Don Purdon: Professional 'experts' are putting MAFS participants at risk of harm

Opinion

COMMENT:

Married at First Sight Australia's "experts" and producers are deliberately putting contestants in harm's way. It already seems apparent to the casual observer that some of the contestants in this year's show are not particularly emotionally stable, or have very low self-esteem, making them vulnerable when the inevitable "marriage" failure occurs.

If the show's experts are doing their screening ethically, then they would know who the vulnerable people are, and should not put these people in the show. But of course, these are the very people who provide the most drama, because they are the ones who behave erratically.

The "experts" tag and the qualifications of the experts are to give the reality show some legitimacy. Interestingly the "expert matching" tag now seems to have been dropped by the network in favour of the word "experiment", I would guess because of the success rate.

These so called experts have a dismal record. Over five series, and 35 contestants, 12 were still married at the end of each series (33 per cent success rate). Not bad you might say.

However, according to ABC news, only one of the 35 are still now married (3 per cent success rate). This is compared with the general success rate of normal marriages as around 50 per cent.

So, now they are calling the show an "experiment". If this is a scientific experiment, will they be publishing results after careful analysis? The answer is no. The word experiment here seems more to send a message that the show is "experimenting", thereby giving license to have failures. The experts provide a more serious and considered tone to the show, something the producers obviously find of value.

This is a reality TV show first and foremost. And drama is what makes people watch. If you were the producer, what would be the best way to ensure drama? The answer is to put in a few matches that are not what one person asked for, and will obviously create dramatic theatre, or to put in some people who are themselves unstable, lacking self-esteem, or very vulnerable.

Their instability in this high-pressure environment will ensure they create drama whoever they are matched with.

The personal emotional impact on those that "fail" publicly in this environment will vary but for some is likely high. We are unlikely to hear about the emotional toll given the apparent heavy legal contractual silence contestants commit to. For qualified professionals to be involved in putting people in situations where they may be hurt is unethical.

And from a business perspective, this programme is now out of step with global trends towards being more supporting and caring for employees. Employee wellness programmes are now supporting employees in both physical and mental health areas.

Channel Nine is not being a responsible employer in producing a show that treats the participants as players to be manipulated for ratings, with no regard for their ongoing welfare.

Some might say that the contestants enter this environment willingly and with their eyes open. Some enter to get TV exposure. And others, to genuinely find a partner. No one is forced to be a participant. The point is that the producers and experts are putting some of the more vulnerable people in a situation where they are almost guaranteed to fail.

This is not ethical. In my view the show should either drop any pretence at being ethical through the use of experts and acknowledge that this is a show to create relationship drama for an insatiable viewing audience.

Or, those experts who are involved, should insist on some ethical standards, such as some basic levels of confidentiality, and due care and attention to participants emotional welfare. Or axe the show completely given it is out of step with the more supportive direction of business and community trends.

* Don Purdon is an Auckland based management consultant with a masters degree in psychology.