Page 68 - Media Effects Advances in Theory and Research

3. GROWING UP WITH TELEVISION 57

Yet, looking at the actual positions taken on a number of political issues
shows that the mainstream does not mean the “middle of the road.” When
we analyzed responses to questions in the NORC General Social Surveys
about attitudes and opinions on such topics as racial segregation, homo-
sexuality, abortion, minority rights, and other issues that have traditionally
divided liberals and conservatives, we found such division mostly among
those who watch little television. Overall, self-styled moderates are much
closer to conservatives than they are to liberals. Among heavy viewers, lib-
erals and conservatives are closer to each other than among light viewers.
We have also noted (Gerbner et al., 1982, 1984) that although mainstream-
ing bends toward the right on political issues, it leans toward a populist
stance on economic issues (e.g., demanding more social services but lower
taxes), reflecting the influence of a marketing orientation and setting up
potential conflicts of demands and expectations.
Implications of cultivation for foreign policy were reflected in a study
of attitudes toward the war in the Persian Gulf (Lewis, Jhally, & Morgan,
1991). Heavy television viewers were more familiar with the military ter-
minology used and more supportive of the war but less informed about
issues and the Middle East in general. Overall amount of viewing was far
more important than specific exposure to news.
Also, the 1990s saw a great deal of progress on research seeking to
uncover cognitive explanations for the mechanics of cultivation: how
does it “work”? A model first offered by Hawkins and Pingree (1982)
focused on how television contributes to conceptions of social reality
“within the heads” of individuals by breaking down the process into two
discrete steps, delineated as “learning” and “construction.” Yet, no sup-
port for this model was generated. Similarly, studies that attempted to
shed light on black-box cognitive processes by highlighting the concept of
the “perceived reality” did not produce any firm conclusions (Slater &
Elliott, 1982; Potter, 1986).
Shapiro and Lang (1991) hypothesized that television can affect reality
perceptions because people simply forget that what they see on TV is not
real. Mares (1996) tested this hypothesis and found that those who tended
to confuse fiction programs for reality saw the world as a meaner, more
violent place, and also gave “TV answers” to questions about social class
estimates. But Shrum (1997) argued that people do not consider the source
of their information when making social reality judgments, and he offered
a different explanation of Mares’ data.
Shrum’s basic idea is that, because TV images are “heuristically” avail-
able to heavy viewers, they tend to use them more readily in making men-
tal judgments, in a kind of cognitive shortcut. Most of Shrum’s studies
(see, e.g., Shrum 1995, 1999) find that heavy viewers give faster responses
to questions about dependent variables, in directions consistent with