See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317947993

A New Era of TV-Watching Behavior: Binge Watching and its Psychological

Effects

Article  in  Media Watch · May 2017

DOI: 10.15655/mw/2017/v8i2/49006

CITATIONS READS

51 26,461

1 author:

Azza Abdel-Azim Mohamed Ahmed

College of Communication and Media Sciences -Zayed University
10 PUBLICATIONS   108 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Azza Abdelazim Mohamed Ahmed View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Azza Abdel-Azim Mohamed Ahmed on 11 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN 0976 0911
e-ISSN 2249 8818

Volume VIII | Number II | May 2017

Journal of Communication

MEDIA WATCH
An International Peer Reviewed & Referred Research Journal in
Communication, Journalism and Media

Indexing
SCOPUS | Elsevier | EBSCO | Ulrichsweb | EMBASE | ERIH Plus | CrossRef | Reaxys | CiteFactor | ProQuest|
CNKI | Asian Education Index | Scientific Indexing Service | J-Gate | MIAR | AERES | DRIJ | ResearchBib |
Google Scholar | Indian Citation Index | Index Copernicus | Engineering Village
University Grants Commission Approved Journal in Social Sciences & Communication
 Editor-in-Chief: Dr. Sony Jalarajan Raj
Editor: Dr. R C Pattnaik
Editorial Board
Prof. Jyotika Ramaprasad Dr. Aurogeeta Das
Dean, Knight Center for International Media, School of Communication, School of Humanities, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK
University of Miami, Florida, USA Dr. Afsar Mohammad
Prof. Bill Edwards Department of Asian Studies, College of Liberal Arts, University of Texas,
Department Communication, The Columbus State University, Georgia, USA Austin, USA
Prof. Daya Kishan Thussu Dr. Sarita Malik
Director, India Media Centre, Communication & Media Research Institute School of Social Sciences, Brunel University, Middlesex, UK
University of Westminster, United Kingdom Dr. Nathan Rambukkana
Prof. Krishna Sen FAHA School of Communication Studies, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Canada
Winthrop Professor & Dean, Faculty of Arts, The University of Western Australia Dr. Vinita Srivastava
Prof. Naren Chitty A.M School of Journalism, Ryerson University, Canada
Chair in International Communication, Faculty of Arts, Macquarie University, Dr. Amit Sarwal
Centre for Citizenship and Globalisation, Faculty of Arts & Education, Deakin
Australia.
University, Australia
Prof. Brian Shoesmith
Emeritus Professor, Edith Cowan University, Australia Dr. Sameer Deshpande
Faculty of Management, University of Lethbridge, Canada.
Prof. Arvind Singhal
Samuel Shirley and Edna Holt Marston Professor, Department of Dr. Vikrant Kishore
Communication, The University of Texas at El Paso, USA School of Design, Communication and Information Technology, University of
Prof. Radhika Gajjala Newcastle, Australia
Professor, School of Media and Communication, Bowling Green State Dr. Avantika Rohatgi
University, USA College of Humanities and the Arts, San Jose State University, USA
Prof. Siva Vaidhyanathan Dr. Pradeep Kumar AV
Department of Communication, Ministry of Higher Education, CAS-Sur,
Robertson Professor in Media Studies & Chair, Department of Media Studies,
Sultanate of Oman
University of Virginia, USA
Prof. J. S. Yadav
Prof. Gloria P. Ruiz
Former Director, Indian Institute of Mass Communication, New Delhi
Director, Institute for Communication, Entertainment & Media
Prof. B. K. Kuthiala
School of Leadership Studies, St. Thomas University, Florida, USA Vice-Chancellor, Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University of
Prof. Sree Sreenivasan Journalism & Communication, Bhopal, India
Chief Digital Officer, New York City, USA
Prof. Jayashree Jethwaney
Prof. Sundeep Muppidi Indian Institute of Mass Communication, New Delhi
Professor & Director, School of Communication, University of Hartford, USA
Prof. J. V. Vil’anilam
Prof. Sujata Moorti Former Vice-Chancellor, University of Kerala, India
Professor, Gender, Sexuality and Feminist Studies, Middlebury College, USA
Prof. M Sarngadharan
Prof. Mark Goodman Director, SNES Institute of Management Studies & Research, Calicut, India
Professor, Department of Communication, Mississippi State University, USA
Prof. T. T. Sreekumar
Prof. Kavita Karan EFL University, Hyderabad, India
Professor, School of Journalism, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, USA Prof. Suresh Jnaneswaran
Dr. Cherian George Professor, Department of History, University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, India
School of Communication, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong Prof. Kiran Thakur
Dr. Nina Weerakkody Adjunct Faculty, Department of Communication & Journalism, University of Mumbai
School of Communication and Creative Arts, Deakin University, Australia Prof. T. S. Girish Kumar
Dr. Adrian Athique Professor & Chair, Department of Philosophy, MS University of Baroda, India
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Waikato, New Zealand Prof. J. S. Giri Rao
Dr. Rajinder Dudrah Department of Mass Communication, Berhampur University, India
School of Arts, Languages and Cultures, The University of Manchester, UK Prof. Sreedharan Josh
Dr. Susan Koshy School of English & Foreign Languages, Kannur University, Kerala, India
Asian American Studies, University of Illinois, USA Prof. Anjali Monteiro
Dr Usha M. Rodrigue School of Media and Cultural Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences,
School of Communication and Creative Arts, Deakin University, Australia Mumbai, India
Dr. Sukhmani Khorana Prof. K.P. Jayasankar
School of Social Sciences, Media & Communication, University of Wollongong, School of Media and Cultural Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences,
Australia Mumbai, India
Prof. Zakir Hossain Raju Prof. Anjali Gera Roy
School of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences, Independent University, Bangladesh School of Humanities & Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology,
Dr. Callum Gilmour Kharagpur, India
School of Arts & Social Sciences, Monash University, Malaysia Prof. Kiran Prasad
Prof. Vijay Devadas Sri Padmavati Mahila University, Tirupati, India
School of Media, Film & Communication, University of Otago, New Zealand Dr. Siby K. George
Dr. Lalitha Gopalan School of Humanities, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai, India
Department of Radio-Television-Film, The University of Texas at Austin, USA Dr. Manisha Pathak-Shelat
Associate Professor, MICA School of Ideas, Gujarat, India
Prof. Vijay Mishra
Faculty of Arts, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia Prof. Manish Verma
Amity University Rajasthan, India
Dr. Manisha Basu
Department of English, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, USA Dr. Baliram N. Gaikwad
Chair Department of English, Acharya and Marathe College, University of
Prof. Kiranjit Kaur
Faculty of Communication and Media Studies, University Technology Mara, Mumbai, India
Malaysia Dr. Swapna Gopinath
Department of English, Sree Narayana College, University of Kerala, India
Prof. Lynn Schofield Clark
Estlow International Center for Journalism & New Media, University of Denver, USA Mr. Deepu Joy
Indian Institute of Mass Communication (South India Center) Kottayam, India
Dr. Pradip Thomas
Dr. Devadas Menon B.
The University of Queensland, Australia
Dept. of Media and Communication, Central University of Tamil Nadu, India
Dr. Madhavi Mallapragada
Department of Radio-TV-Film University of Texas at Austin, USA
Journal of Communication
Media Watch
Volume VIII | Number II | ISSN 0976-0911 | May 2017

Editor’s Note
122 BRIAN GORMAN
Free Speech after a Free Press
Research Articles
126 Y. WU & E. THORSON
Incivility, Source and Credibility:
An Experimental Test of News Story Processing in the Digital Age

143 TOMÁS DODDS

Emergence of Rebellious Digital Press in Chile: Divergence, Engagement and Impact

157 SUMANJEET SINGH

Internet Shaping Freedom of Expression; Freedom Shaping Regulation

177 ABDUL-KARIM ZIANI, MOKHTAR ELARESHI & MAHA ALRASHID

Social Impact of Digital Media: Growth Pattern of Facebook in the Arab World

192 AZZA ABDEL-AZIM MOHAMED AHMED

New Era of TV-Watching Behaviour: Binge Watching and its Psychological Effects

208 ISMAIL SHEIKH YUSUF AHMED, MUKTHAR EL-KASIM & LAMBE KAYODE MUSTAPHA
University Students' Intention of Smartphone Adoption for
Academic Activities: Testing an Extended TAM Model

222 CHEN-WEI CHANG & PATRICK D. McGUIRE

Female Bodies and Visual Fantasy: Psychoanalysis of
Women's Representation in Axe's Television Commercials

229 SURESH KUMAR G

Mobile Users' Acceptance of SMS Advertising: A Permission Marketing Approach

247 N. BOOBALAKRISHNAN & C. PICHANDY

Parental Intervention and Frequency of Mediation Styles towards Children
Watching Television in India

258 HEMDEEP KAUR

Social Media Usage: Barriers and Predictors in Promotion of Social Capital

270 PATRICK EDEM OKON

Rethinking Media Policy in Anglophone Sub-Saharan Africa:
The Challenge of Community Media

287 SIMRANPREET KAUR & VANDANA SHARMA

Blurring the Binaries, Blending the Gender:
A Transition from Male Masculinity to Female Androgyny in Hindi Cinema
Editorial
DOI: 10.15655/mw/2017/v8i2/49018

Free Speech after a Free Press

Dr. BRIAN GORMAN
Issue Editor
Associate Professor of Communication Studies
MacEwan University, Edmonton, Canada

The question of whether a population is a mob or a public is something scholars and

politicians have debatedfor as long as there has been the concept of public opinion. And
the power and possible abuse of language to move the public or manipulate the mob has
been a focus of concern for almost as long.Now, we find ourselves in an age in which
language includes images and sounds, truth is relative to one’s ideologies and aims, and
communication has become a blood sport. The machinery of mass communication is
crumblingbut new devices of persuasion are becoming more powerful by
targetingindividuals, who can be studied and profiled through information mined from
social media and then addressed with tailored information delivered to them via the same
social media. The political discourse no longer reaches out to publics; it creates
them.Strategic communication targets individuals with the intention of bringing together
mini-masses of the offended, the aggrieved and the vengeful. The conversation of the
culturehas broken into diffuse and discordant appeals to special interests engaged in
conversations designed to reassure the faithful and shame the doubter. And those
conversations seem to increasingly consist of the persuasive monologic discourse that
Jürgen Habermas equated with violence.
As Reporters Without Borders writesin its 2017 Press Freedom Index report: “We
have reached the age of post-truth, propaganda and suppression of freedoms—especially
in democracies” (Perkel 2017). This age of post-truth is defined by a social media-delivered
discourse dominated by slant, spin, lies, distortions and derision.

(i) Russian hackers are accused of tinkering with elections in the United States and
France.
(ii) A campaign of misinformation aimed at Central and Eastern Europe is designed to
promote Kremlin interests and undermine the E.U.
(iii) Massive use of social media in the Philippines spreads misinformation that
destroys the reputations of opponents of thug-president Rodrigo Duterte.
(iv) A U.S. president denounces the free press as “among the most dishonest human
beings on Earth.”
(v) Fake news stories plant ideas in the public consciousness that is so powerful that
they defy debunking.
(vi) Campaigns of derision delegitimize scientific research and undermine the political
establishment in the minds of the public.

All of this presents us with a new variation of the old question: With social media,
have we freed the conversation of the culture from the gatekeepers of mediated
communication, or are we dismantling institutions necessary to ensure the reliability,
trustworthiness and impartiality of the information we need to govern ourselves?This is
not to say mainstream media and politicians have not done much to delegitimize themselves,
122
 Media Watch 8 (2)

with their deference to power and reflexive defence of the status quo. The crisis in the news
business has often been presented as the challenge of preservingthe old corporate, factory
news media – a self-immolating plea to that segment of the population that perceives that
system as aligned with,and dedicated to preserving, the business and political elites.
This has created a clouded public discourse ripe for the creation of what
Marxistsused to call false consciousness. And it conjures up the echoes of the so-called
Lippmann-Dewey debate over whether reason and truth can grow out of unfettered and
inclusive discussion, or whether the “trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd”
(Lippmann, 1993: 145) will drown out the voices of reason and deliver the public into the
hands of demagogues.
Michael Schudson (2008) has argued that focusing the debate over public opinion
on Lippmann and Dewey centres the discussion on what is little more than a squabble over
the difference between representational and direct democracy. The Lippmann-Dewey
discourse is something that has been treated as having its origins in the 1920s – when
journalist and political theorist Walter Lippmann and philosopher-psychologist-educator
John Dewey were writing the works around which the “debate” is constructed. However, it
really sprang up over the past quarter-century, as a construct by liberal theorists arguing
over the role of media in society. “What turned the Lippmann-Dewey discourse into a
‘debate’ were liberal intellectuals in the 1980s and 1990s writing at another moment of
democratic disillusion as they sought to take stock and seek hope” (1032). At this moment
of democratic disillusion, it may be useful to revisit the “debate” and its points of contention.
Dewey and his colleagues at the University of Chicago – George Herbert Mead,
Robert Park and Charles Cooley – were fixed on the idea of communication as existence, as
a way of being that forges mobs into publics (Park, 1975) and transforms society into a
community (Dewey 1954). Dewey’s focus was the search for the Great Community, which
had to be forged from the cold machinery of the Great Society. This is an approach that
resonates in Habermas’s Public Sphere, Raymond Williams’s common culture, and in James
Carey’s belief in the “conversational public,” which he described as “a society of argument,
disputation, or debate” (1997, 217-218). It also, however, puts immense trust in the capacity
of the public for political thought and engagement, and neglects to address the possibility
that even the smartest citizen can be taken in by a determined con man. Every Deweyan
concept should be prefaced with the phrase, “In a perfect world.”
Lippmann, on the other hand, was something of a thwarted idealist, forever looking
for the solution to a problem that is probably unsolvable: how to protect democracy from
the tyranny of the majority, the manipulation of special interests and the disinterest of the
public. In short, having witnessed democracy commit suicide by ballot in Italy and Germany,
his chief worry was that people might be naturally inclined to vote away the rights of their
children (1963, 216). As for the news media, as far back as the early 1920s, Lippmann had
come to the conclusion thatthe press was dominated by people whose interests were so
closely aligned with the rich and powerful that it could not be trusted to provide a coherent
world view. The best that could be expected was that the press play watchdog for the public
good, and provide enough policy information for voters to make semi-informed choices
every four years (1997). The news media Lippmann writes are “like the beam of a searchlight
that moves restlessly about, bringing one episode and then another out of darkness and
into vision. Men cannot do the work of the world by this light alone. They cannot govern
society by episodes, incidents and eruptions” (1993, 229). One can only imagine what he
would have made of the thinly disguised ideology and opinion that regularly erupt on
social media today.

123
Free Speech: Gorman

The way Lippmann’s biographer, Ronald Steel, described the Lippmann-Dewey

discourse is that the former saw the public as “a Great Beast to be tamed,” and the latter a
“force that could be educated” (1980, 218). However, there is a third interpretation: that the
public is a great beast ruled by its emotions, and can be manipulated by any force smart
enough, ruthless enough and devious enough to find ways to influence those emotions.
Lippmann’s concern was that “the problems that vex democracy seem to be unmanageable
by democratic methods” (1997, 179-180), and that pandering to the public opinion poses
a threat to democracy while pretending to uphold it. “[L]eaders often pretend they have
merely uncovered a program that existed in the minds of their public,” he writes. This is a
lie, because ideas don’t emerge from the mass, because “thought is the function of an
organism, and a mass is not an organism.” The mass is “constantly exposed to suggestion”
from special interests, who are out to move public opinion in the direction they wish it to
go (155).
Though he never mentioned Lippmann and Dewey by name, Raymond Williams argued
that dark cynicism and blind optimismleave a vacuum for special interests to fill(Peters,
2003), and that the discourse is not one about a distant mass of “little people.” It is about
all of us, and that the best and brightest are as vulnerable as the so-called massesto
messages constructed to appeal to them. We are all susceptible, Williams argues, to
people skilled in fashioning the message to suit their purposes. To believe otherwise blinds
us to the possibility that we are being manipulated and makes us even more open to
manipulation. In fact, if one were to take anecdotal evidence from the jargon-laden
faddishness of much of the current discussion surrounding the digital world, one might be
inclined to think that the vanity of the best and brightest makes them more susceptible to
manipulation.
As for the uninvolved masses, Williams argues that detachment is what you get
when a sullen public is confronted with persuasive monologic discourse designed to make
the receiver believe that the sender’s purpose is his, too. Political indifference is a hostile
and quite reasonable response to an agenda-laden message devised by the sender and
forced upon the receiver. “What I have called this sullenness ... is now a very prevalent
reaction to the dominative kinds of mass-communication. ... Inertia and apathy have always
been employed by the governed as a comparatively safe weapon against their governors”
(1983, 316). Unfortunately, this very sullenness has contributed to making us, as a public,
ripe for exploitation. “We are all malleable,” Williams warns, and the most powerful tool
for moulding us is the media, which is yoked to a philosophy of communication that
involves control and profit. When “we reject this kind of exploitation, we shall reject its
ideology, and seek a new definition of communication” (312).
With his Ideal Speech Situation, Habermas delivered that new definition of
communication: an open exchange of ideas by people unafraid of persecution, reprisal or
censorship and unfettered by bias or preconception, and in which statements are intelligible,
verifiable and truthful, and everyone has an equal chance to speak.However, this can serve
as both a blueprint for democratic discourse and as an operating manual for
propaganda.Follow it, and the discourse takes you wherever the truth may lead; understand
it only tosubvert it, and you can run the world.
Orwell foretold of a world in which people were bludgeoned into doing what was
desired of them; Huxley saw a world in which what was desired would be made pleasurable,
and people would be narcotized into a euphoric submission. Orwell wrote the better book;
Huxley had the more prescient vision. He saw that one need not engineer a program of
suppression and censorship, when it’s so much easier to create noise and fury, and glittering

124
 Media Watch 8 (2)

distractions. And, if people are inclined to become activists, they can be placated with a
steam of online petitions and ice-bucket challenges that deliver the illusion of activism
without risk or commitment. As in Huxley’s Brave New World, the enabling elementis
technology and the blind solutionism, as Morozov (2013) defined it, that comes with it. As
Habermas writes, our depolitization has been made palatable by “having technology and
science also take on the role of ideology” (Habermas1989, 253).

References

Carey, James. 1997. “A Republic, if You Can Keep It: Liberty and Public Life in the Age of
Glasnost.” James Carey, a Critical Reader. Eve Stryker Munson and Catherine A.
Warren eds. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
Dewey, John. 1954. The Public and Its Problems. Athens, Ohio, Swallow Press/University of
Ohio Press.
Habermas, Jurgën. 1989. “The Public Sphere.” JurgënHabermas on Society and Politics. Steven
Seidman ed. Boston, Beacon Press.
Lippmann, Walter. 1963. “Why Should the Majority Rule?” The Essential Lippmann: A Political
Philosophy for a Liberal Democracy. New York, Random House. Orig. 1926.
— 1993. The Phantom Public. New Brunswick, N.J., Transaction Publishers.
Orig. 1937.
— 1997. Public Opinion. New York, Free Press Paperbacks.
Orig. 1922.
Morozov, Evgeny. (2013) To Solve Everything, Click Here, New York, Public Affairs.
Perkel, Colin. 2017. “Media ‘under threat’: Canada slips out of Top 20 in press freedom
index.” The Globe and Mail.April 26.
Peters, John Durham. 2003. “Retroactive Enrichment: Raymond Williams’s Culture and
Society.” Canonic Texts in Media Research: Are There Any? Should There Be Some? How
About These?Elihu Katz, John Durham Peters et al eds. Cambridge, U.K., Polity
Park, Robert E. 1975. “The Crowd and the Public.” The Crowd and the Public and Other Essays.
Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Orig. 1904.
Michael Schudson. 2008. “ The Lippmann-Dewey Debate and the Invention of Walter
Lippmann as an Anti-Democrat 1986-1996.” International Journal of Communication 2,
1031-1042.
Steel, Ronald. 1980. Walter Lippmann and the American Century. Boston, Little, Brown.
Williams, Raymond. 1983. Culture & Society 1780-1950. New York, Columbia University
Press. Orig. 1958.

125
© Media Watch 8 (2) 192-207, 2017
ISSN 0976-0911 e-ISSN 2249-8818
DOI: 10.15655/mw/2017/v8i2/49006

New Era of TV-Watching Behavior:

Binge Watching and its Psychological Effects

AZZA ABDEL-AZIM MOHAMED AHMED

Abu Dhabi University, UAE

Binge TV-watching marks a new era of TV-watching behavior among youth. It is a

result of dependence on new media and the widespread usage of smart phones
connected to the Internet. The study investigates binge-watching among a sample
of Arab residents in United Arab Emirates. It examines how binge-watching might
correlate to depression and loneliness. A constructed questionnaire was designed
to collect data from a sample of 260 Arab residents living in Abu Dhabi from
different age groups. The results showed that YouTube and the TV program websites
are the main sources that respondents use for binge-watching. The most popular
devices used for binge TV-watching are smart phones and laptops. The findings
revealed that binge-watching is more significant among the younger age group.
Also, the results showed a significant positive correlation between binge-watching
and depression, while there was no significant correlation between binge TV-
watching and loneliness.

Key words: Binge TV-watching, depression, loneliness, United Arab Emirates, Arab
residence

In the Arab Media Outlook Annual Report: “Arab Media: Exposure and Transition” (2015),
it was highlighted a general shift of TV audiences to other platforms that has been witnessed
on a global level, but TV as a media platform has proven resilient to this effect in the Arab
world (p: 41). Digital video recorders and the Internet have changed the way people view
television in that these technologies allow viewers to watch at their own convenience and
pace (Damratoski et al., 2011: 72). Phalen and Ducey (2012) introduced a new concept
called the “multi-screen environment” of TV watching, in which an individual can watch
any TV content once he/she is connected to the internet using mobile devices, computer
screens, tablets, or iPads. They predicted that technology is to enforce more people to
utilize DVRs and the Internet to watch television on their schedule without commercial
interruptions. Recently, Devasagayam (2014) stated that “companies such as Netflix and
Hulu have made fortunes on giving US people the ability to watch almost any show at the
touch of a button” (p: 40).
Binge-watching is a very different experience for consuming regular TV shows. It
originated in the 1980s when some TV stations in the USA started featuring reruns of
certain series’ episodes in marathon sessions. When DVDs becomes available for home
viewing, their high-storage capacity allowed viewers to watch entire seasons, making it
easy to say to oneself “just one more” (“Binge watching in the U.S.”, 2017).

Correspondence to: Azza Abdel-Azim Mohamed Ahmed, College of Arts and Sciences, Abu
Dhabi University, Al Ain Campus, Al Ain City, PO Box 1790, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates.
E-mail: [email protected]
192
 Media Watch 8 (2)

Devasagayam (2014) explained that “the word bingeing is most often related to food
and obesity, as it is defined as: a rapid consumption of a large amount of substance in a
short time period” (p. 40). Applying the same notion to television, Matthew and Kim (2015)
indicated that binge-watching is the experience of watching multiple episodes of a program
in a single sitting. Because of advances in technology and the relatively low cost of unlimited
bandwidth, more people are binge-watching their favorite television shows and movies
than ever before. Media bingeing is rapidly becoming the viewing habit of choice for many
television fans in the west. It seems that it would be the same in the Middle East among
teenagers and youth.

Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

It is becoming apparent that traditional television viewing is declining while internet

websites that provide instant access to television content keep growing. Studies have
shown that online video-watching among young adults is skyrocketing. Nine in ten internet
users ages 18–29 say they watch content on video-sharing sites, and 36 per cent report
doing so on a typical day.(Damratoski et al., 2011: 69, 72).
Bury and Li (2015) discussed three modes of TV-watching the world has witnessed
over the past decade. They introduced an overview of these three modes connected to
specific stages of digital convergence. The first is digitally time shifted viewing, which
recorded television programming using devices, such as the DVR, PVR, and VCR back to the
1970s until the 1990s. The second is online viewing associated with computer technologies;
however, this mode blurs the boundary between television and new media. This was from
the mid-1990s until the early 2000s. The third and most recent mode to emerge as a result
of digital convergence is mobile-viewing. Itis enabled by streaming and downloading
technologies, but involves a device such a smart phone, iPod Touch, or tablet. Such devices
facilitate the viewing behavior for a longer time than via the traditional TV screen. By this
point, binge-watching emerged and nowadays has become the most popular TV-viewing
habit among people from different ages and nationalities.

Binge-Watching—A New Media Phenomenon

Binge TV-watching seems to be a relatively new phenomenon. Wheeler (2015) described

binge-watching behavior as “watching back-to back episodes of the same program in a
single sitting” (p. 27). Similarly, Walton-Pattison et al. (2016), defined binge-watching as
“watching more than two episodes of the same TV show in one sitting” (p. 3). It has been
also described as “consuming a minimum of two episodes in one sitting, with a session
average of 2.3 episodes”, as stated in a Netflix survey (2016). This phenomenon has not
been widely studied in the Middle East and the west.
There was an indication that binge-watching has become a daily habit for most
teenagers. Petersen (2016) found out that the schedule of the participants of his qualitative
research is determined to an extent by their binge-watching habit (p. 86). In the United
Kingdom, Stamatakis et al. (2009), indicated that over one-third of adults spend at least
four hours a day watching television. In the survey by Walton-Pattison et al. (2016),
participants reported binge-watching a mean 1.42 days/week. On the other hand, Netflix
(June 2016), the most popular website for binge-watchingin the USA, stated that “instead of
one episode per week, Netflix members choose to binge-watch their way through a series—
that is, finishing an entire season in one week”. “Arab Media: Exposure and Transition”
(2015) stated that approximately 50 per cent of In the United Arab Emirates’ viewers spend
193
Binge Watching: Ahmed

between one and three hours watching TV per day. Emirati nationals watch the highest amount
of television, with 53 per cent watching between three and six hours per day (p: 41).
Bury and Li (2015) concluded that while the majority of viewing still takes place in
front of a television screen, the computer has achieved secondary screen status among
North Americans and equal status among younger viewers and Europeans. Therefore,
“media-bingeing is quickly becoming the viewing habit of choice for many television fans
with the intensive usage of internet among teenagers” (Devasagayam, 2014: 40).
Bothun and Lieberman (2014) surveyed 1024 respondents online to learn how
consumers are using video media content. They pointed out that: “Increasingly, consumers
are rethinking how they access video content, with more people subscribing to direct-to-
consumer online-streaming services, on-demand, and alternative forms of television—
and moving away from the bundle” (P: 3).
It is noticeable that over the past 10 years, online-streaming services and similar
viewing platforms are portals for viewers to immerse themselves in hours of endless
content. Binge- watchingis transforming the way people watch television and it might
change the economics of the industry (Moore, 2015).
Many participants in the focus group of the Bothun and Lieberman (2014) study
reported that most people do not watch a majority of TV regular channels. Having Netflix
and HBO, they know specifically what they want to watch, so they find themselves watching
so much more of the same program in one session. Devasagayam (2014) identified that the
availability of shows without commercials makes it a preferable habit to view large strings
of episodes, and is one of the motives of binge watching (p. 40-41).

Why People Binge-Watch

Some scholars studied the motive behind binge-watching and listed the various reasons
mentioned by binge-watchers. Devasagayam (2014) marked the formation of one-sided,
unconscious bonds between viewers and characters as one of the major motives of binge-
watching. These bonds are considered one of the main factors influencing bingeing
behaviors. In the same context, Tse (2016) introduced the concept of “togetherness” as an
important element to understand teens’ motivations forbinge-watching. He explained that,

“…. by using online platforms, audiences achieved a sense of togetherness

in two ways: by connecting to others with the same interests in foreign
programs and by re-associating with their home when they are abroad by
consuming domestic programs” (p. 1547).

Kolotkin et al. (1987) concluded that people try to recreate feelings of happiness
when bingeing on media. This feeling is commonly obsessed over as people find themselves
thinking about a show’s events during the day.
Many participants of Petersen’s (2016) research pointed that they binge-watchto
get some positive outcomes: a reward for hard work; a powerful way to experience a story;
and a relief for stressed-out students (p. 87).
Devasagayam (2014) added another reason behind the new trend of media-bingeing
that is “the apparent lack of physical side effects incurred by the viewer” (p: 41).

Psychological Effects of Binge TV-Watching

Sung, et al. (2015) suggested that binge behaviors are thought to be closely related to
negative feelings (p.3). Several studies provided examples of research results proving the
194
 Media Watch 8 (2)

correlation between binge-eating and body dissatisfaction, depressive symptoms, and

low self-esteem, such as research performed by Stickney et al. (1999), and Stice, Presnell
and Spangler (2002).
Nevertheless, Finn (1992) identified intensive television-viewing as a form of
addiction; however, Devasagayam (2014) found that binge TV-watchers do not consider
themselves as TV addicts due to “the lack of visible side effects that other forms of bingeing
foster” (p. 42).
LaRosa et al. (2003) stated that “addicted media consumers feel compelled to
consume media despite potentially negative consequences that make continued use appear
irrational or out of control, even in their own eyes.” (p. 226). Kubey and Csikszentmihalyi
(2002) specified some addiction-related criteria that might apply on heavy TV-watching:

“…….. using it more often than one intends; thinking about reducing use or
making repeated unsuccessful efforts to reduce use; giving up important
social, family, or occupational activities to use it; and reporting withdrawal
symptoms when one stops using it” (p. 40).

On the other hand, Kubey and Csikszentmihalyi (2002) assured that watching
television, per se, is not a problematic (p. 40). The transition to problematic usage can
begin if the behavior acts as an important or exclusive mechanism to relieve stress,
loneliness, depression, or anxiety. “When this problematic media use becomes excessive,
it, in turn, can cause life problems, confrontations with significant others, and an inability
to stop media consumption once started.” (LaRosa et al., 2003: 230).
In a focus group study conducted by Devasagayam (2014), one individual admitted
that he had watched full seasons in a single day “several” times. He added that the focus
group members agreed on that “the free time given over the summer forced them to watch
out of sheer boredom” (p. 42). In the same context, Petersen (2016) pointed out that while
students in his study easily recognize the benefits they get from binge-watching, they fail to
see the ways their habit might hurt them (p. 77). Binge-viewers may fail to control his/her
time spent watching, although he/she can make a negative judgment on the binge behavior.
They find themselves clicking the “next” button for one or more episode after another, even
though they realize that there are things to do the next day or they need to sleep (Sung et al.,
2015).
Kubey and Csikszentmihalyi (2002) reported that the sense of relaxation ends when
the TV set is turned off, but the feelings of passivity and lowered alertness continue.
On the other hand, Petersen (2016) examined how binge-watching affects the social
and academic lives of college students. He stated:
“For many participants, the rhythm of their day was built around binge-
watching. They scheduled a time to binge-watch and rewarded themselves
after accomplishments. While the participants downplayed or were
unaware of the effects of this new watching experience, their grades
suffered, their social lives are ignored, and the schedule is determined to
an extent by their binge-watching habit” (p. 86).
Furthermore, LaRose et al. (2003) demonstrated that depression and media habits
formed to alleviate depressed moods undermined self-regulation and led to increased
Internet usage in a sample of 465 college students. Consistently, Kim, Kyunghee, et al.
(2005) found that the levels of depression and suicide ideation were highest in the Internet-
addicted group in a sample of 1573 Korean high school students. Also, Ha, Jee et al. (2007)
195
Binge Watching: Ahmed

