Love Island and Relationship Education

Abstract

The rise of reality TV programmes focussing on relationships and the search for “love” has focussed media attention on the portrayal of healthy relationships, gender roles, and intimate partner abuse (IPVA). Love Island, a UK reality TV programme, was watched in 2019 by over 3 million viewers, a majority of whom are young women aged 16–34, though a younger teenage demographic also watch. Many of these younger viewers may be learning about what healthy relationships are like, and entering their first romantic relationships. Contestant's behavior on Love Island prompted Women's Aid to issue a statement speaking out against unhealthy behaviors in relationships—especially “gaslighting,” a form of emotional abuse that makes someone question their own feelings, memories, and version of reality. Based on our experience of running a relationship education program in 24 schools, as part of the Tender national partnership and our research with young people on their perceptions of Love Island, the paper will examine the role reality TV programmes play in young people's understandings of healthy relationships. It argues representations of relationships on Love Island are framed within normative heterosexuality, and enables the normalization of emotional abuse. However, we also argue that these programmes can be a catalyst for discussion amongst young people and open up spaces, especially online, to challenge dominant constructions of relationships. It also makes recommendations for education policy and practice around relationship and sex education in schools.

Full text

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 23 January 2020
doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2019.00079
Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 1January 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 79
Edited by:
Sophie Rose Woodward,
University of Manchester,
United Kingdom
Reviewed by:
Jenny Van Hooff,
Manchester Metropolitan University,
United Kingdom
Alison Mackiewicz,
Aberystwyth University,
United Kingdom
*Correspondence:
Janette Porter
j.porter1@ljmu.ac.uk
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Gender, Sex and Sexualities,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Sociology
Received: 06 September 2019
Accepted: 19 November 2019
Published: 23 January 2020
Citation:
Porter J and Standing K (2020) Love
Island and Relationship Education.
Front. Sociol. 4:79.
doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2019.00079
Love Island and Relationship
Education
Janette Porter*and Kay Standing
School of Humanities and Social Science, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom
The rise of reality TV programmes focussing on relationships and the search for “love”
has focussed media attention on the portrayal of healthy relationships, gender roles,
and intimate partner abuse (IPVA). Love Island, a UK reality TV programme, was
watched in 2019 by over 3 million viewers, a majority of whom are young women aged
16–34, though a younger teenage demographic also watch. Many of these younger
viewers may be learning about what healthy relationships are like, and entering their first
romantic relationships. Contestant’s behavior on Love Island prompted Women’s Aid to
issue a statement speaking out against unhealthy behaviors in relationships—especially
“gaslighting,” a form of emotional abuse that makes someone question their own feelings,
memories, and version of reality. Based on our experience of running a relationship
education program in 24 schools, as part of the Tender national partnership and
our research with young people on their perceptions of Love Island, the paper will
examine the role reality TV programmes play in young people’s understandings of healthy
relationships. It argues representations of relationships on Love Island are framed within
normative heterosexuality, and enables the normalization of emotional abuse. However,
we also argue that these programmes can be a catalyst for discussion amongst young
people and open up spaces, especially online, to challenge dominant constructions of
relationships. It also makes recommendations for education policy and practice around
relationship and sex education in schools.
Keywords: reality TV, domestic abuse, young people, gaslighting, relationship education
INTRODUCTION
The 2019 series of Love Island1, a UK reality TV dating show, had an average audience of 3.63
million, peaking at 4.05 million for the show’s finale, and gained a 21.4% average audience share
(BBC News, 2019a). The viewing is both gendered and generational. The 2018 series 3 of Love
Island attracted more than half (52.3%) of all television viewing by the 16–24 age group (Jones,
2017), most of which were young women aged 16–34. However, a younger audience also watches,
1Love Island first aired in the UK in 2015 and has run for four season to date. Based in a villa in Spain contestants are invited
to “couple up” and “re-couple” throughout the show with couples voted out by the public, and the couple with the most votes
winning £50,000. In a final twist, one member of the winning couple can choose to either keep all the prize money, or share it
with their partner.

Porter and Standing Love Island and Relationship Education
with evidence of primary school children (aged 8–11) viewing the
post watershed programme (BBC News, 2019b). Whilst this has
raised concerns about the adult content of the programme, it also
raises the possibility of the use of programmes such as Love Island
to start age appropriate conversations about relationships with
younger viewers. Many of these younger viewers may be entering
their first romantic and sexual relationships, and the models of
relationships shown on the programme can be problematic. The
behavior of contestants on the last two series of Love Island,
2018 and 2019, prompted Women’s Aid, a UK domestic abuse
charity, to issue statements speaking out against the unhealthy
behaviors in relationships shown on the programme, in particular
“gaslighting,” a form of emotional abuse that makes someone
question their own feelings, memories, and version of reality.
For young people it is argued that this behavior may influence
their understandings of healthy and unhealthy relationships
as it normalizes abuse in relationships. This is an important
issue as research suggests that one in four teenagers state
they are more influenced by celebrities than other people they
know (Giles and Maltby, 2004), and national and international
evidence demonstrates that abuse and violence in young people’s
relationships represents a substantial problem (Barter et al., 2009;
Fox et al., 2014; Stonard et al., 2014; Young et al., 2017). Research
from Europe (STIR, 2015b; Young et al., 2017) demonstrates that
adolescents and young people are at particular risk of intimate
partner violence and abuse (IVPA) and evidence indicates that
victimization is typically higher among young women than
young men (Barter et al., 2009, 2015). Emotional partner abuse is
a common experience among young people; research shows that
nearly three quarters of teenage girls, and half of teenage boys
report some form of emotional partner abuse in relationships
(STIR, 2015b). However, Barter et al. (2009) argues that teenagers
do not recognize the unhealthy behavior as abuse and therefore
do not report it to anyone.
The UK government has recognized the role of TV, celebrities,
and social media in promoting healthy relationships and
challenging IVPA. These include Disrespect Nobody2and This
is Abuse campaigns which partnered with the Channel 4 teen
soap Hollyoaks in 2013, to target 13–18-year-olds with extensive
media coverage.
There is therefore a need for positive role models of healthy
relationships in the media and within the school curriculum
(Porter and Standing, 2018). The next section charts the rise of
reality TV and its relationship with social media, enabling young
people to interact and discuss in a way not previously possible for
younger generations.
THE RISE OF DATING REALITY TV SHOWS
AND SOCIAL MEDIA
Reality TV shows have become more popular since the late 1990s;
the introduction of shows such as Big Brother in 20003with the
2Disrespect Nobody (n.d.). https://www.disrespectnobody.co.uk/.
3Big Brother was a UK reality TV show on Channel 4. It aired between 2000 and
2018 attracting a wide spectrum of contestants knows as housemates who lived
isolated from the outside world in a specifically designed house for a period of
rise of reality TV defining the millennial pop cultural landscape
(Grazian, 2010). In 2016, reality shows were watched by 39% of
adults in the UK, including 48% of women and 50% of people
aged 25–34 (Barker et al., 2018).
Reality shows are cheap to produce and offer the “ordinary”
person a chance to become “known” (Couldry, 2002; Holmes,
2004). The appeal of reality TV lies in the supposed “authenticity”
of the participants, and the opportunities it offers, as Grindstaff
and Murray (2015, p. 130) argue:
‘Reality TV is largely effective as an industrial mode of persona
production because it holds open the promise of moving an ordinary
person from noncelebrity to celebrity status. Indeed, it is typically
assumed that the main goal of getting on a reality program is to
leverage ordinary participation into ordinary celebrity.’
The audience sees the journey of self-transformation through
which “ordinary” contestants find their “true self,” or their “true
love” (Hill, 2002, 2004). These “authentic” experiences and true
love is the plotline of shows such as The Bachelor and First Dates,
which are popular amongst young female viewers. The concept
of authenticity, of “being true to yourself,” is central to reality
TV, and to the ultimate success of participants. The production
of a particular individualized neoliberal identity or “selfhood”
has been used by Ouellete and Hay (2008) to understand the
fascination with authenticity in Reality TV, in which authenticity
is viewed as a white Western construct of modernity (Feldman,
2014). Skeggs and Wood (2008) argue that reality TV promotes
a neoliberal “subject of value” of middle-class selfhood, which
makes moral judgements about behavior based on class, race, and
gender. Celebrity discourses reflect and reproduce wider social
attitudes whereby working class contestants are seen as “Other”
(Tyler and Bennett, 2010) with “excessive and troublesome
bodies and lifestyles” (Allen and Mendick, 2013, p. 463). These
debates are particularly relevant when examining the gendered
and heteronormative moral judgements around sexuality and
healthy relationships.
Much of the literature on reality TV remains based in
traditional TV viewing (Holmes and Jermyn, 2004). A new
demographic of reality TV show viewers and participants are able
to interact via social media in a way previously not seen, nor
widely researched. Generation Z (Gen Z) is the generation of the
internet, technology, and social media (Combi, 2015). The rise
of celebrity culture (Turner, 2006, 2010) and the rise of social
media influencers and Instagram culture (Okrent, 2017) mean
participants subsequently become celebrities who create branded
identities across multiple social media channels.
For Love Island and other Reality TV programmes, however,
many participants are already “instafamous” social media
influencers and are scouted by production teams, bringing
further into question the “authenticity” and “ordinariness” of
those taking part. For example, 30 out of the 36 2019 Love
Island contestants were headhunted by ITV’s casting team
(Westbrook, 2019).
time. Housemates were evicted weekly by public voting. The last housemate in the
house won a significant sum of money.
Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 2January 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 79

Porter and Standing Love Island and Relationship Education
Marwick (2015, 2016) argues the notion of instafamous
reinforces existing gendered hierarchies of fame, with “fit,”
slim, white women having a higher rank in both traditional
and social media than those who question this or do not
fit the “ideal type.” Love Island presents a heteronormative
image of the “perfect relationship” and an idealized white,
slender, perfect-bodied individual as the “authentic” self. The
colorism and misogynoir judgements made on reality TV
have a long history, with black and BAME contestants
consistently voted off early, and can be seen in the lack of
diversity and early departure of the black female participants
(Adegoke, 2018).
For audiences, reality TV has “coupled up” with social media
to provide 24/7 content. In addition to the nightly programme,
Love Island has an after show, an official love island podcast,
YouTube channel, Instagram, a constant inflow of tweets and
hashtags, the official love island app, chat rooms, forums,
tumblers, and memes alongside other traditional media outlets.
This enables the audience to interact with the programme in
ways not previously seen with traditional media platforms. This
possible effect and influence is an example of what Jones (2016)
calls convergence culture (Jones, 2016 cited in Jenkins, 2016).
What impact the flow of content across multiple media platforms,
the cooperation of multiple media audiences, and the migratory
behavior of media audiences has on young people’s view on
relationships is discussed below.
Love Island, Social Media, and “Healthy”
Relationships
The influence of reality TV on young people is contested,
however, reality TV has historically been seen to incite moral
panics (Thompson, 1998), and for Love Island, this is around sex
and relationships, with media reports of the negative influence
of Love Island on young people’s self-esteem, body image, and
sexual behaviors (Barr, 2019). Bilandzic (2006) argues that as
people watch television, they slowly begin to absorb the ideas,
views, and morals presented; she calls the television the best
universal vehicle for passing on views and standards, and one
that can also influence people to change their beliefs. Young
people actively seek information on relationships and advice
on the dating experience to help them navigate and guide
their anticipations and beliefs (Ferris et al., 2007), and they
list television, dating partners, parents, friends, and teachers/sex
educators as their largest sources (Wood et al., 2002; Zurbriggen
and Morgan, 2006). Past research suggests a link between viewing
reality TV, and gender stereotyping, with watching reality TV
associated with a strong adherence to traditional masculine
ideology4(Giaccardi et al., 2016), and a greater endorsement of
gendered (hetero)sexual scripts for women, with sexual activity
being seen as different for women and men, and in turn
were associated with girls’ lower sexual agency (Behm-Morawitz
et al., 2015; Seabrook et al., 2017). van Oosten et al. (2017)
found evidence that sexually oriented reality TV is one factor
in young people’s willingness to engage in casual sex (along
4Defined by APA (2018) to include: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the
appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence.
with the internet, social media, and peers). However young
people also state that these sources of information are not
very accurate and have little effect on them, with parents and
peers having the biggest impact on young people’s attitudes
to sex and relationships (Wood et al., 2002; Monahan et al.,
2014). The influence of social media is also contested and
contradictory; however, for Love Island’s viewers, we argue it
can be one mechanism through which they can discuss dating
and relationships.
Love Island has been criticized for its portrayal and
normalization of toxic masculinity5(Petter, 2019), in particular
emotional abuse in relationships, with gaslighting being a
consistent problem. For example, Adam’s6manipulative behavior
toward his partner Rosie in series three, which Rosie called
out, prompted charity Women’s Aid (2018) to issue a statement
asking viewers to speak out against unhealthy behaviors in
relationships (Porter and Standing, 2018). Several of the male
contestants in series four repeated this behavior; for example
Michael “dumped” his existing partner Amber to couple up
with Joanna, and when confronted by Amber about his
behavior, grew more aggressive in the face of her calm and
reasoned questioning, calling her “childish” and “pathetic”
and blamed her for problems in their relationship’ (Verdier,
2019). Joe’s controlling and possessive behavior toward Lucy,
as he asked her not to spend time with fellow contestant
Tommy, calling her behavior “disrespectful,” prompted another
statement from Women’s Aid, calling for the show’s producers
to be more aware of and end apparent “unhealthy fledgling
relationships [in the show] being used as entertainment”
(Women’s Aid, 2019).
