What do we know about binge-watching?
Introduction
The advent of new media technologies has enabled viewers to watch television shows and movies for unprecedented amounts of time. This new style of consuming content often referred to as binge-watching, is not necessarily a new phenomenon. Pre-Netflix, television stations would broadcast marathons of popular shows. Dedicated fans could buy the box set of tapes and “binge” an entire series in a weekend. In some ways, binge-watching is just another name for this phenomenon. In other ways, however, binge-watching refers to an act that is not only about consuming content but can be both addictive and detrimental to people’s well-being. Binge-watching is also different because it is supported and encouraged by the platforms and technologies that make it possible. “Traditional marathoning” was a unique occurrence for these channels — which would promptly return to regular programming once the marathon was over. These new, video-on-demand services (VODS) are structured to encourage a never-ending marathon. Everything from the way Netflix releases its television shows to the ability to automatically play the next episode is designed to keep viewers plugged in and watching. The “action” itself may be the same, but the structures around it are not.
Binge-watching is a new phenomenon in literature. There is no hard and fast definition although many papers work with the definition of binge-watching as watching more than one episode of the same show in one sitting (Pittman & Sheehan, 2015). Netflix itself defines binge-watching as “watching between 2–6 episodes or more of the same TV show in one sitting” (Netflix, 2014). As this phenomenon becomes more studied, the definition of binge-watching will likely solidify.
This review will look at two articles published in 2018 that attempt to tease out why people engage in binge-watching behaviors and what role they play in the process if any. Both papers were published in technology-focused journals (Computers in Human Behavior and Electronic Markets).
Merikivi, Salovaara, Mäntymäki and Zhang (2018) published the paper titled “On the way to understanding binge watching behavior: the over-estimated role of involvement” that aims to conceptualize binge-watching in order to examine its effects on user satisfaction. Their study, as a whole, contributes to both online behavior research and information systems literature.
Shim and Kim (2018) published the paper titled “An exploration of the motivations for binge-watching and the role of individual differences.” This paper evaluated what personality factors might influence a person’s tendency to binge-watch.
This review of articles will follow a traditional format found in a research paper (introduction, literature review, methods, discussion). This review will place the two articles next to each other and try to consolidate what is understood about binge-watching and what is left to know.
Literature Review
Merikivi et al. (2018) provided a brief, but interesting break down of the history of binge-watching. Although historically the word binge has taken on multiple connotations (ranging from drunkenness to a night of good camaraderie), today the term carries a negative connotation. Binge is typically pitted against a normal — to binge is to be in excess of the norm. With this framework, what is the norm against which binge-watching is understood? According to Merikivi et al. (2018) the norm typically is “traditionally scheduled television viewing.” Anything above and beyond that can be considered binge-watching. This paper specifically works from the definition that binge-watching is consuming more than one episode of the same show in one sitting.
Theoretically, these two papers are worlds apart. Shim and Kim (2018) approach binge-watching from a uses and gratifications (U&G) theoretical framework. The question at the core of their paper is: what motivates people to binge-watch? Is it encouraged by hedonic motivations? Or, rather, do people approach these new media technologies from a utilitarian standpoint? These motivations are addressed by two research questions (RQ1: what are the motivations for binge-watching? and RQ2: Do these binge-watching motivations lead to binge-watching behavior?)
This paper also looked at individual cognitive differences specifically people’s sensation seeking tendencies and their varying levels of need for cognition. Sensation seeking is defined as “a need for varied, novel, and complex sensations and experiences and the willingness to take physical and social risks for the sake of such experience” (Zuckerman, 1979, p. 10). The authors hypothesized that high sensation seekers are more likely than low sensation seekers to engage in binge-watching behaviors (H1). They suggest that this is possibly due to “high-sensation seekers [exhibiting] a greater acceptance of or desire for captivating stimuli in order to reach an optimal arousal level that is typically higher than those found among low sensation seekers” (Shim and Kim, 2018, p. 95). This paper also hypothesizes that “effects of binge-watching motivations on binge-watching behavior are more pronounced in high sensation seekers than they are in low sensation seekers” (Shim and Kim, 2018, p. 95).
The second cognition trait that these authors discuss is need for cogniton (NFC). This need is defined as a person’s tendency to engage in elaborated thinking (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982, p. 116). In other words, a person with high need for cognition is more likely to find enjoyment in solving complex problems while a person with lower need for cognition finds the simpler tasks more enjoyable. Many serialized television shows end episdoes with “cliffhangers” which Shim and Kim argue are more enjoyable for those with high NFC since they will be challenged to predict the future of the show. This challenge will encourage them to keep watching out of curiosity to see if they were right. The researchers hypothesized that individuals with a high NFC are more likely than those low in NFC to engage in binge-watching (H3) and that the effects of binge-watching motivations on binge-watching behavior are more pronounced in individuals with high NFC than those with low (H4).
While Merikivi et al. (2018) approached binge-watching in a similar way by trying to understand how people’s satisfaction with the system encourages continued use. Satisfaction with a system begins with a person’s expectations of how the system will perform. As the researchers state, “when users adopt and begin to use a system, they form perceptions about its performance and outcomes, which they then compare to their expectation. If the users’ perceptions about the system correspond to these expectations, confirmation occurs, which, in turn, leads to satisfaction” (Merikivi et al., 2018, p. 112). While there is much empirical support for this framework, the researchers mention that this framework tends to be incomplete when dealing with services. For example, people who first used Netflix likely had to expectations about the service since it was newly introduced. As they used the streaming service, they were likely more satisfied with the service as they began to understand it better.
To rectify this, the researchers employ a broad understanding of systems and study binge-watching through behavioral and cognitive involvement with the system. The first research question posed tries to understand “the extent to which a user employs the system for a specific usage practice” (Merikivi et al., 2018, p. 113). The usage practice in this paper is binge-watching.
The second research question being tackled deals with the extent to which a user is cognitively involved when using the system for a specific usage practice. The researchers suggest that this question is important since people are cognitively processing the information they receive from these streaming services and, to some extent, have a choice in the content they consume.
Methods
Shim and Kim (2018) distributed an online survey to 1300 South Koreans. A total of 785 surveys were complete and able to be analyzed. The motivations for binge-watching were assessed using 19 statements that were developed after a handful of focus group interviews. These focus groups found that there were five main motivation factors for binge-watching: enjoyment, efficiency, recommendation of others, perceived control and fandom. Sensation seeking and need for cognition were measured using modified questions from pre-existing scales. The researchers also gathered rather detailed demographics to try to characterize “who binge-watches”.
Merikivi et al. (2018) collected data from students who attended Central China Normal University using an online survey as well. They chose this population for several reasons. First, these Chinese students typically live in on-campus housing. Televisions are banned in these residences, but computers and mobile phones are permitted. Because of this, streaming television shows is the only way to watch television in these residence halls. These students were hand-selected and incentivized with a small candy. The online survey received 227 complete responses.
Discussion
Shim and Kim (2018) found that of the five key motivations for binge-watching, only three are significant predictors or self-reported binge-watching behavior. These predictors include enjoyment, efficiency and fandom. These streaming services are efficient forms of content consumption because they allow audiences to watch whenever is convenient for them. This provides a greater sense of control over their media consumption. While efficiency is a fairly pragmatic and utilitarian reason to use a streaming service, enjoyment and fandom derive from hedonic gratification. Binge-watching allows users to watch an entire show without interuption, which in turn allows for a potentially deeper, more immersive experience allowing them to more fully escape from reality. Previous literature had suggested that fandom did not play a role in motivating binge-watching behaviors. This current study, however, found that the desire to have a relationship with the lead actor or the writers does in fact lead to binge-watching.
This paper also found that sensation seeking and NFC have positive effects on binge-watching behaviors. Interestingly, these positive effects only applied for some, but not all, binge-watchers. This suggests that these constructs may have sub-components that might be more encompassing of the multi-faceted reasons people binge-watch.
Merikivi et al. (2018) found that binge-watching led to a greater feeling of autonomy because audiences feel more in control of their schedule. Interestingly, their findings suggested that binge-watchers do not perceive their actions as cognitively demanding. Most respondents said that they engaged in binge-watching when they were bored or had plenty of free time.
Conclusion: What we know now
In conclusion, these two papers provided another level of complexity to the issue of binge watching. People come to binge-watching for different reasons and are heavily influenced by personality traits. While Shim and Kim (2018) found that those with a higher need for cognition were more inclined to binge-watch, Merikivi (2018) reported that the respondents did not perceive themselves as using much cognition when binge-watching.
Both papers were more interested in how people interacted with the content instead of the effects the content had on audiences. This is perhaps a more useful approach for characterizing a phenomenon like binge-watching which is at once both new and old. Because of the lack of focus on “media effects” these papers provide an interesting, multidisciplinary framework from which media effects studies can begin. For example, we now understand that people who are more inclined to seek high levels of thrills are also more inclined to binge-watch. From this information, how do the effects of binge-watching differ among this population when compared to the low-sensation seeking population.
Understanding binge-watching leads to a greater understanding of the new media environment and allows us to prepare for a future with greater technology saturation. More specifically, studying binge-watching is important simply because of it being tagged as the “new normal” of watching television by Netflix. While these two papers have a handful of limitations (that are well described in their conclusion sections), they provide interesting, exploratory research that is at the leading edge of characterizing this rapidly-growing phenomenon.
References:
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131.
Merikivi, J., Salovaara, A., Mäntymäki, M., & Zhang, L. (2018). On the way to understanding binge-watching behavior: the over-estimated role of involvement. Electronic Markets, 28, 111–122.
Pittman, M., & Sheehan, K. (2015). Sprinting a media marathon: Uses and gratifications of binge-watching television through Netflix. First Monday, 20(10).
Shim, H., & Kim K. J. (2018) An exploration of the motivations for binge-watching and the role of individual differences. Computers in Human Behavior, 82, 94–100.
