Reality Check! Perceptions of MTV’s Jersey Shore and 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom and Dating Violence Attitudes and Experiences

Abstract

We examined college women’s (N = 354) perceptions of Jersey Shore and 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom and how these perceptions are related to dating violence (DV) attitudes and behaviors. Although most DV attitudes and behaviors did not relate to frequency of viewing these shows, DV victimization was related to more frequent viewing of Jersey Shore. Moreover, DV perpetration and victimization was related to perceptions that the Jersey Shore was a fun show to watch, and accepting attitudes toward DV was inversely related to perceptions that Jersey Shore was offensive. Content analysis of open-ended responses regarding young women’s opinions about the shows’ portrayal of DV showed that most participants believed that Jersey Shore and 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom depicted DV, although there was variability in how accurate these portrayals were perceived to be. Similarly, young women had varying opinions about how acceptable it was to portray DV on television as well as the extent to which MTV was doing enough to ensure that the individuals on the show received help for their experiences. Findings suggest the importance of helping viewers understand how the media influences their own beliefs and behaviors in dating and sexual relationships.

Keywords

dating violence intimate partner violence reality television mass media MTV social cognitive theory viewer attitudes

Introduction

Decades of feminist scholarship has documented the sexualization, objectification, and victimization of girls and women in the media (for a review, see Ward, 2016). Reality television is no exception. Over the last 20 years, reality television has become increasingly popular, especially among adolescent and college women (Behm-Morawitz, Lewallen, & Miller, 2016; Sotonoff, 2011). Although there are multiple approaches to categorizing subgenres of reality television (Aubrey et al., 2012; Gibson, Thompson, Hou, & Bushman, 2016; Nabi, 2007; Nabi, Biely, Morgan, & Stitt, 2003), the three primary subgenres are competition (e.g., The Voice, The Biggest Loser), dating competition (e.g., The Bachelor, Dating Naked), and surveillance (e.g., Jersey Shore, Teen Mom). The surveillance subgenre (Aubrey et al., 2012), which films people as they go about their day-to-day lives (Riddle & De Simone, 2013), has become increasingly popular among adolescent and young adult audiences, as this genre tends to document youth culture and the lifestyles of various social and cultural groups (Lewis & Weaver, 2016). One way that content in the surveillance subgenre may depict youth culture and lifestyles is through the documentation of dating relationships, including those characterized by dating violence (DV; Coyne, Robinson, & Nelson, 2010) which, for the purpose of this study, includes physical, emotional, and sexual aggression within a current or former dating relationship.

Unlike older audiences, adolescents and young adults are believed to be most susceptible to media messages depicting DV because they are still learning what behaviors are appropriate in romantic and sexual relationships (Arnett, 2000; Coyne et al., 2011). While some may argue showing DV on television could serve as a means of educating viewers about the issue, the vast majority of DV portrayals on television make light of, or normalize, DV within intimate relationships (Kohlman et al., 2014). This becomes problematic when viewers perceive media portrayals as realistic, given research indicates that social judgment is influenced by how realistic someone believes the content of a program to be (Busselle, 2001; Scharrer & Blackburn, 2018). In fact, some have found that viewers are more likely to imitate media aggression that they perceive is lifelike (Donnerstein, Slaby, & Eron, 1994; Ward & Carlson, 2013).

To date, the vast majority of research examining the impacts of reality television have focused on exposure to and outcomes associated with physical aggression (e.g., peer to peer physical fighting; Gibson et al., 2016), and to a lesser extent DV (Coyne, 2016; Coyne et al., 2011; Seabrook, Ward, & Giaccardi, 2019; Ward & Carlson, 2013). However, some research has assessed components of DV, or constructs closely related to DV (e.g., objectification of women) relative to reality television consumption. For instance, Seabrook et al. (2019) in a study of 238 undergraduate men found that consumption of realty television was associated with greater acceptance of the objectification of women that in turn was associated with greater rape myth acceptance. Increased acceptance of rape myths has been found to be linked to perpetration of rape (for a review, see Suarez & Gadalla, 2010). In addition, a study of 187 collegiate men who were sexually attracted to women found that exposure to realty television programs that objectify women predicted stronger attitudes of support of violence against women (Wright & Tokunaga, 2016).

Despite this literature base, to our knowledge, no studies have examined the correlates of viewing reality television shows that portray DV with DV victimization or perpetration, and no research on viewing has focused exclusively on the subgenre of surveillance reality television programs. Thus, the current study examines the surveillance television shows Jersey Shore, a show that chronicles the lives of a group of Italian American young adults, and 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom, which documents the lives of teenage mothers from pregnancy (i.e., 16 and Pregnant) to adulthood (Teen Mom), and how these shows relate to attitudes toward DV.

During the height of its popularity, Jersey Shore ranked the number one cable series among 13- to 24-year-olds and averaged 5.25 million viewers per week (Seidman, 2010), and 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom ranked the number two television series among adolescents and young adults (Gorman, 2010). With such popularity and viewership, understanding the potential impact of these shows is critical especially as there have been documented instances of DV on the shows. For example, MTV aired an episode of Teen Mom that showed a physical DV incident between two current dating partners. After the altercation was televised, domestic battery charges were filed against the victimizer (Miller, 2018). While on Jersey Shore, there have never been criminal DV charges filed; however, there have been serious altercations between dating couples on the show. For instance, on one episode, a main character is seen destroying the belongings of a dating partner, and on another episode, one of the dating partners is seen punching the other in the face.

Although not specific to DV, researchers have examined other social and behavioral correlates of viewing Jersey Shore and 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom. For example, research suggests that regularly viewing Jersey Shore is associated with more permissive sexual attitudes, a relationship that was attenuated by viewer age (i.e., the relationship was stronger for younger viewers) and indirectly influenced by parasocial relationships (i.e., emotional bond viewers form with media personalities; Horton & Wohl, 1956) and wishful identification (i.e., a desire to emulate characters; Bond & Drogos, 2014). Research has also examined the show’s effect on attitudes toward alcohol finding that viewers of Jersey Shore exposed to episodes where alcohol resulted in undesirable consequences were more likely to have negative views toward alcohol compared with peers who viewed episodes depicting alcohol resulting in positive outcomes (de Graaf, 2013). In addition, researchers have found that regularly viewing 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom and thinking the show is realistic is positively correlated with inaccurate perceptions of teen pregnancy (i.e., more likely to believe teen mothers had high incomes, involved fathers, and a desirable quality of life; Martins & Jensen, 2014), a self-perceived lower risk for pregnancy, and the belief that the benefits of teen pregnancy outweigh the risks (Aubrey, Behm-Morawitz, & Kim, 2014). Frequently watching 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom was also associated with greater pregnancy risk behavior (i.e., recently having intercourse) among viewers whose fathers did not communicate with them about sex growing up compared with viewers whose fathers did (Wright, Randall, & Arroyo, 2012).

Although no studies have examined DV perceptions and correlates specific to Jersey Shore and 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom, two studies have examined DV perceptions and correlates more broadly within the surveillance reality television genre. Riddle and De Simone (2013) found that viewers of popular surveillance reality television shows (which included Jersey Shore and Teen Mom) overestimated the prevalence of female perpetrated verbal aggression and discord within romantic relationships when compared with non-viewers. In a study examining the effects of watching surveillance reality television on physical aggression, Gibson and colleagues (2016) found that viewers who watched surveillance reality television shows depicting relational and verbal aggression (i.e., Jersey Shore, Real House Wives of Beverly Hills) were more aggressive than viewers watching violent crime drama (i.e., Dexter, CSI) and viewers watching non-violent, family-themed surveillance reality television shows (i.e., Little People Big World, The Little Couple).

