Lampiran 1 : Kuesioner KUESIONER
“Kepuasan Pemirsa Surabaya dalam Menonton Kompetisi Masterchef Indonesia di RCTI”
Kepada responden yang terhormat,
Dalam rangka penelitian Tugas Akhir, peneliti mengharapkan kesediaan anda untuk meluangkan waktu mengisi kuesioner ini. Jawaban yang di berikan akan sangat berguna bagi penelitian. Atas kesediaan anda, peneliti mengucapkan terima kasih banyak.
Profil Responden
1. Nama : 2. Usia : a. 10-14 tahun b. 15-19 tahun c. 20-24 tahun d. 25-29 tahun 3. Jenis kelamin : a. Laki- laki b. Perempuan 4. Pekerjaan : a. Pelajar/mahasiswa c. Pegawai b. Wiraswasta d. Lain-lain.. 5. Status : a. Menikah b. Belum Menikah c. Duda/Janda 6. Pendidikan Terakhir : a. SD b. SMP c. SMA d. D3 e. S1 f. S2 7. Alamat : a. Surabaya Utara d. Surabaya Timur b. Surabaya Barat e. Surabaya Selatan c. Surabaya Pusat
8. Apakah anda atau orang tua anda memiliki KTP Surabaya? : a. Ya b. Tidak 9. Media yang sering digunakan : Surat Kabar Majalah/Tabloid Televisi Radio Internet
Lain-lain....
10. Program televisi yang sering di tonton: Musik Kuis show Drama/sinetron Berita Infotainment
Talk show Reality kompetisi show Relationship reality show Reality show mistik
Pertunjukan (sulap, lawak,dll) Reality show kompetisi memasak Lain-lain
Reality show kamera tersembunyi Reality show kompetisi bakat (menyanyi, menari, dll) Pertanyaan Pembuka
1. Berapa kali anda menonton tayangan kompetisi “MasterChef Indonesia” selama periode bulan Agustus?
2. Apakah ada tayangan reality show kompetisi kuliner lainnya yang anda tonton selain “MasterChef Indonesia”? Jika ya, sebutkan!
3. Secara keseluruhan, apa yang anda harapkan dari menonton tayangan kompetisi “MasterChef Indonesia” ?
190
Lampiran 1 : Kuesioner (sambungan)
I. Gratifications Sought ( Kepuasan yang dicari ) Berikan penilaian anda terhadap setiap pernyataan dalam kolom berikut dengan cara diberi tanda silang (X).
Gratifications Sought “Saya ingin menonton kompetisi MasterChef Indonesia (MCI) karena...... ”
A. Vicarious Participation (seolah mengalami sendiri)
1. Ingin membayangkan seolah saya Setuju Tidak Setuju benar-benar berada di dalam kompetisi MCI
2. Agar dapat membayangkan diri Setuju Tidak Setuju saya sebagai kontestan di kompetisi MCI
3. Ingin merasa memiliki hubungan Setuju Tidak Setuju dengan Chef atau kontestan yang berada di kompetisi MCI (contoh: kesamaan asal daerah, kepribadian, hobi, dan lainnya)
4. Ingin bergabung dalam reality Setuju Tidak Setuju show kompetisi MCI
5. Ingin membayangkan terkenal Setuju Tidak Setuju seperti kontestan reality show kompetisi MCI
B. Perceived Reality (memahami reality show sebagai kenyataan/ realitas)
6. Kompetisi MCI adalah Setuju Tidak Setuju kompetisi yang tidak di rekayasa
7. MCI tidak berdasarkan naskah Setuju Tidak Setuju
8. Ingin menyaksikan orang biasa Setuju Tidak Setuju (real people) dan bukan aktor di MCI
9. MCI menampilkan situasi Setuju Tidak Setuju seperti kehidupan sehari-hari
191
Lampiran 1 : Kuesioner (sambungan)
C. Pass Time (menghabiskan waktu)
10. Saya sedang bosan Setuju Tidak Setuju
11. Tidak ada tayangan lain yang Setuju Tidak menarik di televisi Setuju
12. Saya ingin menonton MCI Setuju Tidak meskipun sedang melakukan Setuju kegiatan lain
D. Personal Utility (keperluan pribadi)
13. Agar tidak merasa kesepian Setuju Tidak Setuju
14. MCI unik Setuju Tidak Setuju
15. Ingin melupakan masalah- Setuju Tidak masalah saya Setuju
16. Membantu saya untuk santai Setuju Tidak Setuju
E. Social Utility (keperluan sosial)
17. Semua orang menonton acara Setuju Tidak tersebut Setuju
18. Akan membicarakan tentang Setuju Tidak MCI dengan orang lain Setuju
19. MCI sering dibicarakan orang Setuju Tidak saat ini Setuju
20. Agar dapat menontonnya dengan Setuju Tidak orang lain (misalnya: dengan Setuju keluarga/ teman, dan lain-lain)
192
Lampiran 1 : Kuesioner (sambungan)
II. Gratifications Obtained ( Kepuasan yang diterima setelah menonton ) Berikan penilaian anda terhadap setiap pernyataan dalam kolom berikut dengan cara diberi tanda silang (X).
Gratifications Obtained “Ketika menonton MasterChef Indonesia (MCI) saya.....”
A. Vicarious Participation (seolah mengalami sendiri)
1. Dapat merasa seolah saya Setuju Tidak Setuju benar-benar berada di dalam studio MCI
2. Dapat membayangkan diri Setuju Tidak Setuju saya sebagai kontestan di MCI
3. Merasa memiliki kesamaan Setuju Tidak Setuju dengan Chef atau kontestan yang berada di MCI (contoh: kesamaan asal daerah, kepribadian, hobi, dan lainnya)
4. Seperti bergabung dalam Setuju Tidak Setuju reality show MCI
5. Merasa jika saya Setuju Tidak Setuju membayangkan bergabung, saya akan terkenal seperti kontestan reality show MCI
B. Perceived Reality (memahami reality show sebagai kenyataan/ realitas)
6. Benar- benar menikmati Setuju Tidak Setuju tayangan yang tidak di rekayasa
7. Benar-benar menyaksikan Setuju Tidak Setuju tayangan yang tidak berdasarkan naskah
8. Dapat menyaksikan orang Setuju Tidak Setuju biasa (real people) dan bukan aktor di MCI
9. Dapat menyaksikan tayangan Setuju Tidak Setuju drama nyata
193
Lampiran 1 : Kuesioner (sambungan)
C. Pass Time (menghabiskan waktu)
10. Tidak merasa bosan lagi Setuju Tidak Setuju
11. Menonton MCI ketika tidak Setuju Tidak Setuju ada tayangan lain yang menarik di televisi
12. Menonton MCI meskipun Setuju Tidak Setuju sedang melakukan kegiatan lain
D. Personal Utility (keperluan pribadi)
13. Tidak kesepian lagi Setuju Tidak Setuju
14. Melihat tayangan yang unik Setuju Tidak Setuju
15. Mampu melupakan Setuju Tidak Setuju masalah-masalah saya
16. Merasa santai Setuju Tidak Setuju
E. Social Utility (keperluan sosial)
17. Setelah menonton kompetisi Setuju Tidak Setuju MCI, saya merasa sama dengan semua orang yang juga menonton
18. Setelah menonton MCI, Setuju Tidak Setuju saya dapat mengikuti pembicaraan orang lain yang juga menonton
19. Setelah menonton, saya tahu Setuju Tidak Setuju apa yang sering dibicarakan orang saat ini mengenai MCI
20. Dengan menonton kompetisi Setuju Tidak Setuju MCI, saya dapat menghabiskan waktu bersama dengan orang lain (misalnya: dengan keluarga/ teman, dan lain-lain)
194
Lampiran 2 : Coding Sheet
195
Lampiran 2 : Coding Sheet (sambungan)
196
Lampiran 2 : Coding Sheet (sambungan)
197
Lampiran 2 : Coding Sheet (sambungan)
198
Lampiran 2 : Coding Sheet (sambungan)
199
Lampiran 2 : Coding Sheet (sambungan)
200
Lampiran 2 : Coding Sheet (sambungan)
201
Lampiran 2 : Coding Sheet (sambungan)
202
Lampiran 3 : Uji Validitas dan Reabilitas
Correlations
Correlations
TSVP SVP1 SVP2 SVP3 SVP4 SVP5 TSVP Pearson Correlation 1 .767** .870** .628** .791** .658**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 30 30 30 30 30 30 SVP1 Pearson Correlation .767** 1 .752** .546** .359 .171
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .002 .051 .365 N 30 30 30 30 30 30 SVP2 Pearson Correlation .870** .752** 1 .516** .553** .385*
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .003 .002 .036 N 30 30 30 30 30 30 SVP3 Pearson Correlation .628** .546** .516** 1 .221 .102
