ABSTRACT

This study tested the hypothesis that the television camera creates a hyper-frontstage setting, which then causes those being recorded to increase use of impression management beyond the level of everyday interaction. This increase in impression management behaviors distorts social interaction that occurs in front of the camera. Thus the genre of television programs known as "Reality TV" may not be an accurate depiction of realistic interaction. The implications if this hypothesis is true arise when one considers the often subconscious power that television programming has over its viewers, as proposed by cultivation theorists. However, this study was not able to prove this hypothesis to be correct. Though subjects interacting before a camera reported feeling self-conscious, and though there were small changes in actions such as nervous behaviors and speech etiquette, the overall interaction between subjects was not significantly altered by the camera.

Mass media have been around for as long as one person could shout loud enough for a large group to hear. This oral medium of spoken language remained the only form of mass communication for thousands of years, until the advent of the written word. Throughout history, mass media have had an important role in allowing one person or a small group of people to express their ideas in such a way so as to effect a change of belief or at least to increase the likelihood of change of belief in the receivers. With the advent of the printing press, mass media went from being able to reach hundreds of people at a time to suddenly being able to reach thousands upon thousands, changing the way literate people think and learn (Eisenstein, 1979). With each major advance in mass communications technology, the number of people reached with a single message changed dramatically, as did the effect on thinking and learning. Today, television is one of the most powerful forms of mass media, and its effect in society is just as strong (MacLuhan, 1965).

Like all other forms of mass media, television provides an outlet for the distribution of information. With that information most often comes an attempt, however small, at persuasion, the most obvious form of which can be seen in the advertising so prominent on television today. Commercials provide a unique perspective on... American culture. Certainly, video ads have influenced that culture (Hall, 1994). Commercials, however, are by no means the only form of persuasion directed at television viewers. Virtually every program on television today attempts to make some point (Parenti, 1992). Dramas frequently deal with issues of prejudice, be it racial, sexual, religious, or any other conceivable form of unfair bias. "How-to" programs tell the viewer which colors have to go together, how one must arrange their furniture or which clothes one must wear. Even television news tells the viewer what to think about society today, whether purposefully or not (Parenti, 1992). In fact according to theorists like Marshal MacLuhan, television as a technology has itself had a massive effect on society. Prolonged viewing of such a non-interactive medium has affected society in unknowable ways (MacLuhan, 1965). Other researchers suggesting that mass media are in fact creating our modern American culture (Geis, Brown, Jennings & Porter, 1984).

Even theorists who don't believe that there is such a direct effect from television often agree that it has a strong influence on people's beliefs. George Gerbner's cultivation theory deals with the way mass media influence society. Rather than taking McLuhan's viewpoint that mass media create society, Gerbner takes a less absolute position by describing ways in which mass media influence and cultivate the way society sees life. "People think of television as programs, but television is more than that; television is a mythology-highly connected, repeated every day so that the themes that run through all programming and news have the effect of cultivating conceptions of reality" (Gerbner, 1994).

Theories like technological determinism and cultivation theory expound the effect that television and other mass media have on society as a whole. There are a large number of current media scholars who subscribe to these ideas, including Michael Parenti, whose book Make Believe Media is about the influence of media propaganda. He writes that "except for friends, the media are the primary influence in shaping... sex roles and future aspirations" (163). Likewise Neil Postman sees television as "a specially constructed information system whose purpose is to influence, teach train or cultivate the mind and character of youth"(1985, 145). The influence of television on society is a well documented point of view.

One especially important genre of television programming in the area of affecting viewers' perceptions of the world and influencing culture is the so-called "reality TV". This form of programming is not new to television. In 1973 PBS produced what many consider to be the first reality TV show: An American Family. The 12 part miniseries followed the everyday lives of the Loud family. Viewers witnessed both the good and the bad moments, including the parents' divorce and one son's announcement of his homosexuality. It was a one-time series though, never to be repeated (Singer, 1990).

