Cultivation theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Cultivation theory examines the long-term effects of television. "The primary proposition of cultivation theory states that the more time people spend 'living' in the television world, the more likely they are to believe social reality portrayed on television."[1] Under this umbrella, perceptions of the world are heavily influenced by the images and ideological messages transmitted through popular television media.

Cultivation is a positivistic theory, meaning it assumes the existence of objective reality and value-neutral research.[2] A study conducted by Jennings Bryant and Dorina Miron (2004), which surveyed almost 2,000 articles published in the three top mass communication journals since 1956, found that Cultivation Analysis was the third most frequently utilized theory, showing that it continues to be one of the most popular theories in mass communication research.[3]

Definition[edit]

Cultivation theory suggests that exposure to television, over time, subtly "cultivates" viewers' perceptions of reality. Gerbner and Gross assert: "Television is a medium of the socialization of most people into standardized roles and behaviors. Its function is in a word, enculturation".[4] Within his analysis of cultivation, Gerbner draws attention to three entities—institutions, messages, and publics.[5]

Initial research on the theory establishes that concern regarding the effects of television on audiences stem from the unprecedented centrality of television in American culture.[1] Gerbner posited that television as a mass medium of communication had formed into a common symbolic environment that bound diverse communities together, socializing people into standardized roles and behaviors.[6] He thus compared the power of television to that of religion, stating television was to modern society what religion once was in earlier times. Thus, Gerbner's research focused on the larger meaning of heavy television consumption instead of the meaning behind specific messages.[7]

Background[edit]

Cultural Indicators Project[edit]

Developed by George Gerbner and Larry Gross in 1976, cultivation theory is derived from several large-scale research projects as a part in a comprehensive project entitled Cultural Indicators. The Cultural Indicators Project began as a singular study commissioned by Lyndon B. Johnson for the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence.[4] The commission was formed to address issues of violence in American culture; one specific area of interest for the Johnson administration was the effects of television violence on audiences. Gerbner subsequently began work on the federally funded Cultural Indicators Project at the Anneberg School of Communications.[8] Congress then facilitated the creation of the Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior in 1972. This new committee funded a number of studies on the effects of television: Gerbner's Cultural Indicators was one of those chosen. Through Gerbner's involvement with Cultural Indicators, he began the production of the Violence Index, a yearly content analysis of content from prime-time television content that would show how violence was portrayed on television, from season to season. This allowed viewers the access to data regarding the frequency of violence in television shows, but also raised questions regarding the accuracy of the study and the research hypotheses used. While the Violence Index received criticism, Gerbner and his team updated the Index to make sure that the data being produced was accurately composed, and addressed any criticisms posed. Gerbner's research found that violence was portrayed in prime time more frequently compared to violence in the real world.[9]

Gerbner's project was largely facilitated by the increasing divide between political conservatives and private commercial investors in the late 1960s.[10] Performing the task of middle man, Gerbner and his team acted as impartial researchers, examining the effects and implications of television consumption without having any vested political or financial interest in its outcome. This standpoint allotted Gerbner access to a number of grants that continued to fund the Cultural Indicators Project throughout the 1970s.[4]

Assumptions[edit]

Cultivation theory is underscored by three core assumptions. The first assumption highlights the medium, the second—the audience, and the final assumption deals with the functionality of the medium on its larger audience.

  • Television is fundamentally different from other forms of mass media.[11]
This first assumption lists the differences between television and other forms of mass media. Television is visual and auditory, and therefore doesn't require viewers to be literate. It has the potential to be free, besides the initial costs to obtaining a television. Within the last several years, free access to television is quite limited. Television viewers cannot access most local television broadcasting without purchasing a converter box and attaching the box to the television. The television converter box is only one of the many added costs to modern television viewing. There are high monthly fees required for accessing cable television and this may prohibit poor and low-income families from viewing television. However, television is still ageless in the sense that anyone from any walk of life can use it, and most importantly, anyone is able to comprehend the contents that are being emitted from the television. Television programming uses storytelling or engaging narratives to capture people's attention.
Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli argued that while religion or education had previously been greater influences on social trends, now "[t]elevision is the source of the most broadly shared images and messages in history ...Television cultivates from infancy the very predispositions and preferences that used to be acquired from other primary sources ... The repetitive pattern of television's mass-produced messages and images forms the mainstream of a common symbolic environment."[4]
Television, unlike print media, due largely to literacy, and film, due to financial accessibility, has a lower threshold for consumption.[2] According to Gerbner, television has become the "central cultural arm of our society."[11]
  • Television shapes the way individuals within society think and relate to each other.
Gerbner and Gross write that "the substance of the consciousness cultivated by TV is not so much specific attitudes and opinions as more basic assumptions about the facts of life and standards of judgment on which conclusions are based."[12] Simply put, the realities created by television are not based on real facts but on speculations.
Gerbner observed that television reaches people, on average, more than seven hours a day. While watching, television offers "a centralized system of story-telling".[13] Gerbner asserts that television's major cultural function is to stabilize social patterns and to cultivate resistance to change. We live in terms of the stories we tell and television tells these stories through news, drama, and advertising to almost everybody most of the time.[11]
Cultivation Theory doesn't predict what we will do after watching a violent television program, but rather harbors an innate worry and fear of a violence-filled world after being exposed to violent programming.
  • Television's effects are limited.
The dichotomy of assumption three asserts that television is a part of a larger sociocultural system. Therefore, although the effects of watching television may be increased or decrease at any point in time, its effect is consistently present.[11]
Gerbner's ice age analogy states that "just as an average temperature shift of a few degrees can lead to an ice age or the outcomes of elections can be determined by slight margins, so too can a relatively small but pervasive influence make a crucial difference. The size of an effect is far less critical than the direction of its steady contribution."[14] Rather than focus on the total impact of violent television, this analogy focuses more on the fact that there once was or is an impact to viewers just through exposure. Gerbner argues that watching television doesn't cause a particular behavior, but instead watching television over time adds up to our perception of the world around us.[9]

Research strategy analyzing the role of the media[edit]

Cultivation theory is the final step in a four-part process that looks at the effects of television on society.[15] The first two are institutional process analysis and message system analysis. While cultivation theory focuses on macrosystems of and television's influence on society as a whole, the first two steps deal with the creation of media messages and how these messages are displayed to an audience.[7]

Step 1: message system analysis[edit]

The first part of this strategy is known as message system analysis, which has been used since 1967 to track the most stable and recurrent images in media content. Described by Gerbner, Gross, Morgan and Signorielli as a "tool for making systematic, reliable, and cumulative observations about television content", it not only allows for an individual the perceived awareness of what he or she is viewing on television, but also represents the on-going and collective messages shown on television that shape community impressions over an extended period of time. Although much information provided through media channels cannot be fully relied on, message system analysis provides a lense in which viewers are able to analyze the messages transcended through the television medium.[16]

"Based on message system analyses, cultivation researchers develop hypotheses about what people would think about various aspects of reality if everything they knew about some issue or phenomenon were derived from television's dominant portrayals."[15] This step entails creating a detailed content analysis on the consistent images, themes, and messages on any one particular show.

Another facet of the message-system analysis Gerbner discovered was something Griffin called "equal violence, unequal risk." The research Gerbner conducted showed that the amount of violence portrayed in media stayed consistent, but the distribution of that violence was never equal. The children and the elderly, for example, are more common recipients of violence than young or middle-aged adults. Gerbner often discovered trends in violence toward minority groups, with African Americans and Hispanics being the recipients of violence more often than Caucasians; two other demographics that experienced similar inequality were women and "blue-collar" workers. Griffin wrote: "The ironic result of this tendency is that the demographics shown, inaccurately, to be more in danger of violence than the rest are the demographics that will walk away from the media more afraid of violence.[6]

Step 2: questions regarding viewers' social realities[edit]

The second part of this process questions people's comprehension of their day-to-day lives to gain a larger understanding of how people perceive their realities. Findings from the message system analysis process convert into the further research and questions regarding social reality.[17] Katerina-Eva Matsa further explores this notion through her thesis on television's impact on political engagement in Greece. She describes the role of satirical television within the cultural realm in Greece and how this form of television engrains the perception that Greek political institutions are corrupt, thus negatively influencing the public's overall opinion of politics in Greece.[18]

Step 3: surveying the audience[edit]

The third part of this process brings Step 2 into action: asking audience participants questions regarding their understanding of their lives, as well as surveying their television consumption levels. After the formulation of questions based on social reality, Gerbner and Gross explain that, "To each of these questions there is a “television answer”, which is like the way things appear in the world of television, and another and different answer which is biased in the opposite direction, closer to the way things are in the observable world".[17] These questions are then used to evaluate the detailed characteristics of the participants being evaluated. Items measure include breadth of television consumption, habitual characteristics relating to television and social, economic and political makeup of the participants.

Step 4: cultivation differential[edit]

The final part of this process is Cultivation Differential. This is described as "the percentage of difference in response between light and heavy television viewers."[9] Certain measures are evaluated including, "...sex, age, education, and other characteristics. The margin of heavy viewers over light viewers giving the “television answers” within and across groups is the “cultivation differential” indicating conceptions about social reality that viewing tends to cultivate."[17] According to Griffin: "Cultivation deals with how TV's content might affect viewers—particularly the viewers who spend lots of time glued to the tube. This is where most of the action takes place in the theory."[6] Gerbner found that the effect of television on its viewers is not unidirectional, that the "use of the term cultivation for television's contribution to conception of social reality... (does not) necessarily imply a one-way, monolithic process. The effects of a pervasive medium upon the composition and structure of the symbolic environment are subtle, complex, and intermingled with other influences. This perspective, therefore, assumes an interaction between the medium and its publics."[4]

This term is what Gerbner sought to discover in his research. Griffin defines this as "the difference in the percentage giving the television answer within comparable groups of light and heavy TV viewers."[6] Gerbner wanted to find how often individuals who watched a significant amount of television were influenced to have the same opinion as what they saw in the media. Gerbner believed there was no before-television stage in a person's life. He alleged the media influences a person the moment they are born.

