Cultivation and the Elaboration Likelihood Model: A Test of the Learning and Construction and Availability Heuristic Models
Schroeder, Lisa M
The current cultivation literature proposes both an active, learning and construction model (Potter, 1991a) as well as a passive, availability heuristic model (Shrum, 1996, 1997; Shrum & O’Guinn, 1993) of cultivation. The current study incorporates both models into one perspective of cultivation by testing these concepts using the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). The results of the current study offer evidence of an active, learning and construction model and a passive, availability heuristic model of cultivation. The results also suggest there is ample reason to abandon cultivation’s primary assumptions and to adopt a new perspective of cultivation that incorporates and validates both models of cultivation into one perspective.
Keywords: Cultivation; Elaboration Likelihood Model; Television Viewing Effects; Mass Communication Effects; Cognition
As a unique medium, television transports viewers to explore people, places, and events. Exposure to these visual images provides viewers with information about society and is a significant source of secondary socialization (Pfau et al., 1998). Originally, Gerbner et al. (1977) proposed that people are socialized by television through extensively viewing television’s distorted portrayal of society resulting in powerful cultivation effects such as a perception of a mean and scary world. This theory of cultivation rests on two foundational assumptions: (a) uniform messages and (b) habitual viewing (Gerbner et al., 1977) and does not account for psychological processes.
To date, though, only a weak cultivation effect has been documented in the literature. In fact, for the last two decades researchers have been arguing against the foundations of cultivation, claiming “the problem is, without evidence of psychological processes, the cultivation hypothesis stands on a tenuous foundation” (Hawkins & Pingree, 1980, pp. 35-36). Initially only a few studies (i.e., Hawkins, Pingree, & Adler, 1987; Pingree, 1983; Potter, 1991a; Shapiro, 1991) tested psychological processes as an explanation for cultivation effects and the results set the foundation for a new direction for cultivation theory. Shrum and O’Guinn (1993) provided evidence that psychological processes are inherent in inference judgments about social reality and replicated the results (Shrum, 1996). Potter (1991a) found support for an active, learning and construction model, whereas Shrum and O’Guinn documented a passive, availability heuristic model of cultivation. The major difference between the two models is the extent that people cognitively rationalize judgments regarding social reality (Mares, 1996). The learning and construction model defines cultivation processes as active, encompassing greater cognitive rationalizing, whereas the availability heuristic model defines cultivation processes as passive, encompassing little cognitive rationalizing.
This study seeks to address inconsistencies in the cultivation literature that proposes both the active, learning and construction model and the passive, availability heuristic model. The current study tests how psychological processes and cognitive mechanisms operate within a paradigm that incorporates both the active, learning and construction and passive, availability heuristic models of cultivation. The purpose of the study is to (a) challenge cultivation’s foundational assumptions in order to pursue this new perspective of cultivation consisting of cognitive and psychological processes; and (b) offer a more substantial explanation of how cultivation occurs by testing cultivation within a paradigm that accounts for both the active, learning and construction, as well as the passive, availability heuristic models of cultivation. The results of this study will provide a better understanding of the process by which people cultivate conceptions of reality by consuming television.
Challenging Cultivation’s Foundational Assumptions
The current literature, as well as dated literature, provides evidence that active media behavior as well as passive, habitual media behavior, affects social reality beliefs (i.e., Perse, 1986; Perse, Ferguson, & McLeod, 1994; Rub in, Perse, & Taylor, 1988; Snyder & Rouse, 1995). The literature also suggests that messages are not uniform (Chiricos, Eschholz, & Gertz, 1997; Doob & MacDonald, 1979; Hirsch, 1980; Hughes, 1980; Potter, 1986; Wakshlag, Vial, & Tamborini, 1983). Thus, both the habitual viewing and uniform message assumptions are weak theoretical foundations for cultivation that should be abandoned.
Abandoning cultivation’s foundational assumptions and proposing cultivation as a process theory is a relatively new perspective of cultivation (i.e., Fujioka, 1999) and suggests that cultivation may be much more complex than a direct correlational link between television exposure and fears of society (Morgan & Signorielli, 1990; Potter, 1991a). Some psychological and cognitive processes may inflate or attenuate a cultivation effect (Shrum & O’Guinn, 1993). For example, cognitive mechanisms such as comparing and contrasting mediated and interpersonal information for accuracy (Mares, 1996), and psychological processes such as attentiveness (Potter, 1991a), regulate people’s perceptions of reality. Perhaps the cultivation effect is composed of a set of complex processes instead of a direct correlational link between media exposure and distorted perceptions of reality (Fujioka, 1999; Potter, 1991a).
