a qualitative and quantitative analysis of counternormative
a qualitative and quantitative analysis of counternormative
a qualitative and quantitative analysis of counternormative
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
A QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF COUNTERNORMATIVE<br />
BEHAVIOR EXHIBITED IN REALITY TELEVISION PROGRAMMING<br />
Kimberly Lynn Reynolds<br />
B.A., California State University Sacramento, 2005<br />
THESIS<br />
Submitted in partial satisfaction <strong>of</strong><br />
the requirements for the degree <strong>of</strong><br />
MASTER OF ARTS<br />
in<br />
COMMUNICATION STUDIES<br />
at<br />
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO<br />
FALL<br />
2010
© 2010<br />
Kimberly Lynn Reynolds<br />
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED<br />
ii
A QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF COUNTERNORMATIVE<br />
BEHAVIOR EXHIBITED IN REALITY TELEVISION PROGRAMMING<br />
Approved by:<br />
A Thesis<br />
by<br />
Kimberly Lynn Reynolds<br />
__________________________________, Committee Chair<br />
Carmen Stitt, PhD<br />
__________________________________, Second Reader<br />
Mark Williams, PhD<br />
__________________________________, Third Reader<br />
John Williams, PhD<br />
____________________________<br />
Date<br />
iii
Student:<br />
Kimberly Lynn Reynolds<br />
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University<br />
format manual, <strong>and</strong> that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library <strong>and</strong> credit is to<br />
be awarded for the thesis.<br />
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________<br />
Michele Foss-Snowden, PhD Date<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Communication Studies<br />
iv
Abstract<br />
<strong>of</strong><br />
A QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF COUNTERNORMATIVE<br />
BEHAVIOR EXHIBITED IN REALITY TELEVISION PROGRAMMING<br />
Statement <strong>of</strong> Problem<br />
by<br />
Kimberly Lynn Reynolds<br />
Throughout the last decade, there has been an incredible surge in research<br />
examining the motives <strong>of</strong> television viewers. However, relatively few scholarly studies<br />
have examined the role that theme <strong>and</strong> gender play in viewer motivations. Though<br />
research regarding the popularity <strong>and</strong> effects <strong>of</strong> reality television are ample, no studies<br />
have investigated the connection between misogynistic themes <strong>and</strong> female viewership<br />
motives.<br />
Sources <strong>of</strong> Data<br />
This thesis utilized a mixed methodology, which included a content <strong>analysis</strong><br />
identifying both <strong>quantitative</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>qualitative</strong> data. Data were first identified by<br />
<strong>qualitative</strong>ly examining episodes in order to identify overarching themes; <strong>and</strong> then it was<br />
<strong>quantitative</strong>ly coded for specific instances <strong>of</strong> <strong>counternormative</strong> behavior present in the<br />
television show Rock <strong>of</strong> Love Bus with Bret Michaels.<br />
v
Conclusions Reached<br />
This thesis has shown that there clearly are misogynistic themes that can be<br />
identified, <strong>qualitative</strong>ly <strong>and</strong> <strong>quantitative</strong>ly, within the reality television show Rock <strong>of</strong><br />
Love Bus with Bret Michaels. Since the definition <strong>of</strong> misogyny is the hatred or intense<br />
disliking <strong>of</strong> women, it could be reasonably assumed that females would be uninterested in<br />
viewing a program that depicts <strong>and</strong> promotes these attributes <strong>and</strong> <strong>counternormative</strong><br />
behaviors. However, contrary to this reasoning, females are the key demographic for<br />
celebrity reality dating television shows <strong>and</strong>, according to Nielson Media Research,<br />
females make up the majority <strong>of</strong> the audience. Based on this broader view, audience<br />
motivation theories seem to lack adequate explanation for the phenomenon <strong>of</strong> female<br />
viewers watching reality television shows promoting <strong>counternormative</strong> behaviors with<br />
heavy misogynistic themes.<br />
_______________________, Committee Chair<br />
Carmen Stitt, PhD<br />
_______________________<br />
Date<br />
vi
DEDICATION<br />
To my parents, Rachael <strong>and</strong> Raymond Cruit, I am honored to be your daughter. Through<br />
your love, you have instilled in me the meaning <strong>and</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> hard work <strong>and</strong><br />
determination.<br />
To my husb<strong>and</strong>, Ian, I live for you. Without your love, unlimited patience, underst<strong>and</strong>ing,<br />
<strong>and</strong> encouragement, I would not be the person I am today.<br />
“All the world’s a stage,<br />
<strong>and</strong> all the men <strong>and</strong> women merely players.”<br />
~ Edward de Vere<br />
(under the pen name, William Shakespeare)<br />
vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS<br />
Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Pr<strong>of</strong>essor<br />
Carmen Stitt for her continuous support <strong>of</strong> the Active Cognitive Dissonance Accrual<br />
theory <strong>and</strong> for her patience, motivation, enthusiasm, <strong>and</strong> immense knowledge. I could not<br />
have imagined having a better advisor <strong>and</strong> mentor for my Master’s thesis.<br />
Besides my advisor, I would also like to thank, from the bottom <strong>of</strong> my heart, the<br />
rest <strong>of</strong> my thesis committee: Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Mark Williams <strong>and</strong> Pr<strong>of</strong>essor John Williams, for<br />
their encouragement, insightful comments <strong>and</strong> hard questions.<br />
Additionally, I would like to thank Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Michele Foss-Snowden for believing<br />
in me <strong>and</strong> giving me the confidence to continue working with the Active Cognitive<br />
Dissonance Accrual theory.<br />
Lastly, I am indebted to my many student colleagues for proving me a stimulating<br />
<strong>and</strong> fun environment in which to learn <strong>and</strong> grow.<br />
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
ix<br />
Page<br />
Dedication .................................................................................................................. vii<br />
Acknowledgments..................................................................................................... viii<br />
List <strong>of</strong> Tables ................................................................................................................ x<br />
Chapters<br />
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1<br />
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 4<br />
3. ROCK OF LOVE BUS WITH BRET MICHAELS BACKGROUND<br />
AND HISTORY .................................................................................................... 24<br />
4. METHODS .......................................................................................................... 29<br />
5. QUANTITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................ 33<br />
6. QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................... 39<br />
7. DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 52<br />
8. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE STUDIES ......................................................... 59<br />
Appendix A. Quantitative Data Tables ....................................................................... 60<br />
References ................................................................................................................... 85
LIST OF TABLES<br />
1. Table 1 Contestants Exposing or Having Exposed Breasts .....................................60<br />
2. Table 2 Contestants Exposing or Having Exposed Vaginal Area .......................... 61<br />
3. Table 3 Contestants Exposing or Having Exposed Buttocks .................................. 62<br />
4. Table 4 Michaels Initiating Closed Mouth Kissing with Contestants .................... 63<br />
5. Table 5 Michaels Initiating Open Mouth Kissing with Contestants ....................... 64<br />
6. Table 6 Michaels Initiating Sexual Discussion with Contestants ........................... 65<br />
7. Table 7 Contestants Initiating Closed Mouth Kissing with Michaels. ................... 66<br />
8. Table 8 Contestants Initiating Open Mouth Kissing with Michaels ....................... 67<br />
9. Table 9 Contestants Initiating Implied Sexual Intercourse with Michaels ............. 68<br />
10. Table 10 Contestants Initiating Sexual Discussion with Michaels ....................... 69<br />
11. Table 11 Contestants Imitating Close Mouth Kissing with Contestants ............. 70<br />
12. Table 12 Contestants Initiating Open Mouth Kissing with Contestants ............... 71<br />
x<br />
Page<br />
13. Table 13 Contestants Initiating Implied Oral Sex with Contestants ..................... 72<br />
14. Table 14 Contestants Initiating Sexual Discussion with Contestants ................... 73<br />
15. Table 15 Contestants or Michaels Drinking or Holding Glass <strong>of</strong> Hard<br />
Alcohol ................................................................................................................. 74<br />
16. Table 16 Contestants or Michaels Drinking or Holding Glass or Beer, Wine<br />
or Champagne ..................................................................................................... 75<br />
17. Table 17 Contestants or Michaels Appearing Drunk ............................................ 76<br />
18. Table 18 Contestants or Michaels Appearing Hung Over or Throwing Up ......... 77<br />
19. Table 19 Contestants or Michaels Swearing ......................................................... 78<br />
20. Table 20 Contestants Inflicting Physical Violence on other Contestants ............. 79<br />
21. Table 21 Contestants Destroying Personal Property <strong>of</strong> other Contestants ........... 80<br />
22. Table 22 Contestants Being Verbally Aggressive with other Contestants ........... 81<br />
23. Table 23 Contestants Pouring Alcohol on other Contestants ............................... 82<br />
24. Table 24 Contestants Calling Names, Insulting or Teasing other<br />
Contestants Face-to-Face ...................................................................................... 83
25. Table 25 Contestants Calling Names, Insulting or Teasing other<br />
Contestants Behind their Back .............................................................................. 84<br />
xi
Chapter 1<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
Why are we instinctually driven to learn about behaviors <strong>and</strong> beliefs that are<br />
dissimilar from our own? Why do we actively search for experiences that test our values<br />
<strong>and</strong> why do we thirst to discover new insights about the world around us? On the surface,<br />
these questions seem more philosophical than communication-theory based, but this<br />
cannot be farther from the truth. The experiences we utilize to gain a greater<br />
underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>of</strong> our attitudes are diverse <strong>and</strong> may include everything from formal<br />
learning <strong>and</strong> traveling to far <strong>of</strong>f l<strong>and</strong>s, to reading books about foreign cultures, or<br />
watching reality television programs depicting people behaving in <strong>counternormative</strong><br />
manners. In many aspects, television provides a forum where individuals can learn about<br />
themselves <strong>and</strong> others outside <strong>of</strong> their society or culture (Markle, 2008).<br />
In recent years, the popularity <strong>of</strong> reality television has surged from only seven<br />
reality-based programs on the six United States broadcast channels in 2003 to 23 reality<br />
programs on the same channels in 2004 (Ferris, Smith, Greenberg, & Smith, 2007). It is<br />
not clear how the content <strong>of</strong> this genre <strong>of</strong> programs is similar to that <strong>of</strong> traditional<br />
scripted programming. In particular, many reality programs air content that might<br />
commonly be referred to as <strong>counternormative</strong>; yet, paradoxically, it attracts wide<br />
audiences. This paper contends that other audience motivation theories do not adequately<br />
explain the appeal <strong>of</strong> reality television because they cannot explain the attraction to<br />
female viewers, despite some reality television program content being misogynistic.<br />
1
This thesis will consist <strong>of</strong> a content <strong>analysis</strong> <strong>and</strong> a thematic <strong>analysis</strong> <strong>of</strong> Rock <strong>of</strong><br />
Love Bus with Brett Michaels, which will identify instances <strong>of</strong> behavior that indicating<br />
that the program represents misogynistic attitudes. Additionally, this thesis will suggest<br />
that a new theory, the Active Cognitive Dissonance Accrual (ACoDA) theory, may be a<br />
potential theoretical explanation that may identify knowledge gaps left by other audience<br />
motivation theories.<br />
To provide a brief introduction, the Active Cognitive Dissonance Accrual<br />
(ACoDA) theory is defined as behavior wherein a person actively seeks out media<br />
viewing experiences that create cognitive dissonance in order to satisfy the innate drive to<br />
learn about ideas <strong>and</strong> beliefs that are <strong>counternormative</strong>. With reality television<br />
programming (such as the series Rock <strong>of</strong> Love with Bret Michaels) becoming more <strong>and</strong><br />
more mainstream, assumptions <strong>of</strong> ACoDA must be examined to determine if it is a viable<br />
alternative to existing theories in explaining the lure <strong>of</strong> viewing <strong>counternormative</strong><br />
behavior.<br />
Throughout the last decade, there has been an incredible surge in research<br />
examining the motives <strong>of</strong> television viewers (Barton, 2009; Lundy, Ruth & Park, 2008;<br />
Nabi, Biely, Morgan & Stitt, 2003; Reiss & Witlz, 2007; Roberti, 2007). However,<br />
relatively few scholarly studies have examined the role that theme <strong>and</strong> gender play in<br />
viewer motivations. Though research regarding the popularity <strong>and</strong> effects <strong>of</strong> reality<br />
television are ample, no studies have investigated the connection between misogynistic<br />
themes <strong>and</strong> female viewership motives. This thesis will conduct thematic analyses <strong>of</strong><br />
2
Rock <strong>of</strong> Love Bus with Bret Michaels to identify instances <strong>of</strong> behavior indicative <strong>of</strong><br />
misogyny.<br />
Reality television programs, such as the series Rock <strong>of</strong> Love with Bret Michaels,<br />
attract audiences by showing individuals exhibiting <strong>counternormative</strong> behaviors that are<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten very salacious. An <strong>analysis</strong> will be conducted <strong>of</strong> Rock <strong>of</strong> Love Bus with Bret<br />
Michaels identifying specific <strong>qualitative</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>quantitative</strong> instances <strong>of</strong> behaviors defined<br />
as <strong>counternormative</strong> <strong>and</strong> misogynistic. Neilsen Ratings <strong>and</strong> VH1 polling have indicated<br />
the majority <strong>of</strong> viewers watching the series Rock <strong>of</strong> Love with Bret Michaels are female.<br />
It would appear that the female viewers <strong>of</strong> reality shows - wherein there are depictions <strong>of</strong><br />
norm-violating behaviors - watch these shows with full knowledge that they will be<br />
witnessing individuals acting in socially deviant manners. One theory that may explain<br />
the high degree <strong>of</strong> female viewers watching clearly misogynistic shows is the Active<br />
Cognitive Dissonance Accrual (ACoDA) theory. The ACoDA theory posits that an<br />
audience member’s motives for watching programming focused on norm violations is,<br />
consciously or subconsciously, to satisfy their innate curiosity <strong>and</strong> to learn about deviant,<br />
or <strong>counternormative</strong>, behaviors <strong>and</strong> beliefs.<br />
The following research question is posed:<br />
RQ 1: What themes <strong>of</strong> misogyny are present in Rock <strong>of</strong> Love Bus with Bret<br />
Michaels?<br />
3
Reality Television<br />
Chapter 2<br />
LITERATURE REVIEW<br />
Reality Television programming, which emerged as a distinct genre in the late<br />
1980s, can be operationally defined as “an unscripted program that shows real<br />
people…active in a specific environment” (Hill & Quin, 2001; Mead, 2005, p. 139). The<br />
popularity <strong>of</strong> reality television has surged from only seven reality-based programs on the<br />
six United States broadcast channels in 2003 to 23 reality programs on the same channels<br />
in 2004 (Ferris et al., 2007). The rise in popularity <strong>of</strong> reality television programming is<br />
not purely an American phenomenon, with viewers around the world clamoring for more<br />
<strong>and</strong> more reality-based television (Dixon, 2008).<br />
Though reality television found its roots in talk <strong>and</strong> news magazine shows, the<br />
genre has redefined the meaning <strong>of</strong> ‘Trash TV’. Competition is enormous, as producers<br />
need to constantly push the proverbial envelope to ensure that audiences remain titillated<br />
<strong>and</strong> tuned into the show (Keller, 1993). Coinciding with the rise in popularity <strong>of</strong> reality<br />
television, there has been a steady increase <strong>of</strong> sexual content depicted on network <strong>and</strong><br />
cable channel programming. Seventy percent <strong>of</strong> television programs featured sexual<br />
content during the 2004-2005 season, up from 64% in 2002 <strong>and</strong> 56% in 1998 (Kunkel,<br />
Eyal, Finnerty, Biely & Donnerstein, 2005).<br />
Lundy et al (2008) compared reality programming to television talk shows;<br />
arguing similarities in that they “create audiences by breaking cultural rules, by managed<br />
