Two articles summary
amenah kashkool
contentserver_3.pdf
Diversity of Television Exposure and its Association with the Cultivation of Concern for Environmental Risks Michael F. Dahlstrom & Dietram A. Scheufele
Cultivation theory claims that individuals who watch a greater amount of television are
more likely to accept the representation of reality as presented on television. This study
introduces the variable of exposure diversity and attempts to investigate if the diversity of
television channels viewed plays a significant role beyond the amount of television
viewed in the cultivation of concern about environmental risks. Data from the 2002
annual Life Style Study conducted by Synovate for DDB-Chicago was paired with a
corresponding content analysis of environmental television coverage. Ordinary-Least-
Squares regression suggests that exposure diversity is associated with concern of
environmental risks above and beyond both the effects of the amount of television
watched and individual differences, suggesting the variable of exposure diversity holds
promise for further explicating cultivation theory.
Keywords: Environment; Science; Cultivation; Diversity; Television
While the physical environment exists independently of human perception, it is
human perception that influences how individuals respond to the environment. And
now that humankind is numerous enough and technologically capable of imparting
large-scale changes to the physical environment, how individuals respond to the
environment will determine what happens to the physical environment (Shanahan &
McComas, 1999).
While the physical environment does levy restrictions onto the social sphere,
environmental perceptions are not bounded by reality. For instance, media coverage
about the risks of pollution in the 1970s and 1980s were found to increase at a time
Michael F. Dahlstrom is Assistant Professor in the Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication at Iowa
State University. Dietram A. Scheufele is the John E. Ross Chaired Professor and Director of Graduate Studies in
the Department of Life Sciences, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Correspondence to: Michael F. Dahlstrom, Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication, 215 Hamilton
Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA. Email: [email protected]
ISSN 1752-4032 (print)/ISSN 1752-4040 (online) # 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/17524030903509709
Environmental Communication
Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2010, pp. 54�65
when the actual pollution levels were decreasing (Ader, 1995). In addition, different
social groups experience the environment differently, often resulting in competing
perceptions. For instance, urban residents have been found to perceive the environ-
ment as something to appreciate from afar while rural residents were found to hold
more utilitarian perceptions (Edgell & Nowell, 1989).
This disconnection between the physical environment and perceptions of the
environment can create problems when societies need to respond to environmental
risks, such as global warming, water pollution or species extinction. In order to
successfully address such large-scale environmental issues, it becomes important to
understand the factors that influence how individuals form perceptions of
environmental risks.
The mass media represents one of these influences and has been said to play a large
role in the formation of perceptions of environmental risks (Ader, 1995; Allan, 2002).
Because environmental risks are mostly unobtrusive, where individuals have little
direct experience on which to base their perceptions, people become more dependent
on the mass media to inform and interpret such risks and their acceptable responses.
The societal nature of environmental risks also serves to strengthen this reliance on
media, as it has been found that people rely more heavily on the mass media to form
their risk judgments when faced with societal rather than individual risks (Coleman,
1993; Morton & Duck, 2001).
Cultivation theory offers one model of how the mass media can influence
perceptions of the environment (Gerbner, 1987; Gerbner & Gross, 1974). Cultivation
theory states that television viewers’ perceptions of reality are shaped by a constant
stream of largely consonant, but not necessarily accurate, perceptions of the world as
presented in television content. As a result, viewers who watch greater amounts of
television should be more likely to accept the environmental worldviews as presented
on television as opposed to individuals who watch lesser amounts of television.
The purpose of the current study is two-fold: (1) to investigate the potential role of
television exposure in the formation of environmental risk perceptions; and (2) to
introduce and test the new variable of exposure diversity for the study of cultivation
effects.
Cultivation Theory and Exposure Diversity
First conceptualized over 30 years ago, the original tenants of cultivation theory are
that: (1) the mass media are controlled by social and business elites; (2) these elites
create television programming to increase profits rather than to accurately represent
reality; (3) individual audience members view and internalize these messages upon
television viewing; and therefore (4) audience members who are exposed to more
television will be more likely to share the beliefs and values as presented on television
than light viewers (Shanahan & Morgan, 1999). Television has been the focus of
cultivation studies because it has become the dominant storyteller for the public and
television viewing does not require the cognitive processing that would restrict the
Diversity of Television Exposure on Cultivation 55
use of simple heuristic shortcuts for attitude formation (Besley & Shanahan, 2005;
Shrum, 2002; Yankelovich, 1991).
Additionally, cultivation theory was also based on the assumption that such
cultivation effects are due to ubiquitous and consonant content. The latter is fairly
straightforward. Consistent or consonant messages are more likely to shape people’s
perceptions of what is real. The ubiquitous nature of these consonant messages,
however, is a second important prerequisite for cultivation effects because wherever a
viewer turns, he or she will likely see similar messages; originally making measures of
total television exposure more important than measures of content (Shanahan &
Morgan, 1999).
While a meta-analysis of cultivation studies found small but significant effects
(Shanahan & Morgan, 1999), cultivation theory has faced many critiques in its over
30-year history. For instance, the overall effect of cultivation has sometimes
disappeared when sets of controls, such as sex, age, and income were introduced
(Hirsch, 1980; Hughes, 1980; Shanahan & Morgan, 1999). Likewise, cultivation
represents a long-term, societal effect, but the constraints of data often demand
analysis at a cross-sectional individual level, requiring cautious interpretation of
results (Shrum, Burroughs, & Rindfleisch, 2004).
The claim of ubiquity has also been challenged, often in the form of empirical
studies comparing cultivation effects between different genres of television program-
ming, such as public affairs, documentaries or news genres (Hawkins & Pingree,
1981; Holbert, Kwak, & Shah, 2003). These types of studies assume that different
genres present different views of reality and the differences in content will cultivate
audiences toward different television worldviews. Other studies have extended this
assumption to individual programs or even specific media products (Schiappa,
Gregg, & Hewes, 2006; Williams, 2006). Results generally find differences between
content studied, suggesting that cultivation effects may be more complex than can
be measured with only total amount of television exposure (Potter, 1988) and that
the content viewed can also play a significant role in how television influences the
perceptions of reality.
It, therefore, seems surprising that cultivation effects have not been investigated
using a measure of diversity of television exposure. The importance of diversity of
information is well documented in other areas of communication literature. For
instance, exposure to a diverse range of political perspectives, or heterogeneous
networks, have been found to result in differences in political attitudes and
participation, as opposed to individuals with less diverse networks (Scheufele,
Hardy, Brossard, Waismel-Manor, & Nisbet, 2006; Scheufele, Nisbet, Brossard, &
Nisbet, 2004). Likewise, individuals who limit their exposure to diverse media in
order to avoid views that may challenge prior belief structures have been linked with
increased cultural stereotypes and desensitization to media messages as opposed to
individuals exposed to a larger diversity of content (Schumann, 2004).
Extending the concept of media diversity into the realm of cultivation may better
predict exposure to different worldviews than the more constrained measures of
genre or amount of exposure. For example, an individual exposed to a set amount
56 M. F. Dahlstrom and D. A. Scheufele
of a single type of content could conceivably differ from an individual exposed to the
same amount, but of a diverse set of content. Yet this difference would be overlooked
when only looking at genre exposure or amount of exposure.
Therefore, one of the goals of this study is to introduce the conceptualization of
exposure diversity as a measure representing the spread of television content to which
an individual is exposed.
Environmental Cultivation and Study Objectives
The second goal of this study is to use the previous introduced variable of
exposure diversity, along with the amount of television exposure, to investigate the
potential role of television exposure in the formation of concern for environmental
risks.
While cultivation theory has been used to investigate a diverse range of topics,
from perceptions of violence (Gerbner & Gross, 1976; Goidel, Freeman, & Procopio,
2006), to perceptions of romance (Eggermont, 2004; Segrin & Nabi, 2002), to
perceptions of the paranormal (Sparks & Miller, 2001; Sparks, Nelson, & Campbell,
1997), studies that focus on the cultivation of environmental perceptions are
relatively few.
Previous research that has investigated the topic of environmental perceptions
suggest that environmental perceptions may be cultivated differently by different
television genres (Holbert et al., 2003) and that the importance of materialism may
mediate some of the effect of television viewing on environmental perceptions (Good,
2007). Additionally, heavy viewers of television have been shown to exhibit less
pro-environmental worldviews (Shanahan & McComas, 1999), a greater fear towards
the environment (Shanahan, Morgan, & Stenbjerre, 1997), and less self-efficacy
regarding effecting environmental issues (Shanahan, 1993) than light viewers of
television. At a broad level, this may imply that heavy viewers of television should
manifest greater concern for environmental risks due to the presence of fear and lack
of self-efficacy, the combination of which is often associated with strong risk
judgments (Witte, 1992).
