Study Finds Film Enjoyment Is Contagious

Hugh Pickens writes "A report from Science Daily says that scientists have proven that the presence of other people may enhance our movie-watching experiences by influencing and gradually synchronizing viewer emotional responses. This mutual mimicry also affects each participant's evaluation of the overall experience — the more in sync we are with the people around us, the more we like the movie. In a series of experiments, researchers found that people watching a film together appeared to evaluate the film within the same broad mood and another study found that synchrony of evaluations can be traced to glances at the other person during the film and adoption of the observed expressions. 'By mimicking expressions, people catch each other's moods leading to a shared emotional experience. That feels good to people and they attribute that good feeling to the quality of the movie,' said one researcher."

not that surprising

[OzRoy (602691)]

One of my favorite comedy movies is "Flying High" (or Airplane to non Australians), but those types of movies are only really great when you see it with lots of people. On your own they are kind of lame.

and beer helps

[petes_PoV (912422)]

particularly with this "type" of film, the drunker you are the funnier it seems.

Re:

[Wah (30840)]

You should see "Flying High II", it's pretty funny. They have the whole cast from the first Flying High, and it stars that guy from "Star Warp".

-USRoy

Re:

[slyn (1111419)]

I saw the midnight showing of Snakes on a Plane with like 10 of my friends the weekend before half of them went off to college last year.

It was fucking awesome. Doubly so because everyone that showed up to the midnight showing knew what the movie was supposed to be (not serious).

Everyone who I've talked to since then about the movie (who wasn't at that showing) says it sucked and was stupid, and they all have in common that they tried to watch it by themselves or with only one or two other people.

Re:not that surprising

[by Anonymous Coward]

I am, and stop calling me Shirley.

another blindingly obvious conclusion

[petes_PoV (912422)]

presumably the next grant they get (to continue their subsidised film-watching) will be to research if sad films make you melancholy and happy films make you happy.

some research departments simply have too much spare money

Re:

[Colin Smith (2679)]

So, why do you keep giving it to them?

 

Re:another blindingly obvious conclusion

[zotz (3951)]

"So, why do you keep giving it to them?"

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/08/1414258 [slashdot.org]

Gene Found to Explain Repeated Mistakes ???

all the best,

drew

Re:

[PopeRatzo (965947)]

presumably the next grant they get (to continue their subsidised film-watching) will be to research if sad films make you melancholy and happy films make you happy.

Although I would find that finding just as incorrect as this one.

I prefer watching movies by myself. I graduated from a well-known film school and while working at the film archive, I got in the habit of viewing three or four films a day. By myself, in a comfortable screening room. I try to replicate that experience at home today, but it's ha

Depends On Who's Watching With You

[vodevil (856500)]

I'm one of those people who would pay extra to have an empty theatre to myself to see a movie. The last thing I want is to hear constant chatter, or see people texting on their cell phones while watching a movie. It totally takes you out of the experience.

Re:

[Dachannien (617929)]

One of these days, you're going to be in a theater alone and confused, wishing that the loud guy three rows back was there to explain to his friend and everyone else in a ten-foot radius the obvious thing that just happened.

Confirmed by the netflix database

[tansey (238786)]

For one of our homework assignments in my data mining class, we had to come up with some interesting insights about the netflix database. One of the things I noticed was that movies rated on the weekends were significantly more likely to be rated a 1 or a 5 than during the week. My conjecture was that this is because people are more likely to watch movies with other people on the weekends and the mob mentality takes over, causing good movies to become great and bad movies to become horrible.

Re:

[Loke the Dog (1054294)]

Or maybe the people who watch movies in the middle of the week are people who see movies as a kind of art and few movies can really live up to that. While people who watch movies in the weekends simply see them as entertainment and nearly all movies can live up to that.

And other things.

[onion2k (203094)]

The same is true of sex.

Apparently. :(

Re:

[rucs_hack (784150)]

Sex is done in company? Wow!

er, I mean, of course it is, um...

Re:And other things.

[deniable (76198)]

I don't know. I can handle watching a movie with a group of men.

Re:

[BlueParrot (965239)]

I don't know. I can handle watching a movie with a group of men.

So can I, don't quite see your point thou ...

I'm not so sure the movie part is that important

[Bones3D_mac (324952)]

More likely, this is a common trait in humans to improve our chances of gaining acceptance with others by attempted to sympathize with the emotional state of everyone else. It's almost a conditioned reaction. For example, how many people usually break out laughing at funerals when everyone else is all sorrow or silence? Such an act would render you an outcast even without the overhead of learned manners. It's a complete and total abstraction of the majority mood.

It's probably the same reason why people also tend to not trust those who seem happy and smiling all the time.

Re:I'm not so sure the movie part is that importan

[WombatDeath (681651)]

This isn't really related to your point, but I'm reminded of a visit to my grandparents when I was about four years old. My grandfather wandered off to take a phone call, and came back into the room to announce the unexpected death of my uncle.

I collapsed into an irresistible fit of laughter. It was just a child's nervous reaction to a sudden and bewildering change of atmosphere, but some rather surprised looks were cast in the direction of the devil-child cackling away at this joyous news of death. Which,

Re:I'm not so sure the movie part is that importan

[Jugalator (259273)]

Oh, definitely. Laughter is an important bonding mechanism, that's why we're born with it.

Re:

[Jugalator (259273)]

... and one more thing -- it works so well that it's been shown that laugh tracks in sitcoms make it seem more funny. That's how easily the brain can be fooled. So it's not even that important to have live humans doing it, although it may help a bit further in have it be "contagious" (it's not *really* contagious, but almost on a subconscious level one trying to fit in). I think that further goes to show how hardwired it is into us. We probably got laughter long before speech.

Re:I'm not so sure the movie part is that importan

[JimBobJoe (2758)]

this is a common trait in humans to improve our chances of gaining acceptance with others by attempted to sympathize with the emotional state of everyone else.

My problem with this statement is that it implies that humans are first and foremost individual beings who are then equipped with a variety of mechanisms (such as this one) in order to bond with the rest of the human group. It's a very Western post-enlightenment view that is deeply entrenched in how we view ourselves in the context of the rest of huma

Just film enjoyment?

[jez9999 (618189)]

In general, humans like to share in emotions with other people, which is why groups of people tend to laugh together, cry together, smile together, get angry together, etc.

Try cheering a sports team on on your own, vs. with a group of other people, and see which feels naturally easier.

Re:Just film enjoyment?

[value_added (719364)]

I'm reminded of watching a movie years ago when I moved to LA. The neighbourhood I moved to was fairly well-to-do, but still had a certain pre-yuppie bohemian charm to it. These were the days before Starbucks was on every street corner. The local theatre, don't remember whether it was independent or part of a small chain, was fairly large and it was where the locals went.

When the film began, there were the usual previews, of course, but then a lengthy ad appeared for The LA Times. The Friday night crowd burst out in a chorus of hisses and loud booing (in response to the ad, and to the LA Times), and I was only to happy to join in. If I had been in the Westwood area (where the film industry concentrated its attention at the time), the only reaction would be the munching of popcorn. The movie itself I don't remember, but what struck me about that experience was realising that not only had I moved to the "right" neighbourhood, but also that shared public experiences could me more profound and lasting than solitary ones.

My experience was probably little different than what the ordinary folks in east Texas feel when they attend Friday services for the local religeon, high school football. By comparison, the on-line equivalent of posting emotionally-charged comments to a blog, or participating in a Slashdot flame-fest, doesn't really compare. Then again, not all things invite public participation, and not all movies should be watched in public. Local zoning and vice laws notwithstanding, I'd bet this is something that even Pee Wee Herman has learned.

This might explain some things about film critics

[Gybrwe666 (1007849)]

Seriously.

Many film critics are given films (even brand new ones) on DVD, rather than having to watch multiple films at a theater, whch is obviously more time consuming. Considering how out of touch some film critics seem to be sometimes, especially when it comes to comedies, it seems to follow that a critic watching a movie alone in his house would have a very different experience than going and seeing it in a crowded theater.

Now film critics are starting to make more sense...

Bill

well DOH ..

[rs232 (849320)]

"the presence of other people may enhance our movie-watching experiences"

First prize for stateing the patently obvious ..

Re:

[GTMoogle (968547)]

My google-fu is weak today, so I can't provide you references, but generally when given sets of contradictory conclusions where all sound obvious, people have no better chance than random than picking the correct 'obvious' conclusion.

There's also a matter of to what degree the effect occurs.

Is this why you guys liked Serenity?

[QCompson (675963)]

That could help explain it. (And the series too...)

Another obvious one.

[dotancohen (1015143)]

The missus watch The Holy Grail with us last month (and enjoyed it). If that's not proof, I don't know what is.

So who paid for this study?

[yotto (590067)]

And did they do a sister study about how paying $15 a ticket and $5 for popcorn makes you love movies even more?

Though, this would explain why I liked Star Wars Episode 1 better than Episodes 2 and 3.

Re:

[Opportunist (166417)]

You pay only 5 bucks for popcorn?

Re:

[yotto (590067)]

Yeah, if you buy coke and a popcorn together, it's only $10.

Suburban Commando

[deniable (76198)]

This is like the time I had to explain a joke to an entire cinema. In Suburban Commando, some criminal steals Hulk Hogan's freeze ray and hits a bank. Hulk goes in to investigate and I hear Jingle Bells playing. I'm laughing at the whole white Christmas gag and my mate asks me what's funny. I tell him that it's Jingle Bells. I could hear the laughter start as people started telling their friends.

Anyway, I tell this story better in person.

Mass Hypnosis!

[Telephone Sanitizer (989116)]

My god! Feeling good at the movies is a hysterical conversion disorder?!

What will science take away from us next?!

Quickly now! Take the children out of school and get rid of that "independent thinking" stuff they're being indoctrinated with.

We're in a hurry here! They must be deprogrammed before Lethal Weapon 5 comes out.

Please! It's for Mel!

Oh yeah, that really enhances my "experience"

[Opportunist (166417)]

How could I at home be constantly pestered by cells ringing and beeping, how'd I get a sticky floor of old, dried coke or have a chance to have popcorn thrown at me? It would certainly mean a lot of effort and work to get the same movie experience I can get in a cinema.

Why do I get the idea that this "study" has been undertaken in a desperate effort to get people back into cinemas despite horrible prices, half an hour of ads before you finally get to see the movie and an "experience" I could well live witho

Funding Proposal

[owlnation (858981)]

Dear Funding Body,

I formally request funds to study the following hypotheses:

1. Funny things make humans laugh.
2. Sad things make humans cry.
3. Hot things may burn.
4. Pain is sore.
5. Some people will fund anything, no matter how obvious.

In order to ensure correct scientific method, and an appropriate in depth study, our team requires one gesquillion dollars.

Many thanks for your consideration in this matter,

Dr I. C. Clearly
Patently Obvious Research Labs Inc.
Bermuda.

Re:

[zotz (3951)]

"Dr I. C. Clearly
Patently Obvious Research Labs Inc.
Bermuda."

Dude! I think you need to build some triangulation coefficients into your funding requests and into your proposed studies.

all the best,

drew

this just seems like a no-brainer

[smenor (905244)]

I wouldn't expect it for some protracted tortuous period piece where the guy is slowly dying, but for a mindless roller-coaster ride like Armageddon, or something stupid-funny like Jackass or American Pie, a bunch of enthusiastic people in the audience reacting to what's on the screen can really take a 2 to a 10 (the same thing happens on a real roller-coaster for that matter).

The real surprise would have been to learn that it doesn't matter - considering that we are social creatures, after all.

well-known in comedy

[lawpoop (604919)]

This phenomenon is well-known in the comedy world. If they can afford it, a comedian will oftentimes have a warmer in the crowd, who just laughs at the appropriate moments. I heard a Charlie Murphy interview where he talks about doing this for Eddie when he was starting out.

Sounds like wikifriends

[The_mad_linguist (1019680)]

http://xkcd.com/185/ [xkcd.com] beat the researches to it.

Re:

[gEvil (beta) (945888)]

Funny, my friends and I decided it wasn't worth watching past the first 30 minutes. I'm glad I didn't see it with your friends...

Re:

[ConanG (699649)]

Maybe she doesn't care for porn because of how you treat her while watching it. I mean, my blow-up gal loves porn because I know how to treat her right! Remember to follow the manufacturer's instructions for cleaning and care and she'll like it a lot more!

Re:Genious.

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

But, even on /. we knew this empirically, the so called groupthink.

There's groupthink on Slashdot?

So you mean, that, like Apple may not be the greatest company on earth, 2008 may not be the year of Linux on the desktop, Vista may actually be an okay operating system, Microsoft isn't necessarily t3h 3v1l, and in Soviet Russia,
films may not necessarily enjoy you?!

Wow, that's just a lot to think about.

Re:

[TheVelvetFlamebait (986083)]

There's groupthink on Slashdot?

Oh god yes. Certain subjects like Apple, Linux, and MS maybe experiencing change currently, but some subjects are particularly polarised. The viewpoint forms a feedback loop, where the only comments to be moderated highly share that viewpoint, and any reasonable "devil's advocates" (as they must be called) are moderated down. When browsing, slashdotters see no opposing viewpoints, and even if they do, the posts sound so aggressively defensive that they completely alienate the

Re:

[deniable (76198)]

For the Lord of the Rings fans that gush about Peter Jackson, point them to his earlier works. Seriously. I bet none of them have seen Bad Taste, Meet the Feebles or Brain Dead. Classics of New Zealand cinema.

Re:

[owlnation (858981)]

His best work in my opinion is "Forgotten Silver". That's a real masterpiece, the fact that it had a Professor at a NZ film school giving lectures on Colin McKenzie the day after broadcast is hilarious. (He should, of course, have been immediately fired)

His real skill is in production though. The Lord of the Rings movies are an amazing production. To organize that many people, for that length of time, in a small country unused to filmmaking, takes serious talent. Try and organize a short movie yourself,

Re:

[deniable (76198)]

I actually quite like his work. I only caught bits of Forgotten Silver when it was on TV here but he did a pretty good job of it. I have DVDs of the earlier stuff, because they are classics. You're right on production, he did Bad Taste with a tiny budget.

My comment was aimed at the extreme Peter Jackson / Lord of the Rings fan-boys. Some of them can be a bit over the top. Showing them the earlier films makes their heads explode.

Re:

[Telephone Sanitizer (989116)]

It's very weird to em how this opening weekend is being treated by analysts.

They predicted a "successful" $33 million opening weekend.

It now looks like they're going to take in around $28 million.

That's a "box office disaster."

WTF?

The difference between success and disaster of a $200 million dollar film is $5 million dollars in the opening weekend?

The difference ...

[Bearpaw (13080)]

The difference between success and disaster of a $200 million dollar film is $5 million dollars in the opening weekend?

Maybe the difference is how many of the analysts were called aside by their priests after Mass for a private word.

Re:Ever hear of a...

[kisrael (134664)]

The thing is, laugh tracks aren't just a cynical way of trying to make a show "more funny" or being told when to laugh; they were meant in response to semi-legitimate fears of people feeling lonely as they watched a show alone...