the effects of television on children- what the experts believe

8/6/2019 The Effects of Television on Children- What the Experts Believe

1/8

University of Pennsylvania

ScholarlyCommons

Departmental Papers (ASC) Annenberg School for Communication

1-1-1985

The Effects of Television on Children: What theExperts Believe

Joseph TurowUniversity of Pennsylvania, [email protected]

Reprinted in Communication Research ReportsVolume 2, Issue 1, 1985, pages 149-155.

NOTE: At the time of publication, the author Joseph Turow was affiliated with Purdue University. Currently January 2008, he is a faculty member of

the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania.

This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons.http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/36

For more information, please contact [email protected].
http://repository.upenn.edu/http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papershttp://repository.upenn.edu/aschttp://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/36mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/36http://repository.upenn.edu/aschttp://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papershttp://repository.upenn.edu/


2/8

THE EFFECTS OF TELEVISION ONCHILDREN: WHAT THE EXPERTS BEUEVE

CARL BYBEEUniversity ofOregonJAMES D. ROBINSONUniversity ofDayton

JOSEPH TUROWPurdue UniversityA national survey of mass media scholars was conducted to answer thequestion, "What impact do you believe television has on children? The 486scholars' beliefs are provacative, indicate a disparity exists between published empirical reports and the personal beliefs held by scholars and suggests a research agenda for future mass communication research. Perhapsmost interestingly, a negative relationship was observed between academicpublication and perceived negative consequences of television:

Concern over the impact of television onchildren has fueled an energeticoutpouringof research. Academics called upon asimpartial referees in the "effects debate"have decades of empirical studies aswell asa growing number of l iterature reviewsthat attempt to provide state-of-the-art syn-thesis of "what we know about TV effects"(Roberts & Bachen, 1981; Liebert &Schwartzberg, 1977; Weiss, 1971; Tannenbaum & Greenberg, 1968). While suchreviews provide insight into the question,"What do we know?", no published recordhas attempted to answer the question,"What do the experts believe about theeffect of television?"Carl Bybee is an Associate Professor in the Department ofSpeech at the University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403.James D.Robinsonis anAssistantProfessorin the Departmentof Communication at the University of Dayton, OR 45469.Joseph Turow is an Associate Professor in the Department ofCommunication, Purdue University, West Lafayette,IN 47907.

149

The purpose of this study was to examinebeliefs that a national sample ofmassmediascholars hold regarding television's consequences for children and to evaluate theshared nature of those beliefs. The findingsshed a revealing light on perceptions withwhich mass mediascholarsapproachtelevision research. Moreover, they suggest thaton come crucial topics - particularlytheissue of TV violence - a disparity existsbetween published empirical reports andthe personal beliefs thatmost scholars hold.

MEntOnQuestionnaires were sent to members ofthe Theory andMethodology division of theAssociation for Education in Journalismand members of the Mass Communicationdivision of the SpeechComunicationAssociation - a total population of 784. After thefirst mailing, 388 questionnaireswere com

pleted and returned. A follow-up mailing


3/8

Bybee/Robinson/Turowresulted in an addit ional 94 replies, for atotal response rate of 62% (486/784).Two sections of the quest ionnaire boreupon the issues raised. In the first, a c a d e m ~ics were asked specifically about their attitudes regarding television's effects onchildren. Eighteen statements were presented that attributed to children's televisionviewingvariouslycommonly debated consequences - that it leads to a decrease inattention span, to an increase in knowledgeabout theworld, etc. (Table 1). Respondentsnoted whether they felt television was "thecause" of each phenomenon, an "importantcontributory cause," a "somewhat important contributory cause," or "not at all animportant contributory cause" (or whetherthey didn't know). The second section of thequestionnaire eleicited standard demographic information from the scholars, including their age, their sex, and whether or notthey were parents. In addition, questionsconcerning selected academicdemographicvariables were asked. These related toamount of publishing in academic, tradeand popular journals or magazines; generalresearch orientation (quantitative asopposed to qualitative); primary teachingorientation (theory versus skills); and occupational status working (academic or nonacademic).

RESULTSNearly 79% of the academics who a n s ~wered the questionnarie weremen. The 486respondents ranged in agefrom 21 to 80, theaverage being 41 and the median age being39. Forty-one persentwere parentswith oneor more children living at horne. Nearly 70%had earned the Ph.D., and 30% held anM.A.or M.F.A. While 23% noted they blend "theory" and "skills" courses in their teaching,

31% indicated "theory as their primaryorientation and 46% said their primaryteaching load related to skills courses. Atthe same time, 39% of the respondents saidthey preferred a "quantitative" approach toresearch, another 35% preferred "qualitative" methods, and 26% said they could notmake such a choice. There was a considera-150

ble range of publication activity dependingon the type ofjournal.While 57% of the scholars had published at least one article in anacademic journal over the last three years,only 24% had published in a popular magazine or newspaper. Thirty-five percent hadpublished in a trademagazineor paperduring the 3 years.

Scholar Beliefs. One point that standsoutin this study is that mass media scholarsrecognize differences in televisions's abilityto bring about certain consequences, andthey recognize differences in their ability toeven evaluate the role the medium plays incertain areas of life. The wide range ofanswers to the categories noted in Table 1reflects this fairly sophisticatedapproach tothe issue of television and children. By farthe greatest consensus about the medium'spower relates to TV's ability to increasechildren's knowledge about the world.Nearly 70% of the subjects felt televisionwas an "important cause" inbringingaboutthat consequence, and 9% even said TV was"the cause." The mean score for answers onthat category was 2.8 outofa possible4.0. Indescending order, the next four effects scholars attribute strongly to televisionwere: increasing buying behavior (2.60);increasing immediate gratification (2.42);reinforcing social values (2.35); and increasing sex stereotyping (2.35). TJ1e-fi-Ya.effec.tss.holars s a : w . . t ~ ~ t r i b u t i n g least towere: breaking down social values (1.68);increasing prosocial behaviors (1.80);increasing alienation (1.81); increasinginterest in sex (1.92); and (tied for fifthplace) increasing aggressive behavior anddecreasmg phYSIcal actIVIty (1.99). Note thelow position of increasing aggressivebehavior. Despite the protracted national debateabout TV's stimulation of youth violence-or perhaps because of the debate - 44% ofthe sample asserted that TV was only a"somewhat important cause" and 24%insisted that no relationship exists betweenTV and aggressive behavior.Note too, that the ranking just presentedis based on means calculated only for scholars expressing an opinion. On some catego-


4/8

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH REPORTS/Vol. 2, No.1, 1985ries of effects the number of scholarschoosing the"don't know" choice reached ashigh as 22% of the sample. Examining the"don't know" column in Table 1 reveals anin teresting added dimension to our exploration of scholars' beliefs. Confidence amongthe scholars, indicated by the absence of"don't knows," is highest for television'scontribution in increasingworld knowledge(6% don't know), decreasing reading ability(6.8%), increasing sex stereotyping (7.6%),decreasing physical activity (8.2%), andincreasing excessive buying behavior(9.7%). Scholars are least confident abouttelevision's impactwhen it comes to discussing alienation (22.6% don'tknow),.decreasedattention span (21.6%), increases prosocialbehavior (19.1%), breaking down socialvalues (17.1%), and distorted perceptions ofthe political process (16.5%).

Turning the analysis around, a particularly strong indication of scholar beliefs inTV's impact is their willingness to labelevision "the cause" of a particular pheno-menon. As Table 1 shows, a consistentlysmall - although by nomeansminuscule-p e r c e n t a ~ e of respondents was willing tohold this absolutist position. Ten percent ofthe scholars said theybelieved the televisionwas solely responsible for a decline in reading among children. Nine percent believedtelevision wassolely responsible for increasing children's knowledge and awareness ofthe world. Between six and eight percentbelieved television was theprimarycauseofchildren's increased desire for immediategratification (7.8%) and decreasing creativity (6.4%). Qnly 4 of t b e . . . 4 8 f U . < : - h , 2 . I ~ ~ ~ ~ w e r ewillinKj;!Lcharge television with oemithes o r e c a u s e ~ f ~ g g r ~ ~ ~ ~ e behavior:----'-::= ' '. ' ' ' ~ ~ ' - ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ' ~ . . . " " .....

TABLE 1Scholars' Perceptions of the Effects ofTelevision on Children:Mean Scores and Percentage Responses

Effect Television's ContributionAn A Somewbat

'!be Important Important No Don'tMean Cause Canse Canse Relationahip Know

(01) Increases Sex Role Stereotyping 2.34 1.2 40.1 39.3 IL l 7.6(02) Inc reases Interest in Sex 1.92 1.9 19.3 37.2 30.0 11.510.1 36.8 32.5 13.8 6.8(03) Decreases Reading Ability 2.31(04) Increases Desire for 7.8 34.6 33.1 12.8 11.7Immediate Gratification 2.42 13.82.06 6.4 20.4 31.5 28.0(05) Decreases Creativity 2.80 9.1 60.7 21.6 2.7 6.0(06) Increases World Knowledge 1.99 0.8 21.2 43.8 23.9 10.5(07) Increases Aggressive Behavior 1.4 13.0 32.7 30.2 22.6(08) Increases Alienation 1.81 8.26.0 34.6 39.3 11.9(09) Decreases Physical Activity 199 11.3 29.2 40.7 17.1(10) Breaks Down Social Values 1.68 1.6 10.92.7 26.1 36.6 23.7(11) Increases Verbal Ability 2.09 9.77.4 45.3 31.5 6.2(12) Increases Excessive Buying Behavior 2.60 2.7 34.4 42.4 8.8 11.7(13) Reinforces Existing Social Values 2.35 25.5 16.53.5 22.2 32.3(14) Distorts Perceptions of Politics 2.04 28.8 19.11.80 0.6 10.7 40.7(15) Increases Prosocial Behavior 17.7 12.62.17 2.5 27.4 39.9(16) Increases Curiosity 25.3 25.9 20.0 21.6( 17) Decreases Attention Span 2.24 7.2

