So what does cultivation theory set out to explain, hypothesize or achieve? Well basically it is a theory that says “Watching a great deal of television will be associated with a tendency to hold specific and distinct conceptions of reality, conceptions that are congruent with the most consistent and pervasive images and values of the medium.” (Shanahan, 1999). Basically, this theory states that television viewing effects our attitudes perceptions and worldviews. Below is a model that help to explain the way cultivation works.
Conceptual Model Of Cultivation Theory
Cultivation Theory
Source: Hawkins and Pingree (1983
Like cookies and milk, television and violence have always been linked together. Television has been famously accused of promoting violence in society. Television, however, is not the only medium accused of this. Since the beginning of time, storytellers have been telling and retelling violent stories. Pulp magazines and movies in the 1920’s, radio in the 1930’s, and comic books in the 1950’s have all been branded instigators of violence. It wasn’t till the 1970’s that TV violence really started to be studied in depth and its effects measured.
There are a number of reasons why violence is used in programming. The number 1 reason being money. Violence catches the attention of a demographically attractive audience and anyone who knows television knows that this is the key to profit. People do not always prefer violence but violence, unlike comedy, sells well in international program markets.
Gross and Gerbner have done extended research to measure what effect television violence has on society. They found that instances in which a serious act of violence was instigated by television were rare, even though cases like that may generate a lot of publicity. Although many children get riled up or pretend to act out violent scenes, they still know the difference between make believe and real, therefore, the imitation is at a relatively low level. If violence on television really truly prompted rape, murder and killing in society, then it would not be in the best interests of the elites who program it to pollute the very society they live in. After all, the most money is made in television by having a society that is firmly cemented and controlled.
Gerbner and Gross were not saying that television violence generates no disturbing after-effects. Even if a tiny fraction of all real world violence is caused by television, then that still amounts to considerable social costs. What Gerbner and Gross were saying is that there are far worse social costs due to television violence. The effects are different than most would assume at first glance. The 90+ million viewers a night may not be prompted to kill someone or rob a bank, but nevertheless, they are still affected. If imitation were the most common outcome of viewing violence, crime rates would be astronomical. Gerbner and Gross argue that television violence is symbolic and teaches us more about power than anything. They hypothesize that if violence on TV prompts people to be criminals, then why wouldn’t it prompt others to be victims? There are far more victims portrayed on TV than actual criminals. Violence on TV promotes social control, but not in the sense that it makes people violent. Rather, the fear that is cultivated by viewing violence is a form of social control.
Some would argue that the real world is violent so people should have fear. This argument would make sense if violent killing were the number one killer in this country. The cause of real-world injuries such as traffic and industrial accidents can be hard to find in the world of television. Television violence has more to do with real-world power than it does real-world violence. The problem is not that some people are made overly paranoid by television violence, but rather the danger identified by cultivation is more on the social level. Gerbner and Gross argue that a heightened sense of fear, danger and apprehension can cause people to think there is a stronger need for security. “This in turn can mean that greater legitimacy of authority that can promise to meet those demands, creating conditions highly conducive to repression and undermining the support of civil liberties.” (Shannahan and Morgan, 1999). This can also cause a greater acceptance of the use of violence to solve international affairs.
Proponents of the Cultivation Theory attempt to show how television cultivates a homogenous outlook on life, revealing a lack of diversity among heavy viewers. The idea is that heavy viewing, regardless of viewer demographic, creates an assumption in the viewer, that violence is more prevalent than it actually is. Gerbner and other theorists would argue that heavy viewers of violent television come to the assumption that violence is higher in the everyday world, and that one's exposure to this constant imagery blends with their everyday experiences regardless of viewer demographic. This is refered to as the mainstreaming mechanism.
An example of this mainstreaming exists in what Nancy Signorielli terms “Television’s Mean and Dangerous World” (Signorielli, 1990). Signorielli cites a study that was used to highlight the effects of the mean and dangerous worldview. The study hypothesized that viewers of heavy amounts of television are more likely to have a view of the world consistent with that of a mean and dangerous world. Children’s, prime-time, and weekend programming was analyzed from 1967 to 1985 to identify the number of violent acts shown in the programming. Viewers were periodically polled to assess their view of the world. Generally, heavy viewers were found to be much more likely to have a mean and dangerous view of the world in comparison to those who were light viewers of television. Signorielli says, “This unequal sense of danger, vulnerability, and general malaise cultivated by what is called ‘entertainment’ invites not only aggression but also exploitation and repression. Fearful people are more dependent, more easily manipulated and controlled, more susceptible to deceptively simple, strong, tough measures and hard-line postures both political and religious. They may accept and even welcome repression if it promises to relieve their insecurities and other anxieties. That is the deeper problem of violence-laden television” (Signorielli, 1990).
A twist at the theory occurs when the viewers' everyday experiences parallel and are consistent with those they view on television. Here, the cultivation effect is accelerated when viewers amplify their real-life experience by what the view on television. Theorists would argue that the crime "resonates" with them and that they are susceptible to a "double dose" effect where cultivation increases (Potter, 1993). Thus, from this type of symbolic portrayal occurring on television, viewers tend to replay real-experiences over in their minds . In turn, real-life incidents will be reinforced by their viewing experience.
Since 1967, Gerbner and his colleagues have been analyzing sample weeks of prime-time and daytime television programming. Cultivation analysis usually involves the correlation of data from content analysis (identifying prevailing images on television) with survey data from audience research (to assess any influence of such images on the attitudes of viewers). Content analysis by cultivation theorists seeks to characterize the TV world. Such analysis shows not only that the TV world is far more violent than the everyday world, but also, for instance, that television is dominated by males and over-represents the professions and those involved in law enforcement.
Audience research by cultivation theorists involves asking large-scale public opinion poll organizations to include in their national surveys questions regarding such issues as the amount of violence in everyday life. Answers are interpreted as reflecting either the world of television or that of everyday life. Respondents are asked such questions as: What percentage of all males who have jobs work in law enforcement or crime detection? Is it 1 percent or 10 percent?. On American TV, about 12 percent of all male characters hold such jobs, and about 1 percent of males are employed in the USA in these jobs, so 10 percent would be the TV answer and 1 percent would be the real-world answer (Dominick, 1990).
Answers are then related to the amount of television watched, other media habits and demographic data such as sex, age, income and education. The cultivation hypothesis involves predicting or expecting heavy television viewers to give more TV answers than light viewers. The responses of a large number of heavy viewers are compared with those of light viewers. A tendency of heavy viewers to choose TV answers is interpreted as evidence of a cultivation effect.
In a survey of about 450 New Jersey schoolchildren, 73 percent of heavy viewers compared to 62 percent of light viewers gave the TV answer to a question asking them to estimate the number of people involved in violence in a typical week. The same survey showed that children who were heavy viewers were more fearful about walking alone in a city at night. They also overestimated the number of people who commit serious crimes (Dominick, 1990). One controlled experiment addressed the issue of cause and effect, manipulating the viewing of American college students to create heavy- and light-viewing groups. After 6 weeks of controlled viewing, heavy viewers of action-adventure programs were indeed found to be more fearful of life in the everyday world than were light viewers
Although cultivation offers a very plausible cause, the theory is subject to many criticisms. Cultivation has been a highly controversial and provocative approach; the results of cultivation research have been many, varied, and sometimes counterintuitive. The assumptions and procedures of cultivation analysis have been strongly critiqued on theoretical, methodological, and epistemological grounds; extensive debates (sometimes lively, sometimes heated) continue to engage the scholarly community, and have led to some refinements and enhancements
One of the criticisms is that it is over simplified. Some make the argument that there are a collection of factors that influence our perceptions and worldview. While television does make an impact, so does other forms of media, personal experiences, and other people’s opinions affect us as well. Another criticism is that the correlation between television viewing and beliefs does not impose a causal relationship. They found that heavier viewers of television tend to be more fearful, but fearful people could also be more drawn to television. There is no proof that the relationship is not reciprocal. Surveys cannot indicate causation.
Cultivation theorists tend to ignore the importance of the social dynamics of television use. Interacting factors such as developmental stages, viewing experience, general knowledge, gender, ethnicity, viewing contexts, family attitudes and socio-economic background all contribute to shaping the ways in which television is interpreted by viewers. When the viewer has some direct lived experience of the subject matter this may tend to reduce any cultivation effect. Cultivation research does avoid the artificiality of laboratory experiments. It is based on normal viewing over a long period but it is subject to the usual criticisms of both content analysis and surveys.
Cultivation Theory also suggests that people are unable to form their own opinions. It suggests that people are a giant class of trained subjects that lacks the ability to form an opinion. Different people are able to view the same program and come up with different opinions or reactions to it. Today it seems as if everyone is a critic. If this is true, how can we not argue with the cultivation theory in insisting that viewers make their own ideas on the form of media? Cultivation Theory also tends to skip out of the positive aspects of television viewing. There are no studies that show the benefits of television viewing.
Overall, Cultivation Theory has made a major impact in the way we study media effects today. It is impossible for any one theory to be 100% correct and not have its criticisms. It is very interesting to see how we are affected on an unconscious level. It will be even more interesting to see where the research goes with the advancement of technology and new innovations. In the end, Cultivation Theory does a good job explaining the effects of television viewing on our worldview, perceptions and opinions.
References
Abelman, Robert, & Atkin, David. (2002). The Televiewing Audience. New Jersey: Hampton Press.
Condry, John (1989). The Psychology of Television. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Dominick, Joseph R. (1990). The Dynamics of Mass Communication. New York: McGraw-Hill
Evra, Judith van (1990): Television and Child Development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Gerbner, George, et al. Communications Technology and Social Policy: Understanding the New "Cultural Revolution. New York: Interscience Publication, 1973.
Gerbner, George. (1969) "Toward 'Cultural Indicators': The Analysis of Mass Mediated Message Systems." Audio Visual Communication Review. Washington, D.C.
Gerbner, George.(1962) "Communication and Social Environment." Scientific American San Francisco, California.
Hawkins R.P & Pingree, S. (1983). Televisions influence on social reality. In: Wartella, E., Whitney, D. & Windahl, S. (Eds.) Mass Communication Review Yearbook, Vol 5. Beverley Hills CA: Sage
Infante, Dominic A. (1997) Building Communication Theory." Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.
Livingstone, Sonia (1990): Making Sense of Television. London: Pergamon
MacDonald, Fred J. (1994). One Nation Under Television. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers.
Morgan, Michael, and James Shanahan. (1995) Democracy Tango: Television, Adolescents, and Authoritarian Tensions in Argentina. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press.
Phillips, Carrie, Jennifer Bonds. (1999) Survey of Communication Theory: Cultivation Theory.
Potter, W. James. (1993). Cultivation Theory and research: A conceptual critique. Vol. 19 No. 4, June 1993. International Communication Association.
Severin & Tankard. (2001). Communication theories: Origins, Methods, and Uses in the Mass Media. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Shanahan, James, & Morgan, Michael. (1999). Television and its Viewers. New york: Cambridge University Press.
Signorielli, Morgan. (1990). Cultivation Analysis. Newbury Park, Caifornia: Sage Publications.
Tapper, John. (1995). The Ecology of Cultivation: A Conceptual Model for Cultivation Research. Communication Theory.
Weimann, Gabriel. (2000). Communication Unreality: Modern media and the Reconstrustion of Reality. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
.
Cultivation Theory
Renee Halpin
December 8, 2003