??ࡱ?>?? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????7 ???%bjbjUU ?7|7|[ i??????l???????tLddd?, ,X DL?.:?!"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?,?,?,?,?,?,?,$?/ 2H -q??!?!?!?!?! -?+???!?!{.?+?+?+?!???!??!?,?+?!?,?+??+?,???,?!?! P@?_???LdL%.?,?,$?.0?.?,c2z+^c2?,?+LL?????Published in Media Psychology, 6 (3), 2004, pp. 257-284. SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Autobiographical Memories for Seeing Romantic Movies on a Date: Romance Is Not Just for WomenRichard Jackson HarrisKansas State UniversitySteven J. HoekstraKansas Wesleyan UniversityChristina L. ScottPepperdine UniversityFred W. Sanborn, Laura A. Dodds, and Jason Dean BrandenburgKansas State University Address correspondence to: Richard J. Harris Department of Psychology, Bluemont Hall 492 Kansas State University, 1100 Mid-Campus Drive Manhattan KS 66506-5302 USA ph. (785) 532-0610, e-mail: rjharris@ksu.edu Abstract Two autobiographical memory studies were conducted in order to better understand the social experience and memory for watching romantic movies on a date. In both studies, participants were primarily middle-class, white, young adults, who (1) recalled the experience of watching a romantic movie they had seen on a date and (2) were assessed for levels of sex-role traditionality and four kinds of dispositional empathy. Participants also reported with whom they watched the movie, who chose it, and the cognitions and emotions experienced during viewing. Finally, a fantasy measure asked participants to choose the types of scenes in which they and their dates might like to ?stand in? for a character in the film. Results indicated that women more often than men selected the movie and liked it more, but, despite common stereotypes, men also reported favorable ratings for romantic movies seen on a date. However, both men and women thought that ?most men? would not like the movie. On the fantasy measure, women underestimated men?s preference for appearing in scenes of romance. For multiple measures, participants fell back on gender stereotyping when estimating what people in general, especially men, would like. Study 2 replicated Study 1 (N=265) with a sample of 45 dating couples. Autobiographical Memories for Seeing Movies on a Date:Romance Is Not Just for Women A large body of research has studied filmed violence and documented several negative effects, including modeling, desensitization, cultivation, and the induction of fear (see Donnerstein & Smith, 1997; Dubow & Miller, 1996; and Sparks & Sparks, 2002; for reviews). However, there has been much less research on the experience of watching other types of filmed experiences, particularly those involving positive affect. The present studies examined individuals? memories of a date in which they viewed a film with romantic content. The context of a date was used for several reasons. First, dating is one of the most common movie-viewing contexts for adolescents and young adults, who form the largest market for theatrical films (Matzkin, 1999). Secondly, the heterosexual dating context allows for a strong test of differences in gender roles, given that one?s gender becomes central while dating. Finally, the context of a date, with its role in developing a love relationship, is very congruent with the content of romantic movies and thus may enhance the degree of perceived personal relevance of the film and the viewers? identification with its characters.Autobiographical Memory for Media Experiences The particular methodology employed in this research was autobiographical memory, a popular current approach to studying memory and metamemory in cognitive psychology. Although the study of autobiographical memory has mushroomed in recent years (Conway, Bruce, & Sehulster, 1998; Rubin, 1995; Thompson, et al., 1998), until very recently it has not been used to study memories for media experiences. In one qualitative study, Young (1999) asked people to remember films that had had a significant impact on them at some stage of their lives. All participants reported in considerable detail how they had applied what they had seen in movies to various stages of their own lives. Four other recent studies examined specific autobiographical memories for watching movies. Harrison and Cantor (1999) and Hoekstra, Harris, and Helmick (1999) asked young adults to recall an incident from their childhood or adolescence in which they had viewed a movie or television show that had seriously frightened and disturbed them ?so much that the emotional effect endured after the program or movie was over ? (Harrison & Cantor, p.102), and Cantor, Mares, and Hyde (2003) asked young adults to recall a film seen in childhood or adolescence which contained sexuality. These studies used a variety of qualitative, cued recall, and quantitative scaling measures to assess respondents? reactions to the films and their effects over time. Interestingly, almost all participants had such memories of seeing violent and sexual films in childhood or young adulthood and could describe them vividly. Another study (Harris, Hoekstra, Scott, Sanborn, Karafa, & Brandenburg, 2000) specifically gathered similar memories about seeing a frightening movie on a date and found that 99% of the sample remembered and described such an experience in detail but that men and women received different uses and gratifications from the experience. These studies demonstrate the usefulness of autobiographical memory as a methodology for examining effects of experiencing media. Although there are always validity problems stemming from the retrospective nature of autobiographical memory, the approach offers a means to better understand media consumption experiences and their effects. The accuracy of memories for the film?s content was not of interest, but rather the retrospective assessment of the experience of viewing. The fact that the questions asked in the present research were rating scales, multiple-choice questions, and check-off lists reduces the subjectivity and biases of interpretation possible with free-recall protocols. Finally, this methodology also has the advantage of participants? choosing the films themselves, with the viewing being a part of their own leisure activities and thus having a high degree of ecological validity.Romantic Movies The present studies extended the autobiographical memory methodology to examine the viewing of romantic movies. Just as violent movies are more preferred by men than women and are more stereotypically associated with males, romantic films are stereotypically associated with women, who may be traditionally seen as dragging a reluctant date to see such a film. Although many, if not most, genres of film serve as dating entertainment (Harris, et al., 2000), the obvious relational content of romantic movies has potentially more direct application to one?s life at the moment than would be the case with most violent or action films. Although the category ?romantic films? has not been uniformly defined or extensively researched, at least one possibly overlapping category of ?women?s movies? has been. Oliver and her colleagues have studied reactions to a related genre they call ?sad films? (Oliver, 1993; Oliver, Sargent, & Weaver, 1998; Oliver, Weaver, & Sargent, 2000). They found that women often liked filmed excerpts such as the death scene from Beaches more than men did (Oliver, et al, 1998, 2000). However, men and women liked the football-cancer melodrama Brian?s Song equally well (Oliver at al., 2000). When gender differences did occur, Oliver concluded that they were not so much due to male dislike of sad movies but to a particularly strong preference for the genre by women. Given the lack of consensus on what constitutes a ?romantic movie,? the term ?romantic? was not defined for present participants. ?Romantic movies,? as self-defined by participants, might include many of Oliver?s ?sad films,? but also comedies such as Notting Hill or Runaway Bride, dramas like Titanic, Before Sunrise, or A Walk in the Clouds, or even an action or a children?s film with a love interest subplot. The focus was intended to be on the romantic relationship, not whether the overall affective valence was positive, negative, or mixed.Individual and Gender Differences in Media Experience Although studies of dating and film viewing are surprisingly rare, one qualitative interview study of 24 married couples (Matzkin, 1999) revealed interesting patterns of how movie-going served various purposes in the couples? lives. Specifically, a large majority (84%) considered moviegoing a dating convention, and many (59%) preferred seeing a movie with a romantic partner. Not surprisingly, 88% reported that their best movie companion had similar film tastes to their own. Although the Matzkin study dealt with a much older sample (ages 30-60) than the prime moviegoing young adult cohort, a smaller survey study was also reported, which showed strong support for the association of moviegoing and dating in college students. Other variables are also potentially important. For example, the individual difference variable of empathy may relate to various aspects of the romantic movie experience. Dispositional empathy has already been shown to be negatively correlated with enjoyment for violence (Feshbach & Feshbach, 1997; Tamborini, 1996). Although its relation to romantic movies is largely untested, empathy might well enhance character perspective taking or heighten emotional reactivity, which could in turn increase enjoyment or social utility of romantic movies. Empathy is typically viewed as a multidimensional construct. Although the specific components are a matter of some disagreement in the literature, most agree that there are both cognitive and affective components. In terms of cognitive factors, Davis (1983) has proposed perspective taking as the ability to see a situation from the viewpoint of another and fantasy