Component Sub-processes
Cultivation has been criticized for neglecting to investigate the complex processes associated with cultivation effects (Hawkins & Pingree, 1990; Potter, 1991a) although Hawkins and Pingree (1982) suggested two component sub-processes: (a) learning and (b) construction. The learning sub-process occurs when the viewer perceives and remembers information disseminated on television. The media are a significant source of learning (Emmers-Sommer & Alien, 1999; Fujioka, 1999). This sub-process implies information-processing ability and audience activity. The construction sub-process involves viewers incorporating information learned from television into their own views of the real world. Later, Potter (199Ib) added a third sub-process, generalization, that occurs when viewers transform statistical information about the television and real world into actual beliefs about the television and real world. To date, researchers have failed to document precisely how these sub-processes work.
Variables Explaining the Learning Sub-process: Audience Activity
Cultivation researchers rely on the notion that cultivation is a passive paradigm (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1980). However, the literature on audience activity contradicts the perception of cultivation as a passive paradigm. Historically Hawkins and Pingree (1981) argued for five active cognitive processes that may explain conditions under which cultivation is most likely to occur. More recently, passive (i.e., identification) as well as active (i.e., involvement) audience behaviors have both been shown to be strongly correlated with cultivation effects (Kim, 1992; Perse, 1986,1990a; Rubin et al., 1988). Based on the audience activity literature, the cultivation effect can no longer be explained as just a passive phenomenon.
Audience activity may help to explain the learning sub-process. Researchers have identified several links between active, audience activity (e.g., involvement), learning (e.g., information processing), and television viewing effects (Fujioka, 1999; Perse & Rubin, 1988; Rubin & Perse, 1987). For example, people who are more involved in their media use will be more likely to learn from television than those who are uninvolved (Kane & Anderson, 1978; Salomon, 1983). Kim (1992) found that involvement was a positive predictor of cultivation. Specifically, Perse (1990a) found that involvement was related to perceptions of the risk of assault. Hence, active (i.e., involvement) as well as passive (i.e., identification) audience behaviors may mediate the learning subprocess of cultivation.
Variables Explaining the Construction Sub-process: Elaboration
Current cultivation research should focus on the extent to which people rationalize reality in order to understand how the construction sub-process of cultivation operates. The recent literature proposes the active, learning and construction model (Potter, 1991a) and the passive, availability heuristic model (Shrum, 1996, 1997; Shrum & O’Guinn, 1993) as explanations of cultivation effects. The active, learning and construction model suggests people actively compare the probability of events through cognitive rationalizing (Potter, 1991a). Potter (1991a) tested the active, learning and construction model and found that people are rational in making social reality judgments. On the other hand, the passive, availability heuristic model suggests that people estimate the probability of events, such as violence, on the ease of accessibility of information from memory (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973). Shrum and O’Guinn (1993) tested the passive, availability heuristic model and argued that heavy television viewers’ accessible constructs reflect the television answer. Consequently, Shrum and O’Guinn (1993) and Shrum (1996) suggested little activity or cognitive rationalizing mediates cultivation effects. However, when Mares (1996) attempted to further the work of Shrum and O’Guinn (1993) and Shrum (1996) she found that errors in memory occur over time by confusing fictitious and factual information and this can affect social reality beliefs. These two perspectives, the active, learning and construction and the passive, availability heuristic models, differ over the degree that people rationalize (Mares, 1996). Elaboration explains how people can fluctuate in the extent to which they rationalize judgments (Mares, 1996). Mares suggests that based on the current evidence cultivation research should focus on the extent to which people rationalize. Hence, elaboration may explain the construction sub-process.
Shrum (1999) argued that persuasive processes may be evident in cultivation. Persuasive processes may either encourage or discourage people to believe that television messages are accurate. Early research that has shown a small but consistent relationship between television viewing and beliefs about the social world that are plausibly implied by television programming (Hawkins & Pingree, 1982) sets the foundation for evidence of mediated, persuasive effects. Cultivation, then, should be examined through a persuasion model that will clarify how differing sources of information are judged and ultimately affect perceptions of reality. This persuasion model should address both the active, learning and construction model to further the work of Potter (1991a) and the passive, availability heuristic model to further the work of Shrum (1996), Shrum and O’Guinn, (1993), and Mares (1996). In addition, the persuasion model should focus on the extent of rationalizing when making judgments about social reality beliefs to further the work of Mares (1996) and Hawkins and Pingree (1981). The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM; Petty & Caccioppo, 1986) shows how persuasive processes can operate actively and passively. So, this model is instrumental in explaining how cultivated attitudes are developed or changed. The ELM can account for both perspectives of cultivation, the active, learning and construction, as well as the passive, availability heuristic models of cultivation.
Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion
Petty and Cacioppo (1986) developed the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. The ELM explains processes responsible for accepting persuasive messages (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) and spawns from the cognitive response theory (Greenwald, 1968), whereas cultivation has come from a symbolic interactionist perspective (Gerbner et al., 1977). The cognitive response approach suggests that yielding to persuasion is associated with idiosyncratic cognitive responses, or pro- and counter-arguments, generated regarding the message (Greenwald, 1968). These cognitive responses are explained as elaboration.
Elaboration is described as “issue-relevant” thinking or critical evaluation of messages (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). People vary in the degree of effortful, issue-relevant thinking and can process information in two ways: (a) central route and (b) peripheral route (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). When people use the central route they engage in extensive elaboration by carefully scrutinizing messages. This central route processing, composed of extensive elaboration, could include comparing previous messages from other sources and channels. The central route would include using several available constructs to determine the accuracy of the message. Central route processing would represent the active, learning and construction model. Peripheral route processing, engaging in relatively little elaboration or issue-relevant thinking, could include referring to easily accessible constructs to determine the accuracy of the message. Peripheral route processing would represent the passive, availability heuristic model. So, the degree to which a person engages in issue-relevant thinking forms a continuum ranging from cases of intense elaboration, or comparing accessible constructs, such as found by Potter (1991a) to cases of little or no elaboration, reporting the first available or easiest accessible construct, such as found by Shrum and O’Guinn (1993). The degree of elaboration is not directly related to the degree of persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Little elaboration or no issue-relevant thinking, as well as extensive issue-relevant thinking, should lead to persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) and cultivation effects. So, the active, learning and construction model, as well as passive, availability heuristic model could result in cultivation effects. The ELM incorporates both the active, learning and construction, as well as the passive, availability heuristic models into one perspective of cultivation.
Cultivation Topic: Marriage
Previous research has examined several cultivated attitudes regarding social issues such as divorce (Shrum, 1996), crime (Andersen, 1994; Shrum, 1996), sex-role stereotypes (Signorielli, 1991), values (Potter, 1990), materialism (Harmon, 2001), Chinese people (Zhang & Harwood, 2002), ethnic minorities (Vergeer, Lubbers, & Scheepers, 2000), paranormal phenomena (Sparks, Nelson, & Campbell, 1997), political attitudes (Morgan & Shanahan, 1991), welfare (Sotirovic, 2001), and the federal government (Pfau, Moy, & Szabo, 2001). However, many of these topics, such as divorce, carry negative connotations that may possibly promote a biased view (Rubin et al., 1988). Marriage was chosen over other cultivation topics because it is a unique cultivation topic that can be viewed as positive, negative, or neutral.
Marriage and family are dominant themes on television (Glennon & Butsch, 1982) that can create negative and positive expectations about marriage (Segrin & Nabi, 2002). Specifically, Signorielli (1982) found that marital status was a predominant topic in television drama. In fact, Robinson, Skill, Nussbaum, and Moreland (1985) found that people use television as a tool to help understand marriage. Segrin and Nabi (2002) found that viewers cultivate perceptions of marriage from television. Thus, marriage is a suitable cultivation topic.
Hypotheses and Research Question
Central route processing is characterized by extensive elaboration, greater construct accessibility, and represents the active, learning and construction model. In Hl the degree to which mediating variables predict higher levels of elaboration was tested. Television exposure, the active, mediating variables of the learning sub-process (i.e., involvement) and the construction sub-processes (i.e., need for cognition) were tested as predictors of extensive elaboration.
H1: Television exposure, involvement, and need for cognition will predict extensive elaboration.
Peripheral-route processing is characterized by little elaboration, a reliance on the easiest and fastest accessible construct, and represents the passive, availability heuristic model. Peripheral route processing is mediated by identification and need for cognition. Television exposure, the passive mediating variables of the learning sub-process (i.e., identification) and need for cognition stimulate little elaboration.
H2: Television exposure, identification and need for cognition will predict little elaboration.
Hypothesis 3 tests central route processing as a predictor of cultivation and represents the active, learning and construction model. Television exposure and the active, mediating variables of extensive elaboration (i.e., involvement and need for cognition), when coupled with perceived realism of television messages, will lead to the justification of the mediated message and will predict congruence between personal and mediated attitudes about marriage. Past research has shown that demographic variables such as age (Chiricos et al., 1997; Hirsch, 1980; Hughes, 1980) and gender (Potter, 1986) are more strongly associated with cultivation than is viewing duration. Thus, in H3 after controlling for age and gender, television exposure, active, mediating variables of extensive elaboration, and perceived realism were tested as predictors of congruence between personal and mediated attitudes about marriage.
H3: Age, gender, television exposure, involvement, need for cognition, elaboration and perceived realism will predict less discrepancy between personal and mediated attitudes about marriage.
H4 tests peripheral route processing as a predictor of cultivation and represents the passive, availability heuristic model. The passive, mediating variables of little elaboration (i.e., identification and need for cognition), television exposure, and perceived realism will predict congruence between personal and mediated attitudes about marriage. Thus, in H4 after controlling for age and gender, television exposure, passive, mediating variables of little elaboration and perceived realism were tested as predictors of congruence between personal and mediated attitudes about marriage.
H4: Age, gender, television exposure, identification, need for cognition, elaboration and perceived realism will predict little discrepancy between personal and mediated attitudes about marriage.
Both types of route processing, central (i.e., extensive elaboration) and peripheral (i.e., little elaboration), can lead to persuasion. So, both models (i.e., the active, learning and construction and the passive, availability heuristic) should explain cultivation effects. By transporting the ELM to the mediated environment it becomes possible that one type of route processing, either the active, learning and construction or the passive, availability heuristic models, may be more conducive to cultivation effects. Essentially, cultivation proponents have argued for a passive paradigm represented by the habitual viewing assumption (i.e., Gerbner et al., 1977) and more recently the availability heuristic model (Shrum & O’Guinn, 1993). Consequently little elaboration should be more conducive to cultivation effects. In opposition, Potter (1991a) presented a more active process of cultivation represented by the learning and construction model. Consequently, extensive elaboration should also be conducive to cultivation effects. Thus, significant differences may exist in people’s attitudes about marriage based on whether they use the peripheral (i.e., passive, availability heuristic model) or central route (i.e., active, learning and construction model).
RQ1: Do people who use central or peripheral route processing differ in their discrepancy between mediated and personal attitudes about marriage?
Sample and Procedure
The sample consisted of respondents who had never married and were also not cohabiting with a roommate of the opposite sex. Weaver and Wakshlag (1986) argued that communication effects are the greatest where prior first-hand knowledge is minimal. So, data was gathered from unmarried respondents because direct or immediate personal experience with marriage may bias the effects of interpersonal and mediated sources of information and cultivated attitudes about marriage. Specifically, college students are generally ambivalent about marriage (Signorielli, 1991 ) and their attitudes about marriage are not stable (Pavitt & Perse, 1995). This ambiguity may cause sources of information about marriage to be influential.
The sample consisted of 164 unmarried college students enrolled in an introductory speech course at a large mid-western university who voluntarily participated in the study. The majority of the sample (62.2%) were female (n = 102) and there were 62 male participants (37.8%). The age of the respondents ranged from 17 to 46 (M= 20.74, SD = 4.84). The majority of the sample (60.4%) were freshman (n = 99); 49 were sophomores (29.9%), 7 were juniors (4.3%), and 9 were seniors (5.5%).
Cultivation
To assess the dependent variable, cultivation, or congruence between personal and mediated attitudes about marriage, a modified version of Hendrick’s (1988) Relationship Assessment Scale was used. Respondents’ media and personal perceptions about marriage were used to assess cultivated attitudes about marriage. The Media Perception of Marriage Scale asked respondents, first, to name a married couple they viewed on television frequently that was characteristic and representative of television marriages in general. second, respondents were asked to assess the quality of the relationship between the representative marital partners. Responses to the 7-item Media Perception of Marriage Scale ranged from 1.00 to 5.00 (M = 2.52, SD = 1.13). The Media Perception of Marriage Scale proved to be highly reliable with a Cronbach alpha of .93. The media marriage chosen for evaluation by participants is irrelevant because participants were instructed to choose a marriage they felt was representative of most marriages.
The Personal Perception of Marriage Scale asked respondents to reply to the same set of questions as the Media Perception of Marriage Scale, but to refer to a real marriage that seemed to characterize and represent marriages in general. Responses to the 7-item Personal Perception of Marriage Scale ranged from 1.43 to 5.00 (M = 2.73, SD = 0.60). The Personal Perception of Marriage Scale had a Cronbach alpha of .84.
Discrepancy scores between media and personal perceptions of marriage were used to attain an assessment of cultivation. Discrepancy scores revealed a reflection of cultivation by testing the degree of difference between the respondents’ media and personal perceptions of marriage. First, the personal perception of marriage score was subtracted from the media perception of marriage score. second, the discrepancy scores were standardized. Third, the discrepancy scores were squared (M = 2.05, SD = 0.30). Higher discrepancy scores indicated a greater difference in media and personal perceptions of marriage. Lower discrepancy scores indicated little difference in media and personal perceptions of marriage. Because of the need to use two similar scales in testing the dependent variable, one scale was placed at the beginning of the questionnaire and one scale at the end of the questionnaire to guard against any potential bias. The ordering of questions was identical for all respondents.
Television exposure was assessed using the TV Viewing Scale (Sparks & Ogles, 1990) that asks respondents to estimate the amount of television viewing in an average weekday and weekend day (M = 2.88, SD = 1.68). The current study used the TV Viewing Scale, as opposed to more recent cultivation research that advocates genre-specific effects, because it does not favor either the active, learning and construction or passive, availability heuristic models and is applicable to both. For example, using a genrespecific scale might encourage a heuristic or constructive response. Applying a general scale is better because it does not encourage nor discourage cognitive elaboration about programming. Involvement was measured using Rubin et al.’s (1988) Viewing Attention Scale, a trait measure of involvement that has been associated with cultivation (i.e., Perse, 1990a), that had a Cronbach alpha of .90 (M = 3.18, SD = 0.81). Need for Cognition was measured using Cacioppo, Petty, and Kao’s (1984) 18-item Need for Cognition Scale which showed a Cronbach alpha of .87 (M = 3.40, SD = 0.52). Rubin’s (1981) 3-item Perceived Realism Scale had a Cronbach alpha of .84 (M = 2.17, SD = 0.73) and was used instead of Potter’s (1986) Perceived Reality Scale because part of Potter’s scale was used to measure identification. Elaboration was measured using Perse’s (1990a) adapted 4-item general Elaboration Scale, a trait measure of elaboration that test one’s ability to elaborate consistently, that had a Cronbach alpha of .89 (M = 2.75, SD = 0.72). A trait measure of elaboration was used so that it would apply to both active and passive models of cultivation by not encouraging either a constructive or heuristic response. Identification was measured using a modified version of Potter’s (1986) Perceived Reality Scale, the sub-scale of identification, that had a Cronbach alpha of .69 (M = 3.38, SD = 0.81).
