1

4 Reality TV as a moral laboratory:5 A dramaturgical analysis of The Golden Cage

6

7 TONNY KRIJNEN and ED TAN8 E-mails: krijnen@fhk.eur.nl; E.S.H.Tan@uva.nl.

9

10 Abstract

11 Public debates on reality television often address the display of emotion12 and immoral conduct. Television scholars have recently proposed that while13 reality television offers its audience an opportunity to learn valuable les-14 sons, they rarely address the issue of the morality of the genre. In this15 contribution, we analyze the display of emotion and immoral conduct in16 the Dutch reality show The Golden Cage. Reality television is viewed as17 constituting a ‘moral laboratory’. The question guiding our research re-18 volved around the kind of exercise this moral laboratory provides for. A19 dramaturgical study of the display of actions and emotions as part of their20 project-related actions was used to answer this question. Results indicate21 that moral issues and emotions were continuously at stake, and immoral22 conduct appeared to be coupled with pleasurable emotions. It is concluded23 that the laboratory of The Golden Cage is at least equally suited for24 exercising autonomy and identity performance under competitive pressure25 as it is for the simulation of moral conflicts.

26 Keywords: Reality TV, emotion, morality, dramaturgical analysis

27 Introduction

28 Reality television couples an immense popularity with loathing criti-29 cisms. Criticism of the Dutch reality program The Golden Cage (De30 Gouden Kooi) has been notably harsh. The resistance the program met31 was illustrated by Dutch Christian Democrat parliamentarians’ call to32 advertisement agencies to boycott the ad blocks scheduled around the33 program. Professional journalists and cultural critics expressed their dis-34 approval of the program in the newspapers, accusing the program of an35 unprecedented exhibition of immoral attitudes and conduct. In addition,36 fear was expressed that the program exploited emotions, which were37 presented so intrusively as to eliminate any moral reflection on the part38 of the audience. The government was incited to appeal to the producers’39 responsibility with regard to the protection of public morality (cf. Effting

1 Communications 34 (2009), 449�4722 03412059/2009/034�04493 DOI 10.1515/COMM.2009.027 � Walter de Gruyter1

1 450 Tonny Krijnen and Ed Tan

40 and Du Pre 2006; Evers, 2006). When the U.S. network ABC expressed41 interest in buying the program rights, an international wave of moral42 indignation was ignited on blogs and online news sites (cf. Wade, 2007;43 Adalian, 2007). The Golden Cage’s intellectual author John de Mol re-44 sponded laconically, emphasizing the format’s pedagogic function: ‘Just45 as [The Golden Cage] demonstrates how sick you feel the day after drink-46 ing abuse, it also shows that someone playing mean games is presented47 with the bill by the end of the day. Now is this a way to promote bully-48 ing? No, it shows that if you play at bowls, you must look for rubbers.49 Negative conduct generates positive learning effects’. (Busato, 2007).50 Reality television, or more precisely, the Reality Game Show (RGS)51 is a hybrid genre that combines elements of a game show (competition)52 with those of a documentary (featuring common people who are contin-53 uously filmed). In The Golden Cage, 10 people agree to stay at a luxuri-54 ous villa for an indefinite period of time. Each person must pay a55 g 10,000 entrance fee in order to participate. Participants are treated56 like millionaires in the villa: Maids attend to their needs, a chef prepares57 the meals, and they even have a sports instructor. Like in other RGSs,58 participants are eliminated from competition for various reasons. The59 last remaining participant wins g 1,000,000 and the villa. A psychologi-60 cal twist is added to the traditional RGS format: While participants have61 to collaborate, they must ultimately eliminate each other (Dovey, 2008).62 That is, participants have to live together and therefore need to cooper-63 ate, but they also have to force each other out of the villa in order to64 win. There are two ways to eliminate participants: Participants can either65 vote for another participant to leave � here unanimity is required for66 this decision, thereby reinforcing cooperation. Alternatively, participants67 can leave the villa voluntarily, whereby they lose the entire entrance fee.68 Clearly, participants will only leave voluntarily when they can no longer69 bear the situation; therefore, joint pressure is needed to eliminate a par-70 ticipant. Dovey (2008) notes that this format turns the game into a psy-71 chological experiment, which tends to fuel excessive emotional display.72 To quote Annette Hill (2005, p. 1): ‘Everyone cries. Everyone votes. The73 winner bursts into tears of gratitude, excitement and something else74 known only to them’.75 In recent years, cultural studies contributions have been devoted to76 addressing the reproach that RGSs are merely a sensationalist, vacuous77 display of emotions. The key concept in these contributions is that of78 authenticity. Analyses of Big Brother, the predecessor to The Golden79 Cage, have resulted in the proposal that such a display of emotions80 offers access to the inner life of participants and helps viewers to obtain81 knowledge about ordinary people and the ups and downs they face in82 daily life. When the participants perform more authentically, viewers are1

1

1 Reality TV as a moral laboratory 451

83 more likely to take the shows seriously and view them as presentations84 of meaningful life stories. Additionally, the audience acquires insights85 into which display of emotions is socially desirable in a diversity of situa-86 tions (Biltereyst, 2004; Hill, 2005; Aslama and Pantti, 2006). Moreover,87 authenticity has been given a more prominent place than emotion in88 explaining the popularity of the RGS. Van Zoonen and Aslama (2006)89 and Hill (2005) pointed out that a major gratification of RGSs for the90 audience is to discover the limits of participant authenticity. The audi-91 ence may, to varying degrees, endorse the producers’ claim to reality of92 the situations shown (i. e. that situations are not staged). Additionally,93 the audience may interpret participants’ performance in the situations94 shown as more or less authentic. This criterion may be more important95 for the appeal of the RGS than ‘reality’. According to Hill (2005) and96 Van Zoonen and Aslama (2006), the appeal of Big Brother is in the97 playful discovery of the distinctions between participants’ role perform-98 ance, as imposed by a contrived situation, and showing their authentic99 selves. The format has been designed to promote performance. Partici-100 pants are perceived to ‘act naturally’ in the sense that they can remain101 true to their actual selves (Hill, 2005). Participants who remain true to102 their actual selves may act as role models for viewers. The added value103 of authentic emotions is therefore in their potential use for identity con-104 struction.105 While the analysis of the role of authenticity adds a great deal to106 understanding the emotions in The Golden Cage, it does however not107 address the objection to the display of immorality. Moral reflection is at108 best addressed obliquely as in Hill’s (2005) observation that the meaning-109 ful stories offered to viewers of RGSs may incite ethical reflections. The110 lack of consideration of moral reflection in the RGS becomes more con-111 spicuous when considering cultural studies’ general dismissal of the idea112 that consumers of popular culture lack critical moral thinking as an113 elitist prejudice (Tavener, 2000). The irrelevance of moral issues to the114 reality genre also cannot be grounds for its omission. A content analysis115 study by Krijnen (2007) shows that moral themes and reflections abound116 in both fiction and non-fiction television programs. RGSs contains just117 as many moral reflections as other types of programs in the sample118 researched. The present study aims at exploring the moral conduct dis-119 played by participants in The Golden Cage in relation to the emotions120 portrayed and thereby also addresses the moral concerns raised in the121 public debate that are under-researched in the field of cultural studies.122 Although we have mentioned the reproaches of immorality and excess123 of emotions, their relationship has yet to be made clear. In line with124 the dominant philosophical conception of morality that considers moral125 decisions to be made on the basis of rational considerations, many peo-1

1

1 452 Tonny Krijnen and Ed Tan

126 ple subscribe to the assumption that emotion stands in the way of moral-127 ity (Rachels, 2003; Johnson, 1993). From this point of view and given the128 basic concept of the RGS, which features participants in a continuous129 relationship crisis producing incessant emotion, there appears to be little130 room for moral themes or deliberation. If it is accepted that there are131 important pedagogical elements in RGSs, the question then arises as to132 whether moral themes and deliberations can be part of RGSs and how133 they relate to the participants’ emotions. In this contribution, we investi-134 gate the claim of moral lessons as inherent to the content of an RGS,135 focusing particularly on the role of emotion.

136 Emotion and morality: The moral laboratory

137 The relation between emotion and morality has traditionally been char-138 acterized as problematic. According to Kantian philosophy, emotion139 stands in the way of moral reflection, which should be a purely rational140 exercise. Having become the norm in modernity (Poole, 1991), this view141 has lost ground in recent years to conceptions originating from romantic142 ideas of moral sentiment in drama and literature. Philosophers of litera-143 ture, such as Richard Rorty (1989) and Martha Nussbaum (2001), elabo-144 rate on the contribution of emotion in fiction to one’s own moral capaci-145 ties. Fiction provides readers with imaginary situations experienced via146 the character’s individual subjectivity, calling forth strong emotional val-147 uations and subsequent moral reflections (Nussbaum, 2001). For exam-148 ple, emotions such as indignation or revulsion involve disapproval of a149 character’s conduct, raise readers’ awareness of their own ethical beliefs,150 and may result in moral reflection.151 Media psychologists express related views on the role of emotion in152 entertainment (Tan, 2008). Stories, shows, and games simulate difficult153 situations that could occur in real life and evoke strong emotion in enter-154 tainment users. The emotions incite an investigation of situations in155 imagine and a consideration of alternative solutions. In doing so, they156 employ social skills that are difficult to be trained in real life (Mar and157 Oatley, 2008; Kramer, 2008). Investigations instigated by emotions em-158 phatically include moral judgment and reflection (e. g. Nussbaum, 2001;159 Haidt, 2003; Rozin et al. 1999; Raney, 2005). As a form of entertainment,160 reality television offers a variety of scenarios and, at the same time,161 constitutes attractive food for the audience’s imagination, including the162 moral imagination. As stressed by Biltereyst (2004), RGSs involve the163 audience in the participants’ emotions and consequently in moral consid-164 erations (Nussbaum 2001). In this sense, RGSs may be considered as an165 emotional-moral laboratory for the audience (cf. Hakemulder, 1998). In166 the laboratory emotions may help rather than hinder viewers to concern1

1

1 Reality TV as a moral laboratory 453

167 themselves with moral issues. However, it is not clear to what extent the168 reflection invited by the RGS is moral and for what kind of moral exer-169 cise the RGS laboratory is exactly equipped. How the audience reflects170 on participant emotion and morality is an issue to be assessed by audi-171 ence studies. This study of The Golden Cage is concerned with the show’s172 content. It attempts to shed light on the nature of the displays of partici-173 pant emotions and how it might contribute to any moral exercise.

174 The dramaturgy of emotions and morality in The Golden Cage

175 The design of the emotional-moral laboratory can be described using176 basic concepts from dramaturgy � the analysis of strategies and tactics177 employed by playwrights to instigate desired audience reactions in the178 theatre. We see terms from this art form as appropriate for covering179 the content typically conveyed by RGSs because emotions and actions180 displayed by RGS participants can be seen as performances, in the well-181 known sense dating back to Goffman’s (1959) analysis of the presenta-182 tion of self in everyday life. In Goffman’s theory, persons perform as183 they do because they are watched by other participants in the interac-184 tion. In an RGS, the idea of performance is present because participants185 are aware that they are continuously being watched both by other parti-186 cipants and a real audience (Corner, 2002; Hill, 2005).187 Because performance is the realm of theatre theory rather than of188 narrative models that involve mediation of story events by a narrator, we189 propose to analyze participant actions through a dramaturgical analysis190 rather than with narrative models. According to Beckerman (1979),191 whose analytic approach we have adopted, theatre is conscious self-pres-192 entation. Actors play a role; their dramatic skills also include finding a193 balance between exhibition of the character and of the actor’s self. The194 same mixture may be seen in reality television where participants are195 aware of an audience that watches them.196 There is an overall dramaturgy of the RGS in which the participants’197 performances fit. Rather than simply neutrally mediating between ‘real-198 ity’ and what the audience sees on the screen, producers of an RGS199 make strategic decisions equivalent to those that playwrights make with200 regards to obtaining specific audience effects. First, there is the basic201 situation of the RGS. Producers of reality shows contrive a situation in202 which participants are forced to react to one another (Dovey, 2008).203 Physical containment of participants prevents them from moving away204 from situations and from others, which is close to a state of imprison-205 ment (in a ‘cage’).206 Second, there is selection. Each RGS episode is in fact a strongly207 condensed compilation of a huge set of 24 � 7 registrations. An average1

