How to pick a movie
A research into people's decision process
Wesley Gangelhof 10857583
MA Sociology: Cultural Sociology
First supervisor: Dhr. prof. J. (Hans) Roscam Abbing
Second supervisor: Dhr. dr. O.J.M. (Olav) Velthuis
July, 2016
Master’s thesis in Sociology, track Cultural Sociology
Word count: 15.011
Index
1 Introduction P. 3
2 Theoretical Considerations P.4
2.1 On understanding, a preliminary personal note P.5 2.2 The Sociology of Valuation and Evaluation P.7
2.3 Singularities P.10
2.4 Judgement & Judgement Devices P.12
2.5 The application of judgement devices P.20
2.6 Homo Singularis P.22
3 Research Design P.23
3.1 Main question and sub questions P.23
3.2 Reason for interviewing P.25
3.3 The interviews P.25
4 Research results and Analysis P.28
4.1 Use of judgement devices P.28
4.2 Other tools and factors P.33
4.3 Mood P.35
4.4 Taste P.36
5 Conclusions P.38
6 Limitations and suggestions further research P.40
References P.41
1. Introduction
The topic of this thesis concerns consumption choices in a broad sense. What I investigate is how people decide what movie to watch on their own, and more importantly who or what they listen to in order to make this decision. Personally I often have a hard time making a decision on what to watch. The thing is, you never really know if you are going to enjoy a movie if you haven't seen it yet. I am interested in what strategies, or tactics, people deploy to make this choice. With strategies I mean the choice of information sources that can be trusted, be it consciously or unconsciously.
The main question of this thesis is: 'what are the different ways people come to a decision to watch a movie? In order to answer this, the following sub questions are asked. Firstly, 'according to the theory what options do people have to come to a choice? ‘Secondly, 'how do different people use these options? Thirdly, 'what motivates people to use these options? ‘As fourth the question 'how much value do people attach to the ways in which they pick a movie?’ is asked. And the final sub question is: 'what role does taste play in the decision process?'
To get to an understanding of what kind of entity movies are, I will draw from the work of Lucien Karpik. For Karpik, commodities like movies are 'singularities' (Karpik, 2007). Singularities are goods and services that are not easily compared amongst themselves because they have characteristics that are unique to it. There is a lot of uncertainty when it comes to the quality of singularities. In order to tackle this uncertainty people have, what Karpik calls, 'judgement devices.' In my thesis I want to see how these judgement devices are deployed by people when picking a movie. But also, I want to look at techniques of choosing my interviewees come up with that are not easily understood through Karpik's theory.
When it comes to the relevance of this thesis, I think there should not be a clear cut difference between academic and societal relevance. Whatever helps the theory could possibly help society if it is used to help society in any way imaginable. The two are not separate categories in my opinion. Academically however, the relevance of this topic is tied to the Sociology of Evaluation and Valuation. This thesis tries to add to the understanding how people come to evaluate a movie before they have
seen it. It is about how people make choices for a cultural product. Understanding how people go about ´choosing´ will help to create an understanding about how things are valued by people. Tactics that are deployed can suggest underlying ideologies. For instance, if people put more trust in quantified quality judgements then they might adhere to a more ‘scientific’ ideology in general. Basically I am trying to analyze which forms of evaluation we believe in; is this, for instance more based on personal networks, or quantified rankings, or other factors that are at play.
In order to do this I have conducted 15 interviews in which I have asked people about their way of picking a movie and their motivation to do so. That way I have gained information about the application of judgement devices for movies and the multitude of motivations people have to rationalize their choices.
This thesis will not give definite answers to how people pick their movies. The aim is to show different ways that different people come to a movie decision. It turns out that even though there is similarity in options; people have personal ways of going about making a choice. The results add to the discussion by showing the difficulty of the picking process and the importance of taste.
2. Theoretical considerations.
In order to begin to create a better understanding of people's movie choices, and especially to answer the sub-question on what options are out there for people, it is necessary to look for pre-existing theory.; not only to see what options they suggest, but also to see how this research and overall thesis fit within a larger framework. Next to the theoretical framework, it is good to see from what sort of perspective any author is coming. It needs to be clear what influences my thinking. As a writer, I am a subject too, with my own knowledge and ideas about science and life. So it is my idea that by explaining what sort of theory my ideas are based on, or at least what they are aligned to, it is clearer
what I mean1.
Within the theoretical part of this thesis I will start by addressing, in a very basic way, how I understand subjectivity, and also how people can cross the boundaries of individuality. After that the focus shifts to the Sociology of Valuation and Evaluation in order to show where this thesis is connected to sociology, and to show why the topics discussed have relevancy. After that I will investigate what options people have to come to movie decisions by exploring the ideas of Lucien Karpik.
2.1 On understanding, a preliminary personal note
One way in which we experience ideas about who we are is in the way we value/judge cultural goods. We have an idea about who we are based on the things that we like and dislike. This also has a social dimension. I think most people have felt that sense of connectedness or closeness to another person when it turns out you has a shared interest in a particular director, musician, or any type of art. People even get together based on similar likes and the similarity is often quintessential to subcultures.
The ideological background of this thesis is rooted in sociological phenomenology. Of course the application of this and the usage it has for this thesis are tied to my own subjective experience of what science is, what experience is, and what valid ideas are. The points I make about people, their decision making, and the social construction behind it, are also true for me as a person. In this part however I try to explain where I come from as a subject, and make clear what theoretical angle I take. The aim is to convey my understanding of reality to others, and overlap with the experienced reality of others.
Sociological phenomenology holds that we all have ideas about how the world works that
1 This in itself is already an ideological decision when it comes to science. Some people believe one should be as objective as possible, but in my eyes that would mask the grounding as a subject that any author or researcher has.
guide us in our actions, to some extent, and that we can come to an understanding of the world we live in by researching the ideas people have. In the interviews I ask people about their understanding of their own decision progress. In short, there is an interest in the subjective experience of the social reality. In the next paragraph I will explain what I mean by a social reality.
In a sense all humans want to connect in some form, we want to be recognized as a person. We look for a sense of self and meaning in the world through the eye of what Jacques Lacan calls the mirroring yourself to the ´big other´. We juxtapose our own desires with what we expect and think others do, and some others specifically don´t do. We look at each other for what is accepted to do in an ethical sense, but also when it comes to the way you're supposed to feel your emotions, what we can expect from each other, and what we are supposed to do with the life we have. Part of the argument for this is that both knowledge itself and the language in which we express this knowledge are relational. There is no private language, or a completely unique, stand/alone thought. As humans we have a frame of reference, and although not wholly shared by all people, there is a lot of overlap from person to person.