Toxic masculinity was also evident in several male contestants’
behavior toward the female contestants seen as “difficult,” for
example Michael’s treatment of Amber discussed above. The
sexual double standard was highlighted by the male contestants’
reactions toward Maura’s overt sexual confidence and agency7,
which challenged normative views of female sexuality, which
position women as passive, rather than sexual agents. Referring to
her frequent discussion of sex in everyday conversations, before
his date with Maura in the hideaway Tom commented ‘it’ll be
interesting to see if she’s all mouth or not” which was overheard
by Maura, causing her to confront Tom and call off the date. The
other male contestants colluded in this as “banter” exposing the
casual sexism in the villa.
Social media further highlighted the gendered double
standards of “socially acceptable” sexual behavior, with Maura
consistently portrayed in the media as sex obsessed and
portraying “inappropriate behavior” for her comments such as:
“I am having fanny flutters, I’m not even joking” (Newman,
2019), prompting headlines like the one below from The
Mirror newspaper:
5A term used to describe traditional and stereotypical norms of masculinity, the
expectations that boys and men are, amongst other things, aggressive, tough, and
physically dominant (Flood, 2018) Gaslighting is one example of this.
6https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/love-island-adam-rosie- eyal-megan-
relationship/ (accessed August 23, 2019).
7Maura’s behavior toward Tommy when she forcibly kissed him after he said no,
raised issues around consent, and led to the hashtag #doublestandard.
Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 3January 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 79

Porter and Standing Love Island and Relationship Education
Her behavior toward both Tommy and Curtis raised issues
around consent, as she kissed Tommy after he had had said no,
and led to the hashtag #doublestandard.
There are other frequent examples of Love Island’s women
contestants being ‘slut shamed’, of being labeled ‘sexually out
of control’ and being punished for this behavior (TanenBaum,
2015). In series two, contestant Zara Holland lost her Miss Great
Britain crown after being shown having sex with Alex Bowen (no
reprimand was given to Alex) and Megan Barton Hanson from
series 3 continues to receive slut shaming comments on social
media for her sexual choices (Barrett, 2019).
In contrast when Amy left the 2019 series voluntarily after
her “half boyfriend” Curtis ended their relationship, saying “I’ll
let you find whatever you were looking for,” in order not to
jeopardize his relationship with Maura, was seen as positive
behavior, despite prioritizing men’s emotional and sexual views
at the expense of women’s. This is an example of “himpathy” “the
excessive or inappropriate sympathy extended to a male agent
or wrongdoer over his female victim” (Manne, 2018; Buxton
and Habgood-Coote, 2019), reinforcing gendered ideologies of
female passivity.
Love Island does present some positive experiences, for
example in showing positive female friendships; in 2019 the
trending hashtag #friendship goals, with Maura advising Amy
after her breakup with Curtis, and Anna confronting Michael
over his behavior. It also show “bromances” and male friendships,
for example in the 2017 series between contestants Chris Hughes
and Kem Cetiney, and Jack Fincham and Alex George in 2018
(Wilkinson, 2019) which model healthy relationships.
Despite Love island presenting emotional abuse and
hegemonic masculinity as normalized and as entertainment,
there is evidence that audiences, including young people, reject
the contestants who display those behaviors. The winner of series
four, Amber, demonstrates both a rejection of toxic masculinity,
and the importance of “authenticity” to audiences, with a
recognition of her journey, as illustrated in the tweet below:
This also shows the influence of social media on audience’s
understandings of relationships, with young people recognizing,
and rejecting, negative behaviors in contestants.
Whilst early reality TV programmes were broadcast for
a limited period and thereby had a limited influence, newer
audiences, such as Generation Z, have a constant flow of
influences. The vast amount of fast-paced and interactive social
media coverage means young people can engage with the shows,
and that audiences can learn behaviors and absorb ideas from
reality TV shows, thus underestimating or neglecting any debate
on the programmes, which otherwise could have enabled them
to challenge, instead of absorbing and copying, behaviors. If,
as some commentators suggest, young people are getting some
of their information about relationships from programmes such
as Love Island, this can be a positive opportunity to discuss
relationships both in and out of school.
The article goes on to discuss young people’s views of
relationships presented on Love Island to examine the role
reality TV plays in their understanding of healthy and unhealthy
relationships and if this can be used as a catalyst for discussion.
METHODS
This article draws on our experience of running relationship
education workshops in schools with pupils aged between 13 and
16 years old and is supplemented with focus groups on Love
Island with young people aged between 13 and 21.
Over a period of 6 years as part of the Tender National
Partnership8, we worked in 24 schools across Greater Merseyside,
UK, working with 3,158 pupils in total.
There is evidence that using creative approaches, such as arts
or drama, as part of domestic abuse intervention/prevention
projects is valued by, and has a positive impact on, students
(Hester and Westmarland, 2005; Bell and Stanley, 2006; Pana
and Lesta, 2012; Hester and Lilley, 2014; Sander-McDonagh
et al., 2016). Stanley et al. (2015) in their evidence synthesis
on prevention programmes in the UK, argue that drama-
based interventions are highly valued by young people and
experts, who argue that using dramatic approaches can create
emotional intensity and contribute to what can be understood
as “authenticity,” making interventions and key messages more
“real” for young people. Figures 1,2show examples of young
people on the project using creative arts based practice to
explore “healthy” and “unhealthy” relationships as part of the
Tender project.
8The arts charity Tender. The Tender project uses art and drama to explore the
early warning signs of abusive relationships.
Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 4January 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 79

Porter and Standing Love Island and Relationship Education
FIGURE 1 | Young people explore ideals of their “perfect partner” informed
consent was given for publication.
FIGURE 2 | Exploring emotional abuse.
From the beginning of the project reality TV was a reference
and starting point for young people to discuss relationships. For
example, in the early years of the project pupils in three of the
FIGURE 3 | Young people acting out the Jeremy Kyle show as part of
exploring relationship abuse.
schools suggested one way to resolve problems in relationships
would be to go on reality TV shows such as the Jeremy Kyle
show9, as Figure 3 shows. Young people acted out the Jeremy
Kyle show to their peers to explore unhealthy relationships,
saying ‘we have a connection to it rather than just doing
Grease or Hairspray’ (School Group (SG) year 9 age 14 Female)
demonstrating the influence reality TV had on young people’s
understandings of relationships.
Focussed discussions and focus groups also played an
important role in understanding young people’s perceptions
of healthy relationships. As part of the relationship education
workshops we discussed Love Island with a group of year 9 (13–
14 year olds) in a mixed school setting (n=20) and year 8 female
pupils (aged 12–13) in a single gender school (n-29). Sessions
lasted approximately an hour, and notes were taken as part of
the session. In addition to this, two focus groups in an out of
school setting were conducted independent of the Tender project;
one with young people aged 13–17 (n=5), and one with young
people aged 18–21 (n=4).
Focus groups, along with the arts based methods used in the
workshop, generate data through interaction (Kitzinger, 1994;
Morgan, 1996, 1997) and are often used with young people to
discuss sensitive topics such a sexual behavior and health (van
Teijlingen et al., 2007). One of the drawbacks of focus groups is
the potential influence of the facilitator, and as the focus groups,
were a part of, or came after, the workshops on relationship
education, participants may have more awareness of healthy and
unhealthy relationships, thus influencing their answers.
Ethical approval was granted by the university; all participants
were provided with written consent forms, as were their parents
and guardians. Consent was obtained to publish participant
9The Jeremy Kyle show was a UK tabloid talk/problem show, which ran between
2005 and 2019 on ITV. In total, it aired 3,320 times. It tackled difficult
and emotional issues in a sensationalist manner. It was taken off air in June
2019 following the death of a participant a week after recording an episode
of the show https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/jeremy- kyle-
show-cancelled-stephen-dymond- death-guest-itv- latest-a8914471.html.
Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 5January 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 79

Porter and Standing Love Island and Relationship Education
verbatim quotes along with their ages and genders. We
anonymized all the data, and referred only to young people’s
ages/school year and gender. Written notes were taken during
focus groups and the facilitator’s reflections from the workshops
were recorded. We analyzed the data thematically (Braun and
Clarke, 2006) to identify and analyse patterns linked to young
people’s understandings of healthy and unhealthy relationships.
Three key themes emerged: the reasons why young people
watch and the importance of social media, young people’s
understanding of the “fakeness” of the relationships shown on
Love Island, and the potential for Love island to be used to start
positive discussions about relationships. This paper now turns to
explore these.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION
Reasons to Watch: Social Media and
Entertainment
Research shows some young viewers are influenced by what
they see on reality TV shows (Zurbriggen and Morgan,
2006) and watching reality dating programs is positively
correlated with holding gender stereotypical attitudes about
dating and relationships, with some viewers using reality shows
as informational guides for relationship behavior. Our research
found that although one of the reasons young people watch
reality TV is to seek advice and learn about relationships, it is
not the biggest reason and, as Neimann-Lenz et al. (2018) argue,
there are multiple reasons. The young people we spoke to stated
their biggest reason was the entertainment value of the show, and
the shared talking point with their friends:
“[I] watch it because I have nothing else to do [. . . . it’s a conversation
starter. And [for] entertainment purposes only and its comedic
values” (Focus group (FG) age 17 Female.)
Our research, although limited in terms of numbers, shows that
young people have a more nuanced awareness of the debates
around reality TV, and as Hill (2005) argues, viewers generally
rejected the idea of learning from watching such shows and
instead regarded them primarily as entertainment:
I honestly just watch it as entertainment and gossip” (FG age 16 F)
Many of the respondents noted the importance of social media
on their viewing habits, suggesting the interconnectedness of
different media platforms:
“We are watching it when we get to bed. You can know what’s
happening without watching it because everyone talks about it, as
well as social media, Instagram, magazines, and newspapers.” (FG
age 17 F)
Others did not watch the TV programme but because of the
widespread social media coverage were still able to discuss it:
“No [I don’t watch it] but people talk to me about it. . . ..it’s all over
social media” (FG year 9 age 13 F)
Social media is seen to make audiences active consumers,
or “proconsumers” (Wilson, 2015), simultaneously functioning
as a means to connect with a world outside, engage in
conversations, and dive deeper into the television text. Of the
target audience for Love Island, 16–24 years, 95% own a smart
phone (Ofcom, 2018) enabling young people watch the show
and simultaneously discuss it online, or simply see the show’s
highlights or discussions about it on social media. According
to Jenkins (2016), this participatory culture means audiences
are no longer passive consumers, but actively engage in, and
collaborate across multiple platforms, sharing views with others.
Young people are not passive watchers, and they discussed the
processes behind reality TV, and the power of social and digital
media to manipulate the behavior of both the participants and the
audience. The older participants in particular were aware of this:
“It keeps asking questions to keep engagement but they [the
producers] don’t care what they (the audience) think, it’s just to get
money, to boost figures and get sponsorship. Social media equals
more interaction, more money” (FG age 21 F)
Social media also plays a part in the selection of the contestants.
Like the young people in Allen and Mendick’s (2013) study,
our respondents questioned ‘ordinariness’ and authenticity of
participants. It was obvious to our focus groups that those
selected to be on Love Island were already “instafamous”
Marwick (2015, 2016) prior to the show and their interest was
to nurture their fame:
They chose Insta models, people who are already famous who
already have a particular life style. They don’t choose average
people. So if you think they are like you, you are fooling yourself
[. . . .]I think that the contestants weren’t interested in love just
wanted to become more famous (FG year 11 age 17 F).
This bought the “realness” of their relationship into question, and
this idea of “fakeness” was discussed in more detail in terms of
the relationships portrayed on Love Island (i.e., what is real on a
reality TV show compared to what is real in lived experiences was
questioned by the young people we worked with).
Young People’s Views of Relationships on
Love Island: “True Love” or ‘a Toxic
Battle”?
Whilst the majority of young people were aware of the lack of
authenticity of the programme, some young people saw the show
as a portrayal of positive relationships, where contestants can find
“true love”:
One of the good things about it (love Island) is that they [the
contestants] find true love well sometimes they get to meet new
people and make new friends. (SG F year 8 age 13)
The positive aspects of the show tended to focus on friendships
rather than romance (REF). However, they were aware that
although some relationships were “genuine” the competitive
nature of the programme complicates matters:
Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 6January 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 79

Porter and Standing Love Island and Relationship Education
“I think there is some genuine care but the game of the show
makes things complicated and caused bad arguments. It shows
how romance can blossom and you can see flirting and genuine
connections and how relationship can develop” (FG age 17 F)
The majority of the young people we spoke to were critical of the
“fakeness” of the relationships shown and the fact that it is a game
show with a financial incentive:
“I don’t like because it’s shit, it forces people to fall in love and get
money and even if they don’t fall in love [and the audience] find
out, they still get money - the show is [meant to be] about trying to
fall in love but it’s really all about making money” (FG year 10 age
15 M)
Despite some positive comments, most young people saw the
programme as promoting unhealthy relationships, with one
young man commenting:
[it’s] a toxic battle between the two sides instead of being normal
and that’s a bad thing to show kids and teenagers” (FG year 10 age
15 M)
As the show exaggerates the drama between contestants and
their coupling, this creates the illusion that relationships are
built on unrealistic conflicts between abuse and love. Bourne
(2019) argues abusive relationships are portrayed as “gestures
of love” with couples being rewarded for overcoming these
to be “happily ever after”, which is not portraying a positive
starting point for young people embarking on relationships. The
young people in our focus groups however recognized that the
relationships portrayed were not “equal” and were based on
unhealthy behaviors:
It (Love Island) is bad; they change mates every week and swear,
and argue at each other all the time. Someone is always crying
because it feels like they’re being forced into relationships and that’s
wrong. When you want to get with someone you both have to want
it. It’s like a joint decision. (SG year 8 age 13 F)
Some young people were also unhappy about the lack of diversity
amongst contestants, not just in terms of body size and shape, but
also because of the heteronormativity presented:
They only have boy girl relationships and that’s not fair cos some of
my mates are gay and it should really have gay contestants (SG year
9 age 13 M)
Young people wanted to see more diversity of relationships on
the show to reflect their lived experiences. This awareness of the
inauthenticity of the contestants suggest that the influence of
programmes such as Love Island is not as great as media moral
panics assume. Young people are active viewers who “negotiate
the reality contract” of TV programmes (Allen and Mendick,
2013), being aware of the ways in which it constructs identities
and invites the audience to make moral judgements around class,
gender, and ethnicity. If the identities seem unauthentic, the
viewers might begin doubting how “ordinary” or genuine the
contestants truly are, which might result in young people relating
less to the contestants and causing any influence to diminish.
