In this study, associations between overall amount of television viewing as well as viewing of reality programs featuring adults in romantic, friendship-oriented, or familial settings and the approval of physical and verbal aggression are examined. Consistent with genre-specific cultivation theory, findings among 248 U.S. adult survey respondents show the ability of exposure to docusoap reality television as well as its perceived reality to predict normative beliefs about aggression, even under multiple controls. Additional analyses explore differences between men and women in the sample and explore approval of female-perpetrated compared with male-perpetrated aggression.
AubreyJ. S.OlsonL.FineM.HauserT.RheaD.KaylorB.YangA. (2012). Investigating personality and viewing motivation correlates of reality television exposure. Communication Quarterly, 60, 80-102. doi:10.1080/01463373.2012.641830
2.
BaileyC. A.OstrovJ. M. (2008). Differentiating forms and functions of aggression in emerging adults: Associations with hostile attribution bias and normative beliefs. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 13, 713-722. doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9211-5
3.
BaruhL. (2009). Publicized intimacies on reality television: An analysis of voyeuristic content and its contribution to the appeal of reality programming. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53, 190-210. doi:10.1080/08838150902907678
4.
Behm-MorawitzE.LewallenJ.MillerB. (2016). Real mean girls? Reality television viewing, social aggression, and gender-related beliefs among female emerging adults. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5, 340-355.
5.
BilandzicH.BusselleR. (2012). A narrative perspective on genre-specific cultivation. In MorganM.ShanahanJ.SignorielliN. (Eds.), Living with television now: Advances in cultivation theory & research (pp. 261-285). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
6.
BilandzicH.RösslerP. (2004). Life according to television. Implications of genre-specific cultivation effects: The gratification/cultivation model. Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research, 29, 295-236.
7.
BruzziS. (2015). Docusoaps. In CreeberG. (Ed.), The television genre book (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
8.
BuhrmesterM. D.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980
9.
BushmanB. J.HuesmannL. R. (2012). Effects of violent media on aggression. In SingerD. G.SingerJ. L. (Eds.), Handbook of children and media (2nd ed., pp. 231-248). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
10.
BusselleR. W. (2001). Television exposure, perceived realism, and exemplar accessibility in the social judgment process. Media Psychology, 3, 43-67.
11.
BusselleR. W.RyabovolovaA.WilsonB. (2004). Ruining a good story: Cultivation, perceived realism and narrative. Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research, 29, 365-378.
12.
CardN. A.StuckyB. D.SawalaniG. M.LittleT. D. (2008). Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development, 79, 1185-1229. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01184.x
13.
CohenJ.WeimannG. (2000). Cultivation revisited: Some genres have some effects on some viewers. Communication Reports, 13, 99-115.
14.
ColesG. (2000). Docusoap: Actuality and the serial format. In CarsonB.Llewellyn JonesM. (Eds.), Frames and fictions on television: The politics of identity (pp. 27-39). Exeter, UK: Intellect.
15.
CoxG.ZeitchikS. (2007, September11). MTV’s “blonde” bombshell. Daily Variety, p. 1.
16.
CoyneS. M.RobinsonS. L.NelsonD. A. (2010). Does reality backbite? Physical, verbal, and relational aggression in reality television programs. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54, 282-298. doi:10.1080/08838151003737931
DodgeK. A.CoieJ. D.LynamD. (2006). Aggression and antisocial behavior in youth. In DamonW. (Series Ed.) & EisenbergN. (Vol. Ed.). Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 719-788). New York, NY: John Wiley.
19.
EdwardsL. H. (2013). The triumph of reality TV: The revolution in American television. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
FerrisA. L.SmithS. W.GreenbergD. S.SmithS. L. (2007). The content of reality dating shows and viewer perceptions of dating. Journal of Communication, 57, 490-510. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00354.x
22.
FikkersK. M.PiotrowskiJ.ValkenburgP. M. (2017). Assessing the reliability and validity of television and game violence exposure measures. Communication Research, 44, 117-143. doi:10.1177/0093650215573863
GerbnerG. (1969). Toward “cultural indicators”: The analysis of mass mediated message systems. AV Communication Review, 17, 137-148.
26.
GerbnerG.GrossL.Jackson-BeeckM.Jeffries-FoxS.SignorielliN. (1978). Cultural indicators: Violence profile number 9. Journal of Communication, 28, 176-207.
27.
GerbnerG.GrossL.MorganM.SignorielliN. (1980). The “mainstreaming” of America: Violence profile no. 11. Journal of Communication, 30(3), 10-29.
28.
GerbnerG.MorganM.SignorielliN. (1994). Television violence profile number 14: The turning point. Philadelphia, PA: The Annenberg School for Communication.
29.
GlascockJ. (2001). Gender roles on prime-time network television: Demographics and behaviors. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45, 656-669.
30.
GlascockJ. (2003). Gender, race, and aggression in newer TV network primetime programming. Communication Quarterly, 51, 90-100.
31.
GoodmanJ. K.CryderC. E.CheemaA. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26, 213-224.
32.
GrabeM. E.DrewD. G. (2007). Crime cultivation: Comparisons across media genres and channels. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51, 147-171. doi:10.1080/08838150701308143
33.
GreenbergB. S.EdisonN.KorzennyF.Fernandez-ColladoG.AtkinG. K. (1980). Antisocial and prosocial behaviors on television. In GreenbergB. S. (Ed.), Life on television (pp. 99-128). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
34.
HallA. (2006). Viewers’ perceptions of reality programs. Communication Quarterly, 54, 191-211. doi:10.1080/01463370600650902
35.
HarrisM. B. (1994). Gender of subject and target as mediators of aggression. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 453-471.
36.
HawkinsR. P.PingreeS. (1990). Divergent psychological processes in constructing social reality from mass media content. In SignorielliN.MorganM. (Eds.), Cultivation analysis: New directions in media effects research (pp. 35-49). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Herrett-SkjellumJ.AllenM. (1996). Television programming and sex stereotyping: A meta-analysis. In BurlesonB. R. (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 19 (pp. 157-185). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
39.
HetsroniA. (2007). Four decades of violent content on prime-time network programming: A longitudinal meta-analytic review. Journal of Communication, 57, 759-784. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00367.x
40.
HillA. (2005). The rise of reality TV. Reality TV: Audiences and popular factual television. London, England: Routledge.
41.
HuesmannL. R.GuerraN. G. (1997). Children’s normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 408-419.
42.
KrahéB.BuschingR. (2014). Interplay of normative beliefs and behavior in developmental patterns of physical and relational aggression in adolescence: A four-wave longitudinal study. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1146. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01146
43.
LauritsenJ. L.HeimerK.LynchJ. P. (2009). Trends in the gender gap in violent offending: New evidence from the National Crime Victimization Survey. Criminology, 47, 361-399.
44.
LauzenM. M.DozierD. M. (2008). Civilizing primetime: Gender and conflict resolution in the 2004-2005 season. Mass Communication and Society, 11, 300-308. doi:10.1080/15205430701668097
45.
LeeM. J.MoscowitzL. (2013). The “rich bitch”: Class and gender on the. Real Housewives of New York City, Feminist Media Studies, 13, 64-82. doi:10.1080/14680777.2011.647971
46.
LevineS. (2012, August31). MTV takes leave of “shore.” Daily Variety, p. 2.
47.
LieblerC. M.HatefA.MunnoG. (2016). Domestic violence as entertainment: Gender, role congruity, and reality television. Media Report to Women, 44, 6-20.
48.
MartinsN.JensenR. E. (2014). The relationship between “teen mom” reality programming and teenagers’ beliefs about teen parenthood. Mass Communication and Society, 17, 830-852. doi:10.1080/15205436.2013.851701
49.
Mediaweek. (2007, November19). According to Kim. Mediaweek, 17(42), 42.
50.
MorganM.ShanahanJ. (1995). Democracy tango: Television, adolescents, and authoritarian tensions in Argentina. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
51.
MorganM.ShanahanJ. (1997). Two decades of cultivation research: An appraisal and meta-analysis. Communication Yearbook, 20, 1-45.
52.
MorganM.ShanahanJ.SignorielliN. (2015). Yesterday’s new cultivation, tomorrow. Mass Communication & Society, 18, 674-699. doi:10.1080/15205436.2015.1072725
53.
MurrayS.OuelletteL. (2004). Reality TV: Remaking television culture. New York: New York University Press.
54.
MurrayS.OuelletteL. (2009). Reality TV: Remaking television culture (2nd ed.). New York: New York University Press.
55.
NabiR. L.StittC. R.HalfordJ.FinnertyK. L. (2006). Emotional and cognitive predictors of the enjoyment of reality-based and fictional television programming: An elaboration of the uses and gratifications perspective. Media Psychology, 8, 421-447. doi:10.1207/s1532785xmep0804_5
56.
OppligerP. A. (2007). Effects of gender stereotyping on socialization. In PressR. W.GayleB. M.BurrellN.AllenM.BryantJ. (Eds.), Mass media effects research: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 199-214). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
57.
PaolacciG.ChandlerJ. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 184-188.
58.
PotterW. J. (1993). Cultivation theory and research. A conceptual critique. Human Communication Research, 19, 564-601.
59.
PotterW. J. (2014). A critical analysis of cultivation theory. Journal of Communication, 64, 1015-1036. doi:10.1111/jcom.12128
60.
PotterW. J.ChangI. C. (1990). Television exposure measures and the cultivation hypothesis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 34, 313-334.
61.
RifonN. J.SmrekerK.KimS. (2014). Celebrity violence outside the ad context: Synergies and concerns. In RifonN. J.RoyneM. B.CaronL. (Eds.), Advertising and violence: Concepts and perspectives (pp. 134-150). New York: M. E. Sharpe.
62.
RobinsJ. M. (2005, June27). The reality of reality TV. Broadcasting & Cable, 135(26), 3.
63.
SegrinC.NabiR. L. (2002). Does television viewing cultivate unrealistic expectations about marriage?Journal of Communication, 52, 247-264.
64.
ShanahanJ.MorganM. (1999). Television and its viewers: Cultivation theory and research. London, England: Cambridge University Press.
65.
SignorielliN. (2003). Prime-time violence 1993 to 2001: Has the picture really changed?Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47, 36-58.
66.
SmithS. L.WilsonB. J.KunkelD.LinzD.PotterW. J.ColvinC. M.DonnersteinE. (1998). Violence in television programming overall: University of California Santa Barbara study (National Television Violence Study, Vol. 3). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
67.
SmithS. L.NathansonA. I.WilsonB. J. (2002). Prime time television: Assessing violence during the most popular viewing hours. Journal of Communication, 52, 84-111. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02534.x
68.
StewartN.UngemachC.HarrisA. J. L.BartelsD. M.NewellB. R.PaolacciG.ChandlerJ. (2015). The average laboratory samples a population of 7,300 Amazon Mechanical Turk workers. Judgement and Decision Making, 10, 479-491.
69.
Van den BulckJ. (2003). Is the mainstreaming effect in cultivation an artifact of regression to the mean?Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47, 289-295. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4702_8
70.
WardL. M.CarlsonC. (2013). Modeling meanness: Associations between reality TV consumption, perceived realism, and adolescents’ social aggression. Media Psychology, 16, 371-389. doi:10.1080/15213269.2013.832627
71.
WilsonC.RobinsonT.CallisterM. (2012). Surviving survivor: A content analysis of antisocial behavior and its context in a popular reality television show. Mass Communication and Society, 15, 261-283. doi:10.1080/15205436.2011.567346
72.
WoodsF. (2014). Classed femininity, performativity, and camp in British structured reality programming. Television and New Media, 15, 197-214. doi:10.1177/1527476412462246
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
