Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We assessed the appeal ofrealilv TV hy asking 239 adults to rate themselves on each of 16 basic motives using the Reiss Profile standardized instrument and to rate how much lhe \\ watched and enjoved various reality television shows. The results suggested that the people who watched reality television bad above-av-erage trait motivation to feel self-important and. to a lesser extent, vindicated, friendly, free of morality, secure, and romantic, as compared with large norma-tive samples. The results, which were dose-dependent, showed a new method for studying media. This method is based on evidence that people have the potential to experience 16 different joys. People prefer television shows that stimulate the feelings they intrinsically value the most, which depends on Individuality. Reiss (2000a) put forth a comprehensive theory of human motivation, variously called sensitivity theory or the theory of 16 basic desires. The theory borrows heavily from the philosophical ideas of Aristotle (trans. 1953), but it differs from Aristotle in its analysis of individuality. Previous reports on sensitivity theory ad-dres.sed diverse applications such as spirituality (Reiss. 2000, in press), personality (Havercamp & Reiss, 2003), interpersonal relationships (Engel, Olson, & Patrick, 2002), p.sychopathology (Reiss & Havercamp, 1996), developmental disabilities (Dykens & Rosner, 1999; Lecavalier & Tasse, 2002), and sports (Reiss, Wiltz. & Sherman, 2001). In this article, the theory is applied to understanding reality tele-vision. The conceptual approach of this article may be expanded someday into a general theory of culture. Sensitivity theory holds that people pay attention to stimuli that are relevant to the satisfaction of their most basic motives, and they tend to ignore stimuli that are irrelevant to their basic motives. A person motivated by a strong desire for social contact, for example, often looks for opportunities to socialize., whereas a person
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reiss et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: