More recent theories stressing the active viewer downplay the power of television to influence viewers which is assumed by cultivation theory. 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. Viewers do not necessarily passively accept as ‘real’ what they see on television. Television programs are open to varying interpretations. The degree of identification with characters by viewers may play a part. Motivations to view also vary greatly. Joseph Dominick comments that ‘individuals who watch TV simply to pass time or because it becomes a habit appear to be more affected than people whose viewing is planned and motivated’ (Dominick 1990, p. 514).
Essentially, television violence is one of the things that may lead to aggressive, antisocial or criminal behaviour; it does, however, usually work in conjunction with other factors. The enormous amount of research on this area does serve to shape healthy debate. But considering the many methodological problems cited by Cumberbatch and others, it is difficult to come to a concrete, valid conclusion on the issue. As aptly put by Dorr and Kovaric (1980), television violence may influence ’some of the people some of the time…’ (pp. 94-95).
Bibliography
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963) ‘Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models’. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology . 66, pp. 3-11.
Boyd-Barrett, O. & Braham, P. (eds.) (1987). ‘Media, Knowledge & Power’. London: Croom Helm. pp. 99-100.
Centerwall, B. S. (1993). ‘Television and violent crime’. The Public Interest. 111. pp. 56-77.
Chandler, D. (1995). ‘Cultivation Theory’. http://www.aber.ac.uk/ dgc/cultiv.html. 18 September 1995. pp. 1-7.
Condry, J. (1989). ‘The Psychology of Television’. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 128-130.
Cumberbatch, G. (1989). ‘Violence and the mass media: the research evidence’. In Cumberbatch, G. & Howitt, D. (eds), pp. 31-59.
Dominick, J. R. (1990). ‘The Dynamics of Mass Communication’. New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. 512-514.
Dorr, A., & Kovaric, P. (1980). ‘Some of the people of the time – But which people?’ In E. L. Palmer & A. Dorr (eds.), Children and the Faces of Television: Teaching, Violence, Selling. New York: Academic. pp. 183-199.
Evra, J. van (1990). ‘Television and Child Development’. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 167-171.
Fesbach, S. & Singer, R. D. (1971). ‘Television and Aggression: An Experimental Field Study’ . San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L.P., Melody, W.H. (1982). ‘Violence and Aggression, Television and Behaviour: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties’. Vol. #1, pp. 36-44.
Hawkins, R. P. & Pingree, S. (1980). ‘Some Processes in the Cultivation Effect’. Communication Research. 7: 2, April 1980. pp. 193-226.
McQuail, D. & Windahl, S. (1993). ‘Communication Models for the Study of Mass Communication’. London: Longman. p. 101.
Oldenburg, D. (1992). ‘Primal screen-kids: TV violence and real-life behavior’. Washington Post . April 7. p. E5.
Signorielli, N. (1991). ‘A Sourcebook on Children and Television’. New York: Greenwood. pp. 94-95.