media entertainment and well-being-linking hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment experience to...

Journal of Communication ISSN 0021-9916

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Media Entertainmentand Well-Being—Linking Hedonicand Eudaimonic Entertainment Experienceto Media-Induced Recovery and VitalityDiana Rieger1, Leonard Reinecke2, Lena Frischlich1, & Gary Bente1

1 Department of Psychology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany2 Department of Communication, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany

This paper explores the impact of hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment experience onwell-being. We propose that the satisfaction of recovery needs can provide an importantlink that connects recent 2-factor models of entertainment with well-being after mediaconsumption. Using path modeling, relationships between hedonic/eudaimonic entertain-ment experiences, media-induced recovery experience, and vitality as a recovery outcomewere explored in an experiment (N= 120). Results suggest that different recovery needs aresatisfied by hedonic versus eudaimonic entertainment: Although hedonic entertainmentexperiences were associated with the recovery dimensions of relaxation and psychologicaldetachment, eudaimonic entertainment was related to mastery experiences. Both enter-tainment facets, thus, lead to media-induced recovery and resulted in increased psycholog-ical well-being represented by higher levels of vitality after media use.

doi:10.1111/jcom.12097

The question of what drives the experience of media entertainment has fascinatedcommunication research for several decades (Vorderer, 2011). Today, Americanswatch television for 145 hours, spend 29 hours on the Internet, and play video gamesfor 7 hours (Perez, 2013) per month on average. These statistics illustrate that humansspend a great amount of time with media and prompt numerous questions concern-ing the positive and negative outcomes that this time-consuming leisure time activitymay have for its users. This study aims at exploring the beneficial effects that differentmodes of media entertainment may have on psychological well-being. Traditionally,entertainment research has been dominated by a hedonic perspective, assuming thatthe consumption of media entertainment ultimately serves the purpose of experienc-ing pleasure (Vorderer, Klimmt, & Ritterfeld, 2004). Accordingly, the entertainmentexperience has often been conceptualized in terms of hedonic pleasure and positive

Corresponding author: Diana Rieger; e-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association 1

Media Entertainment and Well-Being D. Rieger et al.

affect elicited by media content (Oliver & Raney, 2011), whereas media users havebeen characterized as hedonic agents striving for the maximization of positive affect(Knobloch-Westerwick, 2006; Zillmann, 1988).

More recently, entertainment research has seen a paradigmatic shift from thisprimarily hedonic view to “two-factor models” of entertainment (Vorderer, 2011)proposing that entertainment experience consists of more than mere pleasure and ischaracterized by mixed affect and more complex experiences such as feeling inspired,touched, or moved which have been described as “meaningful affect” (Oliver, Hart-mann, & Woolley, 2012, p. 366). These new theoretical models complement hedonicexperiences with a second, eudaimonic dimension of entertainment referring to feel-ings of meaningfulness and the experience of moral and intellectual virtues (Oliver &Bartsch, 2010; Oliver & Raney, 2011).

This second dimension of entertainment experience is closely linked to eudai-monic well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2001; Ryff & Keyes, 1995). Eudaimonic well-beingrefers to conceptualizations of psychological well-being that go beyond the mere pres-ence of positive affect and the absence of negative affect (Ryan & Deci, 2001) butemphasize the importance of self-determined behavior and psychological growth.Although recent entertainment research has clearly demonstrated that entertainmentmedia use has a strong potential to elicit these eudaimonic experiences (Oliver &Raney, 2011; Wirth, Hofer, & Schramm, 2012), the implications of this eudaimonicpotential beyond the mere entertainment experience have not yet been explored. Inother words, although entertainment scholars have shown that media entertainmentprovides important preconditions for increasing well-being, the direct effects of eudai-monic entertainment experience on well-being after media use have not been testedsystematically so far.

This study aims at closing this gap in prior research by integrating recenttwo-factor models of entertainment (Oliver & Raney, 2011; Vorderer, 2011) withresearch on media-induced recovery. Recovery is defined as “the process of replen-ishing depleted resources or rebalancing suboptimal systems” (Sonnentag & Zijlstra,2006, p. 311). During this process, mental and physical capacities that have beendemanded during a stressful event or experience return to their pre-stress levels(Meijman & Mulder, 1998). A number of studies (Reinecke, 2009a, 2009b; Reinecke,Klatt, & Krämer, 2011; Rieger, Reinecke, Kneer, Frischlich, & Bente, 2013) have linkedentertaining media use to recovery outcomes such as increased vitality and cognitiveperformance. We propose that media-induced recovery provides a theoretical con-cept that bridges the empirical gap between two-factor models of entertainment andwell-being after media use.

We believe that this study makes a meaningful contribution to entertainmentresearch by extending prior work in two central ways: (a) Our results extend recenttwo-factor models of entertainment experience (Oliver & Raney, 2011; Vorderer,2011) by demonstrating that the effects of hedonic and eudaimonic reactions to mediacontent have a significant effect on postexposure well-being. (b) Furthermore, thisstudy also extends research on media-induced recovery by exploring how hedonic

2 Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association

D. Rieger et al. Media Entertainment and Well-Being

and eudaimonic entertainment experiences drive recovery during exposure to mediastimuli.

Two-factor models of entertainmentTraditionally, research exploring the beneficial effects of entertaining media hasfocused on the hedonically gratifying aspects of media exposure. In this context,entertaining media use was thought to be driven primarily by seeking pleasure andby striving for the termination of hedonically unpleasant states (Zillmann, 1988).Hedonically pleasant movies are able to elicit positive affective states in the view-ers (Oliver et al., 2012). Accordingly, general motivations for the consumption ofentertainment media were found to be “entertainment,” “pass-time,” or “relaxation”(Bente & Feist, 2000; Rubin, 1983). Research in this tradition has demonstratedthat the use of entertaining media leads to mood and arousal regulation, as sug-gested within the framework of mood management theory (MMT; Zillmann, 1988).Accordingly, individuals experiencing aversive states of mood and arousal show aparticularly strong tendency to choose media content with positive hedonic valence,such as comedies. This tendency has been referred to as “hedonic motivations forentertainment consumption” (Oliver & Raney, 2011, p. 987). In this regard, mediaexposure can be driven by the desire to regulate any kind of undesirable states; forinstance, people were found to turn to television programs in order to escape fromtheir real-life problems or to direct attention away from negative self-perceptions(Henning & Vorderer, 2001; Moskalenko & Heine, 2003).