Within the cross referencing of this overlap from human to human, we try to agree and disagree on what is good and what is bad, what is positive, or what is negative. We feel connected to the people we agree with on matters, and distinguish ourselves from people who we disagree with. In a sense it is the old, often repeated, wisdom that ´birds of a feather flock together.´ We share ideas about what is normal with each other. What we see as normal or accepted can also be called a standard. 'Just as the choice of one standard over another signals a preference for a specific logic and set of priorities, so the choice of standards of any sort implies one way of regulating and coordinating social life at the expense of alternative modes’ (Timmermans & Epstein, 2010: p. 85). So, although we are all individual persons, we share many logics of action.
Within shared culture people have different ways of acting however, even when people share the same values, the foundation of that value can be different, unbeknownst by the holders of those opinions. In other words, we might value the same things, but why we value them might be the conclusion of different patterns of thinking and influence. To understand the different rationales
applied to the act of valuing, it is necessary to consider theory that concerns itself with the topic of valuation. This places the thesis at hand within a network of other studies, thus lending itself for context.
It is my hope that this section has made clear where I am coming from in my understanding of ideas and their function and that it will help to create a better understanding for the rest of this thesis. To continue, I briefly discuss the sociology of Valuation and Evaluation, to show how sociology is practised within this work.
2.2 The Sociology of Valuation and Evaluation
The sociology of valuation and evaluation (SVE), an 'unofficial' branch of sociology, deals with questions about why we value things similarly or dissimilarly to each other. Lamont, whose ideas are used in this section, does not provide a clear definition of what valuation and evaluation are, or how they might be different. In fact, she normally uses the notation (e)valuation (Lamont, 2012), suggesting that the terms are quite interchangeable, or at least not clearly defined2. Therefore the terms
valuation and evaluation are used interchangeably.
Michèle Lamont describes that there are various ways in which this is researched up until now. She makes the claim that this field should become more integrated so we can get to a more cohesive 2 A dictionary search on www.dictionary.com also gives similar definitions. The definitions given for the word valuation are : 1. the act of estimating or setting the value of something; appraisal.
2. an estimated value or worth.
3. the awareness or acknowledgment(SIC) of the quality, nature, excellence, or the like of something: public valuation of the importance of education.
The definition given for evaluation is the act of evaluation. And if one looks up the definition of evaluating the result is :
1. to determine or set the value or amount of; appraise: to evaluate property.
2. to judge or determine the significance, worth, or quality of; assess: to evaluate the results of an experiment.
3. Mathematics. to determine or calculate the numerical value of (a formula, function, relation, etc.).
To me these definitions seem very close to each other. When this happens the meaning and use of both the word valuation and evaluation should be tied to the context in which they are used. Language seems to generally work in that way anyway. In this thesis the word valuation will be used mostly, but consider it interchangeable with evaluation.
understanding of valuation and evaluation (Lamont, 2012). This thesis is very much related to SVE; as a matter of fact; the whole aim is to better understand how people interact with expectations of subjective value. This means that this research is aimed at the understanding of how various people apply different mechanisms to deal with the uncertainty of what movies they think they might appreciate.
There is no one definition of what SVE actually entails, it is much more an umbrella term for sociology focused on our understanding of the creation of value and the effects it has on people. Topics concerned with value end evaluation should become clear through the current theoretical description undertaken.
Valuation, as in the act of coming to value is of interest to us. In this particular thesis it is not researched what people pick exactly, or what is valued. The focus lies on the way that people make a decision. In a sense the question is who or what do people trust to recommend them the right movie. Who or what we put trust in to come to judgement is an important subject in understanding how people come to their process of valuation. Parts of these theoretical considerations are aimed to show this.
The act of valuing is one of the theoretical roots of this thesis. The reasoning that it is social lies within the idea that, within cultures, establishing value requires the following mechanisms, as described by Lamont. Firstly, entities are compared using inter-subjective indicators, or sets of indicators, that dictate how entities can be understood. In other words, people judge things in the world such as goods, but also ethical and moral values themselves, based on different ideas about how they can be judged. Secondly, this is social because the ideas of what is good or not, are constructed socially, they are legitimized though criteria that are not agreed upon by virtue of existence itself. They need to be legitimized, we need to put trust in the criteria we use to judge in order for them to allow us to have an understanding of the world. Related to this is the third point that we establish value in a relational scheme. Valuation works both in a positive and a negative sense. When we create an understanding of what we value, we also create an understanding of what we do not value. We compare the things to each other in order to understand how we value them (Lamont, 2012).
The societal relevance of SVE as a topic of discussion is said by Lamont to be especially important in light of our modern society in which differences between people are created based on values, for which evaluation is an important factor (Lamont, 2012). We can understand how people are set apart from each other, but also how people could be emancipated, through an understanding of the fact that people have different ways of creating value. It helps us understand better what people value, and by virtue of that knowledge we can understand each other better and legitimize other systems of valuation. But it is not only that. I also think knowledge about how people value entities can help education practices for example, by understanding how it is valued by different people. This is relevant to this thesis because it shows that it is more than just simple movie choice that is being researched.
Academic relevance of SVE is also brought forward by Lamont. The academic relevance brought forward however is that the field of SVE would tie together different schools, or subfields, that are actually concerning the same thing. Some of the examples brought forward are: studies on symbolic goods and social practices, and their cultural valuation by cultural sociologists; the changes in intellectual status and ideas by sociologist of science; various ideas of worth and status, studied by sociologists focusing on inequality; and many more(Lamont, 2012). Further understanding of SVE, could basically help and bring together many different ideas about how we value entities, and how processes surrounding and affecting value come into play within our societies.
From these points about the social roots of valuation it follows that the options for people to come to judgement are social in nature. For our main question it means that looking at socially created mechanisms is the right way to look for answers outside of personal preferences, like classical economic theory would have us think. But more on that later on.
