Content uploaded by L. J. Shrum
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by L. J. Shrum on Oct 09, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Cultivation Theory: Effects and
Underlying Processes
L. J. SHRUM
HEC Paris, France
Cultivationisasocioculturaltheoryregardingtheroleoftelevisioninshapingviewers’
perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, and values (Gerbner & Gross, 1976). In its original con-
ceptualization, it was part of a more general cultural indicators project that addressed
thebroaderquestionoftheroleofmediainshapingaculture,primarilythroughthe
media’s storytelling function. Although a number of studies have since examined cul-
tivation eects in non-US contexts, the original theory pertained to the overwhelming
inuence of US media in shaping US culture (Shanahan & Morgan, 1999). e cul-
tural indicators project consisted of three components: an institutional process analysis
that focused on how media messages are produced and disseminated, a message sys-
tem analysis that focused on what actual messages were conveyed by the media, and a
cultivation analysis that focused on how exposure to media messages inuences recip-
ients’ conceptions of the real world. Moreover, because at the time of the development
of cultivation theory television was the dominant storytelling medium, most of the the-
ory’s development and testing has focused on the inuence and eects of television on
viewers’ perceptions of social reality.
As cultivation is a sociocultural theory, the three components—media institutions,
message production, and message eects on viewers—are inextricably intertwined.
However, the third component, cultivation analysis, has been the primary focus of most
media research. In its simplest form, a cultivation eect is the relationship between the
amount of time people spend watching television and the beliefs those viewers hold
abouttheworld.eprimaryhypothesisisthatthemorepeoplewatchtelevision,the
more their views of the world reect the dominant narrative messages transmitted by
television. More specically, cultivation theory holds that the storytelling function of
television is extremely powerful. Although the messages conveyed by television may at
rst seem incredibly diverse (many dierent themes, many dierent types of programs
that convey these themes, and many dierent types of people that convey them),
systematic analyses of these messages indicates a remarkable consistency in general
valuesystems.ItistheconsistencyoftheTVmessagecoupledwiththehighfrequency
with which these messages are viewed that give television the power to shape both
individual and societal values, and in Gerbner’s view make it the dominant socializing
forceinAmericansociety.
e International Encyclopedia of Media Eects.
Patrick Rössler (Editor-in-Chief), Cynthia A. Honer, and Liesbet van Zoonen (Associate Editors).
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0040
2CULTIVATION THEORY:EFFECTS AND UNDERLYING PROCESSES
Initial and general tests of cultivation theory
As mentioned, the primary hypothesis of cultivation theory is that the more people
watch television, the more they will come to adopt its underlying messages. at
is, the more they watch television, the more likely they are to hold beliefs that are
consistent with the world as it is portrayed on television. Of course, if the world of
television did in fact provide an accurate portrayal of the real world, then television
would have little independent eect on perceptions. However, content analyses of
TV programming clearly suggest that the world of television is quite dierent from
the real world, in very systematic ways. For example, the world of television is more
violent in general than the real world, violence is disproportionately enacted on
certain groups (children, elderly, minorities), and the prevalence of certain occu-
pations is portrayed as disproportionately high for certain groups (e.g., lawyers,
doctors, police ocers) but disproportionately low for others (e.g., blue-collar
workers).
Other important dierences exist between TV portrayals and actual facts. For
example, television consistently portrays a picture of material abundance. Repre-
sentations of wealth and auence, and general levels of materialism, tend to be
overrepresented on television (O’Guinn & Shrum, 1997). is general message of
auence and material striving is consistent with the American narrative of abun-
dance, moving up the social ladder, and the centrality of material goods in American
life.
Tests of cultivation follow directly from the aforementioned content analyses.
If TV viewing cultivates perceptions of social reality that are consistent with the
world portrayed on television, then the more people watch television, the more they
should perceive that the real world resembles the TV world. Accordingly, amount
of TV viewing should be positively correlated with estimates of societal crime and
violence, perceptions of the world as a mean and violent place, estimates of the
prevalence of certain occupations, and other types of estimates that follow directly
from content analyses showing overrepresentation of certain people, activities, beliefs,
and values.
