Introduction Television is an integral part of American culture
Television is an integral part of American culture. Americans can tune into
television with the push of a button. It is an extremely easy way to be informed,
entertained, and educated. “Television is the main source of information on national and
world events for most of us” (Philo, 1990). “In terms of psychological influence,
television might have little or no impact if only a few people pay relatively little attention
to it. But the opposite is the case: Just about everybody watches some television, it has
almost universal appeal” (Condry, 1989). As Condry states, “Television is what
television does: entertain, inform, and persuade.”
“Television is a device, invented in the mid-1920s, capable of sending a picture
with sound over the broadcast band. Television is an industry grown up around the use of
the device and regulated (more or less) by the federal government. Television is the
content of what it shows every minute of every day: the programs and the commercials.
Television is all of these things, and it has the potential to be even more” (Condry, 1989).
When television programming came about, the purpose for it was to provide
viewers with informative, entertaining, and educational programs. “The receiver soon
dominated the early television home. It usually went in the living room and became the
center of attention for the family, and their non-television owning friends” (Sterling and
Kittross, 2002). Families would gather around the one television set in the house and
watch programs together. Television time was a special time in American households
when parents and teenagers could enjoy wholesome, humorous, and even inspirational
television shows that portrayed the American family as a solid unit. This thesis will
explore the effects of television on college students.
The idea of television programming influencing the American family to act as a
solid unit and bring parents closer to their teenagers is great; however, it is not an
accurate depiction of today’s typical American family. In the early days of television,
viewers were not exposed to the same types of situations that present viewers are exposed
to. In fact, television programming today creates a gap between parents and teenagers. It
is difficult for parents and teenagers to associate with one another because certain
television programs are strictly appealing to parents, while some are strictly appealing to
teenagers.
Madonna took a stand against the excesses of today’s popular culture for children.
“As a young single adult, this woman (Madonna) reveled in edgy music videos and the
freedom of living without inhibition. But, as a married parent of two children, she has
become hostile to a popular culture that undermines her efforts to instill a strong moral
sense in her children. So now she forbids television and won’t let her children watch a
video until she has approved it” (Whitehead, 2005).
“Millions of other parents share the Material Girl’s view of the effects of popular
culture on children. They object to its violence, materialism, and misogyny” (Whitehead,
2005).
Because of the wide gap in television programs, it has become more and more
difficult for parents to see eye to eye with their teenagers. Parents rarely associate with
the programs that their teenagers are viewing, and teenagers do not want to watch the
programs that their parents are watching. This gap spreads wider and wider due to the
fact that the typical American household has more than one television set making it easy
for multiple program viewing at any given time.
Some of the television programs that are geared towards college students depict
life in a way that seems unrealistic to say the least. College students who are susceptible
to these programs can become irritated or annoyed with their own lives because their own
lives aren’t as glamorous or ostentatious as those depicted on television. This can lead to
the widening gap between what college students deem as appropriate behavior and what
their parents have been trying to embed in them.
The typical American household has more than one television set. “By 1960,
almost ninety percent of American homes had a television set that was, at that time, on
for an average of more than five hours a day” (Condry, 1989). Since most households
have more than one television set, young adults may view programs with privacy and
without their parent’s interference. The problem with this modern day convenience is
that parents hardly monitor what their young adults are watching. While many believe
that having more than one television set in a household is essential, it can be detrimental
to a young adult’s view of what is appropriate behavior and what is not. Parents should
be able to monitor what their young adults are watching, and as a result, set some viewing
guidelines.
This thesis will explore the notion that television programs can alter college
students’ perceptions of violence, alcohol, sexual situations, self-image, and even their
eating habits. “Since the early 1950s, there have been several analyses of the program
content of television most of which have focused on the programs aired during
primetime. Although some of the early studies were of a more general nature, most of
these descriptions of the world of television have focused primarily on the violent content
of television drama” (Condry, 1989). Violence depicted on television has increased to the
extent that many studies have been done on its effects in people's lives. Violence as
shown on television is not limited to movies and police dramas. It enters into the
documentaries, cartoons, news and sports shows as well. This is a problem for college
students where television has become a nightly ritual.
“Alcohol is the most common and important drug on television being mentioned
in eighty percent of prime-time programs, and places where alcohol is consumed are
frequently the centerpiece of action (as, for example, in a bar)” (Condry, 1989).
Television programs depict alcohol consumption as sophisticated and mature. This might
lead college students to think that by consuming alcohol, they become more mature and
wiser in the eyes of others. As a result, they might feel more accepted by their peers.
Television ads for alcohol are very prevalent in programming. College students probably
see more advertisements for alcohol than anything else.
This thesis will also try to validate that there are many sexual situations in the
television programming that college students view. Some students watch a great deal of
programming, and there has been a steady increase in the frequency and explicitness of
sexual content on broadcast television. In some situations on television, sex is deemed as
something that people in committed relationships share. Unfortunately, in many other
situations, that is not the case.
A college student’s self image can have positive or negative effects on his/hers
self worth. For this reason, it might be a good idea for them to know that the body
images that they see on television are not the norm for most young adults. Most young
adult female actors do not portray normal body size; instead, they are abnormally thin.
Most male actors also look perfect, and this seems to be another discrepancy in terms of
self-image.
This thesis hopes to discover relationships between the programs college students
watch and how those programs may influence their eating habits. College students who
are constantly watching television can resort to eating food that is not necessarily healthy.
This trend of not eating nutritionally balanced meals can cause many health problems in
college students, obesity being one of them. “Children, ages 8 to 18, spend more time
(44.5 hours per week) in front of computer, television, and game screens than any other
activity in their lives except sleeping” (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2005).
“Approximately 30.3% of children (ages 6 to 11) are overweight and 15.3% are obese.
For teens (12 to 19) the rate is almost identical: 33.4% overweight, and 15.5% obese”
(American Obesity Association, 2006).
By adding to previous research and trying to corroborate a correlation among
college students, this thesis should contribute to the ongoing study of how television
programs can alter college student’s perceptions of violence, alcohol, sexual situations,
self-image, and eating habits.
Chapter 2:
Literature Review
Television and Contemporary Society
Television has been an integral part of American households for many years; as a
result, there have been many studies conducted on television and contemporary society.
This literature review discusses cultivation analysis and third-person effect.
“There is a love-hate relationship between television and contemporary society.
Parents, teachers, academics, politicians, moral guardians, social critics, those who work
in the medium, and those who simply watch it without thinking about it, have all offered
a vast array of charges, counter-charges, complaints, defenses, interpretations and
opinions about just what this device is and what it may be doing to us and our children”
(Shanahan, 1999).
“If we consider the impact of network television on the majority of American
viewers, one observation would be that watching television is the national spectator
sport” (Sklover, 1973).
“Television, both technology and institution, has changed on many levels in the
past fifty years, yet the public debates it propels often sound like a broken record – but
one that is going faster and faster” (Shanahan, 1999). It seems that educators and parents
alike complain about children watching too much television and imitating the
inappropriate behavior that is advertised on television. “Television, both as technology
and institution, has changed on many levels in the past fifty years, yet the public debates
it propels often sound like a broken record – but one that is going faster and faster. Each
new crop of parents and teachers sings the same refrain about zombie-eyed, anemic
children wasting too much time watching television, imitating the aggressive behavior of
whatever super-heroes currently adorn bed sheets and lunchboxes, having no attention
span in the classroom, and so on” (Shanahan, 1999).
“Some years ago, Michael Novak offered a refreshingly simple way to frame the
question of how television might affect us. ‘If you practice the craft of writing diligently,
you begin to think and perceive differently. If you run for twenty minutes a day, your
psyche is subtly transformed. If you work in an executive office, you begin to think like
an executive. And, if you watch six hours of television, on the average, every day…?’
(Shanahan, 1999) In other words, our world is influenced by how we spend our time.
Novak claims since we watch as much television as we do, we should not be surprised
that television can and will influence how we think.
Cultivation Analysis
“George Gerbner’s original conception of cultivation was nothing less than an
attempt to alter the nature of the conventional academic discourse about social and
cultural implications of mass communication” (Shanahan, 1999). Gerbner’s plan was to
develop an approach to mass communication different from persuasion and propaganda
research. He wanted to do away with the traditional research approaches.
“Developments in communication have extended the human ability to exchange
messages and have transformed the symbolic environment of human consciousness.
Perhaps the most profound dilemma is that just as knowledge can be said to confer
power, so power generates and uses knowledge for its own purposes. Social and
institutional structures (governments, broadcasting networks, publishing houses, and
educational institutions) have a steadily increasing role in shaping the symbolic
environment” (Gerbner, 1977).
“The message systems of a culture not only inform but form common images.
They not only entertain but create publics. They not only satisfy but shape a range of
attitudes, tastes, and preferences. They provide the boundary conditions and overall
patterns within which the processes of personal and group-mediated selection,
interpretation, and image-formation go on” (Gerbner, 1977).
“Cultivation analysis begins with the insights of the study of institutions and the
message systems they produce and goes on to investigate the contributions that these
systems and their symbolic functions make to the cultivation of assumptions about life
and the world” (Gerbner, 1977).
Cultivation analysis is field of research that has allowed many researchers to
conduct thorough assessments of television in relation to its effects on viewers.
“Cultivation analysis is the study of television’s independent contribution to viewers’
conceptions of social reality” (Shanahan, 1999). In practice, cultivation analysis uses
survey research methods to assess the difference amount of television viewing makes (if
any), other things held constant, to a broad variety of opinions, images and attitudes,
across a variety of samples, types of measures, topical areas and intervening variables
(Gerbner, Gross, Morgan and Signorielli, 1994). In other words, the central idea behind
cultivation research is that those people “who spend a lot of time watching television are
more likely to perceive the real world in ways that reflect the most common and recurrent
messages of the television world, compared to people who watch less television but are
otherwise comparable in terms of important demographic characteristics” (Shanahan,
1999).
Ever since the first results of cultivation analysis were published in the late
seventies, many studies have explored, defended, and critiqued the assumptions and
methodological procedures that go along with cultivation analysis. “Although cultivation
analysis may once have been closely identified with the issue of violence, over the years,
researchers have looked at a broad range of topics, including sex roles, aging, political
orientations, the family, environmental attitudes, science, health, religion, minorities,
occupations and others” (Shanahan, 1999).
Despite criticism, cultivation theory remains an informative theoretical mode of
research emphasis. Newhagen and Lewenstein said, “the social implications of the idea
that a mass medium can define our culture are too important to dismiss” (Newhagen and
Lewenstein, 1992). Even though not all communication scholars agree, cultivation
studies have been great in contributing to the scientific and public understanding of
media and its effects.
“Cultivation is about the implications of stable, repetitive, pervasive and virtually
inescapable patterns of images and ideologies that television (especially dramatic,
fictional entertainment) provides” (Shanahan, 1999). It sees television as a system of
messages. From those messages over long periods of time, viewers are affected.
Cultural Indicators
“Cultivation analysis is one component of a long-term, ongoing research program
called ‘Cultural Indicators.’ The concept of a ‘cultural indicator’ was developed by
Gerbner as a complement to the more common idea of an economic or social indicator, a
kind of barometer of important cultural issues” (Gerbner, 1969, 1974). “In the United
States, Cultural Indicators research has focused mostly on the implications of growing up
and living with television, since it is the country’s most widely shared cultural agency
and most visible disseminator of cultural symbols” (Shanahan, 1999).
“The project was developed as a three-part research framework for investigating
the structure, contours, and consequences of pervasive symbol systems, premised on
three global, interrelated questions:
1. What are the processes, pressures, and constraints that influence and underlie the
production of mass media content?
2. What are the dominant, aggregate patterns of images, messages, facts, values and
lessons expressed in media messages?
3. What is the relationship between attention to these messages and audiences’
conceptions of social reality?” (Shanahan, 1999)
It is interesting to see that the answer to any one of the three questions is seen as
having tremendous implications for the other two questions. “Early on, Gerbner
maintained that the ‘effects’ of communication are not to be found in short-term attitude
or behavior change, but in the history and dynamics of the reciprocal relationships
between the structure of the institutions which produce media messages, the message
systems themselves, and the image structures which are embedded within a culture”
(Shanahan, 1999).
The history of television research dates back almost to the time when television
sets were first introduced to our culture. Studies on the behaviors of those who owned
television sets produced many valuable insights. “Since television was spreading so
rapidly, however, these kinds of studies mainly described novelty effects accompanying
the adoption of the new medium; they told us little about what television means in a
society when most people have grown up living with its stories” (Shanahan, 1999).
Once cultivation research surfaced, we were able to see that it is more than an abstract
conceptualization of an interesting question. “Rather, we see cultivation as a ‘critical’
theory of communication, insofar as it subjects the institution of television and mass
communication to an investigation which can show the dimensions of important
problems and even suggest ways to fix them” (Shanahan, 1999). It is a great tool used in
critical social science research.
“If cultivation is a critical theory, it is a theory of media’s role in social control.
That is, it examines how media are used in social systems to build consensus (if not
agreement) on positions through shared terms of discourse and assumptions about
priorities and values” (Shanahan, 1999).
Gerbner once stated “Cultivation is what a culture does,” because “culture is the
basic medium in which humans live and learn.” “Culture is a ‘system of stories and other
artificats-increasingly mass-produced- that mediates between existence and
consciousness of existence, and thereby contributes to both” (Gerbner, 1972). It is
because of this that messages sent are more contingent with the views of the
organizations that produce them instead of the views of individuals. “Television is
perfectly poised to play a crucial role in the cultivation of common and specific images,
beliefs, values, and ideologies” (Shanahan, 1999).
There are five ideas that specify how cultivation adds to processes of social
control. The first is “we assume that institutions of mass communication are owned by
social, cultural, and primarily economic elites. Cultivation researchers are most
concerned with the aspects of a media system in which ownership and access are limited
and tightly controlled” (Shanahan, 1999).
The second is “social and economic elites codify messages in their media which
serve elite aims” (Shanahan, 1999). There is not a clear correlation that tells us if the
messages of television are in agreement with the measured ideological positions of
message producers. “This proposition can be controversial, particularly for those who
see the American media culture moving in a more democratic, diversified, and
demographically segmented direction” (Shanahan, 1999). It is especially controversial
“for those who see media as controlled by market forces and protected by the First
Amendment because it can be maddeningly perverse to suggest that social elites
somehow use the media for their own purposes” (Shanahan, 1999).
Shanahan and Morgan are “not asserting that there is a conspiracy of
trilateralcommission one-worlders somehow getting their message through to a duped
public.” They suggest that “dominant cultural institutions, clearly serving economic
elites, are systemically structured so as to most often favor the viewpoints and
information that would help those economic elites in the long run” (Shanahan, 1999).
The third idea is “the tendency for media messages to conform to elite needs and
desires can be revealed through empirical studies” (Shanahan, 1999). This merely states
that messages have the tendency to reveal systems and patterns when they are tested
empirically. “Gerbner has noted that analysis of television’s message systems (content)
provides clues to cultivation. Cultivation analysis must therefore be grounded in real
data about over-arching content patterns, shared by large groups over long periods of
time” (Shanahan, 1999).
The fourth idea is that “audience members, whether or not they are seeking to
fulfill individual needs, participate in a social process in which they hear and internalize
messages of social elites” (Shanahan, 1999). “This is the key proposition for cultivation
as a theory of social control” (Shanahan, 1999). The suggestion here is “that audiences
frequently ‘get’ messages from message systems that have been structured to reflect the
interests of social elites” (Shanahan, 1999). Shanahan and Morgan say that “any
‘absorption” of meaning from that process is different than straight persuasion.”
“Cultivation assumes that massive attention to television results in a slow, steady, and
cumulative internalization of aspects of those messages, especially the aspects with
ideological import” (Shanahan, 1999). This idea does not “imply that aims of social
elites will be universally accepted by viewers, but it does suggest that social elites have
and excellent resource with which to color public discussion of social, political, and
economic issues” (Shanahan, 1999). As a result, “cultivation argues that an important
outcome of our media system is that social elites can play a disproportionate role in
determining the ‘boundaries’ of social discourse” (Shanahan, 1999).
The fifth idea is that “audience members more ‘committed’ to media will have
belief structures more consonant with those desired by social elites” (Shanahan, 1999).
“This proposition is the one most directly tested by cultivation analysis: viewership (for
example, exposure to television) is related to belief structures, under the assumption that
more time spent with an elite-dominated media system reflects:
(1) a willingness to accept the propositions within those media as useful, and
(2) a tendency to accept the propositions within those media as, in some sense,
factual or credible or normal.”
This idea “is directly susceptible to empirical analysis, and so has been the key focus of
Cultural Indicators research and especially cultivation” (Shanahan, 1999).
“Gerbner and his team limit their analysis of TV violence to dramatic entertainment
programming which means that news, documentaries, variety, and quiz shows and sports
programs are excluded during coding” (Gunter, 1985). Gerbner and his team use the
following definition of violence while analyzing: “the overt expression of physical force
(with or without a weapon) against self or other, compelling action against one’s will on
pain of being hurt or killed, or actually hurting or killing” (Gerbner, 1972).
Violence Profile
With the previously mentioned definition to guide them, “a team of trained coders
are employed to record such features as the frequency and nature of violent acts, the
perpetrators and victims of violence, and the temporal and spatial settings in which the
acts occurred” (Gunter, 1985). The “Violence Profile” is derived from certain
combinations of the measurements. It “purports to represent an objective and meaningful
indicator of the amount of violence portrayed in TV drama” (Gunter, 1985).
“The Violence Profile consists of two sets of indicators: the Violence Index and
the Risk Ratios. The amount of violence occurring on TV is represented directly by the
Violence Index. Essentially this index represents the percentage of programs containing
any violence at all, the frequency and rate of violence episodes per program and per hour,
and the number of leading characters involved in violence either as aggressors or as
victims. The Risk Ratios signify a character’s chances of involvement in violence in TV
drama programming and, once involved, the likelihood of positive or negative
consequences for him or her” (Gunter, 1985).
There are three reasons why there have been more links between cultivation and
television than cultivation and other media. “First, overall amount of exposure to
television dwarfs the use of most other media for most people” (Shanahan, 1999).
People spend more time on average with television than with any other media. “Second,
exposure to television begins before we first use most other media” (Shanahan, 1999).
It is an accurate representation that most people have been watching television since
before they could read or speak. “Third, television is more available and accessible than
most other media” (Shanahan, 1999). Since watching television does not require literacy,
it is easier for many to watch television rather than read a newspaper.
“Gerbner and Gross argued that television is different from other media in its
centralized mass-production and ritualistic use of a coherent set of images and messages
produced to appeal to virtually the entire population” (Shanahan, 1999). Television is
still the dominant force behind stories and messages that are shared among the lines of
class, gender, and race.
“Cultivation analysis should always begin by identifying the most recurrent and
stable patterns in television content, emphasizing the consistent images, portrayals, and
values that cut across most program genres” (Shanahan, 1999).
Cultivation is measured by collecting observations from individuals. “This
presents some conceptual and theoretical problems, though these problems are common
in social science and not unique to cultivation” (Shanahan, 1999). It is not easy to
measure the reactions that individuals have to television messages without taking data
from those individuals.
The ‘Mean World’ Syndrome
“The ‘Mean World’ Syndrome is one of the main effects of the Cultivation
Theory. It occurs when heavy viewers see the world a much nastier place than do light
viewers” (Greunke, 2000). “This, theorists attribute to the fact that television depicts the
world as a mean and violent place and therefore, heavy viewers are overly frightened and
too cautious of the real world” (Phillips, 1999). “Gerbner believes this may have
something to do with America’s policy on capital punishment” (Stossel, 1997). ”In
terms of psychological influence, television might have little or no impact if only a few
people pay relatively little attention to it. But, the opposite is the case: Just about
everybody watches some television, it has almost universal appeal” (Condry, 1989).
Since different types of people watch different types of programs throughout different
times in a given day, they are exposed to dissimilar information in terms of programming.
Most of the research on television content is conducted during the “primetime” viewing
hours because that is the time that most viewers tune in.
Television informs, persuades, and entertains. “The content of television is
drama, soap opera, religion, game show, news, situation comedy, sports, advertisements,
promotions for upcoming material, public service announcements, and so forth”
(Condry, 1989). Since television content is constantly changing, it is difficult to define.
There are numerous reasons for the change in content. "The most important of
which is that the audience is easily bored and the industry must keep gathering and
holding the audience. The audience is attached, via the ratings services, to a feedback
loop reaching into the corporate offices of the industry whose job it is to program the
device. In a real sense, the content of television is responsive to the changing tastes and
prejudices of the audience” (Condry, 1989).
“In 1961, to the consternation of network executives, the Chairman of the Federal
Communications Commission, Newton Minow, complained that ‘television is a vast
wasteland’. Whether or not that was true (or still is), trying to get a fix on the content of
television is a little like trying to map the desert. The winds of change are constantly
blowing, and much of what was true at one time will not be true a short time later”
(Condry, 1989).
“By all accounts, children begin watching television as a steady habit at around
the age of 2 ½ (Anderson and Levin, 1976), although there is some evidence that children
are aware of some things about television, and like it, as early as 6 months of age
(Hollenbeck and Slaby, 1979). A recent study demonstrated that infants not only watch
television, but they can imitate it as well” (Condry, 1989).
“Not only does the habit of watching television begin very early in life, but it also
continues to hold the attention and interests of people well into old age” (Condry, 1989).
It is easy to make the assumption that television is a relevant mainstay in American
households. It is the pure essence of entertainment within a household. Television does
not discriminate among age groups. There is enough television to go around and
entertain various age groups.
“Violence is not the only distortion of the content of television, but it is the most
heavily studied” (Condry, 1989). “In addition to violence, the content of television
drama distorts the distribution of individuals by sex, occupation and race” (Signorielli,
1987).
“What is the impact of television exposure on sex-role attitudes? Several
researchers have tried to answer this question, and the findings are mixed” (Condry,
1989). “In 1974, Beuf studied sex-typed occupational choices and found that heavy
viewers made more stereotyped choices. In 1975, Freuh and McGhee looked at
preference for sex-typed activities among heavy and light viewers and found that heavy
viewers were more sex typed in their responses to the questions on the ‘it’ test (a
psychological measure of sex roles). Volgy and Schwartz found in 1980 more sexism in
adults heavily exposed to entertainment programs” (Condry, 1989). The amount of
evidence supports the theory that “television viewing does make and independent
contribution to adolescents’ sex role orientation” (Morgan, 1987).
Cultivation studies about television, gays, and gay marriages have also surfaced.
“Cultivation theory is interested in televised messages, and examining how gays have
been portrayed helps predict audience attitudes. Early depictions of gay men and lesbians
were rarely positive and were often based on negative stereotypes In the 1940s and
1950s, for example, cartoonishly feminine men were often the butt of jokes, making them
ridiculous and non-threatening to viewers uncomfortable with the notion of gayness. By
the 1960s, gay men, while still being used to comic effect, also were depicted frequently
as either murderers or murder victims in entertainment programs. In the 1970s, shows
such as All in the Family included gay characters in their plotlines, allowing the main
characters to misunderstand, fear, and finally come to accept a gay person. These stories
often happened over the course of an episode, with the gay character a never-to-return
guest star” (Netzley, 2007).
Not only is there a scholarly link with cultivation, other scholars believe we under
value its influence on us. “Television is not simply an entertainment medium; it has the
ability to communicate the norms, rules, and values of a society. Gerbner, Gross, Morgan,
and Signorielli state that the major social function of television lies in the continual
repetition of patterns (myths, ideologies, facts, relationships, etc.), which serve to define
the world, legitimize the social order, and cultivate cultural values” (Zhang and
Harwood, 2002).
Cultivation theory also exists cross-culturally. Zhang and Harwood published an
artcicle in 2002 after examining television’s cultivation effects on perceptions of
traditional Chinese values among a group of Chinese college students. “Hierarchical
regression analyses indicated that total viewing of imported programs negatively
predicted viewers’ endorsement of interpersonal harmony values. Chinese music
performance programming, Chinese children‘s education programs, imported movies,
and imported sports were negative predictors of interpersonal harmony value
endorsement; whereas, viewing Chinese sports was a positive predictor of hierarchical
relations” (Zhang and Harwood, 2002).
Jennifer Good explored the links between television viewing and attitudes about
the natural environment. “Environmental cultivation research (research exploring the
links between television viewing and attitudes about the natural environment) has found
that heavier television viewers tend to have less concern for environmental issues and
feel less agency in addressing environmental issues than their lighter viewing
counterparts” (Good, 2007).
“At a fundamental level, commercial television exists because of an arrangement
between those who create television, those who wish to advertise on television, and those
who view television. It is not only via advertising, however, that television transmits
information about materialism. Television programming has also been found to contain
positive images, narratives, and messages about materialism” (Good, 2007).
This literature seems to tell us that television continues to have an impact on
society, and that impact is reflected in this research.
Third-Person Effect
“Most of us believe that other people are more influenced by advertising, media
violence, and news coverage than we are; this is the third person effect” (Bryant, 2002).
“Instead of looking at media effects on beliefs, it examines beliefs about media effects.
Rather than assuming that media affect perceptions, it assumes that perceptions can shape
media. For this reason, the third-person effect (TPE) has generated substantial research
interest in recent years. The third-person effect is a relatively new concept, as social
science constructs go. It was invented in 1983 by sociologist W. Phillips Davison in a
clever article that drew on intuition and public opinion theory. The third-person effect is
an individual’s perception that a message will exert a stronger impact on others than on
the self. The “third-person” term derives from the expectation that a message will not
have its greatest influence on “me” (the grammatical first person), or “you” (the second
person), but on “them” – the third persons. Individuals may overestimate the impact that
mass media exert on others, underestimate media effects on the self, or both” (Bryant,
2002).
“The TPE hypothesis has two parts. The perceptual hypothesis asserts that people
assume that communications influence others more than the self. The behavioral
component suggests that people’s expectations of media impact on others leads them to
take action, perhaps because they want to thwart the predicted effects. There is intuitive
appeal to the third-person effect. It resonates with everyday experience in which people
attribute powerful, typically negative, effects to “the media.” At the same time, people
deny that media have affected them personally or have difficulty locating a single
instance in which the same mass media have altered their ways of seeing the world”
(Bryant, 2002).
“Although the third-person effect is more hypothesis than full-blown theory, it has
roots firmly planted in venerable communication concepts and respected research
traditions. It is one of a family of concepts that bridges sociology and psychology,
focuses on perceptions of social reality, and centers on beliefs about public opinion”
(Glynn, 1995). “Like such constructs as pluralistic ignorance, it emphasizes that people
harbor illusions-mistaken beliefs about others’ opinions. Yet it contrasts sharply with such
concepts as looking-glass perception (Fields, 1976) or its psychological counterpart, false
consensus. According to looking-glass self or false consensus, people perceive that others
share their views of the world. The third-person effect view is different. It claims that
people are prone to assume that media have different-invariably stronger-influences on
others than on themselves” (Bryant, 2002).
“The third-person effect has been studied in a variety of ways, but typically
survey respondents are asked to estimate effects of researcher-described messages on
others and self. In some cases, people read or view a communication; subsequently, they
indicate their beliefs about the message’s impact on third persons and themselves.
Wording and question order vary with the study” (Bryant, 2002).
“Early research on the third-person effect suggested that it was a universal
phenomenon, one that emerged every time individuals were asked to estimate media
effects on others and the self. With more research and inevitable dampening of
panglossian perceptions has come the realization that, like most things in science, the
effect is more likely to occur under particular conditions. Indeed, a careful look at third
person research reveals that some respondents are more prone to third-person perceptions
than others; for some messages, people do not discriminate between self and others; and
for still other communications, people are prone to do something that might bedevil
Davison himself: they acknowledge they are susceptible to media effects” (Bryant,
2002).
“Self-enhancement theories tell us that people should be loathe to admit that they
are influenced by messages when such admission reflects negatively on the self.
Thirdperson effects should be particularly pronounced when the message is perceived as
undesirable-that is, when people infer that ‘this message may not be so good for me’ or
‘it’s not cool to admit you’re influenced by this media program.’ The flip side to these
findings is more interesting. According to a self-enhancement view, if the third-person
effect is driven by a desire to preserve self-esteem, people should be willing to
acknowledge effects for communications that are regarded as socially desirable, healthy,
or otherwise good for the self” (Bryant, 2002).
“The search for individual differences in third-person perceptions has identified
self-perceived knowledge, ego-involvement, and self-esteem as potential moderators of
the third-person effect. It seems likely that there are subcultural differences in thirdperson
perceptions” (Bryant, 2002).
“Television studies is the relatively recent, disciplinary name given to the
academic study of television. Modeled by analogy on longer established fields of study,
the name suggests that there is an object, ‘television’, which is the self-evident object of
study using accepted methodologies. This may be increasingly the case, but historically,
most of the formative academic research on television was inaugurated in other fields and
contexts. The ‘television’ of television studies is a relatively new phenomenon, just as
many of the key television scholars are employed in departments of sociology, politics,
communication arts, speech, theatre, media and film studies” (Brunsdon, 1998).
Studies
There have been studies on television and its effects on college students.
Recently, Rick W. Busselle conducted a study on television exposure titled “Television
Exposure, Parents’ Precautionary Warnings, and Young Adults’ Perceptions of Crime.”
“Crime-related television viewing may influence not only the viewer but also
individuals with whom the viewer communicates. A matched sample of parents
and their first semester college-age children were surveyed independently (N = 178 pairs)
to test a model linking parents’ crime-related television viewing with their college-age
children’s perceptions of crime prevalence. The model identifies parents’ precautionary
warnings as influenced by their own crime viewing and as influencing their college-age
children’s crime-prevalence estimates. Results indicate the relationship between parents’
crime viewing and their issuance of precautionary warnings is mediated by their own
estimates of crime prevalence and that parents’ precautionary warnings influence young
adults’ perceptions of crime prevalence. Young adults’ gender influences both the
frequency of parental warnings and young adults’ perceptions of how frequently they
were warned by parents but appears not to influence perceptions of crime directly”
(Busselle, 2003).
“Nielsen Media Research announced in February of 2006 that it would include
college students living away from home in its television ratings beginning in early 2007”
(Aspan, 2006). At that time, college students were not included in the Nielsen ratings.
“Nielsen ratings measure viewing habits in sample homes to determine how many people
in certain age and demographic groups watch television programs. Networks and
advertisers rely on the ratings to sell commercials, and the exclusion of college students
who live away from home omits a potentially influential demographic. According to
Nielsen, these students watch an average of 24.3 hours of television a week” (Aspan,
2006).
“Only students whose families already participate in Nielsen’s television surveys
will have their viewing habits measured, meaning that college students will be seen as
part of their families rather than as new, independent households. But for the first time,
the ratings will reflect viewing habits in dorm rooms, fraternity and sorority houses, and
off-campus apartments” (Aspan, 2006).
“According to Nielsen, the inclusion of college students could increase the
viewing levels in the 18- to 24-year-old age by 3 to 12 percent, which could result in
ratings increases of 0.2 to 1.0 points for programs. The impact would vary for each
network, depending in the ratings they currently receive” (Aspan, 2006).
On January 29, 2007, Nielsen Media Research began including college students
living away from home in its count. As a result, “shows like “America’s Top Model” and
“Family Guy” were expected to see their ratings surge” (Story, 2007).
Usually, when Nielsen ratings rise, there is an increase in advertiser dollars, so the
adjusted ratings are good news for networks like ESPN, Fox, and CW.
“If advertisers decide to spend more on shows that demonstrate high college
viewership, TV networks may decide to dedicate more of their schedule programming to
college tastes” (Story, 2007).
“Measuring students’ viewing of television comes with its own pitfalls. College
students still watch a significant amount of television, spending three and a half hours a
day tuned in on average, about an hour less than all people on average, according to
Nielsen. But college students are not watching only TV. They are also among the most
likely consumers to be browsing the Internet, watching streaming video, text messaging
on their cell phones and playing video games-sometimes all at once. Their media habits
make them targets of marketers, but just how attentive college students are while they are
watching TV may give advertisers pause about how much they can trust their viewing”
(Story, 2007).
“Until now, the 18- to 24-year-olds counted by Nielsen were mainly those who
did not attend college, attended part-time or still lived at home. During holiday and
summer breaks, many college students are home and were counted by Nielsen at those
times on their parents’ set top boxes” (Story, 2007).
“Over the last decade, several TV networks with shows aimed at young people
grew increasingly frustrated that college students were not counted. About five years
ago, Turner Broadcasting, which owns Cartoon Network and TBS, approached Nielsen
about the issue” (Story, 2007).
Other research examines how perceptions of body image are shaped by television.
Stella Chia investigated the third-person effect in relation to body-image factors in
Singapore. “College women in Singapore reported that thinness ideals, as portrayed in
magazine ads, had greater media effects on friends than on themselves. Their perceptions
of media effects on themselves was positively associated with their intention to lose
weight. The sum of perceived effects on self and on friends accounted for college
women’s overall intention to adopt weight-loss behavior, whereas the third-person
differential between self and female friends was negatively associated with the subjects’
intention to go on a diet” (Chia, 2007).
The previous research allows for an understanding of how individuals respond to
television whether examining cultivation research or third-person effects.
This background leads us to research questions which may be evaluated
qualitatively. These questions include:
1. Do college students today think that there is too much violence on television?
2. Do third person effects present themselves as students discuss the effects of
television in relation to the way they act, dress, and eat?
3. How do students view television and its depictions of reality?
4. Will students recognize the influences that television and other media have on
their lives?
Chapter 3:
Methodology
“Cultivation typically uses survey procedures for examining relationships
between exposure to television and reactions to those messages” (Shanahan, 1999). There
are many questions that can be used to gain insight into people’s conceptions of social
reality. Questions that deal with the statistics and facts of the television world are
common. Other questions deal with symbolism and implications of television content.
“The questionnaires typically include questions relating to many aspects of social reality
as well as measures of television viewing and demographic variables such as age, gender,
race, education, occupation, social class, and political orientation” (Shanahan, 1999).
“Amount of television viewing is usually assessed by asking how much time the
respondent spends watching on an ‘average day’” (Shanahan, 1999). Although it is
important to know about how much time a respondent spends watching television, it is
more important to know the viewing level of the respondent.
“All in all, cultivation analysis tests for relationships between the amount of
television viewing and the tendency to respond to survey questions in the terms of the
dominant and repetitive facts, values, and ideologies of the television world.
Systematic differences in the outlooks of heavy and light viewers provide evidence of
television’s contribution to viewers’ conceptions of social reality” (Shanahan, 1999).
“People who regularly consume a great deal of television differ from light viewers in
many ways besides how much time they spend watching. In the general population,
light and heavy viewers differ by age, sex, income, education, race, occupation, time
use, religion, social isolation, political orientation, and a host of other demographic,
social, and psychological variables. But they also differ in terms of the extent to
which television dominates their sources of consciousness. Light viewers tend to be
exposed to more varied and diverse information sources (both mediated and
interpersonal), while heavy viewers, by definition, tend to rely more on television”
(Shanahan, 1999).
“One way to explain the methodological approach of cultivation is to invoke an
old parable: Imagine a person living all alone on a tiny deserted isle (or a mountaintop,
or a cave, or a biosphere) with no contact with anyone or anything in the outside world
besides what he or she sees on television. Everything this hypothetical hermit knows
about ‘reality’ is derived from the television world – a world that differs sharply from the
‘real’ world in terms of demography, violence, occupations and so on, and a world in
which motivations, outcomes, and many normally invisible forces of life and society are
made clear” (Shanahan, 1999). It is possible that such a person would and could learn
about the ‘real’ world through patterns embedded in the ‘symbolic’ world.
Qualitative research methods were developed in the social sciences to allow
researchers to study social and cultural issues in contexts beyond those limited by the
constructs of quantitative research. For instance, qualitative research may help us answer
questions about how or why a human-directed phenomenon takes place. Qualitative data
incorporates participant observation with extensive interviews. The researcher’s
experiences, thoughts, and ideas are also included in the analysis.
Qualitative methods use descriptions and categories, as opposed to quantitative
methods, which use numbers and statistics. Quantitative studies will tell researchers what
is happening, but depending upon the survey or approach, may not help researchers
answer other important questions. Experiments, co-relational studies using surveys and
standardized observational protocols, simulations, supportive materials for case study are
examples of quantitative methods. The general sequence for quantitative methods begins
with the observation of events, presenting a questionnaire, and asking questions with
fixed answers. The next step is to tabulate, then summarize the data. The last two steps
include analyzing and drawing conclusions.
Examples of qualitative methods are open-ended interviews, naturalistic
observation, document analysis, case studies/life histories, descriptive and self-reflective
supplements to experiments and co-relational studies. The general sequence for
qualitative methods is to observe events, and ask questions with open-ended answers, to
record or log what is said and/or done, to interpret, to return to observe or ask more
questions of people, to theorize formally, and to draw conclusions.
Qualitative methods allow a deeper understanding and interpretation of people
and their behavior. Qualitative methods allow the researcher to investigate and further
develop cultural and social contexts.
Phenomenology is a common qualitative method that involves studying multiple
individuals who have experienced the phenomenon. The typical access and rapport
issues are finding people who have experienced the phenomenon.
One selects individuals to study by finding individuals who have experienced the
phenomenon, and once they have been found, a sample is generated. The type of
information that is typically collected is from interviews with up to ten people.
Information is then recorded through a long interview protocol.
The common data collection issues or field issues that are usually associated with
Phenomenology are bracketing one’s experiences and the logistics of interviewing.
Information is typically stored with computer files or transcriptions.
The strengths of qualitative research are its depth and detail, its openness, which
can generate new theories and recognize phenomena ignored by most or all previous
researchers and literature, and it helps people see the worldview of those studies. It also
attempts to avoid pre-judgments.
The weaknesses of qualitative research are that fewer people are usually studied,
it is less easily generalized, it is difficult to aggregate data and make systematic
comparisons, and it is dependent upon researcher's personal attributes and skills.
A qualitative phenomenology study was conducted in which participants
answered questions pertaining to the effects they believe television has on them. The
participants were college students who view television on a frequent basis. In this
particular study, “frequent basis” refers to college students that watch at least an hour a
night of television.
The college students that participated in this study came from a major community
college in a large metropolitan area in Florida. The students were asked if they would
like to participate in such a study. They were informed that the study was voluntary, and
they were also informed that their responses would remain anonymous.
The participants were asked to set aside fifty minutes outside of regular class for
the study. This way, the students had time to reflect on their answers. The community
college students ranged in age from 18 to 24. Eleven students in their first year of college
participated in the study. Nine of the students who participated are female, and two of the
students who participated are male.
The first set of interviews was conducted as a focus group discussion, and the
second set of interviews was conducted as individual interviews. The interviews were
tape recorded.
Chapter 4:
Results
The following four research questions were examined:
R1. Do college students today think that there is too much violence on television?
R2. Do third person effects present themselves as students discuss the effects of
television in relation to the way they act, dress, and eat?
R3. How do students view television and its depictions of reality?
R4. Will students recognize the influences that television and other media have on
their lives?
Throughout the course of both the focus group and individual interviews, several
themes were strongly developed among participants. These included:
1. College students do not believe that television influences the way they
individually dress, act, and eat, but it does influence the same behaviors of
other people their age. However, these same students reported that they
recognized that television has an influence on their lives, and in combination
with how they were raised in their families, it made them who they are today.
2. College students continue to believe there is too much violence on television.
3. Television often does not depict reality.
There were other themes less conclusive that arose throughout the course of the
interviews. Anorexia was discussed among the interviewees as a problem for young
female viewers of America’s Next Top Model and most television shows. They stated that
the young women on the show are extremely thin, and that most of the time, the
contestants think they are overweight. The interviewees discussed Jennifer Love Hewitt
and a magazine article that stated that she was gaining weight when in fact she looked fit.
The students interviewed praised Jennifer Love Hewitt for responding to the claims that
she was overweight with a statement claiming that she feels comfortable in her own skin.
