Televisions influence on ROMANTIC expecations



Television’s Influence on Expectations in Romantic Relationships:The Difference Between Males and FemalesJessica Bagby, Danielle Barbarite, Olivia Long, Heather ShomoJames Madison University AbstractUsing a convenience sample of the researchers’ Facebook friends, 144 participants ranging from 18 to 53 years old (M = 22.44 years) were recruited and administered an online survey through Qualtrics. The study sought to understand televisions influence (e.g. dramas, soap operas, reality TV, sitcoms) on romantic relationship expectations as well as the differences between males and females. Expectations were examined through three analyses: nonparametric correlations, regression, and t Test. Surprisingly, despite previous studies, this study did not find significant results correlating television’s influence on romantic relationships. There were also no significant findings concerning gender differences. Television’s Influence on Expectations in Romantic Relationships:The Difference Between Males and FemalesIn the past several years, the role of mass media, specifically television, has received increasing attention regarding its portrayal of love and romance. Television ultimately presents numerous verbal and visual examples of dating, intimacy, sex, and marriage (Ward, 2002). As a result, young adults often use television when evaluating their own romantic relationships, including sexual, emotional, and physical expectations of their partners (Aubrey, Harrison, Kramer, & Yellin, 2003; Westman, Lynch, Lewandowski, & Hunt-Carter, 2003).In order to better understand this relation between television and perceived messages by viewers, it is important to look at cultivation theory. The premise of this theory suggests that television transpires messages that cultivate predispositions and preferences to its viewers (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1994). These messages often offer a view of reality that is not always representative of society. Consequently, viewers who spend more time watching these unrealistic illustrations are more likely to embrace the values and ideologies reflected (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, Signorielli, & Shannon, 2002). In other words, heavy viewers tend to develop similar views of society to what they see on television (Bryant & Thompson, 2002). Thus, the goal of this study is to see whether romance portrayed in television influences expectations of both men and women in their own romantic relationships. In addition, it will look to see what the differences and similarities are between the two genders regarding expectations.Justification???????One reason it is important to study the relationship between television viewing and its influence on expectations in romantic relationships is due to the increasing number of unsatisfied marriages. Partners determine their satisfaction in their relationships by comparing the outcomes they receive from their partner to the standards they originally held for that partner (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). As a result, couples are often at risk for marital distress when expectations of one another are unrealistic (Stanley, Blumberg, & Markman, 1999). In fact, research has indicated that unrealistic expectations and standards based on distorted perceptions tend to diminish satisfaction in romantic relationships (Baucom & Epstein, 1990; Eidelson & Epstein, 1982; Kurdek, 1993; Larson, 1988). Thus, it is important to study how television influences couples expectations of one another and how it effects their relationship satisfaction.A second reason to study this topic is because of the impact expectations in romantic relationships have on the current divorce rate. Researchers have found that roughly four in ten marriages end in divorce (Hawkins, Nock, Wilson, Sanchez, & Wright, 2002). In other words, nearly half of married Americans have trouble maintaining satisfactory marriages. Although there is no single cause of divorce, a contributing factor is unrealistic expectations (Larson, 1988). ?In fact, people who enter marriages with unrealistic and romanticized conceptions about marriage weaken their marital satisfaction and longevity (Demo & Ganong, 1994). Thus, it is important to study how television influences these expectations so that we have a better understanding of its impact on the divorce rate.A final reason to study this subject is because of its clinical value. Research suggests that negative psychological, emotional, and behavioral responses to one’s romantic partner are mediated by unreasonable beliefs and standards held about romantic relationships (Ellis & Harper, 1975). These responses can often cause marital dissatisfaction, which is linked to a number of depressive symptoms, such as irritability, sadness, and loss of sexual drive (Beach, 2001). Additionally, resolving conflicts that arise due to impractical expectations of partners is imperative for the ongoing functioning of marital relationships (Karney & Bradbury, 1995). By doing this research, counselors will have a better understanding of perceived expectations by both men and women and will be able to advise their clients accordingly. In turn, this can help to prevent depressive symptomatology and can also lead to more satisfactory marriages and fewer divorces.Literature ReviewThe following literature review will further discuss television's portrayal of romance and its influence on expectations of both men and women in their own romantic relationships. It begins with television's depiction of romance. Then, it illustrates how television influences sexual expectations and physical expectations as well as relationship satisfaction. Lastly, it discusses gender differences and similarities in regards to those expectations.Television’s Portrayal of RomanceTelevision is known to be the most prevalent source of notions about romance and romantic relationships (Signorielli, 1991). In a series of case studies having to do with romance and media, participants revealed that media representations were responsible for their views of love and romance (Illouz, 1998). In a similar study, it was reported that more idealized beliefs about marriage were held among adult viewers who watched television programs containing many references to romantic relationships (Segrin & Nabi, 2002). Research also suggests that heavy viewers of television programs encompassing romantic portrayals hold unrealistic expectations of their partners, including the need to sympathize perfectly with one another and be able to read each other’s thoughts in order to uphold their romantic relationship (Haferkamp, 1999). Overall, young adults and adults are susceptible to the romanticized views of marriage and relationships created by the media (Jones and Nelson, 1996), and therefore, may hold unrealistic expectations in their own personal relationships with romantic partners. It is also important to note that viewers who perceive television portrayals as realistic are more likely to be affected by them (Potter, 1986). As a result, these viewers may be more inclined to have idealistic expectations of their partners. In fact, researchers have found that belief in television portrayals is a strong predictor of people’s expectations for relationships and marriage (Osborn, 2012). For instance, those who perceive television’s portrayal of the “predestined soul mate” to be true, may hold higher expectations of their partner due to the assumption that relationship happiness will be instantly achieved and maintained once that person is found (Franiuk, Cohen, & Pomerantz, 2002).In regard to cultivation theory, portraying idealized and romanticized images of marriage on television may influence the expectations of viewers in their own romantic relationships (Segrin & Nabi, 2002). For instance, television programs that include a great deal of romance, passion, ?“love at first sight,” “happily ever after,” physical beauty, empathy, and open communication, while excluding negative behaviors, such as conflict, provide viewers with distorted illustrations of marriage and therefore contribute to their idealized views of romantic relationships (Segrin & Nabi, 2002). Consistent with these factors, the following research question was proposed:RQ1: Does the frequency of viewing romance portrayed in sitcoms, soap operas, dramas, and reality television, associate with expectations of both men and women in their own romantic relationships?Television’s Effect on Appearance ExpectationsAlong with romance, television also distorts appearances in romantic relationships, often altering couples physical expectations of one another. In fact, the omnipresence of attractive women on television and the representation of beauty as a necessary condition for successful dating (Hofschire & Greenberg, 2001) catalyze males’ desire to be in a relationship with an attractive woman. As a result, experts found that viewing romantic dramas has a significant impact on the way females’ perceive males’ appearance expectations (Eggermont, Beullens, & Van Den Bulck, 2005). Additionally, content analyses have shown that female characters portrayed with the thin-ideal body type have more successful relationships (Spitzer, Henderson, & Zivian, 1999). This raises concerns for women because it promotes unrealistic expectations of what women should look like in the eyes of men and communicates that appearance predicts relational success.Conversely, findings also show that perceived expectations of men’s and women’s appearances do not always match to those of their romantic partner. For example, studies show that women tend to overestimate the breast size preferred by their partner (Tantleff-Dunn, 2001). Additionally, women’s assessment of a man’s ideal woman was thinner than what men actually reported (Fallon & Rozin, 1985). This was supported in a study having to do with married couples. It indicated that wives thought their husbands were more dissatisfied with their bodies than the husbands actually were (Markey, Markey, & Birch, 2004). Overall, these estimations are a resulting factor of television’s portrayal of the ideal woman in relationships and, therefore, influence the way women view male’s expectations of their appearance.In addition to the portrayal of the ideal woman, television programs also depict a distorted view of men’s appearances. Programs depict men as slim and muscular (Hofschire & Greenberg, 2001), which also affect women’s expectations of men’s attractiveness in relationships. In past years, the male body has become increasingly visible, muscular and trim (Andersen & DiDomenico, 1992; Harrison, Pope, Phillips, & Olivardia, 2000; Hatoum & Belle, 2004; Kolbe & Albanese, 1996; Labre, 2005; Leit, Pope, & Gray, 2001) and as a result, women are more likely to expect men to look this way in their intimate relationships. These idealized images ultimately influence women to compare their partner’s appearance to the media standard. Televisions Effect on Sexual ExpectationsTelevision is not only concerned with relationships and appearance, but also with its depictions of sex (Greenberg Linsangan, & Soderman, 1993). In 2003, sexual content appeared in 64% of all television programming and averaged 4.4 scenes with sexually related material per hour (Kunkel, Cope-Farrar, Biely, Farinola, & Donnerstein, 2003). Additionally, one in every seven programs displayed either an implied or depicted portrayal of sexual intercourse (Kunkel et al., 2003).Generally, sex portrayed in the media has a strong influence on young adults because it is informative (Strasburger, 1995; Treise & Gotthoffer, 2002). Thus, these portrayals of sex combined with high exposure to television have the ability to influence young adults’ beliefs about cultural norms (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, Signorielli, 1986). Consequently, adolescents may hold higher sexual expectations in their romantic relationships. More specifically, experts found that greater exposure to reality-dating programs is correlated with more traditional and adversarial expectations regarding dating and intimate relationships for both men and women (Ward, 2002). Correlations were also discovered between viewing reality-dating programs and problematic expectations towards sex and intimacy in regards to viewers romantic relationships (Zurbriggen & Morgan, 2006).Television portrayals of sex also reinforce cultural scripts (Ward, 1995), or rather representations of cultural norms. This ultimately affects the sexual behaviors of both men and women in their romantic relationships as well as their expectations of one another. For example, because cultural scripts represent male sexuality as uncontrollable (Carpenter, 1998; Durham, 1998), women ultimately expect to have the power when it comes to sex in relationships. This is because the portrayals on television frequently portray women as what researchers consider to be, sexual “gatekeepers” (Peplau, Rubin, & Hill, 1977). Although it was noted that in more recent years, sexual principles have become more lenient for both male and females, research suggests that there still remains a gap in what is sexually appropriate for males compared to females (King, Balswick, & Robinson, 1977; Sherwin & Corbett, 1985). Overall, television’s illustrations of sexual relations between romantic partners influence the expectations of both women and men in their own romantic relationships. Thus, to explore this further, a third research question was developed that asks the following:RQ2: Does exposure to television, specifically soap operas, dramas, reality tv, and sitcoms, influence sexual expectations of both men and women in their own romantic relationships?Expectations Perceived by GenderPrevious research has noted that although both men and women sometimes hold unrealistic expectations of one another in romantic relationships, realism of sex and love on television is often perceived differently between genders (Punyanunt-Carter, 2006). For example, an analysis on sexual interaction and media exposure showed that female viewers were affected by the character portrayals more than males were (Ward, 2003). Other studies had similar findings and discovered that women were more attentive to the content in the programs than males were (Ward, 2002). This was accompanied with higher perceived realism of television programs, characters, and portrayals of relationships (Ward & Rivadeneyra, 1999). In addition, women also were found to have stronger associations between the amount of television viewed and attitudes towards their own romantic relationships (Walsh-Childers & Brown, 1993; Ward, 2002; Ward & Rivadeneyra, 1999). As a result, it is assumed that television is more likely to influence women’s unrealistic expectations regarding romantic relationships than it is to influence males.Researchers have also documented gender differences in response to television viewing and relationship expectations in terms of the frequency and range of sexual activities. Research indicates that males are likely to expect sex more from their partners. Men also expect a wider range of sexual experiences than females do (Cohen & Shotland, 1996; Knox & Wilson, 1981). In addition, men and women sometimes rely on stereotypes, specifically sex stereotypes portrayed by the media, as guidelines and, therefore, differ in their interaction behaviors and expectations (Deaux & Major, 1987).When looking at television interpretations of romantic relationships in terms of personalities, research has found that females find it more important than males to have a partner with a pleasing personality. Irrespective of that, it was found that fictional television programs that portray long-lasting relationships reinforce the idea to both genders that attractiveness isn’t everything in a romantic partner (Segrin & Nabi, 2002). In fact, the results of a present study suggest that heavy television viewers, whether male or female, make higher demands with regard to personality qualities (Eggermont, 2004). In other words, both genders raise their expectations of partner’s personality qualities, such as kindness, generosity, etc., as television viewing increases. Subsequently, television viewing may potentially affect the similarities and differences between males’ and females’ expectations in their romantic relationships physically, emotionally, and sexually. This will be examined through the following research question:RQ3: Does television’s influence on expectations in romantic relationships differ between genders?Relationship SatisfactionUnrealistic expectations, whether having to do with appearance, personality or sex, have also been seen to influence relationship satisfaction. In fact, experts have found that irrational relationship beliefs and relationship satisfaction were significantly and negatively correlated. In other words, lower levels of relationship satisfaction were related to higher levels of unrealistic beliefs (Bradbury and Fincham, 1988). Other researchers have reported similar findings, supporting that the most pervasive variables implicated in marital distress are extreme beliefs about one’s self, partner, and the nature of marital satisfaction (Epstein, 1986; Metts & Cupach, 1990).Overall, research supports that elaborate illustrations of romantic relationships in television programs affects physical, emotional, and sexual expectations for men and women (Eggermont, 2004). This, in turn, could affect one’s overall relationship satisfaction. Thus, it is important to enhance the literature and further examine the relationship between romance portrayed in television and expectations of both men and women in their own romantic relationships. MethodSampleThe final sample for this study consisted of 144 participants (Male = 40, Female = 104). The average age for participants ranged from 18 to 53 years old (M = 22.44 years; SD = 6.35). The majority of the sample was Caucasian/White (n = 134, 93.1 %). The remainder of participants identified themselves as African American/Black (n = 8, 5.6 %), Hispanic/Latino (n = 5, 3.5 %), Asian (n = 2, 1.4 %), Native American (n = 2, 1.4 %), Middle Eastern (n = 2, 1.4 %), Pacific Islander (n = 2, 1.4 %), and other (n = 1, 1.4%). Many of the participants reported their relationship status as exclusively dating (n = 113, 78.5 %). The remainder reported their relationship status as casually dating (n = 10, 6.9 %), engaged (n = 7, 4.9 %), and married (n = 13, 9.0 %). The duration of relationships ranged from 0-6 months to over 4 years, with a mean of 3.32 years (SD = 1.68).ProcedureA survey was first reviewed by the institutional review board and was then sent out through one technique. Individual participants were administered this online survey through Qualtrics. Social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, was used in order to distribute the survey. Subjects reported on television's influence about perceived expectations in their own romantic relationships.MeasurementTelevision viewing frequency followed Van den Bulck’s (1995) procedure, which was adapted from Rosengren and Windhal (1989), in order to measure viewing frequency. Participants were asked to estimate how many weekdays in a typical week they watch television using a multiple choice response set ranging from 0-5 days. They were also asked to estimate how many weekend days of the month they watch television also using a multiple choice response set ranging from 0-8 days. In addition, they were asked to estimate how many hours they watch per day. This was an open response question. Television genre viewing preferences were measured by asking the participants to indicate the different genres of television that they watch. The items that were used to measure the different genres watched by the participants followed Appel’s (2008) study and list seven television genres, each including two everyday examples of the genre from popular Unites States television programs. For example, the genre “Soap Opera” had the shows, General Hospital and Young and the Restless, listed next to it for clarification. The participants then ranked the genres on a 4-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = never and 4 = very often to indicate how much of each genre they watch. Perceived realism was assessed using Rubin's Perceived Realism Scale (1994). The subject, however, was modified from television content in general to relationships on television (e.g., "television presents romantic relationships as they really are in life"). In doing so, five items were presented and respondents were asked to rate the similarity of televised romance to real-life relationships on a 6-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree. Reliability for this measure was .72 (M = 2.13, SD = .64).Relationship Satisfaction. In order to ascertain participants’ perceptions of relational satisfaction, Hendrick’s Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; 1988) was used. Participants were given seven statements and scored them based on a 6-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree. Example items of this 7-item scale are "In general, I am satisfied with my relationship" and "My relationship has met my original expectations." In this study, the RAS was proven reliable (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient = .83, M = 5.2, SD = .66).Appearance expectations were measured using a 4 point Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 = not important to 4 = very important. It listed various physical appearance descriptions, such as thin, tall, strong, etc., and asked the participants to indicate to what degree their expectations are regarding their partner's appearance in regard to the descriptions listed. Appearance satisfaction was assessed using the body surveillance, or rather self-objectification, subscale of McKinley and Hyde’s (1996) Objectified Body Consciousness Scale. It only measured partner-objectification and each of the seven items were worded as “my partner,” “my partner’s body,” and “how my partner looks.” Responses were measured on a 1-to-6 Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree. This measure was found to be highly reliable (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient = .91, M = 5.26, SD = .70). Sexual satisfaction. A two-item index was formed to measure sexual satisfaction based on Sprecher’s (2002) previous study. A contingency question was first asked to see if the participant has had sexual relations with their partner. If they said “no,” they were then directed to the demographic questions. If they responded “yes,” then they continued on with the questions regarding sexual satisfaction. Seven items were then presented to the participants asking them to describe how satisfied they are sexually in their romantic relationship. One item referred to the global question, "How sexually satisfying is the relationship to you?" Responses ranged from 1= strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree. Another item asked how unrewarding or rewarding the partner's contributions were in the area of sex and also used a 6-point Likert-type scale. Reliability for this measure was .78 (M = 4.75, SD = .72).Sexual expectations were measured using a 6 point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree. A series of statements were presented to the participants asking them to describe what they expect of their partners sexually. Items included statements such as, “I do not expect to ever be turned down sexually by my partner” and “sex with my partner will always be very passionate.”Demographic information was also included on the questionnaire in order to determine gender, age, ethnicity, relationship status, and relationship duration.ResultsIn order to assess the first research question, “is the frequency of viewing romance portrayed on television correlated with expectations of both men and women in their own romantic relationships?” a nonparametric correlation was used. More specifically, a Spearman’s rho correlation test was run in order to determine if there was a significant correlation between television genres such as sitcoms, soap operas, dramas, and reality television and the participant’s expectations in their own romantic relationship. There was no significant correlation found between any of the television genres tested and participant’s personal relationships. ?The correlation coefficient and significance level for each variable is as follows: ?Sitcoms (r = .02) (p = .81), soap operas (r = .14) (p = .10), dramas (r = .12) (p = .15), and reality (r = .02) (p = .98). ?A Pearson correlation test was also run in order to determine if there was a significant correlation between television viewing habits (average weekly viewing, average daily viewing, average weekend viewing) and the participant’s views of their own personal romantic relationship. ?There was no significant correlation found between any of the viewing habits and participant’s views on their personal relationship. ?The correlation coefficient and significance level for each variable is as follows: average weekly viewing (r = .14)(p = .10), average daily viewing (r = .14) (p = .12), and average weekend viewing (r = .01) (p = .96). In conclusion, none of the findings conducted for the first research question were significantly correlated. Thus, it can be assumed that romantic television viewing does not associate with expectations in romantic relationships. Then next research question, “do specific genres of television influence sexual expectations of those in a romantic relationship?” was measured using a regression analysis. The first genre we examined, sitcoms, did not significantly predict sexual expectations in relationships, b = .02, t(128) = .21, p = .84. The next genre we observed, soap operas did not significantly predict sexual expectations in relationships, b = .08, t(126) = .89, p = .38. Dramas were the next genre we looked at. This genre did not significantly predict sexual expectations in relationships, b = .17, t(125) = 1.88, p = .06. Lastly, reality television was analyzed and also did not significantly predict sexual expectations in relationships, b = .14, t(125) = 1.54, p = .13. Overall, there was no significant difference found in this analysis for any of the genres run; however, significance is defined by having a p value less than or equal to .05. Thus, the significance value for the genre, dramas, was .06 meaning that 94% of the data as opposed to 95% was significant. Seeing as this was the case, there was no supporting evidence to conclude that these four genres of television influence sexual expectations in personal romantic relationships. Finally, the third research question, “is there a difference between male and females in regards to relationship expectations?” was examined using a t Test. Among males and females who participated in this study (N = 144), there was no statistically significant difference between males (M = 2.15, SD = .69) and females (M = 2.13, SD = .63), t(142) = .15, p = .26. Thus, the researchers did not find supporting evidence to conclude that there are differences between genders expectations in their personal romantic relationships.DiscussionThis study investigated whether romance portrayed in television influenced expectations of both men and women in their own romantic relationships. In addition, the study looked at the differences and similarities between the two genders regarding expectations. These expectations were examined through three analyses including nonparametric correlations, regression, and t Test, from which several conclusions were drawn. First, this study aimed to look at whether romantic relationship expectations are associated with romantic relationships seen on television. It was remarkable to notice that there was no significant correlation between these two variables, although previous literature has suggested otherwise. As mentioned in the literature review, there have been multiple studies that suggest that there is a relationship between the two variables: romantic portrayals on television and expectations within romantic relationships (Illouz, 1998; Segrin and Nabi, 2002). With that being said, this study did not follow Simon and colleagues (2000) advice to focus on young adolescents, as most other research has. Thus, these findings cannot be compared to all previous research since this study focused only on older adolescents and adults. Second, the results did not support previous findings about how sexual expectations are influenced by exposure to television genres portraying romantic relationships. This is surprising seeing as sexual content seen on television has been linked to beliefs and expectations about sexual experiences in personal romantic relationships (Aubrey, et al., 2003). More specifically, a study conducted in 2006 that tested whether reality television influences adolescent’s sexual attitudes found that there was in fact a significant relationship between the two variables (Zurbriggen & Morgan, 2006). This was supported in another study mentioned in the literature review where results showed that reality-dating programs are correlated with expectations regarding intimate relationships (Ward, 2002). More recently, however, a study had similar results to this study and ended up finding a weak correlation between the same two variables (Vandenbosch & Eggermont, 2011). In terms of soap opera viewing, previous research was also inconsistent with this study seeing as it revealed that this particular genre viewing relates to stronger endorsement of dysfunctional beliefs and expectations about romantic relationships (Haferkamp, 1999). Overall, out of the four genres analyzed in this research (sitcoms, soap operas, dramas, and reality television), drama was almost found to be significant. As a result, it can be assumed from this study that drama has the greatest influence on sexual expectations between romantic partners and that the other genres have a lesser influence.Third, this study focused on whether relationship expectations differed between males and females. The results showed that these variables did not significantly differ. Other studies, however, were inconsistent with these findings; specifically, in regards to sexual expectations. In fact, several researchers have found females to be more influenced by sexual content on television (Brown & Newcomer, 1991; Strouse & Buerkel-Rothfuss, 1987; Ward & Rivadeneyra, 1999). Meanwhile, another study found males to be more influenced by sex seen on television (Peterson Moore, & Furstenberg, 1991). Another researcher, however, found no gender differences in their results concerning sexual expectations in romantic relationships after television exposure (Baran, 1976). Lastly, as mentioned previously, a more recent study revealed that male and female television viewers do not differ in terms of personality expectations of a romantic partner (Eggermont, 2004). Thus, while some research remains inconsistent with this study’s findings, other findings have supported it.The greatest problem with this survey was assessing the validity and reliability of the study. Since the study is conducted through the researchers’ social media, the findings cannot be generalized to the larger population. Additionally, a large problem was the number of male versus female responses to the survey. While the intention was to have around the same number of male to female participants, this did not happen. Other limitations that arose included whether or not the participants’ answers were a valid representation of their actual television use. Some participants could have reported that they watched less television per day. They also could have been reluctant to admit how they really feel about their relationship and perceptions of television portrayals. Additionally, participants may have answered a certain way based upon what they thought the answer should be because the topic of the study was apparent through the survey questions. As a result, researchers can assume that not all of the participants were truthful and accurate in their responses. Lastly, it is hard to interpret what the participants view as “romantic” television. Thus, this study would be better conducted as an experiment rather than a survey so that exposures to romantic portrayals on television are more consistent. In conclusion, the results highlight that television does not in fact influence the expectations of both men and women in their own romantic relationships. In addition, it was found that there are no differences between the two genders regarding these expectations. There were, however, similarities found in that both genders hold similar expectations for their romantic partner even with different exposures to television genres. Seeing as the variables were not significantly correlated and some of the results differed from previous findings, future research should be conducted on this subject. ReferencesAndersen, A. E., & DiDomenico, L. (1992). Diet vs. shape content of popular male and female???????magazines: A dose-response relationship of incidence of eating disorders? International???????Journal of Eating Disorders, 11 (3), 283–287.Appel, M. (2008). Fictional narratives cultivate just-world beliefs. Journal of Communication,58 (1), 62-83. Aubrey, J. S., Harrison, K., Kramer, L., & Yellin, J. (2003). Variety versus timing: Gender???????differences in college students' sexual expectations as predicted by exposure to sexually???????oriented television. Communication Research. 30 (4), 432-460.Baran, S. J. (1976). Sex on TV and adolescent sexual self-image. Journal of Broadcasting, 20 (1), 61-68.Baucom, D. H., & Epstein, N. (1990). Cognitive-behavioral marital therapy. New York:???????Brunner/Mazel, Inc.Beach, S. R. H. (Ed), (2001). Marital and family processes in depression: A scientific???????foundation for clinical practice (pp. 3-24). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological???????Association.Bradbury, T.N., & Fincham, F.D. (1988). Individual difference variables in close relationships: A contextual model of marriage as an integrative framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (4), 713–721.Brown, J. D., & Newcomer, S. F. (1991). Television viewing and adolescents’sexual behavior. Journal of Homosexuality, 21(1-2), 77-91.Bryant, J., & Thompson, S. (2002). Fundamentals of media effects. New York: McGraw-Hill.Carpenter, L. M. (1998). From girls into women: Scripts for sexuality and romance in Seventeen???????magazine, 1974-1994. Journal of Sex Research, 35 (2), 158-168.Cohen, L. L., & Shotland, R. L. (1996). Timing of sexual intercourse in a relationship:Expectations, experiences, and perceptions of others. The Journal of Sex Research, 33 (4), 291-299.Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-???????related behavior. Psychological Review, 94 (3), 369-389.Demo, D., & Ganong, L. (1994). Divorce and families. In P. McKenry & S. Price (Eds.),Families and Change: Coping with Stressful Events (pp. 197-218). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Durham, M. G. (1998). Dilemmas of desire: Representations of adolescent sexuality in two teen???????magazines. Youth & Society, 29 (3), 369-389.Eggermont, S. (2004). Television viewing, perceived similarity and adolescents’ expectations of???????a romantic partner. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48 (2), 244–265.Eggermont, S., Beullens, K. & Van Den Bulck, J. (2005). Television viewing and adolescent???????females’ body dissatisfaction: The mediating role of opposite sex expectations. The???????European Journal of Communication Research, 30 (3), 343-357.Eidelson, R. J., & Epstein, N. (1982). Cognition and relationship maladjustment: Development???????of measure of relationship beliefs. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50 (5),715–720.Ellis, A. & Harper, R.A. (1975). A New Guide to Rational Living. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:???????Prentice- Hall.Epstein, N. (1986). Cognitive marital therapy: Multi-level assessment and intervention. Journal of Rational-Emotive Therapy, 4 (1), 68–81.Fallon, A. E., & Rozin, P. (1985). Sex differences in perceptions of desirable body shape.Journal of Abnormal Pscyhology, 94 (1), 102-105.Franiuk, R., Cohen, D., & Pomerantz, E.M. (2002). Implicit theories of relationships:Implications for relationship satisfaction and longevity. Personal Relationships, 9 (4), 345-367.Gerbner G., Gross M., Morgan L., & Signorielli N. (1986). Living with television: the dynamics???????of the cultivation process. In: Bryant J, Zillman D, eds. Perspectives on Media Effects???????(pp. 17-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1994). Growing up with television: The???????Cultivation perspective. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Media effects (pp. 17–40).???????Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing up with???????television: Cultivation processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Media effects:???????Advances in theory and research 2nd ed. (pp. 43–67). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Greenberg, B.S., Linsangan, R., & Soderman, A. (1993). Adolescents‘ reactions to television???????sex. In B.S. Greenberg, J. ?D. Brown, & ?N. L. Buerkel-Rothfuss (Eds.), ?Media, sex and???????the adolescent (pp 177-224). Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Haferkamp, C. J. (1999). Beliefs about relationships in relation to television viewing, soap opera???????viewing, and self-monitoring. Current Psychology, 78 (2), 193-205.Harrison, G., Pope, J., Phillips, K. A., & Olivardia, R. (2000). The adonis complex: The secret???????crisis of the male body obsession. NY: Free Press.Hatoum, I.J., & Belle, D. (2004). Mags and abs: Media consumption and bodily concerns in???????men. Sex Roles, 51 (7/8), 397–407.Hawkins, A.J., Nock, S.L., Wilson, J.C., Sanchez, L., & Wright, J.D. (2002). Attitudes about ??????covenant marriage and divorce: Policy implications from a three state comparison.???????Family Relations, 51 (2), 166-175.Hendrick, S. S. (1981). Self-disclosure and marital satisfaction. Journal of ?Personalityand Social Psychology, 40 (6), 1150-1159.Hofshire, L.I., ?Greenberg, B. S. (2001). Media‘s impact on adolescents‘ body dissatisfaction.???????In ?J . D. Brown, J. R. Steele, K. Walsh-Childers (Eds.), Sexual teens, sexual media:???????Investigating media’s influence on adolescent sexuality (pp. 125-1 52). London: Erlbaum.Illouz, E. (1998). ?The lost innocence of love: Romance as a postmodern condition. ?Theory,???????Culture, and Society, 15 (3), 161-186.Jones G. D., & Nelson, E. S. (1996). ?Expectations of marriage among college students from???????intact and non-intact homes. ?Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 26 (1/2), 171-189.Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and??????????stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 188 (1), ???3-34.King, K., Balswick, J. O., & Robinson, I. E. (1977). The continuing premarital revolution amongcollege females. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39 (3), 455-459.Knox, D., & Wilson, K. (1981). Dating behaviors of university students. Family Relations, 30(2), 255-258.Kolbe, R. H., & Albanese, P. J. (1996). Man to man: A content analysis of solemale images in???????male-audience magazines. Journal of Advertising, 25 (4), 1–20.Kunkel, D., Cope-Farrar, K., Biely, E., Farinola, W. J., & Donnerstein, E. (2003). Sex on TV 3:A Biennial Report of the Kaiser Family Foundation. Menlo Park, CA: The Henry J.Kaiser Family Foundation.Kurdek, L.A. (1993). Predicting marital dissolution: A 5-year prospective longitudinal study of newlywed couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64 (2), 221–242.Labre, M. P. (2005). Burn fat, build muscle: A content analysis of men’s Health and men’s????????tness. International Journal of Men’s Health, 4 (2), 187–200.Larson, J. H. (1988). The marriage quiz: College students’ beliefs in selected myths about???????marriage. Family Relations, 37 (1), 3-11.Leit, A., Pope, H. G., & Gray, J. J. (2001). Cultural expectations of muscularity in men: Theevolution of playgirl centerfolds. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 29 (1), 90–93.Markey, C. N., Markey, P. M., & Birch, L. L. (2004). Understanding women’s body satisfaction: the role of husbands. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 51 (3/4), 209-216.McKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996). The Objectified Body Consciousness Scale: Development and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20 (2), 181–216.Metts, S., & Cupach W.R. (1990). The influence of relationship beliefs and problem-solving responses on satisfaction in romantic relationships. Human Communication Research, 17 (1), 170–185.Osborn, J. L. (2012). When TV and marriage meet: A social exchange analysis of the impact???????of television viewing on marital satisfaction and commitment. Mass Communication???????and Society, 15 (5), 739-757.Peplau, L. A., Rubin, Z., & Hill, C. T. (1977). Sexual intimacy in dating relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 33 (2), 86-109.Peterson, J. L., Moore, K. A., & Furstenberg, F. F. (1991). Television viewing and early initiation of sexual intercourse: Is there a link? Journal of Homosexuality, 21(1-2), 77-91.Potter, W. J. (1986). Perceived reality and the cultivation hypothesis. Journal of Broadcasting???????and Electronic Media, 30 (2), 159–174.Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. (2006). Love on television: reality perception differences between men???????and women. North American Journal of Psychology, 8 (2), 269-276.Rosengren, K-E., & Windhal, S. (1989). Media matter—TV use in childhood and adolescence.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Rubin, R. B. (1994). Communication research measures: A sourcebook. New York: Guilford.Segrin, C., & Nabi, R. L. (2002). Does television viewing cultivate unrealistic expectations???????about marriage? Journal of Communication. 52 (2), 247-263.Sherwin, R., & Corbett, S. (1985). Campus sexual norms and dating relationships: A trend???????analysis. The Journal of Sex Research, 21 (3), 258-274.Signorielli, N. (1991). ?Adolescents and ambivalence toward marriage: A cultivation???????analysis. ?Youth and Society, 23 (1), 121-149.Simon, V. A., Bouchey, H. A., & Furman, W. (2000). The social construction of adolescents’ representations of romantic relationships. In S. Larose & G. M. Tarabulsy (Eds.), Attach- ment and development: Volume 7. The role of relationships in human development. Quebec, Canada: Les Presses de l’University du Quebec. pp. 301-326.Spitzer, B. L., Henderson, K. A., & Zivian, M. T. (1999). Gender differences in populationversus media body sizes: A comparison over four decades. Sex Roles, 40 (7/8), 545-565.Sprecher, S. (2002). Sexual satisfaction in premarital relationships: Associations withsatisfaction, love, commitment, and stability. Journal of Sex Research, 39 (3), 190-196.Stanley, S. M., Blumberg, S. L., & Markman, H. J. (Eds.). (1999). Helping couples fight for their marriages: The PREP approach. Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel. Swann, W. B. (1984).Strasburger, V. C. (1995). Adolescents and the media: Medical and psychological impact.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Strouse, J. S., & Buerkel-Rothfuss, N. L. (1987). Media exposure and the sexual attitudes and behaviors of college students. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 13 (2), 43-51.Tantleff-Dunn, S. (2001). Breast and chest size: Ideals and stereotypes through the 1990’s. Sex???????Roles: A Journal of Research, 45 (3/4), 231-242.Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. Oxford, England:Wiley.Treise, D., & Gotthoffer, A. (2002). Stuff you couldn’t ask your parents: Teens talking aboutusing magazines for sex information. In J. D. Brown, J. R. Steele, & K. Walsh-Childers (Eds.), Sexual teens, sexual media: Investigating media’s influence on adolescent sexuality (pp. 153-171). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Vandenbosch, L., & Eggermont, S. (2011). Temptation Island, The Bachelor, Joe Millionaire : A Prospective Cohort Study on the Role of Romantically Themed Reality Television in Adolescents' Sexual Development. Journal Of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 55(4), 563-580. Walsh-Childers, K., & Brown, J. D. (1993). Adolescents’ acceptance of sex-role stereotypes and???????television viewing. In B. S. Greenberg, J. D. Brown, & N. L. Buerkel-Rothfuss (Eds.),???????Media, sex, and the adolescent (pp. 117–133). Creskill, NJ: Hampton.Ward, L. M. (1995). Talking about sex: Common themes about sexuality in prime-time???????television programs children and adolescents view most. Journal of Youth and???????Adolescence, 24 (5), 595-615.Ward, L. M., & Rivadeneyra, R. (1999). Contributions of entertainment television to???????adolescents’ sexual attitudes and expectations: The role of viewing amount versus viewer???????involvement. Journal of Sex Research, 36 (3), 237–249.Ward, L. M (2002). Does television exposure affect emerging adults' attitudes and assumptions ???????about sexual relationships? Correlational and experimental confirmation. Journal of???????Youth and Adolescence, 31 (1), 1-15.Ward, L. M. (2003). Understanding the role of entertainment media in the sexual socialization ofAmerican youth: A review of empirical research. Developmental Review, 23 (3), 347–388.Westman, A. S., Lynch, T.J., Lewandowski, L., & Hunt-Carter. E. (2003). Students’ use of mass???????media for ideas about romantic relationships. Psychological Reports, 92 (3), 1116-1118. ?Zurbriggen, E. L., & Morgan, E. M. (2006). Who wants to marry a millionaire? Reality dating???????television programs, attitudes toward sex, and sexual behaviors. Sex Roles, 54 (1/2), 1–???????17. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download