I saw a meme that felt kinda true although I didn’t quite agree with its core message. It went something like, “When I get rich, I don’t want to hear people telling me money has changed me, because where were they when poverty was changing me?”
Now, the statement sounded so true and realistic because, for sure, money changes us. But in what sense should it change us?
Let’s say you follow a particular channel that suggests absurd ways in which money should “change” you. Over time, the influence can creep in so subtly that your worldview and perceptions begin to mirror what you repeatedly see and hear on that channel.
That TV series, YouTube channel, or social media personality could very well be the source of what your friends are now describing as a change in your behavior.
This is where Cultivation Theory steps in. Cultivation Theory is one of the core theories of media effects. It was developed by George Gerbner in the 1960s. The theory posits that people who watch television frequently are more likely to be influenced by the messages from the “television world” than those who watch occasionally (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1986).
The influence is so deep that their perceptions of reality start aligning with the recurring themes, values, and worldviews presented in the media. Television, therefore, contributes independently to how people perceive social reality.
The theory was crafted before the era of social media. But I believe that today, we could replace “television” with “social media” and still retain the same meaning and concern.
- Constant exposure to media content cultivates specific values, beliefs, attitudes, and desires in people.
- People unconsciously shape their thought processes and behavior based on what they consume.
- The more someone watches, the more their worldview is influenced compared to someone who watches less, even if they share similar demographics.
The theory has traditionally been used to study the effects of violence on television. It explains how children who watch violent cartoons are more likely to imitate violent behavior. Repeated exposure to violent content reinforces the belief that the world is dangerous and that violence is a natural response to conflict (Morgan, Shanahan, & Signorielli, 2015).
Today, the theory has expanded. Researchers now apply it to study health, religion, gender roles, politics you name it.
I think there is the need to revisit this theory in the age of algorithms and the rise of social media platforms. But for now, my humble recommendation: Watch what you watch.
Interrogate that “harmless” popular comedian. Reconsider that cartoon your child can’t seem to stop watching. That simple, suggestive dance your let them watch so that you can uninterrupted time finish up a work project might be behind your constant worry of the changing behavior of your child.
References
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1986). Living with television: The dynamics of the cultivation process. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Perspectives on media effects (pp. 17–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Morgan, M., Shanahan, J., & Signorielli, N. (2015). Yesterday’s new cultivation, tomorrow. Mass Communication and Society, 18(5), 674–699. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1072725