Antiheroes Are Not Morally Ambiguous Red

Running head: CHARACTER AMBIGUITY ENJOYMENT
Antiheroes are Not Morally Ambiguous:

Redefining Morally Ambiguous Characters and Viewer Enjoyment
Dao Minh Nguyen
University at Buffalo
Antiheroes are Not Morally Ambiguous:

Redefining Morally Ambiguous Characters and Viewer Enjoyment
Perceptions of media characters are important determinants of the enjoyment of media
content, especially with regard to narrative media forms. Affective disposition theory (ADT)
(Zillmann, 2000; Raney, 2003 & 2004) states that "enjoyment of media content is a function
of a viewer's affective disposition toward characters and the story line outcomes associated
with those characters" (Raney, 2004, p.349). This sentiment is echoed by many imminent
scholars (Cohen, 1999; Vorderer & Knobloch, 2002), who point out that characters are
mentioned as one of the main reasons we enjoy entertainment.
Currently, there is an evolution of characters in narrative media forms whereby
formerly morally clear protagonists are increasingly becoming morally ambiguous characters.
This evolution is particularly evident in television shows. Indeed, more and more morally
ambiguous characters, whom viewers cannot identify as either purely good or purely bad
(Krakowiak & Tsay Vogel, 2013), are becoming the central character in popular television
shows, such as 24, Dexter, Breaking Bad, and American Horror Story. This new type of
fictional characters is captivating the attention of scholars and media researchers (Janicke &
Raney, 2011; Krakowiak & Tsay, 2013; Raney & Janicke, 2013). In addition, the evolution
from morally clear to morally ambiguous may also require adjustments to extant media
theories that have yet to fully integrate morally ambiguous characters into their theoretical
propositions, as compared to the morally clear characters, which usually dominate the
protagonist category and which were the target of early research and theorizing in this area.
There are some notable research studies (Krakowiak, 2008; Krakowiak & Tsay
Vogel, 2013; Shafer & Raney, 2012) that attempt to define the essence of morally ambiguous
characters and try to explain why we, as viewers, enjoy watching these characters. These
studies are based on extant media entertainment theories, including ADT, moral
disengagement, and schema theory, and these studies identify multiple variables important to
viewer perceptions of characters including characters' motivations and potentially positive
outcomes coming from morally ambiguous characters actions (Krakowiak, 2008; Krakowiak
& Tsay-Vogel, 2013; Shafer & Raney, 2012).
According to Krakowiak (2008), "a character that is ambiguous is one that causes
doubt or uncertainty or that can be understood in two or more possible ways" (p.4).
Moreover, "character ambiguity can result from either the presentation of contradictory or
conflicting information about a character or from the absence of meaningful information
about a character" (Krakowiak, 2008, p.4). More recently, Krakowiak and Tsay-Vogel (2013)
proposed a similar definition of moral character complexity and argue that fictional main
characters or protagonists are categorized as "good guys, who sometimes perform immoral
or evil acts. According to this definition, Shafer and Raney (2012) argue that the antihero is
one type of ambiguous character.
These perspectives attempt to differentiate morally clear and morally ambiguous
characters. They also suggest that previous theories which only focus on clearly defined (i.e.,
not ambiguous) characters may or may not be applicable for explaining enjoyment of the
media experience. However, nearly all of this previous work arrives at a similar conclusion
that ambiguous characters are either good guys who behave badly or bad guys that
behave well (Krakowiak & Tsay-Vogel, 2013). These definitions thus presume that these
characters are good or bad at their heart, but that they provide mixed signals to the audience.
For that reason, this paper's agenda attempts to provide a new definition of morally
ambiguous characters. In doing so, the paper will point out shortcomings of previous work
that focuses on categorizing morally ambiguous characters in terms of prototypical character
roles (i.e., heroes with bad qualities or villains with good qualities). In addition, this paper
discusses how enjoyment relates to ambiguous characters through an inseparable relation
with narrative complexity, especially in television shows and feature films. Through those
two goals, this paper attempts to explain why viewers may enjoy morally ambiguous
characters more than clearly defined characters, and why viewers may enjoy narrative
complexity more than narrative simplicity.
Affective Disposition Theory
Before exploring previous studies that have yielded consistent results to ADT, it is
necessary to answer the question What is Affective Disposition Theory? To do that, Raney
in Expanding Disposition Theory (2004) concludes that viewers derive enjoyment from
narratives by observing characters and narrative outcomes. Enjoyment is "a function of a
viewer's affective disposition toward characters and the outcomes experienced by those
characters in the unfolding narrative" (Raney, 2004, p. 350). More specifically, ADT suggests
that witnessing positive consequences befalling liked characters (or negative consequences
befalling disliked characters) will result in viewers liking and enjoying the narrative, while
witnessing negative consequences befalling liked characters (or positive consequences
befalling disliked characters) will result in viewers disliking and not enjoying the narrative
(Raney, 2004; Zillmann, 2000; Zillmann & Cantor, 1977).
The conceptual roots of ADT were based in examining responses to humor (Zillmann
& Cantor, 1972). This research challenged previous conceptualizations of humors enjoyment
and dealt with humor appreciation deriving from the projection of undesirable, negative
outcomes for protagonists characterized by their role as the communication decoders
antagonists (Zillmann & Cantor, 1972, p.198). Zillmann and Cantors model predicted that
individuals with primarily subordinate experiences would exhibit greater appreciation for
humorous communications that show a subordinate temporarily dominating a superior than
for those in which the superior dominates the subordinate, and that individuals primarily
occupying superior positions would manifest the opposite preference (p.191). As expected,
the findings were consistent with the theoretical expectations derived from consideration of
the direction of the transitory dominance expressed in the humorous communications. It
appears that the assumptions made about the resentments existing between the two
populations involved were valid. The resentments seem to be sufficiently pronounced to
affect the hedonic tone of cognitions elicited in the decoding of humorous communications of
the type employed (Zillmann & Cantor, 1972, p.197-198).
