Why do we get emotionally attached to things we can’t really control?

Emotional Attachment to Fictional Characters

Why do we get emotionally attached to things we can’t really control? Like TV shows? Or movies? Or fictional characters? Or celebrities?

I mean, I’m guilty of all of the above, but what the hell is the psychology behind that? Anyone?

A recent study developed a model that describes the underlying mechanisms of perceiving and experiencing fictional characters (PEFiC).

The PEFiC model defines three phases in the establishment of a degree of appreciation of a Fictional Character (FC): encoding, comparison, and response. During encoding, the observer assesses the stimulus qualities in terms of the ethic (moral goodness or badness), aesthetic (beauty or ugliness), and its situational context

In the comparison phase, observers evaluate which specific features are relevant compared to their own goals and concerns (which might include those of the FC. They estimate the similarity between the (situational) features of the FC and their own features and fortunes. Moreover, observers attribute their subjective emotions and perceptions to the specific features of the FC.

In the response phase, involvement and distance (empathy and antipathy) are two co-occurring processes that do not exclude each other: Their parallel impact best predicts the appreciation of an FC.

Works of fiction, art, and aesthetics are multilayered and can be appraised simultaneously on seemingly opposite levels:A piece of art may be so ugly that it turns into beauty, or the evidently good guy shows a dark side (e.g., Batman). Moreover, mixing the real with the unreal is almost a prerequisite of artistic endeavors. Characters deemed fascinating combine good and bad features, which for the observer, may evoke desirable inner conflicts, such as agreeable sensations of suspense. Accordingly, observers do not feel either at a distance or immersed, but both experiences run in parallel. In general, most FCs stir mixed emotions and ambivalence.

The affective responses of observers “are one’s own, not just pale reflections of the emotions of fictional characters.” Affective and cognitive processes underlie the observer’s appreciation. Involvement (including empathy and identification) covers a broad range of neutral to positive affects toward an FC (on a global level), reflecting a subjectively assessed and felt tendency to (psychologically) approach the FC, despite unpleasant feelings that might simultaneously exist on feature level.

 Involvement, therefore, merely indicates the level of psychological investment in another “person.” Even if the (situation of the) FC has negative features, in the observer’s eyes, approaching tendencies may exist. For example, revolting looks still can foster approach because the observer feels sorry for the FC.

The concept of distance covers a broad range of neutral to negative affects toward FCs (on a global level), reflecting a felt tendency to (psychologically) avoid the FC, despite pleasant feelings that might simultaneously exist on feature level. For example, nice looks still can spark avoidance because the observer finds the FC too slick.

Emotional attachment

What are the processes that cause involvement and distance, which ultimately produce likes and dislikes for fictional characters (FC)?

• similarity
• relevance
• ethics
• reality

Perceived similarity has often been considered a central factor of FC engagement and is a strong motivator for liking a character. Apparently, observers feel attracted to or comfortable with the similarity they perceive in FCs, which supports involvement.

Sometimes, when an observer takes over the FC’s perspective, his or her goals and concerns might parallel those of the FC. However, in most cases, observers will tune in to several specific features that seem relevant to their own lives. For example, the FC’s disease may inform the observer about a beloved relative’s disease, whereas the hospitalization history may be judged as personally irrelevant.

FCs can be relevant to observers because they fulfill basic psychological functions. They can be informative for encounters with real people, and their fictionality provides a safe haven for experimentation with personal affects and attitudes.

The moral fiber of an FC is a general determinant of engagement and appreciation. This simple classification could easily seduce one into assuming that good guys raise involvement and appreciation and bad guys raise distance and disliking. Several studies have reported, however, that in fiction, evil characters can evoke high appreciation as well. Given the admiration for horror and crime idols (e.g., Hannibal the Cannibal, The Godfather), evoking negative valence may coincide with involvement and distance and is not necessarily translated into a low appreciation of the FC. Thus, bad FCs can cause viewer involvement–distance conflicts, or observers can be subjected to attitudinal ambivalence.

In fiction, it is easier to allow FCs to go too far morally because there are no real-life consequences attached. Observers may be interested in bad FCs for the purpose of assessing their own level of tolerance or out of curiosity about possible consequences of bad behavior. They may disapprove of the behavior itself (evoking distance and disliking) but also see their social goals served (i.e., ethical standards enforced),

which triggers involvement and liking.

Genres such as soap opera, fake documentary, docudrama, and reality

TV play with the degree to which they reflect reality. Observers judge the

epistemic quality of (features of) FCs, that is, whether they might possibly exist in real life and how informative they are about real life. 

For that matter, even a cartoon figure that does not look human may realistically perform a surgery and, thus, can be informative By and large, realistic features enhance involvement because they deliver more reality information than unrealistic ones. Unrealistic features may also enhance involvement because they serve as entertainment. If a completely realistic FC, as perceived by the observer, does not add to what is already known, the outcome may be distance rather than  involvement. On the other hand, an FC that is too odd may not connect to the observer’s prior knowledge, which will cause withdrawal.