In her paper, Good (2007) examines the links between TV viewing and attitudes about the natural environment (p. 365). Previous research from different parts of the World revealed that heavier TV viewers showed a lower degree of environmental concern and less interest in the natural environment than lighter TV viewers (p. 365) and that heavier TV viewers were more likely to be materialistic than lighter TV viewers (p. 366).
Since previous research did not offer any explanation for the association between heavier TV viewing and less positive attitudes towards the natural environment (p. 371), Good (2007) aimed to explain this relationship. Since previous studies revealed that there was a lack of environmental coverage on prime-time TV, Good …show more content…
Firstly, Inglehart’s (1971) scarcity hypothesis claims that people tend to focus on materialistic values during times of scarcity (p. 216). As we learned in this course, we have a limited mental bandwidth and if scarcity depletes all this limited capacity, there is no mental bandwidth left. As Good’s (2007) findings revealed, people with materialistic values were both heavier TV viewers and more apathetic to the natural environmental problems. If some form of scarcity was to blame, participant’s mental bandwidth might have been depleted by this scarcity and as a result of that, their attention was focused exclusively on the materialistic values they lacked and everything else was ignored. As a result of that, all three variables – heavy TV viewing, less concern for the natural environmental and materialistic values – could have been caused by scarcity. Participants were simply not interested in environmental issues as they were struggling due to scarcity, which depleted their mental bandwidth and consumed all their focus and interest. Similarly, they were only able to commit themselves to some passive activity (TV viewing) that did not take too much of their bandwidth but unable to engage in a more demanding activity (sports) due to insufficient mental bandwidth and physical energy. I, therefore, wonder whether materialism was indeed the crucial mediating …show more content…
In light of this hypothesis, heavy TV viewing, materialistic values and lack of concern for the natural environment might all stem from our pre-adult family environment. If we grew up in a materialistically oriented environment with TV on all days and with our parents exhibiting apathy towards the natural environment, we logically adopted these values and habits and it might take a few generations to replace them by post-materialistic values. I suggest that Good’s participants with materialistic values might have grown up in an anti-environmental materialistic family while participants with pro-environmental values might have been raised in a family with non-material values.
While materialism definitely links heavy television viewing with apathetic attitudes towards the natural environment and vice versa, I believe there might be other mediating variables, such as scarcity or the pre-adult family environment, that are ultimately responsible for these relationships. For this reason, future studies should consider the pre-adult family environment as well as the subjective feeling of scarcity into
Since previous research did not offer any explanation for the association between heavier TV viewing and less positive attitudes towards the natural environment (p. 371), Good (2007) aimed to explain this relationship. Since previous studies revealed that there was a lack of environmental coverage on prime-time TV, Good …show more content…
Firstly, Inglehart’s (1971) scarcity hypothesis claims that people tend to focus on materialistic values during times of scarcity (p. 216). As we learned in this course, we have a limited mental bandwidth and if scarcity depletes all this limited capacity, there is no mental bandwidth left. As Good’s (2007) findings revealed, people with materialistic values were both heavier TV viewers and more apathetic to the natural environmental problems. If some form of scarcity was to blame, participant’s mental bandwidth might have been depleted by this scarcity and as a result of that, their attention was focused exclusively on the materialistic values they lacked and everything else was ignored. As a result of that, all three variables – heavy TV viewing, less concern for the natural environmental and materialistic values – could have been caused by scarcity. Participants were simply not interested in environmental issues as they were struggling due to scarcity, which depleted their mental bandwidth and consumed all their focus and interest. Similarly, they were only able to commit themselves to some passive activity (TV viewing) that did not take too much of their bandwidth but unable to engage in a more demanding activity (sports) due to insufficient mental bandwidth and physical energy. I, therefore, wonder whether materialism was indeed the crucial mediating …show more content…
In light of this hypothesis, heavy TV viewing, materialistic values and lack of concern for the natural environment might all stem from our pre-adult family environment. If we grew up in a materialistically oriented environment with TV on all days and with our parents exhibiting apathy towards the natural environment, we logically adopted these values and habits and it might take a few generations to replace them by post-materialistic values. I suggest that Good’s participants with materialistic values might have grown up in an anti-environmental materialistic family while participants with pro-environmental values might have been raised in a family with non-material values.
While materialism definitely links heavy television viewing with apathetic attitudes towards the natural environment and vice versa, I believe there might be other mediating variables, such as scarcity or the pre-adult family environment, that are ultimately responsible for these relationships. For this reason, future studies should consider the pre-adult family environment as well as the subjective feeling of scarcity into