Following that early research on humor, Zillmann and Cantor (1976) continued
extending the propositions from humor to drama. They argued that in this case, drama was
different from humor for two reasons. First, dramatic presentations differ from humorous
ones in that enjoyment of the former may involve both the debasement and benefaction of
characters (Raney, 2004, p.68), while enjoyment of the latter is entirely dependent on
debasement. Secondly, dramatic presentations involving the misfortune of others lacks joke
work (Raney, 2004, p.68). Joke work presents cues to the viewer that it is morally
acceptable to laugh at the misfortune of others, an act that normally is not considered to be
morally acceptable. In this manner, joke work grants moral amnesty to the viewer that allows
them to enjoy the debasement of others (Zillmann & Cantor, 1972). Drama, on the other
hand, lacks joke work. Thus, our enjoyment of drama depicting loss or misfortune is not
readily excusable.
To test these proposition, Zillmann and Bryant (1975) examined how cognitive
development interacted with retaliation in a dramatic narrative. They utilized a fairy tale
about two princes (a good prince and a bad prince). In the story, the good prince is deceived
by his brother, the bad prince, who seeks to overthrow his brother and rule their shared
kingdom alone. At the end, the good prince defeats the usurpation and is given the chance to
retaliate against his brother. The researchers varied the level of retaliation at the end with
under retribution (the good prince forgives the bad prince), equitable retribution (the good
prince does to the bad prince what the bad prince was planning to do to the good prince), and
over retribution (the good princes punishment of the bad prince exceeded the crimes
committed). This story with its various endings was shown to children at different stages of
development. The results showed that all children liked the good prince more than the bad
prince (indicating moral judgment plays a role in disposition formation). In addition, all
children preferred punishment to forgiveness, but moral development moderated the results.
Children with higher levels of moral reasoning (Kohlberg, 1971; Kohlberg, 1973) enjoyed
equitable retribution the most, while children with lower levels of moral reasoning enjoyed
the harshest punishment the most, followed by equitable retribution, followed by under
retribution. The findings of this study strongly supports the proposition that viewers moral
sanction of retribution in the appreciation of dramatic presentations; and the appreciation of
dramatic presentations which employ provocation and retaliation as a central theme is
mediated though viewers moral convictions (Zillmann & Bryant, 1975, p.581). In another
word, viewers use their moral judgment to form the liking toward characters based on
characters narrative presentation (including their actions, behaviors, outcomes, to name a
few) and enjoy the resolution based in a manner that seems morally justifiable.
In sum, research examining the extension of ADT from humor to drama suggests two
things. First, viewers not only rejoice in seeing disliked characters punished, but they also
rejoice in seeing like characters rewarded. Hence, the enjoyment only occurs when viewers
get satisfied by both or vice versa; alternatively, their enjoyment will decrease if witnessing
liked characters being punished and disliked characters being rewarded. Second, viewers also
bring moral judgment into play when determining the appropriateness of rewards and
punishments. More specifically, for viewers, punishments must be considered appropriate
and equitable for enjoyment to occur. For that reason, over retribution does not result in
enjoyment, but rather disliking of the narrative (Zillmann & Bryant, 1975). Although all
previous studies are generally consistent with the proposition that viewers enjoy witnessing
liked characters rewarded and disliked characters punished, ADT was less well developed
theoretically regarding how viewers came to like or dislike characters. As such, explicating
how viewers form liking or disliking toward characters was a crucial need for fully
developing ADT.
Where does liking and disliking come from?
Early research on ADT took a somewhat simplistic view of determining how liking
was formed. In Zillmann and Cantors (1972) early work examining enjoyment from jokes,
liking was assumed to be related to similarity to ones on place in society. According to this
research, people appreciate the jokes involving the disparagement of a person from a group
that they do not belong to and they do not appreciate jokes involving the disparagement of
their own group. Later research by Zillmann and Cantor (1976) pointed out that liking was
assumed to be related to the moral judgment of viewers based on the good or bad behavior of
characters. Although the basic logic of dispositions toward characters being related to moral
evaluations was present in these early incantations of the theory, it was not until later in the
development of this research that the theory began to delineate processes related to moral
judgment in a specific manner. Zillmann (2000) formally integrated moral judgment
processes related to ADT in his moral sanction theory of delight and repugnance. This theory
argued that liking and disliking of characters is formed through the approval or disapproval of
actions and their apparent purpose. Literally, the actions of characters define the judgments of
the audience in terms of defining those characters as liked protagonists or disliked
antagonists. Moreover, character development is considered to be a function of moral
evaluation. As Zillmann pointed out, viewers are interpreted to be untiring moral monitors
witnessing socially relevant events (fictional or nonfictional) whose continually rendered
verdicts are bound to yield the approval and adoration of some, and the disapproval and
detestation of others (Zillmann, 2000, p.54).
When liking or disliking is formed, emotional dispositions are set up and encourage
anticipatory emotions that are in turn either positive or negative. Positive dispositions
encourage hope for positive, rewarding outcomes and encourages fear for negative, punitive
ones; while negative dispositions encourages the opposite. Hoped for and morally
sanctioned outcomes (rewarding events for protagonists and punitive events for antagonists)
will foster euphoric, joyous reactions, whereas feared and morally unwarranted outcomes
(rewarding events for antagonists and punitive events for protagonists) will prompt reactions
of dysphoria, discontent, disappointment, and contempt (Zillmann, 2000, p.54, 55). After
Zillmann proposed that viewers of media were untiring moral monitors who constantly
evaluated the acceptability of character actions, researchers began to challenge this claim.
One such researcher was Raney.
Raney adheres to Zillmanns assumptions in numerous ways. In fact, Raney does not
challenge the basic assumptions of ADT at all. He firmly holds similar to Zillmann that in
drama presentation liking of characters and outcomes that befall them combine to determine
viewers enjoyment: viewers find more satisfaction when their liked characters are rewarded
and their disliked characters are punished, and vice versa. Viewers enjoyment is suffered
when disliked characters are rewarded and liked characters are punished (Raney 2003).
However, Raney does challenge the notion that liking is entirely dependent upon moral
judgments. Raney thus offers possible alternative or additional ways viewers form affiliations
with characters. Raney suggests that rather than constantly judging the morals of the
characters and liking resulting from those judgments, liking can instead come prior to
observation of actions and influence moral judgments of the characters. This reversal is based
on Raneys application of schema theory.
According to Raney (2004), viewers may form the liking toward characters quickly
without much moral monitoring at all. Schema theory argues that through repeated exposure
to stimuli in our environments, humans form expectations based on simple cues (Shafer &
Raney, 2012). As such, viewers form story schema due to consuming various type of
narrative forms including books, films, shows, etc. Schemas then lead viewers to create
expectations about how a narrative will unfold and which characters are the protagonists
and which are the antagonists independent from any moral judgment of their behavior or
perhaps prior to witnessing any actions conducted by these characters.
Schema Theory
According to Mandler (1984), a story schema is a mental representation containing
expectation about how a narrative is internally structured and how it will unfold. Story
schemas rely upon an understanding of story grammar (or the common rule system that
describes regularities within similar texts), which we start developing from early childhood;
story schema direct attention, guide anticipations, and aid comprehension and recall (Shafer
& Raney, 2012, p.1030). According to schema theory, knowledge about a concept, event,
sequence of events or actions, situation story type, or other stimuli is packaged together in
memory in a template of sorts (Raney, 2004, p.353). Raney (2004) also argues that
schemas are knowledge structures consisting of a network of interrelations between aspects
of a stimulus that are thought to constitute our understanding of that stimulus. This
knowledge structure subsequently serves as our building block of cognition about the
stimulus (Rumelhart, 1980) (p.353).
Raney stated that schemas help direct our perceptions about the guide our
interpretations of a stimulus (2004, p.353). With regard to narratives, through repeated
exposure, we learn how stories are constructed, how typical actions relate to one another,
how scenes and settings are constructed, and how themes are repeated. Over time, viewers
10
develop various schema structures that are activated when a subsequent media text is
encountered. These structures then guide expectations and interpretations of narratives and
characters.
Raney has argued that viewers likely develop story schemas that provide them "the
cognitive pegs upon which to hang their initial interpretations and expectations of characters"
(Raney, 2004, p. 354). In a more recent study, Shafer & Raney (2012) argued that repeated
exposure to stories from the same genre teaches viewers how narratives, scenes, and settings
are constructed, how fictional causes are related to fictional effects, how themes and
archetypes are recycled, among other things (p.1031). In other words, being exposed to
similar stories and narratives allows viewers to quickly jump to the conclusion of characters'
identity and form expectation without carefully judging characters' acts or motivations. That
means viewers actually are able to identify intended character roles within narratives without
considering the moral acceptability of a characters actions. Janicke and Raney (2014) shared
the same argument when they described the liking of antiheroes based on story schemas.
Conflicting Models
Overall, Zillmann and Raney propose alternative models regarding how liking and
disliking of characters is formed. Zillmann states that liking is the result of viewers moral
judgments of the character, whereas according to Raney, liking can also occur based on
previous experiences with various character archetypes (i.e., previous characters similar to
characters being viewed) and this liking could be independent of moral judgment. For
example, with Zillmanns approach, Anakin Skywalker in Star Wars series starts as an
innocent child, who is neutral at the beginning of the narrative. Following the unfolding of
narration, viewers moral monitoring is applied to judge Anakins behaviors to determine
whether he is a protagonist or an antagonist. Obviously, when he follows the Jedi part, he is a
11
liked character, and when he turns to the Darkside of the Force, he becomes an antagonist,
and disliked character.
This process can be compared to Raneys proposition regarding schema using another
Star Wars character, Luke Skywalker. According to Raney, viewers can form dispositions
toward Luke Skywalker very quickly based on viewers previous schema about the hero
character type. For that reason, viewers can form liking toward Luke from the beginning
without monitoring and judging his behavior, and possibly without observing any of his
actions.
These two frameworks make very different predictions regarding how liking will
develop over time and over the viewers experience of the narrative. On one hand, Zillmann
predicts that at the beginning of a narrative, viewers liking will be relatively neutral
regarding all characters and that the behaviors of characters will shift liking from neutral to
positive or negative based on how the viewer evaluates each individual characters behaviors.
Raney, on the other hand, predicts that liking may not begin at a neutral standpoint. Instead,
decisions made by writers can activate schemas in the viewer, which leads to predetermined
levels of liking (and some levels of moral approbation/disapprobation) before any behaviors
are observed. For example, hero characters may be universally liked and the viewer may
expect that they will do good things for good reasons. As such, the viewer expects these types
of behaviors and would not need to judge each or any of the characters actions. For
characters like Superman, Wonder Woman, Spider-man, The Flash, to name a few, viewers
do not need to apply moral judgment since they active the hero schema. Moreover, an
unknown character who is similar to Superman may be evaluated similarly, purely because of
the expectations of the audience. As such, schema about character types may influence
perceptions of characters from the beginning of the narrative or perhaps even prior to
narrative exposure.
12
Character Archetypes
Previous research on the evaluation of different types of characters (e.g., heroes,
villains, anti-heroes, etc.) has focused on describing these characters in simple terms and
using schemas of different character types (Zillmann, 1975). We are able to propose a short
definition of morally clear characters (traditional protagonist/hero/good characters or
traditional antagonist/villain/bad characters) based on this research. These clear characters are
the types of character who purely do either good, moral things (protagonists/heroes) or bad,
immoral things (for antagonists/villains). Moreover, they would not be expected to perform
any act which could be used to judge them as the opposite side of the character's moral
identity. Indeed, morally clear characters are purely good or bad from the beginning to the
end of narrative presentation. In addition, traditional heroes do not have moral flaws (Shafer
& Raney 2012).
We can name more than one traditional protagonist characters, such as Superman,
Spider-man, Wonder Woman, and so on. Superman upholds nearly every form of morality:
he is caring, just, obedient to legitimate authorities, loyal, and pure (Tamborini, Grizzard,
Eden, & Lewis 2011). These characters mostly present only purely good, traditional
protagonistic actions (or purely bad antagonistic actions for villains) in narrative. As such,
they are expected to behave in entirely moral way (or entirely immoral way for antagonists).
Other traditionally clear characters could be Luke Skywalker as a positive moral character
and as negative moral characters, Lex Luthor (Supermans nemesis) and The Emperor (Luke
Skywalkers nemesis).
Recent theoretical advances have begun to attempt to define morally ambiguous
characters (Krakowiak, 2008; Krakowiak & Tsay-Vogel, 2013; Shafer & Raney, 2012).
However, these theoretical advances still draw heavily on using character archetypes to
define morally ambiguous characters. These studies define the term "ambiguous characters"
13
as morally complicated (Krakowiak, 2008), but also in a variety of other ways. For example,
studies by Krakowiak and Tsay-Vogel (2013) and Shafer and Raney (2012) suggested a more
clearly explicated definition of ambiguous characters. According to those researchers,
morally ambiguous characters are fictional main characters or protagonists that are
considered as "good guys" who sometimes perform immoral or evil acts. Krakowiak (2008)
also argued that morally ambiguous characters are good characters who do both good and bad
things. According to her research, based on morally judgment of characters' action, they can
be identified as either heroes/protagonists/good or villains/antagonists/bad.
In previous literature reviews, morally ambiguous characters are also known as
antiheroes (Janicke & Raney 2014). In their study, Janicke and Raney stated that antiheroes
are type of characters that include characteristics of both a hero and a villain and display
qualities of both heroes and villains (Lott, 1997). West (2001) argued that they may have
noble goals, but the way they pursue them is rather ignoble or morally questionable (Janicke
& Raney, 2014, p.5). Shares the same argument, Naremore (1998) pointed out that in a way,
they show characteristics of a classic hero with good intentions; however, the means by
which they try to reach these well-intended goals are morally questionable (Janicke &
Raney 2014, p.5-6)). Despite clearly doing improper things for (at times) corrupt reasons,
antiheroes still function as forces of good in many narratives (Shafer & Raney, 2012,
p.1030). For example, the character Jack Bauer in 24 who is a CTU agent usually use torture
on suspects to gather information to prevent terrorist attacks and save innocent people's lives;
or Sergeant Henry "Hank" Voight in Chicago P.D. show, who is a shady yet loyal head of the
Chicago Police Departments Intelligence Unit that uses torture and corrupt ties with gang
members to further his investigations. Furthermore, Batman, Cat-woman, Green Arrow, or
any vigilante can be put into this category.
14
On the opposite side of antiheroes are antivillains. According to Urban Dictionary,

antivillain are antagonists who are not purely evil nor entirely unsympathetic - a character
who does not seem to deserving of being cast as the villain, but is perhaps cast arbitrarily as
the villain because they are not the focus of the story and merely present a foil to the central
figure, who may be an antihero protagonist. (For example, Magneto (Eric) in X-Men; Gru in
Despicable Me; Megamind in Megamind; Loki in Thor and Avengers serve as noticeably
interesting antivillains.
The current definitions of morally ambiguous characters, thus are steeped in the
character archetypes of antiheroes and antivillains (Krakowiak, 2008; Krakowiak & TsayVogel, 2013; Shafer & Raney, 2012). In these studies, ambiguous in morally ambiguous is
really defined based on known archetypes rather than the character being truly unknown (as
ambiguous would imply). In fact, these ambiguous characters generally serve as protagonists
with viewers seeing them as forces of good within the narrative. They are really not
ambiguous because viewers can judge their motivation as good, in a similar manner as other
character archetypes. For example, while Superman (pure hero) does good things and Batman
(antihero) performs questionable/immoral acts, both of them still serve justice and both are
often considered to be heroes.
Combining Schema Theory and Moral Monitoring
Based on the fluctuation of characters narrative, the unfolding of narrative, the
following section describes how these models might play out over time and describes a
typology of characters in media, including the relationship between character types and these
different models of disposition formation.
According to Zillmanns model, moral monitoring is applied from the beginning of
the narrative. Viewers form liking or disliking toward to characters, after judging characters
actions as good or bad (see Figure 1). As we can see in the chart, good and bad characters are
15
expected to begin their narrative at the same neutral point. During their presentation of
narrative, their actions are judged by viewers. At some point during their presentation, the
consistency of their actions allow viewers to describe them as good and liked or bad and
disliked. In this model, it is even possible that these characters can switch from being liked to
being disliked based on their actions.
Figure 1. Visual depiction of the Zillmanns moral monitoring model unfolding over a
narrative.
