Why You Like to Watch the Same Thing Over and Over and Over Again

Reruns spark contemplation about personal growth

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Sales of television show DVDs have exploded over the past few years. But why do viewers shell out so much cash for what are essentially reruns? A study in the August issue of the Journal of Consumer Research suggests that “reconsumption,” as the researchers call it, is more complex than one might think. People use familiar entertainment to measure how their lives have changed in positive ways.

Cristel Antonia Russell, a marketing professor at American University, and Sidney J. Levy, a marketing professor at the University of Arizona, conducted interviews of 23 subjects, all of whom had recently “reconsumed” a book, movie or vacation spot. The researchers used open-ended questions to elicit long and descriptive first-person answers, then analyzed the transcripts for recurring themes and key phrases. The responses suggested that sometimes choosing to do something again was about reaching for a sure thing—the brain knows the exact kind of reward that it will receive in the end, whether it is laughter, excitement or relaxation. They also learned that people gained insight into themselves and their own growth by going back for a do-over, subconsciously using the rerun or old book as a measuring stick for how their own lives had changed. One woman, for example, rewatched the romantic Kevin Costner movie Message in a Bottle more than once: “It was helping her work through having an engagement that hadn't worked out,” Russell says. Every time she watched that movie, it reminded her of her own failed relationship—and her reactions helped her see she was getting over it.

“I was very surprised,” Russell says. “I thought that people reconsumed these things for nostalgia, to go back to the past. But they were actually very forward-looking and prospective.” What about the boredom factor, you might ask? There was none to speak of. After all, Russell says, paraphrasing Greek philosopher Heraclitus: You never cross the same river twice—it's not the same river, and it's not the same you.

Sunny Sea Gold is a health and psychology writer, the "How to Do Anything Better" columnist for Scientific American Mind, and the author of Food: The Good Girl's Drug (Berkley Books, 2011).

More by Sunny Sea Gold
SA Mind Vol 23 Issue 5This article was published with the title “Why You Like to Watch the Same Thing Over, and Over, and Over Again” in SA Mind Vol. 23 No. 5 (), p. 20
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind1112-20a

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe