Master Thesis
Master’s Programme in Communication Science Graduate School of Communication
University of Amsterdam
Author: Stavros Giannoutsos Student ID Number: 11359447
Supervisor: Dr. Johanna M.F. van Oosten June 30, 2017
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to identify the viewing motivations for watching reality TV shows and compare them between two different cultural groups. An online survey was conducted using a sample of 225 adults, 115 respondents from the Netherlands and 110 respondents from Greece. The selection of these two countries was based on previous research showing that Greek culture is more collectivistic than the Dutch one. Based on existing findings that show that individualistic people report higher levels of ritualized entertainment motivations, whereas collectivistic people report higher levels of instrumental entertainment motivations we hypothesized that ritualized viewing motivation increases exposure to reality TV viewing, but more so among Dutch people compared to Greek people and that instrumental viewing motivation increases exposure to reality TV viewing, but more so among Greek people compared to Dutch people. Our hypotheses were rejected since, according to our findings, the factor of country did not moderate the relationship between ritualized or instrumental viewing motivations and exposure to reality television. However, it was clearly observed that Greek respondents reported higher levels of agreement to all the instrumental viewing motivations, in comparison to the Dutch respondents.
Introduction
Reality TV first made its appearance in the top 10 rankings of primetime broadcast TV shows in 2000, and since 2002 has consistently captured the largest percentage of the audience watching the top 10 broadcast programs (Nielsen, 2011). It is a fact that reality TV programs have the ability to attract large audiences, similar in size to the audiences of fictional programming. Furthermore, the relatively low production cost of reality TV shows make them an appealing option for television program directors and producers. For these reasons, the entertainment genre of reality television is a phenomenon that has drastically changed the face of television programming and is likely that it will continue to be a fixture on the television landscape (Aubrey et al., 2012; Ebersole & Woods, 2007).
Given its success and popularity, the reality TV genre has received considerable scholarly attention. Several academic studies have attempted to investigate the reasons why do people enjoy watching reality TV programs and the motivations behind them (Aubrey et al., 2012; Barton, 2013; Baruh, 2010; Hershman Shitrit & Cohen, 2016; Lewin, Rajamma & Paswan, 2015). Studying the motivations for exposure to reality television allows researchers to understand who is likely to be drawn to reality TV and for what reasons. Such findings have significant implications for reality TV producers, program directors and executives of TV channels as well as advertisers. Nevertheless, there is a lack of research concerning how viewing motivations for reality TV may differentiate among different groups of people. Scholars recommend that it is important to further our understanding of audience behavior by taking into consideration the interaction between cultural dynamics and psychological motivations (Baruh, 2010). Moreover, it is highlighted that reality TV shows as well as other entertainment products are global phenomena. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the relationships between viewing motivations and reality TV exposure in a cross-cultural level, using samples from different countries and cultures (Lewin, Rajamma & Paswan, 2015).
Therefore, the present study attempts to investigate viewing motivations for exposure to reality TV, on a cross-cultural level. The research is based on an online survey, using respondents from two different European countries: the Netherlands and Greece. In both of these countries, reality TV programs are very popular and appreciated by viewers. For example, the first semester
of 2017 the reality TV show ‘Boer Zoekt Vrouw’ (‘Farmer Seeks Wife’) was by far the first choice of the Dutch TV viewers concerning entertainment television programs. In fact, this reality TV show reached the remarkable audience share of 52.5% in April 2017 (SKO, 2017). Similarly, the reality TV show ‘Survivor’ achieved a notable success in Greek television. ‘Survivor’ may be considered as a television phenomenon in Greece since in April of 2017 it reached the audience share of 55.5% (Nielsen, 2017).
Apart from the huge success of reality television, these two countries were selected in order to shed some light on how cultural differences may influence reality TV exposure and the reasons why viewers enjoy this type of entertainment. More specifically, the populations of the Netherlands and Greece represent two different sociocultural samples. The cross-cultural comparison of the research is based on existing literature comparing the sociocultural characteristics of these two different populations, indicating that the Greek culture is more collectivistic than the Dutch one (Verkuyten & Pouliasi, 2002). Furthermore, culture can be a highly influencing factor concerning entertainment motivations (Gudykunst & Mody, 2002). However, regardless its importance, the factor of culture has been neglected in entertainment research since most of the relative studies have investigated entertainment motivations among people from the US or from Western Europe (Kim, Seo, Yu, & Neuendorf, 2014). Therefore, the overall aim of the present study is to investigate what are the viewing motivations and how do these differ between Dutch and Greek viewers, contributing to entertainment research by focusing on the entertainment television genre of reality TV.
However, studying reality television is quite challenging. One of its main challenges is identifying the characteristics that define reality TV programming. This process is becoming increasingly difficult as reality TV programs have become more numerous and diverse. Although the audience might have a sense of programs that are enlisted in the category of reality television, within the main genre of reality TV there are plausibly a number of sub-genres. A number of scholars have attempted to specify the sub-genres of reality TV (Nabi, 2007; Aubrey et al., 2012). Hence, researchers investigating reality television should imperatively take under consideration the different sub-categories of this entertainment genre. Moreover, studying the
different sub-genres of reality television will enable us to examine whether the factor of culture may also affect preferences concerning the sub-categories of this specific entertainment genre.
Theoretical Background The Reality Television Genre
The extensive presence of reality TV programs at the television landscape has attracted millions of devoted viewers as well as the interest of academics. Even though it is difficult to clearly define reality TV because there is no uniform typology concerning this type of entertainment television genre, there have been several attempts to identify its basic characteristics. For instance, the study of Nabi, Biely, Morgan and Stitt (2003) has served as a basis for many future researches on reality TV. Nabi et al. (2003) concluded in the simple definition that reality-based television programs film real people as they live out events (contrived or otherwise) in their lives, as these events occur. Furthermore, there are several attributes that characterized reality TV shows: (a) they feature people who portray themselves and not actors who perform roles, (b) they are filmed mostly or at least in part in a living or working environment rather than on a set, (c) they are not scripted, (d) they present real-life events placed in a narrative context and (e) their primary purpose is to entertain the viewer (Nabi et al., 2003). The above attributes have been used as a basis in later studies investigating the entertainment genre of reality television (Nabi, 2007; Aubrey et al., 2012; Shitrit & Cohen, 2016).
Nevertheless, studying the existing literature such as the research of Ebersole and Woods (2007), we may derive several additional elements so as to distinguish reality TV programming from other genres of entertainment television. For example, it should be also mentioned that reality TV shows are considered as semi-scripted programming that simulates world or real-life situations, featuring ordinary people (non-actors) from the audience as participants. Moreover, reality TV programming mainly uses raw, authentic and usually first-person participant or eye-witness testimony that is later reconstructed within various narrative styles. It is also interesting to highlight that due to the fact that viewers are usually extensive users of the internet and social media, each reality TV program has companion social media pages or websites that enable viewers to acquire behind-the-scenes information on the shows as well as to
participate in some manner in the outcome such as voting off or criticizing a contestant or suggesting challenges that the participants might have to encounter (Ebersole & Woods, 2007). Viewing Motivations for Exposure to Reality Television
A respectable amount of researchers have attempted to investigate the reasons behind exposure to reality television and what motivates the audience to view this type of entertainment programs (Nabi et al., 2003; Barton, 2009; Aubrey et al., 2012; Barton, 2013; Weiland & Dunbar, 2016). The majority of those studies attempted to understand this media exposure through the lens of the theory of Uses and Gratifications. Early research on the theory of Uses and Gratifications dates back to the 1940’s (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1973). Attempting to conglomerate those very early studies, Katz et al. (1973) concluded that media served human needs such as to match one's wits against others, to get information or advice for daily living, to provide a framework for one's day, to prepare oneself culturally for the demands of upward mobility, or to be reassured about the dignity and usefulness of one's role. The general conclusion of the theory is that people select to be exposed to media according to their own needs and desires, while psychological and social factors guide and filter this selection (Katz et al 1973; Valkenburg, Peter & Walther, 2016). Nevertheless, it is also interesting to mention that those needs could be categorized. Based on research on the theory of Uses and Gratifications, Katz, Haas, and Gurevitch (1973) divided human needs that motivate media exposure into five main groups: (a) needs related to strengthening information, knowledge, and understanding (cognitive needs), (b) needs related to strengthening aesthetic, pleasurable and emotional experience (affective needs), (c) needs related to strengthening credibility, confidence, stability, and status (integrative needs that combine both cognitive and affective elements), (d) needs related to strengthening contact with family, friends, and the world (needs performing an integrative function) and (d) needs related to escape or tension-release which are define in terms of the weakening of contact with self and one's social roles.
As we realize, the above claims concerning the theory of Uses and Gratifications have been formulated decades before the launching of reality television. However, existing literature shows that they may serve as a basis in order to explain exposure to reality TV as well (Nabi et al., 2003; Aubrey et al., 2012; Barton, 2013). Analyzing the motives for watching television,
Rubin (1984) identified motivations that were associated with two types of television viewers: habitual viewers who watch mainly for companionship, relaxation, pass-time, escape and generally for entertainment purposes and selective viewers who watch so as to be aroused, learn about news and events and enhance their social interaction with other people. In an attempt to review research on viewing motivations for exposure to reality TV, we may conclude that, from a Uses and Gratifications perspective, viewing motivations are often classified into two major categories of use: television viewing for time consumption and entertainment (ritualized viewing motivations) and television viewing for interaction or information-seeking purposes (instrumental viewing motivations) (Aubrey et al., 2012). It should be also mentioned that in other similar studies concerning entertainment motivations, the above two categories are also referred to as hedonic (ritualized) and eudaimonic (instrumental) motivations (Odağ, Hofer, Schneider, & Knop, 2016).
Findings of existing studies show that the majority of the audience choses to be exposed to reality TV programs mostly driven by ritualized viewing motivations such as entertainment and pass-time (Nabi et al., 2003; Barton, 2009; Aubrey et al., 2012). For instance, attempting to identify what gratifications do regular viewers of reality TV shows receive from their viewership, Nabi et al. (2003) concluded that regular consumers are devoted to this genre of television because they are entertained by it, they find the programs suspenseful and enjoy their unscripted nature. In addition, investigating the above mentioned viewing motivations, Barton (2009) highlighted the aspect of personal utility. According to his findings viewers are exposed to reality TV so as to forget their problems and feel less lonely.
However, reality television may also present social utility as research findings have shown that exposure to reality TV shows may be driven by instrumental viewing motivations (information, social interaction etc.). For example, in regards to the theory of Social Constructionism, the research of Weiland and Dunbar (2016) highlights the fact that reality television provides its viewers with valuable information about how our society and human relationships are constructed. This is because through reality TV programs, viewers shape their understanding of their own world as well as the worlds that are being portrayed by each show. During this process, the viewers conduct an internal dialogue that influences their thinking
(Weiland & Dunbar, 2016). Apart from the aspect of information, social interaction (especially via social media platforms) may also enhance exposure to reality television. For instance, the research of Weiland and Dunbar (2016) highlighted the viewers’ need to exchange views and communicate their excitement concerning the show. More specifically, content collected from the social media platform of Twitter showed that a large number of viewers would tweet about how they could not contain their excitement for viewing their favorite reality TV show, even hours before it started. Moreover, viewers were eager to share commentary regarding highlights from previous episodes and discuss their anticipation for what could unfold in the upcoming episode. In line with previous studies (Nabi et al., 2003; Barton, 2009; Aubrey et al., 2012), the present study attempts to investigate both ritualized and instrumental viewing motivations for exposure to reality television.
Cultural Characteristics
It is important to mention that existing literature recommends replication studies in different service contexts. This is because reality TV programs, as well as various other entertainment venues are international phenomena since they constitute an integral part of the daily routine of many viewers across the globe (Lewin, Rajamma, & Paswan, 2015). For this reason, it would be interesting to investigate whether cultural differences may moderate viewing motivations for exposure to reality television. Therefore, the present study will examine samples of two different cultural populations, Greek and Dutch, in an attempt to identify whether different cultural characteristics may influence exposure to reality television and the motivations behind this media selection.
According to the official data of the viewership measurement companies Nielsen and SKO, in both of these countries, reality TV programs are very popular and appreciated by viewers (Nielsen, 2017; SKO, 2017). Conducting a cross-cultural research on exposure to reality television does not only present academic interest but it also has significant implications for the entertainment industry such as TV producers and advertisers who operate both in national and international level. The cross-cultural comparison of the study is based on existing literature findings showing that there are differences in the cultural values between the two populations.
More specifically, several studies have indicated that the Greek culture is more collectivist than the Dutch one (Verkuyten & Pouliasi, 2002; Wu, 2009).
In order to understand the general difference, it would be useful to mention that being interdependent within their in-groups (family, tribe, nation, etc.) people in collectivist societies are especially concerned with relationships and endeavor to behave according to the group norms. On the other hand, people in individualist societies are independent from their in-groups. They give priority to their personal goals over the goals of their in-groups and behave primarily on the basis of their attitudes rather than the norms of their in-groups (Triandis, 2001).
As far as the examined populations are concerned, in Greek culture there is a relatively stronger emphasis on collectivistic values than in the Netherlands, for instance this is obvious if we observe the traditions of social and family life and values. According to literature examining Dutch and Greek biculturalism, the activation of Greek identity leads to more external attributions, stronger identification with friends, a more positive evaluation of social identity, and a less positive evaluation of personal identity (Verkuyten & Pouliasi, 2002). Moreover, between these two different populations the perception of stronger ethnic identity is reported far more extensively among Greek samples in comparison to the Dutch ones (Mastrotheodoros, Dimitrova, Motti-Stefanidi, Abubakar, & Van De Schoot, 2012).
Differences in cultural characteristics may moderate the relationship between viewing motivations and exposure to reality television. This is especially obvious if we examine viewers of individualistic cultures in comparison to viewers of collectivistic cultures. Hofstede (1991) explained that individualism is related to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose and everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family. On the other hand, collectivism is related to societies in which people are integrated into strong and cohesive ingroups, (Rice, D'Ambra, & More, 1998). In general, it has been observed that ritualized and instrumental entertainment viewing motivations (which are often referred to as hedonic and eudaimonic motivations) may possibly differ between different cultures, especially in regards to the dimensions of individualism and collectivism that constitute the most meticulously researched dimensions of culture in cross-cultural communication research (Gudykunst & Mody, 2002). For example, Kim et al. (2014) investigated preferences on film
genres between two different cultural groups, a sample from the US (individualistic country) and a sample from Korea (collectivistic country). According to their findings, US participants reported higher preferences on films that aim to satisfy our ritualized motivations and hedonic needs such as comedies and action films, in comparison to the Korean participants (Kim et al., 2014). Furthermore, in an attempt to investigate cross-cultural differences in TV viewing motivations, Odağ (2013) compared samples from individualistic and collectivistic societies, based on Hofstede’s theory of culture. According to the results, participants from collectivistic societies reported higher levels of instrumental (eudaimonic) TV viewing motivations, in comparison to participants from individualistic societies. However, ritualized (hedonic) TV viewing motivations were not affected by culture (Odağ et al., 2016). Attempting to review the existing literature investigating cross-cultural differences in entertainment motivations, Odağ et al. (2016) argued that cultural orientations may cause differentiations in ritualized and instrumental entertainment. This is because, individualism is mainly characterized by an emphasis on one’s own (rather than one’s collective’s) happiness. As a result, this may lead to a greater degree of ritualized media pursuit so as to satisfy one’s own immediate needs with exposure to hedonic entertainment. On the other hand, emphasizing on the well-being of the wider collective, collectivism may motivate a search for both hedonic and eudaimonic pleasure. More specifically, hedonic pleasure is possible to be pursued since it constitutes a general need for every human, while eudaimonic pleasure may be related to existential human concerns, emphasizing on the need to belong to a collective. Therefore, eudaimonic pleasure should be particularly prominent in collectivistic cultures (Odağ et al., 2016).
As far as the examined media use is concerned, reality television exposure may be driven by reasons of personal utility as well as social utility (Barton, 2009). Therefore, taking under consideration the above findings (Gudykunst & Mody, 2002; Kim et al., 2014; Odağ et al., 2016) we may hypothesize that viewers in collectivistic cultures may choose to be exposed to reality television in order to be informed about the norms of how to behave within their in-group (nation) or about the relationships of other people who also belong to their group (instrumental viewing motivations). Therefore, exposure to reality TV may serve as an opportunity for social interaction. In comparison, viewers in individualistic cultures may choose to be entertained by
reality television mostly for reasons that enhance their individual wellbeing, such as relaxation and pass-time (ritualized viewing motivations). As we realize, cultural values may also influence media use and the reasons that an individual chooses to be exposed to reality TV. Taking under consideration the above findings concerning the two different cultural samples that are investigated, we are able to make several assumptions concerning the viewing motivations for exposure to reality TV and formulate specific hypotheses. More specifically, Dutch viewers are expected to be motivated to watch reality TV shows driven mostly by ritualized viewing motivations such as entertainment, pass-time and relaxation. On the other hand, Greek viewers are expected to view reality TV as a type of ‘social experience’. Therefore, Greek viewers are expected to enjoy reality TV programs mainly because of instrumental viewing motivations such as social interaction, information and self-show connection. Thus, the following hypotheses are formulated:
H1: Ritualized viewing motivation increases exposure to reality TV viewing, but more so among Dutch people compared to Greek people.
and
H2: Instrumental viewing motivation increases exposure to reality TV viewing, but more so among Greek people compared to Dutch people.
Sub-genres of Reality Television
At this point it is important to mention that reality TV shows may differentiate a lot with each other, concerning their content, even though they belong to the same genre. More specifically, influenced by existing researches (Ebersole & Woods, 2007; Aubrey et al., 2012; Barton, 2013) and taking under consideration which sub-genres of reality TV are more popular in the countries where the present research was conducted, the study focused on four main sub-categories of the genre: (a) surveillance (TV programs that present ordinary people or celebrities do their daily personal and professional activities, e.g. Keeping Up With The Kardashians), (b) adventure/competition (TV programs that feature contestants who compete for prizes, while often living together in close quarters and usually include the elimination of contestants until a winner is chosen, e.g. Big Brother and Survivor) (c) talent contests (TV programs where participants are motivated to perform talents such as singing and dancing, usually for a reward,
trophy, or prize e.g. The Voice and So You Think You Can Dance) and (d) makeover/lifestyle (TV programs that feature ordinary people having home, lifestyle, appearance and fashion makeovers with the assistance of professionals, e.g. Extreme Make-Over).
As it is already mentioned there is little to none literature concerning exposure to reality television among people of different cultures. Therefore, apart from studying the general exposure to reality TV, the present study attempts to investigate whether exposure to sub-genres of reality TV is influenced by cultural differences that exist among viewers. More precisely, the research will examine whether viewers of a more individualistic or collectivistic culture are more attracted to specific sub-genres of reality television or not. Hence, the following research question is formulated:
RQ: To what extent does culture influence exposure to reality television and its sub-genres? Method
Procedure and Sample
An online survey was conducted in order to answer the above questions and hypotheses. This specific research method was selected because it consists an easy and quick way to recruit respondents from different age, gender and educational background. Moreover, in comparison to the traditional paper questionnaires, it is easier to compare, code and statistically analyze the answers of the different respondents. The sample of participants included 225 adults, from the Netherlands and Greece, who were recruited via the social media platform of Facebook. More specifically, the questionnaire of the survey was posted on the official and unofficial Facebook pages and groups of Dutch and Greek reality TV shows (e.g. The Voice, Survivor, Master Chef, etc.). In this way, the followers and group members were asked to respond. Apart from the Facebook pages and groups of reality TV shows, respondents were also recruited from Facebook groups of Communication Science at the University of Amsterdam, intended for all students seeking respondents within the framework of scientific research. It is important to mention that before filling out the questionnaire, respondents were informed in detail about the nature of the survey and were asked to agree to an active informed consent so as to guarantee their voluntary participation. The respondents of the sample were adults between 18 and 70 years old (age: M = 25.81, SD = 7.00). The sample included 59 male respondents (26.2%) and 166 female (73.8%).
Concerning the country of origin, 115 respondents (51.1%) had lived most of their life in the Netherlands and 110 respondents (48.9%) had lived most of their life in Greece. As far as their level of education is concerned, the vast majority of the respondents (54.2%) held a bachelor degree. Concerning the rest of the sample, 38 respondents were high school graduates and another 39 held a master or a doctorate degree. Moreover the sample included 25 respondents who had finished a college or a technical school and another one respondent who had not finished high school.
Measures
Exposure to reality television programs. Based on existing similar research concerning reality TV (Aubrey et al., 2012; Shitrit & Cohen, 2016), the dependent variable of the analysis was exposure to reality television programs. More specifically, respondents were asked to answer how often they watch reality TV programs in general. Respondents were provided with a brief definition of reality TV programming (‘TV shows that present supposedly unscripted real-life situations and actual events of ordinary people instead of professional actors’) as well as with actual examples of reality TV shows (e.g. ‘Big Brother’ and ‘Secret Story’), in order to clearly understand the question. Their answers were measured on a 6-point scale ranging from ‘Never’ (answering option: 1) to ‘Whenever it’s on’ (answering option: 6).
Exposure to sub-genres of reality television programs. The further dependent variables of the analysis concern exposure to the different sub-genres of reality television. Similarly, respondents were asked to answer how often they watch programs that belong to each sub-genre of reality TV and their answers were measured on a 6-point scale ranging from ‘Never’ (answering option: 1) to ‘Whenever it’s on’ (answering option: 6). More specifically, the study investigated exposure to talent contest reality TV which was described as ‘TV shows where participants are motivated to perform talents such as singing, dancing, cooking etc. in order to win a reward or a prize, e.g. ‘The Voice’, ‘So You Think You Can Dance’, ‘Master Chef’, etc.’, surveillance reality TV described as ‘TV shows that present ordinary people or celebrities do their daily personal and professional activities, e.g. ‘Keeping Up With The Kardashians’, ‘The Real Housewives’, etc.’, adventure/competition reality TV described as ‘TV shows that present participants who compete for prizes while often living together usually include the elimination of
participants until a winner is chosen, for example: ‘Survivor’ (‘Expeditie Robinson’), ‘Big Brother’, etc.’ and makeover/lifestyle reality TV described as ‘TV shows that present ordinary people having home, lifestyle or appearance makeovers with the assistance of professionals, such as ‘Extreme Make-Over’, ‘Shopping Queen’ and others’.
Viewing motivations. Respondents were asked to specify the reasons why they like to watch reality TV programs. More specifically, they were asked to indicate whether they agree or disagree with specific viewing motivations. Taking under consideration the categories of viewing motivations that have been used in previous research on reality TV (Aubrey et al., 2012; Ebersole & Woods, 2007), we included three categories of ritualized viewing motivations (entertainment, relaxation and pass-time) and four categories of instrumental viewing motivations (arousal, personal identification, social interaction and information). The items that describe the above categories were based on the above mentioned researches on reality TV (Aubrey et al., 2012; Ebersole & Woods, 2007) as well as on literature on general TV viewing motivations (Rubin, 1985) that has been used extensively as a basis for entertainment television research purposes. For instance, viewing motivation categories were described by the following items: Entertainment (three items, such as: ‘I watch it because it amuses me’, ‘Because it’s fun to find out what’s going to happen to the characters’), Relaxation (three items, such as: ‘Because it relaxes me’, ‘Because it is a good way to rest’), Pass-Time (three items, such as: ‘Because I have nothing better to do’, ‘Because it passes the time away, especially when I'm bored’), Arousal (three items, such as: ‘Because it is stimulating’, ‘Because it is thrilling’), Personal Identification (three items, such as: ‘Because I can really connect on a personal level with the characters’, ‘To empathize with the contestants’), Social Interaction (three items, such as: ‘So I can talk with other people about what's on’, ‘So I can be with other people who are watching’) and Information (three items, such as: ‘Because it helps me learn things about my self and others’, ‘So I can learn how to do things I haven't done before and react on situations I have never experienced’).
Respondents were asked to state their opinion concerning each item by using a 7-point scale ranging from ‘Strongly agree’ (answering option: 1) to ‘Strongly disagree’ (answering option: 7). All items were later reversely recoded so that higher scores indicate higher agreement
with motivations. Factor analysis and reliability analysis, for each category separately, were conducted in order to create new variables that would describe each category of viewing motivations, by using the average of the relative items. All factor analyses indicated one component for each category with an eigenvalue above 1. Furthermore, according to the reliability tests, the internal consistency of the scale items was found to be reasonable for every category. The results of the factor and the reliability analyses are presented in Table 1 (see Appendix). Scale scores ranged from 1.00 to 7.00 and descriptives concerning viewing motivations for exposure to reality TV are presented in Table 3 in the section of results.
Individualism/Collectivism. Based on existing literature indicating that the Greek culture is more collectivistic than the Dutch one (Verkuyten & Pouliasi, 2002; Wu, 2009, Mastrotheodoros et al., 2012), the present study attempted to investigate whether the Greek respondents of the survey are actually more collectivist in comparison to the Dutch respondents. Therefore, participants were asked to indicate their opinion for several statements concerning collectivistic and individualistic values, according to their personality and character. More precisely, respondents were asked to indicate whether they agree or disagree concerning several items that measure vertical and horizontal dimensions of individualism and collectivism. Vertical individualism relies on the fact that a person sees his or her self as fully autonomous but recognizes that inequality will exist among individuals and accepts this inequality, whereas according to horizontal individualism, a person sees his or her self as fully autonomous and believes that equality between individuals is the ideal. Vertical collectivism relies on the fact that a person sees his or her self as a part of a collective and is willing to accept hierarchy and inequality within that collective, whereas according to horizontal collectivism a person sees his or her self as part of a collective but perceives all the members of that collective as equal (Triandis & Gelfland, 1998). The answers of the respondents were measured on a 7-point scale ranging from ‘Strongly agree’ (answering option: 1) to ‘Strongly disagree’ (answering option: 7). Similarly to the categories of viewing motivations, all items were later reversely recoded so that higher scores indicate higher agreement with the dimensions of individualism and collectivism. More specifically, the study included three items for each dimension (horizontal and vertical) of individualism and collectivism. For instance, items measuring individualism such as the
following: ‘I‘d rather depend on myself than others’ and ‘It is important that I do my job better than others’, and items measuring collectivism such as the following: ‘The well-being of my coworkers is important to me’ and ‘Family members should stick together, no matter what sacrifices are required’ (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998).
Factor analysis and reliability analysis were conducted in order to create the new variables describing horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Similarly to the viewing motivations, the overall variables were created by using the average of the items. All factor analyses indicated one component for each dimension of individualism and collectivism with an eigenvalue above 1 and according to the reliability tests, the internal consistency of the scale items was found to be reasonable for every dimension, but relatively low for the horizontal dimensions. The results of the factor and the reliability analyses are presented in Table 2 (see Appendix). Scale scores ranged from 1.00 to 7.00, accept from the dimension of horizontal collectivism for which scale scores ranged from 2.00 to 7.00.
Results Viewing Motivations for Exposure to Reality TV
Descriptives. Before investigating our main hypotheses concerning viewing motivations for exposure to reality TV and their differences between the two examined groups of respondents, it would be useful to observe several descriptive results. More specifically, Tables 3 and 4 (see Appendix) enable us to observe how the two cultural groups differ in relation to their levels of agreement with each type of viewing motivation. Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations of the reported levels of agreement with each type of viewing motivation, for all respondents regardless their country of origin. On the other hand, Table 4 presents the results of an independent samples t-test, highlighting the difference between the two groups in relation to their viewing motivations for exposure to reality TV. It is interesting to observe that Dutch respondents reported higher levels of agreement concerning all the ritualized viewing motivations (entertainment, relaxation and pass-time), although this difference was not significant, whereas Greek respondents reported significantly higher levels of agreement concerning all the instrumental viewing motivations (arousal, personal identification, social interaction and information).
Hypotheses testing. The PROCESS 2.17 macro for SPSS, model 1, was used to investigate the hypothesis that Ritualized viewing motivation increases exposure to reality TV viewing, but more so among Dutch people compared to Greek people (H1) and that Instrumental viewing motivation increases exposure to reality TV viewing, but more so among Greek people compared to Dutch people (H2). The moderating role of country was examined separately concerning each type of ritualized viewing motivation (entertainment, relaxation and pass-time) and instrumental viewing motivation (arousal, personal identification, social interaction and information).
Hypothesis 1. Table 5 (see Appendix) presents the results of the PROCESS 2.17 macro for SPSS, model 1, for the regressions that concern the ritualized viewing motivations (entertainment, relaxation and pass-time). More specifically, in these three regressions each ritualized viewing motivation was used as the independent variable, general exposure to reality TV was used as the dependent variable and the factor of country (country of origin of the respondents) was used as the moderating variable. According to the answers of the respondents, the moderating variable of country was coded as a dummy variable, taking the value of 0 for the Netherlands and the value of 1 for Greece. As we can easily observe, for each regression, ritualized viewing motivations and country have a statistically significant main influence on exposure to reality TV shows. However, according to the results, the interactions between the predictors and the moderators are not statistically significant. Hence, country is not moderating the relationship between ritualized viewing motivations and exposure to reality television. Therefore, the hypothesis that ritualized viewing motivation increases exposure to reality TV viewing, but more so among Dutch people compared to Greek people is rejected.
Hypothesis 2. Table 6 (see Appendix) presents the results of the PROCESS 2.17 macro for SPSS, model 1, for the regressions that concern the instrumental viewing motivations (arousal, personal identification, social interaction and information). Similarly to the regressions for the ritualized viewing motivations, we can observe that instrumental viewing motivations and country have a statistically significant influence on exposure to reality TV shows. However, according to the results, the interactions between the predictors and the moderators are, again, not statistically significant. Hence, the factor of country is not moderating the relationship
between the instrumental viewing motivations and exposure to reality television. Therefore, the hypothesis that instrumental viewing motivation increases exposure to reality TV viewing, but more so among Greek people compared to Dutch people, is rejected.
Exposure to Reality Television and its Sub-genres
As it is already mentioned in the section of theoretical background, apart from the main hypotheses concerning viewing motivations, it would be useful to investigate and compare the levels of exposure to reality television and its sub-genres, between Dutch and Greek respondents. This comparison allows us to examine whether different cultural groups may prefer to be exposed to different entertainment genres and specifically different reality TV genres. More precisely, a MANOVA test was conducted to examine whether there is a significant difference between Dutch and Greek respondents, concerning their exposure to reality TV and its sub-genres. The results of the MANOVA test comparing the two different groups are presented in Table 7 (see Appendix).
According to the results, it is important to mention that concerning the general exposure to reality television, Greek respondents reported higher levels of general exposure to reality TV shows than Dutch respondents and this difference appeared to be statistically significant. As far as the sub-genres of reality TV are concerned, the differences between the two groups were statistically significant concerning the sub-genres of talent contest reality TV, surveillance reality TV and adventure/competition reality TV. More specifically, Greek respondents reported significantly higher levels of exposure to talent contest reality TV shows as well as to adventure/ competition reality TV shows. On the other hand, Dutch respondents reported higher levels of exposure to the sub-genre of surveillance reality TV. Furthermore, concerning the exposure to makeover/lifestyle reality television, the difference between the two groups was not significant.
The possible moderation of country between the relationship of viewing motivations and exposure to the sub-genres of reality television was also investigated. However, the interaction between culture and the viewing motivations did not appear to be statistically significant, also concerning the exposure to the examined categories of sub-genres of reality TV shows.
An independent samples t-test was conducted so as to check whether the two groups that represent two different national populations indeed differ in relation to their beliefs towards individualistic and collectivistic values. The results of the independent samples t-test are presented in Table 8 (see Appendix). More specifically, the independent samples t-test revealed a statistically significant difference between the two groups for the dimensions of vertical individualism and vertical collectivism. However, these findings did not allow us to come to a safe conclusion about whether the two groups differ in terms of cultural beliefs in the expected way. This is because Greek respondents reported higher levels of agreement towards statements that describe both vertical individualism as well as vertical collectivism.
Separating the two groups according to their country of origin did not show us that country moderates the relationship between viewing motivations and exposure to reality television. This could be explained by the finding that the differences in collectivism and individualism between the two countries were not as expected. Therefore, it was interesting to conduct the same analysis by using the variables of vertical individualism and vertical collectivism as moderators. The horizontal scales were not used because they did not appear to be very reliable (lower Cronbach’s Alpha than the vertical) and their results may have not been clear. In this way, it would be possible to investigate whether the cultural beliefs of the respondents, regardless of their country of origin, moderate the relationship between viewing motivations and exposure to reality television. Nevertheless, the results of the PROCESS 2.17 macro for SPSS, model 1, presented in tables 9 for vertical individualism as a moderator and 10 for vertical collectivism as a moderator (see Appendix) do not show that cultural beliefs moderate the examined relationship, since the interactions between the predictors and the moderators were not statistically significant.
Discussion
The main purpose of the present study was to investigate the viewing motivations for exposure to reality television and how these may differ between two different cultural groups, Dutch and Greek reality TV viewers. According to the findings, Greek respondents reported higher levels of agreement concerning all the instrumental viewing motivations. Nevertheless, our main hypotheses were rejected since country did not moderate the relationship between
ritualized or instrumental viewing motivations and exposure to reality television. As far as exposure to reality television and its sub-genres is concerned, Greek respondents reported higher levels of the overall exposure to reality TV as well as to the sub-genres of talent contest and adventure/competition reality TV. In comparison to the Dutch respondents, who reported higher levels of exposure to the sub-genre of surveillance reality TV. Last, it was not possible to examine whether the two groups indeed differ in terms of culture since Greek respondents reported higher levels of agreement in dimensions of both individualism and collectivism. Implications for Research on Reality TV Viewing Motivations
A significant number of researchers have focused on motivations for watching reality TV shows (Nabi et al., 2003; Barton, 2009; Aubrey et al., 2012; Barton, 2013; Weiland & Dunbar, 2016). Consistent to existing findings, the results of the present study highlight the fact that the relationship between viewing motivations and exposure to reality television is significant. Furthermore, existing literature shows that people from individualistic cultures tend to report higher levels of ritualized entertainment motivations, whereas people from collectivistic countries tend to report higher levels of instrumental entertainment motivations (Kim et al., 2014; Odağ et al., 2016). Even though we were not able to confirm whether the two groups differ in terms of culture, in comparison to Dutch respondents, Greek respondents appeared to be more motivated to watch reality TV because of instrumental viewing motivations.
Similarly to the findings of Odağ (2013), we were not able to come to a safe conclusion concerning the difference on ritualized viewing motivations, between the two groups. In an attempt to interpret this inability, it should be mentioned that this result may be considered reasonable because the majority of people is motivated to be exposed to entertainment media because of ritualized viewing motivations (e.g. entertainment, relaxation and pass-time), regardless their cultural characteristics. In contrast to what was hypothesized, the prediction of reality TV viewing by the different viewing motivations, did not differ per country. This means that even though there are differences detected on how the two groups are motivated to watch reality TV shows, this does not necessarily mean that the prediction of reality TV viewing by these motivations, is different. More specifically, even though the initial behavior of the two groups differ since they are motivated for different reasons, from the moment they have those
motivations they choose to be exposed to reality TV in similar ways. Therefore, the amount to which people expose themselves due to their needs (viewing motivations) is relatively the same and concerns the same media use (reality television), regardless of their cultural characteristics.
Last, as far as the exposure to different sub-genres is concerned, it is possible to assume that Greek respondents prefer to be exposed to reality TV sub-genres that are mostly based on the element of competition (talent contests, adventure and competition shows). Due to their developed instrumental viewing motivations (expected in collectivistic people), Greek respondents may choose to watch competition reality TV shows so as to be aroused, to support their favorite contestant of the show and identify with him or her on a personal level, or even to socialize with their peers discussing about the competition of the show
Implications for Practice
Even though the above findings did not confirm our main hypotheses concerning the moderation of culture (country) on the relationship between viewing motivations and exposure to reality TV, they may seem useful for professionals working at the entertainment industry. More precisely, apart from media researchers, the results of the study may appear to be valuable for reality TV producers and TV program managers, operating in national or international level. For instance, it would be useful for TV program managers and consultants, operating in Greece or the Netherlands, to take into consideration the preferences of the Greek and the Dutch respondents for the sub-genres of reality television, and invest more to develop and broadcast reality TV shows that belong to these specific sub-genres. Furthermore, reality TV producers should consider to integrate in their productions more intensively those elements that would fulfill the needs and the motivations of the viewers (e.g. the element of competition) according to their cultural characteristics in order to attract a larger audience and boost the viewership ratings. Moreover, the results of the survey may prove applicable in other countries with similar culture, ethics and lifestyle as Greece or the Netherlands, since the viewers may have similar motivations or preferences concerning reality TV. Nevertheless, the present findings may also be valuable for academic purposes in several fields such as sociology and communication. This is because, according to the results it is possible to claim that the two examined groups may no longer differ
as much as in the past, concerning their beliefs towards the cultural values of individualism and collectivism.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
It is important to acknowledge several limitations that may have influenced the findings of the present study. First, the fact that this study was based on self-report measures, these measures may be contingent upon respondents’ truthfulness and introspective abilities. For instance, it is possible that respondents gave a number of dishonest answers because they wanted to manage how they appear. On the other hand, even if a respondent may try to be completely honest, he or she may lack the introspective ability to provide totally accurate responses. Moreover, as far as the present research is concerned, understanding and interpreting the questions may be an issue for the respondents. Even though it was based on validated scales, the present questionnaire did not only measure concrete factors, but it also focused on more abstract concepts such as personal and cultural beliefs. On the other hand, one of the main strengths of the study was the relatively equal distribution of Dutch and Greek respondents. At the same time, it should be mentioned that since respondents were mostly young adults, their answers may not have been representative of the majority of the Dutch and the Greek society. This is because, according to existing literature, different age groups are believed to hold different cultural values (Omar & Noordin, 2016). However, it is also possible that the cultural characteristics of individualism and collectivism are not so predictive concerning the specific entertainment media use of reality television. For this reason, future research on reality TV should consider to integrate other cultural or personal characteristics that describe human behavior, such as ethics, attitudes or personal traits like stability, aggressiveness and others.
Conclusion
The present research focuses on one of the most successful entertainment television genres of the last decades, reality television. Based on existing literature, the study does not only rely on the frequencies that people choose to watch reality TV shows, but attempts to investigate a step earlier and examines the motivations for this selective exposure. Contributing to existing literature on entertainment, the research attempts to fill the existing gaps concerning the cross-cultural dimensions of reality television. The present study focuses on the fact that reality TV
shows are international distributed products and attempts to compare viewers from different countries in order to highlight how culture may influence this media exposure. Nonetheless, the results did not allow us to specify the fact that culture moderates the relationship between viewing motivations and exposure to reality television. However it was possible to observe the differences between the two groups concerning their main motivations and their levels of exposure to reality television and its sub-genres.
References
Aubrey, J. S., Olson, L., Fine, M., Hauser, T., Rhea, D., Kaylor, B., & Yang, A. (2012). Investigating personality and viewing-motivation correlates of reality television exposure. Communication Quarterly, 60(1), 80-102.
doi: 10.1080/01463373.2012.641830
Barton, K. M. (2009). Reality television programming and diverging gratifications: The influence of content on gratifications obtained. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53(3), 460-476. doi: 10.1080/08838150903102659
Barton, K. M. (2013). Why we watch them sing and dance: The uses and gratifications of talent- based reality television. Communication Quarterly, 61(2), 217-235.
doi: 10.1080/01463373.2012.751437
Baruh, L. (2010). Mediated voyeurism and the guilty pleasure of consuming reality television. Media Psychology, 13(3), 201-221. doi: 10.1080/15213269.2010.502871
Ebersole, S., & Woods, R. (2007). Motivations for viewing reality television: A uses and gratifications analysis. Southwestern Mass Communication Journal, 23(1), 23-42. doi: 10.1080/01463373.2012.641830
Frank, B. (2003). Check out why young viewers like reality programming. Broadcasting & Cable, 133(27), 7.
Retrieved from http://proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/docview/225239457?accountid=14615 Gudykunst, W. B., & Mody, B. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of international and intercultural
communication. Sage.
Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509-523. doi: 10.1086/268109
Katz, E., Haas, H., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). On the use of the mass media for important things. American sociological review, 164-181.
Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/267
Kim, J., Seo, M., Yu, H., & Neuendorf, K. (2014). Cultural differences in preference for entertainment messages that induce mixed responses of joy and sorrow. Human Communication Research, 40(4), 530-552. doi:10.1111/hcre.12037
Lewin, J., Rajamma, R. K., & Paswan, A. K. (2015). Customer loyalty in entertainment venues: The reality TV genre. Journal of Business Research, 68(3), 616-622.
doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.08.010
Mastrotheodoros, S., Dimitrova, R., Motti-Stefanidi, F., Abubakar, A., & Van De Schoot, R. (2012). Measurement invariance of the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM) across Bulgarian, Dutch and Greek samples. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(4), 508-515. doi: 10.1080/17405629.2012.688099
Nabi, R. L., Biely, E. N., Morgan, S. J., & Stitt, C. R. (2003). Reality-based television programming and the psychology of its appeal. Media Psychology, 5(4), 303-330. doi: 10.1207/S1532785XMEP0504_01
Nabi, R. L. (2007). Determining dimensions of reality: A concept mapping of the reality TV landscape. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51(2), 371-390.
doi: 10.1080/08838150701307111
“Nielsen Audience Measurement”. Arianna.gr. N.p., 2017. Web. Retrieved from http://www.arianna.gr/gr/data/.
Odağ, Ö., Hofer, M., Schneider, F. M., & Knop, K. (2016). Testing measurement equivalence of eudaimonic and hedonic entertainment motivations in a cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 45(2), 108-125.
doi: 10.1080/17475759.2015.1108216
Omar, S., & Noordin, F. (2016). Moderator Influences on Individualism-collectivism and Career Adaptability among ICT Professionals in Malaysia. Procedia Economics and Finance, 37, 529-537. doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30161-7
Rice, R. E., D'Ambra, J., & More, E. (1998). Cross-cultural comparison of organizational media evaluation and choice. Journal of Communication, 48(3), 3-26.
doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02757.x
Rubin, A. M. (1984). Ritualized and instrumental television viewing. Journal of communication, 34(3), 67-77. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1984.tb02174.x
Rubin, A. M., Perse, E. M., & Powell, R. A. (1985). Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and local television news viewing. Human Communication Research, 12(2), 155-180.
doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1985.tb00071.x
Shitrit, M. H., & Cohen, J. (2016). Why Do We Enjoy Reality Shows. Journal of Media Psychology. doi: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000186
Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 240–275. doi: 10.1177/106939719502900302 “SKO, Maandoverzichten”. Kijkonderzoek.nl. N.p., 2017. Web.
Retrieved from https://kijkonderzoek.nl/maandoverzichten
Triandis, H. C. (1993). Collectivism and individualism as cultural syndromes. Cross-cultural research, 27(3-4), 155-180. doi: 10.1177/1069397 19302700301
Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of personality and social psychology, 74(1), 118-128. doi: 10.1177%2F1069397112470371
Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-collectivism and personality. Journal of personality, 69(6), 907-924. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.696169
Valkenburg, P. M., Peter, J., & Walther, J. B. (2016). Media effects: Theory and research. Annual review of psychology, 67, 315-338. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033608
Verkuyten, M., & Pouliasi, K. (2002). Biculturalism among older children cultural frame switching, attributions, self-identification, and attitudes. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(6), 596-609. doi: 10.1177%2F0022022102238271
Weiland, SJ., & Dunbar, K. (2016) What’s real about reality television? Journal of Mass Communication & Journalism, 6(3), 308. doi: 10.4172/2165-7912.1000308
Wu, C. H. (2009). Factor analysis of the general self-efficacy scale and its relationship with individualism/collectivism among twenty-five countries: Application of multilevel confirmatory factor analysis. Personality and individual differences, 46(7), 699-703. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.01.025
“10 Years of Primetime The Rise of Reality and Sports Programming”. Nielsen.com. N.p., 2011. Web. Retrieved from
Appendix Table 1
Results of factor and reliability analysis for each category of viewing motivation
Table 2
Results of factor and reliability analysis for each dimension of individualism and collectivism
Table 3
Descriptives for viewing motivations for exposure to reality TV
Variable Eigenvalue Explained
Variance Cronbach’s Alpha 1. Entertainment 2.40 80.14% 0.87 2. Relaxation 2.24 74.54% 0.83 3. Pass-time 2.15 71.79% 0.80 4. Arousal 2.35 78.28% 0.86 5. Pers. Identification 2.40 79.85% 0.87 6. Social Interaction 2.38 79.31% 0.87 7. Information 2.45 81.61% 0.89
Variable Eigenvalue Explained Variance Cronbach’s Alpha 1. Horizontal individualism 1.77 58.86% 0.65 2. Vertical individualism 2.02 67.21% 0.75 3. Horizontal collectivism 1.79 59.62% 0.64 4. Vertical collectivism 1.84 61.41% 0.68
Table 4
Descriptives for viewing motivations for exposure to reality TV (separately for the two groups groups)
Table 5
Prediction of the interaction effect of ritualized viewing motivations and culture on exposure to reality television (results of PROCESS 2.17, model 1)
Viewing Motivation Mean SD
1. Entertainment 5.14 1.35 2. Relaxation 4.88 1.37 3. Pass-time 4.10 1.50 4. Arousal 3.74 1.47 5. Personal identification 3.16 1.46 6. Social Interaction 3.36 1.59 7. Information 2.86 1.40 Viewing
Motivation Group Mean SD t(225) p
1. Entertainment Dutch Greek 5.21 5.06 1.42 1.27 0.85 . 393 2. Relaxation Dutch Greek 4.93 4.83 1.32 1.41 0.56 . 572 3. Pass-time Dutch Greek 4.19 4.01 1.48 1.52 0.89 . 372 4. Arousal Dutch Greek 3.53 3.96 1.40 1.51 -2.22 . 028 5. Personal identification Dutch Greek 2.95 3.37 1.37 1.54 -2.14 . 033 6. Social Interaction Dutch Greek 3.10 3.67 1.40 1.75 -2.53 . 012 7. Information Dutch Greek 2.65 3.07 1.27 1.50 -2.25 . 026
Table 6
Prediction of the interaction effect of instrumental viewing motivations and culture on exposure to reality television (results of PROCESS 2.17, model 1)
Table 7
Differences between Dutch and Greek respondents concerning exposure to reality TV and its sub-genres (results of MANOVA test)
Ritualized motivation Variable b SE t(225) p 1. Entertainment Motivation Country Interaction 0.56 0.62 0.25 . 07 . 13 . 14 8.16 4.80 0.18 . 000 . 000 . 855 2. Relaxation Motivation Country Interaction 0.43 0.58 -0.17 . 05 . 14 . 11 8.08 4.00 0.11 . 001 . 000 . 111 3. Pass-time Motivation Country Interaction 0.15 0.56 -0.03 . 06 . 16 . 12 2.47 3.46 -0.26 . 014 . 001 . 792 Instrumental motivation Variable b SE t(225) p 1. Arousal Motivation Culture Interaction 0.37 0.38 -0.05 . 05 . 15 . 10 7.27 2.44 -0.51 . 000 . 015 . 610 2. Personal identification Motivation Culture Interaction 0.27 0.41 -0.05 . 06 . 16 . 12 4.69 2.54 -0.41 . 000 . 012 . 685 3. Social interaction Motivation Culture Interaction 0.22 0.39 -0.02 . 05 . 17 . 10 4.22 2.37 -0.19 . 000 . 019 . 849 4. Information Motivation Culture Interaction 0.15 0.45 0.00 . 06 . 17 . 13 2.28 2.66 0.01 . 024 . 008 . 993
Table 8
Differences between Dutch and Greek respondents concerning individualism and collectivism (results of independent samples t-test)
Table 9
Prediction of the interaction effect of viewing motivations and cultural beliefs concerning vertical individualism on exposure to reality television (results of PROCESS 2.17, model 1)
Exposure to Group Mean SD t(225) p
1. Reality TV in general Dutch Greek 3.19 3.73 1.21 1.26 -3.27 . 000 2. Talent contest reality TV Dutch Greek 2.90 3.52 1.08 1.37 -3.73 . 000 3. Surveillance reality TV Dutch Greek 2.10 1.67 1.22 0.97 2.92 . 004 4. Adventure/ competition reality TV Dutch Greek 3.05 3.60 1.50 1.18 -3.05 . 003 5. Makeover/ lifestyle reality TV Dutch Greek 2.31 2.48 1.12 1.35 -1.02 . 307
Variable Group Mean SD t(225) p
1. Horizontal individualism Dutch Greek 5.55 5.57 0.97 1.01 -0.14 0.886 2. Vertical individualism Dutch Greek 4.12 4.58 1.11 1.16 -3.11 0.002 3. Horizontal collectivism Dutch Greek 5.67 5.57 0.72 0.84 0.96 0.339 4. Vertical collectivism Dutch Greek 5.05 5.35 1.05 0.98 -2.23 0.027 Motivation Variable b SE t(225) p
Table 10
Prediction of the interaction effect of viewing motivations and cultural beliefs concerning vertical collectivism on exposure to reality television (results of PROCESS 2.17, model 1)
1. Entertainment Motivation Individ. Interaction 0.56 0.02 0.13 . 06 . 07 . 09 9.29 0.30 1.46 . 000 . 767 . 145 2. Relaxation Motivation Individ. Interaction 0.42 0.03 0.06 . 06 . 08 . 07 7.38 0.42 0.85 . 000 . 677 . 399 3. Pass-time Motivation Individ. Interaction 0.14 0.07 0.07 . 06 . 07 . 05 2.22 0.98 1.25 . 028 . 327 . 213 4. Arousal Motivation Individ. Interaction 0.40 -0.06 0.00 . 05 . 07 . 05 7.98 -0.83 0.12 . 000 . 406 . 905 5. Personal identification Motivation Individ. Interaction 0.29 -0.02 0.04 . 06 . 08 . 06 4.79 -0.31 0.67 . 000 . 760 . 502 6. Social interaction Motivation Individ. Interaction 0.24 0.09 -0.11 . 05 . 07 . 05 5.06 1.20 -2.25 . 000 . 233 . 026 7. Information Motivation Individ. Interaction 0.17 0.07 -0.03 . 07 . 08 . 06 2.49 0.89 -0.54 . 013 . 374 . 591 Motivation Variable b SE t(225) p 1. Entertainment Motivation Collectiv. Interaction 0.55 0.08 0.03 . 06 . 08 . 07 9.64 0.91 0.43 . 000 . 363 . 668 2. Relaxation Motivation Collectiv. Interaction 0.41 0.04 0.00 . 06 . 09 . 07 7.45 0.46 -0.01 . 000 . 645 . 995 3. Pass-time Motivation Collectiv. Interaction 0.13 0.14 -0.04 . 06 . 01 . 09 2.08 1.34 -0.40 . 038 . 181 . 689
4. Arousal Motivation Collectiv. Interaction 0.38 0.06 -0.06 . 05 . 09 . 05 7.42 0.73 -1.19 . 000 . 468 . 234 5. Personal identification Motivation Collectiv. Interaction 0.29 0.07 -0.05 . 06 . 09 . 06 4.75 0.72 -0.72 . 000 . 470 . 474 6. Social interaction Motivation Collectiv. Interaction 0.23 0.07 -0.03 . 05 . 10 . 06 4.55 0.71 -0.46 . 000 . 477 . 649 7. Information Motivation Collectiv. Interaction 0.16 0.09 -0.03 . 07 . 11 . 08 2.23 0.89 -0.41 . 026 . 374 . 680
