- Never
- Rarely
- Sometimes
- Often
- Always
- Never
- Rarely
- Sometimes
- Often
- Always
- 1 hour or less
- 2 hours
- 3 hours
- 4 hours
- 5 hours
- 6 hours or more
- 1 hour or less
- 2 hours
- 3 hours
- 4 hours
- 5 hours
- 6 hours or more
- 1 hour or less
- 2 hours
- 3 hours
- 4 hours
- 5 hours
- 6 hours or more
- Less Than 10%
- 21-30%
- 31-40%
- 41-50%
- Less Than 10% 2. 11-20%
- 21-30%
- 31-40%
- 41-50%
- Less Than 10% 2. 11-20%
- 21-30%
- 31-40%
- 41-50%
- Less Than 10% 2. 11-20%
- 21-30%
- 31-40%
- 41-50%
- Less Than 10% 2. 11-20%
- 21-30%
- 31-40%
- 41-50%
- Less Than 10% 2. 11-20%
- 21-30%
- 31-40%
- 41-50%
- 51% or more
- Strongly Disagree
- Disagree
- Neutral
- Agree
- Strongly Agree
- Strongly Disagree
- Disagree
- Neutral
- Agree
- Strongly Agree
- Strongly Disagree
- Disagree
- Neutral
- Agree
- Strongly Agree
- Strongly Disagree
- Disagree
- Neutral
- Agree
- Strongly Agree
- Strongly Disagree
- Disagree
- Neutral
- Agree
- Strongly Agree
- Strongly Disagree
- Disagree
- Neutral
- Agree
- Strongly Agree
- Strongly Disagree
- Disagree
- Neutral
- Agree
- Strongly Agree
- Strongly Disagree
- Disagree
- Neutral
- Agree
- Strongly Agree
- Strongly Disagree
- Disagree
- Neutral
- Agree
- Strongly Agree
- Strongly Disagree
- Disagree
- Neutral
- Agree
- Strongly Agree
- Strongly Disagree
- Disagree
- Neutral
- Agree
- Strongly Agree
- Strongly Disagree
- Disagree
- Neutral
- Agree
- Strongly Agree
- Strongly Disagree
- Disagree
- Neutral
- Agree
- Strongly Agree
- Strongly Disagree
- Disagree
- Neutral
- Agree
- Strongly Agree
- Strongly Disagree
- Disagree
- Neutral
- Agree
- Strongly Agree
- Joint Family
- Nuclear Family Age. Your age in years
- Male
- Female
- Under graduation
- Graduation
- Post-graduation
- 81,000 – 100,000
- More than 100,000
- Village/ Rural Areas
- Small Cities/towns
- Large cities
- Baran, S. J., & Davis, D. K. (2014). Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future, 7th Edition (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.
- Britannica, E. (2015). Nuclear family. In T. E. o. Encyclopaedia, Britannica
- Gallup. (2017). Television viewership in Pakistan: Millennial television viewers in Pakistan are less interested in news channels; more interested in local entertainmentchannels.
- Gallup. (2018, September 07). Despite the recent boom, the film industry fails to leave an impact; only 24 Percent Pakistanis deem its performance commendable while 45 Percent of Pakistanis think its performance has been unsatisfactory. For television industry these figures are 36 Percent and 35 Percent respectively.
- George, G., & Larry, G . (1973). Cultural Indicators: The Social Reality of Television Drama.
- Gerbner, G. (1966). On Defining Communication: Still Another View. Journal of Communication, 16(2), 99- 103.
- Gerbner, G. (1969). Toward
- Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with Television: The Violence Profile. Journal of Communication, 26(2), 172-199.
- Gerbner, G., & Signorielli, N. (1990). Violence profile 1967 through 1988-89: Enduring patterns: Annenberg School of Communications, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia.
- Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1980). The
- Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1986). Living with television: The dynamics of the cultivation process. Perspectives on media effects, 1986, 17-40.
- Kaplan, M. A. (1958). Television Drama: A Discussion. The English Journal, 47(9), 549.
- Kubey, R. (1990). Television and the quality of family life. Communication Quarterly, 38(4), 312-324.
- Maccoby, E. E. (1951). Television: Its Impact on School Children. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(3), 421.
- McDonagh, E. C., et al. (1950). Television and the family. Sociology & Social Research, 35, 113-122
- Morgan, M., & Shanahan, J. (2010). The state of cultivation. Journal of broadcasting &electronic media, 54(2), 337-355.
- Morgan, M., Leggett, S., & Shanahan, J. (1999). Television and family values: Was Dan Quayle right? Mass Communication and Society, 2(1-2), 47-63.
- Morgan, M., Shanahan, J., & Signorielli, N. (2012). Living with television now: Advances in cultivation theory & research: Peter Lang New York, NY.
- Morgan, M., Shanahan, J., & Signorielli, N. (2017). Cultivation Theory: Idea, Topical Fields, and Methodology. The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects, 1-14.
- Morgan, M., Shanahan, J., Signorielli, N., Morgan, M., & Shanahan, J. (2014). Cultivationtheory in the twenty-first century. The handbook of media and mass communicationtheory, 1, 480-497.
- Munawar, A., & Fazal Rahim Khan. (2020). Cultivation in the New Media Environment: Theoretical Implications for Future Studies in Pakistan. Journal of Peace, Development and Communication, 4(2), 105-123
- Ogbu, J. U., & Clark, R. M. (1984). Family Life and School Achievement: Why Poor Black Children Succeed or Fail. Contemporary Sociology, 13(5), 606.
- Prince, L. (2018). Conceptualizing television viewing in the digital age: Patterns of exposure and the cultivation process. ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst.
- Shanahan, J., Shanahan, J., James, S., & Morgan, M. (1999). Television and its Viewers: Cultivation theory and research: Cambridge university press.
- Shrum, L. J. (2017). Cultivation theory: Effects and underlying processes. The international encyclopedia of media effects, 1-12.
- SIGNORIELLI, N. (1991). Adolescents and Ambivalence Toward Marriage. Youth & Society, 23(1), 121-149.
- Signorielli, N. (2015). Cultivation in the twenty-first century. Wiley Blackwell,Hoboken, NJ, 455-468.
- Skill, T., & Robinson, J. D. (1994). Trend: Four decades of families on television: A demographic profile, 1950â€Â1989. Journal of broadcasting & electronic media, 38(4), 449-464.
- Walters, J. K., & Stone, V. A. (1971). Television and family communication. Journal of broadcasting & electronic media, 15(4), 409-414.
- Williams, E. R. (2017). Williams, E. (2017). The Screenwriters Taxonomy: A Roadmap to Collaborative Storytelling. Routledge
Abstract:
In the light of the cultivation theory of cultural indicators, this Research paper investigates and examines the first and second-order effects of cultivation on Nuclear Family structure due to higher and overall exposure of dramatized entertainment content. Findings at the preliminary level indicate that the higher the exposure to dramatized entertainment, the higher the perceptions of its audience towards the prevalence of nuclear family structures in Pakistani society will be cultivated. However, the second-order effect of cultivation regarding the phenomenon under investigation could not be found. While the aforementioned phenomenon is underexplored yet in very cultural settings of Pakistan, therefore this study provides basic theoretical avenues to future research in this field of cultivation.
Key Words
Cultivation theory, Drama industry, Entertainment, Nuclear Family
Introduction
What media shows is the reflection of social relationships, institutional relationships, and the fundamental form of social fabrics. The question is, must the media retain to its trait, there is no need for media to change until society changes and new sets of social relations are built? We have to consider what kind of changes do we expect from media and what are the circumstances that limit changes in media. Another question could be, will the change in media ultimately cultivates the same in the audience after some span of time? We have the cultivation theory of George Gerbner on our desk to simply answer this mass-produced content always cultivates and shapes the behavior of the audience. Elites and decision-makers always have their own intents behind a symbolic environment that includes arts, science, and governments, created by ongoing mass communication. There is a minute difference between what we can change within existing circumstances and what we cannot. There are a number of things that can be pointed out in contemporary media content and practices, changing, diversifying, and molding them could count as positive changes without loss of any commercial capital, but there are certain things that are way more difficult and complex to be altered. There are a number of social goals that can be achieved without losing any money or capital (health goals, sexism, racism, etc.). It is not very difficult to identify the indicators of mass media content in our surroundings and society, in fact, mass communication (television and online media) has changed the nature of family control; none of the parents and mentors have control over the stories being told to their children/students by the mass media. Nonetheless, the question of a change in slants due to short term viewing are not what cultivation theory tends to answer. These were rather the old methodology of traditional research approaches in mass communication which studied the effects of media. Short-term effects of media on the audience are an area of persuasion and marketing research. "Gerbner viewed that television viewing resulted in shared cultural outlooks and assumptions that were nurtured, maintained, and reinforced by television’s messages in large communities over long periods of time” (Signorielli, 2015). We are proceeding in the 21st century, where new media technologies and ever-increasing platforms, devices, and gadgets have changed and modified the television’s field of vision. However, television still lays up more of public time and advertisement capital. With ever new technologies and convenience, viewers are consuming more content than ever, television is still controlling the cultural panorama (Prince, 2018). People do not select the television out; actually, they are born into it, they grow up with it, and as they get older, they have absorbed thousands of hours of story telling, and surely these are the stories told by some business corporations for their own motives. Nowadays, storytelling is just not another usual household activity by mothers, grandmothers, or any family elder, instead, it is the domain of bigger communication giants and companies (producing stories for their commercial interest). Television is a universal, most pervasive instrument; given the concept, it is just like a civilization in itself, not like just another medium. It decides what will be the social curriculum and social conduct of all the people.
