Why people watch reality TV

Abstract

We assessed the appeal of reality TV by asking 239 adults to rate themselves on each of 16 basic motives using the Reiss Profile standardized instrument and to rate how much they watched and enjoyed various reality television shows. The results suggested that the people who watched reality television had above-average trait motivation to feel self-important and, to a lesser extent, vindicated, friendly, free of morality, secure, and romantic, as compared with large normative samples. The results, which were dose-dependent, showed a new method for studying media. This method is based on evidence that people have the potential to experience 16 different joys. People prefer television shows that stimulate the feelings they intrinsically value the most, which depends on individuality.

Full text

Why People Watch Reality TV
Steven Reiss
James Wiltz
The Ohio State University
We assessed the appeal of reality TV by asking 239 adults to rate themselves on
each of 16 basic motives using the Reiss Profile standardized instrument and to
rate how much they watched and enjoyed various reality television shows. The
results suggested that the people who watched reality television had above-av-
erage trait motivation to feel self-important and, to a lesser extent, vindicated,
friendly, free of morality, secure, and romantic, as compared with large norma-
tive samples. The results, which were dose-dependent, showed a new method for
studying media. This method is based on evidence that people have the potential
to experience 16 different joys. People prefer television shows that stimulate the
feelings they intrinsically value the most, which depends on individuality.
Reiss (2000a) put forth a comprehensive theory of human motivation, variously
called sensitivity theory or the theory of 16 basic desires. The theory borrows
heavily from the philosophical ideas of Aristotle (trans. 1953), but it differs from
Aristotle in its analysis of individuality. Previous reports on sensitivity theory ad-
dressed diverse applications such as spirituality (Reiss, 2000b, in press), personal-
ity (Havercamp & Reiss, 2003, in press), interpersonal relationships (Engel,
Olson, & Patrick, 2002), psychopathology (Reiss & Havercamp, 1996), develop-
mental disabilities (Dykens & Rosner, 1999; Lecavlier & Tasse, 2002), and sports
(Reiss, Wiltz, & Sherman, 2001). In this article, the theory is applied to under-
standing reality television. The conceptual approach of this article may be ex-
panded someday into a general theory of culture.
Sensitivity theory holds that people pay attention to stimuli that are relevant to
the satisfaction of their most basic motives, and they tend to ignore stimuli that are
irrelevant to their basic motives. A person motivated by a strong desire for social
contact, for example, often looks for opportunities to socialize, whereas a person
MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY, 6, 363–378
Copyright © 2004, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Steven Reiss, Nisonger Center, The Ohio State
University, 1581 Dodd Drive, Columbus, OH 43210–1257. E-mail: reiss.7@osu.edu

with a weak desire for social contact may not even know who is holding a party
over the weekend. A person with a strong desire for cleanliness (which falls under
the basic desires of order) may notice when cigarette ashes are left in a tray,
whereas a person with a weak desire for order may not even notice when dirty
dishes are left in the sink. If we could identify the most basic or fundamental mo-
tives of human life, we may be able to connect these motives to desires to pay at-
tention to various media experiences. This may lead to insight into why certain cat-
egories of television programs, such as reality TV, appeal to many people.
In his search for basic motives, Aristotle (trans. 1953) distinguished between
means and ends. Means are motivational only because they produce something
else, whereas ends are self-motivating goals desired for no reason other than that is
what a person wants. When a professional athlete plays ball for a salary, the salary
is only a means of obtaining whatever is eventually purchased. When a child plays
ball for the fun of it, however, having fun and physical exercise (vitality) are ends.
Aristotle urged fellow philosophers to identify the end motives of human life, be-
cause these indicate the most fundamental purposes of behavior. Under sensitivity
theory, end motives are called basic desires.
In an effort to identify basic desires, Reiss and Havercamp (1998) asked thou-
sands of people to rate the importance of hundreds of possible life goals.1Mathe-
matical factor analyses of these ratings showed that the participants’ responses
expressed 16 factors or root meanings. Both exploratory factor analysis (Reiss &
Havercamp, 1998) and three confirmatory factor analyses (Havercamp & Reiss,
in press; Reiss & Havercamp, 1998) showed the 16-factor solution to basic
motivation.
In conclusion, all motivation reduces to basic motivation,2and basic motivation
influences what people pay attention to and what they do. The sensitivity theory of
motivation offers a unique analysis of basic motivation based on what thousands of
people rated to be their most important goals and motives. The results of the initial
studies on sensitivity theory showed 16 basic desires.
BASIC DESIRES
The 16 basic desires are shown in Table 1. At first blush, the list seems to leave
out a number of basic desires, such as those for wealth, survival, and spirituality.
It is important to keep in mind that the 16 basic desires are considered to be ele-
mental end motives. Whereas chemists have shown that all chemical compounds
can be analyzed as combinations from the Periodic Chart of Elements, sensitiv-
ity theory holds that many complex (herein called compound) human motives
364 REISS & WILTZ

