$9 IIHHIHHHHll”IN!UHNHlHlINHIHIHHIIIIUHWWI THS THESIS \ /’{‘\ ! "lllllllllllllllllll LIBRARY Michigan State University Date This is to certify that the thesis entitled TEEN VIEWING 0F SOAPS: A USES & GRATIFICATIONS/ CULTIVATION STUDY presented by MARK G. WOODS has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Master's , Telecommunication degree In 12-3-97 0-7639 PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE “3m 0 792302 1M comm-nu TEEN VIEWING OF SOAPS: A USES & GRATIFICATIONS/ CULTIVATION STUDY By Mark G. Woods A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Telecommunication 1997 ABSTRACT TEEN VIEWING OF SOAPS: A USES & GRATIFICATIONS/ CULTIVATION STUDY By Mark G. Woods This study proposed the synthesis of the Uses and Gratifications model with the cultivation model. Value-relevant involvement, a function of active use of programming, is believed to be a better predictor of cultivated effects than viewing diet. Scales measured the amount of viewing (past and present), involvement, perceived instability of relationships, use of soaps for socialization, and use of soaps as a problem-solver. It was hypothesized that past viewing would correlate with current viewing, while current viewing would correlate with the level of involvement, and that involvement would correlate with the perceived instability of relationships, with the use of soaps for socialization, and with the use of soaps to solve problems. Pearson correlations were used to determine the strength of association between these scales from female soap viewers (n=94). It was determined that involvement was related to viewing, and that involvement was associated with use of soaps as a socialization tool and as a problem-solver. It was noted that involvement is a better predictor of cultivation effects than viewing. Copyright by MARK G. WOODS 1997 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Let me first say that all glory, all honor, and all praise go to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, for through Him are all things possible. His strength carried me when mine failed. I would like to thank Dr. Bradley S. Greenberg for his patience and for his effort. His influence and discipline have shaped the way I approach my research. I would also like to thank Dr. Charles K. Atkin and Dr. Sandi W. Smith for their invaluable input. This thesis is the product of their belief in my ability, and mine in theirs. I would like to give thanks to my family, who constitute the very best aspects of myself. I thank my mother, Lilly, for her strength and tenacity. I thank my father, Gregory, for his patience and insight. And I thank my sister, Becky, for her sense of humor and love for life. I would also like to thank a number of friends who have been there for me along the way: Vince, Kevin, Chris and Janet, Maria, Wayne and Jaimie, Sandy, and too many others to name. Your love and support was and is much appreciated I will take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the good people of Mason High School and to Mrs. D. Greenberg of Okemos High School for allowing me to enter their classrooms and administer the surveys. Many schools turned down this opportunity. You did not. I will always remember your kindness. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES CHAPTERI AN INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 2 METHODS CHAPTER 3 RESULTS Who’s Watching and Why? A Review of the Literature Critiquing the Assumptions Soaps Studies of Use The Case of Cultivation Uses and Cultivation-- Synthesis of Ideas The Role of Involvement Using Soaps-- Creating a Study Hypotheses Pretest and Questionnaire Administration The Respondents and Their Communities Operationalization of Variables Involvement Perceptions of unstable relationships Social Tool Problem Solver Analysis Viewing Patterns Viewing as a Predictor of Involvement Involvement and the Nature of Relationships Social Utility Soaps as a Problem Solver Discussion of Scales Other Findings CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION Summary Discussion Directions for Future Research APPENDIX LIST OF REFERENCES 41 41 48 62 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - Predicting Program Satisfaction from Expectations and Acrivity Table 2 - Expectancy- Value and Expectancy Measures of Gratifications by Lawr Viewing Table 3 - Partial Correlations of Measures of Television Exposure with Cultivation Measures Table 4 - Diagram of Soap Viewing and Use Table 5 - Correlation Matrix for Involvement Table 6 - Factor Matrix for Involvement Scale Table 7 - Relational Perceptions Correlation Matrix Table 8 - Relational Perceptions Factor Matrix Table 9 - Social Use Correlation Matrix Table 10 - Correlation Matrix for Likelihood of Occurrence Table 11 - Factor Matrix for Likelihood of Occurrence Table 12 - Correlation Matrix for Success Measure Table 13 - Rotated Factor Matrix for Success Measure Table 14 - Means and Standard Deviations for Likelihood x Success Table 15 - Correlation Matrix for Likelihood x Success Table 16 - Factor Matrix for Likelihood x Success Table 17 - Correlation Coefficients of Scales Table 18 - Means and Standard Deviations for Scales 6 19 20 25 26 27 28 29 32 32 33 33 33 34 34 35 38 Chapter 1 Introduction Introduction-- Who’s Watching and Why? Soap operas are extremely popular in contemporary American society, with an “estimated [viewership of] 50 million people [per week)...” (Matelski, 1991, p. 31) and revenues generated at 900 million dollars a year. (p. 31). Despite the appeal, the stigma of soaps as worthless mind candy has persisted. Lemish (1985), in her study of soap opera viewing among college students in group settings, cites an example of this unexplained reason for viewing soaps: “He says, ‘You don’t watch this Stuff, do you?’ She responds, ‘Yes, I do.’ He asks, ‘Why?’ She doesn’t answer.” Further, “in none of these cases... was a serious attempt made to defend soap Opera viewing or at least suggest some sincere reason for watching.” (Lemish, 1985 p. 289) But some reasons must exist, unless the millions of soap viewers are watching mindlessly, oblivious to the fact that they are watching a soap opera or even looking at a television. That being unlikely, it is reasonable to assume that people are watching soaps by choice; they are actively seeking these programs. But why? What is in soaps that keep viewers watching? What uses do they find in soap opera viewing? A Review of the Literature The theory of uses and gratification has evolved over a period of fifty years. The concept of the active audience developed as a result of “widespread disappointment with the... attempts to measure the short-term effects on people...” exposed to mass media (Blumler, 1979, p.10). The passive viewer was replaced “with one who could actively bend programmes... to his own purposes” (p. 10). From this basic premise, a crude theory was born. Her'zog was the first to identify several characteristics which were later known as uses and gratification. She conducted interviews with 100 female listeners of radio daytime drama to determine the reasons for listening (Lowery & DeFleur, 1995, p. 107). Herzog was able to determine a number of uses, including emotional release (p. 107), wishful drinking, and advice (p. 108). The results were not generalizable, but did spark interest in the social science field Uses and gratification concentrates on the needs of the individual and how media can satisfy those needs. There are several assumptions made by researchers when observing media use. First, researchers operate on the assumption that the viewer is active. Second, this active audience has a set of individual needs, which have been identified broadly as cognitive needs, affective needs, personal integrative needs, social integrative needs, and escapist needs. Third, these needs are then assumed to be satisfied by something in the environment, and that mass media materials can provide these individuals with that need-satisfaction. It is also assumed that “there are other sources of need satisfaction, and that mass media must compete with them” (Tan, 1985, p.235). Finally, researchers assume that audiences are “aware of [their] needs and can report them...” (p. 235). Blumler (1979) discusses three ideas concerning audiences. First, he states that “cognitive motivation will facilitate information gain.” (p. 18) People who want to learn from mass media will learn from mass media. Rubin (1985) has noted this with his orientation motive of soap opera consumption, which hypothesizes an “instrumental reath exploration motive, [that of] seeking how others think and act” (p. 248). This also includes “seeking to learn about, relate to, and understand others’ ideas, modes of thinking, problems, problem solving, and lifestyles...” (p. 253-254). Next, watching television or Other media usage for the purpose of diversion will lead to “audience acceptance of perceptions of social situations in line with portrayals frequently found in entertainment materials.” (Blumler, 1979 pg. 19) Relating this to the study of soaps, heavy viewing of daytime drama could lead to heightened belief in the reality of those situations. Greenberg, Neuendorf, Buerkel-Rothfuss, and Henderson (1982) believed this, hypothesizing that “the amount of exposure was... positively related to... larger estimates of real-er occurrences of major soap opera problems...” (p. 521) While that particular study did not test this idea, it was a call-to-arms for other researchers to explore this notion. Carveth and Alexander (1985) touch on this idea by correlating viewing diet with estimates of professions such as doctors and lawyers, professions believed to have an inverse relationship between soap portrayals and actual percentage of doctors, lawyers, etc. in the real world. What they found was that there was a significant correlation between viewing and overesrimation of occupational groups. Viewers believed that 24% of the population in the US. were female doctors, and that 23% of the population were male doctors, for example (p. 265). Such numbers were quite similar across several occupations listed in the study. This study aimed at occupation rather than occurrences, but does provide an indication that a steady viewing diet may serve to skew perception, blurring the line between soap opera and reality. More than just the belief that more doctors exist in the world, the perception that the doctors and lawyers of the soaps may be such that viewers will begin to believe that these characters are competent in that particular field There are numerous cases where pe0ple “write to soap characters, using their fictional names, and ask favours or advice about personal problems.” (Buckman, 1984, p. 193) Finally, Blumler states that “involvement in media materials for personal identity reasons is likely to promote reinforcement effects.” (Blunder, 1979 p. 19) This statement leads into questions of learning. People watching soaps use these programs to learn how to deal with related situations, as Rubin (1985) suggests, and the degree of involvement leads to reinforcement of these solutions. Critiquing the Assumptions The assumption made by researchers is the activity of the audience. The flaw in this assumption is sensitivity. The idea of active and passive is not the same as on and off, as in a light switch, or a digital bit of information. An entire range of activity exists among individuals, such as “utility ( [the idea that] mass communication has uses for people), intentionality (media consumption is directed by prior motivation), selectivity..., and imperviousness to influence...” (Blumler, 1979, p. 13). Passivity, therefore, is not necessarily the opposite of activity. Passivity may be thought of as an activity of a lower order of magnitude. As Blurnler’s second postulate states, audiences