jdtv 9 (1) pp.

69–85 Intellect Limited 2018

International Journal of Digital Television

Volume 9 Number 1
© 2018 Intellect Ltd Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/jdtv.9.1.69_1

BRIDGET RUBENKING
University of Central Florida

CHERYL CAMPANELLA BRACKEN

Cleveland State University

JENNIFER SANDOVAL AND ALEX RISTER

University of Central Florida

Defining new viewing

behaviours: What makes and
motivates TV binge-watching?

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The term ‘binge watching’ is common in popular media and is one of several binge watching
new ways of TV viewing that capitalizes on the wide availability of digital video focus groups
and streaming services. However, the term lacks clear conceptualization, and the motivation
underlying motivations associated with it remain under-explored. Results from viewing behaviours
eleven focus groups of university students in the United States suggest binge media habits
watching is characterized as viewing suspenseful dramatic, narrative content audience studies
for a considerable amount of time: often more than three or four hours. Analyses
revealed four emergent motivations that contribute to individuals binge watching:
(1) anticipation of what was coming next – facilitated by both content and technol-
ogy features, (2) management of moods and excitement/ arousal, (3) procrastina-
tion and escapism, (4) social goals – related to both co-viewing, discussing content
with others and identification with characters. Implications and future directions
for research are discussed.

www.intellectbooks.com  69
Bridget Rubenking | Cheryl Campanella Bracken | Jennifer Sandoval | Alex Rister

1. Introduction
‘Binge watching’, or watching multiple episodes in a television series
sequentially in one sitting, has recently received a great deal of attention
in the popular media. Publications such as The Atlantic have questioned
what constitutes a viewing session as a binge (Feeny 2014), while others
have written about how to overcome your binge-watching addiction and
lessen the negative effects that come with displacing other activities in place
of watching just one more episode (Hsu 2014; Chan 2014). Still others are
happy to provide you programme suggestions recommending what to binge
watch and defend binge watching as ‘an almost radical act of self-deter-
mined focus’ (Pang 2014: 1), which encourages a deep attentional, immersive
state that results in more thorough processing and later discussions of media
(Pang 2014). Some suggest that while the behaviour is not necessarily new,
the way we talk about it and engage in it is. Movie marathons of the past
have been replaced with serial viewing of a television series. While ‘mara-
thon’ may invoke images of achievement, ‘binge’ implies indulgence or even
loss of control (Giuffre 2013).
It is evident both anecdotally and from industry data that binge watching
is an increasingly common way of TV viewing, especially for younger audi-
ences. Netflix conducted a survey in 2013 where 61 per cent of the partici-
pants indicated they binge watch regularly and 73 per cent of binge watchers
expressed positive feelings towards binging (West 2014). The unique role
Netflix plays in the cultural phenomenon of binge watching cannot be under-
scored. From their unique positions on distribution strategies to reach (in 2016,
Netflix became available in nearly 200 countries; in 2017, they hit nearly 100
million subscribers following a record-breaking first quarter for new subscrib-
ers [Fiegerman 2017]), they shape television viewing norms across the world.
A global study conducted by Nielsen found that two-thirds of global respond-
ents report watching video-on-demand, VOD (or SVOD), services because
it allows them to binge watch content. This motivation to consume (S)VOD
content was especially appealing to those in North America (73 per cent) and
Africa/Middle East (70 per cent) as compared to other global regions (Ericsson
Consumer Lab 2015). While many associate Netflix with binge watching, and
younger audiences may be even more likely to make this association (Matrix
2014), there are numerous technologies and platforms available for viewers to
binge watch ‘television’ content, as suggested by the movie marathons previ-
ously discussed. These include viewing programmed marathons on cable tele-
vision, DVDs and numerous other streaming and on-demand services. These
rapid changes and shifts in viewing among teens and college students threaten
both traditional media business models (Damratoski et al. 2011; Matrix 2014;
Spangler 2016), as well as the ability to accurately gauge audience measure-
ment (Carey 2016).
The goal of the current exploratory research is twofold. First, it hopes to
add to the academic research on binge watching, which is in a formative stage
(much of it is theses/dissertations or conference papers and proceedings,
e.g. Devasagayam 2014; Pena 2015; Wheeler 2015), by clearly conceptualiz-
ing the phenomenon. Second, this study seeks to identify the user-side moti-
vations that contribute to binge watching. To this end, eleven focus groups
with college students at a large, diverse, public university in the United States
were conducted and analysed in order to parse common themes related to the
study goals.

70   International Journal of Digital Television

 Defining new viewing behaviours

Netflix and other streaming TV content services such as Hulu, Amazon

Prime and HBO GO have been at the forefront of the discussion on binge
watching. Some have highlighted the unique ways that Netflix markets
itself as both encouraging of binge watching and new ways of viewing since
they are ‘simply not TV’, per their own marketing strategies (Jenner 2014). A
Harris Interactive poll of U.S. adults reported that 43% report regularly watch
streaming TV, while 23% report that streaming content is the way they most
often watched TV (Harris Polls 2014). These numbers increased among millen-
nials (18–36 year-olds) from just 2012 to 2014, jumping to 67% of millenni-
als regularly streaming TV content and 47% reporting that streaming is the
most common way they watch TV. Additionally, viewing television and film via
streaming on-demand services saw a 121% increase from 2011 to 2015, in a
multi-country study (Ericsson Consumer Lab 2015).
Although clear definitions of binge watching are lacking, as is work utiliz-
ing an informative theoretical perspective to explore the phenomenon. Some
have argued that binge watching is around three to four episodes or three to
four hours of a series (Feeny 2014). However, a Harris Interactive poll about
binge watching defined it broadly as watching ‘multiple episodes of the same
show’. The poll reported that of viewers who ever viewed TV in time-shifted
or streaming platforms, 62 per cent (and 78 per cent of millennials) say they
have binge viewed (Harris Polls 2014). Thus, the line between viewing and
‘bingeing’ remains somewhat blurred.