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .002 .003 .240 .593 N 30 30 30 30 30 30 SVP4 Pearson Correlation .791** .359 .553** .221 1 .794**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .051 .002 .240 .000 N 30 30 30 30 30 30 SVP5 Pearson Correlation .658** .171 .385* .102 .794** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .365 .036 .593 .000 N 30 30 30 30 30 30 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Correlations Correlations TSPR SPR1 SPR2 SPR3 SPR4 TSPR Pearson Correlation 1 .868** .810** .888** .732** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 N 30 30 30 30 30 SPR1 Pearson Correlation .868** 1 .609** .649** .636** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 N 30 30 30 30 30 SPR2 Pearson Correlation .810** .609** 1 .699** .287 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .125 N 30 30 30 30 30 SPR3 Pearson Correlation .888** .649** .699** 1 .565** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .001 N 30 30 30 30 30 SPR4 Pearson Correlation .732** .636** .287 .565** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .125 .001 N 30 30 30 30 30 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 203
Lampiran 3 : Uji Validitas dan Reabilitas (sambungan)
Correlations
Correlations TSPT SPT1 SPT2 SPT3 ** ** ** TSPT Pearson Correlation 1 .860 .723 .756 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 30 30 30 30 SPT1 Pearson Correlation .860** 1 .484** .533** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .007 .002 N 30 30 30 30 SPT2 Pearson Correlation .723** .484** 1 .217 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .007 .249 N 30 30 30 30 SPT3 Pearson Correlation .756** .533** .217 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .002 .249 N 30 30 30 30 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Correlations
Correlations TSPU SPU1 SPU2 SPU3 SPU4 TSPU Pearson Correlation 1 .780** .700** .713** .599** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 N 30 30 30 30 30 SPU1 Pearson Correlation .780** 1 .476** .434* .198 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .008 .016 .294 N 30 30 30 30 30 SPU2 Pearson Correlation .700** .476** 1 .259 .261 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .008 .166 .164 N 30 30 30 30 30 SPU3 Pearson Correlation .713** .434* .259 1 .280 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .016 .166 .134 N 30 30 30 30 30 SPU4 Pearson Correlation .599** .198 .261 .280 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .294 .164 .134 N 30 30 30 30 30 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
204
Lampiran 3 : Uji Validitas dan Reabilitas (sambungan)
Correlations
Correlations
TSSU SSU1 SSU2 SSU3 SSU4 TSSU Pearson Correlation 1 .745** .762** .651** .766** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 N 30 30 30 30 30 SSU1 Pearson Correlation .745** 1 .563** .222 .443* Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .238 .014 N 30 30 30 30 30 SSU2 Pearson Correlation .762** .563** 1 .311 .377* Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .095 .040 N 30 30 30 30 30 SSU3 Pearson Correlation .651** .222 .311 1 .365*
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .238 .095 .048 N 30 30 30 30 30 SSU4 Pearson Correlation .766** .443* .377* .365* 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .014 .040 .048 N 30 30 30 30 30 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Correlations
Correlations TOVP OVP1 OVP2 OVP3 OVP4 OVP5 TOVP Pearson Correlation 1 .829** .810** .831** .844** .749** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 30 30 30 30 30 30 OVP1 Pearson Correlation .829** 1 .592** .705** .610** .438* Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .000 .000 .016 N 30 30 30 30 30 30 OVP2 Pearson Correlation .810** .592** 1 .482** .614** .582** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .007 .000 .001 N 30 30 30 30 30 30 OVP3 Pearson Correlation .831** .705** .482** 1 .666** .512** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .007 .000 .004 N 30 30 30 30 30 30 OVP4 Pearson Correlation .844** .610** .614** .666** 1 .564** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 N 30 30 30 30 30 30 OVP5 Pearson Correlation .749** .438* .582** .512** .564** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .016 .001 .004 .001 N 30 30 30 30 30 30 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
205
Lampiran 3 : Uji Validitas dan Reabilitas (sambungan)
Correlations
Correlations TOPR OPR1 OPR2 OPR3 OPR4 TOPR Pearson Correlation 1 .745** .776** .808** .812** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 N 30 30 30 30 30 OPR1 Pearson Correlation .745** 1 .602** .459* .364* Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .011 .048 N 30 30 30 30 30 OPR2 Pearson Correlation .776** .602** 1 .388* .491** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .034 .006 N 30 30 30 30 30 OPR3 Pearson Correlation .808** .459* .388* 1 .639** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .011 .034 .000 N 30 30 30 30 30 OPR4 Pearson Correlation .812** .364* .491** .639** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .048 .006 .000 N 30 30 30 30 30 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Correlations
Correlations TOPT OPT1 OPT2 OPT3 TOPT Pearson Correlation 1 .893** .820** .754** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 30 30 30 30 OPT1 Pearson Correlation .893** 1 .716** .495** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .005 N 30 30 30 30 OPT2 Pearson Correlation .820** .716** 1 .333 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .072 N 30 30 30 30 OPT3 Pearson Correlation .754** .495** .333 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .005 .072 N 30 30 30 30 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
206
Lampiran 3 : Uji Validitas dan Reabilitas (sambungan)
Correlations
Correlations TOPU OPU1 OPU2 OPU3 OPU4 TOPU Pearson Correlation 1 .809** .595** .831** .788** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .000 .000 N 30 30 30 30 30 OPU1 Pearson Correlation .809** 1 .186 .602** .580** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .326 .000 .001 N 30 30 30 30 30 OPU2 Pearson Correlation .595** .186 1 .422* .391* Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .326 .020 .033 N 30 30 30 30 30 OPU3 Pearson Correlation .831** .602** .422* 1 .424* Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .020 .020 N 30 30 30 30 30 OPU4 Pearson Correlation .788** .580** .391* .424* 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .033 .020 N 30 30 30 30 30 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Correlations
Correlations TOSU OSU1 OSU2 OSU3 OSU4 TOSU Pearson Correlation 1 .739** .718** .671** .684** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 N 30 30 30 30 30 OSU1 Pearson Correlation .739** 1 .348 .281 .301 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .059 .133 .105 N 30 30 30 30 30 OSU2 Pearson Correlation .718** .348 1 .525** .279 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .059 .003 .135 N 30 30 30 30 30 OSU3 Pearson Correlation .671** .281 .525** 1 .269 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .133 .003 .150 N 30 30 30 30 30 OSU4 Pearson Correlation .684** .301 .279 .269 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .105 .135 .150 N 30 30 30 30 30 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
207
Lampiran 3 : Uji Validitas dan Reabilitas (sambungan)
Reliability
Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .774 5
Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha if Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Item Deleted SVP1 11.57 16.737 .476 .756 SVP2 10.27 13.375 .631 .702 SVP3 10.07 16.547 .401 .779 SVP4 9.97 13.068 .694 .677 SVP5 10.13 14.878 .544 .734
Reliability Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .840 4
Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha if Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Item Deleted SPR1 6.27 8.478 .763 .761 SPR2 5.87 8.051 .622 .827 SPR3 6.50 7.914 .784 .746 SPR4 6.27 9.582 .551 .846
Reliability
Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .676 3
Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha if Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Item Deleted SPT1 5.67 5.333 .652 .357 SPT2 5.57 6.668 .397 .695 SPT3 4.70 6.217 .435 .652
208
Lampiran 3 : Uji Validitas dan Reabilitas (sambungan)
Reliability
Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .653 4
Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha if Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Item Deleted SPU1 8.00 7.034 .518 .521 SPU2 8.20 8.510 .461 .569 SPU3 7.63 8.102 .450 .574 SPU4 8.47 9.361 .315 .659
Reliability Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .708 4
Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha if Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Item Deleted SSU1 7.27 7.444 .544 .618 SSU2 7.33 7.057 .547 .612 SSU3 7.17 7.937 .380 .712 SSU4 7.43 6.668 .518 .631
Reliability Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .871 5
Item-Total Statistics Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Alpha if Item Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Deleted OVP1 11.10 16.921 .718 .838 OVP2 11.03 16.792 .681 .849 OVP3 10.87 16.740 .718 .838 OVP4 11.07 17.444 .754 .831 OVP5 11.00 18.828 .623 .861
209
Lampiran 3 : Uji Validitas dan Reabilitas (sambungan)
Reliability
Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .792 4
Item-Total Statistics Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Alpha if Item Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Deleted OPR1 6.73 5.926 .574 .756 OPR2 6.47 5.499 .595 .744 OPR3 6.47 5.016 .619 .733 OPR4 6.73 5.030 .629 .727
Reliability Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .758 3
Item-Total Statistics Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Alpha if Item Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Deleted OPT1 5.83 5.316 .735 .498 OPT2 5.27 6.202 .601 .662 OPT3 5.03 6.516 .449 .834
Reliability Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .757 4
Item-Total Statistics Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Alpha if Item Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Deleted OPU1 7.73 7.237 .624 .660 OPU2 7.37 9.895 .405 .772 OPU3 6.97 6.516 .627 .661 OPU4 7.23 7.495 .593 .679 210
Lampiran 3 : Uji Validitas dan Reabilitas (sambungan)
Reliability Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .644 4
Item-Total Statistics Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Alpha if Item Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Deleted OSU1 7.63 4.516 .412 .599 OSU2 7.70 5.390 .506 .530 OSU3 7.70 5.803 .465 .564 OSU4 7.17 5.109 .373 .616
211
Lampiran 4 : Crosstab
Hasil Tabulasi Silang Antara Usia dan Indikator GO Pass Time
Usia Total Obtained Total
Pass Time
Rendah Sedang Tinggi
10-14 tahun 0 2 0 2
15-19 tahun 3 18 0 21
20-24 tahun 17 48 0 65
25-29 tahun 1 11 0 12
100
Sumber: Olahan Peneliti
Hasil Tabulasi Silang Antara Usia dan Indikator GO Personal Utility
Usia Total Obtained Total
Personal Utility
Rendah Sedang Tinggi
10-14 tahun 1 0 1 2
15-19 tahun 1 13 7 21
20-24 tahun 4 49 12 65
25-29 tahun 4 6 2 12
100
Sumber: Olahan Peneliti
Hasil Tabulasi Silang Antara Jenis Kelamin dan Indikator GS Personal Utility
Jenis kelamin Total Sought Total
Personal Utility
Rendah Sedang Tinggi
Laki-laki 7 23 12 42
Perempuan 10 34 14 58
100
212
Lampiran 4 : Crosstab (sambungan)
Hasil Tabulasi Silang Antara Jenis Kelamin dan Indikator GO Vicarious Participation
Jenis kelamin Total Obtained Total
Vicarious Participation
Rendah Sedang Tinggi
Laki-laki 7 19 16 42
Perempuan 11 32 15 58
100
Sumber: Olahan Peneliti
Hasil Tabulasi Silang Antara Jenis Kelamin dan Indikator GO Percieved Reality
Jenis kelamin Total Obtained Total
Perceived Reality
Rendah Sedang Tinggi
Laki-laki 0 22 20 42
Perempuan 2 36 20 58
100
Sumber: Olahan Peneliti
Hasil Tabulasi Silang Antara Jenis Kelamin dan Indikator GO Pass Time
Jenis kelamin Total Obtained Total
Pass Time
Rendah Sedang Tinggi
Laki-laki 8 34 0 42
Perempuan 13 45 0 58
100
Sumber: Olahan Peneliti
213
Lampiran 4 : Crosstab (sambungan)
Hasil Tabulasi Silang Antara Jenis Kelamin dan Indikator GO Personal Utility
Jenis kelamin Total Obtained Total
Personal Utility
Rendah Sedang Tinggi
Laki-laki 5 25 12 42
Perempuan 5 43 10 58
100
Sumber: Olahan Peneliti
Hasil Tabulasi Silang Antara Pekerjaan dan Indikator GS Vicarious Participation
Pekerjaan Total Sought Total
Vicarious Participation
Rendah Sedang Tinggi
Pelajar/mahasiswa 18 26 17 61
Wiraswasta 6 8 5 19
Pegawai 5 6 9 20
Lain-Lain 0 0 0 0
100
Sumber: Olahan Peneliti
214
Lampiran 4 : Crosstab (sambungan)
Hasil Tabulasi Silang Antara Pekerjaan dan Indikator GO Perceived Reality
Pekerjaan Total Obtained Total
Perceived Reality
Rendah Sedang Tinggi
Pelajar/mahasiswa 2 38 21 61
Wiraswasta 0 8 11 19
Pegawai 0 12 8 20
Lain-Lain 0 0 0 0
100
Sumber: Olahan Peneliti
Hasil Tabulasi Silang Antara Pekerjaan dan Indikator GO Pass Time
Pekerjaan Total Obtained Total
Pass Time
Rendah Sedang Tinggi
Pelajar/mahasiswa 16 45 0 61
Wiraswasta 3 16 0 19
Pegawai 2 18 0 20
Lain-Lain 0 0 0 0
100
Sumber: Olahan Peneliti
215
Lampiran 4 : Crosstab (sambungan)
Hasil Tabulasi Silang Antara Status dan Indikator GS Perceived Reality
Status Total Sought Total
Perceived Reality
Rendah Sedang Tinggi
Menikah 1 9 7 17
Belum Menikah 4 48 29 81
Duda/Janda 0 1 1 2
100
Sumber: Olahan Peneliti
Hasil Tabulasi Silang Antara Status dan Indikator GS Personal Utility
Status Total Sought Total
Personal Utility
Rendah Sedang Tinggi
Menikah 2 10 5 17
Belum Menikah 15 46 20 81
Duda/Janda 0 1 1 2
100
Sumber: Olahan Peneliti
Hasil Tabulasi Silang Antara Status dan Indikator GS Social Utility
Status Total Sought Total
Social Utility
Rendah Sedang Tinggi
Menikah 4 6 7 17
Belum Menikah 12 50 19 81
Duda/Janda 0 0 2 2
100
Sumber: Olahan Peneliti
216
Lampiran 4 : Crosstab (sambungan)
Hasil Tabulasi Silang Antara Status dan Indikator GO Vicarious Participation
Status Total Obtained Total
Vicarious Participation
Rendah Sedang Tinggi
Menikah 3 10 7 17
Belum Menikah 15 44 22 81
Duda/Janda 0 0 2 2
100
Sumber: Olahan Peneliti
Hasil Tabulasi Silang Antara Status dan Indikator GO Perceived Reality
Status Total Obtained Total
Perceived Reality
Rendah Sedang Tinggi
Menikah 0 11 6 17
Belum Menikah 2 46 33 81
Duda/Janda 0 1 1 2
100
Sumber: Olahan Peneliti
Hasil Tabulasi Silang Antara Status dan Indikator GO Social Utility
Status Total Obtained Total
Social Utility
Rendah Sedang Tinggi
Menikah 1 8 8 17
Belum Menikah 3 55 23 81
Duda/Janda 0 2 0 2
100
Sumber: Olahan Peneliti
217
Lampiran 4 : Crosstab (sambungan)
Hasil Tabulasi Silang Antara Pendidikan Terakhir dan Indikator GS Pass Time
Pend. Terakhir Total Sought Total
Pass Time
Rendah Sedang Tinggi
SD 1 4 0 5
SMP 3 12 0 15
SMA 15 46 0 61
D3 0 2 0 2
S1 4 11 0 15
S2 1 1 0 2
100
Sumber: Olahan Peneliti
Hasil Tabulasi Silang Antara Pendidikan Terakhir dan Indikator GS Social Utility
Pend. Terakhir Total Sought Total
Social Utility
Rendah Sedang Tinggi
SD 0 3 2 5
SMP 3 8 4 15
SMA 12 34 15 61
D3 0 1 1 2
S1 1 9 5 15
S2 0 1 1 2
100
Sumber: Olahan Peneliti
218
Lampiran 4 : Crosstab (sambungan)
Hasil Tabulasi Silang Antara Pendidikan Terakhir dan Indikator GO Perceived Reality
Pend. Terakhir Total Obtained Total
Perceived Reality
Rendah Sedang Tinggi
SD 0 2 2 5
SMP 0 10 5 15
SMA 2 33 26 61
D3 0 1 1 2
S1 0 9 6 15
S2 0 2 0 2
100
Sumber: Olahan Peneliti
Hasil Tabulasi Silang Antara Pendidikan Terakhir dan Indikator GS Personal Utility
Pend. Terakhir Total Sought Total
Personal Utility
Rendah Sedang Tinggi
SD 0 2 3 5
SMP 3 5 7 15
SMA 12 38 11 61
D3 0 0 2 2
S1 2 10 3 15
S2 0 2 0 2
100
Sumber: Olahan Peneliti
219
Lampiran 4 : Crosstab (sambungan)
Pendidikan Terakhir * Indikator GO Personal Utility
Pend. Terakhir Total Obtained Personal Utility Total
Rendah Sedang Tinggi
SD 1 0 4 5
SMP 2 8 5 15
SMA 5 42 14 61
D3 0 1 1 2
S1 2 11 2 15
S2 0 1 1 2
100
Sumber: Olahan Peneliti
Program Televisi yang Sering Di tonton * Indikator GS Perceived Reality
Program yang sering ditonton Total Sought Perceived Reality Total
Rendah Sedang Tinggi
Musik 2 13 9 24
Kuis Show 0 1 0 1
Drama/Sinetron 0 13 9 22
Berita 1 5 6 12
Infotainment 0 9 3 12
Talkshow 0 2 1 3
Reality Kompetisi Show 1 1 1 3
Relationship Reality Show 0 1 1 2
Pertunjukan (sulap,lawak, dll) 1 8 5 13
Reality Show Kompetisi Memasak 0 2 0 2
Reality Show kamera tersembunyi 0 0 1 1
Reality Show kompetisi bakat 0 2 0 2 (menyanyi,menari,dll) Lain-lain 0 0 1 1
100
Sumber: Olahan Peneliti
220
Lampiran 4 : Crosstab (sambungan)
Program Televisi yang Sering Di tonton * Indikator GS Personal Utility
Program yang sering ditonton Total Sought Total Personal Utility
Rendah Sedang Tinggi
Musik 4 16 4 24
Kuis Show 1 0 0 1
Drama/Sinetron 2 12 8 22
Berita 2 8 2 12
Infotainment 3 5 4 12
Talkshow 0 2 1 3
Reality Kompetisi Show 0 2 1 3
Relationship Reality Show 0 2 0 2
Pertunjukan (sulap,lawak, dll) 3 5 5 13
Reality Show Kompetisi 0 2 0 2 Memasak Reality Show kamera 0 0 1 1 tersembunyi Reality Show kompetisi bakat 1 1 0 2 (menyanyi,menari,dll) Lain-lain 1 0 0 1
100
Sumber: Olahan Peneliti
221
Lampiran 4 : Crosstab (sambungan)
Program Televisi yang Sering Di tonton * Indikator GS Pass Time
Program yang sering Total Sought Total ditonton Pass Time
Rendah Sedang Tinggi
Musik 8 16 0 24
Kuis Show 1 0 0 1
Drama/Sinetron 1 21 0 22
Berita 4 8 0 12
Infotainment 2 10 0 12
Talkshow 1 2 0 3
Reality Kompetisi 1 2 0 3 Show Relationship Reality 0 2 0 2 Show Pertunjukan 4 9 0 13 (sulap,lawak, dll) Reality Show 1 1 0 2 Kompetisi Memasak Reality Show kamera 0 1 0 1 tersembunyi Reality Show 0 2 0 2 kompetisi bakat (menyanyi,menari,dll) Lain-lain 1 0 0 1
100
Sumber: Olahan Peneliti
222
Lampiran 4 : Crosstab (sambungan)
Program Televisi yang Sering Di tonton dan Indikator GO Vicarious Participation
Program yang sering Total Obtained Total ditonton Vicarious Participation
Rendah Sedang Tinggi
Musik 3 15 6 24
Kuis Show 0 1 0 1
Drama/Sinetron 2 13 7 22
Berita 4 4 4 12
Infotainment 2 8 2 12
Talkshow 1 0 2 3
Reality Kompetisi 1 0 2 3 Show Relationship Reality 1 0 1 2 Show Pertunjukan 2 8 3 13 (sulap,lawak, dll) Reality Show 1 1 0 2 Kompetisi Memasak Reality Show kamera 0 0 1 1 tersembunyi Reality Show 0 0 2 2 kompetisi bakat (menyanyi,menari,dll) Lain-lain 0 1 0 1
100
Sumber: Olahan Peneliti
223
Lampiran 4 : Crosstab (sambungan)
Program Televisi yang Sering Di tonton dan Indikator GO Pass Time
Program yang sering Total Obtained Total ditonton Pass Time
Rendah Sedang Tinggi
Musik 7 17 0 24
Kuis Show 1 0 0 1
Drama/Sinetron 2 20 0 22
Berita 2 10 0 12
Infotainment 2 10 0 12
Talkshow 0 3 0 3
Reality Kompetisi 0 3 0 3 Show Relationship Reality 1 1 0 2 Show Pertunjukan 3 10 0 13 (sulap,lawak, dll) Reality Show 1 1 0 2 Kompetisi Memasak Reality Show kamera 1 0 0 1 tersembunyi Reality Show 0 2 0 2 kompetisi bakat (menyanyi,menari,dll) Lain-lain 1 0 0 1
100
Sumber: Olahan Peneliti
224
Lampiran 4 : Crosstab (sambungan)
Program Televisi yang Sering Di tonton dan Indikator GO Personal Utility
Program yang sering Total Obtained Total ditonton Personal Utility
Rendah Sedang Tinggi
Musik 1 20 3 24
Kuis Show 1 0 0 1
Drama/Sinetron 5 12 5 22
Berita 0 17 5 12
Infotainment 1 10 1 12
Talkshow 0 2 1 3
Reality Kompetisi 1 1 1 3 Show Relationship Reality 0 2 0 2 Show Pertunjukan 1 7 5 13 (sulap,lawak, dll) Reality Show 0 2 0 2 Kompetisi Memasak Reality Show kamera 0 1 1 1 tersembunyi Reality Show 0 2 0 2 kompetisi bakat (menyanyi,menari,dll) Lain-lain 0 1 0 1
100
Sumber: Olahan Peneliti
225
Lampiran 5 : Data Rating AGB Nielsen “MasterChef Indonesia”
PROGRAM PROFILE : MASTER CHEF - RCTI, all people 5+, 10 cities Q2 (APRIL - JUNE) 2011 Analysis : Programmes Selected date(s) : 01/04/2011 - 30/06/2011 Selected channel(s) : RCTI; Selected day part(s) : 02.00.00 - 25.59.59 (All days); Selected market(s) : Jakarta, Surabaya, Medan, Semarang, Bandung, Makassar, Yogyakarta, Palembang, Denpasar, Banjarmasin Selected target(s) : All people above 5 years old Total Individuals (5+, 10 cities) : 52,213,275 individuals
Catatan: Index: angka yang menggambarkan profil pemirsa, yang juga mengidentifikasi efektivitas suatu program pada target pemirsa tertentu. Jika Index <100 kurang efektif >100 sangat efektif = 100 efektif
Status Sosial Ekonomi (SES) adalah penggolongan kelas dalam masyarakat berdasarkan besarnya pengeluaran rutin bulanan rumah tangga, seperti listrik, air, bahan bakar, makanan, belanja bulanan, uang sekolah anak, dan lain-lain. Namun tidak termasuk pengeluaran untuk pembayaran cicilan, seperti kredit mobil, kredit rumah, kartu kredit, dan lain-lain. Penggolongan Status Sosial Ekonomi adalah sebagai berikut: - SES AB atau menengah atas: pengeluaran di atas Rp 2.000.000,- - SES CDE atau menengah bawah: pengeluaran di bawah Rp 2.000.000,-
226
Lampiran 5 : Data Rating AGB Nielsen “MasterChef Indonesia” (sambungan)
PROGRAM PROFILE : MASTER CHEF - RCTI, all people 5+, Surabaya Q2 (APRIL - JUNE) 2011 Analysis : Programmes Selected date(s) : 01/04/2011 - 30/06/2011 Selected channel(s) : RCTI; Selected day part(s) : 02.00.00 - 25.59.59 (All days); Selected market(s) :Surabaya Selected target(s) : All people above 5 years old Total Individuals (5+, Surabaya) : 9,644,509 individuals
Catatan: Index: angka yang menggambarkan profil pemirsa, yang juga mengidentifikasi efektivitas suatu program pada target pemirsa tertentu. Jika Index <100 kurang efektif >100 sangat efektif = 100 efektif Status Sosial Ekonomi (SES) adalah penggolongan kelas dalam masyarakat berdasarkan besarnya pengeluaran rutin bulanan rumah tangga, seperti listrik, air, bahan bakar, makanan, belanja bulanan, uang sekolah anak, dan lain-lain. Namun tidak termasuk pengeluaran untuk pembayaran cicilan, seperti kredit mobil, kredit rumah, kartu kredit, dan lain-lain. Penggolongan Status Sosial Ekonomi adalah sebagai berikut: - SES AB atau menengah atas: pengeluaran di atas Rp 2.000.000,- - SES CDE atau menengah bawah: pengeluaran di bawah Rp 2.000.000,-
227
Lampiran 6 : Tabel r
228
Lampiran 6 : Tabel r (sambungan)
229
Lampiran 7 : Jurnal Kristin M.Barton
Reality Television Programming and Diverging Gratifications: The Influence of Content on Gratifications Obtained. by Kristin M. Barton
Within the realm of the contemporary television landscape, reality-based television is a force that has changed the television industry as well as the culture that surrounds it. Although some argument still exists regarding the exact nature and criteria for reality television, its impact is nothing short of phenomenal. For example, four of the top five prime-time broadcast TV programs for 2006 were reality-based programs (Zappia, 2006), out performing perennial powerhouse shows such as CSI, Desperate Housewives, and Law & Order. Additionally, Nielsen ratings show that for the week of October 29, 2007, Dancing With the Stars held two of the top three spots with their Monday and Tuesday airings (Nielsen Media Research, 2007). In fact, reality television has become so popular that recent statistics indicate, "there are now more people applying to The Real World each year than to Harvard" (Andrejevic, 2003). These facts raise several questions that media scholars have yet to address directly: What do these shows provide that traditional television programming does not? Why are these shows able to draw in viewers better than longstanding, established comedy and drama programs? Why is everyone watching so much reality-based television?
This study examined these questions to gain a better understanding the appeal of this programming has for viewers. An exploration of the uses and gratifications of competition-based reality programming was used to determine what satisfaction viewers get from these shows and their motivations for watching. With broadcast and cable networks scrambling to develop reality-based programming faster than ever, a better understanding of viewers' gratifications sought and obtained from this genre will have practical implications for the television industry as well as produce a better understanding of audiences' uses of television in fulfilling psychological needs.
Literature Review
Many researchers have examined reality-based programming in an attempt to understand its appeal for viewers. For example, Nabi, Biely, Morgan, and Stitt (2003) analyzed the psychological appeals reality television has to offer. Barton and Raney (2002) employed disposition theory to examine viewer enjoyment. Oliver (1996) examined the depiction of race in reality-based crime dramas. One area where the field of reality programming research is still lacking is in the fundamental understanding of viewers' motivations for watching these programs. Certainly the level at which these shows are created by the networks and consumed by audiences is an indication that they provide something other genres cannot or do not.
The uses and gratifications approach to communication research examines media effects from the perspective, "ask not what media do to people, but ask what people do with media" (Blumler & Katz, 1974). This is the core of the uses and gratifications approach: how audience members use the mass media, and what gratifications they receive in return. Since Blumler and Katz's work, many studies 230
Lampiran 7 : Journal Barton (sambungan) have been conducted in support of this idea, several of which predate the formal conceptualization of the approach.
One early study that examined gratifications sought was Lasswell's (1948) study of why people attend to media. Lasswell identified three functions of media: surveillance of environment, correlation of events, and transmission of social heritage.
Although future research identified many more uses, this initial identification illuminated that there were numerous reasons to explain why viewers attend to one medium over another. These explanations have been updated and revised several times (McQuail, Blumler, & Brown, 1972; Wright, 1960), and the list continues to expand as new media and genres of programming emerge.
In light of these facts, there still existed a problem distinguishing between what media consumers were seeking and what consumers were actually receiving. Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch addressed these concerns by stating that, "a distinction may be drawn between a) expectation about content formed in advance of exposure and b) satisfactions subsequently secured from consumption of it" (1974, p. 27). This distinction was further supported by Greenberg (1974), and Lometti, Reeves, and Bybee (1977), all of whom stated that there is no direct evidence that gratifications sought (GS) and gratifications obtained (GO) are the same. Early studies to demonstrate empirically the separation between GS and GO include Palmgreen and Rayburn's (1979) Kentucky Educational Television study, and Wenner's (1982) study on television news programs, both of which found that gratifications sought are not necessarily congruent with gratifications obtained from media vehicles.
More recently, the uses and gratifications approach has been employed for a number of new and developing communication technologies. As television usage and technology has grown, issues such as VCR usage (Levy, 1980; Rubin & Bantz, 1989), cable television (Heeter & Greenberg, 1985), and the remote control (Perse & Ferguson, 1993), have all been explored. Additionally, the popularity and resulting widespread dissemination of the Internet (Charney & Greenberg, 2001; Parker & Plank, 2000), the World Wide Web (Eighmey & McCord, 1998; Kaye, 1998), and e-mail usage (Dimmick, Kline, & Stafford, 2000) have been examined as well.
Although this approach may instead be applied to a wide range of material, in recent years it has most frequently been applied to genre-specific television programming in an attempt to discern what certain shows provide viewers that is not provided through other types of programming. Some examples of these include research on news programming (Palmgreen, Wenner, & Rayburn, 1980; Rayburn, Palmgreen, & Acker, 1984; Rubin, 1981), religious programming (Abelman, 1987), and soap operas (Babrow, 1987; Rubin, 1985). What is lacking thus far from a more contemporary look at genre-specific uses and gratifications research is an in-depth understanding of the GS and GO associated with reality-based television. The absence of literature on these subjects led directly to the first research question in the current study:
231
Lampiran 7 : Journal Barton (sambungan)
[RQ.sub.1]: What are the gratifications sought and the gratifications obtained from viewing competition-based reality programming?
For this study, reality TV shows are defined as any show featuring non- actors under constant surveillance, reacting in spontaneous and unscripted ways to their environment, and ultimately seeking to outperform or outlast their opponents in some sort of competition. The shows used in the current study include The Apprentice, The Bachelor (and its mirror show, The Bachelorette), and Survivor. The study examined the question by asking viewers to indicate their GS for competition-based reality programming in general, and their GO for these shows specifically. The methodology for extracting GS and GO was originally employed in Palmgreen et al. (1980) where they noted that, "when the level of abstraction of the obtained measures is shifted to a component of the medium (content type, etc.) under consideration at the sought level, the problem [respondents distinguishing between GS and GO] is greatly reduced" (p. 166). To that extent, the three shows employed in this study (The Apprentice, The Bachelor/Bachelorette, and Survivor) were chosen based on the criteria that they were regularly shown to have the highest viewer ratings according to Nielsen (The Hollywood Reporter, 2004), and were familiar to most respondents.
Previous studies in the uses and gratifications tradition have assumed that gratifications obtained from a particular genre of programming have been universal within that genre. That is to say, it has been assumed by most that one show within a particular television genre is interchangeable with the next. The current study seeks to extend that line of thinking to determine if different types of shows within a specific genre (competition-based reality shows in this case) yield different GO.
Each show selected for the current study contained different content within the competition-based reality-programming field. NBC's The Apprentice offered a corporate-themed show centered on contestants making intelligent and shrewd business decisions in order to advance in the game. ABC's The Bachelor (and its direct spin-off show The Bachelorette) offered viewers the opportunity to see 25 single contestants vie for the romantic affections of a member of the opposite sex. CBS's Survivor allowed viewers to witness contestants battling extreme conditions in order to survive in an isolated setting without supplied food or shelter. The format for the three shows was similar in that the contestants were periodically eliminated until only one was left to claim the grand prize. Only the themes in these shows differ. With three of the highest rated competition-based reality programs containing such diverse content, it seems logical to argue that the gratifications obtained from one may not be obtained from the others. This reasoning led directly into the second research question posed, which was:
[RQ.sub.2]: Do competition-based reality programs containing different forms of content result in different GO for viewers?
Supplementary to this issue was the idea that if viewers sought specific gratification from different types of competition-based reality programming, it may be possible to predict what shows will appeal to different types of viewers. This led to the third research question proposed in this study:
232
Lampiran 7 : Journal Barton (sambungan)
RQ3: Do GS and GO predict what types of reality programming people watch?
Methodology
Sampling
In the current study, 689 students at a large Southeastern university completed the questionnaire. Each of the 689 respondents reported watching at least one of the three reality-based programs examined in the current study, and students with no history of watching the shows were excluded from the study. The decision to use college students as participants was based on evidence presented in prior reality- based television studies which indicated that the primary age demographic for reality-based programming is college students between the ages of 18-24 (Andrejevic, 2003; Nabi et al., 2003; Oliver & Armstrong, 1995). The mean age for the current study was 20.4. In the sample, 34.8 % of the respondents (240) were male, and 65.2% (449) were female; 74% (510) were Caucasian, 9.9% (68) were Hispanic, 9.4% (65) were African American, 2.3% (16) were Asian, and 4.4% (30) reported their race as being Other.
Instrument
The questionnaire was composed of a section asking 23 specific questions about why respondents watch reality-based programs in general (GS), three sections (see below for details) asking them to respond to specific questions about their reasons for watching the three reality programs used in this study (GO), and two sections asking them about their television viewing habits and demographic questions.
Because the current study focused on competition-based reality programming, a cover page was attached to the questionnaire that more clearly defined competition-based reality shows. Additionally, examples were given to illustrate what were and what were not considered competition-based reality shows.
For the GO measurements, respondents were asked to complete the 23 questions for the specific reality shows only if they watched that particular show. As a result, of the 689 total respondents, 368 completed the section for The Apprentice, including 94 males (25.5%) and 274 females (74.5%), 389 completed the section for The Bachelor/Bachelorette, including 51 males (13.1%) and 338 females (86.9%), and 337 completed the section for Survivor, including 122 males (36.2%) and 215 females (63.8%). The ratio of males to females for The Bachelor/Bachelorette is expectedly more heavily slanted toward females because of the nature of the program, and the show's target audience, which is primarily female.
Uses and Gratifications
For the purpose of this study, 23 GS items were used based on previous reality- based programming studies (Wei & Tootle, 2002) and from responses on reality television bulletin boards on the Internet responding to the question of why it is
233
Lampiran 7 : Journal Barton (sambungan)
\that people watch reality programming. The 23 items were each preceded by the statement, "1 watch competition-based reality TV because," and respondents were then asked to rate each of the 23 items on a 5-point Likert scale (Strongly Disagree = 1, Strongly Agree = 5).
The GS items were immediately followed by the same 23 questions which were slightly modified to measure the GO from each of the three reality-based shows under consideration. For example, the first GS question read, "I watch competition based reality TV shows because they are real," and the corresponding GO item read, "The Apprentice is real" (with the title of the shows being changed for each of the three GO sections).
Results
Four factor analyses were run for the current study, including one on the GS and three on the GO. Varimax rotation was employed as a means to better account for the correlations between factors. In each analysis, a five-factor solution was determined to be the best fit for the data. Also in each case, the factors in all four analyses had eigenvalues greater than 1.0, which explained 63.41% of the total variance for the GS, and between 64.31 and 66.76% of the total variance for the GO.
Three items were eliminated from the factor analyses because of low commonality scores within the five factors. Those items included, "I feel compelled to watch," "I like to see people in situations I can't see anywhere else," and "To see people performing the outrageous stunts/challenges." The remaining 20 items were grouped into the five factors shown in Table 1. The minimum requirement for an item to load into one of the factors was .50, as this is considered "practically significant" (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998).
This factor structure obtained for the GS is different from that of the factor structure obtained in any of the GO factor analyses. One interesting development that was observed between the GS and GO analyses was the low loading score for the GO item which implied that each of the three specific reality shows "Is different than anything else on TV." While this factored into what will be referred to as the personal utility factor for the GS, it failed to factor statistically for any of the GO. One proposed explanation for this phenomenon is that viewers see reality television (as a genre) as unique, but specific reality television programs are beginning to over-saturate the market and lose their uniqueness.
The first factor derived in the GS analysis consisted of five items that accounted for 33.714% of the total variance (eigenvalue = 6.743), and contained items focusing on the ability of viewers to imagine themselves as participants. This factor (vicarious participation) suggests that one of the primary motivations for viewers to watch these types of shows is to imagine how they would act and adapt in the situations presented. The second factor (perceived reality) had four items that reflected the viewers' beliefs and attitudes towards the level of authenticity presented on reality-based shows (eigenvalue = 1.727, explained 8.634% of the total variance). The third factor (pass time) consisted of items indicating that
234
Lampiran 7 : Journal Barton (sambungan) viewers used reality-based programming to occupy and pass time when nothing else worth watching was available (eigenvalue = 1.549, 7.743% of the total variance explained). The fourth factor (personal utility) is an amalgamation of items that lend themselves towards providing the individual viewer with something. Items depicting personal relaxation, providing a unique form of entertainment, and surrogate companionship were all included (eigenvalue = 1.466, 7.331% of the total variance explained). The fifth factor (social utility) contained items relating to the use of reality programming as a means to facilitate social interaction (eigenvalue = 1.199, 5.996 of the total variance explained). It should be noted that within the context of this factor analysis, the highest loading item ("It is what everyone else likes to discuss," .829) and the lowest loading item ("I like to gather with others to watch," .532) were both present in this factor. Further research may look to examine more closely the social utility aspect of reality-based programming.
Research Question 1
The first research question sought to determine the gratifications sought and the gratifications obtained from viewing competition-based reality programming. The factor analysis described above provided a factor solution that is consistent with gratifications found in other uses and gratification studies, including social utility, vicarious participation, pass time, and perceived reality (Wei & Tootle, 2002). This study identified one new gratification in reality television viewing: personal utility. While some of the items in the personal utility factor have appeared in other studies (Wei & Tootle incorporated "It makes me feel less lonely" into a two-item factor they called "Company"), the expansion of this factor to include a wider range of items is a new development. It should be noted that the second highest loading was present in this factor ("They help me forget about my problems," .822).
Table 2 illustrates the correlations between GS and GO for each of the three programs. The correlations in this table were obtained by running two-tailed Pearson product-moment coefficients (Pearson r) for each pair of GS and GO (60 correlations in total). Examination of the table reveals that the factors perceived reality and personal utility have higher overall correlations to the gratifications sought than the other three.
Research Question 2
In determining if different types of competition-based reality shows result in different GO, the results of the current study seem to suggest that this is the case for some factors. Indices were created for each factor and correlations were again obtained by running two-tailed Pearson r (see Table 3). The results on this table indicate that there are distinct differences between the GO across the three conditions, particularly among the perceived reality and social utility factors.
For example, Table 3 indicates that there is a stronger statistical difference between GS and GO in terms of perceived reality for Survivor (.641) than for The Bachelor/Bachelorette (.509). This might suggest that competition-based reality programs that feature a more diverse population may give viewers a better sense
235
Lampiran 7 : Journal Barton (sambungan) that the drama portrayed on the show is representative of the real world, as compared to shows which feature plots that could be seen as highly unlikely (25 women competing over one man). Conversely, it appears that shows featuring romantic elements (The Bachelor/Bachelorette, .471) may result in higher GO in terms of social utility as compared to minimalist conditions (Survivor, .322).