with their guard down may be influenced by media materials. Escapist needs, social integrative needs, and personal integrative needs may bring the viewer into the media experience in a more passive orientation, perhaps making them vulnerable to influence. Activity cannot simply be assumed, but rather must be measured, though it is not. In this sense, the activity of the audience “as a variable was overlooked” (p. 13). Blumler suggested several possibilities in developing measures of activity. He separates media use into three categories: “before exposure, during consumption, and after the media” (p. 14) exposure. A person may be regarded as more active if that person engages in some form of planning or has a “clear prior expectation” (p. 14) in the pre-exposure stage. Degree of attention or recall of content are suggested possibilities for measuring consumption. The desire to discuss materials or “reflect on media material” (p. 14) are measures of post-media experience. In line with Blumler’s (1979) design, Perse and Rubin (1988) examined the activity of the audience. They used this measure as a predictor of satisfaction. As suggested by Blumler, all three measures of media use in all three stages (pre- exposure planning, viewing attention during consumption, and post-viewing discussion or reflection) were used to measure audience activity. These measures included viewing intention for pro-exposure activity, viewing attention and parasocial interaction during exposure, and postviewing cognition and postviewing discussion for postexposure activity. These measures were correlated highly with satisfaction with the content (see Table 1 (p. 374)). Unfortunately, the measure for satisfaction came from a one-item scale asking for overall satisfaction. The scale is not extremely sensitive, and it is not surprising that the overall mean was 3.26 on a 1-5 -point scale (p. 372). However, it is the first attempt to monitor audience activity and to use that measure to predict satisfaction (gratification). The study would have been better served if it had concentrated on one of the three viewing stages, rather than to encompass the entire process. More sensitive scales could have been developed, and a more accurate picture could have been drawn. Galloway and Meek (1981) attempted to discover the motives behind viewing television in order to understand use. This expectation falls under Expectancy-Value theory, which states that “behavior is guided by the expectations... about the likelihood of one or more consequences occurring as the result of his or her action” (p. 310). Applied to media, audiences hold expectations of gratification from media content. Table l . . Predicting Program Satisfaction from Expectations and Actrvrty Program Satisfaction Soap Opera Viewing: r program expectations viewing motives exciting entertainment ..................... 048*“ pass time .................................. -0.13** voyeurism .................................. 0.18“ escapist relaxation ........................ 039*" information ................................ 0.23*** social utility ............................. 0.23*** attitudes soap opera affinity ........................ 0.41*** perceived realism .......................... O.29*** preexposure activity viewing intention .......................... 0.36*** exposure Program exposure ........................... 030*“ activity during exposure viewing attention .......................... 0.52*** parasocial interaction ..................... 0.51*** postexposure activity postviewing cognition ...................... 0.3l*** POStViCWing discussion ..................... 0.35*** *P< ~05 "1K -01 **"‘p< .001 (Perse & Rubin, 1988, p. 374) Galloway and Meek (1981) used an experimental design to discover expectations of televised content over a period of time and the perceived gratification of these outcomes. 30 students were interviewed and asked a series of questions about their expectations for a program. Given a seven-point scale (scores ranging from “very true” (6) to “not true at all” (0)), respondents were asked to what extent they expected “to have a good laugh; to learn various new/interesting things; to find the plot or events thrilling/ exciting; to relax easily; to feel less lonely; to have time pass quickly; [and] to be able to forget your problems for awhile" (p. 441). Similarly, respondents were asked the importance of each of the outcomes. These scores were then summed, giving a range of 0 - 252. The results show that subsequent viewing of a program seems to increase the expectancy-value scores. Their model concludes that viewing will be positively correlated with high expectancy and high value of content (p. 445). Low values for either category will result in low viewing rates (p. 445) (see Table 2 (p. 443)). Table 2 Expectancy- Value and Expectancy Measures of Gratifications by Later Viewing of two programs televised at same time: in subsequent two weeks not viewed viewed once viewed twice measure: sum of expectancy values 64.6 78.6 112.0 (28.8) (64.6) (43.9) sum of expectancies 17.4 20.6 28.5 (7.5) (9.8) (8.6) n observations = 18 10 8 note: entries are means and standard deviations (Galloway & Meek, 1981, p. 443) Galloway and Meek stress the fact that their study concentrates on the “process of how people acquire media gratifications and utilize them to redefine personal perspectives influencing subsequent media... behavior” (p. 445). They also caution readers to accept the data as “illustrative... rather than substantive” (p. 442). The method used is not generalizable to a population, but rather as an attempt to obtain initial information in a relatively unexplored area. Galloway and Meek identify the pre-exposure stage of use and gratification, but do not address the activity of the audience. It is assumed that this cognitive assessment of expectation and value is part of the viewing or pro-viewing experience. Another assumption made by researchers is that individuals select media to satisfy their needs, manipulating programs to achieve this end Related to this assumption is the idea that there are other forms of satisfaction that can be derived from sources other than media, and that these other sources compete with media to fulfill these needs. The problem with this assumption is that it assumes that gratification is source specific. Whatever need that exists within an individual can be fulfilled by any number of sources, and possibly more than one source. Elliot and Rosenberg (1987) looked into newspaper use in the Philadelphia area in 1985. A newspaper strike occurred during that period, and the researchers were interested in the alternative uses of media. They had hypothesized that readers would move to other newspapers to gratify their needs. They believed that the use of the striking newspaper to pass time would be rechanneled into another newspaper, which proved insignificant. Reading a particular paper to pass the time does not imply that newspaper reading in general is done to pass the time. Other sources, media or otherwise, can be used to pass the time. This was not properly considered. Compesi (1980) sought to rank the various motives according to importance. He found that the rankings were as follows: entertainment, habit, convenience, social utility, relaxation, escape fiom boredom, and reath exploration] advice (p. 157). He also notes that these findings are not consistent with past studies. Compesi had operated under the assumption that soap viewers used the programs to “seek advice” (p. 155) as the primary gratification, which was not supported. Perhaps he believed that the personal identity needs of the viewer would elicit viewing for reality exploration purposes. Questionnaires were mailed to 259 viewers of “All My Children” (p. 156), a program that runs on ABC daytime, consisting of “52 gratification statements designed for response on a five-point Likert-type scale” (p. 156). . The sample included 187 females and 34 males (n=221). Seven factors were retained for analysis. These included entertainment (M: 4.22), habit (M: 3.77), convenience (M: 3.57), social utility (M: 3.23, relaxation] escape fiom problems (M=3. 15), escape from boredom (M: 2.77), and reath exploration/ advice (M: 2.53). Of the seven, entertainment ranked the highest. Compesi concluded that viewers are “hesitant” (p.158) to use soaps as a form of advice, and that the use of soaps as an agent for creating a social network is nearly as unimportant to viewers. The most important use of soaps to viewers, according to the results, was for entertainment. Compesi makes the assumption that viewers are using soaps for a specific purpose, that of reality exploration. He provides the different uses, such as for entertainment, and assumes that the factors with the highest mean is the most important. While this is generally accepted, it does not diminish the role of other uses. Entertainment may be the most important use of soaps, but reality exploration and seeking advice may still be as important, though not on a numeric scale. Willingness to admit to using media for other reasons nor related to entertainment may be difficult to admit or even realize. This leads to the final assumption of self reporting. The final assumption is that audiences are aware of their needs and can report them. Babrow ( 1987) attempted to compare the various forms of gratification sought by individuals and the expected outcomes fiom viewing. The problem in this design is the assumption that viewers know the difference and are able to report 10 them. A questionnaire was administered first asking for reasons individuals watched soaps, and then a separate list of expectations from viewing (p. 313). Babrow found a high correlation between the two (F 0.84, p< 0.01) (p. 317), which may be logical, but not surprising. Again, this is the result of relying on data derived mainly from self-reports. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any truly effecrive alternative to the standard measrnes employed by researchers. It behooves the academic community, however, to be aware of this basic problem when obtaining data, both in the design of the instrument and the interpretation of the data. Soaps Studies of Use Studies of soaps and effects of media have enjoyed serious consideration, especially in the last fifteen years. This was not always the case, as soap opera was the unknown genre, relatively ignored during the 19605, when the last soap left the radio format. (Cantor & Pingree, 1983, p. 47) It wasn’t until the early seventies that soaps were investigated, and for the most part, a steady diet of content analyses followed. (Cassata, Skill, & Boadu, 1979; Downing, 1974; Katzrnan, 1972, & Turow, 1974; ) By the mid-19805, it was becoming evident to researchers that soaps were being used for some goal-directed purpose. With a growing body of viewers ranging in ages from teenagers to retired persons, soaps, it was guessed, served some purpose, some function for them. Judging fiom the wealth of analysis of content of the genre (Fine, 1981; Greenberg, Abelman, & Neuendorf, 1981; Lowry, Love, & Kirby, 1981; & Wander, 1979), soaps provide viewers with extremely detailed amounts of social interacrion, as well as detailed lines of plot. Some uses, personal and social, may derive fiom soaps. 11 In the Greenberg, N euendorf, Buerkel-Rothfuss, & Henderson Study (1982), it was hypothesized that “the perceived reality of the content, judged utility of the program information, and physical and emotional involvement in the programs... were predicted to be positively related to... more Advisor role capability... and.. lesser life satisfaction.” (p. 521) What they found was that regular viewers watched for reasons of excitement, relaxation, and to pass time. Soaps were also viewed “because they provide companionship.” (p. 530) But more importantly, heavy viewers were found to use soaps as a means to “deal better with problems.” (p. 530) The study found a significant correlation between the Advisor role and utility and physical involvement, though there was no support for the belief that watching soaps made viewers consider themselves more qualified in advising others. Perhaps the most interesting statement made in the study, however, deals with younger viewers, when the researchers propose “that the portrayal of interpersonal relationships among soap characters... may impact on the expectations and conceptions of younger female viewers in a stronger fashion.” (p. 534) However, this particular statement was more of an afterthought, and was not tested. Rubin’s (1985) study provides a wealth of insight into the uses of soaps. He begins by acknowledging the “complexity of factors” involved in explaining media use. (p. 242) The factors-- motives for media use, the intensity of the experience in terms of exposure to and attitudes about a medium and its content, 12 and the social and psychological context of the consumer, especially social interaction and life satisfaction characteristics, all relate to ideas of cultivation and uses & gratifications. Rubin then makes a distinction between types of viewing: ritualized» a “more habitual use of television for diversionary reasons” (p. 243), and, more importantly, instrumental-- a goal-directed use of television content. He further states that motives for watching and the programs viewed are interrelated and sought to discover how these motives interrelate with the students’ “viewing dispositions and life patterns.” (p. 243) Respondents were given 39 reasons for viewing soaps (p. 245). From these reasons, four factors were obtained: “orientation, avoidance, diversion, and social utility” (p. 248). Orientau'on refers to the viewer's motive of reality exploration, that is, attempting to “ascertain how others think and act.” (p. 248). while social utility is the interactive function, “seeking to meet or spend time with other persons and to acquire topics for subsequent conversation.” (p. 254) The Case of Cultivation Carveth & Alexander ( 1985) looked at the possible overestimation of specific groups and selected behaviors, as well as viewing motives as they may pertain to cultivation. They attempted to relate motivation with cultivation. It seems that “support was found for the contention that exposure and motivation interact in the production of cultivation estimates,” (p. 267) suggesting that the relationship between amount of viewing of soaps and cultivation estimates are “contingent upon the type and level of motivation...” (p. 269) The data seemed to indicate that it was the more ritualistic viewers who proved more affected by the cultivation effect, rather than the instrumental viewers. 13 This norion of audience activity is an important distinction, upon which the uses and gratifications model hinges. However, to confine our thinking simply to this model would not only be overly-linear, but inaccurate. Several of the ideas discussed by Blumler are strikingly similar to the cultivation model of effects, despite the apparent disparity of each approach. For example, Blumler noted that use of media for diversionary purposes would facilitate “audience acceptance of perceptions of social situations in line with portrayals frequently found in entertainment materials.” (Blumler, 1979, p. 19) Cultivation contends that effects occur at a less than conscious level, and that a steady diet of media portrayals may have a cumulative effect, skewing perceptions of the real world This implies a possibly less than conscious effect, despite the obvious conscious decision to engage in media materials. Uses & gratifications is more goal-directed, operating under the assumption that viewers are conscious of the effect of media, that they are “motivated by psychological, social, and sociological influences” (Swanson, 1987, p. 238) to utilize media to fulfill some need within them. It would seem that a possible unintended gratification is occmring; viewers are getting more than they bargained They are actively seeking to obtain some gratification from media materials, and in so doing, ingest more than they are consciously aware. In light of this possibility, it becomes necessary for this study, and future work in media effects, to bridge the two approaches, in order to more carefully and accurately explain potential effects of mass media, especially television, and more specifically soaps. Cultivation theory finds its roots in television. The model suggests that media, especially television, “cultivates... the predispositions and preferences” (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorelli, 1994, p. 18) that were once obtained through other sources, such as family. Over a period of time, this steady diet of “consistent images, portrayals, and values...” (p. 25) become internalized by the 14 viewer, influencing “the way individuals see the world” (Potter, 1986, p. 159). We begin to see television as a “magic window” (p. 162) that accm'ately represents our world. Much research has been done concerning cultivation, especially in the realm of television. Gerbner et. al. ( 1994) continue to look at television for “cultural indicators” (p. 21). Their primary concern is with the amount of violence on television, and the possible cumulative effect, particularly the belief that we live in a “mean and violent world” (Potter & Chang, 1990, p. 313) regardless of how violent or not violent their surroundings may be. An even bigger fear is that “viewing violence increases the likelihood of children engaging in violent behavior...” (Gerbner, Gross, Signorelli, Morgan, & Jackson-Beeck, 1979, p. 1 7 8). The wealth of cultivation studies concentrated in the genre of soap operas (see Alexander (1985), Buerkel-Rothfuss & Mayes (1980), Carveth & Alexander (1985), & Perse (1986)) indicate that viewers find relationships to be “precarious” (Alexander, 1985, p. 295); doctors and lawyers and businesspersons are believed to be more prevalent in our society than believed by nonviewers of soaps (Buerkel- Rothfuss & Mayes, 1980, p. 113). Cultivation analysis assumes two things. The first is that audiences “view largely non-selectively” (Gerbner et al, 1979, p. 180), and that audiences are “passive” (Perse, 1986, p. 186) viewers. However, as Carveth and Alexander (1985) and Perse (1986) indicate, there is the possibility for synthesis of dreary. Uses and gratifications have assumed an active audience that use media in a “goal- directed” (Tan, 1985, p. 233) manner. For example, viewers may seek to gain an understanding of their world around them, thus introducing a “surveillance” (Blumler, 1979. p. 17) use of media. However, as Carveth & Alexander (1985) indicate, there are correlations between perceptions and uses of soaps. This 15 suggests the possibility that while active use of a medium may be goal-direcred to some purpose, such as escapism (which can be argued as a passive frame of mind), perceptions may filter into the subconscious mind, such as perceptions of the number of lawyers in society (p. 268). Uses and Cultivation-- Synthesis of Ideas It is not quite as difficult to synthesize the two models (cultivation and uses & gratifications) as it may first appear. In any model, there is a certain degree of ambiguity. Assuming that we are more than the sum of our parts, terms like “psychological, social, and sociocultural influences” (p. 268) serve as hazy explanations to the phenomena that are life experiences. With this lack of clarity, how is it that theories become so opposed? In trying to answer the same question, separate camps are formed; one group claims that people are in complete control over their viewing diet, the other group contends that people are helpless victims of repeated exposure. Competing theories and models of effects are broken down to their component parts and analyzed to their fullest extent. While this sheds wonderful insight into the model itself, this analysis, this breaking down effects tends to separate itself from the most important aspect of effects: the human condition. It is when we can take all models of effects (in this study two will suffice) and synthesize them into one working model (with many different and sometimes incongruent facets) that we can come closer to the answers we pose. It is with that idea that the case for cultivation in conjunction with uses and gratifications is made. Cultivation, as noted by Gerbner, is the result of heavy exposure to violent programming, that the perception of real-world incidents of violence will be exaggerated in the minds of heavy viewers of violent programming. Substituting romance for violence, can it be assumed that viewers of soaps “would exaggerate 16 the prevalence of soap Opera ‘problems’ in the real world” (Buerkel-Rothfuss & Mayes, 1980, p. 108)? But of more importance, does not involvement play a more critical role in cognitive effects? Sheer exposure, as Gerbner suggests, may not be as accurate a predictor than the involvement of the viewer. It is believed that continued exposme will lead to higher involvement, but that it is the level of involvement that ultimately predicts the effect. Involvement implies some level of activity. Exposure to media materials is a passive endeavor, but the processing of those materials and desire to continue this process (continued exposure over time) is a conscious desire, and implies a satisfaction fiom media. This gratification suggests that some need exists to process information for whatever reasons, such as the need to gain vicarious experience. The need leads to use, which ultimately implies that a relationship exists between the idea of cultivation and the uses and gratifications model, as Carveth & Alexander mention (1985). Views of soap opera incidents are the core of teen “construction of social reality,” (Buerkel-Rothfuss & Mayes, 1980, p. 108) and this reality could be more than a mere perception; it may be the basis by which they may choose to interact with each other, whether they are aware of this consciously or Otherwise. The Role of Involvement Involvement is assumed to be a product of viewing which results ultimately in the assigned importance of the materials to the viewer. But, involvement is more than importance; it “implies emotional or ego aspects...” (Zaichkowsky, 1986, p. 12), which tend to make the content more salient. Involved viewers “pay attention, perceive importance and behave in a different manner...” than those not involved (ibid.). 