COMS 450
Dr. Melissa Tindage
Online Activities #3
Chapters 4 + 14
Fall 2020
This online activity focuses on information found in Chapters 4 and 14 of your readings. All parts of the
assignment must be completed in order to receive credit. You will be graded not only on whether or not you
completed all parts, but on the quality of your answers. Once you finish this activity, you must upload to Canvas
by Sunday, September 20th @ 11:59 p.m.
Part 1: Quantitative vs. Qualitative Research
In your own words, describe the difference between quantitative and qualitative research.
Part 2: Quantitative Research Article Worksheet
This section is to help you become familiarized with quantitative research. You will read the article “Bingewatching: A suspenseful, emotional, habit”. This article can be found on Canvas in the Week 5 module. Use
that journal article to answer the questions below.
1. What was the purpose of this research study?
2. What theory or theories provided the foundation for this study?
3. Copy and paste all hypotheses or research questions here.
4. Mark each hypothesis or research question in #3 with the following codes: DIF, if the statement or
question suggests looking for a difference, or REL, if the statement or question suggests looking for a
relationship. Similarly, mark each hypothesis or research question with the following codes: DIR, if the
statement or question is directional, or NDIR, if the statement or question is nondirectional. This all can
be done in the section where you copied and pasted the hypotheses and research questions in question
#3.
5. Underline the independent variable and italicize the dependent variables in each hypothesis or research
question that is copied and pasted in question #3.
6. For the first hypothesis, write the corresponding null hypothesis below. Keep it in the same order you
have copied and pasted the original hypotheses and/or research questions.
7. How were the variables operationalized (measured) in this study? List each variable here and give a
brief description of the operationalization (measurement).
Part 3: Qualitative Research Article Worksheet
This section is to help you become familiarized with qualitative research. You will read the article “’They don’t
know what it’s like in here’: Incarcerated individuals’ communication with family members”. This article can
be found on Canvas in the Week 5 module. Use that journal article to answer the questions below.
1. What was the research purpose of this study? If the author included research questions, write these here
as well.
2. What theories, previous findings, or information about the interaction context did the author reference as
a prelude to the study?
3. What specific research method(s) did the author use? Identify the specific observations, or data, gained
from each method. Also, identify the level of evidence these data provided.
4. Describe how the researchers addressed issues of credibility in the study.
5. What theories, findings, or information about the interaction context resulted from the conclusions of the
study?
6. Briefly describe the weaknesses or limitations you believe exist in this study.
Communication Research Reports
ISSN: 0882-4096 (Print) 1746-4099 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcrr20
Binge-Watching: A Suspenseful, Emotional, Habit
Bridget Rubenking & Cheryl Campanella Bracken
To cite this article: Bridget Rubenking & Cheryl Campanella Bracken (2018) Binge-Watching:
A Suspenseful, Emotional, Habit, Communication Research Reports, 35:5, 381-391, DOI:
10.1080/08824096.2018.1525346
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2018.1525346
Published online: 03 Oct 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 3231
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcrr20
Communication Research Reports
Vol. 35, No. 5, 2018, pp. 381–391
Binge-Watching: A Suspenseful,
Emotional, Habit
Bridget Rubenking & Cheryl Campanella Bracken
Binge-watching, simultaneously treated as both guilty pleasure and legitimate health
concern in popular press and academic discussions, is a pervasive media behavior. Yet
distinguishing it from other ways of television viewing remains elusive in communication research. The present study employs empirically supported variables to determine
if different outcome expectancies are relevant to the frequency of binge-watching as
contrasted with appointment viewing of television through the lens of the model of
media attendance. Survey results (N = 797) of a college student and representative
adult sample reveal that binge-watching is motivated in large part by the behavior
already being an entrenched habit among viewers, while suspense and anticipation
associated with content and motivation to use viewing to regulate one’s emotions are
also significant antecedents. Conversely, more frequent appointment viewing of television viewing was driven by viewing efficacy and older age.
KEYWORDS:
Binge-Watching; Habit; Media Use; New Viewing Behaviors
Background
Television comprises over 50% of Americans’ leisure time (U. S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2017), but how individuals view is rapidly changing. Binge-watching has
been discussed as the “new norm” in television viewing (Karmakar & Kruger, 2016;
Matrix, 2014). Netflix reports that 61% of their subscribers binge-watch regularly,
and 73% of those viewers have positive affect toward bingeing (West, 2014). Other
studies report that between 62% and 87% of streaming service subscribers regularly
Bridget Rubenking, (Ph.D. Indiana University, 2012) is an Associate Professor in the Nicholson School of
Communication and Media at the University of Central Florida. Cheryl Campanella Bracken (Ph.D. Temple
University, 2000) is a Professor in the School of Communication at Cleveland State University. Correspondence:
Bridget Rubenking, Nicholson School of Communication, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA;
E-mail: bridget.rubenking@ucf.edu
ISSN 0882-4096 (print)/ISSN 1746-4099 (online) © 2018 Eastern Communication Association
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2018.1525346
382
B. Rubenking & C. C. Bracken
binge-watch (Ericsson Consumer Lab, 2015). Despite the negative connotations of
“bingeing,” some have framed binge-watching as a thoroughly immersive and
entertaining consumption mode, which often hinges upon viewing suspenseful,
engaging narrative content (Guiffre, 2013; Rubenking, Bracken, Sandoval, & Rister,
2018). Indeed, Perks (2014) has offered the term “media marathoning” to capture the
mindful engagement inherent to the behavior.
