|
Cultivation analysis is the method by which George Gerbner and his colleagues
at Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communications link their content
analyses of American television programs to the study of mass media effects.
The "cultural indicators" research project began two decades ago to study
whether and how television may influence viewers’ ideas of what the real
world is like. The first stage in their analysis is the study of television
content. Such analysis not only shows that the television world is far
more violent than the everyday world, but also that television is dominated
by males and over-represents professions and those involved in law enforcement.
The second step examines what viewers absorb from heavy viewing. Audience
research is then conducted. Respondents are presented with questions concerning
social reality, and asked to check one of either two answers: the television
answer or the real world answer. Lastly, answers are related to the
amount of television watched and responses of large samples of heavy and
light television viewers are then compared. If heavy viewers tend to choose
the television answer, there’s evidence of a cultivation effect.
The basis of cultivation theory is that heavy television viewing "cultivates"
perceptions of reality consistent with the television portrayal of the
world. Television content can shape the views of heavy viewers who then
have exaggerated fears about the level of violence they expect to encounter
in real life. The violence on television makes viewers more afraid, less
perceptive of the real world, and subsequently, more prone to support repression
(i.e. more jails, executions and longer sentences). In a documentary directed
by McGee (1984), Gerbner reports that heavy viewers perceive the world
to be a meaner and more dangerous place than light viewers: "They buy more
guns and more watchdogs. They are more insecure, more apprehensive and
more dependent on authority" (film documentary, On Television:
The cultivation hypothesis has been a major effort to develop a theoretical framework for understanding media effects. Violence is ubiquitous on television, and the increasing amount of time children spend watching television calls for careful attention and serious concern. In a lecture to Science for Peace (July,1995), Gerbner states that "the major influence on children is no longer parents, school, church...and community. The permanent TV environment is a major transformation in the socialization of the species...". While Gerbner is probably the most popular and well-known of social scientists who engage in this research, his theory unfortunately, has been subject to much criticism and debate. Some research findings have failed to support Gerbner’s theory, and others have questioned its methodology and interpretation. Reanalysis of cultivation data has found that the statistical control of variables either reduces or erases cultivation effects. In Dominick’s studies (1987), certain factors such as age, sex, and education are controlled, one factor at a time, and the association between television viewing and perceptions is weakened. When two or more factors are controlled simultaneously, some overall relationships disappear. Hirsch(1980) reports that "the effect of television viewing is clearly minimal when the responses of non-viewers and extreme viewers are analysed separately...when two or more controls were applied simultaneously, it is found the separate and independent effect of TV viewing to be nonexistent"(p.449). A correlation between TV exposure and the beliefs of viewers do not prove there is a causal relationship. Heavy and light TV viewers may differ in other ways than their viewing habits, for example, Doob and MacDonald (1979) found that an apparent relationship between exposure to violence on TV and fear of crime can be explained by the neighbourhood viewers live in. Those who live in high-crime areas are more likely to stay home and watch TV, and believe there is a greater chance of being victimised, compared to those living in low-crime areas (cited in Weaver &Wakshlag p.142). Gerbner et al. suggest two cultivation processes in defence: mainstreaming, when heavy viewers lose differences and become more alike; and resonance, when viewers receive a double dosage, not only seeing real life crime but also seeing it on television. However, Hirsch (1981) states that these concepts are ambiguous, untestable and irrefutable, and that "there is no provision in these reformulations for theory-testing, nor is a means provided by which the cultivation hypothesis could possibly be disconfirmed"(p.28). Others have argued that personality traits are linked to the fear of being victimised: Wober (1986) concluded that it was not "television viewing that constructed a fearful view of the world as much as an underlying personality disposition that produces this feeling" (cited in Rubin et al, p.109). Dominick(1987) suggests that rather than heavy television viewing causing people to be more fearful, it may be that fearful people are drawn to staying home and watching more television (p.508). Hawkins&Pingree (1983) suggest a "reciprocal relationship": that television viewing causes a social reality to be constructed in a particular way, but this construction of social reality may also direct viewing behaviour (cited in McQuail1994, p.365). Hirsch (1980) argues that if the main proposition of the cultivation theory is correct, then evidence of a cultivation effect should be strongest amongst viewers who watch the greatest amount of television, and nonexistent among those who do not watch. However, his analysis of the same data that Gerbner used revealed that non-viewers "cultivated" television-like beliefs more strongly than the heaviest viewers. People who watch no television turn out to be "more fearful, alienated, or anomic than those classified as light, medium or heavy viewers" (p419). Gerbner(1978) has been criticised for the assumption that the world presented on television is uniform across programs and across time (cited in Potter &Chang1990 p314). Instead of total viewing alone, the kinds of programs viewed should be examined: Potter and Chang(1990) argue that it is possible for a person to watch TV and see very little violence because of the large differences in levels of violence across the programs. Hawkins and Pingree (1981) measured TV viewing in terms of different genres of programming and found different effects for the different types of programs (cited in Potter, 1991 p.96). Gerbner et al. also state that "television audiences view largely non selectively and by the clock rather than by the program. Television viewing is a ritual, like a religion, except that it is attended to more regularly" (cited in Potter 1993, p.571). However, there is evidence that people do view selectively: Dobrow (1990) reports that "heavier viewers of television used their VCRs to concentrate on their viewing. The lighter viewers used their VCRs to diversify their total media content..."(p.78) Researchers have suggested other difficulties with Gerbner’s studies. One such problem concerns what the "television answer" should be. Potter(1991) suggests that it is critical for cultivation studies that this term be correctly defined, as it has not always been clear what the "television answer" is. There is a real question about whether typical viewers define television events the same way as social scientists do when they conduct their content analysis (p96). It is, therefore, likely that a concept of violence is defined differently by each viewer. Another problem is asking viewers for their estimations of crime statistics. Doob and MacDonald(1979) note there is evidence of a cultivation effect with social questions, but less so with personal questions (cited in Chandler,1995). Wober & Gunter (1986) suggest that some people tend to overestimate both their chances of victimisation and television exposure, thereby, resulting in a cultivation effect. It has also been suggested by Hirsch (1980) that negatively-phrased questionnaire items are more likely to yield cultivation effects than positively-phrased ones (cited in Rubin et al, p109). Condry (1989) makes the point that viewers don’t usually use people on television for "social comparison". If they did, the heaviest viewers would be most concerned about their health and weight, which they are in the least concerned about (cited in Chandler,1995). In addition, people’s attitudes are likely to be influenced not only by television, but by other media, other people and experiences. The mass media is only one of eight major agents of socialisation, and television is only one channel. If the same messages underlie all popular media, then a light viewer may still be strongly influenced through exposure to television via other mass media (Potter1993). Gerbner and his colleagues also fail to answer for unique viewing contexts: some prefer to watch television alone, whilst some watch with others. Potter (1993) suggests that children who watch with parents and siblings most likely have a different exposure condition than those who watch alone. Family values may permeate the viewing as audience members ridicule certain character portrayals and applaud others. Those who watch alone will not experience such a filtering during television viewing (p.590). Other studies suggest that understanding the plot context is important for interpretation of cultivation studies. Zillmann and Wakshlag (1985) suggest that heavy viewing of crime and violence on television can actually reduce apprehension about crime rather than cultivate a fear, because some viewers "see" the crime on television as being punished, and the threat is therefore removed from the viewers’ mind (cited in Potter, 1991, p.97).
Over the years, Gerbner’s cultivation theory has received an array of criticisms
ranging from methodological to conceptual and interpretative weaknesses.
Nevertheless, it has addressed important questions about the social consequences
of television, and has raised public awareness of the fact that programming
is in the hands of few powerful global conglomerates. Not only has Gerbner
been a major contributor to the study of television violence, but more
recently (in addition to studying violence toward animals in television)
has founded The Cultural Environment Movement, calling for the creation
of a better cultural climate around the world. His fervour and genuine
concern perhaps outweighs the suggested weaknesses found in cultivation
theory, an important contribution to the study of television effects.
REFERENCES
|