Today's television viewer is inundated with recurring seasons of shows like Survivor and Fear Factor as well as Blind Date and MTV's long running The Real World, now in it's eleventh season. Reality TV today comes in many different forms, from adventure to dating to drama, to informational and many other sub-genres. The distinctions that tie them all together under the name "Reality TV" are, for the purposes of this study, simply these: there are no scripts, and the characters on the show are not actors portraying a character. They are real people who are ostensibly acting like they normally do, as if there were no camera around, as if they didn't know that they were going to be watched by thousands if not millions of people.

The problem with this situation, of course, is that they do know that they are going to be watched by such a large audience. The camera is generally right there in their faces. It seems impossible that people in such a situation would act as they normally do. Yet at the same time millions of viewers are watching these shows, and according to cultivation theory their perceptions of American social interaction in general are being influenced to some degree by what they see (Gerbner, 1994).

Without fully understanding what one is watching, there is a danger of being misinformed. Not only are these programs heavily edited to fit days worth of activity into an hour or half-hour time slot, but the question remains as to what effect the knowledge that they are being recorded has on the interactions of the subjects. Would these people react the same way to the same stimuli of there were no cameras around them? Would they eat the bugs, jump from the helicopters, climb the ropes? Even in non-goal-oriented shows like MTV's The Real World, would all these people really interact the way that they do on the show? If the camera weren't there, would they be more subdued? Or would they be more outspoken? Understanding these questions and their answers is an important part of understanding these television programs, and thus limiting the influence of the programs on one's view of American culture. In a culture where Reality Television is so popular and TV news networks run twenty-four hours a day, it is important to understand what we are watching.

Theoretical Basis

Theories like technological determinism and cultivation theory may explain how mass media have an effect on society, but in order to accurately analyze the actual television programs and answer the aforementioned questions, one must have a solid understanding of a social interaction theory from which to base one's observations. Whenever one person is doing something in view of another, a social interaction is taking place (Littlejohn, 1983). Thus acting before the camera is an interaction with television viewers.

Social interaction is a phenomenon that is very difficult to explain, made even more difficult by the fact that it is impossible to view any social interaction from a truly outside perspective. The researcher, by witnessing the event, becomes a part of the event (Lomax and Casey, 1998). There are many theories that attempt to explain why people interact the way that they do. One such theory of Social interaction that works well for this study is Erving Goffman's Dramaturgy.

Dramaturgy, simply put, is the academic elaboration of the well-known quotation by William Shakespeare: "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players. They have their exits and their entrances, and one man in his time plays many parts..." Everyday interaction requires people to portray meaning to each other and to create impressions of themselves in others. In order to do this, people act. As in theatre, this action takes place within a context. Goffman calls this context the frame. There are as infinite a number of frames as there are possible contexts for action. Additionally, as in theatre, there are times when people are away from an audience and therefore away from the need to act. These are backstage moments, and are as essential to human interaction as is anything that happens in view of an audience (Littlejohn, 1983; Wood, 2000). For the purposes of this study, we will focus on two of the central concepts of Dramaturgy: Impression management and stage settings.

Impression Management

Impression management is one key idea of Goffman's dramaturgy. Wood defines impression management as "...the process of managing setting, words, nonverbal communication, and dress in an effort to create a particular image of individuals and situations" and is quick to point out that "...our efforts to create and project certain impressions may be either highly calculated or unintentional" (2000, p.126).

In a speech written for his presidential address to the American Sociological Association, Goffman states, "...our appearance and manner provide evidence of our statuses and relationships... our line of visual regard, the intensity of our involvement, and the shape of our initial actions, allow others to glean our immediate intent and purpose..." (1983, p.3). The result of all this is that we, as humans, create specific roles for ourselves to play, depending upon the frame in which we are currently acting and the impression that we wish to create in our audience. This acting is precisely why Goffman and others tend to view life as drama.

Scene Settings

Actions that might render a performance as less than credible can take place in the back stage without fear of detriment to the performer's believability (Wood, 2000, p.127). These front and back stage settings are a part of everyday life. Both are essential for proper communication. While the front stage is where such communication actually takes place, the back stage is necessary as a region where one can relax and let down one's guard. In addition, the mere knowledge of the presence of a backstage area can help one endure the work that goes into putting on an effective front-stage performance (Wood, 2000, p.128). One of the effects of the camera that we shall look into is its elimination of the backstage area. When there is a camera recording a person's every move all day long, there is no opportunity to let down one's guard and "recharge" unless one can ignore the camera. The question arises, then, of whether it is possible for the camera to be ignored.

