The perception of distance in the cultivation process: A theoretical consideration of the relationship between television content, processing experience, and perceived distance

Communication Theory

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 333-355

  Bilandzic, Helena ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ERFURT   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MASS MEDIA; PERCEPTION; TELEVISION;

EID: 33746901217     PISSN: 10503293     EISSN: 14682885     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00273.x     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Adoni, H., Cohen, A. A., & Mane, S. (1984). Social reality and television news - perceptual dimensions of social conflicts in selected life areas. Journal of Broadcasting, 28 (1), 33-49.
2. Adoni, H., & Mane, S. (1984). Media and the social construction of reality. Toward an integration of theory and research. Communication Research, 11, 323-340.
3. Ball-Rokeach, S., & DeFleur, M. (1976). A dependency model of mass media effects. Communication Research, 3, 3-21.
4. Berger, L. P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. New York: Anchor Books.
5. Bilandzic, H., & Busselle, R. W. (2005). Experiential engagement in filmic narratives and enjoyment: The role of transportation, identification and perceived realism. Paper accepted for presentation at the Annual Conference of the International Communication Association 2006, Dresden, Germany.
6. Bilandzic, H., & Kinnebrock, S. (2005). Theory building across disciplines and paradigms: Determining the persuasive power of narrative fiction. Paper presented at the First European Communication Conference, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
7. Bilandzic, H., & Roessler, P. (2004). Life according to television. Implications of genre-specific cultivation effects: The gratification/ cultivation model. Communications. The European Journal of Communication, 29, 295-326.
8. Blumler, J. G. (1979). The role of theory in uses and gratifications research. Communication Research, 6 (1), 9-36.
9. Busselle, R. W. (2001). Television exposure, perceived realism, and exemplar accessibility in the social judgment process. Media Psychology, 3 (1), 43-67.
10. Busselle, R. W., & Greenberg, B. S. (2000). The nature of television realism judgments: A reevaluation of their conceptualization and measurement. Mass Communication and Society, 3, 249-268.
11. Busselle, R. W., Ryabovolova, A., & Wilson, B. (2004). Ruining a good story: Cultivation, perceived realism, and narrative. Communications: The European Journal of Communication, 29, 365-378.
12. Busselle, R. W., & Shrum, L. J. (2003). Media exposure and exemplar accessibility. Media Psychology, 5, 255-282.
13. Carveth, R., & Alexander, A. (1985). Soap opera viewing motivations and the cultivation process. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 29, 259-273.
14. Cohen, J. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication and Society, 4, 245-264.
15. Cohen, J., & Weimann, G. (2000). Cultivation revisited: Some genres have some effects on some viewers. Communication Reports, 13 (2), 99-114.
16. Coste, D. (1989). Narrative as communication. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
17. Dal Cin, S., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2004). Narrative persuasion and overcoming resistance. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 175-191). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18. Doob, A. N., & Macdonald, G. E. (1979). Television viewing and fear of victimization: Is the relationship causal? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (2), 170-179.
19. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
20. Gerbner, G. (2001). Who is telling all the stories? InterSections, 1 (1), 5-8.
21. Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26 (2), 173-199.
22. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Jackson-Beeck, M., Jeffries-Foy, S., & Signorielli, N. (1978). Cultural Indicators: The violence profile no. 9. Journal of Communication, 28, 176-207.
23. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1981). A curious journey into the scary world of Paul Hirsch. Communication Research, 8 (1), 39-72.
24. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 43-67). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25. Gerrig, R. J. (1993). Experiencing narrative worlds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
26. Green, M. C. (2004). Transportation into narrative worlds: The role of prior knowledge and perceived realism. Discourse Processes, 38, 247-266.
27. Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 701-721.
28. Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2002). In the mind's eye. Transportation-imagery model of narrative persuasion. In M. C. Green, J. J. Strange, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations (pp. 315-341). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. Green, M. C., Garst, J., & Brock, T. C. (2004). The power of fiction: Determinants and boundaries. In L. J. Shrum (Ed.), The psychology of entertainment media: Blurring the lines between entertainment and persuasion (pp. 161-176). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30. Hawkins, R., & Pingree, S. (1980). Some processes in the cultivation effect. Communication Research, 7, 193-226.