In addition to such traditional hedonic approaches to media enjoyment and selec-tive exposure, more recent theoretical approaches have emerged that have attemptedto explain the motivation to engage in sad, poignant, or dramatic entertainment mediathat are not well represented by a hedonic view on media enjoyment. Central to thesenew theoretical approaches is the notion that the view on recipients as solely seek-ing hedonically pleasant states is too narrow to capture the complex reality of mediaentertainment. This basic notion is well captured by Vorderer (2011), who states that

Feeling entertained, some now argue, is not only a matter of amusement or ofsimply feeling good in a general sense, but is also one of becoming involved withan important topic, of elaborating on existing thoughts and beliefs, of pleasureand of sadness, of fun and of melancholy, of emotional kicks and of deeperthinking. (p. 60)

As a response to this broader idea of different experiences that can be elicited by enter-tainment media, and in order to reach a more comprehensive view on entertainment,Vorderer (2011) has suggested a model that incorporated two central dimensionsof entertainment: one hedonic dimension (i.e., enjoyment) and an additional eudai-monic dimension that goes beyond mere pleasure and that Vorderer (2011, p. 60) aswell as Oliver and Bartsch (2010, p. 57) refer to as “appreciation.” The first dimensionrepresents the traditional theoretical perspective of enjoyment as a form of hedonic



pleasure and summarizes the assumption of traditional theoretical approaches suchas MMT, describing the wish to regulate affective states as the main driver of expo-sure to entertaining media content (Oliver & Raney, 2011; Vorderer et al., 2004). Thesecond dimension of entertainment, appreciation, represents a line of research thathas emphasized the idea that turning to sad and poignant media entertainment pro-grams can be driven by a striving for purpose in life and feelings of meaningfulness inaddition to the striving for pleasure and amusement (Oliver & Bartsch, 2011; Oliver& Raney, 2011).

A growing number of studies support the existence of such a multi-dimensionalentertainment experience. A series of studies by Oliver and Bartsch (2010) revealedtwo distinct dimensions of reactions to movie stimuli: Although fun and arousalrepresented the phenomenological spectrum of experiences traditionally associatedwith hedonic media enjoyment, the authors also found a second factor that comprisedmoving and thought-provoking forms of entertainment experience and representedthe eudaimonic appreciation of media content. Additional empirical support forthe existence of eudaimonic entertainment is provided by Oliver et al. (2012), whowere able to demonstrate that meaningful entertainment stimuli, such as sad ordramatic movies, can elicit feelings of moral virtue and elevation. In contrast tohedonic entertainment that is primarily characterized by positive affect, eudaimonicentertainment is able to elicit mixed affective states as well as meaningful affect in itsviewers (Oliver et al., 2012, p. 362). Oliver et al. (2012) found that thinking about ameaningful entertainment experience elicited higher levels of mixed (=positive andnegative emotions at the same time), as well as meaningful affective responses (suchas feeling inspired or touched).

In a similar vein, Wirth et al. (2012) have found meaningful movies to lead to avariety of facets of eudaimonic entertainment experiences, such as the satisfaction ofthe intrinsic needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness, as well as the activa-tion of central values and feelings of purpose in life. Finally, Oliver and Raney (2011)revealed that hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions are also present in the selectionof media content: According to their results, hedonic pleasure seeking and the striv-ing for eudaimonic experiences are two distinctive motivational drivers underlyingindividual preference for media content.

Entertainment and well-beingResearch on the beneficial outcomes of hedonic forms of media entertainment hasprovided evidence that media serve recreational functions (Bryant & Zillmann, 1984).For instance, studies using experience sampling methods demonstrated that mediaexposure, most predominantly TV viewing, provides opportunities for the regulationof negative affect (Kubey, 1986), escape from real-life problems (Kubey & Csikszent-mihalyi, 1990), and represents a time-consuming leisure time activity in everyday life(Kubey & Larson, 1990; Robinson, 1981). Within the framework of MMT, TV wasfound to serve as an “unwinder” (Zillmann, 1991, p. 106), which helps in attenuat-ing noxious arousal states and provides relaxation. These findings that demonstrate



positive effects of media use on affect show a strong theoretical connection to theconcept of subjective well-being, which refers to general life satisfaction, the presenceof positive affect, and the absence of negative affect (Ryan & Deci, 2001). In addition tosubjective well-being, psychological research has identified a second theoretical con-cept, referred to as psychological well-being, that defines well-being in terms of thestriving for individual self-actualization and personal as well as psychological growth(Ryan & Deci, 2001). This concept of psychological well-being shows strong theo-retical connections to the eudaimonic dimension of entertainment, which definesappreciation of media content as an expression of the human search for purpose inlife and moral virtues (Oliver & Bartsch, 2010, 2011; Oliver & Raney, 2011).

Although previous research has clearly demonstrated that entertaining media usecan elicit feelings of eudaimonia (Oliver & Bartsch, 2010, 2011), it has not addressedthe direct effects of eudaimonic entertainment on psychological well-being aftermedia use. This study attempts to close this gap by exploring the effects of hedonicand eudaimonic entertainment on vitality as one indicator of well-being. Vital-ity refers to the “positive sense of aliveness and energy” and the “psychologicalexperience of possessing enthusiasm and spirit” (Ryan & Frederick, 1997, p. 530).

We propose that the concept of media-induced recovery offers a promising the-oretical link that could provide a better understanding of the effects of hedonic andeudaimonic entertainment on well-being after media use. In the following sections,we will first present a review of recovery research and will then explicate the theo-retical connection between hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment experience andmedia-induced recovery.

Media-induced recoveryThe concept of recovery has mainly been applied in organizational psychology toinvestigate how individuals cope with stress and work strain. In this line of research,phases of work are contrasted with times of “nonwork” to address the effects of leisuretime experiences on recovery, vitality, and general well-being (Ryan & Frederick,1997). In everyday life, many work and off-work activities consume psychologicaland physical resources. Periods of rest that allow for the restoration of depletedresources are thus essential for physical and psychological health and well-being(Craig & Cooper, 1992). In this regard, both resource-providing activities (suchas social activities or sports), as well as low-effort activities (such as relaxing onthe couch), were found to be positively related to the recovery process, whereasresource-consuming activities (such as work) were negatively related to recoveryoutcomes (Sonnentag & Zijlstra, 2006). Thus, recovery can be conceptualized as akey process driving psychological well-being (Sonnentag & Zijlstra, 2006).

Sonnentag and Fritz (2007) have developed a multi-dimensional concept ofrecovery experience. Their research subsumes four different facets of the recoveryprocess, each addressing another aspect of the replenishment of depleted resources.First, psychological detachment refers to the process of distancing oneself from workor stress-related rumination that can impair the replenishment of resources and



successful recovery (Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005). A second crucial dimension ofrecovery is relaxation, the process of returning to baseline levels of physiological andpsychological arousal after stressful events or work strain. Relaxation is associatedwith re-established positive affect (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007) and is best achievedthrough activities that put little social, physical, or intellectual demands on theindividual. Third, the recovery dimension of control refers to the freedom of engagingin self-determined behavior during leisure time which contributes to the experienceof autonomy and facilitates the recovery process (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). Feelingin control of a situation can lead to a positive reevaluation of potentially stressful sit-uations and is associated with decreased distress and higher psychological well-being(Lazarus, 1966). Finally, mastery experiences during leisure time are associated withlearning opportunities and challenging leisure time activities that help to compensatefor a lack of positive and reinforcing experiences during work or phases of stress.They provide internal resources such as self-confidence, self-efficacy, and expertisethat facilitate recovery and coping with stress (Hobfoll, 1998).

