Study reveals that Oscar winners are crying more frequently during acceptance speeches

An analysis of 207 speeches from Oscar winning actors and actresses found that tears are becoming more common. 

© AMPAS, 83rd Academy Awards
Natalie Portman chokes up as she thanks her parents at the Academy Awards in 2011, where she won the best actress category for 'Black Swan.'

Count the tears from winning actresses and actors at this year's Academy Awards. Chances are, you'll see more than in years past.

That's because crying is up in Oscar acceptance speeches, according to a new analysis of more than 50 years of Academy Award clips. In fact, 71 percent of Oscar tears have been shed since 1995.

"Maybe the public has come to expect an emotional speech," study researcher Rebecca Rolfe, a master's student in digital media at Georgia Tech University, said in a statement.

Oscar speech trends

Rolfe watched 207 speeches from winning lead actors and actresses, supporting actors and actresses and directors dating from 1953 to 2012. She found some surprises — the cofounder of Miramax has been thanked 12 times in Oscar history, compared with only 11 thank-yous to God — as well as some trends that aren't likely to shock. For example, acceptance speeches have stretched from 40 seconds on average in the 1960s to almost two minutes today. [Glitzy Oscar Facts (Infographic)]

Rolfe's larger research project is about gratitude, and she found that 79 percent of speeches closed with some variation of "thank you." The most common pattern is to broadly thank the Academy, which bestows the awards, and other nominees first and then to become more personal.

"After reflecting on the win's significance, they typically thank their peers, colleagues and sometimes even their lawyer before mentioning family," Rolfe said.

Though "I'd like to thank the Academy" is a stereotypical speech start-off, only 40 percent of winners have uttered those words.

Turning on the tears

Actresses cry about twice as often as actors, with 12 of the last 15 best actresses turning on the waterworks, Rolfe found. It's not clear why tears are becoming more common, but Rolfe speculates social pressure on celebrities might contribute.

"Much like the movies, acceptance speeches are a type of performance," she said. "I believe the tears are real, but perhaps, maybe even subconsciously, actresses know what is expected of them when they accept the honor."

The only director ever to cry during a speech was Steven Spielberg, accepting an Oscar for "Schindler's List" in 1993.

Rolfe has created an interactive website where you can write your own speech and compare it with Oscar winners past. The ultimate goal, she said, is to understand public gratitude.

"In a way, we see a part of ourselves on stage at the Oscars," Rolfe said. "While judging speeches each year, we shape the trends and customs society expects and accepts."

Follow Stephanie Pappas on Twitter @sipappas or LiveScience @livescience. We're also on Facebook Google+.

Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.