”Nix.
911's?“

ix .
. a}. Li. .._.
2.. .IWV‘G:
., A: . . .
.. Mow.» .(hr «,2
.. 91 52v”. ..

.
.
I

‘ a In.
.3.
473
.!

 

. ‘ “if 3

.r ,..¢........3... a

i 519‘...“ x.

N!) no. 7 D 1
x.

45.34.... I
..-,..:.., ‘ :Hunhx

, .r..:
. “."v

Flutl. i

fiafifi

 

 

 

“0 1+

I? [717/ /5/

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

AFFILIATION WITH PROGRAM CONTENT
AS A FACTOR IN
PERCEIVED REALITY OF REALITY TV

presented by

Jeffrey Bolt

has been accepted towards fuifillment
of the requirements for the

MA. degree in COMMUNICATION

 

 

 
   

 

Maid Professokb SignaturO
m9}! (0’ 300%,
Date

MSU is an Afiinnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

_ _ ._._._._-_-_-_-_._-_‘-.__.—-_._._._..—.—.—----.--_~-n-n-n-s—o-o-0-e—I-0-0—.-n-o---o---.-o—-o-o-o.

- v f - '

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

1335.3; 1307605

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DateDue.p65—p.15

AFFILIATION WITH PROGRAM CONTENT
AS A FACTOR IN
PERCEIVED REALITY OF REALITY TV
By

Jeffrey Bolt

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Communication

2004

ABSTRACT
AFFILIATION WITH PROGRAM CONTENT
As A FACTOR IN
PERCEIVED REALITY OF REALITY TV
By

Jeffrey Bolt

This study investigated reality TV. The first step was to develop a clear
conceptualization of what can be classified as reality TV. Also within a
conceptualization of reality TV, different forms and classifications of reality TV are
outlined. A study was developed with two primary objectives. The first was to
investigate the differences in viewers’ perceived reality of a reality TV show and other
forms of television programming. The study produced significant results. Respondents
reported reality TV was more realistic than other forms of television programming on the
social realism dimension of perceived reality. When perceived reality was measured on
the utility dimension, respondents reported that television in general was more realistic
than a reality TV program. This was the same case for the identity dimension of
perceived reality. The second part of the study investigated if affiliation is a factor in
perceived reality. Affiliation for this study was understood as either belonging to a Greek
organization or attending SUNY Buffalo. After controlling for variance, attending
SUNY Buffalo did not influence a person’s perceived reality. Belonging to a Greek
organization did influence a person’s perceived reality. Respondents involved in a Greek
fraternity or sorority had significantly lower levels of perceived reality of a reality TV

program on the social realism dimension, utility dimension, and identity dimension.

 

 

 

Dedicated to fi'iends and colleagues who welcomed me to 48223,

and to my friends and family who never let me leave 14227.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis could’ve not been completed if it were not for the help of several
people I have had the privilege to meet, study under, work with and befi'iend.

First, I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Bradley Greenberg. More than a
brilliant professor with a tremendous amount of patience, but a constant reminder of why
I continue with my education and an inspiration of what I one day hope to become. I
would also like to thank Dr. Mark Levy for helping without question when he was really
needed, Dr. Sandi Smith for her constant kindness and acting as a mother to us all when
ours were far away and to Dr. Tim Levine for his constant words of encouragement

whenever things felt overwhelming, “You’re here, by definition you’re already smart.”

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Chapter One:

Chapter Two:

Chapter Three:

Chapter Four:

Appendix I
Appendix II
Appendix HI

Bibliography

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction
Reality TV
Perceived Reality
Factors That Influence Perceived Reality
Direct Experiences
Research Question 1
Research Question 2
Research Question 3
Affiliation
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 4
Hypothesis 5
Hypothesis 6
Hypothesis 7

Methodology
Reality Stimulus Program
Independent Variable

Dependent Variables
Control Variables

Results
Discussion
Study Limitations
Future Research
Reality TV
‘Sorority Life 2’ Girls

Uses and Effects of television (Instrument)

31
36
39
4O

43

45

63

Table A
Table B
Table C
Table D
Table B

Table F

LIST OF TABLES

Cell sizes for RQl

ANOVA w/out covariance (social realism)
ANOVA w/out covariance (utility)

AN OVA w/out covariance (identity)

AN OVA w/out covariance (hometown knowledge)

ANOVA with covariance

vi

56

57

58

59

60

61

Chapter One
Introduction

According to cultivation theory, television viewers are cultivated to view reality
as similar to the world portrayed on television. Viewers who regularly watch television
see the world as television portrays it more so than viewers who do not regularly watch
television (Gerbner & Gross, 1976). Television is a tool teaching people how to act.
Viewers repeat behaviors and actions they witness on television. They form opinions
about the world based on the world they see on television. Previous studies have
suggested that variables such as program content and viewer’s perceived reality of
television interact with one another to influence viewer’s perception of society (Elliott &
Slatter, 1980; Bron, Huesmann, Brice, Fischer & Mermelstein, 1983).

The purpose of this paper is to investigate perceived reality. As stated above, the
more people believe that television is real, the more they will be affected by it. It should
be apparent then that what influences the amount of reality one perceives from television
is important. Factors that influence perceived reality include amount of television
viewing (Gerbner, Gross, Jackson-Beeck, Jeffi'ies-Fox & Signorielli, 1978), program
content (Busselle,l991; Pingree 1978), uses and gratifications of the viewer (Rubin,
1981; Rubin 1983) and age (Dorr, Kovaric & Doubleday, 1990; Hawkins, 1977; Pingree
& Hawkins, 1981; Reeves, 1978).

There are two questions about perceived reality in this study. The first is to
investigate perceived reality in a new domain of television, reality TV. By the name
alone, we should expect people to have higher levels of perceived reality of reality TV

compared to television in general.

The second major issue is to introduce another factor of perceived reality. This
study wishes to determine if affiliation can influence a person’s perceived reality.
Affiliation most basically can be understood as association of oneself with a group. More
specifically, does membership in a social group such as a fraternity or sorority or one’s
residence influence their perceived reality? This paper argues that affiliation does
influence a person’s perceived reality.

Before describing the study conducted for this paper, it is important to first
conceptualize reality TV, perceived reality and give a review of previous studies in
perceived reality.

Realig TV

In the 1987/1988 viewing season the American viewing audience was introduced
to a new form of television programming. The programming content was later labeled
reality TV and has since infiltrated its way into mainstream television programming. In
its origins, reality TV focused on crime programs such as ‘America’s Most Wanted’ and
‘Unsolved Mysteries’. With these particular shows in mind, Busselle began the
explication of reality TV. He stated,

“Reality based programs portray real events in a way that is similar to news and

documentary programs both in format and content. However, unlike news and

documentary programs, reality based programs use actors/actresses and re—created
scenes along with actual victims, witnesses, perpetrators and news footage in

portraying these “true” stories” (Busselle, 1991, p. 2).

Busselle’s definition was very accurate for his time. His simple two-sentence

definition was able to distinguish two particular shows, ‘America’s Most Wanted’ and

‘Unsolved Mysteries’, as reath TV. Programming today has evolved far beyond
Busselle’s dated definition. What is labeled as reality TV today is no longer within
Busselle’s original definition. What people believe to be reality TV today would no
longer include either ‘America’s Most Wanted’ or ‘Unsolved Mysteries’, the two reality
programs Busselle’s definition was based on. Following is a chronological further
examination of definitions of reality TV that have emerged from the mass media
constructing new forms of reality TV. With new forms of programming emerging, old
definitions of reality TV can no longer accurately create the demarcation between what is
reality TV and what is not.

It is important to remember that reality programming of today was not originally
an American idea. Kilborn, a professor at University of Stirling, Scotland attempted a
definition of reality TV in 1994. He stated,

“RP (reality programming) will involve (a) the recording, ‘on the wing’, and

frequently with the help of lightweight video equipment, of the events in the lives

of individuals or groups, (b) the attempt to simulate such real-life events through

various forms of dramatized reconstruction and (c) the incorporation of this

material, in suitably edited form, into an attractively packaged television program

which can be promoted on the strength of its ‘reality’ credentials” (Kilbom,

1994, p. 423).

This more detailed definition was once again a product of its time. Kilborn’s
definition was based on the candid camera style reality shows popular overseas. Part (b)
of Kilborn’s definition is no longer valid today because reality TV cannot contain any

reconstruction. Reconstruction is for the docudramas, not reality TV.

One year later in France, Ehrenberg made a significant contribution to the
definition of reality TV. Ehrenberg (as cited in Dauncey, 1996) broke down French
reality shows into three groups. The téléfilm group consisted of shows that used actors to
give film reconstruction of authentic stories and then call on the actual protagonists.
Think of the little boy that was attacked by the grizzly bear. Actors under safe conditions
reenact the event while the actual boy tells his story of what happened that day.

The second group was labeled information-débat. In this situation, there is a
presentation of problematic situations that are then resolved by the individuals involved
and by certain number of ‘experts’ present in the studio. Think of an aftemoon talk show
labeled “My teen daughter is out of control”. Both mother and daughter talk about the
problems they are having with the host. After some time, the daughter leaves with an
‘expert’, a former drill sergeant who will whip the teen into shape. The talk show
concludes with a reunion of the mother and daughter after boot camp, a discussion of
what boot camp was like and how the relationship between mother and daughter has
changed.

Ehrenberg’s third and final group was labeled varieties-inspired groups. In this
instance, members of the public participate in the studio in the viewing of an event
reconstructed from their own lives and in a discussion of their experiences.

Although Ehrenberg’s groups can no longer define reality TV, he contributed the
notion of separation. Reality TV has grown so large in the public sphere that a single
definition can no longer encompass all forms of programming. This paper will integrate
the idea of separation in its definition of reality TV but before doing so, an examination

of another current definition of reality TV is needed.

Andrejevic (2002) defined reality TV with two exact shows in mind. His
definition is a working definition for MTV’s ‘Road Rules’ and ‘The Real World’.

“First, the fact that the characters are not professional actors and, second, that the

show’s action is unscripted. ..the fact that they (‘Road Rules’ and ‘The Real

World’) are not based on the documentation of exceptional moments, but on the

surveillance of the rhythm of day-tO-day life” (p. 259).

His first two points that the characters are not professional actors and the shows’
actions are unscripted is true for all reality T.V. This paper’s definition would like to add
that the primary character(s) are not actors because many reality programs have a host or
hostess who is a professional actor. Also, a recent reality program is based on six actors
pretending to be real and tape the actions of one real character in ‘Joe Schmo’. A third
exception is that some reality TV programs follow the lives of professional actors.
However, the reality program centers on their actual lives, not the actors acting. A final
distinction must be made between documentaries and reality TV. Reality TV programs
are intended to be broken into episodes. Documentaries are not filmed with the intention
to be watched in segments.

There are three distinct themes among reality TV since its birth to present day. At
this point a model is presented to distinguish between the many different forms of reality
TV (see Appendix I for chart). These categories are not mutually exclusive and certain
programs can be identified as all three. To be considered reality TV however, the
program must fit at least one of these categories. The first category will be labeled
romance. This category can be broken down into either a program of a dating adventure

such as ‘Blind Date’ where each episode features a new couple or series Of daters or there

can be a series of dating adventures where the program focuses on one particular
character or characters such as ‘The Bachelor’ .

The next category will be labeled contest. Contest reality TV programs focus on
the real life of real characters as they compete with or against other characters. Contest
programs can either be a single game where every episode has a new character such as
‘Fear Factor’ or a contest where the same characters repetitively compete for an ultimate
goal such as ‘Survivor’.

The final category will be labeled unfiltered life. Unfiltered life reality TV
programs can be understood as ‘fly on the wall’ filming or just simply videotaping the
daily lives of real people. The sub category Of familiar will consist of shows that capture
the everyday life of its participants as their life normally is even without being on the
particular show such as ‘Sorority Life’. Unfiltered life shows can also be labeled unique
if they captm'e the real life of people in unique situations such as ‘Boot Camp’.

This third criterion (separating reality programs into specific genres) was added to
distinguish all reality TV from typical game shows such as ‘Family Feud’ or ‘Wheel of
Forttme’.

For this study, reality TV is programming in which the primary character(s) are
not acting, are in an unscripted show with the intention to be broken into episodes. The
categories are defined by adding the phrase ‘and to expose the characteristics or limits of
said character(s) while engaging in. . .’ after our formal definition. For example, romance
reality TV is programming in which the primary character(s) are not acting, are in an

unscripted show with the intention to be broken into episodes and to expose the

characteristics or limits of said character(s) while engaging in romance. Unfiltered life
and contest will follow the same formula.

Before continuing, this paper will demonstrate another example. ‘Sorority Life’
is a program in which the primary characters are not acting, are in an unscripted show
with the intention to be broken into episodes and to expose the characteristics or limits of
said characters while engaging in a unfiltered life, everyday experience. Everyday
experience is added to separate ‘Sorority Life’ from other real life reality T.V. programs
that capture the real life experiences of characters when they are placed in a unique
situation such as a remote island or with seven strangers half way across the globe.

Once again it is important to stress that the elements in this model are not
mutually exclusive. A particular reality program may be a contest, unfiltered life and
romance. Think of the reality TV program ‘Who wants to Marry a Millionaire?’ The
show features a gentleman and exposes the characteristics or limits of said character
while engaging in romance over a period of dates. The show also features the
characteristics or limits of several beautiful women while engaging in an unfiltered life
unique situation. The women also are in a contest among each other over a period of
time trying to win a vote from the millionaire. This particular program demonstrates that
the categories established are not mutually exclusive. However, the program would be
classified as a period of dates, romance. Although ‘Who wants to Marry a Millionaire?’
is a contest and captures the real life drama of people in a unique situation, the main
focus of the program features weekly dates between the millionaire and these women and

is therefore considered a romance reality TV program.

The definition I have given to reality TV is a working definition for the remainder
of this paper. Eventually the definition will need to be modified or expanded as the
media innovates even newer forms of reality TV. For now, I hope this definition allows
us to (a) distinguish reality TV from all other forms of television programming such as
game shows, sit-coms, and talk shows and (b) allows us to distinguish among different
styles of reality TV. Following is brief literature review of perceived reality.

Perceived Reality

Early research in cultivation theory investigated if people who watched more
television would be affected by the television more than those who did not watch as
much television. It was proposed that a linear relationship existed in that the more
television one watches the more likely they will believe that television is just like the real
world. This positive relationship was not always found with increases in amount of
television viewing. It was speculated that perceived reality could be influencing how
much viewers believed television was just like the real world. Social reality construction
has shown that people who believe that television content is more realistic are more likely
to be influenced by it (Busselle & Greenberg, 2000).

Most basically, perceived reality can be understood as the degree of reality people
infer from a mediated message. How realistic or how close does a person believe the
media content is just like the real world? It is very important to note here that the
relationship has to do with how real the viewer perceives a mediated message. How real
or unreal the mediated message actually is has no importance to us. Potter (1986)
reported that more realistic messages were not always a significant factor. Only when

perceived reality is high, or when the person believes the mediated message is real will

viewers be more affected by television. Viewers are not more affected by realistic
content as opposed to fantasy, but rather on content they perceive to be more realistic. To
explain this Potter stated the following.
In studies where perceived reality was not a significant factor, the participants
were not told whether the content in the treatment was realistic or not. In
contrast, in studies where perceived reality was found to be significant,
participants were instructed about the reality of the material they were about to
view. The results of these two groups of studies suggest that perceived reality is
more likely associated with the individual differences rather than with the
message itself (p. 160).
An important distinction must be made in regards to perceived reality. Perceived
reality is not unidimensional (Greenberg and Reeves, 1976; Hawkins 1977; Potter, 1986).
A person’s belief in the reality of television varies with the specific parts of comparison
with television content. A person may believe for example that the reality of television is
just like the real world when looking at the characters presented on television. They can
believe that their favorite sitcom actor is not really acting. The character is just like
everybody else in the real world, perhaps just as real as they are. However this same
person may not have the same perceived reality of the situations that happen to this
character. They believe the character is real, just like anybody they would meet in real
life but on television this person lives an unreal life. A common phrase I’m sure we have
all said or at least heard while watching television is, “that never happens in real life.”

This hypothetical scenario illustrates the need for a multidimensional perspective of

perceived reality.

 

 

In previous literature different authors have attempted to distinguish different
dimensions in perceived realism (Greenberg & Reeves, 1976; Hawkins, 1977; Hawkins
& Pingree, 1980; Potter, 1986). In Busselle and Greenberg’s (2000) review of television
realism judgments they constructed six dimensions from all previously reported
dimensions. It is important to note that these dimensions are not mutually exclusive and
in previous literature have been described with different labels, only as a part Of Busselle
and Greenberg’s label, or as a compound of these labels.

“1. Magic Window: The extent to which television allows one to observe

ongoing life in another place or inside the set itself.

2. Social Realism: The extent to which television content, whether real or

fictional, is similar to life in the real world.

3. Plausibility: The extent to which something observed on TV could exist in the

real world.

4. Probability: The likelihood of something observed on TV existing in the real

world or the frequency with which it occurs.

5. Identity: The extent to which viewers incorporate television content into their

real lives or involve themselves with content elements.

6. Utility: How much information or events observed on television are useful to

the viewer in real life (p. 257).”

Although the previous mentioned six dimensions all measure a subject’s

perceived realism and are not mutually exclusive, it is important that they are treated as

totally exclusive constructs. Although the dimensions of perceived reality appear to be

10

similar, they should never be averaged or treated as a single construct because they can at
times be measuring very different things.

As noted above, perceived realism can be measured on different dimensions. The
range of these dimensions should also be noted. The realism of television can be
investigated on a very specific or a broader general level. The investigator may be
interested in the respondent’s perceived realism of a specific scene, a series or just the
respondent’s perceived realism of television in general. Busselle and Greenberg (2000)
identified 4 different levels; global, genre, series and episode level.

Busselle and Greenberg (2000) not only suggested the multi—dimensionality and
different levels of perceived realism, but also the Objects of realism judgments. People
can have different levels of perceived reality depending upon what object Of television is
within question. Once again a person’s perceived realism can differ on what exactly is
being asked. It was found that people’s perceived realism differed when questioned
about characters on television and actions of the characters (Dorr, Kovaric, & Doubleday,
1990), and prosocial versus antisocial behaviors (Reeves, 1978). A person’s perceived
realism fluctuates as the object in question differs.

Thus far we have discussed that perceived reality is the degree of reath people
infer from a mediated message. It is multidimensional with at least six nonexclusive
previously reported dimensions. Not only does perceived reality vary on particular
dimensions, but also on levels of programs, and upon objects of the programs. It is
important to the researcher interested in perceived reality to consider its wide range. This
is not to suggest that one hundred items are needed to assess a person’s perceived reality.

As was noted earlier, many dimensions are not mutually exclusive. In Rubin, Palmgreen

ll

and Sypher’s Communication Research Measures sourcebook (1994), the editors use
only five items‘ for measuring perceived reality. These five items vary in dimensions that
they measure but all are at the global level. It is up to the individual researcher to decide
how specific a perceived realism scale is needed. In many circumstances, a simple
general item scale will be sufficient. Other times however, one may need to investigate
the many dimensions, levels and objects of perceived reality.

Following are previously significant factors influencing perceived reality.
Although mixed results can be found in the literature, the present study is interested in
Observing a new factor and control for other potential sources of variance is necessary.
Previously reported influencing factors of perceived reality are age, program content,
amount of television watched and direct experiences. It is only when controlling for
these influencing factors can a new factor emerge and be observed.

Factors that influence perceived real_ity

In the research conducted on children, a negative linear relationship has been
discovered with age and perceived reality (Hawkins, 1977; Pingree, 1978). As children
get Older they find television to be less realistic. This however is not the case for every
dimension of perceived reality and the relationship levels off or disappears after
adolescence.

It has been found that people’s perceived realism functions depending upon the
program content. Programs that feature more traditional families were perceived as more
realistic than less traditional families (Dorr et al., 1990).

In previous research, a person’s viewing motives have been found to significantly

correlate with their perceived reality (Rubin, 1981). The strongest positive relationship

12

was found with those who viewed for information. People who watch television for
information, to gain or increase knowledge, have higher levels of perceived reality. On
the other hand, people who watch television for escape, or to get away from the realities
that every day life bestows upon the viewer had the lowest levels of perceived reality.
Viewing for companionship was also very low while viewing for entertainment was
considerably higher (Rubin, 1983).

The amount of television one views has been significantly correlated with
perceived reality (Elliott & Slatter, 1980, Greenberg, B.S., Neuendorf, K., Buerkel-
Rothfuss, N., & Henderson, L., 1982, Greenberg & Reeves, 1976; Slatter & Elliott 1982).
Participants who watch the most television have the highest levels of perceived realism.
Direct experiences

Direct experience has been found to have a significant effect with perceived
reality. Slater and Eliott (1982) surveyed high school students who had direct experience
with law enforcement officials. Some of the participants had negative experiences while
others had what was assumed to be positive experiences. They found a positive
relationship with negative direct experiences and the acceptance of TV portrayals of
police behavior. Those participants who were not too fond of police officers believed
that television portrayed police officers more accurately.

Donohue and Donohue (1977) examined participants’ perceptions of minorities.
Participants who watched television the most, without other experiences with Blacks
were more likely to give the television world response to questions asked about the

minority.

l3

I

 

 

People with less direct experiences are more likely to believe television’s
portrayal of events. The reasoning behind this notion is simple. People with more direct
experiences have more to base their judgments on. Those without real life direct
experiences do not have a comparison base and are left only with television’s portrayal.

The underlining reason behind this effect is because television does not accurately
represent minorities, professions, situations or whatever is under study. People with
direct experiences are the individuals who can watch television and understand ‘that is
not the way it really is.’ But what if television portrayed life as it really is? What if
television became reality TV?

This study will examine people’s perceived reality of television in general along
with their perceived reality of a popular reality TV program. Although reality TV is
programming in which the primary character(s) are not acting, are in an unscripted show
with the intention to be broken into episodes does not necessarily make it perceived as
more real. Due to clever editing and the suspicion the viewing public has about the
media, it is not clear if reality TV is perceived as more realistic than other forms of
television programming. Does reality TV significantly differ from other genres of
programming in viewers’ perceived reality?

RQl: Does reality TV significantly differ from other genres of programming in
viewers’ perceived reality social realism dimension?

RQ2: Does reality TV significantly differ from other genres of programming in

viewers’ perceived reality utility dimension?

14

RQ3: Does reality TV significantly differ from other genres of programming in
viewers’ perceived reality identity dimension?
Affiliation

From a very young age, we are socialized to seek out an identification of we.
While simultaneously understanding ourselves as an individual, we form groups or aspire
to hold membership in reference groups. These provide us with a sense of identity and
connect us to society (Newman & Newman, 2001).

This study was interested in investigating if people’s affiliation could influence
their perceived reality. Webster’s dictionary defines affiliate as “to associate (oneself)
with a group” (Agnes, 2002). Most commonly used with political or religious afliliation,
people associate themselves as democrats, republicans, protestants, Catholics, Jews, etc.

The groups we affiliate ourselves with do not always have to be formally labeled
or defined such as political or religious affiliation. Individuals involved in gangs or hate
organizations can have an even stronger sense of affiliation without social acceptance.
These organizations provide a sense of belonging however, an emotion that is constantly
in need of satisfaction on a day-to-day basis. Astra and Singg (2000) stated,

“Human beings are social animals with an innate need to affiliate or associate

with one another. Selecting someone to work with, to ask for advice, to share

lunch with, and even to approach at a party are examples of the process Of

engaging in affiliative behavior (p. 1 5).”

Afliliation does not even need to be with an established group or organization.

The fiiends you form or having the same automobile as another can give a sense of

15

belonging. Wann, Schrader and Wilson (1999) investigated affiliation people have with
professional sporting teams. These affiliations exist because of a need to belong,

“This motive involves a fan’s need for belongingness. By becoming a fan of a

sport team, an individual is able to share the experience with other fans of the

same team. In this way, he or she can become attached to and identify with
something larger than the self, such as other fans, a college, a community, or even

a nation (p. 115).

Affiliation most basically can be understood as association of oneself with a
group. The group can be real or fictional, so long as the person believes they belong to
the particular group. In this particular study, the stimulus program featured sorority girls
attending The State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo. Participants who attend
SUNY Buffalo will have an affiliation with the school and the reality program that
depicts the school. This is especially true due to the fact that very few other programs
have had the setting of Buffalo New York, let alone the exact university that the
respondents are attending. Participants currently involved in a Greek organization will
also have an affiliation with this reality program that depicts Greek college life.

This study argues that reality TV is no more real than any other form of
programming. Reality TV does hold true to its definition that the primary characters are
not professional actors and the programs are unscripted. It is in the editing and
presentation of the program that hinders its perceived reality. When editing a program
into half or hour episodes, only the most interesting material is viewed by the public (The
reality of reality, 2003). For example, suppose a reality TV program aired a half hour

episode a week about yours truly. In my real life, I spend about five nights a week in my

16

apartment reading for or writing this study. One night a week I kick back and meet some
fiiends of mine at a local college bar. If so inclined, the Reality TV program about me
could air only scenes from this one night a week every week in their half hour episodes.
Viewers of this reality TV program who did not know me would watch me drinking at a
bar every week. Viewers would never witness me hard at work in my apartment and
could infer that I never do any schoolwork.

The particular show investigated in this study (‘Sorority Life 2’) was based on a
college sorority in Buffalo NY. Like in my previous example, this particular show only
highlighted certain aspects of the girls’ weekly life. In particular, every week the show
aired an immense amount of drama between the girls and concentrated on their romantic
adventures. College students in Buffalo NY. will have an affiliation with the program
content. Students involved in a Greek organization will also have an affiliation with the
program content. I believe it is these people that when watching the show, are most alert
to fabrications fiom producers of the show. It is these people with an affiliation that are
concerned with the show’s presentation of the subject matter. How the characters on the
show are represented, is a reflection of what the rest of the viewing nation believes these
people are like. If in this particular show, every week the viewing audience witnesses
snobby sorority girls, the audience may come to believe that all sorority girls or
everybody at SUNY Buffalo is snobby. This idea of affiliation is different fi'om direct
experiences because the viewer is not necessarily comparing televisions portrayal of
events to his or her own real life experiences. With affiliation, the viewer is comparing
televisions portrayal to how he or she wants to be perceived. When affiliation exists with

the program content it is as if the program shows the viewing audience your life. This is

17

then compared to how the person with affiliation wants to be perceived. When a
difference exists between the two, the viewers perceived realty of the program will
lessen.

When respondents have an affiliation with the program, I believe that these
respondents will have lower levels of perceived reality of the particular show that they
have an affiliation with. Affiliation with the subject matter of a reality TV program will
be negatively related to perceived reality of that program.

H1: Participants who attend SUNY Buffalo will have lower perceived reality
social realism dimension of a reality TV program filmed in Buffalo than students who do
not attend SUNY Buffalo.

H2: Participants who attend SUNY Buffalo will have lower perceived reality
utility dimension of a reality TV program filmed in Buffalo than students who do not
attend SUNY Buffalo.

H3: Participants who attend SUNY Buffalo will have lower perceived reality
identity dimension of a reality TV program filmed in Buffalo than students who do not
attend SUNY Buffalo.

H4: Participants who attend SUNY Buffalo will have lower perceived reality
hometown knowledge dimension of a reality TV program filmed in Buffalo than students
who do not attend SUNY Buffalo.

H5: Participants who are involved in a Greek organization will have lower
perceived reality social realism dimension of a reality TV program featuring Greek life

than students who are not involved in a Greek organization.

18

H6: Participants who are involved in a Greek organization will have lower
perceived reality utility dimension of a reality TV program featuring Greek life than
students who are not involved in a Greek organization.

H7: Participants who are involved in a Greek organization will have lower
perceived reality identity dimension of a reality TV program featuring Greek life than

students who are not involved in a Greek organization.

19

CHAPTER TWO
Methodology
This study had two major goals. The first was to compare participants’ perceived
reality of television with reality TV. The second goal was to investigate if affiliation
could influence perceived reality of a reality based program.

In April 2003, undergraduate students (11 = 43 9) from two different large
universities were instructed to watch the reality television program ‘Sorority Life 2.’
Two schools were chosen because one school had a student body that would have an
afiiliation with the program while another would not. The show aired on MTV at 10 pm.
on Wednesday nights. They were able to watch the program in their own homes or had
the option to watch a taped version of the show at the university. Three weeks later a
questionnaire was administered (see appendix III) as a research Opportunity as a partial
requirement for their class or for extra credit.

