The same ending can feel satisfying to one viewer and infuriating to another. A character escapes, wins, reconciles, or receives punishment. The event itself matters, but our response also depends on what we have come to feel about the person at the center of it. If we care for the character, success may bring relief. If we resent the character, that same success may feel unjust.

Affective Disposition Theory (ADT) explains this emotional side-taking. It describes how audiences form favorable or unfavorable orientations toward characters, anticipate what should happen to them, and evaluate the outcomes a story finally delivers. Narrative outcomes do not carry a fixed emotional value. We experience them through our attachments, aversions, expectations, and moral evaluations of the people within the story (Raney, 2003; Grizzard et al., 2023).

What Is Affective Disposition Theory

In this theory, disposition does not mean a stable personality trait or a general tendency to experience a certain emotion. It means an evaluative orientation toward a particular character or represented person. That orientation can range from strong affection, through indifference, to strong dislike. It can change as the story reveals new actions, motives, loyalties, circumstances, and consequences (Raney, 2003; Raney, 2004).

ADT belongs to media psychology and communication research. It was developed to explain why people enjoy humor, drama, sports, and other forms of mediated entertainment. The theory does not claim that every emotional response to a story comes from moral judgment or that every judgment occurs outside awareness. Some evaluations may be rapid and intuitive; others are deliberate. What matters is that the viewer’s orientation toward a character shapes which outcomes are hoped for, feared, welcomed, or rejected (Raney & Bryant, 2002; Grizzard et al., 2023).

Origins and Development

Disposition-based explanations grew from Dolf Zillmann and Joanne R. Cantor’s work on humor and drama. Early research asked why another person’s misfortune can be amusing in one situation and disturbing in another. The viewer’s affective orientation toward the target offered part of the answer. Harm to a disliked target can feel deserved or comically permissible, while the same harm to a valued target can produce concern rather than pleasure (Raney, 2003).

A foundational experiment varied both a young protagonist’s prior behavior and the emotion he later displayed. Children tended to respond in emotional agreement with a benevolent or neutral protagonist but reacted in the opposite direction when the protagonist had behaved malevolently. The finding challenged the idea that viewers simply mirror any protagonist’s emotion. Their prior evaluation of the protagonist mattered (Zillmann & Cantor, 1977).

Later formulations organized this process into three connected parts: disposition formation, anticipatory emotional responses, and outcome evaluation. Research then extended the theory by examining justice judgments, character schemas, antiheroes, moral disengagement, character depth, and the difference between enjoying a story and appreciating it as meaningful or thought-provoking (Raney, 2004; Shafer & Raney, 2012; Grizzard et al., 2023; Frazer et al., 2026).

How Affective Disposition Theory Works

How Audiences Form Character Dispositions

As a narrative unfolds, audiences evaluate what characters do, why they do it, and whom their behavior helps or harms. Actions that appear caring, fair, loyal, courageous, or otherwise appropriate often support a favorable disposition. Cruelty, betrayal, exploitation, or unjustified harm often produce a negative disposition. These judgments are filtered through the viewer’s values, experience, group loyalties, and understanding of the situation, so two viewers can respond differently to the same character (Raney & Bryant, 2002; Eisenberg, 2000).

The process is not a neutral moral audit performed from the beginning of every scene. Genre conventions and story schemas can mark someone as the hero, villain, victim, or comic target before much behavior has occurred. Familiarity with a series can also protect an established favorite. Once a disposition forms, later behavior may update it, but the existing attitude can influence how new information is interpreted (Raney, 2004; Grizzard et al., 2023).

Character Depth and Disposition Updating

Moral conduct is important, but it is not the only information from which audiences form impressions. Character individuation occurs when a person is represented through distinctive details rather than only through a broad social category or familiar role. Those details can create a richer sense of the character’s motives, history, contradictions, and inner life. In a preregistered experiment using a five-act story, greater perceived character depth produced more favorable early dispositions. That initial positivity continued to influence later disposition updates and reactions to the ending, even as the character’s moral behavior remained a separate influence (Frazer et al., 2026).

A character’s circumstances can matter even when those circumstances were not caused by the character’s behavior. Brown and colleagues found that an economic setback increased liking, while an unearned economic benefit decreased it. A health-related event produced a different pattern: both favorable and unfavorable health news increased liking relative to the control condition. These findings do not establish a simple rule that hardship creates sympathy. They show that audiences interpret what happens to a character through ideas about need, fairness, deprivation, and deservingness (Brown et al., 2025).

