









































Digital Literature Review 1
 125

The foundation of the Hollywood horror 

film industry has always included meta-

phors of what haunts American society. This 

industry capitalized on these fears in mov-

ies such as Poltergeist (1982) and the 2015 

remake of the same film. These two films 

worked to represent current issues regard-

ing technology in society while also predict-

ing what America would become if these 

issues were not properly resolved. Analyz-

ing the two films reveals the fears of past 

decades, how those fears have evolved in 

contemporary American culture, and where 

these representations of cultural fears will 

lead us next.

Brooke Lilek, Ball State University

Horrors of Society: The 
Reflection of Societal Fears 
in American Horror Films

American ghost stories, although often not 

considered to be seeded in legitimate histor-

ical evidence, are paramount in representing, 

expanding, and building upon the framework 

of American culture. In recent decades, Hol-

lywood manifested the concept of hauntings 

and various supernatural phenomena to 

elaborately explain and dissect cultural anxi-

eties which, despite many Americans turning 

a blind eye, still haunt a majority of the Amer-

ican population. Hollywood largely relies on 

the increasing complexity of these anxieties, 

which scare people with haunted ideas, such 

as a demon possessing a loved one or some-

thing taking up residency in a home without 

the owner’s consent. In the past, the fears that 

circulated through American culture were concrete and visible, thus prompting horror films star-

ring monsters such as vampires, werewolves, and zombies. American horror films, however, took a 

sharp turn into the realm of ghosts and demons as society’s fears of enemies and threats we could 

tangibly identify and see warped into fears of terrorism, mental illness, and technology. One of the 

subcategories of ghosts is the poltergeist, which is a spirit that typically attaches to a person, not 

just a place. Poltergeist (1982) and Poltergeist (2015) offer deep insights into the representation 

of societal fears—more specifically, into America’s fear of lack of privacy and control as a result of 

technological advancements. 



Digital Literature Review 2
 126

Both Poltergeist films represent one of the widest spread fears of the American culture: the 

fear of technology. The newer Poltergeist (2015) serves as a reminder of the original film’s warning: 

if we bring more technology into our homes it will consume our lives. In the first Poltergeist (1982), 

the fear of a technological invasion in the late 1970s and early 1980s provides Americans with the 

nuances of modern horror through the depiction of a young girl trapped in a TV void. This depic-

tion perpetuated the growing fear that children would be “lost” in television programming and 

created a long-lasting fear of someone or something watching from the other side of a screen. 

This fear only intensified as cameras became commonplace on phones and computers, leaving 

the fear of having nowhere to hide. Looking through the lens of Poltergeist (1982) and Poltergeist 

(2015) reveals the fears of past decades, how those fears have developed in 2010s American cul-

ture, and where these representations of cultural fears may lead society next. Depictions of cul-

tural hauntings demonstrate how it is not the ghosts or hauntings that conjure societal fears, but 

rather what manifested those ghosts and hauntings that conjure true fright.

Bodo Winter, author of “Horror Movies and the Cognitive Ecology of Primary Metaphors,” 

argues that all horror movies are largely, if not entirely, composed of longstanding metaphors for 

fear that may stretch as far back as humans’ primitive states of hunters and gatherers living in 

the wild. Winter states that metaphors for fear are strengthened “in the minds of the people who 

witness these representations, which helps to keep the metaphors alive” (164). More specifically, 

Winter asserts, horror films have three main effects of metaphors on culture: elaborating, reinforc-

ing/maintaining, and creating/re-creating metaphors (164). These effects have infiltrated almost 

every horror movie the film industry has produced in the last five to six decades. In both versions 

of Poltergeist, the plots are anchored in the metaphor that the poltergeist itself is a manifestation 

of a repressed fear of technology, the unknown, or financial instability brought into the home. 

Many of the scariest aspects of movies may not have originated in the human mind as “scary.” 

When moving away from monsters towards ghosts and hauntings, the American film industry 

had to create these new metaphors for fear to pass down through the generations. In fact, Win-

ter also states that “cultural representations may create new metaphors... in the minds of new 

generations” (164). The instinct to fear werewolves and vampires stems from early humans’ fear of 

predators, since people did not always live indoors with large semi-automatic weapons to protect 

them from the beasts of the wild. Older “monster movies” more directly played on the instinct 

to avoid animalistic predators; newer horror films still play this “monster” angle to some degree. 

Jonathon Norman, author of “Personality Types and the Enjoyment of Horror Movies,” states that 

“Horror movies portray [ghosts and monsters] as very strong, incessantly hungry, and unstop-



Digital Literature Review 3
 127

pable…,” and he suggests that these traits “…would somehow trigger in humans their very basic 

survival instincts” (60). Of course, these survival instincts are still imbedded in humans’ biological 

make-up, but the reality of an animal attacking people in the wilderness is no longer a common 

fear in society. As a result, horror movies needed some new tactics to represent this fear and keep 

it alive in American culture. The most prominent expression of this fear in the Poltergeist movies 

is when Carol Ann and Maddy, the two poltergeist victims, are speaking to TVs. From the static, 

viewers can hear growling noises masked by the static buzzing of the televisions; where Carol Ann 

and Maddy seem to hear a voice speaking to them, viewers hear malicious animalistic intent. 

Poltergeists are not simply spirits that have been introduced into the realm of horror in 

the last few decades, but rather phenomena occurring for centuries. Poltergeists are most lit-

erally classified as “noisy spirits,” which captures exactly how they operate (Bynum 222). These 

spirits typically attach to young children, most often girls, and cause mayhem for several days or 

weeks. Most people will never experience poltergeist activity as these spirits rarely manifest. As 

knowledge of this phenomenon has grown, however, it opened the door for Hollywood to utilize 

its unique markers of a haunting, including objects or people being moved, loud noises, shak-

ing furniture, or even sounds that mimic human voices (Bynum 222). According to Joyce Bynum, 

author of “Poltergeists—A Phenomenon Worthy of Serious Study,” “poltergeist activity may rep-

resent the repressed feelings and fears that find expression in interaction with the outside world” 

(225). Poltergeist (1982) invokes American parents’ brewing repression of technological fears and 

the impact these fears have on children who watch too much TV, whereas Poltergeist (2015) uses 

repressed fears of financial instability in an economy recovering from a recession to conjure the 

poltergeist figure. 

The original 1982 release of the film centered around the Freeling family which includes 

three children (Dana, Robbie, and Carol Ann) and their parents (Diane and Steve) who “are in their 

30’s, happily married, and doing all right financially” (Canby 6). The family’s financial situation 

allows for Steve to be the sole bread winner and for the family to live in a newly developed neigh-

borhood in California. The opening scene in the film depicts Carol Ann, the youngest daughter, 

speaking to the living room TV just after midnight programming has ended. She asks questions 

such as “What do you look like?” (0:03:46) to the static, but she also seems to answer questions we 

cannot hear with a simple “yes” (0:04:21-0:04:25). This occurrence happens a second time, but with 

the TV in her parents’ bedroom, which happens to be when the spirits emerge from the TV. The 

following morning, the spirits begin interacting with the whole house (i.e., moving chairs, bending 

silverware, and playfully sliding Diane and Carol Ann across the kitchen floor). The family does 



Digital Literature Review 4
 128

not know their neighborhood has been built on the grounds of a cemetery from which the bodies 

were never moved. The decision to build on top of the graves prompted spirits to communicate 

with Carol Ann and even to open a portal to the “other side” through her bedroom closet. As the 

movie progresses, Carol Ann is pulled through her closet to the “other side,” leaving her family 

with no way to communicate with her other than through open channels on their television set. 

It is not difficult to see the significance of the family’s predicament in the 1980s. Not only 

was it more common for families to own one or more television sets in their homes than ever 

before (the Freelings have multiple sets), but stations knew exactly what times of the day to draw 

in different audiences. According to a television schedule published in the New York Times in the 

mid-1970s, the bulk of children’s television shows were broadcast between 7am-8am and 3:30pm-

8pm (“Television”). These would be the most common times for school-attending children to be 

home. These would also be the common times that parents would have to spend with their chil-

dren. With TV to occupy children, however, they spent less time with their parents, reading, or 

activities and more time devoted to television programming. 

Around the time the movie was released, worldly news started becoming more widely 

available as cable TV became commonplace. According to Martin Bass’s article “Television’s Day 

in Court” published in the New York Times (1981), the concept of putting cameras in courtrooms 

was beginning to be seen as “a rational adaptation to an era in which most Americans get much 

of their news from television” (Bass). The newspapers were no longer a fast enough or convenient 

enough means to receive news. Although many parents purchased TVs because news and in-

formation grew more accessible via TV, it was not the only purpose they ultimately served in the 

household (McCoy). An increasing number of the population craved easy access to entertainment 

and news. It appears that adults never assumed children might choose a broadcast of The Brady 

Bunch over interacting with their parents or friends. Elin McCoy published the article “Limiting 

Children’s TV Habits” just a year before Poltergeist (1982) was released. This article states that, in 

1981, “the average child between the ages 2 and 11 watches [television] for about three and a half 

to four hours a day.” McCoy goes on to discuss the lack of interest children had for other activities 

such as reading and playing outside when television programming became an option. With TVs 

in the living room, kitchen, and master bedroom, watching was always an option for the Freeling 

children. Even after the spirits exit the TV in the master bedroom, Carol Ann turns the TV in the 

kitchen on to an “empty” channel hoping to find her friends in the static instead of playing or 

helping her mother clean up breakfast. Diane doesn’t suggest Carol Ann go and play either; she 

simply makes a comment on how the static will hurt her eyes and changes the channel to a war 



Digital Literature Review 5
 129

show/movie. Even the parents only interact with their neighbor when it’s a matter of their TV re-

motes being on the same frequency and accidentally changing each other’s channels. 

Between the 1980s and mid 2000s, there was an economic boom in which inflation rates 

were incredibly low, thus giving money more purchasing power (Samuelson 21). As Americans be-

gan spending more money purchasing homes and acquiring mortgages, overspending became 

more widespread. This mode of thinking resulted in the Great Recession, from which the Ameri-

can economy took almost 10 years to recover. During this recovery, the Bowen family finds them-

selves down on their financial luck. In the 2015 remake of Poltergeist, the family is not as financial-

ly stable as they were in 1982. The father, Eric Bowen, has lost his job and their mother, Amy, does 

not work. The family loses their home because of their employment statuses and must look at a 

new house in a neighborhood built on a former cemetery from which, unbeknownst to them, the 

bodies were never moved. Since money is so tight, the deciding factor in purchasing their house 

in this neighborhood is the realtor who informs them, “Foreclosures have hit this neighborhood 

really hard. There’s some wiggle room on the price” (0:06:46-0:06:50). Thus, from the first 10 min-

utes of the film, Gil Kenan, director of Poltergeist (2015), reflects America’s established overwhelm-

ing fear of financial instability in the plot’s framework.

In the five years leading up to the release of Poltergeist (2015), the iPad was released, artifi-

cial intelligence was being developed (i.e., Siri, Alexa, Google Home), and larger portions of Ameri-

cans owned iPhones or Androids, etc. If “Alexa” is always listening and cameras on our phones and 

laptops are always watching, people may as well pull out a Ouiji board and invite ghosts into their 

home—exemplifying the modern collective lack of privacy. Kenan gives us this reality in his film on 

several counts. One of the first “selling points” the realtor mentions about the house is, pointing to 

a security system panel, “That security system works. The owner was a bit of a technophile, so this 

house is wired for whatever you might need” (0:03:25-0:03:28). Essentially, the entire house is one 

big gadget. While programming the security system, the Bowens’ son, Griffin, asks Eric countless 

questions about how “bad guys” could cut the security system wires and break in. Eric responds to 

these questions by saying they would die of electrocution and “if they’re dead then they can’t get 

in the house” (0:10:12-0:10:13). Through this dialogue, Kenan establishes a false sense of security for 

the family; they believe their home is protected from any intruders by the technology. Later that 

same night the house experiences what Kenan refers to as an “electrical awakening” in an inter-

view with Brendon Connelly. As Maddy begins speaking to the spirits through the TV in the living 

room, lamps, phones, iPads, and toys begin turning on and off on their own. Just as Carol Ann 

does in the 1982 film, Maddy begins speaking to a static TV channel. When Griffin finds 



Digital Literature Review 6
 130

her speaking to the TV and asks what is happening, Maddy replies, “They’re coming” (0:25:45). The 

house is thrown into an electrical fit immediately after; all devices and electronics are sent into a 

frenzy, including the security system. When the parents rush downstairs as the alarm goes off in 

the house, Maddy informs everyone, “They’re here” (0:26:25). Thus, Eric’s earlier statement that a 

dead person cannot get past the security system is quite literally disproven. 