Even though judgement is social in nature, I am not looking for information on people picking a movie in a social setting. People are likely to apply different rationales of action when people are making a choice for themselves, as opposed to making a choice when they are watching a movie with other people. The argument behind this is that you do not only have your own taste to deal with when a consensus is being made, you also have the tastes of others to take into consideration, and as a
practice that adds a lot of complications. The intricacies surrounding a group decision are interesting, but the power struggles, group specific relations and such circumstances are not within the scope of this thesis. The difference between making a decision for yourself and a group is an interesting one. The question is whether people have different rationales of action, or strategies, when they have to keep in mind the wishes of others and that is relevant as a research subject. It is not that I completely neglect the social side of it, of course people will be influenced by people in their network, but focusing on group decisions as such is just a bit of a different ballpark when it comes to decision making, than the decision making that is the object of this study.
All in all it can be said that there is a lot of possibility for SVE to develop, and this thesis, however insignificant, tries to be a part of this. My attempt is to better understand how people use tools derived from Karpik to lay judgement, or give value, on what kind of movie they think will be worth watching. This helps the understanding of people's relationship to the intricacies of evaluation. This is done taking into account the theoretical background of society as a social entity that can be researched by creating understanding of people's personal frame of references, ideologies, and schemata, or whatever name you want to give the relationship people have in this setting.
2.3 Singularities
Singularities are unique entities that are not easily comparable with other singular entities There are three characteristics that describe singularities. Karpik notices them as (1) multidimensional, (2) uncertain and (3) incommensurable. (1)Multidimensionality refers to the fact that singularities are not entities in the world that can be separated from its surroundings and the world as a whole. They cannot be understood as independent phenomena, in other words, they are relational. (2)Uncertainty refers to both the strategic and quality uncertainty. Strategic means that there is a difference in the understanding of the entity between the producer and the consumer. More important however is the radical quality uncertainty. In the sense that there is no way too predict how the singularity will be experienced. Singularities are also (3) incommensurable. Meaning that there is
no hierarchical and objective measurement to compare singularities to each other (Karpik, 2010). From this it should be clear that subjectivity plays a huge role in the understanding of a singularity.
The three points point out that singularities are not objective things in the world that lend them self to natural scientific understandings, which is something fitting with modern understandings of the world arisen in specifically the 20th century, but also discussed well before that. An example of
the relation to subjectivity from philosophy, are the works of Wittgenstein. In his book Philosophical investigations, he opens up with a passage from the ‘ classical’ thinker, St. Augustine, who, based on Plato’s concept of the world of Ideas, makes a point that there is a literal relationship between language and things in the world. Wittgenstein makes the point that this cannot be the case, even though he himself used to be of the same opinion. He points out that language, which is also a something that constitutes what we can know, is a fully relational undertaking. There is no object that we can describe without referring to already existing knowledge and language (Wittgenstein, 1953). So a singularity, almost by virtue of existing, is tied into the subjectiveness of all there is to know and understood by humans. The reason singularities are set apart as a separate entity for this thesis however is that it concerns the way we understand a specific subset of goods that are especially hard to understand using the existing objective understandings of the world which are still important and implied within the world we live in.
'[E]ach movie represents a particular configuration of “qualities” that includes actors, script, music, construction of the work, rhythm, character development, entertainment value, meta-physical depth, seat comfort, quality of the copy, admission price, and cinematographic style. The configurations are incommensurable. They are worlds of meanings that are constantly being rated by moviegoers and which nevertheless constantly resist an objective classification whose validity would be indisputably obvious to all. Viewers go to see a “good” movie, whatever they mean by that term, usually without even knowing the admission prices in the different theatres. As a result, quality competition prevails over price competition. And promotion notwithstanding, the success or failure of movies remain unpredictable' (Karpik, 2010:31). Taking Karpik's line, I see movies as a good example of a singularity.
In practice it is the uncertainty that leads to the use of judgement devices and problems with choosing the 'right' movie. As said before there is strategic and quality uncertainty, and it is the quality uncertainty that is most relevant. If someone purchases a singularity, 'the purchase must be made even though the knowledge of the product remains at least partially imperfect'(Karpik, 2010: 11), although problems faced by the interviewees might contest this idea. As a consequence of this notion of radical uncertainty, it can be understood as the idea that simply more information does not lead to better choices. The existence of this uncertainty ties in with the main question of this thesis. Because the question how people have different ways to pick a movie, is really a question about how people deal with uncertainty in this specific setting.
2.4 Judgement & Judgement Devices
This part of the theoretical framework focuses mostly on the question about what options people have to pick movies. That movies are singularities has been shown, and now a theoretical understanding of how people can deal with these will be constructed.
Knowledge about quality needs to be, and appears to be, appropriated through judgement devices. With movies, and other media that depend on revelations and a linear experience as a part of the experience, perfect knowledge is also not something wished for by most. In more popular terms, you don’t want spoilers ruining your experience. This, partially, shows that it is not knowledge of the singularity itself that is important to get rid of quality uncertainty, but that it is about experience uncertainty. What is meant by this is that the expectancy of entertainment is the matter at hand, not the movie as an ‘objective’ entity. And what helps us create expectancy are the options we have to help us pick a movie in the research at hand.
Karpik proposes that in order to deal with the uncertainty and subjectivity surrounding singularities, people will have to come to judgement. The following quote is what he wrote down as a definition of judgement: 'Judging is a synthetic act that integrates a plurality of heterogeneous and
variably weighted criteria'(Karpik, 2010: 42). In other words, judging is a practice in which criteria are used in different manners. These criteria can be expressed using judgement devices as tools, used to constitute a judgement. The judgement allows us to compare singularities to each other and to make sense of objects that we experience subjectively.
The judgement devices are a very important idea for this thesis. They can be distinguished among by grouping them under the names: networks, appellations, cicerones, rankings, and confluences (Karpik, 2010).
(1)Networks: There are three types of networks that function as a judgement device. Firstly, there are personal networks. They are basically ones social relationships in which judgement is mostly shared through spoken word. Secondly there are trade networks existing of Sellers and Buyers. Thirdly there is the practitioner network, made up of professionals (Karpik, 2010).
(1.1)Personal networks are the people who are close to you within your network. The people within those personal networks seem to be one of the most important judgement devices that people use whenever they are making a movie choice. People seem to very much relate their own tastes to people that they like and respect. An example of this is brought forward by Miller. He describes how shopping and consumption are a means to create understanding and connection, or love, if we use his terms. The point is that we check whether we are compatible as humans by sharing the tastes we have developed (Miller, 1998). This adds to the theoretical importance of understanding how people apply personal networks in their valuation. It suggests that personal networks are not only important for information about what would be the right choice, it is also important in people's efforts to create, or obstruct, social bonds.
(1.2)The trade network consisting of buyers and sellers is not clearly defined by Karpik, I would say. I will interpret the trade network for this thesis, to include advertisements and commercials. Advertisements and commercials are a way of communicating information to consumers, albeit in a persuasive manner. People have the option to find out about movies, and make a choice based on the advertising, which basically is the movie seller's communication to the buyers that they should see the movie. Commercials and promotions are one thing, but to me, gathering information from commercial
agents does not seem to be a very rewarding strategy to tackle uncertainty surrounding a movie. The awareness we have of the sellers’ subjectivity should invigorate a healthy dose of suspicion on the motivations from people within this particular network. Nonetheless, people can tackle their uncertainty by using ads as a judgement device.
(1.3)The practitioner network is a more interesting case. It seems likely that the outside view on this network can be very important for the understanding of film choice. Some of the most important features of films to people are the director and actors, who are also heavily, used in advertisements and to a lesser extent the producers, cinematographers, visual effect artists, etcetera etcetera. Who works and appears within a movie is one of the more tangible indicators of the quality of the singularity under scrutiny. Many of the practitioners within the network often work on works that are to at least some extent similar to each other. Because of this expected similarity, it can be expected that people use their knowledge of the practitioners’ network to guide them in their film choice.
(2)Appellations: “Names associated with attributes and meanings that define singular products or families of singular products” (Karpik, 2010: 45) This includes: quality labels, certifications, professional titles, product brands and umbrella brands. They are basically groupings of singularities that help to give an overview, a categorization of entities under a label.
The use of product brands is different from marketing and advertising itself. Brands can be symbols that mean a lot more to people than just the product; they can be cultural icons that are signifiers for meaning in people’s life (Holt, 2004). This is different than a marketing strategy for a brand.
There are different forms of appellations for movies. One that is often used is genre. A genre is an umbrella term for movies that are akin in style, setting and topic. In a sense they are movie ideals in the platonic sense of the word ideal. The expectation is that people use these umbrella terms to create an expectancy of whether they are going to like a movie or not. People often stay true to what they have liked before, and associate with particular genres more than they do with others. Next to that, people often know what genres they do not like and will not watch a movie because it falls under a specific genre. Next to genres there are also movie collections such as the Criterion Collection. The
Criterion Collection is an initiative to distribute classic movies that have a certain quality, according to the creators of this quality marker. It seems possible that people use quality markers like this; however, maybe this will not really work for movie choice. The thing is that quality labels for movie seem uncommon. The abundance of award shows and reviews and rankings make them seem like an unnecessary tool for judgement.
(3)Cicerones: Critics and other types of guides that offer specific evaluations of singularities. Think for instance of a guide to fine wines. Also reviews fall under this, so this is a fairly important category to this thesis. Reviewers are important not only for recommendations, but also legitimization of art products such as movies (Baumann, 2007). Reviewers and cicerones in general, are a special type of judgement device. The difference with other judgement devices is that they actively argue about quality. They consciously make an argument why a singularity is to be considered good, bad, or any other word one might use for judgement. It is therefore that they lend themselves well for recommendations of movies, especially when one feels that there is some sort of alignment between ones taste, and the taste of the cicerone at hand. They seem to be an effective way of getting information about the quality of a movie.
There are many critics in the world of cinema. Originally most reviewing was based around newspapers that had an in-house critic, nowadays, with the emergence of the internet, the possibility to become a reviewer is available for everyone. This is at the same time problematic as well as a good thing. Because on the one hand there is more room for people's opinions, but on the other hand, this might dilute the legitimacy of expertise. On the effects that the internet has on the democratization of quality will be discussed more intensely later on in the discussion of rankings, where this trend is also happening.
Another important judgement device is the award shows, which overlap with rankings. They do not necessarily fall completely under the cicerone type of judgement device, but judgement devices as categories were never meant to be static anyway, they are tools for understanding, not answers about reality as such. Award shows are abundant and vary very much in the type of movies in consideration, the judgement criteria and also the aimed audience. A whole thesis could be divided to
the understanding of award shows themselves, much like all the proposed judgement tools within this thesis. In general however, awards are decided upon either by a jury or a public vote, who most often get to select a winner from a group of nominees. The seemingly most famous award show is the Academy Awards, or the Oscars in popular slang, but other well-known examples are the Golden Globes, the MTV movie awards, and festivals such as the, Toronto film festival, the Cannes film festival and the Sundance film festival. What is good about awards following from these types of events is that they are a clear recommendation to see something. The trust people put into separate awards however must be very diverse. It seems pointless to make a statement about the use of awards as a whole. What is of interest however is whether people use particular awards as an indicator of quality, and why they trust those awards specifically. They are very much an option to help one pick a movie.
(4)Rankings are the hierarchical arrangement of singularities according to one or several criteria. There are expert rankings and there are buyers’ rankings (Karpik, 2010). Expert rankings are based on people who often hold some form of externally confirmed legitimacy. One is only an expert if one is perceived an expert. Buyers' rankings are a lot more straightforward, they are the classical bill-board, sales based rankings in which economic success is bound up with quality, on purpose, or by suggestion. However, the buyers' rankings are not as simple as they seem, they are often influenced by the corporate tactics of financially motivated relations of cultural entities such as music and film. Democratic, user-based rankings however are not mentioned within the theory of Karpik itself, in a way, they combine personal reviewing with rankings. To understand these rankings there will be a discussion on the importance of quantification first.
Many rankings are based on the use of numbers and apply numbers to express quality, either in an ordinal fashion or using interval scores. This difference is somewhat important. Top 10 lists and the likes have less information then rankings based on an interval score since the objects on the list can only be compared as better or worse, and not by approximation of quality based on a scale. Rankings where the difference is not defined are a lot more straightforward and give less information about the quality opposed to other singularities. They work well as lists for easy movie suggestions and expect that this will be something that is appreciated by people in general; therefore I expect at
least some of my interviewees to have a relation to this tool.
Rankings based on scores, often given by some type of population, are quite interesting; the quantification of quality is really apparent with these types. Espeland and Stevens conclude that 'numbers, like words, should be regarded as deeds: acts of communication whose meaning and functions cannot be reduced to a narrow instrumentality and which depend deeply on ‘grammars’ and ‘vocabularies’ developed through use' (Espeland and Stevens, 2008: p. 431). What this means is that numbers do not stand on their own, their meaning is, like any meaning in this world, relational. They propose that 'sociology of quantification should recognize the effort and coordination that quantification requires' (Espeland and Stevens, 2008: p. 431). This understanding of quantification is important to understand what rankings mean and how they affect people. The influence of quantification on our world is described by Espeland, Sauder and Stevens in two different papers. Espeland and Stevens focused on how social scientists have to deal with quantification(2008) coming to the conclusion that we need to be aware of its effects and renounce the power position that numbers have gained within our society. Espeland and Sauder (2007) researched the effect of rankings on the social world, and in particular, law schools. In their research on Law schools, Espeland and Sauder found four different ways in which rankings created reactivity: 'external audiences’ reaction to rankings, the influence of prior rankings on surveys that determine future rank, the use of rankings to make funding decisions within universities, and how activities within schools conform to rankings criteria' (2007: p. 12). From these four ways, we are interested in their concept of external audiences. This suggests that people should find confirmation of the quality of a movie as 'good' because it has a high score or ranking as a self-fulfilling prophecy. It suggests the salience of rankings that is proposed here is actually mirrored by the choices made by interviewees in the research; we will see however that this is not the case for everybody.
An important effect on external audiences of rankings and ratings is; commensuration, which is a process of reactivity that transforms the cognition of individuals in relation to quantification. Something that singularities technically are incapable of becoming, because of the incommensurability mentioned earlier. '[I]t changes the locus and form of attention, both creating and obscuring relations
among entities'(2007: p. 16). Commensuration helps making qualities into quantities (2007). For Espeland and Sauder there are three ways in which commensuration is involved with reactivity. Commensuration has a 'capacity to reduce, simplify, and integrate information, [it creates relationships] among different law schools and among departments within law schools; and [commensuration has the] capacity to elicit reflection on the validity of quantitative evaluation (2007: p. 16).
The third principle is important to us because it means that quantification of movie quality will result in a discussion of this quantification, meaning that we can expect people to be aware of the effects of quantification. It is a form of standardization to make entities comparable. An analogy is if we want to compare the quality of apples and oranges, we need to make a standardized fruit scale. This means some of the specific apple or orange quality assessment gets lost, but it does allow for more comparisons.
It should be noted that here that the lines between reviewing and ranking become blurry; the fact is that rankings are often compiled from different types of reviews. Different platforms do this in different ways. An example of such a platform is IMDb, which allows people to vote on any movie if they registered with the website. This is not in any way contrary to the ideas of judgement devices; they were never supposed to be separate and unrelated categories of understanding. They are tools that we can use to better understand how things are evaluated, but they are not the ontological answer to value and evaluation.
The combined form of reviewing and ranking that is at hand originates its saliency through the fact that the apparatus of the rankings has changed through digitalization. Whereas critics used to be important for the creation of a 'formulaic apparatuses' for reviewing, the move to online assessments of quality has led to 'algorithmic apparatuses' for valuation (Orlikowski & Scott, 2014). There used to be a more or less set standard of criteria, something that was known by the people reviewing. It is this type of evaluation that the theory of reactivity is built on. Nowadays however, there are rankings that are constantly updated and for which the criteria are enclosed in an algorithm (Orlikowski & Scott, 2014). There is a lot more insecurity involved with these measures because the algorithm of a ranking
is susceptible to change and is often somewhat invisible. But more importantly for now is that the input comes from individuals, everyone can partake in the ranking process. Orlikowski and Scott's research on changing reviewing practices within the travel sector, analyses the change from offline to online for reviews like this: 'traditional valuation apparatuses have typically positioned everyday consumer experiences outside the formal scheme. This significant exclusion has created opportunities for the rearticulation of consumer opinion through online apparatuses, generating considerable innovation and consequential outcomes within the travel sector' (Orlikowski and Scott, 2014: p. 888).
Even though Orlikowski and Scott's research was focused on the travel sector, it is applicable to movies as well. On IMDb, and other user based ranking platforms, the users can give input to the algorithm and thus help evaluate the quality of a movie. It is a rule by masses, in which recommendations come from peers instead of experts. Hsu stated that 'a fundamental goal of a critic is to construct and promote schemas of evaluation that are regarded as justifiable by others in the market. And this justification can be attained through the creation of a principled, and thus defensible, ideology of standards (Hsu, 2006: p. 471). The quantification as happens on these types of platforms has changed this process similar to the earlier described change by Orlikowski and Scott. Instead of the critics' standards, the standards of individuals who vote online have become important. The importance of this is that, as described by Orlikowski and Scott, guides and critics might become less important in the new digital age, in which opinions seem to be democratized. In the research we can see if this is important to the random group of interviewees.
An important side note to the understanding of online rankings is the infrastructure for valuing a movie offered by different platforms. Orlikowski and Scott claim that in order to understand how online valuations are made in practice, we have to use a 'theoretical lens that focuses specifically on the material-discursive practices through which valuations are produced and [the material-discursive practice] examines how these practices are inseparable from and constitutive of the phenomena being assessed' (Orlikowski & Scott, 2014: p. 872). In other words, in order to understand online evaluation, we need to understand the setup of the quantification, not just the 'logic' behind it. And it is true, there is an influence that the design of a website, and the access to the voting process has. This is however,
more important for our understanding how these influence the possibilities of judgement, at the moment however, the focus lies on people's understanding of the tools in a more phenomenological sense.
(5)Confluences: Techniques to channel buyers. An example of this is where a product is placed on the shelves (Karpik, 2010). Confluences are different from the other judgement devices in the sense that they are not really 'tools' for people. They are techniques sellers can use to make the purchase of a singularity more likely. However, it is not something people can use to lay down judgement and create expectations that will help them to pick movies in the phenomenological sense that I am interested in.
All in all there are a great many tools people can use to come to the choice for a film and in theory all these are valid. This subsection has answered the question what means people have to come to expectations about a movie. Judgement devices are used for this.
2.5 The application of judgement devices
What the judgement devices are has been discussed, but there is more to them than just their existence, they are not simply just tools to be used, judgement devices, as a whole, relating to the world at large, fulfil several functions to people in order for them to come to a conclusion on quality. Firstly, the judgement devices serve as representatives. People are able to delegate authority over the question of quality to others. 'Representatives are not only instruments of action. When their particular points of view are shared by those they represent, they can benefit from strong identifications and thus receive a surplus of authority and capacity to act' (Karpik, 2010: 49). This is an interesting point, as it fits the earlier discussion of SVE. Karpik says we identify with the particular judgement devices we pick. Others have also found this to be true. In a research on the importance of performance ratings of film viewer choice, Bialecki, Oleary, and Smith, found out that 'people tend to seek out the opinions of those whose tastes and preferences appear to match closely with their own, whether those opinions are provided by lay people, or by experts' (Bialecki et. al. 2016: 7). And this is
a point that comes back in the analysis of this thesis. The use of judgement devices themselves is related to taste.
Next to a function as representatives, Karpik explains that judgement devices also operate as cognitive supporters. It is not like they try to represent reality as such, no, what they do is provide 'a selection of data governed by a particular criterion of evaluation' (Karpik, 2010:50), from which we can come to an understanding of the world. In other words they provide what Karpik calls 'oriented knowledge.' The judgement devices have a role in brokering information between singularities and the receivers of singularities, and therefore have a role in the creation and experience of meaning regarding this exchange. 'They qualify simultaneously both product and client (removed italics)— which means that the third party literally constructs the exchange relationship'(Karpik, 2010: 51). So it is not only that judgement devices are used, they also mediate understandings.
Next to cognitive and representative, Karpik also describes judgement devices as active forces. Meaning that they don´t just sit still and wait to be applied, they are used and compete with each other. The thing is ´ [j]udgment devices are points of view: they can only offer consumers an oriented knowledge. That Judgement Devices are not static seems logical. Just think of a personal network, it never really stays the same throughout one's life, and the way it is formed has an impact on the way it can be used.
Judgement devices are also trust devices, which fits in the idea of devices as representatives. Our trust in judgement devices 'turns the world into a predictable reality; it turns uncertainty into certainty because knowledge receives the support of the belief that, inevitably, inhabits us'(Karpik, 2010: 61). So it is not just the information we receive from judgement devices that helps us understand what we see as quality, the symbolic system of quality and trust that is handed to us also relates to our beliefs. Our trust in them is not a rational thing only; we make a judgement based on what we believe in. 'Only trust, whatever its origins and modalities, can create the credibility of judgement devices' (Karpik, 2010: 65). If that is true, then theoretically, this suggests that people's motivation for using the judgement devices they use should hold that people believe in the judgement devices they use and that they have trust in them. Meaning that people have motivations to pick
movies the way they do. And this is partly why the interviews are interesting. They can show us whether people actually have trust in this sense.
2.6 Homo Singularis
As opposed to the Homo Economicus from (neo-) Classical economical theory, who is said to be a profit maximizing, rational agent, Karpik talks about economic agents as the Homo Singularis, a vision of men as an agent who doesn’t look for a single source of information to come to a conclusion, but to a multiplicity of factors (Karpik, 2010).
'Driven by desires and tastes, subjected to more or fewer constraints—especially money and time-- and confronted with countless temptations, Homo Singularis could easily lose his way. But he maintains his identity and his coherence trough an interpretive frame that expresses a particular viewpoint and ensures the regulation of beliefs, representations, evaluation criteria, and forms of action. It is the person's psychic 'jurisdiction' that constructs the representation of reality and imposes the coherence of behaviour. The more strongly a guiding principle structures the interpretive frame, the more strongly the frame reinforces the unity and coherence of the actor's individual form of action; and the better it explains the existence of relations of homology between concrete markets, as the same persons move the same interpretive frames from one place to another, and from the past to the present and thence the future' (Karpik, 2010: 67-8).
This quote sums up much of the theory used within this thesis. Mainly that, the choice on one interpretive frame over another relating to movies, could be telling of the general interpretive framework someone applies in his or her life. This relates back to the points about sociological phenomenology, and an understanding we can have of the social world in general.
Something that also shows up within the quote is the importance of what Karpik calls 'desires and tastes.' and this information helps to answer the question: 'what role does taste play in the decision process?' Through the interviews it will be shown that taste is indeed a very important factor for decision making. Karpik does not pay that much attention to it, and focuses more on the markets
themselves. I am very interested however in the function that taste has for people's application of judgement devices.
In the interviews I will ask people about these judgement devices and try and find out which ones are more important to them and why. As the Homo Singularis, people are likely to use a multitude of different types of techniques to come to a conclusion about what they want to watch. Or in other words, it seems that the question 'how do people use the different options for choices’ will be answered by saying: in various and personal ways. There is really not one valid way of applying them in order to find out about quality.
This does not necessarily have to be the outcome of the interviews however. Bialecki et. Al. found that one of the most important judgement devices for movie choices were ratings, and more specifically, the IMDb rating (Bialecki et. al. 2016). This idea will not be tested in a numerical way, but the general tendency should be reflected if their research is true.
The theoretical consideration has shown us the options that people have to come to a movie decision according to Karpik. Namely, the judgement devices. I have explained what they are and how they relate to options for movie choices.
3. Research design
3.1 Main question and sub questions The main question of this thesis is:
What are the different ways people come to a decision to watch a movie?
According to the theory what options do people have to come to a choice? How do different people use these options?
What motivates people to use these options?
How much value do people attach to the ways in which they pick a movie? What role does taste play in the decision process?
The first question has been answered in the theoretical framework, and functions as a guide for the interview. I will attempt to answer the other sub questions through the research. The way this research will be done will be explained in the section on the research design. First I will explain what the questions mean exactly. Next I explain the reason for the application of interviews. After which the practice of the interviews is disclosed.
The second question how people use the options identified in the theoretical framework is quite straight forward. Theoretically people have all these options, but how do they actually apply these. What do people say they use is the basic question here.
The third question on what motivates people to make a decision in a certain way is basically to see what reasons people have for choosing the way they do. This question is asked because it is not just interesting to see what type of ways people pick. It is also interesting to see why they do it that way.
The fourth question, which is on the value people attach to their ways, is asked in order to see how convinced people are that there way of picking is the right way to do this. In simpler terms, this question asks whether people actually care about the way they pick a movie.
And the fifth question on taste adds to the understanding of people's subjective positions in the choice of movies. In other words, how do people's ideas about what they like play a role?