Recent research demonstrated that the use of entertaining media is strongly asso-ciated with the satisfaction of recovery needs (Reinecke et al., 2011; Reinecke, 2009a,2009b). In two survey studies among video game players, Reinecke (2009a, 2009b)showed that all the four dimensions of recovery experience were inherent in the gam-ing experience. Reinecke et al. (2011) further extended these results by linking subjec-tive self-reports of media-induced recovery experience to subsequent recovery out-comes, such as vitality and cognitive performance. Research on the processes thatdrive media-induced recovery, however, is limited. A recent study by Rieger et al.(2013) has compared the recovery effects of stimuli with positive versus negative affec-tive valence. The results of their experiment demonstrate that negative media stim-uli were as capable as positive media content to lead to the subjective experienceof psychological detachment. In contrast to positive media stimuli, negative stimuli,additionally, led to higher levels of perceived energetic arousal (Rieger et al., 2013).Only media stimuli with a positive affective valence, however, led to higher levelsof relaxation than the nonmedia control condition. Their results thus point towardpotential differences in the processes underlying recovery via media content with pos-itive versus negative hedonic valence. These results provide preliminary support forthe notion that hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment may be associated with differ-ential recovery outcomes: Although There’s Something about Mary (Farrely & Farrely,1998), the positive stimulus used in the study by Rieger et al. (2013), clearly repre-sents media content eliciting pleasurable affect and hedonic enjoyment, Schindler’sList (Spielberg, 1993), the negative stimulus used in the study, represents a more con-templative form of media entertainment that is likely to elicit eudaimonic experi-ences (Oliver & Bartsch, 2010). However, as Rieger et al. (2013) merely contrastedmedia stimuli with varying levels of affective valence but did not measure hedonicor eudaimonic entertainment experience, their results do not provide any concreteinformation on the potential role of both factors of entertainment within the recoveryprocess.



Figure 1 Predicted path model with hypotheses labeled. Dashed lines represent RQ1 and RQ2.

In the following section, we will develop a theoretical model linking hedonic andeudaimomic entertainment to vitality via media-induced recovery, to explore theeffects of both modes of entertainment on well-being after media use.

The effects of hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment experience on recoveryand well-beingThe first part of our proposed model addresses the differential effects of hedonicand eudaimonic entertainment experiences on the different dimensions of recovery(see Figure 1).1 The first dimension of recovery, psychological detachment, showsa number of connections to prior research on the effects of hedonic entertainment.Various studies have identified escapism as an important motivation driver for expo-sure to hedonic forms of entertainment (Henning & Vorderer, 2001; Katz & Foulkes,1962; Rubin, 1983). Kubey and Csikszentmihalyi (1990) demonstrated that nightswith heavy television consumption were frequently preceded by unpleasant moodstates. The authors concluded that television can serve as an escape from dysphoricstates. In a similar vein, Henning and Vorderer (2001) explained the amount of TVconsumption by demonstrating that people who do not enjoy thinking about real-lifeissues and problems (low need for cognition) watch more TV in order to preventthem from thinking.

Theoretical connections between hedonic media use and psychological detach-ment can also be found in MMT that defines the absorption potential (Zillmann,1988) of media stimuli as a crucial element in mood regulation. Absorption potentialdescribes the power of a media stimulus to disrupt current cognitions and to distractfrom ruminations about stress. Several studies within the mood management contexthave supported the notion that media exposure is a powerful source of distraction(Knobloch-Westerwick, 2006). Furthermore, prior research on media-induced recov-ery provides evidence for the potential of hedonic media content to increase psycho-logical detachment (Reinecke et al., 2011; Rieger et al., 2013) and direct attention awayfrom the source of the negative states (Rieger, Frischlich, Wulf, Bente, & Kneer, 2014).In consequence, we propose that hedonic entertainment experiences will be positivelyassociated with the recovery dimension of psychological detachment (H1a).

MMT also provides strong theoretical connections between hedonic entertain-ment and relaxation, the second recovery dimension. MMT posits that individuals



turn to entertainment media with the goal of attenuating stress: “As these stressedpersons return to their homes the need for diversionary television programmingto bring relief should be acute” (Bryant & Zillmann, 1984, p. 5). MMT posits thatengagement with hedonically positive media stimuli is beneficial for the regulationof mood and arousal as it guides the recipients’ attention away from stress-relatedruminations and cognitions (Zillmann, 1991). Accordingly, MMT provides a strongtheoretical connection between hedonic entertainment experience and the recoveryfacet of relaxation: The positive affective reaction to hedonically pleasant mediacontent should facilitate the recovery process by assisting recipients in returningto baseline levels of arousal and achieve positive affect. This notion is supportedby prior research on media-induced recovery experience, which demonstrated thatmedia stimuli with positive affective valence elicit higher levels of relaxation thana nonmedia control condition (Rieger et al., 2013) and that recovering through ahedonically pleasant media stimulus was driven by an increase in positive affect(Rieger, Bowman, Frischlich, & Bente, 2014). Consequently, we propose that thehedonic entertainment experience resulting from the use of media stimuli will bepositively related to the recovery dimension of relaxation (H1b).

In addition to this well-established hedonic mode of media entertainment,research on eudaimonic entertainment experiences has emphasized the idea thatmeaningful film stimuli are thought-provoking and contribute to a deeper elab-oration (Oliver & Bartsch, 2010, 2011). For instance, Oliver (2008) has arguedthat sad movies often feature topics that trigger questions of purpose in life. Theeudaimonic facet of media entertainment can thus be associated with an interestin learning how other people live, in order to gain insights into one’s own life.In a similar vein, Tesser, Millar, and Wu’s (1988) research on movie gratificationsidentified not only hedonic motivations such as self-escape or entertainment butalso an additional motivation which they labeled as “self-development” (p. 443). Theidea of self-development as a desired outcome is also related to research showingthat individuals watch movies as a means to develop and work on their identities(Vorderer, Steen, & Chan, 2006). One important aspect of eudaimonic experiencescan thus be to watch, learn, or experience “how challenges and difficulties aremanaged, responded to, dealt with, and transformed” (Ryff & Singer, 2004, p. 279).Wirth et al. (2012) apply such challenges and difficulties to the consumption ofentertainment media: They can take the form of emotional challenges caused by asad or tragic movie or can also be of a more cognitive nature, for instance, when theplot of a movie is complex and therefore hard to follow (Wirth et al., 2012). Dealingwith these challenges during media exposure can lead to feelings of personal growthand success. These feelings are defined as crucial for mastery experiences withinthe concept of recovery (Hobfoll, 1998). Obtaining them through media stimulishould foster the recovery dimension of mastery experience (Sonnentag, Binnewies,& Mojza, 2008).

We thus propose that eudaimonic entertainment is a plausible source ofmedia-induced recovery through mastery experiences. Therefore, we expect to



find a positive relationship between eudaimonic entertainment experiences and therecovery dimension of mastery experiences (H2).

So far, our hypotheses predict a positive association between hedonic entertain-ment experiences and the recovery dimensions of psychological detachment andrelaxation (H1a and H1b, respectively), as well as between eudaimonic entertain-ment experiences and mastery (H2). Prior research on hedonic and eudaimonicentertainment is less informative, however, concerning the remaining associationsbetween both forms of entertainment experiences. Thus, it is difficult to deriveconcrete hypotheses, for instance, concerning the relationship between hedonicentertainment and mastery experiences, or between eudaimonic entertainmentand psychological detachment as well as relaxation. It appears plausible to assume,however, that both entertainment experiences also contribute to the respective otherrecovery dimensions.