4
shocks, by shifting our conceptions <strong>of</strong> what is acceptable, by transforming that basis for<br />
cultural judgment, by redefining deviance <strong>and</strong> appropriate reactions to it, by eroding<br />
social barriers, inhibitions <strong>and</strong> cultural distinctions” (Abt & Seesholtz, 1994, p. 171).<br />
Scholars have identified several key differences between reality television <strong>and</strong><br />
programming such as news <strong>and</strong> talk shows: non-pr<strong>of</strong>essional actors who are filmed in<br />
natural, unscripted environments where their actions are not completely planned (Nabi et<br />
al., 2003).<br />
The individuals who choose to become reality television ‘stars’ must <strong>of</strong>ten give<br />
up their personal privacy for the “sake <strong>of</strong> transient fame” (Papacharissi & Mendelson,<br />
2007, p. 355). Contestants on competition-focused reality television programs are <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
placed in situations or depicted in manners that may be humiliating. Reality television<br />
competition programs are frequently edited to give a more-than-real impression that<br />
female contestants are behaving in ways that may seem indecent or inappropriate.<br />
Research has shown that although female contestants are aware that their behavior <strong>and</strong><br />
actions will cause them to be perceived in an unflattering manner, the very idea that they<br />
are popular <strong>and</strong> on television supersedes their apprehension (Mendible, 2004). As posited<br />
by Mendible, humiliation “occupies a second-order <strong>of</strong> meaning in which any televised<br />
activity—regardless <strong>of</strong> how embarrassing—is elevated in status” (pg 336).<br />
Celebreality dating-competition shows, a specialized category <strong>of</strong> reality<br />
television, typically feature 20-25 contestants biding for the attention <strong>of</strong> a famous (or<br />
infamous) individual. Though the rules are clear - beat all other competitors to become<br />
the love interest <strong>of</strong> the celebrity - the contestants <strong>of</strong>ten behave in a manner that is<br />
5
<strong>counternormative</strong> to societal st<strong>and</strong>ards in order to achieve their objective. Since<br />
contestants on reality television shows earn money <strong>and</strong> fame by winning contests, the<br />
behaviors exhibited by the contestants are <strong>of</strong>ten extreme <strong>and</strong> they frequently resort to any<br />
means necessary to win. The outrageous behaviors exhibited on celebrity reality dating<br />
shows <strong>of</strong>ten include sexual competition, vulgar <strong>and</strong> disrespectful conduct, <strong>and</strong> violent<br />
brawls. These significant violations <strong>of</strong> societal norms are what compel viewers to<br />
continue watching these programs.<br />
Reality Television Audience Motives<br />
Unlike other forms <strong>of</strong> television programming where the aim is to learn a new<br />
skill or practical knowledge, reality dating television programs are primarily intended to<br />
be viewed as audience entertainment. Audience motives for watching these types <strong>of</strong><br />
reality television programs are complex with many factors contributing to the likelihood<br />
<strong>of</strong> viewership. Roberti (2007) conducted a computer-mediated survey <strong>of</strong> college students<br />
to analyze the motivations <strong>of</strong> reality dating competition viewers. Data suggested three<br />
motives: excitability, social learning <strong>and</strong> escape. Disinhibition <strong>and</strong> thrill-<strong>and</strong>-adventure<br />
seeking individuals found these types <strong>of</strong> programs exciting <strong>and</strong> watched more reality<br />
television. Additionally, reality television also provided an entertainment <strong>and</strong> a<br />
distraction (or escape) from day-to-day life (Roberti, 2007). Lastly, Roberti’s data<br />
suggested social learning motivated some individuals to watch in order “to learn about<br />
expectations in relationships, pick up dating tips, <strong>and</strong> learn about sexual activity” (p.<br />
130). As such, the main motives behind watching this type <strong>of</strong> programming are self-<br />
serving. Reiss <strong>and</strong> Witlz (2004) examined reality television viewer motives <strong>and</strong> found<br />
6
that status, followed by vengeance, were the most significant reasons for tuning in. Their<br />
study concluded: “viewers may perceive themselves as better than the characters<br />
portrayed, or feel that the portrayal <strong>of</strong> ordinary people in reality TV elevates their own<br />
status” (Lundy et al., 2008, p. 211).<br />
Lundy et al. (2008) examined the consumption patterns <strong>of</strong> reality programming<br />
viewers <strong>and</strong> found several unique attributes <strong>of</strong> that population. Based on data gathered<br />
from focus groups conducted at a large mid-western university, viewers <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
underestimated their viewing patterns <strong>and</strong> denied watching copious amounts <strong>of</strong> reality<br />
programming. Participants also felt that reality television allowed them to escape from<br />
their own reality by <strong>of</strong>fering a “glimpse into another world” (Lundy et al., 2008, p. 213).<br />
Viewers have also reported that they liked reality television programming because they<br />
“enjoyed watching [reality television] characters exposed to uncomfortable situations<br />
outside their normal realm <strong>of</strong> experience” (Lundy et al., 2008, p. 214).<br />
Viewers are given (edited) access to situations that are socially deemed private<br />
such as sexual or romantic encounters <strong>and</strong> jealous fits <strong>of</strong> rage. Overall, though casual<br />
watchers indicate that they watched reality television for entertainment, they primarily<br />
watch the programs due to curiosity (Nabi et al., 2003).The viewership motive <strong>of</strong><br />
curiosity is redefining the concept <strong>of</strong> voyeurism. Originally defined as the pathological<br />
act <strong>of</strong> watching another individual for a sexual thrill, non-pathological voyeurism is “very<br />
similar to psychological drives (social curiosity) to learn about other individuals” (Baruh,<br />
2009). This “normal” voyeurism is unique to reality television programming because<br />
7
unlike scripted shows, “viewer detection skills are exercised not on celebrities but on the<br />
‘real’ people ‘just like the viewers’” (Andrejevic, 2006, p. 401).<br />
American culture is obsessed with individuals whose lifestyle violates society's<br />
norms. People who are portrayed as "different" or "social outcasts" are colloquially<br />
referred to as “train wrecks”, as in something terrible that we just cannot look away from.<br />
A <strong>quantitative</strong> <strong>analysis</strong> <strong>of</strong> American television programming indicates that programs<br />
focusing on people in reality situations are one <strong>of</strong> the fastest growing genres (e.g.<br />
American Idol, The Real World, Dirty Jobs). Even faster growing are the reality<br />
television programs specifically focusing on individuals or groups living alternative<br />
lifestyles or violating societal norms (e.g. Bad Girls Club, The Girls Next Door, Rock <strong>of</strong><br />
Love with Bret Michaels). As America's thirst for reality television grows, documentary<br />
programs are also shifting to show more <strong>and</strong> more <strong>counternormative</strong> lifestyle situations.<br />
Similar to news shows, reality television depicts situations that allow people to be<br />
exposed to individuals who behave in <strong>counternormative</strong> manners without the pressure <strong>of</strong><br />
real life, physical interaction with those individuals. Studies examining viewer<br />
motivations for watching reality television have suggested that the majority <strong>of</strong> viewers<br />
tune in so that they can feel like they are <strong>of</strong> a higher status than those on the show. The<br />
motivation <strong>of</strong> higher status may be true in reality television programs that portray average<br />
people acting in ways that make them look foolish or silly.<br />
Barton (2009) explored different thematic types <strong>of</strong> reality television to determine<br />
the gratifications received by the viewers. Through a series <strong>of</strong> surveys, the data suggested<br />
that reality television viewers are motivated to watch specific reality television programs<br />
8
ecause <strong>of</strong> personal utility. The authors theorized that early reality television programs<br />
were originally geared to appeal to a wider audience but have now evolved to represent<br />
various niche groups <strong>and</strong> subgroups. With the change in target audience, a new<br />
gratification was developed: viewers may no longer be watching them as much for social<br />
utility, but to obtain gratification on an individual or specialized level.<br />
Social Norms <strong>and</strong> Violations<br />
Communication <strong>and</strong> psychology scholars have suggested that social norms are<br />
highly influential in determining human behavior (for review see Chekroun & Brauer,<br />
2002; Ellikson, 1991). Social norms, which are specific to particular groups, are based on<br />
the behavioral cues within a society that guides a group's values, beliefs, attitudes <strong>and</strong><br />
behavior. Social norms also dictate what actions are appropriate or inappropriate within a<br />
group depending on generations, age groups <strong>and</strong> social classes. The appropriateness <strong>of</strong><br />
behaviors evolves depending on the time period <strong>and</strong> society’s response to violating the<br />
norms (Weber, 2003). Additionally, social norms that are considered normal in one group<br />
may be viewed as deviant behavior by another (Chekroun & Brauerm, 2002). The key<br />
attribute <strong>of</strong> social norms is their ability to contribute to the group’s identity, to create a<br />
feeling <strong>of</strong> belonging, <strong>and</strong> to “provide the individual with guidelines for his or her<br />
behavior in ambiguous situations” (Chekroun & Brauerm, 2002, p. 854).<br />
Those who have deference to their group's societal norms will be accepted,<br />
though failure to abide by the rules will frequently cause an individual to be excluded<br />
from the group. The process <strong>of</strong> negatively sanctioning group members who act in a<br />
<strong>counternormative</strong> manner is called social control. More <strong>of</strong>ten than not, those who are cast<br />
9
out <strong>of</strong> the group actively seek out more accepting groups <strong>and</strong> company <strong>of</strong> those who<br />
behavior similarly (Chekroun & Brauer, 2002).<br />
Societal norms can be enforced by the society or controlled internally (Ellickson,<br />
1991). The structure regulating norm-breakers <strong>and</strong> norm-abiders is complex, with norm-<br />
abiders <strong>of</strong>ten policing norm-breakers. Research has shown that it is difficult for<br />
individuals to forget a norm violation when they frequently interact with the known<br />
violator. According to Kiesler, Kiesler, <strong>and</strong> Pallak (1967), the norm-abider can choose to<br />
ignore the violation, make it into a joke, or attempt to change the violator’s behavior.<br />
Though norm-abiders do police norm-breakers, “social norms must be internalized if they<br />
are to have a significant impact <strong>of</strong> behavior”; in situations where they are not<br />
internalized, norm-breakers must develop strategies for reducing dissonance<br />
(Chatzidakis, Hibbert, Mitussis & Smith, 2004, p. 529).<br />
When humans actively increase their underst<strong>and</strong>ing about new ideas <strong>and</strong> beliefs,<br />
they encounter behaviors that may be foreign. By its very definition, foreign or<br />
unfamiliar circumstances <strong>and</strong> viewpoints may dwell outside our comfort zone. While the<br />
term “<strong>counternormative</strong> behavior” can be defined as behavior that dwells outside the<br />
accepted societal norms, it would also follow that those situations <strong>and</strong> beliefs beyond our<br />
personal <strong>and</strong> individual comfort zones can also be defined as <strong>counternormative</strong>.<br />
Heterosexual Sexual Behavior<br />
Heterosexual sexual behavior is operationally defined as “any depiction <strong>of</strong> sexual<br />
activity, sexually suggestive behavior, or talk about sexuality or sexual activity” between<br />
males <strong>and</strong> females (Kunkel et al, 2005, p. 14). From double entendre-filled sexual<br />
10
dialogue to explicit sexual behaviors such as kissing, making out <strong>and</strong> intercourse, visual<br />
<strong>and</strong> verbal references to sexual activity on television are numerous <strong>and</strong> gaining in<br />
frequency (Ward, 1995; Kunkel, Eyal, Biely, Cope-Farrar & Donnerstein, 2003, Kunkel<br />
et al., 2005). According to Markle (2008), appropriate sexual activities are defined by<br />
societal norms <strong>and</strong> cultural scenarios with gender specific strategies for achieving sexual<br />
desires.<br />
The Script Theory posits that sexual norms for heterosexual behavior are<br />
culturally constructed <strong>and</strong> “define what counts as sex, how to recognize sexual situations,<br />
<strong>and</strong> what to do in relational <strong>and</strong> sexual encounters” (Kim, Sorsoli, Collins, Zylbergold,<br />
Schooler & Tolman, 2007, p. 146). This cultural-level script acts to regulate <strong>and</strong><br />
normalize sexual behavior between males <strong>and</strong> females. Males are taught from an early<br />
age that they should act on their sexual desires <strong>and</strong> their sexual hormones are<br />
uncontrollable. In order to convince females to engage in sexual activity, Script Theory<br />
suggests that males bestow material items <strong>and</strong> status upon females in return for sex <strong>and</strong><br />
affection.<br />
Negotiating romantic <strong>and</strong> sexual heterosexual relationships is an intricate system<br />
that is culturally scripted to define the female role as submissive to the dominant male.<br />
The script that males maintain the power in relationships is supported by reality<br />
television programs that depict males treating women as sexual objects <strong>and</strong> avoiding<br />
commitment. Harris (2004) examined the role <strong>of</strong> females on two popular reality dating<br />
competition programs, Joe Millionaire <strong>and</strong> Paradise Hotel. Harris argued that reality<br />
dating shows that advertise themselves as advancing female autonomy are actually<br />
11
promoting opposing attitudes designed to ridicule the contestants. Her examples include<br />
Joe Millionaire, which assumes the contestants just want the man because he is rich; <strong>and</strong><br />
Average Joe, which suggests that women only want to marry a man who is attractive<br />
according to societal norms (Harris, 2004). Though reality dating programs such as<br />
Paradise Hotel allow "feminine sexuality [to be] freed from the responsibility <strong>and</strong><br />
respectability <strong>of</strong> marriage" (Fiske, 1990, p. 139), Harris maintains that there is a double<br />
st<strong>and</strong>ard within the female’s role in the heterosexual patriarchy. She supports this<br />
contention by explaining that “the very premise <strong>of</strong> women swapping partners in a hotel—<br />
ultimately for money—implicitly invites viewers to cast the female contestants as<br />
prostitutes” (Harris, 2004, p. 356). Females who violate social norms by exposing their<br />
body <strong>and</strong> having many sexual partners are frequently labeled as women <strong>of</strong> easy virtue.<br />
Our culture has designated numerous words that identify these types <strong>of</strong> females such as<br />
hussy, slut, tart, tramp, wench <strong>and</strong> whore, to name only a few. Recently there has been a<br />
counter movement to win back the reputation <strong>of</strong> a slut. Though the new definition is an<br />
acronym <strong>of</strong> S.L.U.T. meaning “Sexually Liberated Urban Teenager”, females who<br />
conduct themselves in sexually free manners are still behaving in a <strong>counternormative</strong><br />
manner (Beckerman, 2004).<br />
Both Joe Millionaire <strong>and</strong> Average Joe endorse Masculine Courting Strategies <strong>and</strong><br />
Feminine Courting Strategies. Masculine strategies include courting the female <strong>and</strong><br />
making the first move within the relationship to show interest. Conversely, female<br />
strategies include waiting to be selected by the male <strong>and</strong> encouraging the male’s attention<br />
by “dressing provocatively, touching themselves suggestively, using playful innuendo,<br />
12
ego-stroking, or pretending to be in need <strong>of</strong> assistance” (Kim et al., 2007, p. 148).<br />
Analysis <strong>of</strong> television programming scripts found that the most common feminine<br />
courting strategy (13.9%) was exposing their body <strong>and</strong> objectifying themselves to attract<br />
the attention <strong>of</strong> a powerful male (Kim et al., 2007). Data suggested that females on<br />
television programs are “frequently reminded that their physical appearance was more<br />
important than their intelligence, personality, <strong>and</strong> other attributes” (Kim et al., 2007, p.<br />
151). Reality dating competition programs encourage behaviors that violate societal<br />
norms <strong>and</strong> advance the objectification <strong>of</strong> women by persuading female contestants to<br />
compete by utilizing more <strong>and</strong> more sexually explicit courting strategies.<br />
Dating on reality television competition programs is characterized as a game,<br />
<strong>counternormative</strong> to the socially acceptable notion that individuals date with the purpose<br />
<strong>of</strong> finding a long-term partner. Within this game, women are sexual objects <strong>and</strong> men act<br />
as sex-driven creatures that must possess many different women. Ferris et al. (2007)<br />
