Running head: TELEVISION BINGE WATCHING RATES AND CORRELATES 1

A Critical Review of Journal Article: ‘Just one more episode’: Frequency and Theoretical

Correlates of Television Binge Watching

Christina Williams

2497662

This assessment is my original work and no part of it has been copied by any other source

except where due acknowledgement is made. This assessment conforms to the standards of

Swinburne University of Technology.

Submitted as a PSY10005 Critical Review

Due Date: 13th April 2020

eLA Name: Martelle Ford

Word Count: 1077

TELEVISION BINGE WATCHING RATES AND CORRELATES 2

A Critical Review of Journal Article:

‘Just One More Episode’

The term binge watching was coined only recently and whilst a clear definition remains

uncertain as a result, it can be described as “the act of consuming multiple episodes of the

same TV show in one sitting” (Conlin, Billings & Averset, 2016, p. 152). There is growing

emphasis on studying this sedentary activity given its potentially harmful health implications.

This paper intends to critically review the strengths and weaknesses of Walton-Pattison,

Dombrowski & Presseau’s (2018) article ‘Just one more episode’: Frequency and theoretical

correlates of television binge watching. Whilst the researchers gained approval by their ethics

committee, hypothesised several relationships and attempted to define and estimate frequency

of binge watching, the results were decidedly unconvincing.

Summary

This study used a quantitative, non-experimental, correlational approach that relied on

numerical data, aimed to describe relationships between predictors of behaviour and

modifiable change and wanted to draw links between variables. The background of the study

investigated potential health implications of binge watching and recognised that this is a

relatively new phenomenon needing more scrutiny. This supported their novel aims which

were to provide a clearer definition of binge watching, estimate its frequency and highlight

correlational behaviours that can theoretically be altered, supporting better health outcomes.

The researchers used Social Cognitive Theory (SCT; Bandura, 1997) constructs such as

intention, outcome expectations and self-efficacy to underpin behavioural links. They

hypothesised that additional factors contribute to variance in binge watching, namely

automaticity, anticipated regret and goal conflict/facilitation.

TELEVISION BINGE WATCHING RATES AND CORRELATES 3

In collaboration with students and professionals, the researchers developed a

questionnaire and participants were invited to complete the study using social media as a

communication platform. The requirement for informed consent was satisfied and

participants who submitted complete responses earned entry into a monetary prize draw. The

study used an observational cross-sectional design and a sampling method of snowballing to

recruit online engagement. The project was ethically approved by committee and

subsequently had 110 respondents, 86 of whom provided a complete submission.

Demographics were measured and the group randomly comprised of an average age of 30, a

BMI of 24.39, 67% female, 78% childless, 64% single, 19% married and 5% divorced.

Television binge watching frequency was assessed by questioning the number of

occasions and hours spent watching two or more consecutive episodes of the same program,

throughout the past seven days. Participants self-reported their responses by selecting from

up to seven closed ended options. Established SCT factors plus the researchers’ hypothesised

factors were put to a ‘Likert-scale’ 1-5 (strongly disagree-strongly agree) questionnaire where

a series of statements or questions were rated according to the respondent’s level of

agreement (Hampson, 2014). The response data was analysed using four, two-stepped linear

regressions. The researchers claimed that they had formally defined the term binge watching,

successfully estimated its frequency and partially attributed automaticity, anticipated regret

and goal conflict/facilitation to a variance in binge watching behaviours. They acknowledged

strength in their research such as its novel approach and discussed weaknesses such as

potential bias, the call for an experimental design focus and the need for a deeper

understanding of this phenomenon.

Critical Evaluation

Whilst there were strengths in this study such as its ethically approved design and its

ingenuity, there were key weaknesses identified that all impacted the study significantly. The
TELEVISION BINGE WATCHING RATES AND CORRELATES 4

first was the lack of operationalisation when seeking to define the term ‘binge watching’.

Operationalisation can be described as a researcher defining a variable and the development

of a way of measuring that variable (Research Methods – Operationalisation, 2018). The

researchers set out to be the first to formally define the term ‘binge watching’, however there

was no clear evidence to support the development of their finding. The authors proposed a

definition of ‘watching more than two consecutive episodes of the same television show in

the same sitting’ (Walton-Pattison et al., 2018), although they failed to relate how they

reached this conclusion. A recent systematic review Binge-Watching: What do we know so

far? A first Systematic Review of the Evidence (Flayelle, et al., 2020) makes very clear that

this new phenomenon is still poorly defined because no agreement currently exists as to its

operationalisation and measurement. Given that a systematic review identified the non-

existence of a clear definition, it is difficult to accept the claim that the researchers in this

study clearly defined the term binge watching.

Additional threats to the validity of this study were the methods used to recruit the

samples and the questionnaire-based research methods. Firstly, the methodology used to

recruit was non-probability convenience sampling, rather than probability sampling.

Carrington, Scott & Wasserman (2005) describe probability sampling as the superior

methodology because ‘selection probabilities are known for all samples and each population

unit has a nonzero probability of being selected’ (Carrington et al., 2005, p. 31). Put simply,

all members of the population have an equal chance at selection. However, in this study the

researchers invited participants through social media only. Furthermore, they used a

‘snowball’ technique which according to Naderifar et al (2017) is a qualitative research

sampling method normally used when groups in question are vulnerable or difficult to access.

The sample used in this study is neither qualitative nor an overly difficult or susceptible

population and therefore again, the credibility of this research is questionable.

TELEVISION BINGE WATCHING RATES AND CORRELATES 5

Lastly, both the data analyses and data interpretation in this report suggested possible

bias. According to Simundić (2013), bias is the deviation from the truth which can result in

either intentionally or unintentionally false conclusions. When analysing and interpreting

data, researchers can use inappropriate tests to analyse the findings in order to favour the

hypotheses (Simundić, 2013). In this study, researchers used a linear regression model to

interpret their data. This data interpretation may be biased because this model suggests that

there is a straight-line relationship between the dependant and the independent variables

(Flom, P., 2020). This relationship had not been established and could not be assumed and

therefore, the chosen methods likely created bias.

Conclusion

To conclude, this critical review has raised several problems such as the lack of

operationalisation, absence of evidence to support its claims, inferior sampling methods used

and the bias within its data analyses and interpretation. The strengths did not sufficiently

counterbalance the weaknesses and as a result, the integrity of the study was too

compromised to be considered reliable. Studies such as this would benefit from experimental,

qualitative research methods that might improve both feasibility and relevance in this new

area of exploration.
TELEVISION BINGE WATCHING RATES AND CORRELATES 6

References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman

Conlin, L., Billings, A. C., & Auverset, L. (2016). Time-shifting vs. appointment viewing:

The role of fear of missing out within TV consumption behaviours. Communication

and Society, 29(4), 151–164. doi:10.15581/003.29.4.151-164

Carrington, P. J., Scott, J., & Wasserman, S. (Eds). (2005). Models and methods in social

network analysis. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Nadifer, M., Goli, H., & Ghaljaie, F. (2017). Snowball Sampling: A Purposeful Method of

Sampling in Qualitative Research. Strides in Development of Medical Education,

14(3), doi: 10.5812/sdme.67670

Flayelle, M., Maurage, P., Ridell Di Lorenzo, K., Vogele, C., Gainsbury, S. M., & Billieux, J.

(2020). Binge-Watching: What Do We Know So Far? A First Systematic Review of

the Evidence. Current Addiction Reports. doi: 10.1007/s40429-020-00299-8

Flom, P., (2020). The Disadvantages of Linear Regression. sciencing.com. Retrieved from

https://sciencing.com/disadvantages-linear-regression-8562780.com

Hampson, K. (2014). Using Likert-Scale questionnaires with vulnerable young people: The

emotional intelligence of young people who have offended. SAGE Research Methods

Cases. doi:10.4135/978144627305014536675
TELEVISION BINGE WATCHING RATES AND CORRELATES 7

Research Methods – Operationalisation. (2018). Retrieved from

https://www.tutor2u.net/psychology/reference/research-methods-operationalisation

Simundić A. M. (2013). Bias in research. Biochemia medica, 23(1), 12–15.

https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.2013.003

Walton-Pattison, E., Dombrowski, S. U., & Presseau, J. (2018). ‘Just one more episode’:

Frequency and theoretical correlates of television binge watching. Journal of Health

Psychology, 23(1), 17-24. doi:10.1177/1359105316643379