First, hedonic entertainment experience is predominantly associated with plea-surable entertainment and shows strong theoretical connections to psychologicaldetachment (H1a) as well as relaxation (H1b). However, hedonic entertainmentcould just as well contribute to mastery experiences. Talk shows, for example, areclearly related to hedonic viewing motivations such as “relaxation” or “pass-time”(Bente & Feist, 2000, p. 120). They are also watched, however, in order to compareoneself to other persons and to find solutions to personal problems (Bente & Feist,2000). Thus, it seems plausible that some forms of hedonic entertainment mayprovide mastery despite their predominantly pleasurable nature. It thus remainsopen for exploration whether hedonic entertainment can also contribute to masteryexperiences (RQ1).

Furthermore, although we expect eudaimonic entertainment experiences to facil-itate recovery predominantly through mastery experiences (H2), additional positiveeffects of eudaimonic entertainment on psychological detachment and relaxationcannot be ruled out. Bartsch, Kalch, and Oliver (in press) recently demonstrated thatfilm music associated with feeling moved increased reflective thoughts. Similarly,Oliver and Bartsch (2010) found that eudaimonic media content such as dramaswas rated as more thought-provoking than comedies, which were rated the leastthought-provoking genre. It could be argued, thus, that eudaimonic entertainmentexperience is particularly cognitively engaging and may thus facilitate psychologicaldetachment and relaxation due to its strong absorption potential (see, e.g., Zillmann,1991). As eudaimonic entertainment typically covers unpleasant and emotionallychallenging topics, it could also be argued, however, that this form of entertainmenthinders the process of relaxation and might rather represent an additional sourceof stress and strain. Consequently, the effects of eudaimonic entertainment on psy-chological detachment and relaxation remain unclear and will be explored in thisstudy (RQ2).

The second part of our model links the recovery facets elicited by hedonic andeudaimonic entertainment to psychological well-being represented by vitality aftermedia use. Prior research (Reinecke et al., 2011; Rieger et al., 2013) has demonstrated



that media-induced recovery experience is significantly positively related to differentrecovery outcomes including vitality and cognitive performance. In these studies,vitality was operationalized through the concept of energetic arousal (Thayer, 1989).Energetic arousal refers to “subjective sensations of energy, vigor, or peppiness”(Thayer, 1989, p. 6) and hence reflects the energy subjectively available to the indi-vidual. As prolonged work and the consumption of resources result in feelings oftiredness and fatigue (Craig & Cooper, 1992), energetic arousal can serve as an indi-cator for successful recovery and is relevant for well-being (Ryan & Frederick, 1997).Replicating this prior research on media-induced recovery, this study also relieson the operationalization of energetic arousal to demonstrate the impact of mediaon well-being in terms of providing energy and peppiness. In contrast to energeticarousal, aversive forms of arousal, such as stress or anxiety, also referred to as “tensearousal” (Thayer, 1989, p. 6), are detrimental for the feeling of vitality: “Finally, feel-ings of arousal or energy that are not typically associated with personal control, suchas jitteriness, anxiety, or pressure, are expected to be unrelated, or negatively related,to a sense of vitality” (Ryan & Frederick, 1997, p. 531). Consequently, the recoveryfacet of psychological detachment can foster vitality by ameliorating the negativeeffects of stress and tense arousal. This positive effect of psychological detachmenthas been demonstrated in a number of studies. Diary-based research suggests thatindividuals experience less fatigue at bedtime after successful psychological detach-ment from work (Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005), whereas continued rumination has beendemonstrated to prolong the stress response (Brosschot, Pieper, & Thayer, 2005).Accordingly, low psychological detachment in the evening is associated with higherlevels of negative activation and fatigue on the following day (Sonnentag et al., 2008).Consequently, we propose that higher levels of psychological detachment will bepositively associated with feelings of vitality (H3a).

Similar to the idea that psychological detachment can contribute to vitalitythrough reducing rumination about aversive arousal states, the recovery dimensionof relaxation refers to the successful reduction of stress-related complaints (vander Klink, Blonk, Schene, & van Dijk, 2001), and serves the recovery experienceby ameliorating aversive (stress related) arousal states. Successful relaxation thuscontributes significantly to subjective vitality by allowing the individual to returnto pre-stress levels of tension and aversive arousal. Therefore, we expected to find apositive association between relaxation and the feeling of vitality (H3b).

In H2, we argued that eudaimonic entertainment experiences can result in mas-tery experiences by providing the individual with challenges, learning opportuni-ties, and possibilities for self-development (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). With regardto vitality as an indicator of well-being, greater subjective vitality is accompanied bythe experience of self-actualization (Sheldon & Kasser, 1995). Mastery experiencesrepresent successful coping with a challenge and, in turn, have an activating effect.For instance, Sonnentag et al. (2008) found that experiencing mastery in the eveningwas related to positive activation in the following morning. Thus, feelings of mas-tery can contribute to vitality by having an energizing effect on the individual. We



therefore hypothesize a positive association between mastery experiences and vital-ity (H3c).

Method

ProcedureThe proposed model was exploratively tested in an experiment. Participants wereinformed that the purpose of this study was to investigate the evaluation of differentmovies. After arrival at the laboratory, participants performed a working memory taskin order to induce work strain. To manipulate the variance of hedonic and eudaimonicentertainment experience within our sample, participants were randomly assignedto one of the four experimental conditions: (a) a movie clip inducing positive affect(n= 29), (b) a movie clip inducing negative affect (n= 29), (c) a movie with mean-ingful affect (n= 30), or (d) the control condition (n= 32). Participants in the controlcondition were not exposed to any media stimulus and were instructed to rest until thestudy proceeded (see also Reinecke et al., 2011). Simple resting is considered a rele-vant baseline in order to compare media-induced recovery and nonmediated recoveryexperiences.

All the three movie clips, as well as the nonmedia break, lasted about 5 minutes. Allthe four experimental conditions were later included to test our hypothesized model.After the experimental manipulation, participants’ entertainment experience (hedo-nic and eudaimonic), recovery experience and vitality, as well as demographics wereassessed. At the end of the experiment, participants were thanked for their participa-tion and fully debriefed.

SampleA total of N = 120 participants participated in this study (72 female). They wererecruited via university mailing lists of current students and alumni majoring inpsychology at a large German university. Participants’ age ranged between 16 and65 years (M = 27.03, SD= 9.84) and did not differ among conditions, F < 1. Sex wasalso equally distributed between the experimental conditions, χ2(3)= 1.26, p= .74.The sample consisted of 56% of participants who were undergraduate students at thetime of the study and 44% of alumni (25% employed, 19% self-employed).

Stimulus materialWork taskWork strain was induced via two working memory tasks at the beginning of the study.These tasks were based on the Reading-Span task (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980) andthe Operation-Span task (Turner & Engle, 1989). The tasks were chosen because theyare considered to be complex working memory tasks and likely to impose fatigue. TheReading-Span task consists of judgments concerning the correctness of 68 sentences,such as “Every animal is a bird.” For the Operation-Span task, participants had tojudge the correctness (true/false) of 72 mathematical equations, such as “2+ 6/2= 5?”