An impressive volume of research supports these hypotheses (see Shanahan
& Morgan, 1999). Television viewing is positively correlated with estimates of
societal violence, anomie, fear of walking alone at night, and perceived danger.
Studies have also documented the relationship between frequency of TV view-
ing and social reality perceptions not directly related to violence. For example,
TV viewing is positively correlated with negative beliefs about the elderly; more
conservative attitudes toward criminal justice; more sexist attitudes; greater faith
in doctors; higher estimates of the prevalence of doctors, lawyers, and police
ocers; and greater interpersonal mistrust. Numerous studies also attest to the
relationship between TV viewing and both perceptions of societal auence and
individual levels of materialism. Frequency of TV viewing is positively correlated
withperceptionsofsocietalauenceandwithlevelofmaterialism(Shrum&
Lee, 2012).
CULTIVATION THEORY:EFFECTS AND UNDERLYING PROCESSES 3
Meta-analyses of cultivation findings
Overall, the volume of supportive ndings is sizable and impressive. Nevertheless, the
studiesoenhaveawsthatarisefromtradeosinresearchdesign.esetradeos
include sample size, sample composition, operationalization of independent (predic-
tor) and dependent (criterion) variables, and statistical and methodological controls
to address alternative explanations for the ndings. Consequently, each study may be
individually critiqued in isolation, which oen can reduce condence in the validity of
the ndings and therefore the theory to which they pertain.
One way of addressing a body of research (a set of studies) that tests a particular
theory in distinct but similar ways is through meta-analysis. Shanahan and Morgan
(1999) provided such a meta-analysis of 20 years of cultivation research ndings. eir
ndings from an analysis of 58 independent samples conrmed a signicant relation-
ship between frequency of viewing and beliefs about the world, although the overall
weighted eect was small (r=.085). ese ndings held across multiple beliefs about
the world (e.g., violence, politics), for both large and small sample sizes, and when mul-
tiple statistical controls were applied simultaneously. ese ndings provide compelling
support for cultivation theory and minimize many of the criticisms leveled in a piece-
meal fashion at individual studies.
Criticisms of cultivation theory and research
Despite the substantial accumulated evidence supporting cultivation theory, the ini-
tial publications of cultivation theory and research generated a number of critiques.
ese critiques varied across a wide spectrum, including operationalization of vari-
ables, assumptions of cultivation theory, and issues of statistical controls that address
alternativeexplanationsforthendings.Althoughthemeta-analysesjustnotedaddress
some of these issues, the criticisms received considerable attention and thus are worth
noting.
Contested assumptions of cultivation theory
One critical assumption of cultivation theory is that viewers are relatively nonselective
in terms of their viewing habits. at is, Gerbner and colleagues assert that “television
provides a relatively restricted set of choices for a virtually unrestricted variety of
interests and publics. Most of its programs are by commercial necessity designed to be
watched by nearly everyone in a relatively nonselective fashion” (Gerbner et al., 1986,
p. 19). A related assumption is that the content of TV programming is remarkably
consistent in terms of its message; thus, even if viewers are selective, the message for the
most part does not vary. Both of these assumptions have been questioned. For example,
whereas these assumptions may have held in the early years of cultivation work, they
may no longer be valid. With the advent of cable television, additional networks, and
superstations, TV programming is no longer solely in the hands of the three major
networks. Programming has become more targeted, designed to appeal to a segmented
4CULTIVATION THEORY:EFFECTS AND UNDERLYING PROCESSES
market. Further, technology has made the remote control device ubiquitous, making
program selection all the more easier. All of these developments and innovations may
contribute to increased selectivity in viewing.
