Daniel Chandler

Cultivation theory (sometimes known as the cultivation hypothesis or cultivation analysis) was a strategy produced by Professor George Gerbner, dean from the Annenberg School of Communications in the College of Pennsylvania. He started the ‘Cultural Indicators’ research study within the mid-1960s, to review whether and just how watching tv is going to influence viewers’ ideas of the items the everyday world is much like. Cultivation research is incorporated in the ‘effects’ tradition. Cultivation theorists reason that television has lengthy-term effects that are small, gradual, indirect but cumulative and significant.

They highlight the results of television viewing around the attitudes as opposed to the conduct of viewers. Heavy watching of television is viewed as cultivating attitudes for in conjuction with the realm of television programmes compared to the everyday world. Watching tv may have a tendency to induce an over-all mindset about violence on the planet, quite aside from any effects it could have in inducing violent conduct. Cultivation theorists separate first order effects (general beliefs concerning the everyday world, for example concerning the prevalence of violence) and 2nd order effects (specific attitudes, for example to law and order in order to personal safety).

Gerbner argues the media cultivate attitudes and values that are already contained in a culture: the press maintain and propagate these values among people of the culture, thus binding it together. He’s contended that television has a tendency to cultivate middle-of-the- road political perspectives. And Gross belief that ‘television is really a cultural arm from the established industrial order and therefore serves mainly to keep, stabilize and reinforce instead of to change, threaten or weaken conventional beliefs and behaviours’ (1977, in Boyd- Barrett & Braham 1987, p. 100).

This type of function is conservative, but heavy viewers have a tendency to regard themselves as ‘moderate’.

Cultivation research compares the media like a socializing agent and investigates whether television viewers arrived at believe the tv form of reality the greater they see it. Gerbner and the colleagues contend that television drama includes a small but significant affect on the attitudes, beliefs and judgements of viewers in regards to the social world. The main focus is on heavy viewers. Individuals who watch lots of television could be more affected by the ways that the planet is presented by television programmes than are those who watch less, especially regarding topics which the viewer has little first-hands experience. Light viewers might have more resources than heavy viewers. Judith van Evra argues that due to inexperience, youthful viewers may rely on television for information greater than other viewers do (van Evra 1990, p. 167), although Hawkins and Pingree reason that some children might not notice a cultivation effect whatsoever where they don’t understand motives or effects (reported by van Evra, ibid.). It might be that lone viewers tend to be more available to a cultivation effect than individuals who view with other people (van Evra 1990, p. 171).

Television is viewed by Gerbner as dominating our ‘symbolic environment’.

As McQuail and Windahl note, cultivation theory presents television as ‘not a window on or reflection around the globe, however a world in itself’ (1993, p. 100). Gerbner contended the over-representation of violence on tv is really a symbolic message about law and order as opposed to a simple reason for more aggressive conduct by viewers (as Bandura contended). For example, the experience- adventure genre functions to strengthen a belief in law and order, the established order and social justice (baddies usually obtain just dessert).

Since 1967, Gerbner and the colleagues happen to be analysing sample days of prime-some time and daytime television programming. Cultivation analysis usually requires the correlation of information from content analysis (identifying prevailing images on tv) with survey data from audience research (to evaluate any influence of these images around the attitudes of viewers). Content analysis by cultivation theorists seeks to characterize the television world. Such analysis shows not just that the television world is much more violent compared to everyday world, but additionally, for example, that television is covered with males and also over-represents the professions and individuals involved with police force.

Audience research by cultivation theorists involves asking large-scale public study organizations to incorporate in their national surveys queries about such issues as the quantity of violence in everyday existence. Solutions are construed as reflecting either the field of television or those of everyday existence. Respondents are requested such questions as: What number of all males who’ve jobs operate in police force or crime recognition? Could it be 1 % or 10 %?. On American TV, about 12 % of male figures hold such jobs, contributing to 1 % of males operate in the united states during these jobs, so 10 % will be the TV answer and 1 % will be the real-world answer (Dominick 1990, p. 512).

Solutions will be associated with the quantity of television viewed, other media habits and demographic data for example sex, age, earnings and education. The cultivation hypothesis involves predicting or expecting heavy television viewers to provide more TV solutions than light viewers. The responses of a lot of heavy viewers are in contrast to individuals of sunshine viewers. A inclination of heavy viewers to select TV solutions is construed as proof of a cultivation effect.

Inside a survey of approximately 450 Nj schoolchildren, 73 percent of heavy viewers when compared with 62 percent of sunshine viewers gave the television response to an issue asking to estimate the amount of people involved with violence inside a typical week. Exactly the same survey demonstrated that youngsters who have been heavy viewers were more fearful about walking alone inside a city during the night. Additionally they overestimated the amount of individuals who commit serious crimes (Dominick 1990, p. 512). One controlled experiment addressed the problem of expected outcomes, governing the viewing of yankee university students to produce heavy- and lightweight-viewing groups. After 6 days of controlled viewing, heavy viewers of action-adventure programmes were indeed discovered to be more frightened of existence within the everyday world than were light viewers (ibid. p. 513).

Cultivation theorists would be best recognized for their study of television and viewers, especially for any concentrate on the subject of violence. However, some research has also considered other media out of this perspective, and also have worked with topics for example gender roles, age ranges, ethnic groups and political attitudes. Research of yankee university students discovered that heavy soap opera viewers were much more likely than light viewers to in excess of-estimate the amount of real-existence couples who’d matters or who was simply divorced and the amount of ladies who had abortions (Dominick 1990, p. 512).

The main difference within the pattern of responses between light and high viewers (when other variables are controlled), is called the ‘cultivation differential’, reflecting the extent that a mindset appears to become formed by watching tv. Seniors are usually portrayed negatively on tv and high viewers (especially more youthful ones) have a tendency to hold more negative views about seniors than lighter viewers. Most heavy viewers are not aware associated with a influence of television viewing on their own attitudes and values.

Cultivation theorists reason that heavy viewing leads viewers (even among high educational/high earnings groups) to possess more homogeneous or convergent opinions than light viewers (who generally have more heterogeneous or divergent opinions). The cultivation aftereffect of television viewing is among ‘levelling’ or ‘homogenizing’ opinion. Gerbner and the associates reason that heavy viewers of violence on tv arrived at think that the incidence of violence within the everyday world is greater compared to light viewers of comparable backgrounds. They label this a mainstreaming effect.

Misjudging the quantity of violence in society may also be known as the ‘mean world syndrome’. Heavy viewers have a tendency to think that the planet is really a harder place compared to light viewers. Pingree and Hawkins (1981, reported in Condry 1989, p. 127) studied 1,280 primary schoolchildren (second-eleventh grade) around australia using viewing diaries and questionnaires. They discovered that heavy viewing brought to some ‘television-biased’ look at Australia like a ‘mean and violent’ place. The kids using the bleakest picture of Australia were individuals who most viewed American crime adventure programmes. Oddly, they didn’t judge the united states towards the same extent by these programmes.

Gerbner reported evidence for ‘resonance’ – a ‘double dose’ effect which might boost cultivation. This really is held to happen once the viewers everyday existence encounters are congruent with individuals portrayed within the television world. For example, since on tv women are that appears to be victims of crime, women heavy viewers suffer from the typical heavy viewer mainstreaming effect but they are also brought to feel especially fearful on their own as women. The cultivation effect can also be contended to become most powerful once the viewer’s neighbourhood is comparable to that proven on tv. Crime on tv is basically urban, so urban heavy viewers are susceptible to a dual dose, and cultivation theorists reason that violent content ‘resonates’ more on their behalf. The most powerful results of heavy viewing on attitudes to violence could be among individuals within the high crime regions of metropolitan areas.

Criticisms of cultivation theory

Cultivation theory provides a very plausible situation, specifically in its focus on the significance of mediation as well as on the symbolic purpose of television in the cultural context. However, the idea is susceptible to numerous criticisms. Gerbner continues to be belittled for more than-simplification. Denis McQuail argues that it’s nearly impossible to manage convincingly using the complexity of posited relationships between symbolic structures, audience conduct and audience views, because of the many intervening and effective social background factors’ (in Boyd-Barrett & Braham 1987, pp. 99-100). Our attitudes could be influenced not just by TV, but by other media, by direct experience, by others, and so forth.

A correlation between television exposure and also the beliefs of viewers don’t, obviously, prove that there’s a causal relationship, even though it might point to the potential of one. There might be a another common factor influencing the apparently connected ones. Hawkins and Pingree couldn’t find conclusive evidence of the direction from the relationship between television viewing and viewers’ ideas about social reality. Instead of heavy TV viewing leading individuals to become more fearful, it might be more fearful individuals are attracted to watching more television than others. There can be a reciprocal relationship: ‘television viewing leads to a social reality to become built inside a particular way, however this construction of social reality might also direct viewing behaviour’ (Hawkins & Pingree 1983, reported in McQuail & Windahl 1993, p. 101). In almost any situation, surveys cannot establish causation.

Cultivation research does steer clear of the artificiality of laboratory experiments – it is dependant on normal viewing on the lengthy period – but it’s susceptible to the typical criticisms of both content analysis and surveys.

Some research has proven that careful controls of numerous variables have a tendency to reduce and sometimes eliminate cultivation effects. Doob and MacDonald (1979, reported in Condry 1989, p. 130) are convinced that in study regarding the subject of violence, controls for neighbourhood were more reliable compared to controls for earnings utilized by Gerbner. Hirsch (1980, reported in Livingstone 1990, p. 16), contended that the apparent relationship between contact with violence on tv and anxiety about crime could be described through the neighbourhood viewers reside in. Individuals who reside in high-crime areas are more inclined to stay home watching television also to believe they have a larger possibility of being attacked than are individuals in low-crime areas. Cultivation theorists do have a tendency to underplay the reality that heavy and lightweight viewers do vary in different ways additionally for their TV viewing habits, for example in age, sex and education.

Pingree & Hawkins have contended that breakdowns by content type tend to be more helpful than measures of total viewing, because viewers are selective. More particularly content-based measures would show more powerful correlations in cultivation analysis (Condry 1989, p. 128). Over- reliance upon content analysis misses subtleties and assumes that meaning resides ‘in’ television programmes (although Gerbner does highlight connotative instead of denotative meaning unlike many in ‘effects’ tradition). Also, different genres – as well as different programmes – lead towards the shaping of various realities, but cultivation analysis assumes an excessive amount of homogeneity in television programmes (though some commentators would reason that there’s growing homogeneity in television programmes which might result in the cultivation situation more powerful).

Asking viewers for his or her estimations of crime statistics is really a crude way of measuring their beliefs about crime. Doob & MacDonald observe that there’s proof of a cultivation effect with social questions (e.g. ‘How many muggings have there been inside your neighbourhood this past year?’) but less so with personal questions (e.g. ‘Are you scared of being mugged?’). Even poor a symbolic function, some critical theorists go beyond cultivation theorists, quarrelling for example the relative lack of female figures on tv is really a symbolic statement regarding their insufficient importance in current social reality: women are ‘symbolically annihilated’.

Condry (1989, p. 139) makes the reality that viewers seldom use people on tv for ‘social comparison’. We’re not worried by contrasts between how people on tv look and live and exactly how we all do. When we were, then your heaviest viewers could be most worried about the look of them, health insurance and weight because television actresses and actors are usually youthful, thin and engaging. However the heaviest viewers are actually least worried about their own health and weight.

There’s relatively little proof of cultivation effects outdoors the united states. Wober (1978, reported in Condry 1989, p. 130) found no British proof of a hyperlink between heavy viewing and insecurity. But this can be because there’s less violence on British television than in the united states, and Condry shows that there might be a vital degree of the televisual distortion of social reality prior to it being reflected within the attitudes of viewers. Or it might be that Britain includes a more diverse media culture.

Newer theories stressing the active viewer downplay the strength of television to help viewers that is assumed by cultivation theory. Cultivation theory concentrates on the quantity of television viewing or ‘exposure’, and doesn’t permit variations within the ways that viewers interpret television realities. Viewers don’t always passively accept as ‘real’ the things they see on tv. Television programmes are available to different interpretations. The quality of identification with figures by viewers may play a role. Motivations to see also vary greatly. Frederick Dominick comments that folks who watch television only to pass time or since it turns into a habit seem to be more affected than people whose viewing is planned and motivated (Dominick 1990, p. 514).

Cultivation theorists have a tendency to ignore the significance of the social dynamics of television use. Interacting factors for example developmental stages, viewing experience, general understanding, gender, ethnicity, viewing contexts, family attitudes and socio-economic background all lead to shaping the ways that television is construed by viewers. Once the viewer has some direct resided experience with the topic this might have a tendency to reduce any cultivation effect.

There’s some evidence that lower socio-economic groups have a tendency to view television like a resource greater than other groups, however the viewer’s framing of television ‘reality’ must also be looked at here. It’s frequently contended that cultivation might be enhanced once the viewer interprets the information of programmes to become realistic sceptical viewers may be not as likely to become affected. There’s some evidence that ethnic minorities exhibit more sophistication in ‘perceived reality’ than the others do (van Evra 1990, p. 169). There’s also evidence that working class moms are more inclined to read the realism of programmes offering negative depictions of undesirable conduct to discourage such conduct, whereas middle-class moms may makes less directive comments.

References

• Boyd-Barrett, Oliver & Peter Braham (eds.) (1987): Media, Understanding & Power. London: Croom Helm
• Condry, John (1989): The Psychology of Television. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
• Dominick, Frederick R. (1990): The Dynamics of Mass Communication. New You are able to: McGraw-Hill
• Evra, Judith van (1990): Television and Child Development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
• Livingstone, Sonia (1990): Making Feeling of Television. London: Pergamon
• McQuail, Denis & Sven Windahl (1993): Communication Models for study regarding Mass Communication. London: Longman

Daniel Chandler, UWA

This site continues to be utilized occasions since 18th September 1995.