1

1 454 Tonny Krijnen and Ed Tan

208 episode of The Golden Cage lasts 22 minutes (1.5 % of the total minutes209 in a day). This means that producers make far-reaching decisions in210 terms what is the audience gets to see.211 Third, strategic explanations are deployed. Episodes present individ-212 ual participants addressing the audience as in theatrical asides (directly213 providing access to their experiences through monologues into the cam-214 era). In addition, producers provide interpretations of the action in215 voice-overs. These interventions are scripted so as to strengthen the dra-216 matic impact of selected actions. Last but not least, episodes are embel-217 lished with sound effects that underscore events or steer the interpreta-218 tion of participant’s actions, as in a Hollywood drama.219 The dramaturgy of RGSs thus strives toward ‘emotion television’, just220 as drama aims at stirring emotions, offering situations that may occur221 in everyday life in extremely magnified form and thereby providing for222 an emotional-moral laboratory. As in traditional forms of drama, par-223 ticipant action can be understood in terms of one all-encompassing con-224 flict branching out into various clashes between the characters’ individ-225 ual ambitions. To the extent that RGS participants act their strategic226 part like characters in a theatrical play, their performance can be de-227 scribed accordingly. Beckerman (1979) proposes to define character228 strivings as ‘projects’. The concept of project enables us to link actions,229 emotions, and morality in the analysis of participant action. A project230 is ‘the concrete focal point of a character’s energy, and it is the project231 that the performer enacts’ (1979, p. 71). Performers do not need to be232 fully conscious of projects � this is the reason why Beckerman coined233 the term project instead of motivation. According to Beckerman, pro-234 jects are at the root of goals and plans that shine through a character’s235 actions. They are therefore the driving forces behind character action236 and emotion. Projects meet with resistance, as Beckerman puts it, and,237 we add, are therefore linked with emotions. Projects inevitably involve238 moral considerations because they are themselves subject to moral judg-239 ment � Is it right to desire to profit monetarily at the expense of240 others? � or because realizing one’s engagement to a certain project241 requires choices between means to an end, one more acceptable than242 others. Because Beckerman does not provide a complete list of possible243 projects, it is left to the drama analysis to propose them for a given244 play. Theatrical projects originate in the playwright’s mind; in reality245 television, we argue, they result from the artificial situation into partici-246 pants have been forced. In adapting the term this way, we propose five247 projects that seem necessary in response to the requirements that the248 producers of The Golden Cage have imposed on participants.249 Table 1 summarizes projects shared by participants in reality shows250 such as The Golden Cage. We discuss these in relation to typical emotions1

1

1 Reality TV as a moral laboratory 455953

954 Table 1. Dramaturgy of the Reality show955956957958

959 Dramatic Participant projects Selected participant emotions960 conditions:961 Reality show962 features965966967968

969 Imprisonment Coping � joy� With boredom � helplessness� With lack of contact with � sadness

outside world, esp. � angerrelevant persons � intimacy

� nostalgia� guilt

983

984 Organized, Maintaining positive self � joy985 controlled, partly image (feeling of control, � pride986 staged situation initiative) � shame987 shown to wide � helplessness988 audience Self presentation toward � guilt

audience: creating desirableimage

1001

1002 Game Win competition � joy� Strengthen position � sadness� Engage in and maintain � frustration

alliances; break up � gloatingalliances � Schadenfreude

Obtain power � pride� pain� humiliation� shame� envy� guilt

102010211022

251 and their inherent moral considerations of the participants involved in252 the projects.

253 1) Coping with the condition of near-imprisonment involves dealing with254 the lack of perspective and uncertainty. Participants tend to feel sad255 and helpless or hopeful and optimistic. Severed from their home envi-256 ronment, participants cope with boredom, long for their loved ones257 and worry about family and friends as well as their own affairs. Moral258 choices arise from this project. Whereas reproachable conduct in-259 cludes rousing others by provoking incidents and rows, laudable ways260 of coping include looking for diversion in other activities, such as261 hobbies or setting up a small business.262 2) Maintaining a positive self-image. The show’s set-up includes staging263 effects on participant, which cause them do things they would not1

1

1 456 Tonny Krijnen and Ed Tan

264 under other circumstances. The assignment set by the show’s condi-265 tions is to maintain a feeling of control and a sense of justification of266 one’s own goals, decisions, and actions. Shame and guilt may result267 from failing to correctly act according to one’s norms. Morally right268 ways to deal with the assignment is to subject one’s own actions and269 attitudes to moral reflection. An obvious but reproachable way out270 is to abstain from moral reflection altogether (‘This is just who I am’).271 3) Maintaining a positive public image is a project related to the former.272 Participants have to avoid loss-of-face vis-a-vis other participants in273 order to stay ahead. Participants in The Golden Cage have access to274 media; favorable coverage can function as a strategic asset in retain-275 ing positions in the participant pecking order. Pride and shame are276 the emotions associated with success and failure in realizing this pro-277 ject. Examples of morally desirable conduct would be showing one’s278 weaknesses and doubts and confronting those who show condemna-279 ble conduct. Reproachable conduct would be defaming others in or-280 der bolster ones own appearance.281 4) Winning the competition. As in every competitive game, the main282 goals are to improve one’s own position and undermine that of283 others. In this particular game, obtaining support from others and284 engaging in coalitions are subprojects. Emotions relating to competi-285 tion are joy when you succeed, disappointment if you do not, and286 Schadenfreude if others fail. Morally positive conduct would be to287 persuade others to leave voluntarily. However, moral ‘purity’ is diffi-288 cult to attain because participants are never free from self-interest in289 persuading others to leave. There is no lack of less laudable ways to290 win, in fact, there are as many as there are ways for making life291 difficult or unbearable for others participants.292 5) Obtaining power is a project in itself and is also related to all other293 projects: While it is instrumental to winning the competition and fa-294 cilitates surviving near-imprisonment, it also tends to help in becom-295 ing popular among participants and the audience and in retaining a296 positive self-image. Having power is accompanied by pleasant emo-297 tions and pride � wanting it, on the other hand, by frustration, help-298 lessness, sadness, and the like. Getting power is surrounded with299 moral issues by eminence. Dubious means abound, with intimidation300 and scheming among the readily available options. ‘Cleaner’ ways301 include attracting respect through ‘natural’ preponderance, leader-302 ship, and ‘character’, as well as ‘spontaneously’ giving and receiving303 friendship.

304 The dramaturgy of reality television is the force that drives participants305 to act according to these projects. The resulting permanent conflict man-1

1

1 Reality TV as a moral laboratory 457

306 ifests itself in continual clashes between participants and crystallizes in307 gradually developing outcomes. According to drama theorists ranging308 from Aristotle to Pfister (1977), spectators of drama necessarily develop309 a desire to follow these complications. It may be argued that viewers of310 reality television have such a desire in common with drama spectators311 and moral reflections perhaps occur in the course of the activity. For312 this to be the case, 1) causes for emotional-moral reflections residing in313 the emotion display have to be identified and 2) displayed emotions must314 be telling of participants’ moral attitudes. Starting from the dramaturgi-315 cal model, we analyzed how displayed emotions can, on the one hand,316 be linked with projects and with (im)moral conduct shown by partici-317 pants on the other. The furnishing of The Golden Cage as an emotional-318 moral laboratory and the quality thereof could thus be made visible.

319 Method

320 23 episodes of The Golden Cage were analyzed with regard to displayed321 emotions, participant interactions, and underlying projects. Because the322 complexity and dynamics of the situations developed across the entire323 cycle of programs, three subsequent seasons have been selected for324 analysis. 10 episodes were taken from the initial season of the program325 (Season 1, October 2�13 2006), that included the premier, eight from a326 later season (Season 2, March 26�April 4 2007), and five from the last327 weeks of the The Golden Cage series (Season 3, April 21�April 25 2008).328 Additionally, the grand finale, an event broadcasted live, was analyzed.329 Full transcriptions1 were made of the episodes (except of the grand330 finale that contained mostly material from previous episodes) and were331 analyzed using the Atlas.ti program. The analysis followed Strauss and332 Corbin’s (1998) ‘grounded theory’ approach. Elements of the dramatur-333 gical model functioned as ‘sensitizing concepts’. The voice-over was334 taken into the analysis as providing orientation to interpretations of335 events and participant projects. An essential feature of the grounded336 theory is that the analysis is considered as interplay between researchers337 and data (Strauss and Corbin 1998). The sensitizing concepts evolve over338 time. In order to prevent results from becoming be mere subjective inter-339 pretations, grounded theory is structured by three stages of analysis.340 During each stage, the researchers have set up a sensitizing process in341 which all steps in that stage were discussed and fine-tuned.342 In stage one, each episode was studied separately in order to describe343 the appearance of emotions and moral conduct. As taken from the psy-344 chological literature, verbal utterances and facial expressions may be345 used to identify emotions from audiovisual recordings. We freely346 adopted the general theory of facial expression of basic emotions from1

1

1 458 Tonny Krijnen and Ed Tan

347 Ekman et al. (1982). The use of the theory for analyses of film has been348 discussed in Tan (2005) who concludes that facial expression in film may349 be used as an index of emotions if the communicative context of film,350 notably acting in relation to a plot, is taken into account. The coding of351 emotions does not distinguish ‘authentic’ from ‘acted’ emotions or any352 mixture of the two. The basic emotion schema was not used as a formal353 coding device; for this reason, no reliability checks were performed �354 instead, it was used as the starting point for the sensitizing process. La-355 bels were assigned to emotions and actions. A limited set of so-called356 basic emotions like joy, surprise, fear, anger, disgust, and contempt could357 be clearly identified, as following Ekman et al. (1982), and were therefore358 taken as a starting point for coding. In the first instance, coding of359 emotions fell short of validity. A typical example was that of the partici-360 pant who smiled with joy, all the while repeatedly slapping another par-361 ticipant in the face in order to annoy him/her. Here a more complex362 emotion label, such as gloating, seemed more appropriate. Refinement363 of the crude basic emotion schema was added by involving dialogue364 in the analysis, making it possible to distinguish between more subtle365 emotional categories. Dialogue was decisive in the final labeling of emo-366 tions, as verbal expressions often tended to override facial expression367 and gesture. In stage two, similarities and differences between episodes368 were labeled, thereby resulting in a reduction of labels and adding nu-369 ance to emotions and moral actions. Furthermore, emotions were di-370 vided into (hedonically) ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ categories (cf. Ortony,371 Clore and Collins, 1988; Roseman, 2007). Positive emotions are pleasur-372 able to the experiencer, whereas negative emotions are painful. Although373 warnings against simplifications inherent in the distinction have been374 expressed (e. g. Frijda, 2007), the distinction in positive and negative375 emotions can be used when emotional experiences are predominantly376 pleasant or painful. The distinction also helped to relate emotions to377 projects (successes vs. failures) and to project related action intentions.378 This was achieved in stage three, which consisted of linking participant379 actions and interactions and emotions with projects � that is, adding380 project labels to action and emotion sequences. Furthermore, moral con-381 duct was associated with display of positive or negative emotions.

382 Results

383 The analysis showed that immoral conduct reigned supreme in The384 Golden Cage. By ‘immoral’, we mean participant actions (including ver-385 bal statements) resulting in another person’s detriment and accompanied386 by the actor’s positive emotions. In itself this result does not come as a387 surprise given the basic situation and the competition characteristic of1

1

1 Reality TV as a moral laboratory 459

388 the RGS and the wide rejection of the program as a baiting show. Inter-389 estingly, the coupling of evil action and pleasure seemed to be empha-390 sized by the producer using dramatic means like voice-over and sound391 effects.

392 Display of emotions

393 Participants’ display of emotions is near permanent. Every scene fea-394 tured emotion portrayed in images or apparent from dialogue. To give395 an impression, on average, an explicit emotion featured every six min-396 utes. The basic emotion schema was refined during the analyses. While397 the basic emotions surprise, disgust, and fear were virtually absent, anger398 and sadness had to be differentiated into milder and more project-spe-399 cific forms, like nostalgia, offence, and disappointment for sadness and400 irritation and grudge, and frustration for anger.401 Figure 1 presents frequencies of emotions. Anger, malice, joy, irrita-402 tion, frustration, and gloating occur remarkably frequently. Emotions403 are not equally distributed across analysis periods. Joy and malice were404 predominantly exhibited in the first period, while anger and gloating405 were in the second. In the third period, the variety of emotions had406 decreased and joy and gloating were dominant.407 What Figure 1 fails to convey is that positive emotions were exhibited408 much more frequently than negative ones. It was not uncommon for a409 participant to show anger and attack others with apparent pleasure. Pos-410 itive emotions coupled with aggression toward another participant con-411 stituted about two-thirds of coded emotional displays. Perhaps even

1025

1026

1027 Figure 1. Frequency of emotions per Analysed Period.1

1

1 460 Tonny Krijnen and Ed Tan

412 more telling is the emphasis in the program’s presentation on the emo-413 tions shown by the initiator of the interaction (typically anger and mal-414 ice) and under-representation of the victim’s reaction (e. g. fear, sadness,415 and anger). The impression was therefore created that The Golden Cage416 seemed to focus on malevolent pleasure of attackers, while downplaying417 the victims’ pain.

418 Projects

419 The projects ‘Coping with near-imprisonment’, ‘Positive self-image’,420 ‘Positive public presentation’, ‘Winning the competition’, and ‘Obtaining421 power’ proved largely sufficient for analyzing participant interactions.422 Interactions serving the gain of power occurred only in combination423 with ‘Winning the competition’ and the two projects were conflated for424 that reason. All scenes of The Golden Cage appeared to fit within the425 dramaturgical model, as they could be interpreted as serving an impor-426 tant goal as part of one of the projects. Figure 2 provides an overview427 of the frequencies of projects across periods. In line with expectations,428 ‘Winning the competition’ was featured most often, followed by ‘Positive429 self-image’.430 Figure 2 shows a seemingly dramatic decrease in the number of pro-431 jects in period 3. The explanation for this may be twofold: First, the432 participants had been told at the onset of this period that the show was433 to have a grand finale in three weeks time, lending urgency to the project434 ‘winning the competition’ at the cost of others. Second, the decrease may435 be related to the dominant role for the voice-over in this period.

1030

1031

1032 Figure 2. Percentages of Projects per Analysed Period.1

1

1 Reality TV as a moral laboratory 461

436 Coping with near-imprisonment

437 In order to survive, participants attempted to seek comradery and remain438 in touch with important others outside the villa. Seeking comradery in-439 volved actions such as gauging others without revealing too many clues440 regarding one’s identity and intentions. Maintaining contacts with the441 outside world required earning so-called contact-points, distributed by442 the particular week’s group leader during group meetings or in organized443 competition such as a game of golf.444 Participants had high spirits in the first period. They exchanged many445 ideas about how to deal with imprisonment and probing candidate446 friends. Open-minded listening to others and mutual support could be447 regularly observed. A conversation between Ilona and Natasia serves as448 an example. Natasia was offered the chance to win a sum of money449 (g 50,000) if she would enter The Golden Cage sooner than originally450 planned. She agreed and, as a consequence, could not say good-bye to451 her children the way she would have liked; now she longs desperately452 for them.453

454 Natasia: Yes, he [her partner Wilgo] was really right, he said to me, ‘Itlooks as if you are just in it for the money’. I thought I didthe right thing, love, I thought I did.458

459 Ilona: Yeah, you would love to call, I know …461

462 Natasia: Right, Ilona, but in all honesty, it really, really backfired sohard.465

466 Ilona: Oh, it did. I think we all feel this way … Yeah, that’s for sure.468 (TGC, October 2 2006)

469 Providing support and comfort can be regarded as opting for benevolent470 conduct. Participants in this interaction displayed positive as well as471 negative emotions. Natasia shows regret, guilt, and sorrow, but also re-472 lief in receiving support. Ilona, who offers her a shoulder to cry on,473 exhibits compassion. Actions of both parties, offering or accepting com-474 fort, seem to be morally right.475 In the second analyzed period seeking comradery appeared to involve476 less innocent strategies. Participants attempted to affiliate with another477 by blackening a third. What we did not foresee is that this line of con-478 duct also characteristically went hand in hand with positive emotions of479 the perpetrators. A typical example of pleasure in denigrating a partici-480 pant is a conversation by three participants with Huub, who has fallen481 in love with the villa’s cleaning woman Lieke. They join in expressing482 their doubts to Huub about the sincerity of Lieke’s intentions:1

1

1 462 Tonny Krijnen and Ed Tan483

484 Eric: That doesn’t say anything about proper intentions, it justlooks a bit over the top <silence> You really need to be care-ful because it could make both you and Lieke …488

489 Sylvia: But it just proves that …491

492 Eric: Incredulous …494

495 Sylvia: Everything testifies to … that it is just so.497 (TGC, April 2 2007)

498 In this scene, facial expressions convincingly show the speakers to be499 content with what they are doing. (Convincingly meaning that they500 either were or successfully pretended to be content due to limitations of501 coding. See Method section). The two scenes illustrate how period two502 appeared to offer a mirror image of what we observed in period one.503 When a participant needed support, actions to comfort her were replaced504 by rejection. That participants obviously enjoy their action seems mor-505 ally offensive.

506 Maintaining a positive self-image

507 Keeping an appropriate self-image turned out to be crucial for staying508 upright in The Golden Cage. ‘Self-disclosure’ scenes show participants509 revealing intimate details about themselves, sorting out their own moral510 limits, and justifying their choices. In contrast to self-presentations to511 others, participants attempted to account for their conduct in order to512 approve of themselves in the first place. The following monologue is513 illustrative. Nicolaas attempts to justify to himself his decision to vote514 against another participant’s request to keep a pet in the villa:515

516 Nicolaas: I believe it’s unfair to the rest of the group if somebody keepssomething dear to them. Some people love an animal, othersa human, and I think it’s unfair toward the others � so Ivoted against it. (TGC, October10 2006)

521 Monologues such as these are not addressed to other participants; how-522 ever, participants do address the show’s audience. Therefore, maintain-523 ing a favorable self-image was often difficult to distinguish from manag-524 ing one’s public image.

525 Positive self-presentation towards others

526 Creating and maintaining a favorable presentation of the self in order to527 solicit alliances within the villa and gain support from the audience528 seemed a continuous concern for the participants. Self-disclosures and1

1

1 Reality TV as a moral laboratory 463

529 regular conversations between participants proved effective means to530 this end. Acts of favorable self-presentation were generally causes of531 pleasurable emotions. For example, when Amanda probes the sincerity532 of Lieke’s feelings for Huub, Lieke corroborates the purity of her inten-533 tions.534

535 Lieke: Well ... isn’t it obvious? It just started as a fling, for everyoneis after Huub. [...] I admit it was sort of a game. But yeah, atsome point it got more serious than I planned.539

540 Amanda: Okay, I wonder whether I read it or not, but are you in love?542

543 Lieke: Yes, I am. If not I wouldn’t be here. (TGC, April 2 2007)

545 Lieke apparently tries to convince Amanda of her sincerity with a heart-546 felt confession � it started as a game. Lieke experiences positive emo-547 tions about her confession. She seems proud to speak up honestly and548 enjoys feeling in love.549 The participants’ preoccupation with the outside world’s views of550 them was conspicuous2. Moral referents, people one considers to be551 moral anchors (Krijnen, 2007), were apparently not only sought within552 the personal environment, but also in a wider social circle that is largely553 anonymous and irresponsive to the persons conduct. Emotions exhibited554 by the participants in The Golden Cage tend to differentiate according555 to this distinction. When persuading fellows of their righteousness, parti-556 cipants tended to feel content, whereas they tended to feel less at ease557 when managing their public image. The negative emotion potential of558 the latter situation can be clarified by the following example: Huub and559 Brian quarrel about Brian’s attempts to coerce his partner Amanda to560 take a pregnancy test. Although a display of power drives the clash,561 managing the outside world’s image of their selves is a major motive for562 the action of both participants.563

564 Huub: Because I care for Amanda and whenever I see someone cry-ing.567

568 Brian: So you care for Amanda, so you harass her?570

571 Huub: Come off it, lad <beep> what sort of place do you thinkyou’re in right here? When they talk about this and then shewill walk around there crying and that all fuels [the audiences’gloating opportunities]. And you say: I just haven’t given it athought; you prove it by saying ‘I want security first’ all thetime. There are more discrete ways to go about it than this.This way you have exposed Amanda, as you did so manytimes. You shouldn’t have!!! (TGC, March 29 2007)1

1

1 464 Tonny Krijnen and Ed Tan

580 Brian’s overt criticism of his conduct apparently angered Huub. His de-581 fensive emotion was a response to Brian’s disgracing Amanda in front582 of other participants. It also manifested a concern for the outside world’s583 judgment and likely condemnation not only of his actions, but also584 Amanda’s. Any participant can easily denounce another and a shared585 norm is that no one should. Similar emotional reactions shown by other586 participants seemed to imply a constant awareness of being watched and587 valued by the show’s audience. Strikingly, in the third period, the588 amount of ‘self-disclosures’ containing self-justifications or attempts to589 maintain a positive image toward others had almost vanished. It seemed590 as if this was deemed useless when it came to the final struggle.