There are four attitudes that Gerbner focused on: (1) the chances of involvement with violence, (2) fear of walking alone at night, (3) perceived activity of police, and (4) general mistrust of people.[6] When a person watches more television, that person is more likely to think he or she has a higher chance of getting into violence. The individual is likely to have a greater fear of walking alone at night. Griffin notes that people who view heavy amount of television think "that five percent of society is involved in law enforcement",[6] which is four percentage points higher than actuality. Finally, heavy television watchers are more mistrusting of people than light or medium television viewers. This suspicious view on the world is called the mean world syndrome. Griffin sums this up as "the cynical mindset of general mistrust of others subscribed to by heavy TV viewers".[6]

Perceptions of violence[edit]

Gerbner's initial work specifically looked at the effects of television violence on American audiences.[19] Violence underscored the larger part of Gerbner's work on cultivation theory, as he and his team speculated that violence had an effect on the way Americans perception of safety, crime, and general lawlessness in both their immediate communities and the greater population. Therefore, they measured dramatic violence, which Gerbner defines as "the overt expression or threat of physical force as part of the plot."[6] Gerbner's research also focuses on the perceived impact of high-use television users and their interpretation of crime within content they are watching and in relation to what is happening in real life. He argues that since a high percentage of television programs include violent or crime-related content, viewers who spend a lot of their time watching television are inevitably exposed to the spike in crime and violence. Thus, an increased exposure causes viewers to make judgments about the world around them in terms of it being a more violent and crime-filled environment, when in reality, it may not necessarily be the case.[20]

In 1968, Gerbner conducted a survey to demonstrate this theory. From his results he placed television viewers into three categories; "light viewers" (less than 2 hours a day), "medium viewers" (2–4 hours a day) and "heavy viewers" (more than 4 hours a day). He found that heavy viewers held beliefs and opinions similar to those portrayed on television rather than the real world which demonstrates the compound effect of media influence.[7] Those who would be classified as heavy viewers to Gerbner experience shyness, loneliness, and depression much more than those who either do not watch television or who do not watch television nearly as much.[21] From this study, Gerbner also began working on what would become his Mean World Index, an idea that subscribes to the notion that heavy consumption of violent related television content leads the viewer to believe the world is more dangerous than it actually is.

Positive correlation between TV viewing and fear of criminal victimization[edit]

"In most of the surveys Gerbner conducted, the results reveal a small but statistically significant relationship between TV consumption and fear about becoming the victim of a crime. The question at the start of the chapter is illustrative: Those with light viewing habits predict their weekly odds of being a victim are 1 out of 100; those with heavy viewing habits fear the risk 1 out of 10. Actual crime statistics indicate that 1 out of 10,000 is more realistic."[6]

Supporting this finding is a survey done with collegiate students that showed that there was a significant correlation between the attention paid to local crime and fear. This survey also showed a significant correlation between the fears of crime and violence and the number of times the respondents viewed television per week.[22]

Local television news also plays a part in the integration of viewers' perception of high criminal activity due to events reported on the news. While news agencies boast their allegiance to report factual, timely news, "...it relies heavily on sensational coverage of crime and other mayhem with particular emphasis on homicide and violence (Hamilton, 1998; Klite, Bardwell, & Salzman, 1995, 1997). Thus, viewers are more likely to develop a heightened sense of fear in terms of crime due to the nature of the information being spread by local news outlets.

Perceived activity of the police[edit]

"People with heavy viewing habits believe that 5 percent of society is involved in law enforcement. Their video world is peopled with police officers, judges, and government agents. People with light viewing habits estimates a more realistic 1 percent."[6]

General mistrust of people[edit]

"Those with heavy viewing habits are suspicious of other people's motives. They subscribe to statements that warn people to expect the worst." These people would be likely to believe statements such as: "Most people are just looking out for themselves"; "In dealing with others, you can't be too careful"; and "Do unto others before they do unto You." This mindset is what Griffin calls the mean world syndrome.[6]

Gerbner's original analysis shows that heavy viewers are much more likely to be afraid of walking alone at night. The reluctance of these individuals has also been seen on a more global scale because heavy viewers are much more likely to believe we, as a nation, should stay out of world affairs.[23]

Key terms in cultivation analysis[edit]

Mainstreaming[edit]

"Mainstreaming is the blurring, blending, and bending process by which heavy TV viewers from disparate groups develop a common outlook on the world through constant exposure to the same images and labels on TV."[6] Mainstreaming television plays a central role in society. There are many people that do not have access to television, but the underlying truth is, the reach of television is so expansive that it has become the primary channel responsible for mainstream in our culture.[6] Mainstream is more than the sum of all cross-currents and sub-currents, it represents the broadest range of shared meanings and assumptions in the most general, functional and stable way.[24] Heavy television viewing may override individual differences and perspectives, creating more of an American (and increasingly global) "melting pot" of social, cultural and political ideologies.[24]

Gerbner found that ideas and opinions commonly held by heavy viewers as a result of mainstreaming have to do with politics and economics. According to Griffin, Gerbner's research led to the conclusion that heavy viewers tend to label themselves as middle class citizens who are politically moderate. Gerbner also found people who labeled themselves as either liberal or conservative among those who mainly watched TV occasionally. Interestingly enough, however, he also found that "cultural indicators noted that their positions on social issues are decidedly conservative."[6]

Resonance[edit]

Resonance occurs when things viewed on television are actually congruent with the actual everyday realities of viewers. Gerbner writes that this provides a double dose of messages that resonate and amplify cultivation.[13] Additionally, Gerbner et al. defines resonance as the combination of everyday reality and television providing a "double dose" that resonates with the individual, which in turn amplifies cultivation. The example they give is of minority groups whose fictional television character is stereotypically more frequently victimized on television, creating an exaggerated perception of violence for individuals who watch more television[24] Griffin sums it up nicely, when he states, "Gerbner claimed that other heavy viewers grow more apprehensive through the process of resonance."[6] Furthermore, Gerbner said, "The congruence of the television world and real-life circumstances may 'resonate' and lead to markedly amplified cultivation patterns."[6] This cultivation could have a large effect on our society if these viewers insist on receiving more security from the government, their work place, family, friends, etc. Resonance seeks to explain why heavy TV viewers often have an amplified vigilance about the world.

As either mainstreaming or resonance, cultivation produces first-order or second-order effects. First-order effects refers to the learning of facts, while second-order effects involve "hypotheses about more general issues and assumptions" that people make about their environments.[4]

Mean World Index[edit]

Gerbner et al. developed the Mean World Index. The Mean World Index finds that long-term exposure to television in which violence is frequent cultivates the image of a mean and dangerous world. Viewers who consumed television at a higher rate believed that greater protection by law enforcement is needed and reported that most people "cannot be trusted" and are "just looking out for themselves".[14] The Mean World Index consists of three statements:

  • Most people are just looking out for themselves.
  • You can't be too careful in dealing with people.
  • Most people would take advantage of you if they got the chance.

Dramatic violence[edit]

Dramatic violence is the "overt expression or serious threat of physical force as part of the plot."[6] Shows such as Law & Order SVU and CSI: Miami use murder to frame each episode of their shows, thus underscoring the presence of dramatic and gratuitous violence.[25] The idea of dramatic violence underscores the relationship between fear and entertainment. Though death is being used as a plot point, it also functions to cultivate a particular image of looming violence.

Heavy viewers[edit]

Heavy viewers are individuals who watch at least four hours of television a day,[6] however Nielsen notes that heavy viewers are now defined as those that watch more than 11 hours of television a day.[26] Heavy viewers are consistently characterized as being more susceptible to the images and messages on television. They also rely on television more to cultivate their perceptions of the real world.[8] In a recent study done on the cultivation effects of reality television, an Indiana University study found that young girls who regularly watched the MTV hit Teen Mom had an unrealistic view of teen pregnancy.[27]

Several cognitive mechanisms that explain cultivation effects have been put forth by Shrum (1995; 1996; 1997).[28][29][30] Shrum's availability heuristic explanation suggests that heavy viewers tend to have more frequent, recent, and vivid instances of television reality on the "top of the head" (i.e., available and accessible) when surveyors ask them questions, resulting in more responses that relate to television viewing and also speedier responses. Another mechanism that might explain the cultivation phenomenon is a cognitive-narrative mechanism. Previous research suggests that the realism of television narratives in combination with individual-level "transportability", or the ability to adopt a less critical stance toward a narrative, might facilitate cultivation effects (e.g., Bilandzic & Busselle, 2008).[31]

Magic bullet theory[edit]

The magic bullet theory (also known as the hypodermic-syringe model, transmission-belt model, or hypodermic needle model) is a linear model of communication. This theory talks about "the audiences directly influence by the mass media" and "the media's power on the audiences".

The "magic bullet" theory graphically assumes that the media's message is a bullet fired from the "media gun" into the viewer's "head" (1995).[32] Similarly, the "hypodermic needle model" uses the same idea of the "shooting" paradigm. It suggests that the media injects its messages straight into the passive audience (Croteau, Hoynes 1997).[33] This passive audience is immediately affected by these messages.

Television reality[edit]

Television reality talks about the effects of television viewing on heavy television viewers. Findings under cultivation theory often seem to support an effect of heavy television viewing on the creation of a television reality, a set of facts and beliefs based on television content rather than actual facts.[34] Generally, the beliefs of heavy television viewers about the real world are consistent with the repetitive and emphasized images and themes presented on television.[35] As such, heavy viewing cultivates a television-shaped view of the world.[36]

While viewers might differ in their demographic characteristics, the amount of television viewing can make a difference in terms of their conceptions of social reality.[37] For instance, people's different degrees of sex-role stereotypes can be traced back to the independent contribution of TV viewing just like others such as sex, age, class, and education.[37] Television viewing time is a main element of creating television reality to the audiences or the viewers.According to Gerbner's research, the more time spends 'living' in the world of television, the more likely to report perceptions of social reality which can be traced to television's most persistent representations of life and society.[37]

Since the 1960s, communication scholars have examined television's contributions to viewers' perceptions of a wide variety of topics and issues. Little effort has been made to investigate the influence of television on perceptions of social reality among adolescents, particularly in the areas of sexism, sex roles, mean world, and television reality.[38]

Several researches produced that for supporting the effect on heavy television viewer and how it relates to the television reality theory. According to Wyer and Budesheim's research, for the television messages or information, even though the message or information is not necessarily considered truth, it can still be used in the process of constructing social judgments. Furthermore, indicted invalid information may still be used in subsequent audience's judgments.[39]

Variations[edit]

Effect of cultivation on children[edit]

"There was a positive relationship between childhood television viewing levels and the social reality beliefs in young adulthood. The results of this study suggest that television viewed during childhood may affect the social reality beliefs a person holds as an adult."[6] "Accordingly, the present study focuses on the potential effect of childhood television viewing on social reality beliefs during adulthood. The focus of the present study will be childhood exposure to television genres that tend to be violent. Given that it has been argued and demonstrated that measuring exposure to violent content is a more appropriate method for cultivation analyses than measuring overall television exposure levels."[1]

International cultivation analysis[edit]

International cultivation analysis attempts to answer the question of whether the medium or the system is the message. Gerbner et al. found that countries where the television programs were less repetitive and homogeneous than the United States produced less predictable and consistent results.[24] The variety of television content is also an important factor. Increased diversity and balance within television channels or programs leads viewers to report similar preferences. Further, importing television programs internationally can elicit variable responses depending on the cultural context and the type of television program. For example, exposure of US television programs to Korean females resulted in liberal perspective of gender roles and family. However, in the Korean male television viewers, US programs brought out increased hostility and protection of Korean culture. Another study showed that Australian students who watched US television programs (especially adventure and crime shows) were more likely to view Australia as dangerous;[24] however, they didn't transfer this danger to America, even though they were watching US television programs. A study conducted by Minnebo and Eggermont in 2007 found that heavy television viewers, over the age of 30, in Belgium "were more likely to believe that most young people are substance users."[5]

Lifetime television exposure analysis[edit]

In order to accurately survey and represent findings from cultivation theory research, the subject of time period has become a topic of discussion in conducting further research. It's stated that "...cultivation effect only occurs after long-term, cumulative exposure to stable patterns of content on television."[40] Thus, research studies that employ recreations of long-term media exposure are very rare and if conducted, must be thoroughly planned out in order to secure dependability of results of the study. In a study conducted in 2009, participants were asked to list the number of Grey's Anatomy episodes they had viewed in prior and current seasons. The purpose of the study was to gain a perspective of how viewers' see doctors based on impressions given on television. Findings from the study showed a positive association with Grey's Anatomy's portrayal with real-world doctors' acts of courage. The finding wasn't surprising, as many episodes within Grey's Anatomy often show doctors to be courageous, either by employing a detailed view of an operation being conducted, or crediting doctors for their empathy shown in specific patient scenarios. Gerbner and colleagues argue that cultivation effects span total television viewing, not genre- or program-specific viewing (Gerbner et al., 2002).[41] In a study conducted by Jonathan Cohen and Gabriel Weimann, they found that cultivation through television is more prevalent within the age group of older teenagers and young adults, thus supporting the claim that a cumulative exposure to television throughout a viewer's life has a steady impact on their cultivation longevity.[42]

Impact on psychosocial health[edit]

A study conducted by Hammermeister, Brock, Winterstein, Page compares the psychosocial health of viewers that reported no television use, viewers who followed the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) suggested consumption of up to 2 hours of television per day, and viewers with high exposure to television. Their research consisted of surveying 430 participants within the United States implemented via survey method. They found that there was more of an impact on the psychosocial health of women who participated in the study and, "...revealed that all the psychosocial variables examined in this study contributed significantly to the one function equation with depression, hopelessness, self-esteem, and weight satisfaction being the strongest discriminators" (Hammermeister, Brock, Winterstein, Page, 260). Findings also exposed the similarity in psychosocial health data between participants who watched up to 2 hours of television per day and participants who opt out of television consumption all together.[43]

"InterTV"[edit]

InterTV is a concept forecasting the inevitable melding of television and online media. Described by Shanahan and Morgan as television's "convergence" with computers, they argue that computers will essentially act as an extension of television through the creation of related websites and online news articles covered within the traditional television journalism realm. Additionally, television programming will also suffer a shift to an online platform in result of streaming services such as Netflix and Hulu. According to Shanahan and Morgan, this may not be the worst thing, as it allows advertisers a direct source in which they can gather information regarding viewers. They state that, "within a market filled with individual interests, desires and the channels to serve them, such a data-gathering enterprise would still allow advertisers to assemble mass audiences from the fragmented media systems". In a sense, this would allow viewers to in some way control the content that they are being fed through the online platform. While advertisers are infringing on viewer information, the correlated result requires them to shift any programming or storyline content to the satisfaction of the viewer. This poses an interesting example in terms of extending the impact of cultivation theory, instead empowering the viewer to cultivate their own television use experience.[44]

In other fields[edit]

Although Gerbner's research focused on violence on TV this theory can be applied to a variety of different situations. Many other theorists have done studies related to the cultivation theory which incorporated different messages than Gerbner's original intent. This research has been conducted in order to defeat two criticisms of the theory; its breadth and lumping of genres.

Music videos[edit]

Kathleen Beullens, Keith Roe, and Jan Van den Bulck conducted research relating to alcohol consumption in music videos. The research revealed that high exposure to music videos develops an unrealistic perception of alcohol consumption. Musicians in these videos endorse alcohol in their songs and create a false reality about alcohol and its effects."[45]

Video games[edit]

Research conducted by Dmitri Williams draws the comparison of the effects of television to interactive video games. He argues that while the parameters and basic content of the game developed is through the employment of game developers, creators and designers, the role of the "other player" within the game is also essential in the progression of the story within the video game. Essentially, an interactive game allows players to build relationships with others, and thus is more dynamic and unpredictable as compared to traditional television. Williams attempts to research the question of whether video games are as influential as television from a cultivation theory standpoint. Does it impact our social reality? Within the field study, participants were asked to play a MMORPG game, one in which participants interacted with other players in real time. Crime measures divided into four categories were used to evaluate the correlation between the research hypotheses and cultivation theory. The study proved a strong correlation between the impact of cultivation theory on participants and the players of the MMORPG game.[46]

LGBTQ, women, and sexuality[edit]

Sara Baker Netzley conducted research in a similar fashion to Gerbner in the way that homosexuals were depicted on television. This study found that there was an extremely high level of sexual activity in comparison to the amount of gays that appeared on television. This has led those who are heavy television consumers to believe that the gay community is extremely sexual. Much like the idea of a mean and scary world it gives people a parallel idea of an extremely sexual gay community."[47]

Beverly Roskos-Ewoldsen, John Davies and David Roskos-Ewoldsen posits that perceptions of women are integrated in a rather stereotypical fashion than portrayals of men on television. They state that, "men are characters in TV shows at about a 2 to 1 ratio to women... (Gerbner et al., 2002)." In relation, viewers who consume more television usually have more sexist views of women (Gerbner et al., 2002; Morgan, 1990).[48] Research has also shown that women are more likely to be portrayed as victims on television than men.[49]

In a study conducted by Jerel Calzo and Monique Ward, they first begin by uncovering more recent research conducted on the portrayal of gay and lesbian characters on television. While growth in the representation of gay and lesbian characters have continued to grow, they found that most television shows frame gay and lesbian characters in a manner that reinforces homosexual stereotypes. Diving into discussion, they even use examples such as Ellen and Will & Grace, describing the storyline content as reinforcing, "...stereotypes by portraying these characters as lacking stable relationships, as being preoccupied with their sexuality (or not sexual at all), and by perpetuating the perception of gay and lesbian people as laughable, one-dimensional figures (Cooper, 2003; Fouts & Inch, 2005; Herman, 2005)." Their findings confirmed that media genres played an important role in the attitudes developed regarding homosexuality. They also were surprised by the finding that prior prime-time shows, which are no longer on air, reinforced a larger magnitude of acceptance within the LGBTQ realm. They then suggested that because genre played a large impact in the perception that viewers gained while watching certain television shows, more research should be designated towards, "...more genre-driven effects analyses." [50]

Criticisms[edit]

A number of scholars have critiqued Gerbner's assertions on cultivation theory, particularly its intentions and its scope. One critique of the theory analyzes the objective of the theory. Communications professor Jennings Bryant posits that cultivation research focuses more on the effects rather than who or what is being influenced. Bryant goes on to assert that the research to date has more to do with the "whys" and "hows" of a theory as opposed to gathering normative data as to the "whats", "whos", and "wheres".[51]

Logical consistency[edit]

Critics have also faulted the logical consistency of cultivation analysis, noting that the methods employed by cultivation analysis researchers do not match the conceptual reach of the theory. The research supporting this theory uses social scientific methods that are typically used with limited effects findings. Another possibility is that the relationship between TV viewing and fear of crime is like the relationship between a runny nose and a sore throat. Neither one causes the other—they are both caused by something else."[6] Many also question the breadth of Gerbner's research. When using the Cultural Indicators strategy, Gerbner separated his research into three parts. The second part focused on the effects of media when looking at gender, race/ethnicity, and occupation. Michael Hughes writes: "it does not seem reasonable that these three variables exhaust the possibilities of variables available…which may be responsible for spurious relationships between television watching and the dependent variables in the Gerbner et al. analysis."[52] Also, the variables Gerbner did choose can also play a factor in the amount of time a person has available to watch TV.

Lived experience[edit]

Another critique comes from Daniel Chandler: "those who live in high-crime areas are more likely to stay at home and watch television and also to believe that they have a greater chance of being attacked than are those in low-crime areas." He claims as well, "when the viewer has some direct lived experience of the subject matter this may tend to reduce any cultivation effect."[53] While television does have some effect on how we perceive the world around us, Gerbner's study does not consider the lived experiences of those that do inhabit high crime areas.

Forms of violence[edit]

Gerbner is also criticized for his lumping of all forms of violence. Chandler argues, "different genres—even different programmes—contribute to the shaping of different realities, but cultivation analysis assumes too much homogeneity in television programmes"[53] This point is addressed by Horace Newcomb (1978) who argues that violence is not presented as uniformly on television as the theory assumes; therefore, television cannot be responsible for cultivating the same sense of reality for all viewers.[54] When considering different programs that are on television, it makes sense that scholars would criticize Gerbner's lack of categories. For example, Saturday morning cartoon "play" violence is in combination with a murder on Law and Order. This does not seem to logically fuse together. Morgan and Shanahan understand this dispute, but they contend "that people (especially heavy viewers) do not watch isolated genres only, and that any 'impact' of individual program types should be considered in the context of the overall viewing experience."[5]

Humanist critique[edit]

Cultivation analysis has also been criticized by humanists for examining such a large cultural question. Because the theory discusses cultural effects, many humanists feel offended, thinking that their field has been misinterpreted. Horace Newcomb (1978) writes "More than any other research effort in the area of television studies the work of Gerbner and Gross and their associates sits squarely at the juncture of the social sciences and the humanities."[55]

The theory has also received criticism for ignoring other issues such as the perceived realism of the televised content, which could be essential in explaining people's understanding of reality.[56] Wilson, Martins, & Markse (2005) argue that attention to television might be more important to cultivating perceptions than only the amount of television viewing.[57] In addition, C. R. Berger (2005) writes that because the theory ignores cognitive processes, such as attention or rational thinking style, it is less useful than desired.[58]

Perceived reality[edit]

The correlation between cultivation effects and perceived reality have been criticized due to the inconsistent findings from various research conducted on the subject. Hawkins and Pingree (1980) found that participants that reported a lower perceived reality scoring actually showed a stronger cultivation impact. Potter (1986) found that, "...different dimensions and levels of perceived reality were associated with different magnitudes of cultivation effects". Additionally, a study conducted by Shrum, Wyer and O'Guinn (1994) showed a zero percentage correlation between perceived reality and cultivation effects.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c Cohen, J.; Weimann, G. (2000). "Cultivation Revisited: Some Genres Have Some Effects on Some Viewers". Communication Reports. 13 (2): 99–114. doi:10.1080/08934210009367728. 
  2. ^ a b West, Richard & Turner, Lynn (2010).Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application. (Fourth Edition). McGraw Hill.
  3. ^ Bryant, J.; Mirion, D. (2004). "Theory and research in mass communication". Journal of Communication. 54: 662–704. doi:10.1093/joc/54.4.662. 
  4. ^ a b c d e f Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1986). "Living with television: The dynamics of the cultivation process" in J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Perspectives on media effects (pp. 17–40). Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  5. ^ a b c Morgan, Michael, and James Shanahan. "The State of cultivation" Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 54.2 (2010): 337-355.
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Griffin, E. (2012). Communication Communication Communication. McGraw-Hill: New York, (8), 366–377.
  7. ^ a b c Potter, W. James (2014-12-01). "A Critical Analysis of Cultivation Theory". Journal of Communication. 64 (6): 1015–1036. doi:10.1111/jcom.12128. ISSN 1460-2466. 
  8. ^ a b Shanahan, J., & Morgan, M. (1999). Television and its viewers: Cultivation theory and research. Cambridge University Press. 
  9. ^ a b c West, Richard; Turner, Lynn (2014). Introducing Communication Theory Analysis and Application. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. pp. 420–436. ISBN 978-0-07-353428-2. 
  10. ^ "The Man Who Counts the Killings". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2015-11-24. 
  11. ^ a b c d Gerbner, G.; Gross, L.; Jackson-Beeck, M.; Jeffries-Fox, S.; Signorielli, N. (1978). "Cultural indicators violence profile no. 9".". Journal of Communication. 28 (3): 176–207. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1978.tb01646.x. 
  12. ^ Gerbner, G. & Gross, L. (1972). Living with television: The violence profile. 26. Journal of Communication. pp. 173–199. 
  13. ^ a b Gerbner, G. (1998). "Cultivation analysis: An overview". Mass Communication and Society, 3/4, 175-194.
  14. ^ a b Gerbner, G.; Gross, L.; Morgan, M.; Signorielli, N. (1980). "The "Mainstreaming" of America: Violence Profile No. 11". Journal of Communication. 30 (3): 10–29. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1980.tb01987.x. 
  15. ^ a b Morgan, M.; Shanahan, J. (2010). "The State of Cultivation". Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 54 (2): 337–355. doi:10.1080/08838151003735018. 
  16. ^ Gerbner, George; Gross, Larry; Morgan, Michael; Signorielli, Nancy (1986). "Living with television: The dynamics of the cultivation process". Perspectives on media effects. 
  17. ^ a b c Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of communication, 26(2), 172-194.
  18. ^ Matsa, K. E. (2010). Laughing at politics: effects of television satire on political engagement in Greece.
  19. ^ "Media Effects Theories". Oregon State University.
  20. ^ Hughes, M. (1980). The fruits of cultivation analysis: A reexamination of some effects of television watching. Public opinion quarterly, 44(3), 287-302.
  21. ^ Hammermeister, Joe; Barbara Brock; David Winterstein; Randy Page (2005). "Life Without TV? Cultivation Theory and Psychosocial Characteristics of Television-Free Individuals and Their Television-Viewing Counterparts" (PDF). Health Communication. 17 (4): 253–264. doi:10.1207/s15327027hc1703_3. 
  22. ^ Reber, Bryan H.; Yuhmim Chang (1 September 2000). "Assessing cultivation theory and public health model for crime reporting". Newspaper Research Journal. 21 (4): 99–112. 
  23. ^ Hughes, Michael (1 September 1980). "The Fruits of Cultivation Analysis: A Reexamination of Some Effects of Television Watching". Public Opinion Quarterly: 287–302. doi:10.1086/268597. 
  24. ^ a b c d e Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (2002). "Growing up with television: The cultivation perspective" in M. Morgan (Ed.), Against the mainstream: The selected works of George Gerbner (pp.193-213). New York: Peter Lang.
  25. ^ Berger, A. A. (Ed.). (1987). Television in society. Transaction Publishers. 
  26. ^ "Tipping the Scale: Heavy TV Viewers = a Big Opportunity for Advertisers". www.nielsen.com. Retrieved 2015-11-24. 
  27. ^ "Study: Heavy viewers of 'Teen Mom' and '16 and Pregnant' have unrealistic views of teen pregnancy: IUB Newsroom: Indiana University". news.indiana.edu. Retrieved 2015-11-24. 
  28. ^ Shrum, L.J. (1995). "Assessing the social influence of television: A social cognitive perspective on cultivation effects.". Communication Research. 22 (4): 402–429. doi:10.1177/009365095022004002. 
  29. ^ Shrum, L.J. (1996). "Psychological processes underlying cultivation effects: Further tests of construct accessibility.". Human Communication Research. 22 (4): 482–509. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1996.tb00376.x. 
  30. ^ Shrum, L.J. (1997). "The role of source confusion in cultivation effects may depend on processing strategy: A comment on Mares (1996).". Human Communication Research. 24 (2): 349–358. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00418.x. 
  31. ^ Bilandzic, H.; Busselle, R.W (2008). "Transportation and transportability in the cultivation of genre-consistent attitudes and estimates.". Journal of Communication. 58 (3): 508–529. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00397.x. 
  32. ^ Arthur Asa, Berger (July 5, 1995). Essentials of Mass Communication Theory. (1 ed.). London: SAGE Publications, Inc. 
  33. ^ Croteau, D. & Hoynes, W (1997). "Industries and Audience". London: Pine Forge Press. 
  34. ^ Tony R., DeMars (2000). Modeling Behavior from Images of Reality in Television Narratives. USA: The Edwin Mellen Press, Ltd. p. 36. 
  35. ^ Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., and Signorielli, N (1994). Growing up with television: The cultivation perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 
  36. ^ Hawkins, R. P., Pingree, S. and Alter, I (1987). Searching for cognitive processes in the cultivation effect: Adult and adolescent samples in the United States and Australia. pp. 553–577. 
  37. ^ a b c Gerbner, George, Larry Gross, Nancy Signorielli and Michael Morgan (1980). "Aging with Television: Image on Television Drama and Conceptions of Social Reality.". Journal of Communication 30. 37-47. 
  38. ^ Jong G. Kang, Stephen S. Andersen, Michael Pfau (1996). "Television Viewing and Perception of Social Reality Among Native American Adolescents" (PDF). Illinois State University, Augustana College University of Wisconsin, Madison. 
  39. ^ Wyer, Robert S. and William H. Unverzagt (1985). "Effects of Instructions to Disregard Information on Its Subsequent Recall and Use in Making Judgments". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,. 533-549. 
  40. ^ Shanahan, J; Morgan, M (1999). Television and its viewers: Cultivation theory and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 286–302. ISBN 978-1-4331-1368-0. 
  41. ^ Quick. "The Effects of Viewing Grey's Anatomy on Perceptions of Doctors and Patient Satisfaction". Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. Archived from the original on 2010-06-09. 
  42. ^ Cohen, J., & Weimann, G. (2000). Cultivation revisited: Some genres have some effects on some viewers. Communication reports, 13(2), 99-114.
  43. ^ Hammermeister, J., Brock, B., Winterstein, D., & Page, R. (2005). Life without TV? Cultivation theory and psychosocial health characteristics of television-free individuals and their television-viewing counterparts. Health communication, 17(3), 253-264.
  44. ^ Shanahan, J., & Morgan, M. (1999). Television and its viewers: Cultivation theory and research. Cambridge University Press.
  45. ^ Beullens, K.; Roe, K.; Van; den Bulck, J. (2012). "Music Video Viewing as a Marker of Driving After the Consumption of Alcohol". Substance Use & Misuse. 47 (2): 155–165. doi:10.3109/10826084.2012.637449. 
  46. ^ Williams, Dmitri (2006). "Virtual cultivation: Online worlds, offline perceptions". Journal of Communication ISSN 0021-9916. 
  47. ^ Netzley, S (2010). "Visibility That Demystifies Gays, Gender, and Sex on Television". Journal of Homosexuality. 57 (8): 968–986. doi:10.1080/00918369.2010.503505. 
  48. ^ Roskos-Ewoldsen, Beverly; Davies, John; Roskos-Ewoldsen, David (2004). "Implications of the mental models approach for cultivation theory". Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research. 
  49. ^ Romer, D., Jamieson, K. H., & Aday, S. (2003). Television news and the cultivation of fear of crime. Journal of communication, 53(1), 88-104.
  50. ^ Jerel P. Calzo M.A. & L. Monique Ward Ph.D. (2009) Media Exposure and Viewers' Attitudes Toward Homosexuality: Evidence for Mainstreaming or Resonance?, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53:2, 280-299, DOI: 10.1080/08838150902908049
  51. ^ Bryant, Jennings. "The Road Most Traveled: Yet Another Cultivation Critique." Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 30.2 (1986): 231-335.
  52. ^ Hughes, Michael. "The Fruits of Cultivation Analysis: A Reexamination of Some Effects of Television Watching." Public Opinion Quarterly 44.3 (1980): 287.
  53. ^ a b Chandler, Daniel. Cultivation Theory. Aberystwyth University, 18 September 1995.
  54. ^ Newcomb, H (1978). "Assessing the violence profile studies of Gerbner and Gross: A humanistic critique and suggestion". Communication Research. 5: 264–283. doi:10.1177/009365027800500303. 
  55. ^ Newcomb, H (1978). "Assessing the violence profile studies of Gerbner and Gross: A humanistic critique and suggestion". Communication Research. 5: 265. doi:10.1177/009365027800500303. 
  56. ^ Minnebo, J.; Van Acker, A. (2004). "Does television influence adolescents' perceptions of and attitudes toward people with mental illness?". Journal of Community Psychology. 32: 267–275. doi:10.1002/jcop.20001. 
  57. ^ Wilson, B. J.; Martins, N.; Marske, A. L. (2005). "Children's and parents' fright reactions to kidnapping stories in the news". Communication Monographs. 72: 46–70. doi:10.1080/0363775052000342526. 
  58. ^ Berger, C. R. (2005). "Slippery slopes to apprehension: Rationality and graphical depictions of increasingly threatening trends". Communication Research. 32: 3–28. doi:10.1177/0093650204271397. 

Additional reading[edit]

  • Gerbner, G.; Gross, L.; Morgan, M.; Signorielli, N.; Jackson-Beeck, M. (1979). "The Demonstration of Power: Violence Profile No. 10".". Journal of Communication. 29: 177–196. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1979.tb01731.x.