Zillmann's Moral Monitoring Model of

Disposition Formation
Dispositions toward Characters
6
4
2
0
Good Character
-2
Bad Character
-4
-6
-8
0
Time in Narrative
Meanwhile, Raneys model (see Figure 2) suggests that because of schema, viewers
are able to apply their prior experience with different characters to identify current
characters morality and form liking or disliking toward characters even before the moral
judgment. Good and bad characters do not start at the same neutral point because of viewer
schema. Viewers are assumed to use their narrative schema to judge characters morality
prior to viewing actions and, then form liking and disliking toward characters they think
are good or bad from the beginning of narrative. Because liking and disliking are formed
close to the beginning of the narrative or even prior to viewing the narrative, those attitudes
16
are expected to be maintained until the end of a narrative presentation. As such, crossing the
neutral line is not expected. In fact, Raney (2004) argues that actions may be reinterpreted
based on the applied schema (i.e., the immoral actions of the liked character are overlooked
and judged less harshly)
Figure 2. Visual depiction of the Raneys schema model unfolding over a narrative.
Raney's Schema Model of Diposition

Formation
Dispositions toward Characters
8
6
4
2
Good Character
-2
Bad Character
-4
-6
-8
0
Time in Narrative
Raneys model seem to focus on characters who remain stable throughout a narrative
and Zillmanns model allows for changes over time. However, Zillmanns model assumes
that moral judgment is the basis of liking and Raneys model assumes that liking can be
based on schema, apart from moral judgment. As such, both Zillmann and Raneys model
have issues regarding disposition formation processes (see Table 1). Zillmanns model has
difficulty dealing with a situation where audience members approach the narrative with
dispositions already formed towards characters. Meanwhile, Raneys model has difficulty
dealing with situations where a character would completely change his/her alliance or
reverses his/her morality/schema in the middle of a narrative.
Table 1.
17
Depiction of Zillmann and Raneys Models for different character types.

Perceptions of Characters Across Narrative
Type of Character
Zillmanns Model
Raneys Model
Beginning
End
Beginning
Positive
Neutral
Neutral
Evil
Evil
Good
Antivillain (Evil)
Antihero (Good)
Hero
(Good)
Villain
(Evil)
Antihero
(Better)
Antivillain
(More Evil)
Hero
(Better)
Villain
(More Evil)
End
Hero
Negative
Neutral
Good
Actions
Villain
Negative
Neutral
Morally Clear Characters
Antihero
Positive
Morally Ambiguous
Characters
Antivillain
18
Notably, schemas may even apply to complex character types, such as antiheroes. For
instance, a character who begins a narrative as an antihero should activate the antihero
schema for audiences. This can happen even prior to watching the narrative if the audience
understands a narrative to fit a certain schema (e.g., the American outlaw narrative).
However, once that schema has been firmly activated in the audience and the audience is
using that schema to judge the characters actions, it becomes difficult to explain how that
schema could become deactivated and another schema become activated. Schemas rely on
broad understandings and the application of rules in advance. Once the rules of a particular
schema are broken, the schema loses its utility as future experiences are no longer easy to
categorize. As such, the audience would not be able to use schemas when characters actions
do not fit a particular schema. In this instance, Zillmanns model of constantly judging the
characters actions seems a better fit. As such, a combination model would seem to be the
best fit for narratives featuring morally ambiguous characters. As an example, consider
Breaking Bad and its main character Walter White. Walter White is mentioned in previous
studies and identified as an ambiguous character (and antihero). However, based on his own
narrative through five seasons, viewers actually witness and experience the process of his
changing: Walter Whites actions and behaviors swing from a traditional protagonist at the
beginning of the drama, to an antihero in the middle when he adopts the Heisenberg persona,
to an antagonist towards the end when he aligns himself with neo-Nazis, and then finally a
return to an antihero for the grand finale. This remarkable process makes Walter
White/Heisenberg different from other type of characters (including Dexter or Tony Soprano)
because his characters alignment changes drastically between good and evil throughout the
show. Vince Gilligan, in an interview with The Guardian magazine, said "I have kind of lost
sympathy for Walt along the way I find it interesting, this sociological phenomenon that
people still root for Walt. Perhaps it says something about the nature of fiction, that viewers
19
have to identify on some level with the protagonist of the show, or maybe he's just interesting
because he is good at what he does (Plunkett, 2013). Even though Walter is one of a kind
(according to many critics and reviews, he is the most ambiguous character in television
history; John, 2013), and there are not many characters like that in television today (yet), we
have to question that why this type of ambiguous characters attract viewers so much.
This type of character who activates a schema, but then does actually change
characteristics during the narrative, seems to fall outside of previous theories explanatory
power. On one hand, traditional character archetypes still dominate media forms, especially
in television series and feature films. On the other hand, we have witnessed the appearance of
"truly" moral ambiguous characters recently, and the fact that viewers actually enjoy
watching narratives featuring these characters (Dexter, The Sopranos and Breaking Bad are
extremely successful shows) leads to the need to re-define the definition of morally
ambiguous character. At this point, I would like to suggest a "new" definition of moral
ambiguous characters, which expands how the word "ambiguous" is understood: Character
ambiguity is the type of character who cannot be clearly defined or categorized as good or
bad. Moreover, they can also change themselves between good and bad, and turn to opposite
side of their identity during a narrative presentation.
How Morally Ambiguous Characters Relate to Complex Narrative and Schema Theory
Now, that we have redefined morally ambiguous characters, we turn to narrative
theories to explain how narrative structure and complex characters relate to each other. The
following section first explains what narrative complexity is. Then, we integrate narrative
complexity with ambiguous characters. Finally, we present reasons why ambiguous
characters may be enjoyed more than morally clear characters and by which specific
audiences.
