Culture and media entertainment: A cross-cultural exploration of hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment motivations

Abstract

Recent studies have juxtaposed hedonic forms of media entertainment motivations (seeking for pleasure and fun) with eudaimonic forms (seeking for insights into the human condition). As most of this research was confined to the Western world so far, this contribution explores the impact of culture on hedonic and eudaimonic media entertainment motivations. Culture is conceptualized on both macro- and micro levels of analysis. On the macro level of countries, the study draws of Hofstede’s concept of individualism/collectivism. On the micro level of individuals, the study explores independent and interdependent self-construals and ethnic identity as potential influences on hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment. A survey was carried out with international students and non-students in Germany and Turkey (N = 324). Cross-level operator analyses were calculated to explore relationships between cultural variables and hedonic/eudaimonic entertainment motivations. Results show consistently that variables of culture that tap into cultural belonging (collectivism, interdependence, and ethnic identity) are significant predictors of hedonic entertainment. Cultural variables that tap into distinctiveness and separation from one’s collective (individualism and independence) are significant predictors of eudaimonic entertainment. The study is among the first to explore the impact of cultural variability on entertainment motivations and thus especially relevant for sparking up a new line of research.

Keywords

Collectivistic and individualistic cultures cultural commitment and exploration eudaimonic and hedonic entertainment independent and interdependent self-construals

Introduction

Media entertainment occupies a prominent place in contemporary lives. Audiences spend sizable portions of their leisure time getting entertained through media products, including television programs, movies, books, social media contents, computer games, etc. (Oliver, 2009; Vorderer and Hartmann, 2009). Pleasure has been at the heart of conceptualizations of media entertainment (Vorderer et al., 2004) – though with increasing evidence that pleasure does not exclusively depend on positive experiences during media exposure (Oliver, 2009; Vorderer and Hartmann, 2009). Today, there is a large body of entertainment research that shows that media entertainment has restorative and learning-related functions which are both connected with the ultimate well-being of individual media users (Vorderer and Reinecke, 2015).

At the same time, as is the case with most media and communication theories (Odağ and Hanke, 2018), most of this literature has been ethnocentric so far, with the majority of studies carried out in the USA and Western Europe (Bartsch and Schneider, 2014; Odağ et al., 2016). The available literature on media entertainment is focused on ‘W.E.I.R.D’ populations thus far, i.e., individuals from Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic societies (Heinrich et al., 2010: 61). Little is known about cross-cultural variability in media entertainment.

This contribution establishes a relationship between culture and entertainment, by borrowing constructs of culture that have received heightened attention particularly in cross-cultural psychology: individualism/collectivism, independent/interdependent self-construals, and ethnic identity (Matsumoto and Juang, 2016). By means of a cross-cultural survey, the study explores whether cultural variability on these constructs affects media entertainment motivations. Following a recent paradigm shift in entertainment research (Vorderer and Reinecke, 2015), we conceive of media entertainment motivations as not exclusively hedonic, i.e., aiming for purely positive affective states. We draw instead on a more differentiated conceptualization of entertainment distinguishing between hedonic and eudaimonic forms. Additionally, we link these motivations to specific entertainment media: TV and texts.

Hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment

The literature on entertainment has moved beyond conceptualizing entertainment as pure hedonic pleasure and included a type of entertainment that is more in line with mixed affect. This eudaimonic type of entertainment (Oliver and Bartsch, 2010; Oliver and Raney, 2011: 985; Wirth et al., 2012) has been conceptualized in the context of popular media products that are negatively valenced and fail to provide the audience with simple fun (such as Hotel Rwanda; Oliver and Hartmann, 2010). Research has shown that the popularity of such media offerings is linked to media users’ appreciation of such products as meaningful. Entertainment arises here, less from positive affect, but from insights into the human condition and meaning of life (Oliver and Bartsch, 2010, 2011; Oliver and Raney, 2011). With reference to Aristotle (Broadie and Rowe, 2002), this eudaimonic form of entertainment has been linked to human potentials/virtues and rests on conceptualizations of well-being in positive psychology (Ryff and Singer, 2008; Wirth et al., 2012).

Entertainment as hedonic and eudaimonic was formalized in media and communication scholarship particularly by Oliver and Raney (2011) who also put forward instruments for the measurement of the two entertainment dimensions. At the same time, research on hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment has been produced mainly in the Western world: the USA or Western Europe. In only a small number of studies have entertainment motivations been examined through a (cross-)cultural lens: Igartua and Barrios (2013) examined the validity of hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment in Spain and confirmed the two-dimensional structure of entertainment motivations here. Odağ et al. (2016), by contrast, tested measurement invariance of the two constructs across German and Turkish samples and showed that the two-dimensional structure is not equivalent across these contexts, as they represent individualistic versus collectivistic value orientations. Kim et al. (2014) studied entertainment experiences of Korean and US-American audiences from viewing all-time-favourite films. Korean audiences reported greater degrees of mixed affect than US-American ones in their retrospective recalls and thus displayed features of particularly the eudaimonic type of entertainment. US-American audiences, by contrast, were more likely to value positive and highly arousing affect, more representative of hedonic entertainment.

The above cross-cultural studies typically used country as a proxy for culture, i.e., compared entertainment motivations across countries that represent distinct value orientations on the macro level. This is conceptually problematic, however, as countries do not represent static and unidimensional entities (Berry et al., 2015). Cross-cultural psychology has produced many individual-level cultural constructs that create considerable within-country variation (e.g., self-construals, idiocentrism/allocentrism, analytical/holistic thinking styles, etc.; Berry et al., 2015; Matsumoto and Juang, 2016). In much of the available cross-cultural literature on media consumption/entertainment, however, such individual-level variables are largely neglected (Odağ and Hanke, 2018).

