'What Makes Viewers Diverge When Interpreting Narrative?'
(Livingstone 1990a: 174-88; 1990b: 72-85)
- 66 regular viewers of Coronation Street (42 female)
from a wide range of backgrounds responded to a questionnaire
about a selected narrative which had unfolded over several months.
- Susan Barlow, the 21-year-old daughter of Ken Barlow by his
first marriage, returned to 'the Street' to live with her father
and his new wife, Deirdre Barlow. Susan began a romance with Mike
Baldwin, a local factory owner much older than her. Ken opposed
the marriage of Susan and Mike because of Mike's adulterous affair
with Deirdre a few years before (of which Susan was initially
ignorant). Ken was persuaded to attend the wedding at the last
minute, thus atoning for his neglect of Susan when she was a child.
- The story was selected because it could clearly be read in
several ways: (1) as a traditional romance, with love triumphing
over adversity (Ken's prejudices and jealousies); or (2) as a
tale of wisdom vs. naiveté - a failed attempt by a wise and experienced
father to rescue his naive and innocent daughter from the
manipulative grasp of anolder and immoral man.
- The questionnaire included attitude statements with indications
of agreement and disagreement. The responses were subjected to
cluster analysis, producing four clusters as follows.
Cynics and Romantics
- The Cynics (N=12). These viewers were most strongly on
Ken's side and against the couple. They felt that Ken had
acted reasonably and that he had been right to oppose the marriage.
They did not think that Susan and Mike's marriage would last.
They were particularly critical of Susan - seeing her as wanting Mike
for his money and success and as a father-figure.
- The Negotiated Cynics (N=9). These viewers were similar
to the Cynics in broadly favouring Ken and disliking Susan and
Mike. However, they did not agree that Ken should have been so strongly
opposed to the marriage. They were less inclined to question the strength
of feelings between Mike and Susan. They were also less critical of Susan.
- The Romantics (N=20). These viewers were the ones most strongly
against Ken and in favour of the couple. They saw Ken as unreasonable,
vindictive and possessive. They believed that Susan and Mike were
right for each other and that the marriage would last.
- The Negotiated Romantics (N=25). These viewers basically
agreed with the Romantics but also believed that Susan and Mike
might not really be in love, that there might be some truth in
the 'father-figure' explanation, and that the couple would be
likely to face some problems.
These four interpretative positions were not entirely distinct: the
viewers agreed on some of the narrative statements (including those
concerning Deirdre, despite her central and ambiguous role).
Factors Influencing Interpretation
Sociological or Demographic Factors
- Age. This did not seem to be a factor in interpretation
(viewers ranged from 16 to 60) (likewise for length and frequency
of viewing).
- Gender. Gender and interpretation were not related
in any clearcut pattern. Women did not especially side with Susan.
However, a large proportion of the Cynics (7/12) were male. 8/9
of the Negotiated Cynics were female, and identification with
Susan may have moderated their generally cynical interpretation
so that they sided less strongly with Ken.
Psychological Factors
'One cannot make straightforward assumptions about interpretations
from a knowledge of viewers' sociostructural position but must also know
how viewers relate to the characters. This may be especially true for
soap opera, where regular viewers build up substantial relationships
with the characters' (Livingstone 1990b: 80).
- Identification. The issue of whether these viewers
identified with (or saw themselves as being similar to) any of
the characters was shown to be important in how viewers interpreted
the narrative. Those in the cynical clusters
saw themselves as more like Ken than those in the romantic clusters
did. Those in the romantic clusters saw themselves as very unlike
Ken (but not particularly like any other character). 'This identification
was clearly related to the evaluation of character' (Livingstone 1990b: 80).
- Character Evaluation. Whether characters were evaluated
positively or negatively was shown in this study to relate strongly
to identification. Those in the cynical clusters liked Ken more
than those in the romantic clusters did - they were the only viewers
who liked Ken at all; those in the romantic clusters disliked
Ken as a character.
- Perspective-Taking/Sympathy. This concerns the extent
to which viewers perceived the narrative sympathetically from
a particular character's viewpoint. Results here were consistent
with identification and evaluation judgements. 'Different clusters
did seem to view events more or less from the perspective of
different characters' (Livingstone 1990b: 78). This variable was
highly significant with relation to three of the four main
characters' (Livingstone 1990b: 80). Those in the romantic
clusters sympathized with Mike and Susan more than those in the
cynical clusters did. Sympathy with Susan discriminated between
the two cynical clusters and between the two romantic clusters.
The Cynics (and to a lesser extent the Negotiated Cynics) sympathized
with Ken more than those in the romantic clusters did. Those in
the romantic clusters did not sympathize with Ken's position. 'One
might have expected the negotiated cynics to sympathize more with
Ken than with Susan. Yet, possibly because they are mainly women,
they could also see Susan's point of view, even though they did not
agree with it as much as the romantic clusters' (Livingstone 1990b:
79).
- Recognition. 'Recognition' refers to the extent
to which characters were perceived by viewers as being like people
they knew in everyday life. Whilst recognition played some part
in influencing viewers' interpretations in this study, this was
less than that played by identification, evaluation and perspective-taking.
Overall, viewers across different clusters did not differ in terms of
which characters they recognized
as being like someone they knew personally. The most significant
finding here was that few of the Negotiated Cynics claimed to
know anyone like Susan and Mike whereas 8/12 of the Cynics did, but otherwise
recognition was relatively unimportant.
Adapted from Sonia M Livingstone (1990): Making Sense of Television:
The Psychology of Audience Interpretation. Oxford: Pergamon
(Chapter 7, 'Divergent Interpretations of Television Drama', pp.
165-188)