Dispositions are therefore better understood as developing judgments than as fixed labels. Early impressions can carry forward, yet later actions and circumstances can revise them. This continuing adjustment helps explain why a long character arc can gradually turn suspicion into loyalty, affection into disappointment, or condemnation into reluctant sympathy (Grizzard et al., 2023; Frazer et al., 2026).

Anticipatory Emotional Responses

Dispositions create expectations with emotional force. We hope that liked characters will be safe, succeed, repair a relationship, or receive recognition. We fear their injury and failure. For disliked characters, those hopes and fears may reverse. Suspense draws energy from the distance between a desired outcome and the possibility that it will not occur (Raney, 2003; Grizzard et al., 2023).

These responses can reveal tension between moral principle and partiality. In a recent experiment, participants overwhelmingly judged cheating to be wrong, yet the more positively they felt toward the main character, the more they wanted her to cheat when it would improve her chance of reaching a valued goal. Affection did not change their stated judgment about the right action, but it changed what they wanted for the character (Grizzard et al., 2023).

How Audiences Evaluate Character Outcomes

At the resolution, viewers compare what happened with what they wanted and what they believe the characters deserved. A positive outcome for a liked character often produces pleasure or relief; a negative outcome can produce sadness or disappointment. A disliked character’s failure may produce satisfaction, especially when it appears to restore justice. If the story rewards someone viewed as cruel or punishes someone viewed as decent, the same plot event may be experienced as an injustice (Raney, 2003; Raney & Bryant, 2002).

A victory, punishment, or reconciliation acquires meaning through the audience’s relationship to the people involved. ADT predicts the strongest satisfaction when a story’s outcome aligns with both the viewer’s disposition and the viewer’s sense of deservingness (Raney, 2003; Grizzard et al., 2023).

Evidence for the Disposition Process

Research on Affective Disposition Theory spans several decades, but the most informative recent studies test its component processes together. Grizzard and colleagues used a preregistered experiment in which 1,254 participants read versions of a three-act story. The researchers varied the main character’s moral or immoral conduct early and late in the story and independently varied whether she received a positive or negative outcome (Grizzard et al., 2023).

The results followed the proposed sequence. Moral behavior increased approval, which predicted more favorable dispositions. Those dispositions predicted stronger hopes for a positive outcome. At the ending, character disposition interacted with the outcome to predict the viewer’s emotion and liking of the ending. Participants reported the strongest positive emotion when a liked character succeeded and when a disliked character failed. Indifference produced weaker emotional responses (Grizzard et al., 2023).

The later character-depth experiment conceptually replicated this sequence while adding another route into it. Character depth affected initial liking, and that liking carried into anticipatory responses, disposition updating, and ending evaluation. Because the main study followed 471 participants across five measurement points, it also made the changing nature of disposition more visible than a single post-story judgment would (Frazer et al., 2026).

The evidence also identifies a boundary. ADT explains immediate reactions to endings more consistently than overall enjoyment or appreciation of a complete narrative. A negative ending can reduce pleasure while still supporting appreciation when the story feels meaningful. ADT is therefore a strong account of character-centered emotional response without being a comprehensive account of everything audiences value in stories (Grizzard et al., 2023).

Moral Judgment and Narrative Justice

Morality is central to ADT, but morality here is not a single universal checklist. Viewers bring different beliefs about fairness, loyalty, authority, care, punishment, and responsibility. Narratives also control what information is available: whose motives are explained, whose pain is visible, and which consequences receive attention. Character judgment therefore emerges from an interaction between audience values and narrative framing (Raney & Bryant, 2002; Frazer et al., 2022).

Crime drama makes this interaction especially visible. Raney and Bryant proposed that enjoyment depends on both judgment of the characters and judgment of the justice delivered by the story. In their preliminary study of 71 viewers, sympathy for the victim and the perceived deservedness of the offender’s punishment independently predicted enjoyment, together accounting for 21.3 percent of its observed variance. The result was modest and stimulus-specific, but it supported the value of treating justice evaluation as more than a purely emotional reaction (Raney & Bryant, 2002).

How Perspective Changes Sympathy

Empathy often follows the lines of attachment and judgment. A favorable disposition can make a character’s fear, grief, or joy easier to share. Dislike can inhibit that emotional agreement or produce counterempathy, such as pleasure at a disliked character’s failure. Yet perspective-taking and approval remain distinguishable. A viewer can understand how a character sees the world without accepting the character’s conduct (Cohen, 2001; Eisenberg, 2000; Grizzard & Eden, 2022).