31. Hawkins, R., & Pingree, S. (1982). Television's influence on social reality. In D. Pearl, L. Bouthilet, & J. Lazar (Eds.), Television and behavior: Ten years of scientific progress and implications for the eighties (pp. 224-247). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
32. Hawkins, R., & Pingree, S. (1990). Divergent psychological processes in constructing social reality from mass media content. In N. Signorielli & M. Morgan (Eds.), Cultivation analysis: New directions in media effects research (pp. 35-50). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
33. Hawkins, R., Pingree, S., & Adler, I. (1987). Searching for cognitive processes in the cultivation effect. Adult and adolescent samples in the United States and Australia. Human Communication Research, 13, 553-577.
34. Hintzman, D. L., & Block, R. A. (1971). Repetition and memory: Evidence for a multiple-trace hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 297-306.
35. Husserl, E. (1913). Ideen zu einer reinen Phaenomenologie und phaenomenologischen Philosophie [Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy]. Halle a.d.S., Germany: Max Niemeyer.
36. Kosslyn, S. M., & Rosenberg, R. S. (2004). Psychology: The brain, the person, the world (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
37. Mares, M. - L. (1996). The role of source confusions in television's cultivation of social reality judgments. Human Communication Research, 23, 278-297.
38. Morgan, M., & Shanahan, J. (1997). Two decades of cultivation research: An appraisal and meta-analysis. In B. R. Burleson & A. W. Kunkel (Eds.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 20, pp. 1-45). Thousand Oaks, London: Sage.
39. Moskowitz, G. B., Skurnik, I., & Galinsky, A. D. (1999). The history of dual-process notions, and the future of preconscious control. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process-theories in social psychology (pp. 12-36). New York: Guilford Press.
40. Murch, G. M. (1973). Visual and auditory perception. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
41. Oatley, K. (1994). A taxonomy of literary response and a theory of identification in fictional narrative. Poetics, 23, 53-74.
42. Palmgreen, P., Wenner, L. A., & Rayburn, J. D. (1980). Relations between gratifications sought and obtained: A study of television news. Communication Research, 7, 161-192.
43. Perse, E. M. (1986). Soap opera viewing patterns of college students and cultivation. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 30 (2), 175-193.
44. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
45. Petty, R. E., Haugtvedt, C. P., & Smith, S. M. (1995). Elaboration as a determinant of attitude strength: Creating attitudes that are persistent, resistant, and predictive of behavior. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 93-130). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
46. Pingree, S., Starrett, S., & Hawkins, R. (1981). Soap opera viewing and social reality. Paper presented to the International Communication Association, Minneapolis. cited in: Hawkins, R., & Pingree, S. (1981). Using television to construct social reality. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 25, 347-364.
47. Potter, J. W. (1986). Perceived reality and the cultivation hypothesis. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 30 (2), 159-174.
48. Potter, J. W., & Chang, I. C. (1990). Television exposure measures and the cultivation hypothesis. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 34, 313-333.
49. Pratkanis, A. R., Greenwald, A. G., Leippe, M. R., & Baumgardner, M. H. (1988). In search of reliable persuasion effects: III. The sleeper effect is dead. Long live the sleeper effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 203-218.
50. Prentice, D. A., Gerrig, R. J., & Bailis, D. S. (1997). What readers bring to the processing of fictional texts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 416-420.
51. Prince, G. (1999). Revisiting narrativity. In W. Grünzweig & A. Solbach (Eds.), Grenzüberschreitungen. Narratologie im Kontext [Transcending boundaries. Narratology in context] (pp. 43-51). Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr.