17 However, these ideas are vague, and it becomes necessary to conceptualize involvement more concretely. Involvement, with its aspect of emOtion and ego (p. 12), implies a certain level of activity. This is the departme point from conventional cultivation analysis and die bridge toward uses and gratifications. This level Of activity is more than the perceived importance, and enters into the realm Of perceived relevance and value that the content has to the individual. This “value- relevant involvement” refers to the “activation Of attitudes that are linked to important values” (Johnson & Eagly, 1989, p. 290). This “inherent value system... determines whether the person is involved..” with the media content or to what extent (Zaichkowsky, 1986, p. 5). This activation of attitudes will “provide an internal flame of reference for judging... stimuli related to the attitude” (Johnson & Eagly, 1989, p. 291). Therefore, a consistent diet Of soap situations will eventually cultivate the idea that these situations are to some extent a true reflection of society. This may shape the value system within these viewers. Shaping of this value system will allow for an increase Of involvement, specifically value-relevant involvement. These scenarios revolve around characters who are perhaps a little Older or in the same age group as the viewer, which may create a sense of anticipation. Since these viewers will think that they might someday soon be in these situations-- provided that they believe them to be true, they may wish to use these events to help pattern their own behavior. These scenarios in soaps are then relevant to the viewer. This relevance impacts on the attitudes toward the situations. Soaps, then become an invaluable tool, both in terms of internalization Of content and of socialization among others with similar values. Before involvement can play a pivotal role in predicting behavior, it must first be assumed that viewers of media content are actively seeking specific content. Once this assumption is accepwd, involvement becomes a function of the time spent 18 viewing. Involved viewers are actively seeking and processing the information, hence the relationship between involvement and exposure to soaps (see H2). Viewing hours, however, is not as important as the level of involvement. While Viewing and Involvement are related, Involvement will be a better predictor of cumulative effects (cultivation). Viewing hours would have more of an impact on aspects of the mind that exist at a less than conscious level (if at all), than the perceived importance or relevance of soaps in the individual’s life. For example, Potter and Chang (1990) looked at program type to determine the strength Of the cultivating effect. They found that the average respondent watched about 27 hours of television per week Respondents were asked to give estimates on the percentage Of “crime, victimization, violent death, divorce/ affairs, and females working” (p. 320). In terms of total viewing, only estimates of death were statistically significant (see Table 3 (p.323)) at r= 0.12 (p. 323). And though the relationship is significant, it is not that strong. This implies that some other variable affects perception. It is argued here that involvement is that variable. This argument stems from the earlier statement that passivity is, in fact, a low level of activity rather than the Opposite of activity. Cultivation studies, such as the ones reviewed, use hours attending to messages to predict the cultivation Of ideas. This implies a brainwashing effect that happens independently or in spite of the viewers’ knowledge. It is argued here that these effects are more prevalent when actively engaging in media content. The level of involvement will produce acceptance and reinforcement to the feasibility Of soap scenarios (Blumler, 1979, p. 19). Viewers will want to believe that the information is factual, that the scenarios will produce the same results in reality as they do in the media content. Viewers feed into their minds these images in order to reinforce beliefs, which were originally presented in the media content. In essence, they are actively cultivating their own minds. Thus, it is believed that 19 No.- be. cc. NO. **N~. EOE mo. 5. me. No. mo. 56 Ne - co co. co co cEeO 8. mo. 5. no. 8. *3. co. m _. 5. mo. 5: .33. aamfi. **N_. GO. No.- 2. co. mo; 8. mo. *8. 1:.- 1.2. 5.- co. vor 3. as a .82 .35 a 3.5.: 8. SN“ .- No. 012.com * an a . Sr 8. b< F5 No. no. Na: 0&5 ho. Nev me: 885 m _ . 5. was 539 ”83ng 06:2 6.3—. comm £52 362 .95 deem .m >e<8< 88.5 2:89am Bauer— :OEBBH .«O 09C. 8:582 gage—:0 53> Esmoexm coarse—OH Co 85532 Le mecca—2.80 355 n 2.3... 20 cognitive processing Of information leads to cultivating effects rather than sheer exposure, making Involvement a better predictor. Using Soaps-- Creating a Study Teenagers are assumed to be in the unique position Of being aware of issues concerning adult socialization without the luxury of experience to guide them. Lacking experience, and perhaps feeling inadequate in comparison to the seeming well-adjusted individuals on television, teens may look to that very source in order to gain “vicarious experience” (Babrow, 1987, p. 319) deemed necessary in order to function among others. The purpose of this investigation is to find a link between soap Opera viewing and use, specifically to see if teenagers use soaps to gain “vicarious experience” in areas of relationship formation, and as an “opportunity to socialize” or as a source for “subsequent conversation.” (Babrow, 1987, p. 319). Table 4 shows a diagram of effects that leads from viewing to use. Table 4 Diagram of Soap Viewing and Use Prior Viewing Of Soaps (Cumulative Exposure) - > Current Exposure to Soaps Current Exposure to Soaps > Involvement Involvement > Perception Of unstable relationships Involvement > Social Tool Involvement > Uses of Soaps, specifically as a Problem Solver 21 H y pot h eses H1: Prior Viewing of Soaps (Cumulative Exposure) will predict Current Exposure to Soaps. Female viewers who have watched soaps in the past are more likely to be more avid viewers of soaps now. H2: Exposure to soaps will predict the level of involvement. As viewing time increases, so will involvement. H3: Those more involved with soaps will perceive relationships to be unstable. H4: Highly involved viewers will use soaps as a social tool. That is, soaps will provide a common topic on which conversations and friendships are founded. H5: Highly involved viewers will use soaps as a problem solver. Soap problems will be perceived as likely to occur in their lives. These problems and solutions will be considered useful as a guideline to viewers’ behavior. Chapter 2 Methods This study is drawn entirely from original data collected from two high schools in Ingham County, Michigan. Data were collected from Mason High School in the Spring Of 1996 and fall of 1996, between May 16-29 and mid October, consisting of four sessions. Data from Okemos High School were collected in mid-October of 1996, consisting of two sessions. The methods used in data gathering will be discussed as follows: pretest and questionnaire administration, the respondents and their community: Operationalizations of the dependent variables, Operationalizations of independent variables, and statistical analyses. Pretest and Questionnaire Administration Before the instrument was administered in its final form, several versions were drafted and revised Several of the scales incorporated in the questionnaire were borrowed from previous research, and will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter. The questionnaire consisted of 14 pages and eight sections in its original form. A pretest was administered in March, 1996 to eight college fieshman women living in a college dormitory. The biggest concern was the amount Of time necessary to complete the questionnaire, as it was essential to collect the most information possible in a time span deemed suitable for students and teachers. The pretest lasted about 20 minutes, followed by a feedback session in which the students were given the opportunity to discuss the design Of the questionnaire. 22 23 The Respondents and Their Communities The final instrument was administered to several groups Of students (n=226) in the two large midwestem high schools. The ages ranged fiom 13 to 19, with the average age Of16. 1 % were 13 years Old; 8 % were 14; 26 % were 15; 27 % were 16; 32 % were 17; 5 % were 18; and 1 % were 19. After data collection Of the first four sessions in Mason High School, it became apparent that a significant group of male viewers would not be found The first run yielded three male viewers out of the 154 questionnaires administered It was decided then that a significant group of female viewers would be Obtained, and the scope of this study would be narrowed to this one group. Data collection began again in the fall Of 1996 at Mason High School and Okemos High School. Data were Obtained fiom female viewers of soaps. Non-viewing females were given the questionnaire as well, but were not entered into the data set. Of the 226 entered cases, 94 female viewers were considered valid cases and accepted for study. Ages ranged from 13 to 19 years of age. The mean age was 16. 1.1% were 13 years Old; 9.6% were 14 years; 27.7% were 15 years Old; 25.5% were 16 years; 26.6% were 17 years; 8.5% were 18 years; and 1.1% were 19 years Old. Mason, Michigan and Okemos, Michigan are located southeast and east of Lansing respectively, in the central part Of the state (Ingham County). Both schools are classified as Class A schools, meaning that there are more than one thousand students attending the school. Approximately 11 miles separated the two high schools. Operationalization of Variables Current Exposure to Soaps was the first variable. Prior Viewing of Soaps was used to predict the current diet Of daytime drama. Current Viewing was Operationalized as the number of soap hours watched per week, which ranged from 24 a possible 0 session spent to 50 program sessions spent viewing per week, across ten dayu'me programs. These programs were W A o o 6.11 Chat-- on '- o " were our: Ir ’ Ir 0 w i'{' ‘ s .i‘luc it It‘ H: ‘i 500'1’:0'el0 0‘ Beam. It should be noted that two programs, W andmmandjhe Beautiful are one half-hour programs, but were given equal status to the other programs, which are all one hour programs. Thus, sessions will be used interchangeably with hours. Involvement Involvement consisted of a six-item index measuring the level of interest in soap Opera programming. Rubin’s (1985) “soap Opera affinity index” was used for this scale to measure the “importance of watching television serials.” (p. 246) in conjunction with an item from his “soap opera involvement” index (p. 247). The last item was created for this study and added to the index. The following questions were asked to constitute the Involvement index: 1. “It is important to me to watch my favorite soap operas every day.” m: 2.52, SD= 0.95) 2. “It doesn’t matter much to me ifI miss an episode Of my favorite soap Opera once or twice a week.” (Note that the statement actually supports non- involvemcnt.) (M: 2.00, SD= 0.92) 3. “If I happen to miss an episode or two of my favorite soap Opera, I don’t feel I’m likely to miss much.” (M: 2.25, SD= 0.97) 4. “Soap Opera viewing is an important part of my daily routine.” (M: 2.11, SD= 0.97) 25 5. “I get very involved with the stories I see on my favorite soaps.” (M: 3.18, SD= 1.14) 6. “I can’t wait to see what happens on my favorite soaps.” (M: 3.59, SD= 0.97) The responses were measured on a five-item Likert scale. Respondents were asked to circle one of the following responses: strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree. Strongly agree was given a value of 5 and Strongly disagree was given a value of 1. Question 2 and Question 3 are worded in a manner that indicates the opposite of involvement. The responses were thus given Opposite values, wherein strongly agree received a 1 and strongly disagree received a 5. Scores ranged from 6 to 30. Table 5 is the correlation matrix, which shows that each item intercorrelated highly. Table 5 Correlation Matrix for Involvement INVOLVEMENT VARIABLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 ....... 2 0.46 ------ - 3 0.21 0.28 -------- 4 0.71 0.45 0.32 ------- 5 0.55 0.34 0.23 0.54 ------- 6 0.53 0.32 0.28 0.51 0.62 all correlations are significant at p< .02 Factor analysis revealed that only one factor could be extracted The eigenvalue was listed at 2.72. The factor matrix can be seen in Table 6. The reliability test showed that the alpha coefficient to be 0.81. This score is quite strong, therefore all items were retained for the scale. 26 Table 6 Factor Matrix for Involvement Scale INVOLVEMENT FACT ORl 0.81 0.80 0.72 0.70 0.53 0.36 wNOxUn-‘h Perceptions Of Unstable Relationships Perceptions of unstable relationships measured the belief in the ethereal nanne of the stability of relationships. This scale was developed by Alexander (1985), in which “[s]even items measured respondents’ perceptions of the difficulties inherent in maintaining interpersonal relationships and the importance of talk in solving interpersonal problems.” (p. 299) The same five-point Likert scale was used to measure responses. Only six of the questions were used for this scale, the question left out was due to the inappropriateness of the question to the measurement of relational perceptions, as deemed by the researcher. This item stated that “ [s]ometimes it is hard to know what the other person is really saying.” (p. 300) This question does not relate to breaking up in relationship, but rather the communication problems faced in a relationship. The questions are as follows: 1. “Most relationships would be better if people talked to each other more.” (M: 4.46, SD= 0.89) This item was included because of the implication that a lack of communication caused rifts in relationships. 2. “You never know all that is going on in the lives of people you care for.” (M: 3.48, SD= 1.20) 3. “Most relationships don’t last.” (M: 2.60, SD= 1.01) 27 4. “Sometimes other people can cause serious problems between friends.” (M: 4.18, SD= 0.89) 5. “It’s hard to keep close relationships going.” CM= 2.68, SD= 1.11) 6. “No matter how hard you try, you can’t always hold on to someone.” (m: 3.37, SD= 1.28) Unfortunately, factor analysis and alpha tests revealed weaknesses in this measure (see Table 8). The factor matrix indicated two different factors. The stronger factor included items 3-6. Item 3, however, did not correlate highly with item 4. Thus, it was determined that the scale would more accurately measure relational instability if item 3 was deleted. It was determined that item 3 was perhaps a bit too expansive in terms of all relationships and the terminal nature of the wording. The scale was designed to determine the instability of a relationship, which implies an on again off again nature. Table 7 shows the correlation matrix of the relational perceptions scale. Table 7 Perceptions Of Unstable Relationships Correlation Matrix (l-tailed significance) Perceptions Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 ....... 2 0.24* ------- 3 -0.20* 0.03 ------- 4 0.27* 0.22* 0.09 ....... 5 -0.10 0.11 0.41* 0.21* ------- 6 0.17 0.00 0.16 0.22* 0.34* ------- 28 Table 8 Relational Perceptions Facror Matrix Perceptions Variable Factor 1 Factor 2 5 0.78 -O.23 3 0.45 -0.29 6 0.44 0.1 1 4 0.39 0.33 1 0.10 0.79 2 0.19 0.27 The reliability coefficient measured at 0.51. In order to create a more accurate measure, Items 1, 2, and 3 had to be deleted. Items 4, 5, and 6 produced an alpha of 0.51. Factor loadings for these three items were 0.60 for item 6, 0.57 for item 5, and item 4 had a factor loading of 0.37. The eigenvalue is 0.82. Social Tool Use of soaps was a five-item scale that was used to measure the use of soaps as the engine of social networking. It was hypothesized that viewing soaps would increase the willingness to discuss the programs with others, perhaps to even build friendships or simply to initiate conversation among social groups. This index was developed for this study, with five responses possible: all the time, a lot, sometimes, a little, or never (all the time = 5, never = l. The items included: 1. “I talk about soaps to my friends.” (M: 2.22, SD= 0.95) 2. “I watch a specific soap because all my friends watch that one.” (M: 1.37, SD= 0.72) 3. “I watch soaps so that I can talk to people about something.” (M: 1.10, SD= 0.39) 4. “I watch soaps in order to meet Others who watch soaps.” (M: 1.01 , SD= 0.10) 29 5. “I start conversations by talking about soaps.” (M= 1.20, SD= 0.56) These means are quite low, with very little deviation. It is uncertain as to whether or not these questions were answered honestly, or if the measure was sensitive enough. The answers are consistently low, which suggests both possibilities. Tables 9 indicates the inter-item correlations and the significance levels. Principal axis factoring attempted to extract 2 factors, but was unable. Table 9 Social Use Correlation Matrix (l-tailed significance) Social Use Variable 1 2 3 4 5 1 ....... 2 0.36** ------- 3 0.29“ 0.14 ...... 4 0 09 0.09 0 51** ------- 5 0 34“ 0.02 0 30* 0 33* ------- * p< .05 ** p< .001 Again, the reliability scores proved to be less than desirable, and item 2 had to be deleted. Item 2, upon reflecrion, indicates more of an affiliation rather than an outward use. The other items indicate conversation stemming from watching soaps. Item four was retained despite the low correlation and significance level between items four and five, and items four and one. Although item 4 is not interrelated it does have soaps as an impetus for conversation, and was therefore retained. The final alpha was 0.55. Problem Solver Perceived reality is a measure of cultivation. As noted in Potter (1986), cultivation measures the belief of the prevalence of these problems. Reoccurrin g problems in society or daily life reinforce the images of these problems on TV. 30 This overall impression will serve as a tool (not correctly worded as tool implies understanding and use) in impression formation in social functioning. Respondents were given seven scenarios that were taken fiom actual storylines in daytime serials and asked the likelihood of the solution to the scenario’s problem and how successful or unsuccessful the act would be. Very likely or highly likely was rated a 5, while very unlikely or highly unlikely was given a value of 1. These scenarios are listed below. The relational guide was developed for this study. It is believed that the perceived success of an event and the belief in its practical application to real life (here defined as the cultivating measure SCM) can be equated with the pOtential for futtne use or modeling. The index does not specifically ask if respondents would actually use these scenarios in shaping their actions in dealing with relationship. In order to obtain this measure, the likelihood score of the given scenario occurring in real life was multiplied to the success score. Factor analysis extracted four factors. From the first factor, it was determined that items 2, 3, and 5 were the most highly intercorrelated items, and were used for the creation of the scale. Reliability analysis indicated a disappointing alpha Of .42. Scores ranged from 12 to 62, with a mean score of 33.8 and a standard deviation of 11.63. Below are the mean scores for each item, according to likelihood of occurrence and success of OUICOUTCS. 1. “Brenda wants to make her ex-boyfriend, Sam, jealous. She finds out that he will be at a certain restaurant, so she brings her new boyfriend to that restaurant, and pays a lot of attention to her new boyfriend in front of Sam.” (note: the first set of mean scores and standard deviations are for the likelihood scores, the second set of scores are for the perceived success of the outcome.) (M1= 3.86, SD= 0.90) (MZF 3.32, SD= 1.05) 31 2. “Pamela and Tom are having peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Tom tells her how much he enjoys peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. She looks at Tom and dabs a little peanut butter on her lips, then asks him, “How much?” She moves in so he can kiss her.” (Ml: 2.85, SD= 1.15) (M2: 3.69, SD= 1.15) 3. “Frank loves Susan. To express himself, he composes a song and sings it to her.” (M1: 3.11, SD= 1.03) (M2: 4.01, SD= 1.03) 4. “Jack feels disappointed in Kara, since she doubted him when he needed her most. Though he tries to look past it, he cannot. He decides to avoid her until he can get over the disappointment, despite her pleas for forgiveness.” (M1: 3.71 , SD= 0.90) (M2: 2.22, SD= 0.87) 5. “Alex and Carla break up, even though they still love each other. They talk about getting back together again. They decide to meet on the roof at midnight to see if each is as committed to making the relationship work.” (M1: 3.03, SD= 1.10) (MZ= 3.26, SD= 0.82) 6. “Melissa falls in love with a man much Older than she. She tries to seduce him by wearing provocative clothing and hinting at the opportunity for intimacy.” (Ml: 3.15, SD= 1.06) (M2: 3.04, SD= 1.12) 7. “Alan sees that Danielle, his ex-girlfriend, is wearing a bracelet given to her by Louis. Alan wanted to do the same, since he still feels that he loves her. When he sees this, he assumes that she has moved on with her life, and decides he must move on with his life.” (M1: 3.51, SD= 0.96) (M2: 2.99, SD= 0.93) Tables 10 indicates the correlation matrix and significance level for the likelihood measure, while Table 12 provides the same information regarding the success measure. Tables 11 and 13 indicate the factor analysis matrices for the respective measures. As will be noted upon review of these tables, the correlations are not very high and not significant. Alpha levels were extremely low. However, 32 it was determined that items 2, 3, and 5 were the strongest measures for this scale, as they loaded highly (see Table 16). It was also believed that the scale would more accurately measure use of soaps as a guideline to behavior if each set of scores were multiplied together. These scores were then analyzed and items 2, 3, and 5 were retained and summed, creating the relationship guide index. Table 14 shows the mean scores and standard deviations. Table 15 provides the correlation matrix; Table 16 provides the factor matrix for the new measure. The alpha level was still disappointing at .42, but was accepted for study. Table 10 Correlation Matrix for Likelihood of Occurrence (l-tailed significance) Likelihood Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 ....... 2 -. 13 ------- 3 -.02 14 ....... 4 .07 - 00 .10 ------- 5 - 07 27* .35* .16 ------- 6 -.05 06 -.00 .00 20* ------- 7 .01 04 .05 .20* - 02 - 08 ------- * p< .05 Table 11 Factor Matrix for Likelihood of Occmrence Likelihood Variable Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 5 .91 -.08 .13 3 .38 .09 -.01 2 .35 -.07 -.32 6 . 18 -. 16 .04 7 .05 .50 -.18 4 .20 .40 .12 1 -.10 .14 .26 33 Table 12 . . Correlation Matrix for Success Measure (l-tailed srgruficance) Success Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 ...... 2 .20* uuuuu 3 -. 10 .23* ------- 4 -.08 -.03 -.18* ------ 5 -.02 .08 .22* . 10 ---—---- 6 -.01 .09 .01 -.13 -.13 - ----- 7 -.05 -.07 -.02 -.17 .06 .16 -------- *p< .05 Table 13 Rotated Factor Matrix for Success Measure Success Variable Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 3 .83 .17 .04 5 .30 -.16 -.02 4 -.07 -.52 -.06 6 -.07 .35 .08 7 -.03 .31 -.11 2 .24 .01 .61 1 -. 12 .01 .37 Table 14 Means and Standard Deviations for Likelihood * Success Problem Solver Variable Mean Standard Deviation 1 12.90 5.46 2 10.99 6.30 3 12.66 5.71 4 8.12 3.52 5 10.17 5.04 6 9.91 5.54 7 10.74 5.21 34 Table 15 . Correlation Matrix for Likelihood * Success (l-tailed sigruficance) Problem Solver Variable l 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 ------- 2 .01 ----- - 3 -.04 .13 -------- 4 -.05 .02 -.0916 «mm 5 -.00 . 18* .29* .14 ----- 6 -.03 .09 -.07 -.04 .03 ------ 7 -.06 .08 .1 1 -.08 -.04 .04 «um *p< .05 Table 16 Factor Matrix for Likelihood * Success Problem Solver Variable Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 3 .63 -.27 -. 18 .07 5 .61 .27 .05 -.14 2 .27 .01 .25 - .00 4 .05 .52 -.04 .22 7 .09 -.24 .17 .24 6 .01 -.01 .38 -.06 1 -.04 -.01 -.05 -.20 Analysis All data were entered and computed on a Macintosh Perforrna using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) 6.1. In testing these hypotheses, simple Pearson correlations were used. Chapter 3 Results The results are divided into five sections, with each hypothesis representing the section. The original intent of the study was to obtain data fiom four groups of viewers: highly involved and low involved female viewers and high and low involved male viewers. It was hoped that the form groups could be compared. As the pretest indicated it was very nearly impossible to Obtain data fiom a large group of viewing males. The scope of the study was necessarily narrowed to viewing females. The hypotheses must then be tailored to accommodate this change. However, the hypotheses are left in their original assertions for the sake of consistency. Table 17 shows the correlation coefficients for the hypothesized effects. Table 17 Correlation Coefficients Of Scales (2-tailed significance) Pastview Currentview Involvement Perception SocialUse Solver of instability PastView - ------- Currentview .20 --------- Involvement .17 .37" .. ....... Perception of -.05 .15 .15 .....---- instability Social Use -.08 .22‘I .35“ -.12 ..... solver .22‘ .14 .22“ .13 .09 ---..-._ *p< .05, **p< .001 35 36 Viewing patterns H1: Prior viewing of soaps will predict current exposure to soaps. Female viewers who have watched soaps in the past are more likely to be more avid viewers of soaps now. It was predicted that female viewers of soaps today were the same viewers Of yesterday. Frequency distribution revealed that the mean age of female viewers when they began to watch soaps was 11.1, which means that the average viewer has been watching soaps for 4.8 years. During that beginning period, viewers started watching soaps at an average rate of 6.88 hours per week. This number falls to 5.77 hours today. This number would be quite smaller but for a number of outlying values (after 15 hours, the number jumps to an astonishing 25 and 27 hours). The correlation between past viewing and current viewing is slight (r= 0.20) and not quite significant (p< .06) using a two-tailed test. Thus, it is concluded that there is no significant relationship between past viewing and current viewing. H1 is rejected, though there is a clear tendency for support Viewing as a Predictor of Involvement H2: Exposure to soaps will predict the level of involvement. As viewing time increases, so will involvement. Involvement scores ranged from 6 to 30, with the mean score of 15.64. The mode was measured at 16, as was the median score. The standard deviation was 4.26. Skewness was quite low at 0.29. It was predicted that a positive relationship exists between viewing and the level of involvement. From the results, it would seem that this is true. A correlation of 1: 0.37 at p< 0.001 was found This is a relatively strong conelation, especially given the size of the sample (n= 94). Unfortunately, it is 37 uncertain whether current viewing predicts the level of involvement or if involvement predicts the amount of viewing. In either event, H2 will be accepted. Involvement and the nature of relationships H3: Those more involved with soaps will perceive relationships to be unstable Relational perception scores ranged from 3 to 15, with a mean score of 10.23. the mode was measured at 11, with the median at 10. The distribution was negatively skewed at -0.42. the standard deviation was 2.36. Involvement and relational perceptions were not related (r= 0.15, n.s.). H3 is rejected. Social Utility H4: Highly involved viewers will use soaps as a social tool. That is, soaps will provide a common topic on which conversations and friendships are founded. Social Utility scores ranged from 4 to 11 with a mean score of 5.89. The mode was measured at 5, and the median 5. Skewness was a positive 0.25. The standard deviation was 1.79. Social use of soaps would seem to correlate (r= .35) quite highly with involvement, and quite significantly (p< 0.001). It is with a fair degree of confidence that this hypothesis is accepted. Soaps as a Problem Solver H5: Highly involved viewers will use soaps as a relationship guideline. Soap problems will be perceived as likely to man in their lives. These problems and solutions will be considered useful as a guideline to viewers’ behavior. 38 The relationship guideline measure consists of three scenarios, in which respondents were asked how likely the event was to occur, and how successful was the outcome. The scores from each scenario were multiplied and summed together. Scores ranged from 12 to 62, with a mean score of 33.82 and a standard deviation of 11.63. This guide index correlates with involvement (m 0.22, p<.05). H5 is accepted. Discussion of Scales Table 18 indicates the scale means and standard deviations. Table 18 Means and Standard Deviations for Scales Scale Mean Std Midpoint Dev Involvement 15.64 4.26 18 Past viewing 6.88 4.88 5* Current viewing 5.77 4.59 4* Social Use 6.90 1.82 15 Perceptions of Unstable Relationships 10.23 2.36 9 Problem Solver 13.41 2.53 18 *this score represents the mode, as it was the sum of hours watching soaps. Of note, the social use scale mean (M: 6.90) is far below the calculated midpoint. It can be concluded that, in general, viewers never use soaps for the ptupose of socializing, and at best a minimal amount. In fact, the highest case was 13, which is still below the midpoint (18, if the range encompassed the entire scale). The problem solving guide was also fell below the midpoint of 18 (M: 13.41). The mean was between neutral and somewhat unlikely. The highest score 39 was 19, which is only one point above the midpoint. It must be concluded that in general, the respondents were not as eager to accept the scenarios as acceptable problem solvers. As for viewing, the means were inflated slightly from the some of the rather high cases. However, the mode scores indicate that the means are not severely skewed. Other Findings There is a small, but positive and significant correlation between social use and current viewing Of soaps (m .22, p< .05). This is an obvious correlation, as current viewers would almost have to watch soaps on a regular basis in order to discuss them. It is surprising to see this correlation so weak. It would seem that discussion would almost certainly follow viewing, or that discussion would serve as a motivation for Others to view. However, since this was not part of the set of hypotheses, discussion of this idea will remain as side bar speculation. It is worth noting that Involvement was in fact a better predictor to use of soaps as a barometer of success given real life scenarios and even in terms of social activity (r= .22, p< .05) as opposed to Viewing of soaps (12 .14, n.s.). This makes sense when one considers that it is possible that highly involved viewers may not have the Opportunity to watch as much as someone less involved Also, viewers who concentrate on fewer programs may actually be more involved than those who casually watch several different shows. Also of note is the significant correlation between past viewing and the problem solving index (r= 0.22, p< .05) . It is nearly the same correlation between problem solving and involvement. The nature of the association can only be speculated Perhaps past viewing of soaps served to shape Opinions and attitudes 40 toward romance and desired outcomes. This certainly would lend credibility to the cultivation hypothesis. Current viewing significantly predicted the use of soaps in social settings (r= .22, p< .05), though not as well as involvement (r= .35, p< .001). These findings are hardly surprising, as current viewing of programming would be more readily discussed than programming from the past, which is evidenced by the fact that past viewing did not correlate with social use (r= -.08, n.s.). Involvement, as noted earlier, implies relevance in the lives of involved individuals, and therefore would be at the forefront of the rrrinds of those individuals. Discussion of the these ideas from soaps would almost certainly warrant discussion. Current viewing very nearly correlates with past viewing (r= .20, p< .06), while Involvement was not a predictor of past viewing(r= .16, n.s.). Involvement implies a process that is occurring at that moment, and therefore cannot predict the viewing diet of the past. Current viewing, however, should be a better predictor of past viewing, especially if viewing has become habituated. It is, however, of note that the correlation between current viewing and past viewing is so weak This implies that habituated viewing is not the case. Perceptions of unstable relationships did not correlate significantly with either current viewing (r= .15, ms.) or involvement (F .15, n.s.). In general, the belief that relationships as unstable is one of neutrality (M: 10.23). Their beliefs vary, but it is not a result of soaps. Chapter 4 Summary and Discussion Summary Five hypotheses were tested concerning the soap opera viewing diet of female teenagers. The first hypothesis concerned the correlation between prior viewing and current viewing of soaps. It was believed that amount of viewing in the past correlated with the amount of viewing in the present. The second hypothesis looked into the level of involvement. It was believed that viewing correlated with involvement. Involvement was measured on a six-item scale developed by Rubin (1985). The third hypothesis explored the perceived reality of soap Opera portrayals of relationships. It was hypothesized that a correlation existed between the level of involvement and relational perceptions. Relational perceptions consisted of a three- item scale. The original scale was developed by Alexander (1985) as a seven-item scale. Alexander discovered two factors, one of which relates to this “relational fragility” (p. 300). Eigenvalue for Alexander’s factor was 2.15, while this study measured it at 122. The fomth hypothesis sought to determine the use of soaps as a topic of discussion amongst wenage females. It was argued that soaps provide a common ground in fiiendship formation and maintenance. The Social Use scale was a four- item scale developed originally as a five-item scale. The fifth hypothesis concerned the correlation between involvement and the use of portrayals as a possible guide for behavior patterns. If soaps seemed realistic in their portrayals of relationships, then, it was believed that teenage females would find this to be a model for behavior. A seven-item scale with fourteen questions was developed and refined until only six questions from three 41 42 scenarios were used. Each pair of scores from the given scenario was multiplied, then the scores were summed to create the relationship guide index. Hypotheses 2 and 4, and 5 were confirmed. There was a significant correlation between viewing of soaps (current viewing) and the level of involvement. There was also a significant correlation between the level of involvement and the social use of soaps (as an engine of conversation). There was a significant correlation between involvement and use of soaps as a guide. Hypotheses 1 and 3 were rejected There was a slight correlation between past viewing and current viewing, and very nearly significant. It was discovered that relational perceptions are not correlated with involvement. Discussion It was believed that viewing of soaps would skew perceptions of the nature Of relationships. These relationships portrayed on soaps would become the norm for viewers. Acceptance of these norms would lead to the belief that these behaviors portrayed were more than acceptable; these portrayals would serve as a socializing agent that viewers were not only internalizing, but were aware of this fact, and even actively seeking these materials in order to more readily conform to the suggested norm. These viewers would then openly discuss the topic of soaps with each other to confirm their beliefs and legitimize their behavior. It was also believed that watching soaps at a younger age made it more likely for this to happen. Past viewing would lead to more viewing in the present. Viewing would lead to increased levels of involvement, which would lead to the aforementioned acceptance. In three of the five cases did this prove significant. Viewing does correlate highly and significantly with involvement, and involvement correlates highly and significantly with social use (soaps as a topic of conversation and friendship 43 formation] maintenance), and use of soaps as a relationship guide, but there seems to be little to no association with past viewing to current viewing or involvement with relational perceptions. It must be concluded fiom these data that current viewing is not a function of past viewing. This may be due to the fact that the sample was not large enough. It may also be that many viewers are starting to view and understand soaps at the teenage level. While many may claim to have started watching at an early age, comprehension of the events transpiring on the screen did not begin until much later and for them, quite recently. Current viewing and involvement correlated highly, but it is difficult to determine the direction. Is increased viewing responsible for increased involvement or does increased involvement lead to increased viewing? it is possible that the effect is cyclic, that increased viewing may increase involvement, which may increase viewing. However, this idea is beyond the scope of this study. According to the results, there is no significant correlation between involvement and relational perceptions. Whatever the viewers’ belief in the fragility or solidarity of relationships, it is not formulated from exposure to soaps. This may be due to the effects of exposme/ involvement/ use of other programs or due to experiences involving their own relationships with others. This idea was not properly considered Questions concerning real life relationships should have been asked in order to control for this possibility. In any event, these data show that involvement is not a predictor of perceptions. As involvement increased so did the willingness to use soaps as a tool for social activity. Involved viewers talk about soaps with their fiiends. They use soaps to formulate fiiendships. Conversations are struck by way of soaps. Viewers watch because they know that their friends watch. it is even possible that 44 they watch in order to become friends with specific others. This, again, is pure speculation, and is beyond the scope of this study. Viewers did see soaps as a how-to guide for relationships. The correlation was slight, but significant. This is in part due to the weakness of the scale itself. The reliability of the scale is suspect, which is not surprising, given the fact that the scenarios weren’t highly intercorrelated. Further testing and refinement Of these measures need to be done in order to create a more sensitive and accurate measure. Perhaps measming the feasibility of the solutions given to the problems and the problems given in the scenarios in the lives of other people would more accruately measme the willingness to believe that soap problems and solutions are viable Options. It is possible that viewers may not be willing to admit that they use soaps to formulate life patterns, even to themselves. It may be easier to admit that others would use soaps in that manner. Despite these weaknesses, there is still some heartening (or disheartening) indication that viewers use soaps as a guide to behavior and thinking patterns. Directions for Future Research In order to study to effects of active cultivation, the following ideas should be considered The first was mentioned earlier. The idea of develOping more sensitive measures for the relational guideline would provide a better indication of the willingness to use soaps to pattern lifestyles. This can be done by intereorrelating the items. The list of scenarios must be related to some specific subject, such as break-ups, or romantic encounters. This would serve to boost the reliability of the measure. Themainideatokeepinmindisthatexposmetospecific ideaswill serveto skew those ideas toward the beliefin them as the norm. Defining the norm may be 45 the tougher task Comparison with non-viewing groups is essential. They will serve as a control, if it can be assumed that their perceptions are the norm. As for relational perceptions, it may be helpful for future researchers to accrnately assess the belief of the nature of relationships in soaps, as perceived by viewers and non-viewers. This could be added to the study, or administered as a pretest. These results could also be compared to the perceptions of relationships in reality, as perceived by viewers and non-viewers. The difference would then help to determine how powerful the effect Of cultivation could be on the average viewer. Also, consideration for total viewing fiom past to present must be more properly considered. It should have been hypothesized within this study that past viewing of soaps would create a cumulative effect of cultivating the mindset of viewers. This was realized by the correlation between past viewing and the relationship guide index. Why this was not considered from the beginning of this study mystifies this researcher. This research could and should be expanded beyond soaps. The idea that must be argued more is the theory of uses and gratifications synthesized with cultivation. The idea that one could realize the effect of continued exposure and the willingness to cultivate the ideas through continued and even increased exposure has possibilities. It is too much to assume that people are completely aware of their environment, and it is equally too much to assume that people are unaware of the effects. There may be a spectrum of viewers who vary in their awareness of the cultivating effect. It must be handled with care; as mentioned earlier, it may be difficult for people to measure the effect of cultivation through a self-administered survey. Others may be unwilling to admit to feeling the effects of exposure. Odrers affected may not be aware, but they must all be accurately measured against some measure. Through testing and retesting, this instrument can be created This 46 study made an initial attempt (relational guideline). Future research should refine these ideas in order to create a better instrument. As stated, theory is the focus of any study. This Study attempted to synthesize two seemingly Opposed theories. Carveth and Alexander (1985) explored bodr theories, but did not introduce the idea of actively cultivating ideas. This study proposes such an idea. From this study, there is evidence that involvement is a good predictor of use of soaps. It would seem drat viewers are actively seeking these materials and internalizing them. It would also seem that this internalization is a conscious effort. Cultivation, therefore, becomes part of the uses & gratifications process. The evidence indicates drat this is a possibility, and that cultivation effects should be reconsidered. Use, too, needs to be redefined to encompass the effects of involvement and the cumulative effect it has on beliefs. This is the first attempt to bridge the gap between uses & gratifications and cultivation. Admittedly, there are a number of problems that come with the first attempt. More sophisticated analysis, perhaps trend analysis, would be a better measure of the effects listed As mentioned, the low alpha scores imply that the scales need to be more completely tested. Also, comparisons with non-viewing groups or dividing the viewers according to the level of involvement would better serve this analysis. However, the argument rests firmly on theory. The attempt to bridge the gap between uses & gratifications and cultivation was not a whim. The answer to “why?” or “how?” may lead in different directions, but only one answer is sought. Uses & gratifications and cultivation seemed to be going in different directions in the attempt to answer how people watch television This project tried to bring the answers closer together. Despite the problems of the measures used, there is evidence that the answers are closer togedrer than once imagined Involvement was a better predictor than viewing hours. Future research should 47 start from there. The idea that involvement plays a role in the activation of attitudes on bodr a conscious and less than conscious level must be investigated People are not mindless, nor are drey completely in control of their mental processes. Somewhere in the middle, lies the answer, and starting there rather than at opposite ends would better serve the research community. The middle might be as yet undefined, but synthesizing two opposite approaches as was done in this study is the first step. APPENDIX APPENDIX r[sens and Telwision e COTlCBTTLlTlg viewing 0f ir mm a daytime drama Wichigan sate rum-a1, 1996 48 49 SECTION 1 Are you? MALE FEMALE What is your age: How much television do you watch on an average weekday? (drde one) leasthanlhr. 12345678 morethathours How much television do you watch on a typical Saturday? (drcle one) lessthanlhr. 12345678 morethathours How much television do you watch on a typical Sunday? (circle one) lessthanlhr. 12345678 morethathours How Often do you watch the following shows? (circle all that you've watched) “AstthorldTums‘ 01 2345 timesaweelt 'I’tholdandtheBeautiful' 01 2345 timesaweek “Guiding Light" 0 1 2345 timesawcek ’I'heYoungandtheRestless" 012345 timesaweek “All My Children~ 01 2345 timeaawcek 'l'heClty" 0'12345tirnesaweek “General Hospital" 01 2345tirnesaweek ”OneIertOIive" 01 2345tirneaawcek “Another World" 01 2345 timesaweek 'DayaofOurUves" 01 2345 timesaweak How Old were you when you first started watching soaps? (If you have never watd'ted soaps, please irrdieatadratbthingNEVER,andmoveontoSECITON6.)__ 50 SECTION 2 (Soap Viewers Only) How many soaps did you watch when you first started watching soaps? (circle one) 012345 Which ones were they, and how often did you watch them? 1) 12345tim6/week 2) 12345tim5/week 3) 12345times/week 4) 12345time5/week 5) 12345t‘im6/week Which of the following best describes your past viewing of soaps: __I watched almost every day. _I watched two or three times a week. _I missed several episodes, but I still kept up with the stories. _I watched off and on, keeping up with the stories as best I could. _l caught an episode once in a while. ___I did not watch soaps at all 51 SECTION 3 (Soap Viewers Only) For the following statements, please indiate to what extent you agree or disagree by drcling one of the five choias (strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree). It is important to me to watch my favorite soap operas every day. stronglyagree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree Itdoesn'tmattermuchbmeiflmissanepisodeofmyfavoritesoapopenoneeortwiceaweelc stronglyagree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree lflhappentomissanepisodeortwoofmthdtenapopmldon’tfedl’mlikelytomissmuch. stronglyagree agree neutral disagree stronglydisagree Soapoperaviewingisanimportantpartofmydailyroutine. shonglyagree agree neutral disagree stronglydisagree lgetveryinvolvedwiththestorieslseeonmyfavoritesoaps stronglyagree agree neutral disagree stronglydisagree lan’twaitbseewhathappensonmyfavoritesoaps. stronglyagr'se agree neutral disagree stronglydisagree 52 SECTION 4 (Soap Viewers Only) For the following, please indicate how often you do the following. I tall: about soaps to my friends. all the time a lot sometimes a little I watch a specific soap because all my friends watch that one. all the time a lot sometimes a little I watch soaps so that I can talk to people about something. all the time a lot sometimes a little I watch soaps in order to meet others who watch soaps. all the time a lot sometimes a little I start conversations by talking about soaps. all the time a lot sometimes a little never never never never never 53 SECTION 5 (Soap Viewers Only) We want to find out why people watdi soaps. Here are some reasons that other peoplegave us for . watchingsoaps. Wewant toknowhow mucheach reasonis LIKEYOU. Pleasetell usifeachreasonis ALOTlikeyou. ALflTLElikeyou, NOTMUCl-l likeyou, orNOTA‘l'ALLlikeyou. lfyouDONOT watdi soaps, please move on to SECI'lON 6. Soaps teach me things l don't learn in school. ALOT ALITTLE NOTMUCl-l NOTATALL Soaps area habit. ALOT ALlTl'LE NOI'MUCH NOTATALL Soapscheermeup. ALO‘T AU'lTI..E NOT MUCH NOT ATALL Soapshelpmelearnfromthemistakesofothers. AIDT AU’ITLE NOTMUCl-l NOTATALL Sospshelpmewhmlwanttogetawayfromothersinmyfamily. ALOT ALflTLE NOTMUCH NOTATALL Soapscahnmedown. ALDT ALITTLE NUl'MUCl-l NOTATALL lhflurjoywdchingsoaps. ALOT AUTI'LE NOTMUCl-l NOTATALL Soapshelpmeforgetwhenlamalone. ALOI' AUTI'LE NOTMUCH NOTATALL Soapsarefun. A-LO‘I' AUTTLE NOTMUCl-l NOTATALL Soapshelpmeleamaboutwhatmuldhappentome. AIDT AUTI'LE NOTMUCI-l NOTATALL Soapshslpmelsamhowrmupposedtoactindifiermtsimatiomandplaoss AIDT AUTTLE NO‘TMUCI-l NO'I'ATALL Soapshelpmewhenlwanttoforgetaboutschoolandhomework. ALOT ALITI'LE NOTMUCI-I NOTATALL Soapsareaplumtwaytorest. AIDI' ALITTLE NOTMUCH NOTATALL Soapsfllluptime. AID? AUTTIE NOTMUCI-l NOTATALL ”penum- ALOT ALl'TTLE NOTMUCH NOTATALL Soapsgivernethrllls. ALOI' AU'TTLE NOTMUCH NOTATALL 54 Soaps help me know what is going on in the world. A LOT A LITTLE NOT MUCH Soaps help me learn how to do things I‘ve never done before. A LOT A LITTLE NOT MUCH Soaps help me forget my problems. A LOT A LTTTLE NOT MUCH Soaps relax me. A LOT A LITTLE NOT MUCH Soaps give me something to do when I haven't got anything to do. A [OT A LITTLE NOT MUCH Soaps are almost like a friend. A LOT A LITTLE NOT MUCH Soaps excite me. ALOT ALTTTLE NOT MUCH NOT AT ALL NOT AT ALL NOTATALL NOT AT ALL NOT ATALL NOT AT ALL NOT ATALL 55 SECTION 6 (Viewers AND Non-viewers of Soaps- please complete this section) For the following statements, please indicate whether you strongly agree, agree, hold no opinion (neutral), disagree, or strongly disagree. Mostrelationships would be betterifpeople hiked to each other more. stronglydisagree disagree neutral agree stronglyagree Youneverlmowallthatisgoingoninthelivesofthepeopleyoucarefor. stronglydisagree disagree neutral agree stronglyagree Mostrelationshipsdon’tlast. stronglydisagree dbagree neutral agree stronglyagree Somehaotherpeople‘mncauses-mrsproblemsbetwwfrienda stronglydisagree disagree neutral agree stronglyagree It'shardtolmepdoserelationshipsgoing. stronglydisagree disagree neutral agree stronglyagree Nomatterhowhardyoutry,youcan’talwaysholdontosomeone. strordydisagree disagree neutral agree stronglyagree 56 SECTION 7 (Viewen AND Non-viewers of Soaps- please complete this section) For the following stories, please indicate how likely or unlikely you would be to do the same given similar drarmstancas, then indicate how successful or unsuccemful the solution to the problem would be. For example, Ken and Susan are having trouble in their relationship. In order to rekindle the romance, Susan decides that they should go on a cruise to the Bahamas. If I feel that people like Susan suggest such solutions to this problem, them I would circle likely orvery likely. However, if I feel that people likeSusanwould NOTsuggest such a courseofaction, I would drcleunlikelyorvery unlikely. lflam not sure if people do this or not, then I would drde uncertain. Then, if l felt that this solution would rekindle the romance, then l would cirdesumeasfulorverysuccessful. But, if I do not feel that this is the right solution, and that it will not rekindle the romance, thenl would circle Maury M. lflamunsureofthesuccassorfailure,thenlwoulddrcleneutral. Erendawanbbmlchca-boyfiiendSamiealm Shefindaoutdlathewillbeatacertain Mumebdngshunewboyfdendbthatrahmflpaysahtofaumfionbhunew boyfriendinfrentofSam. Howlikelywouldsomeonebetodowhatflrenda did? verylikely likely uncertain notlikely veryunlikely Howarcu-fuldoyouthinkflrendawillbeinmakirgSuniaalou? veryw umuoaasful neutral sum-(u! veryslmuful Pamelaand‘Tomarehavingp-rnrtbutterandjellysandwidna Tomtsllsherhowmmhheenioys pearartbutterandiellysandwidu. Sheloolrsat‘l‘omanddabsalittlepaanutbutteronherlips,“ duh'flowMPShemovainsohecankimher. I'Iowlikelylasomaonetodothesameasl’amela? veryllkely likely uncertain notlikely veryunlikely Howsumamfuldoyoubelievel’amelawillbeingetting'romtokiasher? mun-Mil M neutral M verysuoadul 57 FranklovesSman. Touprmshimsdbhecomposesasong andsingsittoher. WouldothersdothesameasFrank,given thecircumstances? very likely likely uncertain notlikely very unlikely How successful do you think Frank will bein winning heraffection? veryunsuocearful umucussful neutral successful verysumessful Jadtfedsfisappointedinxansinceshedoubtedhimwhmhenaededhermost 'Thoughhetriesto lookpastitJaeurmot. Hedecidestoavoidhcuntilhecangetoverthediappointmenhdmpiteher plaasforforgiveneas. Howlikelywouldothersbetodoaslackdid? verylikely likely unartain notlikely veryunlikely Howsuccassfulamovewouldtlusbeingettingpastthisproblemmoyouthinktheywill reunite)? veryw M neutral sumaful vuynrmdul AlexandCariabreakup,eventhoughtheystillloveeachodier. Theytalkabsutgettingbadt wwwaadebwonthemfnmidniglnusuifmchhummimdbmaflng thereiationahipworis Howlikelywouldsomeonebetodosomethinglikethat? highlylikely likely uncertain notlikely highlyunlikely Howaruadulwillthisbeinbringingdmnbacktogetlur? «lynx-Mil M neutral M veryM Heliufallsinlovewithamanmucholderthanahe. Shetriestaseduoehimbywaaringpeovomtive dodtingandhintingattheoppmtrmityforintimacy. Giventheopporhuutymowlikelyueodustomkeadvanasmmoldcpm? highlylikely likely unartain notlikely highlyunlikely Howuoudulwillshebeinsedudnghim? veryw w neutral stressful verysucauful 58 AlanaeesthatDartiellghisex-gir'lfriend,iswearingabnceletgiverrtoher’byLorriaAlanwarttedto dothesame,aincehestill feeisthathelovesher. Whanheseesthis,heaasumes thatshehasmoved onwithhufifganddedduhemustmoveonwithhislife. Howlikelyissomeonetobelievethatanex-girlfriendhasmovedmgiventhecirmmstances? very likely likely uncertain not likely very unlikely HowsuccemfulwouldthisammptionbeforAlantomake(wouldthisbetherightdedsion (aromasfulorverysucassful),orishegivinguponlove tooeasily(unsuccassfulorvery mmrcceasful»? veryerrmsuaessfulmutralslmafulveryamasful 59 SECTION I (Viewers AND Non-viewers of Soaps- please complete this section) Which of the following is best when you want: (CIRCLE ONLY ONE FOR EACH) excitement TV RADIO MAGAZINE PAPER a friend TV RADIO MAGAZINE PAPER somethingtodo TV RADIO MAGAZINE PAPER to relax TV RADIO MAGAZNE PAPER toforgetyourproblene TV RADIO MAGAZINE PAPER todothingsyouhaven'tdonebefore TV RADIO MAGAZINE PAPER toknowwhat'sgoingonintheworld TV RADK) MAGAZINE PAPER thrills TV RADIO MAGAZNE PAPER my TV RADD MAGAZINE PAPER tofillupaometirne TV RADD MAGAZINE PAPER torest TV RADIO MAGAZINEPAPER toforgetaboutsdioolandhomework TVRADDMAGAZINEPAPER COMIC BOOK REGULAR BOOK VIDEOGAME COMPUTE! COMIC BOOK REGULAR BOOK VIDEOGAME COMPUTER COMICEOOK REGULAREOOK VIDEOGAME COMPUTER COMIC BOOK REGULAR KICK VIDEOGAME COMPUTER COMICEOOK REGULAREOOK VIDEOGAME COMPUTER COMICWOK REGULAREOOK VIDEOGAME COMPUTER COMIch REGULARKJOK VIDEOGAME COMPUTB COMICBOOK REGULAREDOK VIDEOGAME COMPUTER COMICDOK REGULARBOOK VIDEOGAME COW COMICKXDK REGULARKJOK VIDEJGAME COMPUTER COMICDOK REGULARKDK VIDmGAME COMPUTER COMICDOK mm W COM tolearnhowtoactindifierentsihiatiomand TVRADDMAGAZNEPAPER comcnoox REGULARKJOK VIDW COW tolearnaboutwhatmuldhappentoyou TVRADIOMAGAZNEPAPER hm TVRADDMAGAZINEPAPER tofotgetyou'realone TV RADD MAGAZINE PAPER COMIch REGULARBOOK VIDHJGAME COMPUTEI COMICKDK REGULARKJOK VIDHDGAME COMPUTER ODMICKXJK REGULARKJOK mm COMPUTB! toenioy yourself TV RADIO MAGAZINE PAPER COMIC BOOK REGULAR BOOK VIDEOGAME COMPUTER tocalm down TV RADIO MAGAZINE PAPER COMIC BOOK REGULAR BOOK VIDEOGAME COMPUTER togetawayfromothersinyourfamily TV RADIO MAGAZINE PAPER COMIC BOOK REGULAR BOOK VIDEOGAME COMPUTER to learn from the mistakes of others TV RADIO MAGAZINE PAPER COMIC BOOK REGULAR BOOK VIDEOGAME COMPUTER cheering up TV RADIO MAGAZINE PAPER COMIC BOOK REGULAR BOOK VIDEOGAME COMPUTER tofeedahabit TV RADIO MAGAZINE PAPER COMICBOOK REGULARKJOK VIDEOGAME COMPU'TB! toleamthingsyoudon‘tlearninsdiool TV RADIO MAGAZINE PAPER COMICBOOK REGULARBOOK VIDEOGAME COMPUTER Thankyouforyourtimeandeffort. Youranswerswillbepartofaresaerdistudymnductedathfidrigan State Univeritnyyouhaveanyquestionsregardingtheresaardgpleasedonothesitatetoaakml willbeluppytoanswerthem. Agairyyouranswerswillremainanonymous. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Abelman, R. (1987). Religious television uses and gratifications.12umal_qf W35 3 293- 307 Alexander, A. (1985). Adolescents’ soap opera viewing and relational perceptions. WW (3), 295- 308. Babrow, A. S. (1987). Student motives for watching soap operas. W W 309- 321. Blunder, J. (1979). The role of theory 1n uses and gratifications studies. WM 9- 36 Buckman. P.. (1984). W New Hampshire. Great Britain: Salem House. Bucrkel-Rothfuss, N. L, & Mayes, S. (1980). Soap opera viewing :Thc cultivation effeCt WW (1) 108- 115 Cantor, M. G., & Pingree, S. (1983). W. Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage. Carveth, R., & Alexander, A. (1985). Soap opera viewing motivations and the cultivation process WW (3). 259- 273. Cassata, M. B., Skill, T. D., & Boadu, 8.0. (1979). In sickness and m health. WA. 73- 80 Compesi, R. J. (1980). Gratifications of daytime tv serial viewers. Journalism W. 1. 155-153. Downing, M. (1974). Heroine of the daytime serial. JaumaLQfflgmmnniQafiQn. 25(2), 130-137. 61 62 Elliot, W. R. &Rosenberg, W. L. (1987). The 1985 philadelphia newspaper strike: A uses and gratifications study. WA .679- 687. Fine, M. G. (1981). Soap opera conversations: The talk that binds. mm Communicafiomllm. 97- 107 Galloway, J. J., & Meek, F. L. (1981). Audience uses and gratifications: An expectancy model WW 435-449 Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorelli, N. (1994). Growing up with television: The cultivation perspective. Bryant, J. & Zillman, D. (eds.) Madam. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gerbner, 0., Gross, L.,Signore11i,N.,Morgan, M., & Jackson-Beeck, M. (1979). The demonstration of power: Violence profile no. 10.1mm” WW (3) 177-196 Greenberg, B. S. Abelman, R., & Neuendorf, K. (1981). Sex on the soap Operas Aficmoon delight WW3). 83- 89 Greenberg, B. S., Neuendorf, K., Buerkel- Rothfuss, & Henderson, L. (1982). The soaps: What' 8 on and who cares? WM, 519- 535. Johnson, B. T. & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion. A meta-analysis. WM 106, 2, 290-314. Katzman, N. (1972). Television soap operas: What‘ 5 been going on anyway? WM 206212 Lemish, D. (1985). Soap opera viewing in college: A naturalistic 1nquiry.1oumal WWW 275- 293 Lowery, S. A., &DeFleur, M. L. (1995). ' ' Wis (3rd ed..) New York: Longman Publishers. Lowry, D. T, Love, 6., &Kirby, M. (1981) Sex on the soap operas: Patterns of intimacy WM 90-96 Matelski, M. J., (1991) Wag. Boston, London: Focal Press. 63 Perse, E. M., & Rubin, A. M. (1988). Audience activity and satisfaction with favorite television soap Opera. MW 2, 368-375. Perse, E. M. (1986). Soap opera viewing patterns of college students and cultivation W (2) 175-193 Potter, W. J. (1986). Perceived reality and the cultivation hypothesis. W W (2) 159- 174. Potter, W. J., & Chang,I. C. (1990). Television exposure measures and the cultivation hypothesis WW (3). 313- 333. Rubin, A. M., (1985). Uses of daytime television soap operas by college students. Wm 241 -258 Swanson, D. L. (1987). Gratification seeking, media exposure, and audience interpretations: Some directions for research. WW W31. 3 237- 254 Tan. A. 8- (1985).Mass_mmm1mication_theories_and.reseatch(2nd ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Turow, J. (1974). Advising and ogderinlg: Daytime, primetime. W Communicmmza. 1 8 14 Wander, P. (1979). The angst of the upper class. lonmalgfiflommunigatjon. 22:59 85'88. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1986). Conceptualizing involvement. MW, 15, 2, 4—14, 34.