Reality TV Reinforce Negative Role

¶ … Reality TV reinforce negative role models?

Media effects the attitudes of society in many ways. It not only reflects norms, but also helps to shape these attitudes as well. Modeling is one of the most common means of learning social behaviors in humans. Children model those around to them to learn what is appropriate and what is not. This social learning does not stop when the child becomes an adult, but rather continues throughout their life. People look up to actors as role mode. As such, actors and popular personalities have a profound effect on shaping society.

Reality TV is one of the most popular genres in the mass media today. The viewership of these programs increases at an astonishing rate. Reality TV allows the viewer to combine both reality and fantasy in a unique blend. We know that the characters have some effects on the adults that watch. However, until now this subject has received little attention. Some of the characters on reality TV would not be considered role models a major portion of the society. The proposed research will examine the presence of negative role models in British Reality Television.

Methodology

The purpose of the study will be to determine the frequency of negative role models in British Reality TV shows. The data to be collected will have both a numerical component and a subjective component. The study will be conducted by watching a number of reality TV shows and dividing the characters into Positive, Neutral, and Negative role models and then comparing the three groups. The study will provide individual show data, as well as combined data to get an overall picture of the type of role models that British reality shows are portraying.

Rationale

Beattie (2002) found that television has a profound effect on our society and that it can be used as a means to gauge societal attitudes as well. Modern psychology reaches beyond the traditional Freudian analysis and has now been expanded to include portion of computer science, linguistics, sociology, philosophy, neuroscience, and the English language. This multidiscipline approach to psychology is a result of an understanding of the complexity of the humans psyche.

The goal of psychology is to predict how one will react in a certain set of circumstances. However, as research into the field of human motivation progresses, this process becomes more difficult to understand. We now know that human motivation and drives are the result of a complex set of factors, all of which interplay to produce the motivation required for action (Ziman, 2000). This complexity has compelled the field of psychology to include portions of many other disciplines. This creates a particular conundrum when it comes to conducting academic research. The following will explore the multidiscipline approach to understanding how reality TV affects our social behavior through modeling.

This study will draw from the areas of sociology and psychology in order to gain an understanding of the frequency of negative role models in reality TV. Some areas of psychology lend themselves to quantitative research, while other lends them to qualitative research. The area of sociology relies almost exclusively on qualitative methods. The method chosen must match the type of data collected.

Reality TV as a Social Observation Experiment

The concept of reality TV is that people enjoy watching other people. Let us consider the show Big Brother. The entire plot of this show is based on watching the behaviors of other people. The audience gets an inside view of many facets into other people's private lives that they would not otherwise be privy. Big brother is centered on the need to see what other people do and how they act in different situations. The audience, in this case, is playing psychologist and sociologist in an attempt to understand the characters. The judgments that they make are subjective.

Philip Zimbardo, a professor at Stanford University, feels that reality TV shows such as Survivor and Big Brother show the worst aspects of humans and represent the wrong human values (Shwartz, 2001). Zimbardo recently participated in the development of a reality TV series called the Human Zoo where contestants would be asked to participate in psychology experiments while being taped 24 hours a day. The experiment was an observational experiment.

Other psychologists agree that Reality TV shows reinforce negative stereotypes. For instance, the show "Growing Up Gotti" reinforces negative stereotypes of Italian-Americans, portraying them as semi-illiterate bums, bigots, and buffoons (Mason, 2004). Mason is concerned that these stereotypes will bleed into society and become reinforced. The connection between social psychology and realty TV are recognized by credible members of academic society.

Conducting Credible Sociological Research

Sociological research relies on qualitative data to support the hypothesis. However, conducting qualitative research that is valid can present many problems. The problems with validity arise from several areas including the nature of the data itself. The presence of a research in the group can cause members of the observed group to alter their behavior in order to either give the researcher what they want, or to hide undesirable behaviors from them (Patton, 2002). The researcher themselves may be a source of bias as they unintentionally may wish for a certain result and ignore behaviors that do not support the hypothesis (Hammersley, 1992).

As far as this research is concerned, one only has to be concerned about two of these pitfalls. The first pitfall is the nature of the data itself. The researcher in this experiment will be watching reality TV in order to make a decision as to which category a certain character belongs. The character will then be turned into a number (quantitative data) for the final analysis. This study uses qualitative data to derive quantitative results. This is known as a hybrid methodology. The decision as to which category to place the character is highly subjective. The initial assessment will involve the personality traits, social upbringing and other aspects of the researcher.

The gold standard for empirical research is to be able to reproduce the results at some time in the future to validate the study. In this case, it is unlikely that two people would judge the same characters in a similar fashion. Thus, the results would not be reproducible and the study would be considered invalid. Due to this scenario, a method must be devised that will allow the researcher to standardize their observations. In order to achieve this, a set of criteria will be developed that will include instructions for making the decision as to which category the character belongs. The research will be able to use these criteria to aid them in making consistent decisions.

The second pitfall of qualitative research involves changing behaviors of the test subjects. This will not be an issue in this study as the subjects are television characters. The third type of research bias stems from the expectations of the researcher. Once again, the information can be standardized using a set of criteria to aid the researcher in proper categorization of the characters. This list of criteria may include use of foul language, negative comments towards other characters, racial slurs and other negative behaviors. The use of criteria such as this will help make the study reproducible and will increase the likelihood that two different researchers will obtain similar results. Standardizing the observation process is used to eliminate or reduce researcher bias in qualitative research.

Qualitative research suffers from a lack of credibility as compared to quantitative methods (Wainwright, 1997). The problems explained above are the key reasons for this opinion. However, there has been a recent trend towards hybrid research techniques that combine elements of qualitative research with quantitative aspects. These research methods are gaining credibility as they have many of the formal components of quantitative research. This method will be used in this research study. It will transform observational data into numerical data and then apply quantitative methods to prove either the hypothesis or the null hypothesis.

One of the key reasons for the development of these new research techniques is the entrance of the social sciences into new areas. For instance, sociology is finding its way into the medical field in an attempt to find new ways to improve patient outcomes (Mays and Pope, 1995). The medical field is using the social sciences to find and treat the causes of many preventable diseases such as diabetes, obesity, and heart disease. Sociological factors are found to be a part of many disease cycles. Family dynamics have a significant impact on increases in depression, suicide and other emotional disorders. Sociology is no longer viewed as a separate science, but is considered another factor in many other formal areas of science. Qualitative research is a form method used in the social sciences. Therefore, it is logical that qualitative methods would find their way into the other sciences as well.

The marriage of qualitative study methods with quantitative methods meant reaching a compromise between the two methods (Wainwright, 1997). Validity and reliability are the hallmarks of quantitative research. However, the ability to criticize and gain depth into a subject was the key factors involved in qualitative research. In order for qualitative research methods to be applied to qualitative research, these methods had to undergo some form of transformation to make them acceptable to the empirical mindset. Wainwright argues that in order to achieve this, qualitative methods had to sacrifice some of their critical elements in favor of validity and reliability. He argues that one cannot have criticism and validity at the same time.

However, this is a difficult viewpoint to accept and if one examines the method to be employed in this research, the presence of validity and controls does not limit the ability to criticize the results. Increasing validity and reliability in the qualitative research means the development of criteria on the data collection. This may be a hindrance in the traditional sociological setting, such as field observations, but for studies that wish to count the frequency of a behavior, the presence of controls does not limit the ability of the researcher. The ability to marry qualitative and quantitative methods depends on the nature of the study. In certain research settings, it may be more restrictive than in others.

The Nature of Qualitative Research

The traditional characterization of qualitative research is in the field observation setting. This method attempts to understand the meanings and definitions behind a situation. The researcher observes, or possibly interviews informants and attempts to gain an understanding of an event through their eyes. The researcher attempts to glean certain information from the informant. In doing so, they must often judge or categorize the information they gather. Qualitative research attempts to examine beliefs or belief systems. This is one of the reasons for the skepticism of the qualitative methods as far as strict empiricists are concerned (Mays and Pope, 1995).

The most common usage of qualitative research is in ethnographic studies, where a researcher from one culture attempts to understand the customs and ideology of another. In many cases, it is difficult to analyze the beliefs and customs of one culture from the viewpoint of another. There is often no frame of reference from which to make comparisons. In qualitative ethnographic research, there is no attempt to manipulate the informants or the insight that they provide. The information is taken as is, with no other measures applied. The results of this research are often colourful descriptions, but cannot be considered a study in the formal sense of the word. This is the stereotypical viewpoint held regarding qualitative research.

One of the key components of ethnographic research that the researcher attempts to be an impartial observer (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983). They do not criticize the information that they gather. They do not attempt to place the information into a social context. This means that they regard all information from every informant equally (Wainwright, 1997). However, as we know from our own experiences, each opinion expressed by every member of society does not necessarily reflect an accurate assessment of cultural constructs. This harms the credibility of many studies from a scientific perspective. Wainwright terms this "voyeuristic relativism." This has the effect of legitimizing the set of beliefs that was discovered by the researcher. However, there is no way for the reader to know if the situation described reflects a majority of the society, or whether it simply represents a local anomaly.

As one can see, there are many difficulties associated with observational qualitative methods used in ethnographic research. The relationship is not a two-way exchange, therefore it can be questioned as to whether the research yields a result that is socially relevant (Jones, 1985). Observational ethics dictate that the researcher takes no action that could mutate or change the culture that they study.

This method results in the data without the ability to interpret the data. One cannot resolve the deep question of "why" something happens using this method. It only answers the question, "what happened?" This method fails to address the issues that were the original intent of the study. This lack of depth led to a new group of ethnographers that used "critical" techniques in combination with observational techniques (Wainwright, 1997). This new approach entails checking the validity of the statements made by the informants. It also entails looking deeper into the development of their ideology and beliefs. This approach results in greater understanding, but can be criticized for increasing the potential of introducing researcher bias.

The synthesis of traditional observational ethnography and critical social research is a difficult one. It necessitates the reconceptualization of one or both of the components (Wainwright, 1997). Wainwright feels that the synthesis of these two methods will result in a method that more closely resembles empirical research methods, yet provides the in depth knowledge of qualitative methods. One can view the process of hybridization, as Wainwright suggests, as a reconceptualization. However, it is difficult to understand how Wainwright can call the process both a synthesis and a reconceptualization. Synthesis would imply that the two processes come together with all of their parts intact. Reconceptualization infers that the two processes undergo a change in their fundamental concepts. When something undergoes such a drastic change, it always leaves the question as to whether it is still the same, or whether it represents a new concept that is completely different from the first. This is a question of taxonomy rather than philosophy.

When one considers this viewpoint, one must question whether the field of qualitative research has developed into two separate branches, one that is observational and the other that is critical (Jorgensen, 1989). It is apparent that a need developed for both. However, the combination of the two approaches into a meaningful synthesis is still questionable, regardless of Wainwright's arguments to the contrary. One could apply observation and then apply criticism, but it is difficult to imagine a scenario where "observational criticism" does not result in a plethora of biases in the research. One must separate the difference between these two methods and the situations in which they are useful.

This is an important concept to understand in light of the current research study. The data gathered by watching the reality TV shows will be observational in nature. The researcher will observe the behavior and look for certain "clues" as to the correct categorization of the characters. In a sense, the researcher must make an observation and make a judgment about the type of role model that the person represents. This violates the founding principles of observational qualitative research. However, in order to correctly asses the prevalence of negative role models in reality TV, it would appear that there is no other way than to break traditional conventions regarding observational techniques.

The "informant" in this case are the TV characters themselves. In this research setting the researcher cannot directly interact with the characters. They can only observe them and make judgments based on these observations. They do not have the ability to engage in this new form of critical research where the researcher attempts to question the behaviors of the informant and "justify" them as representative of the culture in question rather than an anomaly. This research does not represent traditional critical observation as defined by Wainwright, but represents a third type of observational research where the researcher is allowed to make judgments based on observation, but does not have the ability to interact with the informant directly.

It appears that new methods can be developed for conducting qualitative research that are justified by necessity to develop them. It appears that new forms and twists on qualitative research are being developed on a continual basis. They tend to fall into categories depending on their taxonomy. One has the traditional form of observational only research where the researcher only observes, but does not interact. The second type is "critical observation" where the researcher is allowed to criticize and make judgments about the informant. The researcher can interact with the informant, rather than simply to observe.

This research introduces a third type of qualitative research that could be considered "judgmental observation." This is where the researcher must make observations about the subject, but does not have the ability to interact with the informant directly to find out why they did something. This new type of qualitative research is a direct result of new forms of media, such as reality TV that give us the ability to view the subject via videotaping. Reality TV represents the epitome of this new form or observational research. As we observe the subjects on the TV shows via hidden cameras and such, we gain a sense of their worldview. Reality TV has transformed the casual Reality TV fan into an armchair sociologist. Every observer makes judgments about the characters based on their personal life experiences. For the casual armchair sociologist this represents a considerable amount to researcher bias on their part. However, many of these participants are involved in the process for entertainment value, rather than for research purposes. In this case there is no harm done by introducing their ideas into the observation.

However, for the serious researcher, this type of egocentric bias represents a major pitfall that could jeopardize the integrity of the research project. This was the reasoning for the introduction of controls, via the criteria for categorizing the actions and behaviors of the character. An example of these criteria may be similar to the following.

Reality TV Character Categorization

Negative Role Model

Neutral Role Model

Positive Role Model

Uses at least one degrading comment towards another participant

Uses at least one racial slur

Uses foul language at least twice during a single episode

Engages in lies behind the back of others

Condones or promotes actions that are deemed unacceptable by British society including adultery, drugs, alcohol abuse, control and manipulation, and other socially unacceptable behavior

Will cheat to gain an advantage over other players

Does not make degrading comments towards other players

Does not engage in racial slurs

May use soft expletives such as "darn" or "bloody" but does not used explicitly foul language

Does not engage in actions that are deemed unacceptable by British society including adultery, drugs, alcohol abuse, control and manipulation, and other socially unacceptable behavior

May consider cheating to gain an advantage over other players, but does not actually carry it out.

This character does not engage in negative behavior, but does not engage in positive behavior either.

Encourages other players and makes positive comments towards them.

Does not use any foul language at all. May criticize others for doing so Accepts everyone for their merits, rather than judging them for race or religion

Actively discourages actions that are deemed unacceptable by British society including adultery, drugs, alcohol abuse, control and manipulation, and other socially unacceptable behavior

Will not encourage or partake in cheating of any type

Either actively discourages others from engaging in negative behaviors, or passively protests by refusing to participate in these activities themselves.

It might be noted that it is doubtful that a character will clearly fall into a particular category. This is where the "judgment" portion of this research comes in. The researcher must make a generalization taking into account the entire body of actions by the character and decide which category the majority fall. This research method allows the researcher to categorize each character so that the frequency of each type of character can be observed.

Ward-Schofield (1993) brings up the point of 'fittingness', 'comparability', or 'translatability' when describing data and results. Bias significantly impairs the ability to do so. This research could be conducted by simply placing the character into the proper category on a sheet. However, this method could be criticized for its lack of transparency and accused of bias. For this reason, it is suggested that the researcher write a personality profile and sketch of each character that they assess so that the reader can decide for himself or herself whether the character was properly categorized. The character narrative should follow strict observational guidelines and present the character in a partial and non-critical manner. This extra-added degree of transparency increases the validity of this method significantly.

This research technique will not be subject to many of the types of bias inherent in interactive research settings. For instance, the researcher cannot inadvertently introduce bias into a question, or focus on one topic for too long. Observing characters in reality TV shows represents the action as it happens, without any intervention by the researcher. This inability to interact is a help in the elimination of certain types of bias, but it also limits the ability of the researcher to verify their observations via an interview type setting. However, it is not expected that this will be a factor in the ability to draw conclusions from this research study as the premise of the research is based on actions rather than in-depth reasons behind behaviors. The purpose of this research is not to discover the in-depth reasons for the behaviors. This research is only concerned with the frequency of behaviors and the audience perception of individual characters.

Transforming Observational Data into Numerical Form

Fielding (1993) summarized the common approach to ethnographic research into the following steps.

1. Fieldnotes/Transcripts

2. Search for categories and patterns (themes

3. Mark up or cut up the data

4. Construct outline re-sequence)

This research will take a slightly different approach to data analysis. This research follows the first two steps of Fielding's approach exactly as far as the first two steps are concerned. However, it diverges in the third step and the final step. The search for categories and patterns in this research will result in numerical data that can be analyzed using descriptive analytic techniques. Once all of the characters have been placed in their proper categories and the researcher feels satisfied that they are represented accurately, they can then tally the number of characters that fall into each category. Harvey (1990) refers to this as "pile building." A word processor or spreadsheet will be useful for these purposes.