Reality television has already been blamed for many societal ills, from the dumbing-down of television to the rise of the faux celebrity culture (think “Surreal World” contestants). Is it also responsible for promoting promiscuity? Yes, says a new study from the State University of New York at Buffalo, at least when it comes to online social networks. The study blames heavy reality TV consumption for the proliferation of “promiscuous friending,” or being more likely to engage in friendships with people with whom you have no off-line relationship. Heavy reality TV viewers have larger social networks than average and share more photos online. What’s more, heavy reality TV viewers may adapt personality traits associated with celebrities, such as sharing personal information with all those online friends. The researchers say reality TV even may be to blame for the erosion of the distinction between the everyday world and the celebrity world. Michael A. Stefanone, Ph.D., assistant professor in the department of communication at State University of New York at Buffalo and one of the study’s authors, talks to Media Life about reality TV’s influence on web 2.0, the “CSI” effect, and attention seekers.
 
What prompted you to do this study?
 
We wanted to explore the reasons why people are becoming so enthusiastic in terms of making information about themselves publicly available online. The kinds of information people make available ranges from favorite books and movies, to photographs of intimate moments in their lives, to very personal and heartfelt self-disclosures pertaining to their health, romantic relationships, and family relationships.
 
This kind and level of non-directed self-disclosure is unprecedented and reflects a dramatic shift in Internet use (i.e., web 2.0).
 

What finding most surprised you?
 
The findings were in line with the hypotheses we proposed.

We found a link between traditional mass media use in the form of reality television viewing and new media use on social networking sites.
 
Perhaps most surprising were the differences in photo sharing frequency. Women were much more prolific when it comes to sharing photographs, and we suspect this was because they may identify more strongly with body and image. The relationship between gender and identification online is being studied at the University at Buffalo now.
 

How does watching reality TV erode the distinction between the everyday world and the celebrity world?
 
Basically, TV serves as a model for appropriate behavior. Reality TV shows viewers that everyday people can attain celebrity status, and that celebrity status is a good thing. This kind of reality TV is labeled “socially rewarding reality TV,” and excludes shows like “Cops,” etc.
 
Our results suggest that heavy reality TV viewers are more likely to engage in celebrity-seeking behavior like promiscuous friending online (becoming Facebook friends with people you don’t actually know).
 

Have you seen examples of this tendency in other offline activities?
 
Good question. We haven’t looked at offline behavior yet. But we should.
 

What other attributes do heavy reality television viewers share?
 
Also a good question. Perhaps they are generally more voyeuristic. We need to do more research on such attributes.

Are they aware that they are adopting these behavior patterns?
 
This kind of modeling behavior is very subtle. People are not actively thinking about the connection between their behavior and the behavior of actors on television.
 
But as an example of the power of modeling, consider this: After the popularity of the “CSI” shows (Las Vegas, Miami, New York, etc.), student applications to forensic science programs skyrocketed. Of course, the representation of CSI work on these shows is ridiculously unrealistic, so the drop-out rate from these programs soon skyrocketed as well.
 

How has our definition of friendship changed in the era of Facebook and MySpace?
 
I’m not sure about that. People still depend on a small group of strong ties for emotional support, typically around seven or eight people. People still have broad networks of weaker ties, up to about 130 others.
 
The difference today is, there is a publicly accessible record of all the people you have had even very casual acquaintances with. These connections, with the aid of tools like Facebook, never fade. But the majority of these online contacts certainly are not friends in the traditional sense.
 
I wonder how many of them would loan you $20 if you asked them? This question is another area we are actively researching.
 

How have social networks become surrogates for attention seeking?
 
 Attention is power. We all need some level of attention (although too much attention certainly is a bad thing). Now that people spend more time online, and their interpersonal relationships are increasingly mediated, it is natural that they adapt these tools for attention seeking purposes.
 
Look at me, I have 890 friends! Yeah, right.