Cultivation


 * Definition and Etymology**

According to the online Oxford English Dictionary, cultivation comes from an agriculture and husbandry term in Latin and French meaning to till or take care of. The word also came to mean the development or improvement of a person’s mind, manners, or faculties through prolonged education or training in the late 1600s and early 1700s (Cultivate, 1989).

The use of the term cultivation as it applies to communication studies comes from an essay written by George Gerbner in 1969 in the journal //AV Communication Review//, in which Gerbner outlines a research methodology for analyzing the messages presented through the mass-mediated channels of broadcast television.


 * Cultivation Theory**

The theory of cultivation “help[s] us understand the consequences of growing up and living in a cultural environment dominated by television” (Morgan, Shanahan, and Signorielli, 2009, p. 34). According to cultivation theory, television provides the most broadly shared cultural images and messages to be viewed across differing time zones and geographical regions – television, with its drama and narratives is a centralized storyteller (Morgan, et. al, 2009). In short, cultivation theorists would say that the cultural landscape is informed and shaped by television messages that are pervasive and frequently exposed to viewers. Over a long duration of time, a viewer’s attitudes may become shaped by the repeated messages of television until his or her worldviews begin to reflect those espoused in broadcast media. This effect is observed more distinctly in viewers who consume higher amounts of television per day.


 * Methodology**

There are three major components of the methodology for cultivation theory, outlined by Gerbner. The first major component looks at the production practices and policies that facilitate the development of media messages; the second major component systematically analyzes samples of televisions shows and codes for trends in themes and messages; the third major component surveys viewers for both attitudes and demographic information – including how much television is consumed per day – so that cross-group comparisons can be made (Morgan, et. al, 2009). In cultivation research, priority is placed on an understanding of aggregate data instead of an understanding of media effects in an individual viewer.

Cultivation analysis will often begin with a content analysis to identify the most recurrent and stable patterns of television content (Morgan, et. al, 2009). The themes and messages identified in these samples will examine aggregate trends out of which a type of reality will emerge. This television reality will then be compared to actual reality. For example, the way television reality might often discuss a rising crime rate will be compared to actual crime rates and reports to discover key differences between television reality and actual reality.

Cultivation analysis will end with survey methodology to determine the consumption patterns of viewers, as well as the attitudes of viewers (Morgan, et. al, 2009). Viewers will be classed into light, medium, and heavy consumption groups, though the amount of consumption for each of those categories may be determined differently by researchers (Morgan, et. al, 2009). After these categories are determined, aggregate measures of attitudinal responses are then analyzed using multivariate analysis to create cross-group comparisons.


 * Findings of Cultivation Theory**

//Mean World Syndrome// Cultivation theory has unearthed results in which long-term and heavy exposure to television will cultivate in viewers a belief that the outside world is a hostile and dangerous place. For more mean world syndrome studies, see Busselle, 2003; Eschholz, Chiricos, & Gertz, 2003; Gerbner & Gross, 1976; Goidel, Freeman & Procopio, 2006; Heath & Petraitis, 1987; Morgan, 1983; Signorielli, 1990; Van den Bulck, 2004; and Wober, 1978.

//Mainstreaming// Cultivation theory has discovered a media effect known as mainstreaming, which is characteristic of television viewers with medium to high consumption patterns. Studies show that viewers with differing perspectives in self-reporting survey will tend to gravitate toward beliefs and attitudes that resonate with television reality in a direct relationship with consumption patterns. For example, sets of viewers that identify as politically liberal and politically conservative will tend to share similar beliefs at high-consumption levels of television, and those beliefs will reflect television reality more than actual reality. For more mainstreaming studies and discussion, see Gerbner, Gross, Morgan & Signorielli, 1982; Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, Signorielli, 1984; and Morgan, 1986.

Lindsay Anderson (August 2012).

include component="comments" page="page:Cultivation" limit="10"


 * References**

Busselle, R. (2003). Television exposure, parents’ precautionary warnings and young adults’ perceptions of crime. Communication Research, 30, 530-556.

cultivate, (1989). In Oxford English Dictionary online. Retrieved from [|http://www.oed.com.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/view/Entry/45724?redirectedFrom=cultivate#eid].

Eschholz, S., Chricos, T., & Gertz, M. (2003). Television and fear of crime: Program types, audience traits, and the mediating effect of perceived neighborhood racial composition. Social Problems, 50, 395-415.

Gerbner, G. (1969). “Toward ‘cultural indicators’: The analysis of mass mediated public message systems.” //AV Communication Review//, //17.2//, 137-148.

Gerbner, G. & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26(2), 173-199.

Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1982). Charting the mainstream: Television’s contributions to political orientations. Journal of Communication, 32(2), 100-127.

Gerbner, G., Gross, L, Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1984). Political correlates of teleivions viewing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 283-300.

Goidel, R., Freeman, C. & Procopio, S. (2006). The impact of television on perceptions of juvenile crime. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 50, 119-139.

Heath, L., & Petraitis, J. (1987). Television viewing and fear of crime: Where is the mean world?. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 8(1/2), 97-123.

Morgan, M. (1983). Symbolic victimization and real-world fear. Human Communication Research, 9, 146-157.

Morgan, M. (1986). Television and the erosion of regional diversity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 30, 123-139.

Morgan, M., Shanahan, J., & Signorielli, N. (2009). Growing up with televisions: Cultivation processes. In J. Byant and M.B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 34- 49). New York, NY: Routledge.

Signorielli, N. (1990). Television’s mean and dangerous world: A continuation of the cultural indicators perspective. In N. Signorielli & M. Morgan (Eds.), Cultivation analysis: New directions in media effects research (pp. 85-106). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Van den Bulck, J. (2004). Research note: The relationship between television fiction and fear of crime. European Journal of Communication, 19, 239-248.

Wober, J. M. (1978). Televised violence and paranoid perception: The view from Great Britain. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 315-321.