See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234085964
Reality Television Predicts Both Positive and
Negative Outcomes for Adolescent Girls
Article in The Journal of pediatrics · January 2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.11.067 · Source: PubMed
CITATIONS
READS
3
491
3 authors, including:
Christopher J Ferguson
Stetson University
157 PUBLICATIONS 4,069 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Christopher J Ferguson on 19 February 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue
are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
1
2
3
4 Q8
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30 Q3
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 Q4
59
60
61 ½T1
62
63
64
Reality Television Predicts Both Positive and Negative Outcomes for
Adolescent Girls
Christopher J. Ferguson, PhD1, Kimberlee Salmond, MPP2, and Kamla Modi, PhD2
Objective To assess the influence of media, specifically reality television, on adolescent behavior.
Study design A total of 1141 preteen and adolescent girls (age range 11-17) answered questions related to their
reality television viewing, personality, self-esteem, relational aggression, appearance focus, and desire for fame.
Results Our results indicated that the influence of reality television on adolescent behavior is complex and potentially related to the adolescents’ intended uses and gratifications for using reality television. Reality television
viewing was positively related to increased self-esteem and expectations of respect in dating relationships.
However, watching reality television also was related to an increased focus on appearance and willingness to compromise other values for fame. Reality television viewing did not predict relational aggression.
Conclusion The potential influences of reality television use on adolescent girls are both positive and negative,
defying easy categorization. (J Pediatr 2013;-:---).
eality television includes several subgenres, including talent competitions, dating shows, real-life shows, and makeover
shows. During the past decade, reality television shows have regularly dominated the top 10 television show ratings.1
Nonetheless, research on reality television has been sparse.
Some investigators have examined the issue of reality television viewing and appearance concerns. In one study, researchers
found that watching cosmetic surgery programs increased disordered eating attitudes in women with pre-existing thin-ideal
internalization but not other women.2 In another study an author considered the impact of cosmetic surgery focused reality
programming and found that such shows had little impact on body image but did promote positive beliefs about the benefits of
cosmetic surgery.3 The author concluded that the effects of such shows are probably not alarming but may have some subtle
influences. Emerging adults are more likely to wish to alter their appearance through cosmetic surgery after having seen cosmetic surgery reality programming.4,5 Other research has suggested that reality television connectedness (ie, feeling as if one
relates personally to the show content) correlates with a focus on one’s appearance (valuing physical appearance as a major
facet of self-esteem), although did not relate to academic performance.5
Another study indicated that viewing reality dating shows predicted adversarial sexual attitudes, a focus on one’s appearance,
and sexual double standards, but these correlations were mediated by viewer engagement.6 Negative outcomes were related
more to viewers’ desires to learn from the shows and beliefs that they were entertaining and valuable rather than from direct
exposure. Dating programs did not predict real-life sexual behaviors of viewers. Other research suggested that watching dating
shows was related to discussions of sex among teens, but not their expectations for dating relationships.7 These results suggest
that a uses and gratifications approach to understanding media use may best explain reality television viewing.8 Several recent
studies have suggested the uses and gratifications approach is particularly useful in understanding the effects of reality television.9,10
Although results from previous studies are somewhat mixed, they suggest that reality programming may be related to an
increased focus on one’s appearance. Less is known about other outcomes, such as relational aggression or self-esteem. Furthermore, most existing work has been done with emerging adults, and very little empirical work has examined the influence of
reality television in adolescence. Given that the uses and gratifications approach suggests that the use of media is not passive
but involves an interaction between the viewer and media, we sought to examine the interaction between adolescent personality
and reality television viewing. The current study examines the correlational relationship between reality television viewing with
self-esteem, focus on one’s appearance, relational aggression, expectations of respect in dating relationships, desire for fame,
and willingness to sacrifice other values to become famous.
R
Methods
Participants in the current study were 1141 adolescent girls (age range 11-17
years, M = 14.3, SD = 2.1) who participated in the Real to Me survey research
project of the Girl Scout Research Institute (Table I). This article is the
empirical reporting of those results and the only journal article in which we
cite these data. Participants were recruited via an online survey, with the pool
of participants matched to the US population of adolescents in regard to
From the 1Texas A&M International University, Laredo,
TX; and 2Girl Scout Research Institute
Q1
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Q2
0022-3476/$ - see front matter. Copyright ª 2013 Mosby Inc.
All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.11.067
1
FLA 5.1.0 DTD YMPD5831_proof 19 December 2012 5:28 am ce
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
THE JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
www.jpeds.com
Table I. Demographic information for the current
sample
Mean age, y
Ethnicity, %
White
African American
Asian American
Hispanic
Native American
Other
Mean hours watched of television per week
14.3 (SD = 2.1)
68.4
14.0
6.0
13.2
1.8
2.7
12.4 (SD = 11.7)
geography, ethnicity, and urbanicity. This sample is
nonrandom. Regarding ethnicity, 68.4% of girls identified
as white American, 14% as African American, 6% as Asian
American, 1.8% as Native American, 13.2% as Hispanic,
and 2.7% as other. Girls were permitted to select more
than one ethnic category, given the probability of girls
from multiple ethnic backgrounds; thus, the numbers add
to greater than 100%.
All measures were created internally for the Real to Me project by the Girl Scout Research Institute. All items described
below used Likert scale items unless indicated otherwise. All
scales were developed by the Girl Scout Research Institute.
The full survey is available on request to the authors.
Reality Television Viewing
Participants were asked to report their frequency of viewing
each of the 4 main types of reality programming, namely, talent competition shows, dating shows, real-life programming,
and makeover shows. A composite variable for total reality
television viewing was calculated from these 4 items. Coefficient alpha for this composite measure was adequate at 0.70,
suggesting general consistency in watching reality television
across subgenres. We also assessed hours spent weekly watching television generally.
Skepticism of Reality Television
Increasingly, people are becoming aware that “reality” television often is scripted and not necessarily indicative of reality.
The hypothesis that reality television will have impact on behavioral outcomes is particularly predicated on the concern
such shows will be perceived by viewers as “real.”2 Thus, controlling for viewer skepticism regarding the “reality” of such
shows is important. Six items were constructed for this purpose that inquired as to the perceived reality of reality television programming. Sample items include “Real-life based
reality shows (eg, Jersey Shore, 16 and Pregnant, The Hills)
are completely real and unscripted” and “The relationships
portrayed between girls on reality shows are an accurate
reflection of how it is in real life.” Coefficient alpha for the
resulting scale was 0.72.
Histrionic Personality Traits
The uses and gratifications model of media use suggests that
individual personality styles drive the use of media and
lessons learned from it. In the case of reality television
2
Vol. -, No. programming, histrionic personality traits (attention-seeking, emotional shallowness) appeared particularly relevant.
It may be that teens with histrionic traits are more likely to
seek out reality television programming and may also be
more likely to demonstrate negative outcomes (eg, focus on
one’s appearance, relational aggression, fame seeking).
Thus, controlling for these personality traits appeared important, and we used 3 items to tap into this construct related to
attention seeking and emotional shallowness. Sample items
include “I will do things that go against my personal values
to get people to like me” and “Sometimes I act crazy to get
attention.” Coefficient alpha of the resultant scale was 0.70.
Self-Esteem
Self-esteem was measured by the use of a 27-item scale that
tapped into girls’ perceptions of themselves as positive and
capable. Sample items include “I’m very happy with the person I am today” and “I see myself as a role model to other
girls.” Coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.77.
Focus on Appearance
Focus on one’s appearance was measured with 3 forcedchoice items in which required girls to choose whether they
would prefer to be recognized for their physical beauty or
for their intelligence, inner beauty, or talent. Coefficient alpha was 0.64 for this scale.
Relational Aggression
Relational aggression was measured with a 12-item scale that
tapped into issues such as gossiping, being mean to others,
and lying to others to get ahead. Sample items include “Gossiping is a normal part of a relationship between girls” and
“Sometimes you have to be mean to others to get what you
want.” Coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.79.
Expectations of Respect in Dating Relationships
Girls’ expectations for having mutually respectful dating relationships were measured using a 3-item scale. Sample items
include “How likely do you think it will be that you will have
a healthy romantic relationship in the future” and “How
likely do you think it will be that romantic partners will always treat you with respect.” Coefficient alpha for this scale
was 0.74.
Becoming Famous
A single Likert scale item “How important is it for you to become famous in your future” was used to measure girls’ desire to become famous.
Compromise for Fame
Girl’s willingness to compromise other values in order to become famous was measured using a 12 item scale. Girls were
asked how likely they would be to engage in a number of activities such as “pretend to be someone you’re not,” “wear
sexy or revealing clothing,” “put down or mistreat someone
else,” “getting pregnant on purpose,” and “drop out of
school.” Coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.92.
Ferguson, Salmond, and Modi
FLA 5.1.0 DTD YMPD5831_proof 19 December 2012 5:28 am ce
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
ORIGINAL ARTICLES
- 2012
Data Analyses
266
The influence of reality television viewing, with age, ethnicity,
267
skepticism about reality television, and histrionic personality
268
controlled, on each of the outcome variables was tested via
269
the use of linear regression. Ethnicity was dummy-coded
270
for each category; thus, we compare all individuals of that
271
272
ethnicity with all other individuals. Multicollinearity was
273
not an issue for any of these analyses with the lowest tolerance
274
Q5 of 0.31 and the highest VIF of 3.22. The highest scores were
275
among the ethnic variables, specifically white American, Af276
rican American, and Hispanic, likely because of the option
277
278
for participants to select more than one of these categories.
279
Rerunning analyses without the ethnic variables did not
280
change the results for other predictor variables. Thus, we
281
are confident that multicollinearity issues were minimal.
282
283
284
285
286
Bivariate relationships between the predictor and outcome
287
288 ½T2 measures are presented in Table II. To reduce type I error
attributable to multiple comparisons, a Bonferroni
289
290
correction of 0.0011 was used for statistical significance.
291
Linear regression was used with age, ethnicity, skepticism of
292
reality television, and histrionic traits entered as predictors.
293
The resultant model was statistically significant (R = 0.41,
294
P = .001). Skepticism of reality television not surprisingly
295
296
predicted lower viewing (b = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.43,
297
0.33) and was by far the strongest predictor of reality
298
television viewing. Weaker predictors included age (b = 0.10,
299
95% CI = 0.04, 0.16) and histrionic traits (b = 0.07, 95%
300
CI = 0.01, 0.13) although these are perhaps too small to
301
302
warrant practical consideration.11
303
More descriptively, only 12.1% of girls reported watching
304
reality television shows “rarely or never” across all 4 sub305
genres. Per each subgenre, 77.3% of girls reported watching
306
reality talent competition shows “sometimes” or “regularly,”
307
308
as did 28.7% of girls for reality dating shows, 60.9% of girls for
309
“real-life” reality shows, and 58% of girls for makeover shows.
310
The regression model for self-esteem was statistically sig311
nificant
(R = 0.25, P = .001). Reality television viewing was,
312
in fact, the only predictor of self esteem and was positively
313
314
correlated (b = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.13, 0.25) with a small effect
315
size. None of the other included study variables predicted
316
girls’ self-esteem.
317
318
319
320
Table II. Bivariate correlations between all predictor and
321
Measure
1
2
3
322
323
1. Reality television viewing
1.00
0.39*
0.15*
324
2. Reality television skepticism
1.00
0.24*
325
3. Histrionic personality traits
1.00
4. Self-esteem
326
5. Focus on one’s appearance
327
6. Relational aggression
328
7. Expectations of respect
329
8. Becoming famous
330
9. Compromise for fame
331
332
*P < .0011.
Results
The regression model for appearance focus was statistically
significant (R = 0.37, P = .001). Focus on one’s appearance
was significantly predicted by reality television viewing
(b = 0.08, 95% CI = 0.02, 0.14), although this relationship
was weak. Other predictors of appearance focus included
age (b = 0.12, 95% CI = 0.06, 0.18), skepticism of reality television (b = 0.08, 95% CI = 0.02, 0.14) and histrionic
traits (b = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.24, 0.34). With the exception
of a moderately strong histrionic effect, most of these effects
were weak in size.
The regression model for relational aggression was statistically significant (R = 0.52, P = .001). Relational aggression
was significantly predicted by age (b = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.14,
0.26), Asian ethnicity (b = 0.08, 95% CI = 0.02, 0.14), although this was only a weak effect, and histrionic traits
(b = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.41, 0.50). Reality television viewing
did not significantly predict relational aggression. Once
again, histrionic traits demonstrate a moderately strong effect, with a small effect for age.
The regression model for expecting respect in dating relationships was statistically significant (R = 0.17, P = .01). Expecting respect was significantly predicted by reality
television viewing (b = 0.10, 95% CI = 0.04, 0.16), as well
as histrionic traits (b = 0.12, 95% CI = 0.06, 0.18).
Both of these effects are small in size.
The regression model for desiring fame was statistically
significant (R = 0.38, P = .001). Desiring fame was significantly predicted by age (b = 0.12, 95% CI = 0.06,
0.18), African-American ethnicity (b = 0.10, 95%
CI = 0.04, 0.16), skepticism of reality television (b = 0.09,
95% CI = 0.03, 0.15), and histrionic traits (b = 0.27,
95% CI = 0.22, 0.32). Reality television viewing did not predict the desire to be famous. All effects were small in size with
histrionic traits being the strongest of them.
The regression model for willingness to compromise other
values for fame was statistically significant (R = 0.52,
P = .001). Willingness to compromise other values for
fame was significantly predicted by reality television viewing
(b = 0.11, 95% CI = 0.05, 0.17), age (b = 0.08, 95% CI = 0.02,
0.14), and histrionic traits (b = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.45, 0.54).
The effect for histrionic traits is moderately strong, with effects for reality television viewing and age small to weak.
All standardized regression coefficients are presented for all
regressions in Table III.
½T3
outcome measures in the current study
4
0.23*
0.14*
0.02
1.00
5
0.17*
0.16*
0.30*
0.01
1.00
6
0.16*
0.15*
0.45*
0.09
0.38*
1.00
Reality Television Predicts Both Positive and Negative Outcomes for Adolescent Girls
FLA 5.1.0 DTD YMPD5831_proof 19 December 2012 5:28 am ce
7
0.10
0.05
0.10*
0.23*
0.11*
0.27*
1.00
8
0.12*
0.21*
0.31*
0.19*
0.23*
0.22*
0.02
1.00
9
0.20*
0.14*
0.51*
0.04
0.39*
0.53*
0.16*
0.31*
1.00
3
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
THE JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
www.jpeds.com
Vol. -, No. -
Table III. Standardized regression coefficients for linear regression results for the association between reality television
viewing and all outcome variables with other variables controlled
Predictor variable
Self-esteem
Age
0.01
White
0.03
African American
0.06
Asian American
0.05
Native American
0.02
Hispanic
0.03
Skepticism of reality
0.05
television
Histrionic traits
0.05
Reality television viewing 0.19 (0.13, 0.25)*
Focus on one’s
appearance
Relational agg.
0.12 (0.06, 0.18)*
0.20 (0.14, 0.26)*
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.02
0.08 (0.02, 0.14)*
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.08 ( 0.02, 0.14)*
0.29 (0.24, 0.34)*
0.08 (0.02, 0.14)*
0.46 (0.41, 0.50)*
0.03
Expect respect
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.07
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.12 ( 0.06, 0.18)*
0.10 (0.04, 0.16)*
Fame
Comp
0.12 ( 0.06, 0.18)* 0.08 (0.02, 0.14)*
0.03
0.03
0.10 (0.04, 0.16)*
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.09 ( 0.03, 0.15)*
0.02
0.27 (0.22, 0.32)*
0.04
0.50 (0.46, 0.54)*
0.11 (0.05, 0.17)*
Expect respect, expectations of respect; Fame, becoming famous; Comp, compromise for fame.
*P < .05.
Discussion
On the positive side, reality television viewing was related to
increased self-esteem as well as expectations of respect in dating relationships. However, reality television viewing was associated with increased appearance focus and willingness to
compromise other values for fame. Reality television viewing
was not related to relational aggression or the desire for future fame. We emphasize that these relationships were correlational in nature and we do not mean to imply causality.
Within our sample, reality television watching correlated
only r = 0.14 (although statistically significant) with general
television use, suggesting that reality television consumption
is a relatively distinct phenomenon and the relationships
found here cannot be easily explained by more general television effects.
Perhaps contrary to expectations, reality television viewing
was not related to relational aggression. Recently, some
scholars have posited that perhaps aggression is not so
clearly learned through imitation as had previously been
thought.12,13 Given that relational aggression has been found
to be very common across reality television subgenres,1 the
lack of correlation in the present study suggests that reality
television relational aggression is not being modeled by
viewers. The effect size in the regression was little different
from zero (b = 0.03, 95% CI = 0.03, 0.09) suggesting that
Type II error is unlikely. Some studies have suggested that aggression is more likely learned from peers or families, rather
than media14 and that may be the case here as well. Unfortunately peer and family variables were not included in the
present study. In the current study, histrionic traits were,
by far, the strongest predictor of relational aggression, suggesting that aggression may be better viewed as internally
motivated rather than externally cued.
Even the outcome for focus on one’s appearance may not
be as negative as we initially implied. For instance, this
variable focuses on evaluations of beauty and their selfimportance, not necessarily disturbed body image, which
would be of more clinical importance. Focus on one’s appearance and self-esteem were not correlated in our study
4
(r = 0.01), suggesting that a focus on one’s appearance is
not necessarily related to harmful outcomes in young girls.
Indeed, given that the adolescent years typically involve the
onset of dating, focus on one’s appearance may represent reasonable concerns rather than an irrational misattribution of
value. This is not to say that girls should not be encouraged
from focusing on other aspects of their worth (eg, intelligence, talent, decision making) when evaluating themselves.
Rather, the lack of correlation between appearance focus and
self-esteem suggests girls may already be doing this.
The relationship with willingness to compromise for fame
is more clearly negative. Many of the choices some girls were
willing to make to seek fame involved clearly unethical (lying,
betraying others) or risky (getting pregnant on purpose as
a teen) behaviors. To the extent that reality television viewing
may be involved in teens’ willingness to take greater risks, this
issue is worthy of further pursuit.
Age was a consistent predictor among many of our outcomes. Older girls were more likely to watch television,
have a greater focus on their appearance, engage in more relational aggression, and express more willingness to compromise for fame, although interestingly they desire fame less
than younger girls. These age-related trends raise the possibility that interest in reality television may be part of a broader
developmental shift in motivations and interest. If one uses
the uses and gratifications approach, it may be that older girls
are more interested in reality television because the relational
aggression in those shows provides an outlet or means of
identification with the relational aggression experienced in
their actual lives. Naturally, more research would be welcome
on this issue.
In understanding these myriad relationships, it may help
to approach media use from the perspective of uses and gratifications.8 This requires something of a shift from the traditional social science model of media use which has generally
posited effects through direct imitation.12,13 The effects of
media effects may be a more subtle and interactive process
that involves interactions between viewers and media. For instance, throughout our analyses, the intrapsychic factor of
histrionic personality traits was a far stronger predictor,
Ferguson, Salmond, and Modi
FLA 5.1.0 DTD YMPD5831_proof 19 December 2012 5:28 am ce
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
ORIGINAL ARTICLES
- 2012
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
particularly of negative outcomes, than was reality television
viewing, although individuals higher in histrionic traits were
more likely to seek out reality television programming.
Whether girls do or do not understand the staged nature of
much of reality programming, it may be that girls seek out
this form of media to enhance their sense of self-esteem
and expectations for dating relationships. In this sense, the
relationships and conflicts viewed in reality programming
may serve as a kind of mental dress rehearsal for girls’ own
future relationships, as well as their sense of efficacy in handling such relationships. Given that reality shows tend to
focus on the imperfections of their stars, seeing imperfections
in others on television may help enhance girls’ sense of selfworth.
The use of a uses and gratifications paradigm will involve
a considerable shift in the way that media effects research is
typically conducted. Most media effects approaches remain
rooted in the belief that media is something done to viewers,
particularly youth. However, the involvement of the viewer
in the process may be far more active and effects far more
subtle than proposed by traditional media effects theories.
More research from the uses and gratifications perspective,
examining how youth are active participants in media, rather
than simply passive victims, would be of great value. We argue that this shift in theoretical paradigm, however, may lead
to a more sophisticated understanding of the interaction of
media such as reality television with young viewers.
The current study has limitations. First, it is correlational
in nature and, thus, causal inferences cannot be made from
the current data. Further studies using prospective data
would be helpful in delineating time sequencing of media
use and outcome data. Experimental studies of reality television use would also be of value. The addition of such studies
may assist with causal inferences. In addition our online sampling approach may have resulted in a sample that is
weighted toward girls with relatively high technological
savvy. Thus, our results should not be generalized to all
teen girls. Second, the current study did not include important control variables, such as peer and family environment
variables. Further research may wish to consider including
controls for these influences. Third, although we assessed
the focus on one’s appearance, we did not include measures
of body dissatisfaction, which would have been a more clearly
negative outcome. Further research should consider body
dissatisfaction as a potential outcome. Finally, our results
are for general reality television use. We did rerun our analyses on our 4 subcategories of reality television and found little difference in our results. However further research may
wish to consider specific subcategories of reality television
more closely for potential differences in effects. Trained
raters could be used to examine show content of specific
shows and examine these in relation to viewer behavior.
On balance, our results suggest that the associations between reality television and behavioral outcomes for adolescent girls are complex and subtle. As noted by others,15
concerns about serious public health consequences of media
use are quite common. However, at least for reality television
viewing, we found little evidence that would lead us to conclude consuming such media rises to the level of a public
health concern. Reality television viewing was associated
with variable positive and negative outcomes, most of these
small in terms of effect size. This fits well with research in
other entertainment domains that suggests that the effects
of media can be quite variable, as well as more complex
and subtle than is sometimes thought.16 It may be that the
psychological and behavioral health of teenage girls is less
malleable than is sometimes thought.
Or, it may be that reality television, for whatever reason, is
not a primary conduit through which girls receive information on how they should behave. For instance, technology
may be more likely to influence teens through means that allow youth to communicate directly, as with social media. It
seems reasonable to suggest that media research would be
well-served by focusing on uses and gratifications-based approaches to understanding media use. Such approaches emphasize the viewer as an active participant in selecting and
interpreting media and differ somewhat from the traditional
media effects paradigm, in which the viewer is implicitly assumed to be a passive vessel for media messages. The uses and
gratifications approaches does not preclude the possibility
that the media may influence viewers, however, and assumes
such influences are more complex, subtle, and interactive
than often portrayed in the traditional media effects model.
Our data here add some preliminary support to this view.
Using this theoretical approach suggests it is important for
future research to consider the individual and the media
choices he or she makes as a more central part of the process
of media use and effects. Media use is likely driven by the
internal needs and reactions of the individual viewer rather
than something done to viewers by media. Given the popularity of reality television among the current generation of
youth, investigating their relationship with behavioral outcomes among youth is an important avenue of study. n
Submitted for publication May 7, 2012; last revision received Nov 9, 2012;
accepted Nov 20, 2012.
Reprint requests: Christopher J. Ferguson, PhD, Department of Psychology
and Communication, Texas A&M International University, 5201 University
Blvd., Laredo, TX 78041. E-mail: CJFerguson1111@aol.com
References
1. Coyne S, Robinson S, Nelson D. Does reality backbite? Physical, verbal,
and relational aggression in reality television programs. J Broadcasting
Electronic Media 2010;54:282-98.
2. Mazzeo S, Trace S, Mitchell K, Gow R. Effects of a reality TV cosmetic
surgery makeover program on eating disordered attitudes and behaviors.
Eating Behav 2007;8:390-7.
3. Nabi R. Cosmetic surgery makeover programs and intentions to undergo
cosmetic enhancements: a consideration of three models of media effects. Human Commun Res 2009;35:1-27.
4. Markey C, Markey P. A correlational and experimental examination of
reality television viewing and interest in cosmetic surgery. Body Image
2010;7:165-71.
5. Markey C, Markey P. Emerging adults’ responses to a media presentation of idealized female beauty: an examination of cosmetic surgery in
reality programming. Psychol Popular Culture Media, in press.
Q6
Reality Television Predicts Both Positive and Negative Outcomes for Adolescent Girls
FLA 5.1.0 DTD YMPD5831_proof 19 December 2012 5:28 am ce
5
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
THE JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
www.jpeds.com
6. Zurbriggen E, Morgan E. Who wants to marry a millionaire? Reality Dating television programs, attitudes toward sex, and sexual behaviors. Sex
668
Roles 2006;54:1-17.
669
7. Vandenbosch L, Eggermont S. Temptation Island, the Bachelor, Joe Mil670
lionaire: a prospective cohort study on the role of romantically themed
671
reality television in adolescents’ sexual development. J Broadcasting
672
Electronic Media 2011;55:563-80.
673
8. Sherry J, Lucas K, Greenberg B, Lachlan K. Video game uses and gratifi674
cations as predicators of use and game preference. In: Vorderer P,
675
Bryant J, eds. Playing video games: motives, responses, and consequences.
676
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2006. p. 213-24.
677 Q7
9. Papacharissi Z, Mendelson A. An exploratory study of reality appeal:
678
uses and gratifications of reality TV shows. J Broadcasting Electronic
679
Media 2007;51:355-70.
680
10. Nabi R, Stitt C, Halford J, Finnerty K. Emotional and cognitive predic681
tors of the enjoyment and reality-based and fictional television program682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
6
Vol. -, No. -
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
ming: an elaboration of the uses and gratifications perspective. Media
Psychol 2006;8:421-47.
Ferguson C. An effect size primer: a guide for clinicians and researchers.
Professional Psychol 2009;40:532-8.
Olson C. Children’s motivations for video game play in the context of
normal development. Rev Gen Psychol 2010;14:180-7.
Savage J, Yancey C. The effects of media violence exposure on criminal
aggression: a meta-analysis. Crim Just Behav 2008;35:772-91.
Ferguson C. Video games and youth violence: a prospective analysis in
adolescents. J Youth Adolesc 2011;40:377-91.
Barnett J, Coulson M. Virtually real: a psychological perspective
on massively multiplayer online games. Rev Gen Psychol 2010;14:
167-9.
Desai R, Krishnan-Sarin S, Cavallo D, Potenza M. Video-gaming among
high school students: health correlates, gender differences, and problematic gaming. Pediatrics 2010;126:e1414-24.
Ferguson, Salmond, and Modi
FLA 5.1.0 DTD YMPD5831_proof 19 December 2012 5:28 am ce
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801