Cultivation Theory In Media

Cultivation theory (or cultivation analysis) was introduced in the 1960s by

Hungarian-born American professor George Gerbner to examine television’s
influence on viewers (Gerbner, 1969). The findings of Gerbner were later expanded
upon and developed by the American screenwriter Larry Gross.

This theory implies that those exposed to media interpret social realities according
to how such realities are portrayed in the media.

Television’s ability to stabilize and homogenize societal views is an example of

cultivation theory. Children who watch commercial TV have notably more sex-
stereotypical views of women and men than children who don’t watch commercial
TV.

The Cultivation Theory suggests heavy television exposure will have a significant
influence on our perception of the real world. The more we see a version of reality
being depicted on the screen, the more we will believe it is an accurate reflection of
society.

For example, if we watch lots of crime shows and see reports of public disorder on
the news bulletins every night, we will begin to worry that violence is having a
dangerous impact in our own neighbourhoods. Or, if you watched films set in
American high schools, you would be forgiven for believing that American teenagers
all look as if they are in the twenties.

Mainstreaming And Resonance

As cultivation theory gained more traction, Gerbner and his colleagues introduced the
concepts of mainstreaming and resonance to further refine their theory.

Mainstreaming

Mainstreaming is the process wherein consistent exposure to the same labels and
images induces television viewers from diverse backgrounds to adopt a homogenous
outlook of the world (Griffin, 2012; Perse, 2005).
Therefore, traditional distinctions among groups are blurred by the emergence of a new
worldview that shifts the mainstream to the interests of the sponsors of television.

Consequently, heavy television viewing can potentially override individual perspectives

in favor of a melting pot of cultural and social trends (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan &
Signorielli, 1994).

Resonance

Resonance is the similarity that television narratives may share with the everyday lives
of the viewers (Gerbner, 1998).

According to Gerbner, this congruence constitutes a double dose of messages which

amplify the effects of cultivation. Such amplified patterns of cultivation may significantly
impact society (Griffin, 2012).

For instance, when those who have already experienced crimes see more violence on
television, their perception of the world as scary is further enhanced.

This reinforcement of belief can lead them to demand more security and safety
measures from governmental authorities.

Mean World Syndrome

The third component of his approach is to evaluate the media’s influence on the audience. Put
simply, can television shape our view of the world through the use of common and repetitive
messages. Again, Gerbner was able to show heavy viewers, which he defined as someone who
watched more than four hours of television per day, were more likely to perceive the real world as
violent and dangerous.

Gerbner claimed there was “considerable support for the proposition that heavy exposure to the
world of television cultivates exaggerated perceptions of the number of people involved in
violence in any given week”.

For example, the following graph is from the “Opinion Research Corporation” which published its
results in March, 1979. It provides examples of mainstreaming and resonance in terms of the
relationship between the amount of viewing and the per cent of respondents saying that “fear of
crime is a very serious personal problem”.
Notice how heavy viewers were more likely to claim violence was a personal problem in their lives
compared to those respondents who were considered to be light viewers of television. Put simply,
the more violence we are exposed to on the screen, the more we consider violence to be a threat
to our own lives.

Gerbner called this cognitive bias mean world syndrome.

Agenda setting series of models : priming framing gatekeeping

agenda setting

The agenda-setting theory explores the media's role in influencing the importance attributed to
various issues in public discourse. Here is an in-depth look at the four models associated with
agenda-setting: priming, framing, gatekeeping, and traditional agenda-setting.

1. Traditional Agenda-Setting:
 Definition:
 Traditional agenda-setting focuses on the media's ability to influence the public agenda by
determining which issues are deemed important.
 Key Points:
 Media doesn't tell people what to think but rather what to think about.
 The media agenda strongly correlates with the public agenda.

2. Priming:
 Definition:
 Priming refers to the ability of media to influence the salience of certain issues by
emphasizing them, which, in turn, affects how individuals evaluate and perceive these issues.
 Key Points:
 Exposure to media coverage can affect the importance individuals attach to particular issues.
  Media primes the audience to consider certain issues as more relevant when evaluating
political figures or making judgments about public policies.
3. Framing:
 Definition:
 Framing involves how information is presented and the context within which it is placed,
shaping how audiences interpret and understand issues.
 Key Points:
 Media not only tells people what to think about but also how to think about it.
 Different frames can lead to varied interpretations and responses to the same information.
 Frames can be implicit or explicit, influencing public opinion by highlighting specific aspects
of an issue.
4. Gatekeeping:
 Definition:
 Gatekeeping involves the selection and control of information by media professionals,
deciding which stories to include or exclude, and how to present them.
 Key Points:
 Editors, journalists, and media organizations act as gatekeepers, filtering and shaping the
information that reaches the public.
 The gatekeeping process is influenced by various factors, including news values,
organizational policies, and individual biases.
 The gatekeeping model has evolved with the rise of digital media, as online platforms
provide alternative avenues for information flow.

The Spiral of Silence: Understanding Social Conformity in

Communication

The Spiral of Silence theory, developed by German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann in
1974, seeks to explain how individuals navigate communication in the public sphere, particularly
when expressing opinions on controversial topics. This theory operates on the premise that people
tend to remain silent or speak out based on their perception of prevailing public opinion, fearing
social isolation if their views diverge from the perceived majority. Here is a detailed exploration of
the key components and implications of the Spiral of Silence:

1. Core Concepts:

 Public Opinion Climate: The theory emphasizes the significance of the perceived public
opinion climate. Individuals are more likely to voice their opinions if they believe their views
align with the majority and less likely if they think their views deviate.
 Fear of Isolation: The fear of social isolation acts as a powerful motivator. People are
hesitant to express opinions that they believe may be unpopular, fearing rejection, ridicule,
or exclusion from the social group.
 Conformity: The Spiral of Silence suggests that individuals are more likely to conform to
what they perceive as the dominant opinion to avoid the discomfort associated with
holding minority views.
  Expression and Silence: The theory delineates a dynamic process wherein individuals may
either express their opinions confidently or choose to remain silent based on their
perception of the social climate.

2. Factors Influencing the Spiral:

 Media Influence: Mass media plays a pivotal role in shaping and disseminating public
opinion. If media platforms consistently present a particular viewpoint, individuals may be
more inclined to conform to that perspective.
 Group Dynamics: The theory highlights the impact of interpersonal communication within
social groups. If individuals sense a consensus within their immediate social circles, they are
more likely to align their opinions accordingly.
 Cultural and Political Context: The cultural and political context significantly influences
the Spiral of Silence. In environments where dissenting opinions are discouraged or
punished, individuals may be less likely to express minority views.

3. Practical Applications:

 Political Discourse: The Spiral of Silence has been applied to understand political
communication, particularly during elections or in the context of political movements.
Individuals may hesitate to express support for less popular candidates or controversial
policies.
 Online Communication: In the digital age, social media platforms play a crucial role in
shaping public discourse. The theory can be applied to analyze how online communities
foster or hinder the expression of diverse opinions.
 Corporate Culture: The Spiral of Silence is relevant in organizational settings, where
employees may refrain from voicing dissenting opinions due to concerns about job security
or fear of professional isolation.

The McBride Commission,

The McBride Commission, officially known as the International Commission for the Study of
Communication Problems, was established by UNESCO in 1977. Its goal was to study and address
issues related to global communication and information flow. Here are some key points from the
McBride Commission's findings:

1. Global Information Disparity:

 The McBride Commission extensively analyzed the distribution of
information worldwide and found a glaring inequality. Developed countries,
particularly those in the Western world, controlled the majority of global
media outlets, resulting in a disproportionate flow of information from
these regions.
2. Media Ownership Concentration:
  One of the commission's key findings was the concentration of media
ownership in the hands of a few dominant corporations and nations. This
concentration led to a homogenization of news content and perspectives,
often reflecting the interests and biases of the owners rather than
representing diverse viewpoints.
3. Cultural Hegemony:
 McBride highlighted the phenomenon of cultural imperialism, where
Western culture, norms, and values were disproportionately represented
and promoted in global media. This dominance marginalized the voices
and cultural identities of non-Western societies, perpetuating a one-sided
narrative in international communication.
4. Disparity Between North and South:
 A central concern of the McBride Commission was the significant disparity
in access to information and communication technologies between
developed and developing countries. This digital divide exacerbated
existing economic and social inequalities, limiting the ability of developing
nations to participate fully in the global exchange of ideas and information.
5. Government Censorship and Control:
 The commission raised alarms about the prevalence of government
censorship and control over media in many parts of the world. Such
restrictions on freedom of expression stifled dissenting voices, limited
access to alternative viewpoints, and hindered the free flow of information
essential for democratic societies.
6. Media Dependency in Developing Countries:
 McBride noted that many developing countries relied heavily on foreign
media sources, primarily from the West, due to limited domestic media
infrastructure and resources. This dependency perpetuated a cycle of
information imbalance, where the perspectives and interests of developing
nations were often marginalized or ignored in global media discourse.
7. Advocacy for Media Democratization:
 In response to these observations, the McBride Commission advocated for
reforms aimed at democratizing media systems worldwide. This included
promoting media pluralism, diversity, and equity to ensure that all voices,
regardless of cultural or economic background, could participate
meaningfully in the global communication landscape.

By highlighting these points, the McBride Commission underscored the urgent need for
concerted efforts to address information imbalances and foster a more inclusive and
equitable global media environment.