Young people were aware that the relationships may not be “real”
and therefore they may not be influenced by what they see on TV:
It’s like it’s all forced for the cameras so it’s not real it doesn’t
influence me because me and my mates know it’s not genuine you
know what I mean? (FG year 9 age 14 F)
It also brought into question young people’s understandings of
what relationships are, and the perceived “naturalness” of “falling
in love.” For the young people, Love Island’s relationships were
not “real” because they were constructed on, and for, TV:
“Don’t like it because it’s kind of like making relationships in a place
where it’s just like uncomfortable and not a place to make a solid
relationship and you have to make decisions about relationships in
front of other people and that’s bad because it’s unnatural like trying
to grow food in a box. Relationships should just happen naturally
without being forced (FG age 17 F)
However, there was little discussion of what the “solid”
relationship would be and how it would form. The idea that
relationships happen “naturally,” is linked to late modernity
concepts of romantic love (Giddens, 1992), without a recognition
of social and structural constraints on relationships. This suggests
that young people did not necessarily have the language and/or
experience to frame their viewing within a wider context, or to
question notions of “true love.” As one respondent commented,
it presents a false view of relationships to younger viewers:
“They trust many people who they don’t really know and it isn’t true
love. In addition, Love Island is seen by hundreds of teenagers who
take an incorrect view of what a relationship means” (FG age 16 F)
As discussed earlier, adolescents and young adults are believed to
be most susceptible to media messages depicting domestic abuse
because they are still learning what behaviors are appropriate in
romantic and sexual relationships (Arnett, 2000; Coyne et al.,
2011). While some argue showing domestic abuse on television
can serve as a means of educating viewers about the issue, it
is also argued that the vast majority of portrayals on television
make light of, or normalize, domestic abuse within intimate
relationships (Kohlman et al., 2014).
Whilst a number of respondents thought Love Island
presented a problematic view of relationships, many
acknowledged it did enable young people to start conversations
around “healthy” and “unhealthy” relationships, and this could
be a positive move.
Love Island as Relationship Education
The popularity of the show, and the associated social media
attention, enabled young people to discuss relationships, and
raised awareness of gaslighting and other early warning signs
of abuse. Focus group participants stated they felt social media
debates could empower young people to recognize and discuss
abusive behavior:
Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 7January 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 79

Porter and Standing Love Island and Relationship Education
when someone is trying to manipulate the other person or do
gaslighting everyone recognizes it and sees it so everyone talks about
it and brings awareness to unhealthy relationships then the media
all joins in so the emotional trauma is talked about (FG age 17 F)
Our research showed that some young people are engaging with
current debates about both the authenticity of Love Island and
were able to recognize the examples of unhealthy relationships
shown by the programme:
It’s good it can teach young people about relationships what’s good
what’s bad. It gets us taking about relationships in school and it’s lets
us see bad personalities (FG year 9 age 13 F)
Young people therefore were not passive consumers of reality
TV, but interacted with social media to make decisions for
themselves about relationships. However, whilst Love Island
opened up a space for discussion, the focus was on “unhealthy”
rather than positive relationships, young people discussed the
“bad behavior,” more than the examples of healthy relationships,
highlighting a need to provide more education on this. Based
on their experience, some of the older focus group participants
discussed how Love Island could be used in schools to teach
about relationships:
Sex education for me was being told sex was all about rubbing and
shaking a bit [. . . ]
Love island would be good in schools teaching the kids about
relationships the conversations are a starting point, teachers could
use the couples as examples when talking about things like what is
a toxic relationship and what is gaslighting (FG, F 21)
Research shows that current RSE is not effective, is delivered
too late, and is focussed on biology rather than relationships,
consent, and sexual agency (Nocentini et al., 2010). As Peek and
Beresin (2015, p. 178) state, “Reality television is a stimulus for
the ideals, values, behavior, and emotional development of children
and adolescents” and teachers need to be better informed about
the impact of media exposure to young people. There is therefore
potential for Love Island to be used to build both media literacy,
and in sex and relationship education in schools. This has been
raised by former contestants, commentators and sex education
organizations (Bateman, 2018), for example former contestant
Eyal Booker says that the programme is “educational and can
teach younger views about relationships, particularly teenage boys”
and some organizations, such as explain, have started running
Love Island workshops in schools. In the concluding section,
we discuss the roles schools play in providing PHSE, and if
programmes such a Love island can contribute to relationship
and sex education in school.
CONCLUSION: LOVE ISLAND AND
RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION
Reality TV and its associated social media is just one of these ways
in which models of intimate partner relationships are shown. The
relationships shown on programmes such as Love Island, with its
wide social media reach, are highly visible to young people, and
present conversations about sex, relationships, and emotional
abuse to a young audience. In our experience, young people’s
understanding of the relationships they see on reality TV are
nuanced and complex; they understand that the relationships are
“false” and constructed and edited for entertainment value but
also recognize that some relationships were “bad” and unhealthy,
and also engaged with and questioned behaviors on social media.
Young people’s understanding of what healthy and unhealthy
relationships look like originate from many sources, including
family, friends, peers, and the media. Notably absent from the
discussions of sources of information for young people was the
role of schools.
Discussions of Love Island are carried over from online
discussions on social media from their bedrooms to face-to-face
discussion in the school ground. Whilst Love Island does present
some positive models of relationships, and in particular, of male
friendships, it also portrayed elements of “toxic masculinity” and
heteronormative gender roles and sexual relationships. Whilst
young people recognize many behaviors are not “healthy,” and
contestants’ behavior is being questioned online by viewers
themselves on social media, and by domestic abuse organizations,
they may not have the skills and information to recognize the
signs of unhealthy relationships, and speak out against abuse
(Barter et al., 2009). The young people we worked with in
schools often lacked an awareness of what romantic and sexual
relationships entailed, and what the early warning signs of
abuse are, and had limited reliable sources from which to gain
information, often looking for information from social media
and the internet.
Currently, relationship and sex education (RSE) is not
compulsory across the UK, however, from September 2020, this
will be a statutory requirement in all schools in England. Quality
of provision varies widely, with Pound et al.’s (2016) systematic
review finding more than a third of UK schools lacked good-
quality RSE in 2013. In addition Ringrose (2016) argues RSE in
England is “currently organized around sexual risk and danger
in highly gendered and sexist ways,” which reflect, and play into,
moral panics around the sexualization of girls and young women.
However, despite its lack of status and variable quality, school-
based RSE is seen as vital for safeguarding young people against
domestic abuse and sexual exploitation.
Schools thus are environments where young people are
socialized into gender norms and where significant amounts
of gender-based harassment and IPVA goes unchallenged.
Adolescence is “a crucial time when young women and men are
developing their sexual identities’ (Shaughnessy, 2007, p.1) and
gender abuse emerges (STIR, 2015a). Policy and interventions
in this area are underdeveloped and under-resourced (STIR,
2015b). However, evaluations of school-based domestic/sexual
violence prevention interventions to date have suggested they
enable children and young people to change their attitudes and
perceptions of equality, respect, and consent and have a role
in preventing relationship violence among young people (Wolfe
et al., 2009; Barter et al., 2015). Likewise, evidence shows that
media literacy interventions may also be an effective component
in IPVA prevention efforts (Jeong et al., 2012), and violence
Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 8January 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 79

Porter and Standing Love Island and Relationship Education
prevention efforts have acknowledged the importance of being
critical consumers of media.
Given that the media plays a crucial role in sexual
socialization the inclusion of media literacy into relationship
education programmes would help young viewers understand
how the media, including reality TV, influences expectations
about appropriate behavior (Rodenhizer et al., 2019). Bringing
discussions of contemporary programmes such as Love Island
into the classroom may be one way of engaging young people in
discussions about healthy relationships and enabling them to be
critical consumers of media.
In this context Love Island has the potential to be a
starting point for discussions for relationship and sex education
in schools using age and ability appropriate workshops with
well-trained staff, which focus on identifying early warning
signs in unhealthy relationships, can encourage young people
to question dominant media portrayals, and challenge their
current norm.
Twitter (2019) Data was collected from Twitter in compliance
with the relevant terms and conditions.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be
made available by the authors, without undue reservation, to any
qualified researcher.
ETHICS STATEMENT
Ethical approval was granted by the university; all participants
were provided with written consent forms, as were their parents
and guardians. We anonymized all the data, and refer only to
young people’s ages/school year and gender. Written informed
consent to participate in this study was provided by the
participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and
intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it
for publication.
REFERENCES
Adegoke, Y. (2018). Single black female: love Island and the problem with race
and dating. The Guardian. Available online at: https://www.theguardian.
com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2018/jun/26/single-black-female-love- island-the-
problem-with- race-and-datinglack (accessed July 26, 2019).
Allen, K., and Mendick, H. (2013). Keeping it real? Social class, young
people and ‘Authenticity’ in reality TV. Sociology 47, 460–476.
doi: 10.1177/0038038512448563
American Psychological Association (2018). APA Guidelines for Psychological
Practice With Boys and Men. Available online at: https://www.apa.org/about/
policy/boys-men- practice-guidelines.pdf
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood. A theory of development
from the late teens through the twenties. Am. Psychol. 55,
469–480. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469
Barker, A. B., Opazo Breton, M., Cranwell, J., Britton, J., and Murray,
R. L. (2018). Population exposure to smoking and tobacco branding
in the UK reality show ‘love island’. Tobacco Control 27, 709–711.
doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-054125
Barr, S. (2019). Love island criticised as new figures reveal impact of
reality TV on body image. The Independnet. Available online at: https://
www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health- and-families/love- island-2019-
mental-health- body-image-reality-tv-itv- a8940856.html (accessed August
14, 2019).
Barrett, J. (2019). No sex please, this is love island: contestants are taking back their
privacy. inews. Available online at: https://inews.co.uk/opinion/love-island-
2019-cast- sex-scenes-contestants-privacy/ (accessed August 14, 2019).
Barter, C., McCarry, M., Berridge, D., and Evans, K. (2009). Partner Exploitation
and Violence in Teenage Intimate Relationships. London: NSPCC.
Barter, C., Wood, M., Aghtaie, N., Stanley, N., Pavlou, S., Apostolov, G.,
et al. (2015). Safeguarding teenage intimate relationships (STIR): connecting
online and offline contexts and risks. Briefing Paper 2: Incidence Rates and
Impact of Experiencing Interpersonal Violence and Abuse in Young People’s
Relationships. Available online at: http://stiritup.eu/wp- content/uploads/2015/
02/STIR-Briefing-Paper-21.pdf (accessed August 14, 2019).
Bateman, J. (2018). Love island shows what unhealthy relationships actually
look like – without having to go through them inews. Available online at:
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/research-reports/partner-
exploitation-violence- teenage-intimate- relationships-report.pdf (accessed
June 15, 2018).
BBC News (2019a). Love island: amber and Greg crowned 2019 winners in
live final. Available online at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-
49157523. 30th July (accessed August 14, 2019).
BBC News (2019b). Love Island: Eight-year-old Llandeilo children ’emulate
contestants. Available online at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-
48929932 (accessed August 14, 2019).
Behm-Morawitz, E., Lewallen, J., and Miller, B. (2015). Real mean girls?
Reality television viewing, social aggression, and gender-related beliefs
among female emerging adults. Psychol. Popular Media Cult. 5, 340–355.
doi: 10.1037/ppm0000074
Bell, J., and Stanley, N. (2006). Learning about domestic violence: young people’s
responses to a healthy relationships programme. Sex Educ. 6, 237–250.
doi: 10.1080/14681810600836356
Bilandzic, H. (2006). The perception of distance in the cultivation process:
a theoretical consideration of the relationship between television content,
processing experience, and perceived distance. Commun. Theory 16, 333–355.
doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00273.x
Bourne, M. (2019). Teenagers need to know where love stops and abusive
relationships start. The Guardian. Availableonline at: https://www.theguardian.
com/commentisfree/2019/oct/03/young-people- love-abusive- relationships-
coercive-control (accessed October, 7, 2019).
Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res.
Psychol. 3, 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Buxton, R., and Habgood-Coote, J (2019). What Love Island teaches us about
‘himpathy. The Guardian. Available online at: https://www.theguardian.com/
commentisfree/2019/jul/13/love-island- amy-hart-teaches- himpathy (accessed
July 28, 2019).
Combi, C. (2015). Generation Z: Their Voices, Their Lives. London:
Windmill Books.
Couldry, N. (2002). Playing for celebrity: big brother as ritual event. Telev. New
Media 3, 283–293. doi: 10.1177/152747640200300304
Coyne, S. M., Nelson, D. A., Graham-Kevan, N., Tew, E., Meng, N. K., and Olsen, J.
A. (2011). Media depictions of physical and relational aggression: connections
with aggression in young adults’ romantic relationships. Aggress. Behav. 37,
56–62. doi: 10.1002/ab.20372
Feldman, S. (2014). Against Authenticity, Rethinking the Project of Modernity.
Lexington, KY: Lexington Books.
Ferris, A. L., Smith, S. W., Greenberg, B. S., and Smith, S. L. (2007). The content of
reality dating shows and viewer perceptions of dating. J. Commun. 57, 490–510.
doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00354.x
Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 9January 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 79

Porter and Standing Love Island and Relationship Education
Flood, M. (2018). Toxic Masculinity: A Primer and Commentary, Men,
Masculinities and Gender Politics. Avaiable online at: https://xyonline.
net/content/toxic-masculinity- primer-and- commentary (accessed August 14,
2019).
Fox, C. L., Corr, M., Gadd, D., and Butler, I. (2014). Young teenagers’ experiences of
domestic abuse. J. Youth Stud. 17, 510–526. doi: 10.1080/13676261.2013.780125
Giaccardi, S. L., Ward, M., Seabrook, R. C., Manago, A., and Lippman, J. (2016).
Media and modern manhood: testing associations between media consumption
and young men’s acceptance of traditional gender ideologies. Sex Roles 75,
151–163. doi: 10.1007/s11199-016-0588-z
Giddens, A. (1992). The Transformation of Intimacy. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Giles, D., and Maltby, J. (2004). The role of media figures in
adolescent development: relations between autonomy, attachment,
and interest in celebrities. Pers. Individ. Differences 36, 813–822.
doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00154-5
Grazian, D. (2010). Neoliberalism and the realities of reality television. Contexts 9,
68–71. doi: 10.1525/ctx.2010.9.2.68
Grindstaff, L., and Murray, S. (2015). Reality celebrity: branded affect and
the emotion economy. Public Cult. 27, 109–135. doi: 10.1215/08992363-
2798367
Hester, M., and Lilley, S.-J. (2014). Preventing Violence Against Women: Article
12 of the Istanbul Convention: A Collection of Papers on the Council of
Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and
Domestic Violence. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Hester, M., and Westmarland, N. (2005). Tackling Domestic Violence: Effective
Interventions and Approaches. London: Home Office Research Study no.290
Home Office Circular 003/2013.
Hill, A. (2002). Big brother: the real audience. Telev. New Media 3, 323–340.
doi: 10.1177/152747640200300307
Hill, A. (2004). “Watching big brother UK,” in Big Brother International:
Formats, Critics and Publics, eds E. Mathijs, and J. Jones (London: Wallflower
Press), 25–39.
Hill, A. (2005). Reality TV: Audiences and Popular Factual Television. London,
UK: Routledge.
Holmes, S. (2004). “Reality goes pop!” reality TV, popular music, and
narratives of stardom in pop idol. Telev. new media 5, 147–172.
doi: 10.1177/1527476403255833
Holmes, S., and Jermyn, D. (2004). Understanding Reality Television. Abingdon;
New York, NY: Routledge.
Jenkins, H. (2016). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, 1st
Edn. New York, NY: University Press.
Jeong, S. H., Cho, H., and Hwang, Y. (2012). Media literacy interventions: a meta-
analytic review. J. Comm. 62, 454–472. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01643.x
Jones, P. (2017). ITV2 beats BBC1, BBC2 and Channel 4 as Love Island final is
watched by almost 3 million. Radio Times. Available online at: https://www.
radiotimes.com/news/2017-07- 25/itv2-beats- bbc1-bbc2-and- channel-4-as-
love-island-final-is- watched-by-almost-3-million/ (accessed September 23,
2019).
Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: the importance of
interaction between research participants. Sociol. Health Illness 16, 103–121.
doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023
Kohlman, S., Baig, A., Balice, G., DiRubbo, C., Placencia, L., Skale, K., et al. (2014).
Contribution of media to the normalization and perpetuation of domestic
violence. Austin J. Psychiatry Behav. Sci. 1, 1–6.
Manne, K. (2018). Brett Kavanaugh and America’s ‘Himpathy’ Reckoning. Available
online at: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-
hearing-himpathy.html (accessed September 09, 2019).
Marwick, A. E. (2015). Instafame: luxury selfies in the attention economy. Public
Cult. 27, 137–160. doi: 10.1215/08992363-2798379
Marwick, A. E. (2016). “You may know me from YouTube: (micro-) celebrity in
social media,” in A companion to celebrity, eds P.D. Marshall, and S. Redmond
(Chichester: John Wiley and Sons), 333–350.
Monahan, K. C., Rhew, I. C., Dawkins, J. D., and Brown, E. C. (2014). Adolescent
pathways to co-occurring problem behavior: the effects of peer delinquency and
peer substance use. J. Res. Adolesc. 24, 630–645. doi: 10.1111/jora.12053
Morgan, D. (1996). Focus groups. Sociology 22:129156.
Morgan, D. (1997). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
Neimann-Lenz, J., Golz, H., and Schenk, M. (2018). “Why do Adolescent watch
scripted Reality-TV? A typology based on viewing motives,” in Youth and
Media: Current Perspectives on Media Use and Effects. eds S. E. Baumgartner,
M. Hofer, T. Koch, and R. Kuhne (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag), 19–38.
Newman, V. (2019). Love Island Fans Horrified as Maura Higgins Makes X-Rated
Confession About Tommy Fury. Daily Mirror.
Nocentini, A., Calmaestra, J., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H., Ortega-
Ruiz, R., and Menesini, E. (2010). Cyberbullying: labels, behaviours and
definition in three European Countries. Aust. J. Guidance Couns. 20, 129–142.
doi: 10.1375/ajgc.20.2.129
Ofcom (2018). A Decade of Digital Dependency. Available online at: https://
www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/features-and- news/decade-of-digital-
dependency (accessed August 14, 2019).
Okrent, A. (2017). 7 Academic Studies on Instagram. Mentalfloss. Available online
at: http://mentalfloss.com/article/502639/7-academic- studies-instagram.
Ouellete, L., and Hay, J. (2008). Better Living through Reality TV: Television and
Post-welfare Citizenship. Oxford: Blackwell. (accessed July 20, 2017).
Pana, A., and Lesta, S. (2012). Youth4Youth: A Manual for Empowering
Young People in Preventing Gender-Based Violence Through Peer Education
Mediterranean Institute of Gender Studies. Available online at: http://www.
medinstgenderstudies.org/youth4youth-empowering-young-people- in-
preventing-gender-based-violence- through-peer-education/ (accessed April
22, 2018).
Peek, H. S., and Beresin, E. (2015). Reality check: how reality television can affect
youth and how a media literacy curriculum can help. Acad. Psychiatry 40,
177–181. doi: 10.1007/s40596-015-0382-1
Petter, O. (2019, June 24). Love Island viewers complain show is ‘full of toxic
masculinity’. The Independent. Available online at: https://www.independent.
co.uk/life-style/love- sex/love-island- 2019-toxic-masculinity- maura-tom-
sex-monday- episode-a8973136.html (accessed August 14, 2019).
Porter, J., and Standing, K. (2018). Love Island: Adam shows teenagers
how not to treat romantic partners. The Conversation. Available online
at: http://theconversation.com/love-island- adam-shows- teenagers-how-not-
to-treat- romantic-partners-98801 (accessed July 25, 2019).
Pound, P., Langford, R., and Campbell, R. (2016). What do young people
think about their school-based sex and relationship education? A qualitative
synthesis of young people’s views and experiences. BMJ Open 6:e011329.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011329
Ringrose, J. (2016). “Postfeminist media panics over girls’ ‘sexualisation’:
implications for UK sex and relationship guidance and curriculum,” in Global
Perspectives and Key Debates in Sex and Relationship Education: Addressing
Issues of Gender, Sexuality, Plurality and Power, eds V. Sundaram and H.
Sauntson (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan).
Rodenhizer, K. A. E., Siller, L., MacPherson, A. R., and Edwards, K. M. (2019).
Reality check! Perceptions of MTV’s Jersey shore and 16 and pregnant/teen
mom and dating violence attitudes and experiences. J. Interpers. Violence.
doi: 10.1177/0886260519844776. [Epub ahead of print].
Sander-McDonagh, E., Rogers, S., Horvath, M., and Selwood, S. (2016). Evaluation
Report of the Tender Healthy Relationships Project National Partnership
Programme. Middlesex University report valuation Report of the Tender.
Forensic Psycholigical Services.
Seabrook, R. C., Ward, L., Cortina, L. M., Giaccardia, S., and Lippman J. P.
(2017). Girl power or powerless girl? Television, sexual scripts, and sexual
agency in sexually active young women. Psychol. Women Q. 41, 240–253.
doi: 10.1177/0361684316677028
Shaughnessy, J. (2007). “Promoting non-violence through checkpoints for schools:
a self-auditing tool for teachers and young people: contemporary research on
aggression,” in Proceedings of the XVI World Meeting of the International Society
for Research on Aggression eds K. Österman, and K. Björkqvist, (Santorini).
Skeggs, B., and Wood, H. (2008). The labour of transformation and circuits of
value ‘around’ reality television, Continuum. J. Media Culut. Stud. 22 559–572.
doi: 10.1080/10304310801983664
Stanley, N., Ellis, J., Farrelly, N., Hollinghurst, S., Bailey, S., and Downe, S. (2015).
Preventing domestic abuse for children and young people (PEACH): a mixed
knowledge scoping review. Public Health Res. 3. doi: 10.3310/phr03070
STIR (2015a). Connecting Online and Offline Contexts and Risks. Available online
at: http://stiritup.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/STIR-Exec- Summary-
English.pdf (accessed August 14, 2019).
Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 10 January 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 79

Porter and Standing Love Island and Relationship Education
STIR (2015b). Briefing Paper 2: Incidence Rates and Impact of Experiencing
Interpersonal Violence and Abuse in Young People’s Relationships. DAPHNE
III European Commission. Available online at: http://stiritup.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2015/02/STIR-Briefing-Paper-21.pdf (accessed August 14, 2019).
Stonard, K., Bowen, E., Lawrence, T., and Price, S. A. (2014). The relevance
of technology to the nature, prevalence and impact of adolescent dating
violence and abuse: a research synthesis. Aggr. Violent Behav. 19, 390–417.
doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2014.06.005
TanenBaum, L. (2015). I Am Not a Slut: Slut- Shaming in the Age of the Internet.
New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Thompson, K. (1998). Moral Panics, Key Ideas. London: Routledge.
Turner, G. (2006). Understanding Celebrity. London: Sage.
Turner, G. (2010). Approaching celebrity studies. Celebr. Stud. 1, 11–20.
doi: 10.1080/19392390903519024
Tyler, I., and Bennett, B. (2010). Celebrity chav: fame, femininity and social class.
Eur. J. Cult. Stud. 13, 375–393. doi: 10.1177/1367549410363203
van Oosten, J. M. F., Peter, J., and Vandenbosch, L. (2017). Adolescents’
sexual media use and willingness to engage in casual sex: differential
relations and underlying processes. Hum. Commun. Res. 43, 127–147.
doi: 10.1111/hcre.12098
van Teijlingen, E., Reid, J., and Shucksmith, J. (2007). Embarrassment as a
key emotion in young people talking about sexual health. Sociol. Res. 12.
doi: 10.5153/sro.1535
Verdier, H. (2019). Love Island has a gaslighting problem – yet again. The
Guardian. Available online at: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/
2019/jul/05/love-island- has-a- gaslighting-problem-yet- again (accessed July
20, 2019).
Westbrook, C. (2019). Which 2019 Love Island contestants applied for the show?
Metro. Available online at: https://metro.co.uk/2019/08/04/which-2019-love-
island-contestants- applied-for- the-show- 10515592/ (accessed August 14,
2019).
Wilkinson, C. (2019). Love Island 2019 Needs Bromance as Much as Romance
to Win Hearts of Viewers. Liverpool John Moores University. Available
online at: https://www.ljmu.ac.uk/about-us/news/blog/2019/6/3/love-island-
2019 (accessed July 25, 2019).
Wilson, S. (2015). In the living room: second screen and TV audiences. Tele. New
Media, 1–8. doi: 10.1177/1527476415593348
Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C., Jaffe, P., Chiodo, D., Hughes, R., Ellis, W., et al.
(2009). A school-based program to prevent adolescent dating violencea
cluster randomized trial. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 163, 692–699.
doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.69
Women’s Aid (2018). Women’s Aid Calls for Love Island Viewers to spEak Out
Against Domestic Abuse. Available online at: https://www.womensaid.org.uk/
womens-aid- calls-for- love-island- viewers-to-speak- out-against- domestic-
abuse/ (accessed August 14, 2019).
Women’s Aid (2019). Women’s Aid Responds to Joe’s Behaviour on Love Island.
Available online at: https://www.womensaid.org.uk/womens-aid-responds-to-
joes-behaviour-on- love-island/ (accessed August 14, 2019).
Wood, E., Senn, C. Y., Desmarais, S., Park, L., and Verberg, N. (2002). Sources
of information about dating and their perceived influence on adolescents. J.
Adolesc. 17, 401–417. doi: 10.1177/07458402017004005
Young, H., Turney, C., White, J., Bonell, C., Lewis, R., and Fletcher, A. (2017).
Dating and relationship violence among 16–19 year olds in England and
Wales: a cross-sectional study of victimization. J. Public Health 40, 738–746.
doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdx139
Zurbriggen, E. L., and Morgan, E. M. (2006). Who wants to marry a millionaire?
Reality dating television programs, attitudes toward sex, and sexual behaviors
Sex Roles 54, 1–17. doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-8865-2
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2020 Porter and Standing. This is an open-access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The
use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.
No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these
terms.
Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 11 January 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 79