Television and Child Development

Judith Van Evra

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2004
• ISBN:
  9781135615451
• Edition: 3
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Communication Studies
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Television continues to play a major role in the lives of most children and adolescents, but current research also reflects the explosive growth in new technologies and their widespread use by young people. Integrating information from communication literature as well as from child development and other psychological domains, author Judith Van Evra presents a summary and synthesis of what is currently known about the media's impact on children's physical, cognitive, social, and emotional development, to help discern the complex and significant interplay between other forces in a child's life and the use of various media. This third edition contains updated and expanded coverage of research findings and a review of changing trends in media use including computers, the Internet, books and magazines, music videos, and video games as well as television. New chapters focus on basic research designs and methodologies; cultural diversity; health-related matters and lifestyle choices; media's impact on various social-emotional aspects of a child's development; the use of technology for information and for entertainment; and intervention possibilities, parent strategies, and education. An overall conclusions section at the end of the book provides a cogent summary of findings to date and stimulates discussion of questions and ideas for future research. Television and Child Development explores how, and to what extent, television and other media actually affect children, and what role other variables may play in mediating their impact, so that we can maximize technology's potential for enriching children's cognitive, social, and emotional development, while at the same time minimizing any negative influence. This text is appropriate for researchers, teachers, and students in communications, developmental and social psychology, and education, as well as in areas of advertising, leisure studies, family studies, and health promotion.

PART I
Theoretical Perspectives and Research Methodology

CHAPTER ONE
Theoretical Perspectives

The wealth of research data on all aspects of children’s development and their media experience has led to the development of various theoretical interpretations and explanations within both the communication literature and the psychological and child development literature. Three major theoretical perspectives are discussed in the following paragraphs, and an integrative approach is proposed.

SOCIAL LEARNING AND SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY

Historical Background

Social learning theory was one of the first to be used to explain television’s impact on children. Much of the early work in this area, spearheaded by Bandura’s (e.g., Bandura, 1967) work in the 1960s, pointed to observational learning and imitation of modeled behavior as the critical components of television’s impact. In the classic studies by Bandura, children who viewed violence directed against a Bobo doll were observed in later play sessions. Those who had seen the aggressor punished did not engage in aggressive behavior following the viewing; the others did. In other words, the children imitated the model unless they were deterred through the effects of vicarious learning. Both groups “learned” the aggressive behaviors, but only one group actually imitated them in the later play sessions. The other group inhibited them until the postviewing conditions were changed, and then they too engaged in more aggressive behavior, thus demonstrating their latent learning of the aggressive response.

Bandura (1967) himself related one of the most graphic and entertaining accounts of modeling in the following quote:

I remember reading a story reported by Professor Mowrer about a lonesome farmer who decided to get a parrot for company. After acquiring the bird, the farmer spent many long evenings teaching the parrot the phrase, “Say Uncle.” Despite the devoted tutorial attention, the parrot proved totally unresponsive and finally, the frus-trated farmer got a stick and struck the parrot on the head after each refusal to produce the desired phrase.

But the visceral method proved no more effective than the cerebral one, so the farmer grabbed his feathered friend and tossed him in the chicken house. A short time later the farmer heard a loud commotion in the chicken house and upon investigation found that the parrot was pummeling the startled chickens on the head with a stick and shouting, “Say Uncle! Say Uncle!” (p. 42)

Basic Processes

Bandura (1977) made it clear, however, that modeling is not just simple imitation; behavior that follows exposure results from the derivation of rules for appropriate behavior by observation, the context of the behavior observed, and the likely consequences or rewards following the behavior.

Bandura’s (1986,1994) social cognitive theory expanded the earlier social learning model and has been widely used to explain the process by which viewers might learn aggression from media violence. According to this perspective, novel behaviors are acquired either directly through experience or indirectly through the observation of models. Observational learning is governed by four subprocesses: attention, retention, behavior production, and motivation. The attentional process determines what is observed and what information is extracted from the modeled events. This process is influenced by such factors as the observer’s cognitive skills and capability, values, and preferences, as well as by the event’s salience and the functional value of it to the viewer. It is also influenced by viewers’ preconceptions and networks of interactivity that determine their access to various models.

The second subprocess is retention in which viewers restructure the information to allow for retention. According to Bandura (1994), retention is “an active process of transforming and restructuring information about events for memory representation in the form of rules and conceptions” (p. 68). Retention is facilitated by restructuring information about models into memory codes that can be rehearsed, enacted, and recalled. The third subprocess, behavior production, involves translating symbolic notions or ideas into appropriate, specific behavior or courses of action. This process is influenced by a person’s actual ability to enact what has been observed and may necessitate skill development.

The fourth subprocess is motivation, and a distinction is made in social cognitive theory between acquisition or learning and performance. Individuals do not perform everything they learn. Whether a learned behavior is actually performed depends on one’s motivation to perform, and this motivation can be direct, vicarious, or self-produced. According to Bandura (1994), individuals are more likely to perform modeled actions that are valued rather than those acts that are not rewarded or are punished. Moreover, they can guide their own behavior by observing rewards and punishments experienced by others performing the modeled behavior, much as they would if they experienced the consequences directly. This is known as vicarious reinforcement. Personal standards also determine which observationally learned behavior will actually be pursued.

In social cognitive theory, then, a child’s cognitive representation of expected positive results for aggressive behavior motivates the behavior. The positive outcomes can include tangible rewards, psychological rewards such as control over someone, self-esteem, or social reactions such as peer status (Guerra, Nucci, & Huesmann, 1994). Cognitive representations of expected negative outcomes, on the other hand, can inhibit aggressive behavior. These can include punishment, disapproval, injury, or disrupted social relationships. “With development, aggressive behavior is increasingly governed by normative standards of acceptable conduct. These standards serve as guides for information processing in different situations, and ultimately influence social behavior” (Guerra et al., 1994, p. 18).

Variables Affecting Modeling

Similarities between a viewer and the model, the credibility of the model, the context of the viewing, and similarities and differences between the televised models and real-life models in a child’s environment are also important determinants of which behaviors are actually imitated. A child’s motivational state, the perceived reality of what is being observed, and the number of other experiences that provide competing models and information are additional significant influences on the imitation of television models that social cognitive theory predicts.

According to Bandura (1994), the influence of TV has more to do with the content that is viewed than the sheer amount of viewing. Models can be inhibitors or disinhibitors, teachers or tutors, social prompts, or emotion arousers, and they can shape conceptions of reality values. The different functions can operate separately, but they often operate together. For example, a model of aggression can be both a teacher and a disinhibitor, or the behavior of others can prompt behavior in observers that was learned previously but not acted on.

According to script theory, children do not simply imitate behavior that they view. Rather, they acquire behavioral scripts through observational learning that can then be activated by cues in the environment or activation of memory (Huesmann, 1988). Thus, televiewing affects behavior by activating certain scripts in the viewer such that the behaviors seen on television are associated in the viewers’ minds with other thoughts, events, or conditions.

The determinants of imitation, then, are complex and involve significant cognitive activity, learning, and semantic associations.

Evaluation

Despite the consistency of many findings, there are limitations and problems with using only social learning and social cognitive theory to explain the data. First, not all children imitate what they see regardless of context, observed consequences, and prior learning, Moreover, as the relation reported often is based on correlational data, causation cannot be demonstrated definitively. Although viewing violence on television may lead to imitation of that content and increased aggression, for example, it also is possible that aggressive children may choose to watch more violent programs. Independent factors that lead both to viewing high levels of violence and to increased aggressive behavior need to be investigated further.

Social learning and social cognitive theory have been used effectively to interpret the short-term effects that have been demonstrated in the many laboratory experiments that have been conducted (e.g., Comstock & Scharrer, 1999; Comstock & Strasburger, 1993b). The long-term effects of viewing and the relative influence of many other factors that contribute to the appearance of specific behaviors are less clear. Clearly, the elements of observational learning, modeling, vicarious reinforcement, and imitation are essential components of a child’s viewing experience, but they are mediated by a host of other variables.

CULTIVATION THEORY

The cultivation hypothesis as espoused by Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, and Signorielli (1980,1982,1986) asserts that heavy television viewing leads to or cultivates perceptions of the world that are consistent with television’s portrayals. The more time spent viewing television, the more likely the viewer is to accept televison’s version of things, especially in areas in which the viewer has little direct experience such as in the expectation of violence or in getting information about other groups with whom the person does not interact. Cultivation theory predicts or expects frequent viewers to give more “TV” answers or answers consistent with television’s portrayal of the world as shown in content analyses than of the real world as shown by actual statistics (Wright, 1986).

Basic Assumptions

According to a cultivation perspective, the amount of viewing or exposure is a very important variable in television’s impact on thought and behavior. Heavy viewers differ systematically from light viewers in beliefs, values, and assump tions that may relate in consistent ways to the groups’ life situations and views (Gerbner et al., 1982). Cultivation theory assumes that heavy viewers are also less selective in their viewing, engage in habitual viewing, and experience a good deal of sameness of content. Moreover, television’s impact is greatest when it functions as the only information source and when it is relevant to the person. Lighter viewers are more likely to have many other diverse sources of information such as social interaction, reading, and vocational experience that take up much of their time and displace televiewing time. They have a greater number of behavioral models, and they are also perhaps less likely to take television content seriously, Heavy viewers have few other sources of ideas and thus are more likely to report reality perceptions that are consistent with television portrayals (Gerbner et al., 1980).

However, television does not act in a vacuum; nor does it act on everyone in the same way. Not only do heavy viewers at one developmental level have a different experience than heavy viewers at another level; those of a different gender, or socioeconomic level, or family background also experience television differently. Any potential cultivation effect must be evaluated against the significance and impact of these other factors on a child’s development and experience.

Television dramatically changes children’s access to information about the world, and because of their more limited experience and knowledge base and in the absence of competing information, television may have a particularly potent effect on them. Huston et al. (1992) reported that children who are heavy viewers of television show a high level of concern about getting sick and have higher perceptions of medical relief and over-the-counter remedies, It is essential, then, to look at the developmental differences over the long run between children who have been “brought up on television”—those for whom television has portrayed and defined “reality” to a larger extent—and those whose television experience has been more limited, either to a certain period of their lives in terms of total amount of viewing or as an informational source.

Perceived Reality

An important variable in any cultivation effect is perceived reality. If the television content is seen as realistic, it is more likely to be taken seriously. Moreover, viewers who perceive and believe in television as a source of useful information that can help them vicariously to solve problems and to cope likely also perceive television to be fairly realistic (Potter, 1986).

The concept of perceived reality, however, appears to be more complex than has usually been thought Potter (1986, 1988), for example, has discussed the importance of identity or “the degree of similarity the viewer perceives between television characters and situations and the people and situations experienced in real life” (Potter, 1986, p. 163). Individuals high on this dimension feel close to television characters, have a strong sense of reality about them, and feel about them the way they feel about real friends. They believe that television characters are similar to individuals they meet in real life, and they are likely to be more susceptible to television’s influence.

The explosive growth of “reality TV” raises some interesting questions in this context. Do heavy viewers of such programs feel that participants actually represent real-life experiences? Or do they assume that these are characters and behaviors at the far end of the normal curve for those characters or activities being portrayed? The popularity of these shows and the apparent strong involvement of viewers with the characters and their actions suggests that the level of perceived reality is high, but more research is needed.

Finally, Kubey and Csikszentmihalyi (1990) pointed out that television and film are likely to have more of a homogenizing effect than print because people’s perception of content on television is more likely similar to each others’ than is true of print. Viewers know exactly what a character looks like, for example, and don’t have to construct an image in their mind.

Mainstreaming and Resonance

According to Gerbner et al. (1980) there are varying patterns of associations between amounts of viewing and conceptions of reality for different social groups that can be explained in relation to two systematic processes: mainstreaming and resonance.

Mainstreaming refers to an overall effect of television in which viewing may override differences in behavior or perspective that arise from other cultural, social, and demographic influences in “a homogenization of divergent views and a convergence of disparate views” (Gerbner et al., 1986, p. 31) or the cultivation of common out looks in heavy viewers. That is, heavy viewers, even in higheducational and high-income groups, share a commonality that light viewers do not (Gerbner et al., 1980).

According to cultivation theory, television has the power to cultivate mainstreamed perceptions or outlooks (such as fear or mistrust) and to assimilate groups into a mainstream who ordinarily diverge from it. There is more interpersonal distrust among heavy viewers, an idea that people cannot be trusted or that they will take advantage of others, and “a heightened and unequal sense of danger and risk in a mean and selfish world” (Signorielli, 1987, p. 267). Heavy viewers in one study (Shrum, 1996) gave significantly higher estimates of the frequency of real-world crime, particular occupations, and marital discord than did light viewers.

Others have found very different reactions and perceptions among viewers. For example, Rubin, Perse, and Taylor (1988) found that respondents felt safe and connected to others regardless of exposure levels, and in fact, higher exposure was associated with perceived safety. Moreover, in contrast to what cultivation theory would predict, heavy and ritualistic viewing was not associated with negative ef fects, which depended, rather, on specific content (Rubin et al., 1988).

Resonance, on the other hand, refers to situations in which television information about specific issues has particular salience, and what is seen is congruent with a person’s actual experiences, with reality, or with the individual’s perceived reality (Gerbner et al., 1980). That combination then may give added weight to the television message and lead to an increased effect. The “congruence of the television world and real-life circumstances may ‘resonate’ and lead to markedly amplified cultivation patterns” (Gerbner et al., 1980, p. 15). Thus, resonance occurs when a topic in the television world has special salience or personal relevance for a group (e.g., overvictimization of the elderly), and it is in that situation that correlations with heavy viewing are clearest.

Research (Bar-on, 2000; Potter, 1986, 1988; Rubin, 1986; Van Evra, 1998) indicates that young children find television content more realistic and/or have greater difficulty distinguishing realistic material from unrealistic material, so its impact on them should be stronger. This impact is enhanced even more by the fact that they have fewer alternative or competing sources of information with which to compare television’s messages. In situations in which parents or peers have minimal input or influence, television is more likely to have an effect. Thus, personal interaction and affiliation reduce cultivation, presumably by providing alternate sources of information (Gerbner et al., 1986).

In an updated and expanded theory of the cultivation process, Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, and Signorielli (1994) maintained that cultivation is a complement to other approaches to media effects, not a substitute:

Yet, we have found that long-term exposure to television, in which frequent violence is virtually inescapable, tends to cultivate the image of a relatively mean and dangerous world. Responses of heavier compared to matching groups of lighter viewers suggest the conception of reality in which greater protection is needed, most people “cannot be trusted,” and most people are “just looking out for themselves.” (Gerbner et al., 1994, p. 30)

Gerbner et al. (1994) described “the shift from ‘effects’ to ‘cultivation’ research” (p. 20) and suggested that TV helps to shape predispositions that affect later media influence. Television is an integral part of a dynamic process and does not simply create or reflect images and beliefs. TV viewing shapes and is part of outlooks, and there is an interaction between viewer characteristics and viewing certain content and among contexts and messages (Gerbner et al., 1994). Cultivation is not unidirectional, but its “pull” depends on where viewers are in relation to the mainstream of the TV world. “In a relatively stable social structure, cultivation implies a commonality of outlooks and resistance to change” (Gerbner et al., 1994, p. 25).

As successive generations grow up with television’s version of the world, the former and more traditional distinctions established before the coming of televison—and still maintained to some extent among light viewers—become blurred. Cultivation implies the steady entrenchment of mainstreatm orientations for most viewers. That process of apparent convergence of outlooks we call mainstreaming. (Gerbner et al., 1994, p. 25)

Gerbner et al. (1994) explained how differences between symbolic and objective reality can demonstrate how TV “facts” are incorporated into the beliefs of heavy viewers about the world. For example, TV drama sharply underrepresents older people, and TV characters are much more likely to encounter violence compared to individuals in the real world—more than half on TV and fewer than 1% of people in the United States in any 1 year (Gerbner et al., 1994). However, Gerbner et al. (1994) said cultivation also looks at how these so-called facts affect viewers even when they say they know it’s fiction. According to Gerbner et al. (19...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• PART I: Theoretical Perspectives and Research Methodology
• Part II: Cognitive Aspects of Media Experience
• Part III: Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Aspects of Media Experience
• Part IV: Other Technologies
• Part V: Interventions and Conclusions
• References