found the dominant courtship rituals portrayed on reality television were “(in order <strong>of</strong><br />
frequency <strong>of</strong> portrayal): kissing, hugging, asking questions to get to know the date;<br />
drinking alcohol; going to a party, club, or bar; complimenting the date; holding h<strong>and</strong>s;<br />
<strong>and</strong> getting in a hot tub or spa, which were shown on average 49 times per hour on the<br />
shows in the sample” (p. 506). Though these rituals may seem socially acceptable<br />
between a single female <strong>and</strong> male, they quickly become norm violations when twenty-<br />
five women compete to kiss, hug, talk with, drink alcohol with <strong>and</strong> get into a hot tub or<br />
spa with a single male.<br />
13
Appropriation <strong>of</strong> Female Homosexuality<br />
Feminine Courting Strategies instruct females that they must demonstrate that<br />
they are sexually available <strong>and</strong> responsive to the needs <strong>of</strong> males. One popular method<br />
females use to gain male attention is Appropriation <strong>of</strong> Female Homosexuality (AFH).<br />
Colloquially referred to as ‘bisexual chic’, AFH is characterized by females performing<br />
“girl on girl” sexual acts with the intention <strong>of</strong> turning males on. Though<br />
<strong>counternormative</strong> to the prevailing societal norms (only 10.6% <strong>of</strong> females aged 15-19<br />
have had a same-sex sexual experience), those participating in this type <strong>of</strong> behavior have<br />
termed themselves ‘heter<strong>of</strong>lexible’ (Joner, 2006). Females who identify as<br />
‘heter<strong>of</strong>lexible’ consider themselves to be heterosexual but are flexible enough to<br />
experiment sexually with the same sex (Denes, 2007).<br />
Though Kim et al. (2007) found that this code was the least common script within<br />
the sample <strong>of</strong> sitcom television programming analyzed (1.46%), reality television<br />
programs have a higher prevalence <strong>of</strong> Appropriation <strong>of</strong> Female Homosexuality due to the<br />
competition aspect, which is fueled by extreme alcohol usage. Female reality dating<br />
contestants are aware that males may be aroused by the thought or sight <strong>of</strong> attractive<br />
women touching each other in sexual ways <strong>and</strong> so these women use this to their<br />
advantage. As with all social norms, there are limits within the ‘heter<strong>of</strong>lexible’<br />
community. A female who simply kisses another female for attention is considered<br />
appropriate, but females who touch each other’s breasts or genitalia are “taking it above<br />
<strong>and</strong> beyond…now she’s a lesbian or she’s a huge slut” (Joiner, 2006, p. 4).<br />
14
As would be expected with the prevailing societal norms, females who are labeled<br />
‘heter<strong>of</strong>lexible’ <strong>and</strong> who engaged in sexual activity are considered to be more<br />
promiscuous than females who simply danced together. Despite the rise in the ‘chicness’<br />
<strong>of</strong> bisexuality, data has shown that males do not necessarily find girl on girl sexual<br />
behavior hotter than two girls dancing together (Denes, 2007). Based on the script that<br />
females desire monogamous relationships, heterosexual females who engage in<br />
homoerotic behaviors for the singular goal <strong>of</strong> sexually arousing males are acting in a<br />
<strong>counternormative</strong> manner.<br />
Alcohol Usage<br />
Researchers have found that viewers gather health related information from<br />
watching television programs (Beck, Huang, Pollard & Johnson, 2004). Though some<br />
television programs, such as shows specifically produced to give out medical advice, may<br />
encourage beneficial well being, the majority <strong>of</strong> television programs do not depict<br />
behaviors that are considered healthy. Largely ignored by television programs are the<br />
statistics that within the United States, alcohol consumption is directly responsible for<br />
1,574,000 hospital admissions (Chen, Yi, & Hilton, 2005) resulting in approximately<br />
85,000 annual deaths attributed to excessive alcohol intake such as binge drinking<br />
(Mokdad, Marks, Stroup & Gerberding, 2004).<br />
Russell <strong>and</strong> Russell (2009) conducted a content <strong>analysis</strong> <strong>of</strong> an eight-week sample<br />
<strong>of</strong> eighteen prime-time programs to examine alcoholic messages <strong>and</strong> monitor the<br />
depictions <strong>of</strong> alcohol usage. The content <strong>analysis</strong> suggests that alcohol messages, on the<br />
whole, tended to be correlated with negative outcomes when alcohol was central to the<br />
15
plot <strong>and</strong> when alcohol was seen in the background <strong>of</strong> the scene it was depicted positively.<br />
Prime-time television viewers are bombarded with mixed messages about the positive<br />
<strong>and</strong> negative outcomes <strong>of</strong> alcohol usage. Comprehensive data supports that the negative<br />
attributes <strong>of</strong> alcohol usage (i.e. loss <strong>of</strong> job) were only observed when it was central to the<br />
plot, yet positive attributes <strong>of</strong> alcohol usage (i.e. drink to have fun) was more subtly<br />
observed in the background.<br />
Verbal Aggression <strong>and</strong> Gossip<br />
Verbal aggression involves “attacking the self-concept <strong>of</strong> another person instead<br />
<strong>of</strong>, or in addition to, the person’s position on a topic <strong>of</strong> communication” utilizing teasing<br />
<strong>and</strong> threatening language that <strong>of</strong>ten includes expletives (Infante & Wigley, 1986, p. 61).<br />
Occasionally a precursor to physical violence, verbal aggression typically includes<br />
insulting an individual’s character, competence, background, or physical appearance<br />
(Tamborini, Chory, Lachlan, Westerman & Skalski, 2008). During the 1994 primetime<br />
season, Potter <strong>and</strong> Vaughan (1997) noted that verbal aggression averaged 27 acts per<br />
hour. Data indicates that verbal aggressive language has surpassed acts <strong>of</strong> physical<br />
violence on primetime television (Potter & Vaughan, 1997). Chory (2000) indicated that<br />
the most prevalent forms <strong>of</strong> verbal aggression on sitcoms are insulting an individual’s<br />
character <strong>and</strong> competency. With elevated rates <strong>of</strong> verbal aggression on television,<br />
research suggests that viewers are overestimating the normative rates <strong>of</strong> aggression.<br />
Indirect aggression includes gossiping, spreading rumors, ignoring, or destroying<br />
someone’s property behind their back. The most common kind <strong>of</strong> indirect aggression on<br />
reality television programs is gossiping about fellow contestants. Gossip is discourse<br />
16
etween individuals that is characterized as “sharing opinions <strong>and</strong> judgments about a<br />
person’s behavior or physical attributes, <strong>and</strong> by doing so implicitly asserting appropriate<br />
behavior or defining a physical norm” (Eggins & Slade, 1997, p. 276). This type <strong>of</strong><br />
sharing is critical for “establishing <strong>and</strong> maintaining social relations <strong>and</strong> norms within a<br />
group” (Thornborrow & Morris, 2004, p. 248). Thornborrow <strong>and</strong> Morris (2004) analyzed<br />
the function that gossip plays among contestants in reality television competitions.<br />
Gossip, as a strategic instrument, has two main functions: establishing social<br />
relationships between contestants <strong>and</strong> influencing the viewing public’s perceptions <strong>of</strong> the<br />
contestants. The authors suggest that reality television competition contestants must<br />
incorporate the use <strong>of</strong> positive gossip, which is designed to promote the positive<br />
attributes <strong>of</strong> the individual <strong>and</strong> negative gossip, which is designed to “attack the position<br />
<strong>of</strong> others” in order to advance within the competition (pg. 264).<br />
Physical Aggression<br />
It has been estimated that the average United States eighteen year old has viewed<br />
at least 200,000 violent acts on television in their lifetime (Brook, Saar, & Brook, 2008).<br />
Physical aggression is defined as any means <strong>of</strong> physically hurting or attempting to<br />
inflicting pain on another individual out <strong>of</strong> anger or aggression. Television <strong>and</strong> media<br />
research firms have long studied the role <strong>and</strong> impact that physical aggression plays in the<br />
development <strong>of</strong> adolescents <strong>and</strong> the effect gender has on perceived aggression.<br />
Researchers have so examined the role that gender has on choosing which shows to view.<br />
Cantor <strong>and</strong> Nathanson (1997) found that males are more likely than females to watch<br />
television that has a high incident <strong>of</strong> physical violence.<br />
17
Data has indicated that though verbal <strong>and</strong> indirect aggressions are the most<br />
common forms <strong>of</strong> aggression on primetime television, physical aggression is also<br />
relatively frequent with at least one act appearing in 70% <strong>of</strong> all shows (Glascock, 2008).<br />
Data from a content <strong>analysis</strong> <strong>of</strong> primetime television shown in 2005 supports the social<br />
norm that males perpetrate physical violence more than females. The content <strong>analysis</strong><br />
indicated that females were depicted as more indirectly aggressive <strong>and</strong> both males <strong>and</strong><br />
females were equally verbally aggressive during the 97 hours <strong>of</strong> programming analyzed<br />
(Glascock, 2008). High levels <strong>of</strong> physical violence, along with prolonged exposure to<br />
seeing acts <strong>of</strong> aggression on television, have been correlated with desensitization to<br />
aggression. Fanti, Vanman, Henrich, & Avraamides (2009) examined the impact <strong>of</strong><br />
repeated exposure to aggression <strong>and</strong> found that the “psychological impact <strong>of</strong> media<br />
violence was reduced” with viewers “feeling less sympathy for violence victims<br />
<strong>and</strong>…enjoying more the violence portrayed in the media scenes” (p. 185).<br />
Harem<br />
‘Harem’ is operationally defined as a group <strong>of</strong> committed women who serve as<br />
sexual partners for one man. The concept <strong>of</strong> a harem is opposite to the prevailing norm <strong>of</strong><br />
a woman <strong>and</strong> man committed to one another in a monogamous relationship. Weaver <strong>and</strong><br />
Woollard (2008) note that although monogamy restricts both “sex <strong>and</strong> additional<br />
relationships <strong>of</strong> erotic love”, it is still the most desirable type <strong>of</strong> relationship, <strong>and</strong> it is still<br />
the societal norm (p. 506). Monogamy has both a personal <strong>and</strong> a social value, <strong>and</strong> when<br />
the relationship is violated by one partner seeking erotic love outside <strong>of</strong> the union, a<br />
personal <strong>and</strong> social violation occurs. The idea that an individual within a monogamous<br />
18
elationship will not have erotic thoughts about an individual other than their partner is<br />
unattainable; however a dedicated partner is careful not to act upon their thoughts<br />
(Weaver & Wollard, 2008).<br />
Monogamous relationships require an equal amount <strong>of</strong> dedication from both<br />
partners, unlike the harem relationship. Relationships where multiple women share one<br />
man are not an evenly balanced bond. Instead, the women are giving their total attention<br />
<strong>and</strong> affection to a single man yet they only receive a small percentage <strong>of</strong> his time back.<br />
This type <strong>of</strong> situation can cause intense jealously <strong>and</strong> competition amongst the women as<br />
they battle for his affections. Choosing a monogamous relationship over an open one<br />
“displays faith in the strength <strong>of</strong> the relationship” (Weaver & Woolard, 2008, p. 521).<br />
Individuals who specifically choose to enter open relationships where multiple women<br />
vie for the love <strong>of</strong> one man are <strong>counternormative</strong> since our culture values a committed<br />
relationship between two individuals. Therefore, relationships depicted on reality dating<br />
programs - where upwards <strong>of</strong> twenty-five people compete for their chance to fall in love<br />
with one individual – are violations <strong>of</strong> prevailing social norms.<br />
Chooser showing dominance over contestants<br />
The purpose <strong>of</strong> reality dating competition programs such as Joe Millionaire or<br />
Rock <strong>of</strong> Love Bus with Bret Michaels is to create a situation where twenty-five females<br />
vie to win the attention <strong>and</strong> love <strong>of</strong> the bachelor. The bachelor, in this scenario, maintains<br />
all control over the contestants by either choosing to bestow his affections or choosing to<br />
19
eliminate them from the competition. The female contestants are ruled by his desires<br />
alone (<strong>and</strong> perhaps the producer’s), <strong>and</strong> they have no choice but to bow to his needs. A<br />
prominent feminist critical theorist notes that these types <strong>of</strong> programs “perpetuate<br />
problematic stereotypical images <strong>of</strong> appropriate female demeanors <strong>and</strong> goals.” (Graham-<br />
Bertolini, 2004, p. 341). The prize <strong>of</strong> the bachelor represents the chance at love <strong>and</strong><br />
marriage with a popular <strong>and</strong> powerful male. The most common method female<br />
contestants utilize to gain the attention <strong>of</strong> their chooser is sexual behaviors that violate<br />
societal norms such as Appropriation <strong>of</strong> Female Homosexuality <strong>and</strong> exposing body parts<br />
or dressing scantily in public.<br />
Yep <strong>and</strong> Camacho (2004) analyzed The Bachelor <strong>and</strong> found significant evidence<br />
that heterogender relations were regulated via situations in which the female contestants<br />
possessed limited power with their status in the competition being greatly controlled by<br />
the bachelor. Heterogender relations, operationally defined as “the asymmetrical<br />
stratification <strong>of</strong> the sexes, privileging men <strong>and</strong> exploiting women, in the institution <strong>of</strong><br />
patriarchal heterosexuality” (pg 338), is portrayed in The Bachelor in three manners. Yep<br />
<strong>and</strong> Camacho contend that the show’s repeated focus on the women’s physical beauty<br />
through the use <strong>of</strong> camera angles that focus on their breasts, buttocks <strong>and</strong> legs <strong>and</strong> by<br />
creating situations where the women are encouraged to disrobe or show their bodies (i.e.<br />
in pajama parties <strong>and</strong> hot tub/swimming scenes). Additionally, asymmetrical<br />
heterogender relations are also seen between the female contestants, most female-to-<br />
female verbal communication is centered on their feelings for the bachelor. Thirdly, the<br />
20
eoccurrence <strong>of</strong> “fairy tale love” imagery contributes to the ideology <strong>of</strong> patriarchal<br />
heterosexuality (Yep & Camacho, 2004).<br />
Male Gaze<br />
Television programs produced from the masculine perspective, or male gaze,<br />
promote the image <strong>of</strong> women as sexual objects where males have control <strong>of</strong> them (Usher,<br />
1997). The concept <strong>of</strong> male gaze is linked to power <strong>and</strong> domination. Mulvey (1975)<br />
identified three attributes <strong>of</strong> male gaze: the camera represents the voyeuristic male gaze,<br />
male characters make female characters the object <strong>of</strong> their gaze <strong>and</strong>, lastly, the viewers’<br />
gaze is dictated by the masculine gaze <strong>of</strong> both the camera <strong>and</strong> characters. Usher (1997)<br />
noted that the director or screenwriter could not necessarily be held responsible for this<br />
male gaze; instead, the gaze reflects the “relative cultural <strong>and</strong> psychological positions <strong>of</strong><br />
‘woman’ <strong>and</strong> ‘man’ represented within the narratives” (p. 85).<br />
The three most common stereotypes <strong>of</strong> females within mass media are “sex<br />
object, person trying to be beautiful for men, <strong>and</strong> wife <strong>and</strong> mother” (Br<strong>and</strong>t & Carstens,<br />
2005, p. 233). These three stereotypes control <strong>and</strong> enforce hegemonic power <strong>of</strong> males<br />
over submissive females. Br<strong>and</strong>t <strong>and</strong> Carstens (2005) examined the role that journalists<br />
play in the control <strong>of</strong> women in Sports Illustrated magazine. The researchers argued that<br />
journalists, who derive power from the magazine, select which women are given voice<br />
but insist those women “remain subordinate to the magazine, which has a m<strong>and</strong>ate to<br />
create idealized identities for them”. Strategic camera angles <strong>and</strong> distances, sexual poses<br />
<strong>and</strong> page layout create these identities. Frequently, Sports Illustrated journalists choose to<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>ile women who are considered sexy <strong>and</strong> beautiful <strong>and</strong> tend to ignore women who are<br />
21
“strong <strong>and</strong> emotionally balanced, sporting pr<strong>of</strong>essionals” (Br<strong>and</strong>t & Carstens, 2005, p.<br />
233). Male gaze plays a significant role in the advancement <strong>of</strong> hegemonic power, as<br />
sports female pr<strong>of</strong>essionals are ignored, creating “serious social <strong>and</strong> psychological<br />
problems” for them (Br<strong>and</strong>t & Carstens, 2005, p. 233).<br />
Misogyny via Humiliation<br />
Misogyny, the hatred or contempt for women, is not a new phenomenon. Feminist<br />
researchers have examined society’s patriarchal structure <strong>and</strong> determined that its role is<br />
