king & hourani (2007) effect of horror film endings

Don’t Tease Me: Effects of Ending Typeon Horror Film Enjoyment

Cynthia M. King and Nora HouraniCenter for Entertainment and Tourism Studies, California State Fullerton

This experimental study explores the influence of horror film ending type on audi-ence enjoyment. Four horror films were manipulated to create versions with tradi-tional endings (endings in which the evil/antagonist is destroyed) or teaser endings(endings in which the evil/antagonist revives). Analysis explored differences in thepreferences for ending type based on watcher motivations. Results suggest that view-ers, particularly viewers highly motivated by gore or thrill factors, rated traditionalendings more favorably than teaser endings, although seemingly for differentreasons.

INTRODUCTION

“Wearing plain black clothes and a simplistic white mask, the unstoppable ‘shape’ isthe first and most chilling film mass murderer. He has no remorse, no weakness, andno motive. The film is masterfully made, but like all horror films, the devastating fi-nale is followed by a camera zoom-in on the masked killer as he stalks the streets,ready to slaughter again.” (Nashawaty, 1998).

Tales of horror have entertained adolescents and adults alike since the arrival of theGothic novels in the eighteenth century. Antagonists such as Dracula and Franken-stein and later Michael Myers and Jason have horrified generations of fans. Ori-ginally, horror novels and films followed a traditional formula where “good” ulti-mately triumphs over “evil.” Following this formula, at the end of the story, the evilantagonist is unequivocally destroyed. Various film critics, however, argue that

MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY, 9, 473–492Copyright © 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Correspondence should be sent to Cynthia M. King, Center for Entertainment and Tourism Studies,California State University, Fullerton, P.O. Box 6850, Fullerton, CA 92834-6850. E-mail: [email protected]

many horror films no longer follow this tradition. Starting in the early 1970s withthe success of Rosemary’s Baby and The Exorcist, a new horror formula emergedfeaturing defenseless victims in terrifying no-win situations where the evil/antago-nist triumphed over the forces of reason and rationalism (Rosenbaum, 1979). Ac-cording to Gleiberman (1997), resurrection of the evil/antagonist at the end of thefilm paves the way for the sequels that follow.

In the 1980s teen horror movies were as unavoidable as garden weeds. One after an-other, they popped up in the multiplexes, perpetually recycling the masked killers,softcore-sexpot victims, and “Who will be the next to die?” formulas of Halloween,Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street, just to name a few (p. 44).

Typically, these horror films contain teaser endings in which, although at first itmay appear that the evil has been destroyed, a final scene reveals that the evil hassurvived, usually foreshadowing the anticipated sequel. Many popular horror filmseries such as Halloween, Friday the 13th, and A Nightmare on Elm Street containteaser endings. In the past, these films have ranked high on movie lists; for exam-ple, I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997), grossed $9.7 million in its openingweekend (Gleiberman, 1997). However, more recently, many teaser films have notfared as well, such as Jason X (2001), the tenth film in the Halloween series whichgrossed only $6.5 million in its opening weekend followed by a steep 65% drop insales to only $2.4 million on its second weekend. It is unclear, however, to what ex-tent teasers may contribute to the relative success or failure of these films. Thus,this study seeks to explore what effect, if any, differences in ending type have onaudience perceptions of the films.

The Appeal of Horror Films

Researchers have generated many theories and rationales to explain the appeal ofhorror. Several theoretical approaches suggest that horror may be inherently attrac-tive or enjoyable for many viewers. These theories variously suggest that acts ofmayhem and horror may create sensory delight, aesthetic enjoyment of destruc-tion, novelty, fascination at the violation of social norms and/or thrills that appealto sensation seekers (see Sparks & Sparks, 2000 for review). Other theorists sug-gest that vicariously sharing the horror experienced by film characters allowsviewers to cathartically purge or validate their own fears (Carroll, 1990; Stein &Davis, 1982; Thomas, 1972). These theories might be interpreted to suggest thatthe more mayhem and horror a film contains, the more appealing it should be.Thus, if films with teaser endings contained more mayhem and horror, they mightbe predicted to be more appealing. Interestingly, however, while films with teaserendings might imply greater potential for future mayhem and violence, they do notnecessarily contain any more actual mayhem and horror than traditional films.

474 KING AND HOURANI

Teasers depart from traditional films in that they violate conventional expecta-tions of good conquering evil. According to McCauley (1998), many of the imagesin horror films violate social norms. He speculates that it is these violations that au-diences find particularly fascinating. Similarly, Carroll (1990) contends that audi-ences are drawn to violence, mayhem, and horror because it is seen as novel or un-usual. Therefore, audiences may become fascinated by films with teaser endings inwhich evil triumphs over good because they are seen as even more unusual, evenmore of a violation of social norms than traditional horror films. If, however, it isthe novelty of teaser endings that audiences enjoy, then as these endings have be-come increasingly common, in fact, more the norm than the exception, we mightanticipate that they would begin to lose their appeal. Indeed, some film critics havevoiced their growing frustration with teaser endings. In his review of Jason X(2001), Mark Ramsey (2002) made his plea to the film studio directly: “Hey NewLine, somewhere along the way we stopped caring about what happens to Jasonbecause we like beginnings, middles, and ends and—HELLO—Jason, the unstop-pable killing machine, will never end” (paragraph 15).

Several psychological and dramaturgical deconstructions of horror’s appealsimilarly suggest that audiences might generally prefer horror films with more tra-ditional endings. Tamborini (1991) argued for the importance of the resolution ofhorror:

One of the most plausible explanations for the appeal of horror suggests that pleasureis derived from the successful resolution of the threat presented by the antagonist re-sponsible for the creation of horror (p. 317).

