Cover des Buchs: Living with Cultivating Messages
Im Shop erwerben
, um zu prüfen, ob Sie einen Vollzugriff auf diese Publikation haben.
Monographie Kein Zugriff

Living with Cultivating Messages

What Are the Constructs that Compose Media Messages in Cultivation Theory?
Autor:innen:
Verlag:
 2021

Zusammenfassung

Wie beeinflussen Botschaften aus dem Fernsehen unsere Wahrnehmung über die soziale Realität? Meistens konzentrieren sich Kultivierungsstudien zu dieser Frage auf die Medieneffekte. Doch das vorliegende Buch wählt einen neuen Ansatz und stellt die kultivierenden Botschaften in den Vordergrund. Das Buch behandelt, was Botschaften sind und wie sich uniforme von genrespezifischen Botschaften und Metanarrativen unterscheiden. Es werden verschiedene theoretische und fachliche Perspektiven zusammengebracht und das neue Botschaftskonzept ‚Subgenre-Botschaften‘ vorgestellt, welches die Veränderungen der Medienlandschaft hin zum Online-Fernsehen berücksichtigt. Die computergestützte Simulationsstudie zeigt, inwiefern sich manche Botschaftskonzepte mehr ähneln als andere, und demonstriert, dass Subgenre-Botschaften am robustesten gegenüber Verzerrungen sind.

Schlagworte

Publikation durchsuchen

Bibliographische Angaben

Copyrightjahr
2021
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-8304-5
ISBN-Online
978-3-7489-2694-8
Verlag
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Reihe
Reihe Rezeptionsforschung
Band
42
Sprache
Englisch
Seiten
224
Produkttyp
Monographie

Inhaltsverzeichnis

KapitelSeiten
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis Kein Zugriff 1 - 20
    1. 1.1 From Living with Television towards Living with Cultivating Messages Kein Zugriff
    2. 1.2 Premises, Rationale, and Structure Kein Zugriff
      1. 2.1.1 Prelude to Cultural Indicators Project Kein Zugriff
        1. 2.1.2.1 Theoretical Implications of the Cultural Indicators Project Kein Zugriff
        2. 2.1.2.2 Some Empirical Assessment of the Cultural Indicators Project Kein Zugriff
        1. 2.1.3.1 Four Measures for Message System Analysis Kein Zugriff
        2. 2.1.3.2 Analyses in Message System Analysis Kein Zugriff
        3. 2.1.3.3 Example of Empirical Assessment Kein Zugriff
        1. 2.1.4.1 Some Critique on Theoretical Implications Kein Zugriff
        2. 2.1.4.2 Some Critique and Advances in Methodology Kein Zugriff
      1. 2.2.1 Gerbner’s Idea of Television Kein Zugriff
      2. 2.2.2 Television Today: What Is Online Television? Kein Zugriff
      3. 2.2.3 Consequences of Online Television for Cultural Indicators Project Kein Zugriff
    1. 3.1 Why to Consider Genre, Narrative, & Message Kein Zugriff
      1. 3.2.1 History and Genre from the Linguistic Perspective Kein Zugriff
      2. 3.2.2 Financial Forces and Genre from the Economic Perspective Kein Zugriff
      3. 3.2.3 Reality Observation and Genre from the Sociological Perspective Kein Zugriff
      4. 3.2.4 Knowledge Structures and Genre from the Psychological Perspective Kein Zugriff
      5. 3.2.5 Implications of the Four Moderating Factors Kein Zugriff
      1. 3.3.1 Narrative Turn Across Fields Kein Zugriff
      2. 3.3.2 Narratives in Communication Kein Zugriff
        1. 3.3.3.1 Classical Narratology Kein Zugriff
        2. 3.3.3.2 Post-Classical Narratology Kein Zugriff
      4. 3.3.4 Implications from Semiotics for Communication Kein Zugriff
      1. 3.4.1 Defining Messages in Cultivation Kein Zugriff
      2. 3.4.2 Messages in Semiotics Kein Zugriff
    5. 3.5 Interim Conclusion Kein Zugriff
      1. 4.1.1 Critical Theory and Uniform Messages Kein Zugriff
      2. 4.1.2 Precision of Uniform Messages Kein Zugriff
      1. 4.2.1 Tenets and Critiques of Genre-Specific Messages Kein Zugriff
      2. 4.2.2 Precision and Relevance of Genre-Specific Messages Kein Zugriff
      1. 4.3.1 Postmodernism and Narratology on Metanarratives Kein Zugriff
        1. 4.3.2.1 Multi-Generic Status Kein Zugriff
        2. 4.3.2.2 Nested Structure Kein Zugriff
      1. 4.4.1 Consequences from Former Message Concepts Kein Zugriff
      2. 4.4.2 Subgenres and Online Television Kein Zugriff
      3. 4.4.3 Assumptions of Subgenre Messages in Cultivation Kein Zugriff
    1. 5.1 Postulates and Lemmas of Message Conceptualizations Kein Zugriff
    2. 5.2 Summary and Research Question Kein Zugriff
      1. 6.1.1 Data Generating Framework: True Message Concepts Kein Zugriff
      2. 6.1.2 Data Analytical Framework: Estimated Message Concepts & Strength of Belief Kein Zugriff
        1. 6.2.1.1 DAF Results for Viewing Groups when Uniform Messages as DGF Kein Zugriff
        2. 6.2.1.2 DAF Results for Viewing Groups when Genre-Specific Messages as DGF Kein Zugriff
        3. 6.2.1.3 DAF Results for Viewing Groups when Metanarratives as DGF Kein Zugriff
        4. 6.2.1.4 DAF Results for Viewing Groups when Subgenre Messages as DGF Kein Zugriff
        1. 6.2.2.1 DAF Results for Belief Effects when Uniform Messages as DGF Kein Zugriff
        2. 6.2.2.2 DAF Results for Belief Effects when Genre-Specific Messages as DGF Kein Zugriff
        3. 6.2.2.3 DAF Results for Belief Effects when Metanarratives as DGF Kein Zugriff
        4. 6.2.2.4 DAF Results for Belief Effects when Subgenre Messages as DGF Kein Zugriff
      3. 6.2.3 Impact of Third Factors on Differences between Heavy and Light Viewers & Belief Effects Kein Zugriff
    1. 7.1 Implications of the Simulation Results for Assessing the Impact of Message Concepts Kein Zugriff
      1. 7.2.1 Common Limitations of Simulation Kein Zugriff
      2. 7.2.2 Modelling Viewing Choice Behavior Kein Zugriff
      3. 7.2.3 Distinction between Heavy and Light Viewers Kein Zugriff
    3. 7.3 General Implications for the Future of Cultivation Theory Kein Zugriff
  9. Chapter Eight Conclusion Kein Zugriff 185 - 190
  10. REFERENCES Kein Zugriff 191 - 206
    1. Appendix A Tables & Figures Kein Zugriff
    2. Appendix B Narrative Glossary Kein Zugriff
    3. Appendix C R Code for Simulation Kein Zugriff

Literaturverzeichnis (237)

  1. Abbott, H. P. (2008). The Cambridge introduction to narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511816932 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  2. Adorno, T. W. (1991[1972—1981]). The culture industry: Selected essays on mass culture. London: Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  3. Alber, J. (n.d.). Unnatural narrative. In P. Hühn & et al. (Eds.), The living handbook of narratology. Retrieved from http://www.lhn.uni-hamburg.de/article /unnatural – narrative Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  4. Alber, J. & Fludernik, M. (Eds.). (2010). Postclassical narratology. Approaches and analyses. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  5. Altman, R. (1984). A semantic/syntactic approach to film genre. Cinema Journal, 23 (3), 6–18. doi:10.2307/1225093 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  6. Altman, R. (2000). Film/genre. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  7. Andrews, M. (2004). Counter-narratives and the power to oppose. In M. Bamberg & M. Andrews (Eds.), Considering counter-narratives: Narrating, resisting, making sense (pp. 1–6). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  8. Axelrod, R. & Tesfatsion, L. (2006). A guide for newcomers to agent-based modeling in the social sciences. In L. Tesfatsion & K. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of computational economics (pp. 1647–1659). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  9. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogical imagination. Austin: University of Texas. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  10. Bakhtin, M. & Medvedev, P. (1985). The formal method of literary scholarship. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  11. Bamberg, M. (2004). Considering counter narratives. In M. Bamberg & M. Andrews (Eds.), Considering counter-narratives: narrating, resisting, making sense (pp. 351–371). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  12. Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1 (6), 589–595. doi:10. 1037/h0022070 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  13. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  14. Bezdek, M. A. & Gerrig, R. J. (2017). When narrative transportation narrows attention: Changes in attentional focus during suspenseful film viewing. Media Psychology, 20 (1), 60–89. doi:10.1080/15213269.2015.1121830 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  15. Bilandzic, H. & Busselle, R. W. (2008). Transportation and transportability in the cultivation of genre-consistent attitudes and estimates. Journal of Communication, 58 (3), 508- 529. doi:10.1111/j.1460 – 2466.2008.00397.x Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  16. Bilandzic, H. & Busselle, R. W. (2012a). A narrative perspective on genre-specific cultivation. In M. Morgan, J. Shanahan, & N. Signorielli (Eds.), Living with television now: Advances in cultivation theory and research (pp. 261–285). New York: Peter Lang. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  17. Bilandzic, H. & Busselle, R. W. (2012b). Narrative persuasion. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The Sage handbook of persuasion. Developments in theory and practice (pp. 200- 219). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  18. Bilandzic, H. & Busselle, R. W. (2017). Beyond metaphors and traditions: Exploring the boundaries of narrative engagement. In F. Hakemulder, M. M. Kuijpers, E. S. Tan, K. Bálint, & M. Diocaru (Eds.), Handbook of narrative absorption (pp. 11–28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  19. Bilandzic, H. & Rössler, P. (2004). Life according to television. Implications of genre-specific cultivation effects: The Gratification/Cultivation model. Communications, 29, 295- 326. doi:10.1515/comm.2004.020 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  20. Bodenhausen, G. V., Macrae, C. N., & Hugenberg, K. (2003). Social cognition. In I. B. Weiner, T. Millon, & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Personality and social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 257–282). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  21. Bordwell, D. (1989). A case for cognitivism. Iris, 5 (2), 11–40. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  22. Braddock, K. & Dillard, J. P. (2016). Meta-analytic evidence for the persuasive effect of narratives on beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. Communication Monographs, 83 (4), 446–467. doi:10.1080/03637751.2015.1128555 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  23. Brown, C. & Augusta-Scott, T. (2006). Narrative therapy: Making meaning, making lives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  24. Bryant, J. & Miron, D. (2004). Theory and research in mass communication. Journal of Communication, 54 (4), 662–704. doi:10.1111/j.1460 – 2466.2004.tb02650.x Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  25. Bunia, R. (2010). Diegesis and representation: Beyond the fictional world, on the margins of story and narrative. Poetics Today, 31 (4), 679–720. doi:10.1215/03335372–2010–010 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  26. Busselle, R. W. (2003). Television exposure, parents’ precautionary warnings, and young adults’ perceptions of crime. Communication Research, 30 (5), 530–556. doi:10.1177/ 0093650203256360 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  27. Busselle, R. W. & Bilandzic, H. (2008). Fictionality and perceived realism in experiencing stories: A model of narrative comprehension and engagement. Communication Theory, 18 (2), 255–280. doi:10.1111/j.1468 – 2885.2008.00322.x Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  28. Busselle, R. W. & Bilandzic, H. (2009). Measuring narrative engagement. Media Psychology, 12, 321–347. doi:10.1080/15213260903287259 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  29. Busselle, R. W., Ryabovolova, A., & Wilson, B. (2004). Ruining a good story: Cultivation, perceived realism and narrative. Communications, 29 (3), 365–378. doi:10.1515/comm. 2004.023 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  30. Castro, D. & Cascajosa, C. (2020). From Netflix to Movistar+: How subscription video-on- demand services have transformed Spanish TV production. JCMS: Journal of Cinema and Media Studies, 59 (3), 154–160. doi:10.1353/cj.2020.0019 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  31. Chapman, O. (2008). Narratives in mathematics teacher education. In D. Tirosh & T. Wood (Eds.), Tools and Processes in Mathematics Teacher Education (pp. 15–38). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  32. Chong, Y. M. G., Teng, K. Z. S., Siew, S. C. A., & Skoric, M. M. (2012). Cultivation effects of video games: A longer-term experimental test of first- and second-order effects. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 31 (9), 952–971. doi:10.1521/jscp.2012.31.9.952 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  33. Cobley, P. (2001). Analysing narrative genres. Sign system studies, 29 (2), 479–502. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  34. Cohen, B. C. (1963). The press and foreign policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  35. Cohen, J. & Weimann, G. (2000). Cultivation revisited: Some genres have some effects on some viewers. Communication Reports, 13 (2), 99–114. doi:10.1080/08934210009367728 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  36. Connelly, F. & Clandinin, D. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative enquiry. Educational Researcher, 19 (5), 2–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X019005002 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  37. Craig, R. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9 (2), 119–161. doi:10.1111/j.1468 – 2885.1999.tb00355.x Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  38. Cumberbatch, G., Jones, I., & Lee, M. (1988). Measuring violence on television. Current Psychology: Research & Reviews, 7 (1), 10–25. doi:10.1007/BF02686661 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  39. Danesi, M. (2004). Messages, signs, and meanings: A basic textbook in semiotics and communication theory. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  40. Davis, N. (2012). Rethinking Narrativity: A Return to Aristotle and Some Consequences. Storyworlds: A Journal of Narrative Studies, 4, 1–24. doi:10.5250/storyworlds.4.2012. 0001 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  41. Diefenbach, D. L. & West, M. D. (2012). Cultivation and the third-person effect. In M. Morgan, J. Shanahan, & N. Signorielli (Eds.), Living with television now: Advances in cultivation theory and research (pp. 329–346). New York: Peter Lang. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  42. Dogra, S. (2017). The thirty-one functions in Vladimir Propp’s morphology of the folktale: An outline and recent trends in the applicability of the Proppian taxonomic model. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 9 (2), 410–419. doi:10. 21659/rupkatha.v9n2.41 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  43. Doob, A. & Macdonald, G. (1979). Television viewing and fear of victimization: Is the relationship causal? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (2), 170–179. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.37.2.170 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  44. Duchan, J. F., Bruder, G. A., & Hewitt, L. E. (1995). Deixis in narrative: a cognitive science perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  45. Eden, A., Tamborini, R., Grizzard, M., Lewis, R., Weber, R., & Prabhu, S. (2014). Repeated exposure to narrative entertainment and the salience of moral intuitions. Journal of Communication, 64 (3), 501–520. doi:10.1111/jcom.12098 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  46. Eleey, M. F., Gerbner, G., & Tedesco, N. (1972). Apples, oranges, and the kitchen sink: An analysis and guide to the comparison of violence ratings. Journal of Broadcasting, 17 (1), 21–31. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  47. Endrass, B., Klimmt, C., Mehlmann, G., Andre, E., & Roth, C. (2014). Designing user- character dialog in interactive narratives: An exploratory experiment. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games, 6 (2), 166–173. doi:10.1109 / tciaig.2013.2290509 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  48. Eschholz, S., Chiricos, T., & Gertz, M. (2003). Television and fear of crime: Program types, audience traits, and the mediating effect of perceived neighborhood racial composition. Social Problems, 50 (3), 395–415. doi:10.1525/sp.2003.50.3.395 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  49. Fuchs, C. (2014). Digital labour and Karl Marx. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  50. Galbraith, M. (1995). Deictic shift theory and the poetics of involvement in narrative. In J. F. Duchan, G. A. Bruder, & L. E. Hewitt (Eds.), Deixis in narrative: A cognitive science perspective (pp. 19–60). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  51. Gehrau, V. (2003). (Film-) Genres und die Reduktion von Unsicherheit [(Movie) genres and the decrease in uncertainty]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 51 (2), 213–231. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  52. Gerbner, G. (1956). Toward a general model of communication. Audio Visual Communication Review, 4 (3), 171–199. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  53. Gerbner, G. (1958). On content analysis and critical research in mass communication. Audio Visual Communication Review, 6 (2), 85–108. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  54. Gerbner, G. (1964). Ideological perspectives and political tendencies in news reporting. Journalism Quarterly, 41, 495–509. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  55. Gerbner, G. (1966). Images across cultures: Teachers in mass media fiction and drama. The School Review, 74 (2), 212–230. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  56. Gerbner, G. (1969a). Toward ‘cultural indicators’: The analysis of mass mediated public message systems. AV Communication Review, 17 (2), 137–148. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  57. Gerbner, G. (1969b). Toward ‘cultural indicators’: The analysis of mass mediated public message systems. In G. Gerbner, O. Holsti, K. Krippendorff, W. J. Paisley, & P. J. Stone (Eds.), The analysis of communication content: developments in scientific theories and computer techniques (pp. 123–132). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  58. Gerbner, G. (1970). Cultural indicators: The case of violence in television drama. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 388 (1), 69–81. doi:10.1177/000271627038800108 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  59. Gerbner, G. (1972a). Communication and social environment. Scientific American, 227 (3), 153–160. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  60. Gerbner, G. (1972b). Teacher image and the hidden curriculum. The American Scholar, 42 (1), 66–92. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  61. Gerbner, G. (1973). Cultural indicators: The third voice. In G. Gerbner, L. P. Gross, & W. H. Melody (Eds.), Communication technology and social policy (pp. 555–573). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  62. Gerbner, G. (1977). Television: The new state religion? Et Cetera: A Review of General Semantics, 34 (2), 145–150. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  63. Gerbner, G. (1980a). Death in prime time: Notes on the symbolic functions of dying in the mass media. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 447 (1), 64–70. doi:10.1177/000271628044700109 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  64. Gerbner, G. (1980b). Trial by television: Are we at the point of no return. Judicature, 63 (9), 416–426. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  65. Gerbner, G. (1983). The importance of being critical—in one’s own fashion. Journal of Communication, 33 (3), 355–362. doi:10.1111/j.1460 – 2466.1983.tb02435.x Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  66. Gerbner, G. (1984). Defining the field of communication. Association for Communication Administration Bulletin, 48, 10–11. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  67. Gerbner, G. (1985). Mass media discourse: Message system analysis as a component of cultural indicators. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse and communication. New approaches to the analysis of mass media discourse and communication (pp. 13–25). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  68. Gerbner, G. (1987). Science on television: How it affects public conceptions. Issues in Science and Technology, 3 (3), 109–115. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  69. Gerbner, G. (1990). Epilogue: Advancing on the path of righteousness (maybe). In N. Signorielli & M. Morgan (Eds.), Cultivation analysis: New directions in media effects research (pp. 249–262). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  70. Gerbner, G. (1995). Marketing global mayhem. Javnost – The Public, 2 (2), 71–76. doi:10.1080/13183222.1995.11008595 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  71. Gerbner, G. (1998). Cultivation analysis: An overview. Mass Communication and Society, 1 (3–4), 175–194. doi:10.1080/15205436.1998.9677855 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  72. Gerbner, G. (1999). What do we know? In J. Shanahan & M. Morgan (Eds.), Television and its viewers: Cultivation theory and research (pp. ix–xiii). New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  73. Gerbner, G. (2001). The cultural arms of the corporate establishment: Reflections on the work of Herb Schiller. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45 (1), 186–190. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4501_14 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  74. Gerbner, G. (2012[1998]). The stories we tell and the stories we sell. Journal of International Communication, 18 (2), 237–244. doi:10.1080/13216597.2012.709928 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  75. Gerbner, G. & Gross, L. (1976a). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26 (2), 172–194. doi:10.1111/j.1460 – 2466.1976.tb01397.x Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  76. Gerbner, G. & Gross, L. (1976b). The scary world of TV’s heavy viewer. Psychology Today Magazine, 16 (3), 1–8. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  77. Gerbner, G. & Gross, L. (1979). A reply to Newcomb’s ‘humanistic critique’. Communication Research, 6 (2), 223–230. doi:10.1177/009365027900600206 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  78. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Eleey, M. F., Jackson-Beeck, M., Jeffries-Fox, S., & Signorielli, N. (1977). TV Violence Profile No. 8: The highlights. Journal of Communication, 27 (2), 171–180. doi:10.1111/j.1460 – 2466.1977.tb01845.x Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  79. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Jackson-Beeck, M., Jeffries-Fox, S., & Signorielli, N. (1977). One more time: An analysis of the CBS “final comments on the violence profile.” Journal of Broadcasting, 21 (3), 297–303. doi:10.1080/08838157709363839 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  80. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Jackson-Beeck, M., Jeffries-Fox, S., & Signorielli, N. (1978). Cultural indicators: Violence Profile No. 9. Journal of Communication, 28 (3), 176–207. doi:10. 1111/j.1460 – 2466.1978.tb01646.x Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  81. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1979). On Wober’s “televised violence and paranoid perception: The view from Great Britain”. Public Opinion Quarterly, 43 (1), 123–124. doi:10.1086/268499 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  82. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1980a). Some additional comments on cultivation analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44 (3), 408–410. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  83. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1980b). The “mainstreaming” of America: Violence Profile No. 11. Journal of Communication, 30 (3), 10–29. doi:10.1111/j.1460 – 2466.1980.tb01987.x Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  84. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1981a). A curious journey into the scary world of Paul Hirsch. Communication Research, 8 (1), 39–72. doi:10.1177/ 009365028100800102 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  85. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1981b). Final reply to Hirsch. Communication Research, 8 (3), 259–280. doi:10.1177/009365028100800301 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  86. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1981c). Health and medicine on television. The New England Journal of Medicine, 305 (15), 901–904. doi:10. 1056 / NEJM198110083051530 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  87. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1981d). On the limits of “the limits of advocacy research”: Response to Hirsch. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45 (1), 116–118. doi:10.1086/268639 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  88. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1981e). Scientists on the TV screen. Society, 18 (4), 41–44. doi:10.1007/bf02701349 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  89. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1982a). Charting the mainstream: Television’s contributions to political orientations. Journal of Communication, 32 (2), 100–127. doi:10.1111/j.1460 – 2466.1982.tb00500.x Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  90. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1982b). What television teaches about physicians and health. Möbius: A Journal for Continuing Education Professionals in Health Sciences, 2 (2), 44–51. doi:10.1002/chp.4760020209 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  91. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1984). Political correlates of television viewing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48 (1), 283–300. doi:10.1086/268826 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  92. 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 efects (pp. 17–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  93. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 43–67). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  94. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Signorielli, N., & Morgan, M. (1980a). Aging with television: Images on television drama and conceptions of social reality. Journal of Communication, 30 (1), 37–47. doi:10.1111/j.1460 – 2466.1980.tb01766.x Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  95. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Signorielli, N., & Morgan, M. (1980b). Television violence, victimization, and power. American Behavioral Scientist, 23 (5), 705–716. doi:10.1177/ 000276428002300506 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  96. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Signorielli, N., Morgan, M., & Jackson-Beeck, M. (1979). The demonstration of power: Violence Profile No. 10. Journal of Communication, 29 (3), 177–196. doi:10.1111/j.1460 – 2466.1979.tb01731.x Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  97. Gerbner, G. & Signorielli, N. (1979). Women and minorities in television drama, 1969–1978 [A research report by George Gerbner and Nancy Signorielli. For release on October 29, 1979 in collaboration with The Screen Actors Guild]. The Annenberg School of Communications, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED185178.pdf Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  98. Gilbert, N. & Troitzsch, K. (2005). Simulation for the social scientist. London: McGraw-Hill Education. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  99. Grabe, M. E. & Drew, D. G. (2007). Crime cultivation: Comparisons across media genres and channels. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51 (1), 147–171. doi:10.1080/ 08838150701308143 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  100. Green, M. C. & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (5), 701–21. doi:10. 1037/0022–3514.79.5.701 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  101. Green, M. C. & Brock, T. C. (2013). 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. 516–539). New York: Psychology Press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  102. Greenberg, B. S. (1980). Life on television. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  103. Gross, K. & Aday, S. (2003). The scary world in your living room and neighborhood: Using local broadcast news, neighborhood crime rates, and personal experience to test agenda setting and cultivation. Journal of Communication, 53 (3), 411–426. doi:10.1111/j.1460- 2466.2003.tb02599.x Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  104. Gunter, B. (1981). Measuring television violence: A review and questions for a new analytical perspective. Current Psychological Reviews, 1, 91–112. doi:10.1007/BF02979256 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  105. Hakemulder, F., Kuijpers, M. M., Tan, E. S., Bàlint, K., & Doicaru, M. M. (Eds.). (2017). Narrative Absorption. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  106. Hannula, M. S. (2006). Motivation in mathematics: Goals reflected in emotions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63 (2), 165–178. doi:10.1007/s10649–005–9019–8 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  107. Hawkins, R. P. & Pingree, S. (1980). Some processes in the cultivation effect. Communication Research, 7 (2), 193–226. doi:10.1177/009365028000700203 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  108. Hawkins, R. P. & Pingree, S. (1981a). Uniform messages and habitual viewing: Unnecessary assumptions in social reality effects. Human Communication Research, 7 (4), 291–301. doi:10.1111/j.1468 – 2958.1981.tb00576.x Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  109. Hawkins, R. P. & Pingree, S. (1981b). Using television to construct social reality. Journal of Broadcasting, 25 (4), 347–364. doi:10.1080/08838158109386459 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  110. Hawkins, R. P. & 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 80’s (pp. 224–227). Rockville, MD: NIMH. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  111. Hawkins, R. P., 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 (4), 553–577. doi:10. 1111 /j. 1468 – 2958. 1987. tb00118.x Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  112. Herman, D. (1997). Scripts, sequences, and stories: elements of a postclassical narratology. PMLA, 112 (5), 1046–1059. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  113. Herman, D. (2002). Story logic. Problems and possibilities of narrative. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  114. Herman, D. (Ed.). (2007). The Cambridge companion to narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  115. Herman, D. (2009). Basic elements of narrative. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/ 9781444305920 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  116. Herzig, B. & Assmann, S. (2014). How to define media in a mediatized society? A media pedagogical proposal inspired by theoretical ideas of Castells, Luhmann and Peirce. MedienPädagogik, 24, 18–29. doi:10.21240/mpaed/24/2014.07.18.X Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  117. Hetsroni, A. & Lowenstein, H. (2012). Cultivation and agenda setting: Conceptual and empirical intersections. In M. Morgan, J. Shanahan, & N. Signorielli (Eds.), Living with television now: Advances in cultivation theory and research (pp. 307–328). New York: Peter Lang. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  118. Himmelweit, H., Oppenheim, A., & Vince, P. (1958). Television and the child: An empirical study of the efect of television on the young. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  119. Hirsch, P. M. (1980). The ’scary world’ of the nonviewer and other anomalies: A reanalysis of Gerbner et al.’s findings on cultivation analysis part I. Communication Research, 7 (4), 403–456. doi:10.1177/009365028000700401 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  120. Hirsch, P. M. (1981). On not learning from one’s own mistakes: A reanalysis of Gerbner et al.’s findings on cultivation analysis part II. Communication Research, 8 (1), 3–37. doi:10.1177/009365028100800101 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  121. Holbert, R., Shah, D., & Kwak, N. (2004). Fear, authority, and justice: Crime-related TV viewing and endorsements of capital punishment and gun ownership. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81 (2), 343–363. doi:10.1177/107769900408100208 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  122. Horkheimer, M. & Adorno, T. W. (1973). Dialectic of enlightenment. London: Allan Lane. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  123. Horkheimer, M. & Adorno, T. W. (1993[1944]). The culture industry: Enlightenment as mass deception. In M. Horkheimer & T. W. Adorno (Eds.), Dialectic of enlightenment (pp. 94–136). New York: Continuum. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  124. Hughes, M. (1980). The fruits of cultivation analysis: A re-examination of the effects of television watching on fear of victimization, alienation, and the approval of violence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44 (4), 287–302. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  125. Hühn, P. & et al. (n.d.). The living handbook of narratology. Retrieved from http://www. lhn.uni-hamburg.de/ Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  126. Hutcheon, L. (1989). Incredulity toward metanarrative: Negotiating postmodemism and feminisms. Tessera, 7, 39–44. doi:10.25071/1923–9408.23598 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  127. Hyvärinen, M. (2010). Revisiting the narrative turns. Life Writing, 7 (1), 69–82. doi:10.1080/ 14484520903342957 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  128. Jeffres, L. W., Neuendorf, K., Bracken, C. C., & Atkin, D. (2008). Integrating theoretical traditions in media effects: Using third-person effects to link agenda-setting and cultivation. Mass Communication and Society, 11 (4), 470–491. doi:10.1080/15205430802375303 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  129. Jenner, M. (2016). Is this TVIV? On Netflix, TVIV and binge-watching. New Media & Society, 18 (2), 257–273. doi:10.1177/1461444814541523 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  130. Jin, D. Y. (2020). Globalization and media in the digital platform age. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  131. Johnson, C. (2019). Online TV. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  132. Katz, E., Gurevich, M., & Haas, H. (1973). On the use of the mass media for important things. American Sociological Review, 38 (2), 164–181. doi:10.2307/2094393 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  133. Katz, E. & Lazarsfeld, P. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. New York: Free Press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  134. Kim, B. S. & Alamilla, S. G. (2007). Acculturation and enculturation: A review of theory and research. In F. Leong, A. Ebreo, L. Kinoshita, A. Inman, L. Yang, & M. Fu (Eds.), Handbook of Asian American psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  135. Kreuter, M. W., Green, M. C., Cappella, J. N., Slater, M. D., Wise, M. E., Storey, D., Woolley, S. (2007). Narrative communication in cancer prevention and control: A framework to guide research and application. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 33 (3), 221–235. doi:10.1007/BF02879904 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  136. Leech-Wilkinson, D. (2017). Musical shape and feeling. In D. Leech-Wilkinson & H. M. Prior (Eds.), Music and shape (pp. 359–382). New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  137. Lobato, R. (2018). Rethinking international tv flows research in the age of netflix. Television & New Media, 19 (3), 241–256. doi:10.1177/1527476417708245 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  138. Lobato, R. & Ryan, M. D. (2011). Rethinking genre studies through distribution analysis: Issues in international horror movie circuits. New Review of Film and Television Studies, 9 (2), 188–203. doi:10.1080/17400309.2011.556944 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  139. Lotz, A. (2017a). Linking industrial and creative change in 21st-century US television. Media International Australia, 164 (1), 10–20. doi:10.1177/1329878X17707066 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  140. Lotz, A. (2017b). Portals: A treatise on internet-distributed television. Ann Arbor: Maize Publishing. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  141. Luhmann, N. (2000). The reality of the mass media. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  142. Madrigal, A. (January 2, 2014). How netflix reverse engineered hollywood. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/01/how-netflix-reverse-engineered-hollywood/282679/ Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  143. Marsen, S. (2014). ‘‘Lock the Doors”: Toward a narrative–semiotic approach to organizational crisis. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 28 (3), 301–326. doi:10.1177/ 1050651914524781 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  144. McQuail, D. (2010). Mass communication theory. London: Sage. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  145. McQuail, D. & Windahl, S. (1981). Communication models: For the study of mass communications. New York: Longman. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  146. Metag, J. (2016). Content analysis in climate change communication. In M. Nisbet (Ed.), The Oxford encyclopedia of climate change communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.486 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  147. Miller, C. R. (2012). New genres, now and then. In S. Hulan, M. McArthur, & R. A. Harris (Eds.), Literature, rhetoric and values: selected proceedings of a conference held at the University of Waterloo, 3–5 june 2011 (pp. 127–148). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  148. Mittell, J. (2001). A cultural approach to television genre theory. Cinema Journal, 40 (3), 3–24. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  149. 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 20 (pp. 1–45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  150. Morgan, M. & Shanahan, J. (2010). The state of cultivation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54 (2), 337–355. doi:10.1080/08838151003735018 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  151. Morgan, M. & Shanahan, J. (2017). Television and the cultivation of authoritarianism: A return visit from an unexpected friend. Journal of Communication, 67 (3), 424–444. doi:10.1111/jcom.12297 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  152. Morgan, M., Shanahan, J., & Signorielli, N. (2012). The stories we tell: Cultivation theory and research. In M. Morgan, J. Shanahan, & N. Signorielli (Eds.), Living with television now: Advances in cultivation theory and research (pp. 1–14). New York: Peter Lang. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  153. Morgan, M., Shanahan, J., & Signorielli, N. (2014). Cultivation theory in the twenty-first century. In R. Fortner & P. Fackler (Eds.), The handbook of media and mass communication theory (pp. 480–497). Walden, MA: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  154. Morgan, M., Shanahan, J., & Signorielli, N. (2015). Yesterday’s new cultivation, tomorrow. Mass Communication and Society, 18 (5), 674–699. doi:10.1080/15205436.2015.1072725 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  155. Morgan, M., Shanahan, J., & Signorielli, N. (2017). Cultivation theory: Idea, topical fields, and methodology. In P. Rössler, C. A. Hoffner, & L. van Zoonen (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of media effects (pp. 1–14). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  156. Morgan, M. & Signorielli, N. (1990). Cultivation analysis: Conceptualization and methodology. In N. Signorielli & M. Morgan (Eds.), Cultivation analysis: New directions in media effects research (pp. 13–34). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  157. Mosharafa, E. (2015). All you need to know about: The cultivation theory. Global Journal of Human Social Science, 15 (8), 23–37. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  158. Murdock, G. (2006). Notes from the number one country. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 12 (2), 209–227. doi:10.1080/10286630600813727 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  159. Nabi, R. L. (2009). Cosmetic surgery makeover programs and intentions to undergo cosmetic enhancements: A consideration of three models of media effects. Human Communication Research, 35 (1), 1–27. doi:10.1111/j.1468 – 2958.2008.01336.x Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  160. Napoli, P. M. (2016). Special issue introduction: big data and media management. International Journal on Media Management, 18 (1), 1–7. doi:10.1080/14241277.2016.1185888 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  161. Neale, S. (2015). Studying genre. In G. Creeber (Ed.), The television genre book (pp. 3–4). London: British Film Institute. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  162. Neumann, B. & Nünning, A. (n.d.). Metanarration and metafiction. In P. Hühn & et al. (Eds.), The living handbook of narratology. Retrieved from http://www.lhn.uni–hamburg.de/article/metanarration-and-metafiction Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  163. Newcomb, H. (1978). Assessing the Violence Profile Studies of Gerbner and Gross. Communication Research, 5 (3), 264–282. doi:10.1177/009365027800500303 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  164. Newhagen, J. & Lewenstein, M. (1992). Cultivation and exposure to television following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Mass Comm Review, 18, 49–56. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  165. Nielsen. (2016, June). Milestone Marker: SVOD and DVR penetration are now on par with one another. Nielsen Insights. Retrieved from http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2016/milestone-marker-svod-and-dvr-penetration-on-par-with-one-another.html Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  166. Nielsen. (2017). The Nielsen Total Audience Report, Q1–2017. Retrieved from http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports/2017/the- nielsen- total- audience- report- q1- 2017.html Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  167. Nielsen. (2018). The Nielsen Total Audience Report, Q3–2018. Retrieved from https://www.nielsen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/04/q3–2018-total-audience-report.pdf Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  168. Nünning, A. (2003). Narratology or narratologies: New perspectives on narrative analysis. In T. Kindt & H.-H. Müller (Eds.), What is narratology?: Questions and answers regarding the status of a theory (pp. 239–276). Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  169. O’Connor, C. (2019). The natural selection of conservative science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 76, 24–29. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.09.007 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  170. Oliver, M. B., Dillard, J. P., Bae, K., & Tamul, D. J. (2012). The effect of narrative news format on empathy for stigmatized groups. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89 (2), 205–224. doi:10.1177/1077699012439020 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  171. Olsen, G. (Ed.). (2011). Current trends in narratology. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  172. Oschatz, C. & Klimmt, C. (2016). The effectiveness of narrative communication in road safety education: A moderated mediation model. Communications, 41 (2), 145–165. doi:10.1515/commun-2016–0003 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  173. Peirce, C. S. (1993[1884–1886]). Writings of Charles S. Peirce. A chronological edition (C. J. W. Kloesel, N. Houser, U. Niklas, M. Simon, A. Houser, A. de Tienne,... M. H. Fisch, Eds.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  174. Pelzer, E. & Raemy, P. (2020). What shapes the cultivation effects from infotaining content? Toward a theoretical foundation for journalism studies. Journalism. doi:10.1177/ 1464884920922704 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  175. Phelan, J. & Rabinowitz, P. (Eds.). (2005). A companion to narrative theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  176. Picard, R. G. (2003). Media economics, content, and diversity: Primary results from a Finnish study. In P. Hovi-Wasastjerna (Ed.), Media culture research programme (pp. 107–120). Helsinki: Academy of Finland. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  177. Popescu, S. O. (2013). Hyper-real narratives: The emergence of contemporary film subgenres hyper-real narratives. Journal of Literature and Art Studies, 3 (9), 568–575. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  178. Posner, R. (2004). Basic tasks of cultural semiotics. In G. Withalm & J. Wallmansberger (Eds.), Signs of power — power of signs. Essays in honor of Jef Bernard (pp. 56–89). Vienna: INST. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  179. Potter, W. J. (1981). The linearity assumption in cultivation research. Human Communication Research, 17, 562–583. doi:10.1111/j.1468 – 2958.1991.tb00244.x Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  180. Potter, W. J. (1990). Adolescents’ perceptions of the primary values of television programming. Journalism Quarterly, 67 (4), 843–851. doi:10.1177/107769909006700439 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  181. Potter, W. J. (1993). Cultivation theory and research. A conceptual critique. Human Communication Research, 19 (4), 564–601. doi:10.1111/j.1468 – 2958.1993.tb00313.x Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  182. Potter, W. J. (1994). Cultivation theory and research. A methodological critique. Journalism Monograph, 147, 1–34. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  183. Potter, W. J. (2012). Media effects (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  184. Potter, W. J. (2014). A critical analysis of cultivation theory. Journal of Communication, 64 (6), 1015–1036. doi:10.1111/jcom.12128 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  185. Potter, W. J. & Chang, I. C. (1990). Television exposure measures and the cultivation hypothesis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 34 (3), 313–333. doi:10.1080/ 08838159009386745 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  186. Potter, W. J., Pashupati, K., Pekurny, R. G., Hoffman, E., & Davis, K. (2002). Perceptions of television: A schema explanation. Media Psychology, 4 (1), 27–50. doi:10.1207/ S1532785XMEP0401_02 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  187. Potter, W. J. & Riddle, K. (2007). A content analysis of the media effects literature. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84 (1), 90–104. doi:10.1177/107769900708400107 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  188. Potter, W. J. & Ware, W. (1987). An analysis of the contexts of antisocial acts on prime-time television. Communication Research, 14 (6), 664–686. doi:10.1177/009365087014006003 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  189. Prince, G. (1999). Revisiting narrativity. In W. Grünzweig & A. Solbach (Eds.), Grenzüberschreitungen: Narratologie im Kontext [Blurring boundaries: Contextualizing narratology] (pp. 43–51). Tübingen: Narr. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  190. Prince, G. (2008). Classical and/or postclassical narratology. L’Esprit Créateur, 48 (2), 115- 123. doi:10.1353/esp.0.0005 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  191. Prince, L. (2018). Conceptualizing television viewing in the digital age: Patterns of exposure and the cultivation process (Dissertation). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass. edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2214&context=dissertations_2 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  192. Quick, B. L. (2009). The effects of viewing Grey’s Anatomy on perceptions of doctors and patient satisfaction. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53 (1), 38–55. doi:10. 1080/08838150802643563 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  193. Quintero-Johnson, J. M. & Sangalang, A. (2017). Testing the explanatory power of two measures of narrative involvement: an investigation of the influence of transportation and narrative engagement on the process of narrative persuasion. Media Psychology, 20 (1), 144–173. doi:10.1080/15213269.2016.1160788 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  194. R Core Team. (n.d.). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. In R foundation for statistical computing. Vienna: Austria. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  195. Richardson, B. (2012). Unnatural narratology. Basic concepts and recent work. [Review of: Jan Alber / Rüdiger Heinze: unnatural narratives – unnatural narratology. Berlin 2011. Per Krogh Hansen / Stefan Iversen / Henrik Skov Nielsen / Rolf Reitan (eds.): strange voices in narrative fiction. Berlin 2011. David Herman / James Phelan / Peter Rabinowitz / Brian Richardson / Robyn Warhol: narrative theory: core concepts and critical debates. Columbus 2012]. Diegesis. Interdisciplinary E-Journal for Narrative Research, 1 (1), 95–103. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  196. Russell, D. (2010). Master narrative. In M. Ryan (Ed.), The encyclopedia of literary and cultural theory (Vol. 2, pp. 1–4). Wiley Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444337839.wbelctv2m003 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  197. Ryan, M.-L. (n.d.). Narration in various media. In P. Hühn & et al. (Eds.), The living handbook of narratology. Retrieved from http://www.lhn.uni- hamburg.de/article/ narration-various-media Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  198. Ryan, M.-L. (Ed.). (2004). Narrative across media: The languages of storytelling. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  199. Ryan, M.-L. (2007). Toward a definition of narrative. In D. Herman (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to narrative (pp. 22–35). New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  200. Schiller, H. I. (2000). Living in the number one country: Reflections from a critic of American empire. New York: Seven Stories Press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  201. Schneider, F. M. (2012). Measuring subjective movie evaluation criteria. Conceptual foundation, construction, and validation of the SMEC scales (Dissertation). Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:hbz:lan1-7813 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  202. Schramm, W., Lyle, J., & Parker, E. (1961). Television in the lives of our children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  203. Segal, E. M. (1995). Narrative comprehension and the role of deictic shift theory. In J. F. Duchan, G. A. Bruder, & L. E. Hewitt (Eds.), Deixis in narrative: A cognitive science perspective (pp. 3–18). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  204. Segrin, C. & Nabi, R. L. (2002). Does television viewing cultivate unrealistic expectations about marriage? Journal of Communication, 52 (2), 247–263. doi:10. 1111 / j. 1460 – 2466.2002.tb02543.x Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  205. Selnow, G. W. (1986). Solving problems on prime-time television. Journal of Communication, 36 (2), 63–72. doi:10.1111/j.1460 – 2466.1986.tb01424.x Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  206. Shanahan, J. & Morgan, M. (1999). Television and its viewers: Cultivation theory and research. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  207. Shanahan, J. & Scheufele, D. (2012). Cultivation and the spiral of silence: Theoretical and empirical investigations. In M. Morgan, J. Shanahan, & N. Signorielli (Eds.), Living with television now: Advances in cultivation theory and research (pp. 347–365). New York: Peter Lang. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  208. Shen, F., Sheer, V. C., & Li, R. (2015). Impact of narratives on persuasion in health communication: A meta-analysis. Journal of Advertising, 44 (2), 105–113. doi:10. 1080 / 00913367.2015.1018467 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  209. 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 (Vol. 2, pp. 50–73). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  210. Signorielli, N., Gerbner, G., & Morgan, M. (1995). Standpoint: Violence on television: The cultural indicators project. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 39 (2), 278- 283. doi:10.1080/08838159509364304 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  211. Signorielli, N., Gross, L., & Morgan, M. (1982). Violence in television programs: Ten years later. In D. Pearl, L. Bouthilet, & J. Lazar (Eds.), Television and behavior: Ten years of scientific progress and implications for the 80’s (Vol. 2, pp. 158–173). Rockville, MD: NIMH. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  212. Signorielli, N., Morgan, M., & Shanahan, J. (2019). The Violence Profile: Five decades of Cultural Indicators Research. Mass Communication and Society, 22 (1), 1–28. doi:10. 1080/15205436.2018.1475011 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  213. Singer, J. B. (2018). Transmission creep. Media effects theories and journalism studies in a digital era. Journalism Studies, 19 (2), 209–226. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2016.1186498 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  214. Slater, M. D. & Rouner, D. (2002). Entertainment-education and elaboration likelihood: Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory, 12 (2), 173–191. doi:10.1111/j.1468 – 2885.2002.tb00265.x Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  215. Smaldino, P. E. (2017). Models are stupid, and we need more of them. In R. R. Vallacher, S. J. Read, & A. Nowak (Eds.), Computational social psychology (pp. 311–331). New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315173726–14 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  216. Smaldino, P. E. (2020). How to translate a verbal theory into a formal model. Social Psychology, 51(4), 207–218. doi:10.1027/1864–9335/a000425 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  217. Smith, E. R. & Queller, S. (2001). Mental representations. In A. Tesser & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intraindividual processes (pp. 111–133). Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  218. Smith-Rowsey, D. (2016). Imaginative indices and deceptive domains: How Netflix’s categories and genres redefine the long tail. In D. Smith-Rowsey (Ed.), The Netflix effect: Technology and entertainment in the 21st century (pp. 63–80). New York: Bloomsbury Academic. doi:10.5040/9781501309410.ch-005 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  219. Stam, R., Burgoyne, R., & Flitterman-Lewis, S. (2005). New vocabularies in film semiotics. Structuralism, post-structuralism and beyond. London: Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  220. Stein, J.-P., Krause, E., & Ohler, P. (2019). Every (insta)gram counts? Applying cultivation theory to explore the effects of instagram on young users’ body image. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/ppm0000268 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  221. Steininger, C. & Woelke, J. (2008). Separating TV ads from TV programming. What we can learn about program-integrated advertising from economic theory and research on media use. Communications, 33 (4), 455–471. doi:10.1515/COMM.2008.028 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  222. Tamborini, R. & Choi, J. (1990). The role of cultural diversity in cultivation research. In N. Signorielli & M. Morgan (Eds.), Cultivation analysis: new directions in media effects research (pp. 157–180). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  223. Tamborini, R., Weber, R., Eden, A., Bowman, N. D., & Grizzard, M. (2010). Repeated exposure to daytime soap opera and shifts in moral judgment toward social convention. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54 (4), 621–640. doi:10.1080/08838151. 2010.519806 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  224. Tapper, J. (1995). The ecology of cultivation: A conceptual model for cuitivation research. Communication Theory, 5 (1), 36–57. doi:10.1111/j.1468 – 2885.1995.tb00097.x Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  225. Tarasti, E. (2004). Music as a narrative art. In M.-L. Ryan (Ed.), Narrative across media: The languages of storytelling (pp. 283–304). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  226. The Cultural Indicators Research Team. (1977). ‘‘The Gerbner violence profile”—an analysis of the CBS report. Journal of Broadcasting, 21 (3), 280–286. doi:10.1080/08838157709363837 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  227. Tsay-Vogel, M., Shanahan, J., & Signorielli, N. (2018). Social media cultivating perceptions of privacy: A 5-year analysis of privacy attitudes and self-disclosure behaviors among Facebook users. New Media & Society, 20 (1), 141–161. doi:10.1177/1461444816660731 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  228. Uricchio, W. (2014). Film, cinema, television ... media? New Review of Film and Television Studies, 12 (3), 266–279. doi:10.1080/17400309.2014.926656 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  229. Van Cuilenburg, J. V. (2000). On measuring media competition and media diversity: Concepts, theories and methods. In R. G. Picard (Ed.), Measuring media content, quality, and diversity (pp. 51–80). Tuku, Finland: Suomen Akatemia. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  230. Van den Bulck, J. (2012). International cultivation. In M. Morgan, J. Shanahan, & N. Signorielli (Eds.), Living with television now: Advances in cultivation theory and research (pp. 238–260). New York: Peter Lang. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  231. Varian, H. (1997). How to build an economic model in your spare time. The American Economist, 41 (2), 3–10. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  232. Walsh, R. (2010). Person, level, voice. A rhetorical reconsideration. In J. Alber & M. Fludernik (Eds.), Postclassical narratology. Approaches and analyses (pp. 35–57). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  233. Ward, L. M., Merryweather, A., & Caruthers, A. (2006). Breasts are for men: Media, masculine ideologies, and men’s beliefs about women’s bodies. Sex Roles, 55, 703–714. doi:10.1007/s11199–006–9125–9 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  234. Weisberg, M. (2012). Simulation and similarity: Using models to understand the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  235. Williams, D. (2006). Virtual cultivation: Online worlds, offline perceptions. Journal of Communication, 56 (1), 69–87. doi:10.1111/j.1460 – 2466.2006.00004.x Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  236. Wober, J. (1978). Televised violence and paranoid perception: The view from Great Britain. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42 (3), 315–321. doi:10.1086/268455 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948
  237. Wober, J. (1979). Televised violence and viewers’ perceptions of reality: A reply to criticisms of some British research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 43 (2), 271–273. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748926948

Ähnliche Veröffentlichungen

aus der Reihe "Reihe Rezeptionsforschung"
Cover des Buchs: Neuere Forschung zu parasozialen Interaktionen und Beziehungen
Monographie Teilzugriff
Holger Schramm, Nicole Liebers, Laurenz Biniak, Franca Dettmar
Neuere Forschung zu parasozialen Interaktionen und Beziehungen
Cover des Buchs: Nachhaltigkeit als Gegenstand und Zielgröße der Rezeptions- und Wirkungsforschung
Sammelband Kein Zugriff
Anna Sophie Kümpel, Christina Peter, Anna Schnauber-Stockmann, Frank Mangold
Nachhaltigkeit als Gegenstand und Zielgröße der Rezeptions- und Wirkungsforschung
Cover des Buchs: Romantische parasoziale Interaktionen und Beziehungen mit Mediencharakteren
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Nicole Liebers
Romantische parasoziale Interaktionen und Beziehungen mit Mediencharakteren
Cover des Buchs: Informationsselektion mit Suchmaschinen
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Julian Unkel
Informationsselektion mit Suchmaschinen
Cover des Buchs: Meinungsbildung in der Netzöffentlichkeit
Sammelband Kein Zugriff
Patrick Weber, Frank Mangold, Matthias Hofer, Thomas Koch
Meinungsbildung in der Netzöffentlichkeit

Hinweis

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt und darf nur nach den Vorgaben der Nutzungs- und Lizenzvereinbarung genutzt werden. Jede darüber hinaus gehende Nutzung des Werkes ist ausdrücklich untersagt und wird verfolgt.

Feedback geben

Wir freuen uns über Ihr Feedback zu Inhalten und Funktionen. Ihre Nachricht hilft uns, unseren Service stetig zu verbessern.

Bewertung
Bild anhängen
oder hier ablegen
PNG oder JPG (max. 3 MB)

Anmelden

Passwort vergessen?
Login über Ihre Institution (SSO, Shibboleth, OpenAthens)
Noch kein Benutzerkonto?
Jetzt registrieren

Publikation zitieren

Download: RIS BibTex