11. tfden - KultivaEni teorie
PovinnB Eetba:
- Gerbner, G.: Toward ,,cultural indicators'" the analysis of mass mediated
public message systems. In: AllenW.D. (ed.): AV Communication Review. Vol
17,no. 2, pp. 137-48.
- Morgan, M., Signorielli,N.: Cultivati.oaAnalysis. Sage 1990str. 13- 34.
KliEovC pojmy: medialni kultivace, kulti~acizidgerencidl, mainstreaming,
rezonance.
GRAPICKE PULOHY:
Graf E. 1 Mainstreming
1 . ,
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
Toward 'cultural indicators': the analysis
of mass mediated public message
systems
From Allen, W.I?, (ed.) (1969)AV CortrnlzlnicatiorlReview,Department of
Audiovisual Instruction, Washington DC, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 137-48.
'I'liesystematic analysis of message content is a traditional area of study in
cornrnunication research and related fields. Recent deyelopments led to a
revival of interest 'in the area. But none of the new frameworks and
approaches presented consider the analysis of message systems addressed
to heterogeneous and anonymous publics, such as mass communications,
a source af theoretical development not necessarilygenerated in other areas
ofintcrcst.The purpose of this paper is to suggest an approach that justifies
such developmentand can alsolead to results of practical policy sigruhcance,
such asaschemeofsocialaccountingfortrendsin the compositionandstructure
of mass-mediated public message systems. The approach is based on a
conccptionof these message systemsas the common culture through which
communities cultivate shared and public notions about facts, values, and
conlingcncies of human existence.
Change in the symbolic environment
i awareness and cultivationofthe issues,siyles,and points a[ divcrgenctl Illat
I make public contention and contest possible.The struggles for power a11i.i
privilege, for participation in the conduct of affairs, for lllc rcdistribulion
of resources,and for all formsof social recapition and juslicc, are increasingly
sl~iftirlgfrom the older arenas to the newer spheres of public attention and
control in mass-produced communications.)
Selectivehabits of participation in one's ct.ilturalenvironment limit each
of us to risky, and often faulty, extrapolation about the cultural experience
of heterogeneous communities. Informed policy making and the valiri
interpretation of social response increasingly require gcner~land cornpar-
ative indicators of the prevailing climate of the man-made syniholic
i
environment.But knowledge of a message system,overand above that which
we selectforour own informationor entertwent,and which has significance
for a collectivity such as an entire cultural community, cannot be given ill
the lifetime experience of any single person.
What con be given is a representative abstraction from 111c colleclivcly
experienced total texture of messages, relevant to certain investigative
purposes. Sampling is not the major problem, and neithcr is Ihc efficient
processingof largequantitiesof data, although these are important procedural
considerations. Nor is great theoretical challenge involved In Lhe analysis
ofmassmediamessagesforspeaficaitical,control,evduative,or policy purpox.;.
The outstanding problems are the development of a generalized schcnic
applicable to the investigation of the broadest terms of collectivecultivalion
in differentcultural communities,and making these termssalientto clenients
of existencerepresented in public message systems.Philosophers,historians,
anthropologists, and others have, of course, addressed themselves to such
problems before. But the tise of the institutionalized and corporately
managed cultivationof collectiveconsciousnessby mass media hasgiven a new
urgency and socialpoticy signihcanceto the inquiry,
-5
Cultivation of public cansclousness through mass communication
'I'he 'Cultural Revolution' is not only a Chinese slogan. It is~alsoa fact of
social life whenever a particular political-industrial order permeates the
sphere of public message production. A change in the social bases and
economic goals of message mass-production leads, sooner or later, to a
transformation of the common symbolic environment that gives public
meaning and sense ofdirection to human activity. The need is for a theory
that can lead to the development of 'cultural indicators' taking the pulse
of the nature and tempo of that transformation.
Our theoretical point of departure, then, is that changes in the mass
production and rapid distribution of messages across previous barriers of
time, space,and social groupingbring about systematic variations in public
message coptent whose full significance rests in the cultivation of
collcctivc consciousness about elements of existence. (It should be noted
at the outset that the terms con~rtron,shnred, public, or collective cultivation
do rrot necessarily mean consensus. On the contrary, the public
rccognitio~tof subcultural; class, generational, and ideological difference^
even conflictsamong scatteredgroupsof people requiressomecommon
I A A
A word on cultiuntion. I use the term to indicate that my primary concern
in this discussion is not with information, education, persuasion, ctc., or
with any kind of direct communication 'effects'. I am concerned with the
collectivecontextwithin which, and in response to which, differentindividual
and group selectionsand interpretations of messages take place, In thal sense,
a message(ormessage system)cultivatesconscio~snessof the terms reqtlirecl
forits meaningful perception. Whether I accept its 'meaning' or not, like it
or not, or agree or disagree, is another problem. First l n~ustatlend to and
grasp what it is about. Just how that occurs, how items of information are
integrated into given frameworksof cognition, is alsoanother problem. My
interest here centres on the fact that any attention arid understanding
dltivates the terms upon which it is achieved,And to the considerableextent
to which these terms are common to large groups, the cultivation of sharccl
terms provides the basis for public inleraction.
Ptiblic is another word of special significancehere, It means both a quality
of information and 'an amophous social structure whose members sl~area
community-of-interestwhich hasbeen produced by impersonalcon~munication
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
afldcontact' (Gould and Kolb, 1964, p. 558).As a quality of information, the response. For example, it means little to know that 'Johl\ believes in Sa,
awarenessthat a certain ilem of knowledge is publicly held (i.e,not only known Claus' until we also know in what culture, at what point in time, and in thcto many,brrt curnmot~lykr~ozurltltnt it is known to tnnny)makescollectivethought context of what public message systems cultivating the rcinforccment or
and action possible. Such knowledge gives individuals their awareness of I
inhibitionof suchbeliefs.Similarly,interpretationsofpublic opinion (i.e.rcsponses
collective strength (or weakness), and a feeling of social identifilzation or toquestionselicitedin specificculturalcontats),ahd of many socialand cultural
alienation As an 'amorphous social structure, etc,' a public is a basic unit of policy matters,require ~e background knowledgeofgeneral'cultural i~~diators'
and requirementforself-governmentamongdiverseand scattered groupsThe similarto the economicindicatorscompiled to guide economic policy ancl the
creationof both the consciousnessand the socialstructurecalled public is the social indicators proposed to informsocial policy making.
result ofthe'public-making' activityapproximately named publication.'Public What distinguishes the analysis of public, mass-mediated n~essagcopinion' isactuallythe outcomeof somesortofelicitingand someprivate vie~vs systems as a socialscientificenterprise from other types of observation,corn-through Fhcir publication -as in the publication of polls.
mentary, or criticism is the attempt to deal comprehensively,systematically,
Publication as a general social process is the creation and cultivation of and generally rather than specificallyand selectivelyor nil /rocwith problen~s
shared ways of selecting and viewing events and aspects of life. Mass of collective cultural life, This approach makes no prior assumptions about
production and distribution of message systems transformsselected private
pcrspectives into broad public perspectives, and brings mass publics into
existence.?'hese publics are maintained through continued publication.They
arc supplied with selections of information and entertainment, factsand
fiction, news and fantasy or 'escape' materials which are considered
important or interesting or entertaining and profitable (or all of these) in
tcrms of the perspectives to be cultivated.
Publication is thus the basis of community consciousness and self-
government among large groups of people too numerous or too dispersed
to interact faceto faceor in any other personally mediated fashion.The huly
revolutionary significance of moderri mass communication is its 'public-
making' ability.That is the ability to fonn historically new bases forcollective
thought and action quickly,tontinuously, and pervasively across previous
boundaries of time, space, and culture.
?'he tcrms ofbroadest socialinteractionarethoseavailablein the most widely
shared message systems of a culture. Increasingly these are mass-produced
messagesystems.?hat iswhy mass media havebeencalled the'agenda-setters'
ofmodern societyWhetherone iswidely conversantwith orunaware of large
portions of them, supportive or critic4 of them, or even alienated from or
rebellious ofthem, the terms of the culture shape the course of the response.
The approach I am suggesting is, therefore, concerned with the overall
patterns and boundary conditions within which the processesof individual
cognition, message utilization, and social interaction occur.The approach is
directed toward answering the most general questions about the broadest
terms of collective concept-formation, given in mass-produced public
messagesystems.What perspectivesand whatchoicesdothey make available
to entire communities over time, across cultures, and in different societies?