No matter how many new devices humans surround themselves with, people have a nat-

ural instinct to survive by either fleeing or fighting. Horror movies provide a buffer for looking at 

what truly haunts our thoughts and culture. Jonathon Norman suggests that “…the cross-cul-

tural appeal for horror movies provides useful insights into understanding human evolutionary 

psychology processes” (59). Essentially, what scares people on the screen may also comfort them 

because the conflicts are almost always resolved in the end; the “good guys” win, the evil is sent 

away, or a majority of people escape to safety. Poltergeist (1982 and 2015) both provide that cush-

ion when forcing viewers to face the horrors of their technological surroundings which are pri-

marily represented through the abduction of Carol Ann (1982) and Maddy (2015) through their 

closets and into the “other side.” By the end, the Freelings’ and Bowens’ houses may have been 

destroyed, but the families escape the horrors within. The depiction of a relatively happy ending 

for main characters gives Americans a false sense of security that the fears of what society is be-

coming and the technological advancements that have haunted American culture since before 

the release of Poltergeist (1982) can simply be walked away from or, in the case of the films, driven 

away from. 

The infestation of technology in homes and relationships, however, did not end in the 

1980s; instead, it grew into something unrulier than Spielberg’s spirits could have mustered in the 

original film. The 2015 remake of Poltergeist takes America’s original fears of the invasion of tech-

nology into their families and homes to a new level. Spielberg may have created and established 

the metaphor of poltergeists or hauntings in relation to the invasion of technology, but Gil Kenan’s 

remake reinforces this fear in American society. Though both the Freelings and the Bowens

 escape from their haunted homes in the end, the Bowens are not given the satisfactory ending 

of rolling a television set out of a hotel room symbolizing an escape from the sole cause of their 

torment like the Freelings. In the final scene of the 2015 movie, Eric Bowen is depicted as being 

employed as a high school baseball coach, and the family is going to look at a new house. Instead 

of boasting about technological capabilities of the house, the realtor mentions that “…the place is 

just swimming in closet space” (1:34:08), which prompts young Maddy to say, “Our last closet ate 

me” (1:34:13). When the realtor moves into the house to show them around, the camera pans back 



Digital Literature Review 7
 131

outside to show the Bowens driving away, presumably because of the abundance of closet space 

in that prospective home. They clearly still value technology and see a closet as the cause of their 

previous problems, not technology. The Freelings could recognize the TVs as their main problem, 

which is why removing the TV was their first thought when arriving at the motel, not worrying 

how much closet space the room had. Despite escaping their home, however, the Bowens do not 

escape the horrors of technology and, thus, neither has the rest of America. 

A constant example of Winter’s created and reinforced metaphor is the appearance of 

Gothic architecture in many representations of the horror genre. In fact, these ever-present struc-

tures “entertain [people’s] imagination[s] given that the thought of an old and dark castle would 

bring to people’s mind the idea of secret passages, dungeons, and gloomy forests” (Norman 58). 

The Bowens’ house is a modern interpretation of this architecture in the sense that the home’s 

exterior consists of grey siding surrounded by dying trees and a flower garden that won’t stay 

alive. Even the attic houses a secret compartment of creepy clown toys left by a previous owner. 

This automatically invokes more fear in viewers than the original film because people innately 

recognize similar structures with scary stories. Kenan’s remake exemplifies Winter’s main effects 

of metaphors on culture. While the film was not considered as nightmarish as the original, it still 

holds the originality of the metaphor while adding a few new twists. 

Aside from the obvious updates to the plot, such as the family names and the lack of land-

line phones in the house, Kenan elaborates on Spielberg’s metaphors by adding nuanced details. 

The most notable of these details is how the characters describe what is after Carol Ann and 

Maddy once they are pulled to the “other side.” In 1982, the clairvoyant the Freelings use to res-

cue Carol Ann, Tangina, claims there is a “terrible presence” with Carol Ann and refers to it as “the 

beast.” This beast is a singular entity that represents television and its ability to pull children away 

from their families. In 2015, Kenan alters this detail when Carrigan Burke, the Bowens’ clairvoyant, 

claims they’re all around her (1:11:22-1:11:31). Even though there were multiple spirits on the “oth-

er side” with Carol Ann in the original film, the significance of this detail lies in the fact that the 

singular “beast” was the one who wouldn’t let Carol Ann go, but none of the spirits in 2015 would 

let Maddy go. These malicious spirits represent all the forms of technology that withdraw people 

from society in the 2015 film: phones, tablets, laptops, TVs, and even the speakers and wired walls 

throughout the Bowens’ house. Another detail Kenan alters in the 2015 film lies within the fear of 

clowns. In the original film, Carol Ann and her brother Robbie have a clown doll that attacks Rob-

bie in the end of the movie. In 2015, Griffin finds multiple old clown toys in a hidden compartment 

of his attic bedroom. Clowns “have the capacity to provoke fear and horror given that their 



Digital Literature Review 8
132 

make-up can conceal their true facial expressions, thus triggering people’s instinctual need and 

desire to understand others through their facial expressions” (Schmidt and Cohn, qtd. in Norman 

60). As the aforementioned “beast” represents the fear of television and the spirits represent the 

fear of all forms of technology, the clown dolls represent not just technology but what consum-

ers cannot see behind it. In both films, neither the families nor the audience get to see the faces 

behind the screens until the end of the films, and American citizens never see what’s behind the 

screens in their living rooms or the phones in their pockets. Having only one clown doll in the 

original film represented the singular fear of what hid behind the screen. Kenan, however, utilizes 

multiple clown dolls to symbolize all the forms of technology that people feared in the 2010s be-

cause they could not understand them. As we fear what we cannot see behind a clown’s makeup, 

we fear what we cannot see behind the screen.

Unfortunately for American culture, Kenan points out in Poltergeist (2015) that technology 

is not the only issue facing the Bowen family. The entire premise of the movie is based on the fact 

that their father, Eric, has lost his job due to the de-unionization of skilled workers. This perspec-

tive seems to contribute to the lukewarm responses to the remake of the film. Since the reviewers 

failed to detect this financial struggle as a form of haunting upon the family, their reviews reflect-

ed an inaccurate representation of the film’s nuances. Neil Genzlinger, in his New York Times re-

view “They’re Baaack, With Tech Upgrades,” writes, “… parents might find it an enjoyable trip down 

memory lane, even if they do now recognize it as largely a well-served collection of horror-movie 

tropes.” Seeing the films as a collection of horror tropes is valid in its own right, but closer anal-

ysis reveals that the tropes morph into metaphors that will force viewers and the next genera-

tions to wonder if the phones they keep in their pockets or the TVs in their rooms are something 

to fear rather than lull people to sleep. Critic David Blaustein states on ABC News Radio that he 

viewed the film as “a remake that lacks creativity, hoping to trade on an established brand,” but 

he is wrong on each account. Kenan connects the hardships of unemployment and exacerbated 

debt due to a need for constant technological advancements in their lives directly to poltergeist 

encounters. After the electrical awakening of the house, Kendra claims that her phone is “fried.” 

In response to being told they can’t afford a new phone, Kendra says, “This isn’t a luxury item, 

Dad. It’s a necessity. What if you need to reach me in an emergency?” (0:27:20-0:27:24). Kenan is 

making a statement that Americans view the ability to be constantly connected to everyone and 

everything as a necessity; calling friends or checking the news channel at the end of the day sim-

ply isn’t enough. Even though Eric can barely afford to buy squirrel traps for the squirrel living in 

his son’s room, he still buys his daughter a new iPhone and his son a drone. He buys into the idea 



Digital Literature Review 9
 133

that in order to be happy and fit in, they need to have new technology because the fear of living 

without it was greater than the fear of what bringing it into the house could invoke. Naturally, as 

the collection of technology within the household grows, so does the poltergeist activity. Working 

from Bynum’s earlier mentioned theory that “poltergeist activity may represent the repressed 

feelings and fears that find expression in interaction with the outside world” (225), the connection 

of unemployment and debt-induced stress to the Bowens’ poltergeist problem is clear. The Bow-

en family not only suffered the financial consequences of having no working parents, but they 

also suffered supernatural consequences that they could not escape because of the weight of 

their debt. 

Culturally informed viewers of Poltergeist (1982 and 2015) are left wondering; what’s next? 

The original film predicted the chaos of technology would continue to ensue over generations if 

people did not restrict their technological access, and the remake demonstrates the horrors of ig-

noring that warning along with how the need for technological updates inflames financial strug-

gles affecting many lower to middle class American families today. Americans are always seeking 

the “next best thing,” but at a quite literal cost. Elin McCoy discusses the effects of peer pressure 

on the youth of the country to be “up to date” on the latest tech. In her 1981 article McCoy states, 

“Many parents cite peer pressure, when many other children are watching particular programs 

and their child would feel left out if he or she could not watch too, as one reason they do not 

throw out the [television] set altogether.” The fear of being less connected to the world than every-

one else has survived from the original release of Poltergeist to the present day. Even if someone 

cannot afford the newest iPhone or Google Home mini for each room in their house, they want 

them so that at least their children can “fit in” with the rest of society. The Bowens suffered this 

dilemma and ultimately caved into reaching for a “higher standard” of living even if they could not 

afford the standard of living in which they already lived. Looking back at Bodo Winter’s concept of 

how “horror movies play a role in maintaining and potentiating metaphor within the larger cultur-

al system,” American horror movies clearly serve as warnings to human error and guides to what 

we fear most in America. From Poltergeist (2015), we can see how cultural fears developed from a 

fear of television taking over children to a fear of technological advancements taking over every-

one’s lives. Following this pattern, America is headed down a path that will end in fears of spend-

ing money on any luxury, especially technological luxuries. Both Poltergeist films are comprised of 

more than horror tropes; they are built by America’s cultural fears which make them scarier than 

the harmless nightmares they seem to be. If we are not careful, the long-perpetuated fear of tech-

nology truly ruling us will one day come to fruition.



Digital Literature Review 10
 134

Works Cited

Blaustein, David. “‘Poltergeist’ Movie Review.” ABC News, ABC News Network, 22 May 2015, abc-

news.go.com/Entertainment/poltergeist-movie-review/story?id=31241365.

Bynum, Joyce. “Poltergeists-A Phenomenon Worthy of Serious Study.” Etc.: A Review of General 

Semantics., vol. 50, no. 2, Institute of General Semantics, 1993. https://go-gale-com.proxy.bsu.

edu/ps/i.do?p=LitRC&u=munc80314&id=GALE|A14124663&v=2.1&it=r&sid=summon. Accessed 

March 22, 2020.

Canby, Vincent. “Film: ‘Poltergeist’ from Spielberg.” New York Times (1923-Current file), Jun 

04, 1982, pp. 1. ProQuest, https://search-proquest-com.proxy.bsu.edu/hnpnewyorktimes/

docview/122084619/335DCA0FDBD344FEPQ/1?accountid=8483. Accessed March 22, 2020.

Connelly, Brendon. “Poltergeist: Director Gil Kenan Interview.” Den of Geek, 22 May 2015, www.de-

nofgeek.com/movies/gil-kenan/35487/poltergeist-director-gil-kenan-interview.

Kenan, Gil, director. Poltergeist. 20th Century Fox. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 2015.

Martin, Clark B. “Television’s Day in Court.” New York Times (1923-Current file), 15 Feb, 1981, pp. 6. 

ProQuest, https://search-proquest-com.proxy.bsu.edu/hnpnewyorktimes/docview/121478105

/9B82F0231566467FPQ/1?accountid=8483. Accessed March 22, 2020.

McCoy, Ellen. “Limiting Children’s TV Habits.” The New York Times, 30 July 1981, pp. 1–3, 

https://advance-lexis-com.proxy.bsu.edu/document/?pdmfid=1516831&crid=4afc9e-

9a55ef-4f97-9285afe08c9cfe2c&pddocfullpath=/shared/document/news/urn:contentI

tem:3S8G-F7X0-000B-Y190-00000-00&pddocid=urn:contentItem:3S8G-F7X0-000B

-Y190-0000000&pdcontentcomponentid=6742&pdteaserkey=sr0&pditab=allpods&ecom-

p=sp79k&earg=sr0&prid=aea99c82-f0c1-4568-8c38-679c4035a71f. Accessed February 6, 

2020.

Norman, Jonathan. “Personality Types and The Enjoyment of Horror Movies.” Journal of Social 

and Psychological Sciences, vol. 11, no. 1, 2018, p. 56+. Gale OneFile: Health and Medi-

cine, https://go-gale.com.proxy.bsu.edu/ps/i.do?p=HRCA&u=munc80314&id=GALE%-

7CA523795291&v=.1&it=r&sid=summon. Accessed 7 Nov. 2019.

Samuelson, Robert J. “Rethinking the Great Recession.” The Wilson Quarterly (1976-), vol. 35, no. 

1, 2011, pp. 16–24. JSTOR, https://www-jstor-org.proxy.bsu.edu/stable/41001064?pq-origsite=-

summon&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents. Accessed 21 Feb. 2020.

Spielberg, Steven, director. Poltergeist. Metro--Goldwyn--Mayer, 1982.

“Television.” New York Times (1923-Current file), 6 May, 1976, pp. 59. ProQuest, https://search-pro-

quest-com.proxy.bsu.edu/docview/122640371?accountid=8483.



Digital Literature Review 11
 135

Winter, Bodo. “Horror Movies and the Cognitive Ecology of Primary Metaphors.” Metaphor and 

Symbol, vol. 29, no. 3, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2014. http://web.b.ebscohost.com.

proxy.bsu.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=02e52eff-b3d1-4e30-823b-ca10d3301fce%40p-

dc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=96869107&d-

b=aph. Accessed March 22, 2020.