The following paper, based on the aforementioned argumentation, is keen to investigate the same phenomenon, i.e., the cultivation of family structures in Pakistan by ongoing apparent or underlying mass communication in dramatized entertainment. There has been many presumptions and speculations of decline in traditional family and value system, and the role of free entertainment media in it – generally after the private media established in Pakistan, prevalence of online media and specifically in contemporary scenario of growing questioning over traditional patriarchal structures of families by left-wingers on social media platforms. Many voices on current affairs have been blaming entertainment media to be the paramount responsibility of the negative portrayal of traditional family structures, i.e., joint family structures, and also stigmatizing them. It is, therefore need of the day to empirically investigate these speculations and to outline the relation (which may or may not be positive) between all the variables (exposure to entertainment content, inclination towards modern family structure, i.e., nuclear family). This research paper has a propensity to study, analyze and investigate the nature of the relation of dramatized content with the institution of family in very cultural settings of Pakistan. The joint family system has always been the essence of Pakistani culture, dominant tribal and fundamental social fabrics and collective wealth structures have always compelled communities within Pakistan to prefer a joint family structure over a nuclear one for many decades, but this trend is now seeming to be challenged by later one in a more appealing manner than ever. Assuming television's role in the decline of the joint family system in contemporary societal structure, it is a need of the day to empirically observe and study the relationship between the prevailing concept of the nuclear family system in Pakistani society and its exposure to entertainment content.
The portrayal of Families in Dramatized Entertainment
Never in the history of mankind have message systems have such huge and heterogenous publics than today. Dramatized entertainment content is perceived as just “entertainment” and thus provides frames of references across a fantasy world to the real world; it offers special opportunities for the cultivation of elements of existence, i.e., values, rituals, families conduct, and social norms. Imaginatively re-created aspects of life with significant relations with real human situations can easily create a composite and exaggerated symbolic world which reveals social norms underlying in it without making them apparent (Gerbner & Gross, 1973).
There is a continuous argument in the annals of cultivation theory about the impact of the ongoing entertainment industry over family structures. As early as 1948, Thomas E Coffins described television as a member of the family. By evolution and time, many few families remained without a television set. After (Gerbner’s 1919-2005) assumed television as an unprecedented force of cultivation for societies, there came huge numbers of researchers digging into the strong yet complex relationship between families and exposure to television. Vernon A. Stone & Judith k. Walters (1971) argued that human families became with time so acquainted with television that it becomes now difficult to ascertain what they would be doing differently if there were no television. One thing they might be doing is talking with one another (Walters & Stone, 1971). So, coming to a findingthat television does affect family communications on which structures of the family is established as McDonagh concluded from a study of television families “that they are home more, have more visitors, but they converse less now than previously" (McDonagh, 1950, p. 122). Morgan, Leggett, and Shanahan argued, citing demos, 1974 that family is a key battleground of conflicting moralities and values in society (M. Morgan et al., 1999). We can have several more citations from western cultural settings in establishing our argument that families’ structures are cultivated by the exposure to entertainment content; for instance, Skill and Robinson in 1994 argued, "on more than one occasion fictional television has been cited as a major contributory influence to apparent destruction of the nuclear family (Skill & Robinson, 1994, p. 449). Nuclear families in western cultural settings are perceived as traditional families structures which are close to very fundamentals of the cultural heritage and traditions.
Presumptive Profile
They have a presumptive profile in considerations which indicates that dramatized entertainment in Pakistan is less welcoming towards traditional family structures, i.e., joint family structures and elements of joint family structures. Rather, it undermines and minimizes the significance of joint family structure by deliberate suppression of the positive aspects of the stated structure for a family and by synthesizing a symbolic environment in which said structure is perceived as the symbol of fundamentalism and lower socioeconomic statuses. Contrastingly the Nuclear family setting is glamorized and embraced by most of the drama stories in which it is depicted as the prosperous and enlightened structure of the family - free of cultural stereotypes and conventional cognition levels, this study tends to investigate whether viewers of fiction and dramas ascertain the stated presumption and whether a major shift towards nuclear family system from the joint family system is cultivated by the dramas and fictional entertainment content in Pakistan.
Methodology
To conduct this quantitative research study, the researcher applied the survey research method using probability sampling because it helps in inference drawing, and generalizability increases beyond the sample to the targeted population of the study. If we talk about Population, it is the general youth studying in universities of the federal capital of Pakistan, i.e., Islamabad. According to UNFPA, 61% population of Pakistan falls under the brackets of 15 – 64, and the population aged 10-24 is 29.7%. Youth in universities, having more cognition development and more prone to the exaggerated symbolic environment (especially in the metropolis) created by dramatized entertainment were the best target population to investigate said assumptions, as after graduation, as student life terminates, most of the individuals tend to get tied their knots into marriages. Their orientation and perceptions (Cultivated by exposure to entertainment content) about family structures are not able to be part of this research study.
As far as the sampling method is concerned, in probability sampling, the researcher adopted simple random sampling because this is an unbiased approach to garnering responses from a large group, as each individual in the large population has the same probability to be selected. The researcher obtained the frame size from the university department
The sample includes 302 students from the said population; the reason of selecting the said population is the ease of access to the data, the diverse population - representing almost every demography of Pakistan, and easily reach. 302 Sample size was chosen because of the restricted budget and time. Responses are included in the analysis.
Data Collection was a cross-sectional survey, as it allowed the researcher to go through the study at a single point in time and look at numerous characteristics at once. The questionnaire was given to all 303 Of the sample, and data was gathered from 16 Of June 2021 to 22 June 2021. The sample is comprised of general youth studying at the university’s media department.
A self-developed questionnaire was distributed among the sample to gather their responses. It was designed to measure the items regarding demographics, family structures, media exposures, perception, and orientation about nuclear family (First and Second order of cultivation). The questionnaire was shared with samples online through google forms, considering the restraints posed by the ongoing pandemic. The tool was comprised of 32 questions out of which 15 of them an orientation about a nuclear family structure on 5- a point Likert scale where strongly disagree was coded as 1 and strongly agree as 5, the first order of cultivation, i.e., perception about the prevalence of nuclear family structure was measured through six questions (where the respondent has to choose any one of the given choices), frequency of exposure to entertainment content was measured on 5-point Likert scale where one represents never, and five represents always. Time consumed while watching entertainment content both online and on tv was measured in hours, where 1 represents one hour or less, and 6 represents 6 hours or more. The gender and family structures of the respondents were measured on dichotomous scales where 1 = male, 2 = Female, and 1 = Joint family, 2 = Nuclear family, respectively. Respondents were given multiple choices to choose one for indication of family income level, where 1 represents 20,000 or less, and 6 represents more than 100,000. Brought up – background of respondent was also measured
by giving three multiple choices for which 1 represents village/ rural areas and 3 represents large cities. Research Models are Independent Variable: Exposure to dramatized entertainment content through online and conventional media. Dependent Variable: Inclination (perception and orientation) towards the nuclear family structure. Controlled Variables: Demographics including age, gender brought up the background, family income, and structures. Conceptualization and operationalization of variables utilized in the current study included exposure to dramatized entertainment and public inclination towards the nuclear family structure.
Independent Variable
Dramatized Entertainment: According to Merriam-webster a drama series is mostly a part of narrative fiction, a television or (online) production in which characteristics of a serious play serious play with a specific tone or subject are presented. These television series or entertainment dramas are usually categorized in to the super genre, macro genre, and micro-genre such as political drama, legal drama, historical or comedy-drama (Williams, 2017). According to George Gerbner, television’s dramatic programs mirror the synthetic societal values and aspects of social reality to cultivate them in society. Cultivation researchers take drama as the prime-time entertainment programs and television series based on elements of existence, societal values, and relationships, which are primarily not necessarily apparent reveals social mechanism and association with the human situation. (Gerbner & Gross, 1973). Nonetheless, Kaplan saw a significant difference between television drama and literature drama, as most of the literature scholars viewed the former as a cheap and less sophisticated sort of drama. (Kaplan, 1958)
Media exposure: Lisa prince contented that consumer media consumption was based on TV though the increase in streaming through new media (i.e., social media) has eventually increased total consumption of television content. This means one way or another, people are watching more television than ever. The new television environment (conventional & new media) is garnering more eyeballs towards screen and content. With so many new ways of consumption, viewers are watching content on different platforms simultaneously (Prince, 2018). By media exposure, it is established that the researcher means a collective time spent before the television screen or before any other modern devices (smartphones, laptop) to consume the television content (on digital platforms such as YouTube, Netflix, Amazon, Facebook, etc.). As proclaimed by Shrum & Lee (M. Morgan, Shanahan, & Signorielli, 2012), Lisa prince 2018 and other researchers. The researcher measured the time spent on exposure to dramatized entertainment both in frequency and hours by asking.
“How frequently do you watch entertainment content on the following? [Online (i.e., Netflix, YouTube, Amazon, Facebook etc.)] & [On a television set]. Each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale where 1 is coded as never, and 5 is coded always. Where time was measured in hours by asking a respondent that "Usually in a day, how many hours do you watch entertainment programming on the following? [On a television set] & Online (i.e., Netflix, YouTube, Amazon, Facebook, etc.)]" responses were coded as 1 = 1 hour or less, 2 = 2 hours, 3 = 3 hours, 4 = 4 hours, 5 = 5 hours and 6=6 hours or more.
Dependent Variable
Nuclear Family Structure: It is the smallest structure in family settings according to the western cultural context it is the traditional cultural setting comprising of two individuals, mainly a heterosexual married couple of, a man and woman, and their socially recognized children. (Britannica, 2015, November 1).In an eastern cultural setting, an unconventional setting in which a married couple moves out of the joint or extended family (mainly comprising of three to four generations) with their own domestic and economic premises may or may not be with their socially and lawfully recognized children. (Clark, 2015). In this study, the researcher has employed two order cultivation analysis in which the first-order effect evaluates the perception and the second-order effect investigates the orientation of respondents toward the nuclear family structure. The perception was measured through multiple choices where respondents were given different percentage brackets to choose any one of them according to a statement like "In your view, about what percent of unmarried people in our society want to live an independent married life?” responses were coded as 1= less than 10%, 2=11-20%, 3=21-30%, 4=31-40%, 5=41-50% and 6= 51% or more. Orientation towards nuclear family was measured on 5 – a point Likert scale from 1=strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree by giving a statement like “I often think about living an independent married life with my partner.”
Demographic Measures/Controlled Variables
In accordance with the prior mass media and policing studies, to measure the media effects properly this study used a sum of potential variables which were controlled so they may not affect the results. Demographic variables involved gender (1 = male and 2 = female), age (measured continuously), brought background (1 = Village/ rural areas, 2 = Small cities/towns, 3=Large cities) family structure (1=Joint Family, 2= Nuclear Family) and household monthly income (1= 20,000 or less 2= 21,000 – 40,000, 3=41,000 – 60,000, 4=61,000 – 80.000, 5= 81,000 – 100,000 and 6=More than 100,000).
Reliability Of Measuring Instrument
Before carrying out the final survey
the researcher pretests the measuring instrument to check its reliability. The pretest-1 was done on 20 respondents. The reliability was checked for the perception-related question, i.e., the first-order effect on SPSS was Cronbach alpha .746. On deleting the particular item, a solid, reliable value Cronbach alpha.792 of the measuring instrument for survey was achieved. Similarly, the reliability check for second-order was Cronbach alpha .830
Descriptive Analyses
Prior to investigating in-depth, the following are mentioned all the descriptive analyses of demographic/controlled variables.
Frequency Tables and Data Narration
Table 1. Gender
| Frequency | > Male width="164">126 width="183">41.6 | > Female width="164">177 width="183">58.4 | > Total width="164">303 width="183">100 | |||||||||||||
| Frequency | > Joint Family width="166">138 width="170">45.5 | > Nuclear Family width="166">165 width="170">54.5 | > Total width="166">303 width="170">100 | ||
138 respondents of the questionnaire from the sample size hailed from joint family backgrounds, and 165 others hailed from nuclear family background, as shown in table 4.2. Whereas the maximum respondents of the questionnaire were from large urban centers, the minimum was from the demographic location of villages, as indicated in table 4.3.
Table 3. Rural-Urban Background
| Frequency | > Village/rural areas width="176">27 width="174">8.9 | > Small cities/towns width="176">66 width="174">21.8 | > Large cities width="176">210 width="174">69.3 | > Total width="176">303 width="174">100 | ||||||||||||
| Frequency | > 20,000 or less width="137">25 width="199">8.3 | > 21,000- 40,000 width="137">38 width="199">12.5 | > 41,000- 60,000 width="137">73 width="199">24.1 | > 61,000- 80,000 width="137">49 width="199">16.2 | > 81,000-100,000 width="137">31 width="199">10.2 | > More than 100,000 width="137">87 width="199">28.7 | > Total width="137">303 width="199">100 | |||||||||
| width="167" colspan="2" valign="top"> Online Exposure (In hours) width="239" colspan="2" valign="top">TV Exposure (In hours) | > Time Range width="75">Frequency width="92">Percent width="112">Frequency width="127">Percent | > 1 hour or less width="75">58 width="92">19.1 width="112">230 width="127">75.9 | > 2 hours width="75">64 width="92">21.1 width="112">38 width="127">12.5 | > 3 hours width="75">64 width="92">21.1 width="112">25 width="127">8.3 | > 4 hours width="75">43 width="92">14.2 width="112">5 width="127">1.7 | > 5 hours width="75">23 width="92">7.6 width="112">2 width="127">0.7 | > 6 hours or more width="75">51 width="92">16.8 width="112">3 width="127">1 | > Total width="75">303 width="92">100.0 width="112">303 width="127">100 | ||||||||
| Less 51% | > Than width="106" valign="top">11- width="90" valign="top">21- width="79" valign="top">31- width="171" valign="top">41- or | > 10% width="106" valign="top">20% width="90" valign="top">30% width="79" valign="top">40% width="171" valign="top">50% more | ||||
Table 7
| S. No width="130">Item width="36">width="36"> width="36"> width="36"> width="36"> width="54"> Overall (%) width="48">Mean width="39">Std. Dev. width="40">Item | > 1 width="130">In your view, about what percent of marriages in our society fail due to joint family structure? width="36">17.5 width="36">20.8 width="36">20.1 width="36">16.8 width="36">16.2 width="54">8.6 width="48">100 width="39">3.19 width="40">1.571 | > 2 width="130">In your view, about what percent of unmarried people in our society want to live an independent married life? width="36">6.3 width="36">6.3 width="36">11.2 width="36">16.8 width="36">22.1 width="54">37.3 width="48">100 width="39">4.54 width="40">1.534 | > 3 width="130">In your view, about what percent of married couples in our society live an unromantic married life due to the joint family system? width="36">10.2 width="36">14.9 width="36">20.1 width="36">17.5 width="36">18.5 width="54">18.8 width="48">100 width="39">3.76 width="40">1.613 | > 4 width="130">In your view, about what percent of married couples in our society>suffer from toxic relationships due to interference of their family members? width="36">7.3 width="36">8.9 width="36">16.5 width="36">18.8 width="36">24.1 width="54">24.4 width="48">100 width="39">4.17 width="40">1.540 | > 5 width="130">In your view, about what percent of people in our society have a family->forced marriages? width="36">4.6 width="36">7.9 width="36">4.6 width="36">7.9 width="36">15.5 width="54">19.1 width="48">26.1 width="39">26.7 width="40">100 | |||||||||||
| 1 width="53">width="117"> 5 width="138" valign="top">width="170" valign="top">
| > 2 width="53">3 width="117">4 width="138" valign="top">width="170" valign="top">
| > SD width="53">width="117"> SA width="138">width="170">
| > Item width="53">width="117"> Overall (%) width="138">Mean width="170">SD |
Table 9
| 1 width="163">I often think about living an independent married life with my partner. width="41">5.3 width="40">10.6 width="40">14.5 width="40">35.6 width="41">34.0 width="44">100 width="40">3.83 width="48">1.165 | > 2 width="163">Havinga romantic relationship with my partner is not possible in joint family width="41">7.6 width="40">35.6 width="40">19.8 width="40">25.7 width="41">11.2 width="44">100 width="40">2.97 width="48">1.171 | > 3 width="163">It is true that the joint family system is outdated in today’s modern society. width="41">7.3 width="40">25.7 width="40">22.1 width="40">29.7 width="41">15.2 width="44">100 width="40">3.20 width="48">1.191 | > 4 width="163">One can live a happier married life in a nuclear family than in a joint family. width="41">align="center">8.9 width="40">align="center">25.7 width="40">align="center">25.7 width="40">align="center">27.1 width="41">align="center">12.5 width="44">align="center">100 width="40">align="center">3.09 width="48">align="center">1.176 | > 5 width="163">Being independent from my family is an important priority to me. width="41">10.9 width="40">22.1 width="40">18.5 width="40">29.7 width="41">18.8 width="44">100 width="40">3.23 width="48">1.287 | > 6 width="163">I would not let anyone interfere in my married life width="41">align="center">0 width="40">align="center">5.0 width="40">align="center">13.2 width="40">align="center">37.0 width="41">align="center">44.9 width="44">align="center">100 width="40">align="center">4.22 width="48">align="center">.857 | > 7 width="163">I often feel like rebelling against old-fashioned values>and traditions of my family. width="41">5.9 width="40">34.3 width="40">24.1 width="40">22.1 width="41">13.5 width="44">100 width="40">3.03 width="48">1.161 | > 8 width="163">Couples living in nuclear families often have candle- light dinners at restaurants. width="41">3.3 width="40">18.8 width="40">29.0 width="40">36.0 width="41">12.9 width="44">100 width="40">3.36 width="48">1.033 | > 9 width="163">Couples in nuclear family have very few quarrels than those living in joint family. width="41">align="center">6.6 width="40">align="center">25.1 width="40">align="center">25.1 width="40">align="center">29.4 width="41">align="center">13.9 width="44">align="center">100 width="40">align="center">3.19 width="48">align="center">1.154 | > 10 width="163">>I often feel our parents do not always make good decisions for their children. width="41">align="center">19.1 width="40">align="center">34.0 width="40">align="center">19.5 width="40">align="center">16.5 width="41">align="center">10.9 width="44">align="center">100 width="40">align="center">2.66 width="48">align="center">1.263 | > 11 width="163">Generally speaking, relatives these days are too selfish to care about my problems. width="41">1.0 width="40">11.6 width="40">13.2 width="40">40.9 width="41">33.3 width="44">100 width="40">3.94 width="48">1.008 | > 12 width="163">It is true that most people in our society are ready to betray their blood relations for their self-interests. width="41">align="center">1.7 width="40">align="center">7.3 width="40">align="center">16.5 width="40">align="center">43.2 width="41">align="center">31.4 width="44">align="center">100 width="40">align="center">3.95 width="48">align="center">0.958 | > 13 width="163">I often feel that people outside of my family understand me better than my own family members. width="41">align="center">8.9 width="40">align="center">30.7 width="40">align="center">23.4 width="40">align="center">23.4 width="41">align="center">13.5 width="44">align="center">100 width="40">align="center">3.02 width="48">align="center">1.201 | > 14 width="163">I am more inclined to marry outside than within my family width="41">5.6 width="40">10.6 width="40">20.8 width="40">24.4 width="41">38.6 width="44">100 width="40">3.80 width="48">1.219 | > 15 width="163">I often think I’m in a better position to choose the right life partner for me thaan else. width="41">2.6 width="40">11.6 width="40">24.8 width="40">32.7 width="41">28.4 width="44">100 width="40">3.73 width="48">1.077 | ||
| Cronbach's Alpha width="179">Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items width="179">N of Items | > 0.792 width="179">0.792 width="179">5 | |||||||||||||||
| width="120" colspan="2" valign="top"> Variables of Perception width="102">Exposure Online (In hours) width="84">Exposure TV (In hours) width="72">TV align="center">Exposure (Frequency) width="90">Online Exposure (Frequency) | > Variables of perception width="84">Pearson Correlation width="36">1 width="102">.151** width="84">-0.043 width="72">-0.112 width="90">0.072 | > width="84"> Sig. (2-tailed) width="36">width="102"> 0.009 width="84">0.460 width="72">0.051 width="90">0.211 | > width="84"> N width="36">303 width="102">303 width="84">303 width="72">303 width="90">303 | > Exposure Online (In hours) width="84">Pearson Correlation width="36">.151** width="102">1 width="84">0.027 width="72">-.226** width="90">.411** | > width="84"> Sig. (2-tailed) width="36">0.009 width="102">width="84"> 0.643 width="72">0.000 width="90">0.000 | > width="84"> N width="36">303 width="102">303 width="84">303 width="72">303 width="90">303 | > Exposure TV (In hours) width="84">Pearson Correlation width="36">-0.043 width="102">0.027 width="84">1 width="72">.161** width="90">-.114* | > width="84"> Sig. (2-tailed) width="36">0.460 width="102">0.643 width="84">width="72"> 0.005 width="90">0.047 | > width="84"> N width="36">303 width="102">303 width="84">303 width="72">303 width="90">303 | > width="84"> Pearson Correlation width="36">-0.112 width="102">-.226** width="84">.161** width="72">1 width="90">0.027 | > >F TV>exposure (Frequency) width="84">Sig. (2-tailed) width="36">0.051 width="102">0.000 width="84">0.005 width="72">width="90"> 0.643 | > N width="36">303 width="102">303 width="84">303 width="72">303 width="90">303 | > Online exposure (Frequency) width="84">Pearson Correlation width="36">0.072 width="102">.411** width="84">-.114* width="72">0.027 width="90">1 | > width="84"> Sig. (2-tailed) width="36">0.211 width="102">0.000 width="84">0.047 width="72">0.643 width="90">
| > width="84"> N width="36">303 width="102">303 width="84">303 width="72">303 width="90">303 | |
| Control Variables width="65" valign="top">width="107" valign="top"> width="72"> Variables of perception width="90">Online Exposure (Inhours) width="72">TV Exposure (Inhours) | > width="65"> width="107"> Correlation width="72">1.000 width="90">0.125 width="72">-0.047 | > width="65"> Variables of>perception width="107">Significance (2-tailed) width="72">width="90"> align="center">0.032 width="72">align="center">0.419 | > Rural-urban background & Income & Education>& Gender & Age & Family Structure width="65">width="107"> Correlation width="72">0.125 width="90">1.000 width="72">0.021 | > Online Exposure>(In hours) width="107">Significance (2-tailed) width="72">align="center">0.032 width="90">width="72"> align="center">0.723 | > width="65"> width="107"> Correlation width="72">-0.047 width="90">0.021 width="72">1.000 | > width="65"> TV Exposure (Inhours) width="107">Significance (2-tailed) width="72">align="center">0.419 width="90">align="center">0.723 width="72">
| ||||||||||
| width="197" colspan="6" valign="top"> Partial Correlational Analysis width="99" colspan="2" valign="top">width="172" colspan="6" valign="top"> Zero-order Correlation | > >Control Variables width="67">width="68" colspan="2"> width="62" colspan="3"> Variables of orientation width="48">Online Exposure (Inhours) width="51">Tv Exposure (Inhours) width="61" colspan="2">Variables of orientation width="58" colspan="2">Online Exposure (In hours) width="54" colspan="2">Tv Exposure (In hours) | > Rural-urban>background width="67" rowspan="2">Variables of orientation width="68" colspan="2">Correlation width="62" colspan="3">1.000 width="48">-0.041 width="51">0.059 width="61" colspan="2">1 width="58" colspan="2">-0.005 width="54" colspan="2">0.076 | > Significance (2-tailed) width="62" colspan="3">width="48"> 0.478 width="51">0.314 width="61" colspan="2">width="58" colspan="2"> 0.932 width="54" colspan="2">0.186 | > & Income width="67">width="68" colspan="2"> Correlation width="62" colspan="3">-0.041 width="48">1.000 width="51">0.021 width="61" colspan="2">-0.005 width="58" colspan="2">1 width="54" colspan="2">0.027 | > & Education & Gender & Age & Family Structure width="70" colspan="3">Online Exposure (inhours) width="69" colspan="2">Significance (2-tailed) width="52">align="center">0.478 width="58" colspan="2">width="53" colspan="2"> align="center">0.723 width="58">align="center">0.932 width="57">width="54" colspan="2"> align="center">0.643 >
| > Tv Exposure (In hours) width="69" colspan="2">Correlation width="52">0.059 width="58" colspan="2">0.021 width="53" colspan="2">1.000 width="58">0.076 width="57">0.027 width="54" colspan="2">1 >
| > Significance (2-tailed) width="52">0.314 width="58" colspan="2">0.723 width="53" colspan="2">width="58"> 0.186 width="57">0.643 width="54" colspan="2">>
| height="0"> width="3"> width="67"> width="1"> width="68"> width="1"> width="52"> width="10"> width="48"> width="51"> width="2"> width="58"> width="57"> width="1"> width="53"> width="1"> | ||||||||