In “Jury Duty Presents: Company Retreat,” this season’s hero is Anthony Norman, right, who joins a hot sauce company as a temp, and befriends co-workers like PJ. Credit: Marc-Sully Saint-Fleur/Prime via TNS
When the reality show “Jury Duty” premiered, audiences praised its unsuspecting lead for his kindness while questioning the show’s unusual premise: one man believes he is serving on a real jury while everyone around him is an actor.
With a second season that premiered Friday, titled “Jury Duty Presents: Company Retreat,” the show’s return has reignited debates about whether its elaborate deception is harmless or unethical. The new season follows a different unsuspecting participant, Anthony, who believes he is attending a corporate retreat for a hot sauce company while everyone around him is an actor, according to the show’s IMDb page.
The original season followed Ronald Gladden, the only person unaware the courtroom scenario around him was staged. Actors, including “X-Men” actor James Marsden playing a fictionalized version of himself, created increasingly absurd situations while cameras documented Gladden’s reactions.?
Despite the distinct premise, the show resonated with viewers partly because it highlighted Gladden’s kindness under pressure, said Helen Devine, lab manager in Ohio State’s department of psychology.
“There’s something called mediated voyeurism — the appeal of observing people in their natural environment,” Devine said. “There’s something inherent to human nature that makes us curious about the people around us.”
Devine said the show also taps into what psychologists call social comparison, in which viewers measure their own behavior against someone else’s.
“Ronald was put through challenging experiences that many people might not respond positively to, but he did,” Devine said. “Viewers want to believe they would behave the same way.”
While the show presents Gladden as likable and empathetic, Justin D’Arms, a philosophy professor at Ohio State, said the premise still raises ethical concerns because the entertainment relies heavily on deception.
“It depends crucially on misleading him,” D’Arms said. “He did not consent to being deceived in the way he was, or it wouldn’t have been the show they are claiming it was.”
While deception can sometimes be justified, such as in surprise parties or certain psychological studies, D’Arms said the motivation behind it matters.
“Although I believe this is ethically problematic, it doesn’t seem terrible,” D’Arms said. “In part because there hasn’t been any serious harm, but I do think it’s a matter of luck in an important way.”
Even if the participant reports a positive experience afterward, D’Arms said ethical concerns remain.
“They took risks with his mental health and his self-esteem, and those were not their risks to take,” D’Arms said.
Devine shared a similar sentiment; she said a participant’s positive reaction does not necessarily resolve those ethical questions.
“Just because someone reports that they are comfortable doesn’t mean that we are off the hook,” Devine said.
At the same time, Devine said the show’s framing likely helped minimize negative emotional consequences for the participant and emphasized admiration, rather than humiliation, in Gladden’s portrayal.
“There wasn’t any negative intent or anything taken from him,” Devine said. “People are pretty resilient and sometimes we don’t give people enough credit for that.”
Devine said the first season of “Jury Duty” gained traction on social media after its release, sparking debates online. Viral discussion can amplify those debates, she said, by making audiences feel even stronger about their opinions.
“The internet plays up strong opinions, it doesn’t play up mediocre ones,” Devine said. “When something goes viral, the conversation tends to become much more polarized.”
As both producers and viewers dive into the second season, Devine said the concept may face a new challenge surrounding novelty as part of the original appeal came from its unconventional premise.
“The question will be: ‘How can you catch someone else with the same thing?’” Devine said. “Doing it again might not carry that same level of shock value.”
Devine said it’s up to the viewers to decide whether entertainment that blurs the line between reality and the manipulation of others succeeds.
“Your attention is the most valuable thing the media can have,” Devine said. “If people feel uncomfortable with something, the most powerful thing they can do is turn it off.”
