“I'll Drink to That!” an Analysis of Alcohol Related

Home , An American Family, The Pauly D Project

“I’LL DRINK TO THAT!” AN ANALYSIS OF ALCOHOL RELATED BEHAVIORS

AND COMMUNICATION PRACTICES ON MTV’S JERSEY SHORE

Thesis

Submitted to

The College of Arts and Sciences of the

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

The Degree of

Master of Arts in Communication

Stephanie Koziar Sweet

Dayton, Ohio

May, 2014

“I’LL DRINK TO THAT!” AN ANALYSIS OF ALCOHOL RELATED BEHAVIORS

AND COMMUNICATION PRACTICES ON MTV’S JERSEY SHORE

Name: Sweet, Stephanie Koziar

APPROVED BY:

______

Teresa L. Thompson, Ph.D. Faculty Advisor

______

James D. Robinson, Ph.D. Committee Member

______

Ronda M. Scantlin, Ph.D. Committee Member

Stephanie Koziar Sweet

2014

iii

ABSTRACT

“I’LL DRINK TO THAT!” AN ANALYSIS OF ALCOHOL RELATED BEHAVIORS

AND COMMUNICATION PRACTICES ON MTV’S JERSEY SHORE

Name: Sweet, Stephanie Koziar University of Dayton

Advisor: Dr. Teresa Thompson

The purpose of this study is to provide a background of alcohol and related risk behaviors, and analyze their portrayal in the popular MTV series Jersey Shore. This study bridges the gap between research conducted in the areas of Reality Television and

Health Communication in the media. While previous studies have critically analyzed the genre of Reality Television and the communication of risk related behaviors and Health

Communication studies independently, how Reality Television as a genre communicates health related behaviors has yet to be explored. A content analysis was conducted to identify and interpret how physical and communicative behaviors were depicted on

MTV’s Jersey Shore and categorized how both men and women display and consume, as well as communicate messages, about alcohol. Four frames related to alcohol use were identified: escape, fun, excuse, and problematic/corrective references were used by characters to discuss alcohol use and outcomes. Results indicated high rates of alcohol consumption but minimal depictions of related negative outcomes. In addition, women

iv were shown drinking and intoxicated more often than men, and there were significant differences by sex in terms of communication patterns related to alcohol. Women tended to send more messages that related to potential negative outcomes, and were also more likely to associate alcohol as a means to positive social interaction than their male counterparts. In addition earlier seasons were grouped together and compared to the final season after one character announced an unplanned pregnancy and another underwent substance abuse treatment prior to filming. Although consumption rates did decrease, the communication practices did not change.

Dedicated to my family

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My special thanks are in order to Dr. Teresa Thompson, my advisor, my mentor, for directing this thesis. My thesis would not have been possible without her dedication and patience, not to mention the many late night/early morning email exchanges. Dr.

Thompson’s greatest contribution by far has been in the form of inspiration. I never would have made it this far as an academic if it weren’t for her reaching out to guide me down my far from traditional degree path, and encouraging me every step of the way. Dr.

Thompson’s passion is infectious and I can only dream that one day I can have such a profound impact on my students, as she has had on me.

I would also like to express my gratitude to my committee members, Dr. James

Robinson and Dr. Ronda Scantlin, for their expertise throughout this process. I wish to also acknowledge the GTA’s and my colleagues for their friendship and encouragement:

Elizabeth Reeves, Sue Claag, Sarah Magilvy, Ashley Jefferson, and Robert Joseph. A special thanks is also in order to Christopher Hovey, with whom I began my adventure at the University of Dayton with so long ago.

I’m forever appreciative of my family, for whose support I am truly blessed. I’d like to thank my parents for their patience and love, even when I tested the term

“unconditional,” to its limits. It’s an honor to make them proud, for I have always been proud to have them as my parents. Lastly I’d like to thank my husband, who found me when I was lost and whose sacrifices allowed me to finish what I started so long ago.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………...iv

DEDICATION………………………………………………………………………...…vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………….…….…vii

LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………...…………...x

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION……………………………...…………………………1

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE..………………………...………………….5

Media and Health…………………………………………………………………5

Risks and Risk Behaviors Related to Alcohol…………………………………....9

Media Consumption Patterns of Young Audiences…………..…………………13

Modeling from Television...……………………..…..…...………..…...……...... 17

Reality Television…………………...……………………………………..…….20

Media………………………………………………………………………...…..27

Research Questions………………………………………………..………….....29

CHAPTER 3: METHODS…………………………...………………………………....33

Participants and Procedures……………………………………………………..34

Measures………………………………………………………………………...36

Analysis Procedures……………………………………………………….……39

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS…………….………………………………………………...40

Research Question 1………………………………………………………….....40

viii

Research Question 2……………………………………………………….….…43

Research Question 3…………………………………………………….…….…45

Research Question 4……………………………………………………….…….66

Research Question 5……………………………………………………………..71

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION…………………………………..…………..…………...75

Research Questions……………………………………………………………...76

Practical Implications……………………………………………………………89

Limitations………………………………………………………………………92

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………93

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………96

APPENDIX……………………………………………………………………………105

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1A: Frequencies by Behavior – by Season……………………...………..41

Table 1B: Frequencies by Behavior – Totals……………………………………42

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics by Character……...………………………..……44

Table 3A: Means – Physical and Communication Behaviors by Season……….46

Table 3B: ANOVA Seasons 1-6………………………………………………...48

Table 3C: Post Hoc Tests – Multiple Comparisons Seasons 1-6……………….50

Table 4A: Means – Physical Behaviors by Subgroup…………………………..58

Table 4B: Means – Communication Behaviors by Subgroup…………………..58

Table 4C: Multivariate Tests by Sex and Season Subgroup……………………59

Table 4D: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects – by Sex and Subgroup………...60

Table 5A: Multivariate Tests – Character Exclusions………………………….63

Table 5B: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects – Character Exclusion………….64

Table 5C: Descriptive Statistics – Character Exclusions……………………….67

Table 6: Means – Physical and Communication Behaviors by Sex………....…70

Table 7: Means – Participant Sex*Recoded Seasons……………..……………72

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Reality television has become a global phenomenon, gaining importance since the end of the last century. Attractive to viewers, this type of entertainment advertises authenticity in terms of situations, problems, characters, and narratives and departs from classical documentary formats in that the main intention is entertainment rather than journalistic inquiry (Beck, Hellmueler, & Aeschbacher 2012). Mass media serve as major socializing agents through which children and adolescents construct value systems

(Patino, Kaltcheva, & Smith, 2010). Furthermore, reality television has been particularly popular among teen-aged and pre-teen viewers, and there is evidence that young people tend to emulate the behavior of reality stars.

Reality television has taken a stronghold in popular culture. Prior to reality series shows, the line between fiction and real life was more defined. “Reality” television by definition implies that the events and characters depicted are closer to the realities of the viewers, and thus are posited for a greater impact than standard scripted, fictional series.

The depiction of “reality,” in terms of how messages regarding health and risk behaviors are received by audiences, may perhaps have a significant impact on interpretation, and this impact might be increased for audiences, like teen and adolescent viewers, who seek to identify with reality stars because they see them as role models or opinion leaders.

Because this type of entertainment suggests a closer relationship to “the real world,” it is of particular importance to investigate the types and implications of health-related messages on audiences in reality television.

How people judge risks to health and safety is an important predictor of health behaviors (Slater & Rasinski 2005). Media have a powerful influence on these judgments according to a number of theories. Analyzing how particular media portray a health problem, such as substance abuse, can provide insight on how the public views risk behaviors. Evidence shows that popular culture exerts a powerful influence over our understanding of medical conditions. However, popular culture is not designed for this type of dissemination and often the information presented is inaccurate, incomplete, or counter-productive (Ruddock, 2009). Despite decades of initiatives designed to educate young people about the risks involved with alcohol, substance abuse among young

Americans continues to be a major public health concern (Stern, 2005). The consumption of alcohol is often glamorized in popular media, contributing to the problem.

Studies have shown a positive significant relationship between total television viewed and alcohol consumption, and increased television viewing is a risk factor for the onset of alcohol consumption among adolescents (Nelson, Mithchell, & Fife, 2010;

Strasburger, 2001). This relationship suggests a need for a deeper understanding how television affects viewers, and impacts health behaviors. Previous studies are limited in some respects in this area. First, public health campaigns, rather than the ordinary flow of health information on the Internet and mass media, have been the primary focus of most studies. Public health campaigns are produced strategically, and are generally

2 diffused within a specific time period, whereas media’s routine transmissions are less strategic, and health related messages manifest themselves in less overt demonstrations in day to day programming. Second, while more recent studies have sought to address routine transmissions of health information, no study to date has looked at reality television as a specific type of medium (Nelson et al., 2010).

Alcohol is the most commonly portrayed drug on American television

(Strasburger, 2001), and on MTV “a viewer sees alcohol use every 14 minutes, compared with every 17 minutes in the movies and every 27 minutes on prime-time television.” (p.

434) In the last decade, the cable network Music Televsion (MTV) has devoted the bulk of its programming to reality formats (Schechner, 2010), such as The Real World (1992- present) and Jersey Shore (2009-2012). Because of the popularity of reality programs to the younger portion of MTV’s target audience, viewers aged 12-34 (James, 2001), and the heavy depiction of alcohol use, the network serves as a site for the further investigation of exactly what messages these portrayals are sending. The purpose of this paper is to review literature related to media, gender, alcohol and related risk behaviors, and analyze their portrayal in reality television using the popular MTV series Jersey

Shore.

This study will bridge the gap between research conducted in the areas of reality television and Health Communication in the media. While previous studies have critically analyzed reality television and Health Communication in the media independently, how reality television as a genre communicates health-related behaviors has yet to be explored. This paper will serve as a foundation for the connection between these areas of communication studies, building on the investigator’s pre-thesis research in

Media Effects and Health Communication, and provide a basis for understanding how health-related behaviors are portrayed on reality television. After a discussion of alcohol and related health problems, a theoretical framework for media effects will provide insight into how these particular mediums stand to influence viewers in terms of risk related behaviors as they are portrayed in reality television.

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter will first explore media and health as it has been examined in the literature, followed by a discussion of alcohol and risk related behaviors as specific health problems among young audiences. Research on media and young audiences will then be examined, explaining the potential influence media has on identity formation and value construction. Finally, reality television as a specific medium will be discussed.

Media and Health

Social cognitions linked to alcohol consumption can predict behaviors, and the likelihood of engaging in unsafe drinking habits can be explained using Rosenstock’s

(1966) Health Belief Model (HBM). The model is a widely used conceptual framework to predict and explain health-related behaviors (Anagnostopoulos, Buchanan,

Frousiounioti, Niakas, & Potamianos, 2001). Pertaining to primary prevention, the HBM suggests that the likelihood an individual will exercise a particular preventive behavior is linked to personal perceptions, such as the severity of contracting or developing the problem, the susceptibility to the problem, and the costs and benefits of engaging in the suggested preventive action (Eisen & Zellman, 1990). The model is based on the assumption that an individual’s actions are determined by his or her perception of the

5 world, rather than the actual physical environment, and is comprised by 3 basic components: 1. If individuals perceive they are susceptible to a health problem, they will act to avoid it. 2. The perception of the severity of the situation determines an individual’s desire to act. 3. The likelihood that individuals will act depends on the barriers and benefits to alternative behaviors. More recently, the model was expanded to include an individual’s feelings of self-efficacy, and cues and enabling factors

(Rosenstock, Strecher, & Becker, 1988).

With regard to the current study in terms of alcohol consumption, if an individual feels it is unlikely he or she will experience negative outcomes from drinking, it is unlikely he or she will engage in healthy drinking behaviors. The “it won’t happen to me” attitude serves as a barrier to accurately gauging one’s susceptibility to negative outcomes. It is important to consider that binge drinking and regular alcohol use can lead to negative outcomes in terms of long or short terms. For example, the occasional binge drinker may not feel at risk for becoming an alcoholic, or causing liver damage, but this type of mentality overlooks some of the immediate consequences of alcohol use such as accidental injury or alcohol poisoning, both of which can cause death. It can also be said that if a person does not believe that there are severe clinical or social outcomes related to alcohol abuse, he or she will be unlikely to adopt healthy and/or responsible drinking behaviors. In other words, unless one perceives that death, disability, pain, the ability to work or maintain a family life will be impacted, or feel that drinking interferes with his or her social relationships, it is unlikely he or she will drink responsibly. People who ignore the short term, and are not exposed to or aware of severe negative consequences, will not

6 be motivated to adopt healthy drinking practices, putting them at high risk for negative outcomes.

Benefits and barriers are important to consider because people will not enact healthful behaviors if: 1. they do not believe they will gain something for their efforts and 2. The cost is too high or the barriers are too great. If we consider the social aspect of drinking, more specifically binge drinking, the cost of “saying no” or being responsible when others are not, may outweigh the benefit of feeling part of the group.

To engage in healthy behaviors (not drinking, or not binge drinking) may have a social cost such as alienation from the group.

Eisen and Zellman (1990), in their study Evaluating the Impact of a Theory-Based

Sexuality and Contraceptive Education Program, found empirical evidence to suggest that using the HBM in tandem with Bandura’s (1986) Social Learning Theory predicts whether adolescents were better able to avoid pregnancy when an intervention program allows them to observe both inappropriate and appropriate types of behavior. Social

Learning Theory addresses both the methods of promoting behavioral change and the psychosocial dynamics influencing healthy behavior (Ramos & Perkins, 2006). Bandura

(1986) concluded that the interactions of environmental influences and personal factors

(including cognition), determine an individual’s behavior. In addition, “certain personalized factors are unique to an individual’s behavior in terms of behavioral outcomes such as self-regulated actions (eg. monitoring, reflecting by analyzing experiences, confidence in self, and the ability to observe behaviors in others).” (p. 4)

Social Learning Theory has been successfully used to guide alcohol intervention programs that target personal and environmental factors, promote healthy norms and

7 correct misperceptions, model positive outcomes of healthy behaviors, and provide opportunities for goal setting, self-monitoring, and self-rewards (Ramos & Perkins,

2006).

Social Norms Theory (Berkowitz, 2004), used in conjunction with the HBM and

SLT, adds another important dimension in terms of the current study. This theory states that incorrect perceptions of how members of a social group act and think influence behaviors (Ramos & Perkins, 2006). Using Social Norms Theory, Ramos and Perkins explain “therefore, an individual may overestimate the permissiveness of peer attitudes or behaviors with respect to alcohol or underestimate the extent to which peers engage in healthy behaviors” (p. 4).

The potential impact of Social Norms Theory with regard to reality television can also be seen when used in conjunction with Reeves and Nass’ (1996) Media Equation

Theory. The Media Equation is based on the assumptions that everyone uses media in their real life, the media are consequential to people, and that people interact with the real world in essentially the same way as they interact with computers and other media. The

Media Equation provides a rationale for including reality television stars as potential members of an individual’s peer group, and the perceptions of “reality” then guide attitudes and behaviors related to health and health risks. Media experiences should not be automatically discounted because viewers often feel as if they are actually there with the characters, and therefore, the gap between what is “real” and what is “fiction” is significantly reduced.

Risks and Risk Behaviors Related to Alcohol

According to the Centers for Disease Control, excessive alcohol use is classified in two ways. Heavy drinking is described as consuming more than two drinks per day for men and more than one drink a day on average for women. Binge drinking is defined as drinking 5 or more drinks during a single occasion for men or 4 or more drinks for women. Both heavy and binge drinking can lead to an increased risk in health problems such as liver disease and unintentional injury. The CDC reports that from 2001-2005 approximately 79,000 annual deaths could be attributed to excessive alcohol use, making it the 3rd leading lifestyle related cause of death for people in the U.S. each year

(www.CDC.gov). The CDC identifies additional problems for underage drinkers, who often consume more alcohol in one sitting than do adult drinkers. In 2008 approximately

190,000 persons under the age of 21 were seen in emergency rooms for injuries and other conditions linked to alcohol. The CDC identifies many physical health problems associated with underage drinking that include hangovers or illness, unwanted, unplanned, and unprotected sexual activity, disruption of normal growth and sexual development, physical and sexual assault, higher risk for suicide and homicide, alcohol- related car crashes, and other unintentional injuries, such as burns, falls and drowning.

Alcohol abuse can also lead to memory problems, abuse of other drugs, changes in brain development that may have long term effects, and death from alcohol poisoning

(www.CDC.gov).

Recent documentation shows that many teens view drinking as an acceptable, and in some cases, a “cool” and fashionable behavior. Furthermore, studies have shown that young people (ages 14-22) associate drinking alcohol with “popular” peers (Stern, 2005).

According to the most recent Youth Risk Surveillance Study, which reports risk behaviors among youths, about 72% of high school students reported having tried alcohol. The data also show that 48.1% of high school students admit to current alcohol use. Around 24% of students had had five or more drinks of alcohol in a row (i.e., within a couple of hours) indicating binge drinking behaviors. Around 21% of students had drunk alcohol (other than a few sips) for the first time before age 13 years. Among the

34.2% of currently sexually active students nationwide, 21.6% had drunk alcohol or used drugs before their last sexual encounter (www.CDC.gov).

For college aged students research shows that approximately 17% of students could be classified as heavy users of alcohol. According to Nelson, Mitchell and Fife

(2010), college students belong to a population that is expected to consume alcohol as well as take pride in its use. Austin and Chen (2003) found that college students drank an average of 1-2 times per week, 1-2 times per month drank at least 4 drinks in a row, attended a party where there was alcohol 1-2 times per week, rode with a driver who had been drinking once or twice in the past 6 months, and gotten sick from alcohol use 1-2 times in the last 6 months (Austin & Chen, 2003). College freshman at one university averaged about 17 drinks per week, and around 1,400 college students die annually from alcohol related injuries (Nelson et al., 2010). Furthermore, alcohol is involved in more than 600,000 assaults and 70,000 sexual assaults annually (Nelson et. al., 2010). Nelson,

Mitchell and Fife also found that college students on average consumed around 11 drinks per week and there was a positive significant relationship between total television viewed and alcohol consumption (Nelson et al., 2010). This relationship suggests a need for understanding exactly how television affects viewers and can impact health behaviors.

Both media cultivation and social cognitive theories provide a rationale for the link between television exposure and alcohol consumption (Nelson et al., 2010).

According to Social Cognitive Theory, human agency is socially mediated, according to this model, people rely on those who have access to resources, expertise, influence, and power to act on their behalf to secure desired outcomes (Bandura, 2002). Media wield great influence and power, therefore they shape the beliefs and attitudes of viewers by providing models from which viewers learn. These viewers are more likely to pay attention to media models that they see as similar to themselves (Stern 2005).

Furthermore, those models who viewers find to be good looking, financially well-off, or powerful are more likely to be influential. Viewers develop expectations about the consequences that certain behaviors and attitudes will have in their own lives by watching what happens to models onscreen. According to Stern, “incentives and disincentives teach viewers about social norms and values by indicating what rewards

(e.g., happiness, love, acceptance) and punishments (e.g., health problems, loss of control, social isolation) one can expect when one acts in accordance with the media models” (Stern, 2005, p. 335).

Social Cognitive Theory, then, would suggest that when young people see other young people going unpunished for risk behaviors, they are likely to learn from these characters and form normative beliefs about substance abuse that might not be accurate compared to off screen realities. Studies have shown that young people’s attitudes about the positive effects of drinking decreased when programming depicted negative consequences associated with alcohol use (Stern 2005). Ruddock (2010) found in his study of binge drinking, celebrities, and violence, that most of the drinkers he surveyed

11 did not set out to get drunk and did not care about the possibility of social embarrassment. Furthermore, respondents placed the possibility of short term consequences over long term mental or physical consequences of drinking behaviors.

Bad behavior was actually seen as part of the pleasure of drinking in that it served as a source of post drinking gossip. Bingeing was seen as a natural part of “twenty-something singledom” and not perceived as a health risk because people eventually grow out of the practice (Ruddock, 2009).

Drinking alcohol is often depicted by the media in a positive way, and alcohol was found to be the most commonly depicted consumable over all other foods and beverages on television (Nelson et al., 2010). Studies on prime time television indicate that alcohol is consumed in over 50% of programs with an overall average of 8.1 drinking acts per hour (Wallack, 1990). Research also shows that viewing drinking scenes in television programming increases the likelihood that youths will select an alcoholic beverage over water as the appropriate drink to serve adults (Stern, 2005). Teens have well-developed beliefs about alcohol before they even experiment with it (Stern, 2009).

According to Weintraub and Chen (2003) beliefs and behaviors predictive of alcohol use are developed in children as young as third graders. This can have a significant impact on their health as they grow older and find themselves in situations as adolescents, where they are likely to drink.

Ruddock (2009) suggested that people frame binge drinking as a transitional or even natural state. This “rite of passage” can have dangerous outcomes. The process of framing is particularly relevant with regard to young people because their lack or real-life experiences cause them rely more on televised alcohol portrayals do adults

(Vandenbulck, et al., 2008). Entman (1993) identified four functions of framing that relate to reasoning devices: frames serve to define an issue, leading to a causal interpretation, followed by a moral evaluation, which then determines the treatment recommendation for the issue. Framing provides an understanding of the social context and array of meanings that drinking may obtain, and a limited number of frames may limit the way people think about alcohol consumption (Vandenbulck, et al., 2008).

As noted earlier, there is a relationship between binge drinking and a variety of poor health outcomes including unintentional injury and car crashes, unprotected sex, long term health problems, and suicides. Therefore, this study is of relevance to communication and health related fields because as studies show, alcohol consumption is a salient issue in the lives of young people and its positive portrayal in the media can create and enforce unhealthy social norms when the predominant frames associate alcohol with positive, or a lack of negative, outcomes.

Media Consumption Patterns of Young Audiences

Children and teenagers often spend more time with media than they do in a classroom or with their parents, which, according to Common Sense Media, a group devoted to informing parents about appropriate media content, can impact health

(Downey, 2006). Increases in the proportions of time expenditure devoted to television, and its prominence in young people’s lives “implies…an extensive consumption of undemanding entertainment, including many portrayals of conflict and violence, which therefore may have serious consequences represented by effects on affect, cognitions, and behavior” (Comstock & Scharrer, 2001, p. 47). The following section will discuss media consumption rates and patterns for children and adolescents and the potential

13 implications of the mass media’s influence on the identity formation, systems of values and beliefs, and behavior of children and adolescents.

This section will discuss factors that influence using three variables identified by

Comstock and Sharrer (2001) that play a role in media use and how it changes from childhood to adolescence: societal and structural factors, household characteristics, attributes. Societal and structural influences regulate what channels are available, program content, and the costs of access. Content is determined by governmental and regulatory policies, and the economics of production and distribution. Research indicates that television, as a whole, has not changed in what it makes available to children

(Comstock & Scharrer, 2001) and teens. Instead, exposure to specific content is mostly the product of unintended -consequences (called “externalities” by economists), and the balancing of costs and benefits by television executives, who “often act in their narrow, short-term interests rather than acting in terms of longer-range benefits to children and society” (p. 4). Improvements related to access and availability may mark the most significant changes to societal and structural factors. In addition to the launch of cable service, which has given families access to a wider range of content that is designed to target narrowly defined audiences that include children (Paik, 2001) and adolescents, technology has provided new, alternate means for television consumption. As mentioned earlier, the Internet, mobile devices, and time lapse viewing options like DVR and On

Demand functions minimize consumption constraints previously controlled by network access and programming schedules.

Household characteristics also contribute to children’s use of television, and include race, socioeconomic status, norms related to centrality of television to the

14 household and leisure, and parental communication practices (Comstock & Scharrer,

2001). Research indicates that multiple television sets, and/or alternate viewing devices, are available in 75% of households (Comstock & Scharrer), and in 45% of households, the television is on even if no one is watching (Rideout & Roberts, 2010). These figures suggest that, firstly, children and teens may be watching television alone and thus choosing their own programming. As a child becomes moves towards teen years, access to alternative viewing devices increases; 74% of teenagers use cell phones or other mobile devices such as tablets to access the Internet (Simpson, 2013).

Norms are often determined by the media rules set by parents, and are also considered household attributes. Overall, children with rules specifying when viewing is inappropriate, report significantly lower exposure (nearly 3 hours less) to media (Rideout

& Roberts, 2010). When it comes to setting media rules for television specifically, parents, in general, are more likely to impose limits on the types of content (46%), than on time spent (28% overall). Age is a key determinant in the likelihood of setting these parental controls. The Kaiser Family foundation reports that 66% of 8-11 year-olds, 51% of 12-14 year-olds, and 26% of 15-18 year-olds indicated that their parents had rules about which shows they can watch, demonstrating that the likelihood of having media rules is negatively correlated with a child’s age (Rideout & Roberts, 2010). As children move into their teen years access to media increases while the likelihood of rules that regulate consumption decrease.

Child attributes also affect the amount of television viewed, what is viewed, and the attentional manner of consumption. Age, mental ability, comprehension, and innate affinity for viewing are principle variables that affect the shift from child to adult modes

15 of viewing (Comstock & Sharrer, 2001). A 2010 study conducted by The Kaiser Family

Foundation found that persons aged 8-18 devote a daily average of 7½ hours to entertainment media, and because much of that time is spent “media multitasking,” they can pack nearly 11 hours of content into a day by using multiple mediums at a time. The study also found that the abundance of new means to consume TV (i.e. Internet, cell phones, iPods, etc…), has solidified television viewing, in its many forms, as the dominant form of media consumption for young people, accounting for an average of 4 ½ hours a day (Rideout & Roberts, 2010).

Television consumption patterns change with age. For example, the very young

(ages 3-4) prefer educational shows such as Sesame Street, and studies have indicated that first-, fourth-, and sixth-grade students prefer situational comedies, and an increased favoritism of all varieties of adult formats. Furthermore, by the tenth grade, action adventures, drama, music, variety, and talk shows are the most popular formats1

(Comstock & Scharrer). A recent study indicated that reality programs are highly popular among pre-teen and teen-aged viewers, and rank as the most-viewed television programming genre for individuals between the ages of 8-12 (Patino et al., 2011).

Von Feilitzen and Linne (1975) propose two concepts, similarity and wishful identification, to explain how the viewing patterns of young people change with age.

Similarity indicates the preference for characters like oneself, and explains children’s favoritism towards the portrayal of characters of the same race, gender, and age. Wishful identification, on the other hand, increases with age and refers to a preference for a character that a young viewer would like to bear a resemblance to or become (Comstock

& Scharrer, 2001) and youth often view television celebrities as role models and opinion

1 MTV and other music channels in-part, now replace this category as a whole 16 leaders (Patino et al., 2011). Comstock and Scharrer (2001) add that the majority of their consumption is ritualistic in nature.

Modeling from Television

Now that factors related to television use have been discussed, the following section will examine the potential influence of mass media messages on the lived experience of children and adolescents, beginning with a theoretical framework for learning, followed by a discussion of how messages are used to construct identity and understand social norms.

Research aimed at understanding the ways media influence children and adolescents mainly focuses on two interrelated themes: that media messages often teach objectionable behaviors and beliefs, and that young viewers are acutely susceptible to these messages (Malamuth & Impett, 2001). According to Bandura’s Social Learning

(1977) and Social Cognitive (1994) theories, attention, retention, motor reproduction, and motivation mediate learning, and ”whereas learning typically refers to the process of adaptation of behavior, memory is considered the product of the change, the relatively permanent record of the experience that underlies learning” (Miron, Bryant, & Zillman,

2001, p. 153). For example, a child takes and stores cues from media, parents, other adults and children to learn “what it means to be a girl or boy and how that difference dictates behavior” (p. 314).

The media, as compared to other sources, provide a massive number of normative models for gendered behavior, and a constant source of gender based distinctions, and sex role research indicates that when asked about appropriate behavior for boys and girls, children will replicate role expectations (Huntemann & Morgan, 2001). Sex role research

17 has found that teens make meanings for traditional gender roles from media content, and reproduce conventional gendered meanings that embody traditional male culture and preferred masculinity vis-à-vis stereotypical notions of gender in the mass media

(Huntemann & Morgan, 2001).

Huntemann and Morgan (2011) explain how both girls and boys negotiate the meanings of femininity and masculinity “with the expectations and values of their peers.”

(p. 314) Research, in general, points to a relationship between having more stereotypical conceptions of gender roles and television viewing (Signorielli, 2001). As a masculine construct, adolescence is unproblematic, but when applied to female adolescents it becomes a source of contradictory expectations, most notably conflicting discourses of femininity (Hudson, 1984). In addition, “women who do not fit stereotypical molds…often revert to very traditional gender role stereotypes regarding their interpersonal relationships with men. These images serve to support the notion that women should not outshine men (Signorielli, 2001, p. 353).”

Social, gender role, and identity cues in the media are influenced by the content of messages in terms of how the outcomes of specific behaviors are depicted. Research has indicated that “the extent to which a child imitates an actor is greatly influenced by the reinforcements an actor receives,” (p. 236) and children are less likely to imitate a behavior if actor is punished, and more likely to do so if he or she is rewarded (Bushman

& Rowell Huesmann, 2001). Furthermore, as Bushman and Rowell Huesmann (2001) argue, this type of observational learning results in children forming “social scripts” (p.

236) for problem solving and interactions with others, and they automatically employ

18 them with little or no thought. These scripts, in effect, become cognitive heuristics for behavioral responses.

As a particular behavior is observed more and more, it becomes more acceptable.

Studies conducted on children’s perception of televised violence and aggression show that repeated exposure to violence results in “cognitive desensitization” (Patino,

Katlcheva, & Smith, 2011, p. 238), which makes people more accepting of their own aggression. Extending this rationale to exposure of other types of negative behavior, such as excessive drinking and unsafe sexual practices, suggests that these risk-related behaviors will become more socially acceptable. Personal values are key to preferences and behaviors (Patino et al., 2011) and as exposure increases acceptance, and if negative actions lack consequences, value systems are created and altered. Television content thus has the capability to influence social behavior by simultaneously providing normative scripts and a wider acceptance of negative behaviors as they are increasingly depicted over time.

While mass media have an immense potential to shape identity development and value systems, is important to note that the influences are never constant, and change over time (Huntemann & Morgan, 2001). Young children see themselves as an extension of their parents, but as they get older, additional sources such as non-family authority figures and peers influence identity development. As children become less dependent on their parents for social and identity cues, they seek out, and are exposed, to more external sources, including mass media. Preferences and behaviors for pre-teens and teens are influenced by three value groups: popularity - the desire for acceptance and security, achievement – aspirations for fulfillment, respect, and accomplishment, and excitement –

19 the desire to enjoy life (Patino et al., 2011). Preferences and behaviors are expressions of identity, and during adolescence, individuals “experiment with different identities and form cohesive peer support systems outside the family…[and] peer approval is very important (Patino et al., p. 291).”

Huntemann and Morgan (2001) add that adolescence2 marks the beginning of the search for an independent sense of self, where the values and beliefs of individuals are separate, and often contrary, to their parents’. The relationship between mass media and both identity formation and value systems, is particularly salient for this age group because as, as mentioned above and in the section on household attributes, adolescents, compared to young children, watch more television and have fewer rules restricting media content, so are likely more susceptible to media messages as they become less reliant on parental influences in identity and value formation. Research indicates that adolescents who see smokers on television, for example, are more inclined to try smoking, and in addition view entertainment media to be a primary source of information regarding sexuality (van Hoof et al., 2009). Teens are also less likely than children to view parents as an important resource on issues such as alcohol, drugs, and sex and find out about these issues from entertainment media (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2014).

Reality Television

The following section will discuss reality television as a specific genre, and its potential influence on young audiences. Lewis (1990) uses Stuart Hall’s (1982, 1983) application of the work of Gramsci to explain how cultural hegemony characterizes

2 According to the National Institute of Health, adolescence is defined as the period between puberty and adulthood, and the exact age a child enters puberty depends on genes, nutrition and gender (nlm.nih.gov). Puberty can begin as early as age 8 for girls, and age 9 for boys (Tanner, 2012). 20 dominance in textual and social discourse, and this dominance is under stress and situational. In addition, Lewis (1990) asserts that both producers and audiences act as agents of meaning and textual production. This is in sharp contrast to the bulk of previous literature that credits only media creators with this role. With current trends in production costs for reality TV, meaning and textual production may be more in the hands of audiences than ever before. According to Beck et al. (2012), “factual entertainment represents networks of shared knowledge and functions as a cultural transmitter, as a binding force in certain social contexts,” (p. 15) and in other words, their content offers representation of cultural values and beliefs.

The basis of the uses and gratifications approach to media studies has been used by various researchers to explore the appeal of reality TV programs to viewers. This approach assumes that viewers are actively engaged in their media consumption and their selection of media programs can be used to fulfill instrumental (cognitive, social, or affective) or ritual (habitual) needs (Beck et al., 2012). Beck et al. identified three themes explaining viewers’ motives: passing time, identification, and superiority.

Passing time was the most salient motive among adults, whose ritual watching of reality programs becomes part of their daily routine. Research shows that the most important gratification is personal utility (relaxation, uniqueness of the program, escapism), and diversifications of the genre have led to a more individualized approach to consumption

(Beck et al., 2012). Cognitive development, education, and age all influence how viewers conceptualize and perceive reality TV programs (Beck et al., 2012)

History

While providing a journalistic function, such as to educate or stimulate political debate, may be a secondary goal, the primary intent of reality TV is to entertain and audience and attract advertisers (Beck et al., 2012). Television networks save money on production costs because reality shows do not require the procurement of professional actors or scriptwriters, and the global success of the format equates to a low risk for a media company. Historically, networks have relied on big name actors, particular genres, and successful writers as forms of insurance (Lewis, 1990). Similar to fictional entertainment, the cast and location of reality television shows are selected before shooting, but, in contrast to fictional formats, in most cases reality formats do not provide a script and use non-professional actors (Beck, et al., 2009).

A general definition of the genre characterizes reality programs by: (a) people portraying themselves, (b) filmed at least in part in their living or working environment rather than on a set, (c) without a script (or at least pretending to be without a script), (d) with events placed in a narrative context, (e) for the primary purpose of entertainment

(Nabi, 2007). The primary selling point of the genre is the claim of “authenticity,” and the typical strategies reality TV producers use, to gain public awareness and interest, have been the dramatization of moral controversies, focus on emotions, stereotyping, and the premeditated breaking of taboos (Beck et al., 2012).

The success of reality TV has become a global phenomenon (Beck et al., 2012).

The prototype of reality TV programming was Allen Funt’s Candid Camera, which first aired in 1948, and other precursors to the modern reality TV format include noteworthy beauty and musical contests from the 1950’s, such as the Miss America pageant, game

22 shows like Queen for a Day (NBC/ABC, 1956-1964), confessional talk shows like The

Phil Donahue Show (1970-1996), and crime appeal programs like Rescue 911 (CBS,

1989-1996) and America’s Most Wanted (Fox, since 1988). One of the first reality TV programs originally intended to chronicle the daily lives of ordinary individuals was the

12-part PBS series An American Family (1971-1973). The program was consistent with the “fly on the wall” (Beck et al., 2012, p. 8) tradition of observational documentaries, but also borrowed structural elements of soap opera and drama with the “intention to question the conventional depictions of family life in fictional entertainment” (Beck et al., 2012).

Beck et al., also point out that public attention is bolstered when TV channels present reality TV shows as “extraordinary media events” (p. 6) by the extensive use of program trailers, talk show appearances of participants, makers, and hosts, and in some cases spin-off magazines. In addition, developments in reality TV shows are regularly covered by tabloid press and other media (Beck et al., 2012). Some RTV shows gain additional public interest through interactive features such as social media pages or online forums, where reality-based formats involve their audience by discussing developments that serve as platform for media convergence (Beck et al. 2012). The possibility to actively involve viewers has become more sophisticated over the years, and interactive media create a loyal community among viewers and foster a sense of audience engagement (Beck et al., 2012).

Reality TV programs claim to provide viewers with a voyeuristic, unmediated, and playful look at what may be referred to as the “entertaining real” (Beck et al., 2012, p. 6). Claims of “reality” by producers are often met by accusations from viewers,

23 former collaborators, and former participants that scenes are faked or parts of their shows are scripted, and are discussed on Internet forums as well as in popular press (Beck et al.,

2012). An overview of studies provided by Beck et al. (2012) from the audience perspective examines how viewers judge and perceive the authenticity of the programs, and their motivation for watching these programs. They found that, although authenticity is both desired by viewers and promoted by producers, consumers are “not so much interested in absolute truth,” (p. 16) and enjoy the mixture of fact and fiction. As viewers have become more experienced with the genre of reality TV, public perception of reality

TV formats has changed (Beck et al., 2012). In addition, Beck et al. (2002), point out that “if a show is successful enough to be aired over several seasons, it is no longer disputed” (p. 6).

Both the controversy and success of what Beck et al. (2012) refer to as “the new factual entertainment” (p. 5) have made them an important topic for research. Reality formats attract a wide range of audiences because they claim to depict real events and real people, but the “reality” is manipulated, edited, sometimes scripted, and reconstructed for dramaturgical reasons (Beck et al., 2012). Since the early 1990’s shows which detailed the day to day lives of ordinary people, such as MTV’s series The

Real World, have sparked discussions about the ethical problems and authenticity of reality TV (Beck et al., 2012). The audience is interested in watching “real” persons and

“real” events in television entertainment and the fact that some of these programs spark controversial discussions marked by concerns over their effect on society, may even have bolstered this interest (Beck et al., 2012).

In an Associated Press/TV Guide poll from 2005, 25% of adults assumed that reality shows are completely fictional, 57% believed that they depict some, but mostly distorted, truth, but only 30% indicated that the truthfulness of the shows mattered

(Bauder, 2005; Murray & Oullette, 2009). In their 2012 analysis of reality TV, Beck et al. (2012) demonstrated that narratives of reality TV shows are not perceived as truly authentic in any case, but the identification of voyeurism, as a significant predictor of enjoyment, suggests that even though they know the narratives are fictional, viewers enjoy watching “real” people rather than actors, because they can identify with reality TV participants who embody similar lifestyles.

Diversification

Reality TV has undergone enormous diversification since the end of the 1990’s, and every year dozens of new formats have been introduced every year, and, in fact, reality TV can be seen as a meta-genre (Beck et al., 2012) and various typologies to classify reality TV have been proposed by researchers. These have identified subgenres such as dating programs, gamedocs, talent contests, reality sitcoms, makeover programs, court programs, docusoaps, and celebrity variations of other programs (Murray &

Oulette, 2009).

In the field of reality TV, casting and makeover shows “present work on the self as a prerequisite for personal and professional success” (p. 21) and these formats promote

“technologies of the self” with which participants should be capable of engineering better and more fulfilling lives (Beck et al., 2012). In addition, coaching formats like Honey

We’re Killing the Kids, and Supernanny use a combination of self-help and disciplinary strategies to enable individuals to overcome adversities, and represent “an entrepreneurial

25 ethic of self-care (p. 21).” Similarly, other forms of crisis intervention television shows mobilize private resources (volunteerism, money, skills) to remedy personal hardships

(Beck et al., 2012). For example, lifestyle and makeover programs, such as The Biggest

Loser, The Swan, Hoarders, Celebrity Rehab, My Strange Addiction, My Crazy

Obsession, deal directly with physical and/or mental health issues, and, as Beck et al.

(2012) point out, function as public welfare programs without state interventions.

Docusoaps take advantage of dramaturgical and structural elements known from soap operas such as the focus on character personality, intercuts of multiple plot lines, short narrative sequences, the use of a musical soundtrack, and mini cliff hangers (Beck et al., 2012). Successful docusoaps of the 21st century include the Real Housewives

Series (on Bravo since 1996), Jon & Kate Plus 8 (Discovery Health/TLC, 2007-2011),

Laguna Beach (MTV, 2004-2006) and its spin-off The Hills (2006-2011) and MTV’s biggest success to date, Jersey Shore Beck et al. 2012).

In contrast to classical documentaries, where the primary purpose is to stimulate political debates or stress journalistic inquiry, the primary intention of reality TV is entertainment and diversion (Beck et al., 2012). Later formats that also depicted people in their usual, ordinary professional or living environment have been categorized as docusoaps, which differ from conventional documentaries in that they prioritize entertainment over social commentary. “Docusoaps” portray people in their usual living environment, as opposed to “reality soaps” that bring people into a new and uncommon environment (Klaus & Lucke, 2003) like shows such as The Real World (MTV since

1992), Survivor (CBS since 2000), and Big Brother (CBS since 2000), where participants live together and are isolated from the outside world (Beck et al., 2012).

Now that I have provided an overview of reality television as it is described in the literature, the following section will discuss the specific media that will be analyzed in the current study.

Media

MTV launched its cable service program in 1981, and, like any media programming venture, its development was motivated by corporate growth, market control, and commercial imperatives of growth (Lewis, 1990). From its inception,

MTV’s target audience has been twelve to thirty-four year olds. Creator Bob Pittman stated that he designed the network to “mirror the issues of people moving from adolescence to childhood” (Lewis, 1990, p.33).

Premiering in 2009, Jersey Shore is an American based reality series on MTV.

The series follows the lives of eight housemates who spend their summers at the Jersey

Shore, NJ. Two of the four seasons were filmed in New Jersey, Season 2 documented the roommates’ adventures in Miami Beach, and Season 4 took place in Florence Italy.

Dubbed by some as a cultural phenomenon, Jersey Shore boasts the largest audience in the history of MTV, topping out at 8.466 million. The show has exceedingly high popularity among the youngest segment of viewers, attracting approximately 4.5 million viewers between the ages of 18-34, and has one of the youngest median ages for any show on television, at just over 22 years old (Carter 2011). Jersey Shore was the number one show of the summer of 2010 across all of television, for viewers in the 12-34 age range, (Viscount 2010) averaged a 9.0 P12-34 Nielson rating. Jersey Shore has been dubbed by some as a cultural phenomenon, with a total of 6 seasons. In addition to regular season broadcasts, after-show specials, reunion specials, bonus clips, and a

27 number of social media platforms offer ways for fans to view content and interact with their favorite characters. Two spin-off shows also on MTV, The Pauly D Project, and

Snooki and JWow, offer fans a means to continue watching their favorite characters in new settings.

Jersey Shore differs from MTV’s pilot docusoap The Real World (since 1992), as well many other reality TV formats, where the cast changes with the start of each new season. In contrast, the notoriety of Jersey Shore protagonists does not fade at the end of a season, and as a result they have become well-established celebrities (Beck et al.,

2012). Beck et al. (2012), add that, unlike celebrity docusoaps, which give insight into the lives of already prominent people, the celebrity status of Jersey Shore participants is not an issue in the show itself. In other words, despite the media frenzy surrounding the protagonists, the show maintains their depiction as “ordinary” people.

The depiction of “reality” in terms of how messages regarding health and risk behaviors are received by audiences could have a significant impact on interpretation, and this impact may be increased for audiences, like teen and adolescent viewers, who seek to identify with reality stars because they see them as role models or opinion leaders.

Because this type of entertainment indicates a closer relationship to “the real world,” it is of particular importance to investigate the types and implications of health-related messages on audiences in reality television. Given the popularity of The Jersey Shore, it is posited to serve as a strong normalizing force in terms of the way drinking and risk related behaviors are understood and framed by audiences. This show could have profound impacts on the models viewers use to create beliefs and attitudes about substance use.

Reality television has taken a stronghold in popular culture and more research in this genre is needed. Prior to reality series shows, the line between fiction and real life was more defined. “Reality” television by definition suggests that the events and characters depicted are closer to the realities of the viewers and thus may have a greater impact than do fictional series. Stern (2009) suggests that these data are useful because they can provide feedback to media critics and public health officials so that they might decide to provide more responsible messages regarding substance use and abuse. After a careful review of literature related to media, gender, health communication, alcohol and risk behaviors, and reality television, the following research questions will examine the potential impact of reality television and health behaviors on young viewers.

Research Questions

To investigate the potential impact of RTV on alcohol related risk behaviors, the current study will consider the following research questions:

RQ1: How are alcohol consumption and related drinking behaviors displayed on

MTV’s Jersey Shore?

This question seeks to address how the characters are portrayed in terms of both the amount of alcohol that they consume, and in turn, how they behave as a result of alcohol ingestion. How characters are portrayed on the show could have implications in terms of how viewers construct their own identities and expectations for the identities and roles of others. To answer this question, using content analysis, I will count and record the number of times each character consumes alcohol per episode. Additionally, I will make note of any instance where a character appears to be intoxicated and the type of

29 behavior that results from being in this state such as acting violently, being sexually promiscuous, or sustaining physical injury.

RQ2: How do the characters of MTV’s Jersey Shore communicate about alcohol

and related drinking behaviors?

This question seeks to address the type of communication behaviors exhibited by the characters in reference to drinking and related behaviors. Oftentimes it is not what we talk about, but rather how we talk about something that determines how it is framed.

Understanding the communication surrounding alcohol and risk behaviors can provide insight into social norms and expectations of health related behaviors. To answer this question, using a content analysis, any verbal references to alcohol made by characters in each episode were recorded. Using a thematic analysis, themes will emerge as to the type of references made and the frequency of use of these types by each character per episode.

RQ3: Is there a difference between seasons 1-5 and the final season of Jersey

Shore in terms of both displayed behaviors and communication practices?

The final season of Jersey Shore, Season 6, differed from the previous five due to two cast members experiencing life changing events between the filming of seasons 5 and 6. Mike “The Situation” Sorrentino admitted to both the press and fellow cast-mates, that he had been to a rehab facility for substance abuse to treat his addiction to alcohol and narcotics. Nicole “Snooki” Pollizi also entered Season 6 visibly with child, a result of an unplanned pregnancy with on-and-off boyfriend Gionni. While it is unclear whether the pregnancy was a result of alcohol consumption, this event is worthy of

30 consideration given the identification of unplanned pregnancy as an often unintended consequence of intoxication.

This question will investigate whether there is a difference between the final and cumulative previous seasons of The Jersey Shore. Season 6 differs from previous seasons in that two of the main characters experienced significant life changes between seasons 5 and 6; one attended rehab for alcohol and drug addiction and the other became pregnant unexpectedly, without planning. The significance of this question is to address whether, when faced with the reality of the consequences of certain actions, the behaviors and communication practices are framed differently.

RQ4: Is there a difference between the display of drinking behaviors and

communication practices between men and women?

This question will investigate whether there is a difference between the frequency and type of physical displays of drinking and behaviors between men and women in the show Jersey Shore. To answer this question I will run a statistical analysis to see if there is a significant difference in these displays by character sex collected under RQ1. This information is important in terms of understanding gender roles and expectations. This question also seeks to address whether there is a difference in the ways men and women communicate about drinking and related behaviors. Using data collected from RQ2, a statistical analysis will be conducted to determine if there is a significant difference between sexes. This information is useful for understanding the ways in which men and women communicate and will be compared to current gender and communication research.

RQ 5: Is there a significant interaction by sex and recoded season subgroup?

Should a difference be found between season subgroups,3 this question will address whether or not there is an interaction by sex. The significance of this question is to flesh out if, in addition to the presence of difference between subgroups, differences by behavior and season groups also vary by sex. In light of the known gender differences in alcohol use (Roberts, 2012), this additional comparison seems appropriate.

3 Subgroup 1 is composed of grouping behaviors from seasons 1-5 and Subgroup 2 contains behaviors from Season 6 only. 32

CHAPTER 3

METHODS

The current study involved the collection and analysis of data collected from

MTV’s broadcast of its show Jersey Shore. To understand how mass media influence the identity development, behaviors, values, and beliefs of children, content analysis provides a beginning point for examining the images and representations that may ultimately contribute to conceptions of self and others; content analysis results can be used to categorize these displays into themes illuminating such issues as the portrayal of race, gender, sex roles, sexuality, work, politics, and citizenship, among others (Huntemann &

Morgan, 2001). Quantitative data was collected through an in-depth content analysis that categorized both how alcohol related behaviors were physically displayed on the show, and how the communication practices related to these behaviors were enacted by the characters.

How the behaviors are physically manifested on the show were analyzed with regard to gender and compared to current health risk-related behaviors research, and the influence of media on identity formation, gender roles, and value construction. How the characters themselves communicate to each other about drinking behaviors was categorized in terms of the types of messages that were sent, with an emphasis on

33 apparent attitudes toward alcohol consumption and risk-related behaviors using frames identified in the researcher’s prior qualitative analysis of Jersey Shore.

Participants and Procedures

The sample included 71 episodes from of MTV’s series Jersey Shore, spanning over 6 seasons, with 8 cast members (50% male and 50% female). Only the 8 cast members were considered as participants, with their behavior coded, as they appeared consistently in each episode. Other individuals that appeared in an episode were not considered in this study, as their appearance was not an integral part of the show. Each season consisted of between 9 and 13 episodes, with an average of 12 episodes per season. The sample was divided into two subgroups: Subgroup 1¸ consisting of Seasons

1-5 and Subgroup 2 for Season 64. For Subgroup 1, three episodes per season were selected at random for analysis, accounting for approximately 25% of the population for the subgroup. For Subgroup 2, six episodes were randomly selected, accounting for 50% of the population of this subgroup for a richer comparison between the two groups (pre- and post-season 6).

A content analysis was conducted for both subgroups to investigate verbal and nonverbal behaviors related to alcohol and alcohol consumption. Behaviors of each participant5, in each episode, were coded into two categories. The categories were developed based upon a pilot analysis of all of the episodes of Season 4. The first category was designed to explore physical displays of alcohol use and actions related to its consumption. “Physical Behaviors” were coded in order to account for verbal and

4 The filming locations were also noted for each season. Seasons 1, 3, 5, and 6 took place in Seaside Heights, New Jersey, Season 2 was filmed in Miami, Florida, and Season 4 took place in Florence Italy.

5 The gender was noted for each participant 34 nonverbal behaviors and are identified by not only analyzing the character when he or she was sober, but also by looking at how an incident was framed through communication after an event took place. How the participants frame behavior indicates whether or not it was a typical behavior, and/or whether it was related to alcohol consumption and intoxication.

The second category involved coding behaviors having to do with strictly verbal communicative statements regarding alcohol. These categories were designed to identify the ways in which the participants themselves discuss alcohol use, and any actions related to, or resulting from, consumption. “Verbal References” explored the ways in which participants, in their own words, view, explain, and understand alcohol, its consumption, and related risk related behaviors. It is important to reiterate that the cast members are aware they are being filmed, and that thus the true intended receiver of participant messages (cast-mate or audience) cannot be discerned. Reality TV removes the distinction between the public and private self-images, and participants may maintain these images simultaneously. They may alter messages to control the perceptions not only of other cast members, but also of the audience, which also includes participants’ family and friends. Although this procedure does not provide certainty with regard to message authenticity, in terms of intended receivers, this should not threaten the interpretation of the data. The final receiver is the audience, and the only context cues for interpreting meaning come from those that make it through editing in production.

Measures

The displays of alcohol related behaviors were counted for each character on each episode and the totals for male and female characters were recorded. The frequencies, means, and standard deviations for each behavior by season and sex, are be reported.

The “Physical Behaviors” category was measured using four variables, indicating the type of behavior observed demonstrating consumption and/or its effects. Effects will be identified using 37 items from the State of California’s Department of Alcoholic

Beverage Control6 demonstrated by relaxed inhibitions, impaired judgment, reaction time, coordination loss, and physical appearance. These are listed below, as is reliability of the coding of such.

Consumption Displays were measured by counting the number of times per episode a cast member was shown ingesting alcohol, or shown in possession of what appeared to be an intoxicating beverage. Some displays are obvious, such as drinking from a marked bottle, while others are suggested by the presence of alcohol (i.e. a bottle of liquor on the table and cast members drinking out of unmarked cups) or by comments made by participants.

Physical intoxication signs indicate instances during which a participant displayed behaviors related to reaction time and coordination (such as slurred speech, stumbling, and falling), or where his or her physical appearance (such as lack of eye focus or disheveled clothing) indicated intoxication.

Related promiscuous behavior measured incidents of relaxed inhibition and/or impaired judgment, where a cast member acted in a promiscuous manner that was uncharacteristic of their sober behavior. Types of promiscuous behavior included being

6 See Appendix for full list and classification 36 overly friendly in a flirtatious manner, public nudity and sexual activity that are uncharacteristic of the cast member in a sober state, or demonstrated while/after consuming alcohol. It is noted that familiarity with the characters is required to ascertain these judgments, both the primary coder and the coder who worked with the researcher to establish reliability are familiar with the characters. “Jersey Shore” is also a TV show of loyal viewers, so it seems reasonable to assume that audience members would also generally be able to make this assumption.

Related violent behavior included any violent behavior, physical or verbal, that appeared to occur as a direct result of intoxication. Also related to relaxed inhibitions and impaired judgment, these behaviors manifest in the form of belligerent acts like fighting at bars, and the escalation verbal disagreements that would not have normally transpired without the influence of alcohol. Again, familiarity with the characters facilitates such assessments.