3.2 Reason for interviewing
The most fitting type of research for this thesis is qualitative research. In particular semi-structured interviewing. There are two reasons qualitative research is preferred over quantitative research. First of all, one can have my doubts about the validity of quantitative research when it comes to personal behaviour and understanding of people's motivation. Answers in quantitative research are often forcefully put into categories to create comparability. In my opinion interesting points of view can get lost if the possibility to answer became standardized. “Qualitative interviewing tends to be flexible, responding to the direction in which interviewees take the interview and perhaps adjusting the emphases in the research as a result of significant issues that emerge in the course of the interviews (…). By contrast [quantitative research is] typically inflexible, because of the need to standardize the way in which each interviewee is dealt with” (Bryman, 2008:437) Secondly, the aim of this thesis is not to 'prove' something through statistical probabilities. The goal is not to make a model concerning the use of judgement devices. In other words, the likeliness that someone in a certain circumstance uses a certain way of evaluation is not of interest in the present moment. What we are interested in is the different ways people are able to have personal relations with tools of judgement that are used to create expectations of value for movies, this is best found through rich detailed answers.
3.3 The interviews
To conduct the research I have interviewed 15 of people about the way they pick films to watch. The selection criteria I used was that (1) someone had to watch movies on their own every once in a while. This way questions could be directed to the personal choices people made. The interviewees also were (2) selected on their age. All of them were in their twenties or early thirties. This was not a selection criterion but in practice, most of them were university-educated in the Netherlands, however some went to an applied science college. Six of the interviewees were man, and
the other 9 were women. For all the information, check the appendix 2.
The interviews took place at different locations, but most of them were conducted at the university library. The duration of most interviews was around 20 minutes, which was more than enough time to discuss most topics plus extra. The first interview held was of a pilot interview. During the research some of the questions were slightly altered, but only so that it would fit the interviewees’ knowledge to a better extent. After each of the interviews I transcribed them carefully, but excluding the euhms, euhs, and other unnecessary sounds made by both the interviewer and interviewee. For clarity's sake I have listed the basic demographics of my interviewees in the appendix2.
Only the choice for qualitative research is not enough to settle on. How the qualitative research is performed is as essential. The type of qualitative research used in this thesis is semi-structured interviewing. Bryman describes semi-structured interviewing as a process in which the researcher uses an interview guide to make sure certain topics are covered, however 'the interviewee has a great deal of leeway in how to reply(Bryman, 2008:438). It fits this research because I want people to be able to say anything they want, I am not looking for certain answers to confirm one idea over another. The research cannot be completely unstructured however because there are certain topics the interviewees need to talk about. Therefore an interview guide has been created to give the interviews some direction, while still allowing people to give their own answers and not feel limited in saying whatever they want. Bryman created a list of basic elements that an interview guide needs to have. These are:
Order the topics, but be flexible
Direct topics toward research question, but do not make them too specific. Use language that is understandable for the interviewees.
Do not ask questions that are leading people into answers (Bryman, 2008)
With these elements in mind the interview guide was created in accordance with the identified options from the theoretical part of this thesis. I started the interviews with an open question: 'What is the last movie that you have watched on your own?' This was done in order to get people to think
about their past movie watching experiences without guiding them towards any direction. After they had talked to me about the last movie or movies they had seen, I asked about how they came to the decision to watch that movie. That way people could freely explain to me how they picked this movie, after which I asked how they generally pick movies. This way there was minimal direction towards the judgement devices identified within the theoretical considerations. After that I would ask questions about specific ways of picking a movie, mostly to see how they felt about them. The complete interview guide can be found in the appendix 1.
To analyse the results, the transcripts were read through and points of interest were initially organized through highlighting them as either; picking in practice; motivation for choice; and an 'other category' for interesting points. I then collected the relevant information and tried to structure it by bringing shared topics of discussion together. This way I was able to answer the research questions, but also find unexpected topics that seem relevant.
There are limitations to this research. The amount of interviews was relatively low. If there would have been more interviewees, other possible points might have arisen. Connected to this limitation is the diversity of the interviewees. People from other age groups, other living places, and people educated outside of 'higher' education, might have different tendencies compared to this particular group of interviewees. This would be more of a limitation if the interest lied in the importance of one judgement device over another, because then it would be necessary to properly check for dependent and independent variables. However, this is not my concern; the limitation now lies in the possibility that answers that are not given by my interviews might have been missed. The same counts for things that are more salient to my interview group, they might appear to be more important than they actually are.
4. Research results and analysis
The research has given insight into different ways that people apply judgement devices, and the way this was motivated. Using quotes from my interviews I will try to analyse the results in order to make an attempt to answer the different sub questions and the main question.
4.1 Use of judgement devices
Firstly the direct application of judgement devices. It does seem that particular judgement devices were more popular than others; however people all seemed to use their own mixture of tools to help them with their movie choice. People showed many different ways in which they came to watch a movie. The results are of course not generalizable to a general population, but they do show different attitudes towards and possibilities for dealing with film choice.
4.1.1 Networks
One of most prominent ways people came to be interested in and pick a movie was through personal networks. Virtually everybody said that they had some people around them who they trusted when they recommended a movie. This happened in an active and a more inactive fashion. Some people had a particular set of people who they trusted to 'get them.' People who were familiar with the taste of a person and could therefore give accurate information on what movie a person would like. An example of this is Ludwig, when asked about the people in his network he responded: 'yes, friends. But
I don't know their taste as well as my brother's and mother's. And like my brother and mother know my taste.' Here a very important word already arises. This word is taste, but later more on that. The quote
shows that Ludwig has a set group of people in his personal network he trusts. Another example of this is Summer who said about her network: 'Yes, there are some people who are more likely to give me
recommendations than others, because not all of my friends are into movies that much. So yes, there are like 2 or 3 people. We talk about a lot and then I get recommendations, or they ask me for recommendations as well. Which I, you know, find difficult.' Sometimes however, the personal network
was more inactive, those people heard about movies from people around them and this put the movie on their radar. Like Kim for instance who finds out about movies because 'I hear about it from people.' So you can see there is a difference between a reliance on strong ties and a reliance on weaker ties when it comes to recommendations.
Next up the trade network. The network of buyers and sellers, to which I refer to as mostly the promotion that sellers use to communicate a persuasive message to consumers. What came up mostly were trailers and, to a lesser extent, movie posters.
Trailers were brought forward as means to get more information about a movie. When asked about trailers Kristina replied: '[I use them] sometimes. Yes, I would go for a trailer also, on YouTube. ‘Walter told me that trailers are a great way of finding out about a movie and that people who think they spoil a movie are being a bit stupid. There is also, however, negative sentiment towards trailers. Ludwig's view on why he doesn't like them is 'because they give everything away. You can watch a
trailer, and especially if you are a little bit clever, it can give everything away. Cause I like it with movies when I’m like, what's going to happen next? And healthy suspense, like a thriller, I quite like the thriller genre. And in a trailer they'll tell you the whole story. Whereas if you don't have the trailer, you are just like in the middle of nowhere. There is a strange character and then all of a sudden, their whole life changes. And the trailer will tell you that.' For this reason he says to stay clear of them. Overall, some
people seemed to enjoy trailers as a good source of information, while others were against them, mostly for giving too much, or distorted, information.
Trailers were not the only form of movie promotion that informed people of movie options. Also film posters tell people about movies that come out. Robert: ´Yes, sometimes I go to the cinema and
then I see on the way to my room, where I see the movie. I see maybe a poster. I didn´t know that the hateful eight was gonna come out, I never saw a trailer, but I saw like a paper with 8 figures and there was Tarantino on it and I thought, oh maybe that's great. It has Kurt Russel in it and he looks like a
douchebag, that's great. You know. So that's how I found out. I like movie promotion, but it is more like I decide to go to a movie, because nowadays you walk around and you don't see so many movie posters, it’s not that often, maybe on a bus station or so it can happen.' Here you can see that posters do function as
a way of letting people know a movie is out. Most people however claimed to see movie posters every once in a while, but mostly they did not really, consciously at least, influence the decision process.
The other type of network that was important was the practitioner's network. Some seemed to believe that this gave information about what could be expected within a film. Madeleine for instance mentioned that 'So, even like Tarantino, I am not a huge fan of. Cause to me, I mean they are good
movies, but they have too much action.' Some said they had no knowledge of actors or directors and did
not pay attention to it like Kim who said 'I don't know really, I don't know a lot of directors, I know some
actors, but I am not really interested in them.' There was something of a gradation in how important the
practitioners were and how much this was seen as a tool that could be used properly. People who were into directors seemed to find that quite useful. They believed that directors and often writers too would suggest stylistic consistency between movies they had seen of them before and movies that they haven’t seen of them. An illustration of this is Robert ' I like some certain kind of directors. When a new
Scorsese comes out, or a new Tarantino, I go to the cinema you know. ‘And when asked why he did this
he answered: 'Because some directors have a certain kind of subject that goes through the whole career.
Something I really like. Like Scorsese has these crazy mafia movies and crime movies. And he makes it in a very good way, with the music in the background and camera and all that stuff.' Actors seemed to be
relied on less, and also seemed to be less strong as an indicator of quality. Other people who work in the movie industry were rarely ever mentioned and seemed to be not used that much by my interviewees. People who did not use directors or actors to guide them in movie choice said that they were knowledgeable enough to do this accurately. An example of that was Kim earlier in this paragraph. Most people however did seem to apply some form of knowledge about actors and directors to guide them through their choices.
4.1.2 Appellations
When it comes to appellations there is only one sort that was brought up, repeatedly, by the interviewees. That sort is the genre. Similar to actors and directors, genre was seen as an indicator of how a movie was going to be, and what 'mood' it would fit. People also had clear preferences when it came to genres; they are aligned to the ideas about what kind of movies a person likes. Genre as a tool of recommendation fits the idea that taste is a very important motivator to pick some movies over others. Melinda for instance who told me that when she picks a movie 'it is always comedy, cause I do
not really like [other genres], or it has to be a really good action one, but on principal never horror. I really do not watch that. So I look for comedy [in the search function of a website] you know, or romantic comedy, and then I am going to look something up.3 ' The interviews suggest that people generally do not apply appellations, save for genre, which turns out to be a very important indicator for expectations. In the quote above a reference to search functions was made as well, and this is an important matter that will come back later in the analysis.
4.1.3 Cicerones
Where I expected people to look up information from reviewers, this was rarely ever done by the interviewees. There were some who used to find out about movies like Walter in the following quote. 'I sometimes watch that review programme 'What the Flick.' It is not very special on the whole, but
it does often discuss movies that look interesting to me4.’ But most people seemed to not really care about them when it comes to use them for making a choice. Harry-Claire for instance replied, when asked about looking up reviews before watching a movie: 'No. Nah. Never, never. I never actually
remember myself looking for a review.' This was the most common attitude. The lack of interest in
reviewers was surprising, because a lot of information can be received from reviewers in general, especially if the reviewer has a similar taste to you. People did however have opinions why they did not like reviewers. Kim said that they 'spoil the movies' for her, for example. Most people just seemed
3 Translated from dutch 4 Translated from dutch
unfamiliar with them or did not find them useful in their experience.
Having won an award, or having been nominated for one, was a sign of quality to some people. Especially the Oscars seemed to influence people, although they did not always want to admit that they held the Oscars in high regard, people did readily admit they were influenced by the relation some movies had to the Oscars. It seemed that the Oscars, and all the media attention surrounding it, made people familiar with certain pictures. The trust that people put into the Oscars was diverse. Some said that history has shown that it is useful to a certain extent. This opinion was held by Ludwig, as can be seen in the following excerpt: 'I don't give them trust based on their size, more based on the experience I
have had with them over the last 10-15 years. Every year they come with a bunch of movies. And the nominees, most of them, or I would at least say 2/3rds of the nominee movies, tend to be good. Tend to be worth watching. And then maybe 10 to 20 per cent of the movies that win are really bloody good films that deserve to, well at least also in my opinion, win. ‘Here he makes the point that history has shown
that they are reliable. Some people however have a different relationship towards award shows; Madeleine's view displays a more casual influence. 'Yes and there are so many,. Like: the Oscars, the
BAFTA's the Emmy's. But I don't really follow any of that. You know, that's the thing, I mean, I am very aware of all those, but I don't follow. It would only be if it was something else political, or something in the media.' Interviewer: 'So it doesn't guide you in your movie choice?' Madeleine: 'No, well that is not true, if there is a lot of hype around it, if it is one of these Oscar movies, and then you hear from everyone. Plus, you read around it in your periphery, then I'd probably watch it.' So, award shows, are a judgement
device that has the possibility to put movies on the radar of people and give a sense of direction for choice.
The results of award shows can also be seen as a specific type of ranking, as explained in the theoretical section, but because the emphasis lied on how the awards were given away I have analysed them as a cicerone.
4.1.4 Rankings