20
Bordwell and Thompson (2008) give a general definition of narrative in cinema as a

chain of events in cause-effect relationship occurring in time and space with characters being
one of many factors of narrative structure. Moreover, Bordwell (1985) defined that a
narrational mode is a historically distinct set of norms of narrational construction and
comprehension (p.150), one that crosses genres, specific creators, and artistic movements
to forge a coherent category of practices (Mittell, 2006, p.29). Consistency in narrative
structure across various creators and genres allows for viewers to form schemas related to
different genres (e.g., tragedies, feel good comedies, etc.) and character types (e.g., heroes,
villains, the every-person, etc.).
Narrative structure influences how characters are presented. Thus, we expect simple
narrative presentation to generally define characters as morally clear. For example, childrens
stories feature very few plot elements or subplots and the characters generally fit into pure
heroes and clear villains. As such, simple familiar narratives allow viewers to form
quickly and immediately the liking of characters, because viewers have been exposed to these
types of narratives multiple times before. Narrative complexity, on the other hand, does not
allow for these quick judgments as there are more plots and subplots for the viewer to keep in
mind and the characters actions often times do not fit neatly into clearly defined archetypes.
Mittell (2006) argued that narrative complexity began to dominate contemporary
American television in the 1990s. Through various examples of American network and cable
shows, Mittell examined the interaction between viewers and narrative complexity and how
viewers unfold innovative narrative structures by a comparison with conventional types of
narratives. It is logical to assume that viewers' story schemas of characters cannot be used to
accurately predict story arcs or draw any assumption when they are exposed with narrational
modes of truly morally ambiguous characters and complex narratives, because (1) viewers
may not have experienced complex narrative presentation before or (2) the complex narrative
21
purposefully thwarts accepted narrative schemas. The confusion, ambiguity, and complexity
of narrative presentation in these cases increases the need for viewers to exercise careful
judgments of characters that cannot be defined in terms of schemas. For that reason, simple,
rational, or conventional story schemas would not be able to explain the enjoyment of
viewers in morally ambiguous characters narrative, as these types of narratives purposefully
buck narrative traditions.
As I pointed out above, unless combined, the two previous disposition models of
Zillmann and Raney cannot explain viewers enjoyment of characters who activate
competing narrative schemas. Nevertheless, because morally ambiguous characters have an
integrated relationship with complex narrative, it is also logical to look at the relationship
between complex narrative and schema theory. We can assume that complex narratives could
be considered as narratives that do not activate any kind of schema. There are a lot of feature
films, or television shows where viewers find enjoyment not necessarily through the
evaluation of characters, but rather through the specific narrational style adapted by the
writer. Pulp Fiction (1994), for example, is praised and recognized for an outstanding and
irrational script structure, in which narrative presentation is not only out of order temporally,
but also presents villainous characters as the main characters (Vince and Jules) and the lone
heroic character (Butch) as an ancillary minor character. However, the appeal of the
unconventional narrative of Pulp Fiction is not based on character archetypes, but rather it is
based on how the narrative unfolds. It is the narrative rather than the characters that elicits
viewers enjoyment of the movie.
However, we also can possibly argue that complex narrative has to sometimes
activate schema because viewers generally have an extensive history of exposure to
narratives. This history may cause viewers to engage schemas, even if writers are not
purposefully activating them through their narrative choices. However, complex narratives
22
could also be understood as narratives that activate many different schemas, contradictory
schemas, or none at all. With the case of many different schemas or contradictory schemas,
the narrative presentation may purposefully thwart expected resolutions. A such, the activated
schemas might turn out to be the wrong schemas for interpreting actions, or the viewer comes
to realize that the characters and narrative fits no schema at all. Schemas provide comfort to
viewers because they know they can form certain expectations about how the narrative will
unfold (the antihero character will do some immoral acts but for good reason, the villain will
perform extremely immoral behaviors for bad reasons, and so on). However, with complex
narratives, all these expectations begin to be thwarted and the schemas might start to
breakdown.
Future Research Directions
As I argued above, the combination of Zillmann and Raneys model can explain the
viewers enjoyment to truly morally ambiguous characters and their narratives. Nevertheless,
it is necessary to navigate future research direction to try to untangle the relationship between
narrative complexity, ambiguous characters, and viewer enjoyment. It is also important to
state that besides the enjoyment of morally ambiguous characters and complex narrative,
there are viewers who still root for and stick to the traditional characters schema and simple
narratives. In fact, the success of feature films (e.g., summer blockbusters) and television
shows where traditional characters still dominate proves that viewers have not turned their
back on simple narratives. These simple, schema-based narratives are quite popular as
evidenced by the great numbers of traditional TV shows fitting a simple schema. For
example, CBS still produces many spin-off series from NCIS, include NCIS Los Angeles,
NCIS New Orleans, where the focus is on typical heroes, antiheroes, villains, and so on. In
fact, this type of myster/crime schema is popular across many networks. However, research
should perhaps turn its focus to the more difficult question of how complexity in narratives
23
and characters influences viewers enjoyment. Some theories that might explain this process
include Expectation violation theory (EVT) and Excitation transfer theory (ETT).
EVT, according to Defining Communication Theories, examines how messages are
structured, and the theory argues that when communicative norms are violated, the violation
may be perceived either favorably or unfavorably, depending on the perception that the
receiver has of the violator, or the consequences of the violation. There are only a few studies
that apply the tenets of EVT to explain media enjoyment (see for exception Krakowiak, 2008
and Weber et al., 2008). For example, Weber et al. (2008) stated that screenwriters of soap
opera will often violate audience expectations from time to time so that viewers do not
become bored with predictable outcomes.
As mentioned above, story schemas are formed when viewers are exposed continually
to the same or similar narrative structures. Because of repeated exposure and similarity
between different narratives, viewers also are able to make quick, unconscious decisions
about how plot and story will be unfold. For that reason, we can expect that irrational,
innovative, complex narrative presentation and truly ambiguous characters will violate
viewers' expectations more than simple, predictable one. This leads to discomfort for the
viewer because they can no longer anticipate what is coming next. This discomfort can be
resolved in several ways. If we assume viewers' expectation are violated in positive way,
enjoyment will be increased. For example, when viewers are exposed to Walter White in the
first episodes of the first season of the show, schemas might be activated where viewers
perceived Walter White to be the protagonist or at most an antihero. This causes viewers to
root for him as a likeable character. During Walter's story line, however, viewers may come
to realize that their previous schema and assumptions about his character does not fit the
narrative that is unfolding. As such, viewers may come to view Walter no longer as a
protagonist but rather as an antagonist (first, he used family as a moral excuse for his
24
immoral acts but then he enjoys cooking meth and performs bad things for himself. This in
turn evokes and violates viewers' expectations (in an extremely good way in this show as this
surprise turn keeps viewers on the edge of their seats). On the other hand, when viewers
expectations are suffered in negative way, enjoyment will be decreased. Game of Thrones, for
example, keeps killing many of the main characters of the story (a clear violation of
expectations and a thwarting of the time viewers invest in watching the show). This fact
actually causes a huge controversy around this famous series from HBO. Besides Game of
Thrones, The Walking Dead the series about apocalypse world with the domination of
zombies and survivors stories - continues to provoke and thwart viewers expectations. In
the latest season, the show has turned the Terminus group into cannibals. The idea of people
eat people in The Walking Deads new season has caused big controversy due to its focus on
pushing the boundaries of taste (Carter, 2014). Thwarting expectations, as discussed using the
aforementioned Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead examples, can cause viewers to
become angry and frustrated with the narrative. However, some viewers still enjoy them.
Questions remain as to how these different shows may function similarly or differently based
on violation of schemas.
Being confused when schemas begin to be thwarted, viewers quickly find themselves
in situations with higher and higher levels of suspense. For that reason, we can look at
Excitation-transfer theory (ETT) and the way it explains the contribution of suspense to
narrative enjoyment. According to Zillmann (1983), ETT is the application of the three-factor
theory of emotion to such sequences. It predicts that residual excitation intensifies subsequent
emotional responses as a function of residual sympathetic excitation. Indeed, arousal should
increase whatever experience viewers experience based on the narratives resolution. As
such, if viewers enjoy what they see, higher levels of arousal should lead to higher levels of
enjoyment; if, on the other hand, viewers hate what they see, higher levels of arousal should
25
lead to higher levels of hate. Schemas might be thwarted in various ways leading to both
distaste, but also anticipation. To the extent that viewers continue to expose themselves to the
narratives they view, the anticipation and suspense elicited by violated schemas should lead
to stronger positive responses.
It is possible to explain that viewers' enjoyment is stimulated more when they are
exposed to complex narrative presentation in compare to predictable, usual and convenient of
simple narrative. Suspense may predict why this is the case, especially with regard to morally
ambiguous characters (Krakowiak, 2008). According to Krakowiaks (2008) argument,
suspense is evoked and violated more by ambiguous characters than traditional characters.
Hence, truly morally ambiguous characters (with the process of changing and the
impossibility to pre-judge or pre-define morality) and the equivalent narrative complexity
featured in programs featuring these characters should evoke viewers' suspense more than
archetypal characters (even antiheroes) and simple narrative presentation. Furthermore,
evoking and violating suspense and story schemas can be interpreted as one of many ways to
create and add arousals to narrative presentation. On one hand, if all such evocations and
violations are negative, enjoyment might suffer. On the other hand, if even a few are positive,
we might expect that viewers' enjoyment will increase.
Conclusion
In conclusion, most conceptualizations of morally ambiguous characters (see
Krakowiak, 2008; Shafer & Raney, 2012; Krakowiak & Tsay Vogel, 2013) define these
characters as characters who show ambiguity in behavior and motive. However, these
conceptualizations focus on these characters as being good characters who perform
immoral acts (antiheroes). In feature films and television shows, these type of characters are
quite popular and well-known (e.g., 24, The Sopranos, Chicago P.D.). However, they are not
well understood in terms of how they function within narratives.
26
Both Zillmann and Raneys models reveal certain limitations as they leave out the
relationship between complex characters and complex narrative. For that reason, it is
necessary to look at morally ambiguous characters with the true meaning of ambiguou s;
and its relationship with narrative unfolding. These ambiguous characters cannot be classified
as good or bad. Indeed, truly ambiguous characters in their complex narratives challenge
viewers more because of this fact. Complex narratives not only break through predictable
character schemas, but they also contribute to viewers enjoyment of irrational narrative and
truly complex characters. In addition, truly ambiguous characters and complex narratives
require viewers to carefully use their moral judgments to watch and understand the narrative
and the characters.
The combination of Zillmann and Raneys model (moral monitor and schema theory)
is a good start to explain why viewers find enjoyment to truly moral ambiguous characters.
However, future research should continue to attempt to provide more rigorous understandings
of these characters. Indeed, we should look at how characters in general, and complex
characters specifically, function in narratives, and why they draw viewers in. Among
prominent theories, EVT and ETT seem to be able to provide more precise perspectives.
There are only a few studies that look at how these two theories contribute to viewers
enjoyment, especially the way complex characters and complex narratives function together.
Future research should continue to address these questions, and pay close attention to how
EVT and ETT might explain viewers enjoyment of complex characters and. Ultimately these
characters may be so ambiguous that no theory is capable of explaining their function.