Reality Stimulus Progra_m

The reality program ‘Sorority Life 2’ was chosen for several reasons: (1) in pre-
tests, participants reported being at least somewhat to very familiar with the show, (2) the
show focused on the life of sorority girls, a subject group that could easily be compared
for affiliation and (3) it was filmed in a non popular location where access to participants
was obtainable for another comparison of affiliation.

‘Sorority Life 2’ featured the fall 2002 pledge class of DZO fiom The University
at Buffalo. The 13-week episode series documented the lives of the girls pledging their
way into the sorority. The program consisted of footage of the girls’ daily activities

along with personal interviews. For example, the program would show Nicole on a date

20

with Tim, and then the audience would see Nicole (alone) talking to the camera about
what she was thinking and feeling during the date. The weekly half hour episodes were
compressed from many days and nights of activities. This is important to note because it
exemplifies the idea that the viewing audience only witnessed the highlights of the days
shown. The day-to-day routines of these girls were therefore not shown, but rather only
the unique aspects that occurred from one episode to the next.
Independent vm
This study constructed two main independent variables to measure

participants’ affiliation. The first was not even asked on the questionnaire but was
assumed. Participants were broken into two groups depending upon what university they
attended. Participants currently enrolled at SUNY Buffalo (11 = 95) were considered to
have affiliation with the stimulus program (‘Sorority Life 2’) because they attend the
university it was filmed at. The second group of participants was currently enrolled at
Michigan State University (11 = 319). These participants could be considered to have
affiliation with MSU but not SUNY Buffalo. As a check of this affiliation measure, two
further questions were asked. Participants were asked, “In what city do you currently
live?” and “Where did you live during high school?” No participants in the second group
(MSU students) answered to living in the Buffalo area either currently or in high school.
This allowed the currently enrolled SUNY Bufi‘alo students to have exclusive affiliation
with the university and city where our stimulus program was filmed.

The second measure of affiliation dealt with the program content. ‘Sorority Life
2’ focused on the lives of girls pledging their way into a sorority. Those participants

involved in a Greek organization would have higher affiliation with the program (n = 73)

21

than those not involved in a Greek organization (11 = 341). Participants were asked, “Do
you belong to a Greek fraternity or sorority?” A five point scale also was composed as a
check for affiliation with the program content. Participants were asked “How often do
you interact with somebody in a Greek fraternity or sorority?” (1 = very often, 2 = often,
3 = somewhat, 4 = not often, 5 = never). Both these measures of affiliation were the
independent variables used in hypothesis 1 through 7. (See table A for cell size break
down).
Dependent VM

As discussed earlier in chapter one, perceived reality is composed of different
dimensions. For the variable of perceived reality of television this study modeled
Potter’s 1986 three dimensions of perceived reality. Potter labeled his dimensions as
magic window, instruction and identity. According to the earlier analysis of perceived
reality, the dimensions could be better understood as social realism, utility and identity
respectfully. The twenty questions were measured on both the series and global level and
the objects were varied across all dimensions. The scale used a 5-point Likert scale (1 =
agree, 5 = disagree) with lower numbers representing more perceived reality. For
analysis, this was later recoded with higher numbers indicating larger amounts of
perceived reality.‘

The scale was updated from its conception in 1986. Certain questions asked
participants about their perceived realism of specific programs on television. The
updated scale used in this study used programs that were in Nielsen’s top ten list for

ratings when constructed to replace outdated television series. This was done to assure

 

‘ Only perceived reality of television in general identity dimension yielded a mean above the mid-point.

22

that most participants would be familiar with the programs questioned in the updated
scale. A variety of shows were selected to prevent any biases. No show was used in
more than three questions.

Social realism questions were constructed to measure the extent to which
television content, whether real or fictional, is similar to life in the real world. Question 4
was deleted from analysis and the remaining six items were composed as a single
measure with an alpha of .80 (M = 2.06, S. D. = .71). Social realism questions were:

The people I see playing parts on TV are just like their characters when
they are off camera in real life.

Kelsey Grammer who plays Frasier on Frasier probably acts in real life
the way Frasier does on the TV show.

The things that happen to Jennifer Aniston in real life are probably the
same things that happen to her character (Rachel) on Friends.

The people who are fimny as characters on comedy shows are probably
veryfimny in their real lives ‘.

Jennifer Aniston who plays Rachel on Friends probably acts in real life
the same as Rachel does on the TV show.

The people who act in TV shows about families probably behave the same
way in their real lives.

The things that happen to Kelsey Grammer in real life are probably the
same as the things that happen to his character (Frasier) on TV.

The second dimension measured in this study was utility. These questions were
constructed to measure how much information or events observed on television are usefirl
to the viewer in real life. The seven items were composed as a single measure with an
alpha Of .77 (M = 2.48, SD. = .67). Utility questions were:

I feel I can learn a lot about people from watching TV.

 

‘ Item deleted from analysis

23

I feel I can learn a lot about how to solve my own problems by watching
Chi McBride on Boston Public.

By watching TV I feel I can learn about life’s problems and situations.
I feel I can learn a lot about people by watching Dr. John Carter on ER..

I get useful ideas about how I should act around my fi'iends and family by
watching characters on situation comedies.

I feel I can learn a lot about people by watching Will on Will and Grace.

The characters I see on situation comedies help give me ideas about how
to solve my own problems.

The last dimension to measure perceived reality of television in general were six
identity questions that measured the extent to which viewers incorporate television
content into their real lives or involve themselves with content elements. The six items
were composed into a single measure with an alpha of .58 (M = 3.07, SD. = .66). This
alpha was extremely low and not foreseeable. The analysis used this dimension even
with such a low reliability because of its high validity. Identity questions were:

On the TV show Will and Grace, Will acts like somebody I know in my
life.

There are a few characters on TV shows that I would like to be more like.
On That 70’s show, the father is like somebody I know.
I know someone in real life like Joey on Friends.
I know someone in real life like Chi McBride on Boston Public.
There are certain characters on TV shows that I admire.
For comparison, the perceived reality of a reality television program was needed.
Potter’s 1986 scale was once again updated and adapted for analysis. A five point Likert

scale was used again (1 = agree, 5 = disagree) with lower numbers representing more

24

perceived reality. This was once again recoded with higher numbers indicating larger
amounts of perceived reality. The three dimensions, social realism, utility and identity,
were used again but this time only on the series level. A fourth dimension was also
created to assess the participants’ perceived reality of the setting of the program. This
was labeled hometown knowledge. The questions created were the same as earlier asked
perceived reality questions however this time all specific program questions were about
four girls on ‘Sorority Life 2’. To assure the respondents’ were familiar with the names
of the four girls in the questionnaire, inserted into the questionnaire were the pictures and
names of the girls (http://www.mtv.com/onair/realworld/archive/seasonl .jhtrnl (see
appendix II).

Social realism questions were constructed to measure the extent to which
‘Sorority Life 2’ is similar to life in the real world. The eight questions were composed
as a single measure with an alpha of .78 (M = 2.68, SD. = .74). Social realism questions
were:

The girls I see on Sorority Life 2 are just like their characters when they
are off camera in real life.

Most college girls are like the girls on Sorority Life 2.

The girls on Sorority Life 2 treat their friends the same way they do in real
life when the camera is not on them.

The firings that happen to Karissa in real life when the camera is not on
her.

Brooke probably acts in real life when the camera is not on her the same
as she does on Sorority Life 2.

The girls who drink on Sorority Life 2 drink just as much in real life when
the camera is not on them.

Most Sororities are like Sorority Life 2.

25

The things that happen to Maggie in real life when the camera is not on
her are probably the same as the things that happen to her on Sorority Life
2.
The second dimension measured was utility questions. These were constructed to
measure how much information or events observed on ‘ Sorority Life 2’ are useful to the
viewer in real life. The nine questions were composed as a single measure with an alpha

of .89 (M = 1.95, SD. = .77). Utility questions were:

The girls I see on Sorority Life 2 help give me ideas about how to solve
my own problems.

I feel I can learn a lot about fiaternities and sororities fi'om watching
Sorority Life 2.

I feel I can learn a lot about college life fiom watching Sorority Life 2.
I feel I can learn a lot about people from watching Sorority Life 2.

I feel I can learn a lot about people from watching Nicole on Sorority Life
2.

I feel I can learn a lot about how to solve my problems fi'om Maggie on
Sorority Life 2.

By watching Sorority Life 2 I feel I can learn a lot about life’s problems
and situations.

I feel I can learn a lot about people fi'om watching Karissa on Sorority
Life.

I get usefirl ideas about how I should act around my fi'iends and family by
watching the girls on Sorority Life 2.

Identity questions were constructed to measure the extent to which viewers
incorporate ‘Sorority Life 2’ into their real lives or involve themselves with 'Sorority Life
2’. The seven questions were composed as a single measure with an alpha of .77 (M =

2.53, SD. = .81). Identity questions were:

26

There are certain girls on Sorority Life 2 that I admire.
I know someone in real life like Brooke on Sorority Life 2.
On Sorority Life 2, Maggie acts just like somebody I know in real life.

Nicole’s boyfriend Tim on Sorority Life 2 is just like someone I know in
real life.

There are a few girls on Sorority Lifiz 2 that I would like to be more like.

Nicole and Tim’s relationship on Sorority Life 2 is just like a relationship
I have been in.

I know someone in real life like Nicole on Sorority Life 2.

The last dimension created for this study was labeled hometown knowledge.
Hometown knowledge questions were constructed to measure the extent to which
viewers believed the city the program featured was as it is in the real world. This was
important because television can misrepresent or fabricate a city depicted just as much as
a character or object. It was especially important in this study because some of the
participants had an affiliation with the city portrayed by our stimulus program. Six
questions of hometown knowledge were composed as a single measure with an alpha of
.82 (M = 2.17, S. D. = .77). Hometown knowledge questions were:

Buffalo NY is like Sorority Life 2 shows it.

The sorority shown in Sorority Life 2 is like most other sororities at SUNY
Buffalo.

Most students that attend SUNY Buffalo are just like the girls on Sorority
Life 2.

The people shown in Sorority Life 2 are like other college students.

The people shown in Sorority Life 2 are just like most college students at
SUNY Buffalo.

27

The people shown in Sorority Life 2 are just like most people who live in
Buffalo NY.

Control Variables

Following are variables that this study wished to control for. From previous
research, these variables have been found to be related to perceived reality. It was the
goal of this study to control for these variables in order to examine if affiliation alone has
any effects on perceived reality. The variables measured for control were uses and
gratifications, amount of television watched, gender and year in school.

As discussed earlier, a person’s uses and gratifications of television have been
studied as a predictor of a person’s perceived reality. In Rubin’s 1983 study, respondents
who watched television for information and entertainment had higher levels of perceived
reality than those who watched for escape and companionship. This study used Rubin’s
1983 instrument to measure a persons’ uses and gratifications. All levels used a five
point Likert scale (1= agree, 5= disagree) with higher numbers indicating lower levels Of
the particular use and gratification. These responses were measured to control for the
individual differences that participants had in regards to their viewing motives.

Three questions measured the respondents’ viewing motive of companionship (M
= 3.26, SD. =1.02). Questions in this category investigated how much the respondent
watched television to feel less lonely or to almost be with a companion. The questions
were composed as a single measure with an alpha of .72. Companionship questions
were;

So I won’t have to be alone.

Because it makes me feel less lonely.

When there’s no one else to talk to or be with.

28

Next were three questions measuring the respondents’ uses and gratification for
escape (M = 3.24, SD. = .93). These questions assed how much the respondent watches
television to get away from everyday life, to escape fiom reality. The three questions
were composed as a single measure with an alpha of .73. Escape questions were;

So I can get away fi'om what I’m doing.

SO I can get away from the rest of the family or others.

SO I can forget about school or other things.

Three questions measured the respondents’ viewing motive of entertainment (M =
1.49, SD. = .61). Questions in this category investigated how much the respondent
watched television for pure enjoyment, to use television as a medium for entertainment.
The three questions were composed as a single measure with an alpha of .81.
Entertainment questions were;

Because it’s enjoyable.

Because it arnuses me.

Because it entertains me.

Lastly, three questions measured the respondents’ uses and gratification for information
(M = 3.51, S. D. = .92). These three questions assessed how much the respondent used
television to seek information. The three questions were composed as a single measure with an
alpha of .75. Information questions were;

So I could learn what could happen to me.

Because it helps me learn things about myself and others.

So I can learn how to do things which I haven’t done before.

29

This study needed to control for the amount of television respondents’ watched.
Three separate questions were used to control for amount of television viewing. The first
question asked respondents how many hours of television they watched in a day (0 - 7+).
This was then split into two categories, heavy viewers of television watched more than
two hours of television a day (11 = 188) and moderate viewers of television watched two
or less hours of television a day (11 = 226). The study also wished to control for the
amount of television watched of the stimulus program, ‘Sorority Life 2’. Respondents
were questioned as to how many episodes of ‘Sorority Life’ (M = 4.16, SD. = 3.39) and
‘Sorority Life 2’ (M = 3.63, SD. = 1.85) they have watched.

Along with some respondents watching more episodes of ‘Sorority Life 2’ than
others, some also only watched the program for the purpose of this study. Respondents
were allowed to participate in this study so long as they have watched at least two
episodes of the show. To control for this, respondents were asked if they watched the
show just for the purpose of this study (n = 125) or not (n = 286).

Finally, respondents’ gender and year in school was measured for control. This
study included males (11 = 159) and females (11 = 255). The respondents ranged fiom

freshmen (n = 134), sophomores (n = 117), juniors (n = 80), and seniors (n = 83).

30

Chapter Three
Results

To test the research questions, a paired samples t test was conducted comparing
viewers’ perceived reality of television in general with their perceived reality of a reality
TV program, Sorority Life 2 on all three dimensions. There was a significant difference
between the perceived reality of television and the perceived reality of reality TV.
Research question 1 reported the social realism dimension of perceived reality of
television in general (M = 2.06, S. D. = .71) was significantly lower than the social
realism dimension of perceived reality Of a reality TV program (M = 2.68, SD. = .74), t =
-l6.93, p < .01, n2 = .64. Research question 2 reported the utility dimension of perceived
reality of television in general (M = 2.48, SD. = .67) was significantly higher than the
utility dimension of perceived reality of a reality TV program (M = 1.95, S. D. = .77), t =
17.17, p < .01, n2 = .65. Research question 3 reported the identity dimension of
perceived reality of television in general (M = 3.07, SD. = .66) was significantly higher
than the identity dimension of perceived reality of a reality TV program (M = 2.53, S. D.
= .81), t = 14.27, p < .01, n2 = .56.

The hypotheses in this study predicted that affiliation with the subject matter of a
reality TV program would be negatively related to perceived reality of that program. A 2
x 2 AN OVA investigated respondents’ perceived reality as a function of a.) Their
membership in a Greek fraternity or sorority and b.) Their residence in Buffalo versus
Michigan. Hypothesis 1 through 4 predicted that respondents who lived in Buffalo would
have lower levels of perceived reality of a reality television program filmed in Buffalo.

Hypotheses 5 through 7 predicted that respondents who were members of a Greek

31

organization would have lower levels of perceived reality of a reality television program
about sorority girls.

The analyses produced mixed results (see table B). The social realism level of
perceived reality showed no main effect for those involved in a Greek organization (M =
2.51, SD. = .89) versus those not involved in a Greek organization (M = 2.71, SD. =
.70), F (1, 413) = 2.26, p = .133, n2 < .01. There was also no main effect for residence
social realism dimension of perceived reality. Respondents who went to school at SUNY
Buffalo (M = 2.66, SD. = .72) did not significantly differ from those who attended
Michigan State University (M = 2.68, SD. = .74), F (l, 413) = .02, p = .894, n2 < .01.
There was no interaction effect in the social realism dimension of perceived reality, F (1,
413) = .02, p = .890, n2 < .01. When controlling for other influencing factors of
perceived reality (uses and gratifications, amount of television watched, how many
episodes of Sorority Life 1 and 2 have been watched, if the respondent only watched the
show for credit in the class, gender, year in school, and perceived reality of television in
general) a significant main effect was present for Greek involvement but not residence
(see table F). Hypothesis 1 was not supported by the data. Students who had an
affiliation with SUNY Buffalo did not have lower levels of perceived reality social
realism dimension then students attending Michigan State University, F (1, 410) = .13, p
= .721 . Hypothesis 5 was supported by the data. Students in a Greek fiaternity or sorority
(M = 2.51, SD. = .89) had a significantly lower level of perceived reality social realism
dimension in a reality television program than those not in a Greek fraternity or sorority

(M= 2.71, 5.1). = .70)F(1, 410) = 5.86, p = .016, n2 = .01.

32

The utility dimension of perceived reality showed tentative results (see table C).
Students involved in a Greek organization (M = 1.79, SD. = .88) had somewhat lower
levels of perceived reality utility dimension than students not involved in a Greek
organization (M= 1.99, SD. = .74), F(1, 413) = 3.10,p = .079, n2 < .01. There was also
a moderate effect for residence. Students who attended SUNY Buffalo (M = 1.80, SD. =
.76) had lower levels of perceived reality utility dimension than students attending
Michigan State University (M = 2.00, SD. = .77), F (1, 413) = 3.28, p = .071, n2 < .01.
There was no interaction effect, F (1, 413) = .05, p = .823, n2 < .00. When controlling
for other influencing factors of perceived reality a significant main effect was present for
Greek involvement but not residence (see table F). Hypothesis 2 was not supported by
the data. Students who had an affiliation with SUNY Buffalo did not have lower levels
of perceived reality utility dimension then students attending Michigan State University,
F (1, 410) = 1.82,p = .178. Hypothesis 6 was supported by the data. Students in a Greek
fraternity or sorority (M = 1.79, SD. = .88) had a significantly lower level of perceived
reality utility dimension than those students not involved in a Greek organization (M =
1.99, SD. = .74), F(1, 410) = 6.35,p = .012, n2 = .01.

The identity dimension of perceived reality did not produce a main effect for
Greek involvement (see table D). Students involved in a Greek organization (M = 2.44,
SD. = .93) did not significantly differ in their perceived reality identity dimension than
those students not involved in a Greek organization (M = 2.55, SD. = .79), F (1, 413) =
1.15, p = .285, n2 < .01. There was also no main effect for residence. Students attending
SUNY Buffalo (M = 2.41. SD. = .81) did not significantly differ in their perceived reality

identity dimension than those students attending Michigan State (M = 2.56, SD. = .81), F

33

(1, 413)=1.85,p = .174, n2 < .01. There was no interaction effect, F(1, 413) = .074, p
= .785, 112 < .01 . When controlling for other influencing factors of perceived reality, a
significant main effect was present for Greek involvement and residence (see table F).
Hypothesis 3 was moderately supported by the data. There was a slight main effect for
residence. Students attending SUNY Bufl'alo (M = 2.41 . SD. = .81) had lower levels of
perceived reality identity dimension than those students attending Michigan State (M =
2.56, SD. = .81), F(1, 410) = 3.15,p = .077, n2 = .01. Hypothesis 6 was supported by
the data. Students involved in a Greek organization (M = 2.44, SD. = .93) had
significantly lower levels of perceived reality identity dimension than those students not
involved in a Greek organization (M = 2.55, SD. = .79), F(1, 410) = 6.30, p = .012, n2 =
.01.