365
TABLE 1
Reiss’s 16 Basic Motives
Motive Name Motive Animal Behavior Joy
Power Desire to influence (including
leadership)
Dominant animal eats more food Efficacy
Curiosity Desire for knowledge Animal learns to find food more
efficiently and learns to avoid prey
Wonderment
Independence Desire for autonomy Motivates animal to leave nest,
searching for food over larger area
Freedom
Status Desire for prestige (including desire for
attention)
Attention in nest leads to better
feedings
Self-importance
Social Contact Desire for peer companionship
(including desire to play)
Safety in numbers for animals playing
in wild
Fun
Vengeance Desire to get even (including desire to
win)
Animal fights when threatened Vindication
Honor Desire to obey a traditional moral code Animal runs back to herd when stared
at by prey
Loyalty
Idealism Desire to improve society (including
altruism, justice)
Altruism in animals Compassion
(continued)

366
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Motive Name Motive Animal Behavior Joy
Physical Exercise Desire to exercise muscles Strong animals eat more and are less
vulnerable to prey
Vitality
Romance Desire for sex (including courting) Reproduction essential for species
survival
Lust
Family Desire to raise own children Protection of young facilitates survival Love
Order Desire to organize (including desire for
ritual)
Cleanliness promotes health Stability
Eating Desire for food Nutrition essential for survival Satiation
Acceptance Desire for approval Corresponding animal behavior unclear Self-confidence
Tranquility Desire for inner peace (prudence,
safety)
Animal runs away from danger
(anxiety, fear)
Safe, relaxed
Saving Desire to collect Animal hoards food and other materials Ownership

can be reduced to combinations among 16 basic desires. For most people, for ex-
ample, the desire for wealth may be reduced to some compound of basic desires
for status, power, and saving. Readers interested in a more detailed discussion of
why certain desires are not included in the list of 16 should consult Reiss
(2000a).
Each of the 16 basic desires is thought to be universally motivating, but individ-
uals differ in how they prioritize the 16 basic desires. Some people, for example,
are more strongly motivated by power than by curiosity, whereas others are more
strongly motivated by curiosity than by power. By definition, a Desire Profile
shows how strongly each of the 16 basic desires motivates a particular individual
(Reiss, 2000a).
When a basic (end) goal is obtained, people experience a joy (an intrinsically
valued feeling). As shown in Table 1, a different joy is experienced depending on
which basic goal is experienced. Freedom, for example, is experienced when we
obtain independence, whereas self-importance is experienced when we obtain sta-
tus. Under sensitivity theory, pleasures (or joys) differ in kind. According to sensi-
tivity theory, people seek to maximize their experiences of the 16 joys, especially
those that are most important to them according to their Desire Profile.
Basic desires imply core values (see Schwartz, 1994); we value whatever we
desire for its own sake. The logical connection between end motives and core val-
ues has been recognized since antiquity. Aristotle’s (trans. 1953) analysis of hu-
man motivation, for example, was published under the book title, The Nicho-
machean Ethics.
In conclusion, basic motivation influences what people pay attention to and
what they do. A new method for studying basic motivation—factor analysis of
what large numbers of people say motivates them—has shown 16 distinct basic de-
sires. The characteristics of each basic desire include the following: end motiva-
tion, elemental motivation, universal motivation, individual differences in priori-
tization, associated joys when goal is obtained, and core value. According to
sensitivity theory, people behave as if they are trying to maximize the experience
of 16 joys, concentrating on those most important to them according to their indi-
vidual Desire Profile.
VICARIOUS EXPERIENCE
We have the potential to experience the 16 joys as a consequence of direct or
vicarious experiences. When we watch a love movie, for example, we may expe-
rience the joy of lust, or for a war movie, the joy of vindication. Love and vindi-
REALITY TV 367

cation are essentially the same emotions when we experience them as a conse-
quence of viewing movies or direct experience. Compared with joys that result
from experience, however, vicariously aroused joys may be more short-lived, of
lower quality or intensity, and less satisfying when experienced during recall.
Sensitivity theory holds that whether we pursue direct or vicarious experience
depends on many factors, such as upbringing, culture, opportunities, personal
skills, and personal history. According to sensitivity theory, we embrace televi-
sion viewing as a convenient, minimal effort means of vicariously experiencing
the 16 joys repeatedly.
As far back as Aristotle (see Taylor, 1919/1955), media theories concerned with
vicarious experiences also were concerned with cathartic purging of one’s soul.
Catharsis theories express energy models of motivation; these models predict that
vicarious experiences release psychic energy, producing reductions in relevant be-
haviors. Catharsis theory predicts that release of aggressive energy produces a re-
duction in aggression, whereas release of tension produces a reduction in anxious
behavior. In contrast, sensitivity theory is a trait model of motivation, not an energy
model. Sensitivity theory holds that aggression (which falls under the basic desire
of vengeance), and anxiety (which falls under the basic desire of tranquility), are
enduring personality traits. Under sensitivity theory, aggressive people watch vio-
lent television programs partially because doing so arouses feelings of vindication,
which are joyful, not because viewing leads to a cathartic release of tension or en-
ergy. Thus, sensitivity theory predicts vicarious arousal of joys, but not a reduction
in criterion behavior following vicarious arousal.
The results of a number of studies support the hypothesis that motivational per-
sonality traits are linked to viewer preferences (Bryant, 2002). Researchers have
shown, for example, that aggressive children are attracted to aggressive television
programs (Freedman, 1984), sex-oriented people are attracted to programs with
sexual themes (Greenberg & Woods, 1999; Ward & Rivadeneya, 1999), religious
people watch religious programs (Hoover, 1988), and curious people like to watch
the news (Perse, 1992). Inconsistent results have been reported, however, on the
question of whether or not viewing gratifies or satiates motives. Aggressive chil-
dren who view films with aggressive content, for example, sometimes imitate the
aggression, rather than show satiation (e.g., Bandura & Walters, 1965; Kenny,
1952).
In conclusion, sensitivity theory holds that we have the potential to experience
the 16 joys as a consequence of both vicarious and direct experiences. Sensitivity
theory does not predict cathartic reductions in criterion behaviors following vicari-
ous experiences of joys.
368 REISS & WILTZ

THEORY COMPARISONS
Sensitivity theory represents a variant of the “uses and gratification” approach to
media psychology. Sensitivity theory expresses the following assumptions of this
approach (see Perry, 2002): (a) media use is motivated; (b) people select media
based on their needs; and (c) media compete with other activities for selection, at-
tention, and use. Compared with previous uses and gratification theories, however,
sensitivity theory (a) connects media experiences to the 16 basic (end) desires
shown in Table 1 and (b) does not predict that gratification leads to increased
global satisfaction. Instead, sensitivity theory predicts that gratification leads to
the experience of joys specific to the basic motive that is gratified (see Reiss, in
press).
Sensitivity theory has both similarities and dissimilarities with mood manage-
ment theoretical approaches in media psychology. On the one hand, both mood
management theory and sensitivity theory hold that people are motivated to bal-
ance motivational experiences. On the other hand, mood management theory holds
that people balance positive and negative moods, whereas sensitivity theory holds
that people balance separately each of 16 specific desires.3
Sensitivity theory is not an example of a “selective exposure” theory. Although
sensitivity theory holds that people pay attention to stimuli relevant to the satisfac-
tion of their basic desires, in social psychology selective exposure implies motiva-
tion to confirm one’s beliefs and motivation to avoid disconfirmation of one’s be-
liefs (e.g., Oliver, 2002; Zillmann & Bryant, 1985.) Under sensitivity theory, such
motivation falls under the desire for acceptance, which is only one of the 16 basic
desires that are connected to media experiences.
REALITY TELEVISION
According to sensitivity theory, people go through life seeking to experience 16
basic (end) goals and associated joys, and they concentrate on those that are stron-
gest and most highly valued (which depends on individuality). Soon after a basic
goal is obtained, the desire reasserts itself and must be satisfied anew. A few hours
after eating, for example, hunger re-emerges. A vengeful person who has experi-
enced a few days of minimal conflict may become motivated to pick a fight or ar-
gument. Because basic desires quickly reassert themselves and, thus, can be sati-
ated only temporarily, people seek ways to repeatedly satisfy their most important
REALITY TV 369

basic desires. According to Reiss (2000a), one of the purposes of culture is provide
opportunities for people to experience repeatedly the 16 end goals and joys.
We applied Reiss’s sensitivity theory to viewing television shows. The theory
suggests that individuals prefer to watch those shows that arouse the joys most im-
portant to them. People who are strongly motivated to socialize, for example,
should be especially interested in shows that portray groups, fun, or friendship.
Those strongly motivated by vengeance should be especially interested in televi-
sion programs with aggressive content.
If Reiss’s theory is valid, it should be possible to develop reliable motivational
profiles of viewers of particular types of television programs. In this investigation,
we tested the hypothesis that viewers of reality-based television programs rank or-
der the 16 basic desires in a characteristic manner that departs significantly from
normative rankings. This is a fairly rigorous test of Reiss’s theory because nearly
every random group of 100 or so people produce approximate, normative rankings
of the 16 basic desires. Further, we made the test even more rigorous by assessing
“dose-dependent” associations—that is, the more reality television shows people
watch, the greater should be the departure from normality of the viewers rank or-
derings of the 16 basic desires. As far as we know, this investigation represented
the first significant effort to evaluate scientifically the appeal of reality television
using standardized measures. The current popularity of so-called reality television
has drawn interest from many social commentators and from some scholars (John-
son-Woods, 2002), but few scientific studies have been reported (Nabi, Biely, Mor-
gan, & Stitt, in press). As the term is used here, the defining characteristic of reality
television is that ordinary people (not professional actors) serve as the main char-
acters of the television program. Included are shows such as Survivor, Big Brother,
and Temptation Island. Whereas some have lamented the low level of morals on
these shows and the exploitation of the participants (Peyser, 2001), others have
seen these programs as appealing to the basic human quest for truth and need for
genuineness (Calvert, 2000).
METHOD
Participants
The participants were 239 adults (167 women and 72 men) who were recruited
from one of two sources—seminars for 121 persons working in human service
fields such as 4H youth groups and developmental disabilities programs—and 117
college students enrolled in courses at a large Midwestern university. We asked
370 REISS & WILTZ