The current study adds to the literature by utilizing a mixed methodological design to assess participants’ attitudes toward and perceptions of these popular reality television shows (i.e., Jersey Shore and 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom) and how these perceptions and attitudes relate to acceptance of DV. That is, participants were asked directly, and in their own words, to describe their overall perception of the shows and how the shows portray DV.

The current study addressed the following research questions:

Research Question 1: Is watching Jersey Shore or 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom related to accepting attitudes toward DV, a history of DV victimization, and a history of DV perpetration?

Research Question 2: What are young women’s perceptions of Jersey Shore and 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom and how are those perceptions associated to attitudes toward DV, a history of DV victimization, and a history of DV perpetration?

Research Question 3: To what extent do young women believe that Jersey Shore and 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom depict DV and what are their perceptions of these portrayals?

Method

Participants

Participants were 354 heterosexual college women between 18 and 23 years old (M = 18.90, SD = 0.99). This age range was selected for two prominent reasons: (a) DV peaks in adolescence and young adulthood (O’Leary, 1999; Rennison & Welchans, 2000; Wolfe et al., 2003) and (b) Jersey Shore and 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom are popular realty television among this age group (Seidman, 2010) making their contents an important area of research. The majority (90.4%) of participants were Caucasian, 2.0% were Asian or Pacific Islander, 1.7% were Latino or Hispanic, 1.1% were African American, 0.3% were American Indian or Alaska Native, and 3.1% identified as “two or more races” or “other.” Thirty percent (30.2%) of the sample reported annual family incomes at or below US$50,000, 44.5% reported annual family incomes between US$51,000 and US$100,000, and 25.3% reported annual family incomes greater than US$100,000. Due to the small number of sexual minorities (n = 17) in the original sample (n = 371), and that only heterosexual DV was portrayed on Jersey Shore and 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom, these participants were removed from the analyses because the impact of viewing heterosexual portrayals of DV in reality television may be different for sexual minorities.

Procedure

Participants were recruited from the psychology department participant pool at a medium-sized New England University. Data were collected between January 2012 and April 2013. These data come from a larger study investigating the stages of leaving an abusive relationship. In this article, we use data from the overall sample, not just women reporting abuse, to examine perceptions of reality television depicting DV. Criteria for inclusion in the larger study required that participants identify as a woman and that they had been in a dating relationship in past 6 months. To avoid sampling bias, no mention of abuse or violence was included in the study description that was posted as a part of the solicitation message in the online recruitment system. Participants arrived to the research laboratory and completed the survey in a group setting that consisted of 10 to 15 women; a female research assistant administered the surveys. Participants provided informed consent prior to completing a paper and pencil survey and were made aware that the survey included items related to aggression in relationships. To avoid priming participants, terms such as “dating violence” and “domestic violence” were not included in the consent form. Study participants received course credit in exchange for their participation in the study. Debriefing information was provided to participants following completion of the survey. All study procedures were approved by the university’s institutional review board (IRB) prior to initiating the study.

Measures

DV victimization and perpetration

The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) was used to identify the frequency with which women had experienced DV victimization and perpetration in their current or most recent relationship. Items assessed physical (12 items; for example, “pushed or shoved me”), sexual (five items; for example, “made me have sex without a condom”), and/or psychological (10 items; for example, “called me fat or ugly”) DV victimization. Please note, one item on alcohol- or drug-facilitated sexual assault was added to the scale (i.e., my partner had oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse with me while I was asleep or passed out due to alcohol or drugs) and two items on controlling behavior were added to the scale (i.e., “made you describe where you were every minute of the day” and “would not let you do things with other people”). The same items were used to assess physical (12 items; for example, “I pushed or shoved my partner”), sexual (five items; for example, “I made my partner have sex without a condom”), and/or psychological (10 items; for example, “I called my partner fat or ugly”) DV perpetration. Response options for all items range from “never” to “more than 20 times,” and were scored continuously, consistent with Straus et al.’s (1996) recommendations. Thus, participants received an overall DV victimization score, representing the total number of DV victimization experiences from their current or most recent partner, and a similar score of DV perpetration.

Attitudes toward DV

The Attitudes Toward Female Physical Dating Violence (ATFPDV) and Attitudes Toward Male Physical Dating Violence (ATMPDV) subscales of the Attitudes Toward Dating Violence Scales (ATDVS; Price, Byers, & The Dating Violence Research Team, 1999) were used to assess attitudes toward men’s use of physical DV toward women (39 items; for example, “Some girls deserve to be slapped by their boyfriends”) and women’s use of physical DV toward men (37 items; for example, “Sometimes girls just cannot stop themselves from punching their boyfriends”). For each item, participants responded on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), indicating the degree to which they agree with the statement. A summed score was computed across the subscales to create a composite score with higher values indicating more accepting attitudes toward DV. Cronbach’s alpha was .93.

Perceptions of Jersey Shore and 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom

We constructed several close-ended and open-ended questions to assess perceptions of Jersey Shore and 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom, including the extent to which DV is portrayed on the shows and young women’s perceptions of these portrayals. We asked women how often they watched each show with response options as follows: (1) “I have never watched MTV’s Jersey Shore”; (2) “I have seen a few/some episodes of MTV’s Jersey Shore”; and (3) “I have seen most (or all) episodes of MTV’s Jersey Shore” (identical question was asked for 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom). We also measured the following constructs using 5-point Likert-type scales: (a) the show is fun to watch (1 = “not fun at all” to 5 = “extremely fun”), (b) the show is offensive (1 = “not at all offensive” to 5 = “extremely offensive”), and (c) the show is an accurate portrayal of relationships between young men and women (1 = “not at all accurate” to 5 = “extremely accurate”).

Finally, for both programs, women were asked to provide a written answer to the following: “There have been episodes of MTV’s Jersey Shore [16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom] that have depicted what some might label partner abuse, domestic violence, DV, or a similar term. Please provide your opinion about this show’s depiction of these types of behaviors and experiences.” Both open-ended responses were independently content analyzed (Krippendorff, 1980) by two raters (one faculty, one graduate student; the first and fourth authors of this article with some assistance from the second author during the initial creation of codes). In the first steps of content analysis, coders read participants’ responses several times to obtain the gestalt of the data. Second, the words and phrases that addressed the open-ended question were highlighted in an effort to identify and categorize all aspects of participants’ responses. Third, similarities and differences in participants’ responses were identified, which led to the emergence of categories of participant responses. The agreement rate among the coders was high (97.5% for Jersey Shore and 97.4% for 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom). When the coders disagreed, the discrepancy was discussed until mutual agreement was reached. Several codes emerged during the content analysis. The codes that emerged for both Jersey Shore and 16 and pregnant/Teen Mom will be discussed in-text (Tables 4 and 5 present all codes that emerged for each show). The codes included in the analyses are DV not depicted (e.g., there is no DV on the show), participant minimization of DV (e.g., DV is dramatized), type of DV portrayed (e.g., verbal abuse), accuracy of DV portrayed (e.g., whether DV portrayal reflects reality), MTV minimizes DV (e.g., that DV is not portrayed as serious), MTV depicts DV for ratings (e.g., DV is shown to increase ratings), MTV needs to do more (e.g., spread awareness about DV), MTV should not air DV (e.g., DV should not be shown on television), and participant negative emotions in reaction to DV (e.g., that participants experience negative emotions as a result to viewing DV).