With what kindsand proportion^ ofpropertiesand qualitiesare thesechoices
\veighted?What are the underlying structures of associationinlargemessage
systems that are not apparent in their separate component units?
The need for 'cultural ihdicators'
Wc nced to know what general termsof collectivecultivation about existence,
pr-ioril~rs,values, and relationships are given in collectively shared public
message systemsbeforewe can reliably interpret factsofindividualand social
suchconventionally demarcated. functionsas'in formation' and 'entertainment,'
or'high culture' and 'low culture'. Styleofexpression,quality of reprezntation,
dsticexcellence,or thequalityof individualexperienceassociatedwith selective
exposae toand participation inmasscultural activityarenot consideredaitical
for this purpose. What is informative,entertaining (orboth), good,
bad, or indifferentby any standard of quality are selectivejudgements applied
to messagesquiteindependently from thesocialfunctiopsthey ach~allyperform
in the context of large message systems touching the collective life of a whole
community. Conventional and formal judgements applied to sclccted
cammunications may be irrelevant to general questions about the
presentation ofwhat is, what is itnportant,what is right, and what is lelnted to
what in mass-produced composite message systems.
Non-relevance of some conventional distinctions
Justaswe-m&e noa priori assumptions about the significanceof style,quality,
and subjectiveexperienceassociated with different types of messagesystems,
we do not recognize the validity of conventional distinctions of function
attached to non-fictional vs fictional modes of presentation. 'Fact' may be
stranger than fiction, and the veracity of 'fiction' greater than that of the
presumably fadual. Regardlessof verisimilitude,credibility,or what isactually
'believed' in a presentation, message systemscultivate the terms upon which
they present subjects or aspects of life.There is no reason for assuming that
the cultivationof these terms depends in any significantway upon the mode
ofpresentation, upon agreement or disagreement with or belief or disbelief
in the presentations involved, or upon whether these presentations arc
presu~ablyfactual or imaginary. This does not mean, of course, that we
d~ not normally attach greater credibility to a news story, a presumably
factual report, a trusted source, a familiar account, than to a fairy tale or to
what we regard as falseor inimical.What it does mean is that in the general
process of image formation and cultivation, fact and fable play equally
significant and inter-related roles.
There is, however, an Important differencebetween the ways fiction and
non-fiction deal with life. Reportage, exposition, explanation, argun~ent-
whether based on fact, fancy, opinion, or all of these -ordinarily deal wilt^
aspects of life or thought extracted from total situations. \.Yf~ntgivcs
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
12 cultivalion Analysis
lion of cultivation analysis to sludy a distinct religious subculture, the
h'fcnnonitcs (Chnpfcr 8).
'l'ltc next several chapters focus on the application of cultivation
~hcoryand analysis in inlernational and intercultural contexts. In Chap-
ter 9, Ron Tamborini and Jeonghwa Choi examine the role of cultural
diversity in cultivation research using findings from a number of studies
conduc~cdon samples of foreign-born respondents in the United States
itnd mernbcrs of other cultures. Then, Bo Reimer and Karl Erik Rosen-
grcn (Chrplcr 10) examine cultivation from a Swedish perspective,
iipplying a life-style framework to study cultivation and human values.
la Chapter 11, Mallory Wober discusses a number of different studies
that altcmpt lo apply aspects of cultivation theory and analysis in Great
Oritsin in a similar vein, Michael Morgan (Chapter 12) explores culti-
v;ition analysis in the international setting, using findings from samples
of rcspondcnts from Argentina, the People's Republic of China, and
South Korea.
Finally, George Gerbner, the "founding father" of cultivation theory,
plcscnts an cpilogue in which he reflects on some of the advances
dcacribcd in the book and develops what he sees as the most appropriate
i~gcndafor cultivation analysts to Dursue.
-.
Overall, this collection provides a broad glimpse into the ways
cultivation analysis has evolved on both micro and macro levels. We
hope thc book advances the important role that the theory, methods, and
iindings of cultivation analysis have played and will continue to play
i l l communication rescarch,
CultivationAnalysis:
Conceptualization arzd Methodology
MICHAEL MORGAN
and
NANCY SIGNORIELLI
We are a niass mediated society. The mass media, especially television,
play important, if often invisible and taken-for-granted, roles in our
daily lives. Television sets are usually placed in prominent positions in
our homes, whetherin the family room, the living room, the kitchen,
the bedroom, or all of the above. Few can remember, or care to remem-
ber, what life was like before television.
Each day, in the average American household, a television set is
turned on for over 7 hours. Individual family members watch it for
about 3 hours. Children and older people watch the most; adolescents
\yam11the least, but even they view an average of 20 or more hours each
wcck. Although most Americans report that they read a daily news-
paper, television is often cited as their major source of news and
infatmation.
Television has become our nation's (and increasingly the world's)
rilost r:omfnon and constant learning environment, It both (selectively)
mifkors and leads soqiety. Television is first and foremost, however, a
storyteller- it tells most of the stories to most of the people most of the
tihe, As such, television is the wholesale distributor of images and
forhjthe mainstream of our popular cplture. Our children are born into
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
shape, hrcus, and purpose lo the non-fictional mode of presentation isthat
it is ana\y\ica\: it imp\i<it\y ot%an'k.es the uniuexsei n i ~classesok s~b\ecls
and \~$\cs,anhi1 devotesprimary attenkionto one or more of these subjects
and topics.
The Lsual purpose of the fictional and dramatic modes of presentation
is to present situations rather than fragments of knowledge as such. The
focus is on people in action; subjects and topics enter as they become
significant to the situations.
From the point of view of the analysis of elements of existence, values,
and relationships inherent in large message systems, Action and drama
thns offer special opportunities. Here an aspect of life, an area of know-
ledge, or the operation of a social enterprise appears imaginatively re-created
in its significant associations with total human situations. The requirements
that make the treatment of specificsubjectssecondary to the requirements
OItelling a 'good story' might make the treatment of those subjects more
revealing of the underlying assumptions cultivated in the story-telling
process.
It should be stressed again that the characteristics of4amessage system
are not necessarily the characteristics of individual units composing the
system. The purpose of the study of a system as systemis to reveal features,
processes, and relationships expressed in the whole, not in its parts. Unlike
most literary or dramatic criticism, or, in fact, most personal cultural
participation and judgement, this approach to message system analysis
focuses on the record of institutional behaviour in the cultural field,
and on the dynamics of message-production and image cultivation in
a community but not necessarily in selective personal experience and
rcsporlse.
The systems with which we deal contain images and motion as well as
words. This places great demands on methods of recording and notation,
and challenges the ingenuity of the scientificanalyst. Because of the necessity
to abstract propositional forms from statements made in a variety of modes,
methods of analysis must rely on explicitly formulated rules and
prwcdures. But there is no reason to assume that the system-theoretic notions
developed by Rapoport (in press) are not as applicable to these as to other
'large corpuses of verbal data'. Rapoport's description of man's 'ocean of
words' provides a vivid rationale for the studyof the process in which mass
produced messages play a key part:
- -
Justas all living organisms live in certain specialized environments to which
they adapt and which completely determinestheir lives so do human beings
live to a significant extent in an ocean of words. The difference lies in the
fact that the human environment is to a large extent man made. we secrete
words into the environment around us just as we secretecarbon dioxide and
in doing so, we create an invisible semantic environmentof words which is
part of our existencein quiteas important ways as the physical environment.
The content of verbal output does not merely passively reflect the complex
social, political, and economicreality of the human race; it interactswith it as
well. As our semanticenvironment incorporates the verbal outputs secreted
into it, it becomes both enriched and polluted, and these changesare in large
measure r&ponsible for the Fourse of human history. It behooves us to study
this process.
I
\ yarms of the ana\ys\s
\
Tne approach neededis\ha\capableot abshachgandana\yi\n~\\\emos\
general terms ofcultivation given in mass produced public message systems.
I Generality is necessary to encompass many specific classes of slalements
and diverse investigative purposes within comparable terms of the same
I
framework. But this kind of generality implies a high level of abstractior!
and selection which, in turn, arises from a cop~eptionof salience to some
!
1 general investigative purpose. As 1have already noted, the present purpose
is not governed by direct interest in sources as senders or in interpreters
i as receiversof messages. It is, however, governed by interest in the cultivation
of comciousness of elements of existenceinferred from publicmessage syslems.
I
0th-task isto combinegeneralitywith salienceto the compositionand strlrclure
of knowledge given in large-scale message systems addressed to collective
social entities.
We begin by defining such knowledge as propositions ex pressed in the
images, actions and language ofthe most widely shared (i.e.mass-produced
and rapidly distributed)message systems ofa culture. Elementsofexistence
refer to the assumptions, contexts, points of view, and relationships
represented in these message systems and made explicit in the analysis.
A summary of the questions, measures, and terms of general analysis of
public message systems appears in Fig. 18.1.The questions relate tu the
- Brief
Measuresand explanations ofI
Questions Definitions terms of analysis qiestions
1. What is? Public assump- Distribution, What things (or
tions about frequency of kinds of
. - - existence attention things)does this
2, What is
important?
syste,ncall to Lhe
attention of
a community?
Contextof Ordering, In what context
priorities scaling, for or order of
empknsis in~portanceare
these things
arranged?
3. Whrit is Point of view, Measures of In what light or
right, etc.? affective diffefenlial
fromwhat
qualities tcndency I~olntot view are
these things
presented?
4, What is related to Proximal or C~ntingencies, in what structure
what? logical clnstering associationswith
associations slriiclitrr one another are
these things
presented?
i Fig. 18.1. Questions and terms of public message systenl analysis
I
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
1 0 Conccptualizution and Methodology MlCHAEL MORGAN and NANCY SIGNORIELIA
. .
thc Nnlional Scicnce Foundation, the Ad Hoc Committee on Religfous
'I'clcvision Rcscarch, and other agencies.
Al~lioughthose carly cfforts (and many published reports) focused
primarily on the nature and functions of television violence, the CU19
lural Indicators project was broadly based from the outset. Even vio.
lcnce was studied as a demonstralion of the distribution of power in the
worlJ of tclcvision, with serious implications for the confirmation and
perpetuation of minority status in thc real world (Gerbner et al., 1979;
Morgan, 1983), and the project continued to take into account a wide
rangc of topics, issues, and concerns. The Cultural Indicators research
tc;lm has investigated the extent to which television viewing contributes
to audience conceptions and actions in such realms as sex roles (Gerb-
ncr LQ Signorielli, 1979; Morgan, 1982; Signorielli, 19891, age-tole
stereotypes (Gerbner et al., 1980), health (Gzrbner, Morgan, & Sig-
noriclli, 1982), science (Gerbner et al., 1981d), the family (~erbnef
ct al., 1 9 8 0 ~ ) ~cdueational achievement and aspirations (Morgan &
Gross, IgSZ), politics (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1982,
19S4), religion (Gerbner et al., 1984), and many other issues (sea
Gcrbner ct al., 1986).
Thc mathods and asslrmptions behind cultivation analysis are differ-
cnt from those traditionally employed in mass communication research,
Kcscarcl~and debate on the impact of mass communication has often
focused on individual messages, programs, episodes, series, or genre$
and thcir ability to produce immediate change in audience attitudcs and
behaviors. Cultivation analysis is concerned with the more general and
pcrvasivc consdqucnces of cumulative exposure to cultural media. It9
underlying theordtical framework could be applied to any dominant
form of communication. Most cultivation analyses, however, haye
focuscd on tclevjsion because of the mediuv's uniquely repetitive
and pcrv~~sivemessage characteristics and its dominance among other
media ill the United States.
Cultivation analysis generally begins with identifying and assessing
thc most recurrent and stable patterns in television content, emphasizt-
ing thc consistent images, portrayals, and values that cut across most
program genrcs. In its simplest form, cultivation analysis tries to ascer*
lain if those who spend morc time watching television arc more likely
lo perccivc the real world io ways that reflect the most common and
rcpctitivc messages and lessons of the television World, compared with
pcoplc who watch less television but are otherwise comparable in
irnportunl dc~nographiccharacteristics.
People who regularly watclr a great deal of tclcvision d~tferfron~
light vicwers in many ways. Alth~ughall social groups include 1301i1
heavy and light viewers (relative to Lhc group as a whole). there are
overall differences between heavy and light viewers according to seh,
income, education, occupation, race, time use, souial isolntionlintegra-
tion, and a host of other demographic and social variables, But there are
also differences in terms of the extent to which television dominates
their sources of consciousness. Cultivation theory assunles that lighr
viewers tend to be exposed to more varied and diverse informat~orl
sources (both mediated and interpersonal), while hcavy \'irwers. 11.:
definition, tend to rely more on television.
,
The goal of cultivation analysis is to determine \rphethcrdiffercncej
in the attitudes, beliefs, and actions of light and heavy viewers rcflccr
differences in their viewing patterns and habits, independent of (or i n
interaction with) the social, cultural, and personal f;~c!orsthat differen-
tiate light and heavy vicwers. Thus, cultivation analysis attempts to
document and anglyze the independent contributions of talevis~onvicw-
ing to viewers' conceptions of social reality. The chaptcrs in this book
vividly demonstrate that we have come a long way toward Illis goal: at
the same time, the more work that is done, tllc morc cnmplcx the
questions (and the answers) become.
CuIti!!ntiatt+ vs. Change or Effects
The vast bulk of scientiiic inquiry about television's social impact
can be seen as directly descended from thc theoretical models and thc
methodological procedures of marketing and attitude change rcse;ircl~,
Large amounts of time, energy, and money have been spcnt in attempts
to determine how to change people's attitudes or behaviors. I'coplc
believe "X"; how do you get thcm to believe "Y"? Or, pcoplc do "X";
how do you get them to do "Y"? The Xs and Ys have covered such
diverse topics as authoritarianism vs. egalitarianism, onc brand of
toothpaste vs. another, or one political candidate vs. another.
Sometimes a message or campaign works (and so~nelimesI L doesn't),
bllt there is usually little qucstion about what the effect should look like:
an explicit change of one sort or another. The cffccts usually sought are
those that occur immediately or soon aftercxposurp to a single, spcciric
message, often in a rciatively artificial context of exposurc and for sub-
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
14 Conceptualizalion and Methodology
homes in which, for the first time in human history, a centralized
commercial institution rather than parents, the church, or the school
tclls most of the stories. The world of television shows and tells us about
life: people, places, striving, power, and fate. It presents both the good
and bad, the happy and sad, the powerful and the weak, and lets us know
wlio or what is successful or a failure.
As with the functions of culture in general, the substance of the
consciousness cultivated by television is not so much composed of
specific attitudes and opinions as it is by broad, underlying, global
assumptions about lhe "facts" of life. Television is only one of the many
things that serve to explain the world; yet television is special because
its socially constructed version of reality bombards all classes, groups,
and ages with the same perspectives at the sape time. The views of (lie
world embedded in television drama do not differ appreciably from
images presented in other media, and its rules of the soclal hierarchy
are not easily distinguishable from those imparted by other powerful
agents of so~ialization.What makes television unique, however, is its
ability to standardize, streamline, amplify, and share common cultural
norms with virtually all members of society.
Although television has a great deal in common with other medin, it
is different in some important ways. For one thing, people spend far
more lime with television than with other media; more time is spent
watching television than doing anything else besides workirtg and
sleeping, Most people under 35 have been watching television since,
before they could read or probably even speak. Unlike print media,
television does not require literacy; unlike theatrical movies, television
runs almost continuously, and can be watched without leavi~gone's
home; unlike radio, television can show as well as tell. Each of these
characteristics is significant; their combined force is unprecedented and
qverwhelming.
Almost sipce the first television show was broadcast people have
been concerned about the effects of this phenomenal medium, The
popular press and the government ask, What does television do to US?
Parents and teachers wonder whether television makes children ~ q o r ~ j
aggressive or if television helps or hinders learning. Students in both
high school arid college want to study the effects of the mass media but
waul simplg, straightforward answers to questions. Yet, as numerous
comn~unicationscholars have found, the questions are complex and the
anwcrs drc neither simple rior straightforward.
MICHAEL MORGAN and NANCY SIGNORIEI.LI L 5
Cltltivntiorr Analysis
Cultivation analysis is one approach to thcsc broad qhestions. 11
represents a particular set of theoretical ahd methodol~gic~lassump-
tions and procedures designed to assess the contributions of tclcvision
viewing to people's conceptions of social reality. Cultivation analysis
is the third component of a research paradigm called Cultural lrldicators
that inv~stigates(1) the institutional processes underlying thc produc-
tion of media content, (2) images in media content, and (3) rclntionships
between exposure to television's messages and audience bcliefs and
behaviors. Cultivation analysis is what this book is all nbout,
Like so many projects in the history of communications rcsearch.
Cultural Indicators was launched as an independently funded enterprise
in an applied context (Gerbner, 1969). The research began during the
late 1960s, a time of national turmoil after the assassinations of Martin
Luther King and Bobby Kennedy when the National Commission on the
Causes and Prevention of Violence was set up to examine violence in
society, including violence on television (see Baker Sr Ball, 1969). Thc
earliest research of what was eventually to become the Cultural Indica-
tors Project attempted to Bscertain the degree of violence on television;
it documented the extent to which violence predominated most dramatic
television programming, described the nature of this violence, and
established a baseline for long-term monitoring of the world of televi-
sion (see.G_erbner, 1969),
Nationwide unrest continued as did concerns about telivision's irn-
pact on Americans. In 1969, even before the report of the National
Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence was released,
Cangress appropriated one million dollars nnd sct up the Surgcon
General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Tclcvision and Social
Behavior to continue this area of investikation. All together, 23 projccts,
including Cultural Indicators, were funded at this time. Again, Cultural
Indicators research focused primarily on the content of prime-time and
weekend-daytime network dramatic programming (see Gcrbncr, 1972).
The cultivation analysis phase of the Cultural Indicators rescnrch
paradigm was fully implemented with the first national prcrbability
survey of adults during the early 1970s in rescarcli fundctl by thc
National Institute of Mental Health (see Gerbner 6% Gross, 1976). The
resehrch continued in the 1970s and 1980swith funding by thc National
Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the American Medical Association,
the office of Telecommunications Policy, the Adrnillistration on A~ing.
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
I (tl~iccplualiralionanti Melhodology MlCHAEL MORGAN anJ NANCY SIGi\l!>t:.!Ei-i-l
~ c c ~ s(sucl~as collcgc studcnts in introductory communication classes)
who :Ire usu;~llyno1 particul;crly representative of the larger population,
-1'hls sccnarlo of classic laboratory experiments in mass comn~unica-
Ilon has, wc hclicvc, influenced a great deal of popular as well us
scholarly thinking about media effects. It leads to thinking about Corn*
nlunicntinn (and television's messages) as foreign "objects" somchow
~nscrtcclor injected into us, as discrete, scattered "bullets" that either
1111 c>rmiss us. In contrast, c~rltivationanalysis looks at those messages
;IS an cnvironrncnt within which people live, define themselves and
othcrs. :lnd devclop and maintain thcir beliefs and assumptions about
soci,~lrcnlity.
Othcrs huvc, of course, suggested that mass media may Involve
functions and proccsscs otlicr than overt change. Forty years ago,
Li\zi;r~f~ldand Merton (1948i1974) argued thq the primary impact of
cxposurc to mass communication was not likely to be change, but
rvaintcnancc of the status quo. Similar notions have been expressed
sincu then by Glynn (1956) and Bogart (1956).
Similarly, "cultivation" does not imply any sort of simple, linear
"stimulus-rcsponsc" model of the relationships between media content
qnd uudicnces, Rather, it implies long-term, cumulative congcquenccs
of cxposurc to an cssentially repetitive and stable system of messages,
not immcdiatc short-term responses or individual interpretations of
contcnt, It is concerned with continuity, stabilization, and gradual shifts
rnthcr thm outright chtinge. A slight but pervasive shift in the culti*
vi~tionof common perspectives may not change much in individual
ourlooks and behavior but may later change the meaning of those
pcrspcctivcs and actions profoundly.
Thus, thc usc of the term cultivatiotl for televisior.'~contribution to
conceptions of social rcality is not simply a fancier word for "effacts,"
Most of all, it docs not imply a one-way, rnonolithicprocess. Cultivation
a150 should not bc confused with "mere" reinforcement (as if reaffirms-
lion nrld stability irl Ihc face of intense pressures for change were a
~riviall'citt); nor shoulcl it suggest that television viewing is simply
<ymptom:~ticof other dispositions and outlook systems. Finall!!, it
qli~r~ultlr~otbe iissi~mcdthat no change is involved. Thc "independcl~t
I ~ ~ i ~ ~ r ~ l , u ~ i c ~ n "of tclevisir)~~viewing, means, quite specifically, thili tho
I ~ r : r n ! ! ~ t ltin some) and niaintcnance (in oth~r!~'jof somf rrig of
,+*h : . l i t s C ~ c ~ r lbc traced to sicady, curnulatilie expoiutc. !n Lhe
,. 1 1 i I ? i . <-i,,11)1>
The cultivation process is oot thought of as a unidirsct~oadii\ow (ii
influence from television to audiences, hut rather part ok a col~tlnual.
dynamic, ongoing process of interaction among messages and contexts.
This holds true even though (and in a sense espcciolly becausei i11c
hallmark of the process is either stability or slow change. Jiabils an((
styles of media exposure tend to be stable ovcr long pcrioci5 of IiIIli.
(Himmelweit & Swift, 1976), and cultivation analysis 5c1:ks ir1 ~il:~n!-
nate the consequences of the presence of televisian iil sizbit sr:;i~.~~( 1
life and environments. It is designed to understand g r n d i ~ ~ ~ .i.rop-rc Ti]\
shifts and transformations in the way generations are snclallzed IIll;i
short-term, dramatic changes in individuals' belicfs or bcha-dtors).
successive generations become enculturated into t!le tnslnstieam 4-I!
television's version of the world, the former traditionul di.;ttoctioni
become blurred. Cultivation thus means the steady elitrcnchnlent c~i
Mainstream orientations in most cases and the syslemalic bur aln~osl
imperceptible modification of previous orientations in others; i n othcr
wards, affirmation for the believers and indoctrination lor the deviants
Procedures Used in Cultivation Analysis
Cultivation analysis begins with aontent (rnessagc system) analysis:
identifying and assessing the most recurrent and stablc patterns of
television content (the consistent images, portrayals, and values that cut
across-most types of programs). There are many critical discrepancies
between the world and the world as portrayed on televisioe. Thc shape
and contours of the television world rarely match objcc~ivcreality.
though they often do match dominant ideologies and values.
Findings from systematic analyses of television's cuulcnt are tiil:a
used to formulate questions about people's conceptions of SOI:I~!r ~ r l ' ~ i j . .
Some of the questions are scmiprojective. sonic IISC 7 1 is:12-c-rcr
format, and other simply measure beliefs, opinior~c,i i ~ ' i t u i i . - r , t It--
haviors.
Using standard techniques of survey rnethodol12g$.v ' - ';a: . - 1 3
posed to samples (national probability, rcgionoi. - . -* 1 1
dren, adolescents, or adults. Secondary rlnal:~x-s' : I ;,..
- a $ 1 TC;\
surveys (for example, the National Opinic711~:-cF\::!~~II i S.;it- -:.ll,!$)~
Social Surveys) have often been used wnen t.1;y iik"-'l.r~,?c;i:I.:o\;t?nS l n ? t
relate to identifiable aspects of the television world as well atstckl?i7~:?!firl
viewing,
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
I 70 Conceptualization and Methodology
I
I'clcvision vicwing is usually assessed by asking how much time the
rcspondcnl watches television on an average day. Since amount of
vicwing is sccn as in relative terms, the determination of what consti-
tutes light, mcdium, a ~ dheavy viewing is made on a sample-by-sample
busis, using as closc to a thrce-way split of hours of self-reported daily
tclcvision vicwing as possible. What is important is that there are basic
dificrcnccs in vicwing levels, not the actual or specific amoust of
vicwing.
'I'hc qucslions posod to respondents do not mention television, and
thc respondents' awareness of the source of their information is seen as
irrelevant. The resulting relationships, if any, between amount of view-
ing and thc tcqdency to respond to these questions in the terms of the
dominant and repetitive facts, values, and ideologies of the World of
lclcvision (again, other factors held constant) iliurninate television's
con~ributionto viewers' conceptions of social reality.
'The obscrvable empirical evidence of cultivation is likely to be
rnodcst in tcrms of its absolute size. Even light viewersmay bewatching
up to 7 hours of television a week; a trivial, and demographically
cclcctic, haridful say they do not watch at all. But, if we argue that the
mcssagcs are stable, that the medium is virtually ubiquitous, and that it
is accumulated exposure that counts, then almost everyone should be
affectcd, regardless of how much they watch. Even light viewers may
watch a substantial amount of television per week and in any case live
in thc same cultural environment as heavy viewers; what they do not
gct through television can be acquired indirectly from others who do
watch more. It is clear, then, that the cards are stacked against finding
cvidencc of cultivation. Therefore, the discovery of a systematic pattern
of cvcn small but pervasive differences between light and heavy view-
crs may indicate far-reaching consequences,
Accordingly, we: should not dismiss what appear to be small effects,
bccause small effects may have profound consequences. For example,
a slight but pcrvasive (e.g., generational) shift in the cultivation of
common perspectives may alter the cultural climate and upset the
balance of social and political decision making without necessarily
changing observable behavior. A single percentage point difference in
ratings is worth many millions of dollars in advertising revenue. It takes
but a few degrees' shift in the average global temperature to have an ice
A range of 3 perccnt to 15 percent margins (typical of most
dirfcrcncesbctwecn light and heavy viewcrs) in a large and otherwise
MICHAEL.MORGAN and NANCY SIGNORIELL1 21
stable field often signals a landslide, a market takeover, or an epidemic,
and it certainly tips the scale of any closely balanced choice or decision.
Kariations in Cultivation
We have noted that cultivatioq is not a unidirectiohal flow of influ-
ence from television to addience, but part of a continual, dynamic,
ongoing process of interaction between messages and contexts. In sonle
cases, those who watch more television (the heavy viewers) are more
likely -in all or most subgroups- to give the "television answers." But,
in many cases the patterns are more compleq. Television viewing
usually relates in different ways to different gtoups' life situations and
world views.
Cultivation is both dependent on and a manifestation of the extent to
which television's imagery dominates viewers' sources of information.
For example, personal interaction makes a difference. Parental co-
viewing patterns and orientations toward television can either increase
(Gross & Morgan, 1985) or decrease (Rothschild & Morgan, 1987)
cultivation among adolescents; also, children who are more integrated
into cohesive peer or family groups are relatively immune to cultivation
(Rothschild, 1984).
Direct experience also plays a role. The relationship between amount
of viewing and fear of crime is strongest among those who live in high
crime urban areas (a phenomenon called resonance, which in everyday
reality and television provides a double dose of messages that "reso-
nate" and amplify cultivation). Further, relationships between amount
of viewing and the tendency to hold exaggerated perceptions of vio-
lence are more pronounced within those real-world demographic sub-
grovps (minorities) whose fictional counterparts arc more frequently
victimized on television (Morgan, 1983).
Television viewing usually relates in different but consistent ways
to different groups' life situations and world views. A major theoretical
and analytical thrust of mady recent cultivatibn analyses has been
directed toward the determination of the conditional processes that
enhance, diminish, or otherwise mediate cultivatipn. Many rcscnrchers
are trying to figure out what types of people are most vulnerable to
television's messages, in what specific substantive areas, and why. This
typd of research, well represented in this volume, investigates which
subgroups are more or less susceptible to television on which issues,
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
22 Conrcp~u;rlizalionand Methodology MICHAEL MORGAN and NANCY SIGNORIELL1 23
:inti hits signjficantly enlarged our understanding of the more subtle arid
funclamcntirl conscqucnccs of living with television.
-1 llcr~: i ~ r ta ~ f i ~ l evariety of factors and processes that prpduce
systcn~nticiincl Lhcurctically meaningful variations in cultivation pat-
lcrns. C)nc proccss, I~owcvcr,slands out, both as an indicator of differ-
rn~ialvul~icrabilityand as a general, consistent pattern representing one
of' the most profound consequcnces of living with television: main-
strcilrning.
Our culturc consists of many diverse currents, somc weak, some
strong. SOITICflow iri the same general directions, some at crosscurrents.
Yct thcre is a dominant set of cultural beliefs, vabes, and practices, in
somc ways at the core of all the other currents, and in some ways
surrounding them. This domirkant current is not simply the sum total of
all the crosscurrents and subcurrents; rather, it is the post general and
stahlc (though not static) mainstream, representing the broadkst and
must common dimensions of shared meanings and assumptions. It
ultimately dcfincs all the other crosscurrents and subcurrents. Because
of ~clcvision'sunique role in our society, it is obvious that television
can and should be seen as the primary manifestation of the mainstreaq
of oi~rculture.
Transcending historic barriers of literacy and mobility, television has
hccomc a primary, common source of everyday culture of an otherwise
hc~crogcneouspopulation, Television provides, perhaps for the first
time sincc preindustrial religion, a strong cultural link between the
clircs and all othcr publics. It provides a shared daily ritual of highly
compelling arid informative content for millions of otherwise diverse
people in all regions, ethnic groups, social classes, and walks of life,
Tclcvision provides a relatively restricted set of choices for a virtually
unrcstrictcd variety of interests and publics; its programs elimirlate
hountlnrics of age, class, and region and tire designed by commercial
ncccssity to bc watchcd by ncarly everyone,
Tllc mainstream can thus be thought of as a relative commonality of
ou~lnoksand valucs that heavy exposure to the features and dynamics
1 1 i rllc tclcvisipn world tends to cultivate. Mginstreamit~gmeans that
,., ..... .~::i~ir:gmay absorb or override differences in perspectives and
I~c~l:~i~r~:iI):,\! :~r~linarilystem fr'rc?n~othcr factors and influences, In other
\vol.~.l.~.~ti;'~t-rc*f~ccsl'ou~din the rcsponses of different groups of view-
er's, differences that usually are associated with the varied cultural,
social, and political characteristics of thesc groups, arc diminished or
even absent from the responses of heavy viewers in rheso same groups.
As a process, mainstreaming represents the theoretical elaborat~on
and empitical verification of the assertion that television'crillivatcs
common perspectives. It represents a relative homogenization, an ab-
sorption of divergent views, and a convergence of disparate viewers.
Former and traditional distinctions (which flourished, in part. through
the diversity provided by print culture) become blurred as successive
generations and groups become enculturated into television's version
of the world. Through the process of mainstreqming, teletrision has in
essence become the true 20th century melting pot of tlla American
people.
In summary, the theory of cultivation is an attempt to understand and
explain the dynamics of television as a distinctive feature of our age. I1
is not a substitute for, but a complement to, traditional approaches to
media effects research concerned with processes yore applicable to
other media. Designed primarily for television and focusing on ics
pervasive and recurrent patterns of representation and viewing, cultiva-
tion analysis concentrates on the enduring aad common consequenccs
of growing up with and living with television: the cultivation of stable,
resistant, and widely shared assumptions, images, and conceptions
reflecting the institutional characteristics atld interests of the medium
itself and the larger society. Television has become the common sym-
bolic eilvdronment that interacts with most of the things we think and
do, Therefore, understanding its dynamics can help develop ahd main-
tain a sense of alternatives and independence essenlial for self-direction
and self-government in the television age,
Ti1r: Battles
The methodology and findings of message-system analysis, particu-
larly in the area of violence, were the focus of a number ol colloquies
in the 1970s. Most of these stemmed from critiques bv inclustry re-
searchers and involved differences over definitions (What is violence?
What is a violent act? How is violence unitized? elc.). They also
addressed concerns over sample size, reliability, validity, and numerous
related issues (see Blank, 19773,1977b; Coffin c ! Tuchman, 1972-73a,
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
' I ('oi~~-cll[uitli~.ntionand Methodology MlCHAEL hlORGAN and NANCY SIGNORIELLl . -
1072-73b; Iilccy et al., 1972-73a, 1972-73b; Gerbner ct al., 1977b,
1077~).
Soon iiflcr thc first cultivation results were published (Gerbner &
Gross, 107h),cqltivalion analysis became the focal point of the Cultural
fndic;~tnrsproject. Mcssagc system analysis continued to be conducted
tach ycar, but the industry's critiques abated. The lull in the Cultural
Indicirtors (CI) storm was brief, howcver, and a period of intense debate
ovcr cullivntian soon began.