these two groups to participate in this study because we had access to them rather
than because of any specific characteristic they might show. They volunteered with
the understanding that they would be asked to complete anonymously a question-
naire about what they like and dislike but could not be told the purposes of the in-
vestigation until the study was completed.
Questionnaire
The questionnaires used in this study were presented in booklets entitled “Free
Time Activity.” The booklets asked 159 questions organized into three sections.
The first section asked for demographic information, including age, sex, and state
of residence. A second section, Part B, asked participants to rate how much they
participated in and enjoyed travel, different types of travel, sports in general, spe-
cific sports, music, various types of music, and reality television. The participants
endorsed statements about how much they watched and enjoyed five different real-
ity television shows—Survivor, Big Brother, Temptation Island, The Mole, and The
Real World. The purpose of imbedding the questions about reality television into a
more general survey of leisure activities was to disguise the investigators’ interest
in reality television, minimizing any bias or demand effects such as the partici-
pants’ desire to please the experimenter by producing the results the experimenter
is hoping to obtain.4
A third part of the questionnaire, Part C, consisted of the 128 items on the Reiss
Profile of Fundamental Motives and Motivational Sensitivities (Reiss & Haver-
camp, 1998). This is a standardized test of 16 “intrinsic” or “end” trait motives. A
list of the motives is presented in Table 1; they are defined in detail in Reiss (2000a,
in press). As noted already, previous research had shown a reliable factor solution
to the test in a series of studies with more than 10,000 total participants (Haver-
camp, 1998; Reiss & Havercamp, 1998). The results on the Reiss Profile have been
shown to predict real-life club participation (Havercamp & Reiss, in press), choice
of college major (Havercamp & Reiss, in press), spirituality (Reiss, 2000b), and
sports participation (Reiss et al., 2001). The reliability and validity coefficients for
the instrument significantly exceed those reported for many personality tests
(Havercamp & Reiss, in press).
In our research booklets, the order of presentation of Parts B and C were coun-
terbalanced to minimize possible order effects. About half the participants com-
pleted booklets in which they reported their enjoyment of leisure activities before
completing the Reiss Profile, and about half had completed the Reiss Profile be-
fore reporting how much they enjoyed various leisure activities.
REALITY TV 371

Procedure and Data Analysis
The questionnaires were completed anonymously and individually. After prelimi-
nary analysis showed no significant differences between the two samples, human
service workers and college students, and no significant differences resulting from
the order of presentation of the various questions, the data were collapsed across
these dimensions.
RESULTS
Table 2 shows mean scores on each of the 16 Reiss motives for groups indicating
they watched and enjoyed 0, 1, or 2 or more of the reality television programs in-
cluded in our survey booklets. After the data were submitted to a multivariate F,
which was highly significant at the .001 level, univariate Fs were calculated and ef-
fect sizes were estimated for statistically significant differences.
372 REISS & WILTZ
TABLE 2
Mean Motive Score for Three Viewing Groups
Number of Shows Liked
Motive ZeroaOnebTwo+cSD F(2, 226) p<2
Social Contact 31.6 34.6 35.1 7.3 5.8 .01 .05
Curiosity 36.9 37.6 35.5 6.0 2.4 ns —
Honor 36.6 35.1 34.0 6.1 4.4 .02 .04
Family 37.4 35.9 37.3 8.9 .05 ns —
Independence 22.9 21.8 22.3 7.7 .40 ns —
Power 26.4 28.2 28.3 7.5 1.8 ns —
Order 27.4 29.0 30.9 8.9 3.4 .03 .03
Idealism 33.0 31.1 30.7 7.4 2.6 ns —
Social Status 18.6 25.0 26.6 9.9 18.1 .001 .14
Vengeance 14.4 21.0 19.9 10.7 9.1 .001 .08
Eating 29.5 30.0 29.3 8.8 .06 ns —
Romance 18.1 24.2 21.5 11.1 5.5 .01 .02
Physical Exercise 28.5 31.2 31.3 9.9 2.1 ns —
Acceptance 27.8 30.8 29.1 8.2 .20 ns —
Tranquility 20.4 19.5 20.4 8.4 .20 ns —
Saving 27.6 29.5 29.5 8.0 1.5 ns —
an= 94. bn= 48. cn= 84.

By far, the largest significant effect was for the motive of status. The more real-
ity TV shows a person liked, the more status-oriented was the person. The differ-
ence between the Zero and Two+ groups approached a full standard deviation,
which is a very large group difference.
The second largest significant difference concerned the basic motive of ven-
geance. People who watched and enjoyed reality television placed a higher value
on vengeance than did people who did not watch such shows.
Significant but small differences were reported on the motives of social contact,
honor, order, and romance. People who liked two or more reality television shows
on our list tended to be more motivated by social life, less motivated by honor,
more concerned with order, and more motivated by romance, as compared to those
who did not watch any of the reality television shows in our list.
DISCUSSION
Because this was the first study to evaluate Reiss motivational profiles of a televi-
sion audience, its significance may be the suggestion of a new method of poten-
tially productive research in the fields of mass culture and communications. Prior
to this study, efforts to describe audiences in terms of personality traits were
mostly unsuccessful. Personality tests have a powerful tendency to yield the norms
every time groups of 100-plus people are tested; consequently, they often do not
show profiles for audiences of television shows. The Reiss Profile is a new kind of
personality instrument, however, based on motivational constructs rather than on
traditional personality constructs. The results of this study showed a statistically
significant, motivational profile for people who view reality television. This en-
courages future research aimed at developing motivational profiles of other groups
identified by their interest in particular shows or aspects of culture.
The results of our study on reality television supported the theoretical perspec-
tive that Reiss’s 16 basic desires and values are associated with viewing and enjoy-
ing reality television shows. The results showed that status is the main motivational
force that drives interest in reality television. The more status-oriented people are,
the more likely they are to view reality television and report pleasure and enjoy-
ment. As shown in Table 1, people who are motivated by status have an above-av-
erage need to feel self-important. Reality television may gratify this psychological
need in two ways. One possibility is that viewers feel they are more important
(have higher status) than the ordinary people portrayed on reality television shows.
The idea that these are “real” people gives psychological significance to the view-
ers’ perceptions of superiority—it may not matter much if the storyline is realistic,
REALITY TV 373

so long as the characters are ordinary people. Further, the message of reality televi-
sion—that millions of people are interested in watching real life experiences of or-
dinary people—implies that ordinary people are important. Ordinary people can
watch the shows, see people like themselves, and fantasize that they could gain ce-
lebrity status by being on television.
Reality television viewers are more motivated by vengeance than are non-
viewers. The desire for vengeance is closely associated with enjoyment of compe-
tition (Reiss, 2000a)—in prior psychometric research, the people who said they
value and enjoy getting even with others also tended to say they value and enjoy
competition. Further, people who avoid conflict, anger, and competition may avoid
viewing reality television shows because these shows often portray competition
and interpersonal conflict.
Because reality television is widely watched, it is often a topic of discussion at
the office. It is not surprising, therefore, that sociable people are significantly more
likely than nonsociable people to watch reality televisions, although the differ-
ences are small.
The finding that viewing reality TV shows is negatively associated with the ex-
tent to which a person embraces morality (honor) is not surprising because many
reality television shows champion expedience over ethics. These differences, al-
though statistically significant, were small.
Small, significant effects also were obtained for the value of order. This finding
suggests that people who dislike rules may react negatively to the many rules that
must be followed by the participants of reality television shows. The finding con-
cerning romance suggests that the sexual aspects of some shows attract viewers but
not very many because the effect is small in magnitude.
Some have questioned the intellectualism of reality television viewers, and oth-
ers have questioned the physical laziness of people who like to watch television.
No support was found for either of these hypotheses. Both viewers and nonviewers
were equally motivated by curiosity, and the same was shown for the motive of
physical exercise.
Although reality television viewing is generally about status, specific shows
may appeal to different psychological needs. Temptation Island, for example, por-
trays infidelity, which may appeal to people who value expedience (low honor)
more than morality. Survivor, in contrast, has more of a competitive theme, perhaps
appealing to people who value vengeance.
The results of this study should be interpreted cautiously. Many different shows
are classified as “reality television,” so that current or future shows may have an
appeal different from the shows evaluated here. Although the results of this study
were not affected by gender, future studies may show gender preferences in how
374 REISS & WILTZ

viewing habits are connected with basic desires. Gender effects probably occur but
perhaps at magnitudes too small to be identified by the methods used in this study.
The results of this study are consistent with those reported by Nabi et al. (2003)
regarding the psychological appeal of reality-based television. Nabi et al. showed
that curiosity (including need for cognition) was not a significant motive for
watching reality television; the results of this study also showed no correlation be-
tween curiosity and viewing of reality television. Nabi et al. also showed that voy-
eurism (“getting a peek”) does not motivate viewing reality television. Because
Reiss and Havercamp (1998) and Reiss (2000) implied that voyeurism is motivat-
ing only as a means to 1 of more the 16 basic goals, we did not study voyeurism. (It
is not a fundamental or intrinsically desired motive.) Nabi et al. reported a small
correlation between the “unscripted nature” of reality shows and impulsivity. In
our work, impulsivity is not a universal or fundamental motive (it is a personality
trait), but flexibility falls under low or weak desire for order. We found a small cor-
relation between order and viewing. Although the shows may be “unscripted,”
rules are salient features of these shows, so that arguably any expected association
with order should be positive, not negative as Nabi et al. assumed.
In conclusion, these results supported the general hypothesis that cultural
events such as reality television shows arouse specific combinations of 16 intrinsic
feelings or joys. The appeal of reality events is influenced by the degree of match
between (a) the pattern of intensities of 16 intrinsic joys the show arouses and (b)
the individual’s valuations of the 16 basic joys (called a Reiss Desire Profile). Fu-
ture researchers can study the relevance of this model for a much wider range of
television shows and cultural events. It is unlikely to work every time, of course,
but it may produce reliable empirical results much more frequently than was the
case with alternative methods.
NOTES
1Surprisingly, the most influential analyses of basic motivation in history were put forth
without having first asked large numbers of people what their motives are. Plato’s (trans.
1966) suggestion that justice and knowledge are basic motives was based on philosophical
analysis, not on what fellow Athenians said motivated them. When Kant (1783/1953) dis-
cussed the overriding importance of moral imperatives, he did not ask large numbers of fel-
low Germans if “moral imperatives” motivated them. Darwin (1859/1990) held that repro-
duction and survival were the two most fundamental motives guiding behavior. He based his
conclusion on detailed observations of animals, not on what fellow Brits said were their
overriding goals. Freud (1916/1963) reduced all motivation to sex and aggression even
REALITY TV 375

though his patients denied that that was their motivation. Even motivational personality the-
orists such as Murray (1938) and Maslow (1943) developed lists of basic motives without
having asked large numbers of people about their motives.
2This is true a priori (as a matter of logic given what the terms mean), according to
Aristotle.
3Reiss (in press) suggested that global concepts such as “positive mood” express logical
errors and exaggerate the motivational significance of pleasure in human behavior. His-
torically, the idea that pleasure motivates human behavior above all else is hedonism.Ac
-
cording to sensitivity theory, pleasure usually is a nonmotivational byproduct of end goal
obtainment, not a motivating cause. In other words, we desire knowledge for its own sake
and seek it even when doing so is frustrating. The fun experienced at attainment is a conse-
quence, not cause, of our having desired knowledge.
4Copies of Parts A and B are available on request.
REFERENCES
Aristotle. (trans. 1953). The nicomachean ethics. New York: Penguin.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1965). Social learning and personality develop-
ment. New York: Holt.
Bryant, J. (2002). Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Calvert, C. (2000). Voyeur nation. Boulder, Co: Westview Press.
Darwin, C. (1990). The origin of species. New York: Modern Library. (Original
work published 1859)
Dykens, E. M., & Rosner, B. A. (1999). Redefining behavioral phenotypes: Per-
sonality-motivation in Williams and Prader-Willi Syndromes. American Jour-
nal on Mental Retardation, 104, 158–169.
Engel, G., Olson, K. R., & Patrick, C. (2002). The personality of love: fundamental
motives and traits related to components of love. Personality and Individual
Differences, 32, 839–853.
Finn, S., & Gorr, M. B. (1988). Social isolation and social support as correlates of
television viewing motivations. Communication Research, 15, 135–158.
Freedman, J. L. (1984). Effect of television violence on aggressiveness. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 96(2), 227–246.
Freud, S. (1963). Introductory lectures on psychoanalysis. London: Hogarth Press.
(Original work published 1916)
376 REISS & WILTZ

Greenberg, B. S., & Woods, M. G. (1999). The soaps: Their sex, gratifications, and
outcomes. The Journal of Sex Research, 36, 250–257.
Havercamp, S. M. (1998). The Reiss profile of motivational sensitivity: Reliability,
validity, and social desirability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio
State University.
Havercamp, S. M., & Reiss, S. (in press). A comprehensive assessment of human
striving: Reliability and validity of the Reiss Profile. Journal for the Assess-
ment of Personality.
Hoover, S. M. (1988). Television myths and ritual; the role of substantive meaning
and spatiality. In J. W. Carey (Ed.), Media, myths, and narratives. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
James, W. (1950). The principles of psychology. New York: Dover. (Original work
published 1890)
Johnson-Woods, T. (2002). Big bother: Why did that reality-tv show become such
a phenomenon? St. Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland Press.
Kant, I. (1968). Critique of pure reason (N. Kemp Smith, Trans.). New York: St.
Martin’s Press. (Original work published 1781)
Kenny, D. T. (1952). An experimental test of the catharsis theory of aggression.
University of Washington.
Lecavalier, L., & Tasse, M. J. (2002). The sensitivity theory of motivation and
psychopathology: An exploratory study. American Journal on Mental Retar-
dation, 107, 105–115.
Maslow, A. H.(1943). A theory of motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396.
Murray, H.A. (1938). Explorations in personality: A clinical and experimental
study of fifty men of college age. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nabi, R. L., Biely, E. N., Morgan, S. J., & Stitt, C. R. (2003, in press). Real-
ity-based television programming and the psychology of its appeal. Media
Psychology.
Oliver, M. B. (2002). Individual differences in media effects. In J. Bryant &
D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp.
507–522). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Perry, D. K. (2002). Theory and research in mass communications: Contexts and
consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Perse, E. M. (1992). Predicting attention to local television news: Need for cogni-
tion and motives for viewing. Communication Reports, 5, 40–49.
Perse, E. M., & Rubin, A. M. (1990). Chronic loneliness and television use. Jour-
nal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 34, 37–53.
Peyser, M. (2001, April 16). When ‘chains of love’ become a chain of fools.
Newsweek, p. 58.
REALITY TV 377

Plato. (trans. 1966). The republic (F. M. Cornford, Trans.). New York: Oxford
University.
Potts, R., & Sanchez, D. (1994). Television viewing and depression: No news is
good news. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, pp. 79–90.
Reiss, S. (2000a). Who am I; The 16 basic desires that motivate our actions and de-
fine our personalities. New York: Tarcher/Putnam.
Reiss, S. (2000b). Why people turn to religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of
religion, 39, 47–52.
Reiss, S. (in press-a). Multifaceted nature of intrinsic motivation: The theory of 16
basic desires. Review of General Psychology.
Reiss, S. (in press-b). The 16 strivings for God. Zygon.
Reiss, S., & Havercamp. S. M. (1996). The sensitivity theory of motivation: Impli-
cations for psychopathology. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34, 621–632.
Reiss, S., & Havercamp, S. M. (1998). Toward a comprehensive assessment of
fundamental motivation: Factor structure of the Reiss Profile. Psychological
Assessment, 10, 97–106.
Reiss, S., Wiltz, J., & Sherman, M. (2001). Trait motivational correlates of athleti-
cism. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 1139–1145.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of
human values. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45.
Sutton, D. F. (1994) The catharsis of comedy. London: Rowman and Littlefield.
Taylor, A. E. (1955). Aristotle. New York: Dover. (Original work published 1919)
Vealey, R. S. (1992). Personality and sport: A comprehensive view. In T. S. Horn
(Eds.), Advances in sport psychology (pp. 25–60). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Ward, L. M., & Rivadeneyra, R. (1999). Contributions of entertainment television
to adolescents’ sexual attitudes and expectations: The role of viewing amount
versus viewer involvement. The Journal of Sex Research, 36, 237–249.
Weaver, J. B. (2000). Media entertainment: The psychology of its appeal. Mah-
wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1985). Selective exposure to communication. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
378 REISS & WILTZ