Cultivation Theory

I first learned of Cultivation Theory in my Quantitative communication research class. My professor described cultivation as the way heavy viewers of T.V see the “real world”. I began to do research on this theory and found that I could relate. I, myself, am a heavy viewer of T.V and movies. I especially enjoy watching crime drama shows. I noticed that if I would watch a show with a lot of murders or violence in it I would become uneasy at night. Cultivation shows that many heavy viewers of T.V start to believe the “real world” is how it appears on their favorite shows. For example, a person who is cultivated might think that seeing because most of the criminals on television are African-America or Latino, they should fear or stereotype them. I think it is important for people to detach from T.V and realize that it is not made for facts but it is made for entertainment.

Television..the "cool" medium

I do agree with Marshall McLuhan when he says that the medium is just as important as the message. When he explains the inner logic of the medium it reminds me if what I unknowingly do while listening to the radio or reading the newspaper; at times I will ignore certain factors in an ad or commercial because it is too ‘”slow for me”. I am more of a television person so I expect the information to be presented visually as well as quickly and directly. I also agree that the television is a “cool” medium. I believe this to be true because television not only gives you content visually but it also stimulates your auditory system as well. Television is simple and requires us to fill in the missing information and make judgments based on it. It also requires less from the audience while other mediums such as radio or newspapers require the reader or listener to participate more in order to gain information.

Cyber buddies

When I was in my pre teens Silicon Valley was in the midst of the dotcom boom. The Internet was growing rapidly and there were so many new ways to entertain yourself-one way being chat rooms. I can say that when I was younger I did chat in all sorts of chat rooms using AOL and teen chat websites. I did not form any lasting relationships online but I did have a “buddy list” that held any contacts that I had previously chatted with. These online relationships are different that face-to-face relationships because they allow for convenience. You are able to talk to these “buddies” when you are both available and willing to communicate. You can log on or off at your discretion. There is also opportunity to be friends with someone who lives across the world and even do business via chatting. When dealing with face-to-face relationships you tend to have a bit more intimacy with the other person; you can also see non-verbal cues, which make it easier to understand how the other person is feeling.

Self Disclosure

I chose to write about the topic of self-disclosure. This section of the text was particularly interesting because I have been around people in social settings who were very eager to divulge personal information to complete strangers. The text says that you should match up your level of disclosure with the level of the relationship. It is not appropriate to divulge your intimate and personal information to strangers or even acquaintances. It is appropriate, however, to discuss that sort of information with romantic partner or close friends. The book also says that you should be careful when disclosing certain personal information because it can place an unwanted burden on others. I have had this experience; I have a friend who is extremely out spoken and she tends to tell anyone she can about her menstrual problems. To me, it is extremely embarrassing to be around her when she is speaking about her private parts in public! Overall, I think it is important to understand the content and the context before disclosing certain personal information. Especially because it might affect someone else other than yourself.

Filters

Steve Duck’s theory makes complete sense to me! I have seen examples of each type of relationship mentioned in the text. I believe that almost everyone uses pre-interaction cues in the decision to choose a romantic partner; I believe it is almost natural to look at physical attractiveness first and then move on to personality traits. I do not, however, think that physical attractiveness is the primary or most important factor in a romantic partner. I find many things other that physical attractiveness to be important in choosing a partner; I tend to look for a person who has goals, healthy friendships and proactive hobbies. I usually filter people out who have not or do not plan on pursuing a higher education. I have had times when I have judged a person based on their clothing or their appearance just to be proven wrong; I think it is important to get over bias and be open to interacting with others. In doing so, you never know who you will meet-a potential networking acquaintance or your future partner.

Patterns

I believe that the submissive symmetry would be the hardest characteristic to change. In the book it states that submissive symmetry is basically like both parties sitting back and wanting the other person to make the decision. I also find this interesting because it happens to me a lot! I notice that I do not always want to make the decisions in my interpersonal relationships so I allow the other person to make the decision; I am being submissive by also controlling. I think that the rigid complementary role would be the most damaging to a relationship. I feel this way because when there are clear dominant and submissive roles in a relationship it is hard to switch those roles and a person may feel stuck beneath their partner; they might also feel a lot of pressure due to being the dominant person. I feel like both submissive symmetry and rigid complementary roles would harm self-esteem the most because of the ‘less than” feeling a person could obtain.