The above study by Kim et al. (2014) constitutes an exception, as it did not only compare Korean and US-American audiences on the macro level of countries but also examined an important mediator of cross-cultural difference on the individual level: dialectic reasoning, broadly defined in cross-cultural psychology as the tendency to accept seeming contradictions in thought and beliefs (Matsumoto and Juang, 2016). In the study by Kim et al. (2014), dialectic reasoning mediated the impact of country (Korea versus USA) on mixed-affective responses to movies. In other words, its effect on media entertainment was stronger than (and eliminated) the effects of country on the macro level. Yet, the study did not explicitly distinguish between hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment motivations.

To date, there is a considerable gap in the literature concerning the relationship between media entertainment motivations and culture. Existing studies show that hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment is universal across some contexts, variant across others, and yield conflicting evidence. The present study examines the effects of cultural variability on media entertainment motivations in a more differentiated way, (1) on both macro- and micro levels of analysis and (2) on continuous scales of cultural variability (rather than as countries). Specifically, the impact of three cultural constructs on hedonic/eudaimonic entertainment motivations is explored: individualism/collectivism on the macro-level; independent/interdependent self-construals and ethnic identity on the micro level. These constructs were chosen because of their sizable history and empirical foundation in cross-cultural psychology (Matsumoto and Juang, 2016), and because they already received attention in some media psychological studies (albeit rarely, see below).¹

Hofstede’s individualism-collectivism dimension

In the literature on inter- and cross-cultural communication, we find a common differentiation of cultures into individualistic and collectivistic ones (Gudykunst and Lee, 2002). While individualistic cultures are guided by goal achievement and self-preservation ideals, collectivistic cultures are driven by loyalty to the wider collective (Gudykunst and Bond, 1997; Hofstede, 1991; Kağıtçıbaş ı, 1997; Triandis, 1995, 2001).

The distinction between individualism and collectivism is conceptualized as a distinction on the macro level of analysis, pertaining to cultures as a whole (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). Even though the constructs are measured on the individual level as values, data are typically aggregated to the country level and represent aggregate rather than individual-level constructs. Based on this logic, Hofstede rank-ordered 74 countries of the world on his individualism index, assuming that individualism constitutes the opposite pole of collectivism on the same continuum (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). The USA, Australia, Great Britain, Canada, and the Netherlands constitute the top five countries on individualism in this ranking, while Latin American countries (such as Guatemala, Ecuador, Panama, Venezuela, and Colombia) as well as Pakistan represent the lowest scores on individualism (and thus the highest scores on collectivism).

Only rarely has individualism/collectivism been used to examine media entertainment motivations (Odağ and Hanke, 2018). The scarce literature evidences a link between individualistic national backgrounds (such as the USA) and hedonic entertainment (Igartua and Barrios, 2013; Kim et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2011; Odağ et al., 2016). For eudaimonic entertainment, the picture is largely unclear. On the one hand, the literature displays a link between collectivist national backgrounds (such as Korea) and using particularly social media for social support (Kim et al., 2011; Wei et al., 2012), thereby reflecting eudaimonic entertainment. On the other hand, evidence suggests that eudaimonic entertainment motivations are specific for individualistic contexts (Odağ et al., 2016). In fact, with the main background literature of eudaimonic entertainment (mostly the well-being literature in positive psychology; Ryff and Singer, 2008; Wirth et al., 2012) being rooted in the Western world, we may carefully assume that eudaimonic entertainment motivations are related to individualistic contexts especially.

As there are currently no studies that link individualism/collectivism explicitly to hedonic/eudaimonic entertainment, we are unable to draw up concrete hypotheses about this relationship and treat it as an exploratory research question here.

Research question 1 (RQ1): Does the distinction between individualistic and collectivistic cultures explain variation in hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment motivations?

Markus and Kitayama’s self-construal theory

Self-construals reflect cultural orientations on the micro level, based on people’s view of themselves in relation to others. Two self-construals have been distinguished in the literature (Markus and Kitayama, 1991, 1998): The independent self-construal emphasizes the self as unique and separate from others, whereas the interdependent self-construal emphasizes the self as ‘contingent on’ and part of social relationships with members of the ingroup (Markus and Kitayama, 1991: 227). Research has shown that self-construals reveal unexpected variation within countries classified as individualistic/collectivistic (Brockner and Chen, 1996; Park and Guan, 2007). Cross-cultural communication scholars have thus recommended to use self-construal measures on the individual level in addition to country-level macro indicators of culture (Gudykunst and Lee, 2002), though studies doing the latter are as yet very scarce (Lee and Choi, 2006; Odağ and Hanke, 2018).

Self-construals have not been studied in relation to hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment motivations thus far. Research examining the impact of self-construals with respect to the coverage of natural disasters (Sun et al., 2013) suggests a tentative relationship between interdependent self-construals and empathic media consumption, which might be indicative of both hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment (e.g., Oliver, 2009). At the same time, eudaimonic entertainment motivations draw on Western conceptualizations of well-being which are centered on independent/individualistic selves in pursuit of their full potential (see above). We may carefully assume that eudaimonic entertainment motivations are therefore closer to independent self-construals.

Taken together, we are unable to confidently draw up concrete hypotheses concerning the impact of self-construals on hedonic and eudaimonic media entertainment and therefore formulate a second exploratory question:

RQ2: Do independent versus interdependent self-construals explain variation in hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment motivations?

Phinney’s conceptualization of ethnic identity

Ethnic identity refers to the extent with which individuals identify with the ethnic group(s) into which they are born, migrate, or travel (Phinney, 1990). The concept denotes the extent with which individuals consider themselves to be members of ethnic groups ‘defined by cultural heritage, including values, traditions, and often language’ (Phinney and Ong, 2007: 274). Ethnic identity is relevant for minority individuals in particular: The firmer a minority member’s identification with her/his minority and majority cultures, the more acculturated the person is, which in turn buffers potential negative effects of discrimination and strengthens self-esteem (Phinney, 1990). Ethnic identity is thus conceptualized as a cultural trait characteristic that is relatively stable over time but may change particularly when individuals move country.

One of the most widely used definitions of ethnic identity in psychology was developed by Phinney (1990, 2000, 2003) and conceptualized as a multidimensional construct comprising both commitment and exploration (Phinney and Ong, 2007). Commitment refers to a sense of belonging and a strong affective personal attachment to an ethnic group. Exploration refers to the extent with which group members actively seek information and experiences relevant to their ethnic group.

Ethnic identity has been studied most frequently with US-American samples and little is known thus far about its applicability to non-US-American samples. Further, the construct has predominantly been used in the pluralistic US-American context to examine the acculturation of ethnic minorities into the US-American host culture. One could argue, however, that in times of heightened cross-cultural exchange (through media, travel, education, etc.), the concept has become equally important for majority groups.

Phinney’s (2000) ethnic identity concept has thus far been excluded from the mainstream media entertainment scholarship. A plethora of studies concerning the media uses of diasporic audiences in media and communication research have shown, however, that migrant audiences use entertainment media to negotiate their ethnic identities vis-à-vis their ingroups and outgroups and retrieve a sense of identity and belonging from this (Georgiou, 2006; Hepp et al., 2011; Ogan and D’Haenens, 2011; Peeters and D’Haenens, 2005). These processes unfold in a complex interplay of ethnic belonging to host and home cultures (Adoni et al., 2002; see the concept of cosmopolitanism in Smets’ contribution to this special issue). Taken together, ethnic identity is at the heart of diaspora communication scholarship. It has thus far neither been explicitly connected with Phinney’s psychological work, however, nor has it been measured by means of an established quantitative instrument. In addition, the role of ethnic identity for hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment motivations is entirely unclear.

Our study introduces ethnic identity as a predictor of hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment motivations. As no studies have thus far explicitly dealt with this relationship, we are extending a third exploratory research question here:

RQ3: Do commitment and exploration dimensions of ethnic identity explain variation in hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment motivations?

Method

Sample

From June 2013 till May 2016, a self-administered survey was conducted using a sample of international undergraduate students in social science methods courses from private universities in Germany and Turkey (Jacobs University, Germany; Kadir Has University and Bahçeşehir University, Turkey). The countries were selected purposefully, representing individualistic versus collectivistic contexts (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). Within these, we aimed for national heterogeneity by selecting international universities. We chose two in Turkey and one in Germany: the Germany-based university provided us with sufficient respondents (n = 122); the Turkey-based ones were more challenging in this regard² (n = 37), necessitating two institutions here. To increase the number of respondents from Turkey, non-students were asked to take part, accessed through personal contacts (n = 113).

The final sample size was 324. We excluded 52 due to missing data. Sixty-eight percent of the remaining 272 respondents were female (n = 185). The age ranged from 19 to 87 years (M = 31.62), reflecting that we asked both students and non-students to participate. Students (n = 157) were mostly young individuals between 19 and 39 years of age; non-students (n = 111) represented a wider range of ages between 19 and 87 (see Table 1). Most respondents were born in Turkey and Germany. A substantial number was from 37 other countries (see Table 2). Sixty-seven percent (n = 182) currently lived in their country of birth, 31% (n = 85) in a different country.

Table 1.

Cross-tabulation age-group by (non-)student status.

	Student status
Age groups	Non-student	Student	Total
19 to 26	28	131	159
27 to 39	35	22	57
40 to 87	48	4	52
Total	111	157	258

Note: Fourteen of the participants in the overall sample of the present study (N = 272) did not indicate their age and are not included in Table 1. The total score in Table 1 (total = 258) is thus not equivalent with the size of the overall sample.

Table 2.

Countries of birth, frequencies, and individualism scores.

Country of birth	Frequency	Percent	Individualism
Albania	2	0.7	20
Argentina	1	0.4	46
Belgium	1	0.4	75
Brazil	2	0.7	38
Bulgaria	6	2.2	30
Chile	2	0.7	23
China	8	2.9	20
Colombia	1	0.4	13
Georgia	1	0.4	91
Germany	48	17.6	67
Ghana	1	0.4	15
Honduras	1	0.4	20
India	2	0.7	48
Italy	1	0.4	76
Kazakhstan	1	0.4	39
Lithuania	1	0.4	60
Macedonia	1	0.4	20
Mauritius	1	0.4	Missing
Moldova	1	0.4	Missing
Morocco	1	0.4	46
Nepal	2	0.7	30
Norway	1	0.4	69
Pakistan	5	1.8	14
Palestine	1	0.4	54
Philippines	1	0.4	32
Romania	5	1.8	30
Russia	1	0.4	39
Rwanda	1	0.4	25
Serbia	1	0.4	25
Somalia	1	0.4	25
South Korea	2	0.7	18
Spain	2	0.7	51
Switzerland	1	0.4	68
Tanzania	1	0.4	25
The Netherlands	2	0.7	80
Turkey	142	52.2	37
United Arab Emirates	1	0.4	25
USA	14	5.1	91
West Bank	1	0.4	54
Total	242	100

Notes: Thirty participants in the overall sample (N = 272) did not indicate their country of birth and are not included in Table 2. The total score in Table 2 (total = 242) is thus not equivalent with the size of the overall sample.

Procedure

Questionnaires were made available in both English and Turkish, reflecting the dominant languages spoken at the three universities and two countries selected. English language questionnaires were translated into Turkish wherever a Turkish version of the questionnaire was unavailable (see below). Four bilingual readers checked the equivalence of the questionnaires with respect to item meanings, phrasing, and cultural appropriateness (Hambleton and Zenisky, 2011). Considering common procedures of data collection in the two countries, and to prevent a procedural bias, we deliberately used different data collection strategies in Germany versus Turkey. Respondents in Germany were asked to complete the survey online through an open source for survey application (LimeSurvey). Respondents in Turkey were asked to complete a paper version of the questionnaire.

Measures

Macro-level predictor: Individualism

To measure the explanatory contribution of the macro-variable individualism to hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment motivations, each participant was assigned an individualism index score, based on her/his country of birth – the country of residence (i.e., the country in which participants were residing at the time of the study) was irrelevant for this classification.³ Hofstede’s scores were used for indexing purposes (see Table 3.1 of Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005: 78). For countries not listed in this publication (e.g., Croatia), individualism scores were gleaned from the country comparison tool on Hofstede’s website (https://www.hofstede-insights.com/). Column 3 in Table 2 displays individualism scores (see limitations for a critical view of Hofstede’s work).

Micro-level predictors: Independent and interdependent self-construals

These constructs were measured by means of the 24-item self-construal scale developed by Singelis (1994). A sample item for the independent self-construal was ‘I enjoy being unique and different from others in many respects’; a sample item for the interdependent self-construal was ‘It is important for me to maintain harmony with my group’. Turkish translations of items were gleaned from Wasti and Erdil (2007) and measured on 5-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

To test the validity of the assumed two-factor structure of Singelis’ (1994) self-construal scale, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with Varimax rotation was carried out. Cattell’s (1966) scree test yielded a two-factor structure with Factor 1 representing the independent self-construal (eigenvalue 2.83) and Factor 2 representing the interdependent self-construal (eigenvalue 3.74). Items with loadings below the cut-off value .35 as well as those with hybrid⁴ loadings were eliminated; this was the case for three items on the independence and one on the interdependence scale. The remaining items were two dimensional with moderately satisfactory internal consistencies (α_Independence = 0.66; α_{Interdependence} = 0.76). Items were summed to create two index scores Independence and Interdependence, averaged by the number of items included. Higher values on the aggregate scores represented greater degrees of the underlying self-construal (M_Independence = 3.67, SD_Independence = 0.51; M_{Interdependence} = 3.49, SD_{Interdependence} = 0.50).

Micro-level predictor: Ethnic identity

To assess the extent with which participants identified with their cultural background, we used the revised version of Phinney’s Multi-Group Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM-R; Phinney, 1992; Phinney and Ong, 2007). It assesses two dimensions of ethnic identification (with three items each): commitment (sample item: ‘I have a strong sense of belonging to my ethnic group’) and exploration (sample item: ‘I have spent time trying to find out more about my ethnic group, such as its history, traditions, and customs’).

To test the validity of the assumed two-factor structure, two EFAs were carried out. The first EFA with Varimax rotation examined factor loadings with a pre-set two-factor structure. Factor 1 represented exploration (eigenvalue 3.70) and Factor 2 commitment (eigenvalue 0.81). The contribution of this second factor to explained variance was so negligible, however, that we carried out a second EFA with a one-factor solution (which was also supported by Cattell’s scree test). This factor explained 62% variance on its own (eigenvalue: 3.70). All commitment and exploration items loaded above the cut-off value .40 on this factor, with an internal consistency of Cronbach’s α = 0.88. Items were thus summed across Commitment and Exploration to create an overall index score Ethnic Identity, averaged by the number of items included. Creating this overall index also reduced potential multi-collinearity issues, as commitment and exploration were highly correlated (r = 0.65; p < .01). Higher values on the index represented greater degrees of ethnic identity (M_{EthnicIdentity} = 3.33, SD_{EthnicIdentity} = 0.83).

Criterion variables: Hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment

Most research on hedonic/eudaimonic entertainment motivations is centred on the reception of movies (Oliver and Hartmann, 2010), and the original scales developed by Oliver and Raney (2011) address specifically movie entertainment motivations. To broaden the focus of entertainment motivation research, we distinguished between motivations linked to the use of TV programs and motivations linked to reading texts. We adapted Oliver and Raney’s scales to measure four types of entertainment motivations: TV-related hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment motivations (with six items for each) and text-based hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment motivations (with six items for each; sample item hedonic entertainment: ‘TV programs/texts that make me laugh are among my favourites’; sample item eudaimonic entertainment: ‘I like TV programs/texts that have profound meanings or messages to convey’).

To explore the factor structure, two EFAs with Varimax rotation were carried out: one for TV and one for text. Cattell’s (1966) scree test concerning TV entertainment motivations yielded two factors: Factor 1 HedoniaTV (eigenvalue: 3.34) and Factor 2 EudaimoniaTV (eigenvalue: 3.06). Cattell’s scree test concerning print-related entertainment motivations also yielded two factors: Factor 1 HedoniaTexts (eigenvalue: 3.43) and Factor 2 EudaimoniaTexts (eigenvalue: 2.98). Each factor displayed high internal consistencies (α_{TVHedonicEntertainment} = 0.82; α_{TVEudaimonicE}_ntertainment = 0.80; α_{PrintHedonicE}_ntertainment = 0.83; α_{PrintEudaimonicEntertainment} = 0.79). Items were summed into four overall index scores and averaged by the number of items included. Higher values on the aggregate scores represented greater degrees of the underlying motivation (M_{TVHedonicEntertainment} = 3.28, SD_{TVHedonicEntertainment} = 0.76; M_TVE_udaimonic_{Entertainment} = 3.56, SD_TV_Eudaimonic_{Entertainment} = 0.66; M_Texts_Hedonic_{Entertainment} = 2.91, SD_Texts_Hedonic_{Entertainment} = 0.76; M_Texts_{EudaimonicEntertainment} = 3.87, SD_Texts_{EudaimonicEntertainment} = 0.57).

Demographics

The demographic section of the questionnaire assessed gender, age, country of birth, and current country of residence. Based on the latter two categories, we categorized respondents into those residing in their country of birth and those residing elsewhere. We labeled this variable context (with 1 = context changed and 2 = context remained the same). This variable was used as a control variable in addition to the individualism index scores which relied exclusively on the country of birth.

Cross-level operator analysis

To analyse relationships between culture and hedonic/eudaimonic entertainment (see Table 3 for correlations between variables), we used a cross-level operator analysis (CLOP; James and Williams, 2000; research example in Fischer et al., 2014). This procedure is essentially equivalent with a hierarchical linear regression, though highlighting in its name that the regression model comprises multiple levels. CLOP is preferred over multi-level procedures when the numbers on the macro level do not allow for multi-level modeling (Klein et al., 2000; Raudenbush and Byrk, 2002).

Considering the two entertainment motivations measured with respect to TV and print, we carried out four CLOPs (i.e., four hierarchical regressions). First, gender (female versus male), age, and context (context changed versus remained the same) were entered as control variables into each of these. The micro-level cultural variables independent/interdependent self-construal and ethnic identity were entered next, and stepwise, into the model. Finally, we entered the macro-level variable individualism. This order reflects our attempt to test the impact of micro-level cultural variation before the impact of macro-level cultural variation. However, we also tested whether different orders of cultural predictors in our CLOPs would change the obtained results. We are presenting only the results from the said micro-macro-order, as any other order did not substantially alter parameter estimates.

Results

A correlation matrix of all research variables is presented in Table 3. The resulting coefficients of our four CLOP analyses are presented in Table 4.

Table 3.

Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations between research variables.

Variables	M (SD)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Interdependence	3.49 (0.51)	–
2. Independence	3.67 (0.51)	.00	–
3. Ethnic Identity	3.33 (0.83)	.27**	.06	–
4. Individualism	44.53 (18.61)	.10	−.06	.10	–
5. EudaimoniaTV	3.56 (0.66)	.17**	.26**	.07	.06	–
6. HedoniaTV	3.28 (0.76)	.30**	−.03	.32**	−.03	.03	–
7. EudaimoniaTexts	3.87 (0.57)	.06	.13*	.01	.19**	.53**	.07	–
8. HedoniaTexts	2.91 (0.76)	.29**	.02	.14*	−.03	.07	.57**	.07	–

Note: Pearson correlation coefficients; two-tailed.

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

Table 4.

Impact of control and cultural variables on hedonic/eudaimonic media entertainment motivations: Results of four CLOP analyses.

	CLOP 1: Hedonia TV					CLOP 2: Eudaimonia TV					CLOP 3: Hedonia Texts					CLOP 4: Eudaimonia Texts
Predictors	B	SE	β	F-change	Adjusted R\vskip -5pt\scale60%{2	B	SE	β	F-change	Adjusted R\vskip -5pt\scale60%{2	B	SE	β	F-change	Adjusted R\vskip -5pt\scale60%{2	B	SE	β	F-change	Adjusted R\vskip -5pt\scale60%{2
Block 1: Control variables
Gender	−.268	.095	−.162**	8.191	.030	−.017	.092	−.012	.023	−.004	−.020	.103	−.012	.015	−.004	−.095	.079	−.076	1.360	.001
Year of birth	.008	.004	.148*	21.606	.109	.001	.003	.022	1.506	−.002	.002	.004	.029	3.277	.005	.003	.003	.074	3.185	.010
Context	−.305	.104	−.189*	15.463	.162	.135	.100	−.096	1.041	−.002	−.149	.111	−.092	3.185	.014	−.070	.085	−.057	.109	.007
Block 2: Self-construals
Independence	.281	.097	.177**	6.682	.201	.211	.093	.152*	12.299	0.087	.409	.101	.260***	9.513	.080	.032	.077	.027	2.783	.021
Interdependence	−.025	.087	−.017	6.682	.201	.368	.084	.278***	12.299	0.087	.054	.093	.036	9.513	.080	.179	.071	.159*	2.783	.021
Block 3: Ethnic identity
Ethnic identity	.199	.056	.216**	11.645	.237	−.021	.054	−.027	0.124	0.084	.067	.060	.073	1.124	.080	−.032	.047	−.046	.306	.018
Block 4: Individualism
Individualism	−.004	.002	−.099⁺	2.846	.243	.002	.002	.054	0.699	0.083	−.003	.003	−.069	1.210	.081	.005	.002	.176**	7.567	.045

Note: Each CLOP involved the block-wise entry of (1) control variables, (2) self-construals, (3) ethnic identity, and (4) individualism. For ease of presentation, Table 4 displays only the B-, SE-, and β-values that resulted from block 4 in the hierarchical regression. By contrast, F-change and R²-values are displayed stepwise for each block. CLOP: Cross-level operator analysis (James and Williams, 2000).

