近年來，隨著OTT平台的興起，真人戀愛實境節目逐漸成為韓國綜藝節目的重要類型，其中TVING製作的《換乘戀愛》以「前任戀人共同生活並尋找新戀情」為核心設定，突破傳統戀愛實境節目以陌生人配對為主的模式，透過前任關係與新戀情交織的敘事方式，引發廣大閱聽眾的討論與關注。然而，現有研究多聚焦於戀愛實境節目的發展、媒介效果或閱聽人研究，較少從故事化敘事的角度探討節目如何透過敘事設計建構人物關係與情感發展。
因此，本研究以韓國真人戀愛實境節目《換乘戀愛》第一季為研究對象，採用文本分析法，以全十五集節目內容作為分析文本，探討節目構成、故事化敘事及人物故事線等面向，分析節目如何透過不同的節目機制推動故事發展，並建構具有連續性的情感敘事。
研究結果發現，《換乘戀愛》第一季採用開場、中場與結局的三段式節目構成，透過共同生活、約會事件及最終告白等內容，循序推進人物故事線。同時，節目運用X介紹信、X聊天室、指定約會及心動簡訊等核心機制，分別承擔人物塑造、資訊揭露、情節推進與情感確認等敘事功能，使出演者的過去戀情與新戀情相互交織，逐步累積人物關係的情感張力。此外，節目亦透過觀察室藝人嘉賓的評論、人物訪談及交叉剪輯等敘事手法，補充人物心理狀態，引導閱聽眾理解人物情感，並提升故事的戲劇性與沉浸感。
本研究認為，《換乘戀愛》第一季並非僅透過戀愛配對吸引閱聽眾，而是透過節目構成、節目機制與人物故事線三者相互配合，共同建構故事化敘事，形成節目持續吸引閱聽眾的敘事公式，即「人物建立→關係建立→情感試探→衝突升高→情感抉擇→結局」。
綜上所述，《換乘戀愛》突破傳統真人戀愛實境節目的配對模式，以「前任」作為故事核心，透過多項節目機制與生活化情境，建立完整且具層次性的故事化敘事，不僅展現戀愛實境節目的敘事創新，也提供後續相關研究在戀愛實境節目敘事分析上的參考。

In recent years, with the rise of OTT platforms, reality dating programs have gradually become a prominent genre in Korean variety shows. Among them, TVING's production EXchange (also known as Transit Love) features a core premise of "ex-lovers living together and seeking new romances," breaking away from the traditional reality dating show model that primarily focuses on pairing strangers. By utilizing a narrative approach that intertwines past relationships with new romances, the show has sparked widespread discussion and attention among audiences. However, existing research mostly focuses on the development, media effects, or audience studies of reality dating programs, leaving a gap in exploring how these programs construct character relationships and emotional development through narrative design from a story-driven perspective.
Therefore, this study takes the first season of the Korean reality dating program EXchange as its research subject. Employing textual analysis, all fifteen episodes of the program serve as the analytical text. The study investigates aspects such as program structure, story-driven narratives, and character storylines, analyzing how the show advances its plot and constructs a continuous emotional narrative through various program mechanisms.
The findings reveal that the first season of EXchange adopts a three-act program structure—beginning, middle, and end—progressively advancing character storylines through communal living, dating events, and final confessions. Furthermore, the program utilizes core mechanisms such as the "EX Introduction Letter," "EX Chatroom," designated dates, and heart-fluttering text messages. These mechanisms respectively serve the narrative functions of character shaping, information disclosure, plot advancement, and emotional confirmation, allowing the cast members' past and new romances to intertwine and gradually building emotional tension in their relationships. Additionally, the show supplements characters' psychological states through narrative techniques such as commentary from celebrity panelists in the studio, individual interviews, and cross-editing. These techniques guide the audience in understanding the characters' emotions while enhancing the dramatic effect and immersion of the story.
This study argues that the first season of EXchange attracts audiences not merely through romantic pairings, but through the seamless coordination of program structure, program mechanisms, and character storylines. T Together, they construct a story-driven narrative that forms a narrative formula for sustaining audience engagement, namely: "Character Establishment → Relationship Building → Emotional Probing → Conflict Escalation → Emotional Decision-making → Resolution."
In conclusion, EXchange breaks through the conventional pairing model of reality dating programs by centering "exes" as the core of the story. Through various program mechanisms and everyday situations, it establishes a comprehensive and highly layered story-driven narrative. This not only demonstrates narrative innovation within reality dating programs but also provides a valuable reference for future research regarding narrative analysis in this genre.

中文文獻
王敏惠（2023）。兩大國際ott熱門影視作品的主要產製國家。韓流席捲全球！看韓國如何從串流平台市場競爭中突圍。http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Research_and_Innovation/IPNC_240110_1001.htm
李昶儀（2001）。電視綜藝節目與青少年次文化形成之研究-由吳宗憲現象剖析青少年的電視解碼。中國文化大學新聞研究所。
李貞賢（原名：이정현）（2021年）。【回到2000年代】從《愛情工作室到《換乘戀愛》。韓聯社。https://m.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20211006137800005
林余穎、閻立峰（2017）。纪录片的故事化叙事探析——以系列纪录片《我们的留学生活》为例。艺苑，（02），67-69。
俞磊（2013）。故事化敘事模式在電視綜藝節目中的應用研究。浙江大學。
高辛勇（1987）。形名學與敘事理論: 結構主義的小説分析法。聯經出版公司.
張玉佩（2023）。說故事的魅力——文本與敘事分析。雙葉書廊有限公司。
許如婷（2014）。臺灣閱聽眾之實境／真人秀《Running Man》節目觀看的「迷」身份實踐。國際文化研究，10（1），25-55。
莊幃婷（2011）。「偶像假結婚」作為理想浪漫婚姻典範？－韓國實境綜藝節目《我們結婚了》之臺灣女性閱聽人分析。國立臺灣師範大學大眾傳播研究所。
陳逸芳（2018）。韓國綜藝節目《Running Man》的敘事結構及主持人形象塑造分析。世新大學廣播電視電影學研究所(含碩專班)。
陳聖薇譯（2016）。《韓國影視講義2：綜藝——節目腳本創作&類型剖析》。臺北：大家出版社。（原書：정숙（鄭淑）《방송 콘텐츠 스토리텔링 2: 구성 예능 다큐와 라디오 전략》）
陳穎（2011）。E起去同居。https://ottocat.pixnet.net/blog/post/26570221
童一寧、黃淑芳（2014）。打開臺灣電視史 綜藝節目輝煌一頁。中央社。https://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/201410155012.aspx
彭玉賢（2011）。從Reality Show看電視與網路媒體結合之節目模式。公視網際網路組製作。http://web.pts.org.tw/~rnd/p1/001030-1.htm
曾西霸（2013）。電影劇本結構析論。五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
游美惠（2000）。內容分析、文本分析與論述分析在社會研究的運用。調查研究，(8)，5-42。https://doi.org/10.7014/SR.2000080001
報時光（2023年）。開電視相親節目先河！《我愛紅娘》促成近700對佳偶。聯合報。https://time.udn.com/udntime/story/122834/7028661
管中祥（2009）。＜綜藝？綜義！眾議！＞（第臺版）。正中書局，219-238。
樓俊廷（2024）。韓國戀愛實境秀為何不敗？──《換乘戀愛》等 10 部節目的勝利密碼。https://crossing.cw.com.tw/article/18754
劉子涵（2023）。韓國綜藝節目敘事結構分析--- 以《新西遊記》為例。世新大學廣播電視電影學研究所(含碩專班)。
蔡琰（2000）。電視劇: 戲劇傳播的敘事理論。三民書局股份有限公司。
謝豫琦（2006）。真人實境節目的閱聽人解讀策略—以日本節目《戀愛巴士》的臺灣閱聽人為例。國立政治大學新聞研究所。
簡妙如（2008）。觀看與被觀看：臺灣真人秀的慾望監控、螢幕機體與偽裝後現代。廣播與電視，（28），95-124。https://doi.org/10.30385/jrts.200806_(28).0002
谭君强（2002）。叙事理论的发展与审美文化叙述学。
蘇蘅（2019）。傳播研究方法新論。臺北：雙葉書廊。
Research, i.-B. （2023）。 韓國中老年觀眾加入ott熱潮 疫情以來用戶增長6倍｜asiakol亞洲達人通。i-Buzz Research 。

英文文獻
Andrejevic, M. (2004). Reality tv:The work of being watched. Rowman & Litttlefield.
Barthes,R. (1966). Introduction à l'analyse structurale des récits, Communications, 8(1),1-27.
Baty, E. (2020). Netflix just made its own version of ‘love island’, but the contestants can’t hook up with each other, Cosmopolitan.
Changwon, L & Jeonghyun K. (2015). Changes in the Diversity of Weekend Evening Terrestrial Variety Programs (2004-2013). Korean Jounal of Journalism and Communication Studies, 59(3), 266-267, 273.
Changyoung, C & Jooyeon, P. (2012). Changes in the Format Composition of TV Entertainment Programs: Focusingbon Terrestrial Broadcast Programs in the 2000s. Journal of Media Science and Technology. 12(3), 528, 533-554.
Chatman, S. B. (1978).Story and discourse: Narrative structure in fiction and film. Cornell university press.
Chu, D. (2020). An (un) romantic journey: Authentic performance in a chinese dating show. Global Media and China, 5(1), 40-54.
Corner, J. (2002). Performing the real: Documentary diversions.Television & new media, 3(3), 255-269. https://doi.org/10.1177/152747640200300302
Cutro, J. (2020).Netflix’s too hot to handle will fill the love is blind–size hole in your life. https://www.vulture.com/2020/04/too-hot-to-handle-trailer-netflix.html
Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research.
Do-kyung, Y.(2017). Analysis of the Narrative Structure of Romance Reality Programs: Focusing on clips from We Got Married (MBC) and With You Season 2 - The Greatest Love (JTBC). Proceedings of the Korean Communication Association Conference, 89-105.
Dongryeol, N. (2015). The Evolution of Formats in Broadcast Variety Programs. Journal of the Korean Contents Association, Vol 15, 60-62
Eibel, S. (2014).Crazy for the bachelor: Self-performance and impression management strategies in a romance reality show/vorgelegt von silvia eibel.
Fox, R. (2013). “You are not allowed to talk about production”: Narratization on (and off) the set of cbs's big brother. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 30(3)189-208. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2012.755051
Friedman, J. (2002). Reality squared: Televisual discourse on the real. Rutgers University Press.
Genette, G. (1980). Narrative discourse: An essay in method. Cornell University Press.
Giddens, A. (1993). New rules of sociological method. Stanford University Press.
Godlewski, L. R. & Perse, E. M. (2010). Audience activity and reality television: Identification, online activity, and satisfaction. Communication Quarterly, 58(2), 148-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463371003773358
Hill, A. (2005). Reality tv: Audiences and popular factual television. Routledge.
Hill, A. & Weibull, L.& Nilsson, Å. (2007).Public and popular: British and swedish audience trends in factual and reality television。Cultural Trends, 16(1),17-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/09548960601106920
Holmes, S. & Jermyn, D.(2004). Understanding reality television.Routledge.
Hwa, K. Y.（2017）。An educational study on the reality entertainment program. Journal of Education & Culture (교육문화연구), Vol.23 No.1, 103-122(Pg.120). https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.24159/joec.2017.23.1.103
Kilborn, R. (1994). How real can you get?: Recent developments inreality'television.European journal of communication,9(4), 421-439.
Lindemann, D. J.(2002). True story: What reality tv says about us. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Murray, S. & Ouellette, L. (2009). Reality tv: Remaking television culture. NYU Press.
Nabi, R. L. & Stitt, C. R. & Halford, J. & Finnerty, K. L. (2006). Emotional and cognitive predictors of the enjoyment of reality-based and fictional television programming: An elaboration of the uses and gratifications perspective. Media Psychology, 8(4), 421-447. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0804_5
Nichols, B. (1996). Blurred boundaries: Questions of meaning in contemporary culture. Film quarterly, 49(4),41-42.
https://doi.org/10.1525/fq.1996.49.4.04a00070
Park, H.-y. (2009). Effects of the reality love show on the attitudes on the relationships with the opposite sex of adolescents.
Prince, G. (1982). Narratology: The form and functioning of narrative. DE GRUYTER.
Robinson, V. M. (1993). Problem based methodology : Research for the improvement of practice / by viviane robinson. Pergamon Press.
Rupert, L. & Puckett, G.(2010). Disillusionment, divorce, and the destruction of the american dream. The Tube Has Spoken: Reality TV and History, 83.
Todorov, T. & Weinstein, A. (1969). Structural analysis of narrative, NOVEL: A forum on fiction. JSTOR,70-76.