Although these challenges seem to have face value, the actual evidence of selective
viewing and program-specic eects is far from consistent. For example, Hawkins and
Pingree (1981) conducted a study of Australian viewers designed to address the prob-
lems inherent in Gerbner’s assumptions regarding habitual viewing. ey reasoned that,
if viewing behavior is selective, the relevant material is not the sum of what is pre-
sented but rather the sum of what is actually viewed. Using a combination of in-depth
questionnaires and viewing diaries, they found that some types of programming were
viewed more or less habitually. Moreover, they found that the content of the programs
selected was more strongly related to cultivation than simple measures of overall view-
ing. ey concluded that, although Gerbner’s assumptions may be awed, discarding
them actually strengthened support for the cultivation hypothesis rather than weak-
ened it.
Other studies have attempted to tailor the criterion variables (types of violence, au-
ence, materialism, morality, etc.) to specic genres. ese studies showed that viewing
of specic genres is related to social reality estimates over and above the general eects
oftotalTVviewing.Nevertheless,asubstantialmajorityofcultivationstudieshave
shown that total TV viewing is a consistent predictor of social reality beliefs regardless
of whether viewing of specic programs is considered (Shanahan & Morgan, 1999).
Statistical criticisms of hypothesis testing
A second widely cited criticism of the early cultivation research publications centered
on the statistical techniques used to test the hypothesis. A number of scholars have
contended that the early cultivation research did not properly account for spurious-
ness, which is the notion that observed correlations between variables (e.g., frequency
of viewing and estimates of societal violence) may in fact be the result of other-variable
inuences on both the predictor and criterion variables. Specically, a number of the
published studies supporting cultivation eects failed to control for these variables (e.g.,
gender, education, income, and direct experience) simultaneously. Instead, the early
studies tended to apply statistical controls one variable at a time. However, when the
relevant control variables were applied simultaneously, the cultivation eect was oen
reduced to nonsignicance (Hirsch, 1980).
Although these criticisms were sound and the original theorists acknowledged that
failure to apply simultaneous controls was problematic, subsequent research on cultiva-
tion eects eectively rendered these problems moot. e preponderance of evidence,
particularly considering meta-analytic ndings, demonstrates that the cultivation eect
holds in the presence of almost all control variables.
Domain specificity for judgments of crime risk
Another criticism, or at least a qualication, of cultivation theory was provided by Tyler
and colleagues (Tyler, 1980; Tyler & Cook, 1984) in what they termed the impersonal
CULTIVATION THEORY:EFFECTS AND UNDERLYING PROCESSES 5
impact hypothesis. Tyler and colleagues suggested that not all crime risk judgments
arethesame:Somepertaintojudgmentsofsocietalrisk(e.g.,frequencyofsocietal
crime) and some pertain to judgments of personal risk (e.g., estimates of one’s own
risk of crime victimization). Tyler and colleagues argued that these two types of judg-
ments are independent and that a particular experience modality (e.g., one’s own expe-
rience with crime) may not aect the other (e.g., estimates of societal crime frequency).
More important, the researchers contended that TV viewing may aect the two judg-
ments dierently. ey suggested that TV viewing (and the information or general
messages gained from it) should impact judgments of societal crime risk but that one’s
owndirectexperienceshouldoverridetheinuenceofTVinformationforjudgments
of personal risk. In a series of studies, Tyler and colleagues provided evidence to support
this hypothesis. In subsequent research, Shrum & Bischak (2001) provided a qualica-
tion to the impersonal impact hypothesis by showing that TV viewing was associated
with judgments of personal crime risk when judging risk outside one’s own neighbor-
hood (and thus outside one’s primary direct experience) but, consistent with Tyler and
colleagues, found no relation between TV viewing and judgments of personal crime
risk in one’s own neighborhood.
Introduction of new concepts to cultivation theory
Although the issue of proper application of statistical controls was eectively dealt
with by Gerbner and colleagues and the research ndings of other scholars, it raised
an important issue that spurred the development of two new concepts, what Gerbner
and colleagues (1980) call mainstreaming and resonance. Mainstreaming refers to
a sharing or convergence of views of the world among heavy viewers in otherwise
disparate groups. In other words, people in certain demographic groups, such as
those dened by education, income, or political orientation, tend to have dierent
views of the world, all else being equal. Gerbner and colleagues posited that heavy
TV viewing should cause the outlooks of disparate groups (high vs. low income,
highly educated vs. poorly educated) to move closer to one another (hence the term
mainstreaming).
Resonance posits that viewers whose life experiences are congruent with TV
portrayals will be most aected by TV viewing. For example, viewing portrayals of a
mean and violent world should especially “resonate” for those who have had direct
experience with crime and violence, eectively providing a “double dose of the TV
message and signicantly boost[ing] cultivation” (Gerbner et al., 1980, p. 15). Gerbner
et al. (1980) presented data consistent with this hypothesis. Later research by Shrum
and Bischak (2001) provided additional evidence of resonance eects for judgments
of crime risk, regardless of domain (e.g., societal crime risk, crime risk in one’s own
neighborhood, crime risk outside one’s own neighborhood).
Although the criticisms of cultivation theory and research were spirited, diverse, and
oen appropriate, generally the theory has stood the test of time in that subsequent
research conducted using more rigorous methods that accounted for earlier criticisms
has provided consistent support for cultivation theory. For the most part, general
6CULTIVATION THEORY:EFFECTS AND UNDERLYING PROCESSES
tests of cultivation theory have focused on broad relations between general measures
of TV viewing and a variety of criterion variables, with some focus on moderat-
ing relationships. e next section looks more closely at the possible underlying
mechanisms of cultivation eects and discusses research that attempts to explain the
psychological processes that can account for why and how TV information inuences
judgments.
Psychological process explanations for cultivation effects
As noted earlier, cultivation theory is a sociocultural theory concerning the inuence
of a highly sociocultural phenomenon (television). e original cultivation theorists
made it clear that their theory of the general inuence of the socially and culturally
shared experience of the TV message was not an “eects” theory (Shanahan & Morgan,
1999). Eects theory generally refers to the state of communication research at that
time (mid-1970s), which had focused on individual reactions (eects) to the content of
TV programming (causes). Nevertheless, a persistent criticism of cultivation research
wasthatitlackedanyfocusonexplanatorymechanisms.Earlycultivationresearchhad
been primarily concerned with relations between input variables (e.g., media infor-
mation and its characteristics) and output variables (e.g., attitudes, beliefs, behavior),
with little consideration of the cognitive processes that might mediate these relations
(Hawkins & Pingree, 1990).
Initial research on underlying processes
Inanattempttoaddressthesecriticisms,anumberofresearchersundertookprograms
of research aimed at explicating these underlying psychological processes. Such an
explication was deemed important, particularly in light of the scholarly criticisms
that questioned the validity of cultivation eects. e development of psychological
process models has the potential to increase internal validity, which is the extent to
whichwearecondentthatweareobservingatruecausaleectandnotonethat
is spurious—another common criticism of many media eects studies (McGuire,
1986). A process model should provide clear links between the stimulus (e.g., media
consumption) and the response (e.g., beliefs, behavior), and each link in the model
should represent a testable proposition to be empirically veried. If these links stand
on solid theoretical foundations and are empirically veried, threats to internal validity
such as spuriousness and reverse causality are rendered less plausible, as the threats
would presumably have to occur at each stage (Shrum, 2009). Another advantage is
that process models may potentially address conicting ndings in previous research.
A process model should provide boundary conditions for the eect—that is, a speci-
cation of the conditions under which the eect does not hold. To the extent that these
boundary conditions are related to aspects of inconsistencies in previous research,
disparate ndings may be reconciled.
Oneoftherstprogramsofresearchonthepsychologicalprocessesunderlying
cultivation eects was conducted by Hawkins and Pingree (1982). ey developed
CULTIVATION THEORY:EFFECTS AND UNDERLYING PROCESSES 7
hypotheses, primarily based on learning theory, that focused on the underlying pro-
cesses of cognitive processing abilities, perceptions of TV reality, and inference-making
abilities. Unfortunately, as is oen the case with groundbreaking research, the initial
studies were largely unsuccessful in terms of explicating a coherent underlying process.
In most cases, the research produced null ndings with respect to the process-oriented
hypotheses.
Following these initial attempts to investigate process issues for cultivation eects,
additional studies were conducted by Hawkins and Pingree and others that attempted to
more precisely specify the component processes. As in the earlier studies, the hypothe-
ses concerning these processes were derived from learning theory (Hawkins, Pingree, &
Adler, 1987; Potter, 1991). ree sequential processes were proposed: that viewers learn
television facts from television (learning), that viewers construct real-world beliefs from
these facts (construction), and that viewers generalize from these real-world beliefs
relatedtotelevisionfacts(termedrst-order beliefs,examplesofwhichareestimatesof
the prevalence of societal crime) to construct more generalized beliefs about the world
(termed second-order beliefs,anexampleofwhichisfearofcrime);theprocessistermed
generalization.However,littlesupportwasfoundforthelearningmodel.
Regarding the lack of the initial support for a learning model to explain cultivation
processes, one conclusion is that a lack of evidence for certain of these processes, par-
ticularly the construction process in which beliefs about the TV world are used to form
judgmentsabouttherealworld,suggeststhatcultivationeectsareartifactualandnot
the result of a causal inuence of viewing on beliefs (Potter, 1991). However, this logic
is predicated on the notion that the learning model is the only one through which cul-
tivation can work. e next section addresses this issue.
The weighing and balancing model of cultivation effects
Soon aer the initial surge of research investigating psychological processes underlying
cultivation eects, a number of researchers focused on the interrelation between
cognitive processes (e.g., recall of information from memory) and social judgments.
One of the rst studies was by Shapiro and colleagues (Shapiro & Lang, 1991), who
proposed that cultivation eects may be explained by memory errors. For example,
when people watch a TV program, they encode information (in the form of event
memories) into episodic memory. ese event memories contain information about
the event itself (e.g., a shooting) as well as a variety of contextual information about the
event, such as the source of the event memory (television in general, specic programs)
and emotional reactions to the stimuli.
e next step occurs when a judgment is to be made. For example, consider a typical
cultivation judgment that asks respondents to estimate the percentage of US citizens
who are involved in a violent crime at some point in their lives. To construct such a
judgment, potentially relevant information bearing on the judgment is retrieved from
memory and each individual piece of information is assessed (weighed and balanced)
foritsdegreeofrelevance.Contextualinformation,suchasthesourceofthememory,
may be considered, and information deemed to be from an unreliable source may be
8CULTIVATION THEORY:EFFECTS AND UNDERLYING PROCESSES
discarded and the judgment constructed based on the remaining information. How-
ever,peopleoenmisattributethesourceoftheirmemories(Johnson,Hashtroudi,&
Lindsay, 1993) or may not be motivated to pay attention to the source of the memories
(Shrum, 1997).
egeneralnotionofsourcemonitoringofrecalledinformationprovidesanexpla-
nation as to why TV information may inuence real-world judgments. is is an impor-
tant issue, because it is counterintuitive: Why would people use information from a
ctional source such as TV programs to make real-world judgments? Failure in source
monitoring provides an explanatory mechanism for this process.
The accessibility model of cultivation effects
Although the weighing and balancing model provided an explanation for a specic cog-
nitive process that may be able to explain aspects of cultivation eects, it did not provide
a comprehensive process model. To address this issue, Shrum and colleagues developed
a model that addressed the entire process, from encoding of TV information to the
construction of cultivation judgments. Initial formulations of the accessibility model
for cultivation eects were provided by Shrum (1995), with more comprehensive treat-
ments of the model appearing later (Shrum, 2009).
e accessibility model, like the weighing and balancing model, focuses on memory-
based judgments. Memory-based judgments are ones that are constructed through the
recall of information from long-term memory, as opposed to online judgments, which
are formed as information is encountered (Hastie & Park, 1986). e accessibility model
of cultivation eects is based on two general propositions. e rst is that TV viewing
increases the accessibility (ease of recall) of constructs and exemplars that are oen
portrayed on television. e second is that social reality judgments, because they are
typically perceived to be dicult to answer accurately and are seldom of importance to
study participants, are made through heuristic processing. at is, rather than searching
memory for all available information relevant to the judgment (systematic processing),
people retrieve only a subset of relevant information, and the likelihood of retrieval
of that subset is determined by its accessibility. A corollary of this second proposition
is that, for memory-based judgments such as prevalence, probability, or proportion
(such as the percentage estimates oen used in cultivation research), the judgments
are constructed through the application of judgmental heuristics such as availability,
simulation, and representativeness (see Kahneman, Slovic, & Tversky, 1982).
ese propositions and their implications have been tested across a number of stud-
ies. Support for the rst proposition (TV viewing increases the accessibility of exemplars
oen portrayed on television) was provided in a series of studies by Shrum and col-
leagues (Shrum, 2009). Moreover, the studies not only showed that accessibility was
positively correlated with TV viewing frequency but also that this accessibility mediated
the cultivation eect. Subsequent studies provided convergent support for the propo-
sition that the cultivation eect of memory-based measures results from the applica-
tion of cognitive heuristics. For example, Shrum (2001) showed that heuristic process-
ing is the default mode for the construction of memory-based cultivation judgments,
but inducing people to process the information in a more careful and systematic way
CULTIVATION THEORY:EFFECTS AND UNDERLYING PROCESSES 9
eliminates the cultivation eect. Shrum, Wyer, and O’Guinn (1998) also demonstrated
that lack of source discounting of recalled information is the default mode for construct-
ing this same type of cultivation judgments, but inducing people to think more carefully
about the source of the information they recall eliminates the cultivation eect. ese
studies establish boundary conditions for the cultivation eect and in doing so provide
the basis for explanatory process models of cultivation eects.
The online processing model of cultivation effects
e accessibility model of cultivation eects provides a comprehensive account of
the processes underlying certain types of cultivation judgments. ese pertain to
memory-based judgments such as estimates of frequency or probability of occurrence
(e.g., the percentage of people involved in a violent crime in an average day; the
percentage of the workforce who are doctors, lawyers, or police ocers; the percentage
of US citizens who are millionaires). However, the accessibility model is clearly limited
because it explicitly does not account for cultivation eects for evaluative judgments
such as attitudes and values (e.g., beliefs that the world is a mean and violent place,
judgments of interpersonal mistrust, and materialistic attitudes and values). Research
on online processing of TV information has addressed this issue.
Online processing refers to information that is processed in real time (e.g., watch-
ing a TV program or reading a newspaper) as it is encountered. Online judgments are
made when the information being processed in real time is used to spontaneously con-
struct new judgments (e.g., form a new attitude) or update existing ones (e.g., change
anattitude).isgeneralprocessisconsistentwiththeprocessofcultivation:Aspeople
watch television and encounter specic information as well as the overall “message” of
the program content, they may construct or update their beliefs, attitudes, and values in
ways that reect the TV message. As such, this resembles a typical persuasion process:
e persuasive communication (TV message) eectively changes attitudes.
Shrum and colleagues used this premise to develop a psychological process model
to explain second-order cultivation eects. Applying research on the elaboration like-
lihood model of persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), they proposed that TV viewing
inuences second-order judgments through an online process in which TV informa-
tion encountered during the viewing process is used to spontaneously construct or
update attitudes and other evaluative beliefs. Support for this model was provided in
several studies. For example, Shrum, Burroughs, and Rindeisch (2005) showed that
frequency of TV viewing is positively correlated with materialistic values. More impor-
tant, they showed that these eects are stronger for those who have greater motiva-
tion and ability to process information during viewing, consistent with the elaboration
likelihood model of persuasion. Later research replicated these eects experimentally,
showing that watching materialistic programming (vs. nonmaterialistic programming)
increased participants’ levels of materialism but that this eect was stronger for those
who were more immersed in the programs (Shrum et al., 2011).
A substantial literature has developed that has investigated the psychological
processes underlying cultivation eects. Over the years, the research has slowly
worked toward a consensus regarding this process. e development of process models
10 CULTIVATION THEORY:EFFECTS AND UNDERLYING PROCESSES
to explain cultivation eects is important. First, such explanatory models provide
convergent validity for cultivation theory. Second, explanatory models also provide
guidance about not only how the process works but also what factors may reduce or
eliminate the eect. To the extent that the development of social reality beliefs based
on biased and distorted messages such as those frequently encountered on television
(violence, power, materialism, etc.) are to be avoided, the process models provide a
blueprint for interrupting the process.
Conclusion
Cultivation research began with the theorizing of George Gerbner in the early 1970s.
It is one of the most frequently covered topics in communication education and is one
of only a few mass communication theories that is mentioned in the textbooks in other
social science disciplines such as sociology, social psychology, and marketing (Morgan,
2009). e theory persists despite the early criticisms, and its longevity and ubiquity
are arguably strong testaments to its validity. Tests of the theory have been approached
from various theoretical perspectives (cultural, social, psychological) and the conver-
gent ndings suggest that cultivation rests on strong theoretical ground.
Research on the psychological processes underlying cultivation eects also provides
convergent evidence for the general eect. Nevertheless, opportunities for new
theoretical contributions exist. In particular, understanding the boundary conditions
of the general eect as well as the underlying process mechanisms will shed further
light on how television inuences viewer beliefs. In addition, although the demise of
TV viewing has been predicted for decades, and these predictions were clearly prema-
ture, new media also provide content not that discernably dierent from standard TV
fare. ese new media vehicles provide both new content and new viewing experiences
that may contribute to renement of cultivation theory and its underlying processes.
SEE ALSO: Content Eects: Entertainment; Cultivation eory: Idea, Topical Fields,
and Methodology; Dual Process Models of Persuasion; Narrative Persuasion eories;
Perception of Reality; Social Learning eory and Social Cognitive eory
References
Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: e violence prole. Journal of Commu-
nication,26(2), 182–190. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01397.x
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1980). e “mainstreaming” of
America: Violence prole no. 11. Journal of Communication,30, 10–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-
2466.1980.tb01987.x
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1986). Living with television: e dynam-
ics of the cultivation process. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Perspectives on media eects
(pp. 17–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hastie, R., & Park, B. (1986). e relationship between memory and judgment depends on
whether the judgment task is memory-based or online. Psychological Review,93, 258–268.
doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.93.3.258
CULTIVATION THEORY:EFFECTS AND UNDERLYING PROCESSES 11
Hawkins, R. P., & Pingree, S. (1981). Uniform messages and habitual viewing: Unnecessary
assumptions in social reality eects. Human Communication Research,7, 291–301. doi:
10.1111/j.1468-2958.1981.tb00576.x
Hawkins, R. P., & Pingree, S. (1982). Television’s inuence on constructions of social reality. In
D. Pearl, L. Bouthilet, & J. Lazar (Eds.), Tel e v ision and behav i o r : Ten years of s c i e n t i c p r o gress
and implications for the eighties (Vol. 2, pp. 224–247). Washington, DC: Government Printing
Oce.
Hawkins, R. P., & Pingree, S. (1990). Divergent psychological processes in constructing social
reality from mass media content. In N. Signorielli & M. Morgan (Eds.), Cultivation analysis:
New directions in media eects research (pp. 33–50). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hawkins, R. P., Pingree, S., & Adler, I. (1987). Searching for cognitive processes in the
cultivation eect. Human Communication Research,13, 553–577. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-
2958.1987.tb00118.x
Hirsch, P. (1980). e scary world of the nonviewer and other anomalies: A reanalysis of Gerbner
et al.’s ndings on cultivation analysis. Communication Research,7, 403–456.
Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin,
114, 3–28. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.3
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics
and biases.NewYork,NY:CambridgeUniversityPress.
McGuire, W. J. (1986). e myth of massive media impact: Savagings and salvagings. In
G. Comstock (Ed.), Public communication and behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 173–257). New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Morgan, M. (2009). Cultivation analysis and media eects. In R. Nabi & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), e
Sage handbook of media processes and eects (pp. 69–82). ousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
O’Guinn, T. C., & Shrum, L. J. (1997). e role of television in the construction of consumer
reality. Journal of Consumer Research,23, 278–294. doi: 10.1086/209483
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral
routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer.
Potter, W. J. (1991). Examining cultivation from a psychological perspective. Communications
Research,18, 77–102. doi: 10.1177/009365091018001004
Shanahan, J., & Morgan, M. (1999). Television and its viewers: Cultivation theory and research.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Shapiro, M. A., & Lang, A. (1991). Making television reality: Unconscious processes
in the construction of social reality. Communication Research,18, 685–705. doi:
10.1177/009365091018005007
Shrum, L. J. (1995). Assessing the social inuence of television: A social cognition perspective on
cultivation eects. Communication Research,22, 402–429. doi: 10.1177/009365095022004002
Shrum, L. J. (1997). e role of source confusion in cultivation eects may depend on processing
strategy: A comment on Mares (1996). Human Communication Research,24, 349–358. doi:
10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00418.x
Shrum, L. J. (2001). Processing strategy moderates the cultivation eect. Human Communication
Research,27, 94–120. doi: 10.1093/hcr/27.1.94
Shrum, L. J. (2009). Media consumption and perceptions of social reality: Eects and underlying
processes. In J. Byrant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media eects: Advances in theory and research
(3rd ed., pp. 50–73). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Shrum, L. J., & Bischak, V. D. (2001). Mainstreaming, resonance, and impersonal impact: Test-
ing moderators of the cultivation eect for estimates of crime risk. Human Communication
Research,27, 187–215. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2001.tb00780.x
Shrum, L. J., Burroughs, J. E., & Rindeisch, A. (2005). Television’s cultivation of material values.
JournalofConsumerResearch,32, 473–479. doi: 10.1086/497559
12 CULTIVATION THEORY:EFFECTS AND UNDERLYING PROCESSES
Shrum, L. J., & Lee, J. (2012). Television’s persuasive narratives: How television inuences values,
attitudes,andbeliefs.InL.J.Shrum(Ed.),e psychology of entertainment media: Blurring the
lines between entertainment and persuasion (2nd ed., pp. 147–167). New York, NY: Routledge.
Shrum, L. J., Lee, J., Burroughs, J. E., & Rindeisch, A. (2011). An online process model
of second-order cultivation eects: How television cultivates materialism and its conse-
quences for life satisfaction. Human Communication Research,37, 34–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-
2958.2010.01392.x
Shrum, L. J., Wyer, R. S., & O’Guinn, T. C. (1998). e eects of television consumption on social
perceptions: e use of priming procedures to investigate psychological processes. Journal of
Consumer Research,24, 447–458.
Tyler, T. R. (1980). Impact of directly and indirectly experienced events: e origin of crime-
related judgments and behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,39, 13–28. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.39.1.13
Tyler, T. R., & Cook, F. L. (1984). e mass media and judgments of risk: Distinguishing impact
on personal and societal level judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,47,
693–708. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.47.4.693
L. J. Shrum holds a PhD from the University of Illinois, USA, and is professor of mar-
keting at HEC Paris, France. He has written extensively on how media information
inuences the construction of values, attitudes, and beliefs. His research focuses on
themultiplerolesoftheselfinconsumerjudgment.Hehaspublishedinleadingjour-
nals in marketing, psychology, and communication, including Human Communication
Research,theJournalofConsumerPsychology,theJournalofConsumerResearch,andthe
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.Heeditede Psychology of Entertainment
Media: Blurring the Lines Between Entertainment and Persuasion (2nd ed., 2012).