empathy as the characteristic of becoming emotionally engaged in fictional situations. Davis? affective components include empathic concern, a sensitivity to the misfortunes of others and feeling compassion for them, and personal distress, feeling aversion and discomfort in response to the emotional problems of another. In the present study, we predicted that empathy, particularly fantasy empathy, would predict liking for romantic movies. Although women are typically more empathic than men (e.g., Ickes, Gesn, & Graham, 2000), looking at the empathy measures in both men and women allows the testing of gender and empathy independently. Although formulated in response to viewing horror films, Zillmann and Weaver?s (1996) Gender Role Socialization of Affect theory has some potential relevance here. When watching horror, teenage males enjoy the movie more with a female companion who displays fearfulness and dependence on him, while teenage girls enjoy it more with a male companion who exhibits mastery, fearlessness, and protectiveness (Mundorf, Weaver, & Zillmann, 1989; Zillmann, Weaver, Mundorf, & Aust, 1986). This research clearly demonstrated gender differences in cognitions, emotions, and behaviors in reactions to film, although whether those differences were more strongly rooted in biological sex or gender-role attitudes was not clear. The model also has not been applied to genres other than horror films. The present research consisted of two studies looking at memories for seeing romantic movies in the context of a date and extended previous research in several ways. First, the genre ?romantic movies? was used, in order to encompass the negatively valenced ?sad? movies, humorous romantic comedies, and various other dramas dealing with relationships. This broader scope should have more potential parallels with the multifaceted dating context of viewing. Secondly, masculine and feminine differences (measured both by biological sex and gender-role attitudes) were tested in an attempt to extend Zillmann and Weaver?s model to reactions to movies other than horror films. Thirdly, in order to increase the ecological validity beyond laboratory studies showing excerpts of experimenter-selected films, autobiographical memory methodology was used, in which participants were questioned about a movie of their choice which they had already viewed in its entirety on a date. The first, and more extensive, of the two studies examined a large sample?s cued recall of their autobiographical memories for seeing a romantic movie on a date and their perceptions of their coviewing partner as well as hypothetical other persons. The second study extended the first study to a smaller sample of couples seeing the same movie together and independently reported their own memories and their perception of the partner?s experience.Hypotheses Although a major intent of the present study was to provide descriptive data, some specific hypotheses were formulated and tested:Hypotheses 1a and 1b: Congruent with traditional stereotyping of romantic movies as a female genre, women will be more likely than men to remember having chosen romantic movies and will remember having liked them more than men will. This would extend Oliver, et al.?s (1998, 2000) findings with ?sad movies,? a category overlapping with, but not identical to, romantic movies. Hypothesis 2: As predicted by the general gender difference of women being more relationship-oriented than men, women will remember that watching a romantic movie had had a greater effect on the relationship with their date than men will.Hypothesis 3: Participants higher on feminine gender roles will remember liking romantic movies more than will individuals high on masculine roles. This hypothesis allows the conceptual separation of gender (Hypothesis 1) and gender roles (Hypothesis 3), which are not always equivalent predictors. For example, with violent movies, sometimes gender is a better predictor than gender-role attitudes (Harris, et al., 2000; Zillmann & Weaver, 1996).Hypothesis 4: Congruent with empathy research of Davis (1983), more empathic participants, particularly those high in fantasy empathy, will remember liking romantic movies more. In addition, some research questions were examined with no particular prior predictions.Research Question 1: What is the social nature of the remembered romantic movie viewing situation, including coviewers, emotions felt, and behaviors displayed?Research Question 2: How do men and women differ in the way they would fantasize themselves and their dates playing the central roles in the film? The questions probing fantasy thinking in response to the film were intended to tap a possible means of cognitively linking the film to one?s own dating experience. It offers a way to quantitatively measure the use of visual imagery, cognitive involvement, and other modes of imagination used to relate the film to one?s own partner.Study 1: Individual Memories of Seeing Romantic Movies MethodParticipants The participants were 124 men and 141 women, mostly middle-class, undergraduate students (90% Caucasian), with mean ages of 19.4 years (men) and 18.6 (women). They participated in September and October of 1999, as part of an introductory psychology class requirement. This sample is very appropriate for this study, given that 13-25-year-olds comprise 38-55% of all movie ticket purchasers, more than any other age group, according to the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) (Matzkin, 1999). Also, young adulthood is the prime time in life for dating and the exploration and development of potentially long-term relationships.Materials and Procedure Participants first completed the 24-item ?Personal Attributes Questionnaire? (PAQ) (Spence & Helmreich, 1978), which assessed gender-role traditionality. This consisted of five-point scales on which they were to describe themselves. End anchors for each item were different (e.g., not at all emotional?very emotional, very rough?very gentle, never cries?cries very easily). The PAQ includes three subscales, two of which were used in the present study: masculine (M)?positive but stereotypically masculine attitudes and behaviors, and feminine (F)?positive but stereotypically feminine ones. Cronbach alphas from the present sample for the two relevant PAQ subscales were .70 (masculine) and .81 (feminine). The second personality inventory was the 28-item ?Interpersonal Reactivity Index? (IRI) (Davis, 1983; Davis, et al.1987). This is a composite measure of empathy, with seven items for each of four subscales: Empathic Concern (e.g., ?I am often quite touched by things I see happen?), Perspective Taking (e.g., ?Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place?), Fantasy Empathy (e.g., ?I really get involved with the feelings of a character in a novel?), and Personal Distress (e.g., ?Being in a tense emotional situation scares me?). Participants indicated on a five-point scale the degree to which each sentence described them. Scores for each empathy component were computed by averaging ratings within each subscale. Cronbach alphas for the various scales of the IRI were .78 (Empathic Concern), .74 (Perspective Taking), .81 (Fantasy Empathy), .83 (Personal Distress), and .83 (total empathy). Following the completion of the two personality inventories, participants were asked to ?think of a date that you went on as a teen or young adult in which you watched what might be termed a ?romantic? movie, either in a theater or on video. Think about that movie and the experience of watching it and how it made you feel at the time and afterwards.? This statement was followed by 38 questions about their memories of the experience of watching the film and its perceived effects on them. The questions were in a variety of formats: multiple-choice, rating scales, and short answers and included sections asking about the circumstances of viewing, concurrent behaviors and cognitions, attitudes toward the movie and one?s date (and perceptions of others? attitudes), and three questions about oneself and one?s date fantasizing placing themselves in the film. Participants were allowed up to 45 minutes to complete the task. ResultsOverview of Analyses Because of the diverse nature of the questions asked, a variety of data presentations and analyses were performed. First, a number of largely descriptive analyses on the whole data set are presented, with t-tests, analyses of variance, or chi-square statistics reported as appropriate. Next, multiple regression analyses were performed to test the ability of the empathy and gender-role measures to predict various dependent measures.Movies Seen The movies were seen a mean of 10.3 months (median of 5.0 months) earlier, with no gender differences. The most commonly selected film was Titanic (N=32), followed by Runaway Bride (25), Notting Hill (15), Shakespeare in Love and Ever After (9 each), Hope Floats, City of Angels, She?s All That, and Armageddon (8 each), My Best Friend?s Wedding and Message in a Bottle (7 each), Forces of Nature and Pretty Woman (6 each), Great Expectations, Braveheart, You?ve Got Mail, and Meet Joe Black (5 each), Bed of Roses and Patch Adams (4 each), Romeo and Juliet and The Sixth Sense (3 each), and 56 other recent box office films seen by one or two people each. A few of the movies did not at first appear to fit the category of ?romance.? For example, the movie Armageddon was primarily an action movie but did have a strong romantic interest between two characters. To probe this concern further, six film-knowledgeable raters evaluated each movie mentioned, blind to numbers and gender of people reporting it in this study. Those deemed ?not at all romantic? by at least two of the six raters were further examined. This consisted of 20 films, selected by 13 men and 12 women out of the total 265 film selections (7.5 %). Because this number was so small overall, the