Neural network simulations support heuristic processing model of cultivation effects

Media Psychology

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 449-469

  Bradley, Samuel D ^a  

^a TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 35348988053     PISSN: 15213269     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15213260701533078     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of film-mediated aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 3-11.
2. Basil, M. D. (1994). Multiple Resource Theory I: Application to Television Viewing. Communication Research, 21, 177-207.
3. Bradley, S. D. (2007). Dynamic, embodied, limited-capacity attention and memory: Modeling cognitive processing of mediated stimuli. Media Psychology, 9, 211-239.
4. Bradley, S. D., & Payne, B. D. (2004, May). Television, remote memory, and social reality estimates: A cognitive neuroscience approach. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, San Diego, CA.
5. Busselle, R. W. (2001). Television exposure, perceived realism, and exemplar accessibility in the social judgment process. Media Psychology, 3, 43-67.
6. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1994). Growing up with television: The cultivation perspective. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 17-41). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Hawkins, R. P., Pingree, S., & Adler, I. (1987). Searching for cognitive processes in the cultivation effect. Human Communication Research, 13, 553-577.
8. Lang, A., Bolls, P., Potter, R. F., & Kawahara, K. (1999). The effects of production pacing and arousing content on the information processing of television messages. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43, 451-475.
9. Lang, A., Newhagen, J., & Reeves, B. (1996). Negative video as structure: Emotion, attention, capacity, and memory. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40, 460-477.
10. Mares, M. L. (1996). The role of source confusions in television's cultivation of social relaity judgments. Human Communication Research, 23, 278-297.
11. McClelland, J. L., & Rogers, T. T. (2003). The parallel distributed processing approach to semantic cognition. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 310-322.
12. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.
13. Murnane, K., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1991). Word repetition in sentence recognition. Memory & Cognition, 19, 119-130.
14. Palazzolo, E. T., Serb, D. A., She, Y., Su, C., & Contractor, N. S. (2006). Coevolution of communication and knowledge networks in transactive memory systems: Using computational models for theoretical development. Communication Theory, 16, 223-250.
15. Potter, W. J. (1991). Examining cultivation from a psychological perspective: Component subprocesses. Communication Research, 18, 77-102.
16. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
17. Rumelhart, D. E. (2000). The architecture of mind: A connectionist approach. In J. Haugeland (Ed.), Mind design II Philosophy, psychology, artificial intelligence (2nd. ed., pp. 205-232). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & Williams, R. J. (1986). Learning internal representations by error propagation. In D. E. Rumelhart & J. L. McClelland (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 318-362). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (Eds.). (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20. Shanahan, J., & Morgan, M. (1999). Television and its viewers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Shapiro, M. A. (1991). Memory and decision processes in the construction of social reality. Communication Research, 18, 3-24.
22. Shapiro, M. A. (2002). Generalizability in communication research. Human Communication Research, 28, 491-500.
23. Shapiro, M. A., & Chock, T. M. (2003). Psychological processes in perceiving reality. Media Psychology, 5, 163-198.
24. Shapiro, M. A., & Fox, J. R. (2002). The role of typical and atypical events in story memory. Human Communication Research, 28, 109-135.
25. Shapiro, M. A., & Lang, A. (1991). Making television reality: Unconscious processes in the construction of social reality. Communication Research, 18, 685-705.
26. Shrum, L. J. (1995). Assessing the social-influence of television-A social cognition perspective on cultivation effects. Communication Research, 22, 402-429.
27. Shrum, L. J. (1996). Psychological processes underlying cultivation effects: Further tests of construct accessibility. Human Communication Research, 22, 482-509.
28. 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.
29. Shrum, L. J. (1999). Television and persuasion: Effects of the programs between the ads. Psychology & Marketing, 16, 119-140.
30. Shrum, L. J. (2001). Processing strategy moderates the cultivation effect. Human Communication Research, 27, 94-120.
31. Shrum, L. J. (2004a). The cognitive processes underlying cultivation effects are a function of whether the judgments are on-line or memory-based. Communications, 29, 327-344.
32. Shrum, L. J. (2004b). Magnitiude of effects of television viewing on social perceptions vary as a function of data collection method: Implications for psychological processes. Advances in Consumer Research, 31, 511-513.
33. 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.
34. Shrum, L. J., Burroughs, J. E., & Rindfleisch, A. (2005). Television's cultivation of material values. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 473-479.
35. Shrum, L. J., & O'Guinn, T. C. (1993). Processes and effects in the construction of social-reality-Construct accessibility as an explanatory variable. Communication Research, 20, 436-471.
36. 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.
37. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probablity. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.
38. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1990). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. In P. K. Moser (Ed.), Rationality in action: Contemporary approaches (pp. 171-188). New York: Cambridge University Press.
39. Weisberg, M. (2007). Who is a modeler? British Journal for Philosophy of Science, 58, 207-233.
40. Yang, M., Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (2003, May). Testing the Landscape Model of text comprehension. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, San Diego, CA.
41. Zillmann, D. (1991). Television viewing and physiological arousal. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Responding to the screen: Reception and reaction processes. Communication (pp. 103-133). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.