Onc oI' thc first critiques of cultivation (Newcomb, 1975) in part was
hascd on somc supposcd differences between a quantitative and quali-
tativc approach and again reflected differences in definitional perspec-
livcs (scc also Gcrbner Sc Gross, 1979). Around the same time, research
conducted by the Independent Broadcasting Aufhority in the United
Kingdon~wi~srcportcd as failing to replicate what was called the
"paranoid effcct of television" (Wober, 1978).This research, however,
ciln hc sccn more as serving to point out the cultural and institutional
differences betwecn the United Statcs and Great Britain than as dis-
confirmation of cultivation (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli,
1979; sce also Neville, 1980; Wobcr, 1979).
The early 1980s brought a new, massive, unprecedented round of
attacks, rcsponscs, and rejoinders. The regular publication of cultiva-
tion fivdings in several annual Violence Profiles (Gerbner et al., 1977a;
Ccrbncr ct al., 1978; Gerbner, Gross, Signorielli, Mbrgan, & Jackson-
Ijccck, 1979) had set the stage for the onslaught that was to come, And
cornc it did. Fierce, prolonged battles (occasionally acrimonious and
vagucly ad hominem at times) consumed hundreds of pages of scholarly
and research journals; their repercussions were vividly felt at academic
confcrcnces and the controversies even spilled over into such popular
~ncdiaas Time magazine. The conflicts grew harsher and louder, and the
rivcrs ran rcd with dead data and mutilated statistical techniques.
Why all the fighting? It is not possible to review all the arguments
and countcrargurnents here (but see Doob & Macdonald, 1979; Hughes,
1980; Gcrbner ct al., 1980a, 1980b; Hirsch, 1980b; Gerbner et al.,
19SIc; Hirsch, 1980a, 1981b; Gerbner et a]., 1981b; Hirsch, 1981a;
Gcrbner et al., 198la-preferably in that order-for a relatively com-
plcce account). Among many other charges and countercharges, it is safe
lo say that the m a j ~ rissues revolved around questions of spuriousness
;inrl controls.
A11 al iiround the same time, Hirsch, Hughes, the Cultural Indicators
rcscnrch tciun, and others wcre independently finding that many of [he
relationships reported earlier using the National Opin~onResearch
Center's (NORC) General Social Surveys looked different under mul-
tiple controls. For the most part, cultivation analyses had been i~nplc-
menting controls by examining associations between amount of view-
ing and attitudes within subgroups, one at a time, That is, [he rcsulrs
were presented for males, older people, those with less education. and
so on, separately. On reanalysis of those same data, it was raund th;~t
miiltiple controls (i.e., cbntrolling for age, sex, education, erc.. all ,it
once), tended to reduce or completely eliminate those rclationsliips.
Yet, we found that thc absence of an overall relationsh~punder
multiple controls did not mean. that there were not nonspurious and
theoretically meaningful associations within specific subgroups (Gerir-
ner et al., 1980b), This discovery had profoudd conceptdal and analyt*
ical implications for cultivation theory, and ultimqtely led to importadt
refinements and enhancements, The most central of these was the idca
of mainstreaming, first noted in research relating to conceptions about
sex roles (Signorielli, 1979); it has been found since in more and more
substantive areas, including interpersonal mistrust (Mean World Syn-
drome), alienation/gloom (Anomie), political orientations, and marly
other issues.
In sum, these battles have been characterized as everything from
"healthy scholarly exchanges" to "scathing exposees" to "vicious and
unprofessional spats." They were challenging, unpleasant, and in some
whys; 'fun. They pttest to the importance of cultivation theory in the
discipline and to the fact that cultivation analysis has not been a static
research approach, but one that has evolved and developed in numerous
ways, making it not only more cornpleq and intricate but also more
dynamic and intriguing. Arguments concerning cultivation analysis did
produce significant new issues and questions, many of which are ad-
dressed in the chapters in this book.
Current Issues in CultivationAnalysis
AS cultivation analysis has evolved it has continucd to raise more
and more questions about underlying processes and broader conse-
quences. There is general (though not univetsaj) acceptance of the
conclusion that there are statistical relationships between how much
people watch television and what they think and do; thera is far less
consensus on a host of related q~lestiorisand probl~rns.Space does not
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
_ 11 C c~nccplui~liralionand Melhodology MICHAEL MORGAN and NANCY SIGNOKIEI~LI 27
~)crrr~il;I ~ L I I Iand comprehensive review of all of these questions and
rolcvant rcscarcll, but this section outlines some of the major issues that
l~avccvolvcd from cultivation analysis and which numerous indepen-
tlcnt investigators arc pursuing.
tlow does cultivation occur? What are the psychological processes and
cognitive mechanisms that best explain the ways in which heavy viewers
incorp~rntetelevision content into their concdptions of social reality?
What principles of learning, If any, are relevant? These have turned out
to be challenging and complex questions. While some conceptual and
empirical answers are beginning to emerge (see D'Alessio, 1987; Haw-
kins Pr Pingree, 1980, 1982; Hawkins et at., 1987: Hawkins & Pingree,
this volume; Pingree, 1983), much work in this area remains to be done.
What demographic subgroups are more likely to show evidence of cultiva-
tion? As previously noted, cultivation patterns are zarely uniform ilCrQSS
all subgroups in a sample. Many differential conditional associations
spggest mainstreaming, in which the heavy viewers of a subgroup that is
relatively "out" of the mainstream tend to express views that match those
of their counlerparts (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1980b,
1982, 1984; Morgan, 1986; see also Perry, 3987, for an account of some
possible statistical artifacts). Other patterns of results sometimes suggest
"resonance," in which cultivation is enhanced among those for whom a
certaio issue has some special salience. More work needs to be done to
determine if certain socio-demographic groups are cossistently and sys-
tematically more likely to be vulnerable to television, and to explore why
they are (Morgan, 1983).
How is cultivation mediated by interpersonal and family relations? Television
viewing is often a family activity; farnily members may influence each
others' interpretation of television content in direct and intentional as well
as indirect and uhintentional ways, and the nature of the family's inter-
actions apart from the television viewing context can also relate to varia-
tions in vulnerability to cultjvation (Gross & Morgan, 1985; Rothscl~ild
& Morgan, 1987), Again, differences in children's levels of peer integra-
tion also indicate differences in susceptibility to cultivation (Rothschild,
1984),and such factors as "sdciabilily" may plan important roles (Geiger,
1987).Overall, further research is needed to understand how the dynamics
of interpersonal interaction mediate cultivation.
What are the levels of cultivation? Explorations of cultivation have suggested
that there are important differencesbetween the cultivation of(1) concep-
tioqs of the "faCts of life," such as estimates of how many people are
involved in violence, how many people work in different occupations,
and so on (sometimes referred lo as first-ordercubivdlion), and (2) the
c.ul~iv:~iionnf more global extrapolations from those facts, such as degree
of interpersonal mistrust, of some political orientations (a kind of second-
order cultivation) (Gerbner et al., 1986; vawkins, et al., 1987). Similarly,
there are potential differences between societal~le~elbeliefs and personal-
level beliefs; for example, images of the amount of violence in society
may or may not be related to perceived chances of personal victimization,
or fear in one's own home or neighborhood (Geiger, 1987; Gerbner et al.,
1981a; Tyler, 1984), Finally, there may be differences between the culti-
vation of various attitudes and their speoific behavioral manilestations
(Morgan, 1987). Conceptions of social reality have branched off in vari-
ous directions, and future work should provide greater specificity of the
level(s) at which such conceptions apply.
What is the role of personal experience in cultivalion? It is a truism that media
qffects will be greater for issues about which we have less direct personal
experience. But this heed not be the case; it is indeed possible for one to
assume that his or. her own experience is a(ypica1, apd that the television
version or the cultural stereotype is more accurate, In any case, the issue
of personal experience is closely tied in with the issue of perceived reality
of television content, Studies of these issues have produced some useful
findings, but for the most part they have only focused on violence (Geiger,
1987; Potter, 1986; Elliott & Slater, 1980; Slater & Elliott, 1982; Weaver
and Wakshlag, 1986). Research should be undertaken to explore the
implications of both personal experience and perceived reality as they
might relate to other subslantive areas besides violence.
How do viewers' orientalions toward television influence cultivation? By
"orientations toward television," we mean such phenomena as "active"
VS. "passive" viewing, "selective" viewing, uses, and gratifications, "in-
volvement" with television, and conscious interpretations of television
content 3 s well as perceived reality. All these have been the focus of
numerous studies of cultivalio~~(Carveth & Alexander, 1985; Gunter &
Furnham, 1984; Perse, 1986; Perse, this volume; Rouner, 1984; Robin
et al., 1988; Wakshlag et al., 1983). Some of these issues need more work
in terms of conceptualization and operationalization, and too often they
are used as independent variables along with amount of viewing; they are
more likely to offer further understanding of cultivation when they are
implemented as interveningvariables in order to explore the within-group
conditional associations they might produce.
What are the roles of specific programs and genres in c~ltivation?A frequent
concern raised about cultivation analysis is the focus on overall mount
of viewing without regard to exactly what programs people watch. Culti-
vation theory insists that (he message elements that are likely to lead to
cultivation (as opposed to other effects) are those that cut across most
programs and are inescapable for heavy viewers, and therefore how much
is far more important than whal. Many researchers, hovever, believe thal
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
28 Conceptualization and Methodology
cultivatiop pust be traced to exposure to specific types of programs, For
example, some have explored the cultivation potential of soap operas
(Buerkel-Rolhfuss Sr Mayes, 1981; Carveth & Alexander, 1985; Persc,
11)86), family programs (Buerkel-Rothfuss el al,, 1982), or have parti.
tioned cullivation relationships according to specific viewing patterns
(Hawkins & Pingree, 1981; Potler, 1986). Yet, except when VCRs are used
to time-Shift, viewing is limited by what is on at a particular time. More
specifically, in the case of network programming, situation comedies
usually are seen in the early evening while action adventure programs are
shown during the late evening (Signorielli,l986). Certainly, there may be
some heavy viewers who only watch news, or sitcoms, etc, But by and
large, lo the extent that common economic imperatives and production
influences mean that mqst programming conveys complementary cultural
values, and if most heavy viewers indeed see rnpre of everythidg, +en
idiosyncratic viewing patterns are less relevant. Most of all, while specific
programs and genres may certainly have effects, those effects are indioa-
tions of cllllivalion only if they occur at the aggregate level, Researchers
who wish to explore genre-specific relationships should not neglect to
consider overall viewing as an important theoretical constrdct and as an
empirical measure.
How and what do other media cu!tivate? Little cultivation work has explicitly
compared the relative contributions of television and other media, In terms
of political self-designation, a greater tendency to describe oneself as
moderate was associated with greater viewing, but not with newspaper
reading or radio listening (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, B Signorielli, 1982);
movies, music, and magazines (Preston, this volume) offer important
avenues for future cultivatioh analysis. Extensive typologies of media
exposure profiles would allow for more precise understanding of the
degree of interaction among various media.
How will new technologies influence cultivation? Television is not the'same
institution it was when the Cultural Indicators project began, when com-
rnercial*network,over-the-air broadcasting essentially had the medium to
itselr. But more channels do not necessarily mean more diversity, espe-
cially given increasing concenlration of ownership and the relatively
small number of production companies. In fact, Morgan and Rothschild
(1983) found greater cultivation among cable-viewing adolescenls. The
rapid proliferaljon of VCRs may have similar implications for cultivation
(Dobrow, this vblume).
Does cultiv~tionoccur in other countries? The extension of cultivation
analysis Lo other countries asd cultures represents a major development
in the approach (Morgan, this volume). Just as ;cultivationpatterns are no1
uniform across subgroups in the United States, they vary tremendously
across differen1cultural contexts. As evidence from cross-cultural repli-
MICHAEL MORGAN and NANCY SlGNORIELLI 29
cations of cullivation continues to accumulate, it will be necessary to
begin to analyze and explain what accounts for these differences. Interna-
tional cultivation analysis will a190 need to differentiate between the
contributions of d~mesticand imported programming (Pingree 6r Haw-
kins, 1981).
These are just some of the conceptual issues that have becn develop-
ing from cultivation analysis. In addition, there are many methodolog-
ical issues that cultivation analyses must continue to explore. These
include the appropriateness of the samples used (tao niany studies
present data from vndergraduate communication majors, which raises
severe problems of external validity); problerns of question order and
sensitization of respondents (too often respondents are clued in to the
fact that the survey they're filling out is about the effects of television);
and the use of simultaneous multiple controls, both overall and within
groups, coupled with persistent problems of neglected potential sources
of spuriousness and curtailment of vdriance within groups (Carlson,
1985; Hawkins & Pingree, 1982).This list could be ezpanded consid-
erably; the point is that these methodological concerns are as complex,
critical, and challenging as are the more qubstantive issues previously
described.
The F u l f ~ eof CultivationAnalysis
As the above list demonstrates, our knowledge of the cultivation
process is by no means complete. A great deal of work is underway on
exploring the conceptual and methodological implications of cultiva-
tion on numerous levels, from the micro to ths macro. The development
of oross-cultural studies (including an ongoing global-level interna-
tional cooperative venture) will provide even more information about
the generalizability of cultivation as a phenomenon.
New technologies, alternative delivery systems, new program gen-
res, and changes in institutional structures may have varied conse-
quences for cultivation theory in the future. Predicting the future is
always dangerous, but we believe that the likely-to-continue decline in
the dominance of network broadcasting will not reduce the relevance
of cultivation analysis, All current (and historical) indications point to
increasing concentration and interdependence in media industries, im-
itation of successful formats and styles, and greater competition for the
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
.70 Cor~ceplunlizationarld hfelhodology MICHAEL MORGAN and NANCY SltiNORlELLl 31
I>ro;ldcsl, most atlractive, mainstream audiences. These are conditions
t11itI cnhance, rather than fragment, the cultivation of standardized
V ~ I ~ U C Sand ideologies. The h;mn is likely to be the same, even if the
choir is larger.
l'llcre itrc miihy additional substantive areas to address. We have
barely scratched the surface of the 20-year archives of message system
:~nalysis.Whilc cultivation analysis has already clearly moved well
bcyond violence, the range of issues and dimensions that may be fruitful
arcas for cultivation analysis will continue to expand,
In sum, thc chaptcrs in this volume makc it abundantly clear that
whatever advances we are making, cultivation analysis will lead to
m o r c and morc questions about the role of television in our lives, We
rxpcct cullivation research to continue to flourish and to provoke lively
controversy about media effects and how to study them. While much
work has been done, there is far more to do. The arguments, findings,
and issues raised in this book arc intended to contribute to the further
development, elaboration, and refinement of the theory and melhod of
cultivation analysis.
Hejcrerr ccs
Raker. R.K.,& Ball, S,J. (Eds,). (1969). Violence in themedia. Staffreport to the National
Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office.
Blank, D. M. (1977a). Final commehts on the violence profile. Journal of Broadcasling,
?1(3), 287-296.
Illank. D. M.(1977b). The Gerbner violence profile. Journal of Broadcasting, 21(3),
273-279.
llogarl, 1,. (1956). Tlrc age of television: A study of viewing habits and the impact of
rcs/cvisronon American life. New York: Ungar.
Ducrkcl-Rothruss, N. L., Greenberg, B. S., Atkin, C. K., & Neuendorf, K. (1982),
1.cnrning aboul the family from television. Journal of Communication, 32(3), 191-201,
Il~icrkcl-Rothfuss,N. I.., I% Mayes, S. (1981). Soap opera viewing: The cultivation effect.
.Iurrrnolo.f Communication, 31(3), 108-115.
Carlson, J. M. (1985). Prime tinre law eirforcemellt. New York: Praeger.
C,rrvctli, R., Alexnndcr, A. (1985). Soap opera viewing molivarions and the clrlti~~atlon
procegs. .lorrrnnl o/Broadcasting and Elcctrorrichfcdia, 29, 259-273.
('(.!Tin. T. E.. ~kTuchman, S. (1972-73a). A question of validity: Some cornmenls on
"~\rpii:s, nrailgcs, and Ihc kitchen sink." Jorrrnal of Brondcpsting. 17(1), 31-32.
~~:1~11.f. li., B Tuchinar~,S. (1972-73b). Rating television programs for riolencc: A
.,. !; \ : I < I ~vr ~ I V Csurvcys. Jorlrnal of Broadcasting, 17(1),3-20.
!) ' \.h c;1.4, 1) ( IUP7. May). A psyclropl~vsiologicalmodel of lelcvision viewi/rg, Paper
['rc'clll~ll It; thc intcrdnlional Communication &socialion, Montreal.
Doob, A. N., & Macdonald, G.E. (1979). Televiqion viewing and fear of Victimization: IS
[herelationship causal?Journal o~Personalityand SocitrlPsychologb, 37(2), 170-179.
Eleey, M., Gerbner, G., & Signorielli (Teiiesco), N. (1972-73a). Validity indeed! Jo~rrnal
of Broadcasting, 17(1), 34-35.
Elecy, M., Gerbner, G., & Signorielli (Tedesco), N. (1972-73b). Apples, oranges, and the
kitchen sink: An analysis and guide to the comparison of 'violence ralings.'J~;urnalcl/'
Brpadcasting, 17(1),21-31.
Elliott, W. R., & Slater, D. (1980). Exposure, experience, and perceived TV reality for
adolescents. Journalism Quarterly, 57(3), 409-414, 431.
Gelger, S, F. (1987, May). Social reality and mass media cflecrs: Source dcpendencie.r,
issues relevance, and levels of signficance. Paper presented to the Inlernntional Com-
munication Association, Montreal.
Gerbner, G. (1969). Dimensions of violence iq Lelevislon drama. In R. K. Baker & S. J.
Ball (Eds.), Violence in the media. Staff report \o the National Cornmission on kh?
Causes and Prevention of Violence (pp. 311-340). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Gerbner, G. (1972). Violence and lelevision drama: Trends and symbolic fdnclions. In G.
A, Comstock & E, Rubinstein (Eds.), Television and social behavior, i'ol. I, Content
drrd control (pp. 28-181), Washington, DC: U.S. Goverrlment Prinling Office.
Gerbner, GI,& Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence prdfile. Journal o j
Comniunication, 26(2), 173-199,
Gerbper, G., & Gross, L. (1979). Editorial response: A reply to Newcomb's "Humanistic
critique." Communication Research, 6(2), 223-230.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Eleey, M., Jackson-Beeck, M., Jeffried-Fox, S.,LPL Signorielli, N.
(1977a). TV violence profile no. 8; The highlights. Journal of Communicalion, 27(2),
171-180.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Elety, M., Jackson-Beeck, M., Jeffries-Fox, S., & Signorielli, N.
(1977b). One more time: An analysis of the CBS 'Final comments on the violence
p~ofile.'Journalof Broadcasting, 21(3), 297-303.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Eleey, M., Jackson-Beeck, M., Jeffries-Fox, S., & Signorielli, N.
(1977.~2_The Gerbner violence profile-An dnalysis of the CBS report. Journal of
Broadcasting, 21(3), 280-286.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Hoover, S., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., & Wuthnow, R. (1983).
Relinion and televisiorr. Philadelphia: The Apnenberg School of Communicalions,
uni;ersity of Pennsylvania.
Oerbne~,G., Gross, L., Jackson-Beeck, M., Jeffries-Fox, S., & Signuriclli, N.11!J7R)
Cultural indicators: Violence profile no, 9.Joctrna[ ~~Cornhtunicalion,28(3), 176-207.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N, (1979). On Wober's 'Televised
violence and oaranoid oercaotion: The view from Great Eritai~l.'F11i.iic l.:!linion
Quarterly, 43(i),123-1i4.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L,, Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N,(1950a). Tr?rnc nf!dltir?i\,ilCC!I!P:FI\IS
oh cultivation analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44(3j. 408-6 111. . .
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (IOSUb!. TIIP .!i'illns[lcci?ii~c: r:f
America: Violence proflle no. 11. journal of Conrmulricnriur~,. i t t i : l : !!!->I..
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N.(I$h!Gc. .:!)'i!lI. ri!p!r'l,# rr~rrii!re
family: Images and impact. Paper for the National Rcsearub Fonlrn !In i- zlir~iyIssll-S.
White House Conference on Families.
Getbner, G., Gross, L.,Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N,(IOHla). l'lsat r~)*)l' to I-ilrsch.
Communicarion Research, 8(3), 259-280.
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
Rothhcltilil. N.,& Morgan, M, (1987). Cohesion and control: Adolescents' relationship#
wrfl~percnls as mediators of television. Journal ofEorly Adolescence, 7(3), 299-314,
Kouncr, D.(IY84), Active television viewing and the cultivation hypolhesis, Journa~isrn
Qrmrrerly, 61(1). 168-174.
Kutlin. A. M., Perse, E.M., Pc Taylor, D. S.(1988). A melhodological investigation bt
cultiv,~Lion.Commroricariort Research, 15(2), 107-334.
Si~nc,riclli,N. (11)79,April). Televisiorr's contriburion to sex role socialization. Pnpcr
prcseritcd to the Scvcnth Annual Telecommunications Policy Research Conference,
S ~ Y L ( I P .PA.
Stgnoriclli, N. (1986). Seleclivc lelevision viewing: A limited possibility. Journal of
C'or~rnrc~trtro~in,~,36(3), 64-75.
Signoriclli, N. (1989). Television and conceptions about sex-roles: Maintaining cotlven, Divergent Psychological Process~!siji
lionalily and thc status quo. Sex Roles, 21(5/6), 337.356,
Slater. D.,~r I:tlio~~,W. R. (1982). Television's influence on social reality. Quarterly Constructing Social Renlity fiolflibfass
Jourttal of .Tpecclr. 68(1), 69-79.
'I:vicr,T. R. (1984). Asse~singthe risk of crime victimization: The integration of personal Media Content
victimi~ationexperience and socinlly lransmilted information. Journal ofSocia1Issue$,
10(1). 27-38. ,, .
Wnkshl;~g,J. J., Val, V., Pc Tamborini, R.(3983). Selecling crime drama and apprehension
about crime. Human Comn~unicationResearch, 10(2), 217-242.
Wcavcr. J., & Wakshlag, J. (1986). Perceived vulnerability to crime, criminal victimiza*
lion experience, and televisiou viewing. Journal ofBroadcasring andElec~ronicMedia,
30(2), 141-158.
Wobcr. J. M. (1978). Televised violence and paranoid perception: The view from Great
Britain. Ptrblic Opinion Quarterly, 42(3), 315-321.
\Vobcr. J. M.(1979). Televised violence nnd viewcrs' perceptions of reality: A reply lo
criticisms of some British research. Public Opinioh Quarterly, 43(2), 271.273,
ROBERT P, HAWKINS
and
SUZANNE PINGREE
The cultivation hypothesis, the proposal that television's presentation
of social reality influences the social reality beliefs of its viewers, has
been characterized by two research orientations: (1) irtvestigations Into
the simple existence or robustness of the effect, and (2) its integration
with sociological theories in work examining group and soctal setting
differences in the effect. We have argued at various tirrles (Nawkins &
Pingree, 1980, 1982; Hawkins, Pingrce, cYc Adler, 1987; l'mgrec, 15;8?)
for research into the p~ychologicalprocesses that nlay uridelilc culil~2-
tion effects. That is, how is it that watching televisiu~tconlri~ute5:I>
certain social reality beliefs and not others? What arc till: p7,r tlclogczi
processes that lead individuals to construct their era.:! f r (.I-?' ia.i!tr" ::
ways that mirror both the facts and the ostensic!:~ -- 3;j;:i. <.; ! - t - -
vision's social reality?
We think that these questions are crucial tt:, rfis.:ar:j I-.' ; :-.zl:l
as well as to our understanding of social rcaiiiy :I,?; GI-;J. i:. 7 . 1--nk83
such questions can be successfully addressed: I if::,,'-;-I: ;7 1 ' ; I '?: !'I> c
of being dismissed as a label for a single C V I ~ S ~ ; ? ~ :t, -.1:.vi510n time!
masquerading as a program of research, aild 6s an !clcul~~gicalposit~vrl
more than as a focus for social scientific resen~ch.'i'1.c ~robl5i:i1: :.l,I
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
Abortion
- . Light Medium Heavy
1.1 1.
Light Medium Heavy
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely