"Study" perpetuates out-of-date thinking about TV
I have tried to ignore this "study" done by two sociologists at the school where I earned a Ph.D. in American Studies, the University of Maryland, College Park.
But I see this survey -- it is not really a study as much as a survey of other surveys -- getting picked by international press services as "evidence" of America as a nation of hopeless TV addicts who are both pathetic and ignorant as they get their daily dose of short-term, instant gratification.
And smoke is coming out of my ears that such wrong-headed, out-of-date thinking should be perpetuated even in the wake of tens of millions of viewers actively engaging in the recent presidential campaign through their TVs -- an engagement that took them into the voting booths.
Here is the university's summary of the study. But, guessing some readers won't get to the end of it, let me raise a few of the many issues I have.
First, people have been socialized through the media and studies like this to feel they have to apologize for watching TV, so it is not surprising that the researchers find evidence of such apology in the answers respondents give even as they acknowledge the pleasure TV offers.
But the last paragraph, is the killer with one of the researcher using the old "addiction" metaphor to sell the results. University of Maryland sociologist Steven Martin likens the short, temporary pleasure of television to addiction: "Addictive activities produce momentary pleasure and long-term misery and regret," he says. "People most vulnerable to addiction tend to be socially or personally disadvantaged. For this kind of person, TV can become a kind of opiate in a way. It's habitual, and tuning in can be an easy way of tuning out."
I am also troubled by the sociologists going beyond their data when they talk about how time might be more "usefully" spent.
Read it at your own risk. If you post a comment, and I will be happy to argue about it until my fingers fall off from typing.
COLLEGE PARK, Md. - A new study by sociologists at the University of Maryland concludes that unhappy people watch more TV, while people who describe themselves as "very happy" spend more time reading and socializing. The study appears in the December issue of the journal Social Indicators Research.
Analyzing 30-years worth of national data from time use studies and a continuing series of social attitude surveys, the Maryland researchers report that spending time watching television may contribute to viewers' happiness in the moment, with less positive effects in the long run.
"TV doesn't really seem to satisfy people over the long haul the way that social involvement or reading a newspaper does," says University of Maryland sociologist John P. Robinson, the study co-author and a pioneer in time use studies. "It's more passive and may provide escape - especially when the news is as depressing as the economy itself. The data suggest to us that the TV habit may offer short-run pleasure at the expense of long-term malaise."
TV VIEWING DURING A FINANCIAL CRISIS
Based on data from time use surveys, Robinson projects that TV viewing might increase significantly as the economy worsens in the next few months and years.
"Through good and bad economic times, our diary studies, have consistently found that work is the major activity correlate of higher TV viewing hours," Robinson says. "As people have progressively more time on their hands, viewing hours increase."
But Robinson cautions that some of that extra time also might be spent sleeping. "As working and viewing hours increase, so do sleep hours," he says. "Sleep could be the second major beneficiary of job loss or reduced working hours."
STUDY FINDINGS AND DATA
In their new study, Robinson and his co-author, University of Maryland sociologist Steven Martin, set out to learn more about the activities that contributed to happiness in people's lives. They analyzed two sets of data spanning nearly 30 years (1975-2006) gathered from nearly 30,000 adults:
UNHAPPY PEOPLE VIEW SIGNIFICANTLY MORE
Robinson and Martin found that the two sets of data largely coincided for most activities - with the exception of television.
From the General Social Survey, the researchers found that self-described very happy people were more socially active, attended more religious services, voted more and read more newspapers. By contrast, unhappy people watched significantly more television in their spare time.
According to the study's findings, unhappy people watch an estimated 20 percent more television than very happy people, after taking into account their education, income, age and marital status - as well as other demographic predictors of both viewing and happiness.
UNHAPPY PEOPLE ARE HAPPY WITH TV
Data from time diaries told a somewhat different story. Responding in "real time," much closer to daily events, survey respondents tended to rate television viewing more highly as a daily activity.
"What viewers seem to be saying is that while TV in general is a waste of time and not particularly enjoyable, 'the shows I saw tonight were pretty good,' " Robinson says.
The data also suggested to Robinson and Martin that TV viewing is "easy." Viewers dont have to go anywhere, dress up, find company, plan ahead, expend energy, do any work or spend money in order to view. Combine these advantages with the immediate gratification offered by television, and you can understand why Americans spend more than half their free time as TV viewers, the researchers say.
Unhappy people were also more likely to feel that they have unwanted extra time on their hands (51 percent) compared to very happy people (19 percent) and to feel rushed for time (35 percent vs. 23 percent). Having too much time and no clear way to fill it was the bigger burden of the two.
AN ADDICT'S FIX
Martin likens the short, temporary pleasure of television to addiction: "Addictive activities produce momentary pleasure and long-term misery and regret," he says. "People most vulnerable to addiction tend to be socially or personally disadvantaged. For this kind of person, TV can become a kind of opiate in a way. It's habitual, and tuning in can be an easy way of tuning out.
Comments
Have they forgoten that media has another side to it: it reflects what is going on in society! So why would people watch more television if it's highlighting of their problems even more? This is definitely some old school thinking on these sociologists' part.
Posted by: J. Idokogi | November 18, 2008 7:56 PM
The UofM study misses the point that the purpose of television is to make us unhappy and then to provide solutions to our discomforts through advertising. As former FCC commissioner Nicholas Johnson pointed out nearly 40 years ago, the viewer is not the consumer of television, he is the product, offered to advertisers at a cost per thousand. (see his book, How To Talk Back to Your Television Set).
Without the bad news of "News", the end-of-the-world melodramas of "Dramas" or the embarrassment provoking unlikelihoods of "Comedies," advertisers would not have the properly conditioned audience to pitch their products to.
That is why Marshall McLuhan, also almost 40 years ago, called advertising television's "good news" or "gospel."
So the concern over the so-called unhappy viewer misplaced. Sure unhappy people may naturally gravitate toward television, but why they do so has to do with the underlying purpose of television broadcasters.
As for the effect of television on viewers, I won't comment except to note cartoonist Charles M. Schultz's take on the impact of television on children:
Charlie Brown: Do you think television is harmful to children?
Linus: I don't know. I've never had one fall on me.
Hi, thanks so much for the Chaarlie Brown dialogue. Brilliant. Z
Posted by: Robert K. Blechman | November 19, 2008 2:09 PM
I know people who binge on television and are uninterested in the sociology, literature, politics, etc. behind tv . But i also know a lot of people who actively participate in what they watch. These viewers anayze the shows inside and out, even finding miniscule signs and motifs that reveal a lot about the meanings of the show, that often the creators themselves were not aware of. They also add another dimension by contributing profound writing and criticism on internet fan sites. To dismiss tv is to deny the engaging and educational side as well as endorse the ridiculous notion that tv is simply a means of selling goods and propaganda to the masses (not true!- many viewers press mute when commercials come on) Tv is a layered text in which the power remains with the viewer...
Wow. Thanks for this "layered" analysis. I'm serious. Great stuff. Thanks you. Z
Posted by: Anonymous | November 19, 2008 4:58 PM
Yes, I could see the smoke coming out of your ears over the radio! Good thing he wasn't in the studio with you....
Posted by: max843 | November 19, 2008 8:21 PM
This post has been featured at THEWEEK.com as Best Opinion- We really enjoyed your take on the TV/Depression story!
Thanks. As a longtime reader of The Week, I urge all the readers here who have not visited to check out www.theweek.com. Z
Posted by: Harold | November 20, 2008 3:57 PM
"Analysis" find flaw in study!
Not.
You may indeed have a valid point, but if so, you're failing to make it. Putting the word "study" in quotes does not prove that this paper's conclusions are unsound. A jibe is not a rebuttal.
As far as I can tell, the study's conclusion is supported by their data: TV watching is a statistically significant differentiator between happy and unhappy people. If you don't like that conclusion, fine — but that doesn't make it a bad study. And "I don't like it" seems to be what your criticism boils down to.
I agree that the article does a disservice to the science and strays beyond the study's actual content, but so does your blog post. You insinuate that the study paints TV watchers as "ignorant," or would deny the positive role of TV in such things as political engagement; it does no such thing.
Popular reporting generally does a miserable job representing science, and you're not helping matters any.
I thought the NY Times did a better job than either you or the article you copied and pasted. (Where is it from, BTW? Attribution, please.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/health/research/20happy.html
Take, for example, the nuance of this paragraph:
There's one reporter trying to get it right.Posted by: Paul | November 20, 2008 9:39 PM