reported that Internet addiction was significantly associated with depressive symptoms
and obsessive-compulsive symptoms among a Korean sample. However, Lindsay and
Larry (2004) concluded that Internet use was found to decrease loneliness and depression
significantly, while perceived social support and self-esteem increased significantly.
Many recent studies proved that there is a relationship between the amount of time
spent watching television and the likelihood of eventually being diagnosed with depression,
meaning that if TV-viewing habits are excessive, a person is putting himself/herself at
greater risk of suffering from this debilitating and life-altering condition.
Wheeler (2015) found that the higher participants scored in depression and
loneliness, the more they reported watching television for both ritualistic and instrumental
purposes, and the more they reported watching back-to-back episodes of television
programs (p. 26). In addition, Sung et al. (2015) found that depression and loneliness were
related to binge TV-watching among 316 respondents between 18 and 20 years old. The
more an individual was lonely and depressed, the more episodes the individual watched
(p. 15). Derrick, Gabriel and Hugenberg (2009) found that watching favorite television
programs buffered against feelings of loneliness more so than other activities, including
eating, surfing the web, listening to music, and watching regular programming on television.
Kubey and Csikszentmihalyi (2002) concluded that binge watchers commonly reflect
that television has somehow absorbed or sucked out their energy, leaving them depleted.
They tend to express having more difficulty concentrating after viewing than before. In
contrast, they rarely indicate such difficulty after reading. After playing sports or engaging
in hobbies, people report improvements in mood. After watching regularly scheduled TV,
people’s moods are about the same or worse than before (p. 72).
It is becoming important to study binge-watchingand its possible psychological
effects on youth in the Arab world. The present study attempts to extend the research of
Sung et al. (2015) on examining the relationship between depression and loneliness, as
possible psychological effects, and binge watching. It goes beyond the university student
sample to a sample from an Arab country—the United Arab Emirates—and of a wider range
of ages. The study also examines whether significant differences exist across demographic
variables: gender, age, education, income, marital status, and country/region of residence.
The lack of official census or academic information regarding the TV-watching habits
among Emiratis and UAE residents in general adds importance to the current study because
it gives some indications of TV-consumption habits in UAE.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

There is no literature on binge-watchingin the Arab world. This makes it important to

examine some research questions:

RQ1: What are the TV-watching habits among Emiratis and Arab residents in UAE?
RQ2: What media are used for binge-watching among Emiratis and Arab residents in the
UAE?
RQ3: What are the favorite types of programs the Emiratis and Arab residents usually
binge-watch?
RQ4: What is/are the device/s used for binge-watching among Emiratis and Arab residents?
RQ5: What is/are the place/s where respondents most often binge-watch?

Hypotheses

Based on the literature review of the research conducted in China, USA, and some European
countries, the current research variables were identified and three hypotheses were formed
196
 Media Watch 8 (2)

to be examined in the current study as follows:

H1: There is a correlation between binge TV-watching and depression.
In other words, it is predicted that there is a difference between high- and low-binge
watchers in their level of depression.
H2: There is a correlation between binge-watching and loneliness
In other words, it is predicted that there is a difference between high and lowbinge-
watchers in their level of loneliness.
H3: Significant differences in binge-watching exist across demographic variables: gender,
age, education, income, marital status, and nationality.

Methodology

Sampling and Data Collection

The sample consisted of 260 respondents; (135) of them are locals (Emiratis) and (125) are
Arab residents of the United Arab Emirates living in Abu Dhabi, including Lebanese,
Egyptians, Omanis, Syrian, Palestinians, Sudanese, Yemenis, and others. The respondents’
ages ranged from 18 to 48 years old with a mean 25.8.
Data was collected from May to June 2016. Four undergraduate students of the
Mass Communication Department at Abu Dhabi University collected the data from Abu
Dhabi Emirate, UAE capital, and Al Ain City of Abu Dhabi. The following Table categorizes
the sample according to its characteristics.
Table 1. Sample characteristics

197
Binge Watching: Ahmed

A constructed questionnaire, including 20 questions measuring the research variables,

was used to collect the data. The questions were written in Arabic, which is the mother
tongue of most respondents, to make sure participants fully understood the questions and
gave accurate responses.

Research Variables and Measurements

The questionnaire started with some questions aimed to learn more about TV and binge-
watching habits. These questions asked about the number of hours watching television,
type of TV content to which the respondents binge-watch, days of binge-watching and
places they prefer to binge-watch, devices used, and the preferred media for binge watching.
These questions help provide a broad idea about binge TV-watching in the United Arab
Emirates.
In addition, the questionnaire included measurements of the research variables.
The validity and reliability of the questionnaire were examined through a pretest among
15 per cent of the total sample. Some questions were modified and the order of the questions
was changed according to the respondent’s comments and feedback. Also, Alpha Cronbach
was used to assure the reliability of the measurements of the variables.

Binge-Watching

It refers to the behavior of watching more than one episode from the same TV content
consecutively in the same session. Three questions were used to measure respondents’
binge-watching. The first asked the respondents to specify the number of hours they spent
watching back-to-back episodes from the same TV content. Answers ranged from two hours
to more than four hours per session. Those who answered two hours and more were
classified as binge-watchers. The second question asked the respondents to identify how
many episodes of the same TV content they would watch per session. Those who answered
more than two episodes were classified as binge-watchers. The third asked about the
number of days in the last week he/she binge-watched. Those who answered at least three
days were classified as binge-watchers.
The respondents were categorized into two categories according to their answers:
binge-watchers 116 (44.6 per cent) and non-binge-watchers 144 (55.4 per cent). Alpha
Cronbachá is (0.835).

Depression

Depression is defined according to the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale
(CESD)as “having a despondent mood; feelings of guilt, worthlessness, helplessness,
andhopelessness; inability or lack of motivation to move; poor appetite; and trouble
sleeping” (Radloff, 1977).
Depression was measured in this study by using seven items developed by Mirowsky
and Ross (1992) to measure depression among different age groups.
An eight-point scale ranging from “none” to “seven” times a day was used. The
respondents were asked how many days during the past week have they felt: “sad?”, “felt
you just couldn’t get going?”, “had trouble getting to sleep or staying asleep?”, “felt that
everything was an effort?, “felt lonely?”, “felt you couldn’t get rid of feeling sad and
depressed?”, and “had trouble keeping your mind on what you were doing?”. Respondents

198
 Media Watch 8 (2)

were classified according to their answers into two categories: High depressed (15.4 per
cent) and low depressed (84.6 per cent). Alpha Cronbachá is (0.700).

Loneliness

According to Weiss (1973), social loneliness refers to a deficit in one’s social relationships,
social network, and social support, whereas emotional loneliness indicates a lack of
close or intimate companionship. In this study, a self-reporting UCLA (University of
California, Los Angeles) Loneliness scale, developed by Russell and Ferguson (1978) and
revised in 1996 (Russell, 1996), was used to measure the respondents’ loneliness. It is a
four-point scale ranging from often, sometimes, rarely, to never. It includes 20 items designed
to measure one’s feelings of loneliness and social isolation. Participants rated each item
as either “I often feel this way”, “I sometimes feel this way”, “I rarely feel this way”, “I never
feel this way”. Some of these items include: “I am unhappy doing so many things alone”; “I
have nobody to talk to”; “I cannot tolerate being so alone”; “I lack companionship”; “I feel
as if nobody really understands me”; “I find myself waiting for people to call or write”; and
“There is no one I can turn to”.
The total score ranged from 20 to 80. Then the respondents were divided according
to their answers into two categories: High loneliness (61.5 per cent) and low loneliness
(38.5 per cent). Alpha Cronbach’s α is (0.862).

Demographics

The questionnaire also included demographic questions asking about each respondent’s
nationality, age, gender, income, education, and marital status. A pretest was conducted
among 10 per cent of the total sample. Some questions were removed and some words were
paraphrased to assure the full understanding of the questions.

Results

TV-Watching Habits among Respondents

The majority of the sample watches TV two to more than four hours a week (82.3 per cent)
and only (17.7 per cent) watch it less than two hours a week. The programs they watch
frequently are foreign dramas (36.5 per cent), Turkish-dubbed dramas (28.1 per cent),
action movies (27.3 per cent), comedy programs (24.2 per cent), and documentary programs
(23.8 per cent).
Media Used for Binge Watching
The respondents were asked what media they use for binge-watching. The results showed
that YouTube comes out on top (36.9 per cent); then the website of the TV program (23 per
cent); the cumulative episode’s broadcast during weekends on TV (11.2 per cent);
downloading torrents (9.6 per cent); Shahid.net (7.3 per cent); Internet streaming service
(4.6 per cent); Netflix (3.5 per cent); and DVDs (1.9 per cent). Two respondents mentioned
“popcorn time” and “kiss Anime” as their main method of binge-watching.
This result is similar to what was reported by Sung et al. (2015), who found that 92
per cent of the respondents use internet streaming for binge-watching, 18 per cent are
using the program website, and 10 per cent are using download services for binge watching (p. 15).