Newer television viewing behaviors may impact many issues, including distribution and economic models, as well as audience measurement issues. A fundamental
change in how individuals view television likely has a reciprocal relationship on the
processing of content, motives to view, and effects of viewing, presenting as a serious
concern to media entertainment scholars. Yet research in communication on bingewatching is still in a preliminary stage, seen largely in thesis/dissertation work or
conference papers (Pena, 2015; Wheeler, 2015). Binge-watching is conceptualized as
not a change in the duration of viewing but in a commitment to watch one program
until all available episodes are exhausted. Based on ongoing research on bingewatching (Rubenking et al., 2018), we define the new viewing behavior as long
periods of focused, deliberate viewing of sequential television content that is generally narrative, suspenseful, and dramatic in nature. Binge-watching may be a
planned, purposeful activity or unintentional and is likely influenced by changing
content, platform, and distribution practices. This study utilizes aspects of LaRose
and Eastin’s (2004) model of media attendance to identify motives unique to bingewatching television content, as contrasted with appointment viewing of television,
and explores how these motives vary across adult populations.
Evidence suggests that younger audiences are more likely to binge-watch than
older groups (Harris Interactive Poll, 2014), and they are more likely to see the
potential to binge-watch as an appealing affordance of streaming services (West,
2014). One study of undergraduates found that over 90% binge-watch television
(Wheeler, 2015). While younger audiences may be binge-watching more frequently,
60% of all audiences regularly binge-watching television (Harris Interactive Poll,
2014). While industry reports and an unpublished master’s thesis support this trend,
it is critical for our general understanding of binge-watching to examine this variable
as it pertains to the frequency of it.
H1: Younger audiences will more frequently binge-watch than adult audiences.
Theoretical perspectives
LaRose and Eastin’s (2004) model of media attendance places several uses and
gratifications concepts into Bandura’s social cognitive theory, SCT, which offers a
broad theoretical perspective of human behavior often applied in mass communication contexts. In it, gratifications are reconstructed as outcome expectancies, which,
along with self-regulation, habits, and self-efficacy, explain variance in media attendance or use (LaRose & Eastin, 2004). Outcome expectancies are judgments of the
likely outcomes of behavior. Bandura identifies six incentives for all human
Communication Research Reports 383
behavior: novel sensory, social, status, monetary, enjoyable activity, and self-reactive.
These outcomes are theoretically derived and have explained more variance together
than previous models utilizing a uses and gratifications approach alone (LaRose &
Eastin, 2004). The current study focuses on one construct critical to entertainment
research across theoretical approaches: emotion. Specifically, this study proposes that
using television content to regulate and control our emotional experiences is a
common outcome expectancy of television usage and for binge-watching television.
Related gratifications of escapism and relaxation have been identified as motives in
uses and gratifications-based explorations of binge-watching (Pena, 2015). Additionally, affective outcomes have been found to be predictive of binge-watching under
another SCT approach-based study of binge-watching (Walton-Pattison, Dombrowski, & Presseau, 2016), and emotional connections and a pleasurable viewing
experience have been identified as motivations in qualitative studies (Rubenking
et al., 2018; Flayelle et al., 2017).
H2: Using viewing to regulate one’s emotions will be more greatly associated with
binge-watching than appointment viewing.
Self-regulation is comprised of an individual’s ability to self-monitor behavior,
compare behavior to one’s goals, and then adjust one’s behavior (Bandura, 2001).
Previous research demonstrates a relationship between a lack of self-control and
increased media use (Panek, 2014). Deficient self-regulation can lead to an overreliance on habits to influence behaviors (LaRose, Lin & Eastin, 2003). Indeed,
habits’ greatest contribution to human processing is the efficiency that they afford
(LaRose, 2010). As such, when self-regulation or self-control capabilities are limited,
habit is more likely to guide behavior. While habits may begin as efficient, as selfcontrol diminishes, habits may deteriorate into problem behaviors. The link between
habits and deficient self-control has also been demonstrated experimentally (Neal,
Wood, & Quinn, 2006; Peters, 2009). Habit have long been overlooked in media use
behaviors, though research demonstrates that a significant portion of media behaviors are habitual (Adams, 2000).
Both self-control and habit are critical concepts to binge-watching. Is bingewatching purely an effect of viewers’ lack of self-control to stop viewing? Here,
binge-watching is conceptualized as distinct from purely watching more television;
however, habit may be functioning to increase the frequency of binge-watching.
H3: A lack of self-control will be a larger predictor of binge-watching than appointment viewing.
H4: Increased reliance on habit will predict more frequent binge-watching.
A final concept in the model of media attendance is self-efficacy, which is
concerned with individuals’ belief in their ability to enact a behavior. Since individuals rely on previous experience viewing television when judging their capability to
view more of it, it is unclear if self-efficacy will play a larger role in binge-watching
or appointment viewing.
384
B. Rubenking & C. C. Bracken
RQ1:What is the relationship between self-efficacy to binge-watching and appointment viewing frequency?
Additional theoretical construct
The experience of anticipation and engagement with suspenseful content is one
common variable present in both popular discussion of binge-watching and the
varied theoretical and methodological approaches applied to emerging academic
explorations of binge-watching. Engagement with the narrative was found to be
the only gratification explored that was related to increased binge-watching (Pittman
& Sheehan, 2015). Exelmans et al. (2017) found that presleep cognitive arousal fully
mediated the relationship between binge-watching frequency and poor sleep,
explaining the immersion in and engagement with the suspenseful narratives as
the cause. Anticipation, suspense, and engagement with the exciting, suspenseful
narratives most often being binge-watched have been well articulated in qualitative
studies of the phenomenon (Flayelle et al., 2017; Rubenking et al., 2018).Therefore,
H5: Watching television to fulfill suspense/anticipation motives will predict more
frequent binge-watching.
Method
Design and Sample
Data were collected via an online survey with two samples: one of students at two
universities in the United States and the second a representative sample of U.S. adults
age 25 and older, recruited and compensated via Qualtrics Panel Survey. The two
samples were employed to provide a more diverse sample of adult media users. While
binge-watching has been largely studied among college students (e.g., Pena, 2015;
Wheeler, 2015), industry reports suggest that it is common among multiple age groups.
The use of separate samples allows for the testing of this finding in a theoretically based
investigation. The student sample, N = 373, was 62% female, and the average age was
22.01 (SD = 5.92). The adult sample, N = 421, was 51% female, with a mean age of 48.97
(SD = 14.40.) All measures and procedures were approved by the universities’ IRB.
Measures
Emotional outcome expectations
The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire, ERQ, (Gross & John, 2003) was developed to
measure strategies individuals employ for emotional control. It was modified here to
index the degree to which participants report using television watching to manage
emotional responses, such as positive and negative affect; feelings of excitement,
relaxation, entertainment; as well as to relieve frustration or boredom. Measured on a
7-point scale, these 10 items reached a reliability coefficient of .92, M = 3.76, SD = 1.47.
Communication Research Reports 385
Self-control
The current study explores the perceived self-regulation capabilities among
individuals by measuring differences in perceived self-control. The Brief SelfControl Measure (Tangney, Baumesiter, & Boone, 2004) was used, where
greater values indicate greater self-control (M = 3.39, SD = .70); reliability
reached a .85.
Self-efficacy
The measure of self-efficacy here is related to competency using multiple media
technologies to view TV, modeled after others who have used measures of the
extent of use of the medium (Peters, 2009). Individuals were asked to indicate
how frequently they view TV content using each of the following methods:
DVR, streaming On-Demand services, DVDs, via TV screen, computer (desktop
and laptop) screens, tablet, and mobile devices, on a 9-point scale, M = 35.31,
SD = 12.88. The Cronbach’s alpha of these items reached a .76.
Habit
The degree to which individuals perceive binge-watching as an existing habit was
measured with the 4-item automaticity subscale of the Self-Report Habit Index,
SRHI (Verplanken & Orbell, 2003), as created by Gardner, Abraham, Lally, & Jan
de Brujin (2012). Greater values indicate greater reliance on habit. This scale has a
Cronbach’s alpha of .91, M = 3.55, SD = 1.84, on a 7-point scale.
Suspense/anticipation
These motives were measured by six items inquiring about how/when viewers
anticipate viewing engaging content, on a 7-point scale. Examples include “When
there is a cliffhanger and I want to know what comes next” and “When it feels like
I’ve spent no time watching at all.” These items reached a Cronbach’s alpha of .88,
M = 5.08, SD = 1.50.
Binge-watching and appointment viewing frequency
Participants were instructed to consider binge-watching as “watching three to four
or more 30-minute shows, or three episodes or more of hour-long television
episodes of the same show in one sitting.” Frequency was measured on a 9point scale from never to for a large part of every day (M = 3.23, SD = 2.42). A
second measures asked participants how many hours they averaged per binge.
That measure indicated that the average length of a binge was 4.13 hours
(SD = 2.78). Appointment viewing frequency was measured by asking the frequency that individuals viewed “TV content at its scheduled time” on the same
scale (M = 5.97, SD = 2.58).
386
B. Rubenking & C. C. Bracken
Results
The correlations for all the measured variables are presented in Table 1. Table 2
features two hierarchical stepwise regressions on binge-watching frequency and
appointment viewing frequency. In both models, step one (age and gender) and
step two (SCT concepts) are the same. The binge-watching regression contains a
third step with variables theoretically linked to binge-watching (Anticipation/Suspense and Habit). Both regressions achieve satisfactory F values and explanatory
power, with an adjusted R2 for binge-watching frequency of .39 and .43 for appointment viewing frequency respectively.
H1 stated that binge-watching would be more frequent among younger individuals. Table 2 shows that age has a significant, negative relationship with bingewatching frequency in the final block (β = .09, p < .001) and interestingly, a strong
positive relationship with appointment viewing in the final block (β = .51, p < .001).
Further, an ANOVA demonstrates a significant difference in binge-watching frequency among the student sample (M = 3.47, SD = 2.12) and the adult sample,
M = 3.03, SD = 2.64, F(1, 802) = 6.670, p < .010. H1 is supported.
H2 stated that emotion regulation through viewing would be more greatly
associated with binge-watching frequency than appointment viewing frequency.
Emotion regulation plays the largest role in binge-watching when entered with the
other SCT variables (β = .41, p < .001) in the second block and remains a significant
in the third block of the binge-watching frequency regression (β = .12, p < .05).
Emotion regulation is not a significant factor of appointment viewing, thus supporting H2. H3 predicted that less self-control would be more greatly associated with
binge-watching than appointment viewing. Self-control has a small, negative relationship with binge-watching frequency in the second block of the regression but
failed to maintain significance in the final block. It was also not a significant variable
in the appointment viewing frequency analysis (p > .9); thus, H3 is not supported.
RQ1 asked how self-efficacy relates to binge-watching and appointment viewing.
Self-efficacy does not have a significant relationship with binge-watching, however, it
Table 1. Correlations of Measured Variables (N = 797).
Variables
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Emotional Regulation
Self-Control
Viewing Efficacy
Habit
Suspense
Binge-Watching
Appointment Viewing
**p < .01.
1
2
4
5
6
7
–
−.32**
.45**
.67**
.60**
.51**
.05
–
−15**
−.28**
−.23 **
−.23**
.04
–
.40**
.27**
.31**
.41**
–
.48**
.58**
.06
–
.45**
–.05
–
.02
Communication Research Reports 387
Table 2. Antecedents of Binge-Watching and Appointment Viewing Frequency.
Binge-Watching Frequency
Predictors
ΔR2
Step 1: Demographics
Age
Sex
Step 2: SCT concepts
Age
Sex
Emotion regulation
Self-control
Viewing efficacy
Step 3: Binge-watching
concepts
Age
Sex
Emotion regulation
Self-control
Viewing addiction
Viewing efficacy
Suspense/Anticipation
Habit
.07**
β
Appointment Viewing Frequency
ΔR2
β
.24**
−.24**
.08*
.30**
.48**
−.09*
.43**
−.12**
.08*
.41**
−.06*
.11**
.51**
−.04
−.03
.00
.46**
.39**
−.09**
.04
.12*
−.03
.06
.06
.15**
.37**
Note. N = 797.
**p < .001, *p < .05.
shares a significant and moderately sized relationship with appointment viewing
(β = .44, p < .001).
The last two hypotheses stated that habit (H4) and anticipation/suspense (H5)
would be positively related to binge-watching frequency after accounting for the SCT
variables. The third and final block of the binge-watching regression containing
these two items was significant, F(7, 790) = 74.545, p < .001, with an additional 9%
explained variance. Both factors were significant and positive, with habit (β = .37,
p < .001) playing the larger role as compared to anticipation/suspense (β = .15,
p < .001).
Discussion
The present study explored differences in antecedents of binge-watching and
appointment viewing of television across two samples based on previous theoretically and empirically grounded concepts. The model of media attendance, along with
the inclusion of age and anticipation/suspense, accounted for considerable amounts
388
B. Rubenking & C. C. Bracken
of variance explained. Binge-watching frequency was associated with being younger,
increased use of viewing to regulate one’s emotions, seeking out and feeling suspense
and anticipation, and by viewing habits previously established. Appointment viewing, on the other hand, was linked to being older and viewing efficacy. While
participants reported engaging in more appointment viewing than binge-watching
in this study, it should be noted that the lower frequency of binge-watching may be
due to the increased time it takes to binge-watch content. These findings lend
support to binge-watching being conceptualized as a unique viewing experience.
Binge-watching appears to be associated with emotionally satisfying experiences that
include suspense and engagement with a compelling narrative as being a critical
component of viewing. Previous entertainment research would suggest that this type
of experience is deeply satisfying (Bartsch, 2012), so it is not alarming that it has
quickly become a habit for users.
Habit shared the strongest relationship with binge-watching frequency, which
reveals how entrenched this mode of viewing already is in the lives of college
students and adults alike. Binge-watching is a behavior that has become automatic
to individuals. The model of media attendance posits that undesired media habits are
often more entrenched due to a lack of self-control. Interestingly, self-control was
not related to frequency of either viewing type. This may be due to binge-watching
not being viewed as an unhealthy media habit or one that is indicative of faulty selfmonitoring.
This study contributes to the growing research on binge-watching. Researchers
exploring media use choices, processing of television content, and the myriad of
contexts where televised media content has been demonstrated to shape individuals’
knowledge, memory, attitudes, and behavior may be well served to take note. It is
likely that this significant shift in how individuals experience television viewing may
reshape some of our theoretical and methodological approaches, as well as our
ecological validity evaluations of many television viewing “effects” studies. Bingewatching joins media multitasking, second screening, coviewing, and others as
meaningful, new variables relevant to how new audiences engage with older mediums and messages. The theoretical approaches informing this study view human
behaviors—and within those media, choices and experiences—as having reciprocal
influences, including the self, behavior, and the environment. The self can selfregulate and make goal-directed media choices. As such, examining if the outcome
expectancies that found empirical support here (emotion regulation, anticipation/
suspense) are supported over time should be further explored.
Limitations
This study is limited in several ways. Examining the frequency of binge-watching
and appointment viewing does not account for all viewing styles, nor is frequency
the only behavioral indicator of interest. For example, Walton-Pattison et al. (2016)
created a binge-watching variable comprised of frequency, duration, and number of
Communication Research Reports 389
episodes. Cleary defining binge-watching remains a hurdle for researchers. The
measurement of appointment viewing used here does not account for viewing a
programmed marathon nor the sticky situation of sports viewing. The differences
between these viewing modes should be explored. The current study viewed bingewatching as primarily an entertainment choice and focused on two related variables:
fulfilling emotional regulation needs and anticipation and suspense Future research
should explore additional theoretically relevant outcome expectancies.
Conclusion
The variables explored here accounted for significant and moderately sized amounts
of explained variance in binge-watching and appointment viewing of television.
Binge-watching is largely associated with habit, regulating one’s emotions, and the
experience of anticipation and suspense. The reinforcement of these factors, which
make for an entertaining experience, have likely contributed to binge-watching
becoming a habit-based media behavior, which shares the strongest relationship
with binge-watching frequency. More attention among media entertainment scholars
should be paid to how this new norm of television viewing influences a number of
processing and effects issues.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public,
commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
Adams, W. J. (2000). How people watch television as investigated using focus group techniques.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(1), 78–93. doi:10.1207/
s15506878jobem4401_6
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3(3), 265–
299. doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0303_03
Bartsch, A. (2012). Emotional gratification in entertainment experience. Why viewers of movies
and television series find it rewarding to experience emotions. Media Psychology, 15(3), 267–
302. doi:10.1080/15213269.2012.693811
Ericsson Consumer Lab. (2015). TV & Media 2015: The empowered TV & media consumer’s
influence. Retrieved from: http://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/2015/consumerlab/ericssonconsumerlab-tv-media-2015-presentation.pdf
Exelmans, L., & Van Den Bulck, J. (2017). Binge viewing, sleep, and the role of pre-sleep arousal.
Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, 13(8), 1001–1008. doi:10.5664/jcsm.6704
390
B. Rubenking & C. C. Bracken
Flayelle, M, Maurage, P, & Billieux, J. (2017). Toward a qualitative understanding of bingewatching behaviors: a focus group approach. Journal Of Behavioral Addictions, 6(4), 457471. doi: 10.1556/2006.6.2017.060
Gardner, B, Abraham, C, Lally, P, & de Bruijn, G.J. (2012). Towards parsimony in habit measurement: testing the convergent and predictive validity of an automaticity subscale of the selfreport habit index. International Journal Of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9(1),
102-114. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-9-102. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-9-102
Giuffre, L. (2013). The development of binge watching. Metro, (178), 101-102.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes:
Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 85, 348–362. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348
Karmakar, M., & Kruger, J. S. (2016). Is binge-watching bad for your mental health. The Guardian,
vol. 4. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/04/bingewatching-mental-health-effects-research
LaRose, R. (2010). The problem of media habits. Communication Theory, 20(2), 194-222. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/comt.2010.20.issue-2
LaRose, R., & Eastin, M. S. (2004). A social cognitive theory of Internet uses and gratifications:
Toward a new model of media attendance. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48
(3), 358–377. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4803_2
LaRose, R, Lin, C. A, & Eastin, M. S. (2003). Unregulated internet usage: addiction, habit, or
deficient self-regulation?. Media Psychology, 5(3), 225-253. doi: 10.1207/
Matrix, S. (2014). The Netflix effect: Teens, binge watching, and on-demand digital media trends.
Jeunesse, 6(1), 119–138. doi:10.1353/jeu.2014.0002
Neal, D. T., Wood, W., & Quinn, J. M. (2006). Habits—A repeat performance. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 15(4), 198–202. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00435.x
Panek, E. (2014). Left to their own devices: College students’ “guilty pleasure” media use and time
management. Communication Research, 41(4), 561–577. doi:10.1177/0093650213499657
Pena, L. L. (2015). Breaking binge: Exploring the effects of binge watching on television viewer
Reception. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Syracuse University.
Perks, L. G. (2014). Media marathoning: Immersions in morality. Lexington Books; Lanham
Maryland. Peters, O. (2009). A social cognitive perspective on mobile communication
technology use and adoption. Social Science Computer Review, 27(1), 76–95. doi:10.1177/
0894439308322594
Peters, O. (2009). A social cognitive perspective on mobile communication technology use and
adoption. Social Science Computer Review, 27(1), 76–95. doi: 10.1177/0894439308322594
Pittman, M., & Sheehan, K. (2015). Sprinting a media marathon: Uses and gratifications of bingewatching television through Netflix. First Monday, 20. doi:10.1207/S15327825MCS0301_02
Poll, H. I. (2014, April 8). Americans taking advantage of ability to watch TV on their own schedules.
Harris Interactive Poll. Retrieved from http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/1176/Default.aspx
Rubenking, B., Bracken, C. C., Sandoval, J., & Rister, A. (2018). Defining new viewing behaviors:
What makes and motivates TV binge watching. International Journal of Digital Television, 9
(1), 69–85. doi:10.1386/jdtv.9.1.69_1
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72,
271–324. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x
U.S. Bureaus of Labor Statistics (2017, June). American time use survey summary. Retrieved from:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm
Verplanken, B., & Orbell, S. (2003). Reflections on past behavior: A self-report index of habit
strength. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1313–1330. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.
tb01951.x
Communication Research Reports 391
Walton-Pattison, E., Dombrowski, S. U., & Presseau, J. (2016). Just one more episode’: Frequency
and theoretical correlates of television binge watching. Journal of Health Psychology, Online
first. doi: 10.1177/1359105316643379
West, K. (2014). Unsurprising: Netflix survey indicates people like to binge-watch TV. CinemaBlend. Retrieved from http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Unsurprising-Netflix-Survey-Indicates-People-Like-Binge-Watch-TV-61045.html
Wheeler, K. S. (2015). The relationships between television viewing behaviors, attachment, loneliness,
depression, and psychological well-being. (Honors Thesis). Georgia Southern University,
Georgia, United States.
Qualitative Research Reports in Communication
ISSN: 1745-9435 (Print) 1745-9443 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rqrr20
“They don’t know what it’s like in here”:
Incarcerated individuals’ communication with
family members
Pamela J. Lannutti & Holly M. Harner
To cite this article: Pamela J. Lannutti & Holly M. Harner (2019) “They don’t know what it’s like in
here”: Incarcerated individuals’ communication with family members, Qualitative Research Reports
in Communication, 20:1, 75-83, DOI: 10.1080/17459435.2019.1653359
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17459435.2019.1653359
Published online: 11 Aug 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 149
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rqrr20
Qualitative Research Reports in Communication
Vol. 20, No. 1, 2019, pp. 75–83
“They don’t know what it’s like in
here”: Incarcerated individuals’
communication with family members
Pamela J. Lannutti & Holly M. Harner
The incarcerated population is large and growing. Maintaining family connections
during confinement is linked to positive outcomes, yet the family communication of
incarcerated individuals is understudied. We examine the family communication of
individuals incarcerated in an urban county jail for women. Four family communication themes were identified: 1) communication access and understanding, 2) family
support, 3) parenting challenges, and 4) family conflict. The findings inform both
theoretical and practical implications.