However, before proposing a direction in which television exposure may influence
perceptions of environmental risks, it is necessary to know how the environment was
portrayed on television, especially because media coverage of the environment does
not necessarily follow real-world environmental change (Shanahan et al., 1997).
The most extensive empirical measure of environmental content on television
comes from a content analysis of both entertainment and informative media during
the mid-1990s. It was found that the environment was generally ignored during this
time period, with only 1.7% of prime-time programs using nature as a dominant
theme. However, the majority of environmental coverage that was present, especially
in news coverage, emphasized environmental risks or public reactions to environ-
mental problems (McComas, Shanahan, & Butler, 2001; Shanahan & McComas,
1999; Shanahan et al., 1997).
Diversity of Television Exposure on Cultivation 57
This distribution of coverage provides an ideal timeframe in which to look for
cultivation effects because, unlike the current environmental media setting that often
uses conflict between environmental viewpoints as a news peg, this previous
timeframe provided a consistent message emphasizing risks and problems when
the environment was mentioned. Cultivation theory predicts that heavy viewers of
television will be more likely to accept the reality as presented on television than light
viewers. Therefore, the classic cultivation hypothesis is proposed for television
viewers of this time period:
H1: Individuals exposed to a larger amount of television content will be associated
with greater concern for environmental risks than individuals exposed to a smaller
amount of television content.
In addition to the consistent message, the generally sparse content regarding the
environment during this time period also allows for an ideal test of the introduced
measure of exposure diversity. Individuals who were exposed to a greater diversity of
television content during this time period would have a greater chance of seeing the
sparse, but consistent, emphasis regarding environmental risks and would, therefore,
potentially be exposed to a different television worldview than individuals who were
exposed to a less diverse array of television content. Therefore, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
H2: Individuals exposed to a larger diversity of television content will be associated
with greater concern for environmental risks than individuals exposed to a smaller
diversity of television content.
It is possible that both the amount and diversity of exposure may interact to
increase the effect of each other. Therefore the following hypothesis is also proposed:
H3: Exposure amount and exposure diversity will interact where a greater amount
and diversity of exposure will result in greater concern for environmental risks then
less amount and diversity of exposure.
Methods
Data
The data used came from the annual Life Style Study conducted by Synovate for
DDB-Chicago, a subsidiary of the OmnicomMediaGroup Inc. This national survey
works toward a true representation of the population by first asking a pool of 500,000
participants via mailings if they would be willing to take part in the Life Style Study.
Because less than 1% of racial minorities and inner city residents consent to
participation compared to the 5-10% of white, middle-class Americans, the final pool
of participants is adjusted to account for the expected return rates between race, sex,
and marital status.
The data used for this study was collected in February of 2002 with a sample size of
3,580, representing a 72% response rate. 1
The collection date of this data was chosen
to complement the previously mentioned content analysis of environmental coverage
as closely as possible (Shanahan & McComas, 1997).
58 M. F. Dahlstrom and D. A. Scheufele
Dependent Variable
The dependent variable, concern for environmental risks, is a measure of the perceived
seriousness of environmental risks. The secondary data set contained four items
regarding the environment: (1) I would be willing to accept a lower standard of living
to conserve energy; (2) I make a strong effort to recycle everything I possibly can; (3)
I worry a lot about the effects of environmental pollution on my family’s health; and
(4) I’m very concerned about global warming. However, the questions appeared to
span separate environmental issues, with only the latter two appearing to measure the
relevant construct of concern for environmental risks. The patterns of inter-item
correlations supports this interpretation, with questions 3 and 4 showing a strong
correlation of 0.51 (pB0.01) while all other correlations were less than 0.27.
Therefore, the dependent variable of concern for environmental risks is constructed
as a summation of the latter two questions. Each question was rated on a 1�6 scale, with 1 representing ‘‘definitely disagree’’ and 6 representing ‘‘definitely agree.’’ This
construction resulted in a range of 2�12 with higher numbers representing greater perceived risk (M�6.87, SD�5.76, a�0.68).
Independent Variables
Exposure amount. A measure of the total time an individual was exposed to television
during an average week was measured as a weighted summation of units from a time
diary reporting when television was on throughout the day. The units for weekdays in
the secondary data consisted of: before breakfast, during breakfast, commuting to
work, mid to late morning, during lunch, early to mid afternoon, late afternoon,
commuting from work, before dinner, during dinner, after dinner, mid to late
evening, and in bed before going to sleep. The measures for weekends were identical
except for the removal of the two commuting questions. Each unit of time was coded
as a one if the television was on and a zero if it was not. Missing values were coded as
zeros if the individual responded to any of the time diary questions. To arrive at the
total exposure amount, this summation was weighted to represent one week, where
the total of all weekday units were multiplied by five and the total of the weekend
units were multiplied by two before combining. This construction resulted in a range
of 0�80 with higher numbers representing greater exposure to television (M�32.39, SD�16.82).
Exposure diversity. A measure of the diversity of content to which an individual was
exposed, was calculated as a summation of the number of different television
channels a respondent reported watching ‘‘because he/she really likes it.’’ The choices
consisted of 28 popular television channels including: CNN, Discovery, the Learning
Channel, the History Channel, A&E, CourtTV, the Weather Channel, Fox News,
MSNBC, Animal Planet, the Health Network, and the Food Network, ESPN, TBS,
USA, CMTV, MTV, Nickelodeon, Lifetime, Comedy Central, HGTV, BET, TNT,
Cartoon Network, E!, Disney, the Travel Channel, and the Sci-Fi Channel. Network
channels were not measured in the secondary data set and, therefore, could not be
included. Each choice was coded as a one if the respondent reported that they did
Diversity of Television Exposure on Cultivation 59
watch that channel and zero if they did not. Missing values were coded as zeros. This
construction resulted in a range of 0�28 with higher numbers representing greater diversity of exposure (M�6.87 SD�5.76).
Interaction
To measure the potential interaction between exposure amount and exposure
diversity, both variables were mean centered before creating their product term in
order to avoid multicollinearity (Aiken & West, 1991), resulting in an acceptable
tolerance of 0.96.
Demographics Controls
A group of demographic controls similar to those in previous cultivation studies were
used to account for the criticisms of control variables removing part of the effects of
cultivation (Hirsch, 1980; Hughes, 1980). On top of this, political ideology will also
be used due to its predictive power of environmental attitudes (Ellis & Thompson,
1997).
The five demographic variables used*sex, race, age, education level, and income
2*were all measured using single-item questions as was the measure of political ideology with a higher number on a five-point scale representing a more
liberal view (M�2.70, SD�0.97). Religiosity was measured by a summation of four questions: (1) Religion is an important part of my life; (2) It’s important to me to
find spiritual fulfillment; (3) I believe in God; and (4) I believe in the existence of the
devil. The measure resulted in a range of 4�24 (M�18.51, SD�4.98, a�0.75) with higher numbers representing a greater importance placed on religion in one’s life.
Results
This analysis is based on a series of hierarchical Ordinary-Least-Squares (OLS)
regressions. OLS regression analyzes groups of variables in separate blocks to allow an
assessment of the relative contribution of each group as they enter the model. As
blocks are added to the model, the effects of blocks already present in the model are
partialled out, allowing for a measure of the unique amount of variance accounted
for by the current block beyond the effects of previous blocks.
The seven demographic control variables*sex, race, age, education level, income, religiosity, and ideology*were entered in the first block to measure the amount of variance accounted for by individual differences independent of any media variables.
Exposure amount was entered by itself in the second block as a standard construct of
cultivation theory to measure its effect on the dependent variable of concern for
environmental risks beyond the individual differences from the first block. The
proposed variable of interest, exposure diversity, was entered by itself in the third
block to measure its effect beyond the individual differences and amount of exposure
amount from blocks one and two. Finally, the product of exposure amount and
exposure diversity was entered by itself in block four to test for any potential
interaction between the two media variables. Because of the large sample size involved
60 M. F. Dahlstrom and D. A. Scheufele
in this study, the significant alpha level was reduced to 0.01 to reduce the chance of
type I error.
The regression results are presented in Table 1. The seven demographic control
variables in block one accounted for 5.2% of the total variance (DF (7, 2,954)�23.08, pB0.01). The directions of regression coefficients suggest that females and more
liberally minded respondents perceived greater concern for environmental risks,
which is generally consistent with expected demographic differences.
Exposure amount was entered in block two and accounted for an additional 0.3%
of total variance (DF(1, 2,953)�8.28, pB0.01). The positive direction of regression coefficient suggests that concern for environmental risks increased as amount of TV
exposure increased. Therefore, hypothesis 1 is supported.
Exposure diversity was entered in block three and accounted for an additional 1.0%
of total variance (DF(1, 2,952)�30.04, pB0.01). The positive direction of regression coefficient suggests that concern for environmental risks also increased as the
diversity of exposure increased. Therefore, hypothesis 2 is also supported.
It is important to note that the effect of exposure amount was no longer a
significant predictor of concern for environmental risks upon the inclusion of
exposure diversity, dropping from a standardized beta of 0.053 to 0.027, even though
its zero-order correlation remained significant. This suggests that exposure diversity
Table 1. Hierarchical model with concern for environmental risks as dependent variable.
Step Final model
Variable b DR2 b Zero-order
Step 1 Sex 0.087* 0.086* 0.123* Race 0.078* 0.072* 0.092* Age 0.035 0.035 0.022 Education 0.020 0.027 �0.004 Income �0.074* �0.073* �0.097* Religiosity 0.107* 0.102* 0.110* Ideology 0.127* 0.123* 0.113*
5.2%*
Step 2 TV exposure 0.053* 0.027 0.083*
0.3%*
Step 3 Exposure diversity 0.101* 0.099* 0.116*
1.0%*
Step 4 TV exposure�Exposure diversity 0.013 0.013 0.026
B0.1% Total R
2 6.5%*
*pB0.01. Note: N�2,962, b�standardized regression coefficient, DR2 �incremental change in R2, Zero-order�zero-order correlation.
Diversity of Television Exposure on Cultivation 61
accounts for much of the same variance accounted for by exposure amount in
addition to a significant unique amount of variance.
Finally, the product of exposure amount and exposure diversity was entered by
itself in block four to test for a potential interaction effect but did not result in a
significant relationship (DF(1, 2,951)�0.522, p�0.47). Therefore, hypothesis 4 was not supported.
After all four blocks were entered, the total percent of variance accounted for in
this analysis was 6.5%, of which 1.3% represented the media variables of interest.
Discussion
The goals of this study were to investigate the potential role of television exposure in
concern for environmental risks as well as measure the utility of the proposed variable
of exposure diversity for the study of cultivation effects.
Results suggest that there was a significant association between television exposure
and concern for environmental risks in line with the television worldview of
the time, even after taking demographic controls into account. These findings are in
line with predicted cultivation theory and suggest that television exposure may have
some role in concern for environmental risks. Potentially more important, however, is
the fact that exposure diversity predicted a unique amount of variance beyond that of
exposure amount and reduced the effect of this more commonly used measure to
non-significance.
It is important to note that the media variables in question accounted for only
1.3% of the variance in this analysis. And even though the size of cultivation effects
observed in our study are consistent with findings from previous research and this
effect represents a unique media effect over and above any effects shared with the
demographic controls, statistical significance should not be confused with inferences
about substance. It, therefore, may be more meaningful to emphasize the second
purpose of the study, which was to test the utility of introducing a variable of
exposure diversity. These findings suggest that exposure diversity does play a
significant role in cultivation effects and may represent an important and potentially
uncomplicated measure that may provide more explanatory power for future studies
of cultivation theory.
It is also important to highlight that like many prior studies of cultivation effects,
this study uses cross-sectional data to investigate the theorized longitudinal effect of
cultivation. Based on cross-sectional data it is not possible to determine how the
association between television exposure and concern for environmental risks is
causally linked. Ideally, studies of long-term cultivation effects should rely on
longitudinal data or account for pre-existing belief structures in order to determine
causality of television effects. Unfortunately, the constraints of the secondary data
used in this study did not provide such types of measurement. However, our robust
cross-sectional data*including our rich set of measures for relevant constructs*still provides an excellent basis for furthering the understanding the relationship between
media exposure and environmental perceptions. It is important, of course, to
62 M. F. Dahlstrom and D. A. Scheufele
interpret our data with caution when it comes to causal inferences, and to see our
findings as a foundation for future research with more longitudinal data.