The visibility of other people in the story can also redirect sympathy. Frazer and colleagues found that showing a personalized victim reduced perspective-taking with an immoral protagonist. Their intended manipulation did not directly change all target judgments, so the authors rejected the original causal model. A post hoc analysis suggested that reduced perspective-taking was associated with less approval and liking and with preferences for more punitive outcomes. The study offers useful evidence about framing, but its exploratory pathway should not be treated as established causal evidence (Frazer et al., 2022).

Antiheroes and Morally Ambiguous Characters

Antiheroes and morally ambiguous characters expose the limits of a simple division between good and bad characters. A protagonist may be loyal and violent, protective and deceptive, or compassionate toward one person while harming another. Viewers may condemn an act without abandoning the character. ADT still helps explain the attachment and the desired outcome, but additional processes explain how that attachment survives moral conflict (Raney, 2004; Shafer & Raney, 2012; Krakowiak & Oliver, 2012).

Raney proposed that story schemas can assign an initial role before viewers closely evaluate each action. Once a character is established as the person whose goals organize the story, audiences may interpret later behavior through that favorable orientation. They may attend to noble motives, compare the act with worse alternatives, minimize consequences, or treat the victim as less important. These are forms of attitude maintenance and, in some cases, moral disengagement (Raney, 2004; Bandura, 2016).

Three studies of antihero narratives found that familiarity with the antihero formula and cues that justified questionable behavior changed the route by which enjoyment was produced. Positive moral judgment was less central than traditional ADT would predict, although favorable dispositions and desired outcomes still mattered. The authors emphasized that their evidence for an antihero schema was indirect and called for longitudinal tests (Shafer & Raney, 2012).

Research on morally ambiguous characters reaches a similar conclusion from another direction. In K. Maja Krakowiak’s dissertation and its later peer-reviewed publication with Mary Beth Oliver, good characters were liked more than morally ambiguous characters, yet morally ambiguous characters could be just as transporting, suspenseful, cognitively engaging, and enjoyable. Character liking explained only part of the experience; realism, transportation, and suspense also contributed (Krakowiak, 2008; Krakowiak & Oliver, 2012).

How Disposition Differs from Identification

Disposition is an evaluation made from the audience’s position: we like, dislike, approve of, or oppose a character. Identification is a different process. It involves temporarily adopting the character’s perspective, goals, and place within the story. In Jonathan Cohen’s formulation, identification means feeling with the character from inside that perspective rather than merely feeling something about the character. A viewer can therefore identify with a morally troubling character long enough to understand that person’s choices without forming a favorable moral judgment (Cohen, 2001).

Identification also intersects with narrative absorption. The Narrative Immersion Model places identification within a progression from interest to involvement and immersion. The TEBOTS model offers a related explanation: transportation and identification can make stories rewarding by temporarily expanding the experienced boundaries of the self. These models help explain why entering a story world can be compelling apart from whether a favored character receives a desired outcome. They complement ADT rather than replace its account of character evaluation and narrative justice (Shaffer et al., 2018; Slater et al., 2014).

Parasocial interaction and parasocial relationships represent another related but distinct set of processes. Parasocial interaction refers to an apparent exchange with a media figure during exposure, while a parasocial relationship is an ongoing sense of connection that can continue after the program, story, or post ends. A meta-analysis of 120 studies found that parasocial relationships were strongly associated with identification and transportation, but the overlap did not make them the same construct (Tukachinsky et al., 2020).

The Character Engagement and Moral Adjustment Model places these experiences within a broader process involving attention, appraisal, affiliation, and assessment. ADT concentrates especially on affiliation and outcome assessment: whose side the viewer takes and how the viewer responds to what happens. Keeping these constructs separate prevents character liking, perspective-taking, absorption, and relational attachment from being treated as interchangeable explanations (Grizzard & Eden, 2022).

Applications of Affective Disposition Theory

Beyond Fiction

Disposition approaches have been used to study humor, drama, sports spectatorship, crime stories, frightening entertainment, and responses to public figures in news. In each case, the central question is relational: what does the audience feel toward the represented people, and how does that orientation shape the meaning of what happens next (Raney, 2003; Raney, 2004)?

A sports fan may experience the same contested call as justice when it helps a favored team and as outrage when it helps a rival. A crime drama can make punishment satisfying by establishing both the offender’s blameworthiness and the victim’s suffering. News narratives can also cast public events around protagonists, antagonists, victims, and deserved outcomes, although factual reporting should not be reduced to fiction. ADT helps describe the audience’s response to these frames; it does not determine whether the underlying judgment is accurate (Raney, 2003; Raney & Bryant, 2002).

