This article critically examines the statistical evidence presented by Gerbner et al. to support their assertion that television-viewing “cultivates” distorted perceptions of the “real world.” In Part I, I point out discrepancies in the items, samples, and coding categories employed, and show that when controls are applied simultaneously (rather than singly) there is no linear relationship between amount of viewing and the provision of “television answers.” This reanalysis concludes that the “cultivation” hypothesis lacks empirical support and that the very data presented in its support argue strongly for rejecting the assertion that it has any scientific basis in fact.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlderferC.P. (1977) “A critique of Salancik and Pfeffer's examination of need satisfaction theories.” Admin. Science Q.22: 658–669.
2.
AndrewsF.MorganJ.SonquistJ. (1972) Multiple Classification Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Survey Research Center.
3.
BogartL. (1973) The Age of Television. New York: Unger.
4.
CaplanA. [ed.] (1978) Sociobiology Debate. New York: Harper & Row.
5.
DavisJ.A.SmithT.A.StephensonC.B. (1978) General Social Surveys, 1972-1978: Cumulative Codebook. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.
6.
DeFLEURM.L.Ball-ROKEACHS. (1975) Theories of Mass Communication. New York: Longman.
7.
DoobA.MacDONALDG.E. (1979) “Television viewing and fear of victimization: is the relationship causal?” J. of Social Psychology and Personality37: 170–179.
8.
DorrA. (1980) When I was a child I thought as a child, in WitheyS.AbelesR. (eds.) Television and Social Behavior: Beyond Violence and Children. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
GansH. (1980) The audience for television and in television research, in WitheyS.AbelesR. (eds.) Television and Social Behavior: Beyond Violence and Children. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
GansH. (1962) The Urban Villagers. New York: Free Press.
11.
GerbnerG.GrossL. (1976) “Living with television: the violence profile.” J. of Communication26: 173–199.
12.
GerbnerG.GrossL.SignorielliN.MorganM.Jackson-BEECKM. (1979a) “The demonstration of power: Violence Profile No. 10.” J. of Communication29: 177–196.
13.
GerbnerG.GrossL. (1979b) Violence Profile No. 10. Philadelphia: Annenberg School of Communication.
14.
GerbnerG.GrossL.Jackson-BEECKM.Jefferies-FOXS.SignorielliN. (1978) “Cultural indicators: Violence Profile No. 9.” J. of Communication28: 176–206.
15.
GerbnerG.GrosL.EleeyS.M. F.Jackson-BEECKM.Jeffries-FOXS.SignorielliN. (1977) “TV Violence Profile No. 8: highlights.” J. of Communication27: 171–180.
16.
HawkinsR.PingreeS. (1980) “Some processes in the cultivation effect.” Communication Research7: 193–226.
17.
HimmelweitH.SwiftB.JaegerM.E. (1980) The audience as critic: an approach to the study of entertainment, in TannenbaumP. (ed.) Television Entertainment. Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
Jackson-BEECK.M. (1977) “The nonviewers: who are they?” J. of Communication27: 65–72.
19.
Kam1N.L. (1974) The Science and Politics of I.Q. New York: Halsted Press.
20.
MoynihanD.P.MostellerF. [ed.] (1972) On Equality of Educational Opportunity. New York: Random House.
21.
NewcombH. (1978) “Assessing the violence profiles of Gerbner and Gross: a humanistic critique and suggestion.” Communication Research5: 264–282.
22.
RobinsonJ. (1969) “Television and leisure times: yesterday, today and (maybe) tomorrow.” Public Opinion Q.33: 210–222.
23.
SahlinsM. (1977) The Use and Abuse of Biology. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.
24.
SalancikG.R.PfefferJ. (1977) “An examination of need satisfaction models of job attitudes.” Admin. Science Q.22: 427–455.
