Reality TV 1

Why We Watch Reality Television

Meredith Hedrick
Glen Allen High School

Reality TV 2

Introduction
America was first introduced to a modern reality TV show in the 1970s with the premier
of An American Family This 12 hour documentary-series followed an ordinary American
family for seven months. During these seven months the family encountered dramatic events
such as a divorce and tensions between parents and children. This show was widely popular
because of the national appeal it had, a typical American family trying to live the American
dream. The show was produced during a, time of national turmoil regarding cultural, political,
and economical issues, making the show direct commentary of issues that faced all Americans
at the time. What is believed to have been discovered from this show is a common characteristic
that keeps the viewers watchingdrama (Glouner, Flores, & Tomback, .n.d.). However, with all
of the current reality show topics, is drama the only reason people tune in? Since the first concept
of reality shows appeared, many different theories about why viewers watch these shows have
appeared. These theories include appealing to basic desires, the concept of voyeurism and what it
means in the context of the present, the novelty of the reality-based television genre, and the
gratification theory that viewers gain skills by tuning in. However, it is a common fact that not
all reality television shows are actually real-world reality. Despite the understanding that reality
TV is not actually reality, people continue to watch in order to fill a void present in some aspect
of their life.

Basic Desires
A current theory of why people feel addicted to reality TV is that these shows appeal to
one of our sixteen basic human desires. These desires include: curiosity, power, independence,
status, social contact, vengeance, honor, idealism, physical exercise, romance, family order,

Reality TV 3

eating, acceptance, tranquility, and saving. The need to achieve these desires results in motives to
encourage achievement. Most motives are combinations of two or more basic desires. For
example a motive of wealth could be a combination of desires such as status and power. Of
course the importance placed on meeting specific desires is different for different people. The
different desires a person holds to be important makes them more likely to do specific things. For
instance, the more status orientated you are, the more likely to watch reality TV. The most likely
explanation for this is that people who watch reality shows feel that they have higher status than
the people on the shows (Reiss, Wiltz, 2004).
Almost all of the sixteen desires may be relatable to why people watch reality shows.
People may watch because they feel curious about someone elses house, job, or family. They
may watch because they want to hold the power to send someone home from a competition with
their vote. Watching may fill their desire for social contact, by watching others interact. Shows
such as The Bachelor fulfill the romance desire by giving viewers a fairy-tale (Reiss et al.,
2004). However, what keeps the viewer coming back is the intrinsic feeling of joy they get by
fulfilling their desires. People act, as if they are trying to maximize the experience of the 16
joys. In the context of reality TV, people keep watching if they find joy from one of the desires
they hold as important while watching.

Voyeurism
Voyeurism is defined as receiving sexual gratification from viewing objects or acts.
However, when the term voyeurism is used in the context of reality TV it has more of a meaning
of living vicariously through surveillance, not specifically sexual. Reality TV, in general, is
characterized as voyeur TV. However, today it is considered harmless and is seen more as a

Reality TV 4

guilty pleasure. Vicarious experiences reportedly produce a, cathartic purging of ones soul,
and reduces anxious behavior, which could be motivation for why people continue to watch
reality TV (Biely, Nabi, Morgan, Stitt, 2003).
However, recent research has indicated that voyeurism is not as strong as an argument for
continued viewership of reality TV that it appears to be. Results do not support voyeurism as a
strong motivation for watching reality TV shows. Results from several surveys concluded that
only 9% of regular viewers and 2% of casual viewers indicated they watch for reasons that may
be associated with voyeurism (Blazer, 2006). Of course, there is the chance that a social
desirability bias was present and results may not be exactly accurate.
The enjoyment of watching reality TV is wider than the appeal of seeing unethical
behavior. While many reality shows do focus around unethical behavior, a large portion do not.
Many current reality shows focus around ordinary activities such as buying a house or running a
business. The potential of fulfilling the voyeuristic sense of pressure is further diminished
because of the, constraints put on network television content preclude the broadcast of explicit
sexual material (Biely et al., 2003).

Surveillance Society
In 1984 Mark Poster warned of the disappearance of privacy. Poster identified sources
that would lead to the loss of privacy by stating
With the [electronic] mechanisms of information processing, the ability to
monitor behavior is extended considerably All that is needed are traces of
behavior, credit card activity, traffic tickets, telephone bills, loan application,
welfare files library records and so forth. On the basis of these traces, a

Reality TV 5

computer can gather information that yields a surprisingly full picture of an

individuals life (Wong, 2001).
We willingly give up this information by filling out customer satisfaction surveys and
credit card applications. We give up this information in hopes that we will somehow
receive a reward. However, instead a sense of total surveillance of our everyday lives is
evoked.
In our current society worries about privacy are offset by the force of publicity as
currency. Winners of reality competition shows have the opportunity to earn money by giving up
their privacy. For example, every season the winner of the show Big Brother earns up to
$500,000 for being on camera twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, for weeks at a time.
Besides the initial monetary reward winner also gain their fifteen minutes of fame from their
appearances. Given the success of some reality shows, contestants are thrust into the limelight
and have new opportunities to take advantage of. Reality TV for some is merely a starting point
for a longer career in pop culture.
Commentators of contemporary culture suggest a connection between Michael Foucaults
use of the panopticon metaphor. Generally, the panopticon refers to Jeremy Benthams
architectural design for prisons and asylums that allowed for the constant supervision of
prisoners as a part of prison reform. Guards could see inside each cell from a vantage point in a
high, central tower. Foucault uses the panopticon as a metaphor to explore systems of social
control and people in a disciplinary situation and the power-knowledge concept. In Discipline
and Punish Foucault writes that Panopticism is
The general principle of a new political anatomy The celebrated, transparent
circular cage with its high tower, powerful and knowing, may have been a

Reality TV 6

perfect disciplinary institution; but one may unlock the disciplines and get
them to function in a diffused multiple, polyvalent way throughout the whole
social body (Wong, 2001).
As our society becomes increasingly reliant on technology in contemporary lifestyle, we create a
superpanopticon of surveillance. We seek reassurance that there are still unscripted, authentic
moments in life somewhere in the world. For proof we turn to the internet and television.
Foucaults idea of a modern society is one that is a society of surveillance. He sees
surveillance as the key component to discipline in modern society. With surveillance individuals
discipline themselves, and regulate their own behavior. Individuals become the principle of their
own subjection (Wong, 2001). Because of surveillance, individuals want to subject themselves
to disciplinary norms.
Foucaults ideas can be applied to the appeal of reality television shows because of
societys obsession with normalcy. Foucault argues that every moment, from our birth up until
now, we have been measuring ourselves according to the average. We watch reality shows to
see how we measure up when compared to other people who are considered to be representative
of the population. If we think we are lacking in some area, we watch to see what we can improve
on. We watch to gain a sense of normalcy. If we see on our screen that someones actions are
accepted as normal, we are more likely to imitate them in our everyday lives. We watch reality
television to self-regulate our thoughts and actions so that they will be deemed acceptable by
society.

Reality TV 7

Novelty
Part of the appeal of reality TV is an element of surprise and accessibility to real people.
Viewers watch and enjoy reality shows because of its unique qualities. It is unscripted (or so it
claims to be) and allows viewers to be nosy and explore other peoples lives. Regular reality
show viewers watch to be entertained, casual viewers watch to solve boredom. In a study done
by the University of Arizona, 9% of regular viewers and 5% of casual viewers only watch
reality-based TV because it is different. Reality TV is different from many types of other popular
TV shows. It is not necessarily scripted, it often casts unknown people as main roles. However,
reality TV is also a combination of several types of TV. In a single episode of The Bachelor
viewers may experience comedy, romance, and drama; all in an hour or less. Even though reality
shows tend to focus on generally unknown faces for their main roles, these people must appeal to
a wide audience. Reality shows focus on people who are different and whose story will be
interesting to the masses, focusing on everyone from seemingly ordinary people like Alana
Thompson in Here Comes Honey Boo Boo to celebrities like the British band The Wanted and
their show The Wanted Life. In the same survey conducted by the University of Arizona, 12% of
viewers indicated that they specifically watch because they think the people on the programs are
unique (Biely et al., 2003).
If something is seen as novel, there is a greater likelihood that people will be talking
about it. In order to keep informed is one of the biggest reasons people view reality television
shows. People watch in order to be able to communicate with their friends, family, and
coworkers about it. They want to be able to contribute to conversation and increase their

Reality TV 8

sociability. People are able to do this by continuing to watch reality programs that are considered
to be novel and discussing them with others (Reiss, Wiltz, 2001).
Rewards System/Gratification Theory
The rewards system and gratification theory suggest that people watch reality shows
because they think the information they may gain from watching can possibly help them in their
everyday life. It is the, underlying assumption of which is that a media channel cannot
influence an individual unless that person has some use for the medium or its particular
message (Biely et al., 2003). In order for this theory to be valid as a motivation, five
assumptions must be true. First, an individuals behavior is purposive, goal directed, and
motivated, and thus influences their communication behavior. Second, it must be true that
individuals select and use media in order to satisfy a biological, psychological, or social need.
Third, individuals are influenced by many different social and psychological factors when
selecting method of communication. Fourth, different forms of media compete with each other
for attention, affecting their selection and overall use. Fifth, media consumers must be aware of
their needs and whether or not these needs are being satisfied by a certain media medium
(Mendelson, Papacharissi, 2007). Specifically, reality show viewers tune in because they think
they will benefit from viewing. Examples of this include viewers gaining examples of
unacceptable behavior from Jersey Shore, viewers learning skills about buying houses from
House Hunters, and viewers learning trivia from competitive game shows. This theory
emphasizes a natural self-centeredness that people are born with. This self-centeredness is why
individuals are motivated to do things, because it will make something better or easier for them
to do.

Reality TV 9

Therapy
In other instances, reality television has the potential to reach groups of people who feel
isolated or socially excluded. Viewers may identify with characters who have shared an
emotional journey with the audience. These shows normalize the open discussion of emotions,
often evident in one-on-one confessionals. These monologues allow audience members to
experience therapeutic situations usually only accessible through a therapist-patient relationship
(Hamilton, 2013).
Therapeutic elements of reality television have led to a wider public interest in therapy.
According to the National Health Services Improving Access to Psychological Therapies, talk
therapy has become the most commonly offered therapy in England. But, reality television has
exposed audiences to a wider range of therapeutic techniques than just talk therapy. On shows
such as Celebrity Rehab, audiences follow characters through addiction rehabilitation centers.
On The Biggest Loser audiences watch as contestants work through relationship problems, social
issues, and unresolved emotional issues with self-acceptance and by releasing anger, writing
letters, and making scrapbooks (Hamilton, 2013). Audiences are able to follow along with
characters on the shows as they go through their emotional journeys
Reality television is indicative of a wider trend towards the 'commodification' or
'McDonaldisation of emotion' (Hamilton, 2013). This trend is evident in news media,
advertising, and political culture. As a part of this trend, reality TV has made therapy more
accessible, but the therapy audience and participants experience is an inadequate substitute for

Reality TV 10

working directly with a qualified therapist. For audiences, they are provided with a superficial
version of a therapy model to base their perception of therapy off of. For participants on reality
shows, an ethical issue is brought to question. In a normal therapy session, after participants have
uncovered their issues they are given proper after-care. However, in the context of a television
show, participants are encouraged to uncover their emotional issues, but are then left without
proper, professional after-care (Hamilton, 2013).
Conclusion
In general, studies focusing on the appeal of reality television are a fairly new concept.
On top of this lack of scientific research also lies the incongruity of the genre. There is no clear
cohesion within the reality-based TV genre. The genre ranges from everything from following
celebrities during their everyday life to redecorating a bathroom. There are so many different
shows with so many different audiences that some conclusions made may not apply to all reality
shows. Along with different audiences comes different motivations to watch certain shows. With
all of the differences between shows there is a high possibility of overgeneralization of statistics
produced. In order for more conclusive results to be found, studies need to move away from
focusing on the genre as a whole and begin to focus on the different subgenres.
As for the different subgenres, there are currently ten different ones all under the broader
reality television genre. These subgenres include: documentary style (The Real World), reality
legal programming (Judge Judy), reality competition (American Idol), self-improvement (The
Biggest Loser), renovation (Extreme Makeover: Home Edition), financial transactions and
appraisals (Pawn Stars), social experiment (Celebrity Wife Swap), hidden cameras (Punkd),
supernatural and paranormal (Ghost Hunters), and hoaxes (Superstar USA). Many different
theories exist as to why people watch different shows under the subgenres. For example, many

Reality TV 11

watch Extreme Makeover: Home Edition in the hopes that they too can learn how to remodel
their house just by tuning in. Each subgenre of reality television shows generally have different
audiences, but the theories used to explain why these audiences tune in may be able to be applied
broadly across the reality television genre.

Reality TV 12

References
Andrejevic, M. (2004). Reality TV: The work of being watched. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Biely, E., Nabi, R. Morgan, S., Stitt, C. (2003). Reality-based television programming and the
psychology of its appeal. Media Psychology, 5, 4. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1207%2FS1532785XMEP0
504_01
Blazer, S. (Summer 2006). Rear window ethics: Domestic privacy versus public responsibility in
the evolution of voyeurism. Midwestern Quarterly, 4, 24. Retrieved from
https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-149985163/rear-window-ethics-domesticprivacy-versus-public
Glouner, M., Flores, C., & Tomback, A. (n.d.). The history of reality television. Retrieved from
http://scalar.usc.edu/works/reality-tv/the-history-of-reality-television
Hamilton, J. (2013). Reality TV as therapy. Therapy Today, 24(5), 14.
Mendelson, A., Papacharissi, Z. (June 2007). An exploratory study of reality appeal: Uses and
gratification of reality TV shows. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media.
Retrieved from http://tigger.uic.edu/~zizi/Site/Research_files/JobemRealityTV.pdf
Pecora, V. (Fall 2002). The Culture of Surveillance. Retrieved from
http://facweb.northseattle.edu/tchung/ENG102_W12/Culture_of_Surveillance.pdf

Reality TV 13

Reiss, S., Wiltz, J., (2004). Why people watch reality TV. Retrieved from
http://nisonger.osu.edu/papers/Reisswiltz_2004.pdf
Reiss, S., Wiltz, J., (2001). Why America loves reality TV. Retrieved from
https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200109/why-america-loves-reality-tv
Wong, J. (2001). Heres looking at you: Reality TV, Big Brother, and Foucault. Communications
Studies Faculty Publications, 2. Retrieved from http://scholars.wlu.ca/coms_faculty/2