The decision to write my final paper on Cultivation Analysis Theory came to me relatively easy. I’ve been living in the United States for more than four years now and throughout these years I have been amazed how much TV Americans watch (compared to the other countries I lived in) and what a huge part of life TV is for them.
The authors of Introducing Communication Theory pointed out that “people watch television as though they were attending church, except that they typically watch television more religiously” (407). The index of popularity of television can be seen in terms of both television sets ownership and the TV viewing time. According to DeFleur and Dennis, in 1950, less than 10 percent of American homes had a set. In 1960 nearly 90 percent had a receiver. By 1980, ownership of sets had virtually reached saturation level in American households. The amount of viewing time increased dramatically as well. In 1950, those who had television sets watched them four-and-a-half hours daily on average. That number rose sharply year after year to more than seven hours per day in recent years (195).
At first this devotion to TV irritated me; then I became curious as to why people love this source of mass media so much; after reading the “Cultivation Analysis” chapter I wanted to find out more on the effects of TV on society. Most likely I am going to spend the rest of my life in the USA and it doesn’t look like television will lose its popularity anytime soon, so I thought that doing a research on Cultivation Analysis Theory and writing a paper on it would help me understand the American society better and help me determine how much influence TV does have on people. Also, being a mother makes me want to know if this theory is valid, so I know if or when to be alert when it comes to my kids’ television viewing.
Cultivation Theory was an approach developed by George Gerbner, who attempted to understand how “heavy exposure to cultural imagery would shape a viewer’s concept of reality” (Pierce). George Gerbner was originally a poet who immigrated to the United States from Hungary. He attended school at Berkley in the field of journalism. Later, he got his PhD at the University of Southern California, where he wrote a paper titled “Toward a General Theory of Communication.” In 1964 he became a dean of the Annenberg School of Communications at the University of Pennsylvania. In 1968 Gerbner began the “Cultural Indicators” research project, to study whether and how watching television may influence viewers’ ideas of what the everyday world is like (Chandler). George Gerbner suggested that “television is the source of the most broadly shared images and messages in history” (Gerbner, Gross). “The stories of a culture reflect and cultivate its most basic and fundamental assumptions, ideologies, and values. Cultivation analysis explores the extent to which television viewers’ beliefs about the “real world” are shaped by heavy exposure to the most stable, repetitive, and pervasive patterns that television presents.” (Museum of Broadcasting)
Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, and Signorielli define Cultivation as “the independent contributions television viewing makes to viewer conceptions of social reality”. The “cultivation differential” is the margin of difference in conceptions of reality between light and heavy viewers in the same demographic subgroups” (23). Gerbner believed that television influences viewers greatly and strongly advised parents to watch programs with their children to help with interpretation. He suggested that broadcasting substituted an inaccurate virtual world for personal experience and developed a line of theory and research known as Cultivation Theory. Gerbner believed that violence on TV reinforced the “worst fears and apprehensions and paranoia of people” (Passages: George Gerbner). Gerbner was convinced that heavy TV watchers have more faith in the television version of reality that in reality itself.
One of the main effects of the Cultivation Analysis theory is so-called “Mean World Index”. It is the idea that the world, in which you live, is scarier or more dangerous then it may really be. Gerbner believed that heavy TV viewers think there are more violent acts, more chances of being a victim of a violent act, and more arrests being made by the police (Stossel).
A number of studies and research was done to try to prove and support the theory. One study shows instances where a heavy viewing child believes it is okay for him to be hit if he has it coming to him (Kenny). I don’t question the validity of the results of this study, but I think that there are plenty of other factors, which could have led to those results. For example, children who watch television heavily most likely don’t feel as loved as children who spend a lot of time with their parents and do activities with them together (reading, outdoor playing, etc). Lack of attention and love most definitely leads to aggression and/or depression. From my observations, many parents not only place their kids in front of the television for half of the day, but also don’t control what their kids watch. They are just happy that it is quiet in the house and they don’t think about the consequences. So, it is arguable whether TV is responsible for children’s attitude toward violence, the world and life in general, or it is the things that they miss in their lives because of the excessive TV watching. I remember doing research on whether computer games increase violence in children. Many U.S. researchers claim that they found the link between violent computer games and kids’ behavior. A number of studies indicated that children and teenagers who are exposed to violence in computer games are more aggressive and angry than their peers who do not play such games. But at the same time there is no proof whether the games make children aggressive and violent, or this is that the kids, who are aggressive by their nature, are attracted to such games. A similar analogy can be used to contradict the Cultivation Analysis Theory. Is it TV that influences people’s perception of the world and makes them see it as a darker place than it really is? Or is it that people who got disappointed with real life and lost interest in it prefer to be couch potatoes, because they are apathetic and pessimistic (by nature or circumstances)?
Another problem that I have with the theory is the fact that television programming is not as violent and pessimistic as the theorists of the Cultivation Analysis Theory claim. American movies (the majority of them) are famous for their “happy endings” and usually deliver the message, that “all will be well”. Shows like “American Idol” or “So You Think You Can Dance” deliver rather positive messages. They give people of different backgrounds and races hope for success or/and fame. I also don’t see how viewing ball games or educational programs on TV can make someone more violent. The theorists overestimate the amount of violence on TV. According to statistics, there are 25 violent acts an hour in Saturday morning cartoons. The average American child will have seen more than 8,000 murders and 100,000 other violent acts on television by the time he finishes elementary school (Stossel). It certainly sounds scary, but if people can define “murder”, violence is a subjective term. Some people might find spanking children to be a violent act and others may think that a good bloody fight is not a big deal. Therefore, I believe that calculating violence is not possible. It is pretty much the same when it comes to calculating sexual content on TV. “Seventy percent of a representative sample of TV programs featured some kind of sexual content at an average rate of five scenes per hour. “(Clark). Once again, who decides what to consider as a sexual behavior or not? Despite what the researchers say, I have noticed that there is barely any sex on American TV. Yes, it is talked about, but it is not actually depicted. I don’t think that kissing and flirting should be labeled as “sexual behavior”. There is plenty of sex and nudity in European TV programs (as well as in magazines and movies) and from what I know European teens are not any less moral than American teens; they don’t start their sexual lives any earlier or get pregnant more frequently. So, I don’t see American TV as being a promoter of sex and violence.
However, with the average television viewing for seven hours a day in American homes, I can see how the television becomes an “educator” to many viewers, despite the content. It doesn’t mean though that it completely changes people’s perception of the world. In Russia we grew up on books and our views were significantly influenced by World and Russian literature. Certain values were put into our heads, but as we grew older, we were able to rethink everything we were taught and use our critical thinking to understand what the truth is. I still read a lot and now my weaknesses are ironic detective (new popular genre in Russia) and mystery. I am reading about murders all the time, but I don’t believe that my view of the world is getting darker. These books are the way to relax and as Donald Curtis once said: “Relaxation means releasing all concern and tension and letting the natural order of life flow through one’s being”. When I am relaxed I probably see the world in much brighter colors than it really is.
There are plenty of other variables that might affect people’s view of the world. In my opinion, people’s religious views (or lack of them) affect their perceptions of the world in a more direct manner than anything else does. Other things that I think do affect people’s perception are their overall life experiences, gender, age, pessimistic/optimistic nature, childhood experiences, ethnicity, socio-economic background, mental health, intelligence, demographics, the ability to think critically, and many others. These factors can also affect a person’s experience while watching television (whether heavily or not). For example, when an optimistic fellow, who lives somewhere in New York, is watching television and sees terrifying news about the devastating California fires, he might feel sorry for the poor people who were affected by the disaster, but then become happy and feel really blessed that he and all his family are safe in NY. When an optimist sees somebody winning a million dollars in a lottery, he will also be happy and thrilled and it will give him hope that maybe someday something this wonderful happens to him. The more winners he sees, the happier and excited he might get. If a pessimist sees a lottery winner on television, he will whine that it is not he, but some other lucky bastard won again and he will be depressed for awhile, because “life is just not fair. The more he sees, the more upset he gets. I also think that the person’s intelligence plays a great deal on whether television shapes his/her viewpoints or not. An intelligent person is using critical thinking when watching television, so it is not that easy to brainwash or influence somebody who has his/her own opinions and a good head on their shoulders. Cultivation Analysis Theory is not giving people enough credit, in my opinion. Many people are active viewers, who are media literate, so they know what and when media is trying to sell them. Media (pretty much all the media, not only television) certainly are manipulative and they can influence people’s viewpoints. But at the same time, if the person is lacking the ability to think critically, he/she can be influenced by anyone, not only media: some people trust their friends, others believe in everything their parents say, etc. If somebody is home schooled, for example, and doesn’t get out of the house much, this person will most likely share the perception of the world that his/her parents do.
Another critique of the Cultivation Analysis theory is that it concentrates on TV and fails to mention other forms of mass media that could contribute to the theory. The newspapers often focus on dramatic events and if heavy television viewing is supposed to create a negative image of the world, than why can’t heavy newspaper reading do the same?
As we all know, when it comes to research, there is no perfect method of inquiry. Most of Gerbner’s research and data came from surveys and content analysis. Survey research has many flaws, because a sample does not always represent a population. Results based on surveys may not be accurate because people are not always completely honest in their responses (even if the survey is anonymous they might subconsciously lie, because they want to think they are better than they are). Surveys can also be flawed due to people not responding, and because not a wide enough range of people surveyed. Researchers may knowingly or unknowingly manipulate the research process in the content analysis and their attitudes and beliefs may get in the way.
There are many heavy television viewers in this country and if to believe Gerbner and his followers, Americans should be quite pessimistic. I lived in four different countries, traveled to many others, and I have never seen such a deep devotion to television viewing anywhere else in the world. At the same time I can say that Americans are the most optimistic and easy-going nation I have seen and they certainly don’t see the world in darker colors than the rest of the world.
Overall, I think the theory is not strong enough and has way too many flaws to believe in it. Nevertheless, I found it useful, because Gerbner stimulated a new thinking and made many people look at the television from a different perspective. The theory made it possible to see television not only as a source of mass media and entertainment, but also as something potentially harmful and dangerous. The theory also stimulated a great amount of research, so there is no doubt it is heuristic.
As for my family, I will try to limit the amount of television viewing as much as I can, but it will be not because of the Cultivation Analysis Theory and fear that my kids could become depressed and violent. I think that television viewing is often a passive activity that discourages thinking, especially critical thinking. It can destroy the art of conversation and draw family members farther from each other. Some other researches have proven that TV can slow down young kids’ speech development; also, the link between literacy problems and heavy television viewing was found. At last, I believe that life is too short to waste it in front of the TV. This world is a wonderful place to live in and it is so much better to experience it through your own senses.
Works Cited
Chandler, Daniel “Cultivation Theory” Aberystwyth University. University of Wales. 1 November 2007. .
DeFleur, Melvin, and Everette Dennis. Understanding Mass Communication. 7th ed. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. P, 193-211.
Gerbner, Gross, Morgan and Signorielli. “Living with Television: the Dynamics of the Cultivation Process.” Perspectives on Media Effects (1986). p, 17-40.
Kenny, Wade. George Gerbner’s Cultivation Theory.” Home page. 8 November 2007. University of Dayton. 9 November 2007. .
“PASSAGES: George Gerbner. ” Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 60.4 (2006): 450. Education Module. ProQuest. NCCC Library, Bethlehem, PA 3 Nov. 2007
Pierce, Terry. “An Overview of the Cultivation Theory.” 10 November 2007 .
Shannon Clark, Robin L Nabi, Emily Moyer-Gusé. “Television Consumption and Young Women’s Expectations of Sexual Timing. ” Media Report to Women 1 Jul 2007: 4-12. Women’s Interest Module. ProQuest. NCCC Library, Bethlehem, PA. 3 Nov. 2007 < http://www.proquest.com/> .
Stossel, Scott. “The Man Who Counts the Killings.” The Atlantic Monthly. Online. (1997). 31 October 2007. .
West, Richard and Lynn H. Turner. Introducing Communication Theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill: 2007. p. 407.
