Does it Make a Difference?: Television’s Misrepresentation of the Working-Class as Cultivation Effects

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the sample.

Variable	% (n)
Gender
Male	50.1 (1203)
Female	49.9 (1200)
Education level
Not finished mandatory education/unfinished upper secondary school	12.4 (298)
Upper secondary school (gymnasium)	17.5 (419)
Post-upper secondary education	10.6 (256)
Studies at tertiary education	14.2 (342)
Tertiary degree	45.2 (1087)
Age
18–29	18.4 (428)
30–49	38.7 (902)
50–64	25.5 (594)
65+	19.8 (478)
Subjective social class
Blue-collar/unemployed/sick-leave	35.8 (842)
Other (incl. white-collar, self-employed)	64.2 (1508)

Table 2. Correlation matrix.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
(1) Age	−
(2) Heavy television viewing (ref: <3 h/day)	.102**	−
(3) Woman (ref: man)	−.001	.058**	−
(4) University degree (ref: no degree)	−.039	−.142**	.137**	−
(5) Lower social position (working-class and unemployed, ref: other classes)	−.286**	.059**	.010	−.303**	−
(6) Responsibilization-index	.082**	.043*	−.186**	−.059**	−.087**	−
(7) Underestimates size of working-class (ref: does not underestimate)	.016	−.049*	−.006	.060**	−.080**	−.004	−
(8) Wrong estimate of size of working-class (ref: correct)	−.058**	.053*	.004	−.073**	.110**	−.009	.575**	−

**= correlation is significant at the 0.01 level, *= correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 3. Odds for providing incorrect estimates on the size of the contemporary Swedish working-class. Binary logistic regression.

	Model 1		Model 2
	Exp(B)	Sig.	Exp(B)	Sig.
Heavy television viewing (ref: <3 h/day)			1.198	.040
Age (18–94)	.199	.997	.996	.131
Woman (ref: man)	1.053	.543	1.039	.650
University degree (ref: no degree)	.822	.029	.841	.055
Lower social position (working-class and unemployed, ref: other classes)	1.446	<.001	1.433	<.001
Constant	1.120	.479	.638	1.078
Nagelkerke R^2	.019		.022
N	2348		2348

Bolded values are significant at p < .05.

Table 4. Odds for underestimating the size of the contemporary Swedish working-class. Binary logistic regression.

	Model 1		Model 2
	Exp(B)	Sig.	Exp(B)	Sig.
Heavy television viewing (ref: <3 h/day)			.812	.043
Age (18–94)	1.001	.673	1.002	.519
Woman (ref: man)	.948	.582	.962	.688
University degree (ref: no degree)	1.236	.038	1.204	.072
Lower social position (working-class and unemployed, ref: other classes)	.729	.005	.736	.007
Constant	.329	<.001	.344	.043
Nagelkerke R^2	.012		.015
N	2348		2348

Bolded values are significant at p < .05.

Table 5. Predicting responsibilization-attitudes. Ordinary least squared regression.

	Model 1		Model 2
	B	Sig.	B	Sig.
Heavy television viewing (ref: <3 h/day)			.083	.019
Age (18–94)	.002	.056	.002	.096
Woman (ref: man)	−.283	<.001	−.288	<.001
University degree (ref: no degree)	−.085	.017	−.075	.038
Lower social position (working-class and unemployed, ref: other classes)	−.152	<.001	−.155	<.001
Constant	2.943	.000	2.924	.000
Adjusted R^2	.046		.048
N	2106		2106

Bolded values are significant at p < .05.