Media Literacy and Narrative Framing

ADT directs attention to the work a story performs before the climax. It establishes whom we trust, which explanations we hear, what injuries receive attention, and which outcomes will feel deserved. By the time an ending arrives, much of its emotional meaning has already been prepared (Raney, 2004; Grizzard & Eden, 2022).

Recognizing that preparation can deepen media literacy. Audiences can notice when familiarity has granted a favorite character unusual moral latitude or when a competing perspective has been left undeveloped. This reflection creates room to separate understanding from approval and emotional satisfaction from a careful judgment of justice.

For writers and filmmakers, ADT clarifies why an ostensibly happy ending can feel unsatisfying. Rewarding a character does not produce satisfaction unless the audience has reason to care for that character and accept the reward as fitting. It also explains why viewers can disagree sharply about the same ending: they may reach the resolution with different dispositions, moral priorities, and expectations.

Limits of the Theory

ADT explains an important part of narrative response, not every reason people enjoy media. Humor, suspense, surprise, aesthetic skill, curiosity, social viewing, identification, transportation, and the satisfaction of psychological needs can all contribute. Research on media recovery, for example, links enjoyment with relaxation, mastery, and recovery experiences that ADT was not designed to explain (Krakowiak & Oliver, 2012; Reinecke et al., 2011; Slater et al., 2014).

How Enjoyment Differs from Appreciation

The theory is more precise when applied to character-centered responses and specific outcomes than when used to predict a complete evaluation of a long or complex work. People sometimes value a painful, unjust, or tragic ending because it feels moving, truthful, or meaningful. Enjoyment and appreciation overlap, but they are not identical. A story can be unpleasant in the ordinary sense while still being admired for the reflection it invites (Grizzard et al., 2023).

This distinction matters when evaluating ADT. A negative outcome for a liked character may reduce immediate pleasure exactly as the theory predicts, while the entire work still receives strong appreciation. That pattern is a boundary on what ADT explains, not necessarily a contradiction of its outcome prediction (Grizzard et al., 2023).

Moral judgments also vary across people and situations. Storytellers can reveal motives, conceal harm, select a point of view, and control the order of information. Laboratory narratives make these features easier to isolate, yet they cannot reproduce every relationship that develops across a novel, television series, sports season, or long parasocial attachment. Findings from short narratives and selected samples should therefore be generalized with care (Grizzard et al., 2023; Tukachinsky et al., 2020).

ADT is a theory of media response rather than a clinical model. It does not treat understanding a character as moral approval, nor does it establish that attachment to a character causes behavior outside the viewing context. Claims about enduring behavioral or clinical consequences require other kinds of evidence (Cohen, 2001; Raney, 2003).

A Few Words from Psychology Fanatic

Return to the ending with which we began. Its emotional meaning does not reside in the event alone. By the time a character wins, escapes, reconciles, or receives punishment, the story has taught us whom to trust, fear, forgive, or oppose. We begin to care, and that care changes what the ending becomes.

Affective Disposition Theory reminds us that feeling is relational. Victory is sweet because of who wins. Punishment feels just because of whom we believe responsible. Grief settles differently when it belongs to someone we have learned to love. Stories do not merely show us outcomes; they cultivate the attachments and judgments through which those outcomes acquire emotional weight.

Associated Concepts

• Empathy: Understanding and responding to another person’s emotional state; in ADT, empathic concordance is shaped partly by the viewer’s disposition toward a character.
• Moral Disengagement: Processes that soften self-censure or moral condemnation by reframing conduct, responsibility, consequences, or victims.
• Moral Reasoning: The cognitive and emotional work involved in judging right, wrong, responsibility, and appropriate action.
• Deservingness Heuristic: A judgment shortcut linking perceived character and responsibility with beliefs about who deserves reward or punishment.
• Self-Schema: A mental structure organizing self-relevant information; related to, but distinct from, the character and genre schemas discussed in ADT research.
• Narrative Identity: The evolving story through which people organize personal experience; a broader use of narrative than ADT’s account of entertainment response.
• Cognitive Dissonance: Discomfort arising from inconsistency among beliefs, attitudes, or behavior, which can help explain attempts to preserve a favorable view of an antihero.

