mass-communication-theory

340 Section 4 Contemporary Mass Communication Theory
CULTIVATION ANALYSIS
cultivation
analysis
Theory that television“cultivates”
or creates a
worldview that,
although possibly
inaccurate, becomes
the reality
because people
believe it to be so
and who is being harmed (identity), and finally, explain the possibility of collective
action to address the injustice (agency). Gamson stresses the necessity of including
agency in news frames. He argues that most Americans are discouraged about their
ability to take collective action against injustice. Public policy is dominated by
“centralized, hierarchical, national corporations and a national state” (p. 59).
American political culture operates to produce quiescence and passivity. Injustice
is often committed by government or corporations, institutions that most people
find unassailable.
Cultivation analysis, a theory developed by George Gerbner during the 1970s and
1980s, addresses macro-level questions about the media’s role in society, although
it represents a hybrid combining aspects of both macroscopic and microscopic cultural
theories. Some researchers regard it as a possible prototype for future research,
whereas others consider it a poor example of how to do research. In our
view, this controversy was a pivotal one in the development of mass communication
theory. It came when the limited-effects perspective was strong but beginning
to show signs of waning and cultural theories were receiving more serious attention
from media scholars. The controversy reveals a great deal about various opposing
perspectives, some of which are still widely held. As you’ll see from our review of
this theory, it has undergone and continues to undergo important changes. The cultivation
theory employed by most researchers today is very different from the theory
formulated by Gerbner. As the theory has been reformulated, it has attracted
growing interest from post-positivist researchers. Somewhat ironically, a theory
that was rejected by many post-positivists two decades ago is now widely accepted
as a useful way to understand and explain media effects.
You can begin your own evaluation of cultivation analysis by answering three
questions:
1. In any given week, what are the chances that you will be involved in some
kind of violence: about 1 in 10 or about 1 in 100? In the actual world, about
0.41 violent crimes occur per 100 Americans, or less than 1 in 200. In the
world of prime-time television, though, more than 64 percent of all characters
are involved in violence. Was your answer closer to the actual or to the television
world?
2. What percentage of all working males in the United States toil in law enforcement
and crime detection: 1 percent or 5 percent? The U.S. Census says 1 percent;
television says 12 percent. What did you say?
3. Of all the crimes that occur in the United States in any year, what proportion
is violent crime, like murder, rape, robbery, and assault? Would you guess 15
or 25 percent? If you hold the television view, you chose the higher number.
On television, 77 percent of all major characters who commit crimes commit
the violent kind. The Statistical Abstract of the United States reports that in
actuality only 10 percent of all crime in the country is violent crime.
These questions come from Gerbner and his colleagues, but their point was
much more complex than simply stating that those who watch more television
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.