User:Rms235/sandbox
Improvements and additions that need to be made to current Cultivation Theory Page:
- providing more inline citations
- more information about the different aspects of the theory, including:
The Ice Age Analogy
[edit]Gerbner uses an ice analogy to differentiate Cultivation Analysis from limited effects theory, stating that "just as an average temperature shift of a few degrees can lead to an ince age or the outcomes of elections can be determined by slight margins, so too can a relatively small but pervasive influence make a crucial difference. The 'size' of an 'effect' is far less critican than the direction of its steady contribution" (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan & Signorielli, 1980, p. 14).
First Order Effects and Second Order Effects
[edit]- Cultivation Analysis produces effects on two levels. First order effects refer to the learning of facts from the media. Second order effects are defined as "hypotheses about more general issues and assumptions" that people make about their surrounding environments (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielle, 1986, p.28)
Mean World Index
[edit]This is a product of Cultivation Analysis and consists of a series of three statements
- Most people are just looking out for themselves.
- You can’t be too careful in dealing with people.
- Most people would take advantage of your if they got the chance.
The theory predicts that agreement with these three statements will differ depending on whether an individual is a heavy or light television viewer. It predicts that that the amount of television viewing is the best predictor of people’s answers, even more so than other factors such as income and education.
A 1980 study by Gerber, et. al showed that heavy viewers more more likely to see the world as a mean place than light viewers. Heavy viewers with higher education and higher income, saw the world as being as violent as did low income and less educated people.
Gerbner’s Three B’s'
[edit]Gerbner contends that television blurs traditional distinctions of people’s views of their world, blends people’s realities into televisions cultural mainstream, and bends that mainstream to the institutional interests of television and its sponsors.
Critiques of Cultivation Analysis
[edit]- Has been criticized for using social scientific methods. - CA offends many humanists due to its discussion of cultural effects. Horace Newcomb (1978), writes “The question, ‘What does it all mean?’ is essentially, a humanistic question” (p. 266).
- Has also been criticized because its claims are not always useful in explaining how people see the world. Newcomb says that violence is not always presented uniformly on television; therefore, television cannot be responsible for cultivating the same sense of reality for all viewers.
Additional research that has applied CA
[edit]- crime (Signorielli, 1990)
- fear of victimization (Sparks & Ogles, 1990)
- attitudes toward racism (Allen & Hatchett, 1986)
- anxiety (Zillman & Wakshlag, 1985)
- gender stereotyping (Carveth & Alexander, 1985; Preston, 1990)
- values (Potter, 1993)
Cultivation Theory and the digital environment
[edit]Cultivation Analysis is centered around television, but new research show that it is applicable to new media, such as virtual communities and worlds.