“Verbal References” explored the ways in which participants communicate about alcohol consumption, its effects, and potential consequences. Items were identified from the researcher’s pilot study of all 12 episodes of Season 4, where a thematic analysis of references indicated five categories of messages.

Escape references were assessed by communication describing drinking as a means for escape. For example, if at the end of a long day a character says, “I need a drink,” or “I’m going to need a drink after doing this,” this indicates an escape reference.

These references frame alcohol consumption as a diversion from the harshness sometimes found in reality.

Fun references were included to measure communication related to the pleasure of drinking as well as positive encouragement of drinking behavior. These references frame drinking and intoxication as a means to experience fun. Give a couple of examples here

Excuse references indicated communication where drinking is used as an excuse for a bad decision or negative behavior. This measure accounted for messages that were expressed following an event of intoxication, where the participant attributes the source of his or her behavior or indiscretion to alcohol. “Sometimes you get drunk and hook up with girls,” as one heterosexual female character said, is an example where intoxication was used as an excuse for her promiscuous same-sex behavior.7

Problematic/Corrective references measured communication expressing drinking or consequent behaviors as problematic, or describe drinking in a negative light. For example, “Trying to talk to Sammi when I’m drunk is like pouring kerosene on a fire,” or

“When you drink you literally become a hothead…it’s scary,” are examples of this type of communication. This type of communication expresses knowledge of negative consequences associated with drinking behavior. This category also included talking about drinking and responsibility, such as, “Now is not a good time to talk because you’re drunk.” Also included in this category are phrases such as “I’m so hungover,” because they are expressed as a negative consequence of drinking behavior.

Descriptive/Declarative/Interrogative references measured communication that was neutral in nature. These references included descriptive and declarative statements like, “I’ve had two drinks,” or “Let’s get a drink,” and interrogative statements such as,

7 These references often are made in tandem with one or more of the “Physical Behaviors” previously discussed 38

“Do you want to get a drink?” These phrases express neither a positive nor a consequent connotation to drinking behavior, and thus are neutral phrases.

Analysis Procedures

Intercoder reliability was obtained using two additional observers who were familiar with the show. Each coder was trained with an explanation of the purpose of the study, a description of the variables, and instructions for filling out the coding sheets.

Each coder watched a a randomly selected episode together with the researcher to determine a baseline for each behavior. In addition, each observer was given a coding manual, with detailed descriptions and several examples of each type of behavior. Each coder was given two episodes to code independently to account for 20% of the data.

Upon collecting data sheets from both observers, an agreement matrix was used to calculate Cohen’s (1960) Kappa with ĸ=.72 for “consumption display,” ĸ=1 for “physical intoxication sign,” ĸ =1“promiscuous display,” ĸ =.80 for “violent behavior,” ĸ =1 for

“escape reference,” ĸ=1 “fun reference,” ĸ =.78 for “excuse reference,” ĸ =.80 for

“problematic/corrective reference,” and ĸ -.80 for “declarative/descriptive/interrogative reference.” Both analyses were coded by character and season number, to investigate whether the display of behaviors or the communication related to these behaviors differed between men and women, and/or varied by season Displays and references were calculated per episode, for the first 5 seasons, by character, and these means were compared using multivariate analysis of variance tests in SPSS to see if the communication practices differ between men and women, by season, and whether an interaction effect existed between sex and season.

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

This study posited six research questions to examine physical and communicative behaviors related to alcohol and alcohol use, as portrayed on MTV’s hit series Jersey

Shore. The analysis of the data will be discussed in detail before the presentation of a discussion and interpretation of the results.

Research Question 1:

The first research question asked, “How are alcohol and related drinking behaviors displayed on MTV’s Jersey Shore?” This question sought to identify how characters were portrayed in terms of alcohol consumption, and how they behave as a result of consumption. It is assumed that these portrayals may affect how viewers construct identities and role expectations. Frequencies, means and standard deviations were computed for all alcohol consumption and drinking related behaviors. Frequencies for behaviors per season are reported in Table 1A and total frequencies are found in

Table 1B. The most frequently occurring behavior for every season was “consumption display,” with a total of 518 occurrences, meaning that out of 21 episodes coded, characters were shown consuming or in possession of alcohol an average of 25 times total per episode.

Table 1A: Frequencies by Behavior – by Season Season Season Season Season Season Season 1 2 3 4 5 6 consumption display 111 72 76 107 88 64 physical intoxication sign 3 6 11 5 9 9 promiscuous behavior 1 3 0 0 6 0 violent behavior 6 0 0 5 2 3 escape reference 0 0 2 6 0 3 fun reference 6 4 6 11 3 5 excuse reference 1 3 4 8 4 3 problematic/corrective reference 7 8 10 8 4 21 descriptive/declarative/interrogative reference 1 3 5 2 5 6

Other 0 1 1 3 1 2

Table 1B: Frequencies by Behavior – Totals consumption display 518

physical intoxication sign 43 promiscuous behavior 10 violent behavior 16 escape reference 11 fun reference 35 excuse reference 23

problematic/corrective reference 58

descriptive/declarative/interrogative reference 22 Other 8

Means and standard deviations are reported in Table 2. The average character was shown drinking or possessing alcohol three times (M=3.08, SD=3.19) per episode.

The next highest average recorded behavior was “physical intoxication,” (M=.25,

SD=.74) where a character was shown to be under the influence of alcohol, followed by

“violent behavior,” (M=.10, SD=.44) with the least occurring “promiscuous behavior,”

(M=.06, SD=.42). Overall, when characters were shown consuming or possessing alcohol, only 8% of the time did it result in a corresponding display of intoxication. In addition, characters were twice as likely to display acts of violence compared to acts of promiscuity.

Research Question 2:

The second research question asked, “How do the characters of MTV’s

Jersey Shore communicate about alcohol and related drinking behaviors?” This question sought to address the type of communication behaviors exhibited by the characters in reference to drinking and related behaviors to provide a richer understanding of the communication surrounding alcohol and related behaviors. Frequencies and descriptive statistics were run for communication behaviors and are reported in Table 2B and 3 respectively. The highest frequency occurred in the “problematic/corrective reference,” category (M=35, SD=.76) with a combined total across seasons of 58 references.

Recalling that characters consumed or displayed alcohol 25 times on an average episode, references that framed alcohol negatively, in terms of resulting behaviors or

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics by Character Std. N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation Consumption Display 168 0.00 14.00 3.0833 3.18946

Physical Intoxication Sign 168 0.00 5.00 .2560 .74220

Promiscuous Behavior 168 0.00 4.00 .0595 .41961

Violent Behavior 168 0.00 3.00 .0952 .44099

Escape Reference 168 0.00 3.00 .0655 .34848

Fun Reference 167 0.00 3.00 .2096 .57908 Excuse Reference 168 0.00 4.00 .1369 .47608

Problematic/Corrective Reference 168 0.00 5.00 .3452 .75809

Declarative/Descriptive/Interrogative 168 0.00 3.00 .1310 .40298 Reference

44 consequences, were made less than 3 times per episode. However 35 “fun references,”

(M=.21, SD=.58) were noted overall, meaning that almost half as many positive alcohol related messages occurred compared to negative messages. “Escape references,” (M=.07,

SD=.35) had the lowest amount of instances recorded. Overall, the average character made almost 1.6 times as many negative compared to positive alcohol related messages.

Research Question 3:

The third research question asked, “Is there a difference between seasons 1-5 and the final season of Jersey Shore in terms of both displayed behaviors and communication practices?” Recalling that two characters experienced life changing events between season 5 and the final season 6, this question sought to address whether any physical or communication behaviors changed as a result. The rationale was based on character

“Mike’s” stint in rehab for substance abuse and “Snooki’s” unplanned pregnancy.

Descriptive statistics were computed and reported in Table 3A. A one way analysis of variance and post hoc tests were conducted to identify any significant behavioral differences among seasons 1-6 and the results are reported in Table 3B and

3C. A significant difference for “consumption display,” F(5,51.58) = 5.79, p<.05 among seasons was noted. Post hoc analyses using Tukey’s B criterion for significance indicated that the average numbers of consumption displays were significantly lower in season 6 (M=1.33, SD=1.84) than in season 1 (M=4.62, SD=3.15), p<.00, season 4

(M=4.46, SD=3.80), p=.001, and season 5 (M=3.67, SD=3.46), p=.025. Consumption displays were marginally significant for season 3 (M=3.17, SD=3.04), p= .143 and season

Table 3A: Means - Physical and Communication Behaviors by Season 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Std. Lower Upper Season N Mean Deviation Bound Bound Consumption Display 1 24 4.6250 3.14591 3.2966 5.9534 2 24 3.0000 3.18966 1.6531 4.3469 3 24 3.1667 3.04555 1.8806 4.4527 4 24 4.4583 3.79908 2.8541 6.0625 5 24 3.6667 3.45992 2.2057 5.1277 6 48 1.3333 1.83736 .7998 1.8668 Total 168 3.0833 3.18946 2.5975 3.5691 Physical Intoxication Sign 1 24 .1250 .44843 -.0644 .3144 2 24 .2500 .67566 -.0353 .5353 3 24 .4583 .77903 .1294 .7873 4 24 .2083 .65801 -.0695 .4862 5 24 .3750 1.17260 -.1201 .8701 6 48 .1875 .64102 .0014 .3736 Total 168 .2560 .74220 .1429 .3690 Promiscuous Behavior 1 24 .0417 .20412 -.0445 .1279 2 24 .1250 .61237 -.1336 .3836 3 24 0.0000 0.00000 0.0000 0.0000 4 24 0.0000 0.00000 0.0000 0.0000 5 24 .2500 .89685 -.1287 .6287 6 48 0.0000 0.00000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 168 .0595 .41961 -.0044 .1234 Violent Behavior 1 24 .2500 .84699 -.1077 .6077 2 24 0.0000 0.00000 0.0000 0.0000 3 24 0.0000 0.00000 0.0000 0.0000 4 24 .2083 .65801 -.0695 .4862 5 24 .0833 .28233 -.0359 .2026 6 48 .0625 .24462 -.0085 .1335 Total 168 .0952 .44099 .0281 .1624 Escape Reference 1 24 0.0000 0.00000 0.0000 0.0000 2 24 0.0000 0.00000 0.0000 0.0000 3 24 .0833 .40825 -.0891 .2557 4 24 .2500 .73721 -.0613 .5613 5 24 0.0000 0.00000 0.0000 0.0000 6 48 .0625 .24462 -.0085 .1335 Total 168 .0655 .34848 .0124 .1186 Fun Reference 1 24 .2500 .53161 .0255 .4745 2 23 .1739 .65033 -.1073 .4551 3 24 .2500 .60792 -.0067 .5067

4 24 .4583 .83297 .1066 .8101 5 24 .1250 .44843 -.0644 .3144 6 48 .1042 .42474 -.0192 .2275 Total 167 .2096 .57908 .1211 .2981 Excuse Reference 1 24 .0417 .20412 -.0445 .1279 2 24 .1250 .33783 -.0177 .2677 3 24 .1667 .48154 -.0367 .3700 4 24 .3333 .63702 .0643 .6023 5 24 .1667 .81650 -.1781 .5114 6 48 .0625 .24462 -.0085 .1335 Total 168 .1369 .47608 .0644 .2094 Problematic/Corrective Reference 1 24 .2917 .46431 .0956 .4877 2 24 .3333 1.09014 -.1270 .7937 3 24 .4167 .88055 .0448 .7885 4 24 .3333 .56466 .0949 .5718 5 24 .1667 .48154 -.0367 .3700 6 48 .4375 .82272 .1986 .6764 Total 168 .3452 .75809 .2298 .4607 Declarative/Descriptive/Interrogative 1 24 .0417 .20412 -.0445 .1279 Reference 2 24 .1250 .33783 -.0177 .2677 3 24 .2083 .50898 -.0066 .4233 4 24 .0833 .28233 -.0359 .2026 5 24 .2083 .41485 .0332 .3835 6 48 .1250 .48925 -.0171 .2671 Total 168 .1310 .40298 .0696 .1923

Table 3B: ANOVA Seasons 1-6 Sum of Mean Squares df Square F Sig. Consumption Display Between 257.917 5 51.583 5.799 .000 Groups Within 1440.917 162 8.895 Groups Total 1698.833 167 Physical Intoxication Between 2.015 5 .403 .726 .605 Sign Groups Within 89.979 162 .555 Groups Total 91.994 167 Promiscuous Behavior Between 1.321 5 .264 1.525 .185 Groups Within 28.083 162 .173 Groups Total 29.405 167 Violent Behavior Between 1.372 5 .274 1.429 .216 Groups Within 31.104 162 .192 Groups Total 32.476 167 Escape Reference Between 1.134 5 .227 1.919 .094 Groups Within 19.146 162 .118 Groups Total 20.280 167 Fun Reference Between 2.298 5 .460 1.386 .232 Groups Within 53.367 161 .331 Groups Total 55.665 166 Excuse Reference Between 1.455 5 .291 1.296 .268 Groups Within 36.396 162 .225 Groups Total 37.851 167 Problematic/Corrective Between 1.372 5 .274 .470 .798 Reference Groups Within 94.604 162 .584 Groups

Total 95.976 167 Declarative/Descriptive/ Between .536 5 .107 .653 .660 Interrogative Reference Groups Within 26.583 162 .164 Groups Total 27.119 167

Table 3C: Post Hoc Tests - Multiple Comparisons Seasons 1-6 95% Confidence Interval Mean Difference Std. Lower Upper Dependent Variable (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound Consumption Display 1 2 1.625 0.861 .414 -.858 4.108 3 1.458 0.861 .538 -1.025 3.941 4 0.167 0.861 1.000 -2.316 2.650 5 0.958 0.861 .875 -1.525 3.441 6 3.29167* 0.746 .000 1.141 5.442 2 1 -1.625 0.861 .414 -4.108 .858 3 -0.167 0.861 1.000 -2.650 2.316 4 -1.458 0.861 .538 -3.941 1.025 5 -0.667 0.861 .971 -3.150 1.816 6 1.667 0.746 .227 -.484 3.817 3 1 -1.458 0.861 .538 -3.941 1.025 2 0.167 0.861 1.000 -2.316 2.650 4 -1.292 0.861 .665 -3.775 1.191 5 -0.500 0.861 .992 -2.983 1.983 6 1.833 0.746 .143 -.317 3.984 4 1 -0.167 0.861 1.000 -2.650 2.316 2 1.458 0.861 .538 -1.025 3.941 3 1.292 0.861 .665 -1.191 3.775 5 0.792 0.861 .941 -1.691 3.275 6 3.12500* 0.746 .001 .975 5.275 5 1 -0.958 0.861 .875 -3.441 1.525 2 0.667 0.861 .971 -1.816 3.150 3 0.500 0.861 .992 -1.983 2.983 4 -0.792 0.861 .941 -3.275 1.691 6 2.33333* 0.746 .025 .183 4.484 6 1 -3.29167* 0.746 .000 -5.442 -1.141 2 -1.667 0.746 .227 -3.817 .484 3 -1.833 0.746 .143 -3.984 .317 4 -3.12500* 0.746 .001 -5.275 -.975 5 -2.33333* 0.746 .025 -4.484 -.183 Physical Intoxication 1 2 -0.125 0.215 .992 -.745 .495 Sign 3 -0.333 0.215 .633 -.954 .287 4 -0.083 0.215 .999 -.704 .537 5 -0.250 0.215 .854 -.870 .370 6 -0.063 0.186 .999 -.600 .475 2 1 0.125 0.215 .992 -.495 .745

3 -0.208 0.215 .927 -.829 .412 4 0.042 0.215 1.000 -.579 .662 5 -0.125 0.215 .992 -.745 .495 6 0.063 0.186 .999 -.475 .600 3 1 0.333 0.215 .633 -.287 .954 2 0.208 0.215 .927 -.412 .829 4 0.250 0.215 .854 -.370 .870 5 0.083 0.215 .999 -.537 .704 6 0.271 0.186 .694 -.267 .808 4 1 0.083 0.215 .999 -.537 .704 2 -0.042 0.215 1.000 -.662 .579 3 -0.250 0.215 .854 -.870 .370 5 -0.167 0.215 .971 -.787 .454 6 0.021 0.186 1.000 -.517 .558 5 1 0.250 0.215 .854 -.370 .870 2 0.125 0.215 .992 -.495 .745 3 -0.083 0.215 .999 -.704 .537 4 0.167 0.215 .971 -.454 .787 6 0.188 0.186 .915 -.350 .725 6 1 0.063 0.186 .999 -.475 .600 2 -0.063 0.186 .999 -.600 .475 3 -0.271 0.186 .694 -.808 .267 4 -0.021 0.186 1.000 -.558 .517 5 -0.188 0.186 .915 -.725 .350 Promiscuous Behavior 1 2 -0.083 0.120 .982 -.430 .263 3 0.042 0.120 .999 -.305 .388 4 0.042 0.120 .999 -.305 .388 5 -0.208 0.120 .512 -.555 .138 6 0.042 0.104 .999 -.259 .342 2 1 0.083 0.120 .982 -.263 .430 3 0.125 0.120 .904 -.222 .472 4 0.125 0.120 .904 -.222 .472 5 -0.125 0.120 .904 -.472 .222 6 0.125 0.104 .836 -.175 .425 3 1 -0.042 0.120 .999 -.388 .305 2 -0.125 0.120 .904 -.472 .222 4 0.000 0.120 1.000 -.347 .347 5 -0.250 0.120 .303 -.597 .097 6 0.000 0.104 1.000 -.300 .300 4 1 -0.042 0.120 .999 -.388 .305 2 -0.125 0.120 .904 -.472 .222 3 0.000 0.120 1.000 -.347 .347 5 -0.250 0.120 .303 -.597 .097