Keywords:
Family Communication; Incarcerated Women; Incarceration
The incarceration of a family member challenges relationships. However, prisoners
with stronger family ties enjoy greater mental and physical health and are less likely
to recidivate than those with weaker family ties (Codd, 2008). Thus, maintaining
family relationships while incarcerated increases the chances that a returning citizen
will be able to socially and financially contribute to their family and community
post-release. Yet, family communication of incarcerated individuals is understudied.
To address this gap, this investigation examines how individuals incarcerated in an
urban county jail for women communicate with family during confinement. Further,
communication researchers and educators have called for an increase in communication programs for the incarcerated (PCARE, 2017). This investigation seeks to
identify important aspects of family communication during incarceration that can
Pamela J. Lannutti, PhD is a Professor in the Department of Communication at La Salle University.
Holly M. Harner PhD, MBA, MPH, RN, WHCNP-BC, FAAN is Associate Provost for Faculty and Academic
Affairs and Associate Professor of Public Health at La Salle University.
Correspondence: Pamela Lannutti, Department of Communication, La Salle University, 1900 W. Olney Ave.,
Philadelphia, PA 19141. E-mail: lannutti95@lasalle.edu
ISSN 1745-9435 (print)/ISSN 1745-9443 (online) © 2019 Eastern Communication Association
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17459435.2019.1653359
76
P. J. Lannutti & H. Harner
inform the development of communication skills training for this vulnerable
population.
A women’s jail is the study site for several reasons. First, the female jail and prison
population is growing (Zeng, 2018). Second, most incarcerated women are mothers
to young children and many will resume this role upon release. Third, incarcerated
women have important familial caregiving and financial support roles. More than
50% of incarcerated women are the sole financial provider for their children (Glaze
& Maruschak, 2010). Lastly, women’s facilities generally have fewer social services
and evidence-based programming than men’s facilities, which might negatively
impact successful reentry (Clark, 2009).
Method
Participants
Participants were recruited within the women’s section of a large urban city jail on
the US East Coast. Potential participants learned about the investigation from social
work staff. Participation was voluntary and confidential. There were no incentives
for participation. The authors served as the primary investigators. We met with
potential participants to review informed consent, then scheduled interviews. Twelve
individuals participated (demographic information in Table 1).
Procedure
We conducted private, semi-structured interviews with each participant inside the
jail. Interviews included questions about demographic information, a recent communication problem, how communication difficulties were related to their incarceration, communication skills they would like to improve, and any other
communication concerns they had. Audiotaped interviews, which lasted between
30–60 minutes, were transcribed verbatim and reviewed for accuracy. Identifying
information was removed.
Analysis
Participants’ responses were coded from interview transcripts using conventional
inductive content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). First, data immersion identified
broad themes. Next, line-by-line coding identified categories. We reviewed and
discussed themes and categories. Discrepancies were reconciled. Saturation was
reached (Strauss & Corbin, 2008).
Results
Four themes related to family communication of incarcerated individuals were
found: 1) communication access and understanding; 2) family support; 3) parenting
Age
38
29
30
55
47
50
49
33
29
38
20
25
Participant
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
P12
Biracial
Hispanic
Hispanic
White
African American
African American
White
African American
White
African American
Asian American
African American
Race/Ethnicity
Table 1 Information About Participants
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Transgender Male
Female
Transgender Male
Female
Female
Female
Female
Gender Identity
2 months
13 months
5 years
18 months
4 months
1 month
12 months
11 months
Not disclosed
2 months
18 months
10 months
Length of Incarceration
1
At least 9
1
At least 4
At least 3
At least 4
1
At least 4
1
At least 3
1
1
times
times
times
times
times
times
Number of Incarcerations
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Children under 18
Qualitative Research Reports in Communication
77
78
P. J. Lannutti & H. Harner
challenges; and 4) family conflict. All participants discussed family communication,
and all categories and themes represent responses of multiple participants.
Communication access and understanding
Two communication challenges comprised the first theme: 1) limited access to
communication with family; and 2) difficulty comprehending family situations.
Limited Access to Communication with Family
Correctional policies limited opportunities to speak with family. This led to participants having difficulty communicating effectively about important topics and resolving family problems. P12 explained:
Sometimes I do want to talk but I can’t about so much over the phone. I would
express my feelings and how I feel about being here. What’s going on with my kids
and stuff like that. I gotta watch what I say. So communication is hard. And you
get a visit once a week. It’s not when you want to talk … .And you forget what you
really want to say … You’re like “oh what did I need to talk to you about?” And
then it’s a different problem or you can’t solve that problem because that day you
couldn’t talk about it.
For some, frustration about not having regular access to private communication
with family led them to limit or stop trying to communicate with their families. P2
explained:
Sometimes I don’t even use the phone … .They don’t turn the phones on till 9:30
[P.M.] and I know my kids ain’t up, my mom is tired … Sometimes I do call,
sometimes I don’t. It could be a week and I don’t use the phone cause the phone
can be stressful.
Others attempted to communicate with family through cards and letters. P8
explained:
I feel like that [family members] can express theyselves more, I guess. Let more out
on paper then they would on a visit. Like our visits is only a half an hour … you
really don’t get that much time but you are so excited by seeing a person that you
spend more time [saying]“How you been? How you doing?” and before you can
really get into the stuff that you really need to express, like the visit over.
Difficulty Comprehending Family Situations
Although participants depended on family members’ descriptions of events at home,
they knew they were receiving incomplete descriptions fractured through the perspective of their family member. This caused anxiety and stress for participants. P3
explained:
She’s [participant’s mother] like, “You’re not out here. You don’t know what it’s
like.” … .Like, I have to go by her eyes, because I’m blind in here. I really don’t
know what’s going on out there, so I just have to trust her kind of and it’s hard to.
Qualitative Research Reports in Communication
79
Family support
Two categories comprised the second theme: 1) instrumental support; and 2) emotional support.
Instrumental Support
Participants relied on family members for instrumental support related to health
advocacy, legal issues, and supplies. Participants equated instrumental support to
familial love and concern. For example, P5, who was recovering from drug addiction
and co-morbid back pain, relied on family members to communicate with correctional
medical staff about her care. Similarly, family members were called on to communicate
with the participant’s legal counsel during their incarceration. Finally, participants
described relying on family members to pay for commissary items (e.g., snacks, hygiene
products, and calling cards) purchased in the jail. In particular, participants’ inability to
obtain calling cards without familial support compounded communication, leaving
participants to feel unsupported by and isolated from family.
Emotional Support
Family members’ willingness to communicate during the participant’s confinement was
perceived as emotionally supportive. P7 described that her children’s desire to continue
to communicate with her made her feel emotionally supported, stating, “The only
people that do that for me are my children. When I call and I still talk to them, they
always make me very happy. They still need me, which is awesome.” For many, having
a family member communicate with them during confinement was emotionally supportive, even if that family member was critical. P8 said, “Somebody could just send
you a card and say ‘Hey! I don’t like you today’ but it would make you happy or make
you smile just cause somebody thought about sending you a card.”
Participants also experienced a lack of emotional support from family. For
example, P2 described how family members failed to support her plans for finding
a job upon release, sharing, “Like sometimes like when I say [to family] I’m gonna
come home and Ima do good like they always doubt me … and sometimes that
brings me down.”
Parenting challenges
Two categories comprised the third theme: 1) negotiating the parental role; and 2)
feelings of parental inadequacy.
Negotiating the Parental Role
Participants with children relied on others (frequently their mothers) to care for
their children. Thus, participants had to negotiate their role as incarcerated parents
80
P. J. Lannutti & H. Harner
as well as their relationship with their children’s caregiver. Communication with
caregivers was often complicated and frustrating. P10 described:
Somebody’s out there taking care of our kids. … So we get on the phone and now
we angry cause [the caretaker] not doing things how we want them to do. But they
doing it to the best of their ability … . So you can’t get mad at anybody. You can
only be mad at yourself.
Feelings of Parental Inadequacy
Participants’ felt inadequate as parents because of their incarceration and/or events
related to their incarceration. Participants felt they did not know how to be good
parents to their children. P10 shared, “ Like how can I get back in my child’s life?
How can I be a better mother? How can I teach my child some things that I wasn’t
taught as a child?” Because of their own criminal histories, participants felt unable to
serve as positive role models for their children. P2 commented, “I be like … ‘you
gotta go to school so you can get a nice job. You gotta work every day.’ But then it’s
like how can I tell him that if I’m not working?”
Family conflict
The final theme is comprised of two categories: 1) power imbalances in conflict; and
2) conflict management strategies.
Power Imbalances in Conflict
Participants described feeling they had less power than family members during
conflicts. For example, P4 said of her boyfriend, “he thinks he is so much better
than me but he’s no better.” Despite this assertion, P4 explained that because she was
in jail she felt she had a “one down” position to her partner. Similarly, P3 illustrated
the precarious position associated with depending on family for access to children
and how this dependency made her feel powerless during familial conflicts:
She [participant’s mother] still has my son. So I want to be wise about this because
what happens if she decides to stop answering the phone. I don’t think she would,
but you never know.
Conflict Management Strategies
Participants employed conflict management strategies with family, including avoidance and “standing your ground.” For example, participants described avoiding
communication with family when there was a disagreement, even though they
understood this strategy was unproductive. P4 shared, “I avoided them [participant’s
adult son]. And that’s not good because I knew when I was avoiding them … I knew
he was right I just didn’t wanna hear it.” Other participants “stood their ground”
during familial conflicts, which helped them communicate more clearly and feel
Qualitative Research Reports in Communication
81
better understood. P6 commented, “I comprehend very well, but I’m not gonna see
what you want me to see … You’re not gonna make me see it your way.”
Discussion
Theoretical implications: family communication and the dialectic of power and control
PCARE (2017) called for critical communication scholarship related to prisons and the
criminal justice system. This call was rooted in the understanding that incarcerated
people enact their communication and relationships as involuntary members of an
organization that exerts control over their communication and social realities (Peterson
& McNamee, 2017). Hook and Geist-Martin (2018) explain how the communication
and identities of incarcerated people are negotiated within a dialectic of power and
control. Histories of abuse, trauma, poverty, addiction, and limited education for many
incarcerated individuals further complicate relationships and communication (Clements-Nolle, Wolden, & Bargmann-Losche, 2009). Although incarcerated individual’s
social realities are controlled by the facilities in which they are incarcerated, these
individuals still seek empowerment within their relationships. As such, communicative
behaviors of incarcerated individuals should be considered within a context of authoritative control, confinement, punishment, and resistance.
Limited access to private, regular communication with family was
a communication challenge for participants. Some participants found it such
a challenge that they refrained from trying to communicate with family. When
considered within the context of the power and control dialectic, breaking off
communication might be a means of exerting power within the familial and correctional contexts. Some participants attempted to assert power in their family communication by using alternative, less limited communication channels, including
letter writing. Participants’ difficulties with family visits adds to a body of research
about the inadequacies of family visits for incarcerated individuals and the traumatizing effect such visits have on some families (Ardritti, 2003).
Participants described how incarceration strained family ties and challenged
family roles. Participants with children expressed difficulties negotiating their parental role given that other family members were caring for their children and their
feelings of inadequacy as a parent because of incarceration. These challenges illustrate how incarceration affects parental identity (Hook & Geist-Martin, 2018).
Incarcerated parents’ lack of parental agency and empowerment might weaken
their ability to effectively parent during confinement and upon release.
Limited agency and lack of empowerment was further evident in the dynamics of
family support for participants. Family instrumental support was complicated by
dependency on family members. While instrumental support communicated love
and concern to participants, it also highlighted participants’ lack of empowerment to
address their own legal, health, and material needs. Emotional support from family
members was important for participants, especially a willingness on the family
member’s part to maintain communication with the incarcerated individual.
82
P. J. Lannutti & H. Harner
Goldsmith (2004) discusses various types of social support and the importance of
matching an appropriate type of social support to the situation for effective communication. The level of emotional support provided by simple willingness to
communicate with an incarcerated family member was important to our participants. However, it is unclear if this level of emotional support is adequate to
maintain family ties. It is possible that overcoming the barriers to family communication imposed by the jail is such a challenge that staying in contact with a family
member becomes a more powerful mechanism of emotional support than it would
be in non-incarcerated contexts.
In describing family conflict, participants illustrated how their lack of agency and
empowerment impacts family communication. The controls and limits put on
incarcerated individuals’ family communication resulted in participants feeling
“one down” to family members when conflict arose, requiring participants to carefully navigate conflict to avoid further isolation from family. Conflict strategies of
avoidance and “standing your ground” should be considered within the dialectic of
power and control. Participants did not describe using collaborative conflict strategies, such as integration and compromise, which might require more extended
negotiation and a more equal power balance with family members. While the
strategies of avoidance and “standing your ground” might not be the most effective
strategies for productive conflict, these strategies might make sense within disempowering communication contexts (Wang, Fink, & Cai, 2012).
Practical implications: evidence for family communication training
While limited access to private, regular communication with family contributes
to family communication challenges and potentially poor outcomes for incarcerated individuals and their families, our early findings are unlikely to result
in widespread systems changes in correctional policies and procedures. However, our findings do point to specific communication skills and abilities that
incarcerated individuals could learn that might help them to have more
empowered, productive family communication experiences and better maintain
family relationships while incarcerated. First, family communication training
should help incarcerated individuals identify strategies for productive conflict
resolutions. Second, because incarcerated individuals have trouble fully understanding what is happening with the family, incarcerated individuals may
benefit from training on effective listening so that they can maximize the
productivity of communication with family members. Third, we suggest training to bolster incarcerated individuals in their family roles, especially productive parenting strategies. Additionally, useful training may teach self-advocacy
skills so that incarcerated individuals may feel less dependent on the family
members’ advocacy and therefore less powerless in family relationships.
Qualitative Research Reports in Communication
83
Limitations
Participants were not randomly selected from the jail population; therefore, results
may not be representative of those who did not volunteer. Additionally, the experiences of people incarcerated in state and federal institutions, as opposed to a county
jail, may differ from those described here because of policy, program, and population
differences between facilities.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Ardritti, J. A. (2003). Locked doors and glass walls: Family visiting at a local jail. Journal of Loss
and Trauma, 8, 115–138. doi:10.1080/15325020390168735
Clark, J. C. (2009). Inequality in prison. American Psychological Assocation. Retrieved from
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/10/recidivism.aspx
Clements-Nolle, K., Wolden, M., & Bargmann-Losche, J. (2009). Childhood trauma and risk for
past and future suicide attempts among women in prison. Women’s Health Issues, 19,
185–192. doi:10.1016/j.whi.2009.02.002
Codd, H. (2008). the shadow of prison: Families, imprisonment, and criminal justice. Cullumpton,
Devon: Willan Publishing.
Glaze, L. E., & Maruschak, L. M. (2010). Parents in prison and their minor children. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/
pub/pdf/pptmc.pdf
Goldsmith, D. J. (2004). Communicating social support. New York, NY: Cambridge.
Hook, C., & Geist-Martin, P. (2018). Cultivating communities of care: A qualitative investigatio of
the communicaton of support among incarcerated women. Communiation and Critical/
Cultural Studies, 15, 127–143. doi:10.1080/14791420.2018.1433308
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative
Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687
PCARE. (2017). PCARE @10: reflecting a decade of prison communication, activism, research, and
education, while looking ahead to new challenges and opportunities. Communiation and
Critical/Cultural Studies, 14, 288–310. doi:10.1080/14791420.2017.1345577
Peterson, B. L., & McNamee, L. G. (2017). The communicative construction of involuntary
membership. Communication Quarterly, 65, 192–213. doi:10.1080/01463373.2016.1216870
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of qualitative research, 3nd Ed: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wang, Q., Fink, E. L., & Cai, D. A. (2012). The effect of conflict goal on avoidance strategies: What
does not communicating communicate? Human Communication Research, 38, 222–252.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01421.x
Zeng, Z. (2018). Jail Inmates in 2016 (NCJ 251210). U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6186
Purchase answer to see full
attachment