Z’V‘3;?~:~~*rx
H . r Y? 1.2..
ii ‘é‘ip "7.3th-

V 5&3; $3“:
”"h'z. ; V;-
P": “2:; . g - V .n- V' i" V - J flrdfiwi‘f“?
f - V" ‘ '5 “N'EM‘EV‘KW

imp; "5

‘ .

, iffi’f—L .- ‘3? 5:; -'

p _ V V . n:~1s.:rv".:‘.'~.~~3~~ Z;

i I A 3’" fimfizz‘? “”£~“FE§:C‘E‘F7'r-‘
3.: .. 42:; *w::§§zE"’*—‘

Lam-'1‘: “:2 9-—
.~ . .VAU' .. ,
3%-Earm‘?

V 7’6 ““134 w"' ‘ - . V

V » . 7 ; .1 V: “ “9“ V

I V . I . v I n A v 50“. “£533; fififiqfixgw‘

I I . .133” I, l: I~ . , . ~19»
. I’ I

 

‘: ' ! g...
1 EJ‘Nr-v'

l ' I . . y " 2. ‘5‘} ’

m ‘u.

. A ‘ 4w
_ ”5% '4 . '3 “T ‘ ~ V ' J » x f:.“;.: "4’. ~:-
“155.3“; $.kziflI'“ Ina. “it. . J5 ( I V - 1a! . 515».‘w~
~-;..Q.:CKV.. 3 :
’L '2) 13”,“:

 

,2. 1.;
V ‘. . w m -:.. u .
I“ ' n. V..-.V..u......nc§""

. w. . ‘Vt‘t":

   

V- V iéfiw . V” V. V. 'r~V

. . 0" ~ .‘ .V' - ~.\ . ' ' - . .,— 1‘ ‘ . a. ““
, ' 13“.“ 4* “ha-h“- : I mm]. kn ‘ :7? “fl “:;,3 ~ ' 'I‘Z’ng‘uam I? V :33"! . .4». Am. “1"" {E1
. . V . “ .4 v V - . . T v“ '-‘ u I . v: V 4.. Vv'

v n ., ‘ 1; IA. ‘2‘) V K ~n...§. R ‘ , .Iéwfitgy -. ‘6.
IV V _., 2‘5; ‘ “29'“ 4% _ V . I 115;; , I "f“ ‘3‘ . a - '1’, -V'1.2‘II}T:§‘{ :2.“
u “ ’ V '~- -~« .. . A 31.x. "em 1'» mm ‘ " ‘ V‘ . - ' '» “‘ £wa ' ‘ L" ~'
' " ' ‘ r7" ‘ ~55“ 37>“ ~ ‘35??? 1* aw” ‘9» “‘V *5“ I mix??? «33—.
~— ‘ “a“ *‘7 - v 4-: » gs}. » . « w
-:9.a"fi’- -' ‘ :f! 5:». v V.
.

‘.

- v ‘ > u. 4
2%., ... I VI w m J} V. . V V
I I ‘w 7:3: ‘ .Vuw- ”‘3 Wit.

4.... I u
‘u - r“ V wr wJ w‘ha. . TM‘

’ u. .u I s: “‘5
.V . .3'.’ I u_¢‘-
' “Jig: '3‘” 15:1
x ~ '
. I .I. . , .... .u
, u: - .m . :2. ' ~ ‘ 9 ' ’ ~“" ‘ ‘“
V . . .- - I . ,.V .V. Pitt's‘c 4.. ma}, . a ” , . m V 212133344.
». .r- 9’" #413. ,. IV- In”. a} . . .V .V V '1 1:14.43 11““. I“. _ V, .
¢ »' (-A . y 3; ' ' . n W” 'x {‘3 ‘1‘ “I 1""
~ :I a“ f. ~ 9 I , Vex: I n by r ‘J. Yin. f... .
m V»... V. VI I, ~ w .— V .31. 15:51-11 . an?» in - ‘
w 4y. 7"» V - ' ' - .- -4qu H" I- w ‘ “”4
V V . VV . Vw, V1.1 " V ' «tr; ' * “V~.MV.,.*V.= ~“: . . V. a ‘ ‘ w”. ‘2'? 3% “ ” V .5 ‘ 2:52 a.
I}: .‘...,¢‘ HIP“ I ‘r ‘T VI‘ “‘7 .__ 7w ' ‘ . I - > 3 . ' 2 Hunt; .x."':\ 1‘ v V
...;..:. j . I ,V k 1‘ _, gr - .. V n, - I la - I. 5 _ . (In: a: M '4 a 1 ‘
. -- fl“- V:< ~ <~. - JV m 3. ...rV.V.~;Ve V. V V .§ V VII 2 V. . ,4 :2
V ~ “W ' ' V. . 14'. ‘1“ a," a 3.. v . . V 03:“ .a‘: V V... 'V. . V ‘ XQE'“: '5" '~-’<’“‘-- ' V‘
! «5" ”3w ~ ‘VeuaVVVan; *‘ -_.f a» “I" * ‘ ' ' - - - ’n “‘7" * “£91“ .. - ~ m"
«.~ 3. . _ Hugh.“ ._ _ I ~: w 4 'mdf-uu _ , . q . - ‘s ' “a. 7. - . i: A:
'- ; “"" “fig- L‘lfi: “‘“v- ' . ‘ ' ...,V_ V ‘— ‘ n5 .-‘ LES-3' 4‘}; 4 ' ' .' é 4* a“ " V - ~—
"1 IILL ‘W“". ”. . a?" ‘- ,I‘, -’ l I-, “3"”? va-fa‘ : w' 1;u' 4&‘uqua I»: ’1}! 5' ‘IV .7... ‘ $1311.; '3 ‘h'f
-‘t‘mn'E V ,V" 5‘ “ “u“ " I‘ - “““ ’ .r . ‘* .g ' '4’ ”L?" W " “w ‘ WV“
.. . I W5 “‘11 ”.4 .. “‘45: at. cI V. -I' _ . I I . I, qh" ,- . a? . J. I . V. "I I“ VI _ -1- . ,1 I ,} I ‘. V .5 1
_ . _. .i V _ I . . .~ . . V 7 Av- ‘ ‘ .. o I ' .
. a- 4%: ~ “I craft-4v L4g’lh'.. ‘ f;- ‘ ‘1 . ,. I . I ..’ V “A 4" 'J" V? . ‘ wt”? 'gér-ai’rwiri. 3. "7 r 2' a: »
333.91 .~ - V '2. I r“ tr: ,.-- ..V - m. 90% .VIII I a, ”4.3; '3!”qu a. zith .V,V -, ”I, <
. ,V . ‘ ‘V. . I“ ,I I .- V I , . j I .'. I .¢-u,‘4_ . _ '«_ ' '
attain. Mm -- ”031., ' . . . L V - "B: ‘5 .. “2% .rify ‘ ‘i gka . ' z; . .
‘ #122?» V ‘ ‘ “a; V. 7 ‘~~ ‘ ;‘~ “’- " xii u' ‘ ‘ Vow 3””: ‘5' ' - ~ '7 5*
.-.a 4 -‘ ‘ " ‘ - ‘ ‘ . ' ‘ 2 " n
V guIIVa’ .92. . .. . ~ 5;: .. .- I, - III V w". - , ,V if I VV Vi- .
I . . I ,. -. _ I ,4 - .. :V and} ' .~. ‘5;- 7. .V. ‘
. e. . V V. V V...“ . . m V . x. . ,1 1. V -
‘ .. WV“ *- V f“ " '. "'.' II 31. , a . V . V . V.
"' ' .I ‘- ~, .: .... " ,Vw'. r ' .‘ w 'I- ~ I IV - u ‘
p. , V. - _ ' - II u f: V MN . IV. V V V V40 . «x», . u ..
. or .r . .V . - - V > ' ' '
3:44 . *.V . ‘ ' V V . _ V . ‘i- W
V .o VV I u '5‘ F . 'X . J , 7'. .V ‘ ‘ " y . . ’ _ _ ' 'r! :1 . ‘ V ' ' '
r . - V I . » _ V . V V ' x - - . » V_ V .
', ' I '15" . .1 “‘1’ 'u I‘ .‘l‘ V fi‘fi ' ‘. ' . '5’ ~ V V - ‘ V - “‘g“-“'Vg_ . “ < ‘ 3 y. ‘ I: V '7 ‘.
I '1. v: fix ' a L." '. t~ * I. ' V . , w ‘ ' ~ VV cf ' ‘ V , ‘ U ‘ w
. . 4. t “. , . V I - - 4' r > V . ‘
I I. I . V I ; . , v'fi “ - ' V '. . *
V 6 V . .V V" ‘ .V _ ' ' V~ .1 v - ‘ ' v ~ .
N . I I ._ . . IV 4.1%, .V’ V,
I ... -‘1 I 11 ‘ “/1, II .(I; I I. >r- . . . I . - I I l.".".‘ I I .
e "w , ‘ V ,,V . V , .VVI.~~1 V ‘ ‘ ' V V ‘-"r . ' ‘
.: ~V V ‘ ~ '-' ' I V . tn’. V . V . ‘V' -. ' ‘ V . .' v- .
1 .. ‘:'l V! I; ‘ ' V’I' ' a r W ‘ .
V . V V i' . ’ ‘
. I '_ I - .g‘j; 3- . V V J’ ; . . H , I I I
V'V ‘ ‘ 'V . ‘ 1 V V. ' ' ’ . ' ' _ ‘ - I ‘ V ' 'V “
. < - '~ . V . ' ' ‘ ‘ .
- V . ‘ l V . V ’ ‘ ' .._
. ‘ V 1 I ' V . I A v ‘ V «
V I ' I . - , . ' ~ .‘ ‘ , .
. 'V I V . I. . , r- . ‘I . . “I. . I J A
. ‘ , I I V ‘ 'V . . I' . r- 519-" ‘ ‘. - V.
V . r ' . V - " - " . ‘7 " . "u - ’
.V .VV- ,. -V . ‘ ' . ' - -- ‘ .(54‘ v,’ V' .. ~Li
I . I V . V I: . . ' I ! 1 V r 'r F ‘ V
. . . .«a I . . I V» I I _ - - - I » ~ .u 1 ‘ 1.3 .
. .I . ‘ V . V . V . . V .-‘ '.. " :"'“ 1’ W’V .::o',' 3 "
V . 'V' .. V, . V I . ‘ ' .- — Va". -‘- .‘- '~ . . V - .
~ " "‘H V - V- ~ -‘ e 43- “ " - _ 3:39“. *5 ‘ V ~ V
IVII. V IVJ V. I -‘. ' ' ' ,r‘ -. .. V 'I -V ._ ' , 'V .. ‘V
I . . I . _ I I) . . .V . , . V . .V..-_, . I I V .
V . VI . ' . I- .- V b V ‘ I . I . ~ .rI ' ' ' ‘ ’ .1 V . V "
V I ,'. . V I I I..V . V V’ ' ' ~ ‘ ' V 1 V ~ ' " C
‘ ~ ‘ ' V ‘ '~ " ' .V. V V - . ,- . -{vVVI-'3’V V ; - ' . ."' * ‘ . .-
V V . . I V ,I I .I V r . r fps'if ‘ . [J . Q- ‘ .
. V V “V . ; . ' ~~ ' V -»V V. a . 41w v-;. V V.,..' )‘H" .
.I. I,, I_ . . _ . V. .V V V V . ,.:Lv -I-_., v “3 ~
x I I I . VII . . V‘ - ‘I‘.’ .I‘. V» . _ t ,- . , ,
I V- I . .. . . I, .I . I V _ . . V : mar; ,--" . 1 - v.
? III .. I . - . I . I af I - .V— . . .
. -\ .V . . ' ' ~ ‘ > ' ' ' ' — V ' ~ " " ' ‘
I. V V . :- r . .- < ‘ , ~ ‘ V
‘ ' ' 4 . V V ' . ' . ‘ v > v r . ’-
“ » '_ JV' I' -‘ ' V V V~ V' .".' L1 f, i" "-9. ‘ V H V
:V- V . ‘~ ‘. I ‘ ‘ ' A ; . V V . ‘ ' La" . '4‘- . .-.. ’ .‘ V ‘
-. I . ' V .' . ' V " . .1 " V - ) '
..V.I> I _ .V VI V V. .- . I V”. V ,_ V - _ ~ »
3 I ~ . . . I _ V V I - 14... VI-J .1. f I, I I~ V
Y ‘. V'V‘ ' .' ' r -. '1' L’ " 3 - ‘ I 7 “
r V 4 ' V V ‘ V ' V n w ~ V c
' ‘I I . V I r—. — - . V I . , . ..
. . . .... V V I . "v ,1 . \. _ ' -
V ’ . " V v ’ ~ fw— - .
-' ‘ .- . . ' I - t ~ro-. . . .
V , . r . .I V. I ‘. V. . ,. r‘ ’ -I , VI, . V. . . . I
II . I . V V '. V V - V 11.. or“ V. -. 2'. . . . ‘
' A 1 V - v .. .-. .~ .
. \V ‘- V , V . . r V '-'t‘:/- ‘ V-zu. .-- - . ‘ ' - ’ ‘ » -
V I ‘ . . . I .‘ I I fl I -r .1“_ .I “‘3 IV __ III'] , . . I V . V
. - _ V_ . V s v V V V . . ' ‘ . _“ t,-I' . -. ' a: .. . ...
I ‘ . I V I I V, t V . . . . V. r '1')... ' V' ._ ‘ V V‘ ‘
I .V I I . I -. » .V .V .. V :1- ""‘._\.VV . 4 x1... .
. - _ V I . V V .-. V V V ,.V ._ - T .. . . I
. I V V V _ ~ . — . . .
. I . I I I .I V I V . I I V V ""‘V' (II- 3-2; __I . .I.-.V...3VI r ’J.'". .
. . r J I. '. .,. 1 V. 1'“ Fora... " p, ' ‘ '
. . . I _ I . - ._ , .3" .. . . .. .4 .- ) .7.
.- _ I . ‘, I I . . . - V; V n x . .. . .....,-. .V. ' * N . ' J'snt; V _
.V, _. , - .,-. I. - -_ H , ~« ~~y-’~«~ -~ :7 9
I, .- .V ,V V .. . 1.4:. . «mgr.-. .. V'
. . _. I . 4-. I '. , . V J. 'V; g. V” .— V'II‘II... 1.5.-.. .2. V _
. I . V‘ V ,- I . I _ V V, ' ‘ - a r I’ ~ .r: ,Jr Elwfr'zfimq x” '3
‘ .V ‘ ' ' ‘ ‘4. ' I 1" I '33; _‘ a - ' , -
VI . I . .II . V . I . . I .-..I. . 36.1.. U a]. 530 v - 74:; ’1:
. V. . .. I V _ I . V. V, .14}.qu ...V' .lr _.
. V V V I I. I - _ - - V ’ -' ‘f‘ .. Jr? " «raga. "‘"u ’0
III “I. . V, I , . V... . V. V V .V . . V‘ L r‘ . I. .. . Irmo'LV '
_ ‘- . ' ‘ . .‘ ‘ . I . ' , r“ . ¢ J'
y ‘ v V . V I I' IV V I I . - V l ‘1 I . f? ‘ I‘II lg:
;. _ ‘ . .V V . V . . V. 4 " _. ‘4 2ij '1

 

 

 

 

 

dz... .’ '

 

 

meats

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Illllllllllllllll llllllh 1; l

31293

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

PERCEPTIONS OF ACTUAL CRIME
AND PERCEIVED REALITY IN
REALITY BASED TELEVISION PROGRAMS

presented by

RICK W. BUSSELLE

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for ~

 

 

Masters degree in Telecommunication

I. Major professorfi Lon-mi“ ..
Date July 31, 1991

 

0-7539 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

i LIBRARY
[Michigan State
; Unlverslty

 

 

PLACE IN REI'URN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

W4 "
T~< (@qu

 

 

t‘/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

' ’ 1 1 i
"35%?“ :12 ' ,
i l
SEW %hlg {5 w {2:32

 

 

3925113 JL’L212383

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity lnditutlon
, 7 cm

rm

PERCEPTIONS OF ACI'U AL CRIME
AND PERCENED REALITY IN
REALI'I'Y BASED TELEVISION PROGRAMS

by
Rick Busselle

A Thesis

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Telecommunication

1991

ABSTRACT

PERCEPTIONS or: ACTUAL CRIME
AND PERCENED REALITY IN
REALITY BASED TELEVISION PROGRAMS
by

Rick Busselle

This study investigated the relationship between perceived reality in television content
and concern about actual crime. Perceived reality of television was correlated with fear of
crime and with estimated probability of victimization by crime.

Subjects were students (n = 111) from Michigan State University. Fear of crime,
estimated probability of victimization, and perceived reality of general television content
was measured. Subjects were then divided into two groups and shown segments from one
of two reality-based television crime programs. After viewing, subjects' perceived reality
of the reality-based program, and characters and scenes within the program was measured.

Results found limited support for a positive relationship between perceived reality of
television in general and fear of crime and a positive correlation between perceived reality
of program segments and one dimension of estimated probability of victimization. Subjects
correctly identified scenes, whether actual or re-created, more often than characters,

whether actual participants or actors/actresses.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are many people without whom this thesis would not have been possible...

I would like to thank Dr. Bradley Greenberg for a tremendous amount of patients and
guidance, Dr. Tony Atwater for the idea and much encouragement, Dr. Charles Atkin for
theoretical perspective, and those many faculty members and fellow students who acted as
sounding boards.

 

I thank my parents for sending me to college the first time and for all of their patience and
encouragement before and since.

Most of all, I thank Melissa for being a source of inspiration... motivation...support...
love...and comfort.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements
List of Tables
List of Figures
Chapter One: Introduction
Description of Reality Based Format
Research Into Reality Based Programs
Research Question
Review of Literature
Cultivation
Perceived Reality
Hypotheses
Perceived Reality and Aggression
Conclusion
Chapter Two: Methodology
Stimulus Program Segments
Segment A
Segment B
Dependent Variables
Perceived Reality of General Television Content
Perceived Reality of Stimulus Program Segments
Perceived Reality of Specific Characters & Scenes
Independent Variables

iii

\JQGONUJ

14
15
17
20
22
22
23
24
26
26
27
28
28

Estimated Probability of Victimization
Fearfulness of Crime
Subjects
Procedure
Factor Analysis of Multiple Item Variables
Chapter Three: Results
Subjects' Regular Viewing Habits
Descriptive Results
Correlations Between Dimensions of Variables
Results of Hypotheses Tests
HypOtheses 1a and 2a
Hypothesis 1b
Hypothesis 2b
Hypotheses 1c and 2c
Chapter Four: Discussion
Hypotheses
Limitations
Finding The Program "Disturbing"
Design
Conclusion
Future Research
Appendix A Pre-Exposure Questionnaire
Appendix B Post-Exposure Questionnaire
Appendix C Separate Post-Exposure Questions for Segments A and B

References

iv

28
29
3o
31
33
45
45
45
47
48
49
50
51
52
54
54
61
61
62
63

67
75
79
83

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7
Table 8

Table 9
Table 10

Table 11
Table 12

Table 13

Table 14

Table 15

Table 16

LIST OF TABLES

Initial Items Used in Pie-Test of Perceived Reality of Reality Based
Program Variable

Factor Loadings of Items Measuring Two Dimensions of
Perceived Reality of General Television Content

Factor Loadings of All Items Used To Identify Perceived Reality of
Stimulus Programs

Factor Loadin gs of Items Used to Measure Perceived Reality of
Stimulus Programs

Factor Loadings of Original Items Measuring Estimated Probability of
V’ . . 'on

Factor Loadings of Items Measuring Three Dimensions of
Estimated Probability of Victimization

Factor Loadings of Original Items Measuring Fear of Victimization

Factor Loadings of Items Measuring Two Dimensions of Fear of
V' . . .0“

Means and Standard Deviation Scores for Multiple Item Indicators

Means and Standard Deviation Scores for Multiple Item Indicators
By Group

Correlations Between Independent Variables

Correlations Between Perceived Reality of General TV Content and
Estimated Probability of Victimization

Correlations Between Perceived Reality of General TV Content and
Fear of Victimization

Correlations Between Perceived Reality of Stimulus Program
Segments and Estimated Probability of Victimization

Correlations Between Perceived Reality of Stimulus Program
Segments and Fear of Victimization

Correlations Between Perceived Reality of Characters and Scenes
and Estimated Probability of Victimization

27

35

36

36

42

42

46
47

48
49

50

51

51

52

Table 17

Table 18

Table 19

Table 20

Correlations Between Perceived Reality of Characters and Scenes
and Fear of Victimization

Descriptive Statistics for Magic Window and Situational Estimated
Probability of Victimization Variables.

Situational Estimates of Probability of Victimization Correlated with
Perceived Reality of General TV Content and Perceived Reality of
Stimulus Program Segments

Additional Items Used To Measure Perceived Reality of Stimulus
Program Segments

vi

53

56

57

59

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Diagram of Relationships Among Variables

vii

16

CHAPTER ONE
Introduction

"Unlike speech, writing, drawing, painting, and even photography, [television] lets
mass audiences perceive, as a quasi-eyewitness, events that happened in other times, or in
other places, or that never really happened at all" (Funkhouser & Shaw, 1990).

It has been suggested that television influences viewers' perceptions of society. The
initial cultivation hypothesis suggested that heavy television viewers perceive society
differently than light viewers (Gerbner & Gross, 1976). However, a number of studies
have suggested that other variables, such as place of residence (Doob & Macdonald, 1979),
demographic variables (Wober, 1978), program content (Gunter & Wakshlag, 1988;
Hawkins & Pingree, 1981; Potter & Chang, 1990; Weaver & Wakshlag, 1986), and
viewers' perceived reality of television programs (Atkin, 1983; Greenberg & Reeves,
1976; Hawkins, 1977; Liebert & Sprafkin, 1988; Potter, 1986) interact with television's
influence on viewers' perceptions of society. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the
level of reality viewers perceive in a program depends upon characteristics of the viewer,
not necessarily characteristics of the program (Atkin, 1983; Potter, 1986).

The purpose of this study is two fold. The first is to investigate viewers' perceived
reality related specifically to a relatively new form of television programming referred to as
"reality based television." The second, and more encompassing, purpose of the study is to
investigate relationships between perceived reality of television programming and the
perceptions viewers hold about society, specifically related to crime and violence.

This thesis is heavily influenced by studies that have investigated perceived reality over
the past 20 years. However, there are two distinct points that separate it from most others.
First, unlike much past research into perceived reality, participants in this study were not
told whether the program they viewed was real or fantasy. They judged for themselves the
level of reality in a Stimulus program segment. Second, the stimulus that subjects viewed

was a form of television program that contains some characteristics of both television news

and entertarnmen' t programming and was, therefore, expected to elicit different responses
regarding perceived reafity from different viewers. It is appropriate at this point to more
thoroughly define reality based television.

B I E l I l . .

Reality based programs debuted on American television during the 1987/1988 viewing
season in the form of weekly series such as W. W
and W11. Reality based programs portray real events in a way that is similar to
news and documentary programs both in format and content. However, unlike news and
documentary programs, reality based programs use actors/actresses and re-created scenes
along with actual victims, witnesses, perpetrators and news footage in portraying these
"true" stories.

In order to analyze reality based programs for the purposes of this study, several terms
must be defined. "Actual news footage" refers to visual images which are captured on film
or videotape, at the scene of an event while that event is taking place, or in a closely
proximate time period. In actual news footage, scenes are not pro-planned. It is the job of
the vimographer to document on videotape the events as they occur. Alternately, "re-
created scenes" are produced after the event has taken place. During re-creation, it is
necessary that someone, usually a director, is present to guide the re-enactment of events as
they are believed or speculated to have happened when the crime or incident occurred.
Also, in actual news footage, it is by definition impossible for actors/actresses to participate
in the event. However, in re-created scenes victims, witnesses and/or perpetrators are
often portrayed by actors and accesses. It is the use of actors/actresses, and a dependence
upon re-creation that sets reality based programs apart from traditional news/documentary
programs. The differences between traditional news/documentary programs and reality-
based programs will be further explained in the following section.

D .. DEB l' E IE
Reality based programs appear to be a hybrid of two television program formats:

news/documentary and entertainment/drama. This section is not intended to be a detailed
analysis of either news or entertainment programming, although such an undertaking may
be warranted in future research into reality based programs. Instead this section proposes
only to point out the ways in which reality based programs borrow from both
news/documentary and entertainment/drama formats and to demonstrate the composite
nature of the genre.

W. The subject matter of many reality based programs is very similar to
that of news programs. Stories presented are reportedly true. In the August 1, 1990,
episode of W, the unsolved murder of off-duty Police Officer Lester
Garnier was portrayed. In 1988, Garnier was found shot to death in his civilian car in a
San Francisco suburb. According to the program, as told by the narrator to the audience,
the story is true. It is likely that the story was reported on the evening news in San
Francisco the day after the murder took place. In fact, many of the stories portrayed on
rean based programs are likely to have been reported on the local news in the markets in
which they occurred. The news footage shot by local television news crews at crime
scenes is sometimes used within reality based programs.

W. Narration and voice-over techniques are used in reality
based programs in much the same way as in news programs. In both cases stories are
introduced by a narrator who talks directly to the camera, and in mm directly to the viewer.
Both W and Wed, are hosted by men who speak to
the camera as they introduce and narrate program segments; much like a newscaster speaks
directly to his or her audience.

After the narrator introduces the story on camera, he/she continues to tell the story

using a "voice-over" technique. "Voice-over" is a television production technique wherein

the viewers hear the narrator's voice but see videotape or film of the crime, crime scene, or
other related subject matter.

In the W episode mentioned above, the narrator told the viewers how
Lester Gamier's body was discovered. As the narrator explained that a groundskeeper
discovered the car, which had been parked in the lot overnight, the viewers were shown a
man who looks like a groundskeeper approaching a parked car in a parking lot. The
narratorthen told tlreviewers thatthereappearedtobeaperson sleepinginthecar. Asthe
narrator was explaining this, the viewers were shown a person slumped in the driver's
seat. Then the viewers heard the narrator say that the groundskeeper discovered that the
man was not sleeping, but was dead. At this point the viewers were shown a close-up of
the driver with blood running down the side of his face. This voice-over format is a
traditional television production wchnique used in television news.

W. Within reality based programs, people with various
connections to the story are interviewed. These people are genuine witnesses, victims or
other people directly involved in the original event, such as police investigators or relatives
of victims. Again, the August 1, 1990 episode of Mysteries will serve as an
example. In this example, Lester Garrrier’s mother and sister were interviewed as well as
the investigating police officer and several of Lester's co-workers. These people would
likely have been interviewed in traditional news stories. However, unlike traditional news
programs, reality based programs also incorporate actors/actresses who have no immediate
relationship to the events being portrayed. They are paid to portray people involved in the
original event. In the Garnier exanrple, the parts of Lester, two prostitutes whom he had
arrested, and two female suspects seen near the car, are all played by actors and actresses.
In some cases it is easy to logically discriminate between the actors/actresses and the actual
event participants. Lester is dead, and the two suspects have never been found
Obviously, the people representing Lester and the two suspects were actors. However it is

more difficult to determine that the prostitutes were accesses. They could have been the

real prostitutes Lester had arrested in the past re-enacting an actual encounter. In the
program they were re-enacting a scene with an actor who was playing Lester. It is
doubtful, but possible, that real prostitutes would allow themselves to be identified as such.
It should be noted that unlike people who participated in the original event, actors behave
not according to memory of the event, but according to a script and the direction of the
program's creators. .

WW. Actual video, which was recorded at the scene of the event
while the event was taking place or afterwards, is used in some reality based programs.
This is typical of news programs. However, reality based programs also contain scenes
that were re-created after the event. In those scenes actors/actresses or sometimes actual
participants re-enact the event as it is reported to have happened by witnesses, in police
reports, or according to speculation on the parts of the program's creators.

As stated earlier, actors and actresses played the parts of Lester Garnier and probably of
the two prostitutes in a scene evidently created to demonstrate Gamier's work on vice
assignments.

Inanotherepisode ofAmmsMQstflamed, five actors areusedtorecreateascene
in which three women are abducted and shot by two gunmen. As the re-created scene was
shown, viewers heard the crime described by the one woman who survived. This type of
re-enactment or dramatization is extremely atypical of traditional news programs. In fact,
the use of re-enacted video scenes is prohibited by several networks (Broadcasting, July
31, 1989) and news organizations (RTNDA code of ethics).

It is important to point out that some of the actions portrayed in some of the re-created
scenes are necessarily speculative. This is the case because all of the participants in the
event are dead or missing.

The telling of stories based on actual incidents with a mixture of real and re-created

video scenes and of actual event participants and paid actors is unlike other television

formats. It is the mixing of reality and re-creation that sets reality based programs apart
from both news/documentary and drama/entertainment programs.
Wm

Few studies have been conducted investigating reality based programs on viewers'
ability to discriminate real from re-created content. The National Broadcasting Company
(NBC) conducted a focus group study in which viewers watched the reality based
program, WW. It contained both actual and re-created
footage. The results of the informal focus group study indicated that viewers understood
which portions of the program were recreated and which were not. However, viewers
were confused about the reality of specific people, actors versus actual victims, and details
within the recreated scenes (Holz, 1990).

The news divisions of both NBC and the American Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)
have established policy prohibiting the use of re-creation in their newscasts (Broadcasting,
July 31, 1989).

A recent study regarding the effects of the British program Wm found no
significant relationship between viewing this reality based program and concerns over
"being more careful about going out at night" or "being burgled" (Wober & Gunter, 1990).
However, it is not clear that the British reality based program contains the same level of
violence as reality based programs in the US.
woman

This study is designed to add to the literature related to reality based programs and at
the same time further investigate the relationships between viewers' perceived reality of
television programming and their perceptions of the world around them.

This leads to the following research question:
RQ: Is there a positive relationship between perceived reality of television programs,
specifically reality based programs, and concerns about crime and violence in society?

Review of Literature
C l . .

George Gerbner and his colleagues have suggested that exposure to television provides
viewers with a powerful representation of society. Through symbols television teaches
viewers about the world; who is in it, what they do, and how they function in society.
Television also perforrrrs a socialization role which stabilizes society and promotes the
status quo (Gerbner and Gross, 1976; Signorielli, Gross, & Morgan, 1982).

While this televised view of the world represents many diverse aspects of society, it is
inaccurate in many representations of social order and social information. For example,
television has been shown to misrepresent the number of women in the work force
(Seggar, 1975), the number of Hispanics in society (Greenberg, 1980), and the percent of
the population employed in law enforcement related occupations (Dominick, 197 3).

Gerbner and his colleagues suggest that television works to "cultivate" a "social reality"
for viewers. The picture of the world that television offers viewers may or may not be
accurate and the social reality created by television may not be the same for heavy viewers
and light viewers alike (Gerbner and Gross, 1976).

Cultivation hypothesis states that if television viewers are offered two representations
of reality, one citing actual statistics such as police crime statistics, and the other reflecting
statistics of crime as represented on television, heavier viewers will be more likely than
light viewers to identify the "TV reality" as more accurate (Comstock, 1982; Hawkins &
Pingree, 1982).

It appears that the greatest discrepancies between heavier and lighter television viewers
are in the area of perceived crime and violence in society (Hawkins & Pingree, 1982). An
eight year study indicated that characters on television were one to two hundred times more
likely to be involved in an act of violence than people in the real world (Gerbner, Gross,
Jackson-Beech Ieffries-Fox, & Signorielli, 1978). In studies asking viewers to identify

their chances of being involved in violence, heavier television viewers chose a figure

representing the "television reality" rather than one representing real world statistics
significantly more often than lighter viewers (Gerbner et al., 1978; Gerbner & Gross,
1976).

C l . . C

Questionnaire items used to judge viewers' perceptions have been referred to as
"Cultural Indicators" (Gerbner & Gross, 1976). Studies have shown that heavier viewers
(generally meaning those who watch more than four hours of TV per day) will identify
"television reality" more often than the actual reality regarding a number of such indicators.
For example, heavier viewers are more likely than lighter viewers (those who watch less
than two hours per day) to overestimate the prevalence of violence in society, view the
world as a "mean place," overestimate their chances of being involved in violence, be more
tolerant of violence (Gerbner, Eleey, Beeck, Jeffries-Fox, & Signorielli, 1977), report
higher levels of distrust in others (Gerbner & Gross, 1976; Signorielli et al., 1982) and be
more fearful of victirrrization (Sparks & Ogles, 1990). Studies have also indicated that
heavier viewers are more likely than lighter viewers to take active measures to protect
themselves, such as owning a gun or watch dog (Gerbner et al., 1978).

Two more general aspects of social reality were identified; "perceived danger" and
"mistrust and alienation" (Gerbner et al., 1978). These concepts were also referred to as
"fearfulness" and "pessimism" (Comstock, 1982). "Fearfulness" or perceived danger is
one's fear of crime and one's estimate of his or her own chances of falling victim to a
violent crime. "Pessimism" or mistrust is one's feeling that life is getting worse instead of
better, and that most people can not be trusted. These constructs have also been referred to
as "mean world" measures (Hawkins & Pingree, 1980).

Two concepts were put forth to explain different results of cultivation effects on
different subgroups. They are "Mainstreaming" and "Resonance" (Signorielli, Gross &
Morgan, 1982). Mainstreaming is the influence of television viewing that works to

promote similar social beliefs among different subgroups who might otherwise hold

different views of the world. For example, mainstreaming effects would lead heavier
television viewers who live in rural areas with less crime to have similar beliefs about crime
as similarly heavy viewers living in high-crime urban areas. This would be the case despite
the fact that residents of rural areas would have had little exposme to "actual" urban crime.
Resonance is said to occur when viewers see televised messages that are similar to, and
reinforce, non-televised sources and experiences from within their own environment. For
example, viewers living in high crime areas may see crimes on television which are similar
to those they have been exposed to in real life. For these viewers violent television content
may interact with environmental factors to create or reinforce a view of the world as a mean
and violent place.

C . . .

Cultivation hypothesis has not stood without criticism. Reanalysis of existing studies
as well as replications controlling for a variety of variables have either not supported
cultivation or offered evidence indicating that cultivation effects may occur, but not based
solely on general viewing levels and may not affect all viewers equally. The following
sections outline some of the studies which have attenrpted to negate or modify the initial
hypothesis as presented by Gerbner and his colleagues.

Replication. Hirsch (1980) reanalyzed the data from one cultivation study (Gerbner et
al., 1978) and identified two tails of the distribution for amount of television viewing and
several cultivation measures. The reanalysis separated non-viewers from light viewers and
heavy viewers from extremely heavy viewers. Hirsch (1980) found that non-viewers were
more fearful of violence and tolerant of aggression than light viewers and that extremely
heavy viewers were less fearful and less tolerant than heavy viewers.

Hughes (1980) reanalyzed the same data (Gerbner et al., 1978). His research
controlled for age, sex, and education simultaneously. He showed that the influence of
television viewing time decreased to insignificant levels on several important cultivation

variables, such as fear of walking alone at night. The same study found that lighter

10

viewers had significantly higher tolerance for violence in which males and policemen strike
other male citizens than heavier viewers.

Both studies (Hirsh, 1980, Hughes, 1980) have been cited as arguments refuting
cultivation hypothesis. However, Hawkins and Pingree (1982) suggested that both studies
are cause for further research and "not the simple negation of the original simple
hypothesis" (p. 236).

Wm Doob and Macdonald (1979) found a significant
correlation between the overall level of television viewing and fear of victimization by

violent crime among Toronto residents. However, after controlling for respondents' place
of residence, the results of the study changed There was a significant positive correlation
between viewing level and fearfulness only in high crime areas of the city. N 0 similar
correlations were found in low crime city areas or in either high or low crime suburban
areas. Based on this study, the authors suggested that television viewing is not directly
related to fear of violence. Instead, both fear and viewing habits may be predicted by other
demographic factors such as place of residence. This study also did not support Gerbner's
mainstreaming hypothesis discussed earlier.

The Doob and Macdonald (1979) study controlled only for place of residence. It has
been criticized for not controlling for other demographic factors such as age, sex, and race
(Hawkins & Pingree, 1982).

WWW. Hawkins and Pingree (1981) found that different
program content types were not uniformly related to social reality measuresamong
Australian children. The authors found strong, significant relationships between higher
perceived violence in society and heavy viewing of crime-adventure programs, game
shows, and cartoons. Significant but weaker relationships were also found between
perceived violence and viewing of situation comedies and children's programs. No
significant relationships were found related to viewing of six other program types including

news programs.

11

The Hawkins and Pingree study (1981) found a significant relationship between
viewing the world as a mean place and crime-adventure viewing, but no other program
types were related to mean world measures. The authors suggest that television news may
have greater cultivation effects than were indicated by the research. A greater effect may
exist because news programming may be perceived as a more accurate representation of
real life. But because most news programs contain less violence - more specifically, they
contain fewer violent acts - than many action/adventrne or crime-drama programs, the
cultivation effect is more difficult to identify and measure.

Weaver and Wakshlag (1986) and Gunter and Wakshlag (1988) found a significant
correlation between feelings of personal vulnerability among viewers and higher levels of
crime related viewing. Neither study found similar correlations among viewers who watch
large amounts of television that is not crime related

Potter and Chang (1990) suggested that the cultivation hypothesis is based on the
assunrption that the "world presented on television is uniform across programs and over
time." However, they indicate that at the same time cultivation research demonstrates
differences in amount and types of violence across the programming day and from network
to network (Gerbner, Gross, Signorielli, Morgan, & Jackson-Beeck, 1979). Potter also
pointed to other evidence indicating that antisocial behavior varies in amount and type
across program genre (Greenberg, 1980; Potter & Ware, 1987).

Potter and Chang (1990) analyzed several different methods of operationalizing the
concept of "viewing amount." They found that total viewing was less predictive of
cultivation measures than program type as a proportion of total viewing. Furthermore,
crime programs, action-adventure programs, and soap operas were more closely related to
fearfulness measures than news/documentary program or viewing of situation comedies.
These studies suggest that heavy viewing in general may be less powerful in cultivating
social perceptions than content specific viewing.

12

W. Weber (1978) tested cultivation hypothesis on

British viewers using a "security scale." The scale was created fiom two questions
regarding trust in others and the likelihood of being robbed The study controlled for age,
sex, and socioeconomic status. Weber found no significant differences between light and
heavy television viewers overall or in any subgroups.

While the British study does not support the cultivation hypothesis, it has been argued
that the two questions comprising the "security scale" were less sensitive than other more
thorough instruments (Comstock, 1982). It has also been suggested that British television
contains less violence than United States programming making the cultivation effect less
severe and less measurable (Hawkins & Pingree, 1982).

W. It has been suggested that television viewing may not cause anxiety
or fearfulness of victimization. Instead, it has been argued that people who are more
fearful and anxious tend to watch more television, specifically crime and action-adventure
programs (Zilhnann, 1980).

In a field experiment, Bryant, Carveth, and Brown (1981) attempted to support either
Gerbner's cultivation hypothesis or Zillmann's counter argument that fearfulness causes
viewing habits.

The researchers administered pre-tests and post-tests of manifest anxiety to college
students who were on different, experimental television diets. Overall, they found that
subjects who watched a diet of programs with "unjust" conclusions (the perpetrator is not
punished for the crime) increased in post-test measures of anxiety regardless of their pre-
test anxiety level. Viewers on both the heavy unjust diet and heavy "justified" diet (the
perpetrator is punished) reported an increase in the likelihood of personal victinrization and
fearfulness. Also, subjects who viewed a heavy unjust diet were less likely to say they felt
that if they were victimized, their attacker would be caught or punished These results
supported the cultivation hypothesis and did not produce any significant findings
supporting Zillmann's Hypothesis.

13

Another experiment was designed to challenge the causal relationship between viewing
violence and fear of victimization suggested by cultivation hypothesis. Wakshlag, Vial,
and Tamborini (1983) found that subjects who watched a film designed to create
apprehension about fear of victimization showed significantly less desire to watch violent
films than subjects who watched a non-violent control film. This suggested that fear of
crime may lead to avoidance of violent programing. This study also does not support
Zillmann's hypothesis that fearful viewers watch more crime programming.

W. The validity of cultivation measures themselves have
been questioned. Sparks and Ogles (1990) found differences between questions which
measured estimated probability of victimization and those which measured fearfulness of
violence. The authors argue that probability and fear are conceptually different constructs.
The study found a significant positive correlation between amount of viewing and the fear
of victimization, but found no significant relationship between viewing and estimated
probability of victimization.

Tyler (1984) found similar differences between two frames of reference; judgements
about crime on a societal level and fear of crime on a personal level. These studies
suggested that the two different measures may not be related However, a similar study
(Gunter & Wakshlag, 1988) conducted in Britain failed to find differences in perception of
societal fear and personal fear.

A number of studies (Doob & Macdonald,1979; Gunter & Wakshlag,]988; Hawkins &
Pingree, 1981; Sparks & Ogles, 1990; Tyler, 1984; Weaver & Wakshlag, 1986) have
demonstrated that other variables must be included into any explanation of the relationship
between television viewing and perceptions of society. None has indicated that television
viewing has no effect on this relationship.

Traditional cultivation questions have been criticized for being non-specific. Sparks
and Ogles' (1990) research indicated that fear of crime and estimated probability of

victimization are two conceptually different, but not necessarily unrelated, variables.

14

Therefore, this study treats them independently. The independent cultivation variable
designed to measure individuals' general concern about crime will be measured as both
"fear of victimization by crime" and "estimated probability of victimization."

The next question to be addressed in this report is directed toward the relationship of
perceived reality of television programs as an intervening variable between viewing and
societal perceptions.

E . I B 1'

Many studies have been conducted presuming that people are more likely to act upon,
imitate, or be affected by mediated messages they believe to be real than as a response to
messages they believe to be fantasy or fiction (Atkin, 1983; Greenberg & Reeves, 1976;
Liebert & Sprafldn, 1988). Hawkins (1977) suggested that programming that is perceived
to be real may have greater impact than programming perceived as fictional because to the
viewer it may be more "involving and relevant." Atkin (1983) pointed out that "reality or
fantasy is not a property of the stimulated message, but is a perception on the part of the
receiver" (p. 615).

Two separate aspects of perceived reality, "Perceived Actuality" and "Perceived
Similarity," were identified (Atkin, 1983). These two concepts were also refereed to as
"Magic Window" and "Social Expectation" measures (Hawkins & Pingree, 1980;
Hawkins, 197 7). Magic Window or Perceived Actuality refers to the extent to which
viewers believe that what they see on television actually did or could exist in the real world.
Perceived Similarity or Social Expectations refers to the extent to which viewers believe the
situation they watch is similar to aspects of their own life.

Potter (1986) defined three dimensions of perceived reality; "Magic Window" referring
to "the degree to which a viewer believes television content is an unaltered, accurate
representation of real life," "Instruction" referring to "viewers' beliefs about television as

an instructional aid which augments and expands their direct experiences," and "Identity"

15

referring to "the similarity the viewer perceives between television characters and situations

and the people and situations they experience in the real world" (pp. 162-163).

Greenberg and Reeves (197 6) found a positive correlation between perceived reality
and specificity of content area. Here, children reported specific television characters, like

McGarrettoftheprogramHmaiLi—fl, tobesignificantlymorerealthanmoreabstract

content areas, such as policemen in general.

Television has been demonstrated to be more or less real for some viewers depending

on the level of analysis. We can not be sure that because ofprogram is realistic for a

viewer so are the characters and scenes within that program. Therefore, perceived reality

of television is measmed on three different levels; perceived reality of television in general,
perceived reality of a stimulus program, and perceived reality of specific characters and

scenes within the stimulus program. .

Hypothesis 1 will test the relationship between estimated probability of victinrization
and perceived reality of television on the three levels identified

Hla: Subjects who estimate higher probability of victimization by crime will perceive
television, in general, as more realistic than subjects' who estimate lower
probability of victimization.

Hlb: Subjects who estimate higher probability of victimization by crime will perceive a
reality-based program segment as more realistic than subjects who estimate lower
probability of victimization.

ch: Subjects who estimate higher probability of victimization by crime will judge

characters and scenes in a reality-based program segment as real more often than

subjecrs who estimate lower probability of victimization.

16

Hypothesis 2 will test the relationship between fear of crime and the same three levels

of perceived reality of television.

H2a: Subjects who are mac fearful of crime will perceive television, in general, as more
realistic than subjects who less fearful of crime.

H2b: Subjects who are more fearful of crime will perceive the stimulus program segment
as mac realistic than subjects who are less fearful of crime.

H2c: Subjects who are mac fearful of crime will judge characters and scenes in the
stimulus program segment as real more often than subjects who are less fearful of
crime.

Figure 1 illustrates the relationships predicted by hypotheses 1 and 2.

EignnJ. Diagram of Relationships Among Variables Predicted by Hypotheses 1 and 2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exposure to
Reality Based . .
l' ' . , ,> ngh Perceived
, mg I am Reality of:
High Fearulness Television in General,
High Estimates of Sumulrs Program &
Victimization Characters and Scenes
I Viewers l
Low Fearfulness
I Low Estimates of
Victimization
Exposure to Low Perceived
I I . —> Reality of:
Realrty Based Television in General,
Pr08mm Stimulis Program &
Characters and Scenes

 

 

 

 

 

 

17

Amount of tciovision viewing, proportion of total viewing that is news related, and
demographic characteristics such as age, gender, and environment in which subjects grew
up will be controlled. Operational definitions of all measures are discussed in Chapter
Two.

Below is a review of literature which investigates viewers' perceived reality as an
intervening variable between viewing violence and aggressive behavior.

E . l B l' l E . E l .

A number of studies have addressed perceived reality of filmed or televised violence as
it affects aggressive behavior. Perceived reality has been shown to increase interpersonal
aggression among children and adolescents (Atkin, 1983; Feshback, 1972) and college
students (Berkowitz & Alioto, 1973; Geen, 1975; Geen, 1973; Thomas & Tell, 1974).

In some of the experiments about to be discussed subjects were angered by
carfederates pria' to viewing mediated violence. In others they were not. Several different
measures, such as aggression toward others, willingness to aggress toward others, and
hypothetical willingness to aggress were used as indicators of aggression.

E . l B l' l E .

Asians. In a study using both angered and non-angered nrale college students, Thomas
and Tell (1970) found that subjects who were told that a film of a campus fight was real
shocked a confederate learner with significantly more intensity than subjects who were told
the fight was staged

In the Thomas and Tell (1970) study as well as a similar study by Geen (1975), the
condition in which viewers were angered and believed the violence was real lead to more
aggressive responses than any of the other variable combinations.

Berkowitz and Alioto (1973) conducwd an experiment in which all of the male college
subjects were angered by electric shock from a confederate for giving poor answers to a
bogus question. Over five trials, subjects who saw a film containing what they believed to

be a real war scene gave confederates shocks of greater duration and intensity for incorrect

18

answers than subjects in three groups receiving other explanations which did not address
reality. Of the two measures, shock intensity and shock duration, there was a bigger
between group difference for duration than fa' intensity. The authors suggested that
intensity was a more accmate measure of aggression, while duration may have been
affected by the subjects' general arousal, instead of aggression.

Geen (1975) found that both angered and non-angered subjects who viewed what they
believed to be a real fight delivered shocks of greater intensity to confederates than those
who were told the fight scene was part of a class project. The angered/real violence groups
showed the highest levels of aggression while the non-angered/fiction group showed the
least. The interaction between the two variables, anger and perceiving the film as real,
carclated with the highest shock intensities.

Children. Feshback (1972) conducted two experiments with 9 to 11 year old children.
In the first experiment, subjects were divided into four groups. The groups were Shown
either real Vietnam War footage, real campus riot footage, fantasy war footage, or fantasy
campus riot footage. Older children who saw the actual Vieuram film responded more
aggressively when shocking a confederate for wrong answers than those who saw the
fantasy war scene. For all ages the differences were significant only at the n < .10 level.
The fantasy campus riot group showed rrrore aggression than the group that saw real
campus riot footage, but not to a significant level. The author suggested that the fantasy
ri0t film may have appeared too real for the subjects to perceive as fictional without being
instructed so.

Feshback then conducted another similar experiment correcting the design flaws in his
first experiment. This time the same footage of a campus riot was used. One group was
told the film was real and was shot by a news crew, while the other group was told it was

fictional and was shot at a Hollywood studio.

19

The subjects who saw the "real" riot scene showed almost twice as much aggression
toward a confederate than the fantasy group subjects (p<.001). The control group which
saw no film showed less aggression than the real group but less than the fantasy group
leading the researcher to suggest that the fantasy scene had an aggression inhibiting effect.

In another experiment, using only angered subjects, Meyer (197 2) showed male college
students either a segment of CBS News footage depicting the actual stabbing death of a
Nath Vietnamese soldier, or a fictional knife fight from the film "From Here to Eternity."
This study was designed to examine the effect of justified and unjustified violence in real
and fictional depictions of aggression. The study found the subjects who viewed real
filmed violence with no explanation regarding justification showed significantly more
aggression than subjects who viewed fictional filmed violence with no explanation.
However, because two different scenes were used, it is impossible to tell whether subjects
reacted differently because of the perceived reality of the viewing experience or because of
some other difference between the scenes.

In different hypothetical situations, Atkin (1983) measured children's aggression
through a questionnaire designed to determine readiness to aggress against others.
Children watched a simulated newscast containing a fight scene described as either a real
part of a news story, or as part of a new movie about to be released. Atkin found
significantly higher hypothetical aggressive responses in the reality group than in the
fantasy group. Both were significantly higher than the control group for which the fight
scene was replaced by a commercial.

Potter (1986) has suggested that in rrrost studies in which both real and fictional scenes
were used the subjects were told whether what they were watching was real or fantasy; in
only a few studies viewers were not told. He suggested that when viewers were not
manipulated through an introduction, differences between experimental groups were less

likely to be found; however, when viewers were told, differences tended to be significant.

20

He concluded that "perceived reality is more likely associated with individual differences
rather than the message itself. When [viewers] are not instructed as to how to process the
media content (i.e., real or fantasy), some viewers may 'see' much more reality in the
message than others" (p. 160, emphasis added). This would lead to differences of
perception within experimental groups being minimized through the instructions of the
researchers.

To examine this hypothesis Potter tested subjects with a series of perceived reality
questions. Then, controlling for age, gender, race, and perceived reality, he asked subjects
a series of questions designed to rrreasure the relationship between amount of television
viewing and fear of victimization and fearfulness. Results of multiple regression analysis
indicated that all four of the controlled variables were stronger predictors of "mean world"
measures than amount of television viewing. According to Potter (1986), "perceived
reality measures had a much higher relationship to the estimates [of violence in society]
than did the television viewing measures a the demographic measures" (p. 166).
Conclusion

This study is specifically concerned with television programs that use re-created scenes
while telling staies that are reportedly true. It is also a direct response to suggestions by
Potter (1986) and Atkin (1983) that different people may perceive the same scenes
differently with respect to the scenes' real or fictional nature. Finally, this study is
designed to further investigate the relationship between viewers' perceived reality of
televised crime and their perceptions of crime in society. In nearly all of the studies cited,
television viewing was hypothesized to cause change in viewers' perceptions of social
reality. Therefore, this study begins with the assumption that some variation of that model
is career.