References

Bandura, Albert (2016). Moral disengagement: How people do harm and live with themselves. Worth Publishers. ISBN: 9781464160059.
(Return to Main Text)

Brown, Lucy; Grizzard, Matthew; Francemone, C. Joseph; Frazer, Rebecca; Dooley, Annie; Monge, Charles; Flanagan, Samantha (2025). More or less likeable: The role of behavior-independent events in the disposition formation process. Media Psychology, 28(5), 629–654. DOI: 10.1080/15213269.2024.2406945.
(Return to Main Text)

Cohen, Jonathan (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication and Society, 4(3), 245–264. DOI: 10.1207/S15327825MCS0403_01.
(Return to Main Text)

Eisenberg, Nancy (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 665–697. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.665.
(Return to Main Text)

Frazer, Rebecca; Moyer-Gusé, Emily; Grizzard, Matthew (2022). Moral disengagement cues and consequences for victims in entertainment narratives: An experimental investigation. Media Psychology, 25(4), 619–637. DOI: 10.1080/15213269.2022.2034020.
(Return to Main Text)

Frazer, Rebecca; Grizzard, Matthew; Moyer-Gusé, Emily (2026). An experimental test of the role of character depth in affective disposition processes. Acta Psychologica, 264, 106506. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.106506.
(Return to Main Text)

Grizzard, Matthew; Eden, Allison (2022). The Character Engagement and Moral Adjustment Model (CEMAM): A synthesis of more than six decades of research. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 66(4), 698–722. DOI: 10.1080/08838151.2022.2146116.
(Return to Main Text)

Grizzard, Matthew; Francemone, C. Joseph; Frazer, Rebecca; Fitzgerald, Kaitlin; Monge, Charles K.; Henry, Christina M. (2023). A comprehensive experimental test of the affective disposition theory of drama. Journal of Communication, 73(4), 289–303. DOI: 10.1093/joc/jqac053.
(Return to Main Text)

Krakowiak, K. Maja (2008). When good characters do bad things: Examining the effect of moral ambiguity on enjoyment. Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University. Website: Penn State Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
(Return to Main Text)

Krakowiak, K. Maja; Oliver, Mary Beth (2012). When good characters do bad things: Examining the effect of moral ambiguity on enjoyment. Journal of Communication, 62(1), 117–135. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01618.x.
(Return to Main Text)

Raney, Arthur A. (2003). Disposition-based theories of enjoyment. In Bryant, Jennings; Roskos-Ewoldsen, David R.; Cantor, Joanne (Eds.), Communication and emotion: Essays in honor of Dolf Zillmann (pp. 61–84). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI: 10.4324/9781410607584.
(Return to Main Text)

Raney, Arthur A. (2004). Expanding disposition theory: Reconsidering character liking, moral evaluations, and enjoyment. Communication Theory, 14(4), 348–369. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00319.x.
(Return to Main Text)

Raney, Arthur A.; Bryant, Jennings (2002). Moral judgment and crime drama: An integrated theory of enjoyment. Journal of Communication, 52(2), 402–415. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02552.x.
(Return to Main Text)

Reinecke, Leonard; Klatt, Jennifer; Krämer, Nicole C. (2011). Entertaining media use and the satisfaction of recovery needs: Recovery outcomes associated with the use of interactive and noninteractive entertaining media. Media Psychology, 14(2), 192–215. DOI: 10.1080/15213269.2011.573466.
(Return to Main Text)

Shafer, Daniel M.; Raney, Arthur A. (2012). Exploring how we enjoy antihero narratives. Journal of Communication, 62(6), 1028–1046. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01682.x.
(Return to Main Text)

Shaffer, Victoria A.; Focella, Elizabeth S.; Hathaway, Andrew; Scherer, Laura D.; Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J. (2018). On the usefulness of narratives: An interdisciplinary review and theoretical model. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 52(5), 429–442. DOI: 10.1093/abm/kax008.
(Return to Main Text)

Slater, Michael D.; Johnson, Benjamin K.; Cohen, Jonathan; Comello, Maria Leonora G.; Ewoldsen, David R. (2014). Temporarily expanding the boundaries of the self: Motivations for entering the story world and implications for narrative effects. Journal of Communication, 64(3), 439–455. DOI: 10.1111/jcom.12100.
(Return to Main Text)

Tukachinsky, Riva; Walter, Nathan; Saucier, Camille J. (2020). Antecedents and effects of parasocial relationships: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 70(6), 868–894. DOI: 10.1093/joc/jqaa034.
(Return to Main Text)

Zillmann, Dolf; Cantor, Joanne R. (1977). Affective responses to the emotions of a protagonist. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(2), 155–165. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-1031(77)80008-5.
(Return to Main Text)