N=486.

151


5/8

Bybee/Robinson/TurowThe context of beliefs. Semi-partialcorrelations were calculated to examine therelationship between scholars' beliefs andcertain standard and academic demographic variables. Semi-partial correlationswere choosen over other statistical techniques because the assumption of causalordering could not be met. One other issuehas implications of statistical procedure:how to handle "don't know" responses.Maintaining a distinction between thoseexpressing some degree of certainty abouttheir belief (as expressed by willingness totake a position) and those unsure of TV'seffects, the analysis of the context of scholars' beliefs proceeded in two parts. A firstcalculation of semi-partials was conducted

for each of the contextual variables on thedegree of importance respondents attachedto the impact of each of the 18 televisioneffects. That is, the contextual variableswere examined only for those holdingbeliefs. Afterwards, a semi-partial analysiswas carried out employing a "know/don'tknow?" dichotomy as a dependent variablein order to find out if any background characterics could be related to the presence orabsence of a stance on particular issues.Table 2 presents the results of the firstanalysis. A number of patterns are evidentamong the correlations that are statisticallysignificant. One clear finding is that virtually all the associations are moderate, ranging between .10 and .23. Anothernoteworthy finding is that most of the significant correlations on the degreee ofimportance scholars attach to TV's impactrelate the perceptions of effects to standarddemographic variables, not to the variablesthat reflect academic environment. Of thethree standard demographic variables,scholar's sex seems to associate most con-sistently with perceptions of TV's effects.Being an older scholar related to a beliefthat TV breaks down social values, and nothaving children at home relates to a scholar's perception that TV increases alienation, verbal ability andcreativity.Butbeingfemale rather than male relates moderatelyto believing that TV contributes to a larger

152

range of consequences - 9 of the 18, in fact.These include reduced reading ability,physical activity and creativity; distortedpolitical values; and increased tendencytoward immediate gratification, aggressiveness, alienation, ethnic stereotypingand sex stereotyping. Interestingly, therelationship between beinga femalescholarand believing that television contributes tosex stereotyping is the strongestcorrelationobserved.See Table :2 following article

Among the academic variables, the onlyone that relates with any consistency to thedegree of importance scholars attach toTV's consequences is the number of academic articles or books published in the lastthree years. Somewhat surprisingly, scholars with more academic publications thanother scholars are less likely than theirlesser published colleagues to believe thattelevision decreases children's attentionspan, or increases their knowledge of theworld or desire for immediategratification.These findings were extended after thevarious dimensions of perceived effectswere subjected to factor analysis. A principal components factor analysis ofthe 18 perceived effect variables resulted in twodistinct factors which accounted for 45 percent of the total variance: an anti-socialdimension containing all but four of theeffect variables and a prosocial dimensioncomposed of the remaining perceived effectvariables (Bybee, Robinson &Turow, 1982).Semi-partial correlations for each of thenine demographic variables were computedfor the two dimensions. In view of the earlier discussion of significant associations, itshould not be surprising that scholar's sexand parenthood were significantly relatedto a perception that television has an antisocial impact on children. Women morethan men and scholars withourt childrenmore than those with children tended tohold this generally critical perspective onthe. medium.Academicattributes, by con-trast, showed no significant associationwith this view. The two significant links


6/8

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH REPORTSjVol. 2, No.1, 1985were, however. related to perceptions thattelevision has pro-social consequences.Scholars with more academic publicationsthan thei r colleagues tended to downplaytelevision's importance asa pro-socialforce,while scholars with more popular publications thantheir colleaguestended to espousethe pro-social perspective. THe latter findings and the absence of any relationship ofpublication to perceived anti-social effectsare consistentwith the associationsbetweenacademics and perceived effects that werepresented earlier. They point to a more con-servative outlook onTV's effects among themore published and prestigious group ofscholars in the sample. This finding certainly warrants further investigation.Recall that the correlations justdiscussedreflect the range of importance that scho-lars attached to television's impact whenthey filled out that questionnaire. Turningto the second group of semi-partial correlations (not presented) - the one that reflectsth e "know/don't know" dichotomy - yieldsa good deal fewer patterns. Two pointswillsummarize the most important findings.One is that there were only 18 significantassociations between contextual variablesand the decision of a mass media scholar totake a stand or not take a stand on an aspectof TV's impact. Related is the point that 15of the 18 significant correlations associatedwith only one contextualvariable - theacademic orientation of the scholar. The pattern is clear. Scholars working in anacademic environment are much morelikely than' their counterparts outsideacademia to feel they can make judgementsabout the effects ofmass media on children.

DISCUSSIONThis study presents several thoughtprovoking findings about mass media scho-lars' perceptions of television's effects onchildren. Overall, the scholars exhibited agood deal of certainty and conviction t h ~ ttelevision plays an important causal role Inexpanding children's views of the world,decreasing their reading behavior, increasing their propensity to engage in sex stereo-

typing, reducing their overall physicalactivity, and promoting excessive materilism.One would not exactly call this view avote of confidence in the medium. Beingfemale and, less often, being older and nothaving children at home seemed moder-ately related to the voicing of these con-cerns. Somewhat startling was the findingthat highly published academics tended tonot judge television's effects as negatively.Also surprising was the finding that mostscholars placed television's ability toincrease aggression rather low on theladder of their concerns about television.

The last observation may indicate thatlarge numbers of mass communicationresearchers disagree with the mountingevidence in empirical reports and literaturethat TV violence contributes to children'saggressive behavior. Before accepting thisconclusion, though, alternative possibilitieswarrent a good deal more investigation. I tmay be, for example, that when playingdown television violence many of the scho-lars are not quarreling with specificresearch results or approaches, but, rather,are responding to politically charged dis-putes on the issue in the society at l ~ ~ g e andto conflicting publicity characterlzmg th.efirst Surgeon General's Report on TeleVI-sion and Social Behavior (Surgeon Gener-al's Scientific Advisory Committee, 1972).Moreover, it bears stressingthatTV's i n ~ o l vement in violence was ranked low only In arelative sense. As Table 1 shows, 65%of thescholars did state that t e l e v i s i o ~ ~ at leasta "somewhat important cause m mcreasing aggressive b e h a v ~ o : . v:e m i g ~ t suggestthat the reason teleVISion s role .m a..ggressian didn't receive higher rankmg IS precisely because of the g r e ~ t amount ?fscholarly attention and p u ~ h c debate ~ a l dover the years to the relatIOn of .televlsedviolence and real life a g g r e s s ~ o n . Thedebate has teased nuances for the Issue andhighlighted a gamutof contributing fa,ctorsembedded in the social context that S I m p ~ yhave not been salient to the s a ~ e . extent Indiscussions of other areas of TV s mfluence.Ironically, then. it might be the greater

153


7/8

Bybee/Robinson/Turowsophistication about TVviolencewhencompared to other areas that has led scholars torank it lower on their scale of concerns.Finally, we should consider the areas inwhich scholars indicated a substantialamount of uncertainty about TV's consequences. Television's contribution to children's alienation, to-. a breakdown of theirsocial values, and to a distortion of theirperceptions of political systems remainsfairly ambiguous in the minds of scholars.The relationship of these three areas is quiteapparent. They all address the issue of ourculture's ability to effectively integrate succeeding generations into society. Anothercommonality among these three areas isthat they focus on essentially long term consequences of the media. They are the difficult areas to study, not only in terms ofmethodology, but also in terms of therequired degree of sophisticated theorizing.Micro theories dealing with sub-processesare not adequate to the task. Indirectly,then, themassmediascholars inour samplehave implied a critical agenda forresearch: Theories of society must be reexamined in attempts to locate the role ofmass mediawithin a broader, more historically based on social context.

REFERENCESBybee, C., Robinson, D. & Turow,J. (1982).Determinants of parental guidence ofchildren's television viewing for a special subgroup: Mass media scholars.Journal of Broadcasting, 26, 697-710.Liebart, R.M. & Schwartberg, N.S.(1977). Effects of the mass media.Annual Review of Psychology, 28, 147173.Roberts, D.F. & Bachen, C.M. (1981). MassCommunication effects. Annual Reviewof Psychology, 32, 307-356.Surgeon General's Scientific AdvisoryCommittee on Television and SocialBehavior. 1972. Television andGrowingUp: The impact of violence. Washington, D.C.: Government PrintingOffice.Tannenbaum, P. & Greenberg, B. (1968).

Mass communication. AnnualReviewofPsychology, 19, 351-386.Weiss, W. (1971). Mass communication.Annual Review of Psychology, 22, 309336.

154


8/8

the effects of television on children- what the experts believe

Documents