Cover of book: Living with Cultivating Messages
Buy in shop
, to see if you have full access to this publication.
Book Titles No access

Living with Cultivating Messages

What Are the Constructs that Compose Media Messages in Cultivation Theory?
Authors:
Series:
Reihe Rezeptionsforschung, Volume 42
Publisher:
 2021

Summary

How are our conceptions of social reality affected by messages from television? Most cultivation studies addressing this question focus on media effects. However, this book adopts a new perspective and examines cultivating messages themselves. The book addresses what messages are and how uniform messages differ from genre-specific messages and metanarratives. It brings together different perspectives and introduces a new concept, coined 'subgenre messages', which takes into account the shift towards online television in the media landscape. The book’s computational simulation study shows how some message concepts are more similar than others. Finally, subgenre messages emerge as the most robust in the face of bias.

Keywords

Bibliographic data

Copyright year
2021
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-8304-5
ISBN-Online
978-3-7489-2694-8
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series
Reihe Rezeptionsforschung
Volume
42
Language
English
Pages
224
Product type
Book Titles

Table of contents

ChapterPages
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis No access 1 - 20
    1. 1.1 From Living with Television towards Living with Cultivating Messages No access
    2. 1.2 Premises, Rationale, and Structure No access
      1. 2.1.1 Prelude to Cultural Indicators Project No access
        1. 2.1.2.1 Theoretical Implications of the Cultural Indicators Project No access
        2. 2.1.2.2 Some Empirical Assessment of the Cultural Indicators Project No access
        1. 2.1.3.1 Four Measures for Message System Analysis No access
        2. 2.1.3.2 Analyses in Message System Analysis No access
        3. 2.1.3.3 Example of Empirical Assessment No access
        1. 2.1.4.1 Some Critique on Theoretical Implications No access
        2. 2.1.4.2 Some Critique and Advances in Methodology No access
      1. 2.2.1 Gerbner’s Idea of Television No access
      2. 2.2.2 Television Today: What Is Online Television? No access
      3. 2.2.3 Consequences of Online Television for Cultural Indicators Project No access
    1. 3.1 Why to Consider Genre, Narrative, & Message No access
      1. 3.2.1 History and Genre from the Linguistic Perspective No access
      2. 3.2.2 Financial Forces and Genre from the Economic Perspective No access
      3. 3.2.3 Reality Observation and Genre from the Sociological Perspective No access
      4. 3.2.4 Knowledge Structures and Genre from the Psychological Perspective No access
      5. 3.2.5 Implications of the Four Moderating Factors No access
      1. 3.3.1 Narrative Turn Across Fields No access
      2. 3.3.2 Narratives in Communication No access
        1. 3.3.3.1 Classical Narratology No access
        2. 3.3.3.2 Post-Classical Narratology No access
      4. 3.3.4 Implications from Semiotics for Communication No access
      1. 3.4.1 Defining Messages in Cultivation No access
      2. 3.4.2 Messages in Semiotics No access
    5. 3.5 Interim Conclusion No access
      1. 4.1.1 Critical Theory and Uniform Messages No access
      2. 4.1.2 Precision of Uniform Messages No access
      1. 4.2.1 Tenets and Critiques of Genre-Specific Messages No access
      2. 4.2.2 Precision and Relevance of Genre-Specific Messages No access
      1. 4.3.1 Postmodernism and Narratology on Metanarratives No access
        1. 4.3.2.1 Multi-Generic Status No access
        2. 4.3.2.2 Nested Structure No access
      1. 4.4.1 Consequences from Former Message Concepts No access
      2. 4.4.2 Subgenres and Online Television No access
      3. 4.4.3 Assumptions of Subgenre Messages in Cultivation No access
    1. 5.1 Postulates and Lemmas of Message Conceptualizations No access
    2. 5.2 Summary and Research Question No access
      1. 6.1.1 Data Generating Framework: True Message Concepts No access
      2. 6.1.2 Data Analytical Framework: Estimated Message Concepts & Strength of Belief No access
        1. 6.2.1.1 DAF Results for Viewing Groups when Uniform Messages as DGF No access
        2. 6.2.1.2 DAF Results for Viewing Groups when Genre-Specific Messages as DGF No access
        3. 6.2.1.3 DAF Results for Viewing Groups when Metanarratives as DGF No access
        4. 6.2.1.4 DAF Results for Viewing Groups when Subgenre Messages as DGF No access
        1. 6.2.2.1 DAF Results for Belief Effects when Uniform Messages as DGF No access
        2. 6.2.2.2 DAF Results for Belief Effects when Genre-Specific Messages as DGF No access
        3. 6.2.2.3 DAF Results for Belief Effects when Metanarratives as DGF No access
        4. 6.2.2.4 DAF Results for Belief Effects when Subgenre Messages as DGF No access
      3. 6.2.3 Impact of Third Factors on Differences between Heavy and Light Viewers & Belief Effects No access
    1. 7.1 Implications of the Simulation Results for Assessing the Impact of Message Concepts No access
      1. 7.2.1 Common Limitations of Simulation No access
      2. 7.2.2 Modelling Viewing Choice Behavior No access
      3. 7.2.3 Distinction between Heavy and Light Viewers No access
    3. 7.3 General Implications for the Future of Cultivation Theory No access
  9. Chapter Eight Conclusion No access 185 - 190
  10. REFERENCES No access 191 - 206
    1. Appendix A Tables & Figures No access
    2. Appendix B Narrative Glossary No access
    3. Appendix C R Code for Simulation No access

Bibliography (237)

  1. Abbott, H. P. (2008). The Cambridge introduction to narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511816932 Open Google Scholar
  2. Adorno, T. W. (1991[1972—1981]). The culture industry: Selected essays on mass culture. London: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  4. Alber, J. & Fludernik, M. (Eds.). (2010). Postclassical narratology. Approaches and analyses. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press. Open Google Scholar
  5. Altman, R. (1984). A semantic/syntactic approach to film genre. Cinema Journal, 23 (3), 6–18. doi:10.2307/1225093 Open Google Scholar
  6. Altman, R. (2000). Film/genre. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  9. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogical imagination. Austin: University of Texas. Open Google Scholar
  10. Bakhtin, M. & Medvedev, P. (1985). The formal method of literary scholarship. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  13. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  21. Bordwell, D. (1989). A case for cognitivism. Iris, 5 (2), 11–40. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  23. Brown, C. & Augusta-Scott, T. (2006). Narrative therapy: Making meaning, making lives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  28. Busselle, R. W. & Bilandzic, H. (2009). Measuring narrative engagement. Media Psychology, 12, 321–347. doi:10.1080/15213260903287259 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  33. Cobley, P. (2001). Analysing narrative genres. Sign system studies, 29 (2), 479–502. Open Google Scholar
  34. Cohen, B. C. (1963). The press and foreign policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  36. Connelly, F. & Clandinin, D. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative enquiry. Educational Researcher, 19 (5), 2–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X019005002 Open Google Scholar
  37. Craig, R. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9 (2), 119–161. doi:10.1111/j.1468 – 2885.1999.tb00355.x Open Google Scholar
  38. Cumberbatch, G., Jones, I., & Lee, M. (1988). Measuring violence on television. Current Psychology: Research & Reviews, 7 (1), 10–25. doi:10.1007/BF02686661 Open Google Scholar
  39. Danesi, M. (2004). Messages, signs, and meanings: A basic textbook in semiotics and communication theory. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  44. Duchan, J. F., Bruder, G. A., & Hewitt, L. E. (1995). Deixis in narrative: a cognitive science perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  49. Fuchs, C. (2014). Digital labour and Karl Marx. New York: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  51. Gehrau, V. (2003). (Film-) Genres und die Reduktion von Unsicherheit [(Movie) genres and the decrease in uncertainty]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 51 (2), 213–231. Open Google Scholar
  52. Gerbner, G. (1956). Toward a general model of communication. Audio Visual Communication Review, 4 (3), 171–199. Open Google Scholar
  53. Gerbner, G. (1958). On content analysis and critical research in mass communication. Audio Visual Communication Review, 6 (2), 85–108. Open Google Scholar
  54. Gerbner, G. (1964). Ideological perspectives and political tendencies in news reporting. Journalism Quarterly, 41, 495–509. Open Google Scholar
  55. Gerbner, G. (1966). Images across cultures: Teachers in mass media fiction and drama. The School Review, 74 (2), 212–230. Open Google Scholar
  56. Gerbner, G. (1969a). Toward ‘cultural indicators’: The analysis of mass mediated public message systems. AV Communication Review, 17 (2), 137–148. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  59. Gerbner, G. (1972a). Communication and social environment. Scientific American, 227 (3), 153–160. Open Google Scholar
  60. Gerbner, G. (1972b). Teacher image and the hidden curriculum. The American Scholar, 42 (1), 66–92. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  62. Gerbner, G. (1977). Television: The new state religion? Et Cetera: A Review of General Semantics, 34 (2), 145–150. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  64. Gerbner, G. (1980b). Trial by television: Are we at the point of no return. Judicature, 63 (9), 416–426. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  66. Gerbner, G. (1984). Defining the field of communication. Association for Communication Administration Bulletin, 48, 10–11. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  68. Gerbner, G. (1987). Science on television: How it affects public conceptions. Issues in Science and Technology, 3 (3), 109–115. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  70. Gerbner, G. (1995). Marketing global mayhem. Javnost – The Public, 2 (2), 71–76. doi:10.1080/13183222.1995.11008595 Open Google Scholar
  71. Gerbner, G. (1998). Cultivation analysis: An overview. Mass Communication and Society, 1 (3–4), 175–194. doi:10.1080/15205436.1998.9677855 Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  76. Gerbner, G. & Gross, L. (1976b). The scary world of TV’s heavy viewer. Psychology Today Magazine, 16 (3), 1–8. Open Google Scholar
  77. Gerbner, G. & Gross, L. (1979). A reply to Newcomb’s ‘humanistic critique’. Communication Research, 6 (2), 223–230. doi:10.1177/009365027900600206 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  82. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1980a). Some additional comments on cultivation analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44 (3), 408–410. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  85. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1981b). Final reply to Hirsch. Communication Research, 8 (3), 259–280. doi:10.1177/009365028100800301 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  88. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1981e). Scientists on the TV screen. Society, 18 (4), 41–44. doi:10.1007/bf02701349 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  98. Gilbert, N. & Troitzsch, K. (2005). Simulation for the social scientist. London: McGraw-Hill Education. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  102. Greenberg, B. S. (1980). Life on television. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  105. Hakemulder, F., Kuijpers, M. M., Tan, E. S., Bàlint, K., & Doicaru, M. M. (Eds.). (2017). Narrative Absorption. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  107. Hawkins, R. P. & Pingree, S. (1980). Some processes in the cultivation effect. Communication Research, 7 (2), 193–226. doi:10.1177/009365028000700203 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  109. Hawkins, R. P. & Pingree, S. (1981b). Using television to construct social reality. Journal of Broadcasting, 25 (4), 347–364. doi:10.1080/08838158109386459 Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  112. Herman, D. (1997). Scripts, sequences, and stories: elements of a postclassical narratology. PMLA, 112 (5), 1046–1059. Open Google Scholar
  113. Herman, D. (2002). Story logic. Problems and possibilities of narrative. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Open Google Scholar
  114. Herman, D. (Ed.). (2007). The Cambridge companion to narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  115. Herman, D. (2009). Basic elements of narrative. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/ 9781444305920 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  122. Horkheimer, M. & Adorno, T. W. (1973). Dialectic of enlightenment. London: Allan Lane. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  125. Hühn, P. & et al. (n.d.). The living handbook of narratology. Retrieved from http://www. lhn.uni-hamburg.de/ Open Google Scholar
  126. Hutcheon, L. (1989). Incredulity toward metanarrative: Negotiating postmodemism and feminisms. Tessera, 7, 39–44. doi:10.25071/1923–9408.23598 Open Google Scholar
  127. Hyvärinen, M. (2010). Revisiting the narrative turns. Life Writing, 7 (1), 69–82. doi:10.1080/ 14484520903342957 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  129. Jenner, M. (2016). Is this TVIV? On Netflix, TVIV and binge-watching. New Media & Society, 18 (2), 257–273. doi:10.1177/1461444814541523 Open Google Scholar
  130. Jin, D. Y. (2020). Globalization and media in the digital platform age. New York: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  131. Johnson, C. (2019). Online TV. New York: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  133. Katz, E. & Lazarsfeld, P. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. New York: Free Press. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  140. Lotz, A. (2017b). Portals: A treatise on internet-distributed television. Ann Arbor: Maize Publishing. Open Google Scholar
  141. Luhmann, N. (2000). The reality of the mass media. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  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/ Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  144. McQuail, D. (2010). Mass communication theory. London: Sage. Open Google Scholar
  145. McQuail, D. & Windahl, S. (1981). Communication models: For the study of mass communications. New York: Longman. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  148. Mittell, J. (2001). A cultural approach to television genre theory. Cinema Journal, 40 (3), 3–24. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  150. Morgan, M. & Shanahan, J. (2010). The state of cultivation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54 (2), 337–355. doi:10.1080/08838151003735018 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  157. Mosharafa, E. (2015). All you need to know about: The cultivation theory. Global Journal of Human Social Science, 15 (8), 23–37. Open Google Scholar
  158. Murdock, G. (2006). Notes from the number one country. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 12 (2), 209–227. doi:10.1080/10286630600813727 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  161. Neale, S. (2015). Studying genre. In G. Creeber (Ed.), The television genre book (pp. 3–4). London: British Film Institute. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  163. Newcomb, H. (1978). Assessing the Violence Profile Studies of Gerbner and Gross. Communication Research, 5 (3), 264–282. doi:10.1177/009365027800500303 Open Google Scholar
  164. Newhagen, J. & Lewenstein, M. (1992). Cultivation and exposure to television following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Mass Comm Review, 18, 49–56. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  171. Olsen, G. (Ed.). (2011). Current trends in narratology. Berlin: De Gruyter. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  175. Phelan, J. & Rabinowitz, P. (Eds.). (2005). A companion to narrative theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  180. Potter, W. J. (1990). Adolescents’ perceptions of the primary values of television programming. Journalism Quarterly, 67 (4), 843–851. doi:10.1177/107769909006700439 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  182. Potter, W. J. (1994). Cultivation theory and research. A methodological critique. Journalism Monograph, 147, 1–34. Open Google Scholar
  183. Potter, W. J. (2012). Media effects (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Open Google Scholar
  184. Potter, W. J. (2014). A critical analysis of cultivation theory. Journal of Communication, 64 (6), 1015–1036. doi:10.1111/jcom.12128 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  190. Prince, G. (2008). Classical and/or postclassical narratology. L’Esprit Créateur, 48 (2), 115- 123. doi:10.1353/esp.0.0005 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  194. R Core Team. (n.d.). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. In R foundation for statistical computing. Vienna: Austria. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  198. Ryan, M.-L. (Ed.). (2004). Narrative across media: The languages of storytelling. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  200. Schiller, H. I. (2000). Living in the number one country: Reflections from a critic of American empire. New York: Seven Stories Press. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  202. Schramm, W., Lyle, J., & Parker, E. (1961). Television in the lives of our children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  206. Shanahan, J. & Morgan, M. (1999). Television and its viewers: Cultivation theory and research. New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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). Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  219. Stam, R., Burgoyne, R., & Flitterman-Lewis, S. (2005). New vocabularies in film semiotics. Structuralism, post-structuralism and beyond. London: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  231. Varian, H. (1997). How to build an economic model in your spare time. The American Economist, 41 (2), 3–10. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  234. Weisberg, M. (2012). Simulation and similarity: Using models to understand the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar

Similar publications

from the topics "Computer and Internet", "Film & Television & Cinema", "Media Effects Research & Media Usage Research", "Media Science, Communication Research"
Cover of book: Ethik der Kryptographie
Book Titles Full access
Laurence Lerch
Ethik der Kryptographie
Cover of book: Israel in deutschen Medien
Book Titles No access
Jonas Hessenauer, Lukas Uwira
Israel in deutschen Medien
Cover of book: Medienmanagement
Educational Book No access
Ingo Knuth, Thomas Kilian
Medienmanagement
Cover of book: Konstruktiver Journalismus
Book Titles Full access
Julia Faltermeier
Konstruktiver Journalismus
Cover of book: Neuere Forschung zu parasozialen Interaktionen und Beziehungen
Book Titles Partial access
Holger Schramm, Nicole Liebers, Laurenz Biniak, Franca Dettmar
Neuere Forschung zu parasozialen Interaktionen und Beziehungen

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Give feedback

We welcome your feedback on content and features. Your message helps us to continuously improve our service.

Rating
Attach images
or drag and drop
PNG or JPG (max. 3 MB)

Login

Forgotten your password?
Login via Open Athens
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex