Slander, Dump, Drool
Equally libelous and licentious, if 'Vanderpump Rules' Were an Actual Social Science Experiment It Would Be Shut Down
Over the past two days, I've been watching Vanderpump Rules, Season 10. Until 48 hours ago, I couldn't tell you a Scheana Shay from a Martha Raye.
But then, a friend asked me to guest on his podcast about the series, and, like any responsible anthropologist, I decided to immerse myself in the culture. By "immerse," I mean devouring episodes like a competitive eater downing pierogis.
My wife already watches. I've developed a more sophisticated approach: strategic deployment of other screens (laptop, phone, the New York Times) positioned between my eyes and whatever's happening on the television. Call it a DMZ for my frontal lobe. It provides distraction, preserves mental faculties, and offers plausible deniability.
There are worse ways to spend the post-Christmas doldrums. I keep telling myself this.
The Vanderpump season I watched was something of a zenith of nadirs in reality TV history—a true “Peak Bottom.” One character cheated on another, which might seem like the foundation of the genre, but this particular dalliance was elevated to the level of scandal. I’d like to believe it was because of the viewers’ deep attachment to the characters they’ve followed for years. More likely, though, it was because the cheating character’s surname lent itself to a pun.
He is, of course, Thomas Humpachick—if you haven’t heard the tale already, I’m afraid this is not my story to tell.
I kid, the incident in question involved a man named Tom Sandoval, who did what many reality TV personalities have done before him: he had an affair. And people lost their minds. Unlike previous televised infidelities, this one resonated across the culture like a snow shovel striking the downed electrical wire of the national consciousness. It was treated as a culture-spanning betrayal. You'd think Julius Rosenberg had come back from the dead to pass new secrets to the Soviets, this time on Bravo.
Which leads us to a Famous Torture Experiment
I’ve been reflecting recently on the death of Stanford psychologist Philip Zimbardo, whom I had the opportunity to interview about his infamous prison experiment. While his work was provocative and generated insight, it’s the sort of study that could never be conducted today due to ethical considerations. Same goes for Stanley Milgram's obedience experiments. (Zimbardo and Milgram were classmates at James Monroe High School, which must have had the most demanding gym teacher in the entire New York public school system in the 1950s.)
That said, the insights gleaned from Milgram’s work on authority and obedience still hold up, while Zimbardo’s conclusions about situational power dynamics have faced more serious scrutiny and debunking in recent years. Still, both experiments sparked further discussion, debate, and genuine insight into human behavior.
What did Vanderpump Rules Season 10 lead to? Well, most obviously, it led to Season 11—and a complete recasting of the show for the upcoming series. It also resulted in a 50% ratings spike compared to the previous season and the entertainment (or titillation) of millions of viewers.
But as I reflected on its cultural impact, I began to wonder: was this season, in all its manufactured chaos, actually more unethical than the aforementioned social science experiments, which at least provided us with genuine insight? To explore this theory further, I turned to ChatGPT.
The results were damning. I give the remainder of the post, save for a postscript, over to the answer to the prompt quoted in full:
Sexy Unethical Reprobates
If Vanderpump Rules were reimagined as a university-level social science experiment, it would likely violate several key ethical principles in research, particularly those outlined in the Belmont Report and codified in university Institutional Review Board (IRB) guidelines. Below are the primary ethical violations it might commit:
1. Lack of Informed Consent
Participants on the show may not fully understand the extent to which their personal lives will be exposed, manipulated, or edited for dramatic effect.
If this were an experiment, the lack of detailed, transparent disclosure about potential harms (e.g., public humiliation, mental health stress) would be a major ethical breach.
2. Deception Without Debriefing
Producers often manipulate situations or encourage conflicts for entertainment. This could be seen as deception if participants are unaware of the manipulation.
Ethical research requires either no deception or, if deception is necessary, a full debriefing afterward—neither of which occurs here.
3. Lack of Confidentiality
Participants' personal information, relationships, and private conflicts are broadcast publicly. In research, maintaining participant confidentiality is a cornerstone ethical principle.
Public airing of sensitive information without safeguards violates privacy and exposes participants to social stigma.
4. Exploitation of Power Dynamics
Participants often have less power than producers, creating a coercive dynamic. For example, they may feel pressured to engage in certain behaviors to remain part of the cast or maintain their jobs.
Ethical guidelines prohibit exploiting power imbalances, particularly when participants feel unable to withdraw.
5. Failure to Protect from Harm
The show often places participants in emotionally distressing or high-conflict scenarios, potentially exacerbating mental health issues like anxiety or depression.
Ethical research must minimize risks of physical, psychological, or social harm. Here, harm seems almost designed into the process for dramatic payoff.
6. Lack of Ability to Withdraw
Participants may feel they cannot easily leave the show due to contractual obligations, financial incentives, or fear of public backlash.
In ethical research, participants must have the ability to withdraw at any time without penalty or coercion.
7. Conflict of Interest
The producers' dual role as orchestrators of drama and documentarians creates a conflict of interest: their goal is entertainment, not participant well-being.
Ethical research prioritizes participant welfare above all else.
8. No Benefit to Participants
Reality TV participants might argue they gain fame or career opportunities, but the emotional toll and potential damage to their personal lives often outweigh these benefits.
In ethical research, the study should offer some benefit to participants or society. Reality TV primarily benefits the producers and networks.
Conclusion:
If Vanderpump Rules were conducted as a university social science experiment, it would almost certainly fail to pass an IRB review due to its blatant disregard for the principles of Respect for Persons, Beneficence, and Justice. It’s a great case study for why reality television and academic research are two sides of the same cyclically oppressive coin: both reveal human behavior, but often do so under vastly different ethical constraints.
We Can’t Have Nice, Albeit Unethical Things
Mike’s Postscript: I get that it’s probably unfair to subject a form of entertainment to the cold, squinty eye of academic scrutiny—even if said entertainment happens to exhibit all the telltale signs of operant conditioning.
So in the spirit of evenhandedness—and because I’ve heard it said that reality TV is to women (and gay guys) what sports are to men—I decided to consult ChatGPT.
ChatGPT’s verdict:
College football, as it currently exists, would struggle to pass ethical guidelines under the Belmont Report if integrated into a university curriculum. The risks and inequities associated with the sport would likely outweigh the educational and physical benefits unless significant reforms were implemented.
Mike’s Conclusion:
Maybe nothing that’s interesting is ethical.