Carol Kinney Student ID 503951 COM403 Research on Cultivation Theory
According to the authors of Fundamentals of Media Effects (Bryant, et al.), cultivation theory in communication theory states that what an individual and society, as a whole, watches on television influences the way that the individual or general society thinks (109). Timothy P. Meyer of the University of Wisconsin, agrees with this theory to an extent (“Reflections on Cultivation Theory and Consumer Behavior” 1989), but adds that in his opinion cultivation theory has severe limitations in proving true for a large part of the population. Meyer bases his assumptions about cultivation theory on his study of communication researchers and the “fragmented” “methodological approaches” that the researchers have tackled the theory. According to Meyer, the researchers are not focusing on specific effects that television has on people, but rather studying too broad areas of effect, such as violence. Meyer also states that the researchers err in proving this theory because television is the only focus of the theory instead of considering “the application of cultivation to content domains other than TV.” He says, “While television is certainly an influence agent, it is certainly not the only one, nor does it function in a vacuum devoid of other media.” Meyer also is concerned that communication researchers are not thinking far enough beyond the effects that media has on people to include how those effects are “manifest[ed]” in “beliefs” and “behavior.” He says “What research has lacked to date is the empirical investigation of how such associations [effects of television] come about, under what conditions, and how consequences ensue as part and parcel of a complex, on-going process.”
In his position paper, Meyer’s thoughts about cultivation theory support, disagree and add to the textbook authors’ (Bryant, et al.) writings. The main similarity between the two is that Meyers heavily criticizes the “limitations” of the research on cultivation theory and the textbook authors carve out an entire section in the chapter dedicated to “Concepts and Criticisms (111-113). In fact, the textbook author uses two of Meyer’s arguments against the research in that “most early studies were criticized because they were not directed toward identifying the cognitive components that would explain cultivation effects rather than merely showing the connection between television viewing and beliefs about social reality (113).” Given that Meyer’s paper was written in 1989, this makes sense. Another similarity between the textbook and Meyer’s paper is that Meyer advocates for the “social action theory” in the study of cultivation effects, and the textbook authors state that while that was a one-time criticism of the research (113), more contemporary research has attempted to “answer some of the criticism (114)” that Meyer makes. Additionally, that Meyer wishes to see other media besides television incorporated into cultivation theory mirrors Bryant, et al.’s closing sentence in the chapter: Cultivation research in the 21 st century will need to consider (121)” other media forms. Meyer agrees with, disagrees with and adds to the observation that the textbook authors make that “cultivation research has typically involved two research methods: content and analysis of television program and survey method to assess viewer perceptions of the world (110).” This is the very basis that Meyer uses to state that the research is severely limited and “too broad.” While Meyer does not reference Gerbner’s Cultural Indicators Project (c.f. Bryant,
et al. 109-111), nor does he call it by name in the paper, much of what Meyer states about the limitations of the research at the time that he wrote the paper is a criticism of Gerbner’s project. The textbook authors say that Gerbner’s research findings suggest that “personality traits, social background, cultural mores, and even their past television viewing experiences (112-113)” can play a role in defining how an individual is affected by what is watched on television. Meyer agrees with Gerbner’s findings, yet Meyer states that these factors are not the end result of cultivation theory research, but rather should be the basis and beginning point in which the research is conducted (c.f. Bryant et al 114; pp 3). The textbook authors support this in the evidence of more recent cultivation research that “foreign countries (Bryant, et al 116) and “updated findings (Bryant, et al. 117)” that focus more on culture, gender roles, and time periods. Myer also adds an additional detail that the textbook authors do not. The textbook authors’ say that the “social cognitive theory (114; as opposed to Meyer’s “social action theory”), or that people model behaviors watched on television was once the basis for all cultivation research. The textbook authors also explain that more recent research has included aspects of Meyer’s social action theory, such as the cognitive “routes (Bryant, et al 115). However, Meyer says these processes are good to use, but are not the only ones and adds that “Accommodation Theory” would be more complete than just merely using social theories (Meyer’s explanation as to why is very difficult to understand). In my own experience, I tend to agree with Meyer and the more recent cultivation research. I agree with Meyer and the textbook authors that what is watched on television can have
effects on how a person acts or thinks about the world and behaves. However, I also believe that Meyer was on the right track when he said that there are individual factors that should be a starting point, rather than a theory conclusion or tool, in determining to what extent those effects will be. For example, I enjoy watching crime dramas (NCIS franchise and the Law & Order franchise), but I do not believe that my “value judgments (Bryant, et al. 115)” or my worldview is skewed into thinking that we live in a “mean world (Bryant, et al. 109). I also do not have a “negative perception” of the mentally ill (Bryant, et al. 119) because I watch crime dramas. I believe that this is because my cognitive process views these shows as entertainment. Additionally, I believe that my Christian beliefs and education affect my view of the world. I believe that there are contributory factors such as these that affect every individual’s relationship between what is watched on television and their beliefs, actions and thoughts. However, I do acknowledge that it is easy to fall into the “mean world syndrome” pattern. Being crime drama fans, my husband and I used to watch Criminal Minds, but when it became too violently intense that it was making us uncomfortable, we stopped watching. For a person, such as me or my husband, who is capable of separating the two, this is easily monitored before there are any lasting effects. However, for a person who has not yet learned how to do this or who has a mental impairment, this may be difficult. For instance, when my son was younger, he would imitate nearly everything that he watched on television (c.f “social cognitive theory”) and so we had to be selective in what we allowed him to watch. We tended to stay away from things that we
knew would create an obsession or violent programs. Now that he is an adult, he makes fun of how vigilant I was in this matter, yet I believe that he is the person that he is today because we were diligent in monitoring his television viewing. I also agree with Meyer’s assessment that cultivation theory research has the ability to be more than it is currently; that is “could propel cultivation theory to the forefront of consumer behavior theory” above and beyond measuring the effect of television and violence. The textbook authors state some of the many aspects that cultivation is now being studied in other countries and including other topics (c.f Bryant, et al. 116-120). I believe that one such area that could be applied is in marketing and advertising, as Meyer suggests in his paper. In my own experience, I have seen effects similar to that which was found in the South Korean and Indian studies (Bryant, et al. 117) when I watch a lot of shows on HGTV. When I see things that are in other homes on the shows on these channels, I tend to think that what I have does not measure up, or that I want some of those things more than I should. However, when I catch myself having these thoughts, I usually cut myself off from these programs for a while and remind myself of biblical principles about coveting and being thankful for what God has given me. Again, because I am able to do this, reflects that while cultivation effects can happen, there are factors that cause me to have a different reaction than someone else who does not share my values or education. In this way, I believe that cultivation theory may always be incomplete or inconclusive for society as a whole or even a categorized society and has limitations in this way. Since every individual’s cognitive process is different and there are other social, economic and cultural
factors, cultivation theory may only be as complete in general terms, and not individualistic terms, just as Meyer suggests.
Cited Sources Bryant, J. et al. 2013. Fundamentals of Media Effects 2nd Ed. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. Print. Myer, T.P. (1989). “Reflections on Cultivation Theory and Consumer Behavior.� Advances in Consumer Research, 16 (1), 786-789. Annie Gabriel Library. California Baptist University. Online. Retrieved 23 Jan. 2014. http://ehis.ebscohost.com.libproxy.calbaptist.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=1014244b7da7-45f0-85ae-9753db2a77d0%40sessionmgr4004&vid=4&hid=4111.