It has been demonstrated that different people hold different perceptions related to
violence in society. Traditional cultivation research suggests that these differences are a

result of the varying amounts of time people spend watching television. Other research has

21

indicated that the relationship between perceptions of society and television viewing is more
complex. Specifically, the level of reality viewers perceive in the programs they watch
plays an important role in determining how and to what extent they will be affected by the

televisiar they view.

CHAPTER TWO
Methodology

This study had three goals; (1) to measure the amount of reality viewers perceived in
two reality-based program segments, (2) to measure subjects' beliefs or perceptions about
crime in society, and (3) to investigate relationships between subjects' perceptions of crime
in society and the amount of reality they perceived in the stimulus program. In order to
achieve these goals it was impatant that the subjects were allowed to interpret for
themselves how realistic the program segments were. They were not manipulated
regarding the programs' level of reality.

Undergraduate students (n = 111) from four telecommunication classes were exposed
to one of two crime related, reality based program segments. Before viewing, subjects
canpleted a questionnaire designed to gather infamation related to viewing behavior,
demographic data, perceptions regarding crime, and perceived reality of television in
general. After viewing, subjects completed another questionnaire designed to measure
perceived reality in the stimulus program segment and of the specific characters and scenes
within the program segment.

Predetermined groups of questions, outlined later in this chapter, were factor analyzed
in order to create multiple item indicators of variables. Then, relationships between the
independent and the dependent variables were analyzed

This study is a non-experimental design. Two groups are used for replication
purposes. The program segments were not expected to elicit changes in the subjects. They
served arly as common stimuli to which all subjects responded.
WW

Two program segments were used as stimuli. They were chosen from approximately
30 possible segments, from three different programs which were on the air during the
1990/91 television season. One segment, segment A, was from the program, America}

22

23

W the other segment , segment B, was from the program, W. No
segment was selected from the third program. The segments chosen were examples of the

type of reality based television programs described earlier.

There were some differences in the two segments. In segment A, all the characters
were played by actors in the recreation of a murder. However, one of the actual
participants was interviewed on camera, but not as part of the recreation. In segment B,
the actual participants rc-created the crime. The only actor played the part of the perpetrator
for obvious reasons.

In the beginning of 8259111211, segment B, a verbal and visual disclaimer appeared.
It stated that the stories presented were acrual emergencies and that whenever possible
actual wimess have helped re-create scenes. No such disclaimer appeared in segment A,
the Wed segment. In an effort to present both programs in the way that
they appeared each week on television, the introductions to both programs were left as
viewers would normally have seen them. Therefore, the first segment had no disclaimer
while the second segment did Also, the W segment was approximately 12
minutes long while the W was approximately 8 mrinutes
long. Both programs are described below.

These differences were not expected to have any effect on the results of the study.
However, there were some differences in subjects reactions to the specific scenes and
characters of the two segments. The differences in results will be discussed in Chapter
Three.

mm, the first stimulus program segment, was selected from the reality based
program AW. This program's stated propose is to tell viewers about
crimes and wanted criminals in the hopes that viewers will call a toll free phone number
with information that will lead to the arrest of the wanted criminals who are profiled in the

program.

24

The particular segment used in this study depicted a crime in which Steve Wilson, the
estranged husband of Callie Thanburgh, abducted and executed his father-in-law, Bill
Thomburgh, for interfering with Wilson's marriage to Callie. All the scenes in the
program were rc-created Steve Wilson was portrayed by an actor throughout the segment,
as was the now deceased Bill Thornburgh. Callie Thomburgh was portrayed by an actress
in the re-created scenes. However, the real Callie Thomburgh was interviewed on camera
several times during the segment. The real Ms. Thornbrn'gh and the actress who portrayed
her in the rc-crcated scenes look very much alike. The subjects who watched this segment
saw both the real Callie Thomburgh and an actress playing the part of Ms. Thornburgh.
They never saw either the real Steve Wilson or the real Bill Thomburgh for the obvious
reasons that the fam is missing and wanted and the latter is dead

Several scenes were rc-crcated in the segment. In the first re-created scene, Steve
Wilson asked Callie Thomburgh to marry him. In the second, the couple had an argument
while driving in Wilson's pick-up truck. In the third, Wilson came to the Thomburgh
ranch after Callie had left him. He broke the windows and headlights out of one of the
Thornburgh's cars with a crow-bar. In this scene, an actress playing Callie Thomburgh
physically stopped her father from shooting Steve Wilson with a rifle from the porch as
Wilson beat the car. In the fourth scene, the viewers watched Wilson abduct Bill
Thomburgh at gun point, drive him to a desert location, and shoot him in the back of the
head. The entire segment lasted approximately 8 mrinutes and was viewed by 53 subjects.

W was taken from the program 8955;112:211. Here, the story of the
apprehension and shooting of a wanted criminal by a police officer was depicted. The
criminal, who remained unnamed in the program, was first seen peeping in the windows of
an apartment complex on the camrpus of Florida State University by a female resident,
Debra Yokum. Yokurn called the police. First, Officer Claire Noble went to the apartment
complex. When she saw the criminal, he turned and pointed a handgun at her. However,
the gun did not fire. The criminal then yelled, "It's a toy gun...It's just a toy." Then he

25

ran away. At the same time, Officer Chuck Sexton arrived at the complex from a different
direction. The criminal ran away from Noble and met Sexton. Again, the criminal pointed
the gun, this time at Officer Sexton. Again, It did not fire. The criminal put his hands in
the air and began to tell Sexton that the gun is a toy. As Sexton began to put handcuffs on
the criminal, the criminal grabbed Sexton's gun. The two men struggled. Eventually,
Sexton pulled another gun from a holster near his ankle and shot the criminal in the
stomach. At this point, Nobel arrived and the criminal was subdued.

This entire scene was rc-recreated fa the program. The real Officers Noble and
Sexton were pa'uayed by themselves in the rc-created scenes. The criminal was portrayed
by an actor. According to the script, the real criminal was wanted for four counts of
murder and is now on death row in Alabama. During the segment, viewers watched the
chase and apprehension scene along with scenes fiom the police headquarters. These
scenes were re-created by the actual police dispatchers. Also, viewers saw Debra Yokum
call the police and describe to the dispatchers what she could see from her window. The
researcher was unable to determine if the part of Debra Yokum was played by an actress or
rc-created by the real Ms. Yokum.

Before and after the re-created scene, Officers Noble and Sexton, and two of the
dispatchers were interviewed on camera about the incident and their related feelings. The
segment lasted approximately 12 minutes and was viewed by 58 subjects.

The above descriptions are based on many repeated viewing sessions of the two
segments by the researcher.

It is important to point out that in both cases there was no mention of recreation or
actuality in the scenes. Re-crcatiar was mentioned in the introduction of segment B, as
mentioned earlier. In the one program which contained a disclaimer, the disclaimer was
separated from the program by the program's open and a canmercial break. During the
rest of that program, and all of the second program, the narration and the scenes were

26

presented without reference to re-creation. It was left to the viewer to decide whether what
they watched was real or re-created.
Mariables

The independent variables measured two concepts of viewer's perceptions of society
related to crime; fear of crime and estimated probability of victimization by crime. Each of
these two concepts, fear and estimated probability of victimization, were measured on
several dimensions which are discussed below. The dependent variables measured
viewers' perceived reality on three levels; television in general, the stimulus program
sement particularly, and the characters and scenes within the stimulus segment.
Questions measuring viewing habits, place of residence while growing up, gender, and
academic class were included in the questionnaires so that those variables could be
controlled

Witter. W was mcasm'cd on two
dimensions, with three questions each. This variable was designed to measure viewers'
perceived reality of all of the television they view, not specifically the stimulus program
segment. Because of this, subjects answered these items before viewing the stimulus
program. The two dimensions were ”Magic Window" and "Instruction" as defined by
Potter (1986). Subjects responded to a 10-point scale (where l = strongly agree and 10 =
strongly disagree). The "Magic Window" items were:

"The people who play characters in TV shows are just like their characters
when they are not being seen on TV."

"The people who act on TV shows about families probably act the same
way in real life as they do on the TV shows."

"The people who are funny as characters on comedy shows are probably
very funny in real life too."

The "Insmrction" items were:
"I can learn a lot about people from watching TV."

"I get useful ideas about how I should act around my friend and family by
watching characters on TV shows."

27

(Instruction items cont.)
"I feel I can learn a lot about solving life's problems by watching characters
on TV solve their problems."

W was measured using four 10-point scale
items. The items were pretested with high school (n=48) and college students (n=54).
Eight items were pretested among both groups. The items were factor analyzed
orthogonally using varimax rotation (see Table 1).

Table 1 Initial Items Used in Pretest of Perceived Reality of Program Variable

 

pleasant...unpleasant .096 .963* .015
real...unreal .831“ .151 .224
bad...good -.631 -.334 -.044
realistic...make believe .827“ .126 .165
real life...fantasy .893“ .042 .162
fact...fiction .779* -. 131 .234
believable...not believable .800“ .126 .218
news...entertainment .285 .020 .953*

" Signifies .500 a' higher loading on any one factor

 

Items 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 clustered into one factor accounting for 64 percent of the total
variance (eigenvalue = 4.4). From that group of five items, four were used. Item 4, from
the original list above, was drOppcd because it was redundant with item 2 (r = .732).
Another Item, "Credible...Not Credible," was also tested. However, it was dropped
because some of the pretest subjects in the high school class could not define the term
"credible." It was possible that some college students had the same difficulty but did not
ask questions. The four items used to measure perceived reality of the stimulus program
segment were: real...unreal, like real life...fantasy, believable...not believable, and
fact...fiction.

Three other individual were included measuring other attitudes related to subjects'

perceived reality of the stimulus segments.

28

Those scales were:

"like a news program...like an entertainment program.

"like a crime/drama program...like The Six O'clock News."

"most of the people in the program were actors...most were real people."
These items were used individually, not combined. The same 10-point response scale was
used.

W in the stimulus program segment.
was measured by asking subjects to indicate whether a character was "the real person
involved in the crime," "an actor playing that person," or whether they "could not tell," or
"could not remember that part of the program." Simrilar items were used to measure
perceived reath of specific scenes. These questions varied according to which program
subjects viewed. Possible responses were variations on the following sample responses;
"the actual scene," " the scene was re-created for the program," "could not tell," and "don't
remember that scene" (see Appendix 1 fa the complete questionnaire).

Wanna. The independent variables were to measure viewers'
perceptiars related to crime and violence in society. The operational definitions that were
identified were "fear of victimization by crime" and "estimated probability of victimization."
Several dimensions of those two concepts were identified and measured as described
below.

BMW, was measured on three dimensions as identified
by Weaver and Wakshlag (1986). 10-point scale items asked subjects to estimate "How
likely" it is that each of ten situations would occur (1 = extremely likely, 10 = not at all
likely). The ten hypothetical situations measured three dimensions of estimated probability
of victimization; personal, situational, or environmental (Weaver & Wakshlag, 1986).

There were three "personal victimization" items:

"How likelyisitthatyou personallywillbeavictimofsometypeofcrime
in 1991?" (Data were collected in late February and early March of 1991.)

"How likely is it that some harm will come to you some day because of
someone's violent behavior?"

29

("Personal Victimization" items cont.)
"How likely do you drink it is that one of your close friends will have their
apartment, darn room, or house broken into dming the next year?"

There were five "situational victimrization" items:
"How dangerous do you think it is for afemale driver to pick up a male
hitch-hiker, who is a stranger?" (not at all dangerous ...extrcmely
dangerous).

"How dangerous do you think it is for a male driver to pick up a male hitch-
hiker, who is a stranger?" (not at all dangerous...extremely dangerous).

"If you were to walk alone near where you live every night for a month,
how likely is it that you would fall victim to violent crime?"

"You have lived in the same small town for many years and know most of
the people and places in it. If you came home one night and found your
front door unlocked, how likely is it that you would be assaulted?"
"You live in the city, in a ground floa' apartment. It's a pleasant night so
your windows are opened. If you heard voices outside your window, how
likely is it that you would be assaulted?"

There were two "environmental victimization" items:

"How serious a problem are violent crimes where you live now?"
(extremely serious...not serious at all).

"How often do you decide not to walk alone at night because of the chances
of becoming the victim of violent crime?" (walk alone at night whenever I
like...never walk alone at night).

Wine, was measured through seven lO-point scale items similar to
those used by Sparks and Ogles (1990). They asked subjects to indicate "how afraid they
are of" ten situations or crimes.

The items were: "How afraid are you of...
being tlucatened with a knife;
being assaulted while walking alone at night;
having your house, apartment, or dorm room broken into;
being murdered;
being held up or robbed by someone with a gun;
being beaten by a stranger.

having strangers follow you from a bar or restaurant at night?

30

Viewing habits were measured through questions asking 1) how many hours of
television were watched last week, 2) what percentage of the television programs they
watched were news programs, 3) how many times per week they watch the local news, 4)
how many times per week they watch the national news, and 5) how many times in the past
month they have seen three different reality based television programs; Unglued
We Warm, and 3232112911.

Place of residence, was measured by asking subjects to check whether they grew up in
a 1) city, 2) suburb, or 3) rural area. Subjects were also asked to provide their gender and
academic class. See Appendix A fa exact wading of all questions on both instruments.
Subjects

Subjects were college students (46 female and 65 male) in four undergraduate
telecommunication classes at a mid-Michigan adversity. Because subjects were
telecanmunication students, it is possible that they had greater knowledge television
production techniques and/or television programming issues than most other segments of
the population. If this difference did exist, it would serve to attenuate, not increase, the
correlations produced in the hypothesis tests.

Students were distributed among the following classes:

Freshmen 4 3.6%
Sophomore 30 26.8%
Junior 40 35.7%
Senior 29 25.9%
Graduate Student 8 7.2%

Students were asked to participate in the study as part of a voluntary class activity. In two
of the classes, students received one extra credit point for participation. However, all
students were told they did not have to participate and that their leaving the study at any
time would not influence their class grade.

After a group of participants had been established, they were randomly assigned to one
of the two viewing groups. One group was shown the Wanted segment.
The other group was shown the W segment.

31

Mm
Subjectsweredividedintotwogroupsbyaskingthepersonineveryotherseatto
move to another room. This was done so friends who sit next to each other in class would

be in different groups and so subjects would be chosen sanewhat equally from the back
and the front rows of the class.

Each group saw one of the stimulus program segments. The procedure in each room
was identical.

Each room contained a television monitor and a VHS videotape player.

The researcher or an assistant read the following brief explanation and a set of instructions

to the group:

“This is a study about television. You will complete a survey which asks general
questions about television and other aspects of society. Then, you will be divided
into two groups. One group will remain here. The other will go to another room.
You will watch a segment from a television program which is on each week during
prime time. After viewing you will complete another questionnaire. Then you will
all return to this room and 1 will answer any questions you have about the study.”
I cannot explain anymae until the study is completed”

“Regarding your participation in the study,

1) You do not have to participate. You may go outside and wait until the study is
over if you like. You may also walk out at anytime during the study. However,
once you leave you must remain outside until the study is completed. Whether you
participate will in no way influence your grade in this class. I believe the study will
be an interesting learning experience for you and I encourage you to participate.

2) You will not be asked to identify yourself on any of the study’s materials. Your
anonynrity is guaranteed. You will be asked to put your mother’s maiden name and
the day on which you were born on the two questionnaires. The reason we use
mother’s maiden name and day of birth is so that we can match the two
questionnaires without identifying you. If you don’t want to use your mother’s
maiden name for some reason, that’s ok. Just use the same name on both
questionnaires. Any questionnaires without matches will be thrown out.

Thank You for participating.”

(Split 819098)

Survey Instructions:

“Here is the questionnaire. Please read the instructions and answer every question.
Notice there are questions on both sides of each page.”

“In order to match the questionnaires, it is important that you use the same name
and day of birth on both questionnaires. Don’t forget to fill in that information. If
you don’t we cannot use your questionnaires.”

“Please do not discuss your answers with others in this class until the study is
completed. Thank You.”

32

The first questionnaire was distributed. It contained all items measuring both
independent variables, estimated probability of victimization and fear of victimrization, and
one dependent variable, perceived reality of television in general. Subjects were given as
much time as needed to complete the questionnaire. No group took more than 15 minutes.
The first questionnaire was then collected by the researcher or an assistant. After all of the
questionnaires were collected, subjects watched one of the two stimulus segments. The
segment enmd, the second questionnaire was distributed, completed by the students, and
collected. It contained items measuring the remaining two dependent variables, perceived
reality of the stimulus program segment and perceived reality of the characters and scenes
within the stimulus program segment. Again, no group took more than 15 minutes to
complete the second questionnaire.
Then, the groups were brought together, the purpose of the Study was explained more
fully, and students were allowed to ask questions of the researcher. At this time students
were also asked not to discuss the study with others outside of the class for at least two
weeks. The total procedure took between 30 and 40 mrinutes.
The following variables were measured with the two, pro-exposure and post-exposure,
instruments:
Fear of Victimization; Two Dimensions (Pro-exposure)
Fear of Personal Harm
Fear of Property Loss

Estimated Probability of Victimization by Crime; Three Dimensions (Pro-exposure)
Personal Estimates

Environmental Estimates
Situational Estimates

Denendentlariahles

Perceived Reality of General Television Content; Two Dimensions (Pm-exposure)
Magic Window
Instruction

Perceived Reality of Reality-based Program Segment (Post-exposure)

Perceived Reality of Characters and Scenes within the Reality-based Program Segment (Post-
Exposure)

33

It should be emphasized that the perceived reality of general television content variable was
measured before exposure to the stimulus program.
E El' [lll'll II'H

The five variables used to test the study’s hypotheses were multiple item indicators;
combinatiars of several items. The following section is a description of the process that
was used to factor analyze the items and then weight and combine them into the five
multiple item variables; 1) perceived reality of general television content, 2) perceived
reality of the stimulus program segments, 3) perceived reality of characters and scenes
within the stimulus segments, 4) fear of victimization, and 5) estimated probability of
victimization.

WW Potter (1986) indicated that
perceived reality of television is multidimensional. Six items were used two measure two
dimensions of perceived reality in television content. Potter referred to the two dimensions
as "Magic Window" and "Instruction." In order to measure these to dimensions,
respondents indicated their level of agreement on a 10-point scale (receded 10 = strongly
agree, 1 = strongly disagree) to the following statements:

I I . 1M 1 I

1. The people who play characters in TV shows are just like their
characters when they are not being seen on TV.

2. The peeple who act on TV shows about families probably act
the same way in real life as they do on the TV shows.

3. The people who are funny as characters on comedy shows are
probably very funny in real life too.

lnsurrcricnallterns
4. I can learn a lot about people from watching TV.

5. I get useful ideas about how I should act around my friends
and family by watching characters on TV shows.

6. I feel I can learn a lot about solving life’s problems by
watching characters on TV solve their problems.

34

Principle axis component factor analysis with a two facta' solution and varimax
rotation clustered the items as predicted with items 1, 2, and 3 on the "Magic
Window" factor or dimension and items 4, 5, and 6 on the "Instruction" factor or
dimension (see Table 2).
The factor loading of item 3 was noticeably smaller than that of the other five items. When
a three factor solution was comrputed, item 3 loaded alone on the third factor. Therefore, it
appeared that item 3 was not accurately measuring either dimension. It was dropped Items
1 and 2 were combined and weighted by factor loadings to create the "Magic Window"
dimension of perceived reality of general television content ( Mean = 3.77, Std. Dev.=
2.46). Items 4, 5, and 6 were combined and weighted by factor loadings to create the
"Instruction" dimension ( Mean = 9.41, Std. Dev.= 4.52).

Table 2 Factor Loadings of Items Measuring Two Dimensions of Perceived Reality of
General Television Content.

 

Item 1 .197 .864“
Item 2 .132 .747*
Item 3 .071 .327
Item 4 .655“ .130
Item 5 .838* .170
Item 6 .816* .178

* Signifies .500 or higher loading on any one factor

 

WWW Seven items measured viewers'
"perceived reality of the reality-based segment." They appeared as lO-point scale items.
The items were:

1. Wastheprogramyoujustwatchedrealorunreal?

12345678910
Real Unreal

2. Was the program you just watched a fantasy or more like real life?

12 3 4 5 6 7 8 910
LikeRealLife Fantasy

35

3 . Was the program you just watched believable or not believable?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Believable Not Believable
4. Was the program you just watched mae like a news program or more like an
entertainment program?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Entertainment News
program program

5. Was the program you just watched more fictional or more factual?

12345678910
Factual Fictional

6. Wastheprogramyoujust sawmorelikeacrime/dramaprogramorthe six
O’clock news?

12345678910

Crime/Drama The Six O’clock
program News
7. Would you say most of the people in the program you just saw
were real people or actors?
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Actas Real People

The scores were receded so that higher scaes represented more perceived reality.

The seven items were factor analyzed using principle axis factor and varimax rotation (see
Table 3). A two factor solution loaded items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 on the fust factor.
However, the factor loadings of items 4 and 7 less than .50. Items 4 and 7 were dropped.
The second factor included item 6. The factor loadings suppated the four item index
identified in the pretest discussed earlier. Items 1, 2, 3, and 5 were factor analyzed
separately (see Table 4). The four items were then combined and weighted to form the
multiple item variable "Perceived reality of stimulus program segment" (mean = 26.11,
Std. Dev. = 6.07).

36

Table 3 Factor loadings of All Items Used To identify Perceived Reality of The Stimulus
Programs

 

Item 1 .700* .104
Item 2 .913“ .228
Item 3 .808" .106
Item 4 .401 .368
Item 5 .834“ -.030
Item 6 .013 .700*
Item 7 .333 .073

* Signifies .500 or higher loading on any one factor

 

Table 4 Factor Ioadin gs of Items Used to Measure Perceived Reality of Stimulus
Programs

 

 

Itcml .715
Item2 .916
Item3 .828
Item5 .809
{rm ' 6.! {H .s 0 Urort p". -H 't' A. O! 01' In bunt”: ‘uut‘t

There were two different sets of questions regarding the perceived reality of specific
characters and scenes within the two stimulus programs. Subjects answered the questions
appropriate to the segment they viewed. The items for the respective programs along with

the frequency distributions are as follows:

Surname.

1 . In the program you just watched, a man identified as Steve Wilson shot another man
identified as Bill Thomburgh, Callie Thomburgh’s father. Was the man you saw
being shot the real Bill Thomburgh or an actor playing Bill Thomburgh?

(Check only one)

A. 2 4% I saw the real Bill Thomburgh get shot.

B. 49 * 93% An actor playing Bill Thomburgh was shot.

C. 1 2% I don’t know if the man who was shot was Bill Thomburgh or an
actor.

D. 1 2% I don’t remember that part of the program.

37

In the program you just watched, a woman identified as Callie Thomburgh stopped
her father fran shooting Steve Wilson as Wilson broke the windows and lights out of
their car. Was that wanan the real Callie Thomburgh or an actress playing Callie
Thanburgh?

(Check only are)

A. 9 17% The real Callie Thornburgh.

B. 35 * 66% An actress playing Callie Thornburgh.

C. 9 17% I don’t know if the woman was the real Callie Thomburgh or an
actress.

D. 0 0% I don’t remember that part of the program.

In the program you just saw, a man and a woman had a somewhat violent argument
in a pickup truck. Was that argument real or was it created for the program?
(Check only one)

A. 6 11% Itwasarealargument.

B. 40 * 75% The argument was created for the program.
C. 7 13% I don’t know if it was real or created.

D. 0 0% I don’t remember that part of the program.

In the program you just watched, a man identified as Steve Wilson was introduced to
another man identified as Bill Thomburgh by a waitress in a diner. Was that waitress
the woman who really introduced the two men, or was she an actress playing a
waitress?

(Check only one)

A. 4 8% The waitress who really introduced them.

B. 36 * 68% An actor playing the waitress.

C. 11 21% I don’t know if she was the real waitress who introduced them or an
actress.

D. l 2% I don’t remember that part of the program.

(1 missing)

In the program you just saw, an angry man broke the windows and headlights out to
a car, while another man pointed a rifle at him, but didn’t shoot. Was that situation
real or was it created for the program?

(Check only one)

A.l6 30% The situation was real.

B. 31 * 59% The situation was created for the program.

C. 5 9% I don’t know if the situation was real or created for the program.
D. 0 0% I don’t remember that part of the program.

(1 missing)

In the program you just watched, you saw Steve Wilson shoot Bill Thornburgh.
Was that scene real, or was it re-created for the program?
(Check only one)

A. 2 4% The scene was real.
B. 49 * 93% The scene was re-created for the program.
C. 1 2% I don’t know if the scene was real or re-created for the program.
D. 0 0% I don’t remember that part of the program.
(1 missing)

1.

38

mm.

In the program you just watched, a male police officer wrestled with and eventually
shot a suspect. Was that police officer you saw really Officer Chuck Sexton or was
he an actor playing Chuck Sexton?

(Check only one)

A. 24 " 41% He was the real Officer Chuck Sexton.

B. 16 27% He was an actor playing Officer Chuck Sexton.

C. 18 31% I don’t know if he was an actor or the real Chuck Sexton.
D. 0 0% Idon’trememberthatpartoftheprogram.

(1 missing)

In the program you just watched, a female police officer came to the scene of the
shooting shortly after the suspect was shot. Was she Officer Claire Noble or was she
an actress playing Officer Claire Nobel?

(Check only one)

A. 14 24% She was an actress playing Officer Claire Noble.

B. 29 "' 49% She was the real Officer Claire Noble.

C. 15 25% I don’t know if she was the real Officer Claire Noble or an actress.
D. 0 0% I don’t remember that part of the program.

(1 missing)

In the program you just watched, a witness saw the suspect and Officer Chuck Sexton
struggling outside her window and called the police. Was the woman you saw the
real witness, named Debra Yokum or was the woman you saw an actress playing the
part of the witness?

(Check only one)

A. 18 31% She was an actress playing the part of the witness.

B. 12 20% She was the real witness, Debra Yokum.

C. 28 48% I don’t know if she was the real witness or an actress.
D. 0 0%1 don’t remember that part of the program.

(1 missing)

In the program you just watched, a man identified as Officer Chuck Sexton talked
about how he felt after finding out that the suspect he had shot was a wanted criminal
instead of a deranged person. Was that man the real Officer Chuck Sexton or was he
an actor playing the part of Officer Chuck Sexton?

(Check only one)

A. 48 * 81% He was the real Officer Chuck Sexton.

B. 2 4% He was an actor playing Officer Chuck Sexton.

C. 8 14% I don’t know if he was an actor or the real Chuck Sexton.
D. 0 0% I don’t remember that part of the program.
1 missing)

39

5. In the program you just watched, you saw a struggle between a police officer and a
suspect. It ended when the suspect was shot. Was that scene a real fight between the
two men or was it a fake scene, recreated for the program?

(Check only one)

A. 0 0% The actual struggle between the two men.

B. 58 “ 98% A scene that was re-ereated for the program.

C. 0 0% I don’t know if it was the real struggle or a re-ereated scene.
D. 0 0% I don’t remember that part of the program.

(1 missing)

6. In the program you just watched, a man who had been shot was shown lying on the
ground with police officers around him. Was that scene real, or was it created for the
I"

program.

(Check only one)

A. 0 0% The scene was real.

B. 58 * 98% The scene was created for the prograrrr.

C. 0 0% I don’t know if the scene was real or created for the program.

D. 0 0% I don’t remember that part of the program.

(1 missing)

* Indicates the correct answer.
For the purposes of measuring subjects' perceived reality of specific characters and scenes
within the reality-based program segment, the number of answers indicating that the viewer
perceived having seen the real person or the actual scene, not an actor or a re-creation, were
summed to form an index ranging from 0 to 6. This index variable is referred to as
"perceived reality of characters and scenes." This variable was computed separately for
Group A (Mean = 1.25, Std. Dev. = 3.77) and Group B (Mean = 1.95, std. Dev. = 1.28).

WWW Ten items were used to measure
subjects’ estimates of their likelihood of falling victim to crime. Using very similar
questions, Weaver and Wakshlag (1986) found three dimensions of the construct;
estimated probability of victimization. The dimensions identified were based on personal,

situational, and environmental factors. The items were:

1. How likely is it that you personally will be a victim of some
type of crime in 1991?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Extremely Not at all
likely likely

40

How likelyisitthatsomeharmwillcometoyou someday
because of someone's violent behavior?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Extremely Not at all
likely likely

How serious a problem are violent crimes where you live now?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Extremely Not serious
serious atall

How likely do you think it is that one of your close friends
will have their apartment, dorm room, or house broken into
during the next year?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Extremely Not likely
likely at all

How often do you decide not to walk alone at night because
of the chances of becoming the victim of a violent crirne?

12345678910

Walk alone Never walk
whenever alone at night
I like

How dangerous do you think it is for a ferrrale driver to pick up a rrrale hitch-
hiker, who is a stranger?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Extremely Not Dangerous
Dangerous at all

How dangerous do you think it is for a male driver to pick up a
male hitch-hiker, who is a stranger?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Extremely Not Dangerous
Dangerous at all

 

If you were to walk alone near where you live every night for a month, how
likely is it that you would fall victim to violent crime?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Very Not likely
likely atall

41

9. You have lived in the same small town for many years and know most ofthe
people and places in it. If you came home one night and found your front door
unlocked, how likely is it that you would be assaulted?

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Extremely Not likely
likely at all

10. You live in the city, in a ground floor apartment. It's a pleasant night so your

windows are opened. If you heard voices outside your window, how likely is

it that you would be assaulted?

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Extremely Not likely
likely at all

The ten items were recoded so that higher scores reflected higher estimated probability
of victimization. Principle axis factor analysis with varimax rotation and a three factor
solution did not support the three dimensions predicted by Weaver and Wakshlag's (1986)
research (see Table 5). Further, item 5 loaded less than .50 on all three factors. It was
believed that this item asked respondents to estimate their frequency of a behavior, not a
probability, and was therefore not measuring the same construct. The items was removed

and the remaining 9 items were re-analyzed (see Table 6).

Table 5 Factor Loadings of Original Items Measrn'ing Estimated Probability of
V' . . 'on

 

Item 1 .807* .052 .024
Item 2 .822"I .145 .143
Item 3 .311 .627* .103
Item 4 .654“ .325 .084
Item 5 -.077 .358 .304
Item 6 .090 .052 .910*
Item 7 .018 .028 .623*
Item8 .181 .743* .185
Item 9 .047 .680“ .007
Item 10 .144 .500* .059

* Signifies .500 or higher loading on any one factor

 

Table 6 Factor Loadings of Items Measuring Estimated Probability of Victimization

 

Item 1
Item 2
Item 3
Item 4
Item 6
Item 7
Item 8
Item 9
Item 10

.822"I
.812“
.281
.622“
.085

005
193
004
122

.068
.173
.656*
.368
.058
.040
.661 *
.735“
.511*

.023
.148
-.090
-.063
.795*
.742“
.158
.008
.069

* Signifies .500 or higher loading on any one factor

 

The three items reflecting estimates of the probability of personal victimization loaded on

one factor as predicted. However, the items which were to measure estimates based on

environmental and situational factors did not separate as predicted. Items 3, 8, 9, and 10

appeared to measure respondents' estimated probability of victirrrization based on the

environment in which they live. Items 6 and 7 appear to measure a more specific

dimension; the situational danger of picking up a hitch-hiker.

From the results of these factor analyses three variables were created. "Personal"

estimates were measured by combining and weighting items 1, 2, and 4 (Mean = 12.34,

Std. Dev. = 5.06). "Environmental" estimates were measured by combining and weighting

items 3, 8, 9, and 10 (Mean = 11.04, St. Dev. = 4.83). "Situational" estimates were

measured by combining and weighting items 6 and 7 (Mean = 12.70, St. Dev. = 2.33). It

should be noted that these dimensions were given the same names used by Weaver and

Wakshlag (1986) but were not created from the same item groupings.

43

W. Subjects' fear of being victimized by crime was
measured through seven items used by Sparks and Ogles (1990). Subjects were asked to

indicate on a lO-point scale how afraid they are of seven different situations. The Items

were:

How afraid are you of:

1. Being threatened with a knife:
2. Being assaulted while walking alone at night:

3. Having your house, apartment, or dorm room broken into:

4. Being murdered:

5. Being held up or robbed by someone with a gun:
6. Being beaten by a stranger:

7. Having strangers follow you from a bar or restaurant at night:

Response scale for all seven fear of victirrrization items was:

12345678910
Extremely
afraid

Notafraid
atall

Results were coded so that higher scores reflected more fear.

Principle axis factor analysis of the seven items with varimax rotation revealed two

factors (see Table 7).

Table 7 Factor Loadings for Original Items Measuring Fear of Victimization

 

Item 1
Item2
Item 3
Item4
Item5
Item6
Item7

.732“
.701*
.330
.769*
.235
.786“
.366

.319
.301
.432*
.276
.963*
.322
.517

* Signifies .500 or higher loading on any one factor (in this case item 3 was

not excluded)

 

Because the factor loading for item 7 was somewhat weak and because the item did not
specifically ask about fear of a crime, but fear of the potential of a crime, it was thought that
it may be measuring a different construct. The items was dropped and the remaining six
items were re-analyzed revealing a three factor solution (see Table 8).

Table 8 Factor Loadings of Items Measuring Two Dimensions of Fear of Victimization

 

EersenalEeaLof
Eearflnmlass

Item 1 .746“ .369 .062
Item 2 .722“ .231 .081
Item 3 .186 .684“ .173
Item 4 .732“ .288 .212
Item 5 .375 .640“ .002
Item 6 .691” .332 .493

* Signifies .500 or higher loading on any one factor

 

Here, items 1, 2, 4, and 6 clearly loaded on the first factor while items 3 and 5 loaded on
the second. It was believed that the items in the first factor measured respondent's fear of
being harmed by another person, while items 3 and 5 were written so that respondents
were presented with the proposition of having something of value taken from them. The
threat of being harmed seems secondary in these two items. Therefore, items 1, 2, 4, and
6 were combined and weighted to create a variable called "Fear of harm" (Mean = 14.61,
St. Dev. = 7.30). Items 3 and 5 were combined and weighted to create a variable called
"Fear of property loss" (Mean = 6.53, St. Dev. = 3.15).

CHAPTER THREE
Results

51' 'B I}? .1“.

Among Group A subjects, the mean viewing amount for all types of programming was
2.36 hours per day; 14 reported watching AW once a month; 44
reported having not watched the program within the previous four weeks; 17 subjects
reported having seen 3255;112:211 once within the previous four weeks; four said they had
seen it two or three times within the previous four weeks; 37 had not seen the program
within the previous month.

Among Group B subjects, the mean viewing amount for all types of programming was
2.53 hours per day; 11 had seen Wed within the previous four weeks;
three had seen it rrrore than once; 37 had not seen it at all within the same period, with two
non-responses; seven subject reported having seen W1 once within the previous
four weeks; one subject reported having seen it twice; 43 reported having not seen the
program within the previous month, with two non-responses.

I} . . E 1

Three variables, fear of crime, estimated probability of victimization and perceived
reality of general television content were measured in the pre-exposure questionnaire.
When calculating correlations between any two of these three variables, it was not
necessary to look at Group A and Group B separately. Combining the two groups also
offered a larger number of subjects and thus lowered the correlation required for statisu'cal

significance. This was the case when Hypotheses 1a and 2a were tested. The means and

standard deviation scores for estimated probability of n'gnm' izafign, fear of n'cn'mizan'gn,

and W for all 111 subjects are reported in Table 9.
In testing Hypotheses 1b, 2b, 1c, and 2c Group A and Group B were analyzed

separately. This required re-analysis of each of the five multiple item variables to include

45

only subjects from one group or the other. Means and standard deviation scores for each
of the five variables, separated by group, are reported in Table 10. Because all five of the
multiple item variables were not made up of the same number of items, all variable scores
are divided by the number of items contained in the variable. Thus, each score is adjusted

toa 1 to 10 scale.

Table 9 Means and Standard Deviation Scores for Pretest Multiple Item Indicators

 

WW
Dimmsjgn Mean Std. Dev.
Personal 4.11 1.69
E . E l l .1.
Won Environmental 2.76 1.21
Situational 6.35 1.17
m Personal Harm 3.65 1.87
W
Property Loss 3.27 1.58
W Magic Window 1.89 1.28
Wm

Instruction 3.14 1.51

 

47

Table 10 Means and Standard Deviation Scores for Multiple Item Indicators by Group

 

Erratum 0mm
Dimension Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Personal 3.80 1.69 4.40 1.65
E . E 1 IT
Wm Environmental 2.48 1.19 3.02 1.17
Situational 6.32 1.32 6.38 1.02
m Personal Harm 3.28 1.83 4.00 1.76
If . . .
Property Loss 2.95 1.53 3.56 1.57

W Magic Window 1.93 1.46 1.85 .100

Want

Instruction 2.94 1.41 3.31 1.58
Writer OneDimension 6.12 1.67 6.90 1.27
Stimuluamzaram

WM One Dimension 1.25 3.78 1.95 1.28

 

C l . E 11' . [II . l I
There was a positive correlation between the personal and environmental dimensions

of estimated probability of victimization. However, neither dimension correlated with the
situational dimension of the same variable. (see Table 10).

The two dimensions of fear of victimization, personal harm and property loss,
correlated positively (r =.565, p < .01). The magic window dimension of perceived reality
of general television content correlated with the instruction dimension of the same variable

(r = .321, p < .01).

48

C l . E I l l I! . l 1
Not surprisingly, there were statistically significant correlations between fear of

victimization and estimated probability of being victimized, however not in every case (see

Table 11).

Table 11 Correlations Between Independent Variables

 

Personal Environ. Sit. Harm Prop-Loss

. Personal 1.0
W
Won Environmental .358" 1.0
Situational .093 .096 1.0
Fem PersonalHarm .065 .476" .196* 1.0
1!. . . .
Property Loss .184“ .391“ -.082 .564" 1.0

“ = Significant at p < .05, ** = Significant at p < .01.

 

W

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between perceptions of
crime in the real world and perceived reality in general television content and reality-based,
crirrre related, television programs. The following section contains the results of
correlational analysis which test the study's hypotheses. All correlations reported in this
study were computed as Pearson's Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation using SPSS
for Macintosh, and one tailed tests of statistical significance. All means and standard
deviations reported in this section are divided by the number of items making up the
multiple item indicator. This standardizes all results to appear as positions on a lO-point
scale. The results of the two groups, Group A (n = 53) and Group B (n = 58), are
reported separately except in the cases of Hypotheses 1a and 2a which were tested

exclusively with Pre—exposure variables.

49

Hypothesim
Subjects who estimate higher probability of victimization by crime will perceive
television, in general, as more realistic than subjects who estimate lower
probability of victimization.

Subjects' estimates of their probability of being victimized by crime were measured on
three dimensions; estimates related to personal, environmental, and situational factors as
described in Chapter Two. Perceived reality of television in general was measured on two
dimensions; magic window and instruction, also described above (see Table 12).

Table 12 Correlations Between Perceived Reality of General TV Content and Estimated
Probability of Victimization

 

E . l B l' E G 1 III C
Magic Window Insrruction
Estimated Personal .005 -.008
Envrronmental .133 .010
Situational -.418** -.085

u = Significant at p < .01.

 

Because both variables, estimated probability of victimization and perceived reality of
general television content, were measured before exposure to the stimulus program, there
was no reason to look at the two groups separately. The only signifith correlation was
between the situational dimension of estimated probability of victimization and the magic
window dimension of perceived reafity of general television content. However, the
correlation was negative, not in the direction predicted by the hypothesis. Therefore, the
data do not support Hypothesis 1a.
Merlin:

Subjects who estimate higher probability of victimization by crime will perceive a

reality-based program segment as more realistic than subjects who estimate lower
probability of victimization.

50

Perceived reality of the the stimulus program segment was measured on one
dimension. Estimated probability of victimization was measured on three dimensions;
personal, environmental, and situational. Here the results are reported separately for
Groups A and Group B.

The situational dimension of estirmted probability of victimization correlated
positively, as predicted, with perceived reality of the stimulus program segment in Group A
(r = .537, p < .01) and Group B (r = .237, p < .01). However, there was no support for
Hypothesis 1b within the personal or environmental dimensions. Frn'tlrer, there was a
significant negative correlation between the environmental dirrrension of estimated
probability of victimization and perceived reality of the stimulus program (see Table 14).

Table 14 Correlations Between Perceived Reality of Stimulus Program Segments and
Estimated Probability of Victimization

 

E . l B l' E
Stimulusfiegments
Group A Group B
W Personal . 170 -.095
W Envrronrrrental -.254* -.070
Situational .537" .267"

* = Significant at p < .05, ** = Significant at p < .01.

 

Ihmthesisle
Subjects who estimate higher probability of victimization by crime will judge
characters and scenes in a reality-based program segment as real more often than
subjects who estimate lower probability of victirrrization.
Perceived reality of specific characters and scenes within the stimulus programs was
measured through a series of six items as described in Chapter Two. The data partially
support the hypothesis. There is are positive correlations between the environmental

dimension of estimated probability of victimization and perceived reality of the characters

51

and scenes in Group A (r = .251, p < .05). There is also a positive correlation between the
situational dimension and perceived reality of the characters and scenes in Group B

(r = 240, p < .05). However, there was no support for Hypothesis 1c on the personal
dimension in either group (see Table 16).

Table 16 Correlations Between Perceived Reality of Specific Characters and Scenes and
Estimated Probability of Victimization

 

P. . l B 1' [5 '5
W
Group A Group B
Estimated Personal -.080 .009
W Envrronmental .251“ -.144
Situational .1 15 .240“

" = Significant at p < .05

 

Wish

Subjects who are more fearful of crime will perceive television, in

general, as more realistic than subjects who less fearful of crime.

Fear of victimization was measured on two dimensions; fear of personal harm and fear
of property loss (see Table 13).

Table 13 Correlations Between Perceived Reality of Television in General and Fear of
V' . . “on

 

(Groups A & B)

Magic Window Instruction
Egauzf . Personal .018 .226“
W
Property Loss .171* .128

e = Significant at p < .05, ** = Significant at p < .01.

 

There were two statistically significant positive correlations related to hypothesis 2a. The

property loss dimension of fear of victimization (fear of property loss) correlated as

52

hypothesized with the magic window dimension of perceived reality of general television
content (r = .171, p < .05). The instruction dimension of perceived reality of general
television content correlated as predicted with personal dimension of fear of victimization
(r = .226, p < .01). Hypothesis 2a is partially supported by the data.

IimmhesiaZh
Subjects who are more fearful of crime will perceive the stimulus program segment
as more realistic than subjects who are less fearful of crime.

Here, the data did not support the Hypothesis 2b in either group. There was one
statistically significant correlation; that between the property loss dimension of fear of
victirrrization and perceived reality of stimulus program B. However, this was a negative
correlation and not in the direction predicted by the Hypothesis 2b (see Table 15).

Table 15 Correlations Between Perceived Reality of Stimulus Program Segments and Fear
of Victirrrization

 

E . IE 1' E
W
GroupA GroupB
m . Personal -.021 —.102
15 . .
Property Loss -.037 -.347**

** = Significant at p < .01.

 

M25112:

H2c Subjects who are more fearful of crime will judge characters and scenes in the
stimulus program segment as real more often than subjects who are less fearful of
crrme.

There were no statistically significant correlations between either dimension of fear of

victimization and perceived reality of characters and scenes in either Group. The data do

53

not support Hypothesis 2c (see Table 17).

Table 17 Correlations Between Perceived Reality of Specific Characters and Scenes and
Fear of Victimization

 

 

E . IE 1' [5 '5
W
GroupA GroupB
Eeamf Personal .081 .220
15 . . .
PropertyLoss .044 -.173
Conclusion

Two of the six individual hypothesis were partially supported. There was limited
evidence suggesting a relationship between fear of victimization by crime and perceived
reality of general television content. There was also evidence of a relationship between the
situational dimension of estimated probability of victimization and perceived reath of the
both stimulus, reality based programs. There were no relationships between perceived
reality of general television prograrrrrning and estimated probability of victimization,
between fear of crime and perceived reality of the stimulus programs, nor between
perceived reality of the characters and scenes of either program segment and either

independent variable, fear of crime and estimated probability of victimization.

CHAPTER FOUR

Discussion

In this chapter, study results are discussed regarding three areas of concern; viewers'
perceptions of reality based programs, the relationship between viewers' perceived reath
of television and their concern about crime in society, and implications related to perceived
reality as an intervening variable between TV exposure and cultivation effects.

There have been few studies investigating reality based television programs. This
study suggests viewers are able to distinguish re-created scenes from actual scenes shot at
crime events. However, it also suggests there is some confusion among viewers in
distinguishing actual event participants from actors and actresses when scenes are re-
created. Further, reath based programs were identified as less "realistic" than news
programs but more realistic than entertainment programs. This indicates that reath based
programs are not viewed in the same way as other types of television programming.
Viewers' perceptions of the stimulus programs are discussed later in this chapter.

The predicted relationship between concerns about crime in society and perceived
reality of the reality based programs was supported in only one very specific dimension in
this study. However, a relationship was demonstrated between perceived reality of general
television content and fear. This suggests viewers may respond differently to reality based
prograrrrs than to other types of programs. There may be no relationship between concerns
about crime and perceived reality of reality based programs. It is also possible that,
regarding perceived reality, viewers feel differently about programs they have just watched
than they do about all of the television they watch over time. This implies research into one
genre cannot be generalized to other types of television programming and that answers to
questions regarding specific programs may not be generalizable to beliefs about television

programming in general.

54

55

The positive correlation between fear of crime and perceived reality of general
television content and lack of correlation between estimated probability of victimization and
perceived reality of general television content suggests fear is a different construct from
estimates of danger and that cultivation research should be cautious in combining measures
of these different constructs into one dimension.

Bream

Gerbner’s cultivation hypothesis (Gerbner & Gross, 1976) suggested that there is a
relationship between what people watch on television and how they view the world in
which they live; specifically, heavy television viewing leads to greater beliefs that the real
world is like that which is watched on the television. Perceived reality research indicates
that the more people perceive what they see on television as real, the more likely they are to
be affected by it. Potter (1986) joined these two concepts, cultivation hypothesis and
perceived reality, suggesting that perceived reath is an intervening variable between
television viewing and cultivation effects; if people perceive what they watch on television
asreal, theywill bemore likely toperceive tlrereal worldasliketheTV world

This study set out to identify a relationship between being more concerned about
crime, a variable measured in cultivation research, and perceived reality of television
programrrring. It was hypothesized that people who are more concerned about crime would
perceive rrrore reality in television in general and in reality based programs specifically. If
this were so, it would support Potter’s suggestion that perceived reality intervenes between
television viewing and cultivation effects at least regarding reality based crime
programming. Demonstration of this relationship would not determine causal direction.
That is, from this study it was not possible to determine whether perceiving crime
programming as more realistic leads to more concern about crime or, inversely, being more
concerned about crime leads to greater perceived reality in crime programming. However,

it could determine if a correlation between the two exists.

56

Two constructs related to concern about real crime and three levels of perceived reality
were measured. Concern about crime was measured as 1) fear of victimization, which
consisted of two dimensions; fear of being robbed or burglarized and fear of personal harm
and 2) estimated probability of being victimized by crime which consisted of three
dimensions; estimates of the likelihood of personally being harmed, likelihood of being
victimized based on given situations and likelihood based on the environment in which one
lives or travels.

Perceived reality of general television content was measured on two dimensions as
identified by Potter (1986); 1) The magic window dimension, referring to the extent to
which people believe what they see on television is a mirror or window of real life and 2)
the instruction dimension, referring to the extent to which people believe they can learn
from what they watch on television. Perceived reality of the reality based programs shown
was rrreasured on one dimension. Perceived reality of the characters and scenes was
measured by the number of characters and scenes identified by the subjects as actual scenes
or participants, not reocreated scenes or actors.

The results suggested that those who are more fearful of crime perceive more reality in
the general television they watch. However, this relationship did not exist regarding the
perceived reality of either of the stimulus programs. Further, the results do not support a
similar relationship between feeling that one will fall victim to crime and perceiving
television as more realistic. The results also suggest that there is a relationship between
viewers' estimated danger in picking up hitch-hikers and their perceived reality of the
stimulus programs used. But, again, there was no strong evidence to support any more
general relationship between perceived reath of the stimulus program or television in
general and any other dimensions of estimated probability of victimization. Below is a
brief review of the results of each for the hypotheses.

3mm There is nothing in the results to suggest that pe0ple who perceive

general television content as rrrore realistic feel they are more likely to fall victim to crime.

57

However, the statistically significant negative correlation (r = -.418, p < .01) between the
situational dimension of estimated probability of victimization and the magic window
dimension of perceived reality of general television content was unexpected and difficult to
explain. This finding suggests that, for example, people who believe television is very
much like the real world perceive less danger in picking up hitch-hikers than those who
perceive television as not like real life. After double checking the instrument and the SPSS
command statements there are no errors in coding or recoding.

One explanation for this negative result may be that the measure of situational estimates
of probability of victimization consisted of only two items, both dealing with the danger of
picking up hitch-hikers; a very specific situation. It is possible that respondents do not
judge the dangers of picking up strangers while driving in the same way they judge other
potentially dangerous situations. A second explanation may be that the subjects in this
study simply do not believe people on television behave the same way while on TV as they
do in real life.

A third explanation may be that the negative correlation is a function of the distribution
of the scores. The scores of the two variables, situational estimates of probability of
victimization and the magic window dimension of perceived reality of general television
content, were skewed in opposite directions and showed less variance than may be desired
for correlational analysis (see Table 18).

Table 18 Descriptive Statistics of Magic Window and Situational Estimates of Probability
of Vietirrrization Variables

 

Mean mm Shyness
Situational Estimates of
Probability of Victimization 12.70 2.33 -1.54

Magic Window/
Perceived Reality of General TV Content 3.77 2.46 1.83

 

58

Because both variables consist of two questions, the scores are reported with a possible
range from 0 to 20. The two variables similarly range from 1 to 15. However, for the
magic window variable, 80% of the scores are below 5 on the 1 to 20 scale. But, for the
situational estimated probability variable, 50% of the scores fall above 13.
It is suggested that the small variance would attenuate, not increase, the correlation score
and the opposite directed skewness may have produced a negative correlation.
W. There was support for a positive relationship between perceived reality
of both reality-based program segments A and B and situational estimates of probability of
victirrrization. This is in contrast to the negative correlation between the same variable,
situational estirrrates of probability of victimization, and perceived reality of general
television content (see Table 19 for all three correlations).

Table 19 Situational Estimates of Probability of Victimization Correlated with Perceived
Reality of General TV Content and of the Stimulus Program Segments

 

Perceived Reality of:
General TV Stimulus A Stimulus B
Situational Estimates of (Magic Window)
Probability of Victimization -.418** .537M .267*

" significant at p < .05, ** significant at p < .01

 

It appears that subjects perceived reality regarding television in general differently than
they did the reality of the specific programs they had just seen. It is also possible that
having just viewed the stimulus program affected the level of reality they reported.

Possibly television seems more real to viewers when it is fresh in their minds. If subjects
had answered the general television perception items after, instead of before, viewing the
stimulus prograrrr, there may have been more consistent results across general content items
and the items related specifically to the stimulus, reality-based programs.

W. There was support, in Group A, for a relationship between the
environmental dimension of estimated probability of victimization and perceiving the

59

charactersand scerreswithintheprogramasmorerealistic. Therewasalso supportin
Group B only for a relationship between the situational dimension of estimated probability
of victimization and perceiving the characters and scenes of segment B as more realistic.
Here, because of the lack of consistency between the two groups, any support for the
hypothesis must be considered very tentative.

W There was evidence suggesting that viewers who perceive general
television content as more realistic are more fearful of crime than those who perceive
television content as less realistic. Here, fear of losing ones' property by being robbed or
burglarized correlated with the magic window dimension of perceived reality of general
television content. Also, fear of personal harm correlated positively with the instruction
dimension. In the case of the property loss/instruction correlation (see Table 13) the
correlation (r = . 128) would be statistically significant if the sample size were increased.
These findings offer some support for a relationship between fear of crime and perceived
reality of general television content suggested by the literature.

W. There was no support in either group for this hypothesis. The results
indicate no relationship between fear of being victimized by crime and perceiving either
reality-based program segrrrent as more realistic. There was a negative correlation between
fear of property loss and perceived reality of stimulus program segment B. It is possible
that subjects simply did n0t fear the loss of property which may explain the lack of
correlation between the two variables. However, it does not explain the negative
correlation.

W29. There was no support for the hypothesis predicting a relationship
between fear of victimization and perceived reality of the characters and scenes within either
program segment.

It should be noted that while subjects reported different perceptions regarding the reality
of specific characters from both programs, nearly all of the subjects in both groups were

correct in assessing whether the scenes were real or re-created. This lack of variance in the

answers to the items measuring perceived reath of scenes may have attenuated correlations
testing Hypotheses 1c and 2c.

Wm. There was limited support for two of the six hypotheses.
The results suggest that those who are more fearful of crime are more likely to perceive
television programming in general as more realistic. This, however, is not the case
regarding the reality based programs the subjects viewed or the characters and scenes
within those programs.

The results also suggest that viewers who think it is mac dangerous to pick up hitch-
hikers also feel they are mac likely to fall victim to crime. However, the items related to
hitch-hiking represent only one of three dimensions of estimated likelihood of
victimization. There was little support within the other two dimensions.

Conflusien

Positive carelations between fear of victimization and perceived reality of general
television content lend limited support to a suggested relatiarship between peoples'
impressions of the reath of all of the television they view and their fears about crime. This
supports Potter's (1986) suggestion that perceived reality does intervene between television
viewing and the specific cultivation effects related to fear of crime. Further, there appears
to be a relationship between perceived reality of the reality based programs viewed and the
danger perceived in picking up hitch-hikers. However, aside from these rather specific
findings, there does not appear to be more general evidence that perceived reality intervenes
between viewing and cultivation effects.

The results also support the research by Sparks and Ogles (1990) which suggests
fear of victimization and estimated probability of victimization are separate constructs and
father that perceived reality, on a general level, is related to fear and not estimates of
likelihood of victimization. It is possible that the fear construct is emotionally based and
can be influenced by general television programming, but people's estimates of danger are
based on rrrorc factual information and cognitive processes and are therefore less likely to

61

be influenced by televisiar viewing. From this, it appears perceived reality may be an
intervening variable only when the cultivation effects are emotive, as in the case of fear, but
possibly not when the effects are mac cognitive such as with estimates of danger from
crime.

The uses and gratification literature may provide sane explanation for the inconclusive
results of this study. Some viewers may become more fearful of crime after watching
programs which present criminal events. Their purpose for viewing may be to confirm or
support beliefs that crime is prevalent and the world is dangerous. However, other viewers
may seek comfort in the fact that law enforcement officials are working to take dangerous
criminals off of the streets. Further, sane viewers may seek entertainment from reality
based programs, while others are seeking a surveillance function. Here, the same program
may elicit very different reactions from different viewers depending their viewing motives.

’ut ' i.:'-. o in r-i- .'.r hour-n "MIMI :m It'. Ohm. '1. 1.1. '1‘
One goal of this study was to investigate the level of reality viewers perceive in reality-
based programs and how well they can discriminate between what is real and what is re-
created. The following section presents those results.

The mean response for perceived reath of stimulus program segrrrent A was 6.1 on a
1 to 10 scale, with 10 being most realistic. The mean for segment B was 6.9. The
difference in means was significant( t = 2.78, df = 109) indicating that there were some
differences in the viewers' perceptions of the reality of the two separate programs. This
also indicates that viewers perceived both of the reality based programs as more realistic
than drama programs and less realistic than news programs; the programs were not fact but
not fiction for them

Two additional items measured subjects perceived reality of the specific program they
were shown relative to entertainment programming and news programming (see Table 20).

62

Table 20 Additional Items Used To Measure Perceived Reality of Stimulus Programs

 

Was the program you just watched mac like a news program or more like an

errtertarnrnent program?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Entertainment News
program program
Group A Group B
Mean 4.3 4.6
Std. Dev. 2.38 2.54

Wastheprogramyoujustsawmaelikeacrime/dramaprogramorthcsix
O’clocknews?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Crime/Drama The Six O’clock
program News
Group A Group B
Mean 2.49 2.90
Std. Dev. 2.02 1.97

 

The differences between groups were not significant for either the "Entertainment...News
Program" item (t = .65, df = 109) or the "Crime/Drama...Six O'clock News" item (t =
1.07, df = 109).

Two programs were used in order to replicate the findings. The results of the perceived
reality of the stimulus program items show that while the means were statistically different
(6.9 versus 6.1), subjects placed both programs at similar points on the perceived reality
scale. This indicates that subjects perceived the programs as being of similar levels of
realism.

There was a difference in the use of actors versus actual participants in the two
segments. It is clear that a majority of the subjects were able to correctly identify the people
they saw in segment B as real and those in segment A as actors. This difference in the
reath of the characters in the two programs, which was recognized by a majority of the

viewers in each group, indicates that the two segrrrents were not replications of each other.

63

It also indicates that a majaity of the viewers in each group were able to differentiate
between the actor and the actual participants in the crimes being portrayed.

It is interesting to look at the numbers of subjects who answered questions regarding
characters and scenes incorrectly or did not know whether what they saw was real.
Among the subjects in Group A who saw the segment from W there
were only two subjects who incarectly thought they saw the actual murder victim or the
actual murder scene; 18 subjects either answered incorrectly or said they did not know
whether they had seen the actual daughter of the victim; 35 correctly identified the woman
as an actress; 13 subjects incorrectly identified the argument they saw in the program as real
a' said they could not tell if it was real; 40 correctly identified the argument scene as a re-
creation; 16 subjects incorrectly identified a violent scene in which Steve Wilson broke the
windows and lights out of his estranged father-in-law's car as real; five said they did not
know if it was real; and 31 correctly identified the scene as a re-creation.

In Group B, nearly all of the subjects careetly identified the crime scene as re-created.
However, there was less certainty regarding whether the people were actual participants or
actas and actresses; l6 incorrectly identified Officer Chuck Sexton as an actor when they
saw him in a recreation of the crime; 18 subjects said they did not know; 24 correctly
identified him as the actual policeman involved in the crime; only two incorrectly identified
him as an actor when they saw him later in the segment in an interview in which he
reflected on the incident; eight said they did not know if he was the real police officer or an
actor.

Fourteen subjects incarectly identified Officer Claire Nobel as an actress; 15 more
said they did not know; and 29 careetly identified her as the actual police officer involved
in the crime.

These results have two implications; 1) a substantial minority of viewers from this
sample were unable to tell if the persons they saw on the screen were the actual participants

in the event being portrayed or actors or actresses and 2) viewers who saw the segment

containing real event participants perceived the program as significantly more realistic than
those who saw the program containing actors.

When this study was conceived there were only three reality-based programs on the
air. Since that time, several more have been introduced. As more programs have
developed, it has becorrre clear that there are several variations on the reality based theme.
The programs used here present staies based on real events which are re-created using
actual participants and actors/actresses. These programs represent only one type of reality
based program among several now in existence.

It appears that reality based programs can be separated on at least three dimensions; 1)
Characters: Programs can depend entirely upon actas to re-create the event being
portrayed or they can ask the people who were originally involved in events to re—enaet
what happened. 2) Scenes: In some programs there is no re-creation. All of the events are
videotaped by camera crews as the events take place. This requires either a news crew at
the scene or a carrrera crew riding with the police officers or rescue waters to videotape
the action as it happens. 3) Perspective: Some programs present stories from the
perspective of the victirrr; presenting the drama of his or her ordeal. In other programs,
staies are told from the perspective of the villain. Here, the criminal and his or her
wrongdoings are emphasized and help in capturing this person may be solicited by the
narrator. In still other programs, the heroic activities of the police or rescue workers are the
main therrre of the program. Certainly these different perspectives may offer very different
messages to viewers.

These different dimensions of reality based programs are impatant to this and future
studies. For example, it is possible that viewers react differently to programs based on
how different dimensions are errrphasized. A program that presents the heroics of law
enforcers may soothe, not increase, fears about crime in society. A program that

emphasizes the brutality of a wanted fugitive may generate mac fear in viewers.

65

I...

This study was conducted using a somewhat homogeneous sample of 111
undergraduate students taking telecamnunication classes at Michigan State University.

The students who attend this university are probably more typical of 18 to 24 year olds than
students who might attend smaller private universities. However, they are representative
only of college students and, as discussed earlier, may have been more astute regarding
television issues than other students. Because of the homogeneity of the sample, there may
have been less variance among the item responses desired. It is possible that this decreased
the likelihood of obtaining statistically significant results. Greater variance in fear of
victimization and estimated probability of victimization and greater variance in perceiving
realism in television and the stimulus program may have provided oppatunity for greater
covariance between the respective variables. Further research in this area should include
subjects with greater heterogeneity in age, education, and socioeconomic background.

Few subjects reported being frequent viewers of the three most popular reality-based
programs of the 1990/91 viewing season. More regular viewers of these types of
programs may have different perceptions of them.

EumReseanzh

An important element in this study was allowing subjects to assess for themselves the
reality of the program segment they viewed. This was partially accomplished by choosing
program segrrrents that were suspected, and later demonstrated, to fall between news and
entertainment with respect to the reality of the portrayals. However, the program segments
used may not have been ambiguous enough to allow viewers to assign a wide range of
reality scores to the programs. It is possible the program was too obvious in the
presentation of characters and scenes with respect to their realism. Viewers may have
relied on program cues to assess reality rather than their own predispositions regarding

television. In the future, similar studies may use mac ambiguous program segments,

where cues about reality are less clear, in order to obtain greater variety in perceived reath
scores.

It was important in this study that subjects' concerns about crime be assessed before
they viewed the stimulus program segment. If concern had been measured after exposme
to the stimulus program, viewers' concerns may have been a direct result of the exposure.
In future research, concern about crime might be measured after exposure in order to tap
reaction to reality based programs, especially as compared to fictional crime shows.

Clearly, subjects in this study responded differently to questions designed to measure
the amount of reality they perceived in general television content than they did questions
regarding the specific reality-based segment they watched. This indicates that research into
this area must be more cognizant of the differences between questions about specific
programs and those which ask viewers about the reality of television in general. As
television and its audiences become more and more segmented, these differences will likely
becarre more crucial.

The responses to the perceived reath variables carclated differently with the various
dirrrensions of fear of victimization and estimated probability of victimization. These
results suppat suggestions that people's fear of crime is indeed a multi-dimensional
construct, just as their estimations of the probability of victimization are different depending
on the the type of victimization at issue. Future research should be concerned with which
types of fears and dimensions of probability are being addressed.

Finally, fran this homogeneous sample, it seems that most viewers are aware of
whether the scenes they are watching in reality-based television programs are real or re-
created. And a majority, albeit fewer, of the viewers are accurate in their assessment of the
reality, actual participant versus actor, of characters they watch in reality based programs.
Further research might investigate not only viewers’ perceived reality of the specific
programs, scenes and characters they watch on a cognitive level, but also their perceptions

of the messages in the progranrs on a more affective or emotional level.

APPENDICES

PRE-EXPOSURE QUESTIONNAIRE:
APPENDIX A

A SURVEY ABOUT TELEVISION

 

 

 

 

The following questions ask about television viewing.
Your answers are confidential and will not affect your grade
in any way. Please answer honestly.

Thank you

67

68

INSTRUCTIONS: Please circle the one answer that best
describes your television viewing habits.

 

1.

5.

On the average how many hours of TV would you say you watch
each day? (Circle only one number)

0123456780rmore

Of the TV programs you watch each week, what percent are
news programs? (Circle only one)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Each week, how many times do you watch a local, news
program? (Circle only one)

012345678910ormore

Each week, how many times do you watch a national news
program? (Circle only one)

0123456789100rmore

In the last 4 weeks, how many episodes have you watched of

the following programs: (Circle one number for each program.)

(1) America's Most Wanted: 1 2 3 4
(2) Unsolved Mysteries: 1 2 3 4

(3) Rescuez911: 1 2 3 4

69

Instructions: Indicate how much you agree or disagree with
the following statements by circling only one of the numbers on
the scale under each question below.

 

1.

The people who play characters in TV shows are just like
their characters when they are not being seen on TV.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Strongly
agree disagree

The people who act on TV shows about families probably act
the same way in real life as they do on the TV shows.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Strongly
agree disagree

The people who are funny as characters on comedy shows are
probably very funny in real life too.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1O
Strongly Strongly
agree disagree

I can learn a lot about people from watching TV.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Strongly
agree disagree

I get useful ideas about how I should act around my friends
and family by watching characters on TV shows.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1O
Strongly Strongly
agree disagree

I feel I can learn a lot about solving life’s problems by
watching characters on TV solve their problems.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Strongly
agree disagree

70
Instructions: Here is how you can answer many of the
questions in this survey. Many questions have a scale under them
that goes from 1 to 10.

Example:
Was the program you just watched exciting or dull?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Exciting Dull

If you thought the program was extremelz exciting, than you
should circle the 1, like this.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Exciting Dull

If you thought the program was W dull, then you
should circle the 10, like this.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Exciting Dull

If you thought the program was exciting, but not extremely
exciting, then please circle a number between 2 and 5, for
example 4.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Exciting Dull

If you thought the program was dull, but not extremely dull,
then please circle a number between 6 and 9, for example, 8.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Exciting Dull

The questions that go from 1 to 10 will have different
adjectives with some question; exciting and dull are used
only in this example, but the scale works the same way for
all questions.

 

71

Survey

1.

How likely is it that you personally will be a victim of some
type of crime in 1991?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1O
Extremely Not at all
likely likely

How likely is it that some harm will come to you someday
because of someone's violent behavior?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Extremely Not at all
likely likely

How serious a problem are violent crimes where you live
now?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1O
Extremely Not serious
serious at all

How likely do you think it is that one of your close friends
will have their apartment, dorm room, or house broken into
during the next year?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Extremely Not likely
likely at all

How often do you decide not to walk alone at night because
of the chances of becoming the victim of a violent crime?

12345678910

Walk alone Never walk
whenever alone at night
I like

How dangerous do you think it is for a female driver to pick up
a male hitch-hiker, who is a stranger?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1O
Extremely Not Dangerous
Dangerous at all

7.

10.

11.

72

How dangerous do you think it is for a meledriver to pick up a
male hitch-hiker, who is a stranger?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Extremely Not Dangerous
Dangerous at all

If you were to walk alone near where you live every night for
a month, how likely is it that you would fall victim to violent
crime?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Very Not likely
likely at all

You have lived in the same small town for many years and
know most of the people and places in it. If you came home
one night and found your front door unlocked, how likely is it
that you would be assaulted?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Extremely Not likely
likely at all

You live in the city, in a ground floor apartment. It's a
pleasant night so your windows are opened. It you heard
voices outside your window, how likely is it that you would be
assauned?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Extremely Not likely
likely at all

Which of the following statements would you say is most
accurate?

(check only one)

A _ Crime is the most serious social problem facing
America today.

8 _ Crime is one of the more serious social problems facing
America today.

C __ Crime is a social problem, but not as serious as many

other social problems facing America today.
D Crime is not really a serious social problem.

73
12. How afraid are m of:

Being threatened with a knife:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not afraid Extremely
at all afraid

Being assaulted while walking alone at night:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not afraid Extremely
at all afraid

Having your house, apartment, or dorm room broken into:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Extremely Not afraid
afraid at all

Being murdered:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not afraid Extremely
at all afraid

Being held up or robbed by someone with a gun:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Extremely Not afraid
afraid at all

Being beaten by a stranger:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not afraid Extremely
at all afraid

Having strangers follow you from a bar or restaurant at night:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Extremely Not afraid
afraid at all

74
13. Did you grow up in:
A. _ a city
B. _ a suburb
C. _ a rural area

14. Are you a:
A. _ Freshman
B. _ Sophomore
C. _ Junior
D. _ Senior
E. _ Graduate Student

15. Your gender is:
A. _ Female
B. __ Male

Instructions: Please write your Mother’s maiden name and the
day of the month you were born below. For example, if your
Mother’s parents' last name was Williams and you were
born on January 2, 1970, you would write:

 

Mother's Maiden Name Lgy EBirth
This allows us to identify your surveys without identifying you.

16. Please write your Mother’s maiden name and the day you were
born below.

 

Mother’s Maiden Name Day (Ti-Birth

POST EXPOSURE QUESTIONNAIRE:
APPENDDI B

A SURVEY ABOUT TELEVISION

Survey 2a

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please write your Mother's maiden name on the lines
below just as you did before.

 

Mother’s maiden Name 0;? oI—Birth

75

76
Instructions: Here is how you can answer many of the
questions in this survey. Many questions have a scale
under them that goes from 1 to 10.
Example:
Was the program you just watched exciting or dull?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Exciting Dull

If you thought the program was extremely exciting,
then you should circle the 1, like this.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Exciting Dull

If you thought the program was exmemelx dull, then
you should circle the 10, like this.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Exciting Dull

If you thought the program was exciting, but not
extremely exciting, then please circle a number
between 2 and 5, for example 4.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Exciting Dull

If you thought the program was dull, but not extremely
dull, then please circle a number between 6 and 9, for
example, 8.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Exciting Dull

The questions that go from 1 to 10 will have different
adjectives with each question; exciting and dull are
used only in this example, but the scale works the
same way for all questions.

77
Survey - Please circle only one answer.
1. Was the program you just watched real or unreal?

12 3 4 5 6 7 8 910
Real Unreal

2. Was the program you just watched a fantasy or more like real life?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Like Real Life Fantasy

3. Was the program you just watched believable or not believable?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Believable Not Believable

4. Was the program you just watched more like a news
program or more like an entertainment program?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Entertainment News

5. Was the program you just watched more fictional or more factual?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Factual Fictional

6. Was the program you just saw more like a crime/drama program
or the six O’clock news?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Crime/Drama The Six O’clock
program News

7. Would you say most of the people in the program you just saw
were real people or actors?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Actors Real People

78
Instructions: These are multiple choice questions. You should
choose the answer that you think best describes what you
remember about the program.

Example:
In the program you just saw two men had an argument.
Did they have the argument indoors or outdoors?

A. _ The argument happened indoors.

B. _ The argument happened outdoors.

C. _ I don't know if it was indoors or outdoors.
D. _ I don 't remember that part of the program.

If you thought the argument happened indoors you should put a
check mark by A.

A. _ The argument happened indoors.

B. _ The argument happened outdoors.

C. _ I don’t know if it was indoors or outdoors.
D. _ I don't remember that part of the program.

If you thought the argument happened outdoors you should put a

check mark by B.

A. _ The argument happened indoors.

B. _ The argument happened outdoors.

C. _ I don't know if it was indoors or outdoors.
D. _ I don't remember that part of the program.

If you remember the argument but didn't notice whether the men
were indoors or outdoors during the argument, you should check C.

A. __ The argument happened indoors.

B. _ The argument happened outdoors.

C. _ I don't know if it was indoors or outdoors.
D. __ I don't remember that part of the program.

If you don't remember there being an argument in the program
you should check D.

A. __ The argument happened indoors.

B. _ The argument happened outdoors.

C. __ I don't know if it was indoors or outdoors.
D. __ I don't remember that part of the program.

1.

SEPARATE POST EXPOSURE QUESTIONS
FOR TWO PROGRAM SEGMENTS:
APPENDD( C

In the program you just watched, a male police officer wrestled
with and eventually shot a suspect. Was that police officer you
saw really Officer Chuck Sexton or was he an actor playing
Chuck Sexton?

(Check only one)

A. _ He was the real Officer Chuck Sexton.

B. _ He was an actor playing Officer Chuck Sexton.

C. _ I don’t know if he was an actor or the real Chuck Sexton.
D. _ I don’t remember that part of the program.

In the program you just watched, a female police officer came to
the scene of the shooting shortly after the suspect was shot.
Was she Officer Claire Noble or was she an actress playing
Officer Claire Nobel?

(Check only one)

A. _ She was an actress playing Officer Claire Noble.

B. _ She was the real Officer Claire Noble.

C. _ I don’t know if she was the real Officer Claire Noble or an
actress.

D. _ I don’t remember that part of the program.

ln the program you just watched, a witness saw the suspect and
Officer Chuck Sexton struggling outside her window and called
the police. Was the woman you saw the real witness, named
Debra Yokum or was the woman you saw an actress playing the
part of the witness?

(Check only one)

A. _ She was an actress playing the part of the witness.

B. _ She was the real witness, Debra Yokum.

C. _ I don’t know if she was the real witness or an actress.
D. _ I don’t remember that part of the program.

79

4.

80
In the program you just watched, a man identified as Officer
Chuck Sexton talked about how he felt after finding out that the
suspect he had shot was a wanted criminal instead of a deranged
person. Was that man the real Officer Chuck Sexton or was he an
actor playing the part of Officer Chuck Sexton?

(Check only one)

A. _ He was the real Officer Chuck Sexton.

B. _ He was an actor playing Officer Chuck Sexton.

C. _ I don’t know if he was an actor or the real Chuck Sexton.
D. _ I don’t remember that part of the program.

In the program you just watched, you saw a struggle between a
police officer and a suspect. It ended when the suspect was
shot. Was that scene a real fight between the two men or was it
a fake scene, recreated for the program?

(Check only one)

. _ The actual struggle between the two men.

A scene that was re-created for the program.
I don’t know if it was the real struggle or a re-created scene.
I don’t remember that part of the program.

Ppw>

In the program you just watched, a man who had been shot was
shown lying on the ground with police officers around him. Was
that scene real, or was it created for the program?

(Check only one)

_ The scene was real.

_ The scene was created for the program.
_ I don’t know if the scene was real or created for the program.
I don’t remember that part of the program.

9.0!”?

Did you find the program you just watched disturbing in any
way? Please indicate how disturbing you found it on the scale
below.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1O
Disturbing Not Disturbing

1.

81

In the program you just watched, a man identified as Steve
Wilson shot another man identified as Bill Thomburgh, Callie
Thornburgh’s father. Was the man you saw being shot the
real Bill Thomburgh or an actor playing Bill Thomburgh?

(Check only one)

A I saw the real Bill Thomburgh get shot.

B. An actor playing Bill Thomburgh was shot.

C. I don't know if the man who was shot was Bill
Thomburgh or an actor.

D I don’t remember that part of the program.

In the program you just watched, a woman identified as Callie
Thomburgh stopped her father from shooting Steve Wilson as
Wilson broke the windows and lights out of their car. Was that
woman the real Callie Thomburgh or an actress playing Callie
Thomburgh?

(Check only one)

A. _ The real Callie Thornburgh.

B. _ An actress playing Callie Thornburgh.

C. _ I don’t know if the woman was the real Callie Thomburgh
or an actress.

D. _ I don’t remember that part of the program.

In the program you just saw, a man and a woman had a somewhat
violent argument in a pickup truck. Was that argument real or
was it created for the program?

(Check only one)

It was a real argument.

The argument was created for the program.
I don't know if it was real or created.

I don’t remember that part of the program.

999?

4.

82
In the program you just watched, a man identified as Steve
Wilson was introduced to another man identified as Bill
Thomburgh by a waitress in a diner. Was that waitress the
woman who really introduced the two men, or was she an
actress playing a waitress?
(Check only one)

A. _ The waitress who really introduced them.

B. _ An actor playing the waitress.

C. _ I don’t know if she was the real waitress who introduced
them or an actress.

D. _ I don’t remember that part of the program.

In the program you just saw, an angry man broke the windows
and headlights out to a car, while another man pointed a rifle at
him, but didn’t shoot. Was that situation real or was it created
for the program?

(Check only one)

A. _ The situation was real.

B. _ The situation was created for the program.

C. _ I don’t know if the situation was real or created for the
program.

D. _ I don’t remember that part of the program.

In the program you just watched, you saw Steve Wilson shoot
Bill Thornburgh. Was that scene real, or was it re-created for
the program?

(Check only one)

A. _ The scene was real.

B. _ The scene was re-created for the program.

C. _ I don’t know if the scene was real or re-created for the
program.

D. _ I don’t remember that part of the program.

Did you find the program you just watched disturbing in any
way? Please indicate how disturbing you found it.
(Circle only one number)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Disturbing Not Disturbing

LIST OF REFERENCES

References

Atkin C (1976) Effectsafrealisfiusficfienahelexisinnannlermnaggressmn.
Presented to the Association for Education in Journalism, Madison, Wisconsin,
August.

v Berkowitz, L. (1986). Situational influences on reactions to observed violence. leumalef
Seeiaussues. 42. 3293-106

1 Berkowitz, L. & Alioto, J. (1973). The meaning of an observed event as a determinant of

its aggressive consequences MW 28. 206
217.

Comstock, G. (1982). Violence in television content. an overview. In D. Pearl, L.

Bouthilct and J Lazar (Eds ) WW
U. S. Department of Health and Human

Emmsandlmnlican'nnsfcuhefiiahties
Services, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Dervin, B. & Greenberg, B. (1972). The communication environment of the urban poor.

InF G Klinc&P J TichcnorCEds)Annual.RexiearnLCommunieannn.Ressatsh
(Vol. 1), Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Doob, A. & Macdonald, G. (1979). Television viewing and fear of victimization. is the
rclationship causal? WWW 31.170179

Ferraro, K. F. & LaGrange, R. (1987). The mearsurcment of fear of crime. Seeielegieal
1115111111 57, 70-101.

‘ Feshback, S. (1972). Reality and fantasy rn filmed violence. In J. P. Murray, E. A.

Rubinsrcin & G A Comstock (Eds ) Ielexisienand Ween
.Technical Repat to the Surgeon General' s Scientific Advisory

Committee on Television and Social Behavior. Washington, DC: Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare.

Feshback, S. (1976). The role of fantasy in the response to television. leumaleffimial
Issues, 32,, 4:71—85.

. Feshback, S. & Singer, R. D. (1971). W. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

.. Freedman, J. L. (1984). Effects of television violence on aggressiveness. Embelegieal
Bulletin, 26, 2:227-246.

Funkhouser, R. & Shaw, E. F. (1990). How synthetic experience shapes social reality,
InumalaLCanrnunican'nn. 411. 2: 75- 87.

83

84

Geen, R. G. & O'Neal, E. C. (1976). Winn. New York:
Acaderrric.
Geen, R. G. (1976). Observing violence in the mass media: Implications of basic

research. InR. G. Geen&E. C. O'Neal(Eds.), W. New
York: Academic.

Geen, R. G. & Stonner, D. (1974). The rrreaning of observed violence: effects on arousal
and aggressive behavior. IoumalaLReseatohin Personaliut. 8. 55-63.

Geen, R. G. & Rokosky, J. J. (1972). Interpretations of observed violence and their
effects on GSR. IoumaloLResearohin Eetsonalint. 6. 289-292.

Geen, G. R. (1975). The meaning of observed violence. real vs. fictional violence and
consequent effects on aggression and emotional arousal. W
Estsonalitx 2. 270-281

Geen, R. G. (1978). Some effects of observing violence upon the behavior of the

observer InB Mahcr(Ed). WWW (Vol 8).
49-92, New York: Academic.

Geen, R. G. (1983). Aggression and television violence. In R. G. Geen & E. I.

Donncrstcin (Eds ) WWW
Reseamh, 103-125, New Ya'k: Academic.

Geen, R. G. & Rakosky, J. J. (1973). Interpretation of observed violence and their effects
on GSR Ioumalufflanonmentalfieseatchjnflmonaliut 6 239 296

Geen, R. G. & Thomas, S. L. (1986). The immediate effects of media violence on
behavior IoumalaLSocialesues. 42.. 3: 7- 27

Gerbner, G. & Gross, L. (197 6) Living with television: the violence profile. Jeumalef
Communication. 2.6. 2: 172-199

V Gerbner, 6., Gross, L., Eleey, M., Jackson-Beeck,. Jeffries-Fox,. and Signorielli, N.

(1977). TV Violence Profile No. 8: The Highlights. Jenmaleflfiemmnnieanen, 21,
1: 171- 180.

Gerbner, 0., Gross, L., Morgan, M. & Signorielli, N. (1980). The "mainstrearrring" of
America: violence profile no. 11. W, 10.3.

Gerbner, 6., Gross, L., Jackson-Beeck,. Jeffries-Fox” and Signorielli, N. (197 8)
Cultrnal Indicators: Violence Profile No. 9. Jenmaletmnnnnnieanen, 28, 3: 176-207.

Gerbner, 6., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1986). Living with television:
The dynarrrics of the cultivation process. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds. ),

WW5. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum

Greenberg. B. s. (1980). WWW
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Greenberg, B. S. & Reeves, B. (1976). Children and the perceived reality of television.
IoumalaLSmiaLIssues. 32. 4. 86-97.

85

Gunter, B. and Wakshlag, J. (1988). Television viewing and perceptions of crime among
London residents. In P. Drummond and R. Paterson (Eds. ),
Meme. London: International Research Perspectives: BFI.

Hawkins, R. P. (1977) The dimensional structure of children' s perceptions of television
reality Ctnnmunioationliesearoh. A. 3: 299- 321

Hawkins, R. P. & Pingee, S. (1980). Some processes in the cultivation effect.
Communicationfiesean'lr. 1. 2: 193-226

Hawkins, R. P. &Pingee, S. (1981). Uniform messages and habitual viewing.

Unnecessary assumvtions in social reality effects HumanCommunioationReseatoh.
1, 4. 291- 301.

. Hawkins, R. P. & Pingree, S. (1982). Television' 3 influence on social reality. In D.
PcadLBouthflctwandJIazaerS). Behardonlenlearsaf
U. S. Department of Health and

Human Services, Washington, DC: U. 8. Government Printing Office.

Hirsh, P. (1980). The "Scary World" of the nonviewer and other anomalies: A reanalysis
of Gerbner et al.'s findings on cultivation analysis, Part 1. WW,
7, 4: 403-456.

Holz, J. (1990). W. Phone conversation with Josephine
Holz on August 8, News Research Division, National Broadcasting Company, New

York.

‘ Hoyt, J. L. (1970). Effect of Media violence "Justification" on aggression. 191111131471
BroadcastinaandlileouunioMedia. 1.6. 455464

Huesmann, L. R. (1986) Media violence and antisocial behavior: an overview. JeuanQf
Sooialesues. 42 3: 1-6

Liebert. R. & Sprafldn. J. (1988). WWW
andlomh, (3rd Ed.) New York: Academic.

Meyer, T. P. (1972). Effects of viewing justified and unjustified real film violence on
aggnssivc behavior Ioumalafflsrsonalitund MW 23. 21- 29

Ogles, R. & Sparks, G. (1989). Television violence and viewers' perceptions of criminal
victimization MassConununioationBeseatoh. 16.3: 2-11

' Potter 1 (1981) Wm: chcrttothc
National Association of Broadcasters, Washington, D. C.

VPotter, J. (1986). Perceived reality and the cultivation hypothesis. WWW
andEleonzoniaModia. 30. 2: 159- 174

Potter, J. (1988). Perceived reality in television effects research. WW
andEleouonieMedia. 32. 1:23-41

Potter, J. and Chang, I. ., (1990). Television exposure measures and the cultivation
hypothesis IoumaLoLBtoadeasunmElocuunroMedia. E. 3: 313330

86

Singer. 1- L. & Singer. D. G. (1981). WWW Hillsdak.
NJ: Erlbaum.

Sparks, G., and Ogles, R. (1990). The difference between fear of victimization and the

probability of being victimized: Implications for cultivation. Wm
andflmnieMedia. E. 3: 351 358.

Tamborini, R., Zillman, D. & Bryant, J. (1984). Fear and victimization: exposure to
television and perceptions of crime and fear. In R. Bostrom (Ed), Cemmnnieafien
mm, (Vol. 8, pp. 492-513), Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Thomas, M. H. & Tell, P. M. (1974). Effects of viewing real versus fantasy violence
Upon intorpcrsonal aggmssion Win. 8. 53-160

Tyler, T. & Cook, F. L. (1984). The mass media and judgments of risk: distinguishing
impact on personal and societal level judgments, W

Melon. 41. 693-704
Wakshlag, J., Vail, V., and Tamborini, R. (1983). Selecting crime
drama and apprehension about crime. Humanflmnmnnieafim

Research. 1.0. 2: 227- 242

-Wobcr. J &Gumcr. B (1990) WWW
AndBeaenonslanme Independent
Broadcasting Authority, London, England.

Zillmann, D., & Johnson, R. C. (1973). Motivated aggressiveness perpetuated by
exposure to aggressive films and reduced by exposure to nonaggressive films. leumal
WM 11. 261-27.6

Zillmann, D. Hoyt, J. L., & Day, K. D. (1974). Strength and duration of the effects of
agg'essive, violent, and erotic communications on subsequent aggressive behavior.

Researchinflzmmunicatinn. 1. 3: 286-306.

"I71111111111111111