one that supports the view that females are lesser than males. It appears that misogyny<br />
<strong>and</strong> purposeful degradation <strong>of</strong> women share many common characteristics. The<br />
intentional humiliation <strong>of</strong> women on reality television may be contributing to the overall<br />
societal norm that women who behave <strong>counternormative</strong>ly deserve to be sexually<br />
objectified via male gaze, labeled <strong>of</strong>fensive names (i.e. slut) <strong>and</strong> encouraged to drink<br />
excessively to ensure their reputation is degraded.<br />
Mills (2004) argues that reality television creates <strong>and</strong> contributes to “the culture<br />
<strong>of</strong> humiliation” to ensure high viewership ratings (p. 79). Programs centered on revealing<br />
personal faults <strong>and</strong> acting foolish is not a new concept (C<strong>and</strong>ied Camera, The Dating<br />
Game) but there has been a distinct shift in acting silly <strong>and</strong> being in on the joke to being<br />
excessively supplied with alcohol <strong>and</strong> set up in high stress competitive situations fueled<br />
by jealousy <strong>and</strong> hostility. Instead <strong>of</strong> television programs geared to poke lighthearted fun<br />
at participants, today’s reality television contestants “are not winners so much as losers to<br />
whom the viewing audience can feel superior” (Mills, 2004, p. 79).<br />
22
The female contestants on Joe Millionaire were told that they were to compete for<br />
the affections <strong>of</strong> an individual who was very wealthy. Of course, as the viewers were<br />
inside on the deception, the male ‘prize’ was actually a blue collar worker who lived a<br />
life <strong>of</strong> modest means. The overarching premise <strong>of</strong> the show was to depict the female<br />
contestants as “gold diggers who will always make themselves (sexually?) available to<br />
rich men” (Mills, 2004, p. 80). This premise fits well into the societal norm that females<br />
desire to marry males with financial means, with the contestants being humiliated as they<br />
threw themselves at the male ‘prize’.<br />
Obviously female contestants who choose to be on reality dating shows are aware<br />
<strong>of</strong> the embarrassment they may face, yet their yearning for fame <strong>and</strong> money may be more<br />
important than their dignity. Though the female contestants must be held accountable for<br />
their choices, the producers who consistently push the envelope by encouraging more<br />
extreme <strong>and</strong> <strong>counternormative</strong> behaviors should also be held responsible for the culture<br />
<strong>of</strong> humiliation. In some cases, perhaps the producers are more liable than the female<br />
contestants are. As will be shown in the content <strong>analysis</strong>, it appears that the contestants<br />
chosen for celebreality dating shows may be alcoholics or suffer from acute emotional<br />
issues. The exploitation <strong>and</strong> humiliation <strong>of</strong> females who have physical <strong>and</strong> psychological<br />
problems for the purposes <strong>of</strong> retaining viewers could be described as misogynistic.<br />
23
Chapter 3<br />
ROCK OF LOVE BUS WITH BRET MICHAELS<br />
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY<br />
Boasting more than nine reality television programs in the 2009 spring season,<br />
cable channel VH1 has become a cornerstone in the reality television genre. As the sister<br />
channel to Music TV (MTV), VH1 launched in 1985 with the mission to appeal to a<br />
slightly older demographic by focusing on more mainstream popular music. Over the<br />
next decade, VH1 continued to readjust their objective via multiple transformations in<br />
br<strong>and</strong>ing, leadership <strong>and</strong> programming. The VH1 br<strong>and</strong>, currently controlled by Viacom,<br />
has branched into specialized channels (i.e., VH1 Classic, VH1 Megahits, VH1 Soul <strong>and</strong><br />
VH1 Uno) both domestically <strong>and</strong> internationally. In addition to an international presence,<br />
the cable station’s online community continues to grow as their programming gains in<br />
popularity.<br />
Michael Hirschorn, VH1 programming executive, simplified their program<br />
objective saying, “the only sin is to be boring” (Associated Press, 2007). With shows<br />
such as Flavor <strong>of</strong> Love, Charm School, I Love Money, <strong>and</strong> Rock <strong>of</strong> Love, VH1 has<br />
selected programs that combine two <strong>of</strong> the American viewer’s fundamental interests:<br />
famous individuals <strong>and</strong> highly outrageous, <strong>and</strong> at times embarrassing, situations which<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten depict <strong>counternormative</strong> behaviors. The blending <strong>of</strong> these features form the<br />
foundation <strong>of</strong> VH1’s “Celebreality” block, which is focused on producing television<br />
programs that portray celebrities in situations that are lightly scripted to appear as non-<br />
scripted. Cris Abrego <strong>and</strong> Mark Cronin, partners who own the production company 51<br />
24
Minds, perfected the celebreality program structure <strong>and</strong>, during the 2007 season alone,<br />
produced eight series on VH1 (Associated Press, 2007).<br />
Celebreality dating-competition shows, such a VH1’s Rock <strong>of</strong> Love with Bret<br />
Michaels, continue to grow exponentially in popularity. Bret Michaels, the lead singer <strong>of</strong><br />
the glam metal b<strong>and</strong> Poison, agreed to star as the bachelor only after insisting that he<br />
would be able to sing his own music <strong>and</strong>, above all, allow the show to evolve on its own<br />
<strong>and</strong> remain unscripted (Price, 2007). Creators Cris Abrego <strong>and</strong> Mark Cronin <strong>and</strong> VH1<br />
executives quickly agreed to Michaels’ terms <strong>and</strong> production began in late 2006. The first<br />
season premiered on July 15, 2007, consisting <strong>of</strong> 12 regular episodes <strong>and</strong> a clip <strong>and</strong><br />
reunion show. Abrego <strong>and</strong> Cronin explain that they do not have a political or exploitative<br />
agenda, but instead Rock <strong>of</strong> Love with Bret Michaels is intended to capture the “women<br />
attracted to heavy metal hair b<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> the lunacy that ensues from that” (Associated<br />
Press, 2007).<br />
Similar to other celebreality dating-competition programs produced for VH1,<br />
Rock <strong>of</strong> Love with Bret Michaels starred twenty-five women competing against each<br />
other to win Michaels’ heart, potentially becoming his “Rock <strong>of</strong> Love”. Fueled by the<br />
many physical <strong>and</strong> social challenges the participants must complete, tensions flared<br />
between the contestants as the competition heated up, both in <strong>and</strong> out <strong>of</strong> the bedroom.<br />
Midway through the season, Michaels began to focus his attention on easygoing rocker<br />
chick, Jes Rickleff. The emotional connection seemed to grow as they spent more time<br />
together <strong>and</strong>, on the finale, stayed together in Cabo San Lucas Mexico. In a dramatic<br />
25
ceremony, Michaels chose Rickleff over fellow competitor Heather Chadwell to make<br />
Rickleff his “Rock <strong>of</strong> Love”.<br />
The second season, premiering on January 13, 2008, promised to be even more<br />
outrageous than the first season. VH1 advertised the first episode as: “Bret Michaels…is<br />
back looking for love, <strong>and</strong> this time he means it! Twenty more beautiful babes vie for his<br />
love <strong>and</strong> affection. Some bare more than their souls in an attempt to grab Bret’s attention.<br />
Only fifteen will stay after an elimination ceremony with two startling surprises”.<br />
Clearly VH1 recognized the appeal <strong>of</strong> their hit show, audiences wanted to see<br />
beautiful contestants resorting to actions that were salacious <strong>and</strong> indecent in order to be<br />
victorious. In promoting the new season as one full <strong>of</strong> shocking conduct <strong>and</strong> revelations,<br />
VH1 was exploiting their audience’s intense desire to watch <strong>counternormative</strong> behavior.<br />
Season two <strong>of</strong> Rock <strong>of</strong> Love with Bret Michaels was designed to fulfill their audience’s<br />
innate craving to view violations <strong>of</strong> social norms <strong>and</strong> it was guaranteed to satisfy.<br />
The winner <strong>of</strong> the second season, Ambre Lake, seemed to be the least likely<br />
contestant to be chosen. Michaels repeatedly expressed that this would be his last season<br />
as he saw his future with Lake. Apparently, however, Lake did not see her future with<br />
Michaels. Though they cuddled up for the camera at the Reunion show that aired on April<br />
20, 2008, within a couple <strong>of</strong> months they had broken up. Michaels’ life on the road was<br />
too busy for Lake, who had a full time career as a model <strong>and</strong> television host. Michaels,<br />
rejected for the second time, decided that he needed to find a woman who was<br />
comfortable with his intense tour schedule <strong>and</strong> able to put up with his groupies. Just three<br />
26
months after the Reunion, VH1 <strong>and</strong> Michaels announced on July 16 that they had teamed<br />
up once again to find Michaels a “Rock <strong>of</strong> Love”.<br />
Season three, which premiered on January 4, 2009, came with a change in name<br />
<strong>and</strong> concept. Rock <strong>of</strong> Love Bus with Bret Michaels incorporated even more <strong>of</strong> Michaels’<br />
music by having the twenty-three contestants travel in two buses along with his concert<br />
tour. The women traveled with Michaels all over America with stops in Kentucky,<br />
Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Tennessee, Alabama <strong>and</strong> Florida. Each stop had a new<br />
competition <strong>and</strong> tensions continued to flair, due in part to the close quarters shared by the<br />
women on the tour bus. Rock <strong>of</strong> Love Bus with Bret Michaels made headlines during the<br />
filming when a driver for the Bret Michaels’ tour fell asleep while driving, crashing his<br />
truck into the SUV <strong>of</strong> two nineteen year old college students (McGahan, 2008).<br />
The final two contestants, Mindy Hall <strong>and</strong> Laurie “Taya” Parker, both appeared to<br />
feel a strong physical <strong>and</strong> emotional connection with Michaels. Though starting the<br />
season as best friends, Hall <strong>and</strong> Parker grew more distant as they both came to terms with<br />
their emotions towards Michaels. In the end, however, there can be only one “Rock <strong>of</strong><br />
Love”, with Parker beating Hall in the final elimination. Teasing the audience with an<br />
engagement ring, Michaels expressed that he is only 99% in love with Parker <strong>and</strong> will<br />
give her the ring when he feels 100% in love with her. Three months after the final<br />
elimination, Michaels <strong>and</strong> Parker shared conflicting stories regarding the status <strong>of</strong> their<br />
relationship. Michaels expressed that he is seeing Parker in a “fun way” <strong>and</strong> admitted to<br />
dating other women. Parker, however, shared that they are still together <strong>and</strong> blogged on<br />
27
her MySpace “I’m definitely soooo addicted to his smile! We will see each other again<br />
soon… I am counting down the days” (Reality Tea, 2009).<br />
28
Chapter 4<br />
METHODS<br />
This thesis utilized a mixed methodology, which includes a content <strong>analysis</strong><br />
identifying both <strong>quantitative</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>qualitative</strong> data. Data was first identified by<br />
<strong>qualitative</strong>ly examining episodes to identify overarching themes, <strong>and</strong> then it was<br />
<strong>quantitative</strong>ly coded for specific instances <strong>of</strong> <strong>counternormative</strong> behavior present in Rock<br />
<strong>of</strong> Love Bus with Bret Michaels.<br />
To ensure that conducting <strong>qualitative</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>quantitative</strong> content analyses utilizing<br />
four episodes from a season <strong>of</strong> twelve episodes was adequate, a review <strong>of</strong> studies<br />
utilizing the same method was evaluated. Several studies have examined sexual themes<br />
on television shows <strong>and</strong> have utilized varying numbers <strong>of</strong> episodes with the intention <strong>of</strong><br />
gathering an accurate assessment (for review see Manganello, Franzini & Jordan, 2008).<br />
In order to determine the ideal number <strong>of</strong> episodes needed to analyze sexual content on<br />
television, Manganello et al. (2008) conducted a content <strong>analysis</strong> to explore previous<br />
findings. Their review <strong>of</strong> existing literature indicated that the number <strong>of</strong> episodes utilized<br />
fluctuates greatly <strong>and</strong> there is “no ‘gold st<strong>and</strong>ard’, ultimately leaving those who use<br />
content <strong>analysis</strong> research to try to draw conclusions from previously published studies<br />
concerning what constitutes an adequate sample size or the most efficacious sampling<br />
techniques” (Manganello et al., 2008 p. 10). The results <strong>of</strong> their review <strong>of</strong> literature<br />
suggest that seven episodes are needed to conduct a character-based <strong>analysis</strong>, while a<br />
content <strong>analysis</strong> <strong>of</strong> 3-5 episodes is appropriate for an assessment <strong>of</strong> the overall sexual<br />
content <strong>of</strong> a program’s season. Therefore, consistent with similar studies, a sample <strong>of</strong><br />
29
four episodes from the third season <strong>of</strong> Rock <strong>of</strong> Love Bus with Bret Michaels was deemed<br />
adequate to determine major themes via thorough <strong>qualitative</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>quantitative</strong> content<br />
<strong>analysis</strong>.<br />
The Rock <strong>of</strong> Love Bus with Bret Michaels season used in this study was comprised<br />
<strong>of</strong> twelve episodes <strong>and</strong> a reunion show. Every fourth episode from the third season was<br />
analyzed in this paper; <strong>and</strong> they were : the first episode, “Hustle on the Bustle”, the fourth<br />
episode, “Roadies”, the eighth episode, “Bikini Day Care” <strong>and</strong> the twelfth episode,<br />
“Bret’s Rock <strong>of</strong> Love III” (Cronin & Abrego, 2009). By selecting every fourth episode<br />
for inclusion in the study <strong>and</strong> <strong>analysis</strong> in this way, overarching themes <strong>of</strong> the whole<br />
season can be identified <strong>and</strong> assessed.<br />
The first 11 episodes were formatted to begin with contestants competing to win<br />
a personal date with Michaels <strong>and</strong> ending with an elimination <strong>of</strong> one or more <strong>of</strong> the<br />
contestants. The season finale, episode twelve, was formatted to have the final two<br />
contestants go out on personal, individual dates with Michaels, with the final elimination<br />
showing Michaels choosing his “Rock <strong>of</strong> Love” – the winner <strong>of</strong> the overall contest. The<br />
week following the season finale, VHI aired a reunion show, which included contestant<br />
interviews <strong>and</strong> an update on the relationship between Michaels <strong>and</strong> the season winner.<br />
Two coders viewed each <strong>of</strong> the four episodes used in the study a minimum <strong>of</strong><br />
three times. The aim was to identify subtle nuances <strong>and</strong> evaluate veiled discourses.<br />
Though each episode had its own subplot <strong>and</strong> featured outrageous behavior, the season as<br />
a whole shared several common themes that highlighted the considerable<br />
<strong>counternormative</strong> behavior displayed during the show. The first viewing <strong>of</strong> an episode<br />
30
was designed to identify the overall <strong>counternormative</strong> content <strong>and</strong> to gain an<br />
underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>of</strong> the roles <strong>of</strong> each contestant (i.e., the alcoholic contestant, the sex-crazed<br />
contestant, etc.). Each episode was viewed a second time to examine the specific<br />
<strong>counternormative</strong> behaviors portrayed during the show <strong>and</strong> to code <strong>counternormative</strong><br />
behavior exhibited by each contestant. The third viewing <strong>of</strong> the episode was to evaluate<br />
the overall themes depicted within the show <strong>and</strong> to discern how they created a meta-<br />
theme <strong>of</strong> misogyny via humiliation.<br />
The coders discussed any instances that appeared to overlap categories (i.e.,<br />
noting when <strong>counternormative</strong> behaviors occur in conjunction, such as when contestants<br />
used swear words while passively being violent while pouring salsa in a fellow<br />
contestant’s luggage). Intercoder reliability was established by discussing the definition<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>counternormative</strong> behaviors <strong>and</strong> coming to a consensus. Though some behaviors were<br />
quite easily identifiable (e.g., drinking alcohol or open mouth kissing another contestant),<br />
others that were more subjective were operationally defined. For example, the behavior<br />
<strong>of</strong> “gossip” was operationally defined as behavior wherein a contestant willfully <strong>and</strong><br />
maliciously talked about another contestant with the intent to damage her character.<br />
Due to the high number <strong>of</strong> individuals featured on Rock <strong>of</strong> Love Bus with Bret<br />
Michaels (23 contestants plus Bret Michaels) the two coders were each assigned half <strong>of</strong><br />
the actors to code. Specifically, each coder focused on 12 contestants during episode<br />
one, 5 contestants on episode four, 3 contestants on episode eight <strong>and</strong> one contestant on<br />
episode 12 (the lowering <strong>of</strong> the number <strong>of</strong> contestants was due to weekly eliminations).<br />
To ensure that the coders were identifying the correct contestants, color photographs <strong>of</strong><br />
31
all twenty-three contestants were printed from the VH1 website <strong>and</strong> utilized during the<br />
coding process. As contestants were eliminated, the photos were removed from the lineup<br />
until there were only the final two contestants left.<br />
After identifying eight overarching themes through a thematic <strong>analysis</strong><br />
(heterosexual sexual behavior, appropriation <strong>of</strong> female homosexuality, alcohol usage,<br />
verbal aggression <strong>and</strong> gossip, physical aggression, harem, chooser showing dominance<br />
over contestants <strong>and</strong> male gaze), several categories were divided into subcategories <strong>and</strong><br />
each subcategory was broken up by each contestant <strong>and</strong> by episode to conduct a<br />
<strong>quantitative</strong> content <strong>analysis</strong>. For example, the category “Swearing” (included in the<br />
theme <strong>of</strong> verbal aggression) was divided by twenty-four actors <strong>and</strong> then again by each <strong>of</strong><br />
the four episodes.<br />
32
Chapter 5<br />
QUANTITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS<br />
Based on the <strong>qualitative</strong> content <strong>analysis</strong>, six categories were identified as<br />
<strong>counternormative</strong> behavior: Nudity, Heterosexual Sexual Behavior Initiated by Bret<br />
Michaels, Heterosexual Sexual Behavior Initiated by Female Contestants, Appropriation<br />
<strong>of</strong> Female Homosexuality, Alcohol Usage, <strong>and</strong> Violence. Each <strong>of</strong> the six categories was<br />
divided into more specific subcategories to gain a greater underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>of</strong> the frequency<br />
<strong>of</strong> each <strong>counternormative</strong> behavior exhibited.<br />
The category “Nudity” was divided into three subcategories: Exposing Breasts,<br />
Exposing Vaginal Area, <strong>and</strong> Exposing Buttocks. The category “Heterosexual Sexual<br />
Behavior Initiated by Bret Michaels” was divided into three subcategories: Michaels<br />
Initiated Closed Mouth Kiss, Michaels Initiated Open Mouth Kiss, <strong>and</strong> Michaels Initiated<br />
Sexual Discussion. The category “Heterosexual Sexual Behavior Initiated by Female<br />
Contestants” was divided into four subcategories: Contestant Initiated Closed Mouth<br />
Kiss, Contestant Initiated Open Mouth Kiss, Contestant Initiated Implied Sexual<br />
Intercourse, <strong>and</strong> Contestant Initiated Sexual Discussion. The category “Appropriation <strong>of</strong><br />
Female Homosexuality” was divided into four subcategories: Contestant with Contestant<br />
Initiated Closed Mouth Kiss, Contestant with Contestant Initiated Open Mouth Kiss,<br />
Contestant with Contestant Initiated Implied Sexual Intercourse, <strong>and</strong> Contestant with<br />
Contestant Initiated Sexual Discussion. The category “Alcohol Usage” was divided into<br />
four subcategories: Michaels or Contestant Shown Drinking Hard Alcohol, Michaels or<br />
33
Contestant Shown Drinking Beer/Wine/Champagne, Michaels or Contestant Appearing<br />
Drunk, <strong>and</strong> Michaels or Contestant Appearing Hung Over or Throwing Up from<br />
Excessive Alcohol Intake. The category “Violence” was divided into six subcategories:<br />
Contestant Pouring Alcohol on Head <strong>of</strong> another Contestant (a frequently used act <strong>of</strong><br />
physical aggression), Contestant Destroying Fellow Contestant’s Property, Contestants<br />
Name Calling / Insulting / Teasing Each Other Face-to-Face, Contestants Name Calling /<br />
Insulting / Teasing Each Other Behind their Back, Threatening Physical Violence,<br />
Performing Physical Violence.<br />
From a <strong>quantitative</strong> framework, there are several specific examples <strong>of</strong> blatantly<br />
<strong>counternormative</strong> behavior depicted by contestants on Rock <strong>of</strong> Love Bus with Bret<br />
Michaels (for data, see Tables 1-25 for each category). The specific instance <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>counternormative</strong> behavior exhibited by either one <strong>of</strong> the contestants or Michaels during<br />
the four analyzed episodes were identified <strong>and</strong> counted. Six major <strong>quantitative</strong> themes<br />
were identified: nudity, heterosexual sexual behavior, appropriation <strong>of</strong> female<br />
homosexuality, passive or physical violence, <strong>and</strong> swearing.<br />
The first theme identified <strong>quantitative</strong>ly was the appearance or use <strong>of</strong> nudity <strong>of</strong><br />
the contestants to focus Michaels’ attention on themselves <strong>and</strong> away from the other<br />
contestants (see Tables 1, 2, 3). Though most common in the first <strong>and</strong> fourth episodes, we<br />
identified 25 instances that a contestant exposed their breasts or wore clothing that<br />
exposed them (see-thru or revealing clothing which was blurred by VH1). Additionally,<br />
in the four episodes analyzed, there were 5 instances that a contestant exposed their<br />
vaginal area <strong>and</strong> 5 instances that they exposed their buttocks.<br />
34
The second <strong>quantitative</strong> theme, heterosexual sexual behavior initiated by<br />
Michaels, was identified seventy-one times during the four episodes (see Tables 4, 5, 6).<br />
These heterosexual sexual behaviors included Michaels close mouth kissing various<br />
contestants (27 instances), Michaels open mouth kissing contestants (23 instances), <strong>and</strong><br />
Michaels initiating sexual discussion with contestants (21 instances). Though the pure<br />
amount <strong>of</strong> sexual behavior exhibited between the contestants <strong>and</strong> Michaels is high, it can<br />
be considered truly <strong>counternormative</strong> since nearly half <strong>of</strong> all instances <strong>of</strong> heterosexual<br />
sexual kissing occurred during the first episode when the contestants first met Michaels.<br />
Additionally, this behavior is deemed <strong>counternormative</strong> due to Michaels kissing or<br />
having sexual discussions with multiple contestants at a time.<br />
Similarly, there were forty-three times when contestants exhibited<br />
<strong>counternormative</strong> heterosexual sexual behavior during the four selected episodes (see<br />
Tables 7, 8, 9, 10). These instances include contestants close mouth kissing Michaels (26<br />
instances), contestants open mouth kissing Michaels (14 instances), contestants initiating<br />
sexual discussion with Michaels (13 instances) <strong>and</strong> one instance <strong>of</strong> implied sexual<br />
intercourse between a contestant <strong>and</strong> Michaels.<br />
The third significant <strong>quantitative</strong> theme, appropriation <strong>of</strong> female homosexuality,<br />
was identified 45 times during the four episodes (see Tables 11, 12, 13, 14). Though the<br />
bulk <strong>of</strong> this behavior (27 instances) was exhibited during the first episode prior to the<br />
elimination <strong>of</strong> any contestants, the nature <strong>of</strong> the sexual contact between the female<br />
contestants is <strong>counternormative</strong>. The most common form <strong>of</strong> sexual contact between<br />
35
contestants was open mouth kissing (35 instances in four episodes) with other sexual<br />
contact including simulating oral sex, sexual grinding, <strong>and</strong> female mouth/vagina contact.<br />
The fourth major <strong>quantitative</strong> theme, alcohol usage, was the most predominant<br />
behavior exhibited by the contestants on Rock <strong>of</strong> Love Bus with Bret Michaels (see Tables<br />
15, 16, 17, 18). Though an adult legally drinking alcohol isn’t <strong>counternormative</strong>, the<br />
levels <strong>of</strong> binge drinking exhibited by the contestants violate societal norms. Over four<br />
episodes, our coding identified 102 instances <strong>of</strong> hard alcohol being drunk (49 instances in<br />
episode one, 33 instances in episode four, 18 instances in episode eight, 2 instances in<br />
episode 12). In addition, the contestants were shown drinking beer, wine or champagne<br />
110 times throughout the four episodes (57 instances in episode one, 36 instances in<br />
episode four, 14 instances in episode eight, 3 instances in episode 12). Out <strong>of</strong> the<br />
combined total <strong>of</strong> 207 instances <strong>of</strong> drinking alcohol, the contestants appeared to be drunk<br />
30 times (some contestants were shown repeatedly drunk in separate instances during a<br />
single episode). Our <strong>analysis</strong> identified 8 times when a contestant either complained <strong>of</strong><br />
feeling hung over or threw up because <strong>of</strong> extreme alcohol usage.<br />
The fifth theme identified was the number <strong>of</strong> instances that the contestants spoke<br />
to each other utilizing expletives <strong>and</strong>/or calling each other degrading names (see Table<br />
19). There were 152 instances <strong>of</strong> swear words uttered by contestants during the four<br />
episodes. The most common was “bitch” spoken between contestants but also included<br />
several instances <strong>of</strong> “ass”, “fuck”, “mother fucker” <strong>and</strong> “bullshit”. Though most <strong>of</strong> these<br />
were edited by VH1, it was usually apparent which curse word was used by examining<br />
the context, the situation <strong>and</strong> carefully analyzing the verbal exchange between the<br />
36
contestants. Though utilizing curse words <strong>and</strong> vulgar language is not necessarily<br />
<strong>counternormative</strong>, the shear amount <strong>of</strong> swear words <strong>and</strong> the seeming inability to<br />
respectfully <strong>and</strong> calmly discuss disagreements without utilizing these words hints that the<br />
contestants are exhibiting norm violating behavior.<br />
The sixth major theme identified as <strong>counternormative</strong> behavior was passive<br />
aggressive gossip <strong>and</strong> physical aggression between contestants (see Tables 20, 21, 22, 23,<br />
24, 25). Within the four episodes, there were three instances <strong>of</strong> physical aggression<br />
between contestants. The instances included a contestant throwing crunched up chips in<br />
another contestant’s face, a contestant throwing an object at another contestant <strong>and</strong> one<br />
contestant restraining <strong>and</strong> choking another contestant. Additionally, there were nine<br />
instances where contestants threw or poured alcohol on other contestants out <strong>of</strong> anger.<br />
Verbal aggression counted for 13 instances <strong>and</strong> included threats such as “I am going to<br />
knock you out, bitch”, “I am going to fuck your ass up”, “Get the hell out <strong>of</strong> my face”,<br />
“Fuck you, bitch” <strong>and</strong> “I puke on your mom <strong>and</strong> she loves it”. One contestant destroyed<br />
the personal property <strong>of</strong> another contestant by ripping up her documents <strong>and</strong> pouring a<br />
full jar <strong>of</strong> salsa into her suitcase on top <strong>of</strong> her clothes. The most frequent forms <strong>of</strong><br />
aggression were name-calling <strong>and</strong> insulting or teasing either face-to-face or behind the<br />
back <strong>of</strong> another contestant. There were 45 instances <strong>of</strong> insulting behavior face-to-face<br />
<strong>and</strong> 28 instances <strong>of</strong> gossiping behind contestants’ back.<br />
As supported by <strong>quantitative</strong> data (see Tables 1-25), the behaviors <strong>and</strong> attitudes<br />
exhibited by Michaels <strong>and</strong> the contestants on the Rock <strong>of</strong> Love Bus with Bret Michaels<br />
are <strong>counternormative</strong>. These <strong>counternormative</strong> behaviors include frequent nudity,<br />
37
extreme alcohol usage, physical violence <strong>and</strong> multiple (<strong>and</strong> occasionally simultaneous)<br />
sexual partnerships between Michaels <strong>and</strong> the contestants <strong>and</strong> between the contestants<br />
themselves. The mixture <strong>of</strong> intense competition felt by the contestants to win the love <strong>of</strong><br />
Michaels <strong>and</strong> the constant presence <strong>of</strong> alcohol begins to paint a larger picture. By<br />
combining the <strong>quantitative</strong> content <strong>analysis</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>qualitative</strong> thematic <strong>analysis</strong>, a meta-<br />
theme <strong>of</strong> misogyny via humiliation can be clearly observed.<br />
38
Chapter 6<br />
QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS<br />
The research question sought to determine if themes <strong>of</strong> misogyny are present in<br />
Rock <strong>of</strong> Love Bus with Bret Michaels (Cronin & Abrego, 2009). A comprehensive<br />
content <strong>and</strong> thematic <strong>analysis</strong> <strong>of</strong> the four episodes identified eight themes: heterosexual<br />
sexual behavior, appropriation <strong>of</strong> female homosexuality, alcohol usage, verbal aggression<br />
<strong>and</strong> gossip, physical aggression, harem, chooser showing dominance over contestants <strong>and</strong><br />
male gaze. These eight themes point to a meta-theme <strong>of</strong> misogyny via the humiliation <strong>of</strong><br />
women.<br />
Heterosexual Sexual Behavior<br />
Michaels begins the season by explaining that he <strong>and</strong> season two winner, Ambre<br />
Lake, broke up because she was unable to h<strong>and</strong>le his rock <strong>and</strong> roll lifestyle. Clearly, he<br />
believes that his career <strong>and</strong> lifestyle are more important than their relationship since he<br />
was apparently unable to compromise with her needs. Michaels explains that he wants to<br />
find the right woman for his life <strong>and</strong>, in saying this, disregards the woman’s feelings <strong>and</strong><br />
needs. He is only focused on his career aspirations <strong>and</strong> how he can fit someone into them.<br />
His music is his main interest <strong>and</strong> he says that music has been “the reason for <strong>and</strong> the ruin<br />
<strong>of</strong> all [his] relationships”. Supporting the male sexual script, it appears that Michaels<br />
simply wants a woman who is sexually available to him when he wants her but does not<br />
dem<strong>and</strong> that he remain equally dedicated to the relationship. Michaels says he wants an<br />
individual who he can come home to, be his best friend, a lover he can get “hot, nasty,<br />
39
dirty, crazy with” <strong>and</strong> someone who will be patient with his passion for music. During<br />
the season, it does not appear that he is able to get past the sexual chemistry with any <strong>of</strong><br />
the women to focus on whether or not they would be compatible as friends.<br />
When Michaels is first meeting the women, he immediate tells them they have<br />
“smoking hot bodies”. It appears that Michaels may have found a group <strong>of</strong> women who<br />
are interested in purely sexual relationships, with one contestant saying that she likes<br />
power, bondage <strong>and</strong> loves to be tied up. Another contestant says that she is everything a<br />
man would want <strong>and</strong> that she is beautiful, admitting she is not too smart but “that’s ok”.<br />
During an interview, one woman admits that she finds Michaels so attractive that she<br />
could orgasm “over <strong>and</strong> over <strong>and</strong> over <strong>and</strong> over <strong>and</strong> over” again just thinking about him.<br />
These behaviors are <strong>counternormative</strong> for the feminine sexual script, which states that<br />
females should remain passive <strong>and</strong> virginal.<br />
Within a few minutes after meeting the contestants, Michaels begins to take<br />
photos <strong>of</strong> each <strong>of</strong> them for their tour backstage passes. The act <strong>of</strong> taking photos <strong>of</strong> the<br />
women, instead <strong>of</strong> making discussion or even asking their name, immediately reduces<br />
them to sexual objects for him to admire. Michaels says that he sees “a lot <strong>of</strong> a girl’s<br />
personality through the lens”. Additionally, he says that the manner the women present<br />
their body tells him a lot about how they will h<strong>and</strong>le themselves out on the road.<br />
Though the photo shoot starts out innocently enough with the women posing in<br />
sexy poses while rolling on the floor or dancing in sultry manners, Taya, the contestant<br />
who ultimately won the season, decides to remove her jeans to show <strong>of</strong>f her buttocks.<br />
Another woman, who will not be outdone, strips completely naked during her photo<br />
40
shoot, in the hopes <strong>of</strong> topping Taya’s display. Each additional woman attempts to<br />
compete to be the sexiest in the hopes <strong>of</strong> winning the affections <strong>of</strong> Michaels. One<br />
contestant, who is clearly feeling uneasy, decides not to remove her clothing <strong>and</strong> is met<br />
with diagetic music implying that she is doing something wrong because she is not being<br />
overtly sexual.<br />
After the initial meeting, a contestant speaks with Michaels <strong>and</strong> tells him that if<br />
she loved him enough <strong>and</strong> he wanted her to become bisexual then she would be with<br />
another woman for him. Within the same episode, a clique <strong>of</strong> four blondes who make up<br />
the ‘Blondetourage’ share a group kiss with Michaels, hoping to leave a lasting<br />
impression on him. In another episode, several women start a kissing contest with<br />
Michaels to keep his attention on them. One woman straddles Michaels <strong>and</strong> clearly<br />
simulates sex with him in front <strong>of</strong> the other women. Beverly, the tomboy, gets drunk <strong>and</strong><br />
angry that Michaels does not seem to be paying attention to her. She says “I can’t h<strong>and</strong>le<br />
