This short paper discusses ethical issues as embedded in a TV reality show

format that provides the [ill-designed] imagined setting for a social

psychology-informed research project looking at group dynamics and
performance under stress. The core principles of informed consent, briefing
and debriefing, backup, coercion and incentives are applied to the experiment.

Endemol, the production company behind Big Brother, argue that participants
engage in the project, which is categorised as ‘reality, entertainment’, in a
‘fully informed’ manner. In fact, they provide the following information on
their website
“Twelve people, who've never met before, are suddenly catapulted into the Big
Brother house where they must share every minute of the next 100 days. In their
fenced-off compound they're denied any contact with their loved ones, and the
outside world. No phones, newspapers, radios or televisions. They're all alone...
except for the millions watching and judging their every move.
Cameras and microphones are placed all over the house. Everything the housemates
do is recorded and broadcast on television and the internet. They can't eat, sleep or
chill out without the nation clocking their every move.
Yet somehow, the residents are desperate to stay in the Big Brother house. All the
pain and embarrassment is worth the prospect of landing the title of Big Brother
winner. All the stress of knowing that at any moment your housemates could be
trying to kick you out!
On a regular basis, the housemates must nominate two or more of their fellow
participants for eviction, but the viewers ultimately decide who has to leave. The last
participant to leave the house wins the programme, and the huge cash prize that
comes with it.” (Endemol, 2009)

Taking into account that any potential participant who applies for the show can
gain free and easy access to recorded data of previous shows which was
launched in 2001, for instance via Wikipedia and Youtube, the degree of
transparency as to what participants can expect and should prepare for, is
considerably larger than many academic/scientific research projects. A large
number of research results are still not being published in Open Access

Britta Bohlinger
http://britbohlinger.wordpress.com 1/5
journals and many research findings are still hard to access if the participant is
not familiar with academic publishing procedures or does not have access to
[university] libraries.

However, the same observational format applied to research settings – that

might be a project based on qualitative research methods that makes use of
triangulation combining participant observation, ethnographic immersion of the
researcher and in-depth interviews in focus groups - would fail to obtain ethical
approval for a whole range of reasons. Unethical would be to offer ‘a huge
cash prize’, this would be an element of manipulating participants rather than
offering a small compensation for their time and effort (c.f. Potter, 2006: 215),
their behaviour and answers would be likely to be geared towards the reward,
impacting negatively on the validity of the research.

It is unclear how exactly Endemol make sure ‘fully informed consent’ is given.
Researchers need to ensure participants are aware of possible risks and they
need to obtain a possibility to clarify their concerns. Posting a statement on
one’s website as single ‘means to an end’ would be ethically unacceptable and
not sufficient. Petra Boynton (2005: 76) suggests to provide a Participant
Information Sheet which should contain a section each on ‘why is this study
important?’, ‘what will the study involve’, ‘what if I change my mind about
being involved’ and ‘what do I do now’ (i.e. further questions/contact).

In a research project designed like the Reality TV format, the length and
intensity of the observation and intrusion are key concerns. Contestants’
privacy rights are not being respected; in fact they are violated in multiple
ways. The marketing objectives of the producers require them to facilitate as
many conflict situations as possible which are likely to present a key source of
distress. The BSP’s (British Psychological Society) Code of Ethics and
Conduct mentions respect as a first ethical principle in connection with
avoidance ‘of practices that are unfair and prejudiced’ (2006: 10).

Britta Bohlinger
http://britbohlinger.wordpress.com 2/5
The principle of confidentiality in this context, though, might be seen as
controversial. The guidelines advise clearly to ‘[m]ake audio, video or
photographic recordings of clients only with the explicit permission of clients
who are considered legally competent, or their duly authorised representatives.’
(ibid.: 12) – yet, publicity as a major reward can be seen as a key motivation
that drove participants to apply in the first place. In different circumstances,
though, waiving of one’s right for anonymity and confidentiality should not be
taken for granted.

On her website, Boyton (2008) debates the fact that several psychologists who
had participated in Big Brother shows as participants mislead contestants who
should have been fully debriefed and provided with a valid reason why they
had been manipulated. She argues that ‘for psychologists getting involved with
Big Brother there’s the added problem […] you seemingly endorse something
that happens on a television programme that you shouldn’t be doing in a
laboratory experiment’ (ibid.). These questions have been subject to the BPS’s
guidelines which advise to ‘[w]ithhold information from clients only in
exceptional circumstances when necessary to preserve the integrity of research’
(2006: 13) and are, hence not just dubious research practice and unethical but
also problematic for the wider profession which suffers consequently from
some degree of disrepute.

It would be vital to prepare an appropriate exit strategy and arrange counselling

offers if required for those participants who have suffered harm due to
manipulation, verbal abuse, and passive aggression or bullying and other kind
of distress. However, researchers are obliged to avoid harm (c.f. 3rd principle
of responsibility, BPS, 2006: 17) and ensure that participants can
terminate/decide to leave the research project at any time. Yet, the Big Brother
project offers prison-like claustrophobic conditions and even though

Britta Bohlinger
http://britbohlinger.wordpress.com 3/5
participants can in principle leave the house, they need to follow strict rules
and regimes prior to their exit.

Moreover, the inclusion of particularly vulnerable participants can be seen as

unethical. Often, those who recover from cancer, eating disorders and
personality disorder are grouped together as ‘housemates’ with those who
display heavily conflict-seeking behaviour, and those who cause potential
distress to others by bullying attitudes. In the wider sense, the power
imbalance is further increased by the role of ‘Big Brother’ him/herself, the eyes
that see everything but remain invisible themselves. Big Brother’s voice has
authority, and makes ‘surprise’ decisions – which, in a research project would
be seen as unethical as it is highly obtrusive (s.f. Bryman, 2008: 115) and
leaves participants with no choice.

Britta Bohlinger
http://britbohlinger.wordpress.com 4/5
References

Boynton, P. M. (2005) The Research Companion: A Practical Guide for the

Social and Health Sciences. Hove: Psychology Press

Boynton, P. M. (2008) Big Brother 9 – and yet more bullying [Blog]

Available http://www.drpetra.co.uk/blog/?p=657 [10 May 2009]

British Sociological Association (BSA) (2002) Statement of Ethical Practice

for the British Sociological Association
Available http://www.britsoc.co.uk/equality/Statement+Ethical+Practice.htm
[17 Feb 2008]

Bryman, A. (3rd ed.) (2008) Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Endemol (2009) Non-scripted programmes-Big Brother [Homepage]

Available http://www.endemol.com/what/big-brother.html [9 May 2009]

Ess, C (2002) Ethical decision-making and Internet research:

Recommendations from the Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) ethics
working committee. Available http:/www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf
[17 Feb 2008]

Hine, C. (2000) Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage.

Le Voi, M., Sapsford, R., Potter, S., Green, A., Redman, P. and Yates S. (2008)
DT840 Course and Study Guide. Milton Keynes: The Open University.

Potter, S (2nd ed.) (2006) Doing Postgraduate Research. London: Sage.

Robson, C. (2nd ed.) (2002) Real World Research. Oxford: Blackwell.

Seale, C. (ed.) (2004) Social Research Methods - A Reader. London:

Routledge.

Taylor, S. (2002) Ethnographic Research. London: Sage Publications.

Britta Bohlinger
http://britbohlinger.wordpress.com 5/5