Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article explores the correlations between emotion gratification 7 factors and individual differences in predicting movie rewatchability and recommendations, themes are interesting and consistent with contemporary scientific behavioral research.

Material and Methods:
(1) In the measurement of individual differences, the authors used three scales but all had different scales. NFC (5 Points scale, 1-5), NFA (7 Points scale, -3 ~ 3), and Extraversion of NEO-FFI (5 Points scale, 0-4). Please explain how to measure at different scales Explain the significance of the statistical analysis of the M(SD) in Table 2?
(2) Please explain why you only use Extraversion from the NEO-FFI scale but not Openness from NEO-FFI? Results:
(1) As mentioned earlier, NFC / NFA / Extraversion adopts different scales, but it is only presented in M (SD) in Table 2, causing reading and understanding errors; please explain more.
(2)In this chapter, the authors make a detailed description of the results of Multiple Linear Regression Analysis, but they are all focused on emotional gratification 7 factors, but less described individual differences 4 factors (ages / NFC / NFA / Extraversion) , please explain.
(3) For the statistics mentioned in the article, please indicate the corresponding table to increase readability. Discussion and Conclusion

      The conclusion of the second paragraph (Line 214-216) indicates that it
      does not meet the statistics shown in Table 2.

     # Mean point of the scale=2.5，Empathic Sadness(M=2.22)and Emotion
     Release (M=2.38)are factors below 2.5. furthermore, the score from high
     to low should be thrill> character> contemplative > social sharing>
     fun.#

      Suggest authors rearranging this large paragraph of conclusion.

Please check the abbreviations of all technical terms, such as Emotional Gratification Scale (EGS), but wrote (EGC) on line 54；and “α “typo as “a “in table

Author Response

RESPONSE: We are very grateful for all the comments and thorough reviews that helped us to improve and clarify the article. It was revised substantially, based on all your valuable suggestions.

Material and Methods:

REVIEWER: In the measurement of individual differences, the authors used three scales but all had different scales. NFC (5 Points scale, 1-5), NFA (7 Points scale, -3 ~ 3), and Extraversion of NEO-FFI (5 Points scale, 0-4). Please explain how to measure at different scales. Explain the significance of the statistical analysis of the M(SD) in Table 2?

RESPONSE: We agree with the reviewer. To clarify these differences between measures, we added in Table 2 information about the possible range of values for each dimension.

REVIEWER: Please explain why you only use Extraversion from the NEO-FFI scale but not Openness from NEO-FFI? 

RESPONSE: In the current study we chose to focus on extraversion in particular because our research questions concerned the prediction of movie rewatchability and recommendation of movies to others. Thus, we were more interested in personality traits related to sociability than in the other relatively independent personality dimensions, including openness, neuroticism, conscientiousness, and agreeableness. Nevertheless, we included other individual differences that the literature suggests to be related to movies preferences and gratifications, such as need for affect and need for cognition. 

Results:

REVIEWER: As mentioned earlier, NFC / NFA / Extraversion adopts different scales, but it is only presented in M (SD) in Table 2, causing reading and understanding errors; please explain more.

RESPONSE: We agree. As mentioned above, we added information in Table 2 about the range of values for each measure.

REVIEWER: In this chapter, the authors make a detailed description of the results of Multiple Linear Regression Analysis, but they are all focused on emotional gratification 7 factors, but less described individual differences 4 factors (ages / NFC / NFA / Extraversion) , please explain.

RESPONSE: We also share the view that the article is mostly focused on emotional gratification research because these concepts are based on several theories and empirical findings specifically related to motivations for watching movies. Nevertheless, we consider different individual differences not specific to movie gratifications that might also contribute to explain the outcomes. In the results of the Multiple Linear Regression Analysis, we described all the findings, although highlighting the variables that contributed most to the outcomes. For this reason, we started by mentioning that for both outcomes, social sharing dominated the contribution to regressions compared to the other predictors. Then we described that rank order of predictors that contributed with most incremental variance in predicting movie recommendation, which also included contemplative experiences, age, and NFA. And for rewatch interest, we indicated that social sharing, thrill, extraversion, and age, were the most relevant predictors.

REVIEWER: For the statistics mentioned in the article, please indicate the corresponding table to increase readability. 

RESPONSE: In our previous version, both Tables were mentioned, but we agree that presenting one of the tables in parentheses “(See Table 1)”, without indicating the information it contains, may reduce readability. Thus, as suggested, in this revised version of the article we explicitly wrote a sentence indicating the following:  “Table 1 presents both convergent and divergent validity results and factor loadings for the Emotional Gratification Scale”.  

