Cultivation Theory - Criticisms of Cultivation Theory

Criticisms of Cultivation Theory

Scholars think that cultivation research focuses more on the effects rather than who or what is being influenced. Jennings Bryant agrees and says that the research to date has more to do with the 'why's' and 'how's' of a theory as opposed to gathering normative data as to the 'what's', 'who's', and 'where's'.“

Critics have faulted the logical consistency of cultivation analysis, noting that the methods employed by cultivation analysis researchers do not match the conceptual reach of the theory. The research supporting this theory uses social scientific methods that are typically used with limited effects findings. Another possibility is that the relationship between TV viewing and fear of crime is like the relationship between a runny nose and a sore throat. Neither one causes the other—they are both caused by something else. " Many also question the breadth of Gerbner's research. When using the Cultural Indicators strategy, Gerbner separated his research into three parts. The second part focused on the effects of media when looking at gender, race/ethnicity, and occupation.Michael Hughes writes about this process that “it does not seem reasonable that these three variables exhaust the possibilities of variables available…which may be responsible for spurious relationships between television watching and the dependent variables in the Gerbner at al. analysis” Also, the variables Gerbner did choose can also play a factor in the amount of time a person has available to watch TV. For example, a person who works part-time is likely to have more time on their hands than someone who works a fifty-hour workweek. Just based on this example alone, one can see how correlating these variables specifically to the way a person views violence in the world can be problematic. Another piece of evidence that comes from Daniel Chandler is that “those who live in high-crime areas are more likely to stay at home and watch television and also to believe that they have a greater chance of being attacked than are those in low-crime areas.” He claims as well, “when the viewer has some direct lived experience of the subject matter this may tend to reduce any cultivation effect.” So, if an individual identifies with the media's message, they are less likely to let it affect their beliefs. This is probably due to the fact that they already have their own opinion on the matter.

Gerbner is also criticized for the fact that he "lumped together" all forms of violence; he did not split up the different types of television programs. Chandler argues, "different genres—even different programmes—contribute to the shaping of different realities, but cultivation analysis assumes too much homogeneity in television programmes" This point is addressed by Horace Newcomb (1978) who argues that violence is not presented as uniformly on television as the theory assumes; therefore, television cannot be responsible for cultivating the same sense of reality for all viewers. When considering different programs that are on television, it makes sense that scholars would criticize Gerbner’s lack of categories. For example, Saturday morning cartoon “play” violence is in combination with a murder on Law and Order. This does not seem to logically fuse together. Morgan and Shanahan understand this dispute, but they contend “that people (especially heavy viewers) do not watch isolated genres only, and that any “impact” of individual program types should be considered in the context of the overall viewing experience.”

Chandler maintains, “Cultivation theory focuses on the amount of television viewing or 'exposure', and does not allow for differences in the ways in which viewers interpret television realities.” This interpretation can vary from innocent viewing to getting ideas for carrying out an act of violence. There should be a way to continue research into this area of study.

Cultivation analysis has also been criticized by humanists for examining such a large cultural question. Because the theory discusses cultural effects, many humanists feel offended, thinking that their field has been misinterpreted. Horace Newcomb (1978) writes "More than any other research effort in the area of television studies the work of Gerbner and Gross and their associates sits squarely at the juncture of the social sciences and the humanities."

The theory has also received criticism for ignoring other issues such as the perceived realism of the televised content, which could be essential in explaining people's understanding of reality. Wilson, Martins, & Markse (2005) argue that attention to television might be more important to cultivating perceptions than only the amount of television viewing. In addition, C. R. Berger (2005) writes that because the theory ignores cognitive processes, such as attention or rational thinking style, it is less useful than desired.

Lastly, it is argued that there is no evident correlation in the research. "Critics are quick to point out that the correlation between TV viewing and fear of criminal victimization can be interpreted plausibly in more than one way. The correlation could indicate, as Gerber contended, that TV viewing cultivates or causes fear of crime. But it could make just as much sense to interpret the relationship the other way - fear of crime cause people to watch more TV. After all, most TV shows depict a just world in which the bad guys get caught in the end."