Cultivation Analysis

Ray Sahagun Spring 2002

“We hold these truths to be self- evident: That all persons are endowed with the right to live in a cultural environment that is respectful of their humanity and supportive of their potential. That all children are endowed with the right to grow up in a cultural environment that fosters responsibility, trust, and community rather than force, fear, and violence. That when the cultural environment becomes destructive of these ends, it is necessary to alter it.” (Gerbner, 1996). So goes the opening statement of the Viewers Declaration of Independence. This was penned by the founding fathers of the Cultural Environmental Movement of whom, George Gerbner is principle. This paper reviews a theoretical contribution to our world called Cultivation analysis. First we will entertain a brief overview of George Gerbner’s life and how he became the spokesperson for this theory. A brief review of the theory and its impact and application on our society follows.

George Gerbner was born in 1919 in Budapest, Hungary. Growing up he experienced the political changes that brought fascism to prominence. Disturbed with the rhetoric of the politics that had gripped his nation Gerbner immigrated to the United States in the 1930s. After becoming a citizen, he earned a bachelors degree in journalism from the University of California at Berkeley in 1942 (Starkweather, 1999). Motivated in part by his political convictions Gerbner enlisted in the U.S. Army (Stossel, 1997). Gerbner received the Bronze Star for his heroic service during the war. The Bronze Star was awarded for bravery or to persons who distinguished themselves while serving in the US military on or after 6 December 1941 (The Institute of Heraldry, 2002).

After the war Gerbner attended the University of Southern California earning a Ph.D. pioneering research into education and television. Appointed dean to the Annenberg School of Communication in 1964 he built a department from inception to success retiring in 1989, 25 years later. “The Cultural Indicators project began in 1968 when a national commission on violence appointed Gerbner to study the content of television programming. In this study, researchers analyze, among other things, the number of violent acts committed each night, whether it was serious or humorous, who committed the acts and who suffered the most from the violence. This data is then entered into a database for statistical analysis. This research continues today with Gerbner as the director of the project “(Starkweather, 1999).

From this research Gerbner developed the theory of cultivation. Gerbner asserts in this theory that television is the great common medium. This single channel reaches all in our society sending messages that teach a, “common world view, common roles, and common values” (Severin & Tankard, 1988). Stephen Littlejohn calls television the “homogenizing agent in culture” and that “this is not a theory of individual media effects but instead makes a statement about the culture as a whole (Littlejohn, 2002).

Morgan and Signorielli refer to television is the common teacher, storyteller, and companion in our society. Explaining the theory of cultivation analysis they summarize, that, “in its simplest form, cultivation analysis tries to ascertain if those who spend more time watching television are more likely to perceive the real world in ways that reflect the most common and repetitive messages and lessons of the television world, compared with people who watch less television but are otherwise comparable in important demographic characteristics” (Morgan & Signorielli, 1990). What is the impact of television? How does it affect those who are heavy viewer as opposed to those who are light viewers? Are there common messages that are cultivated by viewers and do those levels of cultivation vary with viewing habits? Do variations exist between groups that can be identified and isolated demographically? Cultivation theory claims that there are distinct differences between viewers who watch greater amounts of television; that their world view is shaped and formed by the main source of information and entertainment. A diet of T.V. Those viewers who spend less time in front of the tube get a wider variety in their diet. Newspapers, magazines, and personal conversations are just a few of the things that round out their intake of information and entertainment. Their diet is more well rounded and these viewers are less likely to share the same attitudes, values, and beliefs with their heavy viewing counterparts (Morgan & Signorielli).

This is not a simple conditioning model of behavior. Cultivation theory does not hold that unique individual viewing episodes work to change the consciousness of individuals or a nation. Rather, it is the repeated long term exposure to a consistent message that effects change, shapes views, and builds attitudes. The recurring themes found in television programming create a culture, a very belief system and a reality of the way things are in the world. Thus, heavy viewers see the world differently than do light viewers. Again, this process of cultivation is not achieved in a single viewing season. These themes work to the culturalization of generations. (Morgan & Signorielli, 1990).

Mainstreaming is a word that evokes powerful emotions for many people for different reasons. For the parents of an emotional or developmentally disabled child reaction to the idea of mainstreaming is determined by the unique experiences of the family. No two families will have the same feelings about mainstreaming their emotionally or developmentally disabled child because meanings are in people and people are diverse by nature of gender, culture, and life experience. Within the context of the cultivation theory mainstreaming refers to the overall impact of television viewing as a factor on influencing the viewer’s attitudes and views of society. The analogy of mainstreaming in the context of educating the disabled attempts to highlight natural diversity that occurs because of gender, culture, and life experience. What mainstreaming in the context of cultivation theory explains is how heavy television viewing works to “absorb and override differences in perspectives and behaviors that ordinarily stem from other factors and influences…Through the process of mainstreaming, television…became the true 20^th century melting pot of the American people” (Morgan & Signorielli, 1990).

An example of this mainstreaming exists in what Nancy Signorielli terms “Television’s Mean and Dangerous World” (Signorielli, 1990). Signorielli cites a study that was used to highlight the effects of the mean and dangerous world view. The study hypothesized that viewers of heavy amounts of television are more likely to have a view of the world consistent with that of a mean and dangerous world. Children’s, prime-time, and weekend programming was analyzed from 1967 to 1985 to identify the number of violent acts shown in the programming. Viewers were periodically polled to assess their view of the world. Generally, heavy viewers were found to be much more likely to have a mean and dangerous view of the world in comparison to those who were light viewers of television. Signorielli says, “This unequal sense of danger, vulnerability, and general malaise cultivated by what is called ‘entertainment’ invites not only aggression but also exploitation and repression. Fearful people are more dependent, more easily manipulated and controlled, more susceptible to deceptively simple, strong, tough measures and hard-line postures both political and religious. They may accept and even welcome repression if it promises to relieve their insecurities and other anxieties. That is the deeper problem of violence-laden television” (Signorielli, 1990).

What does the future of television hold for us? From a technological standpoint there is a lot on the horizon. High definition T.V. is already being broadcast in most major markets and within 10 years broadcasters will be phasing out their analog signals. HDTV delivers a digital image of remarkable quality. Coupled with a surround sound system, home owner’s entertainment systems will rival the experience of going to the theater. Will this enhancement in visual and audio candy make heavier viewers of television out of our society? Will it increase the ability of television to act as a mainstreaming agent? Maybe not.

Cultivation theory is convincing. As the unchecked sole source of information I agree that television can have these effects on our attitudes and beliefs. But there are so many other factors that can influence our lives. Education, traditions, and culture, which are the very elements that mainstreaming seemingly overrides, are the very checks and balances to television. But it would seem to hold true that with the arrival of these new technologies, television will only become more prevalent and have a greater influence on our culture.

Littlejohn, Stephen W. (2002). Theories of Human Communication. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Morgan, M & Signorielli, N (1990). Cultivation Analysis: New Directions in Media Effects Research. Newbury Park: Sage

Severin, W.J. & Tankard, J.W. (1988). Communication theories: Origins, methods, and uses in the mass media. New York: Longman.