Results

Among a sample of respondents, 42 women (11.9%) stated that they had never watched an episode of MTV’s Jersey Shore, 60.2% (n = 213) said that they have seen a few/some episodes, and 28% (n = 99) said that they had seen most or all episodes. Among women who had seen at least a few episodes of Jersey Shore (selecting out women who had never seen the program), women thought, on average, the program was somewhat offensive and somewhat fun to watch, and not an accurate portrayal of relationships between young women and men (see Table 1). Seventy-one women (20.1%) of the sample stated that they had never watched an episode of MTV’s 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom, 59.9% (n = 212) said that they had seen a few/some episodes, and 20.1% (n = 71) said that they had seen most or all episodes. Among women who had seen at least a few episodes of 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom (selecting out women who had never seen the program), women thought, on average, the program was not at all to somewhat offensive, not at all to somewhat fun to watch, and not at all to somewhat of an accurate portrayal of relationships between young women and men.

Table 1.

Mean and Standard Deviations of Study Variables.

Variable	M (SD)	Range
Jersey Shore
Fun	2.85 (1.19)	1-5
Offensive	3.60 (1.05)	1-5
Accurately portrays relationships	1.70 (0.85)	1-5
16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom
Fun	2.55 (1.23)	1-5
Offensive	2.36 (1.15)	1-5
Accurately portrays relationships	2.69 (1.06)	1-5
DV perpetration	8.75 (19.73)	0-675
DV victimization	15.88 (32.27)	0-675
ATMPDVs	57.05 (12.97)	39-195
ATFPDVs	57.09 (15.58)	37-114
ATDVS total	113.85 (29.94)	76-380

Note. Frequency of viewing Jersey Shore or 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom and DV perpetration, DV victimization, and accepting attitudes toward DV. DV = dating violence; ATMPDV = Attitudes Toward Male Physical Dating Violence; ATFPDV = Attitudes Toward Female Physical Dating Violence; ATDVS = Attitudes Toward Dating Violence Scale.

ANOVA tests were conducted to examine whether never watching any episodes, seeing a few episodes, or seeing all or most episodes of Jersey Shore or 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom related to accepting attitudes toward DV, a history of DV victimization, and a history of DV perpetration. The analyses revealed that the amount of Jersey Shore that participants had watched was not significantly related to accepting attitudes toward DV, F(2, 331) = 0.45, p > .05; a history of DV perpetration, F(2, 341) = 1.17, p > .05; or a history of DV victimization, F(2, 348) = 1.20, p > .05. Similarly, the analyses revealed that the amount of 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom that participants had watched was not significantly related to accepting attitudes toward DV, F(2, 331) = 0.54, p > .05; a history of DV perpetration, F(2, 341) = 1.12, p > .05; or a history of DV victimization, F(2, 348) = 1.20, p > .05.

Perceptions of Jersey Shore or 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom and DV perpetration, DV victimization, and attitudes toward DV

A series of correlational analyses were conducted using the surveys of DV attitudes and DV experiences, and perceptions regarding the extent to which Jersey Shore or 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom is fun to watch, offensive, and accurate portrayals of relationships. Only women who had seen the shows “a few/some episodes” or “most (or all) episodes” were included in the analyses.

Jersey Shore

Correlation coefficients for the variable of interest relative to Jersey Shore are shown in Table 2. Among women who had seen “a few/some episodes” or “most (or all) episodes” of Jersey Shore, a significant and negative relationship was found between the show being fun to watch and the show being offensive. Women who ranked the show as fun to watch ranked the show as less offensive. Among the same sample, a significant and positive relationship was found between rating the show as fun to watch and rating the show as accurately portraying relationships. This suggests that there is an association between finding the show fun to watch and the belief that it is an accurate account of reality. Rating the show as offensive was also significantly and negatively related to the perception that the show accurately portrays relationships. Perhaps finding the show offensive makes individuals think the show is a less accurate portrayal of reality in general. Higher levels of perceiving Jersey Shore as fun to watch was significantly positively associated with a history of DV perpetration and a history of DV victimization. In addition, rating the show as offensive was positively and significantly associated with lower acceptability of physical DV against females and lower acceptability of DV in general. Perhaps this correlation can be explained by the fact that there have been incidents of DV on the show and people with lower acceptability of violence might find the portrayal of that violence offensive. Finally, perceptions of whether the show accurately portrays relationships was not found to be significantly associated with a history of DV perpetration, a history of DV victimization, or attitudes toward DV (including ATMPDV, ATFPDV, and ATDVS).

Table 2.

Perceptions of Jersey Shore and DV Attitudes and Experiences.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Fun to watch	—
2. Offensive	−.22***	—
3. Accurately portrays relationships	.23***	−.14*	—
4. DV perpetration	.15*	−.06	.08	—
5. DV victimization	.12*	−.06	.07	.59**	—
6. ATMPDVs	.06	−.11	.07	.27**	.14*	—
7. ATFPDVs	.06	−.12*	.10	.34**	.16**	.70**	—
8. ATDVS total	.06	−.13*	.09	.32**	.15*	.90**	.94**	—

Note. For all scales, higher scores are indicative of more agreement to the items in the constructed assessment. DV = dating violence; ATMPDV = Attitudes Toward Male Physical Dating Violence; ATFPDV = Attitudes Toward Female Physical Dating Violence; ATDVS = Attitudes Toward Dating Violence Scale.

p < .05. **p < .01.

16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom

Correlation coefficients for the variable of interest relative to 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom are shown in Table 3. A significant and negative relationship was found between rating the show as fun to watch and thinking it is offensive. A significant and positive relationship was found between perceiving the show as fun to watch and thinking it accurately portrays relationships. In addition, finding the show offensive was negatively and significantly associated with the perception that the show accurately portrays relationships. These findings are similar to what was found relative to Jersey Shore. Finally, a history of DV perpetration, a history of DV victimization, and attitudes toward DV (including ATMPDV, ATFPDV, and ATDVS) were not found to be significantly related to perceptions about the show (i.e., fun to watch, offensive, or accurately portrays relationships).

Table 3.

Perceptions of 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom and DV Attitudes and Experiences.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Fun to watch	—
2. Offensive	−.33**	—
3. Accurately portrays relationships	.33**	−.22**	—
4. DV perpetration	.04	.03	.05	—
5. DV victimization	.09	−.01	.08	.60**	—
6. ATMPDVs	.02	−.04	.11	.17**	.10	—
7. ATFPDVs	−.04	.05	.02	.26**	.12**	.65**	—
8. ATDVS total	−.04	.02	.05	.22**	.11	.89**	.93**	—

p < .05. **p < .01.

Depiction and Perception of DV in Jersey Shore and 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom

Although similar qualitative themes emerged for Jersey Shore and 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom, each show was coded separately as the categories were determined from the data (not a priori). Furthermore, some women had only seen Jersey Shore, and some women had only seen 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom. A presentation of the content analytic results for Jersey Shore and the content analytic results for 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom are discussed below (sample quotes for Jersey Shore are displayed in Table 4 and for 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom in Table 5). Respondents were excluded from the analyses if they (a) had never watched the show (n = 42, Jersey Shore; and n = 71, 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom); (b) provided no written response to the open-ended question (n = 14, Jersey Shore; and n = 23, 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom); and (c) provided an answer that was too unclear to code (n = 10, Jersey Shore; and n = 5, 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom). Thus, the following analyses will focus on a sample of n = 267 women who have seen Jersey Shore and n = 237 women who have seen 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom.

Table 4.

Sample Quotes for Perceptions of Dating Violence Portrayed on Jersey Shore.

Coding Category	Quotes
DV not depicted	“I don’t think the show really depicts actual acts of domestic violence etc.”“I have not seen an episode with that.”“Nothing on the show has ever seemed like abuse to me, reckless would be the proper term.”
Participant minimization of DV	“When people are drunk, the alcohol stimulates stupid fights, until they hit one-another I believe it’s not abuse.”“I do not personally agree with the sexual abuse and violence on this show, but television does not guide real life situations (ex: viewers do not base their life decisions on what happened in Jersey Shore).”“I don’t think it is that serious in the show, happened rarely and is not that big of a deal. Happens to many people.”
Type of DV portrayed	“I believe the relationships depicted show emotional & psychical abuse due to the extreme amount of fighting, swearing, and yelling between characters, as well as drunk sex. This show also displays physical abuse such as slapping your partner.”“Yes, some of the partners get into actual fights or verbal fights which are kinda scary to think they actually do that”“The episodes I have seen show the characters getting drunk, taking random people home with them, and calling a cab when they’re finished—so yes I can agree that this shows abuse.”
Accuracy of DV portrayal	“That seemed accurate to an extent. I’ve never experienced physical violence like that, more sexual pressure, but I’m sure it happens.”“I believe that some relationships are definitely not healthy and that the production dramatizes those events, making things worse.”“The show is filming what goes on in the one house, these types of things happen in the real world so they’re not going to take it out of the show!”
MTV minimizes DV	“They make it seem as if it’s supposed to be funny or entertaining to watch couples fight. How is that entertaining if you’re watching people feel hurt & degraded?”“These behaviors are really wrong and depicted in a way that makes them seem normal. MTV makes this abuse entertaining which in unrealistic and a horrible portrayal of relationships.”“To give a free place to live, money and fame who emotionally, physically and sexually abuse each other is wrong, immoral and disgusting. That is exactly what the Jersey Shore does.”
MTV depicts DV for ratings	“I think the show depicts the violence as positive in a way. The producers want fights because it increases ratings. People want to watch people more dysfunctional than them.”“Depictions of these actions draw people in somehow I find that’s why Jersey Shore shows them. They want more viewers.”“It was staged to get more of an audience and publicity.”
MTV needs to do more	“It’s disgusting and I think they should send these people to therapy. The Situation always takes advantage of drunk girls. Snookie got punched they need to tell viewers in advance how awful the situations are.”“The show probably doesn’t discourage that the way it should.”“I think that abuse is different for everyone, and again it’s a TV show so some is not reality, but I do not agree at all w/ domestic violence. I don’t think they should allow it on the show, or that action should be taken on the show to fix it.”
MTV should not air DV	“The show allows these scenes of abuse to be put on their show as if it’s all okay and normal when really it isn’t. People watching the show think that kind of behavior is okay when it isn’t.”“These episodes should not be aired, and if they are, they should has a warning.”“The show obviously shouldn’t portray that. It is disgusting. The show needs to be taken off the air.”
MTV portrays DV as wrong or bad	“They show that that is not what a normal, healthy relationship should be like.”“The show shows how verbal abuse is just as bad as physical abuse.”“They show it on TV but I don’t think that is making people think it is okay. I think if anything it is showing them how gross and ill-mannered these people are.”
Help for DV	“I don’t see the need to show it. At least when they do there are help hotlines available.”“Obviously, some relationships like this exist, but I don’t believe it makes light of such relationships. If anything the cast helps those who needs it, showing you need to support victims + get abusers help.”“Although it was nothing too extreme there were on or two cases in which domestic violence was portrayed but think they did a good job dealing with it because they showed a number to call for help if it is really happening.”
DV and alcohol connections	“When people are drunk, the alcohol stimulates stupid fights, until they hit one-another I believe it’s not abuse.”“They get drunk and act violent, so do many people.”“I think they are not actual abuse at all. Half the time they’re drunk anyways.”
Participant negative emotions in reactions to DV	“Yes sometimes it is abusive & it is very sad that it is on television.”“I strongly disagree with putting behavior like this on TV. Some people out there are going to think all of that is okay and healthy because it is on TV. None of that is okay.”“Cheating boyfriends on the screen only make it okay for men watching to think they can do it too without consequences. It’s ridiculous that people behave the way that they do and depressing that people idolize the characters.”

Note. DV = dating violence.

Table 5.

Sample Quotes for Perceptions of Dating Violence Portrayed on 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom.

Coding Category	Quotes
DV not depicted	“I haven’t seen abuse. Unless you mean drug abuse in that case refer to Janelle.”“I have never seen any with partner abuse.”“I don’t think it really depicts those types of issues.”
Participant minimization of DV	“Its dramatized and not always real. It happens it shouldn’t be a huge deal, if it is don’t watch it.”“I think Teen Mom is somewhat violent but not much because there has only been domestic violence with 1 mom out of the 4. For the most part focuses on the struggles in their life not the violence.”“There has been some bad ones, but I guess because it is on TV it doesn’t seem as bad as in real life.”
Type of DV portrayed	“The couples yell at each other constantly, sometimes hitting one another and then they go out and party and leave the baby at home w/ grandparents.”“I definitely see that there is verbal abuse on that show and frankly it is disgusting that some of it takes place in front of their kid.”“There has been domestic violence and fighting between a few partners. They have had verbal and mental abuse sometimes physical.”
Accuracy of DV portrayal	“It shows the non-glamorous hard times they go through. They show what it’s like to not have support or money etc.”“It is somewhat accurate, but it’s hard to say because there is always a camera rolling.”“Its dramatized and not always real. It happens it shouldn’t be a huge deal, if it is don’t watch it.”
MTV minimizes DV	“They make abuse seem okay when it is not, I’m extremely offended by that. Trashy is not classy.”“I think they also portray it to be okay which is not right.”“I feel the show doesn’t make these issues seem as serious as they actually are.”
MTV depicts DV for ratings	“Americans love Drama. We will say its awful and should be stopped in public but secretly we watch teen mom for the fights.”“They enhance it for more drama and publicity.”“Again, it’s for the viewers and I find the abuse extreme most times, not needed, and possibly out of context however it is not okay.”
MTV needs to do more	“These were not exaggerated or dramatized but still did not push for the help needed and as a public event should be used to take advantage of spreading the message that its not okay.”“I have seen at least 1 episode of this and I think this couple should have been taken off of the show + put into counseling instead of the show bringing more attention to it.”“The show shouldn’t show that, and if they do they should explain why its bad and where people can go to get help.”
MTV should not air DV	“It’s stupid. No ‘reality’ show should depict this kind of stuff.”“Female abuse is just as bad as male abuse. But to show it on TV is truly terrifying.”“For me it is uncomfortable to see others going through negative experiences especially when a child is involved so I do not think that it is appropriate to show abusive relationships, etc. on MTV.”
Participant negative emotions in reaction to DV	“It’s scary to watch boyfriend and girlfriends to fight so violently.”“It’s sad that people act this way & it ends up on TV.”“It’s scary to watch boyfriend and girlfriends to fight so violently.”
MTV portrays DV as wrong or bad	“They made it clear whether it was from a man or a woman it is not ok.”“I think the show shows and promotes the fact that violence within relationships are not okay.”“MTV has done a good job and informing the public before and after each episode that violence should not be acceptable.”
Risk factors for DV	“I think the depiction is accurate. They have high stress levels and some have grown up with abusive parents as role models.”“One couple the girlfriend was physically abusive to the father. Also many of the girls’ relationships w/ their parents are abusive both ways.”“I think what they are showing happens in relationships. People become stressed or it is their personality type. But it does not make it ok by any means. They definitely could find better shows w/o dating violence on TV.”
Help for DV	“I think they show it as not okay and always add help lines for violence at commercial breaks.”“I think the emotional abuse depictions are hard to watch, but one can learn something from maybe seeing it happening to someone else and decide to end the relationship or seek help.”“I think the show depicts these experiences in the hopes of providing advice for others going through similar situations.”
Shows (–) outcomes of DV	“The depictions demonstrate the wrong way to behave. Some of the people on the show have been charged for their abusive actions on the show which shows viewers the real consequences of partner abuse.”“I think that the producer did an okay job of making it evident that the abusive behavior was not acceptable, but the legal system also helped w/ that.”“There was an episode of teen mom where one mom was pushed, hit & shoved by her boyfriend. She broke up with him & pressed charges. I thought it was good she did but took too long.”“They make them seem terrible because Amber cannot even see her daughter because of her abusive actions.”

Note. DV = dating violence.

Jersey Shore

Relative to the codes of DV not depicted, a small minority of women (4.5%) stated they did not believe Jersey Shore depicted DV. In terms of participant minimization of DV, 6% of women made comments that demonstrated their own minimization of DV. For example, one participant stated, “I don’t think the show really depicts actual acts of domestic violence etc.” Another remarked, “Nothing on the show has ever seemed like abuse to me, reckless would be the proper term.” While these quotations represent a minority of cases, they demonstrate that for some women, the show’s depiction of DV is not real or it is does not fall within the purview of actual abuse. This also demonstrates that some women do not readily recognize DV behaviors. In addition, in relation to the code DV and alcohol connections, some participants (8.6%) identified connections among alcohol and DV on the show in a way that suggests excusing violence because of alcohol use. For instance, one participant stated, “When people are drunk, the alcohol stimulates stupid fights, until they hit one-another I believe it’s not abuse.”

For the type of DV code, nearly one in three women (32.6%) commented on the type of DV portrayed in Jersey Shore, typically mentioning verbal or physical DV, but rarely did women comment on the sexual DV in Jersey Shore. For instance, one participant stated,

I believe the relationships depicted show emotional [and] physical abuse due to the extreme amount of fighting, swearing, and yelling between characters, as well as drunk sex. This show also displays physical abuse such as slapping your partner.

Here, the participant acknowledges the depiction of physical (non-sexual) DV and verbal DV on the show. Perhaps the reason sexual DV is not discussed is because there are not instances of sexual DV depicted on the show. Thus, respondents rely on physical and verbal DV that is portrayed on the show to discuss DV more broadly. Another remarked on the severity of the violence stating, “Yes, some of the partners get into actual fights or verbal fights which are kinda scary to think they actually do that.” These quotations suggest that for some participants, DV on the show is both present and problematic.

Relative to the accuracy of DV portrayed code, 19% of women commented on the extent to which the show accurately portrayed DV. Among these individuals, 37.2% believed DV was accurately depicted, 58.8% believed it was inaccurate (e.g., exaggerated in scope, scripted), and 4.3% believed it was some combination of accurate and inaccurate. For instance, one participant stated, “I believe that some relationships are definitely not healthy and that the production dramatizes those events, making things worse.” Another wrote, “The show is filming what goes on in the one house, these types of things happen in the real world so they’re not going to take it out of the show!” These quotations suggest that the women perceive the show as portraying DV; however, there is a spectrum of the accuracy of those portrayals from DV being present (and being dramatized) to it being reality.

With respect to the codes of MTV minimizes DV, MTV depicts DV for ratings, and MTV needs to do more, some women were critical of MTV, stating that MTV depicts DV on Jersey Shore in a way that minimizes its severity (18.7%). As one participant states, “They make it seem as if it’s supposed to be funny or entertaining to watch couples fight. How is that entertaining if you’re watching people feel hurt & degraded?” However, 4.5% of respondents felt that MTV portrayed DV as “wrong” or “bad.” Participants also felt that MTV depicts DV on the show only to improve ratings (8.2%). For example, one participant remarked, “Depictions of these actions draw people in somehow I find that’s why Jersey Shore shows them. They want more viewers.” Another suggested that the violence portrayed in the show is done so in a positive light to inflate ratings, “I think the show depicts the violence as positive in a way. The producers want fights because it increases ratings. People want to watch people more dysfunctional than them.” Respondents also believed that MTV needs to do more (e.g., get help for characters on the show who are experiencing DV) when depicting DV on Jersey Shore (4.1%).

Interestingly, relative to the DV should not be aired code, 8.2% of women stated that DV should not be aired on Jersey Shore. One participant remarked, “The show allows these scenes of abuse to be put on their show as if it’s all okay and normal when really it isn’t. People watching the show think that kind of behavior is okay when it isn’t.” Finally, with respect to the participant negative emotions in reactions to DV code, roughly 7.9% of women also reported that they experienced negative emotions as a result of watching the show. As one participant remarked, “Yes sometimes it is abusive & it is very sad that it is on television.” While the participant did not state that she was sad about the content, she reflected that, in general, it is sad that abusive behavior is aired on television.

16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom

Relative to the codes of DV not depicted and participant minimization of DV, a small minority of participants (6.8%) stated they did not believe 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom depicted DV, and 3% of women made comments that demonstrated their own minimization of DV. As one participant remarked, “Its dramatized and not always real. It happens it shouldn’t be a huge deal, if it is don’t watch it.”

For the type of DV code, a little over one in 10 (16.5) women commented on the type of DV portrayed in 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom, and this was most commonly verbal or physical DV. One participant stated, “There has been domestic violence and fighting between a few partners. They have had verbal and mental abuse sometimes physical.” Relative to the accuracy of DV portrayed code, nearly 18% of women commented on the extent to which DV was accurately portrayed in 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom; among these individuals, 71.4% believed DV was accurately depicted, 23.8% believed it was inaccurate (e.g., exaggerated in scope, scripted), and the remaining 4.8% believed it was some combination of accurate and inaccurate. For instance, one participant remarked, “It is somewhat accurate, but it’s hard to say because there is always a camera rolling.” This suggests that while it may appear to be a real situation, the presence of the media might also play into the incident.

With respect to the codes of MTV minimizes DV, MTV depicts DV for ratings, and MTV needs to do more, some women were critical of MTV, stating that MTV depicts DV on 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom in a way that minimizes its severity (6.8%). For instance, one participant stated, “I think they also portray it to be okay which is not right.” Another participant said, “I feel the show doesn’t make these issues seem as serious as they actually are.” Roughly 5% of participants believed that the show depicts DV only to improve ratings and that MTV needs to do more (e.g., get characters on the show help) when depicting DV on 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom (3.8%). As one respondent remarked, “These were not exaggerated or dramatized but still did not push for the help needed and as a public event should be used to take advantage of spreading the message that its not okay.” In fact, relative to the DV should not be aired code, 5.9% of women stated that DV should not be aired on 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom at all. On the contrary, with respect to the MTV portrays DV as wrong or bad code, 11.8% of participants reported that they felt MTV portrayed DV as “wrong” or “bad” and, reflecting the help for DV code, this was often associated with information for viewers about how to get help for DV (e.g., hotlines) (10.1%). Finally, with respect to the participant negative emotions in reactions to DV code, 7.2% of participants reported that they experienced negative emotions because of watching the show.

Discussion

The researchers sought to assess college women’s perceptions of Jersey Shore and 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom and how these perceptions are related to DV attitudes and behaviors. Although the frequency with which young women viewed 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom and young women’s perceptions of these shows were unrelated to DV attitudes and behaviors, there were some significant attitudinal and behavioral correlates of Jersey Shore viewing frequency and perceptions. Specifically, DV victimization and perpetration were related to perceptions that the Jersey Shore was a fun show to watch while accepting attitudes toward female-perpetrated DV and accepting attitudes toward DV overall were negatively related to perceptions that Jersey Shore was offensive.

These findings may be explained by uses and gratification theory (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974), in that individuals with histories of DV and more accepting attitudes toward DV seek out media to reinforce their own preexisting attitudes and behaviors. Interestingly, the relationships between viewer perceptions and DV attitudes and behaviors were not detected with 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom while they were in Jersey Shore. Perhaps these divergent findings are explained by the fact that the shows depict DV in different ways. Jersey Shore is primarily focused on partying and sexual behavior, whereas 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom deals with teen pregnancy, dysfunctional familial units, and the difficulties of raising a child. It may be that participants in the sample better identified with the characters on Jersey Shore, given alcohol, partying, and the hook-up culture portrayed on the show, may be closer to most participants’ own social experiences in college. Nevertheless, it is surprising that young women in the sample generally perceived that 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom was more accurate in portraying DV than Jersey Shore, given research has found that the more realistic viewers perceive violence in the media to be, the more likely they are to engage in similar behaviors, or imitate what they see in media (Donnerstein et al., 1994).

Content analysis of open-ended responses regarding young women’s opinions about the shows’ portrayal of DV yielded a diversity of codes. Most participants believed that Jersey Shore and 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom depicted DV, although there was variability in how accurate these portrayals were perceived to be. It is interesting that across both television shows, young women who commented on the type of abuse almost always commented on the presence of physical and verbal DV. Perhaps this is because physical and verbal DV are portrayed on both shows while sexual DV may not be portrayed. Conversely, this lack of recognition may be due to the minimization of sexual assault, especially sexual assault that does not fit the cultural scripts of physically forced sex and/or rape perpetrated by a stranger (Littleton & Axsom, 2003). Indeed, most acts of sexual aggression in Jersey Shore are (a) use of alcohol to obtain sex by young men in the show and (b) engaging in sexual intercourse when both young men and young women are often highly incapacitated and even “blacked out” and thus cannot legally give consent.

It is interesting and worth mentioning that some young women pointed out that MTV purposely minimizes DV and needs to do more to address DV in both Jersey Shore and 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom. Similarly, nearly one in 10 women commented on the connection between alcohol and DV in Jersey Shore and interconnections among DV and teen pregnancy in 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom. All of this is promising because it demonstrates that some young women possess important knowledge about DV and are critically engaged with televisions portrayal of DV and how major media outlets often use violence to increase ratings (Hamilton, 2000). It is also interesting that some women, although not a lot, commented on the need to do more to help victims of DV in the shows and do more to educate viewers on the consequences of DV and how to get help for DV. Although MTV will often state that DV is unacceptable and provide resource information following an act of physical DV, this type of information is never provided for other forms of DV such as psychological or financial abuse, which are present in both shows.

While this study contributes to the understanding of young women’s attitudes and perceptions of DV in reality television, several limitations should be mentioned. First, the sample was demographically homogeneous which limits the generalizability of the findings. Future studies should consider using a more diverse sample to account for this limitation. Moreover, future research would benefit from examining sexual minorities perceptions of media portrayals of DV in same sex relationships, as this has been largely neglected in the literature to date and sexual minorities experience high rates of DV (Edwards et al., 2015). Second, the implementation of a non-experimental and retrospective design was a limitation to this study. Because the data used in this study are cross-sectional and non-experimental, we have no way of establishing temporal and causal relationship. While this is problematic, this study sought to explore associations between DV and viewing these shows. Thus, we cannot say that watching these shows influences the probability of DV victimization or perpetration; however, what we can say is that there is a relationship between finding Jersey Shore enjoyable to watch and DV. We can also say that many respondents perceived DV portrayals on these shows as problematic. These findings reveal that there is much more research needed on this topic. Third, while the study included quantitative and qualitative components, the qualitative questions were not in-depth and gave way to shorter participant responses.

In addition, viewers were not asked about their media consumption or preferences (i.e., preference for violent media; Boxer, Huesmann, Bushman, O’Brien, & Moceri, 2009), whether they felt they could identify with characters (Hoffner & Buchanan, 2005), their reasons for watching the shows (Lundy, Ruth, & Park, 2008), or their engagement with the shows (Kim & Rubin, 1997), all of which may contribute to the effects of viewing Jersey Shore and 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom. Future researchers would be advised to format questions that encourage more in-depth participant responses. Furthermore, there was well publicized controversy surrounding Jersey Shore and its portrayal of Italian Americans that may have influenced perceptions of the show. This controversy was not controlled for in the current study. Finally, although Jersey Shore is no longer on air, a spin-off with the original cast members called Jersey Shore Family Vacation begun airing in 2018 to document the lives of former cast members as they navigate marriage and parenthood. There are also spinoffs of the original Jersey Shore (i.e., Floribama Shore and international spin offs: Geordie Shore, Gandia Shore, Warsaw Shore, Acapulco Shore) and 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom (i.e., Teen Mom 2, Teen Mom 3, and Teen Mom OG), which continue to be popular surveillance genre shows on television. Thus, the findings of the current study are still relevant such that these programs continue to portray similar young adult relationships and lifestyles that often depict abusive and unhealthy relationships characterized by DV.

The findings of the present study offer important implications for DV prevention and media literacy programming. First, it is important to note that women in the study rarely commented on the presence of sexual violence in Jersey Shore. It may be that social scripts surrounding hook-up culture and sexual violence are harder to differentiate from an outsider’s perspective, when instances of sexual violence do not adhere to more traditional stranger rape scenarios. In addition, alcohol plays a large role in both college students’ casual sexual relationships (Paul & Hayes, 2002) and experiences of sexual violence victimization/perpetration (Calhoun, Mouilso, & Edwards, 2012), and college women typically do not consider the possibility of a consensual casual encounter turning into sexual assault (Littleton, Tabernik, Canales, & Backstrom, 2009). Given the media plays a crucial role in the sexual socialization of women, media literacy programming geared toward helping viewers better identify instances of sexual assault and understand how alcohol impairs individual’s ability to give consent should be explored further. Moreover, participants had quite divergent perceptions of the presence of DV in Jersey Shore and 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom, which suggests that group media literacy programming may be a potentially efficacious intervention to help viewers become more critical consumers of the media and influence norms surrounding dating, DV, and gender.

In addition, DV prevention programming efforts would likely benefit from the inclusion of media literacy components (Whitaker, Murphy, Eckhardt, Hodges, & Cowart, 2013). Media literacy programming has demonstrated effectiveness in altering media knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to other topics (e.g., sexual behavior, advertising?) (for a review, see Jeong, Cho, & Hwang, 2012, for a meta-analysis of media literacy interventions), suggesting it maybe an effective component in DV prevention efforts. In fact, violence prevention efforts have acknowledged the importance of being critical consumers of media (Bonomi, Nichols, Carotta, Kiuchi, & Perry, 2016). The inclusion of media literacy in DV programming to help viewers understand how the media influences expectations about appropriate behavior and the acceptability of aggression in dating relationships to resolve conflict should be explored further, to help viewers become aware of the socializing role of media and distinguish between truthful and misleading media messages. This is particularly important given prior research has suggested viewers of reality television, especially women, tend to engage in what researchers refer to as critical apathy (Teurlings, 2010) or trained incapacity (Burke, 1965; Stern, 2009); that is, viewers think critically about the media (i.e., apply media literacy skills), but accept the status quo. For example, viewers may identify instances of non-consensual sex on Jersey Shore or emotional DV on 16 and Pregnant /Teen Mom as unacceptable behavior in dating relationships, yet rationalize DV on the show because television producers show DV to increase ratings. The apathy occurs when viewers adopt a mind-set that “that’s just how things are” and do not question what is in the media, what it means to see behaviors such as DV repeatedly, or their role as the consumer in perpetuating the normalization of DV and exploitation of women beyond the media (Stern, 2009). This is especially relevant to reality television, as many viewers watch reality television as a means of escaping (Lundy et al., 2008) and, as such, may be less inclined to think viewing could impact their own thoughts and beliefs.

In sum, the present study offers the first empirical examination of DV correlates and perceptions of two widely viewed reality television shows, Jersey Shore and 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom. Although in a number of ways the young women in the study provided critical thinking and analysis of the depiction of DV and other problematic behaviors (e.g., drinking to the point of blacking out), concerning associations (e.g., watching Jersey Shore more frequently was related to more DV victimization) and perceptions (e.g., lack of noticing sexual DV) were documented. Clearly, a ripe area for future research is to better understand and unpack these likely complex relationships using experimental and longitudinal methodologies and use this research to inform media literacy and DV prevention efforts and ultimately advocate for healthier portrayals of relationships in the media.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Kateryna Sylaska for her assistance with managing the data collection of this project and the many undergraduate research assistants who assisted with data collection and entry.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for this project was provided by the University of New Hampshire’s College of Liberal Arts Dean’s Office.

ORCID iD

Katie M. Edwards

Author Biographies

Kara Anne E. Rodenhizer, PhD, received her doctorate in psychology from the University of New Hampshire in 2018. Her research interests include (a) predictors of intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual violence (SV) perpetration; (b) IPV-related outcomes associated with exposure to sexually violent and sexually explicit media; (c) the role of the media in the sexual socialization of adolescents and emerging adults; and (d) media literacy programming targeting portrayals of gendered violence in the media. She is currently working as a program coordinator at a violence prevention and support services agency.

Laura Siller, PhD, is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of New Hampshire. Her work examines the risk and protective factors associated with various forms of violence including child abuse, intimate partner violence, and sexual violence. She also focuses on evaluation of intimate partner violence and sexual assault prevention and intervention efforts, especially for historically marginalized and under-served populations.

Ashley R. MacPherson, MA, is a doctoral student in counseling psychology doctoral program at Virginia Commonwealth University. She completed her bachelor’s degree in psychology at the University of New Hampshire in 2015, and then attended Boston College to earn a master’s degree in mental health counseling in 2017. Her research interests include health behavior change and habit formation, particularly in regard to eating behaviors, exercise, and sleep.

Katie M. Edwards, PhD, is an associate professor of psychology and women’s studies and faculty affiliate of Prevention Innovations Research Center and the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire (UNH). Her interdisciplinary program of research focuses broadly on better understanding the causes and consequences of interpersonal violence, primarily intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual assault (SA) among adolescents and emerging adults. Specific areas of current research focus on risk and protective factors for IPV and SA perpetration and victimization and factors that facilitate or hinder bystander action in situations of IPV and SA; disclosure, leaving, and recovery processes among survivors of IPV and SA; and individuals’ reactions to participating in IPV and SA research. She uses this research data to develop, implement, and evaluate IPV and SA prevention, intervention, and policy efforts. She is especially interested in understanding and preventing IPV and SA among historically marginalized and silenced populations, such as sexual minority youth and Native American youth. Her work has been funded by NIH, CDC, NSF, and DOJ. She deeply values community partnerships grounded in participatory action principles, strong researcher and practitioner collaborations, and student engagement in all phases of the research.

References

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood. A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469

Aubrey

J. S.

Behm-Morawitz

Kim

(2014). Understanding the effects of MTV’s 16 and Pregnant on adolescent girls’ beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions toward teen pregnancy. Journal of Health Communication, 19, 1145-1160. doi:10.1080/10810730.2013.872721

Aubrey

J. S.

Olson

Fine

Hauser

Rhea

Kaylor

Yang

(2012). Investigating personality and viewing-motivation correlates of reality television exposure. Communication Quarterly, 60, 80-102. doi:10.1080/01463373.2012.641830

Behm-Morawitz

Lewallen

Miller

(2016). Real mean girls? Reality television viewing, social aggression, and gender-related beliefs among female emerging adults. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5, 340-355. doi:10.1037/ppm0000074

Bond

B. J.

Drogos

K. L.

(2014). Sex on the shore: Wishful identification and parasocial relationships as mediators in the relationship between Jersey Shore exposure and emerging adults’ sexual attitudes and behaviors. Media Psychology, 17, 102-126. doi:10.1080/15213269.2013.872039

Bonomi

A. E.

Nichols

E. M.

Carotta

C. L.

Kiuchi

Perry

(2016). Young women’s perceptions of the relationship in Fifty Shades of Grey. Journal of Women’s Health, 25, 139-148. doi:10.1089/jwh.2015.5318

Boxer

Huesmann

L. R.

Bushman

B. J.

O’Brien

Moceri

(2009). The role of violent media preference in cumulative developmental risk for violence and general aggression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 417-428. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9335-2

Burke

(1965). Permanence and change: An anatomy of purpose. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

Busselle

R. W.

(2001). Television exposure, perceived realism, and exemplar accessibility in the social judgement process. Media Psychology, 3, 43-67.

10.

Calhoun

K. S.

Mouilso

E. R.

Edwards

(2012). Sexual assault among college students. In McAnulty

R. D.

(Ed.), Sex in college (pp. 263-288). Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Publishing Group.

11.

Coyne

S. M.

(2016). Effects of viewing relational aggression on television on aggressive behavior in adolescents: A three-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 52, 284-295. doi:10.1037/dev0000068

12.

Coyne

S. M.

Nelson

D. A.

Graham-Kevan

Tew

Meng

N. K.

Olsen

J. A.

(2011). Media depictions of physical and relational aggression: Connections with aggression in young adults’ romantic relationships. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 56-62. doi:10.1002/ab.20372

13.

Coyne

S. M.

Robinson

S. L.

Nelson

D. A.

(2010). Does reality backbite? Physical, verbal, and relational aggression in reality television programs. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54, 282-298. doi:10.1080/08838151003737931

14.

de Graaf

. (2013). Alcohol makes others dislike you: Reducing the positivity of teens’ beliefs and attitudes toward alcohol use. Health Communication, 28, 435-442. doi:10.1080/10410236.2012.691454

15.