As Tamborini (2003) notes, this storyline has been a successful formula for thehorror film since the early 1930s (Sontag, 1966), and for horror in other mediaforms since the late eighteenth century (Hallie, 1969). This proposition is consis-tent with explanations of reactions to other forms of media entertainment. Tradi-tional horror films usually contain the same elements found in most dramaticfilms. Following the exposition and climax, the protagonist succeeds in overcom-ing the threat of the evil/antagonist. In explaining the appeal of violent fare,Zillmann (1998) contends that a satisfying resolution is one that contains a positiveoutcome for the liked protagonist and a negative outcome for “enemylike” charac-ters. According to Zillmann’s disposition theory, we enjoy films in which goodthings happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. Enjoyment inthis situation is dependent on the condition of a negative outcome for the dislikedantagonist. When the antagonist is destroyed in the end, the pleasure and satisfac-tion that are obtained become even greater (Tamborini & Stiff, 1987). Thus, thismodel suggests that the appeal of horror may be largely dependent upon the deathand demise of the evil/antagonist and the victory and success of the film’sprotagonist.

DON’T TEASE ME 475

Excitation transfer theory as applied to media entertainment (Zillmann, 1980)supports similar predictions. According to this theory, arousal experienced fromone event is transferred onto the next event encountered. Zillmann (1980) pro-posed that when film antagonists are endangered, distress and arousal increase inviewers, thus creating suspense. When the protagonist succeeds in overcoming thethreat, the emotional distress dissipates, but the physiological arousal remains.Thus, the positive affect that is created by the triumph is intensified by the residualarousal from the distress. As a result, it is reasoned that the greater the danger theprotagonist faces, the more intense the satisfaction will be with the successful reso-lution of the film.

Applying these theories, the more havoc the evil/antagonist wreaks, the morearoused and negatively disposed toward the antagonist the audience becomes. Infilms with traditional endings, theory suggests that audience feelings and arousalare then transferred, intensifying audience enjoyment when the evil/antagonist isconquered. Films with teaser endings, however, evoke the same arousal and dis-tress, but they do not provide a positive resolution, leaving individuals in a highlyaroused, but presumably negative mood state. Consistent with this reasoning,Zillmann (1991) noted that “[g]enerally speaking, it is the benefaction of good andliked protagonists and the just, punitive treatment of their transgressions and re-sented opponents, the antagonists, that evoke joyful reactions,” citing as evidenceZillmann (1980); Zillmann and Bryant (1975); Zillmann and Cantor (1976, 1977).Hoffner and Cantor (1991) similarly found that under certain conditions, childrenfound frightening film sequences more enjoyable when the sequence had resolvedrather than unresolved endings. Although this may be true for many suspensefulgenres, it is not clear whether it also holds true for horror—a genre, which by defi-nition, is designed to inspire more negative emotional experiences. Both dramatictheory and research would seem to suggest that audiences should find films withtraditional endings more enjoyable than films with teaser endings. As intuitive asthis may sound, given that teaser endings dominate contemporary horror, it seemedprudent to conduct a more empirical assessment of this claim. This logic forms thebasis for the first hypothesis:

H1: Audience enjoyment will be greater for horror films with traditional end-ings than it will be for horror films with teaser endings.

Individual Differences in Horror’s Appeal

Although a preponderance of theory and research would suggest that audiencesshould generally prefer traditional endings, it is difficult to imagine that films withteaser endings would continue to enjoy such great box office success if they wereso universally despised. Of course, not all viewers gain equal enjoyment from anygiven film. Researchers consider individual differences to be important determi-


nants of how we experience horror. A variety of personality characteristics – sensa-tion-seeking (Edwards, 1991; Tamborini & Stiff, 1987); empathy (Tamborini,Stiff, & Heidel, 1990; Zuckerman, 1996; Zuckerman & Litle, 1986), the Machia-vellian trait of deceit (Tamborini, Stiff, & Zillmann, 1987), pyschoticism(Aluja-Fabregat, 2000; Weaver, 1991) and “coping style” (Sparks & Spirek, 1988)– have been shown to influence cognitive and affective responses to horror andgraphic violence. Noting the various traits that appeared to predict horror’s appeal,Johnston (1995) speculated that not all audiences might enjoy horror for the samereasons. Based on data she collected from horror audiences, Johnston created atypology of watchers that reflected different motivations for viewing horror.

Just as some people may generally enjoy horror films more than other peopledo, some viewers may enjoy teaser films while others do not. Different viewingmotivations may result in different film preferences; thus ending type may have agreater influence on film enjoyment among viewers with certain motivations thanit does for others. Research suggests that some viewers enjoy the destructivenessand excitement of horror, while others appreciate a just ending (Tamborini, Stiff, &Zillmann, 1987; Johnston, 1995). Logic would suggest that viewers who appreci-ate just endings should prefer traditional endings where the evil is vanquished,while those who enjoy the destructiveness of horror may not have as strong a pref-erence for these endings. Indeed, these audiences may be more titillated by the an-ticipation of more mayhem foreshadowed by teaser endings.

This difference embodies the distinction between thrill and gore-watcher types,two of the watcher types identified by Johnston (1995). Thrill-watchers arethought to enjoy being scared by horror via their empathy for film protagonists,while gore-watchers appear to enjoy the gore and intensity or “destructiveness” ofhorror. According to Johnston (1995), high levels of empathy and adven-ture-seeking characterize the thrill-watching personality. The thrill-watcher enjoysbeing startled and scared. Although Johnston’s study found that thrill-watchingwas not significantly related to either killer or victim identification, thrill-watchersmay “empathize with the victim but do not perceive themselves at risk for victim-ization” (Johnston, 1995). Tamborini (1996) similarly proposed that trait empathymight influence viewer experiences with horror. Research suggests that highly em-pathic individuals are more likely to experience suspense and distress while view-ing suspenseful films than individuals with low empathy scores (de Weid,Hoffman, & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 1997).