However, this is unlikely to deter future scholars from trying.
27
References
Bordwell, D. (1985). Narration in the Fiction Film. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Bordwell, D., & Thompson, K. (2008). Film Art: An Introduction (8th). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Carter, M. (2014, August 1). Walking Dead Season 5 Premiere Will not be Censored, But Is
Controversial. Retrieved from http://moviepilot.com/
Carter, M. (2014, July 16). Scenes Cut From Walking Dead Premiere for Being Too Violent.
Retrieved from http://moviepilot.com/
Cohen, J. (1999). Favorite Characters of Teenager Viewers of Israeli Serials. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43, 327-345.
Janicke, S.H, & Raney, A. A. (2014, May). How Moral Schemas Impact our Liking and
Moral Acceptance of Antiheroes. Paper presented at the Annual International
Communication Association Conference, Seattle, WA.
Janicke, S.H., & Raney, A.A. (2011, May). Exploring how we enjoy antihero narratives: A
comparision of fans and nonfans of 24. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
International Communication Association, Boston.
John, A. St. (2013, September 16). Why "Breaking Bad" is the Best Show Ever and Why that
Matters. forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/
Kohlberg, L. (1971). From Is to Ought: How to Commit the Naturalistic Fallacy and Get
Away with It in the Study of Moral Development. New York: Academic Press.
Kohlberg, L. (1973). The Claim to Moral Adequacy of a Highest Stage of Moral Judgment.
Journal of Philosophy, 70(18), 630646. doi:10.2307/2025030
Krakowiak, K. M. (2008). When Good Characters do Bad Things: Examnining the Effect of
Moral Ambiguity on Enjoyment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The
Pennsylvania State University, Philadelphia, PA.
28
Krakowiak, K. M., & Tsay-Vogel, M. (2013). What Makes Characters' Bad Behaviors
Acceptable? The Effects of Character Motivation and Outcome on Perceptions,
Character Liking, and Moral Disengagement. Mass communication and society,
16(2), 179-199. doi:10.1080/15205436.2012.690926
Lott, E. (1997). The whiteness of film noir. American Literary History, 9, 542-566.
Mandler, J. M. (1984). Stories, scripts, and scenes: Aspects of schema theory. Hillsdale, NJ:
LEA.
Mittell, J. (2006). Narrative Complexity in Contemporary American Television. The Velvet
Light Trap, 58, 29-40. doi:10.1353/vlt.2006.0032
Naremore, J. (1998). More than night: Film noir in its contexts. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Plunkett, J. (2013, August 18). Breaking Bad creator Vince Gilligan: "How long can anyone
stay at the top". theguardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/
Raney, A. A. (2003). Disposition-based Theories of Enjoyment. In J. Bryan, J. Cantor, & D.
Roskos-Ewoldsen (Eds.), Communication and emotions: Essay in honor of Dolf
Zillmann (pp. 61-84). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Raney, A. A. (2004). Expanding Disposition Theory: Reconsidering Character Liking, Moral
Evaluations, and Enjoyment. Communication Theory, 14(4), 348-369.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00319.x
Raney, A. A., & Janicke, S. H. (2013). How we enjoy and why we seek out morally complex
characters in media entertainment. In R. Tamborini (Ed.), Media and the Moral Mind
(pp. 152-169). New York, NY: Routledge.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building block of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C.
Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension:
29
Perspectives in cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education

(pp. 33-58). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Shafer, D. M., & Raney, A. A. (2012). Exploring How We Enjoy Antiheroes Narratives.
Journal of Communication, 63(5), 1-19.
Tamborini, R., Grizzard, M., Eden, A., Lewis, R. J. (November, 2011). Imperfect Heroes and
Villains: Patterns of Upholding and Violating Distinct Moral Domains and Character
Appeal. Top paper in Mass Communication Division at the National Communication
Associations Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA.
Vorderer, P., & Knobloch, S. (2002). Conflict and Suspense in Drama. In D. Zillmann & P.
Vorderer (Eds.), Media entertainment: The psychology of its appeal (pp. 59-72).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Elrbaum Associates.
Weber, R., Tamborini, R., Lee, H. E., & Stipp, H. (2008). Soap Opera Exposure and
Enjoyment: A Longitudinal Test of Disposition Theory. Media Psychology, 11(4),
462-487. doi:10.1080/15213260802509993
West, B. (2001). Crime, suicide, and the anti-hero: "Waltzing Matilda" in Australia. Journal
of Popular Culture, 35, 127-141.
Zillmann, D. (1978). Attribution and misattribution of excitatory reactions. In J. H. Harvey,
W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New direction in attribution research (Vol. 2).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zillmann, D. (1979). Hostility and aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zillmann, D. (1983). Transfer of excitation in emotional behavior. In J. T. Cacioppo & R. E.
Petty (Eds.), Social psychophysiology: A sourcebook (pp. 215-240). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Zillmann, D. (2000). Basal Morality in Drama Appreciation. In I. Bondebjerg (Ed.), Moving
images, culture, and the mind (pp. 56-63). Luton, UK: University of Luton Press.
30
Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. (1972). Direction of transitory dominance as a communication

variable affecting humor appreciation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
24(2), 191-198. doi:10.1037/h0033384
Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. (1975). Viewer's moral sanction of retribution in the appreciation
of dramatic presentations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 572-582.
Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. (1976). A disposition theory of humor and mirth. In A. J.
Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research and
applications (pp. 93-115). London, England: Wiley.
Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. (1977). Affective Responses to the Emotions of A Protagonist.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 155-165.

Antiheroes Are Not Morally Ambiguous Red

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Antiheroes Are Not Morally Ambiguous Red

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: CHARACTER AMBIGUITY ENJOYMENT