1.1. Theoretical perspectives

Researchers exploring the rise in media multitasking following this changing
TV-viewing environment have employed Webster et al. (2000) model of media
exposure that discusses media use as co-determined by both media/structural
factors and audience factors (Jeong and Fishbein 2007). At a micro, or indi-
vidual level, media factors as straightforward as ownership or access to the
media technology are large determinants of media exposure. Logically, these
should be determinants of binge viewing as well. Audience factors related to
media use in this framework may include demographic or personality factors
(Voorveld and Viswanathan 2014). Binge watching is not a phenomenon
driven solely by technology. Audience factors also determine viewing behav-
iour. Exploring binge watching from the user side suggests several research
traditions or approaches may be useful. First, a binge suggests a behaviour
where the user lacks some self-control and goes overboard. This type of media
behaviour has been explored before as problematic Internet use (Caplan 2003,
2010) and normal vs problematic TV viewing (Horvath 2004). Exploring the
technological factors of new devices that may contribute this is a key compo-
nent in studying the phenomenon, as well as the audience and personality
factors that may contribute to it.

1.1.1. Habituation
We know that binge watching has some rewards associated with it and that
once viewers begin binge watching, they are likely to repeat that behaviour in
the future. LaRose’s (2010) theoretical work on media habits may be helpful in
isolating the point at which a media habit (i.e. binge watching) is acquired and
how it is subsequently activated in the future. LaRose (2010) explains media
habits as being acquired through repeated media use behaviours that are
initially goal-directed. This line of research suggests that habits are not only

www.intellectbooks.com  71
Bridget Rubenking | Cheryl Campanella Bracken | Jennifer Sandoval | Alex Rister

efficient, but rewarding for users. Over time, activation of that habit is influ-
enced by goal dependence and context or environmental cues (Duhigg 2012):
such that you may want to catch up on a show before the new season begins,
or are sick and stuck indoors one weekend and decide to explore a show a
friend recommended. These habits could be activated the next time a series
season is set to begin, or if you get sick again. While media use habits may
begin as goal-directed and beneficial, some media use habits may devolve
into situations where self-control becomes ineffective. This deficiency in self-
regulation can lead to problematic habit behaviours, such as working less
effectively because one is always checking e-mail or not enjoying TV view-
ing because one is channel-surfing on a whim. Deficient self-control allows
automatic systems to determine behaviour (LaRose et al. 2003). Scholars have
explored deficient self-control alongside expectancy outcomes in the specific
context of binge watching. Dunn et al. (2015) found that a lack of self-regula-
tion predicted longer binge-watching sessions, as did expectancy outcomes of
entertainment, social fulfillments and monetary gains.

1.1.2. Uses and gratifications

Others have explored the goals or motivations of individuals engaged in binge
watching under a uses and gratifications approach (Cohen and Lancaster
2015; Pittman and Sheehan 2015). Uses and gratifications are the hallmark
active audience theoretical approach in communication studies. Blumler and
Katz (1974) outline a continuum that runs between active rational audiences
and passive, complacent audiences. As such, audiences are viewed as aware
of their needs and capable of meeting them through media or other options.
Seminal studies of uses and gratifications of TV viewing revealed a number
of typical gratifications sought when TV viewing, including pass time/habit,
entertainment, companionship/social, information-seeking, relaxation and
escapism (Greenberg 1974; Rubin 1983). Ruggiero (2000) outlined common
gratifications sought (and often obtained) when using media technologies,
including diversion, social utility, personal identity and surveillance. Binge
watching may encompass some combination of these or satisfy other gratifi-
cations. While the empirical data on the gratifications or motivations to binge
watch remain scarce, a survey convenience sample of binge viewers revealed
a five-factor solution to motivations to binge view. Pittman and Sheehan
(2015) based motivations to binge view scale on typical TV-viewing moti-
vations as well as some ‘engagement’ items thought to be unique to binge
watching. They found the following motivations to binge view: engagement
(entertainment), relaxation, past time, hedonism and social motives. The
authors note engagement was a strong predictor, one unique to typical TV
viewing, which may have something to do with the nature of the suspenseful,
engrossing content individuals were binge watching. Engagement was also
the sole predictor of increased binge watching in participants (Pittman and
Sheehan 2015).

1.2. The current study

Based on the previous research, continued exploratory work on binge watch-
ing is valuable to further our understanding of the phenomenon. The first
necessary step appears to be acquiring audience perspectives on what consti-
tutes binge watching. A second question will look at the variety of factors

72   International Journal of Digital Television

 Defining new viewing behaviours

that motivate audiences to binge view. Therefore, we propose to examine the

following research questions:
RQ1: How do media audiences define binge watching?
RQ2: What factors or motivations contribute to binge watching?

2. Methods
Due to the lack of comprehensive empirical data on concepts related to the
antecedents and effects of binge watching, in addition to the lack of a clear
foundational definition of the behaviour, focus groups were employed to
obtain preliminary data on the topic. Focus groups allow us to collect accounts
of participants’ perceptions and experiences in their own words. At this
exploratory stage of investigation, it is important to have in-depth descrip-
tion of viewers’ behaviours in order to further develop the understanding of
the current incarnation of the binge-watching phenomenon. Data from such
approaches are often critical in formative research in order to construct more
precise empirical measures later on. Recognizing that TV viewing is increas-
ingly social (Ducheneaut et al. 2008), employing focus groups allows for an
interactive experience providing unique insight into the practices of a particu-
lar group of people. Eleven focus groups were conducted over the course
of two months. The primary investigator and two trained graduate research
assistants moderated the hour-long groups of seven to ten participants each.
The sessions began with an open-ended question asking participants what
they thought about binge watching and asking them how they would define
it. Moderators then moved into more specific questions about binge-watching
behaviour (e.g. How often do you binge watch content? When do you binge
watch content?), content and technology (e.g. Are there any characteristics
of the media technologies that encourage binge watching? How about the
content itself?), as well as feelings and motivations around binge watching
(e.g. How do you feel while binge watching? How about after binge watch-
ing?). Data saturation was achieved at around the seventh or eighth focus
group, and several additional focus groups were conducted to increase validity.

2.1. Participants
The focus groups were conducted in September and October of 2015 at a
large, public, Southern university in the United States. A total of 91 partic-
ipants took part in this study. College students, as millennials, are a key
demographic who have both demonstrated their preference to binge watch
and their attractiveness to those in the TV and advertising industries. Given
that in 2009, Marketing Charts reported an Alloy Media study explaining that
American College students spent twelve hours a day with media, this particu-
lar population is of interest in the formative research. The study also reported
that college students spend twice as much time in front of a computer than a
TV, which is a popular access point for streaming services (Marketing Charts
2009). Each of the focus group sessions was audio recorded and transcribed
resulting in 150 pages of verbatim transcripts. Pseudonyms were assigned to
all participants to maintain confidentiality.

2.2. Data analysis

The eleven focus group transcripts were analysed using Owen’s (1984)
thematic analysis approach. The research team examined the lexical choices

www.intellectbooks.com  73
Bridget Rubenking | Cheryl Campanella Bracken | Jennifer Sandoval | Alex Rister

of participants to generate a consistent definition of a ‘binge’. The first round

of analysis was a close reading conducted using open coding identifying
instances of recurrence, repetition and forcefulness. Subsequently, two of the
researchers individually reviewed the transcripts looking for themes based
on reported motivations for viewing reported by the participants. The initial
categories identified through open coding were generated by both research-
ers, and then the emerging categories in axial coding were compared and
re-evaluated using the constant comparison technique. The emergent catego-
ries were reviewed for frequency, consistency and the level of enthusiasm and
agreement met by fellow participants.
The initial analysis results in five initial themes. The identified catego-
ries of motivation were content, management of mood, nothing better to do,
procrastination and social reasons. Upon subsequent review and analysis, the
researchers reduced the motivations to four themes, which will be described
later.

3. Results
3.1. Conceptualizing binge watching
Analysis of the transcripts revealed a consistent perspective on the operation-
alization of the term binge watching. For the participants, binge watching is
equated with viewing the same programme for an extended duration of time
or multiple episodes. In fact, most participants agreed that four hours or more
of the same show were necessary for qualify as ‘bingeing’. The viewing of the
same show was an important element in defining the term. There was general
agreement that real binging involves watching a whole season of a show or
viewing until they fell asleep. This type of watching is reserved for special
shows – ones that are highly dramatic.
Sean, explained, ‘I think it’s an all-day thing, at least for me. I mean there’s
a couple episodes here, a couple episodes there, but it’s not really binge view-
ing unless it’s like, that’s all you do the whole day’. Another agreed, ‘For me it’s
like, more than three is at least a binge’.
Participants also nearly unanimously equated binge watching with
Netflix. Although other streaming services and ways of watching (DVR-ing
shows, DVDs) were mentioned, Netflix was the primary platform used to
binge view. In part, because Netflix is a flexible service allowing media users
to view what they want, when they want and where they want (including
on mobile devices). One participant, Tessa, said ‘Like the more dramatic the
show is, the more you’re interested in seeing what happens [in] the next
episode and time doesn’t really matter anymore, it’s like I want to know what
happens’. While streaming services allow for TV to be viewed in a more serial,
rather than in an appointment style viewing (or weekly viewing), a consen-
sus of participants did not identify watching shows in a serial manner alone
to qualify as binge watching. To answer RQ1, binge watching is viewing four
or more hours of episodes of the same show consecutively. It is a behav-
iour reserved for the most suspenseful programmes. As Nicole explained, ‘I
think dramatic ones tend to be the ones that you kind of can’t stop’. Similarly,
Morgan explained, ‘[…] if there’s a cliffhanger I’ll watch that next episode
because I can’t stand it’.
Participants articulated that they engaged in binge watching both on
spontaneous and planned occasions. This somewhat surprising finding was
discussed in the majority of the focus groups with general agreement. Billy

74   International Journal of Digital Television

 Defining new viewing behaviours

declared that for him ‘it’s the last thing you’re going to do in a day. Like I make
sure I finish everything I need to finish that day and I’ll be like okay I still have
time let’s just watch’. Others still set aside time to binge watch when they
viewed with others, noting that they would make extensive plans with friends,
family members or significant others to binge watch certain content together.
The participants also discussed spontaneous binge watching. Karen
explained ‘I don’t plan my binge, it just happens’. The vast majority of the
participants reported feeling sometimes out of control. This feeling was typi-
fied by Anna who explained ‘I’ll watch Netflix and I’ll just get caught up in the
show. I say “I’ll just watch one more,” or “I’ll just watch another one.” I just end
up watching a lot’.
Many participants described similar experiences. Sean said, ‘You don’t
realize how much you’ve watched until it’s been a couple of hours’. He later
added, ‘You don’t realize how much time you’ve spent’. Another participant
explained, ‘Most often, I catch myself […] I’ll just watch one episode at like
10:00 PM, and then it’s like 3:00 AM, and I’m still watching’.
This lack of awareness of time or complete engrossment with a show was
a recurring story. Dominique explained,

I’ll sit there and watch and I mean get so engaged that 52 minutes of a
show and the first 5 minutes I have to pee and I’ll hold it until I get to
the end of the show because I don’t want to pause it and I’m like oh my
god I cannot believe this is happening!

Similarly, Trudy said, ‘I’ll watch like one episode out of boredom then real-
ize I’m addicted to the show and keep watching it anyway’. While Jonathan
described this experience, ‘You’re like on your computer and just doing my
homework or whatever. And I just go to Netflix real quick but then it turns
into five hours. It’s like oh my god what time is it?’
These responses show an important element of the nature of binge watch-
ing that makes the name of such activity even more salient – lack of control.
Participants expressed their inability to stop watching, at the cost of sleeping,
doing homework or other tasks.

3.2. Motivations to binge watch

Research question 2 asked what factors or motivations contribute to binge
watching. The analysis resulted in the emerging of four motivations that
contribute to individuals binge watching: (1) anticipation of what was coming
next – facilitated by both content and technology features, (2) management
of moods and excitement/arousal, (3) procrastination and escapism, (4) social
goals – related to both co-viewing, discussing content with others and identi-
fication with characters. Evidence of each is discussed below.

3.2.1. Anticipation
Binge watching, by the above definition, is typically reserved for dramatic and
suspenseful content, and it is typically associated with the streaming plat-
form Netflix. This type of content paired with viewing platform characteris-
tics allows for an ongoing cycle of anticipation: it builds as one watches a
suspenseful dramatic arc and can then be quickly satiated by continuing to
watch more episodes (i.e. binging), which is easily facilitated by technology

www.intellectbooks.com  75
Bridget Rubenking | Cheryl Campanella Bracken | Jennifer Sandoval | Alex Rister

features of Netflix and other streaming services. Our data support that a cycle
of anticipating more suspenseful content, and then seamlessly accessing such
content, by way of features such as the next episode appearing on-screen at
the finish of one, and the countdowns to automatic starts of the next episode
in a series, is enjoyable and an often-cited motivation to binge watch.
Many participants spoke to the content being viewed as a primary motiva-
tion to keep viewing – it is so engrossing that they simply do not want to stop
viewing. For example, Daniella stated

The content, of course, if I’m engaged, if it really leaves me on the edge

of my seat at the end of an episode, okay I really can’t wait – let me
run through another episode. And then if maybe something dramatic
doesn’t happen in that episode, then I go okay then I’ll just wait for the
rest.

This point was also made by Jonathon who stated

Like, if it’s a suspenseful kind of TV show that leaves you on your seat
at the very end of the episode you’re like, well I have to see the next
episode so now I have to keep watching and then it’s like oh, nothing
happened.

Liam agreed saying, ‘You need to know what happens next. It’s like oh my
god something happened to someone and you’re like I want to know what
happens next. On to the next episode!’
Indeed, Tina noted, ‘Especially if there’s a cliffhanger it’s like oh now I have
to watch the next episode to see what happens. You’re kind of stuck, especially
when each episode ends that way. Yeah, you’re stuck’. While most participants
discussed the draw of suspenseful dramas, several others talked about antici-
pating other types of content, such as comedy. Bailey explained

I actually don’t watch any mysteries or dramas. I only watch like funny
shows and I don’t know why I binge watch those shows because there’s
no suspense but I’m in such a good mood and I’m laughing so hard
from all those previous episodes that I’m like ‘I could laugh more’.

Sentiments such as these show both the influence of captivating content

and perhaps some lack of self-control or ability to self-regulate. Interestingly,
the technology features of streaming TV-viewing services, which encourage
binge watching, may also inhibit self-control and self-regulation. Many of the
participants reported that their feeling of not being able to help themselves
was encouraged by streaming companies that start the next episode after a
fifteen- or twenty-second delay. This idea was explained by Stacy, who stated
‘It’s loading automatically. It just starts. You’re like I’ll just sit here’. Further
examples of this were provided by Carrie ‘And it automatically plays the next
episode’ and Bailey, who stated ‘You can’t stop yourself. Its right there and I
say I can’t stop now’. Anticipating more content – typically of the suspenseful
and dramatic kind – and being able to do so easily via technology features of
streaming services appear to be a strong motive to binge watch content across
the sample of participants.

76   International Journal of Digital Television

 Defining new viewing behaviours

3.2.2. Management of moods and excitement

Individuals indicate quite varied emotional responses or moods before view-
ing, while viewing and after viewing over the course of the focus groups. One
commonly mentioned affective or mood-regulating motivation mentioned
here was binge watching with the express purpose to relax and unwind. Binge
watching was something most participants did in the evening, and sometimes
into the late hours, but typically after they had worked or done homework.
Many noted that they often binged to ‘reward’ themselves after a stressful
or long day. The language evoked by participants was, at times, reminiscent
of relaxation and escapism motives explored under a uses and gratifications
perspective. For example, Samantha noted, ‘You need distraction if something
happened that day. Okay, no more of my real life. I’m just going to ignore
it all’. Other participants expressed binge watching to function as a mood
repair mechanism, such as Taylor, who said, ‘I went through a break up a few
months ago and I literally just binge watched Sherlock for like two days in a
row because it made me feel better’. It is clear that many participants begin
binge watching to relax and escape from every day stresses.
While they are binge watching, however, participants reflected feeling a
whole range of emotional responses. Many said that they binge watched on
widely acclaimed and compelling narrative dramas (such as Breaking Bad, The
Walking Dead). These participants reported feeling ‘on edge’ or ‘overly awake’
during binges of suspenseful content. Contrarily, others noted the comfort of
binge watching, such as Karen, who said, ‘I’m in a calm and relaxed state. I’m
in my place in the cocoon’. Emotional responses while watching appear to be
as varied as the content genres (and perhaps viewing contexts) available to
viewers: which is larger and more varied than ever before. While several noted
binging on sitcoms so they could laugh and feel good, many watched seri-
ous, captivating dramas and experienced a number of highs and lows along-
side the antagonist (or antihero) over long narratives. Contrary to Pittman
and Sheehan’s (2015) findings, hedonistic valence alone did not emerge as
a clear-cut motivation to binge watch. Post-viewing of content like this can
leave individuals worn out: ‘After maybe [I feel] tired. Especially if it’s a drama
or a mystery and it’s an emotional roller coaster. So afterwards, you’re kind of
tired and you don’t want to do anything. That’s why it’s good to do at night so
you can kind of go to bed after’, said Abby.
After viewing, participants report feeling the whole gamut of lazy, listless
and regretful – to accomplished and pleased with their free time well-spent.
Many participants expressed regret that accompanies displacing other activi-
ties or responsibilities in place of viewing. Carla, for instance, noted, ‘I feel
really guilty and like I should be working on doing homework but I just get so
lazy and I feel like it sucks you in more. I feel really guilty, but I do it anyway’.
Feeling lazy and lethargic after viewing was also a common theme. As common
as regret was reported, so too was a sense of accomplishment with finishing a
season or series. Caroline noted, ‘But there’s a feeling of satisfaction when you
finish a series or something. There is a feeling of accomplishment. Like you
did something’. Others noted that they felt a greater sense of accomplishment
when it was quality programming or that they had entertained themselves for
pretty cheap for a bit of time. Interestingly, some participants noted feeling
sadness or some remorse when a show ended because they could no longer
keep up with the characters they had come to so strongly identify with. In all,

www.intellectbooks.com  77
Bridget Rubenking | Cheryl Campanella Bracken | Jennifer Sandoval | Alex Rister

it seems that many seek out binge watching as a way to meet their relaxation
or escapism needs, and then feel a wide variety of emotions while viewing.
Post viewing, participants report feeling tired and combinations of regret and
accomplishment.