Results
Hierarchical multiple regression was used to test Hl. Television exposure, involvement, and need for cognition were entered respectively to predict extensive elaboration, or central route processing, and to accurately represent the processes of the active, learning and construction model. After step 3, need for cognition was the only significant predictor, accounting for 3.42% of the variance in elaboration, F(3, 160) = 4.83, p
Hierarchical multiple regression was used to test H2. Television exposure, identification, and need for cognition were entered respectively to predict little elaboration, or peripheral route processing, and to accurately represent the processes of the passive, availability heuristic model. After step 3, need for cognition was the only negative and significant predictor accounting for 4.44% of the variance in elaboration, F(3, 160) = 5.35, p
This negative relationship between need for cognition and elaboration may document evidence for both the active, learning and construction and passive, availability heuristic models of cultivation. Lesser needs for cognition, a characteristic of the passive, availability heuristic model, predicted greater elaboration, a characteristic of the active, learning and construction model. The results suggest the best explanation for cultivation may be a research design that can incorporate both perspectives.
Hierarchical multiple regression was used to test H3. H3 tested cultivation through the central route, or active processes of the learning and construction model. Age, gender, television exposure, involvement, need for cognition, elaboration, and perceived realism were entered respectively to predict cultivated attitudes about marriage (i.e., discrepancy scores between media and personal attitudes about marriage). After step 7, age and elaboration were significant predictors of cultivated attitudes about marriage, F(7, 156) = 2.74, p = .02.
Age was a positive predictor accounting for 6.76% of the variance in cultivated attitudes about marriage. Younger respondents perceived less discrepancy between personal and mediated marriages. Elaboration was a negative predictor, accounting for 3.93% of the additional variance in cultivated attitudes about marriage. Greater elaboration, comparing and contrasting accessible constructs, predicted less discrepancy between media and personal attitudes about marriage. Specifically, respondents with a greater likelihood to elaborate on general television content perceived greater similarity between media and personal attitudes about marriage. Previous research supports this finding where greater involvement, operationalized as greater elaboration, was a positive predictor of cultivation (Kim, 1992). The results provide evidence for the active processes of the learning and construction model.
In H4 hierarchical multiple regression was used to test cultivation through the peripheral route, or the passive processes of the availability heuristic model. Age, gender, television exposure, identification, need for cognition, elaboration, and perceived realism were entered respectively to predict congruence between media and personal attitudes about marriage. After step 7, age was a positive predictor accounting for 6.76% of the variance, whereas elaboration was a negative predictor accounting for 4.27% of additional variance in cultivated attitudes about marriage, F(7, 156) – 2.91, p
The research question tested which model, either the active processes of the learning and construction model or the passive processes of the availability heuristic model, was a better predictor of cultivation effects. For the research question elaboration was correlated with discrepancy scores between media and personal perceptions of marriage (r = -.20, p
To calculate the ANOVA, respondents were categorized into three groups based on their averaged score for elaboration. The high, or central route group, was defined as + 1.0 SD above the mean. Respondents whose averaged elaboration score was 3.47 or above were in the central route group (n = 28). The low, or peripheral route group, was defined as -1.0 SD below the mean. Respondents whose averaged elaboration score was 2.03 or less were in the peripheral route group (n = 33). Respondents whose averaged elaboration score was 2.04-3.46 were in the middle group (n = 103). The results showed that there were significant differences in people’s attitudes about marriage based on group membership for elaboration, F(2, 163) = 5.20, p
Because the ANOVA showed significant differences between group means for elaboration, ONEWAY (SPSS Inc., 1990) was used to determine which group means were significantly different. Scheffe tests found the peripheral route group (M = 3.48, SD = 4.99) significantly differed in their perceptions of media and personal marriages from the moderate group (M = 1.80, SD = 2.20) and the central route group (M = 1.28, SD = 2.01).
Discussion
In this study, the learning and construction model (i.e., active, central route), as well as the availability heuristic model (i.e., passive, peripheral route), were tested as predictors of cultivation effects. Both models were incorporated into one perspective by testing cultivation within the ELM. The results of this study provide some support for the active, learning and construction model and the passive, availability heuristic model.
For H1 and H2, need for cognition was a negative and significant predictor of elaboration, or the ability to make constructs accessible. Higher needs for cognition predicted lesser elaboration, or comparing accessible constructs. O’Keefe (1990) argued that (a) people cannot elaborate on all topics and (b) motivation is related to elaboration. Motivation may mediate need for cognition. For example, Perse (1990b) found that motivation to view news predicted elaboration of news viewing and that need for cognition was a motivator. College students may be motivated to use the media to fulfill needs other than for cognition (Rosengren & Windahl, 1972), such as relaxation or escape (Rubin, 1981). Television viewing motivations may be better predictors of need for cognition and consequently better explain elaboration.
In H3 and H4, the learning and construction model (i.e., active, central route) and the availability heuristic model (i.e., the passive, peripheral route) were tested as predictors of cultivation effects. Age was a positive predictor and elaboration was a negative predictor of cultivated attitudes about marriage.
Age and elaboration accounted for a modest amount of variance in cultivation. Motivation may explain the modest amount of variance. Petty and Priester (1994) suggest persuasive messages will only produce enduring changes, such as cultivation, when people are motivated and able to process information. Need for cognition induces motivation to process information (Petty & Priester, 1994) but need for cognition was not a significant predictor of cultivation. Other motivations may be associated with cultivation.
Age was a positive predictor of cultivation. Younger respondents had less discrepancy between personal and mediated attitudes about marriage. Unmarried college students were chosen for the sample because younger respondents may have fewer real life experiences to refer to when elaborating and comparing the real world with the television perspective. Therefore, younger respondents reported fewer discrepancies between real-life marriages and fictional marriages presented on television and, thus, did show cultivation effects.
Elaboration was a negative predictor of cultivation. Respondents who reported a greater likelihood to elaborate had less discrepancy between media and personal attitudes about marriage. So, when respondents compared their experiences with marriage with those presented on television there was little discrepancy. Greater amounts of elaboration (i.e., expounding on media content) can be perceived as an active audience behavior and is characteristic of the central route (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) and the learning and construction model. Passive audience behaviors, characteristic of the peripheral route and the availability heuristic model, were not significant predictors of cultivation. Greater elaboration, effortful comparing of accessible constructs, predicted cultivated attitudes about marriage and, assuming elaboration is an active audience behavior, the results of H3 and H4 could indicate that the active, learning and construction model is a predictor of cultivation effects.
However, because both the active and passive route equations were significant, there is some evidence for both the learning and construction and availability heuristic models. This finding may reflect the variable nature of audience activity. Audience activity can promote or deter television viewing effects (Kim, 1992) and may be indirectly linked to effects (Kim & Rubin, 1997). Rubin (1993) argued that audience behaviors usually fall between the extremes of activity and passivity. So, researchers have some difficulty explaining effects due to this variability (Kim, 1992). Variability in audience activity may explain why both the active, learning and construction and passive, availability heuristic models were significant.
The research question tested whether or not there were significant differences in people’s attitudes about marriage based on whether they processed information centrally or peripherally. The central and peripheral route groups were significantly different in their perceptions of media and personal marriages. The central route group had significantly lower discrepancy scores than did the peripheral route group. So, the central route group, or the active route, perceived significantly greater similarity in media and personal marriages than did the peripheral route group. The active route, or the learning and construction model, may be more conducive to cultivation effects.
The results, then, showed support for the active, learning and construction model and evidence for the passive, availability heuristic model as predictors of cultivated attitudes about marriage. Evidence for the passive, availability heuristic may be limited because respondents had an unlimited amount of time to complete the questionnaire. Shrum (1996) and Shrum and O’Guinn (1993), however, timed respondents’ answers and found that experimental condition prompted peripheral route processing. Because respondents were given ample time to complete the questionnaire this condition for peripheral route processing did not exist and thus perhaps no effect was detected.
There are some limitations of the study results. First, there was no rotation of scales on the questionnaire so that the relationship assessments scales were first and last. Thus, no tests were run to determine if scale placement had an effect on subsequent responses. Second, respondents were given an unlimited amount of time to complete the questionnaire. Timing responses may be more conducive to a passive, availability heuristic response. Third, an initial premise of ELM, a positive association between need for cognition and elaboration, proved to be faulty. A trait measure of elaboration, as opposed to a topic-specific free writing elaboration exercise, may have prompted the inconsistent results.
In conclusion, this study explored cultivation from a traditional passive, as well as active perspective by testing both the learning and construction and availability heuristic models of cultivation. The findings of this study, as well as the breadth of the literature, suggest there is ample reason to believe that the theoretical assumptions of cultivation are faulty. These foundational assumptions should be abandoned and replaced with assumptions that allow for variance in cognitive and psychological processing of information. The learning and construction model, central route processing, active elaboration, or comparing and contrasting several accessible constructs, are conditions that prompt, mediate, and explain cultivation effects (Potter 1991a). The availability heuristic model, peripheral route processing, little elaboration, or the lack of comparing and contrasting accessible constructs, have been shown to also prompt cultivation effects (Shrum, 1996; Shrum & O’Guinn, 1993; Mares, 1996). Future research should collate the current research findings within a paradigm, such as the ELM, and persuasion leading to cultivation effects. The ELM can help explain small or inconsistent cultivation findings. Until then, although we may know that a cultivation effect may exist, we will have only a limited understandine of cultivation effects.
References
Andersen, R. (1994). “Reality” TV and criminal justice. The Humanist, 54, 8-16.
Caccioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306-307.
Chiricos, T., Eschholz, S., & Gertz, M. (1997). Crime, news and fear of crime: Toward an identification of audience effects. Social Problems, 44, 342-357.
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.
Emmers-Sommer, T. M., & Allen, M. (1999). Surveying the effect of media effects: A meta-analytic summary of media effects research in Human Communication Research. Human Communication Research, 25, 478-497.
Fujioka, Y. (1999). Television portrayals and African-American stereotypes: Examinations of television effects when direct contact is lacking. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 76, 52-75.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Eleey, M. P., Jackson-Beeck, M., Jefferies-Fox, S., & Signorielli, N. (1977). Television profile no. 8: The highlights. Journal of Communication, 27, 171-180.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1980). The “mainstreaming” of America: Violence profile no. 11. Journal of Communication, 30 (3), 37-47.
Glennon, M., & Butsch, R. (1982). The family as portrayed on television 1948-1975. In D. Pearl, L. Bouthilet, & J. Lazar (Eds.), Television behavior: Ten years of scientific process and implication for the eighties (DHHS Publication No. ADM 82-1196, Vol. 2, pp. 264-271). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Greenwald, A. G. (1968). Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion and attitude change; In A. Greenwald, T. Brock, & T. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 147-170). New York: Academic Press.
Harmon, M. D. (2001). Affluenza: Television use and cultivation of materialism. Mass Communication and Society, 4, 405-418.
Hawkins, R. P., & Pingree, S. (1980). Some processes in the cultivation effect. Communication Research, 7, 193-226.
Hawkins, R. P., & Pingree, S. (1981). Using television to construct social reality. Journal of Broadcasting, 25, 347-364.
Hawkins, R. P., & Pingree, S. (1982). Television’s influence on social reality. In D. Pearl, L. Bouthilet, & J. Lazar (Eds.), Television and behavior: Ten years of scientific progress and implications for the eighties (DHHS Publication No. ADM 82-1196, Vol. 2, pp. 224-247). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
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 for media effects research (pp. 35-50). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hawkins, R. P., Pingree, S., & Adler, I. (1987). Searching for cognitive processes in the cultivation effect. Human Communication Research, 13, 533-577.
Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93-98.
Hirsch, P. M. (1980). The “scary world” of the nonviewer and other anomalies: A reanalysis of Gerbner et al.’s findings on cultivation analysis. Communication Research, 7, 403-456.
Hughes, M. (1980). The fruits of cultivation analysis: A reexamination of some effects of television watching. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 287-302.
Kane, J. M., & Anderson, R. C. (1978). Depth of processing and interference in the learning and remembering of sentences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 626-635.
Kim, J. (1992). The role of audience activity as a facilitator and an inhibitor of television viewing effects (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 2145A.
Kim, J., & Rubin, A. M. (1997). The variable influence of audience activity on media effects. Communication Research, 24, 107-135.
Mares, J. (1996). The role of source confusions in television’s cultivation of social reality judgments. Human Communication Research, 23, 278-297.
Morgan, M., & Shanahan, J. (1991). Television and the cultivation of political attitudes in Argentina. Journal of Communication, 41, 88-103.
Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1990). Cultivation analysis: Conceptualization and methodology. In M. Morgan & N. Signorielli (Eds.), Cultivation analysis: New directions in media effects research (pp. 13-34). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
O’Keefe, D. J. ( 1990). Persuasion: Theory and research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pavitt, C., & Perse, E. M. (1995). The stability of college students’ implicit theories of marriage. Communication Quarterly, 43, 332-341.
Perse, E. M. (1986). Soap opera viewing patterns of college students and cultivation. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 30, 175-193.
Perse, E. M. (1990a). Cultivation and involvement with local television news. In N. Signorielli & M. Morgan (Eds.), Cultivation analysis: New directions in media effects research (pp. 51-69). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Perse, E. M. (1990b). Media involvement and local news effects. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 34, 17-36.
Perse, E. M., Ferguson, D. A., & McLeod, D. M. (1994). Cultivation in the newer media environment. Communication Research, 21, 79-104.
Perse, E. M., & Rubin, A. M. (1988). Audience activity and satisfaction with favorite television soap opera. Journalism Quarterly, 65, 368-375.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Petty, R. E., & Priester, J. R. (1994). Mass media attitude change: Implications of the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman’s (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 91-122). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Pfau, M., Moy, P., Holbert, R. L., Szabo, E. A., Lin, W. K., & Zhang, W. W. (1998). The influence of political talk radio on confidence in democratic institutions. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 730-745.
Pfau, M., Moy, P., & Szabo, E. A. (2001). Influence of prime-time television programming on perceptions of the federal government. Mass Communication and Society, 4, 437-453.
Pingree, S. (1983). Children’s cognitive processes in constructing social reality. Journalism Quarterly, 60, 415-422.
Potter, W. J. (1986). Perceived reality and the cultivation hypothesis. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 30, 159-174.
Potter, W. J. (1990). Adolescents’ perceptions of primary values of television programming. Journalism Quarterly, 67, 843-851.
Potter, W. J. (1991a). Examining cultivation from a psychological perspective: Component subprocesses. Communication Research, 18, 77-102.
Potter, W. J. (1991b). The relationship between first and second order measures of cultivation. Human Communication Research, 18, 92-113.
Robinson, J., Skill, T., Nussbaum, J., & Moreland, K. ( 1985). Parents, peers and television characters: The use of comparison others as criterion for marriage satisfaction. In E. Lange (Ed.), Using media to promote knowledge and skill in family dynamics (pp. 11-15). Dayton, OH: Center for Religious Telecommunications.
Rosengren, K. E., & Windahl, S. (1972). Mass media consumption as a functional alternative. In D. McQuail (Ed.), Sociology of mass communications (pp. 166-194). Harmondsworth, UK:. Penguin.
Rubin, A. M. (1981). An examination of television viewing motives. Communication Research, 8, 141-165.
Rubin, A. M. (1993). Audience activity and media use. Communication Monographs, 60, 98-105.
Rubin, A. M., & Perse, E. M. (1987). Audience activity and television news gratifications. Communication Research, 14, 58-84.
Rubin, A. M., Perse, E. M., & Taylor, D. S. (1988). A methodological examination of cultivation. Communication Research, 15, 107-134.
Salomon, G. (1983). Television watching and mental effort: A social psychological view. In J. Bryant & D. R. Anderson (Eds.), Children’s understanding of television (pp. 181-198). New York: Academic Press.
Segrin, C., & Nabi, R. L. (2002). Does television viewing cultivate unrealistic expectations about marriage? Journal of Communication, 52, 247-263.
Shapiro, M. A. (1991). Memory and decision processes in the construction of social reality. Communication Research, 18, 3-24.
Shrum, L. J. (1996). Psychological processes underlying cultivation effects. Human Communication Research, 22, 482-509.
Shrum, L. J. (1997). The role of source confusion in cultivation effect may depend on processing strategy: A comment on Mares (1996). Human Communication Research, 24, 349-358.
Shrum, L. J. (1999). Television and persuasion: Effects of the programs between the ads. Psychology and Marketing, 16, 119-140.
Shrum, L. J., & O’Guinn, T. C. (1993). Processes and effects in the construction of social reality: Construct accessibility as an explanatory variable. Communication Research, 20, 436-471.
Signorielli, N. (1982). Marital status in television drama. Journal of Broadcasting, 26, 585-597.
Signorielli, N. (1991). Adolescents and ambivalence towards marriage: A cultivation analysis. Youth and Society, 23, 121-148.
Snyder, L. G., & Rouse, R. A. (1995). The media can have more than an impersonal impact: The case of AIDS risk perceptions and behavior. Health Communication, 7, 125-145.
Sotirovic, M. (2001). Media use and perceptions of welfare. Journal of Communication, 51, 750-774.
Sparks, G. G., Nelson, C. L., & Campbell, R. (1997). The relationship between exposure to television messages about paranormal phenomena and paranormal beliefs. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 41, 345-359.
Sparks, G. G., & Ogles, R. M. (1990). The difference between fear of victimization and the probability of being victimized: Implications for cultivation. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 34, 351-358.
SPSS Inc. (1990). SPSS user’s guide (3rd ed.). Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 201-232.
Verger, M., Lubbers, M., & Scheepers, P. (2000). Exposure to newspapers and attitudes toward ethnic minorities: A longitudinal analysis. Howard Journal of Communications, 11, 127-143.
Wakshlag, J., Vial, V., & Tamborini, R. (1983). Selecting crime drama and apprehension about crime. Human Communication Research, 10, 227-242.
Weaver, J., & Wakshlag, J. (1986). Perceived vulnerability to crime, criminal victimization experience and television viewing. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 30, 141-158.
Zhang, Y. B., & Harwood, J. (2002). Television viewing and perceptions of traditional Chinese values among Chinese college students. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 46, 245-264.
Lisa Schroeder (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1997) is an Assistant Professor at the Southwestern Oklahoma State University. Correspondence to: L. Schroeder, Southwestern Oklahoma State University, 100 Campus Drive Weatherford, Oklahoma 73096, USA. Email: lisa.schroeder@swosu.edu
Copyright Central States Speech Association Sep 2005
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved
