COGNITIVE PROCESSING OF CULTIVATION EFFECTS ON KOREAN VIEWERS OF U.S.
REALITY COMPETITION SHOWS
By
Suji Park

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of
Communication – Master of Arts
2013

ABSTRACT
COGNITIVE PROCESSING OF CULTIVATION EFFECTS ON KOREAN VIEWERS OF U.S.
REALITY COMPETITION SHOWS
By
Suji Park
The purpose of this thesis is to study cultivation effects of U.S. reality competition shows as well
as U.S. TV shows on Korean viewers’ estimates of Americans’ competitiveness based on the
heuristic processing model of cultivation effects. To test this question, a 2 (TV viewing: Heavy
and Light) x 2 (Stimuli: Systematic and Heuristic) post-test only between-groups design is used.
The results show that the amount of hours spent watching U.S. TV shows or U.S. reality
competition shows does not influence how Koreans perceive Americans’ competitiveness.
Furthermore, motivation and distraction do not result in different estimates of Americans’
competitiveness regardless of the amount of TV viewing. The reasons for the findings are
discussed.

Copyright by
SUJI PARK
2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………………...v
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………………....vi
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………….............…..…1
LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………………….....................5
Reality Competition Shows……………………………………………………………………5
Cultivation Theory……………………………………………………………………………..9
Heuristic Processing Model of Cultivation Effects………………………………………..…12
METHOD……………………………………………………………..........................................20
Design………………………………………………………………………………………...20
Manipulation………………………………………………………………………………….20
Participants and Procedure……………………………………………………………………21
Measures……………………………………………………………………………………...23
RESULTS……………………………………………………………...........................................25
DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………....................................27
IMPLICATION……………………………………………………………..................................32
LIMITATION…………………………………………………………….....................................34
CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………..................................35
APPENDICES …………………………….………………………….........................................37
Appendix A: Consent Form…………………………….………………………….................38
Appendix B: Questionnaire for the Systematic Condition…………………………….……..40
Appendix C: Questionnaire for the Heuristic Condition…………………………….……….50
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………..................................63

	
  
iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Mean and Standard Deviation of Estimates of Americans’ Competitiveness by Viewers
of U.S. TV Shows……………………………………………………………..............................36

	
  
v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Flow diagram of the heuristic processing model of television effects………………16

	
  
vi

INTRODUCTION
Since introduction of television in the 1950s, society has been under the influence of the
messages portrayed through television. Television has pervaded society and defined the reality
surrounding people (Shanahan & Morgan, 1999). Michael Novak (2009) posited that the time
spent watching television and perceptions that people developed as a result of this exposure
would be comparable to exercising for 6 hours every day. What is important to note is that the
level of effects of TV viewing does not have the same effect on all viewers (Shanahan &
Morgan, 1999). Certain factors, such as distractions, elicit a more powerful influence of watching
TV by making viewers more susceptible to messages from TV programming (Miarmi & Debono,
2007; Osterhouse & Brock, 1970; Petty, Wells, & Brock, 1976; Shrum, 2004). These scholars
argue that distractions appear to encourage viewers to uncritically accept the messages embedded
in television programming.
In recent years, globalization has contributed to the development of a great number of
nations as traders of culture (The Pew Global Attitudes Project, 2003). Central America, Eastern
Europe, Africa, and Asia have especially played a key role in trading their cultures by enabling
foreign media contents such as films, music, and television programs to be more accessible than
ever. According to the Pew Global Attitudes Project (2003), around eight-in-ten South Koreans
responded that availability of foreign pop culture from around the world had increased in five
years from 1997 to 2002. Considering that the United States is the biggest exporter of TV
programs to South Korea, Koreans are likely to have a significant amount of exposure to
American television programs (Jin, 2007).
In the U. S. and South Korea, reality shows are airing at an even greater pace than in the
past. American reality shows increased to 32.3 percent of programming in 2003 (Lee, 2005). Not

	
  
1

only have Korean network companies created domestic reality shows, but cable television firms
have imported American reality shows since 2000 (Ban, 2012). Since American reality television
highlights American cultural values such as achievement, competence, equality, and activity
(Miller & Narro, 2008), this trend has spread the access of these U.S. cultural values in South
Korea. Surprisingly, while a few studies have investigated American fiction dramas with Korea
viewers (e.g., Im, 2008; Kim, 2009; Yang, Ramasubramanian & Oliver, 2008), no effects of
American reality shows on Korean viewers have been examined. Thus, it is worthwhile to
examine whether exposure to American reality shows influence viewers’ perception of
Americans regarding competitiveness illustrated through the TV shows and how these effects are
produced.
Cultivation theory (Gerbner & Gross, 1976) explains how watching television has an
effect on people’s perception of reality. The theory hypothesizes that television programs provide
a constant stream of a limited set of messages such as crime or affluence. Being frequently
exposed to TV contents results in a cumulative perception of reality based on what viewers have
watched. Thus, heavy viewers with higher exposure to TV would be more likely to perceive the
real world to be congruent with the contents of television programming and accumulate
misconceptions about the reality (Gerbner & Gross, 1976; Gerbner, 1998; Hughes, 1980; Miller,
2005; Morgan & Shanahan, 2010). However, cultivation theory has been criticized since it does
not provide sufficient descriptive mechanisms explaining the cognitive processes that viewers
experience (Shrum, 2002).
To expand cultivation theory, Shrum (2001) incorporated the heuristic processing model
into cultivation effects to explain why cultivation effects may not occur when people employ
systematic processing. Presenting connections between TV viewing and judgment, the model

	
  
2

clarifies the process of constructing beliefs or judgment. Heuristic processing, which elicits
cultivation effects (Shrum, 2002), describes that viewers put less effort into processing the
validity of messages; whereas systematic processing indicates that a person elaborates and
considers information more carefully (Chaiken, 1980). Therefore, Korean viewers who watch
American reality shows, which transfer the value of competitiveness, might perceive Americans
to be more competitive when they resort to heuristic processing. On the other hand, people who
have the motivation or the ability to process messages tend to use systematic processing. When
systematic processing is activated, viewers are likely to elaborate their perception of what was
presented through TV shows that they watched and may develop greater awareness of the
presentation of Americans’ competitiveness and that this may not be an accurate reflection of
American behaviors (Shrum, 2002). The model posits that motivation and the ability to process
information are the key factors, which lead individuals either to the heuristic or systematic
processing (Shrum, 2001).
Based on the heuristic processing model of cultivation, the effects of motivation and
distraction on perceptions are investigated. Motivation is defined as “a state of need-arousal—a
condition exerting “push” on the individual to engage in those activities which he anticipates will
have the highest probability of bringing him gratification of a particular need-pattern” (Bayton,
1958, p. 282). The present study argues that motivation will play a role in encouraging Korean
viewers to deliberately process messages that they receive from reality shows about American
competitiveness resulting in systematic processing. Thus, motivated Korean light viewers of U.S.
reality competition shows are expected to elicit a lower estimates of American competitiveness
compared to motivated heavy viewers.
In contrast, cognitive distraction, which interrupts Korean viewers of U.S. reality

	
  
3

competition shows to elaborately recall information about Americans, will make them resort to
heuristic processing and form perceptions of a higher prevalence of competitiveness of
Americans. Given the heuristic processing model of cultivation effects, distracted Korean heavy
viewers of U.S. reality competition shows will show higher perception of American
competitiveness compared to light viewers compared to distracted light viewers.
The primary aim of this study is to examine a) the influence of U.S. reality shows on
Korean viewers' estimates about Americans’ competitiveness and b) the effects of cognitive
motivation and distraction on processing the messages from recall of shows based on the
heuristic processing model of television effects. To achieve this goal, research that has been
conducted on American reality shows and competition will be reviewed. Following this, the
theoretical framework including cultivation theory and the heuristic processing model of
cultivation effects will be explained. The study will then propose three hypotheses and two
research question for investigation. Then, the methodology will be discussed. Finally, the results
and the implications of this study will be discussed.

	
  
4

LITERATURE REVIEW
Reality Competition Shows
There has been a significant increase in the popularity of reality TV in both the U.S. and
South Korea (Ban, 2011). The Bachelor has attracted eight million viewers in the U.S. as of
January, 2006. The high rate of increase in American reality TV shows within the top 30 rankings
of the year-average ratings from 1992 to 2004, especially, can be interpreted as success of this
genre of television programming (e.g., Survivor) (Lee, 2005). This popularity has enabled
producers to export reality shows to other countries who are eager to receive them. Along with
the phenomenon of exporting U.S. reality shows to other countries, the launch of South Korea
Cable TV focusing on imports of foreign programming has led to a growth in the number of
American programs being broadcast in South Korea (Ban, 2011). Though several Korean cable
TV channels such as FOX and OCN have produced reality shows that imitate the format of
American shows, most of the channels also broadcast original American reality shows on
account of their high program rates (Kim, 2009). Watching American reality shows has recently
become a phenomenon of pop culture.
Mutz and Nir (2010) argued that fictional television could have an impact on viewers’
policy positions as well as political attitudes. They also found that the effects were linked with
how audiences developed empathy for the dramas they had watched. Viewers appear to be
influenced by fictional programming, but what about the effects of reality-based programming?
Even though there are few studies that have examined the effects of reality shows on
viewers, Kim and Jun (2009) conducted a study investigating the impact of plastic surgery reality
TV shows on college students. Their study documented gradual perceptional and behavioral
change of participants watching six plastic surgery reality television shows. The participants

	
  
5

moved from lack of perception into formations of behavioral intentions to have a plastic surgery
through various processes. The study showed that the greater amount of time spent watching
these shows, that viewers had more positive attitudes and stronger intention to get plastic
surgery.
Reality TV is defined as a genre showing participants who are non-actors in unscripted
diverse situations perceived as present reality and producing unpredictable results (Godlewski &
Perse, 2010; Krakowiak, Kleck, & Tsay, 2006). Even though the definition for each subgenre of
reality TV is a bit inconsistent in the literature, reality competition programs refer to a subgenre
of reality TV following the format of elimination contests in which participants compete in order
to win a prize. It is a relatively broad concept including two subgenres distinguished by
Krakowiak et al. (2006), into talent shows (e.g., American Idol, Star Search, and America’s Top
Model) and game shows (e.g., Survivor, Big Brother, The Amazing Race, and Fear Factor). Both
of these sub-genres share a distinctive feature of reality competition programs, which displays
the strongest values of activity and achievement by rewarding winners (Miller & Narro, 2008).
The rewards, or achievement, can come in various forms: “monetary (e.g., a million dollars on
Survivor), love (e.g., winning the heart of The Bachelor), prestige (e.g., the title of The American
Idol), et cetera” (Krakowiak et al., 2006, p.9).
According to Krakowiak et al. (2006), perceived competitions have been examined the
least by scholars when it comes to how the subgenres were perceived and experienced by
viewers. The study indicated that viewers considered reality competition shows not only as the
most competitive but also as the most enjoyable subgenre. Additionally,
The number one reason people watched reality programming was the thrill of “guessing
who will win or be eliminated from the show.” The second and third reasons all viewers

	
  
6

had for watching was “to see people face challenging situations” (63%) and “imagine
how I would perform in similar situation” (42%) (Gardyn, 2001, p.2).
Hence, the feature of competition shows that attract viewers is a situation where participants are
competing to be a winner and to be rewarded.
Competitiveness. The underlying format of reality competition shows is competition.
Competitiveness refers to an interactive situation where individuals have the desire to win
(Smither & Houston, 1992). Accordingly, what these shows transmit and may instill into
viewers’ minds is the value of competitiveness, which is intimately related to the value of
achievement (Brunstein & Maier, 2005). Competitiveness is also one of American values that
Bearden, Netemeyer, and Mobley (1993) presented in their publication. Competition is a means
of success that Americans pursue (Miller & Narro, 2008). It is important to note that the value of
competitiveness can vary along with countries since their cultures play a key role in determining
experience and behavior of social members (Lee, 1989). Hofstede (1983) provided insight into
competitiveness by developing his cultural dimensions. Along with Power Distance, Uncertainty
Avoidance, and Confucian dynamism or Long-term orientation, he labeled and explained
Individualism versus Collectivism and Masculinity versus Femininity as key cultural features
that help to understand cultural differences in competiveness.
In terms of Individualism versus Collectivism, Individualism characterizes that
individuals themselves and their family take precedence over others (Hofstede & Bond, 1984).
Individualists, such as Europeans and North Americans, are likely to value competition,
autonomy, achievement, and individual goals (Cho, Mallinckrodt, & Yune, 2010; Hofstede,
1983). On the other hand, Collectivism focuses on the identity of groups and put others over
themselves with loyalty and harmony. Collectivists, such as Asians and Africans, tend to be a

	
  
7

part of social groups by collaborating with others and putting the objectives of the group above
personal interests (Cox, Lobel, & McLeod, 1991). Concerning competition, it is considered
advantageous to individualists, unlike collectivists, since it would enable the society to enjoy
better products and services (Yoo, 2009). Kelley and Stahelski (1970) stated individualistically
oriented participants showed competitive behavior whether or not there were incentives for
responding competitively while cooperatively oriented participants exhibited competitiveness
only when incentives were provided.
Masculine cultures value competitiveness, material success, and challenges in contrast to
feminine cultures, which emphasize cooperation and life quality (Hofstede, 1983; Hofstede &
Bond, 1984; Moon & Franke, 2000). According to Hofstede, South Korea is classed as a
feminine culture while the U.S. is labeled as a masculine culture. A study investigating the
differences of gender role between the U.S. and Korea based on masculinity and femininity
found that Korean advertisements exhibit the feminine aspects of Korean society (An & Kim,
2007). The researchers showed that Korean advertisements prefer women as main characters
more than advertisements in the U.S. These studies indicate how people in
individualistic/masculine cultures (e.g., The United States) and collectivistic/feminine cultures
(e.g., South Korea) reveal their competitiveness in different ways. Therefore, cultural differences
between South Korea and the U.S. can affect how Koreans comprehend concepts of Americans’
competition based on their own culture.
In regards to the value of competitiveness, U.S. and Korean reality competition shows
illustrate the difference between Americans who are representative of individualism/masculinity
and South Koreas who are symbolic of collectivism/femininity. A recent study by the Research
Institute of Korean Studies (Song, 2012) described that American reality competitions have

	
  
8

become popular to American viewers because of the excitement of severe personal competition
featured on these programs where one person emerges as the winner. Unlike American reality
competitions, in Korean reality competition shows characters who cooperate with other
participants are more likely to become favored and survive longer than those who are highly
competitive. Thus, distinct features of American shows’ contents may result in Korean heavy
viewers approximating a higher percentage of prevalence about Americans’ competitiveness than
Korean light viewers. This may lead people to different critical receptions of the messages from
the shows. Along with this evidence, it is possible that there is a relationship between the
viewing of reality competition shows and the viewers’ perceptions of Americans’
competitiveness.
Cultivation Theory
A large number of mass media studies have been framed using cultivation theory (Bryant
& Miron, 2004). Since Gerbner and his colleagues theorized cultivation effects in the1960s,
more than five hundred studies that were directly related to cultivation theory have been
conducted. Cultivation theory (Gerbner & Gross, 1976) hypothesizes that repeatedly watching
television for a large amount of time influences viewers’ perception of reality such that it
becomes consistent with what is presented in the television shows. Television, which plays a role
of a storyteller, is likely to retain symbols that cultivate the common awareness of reality through
various programs with a similar structure to the real world. That is to say, television constantly
produces a limited set of messages (e.g., the population of old people is very low) since many
programs are created by commercial needs to appeal to a heterogeneous viewing audience
(Gerbner, 1998).
Cultivation effects of television viewing is measured based on the amount of time

	
  
9

watching TV during an average day (Gerbner, 1998). According to the annual report of the Korea
Communications Commission (2013), the average amount of Koreans’ TV viewing was 3 hours
and 9 minutes a day. Smart phone users watch TV programming with their phones for 1 hour and
57 minutes a day on an average. Because of relativeness of the amount of TV viewing based on
each empirical study, however, heavy and light viewers are distinguished from each other on “a
sample-by-sample basis” (Gerbner, 1998, p. 181). A median-split average distinguishes “Heavy
viewers” from “light viewers.” It is notable that viewing levels between two groups are relatively
different and cultivation effects can be observed from the heaviest viewers of a sample. Thus,
heavy exposure to television contents is thought to have an impact on how viewers perceive the
real world and the heavy viewers would be likely to have an incorrect perception about reality
(Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, Signorielli, & Shanahan, 2002). For instance, if television shows
provide uniform messages that there are few obese people, heavy viewers may have a skewed
perception of how prevalent overweight people are in society. As a result, unlike light viewers,
heavy television viewers in those groups become undifferentiated in terms of views about the
world; this idea is called mainstreaming (Gerbner et al., 2002).
For the Cultural Indicators project investigating TV consumption and viewers’
perception, Gerbner and his colleagues designed the Cultural Indicators approach, which breaks
into three research strategies: institutional process analysis, message system analysis, and
cultivation analysis (Gerbner et al., 2002). These analyses were conducted in order to not only
examine the leading message of TV shows but also to trace trends reflected in television dramas.
Furthermore, another purpose is to analyze the relations between the amount of time of exposure
to television and perception of reality (Shanahan & Morgan, 1999). It is significant to note that
cultivation does not focus on people’s opinions about contexts of television shows but messages

	
  
10

accumulated for a long term through the interaction with viewers.
Carlson (1993) indicated that one of the criticisms that cultivation theory has faced is its
basic assumption that watching specific genres is not relevant to cultivation effects since TV
shows transmit a limited set of messages and viewers selectively do not watch television.
Nonetheless, empirical studies examining cultivation effects have recently proposed that
television genres may have an impact on different degrees of cultivation effects on viewers’
perception (e.g., Appel, 2008; Bilandzic & Busselle, 2008; Egbert & Belcher, 2012; Lett,
DiPietro, & Johnson, 2004; Marron & Collins, 2009; Morgan & Shanahan, 2010). This
suggestion is contrary to traditional cultivation studies, which state that the amount of exposure
time of total TV viewing explains cultivation effects. For instance, Marron and Collins (2009)
examine whether cultivation effects emerge within different television genres. Their findings
suggest the level of perceived prevalence of sexual content was different based on TV genres.
Heavy male viewers watching televised movies and music videos display the strongest
cultivation effects. Research indicates that cultivation effect may be not only time-specific but
also genre-specific. Therefore, it is plausible that repetitively watching certain television genres
such as reality competition shows (e.g., Survivor, American Idol, and The Bachelor) may produce
different level of effects on viewers’ perceptions of Americans’ competitiveness. Furthermore,
Potter (1993) stated that what Gerbner was able to justify in terms of the idea of uniform
messages transmitted through overall TV programming is not anymore arguable these days. He
claimed that, during the 1970s when Gerbner developed cultivation effects, TV shows were
broadcast by only three major networks that duplicated each other’s shows. The current situation
of a broadcasting market that includes more than 200-channel cable systems is wider and more
diverse than it was in 1970s (Kwak, Zinkhan, & Dominick, 2002).

	
  
11

Cultivation theory (Gerbner & Gross, 1976) posits that viewers will develop a perception
of reality based on what they have watched on TV. Given Gerbner’s assertion, viewers of U.S.
reality competition shows should have distinct different perception about Americans’
competitiveness from non-viewers. Based on previous studies examining cultivation effects, the
following a research question and a hypothesis are posed:
Research Question 1: Will estimates of American’s competitiveness by South Korean
viewers of U.S. reality competition shows be higher compared to the estimates of nonviewers?
Hypothesis 1: Estimates of Americans’ competitiveness by South Korean heavy viewers
of U.S. TV shows will be higher compared to the estimates of light viewers.
Heuristic Processing Model of Cultivation Effects
Cultivation theory has been the subject of intense interest for four decades, and also has
been the center of the controversy (Carlson, 1993). A number of scholars (e.g., Hirsch, 1980,
1981, Hughes, 1980, Potter, 1994) have criticized this popular theory based on a weak
relationship between TV viewing and viewers’ judgment about reality (Shrum & O’Guinn,
1993). For instance, Hirsch (1980) conducted a secondary analysis of the NORC General Social
Survey data. He found that there was little support for the linear relationship between the amount
of exposure to TV and viewers’ perception of the real world as a dangerous place. Also, his
findings demonstrated that extreme viewers perceived the world to be less dangerous than heavy
viewers, whereas nonviewers perceived the world to be more fearful and were more favorable to
commit suicide compared to light viewers.
To explain why cultivation effects happen or do not happen, Shrum (2001) extended
cultivation theory to include investigation of the psychological mechanisms of viewers who

	
  
12

process messages from television programs. The purpose of the revised model is to enlarge
internal validity showing causal effects between consuming media and the viewers’ responses,
and to provide feasible conditions which have limited media effects in previous research (Shrum,
2002).
Shrum (2002) has developed a heuristic processing model of cultivation effects based on
two fundamental principles: a Heuristic/Sufficiency Principle and an Accessibility Principle.
These two ideas constitute social cognition, which is defined as the cognitive processes that are
used to interpret and understand what is going on in a social situation (Reeves, Chaffess, & Tims,
1982). The Heuristic/Sufficiency Principle examines how information is used in the process of
forming an opinion (Shrum, 2002). The heuristic view states that individuals who receive
messages do not put in a large amount of effort to judge the validity of the messages (Chaiken,
1980). According to this concept, individuals retrieve the minimum amount of information that
they consider suitable to make a judgment by putting in a little cognitive effort (Shrum, 2002).
That is to say, to be retrieved, the information should be sufficient. The second principle is the
Accessibility Principle that analyzes which information is the most likely to occur with the four
determinants of accessibility–frequency, recency, vividness, and relations. The more frequently
the recency and vividness constructs are operated, the more easily the constructs come into mind.
Also, in terms of relations, accessibility to other constructs that are closely connected with the
information becomes less complicated when it is easy to access a specific construct (Shrum,
2002). With regard to the second Principle, accessibility results in three consequences. First, an
individual is likely to apply the most easily reachable information from memory in the course of
judgment. Secondly, when people assess an object, they tend to employ the most easily attainable
beliefs. Lastly, individuals are inclined to draw a deduction about the frequency and the

	
  
13

probability of events concerning the ease in evoking pertinent information. These consequences
can be applied to media effects and viewers’ perception.
To form the heuristic processing model of cultivation effects, three assumptions are made
(Shrum, 2001). The model does not focus on how viewers gather information from TV programs
but only on storing of the information. Also, cultivation effects do not occur when television
information is encoded but when a viewer makes a judgment by combining the information and
his or her beliefs. The process, the so-called first-order judgment, is that people encode
information first and then recall it later when they are asked about it. So this is memory-based
and usually elicited regarding prevalence of a construct (e.g. percentage of crime). A third
assumption of the model is that cultivation effects ensue from heuristic processing that people
employ to formulate judgments. In contrast to systematic processing that requires significant
efforts to find information for a judgment (Chaiken, 1980), a heuristic processing strategy tends
to make information that elicits simple judgment easily available.
Cultivation studies may employ one specific heuristic, which is the availability heuristic
(Shrum, 2001). When an individual evaluates prevalence of constructs based on how easy
examples come into mind, it can be said that he or she uses the availability heuristic (Tversky &
Kahneman, 1973). According to this heuristic, people would estimates the frequency or
probability of violent crime by the ease of recalling relevant examples (Shrum, 2001). Thus,
information, which is retrieved more easily, engenders the perception that the pertaining event
occurs more frequently.
Based on a Heuristic/Sufficiency Principle and an Accessibility Principle, Shrum (2001)
suggested two general propositions as part of the heuristic processing model. First, watching TV
makes constructs more readily reachable. Second, heuristic processing enables social perceptions

	
  
14

to be formed, which is a sign of cultivation effects. Five testable propositions are drawn from
these general propositions (Shrum, 2002). The first proposition, which is to examine if
cultivation effects can be accounted for through the availability heuristic, states that watching TV
has an impact on accessing constructs. The second proposition indicates that accessibility plays a
role of mediation in the relation between the amount of exposure to TV and the judgment that
viewers make on the issues. The third proposition is based on the notion that people tend to think
that recalled examples for assessment are pertinent to judgment. When it comes to TV viewing,
people regard examples from TV as applicable to reality (Shrum, 2002). The fourth proposition
states that cultivation effects are moderated not only by motivation but also ability to deal with
information at the cognitive level. When motivation is higher, the more the dominant systematic
processing is. Conversely, lower motivation causes more powerful heuristic processing. By
integrating the five testable propositions, Shrum (2002) formed the conceptual framework of the
heuristic processing model of cultivation effects.

	
  
15

Cultivation Judgment
Required
Heavy TV
Mass Media
Light TV

Direct Experience
Memory
Search

Word-of-Mouth

Proposition 1, 2
Motivation to
Process?

No
Proposition 4

Yes

Ability to
Process?

No

Heuristic
Processing

Proposition 5
Yes
Systematic
Processing

Source
Discount

Yes
Proposition 3

Source
Prime
Present?
No

NO
CULTIVATION
EFFECT

CULTIVATION
EFFECT

Figure 1. Flow diagram of the heuristic processing model of television effects (From L. J.
Shrum. Reprinted with permission).

	
  
16

The diagram demonstrates that cultivation effects occur in only one way whereas there are a
great number of paths where such effects are not generated (Shrum, 2002).
Distraction. This study examines if cultivation effects of American reality competition
shows on Korean viewers occur when they have the opportunity to attend to information
regarding prevalence of Americans’ competitiveness compared to when they do not have this
opportunity. Shrum (2007) manipulated time to investigate the ability to process information.
Another factor that is associated with the capacity to attend to information is distraction (BoothButterfield & Welbourne, 2002; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). A person who is cognitively distracted
is less likely to analytically assess the content of arguments. Consequentially, the distractors,
which reduce the ability to critically process information, will increase cultivation effects that
result from heuristic processing (Shrum, 2001). Heuristic processing, which is not cognitively
demanding, occurs when people cannot process information in-depth (Shrum, 2001). For
example, Kardes, Cronley, Kellaris, and Posavac (2004) found that participants who were
cognitively busy tended to evaluate products through heuristics. On the other hand, people who
engage in systematic processing process the information carefully and tend to show lower
cultivation effects.
Depending on the level of distraction, cognitive processes that people engage in can also
change. A low level of distraction leads people to engage in extra effort to contemplate and
process information while a high level of distraction elicits heuristics by making people focus
more on the distraction (Wang, 1993). Bodenhausen (1993) found that emotional arousal, which
was highly distracted, increased stereotypical judgment on an outgroup member. A study
investigating the relationship between stereotypes of race and presence of Internet ads (Miarmi
& Debono, 2007) argued that there was a significant interaction between the two variables. The

	
  
17

participants who read a crime scenario and were regularly exposed to Internet advertisements
sentenced African American defendants longer than Caucasian defendants compared to
participants in a non-distraction of Internet ads condition. This study demonstrated that cognitive
distraction might encourage participants to resort to a heuristic processing in order to make a
judgment. Therefore, it is possible that cognitively distracted Koreans who are asked about the
prevalence of Americans’ competitiveness might provide higher estimates compared to
respondents who are not distracted.
People who are distracted are likely to engage in heuristic processing to make a
judgment. This, in turn, may lead to higher estimates about a certain construct portrayed through
TV shows. However, it is important to point out that people without distraction will not
necessarily resort to systematic processing. Based on this model and all the arguments presented
in this discussion, it is reasonable to investigate the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2: South Korean light viewers of U.S. TV shows in the systematic condition
will have lower estimates of Americans’ competitiveness than light viewers in the
heuristic condition.
Hypothesis 3: South Korean heavy viewers of U.S. TV shows in the heuristic condition
will have higher estimates of Americans’ competitiveness than heavy viewers in the
systematic condition.
If motivation and distraction enable people to use respectively different cognitive
processes as discussed above, people who employ the heuristic might generate higher estimates
than those who use the systematic processing in general. However, it is unclear if motivation and
distraction will be more influential than the amount of viewing with reference to cultivation
effects. That is to say, no definite evidences show that combination of 1) distraction and low TV

	
  
18

viewing and 2) motivation and high TV viewing will elicit different cultivation effects.
Therefore, a research questions is postulated.
Research question 2: Will South Korean viewers of U.S. TV shows in the heuristic
condition have higher estimates of Americans’ competitiveness compared to viewer in the
systematic condition regardless of the amount of viewing?

	
  
19

METHOD
Design
This study investigates how motivation and distraction influence Korean viewers’
judgments regarding Americans’ competitiveness. The study is based on a 2 (TV viewing: Heavy
and Light) x 2 (Stimuli: Systematic and Heuristic) post-test only between-group design. Since
Shrum (2001) found that people tend to resort to heuristic processing, no control condition was
included in the current study.
Manipulation
This study consisted of two experimental conditions based on Shrum (2001). To induce
different cognitive processes from participants, there was a systematic research induction and a
heuristic research induction. Following Shrum (2001), participants in the systematic condition
were encouraged to employ more involved cognitive processing by being informed that their
answers would be graded and discussed by the researchers. The instructions directed them to be
accurate and produce the answers carefully so that they could receive a high score.
In the heuristic condition, the questionnaire included a numerical stimulus that was
intended to distract participants from critically focusing on the accuracy of statements about the
competition of Americans. Participants were asked to memorize a string of numbers. They were
asked to recall the numbers two times while they were answering questions concerning
Americans’ competitiveness. The distraction task was intended to encourage them to use
heuristic processing. Recalling a certain digit number has been commonly employed in previous
studies in order to make participants cognitively busy (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991; Gilbert &
Osborne, 1989; Lalwani, 2009; Madon, Guyll, Hilbert, Kyriakatos, & Vogel, 2006; Pontari &
Schlenker, 2000). The online questionnaire allowed participants to be able to go back to previous

	
  
20

pages freely; however, once they went to the third page, they were not able to return and check
the number on the second page. Though the instructions informed them that the task of recalling
the eight-digit number would be randomly asked, all participants in the distraction group had an
identical questionnaire. The recall task was asked twice, after Q7 and Q13, with a statement
“Please write the eight-digit number that you memorized earlier as much as you can recall. You
cannot go back to the previous page to see the number again.” The accuracy of participants’
answers was not considered as the part of the study. Along with the distraction manipulation, the
questionnaire’s instruction, based on Shrum (2001), helped to induce heuristic processing. The
instructions asked participants to give spontaneous answers that first come to mind. Following
the research induction, participants then answered three TV viewing scales (i.e., total TV
viewing, U.S. TV shows viewing, and U.S. reality competition shows viewing). Lastly, they were
asked about their demographic information. Using the back-translation procedure (Brislin, 1969),
the questionnaires developed in English were translated into Korean.
Participants and Procedure
An online survey written in Korean was administrated for the study. Qualified
participants were Koreans over eighteen years old living in South Korea. Snowball sampling was
employed to recruit participants. It was necessary to oversample in order to obtain a sufficient
number of people who had watched U.S. reality competition shows. A total of 223 participants
completed the online survey. The overall mean score for the estimates (1% to 100%) of
Americans’ competiveness was 50.45 (SD = 16.38). These participants averaged approximately 2
hours of television viewing per day. The range of the amount of time watching TV per day was
spread from 0 hours to 6 hours. 107 Korean non-viewers of U.S. TV shows were excluded from
the analysis since the study is to explore the cultivation effects of viewers of U.S. TV shows as

	
  
21

well as U.S. reality competition shows (M = 50.71, SD = 17.18). 116 participants reported that
they had watched U.S. TV shows and the mean score for the estimates was 50.21 (SD = 15.68).
Though 116 viewers of U.S. TV shows (46 male and 70 female) demonstrated a wide variance of
age, the majority of them were 20s (N = 70). 38 participants were in their 30s. The sample
consisted of a small number of teenagers (N =2) and the 40s (N = 6). The mean of all
participants’ ages is 27.5. The categories of the highest level of education were composed of
56.9 % university (N = 66), 17.2 % high school (N = 20), 12.2 % Graduate school (N = 14),
10.3 % community college (N = 12), and 3.4 % other (N = 4). More than half of the participants
(N = 68) answered that they were employed, while 47 participants identified as “Unemployed.”
Participants received a recruiting email that provided a brief description of the study. The
email included the web survey site link, which directly led participants to the online site. The
researcher’s email address was stated in the recruiting email in case the receivers had questions
regarding the study. Participants was randomly directed to one of the experimental conditions
when they entered the website. 120 participants were assigned to the systematic and 103
participants were led to the heuristic conditions. People in all conditions were required to first
read a consent form (Appendix A). Only people who agreed to the consent form were led to the
next step where they read instructions for the study.
As described earlier, participants in the systematic group read instructions that prompted
them to carefully evaluate the content of the items they read (Appendix B). The heuristic group
was asked to memorize an 8-digit number and told that they would be asked to recall this number
randomly (Appendix C). To prevent priming, items measuring independent variables were asked
after the dependent variable, the estimates of Americans’ competitiveness (Shrum, Wyer, &
O’Guinn, 1998). Measure of the independent variable involved the amount of time spent

	
  
22

watching TV in general, only U.S. TV shows, and U.S. reality competition shows. The
instructions enumerated titles of American reality competition shows along with a definition of
reality competition shows to avoid confusion (e.g., American Idol, The Voice, America’s Next Top
Model, and Dancing with the Stars). Demographic information was also collected. Lastly, they
were asked to provide an email address to be entered into a drawing for five 3 dollar gift cards
(3000 in Korean won). At the completion of data collection, an email explaining the purpose of
the study was sent to all participants.
Measures
Independent Variable. In the study, the independent variable was the hours that Korean
participants spent watching U.S. reality competition shows. Since technology enables people to
watch TV shows with not only television but diverse technical devices (e.g., computers, tablets,
or cell phones), all media channels that participants had used for TV viewing were considered for
the measure of media viewing. A scale was adopted from studies of the cultivation effect
(Bilandzic & Busselle, 2008; Shrum, Lee, Burroughs, & Rindfleisch, 2011). Items asked about
TV viewing frequency of U.S. TV shows and U.S. reality competition shows with the response
options on a 7-point scale from Never (1) to Very Often (7). It also asked participants to indicate
the number of hours of a) general TV viewing b) U.S. TV shows viewing, and c) U.S. reality
competition shows viewing each day on average.
Dependent Variable. The dependent variable was the prevalence of Americans’
competitiveness that Korean viewers of U.S. reality competition shows estimate. The fourteen
items were taken from the competitiveness scale in Smither and Houston (1992). The statements
were revised in order to be appropriate to ask participants to write the number of estimates of
Americans competitiveness. Of the original scale, some of reverse coded items were re-reversed

	
  
23

since the reverse coded statements would decrease the mean score of the estimates. For example,
the statement “In general, I will go along with the group rather than create conflict” in original
scale was revised to “I guess _______% of Americans will create conflict in general rather than
go along with the group.” However, six items were excluded to avoid repetition of statements
(e.g., I will do almost anything to avoid argument).
Exploratory factor analysis was employed to ensure that each item in the competitiveness
scale belongs to the scale by measuring if each question asks the same fundamental concept
(Akaike, 1987). Since fourteen items loaded onto three different components, six items (Q 7, Q
9, Q 11, Q 12, Q 13, and Q 14) were excluded so as to achieve unidimensionality. The final scale
used to form the competitiveness variable consisted of 8 items with a Cronbach’s alpha of .85.
Some sample items include: “I guess _______% of Americans like competition” and “I guess
_______% of Americans get satisfaction from competing with others.”

	
  
24

RESULTS
To examine hypotheses and the research questions, independent-sample t-tests (onetailed) were employed. Research question 1 asked if watching U.S. reality competition shows
would influence Korean viewers’ estimates of Americans’ competitiveness. The average estimate
by 63 viewers (M = 51.07, SD = 15.65) and 53 non-viewers (M = 49.19, SD = 15.80) was in the
direction that cultivation theory argues. However, the result of a t-test was not significant, t (114)
= -0.64, p = .26, d = 0.12. The finding indicated no difference between viewers and non-viewers
of U.S. reality competition shows. In other words, people who had watched U.S. reality
competition shows and those who had never watched them but other genres of U.S. TV shows do
not differ from each other in terms of Americans’ competitiveness. As a result, exposure to U.S.
reality competition shows did not elicit genre-specific cultivation effects.
Based on the result of research question 1, the following analyses were conducted to
investigate the estimates by viewers of U.S. TV shows in general. Watching a certain TV genre
did not produce distinguishable cultivation effects. Also, the methodology to examine cultivation
theory has been criticized for the reason that non-viewers were considered light viewers (Hirsch,
1980). To minimize the problem, non-viewers were not included into the category of light
viewers in this paper. Since the study could not recruit a sufficient number of heavy and light
viewers of U.S. reality competition shows for each experimental condition, it was decided to
explore viewers of U.S. TV shows rather than viewers of U.S. reality competition shows.
Hypothesis 1 predicted that Korean heavy viewers of American TV shows would report
higher estimates of Americans’ competitiveness compared to light viewers. The result of t-test
comparing heavy viewers (M = 47.82, SD = 16.91) and light viewers (M = 53.05, SD = 13.68)
was statistically significant, t (114) = 1.81, p < .04, d = 0.34. However, the mean values of the

	
  
25

two groups produced reversed cultivation effects; light viewers of U.S. TV shows had higher
estimates compared to heavy viewers in direction opposition to cultivation theory. Therefore, it
was not concluded that the data were consistent with the hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that Korean light viewer of U.S. TV shows in the systematic
condition will report lower estimates of competitiveness compared to light viewers in the
heuristic condition. Based on mean values of participants (See Table 1 for all means and standard
deviations), a t-test comparing light viewers in each condition yielded non-significant results, t
(51) = 0.85, p = .20, d = 0.24. The two groups of light viewers did not show significant
differences for perception of American competitiveness based on different cognitive processing
that they were using during the survey. Therefore, the data were not consistent with hypothesis 2.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that the estimates of Americans’ competitiveness generated by
Korean heavy viewers in the heuristic condition would be higher compared to heavy viewers in
the systematic condition. A t-test to make a comparison between heavy viewers in two groups
was conducted. The result was not significant, t (61) = -0.20, p = .42, d = 0.05. In short, heavy
viewers in the heuristic group did not produce significant effects for perception of American
competitiveness compared to those in the systematic condition. The data were not consistent with
hypothesis 3.
For research question 2, a t-test comparing estimates of American’s competitiveness that
were generated by viewers in the systematic (M = 50.32, SD = 14.32) and the heuristic condition
(M = 50.08, SD = 17.34) was not significant, t (114) = 0.08, p = .47, d = 0.01. As a result,
estimates of competitiveness between the two experimental groups were not significant.

	
  
26

DISCUSSION
Previous studies have revealed that repetitive exposure to TV shows elicits cultivation
effects, which may or may not occur depending on viewers’ cognitive processing. Based on the
heuristic processing model of cultivation effects, this paper approaches media influence from a
perspective of cross-cultural communication. In contrast with a great number of studies that have
found cultivation effects, this study uncovered inconsistent findings with the heuristic processing
model.
Across the study, no cultivation effects including genre-specific cultivation effects were
found from Korean heavy viewers of U.S. reality competition shows regardless of the research
inductions. These results were not in accordance with the hypotheses except for the first
hypothesis. A possible explanation is that there are not many American reality competition shows
currently being aired in Korea. As Korean reality competition shows that modeled famous U.S.
reality shows (i.e., The Voice, American Idol, America’s Next Top Model, or Biggest Loser) have
become popular, the rate of broadcasting original American reality competition shows has
decreased during the last few years. American reality competition shows currently being aired in
Korea in 2013 include Pitching In, Americas Got Talent season 5, and Cupcake War season 6.
Although these shows are likely to present a message that Americans are competitive, a
cultivation effect is not likely to occur if accessibility to these shows is relatively low. The
amount of time spent watching American reality competition shows might not be sufficient to
draw out cultivation effects from Korean viewers.
Also, it is plausible that many of the participants did not consider their past or present
experiences of being exposed to U.S. reality competition shows carefully when reporting the
amount of hours spent watching the shows. In that case, they might answer that they spent zero

	
  
27

hours or a very small amount of time watching the shows although they had watched many
American reality programs earlier. Especially, in the heuristic condition participants may not
have thought deeply to recall their memories of watching those shows.
Interestingly, heavy viewers and light viewers who had watched overall American TV
shows broadcasted in Korea showed reversed cultivation effects. What needs to be remembered
here is that this study asked participants to provide only their estimates of Americans’
competitiveness. However, different messages rather than that Americans are competitive may be
strongly transmitted through diverse genres of U.S. TV shows. If the study is expanded to
examine cultivation effects of comprehensive U.S. TV viewing, the kinds of messages that are
transmitted via general American TV programming broadcasted in Korea should be investigated
first. CJ E&M (2013), a media company with Korea’s No.1 channel infrastructure, described that
viewer ratings of American crime drama television series (i.e., CSI MIAMI, CSI NY, NCIS, SVU,
Criminal Mind, and Mentalist) are highest among U.S. TV shows telecasted in Korea (Jeong,
2013). Thus, a message that the United States is a dangerous country or that Americans achieve
justice might be presented through the TV programming. Along with a small number of U.S.
reality competition shows, the popularity of different genre of U.S. TV shows might elicit
cultivation effects of the heavy viewers’ perception that Americans are not competitive. That is to
say, if lots of U.S. TV programming transmit a message that Americans are not competitive,
heavy viewer could have lower estimates of Americans’ competitiveness compared to light
viewers. Given more ample participants and more precise messages conveyed through the TV
shows, it is possible that heavy viewers of U.S. TV shows produce cultivation effects.
In examination of the heuristic processing model of cultivation effects, either motivation
or distraction or neither of them created significant effects as manipulations to cause participants

	
  
28

to adopt different cognitive processes. The light viewers in the heuristic condition and those in
the systematic condition did not differ from each other. Similarly, heavy viewers in the heuristic
group did not generate different outcomes from those in the systematic group. Does validity of
the heuristic processing model need to be reconsidered? The results of the study failed to provide
consistency with Shrum’s assertion; but it should not be concluded that the findings necessarily
question what the model argues. Alternative explanations for the results of the study are possible.
First, manipulations that were used to cause participants to engage in either systematic or
the heuristic processing might not operate as originally intended. It is possible that participants in
the online experiment might have been affected by surrounding heterogeneous circumstance
confounding the ecological validity and outside the control of the experiment. Especially,
participants in the systematic group were more likely to be interrupted from focusing on the
survey and not able to perform as required by instructions of the survey. For example, people in
the systematic condition were supposed to be motivated by instructions in the survey. However,
it is easy to imagine situations where some of them completed the survey while talking to friends
or did not read the instructions carefully. People who did not follow the instruction intentionally
or unintentionally were likely to employ the heuristic processing, which participants in heuristic
group were led to use. This could be a reason why people in the systematic and those in the
heuristic conditions did not generate significantly different results.
Second, direct experiences that some of the participants might have with Americans
could affect the results of the study. According to the third proposition of the heuristic processing
model, people would consider that recalled examples were from TV no matter where the
examples actually came from. Nevertheless, Chen and Hu (2004) found that cultivation effects of
U.S. MTV on Chinese participants’ stereotypes of Americans were moderated when they had

	
  
29

frequent direct interactions with Americans. In contrast to first-order judgment, stereotypes are a
sort of second-order judgment that is created when information is received (Shrum et al., 2011).
However, personal interaction with high accessibility might be similarly effective on first-order
judgment because this is more effortful and less spontaneous than second-order judgment.
Considering that numerous Americans live in Korea or/and teach English to Koreans, it is
feasible that some participants had frequent interpersonal connections with Americans. These
experiences might enable Korean participants to weaken cultivation effects of U.S. reality
competition shows that might have been elicited. Especially, when sources of information about
Americans that Korean can gather are not plentiful, their reliance on their personal experience
may be higher than information from TV shows. For instance, if a Korean was taught English by
an American teacher who is not competitive, the Korean was likely to recall the teacher as being
representative of general Americans when asked about estimates of Americans’ competitiveness.
Because the interpersonal interactions may be more accessibly and reliably encoded in his or her
memory than the TV shows, the experience with the American was likely to be more influential
on calculating the estimates (Shrum, 1996). It is important to note that the effects of
interpersonal experience depend on the quality of contact. If participants knew Americans and
did not have close relationships with them, it is feasible that messages from U.S. reality
competition shows more strongly affect the viewers’ perception about estimates than their direct
connections with Americans. Hence, how interpersonal relationships of viewers influence their
cognitive processing in order to generate prevalence or likelihood of particular constructs
requires further investigation as a factor in future media effects studies.
Lastly, the response style of rating scales might be influential on the results. Chen, Lee,
and Stevensons (1995) investigated cross-cultural differences in response style of rating scales.

	
  
30

The findings demonstrated that Chinese and Japanese preferred selecting the midpoint on the
scales while Americans and Canadians were more likely to endorse the extreme responses. Chun,
Campbell, and Yoo (1974) found the similar results that Koreans were more likely to use
midpoint than Americans. Thus, Korean participants of this study might be reluctant to use
extreme values on the scales from 1 to 100 by consequentially generating similar estimates.

	
  
31

IMPLICATION
The results of this study offer several important implications. First, the worth of
researching a role of distraction is raised through this study as a manipulation to decrease
people’s ability to process information. Unlike Shrum, which studied influence of time limitation
on cultivation effects, distraction was first adopted in order to manipulate participants’ capacity
to contemplate information for the heuristic processing model of cultivation effects. As
aforementioned, many previous studies employed distraction manipulation so that participants
became cognitively busy and less able to process information (Booth-Butterfield & Welbourne,
2002; Kardes et al., 2004; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). The underlying mechanisms of distraction
and time limitation can be almost identically applied to Shrum’s model considering that both of
them reduce the ability to carefully consider information. Was the instruction for inducing
distraction not effective in this study? Or does distraction not fit into Shrum’s model? In the
latter case, it is necessary to explore why distraction cannot replace time limitation in order to
explain the occurrence of cultivation effects. Importantly, it is difficult to determine which
manipulation, motivation or distraction, did not work successfully in this particular study. It is
highly plausible that people were not persuaded to use systematic processing to make a judgment
over their estimates of Americans’ competitiveness. Thus, it is significant to scrutinize the effects
of motivation on cultivation effects and more powerful ways to guide people to avoid the
heuristic processing as well. It is possible that a controlled laboratory study, even if online, might
have ruled out other external factors and caused the experimental numerical distractor to be more
effective. This question requires further investigation.
Second, this study implies noteworthiness of exploring survey method regarding
cultivation effects. When people conduct a survey asking prevalence of a construct, they may

	
  
32

have strong motivation or confront severe distractions. Considering the outcomes of the study
that neither motivation nor distraction influenced people’s perception of estimates, people are not
likely to show significant cultivation effects no matter what circumstances they encounter during
surveys. However, the results were not in accordance with the findings of Shrum’s study (2007)
on the cultivation effects in terms of differences between methods of mail and telephone surveys.
He expected that people who were randomly assigned to telephone surveys would have higher
estimates of several constructs than those in a mail survey condition because people in a
telephone survey condition would be likely to resort to heuristic processing. The study found
greater estimates in the telephone than in the mail survey consistent with the heuristic processing
model. Hence, more studies need to be done in order to explain the inconsistency between the
results of this paper and Shrum’s study. Specially, it is consequential to explore how different
survey methods (mail, telephone, online) have an impact on Koreans’ ability to process
information during surveys since there is no Korean study focusing on different outcomes
engendered based on method of surveys.

	
  
33

LIMITATION
The study has major limitations that need to be improved for future research. First, the
number of participants was not sufficient to examine the differences of heavy and light viewers
of U.S. reality competition shows. There were 11 light viewers in the systematic condition and
only 20 light viewers in the heuristic condition; similarly, there were 20 and 12 heavy viewers in
the systematic and the heuristic conditions respectively. Though the study oversampled to recruit
sufficient participants, only 25% of the sample of 223 participants reported watching American
reality television. The sample would have to be at least doubled and perhaps more to get a
sufficient number of reality television viewers in each of the four experimental conditions. This
could mean obtaining data from 600+ participants, which was not pragmatically possible in this
MA thesis. If future studies investigate genre-specific cultivation effects, a time schedule to
recruit enough people should be carefully considered.
The online manipulation also revealed limitation for the study. As mentioned earlier,
researchers were not able to control confounding variables that might exist and affect participants
while they were answering the survey. Whether participants were motivated or distracted by the
instructions were unclear. Therefore, future studies may conduct lab experiments by performing
manipulation checks to ensure that people are persuaded to resort to either systematic or heuristic
processes.

	
  
34

CONCLUSION
The heuristic processing model of cultivation effects predicts that motivation or
distraction influences people’s estimates of prevalence regarding a message presented through
TV shows based on an amount of time spent watching TV. This study found that Korean heavy
viewers of U.S. TV shows do not generate cultivation effects on the estimates of Americans’
competitiveness by showing significantly indistinguishable results compared to Korean light
viewers’. Also, distraction and motivation did not influence on Koreans’ estimates on Americans’
competitiveness regardless of the amount of TV viewing in this study.

	
  
35

Table 1
Mean and Standard Deviation of Estimates of Americans’ Competitiveness by Viewers of U.S.
TV Shows
Light

Heavy

(N = 53)

(N = 63)

Systematic

Heuristic

Systematic

Heuristic

Estimates

(N = 25)

(N = 28)

(N = 39)

(N = 24)

M

54.75

51.54

47.48

48.38

SD

10.17

16.24

15.93

18.75

	
  
36

APPENDICES

	
  
37

Appendix A: Consent Form
English version
Title of Study: “Processing of Cultivation Effects on Korean Viewers of U.S. Reality
Competition Shows”
We are interested in your television viewing habits especially of American produced television
programs.
Participation in this study is voluntary, and you may withdraw your consent to participate at any
time without penalty. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to. While this
study is not expected to yield any immediate benefit to the individual participants, it will add to
our knowledge of human communication. There are no anticipated physical, psychological, or
financial risks associated with participation.
You may receive a 3000 won gift card for your participation through drawing. The researcher
will contact you if you win the drawing after the survey is finalized.
Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. No personally
identifiable information will be reported in any research product. Moreover, only trained
research staff will have access to your responses. None of the information that you report will be
linked to you individually. Any individually identifying information that is incidentally obtained
will be deleted from the research record.
This is a scientific study led by Suji Park, an MA student and Dr. Mary Bresnahan, a professor in
the Department of Communication in Michigan State University. If you have any questions
about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to report an injury, please
contact Suji Park through e-mail at parksuj1@msu.edu or Dr. Bresnahan at bresnah1@msu.edu.
If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like
to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you
may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research
Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail
at 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.
By going forward, you indicate your voluntary agreement to participate in this research and have
your answers included in the data set. If you agree please click the agree button below.
Korean version
연구 주제: 한국 시청자들에 대한 미국 리얼리티 TV 쇼의 문화계발효과 과정
안녕하세요, 저희의 연구 관심 분야는 여러분들의 미국 TV 프로그램 시청 습관입니다.
설문 참여는 자발적이며, 어떠한 불이익 없이 설문 참여에 대한 동의를 어느 때나 철회할
수 있습니다. 설문 응답 중, 특정 질문에 대해 원치 않으시면 응답하지 않으셔도

	
  
38

괜찮습니다. 이 연구는 개개인 응답자들에게 즉각적인 이익을 내지 않을 것이지만, 인간
커뮤니케이션에 대한 우리들의 지식을 높여 줄 것입니다. 이 연구는 여러분들에게 있어서
신체적, 심리적, 혹은 재정적 위험을 초래하지 않을 것입니다.
여러분의 개인 정보는 통계법에 의거하여 보호되며 어떠한 연구 결과에도 기록되지 않을
것입니다. 또한 교육을 받은 연구자들만이 여러분들의 설문지에 접근 가능합니다. 신원을
확인할 수 있는 정보가 우연히 기록됐을 경우에는, 연구자에 의해 바로 삭제될 것입니다.
여러분의 응답에 작지만 보답하기 위해, 응답자 중 추첨을 통해 3000 원 상당의 상품권을
보내드리겠습니다. 설문 조사가 마감된 후 추첨자들에게는 저희가 이메일을
발송하겠습니다.
이 학술적 연구는 미국 미시간 주립 대학교 커뮤니케이션학과 석사과정에 재학중인
박수지와 Mary Bresnahan 교수에 의해 진행됩니다. 본 연구에 관하여 의문사항이
있으시면, parksuj1@msu.edu (박수지) 혹은 bresnah1@msu.edu (Dr. Bresnahan)로 문의해
주시면 성실히 답변해 드리겠습니다. 혹은 Michigan State University’s Human Research
Protection Program (미시간 주립대학교 인간 연구 프로그램)으로 연락해 주시면, 익명으로
응답자로써의 권리나 연구 관련 정보에 관하여 문의하실 수 있습니다. 또한 본 연구에
관한 불만 사항도 보고 하실 수 있습니다.
Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program
전화번호: (국가번호 1) 517-355-2180
팩스: 517-432-4503
이메일: irb@msu.edu
우편 주소: 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824
설문을 진행하실 경우, 여러분은 설문에 자발적으로 참여하며 연구 데이타에 포함될
응답을 제공할 것을 나타냅니다. 이에 동의하시면 하단의 다음 버튼을 클릭해주십시오.
감사합니다.

	
  
39

Appendix B: Questionnaire for the Systematic Condition
English version
The Estimates of Americans’ Competitiveness and Distractors

Directions: The following group of the questions asks about your estimates on competitiveness
of Americans. Please write the accurate number of percentage (from 1% to 100%).
It is extremely important that you take your time and carefully consider your responses and
answer the questions as accurately as possible. Make sure that your answers are correct and
reflect your true opinion—accurate responses are very important.
You will be graded for your performance on this task and your grade will be rated against other
participants.
1. I guess _______% of Americans like competition
2. I guess _______% of Americans find competitive situations pleasant.
3. I guess _______% of Americans enjoy competing against an opponent.
4. I guess _______% of Americans get satisfaction from competing with others.
5. I guess _______% of Americans are competitive individuals.
6. I guess _______% of Americans believe that competition is part of friendship.
7. I guess _______% of Americans like to engage in arguments.
8. I guess _______% of Americans often say something competitive even if it results in hurt
feelings.
9. I guess _______% of Americans will create conflict in general rather than go along with
the group.

	
  
40

10. I guess _______% of Americans enjoy challenging others when they think others are
wrong.
11. I guess _______% of Americans consider games that have no clear-cut winner boring.
12. I guess _______% of Americans usually consider being the best is important.
13. I guess _______% of Americans think that they often try to outperform others.
14. I guess _______% of Americans like games that are winners-take-all.

Television Viewing

Direction: The next group of the questions asks you about your level of television viewing on
average. Please note that television viewing includes not only television (both of network and
cable TV) but also all kinds of media that you use to watch TV shows such as the Internet or
mobile devices. Please circle the number that best represents your levels of agreement for the
following statements.
1. I watch less television than most people I know. *
Strongly Disagree

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Strongly Agree

4

5

6

7

Strongly Agree

6

7

Strongly Agree

2. I often watch television on weekends.
Strongly Disagree

1

2

3

3. I spend time watching television almost every day.
Strongly Disagree

1

2

3

4

5

4. One of the first things I do in the evening is turn on the television.
Strongly Disagree

1

2

3

4

5. I hardly ever watch television. *

	
  
41

5

6

7

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Strongly Agree

5

6

7

Strongly Agree

6. I have to admit that I watch a lot of television.
Strongly Disagree

1

2

3

4

* Item is reverse scored.

Direction: The next group of the questions asks you about your daily TV viewing habits. Please
note that the amount of time of television viewing includes not only television (both of network
and cable TV) but also all kinds of media that you use to watch TV shows such as the Internet or
mobile devices. Please indicate the number of hours you spend watching TV each day (or week)
on average or circle the number that best represents your TV viewing habit.
7. How many hours do you watch TV each day on average?
_______hour(s)
8. How often do you watch U.S. TV shows?
(U.S. TV shows include all kinds of AMERICAN TV PROGRAM categories, which
have been broadcasted in Korea: sporting events, young adult dramas, daytime soap
operas, news, reality shows, dating ‘game’ shows, music videos, daytime talk shows,
shopping, etc.)
Never

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Very Often

9. If you watch U.S. TV shows, how many hours do you watch American TV shows each
week on average?
_______hour(s)
10. How often do you watch U.S. reality competition shows?
(U.S. reality competition show refers to a genre that participants who are non-actors

	
  
42

COMPETE in order to win a prize in COMPETITIVE situations perceived as present
reality without scripts and produce unpredictable results.
The examples: America’s Got Talent, American Idol, Average Joe, America’s Next Top
Model, Apprentice, Amazing Race, Biggest Loser, Beauty and the Geek, Celebrity
Apprentice, Dancing with the Stars, Fear Factor, Hell’s Kitchen, Make Me A
Supermodel, Next Pussycat Dolls, Project Runway, So You Think You Can Dance,
Stylista, Shear Genius, The Voice, Survivor, The bachelor, The Bachelorette, Top Chef,
Top Design, The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency, Paradise Hotel, etc.)
Never

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Very Often

11. If you watch U.S. reality competition shows, how many hours do you watch U.S. reality
competition shows each week on average?
_______hour(s)
Demographics

Directions: You are about to answer the last set of questions. The following questions ask you to
describe YOURSELF. Please choose an answer that you think can represent you the most.
1. Your age is _________ years old. (e.g. 21)
2. I was born in _________ (e.g. 1981)
3. Sex:

Male

Female

4. What is your highest level of education?
1) Elementary school
2) Middle school
3) High school

	
  
43

4) Community college
5) University
6) Graduate School (M.A.)
7) Graduate School (Ph.D.)
8) Others
5. Are you employed currently?
Yes

No

Thank you again for your participation.
Please leave your email address for sending an electronic gift card.
Your email address: _________________________________

Korean version

미국인들의 경쟁심에 대한 추정과 집중을 방해하는 것
다음은 미국인들의 경쟁심에 대한 귀하의 추산을 묻는 질문입니다. 귀하가 생각하
는 정확한 백분율 (1% ~ 100%)을 써주세요.
최대한 신중히 시간을 들여 귀하의 답변을 입력해주시는 것이 아주 중요합니다. 반
드시 귀하의 진실한 의견을 반영하여 정확한 답변을 입력해 주십시오.
귀하의 답변은 연구자들에 의해 점수가 기록되고 다른 설문 참여자들의 답변과 비
교하여 상대 평가 될 것입니다.
1. 나는 ______% 의 미국인이 경쟁을 좋아한다고 추측한다.
2. 나는 ______% 의 미국인이 경쟁적인 상황을 즐겁게 여긴다고 추측한다.

	
  
44

3. 나는 ______% 의 미국인이 반대자에 대항하여 경쟁하는 것을 즐긴다고 추측한다.
4. 나는 ______% 의 미국인이 다른 사람들과의 경쟁으로부터 만족을 얻는다고
추측한다.
5. 나는 ______% 의 미국인이 경쟁적이다고 추측한다.
6. 나는 ______% 의 미국인이 경쟁을 우정의 한 부분이라 여긴다고 추측한다.
7. 나는 ______% 의 미국인이 논쟁에 참여하는 것을 좋아한다고 추측한다.
8. 나는 ______% 의 미국인이 다른 사람의 감정을 헤치더라고 경쟁적인 말을 한다고
추측한다.
9. 나는 ______% 의 미국인이 팀과 함께 가기 보다는 보통 갈등을 만든다고 추측한다.
10. 나는 ______% 의 미국인이 다른 사람들이 틀렸다고 생각할 때 그 사람들에게
도전하는 것을 즐긴다고 추측한다.
11. 나는 ______% 의 미국인이 명백한 승자가 없는 게임은 지루하다고 여긴다고
추측한다.
12. 나는 ______% 의 미국인이 보동 최고가 아니면 중요하지 않게 생각한다고
추측한다.
13. 나는 ______% 의 미국인 스스로가 다른 사람들을 능가한다고 종종 생각한다고
추측한다.
14. 나는 ______% 의 미국인이 승자가 모든 것을 얻는 게임을 좋아한다고 추측한다.

TV 시청

	
  
45

다음은 귀하의 평균적인 TV 프로그램 시청 정도를 묻는 질문입니다. 여기서의 TV
프로그램 시청은 텔레비전 (지상파와 케이블 TV)과 다른 모든 매체 (인터넷, 모바일
기기 등)를 통한 프로그램 시청을 포함합니다. 다음 진술에 대해 동의하는 정도를
가장 잘 나타낸 숫자를 선택해주세요.
1. 나는 내가 아는 대부분의 사람들보다 TV 를 덜 시청하다. *
매우 그렇지 않다

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

매우 그렇다

3

4

5

6

7

매우 그렇다

6

7

매우 그렇다

2. 나는 주말에 종종 TV 를 시청한다.
매우 그렇지 않다

1

2

3. 나는 매일 거의 대부분의 시간을 TV 시청에 할애한다.
매우 그렇지 않다

1

2

3

4

5

4. 내가 매일 저녁 가장 먼저 하는 일은 TV 를 켜는 것이다. *
매우 그렇지 않다

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

매우 그렇다

3

4

5

6

7

매우 그렇다

4

5

6

7

매우 그렇다

5. 나는 거의 TV 시청을 하지 않는다.
매우 그렇지 않다

1

2

6. 나는 내가 TV 를 많이 본다고 인정한다.
매우 그렇지 않다

1

2

3

다음은 귀하의 TV 시청 습관을 뭍는 질문입니다. 여기서의 TV 프로그램 시청은
텔레비전 (지상파와 케이블 TV)과 다른 모든 매체 (인터넷, 모바일 기기 등)를 통한
프로그램 시청을 포함합니다. 질문에 따라 귀하의 일일 평균 TV 시청 시간을
적어주시거나 TV 시청 습관을 가장 잘 나타낸 숫자를 선택해주세요.

	
  
46

7. 평균적으로 하루에 몇 시간 TV 를 시청하십니까?
___________ 시간
8. 얼마나 자주 미국 TV 프로그램을 시청하십니까?
(여기서의 미국 TV 프로그램은 미국에서 제작되고 한국에서도 방영되는모든 종류의 TV
프로그램을 말합니다: 스포츠 프로그램, 드라마, 리얼리티쇼, 데이팅 게임 쇼, 뮤직 비디오,
토크쇼, 홈쇼핑 등)
전혀 시청하지 않는다

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

매우 자주 시청한다

9. 만약 미국 TV 프로그램을 시청하신다면, 평균적으로 매주 몇 시간을 시청하십니까?
___________ 시간
10. 얼마나 자주 미국 리얼리티 경쟁 프로그램을 시청하십니까?
(미국 리얼리티 경쟁 프로그램이란 연예인 혹은 비연예인인 참가자들이 경쟁적인
상황에서 승리하기 위해 대본없이 예측 가능하지 못한 결과를 이끌어내는 TV 장르를
말합니다.
예: 아메리칸 아이돌 (American Idol), 아메리카 갓 탈랜트 (America’s Got Talent), 애버리지

죠 (Average Joe), 도전 슈퍼모델 (America’s Next Top Model), 어프렌티스 (Apprentice),
어메이징 레이스 (Amazing Race), 사생결단 다이어트 (Biggest Loser), 미녀와 괴짜 (Beauty
and the Geek), 셀러브리티 어프렌티스 (Celebrity Apprentice), 스타와 춤을 (Dancing with the
Stars), 피어팩터 (Fear Factor), 헬스 키친 (Hell’s Kitchen), 메이크 미 어 슈퍼모델 (Make Me
A Supermodel), 넥스트 푸시캣 돌스 (Next Pussycat Dolls), 프로젝트 런웨이 (Project
Runway), 유 캔 댄스 (So You Think You Can Dance), 스타일리스타 (Stylista), 프로젝트 헤어

	
  
47

디자이너 (Shear Genius), 더 보이스 (The Voice), 서바이버 (Survivor), 배첼러 (The bachelor),
배첼로렛 (The Bachelorette), 탑 셰프 (Top Chef), 탑 디자인 (Top Design), 제니스 디킨슨
모델링 에이전시 (The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency), 러브 서바이버 (Paradise Hotel)
등)
전혀 시청하지 않는다

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

매우 자주 시청한다

11. 만약 미국 리얼리티 경쟁 프로그램을 시청하신다면, 평균적으로 매주 몇 시간을
시청하십니까?
___________ 시간

인구 통계 자료
다음은 귀하에 대한 기본적인 정보를 묻는 마지막 질문입니다. 귀하를 가장 잘
표현한 답변을 선택해 주세요.
1. 내 나이는 __________이다. (예: 21)
2. 나는 ____________년도에 태어났다. (예: 1981)
3. 성별:

남

여

4. 귀하의 최종 학벌은 어디에 속하십니까?
9) 초등학교
10) 중학교
11) 고등학교
12) 2 년제 대학교
13) 4 년제 대학교

	
  
48

14) 대학원 석사 (M.A.)
15) 대학원 박사 (Ph.D.)
16) 그 외
5. 귀하는 현재 직업을 가지고 계십니까?

네

아니요

설문 참여에 대해 다시 한 번 감사드립니다. 추첨을 위한 이메일 주소를 적어주세요.
이메일 주소: _____________________________________

	
  
49

Appendix C: Questionnaire for the Heuristic Condition
English version

Directions: Please memorize the eight-digit number below. You will be asked to recall and
provide the number while you are answering the following questionnaire. This number was
randomly chosen. Once you go to next page, you cannot come back to this page to check the
number again.
Number: 8 3 9 7 5 0 2 6

The Estimates of Americans’ Competitiveness and Distractors

Directions: The following group of the questions asks about your estimates on competitiveness
of Americans.
Please write the number of percentage (from 1% to 100%), which is your first answer off the top
of your head.
Please answer the questions as quickly as possible (while still providing an accurate answer)
without taking a lot of time to ponder each one — simply provide our initial, honest opinions.
1. I guess _______% of Americans like competition
2. I guess _______% of Americans find competitive situations pleasant.
3. I guess _______% of Americans enjoy competing against an opponent.
4. I guess _______% of Americans get satisfaction from competing with others.

Please write the eight-digit number that you are required to memorize earlier as much as you can
recall. You cannot go back to the previous page with the number.
	
  
50

	
  
	
  

5. I guess _______% of Americans are competitive individuals.
6. I guess _______% of Americans believe that competition is part of friendship.
7. I guess _______% of Americans like to engage in arguments.
8. I guess _______% of Americans often say something competitive even if it results in hurt
feelings.
9. I guess _______% of Americans will create conflict in general rather than go along with
the group.

Please write the eight-digit number that you are required to memorize earlier as much as you can
recall. You cannot go back to the previous page with the number.

10. I guess _______% of Americans enjoy challenging others when they think others are
wrong.
11. I guess _______% of Americans consider games that have no clear-cut winner boring.
12. I guess _______% of Americans usually consider being the best is important.
13. I guess _______% of Americans think that they often try to outperform others.
14. I guess _______% of Americans like games that are winners-take-all.

Television Viewing

Direction: The next group of the questions asks you about your level of television viewing on

	
  
51

average. Please note that television viewing includes not only television (both of network and
cable TV) but also all kinds of media that you use to watch TV shows such as the Internet or
mobile devices. Please circle the number that best represents your levels of agreement for the
following statements.
1. I watch less television than most people I know. *
Strongly Disagree

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Strongly Agree

4

5

6

7

Strongly Agree

6

7

Strongly Agree

2. I often watch television on weekends.
Strongly Disagree

1

2

3

3. I spend time watching television almost every day.
Strongly Disagree

1

2

3

4

5

4. One of the first things I do in the evening is turn on the television.
Strongly Disagree

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Strongly Agree

3

4

5

6

7

Strongly Agree

5

6

7

Strongly Agree

5. I hardly ever watch television. *
Strongly Disagree

1

2

6. I have to admit that I watch a lot of television.
Strongly Disagree

1

2

3

4

* Item is reverse scored.

Direction: The next group of the questions asks you about your daily TV viewing habits. Please
note that the amount of time of television viewing includes not only television (both of network
and cable TV) but also all kinds of media that you use to watch TV shows such as the Internet or
mobile devices. Please indicate the number of hours you spend watching TV each day (or week)
on average or circle the number that best represents your TV viewing habit.

	
  
52

7. How many hours do you watch TV each day on average?
_______hour(s)
8. How often do you watch U.S. TV shows?
(U.S. TV shows include all kinds of AMERICAN TV PROGRAM categories, which
have been broadcasted in Korea: sporting events, young adult dramas, daytime soap
operas, news, reality shows, dating ‘game’ shows, music videos, daytime talk shows,
shopping, etc.)
Never

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Very Often

9. If you watch U.S. TV shows, how many hours do you watch American TV shows each
week on average?
_______hour(s)
10. How often do you watch U.S. reality competition shows?
(U.S. reality competition show refers to a genre that participants who are actors or nonactors COMPETE in order to win a prize in COMPETITIVE situations perceived as
present reality without scripts and produce unpredictable results.
The examples: America’s Got Talent, American Idol, Average Joe, America’s Next Top
Model, Apprentice, Amazing Race, Biggest Loser, Beauty and the Geek, Celebrity
Apprentice, Dancing with the Stars, Fear Factor, Hell’s Kitchen, Make Me A
Supermodel, Next Pussycat Dolls, Project Runway, So You Think You Can Dance,
Stylista, Shear Genius, The Voice, Survivor, The bachelor, The Bachelorette, Top Chef,
Top Design, The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency, Paradise Hotel, etc.)
Never

1

2

3

4

5

	
  
53

6

7

Very Often

11. If you watch U.S. reality competition shows, how many hours do you watch U.S. reality
competition shows each week on average?
_______hour(s)
Demographics

Directions: You are about to answer the last set of questions. The following questions ask you to
describe YOURSELF. Please choose an answer that you think can represent you the most.
1. Your age is _________ years old. (e.g. 21)
2. I was born in _________ (e.g. 1981)
3. Sex:

Male

Female

4. What is your highest level of education?
17) Elementary school
18) Middle school
19) High school
20) Community college
21) University
22) Graduate School (M.A.)
23) Graduate School (Ph.D.)
24) Others
5. Are you employed currently?
Yes

No

Thank you again for your participation.

	
  
54

Please leave your email address for sending an electronic gift card.
Your email address: _________________________________

Korean version
하단의 8 자리 숫자를 암기해주세요. 귀하는 설문지에 응답하는 도중, 이 8 자리
숫자를 기억해 내어 제시해 달라는 질문을 받을 것입니다. 숫자는 임의로
선정되었습니다. 다음 페이지로 넘어가면, 귀하는 숫자를 확인하기 위해 이
페이지로 다시 돌아올 수 없습니다.
숫자: 8 3 9 7 5 0 2 6

미국인들의 경쟁심에 대한 추정과 집중을 방해하는 것
다음은 미국인들의 경쟁심에 대한 귀하의 추산을 묻는 질문입니다. 귀하의 머리에
처음으로 떠오른 백분율 (1% ~ 100%)을 써주세요. 각 질문에 가능한 빨리 깊게
생각하지 마시고, 귀하의 솔직한 첫 답변을 입력해 주세요. 하지만 정확한 답변을
부탁드립니다.
1. 나는 ______% 의 미국인이 경쟁을 좋아한다고 추측한다.
2. 나는 ______% 의 미국인이 경쟁적인 상황을 즐겁게 여긴다고 추측한다.
3. 나는 ______% 의 미국인이 반대자에 대항하여 경쟁하는 것을 즐긴다고 추측한다.
4. 나는 ______% 의 미국인이 다른 사람들과의 경쟁으로부터 만족을 얻는다고
추측한다.

	
  
55

귀하가 암기한 8 자리의 숫자를 최대한 기억할 수 있을만큼 적어주세요. 귀하는 그 숫자가
표기되어 있는 페이지로 다시 돌아갈 수 없습니다.

5. 나는 ______% 의 미국인이 경쟁적이다고 추측한다.
6. 나는 ______% 의 미국인이 경쟁을 우정의 한 부분이라 여긴다고 추측한다.
7. 나는 ______% 의 미국인이 논쟁에 참여하는 것을 좋아한다고 추측한다.
8. 나는 ______% 의 미국인이 다른 사람의 감정을 헤치더라고 경쟁적인 말을 한다고
추측한다.
9. 나는 ______% 의 미국인이 팀과 함께 가기 보다는 보통 갈등을 만든다고 추측한다.

귀하가 암기한 8 자리의 숫자를 최대한 기억할 수 있을만큼 적어주세요. 귀하는 그 숫자가
표기되어 있는 페이지로 다시 돌아갈 수 없습니다.

10. 나는 ______% 의 미국인이 다른 사람들이 틀렸다고 생각할 때 그 사람들에게
도전하는 것을 즐긴다고 추측한다.
11. 나는 ______% 의 미국인이 명백한 승자가 없는 게임은 지루하다고 여긴다고
추측한다.
12. 나는 ______% 의 미국인이 보동 최고가 아니면 중요하지 않게 생각한다고
추측한다.

	
  
56

13. 나는 ______% 의 미국인 스스로가 다른 사람들을 능가한다고 종종 생각한다고
추측한다.
14. 나는 ______% 의 미국인이 승자가 모든 것을 얻는 게임을 좋아한다고 추측한다.

	
  
57

REFERENCES

	
  
58

REFERENCES

Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 53, 371-332. doi:
10.1007/BF02294359
An, D., & Kim, S. (2007). Relating Hofstede’s masculinity dimension to gender role portrayals
in advertising: A cross-cultural comparison of web advertisements. International
Marketing Review, 24, 181-207. doi: 10.1108/02651330710741811
Appel, M. (2008). Fictional narratives cultivate just-world beliefs. Journal of
Communication, 58, 62-83. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00374.x
Ban, O. (2012). A study on motivations and effects of viewing reality program: Focusing on
<The Partner> on SBS (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://www.riss.kr/index.do
Bayton, J. A. (1958). Motivation, cognition, learning: Basic factors in consumer behavior.
Journal of Marketing, 22, 282-289. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1247119
Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Mobley, M. F. (1993). Handbook of marketing scales.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Bilandzic, H., & Busselle, R. W. (2008). Transportation and transportability in the
cultivation of genre-consistent attitudes and estimates. Journal of Communication, 58,
508-529. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00397.x
Bodenhausen, G. V. (1993). Emotions, arousal, and stereotype-based discrimination: A
heuristic model of affect and stereotyping. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.),
Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 1337). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Booth-Butterfield, S., & Welbourne, J. (2002). The elaboration likelihood model: Its impact on
persuasion theory and research. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion
handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 155-174). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publication, Inc.
Brislin, R. W. (1969). Back-translation for cross-cultural research (Doctoral dissertation or
master’s thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (7013803)
Brunstein, J. C., & Maier, G. W. (2005). Implicit and self-attributed motives to achieve: Two
separate but interacting needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 205222. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.2.205
Bryant, J., & Miron, D. (2004). Theory and research in mass communication. Journal of
Communication, 54, 662-704. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02650.x

	
  
59

Carlson, J. M. (1993). Television viewing: Cultivating perceptions of affluence and support for
capitalist values. Political Communication, 10, 243-257. doi:
10.1080/10584609.1993.9962982
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source
versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,
752-766. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
Chen, X., & Hu, X. (2004, May). American stereotypes, television viewing, and personal
contact. Paper resented at the annual meeting of the International Communication
Association, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p113137_index.html
Chen, C., Lee, S-Y., & Stevenson, H. W. (1995). Response style of cross-cultural comparisons of
rating scales among East Asian and North American students. Psychological Science, 6,
170-175. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40063010 .
Cho, Y-J., Mallinckrodt, B., & Yune, S-k. (2010). Collectivism and individualism as bicultural
values: South Korean undergraduates’ adjustment to college. Asian Journal of
Counselling, 17, 81-104. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.msu.edu.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.p
roxy2.cl.msu.edu/docview/897337890?accountid=12598
Chun, K-T., Campbell. J. B., & Yoo, J. H. (1974). Extreme response style in cross-cultural
research: A reminder. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 5, 465-480. doi:
10.1177/002202217400500407
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Cox, T. H., Lobel, S.A., & McLeod, P. L. (1991). Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on
cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task. Academy of Management Journal,
34, 827-847. doi: 10.2307/256391
Egbert. N., & Belcher, J. D. (2012). Reality bites: An investigation of the genre of reality
television and its relationship to viewers’ body image. Mass Communication and
Society, 15, 407-431. doi: 10.1080/15205436.2011.583545
Gardyn, R. (2001). The tribe has spoken. American Demographics, 23, 34-40. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview
/200638107?accountid=12598
Gerbner, G. (1998). Cultivation analysis: An overview. Mass Communication & Society, 1, 175194. doi: 10.1080/15205436.1998.9677855

	
  
60

Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of
Communication, 26, 172-199. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01397.x
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing up with
television: Cultivation processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (2nd ed.), Media effects:
Advances in theory and research (pp. 43-67). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers.
Gilbert, D. T., & Hixon, J. G. (1991). The trouble of thinking: Activation and application of
stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 509-517. Retrieved
from http://ezproxy.msu.edu.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/login?url=http://
search.proquest.com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/docview/37132190?accountid=12598
Gilbert, D. T., & Osborne, R. E. (1989). Thinking backward: Some curable and incurable
consequences of cognitive busyness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,
940-949. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/login?url=
http://search.proquest.com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/docview/209829983?accountid=12598
Godlewski, L. R., & Perse, E. M. (2010). Audience activity and reality television: Identification,
online activity, and satisfaction. Communication Quarterly, 58, 148-186. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.msu.edu.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.proxy2.c
l.msu.edu/docview/347419864?accountid=
Hirsch, P. M. (1980). The “scary world” of the nonviewer and other anomalies: A reanalysis of
Gerbner et al.’s findings on cultivation analysis part I. Communication Research, 7, 403456. doi: 10.1177/009365028000700401
Hirsch, P. M. (1981). On not learning from one’s own mistakes: A reanalysis of Gerbner et al.’s
findings on cultivation analysis part II. Communication Research, 8, 3-37. doi:
10.1177/009365028100800101
Hofstede, G. (1983). National cultures in four dimensions: A research-based theory of cultural
differences among nations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 13, 4674. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede’s culture dimensions: An independent validation
using Rokeach’s Value Survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15, 417-433. doi:
10.1177/0022002184015004003
Hughes, M. (1980). The fruits of cultivation analysis: A reexamination of some effects of
television watching. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 287-302. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.msu.edu.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.p
roxy2.cl.msu.edu/docview/61200194?accountid=12598

	
  
61

Im, Y-J. (2008). A study on the uses and gratifications on the U.S. TV dramas: Focusing on
comparison to the Korean counterparts. Korean Journal of Communication &
Information, 42, 303-336. Retrieved from http://www.kacis.or.kr
Jeong, Y-J. (2013, March 8). Popular American drama in Korea, crime drama television series.
The Korea Herald. Retrieved from
http://article.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.asp?total_id=10882167&ctg=1502
Jin, D. Y. (2007). Reinterpretation of cultural imperialism: Emerging domestic market vs
continuing US dominance. Media, Culture & Society, 29, 753-771. doi:
10.1177/0163443707080535
Kardes, F. R., Cronley, M. L., Kellaris, J. J., & Posavac, S. S. (2004). The role of selective
information processing in price-quality inference. Journal of Consumer Research, 31,
368-374. doi: 10.1086/422115
Kelley, H. H., & Stahelski, A. J. (1970). Social interaction basis of cooperators’ and competitors’
belief about others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 66-91.
doi:10.1037/h0029849
Kim, J-Y. (2009). Study on the viewing motive and pattern of American dramas: Focus on
university students (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://www.kacis.or.kr
Kim, Y., & Jun, J. W. (2009, May). The effects of plastic surgery reality TV shows on college
students’ perceptual/behavioral changes regarding plastic surgery. Paper presented at
the meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago, IL. Retreived
from http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/
p_mla_apa_research_citation/3/0/0/7/0/pages300704/p300704-1.php
Korea Communications Commission. (2012). Mass media use behavior. Retrieved from
http://www.kcc.go.kr/tsi/etc/search/search/ASC_integrationsearch.jsp?page=P100 10000
Krakowiak, K. M., Kleck, C., & Tsay, M. (2006, June). Redefining reality TV: Exploring
viewers’ perceptions of nine subgenres. Paper presented at the meeting of the
International Communication Association, Dresden, Germany. Retrieved from
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p91331_index.html
Kwak. H., Zinkhan, G. M., & Dominick, J. R. (2002). The moderating role of gender and
compulsive buying tendencies in the cultivation effects of TV shows and TV
advertising: A cross cultural study between the United States and South Korea. Media
Psychology, 4, 77-111. Retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/ehost/
Lalwani, A. K. (2009). The distinct influence of cognitive busyness and need for closure on
cultural differences in socially desirable responding. Journal of Consumer Research, 36,
305-316. doi: 10.1086/597214

	
  
62

Lee, J. (2005). Comparative analysis on genre trends in Korean and the U.S. television
networks from 1992 to 2004. Korean Association for Broadcasting &
Telecommunication Studies, 60, 263-292. Retrieved from
http://www.riss.kr/link?id=A76363929
Lett, M. D., DiPietro, A. L., & Johnson, D. I. (2004). Examining effects of television news
violence on college students through cultivation theory. Communication Research
Reports, 21, 39-46. doi: 10.1080/08824090409359965
Madon, S., Guyll, M., Hilbert, S. J., Kyriakatos, E., & Vogel, D. L. (2006). Stereotyping the
stereotypic: when individuals match social stereotypes. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 36, 178-205. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00057.x
Marron, H., & Collins, S. (2009). Mass media consumption and the sexual attitudes and
behaviors of young adults. The Florida Communication Journal 37, 55-70.
Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=260f2e85-1b9f-4cf5b5a88e4701f01d32%40sessionmgr4&vid=1&hid=19&bdata=JnNjb3BlPXNpdG
U%3d#db=ufh&AN=57400551
Miarmi, L., & Debono, K. G. (2007). The impact of distractions on heuristic processing:
Internet advertisements and stereotype use. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
37, 539-548. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00173.x
Miller, K (2005). Communication Theories: perspectives, processes, and contexts. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Miller, A. F., & Narro, A. (2008, November). Cultural Values in Reality Television. Paper
presented at the meeting of the National Communication Association, San Diego, CA.
Retrieved from http://www.natcom.org
Moon, Y. S., & Franke, G. R. (2000). Cultural influence on agency practitioners’ ethical
perceptions: A comparison of Korea and the U.S. Journal of Advertising, 29, 51-65.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4189134
Morgan, M., & Shanahan, J. (2010). The state of cultivation. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 54, 337-355. doi: 10.1080/08838151003735018
Mutz, D. C., & Nir, L. (2010). Not necessarily the news: Does fictional television influence realworld policy preferences? Mass Communication and Society, 13, 196-217. doi:
10.1080/15205430902813856
Novak, M. (2009). Television shapes the soul. In A. D. Smith, T. G. Smith, & S. Watkins
(Eds.), The pop culture zone: Writing critically about popular culture (pp. 675-676).
Boston, MA: Wadsworth Publishing.

	
  
63

Osterhouse, R. A., & Brock, T. C. (1970). Distraction increases yielding to propaganda by
inhibiting counterarguing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 344-358.
Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/
detail?vid=3&sid=260f2e85-1b9f-4cf5b5a88e4701f01d32%40sessionmgr4&hid=
126&bdata=JnNjb3BlPXNpdGU%3d#db=24h&AN=16666825
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and
peripheral routes to attitude change. NY, New York: Springer-Verlag.
Petty, R. E., Wells, G. L., & Brock, T. C. (1976). Distraction can enhance or reduce
yielding to propaganda: Thought disruption versus effort justification. Journal or
Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 874-884. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.34.5.874
Pontari, B. A., & Schlenker, B. R. (2000). The influence of cognitive load on self-presentation:
Can cognitive busyness help as well as harm social performance? Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 78, 1092-1108. doi: 10.1037//O022-3514.78.6.1O92
Potter, W. J. (1993). Cultivation theory and research: A conceptual critique. Human
Communication Research, 19, 564-601. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993.tb00313.x
Potter, W. J. (1994). Cultivation theory and research: A methodological critique. Journalism
Monographs, 147. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.msu.edu.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.p
roxy2.cl.msu.edu/docview/215675509?accountid=12598
Reeves, B., Chaffess, S., & Tims, A. (1982). Social cognition and mass communication
research. In M. E. Roloff & C. R. Berger (Eds.), Social cognition and mass
communication (pp. 287-326). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Shanahan, J., & Morgan, M. (1999). Television and its viewer: Cultivation theory and
research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Shrum, L. J. (1996). Psychological processes underlying cultivation effects further tests of
construct accessibility. Human Communication Research, 22, 482-509. doi:
10.1111/j.1468-2958.1996.tb00376.x
Shrum, L. J. (2001). Processing strategy moderates the cultivation effect. Human
Communication Research, 27, 94-120. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.msu.edu.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.p
roxy2.cl.msu.edu/docview/62349834?accountid=12598
Shrum, L. J. (2002). Media consumption and perceptions of social reality: Effects and
underlying processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (2nd ed.), Media effects: Advances in
theory and research (pp. 69-95). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

	
  
64

Shrum, L. J. (2004). Magnitude of effects of television viewing on social perceptions vary as a
function of data collection method: Implications for psychological processes. Advances
in Consumer Research, 31, 511-513. Retrieved from http://www.acrweb.org/
Shrum, L. J. (2007). The implications of survey method for measuring cultivation effects.
Human Communication Research, 33, 64-80. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00289.x
Shrum, L. J., Lee, J., Burroughs, J. E., & Rindfleisch, A. (2011). An online process model of
second-order cultivation effects: How television cultivates materialism and its
consequences for life satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 37, 34-57.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01392.x
Shrum, L. J., & O’Guinn, T. C. (1993). Processes and Effects in the construction of social
reality construct accessibility as an explanatory variable. Communication Research, 20,
436-471. doi: 10.1177/009365093020003005
Shrum, L. J., Wyer, JR., R. S., & O’Guinn, T. C. (1998). The effects of Television consumption
on social perceptions: The use of priming procedures to investigate psychological
processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 447-458. doi: 10.1086/209520
Smither, R. D., & Houston, J. M. (1992). The nature of competitiveness: The development and
validation of the competitiveness index. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
52, 407-418. doi: 10.1177/0013164492052002016
Song, K. (2012, June 20). A reality show in Korea and the United States. DongA Daily,
Retrieved from http://news.donga.com/3/all/20120619/47143801/1
The Pew Global Attitudes Project. (2003). Views of changing world 2003. Retrieved from
http://www.pewglobal.org/2003/06/03/chapter-4-globalization-with-few-discontents/
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and
probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232. doi: 10.1016/0010- 0285(73)90033-9
Wang, M-L. T. (1993). The cognitive effects of stereotype modification (Doctoral dissertation or
master’s thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (304061049)
Yang, H., Ramasubramanian, S., & Oliver, M. B. (2008). Cultivation effects on quality of
life indicators: Exploring the effects of American television consumption on
feelings of relative deprivation in South Korea and India. Journal of Broadcasting
& Electronic Media, 52, 247-267. doi: 10.1080/08838150801992060
Yoo, B. (2009). Cross-national invariance of the effect of personal collectivists orientation on
brand loyalty and equity: The United States versus South Korean consumers. Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 21, 41-57. doi: 10.1108/13555850910926236

	
  
65