Research Question 3
The third research question posed in this study asked if GS and GO can predict what types of reality-based programs viewers will be more likely to watch. To determine this, a discriminant analysis was conducted. The variables employed in the analysis included the average discrepancy of gratifications obtained between The Apprentice and The Bachelor, the average discrepancy of GO between The Apprentice and Survivor, the average discrepancy of GO between The Bachelor and Survivor, the total number of other reality-based programs respondents reported viewing (0-9 possible shows), how often respondents reported watching reality-based programming (between once a month and every week), total number of hours watching television per day, gender, and race. These can be grouped into three categories: GO discrepancies between shows, television viewing habits, and demographics. The GO discrepancy measure, as originally discussed by Palmgreen et al. (1981) is a measure of the differences between the expectations of each gratification among all three shows. As they stated, "The gratification-obtained discrepancy measure took into account the average discrepancy in all gratifications obtained (or perceived to be obtainable) from each pair of programs" (1981, p. 466). The GO discrepancy average was obtained by summing the responses for each of the 20 GO items per show, dividing the sum by 20, and subtracting the averages between shows.
Because respondents in the current study could have watched one, two, or all three of the shows listed on the questionnaire, a total of seven groups were used in the multiple discriminant analysis phase. The purpose of this statistical procedure is to classify respondents by their characteristics in the eight variables listed above in order to accurately predict which show(s) the respondents will be most likely to watch based on the data gathered.
Seven-Group Analyses
The discriminant analysis procedure provided six possible discriminant functions for the data, three of which were found to be statistically significant (see Table 4). Of the three functions that were not significant, each contained only one independent variable from the original eight looked at in this study (Function 4 contained gender, Function 5 contained the total number of hours of television watched per day, and Function 6 contained race). The three significant functions indicated that there were some potential predictive capabilities that could be extrapolated from reality television programming viewing.
The first function obtained from the discriminant analysis was significant ([x.sup.2] = 1952.40, df = 48, p < .001) and differentiated between viewers of The Bachelor/ Bachelorette and Survivor (see Table 5). Although this function was limited to the difference between these two shows, this illustrated an even sharper distinction 236
Lampiran 7 : Journal Barton (sambungan) which can be made between both of these shows and The Apprentice. The positive discrepancy score between average GO for these two shows indicated that viewers who watch The Bachelor/Bachelorette will have a negative correlation with watching Survivor.
The second function obtained from the discriminant analysis was significant ([X.sub.2] = 106.59, df = 35, p < .001) and indicated contrast between viewers of The Apprentice and the remaining shows (see Table 5). This function incorporated the average discrepancy measure between The Apprentice and The Bachelor/Bachelorette as well as the average discrepancy measure between The Apprentice and Survivor. A significant positive discrepancy score was observed for Survivor, and a negative discrepancy score was observed for The Bachelor/Bachelorette. Additionally, the frequency with which respondents watched reality-based programs factored into this function, suggesting that there was a negative relationship between viewers of The Apprentice and the amount of reality programming people watch. These variables may indicate that viewers of The Apprentice are more selective in the reality programming they choose to watch.
The final significant function obtained from the discriminant analysis contained the variable which looked at the number of other reality-based shows respondents watch ([X.sup.2] = 50.06, df = 24, p = .001). Examination of the specific shows employed within this variable reveals underlying patterns in viewership. For example, of the respondents who reported watching The Bachelor/Bachelorette (either by itself, or in some combination with the other two shows), 66.8% and 67.1% of them reported watching Road Rules and The Joe Schmo Show, respectively, while non-Bachelor viewers watched them at rates of only 50.0% and 32.6%.
A classification analysis was run to determine the predictive power of the functions, and the results indicated that 62.4% of the respondents were correctly identified with their group. Despite the fact that this may only be seen as a tolerable level of prediction, in the case of the current study it meets both the maximum chance criterion and the proportional chance criterion as put forth by Hair et al. (1998, pp. 268-269). The specific breakdown of percentages and cases can be seen in Table 4. The accuracy of predictions ranged from 55.0% for The Bachelor and Survivor, to 72.1% for The Apprentice.
Conclusions and Discussion
The purpose of this study was to expand on the uses and gratifications research that was previously conducted on reality-based programs, and to determine if the content of the reality program had any impact on the gratifications obtained. The results expand the research in this area by identifying a new gratification for reality programming: personal utility. This new factor was one of the two highest factors in terms of overall gratifications obtained from reality-based programming (see Table 3). One possible explanation for the higher level of gratifications obtained for this factor might be that as reality programs have become more individualized and specific in terms of content, they no longer appeal to the wider audience they did at their inception. Reality programming may begin catering more and more to 237
Lampiran 7 : Journal Barton (sambungan) niche groups and subgroups for ratings. In this, viewers may no longer be watching them as much for social utility, but to obtain gratifications on an individual or specialized level.
Additionally, the current study indicates that the likelihood of viewers to select certain reality-based programs over others is related to the gratifications they obtain from those shows. While the three shows used in this study were not an exhaustive list of possible themes available to viewers of reality programming, they do represent a sample of the most popular ones. Future studies in this area may look at going beyond the competition-based reality programs and include voyeuristic reality programs such as The Real World, The Girls Next Door, and Miami Ink.
The current study used participants from one specific region, and should be regarded as an exploratory study into this area. Future research should attempt to recruit participants who watch all three types of reality shows, and compare the gratifications obtained among those. Respondents who are familiar with different types of reality TV content may give a better perspective on the shows that provide better gratifications within different factors. The current study contained less than one-fourth (24.2%) of respondents that watched all three (n = 167).
Additionally, future studies should look specifically at the uses and gratifications of reality television with regard to gender differences and preferences. The results indicate that an interesting pattern is present when gender is controlled. For example, of people who reported watching at least one of the three shows in this study, 79.7% of females watched The Bachelor/Bachelorette, where as only 44.1% of males watched it. Conversely, of the same group, only 53.8% of females watched Survivor compared to 71.8% of males (The Apprentice was much closer in distribution between males and females with 61.0% and 66.7% watching, respectively). These statistics indicate that the content of reality-based programs may be more gender-biased than previous research assumed, and further examination may yield different motivations for watching programs targeting different genders.
Similarly, it appears that patterns may emerge in terms of viewers watching certain shows. As Function 3 of the discriminant analysis suggests, perhaps future research should look at what "groups" of shows reality television viewers tend to watch. Is there a correlation between viewing The Real World and Road Rules? Are regular viewers of one of Mark Burnett's shows (Survivor, The Apprentice, The Contender, On The Lot) likely to be regular viewers of others? The data collected in this study is insufficient to determine any relationships within large-scale viewing patterns, but there is evidence to support the idea.
Finally, as more and more programming is developed with direct audience interaction in mind, future research may want to focus on new GS and GO originating from these types of programs. Certainly this can be seen with shows such as American Idol, where audience members actively participate in the show by voting off contestants each week. But as the Internet becomes a more pervasive medium for first-run programming, gratifications research will need to begin
238
Lampiran 7 : Journal Barton (sambungan) examining the impact it has as well. For example, the social networking website MySpace.com recently introduced a number of original series that fall within the reality-based programming genre, including Roommates, a faux-reality series which follows the lives of several young women who live together. Roommates offers audience members access to the stars' MySpace profiles as well as the opportunity to affect what happens on the show itself. As more programming emerges with these new interactive options, it stands to reason that new GS and GO will emerge as well.
Overall, the examination of reality-based television programming through the uses and gratifications approach provided a better understanding of what these shows provide and what viewers take away from them. The application of this research, both in an academic environment and in the business world of network programming, is extremely pertinent as reality shows continue to be ratings juggernauts. As American Idol and Dancing With the Stars continue to dominate prime-time line-ups, the proliferation of reality television seems assured. While this study was exploratory, the results indicated that future research in this area may yield significant and vital information towards better understanding the role reality television plays in the contemporary cultural climate.
Table 1 Results of Factor Analysis Extraction Method on GS Principal Component Analysis Rotation Method: Varimax
"I watch competition-based reality TV shows because:"
Factor Factor Factor 1 2 3 Vicarious Participation I like to "plot and scheme" as if I .684 .109 .191 were on the show I like to imagine myself as a .806 .136 .155 contestant I relate to the contestants on reality .637 .309 .157 shows I'd like to be on a reality TV show .796 .114 .012 I'd like to be famous like reality TV .668 .143 - .014 contestants Perceived Reality
They are "real" .147 .820 .041 They are unscripted .102 .811 .059
239
Lampiran 7 : Journal Barton (sambungan)
I enjoy watching "real" people, .276 .676 .213 not actors They are "real" drama .193 .683 .226
Pass Time
It gives me something to watch .124 .167 .801 when I am bored Because there is nothing else on TV .050 .064 .777 I like to have it on in the .105 .104 .675 background when doing other things Personal Utility
They make me feel less lonely .108 .105 .045 They are different than anything .111 .105 .047 else on TV They help me forget about my .220 .326 - .025 problems They help me relax .204 .102 .289
Social Utility
Everyone else watches them .111 .100 .035 I like to discuss them with others .277 .229 .229 It is what everyone else likes to .170 .079 .105 discuss I like to gather with others to watch .258 .173 .276
Cronbach's Alpha .829 .815 .741 Eigenvalue 6.743 1.727 1.549 % of total variance explained 33.714 8.634 7.743
240
Lampiran 7 : Journal Barton (sambungan)
"I watch competition-based reality TV shows because:"
Factor Factor 4 5
Vicarious Participation
I like to "plot and scheme" as if I .091 .121 were on the show I like to imagine myself as a .082 .083 contestant I relate to the contestants on reality .153 .205 shows I'd like to be on a reality TV show .135 .050 I'd like to be famous like reality TV .212 .235 contestants Perceived Reality
They are "real" .119 .046 They are unscripted .145 .015 I enjoy watching "real" people, .116 .161 not actors They are "real" drama .092 .238
Pass Time
It gives me something to watch .070 .211 when I am bored Because there is nothing else on TV .043 -.006 I like to have it on in the .270 .107 background when doing other things Personal Utility
They make me feel less lonely .729 .247 They are different than anything .537 .179 else on TV They help me forget about my .822 .074 problems They help me relax .685 .041
Social Utility
Everyone else watches them .191 .772 I like to discuss them with others .069 .549 It is what everyone else likes to .167 .829 discuss I like to gather with others to watch .106 .532 Cronbach's Alpha .740 .787 Eigenvalue 1.466 1.199 % of total variance explained 7.331 5.996
Note: Total variance explained = 63.419.
241
Lampiran 7 : Journal Barton (sambungan)
Table 2 Pearson Correlations of Gratifications Sought with the Corresponding Gratifications Obtained
GS versus GS versus GO for GS versus GO for The The Bachelor/ GO for Apprentice Bachelorette Survivor Gratifications (n = 368) (n = 389) (n = 337)
Vicarious Participation
I like to "plot and scheme" .356 .352 .339 as if I were on the show I like to imagine myself as .442 .356 .358 a contestant I relate to the contestants .309 .341 .397 on reality shows I'd like to be on a reality .178 .264 .254 TV show I'd like to be famous like .253 .267 .205 reality TV contestants
Perceived Reality
They are "real" .422 .431 .517 They are unscripted .452 .422 .509 I enjoy watching "real" .330 .354 .479 people, not actors They are "real" drama .408 .440 .494
Pass Time
It gives me something to .417 .427 .355 watch when I am bored Because there is nothing .299 .331 .366 else on TV I like to have it on in the .419 .450 .384 background when doing other things
242
Lampiran 7 : Journal Barton (sambungan)
GS versus GS versus GO for GS versus GO for The The Bachelor/ GO for Apprentice Bachelorette Survivor Gratifications (n = 368) (n = 389) (n = 337)
Personal Utility
They make me feel less .403 .295 .309 lonely They are different than .330 .373 .426 anything else on TV They help me forget about .466 .404 .454 my problems They help me relax .527 .563 .520
Social Utility
Everyone else watches them .309 .296 .186 I like to discuss them with .356 .388 .239 others It is what everyone else .310 .304 .199 likes to discuss I like to gather with .394 .457 .299 others to watch
Note: All correlations significant at p < .001.
Table 3 Pearson Correlations of GS Factors with the Corresponding GO
GS versus GS versus GO for The GS versus GO for The Bachelor/ GO for Apprentice Bachelorette Survivor Gratifications Sought (n = 368) (n = 389) (n = 337) Factor l: Vicarious participation .441 .429 .405 Factor 2: Perceived reality .530 .509 .641
243
Lampiran 7 : Journal Barton (sambungan)
Factor 3: Pass time .462 .496 .444 Factor 4: Personal utility .541 .509 .515 Factor 5 Social utility .452 .471 .322
Difference (Highest vs. Lowest Loading Gratifications Sought Factors) Factor l: Vicarious participation .036 Factor 2: Perceived reality .132 Factor 3: Pass time .052 Factor 4: Personal utility .032 Factor 5 Social utility .149
Note: All correlations significant at p < .001.
Table 4 Classification Results of Discriminant Analysis
Predicted Group Membership-Number of Cases (Percentage)
The
Apprentice The The & The Original Group Apprentice Bachelor Survivor Bachelor
The Apprentice 49 (72.1%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) The Bachelor 0 (0%) 43 (61.4%) 0 (0%) 27 (38.6%) Survivor 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 46 (66.7%) 0 (0%) The Apprentice & 0 (0%) 39 (42.4%) 0 (0%) 53 (57.6%) The Bachelor The Apprentice 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 16 (39.0%) 0 (0%) & Survivor The Bachelor 14 (23.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (1.7%) & Survivor
244
Lampiran 7 : Journal Barton (sambungan)
The Apprentice, 45 (26.9%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) The Bachelor, & Survivor
The The The Apprentice, Apprentice Bachelor The Bachelor, Original Group & Survivor & Survivor & Survivor Total
The Apprentice 0 (0%) 6 (8.8%) 13 (19.1%) 68 (100%) The Bachelor 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 70 (100%) Survivor 23 (33.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 69 (100%) The Apprentice & 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 92 (100%) The Bachelor The Apprentice 25 (61.0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 41 (100%) & Survivor The Bachelor 0 (0%) 33 (55.0%) 12 (20.0%) 60 (100%) & Survivor The Apprentice, 0 (0%) 17 (10.2%) 105 (62.9%) 167 (100%) The Bachelor, & Survivor
Table 5 Function Structure Matrix for Discriminant Analysis
Function Function Function 1 2 3
Discrepancy of GO between .760 .389 -.148 The Bachelor and Survivor How often do you watch -.038 -.522 .237 Reality TV Discrepancy of GO between -.012 -.456 .353 The Apprentice and The Bachelor Discrepancy of GO between -.007 .401 .085 The Apprentice and Survivor Total number of other Reality .036 .632 .634 TV shows watched Gender .078 .425 .358 Hours watching TV per day .001 .054 .185 Race .025 -.032 -.194 Chi-Square 1952.397 106.590 50.059 Df 48 35 24 Sig. .000 .000 .001
245
Lampiran 7 : Journal Barton (sambungan)
Function Function Function 4 5 6
Discrepancy of GO between .325 .188 -.267 The Bachelor and Survivor How often do you watch .519 .059 -.055 Reality TV Discrepancy of GO between -.153 -.035 .179 The Apprentice and The Bachelor Discrepancy of GO between .346 .382 -.108 The Apprentice and Survivor Total number of other Reality -.102 -.313 -.040 TV shows watched Gender -.546 .158 .513 Hours watching TV per day .110 .685 -.076 Race .573 -.279 .721 Chi-Square 21.190 11.607 4.533 Df 15 8 3 Sig. .131 .170 .209 COPYRIGHT 2009 Broadcast Education Association COPYRIGHT 2009 Gale, Cengage Learning
Kristin M. Barton "Reality television programming and diverging gratifications: the influence of content on gratifications obtained". Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. FindArticles.com. 12 Sep, 2011. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6836/is_3_53/ai_n39277002/
COPYRIGHT 2009 Broadcast Education Association COPYRIGHT 2009 Gale, Cengage Learning
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication Information: Article Title: Reality Television Programming and Diverging Gratifications: The Influence of Content on Gratifications Obtained. Contributors: Kristin M. Barton - author. Journal Title: Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. Volume: 53. Issue: 3. Publication Year: 2009. Page Number: 460+. COPYRIGHT 2009 Broadcast Education Association; COPYRIGHT 2009 Gale, Cengage Learning
246