Loss of TV Friends Can Cause Distress

People who rely on TV for companionship suffer when favorite characters leave the airwaves. Steve Mirsky reports, with comments from George, Jerry, Cosmo and Elaine

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

“Believe it or not, George isn’t at home, please leave a message at the beep.” So what happens when you can’t get George? Some viewers have a tough time. “Get out.” No, it’s true, according to a study published in the journal Mass Communication and Society. [Julie Lather and Emily Moyer-Gusé, "How Do We React When Our Favorite Characters Are Taken Away? An Examination of a Temporary Parasocial Breakup"]

Researchers got input from over 400 college students in the spring of 2008, when a writers strike meant no new TV shows. “You’re freaking me out.” You and some of the students. They were asked about how much TV they watched and why. Reasons for watching included to kill time, relax or escape. But people who watched for companionship were most distressed by the loss of their shows. “Well, good luck with all that.”

The study might disappoint anyone who thinks the loss of TV would impel people to engage in more so-called real activities, such as socializing. “Look, we’ll go to Third Avenue.” Because most people didn’t go anywhere. They simply turned to watching reruns or surfing the Web. Just 18 percent said they spent more time with friends and family. “Well, thank you, sir.” You’re quite welcome.


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.


—Steve Mirsky, George, Jerry, Elaine and Cosmo

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

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