .70 398 396 396 396 396 398 398 391 394 .23 ** .01 .10 .21 ** .13 ** .21 ** 1 .20 ** .24 ** .00 .78 .04 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 883.85 43.63 310.63 611.53 346.45 600.99 3668.69 544.61 749.43 2.22 .11 .78 1.54 .87 1.51 9.21 1.39 1.90 399 397 397 397 397 398 399 392 395 .00 .11 .07 .03 .06 .20 ** 1 .36 ** .99 .90 .02 .12 .48 .21 .00 .00 264.22 162.95 68.89 127.06 544.61 2063.41 840.28 .67 .41 .17 .32 1.39 5.26 2.16 393 391 391 391 391 391 392 393 390 .24 ** .31 ** .31 ** .28 ** .17 ** .11 .24 ** .36 ** 1 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01 .00 .00 777.03 844.37 840.82 668.04 395.37 276.93 749.43 840.28 2661.50 1.96 2.14 2.14 1.70 1.00 .70 1.90 2.16 6.73 396 394 394 394 394 394 395 390 396 Pearson Sig. (2Sum of Squares CrossCovarian N Pearson Sig. (2Sum of Squares CrossCovarian N Pearson Sig. (2Sum of Squares CrossCovarian N Pearson Sig. (2Sum of Squares CrossCovarian N Pearson Sig. (2Sum of Squares CrossCovarian N Pearson Sig. (2Sum of Squares CrossCovarian N Pearson Sig. (2Sum of Squares CrossCovarian N Pearson Sig. (2Sum of Squares CrossCovarian N Pearson Sig. (2Sum of Squares CrossCovarian N Feelings about Feelings about ad movie subject word of directo Times per How much do make up entertainme Feeling abou Critique Feeling about ad movie subject word of directo Times mont How much movies up entertainm t? Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level **. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level *.

PAGE 100

91 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND CLOSING THOUGHTS According to mass media research, the mo st common type of central tendency statistic to use in comparing values comes fr om the idea of means, the average score of all responses given. The mean has a brothe r summary statistic known as the mode, which represents the value that occurs most ofte n. Summary statistics help make data more manageable by measuring central tendency and variability. In other words, they handle any outrageous values, low or high, and they put everything on a more even playing field (Wimmer and Dominick, 2000). The median, an other summary statistic which measures values about the middle value, was di scussed by Wimmer and Dominic as being unreliable and the least useful, so it will not be used in this study and analysis (Wimmer and Dominick, 2000). These two summary statistics (mean and mode) were found through SPSS to answer the research questions and to examine which research questions were the highest in mean and mode. This will aid in looking for which reason(s) people go to the movies the most out of all the reas ons used in the questi onnaire. Here are the results of comparing means and modes of que stion 3 through question 9 (see tables 4-10, see above); Order by means: 1) Subject matter/genre=7.68 2) Movie stars=7.21 3) Trailers/previews=7.17 4) Word-of-Mouth=6.88

PAGE 101

92 5) Ads=5.92 6) Critiques=3.77 7) Director=3.88 According to the numbering of these mean s, each mean rounded indicates that the higher the number, the more a respondent answer ed closer to the “Ver y Influential” mark on the survey. The closer the number is to 10, the higher the influence. This order indicates that respondents felt that subject matter and movie stars were of the highest interest to them in choosing a movie to see. The modes mirrored a similar sequence to the means in the current survey with some ties: Order by mode: 1) Subject matter and movie stars= both 10 2) Word-of-mouth and trailers= both 8 3) Ads=5 4) Critiques and directors= both 0 However, the mean is a more closely be lieved statistic and mode has also been described as being misleading (Wimmer and Dominick, 2000). It is important to pay closer attention to the m eans in this study while using the modes as a back up. Using the same principles of mode and m ean, the values for question 11 were also examined, where people rated how they f ound out about movies through various media (TV, Radio, Internet, magazines, newspapers movie theaters, and word-of-mouth). The selection consisted of using the numbers 1 to 7 to rate each media separately, although an unknown number of respondents answered th e question as a ranking question. The

PAGE 102

93 questionnaire itself says “rate” not “rank.” For this reason, such a question may need to be further researched. The means and modes will be documented and speculations will be made based on data collected. In this pa rticular question (11), “1” meant “most often used” and “7” was “seldom if ever used,” so the lower number is what we are looking for: Order by mean (check tables 12-18): 1) TV=2.78 2) Theaters=3.23 3) Word-of-mouth=3.52 4) Newspapers=3.92 5) Internet=4.28 6) Radio=4.75 7) Magazines=4.79 Order by mode: -TV, newspapers, and theat ers all had a mode of 1 -Word-of-mouth had a mode of 3 -Radio, Internet, and magazines all had a mode of 7 A brief analysis was made on the above media use based on the questionnaire in Appendix A. According to the figures in Tables 11-17, respo ndents find out about movies in theaters primarily from TV and the theaters themselves. The sources least used here were radio, Internet, and magazines by the respondents in this study. Word-ofmouth and newspapers were somewhere in-b etween. In speculation and by examining the results of this study, it w ould be advisable for advertis ers to keep improving TV and

PAGE 103

94 theater exposure for those choos ing movies, and to rebuild or improve existing ways that radio, the Internet, and magazines advertise mo vies. This could al so be true because more of the population has easier access to TV, even if they do not own one. There are TVs in such well-visited areas as shopping malls restaurants, and depa rtment stores. Not everyone, even in recent times, owns a computer or has Internet access.1 It would be good to advertise on the Inte rnet by using theater trailers and by providing visible access to web sites as movi es have been doing in theaters now. A movie-patron will see an Internet address near the end of a trailer or at the bottom of a movie poster to access more info rmation about a certain movie. It would also be good to improve advertising in the radio and in magazi nes while retaining existing mean values in the highest used media of this current study. Looking at Likert Scales The next step is to analyze the results fr om the previous chapter for this current study. This will begin with relevant speculati ons and analysis concerning Likert scale answers. Based on analysis of question 2, one could speculate that the majority of respondents who were surveyed would miss the theater experience. Theaters are not in danger based on the fact that 134 respondents ci rcled or marked the answer of 10, leading to "very much," and only about 14 said 0 or "not at all." Furthermore, over 66 % of the respondents had an answer that was over th e number 7, meaning they care greatly about 1 Statistical information from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, proves this statement: As of August 2000, 41.5% of the Nation's 105 million households, or 43.6 million homes, had Internet access. Thus, 58.5% of hou seholds (61.6 million) were not connected electronically In contrast, in December 1998 there were 76.5 mil lion unconnected househol ds (73.8%). This m ovement represents a substantial decline in both the proportion (15.3 percentage points) and number (a drop of 14.9 million) of non-Internet households relative to 20 months earlier. (U.S. Department of Commerce 2000)

PAGE 104

95 the movie theater experience and its existence. So, people are attending theaters despite the other alternatives to watching a movi e such as cable, DVD, and rentals. The following discussion concerned the answ ers to the questions that represented the primary research variables in this study (ads, critiques, tr ailers, movie-star influence, director influence, word-of-mouth in fluence, and genre/subject matter): For question 3, respondents were asked to ra te the influences of critiques on their movie viewing choice. The highest majority of respondents answered 0 to this question, indicating that they are not usi ng critiques as an influence in their decision of movie. This was different than the initial speculati on in this study (see Chapter 1), where it was thought that respondents would hi ghly consider the views of cr itiques and critics before they made their movie choice at the theater. For question 4, which concerned the im pact of watching trailers on movieviewing choice, the highest majority of respondents answered 7 to this question, indicating a high influence of wa tching trailers on their movi e-viewing choice. This was not the highest mode or mean, but it did ha ve many respondents grade it as having a high influence on their movie-viewing choice. It is significant because a trailer usually gives some subject matter and lists the primary stars of the movie. Both of these items, subject matter and movie stars, had the highest mean s and modes for the entire study. Subject matter and movie-star power were the biggest reasons behind a person’s movie-viewing choice in this study. This will be discussed later in this chapter. For questions 5 concerning ad effect, the highest majority of respondents answered 5 to this question, indicating that it was a question that was most wavered on and could have affected overall respondent de cision either way. Advertising companies

PAGE 105

96 would be smart to work on these responde nts because these people could be the difference makers in deciding whether a person will be attending a movie in a theater or not. A speculation would be to make the ads more like the trailers, giving more subject matter for a person to digest than a single catch phrase. For questions 6 and 7 (movie stars and s ubject matter, respectively) there is sufficient evidence from this study to indica te that these two measures would be the highest in helping people make their decision about what movie they want to see. There were 77 respondents who gave the movie-st ar question a 10, which was the highest percent and frequency from all values by a ll respondents who answer ed the question in this category. There was also a 95 % responde nt majority who thought that genre/subject matter was a high influence by circling a 10 on the survey. As a result of this study, it would appear that people pay the most attenti on to subject matter and the stars of a movie when they choose a mo vie at the theater. For question 9 concerning the influence of the director on movie-viewing choice, the mean was 3.88 and the mode was 0. This indicates one of the lowest reasons why respondents go to the movies according to the current study. The majority of respondents gave the answer of 0 for this question. This also indicates that the director is not a big influence on people’s movie-viewi ng choice and was less of a force than was originally speculated. The re searchers had thought this would be of greater importance than it actually was. People did not pay much attention to who directs a movie when they choose what they will watch at a theater After analyzing the relevant Likert scale questions, ther e was an analysis of the written responses to the que stionnaires presented in th is survey. For question 10,

PAGE 106

97 concerning whether respondents saw a movie by themselves or were influenced by someone else, it is important to note that a majority of respondents choose the movie themselves; 191 out of a valid 362 stated they chose the movie themselves. Nineteen people went above what the que stion asked and said they wa nted to see it as well as someone else. From this analysis, it appear s that people will go to a movie at a theater because of someone else or just go because they themselves are interested in a particular movie. This will not be focused on in this study as it was not a primary goal and was used to gauge respondents’ reasons for going to the movies on their own. Table 18 showed the results of frequencies, means, and percents for the answer to question 12, whether respondents would favor a $5 increase in ticket prices for movies. Not surprising was the 262 res pondents who said “no” to a tic ket increase as this was the majority of respondents answers. What wa s surprising were the people who had added extra qualifications to be followed before th ey said “yes” or “no” to this question (22 people said they would agree “yes” or “no” but had added extra words on the survey). The primary investigator observed physical and emotional responses to this question, which could be another area of study. Ma ny people exhibited high feelings for saying “no” to this question and made verbal statements even though they were not asked to do so. For example, one respondent had la ughed after seeing the question and another respondent would say something like “It w ould have to be a really good movie.” Of the 396 respondents who answered this question, the biggest majority of respondents gave a 7 for their feelings on movies as entertainment, so there is a relation between wanting to go to the movies and usi ng them as means of entertainment. People have not lost their interest in the movie-goi ng experience as opposed to going to a video

PAGE 107

98 store or watching a movie on the Internet (s ee Appendix A/questionnaire). This also mirrors what was originally researched in Chapter 2 by Bruce A. Austin, that people still go to movies in theaters despite the other ways to watch movies that technology will allow (Austin 1989). While looking at the age bracket questi on of the current study, the highest percentage of ages came from the 18-22 year old bracket, with 83 respondents answering out of a valid 397. The second highest age br ackets for this survey came from 23-27 and 38-42, both tied at 55 respondents apiece. Th is study had no respondents who were over the 68-72 age bracket. It appears the average moviegoer comes before this age bracket, which is related to Hollywood figures indi cating a majority of those who go to the movies are young. For the purpose of this study, figures are proven true regarding the fact that a majority of movi e patrons are young adults or t eenagers (18-27 years old). This is supported by recent figures on the movie 2 Fast 2 Furious where “it was a predominantly young, male audience for 2 Fast as 64 percent checked the box for the word-of-mouth and a sizable 76 percent were under 25 years of age” (Movies.com 2003). From analysis of question 14 using the curr ent study results, it would seem that the viewing public enjoys a good comedy and this leads back to the id ea that subject matter had such a high mean. With Bringing Down the House and Anger Management it would appear that comedy has a domi nant hold on people's top choice to go to the movies. Since both of these movies also feature big name stars, it would appear that the high mean for movie stars is also justified. In using the question 15 on why pe ople were motivated to see the movie in question 14, several responses could be considered for future resear ch including the book

PAGE 108

99 response, which is important since many fi lms are based on novels (Patriot Games Lord of the Rings Bridges of Madison County etc.) and the rating response, but the majority of respondents had responses that fit into all the major categories mentioned in the questionnaire as a Likert scale (0-10). This question proved that the current study touched on a majority of reasons why people go to the movies. It should be noted that very few people mentioned “director” for ques tion 15 and it had the lowest Likert scale mean. With this in mind, subject matter (a r ounded 8) and movie stars (a rounded 7) were the primary reasons why respondents went to the movie theater to see a film. These means were also fairly high on the Likert scales for “Very Influential,” so there is truth to this previous statement. The same goes for the two lowest means for critiques and the director influence, where respondents did not rely highly on these two items for moviechoice in a theater setting. This can be verified by question 15, where not many respondents listed director as a fi rst prompt in seeing a movie. Now that the non-bar graph results have b een analyzed, there will be an analysis of the important bar graphs as they relate to the current study. This begins with Table 22. This table showed the responses to questi on 3. The x-axis shows each number of the Likert scale and the y-axis shows how many people answered that way (Ex: about 100 people answered 0 to question 3). The lowe st value came from respondents answering 9 to this question and the highest came from those answering 0. A majority of the responses came before the middle value of 5, indicating critiques did not have a very high influence on a respondent’s choice of movie.

PAGE 109

100 Table 23 shows the responses to questi on 4. The lowest value came from respondents answering 1 to question 4 about th e influence of trailers on movie choice. This does not include the fact that the absolute lowest count came from those values that were missing because a respondent did not answer this question or forgot to answer it. The highest number for res pondents here was a close tie between the number 8 and 10, with 8 being the highest. Since a majority of the responses fall af ter the middle value of 5, it would appear that trailers have a substantial effect on a respondent's choice of movie at a theater within this study. In Table 25, there are respons es to question 6 on the que stionnaire. This deals with how much movie-star power effects m ovie viewing choice. The highest bar came from those respondents who answered 10 to this question, thus reinfo rcing the high effect of movie stars on a respondent’s movie-viewing choice. A ma jority of the responses are after the number 5, so this supports the huge effect that respondent s feel about seeing their favorite stars on the big screen. Table 26 shows the responses to questi on 7 on the questionnair e that concerned the effect of subject matter and genre on movie-viewing choice. Most respondents answered above the number 5 to this question, reinforcing that subject matter/genre has a high value among the mean values of the gi ven research questions. It was a high consideration in choosing a movie at the theater for respondents. Table 27 shows the responses to question 8 on the survey concerning the effect of word of mouth. A majority of respondents answered above the number 5, indicating this did highly impact a respondent’s wish to go see a movie or chose one.

PAGE 110

101 Table 28 shows the responses to ques tion 9 on the survey/questionnaire, concerning the effect of the director on m ovie-viewing choice. There are missing values, but the lowest bar came from respondents who answered 10 or 6. As stated earlier, the highest bar came from those who answered 0. This showed one of the lowest reasons why people choose movies at the theater. Th is was proven further by looking at the mean values of all the primary variables (see Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 for means). A majority of the responses were before the number 5, indicating not very much influence of this variable on movie-viewing choice. Overall, most of the Pearson Correlations were positive, indicating their mutual usefulness in this thesis and the accompanying questionnaire. There is a relationship, but Pearson Correlations do not prove causa tion (Wimmer and Dominick, 2000). The strength or magnitude of these relationships was highest for the fo llowing relationships: Feelings about trailers and ad effect (.390) Times per month and the entertainment question (.367) Ad effect and movie stars (.362) The entertainment question and ad effect (.319) The entertainment question a nd feelings about trailers (.318) Feelings about traile rs and movie stars (.307) In looking at Pearson Correlations, it beco mes helpful to look at their strength, looking at their absolute value between the ranges of +1.0 and –1.0. (Wimmer and Dominick, 2000). As you can see, most of thes e relationships are cl oser to +1.0, but not as close as a 0.9 or 0.6 value. This indicates there is an existing relationship, but not the specifics of that relationship. This is what can be taken aw ay from such correlations in

PAGE 111

102 real terms of the data and the real world impact: there were relationships between the variables and the questio ns asked in the current survey. They also proved that this study is trying to serve the primary purpose of discovering why people go to movies in the theaters. The Pearson tests we re performed to judge the rese arch questions in this study based on their pertinence, as well as the e ffect on times per month and the question of how much movies make up a re spondent's entertainment. Since there was primary focus on research questions and not on a hypothesis in this study, ot her researchers may want to perform a hypothesis predicting the influence of the listed research questions in this study and possibly judge a positive or negative eff ect on times per month and the entertainment question. The focus of the current study was to prove valid correlations, and the Pearson correlations have helped prove that as well as verify the reasons for using each of the research questions as Likert scale answers. Closing Thoughts Based upon the above research and the resu lting data analysis in this study, it would appear that there are high relations between movie-viewing choice and movie stars, trailers, subject matter and genre, ad s (such as those for a movie poster) and wordof-mouth. This means that theaters and the movie industry should focus on these in order to get people to go see a movie in the th eater. There was a low correlation between movie-viewing choice and critique s and the director of the film. This does not mean such figures are not factors in movi e-viewing choice, but they are not the primary reasons why people go see a movie in the theater as a resu lt of this study. Respondents were basically concerned with the subject matter and the stars of a movie when they went to the theater.

PAGE 112

103 The information contained in this study can be used in different respects. According to the analysis of data, traile rs and theaters would be advised to stop promoting the various critics during their tr ailers and previews because people are not going to theaters because of what a critic wr ote or said. Respondents also felt the same about the director. As it pe rtains to this study, respondents did not really go to a movie because of the director. It is not always neces sary for trailers or movie previews to bring up who directed what film because people will be paying primary attention to what the movie is about as this is the main reason why people go to the movies according to this study. Respondents favored subject matter the most So, it would be in the best interest of movie theaters to focus on making better tr ailers and giving the subject matter of a movie without leading the audience on about the movie’s details. This means not giving away the whole movie or people might not want to see it in the theaters when they know it will come out later on video. In regards to the written responses given in question 12, about a “yes” or “no” to a five dollar increase in movie ticket prices several respondents ga ve written answers accompanying the question which only asked a re spondent to circle “yes” or “no.” Many of the responses indicated conditions to their answer, which indicates that this is a topic of debate and possible future research. It is assumed people would rather pay a lower price for a movie if that were made availabl e. 22 people in this study said they had conditions even when they were not asked to give them. More than half of these respondents indicated that they would see movies less or not as often and these same respondents both “no” and “yes.” Many responde nts, including those not of this 22, also had physical and verbal responses to this que stion indicating it was a charged question for

PAGE 113

104 respondents. It would be a good point for futu re researchers to touch on these types of responses and find out what is more or less im portant to movie-goers than the price of a ticket. For the purpose of this current study, it can be speculated that movie theaters and the motion picture association (MPAA) would be smart to keep ticket prices down or provide something that other movie-watching alternatives cannot give to keep more people from looking to different entertainment. Respondents in this study even suggested DVD, cable, and rentals as altern atives. A clear majority of respondents said no to this question 12, and these extra 22 could be placed on the fringe with their conditions about seeing a movie based on an increase in ticket price. Movie theaters would be smart to further analyze these types of moviegoers if they want to keep people coming to see movies in theaters. There are certain problems that may have inte rfered in the analys is of the data and its recording process. To be gin with, some marks were uncl ear to the researchers as to what number was written as in question 11. A “3” could be mistaken by the primary investigator for a “5” and so forth. In this case, the best guess was chosen. There were also couples or family members who worked together to answer one survey when only one was necessary. This was encouraged if only one part of a coupl e or group could fill out a survey and in other instances it was just letting the participant decide what to do. Other times, the same couple that was surv eyed may have been seeing the same movie and therefore may have similar responses. For the purpose of our thesis, all responses were taken into consideration whether they were for the same movie or not because anyone may have a different set of responses for the survey. These possible problems

PAGE 114

105 may have effected some categories, but not to the effect of damaging the survey methodology in this case. Another interesting problem presented itsel f at both theater locations when asking to have respondents fill out questionnaires. This involve d possible respondents who did not see a movie, but were in the area of the theater at the time th at the questionnaire was given. Cinemark’s theater in Orlando wa s part of a developing mall complex called Festival Bay, so it is possible some exiting respondents had not seen a movie even though they exited near the main theater exit. As for the Gator Cinemas in Gainesville, the theater was part of a strip ma ll, where some of the respondents appeared to go to a theater and may have just been passing by, and re spondents were nice enough to answer the survey for the primary investigator. Some of the participants di d not follow the posted directi ons, but this could be for any number of reasons such as nervousness, need for glasses by some of the respondents, respondents did not read the directions, res pondents needed further information but did not ask, and/or respondents did not take the surv ey seriously. In fu ture research, it may be necessary to talk people through such quest ionnaires rather than just observing them fill it out in order to be sure they under stand the questionnaire, even if it is selfexplanatory. Each respondent was told to answer the 17 questions and they all read the directions and questions, but th ere may have been some discrepancies. For example, a person gave an “X” instead of circling in wh ich case the “X” was interpreted as a circle. One question could have been better handled because of its wording to respondents. Question 11 was changed from an original rank question to a rate question. The wording became confusing for some respondents as observed by the primary investigator, and

PAGE 115

106 some respondents did appear to rank this que stion even though rating was involved. In hindsight, the listing should have been 1, 2, 3,... instead of just listing 1 and 7. Each medium should have had its own Likert scale. The following regards attaini ng surveys and is addressed to future researchers in this area of study. It is the belief of the researchers that if more local theaters had allowed the primary investigator to work near their property, then it would have been unnecessary for traveling to Or lando to get the n ecessary survey amount. It was odd that theaters turned down the use of these surveys even after permission was requested. This survey, as well as this entire study, was meant to benefit the theater patrons as well as the owners. This calls for a reform in this case. It is understandable th at giving a survey at a theater may interfere in “someone’s good time, ” but these people had already seen their movie when the primary investigator asked them to fill out a survey and the survey itself was voluntary. People did not have to fill it out if they did not want to. In the future, the theaters near a university shoul d have a more open relations hip with students and other researchers, so it would be unnecessary for su ch research to be conducted out of town. Since the research needed a wide array of responses, it was an unexpected bonus in traveling to Orlando and a wide r variety of responses was obt ained than would have been obtained in Gainesville. For these above reas ons, theaters should work with students and other schools, maybe on an agreed upon limit of surveys, like 50 or 100, before the student/investigator would have to get help in other surrounding areas. Two theaters the researchers would especially like to thank were Gator Cinemas in the Oaks Mall Plaza and Cinemark Theater in Orlando, both of wh om were the primary contributors to this thesis and the survey responses.

PAGE 116

107 If this thesis were to be re peated, it would probably be in the best interest of future researchers to make sure that theaters are accep ting of the idea of surveys, work with the school/university to get a better sample idea or to obtain the information through other means, such as e-mail or at another venue other than a theater. This was a purposive study in that it was performed at the very pla ce where such data would benefit the general public and the state of Florida. The idea of validity needs to be discusse d in the case of the current study, which may have led to certain mistakes for the research As it pertains to internal validity, it is always important to ask the question, “Doe s the study really inve stigate the proposed research question?” For the pur poses of this study, the primar y research questions are all geared to discover why people go the movies (the main question in this study). There may have been other reasons for people going to the movies other than those used for questioning, but the primary concern was that people were already at the theater to see a movie. A few people were asked what they base their movie-going behavior on and why they choose movies as well as examining ex isting research as stated in chapter 2 (Wimmer and Dominick, 2000). As this study pertains to external valid ity, it may be possible to use this example study among different states a nd even countries. Movies ar e a national as well as an international business (Wimmer and Dominic k, 2000). There are movie theaters all over the United States and the rest of the world. This is a speculation by the current study’s results. The researchers did not know who would answer the questionnaire and the researchers were unaware of their responses. It must also be noted that this study’s results are specific to the th eaters studied and the time of year and day the study was

PAGE 117

108 performed. All of this would ha ve to be taken into considerat ion if similar future studies were to be performed. Each questionnaire was also replicated several times (400). Some of the other problems that resulted from this study could include respondent error (possible lies, misunderstanding of the questions, and a willingness to appeal to the general nature of the movie-go ing public as well as to appe al to what the investigator may want), the questions asked may have onl y scratched the surface on why people go to the movies, problems with putting some of the response answers into generalities, calculation problems by the primary investigator or recording problem s, recording people after they saw a movie as opposed to before, and the possible interf erence of when and where respondents saw their last movie. There are many future applications for th is research. To start, it could help companies advertise the best way possible to the movie-goi ng public and provide for a new way to look at the public's view on movies as opposed to what a studio or a critic may think, perhaps leading to different movie ra tings, grades, and critiques. This research could also provide what means of market ing for a movie should be improved and see how theaters could better compete in deali ng with other avenues of watching a movie (rental, cable, etc.). Finally, this thesis can be used as a comparison to see the changes new technologies have caused for th e movie-going public since the 1986 study. Overall, it appears movie th eaters are in no immediate danger of facing extinction and the media supporting them will remain stro ng. People will still be coming to see a movie in a theater based on the stars and the subject matter, the heart and soul of any movie.

PAGE 118

109 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE Sample Movie Interest Survey 1. About how many times per month do you go to an actual movie theater to see a movie? 2. On a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 mean ing not at all and 10 meaning very much, how much would you miss seeing a movie in the th eater if the theater service was no longer available? Circle the number below which be st represents your opinion: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT AT ALL VERY MUCH 3. Using the same 0-10 scale, how much do movie critiques in the newspaper, magazines, on TV, etc. make you want to go to a movie theater to watch a movie? Circle the number below which best represents your opinion: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT AT ALL VERY INFLUENTIAL

PAGE 119

110 Note: The next few questions will use the same 0-10 scale. 4. How much do trailers/ previews on televisi on and in the theater make you want to go to a movie theater to watch a movie? Circle the number below which best represents your opinion: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT AT ALL VERY INFLUENTIAL 5. How much do ads on television, newspapers magazines, radio, and the Internet (For example: movie posters) make you want to go to a movie theater to watch a movie? Circle the number below which best represents your opinion: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT AT ALL VERY INFLUENTIAL 6. How much do stars (particular actors/ act resses) in a movie make you want to go to a movie theater to watch a movie? Circle the number below which best represents your opinion: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT AT ALL VERY INFLUENTIAL

PAGE 120

111 7. How much does subject matter/genre (ex. action, comedy, horror, and science fiction) of a movie make you want to go to a movie theater to watch a movie? Circle the number below which best represents your opinion: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT AT ALL VERY INFLUENTIAL 8. How much does word of mouth enti ce you to go see a movie in the theater? Circle the number below which best represents your opinion: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT AT ALL VERY INFLUENTIAL 9. How much does the director of a movi e make you want to go see a movie in the theater? Circle the number below which best represents your opinion: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT AT ALL VERY INFLUENTIAL

PAGE 121

112 10. Are you seeing a movie today because you wanted to see it or because of someone else? If someone else, who (just give tit les not names, for example-Husband, friend, boyfriend, sister, brother, etc.)? 11. Using the list below, please rate each of the seven medi ums on a scale of 1-7, with seven meaning you use the medium quite ofte n and 1 meaning you seldom if ever use it to find out about movies coming to theaters in your area? 1= “Most Often Used” 7= “Seldom If Ever Used” ___ TV ___ Radio ___ The Internet ___ Magazines ___ Newspapers ___ Movie Theaters ___ Word of Mouth

PAGE 122

113 12. If there were a $5 increase in movie ti cket prices, would you still go to the movie theater? Circle one below: YES NO 13. On a scale of 0-10, with 0 meaning not at all and 10 meaning very much, how much do you rely on movies in a theater for entertainment? Circle the number below which best represents your opinion: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT AT ALL VERY MUCH 14. What film are you planning on seeing? 15. What first prompted you to want to see this film? 16. Circle the age bracket below that you most cl osely fit into: Below 18 18-22 23-27 28-32 33-37 38-42 43-47 48-52 53-57 58-62 63-67 68-72 73-77 78-82 83-87 Above 87

PAGE 123

114 17. What is your sex? Circle one below: MALE FEMALE

PAGE 124

115 APPENDIX B TABLE OF RESPONSES Listed in this appendix is the data set from all responses obtained in the survey from subject one to 400. This was obtained using an Excel spreadsheet program and was copied onto this study. As you read down, each column is in order as it is in the questionnaire from Appendix A. The top headings are the questions and everything underneath them is a response from a study subject. When a new heading starts, the subjects start at subject 1 ag ain. For example, “Newspapers” at the left hand column on page 128 starts with subject 1 again and so forth. Any blank spaces in the data set indicate a respondent did not answer or forgot to answer a question: Table 31: Respondent Answers Subject Times Miss theater CritiquesTrailersAds Stars Subject matter 1 5676 6 6 2 49484 8 5 3 454102 3 9 4 19533 7 7 5 3710103 8 8 6 1801010 3 8 7 410688 8 9 8 9064 5 9 9 0.50052 5 5 10 277109 9 9 11 38563 4 5 12 1710109 5 9 13 11001010 10 10 14 15597 8 8 15 310899 9 10 16 271088 9 8 17 190106 10 10 18 290105 10 10 19 16088 8 9

PAGE 125

116 20 17683 7 9 21 152214 2 10 22 29199 9 9 23 37066 10 9 24 410025 8 8 25 47385 7 5 26 410008 10 10 27 69573 5 8 28 3104106 7 3 29 3881010 10 9 30 28066 4 7 31 2101077 8 8 32 0.50031 7 10 33 5598 5 4 34 03443 6 6 35 15194 8 8 36 0.5981010 10 10 37 410583 5 8 38 11001010 6 10 39 310288 5 7 40 110492 8 8 41 510277 10 8 42 51041010 8 8 43 17486 8 8 44 350105 5 0 45 24175 4 7 46 15366 9 8 47 254108 10 9 48 310888 9 9 49 310643 2 5 50 210299 7 9 51 21133 5 2 52 370010 8 0 53 4536 6 8 54 31001010 10 5 55 0.53188 6 6 56 37387 6 10 57 210086 10 10 58 23534 3 6 59 1101105 8 7 60 110999 9 8 61 285108 9 10 62 24154 5 5 63 210555 8 5 64 28544 9 7 65 0.55583 8 9

PAGE 126

117 66 32283 7 5 67 0303 0 0 68 26275 8 8 69 275 70 19486 9 6 71 27576 6 7 72 110775 8 8 73 110065 10 7 74 16077 7 7 75 08898 10 8 76 160108 10 9 77 16001 1 1 78 29797 9 5 79 48399 6 8 80 13194 5 5 81 19277 10 8 82 4100100 8 10 83 410075 6 10 84 38725 8 9 85 21042 2 4 86 0.32288 9 10 87 15364 7 8 88 21010104 7 8 89 0.53193 8 7 90 4108108 8 5 91 29588 7 7 92 38055 3 7 93 18687 9 9 94 280105 9 9 95 22187 6 10 96 44001 0 4 97 17309 6 9 98 0.58090 8 10 99 2106107 10 8 100 210697 2 9 101 110497 6 3 102 26155 6 7 103 27477 7 9 104 110687 7 7 105 210397 6 7 106 0.551105 10 5 107 39576 5 7 108 310052 7 7 109 310857 8 2 110 410388 10 9 111 28067 6 7

PAGE 127

118 112 110799 8 10 113 25034 6 10 114 5100108 10 9 115 5100108 10 10 116 710285 8 9 117 48287 8 7 118 310288 7 7 119 3107107 8 10 120 01022 10 10 121 25685 6 7 122 18055 8 0 123 25155 3 8 124 30022 4 9 125 06297 7 8 126 17586 9 9 127 13574 7 8 128 23355 4 8 129 110698 10 10 130 24082 7 6 131 15375 7 9 132 13055 7 5 133 2108106 10 10 134 310388 9 10 135 66888 7 9 136 410068 6 10 137 39375 7 7 138 13394 9 5 139 37255 7 6 140 18986 9 8 141 44700 8 10 142 40378 9 10 143 510143 7 9 144 510074 7 8 145 06496 7 8 146 1101010 10 8 147 15122 6 3 148 0.510485 8 9 149 47975 10 7 150 27758 8 6 151 19674 4 6 152 410101010 8 9 153 58989 10 10 154 310477 10 10 155 38986 7 8 156 284103 3 9 157 471054 7 3

PAGE 128

119 158 46692 4 6 159 28464 7 9 160 410037 10 7 161 490108 2 7 162 394106 10 2 163 15776 7 6 164 22331 0 6 165 410372 6 7 166 510088 5 7 167 41051010 10 10 168 410101010 10 10 169 510489 7 8 170 49382 8 9 171 0.58784 7 2 172 29075 7 7 173 35073 7 5 174 33083 0 8 175 61001010 10 5 176 41071010 8 10 177 24387 9 8 178 27864 6 8 179 28574 7 7 180 85998 10 8 181 00888 8 10 182 10352 7 8 183 8100108 10 10 184 110373 7 9 185 67099 5 6 186 17786 9 9 187 15476 8 7 188 12202 3 7 189 14777 8 9 190 410101010 10 7 191 810101010 8 10 192 310286 6 10 193 810785 7 8 194 28395 8 9 195 410555 7 8 196 21082 1 5 197 210055 7 5 198 16773 7 8 199 28288 8 7 200 409108 9 10 201 44382 6 9 202 14173 7 6 203 17788 8 9

PAGE 129

120 204 16792 10 10 205 25775 10 10 206 27876 6 9 207 48987 9 7 208 45655 7 7 209 39582 4 9 210 200104 9 5 211 250105 10 10 212 36195 8 7 213 355510 10 6 214 210101010 10 10 215 34057 6 10 216 37788 9 8 217 1108710 7 8 218 310569 8 0 219 28378 9 8 220 2103103 9 10 221 383106 9 9 222 31001010 10 10 223 280100 8 6 224 41001010 10 10 225 18118 9 7 226 510697 7 5 227 42101010 10 5 228 59385 8 2 229 510482 7 5 230 810000 10 5 231 410057 5 7 232 0.56022 1 3 233 184106 2 8 234 18284 3 8 235 0.28080 4 10 236 16833 6 6 237 38472 8 8 238 110577 9 10 239 37277 9 7 240 1103106 8 8 241 48089 5 7 242 44266 9 9 243 89444 5 8 244 210637 10 7 245 15565 5 5 246 25298 6 9 247 010796 7 10 248 14477 3 8 249 41001010 10 0

PAGE 130

121 250 41010810 9 7 251 301001010 10 10 252 410778 10 10 253 27755 7 8 254 78021 4 10 255 3100106 10 10 256 4801010 5 9 257 360108 10 7 258 210137 10 6 259 68614 3 3 260 3107810 10 8 261 2501010 2 10 262 3108109 9 10 263 410387 7 6 264 410582 9 10 265 510888 7 2 266 13586 7 7 267 310077 7 10 268 2701010 8 9 269 27676 9 8 270 110055 10 10 271 27567 9 8 272 28778 9 9 273 481100 5 10 274 24385 6 4 275 19363 6 10 276 410588 10 9 277 310065 6 7 278 9774 5 3 279 4101109 6 7 280 610588 8 8 281 410899 5 10 282 5791010 7 7 283 31004 8 10 284 26006 2 9 285 248106 10 10 286 150510 6 7 287 110587 4 8 288 46775 7 9 289 109405 9 10 290 37444 8 10 291 21221 2 6 292 2105105 10 10 293 39102 4 10 294 588100 4 3 295 810587 10 9

PAGE 131

122 296 410101010 10 10 297 19777 8 8 298 27668 7 8 299 4100105 8 8 300 0711010 9 10 301 110587 8 7 302 37365 8 8 303 399109 10 8 304 25004 8 8 305 25766 3 7 306 410899 10 10 307 1081010 10 10 308 192104 9 10 309 191094 3 8 310 13333 5 9 311 210477 5 9 312 12483 10 8 313 33648 10 10 314 35296 6 8 315 252 316 51051010 10 7 317 10055 8 5 318 12055 3 9 319 410886 8 6 320 31031010 5 7 321 38395 7 7 322 510535 6 10 323 10103107 10 5 324 34354 5 8 325 28496 9 10 326 310598 8 9 327 0.085656 3 7 328 12076 4 9 329 19593 7 10 330 38379 10 9 331 2101088 10 7 332 21010107 10 10 333 12387 6 7 334 410254 6 3 335 5881010 10 5 336 20799 10 10 337 158100 10 10 338 29869 9 9 339 40055 7 7 340 15595 9 8 341 14444 4 4

PAGE 132

123 342 28697 7 7 343 23266 3 8 344 11042 7 5 345 18588 9 10 346 2410109 6 10 347 39075 7 8 348 110088 4 9 349 4751010 10 10 350 18593 6 6 351 29606 6 8 352 32033 7 10 353 410366 9 8 354 43486 9 10 355 0.507103 10 9 356 210485 9 7 357 2105810 5 5 358 210088 8 5 359 210389 4 10 360 210783 6 5 361 38446 7 1 362 64022 9 10 363 384108 8 10 364 14396 6 6 365 31001010 4 8 366 20557 8 7 367 1110577 8 10 368 310043 7 9 369 210687 6 6 370 27082 8 8 371 38675 8 8 372 28294 6 7 373 23097 8 9 374 15667 7 8 375 25888 3 10 376 26848 9 5 377 210838 10 10 378 210070 0 10 379 18073 7 8 380 310177 10 10 381 2103105 10 7 382 32792 7 4 383 18387 9 7 384 28283 5 9 385 23525 7 5 386 26869 9 9 387 1001010 10 10

PAGE 133

124 388 110087 9 10 389 41001010 4 10 390 0.255566 7 9 391 68833 9 4 392 38464 7 9 393 481021 3 8 394 26075 9 8 395 0.57555 8 8 396 28588 7 9 397 19385 9 8 398 17555 5 7 399 35177 5 5 400 0.256366 6 9 newspapers Theater Mouth $5 Increase Entertainment 2 5 4No 2 1 2 4No 8 3 1 2Yes? 6 1 4 3Yes? 5 1 7 7No 7 6 4 3No 5 1 1 1No 10 4 1 3No 3 4 7 6No 1 1 1 5Yes 7 1 2 2Yes 7 3 5 4Yes 7 1 1 1No 2 No 7 1 1 2No 9 7 1 1No 10 3 1 5No 10 5 1 4No 10 4 3 7No 1 1 5 3No 2 check No 4 1 1Yes 8 2 6 6No 6 7 5 3No 5 5 1 3Yes? 5 1 6 5Yes 7

PAGE 134

125 1 1 5No 8 3 6 1Yes 7 2 1 7Yes 8 1 3 2No 6 1 3 4No 7 2 4 1No 2 3 5 4No 7 2 5 4No 0 5 5 7No 4 1 5 3No 3 2 1 3Yes 8 1 4 1No 10 3 2 Yes 7 3 1 2No 8 7 3 2No 9 1 7 5No 9 4 6 3No 6 7 1 3No 3 1 5 5No 4 4 7 5No 9 7 1 7No 8 3 2 1Yes 6 1 4 6Yes 6 6 2 3Yes? 7 3No 2 No 2 4 6 6 2 3No 5 1 1 1No 5 2 1 3No 6 7 7 1No 7 3 1 4No 3 5 1 5Yes 8 9 10 5Yes 9 7 7 7No 6 1 1 3No 7 1 1 7Yes 5 1 3 2No 6 4 3 6No 3 3 1 3No 3 1 5 4No 0 7 3 1No 5 2 3 4No 9 6 2 7No 9 3 6 5No 3 7 5 6No 7

PAGE 135

126 3 6 4No 6 1 4 5No 3 3 1 7No 0 7 3 2No 4 5 4 3No 1 5 7 5No 7 3 6 6No 8 2 5 5No 5 2 1 2Yes? 9 4 1 3Yes 7 4 1 4No 7 1 7 6No 9 3 7 6Yes 1 4 1 3Yes 4 6 1 4No 8 5 3 2Yes 2 0 0 1Yes 8 7 2 6Yes 6 7 5 6No 4 5 3 2No 7 6 1 2No 5 7 1 1No 3 4 5 3No 7 3 0 7Yes 5 5 2 3No 4 No 5 1 1 1No 8 4 1 2Yes 7 5 1 2No 7 6 4 5No 6 7 4 3No 6 5 2 3Yes 7 7 4 5Yes 8 6 1 3Yes 8 5 5 1Yes 6 1Yes 5 6 2No 7 1 5 2No 5 1 3 2No 7 No 4 1 1 4Yes? 9 7 3 2Yes 9 1 3 3No 9 3 1 4No 8 2 2 2No 7

PAGE 136

127 1 2 1No 10 2 7 1No 0 3 1 3No 5 5 7 3No 5 3 5 1No 5 2 7 5No 2 1 6 4No 7 2 2 4No 7 4 3 1Yes 4 1 7 4Yes? 5 3 2 2Yes 8 5 1 2No 3 5 3 2No 5 7 7 5No 5 7 3 1No 7 7 1 1Yes 8 2 1 5No 9 1 3 3No 8 6 3 1No 5 6 2 2No 4 5 1 3No 6 2 7 4No 9 2 2 5No 6 5 2 3No 9 3 3 2No 4 5 1 4No 5 6 1 5No 7 7 2 6No 2 6 6 7No 9 7 5 4Yes 7 6 4 5Yes 6 2 5 5No 3 7 5 7Yes? 5 2 3 6Yes 8 check 9 6 4 4Yes? 9 1 1 4Yes 8 Yes 4 7 3 2Yes 7 7 1 7Yes 4 6 5 4Yes 6 7 1 6No? 10 5 1 3No 5 6 2 3Yes 10 2Yes 3 3 7 1Yes 4

PAGE 137

128 7 3 2No 8 5 3 7No 6 7 7Yes 10 1 Yes 10 5 3 7No 10 7 1 1No 7 3 4 2No 2 4 2 1No 5 2 2 4No 6 7 7 3No 5 7 1 3No 8 6 1 7No? 10 4 6 7Yes 4 6 4 1No 8 4 6 4No 8 6 7 2Yes 9 5 5 2No 3 5 4 2No 6 1 1 1No 8 2 7 1No 3 7 1 3No 8 3 1 2No 8 1 3 4Yes 5 7 7 2No 1 3 2 3No 3 1 1 4Yes? 10 3 1 3No 10 6 2 5Yes 10 2 1 2No 7 5 2 3Yes 9 2 4 3Yes 7 7 1 2No 2 1 1 1No 4 2 2 2Yes 6 3 1 7No 7 No 10 4 7 7No 6 4 4 3No 2 5 3 2No 5 6 2 3No 2 5 1 3Yes 3 3 6 4Yes 6 6 3 4Yes 7 No 9 4 3 3Yes? 8 7 3 4No 1

PAGE 138

129 7 1 5No 5 7 1 6Yes 5 Yes 8 6 1 3No 8 4 3 7Yes 4 1 1 1No 7 3 4 1Yes 7 6 1 3No 8 No 5 7 1 1No 10 7 4 5Yes 5 5 1 6No 5 7 1 5No 4 Check Check Yes? 10 1 1 1No 5 4 1 5Yes 8 No 10 1 7 7Yes 9 3 1 2Yes 10 7 7 7Yes 10 7 1 1No 7 3 2 7No 2 4 2 3No 6 4 1 2No 4 3 7 7No 2 7 5 3No 4 1 1 2No 7 2 7 1No 10 3 2 2Yes 9 7 2 3No 8 5 1 4No 9 1 7 2Yes 6 1 3 5Yes 9 7 7 7No 9 7 7 7No 4 3 3 2No 5 2 3 1Yes 3 6 No 2 5 7 7Yes 5 7 1 1Yes 10 No 10 6 1 3No 8 3 7 2No 5 1 7 7Yes 10 5 5 7No 10 7 5 3Yes 10

PAGE 139

130 No 3 No 7 1 1 7No 10 5 1 6No 8 3 2 7No 2 7 2 5Yes 10 3 2 2Yes 9 7 1 7No 7 5 3 2Yes 7 3 3 3No 4 7 7 2Yes? 8 5 1 2No 7 2 3 6No 4 0 7 7Yes 5 1 6 3No 7 1 4 4No 7 4 1 2Yes 10 2 5 6No 4 7 7 1Yes 3 5 3 4Yes 5 5 1 2Yes 9 No 0 7 1 3Yes 7 3 2 5Yes 10 3 5 3Yes 9 8 1 1No 8 1 1 1No 7 3 3 3No? 2 2 3 5No 7 4 2 5No 3 2 4 3No 3 4 5 5No 3 7 5 1No 0 1 1No 4 1 3 4No 2 1 5 1No 10 4 5 0No 8 1 No 10 3 2 6Yes 10 1 1 3Yes 10 2 5 2No 7 3 5 7No 7 7 1 2Yes 10 5 1 1No 2 1 6 5Yes 7 2 7 6No 6

PAGE 140

131 1 1 1No 9 7 3 1No 2 5 2 3No 5 1 1 6Yes 10 No 10 7 1 5Yes 7 6 3 4No 9 7 1 1No 3 7 2 5No 5 6 6 2No 4 7 Yes 8 5 3 2No 4 0 0 2Yes 3 3 1 3No 10 1 2 3Yes 2 5 3 2No 2 3 2 5No 6 7 1 3Yes? 10 7 2 1Yes 7 7 2 1No 6 2 1 3Yes 10 4 6 5No 8 6 3 4Yes? 7 3 6 5No 7 check No 3 7 3 4No 7 3 4 1Yes 5 3 2 2Yes? 9 1 2 7Yes 9 3 1 3Yes 5 4 6 3Yes 6 Yes 5 1 1 1No 10 1 7 4No 10 4 7 1No 8 4 2 3Yes 4 4 7 5No 6 2 3No 7 3 4 4No 4 4 2 3Yes 8 1 No 2 7 6 7No 1 2 3 4No 8 2 7 2No 4 7 3 6No 5 7 2 3No 8

PAGE 141

132 1 1 2Yes 9 7 4 3No 4 5 6 4No 5 4 2 7No 3 1 3 3No 6 5 1 3No 8 4 3 2Yes 2 5 4 3No 8 2 2 7No 8 6 5 2Yes 2 5 3 2Yes 10 1 2 4Yes 4 4 4 2No 5 6 7 7No 5 2 5 6No 7 4 5No 8 7 1 1Yes 7 3 7 7No? 3 2 6 5Yes 10 2 1 6No 2 5 1 1No 5 7 1 4No 4 5 2 1No 7 6 2 3No 8 7 4 3No 5 3 2 4No 4 5 3 2No 3 4 4 1No 5 2 3 2No 7 7 7 7Yes 7 5 1 4Yes 4 3 3 1No 5 1 1 2No 7 1 4 3No 5 3 1 3No 2 5 4 3No 5 1 7 7No 5 1 4 2No 6 1 1 1No 10 7 7 7No 7 7 2 2No 10 3 6 5No 3 1 4 3Yes 5 2 4 3Yes 7 2 7 4Yes 8 3 2 3Yes 2

PAGE 142

133 6 7 1No 8 7 4 5No 8 4 3 2No? 9 3 No 5 3 2 1Yes? 5 1 3 3Yes 2 Film Prompts Age Anger Management Actors 43-47 What a Girl Wants Daughter 38-42 What a Girl Wants Family 38-42 Holes The Book 48-52 Holes Trailer 33-37 Phone Booth Previews 23-27 Phone Booth Genre 28-32 Nemo, X2 Friend 18-22 Phone Booth Coming Attraction 23-27 Anger Management TV Ad 38-42 Phone Booth Previews in Movie 18-22 Anger Management TV Previews 43-47 Anger Management Ad on TV 18-22 What a Girl Wants Funny 18-22 Holes, X2 Trailer 63-67 Anger Management Movie theater 53-57 Phone Booth friend 18-22 Phone Booth Friend 18-22 Phone Booth Commercial 33-37 Phone Booth No better choice 18-22 None 33-37 Bringing Down the House Trailer 38-42 Basic John Travolta 53-57 Bulletproof Monk Kung Fu 48-52 The Hunted Commercials, Boyfriend 23-27 The Hunted Blood and Actor 23-27 Phone Booth Trailer 38-42 Dreamcatcher Movie Trailer 38-42 The Hulk Movie Trailer 43-47 Basic Friend recommendation 38-42 Phone Booth Colin Farrell 43-47 Anger Management Stars and Comedy 43-47 Charlie's Angles: 2 Wo rd of Mouth 43-47 Holes Liked the Book 48-52 Phone Booth TV Trailer 38-42 Holes Daughter 48-52 Anger Management Cast and Trailer 53-57 Holes Kids 38-42

PAGE 143

134 Basic Preview in theater 48-52 Chicago Word of Mouth 43-47 Gangs of New York The Actors/Story 23-27 Basic Cast 23-27 Head of State People talked about it 18-22 Matrix Reloaded Actor 18-22 The Hulk Word of Mouth 18-22 Head of State The Stars-Chris and Bernie Mac. 48-52 Bad Boys 2 Will Smith 18-22 The Hunted Word of Mouth 58-62 Phone Booth Newspaper article 33-37 The Core TV ad 33-37 Phone Booth Advertisement 43-47 Phone Booth TV Commercial 43-47 Don't Know 23-27 Boat Trip TV 28-32 Boat Trip Friends 18-22 What a Girl Wants Friend 43-47 Same ASAP 53-57 A Man Apart Trailer 28-32 A Man Apart Trailer 23-27 Anger Management Trailer 48-52 The Pianist Oscar Winner 38-42 Chicago Reviews 53-57 Chicago Wife and Daughter 58-62 Chicago Word of Mouth 33-37 Head of State Preview from a movie 53-57 Chicago TV ads, word of mouth, music 53-57 Chicago friend 28-32 The Core TV 63-67 Matrix Reloaded Style of the movie 28-32 What a Girl Wants Commercials 23-27 View from the Top Mike Meyers, Ad 18-22 Bringing Down the House The star-Steve martin 43-47 Anger Management Jack Nicholson 43-47 Chicago TV reviews 63-67 TV previews 38-42 Anger Management Commercial 38-42 Bringing Down the House Children 38-42 Anger Management The Actors 18-22 Anger Management Sand ler and humor 18-22 Anger Management Adam Sandler 23-27 Phone Booth Trailer 48-52

PAGE 144

135 Phone Booth Trailer 53-57 Phone Booth Reviews and TV 53-57 The Core TV Commercial 48-52 Tears of the Sun Actors and Ads 28-32 T3, bad Boys 2, Phone Booth, etc Previews in theater 18-22 Head of State TV Ad 23-27 Phone Booth Interview with star on TV 28-32 Bringing Down the House Pr eview and the stars 18-22 Dreamcatcher Looked Cool 28-32 Bringing Down the House Stars and the commercial funny 18-22 Bringing Down the House Family member 28-32 Bringing Down the House Ads 33-37 Phone Booth Wife 23-27 Boat Trip The cast 18-22 Tears of the Sun Previews 28-32 43-47 Anger Management Adam Sandler 33-37 Anger Management Trailer 23-27 Tears of the Sun Reality and Times 33-37 Tears of the Sun Husband 28-32 Basic Word of friend 43-47 Boat Trip Looked Funny 18-22 Not today 18-22 Anger Management Previews 23-27 Finding Nemo Pixar Productions 43-47 Finding Nemo Husband 28-32 The Hunted TV 33-37 Anger Management Actors/Comedy theme 48-52 Anger Management Wanted to laugh 43-47 Charlie's Angles: 2 Watched first part 28-32 What a Girl Wants Daughter 33-37 What a Girl Wants Trailers on TV 18-22 A Man Apart TV previews 48-52 A Man Apart Movie preview 48-52 Anger Management Trailer 48-52 A Man Apart Trailer 43-47 Anger Management Actors/Advertisements 38-42 Anger Management Preview at the movies 38-42 Anger Management Movie Previews 43-47 Anger Management Word of mouth 23-27 Basic Picture outside 23-27 What a Girl Wants TV ads 48-52 What a Girl Wants Preview 18-22 Phone Booth Previews, Suspense, 48-52

PAGE 145

136 Cute Actor Right in Africa Newspaper review 48-52 Anger Management The actors 28-32 Bringing Down the House, Ch icago Trailers 53-57 Anger Management Previe w looked funny 18-22 Anger Management Adam Sandler 23-27 Anger Management Jack Nicholson 18-22 Head of State Friend and the actors 23-27 Dreamcatcher Trailer 48-52 What a Girl Wants Daughter recommended 53-57 Bringing Down the House Talk around town 18-22 Dreamcatcher Trailer 33-37 Dreamcatcher Movie Previews 18-22 Head of State Chris Rock 18-22 A Man Apart The action 18-22 Head of State Ads 18-22 Dreamcatcher Horror 18-22 Dreamcatcher Previews 18-22 Anger Management Trailer 18-22 Anger Management Previews 38-42 Anger Management Actors 53-57 None None 23-27 Bringing Down the House Comedy 28-32 Story/Plot 28-32 Bend It Like Beckham TV commercial 28-32 Boat Trip Funny 23-27 23-27 None in mind 58-62 Bringing Down the House Prev iews, word of mouth 48-52 NA NA 43-47 Willard TV entertainment 23-27 The Hunted Friends 18-22 The Pianist Storyline, the director 58-62 Bringing Down The House Actors and actress 38-42 Anger Management Trailer 38-42 Phone Booth Plot 18-22 38-42 The Hunted/Charlie's Angles 2 33-37 Anger Management Movie Trailer 28-32 Anger Management Movie Trailer 33-37 Head of State Chris Rock 23-27 The Core Curiosity 33-37 Anger Management Advertisement 28-32 Comedy Ad and actors 28-32 Tears of the Sun Actor 23-27 A Man Apart I like action movies 43-47

PAGE 146

137 What a Girl Wants Mindless fun 33-37 Advertisement 33-37 Anger Management Actor 43-47 Anger Management Previews 43-47 Anger Management Funny 38-42 Phone Booth Suspenseful Film 28-32 Phone Booth Action Film 28-32 A Man Apart The actor 48-52 Anger Management Jack Nicholson /Comedy 38-42 Undetermined NA 18-22 Phone Booth and Dreamcatcher King book 38-42 ? 18-22 Phone Booth Word of mouth 23-27 Anger Management Actors/Comedy 28-32 Anger Management Jack Nicholson 38-42 Anger Management Actors had not criticized our gov. 53-57 Basic Movie Theater 38-42 Dreamcatcher Morgan Freeman 33-37 Boat Trip Actors, funny 23-27 Dreamcatcher King story and ad commercials 43-47 28-32 Old School Looked funny 28-32 The Hours Academy Awards 68-72 Tears of the Sun TV Ad 28-32 Tears of the Sun Ads 28-32 Gangs of New York Trailers 48-52 The Pianist Mom wanted to 18-22 Dreamcatcher, Matrix 2 Action 23-27 Matrix Reloaded Like first one 28-32 Deep Throat No gag reflex 18-22 Head of State The actors 28-32 Bringing Down the House Previews 28-32 The Recruit Colin Farrell, good trailer 23-27 The Recruit Colin Farrell, TV Commercial reviews 23-27 Bringing Down The House Actor and comedy 53-57 The Hunted Internet 23-27 How to lose a Guy in ten days Wife 38-42 Head of State Leading actors 43-47 Boat Trip The actor 28-32 What a Girl Wants A preview from another movie 18-22 The Hunted Action 23-27 Daredevil Television preview 18-22

PAGE 147

138 I don't know To get out of the house 18-22 Lizzie McGuire Movie Shorts in movie 38-42 Piglet's Big Movie Kids 38-42 Basic Ads on TV Commercial 38-42 Head of State Chris Rock 23-27 Head of State Movie Trailer and actors 43-47 Anger Management Boyfriend 18-22 Anger Management Opening day 23-27 Anger Management Actors and TV ad 23-27 The Core, Anger Management, Bruce Almighty Word of mouth 48-52 Head of State TV Ads 33-37 Phone booth Magazine article 28-32 Head of State TV Commercial Ads 43-47 Hulk Fan 23-27 Matrix Reloaded Storyline 33-37 The Hunted TV 43-47 Bringing Down the House TV ads 53-57 Dreamcatcher Stephen King fan 28-32 Bend It Like Beckham Friends 38-42 Bend It Like Beckham Wife 48-52 Chicago Father's recommendation 43-47 The Hours Paper 68-72 Chicago Friend's recommendation 63-67 None Like musicals 58-62 Chicago Known for awards 58-62 The Core Trailer 23-27 Head of State TV ads 38-42 Basic Human subject 63-67 Basic Content and Star 53-57 Dreamcatcher Director 33-37 Head of State Bernie Mac 18-22 How to lose a Guy in ten days Trailer 28-32 Chicago Husband's prompt 38-42 X-men 2 Kids 43-47 Phone Booth Ad 43-47 The Core and Head of State TV Commercial Commercials 23-27 The Core Sci-fi 33-37 The Core Husband 33-37 Chicago Word of mouth 38-42 Chicago Rene Zellweger 43-47 Basic Previews 18-22 Basic Previews 18-22 Bringing Down the House TV 28-32 Bringing Down the house The actors and actress 33-37

PAGE 148

139 The Hunted Previews 28-32 Bad Boys 2 The action 23-27 Action Advertisement 38-42 View from the top Preview 18-22 View from the top Girlfriend 18-22 Basic Commercial 18-22 Basic Previews 23-27 Boat trip Cuba Gooding JR-good actor 28-32 How to lose a guy in ten days, Jungle book 2 Word of Mouth 43-47 Bringing Down the house Steve Martin 38-42 How to Lose a Guy In ten days Stars 43-47 53-57 Bringing Down the House Chris Rock/The war 43-47 Bringing Down the House War 48-52 Basic Movie trailers 48-52 Head of State Actors/previews 28-32 What a Girl Wants Lead actor/Firth 53-57 What a Girl Wants Colin Firth 48-52 Bringing Down the House Tr ailer in theater 23-27 18-22 Phone Booth Trailers in movie 28-32 Phone Booth Trailers 23-27 Phone Booth Ads 28-32 Dreamcatcher People talked about it 18-22 Dreamcatcher Read book 28-32 Dreamcatcher The book 28-32 Bad Boys 2 Previews 18-22 Chicago, Holes TV and daughter 38-42 Chicago, Holes Daughter 38-42 All People 28-32 Head of State Friend 18-22 Head of State Ad 33-37 What a Girl Wants Daughter 43-47 Chicago Previews 28-32 Chicago The cast 33-37 Bringing Down the house Funny/actors 33-37 View from the top Comedy 48-52 Phone Booth TV Ad 48-52 Chicago Ads, reviews 38-42 Boat Trip Preview 18-22 Phone Booth TV ad 53-57 Phone booth TV 38-42 The Core, many TV ads 38-42 Anger Management Actors 28-32

PAGE 149

140 Anger Management TV 28-32 View from the top, It Runs in the family Curiosity and friend 58-62 Phone Booth Trailer 48-52 Phone Booth Actors and director 18-22 Dreamcatcher 63-67 Dreamcatcher Previews 23-27 None today TV 33-37 X-men 2 43-47 Agent Cody Banks PG rating 43-47 The Hunted My husband 23-27 Bringing Down the House Sister 23-27 Nurse Friends 58-62 A Man Apart Vin Diesel 28-32 Sister's interest 38-42 Piglet's Big movie My daughter saw the previews on TV 23-27 Chicago Musicals are rare 38-42 The Hunted Previews 18-22 The Hunted Trailers 18-22 I don't know I don't know 18-22 View from the Top Previews 48-52 View from The Top Friends 18-22 View from the Top It looked funny 18-22 View form the Top Stars 18-22 Tears of the Sun Husband 23-27 Phone Booth Different 38-42 Chicago Word of Mouth 43-47 Boat Trip Seeing it at the theater 18-22 Dreamcatcher Writer? King 38-42 Boat Trip Comedy 43-47 Unknown 33-37 The Core Appearance 23-27 The Core Action 18-22 Head of State, What a girl wants Media 23-27 Phone Booth TV ad 28-32 Phone Booth TV ad 28-32 33-37 The Hunted Previews in theater 23-27 Finding Nemo Disney 18-22 Head of State TV Trailer 23-27 The Hunted Girlfriend 28-32 Agent Cody Banks Kids 28-32 View from the Top Looked Good 18-22 View from the top Trailer 18-22

PAGE 150

141 View from the top Bored 18-22 View from the top Nothing else to do-ever 18-22 The Hunted Actor-Tommy Lee Jones 38-42 Don't know Friend 18-22 Agent Cody Banks Ads on TV 38-42 Agent Cody Banks Children 33-37 The Hunted Actors and genre 68-72 The Hunted Coming Attractions, actors 53-57 Phone Booth Friend 48-52 Phone Booth Trailer 43-47 Holes Preview 18-22 Holes Read the Book 23-27 Holes TV commercials 18-22 Anger Management Nicholson 53-57 Anger Management Looked funny 18-22 Anger Management A friend 23-27 View from the Top Looked Funny 18-22 Anger Management Trailers, Actors, Commercial 23-27 X-men 2 Really bad ass 18-22 What a Girl Wants TV 18-22 Anger Management Trailer 18-22 Anger Management Read the movie times, picked it 18-22 Anger Management Movie ad trailer 18-22 Phone Booth Getting out of the house 28-32 Phone Booth Word of Mouth 18-22 Anger Management TV 18-22 Anger Management Adam Sandler 18-22 Holes Read the Book 38-42 Agent Cody Banks Daughter (8 years old) 33-37 Chicago Word of mouth 53-57 Chicago Billboard 53-57 Old School Comedy-boredom 18-22 X2 The original and love of the comic 18-22 Agent Cody Banks Grandchildren 58-62 The Pianist Preview from the other film 38-42 Chicago Reviews and friends 38-42 Holes The book 38-42 The Core Trailers 23-27 View from the top Previews 38-42 View from the top Less Violence 43-47 Piglet's Big Movie Kids 33-37

PAGE 151

142 Holes The book, my son 38-42 Holes Trailer 38-42 Holes Children's book 38-42 Phone Booth Preview 63-67 Anger Management Trailers 18-22 Phone Booth Magazine review 68-72 Holes Might be interesting 33-37 Holes Friend 48-52 Holes, Matrix 2 Seeing first movies 48-52 Holes Book 38-42 Chicago My child read the book 43-47 Anger Management Preview 43-47 Holes Kids/book 38-42 Sex F M F F M F F F M F M M F F F F F M F F F F F M F M M F M M M F

PAGE 152

143 M F F F M M F F M F M M M F F F M M F M M F M F M M F F F F M F F F F M M F M F F F F M F

PAGE 153

144 F M F F M Both F F M M F F M F F F M F M F M M M F M F F F M F F M F F M F M F M F F F M F M

PAGE 154

145 F F F M M F F M F M M M F M F M F F F M M M F M F M F F F M F M F M M ? F M M M F M F M M F

PAGE 155

146 M M M F F F F M F M F M M F M F F F M M F M F F M M F F F F M M M F F F M M M F F F M F M F

PAGE 156

147 F F F F F M M F F F M F M F F M F M M M F F F M M M F M F F F M M F M F F F F M M F M M F F

PAGE 157

148 M F F F M M F F F M M M F F F M F F M F F M M F M F M M M F M F M F F F M M M M F F F M F M

PAGE 158

149 F F M F M F M M F M M F M M F F F F F M F F M F F M M F M F M M F F M M F F M F M M F F M M

PAGE 159

150 F M M F F M F M F F M F M M M F M F M M M M F M M F F M M M M M M M F F F M F F M F F F F

PAGE 160

151 LIST OF REFERENCES About.com. “Latter-Day Sain ts Movie Reviews: My Big Fat Greek Wedding.” Web site. Copyright 2003. http://lds.abou t.com/library/movies/blgreekwedding.htm 12/03/03. Austin, Bruce A. The Film Audience: An International Biblio graphy of Research. Copyright 1983. By the Scarecrow Press, Inc. Austin, Bruce A. Immediate Seating: A Look at Movie Audiences Copyright 1989. By Wadsworth, Inc. Bergstrom, Janet. Eds. Endless Nigh t: Cinema and Psychoanalysis, Parallel Histories Copyright 1999. By the Regents of the University of California. Blandford, Steve, Barry Keith Grant, and Jim Hillier. Eds. The Film Studies Dictionary. Copyright 2001. By Oxford University Press, Inc. The Box Office Report. “Q uickest to $100m.” Web site. Copyright 1997. www.boxofficereport.com/atbon/ quickest.shtml. 12/03/03. Brooker, Will, and Deborah Jermyn. Eds. The Audiences Studies Reader Copyright 2003. By London: Routledge, 2003. Burnett, Ron. Eds. Explorations in Film Theory: Selected Essays from Cine-Tracts. Copyright 1991. By Indiana University Press. Carroll, Noel. The Philosophy Of Horror or Paradoxes of the Heart Copyright 1990. By Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Inc. Derry, Charles. Dark Dreams: A Psychologi cal History of the Modern Horror Film. Copyright 1977. By A.S. Barnes and Co., Inc. Fischoff, Stuart. “Film-Choice.” Journal of Media Psychology Web site. Copyright 1998. www.calstatela.edu/faculty /sfischo/movie3.html. 8/28/03. Freeland, Cynthia. Cognitive Science and Film Theory. For the American Society for Aesthetics Panel on Cognitive Science and the Arts. Web site. Copyright 1997. http://www.hfac.uh.edu/cogsci/C ogSciFilmTheory.html. 7/7/03.

PAGE 161

152 Fuller, Kathryn H. At The Picture Show : Small-Town Audiences and the Creation of Movie Fan Culture. Copyright 1996. By the Smithsonian Institute. Litman, Barry R. “Predicting the Success of Theatrical Movies: An Empirical Study.” Journal Of Popular Culture Spring 1983. 159-71. Movies.com. “Singleton Breaks Record with 2 Fast.” Web site. Copyright 2003. http://movies.go.com/news/2003/6/ 2fastrecord061003.html 8/25/03. Newspaper Advertising Bureau. Mo vie Going in the United States. Copyright 1986. By Newspape r Advertising Bureau, Inc. Phillips, William H. Analyzing Films: A Practical Guide. Copyright 1985. By CBS College Publishing. Plantinga, Carl, and Greg M. Smith. Passionate Views: Film, Cognition, and Emotion Web site. Copyright 2000. http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/film/journa l/bookrev/passionate_views.htm. 12/03/03. Ramos, Steve. CityBeat. Volume 7. Issue 44. Web site. Copyright 2001. http://www.citybeat.com/200109-20/film.shtml. 8/24/03. Rose, Jacqueline. “The Cult of Celebrity.” London Review of Books Web site. Copyright 1998. http://www.Irb.c o.uk/v20/n16/print/rose01_.html. 5/13/03 Rosengren, Karl Erik, Lawrence A. Wenner, and, Philip Palmgreen. Eds. Media Gratifications Research. Copyright 1985. By Sage Publications. Ryerson University. “Convenience Sampling.” Web Site. Copyright 2003. http://www.ryerson.ca/~mjoppe/Research Process/ConvenienceSample.htm. 11/19/03. Salwen, Michael B., and Don W. Stacks. Eds. An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research. Copyright 1996. By Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Sigma Plot and Sigma Stat. “About SPSS.” Web site. Copyright 2003. www.spss.com. 12/03/03. U.S. Department of Commerce. A Repor t on Americans' Access to Technology Tools Web site. Copyright 2000. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/ fttn00/Falling.htm#25. 7/14/03 Vale, Eugene. The Technique of Screen and Television Writing. Copyright 1982. By Prentice Hall, Inc.

PAGE 162

153 Wimmer, Roger D., and Joseph R. Domini ck. Eds. Mass Media Research: An Introduction. Copyright 2000. By Wads worth Publishing Company. Worldwide Box Office. “Worldwide Box Office (in millions of U.S. dollars).” Web site. Copyright 2003. www.worldwideboxoffice.com. 8/28/03.

PAGE 163

154 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH My name is Sean Maxfield. I was born to Sue and Dane Maxfield in Columbus, Ohio, in 1975. I have lived in Florida since I was about 4 or 5 a nd went to high school and college in state. I graduated with a bachelor’s degree in 1998 from Florida State University. Next, I lived in Missouri from 1998 to 2000 where I worked as a substitute teacher at several schools in Kirksville, Missouri. I had close family ties to Missouri, so I did not feel alone. This is also where I got my interest in mass communications as I worked part-time for a radio station, as a DJ, for about a year. During my time in Missouri, I applied to the graduate school for journalism at the University of Florida and was accepted. The rest is history. I have always been interested in wri ting, which has been my primary means of expressing myself. I was the one who liked th e essay part of an exam. I also enjoy movies as a hobby and social activity, which e xplains some of my reasons for doing this thesis. My grandfather has a huge selection of videos in his basement that got me interested in starting my ow n collection and watching movies I would not normally be interested in. My mother also took my br other, my sister, and me to movies on the weekend since I was very young, and she has been asking us to the movies ever since. One of the first ones I remember s eeing was Raiders of the Lost Ark and it is still one of the best movies ever made.

PAGE 164

155 One last thing I developed from this thes is is a better understanding of those who ask people for their help in surveys such as th is. You have to be brave and ask people for help and be prepared to be turned down. I will never look at a person asking for help filling out something ever the same way again.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0001560/00001

Material Information

Title: Media at the Movies: Analyzing the Movie-Viewing Audience
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0001560:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0001560/00001

Material Information

Title: Media at the Movies: Analyzing the Movie-Viewing Audience
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0001560:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












MEDIA AT THE MOVIES: ANALYZING THE MOVIE-VIEWING AUDIENCE


By

SEAN MICHAEL MAXFIELD
















A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS IN MASS COMMUNICATION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2003














This thesis is dedicated to my family, all the survey/questionnaire people who have the
courage and patience to ask strangers for help in getting a job done, and to all people who
in some way contributed to this thesis, great or small. It is finally done!















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the following people for their help and encouragement, as

well as giving of their time and talent, throughout this thesis process. First, I would like

to thank my parents and other family members for their time, support, love, and monetary

aid, without which I would not even be writing this thesis. I would especially like to

thank my parents for their assistance in getting the Orlando theater to help me with the

surveys. In the same way, I would like to thank the theaters that allowed me the time and

opportunity to get people's ideas on paper about the movies. Special thanks go to

Cinemark Theater in Orlando and Gator Cinemas in Gainesville. They both get ten stars!

A special thank-you goes to fellow graduate student Todd Holmes, who got me through

the first leg of this thesis when we originally proposed its beginning for our research

class. He was there to give this baby life.

I would also like to thank my chair, James Babanikos, for taking time to listen to

this thesis idea and running with it. He also gave me more confidence in trying to explain

myself to others, especially when talking with my other committee members. My other

committee members, Dr. Michael Weigold and Dr. John Wright, should also be

congratulated. They taught me how to research my ideas and to make things more

concrete. Dr. Wright gave me the initial idea to try this thesis, and Dr. Weigold gave me

a refresher course on SPSS and statistical tests. Without their help, I would not be this

far. I will remember them most of all because they made it fun to answer questions in









classes and taught a sometimes-shy guy to talk in class. All my committee members gave

me their best and helped me to become a better researcher and student.

Before my committee guided my studies, there was one person who helped me

develop as a grad student and that was Dr. Kim Walsh-Childers. Kim had been my

advisor for a year and a half and started me on the path of writing a thesis. She made it

sound less scary. I would also like to thank her for helping in my first contacts with UF.

This last thank you is for all who aided me in my thesis and who may remain

nameless, from the patrons at the movie theaters who answered my survey to the people

at the UF computer lab. They provided some of the essential ingredients of this thesis

and should also be congratulated for their help.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ......... .................................................................................... iii

L IS T O F T A B L E S ........ ......... .................................................... .. ............ .................. .. v ii

ABSTRACT .............. .......................................... ix

CHAPTER

1 PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY ................................................. 1

2 L ITE R A TU R E R E V IE W ................................................................ .....................9

Introductory H history ......................................................... .. .. ... ....... ..... .9
Foundation Study ..................................... ......... .......... .... 12
O their R elated Studies............ ................................................... .... ...... .... ... ... 16
U ses and Gratifications Theory ..................................................... 40

3 SURVEY AND METHODOLOGY ..................... ............ ............ ...............44

R research Questions and Survey ........................................ .......................... 45
Sam pling T echnique........... .......................................................... ...... .... ..... 46
Collecting Surveys ........................... ..................... ...............48
Analysis of Research Questions................. ... ... .......................53
Analyzing the Remaining Questions (Researchers' Reasons for Adding the
R em aining Q questions : .............................................................. ...............54

4 D A TA AN D RESULTS ................................................... ........ ............... .56

D ata C le a n in g ................................................................... ................................5 6
D ata A n aly sis .................................................................................................... 59
Analysis of W ritten-Response Answ ers................................................................ 64

5 CONCLUSION AND CLOSING THOUGHTS..........................................91

L cooking at L ikert Scales ................................................ .............................. 94
C losing Thoughts .......................................... .. .. .... .......... ....... 102









APPENDIX

A Q U E ST IO N N A IR E .............. ............................................................................ 109

B TA B LE O F RE SPON SE S................................................................................... 115

LIST OF REFERENCES ........................................................... .. ............... 151

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................. ...............154

















LIST OF TABLES

Table pge

1 : T im e s .........................................................................6 9

2 : M iss th e T h e after ................................................... ................................................... 7 0

3 : F feeling s ab out C ritiqu es ........................................................................ .................. 7 1

4: Feelings about Trailers ........................................ ................. .... ....... 72

5: A d Effect ...................................................................... ........... ............. 72

6: M ovie Stars ......... ................. .................. ...........................73

7: Subject M atter......................................................................................... 74

8: Word of Mouth .............................. ......... ..... ........................ ............... 75

9 : D irecto r .......... .......... .......... ........... ............................................7 6

10: Seeing a M ovie w ith Som eone?............................ ............................ ............... 77

11: R eating TV as a M medium ......................................... ....................... ............... 78

12: R ating R adio as a M edium ................................................. .............................. 78

13: R eating Internet as a M medium .......... ................. .......... ............... ............... 79

14: R eating M magazines as a M medium ......... ................. .............................. ............... 80

15: Rating Newspapers as a Medium ............... .......... ........ .... ............... ....80

16 : R ating T heaters as a M edium ........................................................... .....................8 1

17: Rating W ord-of-M outh as a M edium ........................................ ....... ............... 82

18 : $ 5 In crease-Y es or N o ....................................................................... ................ .. 82

19: How Much Do Movies Make Up Your Entertainment? .................. ..................83









2 0 : A g e R a n g e s ............................................................................................................ 8 4

21: Sex( m, f, or no) ................. ....... .... .......... 84

22: Counts for Feelings about Critiques ........................................ ........................ 85

23: Counts for Feelings about Trailers......................................... .......................... 86

24 : C ounts for A d E ffect............. ............................................................ .......... ....... 86

25: C ounts for M ovie Stars ......... ................. ................. ........................ ............... 87

26: C ounts for Subject M atter................................................ ................. ............... 87

27: C ounts for W ord-of-M outh .............................................................. .....................88

28: Counts for Director .............. ................................ ...............88

29: General Linear Model: Within-Subjects Factors................ .............. ............... 89

30: C orrelations ............................................ 90

31: R espondent A nsw ers .................. ..................................... ............ 115































viii

















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Mass Communication

MEDIA AT THE MOVIES: ANALYZING THE MOVIE-VIEWING AUDIENCE

By

Sean Maxfield

December 2003

Chair: James Babanikos
Major Department: Mass Communication

This study attempted to determine why people go to the movies to see the film they

see. The following variables were examined to answer that question: movie stars,

directors, trailers, general advertising, word of mouth, subject matter/genre, and reviews.

Data were collected via an intercept sample of 400 respondents at several theater

locations in central and north central Florida. Data analysis indicated that each criterion

was related to movie-viewing choice. The subject matter of a film and featured movie

stars were reasons most often cited for going to a theater to see a motion picture.














CHAPTER 1
PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

Movies have become a big part of everyday life, starting small at their origins and

growing as of 1910. In the 1910s, the motion picture industry evolved from "an industry

dominated by mom-and-pop businesses to a mature, complex industry" (Fuller 1996).

The movie audience served as the catalyst for this change in the industry.

The purpose of the current study is to analyze the movie-viewing audience and to

see what motivates them to go see a particular movie in a theater. It is important to get

inside the mind of the spectator, or moviegoer, to understand the nature of this selection-

why one chooses to see a certain film of the many offered. Previous studies examined

the socio-economic aspects of moviegoers such as looking at income levels and leisure

activities in order to see the impact of movie watching on society in general. This new

study is more specific, investigating how a person is initially enticed to go see a movie,

whether this is through word of mouth, exposure to various media outlets ranging from

movie previews to movie critiques in a newspaper or on TV, the drawing power of the

cast or director, and so on. Movies continue to be big business. In fact, their popularity

seems to grow with time, despite the competition for people's leisure time and money.

To give an indication of just how big movies have become over time, "WorldWide Box

Office.Com" was consulted. This Web site, which records current and past box-office

trends, tracks the total box office receipts for movies that suggest the popularity of film in

general. For example, 1989 featured such hits as Batman and Indiana Jones and the Last

Crusade and had total receipts of $5,987.5 million for that year alone. 2002, on the other









hand, featured movie blockbusters like Spider-Man and Lord of the Rings: The Two

Towers and had receipts totaling $15,275.9 million (Worldwide Box Office 2003). This

indicates there is a huge difference in box office receipts from the late 80's to the early

part of the new millennium.

Previous studies can also show how things have changed for audiences watching

movies. The study of the effects of movies on people can be traced back to the early 20th

century. In January 1929, a group of University of Chicago undergraduates were given a

project in which they had to write autobiographical accounts of their movie-going

experiences and the impact that movies had on their lives. There were mixed responses

from participants, from those who thought that movies were beneath them and that they

were "a lower order of art" to those who felt that movies were "guiding factors" in their

lives (Fuller 1996). This 1929 study would later be elaborated on and advanced by other

researchers in 1986.

The impetus for the current study was a 1986 research report published by the

Newspaper Advertising Bureau. The study showed the socio-economic statistics of who

goes to the movies (including age and sex groups), how people learn about a particular

movie, the effects of cable and VCR usage on the movie-going public, and activities

people have engaged in instead of going to a movie. This study focused more on

sociological reasoning rather than psychological concerns. The sociological concerns

refer to "who" goes to the movies (their age, sex, and socio-economic bracket) and with

whom. The psychological concerns refer to "why" people go to the movie, the inherent

characteristics that prompt people to see a specific film. This "why" is the main topic on

which this current study will be focused.









Also, many things have changed in the entertainment industry since 1986, making

it easier for a researcher to gain access to various materials. Marc Vernet summarizes

some of these changes in his essay, The Fetish in the Theory and History of Cinema

(Bergstrom 1999):

Certainly the working conditions of the researcher have changed. Today we have

access to a film library richer by far than anything available to us before, thanks to

videocassettes, videodisks and an abundance of films on microfilm and microfiche, and

also digital media with immense data storage capacity such as video disc, Photo CD and

CD ROM. Increasingly film archives are able to offer services that were previously

unimaginable through multimedia programs that allow interactive access to large

numbers of documents from many sources. One can simultaneously access a film, its

scripts, storyboards, director's notes and correspondence, production stills, etc.

An update to the study is therefore warranted. The new technologies also give the

potential moviegoer far more options. For example, in 1986 only about one-quarter of

the population owned a videocassette recorder. Now, most people in the United States

own a VCR and, with current advances in computer technology, many people are turning

to their computer screens and DVD players for entertainment. Clearly the market place is

not the same, and there would be a definite benefit in seeing how the movie-going

experience has changed since the 1986 study.

Another significant reason for conducting this study is to look beyond the simple

matter of buying a movie ticket. There is more to choosing a movie than what a box-

office report may show. According to Eugene Vale, author of The Technique of Screen

and Television Writing, "psychologists and sociologists could learn a great deal by









studying and comparing the receipts of pictures. The public's responses show an interest

that betrays its latent desires, problems, and difficulties" (Vale 1982). This basically

means that people do not always go to the movies for the same reasons. They may go see

a particular movie for a reason that has nothing to do with the social commentary the film

displays (Vale 1982). It also means that a story told at one particular time might not be

as successful at another point in time (Vale 1982). For example, many people in the

industry and in the movie-going public resisted movies about terrorism after the Sept. 11

attacks, whereas before there were no such indication that those movies would be avoided

(Ramos 2001). Vale sees movies as having the ability "to keep us up to date on our

changing times" (Vale 1982). However, Vale also points out that analysis of movie-

going behavior is still "opaque" or unclear (Vale 1982). A major goal of the present

study is to help clarify the movie-going behavior of the public.

To understand the impact of movie watching, it is also necessary to get inside the

mind of the spectator or the moviegoer. The idea of identification is paramount. Vale

reminds us that "the spectator anticipates, evaluates, moves forward, feels suspense,

experiences emotions, hopes and fears, is joyful and is depressed, satisfied and

disappointed. In order to cause the spectator to undergo all these pleasant and unpleasant

reactions and feelings, he must be interested" (Vale 1982). This means that the person

watching a movie must be interested in what he/she expects to see in order to go out to a

movie, which gets back to the idea of previews and genre/subject matter. The spectator

holds a pivotal role in a film's construction and presentation because many producers and

directors will support a movie based on audience response to an idea. Advance

screenings are routinely offered to measure a film's effectiveness in connecting with its









audience (Austin 1989). Changes to that movie will then be made based on audience

response to what is seen. It is the spectator or moviegoer who will ultimately decide

whether a movie has a happy or sad ending, and whether it makes millions or becomes a

box-office dud. As a result, it is important to analyze the movie-viewing audience to see

what motivates them to go see a movie in the theater. This statement is at the core of the

current study.

By studying why people go to the movies, the primary investigator feels that it will

be possible to open up a wider array of human behavior topics that could be discussed.

For example, uses and gratification theory can be analyzed as to how it applies to movie-

going behavior: what needs are satisfied by going to a movie and why? This is especially

true because most of the past research material has not touched on recent time, especially

since the year 2000. It is now a good time to re-examine the movie-going experience.

Besides the theoretical and concrete reasons for performing this study, the primary

investigator also had personal reasons for conducting the study. This investigator has

been interested in all aspects of movies and trivia surrounding movies for a good part of

his life. Stores like Best Buy are phasing out their video collections and times are

changing. At the same time, the researchers heard more and more people they knew

saying that they would rather wait until video to see a movie instead of going to a theater

to see the same movie. The primary investigator wanted to make sure that movie

watching is still popular to the general public and discover if other ways of viewing a

movie had become more popular. He also wanted to find out the reasons why people go

to a movie and what really gets people to go a theater, besides something to do on a

weekend with friends or a significant other.









Upon speculation though, there are still some things that going to a theater offers

over such technological marvels as DVD, movie rentals, or even cable. By seeing a

movie in a theater, people can be the first on the block to say they saw a movie and

discuss it. Second, the theater offers an atmosphere of camaraderie among friends and

people joined together for the same goal, to watch a film on a theater screen. The other

media, like video rentals, can be watched in private, but the theater almost demands the

company of others. Another reason people go back to the theater is the size of the screen.

No TV or video-viewing device has yet been able to match the size of watching a movie

on the big screen, unless a person owns his or her own theater. There is something to be

said about watching a movie on a big screen. A person can almost feel like they are in

the movie. Bruce A. Austin, a researcher on the film audience, also indicates that movies

seen in the theater offer something extra than rentals or cable. Austin states that movies

offer a moderately priced activity that involves others and facilitate contact and

conversation about the movie between people (Austin 1989). A quote from William

Phillips of Analyzing Film sums up the very reasons to sit in a theater to watch a movie:

If film entertains well, if many people see it, then it usually reflects the fantasies or

daydreams of many in its audiences. And seeing one's fantasies on a large screen in a

darkened room is usually pleasurable and reassuring. (Phillips 1985)

In conclusion, Austin states that knowing whether movie theaters are in danger of

being replaced is a mystery and is elusive (Austin 1989). For example, in 1986, Variety

gave a story on January 15 that headlined, "VCR Effect on Tix Sales Peaking; Study

Suggests Homevid a Phase." Six weeks after that story the same publication, wrote an

article with this headline: "Teens Leaving Theaters for Homevid: New Study Gives









Exhibs Bad News"(Austin 1989). You had one story saying that video-rentals were just

a phase and the next story talked about the theater business being in jeopardy. One 1982

study even stated that frequent moviegoers do not subscribe to cable TV. In 1986, a

study came up with the result that three quarters of moviegoers prefer to see movies in a

theater (Austin 1989). It is the hope of the current study that it will be able to shed more

light on the flourishing or changing effect of movie theaters and their business to the

general public over the effect of other means of viewing movies.

In this current study, the effects of several key variables on movie choice will be

examined. These were chosen based on the 1986 study and combining variables that the

1986 study and related studies had not combined. Other variables, like word-of-mouth

and the director, were added based on informal questioning of a few people about why

they like to going to a movie and because of other research material that saw these

variables as important reasons for movie-going behavior. The resulting variables are as

follows: movie critiques, movie previews, the director's influence, movie-star power,

general advertising (including tie-in products), genre/subject matter, and word of mouth.

Slight effects created by social obligations may also be included.

Based on initial speculation, the primary investigator hopes to find that a good

majority of people are still going to the movies and base their movie-viewing choice on

subject matter and genre rather than on word-of-mouth or on who stars in the movie. Are

people choosing movies based on their own desires and wants, rather than on the desires

and wants of people they are attending a movie with? It is also speculated that people go

to the movies because they want to see a certain movie star and will go to a movie purely

based on this fact, despite subject matter. Another speculation is that people pay









particular attention to what a critic says in regards to what movie they will be seeing. It

is expected that the research may lead to showing critiques as having a high influence on

why people go to the movies over all other variables in this study.

This current study can also have other applications. For example, it could help film

production and distribution companies reach their audience the best way possible once

they know exactly what motivates a moviegoer to go see the film that they go see. More

of these applications will be discussed later in the course of this study.

The following chapter will discuss the history of the movie-viewing studies, related

studies, relation to uses and gratifications theory, and how movie-viewing behavior will

be advanced by the current study.














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Introductory History

Something began changing in the film industry as of 1910. Movies started to

become very popular. According to At the Picture Show by Kathryn Fuller, the origin of

this transformation came from the desire of the film exhibitors who wanted to please

audiences. Fuller said that the movie-going experience grew to become an immensely

popular form of entertainment due to "film exhibitors, striving to create larger theaters for

demanding audiences, film producers trying to outdo each other to release spectacular

feature length films, and fan-magazine publishers hoping to tap the full potential of their

advertisers and readers" (Fuller 1996). Most importantly, the movie audience was

responsible for this change in the industry. It was this group who was buying the fan

magazines, paying higher ticket prices for a more elaborate show, and making movie-

watching a weekly habit (Fuller 1996).

In Europe, research on movie-going began in 1914 (Austin 1989). One significant

study, published in 1929, analyzed responses to questionnaires that were distributed in

1914 and 1915 to Swiss school children, ages 8 to 15. It asked the basic question: "Why

do you like going to the cinema?" The 1914 study had the following results. The first

was that children liked to go to the movies for education, entertainment, and because of

the beauty of the film. The second result was that girls found movies more interesting

than boys did.









A similar study was performed during World War II in Vienna. In this case, adults

were surveyed and interviewed about their movie-going interests, but not at theaters. The

important point about the Vienna study was that relaxation was the primary motive for

going to the movies (Austin 1989).

The current study looks to be a more current view of the Vienna study and seeks

respondents at the theaters they attend. The current study already assumes that people are

going for some relaxation, but the researchers want to know beyond the idea of relaxation

and look at the influence of ads, trailers, movie stars, subject matter/genre, directors,

critiques, and word of mouth on movie patrons.

Another study of Soviet filmgoers in 1966 found seven reasons for movie

attendance; for relaxation, to find something new, to experience a sharp plot, to see an

actor's performance, to listen to music in the movie, because they had nowhere else better

to spend leisure time, and to see the skill in shooting a film (Austin 1989). These reasons

mention some of the variables that will be used in the current study, but they do not take

into account the ideas of media use and exposure, including ads, trailers, and critiques.

While Europe had already started research into movie-going behavior, the United

States began similar research during the 1920s. In January 1929, a group of University of

Chicago undergrads were given a project in which they had to write autobiographical

accounts of their movie-going experiences and the impact that movies had on their lives.

Researchers wanted to look at how movies and their existence had influenced these

undergrads as children (Fuller 1996). The results of this study were that students were

able to explain movies' influence on their childhood and how they helped in creating the

students' sense of identity (Fuller 1996). This 1929 study also helped lay down the









foundation for further studies of media influence on behavior and showed how the

movies helped shape lives in general, such as what movies young adults liked as children

and how desires and attitudes from movies are expressed over a person's lifetime (Fuller

1996). The 1929 study would later be elaborated on and advanced by other researchers,

In 1952, an article looked into how movies appeal to audiences because they

made the real world more bearable (Austin 1989). It touched on the idea of why people

go to the movies, but just barely. In 1957, the MPAA commissioned a survey to find out

about Americans' movie-going behavior (Austin 1989). The resulting report was

entitled, The Public Appraises Movies, and included interviews conducted between June

and July of 1957 with individuals who were 15 years and older. Interviewees were asked

to give what they thought were the main reasons people go to the movies (Austin 1989).

They were also asked about the last time they went to the movies and why they went. The

majority of reasons for attending movies centered on recreation and entertainment (57%)

in the 1957 study. Other reasons included passing time, habit, just because they wanted

to, to see a movie they were interested in, to see a certain actor or actress, educational

purposes, had read the book about a movie, had interesting advertising, had heard about

the movie from someone else, to get away from everyday routine, relaxation, and because

they were tired of watching television (Austin 1989).

Then two studies came in 1977. Both reported that audiences go to the movies for

the aesthetic experience that movies provide, the desire to relax, the desire to be

entertained, the ability of movies to provide new experiences, and the ability of movies to

allow for learning (Austin 1989).









In 1978, the Newspaper-Advertising Bureau had conducted a study on the movie-

going experience. 604 respondents were asked to rank the importance of movie going

out of a list of five options (Austin 1989). The 1978 study was important in that three of

the five reasons generated the most agreement among respondents. They were

entertainment, social activity, and escape from everyday activities. But researchers know

that ranking is not the best way to get results. For this reason the current study has not

planned to use ranking scales.

Foundation Study

As mentioned in chapter 1 of the current study, a research report published by the

Newspaper Advertising Bureau in 1986 showed the socio-economic statistics of who

goes to the movies (including age and sex groups), how people learn about a particular

movie, the effects of cable and VCR usage on the movie-going public, and activities used

as an alternative to going to the movies. It was primarily designed "to promote the

efficient use of the newspaper medium for the advertising and marketing needs of

individual companies" (Newspaper Advertising Bureau 1986). The 1986 report showed

that time has changed the movie-going experience. It stated that in 1946, the average

American went to the movies 29 times a year; by 1984, the average was down to five

times (Newspaper Advertising Bureau 1986). This study, performed in 1985, used a

sample of 1,000 respondents who were contacted by telephone using random-digit-

dialing techniques. One respondent was interviewed from each household called, and the

sample of 1,000 was "balanced on age and sex" (Newspaper Advertising Bureau 1986).

Leo Bogart and B. Stuart Tolley came up with the design, questionnaire, analysis, and the

actual report. All of this was under the direction of the Newspaper Advertising Bureau

(Newspaper Advertising Bureau 1986). The study focused on the fact that movies









provide a social event for people to meet and that people would rather go to the movies

with someone than go it alone (Newspaper Advertising Bureau 1986).

The 1986 study's first question dealt with "Who goes to the movies?" The answer

followed after the study was performed:

Our study shows that the 24% of the public who go once a month or more often
represent 83% of adult movie admissions. Of these film buffs, two out of five are
between 18 and 24, (an age group that makes up only 18% of all adults) and almost
70% are under 35. Being younger, nearly half of the frequent moviegoers are
single, and they are also above average in education. They also have more money
at least over a $15,000 income per family. (By contrast, among the one out of
three adults who are over 50, 72% have not gone to the movies in the past year).
(Newspaper Advertising Bureau 1986)

The 1986 study went on to examine the experience of going to the movies by

looking at who goes with whom, the marital status of movie-goers, the ages, the

education, income, and the sex of movie-goers as compared to the frequency of a

respondent's movie-going frequency (Newspaper Advertising Bureau 1986). It also

showed evidence of having thought about why people go to the movies. The study found

that "59% of those surveyed said they decided to go when they did because they wanted

to see a particular film rather than because they just felt like going out" (Newspaper

Advertising Bureau 1986). Some respondents showed interest in a movie because of its

cast and others wanted an uplifting movie-choice. The "why" consisted of responses like

"just felt like going out," "wanted to see a particular movie," and "no answer"

(Newspaper Advertising Bureau 1986). It also showed if the decision to go to a movie

was an independent decision, or one made by their viewing partner.

The 1986 study also showed some of the reasons why people go to the movies

based on reviews and advertising while not focusing on specifics like plot, actors, or type

of movie:









People find out about new films from the newspapers (37% among frequent movie
goers) and from television (32%). One in three (31%) finds out before the film is
launched, 28% at the time of release, and 39% afterwards. A majority says they
usually pay attention to movie reviews, and 36% had read reviews or commentary
on the last film they saw. Of these, 54% saw them in the newspaper; 40% on TV,
and 12% in a magazine.

Compared to those remembering reviews or commentaries, three out of five (61%)
remember coming across advertising for the last film prior to viewing it. Most
mention several sources, with equal numbers (55%) naming newspapers and TV
(Most initial launch promotions rely heavily on TV.). Of those who recall
advertising, about half (47%) remember something, but their recollections do not
focus on any specifics like the actors, plot, or type. (Newspaper Advertising Bureau
1986)

The study did begin to touch on the question of why people go to the movies.

However, it did not examine this perspective by using all forms of advertising and all

reasons for wanting to go to a movie before you enter the theater. The current study will

advance the ideas of advertising, previews, and reviews while taking into account the

specifics of plot, actors, and type of movie.

The 1986 study did focus on what people wanted to know about a movie before

they go to a theater, which did include plot, actors, the rating, and what type of film it

was. In this respect, the 1986 study began incorporating some of the current study's

variables, but not collectively in the same category nor in the context of deciding what

movie a respondent will choose. The 1986 study also looked at categories of frequent

and infrequent moviegoers in the following manner:

What are the kinds of things people want to know before they decide to go see a
film? Frequent moviegoers do not differ very much from the rest of the movie-
going public in their answers to this open-ended question. Thirty-six percent want
to know about the plot; 32% the actors; 22% the rating; 14% what type of film it is.
Another 9% say they want to know if it is 'clean,' 'not trashy.' 13% want
reassurance that the film is worth seeing, and 7% want to know what the reviews
have said. The infrequent movie goers are more interested than others in comedies.
(Newspaper Advertising Bureau 1986)









The 1986 study also studied what moviegoers want in ads to make a decision on a

movie. This list included starting times (84%), address of the theaters (69%), film rating

(67%), a plot description (53%), admission price (51%), the names of the supporting cast

(44%), a picture of the leading star (29%), and the name of the director (19%)

(Newspaper Advertising Bureau 1986).

This was the same for infrequent and frequent moviegoers. The study documented

how people first found out about a movie. It did not take into account the recent

developments of the Internet and word-of-mouth, which has helped with the success of

such films as My Big Fat Greek Wedding in 2002 (About.com 2002).

The 1986 study finished by looking at the impact of cable TV and the VCR on

movie-watchers. One of the significant facts here was the following: "77% of the

frequent movie-goers, compared with only 43% of the general public, prefer to go out to

see a new movie rather than watch it on TV, reinforcing the point that the occasion of

going out comes first and then the attraction of the specific film" (Newspaper Advertising

Bureau 1986). The study then went into the socio-economic statistics and other related

behaviors for those owning cable and VCRs, including income and education. An

important part of the 1986 study, in relation to our thesis, discusses the effect of the VCR

on movie-theater attendance:

Fifty-six percent of VCR owners say that outside movie-going habits haven't
changed; 41% say it is less, 2% more. Apart from the time they spend with their
VCRs, 28% say they are watching TV less, 6% say they are watching more. The
remaining two-thirds say they have not changed. (Newspaper Advertising Bureau
1986).

The current study wishes to focus on the movie-theater aspect of movie watching,

since there are now so many ways to watch movies in 2003, as compared to 1986.

Interestingly, VCRs did not heavily affect those who went to theaters to see their movies,









even though it represented another way to see movies and/or wait for a movie to come to

video without using the theater. This hinted that there is still something to be said about

seeing a movie in the theater over using your VCR or cable.

After looking at this previous research and seeing the many advances that have

been made since the 1986 study, there would be a definite benefit in seeing how the

movie-going experience has changed since the 1986 study and focus on "why" people go

the movies rather than on "whom" is going. The new study will be similar to the 1986

study in that it will look into the nature of the movie-watching experience by examining

what encourages people to go the movies.

Other Related Studies

One of the closest descriptions of the current study came from Bruce Austin's own

description of the movie selection process by moviegoers. It went from a wide angle of

movie choice to a narrow angle of movie choice (Austin 1989). This followed a pattern

of awareness to persuasion, and then to a decision on a film that is to be seen in the

theater. The factors, which influenced the change from wide angle to a narrow angle,

include the following: publicity and advertising, reviews, personal influence, story type,

and production elements (Austin 1989). These factors represent many of the variables in

the current study with trailers included with advertising, reviews represented by critiques,

story type representing subject matter and genre, and personal influence representing

word-of-mouth influence. The differences between this example and the current study

are the inclusions of director and actors into one element (production elements) and the

fact that this description was merely a blueprint for future research. In a sense, the

current study carries out this plan to fruition. This description does not show which

element has the most influence in helping a person determine what movie to see, and the









current study will get this answer by comparing responses by looking at Likert scales.

The current study will look at 400 respondents and see which mean is the highest among

the variables of the study.

Bruce A. Austin also did a study and essay on the film audience in 1983. He

looked at film research as being a neglected at the time. He stated there was a paucity of

research on the consumer, the one who watches the movies (Austin 1983). Austin also

stated that the ones who produce movies have not been the most accepting of audience

studies when in fact they should be. He sited Handel (1953), who in performing social

science research, discovered that audience research was used in all areas of mass

communication except film (Austin 1983). Now, Austin sees the research concerning

audiences and film expanding as the 1986 study proved. Austin cited that film audiences

are worth looking at because of the amount of money consumers are willing to spend on

film. As of 1976, Austin stated that 53.36% of U.S. amusement expenditures came from

movie watching (Austin 1983). His research suggested that movie-audience research

would offer the potential for "historical and behavioral explanations regarding large

audiences and their interaction with a popular mass medium" (Austin 1983). Austin

examined the reasons why there had been an absence of audience research with film. It

was because of the secretive nature of the movie industry. He stated some researchers in

the past have been unable to gain access to box- office returns data and that there is little

understanding from other sectors of life, like the government, commercial business, or

other foundations. In this way, Austin meant that researchers who wished to seek such

information about movie watching may find that they are on their own when it comes to

funding their projects. Government, commercial business, and other foundations had not









found such research to be worth their time or money. Austin went on to say that the

development of TV had also taken away research interests. TV had supplanted movies in

the audience research field (Austin 1983).

After describing the lack of sufficient research at the time, Austin mentioned

several ideas to help change research with film audiences. His first idea would lead

researchers to believe that subject matter was important in looking at what the audience

liked about movies, especially in determining whether or not to see a movie (Austin

1983). Austin saw the audience as discriminating in what they chose and he wished to

see the reasons behind such discrimination. He was getting at the question of why people

go to the movies, the backbone of the current study. Other ideas for further audience

examination concerned looked at the context in which a movie is presented in a theater,

the public's taste in movies, and to look at what moviegoers get out of going to a movie

(Austin 1983). This last idea harkens back to the idea of uses and gratifications theory.

Patrons will use going to the movie theater as some sort of gratification.

Austin stated that many tools could be used to look at audience behavior with film,

be they quantitative or qualitative. The current study will look at both quantitative and

qualitative methods by using Likert scales and written responses. Most importantly,

Austin stated that researchers must get into the element of the study, a movie theater. He

looked down upon telephone or mail surveys (Austin 1983). The current study will be

seeking this very idea by going to a theater to obtain surveys. Respondents will be asked

to fill out a survey at the theater.

While some studies focused on research paucity, other researchers focused on

film's ability to influence an audience. Noel Carroll analyzed the effect of emotions that









film can produce in the audience. He described audience members as wanting to identify

with the characters they saw on the screen (Plantinga and Smith, 2002). Carroll saw

genre as having the ability to elicit specific emotions, thus lending to the current study the

idea that genre is important in analyzing movie-viewing choice.

Dr. Brain R. Johnson supports Carroll's idea of a film being able to elicit

emotions. Johnson had done a dissertation on stress reactions to motion pictures and the

variables that predict such reactions. Being a clinical psychologist, Johnson has even

used motion pictures as a therapeutic aid. His work points to the importance of looking

at what the audience sees on the screen and why they like what they like. Johnson saw

that part of being human is to feel emotion and that people will chose to feel emotions

through watching a film. He saw movies as being able to elicit such emotions as fear,

happiness, anger, and pain (Plantinga and Smith, 2002). Sometimes watching a movie

can help ease emotional burdens. He described people who may be in constant fear and

that seeing something less fearful on screen would help them relieve stress. Johnson

made the following comment on the ability of movies to elicit emotions:

Cinema more than any other art form has a way of drawing viewers into a

situation that, for a moment, makes them a witness and sometimes an emotional

participant to what is happening on screen. (Plantinga and Smith, 2002)

Johnson echoed Carroll's idea that the audience goes to see films because of the

need to identify with something or someone they see on screen. He talked about living

vicariously thorough the characters on the screen. Speaking in psychological terms, the

Carroll and Johnson's ideas form reasons why people may go to see a movie in the

theater, but it does not touch on why a specific movie choice was made. The current









study will look at the perspective of the individual audience member's reason for

choosing a certain movie based on media exposure rather than looking into their mindset

for watching a movie. The current study understands that identification is a reason for

going to see a certain movie, but that this is to satisfy some hidden want. The current

study wishes to look at that which is not always hidden. The study wishes to look at the

way a person decides what movie they will see based on what they have been exposed to

through various media, not through what their inner self wants to see on the screen.

David Sterritt, staff writer at the Christian Science Monitor, also commented on

film's ability to release emotion. He talked about one movie patron crying when Bogart

leaves Bergman in Casablanca, saying that Hollywood's stock in trade is to tug at

emotions (Plantinga and Smith, 2002). He discussed talking about a movie with friends

and family even after the movie was over, and how personal people would get when a

movie they liked was put down by others. This indicates an inherent power in film over

the audience, as well as the ability of word-of-mouth, to influence audience members.

The current study wishes to see how this power develops by the many variables

surrounding movie-viewing choice in the hopes that this study will lead others to do

similar studies concerning emotional aspects and other aspects of film. Word-of-mouth,

other people talking about a movie, will be one of the key variables in the current study.

Sterritt suggested that observing the audience was the key to deducing a film's power to

elicit emotions. The current study will analyze the audience as being key to

understanding likes and dislikes in movie-viewing choice.

Sterrit drove home his point by talking with Professor William Luhr who said that

movies are designed to take us on an emotional roller coaster. Luhr mentioned hits like









Jurassic Park, where the director moves the audience from slow moments to a rapid chase

while changing our emotions in the process from calm to excited (Plantinga and Smith,

2002). Sterrit looked at the way the movie-going experience manipulates people to

feel a certain way and what better place to see how this starts than by looking at the

reasons why people chose a movie in the first place. Sterrit wanted to make sure that

what is considered manipulation is not meant to be negative and talked with Krin

Gabbard, chairman of the comparative-literature department at the State University of

New York at Stony Brook. Gabbard had said that manipulation, in the sense of an

emotional roller coaster, is what a director or movie puts us on and is not necessarily bad

because it does not directly go against the things we would like to achieve ourselves as

ordinary people (Plantinga and Smith, 2002). While acknowledging that movies are

designed to make people feel a certain way, the current study will focus on looking at

reasons why a movie was chosen to discover what media is most successful at getting

people to sit in a theater.

In Analyzing Films: A Practical Guide, William H. Phillips gave a look at why

viewers react emotionally to film by describing his reactions to the movie Coming Home.

At first he felt the characters were geared toward establishing certain viewpoints. They

were simplistic. That aspect of the film did not move him. But the subject matter of the

movie, the aftermath of the Vietnam War, was and still is a relevant subject to most adult

Americans who lived during that time (Phillips 1985). Despite his feelings about the

characters, Coming Home still struck a cord with Phillips. It is a film's ability to make a

person see something that looks and feels familiar that also allows people to be attracted

to the movie theater. Even though a movie is geared to strike certain emotional chords, it









may have other effects on viewers depending upon that viewer's knowledge and life

experiences. People will go to a movie for all sorts of reasons and the current study

wishes to know why they chose a certain movie based on what they know or what media

they have been exposed to. In a future study, it may be advisable to look at what a person

knows about life before they chose a movie, but the current study is interested in why

they chose a movie based on media use and exposure to certain media outlets, including

word-of mouth-exposure.

While some movies are designed to elicit a variety of emotions, some genre types

are designed to elicit specific emotions. Good examples of this come from the work of

Noel Carroll and his book The Philosophy of Horror. Carroll discussed the theory of the

horror movie or "art-horror," with examples like Psycho and Creepshow, and discussed

the definition of the horror movie. He posited that horror is an emotional state "wherein

some physical agitation is caused by observing what is on-screen" (Carroll 1990). He

also discussed how the horror movie is structured to elicit emotions from the audience

and why the audience would be attracted to these movies. Carroll described horror-like

emotion as "some kind of stirring, perturbation, or arrest physiologically registered by an

increase in heartbeat, respiration, or the like" (Carroll 1990). He said the key to this

release of emotion is the horror narrative, the subject matter of the movie, where

monsters or maniacs allow the audience to feel for intended victims. Carroll

acknowledged that people respond differently to different kinds of horror. For example,

John might react differently to the vampire menace in Bram Stoker's Dracula than Jenny

would react to Hannibal Lector in The Silence of the Lambs. This indicates that movie

companies may have a hard time targeting all horror lovers with their movies.









Carroll said it is the ability of the horror movie to suspend belief that allows a

person to become scared. Most of the monsters in horror movies operate outside of the

physical or normal world (Carroll 1990). It is this idea that scares the audience. The

monsters are designed to be lethal and impure. Carroll indicated that the audience seeks

shock-value by going to a horror movie. They want to be scared which is why they

choose a scary movie. In support of Carroll's idea, Charles Derry wrote that movie-

watchers will want to be scared, but will grasp at something that can be explained in

order to alleviate their fears (Derry 1977). People remember that this is a movie when

they remember it is make-believe. People will find something in the horror movie that

they respond to, especially after such horror success as Psycho, which managed to give

birth to whole genre of crazed killers (Derry 1977).

The secret to being scared in a horror movie is the narrative thread, which Carroll

discovered was similar in most horror movies. He spoke of the underlying thread of

discovery, where the character discovers some secret of the universe or something that

seems unreal becomes true in the movie (Carroll 1977).

Carroll and Derry's work are related to the current study in that they take subject

matter and genre as main reasons why people go to the movies. The current study looks

at that aspect, but also takes into account other reasons why people go see a movie based

on ideas such as what a person knows about a movie beforehand and who may be starring

in or directing a movie. Carroll discussed one subject area, while the current study

wishes to take into account all subject matter and all types of movies. Carroll also

focused on the watching of a movie, while the current study wishes to focus on the after









and before of watching a movie by taking surveys after and before watching the feature

presentation.

While some films manipulate emotions, other films have the ability to make

people feel a specific way while the audience watches. An example of this is through

examination of the film The Man with the Golden Arm, which was a study performed by

Charles Winick, a noted researcher and a professor of sociology at the GSUC (Brooker

and Jermyn, 2003). In the film, Frank Sinatra portrayed ajazz player who struggled with

an addiction to heroin. Winick's view was that while the film presents addiction as an

undesirable affliction, it does not offer specific recommendations as to how to handle said

addiction (Brooker and Jermyn, 2003). He tested several hypotheses, including the fact

that moviegoers may be affected by gaining more permissive attitudes towards drug use.

Using different demographics of New York teens, Winick found different groups based

on income (such as low and middle class) as well as different ethnic and gender

backgrounds (white and black viewers as well as male and female viewers). Winick's

study involved asking respondents several statements regarding their feelings on

addiction with a six-point scale for each statement. The statements were designed to

indicate restrictive attitudes towards addiction instead of permissive attitudes (Brooker

and Jermyn, 2003). The respondents were then allowed to view The Man with the

Golden Arm at their local theaters after which Winick reexamined their responses to the

similar statements on addiction. After performing the study, Winick found that exposure

to the film was related to more permissive attitudes toward narcotics. He also discovered

that while examining the effects of his addiction scale before and after watching the film,

he also observed comparisons between lower and middle class, white and black, and male









and female viewers. These comparisons revealed no significant difference in attitudes

toward addiction. This also indicated the use of demographics and different sexual

groups in a study. Another surprising effect was that the presence of Sinatra, as a star,

had the ability to affect established attitudes on addiction. For this reason, it is also

important to look at the presence of movie stars in order to study the audience effect of

watching a film for the current study. This idea will be used in the current study while

taking into account all reasons why people attend a movie. The current study is not

looking for ways in which a film influences its audience, but the reasons) why people

pick a specific movie on one night they plan to go to a theater using the available choices.

The respondents in the current study were not previously exposed to any material, like

Winick's addiction statements, that might affect responses when the investigators will

give out their survey.

Winick's final speculation was that seeing a problem (like addiction) film will

initiate a learning process but will not change basic attitudes (Brooker and Jermyn, 2003).

If film has the ability to even start a learning process, Winick's study showed that

watching and gauging audience behavior is a key to discovering the effects of media

exposure. This is the very reason the current study uses the audiences as its gauge on

why people go to the movies.

Other studies also showed particular reactions to a movie by respondents, such as

women's response to watching violence in The Accused. Philip Schlesinger, Rebecca

Dobash, and C. Kay Weaver performed this study. Schlesinger is a professor of film and

media studies at the University of Sterling, Dobash is a professor of social research in the

department of applied social science at the University of Manchester whose primary









research concerns violence, and Weaver is a senior lecturer in the department of

management communication at the University of Waikato in New Zealand. They had

respondents view the movie The Accused starring Jodie Foster, which dealt with the

subject of rape. The researchers in this study were trying to establish reactions to scenes

of sexual violence committed against women in the film (Brooker and Jermyn, 2003).

The study made it easy to assess emotional impact of a graphic display of sexual violence

upon female viewers (Brooker and Jermyn, 2003). The study indicated the following

results: most women thought the film was "violent and disturbing," Women who had had

an experience of violence rated it as not exciting, 58% rated the film as "not entertaining,

and just over 40% found it entertaining" (Brooker and Jermyn, 2003). The most

prevalent aspect among respondents was the shock aspect of watching moments in The

Accused that showed rape, and many of the respondents indicated feelings of shock,

horror, disgust, distress, and anger (Brooker and Jermyn, 2003). While it is important to

realize that the audience's feelings were measured, one female respondent's comment

demands the use of word-of-mouth as an aspect of the current study:

I must admit when I went to go and see it-it was the big thing-'oh, there is this

rape scene in it...everyone has got to go and see it. (Brooker and Jermyn, 2003)

This last comment indicates the ability of word-of-mouth heard about a picture to

get a person to go see a movie and its reason for inclusion into the current study as a

reason why people attend movies.

There were also differences found in ethnic diversity as well as among women in

The Accused study. This example can be used to display ethnic diversity as well as

emotional reactions. Women of White, Asian, and Afro-Caribbean backgrounds were all









listed as groups who participated in this study, all with varying sizes of responses to the

film. For example, Asian women had different reactions to The Accused than did Afro-

Caribbean or White respondents. In fact, 99% of the Asian women saw the film as

educational (if you behave badly, then that is what could happen) (Brooker and Jermyn,

2003). The movie was also seen as more offensive and disturbing to Afro-Caribbean

women than it was for Asian and White viewers (Brooker and Jermyn, 2003). As an

example of differences, all women were asked on a scale of differing response what they

felt about the movie (feelings on whether the film was realistic, believable, serious,

exciting, entertaining, violent, offensive, disturbing, handles issues, and educational).

Under the scale of "Believable," about 95% of White women thought it was believable,

about 61% of Asian women felt it was believable, and 85% of Afro-Caribbean women

felt it was believable. This indicated that the researchers' study not only found

differences among women's reactions to the movie, but also the fact that different ethnic

groups found it different as well. The researchers themselves even stated that ethnic

background appeared to make a significant difference in interpreting programs, in this

case film, with violent scenes (Brooker and Jermyn, 2003).

In relation to the current study, The Accused study focused on differences in

ethnic backgrounds and differences in emotional reactions to a film that respondents

watched, and the study showed that word-of mouth can be an important factor in

watching a movie. The current study differs from this study in that the current study will

focus on reasons why people go to movies that do not have to deal with emotions,

although people may have emotional responses to some of the questions asked. The

researchers will hear what people felt about a certain question, even though these verbal









responses will not be a primary piece of the current study. The current study will take

information from different ethnic and sexual backgrounds, but will only record the

different sexes. The researchers wish the current study to apply to all people and not

segregate any one group's responses as the researchers did in The Accused study. The

current study will also use the idea of word-of-mouth that was important to The Accused

study (see above) to see why people go to the movies.

While some movies allow for emotional responses to a film theme, others are

designed to just get the audience excited in some way. Zillmann and Bryant suggested

that exposure to entertainment sources can also be used to regulate excitation (Rosengren,

Wenner, and Palmgreen, 1985). For example, a person who is bored may seek to go to

an action picture to become excited or a highly excited person may want to see a movie

that is more calm or soothing, like a love story. This suggested that respondents will

choose a movie based on how they feel and how they want to feel, not just because of

subject matter, actors, or the advertising campaign surrounding a movie. The current

study will be different in that it will be performed from the viewpoint of those purchasing

tickets prior to entering the theater and those leaving the theater area after having seen a

movie. The current study will be primarily based on conclusions as to what can be seen

and analyzed from the data collected, not on excitation level.

Cynthia A. Freeland, from the department of philosophy at the University of

Houston, did a study on cognitive science in relation to film theory. This looked at the

movie-watcher's inner mind and leads to ideas used in the current study. Freeland's

study showed the differences and similarities between several philosophers and

psychologists in their examination of film: Anderson, Currie, Carroll (same as above),









and Tan. Psychologist Joseph Anderson described movies as illusions that can fool the

observer and that films are "potentially acceptable to every human being on earth"

(Freeland 1997). His importance in the current study comes from his views of looking at

film as significant and worth studying. Anderson also likened filmmakers to computer

programmers who try to understand what is going on in the head of the audience but are

not always successful (Freeland 1997). He saw movies as not a moviegoers to "read,"

but to experience as if interacting with a computer program (Freeland 1997). Philosopher

Gregory Currie stated that the key to watching film and its interpretation is stimulation

through imagination. He said patrons go to the theaters to stimulate their minds. Currie

also said that if a person wants to examine mental states of a moviegoer, then that person

must look at a moviegoer's behavior. It is essential to look at how a person acts during a

movie or look at their choices in order to get inside their head. The current study will

look at behavior from the point of initial movie-going choice in the hopes that such

choices will allude to what mental need is being satisfied. While Currie supported an

imagination theory of going to the movies, Psychologist Ed S. Tan saw movies as an

emotion-producing machine, much like the previous research by Dr. Johnson and Noel

Carroll. Tan saw filmmakers as those who "generate and manipulate our emotional

responses through aspects of narrative and other film mechanisms" (Freeland 1997). Tan

believed that movie patrons realized that film was real but accepted a movie as illusion.

This means people know that movies are fake, but audiences accept the idea that such

fakeness is for the good of enjoying the film (Freeland 1997).

Freeland's viewpoints from each philosopher and psychologist held that movies

can lead a moviegoer's thoughts or emotions down a certain path designed by the









particular moviegoer, but people are willing to go down that path as part of the magic of

movies and use their imaginations. The current study wishes to suggest the inner

working of a person as they choose a movie, but the study already understands people are

going to see a movie regardless of how they are being lead by the filmmaker or how they

feel. The current study will focus on why a certain movie was chosen among others that

were available at the time and on what basis a person chooses that movie based on what

they know about the movie beforehand. It is already assumed that a person knows a

movie is used for imagination's stimulation in relation to the current study. The

researchers of the current study wish to focus on what is the primary motivator(s) to

going to see a specific movie from the outside world of media usage, not what motivates

a person internally to see a movie. The current study is performed having the person in a

state before or after seeing a movie, not examining their behavior during a movie.

Besides studies conducted by researchers, movie production companies also hold

their own studies. Bruce A. Austin described several of these studies in "Immediate

Seating." These studies include the following:

-Concept tests: Questionnaires are used to rate different movie synopsizes and if

respondents would attend a movie described. They were first performed by the Gallup

poll in 1937 (Austin 1989). They were found to carry less weight in production decision-

making. The current study will use the moviegoer, but does not suggest what kind of

movie they will see. A moviegoer for the current study will be seeing a movie based on

media exposure and what each particular moviegoer looks for in a movie they will be

seeing.









-Casting tests: Developed as early as 1929 by Paramount, this test rated a particular

movie stars marquee-value (Austin 1989). Respondents were asked which names (out of

a list of movie stars) they would be more likely to attend a movie to see. The results were

considered of questionable value. This was due in part because at the time of such

blockbuster movies as "Star Wars," "Alien," and "Rocky," no one knew the names of

Harrison Ford, Sigourney Weaver, and Sylvester Stallone (Austin 1989). Now many

people do know them.

-Emotional-response tests: This test was designed by Peter and Lee Zoellner in 1968, to

predict the success of movies based on analysis of the script compared to emotional

responses gathered before the script was written. Galvanic skin responses were

measured, including emotional arousal and perspiration level, for various themes that the

scripts might be using (Austin 1989). The scripts were also analyzed for four qualities:

affluence, affection, status, and security. The four-quality responses were then compared

to the skin responses. This type of research has not been favored by the movie industry

because the GSR (Galvanic Skin response) measures are uncertain as to what they are

measuring. The current study wishes to examine why people go to the movies but not

their reactions to specific movie themes. The current study may have some emotional

responses, but there will be no GSR responses taken as the researchers wish to discover

why people go to a movie, not the reaction to a certain movie theme.

-Title tests: This test, also started by George Gallup in 1947, measured the success of a

possible movie based on the title chosen for it. Gallup said a good title could add

$300,000 to a picture's total gross at the box office (Austin 1989). Industry researchers

now agree that a title will not make or break a film. The title is designed to be enticing,









communicate the essential theme of the movie, and be easy to remember (Austin 1989).

What was particularly interesting in this study was that sequels, with a somewhat familiar

title, did not always guarantee success at the box office. This was true for The Sting II

and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid: The Early Days (Austin 1989). The current

study is not interested in the title although that may or may not coax a person to see a

certain movie. In the current study, the title is not as meaningful as is the use of trailers

and ads that actually describe a movie before a person sees a movie.

-Ad and research test: Advertising and promotional research was also conducted on what

aspects of the film were most appealing so they could be easily exploited at the beginning

of the movie's release to the public. These included trailer tests and previews of

upcoming films shown to respondents. For example, An Officer and a Gentleman was

tested ten times before emphasizing the romantic elements of the film over the military

and rites of passage elements (Austin 1989). The current study acknowledges the

influence of advertising to get people to go to a movie, but the study is looking at ads in

competition with other aspects of media use, including critiques, movie stars, word-of

mouth and subject matter.

-Sneak previews: First occurring in 1911 by Thomas H. Ince, these "advance screenings"

were used to develop the final look a film will have before seen by the general public.

Questionnaires, simple observations, or other feedback devices were also used to measure

an audience's feelings about the movie. A past example involved First Blood.

Audiences were asked to choose between the ending people are familiar with and an

alternate ending where John Rambo dies. Recruited audiences were not typically told the

type of the film and there were a lot of typical movie elements, like music and credits that









were improvised for the sneak preview. The fear here for production companies was that

critics would attend such sneak previews and hurt the opening potential with their

critiques (Austin 1989). The current study will look at movies that have already

experienced their sneak previews and some of the movies have been in release for many

weeks. The current study wishes to find out why people go to the movies, not "if' they

will go as suggested by the above studies.

-Word-of-mouth control: A study which began in 1976 where Columbia pictures

engaged the Wharton School of Applied Research in trying to control word-of-mouth.

The main point was to stop misinformation and get out a positive word about a film.

Most of the specific details were held secret. The current study will take into account the

effect of word-of-mouth and its ability to coax people to go see a movie, but this is after

the movie has been released to the general public. The current study is not trying to

control word-of-mouth, but rather examine its effect on why people will be tempted to

see a movie in the theater.

-Direct-mail marketing: First initiated in 1983 for Paramount's re-release of Reds this

marketing campaign sent information about a movie (description of the movie) tailored

using zip codes or occupation categories. If you answered the questions in this campaign,

the incentive was that a person would receive a discount on a ticket to see the movie that

was being marketed. The current study is not interested in the far-away aspects of

finding audience likes and dislikes about a particular movie. The current study wishes to

go right to the source of where people buy tickets at the theater and get a more direct

response to reasons why people see a particular movie and what motivated them to see it.









The current study will be trying to fish for information like the direct-mail study, but it

will be done at the place where people come and go from seeing a movie, the theater.

While acknowledging the importance of the spectator, movie studios will tend to

reinvent successes of the recent past. This leads back to how movie-going behavior can

be unclear at times (Vale 1982). There is no reason to take risks if a previous formula

has worked. For example, Spider-Man was based on a super-hero created by Marvel

Comics. It was a successful movie for most of the summer of 2002, in terms of ticket

sales. Recently in February 2003, Daredevil was released and it was also based on a

Marvel Comics' character. The Hulk, another movie based on a Marvel character, will be

released in June 2003. Early reports indicated that Daredevil has already had success

and was the number one movie in America for multiple weeks (The Box-Office Report

2003). The new thesis/study would be a step in bringing clarity as to why audiences

choose the movies they want to see.

While producers and directors look to repeat past successes, they cannot always

assume they know what an audience will like and dislike. According to Vale, a person

would have to "cut open all the locked homes and apartments and look in and listen to

inaudible thoughts and amorphous feelings" (Vale 1982). This is something that is

clearly impossible. One thing has still been proven true no matter what the subject

matter: Money made by a movie alone is not a clear depiction of an audience's taste

(Vale 1982).

Past research also suggested that many people go to the movies for identification

(reducing the gap between film and spectator). This spoke of being able to experience a

movie-character's life in the theater and return to the respondent's normal life when the









lights come up (Burnett 1991). A person could escape into another life by watching a

movie. They see something on screen that would have some relation to something in

their own life, perhaps an unrealized dream.

One way to escape reality in the theater is to look at the concept of celebrity. The

star of a movie has a place in any movie-viewing study, including the current study and

the studies mentioned here. The star is said to hold the spectator's attention. The actor or

actress is considered "a super-person who is bigger than life" and as a part of a spectacle

performed for the movie-viewer (Burnett 1991). From this source, it can be determined

that everything in a movie is designed to hook a movie viewer, from the soundtrack to the

special effects. Movie stars are just one piece of a whole once you enter the movie

theater (Burnett 1991).

While discussing the topic of movie-star, Jacqueline Rose of Queen Mary and

Westfield College in London talked about The Cult of Celebrity, which appeared in the

London Review of Books. The article talked about the idea of people following a

celebrity, seeing their films or appearances, and collecting memorabilia based on the fact

that there specific celebrity is present in the things they buy, read, or see. The life of a

celebrity would invite others to watch what he or she does, even if the celebrity was

trying to remain more private (Rose 2003). The interesting thing was that following a

celebrity in high moments and low moments had a tendency to unite people in thoughts

and feelings. Rose focused on the examples of Princess Diana and Mary Bell, but her

ideas encompassed all celebrities, including those in film (Rose 2003). Rose made the

point that people are interested in following celebrities, but there is an essence of shame

in that the public is willing to hear bad things about their celebrities as well as good.









Fans will want their celebrity to be pure or above being human and making mistakes.

She said it puts into question our own morality from wanting to know even the worse

things about our favorite celebrities. Rose also talked about celebrities being hesitant to

admit that they are involved in a balancing act between a public life and a private life

with an audience of fans who be interested in both (Rose 2003). Celebrities themselves

are performing for a world stage when they enter a room or walk out the door. Rose said

it is the fan audience that will be going to see a celebrity's movies and the movies may be

what makes or breaks the celebrity.

The current study wishes to see what effect, if any, the presence of a movie star

has on a person's movie-viewing choice when going to a theater. Will a person see a

movie just because they like the celebrity or their previous movies? The current study

will benefit from Rose's depiction of celebrity as it will be the basis of the researcher's

own definition of movie star for the current study. But the single idea of celebrity is only

one reason why a person may be motivated to go see a particular movie. The current

study will take into account movie stars as well as other variables including trailers, ads,

critiques, subject matter, word-of-mouth, and the presence of a particular director.

Sometimes even directors can be seen as celebrities.

Vale attests that "people have a strong wish to identify themselves with other

people even if it is only for the short duration of a movie show" (Vale 1982). He goes on

to say that identification happens as a result of the characters mirroring something that

intrigues the spectator (Vale 1982). Vale claims that research has shown that people go

to the movies to "satisfy some mental craving," like a person who goes to a restaurant

because they want something to eat (Vale 1982). This means that sometimes a spectator









may want to go see a movie to be scared while other times a spectator may want to see a

movie to witness the triumph of good over evil after he or she has had a bad day. Next,

Vale describes an audience showing outward signs of a movie's impact, talking about

audience members who cried or laughed, but he recognizes that these are only outward

signs of what goes on inside the spectator's mind (Vale 1982).

Dr. Stuart Fischoff of California State University did a film-choice study in 1998.

His research shows that viewers look to movies for fantasy fulfillment and emotional

experience (Fischoff 1998).

In the study, Fischoff took a nationwide sample of 560 respondents and asked them

to fill out a questionnaire concerning their favorite films, genres, and elements that

contributed to their love of a movie. He was looking at comparisons between what he

called "The Beholder" (what was perceived by the mind of the viewer about a film) and

"The Beheld" (the actual elements of the film and the film itself) (Fischoff 1998). His

results indicated that drama was the most popular genre in terms of all-time favorite

films. Fischoff also discovered that what is on the screen, "The Beheld," determines a

movie's popularity more than what "The Beholder" may be thinking about the film. He

saw that plot devices and central characters were the most potent forces in evaluating a

film by respondents, not the male or female leads. Fischoff also found that respondents

paid more attention to male leads than female leads in determining all-time favorite

movies. Finally, Fischoff's study stated that certain themes were the most popular in

concerning the idea of fantasy fulfillment among his respondents. They were the triumph

of the underdog, heroism, and adventure (Fischoff 1998).









Fischoff looked at how movies obtain "all-time favorite status" using movie

elements like plot, character, and director. He did not apply this to how people first

decide on a movie, but how such elements impacted a respondent's favorite movies. He

saw that favorite films were more established by what was on the screen rather than what

an audience member was looking for inside himself or herself, such as fantasy fulfillment

or escapism (Fischoff 1998).

Fischoff's study is unique in that it wants to look at both filmic and psycho-

emotional qualities contributing to a movie's all-time favorite status (Fischoff 1998). His

focus was on the completion of the film experience, not the choices one makes to pick a

film.

Fischoff's study was also consistent with uses and gratifications theory in that a

film's impact and meaning may be seen as "a joint function of both what the artists

intended to create and what the audience seeks and/or receives from a film" (Fischoff

1998). This implies that a movie audience's own needs and wants are important in

studying the impact of movie-viewing choice.

Fischoff studied which genre of film was listed most frequently in a list of favorite

films compiled from his respondents. He used similar variables to the ones used in the

current study including, the effect of director, plot, and movie-star power on movie-

viewing choice. Fischoff focused primarily on movies already seen and the ways in

which movies help fulfill a viewer's fantasies by the way a movie is constructed. He

studied what people are looking for in each genre of film, from fantasy fulfillment to the

featured elements of a movie (like plot and characters). The current thesis will elaborate

on these underlying reasons of fantasy fulfillment and escapism, but will look more









closely at the time before a person goes to see a movie and why a person goes to a movie,

rather than examining what they have already seen and what they consider to be their all-

time favorite films.

While some studies focus on varying movie-choice using different themes, other

studies seek to learn why some movies are more successful than others. Barry Litman

did an empirical study of theatrical movies and why some are successful and some are

not. He examined this from the aspects of the scheduling of a movie's release, the

marketing scheme, and the total creativity used to create the movie. He acknowledged

the fact that people will see movies with their favorite stars, just as the current study will

look at the effects of movie-star power on movie-viewing choice. Litman also looked at

the marketing campaign for a movie that relates to the use of trailers and ads in the

current study. He also considered how the director and the acting crew work together to

affect a movie's success and how the ratings assigned by the Motion Picture Association

of America effect a movie's revenue (Litman 1983).

In order to prove the success of movies, Litman developed a revenue equation

with dependent and independent variables. The dependent variable was theatrical rentals,

which he obtained from films earning at least $1 million. The independent variables

consisted of story types (the current study represents these as genre types) and ratings and

how they impact total revenue of a movie (Litman 1983). The remaining independent

variables involved the use of box-office stars in a movie's cast, the production cost for

making the movie, the distribution of a film by a major company or an independent

company, the peak periods for releasing movies (around Christmas, Easter, and in

summer), the movies which had been nominated for Academy awards, and the impact of









a critic's reviews. These variables were used in a multiple regression analysis, which is a

statistical technique that can be used to place observed and estimated data in an equation

for revenue (Litman 1983). Litman found that ratings and picture type, or genre, had

nothing to do with his revenue equation. He also saw that movie stars were not a big

effect when the other variables were held constant. So according to his study, ratings and

subject matter had no real impact on the success of movies. He also discovered that

movie superstars don't allow for additional revenues to a film (Litman 1983). The

important determinants in movie revenue success were the production cost, the critics'

rating, use of a major distributor, and any possible links to the Academy Awards. He

admitted that the movie industry may not give up such secrets, but they can be found out

(Litman 1983).

Litman used some of the variables that will be used in the current study such as

ads, trailers, movie stars, and critiques, but he used them to discover revenue and success,

rather than why people go to the movies. He wanted to discover if there is a certain

formula for making successful movies, but not why people will go, the focus of the

current study.

Uses and Gratifications Theory

In conclusion, the main theory behind the current study idea comes from the uses

and gratifications approach. This theory states that "people's media consumption patterns

are intended actions on the part of the viewers," and "that individuals do make conscious

choices about what they see and read in the media" (Salwen and Stacks, 1996). In

dealing with the current study, the researchers are looking at what helps people to decide

the movie they want to see in the theater and what helps them make that decision,

especially what are the top reasons for making that decision.









What is essential to the uses and gratifications tradition has been audience activity,

which is highly correlated with the idea for the current study; to see why people want to

go to the movies (Rosengren, Wenner, and Palmgreen, 1985). According to this idea of

audience activity, uses and gratifications theory suggests that there is a media

dependency. This means earlier researchers in the theory have examined the extent to

which a respondent would miss a particular medium if it were not available. The current

study makes this clear with question #2 in Appendix A. Results from previous studies

by such researchers as Lindlof (1986), Rubin (1981), and Wenner (1982) have suggested

dependence on a medium (like movies) related to the number and strength of the motives

for attending that medium (Salwen and Stacks, 1996). The current study looks at these

motives by the questionnaire devised in Appendix A. This study will be examining the

motives behind choosing a movie by looking at variables that the researchers will

operationalize later in Chapter 3, including director influence, subject matter/genre

influence, and movie-star influence. The current research will also look at motives like

the appearance of a movie star or a type of subject matter that motivates a respondent to

go see a movie. To sum up, past research in uses and gratification showed that the

audience will use a movie (by watching it) to gratify some aspect of themselves or to

escape a feeling of boredom (Salwen and Stacks, 1996). This idea of boredom is an

underlying gratification, and the current study is not dealing with boredom as a reason for

going to the movies. The current study assumes people are going to a movie for more

than just the escape from boredom since they made the decision to buy a ticket to a

specific film. One uses and gratifications' researcher, Blumler (1979), suggested many

other reasons why people would use a medium, like the movies, which include gaining









information (knowing about what the movie is like or whether the critic on a movie was

right or wrong), for an escape or diversion, and to identify with the characters a

respondent sees on the screen (Salwen and Stacks, 1996). These were some of the

gratifications that researchers speak of when they refer to uses and gratifications theory.

For the purposes of audience activity for the current study idea, the researchers will

look at the idea of movie-viewing choice and use eleven-point Likert scales to describe a

person's reasons for wanting to choose a movie. Before looking at the scales, there needs

to be a definition for the use of movie-viewing choice here in the current study. Movie-

viewing choice comes from the idea of an audience who watches the movies. It is known

that the film industry depends on targeting "the maximum possible audience" and that is

done through "a wide variety of market research techniques" (Blandford, Grant, and

Hillier, 2001). This indicates that the film industry uses trailers, advertising, critiques,

and subject matter to influence the viewing choice of moviegoers. In the current study,

the researchers wish to see what variables affect viewing choice so as to gauge what

variables influence a respondent's decision. The researchers want to find out if the

marketing for a movie is doing its job as well as finding out what motivates people to go

see a movie.

Audience activity suggests "that media use is motivated by needs and goals that are

defined by audience members themselves, and that active participation in the

communication process may facilitate, limit, or otherwise influence the gratifications and

effects associated with exposure" (Rosengren, Wenner, and Palmgreen, 1985). In other

words, the audience is the group you need to examine in order to designate how the

media works toward satisfying an audience member's needs. You need to look at them









without interference and let the audience decide for itself what it likes and dislikes.

Researchers, including Levy and Windahl in 1984, did work that suggested "positive,

significant correlations between messages of audience activity and indicators of

gratifications sought and obtained" (Rosengren, Wenner, and Palmgreen, 1985). This

showed that measuring audience response can lead to successful results and can be

correlated with uses and gratifications theory. It was possible to see what makes people

go to the movies by looking at their responses to a questionnaire or survey. The positive

aspect of previous research in uses and gratifications had indicated that continued study

and experimentation "holds great promise for increasing our knowledge about the role of

mass communication in human life" (Rosengren, Wenner, and Palmgreen, 1985).

Performing the current study can only advance the cause of uses and gratifications theory.

The following chapter will begin with reasons for using a survey and a preview of

using survey methodology. A discussion will follow to discuss the methodology for the

current questionnaire (see Appendix A) to be used in this thesis.














CHAPTER 3
SURVEY AND METHODOLOGY

As supported by Zillmann in Media Gratifications Research, the survey or

questionnaire has been one of the best ways to research uses and gratifications theory and

is the method used in the current study (Rosengren, Wenner, and Palmgreen, 1985). The

survey is merited for being efficient with minimal problems of effort and cost

(Rosengren, Wenner, and Palmgreen, 1985). Although being the preferred method of

research in uses and gratifications theory, the survey has limitations. These arise from

"the validity of inferences from introspective reports of consumption reasons about actual

consumption reasons" (Rosengren, Wenner, and Palmgreen, 1985). This results from

respondents who may be thinking about what their culture would say about a question in

a survey instead of what the respondent truly feels. Respondents may want to somehow

make themselves look good to the investigator and will tailor their responses to match

what they think an investigator wants to hear. Researchers do not see this limitation as a

huge hindrance and criticism is usually cast aside. Anything that is a limitation can be

bypassed by using the idea of an experiment, or a manipulation of messages (Rosengren,

Wenner, and Palmgreen, 1985). In the case of the survey/questionnaire for the current

study, all respondents will remain anonymous, aside from age and sex, and respondents

will have already made a choice to see a movie because surveys will be given and

collected at the theater. Another way to eliminate limitations of a survey is to make

responses clear for the respondent so that the questions and the responses provide clarity

for both the respondent and the researcher (Rosengren, Wenner, and Palmgreen 1985).









Sometimes researchers have to accept limitations of a survey, but using it in conjunction

with experimentation can be successful. Both survey and experiment can be chosen by

researchers, or used together, for their studies in uses and gratifications.

In order to test the question of why people like to go to the movies, the primary

investigator of the current study did an informal questioning to fish for the reasons why

people go see a specific film at movie theaters and came up with the following reasons:

movie critiques, movie trailers, general advertising (ads in newspaper, magazine, movie

posters, and on TV), movie-star power, word-of-mouth, and the director of a film. The

informal questioning was done by asking friends, family, co-workers, and fellow

researchers about the current study in the Clearwater and Gainesville, Fla. areas and by

asking what they thought were the reasons why they like to go to the movies. Frequency

of response, talking with fellow researchers, an analysis of the 1986 study, and the related

studies in Chapter 2 were all used to judge what variables would be used. Again, this

study assumes movie patrons have already made the decision to see a movie, regardless

of ideas of boredom or simple entertainment.

The purpose of the present investigation is designed to discover which reasons for

going to the movies had the highest response among the variables used in the current

study. The overall research question is what the perceived exposure to the variables in

this study will have on movie-viewing choice.

Research Questions and Survey

The underlying research questions are as follows:

?R1) What is the relationship between reading or watching movie critiques in

newspapers, magazines, TV, etc. and movie-viewing choice?









?R2) What is the relationship between watching trailers for an upcoming movie and

movie-viewing choice?

?R3) What is the relationship between watching general advertising (ads in

newspaper, magazine, movie posters, and on TV) and movie-viewing choice?

?R4) What is the relationship between perceived movie-star power and movie-

viewing choice?

?R5) What is the relationship between preferences in genre or subject matter and

movie-viewing choice?

?R6) What is the relationship between word-of-mouth comments that are heard

about a movie and movie-viewing choice?

?R7) What is the relationship between the director of a film and movie-viewing

choice?

The survey instrument appears in Appendix 1.

Sampling Technique

The population for the present study will consist of all those who go to a movie

theater, from teenagers to older adults (18+). Surveys will be conducted while patrons

are standing in line to enter a movie theater or as they exit the theater. This is considered

a convenience sample (Ryerson University 2003). This means that the current study is

good for exploratory research that can provide valuable insights into movie-viewing

choice. The surveys will be explained if needed, but are designed to be self-explanatory

so that respondents will have ease in answering them ( a suggested time of 4 minutes or

less was practiced by the primary investigator). The primary investigator will be present

to answer any questions. A maximum of 400 surveys will be collected at theater









locations in Gainesville and Orlando. Gator Cinemas is the theater in Gainesville, and

Cinemark is the theater in Orlando. The process at a theater is to sample a group of

people on a given night during the weekend or on a night during the week, preferably

when the lines are longer at the theater for better sampling and quickness of getting

respondents. Each respondent will asked if he or she could fill out a questionnaire. The

initial plan will be to get at least 400 respondents, excluding those who fill out the survey

totally wrong or those younger than 18 years of age.

For the purpose of saving time and money, this current study will be using a

purposive sample, based on a movie patron's willingness to be at a theater (Wimmer and

Dominick, 2000). The satisfactory sample size of 400 will be used for the current study

and the following age groups are used: 18-22, 23-27, 28-32, 33-37, 38-42, 43-47, 48-52,

53-57, 58-62, 63-67, 68-72, 73-77, 78-82, 83-87, Above 87 (Wimmer and Dominick,

2000).

In the case of using a purposive sample, as in staying outside the theater, the

researchers were first told to collect surveys as patrons left the theater by the managers of

the theaters where the surveys were collected. This did change questions 14 and 15,

which were originally used to get patrons before they saw a movie. After initial research

was performed, some respondents did answer with the movie they saw and asked the

primary investigator if they could do so. In this way, surveys will be given to patrons

that come out of the theater (occasionally before they went to see their movie), but the

researchers have not been able to get everyone who exits because of the voluntary nature

of the survey (some possible respondents have declined to take the survey) and the fact

that only one principle investigator is available to administer/collect the surveys. The









primary investigator, in this case, will be using three clipboards to obtain surveys and will

tell respondents the following information before letting them decide on the survey:

I am doing a survey for a thesis, a university project, on how to improve the movie-
going experience and look at why people go to the movies. This will not take long
and I am not trying to sell you anything. It should take only four minutes or less of
your time.

After completing the survey, each respondent was thanked for his or her time.

Once all the necessary information was obtained, the data will be analyzed by

looking at the data objectively and by using a statistical program called SPSS, which is

available for use at the computer labs on the University of Florida campus. It is a method

supported by most analysts and makes the analysis of huge amounts of data easier than

working with a simple calculator (Sigma Plot and Sigma Stat, 2003). Many fellow

researchers in varied disciplines and at the University of Florida continually support this

method.

Collecting Surveys

The primary investigator began collecting survey information the week of March

14, 2003, where approximately 41 surveys were obtained in a four-hour period on a

weekend (Friday to Saturday) at Gator Cinemas (a theater in Oaks Mall Plaza in

Gainesville, Fla.). Permission to collect surveys had already been given by that theater's

manager. Fourteen of those surveys were obtained at another theater in town. Over the

next several weekends, about 34 to 50 surveys were obtained each night of the weekend

(Friday to Sunday). This was performed over two to three day periods on weekends and

lasted up until the second to last week in April 2003. Three weekends were spent in

Orlando, Fla., where 300 of the surveys were obtained. Most of the data was collected on

the weekends at night when movie going was typically at its peak, and a majority of









participants were free of obligations such as regular work hours and school, an

assumption supported by the number of surveys obtained and research studied in Chapter

2.

It was helpful obtaining the surveys in Orlando, which is a heavily traveled tourist

location. Several respondents indicated they were on vacation, even from other

countries. The speculation was that if a similar survey was done over several states and

countries, then an overall movie-behavior study could be performed. The current study

showed only one sample that could be expanded, depending primarily on time and

money.

In order to examine the survey, the primary variables of the current study will be

operationalized, or put into simple terms, below:

1) Movie-Viewing Choice: It is to be made clear that this is not meant to be a

variable in this study, but it is a term composed of all the other variables that will be used

and needs to be defined. Movie-viewing choice is only a term used and will not be

measured, by itself, in this study. Movie-viewing choice will be judged based on a series

of eleven-point scales. For each, respondents will be asked to rate, on a scale of 0-10, the

extent to which seven factors influence movie selection or their movie-viewing choice.

The seven factors were: movie critiques, movie trailers/ previews, general advertising for

movies, movie-star influence, genre/ subject matter influence, word-of-mouth, and the

influence of a particular director of a movie.

The measures are designed to find out how respondents perceived movie-viewing

choice to be affected by written movie critiques, watching movie trailers, looking at ads

(in newspapers, magazines, radio, the Internet, and posters), motivation to go see a movie









based on who is starring in it, the presence of the director of a movie, word of mouth

spread about a movie, and motivation to go see a movie because of the subject matter.

The following are the factors influencing movie selection.

1) Critique Influence: Critique influence will be measured by asking respondents to

rate, on a scale of 0-10, the extent to which movie critiques influence movie selection.

For this measure, a rating of 10 means "heavy influence" and a score of 0 means "no

influence at all."

For the present study, critiques were defined as follows:

Non-academic writing on contemporary films, usually in newspapers and
magazines, taking the form of anything from a short tabloid assessment of a new
film, accompanied by a star rating to a longer piece accompanied by other material,
such as a retrospective look at the work of a director or leading actor. A critique is
also an 'immediate written response to a film's release.'" (Blandford, Grant, and
Hillier, 2001)

2) Preview Influence: Preview influence will be measured by asking respondents,

again using a 0-10 scale, the extent to which movie trailers/previews influence movie

selection. For this measure, a rating of ten means "heavy influence" and a score of zero

means "no influence at all." This measure will be used to indicate how movie trailers

affect a respondent's decision to go see a movie. Trailers are those small previews of

upcoming movies seen in the theater or at home on TV. Movie previews come in

different lengths. Small trailers are called teasers. For the present study, trailers or

teasers will be defined as the following:

A short film advertising a forthcoming attraction at a cinema, normally (though not

necessarily) a compilation of clips from that film, and normally prepared by the film's

distributor. (Blandford, Grant, and Hillier, 2001)









3) General Advertising Influence: General advertising influence will be measured

by asking respondents, again using a 0-10 scale, the extent to which ads (found in

newspapers, in magazines, in posters, on the radio, and on the Internet) influence their

movie selection. For this measure, a rating often means "heavy influence" and a rating

of zero means "no influence at all." Basically, this measure was meant to include all

other forms of advertising that are not mentioned with all other variables. General

advertising includes ads in magazines, movie posters advertising an upcoming movie, ads

for a movie seen in a newspaper, ads of a movie mentioned on the radio, movie stars

promoting a movie on a show like Entertainment Tonight, and even ads for a movie seen

on the Internet (Blandford, Grant, and Hillier 2001). Advertisements can include the

name of the movie, its stars, and the directing and producing credits. They frequently

include pictures of whom or what the film is about.

4) Movie-Star Influence: Movie-star influence will be measured by asking

respondents, again using a 0-10 scale, the extent to which the presence of a certain actor

or actress in a movie influences movie selection. For this measure, a rating often means

"heavy influence" and a rating of zero means "no influence at all." This measure talks

about how a star (be it an actor or actress) of a movie may influence a respondent to go

see a movie in a theater if only because that star will be in that movie. Movie-star

influence will be defined in the present study as follows:

A film star is a performer whose presence in a film can assure box-office success

and who generates interest in his or her life beyond film roles. (Blandford, Grant, and

Hillier, 2001)









Note: Box-office means "the takings earned by a film during its theatrical release"

(Blandford, Grant, and Hillier, 2001).

5) Genre/ Subject Matter Influence: Genre/Subject matter will be measured by

asking respondents, on a scale of 0-10, the extent to which the subject matter, or type of

genre of a movie, influences movie selection. For this measure, a rating often means

"heavy influence" and a rating of zero means "no influence at all." This measure

concerns the effect of how a movie's plot or subject matter affects how people go to the

movies. Genre concerns different types of movies like action, comedy, horror, drama,

etc. Genre, in the current study, is meant to include all genre types, even those not

mentioned here. Subject matter concerns the basic ideas presented in a movie. For

example, the movie Saving Private Ryan had war as its primary subject matter. For the

purpose of this present study, genre/subject matter will be defined together as follows:

Genre is "a category, kind, or type of art or cultural artifact with certain elements in

common. In film, common genre elements include subject matter, theme, narrative and

stylistic conventions, motifs, character types, plots, and iconography" (Blandford, Grant,

and Hillier, 2001).

6) Word-of-Mouth Influence: The perceived influence of word-of-mouth will also

be measured by asking respondents, on a scale of 0-10, to what extent word-of-mouth, or

the ideas and speech of others who saw the movie and talk about it, influences movie

selection. For this measure, a rating of ten means "heavy influence" and a rating of zero

means "no influence at all."

Word-of-mouth will be defined in the current study as the response to a movie that

is spread by those who have seen it and are talking about it and/or the buzz about a movie









that is spread by the general public. An example would be a friend who saw My Big Fat

Greek Wedding and told you about it. After hearing about it from him or her, you decide

to go see the movie based on what you heard.

7) The Director Influence: This influence results when someone wants to see a

movie in the theater because they like the director's previous work. For example, a

person may want to see Minority Report because Steven Spielberg directs it and/or they

liked the last pictures directed by Spielberg, such as A.I. or Saving Private Ryan.

To measure the extent to which the director influences a respondent's decision to go

to see a movie in the theater, respondents will indicate, on a scale of 0-10, about how

much the presence of a director influences them in wanting to see a movie in the theater.

The current study will examine how this variable ranks among the others and get an

average or mean of these responses from the respondents.

Analysis of Research Questions

Note: Movie-viewing choice was measured by responses to the questionnaire in

Appendix 1 and is not separate from them.

Research question #1 asks whether a relationship exists between movie critiques

and movie-viewing choice. Respondents' 0-10 "influence" scores will be utilized in

comparing the effect of movie critiques on movie-viewing choice.

Research question #2 asks whether a relationship exists between movie trailers/

previews and movie-viewing choice. Respondents' 0-10 "influence" scores will be

utilized in comparing the effect of movie trailers/ previews on movie-viewing choice

Research question #3 asks whether a relationship exists between general

advertising and movie-viewing choice. Respondents' 0-10 "influence" scores will be

utilized in comparing the effect of general advertising on movie-viewing choice.









Research question #4 asks whether a relationship exists between movie-star

power and movie-viewing choice. Respondents' 0-10 "influence" scores will be utilized

in comparing the effect of movie-star power on movie-viewing choice.

Research question #5 asks whether a relationship exists between subject matter/

genre and movie-viewing choice. Respondents' 0-10 "influence" scores will be utilized

in comparing the effect of subject matter/genre on movie-viewing choice.

Research question #6 asks whether a relationship exists between word-of-mouth

heard about a movie and movie-viewing choice. Respondents' 0-10 "influence" scores

will be utilized in comparing the effect of word-of-mouth on movie-viewing choice.

Research question #7 asks whether a relationship exists between the director of a

film and movie-viewing choice. Respondents' 0-10 "influence" scores will be utilized in

comparing the effect of the director on movie-viewing choice.

Analyzing the Remaining Questions (Researchers' Reasons for Adding the
Remaining Questions):

Times per month (question # 1 in Appendix A): This will be used to find out how

many times a person goes to a movie to establish frequency.

Someone else (question #10 in Appendix A): This will be used to establish whether

it was a respondent's individual choice to see a movie or whether it was someone else's.

$5 price increase (question #12 in Appendix A): This will be used to determine a

respondent's enjoyment of the theater and whether or not a price increase would effect

theater going.

Film seeing or seen (question #14 in Appendix A): This will be used to establish a

genre type as well as verify the date and answer any questions about the type of movie

seen that are not answered by the other survey questions.









First prompted you (question #15 in Appendix A): This will be used to take care of

any other reason for going to see a movie besides the primary ones mentioned in the

survey, especially in relation to the research questions.

Sex and age (questions #16 and 17 in Appendix A): These will be used to give a

frame of reference for all respondents without giving names and for age and sex

comparison.

Now that the survey has been discussed, the process of distributing and collecting

the surveys will be described as well as the examination of results once the total 400

surveys was collected.














CHAPTER 4
DATA AND RESULTS

Data Cleaning

First, 400 surveys were obtained from participants at local theaters in Gainesville

and Orlando. For the purpose of data analysis, there are certain things that had to be

changed from the original Excel program/spreadsheet, where was recorded the total 400

survey answers from their original paper copies. This Excel program will have a copy of

its readout attached to this study (See Appendix B). On this table and readout, missing

values are those not filled out or missed by respondents. For certain numbers and survey

answers, the following had to be performed for data analysis:

-Any blank spaces were either answered as NA or were not answered by the participant

in the original Excel data set.

-In the original data set, some respondents had given additional conditions to a yes or no

on question #12. For the purposes of data analysis, only "yes" or "no" was taken as a

valid response. In the original data set, these extra comments were designated as "yes?"

or "no?" The "?" indicates that a participant added extra words to his/her response which

was unnecessary for the purposes of this particular survey and analysis.

-In a few cases, respondents circled male and female for question 17, even though

they were supposed to circle one only. In this case, it was assumed that they did not

circle the sex question.

-In several cases, a person gave an "X" instead of circling a number in which case

an "X" on a number or in a response was interpreted as a circle.









-Some respondents put two answers to a question that only demanded one, or their circles

were too broad to consider one response or number. In this case, the first half of each

column or question would have the first number chosen and the second half would have

the second number chosen of all the responses that had two choices. For example, the

first 58 cells had the first number chosen and the second 58 had the second number

chosen. This followed for any survey question where such a conflict arose:

-All responses left blank meant the respondent did not answer a question, forgot to see it,

or left it as NA (Not Applicable)

-All "<" or ">" answers were changed to the very next number they indicate (for

example: ">6" was changed to 7 for the basis of statistical analysis).

-All "<1" answers were changed to "0.5."

-One answer listed as "all the time" for the "times per month" question was changed to

the average number of days in a year or 30.

-Using cross multiplication and comparison, several worded values were changed to meet

the times per month value (examples: 1 a week was changed to .3 rounded, 20 a decade

was changed to 0.2, 1 a year was changed to 0.08, 3 a year became 0.25, etc.).

Comparing days in a year to days in a month did all this.

-"Every other month" was translated into "1."

-For the purpose of data analysis, several categories were made for question 10, which

concerned whether a person was going to a movie for himself or someone else. One

subject, "377," responded to the question with free coupons, which was not a valid

answer according to the rules of the question and was designated as no response. This

kind of response may need to be further examined, as people do like to use coupons, but









not for this current study. The categories were divided by the following for

statistical/data analysis:

1-I did (the respondent alone)

2-I did and someone else did (Subject 72 said "We were winging it," so this counted

here)

3-Someone else did (respondent mentioned a name or said they did not want to see it

themselves)

-For question 12, the $5 increase question, several divisions arose for data analysis. They

were the following:

1-No

2-Yes

3-No?

4-Yes?

Here the question mark indicates that the respondent added a condition to the answer

even though that was unnecessary.

-For the rating question (question 11), there were several subjects who did not answer

according to the rating rules given. In hindsight, having each medium accompanied by a

scale of 1-7 could have solved this problem (see Likert scales for earlier questions). For

these reasons, the researchers then made several judgment calls:

-All subjects who gave the response of "check" or "NA" were not counted or left blank,

as they gave no valid answer for this question. (Examples: subject 153, 224, 227, 258,

278, and 327 for rating TV and subjects 21 and 224 for rating theater)









-For the purpose of data analysis, the age ranges needed to be changed to single numbers

to represent each range:

1= 18-22

2= 23-27

3= 28-32

4= 33-37

5= 38-42

6= 43-47

7= 48-52

8= 53-57

9= 58-62

10= 63-67

11= 68-72

No one over the age range of 68-72 answered our questionnaire.

-For the purpose of data/statistical analysis, all the responses for question 17 (male or

female) were translated as the following:

F= 1

M=2

Both M and F or no answer= 3

Data Analysis

The following were the results of using SPSS and looking over the data obtained

from the 400 surveys, all logged on the Excel program and seen in Appendix B (All other

tables can be found at the end of this chapter). The statistical program, SPSS, was used.

It is known for "expertise and in data mining and statistical analysis" and holds a 30-year









success record (Sigma Plot and Sigma Stat, 2003). For each table, each set of numbers to

the left indicates the amount of respondents who answered in that way (for example in

Table 6, 19 respondents gave the answer "4" to question 6 on the survey). All tables can

be found at the end of this study after the bibliography:

Table 1: Shows all results of frequencies, means, and percent of respondents who

did and/or did not answer the question (question 1 of the survey) of "Times per month."

The highest number of times people said they went to the movies was at least 2 times a

month; 105 respondents. The second highest frequency was 1 time a month.

Table 2: Shows all results of frequencies, means, and percent of respondents who

did and/or did not answer question 2 of the survey on whether they would miss going to

the theater if it were no longer available. 134 respondents gave the response of 10, thus

leading to "very much," and only about 14 said 0 or "not at all." All respondents had

about 66.9% over the number "7" for wanting the theater to remain in existence.

Table 3: Shows the results of frequencies, means, and percent of respondents

who did and did not answer the question 3 of the survey, a respondent's feelings on how

movie critiques in the newspaper, magazines, on TV, etc. make you want to go to a

movie theater. The mean was 3.77 and the mode was 0.

Table 4: Shows the results of frequencies, means, and percent of respondents

who did and/or did not answer the question 4 of the survey, a respondent's feelings on the

influence of watching trailers or previews on a respondent's movie choice. The mean was

7.17 and the mode was 8.









Table 5: Shows the results of frequencies, mean, and percent of respondents who

did and/or did not answer question 5, a respondent's feelings on how ads influence their

decision to choose a movie. The mean was 5.92 and the mode was 5.

Table 6: Shows the results of frequencies, means, and percent of respondents who

did or did not answer question 6, a respondent's feelings on how movie stars influence

their decision to go to a movie theater. The mean was 7.21 and the mode was 10.

Table 7: Shows the results of frequencies, means, and percent of respondents who

did or did not answer question 7 on the survey which indicated how genre or subject

matter influenced their decision to go to a movie. The mean here was 7.68 and the mode

was 10.

Table 8: Shows the results of frequencies, means, and percent of respondents who

did or did not answer question 8 on the survey, indicating how word-of-mouth influences

a person's decision to go to the movies. The mean was 6.88 and the mode was 8.

Table 9: Shows the results of frequencies, means, and percent of respondents who

did or did not answer question 9 on our survey, indicating how the director of a movie

influences a person's decision to go to the theater and choose a movie. The mean was

3.88 and the mode was 0.

Table 10: Shows the results of frequencies, means, and percent of respondents

who did or did not answer question 10 about whether they were going to see a movie

because they wanted to or because of someone else. 191 respondents chose the movie

themselves out of a valid 362. Nineteen people went above what the question asked and

said they wanted to see it as well as because of someone else.









Table 11-17: Shows the results of frequencies, means, and percent of respondents

who did and/or did not answer question 11, a question where respondents were asked to

rate several media influences on their effectiveness in getting people to go a movie

theater. This was to measure what medium was used primarily to go to a movie in the

theater. This question may need to be reexamined at another time as many respondents

were confused as to whether you needed to rank or rate the media and respondents did a

little of both. Several of the respondents answered beyond the 1- 7 range giving such

values as 0, 10, and 9 as responses. The answers to this question were not as essential to

the primary research questions asked in this study, but there will be a record of the

responses given:

TV had a mean of 2.78 and a mode of 1, radio had a mean of 4.75 and a mode of 7,

internet had a mean of 4.28 and a mode of 7, magazines had a mean of 4.79 and a mode

of 7, newspapers had a mean of 3.92 and a mode of 1, theaters had a mean of 3.23 and a

mode of 1, and word-of-mouth had a mean of 3.52 and a mode of 3.

Table 18: Shows the results of frequencies, means, and percent for the answer to

question 12, whether respondents would favor a $5 increase in ticket prices for movies.

Some people added extra qualifications to be followed when they said "yes" or "no" to

this question (22 people said they would agree "yes" or "no," but they added extra words

on the survey to qualify their decision). The following list gives their responses and their

written comments:

Subject 3: Circled yes and wrote "Depends."

Subject 4: Circled yes and wrote "Once a semester. Would mostly wait for them to come

out on DVD."









Subject 25: Circled yes and wrote "Just not as often."

Subject 50: Circled yes and wrote "But movie would have to be great."

Subject 81: Circled yes and wrote "But would not be happy about it."

Subject 114: Circled yes and wrote "But not as much."

Subject 128: Did not make a circle and wrote "Less."

Subject 151: Circled yes and wrote "Less frequently."

Subject 154: Circled yes and wrote "More seldom."

Subject 160: Circled no and wrote "Would rent."

Subject 176: Circled no and wrote "Maybe."

Subject 190: Circled yes and wrote "But will see two during a month."

Subject 209: Circled yes and wrote "But not very often."

Subject 224: Did not make a circle and wrote "Not as often."

Subject 267: Circled yes and no and wrote "Go less."

Subject 284: Circled no and wrote "No! Cable."

Subject 320: Circled yes and wrote "More seldom."

Subject 330: Circled no and wrote "Not as much."

Subject 366: Circled no and wrote "Could not afford it."

Subject 397: Circled no and wrote "Much less."

Subject 399: Gave no circle and wrote "Sometimes."

These answers will be discussed in the conclusion (Chapter 5).

Table 19: Shows the results of frequencies, means, and percent for question 13

on the survey, which asked how much people rely on movies for their entertainment. The

mean here was 6.15 and the mode was 7.









Table 20: Shows the results of frequencies, means, and percent for question 16,

which was to indicate an age range that respondents fell into. No respondent went above

the 68-72 year age range. The mean here was 4.08 and the mode was 4.00. The highest

frequency went to the 18-22-age bracket at 83 respondents.

Table 21: Shows the results of frequencies, means, and percent for question 17

on our survey, which verified participant's sex as male or female. A majority of

respondents were female, about 215 of the total 400.

Analysis of Written-Response Answers

For question 14, respondents gave the movie they had seen or the movie they

were going to see. Primarily, people who were exiting the movie answered this question,

due to the theater owners' suggestion that responses be collected after a movie was

finished. Respondents who became confused had their confusion cleared up by the

primary investigator who was present at the time they answered the questionnaire.

According to a checked count of the responses, Anger Management came out

with 57 votes (the highest number for any one film mentioned here), Phone Booth came

out as the second highest at 41 votes, and Chicago and Bringing Down the House were

tied at 22 votes. These responses only included respondents who answered with one

movie only. Some respondents gave more than one movie even though they were only

asked for one. Those respondents who gave more than one answer were not included

here in this count.

For question 15, respondents were told to write down what first prompted them to

see the movie they mentioned in question 14. This was done to see if there were any

additional and outstanding reasons (besides critiques, trailers, movie-stars, director, ads,

movie-star power, and word of mouth) why people go to the movies that the current









researchers may have missed by informal questioning and by studying other research.

Since this question was a written one and the other questions concerning why a person

goes to the movies were Likert scales, this study could not compare the earlier responses

(Likert scale answers) to question 15 by data analysis. Besides the other reasons this

study addressed for going to the movies by utilizing the variables in the questionnaire, the

other responses were the following:

-Read the Book (had about 7 respondents)

-Funny

-Nothing better to do (About 2 respondents)

-Oscar winner

-Finish a sequel (saw the first one)

-To get out of the house

-Because of the rating

-Had less violence

-Might be interesting

Table 22-Table 28: To show a physical distribution of the respondents' answers to

the questions in the survey, a series of bar charts was structured to indicate the

respondents' distribution of numbered responses to each of the research questions. Each

table has an x-axis representing each number of the Likert scale, and the y-axis shows

how many people answered with that particular number. The following is an analysis of

what each table is looking at:

Table 22: Shows the responses to question 3. The x-axis shows each number of the

Likert scale and the y-axis shows how many people answered that way (Ex: About 100









people answered 0 to question 3). The lowest value came from respondents answering 9

to this question and the highest came from those answering 0.

Table 23: Shows the responses to question 4. The lowest value came from

respondents answering 1 to question 4 about the influence of trailers on movie choice.