A not so trivial point to keep in mind when discussing front versus back stage distinctions is that there are often situations and settings that are both front and back stage simultaneously. For instance, in a reality TV show, a character may be away from the rest of the characters, and thus backstage of them. That character is still in front of the camera though, and thus is on a front stage. As long as there is someone present to observe the actions of another, there is a front-stage environment. Consequently it is possible to be acting within multiple layers of front and back stage environments, and labeling them as one or the other depends on whose perspective is being used to evaluate the situation.

Contemporaries of Goffman have begun an attempt to clarify these poly-staged environments by viewing front and back stage as "ideal poles of a continuum, poles that are linked by a series of front regions declared to appear as back regions, and back regions set up to accommodate outsiders" (MacCannell, 1973, p.602). This type of continuum is especially applicable to situations, such as tourist settings, in which a front stage area is made to appear as if it were a backstage area in order to induce in the tourists a feeling of intimacy and in-depth understanding of the inner workings of the place. It is also applicable to Reality TV, where the camera places everyone on a front stage, even when they are in the backstage of the other participants.

Literature Review

Other studies of the effects of the camera have not necessarily used dramaturgy to analyze their findings. Instead, many have opted to use other theories or have not used a theory of interaction at all, focusing solely on the effect of the camera on individual behaviors such as the ability to recall facts (Hoyt, 1977). There is no one right way to study this human interaction. Each theory and each study has its own positive and negative aspects, its own areas of excellence, and areas of limitation. A brief overview of some of these other studies will serve to outline not only what has already been found, but also to provide differing points of view from which to see the whole picture.

Past research and literature in this area reveals two common answers to the question of the effect of the camera. One of these, often found in anthropological studies, insists that the camera, when used properly, has no effect whatsoever on the subject of the recording (de Huesch, 1962). The second simply implies that the camera does in fact distort reality (Heider, 1976). In sociological and anthropological studies the former means that researcher need not worry about data contamination by the camera, while the latter means the researchers must strive to either keep the camera hidden or to validate camera data by comparing it with data from other sources (Lomax & Casey, 1998).

Studies Reporting the Camera's Effect as Negligible

Articles that insist that the camera has no effect have been around since before the invention of television. Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson used still cameras in their study of the Balinese in 1936-38 Mead was convinced that the cameras had no effect on the Balinese. She writes 'They were un-self-conscious about photography, accepting it as a part of a life which was in many ways always lived on a stage' (as quoted in Heider, 1976, p. 51). Mead however, did no conclusive research to back her statement. In fact according to Heider, "Few ethnographers have ever tried to answer the question of the effect of their own presence" (Heider, 1976, p. 51).

Since Mead there have been researchers who have studied the phenomenon more closely and who also deny the effect of the camera. In one analysis (Arborelius & Timpka, 1990) researchers videotaped doctors with their patients and subsequently questioned the patients as well as the doctors as to how the camera affected the consultation. According to the responses, "A little more than 90% of the patients said that they felt slightly or not at all influenced by the video-recording of the consultation" (p.X). Doctors' responses were little different after viewing the videotape of themselves, though their initial pre-viewing responses indicated that the physicians felt more influenced by the camera than did the patients. Of the few reports of influence resulting from being videotaped, Arborelius and Timpka observed that "...the influence resulted in a more diligent behavior" and "Their expressions... imply that this influence mostly dealt with a feeling of strain, but there are few expressions that suggest that they would have behaved in a different way." Thus the researchers concluded that although there seems to be an influence by the camera, that influence is mostly in the subject's mind and is not transferred to their behavior (p.X). Thus their final analysis that "The influence of the TV-camera seems to be relatively marginal" (p.X).