591 Winning the competition

592 It stands to reason that the ultimate drive of each participant in The593 Golden Cage is to win the prize: the villa and one million euros. Its594 manifestations are numerous indeed, however direct attack and595 scheming are among the most popular strategies. The interactions con-596 cerned are predominantly sources of positive affect for the initiators,597 however unpleasant they may be to the viewer’s eyes � and the poor598 target’s! The attacker’s emotion framed by the camera inevitably sug-599 gested that he or she enjoyed it for its success, for its own sake, or for600 the effect it will have on the victim.601 All episodes frequently show the direct attack strategy. An example is602 a scene showing Natasia launching an instant attack on Nicolas and603 Sylvia who were involved in a conversation:604

605 Natasia: [entering, to Nicholas:] I’ll tell you one thing!607

608 Nicolaas: Yeah, what?610

611 Natasia: If you let me down while we are such a close group then weare enemies, and you can never make up for that!614

615 Nicolaas: Where do I go then? What am I going to do then?617

618 Natasia: Darling, listen. I have the feeling you are talking about me.All you can do is say: Natasia, no we are not.

621 (TGC, 6 October 2006)

622 Nicholas’ and Sylvia’s talk had nothing to do with Natasia whatsoever.623 The unpredictable aggression with which Natasia has the habit to con-624 front the other participants definitely proved to be advantageous; she625 stayed in The Golden Cage for a long time.626 Scheming involved using another participant as a pawn in undermin-627 ing a third participant’s position who was considered the real adversary.628 For instance, Huub and Brian both attempted to manipulate Amanda1

1

1 Reality TV as a moral laboratory 465

629 in order to weaken the other’s position. In the following example, it was630 Huub’s turn:631

632 Huub: It’s just <beep> Amanda, you know that yourself, trust yourown judgment and let Brian distort it as he pleases. I think, Ithink, by now you figured out what I am worth and you willjust see that confirmed from now on [...] And that’s the differ-ence between me and Brian actually, because Brian won’t evengive a fuck to protect you, he just uses you, and you know thatdamned well. (TGC, March 30 2007)

640 Huub had expressed earlier that he expected Amanda to leave the villa641 prematurely and therefore did not aim for a coalition with Amanda, but642 did need her to put Brian in place. Huub’s positive feelings could be643 inferred from his assertive tone at this point of the episode. A moment644 later he smugly addressed the audience in an aside:645

646 Huub: [... replaying a part of their conversation] I will never hurt you.And then she looked at me and she was so moved, and then,she said something like, ‘When I am with you? I want you justfor myself and I know you are not a guy like that’. And I saidyou know, ‘We can always talk about that’, and I looked deepinto her eyes. And she melted completely. And this morning, tobe honest, I really played with her feelings, so yes I am playinga very mean game. (TGC, March 30 2007)

655 The immoral action had two victims, first Amanda and then Brian. The656 example illustrates the display of malicious pleasure and gloating on the657 part of the offender as well as one particular way in which the victim’s658 reaction remains hidden from view. Naturally, the victims found out659 what was done to them only later and therefore their reaction was easy660 to omit. Consequently, skipping parts of the action is an additional661 means to keep reactions to attacks literally off-screen. Another possible662 aftermath of morally reproachable conduct, the offender’s regretful sec-663 ond thoughts were also not shown � assuming that they even occurred664 at all.665 Two participants were to be voted off The Golden Cage during the666 three weeks before the finale. This caused the participants to take drastic667 steps. For example, participant Huub decided to marry his girlfriend668 Claire (another participant). Huub openly admitted that he would never669 marry her if they had met outside The Golden Cage. Claire is only fea-670 tured as deeply in love and unaware of Huub’s main goal, even though1

1

1 466 Tonny Krijnen and Ed Tan

671 a visiting friend tries to discuss this issue with Claire. It can be argued672 that such extreme measures to win the competition also resulted in addi-673 tional pain for the victims.

674 The voice-over

675 The voice-over appeared to be a major procedure of The Golden Cage’s676 dramaturgy in emphasizing the coupling of evil actions with positive677 actor emotions. Consider the situation where Natasia launches a ‘down-678 with-Sylvia’-campaign:679

680 Voice-over: This is Sylvia’s first morning in the villa. Yesterday she wasappointed the tenth millionaire by majority vote. Everyonehas his or her own way to deal with the impact of herentering. Natasia, as always, has her heart on her sleeve.She won’t rest before Sylvia leaves the villa. She initiatesher anti-Sylvia campaign.687

688 Natasia: Maybe she is just tired of traveling and is looking for peaceand quiet.691

692 Ilona: But she can’t keep going on that way.694

695 Natasia: Oh well, I hope I can contribute to that.697

698 Ilona: For there is no quiet in here, you’re never uhhh.700

701 Natasia: Simply ignore her, do as if she doesn’t exist like all thosegnats on the wall, you know. Just pretend she doesn’t exist.

704 (TGC, October 9 2006)

705 The voice-over controls the interpretation of Natasia’s immoral actions706 by rendering the underlying goals and project explicit. The instrument is707 also used to convey the participants’ interests in actions and choices they708 make, and their enjoyment of these. At times, the voice-over seems to709 infer mala fide intentions where there are none, as in this scene.710

711 Voice-over: In De Gouden Kooi the millionaires can earn contact points.With these points they can call their loved ones or evenbring them to the villa. Natasia has decided to use her con-tact points to call her friend Wilgo. Her young son just hadan operation and, as a good mother, she should want toknow how he is doing. Well, that’s at least what you wouldexpect … (TGC, October 11 2006)

719 What really happens during the conversation however is that Natasia720 does show an interest in her son:1

1

1 Reality TV as a moral laboratory 467721

722 Natasia: Nat speaking, love. I miss you so much, my cute little fellow.I would love to go home. How did the operation go? Fine.The children, do they miss me too? I miss them terribly. Didmy little boy cry? Ah, how sad. (TGC, October 11 2007)

727 The voice-over seems to reflect the criticisms in the Dutch media of728 Natasia’s failure as a mother. Magnifying or insinuating reprehensible729 actions suggests the producers’ dissatisfaction with the game’s potential730 for invoking fascination in the audience.731 As noted before, the voice-over became more important over the year-732 and-a-half of the show’s broadcast. In the third period analyzed, most733 events were only discussed by the voice-over and it even appeared as if734 participants were there to underscore the voice-over’s story rather than735 the other way around. For example, it is not participant Jaap who is736 explaining his plans to disrupt Huub’s and Claire’s wedding, it is the737 voice-over:738

739 Voice-over: Jaap has once more turned into ‘Terror-Jaap’ and isscheming to disrupt the wedding. (TGC, April 21 2008)

742 The voice-over is accompanied by a view of four people sitting together743 enjoying a drink and discussing something. It is nighttime and their dis-744 cussion is inaudible to the viewer. Sound effects consolidate the voice-745 over’s interpretations. After the announcement, Jaap is shown talking746 to Brian while the music of the shower scene in the movie Psycho can747 be heard.748 Looking back at the manifestation of the projects, it appeared that749 managing one’s image somehow pervaded most actions and displayed750 emotions. It was noted before that the projects maintaining a positive751 self-image and positive self-presentation toward others were often diffi-752 cult to distinguish and we might combine these under the heading of753 creating and maintaining a favorable image. This project turned out to754 be crucial for survival and winning because participants’ images were755 constantly under fire. Participants’ image seemed a dear and essential756 possession, and perhaps even the prime object of contest. They flaunted757 their satisfaction when they had gained power, fiercely denied allegations758 and the impact of any attacks to they were subject, and justified their759 conduct after having dealt a blow to others.ConclusionFrom the content760 analysis we concluded that The Golden Cage is a typical RGS in that it761 provides its audience with a near-continuous series of emotional dis-762 plays. The program’s dramaturgy can be understood as imposing a set763 of projects on participants that inevitably come into conflict with one764 another. The clash is the source of emotion, just as in drama. In spite of1

1

1 468 Tonny Krijnen and Ed Tan

765 what critics of the format may believe, the register of emotions exhibited766 by participants appeared to be broader than merely excitement and an-767 ger. They varied widely from helpless loneliness to intentional forms of768 aggression. This leads us to assume that The Golden Cage constitutes an769 emotional laboratory providing its audience with a vast array of situa-770 tions in which they can observe participants, identify with them emotion-771 ally, and access their feelings and inner life.772 We interpret the functions of emotional display in the participants’773 performance as follows: A first function may be to create personae as in774 a drama. All emotional displays turned out to have a background in a775 limited number of projects that are linked with the set-up of the776 RGS. Whenever projects failed to produce conflict, the producers tended777 to act as a deus ex machina selecting the right scenes and boosting partic-778 ipant performances to conform to their projects (by inserting participant779 monologues and voice-overs). Participants on their part seemed to culti-780 vate a consistent performance. By filling in their projects in a character-781 istic way (e. g. gaining power by intimidating solo actions or gossip)782 they built a consistent image. The image could more or less develop783 autonomously from the person, with certain traits magnified, ultimately784 turning the participant into a persona. The persona could become very785 popular in the outside world. Terror Jaap became a star of sorts. The786 participants’ and producers’ strategies were mutually strengthened in a787 race for the most consistent public persona image. Because winning the788 competition was the major project, it may be that participants who culti-789 vated this project into a successful and interesting (i. e. extreme) perform-790 ance stole the show. Cunningness and ruthlessness seemed to be essential791 ingredients of the most popular persona. Jaap, who won The Golden792 Cage’s grand finale, was the ultimate winner, a crook who constantly793 outperformed other participants. He apparently both enjoyed and culti-794 vated the epithet Terror Jaap that his admirers in the audience had795 placed upon him. It is essential in the dramaturgy of the successful per-796 sona that he shows an extreme degree of ruthlessness. The best evidence797 for this is that he took pleasure in doing evil, which is what was gen-798 erally shown.799 While the merits of The Golden Cage are clear at least to us, it is much800 more doubtful whether The Golden Cage is dramaturgically equipped801 for moral exercises. We may be skeptical about the RGS’s potential for802 stimulating moral reflection. The conspicuous absence of victim views in803 particular is a source of concern regarding the equipment of the moral804 laboratory, for empathy with suffering persons is a necessary emotional805 basis of moral reflection. On the one hand, the absence is a blessing since806 it partially counters the reproach of the RGS’s voyeurism and its poten-807 tial to cultivate malicious delight in watching losers in pain. On the other1

1

1 Reality TV as a moral laboratory 469

808 hand, the same blind spot of The Golden Cage’s cameras in terms of809 the consequences of assaults, insults, harassment, and humiliation raises810 doubts about its contribution to moral training. Empathy with victims811 is impeded. It would also seem that personal involvement with common812 people and their vicissitudes � correctly identified as a valuable function813 of reality television (e. g. Biltereyst, 2004) � frequently assumes the814 shape of sharing malicious pleasures of gloating and Schadenfreude in815 The Golden Cage. Finally, John de Mol’s observation that perpetrators,816 in the end, are presented with the bill was not generally supported. This817 was illustrated most clearly by the rewards that Jaap was endowed with818 in the grand finale: the money, the villa, and lasting fame.819 It seems possible that The Golden Cage fuels the tendency to ignore820 one’s scruples in dealing with adversaries; in other words, it contributes821 to the callousness effects identified in social learning media effects re-822 search. Concealing the victims’ suffering, the glorification of malicious823 acts, and allowing perpetrators self-justification are all parts of the show824 that seem to contribute to lowering thresholds in regular viewers for825 reprehensible, transgressive conduct (e. g. Bandura, 2002, pp. 132�137.)826 However, this line of reasoning neglects what Bilandzic and Rössler827 (2004) recently label the specific ‘gratificational context’ of the RGS as828 a genre. In particular, an interpretation of the dominance and even glori-829 fication of morally undesirable attitudes and conduct in the emotional-830 moral laboratory ignores the dramatic perspective that was at the basis831 of the analysis of emotional scenes � as well as the ways the audience832 profits from it. It may be that many fans of The Golden Cage’s winner833 did not initially admire his ruthlessness and cunningness, but instead834 enjoyed the impeccability of his performance and the believable persona835 of Terror Jaap that he created. In other words, they enjoyed the element836 of play in the show (cf. Van Zoonen and Aslama, 2006). Alternatively,837 viewers may have loved the persona of Terror Jaap while waiting for the838 authentic Jaap, Jaap the person, to shine through the performance (cf.839 Hill, 2005). In these cases, the laboratory was perhaps most like a master840 class in acting or identity building, fueling the audience’s imagination of841 what it is like to act, to act naturally, and to script one’s own person842 under the particular circumstances of the RGS. Moral exercises, includ-843 ing imaginarily trying out immoral conduct or copying it in reality,844 would not fit the lab’s equipment. We may have to conclude that The845 Golden Cage is an emotional laboratory for the playful exploration of846 identity politics. This is in line with Biltereyst’s (2004) finding that the847 audience of Big Brother is far from naivety with regards to the authentic-848 ity of participants and with Hill’s (2005) characterization of selving as849 the game that RGS viewers play. In the former, the focus on perform-850 ance and persona neglects moral reflections. However, here seems to be1

1

1 470 Tonny Krijnen and Ed Tan

851 room for such reflects in the latter: namely, when viewers leave the labo-852 ratory and realize that the losers may pay a real price and that the853 winner’s authentic moral convictions may be simply part of the construc-854 tion of a persona. These however, are questions for reception research.

855 Bionotes

856 Tonny Krijnen is Assistant Professor of Media Studies at the Department857 of Media and Communication, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box858 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

859 Ed Tan is Professor of Media Entertainment at the Department of Com-860 munication, University of Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX,861 Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

862 Notes863 1. We thank Nathalie Werbata, Bob ten Berge, Peter Evers, Urlis Goodings, Daan864 Kleiman, and Noah Reymond for their many efforts.865 2. Initially the audience could not influence who stayed in The Golden Cage and who866 did not. The producers changed this rule during the second half of the show’s867 broadcasting.868

869 References870 Adalian, J. (2007). Reality is ‘Golden’ for De Mol and ABC. Network climbing into871 ‘Cage’872 [Electronic Version]. Variety. Retrieved 12 May 2009 from http://www.variety.com/873 index.asp?layout�print_storyandarticleid�VR1117958524andcategoryid�14.874 Aslama, M., and Pantti, M. (2006). Talking alone. Reality TV, emotions and authen-875 ticity. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 9, 167�184.876 Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant and877 D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects, 2nd ed. (pp. 121�153). Mahwah: Erlbaum.878 Beckerman (1979). Dynamics of drama: Theory and method of analysis. New York:879 Drama Book Specialists.880 Bilandzic, H., and Rössler, P. (2004). Life according to television. Implications of881 genre-specific cultivation effects: The Gratification/Cultivation model. Communi-882 cations, 29, 295�326.883 Biltereyst, D. (2004). Media audiences and the game of controversy. On reality TV,884 moral panic and controversial media stories. Journal of Media Practice, 5(1), 7�885 24.886 Busato, V. (2007). De Gouden Kooi creeert geen beulen [The Golden Cage does not887 create bullies]. de Volkskrant: Amsterdam, 12�13.888 Corner, J. (2002). Performing the real. Television and New Media, 3(3), 255�270.889 Dekker, W. (2007). De Gouden Kooi dit jaar van de buis [The Golden Cage dismissed890 from the telly this year]. de Volkskrant: Amsterdam, 1.891 Dovey, J. (2008). Reality TV. In G. Creeber (Ed.), The television genre book, 2nd ed.892 (pp. 134�145). London : Palgrave MacMillan.1

1

1 Reality TV as a moral laboratory 471

893 Effting, M., and Du Pre, R. (2006). Gouden Kooi is mishandeling [Golden Cage is894 abuse]. de Volkskrant: Amsterdam, 5.895 Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., and Ellsworth, P. (1982). What emotion categories or di-896 mensions can observers judge from facial behavior? In P. Ekman (Ed.), Emotion897 in the human face (pp. 39�55). New York: Cambridge University Press.898 Evers, H. (2006). Opinie: Talpa in de fout met Gouden Kooi [Opinion: Talpa on the899 wrong side with Golden Cage]. Retrieved 26 March, 2008, from http://www.900 destentor.nl/algemeen/cultuurstn/article715855.ece.901 Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.902 Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.903 Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, and H. H.904 Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 852�870). Oxford: Oxford905 University Press.906 Hakemulder, F. (1998). The moral laboratory. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht Univer-907 sity.908 Hill, A. (2005). Reality TV. Audiences and popular factual television. London: Rout-909 ledge.910 Johnson, M. (1993). Moral imagination. Implications of cognitive science for ethics.911 Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.912 Kramer, M. (2008). Romancing the mind. Women, emotion, cognition and film. PhD913 Dissertation, University of Copenhagen.914 Krijnen, T. (2007). There is more(s) in television. Studying the relationship between915 television and moral imagination. Academisch proefschrift, Universiteit van Am-916 sterdam.917 Meijer, I. C., and Reesink, M. (2000). Inleiding [Introduction]. In I. C. Meijer and918 M. Reesink (Eds.), Reality soap. Amsterdam: Boom.919 Mar, R. A., and Oatley, K. (2008). The function of fiction is the abstraction and920 simulation of social experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(3), 173�921 191.922 Nussbaum, M. C. (2001). Upheavals of thought. The intelligence of emotions. Cam-923 bridge: Cambridge University Press.924 Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., and Collins, A. (1988). The cognitive structure of emotions.925 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.926 Pfister, M. (1977). Das Drama [The drama]. Munich: Fink.927 Poole, R. (1991). Morality and modernity. London: Routledge.928 Rachels, J. (2003). The elements of moral philosophy, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.929 Raney, A. (2005). Punishing media criminals and moral judgment: The impact of en-930 joyment. Media Psychology, 7, 145�163.931 Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-932 sity Press.933 Roseman, I. J. (1991). Appraisal determinants of discrete emotions. Cognition and934 Emotion, 5, 161�200.935 Rozin, P., Lowery, L., Imada, S., and Haidt, J. (1999). The CAD triad hypothesis: A936 mapping between three other-directed moral emotions: Contempt, anger, disgust)937 and three moral ethics (community, autonomy and divinity). Journal of Personal-938 ity and Social Psychology, 76, 544�586.939 Strauss, A., and J. Corbin (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and pro-940 cedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.941 Tan, E. S. (2008). Entertainment is emotion. Media Psychology, 8, 28�51.942 Tan, E. S. (2005). Three views of facial expression and its understanding in the cinema.943 In J. D. Anderson and B. Fischer-Anderson (Eds.), Moving image theory (pp.944 107�127). Carbondale: University of Southern Illinois Press.1

1

1 472 Tonny Krijnen and Ed Tan

945 Tavener, J. (2000). Media, morality, and madness: the case against sleaze TV. Critical946 Studies in Media Communication 17(1), 63�85.947 Van Zoonen, L., and Aslama, M. (2006). Understanding Big Brother: An analysis of948 current research. JAVNOST / The Public, 13(2), 86�96.949 Wade, M. (2007) Reality check. Scotland on Sunday, from http://scotlandonsunday.950 scotsman.com/realitytv/Reality-check.3327465.jp.1033

1

1