'What Makes Viewers Diverge When Interpreting Narrative?'

• 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)

(Analysis of Variance p<0.001) Mean agreement for each cluster

#	Statement	R	NR	NC	C
		n=20	n=25	n=9	n=12
01	Susan was right to disappoint her father for Mike's sake	4.40	3.88	3.67	2.75
02	Ken acted reasonably, doing what he thought best for Susan	1.90	2.20	3.33	4.50
04	Ken put his feelings for Mike before his feelings for Susan	4.65	4.44	3.78	3.58
07	Susan and Mike's marriage will last	3.25	2.88	2.89	1.75
08	Ken was right to oppose the marriage	1.90	2.12	3.22	4.83
10	Susan sees Mike more as a father-figure than as a husband	2.15	3.40	2.11	3.67
12	Mike and Susan are right for each other	2.00	2.84	2.78	4.00
16	Susan does not truly love Mike, she only thinks she does	1.65	2.88	2.33	3.25
17	The marriage will have problems because of the age difference	2.40	3.16	2.44	3.75
18	Mike thinks Susan is a better person than she really is	2.00	3.04	2.22	3.58
20	Susan and Mike can overcome any problems they encounter	3.85	2.88	3.00	2.08
21	Susan determined to marry Mike to show Ken she is an adult	2.80	3.48	2.22	3.83
22	Ken acted unreasonably; he was vindictive and possessive	4.20	4.40	2.78	2.50
26	Mike's money and success are important to Susan: she would not love him without them	2.00	2.84	1.56	3.08
28	Susan thinks that Mike is a better person than he really is	2.35	3.64	2.78	4.25
29	Mike does not truly love Susan, he only thinks he does	1.65	2.76	2.22	3.75

Adapted from:

• Livingstone, Sonia M (1990a): Making Sense of Television: The Psychology of Audience Interpretation. Oxford: Pergamon (Chapter 7, 'Divergent Interpretations of Television Drama', pp. 179-80), and
  
• Livingstone, Sonia M (1990b): 'Interpreting a Television Narrative: How Different Viewers See a Story', Journal of Communication 40(1): 72-85.

Daniel Chandler
January 1997