Investigating Personality and Viewing-Motivation Correlates of Reality Television Exposure

Abstract

This study investigated the personality and viewing-motivation correlates of reality television exposure. Results from a survey of 592 undergraduates showed that extroversion negatively predicted reality television exposure, whereas neuroticism was not associated with it. Both instrumental (social interaction, information, and arousal) and ritualized (relaxation, pass time, entertainment, and companionship) viewing motivations positively predicted exposure to reality television. A two-stage model by which personality traits contributed to viewing motivations, which, in turn, contributed to the selection of reality television, was tested and offered an adequate fit to the data. Implications for uses and gratifications research are discussed.

Keywords:

• Audience Appeal
• Personality
• Reality Television
• Uses and Gratifications

Notes

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. †p < .10.

Note. For all models, N = 561. Sex was coded as 1 = male, 2 = female. Coefficients are standardized betas.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

We limited reality shows to two categories: (a) established reality programs, such as American Idol and Survivor, which would be well-known to participants; and (b) reality shows that were airing at the time of data collection (October–November 2005).

Omitted programs included The Apprentice, Martha Stewart, Fight for Fame, For Love or Money, Hell's Kitchen, Hit Me Baby One More Time, Kill Reality, Three Wishes, and Wife Swap.

We decided a rotation of the matrix was in order because in the unrotated solution, 18 of the 24 shows loaded most strongly on the first factor. A rotated solution (via varimax rotation) yielded more interpretable results than the unrotated solution.

Six programs—America's Next Top Model, American Idol, The Biggest Loser, Dancing With the Stars, Average Joe, and The Apprentice—were deleted because they did not load on any of these factors or because they cross-loaded on multiple factors.

To eliminate the alternative explanation that the variance accounted for by the personality scales and the demographic factors overlap enough that multicollinearity obscures our ability to evaluate the influence of the personality variables on the exposure variables, we evaluated the variance inflation factor (VIF) at each stage of the model to detect multicollinearity. For the total reality television model, the VIF ranged from 1.04 to 1.16 on Block 1, from 1.04 to 1.18 on Block 2, and from 1.08 to 2.28 on Block 3; and given that multicollinearity is not generally judged to be an issue unless the VIF is 5.0 or greater (Allison, 1999), we concluded that multicollinearity did not substantially impact the results.

For extroversion on total reality television exposure through instrumental viewing motivation: z score product = 17.33, p < .001; standardized specific indirect effect = .03.

For neuroticism on total reality television exposure through instrumental viewing motivation: z score product = 12.67, p < .001; standardized specific indirect effect = .03.

For competition reality exposure: z score product = 7.00, p < .001; standardized specific indirect effect = .01; for romantic reality exposure: z score product = 6.21, p < .001; standardized specific indirect effect = .01; for surveillance reality exposure: z score product = 15.42, p < .001; standardized specific indirect effect = .03; and for makeover/lifestyle reality exposure: z score product = 8.33, p < .001; standardized specific indirect effect = .02.

For competition reality exposure: z score product = 8.37, p < .001; standardized specific indirect effect = −.01; for romantic reality exposure: z score product = 7.13, p < .001; standardized specific indirect effect = −.01; for surveillance reality exposure: z score product = 16.95, p < .001; standardized specific indirect effect = −.03; and for makeover/lifestyle reality exposure: z score product = 9.69, p < .001; standardized specific indirect effect = −.02.

We did not run the analogous model for ritualistic viewing motivations mediating personality and reality sub-genres because Figure 3 demonstrated that the component path between the personality variables and the ritualized viewing motivation was not significant; therefore, mediation could not occur.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jennifer Stevens Aubrey

Jennifer Stevens Aubrey (Ph.D., University of Michigan, 2004) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Missouri.

Loreen Olson

Loreen Olson (Ph.D., University of Nebraska, 2000) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of North Carolina–Greensboro.

Mark Fine

Mark Fine (Ph.D., Ohio State University, 1983) is Professor and Chair of the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at the University of North Carolina–Greensboro.

Todd Hauser

Todd Hauser (M.A., University of Missouri, 2009) is an independent scholar.

David Rhea

David Rhea (Ph.D., University of Missouri, 2007) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Governors State University.

Brian Kaylor

Brian Kaylor (Ph.D., University of Missouri, 2008) is an Assistant Professor in the School of Communication Studies at James Madison University.

Annie Yang

Annie Yang (Ph.D., University of Missouri, 2010) is a lecturer in the Department of Communication Arts at the Valdosta State University.