gender distribution so even, and given that no film was chosen by more than two participants (and most by only one), these data were left in the pool, in order to avoid prejudging what participants might have considered romantic.Analysis Notes In the analyses described below, numerous t-tests, analyses of variance, and chi-square tests were performed to test various hypotheses regarding gender differences and situational variables. It is somewhat controversial whether to use a full, partial, or no Bonferroni correction to the p level in such cases. On the one hand, the number of separate tests is large. On the other hand, some of the variables are clearly correlated and the research is exploratory. Because of the difference of statistical opinion regarding the appropriate use of the Bonferroni correction factor for multiple tests of distinct hypotheses of correlated variables (Perneger, 1998; SISA, 2003), the relatively conservative p level of .01 was used but with no specific Bonferroni correction. Also, given that the data are descriptive and the study was basically a survey format, generalization to other samples and situations may only be made very tentatively, and thus the inferential statistical reports should be taken with caution.Circumstances of Viewing (Research Question #1, Hypothesis #1a) Aspects of the circumstances of viewing were assessed by asking participants to indicate which of several options best described their experience. Summaries of these findings are presented below. Chi-square tests of goodness-of-fit, with df=1 and p#?.01, compared frequencies of items checked by men versus women. Percents do not always sum to 100% due to rounding error and non-reporting of some very low-frequency response categories. The relatively stringent p=.01 level was used due to the possibly of alpha error from the relatively large number of individual tests performed. When asked where they had seen the movie, 57% reported watching it in a theater, 20% in their home, 16% in their date?s home, and 6% elsewhere; there were no gender differences. Most watched either in the ?evening? (61%) or ?late at night? (31%), and 78% reported that this particular date was ?one of many dates? with this person. Only 22% were on a first date with that person, again with no gender differences. A large majority reported having later dates with the same person (76%  many times, 18%  once or twice ). Women (43%) more often reported that they had chosen the movie than had their dates (8%), P?(1)= 18.30, thus supporting Hypothesis #1a.. Mirroring those results, 41% of men reported that their date chose the movie, while only 12% reported choosing the film themselves, and 39% overall reported that it was a ?joint or group decision? (no gender differences). Almost all respondents (94%) reported watching the entire movie. Most of the couples (70%) watched the movie alone, while 14% watched with another couple, and 12% watched with a group. More women (56%) than men (33%) reported seeing the movie again at some later time, P?(1)= 13.56. Just over half of the participants (53%) reported having dinner with their date before or after seeing the film. Concurrent Behaviors and Cognitions (Research Question #1) Behaviors. Participants were presented with a list of 17 behaviors and cognitions and asked to ?mark all of the following which describe your memory of your behavior and thoughts while viewing this movie.? Table 1 presents the percents of men and women who checked each of these responses. Chi-square tests of goodness-of-fit (df=1, p=.01) were performed to test for gender differences. These results describe what people remember thinking and doing while they watched a romantic movie. The most common behavior reported overall was laughter (almost two-thirds overall); more women than men reported that they laughed, P?(1)= 6.82. The behavior showing the greatest gender difference was crying; overall one-third of the women, but only six per cent of the men, reported that they had cried, P?(1)=32.26. Physically affectionate behaviors were also prevalent, with 67% reporting holding hands, 53% saying they put arms around each other, and 46% indicating kissing, all with no gender differences. Kissing was almost twice as likely to occur during a movie viewed in a home (63%) as in a theater (32%), as was putting one?s arm around the date (70% at home versus 40% in the theater). Data were further partitioned by first dates versus subsequent dates with the same person. More physical affection was expressed on subsequent than first dates: holding hands (72% vs. 52%), kissing (50% vs. 29%), and putting one?s arm around the date (60% vs. 29%). On first dates people were less likely to cry (14% vs. 24%) and more likely to be bored (14% vs. 7%) and wished they had watched a different movie (22% vs. 13%). Cognitions. In addition to these behaviors, certain cognitions not directly related to the movie were commonly remembered as part of the experience (see Table 1). About half of the participants were distracted by thinking about their date or what they would do after the movie. About a quarter reported being distracted by something their date did, while 19% reported thinking about what they had done prior to the movie. The only cognitions to show significant gender differences were that men more often reported having been bored, P?(1)=7.34, or wishing they had watched a different film, P?(1)=8.10.Attitudinal and Attractiveness Changes (Hypotheses #1b and 2) Participants responded to several 7-point scales evaluating how much they thought different persons liked (or would like) the movie. These persons included themselves, their date, ?most men,? and ?most women.? They also rated how much they thought ?most men? and ?most women? would like ?this general type of movie.? Mean responses appear in Table 2 and were analyzed by a 2 x 6 mixed analysis of variance, with the between-subjects variable being gender and the within-subjects variable being ratee (self, date, most men-this movie, most women-this movie, most men-this genre, most women-this genre). There was a main effect of ratee, F (5,1285) = 263.23, MSe=1.18, partial eta squared=.51, and a ratee x gender interaction, F(5, 1285) = 31.8, MSe=1.18, partial eta squared=.11. Hypothesis 1b was supported, in that women (mean 6.0 out of 7) reported liking the movie more than men did; however, men also reported fairly high levels of liking (mean 4.8 out of 7). For both men and women, mean responses to the question about how much their dates liked the movie were almost identical to the opposite gender?s own ratings of themselves. When asked how much they thought ?most women? would like this particular movie and this type of movie, both men?s and women?s means were virtually identical to women?s ratings of their own liking of the movie. However, the picture was quite different for ratings of how much ?most men? would like this particular movie and this type of movie (see Table 2). Both men and women, to the same degree, believed that ?most men? would like the movie far less than the men reported liking the movie themselves, or than the women believed that their dates had liked them (p<.01, by Tukey?s tests). This may reflect the stereotype of romantic movies as being ?women?s movies.? Women do indeed like them, and people generally believe that. However, the results reported here indicate that men also like such movies more than most people believe men do. In terms of remembering the effect of the movie on the attraction to one?s date, results from men and women did not differ. Both felt a high degree of prior emotional and physical attraction to their dates, and watching the movie only modestly (and non-significantly) increased this perceived attraction, tested by an analysis of variance using factors of gender and attraction (emotional or physical) with the dependent variable of difference scores (after film--before film). Both men and women believed watching the movie modestly (but non-significantly, by t-test) increased their sexual arousal and emotional closeness to their date, with no gender differences (Table 2). Thus, overall, Hypothesis 2 was not supported.Fantasy Role Choices (Research Question #2) Participants were asked three questions in which they were to fantasize about themselves or their dates ?standing in? for one of the central characters of the same gender in the movie. A taxonomy of six types of scenes was developed by the experimenters from watching several romantic movies (?sex scene,? ?intimate conversation scene,? ?daring rescue scene,? ?romantic scene, no intercourse, e.g., cuddling, kissing, foreplay,? ?disagreement between characters,? ?bittersweet breakup or separation scene,? and ?other?). Participants chose which of the seven scenes they would prefer for this fantasy. The data appear in Table 3, which presents the four most frequently checked categories; with the most infrequently selected categories of disagreement and breakup included in the ?other? category. Chi-square goodness-of-fit tests (df=1, p < .01) tested for gender differences. The most often selected category by both men and women was ?romantic scene.? The popularity of this category is probably due to the fact that it was, be definition, the one type of scene common to all the movies, given that the task was defined by choosing a ?romantic? movie. However, there were some interesting gender differences. For example, although women chose a romantic scene for themselves more frequently than men did, men guessed about twice as often as women, P?(1) =7.52, p<.01, that their dates would choose a romantic scene for themselves. Thus, men accurately estimated the degree that women participants would choose to be in a romantic scene, but women estimated that their dates would make that same choice less often than the male participants chose for themselves. The category ?intimate conversation scene? was chosen by 15-25% of both men and women as the type of scene in which they would most like to see themselves. In addition, both genders chose intimate conversation about equally often as the scene of choice for their dates. Men guessing what their dates would choose for themselves were also in this range (20%); women, however, estimated the likelihood of men would choose intimate conversation only 9% of the time. As with the liking ratings described earlier, this finding is consistent with Oliver, et al.?s, (2000) findings that men like sad movies more than is stereotypically believed. For the category ?sex scene,? men chose that scene for themselves 21% of the time, while women did so only 3% of the time, P?(1) =15.20, p<.01. However, when asked what their date would choose, both men and women greatly overestimated the likelihood that their date would choose a sex scene. Women were non-significantly more likely than men to want to see their date in a  daring rescue scene and were more likely than men to think their dates would choose such a scene, P?(1)=18.78, p<.01, although such a scene probably did not occur in a majority of the particular movies viewed. In sum, the fantasy role data are consistent with the attitudinal data in suggesting that there is more interest in romance and intimate conversation by men than women believe there is. Gender and Gender Roles (Hypothesis #3) A series of hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted in order to test Hypothesis 3 (that participants higher in feminine attitudes, measured by the PAQ, would like the romantic film more than those lower in feminine attitudes). The alpha level was set at .01, due to the fact that many tests were conducted. The M and F subscale scores on the PAQ were entered in the first step and participant?s gender in the second step. The dependent measures (discussed in more detail below) were various reported perceptions of how much one liked the movie, how much one?s date liked the movie, and how much most men and most women liked this particular movie and this type of movie, as well as perceived changes in emotional closeness with and physical attraction to one?s date. Both gender, predicted by Hypothesis 3, and gender-role attitudes were significant predictors of liking the movie, F (4,252) = 14.3, p < .001, R2 = .185. Women reported greater liking than men did ($? = .31), but so did individuals higher in traditional masculinity ($? = .16) and femininity ($? = .17) than those lower on these measures. Although the finding for femininity supports Hypothesis 3, the finding for masculinity was unexpected. Social perceptions fell along traditional lines, F (4,252) = 17.6, p < .001, R2 = .219, with men ($? = -.41) and individuals high in masculinity ($? = .21) reporting that their date liked the movie more. Neither gender nor gender-role attitudes predicted perceptions of how much men and women in general would like the films, however, with one exception. Individuals high in masculinity were more likely to believe that women in general would like the specific movie, $? = .28, F (4,252) = 3.8, p < .01, R2 = .06. Emotional, but not physical, attraction was also predicted by gender roles. Traditional gender-role attitudes, both masculinity ($? = .22) and femininity ( $? = .21), were significant predictors of feeling emotionally closer to one s partner following the movie, F (4,215) = 6.4, p < .001, R2 = .11, although only masculinity predicted believing one s date felt emotionally closer, $? = .28, F (4,215) = 5.0, p < .001, R2 = .08. While physical attraction was not significantly predicted by either gender or gender-role attitudes, higher masculinity scores were related to feeling more romantic towards one s date following the movie, $? = .20, F (4,251) = 4.5, p < .01, R2 = .08. Neither emotional nor physical attraction was predicted by viewer gender.Empathy (Hypothesis #4) Hypothesis 4 predicted that empathy would influence liking for the romantic movie. To test this, as well as to look for other measures predicted by empathy, a series of multiple regressions, with p = .01, tested the relationship between empathy components and emotional experience of the romantic movies. First, pre/post change scores were calculated for emotional and physical attraction towards one?s date, using the relevant scales appearing in Table 2. These scores correlated significantly with self-reported change. Specifically, the change in emotional attraction correlated with self-reported change in emotional closeness ( r = .31, p < .001), physical attraction ( r = .21, p < .001), and romanticism ( r = .17, p < .01). The change in physical attraction correlated with self-reported change in physical attraction ( r = .17, p < .01). Multiple regressions were conducted using the empathy subscores as predictors and using emotional and physical difference scores, liking ratings, emotional closeness ratings, and self-reported confidence in social perception accuracy ratings as criteria. Some aspects of empathy predicted liking of the movie, as predicted by Hypothesis 4. Specifically, individuals higher on Fantasy Empathy ($? = .14) and Empathic Concern ($? = .33) reported a greater liking for the movie, F (4,215) = 12.2, p < .001, R2 = .19. Individuals higher in Fantasy Empathy ($? = .22) and lower in Personal Distress ($? = -.24) perceived that their dates liked the movie more, F (4,215) = 5.0, p < .001, R2 = .09. Empathy was also somewhat related to participants perceptions of their dates. Although empathy did not predict changes in emotional or physical attraction, individuals with high levels of Empathic Concern ($? = .17) and Fantasy Empathy ($? = .17) reported feeling emotionally closer to their date following the movie, F (4,215) = 4.6, p < .01, R2 = .08.Discussion Consistent with previous research, both men and women in the present study apparently remembered details of a date that happened many months earlier, including perceptions of their partners? reactions. Moreover, these perceptions about one?s partner closely mirrored the reactions of the opposite-sex sample about themselves on their dates. Participants had no trouble answering a great number of rather detailed questions about this experience. Results on the one hand confirm some conventional wisdom regarding gender-role stereotyping and at the same time show its limits, at least in the dating context. Specifically, the results reported here indicate that women did, in fact, enjoy romantic movies and were much more likely than men to choose them. Both men and women widely believed this stereotype, applied either to one?s date or to ?women in general.? Moreover, women, more often than men, reported that they would like to insert themselves into romantic scenes in a fantasy situation. The data from and about men present a more complex picture, however. Contrary to conventional wisdom that romantic movies are ?women?s films? to which men must be reluctantly dragged, this study suggests that men also enjoyed these films, at least in the context of seeing them on a date, albeit to a lesser extent than women. Men reported liking the films with a mean of almost 5 on a 7-point scale, and women estimated their dates? enjoyment at this same level. However, when asked how much they think ?most men? would like this movie or ?this general type of movie,? both men and women gave a much lower rating (see Table 2). Both genders apparently judge themselves and their dates in one way, without regard to gender stereotyping. However, when thinking about ?most men,? both men and women fall back on the stereotype of men not liking such movies. This may be an instance of the actor-observer effect (Jones & Nisbett, 1972), whereby oneself and those close to oneself are evaluated by taking situational constraints into account, whereas judgments of a generalized other (?most men?) do not do so. Participants may be evaluating themselves and their dates specifically in the dating context of the study but, when asked to judge ?most men? and ?most women,? they respond more generally. Thus the differences between ratings of self and date versus ?most men/women? may be a combination of different perceptions of the persons and different perceptions of the situation (date versus more generally). For the fantasy-role measure (see Table 3), women appeared to rely on gender stereotyping when guessing their date?s choice of a fantasy scene. Relative to the men?s estimates, women estimated their dates? choices of romantic and intimate conversation scenes lower and their choice of a sex scene as higher than the men?s actual choices. This is further evidence that men appreciate the romance more than women think they do, at least in the dating context. The fact that higher PAQ-masculinity scores were associated with several measures of liking, affect, and perceived closeness to the date was unexpected. It may be that traditional masculine gender-role beliefs and behaviors are more consistent with traditional romantic roles on a date than less traditional roles are. It might be that the dating situation is more congruent with traditional gender roles than other context might be, but that awaits further research. The picture emerging is one where both men and women enjoy romantic films on a date, though women to a greater degree. However, in estimating generalized others? liking, both men and women fall back on gender stereotyping and greatly underestimate men?s liking. However, one lingering concern from Study 1 stems from the fact that the men and women participants were not dating each other as couples but rather were reporting on different dates with other people. That is, when reporting on their dates? perceptions, the men and women were not actually rating each other. Thus the ratings of the men and women about each others? perceptions were not made about other participants. For this reason a smaller second study, conducted with dating couples, attempted to replicate Study 1's findings.Study 2: Dating Couples A second study was conducted in February and March, 2000, in order to extend Study 1 to a sample of couples seeing a romantic movie together on a date. Unlike Study 1, Study 2 asked both partners of a dating couple to independently complete the questionnaire and personality inventories used in Study 1. This study was a partial replication of Study 1 and an investigation as to whether individuals were able to accurately read their specific partners? reactions to themselves and the film. There were no additional hypotheses or research questions for this study beyond those tested in Study 1. MethodParticipants The participants were 45 men and 45 women with mean ages of 20.7 years (men) and 19.4 years (women), mostly Caucasian and middle-class. One member of each pair was an introductory psychology student participating to partially fulfill a class requirement. The other 45 participants were selected by the undergraduate as ?the date? in order to fulfill the requirements of this study. Most (80%) of the couples had been on dates together before. Of these, 81% reported going on ?many? later dates with the same person, and 10% reported going out later ?once or twice.? Although no specification of ?heterosexual? was made in the recruiting instructions, all couples? gender coding indicated each dyad to be one man and one woman.Materials and Procedure Students were asked to see a romantic movie on a date, selecting their own date and movie, or remember one that they had already seen together. After viewing the movie at their own convenience, each partner was asked to individually, without any discussion, complete the same questionnaire used in Study 1. These consisted of the ?Personal Attributes Questionnaire? (PAQ) (Spence & Helmreich, 1978), the ?Interpersonal Reactivity Index? (IRI) (Davis, 1983), and the questions regarding their personal viewing experience. Results and DiscussionMovies Seen As in Study 1, Titanic (N=4) was the most commonly viewed movie, followed by You?ve Got Mail, City of Angels, Message in a Bottle, and Notting Hill (3 each), Shakespeare in Love, Story of Us, Runaway Bride, Jerry McGuire, While You Were Sleeping and The Beach (2 each), and 15 other films seen by one couple each. No film was considered questionably romantic, as determined by the criteria used on the films selected in Study 1. The couples viewed the film a median of one month earlier, more recently than the median of five months earlier in Study 1.Circumstances of Viewing and Concurrent Behaviors and Thoughts The data were generally analyzed as in Study 1, except that all data from one couple were considered part of the same participant-dyad for statistical purposes. Some additional analyses compared individual couples? responses on the same question. Most of the results of Study 2 were very consistent with those in Study 1, in terms of circumstances of viewing and concurrent behaviors and thoughts, although some differences did not reach statistical significance in Study 2, due to the much smaller sample size. Some of these data appear in the right-hand columns of Table 1 and will not be discussed further here. A few interesting differences between the two studies emerged, however. Unlike Study 1, in Study 2, 51% of the couples reported viewing the movie in their own home, while 20% reported viewing the movie in a theater and 27% in their date?s home. Couples reported high rates in Study 2 of behavioral categories ?my date and I kissed? (65%), ?my date and I held hands? (70%), ?put my arm around date and/or date put arm around me? (58%), ?laughed? (73%), and ?cried? (27%). Perhaps these results reflect the fact that far more people in Study 2 (80%, versus 36% in Study 1) reported viewing the movie in a home, which is more private and thus conducive for affectionate behaviors. As in Study 1, the greatest gender difference was in crying: 44% of women but only 9% of men reported crying; this was the only behavior that differed significantly by gender, P?(1)=10.67, p<.01.Attitudinal and Attractiveness Changes For the group data, results of Study 2 closely replicated the results of Study 1 in terms of attitudinal and attractiveness changes (see right-hand columns of Table 2). As in the first study, both men and women thought that ?men in general? would like this movie and romantic movies in general much less than did the man on this particular date. In order to examine the similarity of perceptions of the dating partners, difference scores were calculated and appear in the last column of Table 2. These difference scores confirm the group data, showing that the difference between partners within a couple closely mirrored the gender differences overall. The only large differences were in the ratings of how much the respondent and how much the date liked the movie. Within the couples, the women reported liking the film more than the men did. However, men reported thinking their date liked the film even more than the women themselves reported liking it. For the ratings of perceptions of ?most men? and ?most women,? the difference scores were minimal, varying from 0 to .22. In terms of the perceived emotional and physical closeness felt to the date before and after the movie (bottom of Table 2), no significant gender differences were obtained in either group data or the difference scores, although there was a nonsignificant trend in both for women to rate themselves as more emotionally attracted to their date both before and after the film, whereas there were no gender differences in reported physical attraction either before or after.Fantasy Role Choices Consistent with Study 1 (see Table 3), the most common fantasy scene preferred by both men and women for themselves was the romantic scene (Men=31%, Women=54%). The second choice for both men and women was the sex scene (Men=24%, Women=14%). Men and women were both accurate in predicting which scene they thought that their date might choose for themselves. Men most often predicted that women would choose the romantic scene (49%), but overestimated by three times the percentage of women who would want to ?stand in? in the intimate conversation scene. Women overestimated by nearly double the percentage of men who would want to ?stand in? in the sex scene. Men and women both most wanted to see their dates ?stand in? in a romantic scene (Men=44%, Women=51%). Comparisons for individual couples in the fantasy role choices showed that 45% of the women and 34% of the men correctly guessed the fantasy role that their dates chose for themselves. The major discrepancies between the partners came from men overestimating how often their dates would choose an intimate conversation scene and women overestimating how often their dates would choose a sex scene. Individual Differences Gender and gender roles. Unfortunately, due to the small sample size, the regression analyses done in Study 1 were not appropriate for Study 2. However, Pearson product-moment correlations were conducted on the Study 2 data (separating the analysis by gender), testing the accuracy of perceptions of one?s date (p<.05). Given the sample size of 45, these correlations should be interpreted with caution. Specific results showed that women high in femininity were more likely to think that ?most men? r = .33) and ?most women? r = .44) would like the movie, and that most women would like the general type of movie r = .34). Men high in masculinity reported greater sexual arousal from watching the movie r = .30). Femininity scores were related to feelings of greater emotional closeness towards one?s date for both men r = .32) and women r = .30), but masculinity scores were not related to either changes in feelings of emotional closeness or romance. Women scoring high in femininity were more likely to think that their date felt closer to them after the movie r = .34). Although parallel analyses for the two studies could not be conducted, in general these results from couples were very consistent with those from Study 1. Empathy. Fantasy Empathy was related to emotional changes in men r = .30) and physical attraction changes in women r = .38). Women who were higher in Empathic Concern r = .40) and Fantasy Empathy r = .34) were more likely to think that their dates felt greater emotional closeness to them following the movie. Social perception accuracy. Individuals were moderately accurate in their ability to judge their date?s feelings and reactions. Men r = .51) and women r = .51) were equally able to judge how much their date liked the movie. Men r = .56) and women (r = .39) were both able to generally assess how close their date felt to them after the movie, but those perceptions only applied to the self-reported emotional closeness. The perceptions were not significantly correlated with either the self-reported changes in physical or romantic attraction or pre/post change scores of emotional and physical attraction of their date. Overall, the results from Study 2 were quite congruent with those of Study 1 and supported the same hypotheses. Apparently, the fact that participants in Study 1 were not on dates with each other was not a serious concern, nor was it the case that either the group of men or women in Study 1 was atypical in some important way.General Discussion In the present studies, autobiographical memory has been shown to be a very useful methodology for examining cognitive and social aspects of the experience of watching a romantic film on a date. Thus the methodology earlier used to study memory for violent films is equally adaptable for this less traumatic genre. Participants could answer many specific questions in a variety of formats about watching a film several months earlier. The ?romantic? movie has been a useful genre for study in reaction to film. Unlike other more restrictive labels like ?sad film,? ?tragic film,? ?romantic comedy,? ?tearjerker,? or the colloquial ?chick flick,? ?romantic film? cuts across the tragedy-comedy dimension, defining the genre instead thematically in terms of its relationship content. Future research might attempt to identify particular dimensions of the romantic movie, perhaps along the line of the romanticism dimensions of Sprecher and Metts (1989), who proposed a model of romantic beliefs involving four dimensions, all of which have been popular romantic movie themes. These dimensions are ?Love finds a way? (to overcome obstacles), ?one and only? true love (one right person for everyone), ?idealization? (partner and relationship are perfect), and ?love at first sight? (love possible soon after meeting). Holding these beliefs has been shown to be positively associated with several measures of relationship satisfaction in the short-term, though less strongly in the long-term (Knee, 1998; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996; Sprecher & Metts, 1999). Although the relationship of such belief constructs to the consumption of romantic movies is unknown and was not tested in the present research, it might be a useful issue for later study. Given the finding of considerable appeal of romantic movies to men, it would be especially interesting to identify what specific aspects particularly appeal to men, or is the appeal limited to the dating context. Results from the fantasy measure would suggest that the appeal is not simply due to ?guy? features such as a car chase, violent scene, or steamy sex scene that might be inserted into what might otherwise be considered a ?women?s movie,? although more research of viewing in broader contexts than dating is needed for a clearer understanding. Although the gender differences in behaviors and cognition were less extensive and dramatic than those obtained in the studies of horror films (Mundorf, et al., 1989; Zillmann & Weaver, 1996; Zillmann, et al., 1986), they did exist, especially in the areas of affect and cognition. This suggests that the Gender Role Socialization of Affect theory, or some similar model, might be adapted to account for effects for watching other films than horror. For example, just as men and women have stereotyped expectations of the other?s behavior while watching a horror movie on a date (Zillmann & Weaver, 1996), so do they have some stereotyped expectations about the other?s liking or disliking of romantic movies. This is most apparent in the women?s underestimation of how much their date liked the film and in everyone?s underestimation of how much ?men in general? would like the film. Of course, there are limitations to the autobiographical memory methodology. Primary is the fact that the data are all retrospective in nature and thus subject to reconstructive and possibly self-enhancing biases. For several reasons, however, these concerns are not critical in this case. First, people report remembering a lot about the moviegoing experience, even after several months. Data from Study 2 suggests these memories are highly accurate, particularly in regard to their very accurate perceptions of their date?s degree of liking of the film. Finally, the fact that the results from Study 1, remembering a film seen a median of five months earlier, are so similar to results from Study 2, remembering a film seen a median of only one month earlier, suggests that memory for the experience either did not decay greatly over time or was fairly accurately reconstructed during retrieval. Of course, memory for the content of the movie was not tested, nor was it of particular interest in this study, although that might bear further study. Further evidence that participants? moviegoing memories may have been quite good were obtained by asking ?how clear is your memory for what happened on this date?? On a scale from 1 (very vague) to 7 (very clear and strong), Study 1 participants rated their memories as M=5.35. On a parallel rating on confidence in the perceived accuracy of their beliefs about their date?s reactions, participants gave a mean rating of 5.62 on a 7-point scale from 1 (not at all confident) to 7 (very confident). Men and women did not differ on either of these scales. People seem to remember these events well and have no trouble answering questions and making judgments about fine details of the viewing experience. As with much behavioral research, another concern might be the use of college student samples. However, college students are in the heaviest movie-viewing demographic group, and they are at a time in their lives when dating is common and relationship development is central. Thus, unlike many studies which use them as a sample of convenience, college students are a highly appropriate sample for this study. Finally, this particular sample was largely first-year students from a large public university with open admissions and a highly diverse student body in terms of ability and academic major, though admittedly not in ethnicity or sexual orientation. Thus, the usual concerns about selectivity of a college sample, while still present, are less than would usually be the case. The present research bears extension and generalization in at least a couple of ways. First of all, the present studies looked only at seeing romantic movies in a dating context. This was useful for many reasons but does make generalization to other contexts difficult. Reactions to the films in these studies may be a combination of reactions to the films themselves and reactions to their date and the situation of being on a date. For example, it may be that?s men?s moderate liking of romantic films is limited to or greater in the dating context (?I like whatever I do with her?) compared to what it would be in other contexts such watching by oneself or in a group). Thus future research should continue to look at romantic movies but broaden the viewing context, perhaps to random sampling participants and thus no pre-selecting them for having gone on dates and having chosen this type of movie. A second avenue for extension of the present research would be to develop a more controlled experimental design where participants could be randomly assigned to groups to allow more confident generalization from the chosen sample. For example, perhaps the context factor described above could be tested by randomly assigning participants to think of a romantic movie either seen on a date or with a group of friends and then comparing results from the two groups. Overall, the present research is consistent with much previous work in social psychology showing that people consider themselves (and sometimes those close to them and similar to them) as individuals not necessarily conforming to stereotypes. However, when considering generalized non-specific others, people revert to stereotypical expectations, such as ?men don?t like romantic movies.? Just because women generally like romantic movies better than men do on a date does not mean that men do not like them. Exactly what they like in them, and in what context they like them remains an important topic for future research. References Cantor, J., Mares, M.-L., & Hyde, J.S. (2003). Autobiographical memories of exposure to sexual media content. Media Psychology, 5, 1-32. Conway, M.A., Bruce, D., & Sehulster, J.R. (1998). New directions in autobiographical memory research. Special edition of Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(4). Davis, M.H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113-126. Davis, M.H., Hull, J.G., Young, R.D., & Warren, G.G. (1987). Emotional reactions to dramatic film stimuli: The influence of cognitive and emotional empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 126-133. Donnerstein, E., & Smith, S.L. (1997). Impact of media violence on children, adolescents, and adults. In S. Kirschner and D.A. Kirschner (Eds.), Perspectives on psychology and the media. (pp. 29-68) Washington DC: APA. Dubow, E.F., & Miller, L.S. (1996).Television violence viewing and aggressive behavior. In T.M. Macbeth (Ed.) Tuning in to young viewers. (pp. 117-147) Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Feshbach, N.D., & Feshbach, S. (1997). Children?s empathy and the media: Realizing the potential of television. In S. Kirschner and D.A. Kirschner (Eds.), Perspectives on Psychology and the media. (pp. 3-27). Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Harris, R.J., Hoekstra, S.J. Scott, C.L., Sanborn, F.W., Karafa, J.A., & Brandenburg, J.D. (2000). Young men?s and women?s different autobiographical memories of the experience of seeing frightening movies on a date. Media Psychology, 2, 245-268 Harrison, K., & Cantor, J. (1999). Tales from the screen: Enduring fright reactions to scary media. Media Psychology, 1, 97-116. Hoekstra, S.J., Harris, R.J., & Helmick, A.L. (1999). Autobiographical memories about the experience of seeing frightening movies in childhood. Media Psychology, 1, 117-140. Ickes, W.J., Gesn, P.R., & Graham, T. (2000). Gender differences in empathic accuracy: Differential ability or differential motivation? Personal Relationships, 7, 95-109. Jones, E.E., & Nisbett, R.E. (1972). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In E.E. Jones et al. (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. (Pp. 79-94). Morristown NJ: General Learning Press. Knee, C.R. (1998). Implicit theories of relationships: Assessment and prediction of romantic relationship initiation, coping, and longevity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 360-370. Matzkin, R.G., (1999). Take me out to a movie! In L.L. Schwartz (ed.), Psychology and the media: A second look. (Pp. 85-123). Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Mundorf, N., Weaver, J.B., III, & Zillmann, D. (1989). Effects of gender roles and self perceptions of affective reactions to horror films. Sex Roles. 20, 655-673. Murray, S.L., Holmes, J.G., & Griffin, D.W. (1996). The self-fulfilling nature of positive illusions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind but prescient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 155-1180. Oliver, M.B. (1993). Exploring the paradox of the enjoyment of sad films. Human Communication Research, 19, 315-342. Oliver, M.B., Sargent, S.L., & Weaver, J.B. (1998). The impact of sex and gender role self-perception on affective reactions to different types of film. Sex Roles, 38, 45-62. Oliver, M.B., Weaver, J.B., & Sargent, S.L. (2000). An examination of factors related to sex differences in enjoyment of sad films. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 282-300. Perneger, T.V. (1998) What is wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. British Medical Journal, 136, 1236-1238. Rubin, D.C. (Ed.) (1995). Remembering our past: Studies in autobiographical memory. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. SISA. (2003). Bonferroni correction online. Http://home.clara.net/sisa/bonhlp.htm. Sparks, G.G., & Sparks, C.W. (2002). Effects of media violence. In J. Bryant and D. Zillmann (Eds.) Media effects: Advances in theory and research. (2nd ed.). (pp. 269-285) Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sprecher, S., & Metts, M. (1989). Development of the ?Romantic Beliefs Scale? and examination of the effects of gender and gender-role orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 387-411. Sprecher, S., & Metts, M. (1999). Romantic beliefs: Their influence on relationships and patterns of change over time. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 834-851. Spence, J.T., & Helmreich, R.L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin TX: University of Texas Press. Tamborini, R. (1996). A model of empathy and emotional reactions to horror. In J.B. Weaver and R. Tamborini (Eds.), Horror films: Current research on audience preferences and reactions. (pp. 103-123). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Thompson, C.P., Herrmann, D.J., Bruce, D., Read, J.D., Payne, D.G., & Toglia, M.P. (Eds.) (1998). Autobiographical memory: Theoretical and applied perspectives. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Young, S.D. (2000). Movies as equipment for living: A developmental analysis of the importance of film in everyday life. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 4, 447-468. Zillmann, D., & Weaver, J.B., III. (1996). Gender socialization theory of reactions to horror. In J.B. Weaver, III, & R. Tamborini (Eds.). Horror films: Current research on audience preferences and reactions. (Pp. 81-101). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Zillmann, D., Weaver, J.B., III, Mundorf, N., & Aust, C.F. (1986). Effects of an opposite-gender companion?s affect to horror on distress, delight, and attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 586-594. Table 1Percent Checking Various ?Behaviors and Thoughts While Viewing the Movie? Study 1 Study 2 Men Women All Men Women AllBehaviors ?date and I kissed? 49 43 46 60 69 65?date and I held hands? 66 69 67 71 69 70?put my arm around date and/or date put arm around me? 55 50 53 60 56 58?laughed? 63 80 72** 76 69 72?cried? 6 37 23** 9 44 27** Cognitions?distracted by thinking about my date? 56 43 49 56 42 49?distracted by something my date did? 31 21 26 29 33 31?thought about what we had done prior to movie? 21 16 19 24 9 17?I thought about what we would do after movie? 58 43 50 47 38 43?tried very hard to focus on the movie? 24 11 17 20 18 19?remember wishing we had watched different movie? 24 8 15** 18 7 13?felt like crying but tried hard not to? 12 16 14 13 11 12?felt awkward? 5 10 8 2 4 3?felt embarrassed? 2 3 3 0 0 0?felt scared? 2 4 3 4 0 2?was bored? 15 4 9** 16 4 10?was disgusted or annoyed? 3 1 2 2 4 3 ** genders differ at p<.01 Table 2 Attraction and Attitudinal Results (Means on 7-point Scales)Study 1 Study 2Scale Rated Men Women Men Women Diff. Score ? How much did you like this movie?? 4.84 6.04** 4.84 6.13** -1.29? How much do you think ...your date liked this movie?? 6.07 4.88** 5.76 4.87** .89 ...most men would like this particular movie?? 3.81 3.99 3.67 3.67 0 ...most women would like this particular movie?? 6.11 6.12 5.89 6.04 -.18 ...most men would like this general type of movie? 3.57 3.70 3.40 3.60 -.20 ...most women would like this general type of movie?? 6.10 6.13 5.93 6.16 -.22?How emotionally attracted to your date did you feel ... before watching this movie? 5.39 5.58* 5.50 5.87 -.45 ... after watching the movie? 5.57 5.88 5.91 6.18 -.36? How physically attracted to your date did you feel ...before watching this movie?? 5.96 5.53 5.87 5.67 .20 ...after watching the movie?? 6.16 5.83 6.20 6.13 .07a 1=not at all, 7=very muchNote: Difference scores equal the man?s score minus the woman?s score for each dating dyad in Study 2. Thus, negative scores indicate higher ratings by the woman and positive scores higher ratings by the man.** gender difference at p<.01, * at p<.05 Table 3Fantasy Preferences for Self and Date in Different Types of Movie Scenes (Percent Choosing) Study 1 Study 2?Imagine that you could ?stand in? for one of the central characters of the same sex in one scene of this movie. Which type of scene would you choose?? men women men women Sex scene 21 ** 3 24 14 Intimate conversation scene 15 * 23 18 9 Daring rescue scene 12 7 16 * 2 Romantic scene (e.g., cuddling, kissing, foreplay) 40 ** 56 31 54 Other type of scene 13 11 2 5?Imagine that your date could ?stand in? for one of the central characters of the same sex in this movie. Which type of scene do you think he/she might choose?? Sex scene 21 ** 36 16 * 43 Intimate conversation scene 20 9 29 11 Daring rescue scene 4 ** 22 2 * 18 Romantic scene (e.g., cuddling, kissing, foreplay) 52 ** 25 49 27 Other type of scene 2 7 2 2?Imagine that your date could ?stand in? for one of the central characters of the same sex in this movie. Which type of scene would you most like to see your date in?? Sex scene 28 ** 5 18 12 Intimate conversation scene 18 24 13 9 Daring rescue scene 1 ** 17 2 12 Romantic scene (e.g., cuddling, kissing, foreplay) 43 39 44 51 Other type of scene 11 15 7 5Notes: ?Other type of scene? combines data from choices ?disagreement between characters,? ?bittersweet breakup or separation scene,? and ?other.? **=p<.01 between men and women, *=p<.05 Author NoteThanks are expressed to Jennifer Bonds-Raacke, Elizabeth Cady, and four anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on previous drafts of this manuscript. Address correspondence to R. J. Harris at Department of Psychology, Kansas State University, 492 Bluemont Hall, 1100 Mid-Campus Drive, Manhattan KS 66506-5302 (rjharris@ksu.edu) or S.J. Hoekstra at Department of Psychology, 100 E. Claflin, Kansas Wesleyan University, Salina KS 67401-6196 ( HYPERLINK mailto:(hoekstr@kwu.edu).hoekstr@kwu.edu).Memories for Romantic Movies Memories for Romantic Movies Memories for Romantic Movies Memories for Romantic Movies Memories for Romantic Movies Memories for Romantic Movies Memories for Romantic Movies Memories for Romantic Movies Memories for Romantic Movies Memories for Romantic Movies Memories for Romantic Movies Memories for Romantic Movies Memories for Romantic Movies Memories for Romantic Movies :;OP??????) 0 ? ? ~"?"?"?"?"?"?"?"?"?"?#?#?) *Q*`*?*?*7+H+55?5?5> >!>->=?>??@?@?JK?L?LXM_MtM?M?M?M?M?M?M?M?M?M?MNN'N,N?NJNZN_NkNuN?N?N?N?N?N?N?N?N?N?N?NOO?O?O?R?R?V?VX???????????????????????????????????????????????CJ6?>* jU6?]?_9:???????$:;w?????????????????????/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d?1$2$?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d?1$a$k#?%????3\???? ? ?  &??X?????????????????2$?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P? ??X ?!(#?$d?1$a$ ?Hd?1$/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d?1$??!?#?#?&?(?,?/?5?56?7?8K:?:X;?????????????????7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$?h???d?1$^?h`???/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d?1$X;?;?<?=>???_7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$??!?H?d?1$^??!`?H?/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d?1$7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$?h???d?1$^?h`???>!>.>?@?@?CBG?J?J?JK?L?L_O?R?R?U?V?V??????????????????/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d?1$3?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$?xd?1$^?xXXr]t]``a|a?a?a?atb?b`dbd?e?ei)i,illvlxl?l?l*xUx~~??Ȇʆ???????? ?"?????ڍ܍????ʏ̏(?*???????????F?H?R?T?? ?R?T???J?L?????.?0?ΟП0?2?????0?2???"?$?????????ӳS?[?'?????????????????????????????????????????????????H*5?6?>*OJQJOJQJ^?VOZ?\a|akgi?l mRqQu*xZx?{;???0????????????????????7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$?????d?1$^??`???/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d?1$??????Nj ??"?ǚ??B???ҥ??ѩ???????????????????????3?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$?d?1$^?/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d?1$????ʹ&?.?G?$?  E ? ? 2 ? + o K?%&?????????????????????????????????????????????????OJQJ6?>*ab??????????T?;???????_???7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$???H?d?1$^??`?H?/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d?1$7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$?S???d?1$^?S`??? ?0?4?????x?????h??????????????_7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$??!?P?d?1$^??!`?P?/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d?1$7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$??? ?d?1$^??`? ? ????????V?{?@?U?????0?H???y?"????????????????????????7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$?x???d?1$^?x`???/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d?1$???????wp:??x??c?R?? S ??????????????????3?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$??d?1$^??/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d?1$S  ? ? v(4#m????????????3?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$?d?1$^?/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d?1$ &'(??34?#l???'??5F??????????19JZ??????? *;Pu?????0:cr??c??}?[!0#1#U#V#W#g#h#i#?#?#?#?#?#?#?#?#??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????<?j>*B*Uph? >*B*ph? B*ph??jU jU5?CJ>*CJCJ>*Pm?????W7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$?S???d?1$^?S`???7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$?X ???d?1$^?X `???7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$???(?d?1$^??`?(??d???(o????????c????3?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$?@ d?1$^?@ /?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d?1$7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$?(#???d?1$^?(#`??? ?H??8??T?????????????/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d?1$7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$?(#???d?1$^?(#`??? ??45GH???_//?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d1$7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$?S???d?1$^?S`???/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d?1$7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$?@ ???d?1$^?@ `???H??????c+7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$??!?@?d1$^??!`?@?3?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$?d1$^?/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d1$7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$?X ???d1$^?X `?????-{???_'7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$??!?@?d1$^??!`?@?7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$?(#???d1$^?(#`???7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$??$?p?d1$^??$`?p?/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d1$?op??*_???????????????????????/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d1$7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$??!?@?d1$^??!`?@?def???'D???????c3?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$?@ d1$^?@ 7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$???H?d1$^??`?H?/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d1$Dl??J??W?W7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$?S???d1$^?S`???7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$??$?p?d1$^??$`?p?7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$????d1$^??`??JK???L??????????_???7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$????d1$^??`??7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$?S???d1$^?S`???/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d1$ ?0h???( l ? ? ,!-!Y!????????????7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$?S???d1$^?S`???/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d1$ Y!\!]!t!u!j#??_///?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d?1$7?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$????d?1$^?`???3?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$??d1$^??3?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$?(#d1$^?(#j#k#?#?#?#??c20?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$??1$^??;$?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d????$&#$+D1$a$/$?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$1$a$/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d?1$?#?#?#?#?#??f50?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$??1$^??;$?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d????$&#$+D1$a$/$?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$1$a$,?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$1$?#?#?#?#?#?#?#?????r/$?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$1$a$,?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$1$/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d1$?#?#?#?#$$$??e5??/$?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$1$a$,?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$1$0?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$??1$^??;$?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d????$&#$+D1$a$?#?#$$$A$B$C$k$l$m$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$%%%I%J%K%s%t%u%?%?%?%?%?%?%?%??????????????????????? jU<?#$$$$$$@$?????r/$?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$1$a$,?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$1$/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d1$@$C$D$E$j$m$n$??e5??/$?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$1$a$,?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$1$0?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$??1$^??;$?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d????$&#$+D1$a$n$o$p$q$r$s$?$?????r/$?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$1$a$,?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$1$/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d1$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$??e5??/$?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$1$a$,?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$1$0?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$??1$^??;$?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d????$&#$+D1$a$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?????r/$?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$1$a$,?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$1$/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d1$?$?$?$?$%%%??e5??/$?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$1$a$,?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$1$0?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$??1$^??;$?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d????$&#$+D1$a$%% %!%"%#%H%?????r/$?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$1$a$,?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$1$/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d1$H%K%L%M%r%u%v%??e5??/$?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$1$a$,?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$1$0?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$??1$^??;$?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d????$&#$+D1$a$v%w%x%y%z%{%?%?????r/$?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$1$a$,?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$1$/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d1$?%?%?%?%?%?%?%??e5??/$?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$1$a$,?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$1$0?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$??1$^??;$?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d????$&#$+D1$a$?%?%?%?%?%?%?%?%??????p/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d?1$,?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$1$/?Ph?8?p? @ ? x?H???P?S?X ?!(#?$d1$$??/ ??=!??"??#??$??%?????' 0??/ ??=!??"??#??$??%?????' 0??/ ??=!??"??#??$??%?????' 0??/ ??=!??"??#??$?`%?????' 0??/ ??=!??"?f#??$?`%?????# 0??/ ??=!??"??#??$?`%???# 0??/ ??=!??"??#??$?`%????D???y??????K? ???y??????K? 4mailto:(hoekstr@kwu.edu). i4@??4 NormalCJ_HmH sH tH <A@???< Default Paragraph Font0?O0 SYS_HYPERTEXTB*>*?x??????Ue? ?????&?????O?????x???????????ʐ?????????9:???????$:;w????3\??????& ? ? X?????"?$?(?+?1?12?3?4K6?6X7?7?8?9:!:.:?<?<??BC?F?F?FG?H?H_K?N?N?Q?R?REUSWPZ?Z8_?`Mc?cXgWk0n`n?q?tsw?x?y?z?z?}u?i?????ڇۈ????????ܕ??????????7??,?:?R?o???ܦ֧???D?+?? ?$???Ϸh????X?????v?????F?k?0?E????? ?8???i??????~????????g?`?*?????h?????S???B???r?C???????f??$???? ??]?q??????T??????? ???_?????8?????(?????D?????????$?%?7?8?p?q?s??????k??? ?_?`?????O??????????TUV|??4\??:;s?? <q??? X???\??ILMdeZ [ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?         0 3 4 5 Z ] ^ _ ` a b c ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?         8 ; < = b e f g h i j ? ?0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0??????0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0??????0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0???0??????0???0???@0???@0???@0???@???@0???@0???@0???@???@0???@???@0???@???@0???@0???@0???@???@0???@0???@0???@???@0???@???@0???@???@0???@0???@0???@???@0???@0???@0???@???@0???@???@0???@???@0???@0???@0???@???@0???@0???@0???@???@0???@???@0???@???@0???@0???@0???@???@0???@0???@0???@???@0???@???@0???@???@0???@0???@0???@???@0???@0???@0???@???@0???@???@0?? *TVXXX???????2\^```??????? :dfhhhkX'?&?#?%???????X;>?V????b??????S m???H??DJ?Y!j#?#?#?#$@$n$?$?$?$%H%v%?%?%?%?????????????????????????????????????????%?:O F X ?  X??$. ??? ? Zd??????~?Z a ? !?!?!"""?"?"R(W(Y(](?*?*?,?,?0?0?7?7<<T=b=?&??B?B?I?I?J?J?O?O?P?PHQPQ?Q?Q?S?S?[?[e?ef f"f%f4f7fKfPfzf}f?f?fGjNj?q?q???????????+?e?m?r?w?????????????????????]?f?p?y?????.?5???? ??????????x??,?3?????????U?]?~???Q?[?t?|?????E?M?U?Z?V?Z?? ? [ ? ? ??gi?????? ? ?#?#?7?7?I?I?R?S?S?S?T?T?W?W?Y?Y?[?[?\]?]?]?abc c@fCf?h?h?jBjo&o?s?s?t?t*w2w?w?w?x?xQyVy????_?c???????Ňȇɉ͉??????ۢ??????ѷ?????????????????Y?f?????N?P?i?????????,?.?e?????????U??????????????????)?-?????????E?H?????????????????!?%?o?s???????????????SY????????!t{ 'Y]$%[ ? ? 3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333Py{??u?y????? ?? Y Z ? ??Corel CorporationRichard Harris MC:\Documents and Settings\Richard Harris\My Documents\mediamss\romovdtmss.doc[ k ? ? ?@?????ܠ??????l?S?T?V?W?Y?Z?\?]cd?s?t?w?x?y?}?~?????????????????????? `@`X`?@`\`?@```?@`d`?@`l`?@`~`@`?`?`@`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`4@`?`?`?`H@`?`?@??Unknown????????????G??z ??Times New Roman5??Symbol3&? ?z ??Arial9??WP MathAI??WP Greek Century#A????1?o?Æ??&??p??#?2??????Richard Harris ???????Oh??+'??0h??????? ??  $ 0<HPX`?ssssNormalRichard Harris 3chMicrosoft Word 9.0@?Ik@??)Ê?@t ?;?@??@????&??????՜.??+,??D??՜.??+,??\ hp???? ????? ??2 Kansas State University Department of Psychology:(?p??  Title? 8@ _PID_HLINKS?AlHnmailto:(hoekstr@kwu.edu).  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Root Entry???????? ?F Ġ_????Data ?????????????1Table?????????c2WordDocument?????SummaryInformation(?????????????DocumentSummaryInformation8?????????CompObj????jObjectPool???????????? Ġ_??? Ġ_????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???? ?FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8?9?q