The limitations of our data in terms of the lower reliability for the dependent
variable may also have influenced the relationships observed in our study. In
particular, it is reasonable to assume that lower reliabilities attenuated some of these
relationships, and that more reliable composite measures may in fact produce
stronger effects for the key variables in our study. It is important, however, to keep in
mind that this is only an assumption and should be explored in future research.
While the effects of these media variables were significant, their predictions are
dependent upon content analyses of environmental content on television. All
cultivation studies require an understanding of television worldviews and this study
utilized an existing content analysis representing a particular time period in television
history where messages regarding the environment were sparse, but consistent.
However, today’s television worldviews may be quite different and any future studies
must be based on an appropriate content analysis rather than replicating the
direction of the hypothesis used in this study. For instance, the current media
environment is steeped in global warming controversy where the conflict between
opposing viewpoints is likely to be more consonant than any single view. It may be
that greater exposure diversity today would result in less concern for environmental
risks as more diversity could increase exposure to viewpoints of both sides of the
debate and increase perceived uncertainty. Future studies need to examine current
effects of these variables based on a more recent content analysis of environmental
coverage on television.
Maintaining caution in the interpretation, this study suggests that perceptions of
the environment may be somewhat dependent upon the type of mass media an
individual consumes. Because the perceptions of environmental issues are negotiated
within society, it becomes important to understand what influences these perceptions
and how they are maintained. Future studies should continue to test the validity of
the construct of exposure diversity as well as to better understand how the mass
media may play a role in influencing perceptions of the environment.
Notes
[1] A more specific response rate or cooperation rate based on standard AAPOR definitions
(AAPOR, 2008) were not available from Synovate.
[2] Sex was coded 1�male and 2�female with 44% male and 56% female responding. The race of the respondents was 68% white, 22% black, 7% Hispanic, and 3% other. Age was coded
as follows: 1�18�24, 2�25�34, 3�35�44, 4�45�54, 5�55�64, and 6�65 and over (M�3.71, SD�1.49). Education level was coded as follows: 1�Attended Elementary School, 2�Graduated from Elementary School, 3�Attended High School, 4�Graduated from High School or Trade School, 5�Attended College, 6�Graduated from College, and 7�Attended 5�8 year school or Graduate School (5.03, SD�1.11). Income was coded as follows: 1�under $20,000, 2�$20,000�$29,999, 3�$30,000�$39,999, 4�$40,000�$49,999, 5�$50,000�$59,999, 6�$60,000�$69,999, 7�$70,000�$99,999, 8�$100,000 or more (M�4.28, SD�2.39).
Diversity of Television Exposure on Cultivation 63
References
AAPOR (2008). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys.
Lenexa, KS: American Association for Public Opinion Research.
Ader, C. R. (1995). A longitudinal-study of agenda-setting for the issue of environmental-pollution.
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(2), 300�311. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Allan, S. (2002). Media, risk and society. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Besley, J. C., & Shanahan, J. (2005). Media attention and exposure in relation to support for
agricultural biotechnology. Science Communication, 26(4), 347�367. Coleman, C. L. (1993). The influence of mass-media and interpersonal-communication on societal
and personal risk judgments. Communication Research, 20(4), 611�628. Edgell, M. C. R., & Nowell, D. E. (1989). The New Environmental Paradigm scale � wildlife and
environmental beliefs in British-Columbia. Society & Natural Resources, 2(4), 285�296. Eggermont, S. (2004). Television viewing, perceived similarity, and adolescents’ expectations of a
romantic partner. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48(2), 244�265. Ellis, R. J., & Thompson, F. (1997). Culture and the environment in the Pacific Northwest. American
Political Science Review, 91(4), 885�897. Gerbner, G. (1987). Science on television � How it affects public conceptions. Issues in Science and
Technology, 3(3), 109�115. Gerbner, G., & Gross, K. (1974). System of cultural indicators. Public Opinion Quarterly, 38,
460�461. Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of
Communication, 26(2), 172�199. Goidel, R. K., Freeman, C. M., & Procopio, S. T. (2006). The impact of television viewing on
perceptions of juvenile crime. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(1), 119�139. Good, J. (2007). Shop ’til we drop? Television, materialism and attitudes about the natural
environment. Mass Communication and Society, 10(3), 365�383. Hawkins, R. P., & Pingree, S. (1981). Uniform messages and habitual viewing � Unnecessary
assumptions in social-reality effects. Human Communication Research, 7(4), 291�301. Hirsch, P. (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. Holbert, R. L., Kwak, N., & Shah, D. V. (2003). Environmental concern, patterns of television
viewing, and pro-environmental behaviors: Integrating models of media consumption and
effects. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47(2), 177�196. Hughes, M. (1980). The fruits of cultivation analysis: a re-examination of the effects of television
watching on fear of victimization, alienation, and the approval of violence. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 44, 287�302. McComas, K. A., Shanahan, J., & Butler, J. S. (2001). Environmental content in prime-time network
TV’s non-news entertainment and fictional programs. Society & Natural Resources, 14(6),
533�542. Morton, T.A., & Duck, J.M. (2001). From impersonal to personal: The role of media in framing
social issues and shaping individual responses. Australian Journal of Psychology, 53, 122�122. Potter, W. J. (1988). 3 strategies for elaborating the cultivation hypothesis. Journalism Quarterly,
65(4), 930�939. Scheufele, D. A., Hardy, B. W., Brossard, D., Waismel-Manor, I. S., & Nisbet, E. (2006). Democracy
based on difference: Examining the links between structural heterogeneity, heterogeneity of
discussion networks, and democratic citizenship. Journal of Communication, 56(4), 728�753. Scheufele, D. A., Nisbet, M. C., Brossard, D., & Nisbet, E. C. (2004). Social structure and citizenship:
Examining the impacts of social setting, network heterogeneity, and informational variables
on political participation. Political Communication, 21(3), 315�338.
64 M. F. Dahlstrom and D. A. Scheufele
Schiappa, E., Gregg, P. B., & Hewes, D. E. (2006). Can one TV show make a difference? Will & Grace
and the parasocial contact hypothesis. Journal of Homosexuality, 51(4), 15�37. Schumann, D.W. (2004). Media factors that contribute to a restriction of exposure to diversity. In
L.J. Shrum (Ed.), The psychology of entertainment media (pp. 233�251). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Segrin, C., & Nabi, R. L. (2002). Does television viewing cultivate unrealistic expectations about
marriage? Journal of Communication, 52(2), 247�263. Shanahan, J. (1993). Television and the cultivation of environmental concern: 1988 �1992. Leicester,
England: University of Leicester Press.
Shanahan, J., & McComas, K. (1997). Television’s portrayal of the environment: 1991�1995. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74(1), 147�159.
Shanahan, J., & McComas, K. (1999). Nature stories: Depictions of the environment and their effects.
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Shanahan, J., & Morgan, E. M. (1999). Television and its viewers: Cultivation theory and research.
Cambridge: University Press.
Shanahan, J., Morgan, M., & Stenbjerre, M. (1997). Green or brown? Television and the cultivation
of environmental concern. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41(3), 305�323. Shrum, L.J. (2002). Media consumption and perceptions of social reality: Effects and underlying
processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research
(pp. 69�95). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Shrum, L.J., Burroughs, J.E., & Rindfleisch, A. (2004). A process model of consumer cultivation:
The role of television is a function of the type of judgment. In L.J. Shrum (Ed.), The
psychology of entertainment media: Blurring the lines between entertainment and persuasion
(pp. 177�191). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sparks, G. G., & Miller, W. (2001). Investigating the relationship between exposure to television
programs that depict paranormal phenomena and beliefs in the paranormal. Communication
Monographs, 68(1), 98�113. Sparks, G. G., Nelson, C. L., & Campbell, R. G. (1997). The relationship between exposure to
televised messages about paranormal phenomena and paranormal beliefs. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41(3), 345�359. Williams, D. (2006). Virtual cultivation: Online worlds, offline perceptions. Journal of
Communication, 56(1), 69�87. Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals � the extended parallel process model.
Communication Monographs, 59(4), 329�349. Yankelovich, D. (1991). Coming to public judgment: Making democracy work in a complex world.
Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Diversity of Television Exposure on Cultivation 65
Copyright of Environmental Communication is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
