Time for a plot twist: Beyond confirmatory approaches to binge-watching research.

Abstract

The advent of the digital age with its progress in digital technology has been associated in recent years with an increase in binge-watching (i.e., seeing multiple episodes of the same TV series in one session). Binge-watching has now become the new normative way to consume TV shows. Nevertheless, along with its recent massive rise has come concerns about the associated mental and physical health outcomes. Currently available results suggest the potential harmfulness and even addictive nature of binge-watching. The psychological investigation of this behavior, however, is still in its infancy, with most studies using a confirmatory approach and assuming a priori its genuine addictive nature. In contrast, the current perspective article argues the case for an exploratory approach as an initial step for conducting research on behaviors that-at first sight-look like addiction when applying a symptom-based approach. A qualitative understanding of the phenomenological characteristics of binge-watching as the foundation of an initial comprehensive discussion makes it possible to formulate hypotheses concerning its potentially addictive nature and to emphasize challenges and directions for future research. Here we propose an exploration of the dynamics of binge-watching behavior based on a model involving emotion regulation in the etiology and maintenance of problem binge-watching.

Binge-Watching: What Do we Know So Far? A First Systematic Review of the Evidence

“…At the same time, however, a second cluster of motivational correlates emerged across studies to make binge-watching appear as something rather compensatory: high levels of bingewatching were associated with the motivations of passing time [32,40], dealing with loneliness [40], and escaping from everyday worries [23,40], while higher frequency was related to procrastination [38*] and emotion regulation [29] purposes. In a similar vein, Flayelle et al [37] found that coping/escapism motivation was specifically linked to problematic binge-watching, thus supporting the hypothesis that problematic binge-watching involves maladaptive coping or emotion-regulation strategies [44]. This line of thinking is in accordance with results showing that problematic involvement in a wide range of recreational activities (e.g., drug use, video gaming, gambling, cybersex) reflects as many different attemps to reduce aversive emotional states [45][46][47].…”

Binge-Watching Behaviour: The Role of Impulsivity and Depressive Symptoms

“…Consequently, the watching of several episodes of one series in a row has become a popular viewing pattern. Although no empiri-DOI: 10.1159/000506307 cally validated definition exists so far, several authors suggested watching > 2 episodes in one sitting as criterion for binge-watching [4][5][6][7].…”

“…However, it is important to acknowledge also differences to addictive behaviours. These are, for example, social acceptance, transient overinvolvement, context dependency, and low everyday life impact as outlined by Flayelle et al [6]. These differences are important to consider in order to prevent the overpathologization [12] of a leisure activity often driven by entertainment motivation [13] and not accompanied by any negative consequences for many individuals.…”

Towards a cross-cultural assessment of binge-watching: Psychometric evaluation of the “watching TV series motives” and “binge-watching engagement and symptoms” questionnaires across nine languages

“…These questionnaires assess two constructs, whose analysis of their relationships is hypothesized to be central in early-stage investigation of binge-watching behaviors (Flayelle, Maurage et al, 2019a;Pittman & Sheehan, 2015;Rubenking & Bracken, 2018;Shim & Kim, 2018;Sung et al, 2018). First, the WTSMQ was developed to assess TV series watching motivations, which are likely key for the understanding of the development and maintenance of binge-watching behaviors (e.g., Uses-and-Gratifications and Selective Exposure theories; Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1973;Knobloch-Westerwick, 2015;Rubin, 2009;Zillmann & Bryant, 1985).…”