Hey everyone,
My University career is coming to an end tomorrow, and understandably I don't want to be spending my life vegetating whilst I wait for a job offer, so as a backup plan I am considering putting my degree to good use and beginning work on a book looking at Big Brother from a social context as well as a psychological one in some cases. I have some ideas of topics to look into but I was wondering if you could think of anything as well.

1) Perception of gameplay and strategy in a British Reality TV environment (Case Study: Nasty Nick)

2) Big Brother and the portrayal of homosexuals within British society (Case Study: Brian Dowling)

3) Exploration or Exploitation? (Case Study: Big Brother 5)

4) Perception of controversy pre and post Shilpagate (Case Studies: BB6 and BB8)

5) The 'angry black woman' stereotype (Case Studies: Charley and Alexandra)

6) Social expectations of BB housemates post BB4 (Does nice equal boring?) (Case Study: Rachel Rice)

7) Crafting the perfect BB winner (Case Study: Brian Belo)

8) Reality television in a post TOWIE environment (Case study: The Channel 5 era)

9) Evolution of the BB audience (Case Studies: BB11 and BB12)

10) The perception of 'celebrity' in a reality TV environment (Case Study: Chantelle)

11) The celebrity pecking order and reality television (Case Studies: Vinnie Jones and Rylan)

Interesting! How about looking at the way it was initially presented as a psychological experiment, with psychologists often included in the highlights programmes and even having their own show (now sadly missed) and that it's now presented as an entertainment show. As also what and how the psychologists proclomations influenced the viewers in their perceptions of certain housemates. I recall Ziggy constantly being referred to as a machiavellian character, and have recently read that Aisylene was too (although I personally don't remember this).

Re. the proposed chapter on Brian Dowling, I think things have moved so far in 12 years that it would be of historical rather than current interest. (Partly because of him: I am sure he was the first out gay children's tv presenter in the UK). Chapter 11 sounds interesting.


Aisleyne scored highly on the 'Mach test'. But I never believed she was 'machiavellian' in the sense it was presented. Positive scores in that test notoriously show a lack of trust in other people. In the case of Aisleyne, she had every reason not to trust other people: her parents were unreliable to put it mildly and she had had an awful time in her teenage years. I think the test showed nothing more than that she was insecure and found it hard to trust other people, but it was presented as if she was devious and manipulative, a wrong conclusion that people continue, occasionally, to throw at her to this day.

"The Female First Boot Curse" - Voter Prejudice, Struggles to Integrates or Just Coincidence

"I'm More Intelligent Than A Plant" - Why Smart People Struggle In The BB House (probably looking mostly at BB8)

"The Chosen One" - The Benefits Of Being A Victim (more Aaron hagiography)

Yes, I believe he was.

Brian and (maybe more so) Anna Nolan were pretty groundbreaking back in those days. The launch of BB1 was hyped up with the promise of an Irish, lesbian, skateboarding nun. Whatever images that conjured up in people's minds in 2000 probably didn't match up to the very down to earth, clever, witty, girl-next-door type Anna turned out to be (who just so happened to have a girlfriend).

This chapter could be expanded out to cover LGBT in general, seeing how 2 winners have been transgender and both went in looking for some sort of public acceptance.

Given that attitudes to LGBT people have changed so much for the better over the past few years, there's always the question of how much BB helped this change. Previously, gay men had only ever been seen as camp entertainers. Lesbians were normally portrayed as politically correct vegan activists and very few people understood what turmoil a transgender person goes through. BB allowed us to cut through the stereotypes and see these people as fully rounded human beings, just the same as the rest of us. But was that a process that was already going on in wider society anyway?

Another chapter you might consider is what part Twitter and Facebook now play during and after the series, compared to all the traditional media interest in the early days. Smoking could also be an interesting topic to explore as BB tends to put more than the national average number of smokers in the house. The way tobacco is rationed out by BB, incidents caused by nicotine withdrawal, group divides based around the smoking bench, for example. Oh and I'm sure you can find plenty of research material on DS to back up chapter 6!

Good luck with the book and wherever your career takes you.

This sounds amazing. I do think that you need to include a chapter on the aftermath - what exactly does Big Brother do to the housemates? What psychological impact does being in the house and then being thrown back into the outside world have on those so willing to put themselves through it? Do the housemates have any idea what could happen to them after they've walked into the house for the first time?
BB2's Narinda brought out a book just after the race row discussing what life is like for the housemates, before, during and after the series. She uses interviews throughout from various housemates' perspectives and it does make for some very interesting reading that doesn't always put the show in the greatest of lights - especially when it comes to post show. Every housemate is supposed to receive a phone call from the psychologists about 6 months after their series and there have been several housemates (BB12's Faye has been very vocal about the topic.) that have said they didn't have any contact with the show at all afterwards.

In addition to being a case study of Charley and Alexandra, the angry black women chapter needs to highlight how cursed it is to be a black woman nominated for eviction.

When you says "cast study", is that almost all the chapter will be about, or will you look much more widely?

Because if, for example, "Perception of gameplay and strategy in a British Reality TV environment" is almost entirely about Nasty Nick, then I think it may be rather misleading, because a lot has changed since then.

The treatment and perception of women on the show especially attractive ones and how the gender double standards are perpetuated.

There is surely scope for a theme or chapter about types - archetypes, stereotypes - quite apart from just the narrow theme and case study of Charley and Alexandra.

On a more positive side, it was mentioned one of the spin -off shows that she scored the highest in emotional intelligence!

There have been at least two studies on BB that I know of. I have linked to them in the past and still have them on my old laptop I think. Both were interesting to read!

Oh of course, but I used Charley and Alexandra as starting points as they are some of the most one-dimensional examples of this stereotype being played out, but in general I would be looking at this typecast over a number of different case studies, arguing that it first began with the dramatic downturn in Adele's edit during week 7 of BB3 and then got cemented with Makosi's alpha female role in BB6. Shievonne is actually the case study I'm most looking forward to discussing, using her as example that simply because of the stigma that came with being a black female in BBUK that it by default set herself up as a default, go-to villain for production when needed even though the rest of her portrayal within the show on a whole didn't warrant it.

I think this is a very good idea, and although I'd structure it quite differently, I respect the chapters you propose.

I'd suggest at least one chapter, possibly a section in each chapter that deals with how the psychoanalytic concept of projection plays into the viewing/voting experience for the audience (projection, identification, and transference all happen within the house as well, of course).
Various fan-forums like this one offer you a wealth of information to draw on as raw material. FMs share their personal experience and how it relates to their attitudes, or participation in the series (voting, watching, supporting, etc.)
You'd naturally touch upon this in the TOWIE chapter, I'm sure, but the constructed nature not only of reality TV but of celebrity itself could be a major issue.

Wow this sound amazing. I'd love to read it when you're done. Youre so lucky that this is going to be your job for the next few months because it sounds really interesting. I am quite interested in psychology myself but who will read this? I'm assuming that just coming out of uni you're not some authour who can publish this. Can you?

I've just begun writing this today. Starting with Chapter 1 of course looking at game play and strategy in a British reality tv environment. Some of the factors I am looking at is the way in which Nasty Nick's actions in Big Brother 1 were immediately flawed based on the televisual climate in which Britain was raised on prior to Big Brother, one which was much more passive in it's television tastes and who saw a format such as Big Brother as an evolution of the docudrama as opposed to an evolution of the game show, and how because of this environment the public weren't willing to embrace Nick as a competitor in the way that an American audience, which was more orientated around gameshow and a more competitive ethos to society in general, would have done.

I also look at how the handling of Nick's ejection led to condemnation of all gameplay which can be seen in any British reality tv show, and how gameplay had to become much more subtle and more about audience influence then strategy, with Brian Belo and Glyn Wise being used as examples.

If you have any views on this I would love to hear them.

I'm not sure gameplay became more subtle tbh. There was always the element of playing the viewer "I wanna go hoooome" for example as a bluff to stay in.

What set Nick apart was the idea of bad sportsmanship. Typically English in a way. Nowadays we love the idea of someone being subversive, and Nick may have opened that door.

I'm not sure how that helps, but I love the idea of a book examining BB.

BB often seems to pick HMs who fit the stereotypes (such as bitchy gay male) or who give negative impressions in other ways.

A case study that would imo be very interesting is one comparing reactions to Nadia and reactions to Luke 8 years later. I don't think there was much improvement over that time. People still seemed ignorant of things that had needed to be explained during bb5, for instance thinking that Luke was really female and always would be.

Both won their series, but why was that? Did their wins really indicate public acceptance? And why was Nadia so unpopular when she came back for UBB?

Why do you think the handling of Nick's eviction led to condemnation of all gameplay?

And the American BB has a format that is very different in some key respects. There's no public vote, for example, even though there are plenty of shows in America that do have voting. That means there isn't the sort of suspicion that the HMs are trying to fool the public that there is in the UK.

And talk about nominations is allowed. In the UK, it's against the rules and so is cheating pretty much by definition.

I think the American BB's audience's greater acceptance of gameplay is far more due to such format differences than to any "more competitive ethos to society in general".

Do you think that if discussing nominations in BB USA was against the rules that the American audience would still not mind it?

BiB, that's a good point. I lean toward the public becoming more accepting of male to female transistion, without thinking too much about, or even considering female to male.

Last year I found some people would have no problem using "she" for Nadia, yet insisting on using the same pronoun for Luke, because they refused to accept anything but the way Luke was born. (Then you had people that were hopefully trolls that take you close to a banhammer by deliberately calling Nadia "he" and Luke "she")

There's gameplay in the British/Australian versions too, it's just that it isn't as forced and dominating the conversation like it might sometimes be in the American one. It has to be more subtle.

For HMs to actually fool the public they would have to put on an act 7 days a week 24 hours a day, pretty much impossible unless the producers go along with it and only put the false persona in the HLs.

Well the first season of Big Brother was based on pretty much the same rules of our version, and was a major flop in my view because it didn't play into the television and social ideologies of American television of the time. British television of the late nineties was more inclined towards docudramas such as Airport, Driving School and The Cruise, and Big Brother was presented to us as a show of a similar vein, a continuation of this style of show (and a reason why the game play element was largely ignored and derided), American television comparatively didn't have a similar kind of fad, the most popular show in 1999, the year prior to Big Brohter was WWTBAM, which played on the concepts of high stakes, high pressure and the rewarding of skill, be it mental, physical or in the case of Survivor which came later, social.

Quite simply Big Brother in it's original format didn't have the same appeal as over here in Britain because it didn't cater to audience expectations and needs at the time, whereas Survivor, which emphasized the more competitive nature of American television and the more competitive nature of Americans in general (The American Dream etc) did.

Why is that the issue? Shouldn't her behaviour in the house be what warrants her portrayal, or fails to, rather than a consistency (which might not match her actual behaviour) in her portrayal?

You also seem to be mixing typecasting and editing, and what about BB picking HMs who have a certain personality rather than creating it by editing.

Do you think Charley and Alexandra were misrepresented in the edit to make them seem to have a personality they didn't?

12) "STFU" - The Psychology and Influence Of Big Brother Forums (Case Study : DS:BB Forum)

Maybe they just saw it as dull. Our bb1 was pretty dull, really. If they hadn't been lucky in getting a Nasty Nick, BB might not have been a hit here either.

BB US started in 2000 (according to Wikipedia). Survivor also started in 200 there, but earlier in the year. Perhaps Survivor was more successful simply because it got in first, whereas here BB was the first arrival.


I don't think BB UK was presented to us as being in similar vein to docudramas. And I don't think the game play element was ignored or derided. It's not like they didn't even have nominations or didn't show them. There was emphasis on the 'social experiment' aspect, but where the likes of Airport, Driving School and The Cruise presented as social experiments?


I think you're mixing why the show was popular (which might have been due to it being a type of show Americans were inclined to like) with why the American audience is more accepting of game-play.

I find it hard to believe that the American audience's greater acceptance of gameplay in BB US has little to do with it being an allowed and expected part of the format, but defined by the rules as cheating over here.

So again, do you think that if discussing nominations in BB USA was against the rules that the American audience would still be so accepting?