this. He is a rock star; he had this for twenty years. Doesn’t he want something new?”.<br />
Her question is answered with another woman yelling that Beverly isn’t paying attention<br />
to Michaels, which Beverly retorts “No, [Michaels] isn’t paying attention to us”. Beverly<br />
is given advice that she needs to try harder to capture Michaels’ attention, to which she<br />
says, “What should I do? Should I hike my skirt up higher? Should I pull my shirt down<br />
farther?”<br />
In “Roadies”, Mindy, the southern girl next door, is concerned that she may be<br />
eliminated quickly because “I am the normal girl with the normal job, if anyone is the<br />
underdog it is me” (Cronin & Abrego, 2009). By the season finale, when the competition<br />
41
is between Mindy <strong>and</strong> Taya, Mindy no longer has an issue having intercourse with<br />
Michaels. It is implied that they have sex with each other when they sleep together in the<br />
same room after their final date. Taya, the Penthouse Pet <strong>and</strong> ultimate winner, decides<br />
that she does not want sleep with Michaels <strong>and</strong> does not stay the night on their final date.<br />
Appropriation <strong>of</strong> Female Homosexuality<br />
Denes (2007) argues that because <strong>of</strong> the growing popularity <strong>of</strong> heterosexual<br />
females using bisexuality as a tool for attracting male attention, individuals who consider<br />
themselves sincere bisexuals are being wrongfully stigmatized as whores. The rise in this<br />
behavior is increasing the “beliefs that bisexual women are really heterosexual women<br />
seeking the attention <strong>and</strong> arousal <strong>of</strong> on-looking men” (Denes, 2007, p. 44). Joiner (2006)<br />
suggests that females use their bodies to “stage bisexuality… for material gain, like free<br />
entry or alcohol, or to advertise that they’re sexually open <strong>and</strong> adventurous” (p. 2).<br />
Though the females are choosing to behave in this manner, they are objectifying<br />
themselves as merely objects for male arousal.<br />
Sexual behaviors depicted between contestants included kissing, passionate<br />
kissing, intimate touching <strong>and</strong> implied sexual contact <strong>of</strong> mouth <strong>and</strong> genitals. Common<br />
sexual behaviors between some <strong>of</strong> the women include simulating oral sex <strong>and</strong> sexual<br />
touching <strong>of</strong> breasts. Clearly eager for Michaels’ attention during his concert, two<br />
contestants kissed <strong>and</strong> danced together in a sexual manner <strong>and</strong> at one point started to<br />
gyrate on top <strong>of</strong> each other while on stage. They continued with their sexual behavior as<br />
one woman dropped to her knees <strong>and</strong> simulated oral sex on the other. In her interview,<br />
another contestant said that their actions were disgusting <strong>and</strong> that they were swapping<br />
42
diseases <strong>and</strong> questioned the motives; were they there for Michaels or, instead, putting on<br />
a show. One <strong>of</strong> the women who participated in the heter<strong>of</strong>lexible behavior indicated that<br />
she thinks she becomes a lesbian when she is drunk.<br />
During another scene at a bar, again fueled by alcohol, two women are seen<br />
making out with each other. One hops onto the bar <strong>and</strong> spreads her legs; it is obvious that<br />
she does not have underwear on under her dress, as her crotch is blurred out. With<br />
Michaels <strong>and</strong> the other women watching, one contestant takes a shot <strong>of</strong> alcohol <strong>and</strong> pours<br />
it onto the vagina <strong>of</strong> the woman seated on the bar. It is implied that she then drinks the<br />
alcohol from the other woman’s vagina. The patrons in the bar are stunned by their<br />
actions <strong>and</strong>, during the interview, Michaels notes that he is glad that alcohol kills 99% <strong>of</strong><br />
all germs. At the elimination ceremony later that evening, both <strong>of</strong> the women who<br />
participated in this <strong>counternormative</strong> behavior are eliminated.<br />
Alcohol Usage<br />
The most common <strong>counternormative</strong> behavior identified through the season is<br />
extreme alcohol usage. Nearly every scene shows at least one woman drinking either<br />
shots <strong>of</strong> alcohol, beer, wine or Champagne. From the very first scene when Michaels<br />
meets the women, they are given unlimited alcoholic drinks. Several women have at least<br />
one drink in their h<strong>and</strong> or they use beer as a chaser for hard liquor. There is unlimited<br />
alcohol in the tour busses, at the concerts, in the hotel rooms <strong>and</strong> at the many bars they<br />
visit during the season. Though there are plenty <strong>of</strong> alcoholic drinks in every scene, there<br />
is very little food except the occasional chip bag lying around.<br />
43
From the first thing in the morning until the last thing at night, the women<br />
constantly have alcohol around them <strong>and</strong> they appear to be consistently drinking. Marcia,<br />
who is clearly an alcoholic, says that she is happy to have unlimited Tequila with all the<br />
drinks being free. One contestant notes that there is little to do except drink. Taya, the<br />
ultimate season winner, is one <strong>of</strong> the few contestants that does not drink excessively. She<br />
asks the other women, “By the time [Michaels] shows up, what are you going to do,<br />
breath your liquor breath on him?”<br />
One early morning, Marcia begins the day by drinking several shots <strong>of</strong> Tequila,<br />
chased by more Tequila. By mid-morning, she is vomiting in the bathroom, explaining<br />
that she has had too much to drink. However, this does not stop her <strong>and</strong> she continues to<br />
drink into the night. Even after a physically aggressive situation between a very drunk<br />
Marcia <strong>and</strong> Ashley, the producers do not step in <strong>and</strong> limit her alcohol intake. Another<br />
day, Marcia is drinking <strong>and</strong> someone asks her how much she has had to drink, she tells<br />
her that she has consumed half a bottle <strong>of</strong> Tequila. One contestant explains that it 8 a.m.<br />
<strong>and</strong> Marcia is already drunk. Marcia says that she’s having a good time because there is<br />
Tequila everywhere. She “looks over here <strong>and</strong> there is Tequila” <strong>and</strong> she “goes into the<br />
bathroom <strong>and</strong> there is Tequila”.<br />
Verbal Aggression <strong>and</strong> Gossip<br />
Celebreality television dating contestants are constantly foraging strategic<br />
alliances with individuals they feel can benefit them. One method <strong>of</strong> building these bonds<br />
is by gossiping or deliberately sharing negative information about individuals that may be<br />
seen as an obstacle to winning the ultimate prize: the love <strong>of</strong> the celebrity. The two most<br />
44
common types <strong>of</strong> negative gossip displayed in reality television shows are “bald, on-<br />
record insults” <strong>and</strong> “the reporting <strong>of</strong> behavior or character faults in another participant”<br />
(Thornborrow & Morris, 2004, p. 265). Though less seen on reality television programs,<br />
positive gossip can also be utilized to gain the acceptance <strong>of</strong> a particular group. Self<br />
directed gossip that is personally used to promote their role or character can allow the<br />
viewing audience to underst<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> value them as a stronger contestant.<br />
Fueled by alcohol, tension <strong>and</strong> frustration, the women begin to take their feelings<br />
out on one another by verbally assaulting each other <strong>and</strong> spreading gossip. The thematic<br />
<strong>analysis</strong> revealed that each episode contained several acts <strong>of</strong> verbal aggression <strong>and</strong><br />
gossip. Though some <strong>of</strong> the rude remarks are during the interviews after the competition<br />
has ended, the majority <strong>of</strong> the aggressive acts were face to face. One instance occurred<br />
between Natasha, a self proclaimed aspiring madam, <strong>and</strong> Nikki, a DJ <strong>and</strong> stripper.<br />
Natasha <strong>and</strong> Nikki got into a verbal dispute while trying to load the tour bus with<br />
luggage. Nikki got angry with Natasha <strong>and</strong> began to yell obscenities at her, which<br />
prompted Natasha to say that Nikki is “[expletive] nuts <strong>and</strong> needs some medication”.<br />
Their argument continues to build until several women are yelling at each other. From<br />
this situation, it is obvious that the women are unable to show any patience with one<br />
another.<br />
Another verbally aggressive encounter occurs between Beverly, the tomboy <strong>of</strong> the<br />
group, <strong>and</strong> Ashley. While at a bar, a drunken Ashley calls Beverly a “dude” <strong>and</strong> tells her<br />
that “Bret doesn’t want to date a dude”, which prompts Beverly to call Ashley a “Paris<br />
Hilton-wannabe”. Tensions flair <strong>and</strong>, as their argument progresses, they yell obscenities<br />
45
at each other calling one another inappropriate names. Fueled by alcohol, they act in this<br />
verbally aggressive manner in front <strong>of</strong> the other women, who do little to stop the yelling<br />
<strong>and</strong> name-calling. In an interview, one woman said that Beverly <strong>and</strong> Ashley were acting<br />
“drunk <strong>and</strong> whore-ish”.<br />
Talking about fellow contestants behind their backs is a common technique for<br />
establishing friendships. Taya, Penthouse Pet <strong>and</strong> the ultimate winner <strong>of</strong> the season, <strong>and</strong><br />
Mindy, southern girl next door, became close friends <strong>and</strong> expressed their concern that<br />
some <strong>of</strong> the other women are not the type <strong>of</strong> person that Michaels would bring home to<br />
his mother or have around his children. A member <strong>of</strong> the ‘Blondetourage’ clique heard<br />
this <strong>and</strong> determined that Taya <strong>and</strong> Mindy were speaking about them so, in retaliation,<br />
they poured a large bottle <strong>of</strong> salsa into Mindy’s open luggage. Instead <strong>of</strong> continuing the<br />
argument, Mindy <strong>and</strong> Taya decided to leave the room <strong>and</strong> ignore the aggressors.<br />
Gossiping is another tactic utilized by the women in an attempt to gain some<br />
control <strong>of</strong> their situation. After Michaels’ concert, the women go to a bar <strong>and</strong> begin to<br />
drink heavily. During the evening, Ashley believes she sees Beverly kissing the drummer<br />
in Michaels’ b<strong>and</strong>. Realizing that this could be a way to ensure that Beverly is removed at<br />
the next elimination, Ashley begins to yell across the room that she saw Beverly making<br />
out with the drummer. Again, Ashley is verbally aggressive towards Beverly, calling her<br />
a “[expletive] bitch” <strong>and</strong> a “slut”. Though when Michaels later learns about Beverly’s<br />
transgressions, he chooses not eliminate her.<br />
Physical Violence<br />
46
Consuming large amounts <strong>of</strong> alcohol fuels all <strong>of</strong> the physical violence between<br />
the women <strong>of</strong> Rock <strong>of</strong> Love Bus with Bret Michaels. During the first night, after the<br />
women have been grouped into their busses, Ashley, a tattooed stripper <strong>and</strong> mother to a<br />
young son, begins to make fun <strong>of</strong> Marcia, a Brazilian who is an alcoholic. Ashley begins<br />
to sing an <strong>of</strong>f-key song about Marcia, singing, “you look like a beaver” <strong>and</strong> making fun<br />
<strong>of</strong> her accent. Marcia immediately retaliates by getting into Ashley’s personal space <strong>and</strong><br />
pouring a bottle <strong>of</strong> beer on her head. Marcia walks away <strong>and</strong> Ashley does not escalate the<br />
argument any further.<br />
Another physical aggression between Ashley <strong>and</strong> Marcia that does not end as<br />
simply is also alcohol-induced. An obviously drunk Marcia begins a fight with Ashley,<br />
throwing a bag <strong>of</strong> chips in her face. Ashley, who took this as a threat, emptied her beer<br />
onto Marcia’s head. Instead <strong>of</strong> walking away from the situation, Marcia pushes Ashley<br />
onto the couch <strong>and</strong> proceeds to choke her until security arrives to break up the fight.<br />
Marcia stumbles <strong>of</strong>f drunk as Ashley yells out that she is going to press charges against<br />
her because <strong>of</strong> the assault. Neither Marcia nor Ashley are eliminated <strong>and</strong> Michaels takes<br />
each <strong>of</strong> them aside to make sure they were both comfortable with staying in the<br />
competition.<br />
Though most <strong>of</strong> the physical violence depicted on the show began with verbal<br />
aggression, one situation appears to be accidental. At a bar after Michaels’ concert,<br />
Beverly, the tomboy, tosses her empty beer cup on the floor, where it hits another<br />
contestant’s foot, seemingly by accident. The other woman immediately gets angry <strong>and</strong><br />
believes that Beverly threw the cup at her on purpose. Instead <strong>of</strong> apologizing or<br />
47
explaining that it was an accident, they get into an argument where each <strong>of</strong> them throws<br />
alcohol on each other’s head <strong>and</strong> clothes.<br />
Harem<br />
A harem-type situation occurs when a group <strong>of</strong> women devotes their every<br />
thought to satisfying the male harem leader. The women competing for the affections <strong>of</strong><br />
Michaels form a harem <strong>and</strong> they make themselves sexually available to him even though<br />
they underst<strong>and</strong> that he may be sexually attracted to another member <strong>of</strong> the group. The<br />
producers <strong>of</strong> the show pay special attention to ensuring that the women feel like they are<br />
a group by immediately breaking them apart into the two tour busses – the blue bus <strong>and</strong><br />
the pink bus. The women chose which bus they would prefer <strong>and</strong>, as luck would have it,<br />
nearly all <strong>of</strong> the blondes chose the pink bus <strong>and</strong> the brunettes chose the blue bus. Two<br />
separate harem-like groups emerged, one with mostly brunette women <strong>and</strong> the other with<br />
blondes who called themselves the ‘Blondetourage’. The women take their role as<br />
Michaels’ ‘girlfriend’ very importantly <strong>and</strong> police each other to make sure everyone is<br />
only paying attention to Michaels’ needs. When one woman kisses another man, the<br />
women yell at her <strong>and</strong> tell her she does not deserve to be there because she is not there<br />
for Michaels.<br />
To ensure that they constantly feel that they are a group <strong>and</strong> not individuals, the<br />
girls are asked to dress alike (“Dress to impress”) <strong>and</strong> they live together in tight quarters.<br />
Each morning, the women are woken up by security <strong>and</strong> told to line up for a roll count to<br />
make sure everyone is accounted for within the group. They are told that wherever<br />
48
Michaels goes, the ladies must go. Several times during the season, Michaels gives the<br />
women similar, sexy outfits such as dresses, bikinis <strong>and</strong> shirts, ensuring that they are<br />
dressed nearly identically. The women rarely wear pants or long skirts <strong>and</strong> nearly all<br />
group shots have them lined up wearing short shorts, ripped low riding jeans, cleavage<br />
bearing shirts <strong>and</strong> see-through lingerie paired with stiletto high heels.<br />
Chooser showing dominance over contestants<br />
Michaels, as the bachelor, always has control <strong>and</strong> dominance over the contestants.<br />
He is given a rock star welcome when he first meets the women; they cheer, clap <strong>and</strong> cry<br />
because they are so excited to meet him. Michaels, on the other h<strong>and</strong>, waves <strong>and</strong> says<br />
they are all “smoking hot”. For the women, he is clearly a larger than life figure <strong>and</strong> they<br />
feel that they are lucky to even be in his presence. From this first meeting during episode<br />
one, it is clearly a dominant <strong>and</strong> submissive relationship structure forming.<br />
During episode one, Michaels continues to make sure he is controlling every<br />
aspect <strong>of</strong> their daily lives. Michaels invited the women on stage during his concert <strong>and</strong><br />
the women choose to act in a sexual manner <strong>and</strong> get drunk, which prompts Michaels to<br />
reveal that he has “eyes on the back <strong>of</strong> his head” <strong>and</strong> he explains that he is keeping an eye<br />
on the girls <strong>and</strong> their actions at all times. During episode three, Michaels explains that he<br />
is frustrated with some <strong>of</strong> the women <strong>and</strong> says, “I give people rope, they either hang<br />
themselves or climb up it”.<br />
Especially during elimination, the women are powerless <strong>and</strong> completely rely on<br />
Michaels for his approval <strong>and</strong> judgment. They are submissive as he chooses which <strong>of</strong><br />
them will stay <strong>and</strong> which will be removed from the competition. Their fate lies with his<br />
49
impression <strong>of</strong> them; did they make themselves available enough? Did they impress him<br />
with their looks? Once elimination has begun, the women have no voice to speak with<br />
Michaels about his decision, he simply passes judgment on how they have acted <strong>and</strong><br />
looked. After each woman is told that she gets to stay in the competition, they hug <strong>and</strong><br />
kiss Michaels <strong>and</strong> thank him for choosing them. The women who are eliminated do not<br />
get a chance to say goodbye or speak with Michaels.<br />
Male Gaze<br />
Though VH1 maintains that their target demographic is women aged 18-49, Rock<br />
<strong>of</strong> Love Bus with Bret Michaels seems to have been created with the male point <strong>of</strong> view<br />
firmly in place. There are numerous instances <strong>of</strong> the women bending down, wrestling,<br />
kissing, dressing, undressing where the camera seems to be peaking around the corner as<br />
if catching the scene in a voyeuristic manner. Several times the women wear outfits that<br />
barely cover their breasts <strong>and</strong> private parts, which occasionally need to be blurred to<br />
ensure they are not showing too much skin. During one trip to a bar, the women are told<br />
to get on the bar <strong>and</strong> dance. The camera angle, which is from below, focuses on their legs<br />
<strong>and</strong> the short skirts <strong>and</strong> shorts they are wearing.<br />
During episode four, the women are asked to “dress to impress”, <strong>and</strong> they choose<br />
to do so in low cut lingerie-like dresses <strong>and</strong> stiletto high heels. After arriving at the<br />
concert location, the women are told that they would be dismantling a full stage with<br />
risers <strong>and</strong> equipment. Though the producers provide the women with work boots, it is<br />
clear that the women were tricked into wearing revealing clothing to perform heavy-duty<br />
50
work. A contestant on the losing team remarks that “it’s a game to see how cute you look<br />
doing it”.<br />
During episode eight, the women are given a gift from Michaels: very tiny bikinis<br />
that barely cover their breasts <strong>and</strong> bottoms. After getting dressed <strong>and</strong> being lead down to<br />
a pool, the women find out that they will be babysitting a group <strong>of</strong> children <strong>and</strong> they are<br />
dressed wearing very inappropriate clothing. Though they are allowed to take <strong>of</strong>f their<br />
stiletto high heels, they keep their bikinis on during the mini-competition.<br />
51
Chapter 7<br />
DISCUSSION<br />
This study utilized a content <strong>analysis</strong> <strong>and</strong> thematic <strong>analysis</strong> to identify specific<br />
examples <strong>of</strong> <strong>counternormative</strong> behavior exhibited by contestants <strong>and</strong> Bret Michaels who<br />
started on the celebrity reality dating television show Rock <strong>of</strong> Love Bus with Bret<br />
Michaels. The research question posed sought to determine what misogynistic themes<br />
were present in the reality television program Rock <strong>of</strong> Love with Bret Michaels.<br />
The eight themes identified (heterosexual sexual behavior, appropriation <strong>of</strong><br />
female homosexuality, alcohol usage, verbal aggression <strong>and</strong> gossip, physical aggression,<br />
harem, chooser showing dominance over contestants <strong>and</strong> male gaze) within Rock <strong>of</strong> Love<br />
Bus with Bret Michaels point to a meta-theme <strong>of</strong> misogyny via humiliation <strong>of</strong> the women.<br />
The reality television show Rock <strong>of</strong> Love Bus with Bret Michaels has misogynistic themes<br />
because producers promote extreme alcohol usage <strong>and</strong> competition to encourage<br />
contestants to use their bodies for purely sexual purposes <strong>and</strong> discredit them as<br />
individuals by removing their power.<br />
Competition for Michaels affections are the driving force behind the women’s<br />
behaviors. Several women display heter<strong>of</strong>lexible behavior that includes sexualized<br />
dancing, making out, kissing breasts, simulating oral sex <strong>and</strong> drinking alcohol from<br />
another woman’s vagina. These actions, it appears, are driven by the women’s intense<br />
need to be recognized by Michaels. Instead <strong>of</strong> being satisfied with the little attention they<br />
receive, they are acting out in the hopes that they will be noticed. This <strong>counternormative</strong><br />
52
ehavior, which is fueled by the ever-constant stream <strong>of</strong> alcohol, further humiliates the<br />
women who will have to return to their normal lives once filming has ended.<br />
The encouragement <strong>of</strong> extreme alcohol usage is geared directly at the humiliation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the women. The producers are well aware that once the women are drunk they will<br />
behave in overtly sexual manners, verbal <strong>and</strong> physically aggressive manners <strong>and</strong> be<br />
generally more unpredictable. By supplying the women with a constant flow <strong>of</strong> hard<br />
liquor, beer, wine <strong>and</strong> Champagne, the producers are ensuring that there will always be<br />
anger <strong>and</strong> tension within the group. Frustrated women are pushed to continue drinking at<br />
Michaels’ concerts, at bars, during breakfast, <strong>and</strong> in the bathroom to guarantee infighting,<br />
which leads to humiliating themselves. Additionally, Cronin <strong>and</strong> Abrego, the creators,<br />
seem to have little regard for the health <strong>of</strong> the women. Several <strong>of</strong> the contestants drink<br />
very heavily <strong>and</strong> appear to have a problem with alcoholism. Even after one contestant<br />
chokes another in a fight fueled by alcohol, the producers still do not remove the alcohol<br />
from the scene.<br />
Verbal <strong>and</strong> physical aggression is a common occurrence during the season.<br />
Several contestants get into arguments <strong>and</strong> fights that are encouraged by the producers by<br />
promoting competition for Michaels’ affections. The women are made to look foolish <strong>and</strong><br />
silly as they yell at <strong>and</strong> tease each other about ridiculous things like foreign accents <strong>and</strong><br />
choices <strong>of</strong> footwear. The fact that the women are segregated into two busses causes them<br />
to form intense cliques <strong>and</strong> friendships. Like female gangs, when one female is attacked,<br />
the whole group comes to the aid <strong>of</strong> their group member. By putting the women in<br />
53
situations that may be unsafe (like alcohol-fueled fighting), the producers are showing a<br />
blatant disregard for the women’s well being.<br />
By placing the women into a harem-like situation, the women are discredited as<br />
individuals. Michaels <strong>of</strong>ten gives the women presents <strong>of</strong> matching shirts, bracelets <strong>and</strong><br />
bikinis. The goal is to make them match Michaels’ fantasy by dressing similarly <strong>and</strong><br />
having the women available to respond to his sexual needs. He becomes jealous during<br />
the season when he realizes that one contestant has kissed another contestant more than<br />
she has kissed him. Michaels wants to be the head <strong>of</strong> the harem <strong>and</strong> ensure that all <strong>of</strong> the<br />
women want to be with him. He strategically eliminates the women who do not make an<br />
effort to start a sexual relationship with him <strong>and</strong>, in this way; he maintains control <strong>of</strong> his<br />
harem.<br />
During the elimination part <strong>of</strong> the episodes, the women are completely submissive<br />
to Michaels as he chooses who will continue on in the competition <strong>and</strong> who will be<br />
eliminated. Once they step on stage in the elimination ceremony, the women’s voices are<br />
silenced. They cannot say anything to try to sway his opinion <strong>of</strong> them, unless he asks<br />
them a specific question. They are muted as he passes judgment on them. The women he<br />
chooses to stay are always crying <strong>and</strong> tell him thank you for keeping them. The idea that<br />
they should be thankful that they were chosen based almost purely on their physical<br />
attributes is humiliating. On the other h<strong>and</strong>, the women who are not chosen must stay on<br />
the stage <strong>and</strong> cannot say goodbye to Michaels as he leaves the stage. After spending all<br />
their energy to ensure that he is happy, catering to any need that he may have, the<br />
eliminated women are left without any recourse or a second thought.<br />
54
The final theme found within Rock <strong>of</strong> Love Bus with Bret Michaels is the concept<br />
<strong>of</strong> male gaze. Nearly every camera angle, music, <strong>and</strong> mini-competition is illustrated from<br />
the masculine point <strong>of</strong> view. The women consistently wear low cut shirts, short skirts, see<br />
through lingerie <strong>and</strong> stiletto high heels. They are tricked into wearing their most revealing<br />
outfit when they have to work the hardest while striking a stage. From the voyeuristic<br />
camera angles to the sexy music played while the women are stripping during the photo<br />
shoot, this masculine point <strong>of</strong> view depicts women as a sexual object.<br />
The women who come on this show clearly want to become celebrities <strong>and</strong> it<br />
appears that most <strong>of</strong> the contestants sincerely want to make Michaels fall in love with<br />
them. Unfortunately, as has been proven by the past two seasons, Michaels does not<br />
really want to find his ‘Rock <strong>of</strong> Love’. Michaels says he wants to settle down, but broke<br />
up with Ambre. He also says he wants someone he can come home to <strong>and</strong> be his best<br />
friend yet he does not ask personal questions to any <strong>of</strong> the contestants. The women on<br />
this show are being humiliated because they really never had a chance to find love – if,<br />
indeed that was there true intention.<br />
This study has shown that there clearly are misogynistic themes that can be<br />
identified within the reality television show Rock <strong>of</strong> Love Bus with Bret Michaels. Since<br />
the definition <strong>of</strong> misogyny is the hatred or intense disliking <strong>of</strong> women, it could be<br />
reasonably assumed that females would be uninterested in viewing programs that depict<br />
<strong>and</strong> promote these types <strong>of</strong> attributes <strong>and</strong> <strong>counternormative</strong> behaviors. However, contrary<br />
to this reasoning, females are the key demographic for celebrity reality dating television<br />
shows <strong>and</strong>, according to Nielson Media Research, females make up the majority <strong>of</strong> the<br />
55
audience. Based on this broader view, audience motivation theories seems to lack<br />
adequate explanation for the phenomena <strong>of</strong> female viewers watching reality television<br />
shows promoting <strong>counternormative</strong> behavior <strong>and</strong> misogynistic themes.<br />
Potential Theoretical Explanation<br />
As identified by the <strong>qualitative</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>quantitative</strong> analyses <strong>of</strong> Rock <strong>of</strong> Love Bus with<br />
Bret Michaels, <strong>counternormative</strong> behaviors <strong>and</strong> misogyny are present within the<br />
episodes. Based on the high incident rates <strong>of</strong> female nudity, heterosexual sexual content,<br />
appropriation <strong>of</strong> female homosexuality <strong>and</strong> male gaze, it would be a safe assumption that<br />
the target audience <strong>and</strong> predominant demographic for this program are males. However,<br />
scholars have indicated that reality television programming such as Rock <strong>of</strong> Love Bus<br />
with Bret Michaels, <strong>and</strong> the Nielsen Media Research data revealed that the audience<br />
demographic for this program is predominantly females. Therefore, there appears to be a<br />
distinct disconnect between themes identified in reality television programming<br />
(<strong>counternormative</strong> behavior <strong>and</strong> misogynistic attitudes) <strong>and</strong> audience demographics.<br />
Reality television, in general, is geared toward young adults aged 18-34<br />
(Freydkin, 2002). According to Time Warner Cable, though VH1 targets both males <strong>and</strong><br />
females, the celebreality dating competition programming is most likely specifically<br />
targeting females aged 18-49 (Time Warner Cable, 2009). Demographically, the typical<br />
VH1 viewer is 30.4 years <strong>of</strong> age, white (76.32%), <strong>and</strong> has a median individual income <strong>of</strong><br />
$34, 414 (Cable Television Advertising Bureau, 2008).<br />
Though the ratings for the first season <strong>of</strong> Rock <strong>of</strong> Love with Bret Michaels were<br />
strong, VH1 knew they had a hit celebreality dating program when the second season<br />
56
premiered in January <strong>of</strong> 2008. Up 166% from the premier <strong>of</strong> the first season, the first<br />
episode for the second season attracted 3.7 million viewers, with 2.9 million viewers<br />
from the key 18-34 year old group. As a result <strong>of</strong> the high number <strong>of</strong> viewers who<br />
watched the premier episode <strong>of</strong> Rock <strong>of</strong> Love with Bret Michaels 2, the episode “rank[ed]<br />
among VH1's top 10 telecasts in the network's history” (Wozniak & Delhomme, 2008).<br />
As reported in Turner Research’s Annual Review <strong>of</strong> Television Audiences, VH1’s hit<br />
celebreality program had an overall increase <strong>of</strong> 26% in total viewers from the first season<br />
to the second season (Wakshlag, 2008).<br />
Additionally, weekly Nielsen Media Research indicated that season two <strong>of</strong> Rock<br />
<strong>of</strong> Love with Bret Michaels continued to attract a high number <strong>of</strong> females in particular,<br />
attracting 3.2 million women in the 18-34 age range. VH1 encouraged additional female<br />
participation by promoting “blog parties”, which produced 3,100 comments on the VH1<br />
Blog <strong>and</strong> 25,000 visits to the site between 9 p.m. <strong>and</strong> 2 a.m. the night <strong>of</strong> the finale <strong>of</strong><br />
Rock <strong>of</strong> Love with Bret Michaels 2 (Becker, 2008). By the time the third season <strong>of</strong> the<br />
franchise premiered, VH1 moved the contestants to a rock tour <strong>and</strong> changed the name to<br />
Rock <strong>of</strong> Love Bus with Bret Michaels. The ratings, though not as high as season one <strong>and</strong><br />
two, held steady at 2.0 million viewers per episode.<br />
Though media research has examined the reasons individuals utilize media to<br />
obtain gratifications, no research or theory has identified the reasons females view reality<br />
television programs that depict <strong>counternormative</strong> behavior <strong>and</strong> promote misogynistic<br />
themes. This gap in knowledge is important to address since reality television<br />
programming continues to grow exponentially.<br />
57
The Active Cognitive Dissonance Accrual (ACoDA) theory may <strong>of</strong>fer a potential<br />
theoretical explanation to why female viewers are motivated to view reality television<br />
programming that focuses on <strong>counternormative</strong> behavior <strong>and</strong> misogynistic themes. The<br />
core concepts that characterize the ACoDA theory are cognitive dissonance, models <strong>of</strong><br />
learning, <strong>and</strong> reality television & social norm violations.<br />
The ACoDA theory is operationally defined as behavior wherein a person actively<br />
seeks out experiences that create cognitive dissonance in order to satisfy the innate drive<br />
to learn about ideas <strong>and</strong> beliefs that are <strong>counternormative</strong> via watching reality television<br />
programming. The ACoDA theory <strong>of</strong>fers a hypothesis as to why humans actively seek<br />
out situations that create cognitive dissonance by viewing reality television depicting<br />
<strong>counternormative</strong> behavior.<br />
The ACoDA theory posits that a viewer’s motives for watching programming<br />
focused on norm violations is, consciously or subconsciously, to satisfy their innate<br />
curiosity <strong>and</strong> to learn about deviant behaviors <strong>and</strong> beliefs. Reality television shows, such<br />
as Rock <strong>of</strong> Love Bus with Bret Michaels, attract audiences by showing individuals who<br />
exhibit <strong>counternormative</strong> behaviors that are <strong>of</strong>ten salacious. It would appear that the<br />
female viewers <strong>of</strong> reality shows that depict norm violating behaviors watch knowing full<br />
well that they will be witnessing individuals acting in socially deviant manners.<br />
Dissimilar to those who watch competition-type reality shows, the ACoDA theory<br />
suggests that a viewer’s motives for watching programming focused on norm violations<br />
is, consciously or subconsciously, to satisfy their innate curiosity <strong>and</strong> to learn about<br />
deviant behaviors <strong>and</strong> beliefs.<br />
58
Chapter 8<br />
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE STUDIES<br />
This thesis examined the <strong>counternormative</strong> behavior for celebreality dating show<br />
Rock <strong>of</strong> Love with Bret Michaels <strong>and</strong> found strong evidence supporting an overarching<br />
meta-theme <strong>of</strong> misogyny. Since this thematic content <strong>analysis</strong> was conducted on one<br />
program, the findings may not be generalizable to other reality television shows depicting<br />
<strong>counternormative</strong> behavior. Though the episodes were chosen in a strategic manner, more<br />
powerful evidence <strong>of</strong> the misogynistic themes may be available by analyzing all twelve<br />
episodes in the season.<br />
Another avenue for study is to compare <strong>and</strong> contrast the level <strong>of</strong> misogynistic<br />
themes starting with the first season for Rock <strong>of</strong> Love with Bret Michaels <strong>and</strong> continuing<br />
to season two <strong>and</strong> three. Though this paper did not touch on the contestants’ background,<br />
a content <strong>analysis</strong> <strong>of</strong> their background may yield significant findings to why they have<br />
chosen to take part in a clearly misogynistic competition.<br />
Finally, not all reality dating television programs use a male as the dominant<br />
person selecting a mate in competitive reality programs. A content <strong>analysis</strong> <strong>of</strong> dating<br />
programs utilizing a female to examine themes <strong>of</strong> misogyny would further strengthen the<br />
hypothesis that misogynistic themes are central to these types <strong>of</strong> programs.<br />
59
APPENDIX A<br />
Quantitative Data Tables<br />
Table 1: Contestants Exposing or Having Exposed Breasts<br />
60
Table 2: Contestants Exposing or Having Exposed Vaginal Area<br />
61
Table 3: Contestants Exposing or Having Exposed Buttocks<br />
62
Table 4: Michaels Initiating Closed Mouth Kissing with Contestants<br />
63
Table 5: Michaels Initiating Open Mouth Kissing with Contestants<br />
64
Table 6: Michaels Initiating Sexual Discussion with Contestants<br />
65
Table 7: Contestants Initiating Closed Mouth Kissing with Michaels<br />
66
Table 8: Contestants Initiating Open Mouth Kissing with Michaels<br />
67
Table 9: Contestants Initiating Implied Sexual Intercourse with Michaels<br />
68
Table 10: Contestants Initiating Sexual Discussion with Michaels<br />
69
Table 11: Contestants Initiating Close Mouth Kissing with Contestants<br />
70
Table 12: Contestants Initiating Open Mouth Kissing with Contestants<br />
71
Table 13: Contestants Initiating Implied Oral Sex with Contestants<br />
72
Table 14: Contestants Initiating Sexual Discussion with Contestants<br />
73
Table 15: Contestants or Michaels Drinking or Holding Glass <strong>of</strong> Hard Alcohol<br />
74
Table 16: Contestants or Michaels Drinking or Holding Glass <strong>of</strong> Beer, Wine or<br />
Champagne<br />
75
Table 17: Contestants or Michaels Appearing Drunk<br />
76
Table 18: Contestants or Michaels Appearing Hung Over or Throwing Up<br />
77
Table 19: Contestants or Michaels Swearing<br />
78
Table 20: Contestants inflicting Physical Violence on other Contestants<br />
79
Table 21: Contestants Destroying Personal Property <strong>of</strong> other Contestants<br />
80
Table 22: Contestants being Verbally Aggressive with other Contestants<br />
81
Table 23: Contestants Pouring Alcohol on other Contestants<br />
82
Table 24: Contestants Calling Names, Insulting or Teasing other Contestants<br />
Face-to-Face<br />
83
Table 25: Contestants Calling Names, Insulting or Teasing other Contestants<br />
Behind their Back<br />
84
REFERENCES<br />
Abt, V., & Seesholtz, M. (1994, Summer). The shameless world <strong>of</strong> Phil, Sally, <strong>and</strong><br />
Oprah: Television talk shows <strong>and</strong> the deconstructing <strong>of</strong> society. Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Popular Culture, 28(1), 171-191.<br />
Akerl<strong>of</strong>, G. A., & Dickens, W. T. (1982). The economic consequences <strong>of</strong> cognitive<br />
dissonance. American Economic Review, 72, 307-319.<br />
Andrejevic, M. (2006). The discipline <strong>of</strong> watching: Detection, risk, <strong>and</strong> lateral<br />
surveillance. critical studies in media communication, 23(5), 391–407.<br />
Aronson, E. (1969). The theory <strong>of</strong> cognitive dissonance: A current perspective. In L.<br />
Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4). New York:<br />
Academic Press.<br />
Associated Press (2007, October 18). Reality TV rules <strong>and</strong> draws ratings at VH1.<br />
Retrieved December 18, 2009, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21119568/<br />
Barton, K. M. (2009). Reality television programming <strong>and</strong> diverging gratifications: The<br />
influence <strong>of</strong> content on gratifications obtained. Journal <strong>of</strong> Broadcasting <strong>and</strong><br />
Electronic Media, 53(3), 460-476.<br />
Baruh, L. (2009, June). Publicized intimacies on reality television: An <strong>analysis</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
voyeuristic content <strong>and</strong> its contribution to the appeal <strong>of</strong> reality programming.<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53(2), 190-210.<br />
Beck, V., Huang, C.G., Pollard, W.E. & Johnson, J.T. (2004). TV Drama Viewers <strong>and</strong><br />
Health Information. Paper presented at the American Public Health Association<br />
131st Annual Meeting <strong>and</strong> Exposition, San Francisco, CA.<br />
85
Becker, A. (2008, May 3). VH1 hits a new high note. Broadcasting <strong>and</strong> Cable. Retrieved<br />
from http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/100361COVER_<br />
STORY_VH1_Hits_a_New_High_Note.php?q=%22Rock+<strong>of</strong>+Love%22<br />
Beckerman, M. (2004) Generation S.L.U.T. A brutal feel-up session with today’s sex-<br />
crazed adolescent populace. New York: MTV/Pocket Books/Simon & Schuster.<br />
Bil<strong>and</strong>zic, H., & Rossler, P. (2004). Life according to television. Implications <strong>of</strong> genre-<br />
specific cultivation effects: The gratification/cultivation model. Communications,<br />
29, 295-326.<br />
Boghossian, P. (2006). Behaviorism, constructivism, <strong>and</strong> Socratic pedagogy. Educational<br />
Philosophy <strong>and</strong> Theory, 38(6), 715-722.<br />
Br<strong>and</strong>t, M. & Carstens, A. (2005). The discourse <strong>of</strong> the male gaze: A critical <strong>analysis</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
the featured section ‘The beauty <strong>of</strong> sport’ in SA Sports Illustrated. Southern<br />
African Linguistics & Applied Language Studies, 23(5), 233-243.<br />
Brehm, J. & Cohen, A. (1962). Explorations in cognitive dissonance. New York: Wiley.<br />
Brook, D.W., Saar, N.S. & Brook, J.S. (2008). Earlier violent television exposure <strong>and</strong><br />
later drug dependence. The American Journal on Addictions, 17, 271–277<br />
Cable Television Advertising Bureau (2008). VH1 Networking Pr<strong>of</strong>ile. Retrieved from<br />
http://www.thecab.tv/php/networkpr<strong>of</strong>iles/08pr<strong>of</strong>ileData/08_pdfs/VH1.pdf<br />
Cantor, J., & Nathanson, A. (1997). Predictors <strong>of</strong> children’s interest in violent television<br />
programs. Journal <strong>of</strong> Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41(2), 155-167.<br />
Chatzidakis, A., Hibbert, S., Mitussis, D., & Smith, A. (2004) Virtue in consumption?<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> MarketingManagement, 20(5/6), 526–543.<br />
86
Chekroun, P. & Brauerm, M. (2002). The byst<strong>and</strong>er effect <strong>and</strong> social control behavior:<br />
the effect <strong>of</strong> the presence <strong>of</strong> others on people’s reactions to norm violations.<br />
European Journal <strong>of</strong> Social Psychology, 32, 853-857.<br />
Chen, C.M., Yi, H. & Hilton, M.E. (2005). Trends in alcohol-related morbidity among<br />
short-stay community hospital discharges, United States, 1979–2003. Bethesda,<br />
MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse <strong>and</strong> Alcoholism, Division <strong>of</strong><br />
Epidemiology <strong>and</strong> Prevention Research.<br />
Chory, R. M. (2000). Effects <strong>of</strong> exposure to verbally aggressive television on aggressive<br />
behavior <strong>and</strong> beliefs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State<br />
University.<br />
Cialdini, R. B., Trost, M. R. & Newsom J. T. (1995). Preferences for consistency: The<br />
development <strong>of</strong> a valid measure <strong>and</strong> the discovery <strong>of</strong> surprising behavioral<br />
implications. Journal <strong>of</strong> Personality <strong>and</strong> Social Psychology, 67, 382-394.<br />
Dauncey, H. (1996). French ‘reality television’: More than a manner to taste? European<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Communication, 11(1), 83-106.<br />
Denes, A. (2007). The rise <strong>and</strong> repercussions <strong>of</strong> bisexual chic: Examining female-female<br />
sexual activity in the heterosexual dating context (Masters thesis). Boston<br />
College, Boston, MA.<br />
Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes <strong>and</strong> prejudice: How automatic <strong>and</strong> controlled<br />
components. Journal <strong>of</strong> Personality <strong>and</strong> Social Psychology, 81, 757-759.<br />
87
Dixon, W. W. (2008). Hyperconsumption in reality television: The transformation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
self through televisual consumerism. Quarterly Review <strong>of</strong> Film <strong>and</strong> Video, 25, 52-<br />
63.<br />
Egan, L. C., Santos, L. R., & Bloom, P. (2007). The origins <strong>of</strong> cognitive dissonance:<br />
Evidence from children <strong>and</strong> monkeys. Association for Psychology Science,<br />
18(11), 978-983.<br />
Eggins, S. & Slade, D. (1997). Analyzing casual conversation. London: Cassell.<br />
Ellikson, R.C. (1991). Order without law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<br />
Fanti, K.A., Vanman, E., Henrich, C.C. & Avraamides, M.N. (2009). Desensitization to<br />
media violence over a short period <strong>of</strong> time. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 179-187.<br />
Ferris, A.L., Smith, S.W., Greenberg, B.S. & Smith, S.L. (2007). The content <strong>of</strong> reality<br />
dating shows <strong>and</strong> viewer perceptions <strong>of</strong> dating. Journal <strong>of</strong> Communication, 57,<br />
490-510.<br />
Fiske, J. (1990) 'Women <strong>and</strong> quiz shows: consumerism, patriarchy <strong>and</strong> resisting<br />
pleasures', in Television <strong>and</strong> Women's Culture: The Politics <strong>of</strong> the Popular, ed.<br />
Mary Ellen Brown, Sage, London, pp. 134-143.<br />
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory <strong>of</strong> cognitive dissonance. Stanford, California: Stanford<br />
University Press.<br />
Freydkin, D. (2003). Young <strong>and</strong> voyeuristic. Retrieved October 29, 2010, from USA<br />
Today. Web site: http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2003-01-14-<br />
young-cover_x.htm<br />
88
Gingart, E., Helmes, E. & Speelman, C. (2008). Harnessing cognitive dissonance to<br />
promote positive attitudes toward older workers in Austrailia. Journal <strong>of</strong> Applied<br />
Social Psychology, 38, 751-778<br />
Graham-Bertolini (2004). Joe Millionaire as fairy tale: A feminist critique. Feminist<br />
Media Studies, 4(3), 341-344.<br />
Harris, M. (2004). Gender trouble in Paradise (Hotel), or a good woman is hard to find.<br />
Feminist Media Studies ,4(3), 356-358.<br />
Hill, L., & Quin, R. (2001). Live from the ministry <strong>of</strong> truth: How real are reality soaps?<br />
Australian Screen Education, 30, 50-55.<br />
Illeris, K. (2007). How we learn: Learning <strong>and</strong> non-learning in school <strong>and</strong> beyond. New<br />
York: Taylor & Francis.<br />
Infante, D. A. & Wigley, C. J., III (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model<br />
<strong>and</strong> measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61–69.<br />
Joiner, W. (2006). Live girl-on-girl action! Retrieved December 18, 2009, from Salon.<br />
Web site: http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/06/20/girl_on_girl/index_np.<br />
html<br />
Keller, T. (1993). Trash TV. Journal <strong>of</strong> Popular Culture, 26(4), 195-206.<br />
Kiesler, C.A., Kiesler, S.B. & Pallak, M.S. (1967). The effect <strong>of</strong> commitment to future<br />
interaction on reactions to norm violations. Yale University Press.<br />
89
Kim, J., Sorsoli, C. L., Collins, K., Zylbergold, B. A., Schooler, D. & Tolman, D. L.<br />
(2007). From sex to sexuality: Exposing the heterosexual script on primetime<br />
network television. Journal <strong>of</strong> Sex Research, 44(2), 145-157.<br />
Kunkel, D., Eyal, K., Biely, E., Cope-Farrar, K., & Donnerstein, E. (2003). Sex on TV 3:<br />
A Biennial report to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser<br />
Family Foundation.<br />
Kunkel, D., Eyal, K., Finnerty, K., Biely, E., & Donnerstein, E. (2005). Sex on TV 5. A<br />
Biennial report to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family<br />
Foundation.<br />
Lundy, L. K., Ruth, A. M., & Park, T. D. (2008). Simply irresistible: Reality TV<br />
consumption patterns. Communication Quarterly, 56, 208-225.<br />
Manganello, J., Franzini, A. & Jordan, A. (2008). Sampling television programs for<br />
content <strong>analysis</strong> <strong>of</strong> sex on TV: How many episodes are enough? Journal <strong>of</strong> Sex<br />
Research, 45(1), 9-16.<br />
Markle, G. (2008). ‘‘Can women have sex like a man?’’: Sexual scripts in Sex <strong>and</strong> the<br />
City. Sexuality & Culture, 12, 45-57.<br />
Matz, D. C., H<strong>of</strong>stedt, P. M., & Wood, W. (2008). Extraversion as a moderator <strong>of</strong> the<br />
cognitive dissonance associated with disagreement. Personality <strong>and</strong> Individual<br />
Differences, 45, 401-405.<br />
McGahan, S. (2008, October 29). Driver in death <strong>of</strong> two students appears in court. Daily<br />
Egyptian.<br />
90
Mead, J. (2005, August). Fascination <strong>of</strong> reality television with the college student<br />
audience: The uses <strong>and</strong> gratifications perspective on the program genre. Paper<br />
presented at the Association for Education in Journalism <strong>and</strong> Mass<br />
Communication Conference, San Antonio.<br />
Mendible, M. (2004). Humiliation, subjectivity, <strong>and</strong> reality TV. Feminist Media Studies,<br />
4(3), 335-338.<br />
Mills, N. (2004). Television <strong>and</strong> the politics <strong>of</strong> humiliation. Dissent, 51(3), 79-81.<br />
Mohana, K. & Waters, M. (2008). Multiple perspectives on learning: but which way for<br />
instructional design? Education for Primary Care. 19, 563-568.<br />
Mokdad, A.H., Marks, J.S., Stroup, D.F., & Gerberding, J.L. (2004). Actual<br />
Causes <strong>of</strong> Death in the United States, 2000. Journal <strong>of</strong> American Medical<br />
Association, 291(10), 1238–1245.<br />
Monteith, M. J. (1993). Self-regulation <strong>of</strong> prejudiced response: Implications for progress<br />
in prejudice-regulation efforts. Journal <strong>of</strong> Personality <strong>and</strong> Social Psychology, 65,<br />
469-485.<br />
Mulvey, L. (1975). Visual pleasure <strong>and</strong> narrative cinema. Screen, 16(3), 6-18.<br />
Nabi, R. L., Biely, E. N., Morgan, S. J., & Stitt, C. R. (2003). Reality-based television<br />
programming <strong>and</strong> the psychology <strong>of</strong> its appeal. Media Psychology, 5, 303-330.<br />
Papacharissi, Z. & Mendelson, A. L. (2007). An exploratory study <strong>of</strong> reality appeals:<br />
Uses <strong>and</strong> Gratifications <strong>of</strong> reality TV shows. Journal <strong>of</strong> Broadcasting &<br />
Electronic Media, 51(2), 355-370.<br />
91
Potter, W. J. (1990). Adolescents’ perceptions <strong>of</strong> the primary values <strong>of</strong> television<br />
programming. Journalism Quarterly, 67, 843-851.<br />
Potter, W. J. & Vaughan, M. (1997). Antisocial behaviors in television entertainment:<br />
Trends <strong>and</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>iles. Communication Research Reports, 14, 116–124.<br />
Price, D. E. (2007, June 16). 6 Questions with Bret Michaels. Billboard, 119(24).<br />
Reiss, S. & Wilz, J. (2004). Why people watch reality TV. Media Psychology, 6, 636-<br />
378.<br />
Reality tea. (2009, July 6) Retrieved on December 21, 2009 from<br />
http://www.realitytea.com/2009/07/06/update-on-bret-michaels-<strong>and</strong>-taya-parker-<br />
plus-brets-accident/<br />
Roberti, J. W. (2007). Demographic characteristic <strong>and</strong> motives <strong>of</strong> individuals viewing<br />
reality dating shows. The Communication Review, 10, 117-134.<br />
Rubin, R. H. (2001). Alternative Lifestyle Revisited: What Happened to Swingers, Group<br />
Marriages <strong>and</strong> Communes? Journal <strong>of</strong> Family Issues, 22, 711-726.<br />
Russell, C.A. & Russell, D.W. (2009). Alcohol messages in prime-time television series.<br />
The Journal <strong>of</strong> Consumer Affairs, 43(1), 108-128.<br />
Shapiro, M.A. & Lang, A. (1991). Making television reality: Conscious processes in the<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> social reality. Communication Research, 42(4), 685-705.<br />
Skinner, B. F. (1983). Origins <strong>of</strong> a behaviorist. Psychology Today.<br />
Snyder, M., & Tanke, E. D. (t976). Behavior <strong>and</strong> attitude: Some people are more<br />
consistent than others. Journal <strong>of</strong> Personality, 44, 501-517.<br />
92
Tamborini, R., Chory, R.M., Lachlan, K., Westerman, D. & Skalski, P. (2008). Talking<br />
smack: Verbal aggression in pr<strong>of</strong>essional wrestling. Communication Studies,<br />
59(3), 242–258.<br />
Thornborrow, J. & Morris, D. (2004). Gossip as strategy: The management <strong>of</strong> talk about<br />
others on reality TV show ‘Big Brother’. Journal <strong>of</strong> Sociolinguistics, 8(2), 246-<br />
271.<br />
Time Warner Cable.(2009). Network demogrpahics. Retrieved on December 21, 2009,<br />
From http://www.cablemediasales.com/pages/nets/?cp=nets&sp=<br />
demo&demo=W18-49<br />
Tsang, J. (2002). Moral rationalization <strong>and</strong> the integration <strong>of</strong> situational factors <strong>and</strong><br />
psychological processes in immoral behavior. Review <strong>of</strong> General Psychology, 6,<br />
25-50.<br />
Usher, J.M. (1997). Fantasies <strong>of</strong> femininity: Reframing the boundaries <strong>of</strong> sex. New<br />
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.<br />
(2008, April 10). NME news. Retrieved on December 21, 2009 from<br />
http://www.nme.com/news/poison/35834<br />
Ward, L. M. (1995). Talking about sex: Common themes about sexuality in prime-time<br />
television programs children <strong>and</strong> adolescents view most. Journal <strong>of</strong> Youth <strong>and</strong><br />
Adolescence, 24, 595-615.<br />
Weaver, B. R. & Woollard, F. (2008). Marriage <strong>and</strong> the norm <strong>of</strong> monogamy. The Monist,<br />
91(3&4), 506-522.<br />
93
Weber, H. (2003). Breaking the rules: Personal <strong>and</strong> social responses to coping norm-<br />
violations. Anxiety, Stress, <strong>and</strong> Coping, 16(2), 133-153.<br />
Wozniak, M. & Delhomme C. (2008, January 15). VH1 scores again with record-<br />
breaking debuts <strong>of</strong> sophomore series Rock <strong>of</strong> Love with Bret Michaels <strong>and</strong> Scott<br />
Baio is 46…<strong>and</strong> Pregnant [press release]. Retrieved from<br />
http://www.vh1.com/press/press_releases /2006_release<br />
/rol2_baio_ratings_jan152008.jhtml<br />
Yep, G. & Camacho, A. O. (2004). The normalization <strong>of</strong> heterogendered relations in The<br />
Bachelor. Feminist Media Studies, 4, 338-34<br />
94