199
Binge Watching: Ahmed

This introduced the idea of creating content for the specific media used for binge-
watchingthat was identified by Bury and Li (2015) when defining what they called “mobile
television”.
“It refers to content specifically created for the mobile device or content
created for viewing on the television set or the web but viewed in whole or
in part on a mobile device” (p. 295).
Favorite Programs—Respondents Usually Binge-Watch
The results revealed that the Turkish Drama has the highest percentage (68.5 per cent),
followed by the Western Drama (31.2 per cent), Comedy Programs (26.1 per cent), Khaleej
Drama (21.9 per cent), Documentaries (16.5 per cent), and Egyptian Drama (14.6 per cent).
There are some scattered low percentages for Japanese Anime, Cooking programs, Talk
shows, Puzzles, Reality shows, and scientific programs.
Moore (2015) found that the most favorite types of TV shows that attracted university
students to binge-watch were: Fantasy (Game of Thrones), Drama (The Walking Dead),
Crime (Sons of Anarchy), Comedy (Big Bang Theory) and Action (Arrow).

Device Used for Binge-Watching

The respondents were asked about the media devices they use the most in binge-watching.
Table (2) shows the results.
Table 2. Device respondents use for binge-watching (n=260)
Method used Per cent
Laptops 26.2
Smart mobile phones 21.5
Internet TV 20.8
iPad 18.1
Personal computers CPU 11.5
All possible media 1.9

The results show laptops are the most popular devices used by respondents in
binge-watching, then smart mobile phones, internet TV, iPads, and last the personal
computers CPU.
Place in which Respondents Binge-Watch
Table 3. Preferred places for binge-watching (n=260*)
Place per cent
Home 97.1
In plane 50.3
At University 31.1
In car 23.9
In mall or coffee shop 23.9
Gem 12.7
Others 4.3
* Respondents can select more than one place for binge-watching
200
 Media Watch 8 (2)

The results revealed that home is the most popular place the respondents select for
binge-watching. This might indicate that other activities outside the home to which free
time is allotted are diminished recently. Being at home while binge-watching might explain
the results that 66.5 per cent of respondents binge-watch alone and 21.9 per cent binge-
watch with family members.
The plane is a location in which to kill time during the long journey. Unexpectedly,
31.1 per cent of respondents mentioned university in which they binge-watch. On the other
hand, the results showed that only 11.2 per cent of respondents binge-watch with friends.

Hypotheses Test

H1: There is a correlation between binge TV watching and depression: It is predicted that
there is a difference between TV binge-watchers and non-TV binge-watchers in their
level of depression. T-Test was used to examine this hypothesis.

Table 4. Difference between binge-watchers and non-binge-watchers in their level of

depression
Binge watching Mean Std. Deviation t-test Significance
& Depression
Low 1.250 .663 8.277 .004
High 1.379 .787

df= 258
The results support the first hypothesis and showed a significant difference (p
=.004) between high and low binge-watchers in their level of depression. The mean value
explained that high-binge watchers (mean 1.379) tend to be more depressed than the low-
binge watcher (mean 1.25). Therefore, the first hypothesis was accepted.
This result backsthe research of Wheeler (2015) who found in a sample of college
students that the higher participants scored in depression; the more they reported watching
back-to-back episodes of television programs (p.27).
H2: There is a correlation between binge-watching and loneliness: In other words, it is predicted
that there is a difference between TV binge-watcher and non-TV binge-watchers in their
levels of feeling lonely. T-test showed that there is a difference between respondents
with high and low levels of loneliness in their level of binge watching.

Table 5. Difference between binge-watchers and non-binge-watchers in their level of

loneliness
Binge watching Mean Std. D. t-test P
& Loneliness
Low 2.1944 .98434 1.814 .179
High 2.2759 .96537

df= 258
Respondents who are high in their level of loneliness tend to be high binge-watchers.
However, the difference is not significant. Therefore, the second hypothesis is rejected.
201
Binge Watching: Ahmed

This result doesn’t support Wheeler’s results (2015) who reported that the higher research
participants scored in loneliness the more often they reported viewing television due
toritualistic motivations (p. 27).
The results are partially similar to the Sung, et al. (2015) findings who found that
the more an individual was lonely and depressed the more TV episodes the individual
watched. They explained that “those who feel negative emotions, such as loneliness and
depression, may binge-watch TV series to stay away from their negative feelings.” (p. 15).
H3: There are significant differences in binge TV-watching across the demographic variables:
Gender, age, education, income, marital status, and nationality.

Binge-Watching, Depression and Loneliness among Males and Females

T-test was used to examine the difference between males and females in all research
variables: depression, loneliness, and binge-watching. The following Table shows the
t-test results:
Table 6. Difference between males and females in research variables

*NS means not significant

T-test revealed that there is a slight difference in two variables: depression (p =

.000) and loneliness (p = .005); while there is no difference between them in binge-watching.
The mean values show that the females have higher depression and loneliness levels than
males.
This result supports Moore’s (2015) findings. She reported that there is no significant
relationship between females and genres of binge-watched television shows.

Binge Watching, Depression and Loneliness among Age Groups

The t-test and mean values showed that the younger the age, the higher the tendency
for binge-watching (p = .000). This indicates that the binge-watching phenomena is widely
spread among the younger age group. This result is similar to what was found in the USA—
the highest prevalence of marathon-viewing is among the very young, as, presumably, they
have the most free time on their hands and the least responsibilities. Almost 42 per cent of
14- to 25-year-olds claim to binge-watch at least once a week, compared to the 30 per cent
of 26- to 31-year olds who report doing so (Binge watching in the U.S, 2017).
Table 7. Difference in research variables among age groups

* NS: Not significant

202
 Media Watch 8 (2)

In the meantime, the higher the age the more the respondents feel lonely (p = .000).
However, the difference is slight. As for income, the results showed that there is no difference
among income groups in their level of binge watching, depression, or loneliness. This
means that the income does not have any effect on any of the research variables.

Binge-Watching, Depression and Loneliness among Emiratis vs. Arab residents in UAE

T-test showed no significant difference between Emiratis and Arab residents of UAE
in the three research variables: binge-watching, depression, and loneliness. Also, the results
showed that education level does not make any difference in the level of binge-watching,
depression, and loneliness.

Marital Status: The variable was examined as an intervening variable between binge-
watching and both depression and loneliness. The results showed a positive effect of
binge-watchingin terms of single or married status on the research variables. The following
table shows the results:

Table 8. Difference in research variables according to marital status

The t-test showed significant differences between single and married respondents in their
binge-watching, depression, and loneliness. The results revealed the singles are higher
binge-watchers (Mean=1.72) than married respondents (mean=1.29). Singles are higher
(mean=1.344) also in depression than married. However, married respondents are higher
in feeling lonely (mean=2.432) than singles (mean=2.150).

Discussion and Conclusion

This research explored the binge-watching or marathon-viewing of TV programs and drama

among a sample of (260) residents living in UAE. It examined the relationship between
binge-watching and two psychological variables: depression and loneliness.
The results showed that 44.6 per cent of the sample is made up of binge-watchers.
They use all possible media devices to binge-watch; YouTube is the most used medium, then
the website of the TV programs. To satisfy this watching habit, some use an illegal website
for binge-watching: Downloading Torrents. Western Drama and comedy TV content are
among the top favorite TV content the respondents tend to binge-watch.
Almost half of the respondents use laptops and smartphones in watching TV content
online. This might prove the important role the new technologies play in encouraging
bingewatching. The results revealed that most of respondents tend to binge-watch alone
mostly at home. This result raises a question of “isolation” caused by the adoption of new
technologies, in which an individual creates a virtual zone to live in and withdraws from
his/her real life. Using a smartphone to access the social media and other websites in
order to kill or pass free time at home is a recent phenomenon that leads to many negative
psychological consequences among adolescents, teenagers, and adults in the Arab world.
Also, 31 per cent of respondents mentioned that they binge-watch at the university. This

203
Binge Watching: Ahmed

leads to two implications. The first is that the new TV-watching behavior might affect the
academic performance of the students. The second is that respondents might binge-watch
at university where they meet their friends and classmates and use binge-watching for the
purpose of involvement and company. However, the results showed most respondents tend
to binge watchalone and only a few binge-watch with friends. This might lead to an increase
in the possibility of feeling lonely even while watching TV content.
Moreover, the binge-watching differed among the respondents according to their
demographic variables. It is higher among the younger age group “less than 30 years old”
and among singles and less prevalent among the older age group and married respondents.
There is no difference between males and females in their bingewatching. This is supported
by other research results conducted among university students in Hong Kong and the USA
(Statista, 2016; Wheeler, 2015; Moore, 2015, and Sung, et al., 2015). Also, it was found that
education and nationality do not make any difference in the levels of binge-watching,
depression, and loneliness.
The results showed that both depression and loneliness are higher among females
than males and higher among the older (30 years and more) than younger age group (less
than 30 years old). In addition, married respondents feel lonelier than singles while the
singles are more likely to be depressed than the married. Single respondents tend to binge-
watch when feeling depressed. In the meantime, married respondents are less into binge-
watchingwhen feeling depressed. There is an indication that females tend to binge-watch
when they are depressed or feel lonely; while it is not the case with males. These results
require more elaboration through further psychological research.
The results disclosed that binge-watchers are higher in depression scores than
non-binge-watchers. The mean value revealed that the more respondents are depressed
the more they binge-watch. Therefore, depression might make the person attempt to escape
from his condition to watch more TV content that releases the stress. This result supports
the findings of Wheeler (2015). In addition, Sung et al. 2015 concluded that depression is
related to binge watching. They specified that the more an individual was depressed, the
more episodes the individual watched (p. 15). Uses and gratification literature provide
media scholars with many signs of having “escape from reality” as one of the major
motivations for intensive TV-watching. Viewers tend to watch more TV to forget temporarily
about everyday life stress caused by work or university assignments or social life in
general. However, the cause and effect cannot be claimed; it is unknown whether depressed
people tend to binge-watch more for the reasons mentioned, or the binge-watching leads to
depression as viewers might regret spending many hours in one session watching a whole
session of a TV program. This might need further investigation.
The current study found no significant correlation between binge-watching and
loneliness. In other words, the difference between binge-watchers and non-binge-watchers
in their level of loneliness was not significant. This result is not consistent with the results
of Wheeler 2015 and Sung et al. 2015. Loneliness might be a result of a lack of social needs
satisfaction to have good company and social life engagements. In the meantime, the
results revealed that more than half of respondents (61.5 per cent) scored higher on the
loneliness scale, especially among females and among the “30 years and above” age
group. It seems that binge-watchingis not the favorite choice for respondents to relieve
their loneliness, mainly among the higher age group. They might prefer using social media
or traveling to other Emirates to get away from feeling lonely. It is suggested more studies
be conducted on a multiple samples of the Arab countries for further investigation.

204
 Media Watch 8 (2)

Limitation: Although this research is limited to a certain segment of Arab population, it is

a preliminary step from which future research can stem and grow. Continuation of this
research could bring valuable information and understanding into the relational
interactions between television viewing behaviors and psychological factors in the Arab
world. The results of this research might be considered as a leading point for some upcoming
studies to further understand the new type of TV-watching trends resulting from the adoption
of internet-related technologies.
Binge TV-watching is a phenomenon that is related to media symbiosis; people are
using new media to watch TV content even more than they used to. A collaborative work
should be dedicated to identifying a specific definition of bingewatching. More research
should be conducted to test binge-watchingand its relations to other factors, such as self-
control, attachment, and well-being. Also, it is recommended more research is conducted
to examine the motivations and the expected outcomes of binge-watching.
More research might investigate and analyze the TV content that teenagers and
adult are binge-watchingto have better information on the motivations and consequences
of this new TV-watching behavior.

References

Arab Media: Exposure and Transition (2015). Arab Media Outlook Annual Report (2011–2015).
Dubai Press Club, Retrieved on 23 rd October 2016 from:http://
www.arabmediaforum.ae/userfiles/EnglishAMO.pdf
Binge watching in the U.S.Retrievedon 23 rd March, 2017) from: http://www.statista.com/
topics/2508/binge-watching-in-the-us/
Bothun, Deborah and Lieberman, Matthew (2014). Feeling the Effects of the Video
Quake: Changes in How We Consume Video Content.Consumer Intelligence Series
PwC. December 2014. Retrieved on: 2nd October 2016 from
http://www.pwc.com/us/en/industry/entertainment-media/publications/consumer-
intelligence-series/assets/pwc-video-consumption-report-2.pdf
Bury, R., andJ. Li (2015). “Is It live or Is It Time Shifted, Streamed or Downloaded?
Watching Television in the Era of Multiple Screens”, New Media and Society, 17(4):
592–610.
Damratoski, K. J, Field, A. R., Mizell, K. N. & Budden, M. C. (2011). An Investigation into
Alternative Television Viewership Habits of CollegeStudents.Journal of Applied Business
Research, 27(1), 69–76.
Derrick, J.L., Gabriel, S.& Hugenberg, K. (2009). Social Surrogacy: How Favored Television
Programs Provide the Experience of Belonging. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
(45) 352–362.
Devasagayam, R. (2014). Media Bingeing: A Qualitative Study of Psychological
Influences.Marketing Management Association Spring 2014 Proceedings, 40–44.
Finn, S. (1992). Television “Addiction?” An Evaluation of Four Competing Media-Use
Models.Journalism Quarterly, 69(2), 422–435.
Ha, J. H., et al (2007).Depression and Internet Addiction in Adolescents.Psychopathology
40(6):424–430 
Hargraves, Hunter (2015) (TV) Junkies in Need of an Intervention: On Addictive
Spectatorship and Recovery Television. Camera Obscura. Vol. 30 Issue 88, 71–98.
Kim, Kyunghee, et al. (2005) Internet Addiction in Korean Adolescents and Its Relation to
Depression and Suicidal Ideation: A Questionnaire Survey. International Journal of
Nursing Studies. 43(2): 185–192.

205
Binge Watching: Ahmed

Kolotkin, R. L., Revis, E. S., Kirkley, B. G. & Janick, L. (1987). Binge Eating In Obesity:
Associated MMPI Characteristics.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(6),
872–876.
Kubey, Robert and Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (2002). Television Addiction is No Mere
Metaphor. Scientific American, Inc. retrieved on 14th October 2016 fromhttp://
sites.oxy.edu/clint/physio/article/televisionaddiction.pdf
LaRose, R., Lin, C. A., and Eastin, M. S. (2003). Unregulated Internet Usage: Addiction,
Habit or Deficient self-Regulation? Media Psychology, 5(3): 225–253.
Lindsay H. Shaw and Larry M. Gant. (2004). In Defense of the Internet: The Relationship
between Internet Communication and Depression, Loneliness, Self-Esteem, and
Perceived Social Support. Cyber Psychology & Behavior. 5(2): 157–171. 
Liu, M. and Peng, W. (2009). Cognitive and Psychological Predictors of the Negative
Outcomes Associated with Playing MMOGs (Massively Multiplayer Online Games).
Computers in Human Behavior 25: 1306–1311. Retrieved on 15th October 2016 from:
https://msu.edu/~pengwei/Cognitive%20and%20psychological%20predictors%20of
%20the%20negative%20outcomes%20associated%20with%20playing%20MMOGs.pdf
Jenner, M. (2014). Is thisTVIV? On Netflix, TV1II and Binge-Watching. New Media & Society,
1—17.
Matthew, Pitman and Kim, Sheehan (2015). Sprinting a Media Marathon: Uses and
Gratifications of Bulge-Watching Television through Netflix. First Monday.20(10).
Retrieved on 21st July 2016 from
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/6138/4999
Mirowsky, J. & Ross, C. E. (1992). Age and Depression. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior.33 (3): 187–205. Retrieved on 30th April 2016 from: http://www.jstor.org/
stable/2137349
Moore, Amanda E., (2015) “Binge Watching: Exploring the Relationship of Binge Watched
Television Genres and Colleges at Clemson University” (2015). Graduate Research and
Discovery Symposium (GRADS). Paper 138.
http://tigerprints.clemson.edu/grads_symposium/138
Netflix & Binge: New Binge Scale Reveals TV Series We Devour and Those We Savor (June
2016). Retrieved on 20 th July 2016 from https://media.netflix.com/en/press-
releases/netflix-binge-new-binge-scale-reveals-tv-series-we-devour-and-those-
we-savor-1
Petersen, G. Theodore (2016) To Binge or Not to Binge: A Qualitative Analysis of College
Students’ Binge-Watching Habits. The Florida Communication Journal, 44(1): 77–87.
Radloff, L.S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report Depression Scale for Research in the
General Population, Applied Psychological Measurement. (1) 385–401.
Russell, D, Peplau, L. A. & Ferguson, M. L. (1978). Developing a Measure of Loneliness.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 42, 290–29
Russell, D. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 20–40.
Stamatakis E, Hillsdon M, Mishra G, et al. (2009) Television Viewing and Other Screen-
Based Entertainment in Relation to Multiple Socioeconomic Status Indicators and
Area Deprivation: The Scottish Health Survey 2003. Journal of Epidemiology & Community
Health, 63: 734–740.
Stice, E., Presnell, K. & Spangler, D. (2002) Risk Factors for Binge Eating Onset in Adolescent
Girls: a 2-year Prospective Investigation. Health Psychology, 21(2), 131.
Stickney, M. I., Miltenberger, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1999). A Descriptive Analysis of Factors
Continuing to Binge Eating.Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, (30)3,
177–189.

206
 Media Watch 8 (2)

Sung, Yoon Hi, Kamg, E. Y., and Lee, W.N. (2015). A Bad Habit for Your Health? An Exploration
of Psychological Factors for Binge-Watching Behavior.Conference proceedings. The
65th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association in San
Juan, Puerto Rico, 21-25th May 2015.
Tse, Yu-Kei (2016). Television’sChanging Role in Social Togetherness in the Personalized
Online Consumption of Foreign TV. New Media and Society, 18(8): 1547–1562
Walton-Pattison, E., Dombrowski, S. U., and Presseau, J. (2016) ‘Just One More Episode’:
Frequency and Theoretical Correlates of Television Binge Watching. Journal of Health
Psychology.DOI: 10.1177/1359105316643379:1-8
Weiss, R. (1973). Loneliness: The Experience of Emotional and Social Isolation. (Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Wheeler, Katherine S. (2015). The Relationships between Television Viewing Behaviors,
Attachment, Loneliness, Depression, and Psychological Well-Being.Georgia Southern
University Honors Program Theses.Paper 98. Retrieved on 23 rd Oct. 2016 from
file:///F:/Desktop%20June%202016/Binge%20TV%20watching/
The%20Relationships%20Between%20Television%20Viewing%20Behaviors%20
Attachmen.pdf

Dr. Azza A. Ahmed is a professor of mass communication in Cairo University, Egypt and Abu
Dhabi University, UAE. She got many awards for excellence in research from international
conferences in USA, Morocco and Paris. She was the vice-president of the Arab-US Association
for Communication Educators. Dr. Azza was the Arabic editor of the Journal of Middle East
Media (2005-2016). Her research interest includes: television effects, media credibility, new
media usages and impacts. Dr. Azza established two mass communication programs in
English and Arabic in Abu Dhabi University, UAE. She received Khalifa Award in education
“Distinguished University Professor in Teaching” from United Arab Emirates in 2016.
207
Journal of Media Watch: An Endeavour in Academic Excellence!
Communication, journalism and media studies, like the ever-changing public sphere is a broad, dynamic
and augmenting academic field that is igniting the interest of scholars around the world. When any human
or mediated innovations for effective and efficient communication hit the society, it is met with
painstaking analysis from active and mindful scholars who locate changes in the theory and praxis as a
revolution in the social sphere. Amidst these highly vigilant academic explorations, Journal of Media
Watch, focus its lens and frames towards the promising research endeavours in providing a space and
voice for the scholars to divulge their thoughts in a timely platform.
Journal of Media Watch is a double blind peer-reviewed tri-annual journal published from India. It is the
only journal in the discipline from Asia and India listed in Scopus, Elsevier, ProQuest, CNKI, Ebsco
Communication and Media Index, Embase, CrossRef, Reaxys, Google Scholar, ERIH Plus, Asian Education
Index, CiteFactor, Scientific Indexing Service, Index Copernicus, ResearchBib, Engineering Village, MIAR,
Ulrichsweb, J-Gate, Indian Citation Index, DRIJ that keeps high quality peer evaluation and academic
standards in all levels of its publication. Journal of Media Watch reflects empirical and fundamental
research, theoretical articulations, alternative critical thinking, diverse knowledge spectrum, cognizant
technologies, scientific postulates, alternative social synergies, exploratory documentations, visual
enquiries, narrative argumentations, innovative interventions, and minority inclusiveness in its content
and selection.
Journal of Media Watch aims at publishing and documenting research publication in the field of
communication and media studies that covers a wide range of topics and sub-fields like print media,
television, radio, film, public relations, advertising, journalism and social media and the cultural impact
and activation of these media in the society. The journal aims at providing a platform for the scholars to
present their research to an international academic community with wide access and reach. Published
topics in the Journal of Media Watch enjoy very high impact and major citation. The journal is supported
by strong international editorial advisory support from leading academicians in the world. For more
information, please visit the journal webpage: http://www.mediawatchjournal.in
Impact Factor: Scientific Journal Impact Factor (3.276), International Impact Factor Services (0.993),
International Society for Research Activity (0.834)
Subscription Price for 2017 & 2018 (India): Institution (Print and Online: Rs. 4,500, only Print: Rs. 3,000).
For Other countries: Institution (Print and Online: USD 225, Online only: USD 110, Print only: USD 145).
Marketing & Distribution: Managing Editor, Media Watch, S.C.S College Road, Near Amala Club, Puri-
752 001, Odisha, India
Account Information: Media Watch, Account No. 33633688403, Account Type: Current, State Bank of
India, Nabakalebar Road Branch, Puri-752 002, Odisha, India (Bank Branch Code: 12034) (IFS Code:
SBIN0012034)
For easier process, you can also avail bank deposit and on-line money transfer option for subscription of
the journal. After transferring the money, you need to send computer generated transaction details along
with subscription information to: [email protected]
Media Watch is published under the permission and registration of the Registrar of Newspapers for India
(RNI), Government of India, No. ODIENG/2010/31441. © 2016 Media Watch: All rights reserved, including
those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this journal may be reproduced in any form (by photo
print, microfilm or any other means or transmitted or translated into machine language without written
permission from the publisher). The views expressed by the authors in the articles are their own. They do not
reflect the views of Media Watch or the organizations they represent. All efforts are made to ensure the
published information is correct. Media Watch is not responsible for any errors caused due to oversight or
otherwise. All disputes are subjected to the exclusive jurisdiction of competent courts in Puri, Odisha, India.
Printed, published and owned by Deepak Ranjan Jena, Kundheibenta Sahi, Puri-752001, Odisha, India and
edited by Dr. R. C. Pattnaik, printed at Kalyani Printers, BJB Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khurda and published at
Ramchandi Sahi, S.C.S College Road, Near Amala Club, Puri-752 001, Odisha, India.
Correspondence: All correspondence including submission of manuscripts should be sent to:
The Editor, Media Watch, S.C.S College Road, Near Amala Club, Puri-752 001, Odisha, India.
E-mail: [email protected] / [email protected], Telefax : +91 6752-220088,
Mobile : +91 94395-37641.
Website: www.mediawatchjournal.in
 RNI No. ODIENG/2010/31441

View publication stats