Exploring the theatrical experience: Results from an empirical investigation.

Boerner, Sabine; Jobst, Johanna; Wiemann, Meike

doi:10.1037/a0018460

Cited by 18 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Collective engagement, however, was comparatively a weaker predictor of overall evaluation among the four components. Boerner et al (2010) reported similar findings that the communicative component of Eversmann's framework was not a significant driver of overall evaluation of a performance. Also similar to our results, they found that the cognitive component and the emotional component, which could be considered parallel constructs to AAEI's knowledge and authenticity components, were predictive of overall enjoyment.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

“…Our work is among the early attempts to validate the factor structure of performing arts experiences. Boerner et al (2010) developed items based on Eversmann's framework to examine whether the four components of perceptual, emotional, cognitive, and communicative experiences could be confirmed empirically. Their limited sample size did not allow them to conduct a CFA to evaluate the four-factor structure fully; instead, they tested each component separately and reported that each component was unidimensional.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An Empirical Investigation of the Arts Audience Experience Index

Chan³

2016

Empirical Studies of the Arts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Radbourne et al. proposed an Arts Audience Experience Index (AAEI) which stipulated that performing arts experiences consist of four components: authenticity, collective engagement, knowledge, and risk. Authenticity is associated with truth and believability of a performance. Collective engagement is an audience's experience of engagement with performers and other audience members. Knowledge is concerned with understanding of and intellectual stimulation created by a performance. Risk is the extent to which a performance meets one's expectation, is value for money, and fits with one's self-image. We administered the AAEI to 465 spectators who attended a drama performance and 126 spectators who attended a musical performance. Supporting Radbourne et al.'s framework, confirmatory factor analysis found that audience members could differentiate among the four components of authenticity, collective engagement, knowledge, and risk along the two facets of importance and satisfaction. Regression analyses also showed that satisfaction with these four components contributes meaningfully to the overall evaluation of the performances, although collective engagement was found to be a relatively weaker predictor.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Empirical Investigation of the Arts Audience Experience Index

Chan³

2016

Empirical Studies of the Arts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We are less interested in the rather heterogeneous collection of higher level constructs, such as Boerner and colleagues [10] [11], Vladica and Davis [71] and Brown and Novak [12] have proposed. Instead we analyse questions separately and we use advanced cluster analysis, Multi Dimensional Scaling [77], with an adapted variation of the concept of homogeneity (Kline,[35: page 12]): "The average correlation among items".…”

Section: Quantitative Audience Evaluations Of Mediated Performancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…without a live audience. She uses a modified version of Boerner, Jobst and Wiemann's [10] [11] Likert scale questionnaire, resulting in scoring on three factors: emotional, cognitive and communicative responses. The quantitative results were complemented with quotes from a focus group.…”

Section: Quantitative Audience Evaluations Of Mediated Performancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-present and remote audience experiences: intensity and cohesion

Geelhoed

Singh-Barmi

Biscoe

et al. 2016

Multimed Tools Appl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents the results of modelling audience response to new types of networked theatre plays. As the main contribution of the work we introduce two types of metrics: intensity, relating to how intensively co-present and remote aspects of a performance are rated, and cohesion, relating to how a performance as a whole, the combination of copresent and remote aspects, affects an audience. In particular, we model audience response based on two in the wild evaluations, staged by a low budget theatre company, a streamed and a distributed performance. The streamed performance is similar to NT Live, where a theatre play is delivered to other theatres with an audience. The distributed performance, on the other hand, connects actors in two different theatres (with audiences) creating one single play. The streamed performance was experienced as less intense as well as less cohesive by the remote audience, whilst the distributed performance integrated co-present and remote aspects tightly. Remote aspects of the distributed performance were still experienced as less intense, but the performance as a whole was highly cohesive. Apart from the identification of these two new metrics (intensity and cohesion), based on our experiences we argue that an innovative way of bundling relevant emerging technologies is needed to give a voice to the, as yet silent, remote audience.

show abstract

“…Damit bleibt das Zusammenspiel zwischen Kern-und Zusatzleistungen (Frage 1) ungeklärt. In der theaterwissenschaftlichen Rezeptionsforschung besteht Einigkeit darüber, dass die emotionale und die kognitive Reaktion des Zuschauers eine Rolle spielen -sowohl für die Beurteilung einer Aufführung (Cronkhite et al 1971;Tan/Schoenmakers 1984) als auch für die Beurteilung eines Theaterbesuches (Boerner et al 2010;. Konzeptionelle Modelle berücksichtigen neben der Reaktion des Zuschauers verschiedene andere Determinanten, wurden bislang jedoch nicht empirisch untersucht.…”

unclassified