Discussion and Conclusion

REVIEWER: The conclusion of the second paragraph (Line 214-216) indicates that it does not meet the statistics shown in Table 2. # Mean point of the scale=2.5 Empathic Sadness(M=2.22) and Emotion Release (M=2.38) are factors below 2.5. furthermore, the score from high to low should be thrill> character> contemplative > social sharing> fun.#

RESPONSE: We are very thankful to the reviewer for pointing out these two problems in the interpretation of the means. First, the mean values (and standard deviation of the contemplative experiences) were incorrect. In this version, these two values were corrected. All the other values remained the same. However, the reviewer is also correct when indicating that the mean values of the emotion release dimension is also below the mean point of the scale. Therefore, we corrected the sentence. We now state the following: “Many of the gratifications were above the mean point of the scale (except for empathic sadness and emotional release), with higher scores for thrill, followed by contemplative, social sharing, character engagement, and then fun.”

REVIEWER: Suggest authors rearranging this large paragraph of conclusion.

RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. The large paragraph in the discussion was split into three paragraphs to facilitate reading as recommended. 

REVIEWER: Please check the abbreviations of all technical terms, such as Emotional Gratification Scale (EGS), but wrote (EGC) on line 54；and “α “typo as “a “in table

RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for these comments. The typos were corrected and additional corrections were made, including the references. 

Reviewer 2 Report

In many parts the paper is written incomprehensible. In particular, the description of the methodology should be done more in detail and the authors should find a explaination why they do not fall back on a causal analysis instead of the descriped methods (which are in this case flauwed, even the design is explorative)

Author Response

We are grateful for the reviewer's comments. The article was revised substantially, based on reviewers’ suggestions.

We understand that more details should be included in the methods section. The lack of details were due to constraints in the length of the manuscript (8 pages maximum, including references).  In this revised version we added more information in the method section, also in line with the other two reviewers' suggestions.  

However, we did not understand the comment regarding our exploratory versus confirmatory approach. Our study used both exploratory and confirmatory approaches. We used a confirmatory approach in the factor analysis of the EGS because this instrument was previously developed based on theory and validated in another country. Thus, we used confirmatory factor analysis to address the goal of testing whether our data fit the hypothesized measurement structure of the EGS since we had specific assumptions about the multidimensional structure of the EGS, and about the items that were expected to load onto each of the seven dimensions of the scale. In addition, and as mentioned in the article, we also included specific emotional gratifications from movies and individual differences that might have a relevant contribution to predict movie recommendation and rewatching. Because these variables have not been tested in conjunction and not all were used in prior studies to investigate their role in predicting these outcomes, we followed an exploratory approach. Although exploratory, the selection of these potential predictor variables were based on prior studies and theory. 

We hope that our revised version fully addresses all concerns, and we look forward to receiving your feedback.    

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Brief summary 

The main aim of this study was the identification of the type of gratifications and individual differences that predict individuals' interest in rewatching and in recommending the movie they liked and recalled.

The authors make a good review of the literature about the theory of gratifications in relation to the prediction of recommending and watching movies again. The methodology is adequate, the results are correct and the analysis techniques are well used. The discussion and conclusions are adequate and allow us to achieve the objective. The authors assume the limitations of their research and propose new lines of research.

Broad comments 

Introduction: The introduction is complete, it presents the importance of the research theme, the state of the art on the theory of gratifications.

The authors said Several theories have been developed to explain why we watch movies and to predict the appeal  of entertainment experiences. The gratification model emphasize the importance of emotions, either directly, by being gratifying experiences per se, or indirectly, by contributing to social and  cognitive needs.

Based on prior theories and empirical findings, the authors included in theirs study specific emotional gratifications from movies and individual differences that are expected to make relevant  contributions to predict movie recommendation and rewatching. Because these variables have not been tested in conjunction, they followed an exploratory approach. Since the EGS was originally  validated in a distinct language (english), they also examined the latent structure of the scale. Based on the  original validation, they hypothesized a 7-factor model, and expected acceptable fit, reliability and validity indexes.

The scale used is:

Bartsch, A. (2012). Emotional gratification in entertainment experience. Why viewers of movies and television series find it rewarding to experience emotions. Media Psychology, 15(3), 267-302. doi:10.1080/15213269.2012.693811

In this section you need to enter some more current reference. In the article there are only four references from 2017 or later.

Materials and Methods

In this section several questions of interest are missing:

Explain in more detail the procedures followed for sample selection. Explain in more detail where the survey was conducted, place, country, or at least nationality of respondents.

(if the survey was carried out in Portugal add this limitation in conclusions regarding the generalization of the results obtained here).

Explain the process of validation of the questionnaire from its initial version to its final version (literature review, expert judges, pretest, etc.) Add (in an annex) a copy of the final questionnaire.

Results

The results are accurate and replicable, the analysis techniques are well used and well founded. CFAs with maximum likelihood is suitable for data and variables used.

Discussion and Conclusion

The discussion and conclusions respond to the main objective of the investigation: the identification of the type of gratifications and individual differences that predict individuals' interest in rewatching and in recommending the movie they liked and recalled.

In addition, the authors point out the limitations of their study and propose new lines of research.

Highlighting 1: replicability of the studio in another context and with other products than movies.

Highlighting 2: The authors make available to those who request it the data of their research, which can contribute to cross-cultural studies on the subject of research as well as to the realization of meta-analysis

Author Response

We thank the Reviewer for the positive feedback on our work. We are grateful for all the comments and suggestions. We have made changes to our manuscript to accommodate reviewer suggestions.

We agree about including additional references. In this revised version we added the following 5 references, three published in 2019, one in 2018 and another in 2017.  

Tefertiller, A.C.; Maxwell, L.C.; Morris, D.L. Social media goes to the movies: Fear of missing out, social capital, and social motivations of cinema attendance. Mass Communication and Society 2019, 1-22

Bartsch, A.; Hartmann, T. The role of cognitive and affective challenge in entertainment experience. Communication Research 2017, 44(1), 29–53.

Lewis, N., & Weaver, A. J. (2019). Social comparison-related emotional and enjoyment responses to entertainment television characters. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 27(5), 339-353. doi:10.1080/15456870.2019.1614926

Bonus, J.A.; Matthews, N.L.; Wulf, T. The impact of moral expectancy violations on audiences’ parasocial relationships with movie heroes and villains. Communication Research 2019, 1-23.

Raney, A.A.; Janicke, S.H.; Oliver, M.B.; Dale, K.R.; Jones, R.P.; Cox, D. Profiling the audience for self-transcendent media: A national survey. Mass Communication and Society 2018, 21, 296-319.

We also thank the reviewer for the comments and suggestions made regarding the method section. In the previous version, we only stated that “participants were recruited via word of mouth”. As suggested, in this revised version we added more information in the procedures subsection about sample selection, the country and place in which the study was conducted. We now state the following: “All procedures followed the 2013 Declaration of Helsinki ethical standards for research and were approved by the University ethical committee in which the study took place (REF63/19). Using a cross-sectional design, participants were selected by a non-probability sampling procedure, and recruited via a convenience and snowball sampling methods. Students enrolled in a Psychology graduation course of a Portuguese University where the convenience initial sample which were then asked to collaborate in collecting the data among their friends and acquaintances”.

As suggested we also indicated at the beginning of the results section information about the nationality of our participants.

As recommended we also added the following as a limitation: “Furthermore, the fact that our study was run in Portugal using convenience and snowball sampling procedures limits the generalization of our findings.” 

As suggested, in this revised version we included information about the cross-cultural adaptation of the EGS to the Portuguese language. We wrote the following: “For cross-cultural adaptation to the Portuguese language, two researchers translated independently the instrument to Portuguese by making adequate semantic changes to allow equivalence, which was then back translated by an independent bilingual person. The translations were then discussed until a consensus has been reached.”

Finally, in the previous version we included a link for the English and the Portuguese translated items of the questionnaire, which could be found at https://osf.io/7namq/?view_only=26ec1367889c4f11b3654005dde0518b However, we considered the reviewer's suggestion and included the items in an Appendix. In the revised version we removed the link and replaced by the following information “The English and the Portuguese translated items can be found in Appendix A”. 

We hope that our revised version fully addresses all concerns, and we look forward to receiving your feedback. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I would recommend that the authors of the article explicitly mention that the results are just exploratory and thus intended for the generation of hypotheses. In such an "exploratory case", there is some tolerance on which methodology is appropriate for usage and an acceptance of this paper could be recommended.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. In the discussion section, we made additional changes when addressing the limitation of our study to accommodate the reviewer’s suggestion. We changed the order of the limitations and included the following three sentences at the end of this paragraph, as follows:

“We also highlight the exploratory nature of the present study, intended to generate hypotheses about the factors that predict movie recommendation and interest in rewatching a movie. Additionally, we recognize the low magnitude of the explained variance in both models. Although the explained variance is of similar magnitude found in previous studies [1], it suggests that additional determinants should be considered in future studies."