They had Jennifer Love Hewitt on it and she has put on a few pounds but she looks
great. They are giving her a hard time saying that Jennifer Love Hewitt has gained
twenty pounds and then they show her in a bikini and she has got this whole quote
only one magazine featured and she said, “I feel comfortable in my skin. I want to let
everyone know that.” But every other magazine was like, “she’s gained weight. She is
getting fat.” And she’s like, “I want to give a positive message to women.” It is sad
that only one magazine will do that and all the other ones will be like, “oh, she is
getting fat.” But America is getting larger every day. We’re getting fat, but still the
media portrays be skinny, be skinny. It’s disgusting. (Student 4)
Oh yeah, there should be less. They see it on TV and they are going to do it in real life
too. (Student 3)
R1. Most students that were interviewed thought that there is too much
violence on television.
The key to captivating viewers is entertainment; a certain amount of violence is to
be expected in a person’s s every day life; therefore, to re-portray the norm on television
is not as entertaining or captivating. The consensus in this discussion is that violence on
television is glorified and beyond what the average person sees outside of the realm of
television viewing. The students had different views as to whether the violence on
television was harmful or healthy to a person’s psyche.
This lady, she was on a show, and she had more than 96 surgeries. The lip surgery, the
cheeks, she just got to be the perfect. She got so old that all those things she was doing
to her face were not healthy. Her face was smooshed in. (Student 2)
It isn’t that there needs to be less violence. Taking away violence from TV isn’t
going to keep people from seeing it. They will just get it online. (Student 11)
I think they glorify violence. They take violence and they make it look like it is okay,
and they don’t really show exactly the consequences. They might show the bad guy
goes to jail, but they don’t really show the people around that are affected by the
violence. They don’t show the violence in harsh reality, like in a TV show you see a
person get shot and like a little small pellet hole. It doesn’t look like that. If they were
to show what a real bullet would do to somebody, you might think like, you know
what, I don’t think that I can stomach this. So, that is why people probably go around
shooting people. It’s not until you actually shoot somebody that you would be like,
wow, this guy’s really messed up right now. They glorify it too much. They make it
look like it is okay. (Student 6)
They have a lot of violence on TV but I don’t think they should reduce it. They
should just watch when they put it on and who is being impressed upon, like the
youth. (Student 4)
They put it on the wrong time, the wrong place, everything. The Simpsons is supposed
to be a kid’s show or was supposed to be a kids show, but it isn’t a kids show now.
Like Itchy and Scratchy… (Student 4)
I think that it is all on the parents. They should watch what their kids are watching. If
they don’t want them to have a TV in their room then don’t let them have a TV in
their room. Families aren’t the way they were before. You have single moms who
want their kids to go to sleep so they let them have a TV in their room so they will go
to sleep. They don’t know how to control their kids and they just let them do what
they want. (Student 8)
Violence is there. There is no sense in trying to hide it. Taking it out of the media isn’t
going to do it. (Student 4)
The students had different views as to whether the violence on television is
harmful or healthy to a person’s psyche; nonetheless, the students seem to agree that the
the violence is captivating.
The interviewees seemed to agree that the networks have a responsibility in
regard to the time of day they air certain violent programming. They also stated that
parents need to monitor what their children and young adults are watching. The students
voice their concerns about violence throughout the study. In some instances, students
stress how some television shows depict violence to a degree that is harmful for some
viewers. The violence on television is glorified, and “good guys” are behaving as badly
as the “bad guys.”
The students agree that the violence on television seems to intensify as time goes
on. Violent situations on television are becoming more intense, and the scenes are
becoming more gruesome. Shows continue to exceed what was once considered the
acceptable threshold of violence. The original research question seems to be supported in
this case.
R2. Most students that were interviewed thought that television affects the way
some dress, act, and eat, but some of the students that were interviewed argued
that the same does not apply to them.
A trend that seems to remain consistent in the history of television is that viewers
seem to adapt their lifestyles to the trends that they see on television. Today’s television
viewing population seems to rely on what is popular at the present time and to
incorporate it into its lifestyle.
Unfortunately, it does affect teenagers, pretty much unsupervised teenagers.
(Student 2)
On the way television affects the way people dress:
Greatly; they see something (on television) and they are like, “I have to have that. See
the Prada shoes she is wearing. I have to have that, and I’m going to spend my whole
paycheck or my rent as well as my car insurance money on them. I will spend this
money. (Student 2)
Well, I believe like a lot of actors like Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan do dress
skanky, and then you have, you know, the younger college girls or even high school
girls dressing that way, and I mean, a lot of times, you know, heaven forbid you have
things like rape to worry about. These girls are wearing next to nothing. (Student 5)
On the way television affects the way people act:
I can say that I can relate to one instance. There was like this TV show where, what
are those guys who take the law into their own hands? (Student 6)
Vigilantes (Student 4)
Vigilantes, yeah. I can tell you from my personal experience coming out of war and
having to go through something like that. I had the whole mindset that it was okay to
take down bad people. (Student 6)
Yeah, in these TV shows they get away with the crime. It shows the kids that you can
get away with crime. (Student 4)
I actually read a study a few years ago that said that TV and Movies skip the thought
process and go straight into the imagination, so a lot of people don’t really think about
what they are watching and it does put something in their head and people get false
hopes about things that they do watch, like watching fairy tale endings. (Student 5)
It’s not real. It’s exaggerated. Oh God, Like this little girl, Britney Spears. Like, for
instance, she was portrayed as a teeny bopper from Mickey Mouse, all sweet, and then
she got married and she turned like a fool. She just acts like a fool. They are all hyping
it up every chance they get. They are all like, “She threw the child down or she is
mentally insane. (Student 2)
I think that they put it all out on the media like she is a bad person. She’s probably not
even a bad person. It’s just she has been a celebrity all her life and she got people
influencing her. (Student 3)
But that’s not true though. A lot them, you don’t see. A lot of these younger ones you
don’t see. You don’t see Anne Hathaway in the news acting like a fool, you know.
(Student 2)
You know like Screech from Saved by the Bell. He’s doing that sex tape. He’s acting
disrespectful. He’s on Celebrity Health Fitness. (Student 6)
It all goes back to how the media portrays it. They don’t want to see Anne Hathaway
getting married. You know, it’s whatever gets them more money. So, they see
something bad and it is entertaining (Student 2)
So, the media agrees with the courts and the courts agree with the media, and then you
got everybody against this one person that they really don’t know. You can’t, like, not
like a person because they in a magazine because, you know, paparazzi is going to
take pictures when you’re not looking. Well, you know, you are in your own house,
messing up, or arguing with your boyfriend and they going to take it (a picture).
(Student 3)
It is not real. It is acting that is what it is, it’s acting. Everybody is putting on a show.
(Student 6)
It doesn’t matter, you know, they are putting on show. I mean acting is not what it
used to be in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Those people, they acted, that is who we
are today is from that. I mean nowadays half of the people on there, I mean like, oh
my gosh, where did they find this girl?. I could have done a better job for less.
(Student 5)
I would say, on their acting, the roles that they portray nowadays compared to back in
the day, like back in the day you had like John Wayne, you know, like good guy, bad
guy. The good guy tries to prevail over the bad guy. But nowadays they got shows
going on where the bad guy may be winning, you know, like, the good guys doing bad
things, like that show Shield. I love that show Shield. You got the good guy who is
this bald white dude and he just beats the hell out of everybody, so in a sense, sorry,
but he is a bad ass. That is not John Wayne; John Wayne is a good guy. (Student 6)
What is that show called about the serial killer that is the cop? (Student 5)
Dexter. (Student 6)
The cop that investigates serial killers; you are like, yeah, he kills people but he kills
bad people (Student 5)
So the good guys are the bad guys nowadays. (Student 6)
It’s like they’re blending the lines between good and bad so the kids don’t know how
to act. So if I’m killing a bad guy, it’s okay. They don’t know that it’s still a crime.
(Student 4)
On the way television affects the way people eat:
I remember a couple years ago being fat and being big was like, oh, I’m big, and I
love it, and all this but now people are getting the bypass surgery. Those people are
trying to lose weight now. So, I guess it’s being healthy. People are dying more of
obesity and wanting to be skinny. (Student 2)
After all that surgery, you don’t know who you are. You really don’t.
I feel like America, like, they only look at one type of pretty. There is not one type,
you know. There are so many, like you have like India Arie pretty. You got like
Beyonce or the Beyonce look, you know, the J Lo look is more popular, but you
know, there are so many types of pretty and I don’t think the media sees that.
(Student 3)
I know that going to a fast food restaurant is going to affect me somehow in the long
run. I try to eat something good, like a yogurt or a hot meal, something, but no, not
what they show on TV. Again, I am so comfortable in my skin. (Student 2)
There are some people that are naturally skinny too. They have a fast metabolism. My
sister is in high school and she just hit 90 pounds. She’s tall, skinny, and she eats a lot
of food. It is not because, when she was younger, she kind of had an eating disorder
because she drank a lot of milk and milk fills you up, therefore when she was growing
up she didn’t get the proper nutrition. So, now, it kind of looks like she eats healthy
and looks like she doesn’t eat at all but she eats bad food which isn’t good. You know,
you can still get heart attacks from McDonalds. (Student 8)
Queen Latifah, I just saw her do a Jenny Craig. She said, “I don’t want to be super
skinny. I want to be healthy.” And you do see people with a little bit of weight on
them that are like, “this is healthy. (Student 2)
Based on the discussion, there does not seem to be a difference in today’s
television population. Television viewers seem to look at television as a source for
their fashion, diet, and overall lifestyle choices.
The students seem to agree that television plays an important part in the way
viewers dress. It is apparent in society that fashion choices are emulated from what is
seen on television. The sight of a product on television can ignite a need for it. For
example, a popular dress, haircut, or shoe style can become an instant sensation
overnight.
The interviewees tend to agree that television has an impact on the way people
diet. Body weight and shape play an important role on television. The actors and
actresses seem to be thin and attractive. The discussion led to an interesting theory that
even actors and actresses on television are criticized when they gain weight. The
consumers of television tend to be harsh on celebrities when they do not look perfect or
as perfect as they once did.
The discussion prompted students to discuss the way viewers act as a result of
watching certain television shows. They agreed that certain people are affected more
than others while watching certain things on television. Students spoke about celebrities
who were once role models becoming the opposite of what society expected them to.
Students discussed Britney Spears being on The Mickey Mouse Club and how her life
now does not emulate in any way the type of person she was back then.
An issue that was also discussed is how television viewers tend to imitate what
they see. This becomes a problem when the line between good and evil gets blurred.
The original research question seems to be supported in this case.
R3. Most students agreed that television does not depict reality.
To emphasize on entertainment value, it seems that most television shows rely on
reality in the most minimal way. In order to engage viewers, television depicts
unrealistic scenarios that in turn seem to captivate the
audience.
It’s hard. You have TV shows with doctors doing some wild stuff on the side like
Nip/Tuck. It’s a great show but you can’t associate with those peoples’ lives. Their
lives have too much drama. Like reality TV. The minute there is no drama, they get
dropped. (Student 4)
We are in reality. We deal the everyday struggles of life, car breaking down, not
having money to pay for it, a check bounced, and these people on these TV shows are
like, call the nanny over. (Student 5)
Everybody has struggles. Nobody is safe. I don’t care if you are a celebrity or a judge,
you have your bills. (Student 7)
Yeah everybody has struggles, but you know what, we work everyday. Like in 90210,
who didn’t watch that in the 90’s. We can work through this Dillon. A lot of it is
just not realistic, and I can’t relate. (Student 5)
That is so unrealistic. 24 is the most dramatic show I have ever seen. I love that show
though. (Student 3)
I don’t relate personally to the characters on Family Guy. I kind of just enjoy the
show. Not necessarily relate to one or another. (Student 4)
No. I don’t relate to the characters on Grey’s Anatomy because number one, I am not
in that profession. I enjoy watching it for strictly, you know, the drama, of course.
But I don’t relate with them because a lot of their issues to me are not realistic, so.
I guess I would say Izzy and the guy getting together (I forget his name because of the
writer’s strike), falling in love, and then realizing they are not in love. You know, that
type of thing. I think that it is kind of giving (I used to like it)…It is kind of starting to
bore me now. It is not as good as it used to be. I would say, you know, I look at it this
way… Let’s say you are a college student who wants to go pre-med. I watch the show
In Treatment because I want to major in psychology, and I find it very informative. A
lot of the words that they use and what you might come across with different patients
and let’s say there might be a student who watches it for the medical aspect of it like
they might have watched ER or something else. There might be some college students
who watch it like a soap opera because of course they can’t catch those during the day,
so they watch it for the drama aspect. That is kind of how I look at it. (Student 5)
Although most students interviewed agree that television is unrealistic, they also
argue that it is entertaining. Many of the conflicts presented on television shows are
solved at ease while the same cannot be said for everyday reality.
The students all tend to agree that television is unrealistic, and that the same trials
and tribulations that apply to the actors on television do not apply to them. They
discussed living in reality with everyday living expenses such as rent, car payments, and
college tuition. One student said that shows like Grey’s Anatomy and ER could help
college students understand the field of medicine better, but that most people watch those
shows for entertainment value only.
The students agree that there is too much drama on television, and because of that,
it can not be compared to the real world. The original research question seems to be
supported in this case.
R4. At one time, the students said that television does not affect them, but then
they say in many different ways that the combination of television and the way
they were raised made them who they are.
Many of the students interviewed agree that television seems to affect viewers
significantly; however, most argued that they were not affected themselves.
Some of the students agree that television does in fact mold young minds.
It depends on what type of movies you were watching when you were a kid. I watched
The Wood, Friday, and Do the Right Thing. Those were the things I watched. It does,
kind of, affect the way your personality molds. (Student 3)
We had cartoons that were fun, and it seems like cartoons grew up with us and now
we have cartoons like Family Guy. They are not a typical family in the United States,
but they try to make it fun more than a typical family would be. It is a pretty unique
interaction that they have. That is what makes the show fun… that they are just
always getting into something that is not usual. It is not the typical kid’s show. It is
not what the younger audience should be watching. It is more of an adult’s cartoon.
So, in that way, you could see more real life stuff in there. It is just not a kid’s show,
so we can relate to it more being older I guess. I think that a lot of people misinterpret
that it is meant for kids and the main idea that it is a cartoon, but it is an adult’s show.
Because it is on at a certain time, people think their kids can watch it and that is my
whole reservation. That it is not meant for kids, it is for adult entertainment. The
Simpsons and Family Guy kind of grew up with us, and they are not younger shows
anymore. They mature like us and now they grew up and there are about more
everyday issues. (Student 4)
Um, me personally, I don’t relate to the characters on Las Vegas, but someone that
wants to work in a casino or they like playing cards or gambling or something. There
are shows that I relate to, but this is not one of them. I relate to That 70’s Show
because there is this guy called Fez, and I relate to him because when I first came to
the United States, I was like him. Not as bad as him, but in a way, because I couldn’t
speak English, you know it was an experience like the one he has. It is hard for
foreigners to try to adapt to America and to learn a language, so I try not to pick on
them. (Student 9)
In the discussion, the type of programming that the viewers watched as children
came up as having an impact on the way they acted as children and adolescents. It was
apparent to the interviewees that some television programs like The Simpsons grew up
with them over the years. The subject matter seemed to become more mature as time
went on.
In the discussion, a student points out that cartoons used to be aimed at children;
however, over the years, shows like The Simpsons and Family Guy were introduced.
Despite their colorful appearance, they are not meant to be viewed by children. They
contain mature situations that can be misinterpreted by young viewers. The generation
that created The Simpsons and Family Guy understands that these shows are meant for
mature viewers, but the same cannot be said for older generations that are looking for
entertainment for youth that they may be caring for. As a result, many have been exposed
to situations beyond their comprehension for reason. The original research question
seems to be supported in this case.
Chapter 5:
Conclusions
An analysis of the results of this qualitative study indicates that community
college students perceive television has an impact on viewers. Numerous themes
"bubbled" up during the course of interviews and contributed to our understanding of
college students perceptions of the influence of television in their
lives.
The findings imply that Third Person effects were taking place among the
students. This was an interesting result of the study. For instance, among the most
significant findings were that while college students do not believe that television
influences the way they individually dress, act and eat, it does influence the same
behaviors of other people their age. However, these same students reported that they
recognized that television has an influence on their lives and in combination with how
they were raised in their families, it made them who they
are.
Other interesting and important findings included that a) college students continue
to believe there is too much violence on television, and b) that television often does not
depict
reality.
The impact of each theme will now be discussed in further detail.
The college students thought that television affects the way some dress, act, and
eat, but some said the same does not apply to them. The consensus throughout the
interviews was that most television viewers see something on television, and they want to
emulate it. This can apply to the clothes the actors wear, their behavior patters, and their
food and diet. Clothing trends are often set after a popular actor models them. Stylish
handbags, shoes, and jeans are often seen for the first time on television creating a “need
to have them” craze among young adults and college students.
The interviews brought up an interesting theory about the way that body weight
and shape play an important role on television. Most actors on television are thin and
attractive, and most people think it is unrealistic to be so thin and attractive. However, as
soon as the thin and attractive actor gains the least amount of weight, he or she is harshly
criticized.
The interviewees were in agreement that certain people are affected more than
others while watching television. Some viewers tend to imitate what they see whether it
is healthy or harmful.
Although it can be concluded that most college students believe that television
affects the way some dress, act, and eat, some argued that the same does not apply to
them.
The college students recognized the influences that television and other media
has on their lives, and they recognized that in many ways the combination of television
and the way they were raised made them who they are. At one time, some students said
that television does not affect them, but they also said in many different ways that the
combination of television and the way they were raised made them who they are.
The interviews brought up a few significant statements. Young minds are
impressionable; therefore, the television programs and movies that some watched as
children and young adults molded their personalities. Another interesting conclusion is
that some television programs like The Simpsons grew up with their original viewers.
The subject matter on The Simpsons seems more mature as the years go on. The intended
audience is not children, as a cartoon may imply, but an older audience that can indeed
handle the mature nature of the program.
The college students thought that there is too much violence on television. The
college students thought that although there is too much violence on television, a certain
amount is needed in order to captivate audiences. A person deals with a certain amount
of violence in his/her everyday life, but nothing as drastic as the violence that is depicted
on television. The violence on television tends to be glorified, and actual consequences
are not illustrated; therefore, an impressionable viewer could be inclined to think that the
violence is acceptable in real life.
When violence is depicted on television, the viewers seldom see that such
violence in real life can lead to repercussions that are not only difficult to handle for the
perpetrator, but for the other people that are affected by the violence. Television does not
accurately depict the consequences that a violent act can have on all those involved
directly or indirectly.
The college students also thought that taking violence completely out of
television programming would be a wasted effort because people could go to other
sources in order to obtain it. Instead, they suggested that parents should monitor what
their children are watching. They also believe that networks have a responsibility to their
viewers. Violent programs should be aired later in the evening in order to protect the
more impressionable viewers.
The college students agreed that television does not depict reality. In fact, most
television shows use unrealistic scenarios in order to captivate the audience. The
interviews led to some interesting conclusions. Television viewers cannot relate to the
actors on television because on television issues get resolved within an episode or a
season. On the other hand, real life struggles cannot be solved in such a small amount of
time. In everyday life, people deal with disease, financial obligations, and day to day
struggles. Most of these issues cannot be solved in an easy fashion; therefore, one can
conclude that television does not depict reality. The interviews concluded that television
programs are watched for entertainment purposes not problem solving techniques.
Based on the findings, we can tie cultivation theory and third-person effects into the
study. “Cultivation is about the implications of stable, repetitive, pervasive and virtually
inescapable patterns of images and ideologies that television (especially dramatic,
fictional entertainment) provides” (Shanahan, 1999). Gerbner developed the concept of a
“cultural indicator.” He developed it as a social indicator for important cultural issues.
He critiqued those indicators through a set of questions (also discussed earlier in this
research). Those questions were:
1. What are the processes, pressures, and constraints that influence and underlie the
production of mass media content?
2. What are the dominant, aggregate patterns of images, messages, facts, values and
lessons expressed in media messages?
3. What is the relationship between attention to these messages and audiences’
conceptions of social reality?” (Shanahan, 1999)
Cultivation theory ties in to the study because cultivation suggests that exposure to
television over time does, in fact, develop viewers’ perceptions of reality.
The third-person effect also ties in to the study because most of the college students
believe that other people are more influenced by media, violence, and news coverage
than they are. The third-person effect was developed in 1983 by sociologist W. Phillips
Davison.
The third-person effect is an individual’s perception that a message will exert a
stronger impact on others than on the self. The “third-person” term derives from the
expectation that a message will not have its greatest influence on “me” (the grammatical
first person), or “you” (the second person), but on “them” – the third persons. Individuals
may overestimate the impact that mass media exert on others, underestimate media
effects on the self, or both” (Bryant, 2002). The third person effect was evident
throughout the interviews.
Based on cultivation theory and third-person effect, the study supported ideas
generated from both theories. Cultivation theory still remains an integral part of studying
television and its effects on viewers. Television viewers’ perceptions of reality seem to
be altered over time. The college students agree that too much exposure to television can
create problematic situations for some viewers. The interviewees believe that people
watch too much television, and it does, in fact, mold who they are.
Third-person effect was increasingly common throughout the course of the
interviews. College students today seem to agree that although television affects most of
its viewers, it does not affect them directly. On the other hand, there were statements
throughout the course of the interviews that implied otherwise. College students today
said that the television they watched as children and adolescents helped mold who they
are today.
Since these findings support cultivation theory and third-person effect, the
findings can extend the previous research. Cultivation theory and third-person influences
on college students are two thought provoking areas of research that provide insight to a
demographic that has not been studied as much as perhaps it should.
College students can provide valuable responses to questions that arise in terms of
programming. College students’ perceptions of television programming are an
interesting avenue worth exploring.
This research was important because there have not been many studies conducted
on television and its effects on college students. It is important to continue such studies
in order to gain a better understanding of how college students perceive television and its
content. The college students interviewed provided insight and thought provoking
notions that are underlying themes in television. The interviews provided yet further
insight into the overall appeals that television programming has with college students.
A limitation is that with qualitative research, fewer people are usually studied, and
it is less easily generalized. In this particular phenomenological study, there were eleven
participants. More participants might provide more answers to each of the research
questions and, as a result, formulating more ideas.
Another limitation of the study is that those interviewed were college students
between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four; therefore, one might argue that they were
not as experienced in life as older participants could have been. Also, college students
represent a limited group for any study.
Gender distribution is also problematic because one can also argue that males or
females are not properly represented.
There can and should be future research conducted on perceptions of
programming in relation to college students. Such studies can contribute to the small
amount of related studies that are available today. The studies relating to college students
and their perceptions of television programming that are circulating among the research
community are few today. There were many television studies conducted in the 1970s
and 1980s, but they have tapered off. It is important to incorporate more college
students in studies relating to television. They are a significantly large group that
watches television on a consistent basis. An influx of commercials and programming is
geared at them, so it is alarming that more studies have not been conducted in this
particular area.
An area for further research can include interviews that focus on different
television programs such as soap operas. Do college students watch soap operas? If so,
how often do they watch them? Do they relate to the characters on the soap operas? Do
they think that soap operas depict reality? Are there any favorite soap operas among
college students?
Another promising area for further research is college students and movies. How
often do college students view movies? Can they relate to any of the actors in the
movies? Do they think movies depict reality? What do they think of the amount of
violence portrayed in some movies? Do the ratings work? For example, is a PG13
movie really appropriate for a thirteen-year-old? Is a rated R movie appropriate for a
seventeen-year-old?
Yet another potential area for further research would be to develop a study
comparing and contrasting regular television programming with cable television
programming. Is there more or less violence in one or the other? Do college students
prefer one over the other? What are the different themes that viewers can expect from
regular television versus cable? The specific design of the study and the number of
stations included from the cable side would need serious consideration before
undertaking the research.
Further research can also be conducted studying college students and the levels of
influence their parents have or have had on the type of programs that they watch. Do the
programs that they watch reflect the choices their parents made for them as children and
adolescents? In other words, are they watching programs on television that their parents
would approve of, or are they watching television programs that their parents would
censure?