With their empathy and attraction to suspense, thrill-watchers’ motivations ap-pear to be the most consistent with postulates of disposition and excitation transfertheories. This logic would suggest that these individuals feel greater concern forfilm protagonists, and thus, should exhibit greater appreciation for traditional end-ings, where the protagonists prevail.

Gore-watchers are also characterized by high adventure seeking, but they de-part from thrill-seekers in their low levels of empathy and fearfulness. This combi-


nation of personality traits make gore-watchers seek high arousal originating fromgraphic portrayals of blood, death, and even physical torture. Other researchersconcur that the content and form of today’s super-violent horror have great excit-atory capacity that is enjoyable for some viewers (Mundorf & Mundorf, 2003;Tannenbaum, 1980; Tamborini, 2003; Tamborini, Miller, Stiff, & Heidel, 1988).This view is consistent with theories on arousal that assert that “reinforcement, andin particular reward, can result in some circumstances from an increase in arousal”(Berlyne, 1967, p. 30). As Mundorf and Mundorf (2003) suggest, horror may havegreat enjoyment for viewers who are simply seeking excitement for its own sake.

Gore-watching motivations are thought to reflect a more cognitive curiosityabout physical violence (the ways that people are killed), a vindictive interest inkilling (victims get what they “deserve”), and an attraction to the grotesque (view-ing blood and guts). Gore-watching is also related to high viewing frequency. Thisis consistent with findings that low-empathy people are most attracted to graphichorror (Tamborini, Stiff, & Heidel, 1990) and with findings that low fearfulness isassociated with the appeal of graphic horror (Mundorf, Weaver, & Zillmann,1989). Gore-watching was strongly associated with identification with the killerespecially in males; males were less likely to identify with the victim.

Identity with the killer and insensitivity toward the victim may makegore-watchers less concerned about whether or not the killer is ultimately de-stroyed. In fact, if their enjoyment is motivated by the gore and horror itself, as wellas their identification with the killer, then gore-watchers might actually prefer thatthe killer survive, leaving open the possibility of more horror to come.Gore-watchers, therefore, might show less preference for traditional over teaserendings. Given these considerations, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2: The effects specified in H1 will be greater among thrill-watchers and di-minished, if not reversed, among gore-watchers.

METHODOLOGY

Overview

Respondents were exposed to one of four different horror films that containedteaser endings. Half of the respondents viewed one of the films with its originalteaser ending, while the other half viewed an edited version of one of the samefilms without the teaser ending. After viewing the film, respondents were asked toevaluate the films on a variety of scales. Results were analyzed in a 2 ! 2 ! 2 cus-tomized factorial design with ending type (traditional, teaser), gore-watcher (low,high), and thrill-watcher (low, high) functioning as independent-measure factors.


Respondents

Respondents were 229 college students recruited from various departments in un-dergraduate classes at a large university. Free pizza and sodas were provided ascompensation for all participants. Participation also served as one of several possi-ble extra credit options for selected courses. A first round of data was collectedfrom a sample of 104 students. Following preliminary analysis and review, the de-cision was made to collect a second round of data to increase the sample size andthe power of the design. One hundred and twenty-five students participated in thesecond set of study sessions.

Procedure

The experiment was conducted in 24 sessions including three sessions for each ofthe eight films (the four original films with teaser endings and the four edited tradi-tional versions of the same films). The sessions took place over two separatetwo-week periods in classrooms with video projection systems. Each sessionlasted approximately 2 hours. Respondents were informed that they would be par-ticipating in a horror film appreciation study and that they would watch and evalu-ate edited versions of horror films that “may or may not contain graphic violence,adult language and/or some sexual situations, as might be seen in movies holdingrestricted ratings.” They were given the opportunity to withdraw their participationat any time, without penalty, if they had objections to any part of the procedure.There were no refusals.

Prior to viewing the film, respondents were asked to complete the first part ofthe questionnaire (which took approximately 15 min). Respondents then viewedone of the films. When the film ended, they completed the questionnaire. Afterfinishing the questionnaire, respondents were dismissed and thanked forparticipating.

The protocol was reviewed by the human subjects committee. Because studentswere informed that the films were edited (even though they were not told specifi-cally what was edited), the study was judged not to include deception that wouldrequire formal debriefing. Thus, in order to prevent subject contamination, respon-dents were not debriefed immediately following the sessions regarding the studymanipulations. They were, however, informed that they could pick up a report de-tailing the study and the results at the departmental office at the end of the semesteror request that the information be mailed to them.

The Film Stimulus

Multiple films were used to increase generalizability and to avoid any potentialconfounding factors that might result from the idiosyncrasies of a single film. The


four films that were employed lasted approximately 90–100 min. The selectedfilms were chosen to fit the following criteria: more than 2 years old (respondentsmight be more familiar with the endings of recent films), less than 2 hours long (theallotted time for the study), and contain a teaser ending (that could be manipulatedfor the study). The four films that were selected were: Candyman, Needful Things,Leprechaun, and Pet Sematary.

All of the four films contained what at first appears to be a final scene in whichthe evil is destroyed, however, a final segment followed this scene that reveals thatthe evil either survived or was somehow resurrected. Each film was manipulated tocreate traditional (or non-teaser ending) versions of the film by removing the teaserscene and rolling the credits, thus, giving the impression that the film ended with“good” conquering “evil.”

Measures

Watcher Type

A set of 10 questions based on Johnston’s (1995) watcher motivation scales wasused to identify gore and thrill-watcher types. These scales included statementssuch as “I enjoy scary movies because they contain a lot of blood and gore,”(gore-watcher) and “I watch horror films because I like to be scared,”(thrill-watcher) that were assessed on five-point integer scales (–2 to 2) rangingfrom “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

Film Evaluations

Prior to evaluating the films, respondents were asked whether or not they hadseen the film. Only five people indicated seeing the film, and these individualswere excluded from the analysis.

Respondents were asked to evaluate the films on 16 adjective scales: disturbing,entertaining, suspenseful, enjoyable, predictable, interesting, upsetting, tragic,boring, depressing, violent, serious, distressing, scary, exciting, and funny. Evalua-tions for all the scales were made on 11-point integer scales ranging from “not atall” (0) to “extremely” (10).

In order to gain a richer, more in-depth understanding of audience opinions ofdifferent ending types, respondents were given the opportunity to express theirthoughts in answer to two open-ended questions about the endings of the films inthe final part of the questionnaire. The first two questions focused on the respon-dents’ opinions about the film ending, including “What did you like/not like aboutthe ending?” and “How do you think the movie should have ended?” These ques-tions were included in anticipation that they might provide greater explanatory in-sight into closed-ended evaluations. The last question, “What do you think the pur-


pose of this study is?” was included as a manipulation check to insure thatparticipants were not aware of the manipulation.

RESULTS

Manipulation Checks

At the end of the questionnaire, respondents were questioned about the purpose ofthe study to determine whether they were aware of the film manipulations. No re-sponses suggested that respondents were aware of the film manipulations or thespecific purpose of the study.

As an additional manipulation check, analysis was run with the film itself(Candyman, Leprechaun, Pet Sematary, or Needful Things) included in the designas an independent measure. No significant interactions were found among the fourfilms and experimental variables; thus, all four films were retained in the analysis.

And as a final check, analysis was run comparing the data collected in the firstand second wave of data collection to insure against threats of periodicity. No sig-nificant differences were found between the two data sets that might pose suchthreats.

Data Reduction

Film Watcher Type

Measures of each watcher type were calculated based on the mean scores of thespecified scale items. Viewers were separated into high and low groups for eachwatcher type by their mean split creating two dichotomous watcher type variables,gore (low, high) and thrill (low, high); thus, the watcher type variables were notmutually exclusive. The mean scores for each watcher type were as follows: gore(M = .26), and thrill (M = –.37).

Film Evaluations

The film evaluations (16 adjective scales, averaged across the four horror films)were subjected to principle component analysis. Only scales that loaded > .66 forthe factor in question and loaded < .50 for all other factors were retained. Four fac-tors emerged for the evaluation of the films. Factor 1, labeled Entertaining, wascharacterized by high loadings on the scales entertaining (.88), enjoyable (.99), in-teresting (.86), serious (.76), exciting (.79). The combination of these scalesyielded high internal consistency: Cronbach’s " = .92 and accounted for 37% ofthe variance. Upsetting (.88), tragic (.83), depressing (.766) and distressing (.78)formed Factor 2, labeled Distressing ("= .86) which accounted for 25% of the vari-


ance. Scary (.79) and suspenseful (.729) formed Factor 3 (" = .88 ), labeled Scary,accounting for 8% of the variance, and the item Predictable (.87) loaded alone onFactor 4, accounting for 7% of the variance.

Film Ending Evaluations

Given time and resource constraints and original plans to use this data for morequalitative assessments, the open-ended data was only quantitatively analyzed forthe 104 respondents who participated in the first round of data collection. Re-sponses of the first two open-ended questions were content analyzed and placed inseveral clearly defined categories. The first question inquired whether respondentsliked/disliked the ending of the film, thus the two main comment categories were:“like” and “dislike.” For those who viewed traditional endings, the subcategoriesunder “like” included: “evil is blown up in the fire,” “he gets what he deserves,”“interesting,” “legend is stopped/theme is discontinued,” “satisfying,” and “unpre-dictable.” The subcategories under “dislike” were as follows: “unrealistic,” “notenough suspense,” “legend is discontinued,” and “other.”

Responses for those who saw the teaser endings also were categorized under“like” and “dislike.” The subcategories under “like” included: “evil is not blown upin the fire,” “[he] gets away,” “interesting,” “legend lives on/theme is continued,”“satisfying,” “predictable,” and “other.” The subcategories under “dislike” in-cluded: “evil is not destroyed,” “legend is continued,” “predictable,” and “other.”

The second open-ended question asked respondents how the film should haveended. Responses for those who viewed traditional endings were subcategorizedinto the following: “evil should live,” “innocent character should live,” “more real-istic,” “legend is continued along with the theme,” and “don’t change.” Amongthose who viewed teaser endings answers to the “change” question weresubcategorized into the following: “evil should be destroyed,” “kill off legend/theme,” and “don’t change.”

Intercoder Reliability

To establish the reliability of coding for the open-ended questions, two coders ana-lyzed the responses to the questions based on the established categories. The de-gree of agreement between the coders was 100% as calculated by Holsti’s formula.

Data Analysis

In addition to a priori power analysis, Cohen (1990); Cohen and Cohen; (1983) andSmith, Levine, Lachlan, and Fediuk (2002) recommend using no design or analy-sis more complex than needed in order to minimize error. Thus, a customized 2 ! 2! 2 factorial ANOVA design was employed that tested only the hypothesized main


effects of ending type (traditional, teaser), and two-way interaction effects for end-ing type with each watcher type, gore (low, high) and thrill (low, high). Nothree-way interactions were predicted, therefore, this interaction was excludedfrom the analysis. In addition, since main effects of watcher type were not the fo-cus of this study, they were also excluded from the analysis. By limiting the con-trasts in this design, we were able to minimize error while complying with humansubjects review requirements to impose upon no more participants than necessaryto meet minimum sample sizes.

Power Analysis

Following Lipsey’s (1990) recommendations, effect size and partial power analy-ses were calculated on the data collected from the first 104 respondents. Effectsizes for the specified comparisons ranged from .50 – 1.25, with most falling be-tween .60 and .70. Based on this analysis, additional data was collected in order toincrease the power of the design. Although access to additional subjects was lim-ited, enough additional data was collected to result in an average cell size of 57,with a minimum cell size of 35 for the specified 2 ! 2 comparisons. Based onLipsey’s (1990) tables, power estimates ranged from .65 to .99, with most esti-mates falling in the .85–.99 range. Observed power as calculated by SPSS is re-ported for each significant finding below.

Film Evaluations

Analysis of the Entertaining scale revealed interactions between ending type andeach of the watcher types, gore (F(2, 198) = 9.87, p < .001; #2 = .10, observedpower = .99) and thrill (F(2, 198) = 4.76, p < .01; #2 = .05, observed power = .79),as well as a main effect of ending type (F(1, 198) = 7.61, p < .002; #2 = .04, ob-served power = .89). Overall, films with traditional endings were judged more en-tertaining (M = 6.40) than those with teaser endings (M = 5.39); however this effectwas qualified by interactions which revealed significant preferences for traditionalendings only among high gore and thrill-watchers. In addition, traditional endingswere rated as significantly more entertaining by high gore-watchers than lowgore-watchers, and teaser endings were rated as significantly less entertaining byhigh thrill-watchers than low-thrill-watchers. Mean comparisons are reported inTable 1.

Analysis of the Distress scale revealed interactions between ending type andeach watcher type: gore (F(2, 198) = 6.87, p < .001; #2 = .10, observed power =.99) and thrill (F(2, 198) = 6.87, p < .001; #2 = .07, observed power = .92), althoughonly simple effects of watcher type were found where traditional endings were lessdistressing for high gore-watchers (M = 2.99) than low gore-watchers (M = 4.46)and teaser endings were more distressing for high thrill-watchers (M = 4.75) than


low thrill-watchers (M =2.93). Both high gore and thrill-watchers found teaserendings more distressing than traditional endings, although these differences werenot significant (see Table 1).

Analysis of the Scary scale revealed interactions similar to those found for en-tertaining between ending type and each of the watcher types, gore (F(2, 198) =11.18, p < .001; #2 = .10, observed power = .99) and thrill (F(2, 198) =12.00,p < .001; #2 = .11, observed power = 1.0), as well as a main effect of ending type(F(2, 198) = 31.18, p < .001; #2 = .14, observed power, 1.00). Overall, films withtraditional endings were judged more scary (M = 7.47) than those with teaser end-ings (M = 5.52); however this effect was also qualified by interactions which re-vealed significantly higher scary ratings for traditional endings only among highgore and thrill-watchers. In addition, traditional endings were rated as significantlymore scary by high gore-watchers than low gore-watchers, and teaser endingswere rated as significantly less scary by high thrill-watchers than lowthrill-watchers. Mean comparisons are reported in Table 1.

Analysis of Predictability also revealed a similar pattern of interactions be-tween ending type and each of the watcher types, gore (F(2, 198) = 5.99, p < .003;#2 = .08, observed power = .88) and thrill (F(2, 198) = 15.32, p < .001; #2 = .14, ob-served power = 1.0), as well as a main effect of ending type (F(2, 198) = 4.41, p <.037; #2 = .03, observed power, .60). Overall, films with teaser endings werejudged more predictable (M = 7.60) than those with traditional ending (M = 6.99);however this effect was also qualified by interactions which revealed significantlyhigher predictable ratings for teaser endings only among high gore and lowthrill-watchers. In addition, traditional endings were rated as significantly less pre-dictable by high gore-watchers than low gore-watchers, and teaser endings were


TABLE 1Mean Comparisons of Film Evaluation Measures by Ending

and Watcher Type

Film Evaluation

Entertaining Scary Distressing Predictable

WatcherType

TraditionalEnding

TeaserEnding

TraditionalEnding

TeaserEnding

TraditionalEnding

TeaserEnding

TraditionalEnding

TeaserEnding

GoreLow 5.70a 5.25a 6.75a 5.27a 4.46a 3.92a,b 7.67a 7.54aHigh 7.46b 5.90a 8.56b 6.46a 2.99b 3.71a,b 5.96b 7.79a

ThrillLow 6.30a 6.13a 7.36a 6.73a 3.77a,b 2.93a 6.29a 8.77bHigh 6.62a 4.72b 7.72a 4.41b 4.15a,b 4.75b 7.30b 6.51a

Total 6.40a 5.39b 7.47a 5.52b 3.88a 3.87a 6.99a 7.60b

Note. Mean pairs not sharing a letter differ significantly by p < .05.

rated as significantly less predictable by high thrill-watchers than lowthrill-watchers. Mean comparisons are reported in Table 1.

Film Ending Evaluations

Consistent with the closed-ended measures, respondents who saw the filmswithout the teaser endings expressed more favorable comments regarding the filmending. Chi Square analysis for the cross-tabulation between ending type (tradi-tional, teaser) and comment category (like, dislike) was significant = $2 (1, N =104) = 30.88, p < .001. More respondents who saw the traditional versions indi-cated they liked the ending, while more respondents who saw the teaser versionsindicated that they didn’t like the ending (See Table 2). Unpredictability was themost frequent reason offered for liking the traditional ending, while predictabilitywas the most frequent reason offered for liking the teaser ending. Unrealistic wasthe most frequent reason offered for disliking the traditional ending, while predict-ability, again was the most common reason offered for disliking the teaser ending.Other response categories for both film versions, however, included commentswith specific references to whether or not the evil was destroyed, and in combina-tion, these answers figured most prominently (see Table 3 for a complete break-down of responses).

The cross-tabulation between ending type and desire to change the ending(change, don’t change) was also significant $2 (1, N = 100) = 23.09, p < .001, withmore respondents expressing desire to change the teaser ending than the traditionalending (see Table 2). In most cases, desire to change the ending specifically fo-cused on the fate of the “evil” (see Table 3).

DISCUSSION

As anticipated in Hypothesis 1, audience reactions to the horror films were signifi-cantly influenced by the nature of the film ending. Overall, viewers rated filmswith the traditional (non-teaser) endings as more enjoyable, scarier and less pre-


TABLE 2Summary Cross-tabulation of Open-Ended Opinions of Horror Film Ending

Traditional ending (n) Teaser ending (n)

Liked 85% (44) 31% (16)Disliked 15% (8) 69% (36)Change 31% (15) 78% (40)Don’t Change 69% (34) 22% (11)

486

TAB

LE3

Det

aile

dC

ross

-tab

ulat

ion

ofO

pen-

End

edO

pini

ons

ofH

orro

rF

ilmE

ndin

g

Trad

ition

alE

ndin

g(N

=52

)Te

aser

End

ing

(N=

52)

#%

#%

N#

%#

%N

Lik

edL

iked

Evi

lis

blow

nup

inth

efir

e9

1117

Evi

lis

notb

low

nup

inth

efir

e3

96

He

gets

wha

the

dese

rves

1620

31H

ege

tsaw

ay4

128

Inte

rest

ing

1620

31In

tere

stin

g3

96

Leg

end/

them

eis

disc

ontin

ued

1114

21C

ontin

uatio

nof

them

e/le

gend

412

8Sa

tisfy

ing

56

10Sa

tisfy

ing

619

12U

npre

dict

able

2229

42Pr

edic

tabl

e12

3623

Tota

l79

100

85*

Oth

er1

32

Tota

l22

100

31*

Dis

liked

Dis

liked

Unr

ealis

tic8

3615

Evi

lis

notd

estr

oyed

1623

31N

oten

ough

susp

ense

314

6L

egen

dis

cont

inue

d22

3142

Leg

end/

them

eis

disc

ontin

ued

627

12Pr

edic

tabl

e29

4256

Oth

er5

2310

Oth

er3

46

Tota

l22

100

15*

Tota

l70

100

69*

487

Trad

ition

alE

ndin

g(N

=49

)Te

aser

End

ing

(N=

51)

#%

#%

N#

%#

%N

Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Evi

lsho

uld

live

319

6E

vils

houl

dbe

dest

roye

dIn

noce

ntch

arac

ters

houl

dliv

e5

3110

Dis

cont

inue

lege

nd/th

eme

2443

47L

egen

d/th

eme

isco

ntin

ued

425

8C

hang

epr

edic

tabi

lity

2241

42M

ore

real

istic

425

8To

tal

916

18To

tal

1610

031

*55

100

78*

Don

’tch

ange

Don

’tch

ange

Tota

l34

69*

1122

*

#=

Num

bero

fres

pons

es.S

ome

part

icip

ants

offe

red

mul

tiple

resp

onse

s,so

tota

lsco

uld

equa

lmor

eth

anth

enu

mbe

rofr

espo

nden

ts.

%#

=Pe

rcen

tage

ofre

spon

ses

outo

fthe

tota

lnum

bero

fres

pons

esin

the

sele

cted

cate

gory

(lik

e,di

slik

e,ch

ange

,ord

on’t

chan

ge).

%N

=Pe

rcen

tage

ofre

spon

ses

outo

fthe

tota

lnum

bero

fres

pond

ents

forf

ilmty

pe(t

radi

tiona

lort

ease

rend

ing)

.*

=Si

nce

resp

onse

codi

ngs

wer

eno

tm

utua

llyex

clus

ive,

the

tota

lpe

rcen

tage

ofre

spon

dent

sin

each

cate

gory

does

not

equa

lth

esu

mof

the

colu

mn

perc

enta

ges.

dictable than their teaser counterparts. Open-ended responses similarly suggestedthat more respondents enjoyed films in which the evil was destroyed. One respon-dent commented, “Finally a film where the guy actually dies and gets what he de-served. [Mr. Gaunt] wreaked havoc to the extreme, it’s time that he died and peoplecan get on with their lives” (Female). Another stated, “I’m glad that the[Candyman] was destroyed after he ruined [Helen’s] life. He got what he deserved,I really liked that” (Male). Respondents who viewed teaser endings were morelikely to express dislike of the ending and want to change it than those who viewedtraditional endings. These findings are consistent with disposition and suspensetheories that postulate that viewers enjoy negative outcomes for film antagonists.

The second hypothesis, however, was only partially supported. Given the pre-ponderance of horror films with teaser endings, it was reasoned that at least somehorror fans, possibly those who enjoyed the gore of horror, must prefer teasers. Inthis study, however, both high thrill and gore-watchers showed a stronger prefer-ence for traditional endings than teasers. And yet, while both gore and thrill view-ers appeared to prefer traditional endings, additional patterns in the data reveal thatthey may appreciate them for somewhat different reasons.

Responses from both closed and open-ended questions point to predictability asa determining factor for the appeal of horror for many viewers. The open-endedanswers suggest that many viewers may dislike teaser endings because they havebecome the “typical” horror film ending and prefer traditional endings becausethey view them as an unexpected but refreshing change. An example of such a re-sponse is as follows, “Very interesting to have [Candyman] to actually die in thefire. His legend died with him, and now the residents of [Cabrini Greene] can sleepwithout the nightmares. I still can’t believe that he died…no blinking, no signs thathe will come back…very interesting” (Male). Indeed, this explanation is supportedby the closed-ended analysis, where audiences generally rated the traditional filmsas significantly less predictable than the teasers. The consistent use of teaser end-ings in horror films may have made these endings so mundane that audiences ex-pect them. In line with Carroll’s (1990) claim that the appeal of horror lies in itsnovelty, teaser endings may have initially increased enjoyment because they werenovel and unexpected, however, as teaser endings became more common and theirnovelty declined, so may have their appeal.

High gore-watchers most strongly reflected this pattern, rating traditional end-ings as more entertaining and scary, but less predictable than teaser endings. Highthrill-watchers similarly rated films with traditional endings more entertaining andscarier, but, in contrast to other viewers, they also rated traditional endings morepredictable. Given that thrill-watchers tend to exhibit a strong preference for “justendings,” they may not only want the evil to be destroyed, but perhaps even expectthe evil to be destroyed. Thus, in spite of the recent teaser trend, thrill-watchersmay still find traditional endings more in keeping with their expectations, andtherefore, rate them as both more enjoyable and more predictable.


Although many audiences may prefer traditional endings, open-ended com-ments suggest indicate there are some horror fans that enjoy teasers. As one re-spondent stated, “Having [Gaunt] come out of the fire without a hair out of place,just makes it even more exciting. I would have liked it more if he turned into a devilright then and there, showing his true colors.” Another respondent stated, “I likedthe fact that we’re left hanging with the idea that the [Leprechaun] will return withmore adventures for the next time… he’ll be back.” Interestingly, predictabilitymay also mediate these preferences. In open-ended responses, predictability wasthe most common answer offered for both liking and disliking teaser films. Somerespondents similarly indicated that they enjoyed the teaser endings because theywere “realistic” and disliked traditional endings because they were “unrealistic,”implying a belief and expectation that evil cannot be destroyed. Just as with tradi-tional endings, some audiences may see the survival of the antagonist in teaserspredictable, while others do not, and further, some of those people may appreciatepredictability, while others do not. It would seem that audiences differ not only interms of their expectations for horror films, but also as to whether they enjoy hav-ing those expectations met or violated.

Notably, study manipulations had limited impacts on how distressing viewersfound the films. Consistent with other film evaluations, there were some simple ef-fects of watcher type on audience distress, but effects of ending type did not reachsignificance. This may be because the difference between traditional and teaserendings is only the anticipation of further mayhem. It is also possible that resultswere obscured because some audiences viewed “distressing” as a positive endorse-ment for a horror film, while others viewed it negatively. Another explanation maybe that the self-reported measures of distress used in this study did not provide anaccurate picture of audience distress reactions. Some respondents may have beenhesitant to disclose their true reactions to the film. Sparks, Pellechia, and Irvine’s(1999) findings suggest combining physiological measures with self-reported datamight help provide a more complete picture of audiences’ negative affective reac-tions to frightening films, particularly for those with repressive coping styles.

Clearly, future research might continue to examine different viewers and view-ing contexts to gain greater insights into horror appreciation. More specifically, ef-forts might focus on refining watcher typologies that better isolates viewer motiva-tions related to specific horror preferences. Results suggest that researchers maywant to pay particular attention to the influence of viewer perceptions and prefer-ences for predictability of horror. Additional investigations might include physio-logical measures to enrich measures of affect such as distress. Such measurescould also examine the role physiological arousal may play in mediating reactionsto horror as predicted by excitation transfer and other theories. To better under-stand these mechanisms, researchers should consider applying a methodologicalprocess model to observe and measure reactions during the course of the viewingexperience.


In summary, consistent with traditional theories of drama and suspense, thisstudy found that most audiences appeared to have strong preferences for tradi-tional endings. These preferences were particularly strong for those more inclinedto watch horror, regardless of whether they were motivated by gore or thrills. Suchpreferences would seem to have significant implications for film makers in thatthey cut against the current trend of teaser endings. It may be that many audiencescontinue to watch horror with teaser endings simply because they have no choice!Some producers might maintain that teasers are necessary to promote blockbustersequels; however, one could argue that the best promotion for a sequel is to makethe initial film more enjoyable. Even absent teaser endings, the evil can always berevived in previews and opening segments of following films. Thus, filmmakersmight want to consider reverting back to traditional endings in more films. Perhapsby not eliminating teaser endings completely, but instead by varying their formu-las, filmmakers can provide something for everyone and still maximize the sus-pense that drives all drama.

REFERENCES

Aluja-Fabregat, A. (2000). Personality and curiosity about TV and films violence in adolescents. Per-sonality and Individual Differences, 29, 379–392.

Berlyne, D. E. (1967). Arousal and reinforcement. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motiva-tion (Vol. 15, pp. 1–110). Lincoln; University of Nebraska Press.

Carroll, N. (1990). The philosophy of horror, or paradoxes of the heart. New York: Routledge.Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45, 1304–1312.Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sci-

ences (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.De Weid, M., Hoffman, K., & Roskos-Ewoldson, D. R. (1997). Forewarning of graphic portrayal of vi-

olence and the experience of successful drama. Cognition and Emotion, 11, 481–494.Edwards, E. (1991). The ecstasy of horrible expectations: Morbid curiosity, sensation seeking, and in-

terest in horror movies. In B. Austin (Ed.), Current research in film: Audience, economics, and law(Vol. 5 pp. 19–38). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Gleiberman, O. (1997, October). Killing time. Entertainment Weekly, 402, 44.Hallie, P. P. (1969). The paradox of cruelty. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University press.Hoffner, C., & Cantor, J. (1991). Factors affecting children’s enjoyment of a frightening film sequence.

Communication Monographs, 58(1), 41–63.Johnston, D. (1995). Adolescents’motivations for viewing graphic horror. Human Communication Re-

search, 21(4), 522–552.Lipsey, M. W. (1990). Design sensitivity: Statistical power for experimental research. Newbury Park:

Sage.McCauley, C. (1998). When screen violence is not attractive. In J. H. Goldstein (Ed.), Why we watch:

The attractions of violent entertainment (pp. 141–162). New York: Oxford University Press.Mundorf, N., & Mundorf, J. (2003). Gender Socialization of Horror. In J. Bryant, D. Roskos-Ewoldsen

& J. Candor (Eds.). Communication and emotion: Essays in Honor of Dolf Zillmann (pp.155–178).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


Mundorf, N, Weaver, J., & Zillmann, D. (1989). Effects of gender roles and self perceptions on affectivereactions to horror films. Sex Roles, 20, 655–673.

Nashawaty, C. (1998, August). Final cut twenty years after Halloween carved her name in lights, JamieLee Curtis takes on Michael Myers one last time (we think) in Halloween: H20. EntertainmentWeekly, 445, 27–34.

Ramsey, M. (2002, April 25). Jason X - Friday the Umpteenth. [On-line]. Available: http://www.moviejuice.com/2002/jasonx.htm.

Rosenbaum, R. (1979, September). Gooseflesh. Harper’s, 259:1552, 86–92.Smith, R. A, Levine, T. R., Lachlan, K. A., & Fediuk, T. A. (2002). The high cost of complexity in ex-

perimental design and data analysis: Type I and Type II error rates in multiway ANOVA. HumanCommunication Research, 28(4), 515–531.

Sontag, S. (1966). Against interpretation. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.Sparks, G., Pellechia, M., & Irvine, C. (1999). The repressive coping style and fright reactions to mass

media. Communication Research, 26(2), 176–192.Sparks, G. G, & Sparks C. W. (2000). Mayhem and horror. In D. Zillmann & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Media

Entertainment: The Psychology of Its Appeal (pp. 73–91). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Sparks, G., & Spirek, M. (1998). Individual differences in coping with stressful mass media: An activa-tion-arousal view. Human Communication Research, 15, 195–216.

Stein, M., & Davis, J. (1982). Therapies for adolescents: current treatments for problem behaviors.NY: Jossey Bass.

Tamborini, R. (2003). Enjoyment and social functions of horror. In J. Bryant, D. Roskos-Ewoldsen, &J. Cantor. Communication and emotion: Essays in honor of Dolf Zillmann. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Tamborini, R. (1996). A model of empathy and emotional reactions to horror. In J. Weaver & R.Tamborini (Eds.), Horror films: Current research on audience preferences and reactions (pp.103–124). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tamborini, R. (1991). Responding to horror: Determinants of exposure and appeal. In J. Bryant & D.Zillmann (Eds.). Responding to the screen: Reception and reaction processes (pp. 305–327).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tamborini, R., Miller, K., Stiff, J., & Heidel, C. (1988). Predictors of emotional reactions to audio andvisual elements in graphic horror: A time series analysis. Paper presented at the annual conference ofthe Speech Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.

Tamborini, R., & Stiff, J. (1987). Predictors of horror film attendance and appeal: An analysis of the au-dience for frightening films. Communication Research, 14, 15–436.

Tamborini, R., Stiff, J., & Heidel, C. (1990). Reacting to graphic horror: A model of empathy and emo-tional behavior. Communication Research, 17, 616–640.

Tamborini, R., Stiff, J., & Zillmann, D. (1987). Preference for graphic horror featuring male versus fe-male victimization: Individual differences associated with personality characteristics and past filmviewing experiences. Human Communication Research, 13, 529–552.

Tannenbaum, P. H. (1980). Entertainment as vicarious emotional experience. In P. H. Tannenbaum(Ed.). The entertainment functions of television (pp. 107–131). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Thomas, J. (1972). Gobble, gobble…one of us! In R. Huss & T. J. Ross (Eds.), Focus on the horror film(pp. 135–138). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Weaver, J. B. (1991). Effects of opposite-gender companion’s affect to horror on distress, delight, andattraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 586–594.

Zillmann, D. (1998). The psychology of the appeal of portrayals of violence. In J. H. Goldstein (Ed.).Why we watch: The attractions of violent entertainment (pp. 179–211). New York: Oxford Univer-sity Press.


Zillmann, D. (1991). Empathy: Affect from bearing witness to the emotion of others. In J. Bryant & D.Zillmann (Eds.), Sports, games, and play: Social and psychological viewpoints (2nd Ed., pp.241–278). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zillmann, D. (1980). The entertainment functions of television. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1975). Viewers’ moral sanction of retribution in the appreciation of dra-matic presentations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 572–582.

Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. (1976). A disposition theory of humor and mirth. In T. Chapman & H. Foot(Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and application (pp. 93–115). London: Wiley.

Zillmann, D., & Cantor J. (1977). Affective responses to the emotions of a protagonist. Journal of Re-search in Personality, 8, 335–349.

Zuckerman, M. (1996). Sensation seeking and the taste for vicarious horror. In J. B. Weaver & R.Tamborini (Eds.), Horror films: Current research on audience preferences and reactions (pp.147–160). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zuckerman, M., & Litle, P. (1986). Personality and curiosity about morbid sexual events. Personalityand Individual Differences, 2, 49–56.


king & hourani (2007) effect of horror film endings

Documents