In a 1970 paper about techniques and equipment used in effective use of recording apparatus in anthropological fieldwork, Ivan Polunin touches briefly upon the subject of possible distortion created by those recording devices. The bulk of the paper is handed over to describing the technologies and how to use them effectively in the field. Polunin posits that understanding these things leads to understanding of how to minimize their impact on the event being recorded. He also points out the any distortion created by the device is minimal as compared to the distortion inherent in the actual doing of the study (4).

Studies Reporting that the Camera has an Effect

Despite those articles that denounce the influence of the camera as marginal, many articles that deal with camera influence indicate that that influence is indeed a major factor in creating the events that transpire during taping.

One article that studies the phenomenon from the viewpoint of sociological research is Lomax and Casey's "Recording Social Life: Reflexivity and Video Methodology" (1998). Lomax and Casey researched a way to use video to capture interaction while distorting that interaction as little as possible. Their study recognizes that the camera inherently changes interaction by becoming a part of those interactions. However, the study also indicates that the effects can be accounted for without rendering the data invalid and without clandestine recording techniques or cross verification with other forms of acquired data. In their own words, "...the video text-as-data is neither a representation of social life as it would have occurred had the researcher not been present, but neither is activity so contaminated by the research process as to make the data invalid...." (paragraph 8.2). They also point out that "...the very process of recording interaction which is then preservable and available for everyday inference in the future, sets a context to which participants show an orientation" (paragraph 8.2). Therefore, instead of ignoring that change or trying to use other forms of research to eliminate distortion-thereby eliminating the benefits of using the camera-they discovered that the changes brought about by the recording medium can be included and studied along with everything else. In fact, the distortion of the camera actually brought out more details of the way some of the recorded interactions take place. According to Lomax and Casey, "...the video camera is the research instrument par excellence, providing as it does an exclusive means of reflexively exploring the socially constitutive nature of the research process" (paragraph 8.3).

Other studies have also discovered that effect of the presence of the camera can be to add more detail to the information being acquired. Examples of this can be found in the numerous studies that have been done on the effects of media coverage of trials, including many focused primarily on the camera (Hoyt, 1977; Borgida, DeBono & Buckman, 1990; Hightower, 1971). The question of the effect of cameras in the courtroom has been debated since 1952, when an amendment to Canon 35 of the American Bar Association's Canons of Professional Ethics barred the use of cameras in the courtroom on the grounds that they distract the witness, "detract from the essential dignity of the proceedings, degrade the court, and create misconceptions with respect thereto in the mind of the public..." (as quoted in Hoyt, 1977, p. 487). Nearly two decades later in 1970, "a...survey of trial judges from throughout the country reported that 92% of the 483 judges polled believed television cameras should not be permitted to operate in courtrooms during trials" (as quoted in Hoyt, 1977, p. 488). Judiciary opinions about cameras in the courtroom are exemplified by this statement from Justice Tom Clark: "'The impact upon a witness of the knowledge that he is being viewed by a vast audience is simply incalculable. Some may be demoralized and frightened, some cocky and given to overstatement; memories may falter, as with anyone speaking publicly, and accuracy of statement may be severely undermined....'" (as quoted in Hoyt, 1977, p. 488).

The results of the studies on cameras in the courtroom have been varied, but the general consensus is that the camera, rather than having a negative effect or even no effect, actually benefits the court system by creating a situation on which witnesses are more likely to produce more, and more relevant, information. One such study was carried out by James Hoyt in 1977. The study was set up to mimic a witness' recollection of the information being asked of him during a trial. It "...attempted to experimentally test that speculation, to determine if, in fact, individuals are affected by the awareness that they are being televised" (490). Subjects were shown a brief film depicting the workings of the German Postal system, unaware that they would be questioned later about what they saw. During the questioning, one group of subjects was videotaped with a conspicuously placed camera, one group's camera was behind one-way glass, and a third group had no camera at all (491).

Hoyt found that the group with no camera and the group with the concealed camera reacted little differently. The group that recounted the information in front of a conspicuous camera, however, showed marked changes in their testimonies. The subjects in this group gave longer, more detailed accounts of what they saw (493-494). Hoyt concludes that "...the assumption that when faced by a television camera, persons' memories may fail etc. was not supported" (494).

In Hoyt's study, however, as with most of the courtroom studies, the focus was on the effect of the camera on individual behavior. While that is indeed important, especially for the courtroom situation, the current study is rather more concerned with the camera's effect on social interaction.

Other Pertinent Studies

A final group of articles deals not with the presence of the camera specifically but with the more general effects of acting before an audience (Zimmerman & Bauer, 19XX) and the social expectations that an audience can impose upon the actor (Troyer & Younts, 1997). Zimmerman and Bauer's study did not involve video cameras, though it did study the effect of an implied audience. The results are therefore applicable in much the same way because the camera also represents an implied audience. Zimmerman and Bauer were interested in discovering the role that an audience plays upon what is remembered about a given situation. The results that they found indicated that as well as playing a role in memory creation, the audience also has a large role in the communication process in general. More specifically they noted of their average subject that "Faced with an audience of whose wishes, expectations, and values he had a definite image, he would organize his speech in some way as a function of his image of that audience, regardless of whether his intention was to persuade them to his point of view or to gain their approval" (239). Thus "It might well be that an audience, by influencing the way in which an individual organizes the presentation that he makes to it, would in effect cause him to play a role" (239). This holds true for any audience, whether physically present, implied, or imagined (240) and would thus hold true for the implied audience presented by the camera.

Troyer and Younts were interested in the proportional power to control social interactions that a person's expectations for himself (i.e. first order expectations) have versus the expectations he believes other to hold for him (i.e. second order expectations) (1997, 692). They further contend that the three main factors of status preservation, facilitation of interaction and contributing to the group are what motivate interaction. Troyer and Younts engage in an in depth look at multiple interaction theories-including dramaturgy-and combine them to reach their conclusion. They then conducted an experiment wherein subjects were asked to complete a task by working with another subject over a computer network. Despite what they were told, subjects were actually interacting with a computer simulation. The researchers then introduced a complex situation involving the creation of status hierarchies and perceived expectations between partners. Troyer and Younts' hypothesis that second order expectations tend to take precedence over first order expectations was supported by the results of the experiment. Those results provide similar support to the implied audiences expectations power over interactions in front of a camera.

The television camera, through implying the presence of an audience, presents a person's actions as being on one of the largest front stages possible. The camera along with the medium of television creates this new hyper-front stage, extending the stage-setting continuum proposed by MacCannell. Everything acted out in front of the camera has a high likelihood of showing up on this stage, and the people on camera know this. They are therefore actively engaged in impression management and front stage activities, and remain so engaged as long as the camera is rolling. This study contends that in this hyper-front-stage situation, there is little room for "normal" behavior. Everything is filtered not only through the lens of the camera, but also through the lens of impression management.

In order to document this phenomenon a situation has been devised in which it is possible observe the interaction of a small group of subjects first without and then with a video camera.

Methodology

Five students from Western Connecticut State University were observed for this study. The students' ages ranged from 19 to 23. Of the five, two were males and three were females. They came from varying social, economic, and ethnic backgrounds, including one student originally from Haiti. The selection was not random, but was rather based on finding an accurate cross-section of WestConn students while retaining a small group size. Demographic information provided by the university provided approximate percentages from which the subjects were chosen to match. The final group selection was also heavily influenced by student availability and willingness to participate in a non-anonymous study. The small group size was not only necessary for practicality, but was also required in order to study small group interaction that is the focus of this study.

The instruments used in this experiment were three video cameras, standard studio lighting, and a playback deck for the recorded media. Two of the cameras were mounted on tripods. These were placed left and right of the group on crossing angles, and were used to record the actions and reactions of the subjects across the opposite side of the set. The third camera was hand-held and used to record varying close-up and reaction shots. All three cameras were placed in plain view of the subjects, so that the subjects were constantly aware of the cameras' presence.

The behavior measurements were taken by observation and recorded by filling out the behavior measurements found in appendix A of this study for each participant. The behaviors were measured on a dipole scale, and include Passivity versus Aggressiveness, comfort level, shyness versus outgoingness, consistency and tolerance to the ideas and beliefs of others. These behaviors were chosen to indicate the degree to which the subjects were engaged in impression management. They are also good indicators of how a person interacts with others in a given context, or frame.

Additional observations that did not include these behaviors were then recorded in order to cover any behavior changes other than those being looked for that may be important to the outcome of the experiment. Finally the subjects were also questioned at the end of the experiment so as to learn what they felt about the experience.

The experiment itself took the form of a round-table talk show. The subjects were told that they would be participating in this program to voice their beliefs and opinions on the subject matters to be raised during the course of the show. The subjects were also told that the show would be aired on campus television, and possibly on the local cable station. It was essential that the subjects knew this, as the camera works as an implied audience. At no time were the subjects aware of the real reason that they were being observed.

As the subjects gathered together at the start of the experiment their behaviors were noted. Each subject was then individually interviewed both on and off camera. Interviews were conducted away from view of the other subjects. Half of the interview questions were the same both on and off-camera, and the other half were altered so the subject would not be able to simply repeat the same answer that they had previously given. The sets of questions can be found in Appendix B. After the one-on-one interviews, the subjects were gathered together to start rehearsing the format of the show. During this off-camera rehearsal, the interactions and behaviors were again recorded. Finally the cameras were brought in and turned on, and the show began.

The subjects sat in a semi-circle around a small table. There was no moderator; this being a free discussion intended to elicit un-moderated interaction. In the middle of the table were two pieces of paper. On each piece of paper was a set of questions or topic to discuss. One member of the group would take the top piece of paper and read the first question out loud to the rest of the group. The group then discussed the question/topic until they either chose to move on to the next one or the researcher told them to move on in the interest of time. When the questions had all been read there was a general discussion time for anyone to say anything they felt like saying, both about the topics that had been discussed, and about the experience of the experiment in general.

Results

Data measurement

After completion of the videotaped portion of the experiment, the data were carefully recorded and analyzed. Two different analysts independently generated two separate sets of behavior measurements. The results of each set were then averaged to create the final results used for this analysis. The measurement of the behavior traits recorded in this study is necessarily subjective. Therefore the average of multiple independent measurements was used to decrease the chances of any individual bias of the measurers from distorting the data. Due to the nature of the study, emphasis was placed on qualitative results over quantitative results. The assignment of numerical values to the subjective behaviors measured would have been a completely arbitrary exercise and was therefore forgone in this study. Results instead consisted of marks placed along the axis of the dipole scale representing the behavior being measured. Finding the geometric midpoint between the marks that the measurers made on corresponding axes created the averages used for the final analysis. Additional observations and notes were than added to complete the results.

Results of the one-on-one interviews

Passivity, assertiveness, and aggressiveness. All subjects remained on the passive side of the scale during the one on one interviews. The subjects all did everything that they were asked to do without question or resistance. There were no significant detectable changes in passivity when the subjects were interviewed on-camera.

Shyness/Comfort level. All subjects exhibited signs of low comfort levels at the start of the one-on-one interviews. When asked, some of the subjects attributed this discomfort to the fact that they were not used to being asked questions about themselves. By the end of the off-camera interview each subject became more comfortable with the situation. At that point the camera was brought in and the interview was done on camera. In all cases, the subjects seemed to gain a great deal of confidence when being recorded. Their answers were clearly spoken and most had no problem speaking directly into the camera. Subsequent questioning of the subjects, however, revealed that most were indeed quite uncomfortable while being recorded, but that they were acting in order to appear less ill at ease for the camera.

Consistency. This measurement was intended to be used to discover if any of the subjects would change their stated views on a given topic when on camera. Due to the nature of the one-on-one interviews, there was little opportunity to measure this behavior. All factual information reported by the subjects remained the same both off and on camera (e.g. name, age, where they were from). The only differences noted were that some of the subjects would speak more in front of the camera than before the camera was on them. One subject, however, commented after the interview that he answered differently on-camera than he would have otherwise, due to the questionable appropriateness of his honest answer. It is possible that this situation or something similar may have happened with other subjects as well. No other subjects volunteered any such information, but neither were any directly asked.

Tolerance. Due to the nature of the interviews, it was impossible to measure for this behavior.

Other observations. The amount of talking done by the subjects on camera seemed to be evened out somewhat during videotaping. The subjects who didn't say much off-camera elaborated on their ideas slightly more on camera. The subjects who talked a lot off-camera tended to simplify and tighten their responses for the camera. This held true even for the questions that had not been previously asked off-camera, so it is not a function of the subjects having repeated their answers and having more time to think about the same questions.

Results from the talk show portion

Passivity, assertiveness, and aggressiveness. All subjects maintained an assertive attitude throughout the talk show portion of the experiment. They were neither as passive as most had been during the interview segment, nor did they become in any way aggressive. All of the subjects had no problem waiting and listening while others made their points, before then speaking up and adding their own statement in a matter of fact tone. The discussion never escalated into an argument, though there were disagreements. Each subject remained assertive in stating their point.

Shyness/comfort level. The comfort level and outgoing behavior of the subjects varied a great deal between subjects. The moderating effect on speech seen in the one-on-one interviews was not so clearly definable in the group interaction portion. One subject who was very talkative and comfortable off-camera remained so on-camera. She carried a great deal of the conversation, so much so that off-camera during a break, she apologized in case others thought that she was talking too much. Another subject who was comfortable and outgoing off-camera however was rather withdrawn throughout most of the videotaping. Though she did make comments in response to the questions posed to the group, she did not interact nearly as much with the others as she did off-camera. One subject who stated that he was fairly uncomfortable talking in front of groups off-camera remained so on-camera, barely interacting with the rest of the group at all. The other two subjects both seemed equally comfortable and outgoing both off and on-camera.

Consistency. As stated previously, the purpose of this measurement was to find out if any of the subjects would change their stated views and opinions when on camera. This was accomplished by taking a break in the middle of shooting and continuing to discuss the topics used on-camera. The subjects all continued to express the same thoughts off camera as they did on. Some however, revealed that they were not necessarily so adamant about ideas that they had expressed on camera. This suggests that those subjects conviction in their beliefs was falsely strengthened on camera in order not to appear weak or inconsistent.

Tolerance. As was exemplified by the assertiveness retained throughout videotaping, the subjects tolerance of each others' viewpoints remained high. Subjects were open to the ideas of others without criticizing those ideas. When a disagreement occurred, subjects discussed the differences and remained open to hearing the other side's view without changing their own standpoint.

Other observations. Before the off-camera rehearsal questions for the talk show began, the subjects formally introduced themselves to each other. Interaction at this point was still very individual oriented. Subjects talked one-on-one with each other for short moments and then moved on to someone else. Even once the group started discussing random small talk all together, there was a great deal of overlap between simultaneous lines of discussion, and also interruptions of each other.

When the first rehearsal question was read, still off-camera, the interaction started to settle down. The subjects sensed the formality of the situation and began to give each other more time to speak and were otherwise generally more aware of speech etiquette. The subjects' tone remained warm and friendly and conversational.

When the cameras were turned on, the formality of tone and actions increased sharply. The subjects were suddenly very proper, obeying speech etiquette much more strictly. Their tone changed from conversational to matter of fact. This effect seemed to lose strength as the experiment proceeded. By the end of the videotaping, subjects' tone and speech etiquette had started to revert toward the off-camera state.

Another interesting thing to note was the sudden increase in nervous behaviors. Many off-camera nervous behaviors were suddenly amplified. For example, those prone to biting their fingernails did so much more often on camera than in a similar of-camera situation. This tendency, however, did not observably decrease throughout the experiment.

Discussion

The results indicate that the camera did indeed have an affect on the behavior of individuals in one-on-one situations as well as group interaction. This effect however, seems to be more internal and individual than external and group oriented. While individual behaviors changed somewhat, the interactions that took place on camera were not outwardly significantly different from off camera interactions. Though subjects reported feeling somewhat to extremely self-conscious on camera, their interactions remained almost as they had been off-camera.

A much bigger difference in interaction behaviors was expected; perhaps one noticeable enough to influence the way a viewer would judge the subjects and their interactions. This change in behavior did not occur to a significant degree. There was less disagreement among subjects than was anticipated, and the disagreement that did occur was handled very politely and open-mindedly. When one watches a reality television program such as The Real World, one is bound to see frequent heated arguments. The results of this study indicate that this is most likely due to other factors such as editing as well as a more intense atmosphere surrounding the filming of the events.

The accuracy of the experiment is hard to judge. The small group size, while necessary for the type of interaction being studied, could have been better accounted for by having multiple small groups. The television studio environment in which the experiment took place may also have contaminated the results. Perhaps other traits, characteristics, and behaviors than were measured do change significantly, and were overlooked by this study.

Nonetheless the results do tend to correspond with the results of many of the other articles reviewed in this study. Interestingly, the results coincide a great deal with the results of both groups of studies: those that insist upon a distortion by the camera, and those that disagree and cite the minimal changes that appear in outward behavior. The distortion of the camera was evident in the reports of self-consciousness from the subjects, yet that distortion did not translate to an equivalent change in interaction behavior.

This study's argument that reality TV may impact viewers' perception of social interaction with a false representation due to camera distortion was therefore not borne out. If viewers therefore do have false impressions of social interaction created by reality programming, the cause is likely something other than the effect of the presence of the camera on the reality TV show participants.

Future studies in the area of Reality TV would do well to look into the situational factor of so-called reality TV shows, as well as the production aspects including editing and why the particular editing choices are made. Another possibility would be to look into what sort of people generally get selected to participate in reality television programs.

Arborelius, E. and Timpka, T. (1990) 'General practitioners' comments on video recorded consultations as an aid to understanding the doctor-patient relationship', Family Practice,. 7 (2) 84 - 90.

Borgida, E., DeBono, K., and Buckman L. (1990). Cameras in the courtroom: The effects of media coverage on witness testimony and juror perceptions. Law and Human Behavior; 14 (5), Oct. 489-509.

de Huesch, L. (1962) The cinema and social science. U.N.E.S.C.O. Reports and Papers in the Social Sciences, No. 16.

Eisenstein, E. (1979). The printing press as an agent of change: Communications and cultural transformations on early modern Europe (Vol. 1). Cambridge [Eng.]; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Geis, F. L., Brown, V., Jennings, J., & Porter, N. (1984). TV commercials as achievement scripts for women. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 10 (7/8), 513-525.

Gerbner, G. (1994). Reclaiming our cultural mythology. In Context.

Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order: American Sociological Association, 1982 presidential address. American Sociological Review, 48, 1-17.

Hall, J. (1994). Mighty minutes: An illustrated history of television's best commercials. New York: Harmony Books.

Heider, K (1976) Ethnographic film. Austin Texas: University of Texas Press.

Hightower, P. (1975). Canon 35 remains same despite courtroom tests. Journalism Quarterly, 52 (Autumn ) 546-548.

Hoyt, J. (1977) Courtroom coverage: The effects of being televised Journal of Broadcasting, 21 (4, fall), 487-495.

Littlejohn, S.W. (1983). Theories of human communication (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Lomax, H. and Casey, N. (1998) 'Recording social life: Reflexivity and video methodology' Sociological Research Online, vol. 3, no. 2, http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/3/2/1.html

MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in tourist settings. American Journal of Sociology, 79, 589-603.

McLuhan, M. (1965) Understanding media: the extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Parenti, M. (1992). Make believe media: The politics of entertainment. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Polunin, I. (1970). Visual and sound recording apparatus in ethnographic fieldwork. Current Anthropology, 11 (1 Feb.), 3-22.

Postman, N. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death. New York: Viking Penguin.

Singer, S. (1990). The return of the Louds: WNET to air 1973 film. Current (Nov. 5) . (Current Publishing Committee, Washington, D.C.)

Troyer L. and Younts C.W. (1997). Whose expectations matter? The relative power of first- and second-order expectations in determining social influence. American Journal of Sociology, 103 (3 Nov.), 692-732.

Wood, J. (2000). Communication theories in action: An introduction (2nd ed.). Stamford, CT: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.

Zimmerman C. and Bauer R. (1956). The effect of an audience upon what is remembered. Public Opinion Quarterly, 20, Issue 1, Special Issue on Studies in Political Communication (Spring), 238-248.