Donnerstein

Slaby

R. G.

Eron

L. D.

(1994). The mass media and youth aggression. In Eron

L. D.

Gentry

J. H.

Schlegel

(Eds.), Reason to hope: A psychosocial perspective on violence & youth (pp. 219-250). Washington, DC: U.S. American Psychological Association.

16.

Edwards

K. M.

Sylaska

K. M.

Barry

J. E.

Moynihan

N. M.

Banyard

V. L.

Cohn

E. S.

. . . Ward

S. K.

(2015). Physical dating violence, sexual violence, and unwanted pursuit victimization: A comparison of incidence rates among sexual-minority and heterosexual college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 580-600. doi:10.1177/0886260514535260

17.

Gibson

Thompson

Hou

Bushman

B. J.

(2016). Just “harmless entertainment?” Effects of surveillance reality TV on physical aggression. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5, 66-73. doi:10.1037/ppm0000040

18.

Gorman

(2010, September 28). “Jersey Shore” effect: MTV surges with record 30% ratings increase in third quarter 2010. TV by the Numbers. Retrieved from http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2010/09/27/jersey-shore-effect-mtv-surges-with-record-30-ratings-increase-in-third-quarter-2010/65311/

19.

Hamilton

J. T.

(2000). Channeling violence: The economic market for violent television programming. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

20.

Hoffner

Buchanan

(2005). Young adults’ wishful identification with television characters: The role of perceived similarity and character attributes. Media Psychology, 7, 325-351. doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0704_2

21.

Horton

Wohl

R. R.

(1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction. Psychiatry, 19, 215-229.

22.

Jeong

Cho

Hwang

(2012). Media literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Communication, 62, 454-472. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01643.x

23.

Katz

Blumler

J. G.

Gurevitch

(1974). Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In Blumler

J. G.

Katz

(Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 19-32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

24.

Kim

Rubin

A. M.

(1997). The variable influence of audience activity on media effects. Communication Research, 24, 107-135. doi:10.1177/009365097024002001

25.

Kohlman

Baig

Balice

DiRubbo

Placencia

Skale

. . . Aquino

(2014). Contribution of media to the normalization and perpetuation of domestic violence. Austin Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, 1(4), 1-6.

26.

Krippendorff

(1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

27.

Lewis

Weaver

A. J.

(2016). Emotional responses to social comparisons in reality television programming. Journal of Media Psychology, 26, 65-77.

28.

Littleton

Tabernik

Canales

E. J.

Backstrom

(2009). Risky situation or harmless fun? A qualitative examination of college women’s bad hook-up and rape scripts. Sex Roles, 60, 793-804. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9586-8

29.

Littleton

H. L.

Axsom

(2003). The rape and seduction scripts of university students: Implications for rape attributions and unacknowledged rape. Sex Roles, 49, 465-475. doi:10.1023/A:1025824505185

30.

Lundy

L. K.

Ruth

A. M.

Park

T. D.

(2008). Simply irresistible: Reality TV consumption patterns. Communication Quarterly, 56, 208-225. doi:10.1080/01463370802026828

31.

Martins

Jensen

R. E.

(2014). The relationship between “Teen Mom” reality programming and teenagers’ beliefs about teen parenthood. Mass Communication and Society, 17, 830-852. doi:10.1080/15205436.2013.851701

32.

Miller

D. C.

(2018). Coming of age in popular culture: Teenagers, adolescence, and the art of growing up. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

33.

Nabi

R. L.

(2007). Determining dimensions of reality: A concept mapping of the reality TV landscape. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 51, 371-390. doi:10.1080/08838150701307111

34.

Nabi

R. L.

Biely

E. N.

Morgan

S. J.

Stitt

C. R.

(2003). Reality-based television programming and the psychology of its appeal. Media Psychology, 5, 303-330. doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0504_01

35.

O’Leary

K. D.

(1999). Developmental and affective issues in assessing and treating partner aggression. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 6, 400-414.

36.

Paul

E. L.

Hayes

K. A.

(2002). The casualties of “casual” sex: A qualitative exploration of the phenomenology of college students’ hookups. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 639-661. doi:10.1177/0265407502195006

37.

Price

E. L.

Byers

E. S.

, & The Dating Violence Research Team. (1999). The attitudes towards dating violence scales: Development and initial validation. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 351-375. doi:10.1023/A:1022830114772

38.

Rennison

C. M.

Welchans

(2000). Intimate partner violence (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report). U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.445.3105&rep=rep1&type=pdf

39.

Riddle

De Simone

J. J.

(2013). A Snooki effect? An exploration of the surveillance subgenre of reality TV and viewers’ beliefs about the “Real” real world. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2, 237-250. doi:10.1037/ppm0000005

40.

Scharrer

Blackburn

(2018). Is reality TV a Bad Girls Club? Television use, docusoap reality television viewing, and the cultivation of the approval of aggression. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95, 235-257.

41.

Seidman

(2010). Ratings juggernaut “Jersey Shore” helps MTV to best summer ratings in three years. Retrieved from https://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/network-press-releases/ratings-juggernaut-jersey-shore-helps-mtv-to-best-summer-ratings-in-three-years/

42.

Seabrook

R. C.

Ward

L. M.

Giaccardi

(2019). Less than human? Media use, objectification of women, and men’s acceptance of sexual aggression. Psychology of Violence, 9(5), 536–545. doi:10.1037/vio0000198

43.

Sotonoff

(2011, November 4). Study says girls affected by reality TV. Daily Herald. Retrieved from http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20111103/news/711039954/

44.

Stern

D. M.

(2009). Consuming the fractured female: Lessons from MTV’s the real world. Communication Review, 12, 50-77. doi:10.1080/10714420802716353

45.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316. doi:10.1177/019251396017003001

46.

Suarez

Gadalla

T. M.

(2010). Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis of rape myths. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2010-2035.

47.

Teurlings

(2010). Media literacy and the challenges of contemporary media culture: On savvy viewers and critical apathy. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 13, 359-373. doi:10.1177/1367549410363202

48.

Ward

L. M.

(2016). Media and sexualization: State of empirical research, 1995-2015. The Journal of Sex Research, 53(4-5), 560-577.

49.

Ward

L. M.

Carlson

(2013). Modeling meanness: Associations between reality TV consumption, perceived realism, and adolescents’ social aggression. Media Psychology, 16(4), 371-389.

50.

Whitaker

D. J.

Murphy

C. M.

Eckhardt

C. I.

Hodges

A. E.

Cowart

(2013). Effectiveness of primary prevention efforts for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 4, 175-195. doi:10.1891/1946-6560.4.2.175

51.

Wolfe

D. A.

Wekerle

Scott

Straatman

Grasley

Reitzel-Jaffe

(2003). Dating violence prevention with at-risk youth: A controlled outcome evaluation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 279-291.

52.

Wright

P. J.

Randall

A. K.

Arroyo

(2012). Father–daughter communication about sex moderates the association between exposure to MTV’s 16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom and female students’ pregnancy-risk behavior. Sexuality & Culture, 17, 50-66. doi: 10.1007/s12119-012-9137-2.x

53.

Wright

P. J.

Tokunaga

R. S.

(2016). Men’s objectifying media consumption, objectification of women, and attitudes supportive of violence against women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(4), 955-964.