Participants were instructed to judge whether each sentence or math equation wasright or wrong immediately following presentation. Each sentence/equation was pre-sented for a maximum of 4 seconds.

Media stimuliTo select stimulus material for the main study, a pretest was conducted to assure thatthe selected clips differ significantly in ratings on positive, negative, and meaningfulaffect. We relied on affective responses as a means to manipulate entertainmentexperiences because prior research has demonstrated that hedonic and eudaimonicentertainment are distinguishable based on the elicited affective responses (Oliveret al., 2012; Wirth et al., 2012). A total of 16 movie clips were selected for the pretest.Four online surveys were programmed, each containing four of the 16 movie clipsin randomized order. In total, N = 57 participants took part in the pretest (n= 36female, Mage = 28.16, SDage = 9.44). After each film clip, participants responded tothe positive, negative, and meaningful affect subscales developed by Oliver et al.(2012) on a 7-point scale from 1 “not at all” to 7 “very much.” Those three sceneswhich scored highest on the respective subscale and lowest on both other subscaleswere selected in order to get prototypical examples for each affect dimension (posi-tive/negative/meaningful). Consequently, clips from Along Came Polly (scene length:00:05:08; Hamburg, 2004) for positive affect (M = 4.08, SD= 1.62), Dawn of theDead (scene length: 00:05:09; Snyder, 2004) for negative affect (M = 2.23, SD= 1.67),and Big Fish (scene length: 00:05:13; Burton, 2003) for meaningful affect (M = 4.78;SD= 1.50) were chosen.

MeasuresHedonic and eudaimonic entertainment experienceEntertainment experiences were assessed via the Eudaimonic/Hedonic Entertain-ment Experience scale (Wirth et al., 2012). The scale consists of 18 items, whichare grouped into six different subscales (Purpose in Life, Autonomy, Competence,Relatedness, Activation of Central Values, and Hedonic Entertainment). Items wereanswered on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 “I strongly disagree” to 5 “I strongly agree.”

In order to test our hypotheses that hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment expe-riences lead to differential recovery effects, we divided the scale into two subscales: thefirst one representing eudaimonic entertainment experiences (subscales: Purpose inlife, Autonomy, Competence, Relatedness, and Activation of Central Values) and thesecond one assessing hedonic experiences (subscale: Hedonic Entertainment). Bothsubscales had high internal validity (Eudaimonic: α= .92; Hedonic: α= .95).

Recovery experienceThe recovery experience facets of relaxation, psychological detachment, and masterywere assessed via the respective 4-item subscales of the Recovery Experience Ques-tionnaire (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). The wording was adapted to represent the respec-tive experimental condition (e.g., “When I [watched the movie/took the break], I used



the time to relax” [=relaxation] or “When I [watched the movie/took the break], I dis-tanced myself from my work” [=psychological detachment] or “When I [watched themovie/took the break], I did something to broaden my horizon” [=mastery]). The itemswere rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree.”Reliabilities for all the three subscales were high (Relaxation, α= .81; PsychologicalDetachment, α= .87; Mastery, α= .84).

VitalityFive items of the tiredness subscale of the Activation-Deactivation-Checklist (Thayer,1989) were applied to measure vitality. Items (e.g., “wide awake,” “sleepy”) wereanswered on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 “definitely do not feel [adjective] at themoment” to 4 “definitely feel [adjective] at the moment.” Negative items were reverselycoded and all the five items were averaged to form a mean score of energetic arousalwith higher scores representing higher levels of energy and wakefulness. The scaleshowed a satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach’s α= .74).

Results

Manipulation checkIn this study, participants were confronted with different media stimuli or a non-media break condition to induce systematically varying levels of hedonic and eudai-monic entertainment experiences. Prior to testing our hypothesized model (H1–H3),a manipulation check was conducted to test whether this experimental manipulationwas successful. Therefore, two analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with the conditionsas fixed factor and with hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment experiences, respec-tively, as dependent variables, were conducted (see Table 1 for means, standard devi-ations, and ANOVA results). The results demonstrate that the positive affect moviecondition induced the highest level of hedonic entertainment experience and differedsignificantly from the negative affect movie condition (p< .05) and from the non-media control condition (p< .001), but not from the meaningful affect movie condi-tion (p= .98). Post hoc tests further confirmed that the meaningful affect movie con-dition induced the highest levels of eudaimonic entertainment experience (M = 3.14,SD= 0.79) and differed significantly from all other conditions (all ps< .01). The non-significant difference between the positive affect movie condition and the meaningfulaffect movie condition elucidates that both movie conditions elicited similar levels ofhedonic entertainment experience. This pattern resembles an inherent characteris-tic of meaningfulness, as it is described to evoke mixed emotions: “meaningful affectseems to be best described in terms of mixed valence” (Oliver & Bartsch, 2011, p. 32).It is thus unsurprising that the meaningful media stimulus elicited both eudaimonicentertainment and positive affect. Nevertheless, the positive and meaningful videoclip conditions differed with regard to the experienced eudaimonic entertainment.Accordingly, the experimental induction of varying levels of eudaimonic entertain-ment experience was successful.2



Table 1 Means and standard deviations separated by experimental conditions andcorrespondent ANOVA results

Experimental Condition

VariableMeaningful

MoviePositiveMovie

NegativeMovie Control F(3, 116) p η2

p

Hedonicentertainment

3.77a (0.94) 3.89a (0.93) 3.02b (1.35) 2.30c (1.02) 14.54 .001 .27

Eudaimonicentertainment

3.14a (0.79) 2.36b (0.73) 2.29b (0.74) 2.47b (0.75) 7.93 .001 .17

Psychologicaldetachment

4.13a (0.72) 3.91a,b (0.91) 3.64b (0.95) 2.71c (0.89) 15.86 .001 .29

Relaxation 3.87a (0.85) 3.96a (0.73) 3.88a (0.76) 3.41b (0.79) 3.20 .03 .08Mastery 2.95a (0.79) 2.69a (0.77) 2.66a (0.88) 2.66a (0.89) 0.87 .46 .02Vitality 2.97a,b (0.75) 3.06a (0.57) 2.83a,b (0.74) 2.63b (0.74) 2.10 .10 .05

ANOVA= analysis of variance; LSD= least significant difference.Note: Different subscripts within a line define significant difference between experimental con-ditions test with single comparisons (LSD) at p< .05.

Test of the hypothesized modelMeans and standard deviations separated by condition are presented in Table 1;zero-order correlations between all variables addressed in H1–H3 are provided inTable 2. To test these hypotheses, a path model was computed with the AMOS 21.0statistical package using the maximum likelihood method. The fit of the hypothesizedmodel was tested based on the χ2 and the CMIN/df statistics and a combinationof three additional fit indices recommended by Hu and Bentler (Hu & Bentler,1999): the comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square error of approximation(RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square of residuals (SRMR). Model fit wasconsidered acceptable with a minimum discrepancy statistic (CMIN/df ) below 2.00(Byrne, 1989), an RMSEA approaching .06 or lower (Hu & Bentler, 1999), a CFI above.95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999), and an SRMR of .09 or lower (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The firstmodel tested the paths between hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment experience,respectively, and all the three recovery dimensions, as well as the paths linkingthe three recovery dimensions to vitality. To account for the substantial zero-ordercorrelations between the three recovery experience dimensions (see Table 2), theerror terms of the three variables were allowed to covary within the model.

With χ2(2)= 4.691, p= .10, CMIN/df = 2.34, CFI= .979, RMSEA= .106, 90%confidence interval (CI) [.000, .235], and SRMR= .043, the model demonstratedan unsatisfactory fit. The first part of the model tested the paths between hedonicand eudaimonic entertainment experience and the three recovery dimensions. Asproposed in H1a and H1b, respectively, hedonic entertainment experience wassignificantly related to relaxation (β= .23, p< .05) and psychological detachment(β= .42, p< .001). The path between hedonic entertainment and mastery experience



Table 2 Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations

No. M SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Hedonic entertainment 3.23 1.24 —2. Eudaimonic entertainment 2.57 0.82 .44** —3. Relaxation 3.77 0.8 .29**

.23* —4. Psychological detachment 3.58 1.02 .47**

.30**.62** —

5. Mastery 2.74 0.83 .05 .20*.13 .25** —

6. Vitality 2.87 0.71 .24**.26**

.26**.27**

.23*

*p< .05; **p< .01.

(RQ1), however, did not reach significance (β=−.05, p= .646). As predicted in H2,eudaimonic entertainment experience was positively related to mastery experience(β= .22, p< .05). The paths between eudaimonic entertainment experience andrelaxation (β= .13, p= .198) as well as psychological detachment (β= .11, p= .219)addressed in RQ2 did not reach significance. Although the three variables showedsignificant zero-order correlations (see Table 2), these statistical relationshipsdropped below significance after controlling for the variance explained by hedonicentertainment experience.

The second part of the model tested the paths between the three recovery dimen-sions and vitality. Contrary to expectations, neither relaxation (H3a; β= .16, p= .157)nor psychological detachment (H3b; β= .13, p= .259) showed a significant statisticalrelationship to vitality. As both recovery dimensions showed a substantial zero-ordercorrelation (r = .62, p> .01; see Table 2), the lack of a statistical relationship with vital-ity is likely to result from multicollinearity. As predicted in H3c, mastery experiencewas positively related to vitality (β= .16, p< .05).

To increase model fit, the initial model was revised. The nonsignificant pathsbetween hedonic entertainment and mastery experience, as well as between eudai-monic entertainment, relaxation, and psychological detachment, were removed fromthe model. In addition, to avoid problems with multicollinearity, the path betweenrelaxation and vitality was also removed. The path between psychological detach-ment and vitality was retained because psychological detachment showed a higherzero-order correlation with vitality than relaxation. With χ2(6)= 8.808, p= .19,CMIN/df = 1.47, CFI= .979, RMSEA= .063, 90% CI [.000, .145], and SRMR= .060,the revised model showed an adequate model fit. The paths predicted in H1a and H1b,H2, and H3c remained significant in the revised model. In addition, psychologicaldetachment showed a positive relationship with vitality (H3a; β= .22, p< .05) afterthe path between relaxation and vitality was removed. The final model is shown inFigure 2.

Discussion

The aims of this study were (a) to extend recent two-factor models of entertain-ment experience by exploring the effects of hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment



Figure 2 Revised path model, χ2(6)= 8.808, p= .19, CMIN/df = 1.47, comparative fit index(CFI)= .979, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)= 0.063, 90% CI [.000, .145],and standardized root mean square of residuals (SRMR)= .060. Scores in the figure representstandardized path coefficients significant at p< .05.

experiences on postexposure well-being and (b) to extend research on media-inducedrecovery by differentiating the underlying mechanisms that drive the experience ofrecovery during the consumption of media stimuli with different levels of hedonicand eudaimonic entertainment experience. Our results suggest that although botheudaimonic and hedonic entertainment experiences are related to well-being aftermedia exposure, the beneficial effects of these two modes of entertainment are drivenby differential facets of media-induced recovery.

The results of this study were largely consistent with our hypothesized model. Thefirst part of the model addressed the mechanisms by which entertainment offeringsand their corresponding entertainment experiences, that is hedonic and eudaimonicexperiences, are differentially linked to the experience of recovery. As predicted, hedo-nic entertainment experiences led to higher levels of psychological detachment (H1a).This finding replicates the former research by Rieger et al. (2013), who also found ahigher psychological detachment after media consumption, and also resonates withresearch in the context of MMT that found positive effects of a high absorption poten-tial (Zillmann, 1988). Also consistent with our expectations, hedonic entertainmentexperiences led to higher levels of relaxation (H1b). This finding is in line with priorresearch claiming that individuals use hedonic entertainment media in order to reg-ulate their stress levels and relax or unwind from their pre-exposure stress (Bryant &Zillmann, 1984).

In turn, eudaimonic entertainment experiences, which are associated withself-development, learning opportunities, broadening one’s horizon, or coping withchallenges (Wirth et al., 2012), led to higher levels of mastery experience (H2). Thisfinding stands in line with prior research demonstrating that exposure to movies canbe associated with processes of self-development (Tesser et al., 1988). It further con-nects to prior research that has revealed a positive relationship between eudaimonicwell-being and coping with challenges (Ryff & Singer, 2004), as well as to researchin media psychology that has demonstrated meaningful media content to provideviewers with such challenges (Wirth et al., 2012).



The second part of the hypothesized model addressed the effects of media-inducedrecovery experience on subsequent well-being (H3). As predicted, significantzero-order correlations (see Table 2) demonstrate that all the three dimensionsof recovery experience (relaxation, psychological detachment, and mastery expe-rience) were associated with increased vitality after media use. Within the pathmodel, however, relaxation and psychological detachment did not show significanteffects on vitality, probably due to their strong multicollinearity. When the pathbetween relaxation and vitality was removed, however, psychological detachmentshowed a significant positive relationship to vitality. These findings replicate theresults of previous studies that have found beneficial outcomes of media-inducedrecovery (such as vitality; Reinecke et al., 2011; Rieger et al., 2013) and extendsresearch on hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment by providing an empiricallink between both dimensions of entertainment and psychological well-being aftermedia use.

The results of this study thus have important implications for the conceptual-ization of two-factor models of entertainment, the connection of entertainment toenhanced well-being, and for research on media-induced recovery. First, this studyprovides evidence for differential outcomes of both hedonic and eudaimonic enter-tainment. Prior research has mainly addressed the theoretical differentiation betweenhedonic and eudaimonic entertainment experiences (Oliver & Raney, 2011; Vorderer,2011; Wirth et al., 2012). It has been suggested that hedonic entertainment is associ-ated with enjoyment in the form of hedonic pleasure, whereas eudaimonic experi-ences, such as reflections on the meaning of life or the activation of personal values,are associated with appreciation and feelings of elevation as a response to media con-tent (Oliver & Bartsch, 2010; Oliver et al., 2012; Vorderer, 2011). Our findings sup-port this distinction by adding evidence that hedonic and eudaimonic experienceswere indeed associated with differential effects and led to different well-being out-comes.

Second, this study demonstrates that both dimensions of the entertainmentexperience were able to foster beneficial outcomes in terms of recovery experienceduring media exposure. Most importantly for a more comprehensive understandingof the positive effects of entertainment media, both dimensions of entertain-ment experience contributed to vitality as a central indicator of well-being. Ourresults thus suggest the existence of two modes that link media use and psy-chological well-being: a hedonic mode that fosters well-being by facilitating therecovery dimension of psychological detachment and relaxation and a eudaimonicmode that fosters well-being by providing opportunities for mastery experiences.As predicted, media-induced recovery thus provides a theoretical and empiri-cal link between hedonic as well as eudaimonic entertainment experiences andpositive outcomes of entertaining media use, such as enhanced well-being aftermedia exposure. It has to be noted, however, that both modes of entertain-ment experiences are not completely separable from each other. In our study,hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment experiences were significantly positively



correlated (r = .44, p< .01). Obviously, the same media stimulus can result in bothentertainment experiences but to different extents (also see our manipulationcheck).

Concerning RQ2, zero-order correlations reveal that eudaimonic entertainmentexperiences were also related to relaxation and psychological detachment and there-fore can also contribute to those two recovery dimensions. When controlling forthe influence of hedonic entertainment in our path model, however, eudaimonicentertainment was no longer a significant predictor of relaxation and detachment.This underlines that the two modes of entertainment experiences predominantlycontribute to distinct recovery dimensions but do not represent two clearly separableand independent routes to well-being.

Limitations and directions for future researchAlthough our findings provide new insights and extend both recent research ontwo-factor models of entertainment as well as research on media-induced recovery,several limitations to this study have to be noted. The first limitation refers to theexperimental design in which only three distinct media stimuli were used to createdifferent levels of hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment experience. Although theselection of media stimuli was based on a pretest, supporting the internal validityof our design, we cannot rule out the possibility that the findings may have beeninfluenced by our selection of experimental stimuli. Our manipulation check sug-gested that the positive movie condition as well as the meaningful movie conditionelicited similar levels of hedonic entertainment experience. To be able to generalizethe results, future research should therefore extend this study (a) by applying a morediverse set of media stimuli and (b) by differentiating more clearly between bothentertainment experiences.

A second limitation concerns the length of the media stimuli used in this study. Allthe three video clips were of similar length and lasted about 5 minutes. Consequently,media exposure in this study was limited to a short time period. In order to increaseexternal validity, future studies should replicate the findings of this study using longerexposure times. This is especially important as a concept such as “meaning” leadingto eudaimonic entertainment experiences or feelings of personal growth (Oliver &Raney, 2011) might only be experienced to a limited extent during a short scene ofa movie and can more effectively unfold over time and through reflection (see, e.g.,Leontiev, 2013).

As a final limitation, well-being was only measured in the form of perceivedsubjective vitality. As well-being is a multi-dimensional construct which consists ofmany components (Ryff & Keyes, 1995), future studies should examine a broaderrange of well-being dimensions when testing the beneficial effects of entertainmentmedia and connections to media-induced recovery. This is also important in lightof current conceptualizations of eudaimonia in the context of media psychology(Oliver & Raney, 2011). Former studies mainly argued for the effects of eudaimonicentertainment on solace (Klimmt, 2011) or elevation (Oliver et al., 2012). Applying a



broader range of constructs that connect with eudaimonic well-being is a necessarynext step.

Besides addressing the above-mentioned methodological limitations of thisstudy, future research should also extend prior work on media-induced recovery byinvestigating the recovery outcomes of hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment expe-rience in interactive versus noninteractive media. Results from Reinecke et al. (2011)demonstrate that the use of interactive and noninteractive media results in differentpatterns of recovery experience. Future research should thus address hedonic andeudaimonic entertainment experience as potential explanatory mechanisms for thesedifferential effects.

Overall, this study provides significant new insights into the effects of hedonicand eudaimonic entertainment experience on well-being after media use. Our resultsprovide preliminary evidence that both facets of media entertainment can have ben-eficial outcomes for the recipient. Consequently, both hedonically pleasurable formsof media entertainment as well as more challenging and meaningful media contentoffer distinct contributions to well-being. Our results thus underline the usefulnessof recent two-factors models of entertainment experience and the necessity to fur-ther explore the beneficial effects of entertaining media use on recovery, vitality, andpsychological well-being in future research.

Acknowledgments

A special thanks is dedicated to Mirjana Naumceski, Hannah Buchheister, and Saravon Knobelsdorff for their help during data collection and the interesting discussionsabout the topic.

Notes

1 As this study focuses only on noninteractive entertainment, the recovery dimension ofcontrol was not expected to play a relevant role, as prior research has demonstrated thatexposure to noninteractive media did not result in significant levels of control experiences(Reinecke et al., 2011; Rieger et al., 2013). For the sake of comparability with prior research,the recovery facet of control was nonetheless assessed in this study. However, as expected,neither hedonic nor eudaimonic entertainment experience was significantly related to therecovery facet of control. The variable was thus excluded from further analysis.

2 As our hypothesized model is based on path modelling and therefore represents acorrelational design, the confounded manipulation of hedonic and eudaimonicentertainment experience does not affect our analysis, as the experimental manipulationwas mainly conducted to provide sufficient variance in hedonic and eudaimonicentertainment. As demonstrated by the results of our manipulation check, the fourexperimental conditions, in combination, were successful in reaching this goal and providea sufficient basis for the explorative purposes of this study. We will, however, discuss thepotential limitations arising from this issue in the Discussion section.



References

Bartsch, A., Kalch, A., & Oliver, M. B. (in press). Moved to think. The role of emotionalmedia experiences in stimulating reflective thoughts. Journal of Media Psychology:Theories, Methods, and Applications.

Bente, G., & Feist, A. (2000). Affect-talk and its kin. In D. Zillmann & P. Vorderer (Eds.),Media entertainment: The psychology of its appeal (pp. 113–134). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brosschot, J. F., Pieper, S., & Thayer, J. F. (2005). Expanding stress theory: Prolongedactivation and perseverative cognition. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30(10), 1043–1049.doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2005.04.008.

Bryant, J., & Zillmann, D. (1984). Using television to alleviate boredom and stress: Selectiveexposure as a function of induced excitational states. Journal of Broadcasting, 28(1),1–20. doi:10.1080/08838158409386511.

Burton, T. (2003). Big fish. Culver City, CA: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment.Byrne, B. M. (1989). A primer of LISREL: Basic applications and programming for

confirmatory factor analytic models. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.Craig, A., & Cooper, R. E. (1992). Symptoms of acute and chronic fatigue. In A. P. Smith & D.

M. Jones (Eds.), Handbook of human performance (Vol. 3, pp. 289–339). London,England: Academic Press.

Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. (1980). Individual differences in working memory andreading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 466, 450–466.doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6.

Farrely, B., & Farrely, P. (1998). There’s something about Mary. Los Angeles, CA: 20th CenturyFox.

Hamburg, J. (2004). Along came Polly. Universal City, CA: UCA.Henning, B., & Vorderer, P. (2001). Psychological escapism: Predicting the amount of

television viewing by need for cognition. Journal of Communication, 51(1), 27–28.doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02874.x.

Hobfoll, S. E. (1998). Stress, culture, and community: The psychology and physiology of stress.New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structureanalysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6,1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.

Katz, B. Y. E., & Foulkes, D. (1962). On the use of the mass media as “escape”: Clarification ofa concept. Public Opinion Quarterly, 23, 1–6. doi:10.1086/267111.

Klimmt, C. (2011). Media psychology and complex modes of entertainment experiences.Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 23(1), 34–38.doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000030.

Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2006). Mood management: Theory, evidence, and advancements.In J. Bryant & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Psychology of entertainment (pp. 239–254). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Kubey, R. W. (1986). Television use in everyday life: Coping with unstructured time. Journalof Communication, 36(6), 108–123. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1986.tb01441.x.

Kubey, R. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Television as escape: Subjective experiencebefore an evening of heavy viewing. Communication Reports, 3(2), 92–100.doi:10.1080/08934219009367509.



Kubey, R. W., & Larson, R. (1990). The use and experience of the new video media amongchildren and young adolescents. Communication Research, 17(1), 107–130.doi:10.1177/009365090017001006.

Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Leontiev, D. A. (2013). Personal meaning: A challenge for psychology. The Journal of Positive

Psychology, 8(6), 459–470. doi:10.1080/17439760.2013.830767.Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload. In P. J. D. Drenth, H.

Thierry, & C. J. de Wolff (Eds.), Handbook of work and organizational psychology (Vol. 2,pp. 5–33). Hove, England: Psychology Press.

Moskalenko, S., & Heine, S. J. (2003). Watching your troubles away: Television viewing as astimulus for subjective self-awareness. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(1),76–85. doi:10.1177/0146167202238373.

Oliver, M. B. (2008). Tender affective states as predictors of entertainment preference. Journalof Communication, 58(1), 40–61. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00373.x.

Oliver, M. B., & Bartsch, A. (2010). Appreciation as audience response: Exploringentertainment gratifications beyond hedonism. Human Communication Research, 36(1),53–81. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01368.x.

Oliver, M. B., & Bartsch, A. (2011). Appreciation of entertainment. Journal of MediaPsychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 23(1), 29–33. doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000029.

Oliver, M. B., & Raney, A. A. (2011). Entertainment as pleasurable and meaningful:Identifying hedonic and eudaimonic motivations for entertainment consumption. Journalof Communication, 61(5), 984–1004. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01585.x.

Oliver, M. B., Hartmann, T., & Woolley, J. K. (2012). Elevation in response to entertainmentportrayals of moral virtue. Human Communication Research, 38, 360–378.doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01427.x.

Perez, S. (2013). Nielsen: TV still king in media consumption; only 16 percent of TV homeshave tablets. Retrieved from http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/07/nielsen-tv-still-king-in-media-consumption-only-16-percent-of-tv-homes-have-tablets/

Reinecke, L. (2009a). Games and recovery. The use of video and computer games torecuperate from stress and strain. Journal of Media Psychology, 21(3), 126–142.doi:10.1027/1864-1105.21.3.126.

Reinecke, L. (2009b). Games at work: The recreational use of computer games duringworking hours. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12(4), 461–465. doi:10.1089/cpb.2009.0010.

Reinecke, L., Klatt, J., & Krämer, N. C. (2011). Entertaining media use and the satisfaction ofrecovery needs: Recovery outcomes associated with the use of interactive andnoninteractive entertaining media. Media Psychology, 14(2), 192–215.doi:10.1080/15213269.2011.573466.

Rieger, D., Bowman, N. D., Frischlich, L., & Bente, G. (2014, May 22–26). “I’m pumped, but Idon’t feel like it!”: The differential effects of affect and arousal regulation on mood repair andrecovery. Paper presented at the 64th conference of the International CommunicationAssociation (ICA), USA.

Rieger, D., Frischlich, L., Wulf, T., Bente, G., & Kneer, J. (2014). Eating ghosts: Theunderlying mechanisms of mood repair via interactive and non-interactive media.Psychology of Popular Media Culture (Online First). doi:10.1037/ppm0000018.

Rieger, D., Reinecke, L., Kneer, J., Frischlich, L., & Bente, G. (2013, June 17–21). Mediainduced recovery: The effects of positive versus negative media stimuli on recovery



experience, cognitive performance, and vitality. Paper presented at the 63rd conference ofthe International Communication Association (ICA), London.

Robinson, J. (1981). Television and leisure time: A new scenario. Journal of Communication,31(1), 120–130. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1981.tb01211.x.

Rubin, A. M. (1983). Television uses and gratifications: The interactions of viewing patternsand motivations. Journal of Broadcasting, 27(1), 37–51. doi:10.1080/08838158309386471.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research onhedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.

Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality asa dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65(3), 529–565.doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00326.x.

Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719–727.

Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (2004). Ironies of the human condition: Well-being and health on theway to mortality. In L. G. Aspinwall & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology of humanstrengths. Fundamental questions and future directions for a positive psychology (3rd ed.,pp. 271–287). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (1995). Coherence and congruence: Two aspects of personalityintegration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 531–543. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.531.

Snyder, Z. (2004). Dawn of the dead. Universal City, CA: Universal.Sonnentag, S., & Bayer, U.-V. (2005). Switching off mentally: Predictors and consequences of

psychological detachment from work during off-job time. Journal of Occupational HealthPsychology, 10(4), 393–414. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.10.4.393.

Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2008). “Did you have a nice evening?” Aday-level study on recovery experiences, sleep, and affect. Journal of Applied Psychology,93(3), 674–684. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.674.

Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The Recovery Experience Questionnaire: Development andvalidation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology, 65(3), 204–221. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.204.

Sonnentag, S., & Zijlstra, F. R. H. (2006). Job characteristics and off-job activities aspredictors of need for recovery, well-being, and fatigue. Journal of Applied Psychology,91(2), 330–350. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.330.

Spielberg, S. (1993). Schindler’s list. Universal City, CA: Universal.Tesser, A., Millar, K., & Wu, C. H. (1988). On the perceived functions of movies. Journal of

Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 122(5), 441–449.Thayer, R. E. (1989). The biopsychology of mood and arousal. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of

Memory and Language, 28(2), 127–154. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(89)90040-5.Van der Klink, J. J., Blonk, R. W., Schene, A. H., & van Dijk, F. J. (2001). The benefits of

interventions for work-related stress. American Journal of Public Health, 91(2), 270–276.Vorderer, P. (2011). What’s next? Remarks on the current vitalization of entertainment

theory. Journal of Media Psychology, 23, 60–63. doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000034.Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., & Ritterfeld, U. (2004). Enjoyment: At the heart of media

entertainment. Communication Theory, 388–408.



Vorderer, P., Steen, F. F., & Chan, E. (2006). Motivation. In J. Bryant & P. Vorderer (Eds.),Psychology of entertainment (pp. 3–17). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wirth, W., Hofer, M., & Schramm, H. (2012). Beyond pleasure: Exploring the eudaimonicentertainment experience. Human Communication Research, 38(4), 406–428.doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01434.x.

Zillmann, D. (1988). Mood management through communication choices. AmericanBehavioral Scientist, 31(3), 327–340. doi:10.1177/000276488031003005.

Zillmann, D. (1991). Television viewing and physiological arousal. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann(Eds.), Responding to the screen: Reception and reaction processes (pp. 103–134). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.


media entertainment and well-being-linking hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment experience to...

Documents