The hometown setting dimension of perceived reality produced no main effect for
residence. Students who attended SUNY Buffalo (M = 2.07, SD. = .69) did not have
significantly different levels of perceived reality Buffalo setting than students attending
Michigan State (M= 2.20, so. = .80), F(1, 413) = 1.01, p = .317, n2 < .01. When
controlling for other influencing factors of perceived reality there was not a significant
main effect for residence (see table F). Hypothesis 4 was not supported by the data.
Students attending SUNY Buffalo (M = 2.41. SD. = .81) did not have significantly lower
levels of perceived reality identity dimension than those students attending Michigan
State (M= 2.56, SD. = .81), F(1, 410) = l.04,p = .309.

Upon the completion of this study, a separate analysis was run. All three research
questions and seven hypotheses were tested for only female students. When only females

were run in the analysis, there was no difference in the results for any of the research

34

questions. Only hypotheses 5 and 7 produced significant results. When the analysis was
run for only females, hypothesis 6 was only marginally significant with a F = 2.69, p =
.10. Hypotheses l, 2, 3 and 4 were still non significant at the p < .05 level.

The results in this study produced several significant findings. Respondents
reported that a reality TV program was different in its perceived reality than other forms
of television programming. Respondents believed that reality TV was more similar to
life in the real world than other forms of programming. They believed that the
information or events observed on a reality TV program was less useful to them in real
life than other forms of television programming. They also believed that the extent to
which they could incorporate television content into their real lives or involve themselves
with content elements was less likely to come fi'om a reality television show than other
forms of television programming.

Affiliation was only a significant predictor of perceived reality for Greek
involvement. Hypotheses 5 through 7 were supported by the data. Students involved in a
Greek organization had significantly lower levels of perceived reality in all three
dimensions than those students not involved in a Greek organization. This was not the
case for residence. Hypotheses 1 through 4 were not supported by the data. Students
who attended SUNY Buffalo did not significantly differ in their perceived realty Of a

realty TV program than students who attended another university.

35

Chapter F our
Discussion

This study began by asking this important question, do viewers believe reality TV
is more realistic than other forms of television programming? After running the analyses,
it became clear that people do have different levels of perceived reality of reality TV and
other forms of programming. As far as television being similar to life in the real world,
reality TV is perceived as being more similar to life in the real world than other forms of
programming. This should come as no surprise to the reader. Reality programs are not
filmed on typical sets and feature every day people. I recall watching ‘Sorority Life 2’
and becoming very excited when the girls were at one of my favorite bars in Buffalo NY.
The show became much more similar to life in the real world because the girls were
interacting at a place where I once did the same. We as a viewing audience however will
never be able to have a coffee at Central Perks like the cast in ‘Friends’ does or be able to
have a sherry with Niles at a luxurious Seattle apartment like in the show ‘Frasier.’

Reality TV was not perceived as more realistic on either the utility or identity
dimensions of perceived reality. With both dimensions, the reality TV series was
perceived as less realistic than TV in general. People believed that information and
events observed on television programs in general are more useful to the viewer in real
life. They also believed they could incorporate television content from television
programs in general more into their real lives or involve themselves with content
elements more than from a particular reality TV program.

Reality TV may appear to be more realistic however when statistically tested,

people believe that reality TV is less realistic than other forms of programming in two out

36

of three measured dimensions. I believe this is the case because reality TV is not reality,
and the viewing public knows this. NO matter what the format for the program is, when
somebody knows a camera is on him or her, they are no longer just themselves. In
addition to this, many reath programs have become much more fantasy than your
average sitcom. Allow me to compare a reality TV program like ‘Survivor’ to a sitcom
like ‘Friends.’ ‘Survivor’ has real people on a real island while ‘Friends’ has very well
paid professional actors on a Hollywood set. The twist to perceived reality comes in to
place when we think about what is aired on these programs every week. On ‘Friends,’ a
typical show may be the group have lunch together, each going to their respective jobs
where something kooky happens, and then some form of a romantic evening later on. On
‘Survivor,’ a group of strangers are in a remote location competing in weird physical
activities, forming alliances and then voting somebody off the island. What scenario is
more likely to happen to the viewing audience the next day? Why do we call a program
reality TV when it features activities that will never happen to us?

Part two of this study predicted that affiliation would be negatively related to
perceived reality of a reality TV program. This study investigated a reality TV program
filmed at SUNY Buffalo featuring a group of Greek sorority girls. It was then
conceptualized that respondents involved in a Greek fi'aternity or sorority or respondents
attending SUNY Buffalo would have an affiliation with the program. Perceived reality
was measured on the social realism, utility, identity and hometown knowledge
dimension. It appeared there was no significant relationship between affiliation and

perceived reality.

37

When controlling for other influencing factors of perceived reality, a significant
relationship was present between Greek affiliation and perceived reality on all three
measured dimensions. Participants involved in a Greek organization had significantly
lower levels of perceived reality of a reality TV program than those not involved in an
organization. There was no significant relationship between perceived reality and
residence affiliation.

‘Sorority Life 2’ featured a group a sorority girls pledging their way into DZO.
Respondents who themselves were in a fiaternity or sorority that watched this show
believed the program was less real than those not involved in a Greek organization. This
could be because of MTV’s involvement with the show. Those involved in a Greek
organization are very familiar with the pledging process while those not involved could
be experiencing the pledging process for the first time via the television show. Those
same people involved in a Greek organization are concerned with how the show
represents their Greek lifestyle. Those people feel as if the show is filming them to the
entire viewing nation. If it were not for MTV filming the girls while they were pledging,
they surely would not have been given two Land Rovers to drive throughout the pledging
process. The girls also would not have been put up in a luxury home complete with a hot
tub. Surely it was MTV’s fabrication that those involved in a Greek organization
recognized and caused a lower level of perceived reality. This idea adds support to the
original research question of this study. Reality TV is not perceived as real. Why do we
call a program reality TV when it features activities that will never happen to us?

The viewing public is not fooled by the production tricks of reality TV producers.

Although they still may title this new form of programming as reality TV, the viewing

38

audience is too wise to believe it as real. Why there is such a demand for reality TV
programs is still not known, however we can rule out because they are more real. Reality
TV is perceived as less real than other forms of programming.

Study Limitations

Like many other studies, this study was restricted to its subject pool. Very little
fiom this study can be generalized past college students to the general public. This study
only measured a small range in age of respondents.

Another major limitation in this study was the assumption of affiliation. In the
present study, affiliation was not measured but rather assumed. There very well could be
many students attending SUNY Buffalo who did not feel an affiliation with the school or
the amount of affiliation could vary fi'om student to student. The same could be said
about assuming all students involved in a sorority or fiaternity felt an affiliation with the
Greek organization. In addition to assumed affiliation, the affiliation used in this study
was not chosen. There is a difference in affiliation when it is chosen such as religious,
political or organizations than affiliation that is not chosen such as family, ethnic heritage
or nationalization.

This study also treated affiliation as a dichotomous construct. If measured better,
a curvilinear relationship could exist with affiliation and perceived reality. This could
help better explain why a significant relationship was found with affiliation and perceived
reality only for Greek involvement and not residence.

A third major limitation of this study was that it only investigated one reality TV

program. Early in this study, different styles of reality TV were defined. This study not

39

only investigated only one style of reality programming, but only one reality program
altogether. This makes generalizations onto all reality TV very impractical.

The fact that only two schools were used in this analysis is another limitation. It
is unknown if the results found in this study were unique to the schools used or if the
results can be generalized to the entire public.

Future Research

In this study, perceived reality of a reality TV show ‘Sorority Life 2’ was
perceived as less real than other popular non-reality programs. Future research should
investigate if this is the case for all reality TV programs or just the particular one used in
this study. The different categories of reality TV presented in this study should also be
examined to see if a difference in perceived reality exists among different themes of
reality TV programs. If future studies concur with this study in that reality TV programs
are perceived as less real than other forms of programming, the next important question
becomes why. I have offered the solution that the viewing public is not fooled by the
tricks of the production crews of reality TV programs or that the reality TV programs
have become to much like a fantasy and have a very low probability of ever happening to
the viewing audience. These are just suggestions of my own opinion and should be
further investigated.

Affiliation only received partial support for a factor of perceived reality in this
study. Only Greek affiliation was a significant factor for perceived reality in the stimulus
program ‘Sorority Life 2.’ If residence also had been a significant factor, affiliation
would warrant more investigation. However with just Greek affiliation being a factor, it

is not very different from direct experiences. Previous research has already examined a

40

negative relationship between perceived reality and direct experiences. This study
supported that finding. Future research should better conceptualize affiliation.
Respondents can feel they belong to a group or particular program without having a

direct experience with it. This study did not adequately measure affiliation.

41

APPENDICES

42

APPENDIX I

REALITY TV
Reality T.V.
Romance Unfiltered life Contest
Single Period of Every Unique Single Period of
Date Dates Game Time

43

APPENDIX II ‘Sorority Life 2 girls’

 

Brooke Maggie

 

Karissa

Appendix—11.1 o,” and Effects of 7.19%,

w

   
  

 

45

Knowledge of Setting as a factor in Perceived Reality of Reality
Television

Consent Form

This project is a research participation opportunity. Participation is voluntary on your
part. If you do not wish to participate in this study, your TA can tell you about
alternative research opportunities. You must be at least 18 years old to participate.

This study examines college student’s perceptions of television. The questions in this
study will ask you about your use of television, feelings about television content and
activities you participate in, specifically your drinking habits.

The study should take about 15 minutes to complete. Your participation is strictly
voluntary. You do not have to answer any answers you do not want to and you can quit
at any time.

Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. You responses
will be anonymous. This consent form will be kept separate from the questionnaire so
that your answers will be private. The surveys will be kept in a computer file that can
only be seen by the researchers. There are no major risks involved in this study and you
will receive credit for your participation.

If you have any questions or concerns about the study you may contact Jeffrey Bolt at
boltieff@msu.edu. (517) 353-6629, or Dr. Greenberg, 477 Com. Arts & Sciences Bldg,
bradg@msu.edg, (517)353-6629. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a
study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with the study, you may contact—
anonymously if you wish—Ashir Kumar, MD, Chair of the University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) at (517) 355-2180; fax: (517) 432-4503;
email ucrihs@gnsu.edu; standard mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.

 

Thank You.

46

Think about every type of program you watch. Ifyou strongly agree with the
statement, circle a 1. If you totally disagree with the statement, circle a 5. Ifyou
partially or somewhat agree, circle accordingly on the scale. If you’re unfamiliar
with a character or program listed, Please do not fill in an answer and place an “X”
over the question number.

Agree Disagree
1. The people I see playing parts on TV 1 2 3 4
are just like their characters when they
are off camera in real life.
2. I feel I can learn a lot about people 1 2 3 4
from watching TV.
3. On the TV show Will and Grace, Will 1 2 3 4
acts like somebody I know in my life.
4. Kelsey Grammer who plays Frasier on 1 2 3 4
Frasier probably acts in real life the way
Frasier does on the TV show.
5. I feel I can learn a lot about how to 1 2 3 4
solve my own problems by watching Chi
McBride on Boston Public.
6. There are a few characters on TV 1 2 3 4
shows that I would like to be more like.
7. By watching TV I feel I can learn 1 2 3 4
about life’s problems and situations.
8. On That 70 ’s show, the father is like 1 2 3 4
somebody I know.
9. The things that happen to Jennifer Aniston in 1 2 3 4
real life are probably the same things that
happen to her character (Rachel) on Friends.
10. The people who are funny as l 2 3 4
characters on comedy shows are
probably very funny in their real lives.
11. I feel I can learn a lot about people by l 2 3 4

watching Dr. John Carter on ER.

47

Agree

12. I know someone in real life like Joey on 1
Friends.

13. Jennifer Aniston who plays Rachel 1
on Friends probably acts in real life the
same as Rachel does on the TV show.

14. The people who act in TV shows 1
about families probably behave the same
way in their real lives.

15. I get usefirl ideas about how I should 1
act around my fi'iends and family by

watching characters on situation

comedies.

16. I feel I can learn a lot about people 1
by watching Will on Will and Grace.

17. I know someone in real life like Chi l
McBride on Boston Public.

18. The characters I see on situation 1
comedies help give me ideas about how
to solve my own problems.

19. The things that happen to Kelsey l
Crammer in real life are probably the

same as the things that happen to his

character (Frasier) on TV.

20. There are certain characters on TV 1
shows that I admire.

48

Disagree

Now think about reasons why you watch TV. Circle how strongly you agree with
the following statements that conclude;

“I Watch TV...”
Agree Disagree

21. So I won’t have to be alone. 1 2 3 4 5
22. Because it’s enjoyable. 1 2 3 4 5
23. So I could learn what could happen 1 2 3 4 5
to me.
24. So I can get away from what I’m 1 2 3 4 5
doing.
25. Because it helps me learn things 1 2 3 4 5
about myself and others.
26. Because it makes me feel less lonely. l 2 3 4 5
27. Because it amuses me. 1 2 3 4 5
28. So I can get away from the rest of 1 2 3 4 5
the family or others.
29. So I can learn how to do things 1 2 3 4 5
which I haven’t done before.
30. When there’s no one else to talk to or 1 2 3 4 5
be with.
31. Because it entertains me 1 2 3 4 5
32. So I can forget about school or other 1 2 3 4 5
things.

49

Please answer only once for the following questions.

35) Class Freshman Sophomore Junior
Senior Graduate Other

35) Gender Male Female

36) Do you belong to a Greek fraternity or sorority? Yes No

37) In what city do you currently live?

 

38) How many years have you lived in this city?

 

39) Where did you live dming high school?

 

Now we would like you to think about a particular show.

40) How many episodes of the original Sorority Life (U C Davis) have you watched?

 

41) How many episodes of Sorority Life 2 (U B) have you watched?

 

42) Did you watch the show on campus only for the purposes of this study?
Yes No
43) Who do you normally watch Sorority Life 2 with?
Alone 1 Friend 2 Friends +2 Friends

Use the following pictures of the girls featured on “Sorority Life 2” to help you
answer questions 44-73

50

 

Brooke Maggie

      

Nicole Karissa

51

 

 

 

For the next series of questions, please base your answers on the show Sorority Life
2. If you strongly agree with the statement, circle a 1. If you totally disagree with
the statement, circle a 5. If you partially or somewhat agree, circle accordingly on
the scale. If you have never watched the show, or are unfamiliar with a question,
place an “X” over the question number and continue.

Agree Disagree
44. The girls I see on Sorority Lifiz 2 are 1 2 3 4 5
just like their characters when they are
off camera in real life.
45. The girls I see on Sorority Life 2 help 1 2 3 4 5
give me ideas about how to solve my
own problems.
46. I feel I can learn a lot about 1 2 3 4 5
fraternities and sororities from watching
Sorority Life 2.
47. There are certain girls on Sorority 1 2 3 4 5
Life 2 that I admire.
48. Buffalo NY is like Sorority Life 2 1 2 3 4 5
shows it.
49. I know someone in real life like 1 2 3 4 5
Brooke on Sorority Life 2.
50. I feel I can learn a lot about college 1 2 3 4 5
life fiom watching Sorority Life 2.
51. Most college girls are like the girls 1 2 3 4 5
on Sorority Life 2.
52. The girls on Sorority Life 2 treat 1 2 3 4 5
their fiiends the same way they do in
real life when the camera is not on them.
53. The things that happen to Karissa in 1 2 3 4 5
real life when the camera is not on her
54. On Sorority Life 2, Maggie acts just 1 2 3 4 5

like somebody I know in real life.

52

55. Brooke probably acts in real life
when the camera is not on her the same
as she does on Sorority Life 2.

56. Nicole’s boyfriend Tim on Sorority
Life 2 is just like someone I know in real
life.

57. The sorority shown in Sorority Life 2
is like most other sororities at SUNY
Buffalo.

58. I feel I can learn a lot about people
from watching Sorority Life 2.

59. I feel I can learn a lot about people
from watching Nicole on Sorority Life 2.

60. The girls who drink on Sorority Life
2 drink just as much in real life when the
camera is not on them.

61. Most Sororities are like Sorority Life
2.

62. I feel I can learn a lot about how to
solve my problems from Maggie on
Sorority Life 2.

63. Most students that attend SUNY
Buffalo are just like the girls on Sorority
Life 2.

64. There are a few girls on Sorority Life
2 that I would like to be more like.

65. By watching Sorority Life 2 I feel I
can learn a lot about life’s problems and
situations.

66. The people shown in Sorority Life 2
are like other college students.

Disagree

Agree Disagree
67. Nicole and Tim’s relationship on 1 2 3 4 5
Sorority Life 2 is just like a relationship

I have been in.

68. I feel I can learn a lot about people 1 2 3 4 5
fiom watching Karissa on Sorority Life

69. The people shown in Sorority Life 2 1 2 3 4 5
are just like most college students at
SUNY Buffalo.

70. I get useful ideas about how I should 1 2 3 4 5
act around my fiiends and family by
watching the girls on Sorority Life 2.

71. I know someone in real life like 1 2 3 4 5
Nicole on Sorority Life 2.

72. The people shown in Sorority Life 2 1 2 3 4 5
are just like most people who live in

Buffalo NY.

73. The things that happen to Maggie in l 2 3 4 5

real life when the camera is not on her
are probably the same as the things that
happen to her on Sorority Life 2.

Please circle only one answer for the following questions.
74) How often do you interact with somebody in a Greek fiaternity or sorority?
l 2 3 4 5

very often often somewhat not often never

75) On average, how many hours of television do you watch in a typical day?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+

54

76) On average, on how many days of the week do you consume an alcoholic drink?

Less then 1 l 2 3 4 5 6 7

77) When you do drink, how many drinks do you consume on an average?

0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10+

78) On average, how many days of the week do you think the average non-Greek college
student consumes an alcoholic drink?

Less then 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

79) When the average non-Greek college student does drink, how many drinks do they
consume on an average?

0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10+

80) On average, how many days of the week do you think the average fiaternity or
sorority member consumes an alcoholic drink?

Less then 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

81) When the average fraternity or sorority member does drink, how many drinks do they
consume on average?

0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10+

Thank You for Your Participation

55

Table A

Cell Sizes For Research Questions

 

Buffalo Michigan

 

Greek n=12 n=61

 

Non- Greek 11 = 83 n = 258

 

 

 

 

 

56

Table B

 

 

ANOVA w/out Covariance
Social Realism
Buffalo Michigan
Greek M= 2.51 M= 2.51

SD. = .74 SD. = .92
Non-Greek M = 2.69 M = 2.72

SD. = .72 SD. = .69

 

 

 

 

 

 

Greek Yes (M = 2.51, SD. = .89)

No (M= 2.71.5.1). = .70)

Residence Buffalo (M = 2.66, SD. = .72)
Michigan (M = 2.68, SD. = .74)

Greek F(1,413)=2.27,p=.133,n2=.006
Residence F(1,413)=.02,p=.894, 2 =.

1]
Residence x Greek F (1, 413) = .02, p = .890, n2 = .

57

Table C

 

 

ANOVA w/out Covariance
Utility
Buffalo Michigan
Greek

M= 1.57 M= 1.84
SD. = .72 SD. = .91
Non-Greek M = 1.83 M = 2.04

SD. = .76 SD. = .73

 

 

 

 

 

 

Greek Yes (M = 1.79, SD. = .88)

No (M= 1.99, SD. = .74)
Residence Buffalo (M = 1.80, SD. = .76)
Michigan (M = 2.00, SD. = .77)

Greek F(1,413)=3.10,p=.079,n2=.007
Residence F(1, 413) = 3.28, p = .071, n2 = .008
Residence x Greek F (1, 413) = .05, p = 823,112 = .000

58

Table D

 

 

 

ANOVA w/out Covariance
Identity
Buffalo Michigan
Greek M = 2.25 M = 2.48
SD. = .95 SD. = .93
Non-Greek M = 2.44 M = 2.59
SD. = .79 SD. = .78

 

 

 

 

 

Greek Yes (M= 2.44, so. = .93)
No (M= 2.55, so. = .79)

Residence Buffalo (M = 2.41, SD. = .81)
Michigan (M = 2.56, SD. = .81)

Greek F(1,413)= 1.15,p= .285,n2= .003
Residence F(1, 413) = 1.85, p = .174, n2 = .005
Residence x Greek F (1, 413) = .07, p = .785, n2 = .000

59

Table E

 

 

 

AN OVA w/out Covariance
Hometown Knowledge
Buffalo Michigan
Greek M= 1.82 M=1.91
SD. = .60 SD. = .91
Non-Greek M = 2.10 M = 2.27
SD. = .70 SD. = .76

 

 

 

 

 

Greek Yes (M = 1.90, SD. = .86)
No (M = 2.23, SD. = .75)

Residence Buffalo (M = 2.07, SD. = .69)
Michigan (M = 2.20, SD. = .80)

Greek F(1,4l3)=6.01,p=.015,n2=.014
Residence F(1, 413) = 1.10,p= .317, n2 = .002
Residence x Greek F (1, 413) = .074, p = .785, n2 = .000

60

Table F

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AN OVA w/ Covariance
Social Utility Identig Hometown
Realism Knowledge
Class only
Residence F = .04 F = 3.30 F = 3.09 F = 1.35
P=.83 P=.07 P=.08 P=.25
Greek F= 2.29 F= 3.16 F= 1.29 F=6.14
P=.13 P=.08 P=.26 P=.01
Residence x Greek F = .02 F = .05 F = .08 F = .07
P=.89 P=.82 P=.78 P=.79
Gender only
Residence F = .06 F = 4.15 F = 1.92 F = 1.63
P=.81 P=.04 P=.17 P=.20
Greek F=2.50 F=3.69 F=1.18 F=7.15
P=.12 P=.06 P=.28 P=.01
Residence x Greek F = .03 F = .03 F = .07 F = .11
P=.87 P=.85 P=.78 P=.74
Episodes of Sorority Life 1 only
Residence F = .03 F = 3.10 F = 1.67 F = .94
P=.87 P=.08 P=.20 P=.33
Greek F= 2.08 F= 3.40 F= 1.43 F= 6.23
P=.15 P=.07 P=.23 P=.01
Residence x Greek F = .02 F = .05 F = .08 F = .07
P=.89 P=.82 P=.78 P=.79
Episodes of Sorority Life 2 only
Residence F= .12 F= 2.66 F= 2.63 F= 1.17
P=.73 P=.10 P=.11 P=.28
Greek F= 2.82 F= 2.56 F= 1.72 F= 6.25
P=.09 P=.11 P=.19 P=.01
Residence x Greek F = .00 F = .02 F = .17 F = .05
P=.98 P=.88 P=.68 P=.82
Extra Credit any
Residence F = .00 F = 3.14 F = 2.55 F = .92
P=.98 P=.08 P=.11 P=.34
Greek F= 2.62 F= 3.69 F= 1.86 F= 7.25
P=.11 P=.06 P= 18 P=.01
Residence x Greek F = .06 F = .02 F = 10 F = .16
P=.82 P=.88 P= 76 P=.69

 

 

 

 

61

 

 

Table F (cont’d)

 

Amount of Television watched only

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Residence F = .03 F = 3.62 F = 1.98 F = 1.16
P=.86 P=.06 P=.16 P=.28
Greek F= 2.50 F= 3.59 F= 1.31 F= 6.63
P=.12 P=.06 P=.25 P=.01
Residence x Greek F = .00 F = .22 F = .18 F = .00
P=.99 P=.64 P=.68 P=.96
Uses and Gratifications only

Residence F = .03 F = 5.73 F = 1.58 F = 1.89
P=.86 P=.02 P=.21 P=.17
Greek F=2.42 F=4.42 F=l.18 F=6.4O
P=.12 P=.04 P=.29 P=.01
ResidencexGreek F=.10 F=.OO F=.01 F=.17
P=.75 P=.98 P=.92 P=.68

All previous covariates and Perceived Reality of TV in General
Residence F= .13 F=1.82 F= 3.15 F= 1.04
P=.72 P=.18 P=.08 P=.31

Greek F= 5.86 F= 6.35 F= 6.30

P=.02 P=.01 P=.01

Residence x Greek F = .07 F = .01 F = .66

P=.79 P=.91 P=.4l

 

 

 

 

 

62

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agnes, M. (2002). Affiliate. In Webster ’s new world dictionary and thesaurus (pp. 11-
12). New York: Hungry Minds.

Andrejevic, M. (2002). The kinder, gentler gaze of big brother. New Media and Society,
4, 251-270.

Astra, R. L. & Singg, S. (2000). The role of self-esteem in affiliation. The Journal of
Psychology, 134, 15-23.

Busselle, R. W. (1991 ). Perceptions of actual crime and perceived reality in reality
based programs. Master’s Thesis.

Busselle, R. W. & Greenberg, B. S. (2000). The nature of television realism judgments:
A reevaluation of their conceptualization and measurement. Mass
Communication & Society, 3, 249-268.

Dauncey, H. (1996). French ‘reality television’; more then a matter of taste? European
Journal of Communication, 11, 83-106.

Donohue, W.A., & Donohue, TR. (1977). Black, white, white gifted, and emotionally
disturbed children’s perceptions of the reality in television programming. Human
Relations, 30, 609-621.

Dorr, A., Kovaric, P., & Doubleday, C. (1990). Age and content influences on children’s
perceptions of the realism of television families. Journalism of Broadcasting and
Electronic Media, 34, 377-397.

Elliott, W. R., & Slater, D. (1980). Exposure, experience and perceived reality for
adolescents. Journalism Quarterly,5 7, 409-414, 431.

Eron, L. D., Huesmann, L. R., Brice, P., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). Age trends in the
development of aggression, sex typing, and related television habits.
Developmental Psychology 19, 71 -77.

Gerbner, G. & Goss, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of
Communication, 26, 173-199.

Gerbner, G. & Gross, L., Jackson-Beeck, M., Jeffries-Fox, S., & Signorielli, N. (1978).
Cultmal indicators: Violence profile no. 9. Journal of Communication, 28, 176-
207.

Greenberg, B. S. & Reeves, B. (1976). Children and the perceived reality of television.
Journal of Social Issues, 32, 86-97

63

Greenberg, B.S., Neuendof, K., Buekel-Rothfuss, N., & Henderson, L. (1982). The soaps:
What’s on and who cares? Journal of Broadcasting, 26, 519-535.

Hawkins, R. P. (1977). The dimensional structure of children’s perceptions of television
reality. Communication Research, 4, 299-321.

Hawkins, R. P. & Pingree, S. (1980). Some processes in the cultivation effect.
Communication Research, 7, 193-226.

Kilborn, R. (1994). ‘How real can you get?: recent developments in ‘reality’ television.
European Journal of Communication, 9, 421-439.

Newman, B. M. & Newman, P. R. (2001). Group identity and alienation: Giving the we
its due. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30, 515-539.

Pingree, S. (1978). The effects of nonsexist television commercials and perceptions of
reality on children’s attitudes about women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2,
262-277.

Pingree, S., & Hawkins, R. P. (1981). US. programs on Australian television: The
cultivation effect. Journal of Communication, 31, 97-105.

Potter, J. (1986). Perceived reality and the cultivation hypothesis. Journal of
Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 32, 23-41.

Reeves, B. (1978). Perceived TV reality as a predictor of children’s social behavior.
Journalism Quarterly, 55, 682-689, 695.

Rubin, A. M. (1981). An examination of television viewing motives. Communication
Research, 8, 141-165.

Rubin, A. M. (1983). Television uses and gratifications: The interaction of viewing
patterns and motivations. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 27, 37-
51.

Rubin, R. B., Palmgreen, P., & Sypher, H. E. (Eds). (1994). Communication research
measures: A sourcebook. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Slatter, D., & Elliott, W.R. (1982). Television’s influence on social reality. Quaterly
Journal of Speech, 68, 69-79.

Warm, D. L., Schrader, M. P., & Wilson, A. M. (1999). Sport fan motivation:
Questionnarie validation, comparisons by sport, and relationship to athletic
motivation. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 114-140.

The reality of reality. (2003, September 8). Bravo.

http://www.mtv.com/onair/realworld/archive/seasonl .jhtml

65

S

iiiilijiiiiiigiiiiim