Audience Activity and Reality Television: Identification, Online Activity, and Satisfaction

Abstract

This study is an examination of audience activity in reality television. This genre was chosen because the program producers encourage activity with Web-based video footage, photos, program summaries and speculations, online discussions, and voting. Hypotheses predicted that audience viewing motives would be significant predictors of identification, online post-exposure activity, and satisfaction. In general, the study's hypotheses were supported. Identification was predicted by watching for social learning and cognitive and emotional involvement. Engaging in online activity after watching was predicted by elaboration and feeling negative emotion. Viewing satisfaction was predicted by viewing motive; cognitive and emotional involvement; and, surprisingly, less online activity after watching.

Keywords:

• Audience Activity
• Identification
• Reality TV
• Satisfaction
• Uses and Gratifications

This manuscript is based on Lisa R. Godlewski's M. A. thesis completed at the University of Delaware in 2005. An earlier version of this manuscript was presented at the annual conference of the National Communication Association, Chicago, 2007.

Notes

Note. N ranges from 458 to 463.

*p < .05 (two-tailed). **p < . 01 (two-tailed). ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

Note. Step 1: F(2, 453) = 3.54, p < .05; Step 2: F(5, 448) = 52.95, p < .001; Step 3: F(1, 447) = 0.34, p = .56; Step 4: F(5, 442) = 58.39, p < .001.

*p < .05. **p < .001.

Note. Step 1: F(2, 454) = 6.45, p < .01; Step 2: F(5, 449) = 15.00, p < .001; Step 3: F(6, 443) = 21.00, p < .001.

*p < .01. **p < .001.

Note. Step 1: F(2, 450) = 19.96, p < .001; Step 2: F(5, 445) = 69.00, p < .001; Step 3: F(1, 444) = 5.64, p < .05; Step 4: F(7, 437) = 17.91, p < .001.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The 11 items included in the identification scale were as follows: (a) I think I have a good understanding of the people in my favorite reality TV program; (b) When I watch my favorite reality TV program, I can understand the way the people on the show feel; (c) At key moments in the show, I feel I know exactly what my favorite reality TV personality is going through; (d) When I watch my favorite TV personality on the program, I know exactly what she or he is going through; (e) At key moments in the show, I feel I know exactly what the people in the program are going through; (f) When watching the show, I can feel the emotions of my favorite reality TV personality; (g) When I watch my favorite reality TV personality on the program, I feel I understand the way she or he feels; (h) I think I have a good understanding of my favorite reality TV personality; (i) While watching the program, I can feel the emotions of the people on the show; (j) When I watch, I feel I can really get inside my favorite personality's head.

The eight online post-activity items were as follows: (a) I go online to read more about the program, (b) I go online to chat with friends about the program, (c) I go online to talk to others about the program, (d) I go online to participate in a poll about the program, (e) I surf the Web for information about the program, (f) I post messages online about the program, (g) I go online to view additional video footage of the program, and (h) I go online to chat with people who have the same interest in reality TV.

Respondents were also asked if their favorite reality program allowed them to vote to influence the outcome of the program. Approximately 20% of the participants (n = 110) responded that their favorite program allowed them to vote. If the answer was “yes,” respondents were then asked if they vote for a contestant after watching a reality television program. Of the 110 respondents whose favorite reality television program allowed audiences to vote, voting was also low. Only 46 voted (41.8%). Because of the low number of respondents voting, this item was excluded from further analysis.

This manuscript is based on Lisa R. Godlewski's M.A. thesis completed at the University of Delaware in 2005. An earlier version of this manuscript was presented at the annual conference of the National Communication Association, Chicago, 2007.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Lisa R. Godlewski

Lisa R. Godlewski (M.A., University of Delaware, 2005) is now with the General Building Contractors Association, Philadelphia.

Elizabeth M. Perse

Elizabeth M. Perse (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1987) is a professor and chair in the Department of Communication at the University of Delaware.