This did not include the fact that the absolute lowest count came from those values that

were missing because a respondent did not answer this question or forgot to answer it.

The highest number for respondents here was a close tie between the number 8 and 10,

with 8 being the highest.

Table 24: Shows the responses to question 5 in Appendix 1. Again, some

respondents did not answer this question about ad effect. The highest bar comes from

those who answered 5 on this Likert scale question. The lowest came from those who

answered 1. A majority of the responses are centered on the middle of the chart. This

shows that the mean is centered around 5 just as it did using the frequencies program on

SPSS.

Table 25: Shows the responses to question 6 on the questionnaire. There are some

missing values and the lowest number came from those respondents who answered 1 to

this question about movie stars affecting their movie choice. The highest bar came from

10.

Table 26: Shows the responses to question 7 on the questionnaire concerning the

effect of subject matter and genre on movie-viewing choice. Taking away the missing

values, the lowest amount of responses came when looking at the bar of 1. The highest

came from the bar of 10.









Table 27: Shows the responses to question 8 on the survey concerning the effect

of word of mouth. Without missing values, the lowest bar came from respondents who

answered 1 to this question. The highest bar came from those who answered with the

number 8.

Table 28: Shows the responses to question 9 on the survey/questionnaire,

concerning the effect of the director on movie choice. There are missing values, and the

lowest bar came from respondents who answered 10 or 6. The highest bar comes from

those who answered 0.

An F-test (analysis on variance among means) was performed on the basis of movie

choice for each of the research questions concerning critiques, trailers, ads, stars, genre,

word-of-mouth, and director involving repeated measures. It was discovered that the

means, ranked on page 43, mirrored the frequencies analysis done using an F-test. This

confirmed the original ranking of the means using frequencies. This can be seen in Table

29.

The following is a list of Pearson Correlations from Table 30 to show that there

may or may not be a causal relationship between the primary variables in this study

(based on the seven research questions relating to the primary variables) and the times per

month question and the entertainment question (#13) on the survey:

-According to the table and the asterisks, the correlation between feelings about critiques

and those on trailers, ad effect, movie stars, and director, and the entertainment question

are all correlated as significant at the 0.01 level.









-The table also shows a significant correlation at the 0.01 level for the relationship

between trailers and critiques, ads, movie stars, subject matter, word-of-mouth, and the

entertainment question.

-The table shows a significant correlation at the 0.01 level for the relationship between ad

effect and ads with critiques, trailers, movie stars, subject matter, word-of-mouth, and the

entertainment question.

-For movie stars, there is a significant correlation at the 0.01 level for relations with

critiques, trailers, ads, subject matter, director, and the entertainment question.

-For the subject matter relationship, there is a significant relationship at the 0.01 level for

trailers movie stars, word-of-mouth, director, and the entertainment question.

-For the word-of-mouth relationship, there is a significant correlation at the 0.01 level for

trailers, ads, subject matter, and director.

-For the director relationship, there is a significant relationship at the 0.01 level for

relations with critiques, movie stars, subject matter, word-of-mouth, times per month, and

the entertainment question.

-For the times per month question, there is a significant correlation at the 0.01 level for

relations with director and the entertainment question.

The next few statements touch on a significant correlation at the 0.05 level for the

following relations:

-Critiques and word-of-mouth

-Ads and director

-Ads and times per month

-Word-of-mouth and critiques









-Word-of-mouth and the entertainment question

-Director and ads

-Times per month and ads

One correlation had negative products, indicating less of a relation between the

categories:

-Times per month and feelings about trailers.

This may lead to the belief that ad effect may have no reason to be associated with

the amount of times one goes to see a movie per month.

The next chapter will discuss how the results affected the current study, what could

be improved, and what the current study could be used for in the field of mass

communication. The next chapter begins by talking about the idea of summary statistics

and how they can be applied to the results of the current study.

The following tables are those referred to in the above chapter and will be

mentioned in subsequent chapters. The full set of responses, given by study participants,

can be seen in Appendix B. Table 1 begins on this page:

Table 1: Times

N Valid 392
Missing 8
Mean 2.67
Median 2.00
Mode 2
Std. Deviation 2.296
Range 30
Sum 1046











Table 1 (Continued): Times


Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent


8
1
1
2
1
13
90
105
70
61
18
8
2
7
2
1
1
1
392
8
400


I.


Table 2: Miss the Theater


2.0
.3
.3
.5
.3
3.3
22.5
26.3
17.5
15.3
4.5
2.0
.5
1.8
.5
.3
.3
.3
98.0
2.0
100.0


Valid


Missing
Total


0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
15
30
Total
System


2.0
.3
.3
.5
.3
3.3
23.0
26.8
17.9
15.6
4.6
2.0
.5
1.8
.5
.3
.3
.3
100.0


2.0
2.3
2.6
3.1
3.3
6.6
29.6
56.4
74.2
89.8
94.4
96.4
96.9
98.7
99.2
99.5
99.7
100.0


N Valid 400
Missing 0
Mean 7.23
Median 8.00
Mode 10
Std. Deviation 2.881
Range 10
Sum 2892











Table 2 (Continued): Miss the Theater


Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 14 3.5 3.5 3.5
1 8 2.0 2.0 5.5
2 13 3.3 3.3 8.8
3 17 4.3 4.3 13.0
4 20 5.0 5.0 18.0
5 39 9.8 9.8 27.8
6 22 5.5 5.5 33.3
7 39 9.8 9.8 43.0
8 59 14.8 14.8 57.8
9 35 8.8 8.8 66.5
10 134 33.5 33.5 100.0
Total 400 100.0 100.0


Table 3: Feelings about Critiques

N Valid 400
Missing 0
Mean 3.77
Median 4.00
Mode 0
Std. Deviation 3.086
Range 10
Sum 1508

Feelings about Critiques

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 99 24.8 24.8 24.8
1 25 6.3 6.3 31.0
2 28 7.0 7.0 38.0
3 46 11.5 11.5 49.5
4 35 8.8 8.8 58.3
5 51 12.8 12.8 71.0
6 25 6.3 6.3 77.3
7 32 8.0 8.0 85.3
8 30 7.5 7.5 92.8
9 10 2.5 2.5 95.3
10 19 4.8 4.8 100.0
Total 400 100.0 100.0









Table 4: Feelings about Trailers


Feelings about Trailers


Table 5: Ad Effect


N Valid 398
Missing 2
Mean 7.17
Median 8.00
Mode 8
Std. Deviation 2.607
Range 10
Sum 2854


Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 15 3.8 3.8 3.8
1 3 .8 .8 4.5
2 11 2.8 2.8 7.3
3 16 4.0 4.0 11.3
4 13 3.3 3.3 14.6
5 33 8.3 8.3 22.9
6 28 7.0 7.0 29.9
7 57 14.3 14.3 44.2
8 88 22.0 22.1 66.3
9 47 11.8 11.8 78.1
10 87 21.8 21.9 100.0
Total 398 99.5 100.0
Missing System 2 .5
Total 400 100.0


N Valid 398
Missing 2
Mean 5.92
Median 6.00
Mode 5
Std. Deviation 2.581
Range 10
Sum 2358









Table 5 (Continued): Ad Effect


Table 6: Movie Stars


Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 10 2.5 2.5 2.5
1 7 1.8 1.8 4.3
2 27 6.8 6.8 11.1
3 34 8.5 8.5 19.6
4 35 8.8 8.8 28.4
5 62 15.5 15.6 44.0
6 47 11.8 11.8 55.8
7 54 13.5 13.6 69.3
8 55 13.8 13.8 83.2
9 25 6.3 6.3 89.4
10 42 10.5 10.6 100.0
Total 398 99.5 100.0
Missing System 2 .5
Total 400 100.0


N Valid 398
Missing 2
Mean 7.21
Median 8.00
Mode 10
Std. Deviation 2.328
Range 10
Sum 2869









Table 6 (Continued): Movie Stars


Table 7: Subject Matter


Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 5 1.3 1.3 1.3
1 3 .8 .8 2.0
2 9 2.3 2.3 4.3
3 17 4.3 4.3 8.5
4 19 4.8 4.8 13.3
5 30 7.5 7.5 20.9
6 44 11.0 11.1 31.9
7 71 17.8 17.8 49.7
8 67 16.8 16.8 66.6
9 56 14.0 14.1 80.7
10 77 19.3 19.3 100.0
Total 398 99.5 100.0
Missing System 2 .5
Total 400 100.0


N Valid 398
Missing 2
Mean 7.68
Median 8.00
Mode 10
Std. Deviation 2.198
Range 10
Sum 3055









Table 7 (Continued): Subject Matter


Table 8: Word of Mouth


Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 6 1.5 1.5 1.5
1 2 .5 .5 2.0
2 6 1.5 1.5 3.5
3 9 2.3 2.3 5.8
4 7 1.8 1.8 7.5
5 35 8.8 8.8 16.3
6 24 6.0 6.0 22.4
7 64 16.0 16.1 38.4
8 81 20.3 20.4 58.8
9 69 17.3 17.3 76.1
10 95 23.8 23.9 100.0
Total 398 99.5 100.0
Missing System 2 .5
Total 400 100.0


N Valid 398
Missing 2
Mean 6.88
Median 7.00
Mode 8
Std. Deviation 2.306
Range 10
Sum 2740











Table 8 (Continued): Word of Mouth


Table 9: Director


Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 11 2.8 2.8 2.8
1 2 .5 .5 3.3
2 10 2.5 2.5 5.8
3 12 3.0 3.0 8.8
4 17 4.3 4.3 13.1
5 39 9.8 9.8 22.9
6 55 13.8 13.8 36.7
7 68 17.0 17.1 53.8
8 89 22.3 22.4 76.1
9 49 12.3 12.3 88.4
10 46 11.5 11.6 100.0
Total 398 99.5 100.0
Missing System 2 .5
Total 400 100.0


N Valid 399
Missing 1
Mean 3.88
Median 3.00
Mode 0
Std. Deviation 3.036
Range 10
Sum 1550









Table 9 (Continued): Director


Table 10: Seeing a Movie with Someone?

N Valid 362
Missing 38
Mean 1.89
Median 1.00
Mode 1
Std. Deviation .969
Range 2
Sum 685


Seeing a Movie with Someone?


Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 80 20.0 20.1 20.1
1 25 6.3 6.3 26.3
2 48 12.0 12.0 38.3
3 47 11.8 11.8 50.1
4 37 9.3 9.3 59.4
5 46 11.5 11.5 70.9
6 14 3.5 3.5 74.4
7 38 9.5 9.5 84.0
8 31 7.8 7.8 91.7
9 18 4.5 4.5 96.2
10 15 3.8 3.8 100.0
Total 399 99.8 100.0
Missing System 1 .3
Total 400 100.0


Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid I did 191 47.8 52.8 52.8
I did and
didad 19 4.8 5.2 58.0
someone else
someone else 152 38.0 42.0 100.0
Total 362 90.5 100.0
Missing System 38 9.5
Total 400 100.0











Table 11: Rating TV as a Medium

N Valid 383
Missing 17
Mean 2.78
Median 2.00
Mode 1
Std. Deviation 2.088
Range 7
Sum 1064


Rating TV as a Medium


Table 12: Rating Radio as a Medium

N Valid 369
Missing 31
Mean 4.75
Median 5.00
Mode 7
Std. Deviation 2.171
Range 7
Sum 1751


Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 1 164 41.0 42.8 42.8
2 63 15.8 16.4 59.3
3 38 9.5 9.9 69.2
4 31 7.8 8.1 77.3
5 26 6.5 6.8 84.1
6 22 5.5 5.7 89.8
7 38 9.5 9.9 99.7
8 1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 383 95.8 100.0
Missing System 17 4.3
Total 400 100.0









Table 12 (Continued): Rating Radio as a Medium


Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 5 1.3 1.4 1.4
1 41 10.3 11.1 12.5
2 29 7.3 7.9 20.3
3 38 9.5 10.3 30.6
4 34 8.5 9.2 39.8
5 49 12.3 13.3 53.1
6 54 13.5 14.6 67.8
7 119 29.8 32.2 100.0
Total 369 92.3 100.0
Missing System 31 7.8
Total 400 100.0


Table 13: Rating Internet as a Medium

N Valid 370
Missing 30
Mean 4.28
Median 5.00
Mode 7
Std. Deviation 2.496
Range 7
Sum 1585

Rating Internet as a Medium

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 9 2.3 2.4 2.4
1 80 20.0 21.6 24.1
2 35 8.8 9.5 33.5
3 26 6.5 7.0 40.5
4 28 7.0 7.6 48.1
5 33 8.3 8.9 57.0
6 33 8.3 8.9 65.9
7 126 31.5 34.1 100.0
Total 370 92.5 100.0
Missing System 30 7.5
Total 400 100.0









Table 14: Rating Magazines as a Medium

N Valid 364
Missing 36
Mean 4.79
Median 5.00
Mode 7
Std. Deviation 2.130
Range 7
Sum 1745


Rating Magazines as a Medium


Table 15: Rating Newspapers as a Medium

N Valid 372
Missing 28
Mean 3.92
Median 4.00
Mode 1
Std. Deviation 2.204
Range 9
Sum 1457


Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 6 1.5 1.6 1.6
1 37 9.3 10.2 11.8
2 23 5.8 6.3 18.1
3 38 9.5 10.4 28.6
4 40 10.0 11.0 39.6
5 49 12.3 13.5 53.0
6 54 13.5 14.8 67.9
7 117 29.3 32.1 100.0
Total 364 91.0 100.0
Missing System 36 9.0
Total 400 100.0









Table 15 (Continued): Rating Newspapers as a Medium


Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 3 .8 .8 .8
1 73 18.3 19.6 20.4
2 42 10.5 11.3 31.7
3 58 14.5 15.6 47.3
4 39 9.8 10.5 57.8
5 49 12.3 13.2 71.0
6 34 8.5 9.1 80.1
7 72 18.0 19.4 99.5
8 1 .3 .3 99.7
9 1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 372 93.0 100.0
Missing System 28 7.0
Total 400 100.0


Table 16: Rating Theaters as a Medium

N Valid 369
Missing 31
Mean 3.23
Median 3.00
Mode 1
Std. Deviation 2.154
Range 10
Sum 1191

Rating Theaters as a Medium

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 3 .8 .8 .8
1 111 27.8 30.1 30.9
2 57 14.3 15.4 46.3
3 57 14.3 15.4 61.8
4 34 8.5 9.2 71.0
5 35 8.8 9.5 80.5
6 23 5.8 6.2 86.7
7 48 12.0 13.0 99.7
10 1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 369 92.3 100.0
Missing System 31 7.8
Total 400 100.0









Table 17: Rating Word-of-Mouth as a Medium

N Valid 372
Missing 28
Mean 3.52
Median 3.00
Mode 3
Std. Deviation 1.925
Range 7
Sum 1308


Rating Word-of-Mouth as a Medium


Table 18: $5 Increase-Yes or No


Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 1 .3 .3 .3
1 61 15.3 16.4 16.7
2 69 17.3 18.5 35.2
3 81 20.3 21.8 57.0
4 47 11.8 12.6 69.6
5 44 11.0 11.8 81.5
6 25 6.3 6.7 88.2
7 44 11.0 11.8 100.0
Total 372 93.0 100.0
Missing System 28 7.0
Total 400 100.0


N Valid 397
Missing 3
Mean 1.44
Median 1.00
Mode 1
Std. Deviation .728
Range 3
Sum 571









Table 18 (Continued): $5 Increase-Yes or No


Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid No 262 65.5 66.0 66.0
Yes 113 28.3 28.5 94.5
No? 5 1.3 1.3 95.7
Yes? 17 4.3 4.3 100.0
Total 397 99.3 100.0
Missing System 3 .8
Total 400 100.0


Table 19: How Much Do Movies Make Up Your Entertainment?

N Valid 396
Missing 4
Mean 6.15
Median 7.00
Mode 7
Std. Deviation 2.596
Range 10
Sum 2434

How Much Do Movies Make Up Your Entertainment?

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 6 1.5 1.5 1.5
1 7 1.8 1.8 3.3
2 30 7.5 7.6 10.9
3 29 7.3 7.3 18.2
4 35 8.8 8.8 27.0
5 57 14.3 14.4 41.4
6 32 8.0 8.1 49.5
7 66 16.5 16.7 66.2
8 52 13.0 13.1 79.3
9 35 8.8 8.8 88.1
10 47 11.8 11.9 100.0
Total 396 99.0 100.0
Missing System 4 1.0
Total 400 100.0









Table 20: Age Ranges


Age Ranges


Table 21: Sex( m, f, or no)


N Valid 397
Missing 3
Mean 4.08
Median 4.00
Mode 1
Std. Deviation 2.549
Range 10
Sum 1621


Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 18-22 83 20.8 20.9 20.9
23-27 55 13.8 13.9 34.8
28-32 52 13.0 13.1 47.9
33-37 34 8.5 8.6 56.4
38-42 55 13.8 13.9 70.3
43-47 43 10.8 10.8 81.1
48-52 32 8.0 8.1 89.2
53-57 23 5.8 5.8 95.0
58-62 9 2.3 2.3 97.2
63-67 7 1.8 1.8 99.0
68-72 4 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 397 99.3 100.0
Missing System 3 .8
Total 400 100.0


N Valid 400
Missing 0
Mean 1.48
Median 1.00
Mode 1
Std. Deviation .524
Range 2
Sum 590










Table 21 (Continued): Sex( m, f, or no)


Table 22: Counts for Feelings about Critiques

120


100


80


60


401


20


2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Feelings about Critiques


Freque Valid Cumulative
ncy Percent Percent Percent
Valid Female 215 53.8 53.8 53.8
Male 180 45.0 45.0 98.8
Both or no
Bothorno 5 1.3 1.3 100.0
answer
Total 400 100.0 100.0











Table 23: Counts for Feelings about Trailers


Iff nn -


80



60



40



20


o
O 0


Missing 0


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Feelings about trailers




Table 24: Counts for Ad Effect


0
o 0


Missing 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


ad effect












Table 25: Counts for Movie Stars


Iff nn -


Missing 0


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


movie stars




Table 26: Counts for Subject Matter


11 I 1 1


Missing 0 1


subject matter


2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10











Table 27: Counts for Word-of-Mouth


100



80-



60-



40.



20.


o
O 0
Missing 0 1


word of mouth


Table 28: Counts for Director


f 11111


80



60



40



20



-) 0
8 0


Missing 0

director


2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


2 3 4 b b / 9y 1









Table 29: General Linear Model: Within-Subjects Factors


Measure: MEASURE 1
Dependent
VIEW Variable
1 CRITIC
2 TRAILERS
3 ADS
4 STARS
5 GENRE
6 MOUTH
7 DIRECTOR

Estimated Marginal Means-
VIEW


Std.
VIEW Mean Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
1 3.773 .155 3.468 4.078
2 7.189 .130 6.934 7.445
3 5.917 .130 5.662 6.171
4 7.207 .117 6.977 7.438
5 7.692 .109 7.478 7.906
6 6.889 .116 6.661 7.117
7 3.856 .152 3.558 4.155

















Table 30: Correlations

Correlation

How much
movies
Feeling up
abou Feeling Times entertain
Critique about ad movie subject word of director mont t?
Feelings about Pearson 1 17 20 *" 19 ** 05 10 23 ** 00 24
Sig (2- 00 00 00 28 04 00 99 00
Sum of Squares
CrSum of Squares 3798 84 559 54 651 14 565 97 145 50 288 48 883 85 77703
Cross-
Covanan 952 1 40 1 64 1 42 36 72 222 1 96
N 400 398 398 398 398 398 399 393 396
Feelings about Pearson 17 *' 1 39 *" 30 ** 20 15 01 31 *
Sig (2- 00 00 00 00 00 78 90 00
Sum of Squares 55954 269838 1041 12 73881 460 04 35633 43 63 84437
Cross-
Covanan 140 679 262 186 1 15 90 11 214
N 398 398 398 398 398 396 397 391 394
ad Pearson 20 *' 39 1 36 ** 16 21 10 11 31
Sig (2- 00 00 00 00 00 04 02 00
Sum of Squares 651 14 1041 12 264373 86225 37527 511 33 31063 26422 840 82
Cross-
Covanan 164 262 665 217 94 129 78 67 214
N 398 398 398 398 398 396 397 391 394
movie Pearson 19 *' 30 36 *" 1 24 08 21 *' 07 28
Sig (2- 00 00 00 00 09 00 12 00
Sum of Squares 56597 73881 86225 2151 69 48990 18011 611 53 16295 66804
Cross-
Covanan 142 186 217 542 123 45 154 41 170
N 398 398 398 398 398 396 397 391 394
subject Pearson 05 20 16 *" 24 ** 1 25 13 *' 03 17
Sig (2- 28 00 00 00 00 00 48 00
Sum of Squares 14550 460 04 375 27 489 90 191718 496 44 346 45 68 89 39537
Cross-
Covanan 36 115 94 123 482 125 87 17 100
N 398 398 398 398 398 396 397 391 394
word of Pearson 10 15 21 *" 08 25 1 21 *' 06 11
Sig (2- 04 00 00 09 00 00 21 01
Sum of Squares 28848 356 33 511 33 18011 49644 211068 600 99 12706 27693
Cross-
Covanan 72 90 1 29 45 1 25 531 1 51 32 70
N 398 396 396 396 396 398 398 391 394
director Pearson 23 *' 01 10 21 ** 13 21 1 20 ** 24
Sig (2- 00 78 04 00 00 00 00 00
Sum of Squares
Cross squares 88385 43 63 31063 611 53 34645 600 99 366869 54461 74943

Covanan 222 11 78 1 54 87 1 51 921 1 39 1 90
N 399 397 397 397 397 398 399 392 395
Times per Pearson 00 11 07 03 06 20 *' 1 36
Sig (2- 99 90 02 12 48 21 00 00
Sum of Squares 26422 16295 68 89 12706 54461 206341 840 28
Cross-
Covanan 67 41 17 32 1 39 526 216
N 393 391 391 391 391 391 392 393 390
How much do Pearson 24 *' 31 31 28 ** 17 11 24 36 ** 1
make up Sig (2- 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00
entertamnme Sum of Squares
entertame Sum of Squares 77703 844 37 84082 668 04 395 37 276 93 749 43 840 28 2661 50
Cross-
Covanan 196 214 214 170 100 70 190 216 673
N 396 394 394 394 394 394 395 390 396
** Correlation is significant at the 0 01 level
Correlation is significant at the 0 05 level














CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND CLOSING THOUGHTS

According to mass media research, the most common type of central tendency

statistic to use in comparing values comes from the idea of means, the average score of

all responses given. The mean has a brother summary statistic known as the mode, which

represents the value that occurs most often. Summary statistics help make data more

manageable by measuring central tendency and variability. In other words, they handle

any outrageous values, low or high, and they put everything on a more even playing field

(Wimmer and Dominick, 2000). The median, another summary statistic which measures

values about the middle value, was discussed by Wimmer and Dominic as being

unreliable and the least useful, so it will not be used in this study and analysis (Wimmer

and Dominick, 2000). These two summary statistics (mean and mode) were found

through SPSS to answer the research questions and to examine which research questions

were the highest in mean and mode. This will aid in looking for which reasons) people

go to the movies the most out of all the reasons used in the questionnaire. Here are the

results of comparing means and modes of question 3 through question 9 (see tables 4-10,

see above);

Order by means:

1) Subject matter/genre=7.68

2) Movie stars=7.21

3) Trailers/previews=7.17

4) Word-of-Mouth=6.88