3.2.3. Procrastination and escapism

Putting off undesirable tasks, such as homework or housework, along with
general sense of wanting to escape from the monotony of daily life was an
often-cited motivation to binge watch. Liz simply stated ‘I’m bored and have
nothing else to do’. Another way of articulating that binge watching was a
result of a lack of things to do was reported by Cayden, who said ‘If you do
have time to do it, it’s fitting into part of my schedule where I don’t have
anything else to do for once’.
Other participants reported binge watching when they were avoiding
other activities. One clear example was provided by Antonia:

I don’t personally not do those things [homework, socializing] because

I’m binge watching. I’m binge watching because I don’t want to do
those things. I want time to myself so everybody just needs to leave me
alone because that is all I want to do right now.

Numerous participants shared this feeling. Another examples of binge

watching as procrastination include a statement by Bailey who explained
I don’t know if it interesting and it’s on my mind or I’ll do it sometimes
where I know I have a bunch of homework to but I’m going to watch TV
instead because I don’t want to do it. That’s when it happens.
Lastly, participants reported actively avoiding the real world, their prob-
lems or even the dirge of daily life. Several participants reported binge watch-
ing TV content to escape their lives. For example, Hannah explained, ‘You can
like get into the TV show and forget about an outside world and you’ll focus
on their life like that was real life. I wish I was in that show’. Likewise, Jocelyn
said ‘I think it’s the same in that we binge watch, this is going to sound so
sad, but just to escape reality. Like TV shows are probably more, they are more
interesting than your life and usually that’s really sad’. A desire to put off, or
escape from, daily life was a goal often met by binge watching among partici-
pants in the focus groups.

3.2.4. Social goals

Social motivations to binge watch appear to be multidimensional in structure.
Previous work on uses and gratifications motives regarding social gratifica-
tions appears relative here, such as identifying with characters and the goals
of companionship. Likewise, co-viewing with others, or watching alone and
then discussing binge-worthy content appears prevalent in the given sample.
Many participants report feeling a strong connection to characters, across
content genres. Characters and situations that seem familiar engendered
these types of responses. For instance, Myra said, ‘Sometimes it’s just like
really relatable like One Tree Hill […] the whole setting was like high school
kids so when I watched it I was in high school so it was really cool’. Binge
watching content also allowed individuals to feel involved with characters
who often are ideal (mediated) companions. For instance, Patricia said, ‘It’s

78   International Journal of Digital Television

 Defining new viewing behaviours

also that the characters are better than the people you know in real life and
you think about how badly you want them instead. That’s why you go back
and re-watch. Sometimes I wait two or three months after it […] and I start
re-watching it and I love it again so I keep watching it’. Further, Jackie noted,
‘I feel similarly, like at the end of Parks and Recreation a character was like my
BFF. And on The Mindy Project, Mindy was my best friend I’d ever have. Like
I want to be her best friend’. Chris also noted identifying with characters, she
said, ‘You become attached to them and you’re like “I want to be like you.”’
Additionally, Lisa said she often binge watches to feel closer to characters,
‘Because you kind of want to be like the characters. You become attached to
the characters and you’re like, “I want to be like you.”’ These parasocial inter-
action bonds were commonly mentioned. Indeed the companionship offered
by characters such as these and the parasocial relationships that evolve over
the course of binge watching echo previous work on uses and gratifications
related to TV viewing (Rubin 1983; Ruggiero 2000).
Individuals also noted that interactions with others often provided sugges-
tions of what to watch, and discussing TV shows that were commonly watched
was a very common occurrence. Most participants, in fact, noted that word of
mouth from friends either interpersonally, or electronic word of mouth via
social media, was crucial factor in their decisions about what shows to binge
watch. Many participants mentioned enjoying the post-viewing discussions
with friends as a motivation to quickly get through past seasons of a show or
to watch Netflix original programming that releases whole seasons at once so
that they would not hear any spoilers. Discussing binge-watched content with
family and friends was commonly cited. Laura, for instance, noted, ‘My sister
and I love the same series. She’ll call me and say that she’s watched, and oh
my gosh, did you watch this episode?’
There were strong preferences mentioned by participants both in favour
of binging with others, as well as in favour of binging alone. Some individ-
uals noted how hard it would be to get friends’ schedules lined up. Others
still qualified binge watching strictly as ‘me time’ and expressed no interest in
doing it with others. Nani noted that she will invite others to binge with her,
if anyone else is home, saying ‘I like feeling there’s someone else relating to
it so we can discuss it later. Say what’s going to happen, or what’s happen-
ing?! I can relate to other people and discuss it’. Likewise, Caroline noted, ‘I’ve
done it with friends. We’ll binge watch the new shows coming up like How
to Get Away with Murder […] and we’ll plan for a weekend and have wine
and everything with it and it’s perfect’. However, others found binging with
others to be annoying – especially when one had to explain background and
other details to someone else. Daniella said, ‘I can’t watch with my boyfriend.
I get distracted. Sometimes it’s hard with people because people talk a lot.
And when you lose your focus – it’s more of a thing I want to do on my own’.
Although, Kristen noted binge watching with her partner gives you ‘some-
thing to bond over’. Others noted sharing that activity with a significant other
was a fun, easy activity, as long as both were into the show being watched.
One participant noted the paradox of often binge watching alone, but discuss-
ing the content he binge watched with others, ‘Well it gives you something
to talk about because yeah you’re being antisocial while you’re watching it
but then when you’re outside talking to people and they’re talking about it’,
said Brendan. Others co-viewed and enjoyed discussing the content, such as
Angela, who noted, ‘My friends and I would sit there and watch Walking Dead
and we would debate things after it was on’. The data demonstrate that binge

www.intellectbooks.com  79
Bridget Rubenking | Cheryl Campanella Bracken | Jennifer Sandoval | Alex Rister

watching for social reasons takes many forms: from identifying with liked
characters on-screen to having water cooler chit chat on social media or with
others, to a shared activity with friends, family and significant others.

4. Discussion
This study hoped to accomplish two goals: the first was to clearly conceptu-
alize binge watching from the perspective of actual viewers and the second
was to explore the basic factors that encourage viewers to engage in it. The
focus group data provided relative consensus for a definition of binge watch-
ing. Binge watching, among our US-based college student sample, is a term
generally reserved for long periods of viewing content (approximately four
hours), and that content is generally narrative and dramatic in nature. This
definition is somewhat more stringent than the two to three episodes prof-
fered by media commenters (Blodget 2012; Feeny 2014). Similar to media
commentators, dramatic, critically acclaimed shows were often mentioned as
content to binge on – such as The Walking Dead, and Breaking Bad, as were a
number of The CW Television Network dramas and other hour-long narra-
tive format shows. Also of interest was the finding that binge watching can
be both a planned, purposeful activity, as well as one that can be unplanned and
leave audiences regretful that they viewed more than they intended to. This
speaks to some of the previous literature on problematic use.
The second goal was to isolate what drives individuals to binge watch.
Although there are some conceptual overlaps, four general motivations were
isolated. The first centred on the anticipation viewers felt while viewing
suspenseful content, which was then gratified by technology that made bing-
ing easier than turning off the TV content. This anticipation cycle is propelled
forward by the nature of the content (i.e. captivating, intense, well-done, easy-
to-identify-with characters) and the nature of the technology (i.e. streaming
services that automatically start new content with no viewer input). Secondly,
individuals binge watch to manage their own moods and relax. Many
discussed binge watching as a reward at the end of a long day or specifically to
repair a mood. A third factor found that individuals binge watch to put off and
escape from the more mundane parts of real life. Procrastinating by way of
binge watching was commonly reported. A final factor is related to managing
social needs. This multifaceted factor encompasses identifying with characters,
discussing content with others and binging alongside others.
An important takeaway from the current research is the extended time
commitment (four hours, plus) and specific content type participants thought
of when asked to discuss what binge watching is. It appears that the term
‘binge’ really does denote a significant time effort, and many expressed
bingeing longer than they had originally planned. Hence, perhaps the nega-
tive connotations associated with ‘binging’ have a place some of the time –
though clearly not in all cases. How addictive or engrossing this behaviour
can become over time should be studied further. LaRose’s (2010) media habit
framework may offer guidance as to isolating when a previously rewarding
media habit (e.g. relaxing for a couple of hours with a good show at the end
of the day) becomes less rewarding (e.g. staying up too late viewing that TV
show and feeling less relaxed and more tired the next day).
The similarities and differences between the motivations to binge watch
and the typical motivations to watch TV (under a uses and gratifications
approach) are interesting to explore. ‘Entertainment’ and ‘to have fun’ are

80   International Journal of Digital Television

 Defining new viewing behaviours

common U&G TV-viewing motivation. Here, we see a more nuanced motiva-

tion related to anticipation of suspenseful content. This anticipation motivation
is not particularly associated with purely positive affect. Media entertainment
research has recently seen a surge in exploring ‘meaningful’ media entertain-
ment experiences, specifically looking at motivations to view other hedonistic
valence (i.e. I like watching it, it’s funny). Binge watching may be an interest-
ing viewing experience that encourages exposure to media that results from
more eudemonic motivations (Oliver and Raney 2011).
While anticipation differed from the more traditional U&G TV-viewing
motivations related to entertainment and having fun, the second sets of
motivations, related to mood and arousal management, seem more similar.
Experiences of moods and arousal appear to be more extreme in response to
binge watching than is typically reported in response to TV watching, which
may make sense since binge watching TV is a more extreme way of TV view-
ing. This is exemplified by Matrix (2014) who discusses the ‘Netflix effect’
being one of increased expectations that particularly younger viewers have for
television. The new models of television viewing are not only anti-cable, but
audiences demand content connects them with others is immersive, inspiring
and commercial free (Matrix 2014). Jenner (2016) also notes the importance of
changes in the contemporary viewing environment, noting that on-demand
viewing services, along with the attention that they command, may signify a
completely new phase in viewing practices.
The multifaceted dimension of social motivations is interesting as well.
While parasocial interactions and identification with characters have long
been studied in the realm of TV viewing, more social viewing situations and
co-viewing processing and effects have only been more recently explored.
Identification with characters may be heightened in binge watching as
compared to other ways of TV viewing, given the dedication and large time
commitment binge watching an entire series entails. The lack of consensus
on whether individuals prefer binging alone or with others is interesting and
should be explored more thoroughly in different populations. It is quite possi-
ble that one mode of binge viewing is preferable over another given certain
content and contexts.
In all, it is clear that motivations to binge watch have some overlaps with
motivations to watch TV but represent unique combinations of goals set
by viewers when undertaking binge watching. This, alongside the general
consensus on what constitutes binge watching, speaks to the unique viewing
phenomenon that binge watching currently is. We hope that the definition
provided here furthers understanding of this phenomenon so that it can be
examined in multiple contexts including industry concerns as well as social-
psychological impacts of the behaviour.
Like all studies, there are some limitations. The use of focus groups often
falls prey to group dynamics and peer pressure where participants may edit
their responses or ‘reproduce normative discourses’. (Smithson 2000: 104).
This can be particularly true when focus groups are comprised largely of
university students. While the sample is appropriate for the current study
because streaming technology is commonly used among Millennials, it
does further limit generalizability. Bingeing may be less accessible to people
with increased responsibilities (e.g. multiple jobs, children, caring for aging
parents). Continued exploration among this age group, yet across different
universities and countries would also be fruitful. While exploring the motiva-
tions to binge watch is an informative first step, and in the future, more formal

www.intellectbooks.com  81
Bridget Rubenking | Cheryl Campanella Bracken | Jennifer Sandoval | Alex Rister

tests of whether the motivations sought by binge watching are actually being
met, or obtained, would be beneficial.
Overall, these focus groups shed light on how young adults define binge
watching and digital streaming viewing. The ways people view TV content
continues to change as new technology delivers shifts in experience. While
binge watching has become a popular term in the media and pop-culture
vernacular, it also describes what sounds like a potentially unhealthy view-
ing behaviour. This research suggests binge watching is perceived as a view-
ing experience of a considerable length and of dramatic, narrative, typically
suspenseful content. The motivations to binge view encompass a wide range
of anticipation, emotion regulation and social influences. The established four
groups of motivations can serve as a starting point for future research, which
more systematically explores motivations to binge watch. A variety of new
TV-viewing behaviours have emerged with the emergence of streaming TV
services and connected TVs. Binge watching is one viewing phenomenon with
implications for industry professionals and mass media scholars alike.

REFERENCES
Blodget, H. (2012), ‘This trend is very worrisome for Apple’, Business
Insider, November, http://www.businessinsider.com/mobile-market-
share-2012-11. Accessed 30 November 2015.
Blumler, J. G. and Katz, E. (1974), The Uses of Mass Communications: Current
Perspectives on Gratifications Research, Vol. 3, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Caplan, S. E. (2003), ‘Preference for online social interaction: A theory of
problematic Internet use and psychosocial well-being’, Communication
Research, 30:6, pp. 625–48.
——— (2010), ‘Theory and measurement of generalized problematic inter-
net use: A two-step approach’, Computers in Human Behavior, 26:5, pp.
1089–97.
Carey, J. (2016), ‘Audience measurement of digital TV’, International Journal of
Digital Television, 7:1, pp. 119–32.
Chan, A. L. (2014), ‘All that TV binge-watching may be hurting your sleep’,
The Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/21/binge-
watching-tv-sleep_n_5175332.html. Accessed 20 November 2015.
Cohen, E. and Lancaster, A. L. (2015), ‘Something to look forward to:
Understanding the appeal of ritualistic television coviewing events’,
paper presented at The Annual Conference of the National Communication
Association, Las Vegas, NV, November.
Damratoski, K. J., Field, A. R., Mizell, K. N. and Budden, M. C. (2011), ‘An
investigation into alternative television viewership habits of college
students’, Journal of Applied Business Research, 27:1, pp. 69–76.
Devasagayam, R. (2014, March),‘Media bingeing: A qualitative study of psycho-
logical influences’, Proceedings from Marketing Management Association,
Chicago, IL, http://www.mmaglobal.org/publications/Proceedings/2014-
MMA-Spring-Conference-Proceedings.pdf#page=56. Accessed 14 August
2017.
Ducheneaut, N., Moore, R. J., Oehlberg, L., Thornton, J. D. and Nickell, E.
(2008), ‘Social TV: Designing for distributed, sociable television viewing’,
International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 24:2, pp. 136–54.
Duhigg, C. (2012), The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and
Business, New York: Random House.

82   International Journal of Digital Television

 Defining new viewing behaviours

Dunn, M. E., Brinson, N. and Eastin, M. S. (2015), ‘Beyond the binge:

Examining the influence of expectancy outcomes and self-regulation on
binge media consumption’, paper presented at The Annual Conference of
the National Communication Association, Las Vegas, NV, November.
Ericsson Consumer Lab (2015), ‘TV & Media 2015: The empowered TV &
media consumer’s influence’, Ericsson Consumer Lab, http://www.erics-
son.com/res/docs/2015/consumerlab/ericsson-consumerlab-tv-media-
2015-presentation.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2017.
Feeny, N. (2014), ‘When, exactly, does watching a lot of Netflix become a
“binge”?’, The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/
archive/2014/02/when-exactly-does-watching-a-lot-of-netflix-become-a-
binge/283844/?single_page=true. Accessed 1 November 2015.
Fiegerman, S. (2017), ‘Netflix nears 100 million subscribers’, CNN, http://
money.cnn.com/2017/04/17/technology/netflix-subscribers/index.html.
Accessed 8 August 2017.
Giuffre, L. (2013), ‘The development of binge watching’, Metro, 178, pp. 101–02.
Greenberg, B. S. (1974), ‘Gratifications of television viewing and their correla-
tes for British children’, in J. G. Blumler and E. Katz (eds), The Uses of Mass
Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research, Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 71–92.
Harris Polls (2014), ‘Americans taking advantage of ability to watch TV on
their own schedules’, Harris, 8 April, http://www.harrisinteractive.com/
NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/
ArticleId/1176/Default.aspx. Accessed 28 November 2015.
Horvath, C. W. (2004), ‘Measuring television addiction’, Journal of Broadcasting
& Electronic Media, 48:3, pp. 378–98.
Hsu, M. (2014), ‘How to overcome a binge-watching addiction: The key to the
cure? Understanding how TV scripts and your willpower work’, Wall Street
Journal, 26 September, http://online.wsj.com/articles/how-to-overcome-
a-binge-watching-addiction-1411748602. Accessed 1 November 2015.
Jenner, M. (2016), ‘Is this TVIV? On Netflix, TVII and binge-watching’, New
Media & Society, 18:2, pp. 1–17.
Jeong, S. and Fishbein, M. (2007), ‘Predictors of multitasking with media:
Media factors and audience factors’, Media Psychology, 10:3, pp. 364–84.
LaRose, R. (2010), ‘The problem of media habits’, Communication Theory, 20:2,
pp. 194–222.
LaRose, R., Lin, C. A. and Eastin, M. S. (2003), ‘Unregulated Internet usage:
Addiction, habit, or deficient self-regulation?’, Media Psychology, 5:3, pp.
225–53.
Marketing Charts (2009), ‘College students spend 12 hours/day with media
gadgets’, MarketingCharts, http://www.marketingcharts.com/televi-
sion/college-students-spend-12-hoursday-with-media-gadgets-11195/.
Accessed 20 May 2016.
Matrix, S. (2014), ‘The Netflix effect: Teens, binge watching, and on-demand
digital media trends’, Jeunesse: Young People, Texts, Cultures, 6:1, pp. 119–38.
Oliver, M. B. and Raney, A. A. (2011), ‘Entertainment as pleasurable and
meaningful: Identifying hedonic and eudaimonic motivations for enter-
tainment consumption’, Journal of Communication, 61:5, pp. 984–1004.
Owen, W. F. (1984), ‘Interpretive themes in relational communication’,
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70:3, pp. 274–87.
Pang, A. S. (2014), ‘In defense of binge watching’, 13 February, http://www.slate.
com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/02/is_binge_watching_the_new_
season_of_house_of_cards_bad_for_you.html. Accessed 1 November 2015.

www.intellectbooks.com  83
Bridget Rubenking | Cheryl Campanella Bracken | Jennifer Sandoval | Alex Rister

Pena, L. L. (2015), ‘Breaking binge: Exploring the effects of binge watching on

television viewer reception’, Ph.D. thesis, Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.
Pittman, M. and Sheehan, K. (2015), ‘Sprinting a media marathon: Uses and
gratifications of binge-watching television through Netflix’, First Monday,
20:10, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1207/S15327825MCS0301_02. Accessed 1
November 2015.
Rubin, A. M. (1983), ‘Television uses and gratifications: The interactions of
viewing patterns and motivations’, Journal of Broadcasting, 27:1, pp. 37–51.
Ruggiero, T. E. (2000), ‘Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century’, Mass
Communication and Society, 3:1, pp. 3–37.
Smithson, J. (2000), ‘Using and analyzing focus groups: Limitations and possi-
bilities’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3:2, pp. 103–19.
Spangler, T. (2016), ‘Binge nation: 70% of Americans engage in marathon TV
viewing’, Variety, 23 March, http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/binge-
watching-us-study-deloitte-1201737245/. Accessed 21 June 2017.
Voorveld, H. A. M. and Viswanathan, V. (2014), ‘An observational study on
how situational factors influence media multitasking with TV: The role of
genres, dayparts, and social viewing’, Media Psychology, 18:4, pp. 1–28.
Webster, J. G., Phalen, P. F. and Lichty, L. W. (2000), Ratings Analysis: The
Theory and Practice of Audience Research, 2nd ed., Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
West, K. (2014), ‘Unsurprising: Netflix survey indicates people like to
binge-watch TV’, CinemaBlend, http://www.cinemablend.com/tele-
vision/Unsurprising-Netflix-Survey-Indicates-People-Like-Binge-
Watch-TV-61045.html. Accessed 4 April 2016.
Wheeler, K. S. (2015), ‘The relationships between television viewing behaviors,
attachment, loneliness, depression, and psychological well-being’, honors
thesis, Stateboro: Georgia Southern University.

SUGGESTED CITATION
Rubenking, B., Bracken, C.C., Sandoval, J. and Rister, A. (2018), ‘Defining new
viewing behaviours: What makes and motivates TV binge-watching?’,
International Journal of Digital Television, 9:1, pp. 69–85, doi: 10.1386/
jdtv.9.1.69_1

CONTRIBUTOR DETAILS
Bridget Rubenking, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at the Nicholson School
of Communication at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, FL. She
studies the emotional and cognitive processing of mediated messages. Dr.
Rubenking’s research programme explores the intertwining roles of emotion
(particularly disgust), memory, enjoyment, entertainment and media multi-
tasking. She has published in Computers in Human Behavior, Journal of
Communication and Media Psychology.
Contact: 12405 Aquarius Agora Drive, Nicholson School of Communication,
University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, USA.
E-mail: Bridget.rubenking@ucf.edu

Dr Cheryl Campanella Bracken (Ph.D., 2000, Temple University) is a profes-

sor at School of Communication at Cleveland State University in Cleveland,
OH. Her research interests include the psychological processing of media.

84   International Journal of Digital Television

 Defining new viewing behaviours

Dr Bracken’s research has been published in Media Psychology, the Journal

of Communication, the Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media and
Human Communication Research. She co-authored Communication Research
Methodology: A Strategic Approach for Applied Research and co-edited Immersed
in Media: Telepresence in Everyday Life.
Contact: 2121 Euclid ave. RT 1822, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH
44115, USA.
E-mail: c.bracken@csuohio.edu

Jennifer Sandoval is an associate professor at the Nicholson School of

Communication at the University of Central Florida. Her research focuses on
the communicative elements involved in the intersection of identity, tech-
nology, the body and health policy as well as qualitative and critical research
methodologies. Dr Sandoval also continues work with community based-
participatory research projects focusing on health intervention in underserved
and underrepresented populations. She teaches courses in culture, gender,
conflict and qualitative methods.
Contact: 12405 Aquarius Agora Drive, Nicholson School of Communication,
University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, USA.
E-mail: Jennifer.Sandoval@ucf.edu

Alex Rister is a Ph.D. student in texts and technology at the University of

Central Florida. She is an assistant professor at Embry Riddle Aeronautical
University’s worldwide campus.
Contact: 12405 Aquarius Agora Drive, Nicholson School of Communication,
University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, USA.
E-mail: Alex.rister@knights.ucf.edu

Bridget Rubenking, Cheryl Campanella Bracken, Jennifer Sandoval and Alex

Rister have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act, 1988, to be identified as the authors of this work in the format that was
submitted to Intellect Ltd.

www.intellectbooks.com  85