Advance Search

The interactive nature of reality television: an audience analysis

an audience analysis

Heidi Penzhorn
University of Johannesburg
Magriet Pitout
University of Johannesburg
Keywords:
Copyright and Licensing:
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Share:

How to Cite

The interactive nature of reality television: an audience analysis. (2022). Communicare: Journal for Communication Studies in Africa, 25(2), 85-102. https://doi.org/10.36615/jcsa.v25i2.1746
  • Articles
  • Submited: October 19, 2022
  • Published: October 20, 2022

Abstract

This article explores the motivating factors for viewer participation in the reality television programme,
Project Fame. It looks at the interactive component of reality television, arguing that viewers are
active in their media consumption. The theoretical foundation of this study is based on the uses
and gratifications theory as well as the cultural studies approach to reception theory.
On a methodological level, this study applies qualitative research methods in order to determine
what factors motivate viewers to participate interactively in the television programme. Supported
by the categories of need gratifications, this study concludes that cognitive, affective and personal
integrative needs motivate viewers to utilise the various interactive opportunities and that
viewers expect gratifications from participating interactively. In addition, reception theory is used
to further explain viewers’ active participation and interpretation of media messages in a social
and cultural context.

Pdf.
Pdf.

Article Metrics Graph

Article Views | PDF Downloads
Chart Graph | Range Graph

References

  1. Baxter, L.A. & Babbie, E. (2004). The basics of communication research. Canada: Wadsworth.
  2. Bielby, D.D., Harrington, C.L. & Bielby, W.T. (1999). Whose stories are they? Fans' engagement with soap opera narratives in three sites of fan activity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43(1):35-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838159909364473
  3. Bryant, J. & Heath, R.L. (2000). Human communication theory and research: concepts, contexts and challenges. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  4. Cavender, G. & Fishman, M. (1998). Entertaining crime: television reality programs. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
  5. Chandler, D. 2004. Why do people watch television? Available from
  6. http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/usegrat.html#A (Accessed 28 April 2005).
  7. Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/Decoding. In Culture, media, language. Edited by Hall, S., Hobson, D., Lowe A. & Willis, P. London: Routledge:128-139.
  8. Heeter, C. (1989). Implications of new interactive technologies for conceptualizing communication.
  9. In Media use in the information age: Emerging patterns of adoption and consumer us. Edited by Salvaggio, J. & Bryant, J. Hillsdale: NJ: Erlbaum: 217-237.
  10. Hellman, H. (1999). Legitimations of television programme policies: Patterns of argumentation and discursive convergencies in a multichannel age. In Rethinking the media audience. Edited by Alasatuuri, P. London: SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446216996.n6
  11. Hill, A. (2002). Big brother: the real audience. Television & New Media, 3(3): 323-340. https://doi.org/10.1177/152747640200300307
  12. Holmes, S & Jermyn, D. (2004). Introduction: understanding reality TV. In Understanding reality television. Edited by Holmes, S. & Jermyn, D. London: Routledge: 1-33. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203601280
  13. Hunter, C.D. (2005). Using uses and gratifications to understand the web. Available from
  14. http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/chunter/webuses.html (Accessed 14 March 2005).
  15. Johnson, T.J., & Kay, B.K. (2002). Online and in the know: uses and gratifications of the web for political information. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 46(1):54-75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4601_4
  16. Kilborn, R. (1994). How real can you get? Recent developments in reality television. European Journal of Communication, 9: 421-439.
  17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323194009004003
  18. Lin, C.A. (1999). Online-service adoption likelihood. Journal of advertising research, 39(2): 79-102.
  19. Luo, X. (2002). Uses and gratifications theory and e-consumer behaviors: a structural equation modelling study. Journal of interactive advertising, 2(2):4-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2002.10722060
  20. Morley, D. (1992). Television, audiences and cultural studies. London:Routledge.
  21. Palmer, G. (2002). Big Brother: an experiment in governance. Television and New Media, 3(3): 295-310. https://doi.org/10.1177/152747640200300305
  22. Ruddock, A. (2001). Understanding audiences. London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857020178
  23. Schroder, K.C. (1999). The best of both worlds? Media audience research between rival paradigms. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446216996.n3
  24. In Rethinking the media audience. Edited by Alasatuuri, P. London: Sage: 38-69.
  25. Severin, W.J., & Tankard, J.W. (1992). Communication theories: origins, methods and uses in the mass media. NY: Longman.
  26. Stafford, T.F. (2004). Determining uses and gratifications for the internet. Decision Sciences, 2-18.
  27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.00117315.2004.02524.x
  28. Vaughn, S., Schumm, J.S. & Sinagub, J. (1996). Focus group interviews in education and psychology. Calif: Sage.
  29. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452243641
  30. Williams, K. (2003). Understanding media theory. London: Wiley
How to Cite
The interactive nature of reality television: an audience analysis. (2022). Communicare: Journal for Communication Studies in Africa, 25(2), 85-102. https://doi.org/10.36615/jcsa.v25i2.1746

Send mail to Author

Send Cancel

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Custom technologies based on your needs

  • ORCID
  • Crossref
  • PubMed
    • Clarivate