The problem of causality in cultivation research

Communications

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 379-397

  Rossmann, Constanze ^a   Brosius, Hans Bernd ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Casual inference; Correlational studies; Cultivation; Experimental approaches; Sequential studies; Time series

Indexed keywords

EID: 61249208361     PISSN: 03412059     EISSN: 16134087     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/comm.2004.024     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Abel, J., Möller, R., and Treumann, K. P. (1998). Einführung in die empirische Pädagogik. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer
2. Becker, L. B. and Schönbach, K. (Eds.). (1989). Audience responses to media diversification. Coping with plenty. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
3. Brosius, H.-B. (1995). Alltagsrationalität in der Nachrichtenrezeption. Ein Modell zur Wahrnehmung und Verarbeitung von Nachrichteninhalten. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag
4. Brosius, H.-B. and Bathelt, A. (1994). The utility of exemplars in persuasive communications. Communication Research, 21, 48-78
5. Brosius, H.-B. and Kepplinger, H. M. (1990). The agenda-setting function of television: Static and dynamic views. Communication Research, 17, 183-211
6. Brosius, H.-B., Staab, J. F., and Gassner, H.-P. (1991). Stimulusrezeption und Stimulusmessung. Zur dynamisch-transaktionalen Rekonstruktion wertender Sach- und Personendarstellungen in der Presse. In W. Früh (Ed.), Medienwirkungen: Das dynamisch-lransaktionale Modell. Tlieorie und empirische Forschung (pp. 215-235). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag
7. Bryant, J., Carveth, R. A., and Brown, D. (1981). Television viewing and anxiety: An experimental examination. Journal of Communication, 31, 69-86
8. Bryant, J. and Zillmann, D. (1981). The effects of aggression of viewing sadomasochism and bestiality after longitudinal exposure to standard erotica. Paper presented at the 31st Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Minneapolis, MN, May 21-25
9. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766
10. Cohen, J. and Weimann, G. (2000). Cultivation revisited: Some genres have some effects on some viewers. Communication Reports, 13, 99-114
11. Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671-684
12. Davis, S. and Mares, M.-L. (1998). Effects of talk show viewing on adolescents. Journal of Communication. 48, 69-86
13. Daschmann, G. (2001). Der Einfiuss von Fallbeispielen auf Leserurteile. Experimentelle Untersuchungen zur Medienwirkung. Konstanz: UVK
14. Doob, A. N. and Macdonald, G. E. (1979). Television viewing and fear of victimization: Is the relationship causal? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 170-179
15. Früh, W. (2002). Unterhaltung durch Fernsehen. Eine molare Theorie. Konstanz: UVK
16. Gerbner, G. and Gross, L. (1976a). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26, 171-199
17. Gerbner, G. and Gross, L. (1976b). The scary world of TV's heavy viewer. Psychology-Today, 9, 41-45
18. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., and Signorielli, N. (1994). Growing up with television: The cultivation perspective. In J. Bryant and D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects. Advances in theory and research (pp. 7-42). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
19. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., and Signorielli, N. (1986). Living with television: The dynamics of the cultivation process. In J. Bryant and D. Zillmann (Eds.), Perspectives on media effects (pp. 17-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
20. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., and Signorielli, N. (1980). The 'mainstreaming' of America: Violence Profile No. 11. Journal of Communication, 30, 10-29
21. Gurevitch, M. and Levy, M. R. (1986). Information and meaning. Audience explanations of social issues. In J. P. Robinson and M. R. Levy (Eds.), The main source. Learning from television news (pp. 159-175). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
22. Hawkins, R. P. and Pingree, S. (1981). Uniform content and habitual viewing: Unnecessary assumptions in social reality effects. Human Communication Research, 7, 193-226
23. Hirsch, P. (1980). The 'scary world' of the nonviewers and other anomalies: A reanalysis of Gerbner et al.'s findings on cultivation analysis. Communication Research, 7, 403-456
24. Hovland, C. I. (1959). Reconciling conflicting results derived from experimental and survey studies of attitude change. The American Psychologist, 14, 8-17
25. Iyengar, S. and Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press
26. Kepplinger, H. M., Donsbach, W., Hamdane, M., Kembi, M. A., and Skik, R. (1985). Les effects de la télévision dans un milieu rural tunisien. Communications, 11, 75-97
27. Klövekorn, N. (2002). Sehen wir, was wir wollen? Die Fernsehprogrammauswahl unter Berücksichtigung langfristiger Zuschauerpräferenzen und Programmstrategien der Fernsehsender. München: R. Fischer
28. Mares, M.-L. (1996). The role of source confusions in television's cultivation of social reality judgments. Human Communication Research, 23, 278-297
29. Morgan, M. and Shanahan, J. (1997). Two decades of cultivation research: An appraisal and meta-analysis. Communication Yearbook, 20, 1-45
30. Morgan, M. and Signorielli, N. (1990). Cultivation analysis: Conceptualization and methodology. In N. Signorielli and M. Morgan (Eds.), Cultivation analysis. New directions in media effects research (pp. 13-34). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
31. Noelle-Neumann, E. and Schulz, R. (1989). Federal Republic of Germany: Social experimentation with cable and commercial television. In L. B. Becker and K. Schönbach (Eds.), Audience responses to media diversification. Coping with plenty (pp. 167-223). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
32. Parducci, A. and Sarris, V. Der experimentelle Ansatz - Sackgasse oder 'via regia' für die Psychologie? In V. Sarris and A. Parducci (Eds.), Die Zukunft der experimentellen Psychologie (pp. 13-26). Weinheim: Beltz
33. Paus-Haase, I. (1998). Heldenbilder im Fernsehen. Eine Untersuchung zur Symbolik von Serienfavoriten in Kindergarten, Peer-Group und Kinderfreundschaften. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag
34. Paus-Haase, I., Hasebrink, U., Mattusch, U., Keuneke, S., and Krotz, F. (1999). Talk shows im Alltag von Jugendlichen. Der tägliche Balanceakt zwischen Orientierung, Amüsement und Ablehnung. Opladen: Leske + Budrich
35. Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer
36. Potter, W. J. (1991a). Cultivation theory and research: A conceptual critique. Human Communication Research, 93, 564-601
37. Potter, W. J. (1991b). The linearity assumption in cultivation research. Human Communication Research, 17, 562-583
38. Potter, W. J. (1990). Adolescents' perceptions of the primary values of television programming. Journalism Quarterly, 67, 843-851
39. Potter, W. J. and Chang, I. C. (1990). Television exposure measures and the cultivation hypothesis. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 34, 313-333
40. Rössler, P. and Brosius, H.-B. (2001a). Do talk shows cultivate adolescents' views of the world? A prolonged-exposure experiment. Journal of Communication, 51, 143-163
41. Rössler, P. and Brosius, H.-B. (2001b). Prägen Daily Talks die Vorstellungen Jugendlicher von der Wirklichkeit? Ein Intensivexperiment zur Kultivierungsthese. In C. Schneiderbauer (Ed.), Talkshows unter der Lupe. Wissenschaftliche Beiträge aus Forschung und Praxis (pp. 119-151). München: R. Fischer
42. Rossmann, C. (2002). Die heile Welt des Fernsehens. Eine Studie zur Kultivierung durch Krankenhausserien. München: R. Fischer
43. Schenk, M. (2002). Medienwirkungsforschung. Tübingen: Mohr
44. Scheufeie, B. (1999). Zeitreihenanalysen in der Kommunikationsforschimg. Eine praxisorientierte Einführung in die uni- und multivariate Zeitreihenanalyse mit SPSS for Windows. Stuttgart: Edition 451
45. Schramm, W., Lyle, J., and Parker, E. B. (1961). Television in the lives of our children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press
46. Shrum, L. J. (2001). Processing strategy moderates the cultivation effect. Human Communication Research, 27, 94-120
47. Shrum, L. J. (1996). Psychological processes underlying cultivation effects. Further tests of construct accessibility. Human Communication Research, 22, 482-509
48. Shrum, L. J. and O'Guinn, T. C. (1993). Process and effects in the construction of social reality: Construct accessibility as an explanatory variable. Human Communication Research, 20, 436-471
49. Shrum, L. J., Wyer, R. S., and 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
50. Sicking, P. (2000). Leben ohne Fernsehen. Eine qualitative Nichtfernseherstudie. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag
51. Weiß, H.-J. (2001). Programmalltag in Deutschland. Das Informations- und Unterhaltungsangebot der deutschen Fernsehvollprogramme 1999-2001. In Arbeitsge-meinschaft der Landesmedienanstalten in der Bundesrepublik. Deutschland - ALM (Eds.) Programmbericht zur Lage und Entwicklung des Fernsehens in Deutschland 2000/01 (pp. 115-174). Konstanz: UVK
52. Williams, T. M. (Ed.). (1986). Tlie impact of television. A natural experiment in 3 communities. Orlando, FL: Academic Press
53. Zillmann, D. (1989). Effects of prolonged Consumption of pornography. In D. Zillmann and J. Bryant (Eds.), Pornography. Research advances and policy considerations (pp. 127-157). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
54. Zillmann, D. and Brosius, H.-B. (2000). Exemplification in communication: The influence of case reports on the perception of issues. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum