Cultivation analysis Constructing our reality based on entertainment

Telling stories v. imparting information �Most media studies, especially ‘effects’ research, see the content we encounter as a bundle of information �Tend to ignore narrative structure �Usually treat each message as a unique piece of content without concern over its relation to other messages, the culture in general �Gerbner et al. are concerned not with particular pieces of information, but with the dominant stories within the US culture �They see ‘telling stories’ as a powerful cultural force �People are socialized through the telling of stories

“Television has transformed the cultural process of story -telling into a centralized, standardized, marketdriven, advertiser-sponsored system. . . the cultural process of story-telling is now in the hands of global commercial interests who have something to sell, and who in effect operate outside the reach of democratic decision-making. ”

Why is this a problem? �Television has no conscience �Driven by market dynamics to provide content that is most likely to hold audience for advertising and to ‘travel well’ � Research shows that this tends not to be most liked, but least objectionable �Children are most vulnerable but everyone is to some extent �US is almost unique in lack of government control over media content

Traditional effects v. cultivation �Change v. stability �Short-term v. long-term �Individual messages v. message systems �Aggressive behavior v. fear

Traditional effects theory Exposure to violent portrayal Learning violent behaviors Aggression/violence in actual life

�Misjudging the amount of violence in society is sometimes called the 'mean world syndrome'. Heavy viewers tend to believe that the world is a nastier place than do light viewers.

Cultivation theory Television Message System Mean World Syndrome Fear

The evidence �Cultural Indicators �Content analyses (since 1967) of television programming “to track the most stable, pervasive, and recurrent images in media content, in terms of the portrayal of violence, minorities, gender-roles, occupations, and so on” Clearly shows heavy use of violence as a plot device � Violence is ubiquitous—kids’ cartoons, daytime serials, Prime Time programming; comedy, action-adventure, reality TV � Shows who can perform violence and who is a victim � Middle-aged white males have right to engage in violence � Women are victims �

“Happy violence”

Extensive/graphic violence

Amount of violence across subgenres of children’s programming Slapstick Superhero Adventure/ mystery Social relationship Magazine % of programs with violence 100 97 89 48 17 Number of violent PATs per hour 29. 1 28. 1 14. 3 4. 2 1. 6 Number of violent scenes per hour 14. 9 11. 9 7. 9 3. 0 . 9 % of time devoted to violence 28. 7 24. 4 12. 9 3. 1 1. 2 Source: Wilson, Smith, Potter, Kunkel, Linz, Colvin & Donnerstein, 2002 Journal of Communication

Humor/fantasy

What is the impact? �Use surveys to ask how much TV a person watches, how dangerous she thinks the world is (e. g. , how likely she is to be attacked if she walks alone at night), whether you can trust people, and so on �If heavy TV viewers give the ‘TV answer’ then Gerbner et al. conclude that cultivation has occurred �TV answer is determined by projection from Cultural Indicators findings

Cultivation differential

Cultivation theory Mean World Syndrome Fear, prejudice, distrust Authoritarian views and behavior

Additional cultivation concerns �The same ‘drip’ that is supposed to make us fearful also may make us devious, obsessed with material accumulation, bigoted, sexist, and so on �Because it happens over time, slowly, and widely throughout the culture, it is hard to see it happening

Mainstreaming �Dominant cultural ‘current’ “representing the broadest and most common dimensions of shared meanings” �“Because of its unique role in our society, we see television as the primary manifestation of our culture’s mainstream. ” �“Mainstreaming means that heavy viewing may absorb or override differences in perspectives and behavior which ordinarily stem from other factors and influences. ” �Cultural, social and political characteristics of groups would otherwise lead to more ideological diversity

Mainstreaming

Resonance �Where those who live in high-crime neighborhoods get a ‘double dose of messages that resonate and amplify cultivation’ �Minorities “whose fictional counterparts are more frequently victimized on television”

Resonance

Cultivation research is very controversial �Much more questioning of the premise and of the study methods within the scientific community than with social learning theory �Most famous argument between researchers over a theory that can be found in media studies � Gerbner v. Hirsch

Problems with cultivation research �No clear psychological process specified that would produce the results of interest �‘Drip drip’ is not a theory �No clear connection between individual fear and the development of an authoritarian society �Levels of analysis problem �Methodological problems �Definition of what constitutes violence �Accusations of ‘cherry picking’ high and low TV levels, which indicators of ‘cultivation’ counted, etc. �Lack of control for third variables � Heavy TV watchers tend to live in dangerous neighborhood

Problems with cultivation research �Low correlations �Limits on survey analyses—many are secondary data analyses

Strengths of cultivation theory �It covers a broad range of social phenomena �Violence �Prejudice �Consumerism �It looks at a wide range of content the individual is exposed to rather than a small portion �It does cover multiple levels of analysis �(but note the problems here)

Factors affecting cultivation �“Cultivation is dependent on and a manifestation of the extent to which television’s imagery dominates viewers’ sources of information. ”