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

Culture and TV-related hedonic entertainment

Our first CLOP analysis demonstrated that the three control variables significantly explained variation in hedonic entertainment: women sought hedonic TV entertainment more than men; participants who left their country of birth sought this more than participants who remained in their country of birth; and the older the participants were, the more did they seek hedonic gratifications by watching TV.

After controlling for the previous variables, on the micro level of culture, both interdependence and ethnic identity significantly predicted hedonic TV entertainment. On the macro-level, individualism had a marginally significant negative effect (p < .10), indicating that lesser degrees of individualism, i.e., higher values on collectivism predict hedonic TV entertainment motivations.

Culture and TV-related eudaimonic entertainment

Our second CLOP analysis showed that, after controlling for gender, age, and context (which were non-significant), independent and interdependent self-construals were significant predictors of eudaimonic TV entertainment motivations, with independence exerting a stronger effect. The impact of ethnic identity and individualism on eudaimonic TV entertainment was non-significant.

Culture and text-related hedonic entertainment

Our third CLOP analysis revealed that particularly the interdependent self-construal predicted TV-related hedonic entertainment. The remaining predictors (control variables, independence, and individualism) were non-significant.

Culture and text-related eudaimonic entertainment

Our final CLOP analysis demonstrated that, after controlling for gender, age and context, two predictors of culture exerted significant effects on text-related eudaimonic entertainment: the independent self-construal on the micro level and individualism on the macro level.

In summary, whereas hedonic entertainment gratifications were significantly predicted by ethnic identity (TV), interdependence (both TV- and text), and country-level collectivism (TV), eudaimonic entertainment was significantly predicted by independence (TV and text) and individualism (text). Hedonic entertainment motivations appeared to thus be particularly relevant for individuals from collectivistic backgrounds who identify strongly with their social and ethnic collectives. By contrast, eudaimonic entertainment motivations were especially important for individuals from individualistic backgrounds, with an independent self-construal.

Discussion

The present study explored hedonic and eudaimonic media entertainment motivations (Oliver and Raney, 2011) through the lens of culture. It examined the extent with which macro-level cultural variation (individualism/collectivism), along with micro-level independent/interdependent self-construals and ethnic identity impact TV and text entertainment motivations. This was done against the background of profound inconsistencies and gaps in the literature (Odağ and Hanke, 2018; Odağ et al., 2016): Hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment had been shown to be universal across especially individualistic contexts such as the USA, Germany, and Spain, where the two entertainment dimensions were conceptualized (Igartua and Barrios, 2013; Odağ et al., 2016; Oliver and Raney, 2011). Other research had shown cultural variation in entertainment motivations (Kim et al., 2014; Odağ et al., 2016), pointing to an association between particularly individualistic contexts and hedonic (and collectivistic contexts and eudaimonic) entertainment motivations. These associations had been speculative, however, as some studies had not explicitly distinguished between the two entertainment types thus far (e.g., Kim et al., 2014). With the literature on eudaimonia mainly produced in Western individualistic positive psychology (Ryff and Singer, 2008; Wirth et al., 2012), associations between individualism and eudaimonic entertainment motivations were equally likely.

Most importantly, our study underlined the noteworthy impact of culture on entertainment motivations, highlighting the relevance of cross-cultural psychology for understanding media consumption on both macro and micro levels of cultural variation (Berry et al., 2015; Matsumoto and Juang, 2016). Especially individuals from collectivistic contexts with interdependent values selected TV programs for hedonic pleasure. By contrast, independent individuals from individualistic contexts preferred to use the media, especially texts, for eudaimonic entertainment. These findings disconfirm some of the existing research while being highly plausible at the same time: Individualistic cultural contexts represent values of uniqueness and exclusivity (Gudykunst and Bond, 1997; Hofstede, 1991; Kağıtçıbaş ı, 1997; Triandis, 1995, 2001). Eudaimonic media entertainment fits well with such values, as it involves the reflection of self-related existential concerns in pursuit of individual well-being (Ryff and Singer, 2008). Collectivistic contexts, by contrast, are more strongly associated with unity and harmony within groups and emphasize the well-being of all members of the collective. A hedonic media pursuit is much in line with such an orientation, as obtaining pleasure from media offerings is conducive to the well-being of all members.

The patterns that emerged on the macro level were confirmed on the micro level: Micro-level constructs akin to collectivism (i.e., the interdependent self-construal; Markus and Kitayama, 1991; ethnic identity, Phinney, 1990) were positively correlated with hedonic entertainment from TV and texts. By contrast, the independent self-construal was positively correlated with eudaimonic entertainment from TV and texts, thereby confirming the impact of macro-level individualism. Cross- and intercultural media and communication scholars had called for the integration of macro- and micro-level cultural variables more than a decade ago (Gudykunst and Lee, 2002; Odağ and Hanke, 2018). The present study yields consistent results for the impact of cultural macro- and micro-variables, with the two levels of analysis cross-validating each other in the context of media entertainment motivations.

Finally, our study was among the first to show that ethnic identity (Phinney, 1990) explains variation in media entertainment motivations: The stronger participants felt committed to their ethnicity and explored it, the higher was their motivation to obtain hedonic pleasure from TV programs. This was consistent with the effects of the other relational constructs of culture (collectivism and interdependence) on eudaimonic entertainment motivations. We were unable to empirically replicate Phinney’s sub-dimensions of ethnic identity (commitment and exploration) and future studies should attempt to achieve a more fine-grained analysis.

Limitations

One of the major limitations of the present study concerns its sample size. With an N of 272, five predictor variables, and four criterion variables, the study has limited power to model assumed relationships between cultural indicators and media entertainment. Based on this sample, especially the macro-level variable individualism was not variant enough to allow us to use multi-level models for the relationships we explored. Such models represent gold standards for analysing macro- and micro-level data together (Gudykunst and Lee, 2002; Matsumoto and Juang, 2016). Further research needs to use larger samples allowing for more sophisticated techniques for data analysis.

A second limitation of the present study is its failure to test measurement invariance of constructs that are compared across groups (Steinmetz et al., 2009). In our study, the comparison groups were not clearly distinguishable, however as our samples obtained in both Germany and Turkey comprised natives, international sojourners, students, and non-students. A division of this sample into German and Turkish individuals would have created problems concerning the existing sample heterogeneity.

A third limitation of the present study touches on causality assumptions. Based on purely correlational statistics, little can be said about causal effects between culture and media entertainment motivations. It could well be that entertainment motivations exert an influence back on culture and reinforce it (Slater, 2007) – something that needs to be tested in future studies.

Additionally, Hofstede’s (1991; Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005) individualism/collectivism construct has come under criticism in the last decade: Researchers have criticized that individualism and collectivism represent two end-poles on a single dimension and suggested alternative, multi-dimensional operationalizations of culture (e.g., the Personal Cultural Orientations scale; Sharma, 2010). Additionally, Hofstede’s pioneer studies within subsidiaries of IBM mainly focused on organizational values. Whether such values represent cultural values is unclear. Using alternative value models and their operationalizations (such as the Portrait Values Questionnaire; Schwartz et al., 2001; see Rieger et al. in this issue) will be illuminating in the future.

Finally, the present study relied mostly on student convenience samples in private universities, exemplifying a particularly private culture. We attempted to complement our student sample with non-students in both countries but were unable to obtain similar numbers. Our samples were thus in no way representative of the underlying population in the two countries of choice, leaving issues of representativeness open for future research.

Conclusion

Despite its limitations, the current study can count as a pertinent attempt to explore relationships between culture and entertainment motivations both conceptually and empirically. Rather than using country as a proxy of culture, the current study uses continuous scales to measure cultural variation in a highly differentiated way. It demonstrates intriguing culture-entertainment patterns: Collectivistic audiences that value their ethnic belonging and interdependence tend to use the media for hedonic entertainment. Individualistic audiences, valuing their uniqueness and individuality, tend to use the media for eudaimonic entertainment purposes. These macro-micro-patterns of cultural variability call into question universality claims for media entertainment theories and highlight the relevance of cross-cultural psychology for this research field.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Adoni

Cohen

Caspi

(2002) The consumers choice: Language, media consumption and hybrid identities of minorities. Communications 27(4): 411–436.

Broadie S and Rowe C (2002) Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics: Translation, Introduction, Commentary. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Bartsch

Schneider

(2014) Entertainment and politics revisited: How non-escapist forms of entertainment can stimulate political interest and information seeking. Journal of Communication 64(3): 369–396.

Berry JW, Poortinga YH, Breugelmans SM, et al. (2015) (eds) Cross-Cultural Psychology. Research and applications. 3rd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Brockner

Chen

(1996) The moderating role of self-esteem and self-construal in reaction to threat to the self: Evidence from the People’s Republic of China and the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71: 603–615.

Cattell

(1966) The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research 1(2): 245–276.

Fischer

Ferreira

Assmar

EML

et al. (2014) Organizational practices across cultures: An exploration in six cultural contexts. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 14(1): 105–125.

Georgiou M (2006) Diaspora, identity, and the media: Diasporic transnationalism and mediated spatialities. Creskill: Hampton Press.

Gudykunst WB and Bond MH (1997) Intergroup relations across cultures. In: JW Berry, MH Segall and Ç Kağıtçıbaş ı (eds) Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (vol. 3: Social behavior and applications). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, pp. 119–161.

10.

Gudykunst

Lee

(2002) Cross-cultural communication theories. In: WB

Gudykunst

Mody

(eds) Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 25–50.

11.

Hambleton

Zenisky

(2011) Translating and adapting tests for cross-cultural assessments. In: D

Matsumoto

FJR

van de Vijver

(eds) Cross-Cultural Research Methods in Psychology, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 46–74.

12.

Heinrich

Heine

Norenzayan

(2010) The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33(1): 61–135.

13.

Hepp A, Bozdağ C and Suna L (2011) Mediale Migranten. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

14.

Hofstede

(1991) Cultures and Organizations:Software of the Mind, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

15.

Hofstede

(2005) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

16.

Igartua

Barrios

(2013) Hedonic and eudaimonic motives for watching feature films. Validation of the Spanish version of Oliver–Raney’s scale. Communications 38(4): 411–431.

17.

James

Williams

(2000) The cross-level operator in regression, ANCOVA, and contextual analysis. In: JK

Klein

SWJ

Kozlowski

(eds) Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions, San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass, pp. 382–424.

18.

Kağıtçıbaş ı Ç (1997) Individualism and collectivism. In: JW Berry, MH Segall and Ç Kağıtçıbaş ı (eds) Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology (vol. 3: Social behavior and applications). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, pp. 1–50.

19.

Kim

Sohn

Choi

(2011) Cultural difference in motivations for using social network sites: A comparative study of American and Korean college students. Computers in Human Behavior 27(1): 365–372.

20.

Kim

Seo

et al. (2014) Cultural differences in preference for entertainment messages that induce mixed responses of joy and sorrow. Human Communication Research 40: 530–552. doi:10.1111/hcre.12037.

21.

Klein KJ, Bliese PD, Kozlowski SWJ, et al. (2000) Multi-level analytical techniques: Commonalities, differences and continuing questions. In: JK Klein and SWJ Kozlowski (eds) Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 512–553.

22.

Lee

Choi

(2006) The role of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism in online consumers’ responses toward persuasive communication on the web. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11(1): 317–336.

23.

Markus

Kitayama

(1991) Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review 98(2): 224–253.

24.

Markus

Kitayama

(1998) The cultural psychology of personality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 29: 63–87.

25.

Matsumoto

Juang

(2016) Culture and Psychology, Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

26.

Ogan

D’Haenens

(2011) Do Turkish women in the diaspora build social capital? Evidence from the low countries. Ethnic and Racial Studies 34(12): 924–940. doi:10.1080/01419870.2011.628034.

27.

Odağ Ö and Hanke K (2018) Revisiting culture: A review of a neglected dimension in media psychology. Journal of Media Psychology. doi: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000244.

28.

Odağ

Hofer

Schneider

et al. (2016) Testing measurement equivalence of eudaimonic and hedonic entertainment motivations in a cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 45(2): 108–125. doi: 10.1080/17475759.2015.1108216.

29.

Oliver

(2009) Entertainment. In: Nabi

Oliver

(eds) The Sage Handbook of Media effects, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 161–175.

30.

Oliver

Bartsch

(2010) Appreciation as audience response: Exploring entertainment gratifications beyond hedonism. Human Communication Research 36: 53–81. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01368.x.

31.

Oliver

Bartsch

(2011) Appreciation of entertainment: The importance of meaningfulness via virtue and wisdom. Journal of Media Psychology 23: 29–33. doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000029.

32.

Oliver MB and Hartmann T (2010) Exploring the role of meaningful experiences in users’ appreciation of “good movies.” Projections 4: 128–150. doi:10.3167/proj.2010.040208.

33.

Oliver

Raney

(2011) Entertainment as pleasurable and meaningful: Identifying hedonic and eudaimonic motivations for entertainment consumption. Journal of Communication 61: 984–1004.

34.

Park

Guan

(2007) Cultural differences in self versus others’ self construals: Data from China and the United States. Communication Research Reports 24(1): 21–28.

35.

Peeters

D’Haenens

(2005) Bridging or bonding? Relationships between integration and media use among ethnic minorities in the Netherlands. Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research 30(2): 201–231.

36.

Phinney

(1990) Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychological Bulletin 108(3): 499–514.

37.

Phinney

(1992) The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research 7: 156–176.

38.

Phinney

(2000) Ethnic identity. In: Kazdin

(eds) Encyclopedia of psychology, volume 3, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 254–259.

39.

Phinney

(2003) Ethnic identity and acculturation. In: K

Chun

Organista

Marin

(eds) Acculturation: Advances in Theory, Measurement, and Applied Research, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 63–81.

40.

Phinney

Ong

(2007) Conceptualization and measurement of ethnic identity: Current status and future directions. Journal of Counseling Psychology 54(3): 271–281.

41.

Raudenbush

Bryk

(2002) Hierarchical Linear Models, 2nd ed. London, UK: SAGE.

42.

Ryff

Singer

(2008) Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies 9: 13–39.

43.

Schwartz

Melech

Lehmann

et al. (2001) Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 32(5): 519–542.

44.

Sharma

(2010) Measuring personal cultural orientations: Scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 38(6): 787–806.

45.

Singelis

(1994) The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20(5): 580–591.

46.

Slater

(2007) Reinforcing spirals: The mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication Theory 17(3): 281–303.

47.

Steinmetz

Schmidt

Tina-Booh

et al. (2009) Testing measurement invariance using multigroup cfa: Differences between educational groups in human values measurement. Quality & Quantity 43(4): 599–616.

48.

Sun

Merolla

Seo

et al. (2013) Self-construal and natural disaster coverage: How self perception influences psychological intrusion and concern for others. Asian Journal of Communication 23(1): 17–37.

49.

Triandis

(1995) Individualism and collectivism, Boulder, CO: Westview.

50.

Triandis

(2001) Individualism and collectivism: Past, present and future. In: Matsumoto

(eds) Handbook of Culture and Psychology, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 35–50.

51.

Vorderer

Hartmann

(2009) Entertainment and enjoyment as media effects. In: Bryant

Oliver

(eds) Media Effects. Advances in Theory and Research, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 532–550.

52.

Vorderer

Reinecke

(2015) From mood to meaning: The changing model of the user in entertainment research. Communication Theory 25(4): 447–453.

53.

Vorderer

Klimmt

Ritterfeld

(2004) Enjoyment: At the heart of media entertainment. Communication Theory 14(4): 388–408.

54.

Wasti SA and Erdil SE (2007) Bireycilik ve toplulukçuluk değerlerinin ölçülmesi: Benlik kurgusu ve INDCOL ölçeklerinin Türkçe geçerlemesi. [Measuring individualism and collectivism values: Turkish validation of self-construal and INDCOL questionnaires]. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi [Journal of Management Research] 7: 39–66.

55.

Wei

Willnat

Linwei

(2012) Cultural differences in the use of web 1.0 and web 2.0: A comparative analysis of Chinese and American youth. China Media Research 8(4): 77–89.

56.

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