Reality TV 1
Running Head: REALITY TELEVISION USES AND GRATIFICATIONS
Motivations for Viewing Reality Television:
A Uses and Gratifications Analysis
Robert Woods, Ph.D.
Dept. of Communication
Spring Arbor University
106 Main Street
Spring Arbor, MI 49283
(517) 750-6490
rwoods@arbor.edu
Samuel Ebersole, Ph.D.
Dept. of Mass Communications
Colorado State University – Pueblo
2200 Bonforte Blvd
Pueblo, CO 81001
(719) 549-2025
samuel.ebersole@colostate-pueblo.edu
DEBUT
Reality TV 2
Abstract
This survey research examines motives for viewing Reality TV programs. Employing a uses and
gratifications approach, this study found five factors that explain program choice preference: personal
identification with real characters, entertainment, mood change, pass time, and vicarious participation.
The relationships of those factors to viewers’ level of TV viewing, affinity for viewing, perceived realism,
and parasocial interaction was examined. The study found that Reality TV viewers do not fit neatly into
the ritualized or instrumental viewing categories identified by earlier TV viewer research, and that the
interactive nature of Reality TV programming may contribute to the strong sense of personal
identification that many viewers experience.
Reality TV 3
Motivations for Viewing Reality Television: A Uses and Gratifications Analysis
Introduction
Reality television is a phenomenon that has forever changed the face of television programming.
Some consider it to be the most significant development in recent television history. Few trends have
been as far-reaching and widely embraced as the genre that purports to showcase ordinary people in both
familiar and unfamiliar settings and situations, or as Andy Hamilton observed, people “improvising
around the theme of being themselves in carefully constructed, ‘artificial’ situations” (Hamilton, 2002). A
conceptual definition of reality television would include this concept of semi-scripted programming that
simulates real-world or real-life situations and features ordinary people from the audience as participants.
For the purpose of this study, we’ve operationally defined reality television programs as those programs
included on several well-known reality program listings that also satisfy the basic conceptual criteria just
noted.
Reality TV has its origins in early American programs such as Candid Camera, and more
recently in European imports like Big Brother (Miller, 2000, pp. 8-10; Jones, 2002). One could also argue
that news and documentary formats are forms of reality programming that have existed since the
beginning of motion picture, radio and television. In the 1950 and 60s, Cinema Verité, literally film truth,
and Direct Cinema attempted to capture reality as it happened using smaller, more portable film
equipment and faster film stocks (Kilborn, 1994). The 12-hour PBS documentary series An American
Family, first broadcast in 1973, is widely regarded as the first television program to peer into the lives of
ordinary people (Rowen, 2000). The “stars” of the program, the Louds, were plagued by the same
problems and dysfunctional relationships that attract today’s viewers to The Osbournes.
The popular emergence of this genre in prime time network television was made evident in the
2000-2001 season of Survivor, which became the most watched show of the season with over 51 million
viewers tuning into the final episode (Caristi, 2001). In 2002, The Osbournes became the MTV network’s
most watched series ever. The second season of Fox’s American Idol debuted with approximately 30
million viewers making it Fox’s best showing ever, excluding Super Bowl or World Series broadcasts
Reality TV 4
(Rudolph, 2003). According to Nielsen Media Research, the 25 top-rated television programs for the
2002-2003 season included seven reality television titles. For teen viewers, nine of the top 25 were from
this genre.
As the fastest growing and most popular form of television programming today, reality shows
have, however, received little scholarly attention. Several studies have explored attitudinal predictors of
exposure to and enjoyment of reality-based and fictional crime programs (Oliver & Armstrong, 1995;
Oliver, 1994), but few have systematically explored reasons or motivations people have for viewing a
broader range of reality-based programming. The bulk of research involving this popular cultural
phenomenon includes close readings of particular reality-based shows (Wilkie, 1995) or the genre as a
whole (Kilborn, 1994), analyses of ethical and social problems of reality shows (Wieten, 1998; Fishman
& Cavender, 1998; Miller, 2000), and other forms of qualitative analysis (Glynn, 1995). In short, reasons
for reality show viewing remain unclear. A few recent studies have begun to address past oversights (e.g.,
Gardyn, 2001; Reiss & Wiltz, 2001; Nabi, Biely, Morgan & Stitt, 2003). Most notably, Wei & Tootle
(2002) explored the motivations for viewing reality television within a uses and gratifications theoretical
framework, and Crook, Worrell, Westerman, Davis, Moyer and Clarke (2004) employed a uses and
gratifications framework and found that certain personality types predicted general viewing and
enjoyment of reality programming.
Identifying uses and gratifications of reality programming holds both theoretical and practical
benefits. The uses and gratifications paradigm has proven helpful in identifying a variety of motives
regarding media use and viewing patterns that reflect the utility, selectivity and intentionality of audience
activity (Levy & Windahl, 1985). This paradigm assumes not only that audience motivations for
television viewing are directly tied to content, but that the audience is “goal directed” and specifically
seeks out media content to meet certain social and psychological needs (Blumler & Katz, 1974).
Furthermore, as Rosen (1990) argued, understanding the success of reality television requires an
understanding of the audiences needs and desires for such programming.
Reality TV 5
Literature Review
Rubin (1983) categorized television viewers as either ritualized or instrumental. Ritualized
viewers make avid habitual use of television for diversionary reasons—e.g., relaxation, entertainment,
companionship, time-consumption—and “view considerable amounts of a perceived realistic medium
with which they feel a particular affinity” (p. 50). Instrumental viewers are goal-oriented in their use of
television and watch “to learn about people, places and events and to use this information in interpersonal
interaction” (p. 50).
As noted above, a uses and gratifications paradigm presupposes that audience motivations for
television viewing are directly related to content and patterns of media use (Rubin, 1981a, 1983).
Motivations for viewing Reality TV should therefore differ from other televised content and be associated
with slightly different patterns of media use. Indeed, researchers have identified unique uses and different
patterns of media use among viewers of different television genres, for instance, religious programs
(Abelman, 1987, 1988, 1989), soap operas (Babrow, 1987; Perse, 1986; Lemish, 1985), and network and
cable news programs (Rubin, 1981b; Vincent & Basil, 1997), to name a few.
Researchers do not yet fully understand motives for viewing reality programming, although the
evidence gathered to date suggests that these motives are quite diverse. Reality programming as a genre
encompasses numerous television genres and sub-genres—including soap operas, documentaries, game
shows, crime dramas, travelogues, and pseudo-sports competitions—and may thus present a challenge to
literature that has for the most part confined television media use to ritualized and instrumental categories
(cf. Abelman, 1987, 1988, 1989). It appears that the nature of the audience of reality programming
deviates somewhat from that of the “typical” television viewer.
Wei and Tootle (2002) found “two new gratification dimensions sought from Reality TV
viewing—life-like format and vicarious participation” (p. 16) and concluded that the typical Reality TV
fan does not fit the traditional understanding of a passive television viewer. Along similar lines, Gardyn
(2001) found that the number one reason people watch reality programming is the thrill of “guessing who
Reality TV 6
will win or be eliminated from the show” (p. 35). This reason was cited by 69% of all Reality TV
viewers. The second and third reasons all viewers have for watching, according to the same study, was “to
see people face challenging situations” (63%) and “imagining how I would perform in similar situations”
(42%) (p. 35). According to another survey, “viewers voting contestants off” is one of the most popular
elements the respondents would like to see (E-Poll, 2002). Many recent additions to the reality
programming line-up tap into this need for interactivity and virtual control by involving some form of
audience voting or live participation mechanism.
It is possible that vicarious participation (what Kilborn, 1994, describes as “audience
identification”) in the lives of “real people” who find instant celebrity, romance, and perhaps riches
explains some of the appeal. At the same time, reality shows satisfy voyeuristic desires for many of their
viewers. Many of the shows rely on “titillation, the promise of glimpsing strangers thrown into forced
intimacy” (Johnson, 2001, p. 57). Johnson explains that Reality TV is designed to make us feel “guilty
about watching it. Like porn, it sells the illusion that we’re glimpsing a side of people we’re not supposed
to see. And a certain sense of shameful addiction is part of the attraction” (p. 57). Frank (2000) suggests
that the attraction of this programming “is what devotees hope they will see, despite their knowing TV
would never allow it” (p. 49).
A prime viewing motivation may thus go beyond mere entertainment, relaxation, pass time or
wish fulfillment and relate to the eccentricities or inanities of human behavior; “events that deviate from
the norm of boring, everyday routine” (Kilborn, 1994, p. 424). Along these lines, some observers have
remarked that reality programming may be “relying to a certain extent upon its novelty to attract an
audience” (Caristi, 2001, p. 74). Others have suggested a more sinister motive. Fishman (quoted in
Mason, 2000) offered the German word schadenfreude to explain the human propensity for “taking
delight in the misfortunes of others.” One begins to define oneself, then, in response to the misfortunes,
foolishness or televised absurdities of another.
In light of the foregoing, a pattern emerges that appears to expand conceptual distinctions drawn
between ritualized and instrumental television use. The literature suggests the possibility that a viewer of
Reality TV 7
reality programming is not motivated by only ritual or instrumental factors identified in previous uses and
gratifications research, but among other things a general desire to (re)define, reinforce or elevate one’s
self-identity through identification or vicarious fulfillment of some kind in an interactive (participatory)
environment. Reality TV’s intentional blurring of genres, inclusion of audience participation and control
in the outcome, and ability to present raw, authentic footage all work to extend previous assumptions
about the role television plays in individuals’ lives. The current investigation, then, further considers the
interrelated nature of television user motives and the relationships among television viewing motives and
viewing patterns. The following research question was raised in an attempt to more systematically
identify categories of reasons for viewing reality programming:
RQ: What are the motives for watching Reality TV?
In addition, levels of and affinity towards television in general, and Reality TV viewing
specifically, should be considered in seeking explanatory factors of Reality TV gratifications. Television
affinity is one’s attitude toward the medium that reflects the importance one assigns to television or a
specific television program (1981b). Wenner (1982) early on explained how viewing experiences of
audiences could shape their expectations for certain media use. Such consideration is wholly consistent
with the theoretical framework presented by the uses and gratifications paradigm (Rosengren, 1974).
Affinity has been correlated with viewing motives to examine the meaning of reasons for using
television (Greenberg, 1974; Rubin, 1979). Research has also considered how affinity relates to ritualistic
and instrumental media uses (Rubin, 1983), as well as to the viewing of certain TV programs or genres,
such as TV news magazine shows (Rubin, 1981b) and religious teaching shows (Abelman, 1988). As
previously reviewed, researchers have found distinctive viewing (consumption) patterns for ritualized and
instrumental viewers of soap opera, news, and religious television programming. It is therefore likely that
the viewing of reality-based programming involves similar distinctive levels of consumption and degrees
of television and program-specific affinity.
Hence, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Reality TV 8
H1: Significant positive correlations will be observed between affinity for television viewing and
the motives for viewing Reality TV programming.
H2: Significant positive correlations will be observed between affinity for Reality TV viewing and
the motives for viewing Reality TV programming.
Parasocial interaction (PSI) (Horton & Wohl, 1956; Horton & Strauss, 1957), may also explain
audience affinity toward and uses of reality programming. Researchers have examined the parasocial
interaction in relation to television news (Levy, 1979; Houlberg, 1984), soap operas (Perse & Rubin,
1988, 1989), and television shopping programs (Grant, et al. 1991). In each case, a positive relationship
between dependency on programming and parasocial interaction was identified. More importantly,
perhaps, in prior studies affinity has predicted such viewing outcomes as parasocial interaction (Rubin et
al., 1985), and soap opera involvement (Perse 1986; Rubin & Perse, 1987). Thus, viewers who watch a
personality or program over time may perceive a sense of intimacy with the personality or program
evolving from their expectations of increased intimacy in interpersonal experiences (Rubin, et al., 1985,
p. 156). Consequently,
H3: A significant positive correlation will be observed between affinity for Reality TV viewing
and parasocial interaction.
Furthermore, it is likely that parasocial interaction will determine how individuals make specific
use of particular media content. Rubin (1983) and Rubin, Perse and Powell (1985) reported correlations
between parasocial interaction and dependency on media sources for fulfilling particular social interaction
needs. Individuals with high PSI in relation to particular personalities or programming content may thus
be more likely to use that program or content for social companionship, fantasy, or some kind of wishfulfillment. Given the relationships between parasocial interaction and uses for attending to certain
programs, the following hypothesis was proposed:
H4: Significant positive correlations will be observed between parasocial interaction and the
motives for viewing Reality TV programming.
Reality TV 9
In addition, audiences’ perceptions of a program’s realism may effect how it is appreciated and
used. Dimensions of perceived realism have already been examined in effects studies (e.g., Hawkins &
Pingree, 1981; Potter, 1986, 1992). Hall (2003) recently explored audiences’ understanding and
conceptualization of media realism as it relates to a variety of television genres, including Reality TV.
Some participants reported that Reality TV was less enjoyable because it lacked “typicality” that is, it did
“not represent something that most people would experience” (p. 632). Participants considered other
popular shows such as the Real World as being low in realism as well, or lacking “factuality,” since
production factors such as “staging, editing out mundane events and participants adjusting their behavior
in the presence of the camera” were common (p. 634). Hall suggests that further research be conducted to
determine how individual conceptions of realism affect outcomes, how it is used, and how much an
individual learns from or is influenced by the text. This may be especially true of Reality TV, given the
genre’s claim to be “reality.” Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H5: A significant positive correlation will be observed between affinity for Reality TV viewing
and perceived realism.
Finally, perceptions of realism, or perceived realism, may also be related to parasocial interaction
when it comes to reality programming. Perse and Rubin (1988, 1989) confirmed that viewing attention
and perceived realism of soap opera content are positively related to PSI. Accordingly,
H6: A significant positive correlation will be observed between perceived realism and parasocial
interaction with Reality TV.
Reality TV 10
Method
Subjects
This study made use of a convenience sample of approximately 530 communication and
journalism students from five private and public colleges and universities across the United States and
one university in Canada. Approximately 62% of respondents were female and 38% were male. Most
were of traditional college age, i.e., “18-25” (93%), with 6% of respondents selecting “26-35”, and less
than 2% indicating an age of “36-45” or older. Although this sample is weighted to young adults and
women, this target audience is consistent with previous research of Reality TV audiences. Eighteen to 24year-olds are the most likely age group to tune in and “women are the die-hard fans,” comprising 64% of
regular viewers (Gardyn, 2001, p. 35).
Approximately 64% selected “Caucasian/White” for ethnicity, with “Black/African American”
selected by nearly 21%. “Hispanic” ethnicity was selected by 9.6% of respondents, with “Other” (2.9%),
“Asian” (2.9%) and “Pacific Islander” (.6%) accounting for the remainder. As would be expected with a
sample made up predominantly of students, most indicated their education level as “college [third or later
year]” (56.9%), followed by “college [first or second year]” at 39.9%. Others selected “high school or
less” (1.9%), “graduate school” (1.0%), and “college graduate” (.4%).
Procedures
During the 2002 spring semester, seven focus groups were conducted with 50 undergraduate
students enrolled in an introductory level communication course. Participants were asked to indicate why
they watched reality programming and why others might view such programming. From these groups, a
list of 27 use statements was developed into a survey that was then pre-tested on approximately 100
students.
To further refine the survey instrument a pilot study was conducted using a web (online) survey.
This survey was administered on a secure server (SSL/https) to insure anonymity of the respondents and
protection of data. An email invitation to participate in the online survey was posted to a listserv of
Reality TV 11
communication teachers and researchers. Recipients were instructed to direct their students to the URL
address linked within the email. As each respondent completed the online survey, the data was
automatically added to an Access database file that was later exported to SPSS for data analysis. In
addition to the 500 online surveys that were eventually submitted, 350 paper surveys identical to the
online survey were collected from respondents at one western and one mid-western university. A factor
analysis of the pilot study’s 27 “use statements” yielded a five-factor solution accounting for 55.6% of the
total variance. The number of factors was determined by selection those that had an eigenvalue of at least
1.0 and at least two items loading at or above .60 with no secondary loading greater than .40. A review of
subsequent research conducted by Wei and Tootle (2002) prompted the addition of items that would
capture viewers’ involvement because of the “life-like format” and “vicarious participation.” Between the
pilot and final survey, the instrument was modified by deleting items that failed to meet loading criteria
and replacing them with items from the Wei and Tootle study.
Additional sections of the questionnaire contained measures of media viewing patterns, which
included television and reality program viewing levels and affinity. Respondents were asked to indicate
the number of reality shows they watched, how long they had been watching Reality TV (less than 6
months, 6 months to 1 year, 1-2 years, more than 2 years), and how many hours of Reality TV they
watched during a normal, average week. Respondents were also asked to indicate how much time they
spend during a normal (average) week with television in general.
To measure affinity for television viewing in general, and for Reality TV specifically, a television
affinity scale developed by Rubin (1981a) was included in the survey. To explore respondents’
perceptions regarding the reality of Reality TV, a “perceived realism scale,” also developed by Rubin
(1981b), was modified to address the notion of Reality TV’s presentation of life as it really is.
Respondents reported agreement with 5 items using a 5-point Likert Scale, with 5 = Strongly Agree and 1
= Strongly Disagree. Items 2 and 4 were reverse coded for data analysis. The 10-item version of the
original 20-item PSI Scale for local TV news (Rubin, et al., 1985) was modified to address subjects’ level
of parasocial interaction with Reality TV.
Reality TV 12
For the purposes of this study, Reality TV was operationalized as shows from a variety of
broadcast and cable television networks defined as “reality television” by the Reality Planet website. The
reality television programs listed on this site included a broad range of program formats from broadcast
and cable television networks. Each show on the website was cross-referenced with the current edition of
TV Guide to determine if it was still being aired. Consistent with definitional criteria previously
associated with this genre (Creeber, 2001; Kilborn, 1994; Nichols, 1994; Caristi, 2001; Miller, 2000), the
list of Reality TV shows included semi-scripted programming that simulates real-world or real-life
situations and features ordinary people from the audience as participants. Nearly all shows used raw,
authentic and usually first-person participant or eye-witness testimony that was later reconstructed within
various narrative styles. Nearly all shows had companion websites that enabled viewers to acquire
behind-the-scenes information on the shows and in most cases participate in some manner.
Results
In response to the question, “About how long have you been watching Reality TV
programming?”, respondents were most likely to answer “more than 2 years” (50.3%), followed by “1-2
years” (21.3%), then “6 months to 1 year” (13.9%), “3 to 6 months” (8.5%), and, “less than 3 months”
(6.0%) (n = 366). When asked approximately how many hours of Reality TV programming they watch in
an average week, most responded from one to three (1-3) hours with a mean of 2.54 hours per week.
When asked approximately how many hours of general television programming they watch in an average
week, the average was 12.17 hours per week.
The most extensive section of the questionnaire presented 27 use statements with 5-item Likert
scale responses ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. Exploratory factor analysis (SPSSx
Principal Components Analysis with Varimax rotation) was employed to group the use statements.
Retaining factors with an eigenvalue of 1.0 or greater, which also contained at least two items meeting a
60/40 loading criterion, resulted in a five-factor solution accounting for a total of 64.2% of the total
variance (see Table 1).
Reality TV 13
The first factor, (eigenvalue = 7.2, variance after rotation = 34.16%, alpha = .89), which we call
“personal identification with real characters,” accounted for the majority of the variance explained. The
second factor, (eigenvalue = 2.3, variance after rotation = 10.87%, alpha = .74), is comprised of four use
statements and labeled, “entertainment”. The third factor, (eigenvalue = 1.6, variance after rotation =
7.75%, alpha = .79), which we call “mood change” is comprised of four use statements. The fourth factor,
(eigenvalue = 1.3, variance after rotation = 6.27%, alpha = .80), which we call “pass time”, is comprised
of two use statements. And finally, the fifth factor, (eigenvalue = 1.1, variance after rotation = 5.12%,
alpha = .75), which we call “vicarious participation” is comprised of two use statements. Six items that
loaded on more than one factor were removed before the final factor analysis was completed.
Responses to the retained items were summed and averaged to create scales representing each
factor. Entertainment (M = 3.71, SD = .67) and Pass Time (M = 3.55, SD = .88) had the highest means,
followed by Mood Change (M = 2.94, SD = .78), Personal Identification with Real Characters (M = 2.54,
SD = .73), and Vicarious Participation (M = 2.32, SD = .91).
Respondents were asked to indicate their affinity for television viewing in general, and their
affinity for watching Reality TV programs. The sample mean for affinity for general television viewing
was 2.35 (SD = .86) (1 = low, 5 = high) while the mean for affinity for Reality TV was 2.02 (SD = .70).
Statements about the perceived realism of Reality TV yielded a mean of 2.49 (SD = .62) (1 = low, 5 =
high). And finally, ten items designed to explore the affect of parasocial interaction associated with
Reality TV viewing yielded a mean of 3.04 (SD = .65) on a scale of 1-5, with 5 indicating strong
parasocial interaction.
The partial correlations between each of the five Reality TV viewing motivations, viewing
affinity, parasocial interaction, perceived reality, and demographic variables are presented in Table 2. The
first two hypotheses predicted significant positive relationships between affinity for general and Reality
TV viewing and each of the motives for watching Reality TV. The data supported both the hypothesis for
all but one of the viewing motives—that is “viewing to pass time.” The higher the level of affinity for
general TV and Reality TV viewing, the more likely the respondent was to identify with the use
Reality TV 14
statements that described various motives for watching Reality TV. The most substantial relationships
were between viewing affinity and viewing because of “personal identification with real characters.”
The third hypothesis predicted a significant positive relationship between affinity for Reality TV
viewing and parasocial interaction. Respondents who showed strong affinity for Reality TV programming
were also likely to describe themselves in terms of strong parasocial interaction (r = .61, p <.01).
The fourth hypothesis predicted a significant positive relationship between parasocial interaction
and the motives for viewing Reality TV programming. The data supported this prediction for all but one
of the viewing motives—once again that motive was “viewing to pass time” (r = .03). The strongest
correlation was between parasocial interaction and viewing because of “personal identification with real
characters” (r = .74, p <.01). The other correlations were also moderately strong; “entertainment” (r = .56,
p <.01), “mood change” (r = .50, p <.01), and “vicarious participation” (r = .47, p <.01).
The fifth hypothesis predicted a significant positive relationship between affinity for Reality TV
viewing and perceived realism. The data supported this prediction (r = .42, p <.01).
Finally, the sixth hypothesis predicted a significant positive relationship between perceived
realism and parasocial interaction. The data also supported this prediction (r = .50, p <.01).
Discussion
The central research question sought to systematically identify patterns of Reality TV viewing
and motivations for viewing Reality TV within a uses and gratifications paradigm. Additional analysis
sought to identify the relationship between Reality TV affinity and motives for viewing reality
programming. Lastly, it was suggested that the motivations for viewing Reality TV, along with parasocial
interaction and perceived realism, might predict Reality TV affinity and that parasocial interaction was
related to certain uses of reality programming among viewers.
To begin, subjects reported watching 2.54 hours of Reality TV per week. Although this number
may appear low, it may be more useful to consider these responses in relation to the question of how
many total hours of TV were watched per week. In response to this question the average was 12.17 hours
Reality TV 15
per week. So even though our typical respondent did not claim to watch a lot of Reality TV programming
each week, neither did s/he report heavy viewing of television overall when compared to national
averages. In light of research recently conducted by Papper, Holmes and Popovich (2004), the actual
amount of Reality TV and general TV viewing may be considerably higher than reported. As one critic
commented, we are dealing with a “guilty pleasure” (Shales, 2003), and guilty pleasures are usually kept
secret or underestimated in an attempt to preserve one’s credibility.
Next, five primary motives for watching Reality TV were identified. The primary use, “personal
identification with real characters,” was comprised of six use statements and explained the greatest
amount of variance (34.16%). Many individuals in this study used Reality TV to clarify personal
commitments and reinforce notions of self-identity through identification with characters in a kind of
interactive (participatory) environment.
Davis’ (1983) idea of emotional contagion may help to explain this use. In personal
identification, viewers develop empathy, or emotional contagion, for characters they admire by putting
themselves in the place of the characters and imagining how they would respond in similar scenarios. The
use statements that loaded on this factor support this description; “Because I admire the characters” and
“To empathize with the contestants. One person even commented that she enjoyed watching because “It's
fun to put myself in their shoes.”
Personal identification thus goes beyond merely “pretending I am a contestant” to include
“pretending I am like, similar to, or identifiable with one of the contestants actually performing.” “I can
relate easily,” “I can relate to a loser boyfriend,” “relates to my age group,” and “has to do with
relationships I can relate to” were common ideas in the open-ended responses. The characters on reality
programs are ordinary, everyday people with whom viewers can relate in “weird ways,” as one participant
said. The “weird” may likely be the degree of perceived similarity that the viewer has with the character
or character type (e.g., the jock/athlete, the blue-collar worker, the class clown, the religious one, etc.).
The character’s failures, and corresponding successes, are internalized as the viewers’ successes and
Reality TV 16
failures in a way that reinforces conceptions about self. The notion that viewers might empathically
identify with television in this way was first suggested by Aronfreed (1968).
Moreover, as hinted above, a viewer’s emotional contagion may be enhanced or facilitated in the
case of Reality TV since the characters purport to be “real” people. Indeed, the use statements that loaded
on this factor capture this possibility; “To empathize with the contestants”, “Because it’s real”, “Because
it is true drama”, “Because I can really connect on a personal level with the characters.” One respondent
watched MTV’s Newlyweds because she wanted to “see what other relationships are REALLY like.”
Another person enjoyed watching because “It looks like someone's real life that is being taped.” Future
research might examine one’s capacity to demonstrate empathy as a predictor of enjoyment and use of
reality programming. Ability to demonstrate empathic concern may also be shown to influence individual
viewer’s susceptibility to the messages contained in the programs.
The next three uses—entertainment, mood change, pass time—support Rubin’s (1983) category
of “ritualized viewer” as it relates to reality programming. Ritualized viewers make avid habitual use of
television for diversionary purposes, such as entertainment, relaxation, and passing time-consumption.
In brief, the audience participatory and interactive nature of some reality programming might
have suggested a more instrumental use of the medium. But apart from the personal identification use, the
motives identified in this study point toward a ritualistic use of this genre of programming. Earlier studies
of religious programming (Abelman, 1987, 1988, 1989), soap operas, (Babrow, 1987; 1989), and news
programs (Rubin, 1981b) have resulted in factors that have attempted to distinguish the unique needs that
are met by those specific programming formats. And although this study is inconclusive in that regard,
there is strong support for the notion that personal identification with the on-screen characters, and the
interactions amongst characters, is an important component in drawing viewers to reality television
programs.
Additionally, whereas individuals find companionship in vicarious experience through watching
such programs as soap operas (Babrow, 1987, 1989; Lemish, 1985), the same could not be said of those
included in this study who reported watching reality programming. Since Reality TV includes elements of
Reality TV 17
soap opera, one might have expected a similar use of the programming as found in previous studies of
soap operas. Furthermore, a long-held “truism” about Reality TV is that people watch so they can have
something to talk about with friends (Reiss & Wiltz, 2001, p. 52). Indeed, the open-ended data revealed
that for some individuals, a companionship use is part of their experience. For instance, one individual
remarked, “I like it because all of my friends watch it together,” and another said, “I just watch it to hear
and discuss it with everyone else.” One individual identified a companionship use at a much larger level,
“Because we can cram 40-50 people in my friends’ basement to watch it and make up our own
challenges.” But in the end, despite these few supporting statements, the factor analysis did not support a
companionship/social interaction use. Personal identification, the primary use identified, may explain why
social companionship was not identified as a use. The nature of personal identification, it appears, is to
turn viewers toward a more inner than outer orientation in an attempt to clarify notions of self.
Much of the literature reviewed suggested that individuals were drawn to reality programming
and its appeal to voyeuristic curiosity. However, a voyeuristic use was not identified in this study. This is
somewhat surprising in light of recent investigations such as Crook et al. (2004) that found a positive
relationship between morbid curiosity (a subset of voyeurism) and program affinity. Nabi and colleagues’
investigation (2003), which also examined voyeurism, was somewhat less supportive of voyeurism’s
predictive powers. In Nabi’s study, subjects’ perceptions of reality programming realism mediated the
predictive power of voyeurism. It is possible that a voyeuristic use was not identified in the current
investigation because the use statements did not accurately reflect this construct. Future research might
focus on using more precise measures of voyeurism in an effort to determine the extent to which
voyeurism predicts viewing motivations of reality programming when perceived realism is factored into
the equation. Perceived realism may well be the “condition precedent” to the emergence of this and other
uses.
Consistent with predictions, affinity for general television viewing and Reality TV program
viewing positively correlated with all but one of the viewing motives—that is, “viewing to pass time.” In
fact, as the level of affinity for general TV and Reality TV viewing increased, respondents were more
Reality TV 18
likely to identify with the use statements that described various motives for watching Reality TV. The
most substantial relationships were between viewing affinity and viewing because of “personal
identification with real characters.” This is no surprise given the variance accounted for by this factor,
suggesting its classification as a primary use of the medium. Also, as noted by prior uses and
gratifications research, “individuals view considerable amounts of a perceived realistic medium with
which they feel a particular affinity” (Rubin, 1983, p. 50). It appears that Reality TV programming is no
exception to this general media use postulate. Reality TV, similar to religious programs (Abelman, 1989),
news programs (Vincent & Basil, 1997), and news magazine shows (Rubin, 1981b), generates unique
uses and different patterns of media use among viewers.
The third hypothesis predicted a significant positive relationship between affinity for Reality TV
viewing and parasocial interaction. This hypothesis was supported, suggesting that respondents who
showed strong affinity for Reality TV programming were also likely to describe themselves in terms of
strong parasocial interaction (r = .61, p <.01). This finding is wholly consistent with past media effects
research. For instance, Rubin (1983) and Rubin, Perse and Powell (1985) reported correlations between
parasocial interaction and dependency on media sources for fulfilling particular social interaction needs.
The ability of the Reality TV genre to relate to its audiences in significant ways by drawing on common,
everyday relational experiences and events may help to explain this strong correlation. The primary use,
personal identification, suggests that individuals are drawn toward reality programming because its
characters are relatable or similar to the audience members in significant ways.
The fourth hypothesis predicted a significant positive relationship between parasocial interaction
and the motives for viewing Reality TV programming. The data supported this prediction for all but one
of the viewing motives, that is, “viewing to pass time.” The strongest correlation was between parasocial
interaction and viewing because of personal identification with real characters (r = .74). This tends to
support the description of the use titled personal identification, namely, that individuals closely identify
with characters they relate to on a very personal level; characters that represent or “speak for” viewers in
Reality TV 19
some way. The other correlations were also moderately strong; entertainment (r = .56), mood change (r =
.50), and vicarious participation (r = .47).
The fifth hypothesis predicted a significant positive relationship between affinity for Reality TV
viewing and perceived realism. The data also supported this prediction (r = .42) suggesting that those who
believe that Reality TV programs are in fact true to life are more likely to also express a strong
attachment to this genre. This finding was suggested by Hall (2003), who explored audiences’
understanding and conceptualization of media realism as it relates to a variety of television genres,
including Reality TV. Hall found that subjects reported that much of Reality TV may not be as realistic as
it purports since it lacks “typicality,” that is, it does “not represent something that most people would
experience” (p. 632). Other shows were less enjoyable, for example, The Real World, since they lacked
“factuality” (p. 634).
Future research should examine what characteristics of the show or the audience members shape
perceptions of realism, and whether perceptions of program realism effect how the program is used.
Another avenue might be to consider how perceptions of realism influence the extent to which individuals
are influenced by the program’s messages. Carveth and Alexander (1985) found that individuals who
frequently and ritualistically selected soap operas were more susceptible to the genre’s messages than less
frequent viewers.
Consistent with predictions, the sixth hypothesis supported a significant positive relationship
between perceived realism and parasocial interaction (r = .50, p <.01). This suggests that those who
believe that Reality TV programs are in fact true to life are more likely to experience an emotional
connection with the on-screen characters. This is consistent with the findings reported above stating that
those who find Reality TV programs are true to life have a stronger affinity, or attachment, toward this
genre. Affinity toward reality programming is also a strong predictor of parasocial interaction. Perse and
Rubin (1988) showed that intention and attention activity measures are important contributors in addition
to motives and attitudes in explaining parasocial interaction. In other words, parasocial interaction,
thinking about content, and discussing content represent related, yet different, proportions of media
Reality TV 20
involvement. For example, they found that viewing attention and perceived realism of soap opera content
correlated with para social interaction. This suggests that parasocial interaction reflects attention to
realistically perceived content during the viewing experience (p. 251).
The qualitative data gathered in this study suggest a possible motivation for viewing not
identified in past uses and gratifications research, in general, or research related to Reality TV, in
particular. Survey respondents were asked to write in the title of their favorite reality TV program. By a
wide margin the most popular program was The Real World, followed by The Bachelor/Bachelorette, and
Survivor. One hundred and ninety two (n = 192) responses to the open-ended question “Why is this your
favorite reality TV show?” were analyzed in an attempt to group responses into broad categories. The
most frequent response (n = 49) related to the idea that they found the program “humorous.” Example
responses include “because it is really funny” and “it keeps you laughing for an hour.” Further analysis of
this category revealed that subjects were amused, or humored, by the “stupidity” of the characters and
their actions. In other words, they found certain programs funny because they showed others’ acts of
stupidity or misfortune. As one subject responded, “it is funny to watch people act stupid on national
television.” Others echoed this sentiment: “I like the dramatic girls and I think it is crazy how girls could
be that stupid for 1 guy”; “Because those morons do some STUPID, funny stuff”; “Because the people are
so dumb and ridiculous that it is funny”; and “The guy is getting fooled.” This idea was further
highlighted with a few shows in particular, for example, MTV’s Newlyweds: “I like it because Jessica
Simpson is so stupid” and “Because the couple is experimenting with their first year of marriage, they
love each other, and Jessica isn't the smartest—it’s funny.”
On the whole, it is likely that such responses lend support to Fishman’s idea (quoted in Mason,
2000) that viewers of Reality TV have a greater propensity than non-viewers to take delight in the
misfortunes of others. In this way, one feels better about oneself, or is able to define oneself as “not
stupid,” by criticizing the televised absurdities of another. Future research might distinguish this possible
use (“taking delight in misfortunes of others”) from what Crook, et al (2004) define as “morbid curiosity.”
Reality TV 21
Researchers might also examine whether self-esteem is related to this category of use or can be said to
predict other use patterns within the various possible sub-categories of reality-based programming.
One limitation of this study related to the sample. Nearly all participants were college students
within the 18-25 age range. Although this may be less of a limitation than first imagined given the finding
that 18 to 24-year-olds are the most likely age group to tune in (Gardyn, 2001), it is possible that uses and
viewing patterns may differ based on age, occupational status, and other such demographic variables.
Future research should strategically sample to include a greater representation of sub-groups.
A second limitation is related to our definition of reality programming. We employed a definition
of Reality TV program that focused on production and programming features common in most reality
shows. This definition, albeit exhaustive and accepted within the literature, does not reflect the subtle subcategories of reality programming that may arguably exist. Specific sub-categories of reality
programming have been suggested, for example, “Romance/Dating,” “Voyeurism” and “Challenge,”
although some problems with exclusivity of categories remains (e.g., Crook, et al. 2004). It is possible
that once shows are properly categorized into mutually exclusive categories, unique use patterns may
emerge among shows defined as “Romance/Dating”, “Challenge”, and so forth.
In conclusion, this project suggested the possibility that Reality TV users do not fit neatly into
ritualized or instrumental viewing categories. Ritualized uses factored heavily into the analysis
(entertainment, relaxation, pass time), while instrumental uses were less active. The use category
“personal identification with real characters” suggested that viewers connect most strongly with on-screen
characters who most closely resemble their own demographic and psychographic identity—the one
difference is that the on-screen character has already found his/her “fifteen minutes of fame.” If “reality”
as defined by Rosen (1990) is really just another sensation to be marketed by television program
executives, it may be because viewers enjoy watching people who are enough like themselves that they
feel a sense of connection and vicarious participation. The relationship between perceived realism,
parasocial interaction and program affinity suggests that as the “realism” factor in reality programming
Reality TV 22
increases, corresponding levels of program affinity will also increase. Affinity, in turn, may fuel the
production of more reality shows with no end in sight.
Reality TV 23
References
Abelman, R. (1987). Religious television uses and gratifications. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media, 31, 293-307.
Abelman, R. (1988). Motivations for viewing The 700 Club. Journalism Quarterly, 65, 122-164.
Abelman, R. (1989). PTL Club viewer uses and gratifications. Communication Quarterly, 65, 122-164.
Aronfreed, J. (1968). Conduct and conscience: The socialization of internalized control over behavior.
New York: Academic Press.
Babrow, A. S. (1989). An expectancy-value analysis of the student soap opera audience. Communication
Research, 16, 155-178.
Babrow, A. (1987). Student motives for watching soap operas. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media, 31(3), 309-321.
Blumler, J. G., & Katz, E. (1974) (Eds.). The uses and mass communications: Current perspectives on
gratifications research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Caristi, D. (2001, July). Reality shows to the networks’ rescue. USA TodayMagazine, 72-74.
Carveth, R. A., & Alexander, A. (1985). Soap opera viewing motivations and the cultivation process.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 29(3), 259-73.
Creeber, G. (2001). The television genre book. London: British Film Institute.
Crook, S. F., Worrell, T.R., Westerman, D., Davis, J.S., Moyer, E.J., & Clarke, S.H. (2004, April).
Personality characteristics associated with watching reality programming. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional
approach. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 44, 113-126.
E-Poll, Reality TV: Facing a new reality. (2002). Retrieved April 2, 2004 from
http://www.epoll.com/reports/Reality%202%20promo.pdf
Fishman, M., & Cavender, G. (1998). Entertaining crime: Television reality programmes. New York:
Aldine De Gruyter.
Frank, R. (2000, Sept/Oct). A matter of survival. The New Leader, 47-49.
Gardyn, R. (2001, September). The tribe has spoken. American Demographics 23(9), 34-40.
Glynn, K. T. (1995). Tabloid television: Popular culture and the new reality programming. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Grant, A. E., Guthrie, K. K., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1991). Television shopping: Media system
dependency perspective. Communication Research, 18, 773-799.
Reality TV 24
Greenberg, B.A. (1974). Gratifications of television viewing and their correlates for British children. In
J.G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on
gratifications research (pp. 71-92). Beverly Hills CA: Sage.
Grubbs, J. (1997). Real world, real conversations: Communication in an increasingly parasocial and
pararealistic environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Hall, A. (2003). Reading realism: Audiences’ evaluations of the reality of media texts. Journal of
Communication, 53, 624-641.
Hamilton, A. (2002). Katpad.co.uk. Retrieved April 2, 2004 from
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/katpad/documentary.html
Hawkins, R. P., & Pingree, S. (1981). Uniform messages and habitual viewing: Unnecessary assumptions
in social reality effects. Human Communication Research, 7, 291-308.
Horton, D., & Strauss, A. S. (1957). Interaction in audience participation shows. American Journal of
Sociology, 62, 579-587.
Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observation on
intimacy at a distance, Psychiatry, 19, 215-229.
Houlberg, R. (1984). Local television news audience and the para-social interaction. Journal of
Broadcasting, 28, 423-429.
Johnson, B. D. (2001). We like to watch. Maclean’s, 114, 56-57.
Jones, J. (2002, May). Big Brother: An audience study of the UK transmission, 2000 and 2001. Paper
presented to the Media in Transition 2 conference, Cambridge, MA.
Kilborn, R. (1994, Dec). How real can you get?: Recent developments in reality television. European
Journal of Communication, 9(4), 421-439.
Larson, R., Kubey, R., & Colletti, J. (1989). Changing channels: Early adolescent media choices and
shifting investments in family and friends. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 18(6), 583-598.
Lemish, D. (1985) Soap opera viewing in college: A naturalistic inquiry. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 29(3), 275-293.
Levy, M. R. (1979). Watching TV news as para-social interaction. Journal of Broadcasting, 23, 69-80.
Levy, M. R., & Windahl, S. (1985). The concept of audience activity. In K.E. Rosengren et al. (Eds.),
Media Gratification Research: Current perspectives, pp. 109-122. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Mason, M. S. (2000, June 2). Get real. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved June 7, 2000 from
http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/2000/06/02/fp13s1-csm.shtml.
Miller, E. D. (2000). Fantasies of reality: Surviving reality-based programming. Social Policy, 8, 6-15.
Nabi, R. L., Biely, E. N., Morgan, S. J., & Stitt, C. R. (2003). Reality-based television programming and
the psychology of its appeal. Media Psychology, 5, 303-330.
Reality TV 25
Nichols, B. (ed.) (1994). Blurred boundaries. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Oliver, M. (1994). Influences of authoritarianism and portrayals of race on Caucasian viewers' responses
to reality-based crime dramas. Communication Reports, 9, 141-150.
Oliver, M., & Armstrong, G. (1995). Predictors of viewing and enjoyment of reality-based and fictional
crime shows. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, 559-570.
Papper, R. A., Holmes, M.E., & Popovich, M.N. (2004). Middletown media studies. The International
Digital Media & Arts Association Journal 1 (1). Retrieved April 2, 2004 from
http://www.bsu.edu/web/icommunication/news/idmaajournal.pdf
Perse, E. M. (1986). Soap opera viewing patterns of college students and cultivation. Journal of
Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 30, 175-193.
Perse, E. M., & Rubin, A.M. (1988). Audience activity and satisfaction with favorite television soap
opera. Journalism Quarterly, 65, 368-375.
Perse E. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1989). Attribution in social and parasocial relationships. Communication
Research, 16, 59-77.
Potter, W. J. (1986). Perceived reality and the cultivation hypothesis. Journal of Broadcasting and
Electronic Media, 30, 159-174.
Potter, W. J. (1992). How do adolescents’ perceptions of television reality change over time? Journalism
Quarterly, 69, 392-405.
Reiss, S., & Wiltz, J. (2001). Why America loves reality TV. Psychology Today, 52-54.
Rosen, J. (1990, Nov). The revenge of the real. The Listener, 37-38.
Rosengren, K. E. (1974). Uses and gratifications: A paradigm outlined. In J.G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.),
The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 269-286).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rowen, B. (2000). History of reality TV. Retrieved June 18, 2002 from
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/realitytv1.html
Rubin, A. M. (1979). Television use by children and adolescents. Human Communication Research, 5,
109-120.
Rubin, A. M. (1981a). An examination of television viewing motivations, Communication Research, 8,
141-165.
Rubin, A. M. (1981b) A multivariate analysis of ‘60 Minutes’ viewing motivations. Journalism
Quarterly, 58, 529-534.
Rubin, A. M. (1983) Television uses and gratifications: The interactions of viewing patterns and
motivations. Journal of Broadcasting, 27, 37-51.
Rubin, A. M. (1984). Ritualized and instrumental television viewing. Journal of Communication, 34, 6777.
Reality TV 26
Rubin, A. M., & Perse, E. (1987) Audience activity and television news gratifications, Communication
Research, 14(1), 58-84.
Rubin, A. M., Perse, E. M., & Powell, R. A. (1985). Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and local
television news viewing. Human Communication Research, 12, 155-180.
Rudolph, I. (2003, Jan.). Reality TV’s wild ride. TV Guide, 19-39.
Shales, T. (2003, Jan.). All too real. The Washington Post, C01.
Vincent, R., & Basil, M. (1997). College students’ news gratifications, media use, and current events
knowledge, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41(3), 380-393.
Wei, R., & Tootle, C. (2002). Gratifications of reality show viewing: Antecedents and consensuses. Paper
presented to the AEJMC 2002 convention, Miami Beach, FL.
Wenner, L. (1982). Gratifications sought and obtained in program dependency: A study of network
evening news programs and 60 Minutes, Communication Research, 9(4), 539-560.
Wieten, J. (1998). Reality television and social responsibility theory. In K. Brants, J. Hermes and L. van
Zoonen (eds.), The Media in Question: Popular Cultures and Public Interests (pp. 101-112). San
Francisco, CA: Sage Publications.
Wilkie, J. R. (1995). Reality programming and the based-on-fact tv movie: A comparative generic
analysis (America’s Most Wanted, Rescue 911, Unsolved Mysteries, Blind Faith, Mandela,
Unspeakable acts, Television, Docudrama). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Missouri.
Reality TV 27
Table 1
Factor Analysis of Motives for Watching Reality TV
Rotated Component Matrix
Because I can really connect on a personal
level with the characters
Because its real
Because it gives a “behind the scenes” look
into the lives of the characters
Because of the sexual tension between the
characters
Because it represents or portrays values or
lessons in life that I personally agree with
Because I’m attracted to “real” people
Because I admire the characters
To empathize with the contestants
Because it is true drama
Because I find the story line of the shows
entertaining
Because it’s fun find out what’s going to
happen to the characters
Because I like the competitions that they
show
Because I never know what I might see when
I watch
So I can forget about work or other things
To help change the mood I’m in
When there’s no one else to talk to or be with
Because it takes my mind off my problems
To pass the time when I’m bored
Because it gives me something to occupy my
time
To plot as if I were on the show s
To pretend that I’m a contestant
Factor 1
Personal
identification with
real characters
Factor 2
Entertainment
Factor 3
Mood change
Factor 4
Pass time
Factor 5
Vicarious
Participation
.651
.092
.115
-.035
.307
.751
.644
.046
.304
.136
.111
-.062
.088
.142
.194
.511
.280
.228
.279
.113
.746
.110
.173
-.006
.126
.775
.747
.563
.708
.136
.072
.067
.196
.357
.785
.076
.174
.188
.064
.123
.039
-.039
.122
.038
-.011
.086
.205
.387
-.087
-.024
.088
.768
.036
.171
.154
.164
.627
.192
-.087
.144
.334
.650
.116
.272
-.018
.097
.326
.266
.124
-.030
.007
.241
.196
-.091
.132
.087
.098
.812
.682
.578
.831
.115
.145
.064
.061
.367
.096
.884
.871
.098
.145
-.059
.176
.026
-.003
.266
.317
.129
.025
.139
.132
-.059
.066
.798
.811
Reality TV 28
Table 2
Correlation Matrix of Viewing Motivations
Correlates
Age
Gender
Personal
Identification
-.10
Entertainment
-.04
Mood
Change
-.12*
Pass
Time
-.11*
Vicarious
Participation
-.12*
.14**
.23**
.19**
.12*
.01
General TV
.14**
.09
.08
.13*
.09
Reality TV
.30**
.22**
.16**
.13*
.20**
General TV
.29**
.13*
.20**
.05
.17**
Reality TV
.52**
.35**
.38**
-.02
.41**
Parasocial Interaction
.74**
.56**
.50**
.03
.47**
Perceived Realism
.69**
.28**
.27**
-.02
.28**
Viewing Level
Affinity
Correlates
Age
Gender
Parasocial
Interaction
Perceived
Realism
Viewing Level
General TV
.01
.05
.14**
.09
Reality TV
-.07
.20**
.30**
.21**
General TV
-.05
.02
.29**
.26**
Reality TV
-.08
.12*
.61**
.42**
Affinity
* = significant at the .05 level, ** = significant at the .01 level
Reality TV 29