Determinants of Television Viewer Preferences - ISDL@UW

Determinants of Television Viewer Preferences

Brad Gillespie
[email protected]

Much research into television viewership deals with the effects of particular genres on the
audience (e.g. the effect of violence on teenagers). Results have been well documented in the
popular literature. A less widely known area of research involves determining reasons for
viewership of a particular genre or specific show. Research in this area falls under the heading of
selective exposure to television (or more generally selective exposure to communication). The
notion of selective exposure (i.e. what one chooses to be exposed to) has played a role in mass
communication research since the late 1940’s. Only since the late 70’s has this theory been
applied to entertainment programming [1].

Surfing Properties

An important process of television viewing is grazing or surfing. Numerous studies reveal that
men and young adults are most likely to change channels either to surf or to avoid lackluster
program content and/or commercials [2]. Demographics reveal that viewers with cable channels
tend to switch more than those with only broadcast options available. A natural conclusion is that
viewers will tend to surf more when more programs are available. Not surprisingly viewers with
remote controls tend to change channels twice as often as those without a remote control, the
most popular method being to start low on the dial and use the channel up button [3]. Channel
switching increases through the day - from a low of 19% among morning segments, to a high of
33% among late-night hours [4]. Zillmann and Bryant conclude that most program selection
occurs “on impulse” in the process of surfing. [5]. It should not be inferred that because this
choice is impulsive, it is arbitrary. Channel surfing is a directed search for pleasurable
programming. Zillmann and Bryant propose a model that appears to explain the process and goal
of channel surfing

1) Select an arbitrary channel. A particular program is encountered by chance or mindless
probing.

2) If the encountered program is pleasing it is accepted. This selection is, so to speak, a gut
reaction. It either feels good or it doesn’t.

3) If the program is accepted, respondents refrain from further program sampling. If
dissatisfaction sets in, acceptance is withdrawn and program sampling continues.

4) Rejected programs are entered into short-term memory. In continued program sampling,
the current program is compared with those in short-term memory.

5) If a program or program components are known (i.e. stored in long-term memory), the
prior information regarding this program is used in the comparison.

Zillmann and Bryant do not exclude other, more directed, forms of program acquisition. In the
presence of a desired mini-series, program, or favorite news broadcast viewers will seek out that
program night after night, assuming they are watching television [6]. This appears to be the
exception rather than the rule. In general the process of surfing follows the above outlined

process [5]. The study of selective exposure attempts to understand a fundamental issue of
surfing: what motivates one to stop at one particular channel.

Selective Exposure

What is selective exposure

Zillmann and Bryant define selective exposure as [7] “behavior that is deliberately performed to
attain and sustain perceptual control of particular stimulus events. According to this definition,
selective exposure subsumes anything from closely watching a poisonous snake in the grass, to
reading the newspaper, listening to music in solitude or while keeping an eye on the children,
and watching the television intently or while doing the dishes.” The study of selective exposure
to communications deals with understanding the motives for message consumption. Questions of
interest to the community are of the type: What stable selective tendencies or traits exist in what
kind of persons? How and why are they formed? What is consequence of moods and emotions
on message selection? What about states of general excitement and states of boredom and fatigue
[7]?

Selective exposure of television programs

Zillmann and Bryant are of the opinion that people pay little attention to why they choose what
they choose when they choose it. While some people may be cognizant of the reasons for their
choices, and may even be able to enumerate the actual reasons for their selection of a particular
program, the vast majority of people will not be consciously aware of the determinants of their
choice [8]. Even though people pay little attention to their reasons for watching specific
programs, research indicates that unambiguous forces drive program selection.

Obviously not all viewers like the same programs or watch television to the same extent. To
what extent can viewers of one category of programs be distinguished from a different category?
Can personal traits (demographic or psychological) be used to distinguish television preferences?
Do transient moods affect short-term preferences? Certainly people would agree that
demographics play a role in program preferences, but the idea that entertainment preferences
might vary with transient moods, and emotions generally evokes considerable skepticism. It is
counterintuitive. It appears that people believe that they exhibit an unwavering (or slowly
varying) standard for programs. Recently this notion that taste is unrelated to transient moods or
emotions has been challenged [1,5,8,9,10,11].

Factors that drive selective exposure

There is no doubt that people have specific preferences for particular programming. Certain
individuals generally watch certain genres more than others. These trends can be better
understood by analyzing viewer demographics. Preferences related to standard viewer
demographics tend to be long-term in nature (e.g. males preference for violence). On the other
hand, preferences due to mood and emotion tend to be short-term in nature (e.g. coming home
from a stressful day as opposed to a boring day). Both short and long-term trends must be
accounted for to accurately predict viewer preferences. A brief summary of factors that affect
short and long-term preferences is detailed below.

Factors affecting long-term television preferences

Long term-term viewer preferences can be explained, in part, through standard viewer
demographics. Research in the area of selective exposure to television generally focuses the
viewer preferences of two specific demographic groups: gender and age. Many of the gender
differences deal with the relationship between violence/anger/hostility and viewing preferences.

In one study boys and girls were placed into one of three environments, nurturing, neutral, or
hostile. They were then allowed to watch one of two channels (one nurturing one neutral) for as
long as they pleased. The effects were clear for boys. Boys treated in a hostile manner stayed
with the nurturing more than twice as long as the boys treated in a nurturing manner.
Surprisingly, the treatment had little correlation with viewing preferences for the girls [9].

There has also been considerable research showing strong gender differences in the appeal of
violent victimization and justice restoration [5]. Females responded much less favorably to
violence than males did. Conversely males responded much less favorably to justice restoration
than females did. Gunter and Furnham carried out a similar study to judge the reactions of
viewers to television violence. Self-proclaimed physically aggressive people were found to judge
shootings and fistfights as more exciting than did less aggressive individuals. Zillmann and
Bryant note that gender differences manifest themselves most clearly when dealing with anger or
fear [8]. Males are far more likely to prefer programs with violent content when angered then
women are.

Gunter and Wober carried out a survey [6] to determine the correlation between social beliefs
and television preferences. Respondents who had strong beliefs in just a world tended to be
heavy viewers of action-adventure programs. Furthermore the same respondents with strong
beliefs in a just world tended to watch television significantly more than there counterparts who
though the world was unjust.

Factors affecting short-term television preferences

Short-term preferences (e.g. a comedy is found enjoyable one night and a drama is found
enjoyable the next) tend to be driven by ones emotional state at the time of viewing, specifically
ones mood. Experimental research provides evidence that people select programs that are
involving to different degrees as a function of their mood states. People select programming that
provides them with the most positive benefit – benefits such a being distracted from emotional or
physical pain, alleviating boredom, being cheered up, being given great excitement, being help to
calm down, or being fed pacifying messages [12]. Bryant and Zillmann manipulated people so
they were either bored or stressed. They were then given the opportunity to watch exciting or
relaxing television. People in a bored mood (i.e. those who would benefit from distraction)
tended to select highly absorbing shows. People who were stressed tended to avoid involving
shows [1]. In general exciting television seems to be effective for alleviating feelings of aversion
that characterize boredom. Almost immediately upon viewing a selected program there was a
noticeable increase in their excitement. Masters, Ford, and Arend [9] showed that children as
young as 4 years old were able to use television to improve their mood state. Zillmann, Hezel
and Medoff [10] showed that provoked angry persons instinctively refrained from watching
hostile comedy shows (shows laden with teasing, demeaning and outright hostile actions) and
instead selected alternative offerings. Wakshlag, Vial, and Tamborini [11] showed that despite

some gender differences both males and females placed in apprehensive moods sought out
dramas that were relatively low in violent content.

Researchers find little evidence that people are making a conscience choice to improve their
moods. Rather, the data indicates that people behave as if they have tacit knowledge of the
benefits [12]. In summary there is a body of research that clearly shows the choice of
programming stems from a situational context and that emotional states play a key role in the
formation this choice [8].

Summary

From the evidence presented here it is clear that determining an individuals preference for certain
television programs is multifaceted. It has been shown that there are overriding factors that
influence viewership such as a priori information that relates to program or channel loyalty. It is
also evident that there are gender and psychological traits that determine long-term viewer
selection (e.g. males preferences for violence in programs).

Taken alone these two criteria provide only static view of ones tastes. The widely held belief of
unchanging taste has been brought into question in the recent past. It is safe to conclude that
transient emotions and moods exert a strong influence on individual viewer preferences. It
appears individuals are tacitly aware of the influence a particular program can exert on ones
current mood state. Individuals seek out programs that will improve their current mood state.
This results of this search depend on ones initial mood state. If bored one seeks out calming
programs, if excited on seeks out involving programs.

Reference

1. J. Bryant & D. Zillmann, “Using television to alleviate boredom and stress: selective
exposure as a function of induced excitational states,” Journal of Broadcasting, 28(1), pp. 1-
20, 1984.

2. Media Dynamics Inc., TV Dimensions ’99, 17th edition, 1999.
3. R.X. Weissman, “Those flippin’ grazers,” American Demographics, 1999.
4. EPM Communications, At our Leisure, 3rd edition, 1997.
5. D. Zillmann & J. Bryant, “Entertainment as media effect,” Media Effects, J. Bryant & D.

Zillmann (eds.), pp. 437-461, 1994.
6. B. Gunter, “Determinants of television viewing preferences,” Selective Exposure to

Communication, D. Zillmann & J. Bryant (eds.), pp. 93-112, 1985.
7. D. Zillmann & J. Bryant, “Selective-exposure phenomena,” Selective Exposure to

Communication, D. Zillmann & J. Bryant (eds.), pp. 1-10, 1985.
8. D. Zillmann & J. Bryant, “Affect, mood, and emotion as determinants of selective exposure,”

Selective Exposure to Communication, D. Zillmann & J. Bryant (eds.), pp. 157-190, 1985.
9. J.C. Masters, M.E. Ford, & R.A. Arend, “Children’s strategies for controlling affective

responses to aversive social experience,” Motivation and Emotion, 7, pp. 103-116, 1983.
10. D. Zillmann, R.T. Hezel, & N.J. Medoff, “The effect of affective states on selective exposure

to televised entertainment fare,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, pp. 323-339.
11. J. Wakshlag, V. Vial, & R. Tamborinin, “Selecting crime drama and apprehension about

crime,” Human Communication Research, 10, pp. 227-242, 1983.

12. D. Zillmann & J. Bryant, “ Exploring the entertainment experience,” Perspectives on Media
Effects, J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (eds.), pp. 303-324, 1986.