It is argued that the ways in which different cultures (and individuals within them) experience television, and not television per se (as a static variable with equal stimulus value), will lead to more meaningful and contextually accurate interpretations of how television is to be studied and interpreted cross-culturally. The culture-mediated subjective experience of television interacts with cognition and behaviors, and these variables form a "reciprocally deterministic" or "interactionistic" relationship that can only be understood against a backdrop of expectations and experiences within each culture. This invited commentary uses other articles in this special issue to highlight certain themes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bachen, C. M. , Hornby, M. C., Roberts, D. F., & Hernandez-Ramos, P. F. (1982). Television viewing behavior and the development of reading skills: Survey evidence. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, New York, NY.
2.
Bandura, A. (1978). The self system in reciprocal determinism. American Psychologist, 33, 344-358.
3.
Bowers, K. S. (1973). Situationism in psychology: An analysis and a critique. Psychological Review, 80, 307-336.
4.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 34, 740-754.
5.
Cohen, A. , & Salomon, G. (1979). Children's literate television viewing: Surprises and possible explanation. Journal of Communication, 29, 156-163.
6.
Collins, A. W. (1979). Children's comprehension of television-content. In E. Wartella (Ed.), Children communicating: Media and development of thought, speech, and understanding. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
7.
Doob, A. N. , & MacDonald, G. E. (1979). Television viewing and fear of victimization: Is the relationship causal?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 170-179.
8.
Endler, S. N. (1981). Situational aspects of interactional psychology. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a psychology of situation: An interactional perspective (pp. 361-373). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
Fenigstein, A. (1979). Aggression as a cause for viewing media violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2307-2317.
10.
Gibbs, J. C. (1979). The meaning of ecologically oriented inquiry in contemporary psychology. American Psychologist, 34, 127-140.
11.
Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. Greenwich, CT: Fawcett.
12.
Hornik, R. C. (1974). Mass media use and the "revolution of rising frustration ": A reconsideration of the theory. Paper No. 11. East-West Communication Institute.
13.
Hornik, R. (1981). Out-of-school television and schooling: Hypotheses and methods. Review of Educational Research, 51, 193-214.
14.
Katz, E. , Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, U. (1974). Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
15.
Magnusson, D. (1981). Wanted: A psychology of situation. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a psychology of situation: An interactional perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
Miller, J. G. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 961-978.
17.
Mischel, W. (1977). On the future of personality measurement. American Psychologist, 34, 740-754.
18.
Moreland, R. L. , & Zajonc, R. B. (1979). Exposure effects may not depend on stimulus recognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1085-1089.
19.
Olweus, D. (1977). A critical analysis of the "modern" interactionist position. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroad. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
Phillips, D. (1976). Holistic thought in social science. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
21.
Reeves, B. , Chaffee, S. H., & Tims, A. (1982). Social cognition and mass communication research. In M. E. Roloff & C. R. Berger (Eds.), Social cognition and communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
22.
Reeves, B. , & Wartella, E. (1982). For some children under some conditions. Paper presented to the Mass Communication Division of the International Communication Association, Boston.
23.
Roberts, D. F. (1984). Reading and television. Communication Research, 11, 9-49.
24.
Rommetveit, R. (1981). On meaning of situations and social control of such meaning in human communication. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a psychology of situation: An interactional perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
Salomon, G. (1979). Interaction of media, cognition and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
26.
Salomon, G. (1981). Communication and education: Social and psychological interactions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
27.
Salomon, G. (1983). Toward a theory of communication and education in reciprocal relations: Learners' active role. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles.
28.
Salomon, G. (1984). Television is "easy" and print is "tough": The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 647-658.
29.
Salomon, G. (1985). Television and reading reconsidered. Unpublished manuscript, Tel-Aviv University, Center for the Study of Communication and Computers in Education.
30.
Salomon, G. , & Leigh, T. (1984). Predispositions about learning from print and television. Journal of Communication, 32, 119-135.
31.
Schramm, W. , Lyle, J., & Parker, E. B. (1961). Television in the lives of our children. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
32.
Shulman, L. S. (1981). Educational psychology returns to school. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association annual meeting, Los Angeles.
33.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
34.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151-175.