52. Rouner, D. (1984). Active television viewing and the cultivation hypothesis. Journalism Quarterly, 61 (1), 168-174.
53. Ryan, M. - L. (1991). Possible worlds, artificial intelligence, and narrative theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
54. Schutz, A. (1962). On multiple realities. In M. Natanson (Ed.), Collected papers I. The problem of social reality (pp. 207-259). The Hague, the Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
55. Schutz, A. (1970a). On phenomenology and social relations. Selected writings. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
56. Schutz, A. (1970b). Reflections on the problem of relevance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
57. Segal, E. M. (1995). A cognitive-phenomenological theory of fictional narrative. In J. F. Duchan, G. A. Bruder, & L. E. Hewitt (Eds.), Deixis in narrative. A cognitive science perspective (pp. 61-78). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
58. Shapiro, M. A. (1991). Memory and decision processes in the construction of social reality. Communication Research, 18 (1), 3-24.
59. Shapiro, M. A., & Lang, A. (1991). Making television reality: Unconscious processes in the construction of social reality. Communication Research, 18, 685-705.
60. Shrum, L. J. (1995). Assessing the social influence of television: A social cognition perspective on cultivation effects. Communication Research, 22, 402-429.
61. Shrum, L. J. (1997). The role of source confusion in cultivation effects may depend on processing strategy - A comment on Mares (1996). Human Communication Research, 24, 349-358.
62. Shrum, L. J. (2001). Processing strategy moderates the cultivation effect. Human Communication Research, 27 (1), 94-120.
63. Shrum, L. J. (2002). Media consumption and perceptions of social reality: Effects and underlying processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 69-95). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
64. Shrum, L. J. (2004). The cognitive processes underlying cultivation effects are a function of whether the judgments are on-line or memory-based. Communications: The European Journal of Communication, 29, 327-344.
65. Shrum, L. J., & Bischak, V. D. (2001). Mainstreaming, resonance, and impersonal impact - Testing moderators of the cultivation effect for estimates of crime risk. Human Communication Research, 27, 187-215.
66. 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.
67. Shrum, L. J., Wyer, R. S., & O'Guinn, T. C. (1998). The effects of television consumption on social perceptions: The use of priming procedures to investigate psychological processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 447-458.
68. Slater, M. D. (1990). Processing social information in messages: Social group familiarity, fiction versus nonfiction, and subsequent beliefs. Communication Research, 17, 327-343.
69. Slater, M. D., & Elliott, W. R. (1982). Television's influence on social reality. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 68 (1), 69-79.
70. Slater, M. D., & Rouner, D. (2002). Entertainment-education and elaboration likelihood: Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory, 12 (2), 173-191.
71. Smith, E. R., & Queller, S. (2004). Mental representations. In M. B. Brewer & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Social cognition (pp. 5-27). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
72. Strange, J. J., & Leung, C. C. (1999). How anecdotal accounts in news and in fiction can influence judgments of a social problem's urgency, causes, and cures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 436-449.
73. Tapper, J. (1995). The ecology of cultivation: A conceptual model for cultivation research. Communication Theory, 5 (1), 36-57.
74. Tyler, T. R., & Cook, F. L. (1984). The mass media and judgments of risk: Distinguishing impact on personal and societal level judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 693-708.
75. Valkenburg, P. M., & Patiwael, M. (1998). Does watching Court TV "cultivate" people's perceptions of crime? Gazette, 60, 227-238.
76. Van den Bulck, J. (1999). Mediation: Toward a media theory of the social construction of reality. Communication, 25 (1, 2). Retrieved July 3, 2006, from http://www.unisa.ac.za/default.asp?Cmd=ViewContent&ContentID=7041
77. Van den Bulck, J. (2003a). The datasetting effect of learning fact from fiction: Toward an on-line processing model of television effects. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, San Diego, CA.
78. Van den Bulck, J. (2003b). Juxtaposing direct experience with media experience: Does reality really matter? Communication Monographs, 5, 215-288.
79. Wyer, R. S., Adaval, R., & Colcombe, S. J. (2002). Narrative-based representations of social knowledge: Their construction and use in comprehension, memory, and judgment. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 131-197). New York: Academic Press.