6 0.000 0.104 1.000 -.300 .300 5 1 0.208 0.120 .512 -.138 .555 2 0.125 0.120 .904 -.222 .472 3 0.250 0.120 .303 -.097 .597 4 0.250 0.120 .303 -.097 .597 6 0.250 0.104 .162 -.050 .550 6 1 -0.042 0.104 .999 -.342 .259 2 -0.125 0.104 .836 -.425 .175 3 0.000 0.104 1.000 -.300 .300 4 0.000 0.104 1.000 -.300 .300 5 -0.250 0.104 .162 -.550 .050 Violent Behavior 1 2 0.250 0.126 .360 -.115 .615 3 0.250 0.126 .360 -.115 .615 4 0.042 0.126 .999 -.323 .406 5 0.167 0.126 .775 -.198 .531 6 0.188 0.110 .526 -.128 .503 2 1 -0.250 0.126 .360 -.615 .115 3 0.000 0.126 1.000 -.365 .365 4 -0.208 0.126 .569 -.573 .156 5 -0.083 0.126 .986 -.448 .281 6 -0.063 0.110 .993 -.378 .253 3 1 -0.250 0.126 .360 -.615 .115 2 0.000 0.126 1.000 -.365 .365 4 -0.208 0.126 .569 -.573 .156 5 -0.083 0.126 .986 -.448 .281 6 -0.063 0.110 .993 -.378 .253 4 1 -0.042 0.126 .999 -.406 .323 2 0.208 0.126 .569 -.156 .573 3 0.208 0.126 .569 -.156 .573 5 0.125 0.126 .921 -.240 .490 6 0.146 0.110 .767 -.170 .462 5 1 -0.167 0.126 .775 -.531 .198 2 0.083 0.126 .986 -.281 .448 3 0.083 0.126 .986 -.281 .448 4 -0.125 0.126 .921 -.490 .240 6 0.021 0.110 1.000 -.295 .337 6 1 -0.188 0.110 .526 -.503 .128 2 0.063 0.110 .993 -.253 .378 3 0.063 0.110 .993 -.253 .378 4 -0.146 0.110 .767 -.462 .170 5 -0.021 0.110 1.000 -.337 .295 Escape Reference 1 2 0.000 0.099 1.000 -.286 .286 3 -0.083 0.099 .960 -.370 .203

4 -0.250 0.099 .125 -.536 .036 5 0.000 0.099 1.000 -.286 .286 6 -0.063 0.086 .978 -.310 .185 2 1 0.000 0.099 1.000 -.286 .286 3 -0.083 0.099 .960 -.370 .203 4 -0.250 0.099 .125 -.536 .036 5 0.000 0.099 1.000 -.286 .286 6 -0.063 0.086 .978 -.310 .185 3 1 0.083 0.099 .960 -.203 .370 2 0.083 0.099 .960 -.203 .370 4 -0.167 0.099 .547 -.453 .120 5 0.083 0.099 .960 -.203 .370 6 0.021 0.086 1.000 -.227 .269 4 1 0.250 0.099 .125 -.036 .536 2 0.250 0.099 .125 -.036 .536 3 0.167 0.099 .547 -.120 .453 5 0.250 0.099 .125 -.036 .536 6 0.188 0.086 .252 -.060 .435 5 1 0.000 0.099 1.000 -.286 .286 2 0.000 0.099 1.000 -.286 .286 3 -0.083 0.099 .960 -.370 .203 4 -0.250 0.099 .125 -.536 .036 6 -0.063 0.086 .978 -.310 .185 6 1 0.063 0.086 .978 -.185 .310 2 0.063 0.086 .978 -.185 .310 3 -0.021 0.086 1.000 -.269 .227 4 -0.188 0.086 .252 -.435 .060 5 0.063 0.086 .978 -.185 .310 Fun Reference 1 2 0.076 0.168 .998 -.408 .561 3 0.000 0.166 1.000 -.479 .479 4 -0.208 0.166 .810 -.688 .271 5 0.125 0.166 .975 -.354 .604 6 0.146 0.144 .913 -.269 .561 2 1 -0.076 0.168 .998 -.561 .408 3 -0.076 0.168 .998 -.561 .408 4 -0.284 0.168 .538 -.769 .200 5 0.049 0.168 1.000 -.436 .533 6 0.070 0.146 .997 -.351 .491 3 1 0.000 0.166 1.000 -.479 .479 2 0.076 0.168 .998 -.408 .561 4 -0.208 0.166 .810 -.688 .271 5 0.125 0.166 .975 -.354 .604 6 0.146 0.144 .913 -.269 .561

4 1 0.208 0.166 .810 -.271 .688 2 0.284 0.168 .538 -.200 .769 3 0.208 0.166 .810 -.271 .688 5 0.333 0.166 .344 -.146 .813 6 0.354 0.144 .142 -.061 .769 5 1 -0.125 0.166 .975 -.604 .354 2 -0.049 0.168 1.000 -.533 .436 3 -0.125 0.166 .975 -.604 .354 4 -0.333 0.166 .344 -.813 .146 6 0.021 0.144 1.000 -.394 .436 6 1 -0.146 0.144 .913 -.561 .269 2 -0.070 0.146 .997 -.491 .351 3 -0.146 0.144 .913 -.561 .269 4 -0.354 0.144 .142 -.769 .061 5 -0.021 0.144 1.000 -.436 .394 Excuse Reference 1 2 -0.083 0.137 .990 -.478 .311 3 -0.125 0.137 .943 -.520 .270 4 -0.292 0.137 .276 -.686 .103 5 -0.125 0.137 .943 -.520 .270 6 -0.021 0.118 1.000 -.363 .321 2 1 0.083 0.137 .990 -.311 .478 3 -0.042 0.137 1.000 -.436 .353 4 -0.208 0.137 .650 -.603 .186 5 -0.042 0.137 1.000 -.436 .353 6 0.063 0.118 .995 -.279 .404 3 1 0.125 0.137 .943 -.270 .520 2 0.042 0.137 1.000 -.353 .436 4 -0.167 0.137 .828 -.561 .228 5 0.000 0.137 1.000 -.395 .395 6 0.104 0.118 .951 -.238 .446 4 1 0.292 0.137 .276 -.103 .686 2 0.208 0.137 .650 -.186 .603 3 0.167 0.137 .828 -.228 .561 5 0.167 0.137 .828 -.228 .561 6 0.271 0.118 .206 -.071 .613 5 1 0.125 0.137 .943 -.270 .520 2 0.042 0.137 1.000 -.353 .436 3 0.000 0.137 1.000 -.395 .395 4 -0.167 0.137 .828 -.561 .228 6 0.104 0.118 .951 -.238 .446 6 1 0.021 0.118 1.000 -.321 .363 2 -0.063 0.118 .995 -.404 .279 3 -0.104 0.118 .951 -.446 .238

4 -0.271 0.118 .206 -.613 .071 5 -0.104 0.118 .951 -.446 .238 Problematic/Corrective 1 2 -0.042 0.221 1.000 -.678 .595 Reference 3 -0.125 0.221 .993 -.761 .511 4 -0.042 0.221 1.000 -.678 .595 5 0.125 0.221 .993 -.511 .761 6 -0.146 0.191 .973 -.697 .405 2 1 0.042 0.221 1.000 -.595 .678 3 -0.083 0.221 .999 -.720 .553 4 0.000 0.221 1.000 -.636 .636 5 0.167 0.221 .974 -.470 .803 6 -0.104 0.191 .994 -.655 .447 3 1 0.125 0.221 .993 -.511 .761 2 0.083 0.221 .999 -.553 .720 4 0.083 0.221 .999 -.553 .720 5 0.250 0.221 .867 -.386 .886 6 -0.021 0.191 1.000 -.572 .530 4 1 0.042 0.221 1.000 -.595 .678 2 0.000 0.221 1.000 -.636 .636 3 -0.083 0.221 .999 -.720 .553 5 0.167 0.221 .974 -.470 .803 6 -0.104 0.191 .994 -.655 .447 5 1 -0.125 0.221 .993 -.761 .511 2 -0.167 0.221 .974 -.803 .470 3 -0.250 0.221 .867 -.886 .386 4 -0.167 0.221 .974 -.803 .470 6 -0.271 0.191 .716 -.822 .280 6 1 0.146 0.191 .973 -.405 .697 2 0.104 0.191 .994 -.447 .655 3 0.021 0.191 1.000 -.530 .572 4 0.104 0.191 .994 -.447 .655 5 0.271 0.191 .716 -.280 .822 Declarative/Descriptive 1 2 -0.083 0.117 .980 -.421 .254 /Interrogative 3 -0.167 0.117 .712 -.504 .171 Reference 4 -0.042 0.117 .999 -.379 .296 5 -0.167 0.117 .712 -.504 .171 6 -0.083 0.101 .963 -.375 .209 2 1 0.083 0.117 .980 -.254 .421 3 -0.083 0.117 .980 -.421 .254 4 0.042 0.117 .999 -.296 .379 5 -0.083 0.117 .980 -.421 .254 6 0.000 0.101 1.000 -.292 .292

3 1 0.167 0.117 .712 -.171 .504 2 0.083 0.117 .980 -.254 .421 4 0.125 0.117 .893 -.212 .462 5 0.000 0.117 1.000 -.337 .337 6 0.083 0.101 .963 -.209 .375 4 1 0.042 0.117 .999 -.296 .379 2 -0.042 0.117 .999 -.379 .296 3 -0.125 0.117 .893 -.462 .212 5 -0.125 0.117 .893 -.462 .212 6 -0.042 0.101 .998 -.334 .250 5 1 0.167 0.117 .712 -.171 .504 2 0.083 0.117 .980 -.254 .421 3 0.000 0.117 1.000 -.337 .337 4 0.125 0.117 .893 -.212 .462 6 0.083 0.101 .963 -.209 .375 6 1 0.083 0.101 .963 -.209 .375 2 0.000 0.101 1.000 -.292 .292 3 -0.083 0.101 .963 -.375 .209 4 0.042 0.101 .998 -.250 .334 5 -0.083 0.101 .963 -.375 .209 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

2 (M=3.0, SD=3.19), p= . 227 providing a rationale for classifying season 6 as an outlier to the sample as a whole.

For this reason seasons 1-5 were recoded as “Subgroup 1” and season 6 labeled as

“Subgroup 2” and subgroup means by physical and communication behaviors are reported in tables 4A and 4B respectively. A multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to identify any significant differences in physical and communicative behaviors by subgroup and the results reported in Table 4C. A significant main effect,

F(155,9) = 1.95, p<.05, was found for season subgroups, using the Hotelling’s Trace criterion. Tests of between-subjects effects are reported in table 4D and revealed a significant effect for “consumption display,” F(207.84,1) = 24.7, p = .003, eta2=.132.

There was no significant difference between season subgroups for any other physical behavior including “physical intoxication”, power = .121, “promiscuous behavior,” power = .211, and “violent behavior,” power = .094.

In addition, there was no significant difference between season subgroups for any of the communication behaviors including “escape reference,” power = .051, “fun reference,” power = .334, “excuse reference,” power = .254, “problematic/corrective reference,” power = .165, and “declarative/descriptive/interrogative reference,” power =

.052. The power for both physical and communication behaviors was low due to character being the unit of analysis was a concomitant small n.

Table 4A: Means - Physical Behaviors by Subgroup

Physical Consumption Intoxication Promiscuous Violent recoded seasons Display Sign Behavior Behavior 1.00 Mean 3.7833 .2833 .0833 .1083 N 120 120 120 120 Std. 3.34861 .77982 .49507 .49867 Deviation 2.00 Mean 1.3333 .1875 0.0000 .0625 N 48 48 48 48 Std. 1.83736 .64102 0.00000 .24462 Deviation Total Mean 3.0833 .2560 .0595 .0952 N 168 168 168 168 Std. 3.18946 .74220 .41961 .44099 Deviation

Table 4B: Means - Communication Behaviors by Subgroup

Declarative/ Problematic/ Descriptive/ Escape Fun Excuse Corrective Interrogative recoded seasons Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference 1.00 Mean .0667 .2521 .1667 .3083 .1333 N 120 119 120 120 120 Std. .38312 .62732 .53974 .73102 .36515 Deviation 2.00 Mean .0625 .1042 .0625 .4375 .1250 N 48 48 48 48 48 Std. .24462 .42474 .24462 .82272 .48925 Deviation Total Mean .0655 .2096 .1369 .3452 .1310 N 168 167 168 168 168 Std. .34848 .57908 .47608 .75809 .40298 Deviation

Table 4C: Multivariate Testsa by Sex and Season Subgroup Partial Hyp. Error Observed Effect Value F Sig. Eta df df Powerc Squared Pillai's 0.101 1.945b 9 155 0.049 0.101 0.827 Trace Wilks' 0.899 1.945b 9 155 0.049 0.101 0.827 Lambda Sex Hotelling's 0.113 1.945b 9 155 0.049 0.101 0.827 Trace Roy's Largest 0.113 1.945b 9 155 0.049 0.101 0.827 Root Pillai's 0.163 3.355b 9 155 0.001 0.163 0.982 Trace Wilks' 0.837 3.355b 9 155 0.001 0.163 0.982 Lambda Season Hotelling's 0.195 3.355b 9 155 0.001 0.163 0.982 Trace Roy's Largest 0.195 3.355b 9 155 0.001 0.163 0.982 Root Pillai's 0.034 .609b 9 155 0.788 0.034 0.292 Trace Wilks' 0.966 .609b 9 155 0.788 0.034 0.292 Lambda sex * Hotelling's season 0.035 .609b 9 155 0.788 0.034 0.292 Trace Roy's Largest 0.035 .609b 9 155 0.788 0.034 0.292 Root a. Design: Intercept + sex + season + sex * season b. Exact statistic c. Computed using alpha = .05

Table 4D: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects - by Sex and Subgroup Type III Partial d Mean Obs. Source Sum of F Sig. Eta f Square Powera Squares Squared

Consumption Display 39.029 1 39.029 4.64 0.033 0.028 0.572

Physical Intoxication 4.074 1 4.074 7.73 0.006 0.045 0.79 Sign

Promiscuous Behavior 0.037 1 0.037 0.20 0.649 0.001 0.074

Violent Behavior 0.075 1 0.075 0.38 0.538 0.002 0.094

Escape Reference 0.571 1 0.571 4.75 0.031 0.028 0.582 Sex Fun Reference 2.816 1 2.816 9.10 0.003 0.053 0.851

Excuse Reference 0.643 1 0.643 2.92 0.089 0.018 0.398

Problematic/Corrective 1.52 1 1.52 2.65 0.105 0.016 0.367 Reference

Declarative/Descriptive/ 0.02 1 0.02 0.12 0.723 0.001 0.064 Interrogative Reference

Consumption Display 207.844 1 207.84 24.7 .003 0.132 0.999

Physical Intoxication 0.319 1 0.319 0.60 0.438 0.004 0.121 Sign

Promiscuous Behavior 0.24 1 0.24 1.34 0.247 0.008 0.211

Season Violent Behavior 0.075 1 0.075 0.38 0.538 0.002 0.094

Escape Reference 0.001 1 0.001 0.00 0.944 0 0.051

Fun Reference 0.733 1 0.733 2.37 0.126 0.014 0.334

Excuse Reference 0.374 1 0.374 1.70 0.194 0.01 0.254

Problematic/Corrective 0.556 1 0.556 0.97 0.326 0.006 0.165 Reference

Declarative/Descriptive/ 0.003 1 0.003 0.01 0.897 0 0.052 Interrogative Reference

Consumption Display 27.8 1 27.8 3.30 0.071 0.02 0.44

Physical Intoxication 0.098 1 0.098 0.18 0.667 0.001 0.071 Sign

Promiscuous Behavior 0.037 1 0.037 0.20 0.649 0.001 0.074

Violent Behavior 0.001 1 0.001 0.00 0.945 0 0.051

Escape Reference 0.001 1 0.001 0.00 0.944 0 0.051 sex * season Fun Reference 0.211 1 0.211 0.68 0.41 0.004 0.13

Excuse Reference 0.311 1 0.311 1.41 0.236 0.009 0.219

Problematic/Corrective 0 1 0 0 0.985 0 0.05 Reference

Declarative/Descriptive/ 0.397 1 0.397 2.44 0.12 0.015 0.343 Interrogative Reference

Overall, the only physical behavior that changed across seasons was the display or consumption of alcohol. Alcohol was shown with or consumed by characters almost four times less frequently in season 6 (M=1.33, SD=1.83) than in seasons 1-5 (M=3.78,

SD=3.35). In addition, the variability for the number of displays also decreased dramatically. Contrary to what would be expected, there was no change in communication behaviors related to alcohol and its use between season subgroups, despite the decrease in physical behaviors. This may be due to the fact that, as mentioned in the report of results for Research Question 2, communication behaviors occurred at a much lower rate than physical behaviors.

Additional tests were run excluding characters “Snooki,” and “Mike,” to determine if the previous analyses were only due to the behavior changes of these two individuals. A drop in physical behaviors might be expected, given that “Snooki,” was unable to drink due to pregnancy and “Mike,” was undergoing treatment for substance abuse. The additional analysis excluding these characters shows whether or not there was a change in behavior for the other characters as well.

A multivariate analysis of variance was run with results reported in Table 5A. A significant main effect F(113, 9) = 3.15, p=.002, eta2=.2, was found using the Hotelling’s

Trace criterion for season subgroups. Tests of between-subjects effects are reported in table 5B and revealed a significant effect for “consumption display,” F(105.44, 1) =

12.44, p=.001, eta2=.093. This finding mirrors the results of the previous analysis, indicating that the drop in consumption displays was not only attributed to “Snooki” and

“Mike,” but also was reflected by the other characters as well. In addition, similar to

Table 5A: Multivariate Testsa - Character Exclusions

Partial Hyp Error Eta Observed Effect Value F df df Sig. Squared Powerc Season Pillai's .200 3.148b 9.0 113.0 .002 .200 .971 Trace Wilks' .800 3.148b 9.0 113.0 .002 .200 .971 Lambda Hotelling's .251 3.148b 9.0 113.0 .002 .200 .971 Trace Roy's .251 3.148b 9.0 113.0 .002 .200 .971 Largest Root Sex Pillai's .125 1.798b 9.0 113.0 .076 .125 .780 Trace Wilks' .875 1.798b 9.0 113.0 .076 .125 .780 Lambda Hotelling's .143 1.798b 9.0 113.0 .076 .125 .780 Trace Roy's .143 1.798b 9.0 113.0 .076 .125 .780 Largest Root season Pillai's .065 .875b 9.0 113.0 .550 .065 .416 * sex Trace Wilks' .935 .875b 9.0 113.0 .550 .065 .416 Lambda Hotelling's .070 .875b 9.0 113.0 .550 .065 .416 Trace Roy's .070 .875b 9.0 113.0 .550 .065 .416 Largest Root a. Design: Intercept + season + sex + season * sex b. Exact statistic c. Computed using alpha = .05

Table 5B: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects - Character Exclusion

Type III Partial Sum of Mean Eta Source Squares df Square F Sig. Squared Powera Seaso Consumption Display 105.44 1 105.44 12.39 .001 .093 .937 n Physical Intoxication .018 1 .018 .042 .838 .000 .055 Sign

Promiscuous Behavior .158 1 .158 .783 .378 .006 .142

Violent Behavior .212 1 .212 .830 .364 .007 .148

Escape Reference .079 1 .079 5.384 .022 .043 .634

Fun Reference .001 1 .001 .003 .954 .000 .050

Excuse Reference .117 1 .117 .924 .338 .008 .159

Problematic/Corrective .561 1 .561 1.144 .287 .009 .186 Reference

Declarative/Descriptive .006 1 .006 .035 .852 .000 .054 /Interrogative Reference

Sex Consumption Display 19.477 1 19.477 2.290 .133 .019 .324

Physical Intoxication 2.373 1 2.373 5.542 .020 .044 .646 Sign

Promiscuous Behavior .003 1 .003 .014 .907 .000 .052

Violent Behavior .032 1 .032 .126 .724 .001 .064

Escape Reference .079 1 .079 5.384 .022 .043 .634

Fun Reference 1.075 1 1.075 6.020 .016 .047 .682

Excuse Reference .077 1 .077 .610 .436 .005 .121

Problematic/Corrective .742 1 .742 1.514 .221 .012 .231 Reference

Declarative/Descriptive .001 1 .001 .003 .957 .000 .050 /Interrogative Reference

season Consumption Display .573 1 .573 .067 .796 .001 .058 * sex

Physical Intoxication .183 1 .183 .428 .514 .004 .100 Sign

Promiscuous Behavior .003 1 .003 .014 .907 .000 .052

Violent Behavior .032 1 .032 .126 .724 .001 .064

Escape Reference .079 1 .079 5.384 .022 .043 .634

Fun Reference .137 1 .137 .764 .384 .006 .140

Excuse Reference .077 1 .077 .610 .436 .005 .121

Problematic/Corrective .000 1 .000 .001 .980 .000 .050 Reference

Declarative/Descriptive .093 1 .093 .513 .475 .004 .110 /Interrogative Reference

a. Computed using alpha = .05

65 previous findings, there was no significant difference for “physical intoxication,” power

= .055, “promiscuous behavior,” power = .142, and “violent behavior,” power = .148.

In the communication behaviors category a significant difference was found for

“escape references,” F(.079,1) = 5.38, p=.022, eta2=.008, a finding different from previous analyses with characters “Snooki” and “Mike” included. Findings for the other communication behaviors were, however, similar with no significant difference for “fun references,” power = .050, “excuse referces,” power = .159, and “problematic/corrective references,” power = .186.

Overall, the means, reported in Table 5C, show a consumption rate in the earlier seasons (M=3.56, SD=3.26) over two times higher than in season 6 (M=1.52, SD=1.84).

While the previous results including “Snooki” and “Mike” indicated a larger difference by season subgroup for consumption displays, the results of the second analysis excluding these characters still reflect a significant drop in the behavior from seasons 1-5 to season 6. In addition, like the previous analysis, the variability for consumption displays shrunk in season 6.

Research Question 4:

The fourth research question asked, “Is there a difference between the display of drinking behaviors and communication practices between men and women?” This research question sought to determine if there was a difference between physical and communicative behaviors, related to alcohol and its consumption, between men and women. This information is important in understanding gender roles and expectations.

Table 5C: Descriptive Statistics - Character Exclusions Std. recoded seasons Mean Deviation N Consumption Display 1.00 Male 3.05 3.03 44 Female 4.07 3.44 45 Total 3.56 3.26 89 2.00 Male 1.17 1.69 18 Female 1.89 1.97 18 Total 1.53 1.84 36 Total Male 2.50 2.83 62 Female 3.44 3.23 63 Total 2.98 3.06 125 Physical Intoxication Sign 1.00 Male 0.11 0.49 44 Female 0.33 0.74 45 Total 0.22 0.64 89 2.00 Male 0.06 0.24 18 Female 0.44 0.98 18 Total 0.25 0.73 36 Total Male 0.10 0.43 62 Female 0.37 0.81 63 Total 0.23 0.66 125 Promiscuous Behavior 1.00 Male 0.07 0.45 44 Female 0.09 0.60 45 Total 0.08 0.53 89 2.00 Male 0.00 0.00 18 Female 0.00 0.00 18 Total 0.00 0.00 36 Total Male 0.05 0.38 62 Female 0.06 0.50 63 Total 0.06 0.45 125 Violent Behavior 1.00 Male 0.18 0.66 44 Female 0.11 0.49 45 Total 0.15 0.58 89 2.00 Male 0.06 0.24 18 Female 0.06 0.24 18 Total 0.06 0.23 36 Total Male 0.15 0.57 62 Female 0.10 0.43 63 Total 0.12 0.50 125 Escape Reference 1.00 Male 0.00 0.00 44 Female 0.00 0.00 45 Total 0.00 0.00 89

2.00 Male 0.00 0.00 18 Female 0.11 0.32 18 Total 0.06 0.23 36 Total Male 0.00 0.00 62 Female 0.03 0.18 63 Total 0.02 0.13 125 Fun Reference 1.00 Male 0.07 0.25 44 Female 0.20 0.50 45 Total 0.13 0.40 89 2.00 Male 0.00 0.00 18 Female 0.28 0.67 18 Total 0.14 0.49 36 Total Male 0.05 0.22 62 Female 0.22 0.55 63 Total 0.14 0.43 125 Excuse Reference 1.00 Male 0.07 0.25 44 Female 0.18 0.49 45 Total 0.12 0.39 89 2.00 Male 0.06 0.24 18 Female 0.06 0.24 18 Total 0.06 0.23 36 Total Male 0.06 0.25 62 Female 0.14 0.43 63 Total 0.10 0.36 125 Problematic/Corrective Reference 1.00 Male 0.18 0.39 44 Female 0.36 0.86 45 Total 0.27 0.67 89 2.00 Male 0.33 0.77 18 Female 0.50 0.79 18 Total 0.42 0.77 36 Total Male 0.23 0.53 62 Female 0.40 0.83 63 Total 0.31 0.70 125 Declarative/Descriptive/Interrogative 1.00 Male 0.09 0.29 44 Reference Female 0.16 0.42 45 Total 0.12 0.36 89 2.00 Male 0.17 0.71 18 Female 0.11 0.32 18 Total 0.14 0.54 36 Total Male 0.11 0.45 62 Female 0.14 0.40 63 Total 0.13 0.42 125

Means for both men and women for each behavior in seasons 1-6 were computed and are reported in Table 6. Multivariate tests of variance are reported in Table 4C and a significant main effect F(155,9) = 1.94, p=.049, was found for sex. Tests of between subjects effects, shown in table 4D, revealed significant differences between sexes for physical behaviors including “consumption display,” F(39.01, 1) = 4.64, p=.033, eta2 =

.028, and “physical intoxication sign,” F(4.07,1) = 7.73, p = .006, eta2 = .045. No significant difference was found for “promiscuous behavior,” observed power = .074, and

“violent behavior,” observed power = .094, with power again being low due to the unit of analysis being character.

In the communicative behaviors category, significant differences were found between sexes for “escape references,” F(.57, 1) = 4.75, p = .031, eta2 = .028, and “fun reference,” F(2.82, 1) = 9.10, p = .003, eta2 = .053. Marginal significance F(.64,1) =

2.92, p = .089, was found for “excuse reference.” There was no significant difference between sexes for “problematic/corrective reference,” observed power = .367, and

“declarative/descriptive/interrogative reference,” observed power = .064.

Overall, females (M=3.82, SD=3.50) were shown drinking or possessing alcohol

1.6 times more frequently than males (M=2.34, SD=2.66) and in addition, females

(M=.44, SD=.94 were shown as intoxicated at a rate of over 6 times higher than their male (M=.07, SD=.37) counterparts. The results indicate that women drink more and are often more intoxicated than men in the show.

In the communication behaviors category, women (M=.131, SD=.485) were the only ones to make references that framed alcohol as a means of escape from daily life.

Women (M=.37, SD=.76) made almost 8 times as many positive references about alcohol

Table 6: Means - Physical and Communication Behaviors by Sex 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Std. Std. Lower Upper N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound Consumption Display Male 84 2.345 2.664 0.291 1.767 2.923 Female 84 3.821 3.503 0.382 3.061 4.582 Total 168 3.083 3.189 0.246 2.598 3.569 Physical Intoxication Male 84 0.071 0.373 0.041 -0.010 0.152 Sign Female 84 0.440 0.949 0.104 0.235 0.646 Total 168 0.256 0.742 0.057 0.143 0.369 Promiscuous Behavior Male 84 0.036 0.327 0.036 -0.035 0.107 Female 84 0.083 0.496 0.054 -0.024 0.191 Total 168 0.060 0.420 0.032 -0.004 0.123 Violent Behavior Male 84 0.119 0.501 0.055 0.010 0.228 Female 84 0.071 0.373 0.041 -0.010 0.152 Total 168 0.095 0.441 0.034 0.028 0.162 Escape Reference Male 84 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Female 84 0.131 0.485 0.053 0.026 0.236 Total 168 0.065 0.348 0.027 0.012 0.119 Fun Reference Male 83 0.048 0.215 0.024 0.001 0.095 Female 84 0.369 0.757 0.083 0.205 0.533 Total 167 0.210 0.579 0.045 0.121 0.298 Excuse Reference Male 84 0.048 0.214 0.023 0.001 0.094 Female 84 0.226 0.628 0.068 0.090 0.362 Total 168 0.137 0.476 0.037 0.064 0.209 Problematic/Corrective Male 84 0.238 0.551 0.060 0.118 0.358 Reference Female 84 0.452 0.911 0.099 0.255 0.650 Total 168 0.345 0.758 0.058 0.230 0.461 Declarative/Descriptive Male 84 0.095 0.399 0.044 0.009 0.182 /Interrogative Female 84 0.167 0.406 0.044 0.079 0.255 Reference Total 168 0.131 0.403 0.031 0.070 0.192

70 than men (M=.05, SD=.22). Women were much more likely to frame alcohol as a means to have fun than men. In addition, females (M=.23, SD=.63) made almost 5 times as many “excuse references,” than males (M=.05, SD=.21), which means that women were much more likely to use alcohol as an excuse of inappropriate behavior resulting from intoxication. Men made similar numbers of fun and excuse references, but the highest number of remarks fell in the problematic or corrective (M=.24, SD=.55) category.

Although there was no significant difference in this category between males and females, it is interesting to note that on average, women (M=.45, SD=.91) made twice as many negative messages related to alcohol than men.

Research Question 5:

The fifth research question asked, “Is there a significant interaction by sex and recoded season subgroups?” to determine if, in addition to the presence of difference by subgroups was found, sex also played a factor.

A multivariate analysis of variance test was conducted to determine if there was an interaction by sex and season subgroup, and results are reported in Table 5C; no overall significant main effect was found using the Hotelling’s Trace criterion, observed power = .292. Multivariate tests of between subjects effects, reported in Table 5B did indicate a marginally significant difference F(1,167) = 3.31, p = .071, for the

“consumption display,” for the interaction of sex by season recode. Again, while no significant interaction was found, it is interesting to note that the difference for females across seasons was more notable than the difference for males, as reported in Table 7.

This behavior for females was highest in the early seasons (M=4.78. SD=.37) as was also the case for males (M=2.81, SD=.38). However, the difference between females

Table 7: Means - Participant Sex * Recoded Seasons 95% Confidence Interval Std. Lower Upper Dependent Variable Mean Error Bound Bound Consumption Display Male 1 2.814 .377 2.068 3.559 2 1.250 .592 .082 2.418 Female 1 4.783 .374 4.044 5.522 2 1.417 .592 .248 2.585 Physical Intoxication Sign Male 1 .085 .094 -.102 .271 2 .042 .148 -.251 .334 Female 1 .483 .094 .298 .668 2 .333 .148 .041 .626 Promiscuous Behavior Male 1 .051 .055 -.058 .159 2 3.311E- .086 -.170 .170 17 Female 1 .117 .054 .009 .224 2 -4.005E- .086 -.170 .170 17 Violent Behavior Male 1 .136 .058 .021 .250 2 .083 .091 -.096 .263 Female 1 .083 .057 -.030 .197 2 .042 .091 -.138 .221 Escape Reference Male 1 2.776E- .045 -.089 .089 17 2 8.327E- .071 -.140 .140 17 Female 1 .133 .045 .045 .222 2 .125 .071 -.015 .265 Fun Reference Male 1 .068 .072 -.075 .211 2 5.551E- .114 -.224 .224 17 Female 1 .433 .072 .292 .575 2 .208 .114 -.016 .433 Excuse Reference Male 1 .051 .061 -.070 .171 2 .042 .096 -.147 .231 Female 1 .283 .061 .164 .403 2 .083 .096 -.106 .272 Problematic/Corrective Reference Male 1 .203 .099 .009 .398 2 .333 .155 .028 .639 Female 1 .417 .098 .224 .610 2 .542 .155 .236 .847 Declarative/Descriptive/Interrogative Male 1 .068 .052 -.036 .171

Reference 2 .167 .082 .004 .329 Female 1 .200 .052 .097 .303 2 .083 .082 -.079 .246

(M=1.41, SD=.592) and males (M=1.25, SD=.592) in season 6 was much less notable.

These results indicate that not only was the display or consumption of alcohol by characters displayed less on season 6 as compared to seasons 1-5, but the variation between male and female behaviors shrank as well.

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to investigate the physical behaviors and communication practices related to alcohol, of characters appearing in MTV’s hit series

Jersey Shore. A content analysis was conducted to better understand how characters engage in drinking and risk related behaviors as well as how they frame these experiences. Research questions were designed to explore character behaviors and to determine if these behaviors varied by character sex and/or season. The earlier seasons

(1-5) were grouped together and compared to season 6 after two characters had life changing experiences between seasons 5 and 6. “Snooki” announced her unplanned pregnancy and “Mike” underwent treatment for substance abuse.

The results reveal some interesting answers to the research questions. Displays and the consumption of alcohol was the most frequently observed behavior, although communication related to alcohol use occurred at a much lower rate. Additionally, when references were made to drinking and related behaviors, negative references outweighed positive references. When behaviors were compared by season subgroups (seasons 1-5

75 versus season 6), the average display of consumption decreased over time, which was expected given that one fourth of the participants were no longer able to drink due to physical constraints. It is interesting, however, that the communication practices changed very little, given the life changing events of two characters preceding season 6.

When comparisons were made by sex, results revealed findings that both challenge and support expectations related to gender research. For example, research related to alcohol consumption patterns by sex indicates that men consume more alcohol and drink more often than women (Roberts, 2012). Results from this study indicate the opposite -- women consumed alcohol at a much higher rate than did men. These findings may have serious implications on both the characters themselves as well as the audience members who may model their behavior based on parasocial relationships and identification with the characters.

Research Questions

The following sections will provide a more specific analysis of the results above as they pertain to each research question.

Research Question 1:

The first research question asked, “How are alcohol and related drinking behaviors displayed on MTV’s Jersey Shore?” The results indicated that out of the four behaviors coded, consumption occurred most frequently, at a rate of 25 times per episode.

Each episode is approximately 40 minutes in length, with commercials, spanning the course of an hour. The rate at which drinking acts occur in Jersey Shore is over four times the overall average for prime time television, and almost twice that of the closest genre type, evening soap operas, where drinking acts occur at a rate of 13.3 acts per hour

(Wallack et al., 1990). Drinking appears to play a central role in the plotline of each episode of Jersey Shore.

While the average character was shown drinking around three times per episode, it is important to point out that the wide degree of variability for the consumption display means allows for many instances of binge drinking that may be countered by instances where there was no drinking. For example, in one episode a single character was shown drinking alcohol 14 times, but in another episode was not shown in possession of alcohol once. Recalling that the CDC defines binge drinking as consuming more than 4 drinks during a single occasion for women and 5 drinks for men, a character displaying 14 drinking acts in an hour time span is cause for concern.

In addition, “low risk” drinking is defined by the National Institute on Alcohol

Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAA, 2009) as drinking no more than 3 drinks per day for women and no more than 4 drinks per day for men. The average character seems to fit this category, not factoring for the sex differences which will be discussed in a later section, but this finding has two implications. First, while low risk drinking patterns are less likely to lead to chronic conditions, these patterns do not remove the potential to suffer acute effects related to alcohol use, including physical and sexual assaults, injuries, and death (Hoeppner et al., 2013). Secondly, if only the average consumption rate is considered, without considering the degree of behavioral variability from episode to episode, viewers may entirely overlook risk factors.

The perception of low risk may also be compounded by the fact that only one display of intoxication was observed for twelve observed drinking acts. This demonstrates a huge gap between the rate at which alcohol is consumed and how often its

77 effects are shown by the characters. What is also concerning is the disparity between the number of drinking acts and the prevalence of promiscuous and violent acts. Research conducted by the CDC and the NIAA demonstrate a link between alcohol use and both unsafe sexual behaviors and increased violence, but the current study results do not demonstrate this correlation. When promiscuous behavior is compared to the total frequency of consumption displays, the number of promiscuous acts accounts for only

2% of the number of drinking acts observed. In addition, violent behavior occurred only

3% of the time that consumption also occurred. Overall, drinking was shown quite frequently, but behaviors that might connect alcohol to negative consequences were rarely observed.

Research Question 2:

The second research question asked, “How do the characters of MTV’s Jersey

Shore communicate about alcohol and related drinking behaviors?” Problematic or corrective references occurred the most, and served to frame alcohol and related behaviors negatively in terms of potential or real consequences. References such as “I’m hungover,” indicate that the character is aware that drinking is the cause of their negative physical state. In addition, references such as, “Trying to talk to Sammi when I’m drunk is like pouring kerosene on a fire,” or “When you drink you literally become a hothead…it’s scary,” show that the characters are aware that alcohol serves as a catalyst to negative behavior, increasing the likelihood of consequences that would otherwise not occur in the absence of alcohol. Problematic and corrective references accounted for close to 40% of all reference types.

This finding contradicts VandendBulck, Simons, and Van Gorp’s (2000) study of another MTV series The OC, where the most popularly applied frames classified alcohol as an “obligatory outlet” and “escapism.” (p. 933) It is important to note that The OC has a similar demographic in terms of characters and target audience as Jersey Shore, but unlike Jersey Shore, The OC is classified as scripted fiction. Research comparing scripted versus reality frames would be worthwhile in order to more clearly construct health interventions. Institutional cultivation analysis (Gerbner et al, 1986) would also provide a richer understanding of MTV’s intentions concerning how audience members process alcohol consumption and related messages.

Roughly 23% of all alcohol related messages described alcohol as a means to have fun and demonstrated a connection between alcohol use and positive outcomes. It is interesting to note that negative alcohol messages outnumbered positive alcohol messages nearly 2 to 1. This finding contradicts what is expected based on previous literature on prime time media, which primarily associates alcohol with pleasurable social interactions and a lack or negative consequences and moral disapproval (VandenBulck et al., 2000).

References that framed alcohol as a means to excuse behavior associated with its use consisted of 15% of overall references. This means that characters were almost three times as likely to be straightforward about negative behaviors related to alcohol use through problematic or corrective references, rather than attribute behavior they deemed as negative (such as overreacting in a situation, or acting promiscuously) on being intoxicated. Taking into account that Jersey Shore is considered by academics as one of the most self-referential and reflexive shows on television, with some of the most self-

79 aware participants8 (Caramanica, 2011), the results indicate a strong inclination for characters to take verbal responsibility for negative consequences when it comes to drinking. This finding does offer hope in terms of how audiences might receive these messages and form social scripts related to alcohol and negative outcomes. If audience members see characters with whom they have parasocial relationships or seek to identify associating drinking with negative outcomes, and in addition, taking responsibility for these outcomes, they may be more likely to do the same in their own lives.

Connectedness studies show how the relationships viewers develop with characters, relate to the development of attitudes and behaviors related to alcohol consumption (Russel & Stern, 2006). It may be difficult however for viewers to determine the overall views a character holds because these same characters often alternate between anti- and pro-alcohol messages. This means that the actual message is often mixed. The results of this study mirror others, in that the same characters were often shown both rejecting and endorsing alcohol (Russel & Russel, 2008) sometimes even in the same episode. It’s expected that both positive and negative references would be made by characters, as their experiences would most likely not be mutually exclusive, but connectedness makes it difficult to predict audience impact if the specific messages lack overall consistency.

Cultivation Theory (Gerbner et al, 1986) may offer a framework for understanding potential audience impact by shifting the focus from connectedness to characters, to the resonance of specific messages. Viewers who have has similar negative

8 Throughout the course of an episode, scenes where the characters appear alone in a room that serves as a confessional, are inserted into the main storyline. Characters reflect on their actions and the actions of others, often putting them into perspective. This demonstrates that they are aware of their behaviors and how they might be perceived by others. 80 outcomes like the characters on the show, such as hangovers, injuries, risky sexual behavior, and even underwent substance abuse treatment, may be more receptive to the negative messages that frame alcohol in a way that matches their own experiences.

Conversely, if viewers have only had positive experiences related to alcohol use, the negative messages will resonate less, and may perhaps be ignored. In this light, what is being said is less important than who is saying it. Only 7% of references made framed alcohol as a means to escape or counter negativity encountered on a day to day basis by the characters. This finding also contradicts Vandenbulck and others’ (2000) research, which found “escapism” as a common frame for alcohol consumption. There are two possible explanations for this. One possibility is that the context of Jersey Shore concerns the day to day life of eight people at a summer vacation home, and, thus, the likelihood of encountering stress is much lower than a show like The OC, where the characters had more “real” experiences. Characters on Jersey Shore were given housing and transportation in return for working in a t-shirt shop on the boardwalk, and while it was unclear whether or not they received additional compensation for their work, money never seemed to be an issue when it came to things like tanning, shopping, groceries, and going out to nightclubs and bars. It would appear that the setting of Jersey Shore set the characters up for a mostly positive experience with few stressors that would call for the need to escape.

Another possible explanation of the lack of escape references might also be due to the already established overrepresentation of alcohol, and the greater tendency to frame alcohol as a positive means for fun, and sometimes to excuse bad behavior. The large degree to which alcohol was intertwined in day to day activities, combined with the

81 tendency to see alcohol more as a means for positive social interaction, may account for the framing of alcohol as a coping mechanism (escape) being least likely to occur. This finding has positive implications in terms of audience impact because the likelihood that young viewers will view alcohol as a means to cope for negative experiences may be much lower. While it does not counter cognitions such as, “I want to have fun, I should drink,” the lack of escape references does minimize potential cognitions such as, “I’ve had a bad day, and alcohol will make it all better.”

Research Question 3:

The third research question asked, “Is there a difference between seasons 1-5 and the final season of Jersey Shore in terms of both displayed behaviors and communication practices?” on the basis of character “Snooki’s” unplanned pregnancy and “Mike’s” treatment for substance abuse. The discussion of this research question will first focus on the physical behaviors category followed by a commentary on the communication practices.

Physical Behaviors: Results indicated similarity for physical behaviors, including displays of consumption, intoxication, promiscuity and violence, among seasons 1-5.

Season 6, however, showed the greatest degree of difference from the other seasons, and thus the comparison for behaviors in season 6 alone was warranted against seasons 1-5 as a whole. There was a significantly higher level of consumption displays in the first five seasons as compared to the final season. Drinking acts occurred in the preceding seasons at almost 3 times the rate observed in the final season.

This was expected because two characters did not consume alcohol at any time during the last season. This, however, does not mean the results can be explained solely

82 by taking “Snooki” and “Mike” out of the equation, because the comparisons are not based on specific characters and instead represent the group of characters as a whole.

While having a lower number of characters in the final season who could consume alcohol or display intoxication may explain an obvious drop in frequency of these behaviors, the comparisons were based on the “average character,” not the two in question, and thus the behavioral means still provide an interesting picture of decline.

Clearly “Snooki” and “Mike’s” lack or drinking played a role in seeing less consumption in the last season, but there are six other characters to consider.

The finding regarding a drop in overall consumption displays from seasons 1-5 to season 6 is corroborated by a significantly lower average of displays of intoxication.

Characters appeared intoxicated more often in the earlier seasons than in the final seasons. Again, it was expected that the average number of consumption displays would drop, perhaps dramatically, because eligibility to partake in drinking changed for some characters. If the results could only be explained in this manner, the instances of intoxication should drop at a similar rate to the consumption displays, and this was not the case. Characters appeared intoxicated 1.5 times less in season 6 compared to seasons

1-5. This may be due to other characters drinking less as a sign of support for the two who were no longer drinking. The difference may also be attributed to a shift in focus in the show’s plotline, where alcohol plays less of a central role, Snooki’s pregnancy became a new focus of the show, where both the planning of and her baby shower itself were key elements of the plot in two episodes.

When additional tests were run to compare earlier seasons to season 6 excluding these two characters, results for consumption still indicated a significant drop from

83 seasons 1-5 to season 6. While the decline in this behavior was not as large when

“Snooki” and “Mike” were not excluded, the results show that the consumption rates did drop for the other six characters from earlier seasons to the final season.

There was no difference between season 6 and the earlier seasons for displays of violence and promiscuity, but this can be attributed to the low frequency of occurrences of each and the and high variability both between the early seasons (1-5) and season 6 and among the seasons when compared as a whole. These two variables were not observed frequently or consistently enough to draw any type of meaningful conclusions.

Communicative Behaviors: Although there were no statistically significant differences in communication practices between the early seasons and the final seasons, the results are interesting on several accounts. First, problematic and corrective references were the most frequent reference type in both seasons 1-5 and season 6, and the averages were numerically very close. This is noteworthy because after an unplanned pregnancy, a consequence of drinking listed by the CDC, and substance abuse treatment, problematic and corrective references might be expected to increase in the final season.

The results did not show this to be the case. Instead, there was little change in the number of messages that discuss potential negative outcomes of drinking or that frame drinking in a negative manner. This could be explained by the characters not making the connection between “Snooki’s” pregnancy and “Mike’s” treatment and their own behavior. The lack of change might also be due to the fact that both the pregnancy and treatment began prior to filming, and characters may have already discussed the situations outside of the context of the show. If the pregnancy had been discovered on the show, and the substance abuse treatment had continued during filming, they likely

84 would have served a more central role in the plot, thus eliciting more conversation related to the role of alcohol in both.

While there was little change in negative alcohol related references, the number of positive “fun references” decreased by more than half in season 6 as compared to seasons

1-5. The likelihood that alcohol was framed as a means to have fun dramatically dropped in the final season, and this may be attributed to alcohol becoming less of a focal point in the plot. Another explanation may be that after seeing potential consequences, like becoming pregnant or developing a substance abuse problem, the degree to which characters associated alcohol with enjoyment decreased. The intent or reasoning behind this drop in frequency is irrelevant, however, when considering audience reception of messages. If the number of messages that connect alcohol to fun decrease, the potential for viewers to form social scripts reflecting this association may consequently drop.

Research Question 4:

The fourth research question asked, “Is there a difference between the display of drinking behaviors and communication practices between men and women?” Results will be first discussed by physical behaviors followed by communication behaviors.

Physical Behaviors: Results indicated that the rates of consumption displays and intoxication were significantly higher for females. Women were shown drinking at a rate

1.7 times higher than males, and showed signs of intoxication at a rate of over 6 times higher than their male counterparts. This demonstrates that females on Jersey Shore are not only more likely to drink, but they are noticeably more likely to display signs of intoxication as compared to males. This finding is interesting on two accounts. First, this finding contradicts previous research related to gender gaps and alcohol consumption that

85 indicate that not only do a higher proportion of men consume alcohol, but also, among drinkers, men drink more frequently and are more likely to be considered “risky” drinkers

(Roberts, 2012, p. 201). Recalling that low risk drinking is defined by the National

Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAA, 2009) as drinking no more than 3 drinks per day for women and no more than 4 drinks per day for men, the average Jersey

Shore female exceeds the minimum criteria, while the average male does not, suggesting that women on the show demonstrate a higher risk in terms of their consumption rates.

The contradictory findings of this study, in terms of female consumption exceeding male consumption rates, may be partially explained by research demonstrating that consumption behaviors and corresponding gender gaps vary by geographic region

(Roberts, 2012). In her study of gender gaps in alcohol consumption across the U.S.,

Roberts found that the difference between male and female drinking rates was larger in some states. Jersey Shore takes place in New Jersey, and it could be possible that the consumption rates are unique to this region of the country. It is, however, important to point out, that while Roberts (2012) indicated a smaller gap between male and female consumption rates in New Jersey, as compared to many other states, there were no states where women drank at a higher rate than men.

Regardless of the size of influence geographic location may have on the consumption rates of women and men, and whether or not the behaviors on the show are specific to other demographics represented in the characters, the fact remains that the patterns of drinking behavior are not consistent with social gender norms. If this phenomenon is unique to the Jersey Shore location, and/or the context of the show it is inconsequential to the possible socializing effects on the audience. The show is about the

86 behaviors of a cultural subgroup, but its target audience cuts across regional and cultural lines. Any viewer in any region, of any cultural subgroup stands to be affected by this subjugation of behavioral norms. Because these contradictory behaviors are accepted by the characters on the show, societal gender expectations may change as well.

Other findings related to promiscuous and violent displays contradict research that associates female drinking with promiscuity and male drinking with displays of masculinity (Bergmark, 2004), including violent physical displays, because men tend to exercise less constraint than women when intoxicated (Robbins & Martin, 1993). Results of the current study found no differences between males and females in terms of promiscuous or violent behavior resulting from alcohol use. Gender expectations that suggest that when intoxicated women will behave in a more sexually overt manner than men, and that men will be more likely to be violent over women, were not supported in this show.

Communicative Behaviors: Women on Jersey Shore made significantly more

“escape” and “fun” references than the men did, meaning they were more likely to see drinking as a means for social enjoyment as well as to alleviate day-to-day stress.

Research in gender and communication has shown that women tend to use communication as a means to establish and maintain relationships, and men tend to use communication more as a vehicle for task completion and asserting autonomy (Wood,

1996). These findings explain why Jersey Shore women were more likely than men to make references that link drinking to social enjoyment. Only women in this study made references that framed alcohol use as an excuse for potentially inappropriate behavior, perhaps as a means to maintain a positive image with the other characters. Image

87 management is essential in maintaining relationships, so it makes sense that these references were limited to female characters. The findings are also consistent with male gender norms of asserting autonomy because males would be less concerned with trying to “fit in” with their peers.

Problematic and corrective references appeared at first glance to be more task- oriented, in terms of addressing negative outcomes related to drinking, and thus the

Jersey Shore findings seem inconsistent with gender expectations. Although only marginally statistically significant, the results indicated that females made almost twice as many problematic or corrective messages related to alcohol consumptions as did their male counterparts. However, if the goal of addressing negative outcomes was to maintain positive peer relationships, instead of simply solving a problem, the findings can be considered consistent with gendered communication patterns where women talk about topical and communal problems in order to create and foster more intimate bonds

(Tannen, 1990).

It is important to note with regard to this research question that there is often more variability within sexes than between them, and the individual dispositions of the characters may account for some of the inconsistencies. For example, it is possible that the women in this study tend to behave and/or communicate in more masculine ways or, conversely, that the men in the study tend to behave and communicate in more feminine styles. Individual variability within sexes was outside of the scope of the current study, and is a site for further investigation. Considering the small number of characters on the show, however, individual variability is a likely issue.

Research Question 5:

Lastly, the fifth research question asked, “Is there a significant interaction by sex and recoded season subgroups?” This question investigated whether both sex and season number simultaneously affected physical and communication behaviors. Although no significant interaction was found between sex and season group factors, it is interesting to note some differences as they pertain to consumption displays. The results indicate that not only did fewer consumption displays occur in season 6 compared to seasons 1-5, the gender gap for this variable also shrank. The average number of consumption displays for women was almost double the number for men in seasons 1-5, but in season 6 the average consumption rate for females decreased considerably to converge towards the average for men. The average number of displays also decreased for men to about half as many in season 6 as compared to seasons 1-5, but not as much as for women, whose average for season 6 was almost 4 times lower than the average for seasons 1-5. These findings imply that the four women were impacted more than the four men in terms of the changes of behavior between season subgroups.

Practical Implications

The aim of this study was to bridge the gap between health communication and reality television research, to provide an understanding of how alcohol related messages stand to impact viewers. The results indicated that alcohol consumption was displayed at a much higher rate on Jersey Shore than average prime time programming, and both instances where characters were shown as being physically affected by such heavy consumption, and messages that expressed potential negative outcomes, occurred at a much lower rate compared to the drinking itself. This is alarming in terms of the lessons

89 young viewers may take away from the disparity between consumption, physical risks, and messages that warn against potential negative outcomes.

Overall, characters did not appear to be susceptible to major health risks related to alcohol use. Even though “Mike’s” substance abuse treatment was mentioned throughout season 6, no clear connections were made between the behavior of other characters and the possibility that they too may prone to addiction issues. While some negative outcomes were shown, with corresponding problematic and corrective references, these outcomes did not reflect severity. For example, throughout the show “Ron, “ Snooki,” and “Deena” were arrested at different times for public intoxication, but these instances were not taken seriously by either those arrested, or the other characters. Following

“Deena’s” arrest9 “Ron” and “Sammy” continue to drink after their housemate is taken to the police station, laughing the situation off. In addition, upon her return to the house

“Deena” is congratulated and welcomed by her housemates framing her arrest as some kind of positive accomplishment that solidifies her membership to the group.

The Health Belief Model (Rosenstock, 1966; Eisen & Zellman, 1990; Rosenstock,

Strecher & Becker, 1988) and Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1986) predict that viewers may ignore severe health risks, not see themselves as susceptible to negative outcomes, and may also see more rewards than costs, such as group membership versus not “fitting in”, to alcohol consumption and abuse.

In order to counter potential health risks for viewers who may model their attitudes and behavior after show participants, more messages that warn viewers of the potential health risks related to alcohol consumption need to appear in the show.

9 Season 6, Episode 5 and 6 90

For many programs that portray potentially harmful behavior, a brief message appears at the end of an episode that directs viewers to some kind of helpline if they or someone they know is suffering from the problem portrayed. For example, a show depicting a sexual assault may include a number for a rape crisis hotline before or after rolling the credits. While these interventions have good intentions, their position at the end of the show may make them less effective because viewers may devote less attention to them because they happen outside of the context of the episode. Additionally, viewers may have already changed the channel before they appear. In addition to placing important information, such as crisis hotlines, at the end of an episode, embedding health related messages within the context of the episode may have a greater positive impact.

As mentioned before, in Jersey Shore there are many self-reflection cutaways where characters comment on their or others’ behavior as it happens in the show. These cutaways provide an excellent site for health interventions by allowing the characters to disseminate messages as they happen, helping the audience make more direct connections between the negative behavior and possible health risks. For example, following a night during which a character has too much to drink and ends up wandering off alone,10 a cutaway scene could follow where the character says, “I know it was really dangerous for me to walk home alone intoxicated, I’m lucky I didn’t get sexually assaulted.” A character could reflect on their prior arrest for public intoxication by saying, “this incident is going to be on my permanent record,” comment about how expensive the fine is, or even mention that “it’s okay to go out and even get a little tipsy, but being so drunk you get hauled away in handcuffs is not.” Any cutaway scene is a potentially missed site

10 In season 4 “Snooki” gets highly intoxicated at a nightclub in Italy, and ends up staggering home alone very late at night. 91 for intervention in which a character could express regret for their behavior. Even if the message isn’t directly health related such as, “I’m so embarrassed I was falling down drunk last night,” this type of message will impact audience attitudes related to high risk behavior. Potential social embarrassment may serve as a barrier to becoming intoxicated.

Literature on reality television has already pointed out that the audience is both aware and accepting of the fact that some scripting does occur for plotlines, and so it follows that inserting these types of health interventions would most likely not be contested. Characters could be given prompts such as, “how does it make you feel that people don’t want to be around you when you’re drunk?” to facilitate such reflection, that would serve to counter messages that frame drinking as fun and low risk. In addition, it may be difficult to get the characters to reflect in this manner as the event is happening, and the cutaways provide a much better site for these reflective messages.

Limitations

Although the results of this study advance an understanding of the types of behaviors and messages portrayed in reality television, there are some limitations that must be addressed.

The first limitation concerns the sample, which randomly selected episodes from each season. Although this technique was effective in achieving a desired sample size, it does not account for behavioral variations in the plot sequences from episode to episode, within seasons. It is possible that the episodes selected were not representative of each season as a whole. Some episodes may contain more or less of the target behaviors based on their position in season sequence. For example, one episode may contain a large number of the physical displays and then the following episode may be mainly devoted to

92 communicating about any outcomes of the preceding show. This may affect the overall picture of both physical and communicative behaviors, and consequently, the analysis. In addition, using character as the unit of analysis, as well as the number of tests run resulted in low power and a high risk for error.

Another limitation resides in the selection of the show itself as an area for study.

Jersey Shore is about a cultural subgroup in a specific context and the results may not be representative of the “docusoap” genre of reality television as a whole. It is possible that the behavior and communication practices observed are unique to the particular niche group portrayed in the show, making it difficult to say whether or not the conclusions can be more generally applied. The participants are culturally homogenous, and the observations might be unique only to this particular subculture.

Suggestions for Future Research:

This study was helpful in understanding the portrayals of behaviors and communication practices related to alcohol on reality television. To increase understanding even more, there are several directions that future studies could take.

To address the limitations of the current study, future research could include a more comprehensive look at each season. This would allow for a more accurate picture of the portrayed behaviors. In addition, other reality shows of the “docusoap” genre, both on MTV and other networks, could be included as an area for study. This would aid in determining whether or not the conclusions made in the current study are representative of just Jersey Shore, the MTV network, or reality television as a whole.

Through the course of this study the potential for negative health outcomes, for viewers who might model the behavior of characters on the show, became increasingly

93 alarming. Future studies should be aimed at measuring the actual impact the show has on viewers in terms of their behaviors and attitudes related to drinking paired with their viewing habits and attitudes towards Jersey Shore and reality television in general. An understanding of what types of messages audiences remember from the show and their own attitudes and behaviors related to alcohol would provide a rich understanding that could be used to tailor targeted health interventions. Reality television is a format that does not seem to be waning in popularity, and more studies devoted to understanding the messages it portrays and their effects on audiences would be highly beneficial to society.

Conclusion

The goal of this study was to provide an understanding of alcohol and risk related behaviors, and analyze their portrayal in the popular MTV series Jersey Shore. Social

Learning Theory, Social Cognitive Theory, and Social Norms Theory used in conjunction with The Health Belief Model provided a strong rationale for investigating the potential impact on negative health outcomes on viewers who identify with characters portrayed in the media. Reality formats may pose an even higher risk of these negative health outcomes because the line between fact and fiction is not as clear as it is in scripted formats. This risk may be even more elevated for young viewers who identify with and wish to emulate the behaviors of celebrities. In addition, reality formats allow people who may be classified as “normal everyday people,” to be elevated to celebrity status, and thus viewers may identify with characters even more. The current study revealed several frames for interpretation of alcohol and risk related behaviors, and evaluated whether or not there was a change in behavior after two characters experienced life changing events that can be attributed to alcohol consumption. While there was a decrease in

94 consumption rates between seasons prior to the events, the communication practices did not change, indicating that characters did not see a connection between alcohol use and negative outcomes, and this has the potential to amplify negative outcomes on viewers.

The findings related to gender also are cause for concern because such presentations may encourage even more negative behavior in female viewers because of the acceptance of high rates of drinking in female characters by other characters on the show. An increase in both awareness and education of the negative health impacts of heavy alcohol use could potentially minimize negative effects on the formation of social norms of young viewers. Reality television has made a stronghold in network programming and more research designed to understand the messages it contains and the impact it has on society is definitely warranted.

REFERENCES

Anagnostopoulos, F., Buchanan, H., Frousiounioti, S., Niakas, D., & Potamianos, G.

(2011). Self-efficacy and oral hygiene beliefs about toothbrushing in dental

patients: A model-guided study. Behavioral Medicine, 37(4), 132-139.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall

Bandura, A. J. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive

theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura,, (February 2001). Social Cognitive Theory: An agentic perspective. Annual

Review of Psychology 52 (1): 1–26.

Bauder, D. (2005). Poll: Viewers beginning to tire from reality TV. The Spokesman-

Review, September 18th, 2005.

Beck, D., Hellmueler, L. C., & Aeschbacher, N. (2012). Factual entertainment and

Reality TV. Communication Research Trends, 31. 4-27.

Bergmark, Katie H. 2004. "Gender Roles, Family, and Drinking: Women at the

Crossroad of Drinking Cultures." Journal of Family History 29 no. 3:293-307.

Berkowitz, A. D. (2004) The social norms approach: Theory, research, and annotated

bibliography. Retrieved from

http://www.alanberkowitz.com/articles/social_norms.pdf.

Brown, W. J., & Basil, M. D. (2010). Parasocial interaction and identification: Social

change processes for effective health interventions. Health Communication, 25,

601-602.

Bushman, B. J., Rowell Huesmann, L. (2001) In D. G. Singer & J. L. Singer (Eds.),

Handbook of children and the media (223-254). Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Cantor, J. (2001). Media and children’s fears and anxieties. In D. G. Singer & J. L.

Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (207-221). Thousand Oaks:

Sage Publications, Inc.

Caramanica, J. (2011). “Jersey Shore” arrives in academia. Discuss. The New York

Times, retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2011/10/31/arts/television/jersey-shore-

has-its-day-at-university-of-chicago.html?_r=0

Carter, B. (2011). “Jersey Shore” sets ratings record on MTV. The New York Times,

Retrieved 11/6/2011 from

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/jersey-shore-sets-ratings-

record-on-mtv/

Cohen, Jacob (1960). "A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales". Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 20 (1): 37–46.

Comstock, G., Sharrer, E. (2001). The use of television and other film-related media. In

D. G. Singer & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (47-71).

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Downey, K. (2006). The mixed message to kids. Broadcasting & Cable, 136(44), 22.

Eisen, M., & Zellman, G. L. (1990). Evaluating the Impact of a theory-based sexuality

and contraceptive education program. Family Planning Perspectives, 22, 261.

Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1986). Living with television: The

dynamics of the cultivation process. Perspectives on media effects, 17-40.

Hall, S. (1982). The rediscovery of “ideology”: Return of the repressed in media studies.

In M Gurevitch, T. Bennett, J. Curran, and J. Woolacott (Eds.) Culture, society,

and the media (56-90). London: Methuen.

Hall, S. (1983). The problem with ideology: Marxism without guarantees. In B.

Matthews (Ed.), Marx 100 years on (pp. 157-185). London: Lawrence and

Wishart.

Hoeppner, B. B., Paskausky, A. L., Jackson, K. M., & Barnett, N. P. (2013). Sex

differences in college student adherence to NIAA drinking guidelines.

Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 37, 1779-1786.

Hudson, B. (1984). Femininity and adolescence. In A. McRobbie and M. Nava (Eds).

Gender and generation. London: Macmillan.

Huntemann, N., Morgan, M. (2001). Mass media and identity development. In D. G.

Singer & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (309-322).

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

James, M. (2011). MTV remakes itself for the millennial generation. The Los Angeles

Times [online article]. Retrieved from:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/02/entertainment/la-ca-mtv-research-

20111002.

Kaiser Family Foundation and Children Now National Surveys: Talking with Kids about

Tough Issues. (2014, January 1). The Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation Kaiser

Family Foundation and Children Now National Surveys Talking with Kids about

ToughIssues Comments. Retrieved , from http://kff.org/hivaids/kaiser-family-

foundation-and-children-now-national/

Klaus, E. & Lucke, S. (2003). Reality TV: Definition und Merkmale einer erfogreichen

genrefamilie am beispiel von reality soap und docu soap. Medien &

Kommunikationswissenschaft, 51, 195-212.

Kline, K. (2011) Popular media and health: Images and effects. In T. Thompson, R.

Parrot, & J. Nussbaum (Eds), The Routledge handbook of health communication,

2nd Ed.(557-582). New York: Routledge.

Larson, R. (1995). Secrets in the bedroom: Adolescents’ private use of media. Journal of

Youth and Adolescence, 24, 535-550.

Lewis, L. A. (1990). Gender politics and MTV: Voicing the difference. Philadelphia:

Temple University Press.

Malamuth, N. M., & Impett, E. A. (2001). Research on sex in the media: What do we

know about effects on children and adolescents? In D. G. Singer & J. L. Singer

(Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (269-288). Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Milkie, M. A. ((1994). Social world approach to cultural studies: A longitudinal study.

Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 23, 354-380.

Miron, D., Bryant, J., & Zillman, D. (2001) In D. G. Singer & J. L. Singer (Eds.),

Handbook of children and the media (153-181). Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Murray, S., & Oullette, L. (2009). Introduction. In S. Murray & L. Oullette (eds.),

Reality TV: Remaking television culture 2nd ed (pp. 1-20). New York and

London: New York University Press.

Nabi, R. L. (2007). Determining dimensions of reality: A concept mapping of the reality

TV landscape. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51, 371-390.

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (2009). Rethinking drinking (NIH

Publication #09-3770), in Series Rethinking Drinking (NIH Publication #09-

3770). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, M.D.

Nelson, C. L., Mitchell, R. K., & E. Fife (2010) Watching, scheming and drinking: The

relationships among television exposure, vengefulness, and alcohol use. Journal

of the Communication, Speech & Theatre Association of North Dakota, 22, 65-79.

Ng, P. (2011) MTV’s “Real World” premiers to 1.9 million. The Hollywood Reporter,

retrieved 12/6/2011 from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/mtvs-real-

world-premieres-19-242270.

Paik, H. (2001). The history of children’s use of electronic media. In D. G. Singer & J.

L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (pp. 7-28). Thousand

Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Patino, A., Kaltcheva, V. D., & Smith, M. F. (2011, March). The appeal of reality

television for teen and pre-teen audiences: The power of “connectedness” and

psycho-demographics. Journal of Advertising Research, 288-297.

100

Petrozzello, D. (1998, January 5). Kids crave cable. Broadcasting and Cable, 128, 18.

Puberty and adolescence. (n.d.). In Medline Plus. Retrieved from:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001950.htm.

Ramos, D., & Perkins, D. F. (2006). Goodness of fit assessment of an alcohol

intervention program and the underlying theories of change. Journal Of American

College Health, 55(1), 57-64.

Rideout, V. J., Roberts, D. F. (2010, January). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8-

18-year-olds. Retrieved from

http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/8010.pdf

Robbins, C., & Martin, S. (1993). Gender, styles of deviance, and drinking

problems." Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 34, 302-321.

Roberts, S. C. (2012). Whether men or women are responsible for the size of gender gap

in alcohol consumption depends on alcohol measure: A study across the United

States. Contemporary Drug Problems, 39, 195-212.

Rosenstock I, Strecher V, Becker M (1988) Social Learning Theory and the Health

Belief Model. Health Education Behavior 15, 175–183 .

Rosenstock, I. M. (1966). Why people use health services. Milbank Memorial Fund

Quarterly, 44, 94-124.

Ruddock, A. (2009) It’s the stories you tell: Alcohol, violence & celebrity in Liverpool.

In P. Twohig & V. Kalitzkus (Eds.), The tapestry of health, illness and disease

(137-162). Amsterdam, New York: Rudopi.

101

Russell, D. W., & Russell, C. (2008). Embedded alcohol messages in television series:

The interactive effect of warnings and audience connectedness on viewers'

alcohol beliefs. Journal of Studies On Alcohol And Drugs, 69(3), 459-467.

Russell, C.A. & Stern, B.B. (2006). Consumers, characters, and products: A balance

model of sitcom product placement effects. J. Advert. 35: 7-21.

Schechner, S. (2010). Reality Check: MTV bets on scripts. The Wall Street Journal

[online article]. Retrieved from:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870425660457529481134048253

0.html.

Signorielli, N. (2001). Television’s gender role images and contribution to stereotyping:

Past, present, future. In D. G. Singer & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children

and the media (341-358). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Simpson, I. (2013, March 13). Smartphone use among U.S. teens is up sharply:

survey.Reuters. Retrieved , from http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/13/us-

usa-internet-teens-idUSBRE92C04C20130313

Slater, M. and Rasinski, K. "Media Exposure and Attention as Mediating Variables

Influencing Judgments of Alcohol-Related Risks" Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the International Communication Association, Sheraton New York,

New York City, NY Online . 2009, May 25-25 from

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p11697_index.html

State of California, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. (n.d.). Signs of

intoxication (637). Retrieved from website:

http://www.abc.ca.gov/forms/abc637.pdf

102

Steele, J. R., & Brown, J. D. (1995). Adolescent room culture: Studying media in the

context of everyday life. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 551-576.

Stern, S. R. (2005) Messages from teens on the big screen: Smoking, drinking and drug

use in teen-centered films. Journal of Health Communication, 10, 331-346.

Strausburger, V. C. (2001). In D. G. Singer & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children

and the media (415-445). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation.

Ballantine Books, New York

Tanner, L. (2012, October 20). Boys entering puberty earlier, just like girls, new research

finds. In NBC News [Online article]. Retrieved from:

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/boys-entering-puberty-earlier-just-girls-new-

research-finds-1C6581217

Van Hoof, J. J, Menno, D. T., De Jong, B. M., & Gosselt, J. F. (2009). There’s alcohol in

my soap: Portrayal and effects of alcohol use in popular television series. Heatlh

Education Research. 24, 421-429.

VandenBulck, H., Simons, N., & Van Gorp, B. (2008, November). Let’s drink and be

merry: The framing of alcohol in the prime-time American youth series The OC.

Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 933-940.

Viscount, M. (2010) Jersey Shore Season 2 episode 4: Ratings remain high despite “blah”

episode. Jersey Shore Examiner, Retrieved 11/6/2011 from

http://www.examiner.com/jersey-shore-in-national/jersey-shore-season-2-

episode-4-ratings-remain-high-despite-blah-episode.

103

Wallack, L., Grube, J. W., Madden, P. A., & Breed, W. (1990). Portrayals of alcohol on

prime-time television. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 51, 428-37.

Weintraub, E., Chen, Y.J. (2003) The relationship of parental reinforcement of media

messages to college students’ alcohol-related behaviors. Journal of Health

Communication, 8, 157-169.

Wood, J. T (1996). Gendered lives: Communication, gender and culture (2nd ed).

Belmont, CA;Wadsworth. www.CDC.gov

104

APPENDIX

State of CaliforniaDepartment of Alcoholic Beverage Control

SIGNS OF INTOXICATION

Inhibitions Become Relaxed

(1) Overly friendly(2)Loud(3) Changing volume of speech(4) Drinking alone(5) Annoying others(6) Using foul language(7) Drinking more or faster than usual

Judgment is Impaired (1) Complaints about strength of drink(2) Changing consumption rate(3) Ordering doubles(4) Argumentative (e.g., low-key altercations, confrontations, or heated arguments)(5) Careless with money(6) Buying rounds for strangers(7) Irrational statements(8)Belligerent(9) Lighting more than one cigarette(10) Loss of train of thought

Reactions are Affected (1) Slurred speech(2) Slow and deliberate movement(3) Decreased alertness(4) Quick, slow, or fluctuating pace of speech

Loss of Coordination (muscle control) (1) Fumbling with money(2) Spilling drink(3) Cannot find mouth with drink(4) Unable to sit straight on chair or barstool(5) Swaying, drowsy(6)Stumbling(7) Bumps into things(8)Falling(9) Unable to light cigarette

Physical Appearance (1) Red, watery eyes(2) Disheveled clothing(3)Sweating(4) Smell of an alcoholic beverage on person(5) Droopy eyelids(6) Lack of eye focus(7) Flushed face

ABC-637

105