TY - JOUR
T1 - The “Scary World” of the nonviewer and other anomalies
T2 - A Reanalysis of Gerbner et al.'s Findings on Cultivation Analysis: Part I
AU - Hirsch, Paul M.
N1 - Funding Information:
This research was generously supported by a grant from the John and Mary R. Markle Foundation to facilitate dialogue between the social sciences and humanities in the field of mass communication. The research was initiated at the suggestion of Horace Newcomb (1978). an English professor who insisted that findings presented in support of the cultivation hypothesis by the Annenberg group were logically suspect and warranted reanalysis by the social science community. I am grateful to Delores Conway. Elihu Katz. Peter Miller. Horace Newcomb. and John Robinson for their contributions to and critical readings of this article. While they did not always concur with how each point was weighted or with every conclusion, all agreed that the issues raised, given the prominence of the Annenberg projects, need to be formalized for discussion. I am also greatly indebted to Sally Kilgore. Tom Panelas. and Stephen Struhl for their original contributions and first-rate research assistance.
Copyright:
Copyright 2016 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 1980/10
Y1 - 1980/10
N2 - This article critically examines the statistical evidence presented by Gerbner et al. to support their assertion that television-viewing “cultivates” distorted perceptions of the “real world.” In Part I, I point out discrepancies in the items, samples, and coding categories employed, and show that when controls are applied simultaneously (rather than singly) there is no linear relationship between amount of viewing and the provision of “television answers.” This reanalysis concludes that the “cultivation” hypothesis lacks empirical support and that the very data presented in its support argue strongly for rejecting the assertion that it has any scientific basis in fact.
AB - This article critically examines the statistical evidence presented by Gerbner et al. to support their assertion that television-viewing “cultivates” distorted perceptions of the “real world.” In Part I, I point out discrepancies in the items, samples, and coding categories employed, and show that when controls are applied simultaneously (rather than singly) there is no linear relationship between amount of viewing and the provision of “television answers.” This reanalysis concludes that the “cultivation” hypothesis lacks empirical support and that the very data presented in its support argue strongly for rejecting the assertion that it has any scientific basis in fact.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84970159865&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84970159865&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/009365028000700401
DO - 10.1177/009365028000700401
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84970159865
VL - 7
SP - 403
EP - 456
JO - Communication Research
JF - Communication Research
SN - 0093-6502
IS - 4
ER -