Cultivation theory was theorized by George Gerbner. He recognized that the television was creating a dramatic shift in the way that people were influenced on a daily basis. Furthermore, according to Gerbner, he believed that violence was a staple to the television world because it was the cheapest, and most dramatic way to create entertainment. With that, Gerbner came up with "mean world syndrome."
Mean world syndrome is a mindset created from too much TV viewing that creates an overall mistrust of other people. However, keep in mind that much research on this topic has come up short as inconclusive.
After reviewing this theory, I was able to understand and relate to the theory well, simply through personal experiences. Many current movies and television shows are along the lines of gruesome, thriller, crime dramas. In the media today there has been a lot of discussion about this relating to real-world violence (school shootings, gruesome murders, and general gun violence). While this is all very relevant to the cultivation theory, I would like to propose a less direct link–reality TV.
Reality TV from what I have experienced, has created a false reality for many (primarily young) people. I say this with shows in mind like "Keeping Up With the Kardashians." This shows "characters" essentially create a world where materialistic values rule. There is less of a focus on others, and more of a focus on self. This world alters the importance of more traditional "human" values. The link between this and the mean world syndrome may be distant, but I find the link to be "the general mistrust of others…by heavy TV viewers." If one were to watch this show (or shows similar) they would probably begin to feel like they were not good enough because their lives are incomparable to the lives of the Kardashians. With that in mind, various fears would most likely emerge to things like eating disorders, robbery, plastic surgery, and people becoming really annoying to try to fit in (just being honest). Clearly, the fear isn't a criminal fear as much as it is a personal fear–a self fear.
In conclusion, this is a stretch I realize, but I think that it has some connection. The world is changing, and even though reality TV has had somewhat of a drop in viewership, there is still a large following. Many people have been vocal about the obvious effects that have taken place since reality TV, but we have yet to see the long term effects.
We all have those awkward moments in life like going on dates and trying to find things in common, or even working on group projects and attempting to relate to group members to make the experience more enjoyable. Our natural instinct is often times to relate to the people around us, and create some type of community. In some circumstances, this can feel like a forced practice because you (and everyone else) wants to fit in, in the end. Below I will discuss what the heck our minds are thinking.
In the above video from Natalie Tran, she is attempting to great a a unifying system between herself, and the people that she encounters. Natalie describes feeling like she is in a "special club" with a person when they are wearing something like a shirt, from a show that she also enjoys. This "special club" is called a fantasy chain. This is where two or more people become excited, and begin to bond about something that unifies them (movie, event, music, etc.). In the video, Natalie gives examples of failed attempts to create a fantasy chain. In her attempts, she uses many dramatizing messages to attract the attention of the other person, but she fails to create dramatizing messages that correlate well with her fantasy chain "topic." That's why I feel she has failed in creating a successful fantasy chain.
Dramatizing messages normally come before the fantasy chain. These messages "paint the picture" for the fantasy chain itself. Thus, the other persons in the group can better relate to the attempt of creating a "special club." Personally, I can relate well to what Natalie is saying. I can remember accounts of failed attempts to successfully lead a group into a fantasy chain. That's always an awkward moment so, it's advisable to have a backup plan.
This video really focuses on the interactions of strangers, and creating fantasy chains. However, often these occur between groups of friends, or people you may regularly encounter. With that, the fantasy chain can continue by creating symbolic cues. These cues are triggers that bring the group, or part of the group back into the fantasy chain. Some examples of cues could include a hand motion like two thumbs-up and a cheesy smile, or it could be a code word. The symbolic cue can be virtually anything, but it is agreed upon within the group. Most likely, the group doesn't even realize this, they just begin doing it.
As a fantasy chain grows through the various stages, a symbolic convergence can be formed. This is where the group begins to think in the way of a group, when speaking about their fantasy theory. It is no longer just an individuals experiences, it is now the groups. Therefore, creating an overlap and a stronger group bond. Furthermore, this is a very strong attribute to have in a group because it helps in creating a cohesive group communication. Clearly an attribute that would be ideal to anyone working in a group.
To tie this all together, and put a bow on it, Natalie is a prime example of how a simple dramatizing message (her video language describing the events), can lead to a fantasy chain (her video style/humor, which creates a following of people on the internet), which has created several different symbolic cues within Natalie's internet community (example: laming tons), and thus creating a symbolic convergence of those who watch Natalie's, CommunityChannel (followers act as a community, and they have their own language that would not be acceptable to the general public). Because Natalie's videos are on YouTube, they have created a public fantasy chain, which is a very common occurrence in our world today. These chains are what makes some things go viral on the internet, or in news media.
To conclude, I encourage you to start looking for symbolic convergence in your own life. By being more observant, and understanding the process, you will be able to improve your group work. Therefore, being a better team player, and overall more likable within a group.
The video above is displaying a simple test that is designed to measure the cognitive complexity of ones interpersonal perception. This test is called the "Role Category Questionnaire," also known as the RCQ.
The definition of cognitive complexity is "the mental ability to distinguish subtle personality and behavior differences among people." The 8th edition of Em Griffins text, "A First Look At Communication Theory" explains this definition in greater detail.
How is cognitive complexity relevant to communication?
Cognitive complexity is relevant to communication because it is how each person sees the world, and makes sense of their surroundings. Highly cognitive complex individuals are able to take the role of other individuals, and better understand their personality. Thus, when taking an RCQ test, they are able to come up with several defining terms to describe that persons personality.
With that in mind, it is imperative to have some amount of cognitive complexity to have successful communication with individuals from different backgrounds.
In conclusion, cognitive complexity can be built by being learned. A person who studies communication theory, may have a higher cognitive complexity simply because they are more aware of the theory itself. Furthermore, as a person grows older their cognitive complexity does too. However, it begins to “level out” once a person reaches their mid twenties. This could be do to the fact that the brain has stopped maturing. Nonetheless, cognitive complexity is an excellent skill to have, and can help you in all aspects of life.
First, what does it mean to be a scientific theorist verses an interpretive scholar?
As explained in the 8th edition, “First Look At Communication Theory,” by Em Griffin, it is explained that a theorist that uses a scientific approach is “a scholar who applies the scientific method to describe, predict, and explain reoccurring forms of human behavior.” An interpretive approach is described as “the linguistic work of assigning meanings or value to communicative texts; assumes that multiple meanings or truths are possible.”
Second, how are they different?
To better understand how they are different, scientific standards must be proven through the scientific method (purpose, research, hypothesis, experiment, analysis, conclusion). Furthermore, through the scientific standard, one does not have free will–“puppets on a string.” The interpretive standard does not have to be proven through the scientific method. This standard is simply based off of multiple meanings that change with different perspectives. A large part of the interpretive standard is the belief in free will–we make our own choices (reference comic below).The interpretive standard also seeks truth, but many interpretive scholars believe that truth is greatly subjective.
Third, what do they have in common?
Both standards believe that the study of communication theories, regardless of if it is scientific or interpretive, feel that simply knowing these theories will improve relationships and society as a whole. Thus, whatever you believe, it is important to educate oneself about the theories of communication.
Fourth, how is this information helpful when learning communication theories?
When you are aware of the two different standards of communication theory, you can easily categorize new theories that you come upon. By doing so, you can keep your mind better organized, and easily find theories that are relevant to any given situation.
