Reality Television Shows Focusing on Sexual Relationships and College Students Engagement in One-Night Stands: A Replication Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study is a direct replication and extension of Fogel and Kovalenko’s (2013) work on the association between viewing reality television (TV) and engaging in one-night stands among college students. Using an online survey, a total of 686 Canadian university students provided comprehensive data on their reality TV consumption patterns, sexual attitudes, motivations, and behaviors. Our results replicated several findings from Fogel and Kovalenko (2013), such that participants who reported engaging in one-night stands within the past year demonstrated higher scores on measures of sexual empowerment, sexual permissiveness, and perceived realism of reality show content. Demographic factors such as ethnicity and relationship status were also associated with one-night stand engagement. Additionally, compared to viewers of dating reality TV, viewers of sexual reality TV reported stronger parasocial connections, greater interest in characters, and perceived the show as more realistic. Our results suggest that while reality TV consumption is associated with one-night stand engagement, there are additional factors associated with this outcome and the causal relationship cannot yet be established. We conclude that a broader perspective is needed when assessing reality TV viewership that includes individual and contextual factors.Keywords: reality television, sexual behaviors, replication, open science
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".