Have your parent’s ever stopped you from watching TV? Or have they quickly changed the channel if there was something really violent on it? And most importantly, have you ever wondered why? The excuse you normally ended up getting was that if you watched too much television, you would harm your eyesight but, what they really thought was that you might be negatively influenced by the content.
I would have brushed this off completely when I was young, but now, when I think of the effects that television has had on me, I believe my parents were right. Okay, let me rephrase that, they weren’t completely wrong.
“Media Effects theory” is a bit of an umbrella term describing the study of the influence that media can have on both individuals and society. “Cultivation theory” is a particular model, based largely around the television, that studies how media can “cultivate” specific attitudes or beliefs within its audience. Cultivation theory (aka cultivation hypothesis, cultivation analysis) was a theory composed originally by G. Gerbner. In 1976, Gerbner along with Gross expanded the theory and included media effects while focusing on television. They began research in the mid-1960s endeavoring to study media effects, specifically whether watching television influences the idea and perception of the audience of everyday life and if so, how. They said that “Cultivation theory suggests that exposure to media, over time, subtly "cultivates" viewers' perceptions of reality.”
Cultivation theory argues that the media landscape, particularly television, presents a homogeneous and repetitive set of messages that underscore important cultural ideologies that typically reflect the dominant groups’ value system (Morgan, Shanahan, & Signorielli, 2015). It states that high-frequency viewers of television are more susceptible to media messages and the belief that they are real and valid. It in its most basic form suggests that television is responsible for shaping, or ‘cultivating’ viewers’ conceptions of social reality. The combined effect of massive television exposure by viewers over time subtly shapes the perception of social reality for individuals and, ultimately, for our culture as a whole. The idea is that cultivation seemingly bypasses all cognitive function revealing a “monkey see, monkey do” reaction within the audience.
Cultivation theorists argue that television has long-term effects which are small, gradual, and indirect, but can be cumulatively significant. The more someone watches television, the more they are influenced by media. These kinds of people are most vulnerable to media messages and agendas. They believe whatever media claims to be true and accurate. Media does not let there be much difference between real and virtual. And, even fiction is taken to be real. According to this theory, as mentioned earlier, television has long-term effects. So this is regarded to be the most used tool.
In a nice little bit of symmetry to the discussion surrounding how television viewing affects the viewers’ perceptions of the world, studies have been done on what messages viewers may be internalizing from the media they consume. Sara Baker Netzley conducted a study on the representation of gay people, finding that the high level of sexual activity associated with gay characters in the media led viewers to perceive the gay community as highly promiscuous and exaggeratedly sexual (Netzley, 2010). Also, there’s certainly no shortage of research on how various media can affect body image. For years celebrities and models, the people who cover the television channels and magazine pages, are photographed and depicted as having thin bodies and few imperfections. Seeing as nearly 100% of American households own televisions (McQuail, 1997) these are the images that surround the public. It makes sense, then, that audiences would believe this is how many, if not all, people truly are- fit, trim, and near perfect. These body images have become ingrained into our psyches as what is normal and common.
However, the majority of Americans do not even come close to these portrayed body images. The average American woman is a size 14, not a 2 or a 4 like most celebrities are shown as. Males, as well, typically do not have bodies resembling those of actors, singers, models, etc. Cultivation has skewed the American people into thinking that the average body image is much smaller than it actually is. And brands like Abercrombie & Fitch and Victoria’s Secret don't make it any easier on women either. Their sizes usually run small and getting a size 12 or 14 is next to impossible.
The same could be applied to Disney Princess films; Fictional princesses are perennial preschool favorites. Since Disney launched its Princess brand in 2000, the Disney Princesses have become ubiquitous, represented in virtually every product category — dolls and dresses, of course, but also seed packets and grapes. Partly as a result, little girls strongly identify with princess culture.
The Disney Princess films suggest that a girl’s most valuable asset is her beauty, which encourages an unhealthy preoccupation with physical appearance. The brand also implies that girls should be sweet and submissive, and should expect a man to come to their rescue in an act of love at first sight. Women are only made happy by men in the films, therefore the usual cultivation effects might make little girls believe they need to wait for a man. Not only that, but they might also take on female roles that are portrayed in the films because they identify themselves with the characters.
The mass consumption of Disney, especially in children who are more affected by the influences, can be worrying when considering Cultivation Theory. Children are subjected to heavy consumption of Disney films and the consistent ideals portrayed within them because of the huge power of the company. Children who own Disney films will watch them repeatedly, and as releases from Disney come out so regularly, the frequency and high consumption are highly likely to have an effect.
Note that the claim being made is generally not that the media causes these attitudes, conjuring them from thin air. The idea is that the media works to normalize certain existing attitudes and reinforce a particular set of perceptions. Most often, these are attitudes and perceptions that align with the status quo (or, at least, widely-held social beliefs). When people discuss the potentially harmful effects of media, they are generally talking about the reinforcement of existing societal issues (sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.) It’s also worth noting that, in most cases, it’s not about blaming any single media product; rather, it’s about these narratives in aggregate and the effect that long-term, repeated exposure to them can have on cultural attitudes.
Comments